REPORT: Biden Forming Supreme Court Commission - Is Court Packing Coming?

Today on Secular Radio, Joe Biden and his administration launch their court packing commission.

We'll talk about that and more today on Secular Radio. Which is exactly what they want on the Supreme Court. And chairing the Biden Commission on the Judiciary.

That's all being reported now that they've started putting together the team. But let's just start with the lead person. I always think that the chair tells you a lot. The chair was his campaign's attorney. It's a name that you know if you're in that legal world or political world. Bob Bauer, someone who only works for Democrats. He only works for liberals. So he's putting in a partisan attorney to chair it.

So that already tells you a lot. But he also happens to be, he's not just a partisan attorney, he's a proponent of term limits on federal judges. Which are lifetime appointees. So he wants a constitutional amendment to undo lifetime appointments. So instead of packing the court with new justices, you just get them removed automatically.

This would all take, by the way, constitutional amendments. But they're using your taxpayer dollars to put together a group that's supposed to be bipartisan. So far we can't have any of the names listed. Either there's nothing about them, or that they've come out and they're actually the head of a group that wants to pack the court. Caroline Fredrickson who, this sounds like a conservative group, right? The American Constitution Society. It's that progressive liberal, she supports the expansion of the court. I've spoken at the American Constitutional Society. They're academics primarily. They're very influential organization. Very left of center.

I had a portal reception. I mean, it was a debate kind of thing. So everybody was fine in the days when you could actually have civil debates, which is not the way it is right now. But what was interesting about the way they're doing this is, they would like to literally do what FDR tried to do, which is pack the Supreme Court of the United States. Because they know the court leans conservative now, six to three, and probably that way for at least 20 more years. So this is a, I would call it a desperate effort to do this. But they are, Andy, they're trying to do it. I mean, they put this commission together, they're trying.

Oh yeah. This is an interesting thing that I find is that when FDR attempted to pack the court in the thirties to get his new deal legislation through because the old Supreme Court was declaring all his acts unconstitutional, and that issue was brought up before then Senator Joe Biden. Biden called it, quote, a boneheaded scheme.

Suddenly it's not so boneheaded. It's in fact something that he is putting together a commission that say, I know what they're going to come back to do. They're going to come back and say, we need to add justices.

We need to have term limits on federal judges, and we need to do all the things that Jordan mentioned will require a constitutional amendment. But this scheme is nothing new. It was practiced by FDR, the leading progressive Democrat of the 20th century, and it's now being practiced again by Joe Biden, his successor. You know, the interesting thing, Jordan, is that the idea with lifetime appointments, of course, was that to keep the justices free from politics.

Now, does that work perfectly? No, but it does keep them above the political fray. That's why we can always say you can pick these justices and kind of see where they were before, but you don't really can't predict where they're going to, how they're going to age, if you will, and mature. So where they may start out as someone in their forties with a lot of experience in various fields of law, and they're very educated, and they're qualified for their position, but think about how much you can change your mind on an issue from 40 to 80 years old. But that was the purpose, is that they have that flexibility, because they're not running out of time, and no one is stepping in, so there's no political pressure. They outlast multiple administrations, and societal changes as well. And so ultimately, they usually catch up to where society is on cultural issues, technology they've caught up better on. That took a long time. But you remember those initial internet cases?

They didn't even understand how it worked. No, but they catch up, because now the people on the court utilize this part of their life, even the people who are older on the court. But it's again, we've gotten to this number. You have the odd numbers, so you're going to get their opinion, you're going to have winner and loser, and you don't have to constantly be going through those confirmation wars, which is what they become. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena.

And we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line, we could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now, during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life changing work.

Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free powerful publication, offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v Wade 40 years later, a play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. So folks, I want to remind you too, we launched our first petition of the year. That's up at ACLJ.org. Over 120,000 people have signed this petition in just 24 hours.

And that petition is to stop the unconstitutional impeachment trial of former President Trump. This will go to the US senators. We're going to break it down by your state, but also by total folks. And again, we're doing this in just a few weeks. So we think that again, if you want to add your name to that, you go to ACLJ.org right now. We want to get into the hundreds of thousands.

And it doesn't cost you a thing. It takes about 30 seconds to do, but it provides us the ability to then break this down, get this to senators. And you're standing with, remember, you got 45 US senators who agree with your position on this, Republicans. And I think they need to hear from the American people that they're doing the right thing because they're going to come under a lot of pressure, even though they've said that they don't have jurisdiction, to change their vote. This is the way for you to make your voice heard in a time where it's not so easy on some of these issues.

Yeah. So, I mean, we've got 120,000 people who've already responded in a day, which is pretty phenomenal. And what we're going to do is let the senators know that you view that the process itself, you're not even getting into the merits of what happened here. It's because the incident at Capitol Hill was obviously horrific. I mean, we've condemned it. We continue to condemn it. The whole, the entire day was very tragic for the American, our constitutional republic.

