We first met Tim sander for years ago. He was a caller. He would call into the show when we were really wrong about something and straighten us out. He was Tim the Lawyer and a gentle He had a gentle touch, and we liked him. We started having him as a guest and uh, Tim sanderfer is his real name, not just Tim the Lawyer, And he's become a friend of the show, and uh he writes books and he's
in George Will called him a national treasure. Well then he met a gal, sweet gal along the way, and uh married Christina the Lawyer and Christina sanderfor we also have on the show regular regularly, and we're about to. But before we get her on, I saw she retweeted this yesterday about boycotting the Olympics in China, and she agreed that the Olympics should not be a platform for an authoritarian regime to showcase itself while persuading the rest
of the world to ignore genocide. I think we were talking earlier about the first of all, the popularity of China and the United States has just gone off a cliff. The number of people that have a positive view of China's now um it's doubled the number of people in the Unite State who think China is our number one enemy. All of this has happening just a short amount of time, and we were talking about how various businesses and parts of society you're going to have to disentangle from China.
I think Hollywood's gonna have to, the NBA is going to have to all but Apple has to at some point. Oh, dozens and dozens and dozens of major international brands and American brands in particular, are going to have to go through enormously challenging roads to decouple from China. And before we get to next year's Olympics in China, I think it will become very clear to everyone the idea of having Olympics in a country where they have millions of
slaves is insane. Well, let's let's welcome Christina Sander for end of the conversation. Christina is the executive vice president for the Gold Auterer Institute. She develops policies litigates cases advancing health care freedom, free enterprise, private property rights, free speech, taxpayer rights, and more. Christina, how are you. I am doing great. Thanks so much for having me. It's been a while. Yeah, it's been thank you, it's been too long.
Jack actually just stole my thunder. I was going to point out if China were merely engaged in genocide, they'd be a better country than they are, because they're simultaneously engaged in genocide and slave driving on a scale that you know, it's seventeenth century America could hardly dream of.
You know, it is unconscionable. I know we have a lot to talk about in a short amount of time, but I'll tell you I think it's unconscionable for Americans, for the United States as a country to to participate in this, to act like everything is fine, to show up and smile and play sports amongst people who are, as you say, literally enslaving their people. Um. And it
really provides some perspective. You know, it's amazing how focused people are today in the United States on the things that we don't have here and that you know, we don't have equality among the sexes and the races. And I am all I always believe that we should always strive to do better to extend the American dream to everyone. But while we are saying those things here, people are literally slaves in their own homes. Women, I mean to be a woman in China, to be a little girl
born in China. You may not even you may not even see adulthood. Uh. It's it's just incredible. And Americans need to wake up and understand that. Yeah. We we talked regularly about how it's weird looking back that they had the Olympics in Berlin with Hitler there in the stands of nineteen six. But this would be like having the Olympics in nineteen forty three in in in Berlin. When't we ever, when the world knows what's going on, it would be crazy. I I completely agree, could not
agree more. But you know they don't call me when they make these decisions. No, no, nor us. So Christina, we know that you and our friends at Pacific Legal Foundation are involved in quite an important case in front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals this week. What does she tell us about it? Yeah? You know, your
your legislators out in California are screwing things up again. Um. They passed a law that went into effect effect last year that says that all publicly traded companies that are either incorporated or even just headquartered in the state of California have to have a minimum number of women on their boards. And so the number starts at one, and it goes up based on on the size of the board. And if you don't comply, your company is going to
be subject to all of these fines. And you also end up on a government list so that everybody you know can chaptise you and talk about how terrible and sex is to your company is and and really, at the end of the day, I mean, I mean, this is a gender quota, and it forces the people who vote for board members, so corporate shareholders, to discriminate under law, it forces them to take a candidate sex into account
every single time they vote for a board number. And so you know, our our friends at PLF and and UH at the gold Water Institute here, we we've gotten involved. Um we sued the state where we're file a brief in the case. But because this violates the Equal Protection ca it is literally forced discrimination. The Constitution says that you can't force people to make decisions on the basis
of sex, and so it's illegal. But I actually think it's just incredibly patronizing to women and incredibly immoral for all of these men. I mean sorry to say, but a male dominated California legislature to tell me where my places and how many people that that look or seem like me ought to be on corporate boards? Who's throwing money behind both sides of this argument? You know, well, you know, it's always it's always a little bit hard
to follow the money trail. But I think this is really part of um, just this general sort of growing you know, left leaning concern about that we need to we need to socially engineer exactly you know, how many women, how many people of a certain race that we have in every single circumstance, and you know, and on boards and incompany ease. And it's part of this just general strive to be to be woke into you know, uh and so um, so you know, it's it's um, it's
definitely um. It's definitely something that the left has been focusing on. And I think that California is only I mean, California is the first date to do this, but they're not going to be the last. Right, you know, sometimes I'm afraid we're a little too hip for the room in terms of being lovers of liberty, especially these people come out of public schools and and taking the mainstream media.
Can you help somebody who's thinking, well, wait a minute, more women's on women's listen to me like I'm an old blues singer, More women on boards of directors, some women's um, more women is great. I mean, I'm pro woman. I have a couple of daughters. This seems like a good policy. Well what's the what's the liberty loving argument forgetting the government the hell out of these decisions? Yeah?
