0:00

Hello, everyone. This is Tulsi here.

0:02

Thanks so much for taking the time to join me

0:04

here on the show. If you would like to support

0:06

this show, and the content that we're

0:09

creating as we take a stand for freedom

0:11

and speak truth and speak with some

0:13

common sense during these insane times

0:16

please visit Tulsi dot

0:18

com and click on the support button.

0:21

The only way that we're able to produce

0:23

this show is through support from

0:26

listeners and viewers just like

0:28

you. Again, visit Tulsi gabbard dot

0:30

com and click support. Aloha.

0:32

Sound like something from Star Wars when

0:34

she's Exactly. I mean, it was it was it

0:36

was when when Senator Feinsons said that

0:38

it was I I thought how did she think

0:40

of that? As an appropriate thing

0:42

to say or saying you're disqualified

0:45

from serving as a judge because

0:48

the dogma lives deep within

0:50

you. mean, So what does that

0:52

mean?

0:52

Who is she to judge someone's personal

0:55

relationship with God? Yeah.

0:58

Hello, everyone. Today, we're

1:00

gonna be talking about one of the things that made

1:02

me feel really uncomfortable in

1:05

a Democratic Party. And frankly, it was

1:07

one of the reasons that I'd left. Now,

1:09

today's Democrat Party has become

1:11

hostile, openly, outwardly hostile

1:13

towards people of faith and spirituality actually

1:17

trying to remove God from every

1:19

facet of our public life. Now this isn't

1:21

hyperbole or just my opinion,

1:25

We see many examples of exactly

1:27

how they're doing this. Back in two thousand

1:29

four, the Democratic Party platform included

1:32

seven mentions of God. Their

1:34

most recent platform in twenty twenty

1:36

mentions God just once. During

1:39

that same twenty twenty, DNC convention

1:42

several of the caucus and council meetings

1:44

actually chose to omit the words

1:47

under god from the pledge of allegiance.

1:49

Into the republic, for which it

1:51

stands, one nation, indivisible

1:57

with liberty and justice for

1:59

all. Clip

2:01

speaks for itself. We've seen other

2:03

examples of high profile

2:05

Democrats who are actually mocking and

2:07

openly discriminating against people

2:10

of faith. President Obama wants

2:12

ridiculed Americans for

2:14

clinging to their guns and religion.

2:19

Get paid according to guns

2:21

or religion or

2:24

anticipates or if people want them like

2:26

that. Right?

2:31

So now it won't surprise you that

2:33

vice president Kamala Harris back when she

2:35

was a US senator in twenty eight teen

2:37

made a comment that membership

2:40

in the Catholic service oriented

2:42

pro life charity organization, the Knights of

2:44

Columbus, was disqualifying for

2:47

the nomination of federal judge Brian

2:49

Bouchare. But you know what she didn't reference?

2:51

What she didn't talk about is other members

2:54

of the nights of Columbus like president Kennedy

2:56

or senator Ted Kennedy. The other senator

2:59

from California Diane Feinstein famously

3:01

scolded justice Amy Kony

3:03

Barrett in a senate

3:05

hearing, you know, Barrett

3:07

a devout Catholic, claiming

3:09

that, quote, the dogma lives loudly

3:11

within

3:11

you. Viewing just disbear

3:14

its faith as a disqualifying

3:16

factor. I think whatever a religion

3:19

is, it has its own dogma.

3:22

The law is totally

3:24

different. And

3:26

I think in in your case,

3:30

Professor, when

3:33

you read your speeches, the

3:37

conclusion one draws

3:39

that the dogma

3:42

lives loudly within

3:44

you. And

3:47

That's of concern when

3:49

you come to big issues that

3:52

large numbers of people have fought

3:54

for. For years in

3:56

this country. You

3:59

know what's of concern is that we

4:01

have US senators serving

4:04

in office who are blatantly ignoring

4:07

Article six Sekulow three of the constitution,

4:10

which says quote, no religious

4:12

tests shall ever be required as

4:14

a qualification to any office or

4:16

public trust under the United

4:18

States. What they're

4:20

doing here is nothing less than

4:22

religious bigotry through and through,

4:24

and it's a direct assault on religious

4:27

liberty. This is something I've

4:29

experienced directly, both when I was running for

4:31

Congress as well as when I ran for president,

4:33

where I had the mainstream media and

4:35

those who were opposing my candidacy

4:38

directly attacking my religion, writing

4:40

smear pieces, throwing baseless

4:42

accusations at me, all

4:44

to try to invoke suspicion

4:46

in voters try to get them

4:48

to not vote for me, not

4:51

support me. Now this is something that president

4:53

Kennedy faced when he ran for

4:55

president. This exact kind of religious

4:57

bigotry. He was attacked by the media. He

4:59

was attacked by people of other religions who

5:02

again publicly disqualified

5:04

him and votes a suspicion and other

5:06

people fear mongering, fermenting these

5:08

these suspicions and fears, all

5:10

because president Kennedy was

5:12

Catholic. Now he responded to

5:14

this head on citing the constitution, citing

5:17

the first amendment during a really

5:19

powerful speech that he delivered to

5:21

the greater Houston Ministerial Association

5:24

in September of nineteen sixty. Now,

5:26

on a play for you, just a

5:28

few of these clips where he makes these

5:30

points, but encourage you to go and and

5:32

listen to the full

5:33

speech. And where no

5:35

man is denied public op office, merely

5:38

because his religion differs from the

5:40

president who might appoint you.

5:42

Or the people who might elect

5:44

him. I believe

5:46

in an America that is officially

5:48

neither Catholic nor Jewish When

5:52

no public official, either

5:54

request or accept instructions on

5:56

public policy from the pope,

5:58

the national council of puritan or

6:01

any other ecclesiastical source.

6:04

When no religious party seeks to

6:06

impose its will directly

6:08

or indirectly upon

6:10

the general populace or the

6:12

public acts of its officials.

6:15

And where religious liberty is

6:18

so indivisible, with an act

6:20

against one church, is

6:22

treated as an act against all. For

6:25

while this year, it may be a catholic, against

6:28

whom the finger of suspicion is

6:29

pointed. In other years, it

6:32

has been and

6:33

may some day be again a Jew

6:36

or a Quaker or a unitarian

6:38

or a Baptist. It

6:40

was Virginia's harassment of Baptist

6:42

Preaches, for example, that

6:44

led to Jefferson's statute of religious

6:47

freedom. Today, I may

6:49

be the him. But tomorrow, it

6:51

may be you. Until

6:53

the whole fabric of our harmonious society

6:56

is ripped apart, at a

6:58

time of great national peril. Finally,

7:01

I believe in an America where

7:04

religious intolerance will someday

7:06

end For all

7:08

men in all churches, treated as

7:10

equals, for every

7:12

man has the same right to attend or not

7:14

to attend the church of his

7:16

choice. So there is no Catholic

7:18

vote, no anti Catholic

7:20

vote, no block voting of

7:22

any kind, and where

7:24

Catholic protestants and Jews

7:27

At both the lay and the pass through

7:29

levels, we'll refrain

7:31

from those attitudes of the stain and

7:33

division, which have so

7:35

often more their works in the past

7:37

and promoting Stan the American

7:39

ideal of brotherhood. I

7:41

would not look with favor upon a president

7:44

working to subvert the first amendments,

7:47

guarantees of religious liberty nor

7:49

with our system of checks and balances permitted

7:51

to do so. And

7:54

neither do I look with favor upon

7:56

those who would work to subvert Article

7:58

six of the constitution by

8:01

requiring a religious test even

8:03

by indirection. Or

8:05

if they disagree with that safeguard, they

8:08

should be openly working to repeal it.

8:11

I must me stress again that

8:13

these are my views. For

8:16

contrary to common newspaper usage,

8:18

I am not the Catholic candidate for

8:20

president. I am the demo credit

8:22

parties candidate for president who

8:24

happens also to be a

8:26

catholic. I do not speak

8:28

for my church on public matters, and

8:30

the church does not speak for me.

8:33

Powerful, powerful words

8:35

spoken at a different time in our

8:37

country but just as

8:39

relevant today, sadly, as

8:41

they were then because we are

8:43

seeing the same kind of religious bigotry

8:45

Now, unfortunately, and sadly, these democrat

8:48

leaders, they have either

8:50

forgotten or actively choosing to

8:52

ignore the words of president Kennedy and

8:54

their dogged suit of power.

8:56

They are launching religious

8:58

bigoted attacks on political opponents,

9:00

or those who dare to disagree with

9:02

their policies. They are

9:05

belittling people of faith with

9:07

their condescending and arrogant proclamations.

9:09

And dangerously, They're doing

9:11

so from a position of great impact and

9:13

power within the federal government.

9:16

Now, today's Democratic party seems to

9:18

have forgotten. That freedom

9:20

of religion does not mean

9:22

freedom from religion. This

9:24

is unfortunate because our founders actually

9:26

made this very clear in the first

9:28

amendment. Congress shall

9:31

make no law respecting an

9:33

establishment of religion or

9:35

prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

9:38

We we have to have faith and trust in our

9:40

government that it will respect every

9:42

one of our innate rights to develop

9:44

our own personal living relationship with

9:47

god as well as the right of those who

9:49

choose not to. Each and

9:51

every one of us must be free to

9:54

express and practice our faith as we

9:56

choose without fear

9:58

of state sponsored censorship,

10:00

discrimination, or bigotry.

10:04

Our founders we're very clear about

10:06

where our rights come from. The

10:08

declaration of independence says,

10:10

we hold these truths to be

10:12

self evident. That all men are

10:14

created equal, and that they are

10:16

endowed by our creator with certain

10:18

andalienable rights, and that

10:20

among these are life liberty

10:22

and the pursuit of happiness. Our

10:26

freedom comes from God. No

10:28

one else. And to

10:30

recognize and respect each other as

10:32

children of God is to appreciate that

10:34

we belong to God and no

10:36

one else. No government,

10:38

no person has the right to take

10:40

away the intrinsic freedom

10:42

that God has given us. And

10:45

George Washington recognized this and

10:47

he beautifully shared his own

10:49

expression of faith during his

10:51

inaugural presidential address.

