Supreme Court Nominee Testifies: What You Need To Know

Today on Sekulow, as a Supreme Court nominee testifies, we'll tell you what you need to know and Rick Rinnell on Hunter Biden's laptop. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow.

We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Hey, welcome to Sekulow. We are taking your calls as well.

1-800-684-3110. So we're finally getting to the kind of the meat of the hearing for the Supreme Court nominee, Judge Jackson. And what we're starting to see is some questions about judicial philosophy. And there's been an interesting move because she's been endorsed by all the far left groups. But when she's asked questions about judicial philosophy, she's not giving the typical left wing responses.

It's kind of leaving it very vague. She's been a judge for a long time. She was only at the appellate court for really less than a year.

So she's been through this process before. Again, I don't think she'll get a lot of Republican support, but there will probably be a handful. What will be interesting to see though is will these Republican senators on the committee, we'll talk to Marsha Blackburn later in the week. Senator Blackburn is on the committee.

She'll have her chance to question Judge Jackson a couple of times, twice, two 20-minute rounds. And we'll start to see because I think that is where, as Senator Grassley started, I'm kind of trying to figure out is while the American people see this on all their cable news, I will tell you, there's not a lot yet to take away from what she's saying. Again, they're trying to nail down the basics. Like what do you see as a fundamental right? And it wasn't clear.

Yeah. So what should have been the answer to that have been freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of association, the fundamental rights as outlined in the United States Constitution. But I think you also have to have another reality here. And that is the reality is absent something major coming out, she's going to be confirmed as a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Republicans do not do to their credit what the Democrats do when they tried to do character assassinations of nominees. So the interesting thing here to me, at least at this stage of it, Jordan, is the fact that the issues that are coming up, like the Roe versus Wade question so far was literally 90 seconds.

Yeah. It was a question from the Senator from California and she gave the typical response that the Supreme Court, that's the precedent that people have relied on. Not that much different than how even a Republican nominee would answer that question who's tried to get confirmed, which is that's what the Supreme Court has made the opinion on. They did it again in 1992. They didn't bring up Dobbs, the case that could literally overturn Roe versus Wade.

Maybe it does come up. I mean, she's going to say she's bound by the decision, I would suspect, but she doesn't mean she's going to vote if another case were to come up that she's going to vote to affirm that. Justices are allowed to do dissenting opinions.

But I think all of this points to a major issue and that is, folks, elections have consequences. President Trump was able to get three nominees in to the Supreme Court. It's radically changed in a good way. I think when I say radically, I mean, there's a major shift on the Supreme Court. This is not going to be a radical shift. This is replacing a justice for Justice Breyer, who by the way, on a lot of cases went with us.

A lot of cases he did not, but there was a lot of cases where he did, especially on free speech and some of the religion cases. Certainly not on the life issue, but the life issue is up there right now. And that decision is probably 12 weeks away.

And that's going to be the one that I think that is going to be really, really significant. Having said all of that, I think what we have to be conscious of is we prepared internally, and this is what we do at the ACLJ, to be prepared. Look, we litigate at the Supreme Court of the United States.

We've been doing that for four decades. So we prepared an internal memorandum for us about her decision. She was overturned on a major decision involving executive privilege. Does that mean she's not qualified to serve on the court?

No. Justices get overturned. Presidents get to nominate and appoint. It's with the advice and consent of the Senate.

So there you have it. I mean, you know the politics. I mean, how does she not get confirmed? Well, I think again, because you've got some moderate Republican senators who've already voted for her before. So you've got Murkowski and Collins have already voted for her. Now they didn't say they're definitely going to vote for her for the Supreme Court. But I think with those two votes, even if it's party line after that, she's confirmed but for what happens during these hearings, which is why the news will keep covering it even right now while it's kind of benign, to say the least. We're gonna be joined by Senator Haggerty in the next segment of the broadcast. He's on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

We're gonna be talking about this move again by the Biden administration on the table to remove the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps from the Foreign Affairs Organization's list and trying to get Iranian oil flowing to the US instead of flowing here and becoming energy independent. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad, whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support. For that we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at 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 Planned 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. All right, welcome back to Secular. We're even joined by Senator Hagerty in just a moment. Again, and we're going to be talking about this move by the Biden administration attempting to, putting on the table, which just shows you how desperate the U.S. position looks, that we would put on the table removing the number one state sponsor of terror's implementing group, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, removing them from the foreign terrorist organization's list, which then includes all the sanctions. It makes it more difficult for other countries because they run a lot of businesses and corporate interests inside Iran.

They protect the Ayatollah in Iran. And so this is, again, where the U.S. government and the Biden administration is willing to go instead of investing in American energy independence, ultimately to try and get back into this nuclear deal, which again, expires in a few years, and they can have a nuclear weapon. Well, I mean, it's a pathway for the Iranians to get a nuclear weapon.

