Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 All right. Well, I am gonna, uh, start to ping some others into the room. Um, but, uh, tell us, Richard, how did, um, you come to this topic and, uh, maybe give a little bit of background for, for those of us who haven't read the, uh, ruling itself.
Speaker 1 00:00:22 Great. Yes. Uh, now, typically this, uh, I would say is probably too narrow a, a topic, you know, a particular court decision, but as we've seen in the last couple days, we've just got another one, a, a leak from the Supreme court about possibly overturning Roe V. Wade. So I, I may tackle that one later. I, I love doing legal analysis, constitutional analysis. Uh, the reason I picked this one is I believe it's, it's significant, uh, in terms of pushing back on the government's, uh, invasions of privacy and bodily autonomy associated with the pandemic and the lockdowns distancing, masking, all that kind of thing. And this decision did immediately, uh, end mask mandates in public transport. So people may remember the week it came out. This is from, uh, judge Kimble, mazel who's only 37 years old, but really brilliant down in Florida. Uh, we saw videos of people on air airplanes taking their masks off.
Speaker 1 00:01:27 So she made that possible. She, uh, issued a ruling and I've read every of the 59 pages, so you don't have to. And so I am gonna try to put it in a more, uh, philosophical, legal context to see whether this is good news for us or not by us. I mean, advocates of the rule of law and Liberty. So one way I would put this before I even dive into it is suppose this is just a procedural versus a substantive decision in law. Procedural versus substantive is, is the following procedure is just the process by which in this case, the mask mandates or these other measures were implemented, uh, and, um, due process of law, if you're a law student out there or a lawyer, you know, refers exactly to that, there has to be, um, a procedure of either passing laws, uh, applying laws in the case of regulatory law, which I don't actually think is legitimate, the whole regulatory state.
Speaker 1 00:02:31 If we could bring that up in the Q and a, that might be interesting, but that's, what's at, at, at issue here, she was ruling on whether the CDC, the centers for disease control could issue a mask mandate, and they did issue a mask mandate in February, 2021, right after Biden was inaugurated and it was challenged and she threw it off. She said, it's illegitimate. Um, but now on substantive grounds, whenever you say substantive grounds, that's when a lawyer law law, uh, judge says you're violating liberties, you're violating basic human rights. You see the idea. So it's not the manner or procedure in which you're doing it. Uh, but what actual, um, rights are being violated. Now, if it were, if this ruling touched on or, or was largely based on the second, that would be very relevant. Now this is a lower district judge, uh, in Florida, in mid Florida.
Speaker 1 00:03:26 And so some argue that the scope of the ruling isn't that great. However, interestingly, the Biden justice department is considering appealing it. Now, if it's appealed and upheld, the ruling would actually have wider consequence and more permanent consequence, cuz the higher up you go in the chain. I mean, even if it went to the Supreme court, uh, it could hold out the possibility of us never having to go through this again. So that's the other reason I wanted to analyze this. I wanted to give some kind of forecast of whether this is a leading indicator, cuz we're gonna have public health issues again, we're gonna have diseases again. And I think people are probably interested in, are we gonna do this all over again? And now that at least we have some legal precedent we might ask, well maybe not, maybe someone'll be citing Elle's decision, uh, years from now to prevent it again.
Speaker 1 00:04:17 Now, interestingly enough, at the very highest level Supreme court, three times the Supreme court was asked to nullify mass mandates and it didn't now I haven't researched those as much. So I don't know whether they just refused to hear the case, which is not the same thing as I'm pretty sure that was what it was. They just wouldn't hear the cases for various reasons. So that, that doesn't mean it's on record, validating them. So that's as, as a little bit of background, just laying out like standards of what we might expect, uh, from a decision like this and what, whether we could make, uh, something of it or is it just another, uh, narrowly construed case that won't have any broader implications? I think this one will have broader implications. I read it hoping it would have more substan substantive points in it. And it did.
Speaker 1 00:05:09 It had both actually it had procedural and substantive, which is very hard to do at the lower level higher. You go up in the court system, it's easier to talk about things like human rights and abortion and things like that. It's harder to do it at the lower level where there are usually procedural challenges. Now, another thing I look for in this was, was the court citing science? Was it citing facts? Was it citing a certain methodology? And there I was very pleasantly surprised this, uh, judge, because she was a Trump appointee has been dismissed as a hack has been dismissed as a, uh, uh, an inexperienced, uh, you know, right leaning she's, she's also Christian. So they're going after her for that. She also clerked for Clarence Thomas, but this, uh, ruling is, is just Theto with, uh, re with citations and chapter verse on precedent and prior law.
Speaker 1 00:06:06 I mean, it's really a head banger in some cases, it's, it is not a freewheeling, you know, subjective opinion. It is thoroughly anchored and, and cited in precedent, uh, all over the place. Uh, so it's a really, uh, amazingly done, uh, brief, uh, ruling. Um, okay. Now let me just say what the plaintiffs are. I was very, uh, and we should be very interested to learn. You always have to have a plaintiff bring these cases. You can't, the court's not gonna just sit around. Of course. And then it's interesting that the main plaintiff here was a group called health freedom defense fund. Now I looked it up health freedom defense fund was founded by Leslie Manuian. Now Leslie Manuian used to work on wall street. She has an MDA. Uh, she has a stellar background. She did a documentary in 2011 called the greater good, which was critical of whether vaccines could be mandated.
Speaker 1 00:07:08 Now let me just quote you because this is really the group that went to this court and said, get rid of the mass mandate quote from their website at health freedom defense fund. We stand for freedom. We stand for choice and we stand for the most basic of human rights, bodily autonomy, HDF HD, H F D F asserts that no person business institution, organization, or government has the right to force a person to put something into their body against their will. If any of those entities have, or claim that power, we are not free. And we do not live in a decent moral or just society as has been agreed by all free nations for decades. The practice of ethical medicine requires prior voluntary and informed consent period.
