The Three Whisky Happy Hour: Daddy's Home

I left in charge of the podcast like it reminds me of that old line of p J o'rouric about giving power to liberals is like giving the car keys and whiskey to a teenager. So I let you guys run this show. For the large part, I was gone and you can see where it went. So I'm back in charge. It's the three Whiskey Happy Hour. Good morning, everybody. I've got Lucretia at a disadvantage because she's not quite awake yet, but there we go.

and me, and it didn't provoke me. I actually agreed, but I didn't really get into it in our recent podcast where essentially you said, what Trump was the smartest guy in the room, especially when it comes to the grand strategy of this whole Middle East scene, and I

think beyond that. So I agree with that, but secondly, beyond that as a general theme to open up with today, you know, the whole scene right now with Trump and the country is in my mind, starting to take on the same vibe as the nineteen eighties, you know, Morning in America with Reagan right things everything was starting to go right at leading force to a forty nine state landslide in nineteen eighty four. But you know, success briefed,

success and good grief. I look up right now at where Trump is at the moment, So more wins at the Supreme Court. That'll be our main subject for today. NATO calling him daddy. I love that part, calling him daddy and saying, yeah, we'll spend five percent of GDP on defense. Almost all European countries said they would do that. European Union.

for the universities. The fact that they're fighting back so vigorously makes it evident that Democrats understand that universities are adjunct organizations of the Democratic Party. Nothing could be more clear than the way they're fighting this. I think it's unprecedented in Virginia for the political the legs to block the governor's appointees. Okay, Trump lowered the boom on China, and at the end of the week the stock market

reached a whole new high. So it could hardly get any better than that unless it would be passing the big beautiful bill, which I'm certain is going to pass, if not by the end of next week, then at least by the end of the month.

deals through. So this is natural to him to be on the phone twisting arms. And so that's why I think this thing is going to pass in one form or another anyway. That's that's sort of my opening is uh, you know Trump is living a charmed life. Anybody will.

the next step up is nuclear, biological or chemical on her. So, look, Steve, I think I think we should be cautia is not to be exaggerating how well Trump's doing. I think it is completely the case that the strategic situation the Middle East has been changed. But I think that's because of Israel. We've been helping Israel. Basically, what we did is we

unleashed Israel. I think that's what Trump's insight is. I don't think Trump right, you know, destroyed Hamas and you know, crippled Hezbolah and taken out all of Iran's air defenses to point that it's incredible there's air supremacy over Tehran

for the Israeli Air Force. But it's important to recognize that past American presidents had kept Israel from doing exactly this, and so I think this is, you know, to explain my sense of what Trump has done is that he is letting the Allies take care of their own business in the region. So I actually don't think of the nuclear strikes like a lot of people do or mega people worry about that's an an increase in American intervention.

Mostly what we've done is armed Israel and let it go, and let Israel armed with the right values that we agree with, remake the Middle East. And then we did the one thing they couldn't, which was drop those gigantic, massive ordnance penetrators on the newcles. But that's because that was an art interest. So I wouldn't overstate what. And there's going to be setbacks, I think because Israel is a very tiny country and they're fighting much larger countries.

I wish them all the success, and I think they're going to, you know, hopefully be able to put into place their wins. I don't think it's because of Trump necessarily.

arm out of our treasury the Israelis. We just need to provide them with weapons, and we need to give them the moral authority of the United States to continue what they're doing, to be on their side. That was always my argument, and I'm going to say that that's a little bit of what you just said. But when you say Trump doesn't deserve that much credit, the point of my article was all previous presidents listened way too

much to their advisors, to the foreign policy establishment. You know that you can't have peace unless there's a state and a two state solution, and you know, all of these things that prevented them from thinking about the conflicts in the Middle East in a whole new way. Trump was willing to do and in that way, and he was not. This was the underlying theme that was meant to be a slam mostly at you, John, but a little Steve, because he's always bringing up these damn stupid

theories international relations. There's game, theory, real is, whatever all of those are. If you think in those terms, your thinking is necessarily bounded by the outlines of those theories. And that's you know, Trump probably does never read an

international relations book in his life, lucky him. But it also means that he just doesn't buy into those theories, and that every every single conflict across the world that the president wants to address or ignore has to be understood in terms of some foreign relations, some foreign policy theory that somebody from some stupid think tank came up.

