Breaking: Trump to Name SCOTUS Pick on Saturday, Senate Has Votes to Confirm

Breaking!

President Trump will announce his Supreme Court nominee on Saturday, and the Senate has the vote to confirm that nominee and put them on the bench. We'll talk about it today on JSECUOLive. Live from Washington D.C., JSECUOLive.

I've seen this movie before. It's not going to work. It didn't work with Kavanaugh. We've got the votes to confirm Justice Ginsburg's replacement before the election. Phone lines are open for your questions right now.

Call 1-800-684-3110. We're going to move forward in the committee. We're going to report the nomination out of the committee to the floor of the United States Senate so we can vote before the election.

That's the Constitutional process. And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow. I came into the office this morning.

I did a web video right away. It's actually already up. It was breaking news that with Senator Mitt Romney's pledge to support a floor vote on President Trump's Supreme Court pick, Republicans have the votes necessary to confirm a Constitutional conservative Supreme Court justice that will be nominated by President Trump. That announcement by President Trump will come on Saturday. President Trump tweeted that out this morning. So you've got Cory Gardner. He came on board last night from Colorado. I was on Sean Hannity's radio broadcast.

We talked about him as someone to watch. And of course, Mitt Romney. So Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, it's fine whatever they want to do. But we've got 51 on allowing the vote to move forward. And I think Collins and Murkowski could still vote for the nominee after that vote, by the way. They're talking about should the vote move forward. And you won't even need the Vice President, Mike Pence. So right now, the only thing Democrats could try to do is come up with some, and I put nothing past them.

I'm not declaring victory, by the way. We don't even have the nominee's name yet. But I do trust that President Trump is going to nominate someone that's going to excite all of us going into an election.

That would make sense. And people like Amy Coney Barrett certainly would excite the base. Now, will the liberal base also be enraged and excited by this?

Maybe. But their excitement level, I want to go to Sam Bennett on this. Their arrangement on this, will this encourage their base to turn out? They may go too far and in fact turn off independent voters because the burn it down, the pack the court, the less stability. They want to cause more instability, more government trouble in our government. I'm not sure that's going to encourage a lot of moms in the suburbs to go vote their way if they start burning down Washington, D.C. during these hearings. Or if there's any hearings at all during the vote.

You've got to be very careful for a couple of reasons, Jordan. The first one is just a purely political one. This issue of the Supreme Court and appointing justices to the Supreme Court always animates the right more than it does the left. So if they focus on this, they actually risk driving the Republican base to the polls more than their own.

And the second one is a more practical one, Jordan. If they try to criticize the Republicans for moving forward on this, virtually every single senator that they are going to try to defend and their Presidential nominee, Joe Biden, is on record from just a few years ago calling on the Senate to do the exact thing. So there's just no substance for them to stand on and in a year and in a cycle and in a time where it does often come down to politics. The politics just do not play for them on this. So, look, I think they would probably be better off condemning the violence in cities because I think that's what's going to animate the votes in a lot of places that decide these states. Well, I think the problem is they're going to encourage more violence during the Supreme Court nominee. I think there's going to be a very violent Washington, D.C. and violence outside of senators' homes, Republican senators' homes.

And they're going to be encouraging that kind of rhetoric that leads to that violence. But, Andy, this is huge news in Washington that we have the votes to put this nominee, whoever that may be, and I think it takes whoever she may be, on the court. And this is huge news.

Well, it is huge news. And I just heard this morning that Mitt Romney has decided to go ahead and vote for the President's nominee. Murkowski and Collins, again, have refused not refused to participate in the process and want the new President to do it. But I think the fact that Mitt Romney has come across Senator Alexander from Tennessee and some of the others, Cory Gardner and so forth, gives us the 51 votes.

We don't have to go to the tiebreaker. You have a President. You have a vacancy.

You have a Republican Senate. Do it. Yep, they're ready to fill that seat. Sign our petition at ACLJ.org and we're taking your phone calls and questions.

1-800-684-3110. Be prepared for war. It will be a war.

Be right back. 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 Jay Sekio Live. We're also going to get into the Iran sanctions. The President's going to be addressing the UN General Assembly. He's doing it remotely, so it's very different than it's been in the past. But he will be addressing it. The focus has been on the snapback sanctions that went into effect last night on Iran.

Big news. We will talk about that in the next segment of the broadcast, but we're also going to be talking about the Supreme Court all week. Our bread and butter at the ACLJ is these nominations, and once we have a nominee, which will be on Saturday, is getting you all the info about them. Obviously there's frontrunners like Amy Coney Barrett, again Barbara Lagoa, there's others. And I think that we can spend time on the nominee because we're going to know who that is Saturday.

We're going to have time to do that on the next week's broadcast. Right now it was the mechanics of the Senate politically coming together so that it wouldn't require Vice President Pence. It wasn't going to be on the thinnest of thinnest margins to get this nominee and fill this seat, which is exactly what Republicans have got now the votes to do. Listen to Mitt Romney.

