Participants: Lincoln Steed (Host), Greg Hamilton
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI000325B
|
00:05 Welcome back to the Liberty Insider.
00:07 Before the break, I'd put out some wild theories 00:11 about the Supremes of the court, 00:13 but we're discussing the ramifications 00:15 of Antonin Scalia's sudden death 00:18 and of course now the deadlock situation with his replacement. 00:21 Well, Senator Justice Antonin Scalia died. 00:24 All right. 00:25 No one expected, this is really what's that pick up-- 00:27 Well, actually, you know, 00:29 his health has been bad for the last-- 00:31 We found that out-- 00:32 Last 20 years in fact. 00:34 But he hadn't appeared to be well. 00:35 He had heart disease. 00:37 He had all kinds of factors 00:38 that were leading down this road. 00:40 He had diabetes. 00:42 But Ginsburg had pancreatic cancer 00:43 as well as some more recent health issue. 00:45 Yes, and he was a robust character, 00:47 and, you know, 00:48 he lived to the age of what was at 79, 00:50 I think this is what his-- 00:52 Yeah. 00:54 Anyway, the point is that, 00:57 when he died, all the Republican candidates, 01:01 every one of them except I think for Rand Paul, 01:05 during the Republican primary in 2016 said, 01:11 "We must elect someone or we must make sure 01:15 that a president that becomes president 01:17 appoint someone that's just like Antonin Scalia. 01:21 Because this is a time period 01:25 in which if the Supreme Court tilts to certain direction, 01:29 it will stay that way for the next 30, 40, 50 years. 01:34 We just don't know. 01:35 And so they're very concerned about that. 01:38 Well, of course, the Left is equally concerned, 01:41 'cause they want somebody 01:42 that's in there that will protect 01:44 the constitutional separation of church and state. 01:45 But there's an assumption 01:46 that they know exactly how each justice-- 01:49 That's true. 01:51 Adjudicates, and I don't think that's true. 01:53 Like Roberts, many times he's frustrated the Right Wing, 01:58 because he hasn't voted the way they expected. 02:00 But here's my point, 02:01 I've read six biographies on Justice Antonin Scalia. 02:05 And this is one of them, 02:07 this was the last one written on him 02:09 by Joan Biskupic of The Washington Post, 02:12 and currently on public broadcasting network. 02:15 But she is a longtime, 02:18 like 40 years covering the Supreme Court, 02:20 and is one of the leading experts on, 02:22 as a journalist covering the Supreme Court. 02:24 Most of this book on Justice Antonin Scalia 02:28 is based upon interviews with Justice Antonin Scalia himself. 02:32 And so it makes it the most authentic 02:34 and yet the most recent one. 02:35 It was published in 2006, but in each biography, 02:40 and I've recorded this. 02:43 Every biography, whether it was by James Stabb, 02:46 or Ralph Rossum, Bruce Allen Murphy, 02:51 and Joan Biskupic. 02:54 Each one of them have stated in interviews 02:59 with Justice Antonin Scalia 03:02 that, when he was right out of law school 03:05 at Harvard University Law School, 03:08 at the law firm of Jones, Day, 03:12 Reavis and Pogue in Cleveland, Ohio, 03:14 which was his first law firm. 03:16 When he was invited to the law firm's owner 03:21 of the firm, 03:22 he invited him to his home along with all of-- 03:24 Senior partner I guess. 03:25 Yeah, along with all of his colleagues to his house. 03:29 And justice, I mean, then attorney, 03:33 Anonin Scalia took off his shoes, 03:36 went and stood by the fireplace with a glass of chardonnay. 03:40 And while eating cheese and pretzel sticks 03:43 well, argued from seven in the evening 03:46 until three in the morning with his colleagues. 03:49 Just a big debate, a fun debate, 03:52 but a big debate over whether Sunday laws 03:54 were constitutional. 03:56 Blue laws, I think he was-- 03:57 Sunday Blue laws. 03:58 And Justice Scalia defending Sunday Blue laws to health-- 04:02 He's well known on that. 04:03 With everybody else arguing against him, 04:07 all right, which was interesting. 04:09 And I'd say, you know, I say to people, 04:13 who really want to make sure 04:15 that somebody like Justice Antonin Scalia 04:18 is back on the Supreme Court. 04:22 Think about what you're asking for? 04:24 Yeah, it's true, we don't know exactly how they would decide, 04:27 but do you want to take that risk? 04:29 I mean, for me as a Seventh-day Adventist Christian, 04:33 I certainly don't want somebody who is so overly conservative 04:37 and Catholic in their religious freedom perspective, 04:42 not that I don't believe 04:43 that Catholics have a right to religious freedom. 