MAJOR UPDATE: Justice Barrett Fires Back on Constitutional Crisis

In a rare live appearance, Justice Barrett fires back on the quote-unquote constitutional crisis. Keeping you informed and engaged.

Now more than ever. This is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now, your host, Logan Sekulow.

Welcome to Sekulow. Phone lights are open for you at 1-800-684-3110. This one's a pretty interesting story we're going to lead with today, and that is Justice Barrett. who obviously is someone who uh you know has had People love her, people dislike her, some play from the middle because she has been a pretty honest broker in terms of voting her, how she feels is right, not necessarily going always full conservative or full Trump. And not always going, certainly definitely not always going full left, but occasionally siding with them.

So she's had some controversy here and there. But you know what? Seems like a person of character who we have talked about for many years on this broadcast. And of course, we were thrilled when she was announced to be the next Supreme Court justice.

Now, in a rare appearance, because she seems to be making the rounds quite a bit. Is actually making some statements, and it's kind of refreshing to hear this to hear a Supreme Court justice lift back the curtain a little bit. If you're gonna have these kind of opinions coming out that start to become a little bit more personal, a little bit more jabby, if you will. It's nice to hear more of an explanation from A justice.

Now, this happened at the Kennedy Center. Oh, the Lincoln Center. I'm sorry. We got Rick Rinnell joining us later. I thought a Lincoln Center could different precedents.

Different sensors as well. Yeah, and cities. You know, okay, give me a break here. I saw, I've been trying to say, I will say we were, we got it wrong this morning as well. I was going to say, somebody in the prep meeting said the Kennedy Center.

By the way, Rick Rennell's joining us later today.

Someone said that. Just whoever's watching there, someone said that.

So I thought, oh, that's good. That's a good connective tissue. Thanks for not correcting that.

Well, still right now on the air. You know, she also talked about the constitutional crisis, or if there is a constitutional crisis, the phrasing that we've heard now from the left over and over again. And this is with an interview with Barry Weiss, of course, founder of the free press. That's right.

So Justice Barrett has a book coming out. And many times, that's the only time you see Supreme Court justices giving interviews, doing events. They will go and speak to law schools and legal conferences, but this is promoting a book. This is the book called Listening to the Law.

So she did this event last night in the Lincoln Center. And then she also has an upcoming interview with CBS News that we have some sound from. We'll play. But she pushes back on the notion that there's this constitutional crisis. She says, I don't know what a constitutional crisis would look like.

I think that our country remains committed to the rule of law. We have functioning courts. I think a constitutional crisis would clearly, we would be in one if the rule of law crumbles, but that is not the place we're at. And she said, I think the Constitution is live and well. This pushes back not only against some of the disagreements that she and Justice Jackson had had in their opinions, even in dissents, but even to those judges yesterday that ran to NBC News to voice their distaste and dislike of the way the Supreme Court was operating.

I think it's good to see a Supreme Court justice stand strong on this, right, Jordan? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, first of all, because we keep hearing from the justices on the left and the politicians on the left that this Supreme Court has created this constitutional crisis. And I just asked the American people. I asked you if you're, you know, listening right now, do you believe you're living in a constitutional crisis because of the U.S.

Supreme Court and the nine justices of the Supreme Court? And the answer is likely no. You might disagree. With some of their decisions, you might strongly agree with others of their decisions, sometimes from the same justices. You don't have to like 100% of what they do.

But that doesn't mean that there's a constitutional crisis because we don't all agree 100% of the time on 100% of the issues. A constitutional crisis is not having the rule of law in place in the United States of America. And again, we always have to watch for that. That's true crisis. The Supreme Court making decisions you may or may not like, that's not a crisis.

It's not the same thing. You may think there's a constitutional crisis, as Jordan said, but it's likely not coming from the nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. What do you think? Give me a call at 1-800-684-3110. And look, we're always involved in the Supreme Court of the United States here at the ACLJ, and you can be involved too.

Our fight right now, the working group is likely headed to the Supreme Court. We join you filed three filings last week, the same day. Be a part of that journey with us at aclj.org. When we get back, we're going to continue this discussion. and give you a little bit more from Justice Barrett.

We'll be right back with more on Sekulow. Welcome back to Zeculo. Float Lines are open for you at 1-800-6A-430-110. A lot of you are just joining us right now. We're talking about.

Justice Amy Comey Barrett, who, of course, is a justice who most of the time we do agree with here, but she's been out doing a book tour, sort of a rare appearance when you hear from a Supreme Court justice, is when they start promoting books. They'll do public signings. They'll do events. And look, I'm sure that it's a nerve-wracking time to do that as Supreme Court justice. As we know, there have been a lot of threats against the Supreme Court justices over the last few years.