And let's be clear. So this de-labeling or delisting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard as no longer within the terrorism list is absurd because everyone knows, including President Biden and his entire team, that everyone knows that Iran is the largest exporter of terrorism in the world. The number one, more so than Russia, more so than China, anybody else.

Iran is number one. Yeah, we've got even the Biden administration condemning what the Houthi rebels are doing in Yemen by launching attacks into Saudi Arabia. They removed the Houthi rebels, which is another Iranian-backed terror group like Hezbollah, from the foreign terrorist organization list. And then now they're condemning their actions. But by removing them from these lists, it empowers them.

They're able to go out there, make more money. I mean, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps runs the shipping business out of Iran. They run the oil industry in Iran. When we start saying we can use Iranian oil again and take that off the black market, basically, you're funding the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. But can you believe we're even having to discuss Iran producing oil for the United States when we were energy independent 18 months ago?

No. And this is, again, I think that the nuclear deal and all this tied together is an attempt to try and get – it's an attempt to try and get – it's gas prices. And, of course, they're obsessed with the nuclear deal itself and obsessed with trying to reenter the nuclear deal itself to the point where – Well, this is Obama's legacy. And then it was – we got out of it, which was wise, it was ridiculous. They weren't following it.

They continued to not follow it. And the end result was, and the end result is, that we lift these sanctions and what ends up happening? We end up having Iran as a partner of the United States. I mean, are we really believing this for a moment, that this is what's going to happen and that this is the right thing that's going to happen?

I don't think so. But did – these are the largest sponsors of terrorism, exporters of terrorism in the world, Iran. And the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are their elite forces.

They have targeted Americans. Russia is in there in the negotiations with us on this. I mean, it's kind of the go-between. I mean, think about all of this for a moment with everything that's going on in Ukraine. Yeah. Russia is the main arbiter between the U.S. and Iran on this issue. And specifically, just for you all to understand, while the war is going on in Ukraine and we're supposed to be sanctioning all these Russian interests, we're still relying on the Russians who are, by the way, carving out their own protections within the new Iranian deal so that they can do business with Iran and not be subject to the sanctions, the world sanctions. So they'll get a carve-out for Russia and Iran to be doing business together. Right. And that's going to be deemed okay. Yeah.

I mean, think about that for a moment. If they agree to that, we're going to have a carve-out for – Russia is dictating the terms of an agreement that we have with – if there's this nuclear agreement with Iran. By the way, they've already received the last go-round of this $1.9 billion, but now they're talking about sanction relief much more significant than that.

Yes. I think that this is a – by delist, if you remove the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps from the foreign terrorist organizations list – so I understand you're removing them from the foreign terrorist organizations list. You are sending all of this funding to them. That's more than just a few billion dollars. It's opening up their business interest.

This is not just a group that, by the way, is anti-Israel and wants to start fights with Israel because they already do through their proxies like Hezbollah. They want – in three years this deal expires. So we're re-entering – and we're not adding 10 years to this deal. Right.

So it expires in three years. What's happened then? They'll have a deliverable nuclear weapon. It is their hope. And the only way to stop that is by sabotage or by other activities which we've seen some of our allies like Israel engage in. So here's what the Wall Street Journal said.

I think this is very interesting. It said – so the effort to revive the 2015 nuclear deal – remember, that was under Obama – hinges on – this is what the Wall Street Journal called the most politically sensitive issue in the negotiations. And that issue is whether to remove the U.S. terrorism designation.

This is the United States' terrorism designation for Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard, which, as the Journal points out, is the country's most powerful security force. The issue is, of course – that issue galvanizes a lot of opposition in Washington, as you can understand. However, the administration wants a deal so badly. Is the government willing to do that? Then taken another step. Senior U.S. officials, again, according to the Wall Street Journal, are saying that a failure to find a compromise with Iran on this issue, Jordan, quickly could cause a breakdown in the negotiations that have gone on for almost over a year now, have resolved nearly every other disagreement. And then, as you said, it's good for three years.

It's good for three years. And then what? Iran has had a functioning nuclear program where they are enriching uranium at levels that can be utilized for non-civilian use. And we are empowering another part of what is a country that not only despises Israel, but despises the United States of America. We're already seeing – look at the impact of what changes when a country has nuclear weapons.

I mean, we see that dead right now. We can't just go in and save Ukraine. Because we have to calculate, unfortunately, whether Russia's on-the-ground military might not be so impressive, what they do have is a nuclear arsenal about equal to ours.

And those can be fired at us. And so when a country goes nuclear, you start another nuclear arms race. You think Saudi Arabia is not going to have nuclear weapons?

Of course they will. The entire region. And then Israel was already not part of any of these treaties.

