Join Jim and Greg as they see plenty of votes lined up to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. They also dig further into Joe Biden’s energy plan and see just how quickly he wants to wipe out fossil fuels. And they wince as Biden literally forgets who he’s running against.
Join Jim and Greg for three good martinis! First, they credit NBC for actually reporting that a big reason for huge forest fires is poor government management and a refusal to diligently thin out forests to contain future fires. They’re also thrilled to see polling showing 80 percent of Saudis expecting normalization of relations with Israel and 71 percent expecting it whether the Palestinians pursue a peace deal or not. And they’re glad to see a majority of Americans approving the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett and a huge majority opposing court packing.
Join Jim and Greg as they watch staffers of disgraced former California Rep. Katie Hill accuse her of abusing and mistreating her staff just as Hill’s victim narrative is about to become a movie. They also cheer new polling showing a significant jump in support for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett in just one week. And they have fun as the Democrat running for U.S. Senate in Kansas has no idea what the Patriot Act is.
Join Jim and Greg as they cheer President Trump’s selection of Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the U.S. Supreme Court. They also dig into the New York Times story on Trump’s taxes and discuss what might be damaging and what’s just noise. And they discuss the spectrum of attacks Democrats and their media allies are aiming at Judge Barrett – from Obamacare scares to bashing her for being a working mom to why adopting kids from Haiti is somehow troubling.
Join Jim and Greg as they enjoy the fun ad for GOP congressional hopefuls in Texas, an ad starring Rep. Dan Crenshaw and includes skydiving and multiple movie references. They also fume over the latest revelations proving the FBI knew the Steele dossier was based on a likely Russian spy and still sought FISA warrants without ever revealing the source to the FISA court. And they get a kick out Democrats suddenly wanting Supreme Court term limits since we may soon have an actual conservative majority.
Join Jim and Greg as they welcome Sen. Dianne Feinstein – the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee – saying she opposes ending the legislative filibuster. Without killing the filibuster, Democrats would be unable to add seats to the Supreme Court, but is Feinstein sincere or is she just worried about touting court packing before the election? They also brace for a violent day or more in Louisville as officials announce whether police officers will face charges for the shooting death of Breonna Taylor in March. And they unload on media outlets for not only beginning to attack possible Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett but for getting the story spectacularly wrong.
Join Jim and Greg as they react to 51 Senate Republicans announcing they will support the process of confirming a Supreme Court nominee before Election Day. They also hammer Dems from the Obama and Clinton teams for insisting that Democrats adding seats to the high court is the only response to the supposed constitutional crisis spawned by a vacancy near an election. And they crush Joe Biden for refusing to say whether he supports court packing.
Join Jim and Greg as they reflect on the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as well as President Trump’s reaction to the news. They also wade into the battle over whether Trump and Senate Republicans ought to press forward with a confirmation process before Election Day and counter Democrats’ insistence that doing so would somehow be unconstitutional. And they respond to the absurd overreactions of people like Barack Obama and Reza Aslan to the prospect of a new justice this year.
The Supreme Court is getting back to business this week and right away the justices are diving into a legal question that could have significant cultural impact.
On Tuesday, the justices heard arguments over whether the 1964 Civil Right Act forbidding employer discrimination on the basis of sex simply affords legal protection to women or whether it also ought to extend to sexual orientation and gender identity.
The case before the court centers on three individuals, one of whom is deceased: two men who were allegedly fired for being gay and a biological male who now identifies as a female who was let go from a Michigan funeral home.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco said the Civil Right Act was clearly drafted 55 years ago with the term “sex” clearly intended to mean the difference between male and female, not gay vs. straight.
While advocates for a broader definition of “sex” say an adverse ruling will let them back decades, Family Research Council Senior Fellow Peter Sprigg says it would actually just preserve the status quo. He says the real cultural shift would occur if the court changes what he believes the authors of the Civil Rights Act intended 55 years ago.
“It would be very serious. There would be a significant threat to the freedom of employers to decide what they believe are the appropriate qualifications for their employees. And there would be a particular threat to religious liberty for Christian employers who may be concerned about not wanting to hire people whose lifestyle is not consistent with the teachings of their faith,” said Sprigg.
Listen to the full podcast as Sprigg explains why there’s a big difference in sexual orientation vs. gender identity in the Civil Rights Act and why conservative groups like the Family Research Council find themselves in common cause with feminists and lesbian groups worried about equating biological men with women.
On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments over whether the repeal of the tax penalty for refusing to buy health insurance makes the entire Affordable Care Act unconstitutional.
Texas is leading a coalition of states trying to get the law declared unconstitutional. Rob Henneke of the Texas Public Policy Foundation is arguing for the law to be struck down on behalf of individual Americans. In December, a federal district judge in Texas agreed that the end of the tax penalty meant that all of Obamacare ought to be struck down. Liberal states then appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
What happened in the oral arguments before the appellate judges? Where did the judges focus most of their questions? How did they respond to the argument that only Congress, and not courts, can do away with the law?
We discuss all of this with Rob Henneke and ask whether he thinks he can win over Chief Justice John Roberts if and when the case reaches the Supreme Court.