Join us as we unpack the latest insights from Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s book tour and interviews, where she addresses claims about a so-called constitutional crisis and the narrative surrounding the Supreme Court’s independence. The episode explores the nuances of her judicial philosophy and how it contrasts with other justices, like Justice Jackson. Stay tuned as the conversation branches into Senator Tim Kaine’s polarizing comments on natural rights, prompting discussions on constitutional interpretation and the essence of American founding principles.
SPEAKER 05 :
In a rare live appearance, Justice Barrett fires back on the quote-unquote constitutional crisis.
SPEAKER 14 :
Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Seculo. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Logan Sekulow.
SPEAKER 05 :
Welcome to Sekulow. Phone lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110. This one’s a pretty interesting story we’re going to lead with today, and that is Justice Barrett, who obviously is someone who has had people love her, people dislike her, someplace in the middle, because she has been pretty honest broker in terms of voting her uh how she feels is right not necessarily going always full conservative or full trump uh and not always going uh certainly definitely not always going full left but occasionally siding with them so she’s had some controversy here and there but you know what it seems like a person of character who who we have talked about for many years on this broadcast and of course we were thrilled when she was announced to be the next supreme court justice now in a rare appearance because she seems to be making the rounds quite a bit uh is actually making some statements it’s kind of refreshing to hear this to hear a supreme court justice uh lift you know back the curtain a little bit if you’re gonna have these kind of um opinions coming out that start to become a little bit more personal a little bit more jabby if you will it’s nice to hear more of an explanation from a justice now this happened at the kennedy center uh no lincoln center i’m sorry we got rick right now joining us later i thought lincoln center different precedents Different centers as well.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah. And cities. And cities.
SPEAKER 05 :
You know, okay, give me a break here.
SPEAKER 03 :
I saw… I will say, we got it wrong this morning as well.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, I was about to say, somebody in the prep meeting said the Kennedy Center. And by the way, Rick Grinnell’s joining us later today. Someone said that. Just whoever’s watching there, someone said that, so I thought, oh, that’s good. That’s a good connective tissue. Thanks for not correcting that.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, still right now on the air.
SPEAKER 05 :
You know, that’s on me. She also talked about the constitutional crisis, or if there is a constitutional crisis, the phrasing that we’ve heard now from the left over and over again. And this was with an interview with Barry Weiss, of course, founder of the Free Press.
SPEAKER 03 :
That’s right. So Justice Barrett has a book coming out, and many times that’s the only time you see Supreme Court justices giving interviews, doing events. They will go and speak to law schools and legal conferences, but this is promoting a book. This is the book is called Listening to the Law. So she did this event last night in the Lincoln Center. And then she also has an upcoming interview with CBS News that we have some sound from will play. But she pushes back on the notion that there’s this constitutional crisis. She says, I don’t know what a constitutional crisis would look like. I think that our country remains committed to the rule of law. I think we have functioning courts. I think a constitutional crisis would clearly we would be in one if the rule of law crumbles. But that is not the place we’re at. And she said, I think the Constitution is live and well. This pushes back not only against some of the disagreements that she and Justice Jackson had had in their opinions, even in dissents. But even to those judges yesterday that ran to NBC News to voice their distaste and dislike of the way the Supreme Court was operating, I think it’s good to see a Supreme Court justice stand strong on this. Right, Jordan?
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, first of all, because we keep hearing from the justices on the left and the politicians on the left that this Supreme Court has created this constitutional crisis. And I just ask the American people. It’s a failed court. I asked you if you’re, let’s say right now, do you believe you’re living in a constitutional crisis because of the U.S. Supreme Court and the nine justices of the Supreme Court? And the answer is likely no. You might disagree with some of their decisions. You might strongly agree with others of their decisions, sometimes from the same justices. You don’t have to like 100% of what they do. But that doesn’t mean that there’s a constitutional crisis because we don’t all agree 100% of the time on 100% of the issues. A constitutional crisis is not having the rule of law in place in the United States of America. And again, we always have to watch for that. That’s true crisis. The Supreme Court making decisions you may or may not like, that’s not a crisis.
SPEAKER 05 :
It’s not the same thing. You may think there’s a constitutional crisis, as Jordan said, but it’s likely not coming from the nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. What do you think? Give me a call at 1-800-684-3110. And look, we’re always involved in the Supreme Court of the United States here at the ACLJ, and you can be involved too. We’re fighting right now that we’re most likely headed to the Supreme Court. We even filed three filings last week on the same day. Be a part of that journey with us at ACLJ.org. When we get back, we’re going to continue this discussion and give you a little bit more from Justice Barrett. We’ll be right back with more on Seculo. Welcome back to Zeculo. Phone lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110. A lot of you are just joining us right now. We’re talking about Justice Amy Comey Barrett, who, of course, is a justice who most of the time we do agree with here. But she’s been out doing a book tour. Sort of a rare appearance when you hear from a Supreme Court justice is when they start promoting books. They’ll do public signings. They’ll do events. And look, I’m sure it’s a nerve-wracking time to do that. As Supreme Court justices, we know there have been a lot of threats against the Supreme Court justices over the last few years. And Amy Barrett has certainly not been someone who has taken a light stance on many of these. But, of course, she’s also making appearances, press appearances. And, Will, I think you wanted to set up a bite here because she’s been going on and answering somewhat the same questions. It feels like they all want her to just say, yes, it’s a constitutional crisis happening in the country.
