Participants: Lincoln Steed (Host), Bruce N. Cameron
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI000331B
|
00:05 Welcome back to the Liberty Insider.
00:07 Before the break we were getting 00:09 into some real imponderables. 00:11 And I'm sorry in the way for starting it up. 00:13 But you know, we're living in a distinctly a typical times 00:17 and this pending appointment of Supreme Court Justice 00:23 to create, just to replace Justice Scalia 00:27 is exposed against stability 00:30 and what should be the ultimate 00:35 of the three departments of the government 00:37 where's the last resort, isn't it? 00:40 Well, I don't think in terms of that, 00:41 a typical with regard to this example... 00:45 But it's, well, you're right. 00:46 I know historically 00:48 there's been some cat fighting on this. 00:50 Vice President Joe Biden said 00:53 when George Bush was the president, 00:56 the Democrats were not going 00:57 to confirm any of his traditional nominees, 01:01 in the last year of his presidency. 01:03 So that's not as if this just arose yet. 01:06 But it is causing problems and you know that, 01:09 because it creates the potential 01:11 of a deadlocked court. 01:13 No, I don't think it's any problem. 01:16 I mean without the appointment. 01:18 Well, the longer we go with just, the eight justices. 01:23 The problem with deadlocked court a problem, 01:25 I agree it's better to have an odd number of justices. 01:29 However the Supreme Court is not... 01:33 The US Supreme Court, Excuse me. 01:35 The US Constitution 01:37 does not specify the number of justices 01:39 that need to be on the US Supreme Court. 01:42 That's true. I've forgotten that. 01:43 So, we can go around with eight as long as we want. 01:47 We've got some elderly justices, 01:49 may we'll soon have seven. 01:52 They will be back to an odd number. 01:54 Yeah, that's an interesting point. 01:56 I never thought of... 01:57 I knew that it didn't specify the number. 02:00 So maybe we need to do is, just cut the court. 02:03 Will save tax payers money. 02:04 I've got a very interesting book 02:07 called Parkinson's Law, 02:09 semi humorous book written in England in '50s I think. 02:14 But it was based on actual studies 02:17 and there is an optimum size for any deliberative body. 02:22 And as I remember, 02:23 the optimum breaks down somewhere around 20. 02:25 Oh. 02:27 And they say, whenever that happens like, 02:28 whenever the king's privy council 02:32 got to a certain size, it becomes dysfunctional 02:34 and then you have to start chamber 02:36 or a smaller group 02:38 because you can't have a major deliberation 02:40 with too bigger group. 02:42 So, 20 you say is the optimum size. 02:45 So we should have 20 Supreme Court justices. 02:46 Not the optimum. 02:48 That's the point where it goes. 02:49 Oh, that's the point... 02:50 Okay, okay. 02:52 You know, with regards to State Supreme Court, 02:54 very often they have fewer than nine justices. 02:58 That's very common, they'll have seven or five. 03:02 Didn't the Romans at one point have three councils? 03:06 You're asking me about history again. 03:10 Anyhow let's talk about American history 03:13 of the Supreme Court. 03:16 Helping out, you're saying, 03:17 you're talking to me about history 03:19 and yet you say, let's talk about history. 03:20 Yeah, but you know the Supreme Court, 03:22 about the cases you know, 03:25 let's see if we can connect that. 03:26 I myself connected a bit, the Citizens United case. 03:32 Yes, another great decision. 03:35 Explain to our viewers what that case was. 03:38 That case had to do with whether or not 03:41 the Federal Government can limit the ability of citizens 03:45 to get together and promote a political candidate. 03:49 My answer is the First Amendment 03:51 allows people to speak with regard to political matters, 03:56 contribute their money with regard to political matters, 03:59 and then Citizens United, 04:00 they're creating a film that dealt with political matters. 04:04 And it seems to me 04:05 that citizens should be able to freely get together 04:09 and support whatever candidate they want. 04:11 As a coalition rather than individual. 04:14 Well, it was a corporation, they've been formed to do this. 04:20 So the question again like in the Hobby Lobby case 04:24 that we discussed is 04:26 "Do corporations have constitutional rights?" 