Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty Armstrong.
And Jettie and he Armstrong and Getty Strong.
President now claiming quote some progress in the effort to end the war in Ukraine, saying he thinks Putin quote has had enough, but Putin giving no indications Russia is any closer to a ceasefire. President Trump now saying he will leave it up to Ukraine and Russia to negotiate for now.
What about the Putin call? Remember we had a clip of that? What was that about? Show years ago? Show the Putin call? That's from like eight years ago, So I don't remember that at the very beginning of Trump one. Yeah, any who, Trump was on the phone with Vladimir Putin for about two hours yesterday, and the takeaway seems to be I'm gonna let them work it out. Which where does that leave things? It leaves it as a win
for Putin. I think yes, although the ball is in Trump's court because he has not said, at least as of yet, Okay, if you're going to let them work that out, does that mean them working it out while we continue to give a tremendous amount of aid, intelligence aid maybe being the most important to Ukraine or not, Because if it's or not, it's a big deal. Yeah.
I feel like those of us who would like to see the US backing Ukraine are digging through about our fifteenth pile of manure looking for the pony in Trump's negotiations, just this. Maybe he's got this up his sleeve, you know, feeling or hope.
It's just it's been dashed over and over again. Well, he does have to go one way or the other. We are either going to continue to back Ukraine the way we have for three years or not. And if we're not, that's a major change. I think it's more likely that one happens. Will he announce it or will it will it just become evident at some point, I don't know, after this period of Zelensky in Ukraine and Europe doing everything conceivable conceivable to make.
It clear we want peace too, We're with you on this, and putin never giving a single sign that he has.
Any interest in Trump's piece too.
No, if it if the US policy becomes well and you all are on your own, we're not going to support a Ukraine well.
Then we've but it's not a nothing we've cided with right now. In my opinion, I know one hundred that's exactly my point. Yeah, And what seemed to be the lean is indeed coming true. It was it was less than Putin showing you wasn't interested in peace right now. He gave Trump a long lecture about why Ukraine belongs to Russia, and he said this will not end until the underlying problems are solved. Well, the underlying problems will not be solved until he has Ukraine correct. Yeah. Yeah.
As Rich Lowry writes in The National Review, the play for the Kremlin is obvious here. It wants to keep pinching ahead with territorial gains, and if it continues to string along the negotiations, has to hope that Trump tires of the whole thing and cuts off USA to Ukraine. That would reward Putin's intransigent with an important diplomatic victory is split between the US and Europe and a chance to make major advances against an increasingly hard pressed Ukraine.
And the only reference really to Trump being tired of Putin and understanding that he's being played was that reference to Putin's tapping me along.
But I mean to.
Come out of the call yesterday and say, yeah, I think we made progress.
I don't know who that is.
Well.
Jd Vance presented it as as well, if you guys aren't interested, then hey, we're out. As if that is a actually a neutral position. That is not a neutral position, that's a taking the side of Russian position. So I don't know if they're just trying, if they're trying to fool people by presenting it is like we're just staying neutral on this or what. So the ball is first off, I think in Trump's court, but then absolutely in Europe's court as they got to figure out what to do.
So they had a big meeting over the weekend of European leaders with a couple of interesting things that came out of it. A big defense meeting of the Germany, the big people Germany, Britain, France, poland a couple of things. They announced. Germany is going to lift their prohibition on nuclear energy that they've had since World War Two, so they are going to, like France, start using nuclear energy so that they don't have to buy energy from Russia.
So that's a pretty big deal economically for Russia. Yeah, they a so announced in that meeting that Russia will does not present NATO a dilemma in five years like had previously been thought if the war were to end soon, but could within a year, like they could be back up to speed enough within a year to present NATO a real dilemma of what do we do now? If they move on Estonia, they would be strong enough. That's
what the European countries announced over the weekend. And then I really liked this quote that came out of it. I think from the leader of Poland. Russia has been playing hockey for years. We are not going to figure skate our way out of this.
