Today on The Editors, Rich, Charlie, and Michael discuss the ongoing ACB hearing.
• Rich: Dan McLaughlin’s post on Barrett and recusal
• Charlie: Michael’s piece “Roberts Invited the Court-Packing Fiasco”
• MBD: The Corner
• Rich: Giraffs at the Bronx Zoo
• Charlie: The restored BBC Pride and Prejudice
Acton Line podcast
We the People
The Editors is hosted by Rich Lowry and produced by Sarah Schutte.
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Act in mind as the flagship podcast the act, an institute for the study of religion and liberty, dedicated to the promotion of a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles, with episodes released. Every Wednesday ACT online brings together writers, economists, religious leaders, thinkers journalist, news makers and more in conversations that bridge the gap between good intentions and sound economics by demonstrating the compatibility of faith, liberty and free markets. Conversations on act in line reveal how economic freedom is essential to create an environment in which religious liberty can flourish, but also that the market can function only when people behave. Morally faith in freedom must go hand in hand to subscribe to act in line visit, act and dot, org flash and are or search act in line and apple podcast Google play Spotify Sticker
or wherever fine podcast, are available. That's act in DOT, Org slash and are too subscribe, active dot, org slash and are does
Amy Coney, Barrett, hate, sick people and a Sheldon Whitehouse Insane will discuss all this more on this,
given the editors umbrage Larry, I'm joint is always by the right honourable Charles, see W cook and the notorious
barely day, Michael Brandon, Dorothy, Jim Dirty WAR, turns
you're listening to a national view, podcast or sponsors this week are act in line and we the people from the Bradley Foundation. If you listen as podcast Alnaschar view dot, comical
play on the corner or delighted to have you, but it'd be easier for you and better for us. If you made as part of your feed at any of the streaming services out there from Spotify to Itunes, he's like what you hear
Please consider giving us a glowing five star review on Itunes. If you dont like what you hear here, please forget, I said.
anything so envy we ve had to do
is there any Coney bear it hearings, first day kind of worthless, dominated by opening statements
yesterday were, according on Wednesday morning here yesterday, you had the marathon questioning
The centres half an hour each for, I guess, was twenty two centres started, started nine, o clock and stretched into the evening. What did you make it
While Amy coding there, it's really impressive, been a really concerned
some of these things. You know it
me a little bit of the Roberts hearing where
when Robert was nominated, he just was controlled and impressive and
a lot of ways, obviously smarter than a lot of people questioning him, and we saw that yesterday, you know
You can try to parts very finely whether you know.
Democrats succeeded in attempts to try to get
me Coney to say that certain case
were subject. You know,
we could describe them, is precedent or super precedent or
part of story, decisiveness or settled law.
all of those things have slightly different.
Rotations and end there
while patterns right like she did, she would seem to refuse to call row settled law
where is she called Brown versus Board of Education, super precedent
But you can also see that she was clear, accessible and you know very much like up a law. Professor and very much like the kind of professor that
her students and her colleagues in the motorcade
lot of law school.
I say she is
The spectacle vow of Democrats.
Trying to put the focus
squarely on the affordable care act. Obamacare was we
weird and morbid
occasionally my Cobb, I mean it's just you know.
Very few people ex expect this challenge.
It's coming up through the courts to the Supreme Court to get anywhere and
just an outrageous hospital bill in Missouri. Doesnt really have much to do with us.
The Supreme Court- and you know
It must have been weird fur bear to sit through some of that, and you know this-
implications that she wants. Children die of cancer or at least once their parents to be bankrupted. So it
it was gross and
You can see. We are talking about this just before we we started recording,
Interleaved wasn't from
their pole, showing that support forbearance. Confirmation seems to be going up among the broad public, say I think,
she's doing well, and she was she is proving to be
a really fine choice.
Yes, a try just stick with with bears performance
she is so hard to know how to improve on it she's as it
really friendly non threatening.
Sincere demeanor she
never made any false move, never betrayed any irritation or of vexation or
suffocation at something. These questions, the one
early on was Diane, Feinstein was growing, are about
hands and then all of a sudden. You know that at the end of this gun, discussion said so. What does that mean about your your view, row and end? You got this puzzle. Look from there. It was clear that actually faced, I meant to say Heller and a sheet is absolutely clear
composed and was totally and control and
As you know, I was deposed recently and just the way the the nominees these hearings are supposed to conduct themselves reminds me of what they tell you.