04:30 And the answer is that corporations exists 04:33 as persons under the law, and so there's no reason 04:37 why they shouldn't have constitutional rights, 04:40 particularly when we're talking 04:41 about closely health corporations 04:43 like the Green Family owned Hobby Lobby. 04:47 And so we're talking about the constitutional rights... 04:50 I'll throw real well cut it on you. 04:52 But first of all, I need to make a statement 04:54 that just an observational one, but it seems to me 04:57 that Citizens United had a huge effect 05:03 on the US presidential election, or any election, 05:09 and it neatly undo it and did the McCain-Feingold campaign 05:16 reform movement or actions. 05:19 Well, I'm personally against the limitations 05:23 on campaign funding, if it's voluntary. 05:28 Now with regard to labor unions, 05:30 it's not voluntary, 05:31 because they say you're going to get fired 05:33 if you don't pay your dues. 05:34 And again I reiterate, 05:36 my shorthand way of understanding religious liberty 05:39 is it's not liberty, 05:41 it's certainly not religious liberty 05:43 if on religious matters. 05:44 You've been coerced if there is any cohesion involved. 05:47 Right, and so when citizens decide to freely get together 05:50 and support one candidate or the other 05:52 or if a citizen decides to use his or her own money 05:57 to support a candidate, 05:58 I believe they should be able to do that. 06:00 And you know, there has been a very interesting experiment 06:04 in contributions in the effective money. 06:08 If you look at the Republican primaries, 06:12 right, we saw that large field 06:15 narrowed down to Donald Trump, as far as I can tell... 06:21 He didn't spend much money. He didn't spend much money. 06:24 Bush spent millions, millions were spent, 06:28 Donald Trump showed up on television. 06:32 Yes, it's the rough equivalent in the whole political scenario 06:38 if the emperor has no clothes. 06:40 Well, doesn't it tend to disprove the idea 06:43 that just throwing money in the system... 06:45 Well, in a way... 06:47 I think what no one candidate on 06:51 was the readymade celebrity status 06:54 that he had established 06:55 through a number of television programs 06:58 particularly The Apprentice 07:00 and you can't put a price on that publicity. 07:02 So he was already a known figure 07:05 and then he practiced disruptive public relations 07:10 to say, even the more outrageous things 07:13 gets you publicity. 07:14 I can remember in Australia years ago, 07:17 when we had a very real religious liberty problem 07:20 following the Lindy Chamberlain case, 07:23 where her child have been taken by dingo, 07:25 she was in prison for many years 07:28 accused of killing her. 07:29 But religion was thrown round is, 07:31 she was a religious fanatic and all that sort of stuff. 07:34 And the press was very bad for her church, very bad. 07:39 And a public figure, 07:44 Seventh-day Adventist was on the major television program 07:47 as the doctor like on the tonight show. 07:50 We brought him into 07:52 and ask him, how can we deal with this, 07:53 how can we solve all this bad press on the church 07:56 and we've been vilified and accused 07:58 at being child murderers and what's... 08:01 And he says, well he says, I don't know, 08:03 he says but I figure any publicity is good publicity 08:06 and it will turn out well. 08:09 I'm not really sure of totally about them. 08:12 But to some degree and Islam in America 08:16 is showing this to be true. 08:18 I mean, there's pretty bad press. 08:19 All this just cavalcade of fundamentalist Muslims 08:24 blowing themselves up and other people. 08:26 But they've never had more interest in Islam 08:29 or more accessions in western countries 08:31 in the recent history. 08:35 So to some degree publicity is publicity. 08:38 And we've seen that working in this campaign 08:41 and ironically this major candidate 08:44 didn't spend very much money but he got the publicity. 08:48 See, that's what we're discussing before. 08:51 Freedom of choice is involved. 08:53 You can vote for a candidate, 08:55 you can use your money to help support a candidate. 08:59 That's all consistent with the First Amendment, 09:01 the freedom of speech. 