Oh that's some good ice sport metaphor slinging there, sir.
Yeah, thatam well done. That went with also one of the leaders saying the years of two percent funding of our military are over. It's going to have to be more like five percent. Yeah.
There are days I wish we had unlimited time for this sort of thing because it's so interesting.
I have all sorts of interesting.
Well I suppose you all will be the judge of that when I delivered it, but I found it really really intriguing analysis of Europe and everything that's wrong with it. I think the Russia attack on Ukraine following the annexation of Crimea, and the attack on Georgia and everything else has has.
And Germany continuing to buy oil from Russia after that happened, and all those kinds of things, well, right, I think it's finally gotten to the point that it's shaken the dopey, dopey Euros out of their torpor, their their their sleepiness, their fantasy land that they've been living in for the past a bunch of years after you know, the US security umbrella and enabled them to invest vast sums of money into welfare states and socialism and the rest of it. And I would I.
Would like to issue a hammering indictment against them for all of that crap.
But I think they're right about Russia and Ukraine. We're not going to figure skate our way out of this. Yeah, yeah, I love that. Here's the takeaway.
And this was going to be the takeaway after I built a case over many, many minutes, but I'll give you the takeaway. We need to work every day as a country to not become Europe.
And there are a couple of examples of a.
Great piece by Walter Russell Mead about why democracy is in retreat, and he cites several cases in Europe about anybody who does not go along with the very very mainstream view of who ought to get elected and what policies ought to be passed is decried as undemocratic and dangerous, like the AfD party in Germany. And I could go into detail on that. The more I learned, the more
interested I get. But their definition of democracy is the results I want, and anything that challenges that is swept aside. Like the AfD ought to be in an alliance with the party that won the most seats. It's obvious the efforts to keep them out because of a few crack pots and being a little soft on Russia or whatever is just it's twisting the German political system into knots were sucsessed with it.
The men declared a terrorist organization or whatever so people can listen to their phone calls and read their emails.
Well, yes, but actually, as long as we're talking about this is let me click over.
I think it's right there.
Yeah, So last week the German government officially designated the opposition party AfD as a confirmed extremist organization. The announcement came from the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, their domestic intelligence agency, blah blah blah. Then on Wednesday they abruptly withdrew the extremist label. They will now monitor the party only as a suspected case, which still allows some surveillance in a way Americans would find repugnant, but
under much stricter judicial oversight. And somebody leaked the report and it reveals that the evidence against the AfD consisted not of plans for violence or insurrection, but just controversial rhetoric and deeply nationalist views, none of which should have triggered that designation. So it was the quote unquote mainstream powers that be trying to label as extremist anybody who dared shake their hold on power, which is exactly what I was driving at. Their definition of democracy is democracy
with the right results, and that's terrible. The other thing I really wanted to talk about is the Wall Street Journal had a great piece about how huge tech is in the world economy right now, technology in general, and how tiny.
Europe's share of it is.
The EU rivals, I mean, it's it's in the same weight class more or less. If you take it as a whole, the US economy and the Chinese economy, it's a juggernaut. But you want to talk tech, Oh, it's sad, it's pathetic. Apple's market value is bigger than the entire German stock market, for instance. There's no Google, there's no Amazon, there's no Meta. In Europe, there's nothing even slightly close.
And this Journal article goes into depth and has a bunch of different examples of native born tech people, German tech people who brought what they learned back from Silicon Valley to Europe and were immediately crushed by strict labor laws, a risk averse business culture, suffocating regulations, smaller pool of venture capital, lackluster economic growth, no demographic growth, and said no, and back to California they went, or other places. Yeah and so, and you know that list. I'm going to
hit it one more time and we freemar marketers. So hold old dragon fans. I know we're sad. And then we ought to have industrial planning in tariffs and the rest of it. But Europe is crushed by a timid and risk averse business culture, strict labor laws, suffocating regulations, smaller pool of venture capital, and lackluster economic growth.