Take a listen. When there's a nominee of a party that is in the same party as the Senate, then typically they do confirm. So the Garland decision was consistent with that, and the decision to proceed now with the President Trump's nominee is also consistent with history.

I came down to the side of the Constitution and precedent as I've studied it, and make the decision on that basis. You know, Mitt Romney was someone everybody was waiting for after Murkowski, Thanh, and Susan Collins came out, not because he was up for re-election, but because of his move during the impeachment trial, which was even different than Murkowski and Collins, who did not make a move like that where he voted to impeach on one of the counts. He was the only Republican to do that, so he voted like half. Again, it was a bizarre move by Mitt Romney, so people questioned does he have this dislike of the President so much that even if this nominee could be someone that he would have picked if he had become President, that he's got this dislike of the President enough to try and scuttle this. Obviously, it came through to him, the message was clear, you're a Republican Senator, you were elected Thanh to be a Republican Senator, act like a Republican Senator, you don't want to be in the Murkowski and Collins world, and Susan Collins honestly acting this way is like, I don't know, she's like signing her way out the door. Because what Republicans are going to get excited about her in Maine by making moves like this? And she's already way down in the polls. Yeah, I actually think politically it is risky for both Collins and Murkowski, maybe even especially Murkowski, I know she's not up for election this year, Jordan, but in a state like Alaska, I think that might be something that would follow her. Let's see if they reevaluate. But look, yeah, all the eyes were on Senator Romney because he has departed from the President on some major issues.

Look, I would say a couple of things. Let's say there were three Republican Senators that decided to vote no. I just want to stress this, it's still perfectly legitimate for the Vice President who serves as the lead of the Senate to cast a tie-breaking vote. So even without Mitt Romney's vote, I still think the nominee would have been confirmed. But I do agree with you, Jordan, it is better if there is a clear majority inside the United States Senate. And I just wanted to echo one sound you played during the break, Jordan, that some of our listeners might not have heard. Senator Romney, part of his statement said that a liberal court is not written in the stars.

Jordan, that echoes something that you and I talked about yesterday. This seat doesn't belong to President Trump or President Obama or Justice Ginsburg or any Senator. It belongs to the American people and when they speak and it sort of pushes the court in one direction or the other, guess what, Jordan?

That's how the founders intended it. Take a listen to Mitt Romney, Byte 16. I recognize that we may have a court which has more of a conservative bent than it's had over the last few decades. But my liberal friends have over many decades gotten very used to the idea of having a liberal court and that's not written in the stars. That's the kind of Mitt Romney I remember from 2008 and in the past with his attempts to run for office again in 2012 when he was the nominee.

It was still very friendly the way he said it, Andy, but still taking a shot at liberals and saying, you know what, liberals, you got used to this but it's not written in the stars for you. The Supreme Court isn't liberal forever because that's the destiny of the Supreme Court and right now it's about to go as conservative probably as it's ever been, at least in the modern time of the Supreme Court. They talk about possibly trying to impeach the President. That takes a lot of action from the House. I don't know if they have the will to do it this quickly or if they're going to try to impeach. By the time that gets to the Senate, that's more than 40 days. We're talking, Andy, like Lindsey Graham said, about getting this done in 41 days.

And it will be done in 41 days. You know, growing up and going to law school in the days of the Warren Court and the Burger Court and the courts that we have been used to have in fact sort of instilled in the American people the idea that the court of the Supreme Court of the United States is a liberal left wing organization, the Hugo Blacks of the world, the William Douglases of the world, the Earl Warrens of the world, and we said this is the way it is. Well, now it's changing. It's not that way.

We've altered the scope of events. And I think Mitt Romney is right. It's not written in the stars. It's not fated that it has to be in a left wing liberal posture all the time. And we are moving in a direction of a conservative court notwithstanding the sometimes flip flopping that Chief Justice Roberts has done.

So what if it's moving in that direction? That's the will of the people. They've elected a President and they've elected a Senate who is more right of center in their thinking. And we're going to elect and we're going to confirm a conservative justice. And it's and it's the way in the evolutionary trend that has transpired.

There's nothing wrong with that. It's the way the country is moving and we need to follow that direction. You know, I think, again, folks, we're going to take your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. You've got Mitch McConnell saying President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Lindsey Graham thinks it's important that we proceed expeditiously to process any nomination made by President Trump to fill this vacancy before, before Election Day or by Election Day. And now we've got Senator Romney on board. It is key.

Now, Than, this is what I want to go to you on. I'm sure our listeners are interested in this. What quiver, you know, what's in the quiver really of the U.S. Senate? Because any House action, I mean, they don't have any role to play in Supreme Court nominations. They start some impeachment thing. I mean, they'd have to move awfully quickly and they would be losing the election.

They would lose 100. They might lose the House, which wasn't really even on the table much in this election cycle. But then what could Chuck Schumer do at this point to try and stop this? What nastiness should we expect?

Yeah, that's the right focus, Jordan, because let me just quickly comment on the House. Let's say the House did pursue impeachment and send it to the United States Senate. Here's what the Senate would have to do.