There's no other way to say it. But also, even in times like that, it's important to stick to the text of the constitution. And I just noticed, I mean, we talked about this yesterday, and I know we're talking about the judicial packing today, but just for a moment, I just noticed the significant difference this proceeding will have, Andy, because the solemnity of having the Chief Justice of the United States. People think John Roberts is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He's actually, his title is Chief Justice of the United States. He is the Chief Justice, Chief Judge, if you will, of the United States. He's not sitting, he's not sitting, he's refused to sit in that chair during this upcoming trial. I don't even like calling it an impeachment trial. That really does speak volumes. And that also ties right into this court packing thing to get, you know, this idea that they can manipulate the court system.

Now, it's true. There's nothing in the constitution that says nine. It does say life appointments, so you can't change that.

But there's nothing that says nine. But John Roberts not sitting there does send a big signal. Well, I think it sends a huge signal. I mean, the Chief Justice of the United States, under the constitution, sits at an impeachment trial before the Senate on a President of the United States. John Roberts says, I'm not coming, I'm not sitting, I'm not presiding over this so-called impeachment trial. I don't know what you want to call it in the Senate, but I have nothing to do with it.

Now, what does that really make of it? It makes it not an impeachment trial. Because unless the Chief Justice is in the chair, it is not an impeachment trial. It may be a political trial. It may be a kangaroo court of some kind concocted by Schumer Pelosi and the leadership of the Democrats. But one thing's for sure, without the Chief Justice and without him sitting in that chair and presiding, it is not an impeachment trial. There's also this talk, Jordan and Thanh, that there's gonna be this, I guess some have said this censure. Maybe they'll do a censure instead of an impeachment. My understanding of the rules of the Senate though is once, or the rules of Congress, is once the article of impeachment is delivered to the Senate, they have to try the case. So I don't know, how does this censure thing work? Which I think is just another ridiculous move, but for what it's worth.

Thanh? Yeah, your understanding of that is correct, Jay. And honestly, I think it plays right into the discussion of how we're gonna use this petition with the United States Senate. I'll tell you this, one of the senators we're gonna be talking to the most directly is Senator Kaine from Virginia. Yes, he's a Democrat. Yes, he says that he thought impeachment would be appropriate. But he also said that the outcome is now predetermined.

So he thinks it's a waste of time. So Jay, even though he's talking about censure, the case that we're making to him is, look, if the outcome is predetermined, if you think it's a waste of time, then what are you gonna do when the motion to dismiss is put in front of you at the outset of this trial? So Jay, it's not just that you need 51 senators who think it's unconstitutional, you know you have 45 of those and maybe a few more. If you have, say, 48 that think it's unconstitutional, then maybe you have three or four like Senator Kaine that thinks it's a waste of time, then they could dismiss it, Jay.

So all of that is in play at the very outset of the trial. It's interesting, Justice Ginsburg addressed this issue of court packing. I want to play that by first order because the reason FDR tried this, for exactly the reason you said, he did not like the way the decisions were going. Yeah, so he wanted to switch it for his time period, not thinking about long-term implications. And so all politicians, it's about their time in office, they're not thinking about the next 20, 30 years where they may not even be alive anymore.

They're thinking about right then, right there instead of long-term implications. So they played around with this number throughout history and this is Justice Ginsburg discussing it directly, she was asked. There is no fixed number in the Constitution, so this court has had as few as five, as many as ten.

Nine seems to be a good number and it's been that way for a long time. So she likes the idea, she liked, and this was the liberal icon, Justice Ginsburg, she liked the idea of nine. She also did not like the idea of court packing.

Here's what she said about that. I have heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. I think that was a bad idea when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the court.

It would change the constitutional balance if that every politician, if they get control of the chambers, could then President come in and say, you know, I'm going to get my, it completely undercuts separation of powers and checks and balances. Well, Congress would just keep adding and adding. I think where you'd actually end up, where you'd actually end up is where some of the world is where you're not going to have a nine justice Supreme Court.

They would end up having to break it down into smaller panels and randomly, to be able to function, which is a lot of European countries have. I was going to say these international tribunals, Andy, I'm trying to think when we went to the International Criminal Court in the Hague, was it five judges sitting there? I think it was more than the trial that we had or the hearing that we had, I think had more than, no, it was five judges.

I think that's true. It was five on that one. And that was considered a panel. That was a panel of a larger court. Yeah. I think the court has 27.

Yeah. That's true for a lot of countries. And that would be a bad way for us to go. And so then, then you don't have, you're not going to, one, people already, I don't think pay enough attention to how the Supreme Court affects their life. And there's only nine justices to learn about at a time.

Imagine if there's 20 plus and they're rotating. So, and you don't know who you're getting. I mean, then also the people who you're picking, it becomes a much broader pool of people. You don't know, there's no, again, it's not that you're supposed to be able to predict the court, but it's not supposed to be something that you just constantly politicize.

