Today on Sekulow, Vladimir Putin's harsh response to President Biden threatening him with personal sanctions, and in Supreme Court news, more possible replacements for Justice Stephen Breyer have been revealed.
And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Now you may ask yourself, how? And that is a serious question, but there is one area, oil and natural gas, which has gone up significantly in the last fiscal year, our reliance on Russian oil and natural gas. So there is a way for Russia to put some punishment on the US.
What's interesting about all of this is, and I think we have to be really crystal clear on this, the fact of the matter is that I saw an oil and gas expert company saying because of the lack of pipeline, in fact the Biden administration closing down pipelines, it's harder to get the gas to these various areas that need the gas. So what happens? Well, you're relying on who? Russia. I mean, this is the great dilemma. And I want to sit back for a moment and have everybody understand the fact that what we're saying right now, and listen to this, we are responding in writing to questions from Russia.
Now think about this for a moment. We are the United States of America, and we are responding in writing to questions from Russia as if they're interrogatories or request for production of documents or, you know, Bob Mueller demanding, you know, to interview the President. And what all we're agreeing to do is, you know, give written responses to questions that we think are appropriate, which was not much of what they asked. But the United States of America is in the process, or has now delivered, Andy, written responses to the Russian government? And that doesn't look like strong leadership. No, as a matter of fact, it's demeaning to the United States, when we respond in writing to a demand by the Russian or I should say, the nascent and coming back Soviet Union, or czarist empires, you want to make characterize it, but demeaning to us as a most powerful nation in the world, the nation committed to democratic rule to human rights, responding to a totalitarian regime. And yes, it still is a totalitarian regime in Russia, in writing as if we're school children being taught a lesson and we have to respond in writing so the teacher can look at what we wrote and see if it's something that's agreeable.
You know, here's the problem. And we just think what Andy just said, just what I said, we're the United States of America. And we're and by the way, we're doing the same things with China.
Now they've got three things they'd like responded to. I mean, this is where our leadership has gone, that we're in the position now in the United States of America where we're responding and writing to these entities, as if this is something normal. Well, I think we are not the same United States of America. In fact, China, I know we're talking about Russia and Ukraine, but China has also said that things have gotten much better under the Biden administration when it comes to much more, quote, they've sent more positive signals than those received under President Trump. And then what is China do? A list of demands. The US should stop interfering in the Beijing Winter Olympics, stop playing fire on the Taiwan issue and stop creating various, I love this one, anti China clicks to contain China. So the US is receiving demands from Russia, from China.
We're not issuing the demands. We're receiving demands, and we're waiting for responses. Give us a call. 1-800-684-3110. How weak do we look as a country right now? I mean, we have to look very weak because these actors wouldn't be taking the actions that they are. They think they can make some money off this, maybe make some deals that are positive for them. Give us a call.
1-800-684-3110. Later on the broadcast too, we're going to be joined by Congressman Mike Waltz, the first Green Beret elected to the US House. 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. 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. Just to set the stage for you, we are going to get into the Supreme Court. We're not ignoring that. We talked about it yesterday on the broadcast pretty thoroughly, but now we've got some more names and we've done research already on those names so we can provide you a little bit more information about the likely candidates' picks for President Biden and the Supreme Court. So we're going to get to that in the second half hour.
Don't miss that. But coming up in the next segment, we're going to be joined live by Congressman Mike Waltz. He is the first Green Beret to be elected to Congress. So he's got a military service, very direct, and he's still in the National Guard. He's going to be talking about Ukraine and Russia too, about what needs to be done now. Not after the Biden-predicted massive World War II-style invasion of Ukraine.
So not what we do after that, but what we should be doing now. And the White House, Dad, they have been very, they've pushed back on anyone, any reporter even, who has said, you talk about all these tough things you can do. Why would you not start that today to try and show how tough these sanctions will be? And I think the reason why they pushed back is because they actually don't have what we'd call a sanctions regime set up. They don't have a sanctions regime set up. They don't have Europe with them on this.
Can't be just the United States. Germany clearly not with us on this, so that's clear. You have the Russian government already saying that the answers are not going to be adequate, and I still am in shock that we're in this position where the Russian government is demanding written responses from the United States, like I said, as if it's an interrogatory. And you see, and then Joe Biden talks about personally sanctioning Vladimir Putin.
Listen to this. Do you ever see yourself personally sanctioning him if he did invade Ukraine? Yes. You would?
I would see that. I mean, okay, first of all, and the Russians, of course, are immediately responsible, so that's great. We don't have any assets in the United States, which I don't believe, but okay, let's assume it is. This is not a thought-out plan. So Andy, you know, we've studied Russia, and in many, over many hundreds of years, and as I keep going back to the Israeli quote, power is how you deal with them. David's saying that on CNN. You've got to project power. Why did we agree to respond to written questions as if this is some FBI investigation of the United States, and we're going to give them written responses? It really is absurd, demeaning, actually.