Deposition Prep, which is not there to win any arguments. You not there for four great rhetoric.
You just there to say the minimum you need to and get out now that that isn't very satisfying a lot of times to watch in these hearings, but that was heard. That was her task and she's she's been performing and brilliant life were looks like torture and she had to sit there yesterday
for twelve hours, during which she was unable to say anything of consequence.
during which she was unable to argue meaningfully and
in which she was unable to point out how absurd some of her interlocutors were.
during which she had to take all sorts of abuse, much of which was really
being addressed Twitter not to her and to which she could not respond in either case.
This will come as a shock to you rich, but I quite
Ike arguing. I find it difficult not to argue sometimes
I think I would have found sometimes all the time, and I think I would have found what she had to sit through extremely tiresome.
even if there was a supreme court appointment at the end,
and yet she did so with grace and patience and expertise.
Something I thought was impressive about her performance is
that she managed to reset every time a new question came up. She would wait
until she'd been asked five, six, seven ten times to opine on something that she
new, and they knew she
Wasn t allowed to do so
As I have kept saying, I'm not allowed to do that and if you do keep asking
me this question, I'm afraid I'm going to have to keep giving you the same answer
didn't inherit the repeat
it questioning from the previous question
she treated them or like like individual and the other thing.
She didn't, I thought, would have gone further discuss age. It just jester. Discours me when he said sit through just just physically to sit like that through all that, without fidgeting, without slouching, without any, without propping. Your chin, on your elbow on your hand and put your elbows on the table
just don't that office, but that is not new pipelines Scully at a smoke exactly that, even even that's not necessary
is not as easy as it looks yeah,
and I thought the other thing that she did- that was extremely effective and the site
have a good lawyer was that she waited
show the ideal moment to deploy.
If precedents from previous herrings every time that you got a little bit dicey or the decreased
dinner was pushing and pushing and pushing in a way that was rhetorically effective. She would pull out quite fairly
Well, I am here going to apply the same standards, as did Justice Ginsburg during her hearing or well.
Elaine a Kagan said
She was questioned back in two thousand and ten at that's a scale that that that goes beyond patients. It goes beyond
and stamina. She seemed to have a good sense of went to place, approach within context and went to write it out
there was. There is another thing I wanted to jumping on that she did well, which was arm she kept.
Road share, very gently, reminding her
hallway was in this process and what their role is constitutionally right, that you know,
They were kind of caste aspersions about. Should you be
adopting a nomination from a president who does this or who says this sure, damn you know and she kept
saying, while that is your job, that you know that it is a job for the
nickel branches to decide whether its appropriate. You know
role in this, was to accept the nomination made by the president
She's accepted it clearly,
Is there an it's up to
She just reminded them it's up to the Senate to make political judgments about it. You know her job is to
Either accept or deny the nomination either be confirmed or
confirm that's out of her hands and then to do to her.
Job which is to judge based on the law on the politics, and it really
as a kind of in,
in shield. I felt for her to do that because it it's not only has the benefit of truth, but it comes off his respectful to.
The people questioning her it was, it was Democrats, primarily, although sometimes Republicans make the same mistake
but it was Democrats primarily her are asking her and in effect they ask the court to settle political questions. To take them out of their hand,
and that she refused to take the babe it's is.
If you sign not just for her, you know perfect.
comments on the day, but for her her her performance of her job if she is confirmed yet, no, that's actually the case with Charlie. I have to say I don't really like the kind of no
well developed around these hearings. I don't know why anomaly just can't say rose bad law. You know- and I am not saying how I'd I'd come down in a specific case, but it's just it's bad law here. The reasons why it just just
seems as though the these hearings, o Connell, lost a lot of their meaning and purpose there against so called
its broke standard. Ah I agree with you, but I would say that there are two caveats to that agreement. As you can see, I argue with everything first off. I think it would be a mistake at this stage for
republican appointed nominees to unilaterally
wash away that the rule that was adopted by against bag?
and so to my arm and Kagan.