I mean, are we going to politicize everything? Those battles are already tough enough to get the nominees through. They're nasty, they're hyper-partisan, but then at least those people have decades to move forward past the partnership. So that's why, you know, people think, oh, because this justice, when they went through as a nomination and the Democrats were really tough on them, and Republicans are really tough on them, usually it's the Democrats, that they're going to suddenly side with Republicans on everything. And that never happens.

And why is that? It's because they have lifetime appointments, they're secure in their position, and they don't answer to anybody. They don't have to answer to the current administration or the previous administration or a political party, which may change significantly. Think about the changes in the Republican party. Since even people like Alito were on the court, they may have been at the time more conservative than where their party was, where the nominee of their party was who put them in place. So the party may have caught up to where they were on a libertarian scale. Others are different. I think, you know, so, but that's the beauty of having that one place that isn't so hyper-partisan.

What is the appetite then for something like this? I mean, I think the commission, I think it's actually a, could be a positive sign because it may be putting it into Never Neverland, but they're certainly talking about it. I think there is a distinction and a separation between the base of voters and then elected officials in Washington, DC. I'll tell you, there is an appetite for court packing on the left in Washington, DC, Jay. And this is the argument that I think people all across America need to be making to voters of all stripes.

What does this ultimately do? It takes the power to direct the direction of the court away from who? The American voters. Because right now the American voters have that discretion, Jay. I mean, look, who has more authority to shape the future of the court at this particular moment?

It's President Joe Biden. If you make this change, what Jordan said is exactly correct. If President Trump or a Republican or anybody on another side of the aisle is elected the next time, what are they going to do? They're going to retaliate.

And the people who will lose out will be the American voters. Yeah, I think it's a very dangerous move. I think you could, look, the reason we have checks and balances and separation of powers, this action completely undercuts it. Talking about action, coming up, there's about to be some action today at the White House. We're going to be joined by C.C. Hall, ACLJ's senior attorney, on that issue of, we'll get into it, on the life issue.

But again, not surprising that they're making this move. And we're going to explain this too, because there's even people saying now, what do they mean by this term court packing? So we're going to answer that too.

We come back, 1-800-684-31, tend to answer quickly. It means, this is Congress setting up the rules for how many justices there are on the court. Because as we played the late Justice Ginsburg, the Constitution's silent.

So you have to have a Supreme Court, and you can have lower courts that are established by Congress, but it's silent to how many justices are there. Now it would take, of course, be tough to, I think, to get through. Imagine that it would get through legislatively. But they're putting government resources behind the idea of, is it expanding it, or put on term limits? So that's kind of the opposite way of getting... Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, the play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena.

And we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line, we could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today, ACLJ.org. All right, welcome back to Secular Radio.

We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. I did want to quickly answer, because Carol on YouTube wrote this, and we're going to talk about another issue too that's happening today, unfortunately, but it leads to a bigger battle as well right here at home. But someone asked, so what does court packing mean in the basics of the term?

Now, I'm starting to see it as two ways. One is a way of saying, because more popular, put forward this idea of let's just put term limits. You don't want these people that are 85 plus years old on courts, and that could be popular because that sometimes gets popular around politics as well. Of course, politics, you get to elect people, you get decision judges different, but it'd be like a reverse way of getting at it. The real idea of court packing is what FDR tried to do is using Congress while you're there, so politically while it's going to benefit you at the time, to add or subtract justices from the court. Correct, and both of which are very dangerous. Our constitution set up a particular way, and that provides the checks and balances that would be totally, Andy, absent if you start being able to, the new nominee comes in and says, well, I want to add three more justices because this way they'll be ruling in my favor.

That's right. Jay, I think we need to take a lesson from Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers in Federalist number 78. He wrote, you know, there's three branches of government, but I'm very worried about the potential weakness of the judicial branch.

Why? The executive branch of government has force. They have power, the authority to call out troops. The legislative branch has money.

They control the purse. They make the appropriations, power and money. What does the judicial branch have? The only thing the judicial branch has is judgment, the ability to pronounce to judicial review whether acts are constitutional or not. That was decided in Marbury versus Madison in 1803, but that is the weakest branch of the most easily manipulable branch of government. If we allow court packing by adding justices to get a President's political agenda through, we have gutted the judgment and the independence of the judiciary forever in this country. It is a terrible idea and it should be rejected.

Well, that's going to kind of lead us into the next topic. And we're being joined by our senior counsel, Cece Heil, and that is today President Biden is preparing to, is it today, Jordan? They're going to do the, they're going to, he's going to remove the Mexico City ban through executive order. Cece, first of all, let's explain to everybody what the Mexico City policy has been. The Mexico City policy was a pro-life policy that President Reagan implemented in 1984. And basically it just stops any federal funds from going to fund abortions overseas. So it's very simple.

