Participants: Lincoln Steed (Host), Bruce N. Cameron
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI000329B
|
00:05 Welcome back to the Liberty Insider.
00:07 Before the break with guest Bruce Cameron, 00:10 he'd given a very detailed and positive report. 00:13 Bruce on these two recent Supreme Court cases, 00:18 in particular the one that really cleared the deck 00:23 so that no one could be compelled 00:25 to participate in that. 00:27 Right, Harris V. Quinn. 00:29 Yes, and then the other one that's very troubling, 00:33 the potential to force home caregivers 00:37 for that to be union, required union dues 00:40 that as you were saying after the break 00:42 would effectively be paid by the government. 00:44 That's right. 00:46 In fact the government didn't leave it to the union 00:48 to collect the dues from these caregivers. 00:51 They took it out of the payment 00:54 that they made to the caregivers, 00:56 and send it directly to the owners. 00:57 To me that's extraordinary. 00:59 Oh, if that had gone through, that would be 01:02 pure government complicity in the union cause. 01:05 This was going on in numerous states, 01:08 I mean this was going on across the United States. 01:10 We've been filing the lawsuits 01:13 to stop this in the various states, 01:15 the earliest one was in California. 01:17 You can imagine, literally millions of dollars 01:20 in every state was being dumped 01:22 into the coffers of organized labor 01:25 which would then use the money 01:27 to help elect friendly politicians 01:30 that would reinforce this scheme. 01:32 It was as I say a scam. 01:35 Now this is happening in many states, right? 01:38 Oh, many. 01:39 California, Michigan... 01:41 According to party or with both parties going along with this? 01:45 The states that were agreeing to those 01:47 were generally states controlled by democrats. 01:50 Democrats. 01:51 They're friends of organized labor. 01:52 This program is not partisan but still in describing, 01:54 you have to realize. 01:55 And the comment I wanted to make, 01:57 it's come a long way since 01:59 the Republican President Ronald Reagan 02:02 tilted against the unions very strongly. 02:05 So to go to where the government is complicit 02:08 in the union cause is not good. 02:10 Neither is good in my view. 02:11 Right. Well... 02:12 I don't think the government should be openly antagonistic 02:15 and break up any private, 02:18 or any citizen grouping. 02:22 I agree, labor unions 02:24 voluntarily supported by the government.. 02:27 I thought you would. 02:29 You're opposed to the non-voluntary perspectives. 02:31 Right. I'm against the compulsory aspect of it. 02:34 That's the mission of 02:36 the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation 02:37 to defeat the compulsory aspect of this 02:40 and this was such an abuse, 02:43 because not only was it compelling caregivers 02:46 to give money to the union, 02:48 but it also had the effect 02:50 of dislocating the political system 02:53 by dumping millions of dollars into the union conference, 02:57 that was really taken 02:58 from the welfare system of the states, 03:00 which made it particularly ironic 03:03 that welfare dollars are now supporting labor unions. 03:06 No, this was a case I think 03:09 you said before the break was... 03:12 Decided well but it was five to four. 03:14 Yes, yes. 03:15 What does that mean to you, because that's not an, I mean, 03:19 that's a good decision, 03:20 that's not an overwhelming mandate, why? 03:23 It is the razor's edge. 03:26 You see the next issue on this would be compulsory union fees, 03:32 constitutional in ordinary labor relations context. 03:38 And so again, this five-four was important. 03:42 It was the five conservatives on the Supreme Court... 03:45 It split pretty much ideological. 03:47 Right, versus the four liberals and when Justice Scalia died, 03:53 we lost the fifth vote. 03:56 So, as your viewers no doubt know 03:59 that Justice Kennedy is not always 04:01 a reliable vote for the conservatives, 04:06 Justice Scalia sometimes, it was not always 04:09 a reliable vote when it came to organized labor. 04:14 But now that he has died and so four-four split 04:18 that makes this upcoming election 04:21 so important for a person like me, 04:23 who is very invested in 04:25 what the US Supreme Court is doing 04:27 for individual liberty and religious freedom. 