They won't confirm it, but most everybody expects they already have them. But I mean, imagine the nuclear arms race in the Middle East in a place where you don't want a nuclear arms race if it can be avoided. Those countries would rather not have it either. No, I think the truth is that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region, the Qatar, UAE, would not want to have nuclear capacities in the region. But once Iran walks over that step, which we're giving them a green light to do with this agreement if they go into this – I think this is totally absurd – then you are going to see a nuclear arms race in the region that we have never seen before.

Yeah, and it's not Pakistan and it's not India where you've got this kind of stalemate and it's focused on each other. Iran wants to export. That's what they do. They export terrorism around the world. And they use proxies. And they use proxies. And that's what the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps runs. Even the Russians are using their proxies inside Ukraine because they're highly trained.

Like you said, they're the top of the top of these different countries' bad actors' forces. And so you can almost use them like mercenaries around the world. And so while Russia's had tough times with their enlisted troops who are – a lot of them are part of, you know, that are part of, again, a forced service. They didn't voluntarily join. But they recruited – and they have to serve a number of years. So they're going and they're recruiting troops out of Syria and places like that who have been trained already by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps. And they're mercenaries. And then moved into Ukraine.

And guerrilla or urban warfare. So look at the – we've talked about this. We did a book that talked – it was called Unholy Alliance. It was Russia, Syria, Iran. Now the United States is willing to go back into an agreement with Iran as well as the rest of – and the Europe, of course, followed because Europe still wants to do business with Iran because Europe doesn't do these things on principle. That's why it took so long to get them on board on the sanctions against Russia. But Russia's dictating terms of this agreement. So the Russians themselves are dictating terms on the agreement.

I think about – let that sink in for a moment. That Russia is dictating what – carve out exceptions on sanctions will be in this agreement. And you know what? There's a good chance the Biden administration – this is what is so frustrating. Folks, what if the Biden administration says, yes, we will let Russia carve out these exceptions. What message does that send to the rest of the world and to our allies? It means we capitulate to just get a deal, to change the topic. Yeah, I think this is – again, if they can claim that they get a deal, they think that that issue is over with. The problem is that the world is spiraling out of control right now. So you've got this – what's happening in Europe, war – real war in Europe, NATO issues, disagreements.

You've got the President over there trying to deal with that. At the same time, why would we trust these same actors to put together a deal we all oppose so much and trust them to come back with this – it's the same deal, except for Iran is getting a double dip and the Russians are getting a carve out if this deal moves forward. And they announced it this week.

They tried to announce it a week and a half ago. The Russians were demanding more. So what the Russians want is, yeah, you put all these sanctions on us, but those won't apply to us when we deal with Iran. I mean, why would anybody in their right mind working on behalf of the U.S. interests think this is a good idea? I think that removing the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps from the foreign terrorist organization list makes any sense whatsoever when they are actively trying to kill American former U.S. officials. And the Biden administration will acknowledge that and agree to that, but at the same time they're going to take them off the list and let them go finance their terrorism that they export around the world. It is, again, this is what happens when you become dependent on bad actors to fuel your cars, power your houses. This is what happens. And we're dependent on Russia and Iran and maybe Venezuela again because we're unwilling to use the resources we have in our own country.

We'll be right back on Sekulow. 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, Planned 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. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad, whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our matching challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family.

Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. All right, welcome back to Sekulow. And folks, so the hearing is underway.

It's just started back again. Senators, they're starting their first round of questioning. They get two rounds of questioning. When it comes to this, if you're wondering like when does voting occur, I mean, listen, I think they're trying to get this done before Easter, a week before Easter. So April 4th is their scheduled vote.

This is a pretty quick move. Right now, what is unclear, I think, about this nominee is why the left lined up so, they've lined up for her in lockstep and are defending her. Instead of questioning also her, they're not pushing her. What you're not seeing from Democrats is them trying to push her to kind of go on the record on the left. So what is interesting is that there's not a lot of basis.

I mean, we've had a lot of our friends who are senators on that committee ask, why do you think the all these groups support you? What's your basic judicial philosophy? I mean, this was again, Senator Grassley just said, what is a fundamental right in your interpretation as you've been a judge and what would it be if you were a justice?

Take a listen by 40. Could you tell me how you might go about deciding what a fundamental right is under the constitution? Well Senator, I don't know that I can tell you that in the abstract and the sort of way that you may have posed the question, there is precedent in the Supreme Court related to various rights that the court has recognized as fundamental. The court has some precedents about the standards for determining whether or not something is fundamental. The court has said that the 14th amendment substantive due process clause does support some fundamental rights, but only things that are implicit in the ordered concept of liberty or deeply rooted in the history and traditions of this country. They're the kinds of rights that relate to personal individual autonomy. And they've recognized a few things in that category. And that's the tradition of the court for determining whether something is fundamental in that way.