Well, the reason is that we're a weak country, and we've become a weak country since the departure of President Trump from the presidency, and I'll say it unabashedly and unashamedly, we do not project power, we do not project authority, we do not project the image that President Trump presented. We have a pusillanimous, weak, feckless President who is engaging in a tete-a-tete with these Russians, giving them answers on paper, and then they look at the answers, and they say, well, they may be destructive, but they're not going to be painful, or painful and destructive, or you sanction me, and I'm not too happy with what you wrote, I may have to ask you to write it back to me again. What kind of stuff is this? Are we in kindergarten? Are we playing school here?
Will we exchange papers across the aisle with the teacher to determine whether or not the teacher is going to be mad at us or not mad at us? No, what they're going to say is, I'm sorry, the answers weren't acceptable. I mean, that's what the Russians are going to say. These answers aren't acceptable. You've already invited us in to invade Ukraine, so what difference does it make? These answers aren't acceptable. Yeah, and their response is that, this is the Kremlin spokesperson, and people might remember this day, Dmitry Peskov, he's got the mustache, he said, Russians' top leaders are not allowed under their own law from having foreign assets.
Now, again, I don't agree, I don't believe that. They have no foreign assets. But what it means, Dad, is that you've got to have a sanctioned regime. Just saying, they probably don't have a bunch of money, if you're Putin, stuck in a US bank.
No, but they've got it in Switzerland. But they have to use US financial institutions to move their money around. Caymans, you know where they're putting their money. You know these governments. I'm going to go to Pham Bennett, our Director of Government Affairs, because you would think there would be some bipartisan action on this. Of course, stone silence right now, although I do sense that even some of the Democrats, Stan, are getting a little bit edgy on where this is going.
Well, the problem is, it's gotten to this point, and it's much harder to engage it after the fact, as you've been pointing out. I mean, Jay, there were two bipartisan actions. The Senate voted 55 to 44 to enact sanctions a few weeks ago. The administration opposed that at the behest of Vladimir Putin. They also sent a bipartisan collection of senators over to meet with President Zelensky. So there's been some effort, but essentially, Jay, the reason that it hasn't coalesced is because the White House has really kept his party in line. That's how we've gotten to this point. And you know, look, to Vladimir Putin's point about how sanctions would be destructive but not painful, that's a red herring. I mean, look, every financial institution over the world has access to the SWIFT system, which the U.S. controls, and the vast majority of transactions across the world still take place and are conducted in the U.S. dollar. So that's really an excuse that does not have clout behind it. But, Jay, if the President of the United States and the executive branch just take it at face value, well, then it does have meaning because they don't act on it. But we answered questions in writing as if we are what?
The defendant in criminal litigation or in civil litigation? I mean, think about this for a moment, folks. We're the United States of America, and we're answering questions in writing. Vladimir Putin demands questions answered in writing.
Joe Biden, let's give him answers. And we weren't so forthcoming, you know, in those kind of negotiations and other cases we've handled. You negotiate that. But that's in litigation. This isn't litigation. This is diplomacy. And we're responding in writing so that we reject answer two, we don't like answer three. Answer four was okay because she told us you could let us invade a little bit.
I mean, it's ridiculous. Let's take a phone call. Yeah, Laura calling from Maryland Online, too. If you want to talk to us on air, give us a call. 1-800-684-3110.
That's 1-800-684-3110. This American weakness on display. And that gives me no happiness to say words like that. I like American strength. I like when the world is afraid of us. Hey, Laura, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air. Thank you. Hello.
Hi. Um, I love my country. I'm glad we still have our peace cross down in Bladensburg. But the reality is no one is happy with our President.
Now we talk about all of these things that's happening. We do not have to respect China. They are cruel.
They're evil, what they're doing with people in concentration camps. We do not have to respond in writing. What can the people do legally to stand up and get a better government?
That's what I would like to know. Laura, I appreciate your call. Let me tell you what you do. Folks, we live in a constitutional republic, so you elect your office. The people elect the representatives. The congressmen, the senators, your legislators in your house, and the President of the United States. Don't elect judges.
Those are appointed. They vote in massive ways. Yeah, because the other side, listen, both sides are highly motivated. Let's not kid ourselves.
Yes, highly motivated. Elections have consequences. You are watching the consequences. The United States of America is answering the Russians in writing. Yeah, instead of having our President go on TV and demand, by the way, Russia, you do this, this is what happens, X, Y, and Z. We can't even say what would happen because, again, when I say sanctions regime, what I mean is that you've got these countries on board with you. So that Dmitry Peskov can't just say, oh, if you want to just try to sanction me, we have no assets massively in the US anyways. But I know where they do have assets moving through Europe, through Germany, through their pipeline.