04:45 We all have a right to religious freedom. 04:48 They just as much as anybody else, if not more. 04:51 The point is that, 04:52 do we really want to stack the court with justices 04:57 who will threaten religious freedom 04:59 as we know it. 05:01 Yeah. No, certainly. 05:02 I think the answer obviously is not. 05:05 I have listened to him speak to, 05:07 and I didn't agree with everything, 05:10 but I understand where he is coming from. 05:12 And, you know, his idea of originalism, 05:15 you could dispute a little, 05:16 because how do you get into the heads of people totally? 05:19 But I think he was probably fairly safe on this. 05:23 I don't believe he was talking about National Sunday Law, 05:26 he was talking about state Blue laws, 05:29 and there's no question under the system that existed 05:32 before the Civil War, 05:33 and the incorporation of federal powers 05:36 that it was assumed 05:38 and they were established churches in different states. 05:41 And that was the mindset. 05:42 I think that's where he is coming from. 05:44 He was projecting onto it 05:45 though his very aggressive Catholicism. 05:48 And I've heard him speak, and it could be, 05:50 you could cringe sometimes to hear him speak that way. 05:53 But I'm not sure legally, he was totally wrong, 05:56 but yeah, sort of a red flag when a guy is this aggressive 05:59 on something that's lying dormant at the moment, 06:03 and we don't want him waking that up. 06:05 There is one judicial principle that Justice Scalia in my mind 06:09 did that was very positive. 06:11 And I think it was good for the court 06:13 to revive this particular principle. 06:15 And it's the idea that, yes, the Bill of Rights 06:19 represent the rights of minorities 06:21 or when any minority right 06:24 as listed in the Bill of Rights is affected 06:27 or any general right listed in the Bill of Rights 06:29 is affected. 06:31 You know, they need to have their rights protected 06:34 and they're constitutionally guaranteed. 06:37 And so you have the constitution 06:38 which represents, we the people, the majority, 06:42 the majority will of the people, okay. 06:45 But when you look at both, he said, you know, 06:48 "It's true, the Bill of Rights is there 06:50 to protect against abusive majorities." 06:53 But he said, "We have to understand 06:56 that the Constitution itself 06:59 that we have to weigh the two very carefully," he said. 07:02 Protects also against abusive minorities. 07:06 In other words, 07:08 can the minority abuse the majority? 07:11 And I think that was an interesting point. 07:13 And I think he is right in some respects, 07:16 how that applies in every instance, 07:19 I don't know how to provide an example for you. 07:22 Except that I would say, 07:24 if you look at the transgender movement 07:27 in this whole bathroom issue, 07:29 I think it's very important to look at that. 07:32 Because that seems like a minor issue, 07:34 why do we have to deal with that, 07:36 that's like the nat in the ointment 07:37 or the nat you want to kill in the wall 07:39 or fly that you want to get rid off. 07:40 It's an issue that just seems like, 07:42 why do we want to deal with this, 07:44 why do we have to deal with this-- 07:45 Maybe I'm missing something, 07:46 but that is not directly connected 07:48 to Supreme Court, is it? 07:49 Yeah, it will be, 07:51 because it will come to the Supreme Court. 07:52 Well, of course. Okay. 07:53 So the next justice-- 07:55 The big problem with this I think, 07:56 this is a sign of governmental bureaucratic overreach. 08:02 Here is something that's being begun 08:04 because of the general rights granted to-- 08:06 But they'll have to get sorted out by the court, 08:08 so eventually by US Supreme Court. 08:10 This has been a conscious choice 08:11 within the administration to-- 08:14 in its most extreme form demand this 08:16 of the school system in particular 08:19 where they have the power of the purse. 08:21 They can't force it, 08:22 but they've actually said directly, 08:24 if you don't go along with this in the state, 08:26 we will withdraw a federal-- 08:28 This is where I agree 08:30 with the Right Wing faction on this issue 08:31 because if you look at Title Nine privacy rights, 08:36 which seems to be at stake here. 08:40 The Left doesn't want to seem 08:41 to look at privacy rights at all. 08:44 In fact, we seem to be going down the slippery slope 08:46 where anybody who claims at a moment's notice 08:49 that somehow even though they're a guy, 08:54 they declare them self a woman to go into women's bathroom 08:58 to shower with women in high school, 09:02 with girls in high school is predatory. 