So Jennifer on YouTube asked, she just heard this bite, it feels as if she's not fully answering important questions, which makes me nervous. So the question was, how do you define a fundamental right? Here's the bill of rights. Well, that's where you would start.

Start there. So the fundamental rights as outlined in the bill of rights include the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom to petition your government for redress of a grievance, the right to a speedy trial, right against self-incrimination. These are fundamental rights. Second amendment. Second amendment. She acknowledged that the court has recognized the second amendment as an individual right to bear arms, but those are fundamental rights.

Why? Because they are the faces upon which the bill of rights, the amendments to the constitution have been placed. So it was, you know, it was a very roundabout now look by nature, these justice nominees do this kind of go around the block kind of response. But the fact of the matter is that's not a hard question. I would say this, if that was asked of Brett Kavanaugh, Gorsuch or Amy Barrett, they would have mocked them, said that that wasn't, they would have hammered them back down and said that's not an answer. That's a word salad. I mean, there were three or four different words used there that I don't think a law professor would accept as an answer to a question like that in a law school exam. It sounded kind of like, this is how I'm interpreting it so far.

Okay. So you can say that and say, oh, she doesn't know what she's talking about. I think she exactly knows what she's doing.

This is how they've prepped her in what they call murder boards, moot boards. Just to run around the Republican senators, don't answer any of their questions. Don't be bound by anything. I mean, Lindsey Graham went back and forth to what, you know, what exactly is your judicial philosophy by 35? What is your judicial philosophy? So I have a methodology that I use in my cases in order to ensure that I am ruling impartially and that your judicial philosophy is to rule impartially. No, my judicial philosophy is to rule impartially and to rule consistent with the limitations on my authority as a judge.

And so my methodology actually helps me to do that in every case. So you wouldn't say that you're an activist judge? I would not say that. Okay. Well, of course they're not going to say they're an activist. I mean, okay. Are you an activist judge? No. Yes, I'm an activist judge.

Someone's going to say. No, but here's the issue with on the judicial philosophies. What judicial philosophy really is, is what is the basis upon which, and she says she talks about impartiality.

Well, that's presumed. You take an oath of office, you have to be impartial, equal justice under the law, equal protection clause. It's required to be impartial. But the judicial philosophy is what is the basis upon which you arrive at a decision? That's what judicial philosophy means. For Justice Breyer, for instance, he believed and wrote a book about it called The Living Constitution, that the constitution is basically a living document.

It changes with the times. Famously Justice Scalia in the dialogue that they had took the opposite view. He was a constructionist. We call today a constitutionalist.

He believed that you interpret the constitution based on the words of the constitution and what it meant at the time that the constitution was adopted and the Bill of Rights were adopted. But she gave a little bit of a hat tip to that, a little bit. Seems a lot more like a trial court judge than an appellate, which she was not on the appellate court very long. Because I think he came up even with Dick Durbin. So he's the chairs, he's the Democrat.

He asked the same question, by the way, because I think that there is this question surrounding her, which is they're getting all this pressure from the Biden White House. They're getting all these pressure from the liberal groups, even the Democrats saying, this is great, this is great. But remember, they've all been burned before. The Democrats, not as much. Usually it's Republicans who get burned by their nominees.

But they're always wondering, am I about to put someone on the court that I don't know anything about? Justice Byron Wright, appointed by Kennedy, became one of the most conservative justices on the court. So this is Dick Durbin and she goes back to methodology of impartiality. That sounds like the trial court judge in a criminal case that you just aren't supposed to go in biased against the defendant or in favor of the prosecution. You're supposed to be an impartial judge. That's different than being an appellate, what comes up on the appellate level. You still want to be impartial. But the idea that it's all methodology kind of goes out the window when you're talking about more philosophical understandings of what's in the Constitution and what is there.

Take a listen to 22. Would you like to comment at the outset of those who are looking for a label, what your position is on judicial philosophy? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Over the course of my almost decade on the bench, I have developed a methodology that I use in order to ensure that I am ruling impartially and that I am adhering to the limits on my judicial authority. I am acutely aware that as a judge in our system, I have limited power and I am trying in every case to stay in my lane.

This is what they've come up with. Methodology versus judicial philosophy. And I think, again, to me that just, when I'm reading through it, it just sounds a lot more like a trial court judge going through the motions. She started going through like all the stuff you got to go through to be right, like your speedy trial, like you talked about and these kinds of things. But that is very different when you get to these more esoteric level decisions at the Supreme Court level on fundamental rights like she was asked about and what's there in the Constitution and what you read into the Constitution and what isn't this living document where you can make up rights as you go or is that Congress role and the state's role. I mean, I think there's a lot of issues yet that haven't been touched that are hot buttoned right now. The Dobbs case did not come up in the questioning about Roe.