The following day, they would take it up, they would lay it on the table, and it would take all of five minutes to move past it. So the idea that it would waste the Senate's time is just a fool's errand. I actually challenge Speaker Pelosi to try that. She'll feel the result on November 3rd at the polls. But in the United States Senate, Jordan, here's what people need to prepare for.

And I'm just going to shoot people very straight. It's going to be scorched earth. You're going to go to the Senate Judiciary Committee and whoever this nominee is, they're going to be attacked. And Jordan, I'm going to make a prediction. I think the nominee is going to be attacked mainly on her faith. And this would be true for any number of the nominees that we've been talking about.

But we saw it telegraphed with Amy Coney Barrett. And Jordan, I just might want to reference a special advisor to the ACLJ, Rick Grenell, because the Washington Post took a shot at Amy Coney Barrett and was going back to some of her writings where she talked about a legal career being a way to advance the kingdom of God. You know, most people of faith, regardless of their denomination, think their entire life is about that.

But here's what Rick Grenell said to the Washington Post. He said, the Washington Post comes out swinging at Christians. This is a basic tenet of Christianity. Stop the bigotry.

But Jordan, that's what we're going to see in the hearings. They try to use language that if you're not familiar with the Christian faith, you might think sounds, you know, outside the norm. But, man, I mean, the majority of the country is pretty familiar with the Christian faith. And whether you're black, white, Hispanic, you know, Catholic, evangelical Protestant or mainstream, one of the kind of the denominations, again, or orthodox, advancing the kingdom of God. I mean, this is generic language in the Christian faith, generic, ecumenical. And because these Washington Post, who are so out of touch with normal people, writers, they're going to use language like that. See, this is how Joe Biden loses an election horrendously bad, is because the people that cling to their guns and their Bible, this isn't even that. This is just people who go to church. People who consider themselves nominally Christian would understand language like this.

Nominally Christian would understand language like this. We're going to take your calls when we come back. We're going to talk about two of the snapback sanctions on Iran. Wes Smith is going to be joining us in the studio. Former Colonel Smith will be joining us because that's important too. And then we're going to take your calls on the Supreme Court nominee.

Andy and Thanh will stay with us. My dad may be joining us by phone. We're going to try and see if we can get him.

He's traveling as well. 1-800-684-3110 to talk to us on the air. That's 1-800-684-3110, I promise. When we come back, we'll take a phone call right off the top on the Supreme Court. Then we'll get into the Iran issue. Also, folks, I encourage you, sign our petition. Let's get this seat filled. ACLJ.org signed the petition today.

That doesn't cost you a thing. It helps with our grassroots work. ACLJ.org signed that petition.

We'll be right back. 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 JCEC.

This is Jordan Scahill. We're going to get back to the Supreme Court. Big news today because we now know the votes are there in the U.S. Senate. Won't take Vice President Mike Pence. I think that even Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski may rethink their position.

And I think their position on whether you go to the cloture, whether you actually vote yes or no is probably different too. But I do want to spend some time on Iran because this is the kind of news that gets lost if you don't talk about it directly because it happened late last night, that the President of the United States, President Trump, has reinstituted via new executive order the U.N. sanctions on Iran, imposed new sanctions on Iran's export controls on more than two dozen entities and individuals that support Iran's nuclear missile and conventional arms-related activities. It's also critical to enforcing the U.N. arms embargo on Iran. The administration is imposing new sanctions and export control measures on 27 entities and individuals connected to Iran's proliferation networks.

These actions target the Atomic Energy Organization for Iran and Iran's nuclear escalation, the Iran Missile Organization, the Shahid, which is what the name of the missiles are, Himmat Industrial Group, and two Iranian entities for their involvement in the transfer and acquisition of conventional arms. So this is a full arms embargo. And my dad is joining us right now. He's joining us by phone.

He's traveling. But, Dad, this is also very important news in light of those peace deals that were made by the Gulf state, primarily Muslim Gulf states and Israel, and now the U.S. taking this action to punish Iran. Yeah, this was a big moment.

I actually was in the White House with the President and some others when Robert O'Brien was there and they signed when the President actually signed that. So it's a momentous moment in Middle East history because by increasing the sanctions, Jordan, as you just mentioned, what it's doing is bringing very quickly, I believe, you're going to see some major action, maybe even the end of this week or next week, on other countries coming on board with the Abraham Accords. And that is a game changer in the Middle East, a complete game changer. So I think what we have to be very cognizant of is how significant this is for world history, for Middle East peace, but also another move by the President to do an unorthodox thing. When he moved the embassy to Jerusalem, people said it was going to isolate Israel in the Middle East, and it's done just the opposite. And I think ultimately for the Palestinian people it's going to be better, too.