It just sort of says, well, he's got sort of common sense, and he looks at the circumstances and he does something reasonable. But reasonable is just a word for you know, it's just like a fudgy word that you can use to say, well, that's you know, you got to figure out something more than just reasonable. Right, he's decided.

We even saw that when he went to the Middle East and talked to you know, those the different countries and look, I'm not here, I'm not here to tell to change you and make you like the United States. You should embrace your your ethnic identity, your national identity. He wants a world of peace, and he wants to do what he can with the power of the United States to pursue that. But he doesn't want to do it by intervening in the ways that the foreign policy

apparatus has said we should do. Over the last say, I don't know, since Vietnam probably make the world safe for democracy, shall we say? I think that that Trump's it just doesn't fit into a theory because because you're right, the theories are really there to make the world simpler to understand. But my problem with them is exactly that once you simplify things too much, you're not looking at all the possibilities. You're not looking at all the opportunities and so on. Sorry, Steve, go ahead.

do you implement it and achieve it. That's what I didn't understand from the peace, or understand from listening to Trump and listening to what these mega people work in his administration say. The words are all the same thing every president's. Every president wants peace. Every president says their America first, right, Every president says they're defending our security. We're not ordering everybody around. But then how they well, let's let's take a closer look here John, and here I'm.

US and Israel right now. And then the fact that Trump did not visit Israel on that trip that Lucretia referenced was now I think, by the way, that was all deliberate misinformation deception by US and Israel, because it has emerged enough details have come out that in fact, Trump and NETANYAHUO were in very close communication and agreement as to giving the green light to Israel to attack and then after the sixty day period to let negotiations

play out, and then so say more about that. But then the other thing is Trump said, you know, I'm going to give him two weeks to decide to make peace, and we now know that he already decided that he was inclined to use our bunker busters to strike before the two weeks was up. He sent the B two planes westward to Guam as a faint, which I think

was also a signal to Chinese. But never mind that for the moment sending carrier strike groups and then suddenly we wake up and discover, oh, he didn't wait for two weeks after all, he went and did it, and once again we know that he was in close communication with that Yahoo. They were putting out more disinformation to deceive everybody about this. That to me shows some real Machiavellian skill on Trump's part.

this anti Israel thing. If you cannot see how Israel is a force for peace in the Middle East and by extension, in the world, you're just not You're you're not paying attention, You're not worth It's kind of like what I know, we'll get to it, but I'll bring it up and do my manaculpos. It's kind of like Amy saying to Kaitanji, you're not We're not even going to address your stupid ass opinion.

it by themselves. We should stay out of it. He shouldn't drop a single bomb. Well, he's turned on a dime. And that's because he recognizes that. As Walter Russell meet puts it in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend, this is Jacksonian foreign policy. This is Jacksonian move by Trump. And Dan said, yep, that's right. And so I think you're seeing a lot of the thoughtful skeptics of American

involvement have come around, and the polls show this. I mean, there have been polls of sort of maga Republicans and it's like eighty percent support for what he did. So it's a minority fringe, some with I think bad motives, some the sort of libertarians who don't want us to even police our borders, right, but as a whole, I think Oh. And the final point would be, even if you thought that this was an opening to possible American involvement in the Middle East, again, ask yourself this question.

Would Trump sign off on building a seven hundred million dollar embassy complex like the Bush and Obama administrations did for Afghanistan, or a billion dollar embassy complex for Baghdad which the Bush and Obama administration signed off on. The answer to that is obvious. That was never going to happen. There was never going to be nation building or direct regime change from Trump. And so I don't know why people have got their nickers in a twist about it.

right back. Okay, we are back now to turn to the main event of which we have the most expertise. It's the end of the Supreme Court. Several cases released in a batch here at the end of the week. I think the biggest one was striking down the universal injunctions for the most part. We'll talk about the caveats there, but a couple other wins I think, and I don't know. Let's start with you, John. I'm going to say for Lucretia,

recapping Barrett's SmackDown of Jackson, because that was fabulous. But so what do you say about the decision and what are the limitations or caveats we should take from a more close reading of it.

It's just that has enormous political consequences because it is that procedural issue that has allowed any one district judge in a country that has I think about seven hundred active district judges and another one hundred or two senior judges who also can hear case is from stopping the elected president's legal agenda throughout the country for quite some time if he wants. The legal issue is It's interesting.