Don't become Europe.
That's what we as a country need to repeat to ourselves every morning. You gotta make your bed. It's a small act of discipline and positive something or other. I believe in it very much, and say, let's not become Europe today.
Like when you get up in the morning, I'm going to be a good person today or whatever your mantra is, right, I'm going to do kindness, whatever, do God's will today and stay positive. Let's not become Europe today.
Yes, we're going to build a utopia through a million regulation.
Yes. Hour two. I'll get into a little of what I pulled out of the first part of Jake Tapper's book that I started reading last night when I was in bed again unintentionally hilarious, along with some interesting nuggets about what was going on there. It's the biggest failure of media in our nation's history, and it should not just disappear as a minor thing. Luckily it has not been for at least the last couple of weeks.
Jack Armstrong and Joe The Armstrong and Getty Show, The Armstrong and Getty Show.
So I watched the Minecraft movie over the weekend with my son Henry, and I was about to talk about it, and I thought I should look up a little of how successful this movie was to back up my premise, and I googled it first. Then I remembered what you keep saying, No, you got to use the chat GP two. I'm trying to get out of a habit of googling and go to chat GPT. The answer I got on chat GPT about I just asked chat GPT, was the
Minecraft movie a financial success? It's answer so much better and thorough than googling it, I mean, not even close. So I gotta get out of the habit of googling. Anyway, a Minecraft movie has made almost a billion dollars worldwide after a budget to make it of only one hundred and fifty million dollars, which I gotta believe all of the filming of the acting of that movie could have been done in an afternoon probably. I mean, there wasn't much to it, and it was all so much was
green screen. It was all CGI stuff and everything like that. And like I mentioned, Jack Black, what an interesting dude. I don't know is he married or not. I've seen him in various interviews. He's certainly not trying to impress chicks. He wears ill fitting clothes, he doesn't wash his face or coma's hair. He rolls in, does his line's brilliantly because he's really good, and and uh collects his money
and goes home. What an interesting thing that is? What movie star has never wanted to care how they look? Like Jack Black, he cames getting fatter and greasier anyway. I mean, you ain't gonna be fat if you want, maybe you think that's part of your appeal. You can wash your face AnyWho. The Minecraft movie, first of all, way better than I expected it to be. I thought it was. It was only an hour forty five, but I thought, uh, I thought this is gonna be kind
of tough to sit through. And it was quite entertaining, pretty dang funny by the end it had it reminded me of like all your Lord of the Rings movies. Okay, another giant fight sequence. I just I can't do fight sequences like a lot of people can, apparently endlessly. I get it. But my main takeaway was, and if I was rich, I would start if like really like Elon
rich I would come up with this idea today. It was basically a series of popular memes that young people get strung together so that everybody could laugh together about Hey, I get this meme and feel part of something. That's what it seemed like to me. And I'll bet you could put one of those out once a month of just whatever the most recent hot memes were, right, make
it like ninety minutes long. It's just a series of meme jokes that every teenager gets and things to the hilarious, and it would be super popular because that's basically what the Minecraft movie was. So just a recognition slash belonging fest, yeah, because other things aren't really working, but partially because this is a reason to be together in the theater. It
is fun to recognize the memes together. It was clear from my older son when he went and saw it in the theater that that was a lot of the appeal was all these inside jokes that they get and laugh at, and it's fun to see him in a group. I think this is a way to rescue movies. It's gonna kill old time movies. But like just I don't know, the most popular memes put together ninety minutes with a loose script. I think that would right. Somebody steal that idea and make it work.
Well, it's either like irony or a perpetual motion machine or something that online memes. The enjoyment of online memes together, Yeah, in a room might convince kids, hey, this is really fun.
Wow, good point. Hello, But Mike constantly, my son would saying, I know you don't get that, but to to various things that were happening, characters and lines and stuff like that, because they're here today. I mean, you could have had a movie where the Hawktua girl was, you know, a co star there for a couple of coffee. Oh please, don't.