We haven't gotten to voting rights, the voting right and also the voter integrity cases that are going on right now as we speak. There's a lot to talk about there. Rick Rinnell is going to be joining us in the second half of the broadcast to talk Hunter Biden's laptop, which is the New York Times now.

Surprise, surprise, it's real. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org.

For the right to live in freedom. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

Welcome back to Sekulow. And folks, again, there's a lot going on right now. So you watch the news now.

Of course, it's been Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine. Now there's a judicial confirmation of the Supreme Court. So they're getting kind of end-to-end coverage during the day. And what is not as interesting about, you know, if you're used to seeing Republican nominees go forward and it's like the war on them and a personal attack and all these massive statements, that I will say even with Judge Barrett that they kind of did that the first time with her, so the second time they had to be a lot more careful. They had to be really careful, because that religious dogma, yeah. So they were just moaning and groaning about the timing of it.

They didn't like the timing of it. But now we're in a situation where, of course, you have a very divided Senate. You have senators basically asking questions like, what is your just guiding principles on judicial philosophy?

I don't know how long she'll be able to dance around that by using this methodology, which is obviously the term they came up with. Impartiality. And impartiality, because that is just assumed. I mean, you're not qualified to be a local judge if you're not going to be impartial. So every judge has to start there. But that's not what the Supreme Court is about. I mean, ultimately, yes, you're impartial, but you're trying to decide these big issues of how the Constitution or how the federal law and code and patent and all these different issues. And impartiality doesn't go that far. That's just the beginning point of any case. Here's the political question that Charlene's asking. She said, is the confirmation at this point a foregone conclusion?

So my sense is that it probably is, unless some earth-shaking thing happens. And the Republicans don't do the scorched earth policy that the Democrats do. It's a re-appointment that is replacing a justice.

So let me tell you the significance of that. So this isn't a situation where you have Justice Ginsburg stepping down and then Amy Barrett confirmed, and it's an ideological shift or a liberal to conservative, excuse me, shift on the Supreme Court. This is a justice that is replacing here, Stephen Breyer, who is more liberal justice, being replaced by another liberal justice. So there's not an ideological change on the court. It doesn't affect the major cases. You never know how the Supreme Court justice is going to vote on anything, to be quite honest.

I mean, you just don't know how they're going to vote. But I don't see a situation, at least not right now, Jordan, where she doesn't get confirmed. And I mean, confirmed quickly like Amy Barrett did.

I mean, this is moving very quick. No, I mean, just to be honest to everybody, when you're talking about specifically this confirmation, and we're fair, we want to be truth tellers here, that as of right now, it stands. Nothing has happened so far in the beginning of this hearing and the questioning that is going to derail this nomination.

Now, that doesn't mean things can't come up later. I don't think it's going to be personal issues. I don't think it's going to be that line of attack.

Republicans don't go there. I think it's going to be more judicial philosophy. There might be senators who begin to be frustrated by that response.

But again, I don't see a derailing anything. I think she's probably on the Supreme Court as soon as Justice Breyer formally retires, which is at the end of this term. Now what's interesting is you're going to have a big case come down. I mean, the Dobbs case is coming down by June.

We're at the end of March almost. So there's real movement on this court. Her answer on Roe versus Wade was programmed. Casey, Roe, she talked about the fact that that's the law right now. They didn't get into the other.

I don't expect that that's... Do you think that'll become a major play in this one or because the Dobbs it probably doesn't? I would imagine that they would follow up at some point, but that didn't happen with Senator Feinstein. She did not follow it up with the court. Now, again, they will never answer hypotheticals about how the court... But they're not even trying to push those kind of questions. I mean, right now, you're going to get into the sentencing issue.

We know that's coming from Senator Hawley and Senator Cruz. I think about the... She was on a sentencing commission where she supported lighter sentences for people who possessed child pornography. And so she was on that side. She's going to have to answer those questions. She's not going to be able to skirt around those. There's also a question about her notes and comments because she was part of a federal commission.

They haven't released those notes. No. And the question will be what's in them. But again, I don't expect that to rise to the level, Jordan, of her not being confirmed. No, because the Democrats have the votes right there. And that's what, at the end of the day, what advice and consent means.

If you've got the 50 plus one, that's it. Yeah. Again, we'll be right back. Rick Grenell joining us. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our matching challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at 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, Planned 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 joined now by our Senior Advisor for National Security and Foreign Policy, Rick Renaud. The President of the United States yesterday announced to the business leaders in our community and to the world that America needs to be prepared for massive cyber attacks from Russia.