It looks like we lost, I think we lost Cece. Yeah, so again, the idea here is that Mexico City policy says you're not going to take federal funds, you're not going to fund groups that pay for abortions or refer abortions. The Trump administration actually expanded it to not just those groups actually funding or paying for abortions, but also, but also those groups that are referring abortions, promoting abortions. So that's actually, you can play Dr. Fauci now. Yeah, I mean, Dr. Fauci's going to get you. I don't know why he's talking about this, because I, you know, you think he's talking about COVID. But here he goes. President Biden will be revoking the Mexico City policy in the coming days as part of his broader commitment to protect women's health and advance gender equality at home and around the world.

So this is the COVID expert with all due respect. I mean, this is, you know, how about getting me the vaccine and many other people instead of engaging in the politics of abortion. But nevertheless, that was his announcement. Now, Cece, what's the impact of this? Well, it's extreme, because once again, now our tax dollars are going to fund abortions overseas. And actually, you know, President Biden talks about unity, and we are actually unified on this one matter. An overwhelming majority of Americans do not want our tax dollars to go overseas to fund abortions, and that includes 56% of Democrats.

So we are unified on this. But starting today, when he signs his executive order revoking this Mexico City policy, our tax dollars will once again go overseas to fund killing babies overseas. You know, look, we say elections have consequences, and no matter how you got there, one of the consequences of this one.

Now, this is what happens. Republican Presidents tend to put it in place. Jordan Democrats tend to not.

Yeah, that's right. I mean, this is where we've seen politically for decades now. But it goes to the bigger issue then of what are you going to do in your own country too? So not only are we going to take our taxpayer dollars, it's interesting. Right now, under our law, so you take your taxpayer dollars, and they're going to fund directly abortions internationally.

Can't do that technically in the United States. But Planned Parenthood still gets half a billion dollars for their non-abortion-related activities. And if we can get to THAN, I mean, the Hyde Amendment is also up. Is the reason why they don't get a billion dollars for their abortion. Yeah, so where are we on the Hyde Amendment, THAN? That's being proposed in the United States Congress as well, to do away with the Hyde Amendment.

Exactly what Cece said is happening overseas. Our tax dollars are going to be used directly to fund abortions. But Jay, there is a feeling among the left in Washington, DC, and I don't think this is overstating it, that they believe there is a constitutional right for tax dollars to be funneled towards abortion.

That is on the line. I will tell you, Jay, just one glimmer of good news on this front. 200 members of the United States House of Representatives signed a letter today, or yesterday, I believe, saying that they will reject any funding bill that does away with the Hyde Amendment. So that's not enough to get it through the United States House, Jay. But look, there are ways that we can push back on the Hyde Amendment. Look, there are ways that we can push back against this because the ramifications of the moves received. No Democrats on that letter.

Jay, a pro-life Democrat in Washington, that's a rare breed right now. Yeah, it used to not be the case. I mean, it's amazing how this has turned this way. But this also ties right back into the court packing thing. And that is this, challenges to these restrictions in the various states, Andy, that we've seen over the years, that we've been successful in defending, you know, health standards that you would have to have in a dentist's office, you would have to have in an abortion clinic. But you pack the court, and you'll be able to, they'll work right around that. Well, that's the whole idea, Jay. You get a legislative agenda through, not through the legislature, which is the legitimate and proper way you do it under the Constitution. But you get your legislative agenda through your judicial officers.

That's not the right way to do it. That's not what judges are about. They're not legislators. They're not put up there to make laws. They're there to interpret and to review for constitutionality. Court packing turns that whole idea upside down and does exactly what Alexander Hamilton said.

It trivializes and it weakens an already weak branch of the government, and that is the judiciary. Court packing is a horrible idea. You know, CeCe, really quick, we got less than 30 seconds here, but the, we had all those successes on those crisis pregnancy centers being, were being forced to compel, refer to abortions.

We won those cases at the Supreme Court of the United States last year, and now you pack the court. Those are undone. I mean, that's what they're doing. Yeah. Yeah. That's what, that's what the goal is, is all the pro-life sections that we have won are now all going to be undone.

And again, it's against the majority of Americans who don't really want this funding of abortion. All right. Thank you. Appreciate it, CeCe. Thanks for being with us. All right, folks.

Second half hour coming up, Secular Radio. Go to ACLJ.org. Sign that petition. We take your phone calls too.

People are on the line at 1-800-684-3110. I answer more of the questions too about the court packing, these other issues through the impeachment trial as well. We've got the petition up, first petition of the year at ACLJ.org. Stand with those 45 US senators who believe this is an unconstitutional exercise by the US Senate. ACLJ.org.

Sign the petition now. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today.

ACLJ.org. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow Live. And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, welcome back to Sekulow Radio.