Ah now judicial ethics rules that apply to sitting judges that nominees have taken.
account and judge power. It is on this second and
for whatever reason she is not appointed to the Supreme Court, she will go back to the seventh circuit, and so she.
she can't in her current role. I believe start applying all over the place on cases that as a local
judge she is obliged to rule on an end to follow precedent.
So my glistening down from the two critiques line lies the Tec. Obviously, as you mentioned, that healthcare, the main one and
these these stories were just that they were truly heart. Rending I mean
Heart goes out to every single one of these people in these these families.
Do you think it's a bad practice to procedures be able to bring pictures? I think just sort of cheapens the proceedings, even if, if you have a lot of sympathy for this, is sick folks on families were sick, sick, kids but they're all their eggs or and this basket
And adjust its on this suit is really are likely to succeed, and I think the progressive maker original point and say well, look you know. I'd regards state agencies are public, any age is backing this thing. You have to
this department backing this thing, so there is no obligation on our part not to pretend like it's a real case. It is but on the other hand, the
It is not clear that that the three core would say that the plaintiffs have standing and then, as I thought, she came, this close to signalling us as you possibly could that the idea that the entire law would be thrown
out, even if this, even if the zero doubt penalty or tax is found to be unconstitutional, is just really hard to fathom and-
Ere was was constantly underlining that question of several billowy year,
and I do so by the way you think I am
finding that the question of several ability
she was signalling a little some.
About where she stands in the-
the judicial kind of philosophy fights on the right where you know
she does. You know maybe have
something of Justice Roberts idea,
judicial modesty which
I find welcome, reaches its encouragement Congress to actually legislate.
But I see the stories were utterly MC com,
at times- and I felt it- you know it's demagoguery to do that- to her right
Obviously the law affects real people and
There are intolerable features of of life,
The law ends up touching, but it's
It's not her fault right, I mean like who we are
talking about, not just
how people provision for themselves, but how Congress has provided for them. It is not the job
is role right to it.
In effect, we Democrats were doing there is making the old argument. You know when someone's hurting government has to move and then even
Someone saying that the judge has to be
my role as well- and that's not true, yeah yeah, that's about it
I don't mean to catch up. No, I thought she did. You know what she could in that here.
but I thought overall, that the focus on its subject matter
Tell- and it's it's a big tell for Democrats, which is that data
actually feel that they can,
make hey on the big,
social issues that the court decides on right, like that. That is not the the primary focus
right? They they feel they get much more mileage out of these. This bread and butter issue of people's health insurance.
and it signals a split in their coalition between
journalists, academics, intellectuals and donors who care almost
sclusively about the social issues.
In these hearings and their voters who don't and who can only
he aroused by these kind of kitchen
table issues yeah. I think they're also those I'd say double purpose to that line of questioning
witches, yet they they wanted to dinner up on it. If I could, but even if they didn't, I did didn't think they really succeeded. It's it's a good election year issue for them, and
I think the street of Democrats realized there not stopping bear it. So the task yours too, to win the
action. So that's why they're really desperate to stop her and they thought they could. I think they would be doing more of their religious attacks, but I think that their realise the equities art it's their unlikely stopper and echoed backfire and and stop
put them in the main game in town which is which is the elections which I want to ask you about the gun case. There's a lot of attention on that. But let me pause first and get to our for sponsor this week
Act in line actin lies the flagship podcast the ACT Institute for the study of religion and live
the dedicated to the promotion of a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles without zones release every Wednesday ACT in line brings together, writers, economist religious leaders, thinkers journalist is bakers and more and conversations that bridge the gap between good intentions and sound economics. By demonstrating that the possibility of food
liberty and free markets. Conversations on act in line reveal how economic freedom is essential to creating an environment.
Religious freedom can flourish, but also that the market can function only when people behave morally faith and freedom must go
and and had just ascribe to act in lines. Is it act in DOT, org flash and are research act in line on Apple podcast, Google place butterflies, teacher or whatever fine podcast are available that
ACT in DOT, org flash and are acting dot. Org
There are two subscribe. Please check it out.