I mean, there are, but you've got to put that together. And, Than, what I'm worried about generally is, like you said, in Washington, I know we're going to talk to Congressman Walz, who's an expert on this business, military experience, but is that so many in Washington have put forward so many ideas of what to do. And it's like the Biden administration's just got, they're just like holding their ears shut. Well, it really comes back to a conversation that we've had with Rick on this broadcast many times, Jordan, when you send a diplomat over to another adversary or to another country just generally, Jordan, you have to give them diplomatic tools to use.
What did we do? We sent Wendy Sherman and Jake Sullivan over, and we know that their approach is one where they don't want to use any tools. They don't want to use any pressure or any leverage.
They just want to talk about things. Jordan, look, even tools that you aren't ultimately going to use, the other side needs to believe that everything, and I mean everything, is on the table. Now, that doesn't mean every option is one that is good to use, but they need to believe that American strength is on display and that the diplomats that we send over are there to negotiate from a posture of strength. Jordan, when you send someone like Wendy Sherman, who was the lead negotiator of the Iran deal, which they just openly flaunted, I mean, why would Vladimir Putin believe that she was coming over to deal in strength?
He just doesn't believe it, Jordan. I just want people to think for a moment. I want to just put yourself in the State Department, and you're in the room or maybe over in the Oval Office, and the Secretary of State comes in and the Deputy Secretary of State and the head of the desk for Russians says, listen, Vladimir Putin has a series of questions he wants our answers to. Let's sit around the table and discuss answering questions and writing to the Russian government.
I just want that to sink in for a moment. I mean, Andy, you only got a minute here. You're shaking your head. I mean, this is, we're answering the Russians' questions in writing. Yeah, Jay, the reason I'm shaking my head is that it reminds me of October 28, 1940, when the Italians put a demand of questions on the Greek Prime Minister, John Metaxas, and saying that Greece, we demand the following of you and gave a list of questions to be answered and to be responded to. Do you know what the Greek Prime Minister did? He took a bottle of ink and threw it on the piece of paper and said, there's my response, and he uttered one Greek word, ochi, which means no. He's right.
All right, folks, we come back. Congressman Waltz from Florida's 6th Congressional District, he's been on the broadcast before. He is the first Green Beret elected to Congress. He still currently serves in the National Guard. He was, again, just on Fox this morning, talking about what we could be doing.
We'll be right back with Congressman Waltz. 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, playing 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. Alright, welcome back to Secula, and we're going to take more of your calls, too, later in the broadcast.
1-800-684-312. We're joined by a good friend of the ACLJ right now, Congressman Mike Waltz of Florida's 6th Congressional District. Congressman Waltz is the first Green Beret elected to the House of Representatives, and also continues to serve in the National Guard. Congressman Waltz, thanks for being with us today on Secula.
Yeah, hey, good to be with you. I saw you on Fox News this morning. I want to ask, I have a similar question, which is, the American people have asked, I think, over and over, and they're not getting a sufficient answer from the Biden administration, which is, the first question is, why should they be so concerned about Ukraine to the point where we're talking about troop deployments, potentially up to 50,000 in one article that was released, and why they should be, even on the surface level, why they should be concerned about what's happening in Ukraine?
Well, I think the two main reasons. Number one, in the wake of Afghanistan, authoritarianism is on the march around the world. And after letting terrorists dictate the terms and abandoning our fellow Americans and betraying our allies, Putin, Xi, North Korea, Iran, they all see an opportunity right now. And if we allow Putin to just walk over Ukraine with no consequences, I think that's going to have even further consequences down the road. So it's a slippery slope argument, and we can't behave like Neville Chamberlain did back in the 1930s.
First it was the Czech Republic, then it was Poland, then it was France, and pretty soon we had devolved into World War III. But the other piece is Putin fully intends to reestablish the old Soviet Union. And he sees an opportunity now with the weakness that he smells in the Biden White House to do that, and that is certainly not in our interest. Now, is it to the point where we should be putting American boots on the ground in Ukraine? No, I don't think so. But can we be doing a lot more to frustrate, slow down and hopefully deter Putin?
Absolutely. But Biden right now is basically sending strongly worded letters and making tough promises on what he'll do after the fact, rather than taking tough measures to deter Putin on the front end. Congressman, this is Jay Sekulow. The thing that I am really concerned about, besides the overall situation, is the fact that the United States of America's diplomatic corps answered questions in writing propounded by the Russian government, as if we're in a civil or criminal case and we're answering depositions or interrogatories. And we're the United States of America and we're answering the Russians in writing their questions? It seems to me to be preposterous.
Well, it is preposterous. And by the way, they just delivered that document to Congress, but they classified it. So why is it classified here in the United States when we put it in the hands of the Russians?
Tomorrow morning or tonight, right? Oh, absolutely. And they'll spin it for their own propaganda, yet we can't reply because they classified it on their end. So once again, we're giving our adversaries more latitude than our fellow Americans.