Speaker 1 00:07:55 Our leadership staff and members all dream of inhabiting a world where the individual and his or her rights are not only acknowledged but respected above all else. And one of our guiding principles is that two wrongs do not make a right and any citizen that will SAC sacrifice one of its members in service to the greater good is not a society you want to embrace or support. One of all the basic rights that human beings possessed, none is more sacred than that of bodily autonomy. Defense of this most fundamental of human rights is the primary mission of, of the group. Okay. So that's just as an next effort you wanna lead there. That group wrote the brief, um, and, uh, brought in other members, uh, who were directly affected, uh, and harmed by the mass mandates. Okay. So here now let me go through the four main counts of the plaintiffs, which the judge mazel took up.
Speaker 1 00:08:51 Count one, the mandate exceeded CDC authority. Now let me remind you all notice, notice this is not a challenge to this case is not a challenge to the whole array of COVID lockdown procedures. Cuz we remember it, they included stay home. They included social distancing. They included distinguishing essential for non-essential jobs. Remember all that and, and mass mandates, uh, as well and, and other and mandated vaccines and things like that. This one literally refers only to mask mandates in public transportation. In other words, at the airports in bus terminals on buses and things like that, they tried to extend it to Uber and elsewhere and surrounding hubs, you know, when you walk into the airport. So, but that's not the judge's fault. The fact that the case brought before her was trying to get rid of those mask mandates and not the whole, uh, uh, array of lockdown things is, is, is not as important.
Speaker 1 00:09:53 Um, the mass mandate is the, the mass mandate in public areas was the main thing. Town two was that the, in that the CDC improperly invoke what they call the good cause exception. Now this was an exception that said we can Institute this right away without explaining, without showing any data without adding any 30 minute, 30 day, uh, public comment period, which is required, absolutely required an agency law. Um, and so basically that they were acting, uh, in a way that dismissed this very important procedure. Now that sounds procedural, right? That is not as substantive now, but here's another one here's count three there's only four counts. Count three is the mass mandates violate the APA, which is the administrative procedures act. Again, it sounds procedural, but here's the key because it's arbitrary capricious. Now this to arbitrary capricious. Now, to me, this is the most interesting and important part of the decision.
Speaker 1 00:10:50 The idea that the judge basically said the government has been arbitrary and capricious, and she goes on to say in being arbitrary and capric, it's violating people's liberties, it's violating people's freedom of behavior and movement. It's not consistent with our system of government. So this is the part where she pivots to the substantive problems, uh, with all this. Um, so on there's a fourth count, even if, uh, the CDC did not exceed its authority, um, that Congress impro delegated its legislative power to the CDC. Um, in this case, the judge was not as willing to go there. Uh, judges are very unlikely to say, Hey, Congress, you know, gave undue power to this agency. In this case, they're more likely to say this agency acted recklessly or this agency acted negligently, or this agency violated these procedures. That's exactly what she ruled. And the minute she ruled the mass mandates went away, uh, in public, uh, uh, areas, uh, public transportation areas.
Speaker 1 00:11:52 So it's very important in that regard. Now just a couple more things then I'll, then I'll leave it to, um, to your own thoughts, um, on the very, I I'd rather go to the substan at first because I think it's the most powerful on count three that the, uh, mass mandate was arbitrary and capricious. Um, the plaintiff said the, the mandate was quote, substantively unreasonable subsequently so and failed to explain the CDCs reasoning. Okay. She goes on to say, the court agrees with this now, then she says, quote, the court, uh, some of this is her talking, but some of it is just citing prior cases. The court may not substitute its judgment for that of any regulatory agency. The court is limited to ensuring that an agency's exercise of discretion was both reasonable and reasonably explained, meaning later, meaning quote, when the agency demonstrates acting reasonably is when the agency demonstrates that it engaged in reasoned decision making quote, and to do so, quote, the agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made then quoted later, the articulated rationale must also be adequate to explain all major aspects of a decision or a ruling.
Speaker 1 00:13:19 The mass mandate fails this reasoned explanation standard. And that's what she calls it. The reason explanation standard and, and finishes the, the, the ruling with our system does not permit, uh, regulatory agencies to act unlawfully, even in pursuit of desirable ends. Now that phrasing is very that's phrasing is very interesting, cuz the desirable ends part refers to substance. And here she's saying of course public health is a value and, and it's not, uh, crazy. She's implying that there be an agency called the CDC, which has the desirable and or goal of preserving public health. But then notice in the prior part of the sentence she says, but regular a regulatory agencies cannot act unlawfully in pursuit of that. And here, what she's basically saying is you did act unlawfully in pursuit of this. So, um, there are other things I could uh, say about this, but it's, it's a con I would put it as it's a, it's a ruling it's a very well reasoned, well argued, well substantiated ruling, which largely focuses on procedural, but also has this nice section saying, you know, it's not just about procedural niceties here.
Speaker 1 00:14:33 The purpose of having rational, predictable, uh, legitimate procedures is precisely to protect the substance of the freedoms. And she, she has many passages in here talking about how liberties and, and in some cases in digs were VI are violated by this mandate. And there's many, many passages which totally tears apart, how unscientific the CDC was in, in and, and inconsistent and, um, you know, hypocritical in saying, you know, the masks had to be universal and yet there were these exceptions and you could drink coffee and others didn't have to. And, and, and she really exposes the complete arbitrariness and non-scientific basis of the mass mandates. Um, there's also a, a clever section where the CDC and the court, uh, sent something like we're invoking the 1944 act, which established the public health, uh, administration. And the 1944 act had in there justifications for restricting people's movements and doing things like sanitizing or fumigating or exterminating pests, or even destroying animals and things like that.