And Amy Barrett has certainly not been someone who has taken a light stance on many of these. But of course, she's also making appearances, press appearances. And Will, I think you wanted to set up a bite here because she's been going on and answering somewhat the same questions. It feels like they all want her to just say, yes, it's a constitutional crisis happening in the country. Right, which one would be absurd for a sitting Supreme Court justice to say that because that completely undercuts their entire job and position.

But this is from Nora O'Donnell at CBS. This is a forthcoming interview. They've been teasing out some clips of it. But this is, and just I want you to pay attention to the framing of this question. Question, which is so absurd.

But this is Nora O'Donnell talking to Justice Amy Coney Barrett on CBS News, Byte 4. President Donald Trump appointed you to cement a conservative legal revolution. Are you concerned about the narrative of this court that it is no longer a separate and co-equal branch of government as designed by the Constitution? I disagree with that conception of the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court is an independent branch of government. And Presidents appoint justices, and Presidents have whatever their own motivations are for appointing justices.

But once justices serve on the court, the whole point of life tenure and salary protection, which is guaranteed to federal judges by the Constitution, is to ensure their independence from both the executive branch and from Congress. I mean, just the framing of that question: that you were appointed to cement. A conservative legal revolution, meaning just Adding conservative jurisprudence to the courts in this country? And are you concerned about the narrative? Once again, lazy journalism.

Who's narrative? Who's saying that? Other than you, Nora O'Donnell, that the court is no longer a separate and co-equal branch of government. The entire premise there is that if you add conservative jurisprudence to courts, It can no longer be co-equal and separate. It's so absurd.

And it's like she was only put there to submit, not because of her accomplishments. As a judge, As an academic, her writings, how well-known she was in judicial circles. No, you were just put there to cement a conservative majority. That's all you are. It's just a yes vote.

I mean, already it's a demeaning question right from the start. And I think that, you know, if it, if it was not Nora O'Donnell asking, it would seem pretty sexist as well. Like, they just picked you. They need to pick a woman who was a conservative, so they picked you to put there. And so there's that part of it.

The second part of it, again, too, is because we disagree with the decisions right now of some of the Supreme Court opinions, this court is now no longer a co-equal branch of government. I mean, that's a wake-up call to a lot of us who, I mean, I still think Article 1, 2, 3 sets of three branches of government. The Supreme Court is really the ultimate branch in the sense that without an enforcement mechanism, we still respect its opinions. When I go back to saying the rule of law is what really defines and makes our country great and different from every country in the world, is that the Supreme Court doesn't need a police force. To have the country, whether it's our states or our federal government, follow its ultimately its decisions.

That doesn't mean they can't later be challenged, but in a peaceful way, in a legal process, not through war. And in conflict. In the concept of having lifetime appointments, I know it's controversial.

Some people in the comments obviously light up with that. But you have actually a moment where when you do have these extreme pendulum politics that are happening right now, it is a pure protection against that. Obviously, there have been the thoughts of Joe Biden and many of the other ones saying, hey, we got to pack the court. We got to add more justice. We got to do this.

Playing politics with that system. Right. The left themselves are the ones trying to take away the independence of it. But yet, because she's a conservative with her judicial philosophy, then therefore she must be part of the problem of breaking away the Supreme Court as a co-equal branch of government. But I think this is interesting too, especially in light of what we talked about yesterday with those lower court judges being.

Upset with the Supreme Court and with what Justice Jackson has publicly said. And we can play that as well because this is what Justice Barrett had to say about the understanding of law and the way that they rule and whether people like it or not. Let's go ahead and play bite one. This is from the interview that will be coming out later this weekend on CBS once again with Nora O'Donnell. Bite one.

I want Americans to understand the law and that it's not just an opinion poll about whether the Supreme Court thinks something is good or whether the Supreme Court thinks something is bad. You know, what the court is trying to do is see what the American people have decided. And sometimes the American people have expressed themselves in the Constitution itself, which is our fundamental law, sometimes in statutes. But the court should not be imposing its own values on the American people. And that's for the democratic process.

And that is in stark contrast to what we've heard from Justice Jackson, who was being interviewed a lot earlier this year, asking about what her favorite part of the job was, being on the Supreme Court. We saw that back and forth between Justice Barrett and Jackson within that Trump v. Casa case, which was about the universal injunctions, where Justice Barrett directly called her out by name from her dissent. And that's the one also where Justice Jackson said that this is going to lead to our collective demise. But let's listen to what Justice Jackson thinks about the role of her as a justice is what she likes most about it, Bite 11.

I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity to. Tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues. Jordan, the exact opposite of really what you're supposed to be doing here. Yeah, I mean, this is this, again, the idea here is that your job is to. You could put forward an opinion or a dissent.