But you're right. I mean, I am far more concerned about what Biden is conceding. We saw this playbook under Obama when Putin invaded Crimea and Ukraine. We saw this playbook under Obama when every time the Iranians got tough, the White House conceded more. And I really fear what they just put in that document.
I hope to see it tomorrow. You know, Congressman, the other pushback we get a lot from the White House right now, any reporter that asks, why aren't we doing things now? If we talk about all these massive sanctions that can be crippling, why not start putting them into place to show the Russians that we can do that? And my concern is that because we've had a lack of cooperation in Europe and NATO, that maybe we don't have the ability to put those sanctions in place. I mean, that would be very concerning, but that it would just be unilateral from the U.S. and that might not be enough.
Look, no, I think you raise an absolutely great point. Number one, we should be putting them in place now with the message to Putin, stand down your forces and de-escalate and we'll lift these sanctions. But I think the bigger issue with the sanctions, whether we put them in place now or threaten to do later, is that the largest economy in Europe, Germany, isn't going to be on board. For sanctions to work, there has to be consensus and they have to be in dollars and euros. And I do not see the Germans getting on board. Heck, they won't even agree to send any lethal aid right now to Ukraine or even allow their airspace to be used for it. Much less put their own domestic population with a new German government in a difficult position in the middle of winter when they rely on Russia for 50% of their gas.
But I also think there's an important point to make here in the context of the Green New Deal, Build Back Better and this push to just dive into renewables. Germany has done that. California has done that. We've seen rolling blackouts in California.
We've seen Germany now back away from nuclear and it's only made them more reliant on the dirtiest form of gas in the world, which is Russian gas. It's just ridiculous. And now we're hearing that the administration is going to cutter and asking them to be prepared to pump more gas to fill in for the void after they crack down on U.S. oil and gas companies.
It's just idiotic. Congressman, I want our audience to understand what's going on here. The United States is answering questions and writing, propounded by the Russian government.
The Chinese gave the United States a list of three priorities on Thursday that it has to be met, those priorities have to be met for continued bilateral negotiations. At the same time, the Biden administration decides to shut down pipelines for natural gas in the United States of America when we were finally energy independent. And now we're going to cutter and the UAE and these other Gulf state partners to get them to produce more so we don't end up just relying on who? Russia. In one year, they have successfully put us in a horrible position politically and diplomatically, in my view, Congressman. Yeah, and militarily. And for your listeners, every time they see the price of gas going up, every time they see the price of a barrel of oil going up, it's going into the hands of Putin. That cash is going in the hands of the Iranian regime, and that is only going to embolden them, and it shouldn't surprise anyone. We see a massing on Ukraine and the Iranians through their terrorist proxies, launching missiles at Israel and our Gulf allies. And this is all because of Biden's weakness, lack of judgment, incompetence. And by the way, we haven't even mentioned that we have a Taliban terror superstate that fully intends to strike the United States again, all in the space of a year. And Congressman, this is my final question to you, and thank you for your continued service to our country, both in Congress and the military. But let me just say this.
Every President faces lots of tough issues. We didn't have to be here. I mean, the U.S. did not have to be in this position, whether it's Afghanistan, Russia, China. This is not the posture we had to be in.
Yeah, no, you're absolutely right. These are self-inflicted wounds, bad policy decisions, but guys, it's not going to turn around. I don't know how we make it through another three years, but the same team around Biden was around Obama that thought the Iran deal was a good thing, the Bergdahl trade was a good thing, Benghazi, Crimea, South China Sea.
I mean, the giveaway to Cuba, the hits will keep on coming. Congressman, we really appreciate you taking time out of your schedule, appreciate your service to the country, both as Jordan said, in Congress and also in our military. Thanks for standing with our country. And we'll get through this. We're the greatest country in the world, but we've got some real challenges, folks, real serious challenges. Thank you, Congressman. All right, folks, we've got a lot to talk about too. Coming up, second half hour, we're going to get more into Supreme Court news as well, but we'll continue to talk about the Ukraine-Russia issue. If you've got questions and comments after you heard Congressman Waltz, give us a call, 1-800-684-3110.
This is a great time to do it, so when we're back for the break, we can get you on the air, 1-800-684-3110. 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. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, welcome back to Sekulow. We are going to continue to take your calls both on the U.S. Supreme Court as we shift into more discussion there, but also on if you've got calls about Russia, Ukraine, and what we were just talking about with Congressman Waltz. It's always great to have him on his perspective because, again, he comes from the top special forces of the United States, the Green Berets, into Congress.
In the battles that we're talking about right now, he fought it and continues to as a member of the National Guard. So we'll take your calls at 1-800-684-3110, but also on the U.S. Supreme Court that we just received. There should be an event that the news covers at any moment. Is it on right now? Not yet. Almost. But we did get the letter that was delivered to the White House from Justice Breyer dated today, though we heard that the White House was informed about this about a week ago, informing them of how he will resign but also continue to serve on the circuit courts, which they're allowed to do.