SPEAKER 03 :
Right, which one would be absurd for a sitting Supreme Court justice to say that because that completely undercuts their entire job and position. But this is from Nora O’Donnell at CBS. This is a forthcoming interview. They’ve been teasing out some clips of it. I want you to pay attention to the framing of this question, which is so absurd. But this is Nora O’Donnell talking to Justice Amy Coney Barrett on CBS News, Byte 4.
SPEAKER 01 :
President Donald Trump appointed you to cement a conservative legal revolution. Are you concerned about the narrative of this court that it is no longer a separate and co-equal branch of government as designed by the Constitution?
SPEAKER 02 :
I disagree with that conception of the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court is an independent branch of government. And presidents appoint justices, and presidents have whatever their own motivations are for appointing justices. But once justices serve on the court, the whole point of life tenure and salary protection, which is guaranteed to federal judges by the Constitution, is to ensure their independence from both the executive branch and from Congress.
SPEAKER 03 :
just the framing of that question that you were appointed to cement a conservative legal revolution meaning just adding conservative jurisprudence to the courts in this country and are you concerned about the narrative once again lazy journalism with whose narrative who’s saying that other than you Nora O’Donnell that the court is no longer a separate and co-equal branch of government The entire premise there is that if you add conservative jurisprudence to courts, it can no longer be co-equal and separate. It’s so absurd.
SPEAKER 04 :
And it’s like she was only put there to submit, not because of her… her accomplishments as a judge, as an academic, her writings, how well known she was in judicial circles. Now, you were just put there to cement a conservative majority. That’s all you are. It’s just a yes vote. I mean, already it’s a demeaning question right from the start. And I think that, you know, if it was not Norah O’Donnell asking, it would seem pretty sexist as well. Like, they just picked you. They needed to pick a woman who was a conservative, so they picked you to put there. And so there’s that part of it. The second part of it again, too, is that because we disagree with the decisions right now of some of the Supreme Court opinions, this court is now no longer a co-equal branch of government. I mean, that’s a wake-up call to a lot of us who, I mean, I still think Article 1, 2, 3 sets up three branches of government and the Supreme Court. is really the the ultimate branch in the sense that without an enforcement mechanism we still respect its opinions when i go back to saying the rule of law is what really defines and makes our country great and different from every country in the world is it the supreme court doesn’t need a police force to have the country, whether it’s our states or our federal government, follow ultimately its decisions. That doesn’t mean they can’t later be challenged, but in a peaceful way, in a legal process, not through war and conflict.
SPEAKER 05 :
of having lifetime appointments. I know it’s controversial. Some people in the comments obviously light up with that. But you have actually a moment where when you do have these extreme pendulum politics that are happening right now, it is a pure protection against it. Obviously, there have been the thoughts of Joe Biden and many of the other ones saying, hey, we got to pack the court. We got to add more justice. We got to do this. Playing politics with that system. Right, right.
SPEAKER 03 :
Right. The left themselves are the ones trying to take away the independence of it. But yet because she’s a conservative with her judicial philosophy, then therefore she must be part of the problem of breaking away the Supreme Court as a co-equal branch of government. But I think this is interesting too, especially in light of what we talked about yesterday with those lower court judges being upset with the Supreme Court and with what Justice Jackson has publicly said. And we can play that as well because this is what Justice Barrett had to say about the understanding of law and the way that they rule and whether people like it or not. Let’s go ahead and play bite one. This is from the – Interview that will be coming out later this weekend on CBS, once again with Nora O’Donnell, Byte One.
SPEAKER 02 :
I want Americans to understand the law and that it’s not just an opinion poll about whether the Supreme Court thinks something is good or whether the Supreme Court thinks something is bad. What the court is trying to do is see what the American people have decided. And sometimes the American people have expressed themselves in the Constitution itself, which is our fundamental law, sometimes in statutes, but the court should not be imposing its own values on the American people. That’s for the democratic process.
SPEAKER 03 :
And that is in stark contrast to what we’ve heard from Justice Jackson, who was being interviewed a lot earlier this year, asking about what her favorite part of the job was being on the Supreme Court. We saw that back and forth between Justice Barrett and Jackson within that Trump v. Casa case, which was about the universal injunctions, where Justice Barrett directly called her out by name from her dissent. And that’s the one also where Justice Jackson said that this is going to lead to our collective demise. But let’s listen to what Justice Jackson thinks about the role of her as a justice is what she likes most about it by 11.
SPEAKER 12 :
I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues.