Yeah, okay. And then these sanctions, again, Iran is not going to be happy about this. This target, so we're talking about with West Smith, they say, but Dad, it targets not just their nuclear program, but their missile program and even conventional arms. So really what it's about is also Iran not having the capability to send out weapons to terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Which has been, of course, the biggest, that's how the proxy wars have been engaged in, is by Iran using the proxies in Lebanon, in, of course, Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Iran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard used those governments and those individuals or those terror groups as proxies, and that's over. I mean, they're not going to say it's over. They're still going to try to do it, but the sanctions are now so significant.

The flow is so different. I mean, you're seeing an entire reshape in the Middle East. So I'm very, very encouraged. I know you all are going to get back to talking about the Supreme Court pick, which is very exciting here in Washington as well. But that was a very big day yesterday on the Abraham Accords. Yeah, I mean, as it relates to the Iranian sanctions, it'll increase the Abraham Accords.

Yeah, add more to it. Thanks for joining us, Daniel. You're busy and moving around in Washington.

So let me go to Wes Smith, retired Colonel Wes Smith. Wes, the significance of this administration, the moment they could, putting these snapback measures in place against Iran and even increasing the sanctions as well. So some of these are U.N. sanctions. Others are sanctions the U.S. is putting on.

Yeah, as you said, it's significant. It's not only their nuclear program, and by the way, they claim to have enough material because they've been violating the JCPOA, which other nations are still a part of and we're not. They say they have enough material for three nuclear weapons.

Most intel people don't think that's the case. But Iran is a threat to the region, to the wider world, and certainly to the United States, which they see as the great Satan. And so these sanctions are very, very important for the security virtually of everyone everywhere. And in actuality, Iran is helping President Trump's Middle East program, his plan, simply by doing what they do, which is being a nation that violates human rights, that exports terror, that seeks to, you know, cause upheaval in that part of the world. They are the chief threat, not only, as I said, to the wider world, to the region, they are the main threat to the Gulf states, which is part of the reason that Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates signed the Abraham Accords. And as the President said, and your dad has indicated, we look for more countries to do that because Iran continues to be their own worst enemy and they continue to be a threat to the region. And as long as they do that, I think more and more countries in the region will understand that Israel and the United States are not the threat that Iran is. And so this is a very, very important thing. One thing, parenthetically also, I'd like to mention, which it's crazy as it sounds, it's true, and that is Joe Biden has been criticizing the President for our policies on Iran and he has promised, if he is reelected, that he will actually re-sign, re-enter the Iran nuclear deal, the JCPOA, which is absolutely crazy, but he swears he will do that as well.

Swears. Swears he will do that, Joe Biden. Let me go around the room, if you will, virtually, because we've got Than and Andy in Washington, D.C. This idea that we've got the President of the United States and Secretary Pompeo and after the President addressed the UN today, but this happened before that, putting the sanctions back on Iran's nuclear program, back on their conventional arms programs as well, their missile programs, and on individuals, and yet we've got a candidate running for President of the United States on the other major party, it's going to be either him or Donald Trump as the next President, saying he wants to go right back into that nuclear deal.

Than and then Andy. Yeah, well, it happens at a time where that region is experiencing more peace than they have before because of the overarching strategy. Jordan, you've got to pursue two things. You've got to give the people on the ground an opportunity and a belief that there is hope for an economic future while also showing that you will use the heft of the United States to stand up against their enemies.

So it's got to be both sides of it. Jordan, just quickly on these sanctions, not only are there snapback sanctions that were rooted in UN authority, but multiple layers of statutory sanctions that were available to the President. He has come back at this so repeatedly to take another bite at the apple. If the Iranian regime does not realize he's serious by now, they never will. And I loved at the end of his statement, Jordan, he talked about how it was to give the Iranian people an opportunity for an optimistic future. Quite frankly, I would like to see the candidate on the other side, former Vice President Biden, for the good of the world, Jordan, he should come on board, but he won't. Yeah, I mean, I think that, again, Andy, I want to go to you on this, just your idea that Joe Biden wants to go right back into this deal, even though it's seen that getting out of the deal and making these unilateral deals, bilateral deals, trilateral deals is working in the Middle East. At least, I mean, you think you'd build on your predecessor, if he is the next President of the United States, you'd build on your predecessor's success, but it doesn't look like they want to, of course, give Donald Trump any credit, which means they'll be willing to screw up the Middle East again. No, they're not going to give Donald Trump any credit for what he did, and what he has done is tremendous and historic, but Vice President Biden is determined to pursue his own course. That said, by John Kerry earlier, who said, Gloom and doom when we withdraw from the nuclear arrangement with Iran, it's going to be the worst thing in the world.

It isn't the worst thing in the world. You've got Bahrain, you've got the United Arab Emirates, you're going to have Oman, you're going to have Sudan, you're going to have Morocco, you're going to have all these Arab-based countries, Arab-inclined countries who are going to join together with Abraham Accords and have peace with Israel, but they'll never, ever give President Trump credit for that under any circumstances whatsoever, so don't look for it in them. Folks, we've got a second half hour coming up. We'll talk Supreme Court as well, of course. Get your calls at 1-800-684-30110 and sign our petition. Fill that seat, ACLJ.org.