You and people would have go fought with laughter though you know they mean studios. Yes, oh yes, now you gotta start producing these. This is your ten million dollar idea.
It's fine. I thought, I'll get another co host. I thought of Friday Night. I thought, this is actu brilliant idea. It would just take a lot of money to get a going. You know, you'd have to pay for rights, but you'd have lawyers to do that. They'd be easy. Yeah. Wow, that's a great idea. Just your monthly meme cinema. Yeah, yeah, and all the teenagers get together and feel cooler and smarter than the rest of us because they get all the jokes right. Yeah. We bought it though, cost twenty bucks.
So Minecraft's available at home now for streaming, but it was twenty bucks to in it.
I think it's got about a six month run. Your idea, oh really, don't like, don't invest too heavily, thinking next year will be even bigger.
Trust arm strong, the armstrong and Getty shouts.
My president decides to do something with an executive order or whatever often that they promised on the campaign trail, their voters get all excited, Yay, they did it day one like they promised, And then then I get an alert on my phone. Some judge somewhere I've never heard of it said no, you can't do that, and then it stops, and everybody's like groans, like, oh, they can do that, and it keeps happening over and over again. And do we want that system to continue that way
or not? Is part of what the Supreme Court was arguing about yesterday. And as one of the justices said, there are six hundred some federal judges and while I do not question their motives. Sometimes they are wrong, so do we want them to be able to hold up the whole country?
Let us discuss the very interesting and multifaceted oral arguments yesterday before the Supreme Court with Tim Sandefer, vice president for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, among other auspicious titles, author of eight books, including most recently Freedom's Theories. How Isabelle Patterson, Rosewilder and Ein Rand found Liberty in Age of Darkness?
I've recommended it many times. It's terrific. Tim. How are you, sir? Just great?
Thanks for having me back.
Guys published poet, gotta throw that in there. True, Yes, a polymath as they say.
Anyway, Tim, So, ostensibly everyone's talking about that we are going to discuss birthright citizenship in front of the Supreme Court, and that did come up. But would you agree that the more significant discussion was about nationwide injunctions by individual federal judges. Oh?
Yes, absolutely. That was the focus of the argument, and it was a very interesting argument. But I don't think that it's a hard question. I think the answer is obviously nationwide injunctions are perfectly fine. They're the ordinary way of doing business in the courts, and people who complain about them either don't understand the system or are trying to get away with something illegal.
Yeah I don't. I don't always like that it happened, but I can't see what the alternative would be. As somebody pointed out, so you're gonna let me. I guess it was you that pointed it out yesterday in Twitter. The idea that so every time a president does something, it's got to work its way all the way through the courts up to the Supreme Court, and then a decision by the Supreme Court before the Supreme Court might say sometimes nine nothing, you can't do that.
And during that whole period of time, the government is still doing the illegal thing.
Right right. Wow.
So clearly it's two to one for a judicial takeover of the government.
But I will stand up for liberty.
Uh.
Is there no middle ground? Has got to be three judge panel and not a single ya who in a rural Tennessee.
Yeah, I think. I think having a single unit yae who in rural Tennessee is perfectly fine because that's what the appellate process is sort of. That's why you appeal cases. And by the way, that's why you should avoid appointing yahoos to the federal bench. Might mention that too. The argument, the argument against nationwide injunctions always seems to boil down to, well, this is a democracy and the majority should always get what it wants. And the answer to that is no where.
What happened to all of my friends who used to say, this is a republic, not a democracy. The whole point of our system is that the majority has to act lawfully, and if it acts unlawfully, I can go in front of a judge and get that give an order from that judge prohibiting the government from violating my rights. And the idea that we should do this piece meal, that
only a judge down here, that his order only applies there. Meanwhile, the government can do illegal things to everybody else in the country until the case reaches the US Supreme Court makes no sense at all.