SPEAKER 04 :
the exact opposite of really what you’re supposed to be doing here I mean this is again the idea here is that you your job is to you can put forward an opinion or dissent your job is not about it’s not policy making Again if she wants to give lectures on policy I mean I guess she can but it does seem slightly inappropriate because policies will come before the court and the court’s not supposed to look at the policy and say you know or the justice and say I like this policy so I’m going to find a way to hold it constitutional I don’t like this policy so I’m going to find a way to hold it unconstitutional that is how the system of the rule of law falls apart that’s more like a kind of banana republic court system that says We’re always going to side with the political side we agree with. It doesn’t matter what the legal argument are. And unfortunately, that’s what’s being taught in a majority of America’s law schools is that the Constitution is living to mean whatever it needs to mean for us today so that we can do what we want today regardless of restraints that were put in place, it looks like pretty clearly, by the Constitution on the powers of the government.
SPEAKER 05 :
We have to educate people because I’m looking at the comments and a lot of the comments… are more siding with what would be justice jackson’s point of view which is amy barrett has betrayed us has done things because like she’s not necessarily always voting and she even talked about that there was a there was a comment i have to pull it up where she specifically they said well how do you feel about the fact that you know president trump has gotten kind of mad at you for not 100 siding with you that is not the job of the supreme court justice she said to be in this job you have to not care uh you have to have a thick skin she doesn’t have a social media account she
SPEAKER 03 :
Her assistant and husband kind of say they’ll bring things to her on a need-to-know basis. Hopefully they’re good at that, because I’ll be honest. Some of these people… Like, you need to see this right now.
SPEAKER 05 :
…do that to me, and I’m like, you know I don’t. I don’t need to see it. Are you pointing at me?
SPEAKER 01 :
I’m maybe.
SPEAKER 05 :
And maybe other people who are watching right now who are like, have you seen this horrible thing someone said about you? It’s like, you know what, guys? I didn’t need to see it. How about you be better censors for me? So maybe Comey, Comey, Barrett’s got a better team.
SPEAKER 03 :
That’s fair. But I think also her statement proves the point that she has that different philosophy than Justice Jackson of saying like, I may even like it within the concept of like political policy. But if the law says one thing, it’s not my job to rewrite the law. That would be the definition of an activist judge, which we are so against and what we have fought against at the ACLJ for a very long time.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, I don’t have to agree with every decision Amy Coney Barrett has made as a Supreme Court justice. In fact, I don’t. But that doesn’t mean that I believe that she’s coming from a judicial philosophy, which I wouldn’t, that I would typically agree with, a judicial philosophy that would usually probably fit my own and many of our listeners. But sometimes those philosophies can lead different people to different decisions that’s the point of having human beings as supreme court justices and then not just have ai robots decide well based off this and this and we’ve read through millions of things this is the decision these are the there are these are humans making decisions using their best judgment and and again i think if you agree with them a hundred percent of the time you’re you’re you’re hoping that you had like kind of the left leaning and i get that Sometimes I wish we had Supreme Court justices like those on the left, which you basically… 100% of the time rule. I think if you bet 99… You could bet 100% they’ll rule always whatever is the liberal position, and you’d win 99% of the time. It’d be a great, great… But… You can’t do that with conservatives always, and that’s because they actually are looking at the bigger picture, not just the policy, but the bigger picture of our Constitution, our laws, and our system of government. That doesn’t mean I’m going to defend every bad decision she may make. Like she said, you can criticize it. That doesn’t mean it’s a crisis. Absolutely.
SPEAKER 05 :
Phone lines are still open for you at 1-800-684-3110. When we get back, we’ll take some more phone calls, and we’ll also hear from Rick Grinnell. He’ll be joining us. Rick Grinnell of the Kennedy Center. That’s the right one. All right, again, give us a call. Go to ACLJ.org. Also, if you want to support the work of the ACLJ, do it today. Sign some petitions. Welcome back to Secular. We are joined now by Rick Grinnell. Rick, it’s obviously been a very busy week in Washington, D.C., whether it’s the Kennedy Center or some of the changes that are coming. And, Will, I think you should set this one up because it’s another one of those things we’ll have to get used to saying, get used to changing, Gulf of America kind of moment once again as President Trump gets in the name business once again.
SPEAKER 03 :
That’s right. So the White House has revealed that the president will be signing an executive order renaming the Department of Defense to its original name created by George Washington, the Department of War. Now, Rick, the president likes to change names. We’ve seen this. We’ve seen it with the Gulf of America. This one is actually restoring the historical name to the department. So just top line, want to get your thoughts on it. And then I’ve got some follow ups that will be quite interesting.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, first of all, no one should be surprised that President Trump is on offense, right? He doesn’t just play defense. So it’s not just the Department of Playing Defense or the Department of Defending Us. It’s literally the Department on Offense. And so the original name, Department of War, I think makes sense from going on offense. I do have a suggestion to make, though, and maybe I can make it here for the first time. If we’re going to have a Department of War, maybe the Department of State should become the Department of Peace.