10:53

He said it would be peculiarly

10:56

improper to omit in this first

10:58

official act my

11:00

fervent supplications to that

11:02

almighty being who rules over the

11:04

universe, who presides in

11:06

the councils of nations, and

11:08

whose providential aids can

11:10

supply every human defect. That

11:12

his benediction may concentrate to the

11:15

liberties and happiness of the people of the

11:17

United States, a government

11:19

instituted by themselves for these

11:21

essential purposes and may

11:23

enable every instrument employed in

11:25

its administration to

11:27

execute with success the functions

11:29

allotted to his charge. Entendering

11:32

this homage to the great author of

11:34

every public and private good,

11:36

I assure myself that it

11:38

expresses your sentiments not less

11:40

than my own nor those

11:42

of my fellow citizens at large

11:44

less than either. When

11:47

those in power try to take our god

11:49

given rights enshrined in the constant institution

11:51

away. They're trying to take our

11:53

power away. The the weaker

11:55

we are, the more powerful they

11:57

become. And the more powerful we

11:59

are, the more free we are,

12:01

the weaker they become,

12:03

and that's what they want. They want

12:05

us to be weak. They want us to be dependent on

12:08

them. They want us to be afraid.

12:11

And sadly, they have

12:13

proven that they'll stop at

12:15

nothing in their pursuit of power.

12:17

More and more people are waking up to this

12:19

reality all across the country, actually

12:21

understanding the threat our freedom of speech and

12:23

religious liberty that are

12:25

occurring as we speak.

12:27

People of faith are being targeted

12:29

in America right now, discriminated

12:32

against having the administrative state

12:34

our government weaponized against

12:37

them. And now whether you have

12:39

personal experience this or not or you

12:41

know someone who has, every

12:43

one of us says Americans should be

12:45

alarmed. Because as president

12:47

Kennedy stated today, it

12:49

may be an assault on someone else's

12:51

religious liberty. Tomorrow,

12:53

it could be you. Attacks

12:55

on our religious liberty cannot be

12:57

allowed to stand, period. The

13:00

Biden administration is dangerously

13:02

weaponizing and politicizing its justice

13:04

department and They're threatening

13:06

our god given rights and freedoms,

13:08

and we have to stand up. Every

13:10

one of us as Americans to defend

13:12

against those attacks. We have to come together.

13:14

We have to speak out and stop

13:16

these abuses now, or we

13:18

will find ourselves in a place where our

13:20

religious freedom a

13:22

cornerstone of our democracy will

13:24

soon become a relic of the past. And

13:27

my guest today is one of the former legal

13:29

minds on the issue of religious liberty,

13:31

not only here in the United States, but

13:33

actually around the world. He's a chief counsel

13:35

for the American Center for Law and

13:37

Justice, and he's personally

13:39

argued thirteen cases in front of the

13:41

supreme court, winning a number of

13:43

landmark cases that have protected our

13:45

constitutional rights to religious

13:47

freedom and free speech.

13:50

Now, there's too many to talk about

13:52

here before I bring him in,

13:54

but I did wanna share just a few of

13:56

them so you get an idea of the impact that he's

13:58

had. He presented his very first case

14:00

before the Supreme Court in nineteen eighty

14:02

seven on behalf of Jews for

14:04

Jesus. When its members were

14:06

arrested at the LA airport for handing

14:08

out pamphlets, arguing religious

14:10

speech deserves no less protection than

14:12

any other form of speech. The Supreme

14:14

Court unanimously agreed with his

14:16

argument. Later, he represented a group of

14:18

students who were denied the right to

14:20

form a and Bible Club at a public

14:22

school before the Supreme Court in nineteen

14:24

ninety. He won that case in

14:26

an eight to one decision. He represented

14:29

Jane Bray and other pro life advocates in

14:31

nineteen ninety three after they were

14:33

arrested for demonstrating in front of abortion

14:35

clinics in Washington DC and

14:37

charged with violating the Ku Klux

14:39

Klan Act of eighteen seventy

14:41

one. The majority

14:43

held that opposition to abortion

14:46

is not discrimination against women in

14:48

a landmark six three decision in

14:50

the supreme court. Now, also in nineteen ninety

14:52

three, Sekulow represented a church

14:54

group called Lance Chapel, that was

14:56

denied the use of a local school building

14:58

after hours to show religious

15:00

film, arguing an unconstitutional violation

15:03

of free speech rights. The Supreme

15:05

Court agreed with Sekulow in the unanimous

15:07

decision. And today, thousands of

15:09

churches are permitted to conduct meetings and hold

15:11

services in schools and other public

15:13

facilities as a direct

15:15

result of that precedent setting victory in

15:17

the Lam's chapel case. Sekulow

15:20

represented Joshua Davy in two

15:22

for who has denied a scholarship because of his

15:24

intent to major and pastoral

15:26

ministries, arguing a violation

15:28

of free speech and free exercise rights

15:31

winning a seven to two decision.

15:33

Jay Sekulow has used

15:35

this influence and expertise to defend

15:37

religious liberty around the globe launching

15:39

affiliate organizations in France,

15:41

Russia, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Pakistan,

15:43

Israel, and South Korea. And

15:45

today, the ACLJ has over one

15:47

million members which business week

15:49

magazine recognizes as the leading

15:51

advocacy group for religious

15:53

freedom. And when he's not defending liberty in the

15:55

courtroom, you can hear him on his daily radio

15:57

show that's currently syndicated on over eight

15:59

hundred fifty stations across the

16:01

country. Now he's a drummer in a classic

16:03

rock band, a New York Times number one

16:05

bestselling author and a

16:07

true modern day freedom fighter.

16:16

First and foremost,

16:19

though, just I just wanna say thank you

16:21

for being you

16:24

and doing what you do and

16:26

and having done it for so long. You know, I I think

16:28

that a lot of people I hope more

16:30

and more people are waking up to

16:33

the attacks on our first

16:34

amendment, the

16:35

attacks on our fundamental liberties

16:37

more now than they were in the

16:39

past. But you've been fighting

16:41

these battles for liberty and

16:43

freedom

16:44

for thirty five years. Yeah.

16:47

So that's right. I mean, it's Before a lot

16:49

of people were paying attention, Yeah. I'm trying to think

16:51

it so my first major case at

16:53

the Supreme Court was nineteen eighty seven.

16:56

And and so we're and there

16:57

was, you know, that's when it went to the Supreme Court. So there

16:59

was obviously, you know, years back Well, I

17:00

don't know. Because I yeah. I've been practicing

17:03

law for forty let's say, forty

17:06

two years. So guess about

17:08

thirty five or thirty seven of those have

17:10

been in this

17:10

arena. So it's been a long

17:11

time. And I didn't

17:12

I didn't know this until

17:15

recently. But you started out

17:17

as a tax trial attorney for

17:19

the

17:19

IRS. Is that true? Yes. I wasn't gonna

17:21

do I had no I mean, first amendment.

17:23

I mean, I was I went went

17:25

to law school to be a criminal defense lawyer and

17:27

then really got it just totally enamored

17:29

with tax and had a great tax professor.

17:31

Her name was miss bell or professor, broadly, called her mom

17:33

bell. She was incredible. And I

17:36

just had I just love

17:37

tax, and it's kinda, like, put in policy

17:39

love about because that that sounds like a

17:42

weird statement.

17:42

Because it's a little a person. Yeah. It's a

17:44

little bit of everything. It's it's it's

17:47

business. It's trial work. It's

17:49

government negotiations, so it's kind of

17:51

everything. So my first job out of law school

17:53

in nineteen seventy nine, nineteen

17:55

eighty was with Chief Counsel office of the IRS. It doesn't make you

17:57

a lot of friends when you do that in an intro. I

17:59

usually leave that part out or I'll make a joke

18:01

about it. But it was actually a great

18:02

experience. And it was not the IRS.

18:05

That it is today. It's very different. Very different. Sasha,

18:07

I'd love to get into that a little bit, especially

18:09

with everything that we're hearing about

18:12

you know, this huge seventy

18:14

nine billion dollar bill that's been passed.

18:17

It's a bit the growing

18:19

arming of -- Yes. IRS

18:22

law enforcement

18:23

agents, accumulation of ammunition,

18:25

and You know,

18:27

exactly. I mean In their job description, whether

18:30

it's only one large special agent. Yeah. I

18:32

mean Do

18:32

you do you recognize this? I mean, did

18:34

you did

18:36

I never had a political conversation, with

18:38

any of my colleagues. The entire I couldn't tell you if were a

18:40

Republican or democrat. No idea. We tried

18:42

cases. I mean, you know, it was you

18:45

represented the United States. It was a

18:47

tax dispute. You

18:49

tried your case. Nobody said, hey, did you vote for in

18:51

those days? It would have been, you know, Jimmy Carter or

18:53

Ronald Reagan or Walter Mondele and

18:55

Ronald

18:55

Reagan, whoever it was. And -- Right. -- that's

18:56

how old this is. And No.

18:59

But you know it was interesting when those IRS

19:01

cases came that we filed against, which

19:03

was first amendment violation, knowing

19:05

having worked for the IRS, was a

19:07

tremendous advantage for me and for my

19:08

clients. Yeah.

19:09

Yeah. Because you you saw what you

19:11

you looked at exactly what was going on

19:13

behind the curtain. Yep. Gosh, that's

19:15

so interesting. III think that

19:18

along with the FBI

19:20

Department of Homeland Security, you look at

19:22

all of these Republicans tuitions that -- What? --

19:24

literally exist to

19:26

serve the public good in

19:28

theory have now become

19:30

so weaponized. For

19:32

political purposes and to go after political

19:34

opponents, not only under this administration,

19:36

but under previous administrations

19:38

as

19:38

well. That's such a

19:39

dangerous trend it's easy for the problem is it's so easy for

19:42

it to happen, and that's where the checks and

19:44

balances inside the institutions themselves

19:46

are not in place.

19:47

Yeah. Speaking of checks

19:50

and balances, I wanna

19:52

talk a little bit about that about

19:54

just generally the rule of law. Yeah.

19:56

Right? I mean, this this is this is the foundation of our

19:59

democracy if we don't have the rule of law. If

20:01

we, the people can't

20:03

have if we don't

20:05

trust, that our institutions

20:07

are, you know, we are treated fair and equally under

20:09

the law and so on and so

20:10

forth, then then what do we have faith

20:13

in -- Right.