Your job is not about, it's not policymaking. Again, if she wants to give lectures on policy, I mean, I guess she can, but it does seem slightly inappropriate because policies will come before the court, and the court's not supposed to look at the policy and say, you know, or the justice and say, I like this policy, so I'm going to find a way to hold it constitutional. I don't like this policy, so I'm going to find a way to hold it unconstitutional. That is how the system of the rule of law falls apart. That's more like a kind of banana republic court system that says we're always going to side with the political side we agree with.

It doesn't matter what the legal arguments are. And unfortunately, that's what's being taught in a lot of majority of America's law schools: is that you make the Constitution is living to mean whatever it needs to mean for us today, so that we can do what we want today, regardless of restraints that were put in place. It looks like pretty clearly by the Constitution on the powers of the government. We have to educate people because I'm looking at the comments, and a lot of the comments are more so. Siding with what would be Justice Jackson's point of view, which is Amy Barrett has betrayed us, has done things because she's not necessarily always voting.

She even talked about that. There was a comment, I have to pull it up, where she specifically said, Well, how do you feel about the fact that President Trump has gotten kind of mad at you for not 100% siding with you? That is not the job of the Supreme Court Justice. She said, To be in this job, you have to not care. You have to have a thick skin.

She doesn't have a social media account. Her husband's assistant and husband kind of say they'll bring things to her on a need-to-know basis. But I think that's a good idea. Hopefully, they're good at that because I'll be honest.

Some of these people like you need to see this right now. Do that to me? And I'm like, you know, I don't. I don't need to say that. Are you pointing at me?

I'm saying maybe other people who are watching right now who are like, have you seen this horrible thing someone said about you? Yeah. You know what, guys? I didn't need to see it. How about you be better sensors for me?

So maybe call me Barrett's got a better sensor. But I think also her statement. Proves the point that she has that different philosophy than Justice Jackson of saying, like, I may even like it within the concept of like political policy. But if the law says one thing, it's not my job to rewrite the law, that would be the definition of an activist judge, which we are so against and what we have fought against at the ACLJ for a very long time. Yeah, I don't have to agree with every decision Amy Coney Bear's made as a Supreme Court justice.

In fact, I don't. But that doesn't mean that I believe that she's coming from a judicial philosophy, which I wouldn't, that I would typically agree with. A judicial philosophy that would usually probably fit my own and many of our listeners. But sometimes those philosophies can lead different people to different decisions. That's the point of having human beings as Supreme Court justices and then not just have AI robots decide, well, based off this and this, and we've read through millions of things, this is the decision.

These are humans making decisions using their best judgment. And again, I think if you agree with them 100% of the time, you're hoping that you had like kind of the left leaning. And I get that.

Sometimes I wish we had Supreme Court justices like those on the left, which you basically 100% of the time. I think if you bet 99%, you could bet 100% they'll rule always with whatever is the liberal position, and you'd win 99% of the time, be a great, great thing. But. You can't do that with conservatives always, and that's because they actually are looking at the bigger picture, not just the policy. But the bigger picture of our constitution, our laws, and our system of government.

That doesn't mean I'm gonna defend every bad decision she may make. Like she said, you can criticize it. That doesn't mean it's a crisis. Absolutely. Phone lines are still open for you at 1-800-684-30110.

When we get back, we'll take some more phone calls. And we're also here from Rick Rinnell. He'll be joining us. Rick Rinnell of the Kennedy Center. That's the right one.

All right, again, give us a call. Go to ACLJ.org. Also, if you want to support the work of the ACLJ, do it today, sign some petitions. Welcome back to Sec Killo. We are joined now by Rick Rinnell.

Rick, it's obviously been a very busy. A week in Washington, D.C., whether it's the Kennedy Center or some of the changes that are coming. And Will, I think you should set this one up because it's another one of those things we'll have to get used to saying, get used to changing. Gulf of America kind of moment once again as President Trump gets in the name business once again. That's right.

So the White House has revealed that the President will be signing an executive order renaming the Department of Defense to its original name, created by George Washington, the Department of War. Uh now, Rick. The President likes to change names. We've seen this. We've seen it with the Gulf of America.

This one is actually restoring the historical name to the department.

So just top line, want to get your thoughts on it, and then I've got some follow-ups that will be quite interesting.

Well, first of all, no one should be surprised that President Trump is on offense, right? He doesn't just play defense.

So it's not just the Department of Playing Defense or the Department of Defending Us. It's literally the Department on Offense. And so the original name Department of War, I think, makes sense from going on offense. I do have a suggestion to make, though, and maybe I can make it here for the first time. If we're going to have a Department of War, maybe the Department of State should become the Department of Peace.

So I've got a follow-up here because we're seeing the left already spiral out of control because of anything President Trump does. But this one was curious to me because this is from a U.S. senator. This is the senator from Arizona, Mark Kelly, who decided to tweet this in response to this announcement. He says, only someone who avoided the draft.

Would want to rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War.

