As the Senate begins the process of hearing the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, the capacity of partisan Democrats to internalize and adopt whole or partial untruths is being tested to its limits.
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Welcome to the commentary magazine. Progress today is Columbus day Monday October, twelve, twenty twenty, I jump on words. The editor of Commentary magazine with me, as always, executive, editor, a green mobility, John Senor, redder, Christine Rosen, high, Christine and so he had editor nor Rossman, high Noah Hydra. So Abe were closing the November issue of commentary this week and
Cereal from the issue will be online, probably Thursday, Friday. What special about this issue? This is commentaries. Seventy fifth anniversary issue, yes, commentary was founded. The first issue of commentary came out in the number of nineteen forty five, so we are seventy five years old and once that was not so extraordinary to be a publication that was seventy five years old. I think now in twenty twenty, it is pretty extraordinary to have survived and thrived for three quarters of a century. We I'll other publications have dinner collapse fallen by the wayside, lost their reason. For being lost. Their advertising lost money, lost everything and here we are asked because of passion of our readers and the support of are a philanthropic
minded readers here with you today. It'll be talking about the politics of the moment. The issue features a beautiful article by commentaries serve longest lived contributor. Now, I think, are we like, but we longest lived, continuous contributor, Joseph Epstein, on He has experienced writing for commentary apiece by Matt Matthew, cotton Eddie on commentaries influence on american foreign policy over the decades and a conversation between me and my father nor imports. He was the editor for thirty five years from nineteen. Sixty that ninety Monday five, I I've been the editor since two thousand and nine- and we basically talk about what it means to added a magazine. How commentary was different. Their magazines and how what what editing is how it works out functions
so that is that, sir? That's that's what we have agreed that there are great stories in their about particular articles throughout the decades anecdote some interesting aside. Give you a behind the scenes. Look at the Acta The great and the not so great, let's say anyway oh, that allow be online along with some other, pretty remarkable stuff it in a very fine if she were very proud of that will be available at the end of the week as speak as I'm talking to you on. Corner my scream. I see Amy Coney Barrett Icy Diane, Einstein yet yelling at Amy, colony, Barrett, or you know talking about how wonderful newspaper Ginsburg was, and why
Better get a lot of this until Amy Gothenburg delivers her opening statement, which you can read. It was released yesterday or leak. Yes, we're whatever. I think we ve all read it. It's not all that different from what she said at the White House, super spreader offence, you know that I guess the question that we face now is In the absence of some in, I was surprised that we can you know fathom as yet. It looks like there now but really gonna, be able to lay a glove honour Christine. What? What? What do you think? I think that's right and she is At least there not gonna lay a glove on her in the way that they ve tried to pass nominees, most, notably with bright cabinet where they try to assassinated character in completely, impugn him with false stories, and you know,
championed by your current vice presidential candidate calmly Harris, I should add who will also be very closely watching in her questioning a barrack. This might act It turned out to be even that we live in these extremely strange times, a more traditional country asian process in the sense that they are hopefully going to ask Her about the law, they're gonna ask her about her judicial philosophy either. Gonna ask her they're going to try to probe her to see what the temperament her temperament will be on the bench. They'll probably question her about something she is written in the past. In that sense, I hope that her personal life will be off limits. She it in her opening statement once again highlight actually the fact that but she's a woman and a mother and she's gonna be the first woman if she's confirmed to have to be serving on the Supreme Court. Also having young children. She praised her for his support. She also praise Ruth Bitter Ginsburg Justice Centre, Connor, so she has give
an acknowledgement of the people who came before, I don't think that's gonna! Be enough for Democrats, they're gonna wanna keep sinks I think that this is Ruth, Better Ginsburg seat to hand off to her chosen successor? That's ridiculous! she'll be fine, and I think that, despite the strangeness of the process, given the current pandemic conditions it'll, I hope and that being a more traditional confirmation hearing. So in her opening statement barrel, some will say, as were speaking, she hasn't said this yet as worked as were speaking right now, so I'm weirdly, talking you're gonna, hear this after she set out, but I'm quoting it like. She hasn't said it yet. It reads: Justice Scully me more than just law he was devoted to his family, resolute in his beliefs and fearless of criticism and as
I embarked on my own legal careers and she had been his clerk. I resolved to maintain that same perspective. There is a tendency in our profession to treat the prey. This law as all consuming while was inside of everything else, but that as for a shallow and unfulfilling wife? I worked hard is aware- and professor, I oh that's my clients, my students of myself, I never let the law I did did to find my identity or crowd out the rest of my life. A civil A principle applies to the role of courts. Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce them rule of law, which is critical to a free society, but courts are not designed to solve every problem, right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by an accountable to the people. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should
but try that's pretty great she's got my boat in, and that is that that is a sort of a perfect encapsulation of the judicial modesty that is at the heart of the servant of perspective on the run away, nature of the role of the court serving as a essentially second legislative body, and that is great, but I mean the her apparent
This will see it merely as a smokescreen than a pretence that that conservative justices do not observe in part, because liberal justices do not observe that. I think a lot of this is projection just aspire said: Riah writer said that you know or objected to original ism in part, because a judicial philosophy that is commensurate with the scale of the job should quote and emphasise rather quote the purposes and consequences of law. Not its text. Go beyond the scope of what is with the statute says towards congressional and tents, and also its just practical effect in the real world. That's what they believe, a judicial philosophy, and they think conservatives do that to when they just sort of cloak themselves in their original listeners as sort of a pretext that they never actually observe on the bench by
I mean it's observable that they do just based on how often conservative justices cross over them before arbitrary power. Asked the reliable voting block was the liberal block. That is a very important point which is Jonathan Tobin. Has It's about the lion, Zation Ruth, Better Ginsburg. That will be in our November issue, and a reading his description of her time in the court and the opinions. You know that I will struck by how orthodox she was, and it by contrast, how heterodox the suppose, in ideological monsters of the right, often ah, Scalia, of course, famously a social conservative ruled in favour of Larry Flints right to produce obscene parity.