20:13

-- as

20:14

a people. You've argued before

20:17

the supreme court more than a dozen

20:19

times. Yep. I think I put

20:21

I think the number

20:22

now is

20:23

I don't know. I think it's like sixteen, fifteen, sixteen. That's

20:25

an incredible statistic. For an

20:27

ongoing solicitor general,

20:28

yeah, it is. Exactly. I mean,

20:31

most most I I've read

20:33

enough books. I'm not an attorney obviously, but I've read enough books

20:35

and and have enough lawyer friends

20:37

to know how absolutely rare it

20:39

is for an attorney to

20:42

argue before the Supreme Court once --

20:44

Right. -- just once in their lives and

20:46

and in their careers. And I think the

20:48

significance of that opportunity and

20:50

that that privilege is

20:52

by making those

20:53

arguments, you know you are having an

20:56

impact on generations.

20:58

It's a time to do it. Every time I go

21:00

up there, you know, it doesn't change. We had to do

21:02

it remotely during the COVID years.

21:04

Yeah. And even there, we had a podium built.

21:07

For our office, I had the exact same

21:09

microphones used at the court. The

21:11

podium was identical. And

21:13

I will put on a suit I mean, colleagues of mine,

21:15

friends of mine that had done arguments in that during

21:17

that period were wearing, like, sweat clothes

21:19

because he were doing that over the phone. I had

21:21

I put on a suit Jordan likes

21:23

stood up when the

21:24

court, you know, cried the entry the

21:26

court and -- Yeah.

21:27

-- you had to

21:27

get in the mode. I don't know if it helped or hurt, but

21:29

it all worked out pretty well. So I guess

21:32

I think I think it's it's a show of

21:34

respect. Exactly. Exactly. For the institution,

21:36

right, whether it makes a difference or

21:37

not. And -- Yeah. -- and I think that's one of the

21:38

things that's so concerning along

21:41

with what we're talking about, we hear a

21:43

lot of rhetoric coming from, you know, so

21:45

called progressive democrats, essentially

21:49

attacking this judicial branch of

21:51

government attacking and undermining the supreme court

21:53

because they don't agree with the decisions that are

21:55

being made. I think

21:57

it was Elizabeth

21:59

Warren, as well as Kamala Harris,

22:01

saying that the Supreme Court is now

22:04

illegitimate. Yep. They

22:06

talked to a representative. Expanding

22:08

the courts, all of these things that

22:10

are exactly that dangerous, dangerous

22:13

in in undermining this

22:16

institute and frankly sending the message that, hey, if you don't

22:18

agree with the ruling,

22:20

then then trash the institution

22:23

itself and and it further deepens

22:25

that distrust that people have

22:27

in it. And given I

22:29

wanna ask you, I mean, I wanna ask you to

22:31

talk a little bit about why

22:34

this is so dangerous. And and

22:36

also given you've had a

22:38

a history over the last three decades,

22:41

really, of arguing before the Supreme Court, how have

22:43

you seen the character

22:45

of the Supreme Court change?

22:47

Has it changed? And and

22:50

where do we go from here? How do we how do

22:52

we kind of write the course for

22:54

this

22:54

ship? So,

22:54

you know, it's interesting because I my first

22:57

case, like I said, was a nineteen eighty seventh.

22:59

And then my last case was just, you

23:01

know, term before last term. So

23:03

-- Right. -- or term before last because the new one

23:05

started. And So when you look at

23:07

it over the years, I mean,

23:09

almost four decades now, it the

23:11

court definitely takes on the personality

23:13

of the justices. So there's this

23:15

you know, I I was there when William Rancourt was on

23:17

the court, Margaret Marshall,

23:19

justice Brennan's John Paul Stevens. So

23:21

it it was before justice Ginsburg,

23:24

before Justice Breyers had been

23:26

doing, you know, in the eighties, that was the court. It

23:28

was a very different experience

23:31

than arguing cases under

23:33

John Roberts. And I think part of that was because

23:35

John was a supreme court advocate

23:37

himself. He had a little bit more

23:39

empathy for the lawyers because it's

23:41

a very aggressive time.

23:43

Right? The the the show part of it is,

23:45

you know, is the thirty minute oral

23:47

argument that each side does an hour. Although

23:49

under the last batch

23:52

of cases, there was no real clock because

23:54

of the way they were doing it for COVID.

23:56

And I think I read an article yesterday,

23:58

and I didn't even realize Tulsi, That

24:00

in a series of cases we had for the former president, we had like three in

24:02

a row. And we were up collectively me

24:05

and one other lawyer for our side and then the

24:07

other two for their side. We

24:09

were up for three and a half

24:11

hours. But, you know, so it's, you know, it

24:13

takes on a different personality. The

24:15

problem is this, if the court rules

24:17

against you, It's not my job to

24:19

say the court is an illegitimate

24:21

institution. Right? My job is to say, you know, I think

24:23

the court got it wrong. I've never

24:25

had a case go again meet unanimous. So I've, you know, I've

24:27

lost some. We all, you know, it's rare that

24:29

you wouldn't mind, won a vast

24:31

majority. I think I I think we're batting like seventy

24:33

four percent which would for

24:35

baseball would be pretty good. End

24:35

of Incro.

24:36

Oh. But the you know, when we've lost,

24:39

we've had defense. And, you know, I'd

24:41

say that I believe you know, I think that the descent was right. But

24:43

if you start attacking the institution,

24:45

which is precisely what is happening

24:47

now. Yeah. And it's precisely what we

24:50

saw happen, in the summer with the the leaking of that

24:52

Supreme Court opinion. I'll tell you this. When that

24:54

when that first broke in the news that there was this

24:56

possible leak, I said publicly

24:58

There is no way that can be a leaked opinion.

25:01

Someone's doing some something nefarious

25:03

altogether. Both would have been nefarious

25:05

because the supreme court doesn't leak

25:07

opinions. There's no way that could happen. And sure enough, two

25:09

days later, the chief justice had issued a statement

25:11

saying it was. So that

25:13

has changed so that I think has

25:16

has caused internally

25:18

inside the court tremendous

25:21

stress between the justices and their

25:23

chambers. And that's gonna reflect

25:25

what we see in the ahead as the courts back in

25:27

session and and the term starts

25:29

and cases come in it. I I think, you

25:31

know, I think we're gonna see it

25:33

in in ways maybe we didn't think so before, but

25:35

it's it's very different now. But

25:37

the attacking of the court is

25:40

unbelievably dangerous to a constitutional republic.

25:43

During

25:43

that time, Chuck Schumer was

25:45

making threats himself -- Yeah.

25:47

-- towards towards supreme court

25:49

justices if they dared to rule the

25:51

wrong way in his view. As you said, protesters

25:54

-- Yeah. -- protesting illegally

25:56

outside of the Supreme

25:58

Court Justice's homes and no action

26:01

administration at all

26:03

in in protecting that independence

26:05

of our justices

26:07

and actually enforcing

26:10

the law. You know, the

26:12

the it used to be I I

26:14

worked as a legislative aid for senator

26:16

Ocaca.

26:17

he's a World War II veteran. He came

26:20

from that greatest generation

26:22

of veterans from both parties who

26:24

served in the US senate at a

26:26

different time when there was a lot more

26:28

civility between members

26:30

of Congress. And I remember during

26:32

that time also as supreme court

26:34

justices were being nominated or or nominees

26:37

for the court were coming before the

26:39

senate, it was not uncommon

26:41

that you had a vast majority

26:43

of a bipartisan vote for

26:45

that Supreme Court

26:46

justice. I think --

26:47

Yeah. -- those vote sometimes. Right.

26:51

Exactly. And yet now, I think,

26:53

at least over the last ten years,

26:55

certainly, while I was in

26:55

Congress, it

26:56

is almost a predetermined outcome.

26:59

Right? If you've got a Democrat president

27:01

putting forward a Democrat nominee. It's

27:03

an assumption that Republicans will have to

27:05

vote against the nominee and vice versa. Right.

27:07

If you've got a Republican president,

27:11

they put forward a nominee. Democrats

27:13

automatically take that position

27:15

against even if they're saying, oh, I'm open minded. We'll

27:17

see oh, meet with them. What it it's

27:19

it's a given. How does

27:21

that change? Because that's been my

27:23

argument. You see, okay, we'll expand the court. People are

27:25

saying, oh, we should just expand the court. That

27:27

makes no difference. If fundamentally,

27:29

our US senators have so politicized

27:32

this process that they're drawing a

27:34

line in the sand based

27:36

on whether or not a nominee is

27:38

from their party or not rather

27:40

than actually looking at, to me, the

27:42

the most fundamental qualification, which

27:45

is will you uphold the constitutional

27:47

rights of every

27:48

American? Am I am I wrong? No. You're

27:50

you're right. I mean, if you look at the you look

27:52

at two, you know, clearly

27:56

for the ages, justices. Yeah.

27:58

Anthony Scalia, Ruth Bader

28:00

Ginsburg, who also by the

28:02

way, were completely opposites in their judicial philosophy,

28:04

but the closest of friends for decades

28:06

on the not just on that recording.

28:09

It was it was great. So you

28:11

look at their confirmations, I think they were booked

28:13

like ninety six to I think some

28:15

senators didn't show up because it

28:16

was, you know, Don

28:17

You couldn't argue that that Scalia

28:20

wasn't qualified. You couldn't argue that Ruth Bader

28:22

Ginsburg wasn't qualified. She was exactly Supreme

28:24

Court Advocate herself Scalia was in the op was

28:26

the head of the office of legal council and department of

28:29

justice. They were both judges on the

28:31

DC circuit. I mean, these were qualified

28:34

nominees to be at the supreme

28:35

court. But now, it it

28:38

doesn't matter. It now

28:38

means there are litmus test on how will you rule in

28:40

a particular case, which is unbelievably dangerous.

28:43

I don't care if you're if you're pro life,

28:45

pro choice, asking that question that

28:47

way is really bad because you're asking

28:49

for a predetermined out come before a

28:51

case is briefed, which, you know, their

28:54

restrictions. But I think the if you look at the last

28:56

several nominations, generally.