Speaker 1 00:15:47 And believe it or not, the CDC and others literally invoked that for the mass mandate and mazel points out. Quite interestingly, she said, masks, sanitize, nothing, sanitize meanings, cleaning things, sanitizing meanings, getting rid of existing disease, existing contaminated people. And she makes very clear and I think this could be the most philosophic part of it. You do not restrict or quarantine healthy people. You do not presume this is a presumption of innocence argument. You do not presume that someone's gonna be a danger to others. Uh, uh, universally, you have to identify those who are sick and that their sickness has a possible material effect on others. And by that standard, you would never issue a mass mandate. You would never do a mass quarantine. In fact, Iran wrote about this or talked about it, the idea of a mass quarantine, meaning a quarantine, even of those not designated as sick.
Speaker 1 00:16:43 And, um, that might be a high standard in terms of, of, uh, uh, demonstrating. But without that, there's absolutely no Liberty. What all from, um, these public health, uh, control freights. So that's an interesting section too, for those lawyers in the room and law students who wanna take a look at it, um, uh, I'll just finish by saying I'm on record from the beginning, meaning spring of 2020 for believing and suspecting and investing that the whole reaction to COVID was authoritarian was improper, was arbitrary, was, uh, I think Donald Trump himself did himself, no favor by declaring this as an emergency as he did in March of 2020. But interestingly, one of the things miss points out is when he did that. And I think two months later, the department of, uh, health and human services did the same. There was no mass mandate coming from the CDC.
Speaker 1 00:17:40 So they didn't even have a mass mandate until January of 2021, uh, right after Biden's inaugural. So I think the judge also suspects that the thing was political, that the CDC felt that it could be more authoritarian once Biden was in power. She didn't say it that way. She just said, it makes no sense for the CDC to have rushed in with this mandate to have no public comment to claim that it was doing so, because the matter was urgent and yet it was acting 14, what, 11 months, 12 months after, uh, the Trump administration did. So, um, I'm happy to see this it's one of the things I'm got me interested in it. I'm I have been very disappointed over the last two years with the authoritarian aspect of the whole reaction to COVID the lockdowns and things like that. And frankly have been quite surprised though, within our own camp among friends of Liberty, there have been some perfectly okay and willing to endorse, uh, not only some of the authoritarian measures, but to, um, you know, welcome things like bailout money. So I'll stop there and take questions or comments.
Speaker 0 00:18:52 Excellent. Richard, um, I hadn't thought of it quite that way, but, uh, but you raise, uh, some good, uh, points there. I want to encourage, uh, those, uh, who are in the room. Um, first and foremost, raise your hand if you want to ask, uh, professor Salzman a question about, uh, judge Massell's ruling, or even about what's going on, uh, with the Supreme court today or other topics. Um, and please do me a favor, share the room, use that little share button, uh, at the bottom, but, uh, why don't I start with either Scott or Lawrence if, uh, if you have any questions.
Speaker 2 00:19:33 Yeah, I was just, this is almost more of a comment, but I mean, I'm glad that she ruled the way that she did, but I think, you know, you, you kind of alluded to the fact that the political climate was such that I don't think someone could have gotten away with it, you know, a year and a half ago, uh, trying to do that. And, uh, I, you know, there just, would've been such a backlash and, and I'm glad that, you know, there's at least enough mask fatigue now that, I mean, we, those cheers, uh, I mean, it just shows it was like a kind of moment for freedom.
Speaker 1 00:20:08 Uh, I, yeah, I agree with that, Scott, I think the, uh, it was a lot easier if you will, for her to, um, make this decision. Now she did cite in the ruling though that CDC had been knocked down twice previously one on the, if you remember that one was the, um, ruling that landlords could not demand payment from renters, the moratorium on rent paying, that was a CDC imposed. And that was overthrown not by miss Elba, but by another court. And there was another thing that the CDC mandated that I can't quite remember right now that was also thrown out. So that was earlier as well. Um, and, uh, and so, yeah, so I agree with that, but the, um, other thing you might conclude positively about this is, and the New York times actually has an article complaining about this written three days after Elle's, how the hell could this thing have been done with, you know, a small, special interest group who wants freedom in healthcare?
Speaker 1 00:21:09 You know, a couple of plaintiffs who felt anxiety on the plane by putting on a mask. I mean, that is literally who the plaintiffs were. This was not a huge class action lawsuit. I think it, and, and one of the reasons I wanted to, you know, have tip to health, freedom, uh, defense fund is how much can be done with so little, um, so far as I can tell, this is not a huge, you know, um, philanthropy, but they really have the right ideas. I mean, that's why they, I read 'em off to you. So a, a principle, broad view about bodily autonomy, bringing to bear and, and going into having some legal acumen to know, well, where can we challenge this? Oh, well, it's in the Tampa, uh, district court, cuz there's more conservatives there. You know, this is the way you do it.
Speaker 1 00:21:59 This is the way the other side does it. They find their friendly judges. However you want, it's an unfortunate part of the system, but it doesn't mean this particular ruling. Wasn't the objective. So, so I think friends of Liberty should also take this case, not just as a, you know, as leading her, her ruling, but as to the background of how this case came about and how, uh, how consequential this small little health of freedom defense fund was and worked and, and look into Leslie Leslie Manuian. I mean, I JAG, I think she might even be worth, uh, interviewing Atlas society for the broader issue of, well, what is, what else is health, freedom, defense fund trying to do? And when they talk about things like bodily autonomy, um, I don't know this for a fact, but might they be consistent as we do not see consistency in saying, well, a woman's right to choose on abortion is also bodily autonomy. As you know, the right will say, we get to restrict a woman's right to choose on abortion. And the left will say, we get to restrict a woman on vaccine. Well, what about a libertarian objective approach that says you're both wrong? Um, maybe that's where they're going. It'd be interesting to know. So, but I, I agree with you, Scott, it's a, it's a bit late in the game, but it's still a good decision.
