« Louder With Crowder

Confirm Amy Coney Barrett | Part 2 | Change My Mind


Steven Crowder takes to a college campus to have real conversations with real people. In this second installment, Steven discusses why Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett should be confirmed before the 2020 election and also takes on the topic of packing the courts

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Hey there audio listener, tired of your old bedsheets. I don't I don't have an. I can do for you, because bedsheets don't sponsor the show, but I would like to tell you about. Gold really more of a golden opportunity join Magua, but let us cut it out complex mucklucks. The only reason that this show is actually available, audio version that you're listening to all run you tube and we have a full daily show that you don't get access to anywhere else. So if you want to continue- and during this show change my mind or the like, or if you just like a hate, listen you like a hate watch we'll do that Anna punishable face please do consider supporting at Lahti with credit outcome. Slash mug club join up to and you'll be a better person for it whoever the Bellevue that'll be representative of whatever the people were feeling or believing that specific time, and so the justice is actually are, if you just
around the bread. The justices are representative of the people. This is changed my mind where we rationalize our positions on controversial issues today is instalment too Confirming Amy Colony Bear agenda this circus. The republican senator majority have no right to fill it just falling it. Is you calling republican senators and telling them enough is enough? Nothing about this. Today is normal. This is not normal. Are you Joe Biden can impact the core if Georgie Coney burden sharing should postpone your certainly not can understand forces outside of this room who are pulling strings?
and fourthly, the puppet Theatre to Rio. You agree with justice: Calais is view that row was wrongly decide not to ask me about packing. The court also found the voters deserve to know no lay down to our market to play his game. All right. We ve heard from them, but I want to hear from you: do you think of any legal or constitutional reason to not confirm Emmi Coney bear it? Maybe even a moral one, what's the best argument that you ve heard either way on either side of the? Let me know in the comments below now: let's get to it. First, we have a lovely conversation with the fetching Samantha. Now she says that she's new to studying politics, but you seem to have an open mind. Let's hear for thoughts Samantha, I semantic elbow Geneva where Mass Arthur, Riga, ok, Samantha, step and in a little because this is our our legal Hungary were allowed to actually speak mass still
my face very well, because I have what my friend calls famous guy had to have a giant nodding, mostly filled with some kind of I'm told. like fluid but are not entirely shared so Samantha. I don't know how familiar we ve been on this camp us a few times before, but the idea of China seen chipper enough. We ve had pretty productive discussions to rationalize our positions on controversial topics, yet today's topic. I see no reason why shouldn't fill the seats in the Supreme Court with Amy Colony, where it I have not heard anything even close commencing argument today, but if you think that there's something I'm something Samantha missing something about change. not know a lie. I haven't really read much. I've heard, of course, like a few things not much as I've been really busy with midterms, but I know I need to catch up with an important, but in my personal opinion I feel like we should wait,
for when the elections over another person in the Supreme Court just because that person will be like during a lot of the same view that probably the president rather like a black lives matter matter, an autopsy magna situation, which I dont really personally agree with. All clubs are bad situation, but of course we all want Greece has doubled idea. Answers are guys. Can we just? I can't hear- and I hate that I know the next. I will try and bring some speakers, but I she has a very pretty soft voice, my keys, Could you repeat that for me, I'm so yeah, sorry where's my thought, I know and apology for it. I interrupted them the whole night. Only so because I thanks, I lost my turn. some I heard some little black lives man. Yes, so really Africa is to scare
very well. Basically, that person will be part of the Supreme Court, which is like they'll say, though, share all the presidential like views. I guess it for stuff, like black lives matter, and the views of all cops are bad, which I don't personally agree with, but I do agree with the bad vibes matter part because of course not how about there's some bad cop that are better and investors system now we should probably handle well and so labourers and what kind of be kind of in charge of die and obviously biting at term have different views when it comes to that situation. Psychedelic wish way after this election to see who we think will fit passport opposition at Irish, LISA and issue this a lot to do, and I feel that we should work yeah. What do you think we should? What's the reason too? We should wait because during Trumpets Programme Republic concerning there's plenty of precedent here were yeah.
