Latest / Brian Thomas / Judge Napolitano

Transcript

Judge Napolitano · Brian Thomas

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: KRC, the talk station. 831 and 55 KRC, the talk station.
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: It's Wednesday and a very happy Wednesday to you. Always
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: extra special Wednesday because we get to hear from Judge
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: Ed Napolitano at this time. Judge Napolitano, welcome back to
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: the 55 KRC Morning Show. Did you watch the game?
• 0:17
  Speaker 2: No, I went to sleep at 8 o'clock. I don't
• 0:20
  Speaker 2: live very far from the stadium. In New York City.
• 0:23
  Speaker 2: But like you, you know, I get up before the
• 0:25
  Speaker 2: birds do. But the first thing I did when I
• 0:28
  Speaker 2: got up this morning was to go right to my
• 0:30
  Speaker 2: computer and find out the result. I couldn't believe it.
• 0:33
  Speaker 2: Two kids from Boston, Cam Schlitter, the pitcher, and Ben Rice,
• 0:40
  Speaker 2: who hit two home runs, one of which was a
• 0:42
  Speaker 2: grand slam, were the heroes of this game for the Yankees.
• 0:46
  Speaker 2: They both grew up in Boston as Red Sox fans.
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: How about that? Doing well for New York. Pivoting over.
• 0:56
  Speaker 2: Just remember, Babe Ruth was traded to the Yankees from
• 1:02
  Speaker 2: the Red Sox.
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: How about that? Can't unring that bell, can you?
• 1:07
  Speaker 2: No.
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: The October term of the Supreme Court, and I did
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: get your column, and I love it. And again, you're
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: obviously constitutional-based criticism of Donald Trump and the war waging,
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: and I get that all day long. But I was
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: wildly curious to get your reaction about some of the
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: cases they've announced that they'll be hearing this October, one
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: of which, and I find this particularly troubling, and it
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: sort of dovetails quite nicely with a parental rights case,
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: but it's this climate change, Suncor Energy versus County Commissioners
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: of Boulder, Colorado. Now, this involves cities and governmental entities
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: suing oil companies on the basis that they knowingly contributed
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: to climate change and misleaded the public about its impacts.
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: So Colorado Supreme Court ruled for the city, let them
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: go forward. Now it's up in front of the Supreme
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: Court on whether this type of litigation and others of
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: its ilk can go forward. I struggle with this, sir, because,
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: you know, in terms of climate change, maybe the tobacco companies,
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: for example, did know their products caused cancer and they
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: sat on it. But in terms of climate change, the
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: quote-unquote scientific evidence has been wildly across the board. We
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: were going to go into a new ice age back
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: in the 70s. Then it was going to be global
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: warming and we were going to be underwater. Then that
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: didn't happen, and Gore's predictions didn't manifest themselves. Now it's
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: just climate change, so every single adverse weather incident we
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: face now is attributed to us exhaling. How can you
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: hold just oil companies and some subset of all of
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: the oil companies, because it's usually just the big ones,
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: how can you hold them accountable, and how can you
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: possibly attribute knowledge when the scientists don't even know, And
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: then also, how could you attribute whatever dollar liability, and
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: that would have to be a concocted figure in and
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: of itself, because multiple industries out in the world belt
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: out carbon dioxide and pollutants. So they're just one small sliver.
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: This has to be rejected as a theory of liability.
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: Where do you come down on that one, sir?
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: Well, I agree with you 110% on everything you just said, Brian.
• 3:09
  Speaker 2: I mean, I go all the way back to the
• 3:11
  Speaker 2: tobacco litigation and now to the big tech litigation. These
• 3:16
  Speaker 2: are just shakedowns by state attorneys general, all of whom
• 3:20
  Speaker 2: want to become the governors of their states and all
• 3:22
  Speaker 2: of whom want to say, look at the free money
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: that I brought you. But I must tell you, Brian,
• 3:27
  Speaker 2: this is worse than you think. This is the case
• 3:32
  Speaker 2: on which my Princeton classmate and former debate partner, Justice
• 3:37
  Speaker 2: Sam Alito, has recused himself. because he and his wife
• 3:42
  Speaker 2: are shareholders in some of these very, very small shareholders.
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: I don't want to be critical of Justice Alito. He's
• 3:51
  Speaker 2: doing what he believes is intellectually honest and ethically compelled.
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: Very small shareholders. But as a result of that recusal,
• 4:01
  Speaker 2: the court watchers are predicting a 4-4 tie, meaning the
• 4:06
  Speaker 2: Colorado Supreme Court will be upheld, meaning these litigations will proceed,
• 4:13
  Speaker 2: meaning the price of everybody's gasoline is going to go up.