So I'm going to go right to Rick on this. I mean, Rick, when Americans hear that, we realize now that that means every aspect of our life from how we speak to how we communicate to how we access our bank accounts, everything we do is somehow connected to something that could be hacked. But this kind of announcement from our, I guess our intelligence community is telling the President this is coming or they're already trying to do it.

What kind of scale would this be if you're already getting out in front and saying this is going to happen? Well obviously we know that hacking is a problem. The intelligence community watches it closely. But here's the shocking news, Jordan, is that the responsibility is on the private companies. Your bank, for instance, where you get your energy, electricity, all of those private sector companies or local companies in some cases, they are responsible.

It's not the federal government. The federal government can somehow benchmark or give warnings. But the hacking goes into the accounts of largely, if not exclusively, private companies. So we have to assume that the private companies are spending the money to make sure that they can block or guard against these hackers. And this is a very difficult job because I think a lot of medium sized companies that don't have the money, they just assume that the services that they purchase from some other entity are good enough. And in many cases they're not good enough. I think we've also got too many people in the public that think it's the government's responsibility to secure all of your systems.

And it's not. When you were the DNI, I mean, obviously this issue of cyber attacks was in your domain. People are saying, and I think there's truth to this, that a cyber attack is a form of warfare in a sense, especially if it was aimed at governmental services, but even private services because it could be an act of terrorism. Could you imagine if you go to your ATM and your account shows zero where you can't pull it out?

I can list a thousand parade of horribles. But you were the director of national intelligence. How big is this threat? Look, remember when we go back to terrorism back in the early 2000s, what we quickly learned is that there are individuals that are committing acts of terror. It's not always specifically a government.

There are non-government actors that rise up and do these types of activities. The same is true when it comes to cyber attacks. You know, there's going to be a point where governments like China or Russia or others are going to pretend or say, well, we didn't do anything officially.

But what we found the same way with terrorism is that when you allow safe haven within your country, when you allow people to formulate and begin to make way to to collect the programs that are needed to launch attacks, when you look the other way, you are responsible. And I think that our laws are going to have to catch up. The public is going to have to catch up to to recognize that it may not be a government entity coming after our cyber systems, but it absolutely could be individual actors within these governments. And we are going to have to batten down the hatches, so to speak, and make sure that all of our systems are protected.

And that starts with the private sector. We've also, Rick, learned this week, two years later, that the New York Times, they've now confirmed for the world that Hunter Biden's laptop and the emails on it and all the photos on it that, oh yeah, it really is his laptop and it was verified as his laptop. He's under criminal investigation right now. But I want to play one of your colleagues, Pam Bondi, a former attorney general of Florida during the impeachment. So two years ago, remember the impeachment was all about Ukraine. Zelensky phone calls, Burisma, Hunter Biden's involvement there.

Take a listen to Pam Bondi by 42. When the House managers gave you their presentation, when they submitted their brief, they repeatedly referenced Hunter Biden and Burisma. They spoke to you for over 21 hours and they referenced Biden or Burisma over 400 times. And when they gave these presentations, they said there was nothing, nothing to see. It was a sham.

This is fiction. So I remember that because I was one of the lead lawyers in that impeachment hearing, as most of you know, and the Ukraine issue was big. And the Democrats did raise this issue, Rick, and they were telling us that this was all smoke and mirrors.

There was nothing to it. And of course, the media went along with them. Now we find out, of course, shockingly, and this is all about Ukraine. This is what's so fascinating about where we are today. And the duplicity here is pretty unbelievable.

Look, I've been shouting about this from the moment that it happened. And let's remember, Natasha Bertrand, we need to remember that name. She was working for Politico. She now works for CNN. She launched this story with 50 former US intelligence officials saying that you should not look at Hunter Biden's laptop because it's Russian disinformation. Now, remember, that was exactly what the Chinese wanted you to say, because that laptop is filled with all sorts of evidence of the Biden family intermingled with Chinese business people. 10 percent for the big guy is the exact quote that Hunter Biden said, that when he is doing these deals, he needs to leave 10 percent for the big guy.

Guess who the big guy is? We all know who the big guy is, but official Washington is not interested in finding out did the big guy actually get the 10 percent that Hunter Biden said? I think that this is a huge crisis because it shows that Joe Biden is compromised.

His family is compromised. Three weeks before the election, you got 50, 50 former US intelligence officials saying don't look at that three weeks before the election. We don't want you looking at Hunter Biden's laptop because that's a little Russian disinformation. There wasn't a single piece of evidence to suggest it was Russian disinformation.

They made it up. And every single person that signed that letter needs to be hauled in front of the Senate, hopefully when Republicans take over and answer the question, why did you manipulate intelligence three weeks before an election for partisan gain? Yeah, I mean, Rick, I remember that there's and that was acknowledged by President Biden when he was vice President.