We'll be right back with the second half hour. 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. Does the dogma live deeply within you? You know, I think we could go around this room, I guess, yes.

I mean, I'm a person of faith, so I believe, and I guess that dogma does, it's important. I mean, it was a preview. That was just a preview, because whether or not Diane Feinstein, if it is Amy Coney Barrett, you know, Coney Barrett, and someone, again, a person of faith, she tried that line.

I don't think it'll be that line exactly. But, Than, I think we are, I've said war, war. If you thought this election was a war, here's a war within the war. So it's like a major battle.

I mean, even calling it a major battle is not fair. I think this is a war, a second war, this war for the Supreme Court. Even though we know we have the votes, they are going to try and destroy this person, and people do need to prepare for that. They are going to try and destroy this person, because Chuck Schumer said this, let's play it. Really, the only way to stop this seat from being filled by Donald Trump and Republican senators before the election or, you know, before the next President is sworn in, whoever that is, is by Republicans. Take a listen, Chuck Schumer. Republican Senate majority have no right to fill it.

No right. There's only one way, one way, for this chamber to retain its dignity, and that is for four brave Senate Republicans to commit to rejecting any nominee until the next President is installed. I laugh at Chuck Schumer using the word dignity as the least dignified major political leader maybe in our country.

It's a political hack. I mean, this guy will say whatever he has to say. He threatened Supreme Court justices on the steps of the Supreme Court. And, you know, better watch out, Kavanaugh. Better watch out, Gorsuch.

We're coming for you. What are you going to, you know, the party of women, right, is going to, because we've been told by the President it's going to be a woman who's nominated, is going to try and destroy a woman's life. But he did admit in there, Than, that even though they have no right to do it, the only way to stop it is if four Republicans decide he's right, and that does not appear to be the case. Well, he's wrong as a matter of fact, according to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which gives the Senate this role, and if that role is to mean anything, the Senate has to be willing to go forward or not go forward according to their own wishes. He's also going to be wrong as a matter of practice, Jordan, because the United States Senate is going to confirm this nominee. I feel confident of that, but even so, Jordan, now, before we have the nominee, before we have a hearing, I do think it's important for people to realize just how personal and petty it's going to be.

All you have to do is look back at the Kavanaugh hearings to know it. And, Jordan, look, when the issue of faith comes up, or, frankly, just during Senator Feinstein's time, since she's the ranking member of the committee, I think the nominee, no matter who it is, should say something along the lines of, you know what, my faith does inform my desire to be a public servant. In fact, that's one of the main reasons I'm willing to be a public servant. And you know what, Jordan, if it were me and I were on that stand, I would close my response by saying I pray each day that the dogma lives louder in me today than it did yesterday. Yeah, I mean, you know, and then maybe that some of these senators would have some kind of, like, moment in their life where they realize you don't just use religion for politics. Whether they're going into a black church and, you know, I'm sure Dianne Feinstein finds the dogma quickly, you know, and same with Chuck Schumer, they'll start clapping and swaying. But, you know, when it's a Republican nominee up there, no swaying, no clapping, the dogma is bad.

So, again, the picking and choosing of their religious faith, it's disgusting. They are disgusting on the other side of the aisle, especially those senators and the leadership there. Some are just partisan actors, you get what you're going to, you know, they're honest about it, you're going to get what you voted for.

But the leadership, gross. I mean, Nancy Pelosi, the robot trying to figure out, you know, what quivers she's got, what she's got in her quiver, she's using language from the quivers and arrows. How about this, you're in the House and the Constitution gives you no role to play in the Supreme Court nomination process. It doesn't matter how high ranking you are, Nancy, you have zero role. The Constitution said you're not important for this and no one in the House is.

I'm trying to degrade members of the House. I think Republican members understand that they're going to support the efforts of the President and the senators, but they understand this is not their job. They've got a lot of important jobs to do that she's not doing, by the way, for the American people. How about focus your time on COVID relief, Nancy? Let the Senate do its job.

We'll be back on Jay Sekio Live. 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 have 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, how it'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. All right, welcome back to JCEC Live. I do want to take a phone call. People that hold on, take a couple calls right here. Let's go to Carolyn in Texas on Line 4.

Carolyn, thanks for holding. You're on the air. Hi, Jordan. Hey.

Hi, Fan. Okay, let me be absolutely clear. I don't have a problem with President Trump nominating somebody. I don't even have a problem with them filling the seat. I do have a concern about rushing somebody through.

Sure. Because we've seen this happen. We're conservative.

We send what we think are conservative justices to the Supreme Court, and then they just go rogue. Yeah. If we don't check this person out, if we don't vet them properly, and we just hurry up and rush somebody through in 24 hours, I feel like that's going to come back to bite us. Yeah, I get that. I get that.

I think that's not a good idea. I get the concern there. Remember, all these folks have been on the list. So we already knew. Groups like ours, I'm going to have Harry address in a moment, have been highly vetting these individuals. There are some we like more than others.

