'You're Wrong' With Mollie Hemingway and David Harsanyi, Ep. 206: The Worst SCOTUS Decision Of All Time?

My Lowe's Money Days are here, and we're making it rain for rewards members. For the first time ever, when you make a purchase of $200 or more through July 12th, you'll get up to $30 back in extra My Lowe's money. Not a member yet? Join for free today, because members get more at Lowe's. My Lowe's Money Award varies based on status. Members in gold get 30, silver get 20, and bronze get 10. My Lowe's Money valid for 30 days.

Restrictions and more terms at Lowe's.com slash Milo's Money Days. The grand opening of your neighborhood Midas is here, and this is your grand invitation to experience a new kind of complete auto care. It's your grand introduction to our team of skilled technicians, ready to let you know what needs fixing now and what can wait. And with everything from routine oil changes to brand new tires, there's no grander opportunity to feel more confident in your ride. Visit Midas, now at 7075 Old Harding Pike,

and get a full synthetic oil change for just $89. Welcome back to another episode of You're Wrong with Molly Hemingway, Editor-in-Chief of the Federalist and David Harsani, senior writer at The Washington Examiner. If you'd like to reach the show, please do so at Radio at the Federalist.com. We'd love to hear from you. Molly, when I listen to other podcasts, they always say, and leave a comment below or give us a like. So please do those. Give us five, six, seven, eight, twelve stars.

Yes. So please do that as well. Appreciate it. If you can. So, Molly, it is so hot outside right now. And I was reading the story because I'm interested in this topic, having been the author of the book, Euro Trash, that Europeans. are just dropping dead, especially in France, left and right. I mean thousands.

I mean, more people are dying from lack of air conditioning in a country like France than die from gunshot and gun crimes in the United States for an entire year. And this is largely than not fully a choice made by Europeans. I feel very badly for the people who are dying. And, you know, in some countries, it's like hundreds of people are. dying. Yeah, it's awful.

I can't imagine how difficult that must be for them. And I saw some French official said, we're not doing this because of climate change now. We're doing it so people won't need air conditioning in the future or something like that. And they seem to be part of a cult that is very dangerous and deadly. May I ask you where your thermostat is typically in your house? Like where do you guys go? So I just want to say that we have a small house and we have a basement and it's an old house. And so it's not the best heating system.

So we have it set to 72. I don't know if this is like personal information I shouldn't be sharing. And that is very comfortable for the upstairs. And it's frequently very cold for the downstairs. 72 is basically torture. You put me in an Iron Maiden, I think, if it was, if my house was at 72. I have mine at 66. What?

Yeah. And 60. What? And my wife sometimes forces it to go up to maybe 68. But you're, you're setting it for that? Like, you're forcing the air conditioner to work at those levels? 66 overnight. Yes.

I mean, I like it cold at night, sure. but more like in the winter when I am surprised by this. You know, Ben, Ben Sass wrote a book on raising children that was really good and it had a bit in there about how he doesn't let his kids have air conditioning

so that they learn how to sleep when they're not perfectly chilled. And I grew up in a house without air conditioning. And one of the kids was visiting that house and was acting like it was complete torture in Colorado to not have air conditioning.

My beloved parents were, you know, we were rich. They were penny pinchers. So we did not get as much air conditioning as we should have. And we had them in rooms, you know, in the window. Oh. And even then, even then I think it was like 75 degrees inside during the summer or hotter. Let's talk about the news. Let's talk about NPR.

Nina Totenberg the other day. Was it yesterday? Maybe it was Tuesday, right? It was yesterday. We were taking this on Wednesday. Wednesday. Some of the big opinions come out. And she reported that Samuel Alito, person you recently wrote an excellent book about it called

Samuel Alito, was going to be retiring. I accepted it when I was just. just saw the report because I didn't know where it was coming from exactly. And I accepted it only because it makes some sense, right? Make some sense that Samuel Alito would retire during the Trump administration. I thought, you know, it's not like completely irrational to believe that. And would want a Republican president to nominate his successor. But it turned out that Nina Totenberg had run out with this story and then NPR to retract it.

Within, I had texted you, and I would say one text to the other was like a half an hour, right? Yes. And then I was like, oh, I wonder if Nita Totenberg is still working. So I think that's embarrassing. But I think the other part of the story, and you can go back and talk about whatever you like, is the reaction of the elite establishment media. Let me give you one tweet here from Peter Baker at the New York Times. I just laughed.

I lo-led for real, you know, when I read this. No one is more mortified by a mistake than a journalist committed to factual reporting. The best is to own up to it, correct it, and apologize for it, as Nina Totenberg has done. It's worth remembering a long career dedicated to getting it right. Amali, what is wrong with that tweet right there? I almost don't know where to begin. First off, I'll just say that when she reported that Samuel Alito was retiring, it wasn't just you texting me.

Immediately my phone is ringing and people texting. I thought you said he wasn't going to retire. And, you know, I don't, I know what I know based on my reporting, but anything is possible and people can change minds. And, you know, so I'm, I was. I was shocked, but also kind of skeptical from the get-go. Also, Nina Totenberg is a long time, left-wing activist, yes, but Supreme Court reporter for NPR. She's been the leak machine for the liberal members of the court for decades.

And she's had extremely close relationships, if you know what I mean, and you might, with some justices. and she even revealed after Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death that instead of covering Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a journalist, she was basically besties with her and didn't feel that. Never explained the conflict of interest. Didn't explain that she was on like a Ruth Bader Ginsburg publicity tour constantly where she would give Ruth Bader Ginsburg questions and then Ruth Bader Ginsburg would answer them.

And I think Ruth officiated at her wedding to her latest husband and, I mean, it's just really inappropriate behavior. And then I'll also say for people who were like, Nina Totenberg, such a good reporter, it was October 2021 when Nina Totenberg got slapped down by not one, not two, but three justices on the Supreme Court for fake news. Three. She reported that Gorsuch had been asked,

by Chief John Roberts to please mask up because he was killing Sonia Sotomayor with his non-masking and that he refused and Sonia Sotomayor had to listen to oral argument from her chambers because of this. And so Sotomayor and Gorsuch released a joint statement saying that's not true. And NPR and Nina Totenberg say, well, we didn't say that that Sonia asked Gorsuch to wear a mask. we said the chief asked. So then the chief comes out, John Roberts, he's like, I never asked Gorsuch not to wear a mask. So these people who are like, she is so meticulous.

They don't even remember October 2021. And by the way, NPR stood by the story, even though all three justices in the story publicly renounced it with their own names. So this is the quality of Nina Totenberg's work. So I kind of thought, like, maybe I would know or maybe Shannon Bream would know. Maybe Jan Crawford would know, not Nina Totenberg. But apart from that, did you hear her explanation for how it happened?