Now, putting aside the fact that that was the historical name, the philosophical reasons for the posture of it, the fact that the left would even go there. And say that it's almost as if They give the President the wins every time because they can't just even make a rational argument about it. They just have to play insult politics with this. I think you're being generous in saying that it just literally insults politics. I actually think this was one of the dumbest reactions.

And I didn't know that Senator Kelly was somebody who wasn't intellectually curious, because to me, this makes total sense. But to bring up someone, you know, oh, you didn't serve, so therefore you don't get to have a philosophical view on protecting the United States, that's a non-sequitur. It's silly. But I would hope that we would have senators who are a little more intellectually curious. A renaming from defense to offense to go back to the historical name, I think makes a lot of sense.

Look, I would say this to Senator Kelly. Philosophically, you should have a person on the cabinet sitting in front of the President who says, sir, we do not negotiate. We're here to go and implement policies without negotiation to protect the United States of America. You should also have another person who sits there and who's in charge of diplomacy and peace. And that is a conflict between those two cabinet officials.

One should be saying, I'm ready to go. We don't negotiate. The other is saying, we negotiate. We're trying to use all of the tools in the tool belt of the U.S. government to solve problems.

But sometimes the Department of State or the Department of Peace has to transfer that file over to the Pentagon, the Department of War, to say it's time to stop negotiating. These are the philosophical arguments that I think we can have a thoughtful discussion on, but we can't when we have senators who just immediately say, well, you didn't serve, so therefore you don't get to be a part of this conversation. That's silly. President Trump's name was on the poster going around the United States of America, raising money, traipsing through event after event, articulating the vision of. What he wanted for America.

And that vision has always been a vision of peace. When you change the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War, signaling we have a department that does not negotiate, that's ready to implement. That is going to be peace through strength. I can't think of something more strong than to say we're ready. We don't negotiate.

We're ready for war if need be. But inherent in that discussion needs to be a very strong Department of State, Department of Peace that says, not now. Not yet. We haven't utilized every tool. And I think that discussion is something that the Senate should embrace, not mock.

Yeah, I think you should bring that up, Rick. I really do. I think that would be an interesting counterbalance to the way we're seeing it. Because sometimes these name changes come and I think people see it as a PR stunt. They see it as a moment for President Trump to get the headlines for something that maybe is going to enrage a certain group, excite a certain group.

But if you were to sort of remake what all of this looks like. I think you have a very Different way that America can view even the way the the government works for them. Yeah, and we need to be able to update. And that's one of the things that I love about President Trump is that he's not one of these politicians that just decides, this is my policy and I'm sticking to it for four years, even though it's a failing policy. This is a man who doesn't sleep much, who's watching the reactions and looking for ways to adjust the policy, adjust the message so that he actually gets results.

And he is, as somebody who works for him, I can tell you, he is all about results. If you don't have results, then he wants to know what needs to change. What do we need to do differently? Is it something that I need to do? Is it something you need to do?

But something has to be different. And he also, I think, is willing to make changes. And, you know, personnel changes are some of those and name changes are others. I think that this name is more reflective of the Philosophy that we need to have in the United States about putting America first and letting people know that we're not going to have weak policies and we're going to back up our policies with actual strong words and actions.

Well, and I think, Rick, and final kind of point here is that under the Department of Defense for decades, the Department of Defense has been used almost as the world's police force in many ways under different philosophies and administrations. I think almost that posture change could set a different tone as well. Like, we use this for a specific purpose, not to go defend every single person around the world, as we've seen through many different neocon style issues that have gone on for a very long time.

Well, one of the reasons I like you is because you're such an intellect. And that is such a great intellectual point. Because if you just look at the philosophy of what we're trying to do by putting America first, and you realize that during the Iraq War, for instance, and one of the reasons I embraced President Trump after being at the UN for eight years and defending the Bush policy for a long time, I became really uncomfortable with using the Pentagon, using the Department of Defense at the time to go out and try to win hearts and minds in Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever. That is the job of the embassies. If you want to have people on the front lines without guns trying to solve problems and being there, the Department of State, the place that I've worked for 13 years and love so much, they need to be on the front lines.

We've got Foreign Service officers who want to be in danger posts, who understand the risk, but want to be there solving problems to win hearts and minds. You can't have somebody with a gun standing there saying, change your behavior in your heart. And this is a long philosophical discussion.

Some people don't want to try to win hearts and minds. I am somebody who thinks we need to think very strategically about it, we don't want to waste money. But we certainly shouldn't have the Pentagon doing it. We should be having other departments. It's much cheaper to have the State Department do it.

But that's why we have embassies. That's why we have United States offices overseas that we call an embassy. Rick, hate to cut you off. We're running just low on time. Of course, you said long, drawn out conversations.

We've cut a break. We'll be right back. Keeping you informed and engaged.

Now more than ever. This is Sekulow. And now, your host, Logan Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow. Thanks to Rick Rinnell for joining us in that last segment.