Yeah, they can that. So the letter says, I'm going to tell you that I've decided to retire from regular active judicial service as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and to serve under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 371b, which allows them to serve on the circuit courts, which he did previously. I intend this decision to take effect when the court rises for the summer recess this year, typically late June or early July, assuming that my successor has been nominated and confirmed. In other words, if not nominated and confirmed, he's staying on. There will be a nine-member court come the first Monday in October when the court goes back in session. Now, what's interesting, I want to go to Thanh Bennett on this right away, and we're already getting the sense of who the nominees are or potential nominees.
There's a little bit of guessing going on, but it's been pretty clear. But, Thanh, I wanted to get your sense of what the Republican reaction is because a lot of the – one of the nominees was just confirmed. To guess what, Merrick Gartland, see, when he became the attorney general of the United States, Justice Jackson became – Judge Jackson was put on the D.C. Court of Appeals and just confirmed.
Yeah, and I think – I think that's one of the reasons that she's probably the frontrunner, Jay. It's Judge Katonji Brown Jackson, sits in Merrick Gartland's seat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Clerk for Justice Breyer. Right.
Exactly right. A former clerk for Breyer. There are a lot of political reasons, Jay, that she would be a natural fit. She also got three votes from Republican senators in last June, so she got 53 votes to confirm for her current seat.
I think she probably makes a lot of sense. I think that she is the one that she thinks is the frontrunner. Jay, I did review some of the hearing, though, for several of these judges that are on the so-called reported short list this morning. And another judge that I think is going to get some consideration is a judge that's sitting on the Seventh Circuit, Judge Candace Jackson Acumi. Jay, she's very personally impressive. I've heard she dealt very favorably with the White House during her previous confirmation fight.
So I think, Jay, that those are probably the two frontrunners at this point. You said an interesting term, fight. Now, we have seen Supreme Court justice confirmation fights. Andy, I think about what Justice Kavanaugh went through in that horrible display, what Justice Thomas went through back 30 years ago.
Justice Barrett, where they accused her of the dogma of a religion lives deep within her. I don't anticipate that will happen here. But that could prove me wrong.
But go ahead. No, I agree with you, Jay. I mean, the Republicans are very civil. I've even seen the hard questioning by Senator Kennedy from Louisiana, whom I respect greatly. But even though his questioning and his cross-examination literally of judicial nominees is very tough and very pointed, it's always done civilly. It's always done with respect for the office that the person holds or for the position that they're seeking to hold. And I don't see the Republicans engaging in that kind of street fighting that we saw so horribly begun with Clarence Thomas that you and I remember personally.
And that was continued through Kavanaugh and continued through Justice Barrett. But you know, I was thinking about this, Jordan. I wonder, they're not going to get the bounce from this that they anticipate.
I don't think so. We could talk about that when we come back. They're about to have a prior and a Biden coming together. But listen, the White House is hoping that you forget about everything else. Now, it may help with their base, but that's all going to depend on who they pick. And then once that pick, remember, we're going to scrutinize. And Roe could be over with by then. But the progressive liberals are going to scrutinize just as hard.
And if it's not a pick that's exactly where it wants to be, I think it could backfire on them. Because we're just saying it's an African-American woman is not enough for the progressive left. And again, I think there's a lot to talk about there. We're going to get to we come back from the break. 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, playing parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Welcome back to Secular.
We're going to start taking your calls now, 1-800-684-3110. I'd like to know how important this particular Supreme Court pick, replacing Justice Breyer, is to our audience. Yeah, because I'll tell you, it's not one that is going to shift the court immediately at all. It might push the liberals on the court to be more liberal, but they'd still be in the minority when they're acting very liberal. I'd like to hear what they say. I think, from my position here, is that unlike maybe some of these nominees in the past where you just say, obviously we're probably going to oppose the nominee, but it's going to have to be focused on philosophy, what they've actually said, what they've actually done. I will tell you, when you look at some of these, these are pretty new people on the court, so there's a lot less there when it comes to court.
So then where do you go? You have to go to speeches, writings, and all that becomes available for these nominees. Who they worked for.
Who they worked for, and again, you start putting together a judicial philosophy, but we've got a lot of calls coming in on this, 1-800-684-3110. Again, a question we're asking you, how important is this to you when there's inflation, when there's Russia, Ukraine, when there's COVID, when you're worried about your kids getting into school, because the left thinks you're going to forget all about that and just say, oh, Joe Biden got to pick a Supreme Court justice, so rah, rah, everything's okay. Yeah, and there's another aspect of this, and we'll take the calls in a moment, and that is it's likely that with the decision in the Dobbs case, that Roe vs. Wade, if it in fact overturned, will take that issue off the table. The answer, if they ask about do you support Roe vs. Wade, is going to be very academic if it's overturned, which has always been a big point of contention on both sides. I think any of their nominees will.