The scene, disgusting parity of Jerry Folwell, which he said was as a as an act of parity, permitted by the First amendment, Clarence Thomas is constantly coming at decision from a perspective that you cannot summarize so conveniently Al Gore, such as showing certain libertarian directions in his jurisprudence: Sanrio Corner, of course, was herself very heterodox, a will a reliable concern. a vote. Some things are not reliable. Conservative vote on, say, affirmative action. But I am, I am against bird sort of my or an Kagan when, when can you point to dissent or where they, they say things that you
really expect them to say so. Act cabins a little bit more independent, but this is quantifiable. Cato Celia Shapiro has done some really fantastic work on the stuff. I'm going in that, for example, may twenty fourteen fifteen of the four. most conservative members of the court wrote seventy eight dissenting and concurring opinions, as opposed to, for liberals who wrote only twenty seven and need a total workers. Quantified talked about this other There are real internal effort on the part of a liberal justices after Bush, Gore too, on the same page, I did blocks with something actual wanted to do, but the twenty eight in twenty nineteen term is really instructive, because it demonstrated that liberals, whether together fifty six and fifty one of the court's sixty seven opinions will conservative did so on thirty, seven and
the twenty five for decisions, the party line decisions, conservatives, one only seven of them go rushed back, did Thomas Defected leader, diffracted cabinet, affected Roberts. You note affected the leading to a lot of five for liberal victories. So I'm not here talking about the problem over time of the liberals and conservatives club that's right! That's the David suit, her Anthony, Kennedy even sounded o Connor types or you can even look at Robert. So I think votes a tactically and strategically for institutional rules
Guns, but where you can say well, you know what they're they ve disappointed ask as they did. They aren't like reliable conservative votes or they you know, or they basically largely have settled on a default liberal philosophy right that that's the that's the claim, like that's the David suitor example, I'm talking about rock Ribbed conservative jurist, all of whom are intellectually minded as they come at the law from a from a scholarly, historical and perspective in which they I very hard to harmonise their beliefs with existing constitutional theory and therefore will vote in unconventional ways politically artisan. We illogically, because it is more important to them
to be a new Moravian to be fought to be dealing with what I believe the law and precedent are as they are and when those don't get that from the liberals, the court aware what the role of the lies and mean that that's where they are consistent, you Know- and this is it just a sort of Example about its did, that shows up the liberals, not quite understand what conservatism is ultimately in some sense went when they make this criticism. They they think that conservative judges are activists, and that is not at all what it's about you. I read her statement and in another, in a slightly broader, more civics minded way, because it was a reminder that her view of the room, the third branch of government the judiciary is not to serve as a second legislature in Servants have long been concerned about the
will attempt to turn the court into a second legislature, and we ve seen a lot of that discussion recently with this election cycle in particular, about whether the court might have to term the results of this election. If there is any dispute- and I really felt like that- that with such a crucial point for her to make it was not just about got a conservative, verses, liberal constitutional theory or philosophy. It was saying the founders of our car pre determined a role for this branch of government that your nominated me too, and I respect that determination. We are not supposed to fix the mistakes of the legislature. We are not supposed you know, prevent the executive from doing his or her We have a very specifically defined role as an institution, and I liked that she seemed to me making a and announce the institutional functions of the court and a reminder of those functions, because I think a lot of certainly a lot of progressive,
abandoned that institutional function or would like to see it undermined with things like poor packing or turning it into a de facto legislature. Will we will get to the corkscrew stuff. in detail. In a minute, there is sure thing is conservative, judicial activism. There are theories and ideas on the right, very interesting ones where people were basically the ideas either that yeah the constitution should be treated to some extent as a lie. the document and deployed in that way to counter liberal encroachments on individual freedom, our friend Randy Barnett, who was a big podcast lesser. This is one of his key issues that term that, then there should be, sir, Rigorous application of of of of the of the night amendment in particular and the tenth amendment, and
in ways that are go beyond what Jen role in our job. The traditional original might say and then their serve Adrian for mule and people at the heart at Harvard who who obey quickly like there's no point pretending that the courts are anything but a political act, and therefore they need to be harnessed to be political actors. Like your time. One hide behind your back, because liberal use it as a political player and conservatives don't and there or are you just always on the losing side there that these are serious approaches to Supreme Court jurisprudence and and and court jurisprudence altogether. They just happen not really to be the approaches of these justices that we're talking about and that's why it's funny