He's walking, he's leaving Ukraine. He says, if you better, this prosecutor who was going after Burisma and he said that that guy better be fired before I get on the plane or else you're not going to get your funding. I mean, this was during the beginning of the Zelensky government and as they were coming in this new this new government and he's trying to say it was about corruption. But what we find out is what you said is so much, so many foreign business deals and express emails by Hunter Biden saying, I want to get around the Foreign Agent Registration Act. It's shocking and we cannot have a country when our intelligence agencies and the Department of Justice are partisan. I think this is a real crisis, not just because the media is not covering it.

We can accept the fact that the media aren't going to cover these stories anymore. They're activists. They're they're protecting the ruling party. But this is a crisis for the American people, because when our intelligence agencies and the Department of Justice are partisan actors who seek to do partisan activities during campaigns and Presidential elections, this is a crisis. This is how this is how governments and great institutions collapse.

You know, real quick here, you know, of course, I live that impeachment as one of the lawyers. And it is to me, it's the irony that it's about Ukraine and Ukraine and Russia. Now we're at it and we're on the precipice of some, you know, really difficult.

It's already been horrible for the people of Ukraine. But I take it a step further here and saying that the media denial here at the outset of this was so baked in that they need to be held accountable. I'm not saying lawsuits. I'm just saying point, which we're doing, point out the duplicity of what goes on. It's like the way that I'm glad that our people don't treat the Supreme Court nominees like the Democrats treated ours, frankly, because I think they they make a mockery of the whole process. But it's the same thing here with the media on this. Ukraine was the story. That was the basis of an impeachment proceeding.

And yet they then ignore the bigger one of the bigger evidentiary points that were actually available, which they said was Russian disinformation. We've got less than a minute. So I'm frustrated, Jay, because I hear you say, you know, we've got to take the high road and we've got to be nice and everything. But I can do that in my personal life. And personally, I'm really, you know, a nice person and I'm never going to to do that. But when you're in politics, I'm not sure that our team should be backing down from a fight or not utilizing every tool imaginable.

You know, we don't ask the Yankees to play nice when they're in the World Series. We recognize that they go for it. And I'm ready to fight and I'm ready to fight on this Supreme Court justice.

I think that she's a disaster. I'm not going to back down. No, and I think this is this is the issue. This is the focus, too, is, as Rick said, which is important.

Republicans take back the Senate. You can open up that fight to a whole new level. Yes. Because now this information is out. There's no more. The denialism is done. So let's get to the bottom up.

There's a criminal investigation of the President's son and the media doesn't talk about it. Rick, as always, we appreciate it. We'll be right back on secular. 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, Planned 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. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad, whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith. I'm covering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. The ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our matching challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org.

Welcome back to Second Life. I think there is a record, right? There's so much more to Hunter Biden. And a lot of it is just being blocked by the right people to be investigating because when the Democrats are in control of these committees, they're not going to open up the investigations.

They're not going to haul the people before. His business partner is in jail. He just got sentenced last month. The New York Times has finally admitted this is not Russian disinformation. It's not just the photos that look bad of Hunter Biden or the drug use.

That's one thing. His family already acknowledged that. Are they on the payroll of the Chinese government's own companies?

Like Rick brought up, it's not just about Burisma either. And Ukrainian, what oligarchs control the Biden family? There is an active criminal investigation, Hunter. So there's a role for Congress to play, the House and the Senate.

And I think this is, again, when you talk about elections having consequences, you can go right to a Supreme Court nominee, but you can also look at an issue like this. We're two years in and Rick said, I think what is so frustrating to him is he comes from the Intel world and he had 50 of those Intel chiefs say, no, no, this is fake. And everyone was saying, wait, these are real pictures of Hunter Biden.

So what is fake here? They actually were saying that the information inside the computer were fake and it was Russian disinformation, which ended up, of course, not being the case. There will be a lot more on that. It was a big part of the impeachment. As Pam Bondi was right, they raised 400 times in their briefs, in their oral arguments. We handled it in 20 minutes, by the way.

Okay. Let's go now to the Supreme Court. I guess they can't blame, they won't blame whatever happens here in Russia. But I wouldn't actually put them aside that they would say that any information bad about Judge Jackson is Russian disinformation.

That's their new line. Anytime you oppose Democrats now or any kind of Democrat action, you're a Russian agent. And now that's worse because Russia is now engaged in a war of choice that looks horrendous and we're all watching in real time.

It is horrendous. But remember, before this whole lead up to this, who was pushing who into war? Something that historians will look at because when you start with the impeachment, you start picking sides between Ukraine and Russia. Very dangerous. Pitting them against each other, which ultimately has ended up in this humanitarian tragedy. Yeah, with 25% of the population at least displaced.