dominate as the executive and the legislative branches confirms rejects. I don't know why we don't like there's an order and sorry. I think that we should wait became there's. Only a few days left until, like the actual day, comes to where we figure out who our next president is and whether it is tramp, and we keep that first and then he can like put another version on both sides, change views on what we are today. As far as like putting back vital as president, then he should be one to decide whether we get an opposition learned a few days left. So there are many months world in their surely been many months left since he appointed since he nominated done from nominated a c b. So innocent There are few days left. There are many months. He is president for four years according to breathe better Ginsburg, that's his job. He doesn't cease being president. So, with months left
academic, nominated, mere garland right. Of course, Garland was not confirmed by the Senate because was Republican Senate Donald Trump nominated a c b and, of course the Republican send, it sounds very likely, will be confirmed. What are you basing that you're just a lot of users? We feel that we should wait until the next election, but I'm not getting any justification from people and that's where I wonder how much of this opinion is instilled by- and I dont say this to a patronising instilled in people by the media. Because there's no president, there's no reasoning is no constitutionality behind the idea that we need to wait. Yeah, I definitely I'm not. Gonna lie like. I have a very open minded I will take my my by God. Media does lay like a big part of me and I feel like a lot of media dallied. I've seen has been more on like side. We should weigh a lot of like We are sure that, as media yeah, I you're, not a limousine Africa, if the media's doing their job- and this is this-
it's not like. It's not indictment on. You see a lot of college students who, unless you're proactively seeking our media, this is what you will believe. Let me ask you this from what you ve interpreted from media. Do you believe that maybe this is a violation of the current like its uncommon for president denominated, just in an, I don't feel like it uncommon, especially since what you said about that. But I'm saying before we started and spoke, it seems like you, we improve. It was uncommon. Now, I'm not again. I want to live with his other unjust oriented like really involve with politics and structure, so I might be new to all of this in its entirety. Like fresh brain, so I might be Boldwood look at em, very it's just a bunch of cobwebs and some kind of like I said, viscous plasma fluid american Ghostbusters twenty one,
you have to. Thank you very much. I appreciated favorite change my mind. Yes, salami fill, it fill you. It's happened. Ass. The puppy now know the repatriation to us at all. Twenty nine time, president in an election year, has nominated springboard twenty nine times and what has been the same, controlling the executive branch and legislative has been confirmed nine out of ten times there is one exception, because the latter ethics violations, but again this would be exactly in line with the practice has existed for as long as urban problems. If we need to bring our justices, so I guess the question, There is now such financing was talking to me. I think we both agree that constitutionally. Legally, there is no argument against confirming every twenty beret, regardless of how we feel, but considering that that's, what's
presented from the media by your own admission. Maybe do you look at it? Go? Oh, that's! That's a little irresponsible haven't been filling us and properly. I wouldn't really say irresponsible, because they think that we get a biased but that is irresponsible if their supposed to be unbiased, there's going to be journalists. Well, like every King has a lot of ideas, whether that we wanted to or not so in our heads. We might not be like. Oh that's irresponsible, because if I, if it's just like that's my opinion and a lot of people, don't see it as far as so.
the media knows proactively biased. You say you think you're honest about device. He s really see. I don't need you tap or an innocent cooper and reinstall to increase Cromer. I see them presented themselves as objective journalists where everything your parroting talking point from their show. Do you think that those people innocent Cooper, Chris Cromer, Jake, Tamper, Brine Williams? Do you think they tell people pay, I'm a left wing activists when they prevent the news now they are. I believe they are probably like AIDS, like that. I feel like they definitely no way in the back of their life. This is my boy stuff right, but as far as like this thing's, ok Agri with you, I don't, I think they know it in your mind and I don't think they presented to the american people and that's what I'm a promise. I think that they should be honest about it. Just like I'm honest about my point of view from the outset- and I say here- you're welcome to change my mind, but I don't lie to people to try and convince them to
at my argument, does not run with those journalists so as you're getting involved in politics- and that's not man spending I just happened to do here- is a point get out of my table as export I would encourage you to keep that in mind. I assume that everything as a bias, which you already started off thing, and I think that through encouraging assuming in fact check and that's the only way You can be sure that the proper Samantha thank you Samantha appreciated. Thank you.