So Charlie, there's a lot of focus on this gun case having to do with Phelan Felon and whether he could be denied.
his right to own a gun, a lot of focus also on how her had descent in this case, which have not read my self made a
allegedly between gun, ownership and and the right to vote. Where did you make of of this line of questioning attack wow, I think
that it is part of an overall attempts from the Democrats too.
Faster as somebody who will bring about consequences that they dislike anti conflate issues. They tried to conflate thee.
issues that were at stake in annex VI. Vii Sabellius, with the California, be Texas case that is pending and they tried to conflate her decision, which was a dissent in the seventh circuit case, can,
with Heller and any other cases that might come before the court
flashing out the extent and scope of the right to give him bear arms. The case that,
can you. Baron addressed was fairly narrow
Question was: can a state government or federal government in theory Pro here
it gone ownership for non violent felons,
Systems Lee with
She says: look how I did not address this directly. What it did do was outlined the scope of the right. The provision that mentions felons is dick.
and therefore it is the role of the judge
examine whether the approach that was taken in Heller yields an outcome in which states are permitted to
disenfranchise or remove rights from now
violent felons and
analysis is that they can't that that is historically egregious now, if you believe that Hallo was wrong.
That will irritate you, but it was interesting that those who questioned her about this did not make that case. Instead,
they try to cost her as a radical by Miss closing her. She does not say in
dissent, that this is a radical view. She said at some public lecture or class
that it might look radical. But it's not very different thing. Soap.
Will you really had here was Democrats arguing about consequences once again and I think that the
He moment yesterday was Senator Blumenthal session
so one of the worst things I've seen in politics in a long time. Essentially he kept pressing
to answer questions he knew she couldn't he can
misrepresenting her position and then, when she declined or said. Actually that's not the case.
is he said. Well, what have I talk about? Someone called Samantha,
about someone called Tracy
He wanted to do was to suggest that there would be received
the ball with any bad thing happened in the future in the realms of healthcare and
But that is not a legal argument. She
making a legal argument in her descent. She outlined the legal argument, and
it's. A Blumenthal was not, in fact, none of the Democrats were,
So here it's difficult to evaluate, because one side of the conversation was politics, the other side of the conversation
was law and, in fact that's how a lot of yesterday went searching
how'd you respond to the earth in this. This is obviously an element of the creature.
Well, you say felons got own guns, but gets days all around the country. The say felons can't vote. How does it make any sense?
While her argument is that the president's in this area that have been set by the Supreme Court and that therefore bind the seventh circuit are that the right to keep in bear arms is an individual rights and the right to vote is a civic right and that, as such, one of them has a different standard.
Applied to it historically and texture early now, one can argue with that in
since one is arguing with the Supreme Court, her job on the seventh circuit is not to invent law, and it's not
to resolve differences between the circuits it's to apply,
Sweden, because there is some scope for original right,
in the not every question has previously been addressed by the Supreme Court, but it had to say
She says look here, other relevant precedent
when it comes to how we treat rights,
here other relevant president's when it comes to the second amendment. Here is the answer.
political framework that is outlined inhaler outside of the dictator in Hell.
And here is how I decided this
case as a result and clearly there.
other arguments she was dissenting. She wasn't in the majority opinion, but the notion
This is somehow selective that is driven by an agenda for all that it was invented out of whole cloth
is extraordinarily silly, and I think you can tell that
because had there been a a case that her position was preposterous
that it was so far outside of the bounds of normal legal analysis asked to be dangerous. Then
at least one of the Democrats who questioned her about it would have tried to advance that theory, but they didn't, they just said. Well, it
took this view. Then you must be a gun, not- and I know some uncle Edward who lustre
other and therefore I am sorry but much as I feel for the poor
for who were brought into the
hearing fire pictures or mere reference. That is not her job,
and you cannot analyze what happened yesterday without coming back to that central problem. That
the two sides of this debate and the two parties in that room.
Fundamentally different views as to how the law should work and their incompatible yeah. So
Michael and another attack was that she used the word, the phrase- sexual preference which,
of yesterday afternoon, in the be the in fairness, progressive opinion, habits swinging against this, this phrase for a while, but as of yesterday afternoon, it officially
came, I hate phrase yeah. So this was picked up. I think first on twitter by near Times reporter and then when it mean
the viral on Twitter,
and then age very shortly, I'm someone apparently handed a piece.
paper- does Senator Maisie Harun so that by the time it came to her, she could question any better
was, it was kind of unbelievable.