We are taking your phone calls 1-800-684-3110. So to reset the stage for you, the bigger issue we've been talking about today is the idea that Joe Biden is making good on, basically it was a campaign promise. He didn't want to say directly if he supported putting more justice on the court, but pushed by the kind of left of his party, which we've seen this happen time and time again with President Biden, is that he tries to kind of cut it both ways. Now having this commission, let's listen to President Biden, during the campaign, what he finally came up with for an answer. He never wanted to say yes or no, but he certainly, he wouldn't say no to court packing.

Most people are pretty clear about whether they supported or not. He finally got to an answer and this is what it was. If elected, what I will do is I'll put together a national commission of, bipartisan commission of scholars, constitutional scholars, Democrats, Republicans, liberal conservative, and I will ask them to, over 180 days, come back to me with recommendations as to how to reform the court system because it's getting out of whack, the way in which it's being handled. And it's not about court packing, there's a number of other things that our constitutional scholars have debated and I'd look to see what recommendations that commission might make.

What exactly is he talking about? What's out of whack? What's out of, I was going to say, we have a federal system. We have a constitutional system that says judges are nominated by a President with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. And if confirmed to that judicial position, they serve for life. So what is out of whack Andy, other than the last President got to appoint a lot of judges, but Joe Biden's going to get to point a lot of judges too. Yeah, I don't understand when he said the system is out of whack. I mean, I don't see the courts out of whack.

I mean, you know, I was in a federal court for many, many years practicing for five years in the United States Attorney's Office before 13 federal judges in the Northern District of Georgia. There was nothing out of whack. The judge made a ruling. We didn't like it. We could appeal it. We appealed it. The Court of Appeals would sit in a three-judge panel and make a decision. If we didn't like that, we'd try to seek cert to the Supreme Court of the United States.

I mean, it has worked for decades upon decades upon decades. What's out of, you know, what's out of whack is that he didn't get the, he got three judges appointed by President Trump and he couldn't stomach that. Yeah. And so, you know, by the way, the International Criminal Court, Andy has 18 judges. If they were to sit in a plenary session, could you, which I can't even, that's a legislative body.

That's not a judicial. And that could tie by the way, you have to have an odd number. Although we've had even numbers too.

I think we've had 10. We've gotten to a point where you know how it works. In most cases don't make its way to the Supreme Court because they don't need to make their way to the Supreme Court. They don't need to set precedent for the whole country.

They aren't that big of a deal. Even big cases that may have, or the extreme court's been clear about it. And so a court of appeals can ultimately apply the precedent there of the court. If the court doesn't like that, you can appeal it. They can change that. And that happens. But what I think is that we don't want is another part of our government which seems so politicized. And so he's talking about things out of whack. I mean, it can be a very quick process if the court decides it's a case that needs to be held that way.

We've seen that before. And then for the most part, if it's not something that's emergency, there's emergency actions to put stays in place so courts can consider. So that happened with the deportation executive order. Joe Biden already has been told one of the executive orders might be unconstitutional.

So the court did is they issued a very temporary injunction to consider whether or not they're going to issue a stay, and then they'll hear the case. So there's a lot of steps there just at the district court level, which by the way, you could appeal those to the court of appeals. Listen, I know that elections have consequences. I know that Joe Biden's going to get a lot of nominees. A lot of his nominees are going to be confirmed to the various courts. That's part of it. You know, there was already talk on, I think CNN this morning that they're expecting a Supreme Court vacancy this summer. And probably one of the liberal members of the court. That's speculation you never know on these things.

Look, there'll be a confirmation fight and the person will be confirmed. I mean, that's just the way it is. We'll talk about what that means, but that's the system. And right now you've got a very progressive executive branch of government and a pretty conservative judicial branch of government. You know what that is called? Constitutional republics.

That's what it's called. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life changing work.

Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, the play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement.

Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash GIFT. Welcome back to Secular Radio. We are taking your phone calls 1-800-684-3110. Let's go to Dean in Michigan on Line 3. Hey Dean, welcome to Secular Radio. You're on the air.

Great, thank you very much. I appreciate you taking my call. I very much appreciate the other topics you're talking today, but my question comes back to the impeachment. Since it is pretty much a futile activity based on everyone's opinion, can I ask what your take is as to what's really going on? Are they trying to direct us to something else? Is it smoke and mirrors? What's your thought? I think what's happening is, I think there's two things going on. One is there is this reaction to what took place at the Capitol, and I think that was, you know, look, that was condemned across the board. Mitch McConnell went to the floor of the Senate as late as last week condemning it and trying to tie President Trump into it. I mean, he said it. So I think there is this kind of visceral reaction to this insurrection attempt at the United States Capitol.

Look, I've said it before, I'm going to say it again. The Confederates could not get a Confederate flag inside the United States Capitol, but these insurrectionists did. They were marching around with a Confederate flag inside the United States Capitol.