Much has been most conversation with a nice dame viewed as a button to remember. If you want these installments to continue, please do consider joining up at my plummet. Sixty nine dollars annually for students, veterans, active military and you get this wonderful hand etched mugged. The full daily show not available on Youtube, uncensored, unfiltered, along with the entire Blasi. These cattle go too loud, overcrowded our common slash, mug club. If not, please do subscribe and notification Val so that you can tuning every week day when we broadcast live at ten, a M Eastern next that we have a conversation with another young student of politics and actual Polly size doomed to be clear. The difference is, he knows everything meet kit: you don't even where Murmansk honestly, what everyone I most company was not that's right.
A word on any of my mouth low budget talk show every just like move the microphone person back to the US. It is a low budget optional. That's exactly what is so kit k, I D. Actually one of my favorite travellers, a guy named kit daily, is very impressive. It's cool now also knew that We're gonna get how familiar you with what we do here. I was a painter, but I was a very big fan for fear. Oh now, ok, I'm sorry that allows you to the dark side. Maybe this is a dark side. Who knows you can permit there have been targeted answer, maybe you're a centrist. kind of more centre right. I guess compared to a lot of people, their languages enter the tale of the Han really. I see no reason not to confirm a c b right now. The hearings are going on so well. We discuss, It's up to change right and I want to make clear that no one thinks that you ve done something wrong or I've done something wrong, because they can be talking about something right now. Orono could be going often attire.
And all of a sudden everything you said is an outdated, but I see no reason to not confirm to the Supreme Court, and I haven't had any reasoning as to why we should but sorry why we should not. So you can feel free to chain from well personally, just because of their jurisdiction. I want to place during the Obama administration, when huge economic is on record, that I just don't think it would be fair. Now I am in favour of having a quarter expanding. I am a very, very libertarian, for I think that more people and government the more directly the more direct just as we could put it. I think that's better, so I will be in favour of that just because I feel it would represent. Perhaps the the populace a bit better, because I do think that having such a low number in the Supreme Court in such an important branch of the judicial branch that could be
negative goods can be step one way or the other, and I do have my issues of the two parties system and until a lot of those are resolved, I would feel comfortable having such a low number just do what you want step, and here we have a range of this table in the recent beginning- internal energy, that you're libertarian we must acknowledge the libertarian party, but I mean in terms of political science. I tend to lean more towards say: democracy, then a republic epidemics. Ok. Well then, I guess that's what Libertarian is someone who really believes in extremely limited powers govern? Oh yeah, I do what I mean is that I would be much more direct democracy, then perhaps our constitution. Well, there's, building a way to have an extremely limited government. Vine originally interpretation to the scope exactly of the constitution, which is it Marion interpretation as in a democracy, because everything to be settled by a vote. Well, I just make sure you understand. I don't see how
liver turning point of view to add more people type collectively, because I believe that the population obviously, but we ve, seen the two party system change very greatly. Select the Republican Party for a very long time take post Reagan was very individualist, leaning very you know too, because obviously regular scornful actually got the economy back up. He was such a personality, but recently we have seen I'm just using the rapporteur. This example. I can go to democratic Party too. We ve seen at least allow more words I hesitate to sir. I say Federalist, more federalist, more like statist and there's a lot of federalism. It, is a different thing. You know what I'm saying is that an ownership immunity, federalist resting. I miss, but I met him. What I meant that a lot more power is going to the state recently, and I personally am powers being done.