04:31 You know, we've gone over this particular case. 04:33 This is the reason for this program, 04:35 but we're on the Supreme Court, where do we go from here? 04:40 Is it necessary to have a balancing figure like Scalia 04:46 or can we rely on just the most qualified person to go on? 04:51 Well, you know why, why...? 04:54 You and I were talking about this, 04:55 why do you think the court needs to be balance it 04:57 ideologically? 04:59 Why should the court be ideological? 05:01 Well, I want the court balance with justice 05:04 as that agree with me. 05:06 The conservative justice, being qualified, 05:09 there are tons of people 05:10 who are qualified both on the left and on the right. 05:14 And the question is 05:16 where do you want the country to go, 05:18 one of the decisions I think we'll discuss is 05:21 the hobby-lobby case, 05:22 a very important religious liberty case. 05:25 And all of these things depend on having 05:29 a five member conservative majority. 05:32 Otherwise, the union fee cases go down the tubes, 05:38 religious liberty cases go down the tubes in my opinion. 05:43 What about the theory? 05:45 I'm playing devil's advocate but the theory 05:47 that competent legal minds and they're not... 05:53 I've been telling people and I think I'm right, 05:55 but confirm this, you don't have to be 05:58 a lawyer or a judge to be on the Supreme Court, 06:01 rather, there's no constitutional requirement. 06:02 That's right, that's right. 06:04 It's complex enough though. 06:06 So we think that you need to be a lawyer 06:09 and have a background... 06:10 They have legal clerks and so on. 06:13 Legal clerks being people 06:15 who are straight out of law school, 06:17 they do have some lifetime clerk... 06:21 Well, you're getting close to the part of Washington 06:23 that troubles me the most, 06:25 and I've been there on some of the hearings 06:27 and you can watch sea span and the grey beards 06:30 and the famous names 06:35 that we see leading the country. 06:37 They're upfront staying things, 06:38 but usually whispering in the rear row, 06:41 lined up behind them are all these academy students 06:44 that look like... 06:46 but these are all the law students and the interns. 06:50 And they're the ones really that are doing the research, 06:53 that are setting up the scene for these politicos in my view. 06:57 Well, that's right. 06:59 Since I teach law students, 07:00 I'm an advocate for law students 07:03 and I certainly want them to be involved 07:04 and of course the great thing about 07:07 young people being involved 07:09 is that they have energy 07:11 and they're fresh from their studies 07:15 and this kind of thing. 07:17 But I want to make a point, 07:18 this is just my personal opinion. 07:20 I sometimes joke, my wife's a very good cook, 07:23 and I sometimes joke that there is certain irony 07:26 that in the United States 07:27 we're all being fed by high school 07:30 and college students working in McDonalds 07:32 and all the fast food places. 07:37 But the government is the same and that's really a good thing. 07:41 In some ways the baton is already passed, 07:45 because there is an awful lot of young legal minds 07:48 and other interns of different types 07:50 that are very much part of the machinery of government. 07:54 It's not just the old guys, the old guard. 07:57 There you're talking about the distinction 07:59 between knowledge and ability, not just age. 08:04 People in McDonalds are not the same 08:05 as the people that are advising... 08:07 All analogies breakdown if you're up... 08:08 Right. 08:10 But see, here's the thing about this. 08:12 Why should we have a lawyer on the Supreme Court 08:16 as opposed to a non-lawyer? 08:18 Why should we have an experienced judge 08:20 on the Supreme Court, 08:21 promoted to the Supreme Court 08:23 as opposed to an inexperienced judge? 08:25 It's the same reason 08:26 why you don't want to have brain surgery 08:30 done by a resident. 08:32 You want someone who has knowledge, experience, 08:37 someone who has thought about the issues before 08:40 and has the kind of skill on his side. 08:44 I think it makes perfect sense. 08:45 But in seminars that I take, I tell people 08:48 that this isn't really a requirement to be a lawyer, 08:51 or a judge in the Supreme Court. 08:53 That's correct. That is correct. 08:54 I think it's a practical requirement. 