They were marching around with Camp Auschwitz shirts on there, and this was an insurrection attempt. Now, the question is, how do you handle that? And here you have a President that is no longer, you have a President that is literally a former President. He is a private citizen. And then bringing the claim of impeachment against that private citizen is not constitutional. It's extra constitutional in that sense. And I think the best example of this is the Constitution specifically states, Andy, we've said this a lot, but it is worth repeating, that when the President is tried, and that's what the Senate does, it is the chief justice who is the presiding officer.

And instead the presiding officer here is the Senate pro tem, Senator Leahy. Yeah, well, that makes it not an impeachment trial right from the beginning. If you don't follow the constitutional mandate of having the chief justice of the United States presiding over the proceeding, it is by definition not an impeachment trial. It is a political trial, and we ought not to be holding political trials in the United States Senate based on impeachment, on an impeachment article that was debated for two whole hours, didn't go through a committee, and was brought over late. And late impeachments are not in the Constitution. Look, if the founders of the Constitution had wanted to hold civil officers like the President of the United States accountable for acts committed while he was in office, after he left office, they would have said so.

I have read tons of law review articles, and I have mainly read the Constitution, and it's not permissible. It's just something that is not in the law. But the second part of the question then to Jordan and Fan is that they're asking, the question is, why are they doing it? And I think that's, we said this before, and I think it's to brand the Presidents, to mark President Trump, to diminish his political capacity going forward. So it's basically a bill of attainder, which is specifically prohibited in the Constitution, but that's what it looks like they're doing. Yeah, to me it's, again, they want to get to that second part of the vote, which is to ban President Trump from political office. The problem is they gotta get through the first part. They have to get through the first part, and then you start taking, you're taking a fundamental liberty of someone who's a private citizen, which is to run for office if you're qualified, which you meet all those basic qualifications in the Constitution he does easily. But now they can they can do this, but not if they don't impeach you.

Then they want to bring up other ways. Now they talk about a censure. It's all about this idea of somehow, to me it's this, if you don't have 90 senators behind this, behind a censure, it's partisan. You get a few Republicans that always never liked the President, and the Democrats, and okay, this is just partisan.

It's not a, you're not being branded with anything. What's dangerous about this, I think, for the country, is that because of the actions of a reckless House of Administration led by Nancy Pelosi, once again, who's barely hanging on to their power, it keeps falling. They keep losing power and power. They had this big majority, and it keeps dwindling and dwindling and dwindling, even in a year where Joe Biden won.

No House Republican incumbent lost, but there's a picture of all the House incumbent Democrats who did, because they'll get their little plaque for serving in office from the Democrat leader. So they're barely hanging on to power because they keep, but then the Senate gets stuck with it, and then you get the Tim Kaine saying, and we know this from doing these trials, this is torture for a politician. And people who are responsible for COVID relief bills, they have to be silent. They can't do any other work. Right now it's tough enough because their staff's barely there because of COVID, and their concerns about that.

So I think it's even that much harder. And then you're dragging the country through what it's already lived through and elections have been had. The thing I don't understand, and I keep saying this, is I know it's going to happen because it has to happen, I mean constitutionally. Well, they didn't vote. They could have voted to dismiss it. They didn't. But the 45 votes that they had with only five Republicans going to support the Democratic majority in that case, does show that the President will be ultimately acquitted. So they're not going to get to that second phase, the barring lifetime bar from holding an office or public trust.

So we're going through this exercise while we still got, we had 4,000 people die last night or yesterday from COVID. Yeah, they're not going to get to that phase, Jay. I mean, a couple of things. One, if this had been about what they say it's about from the very beginning, they could have tried it while President Trump was still in office. There was two weeks between January 6th and January 20th. It was not about that then. It's not about it now. It's never been about it.

It's been about 2024 and keeping President Trump off the ballot. Here's what I think is happening, Jay. I think the left has overextended itself and now can't find an off-ramp.

I really do think that that sound from Senator Tim Kaine, I think that's what that's all about. He wants an off-ramp and can't find one. Why can't he, Jay? Because they're beholden to the left edge of their base.

That's why. So let me ask you this question. Do they lose the impeachment and then try the censure out, or is the appetite going to just be, let's get on with business? Well, I think it depends who wins off. I think if you ask Senator Tim Kaine, he hopes that they, well, I shouldn't say that. I would expect if he's thinking politically, he should want them to move on. But Jay, he's actually said exactly the opposite. He said he wants to move to censure.

So maybe that changes if a motion to dismiss passes. But look, I go back to this. They literally cannot find an off-ramp here. Yeah, it is their problem. That's because they're afraid. You have Chuck Schumer who's afraid the AOC is going to take him out of the Senate. I mean, that's the real problem. They're afraid that the Democrat leadership is afraid they're going to be run out.

Like some of their colleagues have at the lower levels already in the House by a far left part of their party who still believes here they want to re-litigate all these issues. Back to the phones we go. Let's go to Joy in Arizona online one.