Yeah, of course they will, but they're going to say, but of course I'm bound by the court's decision, until another one comes up before, but it's going to be a conservative court for a long time. Let's go attend and take a call. Yeah, Harry Collin from Pennsylvania on Line 1. Hey, Harry, welcome to Sekulow, you're on the air.
Hi, good afternoon. I was just wondering, Mr. Biden has been second in command during the Obama administration. You know, would he go with Merrick Garland as a nominee for the Supreme Court again? Yeah. It seems like Biden… Let me jump in, Harry.
No, it's not going to happen. Number one, too old, which is a big factor. Has been not very popular. Two, let's take out the criteria. Biden said that it has to be an African American woman, so he does not meet those standards. He's been very upset with him on voting, on going after former Trump officials, the list goes on.
I'm not saying, again, I don't agree with him on that, but he's not popular, let's put it that way. And I think a lot of the progressive left, though they're not happy that that seat was ultimately taken by Republicans, are happy that he's not in the court. But you know what's interesting here, and that is, so, you know, I'll go to Andy on this first, and then we'll take some more calls at 800-684-3110. You know, you look traditionally when we get into a Supreme Court nominee at the end of the term, which means sometime the nomination will probably come forward in, you know, April, I guess, in May, and they'll start having, you know, they'll do the meet, go around the Congress, you know, meet with members of the Senate, and then, you know, maybe hearings in June, and then confirmed upon the conclusion of the court. You're expecting this big, you know, titanic battle, because it's been Republicans that it was Trump that got to put three justices on the Supreme Court. I just suspect here it's not going to be. I'm not saying that's right, by the way, and I don't think we should do, we should never stoop to their disgusting behavior and what they try to do with Kavanaugh and the way they demean the religion of Amy Coney Barrett.
I think that's deplorable, disgusting, and, you know, don't go down there. But scrutinize these opinions so you know what the judicial philosophy, at least you know what you're getting. I think, and we've already started that process.
Andy? Well, I think you're right, Jay. I think that's exactly what the Republican senators are going to do. They're going to be highly civil, highly respectful, and highly polite, because that's how they reacted to these. We're not going to see the bloodbath that we saw with Clarence Thomas, that we saw with Kavanaugh, which was a bloodbath, and which we almost saw with Justice Barrett in that horrible statement that Senator Feinstein made questioning the depth of her moral dogma and her religion. We're not going to see that, but we are going to see tough questioning into these nominees and what their judicial philosophy is. Because the Republicans know that there are, and I don't think there will be any defections, quite frankly, there are the votes in the Senate to confirm Biden's nominee.
Which is what I was going to ask Than, I mean, and Jordan. Politically, how does this play? And then we'll ask, we'll get another call. You want to take another call first? Yeah, let's go to the call first.
Bill in Wyoming online for, hey Bill. Hi, thanks for taking my call. I heard this thought mentioned yesterday, and I'd like to pose it to you as a question. Do you think maybe Sinema and Manchin might push back on these nominees because of the way they retreated on their stance for the filibuster? I'll go ahead and hang up and listen to your answer.
I don't think so. I would caveat that with Than because we know that a couple of these top, one of the top picks here has already gotten their vote and has gotten a vote of three Republicans. It would be if, to me, it would have to be some issue that arose, either policy issue that was just so out of line with where they were with their constituents. But I just, if it's one of the nominees that's at the top of the list, like Judge Jackson, she just went through confirmation, she got Manchin and Sinema's vote.
Yeah, it'd have to be one of two things, Jordan. It'd have to be a nominee that's out of left field, like you said, somebody that we aren't talking about right now that really bothers them on an ideological issue, or something that comes up during the nomination process that's very surprising. I just don't see any senator on the Democrat side that voted for a judge last year not voting for that same judge when they're elevated to the Supreme Court. I mean, look, every vacancy is important, but the political atmospherics, where you're at in the cycle, what the makeup of the Senate is, what the makeup of the court is, all those things go into how contentious it is. And maybe the most important thing here, and Jordan, we have made this argument for several different nominations when the Senate had different majorities. The biggest factor here is what the American people said in the last election. In the last election, whether you like it or not, they gave the Senate control to Leader Schumer, so if he can rally his troops, they're going to be able to confirm the nominee.
Well, one other thing I was going to ask you, Jordan, in that regard, and that is this. They'll put forward the—let's say it's one of the people on this list, and we'll say this is what their legal positions are. Do you think that there is the political oomph to really push back hard?
It's a very difficult thing. Yeah, I think that it will have to take an issue that arises that didn't arise before the confirmation or that just wasn't found because the research wasn't done as deeply because it wasn't a Supreme Court nomination that is something that is so out of line. The Second Amendment, so out of line on where the American people are. I mean, it could be any issue that they've shown themselves to be an extreme actor when it comes to philosophy.