Well, I was going to bring that up. It didn't really make, well, can I, before we get to that, say she apologized. It was a fine apology. I just, the idea that you would. announce the retirement of a Supreme Court justice without having a second source, without asking the justice is office, without getting anyone in there to leak it to you or whatever, and just moving forward, she called it a rookie mistake. I don't think any rookie survives their job doing this even on a much lower level. If it is the principal jewel, a rule of journal.

to get two sources for something. She had, as far as I can tell, no source. It's what I was going to say. It's not even, the problem for me isn't even that she didn't get to the second source. The problem for me is what her explanation was for her first source. And that's where, that's where she completely lost me and it made less than zero sense. So what was, what was her, that she, it was her explanation that she had heard someone speaking about a retirement announcement and misheard the name?

Do I have that right? So she said she wasn't there. Sorry. She had left the court before the end of the day, you know, where they're all there. And that she heard someone else say that what they were doing in her absence was announcing retirement. And then she says, she assumed that was a Leto, does not explain why she assumed that was a Leto and not any of the other eight. And then she published the story in a rush to be first. And so she apologized for that.

But I'm telling you, and you've been a journalist longer than I have, David, I don't think I know a single person on earth as a journalist who would operate this way. And I'm a long-time critic of how the media operate. But this is so below the normal standard for how to write stories or how to publish, you know, when to publish a story. It's so beneath it that I don't believe her claim of how it happened. Well, let me ask you this. I mean, what were the editors doing? Well, how would an editor allow this to go through without any kind of sourcing? No.

No, in this case, I could see it being like, this is Nina Totenberg, or Supreme Court reporter, so she must be saying something real. Like, it's almost so beneath the standards that you use that you wouldn't assume. You would not assume your intern would do this. So you certainly wouldn't assume a 90-year-old reporter would do it or however old she is. Right? She is in her 80s. and a lot of people, I think, kind of subtly or implied

that her age had something to do with it. But looking back at her history. She's always been this level of a hack, but go on. Right. She's a massive hack. She's always been a hack. I mean, I can remember we were making fun of her

for being a hack 10 years ago. You knew everything she was that was coming out of her was coming out for some kind of political reason or partisan reason or whatnot. But for me, We all know this about Nina Totenberg. It's interesting watching other reporters rally and defend this telling me or telling someone who's paying attention that you two use very similar kind of sourcing and you use very similar and this is fine and you have no journalistic standards. I couldn't believe like when when another reporter messes up in this type of humiliating fashion that makes everybody look bad, there are different.

ways to respond. And if you're friends with her or if you're also a Democrat hack, you can be quiet about it. To defend it is insane. And they were being so like, oh, this is the worst. This is such a nightmare scenario and it could happen to anyone. It could not happen to me. And I'm not saying that I'm not terrified of getting something wrong. You know, when I reported on Chris Murphy meeting with Iranians surreptitiously. Yeah, yeah. I was nervous about that because I didn't, you know, I didn't have, I was nervous. When he finally admitted it a few days later, I was very relieved.

I do worry about reporting on things. I tend to require people to put a name with something or to have some kind of, you know, just thing you can, so that a reader can look at to verify what I'm saying. And I do that in part because I am not a left-wing activist like so many reporters are. So if I get something wrong, it lights out for me. If Nina Totenberg gets something wrong, which is sort of like saying, it's Tuesday. She just gets to keep on with her nice job and with her praise from her liberal colleagues. But they were all saying this, she explained it, she apologized. One person who's that woman who wears the silly glasses at the New York Times and does the interviews where she

pretends she doesn't understand basic stuff. Do you understand who I'm going? No, I see the face. Yeah, I don't know. She said, well, you know, I am just so in awe at how the editor and Nina are just fighting to take responsibility for this. And this is why we love them so much. It's like, okay, first off, they both messed up.

So they both should take responsibility. They also should give a story that even remotely makes sense, which they still haven't done. But more than that, I seem to not remember them ever taking responsibility for their many, many, many egregious errors. What's is she in on all the Brett Kavanaugh stuff as well? Like she was definitely in on that. But NPR, they didn't just censor the Hunter Biden laptop story. they were ostentatious about it. They're like some people have asked why we're not covering the Hunter Biden story.

Let's just explain. We do real news and this isn't real news. Never took responsibility for that. They were team leaders of the Russia collusion hoax. They never took responsibility for that. Nina Totenberg wasn't just a Brett Kavanaugh rape hoaxer. She was a Clarence Thomas hoaxer. She was involved in that.

Never took responsibility for any of it. NPR does not take responsibility. Now, publishing a demonstrably false story for no reason is something that was so bad they had to admit that they had done it. But even like on the website for where the story was, it doesn't say, they say, this story has been retracted. But if you want to know what story has been retracted, you wouldn't know unless you were there originally. Taking responsibility doesn't even make sense. If I have a story that says John Doe is dead and John Doe is not dead, I'm not taking responsibility for anything. It didn't happen.

I had a, you know, I wrote a story that was untrue. What I need to do, if I'm, if I am a reporter under editor-in-chief, Molly Hemingway, and I write something that's not true, wouldn't you demand an explanation for how that happened, A, so that it doesn't happen again, B, because you owe readers some kind of explanation for getting something wrong. And by the way, this isn't. some kind of small mistake in a new story. This is a massive story.

This is a Supreme Court justice. And yeah, whatever. So this is why, this is just another of a slew of examples of why people don't trust major media. Yes, I agree. And I think it's a fireable offense. But her job is not to report the news. Her job is to filter Supreme Court

the left's Supreme Court agenda through a media outlet. And that's what she does. Then they should, if no one expects David Harsani to write something that's going to, you know, that it doesn't have some sort of opinion embedded within what I'm saying. So that's what Nina Totenberg should be. She's, you know, she's much more famous.

She's been around a long time. Let's just call her a columnist. I don't understand why they have to constantly pretend that these people are reporters. A columnist can report news and opinion journalists can report news as we saw Nick Christoph do in the New York Times recently with the rape dogs. I mean, so if there are any good reporters that, or conscientious reporters at NPR, maybe there are, I'm sure there are, their reputations have now been undermined as well. No one's going to trust what they have to say. And NPR doesn't care. I'm so happy we don't really give them money anymore. I mean,

is this what taxpayers are supposed to be propping up and honestly you know i'm i'm i'm not a young man and i'm heading towards being an older one but if you're in your mid-80s should you be on the beat i mean should you still be on the beat like maybe she's a childless woman i don't know but shouldn't she be enjoying her great-grandchildren that's what i want to be doing when i am that age we're just writing an occasional column or whatever but should she be on the supreme court beat i just don't buy that that's a job for someone who's 85 or whatever she is. Most political shows tell you what to think.