Actually, no way, because what what people are doing was they were re writing
our semantic history, to suggest that the phrase sexual preference was actually equivalent to rhetorically end,
politically the phrase: lifestyle choice, which again was at one time
considered a polite phrase afford something
but it has since been replaced right anyway
Then take long for conservatives to start googling around to find out that Joe Biden used the phrase sexual preference that
it openly lesbian universe,
The president's use it in their communications that the address
It magazine uses this phrase without problem it
we became offensive yesterday, but not only that by the end of the night Miriam
Webster's online dictionary was hanging added it to add that the meaning.
or which had been given to preference was offensive, and
it may seem like a small thing, but, like
in the dictionary to accomplish
trivial political purpose is, I mean, there's no other word for it creepy
and any other time too I mean there's no words, accrue new new meetings and connotations overtime
we'll get like it, you change the meaning. The definition
it's kind of like an instant instant. I know uncoordinated
Stalin is our language right at me like
It is a gross
and I dont know if this will like be remembered in a week or two, but it
it does what it does reveal something about our culture. That is
issues like this coordinated and our entire member IRAN,
and of the cabinet
Hearings when, after the first accusation, was made on behalf of Christine Blasi for Ford,
covers Yale classmates
stood that they could probably torpedo his nomination
It could produce among themselves and
their accusation right, because that was the
the Tell tale sign at the time of me to violator and they manage to do it right. So
Like this, this underactive coordination
power on the left that is really intimidating and warping
sometimes it's used for incredibly trivial and silly ends like yesterday, but bad it's. It's definitely something to note the hatch I,
stuff like creepy and under no what's more disturbing if their actual, like a got government commissar dictating all this or or well. What we see which is is is that private actors- just acting in concert to make disorders stuff at that. I think its enormous you telling those in order to make that attack work. They quite literally had to change. That
In order to score the pointless Michael says at some point yesterday, during the day, Webster's changed its entry for preference system
that, when it's used as a synonym for orientation within a sexual context, it sir its offensive- and I think we
say fairly safely that if you are stealth, editing dictionaries to only original lists, you ve lost made how bad,
to highlight the difference between the various today,
philosophies than that time.
time again? Yesterday Amy Candy bars
Sat there instead words
in something and we have to
regional meaning. Otherwise we have chaos,
and while she was saying it, Webster's was editing,
the definitions of words, so that a political party could score point against that
Nobody would have thought about until about forecast,
afternoon when it came out of the mouth of senator heroic. That is what is at stake here.
Sir Emmy Deal, let's go to row a little bit more
how consequential do think it is that we have, in this instance a openly pro life nominee, one
is assigned statements over the years that Sir, but strongly anti abortion. And what do you make of?
The Democrats are Agnes, while that this just shows a sweet. We know how you gonna rule and you're you're sent to rule this way. I mean
listen. The present did promise to promote
pro life judges and use that phrase and eat it
one point say that role would fall
automatically, because he is appointing for life. Judges
so it's obviously, I think, totally legitimate for Democrats to make an issue of it
It is an issue
I'm a little dubious about trusting. Ah judges on this.
Matter I mean I used to think it was a big deal that John Roberts wife had none.
Some pro life work,
that may seem to be a huge tell, because, like Republican.
presidents and political figures often use their wives to signal that they're, not really all that serious about the abortion it right away. Yeah, I'm pro life,
Campaign travel or life disagrees with me, so not gonna get involved.
but in a Roberts, has declined a couple of times to take bigger bites out of Ro Betty
taken, even in the last term, dumb
Some people speculate that maybe they're waiting. They were. They ve been waiting for the conservative woman to enter the court because they are afraid to do of the objects of you know. Four catholic men and death
Ex catholic Episcopalian
doing this in a making
room for the states to regulate abortion like a normal procedure, but what you know
a regular re, regulate it like an admirable one, which is what they should do.