We had to cut him off, unfortunately, because we were running out of time. But we'll get to him again next week. It's always great to hear from Rick with such an amazing point of view, and obviously, access to what's going on in the administration. Of course, you can't get that many places, specifically many places which you're watching or listening or hearing from just an incredible team. That only happens because people like you support the work of the ACLJ.

We're able to bring in people like Rick. Again, that's at aclj.org. Be a part of that team today. We would really appreciate it. Great place to watch and listen.

If you're brand new, if you're one of maybe 521,000 plus subscribers already on YouTube, or maybe you just watch on YouTube and you haven't yet subscribed, hit that subscribe button. I know we talk about that. I sound like, you know, Jen Alpha saying that, saying, hey, like and subscribe, do this. It really does help us out a lot. It gets this message into a lot more people's hands, literally, into their hands.

And that is the most. effective way. To reach a new generation of not only supporters, but people that you want to educate about what's actually going on. In the United States of America and around the world.

So I encourage you to join with again over the over half a million people that subscribe and the millions that watch. Each and every week. We are resetting a bit. We're going to talk about a couple different topics today. We are first going to start by with Amy Coney Barrett, what happened.

She's been on a book tour, making some statements. And also, Will, a bit of a response from Senate, not response, a bit of a fiery exchange from Senator Tim Kaine, who you may remember at one point was the vice Presidential nominee. That's right.

Yeah, and we'll talk about that. We'll play the sound from him. That was during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing with nominees to be ambassadors, as well as some assistant secretaries of state. But he had some very shocking statements about where our rights come from and kind of flies in the face of our founding documents, which, in light of all of this, we're starting to see whether it be the statement we played from Justice Jackson, where she said, you know, my favorite part is that through my opinions, I get to tell people how I feel about the issues. That's not the purpose of the Supreme Court justice in an opinion or dissent.

Much like, What we're seeing out of the United States Senate that will play in the next segment.

So stick around for that. You don't want to miss it. But a lot going on here on a Friday, Logan. That's right.

And then, of course, you had. Justice Barrett, again, on her speaking tour, saying, hey, we're not in a constitutional crisis. In fact, I don't even know what that looks like. It certainly wouldn't look like what we're dealing with right now. Of course, that's a bit of a summary, but she said, though, quote, I don't know what a constitutional crisis would look like.

This was her speaking to Barry Weiss at the Lincoln Center. And she said, I think our country remains committed to the rule of law. I think we have a functioning court. I think a constitutional crisis would be clearly if one of the rule of law crumbles. And that is not the place we are, where we are.

So, again, a pretty strong statement coming out of the rare times you get to hear from Supreme Court justices in these kind of forums is usually when they're on these kind of book tours. And she's been making the rounds over the last few days. Again, it's kind of refreshing. Yeah, I think, listen. To hear it from the just themselves, who've been under a lot of stress, I'd say, and we've threats usually.

Direct death threats. Yeah, I mean, direct death threats. Troops all around their homes. Outside Washington, D.C., and just the amount of security that we've seen increase around the Supreme Court, which is right across the street from our offices in Washington, D.C. And their barricades for a long time.

Newly expanding offices. Yeah, newly expanding offices. And we could talk about that more too. But again, so you never really know what security situation you're going to get come October when the court is back in session. But what I do know is that they've already changed entrance rules.

Our street closes anytime the court is in session until the justices are no longer in the building. And so, I mean, listen. You don't get to hear from them like this much, but the truth is that a constitutional crisis is not disagreeing. with the Supreme Court opinion. A constitutional crisis is the system and the rule of law Completely crumbling, dissipated, crumbling.

And that's what we're always fighting for. That's why we're always so tough on the FBI and the DOJ. Yeah, we're tough on the FBI, tough on the DOJ, tough on all these political raids that we've seen, because that's how you end up in a constitutional crisis. Misusing law enforcement, not court decisions that you may not agree with, and then a court decision that you do agree with. That's not the end of the country.

All right, when we get back, we'll continue this discussion, and we want to hear from you. I'm asking you to call in. We got a few lines open: 1-800-684-3110. We'll take some calls. In the next segment as well, so you don't have to stay on hold all that long.

Again at 1-800-684-314. 10. Be a part of the ACLJ team today at aclj.org. We'll be right back. Welcome back to SecUl.

Like I said, phone lines are open. I'd love to hear from you. There's a lot of you watching right now, but not a lot of you coming at 1-800-684-31-10. We want to really play now. Maybe this will get you fired up a little bit.

Well, this is, you remember, remember Tim Kame? He was running for vice President at one point. I can't lie, I didn't remember him. They didn't remember him. They did a whole sketch on him.