I wrote Argle about this law thirty years ago. I find it really interesting, but I don't think it's that important in the grand scheme of things, certainly not as important as birthright citizenship. And that's the question. Does a court excuse me, have the power under Article three of the Constitution, or is authorized by statute to give relief to issue decisions that go beyond the parties before the court? And Justice Barrett shows and this is what we were

talking about before. Courts just didn't understand that to be their power. At the time of the founding thin It's pretty easy. There were no such things as nationwide in junctions. The power of the courts then, as you decide the case they're controversy. That's the phrasing the Article three of the Constitution, and that means pointiff wins, defendant loses, or vice versa. And then you give relief to those parties.

You don't then say, and therefore, not only do I order the state department to give this person a passport, I order every the state department to give everyone in the country who's not before me who's qualifies for a passport. That was the abuse of powerful, very simple, straightforward. Yeah, that's I mean. The legal issue was really boring and simple and obvious. It's obvious it was going to come

out to it. The political issue, of course is and this we'll get to, what's you know, the political you know issue is how do you reconcile a limited judiciary with an elected president. I think they didn't cite him, as far as I know, I looked at the major opinion. I didn't see them cited. But this is really also I think, a nod to Lincoln's theory of how you deal with the Supreme Court.

court gets to say everything. No, Marshall did not. He did say that it is the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is, but the practice of judicial review in the case of Marbury versus Madison, where Marshall overturned a law, portion of a law passed by Congress dealt only with the court's own powers.

And I think that that's a really critical point. It's not anti Lincoln, but Lincoln just said the country should not necessarily accept this notion that all slaves an you know everything about dread Scott. I won't go into it.

But also Lincoln wasn't president at the time, and so Lincoln wasn't not necessarily concentrated on the argument, which I totally agree with him on this that the people should not accept as a binding precedent for the whole country a decision by that imminent tribunal, because then they've they've

handed over their republic. What's important about Amy's decision here is that this is about who gets to decide their own powers, right, And she made that very you know, scathing comment to Katji, you're worried about an imperial executive, what about an imperial judiciary? This is not the judiciary's role. And if you're worried, that was the only thing I didn't really like about it. There was a hint at the idea that maybe the courts would need to step

in and do something about a president. I don't even think the Supreme Court should have the power to do that, but we don't have to get into that now. Anyway. My point is is that Marshall's opinion in Marbury was so misused in dred Scott. They didn't listen to Lincoln. You've made that point many times, and very well, John, they didn't listen to Lincoln. And it has been downhill for the Supreme Court ever since. This is this, this whole session of the Court might be the tiniest step

on trying to ratchet that back a little bit. And of course, you know, it's the end of the world as we know it if the Supreme Court can't, you know, give transsexuals children the right. Anyway, I'm done, Steve, you go ahead.

As I think Justice Barrett rightly said, oh gosh, the republic seemed to function pretty well into the first nationwide injunctions really started to get going in you know, the two thousands. In fact, you might say the country was better off before there were nationwide injunctions than after. And so I think she was fully deserving of the SmackDown. But let me give some you know, there is some support for the descent, but I think it's easily handled.

The descents. Real worries should just be that you're going to have right passports given out in Massachusetts to illegally children of illegal aliens, but in Texas perhaps you won't. And so you have federal law being a ministered very differently all across the country. That is, you know, that is undesirable. And so what's going to have to happen is.

just to those parties who were then before the court. Right, it doesn't make in that district a permanent injunction against the president's executive order? Am I making sense? Just what I'm asking?

of the we the people and who are not. But that happens all the time. That's the thing where the again, the descent is over the top. We always have cases where federal law is interpreted differently. That's why we have appeals courts, and that's why we have a Supreme Court. So what it really means is that and this will be interesting because what people said, yes and this decision expands the power of the presidency, or I would just

say restores it. But what it also does, what people have not noticed, is that it dramatically expands the power of the Supreme Court over the rest of the judiciary, because now the Supreme Court is going to grab cases earlier and earlier out of the hands right of Chriald judges and Peel can accelerate them to the Supreme Court, so they can decide something like birthright systemship And that's

a good thing. Well, they have to, because you don't want passports given out to a versus b throughout the country. That's the only thing you can do. Now, I think that's I think that's a better thing than having, you know, six district judges decide the issue differently all around the country. I think that's a poltry.