So I don't know I mean it's, it's it's obviously significant, there's also a kind of broader significance
I it's emerging in our culture really been Amy
Berries not just openly pro life. Of course, she is
seven children, two of them adopted Ellen,
Hagen and son
so tomorrow have zero children between them and
there's like a kind of fertility, different,
between left and right right, I mean there's just sleep there right
becoming a party of
families and indeed a lot of working mothers.
And what is becoming a party with a tunnel.
single people in origin.
Less people were or point eight children per family people
So yeah I mean it's, it's a its differences subtext. I I just don't want to work up. My hope
That role is gonna, be significantly damage in the next couple of years, because I've worked them up before only to be disappointed and
this point I think Tommy
an elite o r
this issue, but I,
really dont know about core such Cavanaugh and Roberts. They seem a little bit more unpredictable to me. Maybe were, of course, which is pretty good
laboratory, cabin, I'm not sure so
you asked me a few weeks ago, how many justices with Republicans need to have
court to see something like rain had turned, and I think I said, fifteen
try for rigour and is let a grades. We gotta get Sheldon Lighthouse. What what was going on with that? I think the Senator White House should quit the Senate move to a common
in IDA, her and start sending unhinged letters to the Department of the Treasury AIDS. Clearly what he was born to do. I watched it with my mouth
Becoming more and more and more agape.
on down this path before, but never quite to that extent, he started threatening the Supreme Court, not just in his speeches and in his.
Senate pronouncements, but in amicus brief stew.
He has said far far worse, things about the Supreme Court and its legitimacy and its future. Then Donald Trump is ever said.
and he's largely got away with it, probably because he's a relatively unknown senator from Rhode Island. Yesterday, there.
Showed us who he is
and who he is he's a lunatic. It's fine to point out
That is also a hypocrite that so
much of the spending that he was complaining about, takes place on his side, but hypocrisy.
is less important to understanding, Sheldon White House than is lunacy. His charts were
hint that may museum twitter
it's always sunny in Philadelphia. The guy
the wall, full of photographs and maps.
Lines running between them, Pins Cox,.
essential thesis he was trying to advance. Is there is a conservative legal network that has concerned
effective judicial views and tries to get conservative jurists onto the core. Yes, there is
it's a reaction to the declining quality of jurists in the mid twentieth century
And to the.
unwillingness of many republican appointed judges to uphold the law as it is written.
There is nothing sinister about it. There is nothing secret about. It
and the heat decided to spend thirty minutes outlining it as he did, was.
Surprising even to me who has followed this. This man and his repeated attacks on the court for years.
so Mvd Day letter grades, let's go first to collectively the Democrats yesterday from aid ass. What with their I mean.
De I, these are worrying
to watch from shore people turn them off.
extremely lonely or their paid to watch them
its yet d,
I magog very pretty and effective. I thought
And revealed them
four exactly what choice I dont know what their job is: checkup e, appalling, now appalling from start to finish, there were two exceptions to that: Dick Turban
and Christians other than that from start to finish, every speaker was either incompetent or evil.
So in terms of making
basing its bear. It was an f the they got, nothing they they landed, no blows. It was
ridiculous as a series of not second ores
In terms of the year
and by the way, the only thing they really have against Parrot is the lawsuit which the Justice Department I dont think ever should have joined, and it's it's
they not a worthy challenge to Obamacare and crazy and ill considered things that present trump. Has you subtract? Those
and I don't know what percentages fifty sixty percent of their material just what would disappear so nothing S, Barrett,
but my overall gray goes higher, see minus because I think there's this broader context of of the election
just hammering away and healthcare, and
We, the Asia, is
said to them and they avoided the pitfall of going after her face.
Any form so every day, same question collectively republicans failure
I mean it was like a sea plus. I do she didn't, think Republicans or that great the only
Senator I kind of like liked was Kennedy at the end from Louisiana. You know he
kind of had an interesting
both allowing barrier to kind of give a clear
in terms of art, around
regional, ism and judicial philosophy, but also asking even some interesting questions like wended lawyers,
That were actually stimulating to here. Otherwise I thought it was pretty poor.
He even one
Republicans, maybe in abeyance ascii liquor like it.
And great civics lesson and arm.