28:58

It it's tragic

29:01

that we've reached this level of

29:04

discourse, which is I think is gunnaral at this

29:06

point. I mean, it's in the gutter. And

29:09

when when senator Schumer went

29:11

to the front of the steps of the Supreme Court

29:13

of the United States and screamed at the

29:15

top of his lungs, to justice Gorsuch

29:18

and justice Kavanaugh. You'll

29:20

rule the day. You're gonna reap a

29:22

whirlwind. And then, of course, you had basically an

29:24

assassination attempt. On Justice

29:26

Kavanaugh. How did we

29:28

get here? And I look at back in the nineteen

29:30

eighties when I argued cases, started

29:32

arguing cases, and Although there

29:34

was a big ideological divide, you never

29:37

had that kind of relationship.

29:39

The justices were closer, the the public

29:42

I think had a better understanding of what the rule of law was

29:44

and it's supposed to be. And III think

29:46

I think the confirmation process

29:48

Tulsi is actually symptomatic

29:51

of of where we are in our culture

29:53

and it's a dangerous place. You the

29:55

idea that you cannot have a common meaning

29:57

of the minds, or agree to disagree. And that's

29:59

now, like, you know, totally politically incorrect

30:02

to have a differing view. I look at

30:04

my friends at the

30:04

ACLU, and I'm shot. I represented the

30:07

ACLU. No

30:08

kidding. Was their lawyer. When they were denied the

30:11

right to have on a bus,

30:13

add, you know, whenever their

30:16

ACL you message was. And

30:18

I represented them. This was a long

30:20

time

30:20

ago. And now I look at the cases where they're

30:22

filing, and I'm thinking, yeah.

30:23

Wait a minute. You're the ones who defended the guy's right

30:25

to march in Skokie, the Nazi's right to march

30:27

in Skokie, a predominantly Jewish neighborhood. And

30:30

your lawyer did that, and that was

30:32

there and the court agreed that it was

30:34

constitutionally protected. And now you're

30:37

only taking cases where you think

30:39

it it meets the politically correct standard of the

30:41

day, which changes as we all know, a decade from

30:43

now. So it's very high. As you

30:45

could tell, I'm animated and very concerned about

30:47

where it goes. I really missed the

30:49

days of the collegiality.

30:51

Same thing's true in the bar by the way with the lawyers.

30:54

I mean, you know, it used to be, I moved

30:56

the emission. If a lawyer was coming

30:58

from out of state representing planned

30:59

parenthood, I would move their admission. Because

31:02

that

31:02

means What does that mean to So if you're

31:04

not if you're not licensed in, let's say, the District

31:06

of Columbia, but you're coming from New York.

31:08

And you remember the bar in New

31:09

York, you could be admitted pro hack VJ.

31:11

I would

31:12

and they would do it then too. I

31:14

would say we don't oppose the motion or we'd

31:16

make the motion for their admission, believing

31:19

they have good character and our

31:21

license to practice law in the state of New York, unless

31:23

they should be recognized for the purpose of this

31:24

case. I I can't imagine that happening

31:27

today. I mean, that

31:27

would be I

31:29

mean, I can't even imagine it happening. Go go back a little

31:31

bit because you you kind of you you mentioned

31:33

the the Skokie case -- Yeah.

31:35

-- which was extremely significant

31:38

at that time, and and the significance

31:40

still stands today -- Yeah. -- for those who

31:42

don't know much about it. Can you talk about

31:44

Can you talk about that? Because because

31:47

the ACLUs choosing to

31:49

carry the banner and fight for

31:52

free speech. Yep. In that case

31:54

is monumental and how you've

31:56

seen the a the

31:58

ACLU's character and ethos

32:00

change to

32:01

today. So I was a law student when

32:03

that case was going on. So we paid a lot of

32:05

attention to that case. And I had lived

32:07

in Skokie as a

32:08

kid. Still

32:08

kidding. Yeah. Wow. So Skokie is

32:11

a predominantly a lot of Jewish community, not probably

32:13

Jewish community, but there's a lot of Jewish people

32:15

live in Skokie. There were also a lot of Holocaust

32:17

survivors in in Skokie. And the

32:19

Nazi a group of Nazis decided they wanted to

32:21

march in Skokie. And

32:23

they were initially denied, and the

32:25

ACLU took up the case.

32:27

And ULTIMATELY ONE AT THE SUPREME

32:29

COURT THE RIGHT FOR A SPEECH

32:31

YOU TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH. RIGHT? AS

32:33

LONG AS THEY'RE AN ADVISATING ILLEGAL

32:36

CONDUCT IMMINENT HARM, to

32:38

March. It was the right decision. Controversial,

32:40

but the right decision. So

32:42

that's an

32:43

excuse. If if I'm remembering correctly, they

32:45

lost a lot of Jewish donors.

32:48

And there was kind of a mass

32:50

exodus of Jewish attorneys on their

32:52

staff who didn't agree with their

32:53

position, but they stuck to it. Because it was

32:55

the right thing to do. Yeah. They did. And you saw

32:58

over the years. Like, when I I did a

33:00

lot of free speech

33:02

cases, for groups are handing out

33:04

religious literature in public places, Jews for

33:06

Jesus, other groups. And I mean and

33:08

some political groups too that would be handing

33:11

up of all different political backgrounds. Right.

33:13

And I would have the labor

33:15

unions and the ACLU U.

33:17

ACLU filing briefs on our side. Because

33:19

if it was free speech was good for

33:21

Jews for Jesus, it certainly was gonna be

33:23

good for the FLCIO or -- Right. --

33:25

the Hari Christians or whoever it might be. Or

33:27

the National Democratic Policy Committee, whoever it

33:29

might be. And in those days, it was

33:31

the same kind of group of lawyers that were handling the

33:33

free speech cases, and we didn't get

33:36

into what is your ideology that we're

33:38

supporting? We were first amendment

33:40

purists. Right. Those days

33:42

are are of the ACLU. I just don't

33:44

see it more. I thought for instance, if you got a pro life

33:46

protest case, I mean, one of the chances of

33:48

the ACLU joining, I think,

33:51

zero. And And

33:53

I think that that does not bode well for our

33:56

government. It doesn't bode well for the Supreme

33:58

Court. It's, I think, an unfortunate

34:00

development, but it's one I saw

34:03

kind of the I call it creeping approach of losing

34:05

freedom or losing focus. And

34:07

and I think you kind of become

34:09

untethered at that point. And now

34:11

every everybody's got you know, it's I mean, what's going on in the college campuses?

34:13

I don't even wanna go speak at a college campus

34:15

anymore. Why would you subject

34:17

yourself to this? The last time

34:19

I did it was at my alma mater.

34:22

And they asked me to beat their this was a

34:24

big donor event and there and I

34:26

did an event for that. And then they asked

34:28

me to speak to the students. They said, I'll be about two

34:30

hundred students show up and there was like a thousand. And

34:32

this was in the middle of the impeachment stuff, but I did

34:34

it. Called the president of the university. I said, you know, I'm handling a controversial

34:36

matter right now. You may wanna rethink me coming,

34:38

oh, no. No. This will be good. It

34:40

was they were so rude these students.

34:43

Now that I got up. And then as you know, you we've

34:45

known each other a long time. Yeah. I'm not a

34:47

shy

34:47

person. No. I said, I am

34:50

your guest. Mhmm. And is

34:52

this the way you treat a guest? And then a

34:54

student quoted something that

34:56

he said or she said that I

34:58

had said, which was from a law

35:00

review article I wrote, Citing something

35:02

Abraham Lincoln said, and they were trying to turn

35:04

into something else, but that's what's happened. And you

35:06

see that in the law schools too. I mean, the law

35:08

schools right now. If you're a Jewish student on a law

35:10

school campus, You see Berkeley? They basically

35:12

have Jewish free zones right now. I mean, this

35:14

is saw that. Yeah. And the

35:17

city universities in New York, mean, we just saw

35:19

the title six case on behalf of six professors. You cannot believe what's going

35:21

on. But where is the ACLU in these

35:23

cases? That's what I'd like

35:25

to know. Exactly.

35:26

And the double standard there. Right? I I mean, I saw that headline. I

35:28

don't know yesterday or the day before about

35:30

UC Berkeley and that

35:32

it was the student groups

35:34

who led kind of the passage of bylaws that created these Jewish

35:36

free zones and would ban any

35:38

speaker from coming to that school

35:42

who who supports Israel or or Zionism.

35:44

And the thing that I immediately thought

35:46

was, first of all, where's the uproar

35:49

about this? Yeah.

35:50

And secondly, I know that there would

35:53

be an uproar from democrat

35:55

leaders, from the ACLU, from care,

35:57

and from many others if

35:59

you replace the word Jewish with

36:01

Muslim. Right. Exactly

36:03

correct. And that that's

36:05

double standard. It's double standard. The dean

36:07

of the law school very well known

36:09

guy or Germanuski. Dean of the

36:11

law school, UCLA Berkeley

36:14

said, I or

36:16

you see Berkeley? I would not be him. The Dean would not be

36:18

able to speak at his own college law

36:20

school based on what their speech standards

36:22

are. But why are we thinking

36:25

speech free zones are a good thing. Exactly.

36:28

How have we how has the world

36:30

changed so much that I

36:32

grew up in the sixties

36:34

and seventies. I mean, we had lockouts and protests and left our

36:36

classes during the Vietnam War. My my

36:38

I was born in nineteen fifty six.

36:40

My year was the last year

36:43

of the lottery for the for the Vietnam

36:45

war or the the next last one. I no. We no.

36:47

We had it. We were pulled. And nobody was saying

36:49

because the war was pretty much over. But There

36:51

were walkouts. There were protests. It was the famous

36:53

tinker case with the armbands. I mean, you had

36:55

all of this going on. And

36:58

Liberals were supporting this free and

37:00

open discourse. Now they're creating speech free zones and think that's

37:02

okay. And and it's not even got

37:03

there. It's

37:04

very very It was dangerous.

37:07

And congress. Yeah. And and we see where this is going. I

37:10

saw the prime minister of New Zealand gave

37:12

a speech before the

37:14

United Nations just recently, literally

37:16

characterizing free speech

37:18

online as a weapon

37:22

of war. And that

37:24

leaders of nations around the world

37:26

and the United Nations have a responsibility to

37:30

curtail that free speech for the sake of the

37:32

greater good. Yes. As I've

37:34

read these, you know, the the words that

37:38

she spoke it it really does paint that picture of

37:40

exactly where this erosion

37:42

for us here in the United States. We have a constitution

37:46

that guarantees free speech, not all

37:48

countries have this. What ours

37:50

does, and when you look at these different

37:52

examples of what's happening here, we can

37:54

see where

37:56

it's going on a global level of these attempts to try

37:58

to suppress freedoms.