Section twenty three or rule twenty three. Essentially there's still maybe the doors open a crack for certifying class actions in some of these And so you know, well, now these district judges are gonna First of all, lefty lawyers will go to district judges and say this is a class action case, and lefty judges will say, yeah, I listen.

it's slow. It's really slow, so that yes, you could, you could still get class actions. A lot of these might not be you know, these kind of issues are not preferable for or suited for class actions. But it takes a lot of time to get a class action. So if you're an opponent at Trump, yeah you could go down the class action route, but it's still better.

You'll still do You'll get the issue faster to the court, which is what you should want by just filing individual separate actions and trying to get them to conflict.

that this is the essence of popular sovereignty. I mean, it was a subtle argument Lincoln had to bring to bear in order to prove that Douglas was wrong about that. You see that kind of thing. This is why I went off on the tangent, Steve. The interesting thing is you see that all the time these days you heard you said it yourself, John, that Kittinji talked about how this was the end of the rule of law. Schumer talked about how this was the end of the rule

of law. Those important concepts that form the very basis of our foundational the foundations of our constitutional republic are misused by people who don't understand them, and the demagogues in our society all of the time. And Douglas was one of the first to misuse the our democracy trademark. You know. So it's just and you know, we could go into for days talk about the reasons that they

get away with that kind of nonsense. But my point is is that if Steve is correct, John, I will tell you that because that term figures so prominently in the whole Antebellum period and Lincoln's fight against the extension of slavery. You probably needed to be more specific, but since I have not read the article, I won't even accuse you of that.

important cases this week. One Supreme Court upheld the Texas law, saying that they can require the Internet service providers to verify people's addressed access porn, and of course everybody's going crazy. This is a violation's First Amendment. I don't think so. A separate ruling saying indeed states can restrict medicare access.

The other one was out of Maryland, the parental rights case saying parents absolutely have the right to withdraw their kids from the public schools when you're gonna have the LGBTQ curriculum, and that's upsetting everybody on the left. I think maybe the you guys can pick any one of those if you want to say something. Well, before we go on, well, one more case. I want to mention it's I think the only possible loss. But I haven't read the case yet. Was the case John that it

was a non delegation consumers research, consumer's research. I can talk about that.

Sodomayor who wrote one of the dissenses I recall. I think it's almost as if they are incapable of any kind of discernment when it comes to every argument they make is a thin end of the wedge argument. I guess you could say, and that children should be protected from seeing, you know, from books that celebrate transsexualism and so on, is so common sense. And but but you know, Kagan my or Kitty Aingie will immediately turn this into

mass censorship. Yeah, and I know that John schooled us a couple of weeks ago about that's how lawyers think, what are the limits to these things? And maybe that's what's wrong with having every single one of these questions go to the judiciary. If that makes sense, it.

from online pornography. And then right the other case. So about so you have these three pieces which are all pro families. So that's the thing. But I think the interesting constitutional issue, which I want to ask you guys about what you think, is this is a classic case of bringing in political theory from outside the constitution into the constitution because there is no provision in the constitution that says, right that you have to respect families. I

am glad that the courts do right. There are these cases are peers versus society of sisters and so on, where all these cases we're talking about today trace their origins to. But that's not in the text of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Talks about protecting individual liberties, it doesn't talk about protecting families. So you guys should be super super happy because they are drawing in natural

rights concepts. But let me ask, why is it that natural rights protects families and gives them the sort of same status, actually not same superior status to a natural right like free speech.

And again it would take it would take a lesson from Aristotle, right Steve, in order to carry this out fully, which we're not going to do today, but that you could even challenge it is really simply as it's communism and progressivism being the ideas behind it becoming so forceful in our society that we have to fight back with something that somebody would never have challenged even one hundred

and fifty years ago. I mean, it's just all of human history is understood that the family is a basing, basic building block of any society, and that children belong to their parents. They do not belong to the state. And the choice about how to how to raise a child it's always been understood to be the parent's decision. When the state had to intervene. Where on the margins right, the parents are abusing the child, the parents, whatever it might be, the parents are taking them into a cult.

Those kinds of things bring up questions nobody ever questioned until the Communists came along. You and I talked about this, John, when we didn't have Steve. The Communists came along and understood that.