Speaker 0 00:23:16 I like the, the idea of, uh, having some maybe strange bed fellows to, to make, uh, common. Cause I was thinking about that with regards to, uh, Roe versus Wade. Um, you know, it seems that those who are upset about it being overturned are, um, pursuing strategies, like ending the filibuster or, uh, packing the court, um, or just, you know, flat out intimidating, uh, the city justices. But I thought, well, you know, uh, we have how rich and, um, citizens for term limits, uh, trying to get a, uh, a constitutional convention. Um, so maybe they should get together, uh, with the, the pro-choice activists and put a couple of items on the, uh, on, on the, uh, agenda. So anyway, um, Clark.
Speaker 3 00:24:19 Yes. Uh, Richard, thank you so much for doing all the background work.
Speaker 1 00:24:23 You're welcome.
Speaker 3 00:24:24 Yes. Now, now we don't have to do it like you were saying, but, uh, uh, I, I was gonna ask though, I I've given, I haven't really looked into this much at all, but now is there any kind of a private public dichotomy that, um, uh, that this ruling, uh, brought up because you know, of course today, uh, you know, most objective, uh, we, we kind of get the public private, uh, thing, right. But even a lot of conservatives uh don't and of course, you know, today with all these woke corporations, I mean, I live down here in woke Austin, Texas, where, I mean, you can just see the mask or almost like a, a cultural thing where any company or, or, well, even the local, you know, the local municipal governments are all pretty, pretty blue. Uh, you know, of course the governor's red, you know, Republican. So the whole mass thing is almost like a, a proxy war between, between, you know, red and blue. So I'm just wondering now, does, does this ruling, uh, take up that issue at all?
Speaker 1 00:25:38 Well, I think it does in the sense that it is trying to limit the scope of regulatory reach. And if, if by that, you know, we mean public entering private sphere, uh, yes. Uh, it's a small little objection from, from the peanut gallery, if you will, but that's why I'm hoping it actually is challenged. Uh, I actually, I hadn't thought of this until I saw a CNN analyst saying, um, asked, will this be appealed? And he didn't like the ruling. And he said, I hope it's not appealed because if it's upheld, we will never be able to mandate in the way we just did well. That is very revealing. Isn't it it's quite revealing. Yes. And, um, I have, I found a public health law professor from UCLA Wiley, who said, if this stands, I'm quoting him. Now, if this stands, there would be no ability for the federal administrative agencies to regulate interstate transit in a public health emergency.
Speaker 1 00:26:35 Congress would have to authorize all that first. So you see how the control freaks, the authoritarians are shaking in their boots. They really do not want this seemingly narrowly construed decision. Although it was after CDC and the CDCs or federal level agency, they really do not want any higher courts to rule in favor of her. And I, and I looked it up and apparently the next level of appeal would be at a level that is a also heavily it's the 11th, uh, appeals district. That group is also conservative. So they would probably affirm what she said. And I think this is very important for, uh, as I said, future cases. I, I, I thought it was really quite unfortunate, actually this'll sound weird, but we were coming upon the second anniversary in March or so this year of the lockdowns and mandates and things like that.
Speaker 1 00:27:31 And I thought it was a perfect opportunity to do these retrospectives on what worked and what didn't work. And it never happened. Uh, the Ukraine Russia thing happened in mid February. And if you remember that it was that the whole fee and Fauci wasn't showing up anymore, the whole attention shifted to the next crisis. And I don't think, I don't think our side had a chance to say, okay, okay, let's conclude here. This was a complete disaster. This isn't gonna happen again. Never again, never again. Here's why the, the John Hopkins study that came out with Steve hanky was great, this ruling, this kind of thing. And, and so we need to be aware of these and look at these. Otherwise the public reach will be, will continue to be enormous on a broader philosophical level. Clark. I, I hinted earlier, I don't know if this interests you or some objectives.
Speaker 1 00:28:22 This could be a whole future talk. Um, I think the whole regulatory apparatus is wrong. I think, I think, um, the, I think the court system, the civil court system should handle wrongs for people to ports against each other, including, um, spreading diseases to each other, especially if they do it knowingly, but, but, but I'll just some someone needs to mute. Yeah. I just think the whole regulatory state has the presumption of guilt. It basically says you're not really guilty, but we think you might do something. So we're going to regulate your behavior so that you don't do something. And to me, that is just a complete inversion of, um, British and American anglosax jurisprudence that you have to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. And I think the case could be made that the entire regulatory state, I mean, everything called the, a alphabet agencies, like the CDC and the FDA and the FCC and the EPA, they all have that premise behind them.
Speaker 1 00:29:28 And secondly, they're very dangerous because they involve no separation of powers. They, they involve literally rule making, which is legislation. They have hearings and courts, the IRS has a tax court. So they also act as judiciary. And then they have penalties. They can penalize you, they can find you, they can jail you. So the regulatory agencies are an exceptional also to the rule that this should be a separation of powers along executive legislative and judicial branches, but that's for another time. But in this case, the CDC is an example of that. And you have a, you have a juror willing to restrain them.
Speaker 0 00:30:08 Excellent. Uh, Clark, did that do do it for you?
Speaker 3 00:30:12 Yes. Thank you again, Richard. And, uh, maybe if there's time later recorders, you'll be able to address the, uh, the abortion, um, you know, the leak or whatever it's called.