SPEAKER 03 :
So I’ve got a follow up here because we’re seeing the left already spiral out of control because of anything President Trump does. But this one was curious to me because this is from a U.S. senator. This is the senator from Arizona, Mark Kelly. who decided to tweet this in response to this announcement. It says, only someone who avoided the draft would want to rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War. Now, putting aside the fact that that was a historical name, the philosophical reasons for the posture of it, the fact that the left would even go there and say that it’s almost as if they give the president the wins every time because they can’t just even make a rational argument about it. They just have to play insult politics with this.
SPEAKER 09 :
I think you’re being generous in saying that it just literally insult politics. I actually think this was one of the dumbest reactions. And I didn’t know that Senator Kelly was somebody who wasn’t intellectually curious, because to me, this makes total sense. But to bring up someone, you know, oh, you didn’t serve, so therefore you don’t get to have a philosophical view on protecting the United States. That’s a non sequitur. It’s silly. But I would hope that we would have senators who are a little more intellectually curious. A renaming from defense to offense to go back to the historical name, I think, makes a lot of sense. Look, I would say this to Senator Kelly. Philosophically, you should have a person on the cabinet sitting in front of the president who says, sir, we do not negotiate. We’re here to go and implement policies without negotiation to protect the United States of America. You should also have another person who sits there and who’s in charge of diplomacy and peace. And that is a conflict between those two cabinet officials. One should be saying, I’m ready to go. We don’t negotiate. The other is saying, we negotiate. We’re trying to use all of the tools in the tool belt of the US government to solve problems. But sometimes the Department of State or the Department of Peace has to transfer that file over to the Pentagon, the Department of War, to say it’s time to stop negotiating. These are the philosophical arguments that I think that we can have a thoughtful discussion on, but we can’t when we have senators who just immediately say, well, you didn’t serve, so therefore you don’t get to be a part of this conversation. That’s silly. President Trump’s name was on the poster going around the United States of America, raising money, traipsing through event after event, articulating the vision of what he wanted for America. And that vision has always been a vision of peace. When you change the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War, signaling we have a department that does not negotiate, that’s ready to implement, that is going to be peace through strength. I can’t think of something more strong than to say we’re ready. We don’t negotiate. We’re ready for war if need be. But inherent in that discussion needs to be a very strong Department of State, Department of Peace that says not now, not yet. We haven’t utilized every tool. And I think that discussion is something that the Senate should embrace, not mock.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, I think you should bring that up, Rick. I really do. I think that would be an interesting counterbalance to the way we’re seeing it because sometimes these name changes come and I think people see it as a PR stunt. They see it as a moment for President Trump to get the headlines for something that maybe is going to enrage a certain group, excite a certain group. But if you were to sort of remake what all of this looks like, I think you have a very different way that America can view even the way that the government works for them.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah, and we need to be able to update. And that’s one of the things that I love about President Trump is that he’s not one of these politicians that just decides, this is my policy and I’m sticking to it for four years, even though it’s a failing policy. This is a man who doesn’t sleep much, who’s watching the reactions and looking for ways to adjust the policy, adjust the message so that he actually gets results. And he is, as somebody who works for him, I can tell you, he is all about results. If you don’t have results, then he wants to know what needs to change. What do we need to do differently? Is it something that I need to do? Is it something you need to do? But something has to be different. And he also, I think, is willing to make changes. And personnel changes are some of those, and name changes are others. I think that this name is more reflective philosophy that we need to have in the United States about putting America first and letting people know that we’re not going to have weak policies and we’re going to back up our policies with actual strong words and actions.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, and I think, Rick, and final kind of point here is that under the Department of Defense for decades, the Department of Defense has been used almost as the world’s police force in many ways under different philosophies and administrations. I think almost that posture change could set a different tone as well. Like we use this for a specific purpose. not to go defend every single person around the world, as we’ve seen through many different neocon-style issues that have gone on for a very long time.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, one of the reasons I like you is because you’re such an intellect, and that is such a great intellectual point, because if you just look at the philosophy of what we’re trying to do by putting America first, and you realize that during the Iraq war, for instance, and one of the reasons I embraced President Trump after being at the UN for eight years and defending the Bush policy for a long time, I became really uncomfortable with using the Pentagon, using the Department of Defense at the time to go out and try to win hearts and minds in Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever. That is the job of the embassies. If you want to have people on the front lines without guns trying to solve problems and being there, the Department of State, the place that I’ve worked for 13 years and love so much, they need to be on the front lines. We’ve got Foreign Service officers who want to be in danger posts, who understand the risk, but want to be there solving problems. To win hearts and minds, you can’t have somebody with a gun standing there saying, change your behavior in your heart. And this is a long philosophical discussion. Some people don’t want to try to win hearts and minds. I am somebody who thinks we need to think very strategically about it. We don’t want to waste money. But we certainly shouldn’t have the Pentagon doing it. We should be having other departments. It’s much cheaper to have the State Department do it. But that’s why we have embassies. That’s why we have the United States offices overseas that we call an embassy.