The underlying theme here being folks, that what we really need to fear is the power of the government in this country. That's kind of the idea of forming it. So there's no question that these nationwide injunctions were relatively or practically completely unknown for one hundred and fifty years. Then there were a handful of them, and the number of them is now skyrots.
Every day. It seems like on my phone I see a judge jumped in somewhere.
Actually, right, I actually don't think that that's true. I think that what happened was we just started calling them by a different name. You know, there were been injunction injunctions against unconstitutional government actions since before there was a constitution. One of the points that was brought up during the arguments was that British judges used to do this before
the American Revolution, and that was considered perfectly legitimate. It's just that nowadays we call the nation right injunctions or we have some judges who write sloppily and don't explain what they're actually saying or something. And okay, that's a problem,
I suppose. But the idea that you should limit the injunction power of federal courts is what that is is that's open door to the majority violating individual rights on a scale that I mean, they already do it, but you can imagine what it would be if we took away one of the most important protections for individual rights in this country, which is getting an injunction from our federal court. To protect your freedom, and it's insane.
So I didn't want to get to this part too fast because you're a lawyer, and this part can't be fixed with the law. It seems to me that we've got a cultural problem in that presidents are way more likely than they used to be to want to challenge the Supreme Court, either to like legitimately they don't think the law is correct, or they don't care if they're wrong. They just want to get the political credit for trying. And perhaps I don't know this, but it seems like
a likely response. The six hundred some federal judges out there, there's a lot more of them who are willing to let their politics get ahead of their judge reasoning and jump in and stop somebody they hate.
Yes, you're absolutely right about that, and especially the thing about the President and Congress being willing to do things that they know are unconstitutional because they know that the judges are going to strike it down and they can blame the judges and say, oh, those evil activist judges, or they can get away with their unconstitutional things. So it's win when if you want to do something unconstitutional,
and honestly, every president's done this to some degree. Obviously, Franklin Roosevelt.
Did this a lot.
But the one that I always six in my memory is George W. Bush when he signed the McCain fine Gold campaign finance law and said when he signed it that he thought it was unconstitutional, but that he would leave it to the courts to deal with. Well, I'm sorry, but if you're the president, you take an oath to
support and defend the Constitution of the United States. And if you ignore that oath and sign something that you know was unconstitutional just because you think the courts will clean up your mess for you, I think that's disgraceful.
Yeah. Well, a lot of the pieces I've read that have been following the growth of this use that as kind of like the patient zero, because he said it out loud, and then other presidents thought, hey, I can do that, I just won't say it out loud, and Obama did it, and Biden did it, and Trump did it in whichever order, and then Trump again, and and it's so, how do we fix this?
Well, there's a long answer and the short answer. The short answer is elect good presidents. The long answer is that we have to restore respect for the Constitution.
In this country.
I think it's the long term damage that's been done to Americans understanding and appreciation of the Constitution is horrifying. We have prominent law professors. There was a law professor at at Georgetown Law School a few years ago published an article in the Washington Post saying the Constitution is obsolete. I don't respect it at all. Well, you're a teacher of constitutional law for crying out loud. And if we don't respect the Constitution, we don't love it. It cannot
protect us. The Constitution is just a promise, and if we don't honor that promise, then it's not worth the paper it's written on.
We should have written a law specifically putting him in jail. In my opinion, Tim Sandefer is online from the Goldwater Institute, a little constitutional humor for exactly design.
For punish one man.
That's a good idea, so you know, blah blah blah. Disclaimer about it's difficult to read the tea leaves of the oral arguments, blah blah blah. Did it strike you that the justices, the sane ones that we like, we're leaning in any particular direction as to the nationwide injunctions judges, et cetera that we've been discussing.
Some of the.
Judges have made clear for a long time that they're against these what they call nationwide injunctions. Justice Thomas in particular. Some of the others are a little harder to read. Justice Barrett for example, and Justice Roberts, who have become really the swing judges on this issue. I thought the most interesting judge if you want, if anybody wants to go and listen to the argument online, I thought Justice
Jackson was the one who is the most interesting. She clearly understands how this area of the law works, and she rightly says there's no there there that nationwide injunctions are perfectly legitimate. They always have been and there's no problem. So she'd be the one that I find most interesting. But how to predict I think you're going to get.