And look, I think that's one of the reasons you had a. A Kamala Harris loss, because they even were admitting defeat way, way before defeat, saying, Remember this guy? You forget your vice President. It is true, you do kind of black out. The vice Presidential candidates, I feel like, once they lose.

Like, you may remember Mitt Romney, but you may not remember Paul Ryan. Like, you know, it's like you'd go back in your head for a minute. You remember Al Gore, and you got to be, Lieberman, Looseman. I remember that. Loose him.

Lose him in. Tim Walls just because he loves dance. Tim Walls. Only for now. We'll forget about him in a few months.

Yeah, Tim Walls just because you feel like he pops back up every so often.

Something crazy.

Something fun. And this is kind of what Tim Kaine did. Another Tim. Let's hear from Tim Kaine. Do you want to set it up?

I was going to set up where I don't know if you need to set this up.

So this is at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They are doing nomination hearings. Imagine that the Senate is still trying to pass nominations and vote on nominations to the President. But I mean, this is for an ambassador to Tunisia, an ambassador to Costa Rica, some assistant secretaries of state. Not really the must-see TV hearings.

These aren't the cabinet level. These aren't the most of us were not ambassadors of the UN. But this is the senator from Virginia who sits on the The Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate had this to say to one of the nominees who was concerned about him saying that our rights come from God. That is what the nominee said. Here is what the senator from Virginia had to say to him as a response by.

This is what the Constitution says. The notion that rights don't come from laws and don't come from the government. But come from the Creator. That's what the Iranian government believes. It's a theocratic regime.

that bases its rule on Shia law. And target Sunnis, Baha'is, Jews, Christians, and other religious minorities. And they do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator.

So the statement that Our rights do not come from our laws or our governments, is extremely troubling. Of course. From the laws or our governments. And that's what our founding fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence before they even got to the Constitution, which I mean, two times actually early in the Declaration. I'll read it for people because I guess we're not teaching anymore.

It's uh this is 1776, July 4th, the un unanimous declaration of the 13 United States of America. When in the course of human events you've heard this one before, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature And of nature's God entitle them. You move on. This is the second section of the Declaration of Independence, really the second main section. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator.

With certain unalienable rights, and those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Again, this idea that the law does stem from the laws of nature. And of nature is God. And then those. Those inherent rights are then imperfectly by man.

Put into legislation and enshrined. And even in the Constitution, we're constantly having to figure out how do we make that, how do we get closer to that statement of the natural rights and laws that we all should all should enjoy? We're constantly working towards that to make that better. And even in the Constitution itself, the Bill of Rights, the big debate about the Bill of Rights and how we ended up getting the first amendments to the Constitution, which were passed right after the Constitution, the debate wasn't whether or not those were the rights of the people. Those were assumed to be self-evident.

So one camp was saying, This is self-evident. We don't need to list it out because if we have to list it out, then people will think that it's only your right if it's listed in the Constitution. But these are self-evident. The others were concerned that maybe Tim Keynes would come along in the future and say that if we don't list the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of a Assembly, the right to bear arms. These things then they don't exist, and therefore we can trample on your rights.

But it was never a debate about where the rights came from and that the government got to grant them. It was making sure that the government was there to protect what God had already given us. And the fact that the senator, he's- I'm saying you guys, he is comparing. The Declaration of Independence to Sharia. No, not directly Khamari, because it's saying the generic idea that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are just enshrined in us by our Creator, by the concept of the people.

And I think, again, because America's for for all freedom-seeking people. It doesn't matter what your faith is. It's not that they are taking, it's not like we're taking and going right from the Bible to the courts. It's an interpretation of philosophy and humanity, biblical values, the Judeo-Christian values, then put into man's words. into laws.

Where your source of that Information is very important. And so the source of that in Iran is very different than the United States of America. And Ted Cruz won't go to heaven. That's right.

Ted Cruz was. Master Ted Cruz come out for a moment here. That's right.

We should play Ted Cruz. But I think this is also a reminder to everyone why the ACLJ exists. Because these are elected senators that no longer believe not that they aren't, but they say this. If you could watch it, you'd see a popular vote. To be vice President of the United States.

And this individual thinks it is not just incorrect, but thinks it is wrong to believe it. He said it's troubling. To believe what the Declaration of Independence clearly states, just come from him and his colleagues who write them down on paper. That's what he can't believe. Let's play Ted Cruz's response.

This is bite seven. Because that radical and dangerous notion, in his words, is literally the founding principle upon which the United States of America was created. And if you do not believe me, and you made reference to this, Mr. Barnes. then you can believe perhaps the most prominent Uh Virginian to ever serve Thomas Jefferson, who wrote.

In the Declaration of Independence, we hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal. And that they are endowed by their creator. Not by government, not by the Democratic National Committee, but by God. With certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Preach it to Brother Cruz. It's a moment. That is Baptist Ted Cruz coming out for us. That's right.