And you know, as a woman, I will say, and as a woman who has chosen to, you know, to be an executive leadership in an organization, it does make me happy to see that, you know, women are making tremendous gains in business leadership. There are more women now that own their own businesses or that are sitting on boards um and and better CEOs than ever before. I think it's wonderful. I think it provides a great role model for young women that you know, the American dream
is available to them and they can be anything. The problem is that these laws are not based in reality. The study after study has shown that it is almost never, it is very rare that it is a case of genuine discrimination um that you know, a woman may not be on a board, or that women may be quote unquote underrepresented on a board. The truth is that women tend to prefer flexibility. UM. Women are increasingly choosing to work in you know, the gig economy, so to to
drive for uber or lift or to sell things on Etsy. Um. Women tend to prefer flexibility so that they can, you know, either take care of their families, um, or just have different hours. Men tend to prefer your typical nine to five and and they look at higher pay and women look at benefits. And that is just a on average. That's certainly not every woman. It's certainly not me, but it's women. It's mostly women's choices that are putting them in the situation set there. And and that's not who
is government to say that that's good or bad? And frankly, the degree of hubris is breathtaking to me that government is to look at a board and say, okay, there should be one woman on this board. I mean, really, what is the right number of women? How many women should can board? How can government know that? Why just one?
Why don't why not don't we say at least you know, um, but at the end of the day, when we set these gender quotas that ignore women's preferences, we're also treating women as victims, and we are sending to me a very terrible message, a message of despair to young women.
We're telling them that you know, you cannot, without government's help, make it to be a CEO or make it on a board and women, as you know, so that companies can check these boxes and avoid these Finns, they're just going to be appointed as tokens for the sake of compliance, and that actually reinforces stereo of course, so that the first board meeting you'd have, you'd have the women in there that are either subtly or or or overtly treated as the only reason you're here is they had to
put you here by law absolutely, and that may or may not be, you know, the reality, but that's how it's going to come off and get his studies have shown this that that women who are hired under a quota system as opposed to merit, regardless of whether they actually do deserve to be, they're they're branded with a stigma of incompetence UM, and it makes it difficult for them to be treated seriously. And that's my biography title,
by the way, branded with the stigma of incompetence. You know, it's surprisingly fun rate Christina Sander Firs, Executive vice President the Goldwater Institute. You know, Christina, those are some absolutely great arguments on the merits. I a little uncomfortable even arguing it on the Merits. And let me let me illustrate it for people. Long ago. Jack and I came up with this policy about the show because we have a kind of our inner circle and the people who
help on the show. And and once or twice certain rogue members of the team way back in the day, like we would have a question about all right, and I'm just gonna pick up something ridiculous because this is not the point, but should we talk about politics two segments in a row? And that person took it upon themselves to go to various management personages and say, hey, A and G are wondering should they do to politics
segments in a row? And then all of a sudden you have the heavy belligerent hand of management that you have permitted into the conversation. And I think that the gut level understanding people ought to have is for the love of James Madison, do not invite the government into a room. It should not be because they will never leave. Their hand is heavy and cruel and stupid, and generally
they'll end up taxing you somehow. Absolutely right. Well, look this March is women's history month, right, so let's let's look at her story. I'm sorry or her story. You're not going to say history on this enough hate speech, Christina, I'm tgger that is true, you know. I I tend to I tend to do that, although it's not it's not the women that I'm triggering. Typically it is because I'm a libertarian, so I'm triggering the lefties. But so let's try it again. March is women's hearty month, is
whatever you want to call it. It is women's month. Right, But but seriously, though, what your your point is well taken, because you know, in the not too distant path, gender discrimination was actually legally institutionalized in a different way in our country. Every single state had laws on the books that would, you know, ban women from working in certain
professions things like teachers, lawyers, bartenders. They would band married women for working or even owning property because they said, once you're married, your job is to take care of your husband and raise your kids. Um laws that impose maximum hours on how much women can work because women are fragile, and you know, they're not able to work
as long as men. And literally in the nineteen sixties, as late as the nineteen sixties, over half of the states still excluded women from by law from doing some kind of work. And in early feminists fought back against this and they said, exactly what you said, that you know this, these laws are supposedly well intentioned, that government's
going to protect women. And they said, no, this is treating women as weak and incapable of making their own decisions, and it's telling us that we can't shape our own destinies. And women fought and fought and fought for true equality under the law, and now you know, we basically have that. And now we're turning back and we've got, you know, predominantly folks on the left that are are going back and inviting government back into our lives to tell us
where we ought to be and what we ought to do. Interesting, yep, well, said Christine to Sander for executive vice president with the Goldwater Institute. Fighting for your freedom all the time, Christine, it's been too long. It won't be so long the next time. It's great to talk to you. Hey, so good. I appreciate it. Looking forward to talking to you guys again. All right, thanks. I like the herk Stree behind some of these stories. Oh my god, you need to stop.
All right, you're gonna make me vomit. Nobody wants me to vomit. Set up some sort of family family Kay style chain vomitosis. Nobody wants that. Herks three arm and