Speaker 1 00:30:23 Yeah. I could do that. Uh, I could do that now, if you wish that I, uh, first of all, on the leak, I think by the way, remember that justice B Briar's, um, retirement was leaked as well. Uh, was it two months ago? Three months ago. So that's, this is a very bad precedent, not to no pun intended in the court, a bad precedent. Uh, it's it, it hinge, it, it verges on the, the, uh, banana Republic type stuff. I mean, the, the, the court has rules and the idea that this kind of thing would be leaked by anyone I'm guessing something like a, a clerk for one of the justices who didn't like the drafted opinion. So that alone, I mean, if they don't get to the bottom of it, but I don't know if they got to the bottom of the leak of briars, um, retirement, which you could say that wasn't any big thing yet, but it might have yet, but it probably rushed the process of picking the replacement and you don't want that happening.
Speaker 1 00:31:20 You really don't want that, but, but the, the idea of kind of mob rule, and we're gonna tell the Supreme court what to do. And if we, and even if we're an insider, we don't like, it's what it's about to do. We're gonna leak it to get our groups going and get 'em all agitated. I mean, it's, uh, a continuation of a kind of populist emotional Mar rule attitude we have today, uh, going all the way back to the summer of 2020 with Antifa BLM and everyone bone, you know, burning the place down and, and looting. And when some of that stuff's still going on and defund the police and all that. There's a, there's a, a discernible trend in America against the rule of law. There just is, there's a D definitive trend toward, uh, what I call the rule of lawlessness that as long as the mob wants it, everything else gets to be swept away, including, uh, the, the morays and the etiquette procedures of the Supreme court, releasing opinions.
Speaker 1 00:32:16 This is unheard of, uh, to release a draft opinion. And now procedurally also, I would say, uh, think about this, the five Alitos name is on it. So it doesn't show the other four, but you can guess who the other four are. Thomas and Kavanaugh and, um, Connie Barrett and Gorsuch Gorsuch. Yeah. So three of the five are Trump appointees this in senses the other side to no end. Now, before I even say what the decision might mean, that the idea that those five, where are they gonna go every day and not feel like they're gonna be killed? I mean, there's some crazy people out there. People see what just happened to Dave Chappelle. Um, the, the five justices who would rule on this in favor are, are targets. And maybe the leaker knew that, uh, I'm sure they have security. I'm sure they come and go from the, maybe they're not even in the building anymore.
Speaker 1 00:33:09 And that alone is sad. Are they doing all this remotely? We live in an age where you get to docs people. You don't like meaning reveal where they live, where their kids are, their phone numbers and stuff. I fear for the five justices who appear to be on the side of, of reversing Roe V. Wade, uh, and that's disgusting. And maybe the leaker knew that it's disgusting. And yes, Ja mentioned earlier, you know, in the background, were they already last years in the last year or so talking about packing the court? Yes. Packing the court. They packed the court in Venezuela. They went from nine to 27 judges. This is what you do when the tyrants take over the tyrants take over. And the move to tyranny is so fast. They just cannot put up with these old FOS who were put on the court years ago.
Speaker 1 00:33:53 So they need to dilute their vote. If you can't kill, 'em add others to the mix and dilute their vote into nothingness and put your cronies in. And this is being done, you know, largely on the Democrat side, they're the advocates of this. They don't like who won the election, that he put three people on the court. So they want to expand the court. It, it is Braze and arbitrator, it's Braze and power grab. Um, right. So that, on that, just, just the security of the five. And, and then someone's saying, well, then they better issue it soon. So they're not at risk. You realize if one of them is killed or MAED they decision, can't go through the, the reason I'm mentioning this is not to be, uh, I don't mean to be dramatic about this, but it's, I looked into this. It's a fact that if, if a justice was killed and, and you now had four to four, the decision wouldn't go through.
Speaker 1 00:34:45 So there is a motivation. So some crazy person to do something to adjust this, to make sure this decision doesn't go down. And if the solution to that is get the decision out tomorrow. Well, that's ridiculous too. If you look at the front page of the draft, it says, this is a draft. If you find any typos or misstatements or wrong citations, you know, alert us to it. So, you know, why would you issue something that isn't, hasn't been finalized hasn't been totally fixed. Um, now as to the decision itself, this, it, it's always this way. If you're a friend of Liberty, you just shake your head on left and right on the left, they're saying a woman has a right to choose. And that's my view. I agree. But the, but I also agree that, uh, Roe V Wade was a ridiculous, it was just a ridiculous way to do it.
Speaker 1 00:35:32 I do believe actually there's a right to privacy. Some of the best work on the right to privacy is, uh, Amy peacock. She has specialized this, uh, in law school. So just look up Amy peacock, right to privacy. Uh, and so, um, but on the O on the right, they're saying, well, of course, uh, abortion is murder, but, but they're not going so far as to say good, then put everyone in jail. Who's a part of it, including the woman, by the way, not just the doctor, be the woman, who's an accomplice to the murder of her own quote, unquote, baby. They never say that they never say, are you willing to prosecute the wo woman? And, and, but the, but maybe the most disturbing part of it and disappointing part of it is the idea of state's rights. So the conservative side of all have always said, well, let the states decide, well, if you're truly principled about this, if, if abortion is truly murder, um, why do you care whether, uh, Virginia does it and you know, uh, California does it and Virginia doesn't, I mean, you would say nobody should be able to do it.
Speaker 1 00:36:30 And they're also invoking democracy so that you got Republicans saying, Hey, aren't you for democracy? I'm for democracy, let people, Tucker Carlson said this the other night, I was flabbergasted a really bad argument, um, that people who oppose this, going back to the states and having them decide whether a woman has a right to reproductive choice or not. According to Tucker that's democracy, that's people voting well, you, you, and I know that if people truly have rights, they're not subject to vote. They shouldn't be subject to vote. That's what the first that's what the bill of rights is about. Congress shall pass no law, a bridging freedom of speech and of the president, right? Not, well, it can abridge some of these if we get a majority vote. So, uh, the, uh, I guess the last, I don't wanna go on too long about this, not really the topic of the day.