38:00

And I think it comes from this fundamental

38:02

and dangerous lack of respect

38:05

and appreciation specifically for the constitution. I I

38:08

remember the, you know, we were talking about the

38:10

US Senate

38:12

and how frankly,

38:14

there is there is a disrespect. And frankly, and it's

38:16

getting to be more public, a dismissal

38:18

of the constitution, a questioning,

38:21

oh, hey, maybe we don't need the first amendment or maybe

38:23

it's out of date, you know, certainly second

38:26

amendment. There's, I think, blatant

38:28

hatred for the second amendment.

38:30

But specifically when were talking about I remember when

38:33

there were a few examples

38:35

of how US

38:38

senators somehow

38:40

forgot that there is a clause in the

38:42

constitution that says there shall be no religious

38:44

test. Yeah. And and even going at

38:47

a deeper level, it kinda speaks to

38:50

their their hatred of

38:52

of god and their

38:54

animosity and their desire

38:56

to rid any mention or presence of

38:59

god from, you know, every

39:01

facet of our public

39:04

life Diane Feinstein. I think this is when Amy Coney Barrett

39:06

was nominated -- Yeah. -- first, not

39:08

for the Supreme Court, but I think it was

39:10

as a circuit court judge. When

39:12

she said that she was disqualified because

39:14

quote, the dogma lives loudly

39:17

within you. Yeah. Sounds like

39:19

something to Star Wars when she said that. Exactly. I mean, it

39:21

was, you know, it was when when Senator

39:24

Feinsons said that, it was I I thought when

39:26

I heard that, I said,

39:28

who put that in front of her? Or

39:30

how did she think of that?

39:32

As an appropriate thing to say about

39:35

a just a judge

39:37

who or nominee who happen to be

39:39

taking your Catholic face seriously.

39:41

And you're now trivializing it

39:44

or saying you're disqualified from

39:46

serving as a judge because the

39:49

dogma lives deep within

39:50

you. I mean, that mean? Right. I

39:52

mean And who's nothing good? Who is

39:55

she to judge

39:55

someone's personal relationship

39:58

with God? Yeah. What pretty dangerous.

40:01

Very dangerous. We we I think it was

40:03

Mayzie Corona, our senator from Hawaii

40:06

who said against

40:08

Brian Bouchare disqualifying

40:10

him because he's a member of the nights of Columbus.

40:12

Right. And and immediately, I thought,

40:14

we've had some pretty prominent leaders

40:16

in our country, democrats, including president

40:19

Kennedy, senator Ted Kennedy and others

40:21

who were also nights of

40:24

Columbus. Right. They

40:26

would then be disqualified in

40:28

this in this day and age, which goes to the

40:30

heart of really the

40:31

question, is what

40:34

you've dedicated most of your life too, which is defending

40:35

religious liberty. How is

40:38

it that US senators in

40:42

the, you know, the most prominent positions of

40:44

power in our country don't

40:46

seem to understand what religious

40:48

liberty means And how

40:50

how are they getting it so wrong? This

40:52

idea of separation of church and state, which

40:54

is is the excuse that is often used

40:56

--

40:56

Yeah. -- as they seek to eliminate

40:59

God from our country,

41:01

our lives. Well, the supreme court hasn't

41:03

helped them much to be honest. I mean, the

41:05

establishment clause, which is where the whole church

41:07

state relationship is based. The opinions

41:11

have been all over the place.

41:13

There's some more clarity recently. But, I mean,

41:15

I had a case involving a church that was

41:17

wanted to use a school facility on

41:20

Sundays. It was open to any group you can

41:22

imagine, but they said,

41:24

oh, no. You're a church. It was lamb's chapel church. You can't do

41:26

this. We're not gonna allow a church. We'll

41:28

allow literally, every other

41:30

group you could

41:32

imagine. And we won the case nine to zero. So that was the good point. Okay.

41:34

What interesting part was here's what

41:36

happened, though. Okay. The

41:38

establishment clause issue, which was the heart

41:40

of this. Thing. Justice Scalia

41:42

was then called the lemon test, which was

41:44

this three part test that you could

41:46

never quite figure out exactly what the

41:48

court meant. But he called it

41:50

a ghoul in a late night horror

41:52

show. That rises from the

41:54

grave, lemon, the lemon test, when we

41:56

wanna strike something down. But it'll

41:58

go docile when we wanna say something's

42:00

okay. Finally,

42:02

several months back. They finally, in

42:04

an opinion by Justice Gorsuch said,

42:07

The lemon test is no it

42:09

it doesn't work. There's no place for

42:11

that, and the court returns what I call

42:13

the historical understanding of the establishment clause,

42:16

which is this. You shouldn't coerce somebody to have

42:18

to do a religious exercise,

42:20

to get a government benefit,

42:22

to obtain

42:26

office. But on the other hand, you should not penalize

42:28

somebody because of their religious views. And

42:30

that's the proper balance of this. And I think

42:32

you'll see a series of cases coming up in the

42:34

next decade.

42:36

That'll, you know, continue to clarify. I've got one of them. And

42:38

it's to clarify this idea that

42:40

just because you see something you don't

42:42

like, doesn't mean you

42:44

can get it stopped. There's you know, it's the hecklers

42:46

veto. Yeah. And can you

42:47

talk I want you to talk a little

42:49

bit more about that because we're living now

42:51

in a time where We

42:54

often hear words or

42:56

violence. If you say something

42:58

offensive to me, you should

43:00

be silenced. And this is this is really the premise, and we're hearing it from

43:02

this administration too. This is the premise

43:04

behind, like, hey, Big Tech is

43:06

gonna censor certain people's

43:08

voices because of

43:10

things that they deem hate speech or they find offensive,

43:14

whether it be offensive to one group,

43:16

but not another group. Right.

43:18

And and and walking down this justifying censorship and

43:21

silencing and taking away our

43:23

our first amendment rights

43:26

You you filed a a case

43:28

recently with the Supreme Court

43:29

that speaks

43:30

to the heart of this. Yes. And

43:33

And but before I get right to that, you you have

43:35

a really important point. The court has

43:37

been where they've an area where

43:39

they've been unanimous. The

43:41

branches you served in didn't quite get it, but the court

43:44

the supreme court did. And that was viewpoint

43:46

discrimination. This idea that I

43:48

could say, pro life

43:50

and somebody could say their pro choice, but

43:52

my voice gets censored or their voice gets

43:54

censored and you only allow one viewpoint

43:56

in the marketplace. The court has been unanimous. Nine

43:59

zero. Viewpoint discrimination is

44:02

unconstitutional. So I

44:04

I had series of those cases in the nineties and we won them all either eight

44:06

to one or nine to zero. So

44:08

it was not even a close call.

44:10

However, what has

44:12

crept in So you had that

44:14

great precedent. Right. But now you

44:16

have this view that if

44:18

your speech is used to be we

44:20

used to say robust aggressive and

44:23

even obnoxious would be

44:25

constitutionally protected. Mhmm. Now what was not constantly

44:27

protected? You couldn't yell fired at a movie theater. You

44:29

couldn't you couldn't do imminent

44:32

lawless conduct. But short

44:34

of that, it was protected speech. Now

44:36

what do you have

44:38

is, well, your speech may be protected if the

44:40

populace agrees with it, which is also very

44:42

dangerous. You know, the

44:44

court has

44:46

so far ruled the right

44:48

way on those. But when it comes to

44:50

prayer, seems to be the

44:52

one issue where the

44:54

flags go up immediately on all sides. Wait

44:56

a minute. So here's what happened

44:58

in the city of Ocala. They had a crime spree. And the

45:00

leaders of the community and

45:03

City Council officials mayor said, what we we need to call

45:06

our community together here. And the I think it was

45:08

the NAACP head said, why don't we have

45:10

a privilege? Community wide.

45:12

Any faith, no faith, you're

45:14

welcome to come. And everybody

45:16

said, this is a good idea. So the city

45:18

puts it up on like a posting. And that

45:20

was it. They have this prayer

45:21

vigil. A lot of people show up. A couple of people showed

45:23

up for the purpose of being offended. That's

45:25

what they actually put in their complaint. I know

45:27

I'm gonna be

45:29

there.

45:30

I'm coming knowing this is gonna be offensive to me,

45:32

and yes, I'm offended, thus I file a

45:35

lawsuit because I'm offended. So

45:38

what and so we've got two

45:40

issues there. You've got the is that a

45:42

violation of the constitution

45:44

having a city involved in a prayer meeting that's open to the general public

45:46

Tulsi faith. But also,

45:48

can you bring a lawsuit

45:52

because you heard something you don't

45:54

like. And the answer to that question

45:56

needs to be no. That is

45:58

not standing. What we call

46:00

legal doctrine of ability to get into

46:02

court. Because I don't like the

46:04

message. It's like, you know, I walk by and there's the ten

46:06

commandment monuments. I had these

46:08

cases. And you know, the the

46:10

person that tells us, I hate that monument.

46:12

I I when I knowing it's there,

46:14

I get ill. That is one of

46:16

their arguments. And the court

46:17

said, okay. Come and give me a break. Okay. And they're not aiming Right?

46:18

They're claiming, like, physical or psychological

46:20

harm. A metaphysical harm.

46:24

Is what they're saying. And I'm not I'm not trying to not met a business. I'm just

46:26

trying to say, how is that a recognizable

46:28

legal issue? But it is

46:32

And so this case gives the court a

46:34

chance to

46:34

say, here's the rule.

46:36

Well, you can challenge in a practice

46:38

of a city or county or a

46:41

state. The standard will be,

46:43

is it coercive? Did you have to

46:45

go, for instance, if the city of Cali said,

46:47

you know, the hurricane just came through,

46:49

We're gonna give everybody a five hundred dollar rebate on

46:51

their property taxes if you come to this

46:54

meeting and participate in a prayer group.

46:56

Well, that's

46:58

coercive. Right. That's markedly different than we think the

47:00

communities to be called together. We're gonna offer a

47:02

prayer vigil as one of the things to do.