to state your rather than central and the federal government like when I say the state, I mean the political content of a state to locate the central and the borders and surrounded eyes. I wanna make sure it's because you have your say better living among different terminology that I probably should give them using political sides. Terminology ethical besides major, why We have started with varying degrees of incorrectly, because federalism and statism are very, very different. There I guess I just miss book wandering to get an accurate read on European, putting lecture simplified as much as possible. I think that the more viewpoints that you can have in a concentrated area, the better so because it would represent the people of it more. Perhaps you can have a more diversity in those few points, because three Democrats, if they're all Bernie Sanders that does not reference all Democrats obviously is Giovanni got the nominated has represent the other. Ninety will exactly isn't. That is politics can
yeah, but I'm really make any buried. Yeah, we'll senators tend to be allowed the younger. What I'm not because it is up to each can just become a precedent, but I would just them obviously- and I dont know if the person before about this up- tromp has the legal alot of illegal right Nielson. I myself, I say we, I know you, don't you obviously there some grey area there, but for the most part legally from can do it. I would not be in favour, because I think I'm innocent
remember when we would be in favour of two of nominating mean he already has nominated you're saying legally, the centre can confirm that the Senate can confirm. I would be against them doing it, because I just think that, due to the past jurisdiction, most recently with the Obama administration coming to a close, I would not be in favour, but I understand how one fix you can do so at the end of the Obama administration, obviously, economic into the Supreme Court Senate blocked it, and mostly because at least from what I know of that time, I was a bit young. The Senate was leaning, the Senate was leaning, republicanism still does today so gushing from talking this thing. You're right, you pull it out. If you want I'm totally farming, I just was tested negative, so I can't guarantee I just feel as though it would be on it would be ass. You think it's a goat, This specific decision should go to whoever the President Elect is happy. Donald Trump Joe Biden, weather beaten how many of us are normally during an argument for the hearing that you would like that
willingly because merit garland. I think you just made an argument for why Amy Colony, where it should be confirmed my darling thoroughly, because one percent of the voting on right now is whether she is whether to appoint her or not be in favour of the Senate. Not doing so because we have no legal right to do it and being in favour of someone doing. It are two very different things, and so so this is lazier political science. So I appreciate you also mentioned three branches government earlier something a little testing when I mention them. venture as you well know, many people can't name so yeah the executive envy you just mentioned Iraq, Obama, nominated America, uses executive power, but we were both agree appropriately. Senate did not confirm Aragon, that's their power that actually, eyes appropriately now that is there now. In this scenario, the executive branch, Donald Trump nominated, a Supreme court, just its correct, we would both have to agree for the sake of consistency is too kind of libertarians authoritatively. Legitimately the Senate has the same authority,
confirm or reject legitimately. There's nothing inconsistent about them, confirming that government. All that's not really what I'm What I'm argue that I would not be very them doing. It would be hypocritical, Senate's argument they made with Obama. That argument was that it was a split government. That's my point, nourishment wasn't: just there was an election year argument was it was unprecedented in an election year to try and force dividing government to confer from what I know yes, and no, because from what I know. Yes, just because a very clearly, I think that I believe the feverish system. I think that checks about it's just for reason. However, I feel like a lot of what a lot of what I am again. I would not be in favour of this. I dont think its right to just like I don't
the right to just about someone during an election year. Obviously, but that's what we have always done: it's happened many many times and, as you know, the real it's right. Yes, necessarily to nine times tenant. Ten times, unified government confirmed rubber Obama I must say that you're thing, because we don't do this. We do this in telling you we do. We have this. Throughout Asia, we dont I'm saying that we should it ok, but we do share there's a lot of things that the US government has done in the past that are not in favour of, but Finally, my bigger point is, I would very much in favour of expanding. The number of justice is so it sounds to me like, and this kind of notices patterns, and I appreciate your ear, I wouldn't say attempt. I appreciate your legitimate communication of what I believe is a somewhat consistent viewpoint because has not always been the case. It seems to me that you are saying there is no constitutional restraint. There is no precedent, there's no violation of decorum. Really you just don't like
the fact you would prefer that they not confirm eight thousand and twenty five, but it's not like. We agreed it. It's well within their right and authority to it. But we both agree that we get on illegality. Yes, they can sell We know we can guarantee that we can guarantee that sign. Now we can look unchanged. Don't back the courts My mind. Nobody knows There is another german you're talkin packing the capital you and that german left feeling a little bit differently than when he came in. He came in and said that he did support item that eurobonds should back the courts. So I know the express from the outset, I think we both on common ground, yes and we both found. I think we both read where we do disagree, productive. We can move on to the idea of technical support back in the courts.