I will tell you that. But I do want you to do this comparison as well, Carolyn, because here's the reality we live in. If this seat isn't filled, Joe Biden could become President, and then he will fill the seat. Whoever he puts there will be worse, much worse, than anyone on President Trump's list.

And it's not that everyone on that list excites me the same way, I mean, to be quite honest. But we do have to think about this nomination that way. Not every nomination, but this one, because it comes right on the heels of an election. We have a Republican majority for now. And let's say President Trump gets reelected, but the Senate flips. You wouldn't get one of the more conservative nominees through if Chuck Schumer is the majority leader.

And so, I mean, I think you just have to look at it that way. This time, you can really do a comparison of who would Joe Biden pick, and anybody is better on our list than who Joe Biden would pick. And he's refusing to put out a list.

You know why? His list would be so outside the mainstream as people on there would have written crazy things about sex, they would have written crazy things about who knows what. You know, what the Constitution guarantees, and of course, they don't think it guarantees any religious liberty, but the liberty to do everything else.

Except, you know, except for limiting your speech rights, Carolyn, our speech rights, ACLJ. So he doesn't want to put out a list because he knows they're going to be so far outside the mainstream, he can't put a moderate up. The left would go nuts. They'd burn his house down.

You know, they'd go to Joe Biden's house in Delaware and start shouting and screaming like they're doing to Republican senators. So he won't even put a list up. But I think, Harry, what's important to address here is that we are vetting these folks.

We have time. There are 50 days, you know, 43 days, whatever it is, that is plenty of time when these were people who were already listed by President Trump who have already had either long careers and written a lot or have been on the bench. I think you're precisely correct, and it's important to note that no other President has put forward a list of candidates before any vacancy arose. So that has given the American people huge amounts of time to look at each and every candidate. The Federalist Society has looked at these candidates. Our organization has looked at these candidates. Many of these individuals who are on the list have already been confirmed within the last two to five years by the United States Senate. So each and every candidate, in my opinion, that is on the list has already been vetted, and I agree with you.

Certainly I have my own favorites, and I think many individuals who are out there are listeners. They may have their favorites, but I don't think there's a huge risk in nominating any one of the individuals who's on President Trump's list. Right, I mean, considering the moment we're living in, Thanh. I mean, I think for Carolyn's call, that's what's important to remember, is that this is not a normal nomination in the sense that the timing is not normal, the election is right around the quarter. It has happened, as we talked about, 29 vacancies in election years. When the party is the same as the President, that's 19 out of the 29 times, the Senate has confirmed 17 of those nominees out of 19. So only two were not. When the Senate was of different party, only two got through of the 10 during that time. So I mean, you have about 90% when it's the same party in control chance that you're going to get through, and you have about an 80% chance you won't get through when your party's not in control, but it's 100% that the President has nominated always someone. Even Obama nominated Merrick Garland.

But you know what, Thanh? Joe Biden is not nominating Merrick Garland. He's not nominating some middle-of-the-road moderate. He's going to nominate, that's why I won't put out the list, some liberal out of the mainstream, someone we'll oppose, someone we think will be totally horrendous for the court.

That's who he'd be nominating and filling this seat with, and that's why I think you could say on this nomination, and not all nominations, by the way, I think President Trump's going to select someone who's really conservative, maybe even better than the some selections he's already made. Could you believe that, though? Could you believe it could be better than Kavanaugh, better than a Gorsuch?

Is it possible? It's possible. And time will tell that as well. I'm not trying to put down Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, and Kavanaugh, who went through hell to get on the court.

I mean, literally. I went through a personal hell to go on to that court, but he is there. But Thanh, I always want to go to you, because this idea, if we've got the votes, we're going to fill this seat. We will do the vetting, and let me tell you something.

The Democrats will, too. If they can find anything horrendous about this person, they'll try to throw it out there. But I think for people like Carolyn, the horrendous things they're going to throw out about our nominees is that they're too religious, they're too Christian, they're too Catholic, they're too questionable on Roe versus Wade, they're too questionable on the Second Amendment, they're not anti-gun enough, and they're too pro-family. Yeah, no question about it, and I do think Carolyn's on the right track to ask this question, but I think her fears can be easily assuaged by the wise move that President Trump made in putting out this list of so many people that have been recently confirmed, because, Jordan, look, there is a concern maybe when you have a tight timeline that you might make a mistake, but that is why the four judges that are on this list that apparently are down to his final choice, of course, we don't know that for sure, but that's what the reporting is. Jordan, all of them have been through this process in the last three years.

Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed in October of 2017, Joan Larson was confirmed in 2017, Allison Rushing was confirmed in March of 2019, and Barbara Legault was confirmed in November of 2019. Jordan, it's not like they were confirmed 10 or 20 years ago by a different Senate where the process was not as political. They were confirmed by this Senate, these senators in a political environment where it was just as hostile as it is today. So I like Carolyn's question, I like what she's thinking about, but I would ask her to connect it with what President Trump has already done. He has told you he's going to give you a nominee that this Senate has already looked at, that they've already vetted, and that they have already found acceptable. Jordan, it's going to be awfully difficult politically and really just legitimately for them to reverse course on one of these nominees now.