I think Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett going to side with the liberals and say, we don't have a problem per se with nationwide injunctions, but maybe some of them aren't very good, but as a as a blanket matter, they're okay. And then they're going to want to hear the underlying case about birthright citizenship, which obviously is a huge deal.
To me.
Is it even worth getting into what happened on that topic yesterday or do you think it's.
Well, they really just talked about whether or not they have a legitimate case in the first place, and they haven't really briefed it or argued it yet. But that's important because in order to get an injunction, you kind of have to first show that you have even an arguable point to make, and that was what they were arguing about. And I will say, I know this is talk radio, and we're all supposed to think that we clearly have the right answer and everything. I think the
birthright citizenship question is a very hard question. I don't think it's an easy question on either side.
Let's talk about that when we come back from the break. I want to hear. I want to hear the arguments on both sides of that. That's interesting And clearly you've probably seen the breakdown. Who speaks the most words? The chicks talk too much? Is that given?
Well, jessic so to my art, does love cutting off lawyers and not letting them answer her question?
Yeah, the chicks talk too much. I think that's been and the new gal talks more than anybody. That shouldn't happen in any organization. I'm strong and get the reality is this is fabulous. I thank you. That's enough of that. This is crazy. That's just why it is. Yeah, but damn it.
We weren't allowed to ask about the big guys. This is the United States of America.
God, let's not play games.
This is the Armstrong and Getty Show.
Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty, The Armstrong and Getty Show.
Discussing the oral arguments before the Supreme Court yesterday with Tim Sanderfer, vice president for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute. It was advertised as a birthright citizenship hearing it or discussion. It really was much more a discussion of individual federal judges and nationwide injunctions and that sort of thing. But to the question of the Fourteenth Amendment, Tim, you said before the break that it's not an easy call. I'm glad to hear you agree. I've thought the same thing.
What should we know about fourteenth Amendment even come to a semi intelligent opinion on this?
Well, the first sentence of the fourteenth Amendment says all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are US citizens. And all of this case, all of these arguments turn on that phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What does that phrase mean. It's really tough because the word jurisdic is one of those words that can mean all sorts of different things.
It basically means power, but there's all sorts of different kinds of power, and so that's what the argument turns on. Some people think that it means you have to follow the law. If you're born here and you have to follow the law, then you're subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and then that means you're a citizen. But that doesn't really make a lot of sense because even foreign tourists who come here for a vacation have to follow the law.
I mean, they have to stop at the red lights and they can't steal things, So that can't be what that means, right. Instead, the other side argues, jurisdiction thereof means some kind of loyalty or allegiance, that there's citizenship jurisdiction, as opposed to follow the law jurisdiction, and that different.
You can see that difference For example, in this if you're a foreign spy and you sneak into the country and you spy for some foreign country and you get arrested, you can be prosecuted for espionage, but you cannot be prosecuted for treason. Why because you're not a US citizen and you don't owe loyalty to the US, so you cannot commit treason against the US. And so there's two
different kinds of jurisdiction, is the argument. And so those who are against birthright citizenships say, subject of the jurisdiction thereof means that your parents owed loyalty to the United States as opposed to some foreign country. And that would mean that illegal aliens, if they have a child here, that child is not assistant in the United States. Now, that's also there's a problem with that. There's a couple
problems that. One of the problems of that argument is that nobody has ever said that that's what it means. In the one hundred and fifty years since this has been in the Constitution, everybody has active like if you're born here, you're a citizen all of that time. And so suddenly discovering that, what turns out that we've been misreading the Constitution for one hundred and fifty years. Would be a huge, enormously radical transformation and how our system works.