I'm not talking about what their religious faith is. I'm not talking about—I'm talking about it's extreme—it would put them on the extreme spectrum of judicial philosophy. Now— Like somebody said, the right to the Second Amendment doesn't exist individually. Right, and if they wrote that somewhere and said it somewhere, yeah, I think you could build some serious opposition. The expansion in Sinema would— Right, would have to be— They'd be facing tremendous pressure from conservative groups, groups like ours, to say, you know what, take a stand here. You can't say you're in support of the Second Amendment and then go forward with a lifetime of support.
That's the kind of issue I think it would take to build a groundswell of support. Of course, we're going to, you know, through this process, we talk about the difference in judicial philosophy, difference in our judicial philosophy between probably anyone that—definitely between anyone that President Biden will choose to pick. But, ultimately, I think to derail a nomination, to derail—remember Kavanaugh wasn't derailed. It was nasty, but they didn't derail. Barrett, who they went after, not derailed. In fact, it was done at one of the quickest confirmations in history.
But, you know, Annie, I'm thinking about it here. If Rose decided, and if Rose out, that takes a big contentious issue off the table. If the President nominates someone that has already been confirmed recently, like Jordan said, absent something just out of the box, the President nominates with the advice and consent of the Senate, the person's confirmed, and they have 50 votes in the Senate, plus the tiebreaker being the vice President. Right. And I think we're always going to be—well, we know Rose is going to be decided before the court rises, and that's always a question that is being asked by senators of nominees. It's going to be a non-issue, and unless the nominee stubs her toe, because it's going to be an African-American woman, as the President has promised, and she has been recently confirmed, and I'm talking about Judge Kitanji Jackson, who I think is going to be the nominee, then she's in. Yeah. I mean, she just went through confirmation.
Again, it would have to be—remember— We try to be real realistic here. Circuit court nominees go through a certain level. Now, just because she just went through confirmation, yeah, it should make it easier, but that doesn't mean that same kind of digging has been done. On speeches, on remarks, on—you know, if you made some remark on microphone at some conference about your view of the Second Amendment, I think those kind of issues, where there's a constitutional right that's clear, and you have a far-left view of that, then I think that's what you're looking for when you do this research. We're going to be doing that research at the ACLJ, and I think also another issue Biden has is the progressives. I think actually have probably more of a chance to sink any of these nominees than the right, because they've got a lot more power inside the Democratic Party, of course, than conservatives.
They, I think, hold the most power in this nominating process. He's got to clear whoever this is through them, or else they could just cause serious trouble. Be right back on Secular. Take in your phone calls. Give us a call.
1-800-684-3110. 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. Alright, welcome back to Secular. We are taking your phone calls as well. I wanted to let you know President Biden from his Twitter account just tweeted, the person I nominate to replace Justice Breyer will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience, integrity, but he did confirm this, and they will be the first black woman nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. So, any of those people who thought that maybe he's not 100% on that, it's 100% on that. He also said in the press conference, we have a time frame, it looks like. Let's play that for everybody. I'll meet with the potential nominees, and it is my intention, my intention to announce my decision before the end of February.
I have made no choice at this point. So that's about it. You know, that puts a, you know, fan, that puts somebody out a long time before their confirmation. It does, Jay. I mean, look, I don't think, I could be wrong on this, but I don't think Dick Durbin will call hearings until the court recesses for the summer, so that would mean hearings wouldn't begin until June. So February to June, what's that, four months? That's a long time, Jay. I mean, they do have to make their rounds, but that's a long time for a record to be scrutinized.
Well, I was just thinking about that, Andy. We'll take a call in a minute, but that is a, you know, in litigation life, that's a, that's, in a trial, that's a lifetime. It is a lifetime. Four minutes in a trial is a lifetime sometimes.
Four hours is an eternity, but four months is a long time. That's why I think it's going to be someone who has already been considered by the Senate, approved and confirmed, and who's got that credential behind them. And that's why it's the candidate that I thought, and I probably still think that that's going to be who it is. All right, let's go to the phones. Joe in Tennessee online, too. Hey, Joe.
Hey, thanks, guys. We're taking my call. My question is, it's been the opinion of many of us conservatives that Chief Justice Roberts leans to the left at times, and we know that this Biden appointee will make it through most likely. How do you think Biden's appointment will affect Chief Justice Roberts' attitude and the way he decides and how he leads the court?
I really don't think it's going to have a major impact, and in fact, it could have the exact opposite impact of what they want. If they're going to put in a very progressive way left of center justice to the Supreme Court of the United States, John Roberts is not a, he's not a moderate. John Roberts is a conservative. He is a conservative in the mold of John Roberts. He's not Antonin Scalia. He's not Alito and Thomas. He's John Roberts. More times than not, he is conservative in his rulings.