that they should be accused of being judicial activists are legitimately the their judicial activists because they will overturn precedents, that they think marbre violet of of the constitution and believe that the citizens were wrongly decided. That is not activism. I mean act. racism is overturning a a congress? We passed law because you don't like what it says or because it doesn't harmonize with Europe. you now with your because you want around us. He outcome yeah right exactly the anyway. Manoeuvre so you can do anything right. So that's word. No! Your interesting theory about projection, I think is, is is very important here that that they can Imagine that the original argument is anything but disingenuous. That's all
are just as a cover for just what we do. What anybody does, which again, like Adrian rule, would say there right, like you, know, strip off, you know end the crap like stop, stop, stop both stop bull, stopping bs and like acknowledge that this is all just relationships of power and and that you know, and that there is a lot that you cancer determine from constitutional language, and you should do you should pursue courier objectives. So that's where we can come to a discussion of the vice presidents for the or vice president and his inability to say much about court packing, but before we do that, let me talk to you guys about today's sponsor expressive, e p m. So there's this documentary on and
relax their social dilemma and it shows how tech insiders explain the way social media engineer to split users, data for profit. They can. Let's surveillance, Capitalism Christine has written a lot about this. And what we're all were all happy with normal capitalism. When you, you know you buy something, someone cells, you something they get a profit. You gotta you get! that they ve put sweat equity into and all of that. But you know when your data are being harvested, so tat billionaires can get even richer. Maybe that's where he should draw the line. And that's why, just this week- and actually I put a layer protection around my data with Express three every time you use the internet, big tech companies, mine your data by tracking your searches, messages and video history. But when you run expressway p m on you
device, it hides your ip address which websites can use to personally identify you that makes your activity more difficult to trace and sell to advertisers. Uniquely, you need to be careful with what ensuring social media but Express WP and can make your web browsing more anonymous. It also encryption percent of your internet data. Keep you say from hackers and prying eyes, many Vps slow down your Nanette, but not expressly pianists. Incredibly, fast, easy to use just tap one button in your protected. So if you don't like the idea of tech companies, whether your personal information do it, I did this weekend visit expressway pm, dotcom, Slash commentary right now and you can get three extra months- have expressly p m for free that x, Pierre S, VP and Doc. I'm slashed commentary to protect your data, go to expressly p m d comes last commentary to learn more and we thank Expressway P M for sponsoring the commentary magazine, podcast
So now you and I ever have a disagreement about out what what is going on with this whole court. Packing story, so I'll, let you and we talked about this on Friday, so I dont, you know what we don't need to rehearse the whole history here, but you think that they are making a hash of this. That liberals and I'm making a hash of this or that they ve spent up an unnecessary issue, but boy articulate that position with court pack yeah yeah. So I mean this is something that bubbled up from the left over the course of the last couple of years. It accelerated and intensified after Arby's death that it that wasn't the source of this argument from the left and it has become knave
at lawmakers and senators say this is something that should be a punitive response to the year. The confirmation of this justice, a ban, even at the oars pretext for expanding the court, which failed, which was that it was dysfunctional and doesn't work right anymore and did needs to work better nobody's in making that argument. Now, I'm just saying explicitly republicans need to be punished. I don't think that's effective messaging Milosevic think of the abiding administration were to adopt this that they want to and in their entire legislative action sacrifice whatever objectives they have to what would be an all consuming effort to blow up the Senate blow up the Supreme Court that, for the rest of its, the breast of the belgian presidency, will be dedicated to that. So I think it's an empty bread and the bluff and one that needs to be called, and I think the effort that you're, seeing now in the port of law makers and
then good soldiers on the left to redefine what court packing means to mean whatever we want it to mean in this case, too mean filling exist, vacancies is fraudulent and unjust. A tacit admission they know, they're doing if they were to define and accurately would be, Jack, did wholesale by voters by the electorate even squeamish democrats. What you saw now with the course of this week and the latter lawmakers adopting array A line and insults your intelligence, which is I'm gonna, call the Durban here, is just one example in one of many where he told Chuck tied over the weekend. That quote its common look. It's a common question being asked because the american people have watched the Republicans packing the court over the last three and a half years and they brag about it. They ve taken every vacancy and filled it. That's not what court packing has for packing is not feeling,