That would cause tremendous disruption nationwide, and that would be a real problem. But all of this, the real problem here in answering this question is that when the Amendment was adopted, there were no such things as the illegal
aliens because there were no laws against immigration. And that means if you're an originalist and you think the competition should be understood the way it was originally intended, the framers didn't ever think about this because it wasn't against the law back then, So we don't know what they would have thought about this.
Question, right right, Well, at the point that this enormously radical, disruptive president has overturned, that's when you tag me and Tim and I come in and explain to the good folks that look, the nature of global transportation, the movement of people or peoples from one place to another has changed so vastly.
Joe's a living Constitution guy. You can hear it coming.
Out of what No, don't you dare no that the very nature of comings and goings from countries has been so radically transformed a Chinese national with not the slightest notion of making life in the United States can depart China, arrive here, give birth, go back to China, all in the span of seventy two hours. I'm inducing labor in this case probably or getting very lucky, and that child had citizenship. That's an eventuality unimaginable back in the day, is the case?
I think so, And that's sort of true. But on the other hand, the Chinese question came up back then because there were so many Chinese in California in the eighteen sixties. And Senator's rast, well, isn't this going to make the children of the Chinese immigrants who back then did not intend to stay in the United States. They intended to go back to China. The senator's rast, does this make their kids us? Senator US citizens? And the Senator from California said yes, and then he was immediately
thrown out of office. So what does that mean? Nobody knows what that.
Means a single case from eighteen ninety eight, or is there more precedent?
Really there really isn't. There's really just a handful of presidents and no Supreme Court case has ever said that birthright citizenship is in the in the Constitution. There have been some that have kind of mentioned it or kind of assumed it, but none has said so outright.
I am surprised. The polling shows that only about a third of Americans want to do away with the way we do it now. I'm surprised by that. I do want to get to this. This is a journalistic question, but I think it has an effect on people's respect for the law. It has come up recently. It has become a pattern that anytime the media mentions a judge, they mentioned what president appointed them. Do you think that's a good idea or not? They didn't just barely got a minute.
I think I think it's fine. I think people should know where these For instance, I think it would help a lot of judges. You know a lot of Republican appointed judges have been ruling against the Trump administration, and I think it would be helpful for people to know that these questions are not things where it's all partisan. The law is not just partisan politics. It's something much more profound and much more important.
Yeah, well, I agree, but it implies that judges I don't know.
True. I used to think.
I didn't used to think about it ever. If a judge ruled, I just thought't want that's interesting now it's all who appointed him? Oh, of course he.
Said that that is true. That is a risk. But I think we should air on the side of informing people as opposed to keeping people in the dark.
So that's always true. Tim Sander for the Goldwater Institute on the line, Tim, final question, I've called for a monarchy. You in favor of it? Yes or no?
No, I'm against him monarchy. I'm for the constitution.
Joe. One more question. As a published poet, I was thinking about this yesterday he won the Nobel Prize. Bob Dylan good poet or not lousy poet?
Now read Robert Hayden or Richard Wilbur instead.
How about Ringo Star Octopus's Garden creative Tam. It's always great and enlightening. Thanks Millian for the time. Let's talk again soon.
Thanks guys.
All right, I was actually thinking about this listening to Dylan lyrics. Why do they stick in everybody's head so much? Why do people keep going back to them? If it's just gobbledegook, like a lot of real poets claim.
It can't be.
It wouldn't lodge. It wouldn't it wouldn't make the market made, would it all? Right?
He was famously moody about his career and his music in his Life's Philosophy. I think some of his stuff is absolutely brilliant, and I think some of it's gobbledegook.
Huh. Maybe maybe more on that another day, or maybe not. We got plenty of stuff to tell you. I hope you can stick around if you missus. Segmann. I thought that tim thing was really really good, and you want to listen to it again and get the podcast Armstrong and Getty on demand.
Armstrong, arms Strong and Getdy on demand.
We're not boring. A lot of news is boring and tedious and depressing. It makes you angry.
You don't want to live your life like that Armstrong and Getty show.