The Future of Freedom Podcasts trust you to think for yourself. Every episode features two guests who share a commitment to liberty and limited government, but disagree on one major issue. And instead of debating each other, they each make their case, one at a time, clearly, thoughtfully, and without the usual political theater. It's a refreshing change from the outrage-driven media we're all used to. Hear multiple sides of an argument and make up your own mind. Search for Future of Freedom, wherever you listen to podcasts.

The impact of myasthenia gravis symptoms can pile up. Plans getting rescheduled. Hobbies being left behind. Everyday tasks going unfinished. If MG keeps disrupting your life, the burden may be bigger than you realize. Learn how to assess. and track the impact of your symptoms so you can talk about it with your healthcare team.

Take the next step to better understand how MG symptoms may be impacting your life. Visit mG symptomimpaq.com.

So we had a bunch of decisions. We should go through them. I'm particularly interested in your take on the birth, right? A citizenship decision. decision, but I did want to mention another decision I think is important in many ways. And that's, I forget what the name of it is exactly, but it's on transgendered athletes in sports, essentially allowing boys to play in girls sports in high school.

There were two bands that were in front of the court. Sorry, my computer is messed up, so I don't have it right in front of me. I believe it was Idaho and West Virginia. I could be wrong about that. Correct. And the court upheld both bans. It is clear that these are constitutional bans, whether you like them or not. It was always been clear to me.

I thought Thomas's take on biological men and biological women was interesting, where he said, the truth, sex is binary. there are men and women, there are boys and girls, and they correspond to the sex of these children, and any other type of language obscures reality. It's not a legal claim, but it is a truth. It affects the law. Well, I mean, a state can still come up with definitions

in their legal, in their language. Oh, I see your point. Yes. That's, I, I don't know. Again, I'm going to be, I'm going to have a lot of opinions here, but I'm not a legal scholar. These are just my opinions as a person who pays attention to these sorts of things. Anyway, I found reading that pleasurable because it was, it was very straightforward and reflected my position. I don't think Thomas said, you should treat anyone poorly. He said, you should embrace truth.

and this is the truth. So I think that's a big decision. I wonder, and I don't know if you have what your take is on this. I mean, I do, but I wonder what you think will happen moving forward or whether this means other states will be more inclined to set bans or, or, I mean, what's next in that battle? I don't know because one of the things that's interesting about it. I read parts of different opinions for this last couple of weeks.

And Sonia Sotomayor had said something about how. the understanding of gender is evolving and these bands are not appropriate or something during that time. And it is true that we had a really insane period of hysteria in recent years where lots of people were acting like sex is not immutable, that you can change your sex, that gender identity is not just a thing, it's a thing, protected by statute, as, for instance, Neil Gorsuch said, and he kind of tried to, in his, he tried to keep that going even on the right side of this most recent ruling. But it also seems that people, a lot of people fought back. And again, you were not allowed to say things like men can't become women on social media. That would get you banned from social media. Elon Musk, purchased Twitter, turned it into X, and now it is a place where you can say the

truth about whether men can become women. I think that was a huge thing that enabled more people to speak the truth and also hear other people who were speaking the truth without facing severe violations of their social media platforms. And it seems like maybe the trans insanity is changing a bit. And so I don't know, and even the social contagion that was there. And it really is there. It's still there in Oregon, for instance. I think some, like, ridiculously high percentage of girls in Oregon are on cross-sex hormones. So there are still areas where it's a problem, but I kind of think it's becoming less of a problem as people realize it's a bad road to go down.

It's, in fact, such a bad road to go down that you're starting to see people have different ideas about, like, same-sex marriage. If you understand feminism as the ultimate issue here, feminism teaches women that they should not be constrained by their biology. And this goes into a lot of other sex-related issues. It results eventually in the trans insanity. And as people realize how insane it is, some people are going back to the original issues that let us down that road and reconsidering all of them.

But I think it's an important ruling. I also think it's very sad that it had to be done. by the Supreme Court. So people were celebrating this yesterday, and it's sort of like, yes, this is good. It's the proper decision from the court. It's not a good sign for the country, for society, that they had to decide this.

It's a very bad sign. It's a bad sign because, why? Because these things, because these bands must have to exist and we even have to fight over this stuff. The moment a man, a boy said, I'd like to compete against girls. Everybody in the town, everybody in the school should have been like, buddy, you clearly need help.

We're going to get you help. You're not going to be competing against the girls. Instead, they said, yes, we'll destroy everything about women's sports to accommodate a mentally deranged individual. And we're going to actually continue to harm him by affirming him in his delusions and sterilizing him and giving him surgeries. I mean, it just, it shouldn't have ever gotten. to the court because it should have been handled by a healthy society, healthy families prior to this.

My feeling, and I have no numbers to back this up, is just my feeling, is that the contagion is not abating in certain places, but not in others, so that we're going to have a country where this is the norm in some places and not the norm in others. I just, I see the stories of transgendered or of men who believe they're women competing in various women's sports I see it all the time and it doesn't seem to be abating in a place

like California or New York or frankly I'm not in Virginia and other places like that so I do wonder anyway there are a few other decisions I don't know if we really need to do you have anything on this there was a decision on mail and ballots Do you do you have anything on that that states can count them after the date of the election? I assume if they're postmarked before.

Is that right? Yeah, the current ruling, and I imagine you'll be seeing more challenges to the way we do elections. But the current ruling dealt with whether ballots that are postmarked by election day, whether they have to be counted, whether they can still be received. lived long after election day, one, two, three, four, five days after election day and still be counted. And this was something that upset a lot of people that the court ruled that they can be, that election day can, in some sense, be understood as an election season of a type.

But I think as much as I disagreed with the majority opinion, I don't think it's indefensible. I think it was a difficult issue, multiple statutes in play, kind of contradicting each other. And I think that the Samuel Alito definitely had the better of the argument, but I don't, I'm not like enraged. I think it was not a great decision that the majority came up with, but it's still a pretty difficult issue in some ways. And most people who are upset, I think they're upset about the outcome, which is that we continue to have a mess of how we handle elections and we seem to be doing it in violation of federal law of having a single day for elections. But it's not, you know, it was bad. It wasn't good. I haven't really talked to a lot of people who know a lot in this area who think it was a good decision. But I think it's also

kind of fixable in the future. What did you think? In the next Rare Well Done, the Thrive team helps two people with CIDP tackle the tricky issue of friendship. Hello. They say the quiet part out loud. In the event, my CIDP worsens. My friends might decide it's too much. Get nudged outside their comfort zone. I don't know if I want to.

To forge stronger connections. The best thing that's ever happened to me, our friendship. To Rory. Watch Rory and Michelle take on the friendship factor. On the next episode, a rare well done. So as I understand it, the court found that the states have primary authority on how, you know, the manner, time and in place or however it's run out that elections are handled. So as I remember reading the stories about this, it was kind of a narrow, narrow decision that allowed states to conduct elections as they see fit as long as it doesn't undermine some other constitutional right, right? So I don't know.