Apparently that was needed in the EU has set it to bad, but you know see plus, wasn't exactly breaking bad level entertainment and that's what these army
the television spectacle? This isn't necessary. You know see
man is in part of the constitution. Kick up. I thought it was a b. I thought it was fine, with the exception of Senator SAS, who I thought was terrific
I thought he laid out the role of a judge, the role of the Senate and what is at stake brilliantly and so
AIDS, John Kennedy of Louisiana, who is aware
the entertaining figure
and who asked some penetrating questions, not all of which were down to the benefit of the nominated
Sir, I give her a be overall brought up boy need by SAS and Kennedy
I say about a sea as I can be D
the main role of Republicans in hearing like that
is just to give you the nominee a different and after you addressed questions that
brought up by the Democrats in a different way
were positive light and something
Did that and others didn't. I
Agree that Kennedy was brilliant us when he first started.
Like, okay, this is this is way too over the top and theatrical from headspace, and that's like. I can't stop watching this. This is really compelling and he got to keep going. You know rebutting a lot of questioning from Harris, which is that I beerus a liar and she's, not
The truth about how seriously she takes her duties as a jurist and
this ridiculous and I think one thing that that everyone should agree. I think under truce chairman and some democratic conceded, this even contradicted almost of their kind
This is a woman of great integrity and
if she sheep pledges something
There is no doubt that she's gonna follow through
So with that letter grade fauna, why
and day to you let a great fur, Amy Coney Barrett.
She is a just.
A pure aids, it's not a great form for dazzling right. It's Bork could be
contentious and info
actual end acerbic in fun in this
hearing, but ever since then they become.
Worse and worse, and but for all that
he was, you know she was had a kind of course.
His mother it as much as you can have in that setting,
She came off as like a great teacher and someone of
real probity, so a choice, I'm so disappointed that we haven't done Maisie her owner, because
I was I was gonna have to do. My first ungrateful see me.
I'm gonna buy.
gets in. As Michael says, it is a difficult forum for her because she is not really a lot to say anything but its clear. Despite that she's the smartest person in the room and the qualities that have got her here came through. Nevertheless, sheep didn't put if it wrong
yeah. It's nay. This is no doubt his knife were unanimous on a so was that let me get to our
sponsor this week
Things are navigating through several on anticipated crises. This year we, the people as a new Bradley
speakers series that offers insights and ideas on the current challenges we face from some of the realm
Workable organizations, the Bradley Foundation supports visit, Bradley Foundation, DOT org slashed liberty to watch the most
recent video episode on the Electoral College featuring Trent England, England, is the founder and executive director of save our states
dedicated educating Americans about the electoral college and defending it from the national popular vote campaign in this area.
He explains the history, the Electoral College House works and what happens if the rules chow
Each discussion is insightful analysis of the many merits of the way our president is elected. That's Bradley, with an l e, why the an foundations, abbreviated, F, G, an dot, org flash liberty to watch the video new episodes debut weekly, so comeback, often and subscribe to the Youtube Channel.
To be notified. Whenever a new one is posted again, it's Bradley Foundation, DOT, Org slashed liberty, please check it.
Out so its time and this ep to hit a few other things and then get to our editors, picks and b D. You watched recently the movie
rapidly yeah. I am greatly as a couple years.
all the stars, Sandra Bullock, as an astronaut and dumb
written by indirect, by Alfonso tourists on
the children of man needed a couple. The Harry Potter, films and
was an experience to see it in the theatres several years ago when it was out, but it still really
holds up on the home television screen and it's like a bit. It's a movie.
Kind of dramatize is health
refining space itself,
is and how.
credibly hostile to human life. The outer darkness is, but it's also like a not the very subtle when you really
get it it's, not very subtle religious parable and
lot of symbolism in it. Well,
she is the main character. Sandra Bullock is lost in her grief over a deceased child and then.
the George Clooney Characters, who is at the beginning?
kind of tells her. She Hasta let go which becomes very little.
She's still. Actually let go of him at some point
he kind of dies to save her, and then
kind of dreams,
state when she's totally
Where is he
appears as a vision to her and literally he's her martyr and
in point. She asked someone else to pray for Turkish does know how to pray starts. Looking
and then she actually kind of says a prayer
to her this angel figure. The George Clooney Character
at the end of the movie, when she finally crashes back to earth she's baptized lake, as you like in the mud,
yeah she's issues dropped into a body of water and it's like.