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: Thank you. And how far will it go up if
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: they succeed in any one of these cases?
• 4:23
  Speaker 2: Because we're talking- Watch for New Jersey and Connecticut and
• 4:29
  Speaker 2: California and New York, these states that have liberal democratic
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: government and liberal, ambitious attorneys general to pile on and
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: do the same thing. Like I said, it's the tobacco
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: scam repeated, the big tech scam repeated. Now it's big oil.
• 4:50
  Speaker 2: I don't know how Justice Alito would rule. I would
• 4:53
  Speaker 2: think he would probably rule this as a case of
• 4:56
  Speaker 2: federal preemption, and the states can't get involved. But Colorado.
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: The.
• 5:03
  Speaker 2: Colorado Supreme Court found that it's utterly lawful under Colorado
• 5:07
  Speaker 2: law and the Colorado Constitution. I don't know what the
• 5:11
  Speaker 2: breakdown of the four would be. I'm thinking that Justice
• 5:17
  Speaker 2: Barrett would join her liberal female colleagues, and that will
• 5:21
  Speaker 2: be the four to four. I don't know.
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: Frightening prospect if it comes down that way. That's why
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: we're looking forward to seeing what happens in these important cases. Now,
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: I drew a parallel with that. and the St. Mary
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: Catholic parish versus Roy where the 10th circuit upheld a
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: Colorado provision requiring all preschools to agree not to discriminate
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: on the quote, race, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, income,
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: or disability. Close quote. Catholic court says, whoa, this requires
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: the Catholic church to violate our religious principles as a
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: condition of participating in the preschool program of funding. Well, um, what,
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: This is a conflict here we got. I mean, the
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: free exercise of religion, the Catholics believe in certain things,
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: and this trods upon the free exercise of religion, doesn't it?
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: And doesn't it also compel speech?
• 6:12
  Speaker 2: This is a no-brainer. This will be a six to
• 6:16
  Speaker 2: three reversal, not because the six of them are Catholic,
• 6:20
  Speaker 2: but because they have consistently upheld that the free exercise
• 6:26
  Speaker 2: of religion trumps just about all other rights. Here's a
• 6:30
  Speaker 2: cocktail party question for you. Which freedom is the first
• 6:35
  Speaker 2: freedom protected in the First Amendment? Everybody will say speech.
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: Free exercise.
• 6:40
  Speaker 2: Correct. Correct. Madison intentionally put that first and under a
• 6:45
  Speaker 2: structural interpretation of the Constitution. That which is first is
• 6:51
  Speaker 2: more important than that which is second. There's your answer.
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: Amen. I learned that from Professor... Andrew Napolitano here on
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: the 55 KRC Morning. I was reminded of it. I've
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: read the Constitution before.
• 7:01
  Speaker 2: You know, I ran into a judge the other day.
• 7:05
  Speaker 2: I didn't recognize her. I didn't even know she was
• 7:07
  Speaker 2: a judge. We're at the dry cleaners. And she says
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: to me, good morning, professor. And nobody calls me professor.
• 7:13
  Speaker 2: I said, have we met before? She said, you taught
• 7:15
  Speaker 2: me constitutional law 20 years ago. I'm now a superior
• 7:18
  Speaker 2: court judge. Oh, I hugged and kissed her.
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: That's awesome. All right. Actually, the one I was saying
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: is a parallel to the Exxon or the gas case,
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: the climate change case. Parental rights. Ethical care versus Ferguson.
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: Washington state amended its laws to delay shelters in notifying
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: parents of a runaway child who has, quote, gender affirming treatment.
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: In other words, a gender affirming treatment child runs into
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: a runaway shelter. They are told not to notify the
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: parents but actually call the Department of Children, Youth, and
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: Family Services because it is an abusive home that threatens
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: a child who is not supported for gender-affirming care. Now,
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: my question is, since even entire countries have determined that
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: this gender-affirming care is, in fact, abusive and not helpful
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: and is not the state of medical procedures, or should
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: it be, that this is another one where, you know,
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: come on, the science at minimum is out on this.
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: How can they not notify parents?
• 8:20
  Speaker 2: This violates a very famous case called Wisconsin Against Yoder,
• 8:25
  Speaker 2: which stands for the proposition that the right of parents
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: to control the destiny of and raise their children as
• 8:34
  Speaker 2: they see fit is among the highest rights we have.