And we've always understood Aristotle to be absolutely right because it his view about the family dovetails perfectly, not just with common sense, but with all of recorded human history until until Marx came along and said, you need to destroy that if you want to rebuild society. So there you go, Steve, you can do better than that.

the Humphreys executive issue firing firing subordinate executive officials. Both one, but they're disappointing to conservatives because in application, uh, the liberals managed to convince a conservative here there to uphold what the government did. So in consumer's research we talked about I think this is the case where the FCC sticks that tax on all of our phone bills at the bottom. Right at the bottom of your phone bill,

you'll see this tiny universal charge. And the lower court, the Fifth Circuit Texas, I thought, quite reasonably said Congress cannot delegate to an agency the power to impose a tax. If there's anything Congress has to do, it's set taxes. The court said, Justice Kagive werthe the opinion, So of course you should be suspicious. But she said, we agree there's a non delegation doctrine. We just don't think it's violated here. We don't think this is really a tax.

It's just like a user fee, and the agencies can impose that they always have. Yeah, so that was a missed opportunity. But on the other hand, you now have many many I think all the justices now have to agree that there is a non delegation doctrine, and there are you know, ten years ago the liberal justices would say, oh, that's some creature product of the New Deal Court that opposed FDR, but they missed their chance. The other case,

the Public Health Board. This is very interesting. Everyone admitted that this board was in the executive branch. Everyone also admitted Congress said this board is an independent board, but so everyone admitted it's an executive branch agency the exercise delegated power. The president must be able to fire everybody. The statute was then read by the Court in a very creative way to say the president can fire everybody. So they had a chance to overturn Humphrey's executor in

this case, they but they did not. They passed on it. But very interesting. Justice Kavanaugh is probably the fifth vote on an extending Humphreys overturning Humphrey's executive. He wrote a very interesting concurrence which no one's talking about, where he said, if an agency exercises delegated power from Congress, it cannot

be independent from the president. So if that's true, Humphreys executor is really dead because what he's saying is there can't really be an independent agency that has any real power at all. So I think actually reading these two decisions, the left should be really upset. But they're so focused on right nationwide injunction. Let me ask a question of John that's happening.

don't think I don't think a lot of you know that. Thomas, Alito and Gorsa you think that way, But I think Roberts and Kavanaugh think that way unfortunately, And I think you see it here.

We turn every important question now in our national political arena over to the Court, And if that's going to be the case, then Robert is Roberts is more or less obligated to do a little bit of that balancing. Does that make sense what I'm trying to say, guys, I mean, I don't think the Court should be deciding every single political controversy and turning it in somehow into this tiny little legal issue that they can pretend really

covers at all. They shouldn't be deciding it. I mean, in my opinion, I won't go into examples, but if you're going to do that, if the court is going to be profoundly political, then it has to be a little bit careful.

Not only they do three decisions today making clear the right of families overcomes other rights like free speech or the right of the government to run education, they also overturned Dobbs, expanded gun rights, got rid of affirmative I mean, this is like a winning streak like we've never seen before for conservatives. Maybe not since you know, they struck down the first New Deal. It's just that they went

out on that. So maybe the reason I says by Lucretia is maybe in order to make sure this these wins are more permanent than the Court of nineteen thirty five or nineteen thirty is that you have to you know, hedge and you know, sometimes not decide all the issues at once to understand the political systems, you don't trigger

a response. I think that's the best case to make on Roberts's part, that even if you're conservative, you can only do so many conservative things at once, and they've done an unbelievable number of them in the last five years. It's like it's like a dream you know, a dream team of what I mean, like a wish list of what they've actually done. There's the conservatives are running out of stuff they want.

you know, we don't hear very much. But then when there started to be the tiniest, tiniest little break in the dam of liberal decision making, an expansion of power by the courts, and the idea that you would, for instance, overturn well Roe versus Weight. I'll use that as the example. Overturning Roe versus Weight is not judicial activism, it is judicial restraint. Right, But those terms are nowadays meaningless. But I would argue John that the reason I can applaud

so many of these decisions by the Roberts courts. Okay, oh God again, I'm going to say something nice about Roberts is he does understand to a great extent that the courts I don't think it fully understands it, but I still have problems. But he understands that there's not that reigning in the power of the courts itself is important to maintaining the court's integrity in our system, and I think many of the decisions can be understood in

that way. They are overturning or reconfiguring older decisions that gave the court way too much power. Is that unfair? But the left doesn't like it because the left wants the court to be in their pocket, and they don't.

by degrees. Is a long story that I have in my book, but it got It was one of the only organizations and publications that moved to the right and explicitly became an alternative to Consumer Reports, which became very natorite in the seventies, right, and by degrees, my old mentor, Stan Evans became publisher and editor of it, and then it declined as magazines did, and Stan retired and later died,

and somehow Leonard Leo ended up acquiring it. So you know what they've done by not deciding the case the way I think Leonard wont it was making mad which I kind of like. Anyway, No, it did do that, John, but it was if you go back and look at old episodes of old issues, which I have a few, it was very much a right wing consumer magazine which has made a lot of fun. So there you go.