47:04

So that

47:06

case is now been filed undocumented with the court. The other side will

47:08

respond November ish.

47:10

Probably, we'll know if they'll hear it in December,

47:12

which we mean argument. And these

47:16

things move remarkably slow for years, and then it just is

47:18

over within months. So it'll be we

47:20

filed, they filed in thirty days,

47:22

we'll respond in fourteen days

47:24

after that, the court on the

47:26

side December. They'll calendar

47:28

we'll have to file then the merits brief. Takes

47:30

about sixty, ninety days. Sometimes they

47:32

shorten it up. Probably February, March, arguing

47:34

in

47:34

April, decision by June. So that phase will if

47:37

they take it, we'll go quickly. Right. And

47:39

it amplifies the law. And that's

47:41

the purpose. Right? Is is setting that precedent clarifying the law

47:43

for any future questions or

47:45

challenges? Yep. Because this idea that

47:47

if I'm offended, they

47:50

can stop it. Exactly. It's just a really

47:51

I mean, think about that in in in a country

47:53

like ours. Yeah. I mean, we started with the,

47:55

you know, Patriot throwing tea into

47:58

a harbor. I mean, in a

48:00

revolutionary war. And, you know, there

48:02

there was a speech that you disagreed with. And, you know, that's

48:04

one of the reasons we left Great Britain.

48:06

And then the idea now that if I'm

48:08

offended by what you

48:08

say, thus I can sue you. Yeah. That's not the way it should be. No.

48:10

So, hopefully, this court will be taken. And

48:12

if they grant review, I feel optimistic

48:16

that that will carry that. I never count listen. I'm always not a great student.

48:18

I can count to five. I'm hopeful that

48:20

we can get to

48:21

five. That this is the magic number these days,

48:23

but I think even more. On

48:25

the case of that. I actually hope so. For the sake

48:27

of for the sake of our

48:29

country. Right. I I really hope

48:31

that's the case. What do you see? I

48:33

I heard I recently, you know, the Center for American

48:36

Progress has been putting

48:38

out the the basic message

48:40

that this

48:42

rising tide in their view of Christian nationalism

48:44

is the greatest threat to

48:47

religious liberty in our

48:50

country how how do

48:52

you characterize what they're saying

48:54

and and this rhetoric that

48:56

they are pushing? And and

48:59

what do you see? As the

49:01

greatest threat to religious liberty in America right

49:03

now. So,

49:03

you know, the whole this whole Christian

49:05

nationalist movement, whatever and however

49:07

that is defined.

49:10

Look, if they break the law, they should be held accountable for breaking the law.

49:12

If they hold a position, we think it's extreme. Well,

49:14

they get to hold an extreme position. You

49:16

could you could have extreme thoughts. You

49:20

can't act you can't act out extreme conduct in

49:22

a way that's harmful to others. I

49:24

just get, you know, you're a veteran. So IIII

49:27

mean, I defer to you on this.

49:29

But you know, I I know the kind of work that my friends

49:31

that have served in the military have been doing over

49:33

the last twenty years. And I'm thinking, what's

49:35

the greatest threat to America?

49:38

Probably not a group of people that are carrying an American flag that

49:40

has a cross on it, and then you may think it's

49:42

kinda why are they doing that. That to me is

49:44

not the greatest

49:46

threat. Now That doesn't

49:48

justify going into the United States capital on

49:50

January sixth. Every one of those people that were involved

49:52

in that should be held accountable for that because

49:54

that was outrageous. It was but it was a violation of the

49:56

law. So use the law and hold them

49:58

accountable. But a group of

50:00

people that have a

50:02

particular thought and saying that thought is now off limits

50:03

very dangerous. No matter what side you're

50:06

on. Yeah. I I think it's

50:08

interesting to to

50:10

see how Again,

50:12

the so called progressive left is pushing

50:14

this narrative and how dangerous

50:16

that is again, especially when

50:18

we have you know, the Department of Homeland

50:20

Security's domestic terror unit going after

50:22

parents who were, you know, protesting at

50:24

their kids' board of education

50:26

meeting. Right. And

50:28

and and then also the president characterizing people

50:30

who voted for Donald Trump as extremist and

50:32

the greatest threat to our democracy

50:35

and yet you look at,

50:38

for example, the continued threat

50:40

of this radical Islamist ideology

50:44

that fuel as a percent. She hottest terrorist groups like Qaeda

50:46

and ISIS. And number

50:48

one, the reality that that

50:52

poses the greatest long term

50:54

threat, not only to our

50:56

society, but to the world,

50:58

and also people

51:00

in this administration, obviously, I I was

51:02

vocal about this during the Obama

51:03

administration, refused to even

51:06

say those words. Refused to even

51:07

identify this ideology

51:10

that fuels these terrorist groups. And

51:12

and what that actually means that when you

51:14

have people who are fueled by this

51:18

convert or we will kill you --

51:20

Right. -- mentality, then

51:22

you recognize kind of how how

51:24

where that path leads and we've seen it and experienced it

51:26

unfortunately as a

51:27

country. Yeah. So here's the reality. I mean, nine

51:29

eleven seems like a lifetime ago, but it

51:32

was it

51:34

was twenty two years ago.

51:35

Yeah. And

51:35

and we're still dealing with Islamic

51:38

radicalism today. We are

51:40

one terror attack away. From

51:43

remembering what the greatest threat is to

51:45

a constitutional republic. Mhmm. It's

51:48

one terrorist attack away. And you look, you've been on

51:50

the front lines literally. In this. And

51:52

so III think and I worked on a lot of

51:54

the legal issues surrounding the war on terror. And

51:56

there were complicated issues. I'm not gonna say they

51:58

weren't there complicated legal issues. One

52:01

thing that was impressive was

52:03

our constitution worked through all that. I

52:05

mean, including the ability if we got

52:07

for bid was necessary, succession

52:10

of government. And you had all those laws passed afterward on how

52:12

we take take it down even to different levels

52:14

so that the country survived. But we

52:16

were we're

52:18

one attack away from remembering

52:20

what is the greatest threat. For instance,

52:22

the administration right now

52:26

is clamoring for a nuclear

52:28

deal with Iran. What

52:30

that situation has done, which is the

52:32

only positive thing I can see out of that attempt

52:35

get into this deal. I thought what president Obama

52:37

did was outrageous. They're the largest

52:39

sponsor of we're exporter of

52:41

terrorism in the world. But it sure united the Middle East.

52:43

I will say that. Mhmm. And and you have things like

52:45

the Abraham Accord, and you've got the

52:47

Georgenians and the

52:49

Egyptian and the Israelis and the Saudi's and the Gulf

52:52

State, all looking at working together because

52:54

there's a really giant foe in

52:56

the region. And that was the

52:58

former empire of Persia. And the Persians were great people, and they are great people.

53:00

They you're under a totalitarian regime.

53:04

I mean, you think about what the the Persian influence

53:06

in art literature science and

53:08

now they're in this, you know,

53:11

autocracy religious autocracy. It really is

53:14

a religious dictatorship. And

53:16

yet the people are on the streets.

53:18

They're saying upwards of

53:20

a million young people. Mostly women are on the streets.

53:22

And it was a great statement

53:24

by a human rights activist from Iran

53:26

who's in the United States right now, and she

53:28

said this. We're not asking the

53:30

United States to come in and protect our the

53:32

women. And that that's women that are leading this

53:34

protest. Right. But we are asking the

53:36

United States to

53:38

not fund the dictators that are trying to kill us.

53:40

Mhmm. And that's that's where we gotta

53:42

remember what the real threats are. So you can

53:44

have these

53:46

skirmishes with you know, what is Christian nationalism fundamentalism

53:48

or religious progressive, whatever labels you wanna put

53:50

on things. But at the end of the day, are they trying

53:52

to destroy the Republic? The answer is no.

53:56

Yeah. Okay? You may not agree with their positions. You may think it's outrageous.

53:59

But again, the

54:02

threat That's a very different

54:04

threat than a real

54:05

threat, which was attempting to take down our

54:07

government twenty two years ago.

54:10

Yeah. Well well said, you know, it's I

54:12

I as you said that I was just

54:14

remembering when I was in

54:15

Congress, I introduced legislation called the

54:17

stop arming terrorists.

54:20

Right.

54:20

I remember that. That that spoke directly to that. That's the key.

54:22

I mean, that it is the key. There

54:25

was one senator out

54:27

of a hundred that sponsored that legislation.

54:29

Rand Paul. One single senator who had the

54:32

courage, why it takes why it

54:34

is an

54:36

active courage to say, hey, we should

54:38

not be funding and arming these terrorists. Those

54:40

who attacked us on nine eleven is

54:42

is truly a state of the fact

54:45

that we don't have leaders in Washington. We

54:48

have a bunch of people who are very

54:50

scared and followers and care

54:52

more about keeping their

54:54

job and their ambition or whatever it may

54:56

be than they do actually about

54:58

serving and protecting our

54:59

country. I don't understand in, and

55:01

I'm I've never understood this. I mean, you know the politics better than

55:03

me, but how your legislation, which to me was exact

55:05

it was, like, all four

55:07

people. Yeah. Stop. Funding

55:10

the guys and gals that are trying

55:12

to destroy, not just the United

55:14

States, but are destroying the

55:16

region. Right. And that's

55:18

like, oh, that could be too controversial. I

55:20

mean, that's where we've gone as a culture, but

55:22

that's too controversial. Yeah. I mean, this is

55:24

this So when you say, what's the religious liberty problem? All of this.

55:26

I mean, because it's a liberty problem.