Speaker 1 00:37:18 Well, the jurisprudence says, uh, I think the last thing I'll say is, uh, apparently when Roe V Wade was, uh, judged in 1973, something like, uh, 30 states in the country, uh, uh, Bann abortion, but 20 didn't and fast forward to now, someone was doing a, a tally, cuz who would, who would think of doing a tally of where the states stood, if it's all go, unless it's all gonna go back to them. And apparently it's the reverse. Uh, but there's, in other words, there'll be, I don't know, how did I say it the first time 30 banned and 20 allowed? Now it's 20 allowed and 30 would ban it or something like that. So, but their argument is, well, well, a woman, a woman could still move, uh, you know, from Mississippi where they ban it to California, where they don't, you know, to get her abortion.
Speaker 1 00:38:09 The whole argument is I am so unprincipled. But, um, my, my view generally is as with the 14th amendment, if a right is truly a right, no state can violate it. The Supreme court and the, the federal level simply cannot allow, this is the point of the 14th amendment. By the way, the 14th amendment basically said, all the states have to obey all the other amendments. Uh, prior to that, the, the bill of rights applied only to the federal government, but after the civil war, of course, you'd have to say, well, you have a bunch of states violating basic liberties. And so same thing here on the first level, you have to decide whether abortion is a right or not. If it is you don't quibble at all, about what level of government is violating it, you don't allow any level of government to violate it.
Speaker 1 00:38:55 Lastly, I'll say, I think it's almost impossible or unlikely that if this is issued, which would be in June, I think, and, and I've read the, I've read the case so I can see what it means. And if it goes back to the states, which is really what Alito is saying, one alternative and Schumer is talking about. This is to just negate the whole thing by having Congress pass along. Uh, I mean, even the conservative years ago said that instead of Roe V Wade, if this were done legitimately, it would be done through the congressional, you know, legislative process and, uh, Schumer now, and the others, uh, Bernie Sanders and others are basically saying good. That's what we'll do now. And, and I suppose that would be more legitimate procedurally than the Supreme court making law from the bench. But I Al but I also think it's illegitimate, substantively because even if the us Congress and Senate did it, they should not be passing a law violating women's rights.
Speaker 1 00:39:55 So, uh, they would need 60 votes for that. And this, the, the Democrats and they don't have 60 votes. And so their last plunge would be to get rid of the filibuster. That's why they're trying to get rid of the filibuster. I think that's very unlikely because mansion cinema and two or three other Democrats just oppose the idea of getting rid of the filibuster in any debate. And that's a good thing. Uh, there being a higher hurdle, uh, for Congress doing that, but understand what I'm saying. I, I wanna hire hurdle here because I can see the Congress, the Democrats itching to, uh, to do this at a federal level. On the other hand, I sympathize cuz I want the women's right to choose protected. So I hope that's not too confusing.
Speaker 0 00:40:42 Thanks. Well, Richard, thank you. What would be the, the, uh, solution then to, to protect, uh, women's right. To terminate a pregnancy?
Speaker 1 00:40:56 You know, I, I, I, I was thinking the other day that I thought I asked myself that the other day and of all the worst combinations, I think the best would be that that's practicable now is the federal legislature saying it, yes, just have drawing up a law, but ideally it would be in the constitution. I hate to put more stuff in the constitution, like, you know, blacks or citizens too, and have a right to vote. I didn't hate that. I like that. I mean, but it's all, it's almost like an admission of, we haven't recognized these rights before <laugh> and so, uh, it would be at a higher level to put it in the constitution. Just something short that says, you know, Congress shall pass no law, you know, restrictive women's right. To do with her body, what she would, you know, however you put it, that would really, but that requires the whole thing of, uh, two third states propose three quarters of the states approve, you know, that kind of stuff, big hurdle stuff, but actually not substantially more of a hurdle than if the Congress did it and required 60% cuz 60% is considered a super, what they call a super majority.
Speaker 1 00:41:59 It's not just 50% plus one, it's a super majority, either two thirds or three quarters. And that's what the constitu requires. Uh, so short of a constitutional, uh, amendment preserving this, right. Um, the next best would be yes. In reaction to what the Supreme court does. The federal Congress somehow, um, passes a law and uh, requires the states to abide by the law. And then you rely on what's called the supremacy clause in the us constitution, which says no state, uh, law can violate, can, can be in contradiction to federal law, but
Speaker 2 00:42:34 Can you use your rights argument to, you know, the, the whole laboratories of democracy? Can you say that, oh, no state can outlaw gambling or you know, how far can that go?
Speaker 1 00:42:49 Oh, I, yeah. Well, that's a good question. I I'll, I'll defer on that for now. That's a very good question. Barn's because it, because if you go from, you know, right to life, Liberty property, the pursuit of happiness, and then you get down into the weeds of, well, the pursuit of my happiness is gambling and, uh, uh, prostitution and taking heroin. And, and of course the con the consistent case would be to say so long as you're not harming others, you should be free to do it in any state. Um, that violates it, uh, you know, against federal law violates it. Now that the federal, it doesn't require the federal government to weigh in on everything. Of course notice how it happened with legalization of marijuana, by the way, uh, it happened state by state. I think that was the same thing on euthanasia and, and other, and same sex marriage and other things.
Speaker 1 00:43:36 Right? So, so certain state, and you would expect this, right? Cause there's a more variety of opinion among the states. So some, some seemingly eccentric, right. Seemingly eccentric, right. Comes out and the federal Congress doesn't jump on it right away, but states do. And sometimes they can accelerate the process and get it into the courts. And that happened with same sex marriage. First California, of all places, California actually had a vote and disallowed same-sex marriage. And so when was it, uh, uh, upheld in, uh, or Beel and in the Supreme court, did it nine unelected judges, uh, extended the right on, on same sex marriage, but it's a, it's a good question. Lawrence, I'm a big fan of federalisms. They don't get me wrong. I don't want everything pressed down from on high, from Washington, forcing every state to do the same thing, but on basic rights, on basic fundamental rights.