I believe not because of diverse viewpoints and the United States, and especially in such a large country, with such with such a variety of viewpoints and poachers. I think that it would only be it's only logical to then use that have to use the power of the Supreme Court to represent those ideas like we're. Convergence will obviously be a lot of democratic republicans, those kinds of Democrats, people's Rights amendment into they won't get elected measures, but how many different kinds of constitutions, of one so that year presupposition that the Supreme Court's job, it is to represent the individual opinions and viewpoints of those appointed to the court. Now, but, having as I am under the impression that this is because we may disagree, it is their job to properly interpreted the intent and lava constitute
Well, I mean yes, but under on another handling way that can be balanced as if they represent a variety of viewpoints, and what I think is the larger I don't understand how that's the cap variety of your point- right. You have arisen at their rural, never write you didn't if the Supreme Court, with strictly restrictive Republican that would obviously off the checks and balances a lot, because the way that the Supreme Court functions is not just as like in individual, its collective of collective of people, whose job is to help interpret the law. Only fair, if you represent earth variety of opinions, but when talking about the law yeah, but it's there is alive and hastened like earth that, despite the voting for the Senate works the way it does. That's why I voted for the house works the way it does its in order to ensure that everything is represented no time once again, because your political science- maybe
So in this isn't me doing the man I just happen to do a Harrison. Four point two doesn't mean that I'm cross with. Let me ask you this: you just mentioned the house. You mentioned the sun. Yes, what is a primary difference between the judiciary in those while you set it by intent? Obviously the Supreme Court's job so to speak is to interpret the law. Is not meant to be a democratically elected body. A body of Supreme Court by Design Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, we dont vote in spring vote on our represent any eventually representatives from the large there. That is important, but this is this really managed to political science? Major, maybe having gone to this part yet this exists for very specific reasons. Why do you believe the process is exclusively? well resident. Calling me finish exclusively. This has been protected, the press
Have the right to nominate the Senate has a right to confirm or reject and that the american public voting on Supreme Court says as they do with thousands. And why do you really? That's? Ok, because it allocates early autumn. What you said there's a little bit of a contradiction. That contradiction is that we, as that we vote on every single specific little. We vote on obviously exasperated things the president. Whatever we already republic, we vote people to vote for us and the president is obviously an extension of who are they will appoint? Who they? Well? I'm sorry for you, you can ask you, can if we go beyond these barriers walking away from an online, I can't write what this man, so this paper will protect as it does for microscopic. Javelins ya know because, if we're beyond the thing, love someone being drama gallery helping me said I was incomes. yeah because, obviously we exist in a republic constitutional reform. In our as a republic, we elect
for us, and the whole point of president being able to elect justices is that we can through time that thinks that the swine swing back and forth and back and forth. So, as a result, we will naturally happen that there will be a balanced mix of every single point. That's been held for, say the past presidents or the past me. I think terms more accurate obscene term justice, gaudy Adriano. Obviously those emergencies didn't work, but the Supreme Court exists interpret the constitution and the only fair way to do that to interpret the constitution really quickly around this time. This guy decided to show up and literally play the word
tiniest sounding violate. That's not how you do it show about its dark. Now I feel better about it all right back to the conversation. Only fair way to do that through interpret the concept is, in my view, is to have the divers variety of you not only diverse, but those that reflect the peoples will which, translate itself through whoever was elected president, but at no that's actually not the role of the Supreme Court, not uninteresting where I was being inconsistent, because we cannot- because you are talking about like obviously a we vote on certain things and then the present under President nominates, the earth for justice