existing vacancies or even not filling existing vacancies. It is creating new vacancies, everyone! No! This is a really kind of obnoxious effort, direct column. Everyone into this belief and to the extent using people John to it. It is merely an expression of their support for the agenda. The bigger the lie, the more difficult it is to to abandon it with dig into data display of your zealotry for the cause and, moreover, why wouldn't I think it works, because this is what they always do whenever there. buying a pool, attested piece of language doesn't go their way. They read it I'm the terms. Are they redefine the word in overseeing this with things like reproductive rights, which is a and in an earned benefits which are entitlements and investments which is spending and color blindness, which is racist and even during impeachment yea. They good big, stop talking about Impeachment Inter Sir document inquiries, and they start talking about quid pro quo and start talking about
library and extortion: they redefine the language as its as they need it too, as a need to navigate these issues, but all those example, are interesting because they never won the argument around any of them, no matter how much they redefined the terms redefine the language. The ultimate argument was: it was nevertheless loss or still in the still being debated Look the nerve Venus of the Republicans are packing the courts. So that's what we should be, talking about one of the reasons that its nervy is, there are very few terms in say american political history that have an almost specifically organic single meaning, and court packing refers to a specific idea, for who did and nearly passed in the wake of Franklin Roosevelt's victory in nineteen? Thirty six, where he won forty? Six of the forty eight states and
determined to see to it that with this overwhelming mandate that he had that the Supreme Court, which had ruled against the constitutionality of the National Recovery ACT. Was not going to stand in the way of his ambitions, and so he floated the idea of expanding the number of justices on the court to Fifteen and he was prevented I'm doing so by Democrats, it's in the Senate and who were now despite way was remember. We now say: what's been a hundred and fifty years or whatever since anyone has changed the number justices on the court, but thirty seven, it wasn't. It wasn't a hundred and fifty years it was what it was zero. Seventy years or something like that, it wasn't, it wasn't me, precisely within living memory, but it was close, and yet the idea was this was gonna, so
We balance, the political weight between the judiciary and the executive branch toward the executive branch that it if it could not be permitted and- and in fact, in order to prevent it. The story. Goes the Supreme Court itself privately sued for peace, essentially quietly telling the Roosevelt administration, if they would stop pushing this, that they would that you have achieved just what it where they would stopping so aggressive in opposing the his you know his efforts, grow the size of the federal government. So court packing only means one thing. What I did What's a striking about the last couple of the list, few new cycles about. This is that we know for the primary during the democratic primary binding on several occasions said he was opposed to that. He was opposed to court packing in that way, lot of a lot of people not pointing
nothing only already answered the question just after ensued again, but he does because I think what it shows is that sexual perfect exam of how bungling his responses to his progressive wing has been on the campaign trail another these become the nominee, and I worry about that. If he is likely to become president he's. Gonna facing these challenges every week in his white House. So what all he- if even said something very simple answer the question by saying we'll see that something that requires congressional legislation. I hope we take Congress and the Senate, and then will you know that that's for the people I mean there are million ways you can have answered in the woods. Would if yes, his bays his progressive base, but would have been an actual respectful answer, and I I think we saw a glimpse of the Joe Biden. Do a lot of us have seen over the last several decades in Washington when he was asked you know again by a reporter on Saturday? Are you going to pack the court, don't the marriage people have a right to know in his response was now they dont they'll, find out after the election. That's the jail
I remember from as the Senate for many many decades. It's not the Joe Biden that his campaign wants you to see, though, so that was quickly back peddled onto the lizard I'm sorry, I'm in Europe and in the wider world- the bad news cycle for him over the course of last couple. It is not the answer, but the contempt and disrespect he showed for even the premise. That's what the press couldn't move on from the new they can move on from had no choice but to navigate that further, because it was so nakedly contemptuous toward voters. They had no choice, they were professionally apply, but only when Joe Biden settled on this line, the progressive line that core packing. Actually, what Republicans do all the time by filling existing vacancy is. It became a brilliant navigation of this rather thorny issue and everybody who so desperately wanted to move on from it had permission to move on from it and then proceeded to do so, but didn't answer the question. I think the contempt, though, is only offensive to the conservatives who are watching this closely. I
I dont know that it lands and gets hundred. skin of of anyone else. Honestly and hour. I don't say I mean I think I have to admit. I don't think the issue has been entirely a loser for them, either the threat which I believe is empty, but it's still sort of gives them this appearance of fighting. They will fight the Naked Republic paragraphs and, and I think the illusion claiming that that the Trump is packing the court? I don't think that's really a loser for them either, because it it it it. It changes. The argument back again throws it throws it. The issue back onto their lives in a radical trompe. An approach you two blowing up our democracy.