Joy, welcome to Jay Sekio Live. Thank you for taking my call. I am the widow of a late congressman that served on judiciary during Watergate. My late husband spoke of the dangers and harm to the country by going there and how divisive it was to our republic.

His part in the Watergate was based totally on irrefutable evidence. He felt so strongly that it should be used judiciously and with great deliberation of the facts after due process has prevailed. This has not happened in this case. This farcical use of the impeachment process will dilute and weaken all further use of this tool censure. It devalues its purpose and divides the country.

It simply becomes a tool of political theater. Well, your late congressman Railsback is right. He would be appalled by a snap impeachment. Yes, I think, listen, previous congresses who have considered this before remembered ultimately dropped that with Nixon just because he left. He left while he still had time.

President Trump finished his term. They didn't want to rush. They didn't rush the trial because they have all we have all these rules. Well, they make the rules up themselves.

So if they wanted to act quickly and have a snap trial, I guess they could have tried to do that, but they'd bring up those due process concerns, all those issues, which by the way, they really doesn't apply to them. So they can apply that because they have class or they have dignity as a Senate, but we know that's all been thrown out the window by the left. What they didn't like with President Trump, the whole idea of draining the swamp was that Republicans had just started. He made a lot of consequences for it. His entire presidency was marred by constant investigations, Mueller impeachment, impeachment again, even when he's done because he took on, he started acting like them. And I've said all along, if you want conservatives to have any chance of anything, you better start acting like them.

You better take it to the edge of what's legal, not do things that are illegal, but take it to the edge of what is legal. Because what do we do? We busted up labor unions. We basically have taken those apart where they don't have the same control they have over their own members anymore.

But all of that I think has to be said is that you look back in history, politicians would be appalled of what's happened, how partisan things have become, what they've cheapened it. And what is the, yeah, I think an action by Congress just never happened before. Now, when we come back, there's another interesting, we'll play it when we come back, interesting comment by Justice Ginsburg. We'll take your calls at 800-684-3110. Let me say a thank you to the ACLJ members as we are closing up the month of January. We've had an incredible month. Your support of the ACLJ, it's been phenomenal. And we thank you for that. We encourage you to continue to do that at ACLJ.org.

But as we close out the first month of the year, the support that we have had on our online giving and through the mail and every place else, it's just been great. And I want to, from all of us, people you see on this broadcast, the people you don't see that are putting this broadcast together, to the lawyers in the field, thank you. We want to give you that unique perspective, especially with this trial coming up, because we've done it. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, a play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work.

Become a member today, ACLJ.org. 1-800-684-3110. Let's go back to the phones and start answering more of your calls. So we've got Dan in New Hampshire online. Ford, Dan, thanks for holding on.

You're on the air. Oh, yes. I have a question about something that always seems to be brought up together with the packing of the court. In particular, they simultaneously talk about making Washington, D.C. a state. And I'm looking at Section, you know, Article 1, Section 8 says that Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district as may become the seat of the government of the United States. Wouldn't that preclude it ever becoming a state? How can you have a state if it's not in charge of its own state government? You raise a point that's been raised by scholars today, even, saying that it would literally take, Andy, a constitutional amendment for the District of Columbia to get statehood. They couldn't just vote it in Congress. No, and that would also apply to Puerto Rico, which has also been mentioned as a possible candidate for statehood. But what the Democrats are doing in trying to get Washington and Puerto Rico in, which would require constitutional amendments for both, is to consolidate their power in the Senate, because those are purely Democratic areas and they're going to have, they would have four more Democratic seats. And, Than, that is actually, that introduction has had taken place, correct? I mean, that bill has been introduced.

That's correct. And it's not a constitutional amendment. I fully agree with the analysis that requires one, but Senator Carper from Delaware disagrees. He dropped a bill just earlier this week to make D.C. a state. He's going to try to do it legislatively.

How many votes will he get from the House? Could it pass? It could possibly pass the House. I think it's a very tall hurdle in the United States Senate.

But, Jay, we've talked about this before. This is a long game for the left in Washington, D.C. Eventually, yeah, they want to move it.

Yeah. I mean, you talk about changing the balance of power. Pack the court and add states. Add two Democrat U.S. senators. It's the same idea as the, okay, should Republicans, by the way, the same clause of the Constitution, as long as you could get, you know, Tennessee to vote and say it's okay, split Tennessee into two, you get two more senators.

You see how that can all become a problem. It's not that you should never admit a new state. Have we done it? I mean, it's happened in the Senate.

We've gotten to this 50 number. That's not some set in stone thing. But you shouldn't do it for political purposes.

You should do it because it's necessary. And that's why we have territories. We have Puerto Rico, which has some of its own sovereignty as well. That's what they get. D.C. gets all the federal benefits. You get funded by our taxpayer dollars. That's why it would take a constitutional moment.