And once again, though, I think it shows Jordan why at a time like this, organizations like the ACLJ, why we have to fight at the lowest levels, at the very basic levels of school boards or with schools, all the way up to the Supreme Court. The U.S. Senator will mock you. For agreeing with the words of the Declaration of Independence, that there are certain unalienable rights that a no government. has the right to take away from you all the government should be doing is protecting you from is to protect those rights for you they can never take and if they do take those rights away from you they are not a legitimate government which was the why they declared independence once you stop protecting those rights and again humans aren't perfect so you constantly have to work at protecting unalienable rights to treat everyone equally to get there.

It's not an ending discussion. But why the Constitution doesn't have to be a living, breathing document is right there through like our Declaration of Independence and our founding documents. They set the stage. for kind of our goals as a country. and mocking that.

To me, and just saying, you know what, we only want to rely on human beings for what is what the law says is legal and illegal or wrong or right.

Well, history has shown that doesn't work well. You always want some bigger idea to strive for, and that's what the United States is about. And this was in response to a nominee, Riley Barnes, who was nominated to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. And in his statement, he noted that he agreed with the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. Who recently said that the US was founded on the principle that all men are created equal because our rights come from God, our Creator, not from our laws, not from our government?

So, in his statement of saying, I agree with who I want to be, my future boss, if you confirm me. I agree with the Secretary of State's position, which is the position of the Declaration of Independence and our founders. That's what set off the sitting senator from Virginia To have to go on a rant about how dangerous that is, how troubling that is, and how having someone like that is like having someone from the Islamic Republic of Iran. That is, it sounds almost like this is something we're making up. Like, it can't be.

that a senator from Virginia would say that. And yet, that's exactly what we see here. Here we are. Phone lines are open for you. As I said, hopefully, that fired you up a little bit.

What do you think about that coming from your own representation? Maybe you're in Virginia right now. Maybe you are under Tim Kaine, 1-800-684-3110. Got about four lines open right now. We'll take some calls when we get back.

Jerry, Rhode Island, you'll be up first. You've been holding for about a half an hour, so we appreciate that. A lot of you are on hold as well, but we got some phone lines open again. 1-800-6-84-31-10. Help us in this week strong by supporting the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.

Do it today. We have just filed in one of the most important cases we've ever had to work on defunding Planned Parenthood. You can be a part of that. as well. We've never been this close to doing it for having it.

done. Can't do it without you. A-clj.org slash sign. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Secula.

We are going to take your phone calls, and I said that, and believe it, it's going to happen.

Well, I think I'm going to actually do it this time. No, I don't. No, Pat in the Pat. Pat in the chat's going to say, Logan, you say it. You never do it.

Phone lines are open: 1-800-684-31-10. Don't listen to Pat in the chat. Let's go to Jerry in Rhode Island instead, on line one, who has been a hold for 40 days. Big ones. Jerry, I'm sorry.

Go ahead. That's okay. It was a great conversation. The whole program could generate a whole bunch of comments, but I'll narrow mine down to With a loaded question, Noah O'Donnell, who used to be my favorite anchor of the big three, her loaded question to Barrett. But that's why most of us don't trust the mainstream media because of the lack of neutrality on the anchors.

So I liked Barrett's response. I'll probably buy the book. Should we play for the audience that maybe just came around what Jerry's actually referencing? This is Nora O'Donnell talking to Justice Barrett, and the phrasing of how she asks basically if her entire nomination to the court was a part of almost a judicial coup to change the neutrality and independence of the Supreme Court, let's play bite four. President Donald Trump appointed you to cement a conservative legal revolution.

Are you concerned about the narrative of this court that it is no longer a separate and co-equal branch of government as designed by the Constitution? I disagree with that conception of the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court is an independent branch of government. And Presidents appoint justices and Presidents have whatever their own motivations are for appointing justices. But once justices serve on the court, the whole point of life tenure and salary protection, which is guaranteed to federal judges by the Constitution, is to ensure their independence from both the executive branch and from Congress. Where's he from?

Well, and to that point, and that goes back to what Jerry was saying is the entire phrasing of that is: are you concerned with the narrative this court is no longer a separate and co-equal branch of government? What the left has been trying to do is pack the court to get their viewpoint across. That is how you lose the independence. Of the Supreme Court by trying to force your ideology in so that you always win. That's not the purpose of it.

I know even people on the right that are concerned, like Justice Barrett didn't agree with the conservative, the other conservatives on the court. They see that as almost a betrayal. I disagree. I think it shows that she has a judicial philosophy. She's true to that.

Even if we disagree with her rationale or reasoning sometimes. She is not like what the left wants that court to become. And even her answer there took me right back to her confirmation hearings of how she's unphased and able to respond so eloquently, so quickly. Yeah, absolutely. Let's continue on and take some more phone calls.