SPEAKER 05 :
Rick, hate to cut you off. We’re running just low on time. Of course, you said long, drawn-out conversations. We have to go to break. We’ll be right back.
SPEAKER 14 :
Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. And now your host, Logan Sekulow.
SPEAKER 05 :
Welcome back to Sekulow. Thanks to Rick Grinnell for joining us in that last segment. We had to cut him off, unfortunately, because we were running out of time. But we’ll get to him again next week. It’s always great to hear from Rick with such an amazing point of view and obviously access to what’s going on in the administration. Of course, you can’t get that. many places specifically many places which you’re watching or listening or hearing from just an incredible team that only happens because people like you support the work of the aclj we’re able to bring in people like rick again that’s at aclj.org be a part of that team today we would really appreciate it great place to watch and listen if you’re brand new you’re one of the maybe 521 000 plus subscribers already on youtube or maybe you just watch on youtube and you haven’t yet subscribed hit that subscribe button i know we talk about that i sound like uh you know gen alpha saying that saying hey like and subscribe do this it really does help us out a lot it gets this message into a lot more people’s hands literally into their hands and that is the most effective way to reach a new generation of not only supporters but people that you want to educate about what’s actually going on in the united states of america and around the world so i encourage you to join with again over the over half a million people that subscribe and the millions that watch uh each and every week we are resetting a bit we’re going to talk about a couple different topics today we are first going to start about with amy coney barrett what happened she’s been on a book tour making some statements and also well a bit of a response from senate not response a bit of a fiery exchange from senator tim kaine who you may remember at one point was the vice presidential nominee that’s right yeah and we’ll talk about that we’ll play the sound from him that was during a senate foreign relations committee hearing with uh with nominees to be ambassadors as well as some assistant secretaries of state uh
SPEAKER 03 :
But he had some very shocking statements about where our rights come from and kind of flies in the face of our founding documents, which in light of all of this, we’re starting to see whether it be the statement we played from Justice Jackson, where she said, you know, my favorite part is that through my opinions, I get to tell people how I feel about the issues. That’s not the purpose of the Supreme Court justice in an opinion or dissent. much like what we’re seeing out of the United States Senate that will play in the next segment. So stick around for that. You don’t want to miss it. But a lot going on here on a Friday, Logan.
SPEAKER 05 :
That’s right. And then, of course, you had Justice Barrett again on her speaking tour saying, hey. We’re not in a constitutional crisis. In fact, I wouldn’t even know what that looks like. It certainly wouldn’t look like what we’re dealing with right now. Of course, it’s a bit of a summary. But she said the quote, I don’t know what a constitutional crisis would look like. This was her speaking to Barry Weiss at the Lincoln Center. She said, I think our country remains committed to the rule of law. I think we have a functioning court. I think a constitutional crisis would be clearly if one of the rule of law crumbles. And that is not the place we are where we are. So, again, a pretty strong statement there. coming out of the rare times you get to hear from Supreme Court justices in these kind of forums, usually when they’re on these kind of book tours. And she’s been making the rounds over the last few days. Again, it’s kind of refreshing.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, I think, listen, to hear it from the just themselves who’ve been under a lot of stress, I’d say, and threats. Direct death threats. Yeah, I mean, direct death threats. We all know about it. Troops all around their homes. Yeah. outside Washington, D.C., and just the amount of security that we’ve seen increase around the Supreme Court, which is right across the street from our offices in Washington, D.C., and there are barricades for a long time.
SPEAKER 05 :
Newly expanding offices.
SPEAKER 04 :
Newly expanding offices, and we can talk about that more, too. But again, so you never really know what security situation you’re going to get come October when the court is back in session. But what I do know is that they’ve already changed entrance rules. Our street closes anytime the court is in session until the justices are no longer in the building. And so, I mean, listen, you don’t get to hear from them like this much. But the truth is that a constitutional crisis is not disagreeing. with a Supreme Court opinion. A constitutional crisis is the system and the rule of law completely crumbling. And that’s what we’re always fighting for. That’s why we’re always so tough on the FBI and the DOJ. Yeah, we’re tough on the FBI, tough on the DOJ, tough on all these political raids that we’ve seen, because that’s how you end up in a constitutional crisis.
SPEAKER 05 :
misusing law enforcement not court decisions that you may not agree with uh and then a court decision that you do agree with that’s not the concept that’s not the end of the country all right when we get back we’ll continue this discussion and we want to hear from you i’m asking you to call in we got a few lines open 1-800-684-3110 we’ll take some calls in the next segment as well so you don’t have to stay on hold all that long again at 1-800-684-3110 be a part of the aclj team today at aclj.org we’ll be right back Welcome back to Secular. Like I said, phone lines are open. I’d love to hear from you. There’s a lot of you watching right now, but not a lot of you calling at 1-800-684-3110. We want to really play now. Maybe this will get you fired up a little bit. Well, this is, you remember Tim Kaine? He was running for vice president at one point. Saturday Night Live didn’t remember him.