It's so interesting. I think Texas has, when they came into the union, the ability to break up into different states. We would never say that was okay. Yeah, have Texas break up into five states and then four of the five will get two Republican senators and one will get two Democrats. So you get eight new Republican senators. I mean, that's what starts happening is that because all it takes the Constitution is consent from the state.

If you have a very red state still, hey, divide us into two, we'll get two more senators. But, you know, Andy, it does fit into the court packing thing. It's just, again, it's trying to subvert what the Constitution has laid out.

And it is this idea of separation of powers and co-equal branches of government. Yeah. This is Senate packing. You have court packing. You have Senate packing. And that's just what it is.

Both are bad ideas and both should be rejected. So let's go back to the phones. 1-800-6431-TIN, John in North Carolina.

Online one. Hey, John. Hi.

How are you doing? Thanks for taking my call. Quick question. I've been watching your discussion about the upcoming trial. I understand that they need the two-thirds of votes to convict Trump on the impeachment. The Constitution has the word and for removal. Well, based on their prior track record, they don't really care about the language of the Constitution. Can they move ahead with a 51 majority vote to stop him winning again?

There's discussion of that. Could they invoke the 14th Amendment, so it's passed after the Civil War? The insurrection part of the 14th Amendment. It says that if you were someone who took up arms against the United States and supported those efforts, you were barred unless Congress came back and voted to unbar you. So it's kind of opposite, actually, of barring people. It barred them and then says, but Congress could let you back in. And so that's, again, that's a reversal. So if you weren't barred, I don't know how they get there under that 14th Amendment.

I don't either. And I think politically... You have to be held by a court or some other place other than Congress. As the crime of insurrection, of taking up arms against the United States, can the President... I mean, you'd have to think, can a President actually be the one who's doing that just because of the difference of how you thought of speech was?

And the answer is no. I think it wants to go much further than that, even on a liberal court. But I think you're going to see charges of insurrection, Andy, raised against some of those individuals. Well, there's some that's sedition, not insurrection.

Yeah, some may be sedition, some may be insurrection, that of those that entered the Capitol grounds with the intent to do what they did. And the US Attorney and the DC Attorney General are looking at that right now. Yeah, I know the DC Attorney General, who only has jurisdiction over misdemeanors, is looking at that. The United States Attorney for the District of Columbia would have the right to look at that. Those are felonies for those people who actually broke in and did the damage, took over the offices, tried to hold people hostage, took over the speaker's office, tried to do harm to the vice President and so forth.

They deserve to be prosecuted for insurrection and acts of that nature, just like a mutineer on a ship. But whether that happens will be up to prosecutorial officials in government right now. You know, it's interesting to me, we were talking about the court packing and the political nature of it. Justice Ginsburg, who played her a lot today, she also talked about the partisan nature of that.

Take a listen. He mentioned before the court appearing partisan. Well, if anything would make the court appear partisan, it would be that. One side saying, when we're in power, we're going to enlarge the number of judges so we will have more people who will vote the way we want them to.

So what you got is a Senate packing attempt by statehood for the District of Columbia, a court packing attempt by trying to change the number of justices on the court, and then you completely eliminate checks and balances. Yeah, while they also are trying to go after a private citizen through a political court, which is never a court you want to be in. Now, if you get elected to public office and while you're a public servant, you have to deal with that. You have to deal with the political court. But private citizens, none of us should have to deal with that. We shouldn't have to go through a process which is highly hyper-partisan and has no rules. And so if you avail yourself of being an elected official, the benefits that come with that, then okay. But then what about when you've left office? So you've decided, you know, I'm not going to do this anymore. So you either voted out or you... Why do they have a jurisdiction over you?

To punish you in any way that's actually real. That's different than a censure vote of saying, we don't like what you said and did. But what Susan Collins said is that she's not going to go with the censure unless there's no trial. And I don't think the left is going to accept that.

And the pressure on them is going to be... Susan said that? Yeah, she said it's in lieu of a trial. It's in place of the trial so that we don't have to go through that process or else I don't think you're going to get any Republicans, even the ones who would go along with the censure, if you're going to make them go through the trial and they quit, I don't think they're going to get a censure vote. Or not one that passes. Yeah, in lieu of.

Not in addition to. That's why I think this is... I think this is blowing up on them already. The reason you don't have snap impeachments, because you make snap decisions. And when you make snap decisions, oftentimes it's the wrong decision. And they could have responded at the speed of relevant when all this took place and the Senate did not.

The House did not rather. This was the game that Nancy Pelosi played in the first impeachment, remember, which was not delivering the articles for 30 days. So whether it's that or it's court packing or it's Senate packing by adding states, the American Center for Law and Justice, your voice in Washington, DC and around the globe, we're here for you. We encourage you to support the work of the ACLJ this month. Yeah, go to ACLJ.org too. We've got the brand new petition up, first petition of the year, first action of the year to oppose this unconstitutional trial, ACLJ.org. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life changing work. Become a member today, ACLJ.org.