In actuality, we most of the time not local elections, we elect people to vote for us and those people and impose wherever this campaign we liked people who represent the residents and yes, that's another. You don't have to pull us for every single vote the pull takes place once you haven't, we liked represented, so I dont think designing inconsistent, but one No. This is also something as important. So I don't know if you want to speak, it's ok no, it's fine. It's prefer to speak freely without interruption. I think that a very very large dv, like even in Europe, if you, like, you, ve, been speaking quite a bit. I haven't been able to respond in kind of everything you like. I asked me a question and I try to respond, and then I can let you speak up to. I'm just finished thought if you so please that's. What I'm saying is that we like people to using that certain things. I was an interesting for us to vote in and then the President Elect
for what I'm saying, is that there is really so much of it us all. I didn't say that. it's not me interrupting when you're misrepresenting when it does it. I never said the President Elect and there's the present elects a supreme court. The president nominates and I said confirms rejects he said at length. I set up points here. He nominates and the Senate confirms original Ethel. What I was trying to get to was the idea that so obviously when the president nominates, when the president nominates their specific, whoever they see us just now to the Senate, use was the thought process is that in the Senate is usually mixed enough and diverse enough to quiver. Represent
whatever, though, that you can kind of work as a mediator between the highest power in the nation. The president and people because sent the Senate is something that we can vote direct itself, usually illogical, that affect people. I put my just as in the past and they passed through the Senate and they go to the Supreme Court. For that reason, I appoint my justice, whose I say that I'm the president. Now we should nominate, isn't just as some random vague and then they go to the Senate. The logic behind that is that the present reelected, reflecting the majority view of the country at that specific time, and so therefore, after them, here there was buzzing who is represent the majority of your worries, while the president represents the mature the majority vote of the electoral college.
so therefore, when they left, is justice that will be reflected fillets if they get appointed they'll, be reflected of that specific whoever the Bellevue that'll be representative of whatever the people were feeling or believing that specific time, and so the justice is actually are. If, if you just your head around the fact that justifies are representative of the people being that they are representative, it's their job to represent the will of the imminent wherever the industries that may have been, which in turn is representation the majority of us. Why would argue sense? I would argue that simple really scary, when combined with your of court packing because of using a Supreme court's job is exclusively to represent
specific justice whittling. I remember the European. Do we need to put a time ticker on this right now so pills I've been talking to you in time a very long time and even very rude interrupting. So let me finish what I'm sorry I just let you go on for multimillion only demand respect not offer respect. Well, you don't need to talk to me like I'm a child out before we have a very level civil society can, but can you stop interrupting he just early? it wasn't the rest up and running. I wasn't you are and are absolutely ok. So my presupposition here is that what you have just expressed very scary for a litany of risks and those reasons are welcome was ready for tackling, and this notion that the job of the Supreme Court of Pointy is to exclusively represent the view of the executive who nominated them. That is why it is not simply an executive who actually elect so much was word that use earlier, I think, I've, been a readiness to use the word elect and that's the one area where had to correct you. He can nominating it can be confirmed by the Senate, because the Supreme Court is not met
To be a governing body, it is meant to be exclusive separate, and, apart from the House of Congress from sent from the internet presidency to be impartial. It is not meant to represent the majority will of the people. It is meant to interpret constitute and so, if you have this ill conceived notion, I would argue that their job is to represent that of the executive nominated and that we should in Greece. The number of these people under the authority of secondly, it will nominate more. That is an absolute recipe for an authoritarian regime sharp just as a quick aside before I say anything else, that's pretty your ardent supporter, Donald Trump, whose ugly authoritarian, however, really yeah we can get into that. I say that in of my view, do you know what I supported Donald Trump, when I do this? a further twenty. I only remember from these twenty sixteen election.