SPEAKER 03 :
They didn’t remember him.
SPEAKER 05 :
They had a whole sketch on him. And look, I think that was one of the reasons you had a Kamala Harris loss because they even were admitting defeat way, way before defeat saying, remember this guy? You forget your vice president. It’s true. It’s true. you do kind of black out the vice presidential candidates, I feel like, once they lose. Like, you may remember Mitt Romney, but you may not remember Paul Ryan. That’s right. It’s like, you have to go back in your head for a minute. You remember Al Gore, and you’ve got to be, leave him and lose him. I remember that. So lose him.
SPEAKER 03 :
So lose him. Because he loves dance. But only for now. We’ll forget about him in a few months.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, Tim Walls just because he feels like he pops back up every so often. Something crazy. Something fun. And this is kind of what Tim Kaine did. Another Tim. Let’s hear from Tim Kaine. Do you want to set it up? Yeah, I was going to set up where this was.
SPEAKER 03 :
I don’t know if you need to set this up. So this is at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They are doing nomination hearings. Imagine that. The Senate is still trying to pass nominations and vote on nominations of the president. But, I mean, this is for an ambassador to Tunisia, an ambassador to Costa Rica, some assistant secretaries of state. Not really the… must see tv hearings these aren’t the cabinet level these aren’t the most of us were not ambassador to the un but this is the senator from virginia who sits on the foreign relations committee of the senate had this to say to one of the nominees who was concerned about him saying that our rights come from god that is what the nominee said here is what the senator from virginia had to say to him as a response this is what the constitution says
SPEAKER 11 :
The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government, but come from the creator, that’s what the Iranian government believes. It’s a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Shia law and targets Sunnis, Baha’is, Jews, Christians, and other religious minorities. And they do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their creator. So the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.
SPEAKER 05 :
Of course.
SPEAKER 04 :
emanate from the laws or our governments. And that’s what our founding fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence before they even got to the Constitution, which, I mean, two times actually early in the Declaration. I’ll read it for people because I guess we’re not teaching anymore. This is 1776, July 4th, the unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America. and of nature’s God entitle them. You move on. This is the second section of the Declaration of Independence, really the second main section. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Again, this idea that the law, it does stem from the laws of nature and of nature’s God, and then those laws those inherent rights are then imperfectly by man put into legislation and enshrined and even in the constitution we’re constantly having to figure out how do we make that how do we get closer to that statement of the natural rights and laws that we all should all should enjoy we’re constantly working towards that to make that better and even in the constitution itself the bill of rights the big debate about the bill of rights and how we ended up getting
SPEAKER 03 :
the first amendments to the Constitution, which were passed right after the Constitution, the debate wasn’t whether or not those were the rights of the people. Those were assumed to be self-evident. So one camp was saying, this is self-evident. We don’t need to list it out because if we have to list it out, then people will think that it’s only your right if it’s listed in the constitution right but these are self-evident the others were concerned that maybe tim canes would come along in the future and say that if we don’t list the freedom of speech freedom of religion freedom of assembly uh the right to bear arms these things then they don’t exist and therefore we can trample on your rights but It was never a debate about where the rights came from and that government got to grant them. It was making sure that the government was there to protect what God had already given us. And the fact that the Senator is saying this.
SPEAKER 04 :
He is comparing the Declaration of Independence To Sharia law.
SPEAKER 05 :
No, not directly comparing it, because it’s saying the generic idea that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are just enshrined in us by our creator, by the concept of human beings.
SPEAKER 04 :
He’s already missing the one step. And I think, again, because America is for all freedom-seeking people, it doesn’t matter what your faith is. It’s not like we’re taking and going right from the Bible to the courts. It’s an interpretation of philosophy and humanity, biblical values, the Judeo-Christian values, then put into man’s words into laws. And so where your source of that information is very important. And so the source of that in Iran is very different than the United States of America.
SPEAKER 05 :
And Ted Cruz wasn’t going to have that. That’s right. You had Pastor Ted Cruz come out for a moment here.
SPEAKER 03 :
That’s right. We should play Ted Cruz. But I think this is also a reminder to everyone why the ACLJ exists. Because these are elected senators that no longer believe, not just they don’t believe it. If you could watch it, you’d see it. Won the popular vote to be vice president of the United States. And this individual thinks it is not just incorrect, but thinks it is wrong to believe it. He said it’s troubling. to believe what the Declaration of Independence clearly states.
SPEAKER 04 :
The rights don’t just come from him and his colleagues who write them down on paper. That’s what he can’t believe.
SPEAKER 03 :
Let’s play Ted Cruz’s response. This is Bite7.
SPEAKER 10 :
Because that radical and dangerous notion, in his words, is literally the founding principle upon which the United States of America was created. And if you do not believe me, and you made reference to this, Mr. Barnes, then you can believe perhaps the most prominent Virginian to ever serve, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in the Declaration of Independence, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator. not by government, not by the Democratic National Committee, but by God with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
SPEAKER 05 :
Preach it, Brother Cruz. It’s a moment.