Speaker 1 00:44:29 And that's why I'm saying it here. I mean, this is a big one. Th this is a big one, a woman's right to control her own body. And, uh, I, I hope you realize that this is a whole nother thing, but I'm generally of the view that we do not have a human being with rights that the state should protect until there's birth. And so it's very troubling for me to hear conservatives talking about things like baby in the womb, or even the president the other day talked about aborting a child. I mean, so Biden doesn't even know what he's talking about, what these concepts mean. Uh, I mean, if you go on the, on the timeline, if you will, you have say, zygote, embryo, fetus, and then birth, right. And then bright line there, birth. And then after that you have baby infant child adolescent.
Speaker 1 00:45:22 Okay. So that, that is the imagin line. Whatever you wanna call that line, you can't start mixing up the terms and talk about things like a fetus, driving a bike down the street, or a baby in the womb. It's just, it's just messed up conceptualization. And the conservatives, I think are most guilty of it, cuz they talk about things like baby in the womb, if there was really a baby in the womb, then it would be murder. And if you look up murder, it says the killing of a human being by a human being. Well, I, I would not classify as IGO an embryo or a fetus as a human being. So that's, for those of you interested in more like the biological aspects of it. And when does life begin? There is life in conception. There is obviously there's an organism. Those three things are organism, but, but that is a, uh, equivocation on the, on life. What we're talking about is when does human life begin and human life begins at birth? In my view,
Speaker 2 00:46:28 Connie, I knew you wanted to get in
Speaker 4 00:46:32 <laugh> oh, thanks. Uh, just a, a couple of comments, you know, a little pushback on that. Um, okay. I, um, I disagree with somewhat with whom you think would automatically of the justices be voting. I think Gorsuch not, I don't think he would go for, uh, us just because he's a Trump appointee. Um, but that's only one matter with that. Um, the other batter, you know, when it comes to all of this, as the fact remains that they're doing this decision because they believe it shouldn't have ever been right. Good decision to begin with. Right. And I don't disagree with that, you know, good ideas don't require force.
Speaker 1 00:47:17 Yes. So yeah,
Speaker 4 00:47:19 Hopefully, uh, I've heard just, there were some millions of conversations going on with this right now that, um, it helps to bring some solutions, um, to the issue in spite of where you think you may fall on the side of that. So I, I hope good comes from it. Um, what gets me is that, you know, this was leaked at the time when there primaries and yeah. And all these things going on and the other elephant in the room is the, the ministry of truth. So, yes.
Speaker 1 00:47:52 Right.
Speaker 4 00:47:53 So I have comments, I had the comments I made about the issue you were speaking of, but, um, my question would actually be what, what are you feelings about this ministry of truth and why, why they're, <laugh> why, you know, they bring this out at the opportune time to follow the red dot on the SCOTUS decision. And no one's talking about ministry of truth. So what do you think about it?
Speaker 1 00:48:21 I think I'm glad you brought this up the ministry of truth thing or whatever they call it. The disinformation governing is the worst thing and the most important thing right now, does that sound like I'm overstating it, uh, more important than Russia Ukraine, more important than the leak of Roe V you know, or not just the leak, even if Roe V Aber throw back to the states because this is free speech. And if you don't have free speech, you got nothing. You really have nothing. This is the first part of the first amendment. And if this thing isn't stopped right now, I fear for this con I may not already been fearing for this country for the last two years or so. Really the last 20 years when we took us a move to the right, fascially not to the right, it's terrible. It's awful.
Speaker 1 00:49:10 And, and I'm not sure it's triggered by these other things that are going on the slide of hand, look over here because the department of Homeland security has been brazen about admitting it and being in front of Congress and talking about it. And someone even brought up how bad the person running it will be. And the, the head of the department said, she's great. She's just actually awful. Uh, I think it might be, uh, in response to, uh, Elon Musk taking over Twitter. I, I I'm guessing here, but I think prior to that, this government and I mean, this regime, not the American government, but this particular regime and I call 'em all regimes. Now there's no more administrations. I hate to say it. The us is going very ilial and they're all just different regimes now. Um, they're the, they were using Twitter and others to censor.
Speaker 1 00:50:01 And I know the more libertarian objective view would be, these are private companies. They can't really censor. They do have a right to say who was on their platforms and I'm sympathetic to that view actually. And I originally actually endorsed section two 30, which said you couldn't Sue them because they're just platforms. You can't Sue them for stuff, people say on their platforms, but that only, and that would be like saying you can't Sue the phone company just because someone uses the phone to, you know, plan a bank heist, that's always been true, but you could, you know, get the phone records and investigate it after the fact, but you wouldn't punish at and T you'd fund punish the, the bank robbers. And so, well suppose all that goes away suppose there is this kind of implied censorship by the government being in cahoots with Twitter and social media.
Speaker 1 00:50:47 They'd be very worried if the thing went private and they'd be very worried, especially if it went private to a guy who's on record saying I'm for free speech. I don't know whether Elon's a libertarian or not, but on free speech, he certainly is. And so maybe that's why they, um, brushed off something that was on the shelf. You know, a, uh, disinformation board they've been using the words, different disinformation misinformation, uh, for quite a while now. Um, so, uh, I, that could be the, the motivation, but the motivation isn't as important as the fact. And here's what I'm looking for. I wonder if you are as well, the more you talk about who's in charge of it, the more we lose, because I think they want that. I think they want a debate about, well, who's gonna head it to see what the premise is.