Never to return later. Yeah. Which is one of the things Russia wants, they're getting. All right, so let's go back to the Supreme Court fundamental rights. There was a question on how do you define fundamental rights? And the Supreme Court nominee says, Judge Jackson says, I define them as impartiality. Now, Harry, impartiality is a requirement of a judge.

You have to be impartial. But that is not the definition of a fundamental right. I think that's true.

And I think Judge Jackson knows that. But she did not want to get tripped up by going deep into providing a complete answer. But she could simply start, I think, with the Bill of Rights. I think as you pointed out earlier, the Bill of Rights at least gives us an outline of what constitutes a fundamental right within the meaning of the Constitution.

So it provides at least some parameters. And so if you look at Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court, whether they got it right or wrong, I think they got it wrong, in those cases they attempted to define fundamental rights. But I think at the end of the day, she did not want to engage deeply in that particular conversation.

I would also say that she's probably not as quick on her feet with respect to recalling cases like Amy Coney Barrett was, who seemed to have virtually a perfect memory with respect to those cases. Let's go back to the fundamental right thing, because I think it's a big deal. That's what I said earlier. Fundamental rights, really easy.

Right to freedom of speech, freedom of press, free exercise of religion, right to petition government for redress of agreements, the right to bear arms, Second Amendment, the right to, again, self-incrimination, right to a speedy trial. I mean, you can go through it. So my question is, Harry, why not answer it that way? So what is the reason you don't answer the question that way? You know they prepped the question. And that whole impartiality is obviously the theme they've come up with. I think they came up with an exquisite dodge for her because they did not want her to fully engage in that particular debate.

If you think about that debate from a policy perspective, that debate, if you're not incredibly conversant, it is filled with landmines and they could indeed blow up. And so I think at the end of the day, they simply settled for a kind of bland answer because I think at this point, the assessment, and I think this assessment is correct, the assessment is this particular nomination is hers for the taking. More likely than not, she will indeed be confirmed.

So let's not raise any hackles. The last point I would make is that if she answered some of those questions on fundamental rights in depth, those words might come back to haunt her when she rules on significant constitutional cases. You know, she's clearly a justice who is in the mold of Justice Breyer, which is this kind of living, breathing constitution, right? But Jordan, you raised a good point, which is that's fine, but there were a lot more judges on that list that were to the left of her, at least from judicial writings. There was obviously some back and forth because she's got, and that's what is a little bit stumping to some of the Republican senators.

I think you might start seeing the frustration, that will be interesting if you start getting frustration from some of the Democrat senators, because I think this methodology answer is a bogus answer. Every judge has to be impartial. That's not a judicial philosophy. That's a basis for being a judge. I mean, if you're not impartial, you should be impeached as a judge. You should be thrown out, thrown out whatever level of judge you are from the lowest level to the Supreme Court. So that's not a judicial philosophy.

That's just basics. So that's not, I don't think going to work in round two of questioning because round one, they've all gotten her answer. Round two, they're going to make her drill down. I think that at least, like you said, we don't have to go into personal attacks, but you can say why you don't support this nominee, why you don't think this person is the right person to be on the court. All I have to look at is the group supporting her. And I don't know where they're getting it from exactly, because it's not from necessarily her time in the trial court.

It's not in a lot of public writings. But for some reason, they have lined up. And that's what I'm trying to figure out, Harry. And I think it might have been they were so opposed to that nominee at South Carolina that anybody but her. Yeah, could be.

What's your sense? Well, my sense is that she could be a bit like the individual who nominated her. That is Joe Biden.

So remember when he ran for President, he ran for President as a bit of a centrist Democrat. And I think it's possible. This is pure speculation on my part that she may have convinced that the nominating committee, for lack of a better term, that she would she's prepared to move a little toward the left. And if that is the case, this is speculation. She's the perfect candidate because she's a candidate that is very difficult to attack.

Yeah. Well, look, I mean, she's been a judge for eight years, eight years on the D.C. trial courts, the D.C. District Court, and she's been on the Court of Appeals. So it's not like she's not qualified. Presidents get to nominate. It's advice and consent of the Senate. So like I said, I mean, I understand opposition and disagreements, but the fact is at the end of the day, I think unless something earth shaking happens, she's confirmed it doesn't move the needle on the court as far as the ideological makeup.

And that's another reason why these are not that intense. But they certainly weren't going to ask her. And she takes her faith seriously, she said, if the dogma lived deeply within her, remember what they did to Amy Barrett on round one. She's very private about her faith to the point where I mean, you don't know like what denomination she goes to. I mean, that's fine if you want to be private about your faith, by the way. But that would not be acceptable for a Republican nominee. The Catholic nominees get called out for the pro-life position of the church.

Her faith, which she said is deeply important to her, they just accept it and move on. We'll talk to you more tomorrow on Secular. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20. A $50 gift becomes $100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org.