SPEAKER 03 :
That is Baptist Ted Cruz coming out for you. That’s right. And once again, though, I think it shows, Jordan, why at a time like this, organizations like the ACLJ, why we have to fight at the lowest levels, at the very basic levels of school boards or with schools, all the way up to the Supreme Court.
SPEAKER 04 :
The U.S. Senator will mock you for agreeing with the words of the Declaration of Independence that there are certain unalienable rights that no government, has the right to take away from you all the government should be doing is protecting you from is to protect those rights for you they can never take and if they do take those rights away from you they are not a legitimate government which was the why they declared independence once you stop protecting those rights and again humans aren’t perfect so you constantly have to work at protecting unalienable rights, to treat everyone equally, to get there. It’s not an ending discussion. But why the Constitution doesn’t have to be a living, breathing document is right there through our Declaration of Independence and our founding documents. They set the stage for kind of our goals as a country. And mocking that… to me and just saying, you know what? We only want to rely on human beings for what the law says is legal and illegal or wrong or right. Well, history has shown that doesn’t work well. You always want some bigger idea to strive for, and that’s what the United States is about.
SPEAKER 03 :
And this was in response to a nominee, Riley Barnes, who was nominated to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. And in his statement, he noted that he agreed with the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who recently said that the U.S. was founded on the principle that all men are created equal because our rights come from God, our creator, not from our laws, not from our government. So in his statement of saying, I agree with who I want to be my future boss if you confirm me. I agree with the Secretary of State’s position, which is the position of the Declaration of Independence and our founders. That’s what set off the sitting senator from Virginia to have to go on a rant about how dangerous that is, how troubling that is, and how having someone like that is like having someone from the Islamic Republic of Iran. That is… It sounds almost like this is something we’re making up. It can’t be that a senator from Virginia would say that. And yet, that’s exactly what we see here.
SPEAKER 05 :
Here we are. Phone lines are open for you. As I said, hopefully that fired you up a little bit. What do you think about that coming from your own representation? Maybe you’re in Virginia right now. Maybe you are under Tim Kaine. 1-800-684-3110. Got about four lines open right now. We’ll take some calls when we get back. Jerry, Rhode Island, you’ll be up first. You’ve got to hold for about a half an hour, so we appreciate that. A lot of you are on hold as well, but we’ve got some phone lines open. Again, 1-800-684-3110. Help us end this week strong by supporting the work of the ACLJ at aclj.org. Do it today. We have just filed in one of the most important cases we’ve ever had to work on defunding Planned Parenthood. You can be a part of that as well. We’ve never been this close to doing it for having it done. We can’t do it without you. aclj.org. We’ll be right back. Welcome back to Secula. We are going to take your phone calls, and I said that, and believe it, it’s going to happen. Well, I think I’m going to actually do it this time. No, Pat in the chat is going to say, Logan, you say it, but you never do it. Phone lines are open 1-800-684-3110. Don’t listen to Pat in the chat. Let’s go to Jerry in Rhode Island instead on line one, who has been a hold for 40 big ones. Jerry, I’m sorry. Go ahead.
SPEAKER 13 :
That’s okay. It was a great conversation. The whole program could generate a whole bunch of comments, but I’ll narrow mine down to the loaded question, Noah O’Donnell, who used to be my favorite anchor of the Big Three, her loaded question to Barrett. But that’s why most of us don’t trust the mainstream media because of the lack of neutrality on the anchors. So I like Barrett’s response, and I’ll probably buy the book.
SPEAKER 03 :
Should we play for the audience that maybe just came around what Jerry’s actually referencing? This is Nora O’Donnell talking to Justice Barrett and the phrasing of how she asks, basically, if her entire nomination to the court was a part of almost a judicial coup to change the neutrality and independence of the Supreme Court, let’s play bite four.
SPEAKER 01 :
President Donald Trump appointed you to cement a conservative legal revolution. Are you concerned about the narrative of this court that it is no longer a separate and co-equal branch of government as designed by the Constitution?
SPEAKER 02 :
I disagree with that conception of the Supreme Court, because the Supreme Court is an independent branch of government. And presidents appoint justices, and presidents have whatever their own motivations are for appointing justices. But once justices serve on the court, the whole point of life tenure and salary protection, which is guaranteed to federal judges by the Constitution, is to ensure their independence from both the executive branch and from Congress.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, and to that point, and that goes back to what Jerry was saying, is the entire phrasing of that is, are you concerned with the narrative this court is no longer a separate and co-equal branch of government? What the left has been trying to do is pack the court to get their viewpoint across. That is how you lose the independents. of the Supreme Court by trying to force your ideology in so that you always win. That’s not the purpose of it. I know even people on the right that are concerned, like Justice Barrett didn’t agree with the other conservatives on the court. They see that as almost a betrayal. I disagree. I think it shows that she has a judicial philosophy. She’s true to that. Even if we disagree with her rationale or reasoning sometimes, she is not like what the left wants that court to become. And even her answer there took me right back to her confirmation hearings of how she’s unfazed and able to respond so eloquently so quickly.