Not always, but more times than not. Having said that, they've got to be careful. I mean, there's still, look, the last President selected three Supreme Court nominees and got them confirmed. This is pretty much the Supreme Court, I mean, look at the ages now of most of the justices. So, you know, you've got justices in their 60s, and you've got one justice in their 60s, a couple in their early 70s.
Everybody else is in their 50s, late 40s, 50s. So, these justices are around for a long time. When this court can get close again on an ideological or judicial philosophies point of left, right, would be if there was a retirement of two of the conservative justices or illness or something like that, which you don't wish on any of them. And so, that's the only time that you really see this in play. I don't think it impacts John Roberts in that regard.
I really don't. All right, folks, again, we're going to take full calls. 1-800-684-3110.
That's 1-800-684. It's only 49 now, which he's been on the court. Right.
Which is just 49. So, yeah, these are, again, big decisions to make. There is a whole group, and we talked about Judge Jackson, but there are others. I mean, President Biden hasn't made a decision yet. I think Judge Jackson is that leading pick, but you could be surprised at this process. Leandra Krueger, she's on the California Supreme Court.
We talked about her yesterday. She also clerked for Justice Breyer. Turned down some federal appointments, including Solicitor General.
Solicitor General. So, may have wanted to stay in California. Interesting thing about her, had no California legal experience.
No. And got appointed to the California Supreme Court. Right. So, again, there's a lot of leeway on these. When we talked about those nominations, that you don't have to be a specific type of lawyer or have judicial experience. You don't have to be a lawyer.
Right. Listen to Joe Biden at the Justice Breyer presser just a few moments ago. Take a listen to number 55. Well, let me say a few words about a critically important work of selecting his successor. Choosing someone to sit in the Supreme Court, I believe is one of the most serious constitutional responsibility a President has.
Our process is going to be rigorous. I will select a nominee worthy of Justice Breyer's legacy of excellence and decency. While I've been studying candidates' backgrounds and writings, I've made no decision except one. The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience, and integrity. And that person will be the first black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court.
So, there you have it. He laid out his, the President laid out his criteria, which constitutionally he has the authority, Andy, to do under the Constitution. He makes the select.
He absolutely does. The President makes the decision. The President makes the nomination with the advice and consent of the Senate. There's no filibuster. It's a majority vote. It's very simple and he has the right to do it just as President Trump had the right to nominate the three nominees he nominated and they got confirmed.
President Biden is going to have the same privilege and there's no question about it. Fan, there was an article in Time magazine yesterday saying how the Republicans could somehow block this nominee through some parliamentary moves. I read it. I was not persuaded.
What's your sense? Yeah, I'm not persuaded either, Jay. There was an agreement between Leader Schumer and Leader McConnell on how they were going to conduct power sharing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. And essentially what that article argued is underneath that power sharing agreement, if the committee is deadlocked, that the nominee would be kicked to the Senate floor and they would require a cloture vote at a 60-vote threshold. But, Jay, I mean, we know this. The only thing it takes to lower a cloture threshold is 50 votes at the United States Senate. And now that that has already been the threshold for three Republican nominees to the Supreme Court, I just don't think there's any way in the world Leader Schumer is going to accept a 60-vote threshold for a Supreme Court nominee from a President of his party.
I don't think he would stand for that, Jay. So, Jordan, they're looking at really a very difficult – the Democrats looking at a very difficult midterm election, right? Yes. I mean, very difficult.
Yes. Going to lose the House. And probably a chance they could lose the Senate. Very good chance.
So how do they use this to bolster their potential? Well, it takes news. It takes up a lot of news when you have the hearings. It will likely be a win for President Biden in the sense that he will likely get his nominee through outside some wild circumstances like we were just talking about. But what they forget is that the people who don't like Joe Biden, this will – and his philosophy, the Democrat liberal philosophy, progressive philosophy, this is going to put that progressive philosophy on display. So for all the conservatives out there who can't stand the CRT and this philosophy, whoever he picks out of this group is going to be very liberal.
They are. And they're going to put on a display that even sounds more liberal than him. And so I think it actually will fire up conservatives. And the one issue he has, it should be a positive for him.
It should help stem some bleeding. But as long as you've got $100 to fill up your car, inflation, COVID, are my kids going to school today because of the teachers? Are there enough teachers? Guess what? The Supreme Court nominee takes really a back seat to those kind of major issues, Ukraine and Russia invading Ukraine, violence, people being killed, sovereign borders, and of course the violence and crime we're seeing in our own country. Plus he's got to watch out for this. His own party, which has been taken over by the far left. And if this person is a middle of the road kind of nominee and doesn't talk the way they like, they may be the ones trying to take out this nomination even while the person's already testifying because they don't like the answers.
I think that's absolutely true. Hey folks, we're in the last few days of the month of January here. Help us meet our goal. Go to ACLJ.org. Your online support makes a huge difference. ACLJ.org. Talk to you tomorrow. For today, ACLJ.org.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-06-17 00:13:11 / 2023-06-17 00:36:52 / 24