55:28

I mean, it's it's, you know, at

55:30

the end of the day, religious

55:32

liberty is only as good as the constitution is to protect

55:34

it. Yes. And as good as the

55:35

constitution is to protect freedom of space and freedom

55:38

of thought and

55:40

freedom to protest and

55:42

free acts freedom to petition your

55:44

government for redress or grievances. Yeah. The founders

55:46

were right on all of that. The problem is

55:48

we'd lose that really

55:50

quickly if The country

55:52

is so undermined, not only by a

55:54

radical movement of the left,

55:56

but by laws that are put in

55:58

place that squelch a

56:00

dissenting

56:00

voice. And I think that's what we always got

56:02

to be

56:02

careful of. Howard Bauchner: I think a lot of people found their

56:04

eyes open to this very directly and

56:08

personally THROUT THE COVID PANDEMIC

56:10

AND HOW THOSE WHO SOT RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS

56:12

TO VACCINE MANDATES WERE DENIED

56:16

friends of mine in the military fall in that category,

56:18

how those who sought to gather,

56:20

to worship, whether it

56:23

was in a you know, a church or a temple or a synagogue

56:25

or even outdoors -- Yeah. -- were told no,

56:28

you are not allowed to

56:30

do that. I think some

56:32

pastors were even arrested

56:34

because they continued to try to

56:36

gather and and

56:38

in fellowship while big box retailers and corporate

56:40

entities were allowed to remain

56:42

open and people were allowed to open

56:44

access to go in

56:46

and frequent those establishments. I

56:48

think that that this question

56:50

of, okay, well, they say, oh,

56:52

well, we and

56:54

I know the supreme court argued this. Right? They're like, okay. Well, in

56:56

the name of public health, we can

56:59

curtail your right to religious

57:01

freedom. Yeah. Where do you draw

57:04

the line?

57:04

Well, I mean, here there was one that they

57:06

were using a one size fits all. I mean, the best

57:08

I think the best line that came out of those cases. I think I don't know if it was justice Thomas or Justin

57:10

Toledo, maybe both of them together said, you know,

57:12

it was out of Las Vegas. It was, you

57:15

know, it was, you know, Caesar's

57:18

Palace is fine. Right? So when to run to Caesar, that

57:20

was fine. But you know, Calvary

57:22

Chapel couldn't meet in in Las

57:24

Vegas. Here was the problem. They

57:27

would take a congregation that had a building of that

57:29

could seat, you know, three thousand people and

57:31

say, we're gonna

57:34

reduce the number of people that

57:36

could come to twenty five percent or twenty five people, whichever

57:38

is lower. And that was whether your

57:40

facility housed five thousand

57:44

or fifty. So none of that made sense. Now, the the the

57:46

the look, a lot of it was, and I I

57:48

I'm trying to be I lost the brother to COVID.

57:51

III yeah. So I I mean, it was so

57:54

it's very personal to me. But I

57:56

our the ACLJ represented the Heritage

57:59

Foundation at the Supreme Court the

58:01

employer mandate came in because it

58:03

was impossible to administer. It

58:06

turned organizations

58:08

businesses heritage foundations,

58:11

ACLJ's, ACLUs, it turned you

58:13

into a medical facility. Mhmm. And,

58:15

you know, we Like everybody else, we had outbreaks of COVID in our office.

58:17

We did we did not have to have the government

58:20

tell us to put in because we had studios.

58:22

I'm coming to you from one of them. So

58:24

ventilation, obviously, is a huge deal

58:26

because you've got people in areas that are

58:28

tighter and errors, so we put

58:30

in a filtering system. I didn't have to

58:32

have the government tell me to protect my

58:34

employees by putting in a filtering system. If somebody

58:36

was not feeling well, I didn't have to

58:38

government have to tell me, don't have that person

58:40

come in.

58:40

Exactly. So this is

58:41

the this is the difficult

58:44

aspect of a we

58:46

haven't had something like this, ever happened to us

58:49

in our lifetime. I mean, there's been

58:51

epidemics and pandemics before. But

58:53

in our lifetime, this was the great disruptor. And, you know, I'd like to

58:55

know who ultimately. I'd like to

58:57

see, help the people held accountable or the

58:59

country held accountable.

59:02

That launched this on the entire world. Because, you know, we're thinking about the United

59:04

States, and it was, you know, like I said, it's very personal loss

59:06

to me. I lost my brother, I bet. Everybody

59:09

knows somebody that I mean, because a lot of people died

59:11

over this. But it was all over the world.

59:14

And it stopped commerce. It

59:16

was it

59:18

was warfare. It was another version of warfare. And it the dangerous part of

59:20

it is it didn't take much to

59:22

get it spread. I mean, it just started,

59:24

you know,

59:26

wet market

59:27

in a lab, doesn't matter

59:29

because the end result was, and

59:31

then the government trying to

59:33

respond to

59:34

it. Was the difficult part of this. And it was like one piece of the tower.

59:36

Right? I mean,

59:37

it's just like when this will just work. Right? And

59:39

and like like I said, the the

59:41

the synagogue that could seat

59:43

five hundred. So the the government would

59:46

have said twenty five percent. That would have been a

59:48

hundred or twenty five people. Mhmm. But

59:50

if your congregation also set five thousand,

59:52

it was the same twenty five people.

59:54

None of that made made sense.

59:56

Ultimately, but the you saw the court was

59:58

very hesitant. And I and I get

1:00:00

it. You're asking the

1:00:02

supreme court at that

1:00:03

point, when nothing was

1:00:03

known, I think it would come out much differently

1:00:06

today. But at the point where they were

1:00:08

these emergency cases were being thrown up. And

1:00:12

finally, at the end, they started getting it they they it

1:00:14

correctly. But it took a year. But,

1:00:16

you know, putting it to the supreme

1:00:18

court as the decision maker there,

1:00:21

is the exact reason why you have to have an

1:00:24

independent judiciary, and you can't allow

1:00:26

these you know, this this saying the

1:00:28

credibility of the institution of the supreme

1:00:30

court is is zero

1:00:32

and the public trust is

1:00:33

zero. That's dangerous. And is the

1:00:36

guardrail? Is the

1:00:38

courts ultimately So so the question, as as we go forward,

1:00:40

you've been a champion for Liberty for

1:00:42

decades. We

1:00:44

need more champions for Liberty

1:00:47

Is there some hope that you and others are

1:00:50

mentoring and kind of helping

1:00:52

guide a new generation

1:00:54

of attorneys? Who are willing to

1:00:56

take up these fights because the challenges I feel

1:00:58

like the challenges that we are seeing

1:01:00

unfortunately, they're they're it's

1:01:02

getting worse, not better. And

1:01:05

and we need courageous who know law and can argue for us

1:01:07

and for for

1:01:07

Frito. I appreciate you saying that, you know,

1:01:10

it's interesting because I think the case

1:01:12

is now are

1:01:14

much more they're they're different than

1:01:16

they were, you know, could Mary Sue

1:01:18

have her bible plan or could could this

1:01:20

person have their bible study? Can

1:01:23

you protest in front of an abortion clinic? Can you hand out

1:01:25

religious literature? Can the religious to center have a voice?

1:01:27

You look back on those now and then

1:01:29

say, of course, we won

1:01:32

90I mean, you know, you can,

1:01:34

you know, of course, but now there's it's there's a lot of competing balances. So when

1:01:36

I turn I'm sixty six. When I turn sixty,

1:01:39

I said, okay. I'm like,

1:01:42

I think, the previous generation. And I'm not

1:01:44

knocking everybody's got to deal with their own

1:01:46

thing. I'm gonna start

1:01:47

transferring, mentoring

1:01:50

leaders both

1:01:51

in law, media,

1:01:51

whatever it might be. So there are I've done I've

1:01:54

taught. We trained. We have

1:01:56

a whole group

1:01:57

of lawyers. We have this it's

1:01:59

an interesting situation. Of the original people with

1:02:02

the ACLJ, I'm probably the

1:02:04

youngest that started

1:02:05

this. That's

1:02:05

amazing. A

1:02:06

long time ago, and I'm sixty

1:02:08

six. So you've got this it's

1:02:10

like sixty six to eighty. Yeah. And then thirty

1:02:13

five to forty five. And that

1:02:15

but that's actually

1:02:18

perfect. Because now that

1:02:19

generation. In fact, everybody's coming into this office. I think

1:02:22

in a month

1:02:24

or so,

1:02:26

to have meetings and and and kind of so transferred operational

1:02:30

decision making to younger

1:02:32

lawyers that are they're not

1:02:35

kids. They've been doing it for ten or twelve,

1:02:37

fourteen years. I mean, I was arguing cases at

1:02:39

the supreme court. It was thirty four years old.

1:02:41

Thirty three years old. So It's only they haven't

1:02:43

been doing it. I mean, so there's a whole generational war. I'm

1:02:46

actually, it's also

1:02:48

very encouraged. Think about

1:02:50

that. There's a there's a lot of different groups

1:02:52

out there now that are doing this. Everybody kinda

1:02:54

has their own areas of expertise There's

1:02:56

a lot of training that goes on. There are

1:02:58

still law schools that teach constitutional law

1:03:00

actually and first amendment jurisprudence is

1:03:03

getting harder, but there are

1:03:06

some and it's not just conservative.

1:03:08

I mean, conservative libertarian tend to understand

1:03:10

the first amendment better

1:03:13

than the current liberal

1:03:18

politics or liberal political

1:03:20

thought. That wasn't always

1:03:22

the case. When I started this, my allies weren't the like I said,

1:03:24

the AFLCIA or the ACLU, the

1:03:26

Hari Christians, the I mean, the, you know, all

1:03:28

these different

1:03:30

groups. It's not the way

1:03:32

it is

1:03:32

anymore. But I I I'm actually encouraged that

1:03:35

the current supreme

1:03:38

court understands their role

1:03:40

and their jurisdiction. And perfect

1:03:42

example is the decision

1:03:44

in overturning Roe versus Wade.

1:03:46

Some people say wrong decision. Some people say right decision. I remind people what

1:03:48

Justice Ginsburg said. She was a big

1:03:50

supporter of abortion rights. But she said, I

1:03:52

mean, really,

1:03:54

in a Penumbra of the constitution? No. That was not a

1:03:56

good basis to have that. So

1:03:58

it returned it to the states.

1:04:01

Which is where it belonged. And I think, you

1:04:03

know, understanding that that is the

1:04:05

Supreme Court didn't come down with an EIDIC

1:04:07

saying, state you can't

1:04:10

do this. Right? They said federal constitutional rights don't exist

1:04:12

on that issue. So I I

1:04:14

think, look, at the end of the

1:04:15

day, you gotta have hope.