Let's first go to Ronald. In South Carolina, who is watching on Rumble. Ronald, go ahead. Yes, I enjoyed hear what Rick had said concerning Um much of the uh arguments that has been going on About the courts, and also what Will had said in follow-up, and what Cruz, Ted Cruz had said. And I think that what is coming down to is that The liberal Democrats are literally trying to reinterpret the Constitution instead of what the Founding Fathers have meant the Constitution.

to be which was to be the foundation. On much of the word of God that has been a ruling guide for. Many up there are Lives of the founding fathers.

Well, and Ronald, and I want to ask this to Jordan. I think here's what the big difference we're seeing about today's Democrat Party and liberals, including what you'd consider a mainstream Democrat like Tim Kaine. You don't normally think of him, you think of him as a kind of boring Democrat, not normally the firebrand radical like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. But the difference is that we used to have a fundamental agreement. that our foundational documents were what were the foundation of this country.

And what we're seeing now in today's Democrat Party and why it's so hard to find common ground isn't because we disagree on the interpretation of the texts, It's that they're saying it's dangerous to believe the text of our founding documents. And that's what we heard from the senator from Virginia. Yeah, and this is, of course, has gone on in debates for decades. Is the Constitution living and breathing? Do we basically reapply it to every new situation and mold it into some way so it fits that situation in a way that then brings us to the outcome we desire?

Instead of saying this is our basic framework, this is what we're looking at. We are going to be faced with new things that the founding fathers and the authors of this did not. even think about, but that we can use these basics And the laws that have been passed and signed into law together to see is this. Oh. action that is being challenged.

Something that is Constitutional in our system of government, legal in our system of government, is this execution of power, a kind of execution of power that has been done in the correct way in our system of government, and you can do that. Without Kind of taking the Constitution and making it like Plato for whatever issue you want. And that, I think, is, again, that's a fundamental long-term debate. But what you see here is this idea that if there's conservative majority, somehow the court loses, you know, it loses credibility. That's just not the case.

Most of the time, it's Congress that people have the least faith in and elected officials, not unelected judges. They give you a good reason for that. Yeah. Let's go to... They make a lot of promises.

Judges don't. Yeah, this is probably the last call of the day. Let's go to Chris in Virginia.

Now, Virginia, Jordan, before we take the call, it's been an interesting state because it's changed so dramatically in just a number of years. Yeah, I mean, it goes back to Democrat, Republican. Who knows what's happening the next election? Governors only get one term. And so you have a popular Republican governor now, but you look at the next race, it's tougher for the Republicans.

So, I mean, it swings crazy. Let's go to Chris, though. You're on the air. Yes. I was just reminding everybody, Tim Cain and Mark Warner aren't Virginians, Mark Warner being from Indianapolis.

And then We got Tim Cain, who's from Minnesota. We like to call him the carpet bagging communist. We don't take them serious. We were hoping that maybe after this, Dead Cruz could represent us. But, you know, the thing is, unfortunately.

They are the U.S. senators. I mean, and you can say you don't take them seriously, but they get these votes. And that's why we play what they say. To say, you know, someone who was a vice Presidential nominee, who's been in public life certainly, been a governor of Virginia as well, he gets to the point, and this is a state where so much of these documents were written, founded.

I mean, the people that wrote them found there. And you're going to say that natural law, natural rights is like Iran? This is in the United States Senate, and you're kind of forgetting the whole Declaration of Independence. To me, it's again, we need civic education in our country. We know we need that.

But, two, if U.S. senators are going this far, that's how they're going to attack a nominee. You believe that there's natural rights that God has given to all to be, you know, to all. That's ingrained in us. Yes.

And that that's somehow dangerous because you're like an Ayatollah. It's really disturbing. It's shocking. It's hard to believe what, like you said, I wonder what law, legal advisor. Put that in his ear and said, you know what, today attack natural law.

Yeah. Because to go back to Amy Cody Barrett, it felt like the Dongma lives loudly in you. Moment. Yeah, like it was pre-planned. Yeah.

Man, I guess we're talking about it, so I guess that's why I'm not exactly in the most positive. Of reaction. That's going to do it for today's show. Really appreciate it. With that, we do encourage you to support the work at the ACLJ.

We didn't talk a lot about the ACLJ work today, but there is a lot going on, big expansions in our Washington, D.C. headquarters as well in our media center here in Nashville. We got so much happening. We want you to be a part of that team as well. I encourage you to look at all the incredible free content we give you at aclj.org.

Nothing's behind a paywall. We take pride in that because it is something that not many other organizations or broadcasts can offer. But we are able to do that because. Not because we're proud of ourselves, because we're proud of people like you who step up and support the work of the ACLJ at aclj.org. You give and donate, so this doesn't have to be behind a paywall, and we can share it worldwide.

That's an ACLJ. Do it today. Talk to you on Monday.