Latest / Conversations: Special Guests with Preston Scott / What Were Florida's Male Supreme Court Justices Thinking?

Transcript

What Were Florida's Male Supreme Court Justices Thinking? · Conversations: Special Guests with Preston Scott

• 0:00
  Remember the days when times were good and life was simple. He still lives
• 0:04
  there. The Morning Show with Preston Scott on News Radio one hundred point seven
• 0:08
  WFLA Big Stories in the press Box brought to you by Grove of creative marketing
• 0:17
  and digital expertise. No bigger story really of the week than the Florida State
• 0:25
  Supreme Court, by a vote of four to three, allowing the abortion amendment
• 0:30
  on the ballot, and here to talk about it, as the founder chairman
• 0:33
  of Liberty Council, our friend Matt Staver. Matt, it is inexplicable to
• 0:38
  me how four justices came to the conclusion that they did. Let me ask
• 0:44
  you, first and foremost, how did they get there? Well, I
• 0:49
  think you said it. It's inexplicable because you have three dissenting justices, all
• 0:55
  three of the women justices, and they did a marvelous job pointing out why
• 1:03
  this ballot initiative did not comply with Florida law. It was deceptive. People
• 1:07
  don't know what they're going to be voting for. The ballot summary was not
• 1:11
  sufficient, It violates the single subject rule. It will affect all three branches
• 1:17
  of government. They were right on And then some of those in the majority.
• 1:22
  For example, the Chief Justice, he acknowledged that this ballot summary has
• 1:27
  a lot of vagueness and that there's a lot of problems with its application that
• 1:34
  people wouldn't know about. So he acknowledges the very problem that we argued and
• 1:40
  that the Centers actually points out. He acknowledges that. But then he goes
• 1:44
  on to say, and this is the inexplicable part that, well, this
• 1:48
  is just part of judicial interpretation of any kind of statue. Well, this
• 1:53
  is not a statute. This is a voter initiative, and a voter initiative
• 1:57
  has to comply with certain aspects of law. And when you go and read
• 2:01
  the ballot summer, you need to know what you're voting for. Do people
• 2:06
  know that they're voting for no law regarding abortion through viability? Do they know
• 2:13
  that even after viability, a tattoo artist is empowered under this particular provision to
• 2:19
  determine a medical decision of viability. Do they know that even if the person
• 2:24
  says the baby is viable, that they could override any late term abortion law.
• 2:29
  No, they don't know that. Do they know that health and safety
• 2:31
  regulations will be challenged? Do they know that the only surviving law that could
• 2:36
  possibly happen up through the late second early third trimester would be parnal notification.
• 2:42
  Every law is going to be wiped out. No, they don't know that.
• 2:45
  That's exactly the problem. And the Chief Justice acknowledge that. But then
• 2:49
  the Chief Justice says, well, you know, that's just going to be
• 2:52
  something that we'll have to deal with, you know, if it's passed.
• 2:54
  Well, no, no, no, that's a statute. Maybe, you
• 2:58
  know legislatures, past statutes, they can have vague language in there, they
• 3:01
  can get challenged, the courts can have the job to interpret them, but
• 3:06
  that's not a voter initiative because there's no debate on a voter initiative unlike a
• 3:10
  statute. Well, let me ask you, Matt, is is that in
• 3:14
  and of itself that statement by the Chief Justice grounds to challenge this again because
• 3:21
  he's calling it a statute and it wasn't passed by this legislature. It's it's
• 3:25
  something that we as voters are relying on the court to get right for us
• 3:30
  to decide on. Well, he doesn't call it a statue per se,
• 3:35
  but he makes the analogy to that's what you do with a statute. And
• 3:39
  so that's a problem. And this is not a statue because the reason why
• 3:45
  the law is the way it is for voter initiatives is that there's no give
• 3:49
  and take, there's no debate. Somebody who has a special interest in this
• 3:52
  case planned parenthood in the ACAI, they come up with a particular piece of
• 3:55
  writing. They said it out there. They need to tell you exactly what
• 3:59
  your yesterday and what your no is and if they don't, then it can't
• 4:02
  go on the ballot. You need to not be fooled. That's the problem.
• 4:06
  People will be fooled. So you have this decision that is coming forth
• 4:12
  and it's inexplicable. And I think there's a real problem with the court's interpretation
• 4:17
  not only of this but in general of these voter initiatives. They've got to
• 4:23
  reform this system. This is not right because this means anybody with money can
• 4:28
  put basically anything on the ballot and fool the people. And then when you
• 4:31
  fool the people, it goes in the constitution and you're stuck with this,
• 4:36
  you know, and when this happens and then health and safety regulations are challenged,
• 4:42
  people are going to say, oh my goodness, I didn't think that
• 4:44
  this would knock those down. Yep. You know, on the same day
• 4:48
  that we had the four to three decision, which I thought it was just