09:02 And so, I'm against government limitations 09:05 on the right of people to spend the money, 09:09 just like I'm against government limitations 09:11 on the right to vote. 09:13 And I think in the sense that's been enunciated, 09:17 we should all be Republicans 09:19 often said they were for limited government. 09:21 Not always worked that in practice. 09:23 But when you're talking about religious liberty, 09:24 that's the best approach. 09:26 The government should be hands off 09:27 as the First Amendment says, 09:29 no restrictions on the free exercise thereof. 09:33 Right, in fact, Lincoln... 09:35 Now funding... 09:36 we'll just say funding but no establishment, 09:39 in other words no neat cozier arrangements 09:43 where the state is supporting the church. 09:46 You hit up on a point, I think it's incredibly important 09:49 and that is the growth of government 09:51 is bad for religious liberty. 09:54 Because when government is small 09:56 and impacts the individual very little, 09:59 then there is little opportunity for conflict 10:01 between religious belief and the government. 10:03 But when the government becomes all pervasive 10:06 and constantly impacts and affects your life, 10:10 then there is huge opportunity 10:12 for conflict with religious liberty. 10:14 And that's what we're seeing today. 10:16 Yeah, I know that's a lot of what we're dealing with. 10:18 And we got be fair to government. 10:20 It's not full of sinister individuals, 10:23 least on to the west that are after... 10:25 you or I particularly, 10:27 but I think complexity of the modern society, 10:30 the technological advances, 10:32 it's providing constantly if not the necessity, 10:35 the overwhelming temptation for the government 10:38 to be involved and we need to resist that. 10:41 It's filled with individuals who think, 10:43 they know better what to do with my life. 10:45 Yes, well you said it. 10:47 I didn't want to put it that naked. 10:50 But Supreme Court is definitely, 10:53 back to where we started. 10:54 The Supreme Court and the Hobby Lobby 10:56 which we have slightly different interpretations 10:59 but still they erred on the side 11:01 for my perspective of empowering people 11:04 with the religious faith and conviction. 11:07 That's exactly where Hobby Lobby 11:09 I believe is a huge advantage and a huge victory 11:13 because the Supreme Court came down 11:15 definitively on the side of religious freedom. 11:18 And do you think that court saw it that way 11:20 or that was a by-product. 11:22 Do you think that they followed through 11:24 on a long-term commitment to uphold religious liberty. 11:29 I think the five and the majority did, 11:31 the conservative justices said 11:34 that what we're concerned about is religious freedom, 11:37 and we're going to uphold that over other interests 11:40 such as interest in promoting abortion, 11:43 interest in promoting women's issues. 11:46 I consider religious freedom to be the number one freedom 11:51 that gives us all the opportunity 11:53 to worship God in a way we want, 11:56 keeps us from being compelled to support religious ideologies 12:01 that we disagree with and it's the main spring 12:04 that seems to me for individual rights. 12:07 I must admit that when I go shopping nowadays, 12:10 which I do on occasion 12:12 traveling for liberty appointments 12:14 and I drive past the Hobby Lobby store, 12:16 I look at it a little bit differently, 12:18 because it's proven to be one of the seminal cases 12:22 recently on religious accommodation. 12:24 Not for the employee 12:26 which is where many of our cases devolve, 12:29 but in this case the employer 12:31 granted the right to withhold in this case, 12:35 in medical insurance 12:36 because the employer might take... 12:39 employee rather might take advantage of some closures 12:42 that were against the deeply held 12:44 religious viewpoint of the employer. 12:47 This might be problematic 12:48 and I can certainly give complicating arguments. 12:51 For example, what if the employee wanted to use 12:56 some fitness allocation from the employing organization, 13:00 and maybe jazzercise that would go against 13:03 the religious sensibilities of music. 13:05 But in reality, accruals aside, 13:09 this is a great confirmation of the right 13:12 for an employer for a religious accommodation. 13:17 For Liberty Insider, this is Lincoln Steed. |
Revised 2016-09-13