Speaker 1 00:51:35 The premise is it's okay to have it. Let's just get a reasonable person doing it. The person I won't even name Nina Janovic is her name is just crazy and a fermentor of disinformation. I mean, so it's almost like they purposely pick someone who's the worst disinformation spreader ever. I mean, she's the one who said the, uh, Russia did the ele you know, collusion was true. The, and that hunter laptop was not true. I mean, she is missed disinformation. That's what she is. And they put her in charge of it. So it's almost as if they're purposely putting someone in charge who is so ridiculous and so vicious that everyone will focus on her and then they'll win the debate. Because if a year from now that agency still exists, but it's headed by someone. Nobody can even name anymore. That's terrible. Cuz the agency will still exist.
Speaker 1 00:52:25 So people have to stand up, call it what you did, the ministry of truth, which I think you're taking right out of Orwell, right? 1984. And just, this is not gonna happen. Whatever senators, I think the best probably are crew, uh, Mike Lee and ran Paul and the others have to stand up and say, this is not gonna stand. We're not gonna allow this. I think Josh Holly said he would defund it. I'm not really sure that's the best way it can't exist at all. You can't just defund it and leave it. Cuz then the subsequent Congress will fund it. Uh, this is a really principled thing. And that as an economist, you would think I would care more about the uh, the mass ruling or um, the price controls and all the other things I brought up recently, which are important. But this one, I'm glad you brought it up cuz in the context of what we're talking about today, including issues of war and peace, that's pretty big too. That's maybe number two on the, that was number one on my list until I heard about this censorship bureau. Now I would rank the biggest dangers, our Liberty, the censorship bureau, the possibility that everyone wants to get us into world war II are seemingly everyone, but me Tucker Carlson and four other people in the world. I don't know, four other people. And uh, and in the background, uh, the potential of inflation becoming hyperinflation,
Speaker 4 00:53:44 Well, arguably just a little pushback with that, putting her into that position. Um, something I've done all through time or we've seen all through time, we call it, um, pushing trash, whether you 'em promote 'em whatever you do get 'em out of there. Yeah. I'll use Kamala Harris as an example. Yeah. Putting her where she is, was putting her in the least powerful position. Yeah she right now. So putting her in that position everybody's oh, you know, whatever side they're on, they're all I'll saying, you know, no, she can't do that or they can all agree with it. As long as it's the person they like. Yeah. Just executive orders. You know, a lot of people were off for, for Trump's orders. I'm like, well just wait next administration. You're not gonna like, it. That's the problem with executive orders, but I call it pushing trash, put her, putting her in that position just actually gives her less power. So
Speaker 1 00:54:45 I, uh, interesting. Okay. Well, I, I think my other interpretation, I, I think I might agree with that. My other interpretation is it's very, uh, revealing what agency they put this in. So department of Homeland security, what is the department of home? It was formed after nine 11. I mean it's formed after the terrorist attack and it's it's shift in the last couple of years has been well, the major threat is internal, not external domestic terrorism. And, and how do they define that? Any Trump supporter? I mean, this is really getting nasty. This is getting really ridiculous. And, and that's what it's gonna be used for. It's gonna be used to silence a, a political opposition. It's gonna create political dissonance and it's gonna actually cause such anger that there'll be more political dissidents, but they have good reason cuz their truth has been called mistruth.
Speaker 1 00:55:32 I mean that is the pattern of the last couple of years. People telling the truth have been, uh, canceled and smeared and ostracized. And then later found out to have been telling the truth and the people who told blatant lies and had whole, uh, you know, investigative counsels like and two impeachments on various claim, they were proved to have, uh, pushed falsehoods. But, but again, even here I, and so put it this way. Uh, DHS is a law enforcement agency. Even if it was even if this was done in something like the FCC, I said to someone the other day, they said, well, what would else be? What would be a more innocent censorship bureau? And I said, the FCC, the federal communications commission, right? Cuz they cover media TV, false advertising stuff. Like it sounds more like a false advertising board. Uh, only it would still be bad because now instead of saying the toothpaste, you know, was falsely advertised.
Speaker 1 00:56:29 Now they'd be saying your campaign is falsely advertised or your coverage of Ukraine is falsely advertised and we get to come out against you. But no, they put it in department of Homeland security, which is a, a place full of uh, weapons and law enforcement officers who are weaponized and people who can put you in jail and, and, and, and then it'll lead to what we know always happens. Self censorship, the kind of silent behind the scenes where people just don't say anything and don't shut up and don't congregate and ally with other say Liberty lovers, uh, for fear of being tagged, right wing extremists and white supremacists who were in Maga country. I mean the other day, the president literally referred to Maga nation, which I assume means all Trump supporters, which I assume means 75 million people as extremists. How, I mean, even on a political spectrum, extreme is never 71 million people. It's the people on the fringes. And, uh, that would be something like Antifa or BLM or maybe some of the people who ride it on January six, but extremists by definition or a small fraction of the population. But
Speaker 0 00:57:43 Thank you. Uh, well we just have one more minute. Patrick, did you have a quick question?
Speaker 5 00:57:51 It isn't quick. Uh, so maybe you should go with another one. Hello? Did you hear me?
Speaker 2 00:58:05 Yeah. That's fair. Um, well, uh, Lawrence, did you have a quick one? Unfortunately not it's another long one. Okay.
Speaker 0 00:58:14 All right. Well thanks everybody. And uh, wow. This was really a terrific session. Um, thank you, professor Salzman. Thank you, uh, Clark Liberty, um, for, for your great insights and questions. And, um, we will see you, uh, next week. Um, we've got a, a bunch of different clubhouses. Um, Robert Trens, he's actually gonna take on the abortion question on Tuesday. Uh, and then, um, we have, uh, Steven Hicks, uh, as well coming up. So check out the events section of our website and we'll see you soon.
Speaker 1 00:58:57 Thank you all. Thank you.