But we're going to take a quick break and come back, and we're gonna press this originalism question just one more step and then we'll have to get out for the day,

all right. I don't want to press this originalism question just a little further because a week after Scurmetti, which everyone celebrated for its outcome, there are people who like friends of ours, like Haley Arcis, but certainly not him alone, saying, oh wait a minute, Robert's opinion is based on the narrowest ground of the stupid rational basis test or what Scalia used to call the babbling idiot's test and frustration

that we're not. I mean, you did mention John that families win and that's good and that that is imported from the logic of the Constitution and not the plain, black and white text of it. But the argument is, you know, maybe we should expect better, maybe we should now be even more aggressive about pushing a natural law originalism and you know, surfacing Thomas's point of view more directly. So just very quick comments from both of you on that if you have any lucreatia, you had your hand up.

the most simplistic about this. I you know, taught con law to undergraduates for many years, and when I would when I would explain the three pronged tests under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, I would begin by saying that every law discriminates, and what the equal Protection Clause does is to try to say that when you discriminate, you do so on the basis of a rational constitutional reason, and what you don't do is discriminate on the basis

of something like something irrational, like and immutable characteristic a race, and so on and the court over time developed the three pronged the rational basis tests at the other end, the suspect categories, and then the important governmental interest tests it seems to take in sex and things like that. There's a logic to it. I'm not sure that you know, we're never going to go backwards and not have that test,

but there's logic to it. And I will give Roberts more credit than our good friend Hadley in this case because not allowing sexual identity, the power to choose your sexual identity to become a suspect category means that the courts gives a deference to the government and all those other things that you know we teach about about that three prong tests. But that was a huge win, and I you know, you could, yeah, you could have the court go off into some really important things about natural

law and so forth. But it was unnecessary because if the opposite had happened. If the opposite had happened, if transsexual, that whole despicable movement had somehow secured from a more liberal court that that in and of itself was a suspect category, this would have been disastrous. Would have been no stopping the worst kinds of horrors in this society done to children, and on and on and on. So I'm going to again one more time. I'm going to

give Roberts some credit here. Maybe he could have gone further, even as as our friend Hadley said to us, Thomas didn't go for the why not It wasn't necessary. This is not the place to school the entire country on natural law.

it into effect. So I think that what your talking about here is just a variation on Hadley's argument about Dobbs being wrong too, because he would have said, and Dobbs, a court should have banned abortion nationwide, and he's here saying Instagrammetti, you should have banned transgender medical treatments, not just allow states to make them, but to ban them outright right, because you don't recognize transgender I think those

are perfectly appropriate philosophical views to have and political views to have. But in our system of government, that's the argument you make to the legislature and the executive branch, not the judiciary. So I do think, and you know, I signed someone had these work in the classes I teach because I want them to see how there are people who have this philosophical belief. He's just like the

Dwarkins and the Rawles on the other side. He has a philosophal beief and he wants to use the courts to implement it because he thinks the moral view is more important than respecting the separation of powers. That's really what Scalia's whole career was about on the Supreme Court was standing against every right. We talked about this as famous lecture he gave at the Vatican where he said, I, as a Catholic, agree that the death penalty is immoral, but I am not going to strike down the death

penalty under the constitution. As a judge. You can do it through the legislature. That but that's that's the other Argan is going to just add on to the creature by having the courts do that. You're going to see less moral argument in politics, right, because everyone says, oh, the Supreme Court is the moral arbiter. But if really the legislators should make these moral arguments, like Lincoln is the one who should make the moral arguments about.

with that? Why would you go a step further further undermine the the uh, you know, reputation of the court with the left to do that, and you know, so to the point where they no longer pay any attention to court opinions. If this, if the Tennessee was a Tennessee legislator or Kentucky Tennessee legislature came to such a great decision, uphold the decision, you know that that's that's

what the court ought to do. And I again, like you, John, I agree politically, morally with everything Hadley said, but I also agreed that it's not the Court's place to do those things. Even Thomas didn't do it, you know.

the dyke with the short hair. Sorry, No, she's not. I know she's not. She's married to some awful leftist and she decided after she had breast cancer that she was gonna make a statement with her short, manly gray hair.