Well I'll give you I'll give you a three things that support. I think apes point number one. It maybe loser for them, because it turns out at the Amy Coney Barrett nomination may not be have been a loser for them: at all, and this is an out growth, though. The fact that this is removed centre stage is an outgrowth of the nomination. We got figures over the weekend from D. I guess it's, the third Warner ah said: guy can't remember what work as I cant do: math, let's aids third quarter, but if its second quarter, you can attack me campaigns, finance, stuff and
in the South Carolina were Jamie, Harrison is running a an unlikely, close race against Lindsey Gram. The chairman of the Savage Judiciary Committee word came that Harrison in the third quarter, beating much of it for the last in a part of it after barracks, nomination than It raised fifty six or fifty seven million dollars for a race in South Carolina where I think the largest amount of spending ever before was like. Ten million in one slash fifty seven million. This is this out distances better works fund raising in Texas, which was the largest hall in american political history at the Senate level. In Iowa Teresa Greenfield Running and stony Ernst has raised tens of millions. I think its eye at the number that
sitting in my head. I can't look it up, as I'm talking right now is enormous. thirty. Seven million in Iowa oceans of money poured into democratic coffers as a result of the outrage generated by the by aren't nomination. So it's not that I'm saying that it was petty, wise and pound foolish to nominate Barrett and get a seat on the UN, the court, but it has it, there's an interesting ambiguity, developing, which is that if this Money means that Jamie Harrison Answer is Rachel them. Others arches oh wash in funds that they can overwhelm their rivals when these seats and help flip the Senate Democratic
That nomination will have been beneficial to Democrats and, depending on how many people Democrats takes its away from Republicans, could make it more likely that they passed the court when they have the chance. If they end up with I mean this is not really likely, I think, but if they end up with fifty five seats, there is less and less reason not to try to pack the court particularly get this in your pocket thinking, particularly if you say look, this is all a sugar call Auntie Trump when two thousand and twenty two rolls around there's going to be a rebalancing. Republicans are going to have a fantastic night of election night, two thousand and twenty two
therefore we better do everything we can now cuz. Even if we don't do everything they're still going to swamp us, they're still going to take the house back and maybe the Senate. So you know we better. Do we better pack, the court in twenty twenty one, because they're they're going to they're going to take it over anyway? So that's where it may not be a loser for them or for the court packing scheme, and the other thing that I would say is that Noah is discounting the pleasure that they are taking controlling the right with the
we're not court packing your court backing. You know we're not doing it you're doing it and then Republican say what are you talking about we're? Just vacancies are being filled, including the Supreme Court vacancy. It's like oh yeah, well, you're, just taking over the judiciary that that's not right. That's court packing your court packing and you're like no Itzhak work that court backing we're friends like in thirty seven then, like I just TED five minutes ago, then there, like, I know you seem like a court packing to me right. It's like pure political gas lighting, and this is what they think trumpets from doing to them for four years and it drives and crazy and they are enjoying the hell out of this therein. By now the shoes on the other foot is it, you call we, you know we called other stuff fake news, all this republican stuff about there
this than the other than that you take the term fake news in your one. Will have you taken away from us how about this we're gonna? Take court packing away from you? Ah ha ha ha ha, Tire, ok, no! No! I I I I agree that no oil tat, we think we know it when debating and making shoe Noah's like Kamel out, you can't sit, Conrad's reneged. Nobody like problem arose during the debate, without the silent, his squinting at me and making then life looking sour unlikely justice I'm a lemon, because no one who is up in twenty twenty is making. The arguments are making many people who are making these arguments are safe. Slave biodiversity. Bullock made it in a debate with with Danes in Montana this week. and now I have the Democratic declared the army's receive any bucks, a trend, because Sarah Gideon won't talk about it. In fact, she's on the defensive, John Hidden Leubronn won't talk about it. In fact, when he did talk about it, it was very embarrassing any did his best to evade the issue, Teresa Greenville
this challenging Johnny Ernst in Iowa, used to oppose court packing, but now can't and has been defending herself in a pretty bad new cycle. Of course, the last forty eight hours, the OECD, nomination and core packing or distinct issues, one of which ultimately benefits and Republicans in battle Republicans, it's all there talking about now, it's all they want to talk about, because every other issue redounds negatively to them anything it's about Trump is a problem for them. Finally, they get a chance to talk about a democratic objective, one Democrats doing really support they. Didn't there there tentative in their support for- and it's only coming from, the left is coming from slate. It's coming from Maisie her and they don't actually won with obviously have to be ambiguous about it, and that ambiguity is I've been poorly on them. I think if this was Annette Winner for Democrats, you would see Republicans be a little bit more. I approached the more gingerly. They have me,