08:56 What can I say, you are correct in the... 09:00 But most people don't know that... 09:02 And we're in some ways encouraging the viewer 09:09 that it is some professional 09:10 because of the expectations usually, 09:13 you know, it said openly, well, you know, 09:17 juror with great experience 09:19 and that's pretty much the qualifications 09:23 when for my knowledge of history, 09:25 soon as they just pluck someone 09:26 out of the political firmament put there. 09:29 In fact, wasn't Grover Cleveland, 09:31 was it Cleveland that became... 09:33 I don't know. 09:34 One of the President's became a Supreme Court... 09:36 Oh, yes absolutely. 09:37 Supreme Court justice after his tenure. 09:39 That is correct. 09:41 I hear that Hilary Clinton, if she selected will appoint 09:46 Barrack Obama to the Supreme Court. 09:48 That of course would be one of my worst nightmares. 09:50 But with regard to the issues that we're talking about, 09:55 but here's the thing, 09:56 in any field that requires 10:00 skill, knowledge, ability, 10:04 you are looking for someone, who is experienced. 10:06 And that's the reason why you want that. Now... 10:09 And now and then that experience plays off a set up. 10:12 Hopefully, it always plays off... 10:14 No, but I mean, when we're dealing 10:16 with the Supreme Court, 10:17 there's legitimate reasons why a lot of the people 10:19 in the religious liberty fraternity 10:22 are troubled by things 10:23 coming out of the Supreme Court. 10:25 But it's not all bad by any means 10:26 and this is one good case I think. 10:31 Oh, that is correct. 10:32 I will tell you, if you move the clock back 20 years, 10:36 we were getting fairly consistent bad decisions 10:41 from the Supreme Court dealing with religious liberty. 10:43 Yeah. 10:45 In the last five years, we have gotten 10:48 several excellent decisions from the Supreme Court... 10:51 And one that's on the table that we want to talk about 10:54 in another program. 10:55 That's right. Yeah. 10:57 So, yeah, this is my view. 10:58 You know, lot of, lot of, 11:00 especially Seventh-day Adventist 11:01 when we have afternoon meetings, 11:03 and they are paranoid about one thing or another 11:04 and there's good reasons to be worried. 11:07 But I don't think overall 11:09 the Supreme Court is the main one, 11:12 you need to just watch it, because there's the even flow 11:15 and people like you have to make an argument 11:18 before that make a case. 11:20 I mean you have to reinvent yourself all the time 11:23 with them, but I don't see it 11:27 as a out of control or a lost cause. 11:30 No, hardly. 11:32 But see I think we are... 11:33 With some of the fund raising going up to some groups 11:36 as you know portrays the court that way. 11:39 It's pretty much just legislating from the bench 11:42 and you know the world's come to an end and that's it... 11:45 Well, there's certainly is that concern 11:47 and that happens I think on both the left and the right. 11:54 But the bottom-line is 11:57 you expect the judges will make a decision 12:00 based upon the law in the US Constitution. 12:04 That is the law passed by Congress 12:07 and the United States Constitution. 12:10 Unfortunately that doesn't always happen. 12:12 So they use a biblical analogies to the law 12:15 and to the testimony. 12:17 Well, that's what we hope the Supreme Court will do. 12:21 Make decisions based on the United States Constitution, 12:25 based upon the laws passed by Congress, 12:28 and not based upon their own personal preferences. 12:33 There is no question 12:35 that in the United States in our era, 12:40 if never before, or and as never before, 12:44 the Supreme Court is of supreme importance. 12:48 They don't legislate from the bench 12:50 in the classic sense, 12:52 but so many important issues 12:53 that are coming before the court 12:55 that we need to be careful, 12:58 that in the case of religious liberty particularly, 13:00 that they resolve it correctly. 13:03 There is no question that all governments, 13:07 all across the world given the opportunity 13:11 will intrude into the lives of individuals. 13:14 In this case that was discussed on this program 13:16 where private caregivers in the home 13:20 might even be regarded as union workers 13:23 and forced to pay union bills or union dues. 13:26 We don't want that sort of thing. 13:28 Religious liberty would argue against it. 13:30 Civil liberty would argue against it. 13:33 It's very important that the judges judge correctly 13:37 and not as the Bible says pervert justice. 13:41 For Liberty Insider, this is Lincoln Steed. |
Revised 2016-08-22