• 8:37
  Speaker 2: The state would have to have a compelling state interest,
• 8:41
  Speaker 2: have to pass strict scrutiny in order to interfere with
• 8:43
  Speaker 2: that right. No way can it. and no way will
• 8:46
  Speaker 2: it with this, uh, court. I think you'll be pleased, uh,
• 8:49
  Speaker 2: with the outcome. Look, I could be wrong on these predictions. Uh, but, but, uh,
• 8:54
  Speaker 2: and knowing the way the members of the court think
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: and knowing what an outlier this particular ruling is, that
• 9:04
  Speaker 2: a child can run to a shelter and the shelter
• 9:07
  Speaker 2: doesn't have to call the parents. I mean, I'm surprised
• 9:10
  Speaker 2: the court is even waiting for oral argument on this one.
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: Well, and, uh, I guess I am, too. Just sort
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: of a rhetorical question here, Judge Anapolitano. How do you
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: think these decisions would turn out, given your predictions, if
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: the Democrats get their way and pack the Supreme Court
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: with a bunch of liberal justices?
• 9:30
  Speaker 2: Well, I mean, that can't happen until there is a
• 9:33
  Speaker 2: Democrat in the White House, because obviously a Republican in
• 9:37
  Speaker 2: the White House would veto that. You know, the number
• 9:41
  Speaker 2: of justices has fluctuated over the years. Originally, it was five.
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: Then it went up to seven. And then it went
• 9:46
  Speaker 2: up and down and up and down around the time
• 9:48
  Speaker 2: of the Civil War. At one point, it was 10.
• 9:50
  Speaker 2: And then when a justice retired, the Republicans who had
• 9:54
  Speaker 2: a supermajority reduced it to nine so that Andrew Johnson,
• 9:58
  Speaker 2: after Lincoln was killed, couldn't replace the one who retired.
• 10:02
  Speaker 2: And then another one retired and they reduced it to eight.
• 10:05
  Speaker 2: And then another one retired and they reduced it to seven.
• 10:08
  Speaker 2: And then as soon as Ulysses S. Grant became president,
• 10:11
  Speaker 2: they raised it to nine. So he had two to
• 10:13
  Speaker 2: put in there. This happens all the time. But what
• 10:18
  Speaker 2: the Democrats have proposed is what FDR proposed in 1936.
• 10:26
  Speaker 2: And it was such a lead balloon that he withdrew
• 10:30
  Speaker 2: the proposal. I think the same thing will happen here. But,
• 10:34
  Speaker 2: you know, how can I predict? Because who knows who
• 10:36
  Speaker 2: will be elected president in 2028? We don't even know
• 10:40
  Speaker 2: who's going to win the midterms next month, although it
• 10:42
  Speaker 2: looks like the Democrats.
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: Yeah. I just put these questions out there because, yeah,
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: the midterms are fast approaching. We start early voting here
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: in Ohio on Tuesday next week. And just to remind
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: folks what the platform is on one side versus the other,
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: Republicans aren't running on packing the Supreme Court. At least
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: they have a decent makeup right now from my perspective.
• 11:01
  Speaker 2: Sherrod Brown actually running on packing the Supreme Court?
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: Well, he's wed to the entire DSA agenda from all accounts.
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: He's voted with Democrats 98% of the time. So, yeah,
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: we can presume that at minimum.
• 11:13
  Speaker 2: Wow.
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: Wow.
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: Yeah. And I understand the governor's race in Ohio is
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: now neck and neck.
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: Yeah, we've been getting poll after poll after poll with
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: Amy lockdown act and being a few points ahead within
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: the margin of error. But my listening audience doesn't buy
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: into it. She is she's been a tremendous disappointment here
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: in the state. And I think that's just a reflection,
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: as most people conclude, of frustration over Donald Trump, you know,
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: evil orange man gas prices over which the governor of
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: the state of Ohio is not going to have any control.
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: But got it. We've got a superior candidate in Vivek Ramaswamy.
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: He's quite a brilliant man. Anyhow, Judge Napolitano, Judging Freedom
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: is a podcast. Find it where you find your podcasts.
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: Typical Wednesday lineup, sir. You got somebody special on today?
• 11:54
  Speaker 2: Oh, I have my two heaviest hitters today, Colonel Douglas
• 11:58
  Speaker 2: McGregor and Scott Ritter. So looking forward to the afternoon.
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: Always interesting and informative. Judge Napolitano will do this again
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: next Wednesday here on the 55 KRC Morning Show. And
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: as always, thank you so much for your time.