Yeah, absolutely. You know, I'm going to Andy on this as well, and then back to Harriet, and we'll continue to take your phone calls. Actually, people at home, let me go to Tom's call in Texas. Tom, you held on a long time, and I know, Steve, you have as well. We get to Tom now, we get to Steve, and probably we come back for this break. And again, give us a call, 1-800-684-3110.

Tom, welcome to Jay Sekio, live here on the air. Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate you taking my call. Yeah, a couple of questions.

One is, first of all, I agree with you 100%, get this one over the goal line. Right now, they can't wait, and I love your analogy about the war within a war. That's exactly what it is, and this is more exciting almost, as exciting, I should say, as President Trump being elected from the standpoint that this is a lifelong appointment, and this is going to be huge as we move forward. With that being said, I just can't understand the two senators, Murkowski and Collins, and why they are opposed to this. I know they're probably not going to vote yes, but I'm curious as to if you have any insight as to specifically why they're saying they won't, and I know they could change their mind in a couple of days, and then I'll let you answer that, and then real quick, a week from today, we have the debate. I think if they have the debate, that could be a huge turning point for Trump just based on how poor Biden is going to show in that debate, and I'd love to hear your take on that as well. I'd never like to get too far ahead of myself, so I'm assuming Joe Biden is going to have a rough time in the debate, but I also know that even Chris Wallace is a moderator.

Chris Wallace I don't really trust. To be honest with you, of all the people on Fox News, I trust him the least. He'll try and prop up Joe Biden.

You watch. Just like anybody who wants to be part of the mainstream media, I think he desperately wants to be considered part of that Chris Wallace with his Sunday show that gets aired on the regular Fox stations as well. Now, again, so I think there's always issues there, so don't ever take away the power of the moderator, but I do think Joe Biden is going to be pretty horrendous in debates.

I'll be honest with you. I think that even the moderators, to the American people, they can't prop him up that much. He's going to make a lot of... speak a lot and make a lot of sentences where the words don't make sense, like it's just gibberish.

I think a lot of that will happen, but he'll be bringing his toughest game possible. He's going to try to as well. I think on Murkowski and Collins, Collins is making a horrendous political calculation, thinking this is going to help her in Maine where she's down like 15, 16 points in most polls in her Senate race there. This is not going to help her get Republicans out to vote for her and be encouraged and excited to try and keep her in the U.S. Senate because that's where she's at right now. Keep trying to keep her in the U.S. Senate, which we all want to keep a Republican seat, but still. And Murkowski too, their idea is that, well, we shouldn't do it until after the election.

I think they could change. 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. For 1-800-684-3110, if you want to talk to us on the air, you still have time to get in a phone call right now if you call 1-800-684-3110. We're about to go to Steve's Call in Georgia. But Chris on Periscope, I thought this was a good question to go around the horn, if you will, with everybody. Chris on Periscope, what good would it be if Joe Biden did list his picks? I think for me, and I'll go to Harry, then Thanh and Andy, for me, it would just prove my point, which is that he is beholden to the left. He is a Trojan horse candidate.

He is not some moderate. In fact, he is going to appoint people that are so outside the mainstream. And then Donald Trump and the Trump campaign and Republicans would be able to show people, look at who Joe Biden wants to put on the Supreme Court. Look at who he wants to make lifetime appointments with, people who think you're weird for your mainstream lifestyle, that you're not outside the mainstream enough. They'd be bizarre. They'd be left wing. And he knows that, so he's scared of putting that list out, Harry.

I think that is correct. I think Biden runs a huge risk by putting out a list. First, if he puts out a list, he runs the risk that he will be attacked by the left if his nominees or potential nominees are not sufficiently left wing. But then if he nominates or has a list filled with left wingers, he runs the risk of offending middle of the road and independent voters.

One of the great things about Joe Biden, however, is his absence of courage, but he's also riven deeply with huge amounts of hypocrisy. So the safest course of action, I think, for Joe Biden is to think about putting out a list but never do it. You know, let me go to Than.

Than? You know, let me address the political side of it, Jordan, because I think you're absolutely right on the effect of it. But I think the President has effectively put the vice President in an unwinnable box because if he puts out the list, it will look like the President forced him to do it and that he's just pandering to the President. If he doesn't put out the list, Jordan, he just yields the political battlefield to the President, who's been very transparent on this. So, look, I don't think the vice President can win by putting out a list, but I think the President has outmaneuvered him on this because he loses if he does and he loses if he doesn't.

You know, I think you're right. I think that he, in a sense, he loses because he doesn't get excited at his own base. He loses if he doesn't. I mean, I do want to get Andy's thoughts and we're going to go to Stephen's call.

Yeah, that's exactly right, Jordan. He can't win either way. If he puts out a list and the left says, what are you talking about? These people are not leftist enough. They're not liberal enough.