I don't, I don't have strong opinions either way. I'd rather we didn't have as many mail ballots. I'd rather we weren't counting mail ballots. It doesn't say you have to count mail ballots after, right? It means that a state that does have these kind of rules are allowed to have them, right? Yeah, I mean, the issue isn't about whether states get to set the rules. It's about whether states handle elections. The issue was really about whether they can handle it in a way that perhaps is contrary to federal.

law. So federal law does have a set day that that elections have to be done on, really. And it's already been expanded to mean it can be a season prior to that date. But now they're saying it can also be extended beyond that date. And so the federal law, it's a statutory issue there about whether you can do this in violation of that. Oh, I almost forgot there was Trump v. Slaughter, right, was it where we're essentially upheld what is it article two i mean that there are no independent agencies really right which i think is an important an important decision again i don't know comprehensive it was but there is no such thing as an real independent agency or quasi independent agency under the under the executive branch and trump's right about that i saw a lot of uh

leftists were really upset about that they're like this means anarchy this means someone like trump can come in and fire everyone at these agencies and yeah he can he should be able to and so should any president there is no you don't an independent agency works outside of democracy works outside of the constitutional order right though there was another decision right that is a little conflicting with the uh not the uh the fed right where they upheld but i i i don't think that really underline this one, yeah. I think, you know, there's criticism of that second decision, but I don't think it's that big of a deal. The first one is the really important one, the one that overturns Humphrey's executor. Think about how many times libertarian and conservative legal theorists have listed Humphrey's

executor as this awful decision needing to be overturned. It was about whether FDR could fire someone at the FTC. Humphreys was the guy fired. He sues over it. He dies. And that's why it's the executive. They're not Humphreys versus whatever. And it finally is overturned. The second issue is just so much more narrow. I can see why people don't like it about whether Trump could fire someone at the Federal Reserve Board.

And the woman in question who had been fired had allegedly committed mortgage fraud. And so, you know, and she gets fired. And the court said it has to go through the normal due process process before it happens. So it's not difficult. I think even Trump saw it.

He's like, okay, we'll give her a hearing and then we'll fire her if it doesn't go well. And that is a very easy fix and it's not, it doesn't undermine the ruling that overturned Humphrey's executor. Right. That second case was about cause and how you're allowed to fire someone. It doesn't, it's not some kind of wide ranging decision at all. Again, this doesn't mean that you can argue that the president should allow agencies to essentially function on their own like the Fed and not interfere. That's a political argument, but a constitutional argument is different.

Constitutionally, we don't permit independent agencies because when you think about what they're independent from, so when people say, oh, we should have independent agencies, what they're saying is independent meaning no oversight, no accountability, no ability for the people to do anything. Well, we're a government of by and for the people. So if they're independent of us, that's tyranny. So these are good decisions. And the court has been doing such good work in this area. After decades of allowing an unaccountable, unconstitutional, administrative state to fester with no oversight,

they've done a really good job of saying, yes, the executive branch is the executive branch. And Congress needs to do its job. You can't make Congress and the executive branch do their job, but at least the court is pulling back and saying we need to operate according to our Constitution. These are good things. And they shouldn't be viewed, you know, partisan. They are because Democrats control the bureaucracy and they liked being able to operate in an unaccountable fashion. Well, because I think at least the New Deal usurp the Constitution. And in their mind, the New Deal is far more important than the Constitution.

So these agents, these massive agencies that continue to grow that have mission creeps since day one, they love them. And they want the power because they can function outside of the constitutional order. We'll see. We'll see if this, how much this really means. Maybe it'll mean a lot in action or not. But exactly. So there's a constitutional argument and then there's a political argument. So let's just get to the birthright citizenship case, which was Trump v. Barbara, which

found that children born in the United States are entitled to birth rights citizenship under the 14th Amendment, even if they aren't citizens. I saw you were on television and elsewhere saying that, you know, you hate this decision as an understatement. You compared it to Roe v. Wade and Dred Scott and the worst decisions of all time. I actually read through the whole thing. Thomas's 94 pages. I don't really see it like that, but can you explain just generally to the audience why you

think it is one of the worst decisions that has ever happened in the United States or ever been decided? Oh, it's such a big topic. So I'm not quite sure how to tackle this. But birthplace citizenship has sort of been a policy of the United States for a while now, maybe, you know, for many decades. There's been this kind of understanding in how we enforce our laws that if you are a child of illegal immigrants, you are given citizenship. And Trump issued an executive order saying that would not be the way that the policy would be followed going forward.

And it was immediately enjoined with a lower court judge immediately says, you can't do it. this because anyone who happens to be born here is a citizen, essentially. I mean, not that the court, not that the lower court judge explained why, but just enjoined it. And so it makes its way to the Supreme Court. And it's really interesting. This is one of those issues where we basically had zero scholarship on it for a long time. We've had a variety of immigration laws over the course of our history, including that, you know, for some time back in the day, if you arrived here as an immigrant with an intention of staying, you were kind of considered domiciled here and eligible to become a citizen. Once that got out of control, we started coming up with rules about whether

you're a citizen or not, or whether you're legally here or not, I should say. And so even the concept of illegal alien is not, it has changed over time. And the Supreme Court has never weighed in on whether, on this issue of birthplace citizenship. Some people thought they had weighed in on a 19th century decision, what is it, Kim Wong Ark, which dealt with whether a Chinese man who was domiciled in the country, whether he was eligible for citizenship, there were laws against Chinese citizenship. And so that was at play for this decision. But I mentioned there wasn't a ton of scholarship on this. But some people who I really respect and have been reading in recent years have actually done quite a bit of scholarship on this. I would just point out,

if you're interested in this topic, highly recommend. Of course, everyone knows John Eastman, who has written on this for a long time, as have other California-based constitutional law scholars because they just have had to deal with this issue more. Kurt Lash, Randy Barnett, Elon Musk Werman, some really great minds. Oh my gosh, I can see the guy who frequently writes at law and liberty, but I can't, why am I forgetting his name? Sorry. I would recommend that people read up on this. It gets to the Supreme Court and a bunch of not so intelligent or not so well-read people kind of say, this is going to be nine zero because we all know that the 14th Amendment confers citizenship on anyone who happens to be born here. They clearly don't know the history.