09:06 And that's really unconscionable 09:11 and that seems to be the slippery slope 09:12 we're going down. 09:14 But it is an easy solution to it. 09:15 I've listened to all of this. 09:16 And you could easily set up a protocol with someone 09:18 who is in a sex change process either surgically 09:23 or psychologically, they go before a judge, 09:27 there's a determination, 09:28 and they have a authorization where they present that. 09:33 But the way it's being put out, it's just today I feel female, 09:38 I go in there because I want to go into the women's toilet. 09:40 Well, I'm not sure and generally speaking 09:43 much of that's going on, 09:44 but you only need one or two cases 09:46 of predatory voyeurism 09:48 and all the rest and we've got trouble. 09:50 And then some say, because there are those on the right 09:54 who say, "Okay, we'll go so far with you. 09:56 We'll say okay go ahead and build a separate bathroom 10:00 in each institution, in each high school, 10:02 any institution, even religious schools. 10:05 Build a separate bathroom for transgender people 10:08 and then they say, "Well, then that's the same as separate 10:10 but equal, going back to segregation, 10:13 the Civil Rights movement, so on. 10:15 And it's not the same thing. 10:17 You're dealing with something that says, 10:20 "Hey, we're trying to meet halfway, okay. 10:23 We've clearly got a situation 10:25 whereby it's predatory for a man 10:28 to claim a woman suddenly," and to, you know, 10:31 women are going to feel very uncomfortable about that. 10:34 And that that's problematic and women are subject to abuse 10:38 and women are usually 10:40 often the victims of a situation like this. 10:42 Well, of course this-- 10:43 what's happened here is 10:45 there is a social change underway. 10:47 Not all for the best, 10:49 but they're running ahead of it. 10:50 So of course, 10:52 the community kind of feel very uncomfortable and threatened. 10:55 And what's interesting is this movement-- 10:56 Mind you, I'll throw a real wild card in here. 10:58 No, I need to go and check on this. 11:01 But I know that the occurrence of asexuality 11:07 or, you know, Ephrata, Dezmen and so on. 11:12 You know, there's always been that, 11:13 there's a constant of that through history. 11:15 Right. There is no limit to that. 11:17 But by the sheer numbers of people 11:19 claiming to be either it's trendy to say you 11:23 without any cause 11:24 or we are witnessing a sea change 11:27 in the number of people 11:29 who have that physical characteristics, 11:31 which maybe, it's the diet we're on, 11:34 maybe it's the hormones in meats 11:37 and other foods, it could be. 11:39 I'm surprised nobody's discussed this yet. 11:42 And some of the wacko Right Wing websites, 11:46 they claim that this is part of a concerted program 11:49 to blend this physically, and the naturist says, 11:52 repressive population. 11:54 That's craziness, perhaps, 11:56 but if this is a real phenomenon, 11:59 you have to ask why, 12:01 because it's way out of the norms of societies 12:03 to expect the number. 12:06 When it comes to nominating individuals 12:10 to the Supreme Court, judges to the Supreme Court, 12:12 it is a huge factor in presidential elections. 12:17 When it comes to voting, we should remember this. 12:20 And we should remember 12:21 that presidents have a huge impact 12:23 on who Supreme Court justices are. 12:26 My Bible speaks of the times that we're living through now. 12:31 And one thing that it says about justice 12:35 is that at these end times, the justices, 12:38 or the judges pervert justice. 12:41 Many people would agree with that 12:43 in regard to the Supreme Court, but for different reasons. 12:47 And many, if not most of them political, 12:49 but there is no question 12:51 that is we come to a more turbulent time. 12:55 The very real role of the judiciary, 12:58 one of three balancing aspects of the American Constitution 13:03 and system of government becomes more crucial. 13:07 As I do this program, 13:11 a gap is in the Supreme Court and Scalia, 13:14 absent through sudden death is causing a great disruption. 13:20 And the question is 13:21 will we load the court with another partisan 13:25 or will we allow the system to work and put someone in 13:30 who is a justice who will not pervert justice, 13:34 who will maintain their public trust. 13:37 This is the huge question facing the United States today, 13:40 and particularly when religion is bubbling along. 13:44 So patently, in all these current affairs, 13:47 it's more crucial than ever before. 13:51 For Liberty Insider, this is Lincoln Steed. |
Revised 2016-07-28