Lowering taxes, no new wars, less regulation. thought more free. we already know that doesn't fall under the authoritarian regime that doesn't for on the authority active, let's go back tonight, oriented going as opposed to throwing out buzzwords not one of your speech, I would prefer that hominid me so What I was literally just said: that's ironic, that you support Donald Trump was an authoritarian. Yet no, the whole years under the same standard. If you want to have absolutely no absolutely so. What I would say is that struck drive my argument a little bit in that I was saying that president, that its representative of the President alive what I meant. What I meant is that obviously the nominees will be appointed time. However, they have to get through the Senate and the Senate works as the three branches as its intended to work. As I know what you mean yes, trying to sort of
zoom out of their intended to work, they dont always work one way or the other four new. For numerous reasons, lobbying biases them maybe, but when you have to elect a certain individual through the Senate, went missing when you have to when you want to get. This report gives us Senate and I worked as a balance which has met, and since they are directly representative of since the Senate is directed, the people who should be representative of the people so therefore that the Senate is so therefore that works. The sentence is not to vote on; a justice must represent the will of people to send its job is to confirm its economic justice, who will properly here to interpret the rules. Concerning the sunny, ask you this,
We can go back and forth. We don't have all attempts to ask you a few pointed question. Would appreciative has absolute ok first of how many justices? What's hundreds we ever now we're? So you said you swore packing the court's. What number. What's the kind of that, I would prefer it to be asked for this. If you support packing the court's, how many justice- or would you cap it at all- or should it the next presidencies that more and more and more more now, I think that just increasing marginally to perhaps it would have to be in another two. There would be a majority to perhaps eighteen thirteen expenditure, fifty that maybe a bit much and then some kind of traditional mandate to stop congressional medal to perhaps stop it unless people see fit to expand it at some point in the future. That could be interesting issues in the future. Maybe some big philosophical revolution,
happens and we all realize in other media. Yes, I believe that it should be for the time being, we didn't know what we do with the traditional active night reckoned a settlement with a civil war. So that's exactly why we did it. We have a number nine. You just think there should be thirteen. Fifty, so down trumpets elected you would support now. Getting for more justice is in his constitutional right after the Senate them. I can't you ok, so you would never broke I would never problem, but that is the best and disingenuous I may disagree with the just. I probably would the justices he points, but if he does it and they get through the Senate, obviously all will most probably because the senators rather than in- and I see I just that's where we fundamentally disagree- I dont want Donald Trump deal- is tat. The court's, thank God he has never even tried. It is never imply that he would try it because he believes I know you mentioned sort but is actually limited- the scope of government many ways. Manufacturers are the major grievances against Donald Trump- is lowering
access and lowering regulations and supporting free speech laws that for individual consideration is now. I must continue. Let me finish here and then we go to this idea that you believe for some reason. You know your political science do that the Supreme Court's jobs, represent the will of the people, as opposed to interpret the girls, do not all that the job actually at the centre of the President incentive to confirm the justice, and this is why there is a precedent- has been said of the UN. We brethren releasing his list of potential sprinkler justice, as I'm sure you're, where this Donald Trump did it. He released another list. It has not done so. You'll have to look into figure out what's right, because the job is not simply to pick. People who are representative of the majority will people which only where the people one point sport its labour That's right! Majority of the people didn't necessary, think that when we should get credit cards, think I'm all white male Supreme Court ruled that show me how to get credit rating, the critical authorization- and so my point is it's not just about majority, both peoples of interpreting the constitute
That is the job of the president in nominating that's. Why you release is a list of potential nominees. That is the job of this confirming not confirming someone who is: play, answer to mob rule, and that is really scary proposition when you combine it with this idea that any president executive going forward can simply add more seats, and I don't think that's a system of government is functional. I don't think that's one, that's tenable, and I think thank God that we act had, even though we didn't have a diverse group, according to your definition, diverse people and Supreme Court, they make sure that there are equal rights pass for women, they make sure that there are equal rights pass for African Americans, It didn't matter your personal point of view. What mattered was constitutional interpretation individual liberty- and doesn't mean we're always perfect, but we eventually got it right, regardless of colors. Gainer genitals hang between their legs kid. I appreciate your brother you somewhat rotating.
seems pretty captains right. What do you think? What's the best case for Whitey C B should not be confirmed and is for tackling a legitimate strategy, urges underhand partisanship and bush. As always sound, often the comments beloved. We will see you in the next instalment of change. I want you to you if you like this instalment of change. My mind: click on one of these other installments playing in a bar. It's the only way you can find it, because if you search it and may not show up because its controversial and in you too, wants to discourage that the controversy to change my mind play.
Transcript generated on 2020-10-31.