And yet, that's what they did. So this constrains the ability of the people to determine sovereignty, citizenship, who's in, who's out. It doesn't make it impossible. Like you could basically deport as many people as you could. and ban most immigration, but we understand this is, I mean, this was a monumental decision, not because the policy is that different than what it has been, right? But because it says it's a constitutional right. So this is why I think it's, it's good to compare it to Roe B. Wade. Roe v. Wade didn't say, okay, states can set a policy of abortion on demand

to all nine months of pregnancy. It said, the constitution. says you have a right to abortion. And here, this ruling authored by non-originalist John Roberts and joined by Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and quite disappointingly, Amy Coney Barrett, who self-identifies as an originalist, it says, yeah, the 14th Amendment says you have to give citizenship to someone if they happen to be born here, even if they're not legally domiciled, contrary to what the actual text of the 14th Amendment says. So it's bad. I mean, it's really bad.

And people shouldn't underplay how bad it is, how dangerous it is to the Republic. You can read the dissents to get more about why Samuel Alito points out how this incentivizes illegal immigration and birth tourism because of these incredible benefits that are conferred with it. Clarence Thomas also points out about how it degrades citizenship, how the 14th Amendment was about not denying citizenship based on race to Americans, but not about saying anyone, no matter what, who happens to be born here as a citizen. Samuel Alito also pointed out how this gives us a tyrannical understanding of citizenship as subjects of a kingdom as opposed to free citizens. And yeah, it's a really, it's a really,

important topic. I think it's going to become much bigger in the years to come. And I think it's going to become a really important rallying point for not just Republicans, but anybody who wants to have some say in citizenship and what it means. The impact of myasthenia gravis symptoms can pile up, plans getting rescheduled, hobbies being left behind, everyday tasks going unfinished. If MG keeps disrupting your life, the burden may be bigger. than you realize. Learn how to assess and track the impact of your symptoms so you can talk about it with your healthcare team. Take the next step to better understand how MG symptoms may be impacting your life. Visit MG symptom impact.com. I have a ton of opinions and questions about it,

about this whole thing. I don't know where to start, but I will say this. I think that if the executive order that Trump wrote would have made a distinction between all people who are born here, meaning to illegal aliens and so forth, and birth tourism, it would have been a very different case. I wish he had done that because it seemed to me that not even Thomas and maybe Samuel Alito, I am unsure exactly about that, but Thomas for sure. wasn't even making the case was and his historical um all the history he he lays out and he lays out a lot it's like over 90 pages was about birth tourism it wasn't about people who have homes here who have live here want to stay here it was his quotations were were about the debate at the time

about whether the 14th amendment intended ever to give citizenship to people who who had no expectation of staying here and who didn't care about the American government itself. David, can I ask why you say that? Why you read it that way? Because, I mean, I do. Are you saying this because he talks about the difference between temporary visitors and illegal aliens

or what exactly makes you say that he's focused on birth tourism? Because I don't think that's actually accurate. I don't have it in front of me because there's something wrong with my computer. But I will say that, you know, and I don't have the exact quotations. I just read through it. And that was, I don't think he made a definitive case

that illegal aliens should not, who have children here or should not be citizens or that the 14th Amendment, I think he was much more specific about people who don't feel any connection to the country, who are just here, at least the debates, historical debates that he quoted. But I just want to say one quick thing

before you go go at me. Is it possible? To me, when I look at the history, there's this one quote, everyone keeps sending to me where they say, this is not meant for foreigners. But I think that that was in a broader debate

about other military and a broader debate about foreign dignitaries and stuff like that. But isn't it plausible that the authors of the 14th Amendment didn't care about this issue at all, really, or very little, because they never first saw

what birth tourism would be and they never thought it would, be a problem in such a vast, empty country and that we're predominantly bringing in Europeans who are going to stay here anyway. And it seems to me that the amendment is very vague on the question. I don't think everyone is telling me it's a slam dunk either way. I just don't buy that from the history. There's an entire debate about Chinese and gypsies, as they're using their language at the time, having babies and being citizens. And Howard, one of the senators, I think, from Michigan, says, yes, they would be.

So I think they're conflicting parts of this debate. I just don't think it was very important for them. And it's not the justice's job to kind of read, to try to figure out if they did know what was going to happen, how they would have ruled. And a lot of what Thomas and Samuel Alito do seems to be like that. It reminds me of liberals who say the founders never knew there were. would be guns, you know, these AR-15s, and they never would have wanted AR-15. So I don't know if that's true. I don't see how you wouldn't have read either dissent and taken that approach.

The relevant issue in play is what does it mean to be subject to the jurisdiction? So people say, well, it says in the 14th Amendment, everyone born here is a citizen. No, it says everyone born here and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And the question of jurisdiction is the dominant part of both of these dissents. What does it mean to be domiciled? How has that meaning been understood in different parts of the country's history? And this is like the reason why I mentioned you could come to this country with an intent to stay and be considered legally domiciled? Yeah.

That's not true now. That's not true now. That was true maybe like in certain states in different parts of time. All it took was arriving here with an intent to stay. Well, now we have a massive collection of laws about how that's not sufficient. But so you're retroactively changing what law was then. But the question is not.

Okay, the question is, are you legally domiciled? And if in 1800 to be legally domiciled, which was the standard, you had to fit no requirements, but now you have to fit 10, you're not changing the Constitution to understand the question of being legally domiciled now has requirements that it didn't have then. But the question of whether- So then you're not an originalist. If you're changing the meaning of what they meant then. Perhaps doing a bad job of explaining this, okay? We had, think of it this way. The laws, you concede that laws about immigration have changed over time, right? Right.

Okay. That doesn't mean the Constitution has changed, right? Right. So if you had to be legally domiciled in order to be considered a citizen and not subject to a foreign nation, And that the understanding, or that the laws require about this might change in different states or over time. That's not a constitutional issue. And it doesn't affect the constitutional issues. And so going through the history of legal domicility and what it means now that you aren't allowed to just come here.

Like, it's not saying you can't set immigration law. I didn't say it was. But that is kind of what you're saying, right? It is what you're saying because you're saying it's, you're saying you're trying to change the Constitution. You now require people to legally enter the country or if you, if the understanding of what it takes to legally enter the country has changed over. I am saying that that's, that clause is vague. And now what we're doing is going back in history and trying to understand what they meant exactly.

And it was clear in the debates that they meant to exclude children of foreign diplomats and invading arms. and some others, and they were very specific about it. The reason... Your stronger argument would be they didn't conceive of illegal immigration. Is that what you're saying? I'm saying that they probably did not conceive of it in the way that we do. They don't think of it in the way that we do. And I agree that that makes it the relevant issue.

But that's the interesting thing that these opinions and dissents explore. We are in the status quo. now nothing has changed from hold on a second we're not in a set of change going back 140 years the the the you're i think you're correct from what i see that that people just accepted that anyone who was born here was going to be a citizen in the past but in recent years there's been scholarship and stuff that says that's not true the idea that the president can just change that as Brett Kavanaugh said is just not right i agree with

that. But what was I saying? Oh, yeah, the status quo is, so tell me, why isn't it the status quo? Okay. I'll try another analogy. Well, before you do that, let me just quickly give you my-Robie Wade. Hold on. If every state in the union had laws allowing abortion on demand, and then Roe v. Wade was handed down saying it's a constitutional right to have an abortion, would you say, just the status quo.