the centrepiece of the reelection efforts. Ok, but we're talking about two different went out to different levels. You're saying this is bad for democrats running, you know races, but now you can overturn the dynamic of this raise. I was surprised that the debt is that it is quite clearly based on behaviour. The candidate cities in these swing say races, it's not benefit, one side more than the other just based on their behaviors. It's the only thing they can. I think it is right that is the one thing they can talk about, that isn't trump I merely at that that's a hugely important thing for out these people in these sedentary. Ok, but I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the commentary it and the national race between Biden Trump and the Biden surrogates who went on tv this. We came to talk about it, maybe they're putting these people and about position, maybe they're not. I am saying that when I read GOSH Marshal of talking points memo. When I read a lot of these things, what I'm saying is, I am,
love and miss. I am shovin this downtown cruises throat. I am shovin this down nor Roslin throat he's all earnest and talking about how your tat, you Know- and I d Terry magazine, progress all earnest about talking about what court packing really is. You know what screw them screw all of them. We got our tie worse thick into it, we're really enjoying it, and it is the fact that both parties play semantic games and pull test messages. I mean my favour. One of all time is the death tax right, which is, which was the conversion of inheritance tax, poles favourably for the inheritance tax death tax pulse badly for the day, tax and so the Republicans. Basically, you would never hear Republicans used the term inheritance tax. You haven't heard the music and thirty years because they settled on on deaf tax so that
semantic recasting of things in order to you know get people to like the sound of them is a bipartisan. Has a strong bipartisan vintage an I. I just think it's funny that day think it's funny and look that problem for Biden is that there is so little to hook on him an end and they ve been trying hook him with the same difficult questions now, for you know a couple months if they, if they really want to write what we use, at this event racking what about racking. What about the green new deal? What about raising taxes? What about this one? that kind of slips at so now they have a new one. This is a new one. and he's not answering it satisfactorily. So
how would he s town halls this week and he'll have one? I guess, I'm a b c in place of the debate on Thursday. That's. The first thing is going to be asked. What assumes so in that sense is unhelpful, because they kind of they insist that an issue has been accepted against him that he has to deal with. Whereas he has managed to come Swat away. The other issues with this weird, you know blindness on the part of interlocutors who know enough to ask the question, but don't either no enough or care enough or were or are worried enough about his prospects that they don't want to follow up, or you know, make him answer for his, but but this one is kind of easy as it so radical. I think they can hear that they can hit him hard on it because it may happen it may not happen and who really cares anyway? I agree, I think, that's that's a really important point that Joe Biden was fraud. Marched into this. He didn't want this new cycle.
he's been forced into it, which gives a lot of ammunition to everybody has been arguing, unsuccessfully, probably been, the less arguing that he is an empty vessel for the proper progressive left that exactly what happened in this case. Another some Europe grow really kind of snarking reporters whose setting a well Donald Trump says that stooped down drums republican should be back in the court to the dollar, trumpet everything, and when he says you know, the Republican should eliminate the filibuster, for example, Republicans have proven tracker. Of ignoring him. This is not coming from the top down. It is coming from the bottom up and Joe Biden has been receptive to it distinctions that cannot be alighted because they're, so profoundly different. when measuring the added that the power, potency and efficacy of a political movement and just level we from below is a much more serious threat and you're a little publics this announcement, which I'm gonna make a several times between now and the election. He is the most
roll Democrat ever to run the kid this ticket is the most liberal democratic ticket we have ever seen. So that's just ruins public service announcing because we forget that the trumps behaviour, which is so outside the mainstream. But this isn't extremely liberal platform, but he doesn't read. This is why he was that this is why, from twenty nineteen to now, he has been, was the front runner except for three weeks and was beating Trump, four thousand three hundred and twenty from the beginning of twenty nineteen. Until the present he doesn't read like a lip, doesn't read like a. Where he reads like he's American serve and he doesn't read like he's: Workin serve them Barack Obama, and if the issue ever really came up where are you really had to defend himself on the grounds that he was in a liberal? He could affirmative let us seize on the things that he had.