SPEAKER 05 :
Absolutely. Let’s continue on and take some more phone calls. Let’s first go to Ronald in South Carolina who is watching on Rumble. Ronald, go ahead.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yes, I enjoyed hearing what Rick had said concerning much of the arguments that has been going on about the courts, and also what Will had said in follow-up, and what Cruz had said. And I think that what it’s coming down to is that the liberal Democrats are literally trying to reinterpret the Constitution instead of what the Founding Fathers had meant the Constitution to be, which was to be the foundation based on much of the Word of God that has been a ruling guide for many of their lives of the founding fathers.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, and Ronald, I want to ask this to Jordan. I think here’s what the big difference we’re seeing about today’s Democrat Party and liberals, including what you consider a mainstream Democrat like Tim Kaine. You don’t normally think of him, you think of him as a kind of boring Democrat, not normally the firebrand radical like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. But the difference is, is that we used to have a fundamental agreement that our foundational documents were what were the foundation of this country and what we’re seeing now in today’s democrat party and why it’s so hard to find common ground isn’t because we disagree on the interpretation of the texts it’s that they’re saying it’s dangerous to believe the text of our founding documents and that’s what we heard from the senator from virginia
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, and this is, of course, has gone on in debates for decades. Is the Constitution living and breathing? Do we basically reapply it to every new situation and mold it into some way so it fits that situation in a way that then brings us to the outcome we desire? Instead of saying, this is our basic framework, this is what we’re looking at, we’re going to be faced with new things that the founding fathers and the authors of this did not even think about, but that we can use these basics and the laws that have been passed and signed into law together to see, is this… a action that is being challenged, something that is constitutional in our system of government, legal in our system of government, is this execution of power, a kind of execution of power that has been done in the correct way in our system of government. And you can do that without kind of taking the Constitution and making it like Plato, for whatever issue you want. And that I think is, again, that’s a fundamental long-term debate. But what you see here is this idea that if there’s conservative majority, somehow the court loses credibility. That’s just not the case. Most of the time, it’s Congress that people have the least faith in and elected officials, not unelected judges.
SPEAKER 05 :
Sometimes they give you a good reason for that. Yeah. They make a lot of promises. Judges don’t. Yeah, this is probably the last call of the day. Let’s go to Chris in Virginia. Now, Virginia, Jordan, before we take the call, it’s been an interesting state because it’s changed so dramatically in just a number of years.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, I mean, it goes back to Democrat, Republican, who knows what’s happening in the next election. Governors only get one term, and so you have a popular Republican governor now, but you look at the next race, it’s tougher for the Republicans. So, I mean, again. It just swings crazy. Let’s go to Chris, though. You’re on the air.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yes, I was just reminding everybody, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner aren’t Virginians. Mark Warner being from Indianapolis, and then we got Tim Kaine, who’s from Minnesota. We like to call him the carpet-bagging communist. We don’t take him serious. We were hoping that maybe after this, Ted Cruz could represent us.
SPEAKER 04 :
But you know, the thing is, unfortunately… They are the U.S. senators. You can say you don’t take them seriously. They get these votes. And that’s why we play what they say. To say, you know, someone who was a vice presidential nominee, who’s been in public life, been a governor of Virginia as well. He gets to the point, and this is a state where so much of these documents were written, founded. I mean, the people that wrote them, founded them, lived there. And you’re going to say that natural law, natural rights is like Iran? this is in the united states senate and you’re kind of forgetting the whole declaration of independence to me it’s again we need civic education in our country we know we need that uh but but two if u.s senators are going this far that’s that’s how they’re going to attack a nominee you believe that there’s natural rights that god has given to all to be you know to all ingrained in us yes uh and that that’s somehow dangerous because you’re you’re like an ayatollah It’s really disturbing. It’s shocking.
SPEAKER 03 :
It’s hard to believe, like you said, that it’s a senator.
SPEAKER 04 :
I told you not to vote for Tim Kaine. I wonder what law, legal advisor put that in his ear and said, you know what, today, attack natural law.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, because to go back to Amy Coney Barrett, it felt like the Dongba lives loudly in you moment. Yeah, like it was pre-planned. Man, I guess we’re talking about it, so I guess that’s why, but not exactly in the most positive way. of reaction hey that’s gonna do it for today’s show really appreciate it uh with that we do encourage you to support the work of the aclj we didn’t talk a lot about aclj work today but there is a lot going on big expansions in our washington dc headquarters as well in our media center here in nashville we got so much happening we want you to be a part of that team as well i encourage you look at all the incredible free content we’ll give you at aclj.org nothing’s behind a paywall we take pride in that because it is something that not many other organizations or broadcasts can offer but we are able to do that because not because we’re proud of ourselves because we’re proud of people like you who step up and support the work of the aclj at aclj.org you give and donate so this doesn’t have to be behind a paywall and we can share it worldwide that’s at aclj.org do it today talk to you on monday