Well, in effect, it would be the status quo, yeah. Okay, but do you understand why it's not? Because if you had every state in the union. Okay, I get that. You're saying it's codified now. You can still operate as the people to change it through your legislature. Once it's a so-called constitutional right, you can't do anything. It takes away from the people the ability to,

set the law. So when people say, the status quo, no, it's not just the status quo. This says it's constitutional that you can't decide the contours of who's a citizen or not. In effect, the status quo

remains. You're correct. I agree with what you're saying. It's like when Heller was brought forth or some people make mistake. I think it was a mistake to take this Supreme Court in this form. That's just my opinion. I'm not a legal scholar because it was too broad an executive order that now the court says that yes,

every single person. But you're saying that this is one of the worst things, you know, worse than Roe, but the, the truth of the matter is there are a lot of laws that you can implement to, to mitigate what this does. Like what? You can, you can restrict visas. You can close the border. You can throw out illegals.

You can do a lot of things that will stop. this from being a massive problem. I don't know. I don't know that there's an exact number of how many Berturis come here. There are ways to try to mitigate that, aren't there? We don't have to let people in here who are young couples, let's say, if we don't want them here because we're nervous they're going to have children. I don't have a perfect answer for this, but there's definitely ways that Congress can act. I was attracted to Brett Kavanaugh's half dissent because I think, I think he made a very good case there. And I think he kind of offers, again,

I'm not a legal scholar. I'm not going to give you a quote from his dissent. But I will tell you that it seemed to me like he was offering a way forward here. I don't think it's over. Not now, right? Because it's a constitutional right. You happen to be here.

Your birth tourist kid, you're getting to run for president. Like that's what John Roberts says. That's what Amy Coney Barrett says. I don't think so. But if not that we could have a, that we don't do this by executive order, but we do it by Congress. And I'm hearing all these people saying like, oh, yeah, Congress can do this or that. Not if it's a constitutional right. I'm not saying

they can't, by the way, I just want to say, I don't hold this judicial supremacy that the only people who get to say what's constitutional is the court, I was not pleased that everybody was just like lying down in response to this ruling. I encourage Congress to see what it can do. But the reason why the ruling is bad isn't just because I don't believe in mass uncontrolled migration like the kind we have right now. It's not just, it's not that. It's like the reason why I thought Roe v. Wade was bad was not just because it's wrong to kill unborn children. It was also just bad law. And this is a bad decision. And it's the kind of bad decision that's going to have a lot of follow-on effects. Some of them might be very good, by the way, for the Republican Party. You're going to see people learning a lot

more about birthplace citizenship, the arguments for and against it. You're going to have it be a litmus test for a lot of candidates. You're definitely going to vet for judges on this now. They weren't vetting judges for this previously. They're going to have to. The issues of national sovereignty. This is such a bigger issue for generations younger than us than it's going to be like a live political issue in a way that can be helpful to the conservative movement or the Republican Party. I'm just sad for the country because it's It's also possible that given how divided we are, we've got a few more decades and then we're banning air conditioning and dying in the heat.

I think that's a lot of scaremongering, honestly. Why? Wait, why? Because there are ways, like I said, to deal with this problem, maybe not perfectly in all. And also the idea. The impact of myasthenia gravis symptoms can pile up. Plans getting rescheduled. Hobbies being left behind.

everyday tasks going unfinished. If MG keeps disrupting your life, the burden may be bigger than you realize. Learn how to assess and track the impact of your symptoms so you can talk about it with your healthcare team. Take the next step to better understand how MG symptoms may be impacting your life. Visit mG symptomimpact.com. You guys keep conflating what is right and what is in the law. I agree with what you're saying. I think birth tourism cheapens citizenship for people.

People have a constitutional right to it, though. Yeah. If you're born in this country, the 14th Amendment. It's a constitutional right to do birth tourism. You're very passionate about this, but for 140 years or whatever, it was generally accepted by most people, even on the right, that this was the way it was. And now that it's a problem, people have trying to go back in history, make another case and I think they make a much better case than I thought they would when I

first heard about this debate a lot better. But I don't think it's a slam dunk. I don't think it's completely obvious to me that the people who wrote the 14th Amendment didn't believe that illegal should be citizens. It's the birth tourism. Can you help me? Why are you using the number 140 years? I don't know how many. Because I just, I can't do math. I'm dating it from the 14th Amendment until very recently. Okay. So just for your benefit, and I think if you go through the dissents again, you will see this picked up as well. This understanding that you're arguing for, it's really more like a 1940 understanding. So you could say nearly 100 years or 90 plus years. This is not. Why is it from the 1940s because no one brought it up before then? So the first case, so you know, people always

talk about Kim Wong Ark, which I think was 1890s of the Chinese citizen thing. That's like the first time you're starting to see some of this, not codified, but articulated in the, by the court. That's really the only relevant case in the court. And it's not totally relevant to birthplace citizens. This is not how it works. The Second Amendment wasn't challenged until the 30s, probably 1968. So what? The Second Amendment wasn't around for only, it's only around for 50-something years. That's not how it works. If it's not challenged. I'm sorry, are you, what, sorry, what is the thing that's going on?

What's the thing that's been going on for 140 years or since 18? Nothing's been going. I'm saying that the 14th Amendment was ratified. I don't know the exact year off the top of my. And what did it do? It gave birth tourism. No, it didn't give birth tourism anything. It said that people born in the United States and subject,

subject therefore jurisdiction are citizens of the United States. And we're arguing over three or four words. But that's a recent argument. Is it not? It's a very recent argument. And I'm not even saying in the end you won't prevail just because there's a constitutional, just because there's a Supreme Court decision doesn't mean it can't be overturned. Roe v. Wade was a constitutional decision. Sometimes this takes a few decades. My point is I don't think it's some kind of slam dunk like a lot of people are saying that the history proves that they never meant for for illegals to be citizens. I don't think that that's right. I think they debated that and knew that it could happen and were okay with it because they didn't think it was going to be a problem in the

long term. So if you're a textualist or an originalist or whatever, isn't that what you should be worried about? It's not your job to make legislation or to change the meaning of the constitutions because times have changed. I know. And so I keep on hearing this, too. The argument is that the real originalists are Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor. And not. That's cheap.