• 4:53
  impossible that we would have a four to three decision the wrong way and many
• 4:57
  others as well, on that same day we have six to one decision that
• 5:02
  ultimately resolved thirty five years of our work to overturn this NRA tw case going
• 5:08
  back to nineteen eighty nine overruling that terrible abortion decision. Friend not just of
• 5:15
  the radio program, He's a friend of every Floridian and every Christ centered,
• 5:21
  freedom loving, constitution supporting American in this country. Matt Staver with us.
• 5:30
  Matt, It's not lost on me that the four justices that voted to allow
• 5:35
  this ridiculous amendment on the ballot are men and the dissenting votes are women.
• 5:43
  Were these guys bullied by the feminist movement that have been calling men the purveyors
• 5:48
  of attacking their bodies all these years? I wouldn't say that that they were
• 5:55
  bullied about that. I think that their legal reasoning was cly off. I
• 6:01
  just cannot understand this. When you look at this particular amendment, Look,
• 6:05
  you start with the title of it to prohibit government interference with abortion. Well
• 6:15
  you would think, well, maybe that's the government is interfering, you want
• 6:17
  to prohibit it. No, this literally takes any kind of government regulation out
• 6:23
  of it totally. I mean, it gives unlimited abortion at any time for
• 6:30
  any reason, up to and including birth. That's really what the title should
• 6:32
  have been. An amendment to provide abortion at any time for any reason,
• 6:38
  up to an including birth. That's really what this is about. That would
• 6:42
  have been a better title. So, I mean, even from the title
• 6:45
  down to the ballot summary, down to the actual language of this amendment,
• 6:47
  it was clear when you look at all the cases, when you look at
• 6:50
  the issues here, when you look at the brief, when you look at
• 6:54
  the fact that they couldn't even answer the right questions during oral argument and in
• 6:58
  the brief they just didn't really address the subject of issues. I just find
• 7:03
  it hard. As you said, it's inexplicable how four justices would get it
• 7:10
  wrong. But they got it wrong. So now does it become a pr
• 7:14
  battle. Do we have to now win this in the public forum, which
• 7:16
  you know the mainstream media is going to fight us. Yeah, here's where
• 7:20
  there's two things. Number one, we need to just make sure that they
• 7:24
  have all their signatures, not only have the overall number of signatures, but
• 7:29
  they have to have the distribution of signatures in each one of these districts and
• 7:31
  precincts, and so we're going to just double check and make sure that that's
• 7:35
  the case. That's number one. Number two, we're going to look at
• 7:39
  how they got these signatures. But number three, we're also going to go
• 7:41
  into a huge pr battle to try to let people know how broad, how
• 7:46
  radical, how extreme this amendment is. More extreme than anybody thinks. Because
• 7:53
  how these signatures were gathered is people went to these people in parks in different
• 7:58
  events and they would say, sign this petition to protect women. Okay,
• 8:01
  so they sign it, Well, what's it about? They wouldn't tell you.
• 8:05
  I know people that were approached and they would have to ask multiple times
• 8:07
  what's it about? What's it about? Finally they would say, oh,
• 8:09
  it's about abortion, But they would not tell that to most people. So
• 8:13
  most people sign this not even knowing what they're signing. So I think we
• 8:18
  can stop this and beat it at the ballot box. They're going to have
• 8:22
  to have sixty percent. I don't think they're going to get that. But
• 8:24
  even beyond that, here's the other thing. Beyond this case. No matter
• 8:28
  how this happens, the three dissenters and even the Chief Justice opened up the
• 8:33
  door for us to go back and challenge personhood under Article one section of the
• 8:39
  Constitution. It was raised, it wasn't addressed, it wasn't finalized. But
• 8:46
  that's also a big concern. The people aren't aware of Article one, Section
• 8:50
  two, how a person can have a right to life, and that would
• 8:54
  include the unborn. So this battle is far from over. I think we
• 8:58
  ultimately win it. It was a terrible decision. It was a great decision
• 9:01
  that we won on the other case where we overruled all the thirty five years
• 9:05
  of abortion bad decisions that we've worked for for thirty five years. But I
• 9:11
  think we win this too. I think we win it certainly in the media.
• 9:15
  I think we win it by speaking truth. But I can tell you
• 9:18
  we're going to be outgunned in terms of money because they're going to spend maybe
• 9:22
  one hundred million dollars or more in Florida, because they're making this not just
• 9:26
  abortion, they're making it a presidential Absolutely try to get people to the polls.
• 9:31
  That's really what this is about. I know we'll talk about it more
• 9:33
  and I'll share some thoughts with you privately in writing, Matt, thank you
• 9:37
  so much for your time and all your efforts. Thank you. Good to
• 9:41
  be with you all Righty Matt Staber with us from Liberty Council again LC dot org