run away from during his bid for the nomination like being hard on crime like having having been the key sponsor of the crime bill in nineteen. Eighty four like having created the Office of National Drug Control, policy in a you know in an omnibus piece of legislation in nineteen. Eighty eight up. Why, his opposition to bust. They, I don't even care. That's the funny part is that he has in his quiver the ability or the capacity in the last week. If things wrong to say. You know, I don't know what they're saying about me. I'm the guy who you know like help create the conditions under which crime in this country drop from dropped. Eighty percent so
You know what he's never been able to say that, because the party went Deckard duration and you know, and the idea that Credo it's terrible- that that anybody has ever go to jail anymore, but but you are right that programmatic Lee not there's nothing but never been anything like this that the platform, if you assume The platform means anything I think. If the court packing issued doesn't go away and if it becomes a genuine irritant abiden, I think you we,
this sort of reassess the vice presidential debate a little bit, because my pants was very effective in prosecuting this court, packing illusion and in pointing out very effectively that commerce would not give a straight answer on it. You have an who cares become a Harris. That's the problem, with the vice presidential, to pay first of all side from the fact that everybody, where you know that the polio MR registered, that people thought unbalanced, that she one I know what she says doesn't hold. You know you could never say: ah, you see she did really badly. Then he did well right because he's not she's, not gonna, be the president until very but but but this issue or March, when they were, they will invoke the twenty two amendments out of office,
to show her hand this week in these hearings. If she does show her hand- and I think it is speeches something Noah has said about her- they think is correct in and certainly judging by her democratic primary performers she could really but but she certainly bungled during the cabin on hearings and she could easily kind of with up with her sort of the hubris that she tens, display when she's in her senator questioning someone role, she could say something that does, I think, a drink that could extend this new cycle a little bit more and not not not to her benefit. I was most western or during the cabinet hearings on the democratic side, Amy Cloverton, Amy Kilometer, because she approached with coolly and dispassionately and ended up making him appear that I had the hot person exchange. I don't think I'm a camera. Hers is capable of that she just choose the scenery wherever she goes? Well, you know this is a war shocked us think, as you think she bungled it and liberals loved her and I bungled it retrospectively.
she allow sheet. Sheep was shaped contended that there was this The various meeting at this law firm, which ended up being a viral clip and actually helped the launcher campaign because it was such a great A moment, and then it went absolutely nowhere. Ok, but that doesn't mean shoe bungled. I'm sorry- and this is where I think we have to own up to the fact we don't have to own up. If we don't own it, but I mean. The Donald Trump domination of politics over the last three and a half years has changed the way we have to look. a evaluate politicians and their performance because they are not properly a valuable. If that's all evaluate a value of Adam, even know what the? What that you cannot ass. You had them properly by, going with the what they said didn't amount to anything
or they said this, but then there were a lot of attacks on it and then dear, they dropped at or something like that, because what Trump says and does and how he behaves politically in all. This bears no connection to any observable you know reality or connection to truth, he is a post truth person. He argues he wants to argue and then he'll argue the opposite help some three days later and he is the lead figure in american politics and has been for the last four years and we want to, evaluate candidates on the basis of older forms. We do cause you should be able to say what you mean and defend what you say- and you know make an accounting of what would of your charges you I'll be responsible. If you make irresponsible charges for being irresponsible
I just don't know how you can say any more. That politicians are, that is. It is even fair to judge politicians on the on these on these bases when the preside states lives entirely outside the bounds of them. I just centres, opacity of evidence, to suggest that anybody other than Donald Trump hasn't these tactics effect, and everyone else is drawn up that he's a by the way if he loses on November. Third, he will not have used these tactics effectively. This will be this. The cumulative effect of all this will be that he drove everybody crazy. people didn't like him and they drove him from office. So it the jury is out on whether or not he even use them effectively. But it has been
dominating feature of our political. Why and it will have been bequeathed to us going forward right, yeah cause. You can never go back so back to our drinking game, trump permission. Structure means that Joe Biden can say whatever he wants to about court packing and about Lena. What he's going to do? We're not going to do, and you can say I'll, tell you after the election, then you can say this and you can say that and none of it matters because as anybody who likes him were you know, is that the meat or something I can say well Trump- has always done worse. Trumpeted. This trumps said this. One was a murderer, he called come up, I'm Harris a monster in a communist. So why can't? She said? whatever the hell she wants to say about. It, undermines the message
he's been running on a night. I agree, I dont think it really is gonna hold and I don't know how many people are actually going to hold them to account for this message, but remember the reason he won the primary. The reason he's a head right now. Is he said and going to take us back to normal, whatever normal is off the pandemic and take her the pandemic and get back to normal, we're going to get rid of Donald Trump and get back to normal. Everything will be as it was we're gonna, store normality and calm, and all these this was this was his prejudices picturing the primarily succeeded this pitch now in his way ahead. So I think I mean perhaps other, aircraft can go the way of that of the trump. But I dont know that binds can be able to manage that, because that will come back to haunt him, if not in mid term elections. For balance, but you are you're talking about from now told them into the future yeah I've just signed by the next three weeks. I'm not talk now Well, I'm terms about aids talking about in terms of the change in the tenor of american politics