This is a story of how she
to accept the reality of death, prey to her martyr
angels and interests. Answers was ultimately staved and is
it's all right. They're they're sucks lots of little religious imagery. That's can have snuck in and dumb really powerful. It's a really powerful movie about grief and hope in the area just hiring a back. I saw it when it first came out and all I remember it from it now is just how
utterly terrifying. Scenes were where there's barely hanging onto to some armor.
or something and and the other just their grip. The stance stands between life and just getting out into nothingness cell crazy, Charlie. What you been up to,
a lot less terrifying and that my wife left prime prejudice, the BBC adaptation from nineteen ninety five and it has been restored into four K. They scan the original film for K resolution and is
available. It's as if they just re made the whole thing with exactly the same camera angles and actors and script and music by completely changes it before it was.
Fuzzy, and now you see everything I watched it with her that the thing
really come soon for case the costumes. It's it's
quite rewarding. I imagine for the people who worked on the original production, which is five as long as the big undertaking to have put all that work into the customs and
and asked tvs have got bigger and the.
Resolution has been relatively lowered. The beauty those costumes has as spend less obvious to disabled in for K version, which you can see on breadbox. I think
absolutely say it so that it is a costume drama that is once again a costume drama.
So I went to
play to the Bronx Zoo, and it is it's marvelous to see these amazing creatures at say that the giraffe's kind of a star, the show there's something that just the way it a giraffe moves or just just
takes you into a different world or different varmint, but I'm a guilty zoo go work. It is these creatures. It's really strikes me wrong. Tat to happen.
cooped up in this way. There a lot of birds at at the zoo and just having birds in a cage
Do you give a sizeable cage?
Is wrong so it it's! It's it's wonderful experience. It's one kids loves! I did to do this. A couple weeks ago was was at the distance of a lot of people. The barriers have a credible man of personality they're playing with Bob.
And what not, but I am guilty, Zoo, Gower and I'm glad there no longer elephants, theirs is
They belong to a group of decent. Incredibly,
how urgent social creatures
in the way that existed so anyway, that's that's my
You experience. Let's now go to our adders Ex Ante day, which your pic
so my pick is- and we may give a kind of collective endorsement to
the corner during an outcome
formation hearing like yesterday? The corner just kind of
reach is a new gear and David, her son ain't, demagogic, on Charlie,
Some are younger, fellows, like Isaac. Sure I'll just contribute these great little
short observations about how how
going and scrape so check up the corner? Jolly with your pick, my pig is Michael's. Peace Roberts invited
The court packing fiasco. Awhile ago friend of mine said that the problem with making up the law as many justice is on the Supreme Court have done. Is it it's a little bit like
lying to your wife in the first year of your marriage and then having to remember the lie for the rest of your life and build on it.
pretend you, like you eventually end up with his enormous web of lies, is completely unsustainable, and that is of course, what has happened with much of the court's jurisprudence
And it's what John Roberts has done. Maybe in the moment he felt it was better to lie to his wife.
he's now put his courts and he's put future nominees in a difficult position because they are the heirs to those.
eyes, I think Michael hits the nail on the head so much of the fracture sadness that we have seen in the last couple of days, not all of it, but so much of it stems from John rabbits his desire to protect the court, which has had the opposite effect. So my pick once again, I don't know this might be just two or three ups running is damn Laughlin article or pose this times corner pursed.
The democratic case that we actually didn't hit on this today approach should have that bear it should refuse herself and he pushes back against this idea, which is a characteristic, thorough ness and care so
Please check it out if you have an already, so that's it for us to the thing to an ash review. Podcasting re broadcast returned
Mission are accounted this game without express written permission of National Review magazine is strictly prohibited. Spot gas has been produced by the incomparable Sarris Jerry, who makes a sound better than we deserve. Take Jarley. Thank you envy day, thanks to act in online and we the p
Warm thanks specially to all you for listening. We are the editors and we'll see you
Transcript generated on 2020-11-01.