I think that's a cheap argument. And not Clarence Thomas and not Samuel Alito and not Neil Gorsuch. And I don't find the majority opinion to be, I don't feel like they answered in any way what the dissents raised as the problems with their argumentation. Also, I would just point out when the other four originalists are, sorry, when you have four originalists on one side of the issue and only one on the other, and she's with the other, she's with the Democrat appointed justes and John Roberts, who doesn't identify as an originalist, I just don't find this to be like, oh yeah, the real originalists are Ketanji Brown Jackson and John Roberts.

They don't claim to be originalists. They're not trying to be originalists. Samuel Alito and Thomas devastate the argument that this is an originalist approach. So, no, I think... I don't think they do. And I, by the way, also agree with Thomas and Samuel Alito when they say, it's very bad. The first words of Samuel Alito's dissent, this is very bad. The last words of Thomas's dissent, this degrades citizenship.

These are strong words. They should be. He also, Thomas says this is not going to stand the test of time or he doesn't think history will look kindly on it or whatever. But whether it degrade citizenship or not is not in question. That is not the question that the court should be taking up. The question the court should be taking up is what did they mean by the 14th Amendment when they wrote that clause? And you're saying Thomas messed up his understanding. I agree with him most of the time.

but I think that if this case had been about just birth tourism, it would have had a different outcome. Or if this had just been about illegal aliens here and their children, I'm not sure what side Thomas would have been on. Yeah, I think you're wrong on that based on my quite recent reading of the dissent. Well, I don't know. We should maybe reread these things and maybe keep the discussion going. because I think this issue of birthplace citizenship is existentially important to the country.

And I would like to keep talking about it. Also, because it's one. I like it when you're older and you change your mind on something. And I just took that status quo understanding. We all know if you happen to be born here, you're a citizen that a lot of people had for decades. Until I started reading, like I mentioned, Elon Musk Worman, Kurt Lash, Randy Barnett,

the libertarian guy at law. Oh my gosh. I'm totally forgetting his name. John Eastman. So I would encourage people if they're interested in the topic. It's kind of complicated that subject to the jurisdiction thereof, how we understand whether you're legally domiciled or not. But these are important issues that relate to basically whether you have a community, whether you have a country. And just to be really particular about it, you know, if some, someone comes here from Mexico. And you see this in the hospitals in southern Texas, how they advertise, how you can hop over the border, have a baby, and then your kid is a citizen. Well, that doesn't just mean the kid is a citizen.

That kid is the anchor by which your entire large extended illegal immigrant family can now take part in the massive welfare scheme. So these questions of whether that's true or not have huge implications as Samuel Alito and Thomas, and frankly, the majority, all note. And so it's important to get it right. And I would encourage people to read up on it. You can get that right through shutting down the border and not allowing that to happen. So there is another pathway to stopping that that has nothing to do with change with retroactively trying to figure out what people were thinking when they didn't say those things. And I would say this too. I just want to make this point. Western European countries, virtually none of them give automatic citizenship to anyone born in their country.

They do to some extent, but it's definitely not automatic. And yet they have far worse migrant problems than we do. This is much more about policy, I think, than any kind of constitutional amendment. People who say the world is, the country is over because of this. I saw Matt Wall saying that and other stuff are overreacting, I think, to this decision. because effectively it is the status quo. You're right. I hadn't thought about it in that way. You are, you know, it is, it's making it much harder. This case made it much harder to do things, but you can still do things. For instance, you can, I think, make a law specifically tailored to stop, to stopping birth tourism. Do you think that the cons that the Supreme Court would overturn such a law? I don't think so. No, and I was being a bit hyperbolic earlier when I was, was saying is a constitutional right to do birth tourism you could but I would like you to think about the um the practicality of that look I was wondering can you have a document that people sign who get visas to come here that says you renounce any kind of claim citizenship is that is that unconstitutional

I would really doubt that this court would view that as constitutional I don't know because it would be tough one but then I but you're right and then also Roger Severino at Heritage had this idea since the territories are not like immediately held to 14th Amendment protections. And since the Mariana Islands are a big location of birth tourism for American citizenship, they should issue an exact. Trump should change his executive order to apply to the territories and see what this court says about that. I really wish that it did. Of course, that might be dangerous because this court, that brilliant. A billion to originalist majority of Sotomayor, Jackson, Elena Kagan, Robertson, Amy Coney Barrett, might say, yep, you get citizenship in the territories too.

The impact of myasthenia gravis symptoms can pile up. Plans getting rescheduled. Hobbies being left behind. Everyday tasks going unfinished. If MG keeps disrupting your life, the burden may be bigger than you realize. Learn how to assess and track the impact of your symptoms so you can talk about it with your healthcare team. Take the next step to better understand how MG symptoms may be impacting your life. Visit mG symptomimpact.com.

This little thing that you're doing where you know very well that those left-wing judges don't care about the Constitution and we'll just take whatever side the left says. I don't believe that's true. The other two justices you're talking about who I think are far more principled in their own different ways and do what they think is right, no matter who it helps in partisan terms. I agree with that. Nevertheless, to get the majority, that's who they had to.

Has Samuel Alito ever been on a majority with a leftist judge? I said to get their majority on this absolutely ginormous issue of birthplace citizenship, they had to join with Elena Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson. They were unable to get Samuel Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, or even Brett Kavanaugh, who agreed with them in the executive order not being allowed. So if that's who you had to work with, that's who was able to be convinced. Do I think the Libs actually think about this in a constitutional law kind of way or just outcomes? I do think they just think about outcomes.

But it means that Amy Coney Barrett is all alone on an island with four non-originalists. And that's meaningful. And I know there are people who are like, she is the most brilliant justice to have ever graced the court. Maybe. I don't know if she's I'd rather be with Samuel Alito and Thomas. I would much like an infinitely

rather be. What that? You should be where you think the, you know, you should be where you think the case is. I, you know, these people aren't gods. And I like both those guys a lot.

I love Clarence Thomas. But that doesn't mean I think he's right every single case, but I'm not, you know, he's, he's the justice. I'm not. But we'll see. This, this, on the other hand, this, this reaction to Amy Coney Barrett as one of the worst justices ever. And a failure is insane. She's been on the right side of massive issues over and over. Just because she doesn't give you everything you want.

Doesn't make her a bad justice. And you see a lot of people treating her like she's, I don't know, like she's basically a lib. I want to, I want to agree with you in two, or I want to agree with you in part, disagree agree with you in part. I saw all these people clipping things that the Federalist had published at the time of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death, strongly encouraging Trump to push through a nomination before the end of his first term as evidence that we cannot be trusted because she has not turned out to be as good as some of the people who wrote these articles thought she was.

would be. I would really like people to be smarter, like much smarter. The question is not, could you have Amy Coney Barrett or a clone of Samuel Alito? The question was, could you get someone through? And if so, who did that have to be? And it was not easy. You have to understand that it's not just about who you nominate. It's about who can be confirmed. What was she, What was the final vote tally on Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation? I'm working it up real quick. 5248. It was 51 Republicans and Joe Manchin.