I I don't know I mean you know there's a lot of things, shouldn't benefit or hurt Joe Biden anyway, because, as Christine said, it's it's not within his realm of MT, I mean, I guess, that's kind of it, and now you ve point to think that separation of powers matters to voters on this level- probably doesn't, but still, its if this matter is at all it'll matter. For four Senate Republicans, who were in a really tough spot bite, and the only thing that Biden in the last couple of days has reversed himself on Inter end and at best said that he he spoke wrongly was on this thing. Ray said. The only way we're going to lose this election is, if they steal it, is that is that through their chicanery right, which is an eerie parallel to it. You know two, two trumpian language
interesting because he actually went back and said: that's not what he meant. He meant here. You know they're they're gonna try to do whatever they can to disrupt the order that the proper flow, the election there trying to block poets, Is there trying to block you know early voting and drop off boxes and this man, the other thing and so they're going to do what they can, but I will abide by the results of the election, whoever wins and losses, and all that I thought that was striking cuz. It speaks to what you said Christine, which is he does not want to be Trump. He still wants to be the auntie Trump, and I just don't know that the court packing stuff is the you know. That said, he's not going to be held to a pre prompt standard by the people who evaluate american politics from now until the election he may be held oh preterm standard after the election. but you know when I read Ruth Marcus, the the the opposite writer in the Washington Post to rights on justice,
issues and the law and she says the following: if ok, the future of the court, another Republicans or poor poised to cement six justice concerning majority is a hugely important topic. Republican stole one seat when they refuse to let Barack Obama fill a vacancy. Now they are poised to steal. Another. Rushing through president trumps now many with election day less than a month away. So apparently, rushing through a nominee is stealing it's not even the rush of the historical granting rights. What even if you accept that its rushing. literally threatens deconstruction itself, because, if you're rushing, that means you are allowed to do it you're just doing it in a hurry and maybe you're doing it too much of a hurry. You dealt with some in Kuwait
but some of the main argument is so incoherent on its face that, if you were dark, did you're a real soldier, You have demonstrated your commitment to the cause by sacrificing all pretence towards objectivity or even its intellectual honesty, Everybody in this country is being and listed as a soldier in this battle, which is there is nothing more important. This is the nothing more important in american history than ending this presidency on November. Third and anything and everything that can be deployed to make that happen is legitimate and not only legitimate but praiseworthy. So if you got a back the court packing argument, you back the court packing argument. You
add to the troubles you dont publish articles that are gonna, be negative toward Biden and everything like that. This is an all hands on deck crisis, according to the liberals and the left, and any anything that retards. That is an act of treason against the United States. That is what they think I mean do we have any. That is what they think The only way you can criticise bide another court backing stuff is. The answer is unsatisfactory, therefore, he's maybe giving republican some ammunition, so maybe There's a better argument that he could make, not that he shouldn't make it because it's bad, not that it's bad policy not, but like Maybe he's given up a little bit of an opening, so he should stop it right now, but I am telling you I'm talking to people. I'm reading every day, I'm reading every hour, and this idea this is the most important election.
Mystery? This is the end of America. Trump winds again that the the the corollary to that is anything that you do, that doesn't either help the Biden Cause or harm the trump cause is an act of treason against the country and the destruction of your children's future That is a pretty potent force in the selection and ordinarily. You would think that it would create a counterforce right. That's the! If Trump wins, the idea will be man, they overplayed their hand. They went too far, they said everybody who supports Trump is a racist in the fastest in the monster. So no one could tell pollsters the truth, and tens of millions of people voted for Trump that no one expected and then he's going to win. But
isn't that a boiling in a weird way, it's the its. They have become the thing that they claim to loathe, because that's exactly the line of reasoning and the kind of blowing up of norms that trumpeted when he ran and twenty sixteen. You are either with him or you were his enemy. There was no neutrality aloud and we saw the way we ve all lived through. This has conservatives Udo friendships broken up. You know people called traders. People called many many worse things than that, because if you didn't get on the trunk train honey, You said you were suspect and there is the sense in which that is exactly what a large part of the left. His with regard to responding to drop in its sat and makes me sad because, as we have mentioned before, the way politics is infected, so much of our cultural life. I was so hard and to see that that couple of paragraphs and Amy Coney buried statement where she was like,
life is something you live as well as you do. You do a job and you have something things you care about, but you also have a life in your family, your friendships and those things you can allow those things become infected all the time. But this one thing that's where we are in a very poisonous point in our political culture because infected so much about the rest of our lives, but I really do hear that that you're all in or you're an enemy kind of rhetoric, and I, I worry about that. Actually, I would love to hear more liberal saying you know we really need to be concerned where what happened, all these governance and norms and stuff? What? Where did those go when I've been really kind of, not emotional, because I'm just devoid of passion these doubts about compassion? This is this is you're just our roiling pit of passion? That's me so a boil, but I've been very frustrating this effort to redefine the language over the course of this week and attend my favorite. The paper pushed back. I got from this was somebody was like
Oh you're, just arguing semantics. Well, Yeah I mean that's literally. All we're talking about is about the definition of words, which is literally cement is the only time you know. Use. The word literally literally, is literally about semantics. That is literally true what you just said Sancho were literally. We have come to the end of this by gas, will will reconvene tomorrow for no able Christine, I'm John put words lit related the camera.
Transcript generated on 2020-11-04.