These are not burn the city and protest the world and they want to keep guns and so forth under the Second Amendment. So he alienates his left-wing base, the Sandy Cortez's of the world, and then if he, you know, so he's not, and he would have taken the President's challenge and it would look like he'd count down to what President Trump did. So he remains silent, which is what he does all the time. He doesn't talk.

He just sits there. He won't be able to do that during a debate. I guess you could.

I mean, you could go to your... You could. I have a feeling it's going to be a lot of, like, pauses. There'll be a lot of, like, questions. Like, he'll get hit by Trump and it's going to be like... And then, like, maybe he'll be able to put together words that are, like, they make sense together, but they have nothing to do with responding to why he got punched.

This is the thing. President Trump is not someone anyone wants to debate. I mean, Republicans, even on something of, like, I think if you debated him on something that was kind of, like, mundane, just for debate purposes, hit you so hard to win the debate that you've got to be able to take and deliver a punch so aggressively, so quickly on your feet, or you're knocked down.

You're knocked down before you even start it. And that is the problem, I think, for Joe Biden. I'm sure he's prepping. I know, you know, he's a professional, lifetime politician. So, again, don't downplay it too much. Don't downplay it too much and never forget the role of the moderator. And Chris Wallace, no fan of President Trump.

That's just clear. That guy has an animus for President Trump. And, you know, I'm someone who does a lot of Fox News and thinks Fox News does a great job on a lot of things. Chris Wallace, I'm not a fan of. I've been honest about that on this broadcast a number of times, and I think that's okay in a world where we're able to have freedom of thought.

So, so far, still, we are. Steve in Georgia on Line 1. Steve, welcome to JCECio Live.

I got to tell you, that list, whoever came up with that idea in 2016, I think it was brilliant looking back on it. And for Trump to go with it, brilliant decision on his part. But here's my actual question for today, Jordan. If this nominee has to go through what Kavanaugh went through last time with these false, outrageous, made-up charges, what is to prevent the Republicans to say, look, you're behaving irresponsible. You're not taking this serious. You're torturing our nominee again.

We're not putting up with it. We're going to go to a vote to nominate. Is that possible based on the procedures, and do you think the Republicans have the stomach to do so?

Thank you for handling my question. Yeah, no, I think you bring up something really good, Steve, that if they go Kavanaugh-style, just personal attack with these unsubstantiated nuts who come out of the, you know, these nutty people. And again, that's what I think they did with Kavanaugh.

So they found crazy people who would go out. They would ruin their lives, too, by the way, you know, who were, like, cross-eyed, looking at you, the camera, and they're trying to make these allegations, and whose house were they at, wherever they at. Then could they just say, enough with this.

We're going right to the vote. They can't. They don't even have to go to the judiciary committee. Here's Article II, Section 2. The requirement said that the President shall nominate and by and with the advice of the Senate shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court.

Jordan, all of the talk you hear about rules and precedent. Article I, Section 5 sets out that the Senate gets to set its own rules, and precedent changes over time when they change the rules. Now, look, I think they're going to go through committee, Jordan, but I will tell you this. They're not going to tolerate the shenanigans that happened with Judge Kavanaugh. That will clearly be an effort to filibuster in committee, but just boil it down to this, Jordan. The Senate is given their power by the Constitution of the United States, and they set their own rules. If they decide that the best way to proceed with this is to skip the hearing, go right to the floor, and then let the members of the Senate vote, they can absolutely do it.

Yeah, absolutely. So there's your answer, Steven. I think, listen, we start hearing language like this again out of Dianne Feinstein. Whoever the nominee is, they start attacking their religious faith. So if it's Amy Barrett, who's definitely on the front list. There's no surprise. She was at the White House yesterday.

It was reported. So, I mean, she was there. Now, there might be other potential nominees who get spotted there this week, as well. I mean, she might have been the first of meeting of four or five people the President's going to meet with, so don't read too much into everything. But she's definitely a frontrunner, okay?

We're not trying to hide the ball from you. She's definitely a frontrunner. She was a frontrunner already in the past. If this starts happening again, I say, Lindsey, shut it down, go to a vote. We have the votes.

Put them on the court. Goodbye, and we'll go into the election. Bite 46. When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that's of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country. I mean, this is my issue with this. Do you think that Dianne Feinstein would say that to a Jew? Do you think she'd say, you're too Jewish or too a Muslim? You're too Islamic to a Hindu?

You're too Hindu. If that happens again, then I say, shut it down, Lindsey, shut it down. If we tried to have the hearings, we tried to act like normal, obviously we can't because of the nuts on the other side. We're not going to have character assassination that they can replay over about these people forever and try to ruin their lives where they can't really respond because then they go kind of quiet onto the court, and we just have a vote. Yeah, and if you're the nominee and you get attacked that way, you say, thank you very much, Senator. That's one of the goals of my life.

I take it as a compliment, but you're right, Jordan. The committee, the chairman, at that point, they should move on and every senator should vote. All right, folks, we will again be following this very closely. You know we will at the ACLJ. Sign our petition at ACLJ.org. Fill that seat. We've got the votes to do it.

Let's get it done. 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.