We were also involved in the campaign to bully Joe Manchin to vote for her. So it almost was 51.49. You kind of don't know how it's going to go until the end. That's a very close margin. It had to be a woman. I don't like this. I don't support identity. politics, but there is the political reality that after Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death,

if Trump had not nominated a woman, his odds of getting someone on the court dropped precipitously. And also, he'd already publicly said that he was saving Amy for when Ruth Bader Ginsburg left the court. He'd already said that publicly and said it to her. I think he may have said that to Carrie and me when we were interviewing him for the book on the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation. Similarly, Brett Kavanaugh, it wasn't a choice between Brett Kavanaugh and the world's best justice. It was at the height of the Russia collusion hoax, at the height of hysteria with a hostile Republican Senate, who are you going to get through that keeps Susan Collins on side? And it was basically Brett Kavanaugh.

I mean, it would have been hard for other people. So people need to understand that it's not about your dream candidate. It's about what you can do at the moment. And there might have been a couple other options, but we also don't know how those other options would have voted. Like, I love the Barbara Lagoa idea and did at the time. But how do we know how she would have interpreted three conflicting statutes in a mail-in ballot case? We don't know.

So just a reminder, people, please be smarter and remember that nothing exists in a vacuum. And yes, we were on the side of hoping Trump would fill the seat. Because keep in mind, if it weren't Amy Coney Barrett, the real alternative was whoever Joe Biden would have nominated. And I will ask you, who did he nominate when given a chance? Ketanji Brown Jackson. So as much as you may be disappointed by Amy Coney Barrett, is she better than Ketanji Brown Jackson? Yes. Now, my argument against myself there would simply be she wasn't billed as better than Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Her supporters said she would be the finest Supreme Court justice to ever grace the land. And I do agree with you that she's had some interesting opinion, some good opinion. and some excellent majorities with Thomas and Samuel Alito. But there is disappointment because of the expectations. And you compare it to a Brett Kavanaugh, who nobody expected would be that great. And I'll just tell you, the people that I talk to routinely are like, this guy turned out to be much better than we thought. They're routinely impressed by him, but partly because they had lower expectations.

So I think all of that plays a part in the discourse. course. But yeah, people are a little bit too extreme. I agree. You want to talk about culture? Yeah, I don't know if I have much. Well, Mark, I feel like wants to say something. He just in the doorway. I'm on a podcast with, yes, yeah. He was talking to him after. He was about to do family business while he's just standing there. See, everyone always thinks that we sound like we're just having fun talking because we are. It's good. Okay.

What are your culture things? I sign up to do a book and until that book is done and even after I'm like, why did I do that? I'm never doing another one again in my life. That's all I think. And then like an idiot, I go and do it again. Me, I have not a lot going on. I will say this because writing a book is kind of stressful and stuff.

I look for things that are going to de-stress me if that's a word and get a little backstory. When I was a kid, you might remember this. I think it was Sesame Street, maybe. They had this kind of segment where they showed you the machines that made crayons, like how to. Yes. So since I'm a kid, I love and watch all the anytime I see a show where they're show you how machines make things. So one day I'm just looking around him on this station called Tooby. There's literally this streaming service called Tooby.

And there's literally a station that only runs 24-7 over and over. It's called the how to station runs like how you make air filters, how you make ice, how you make fans, how you make computers. And this goes on all day. And I am addicted, addicted to watching this. And that's what I did. No fancy shows. Just me watching them making broomsticks or whatever with this machines. So impressive.

Or ice cream or things like that. And I'm just, when you watch this show, you're like, wow, the world is really cool. complicated and people have really incredible ideas in efficiency and production and there are all these people doing all these amazing things and it just makes you think how big our economy is and how diverse what we do is and it's just I don't know romanticizing us but it is impressive and anyway that's it for me I don't have anything else like it oh and also independence day I'm very excited I want to hear what you're very very excited I want to hear what doing. I will be doing stuff for the next several days. The Heritage Foundation is doing a big event

at Mount Vernon, which I am so excited about. And I'm hoping there are fireworks there because I love fireworks. And then I'm going to the Founders Ball, which TPPUSA is throwing on July 3rd. And I'm also, and I've got like a series of gatherings on Independence Day. I am just staying at home. We have, we're in a community here. They have a little get, you know,

good old fashioned American get together of the neighborhood people. That's what I'm going to do. Get to know some people here. And I just want to say, I was on the, I did the Charlie Kirk show the other day. And I'd never met those two guys.

Oh, Andrew and Blake? Yeah. And they were great. I mean, we probably disagree on a lot of stuff. I felt like a big boom. on that show, but they were very, it was a good faith discussion on Iran and stuff.

And like, it was just, I think, a very productive conversation. And I just wish, even though I disagreed with them, I just wish we had more of that going on. Not that you and I don't disagree often, but it's, I just wish we had more of that. Yeah, I love, I love that show. And I love the guests they have. And I also like when people are able to disagree and discuss without getting super personal and weird. Yeah.

Yeah. So that was nice. And it's just because you mentioned, I think you just mentioned them. But the, I have nothing great planned. I'm going to, I live in an area that's historic. So there'll be a fireworks show here. And I'll be with neighbors. I think it'll be nice. And that's it. If you like to reach the show, please do so at radio at thefederalist.com. We love to hear from you. Until next time, your lovers of freedom. Capture your favorite summer feeling with Pandora jewelry. Discover a collection inspired by the sunshine, freedom, and moments that make the season unforgettable. From sun-kissed metals to personalized pieces ready to be engraved with your summer mantra, each design moves with you. From beach days to golden nights and every memory in between. Shop Pandora Jewelry's new summer collection in store or online at pandora.net. And let your summer unfold. I like things my way, my coffee, my schedule, and my treatment.

So I talked to my doctor about self-injecting with the Vivgard-Hitrullo pre-filled syringe, which contains FGartegamon Alpha and High Loranidase QVFC. It's injected under your skin subcutaneously. It means I can inject in my space on my tithell. time. It's my treatment, my way. Visit Vivgardmyway.com. That's V-Y-V-G-A-R-T-May.com. And talk to your doctor about Vivgard Hytrullo, brought to you by Argenics. Big transfer news today. Who's moving? Me, to the couch with Domino's best deal ever since they just added stuffed crust. Any pizza, any toppings now with stuffed crust for $9.99. It's a long-term contract with no release clause.

Only $999. Yeah, that sounds like the move. heading straight to Dom. Mmm, minot. Price is higher for some locations. Excludes Excel and specialty pizzas. Select this offer from 615 through 726. Online over. Size availability varies by crest type.

Max seven topics, six for hand in New York style crust. Minimum purchase required for delivery. Prices, participation, delivery area, and charges may vary.