1:04:17

Look, you serve are

1:04:19

we've served our country in the military. We've country in the Congress. We're serving

1:04:21

our country now. We just have to

1:04:23

continue to keep open the

1:04:25

avenues of communication. Yeah. That is the

1:04:28

key. A free society is always the

1:04:30

best society. Those net

1:04:32

countries that support religious liberty

1:04:34

around the globe tend to be the

1:04:36

countries that support freedom around the

1:04:37

globe. That's it. You can look at those

1:04:40

countries and say, those are the ones that

1:04:42

have freedom. And and you have over a million

1:04:44

members, people all over the world, you

1:04:46

have institutions set up,

1:04:48

all over the world, you were fighting

1:04:50

these battles, and fighting for religious

1:04:52

liberty, not only here in the

1:04:54

US, but in other countries

1:04:56

where where religious freedom

1:04:58

is

1:04:59

virtually nonexistent We

1:05:00

have an office in Pakistan. I mean -- There you go. -- case

1:05:02

in point. And

1:05:02

had had a dis I mean, if you look into

1:05:04

this case in the United States, you'd say

1:05:07

this wouldn't be but it was a it's a

1:05:09

horrible situation. A nine year

1:05:11

old Christian And you know,

1:05:13

in that culture, Christianity is really low on the

1:05:16

that's very it's almost like cast

1:05:18

systems -- Right. -- unfortunately. So the

1:05:20

Christians are way down the

1:05:22

list. And this

1:05:24

little nine year old girl was raped and that nobody that we couldn't

1:05:26

they they couldn't get the courts to do anything. Well,

1:05:29

our lawyers went in from

1:05:31

our office in Pakistan and

1:05:33

had thirty three court appearances

1:05:35

in eleven months. Oh my god.

1:05:37

And finally, the perpetrator of this

1:05:40

was convicted to

1:05:42

life imprisonment. When we got justice. But the the scripture say,

1:05:44

justice justice shall you pursue when it says it

1:05:46

twice. Justice justice. It

1:05:48

means you just can't take it for granted.

1:05:51

So as much as we've got a challenge here in

1:05:53

the United States, yes, when I look at

1:05:55

it globally, there are some real

1:05:58

challenges. But I I'm I'm still gonna

1:06:00

be

1:06:00

optimistic. So so the

1:06:02

last thing I wanna ask you before we go

1:06:04

is the question that I get

1:06:06

asked most often from people who

1:06:08

share our concerns about the attacks on

1:06:11

our freedom and liberty wondering, hey, what

1:06:13

can I do? And and so

1:06:15

your message both to you

1:06:18

know, everyday Americans who are just trying to live life.

1:06:20

Yep. But also really care

1:06:22

about our future, their children's

1:06:26

future, your message to, you know, young

1:06:28

attorneys like yourselves, you know, maybe

1:06:30

starting out as a criminal defense

1:06:32

attorney or starting out down a different

1:06:36

path You you changed

1:06:38

course. Something triggered that

1:06:40

desire to act and to be this

1:06:42

champion for

1:06:44

Liberty. What was that?

1:06:46

And and what's your message for us as a

1:06:48

country right now? And how we can we

1:06:50

can make our own difference in

1:06:53

in that fight for

1:06:54

freedom? I look back at my own career and it's a I say a series like

1:06:56

God moments. And everybody you know, and and

1:06:58

I think what you're in my life,

1:07:00

my faith has been very important. And

1:07:03

I think about that case, you know, here I was a tax lawyer, and

1:07:05

I was a government lawyer, and I was a defense lawyer,

1:07:08

and I did criminal tax cases

1:07:10

and and

1:07:12

litigator. And I'm on the board of a mission organization called for

1:07:14

Jesus. And they look, this was a message.

1:07:16

Now it's kinda like normal.

1:07:19

But back in the seventies eighty, that was a really radical thought. I

1:07:22

mean, Jesus Jesus was like, you know,

1:07:24

vegetarians for meat. I mean, it was like it

1:07:26

made no

1:07:28

sense. Now, fifty years later, forty years later, it's an accepted

1:07:30

there are Jewish people that believe in Jesus. It's not

1:07:32

not a legal issue. Not a cultural issue anymore.

1:07:34

You may disagree again. That

1:07:37

so what? You you

1:07:39

disagree.

1:07:39

I I was asked to take the case

1:07:42

they'd had at the Supreme Court, and that

1:07:44

was the moment. And I had no interest

1:07:46

in doing Supreme Court. And I went up

1:07:48

and heard a case argued and I went, how

1:07:50

am I gonna do? I am a

1:07:52

tax guy. And we and I'm not gonna do this.

1:07:54

And the executive director of the organization said

1:07:57

it's gonna change your

1:07:57

life. And I had no idea. And you know what

1:08:00

happened was, I went in there And because it's my

1:08:02

own naive to

1:08:03

say, I did I

1:08:04

saw how they always argue these cases as a free

1:08:07

exercise of religion, but they

1:08:09

never won. Our side never won they never won. The the the person

1:08:12

exercising their religion, and sometimes

1:08:14

it was minority religions. Just never won. So I said,

1:08:16

well, you

1:08:18

know, Why can't these be free speech cases? So

1:08:20

people think this was something like I

1:08:22

thought my study for hours and days figuring

1:08:24

this out. No. I went and heard an

1:08:26

argument saying, well, it doesn't work. But this

1:08:29

might and we won the case nine zero. And American lawyer

1:08:31

or or legal times, I can't remember which

1:08:34

one said I was

1:08:36

rude aggressive and obnoxious. And then when

1:08:38

the decision came out, they said I remain undeterred during intense questioning. But

1:08:41

And effective case. Yeah.

1:08:43

And effective. And From

1:08:45

that case, they just started coming in, and I had like this series of cases at the Supreme Court. I had one

1:08:47

term. I think I argue one case

1:08:50

in December, another one in February.

1:08:54

Which like you said, you know, most lawyers don't argue a case.

1:08:56

Yeah. So, you know, these these were

1:08:58

these moments, but I was never afraid

1:09:01

to represent and put my name on A

1:09:03

brief representing a group that I

1:09:05

didn't share that same philosophy.

1:09:07

Like I was one of the

1:09:09

council for the holiday Christmas, when they

1:09:11

were trying to engage in their religious practice in a public

1:09:13

area. And people say, well, you know, you're this you

1:09:15

know, you're Jewish, you're a

1:09:17

Christian, and now you're supporting the Ariakers. But Right? Because

1:09:19

if they lose, guess what? We all lose. Same

1:09:22

thing. I would write a brief for

1:09:24

the AFL CIO

1:09:26

or represent the

1:09:27

ACLU. So There you have it. And

1:09:30

that that right there is the message, Jay, and and and that's if

1:09:33

one of

1:09:36

us loses on this all the kind

1:09:38

of battleground of freedom, we all lose. You might think, oh, no, you know, hey, they're attacking those

1:09:40

guys. At least I'm okay, at

1:09:42

least my people or my group

1:09:46

or the people I attach myself to are okay, but

1:09:48

that's not the case. And we're we're

1:09:51

seeing how it how it

1:09:53

is progressing in such a dangerous direction

1:09:55

how our institutions are being weaponized and why it is so

1:09:58

important. You answered that call to

1:10:00

serve in your own

1:10:02

way, and I think that's

1:10:04

that's really the the reflection point for every one

1:10:06

of us as Americans is in our own way

1:10:09

as I am trying to do

1:10:11

with my life. Yes. Is

1:10:14

answering that call to serve in whatever way that we can.

1:10:16

You

1:10:17

know, I think

1:10:19

in our spheres, I

1:10:22

think we get, you know, I'm a jurisdictional person because

1:10:24

I'm a lawyer. So I think in jurisdictions,

1:10:26

my job was not to be a member of

1:10:28

Congress. My job was to be a lawyer.

1:10:30

So in that sphere, do everything you can with the tools you have. So at the

1:10:33

end of the day, you could say, I

1:10:35

did the best I could. With

1:10:39

what I had to advance freedom and liberty. That doesn't

1:10:41

mean I win every time. It doesn't.

1:10:43

I mean, I

1:10:45

I tell young lawyers, I'm not guaranteeing you

1:10:47

you're gonna win

1:10:47

because you will lose. They're gonna case and you're gonna

1:10:50

think, how could we lose this case? And you're gonna

1:10:52

lose it? And it happens. But you can't be discouraged.

1:10:54

You have to go on and When I leave the Supreme Court, I say the same thing I've said

1:10:56

for forty almost forty years now of

1:10:58

arguing cases for thirty five years. When I

1:11:00

walk down the steps, I used to do

1:11:02

is my kids were little, and now their

1:11:04

kids or my

1:11:05

grandkids. And now and hopefully with this at this case, grand review my grandkids

1:11:07

will see their grandfather argue a

1:11:10

case before the supreme court

1:11:12

But I would walk out of the and

1:11:14

say the same thing

1:11:15

to my colleagues, next case. Mhmm. And that's what you

1:11:15

gotta remember. There's always

1:11:18

in the

1:11:19

next case. Well said. Thank you for

1:11:22

what you do. Every day, thanks to you and your team. You are much appreciated

1:11:24

and, you know, your

1:11:26

impact your impact is generation

1:11:30

and so necessary. I'm grateful for

1:11:32

your time, Jay. I'm looking forward to talking

1:11:34

to

1:11:34

you again. Congratulations on the podcast.

1:11:36

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks

1:11:38

a lot. Talk to you

1:11:39

soon and see you soon. We'll do it. Alright.

1:11:41

So the main takeaway here is

1:11:43

a message of freedom and why it's so

1:11:45

important for every one of us to take

1:11:47

a stand for religious freedom even

1:11:49

when we're not the ones who are being attacked. So whether you're Christian,

1:11:52

Muslim, Jewish, Hindu,

1:11:55

atheist, or agnostic, We all

1:11:57

need to put aside our own differences and understand this greater threat that

1:11:59

faces us all with these continued attacks

1:12:03

on our liberty. And the

1:12:05

attacks are in fact continuing. And you heard many examples in my

1:12:08

conversation with Jay a few others.

1:12:10

A coach recently fired because of his

1:12:12

post game

1:12:15

prayers. A student actually suspended

1:12:17

from school for saying, bless

1:12:20

you when a

1:12:22

classmate sneezed. A second grader was prohibited from

1:12:24

reading her bible during her free

1:12:26

time. But hey, Harry Potter,

1:12:29

that's just fine. A fourth grader forbidden

1:12:32

from choosing God as her

1:12:34

idol for a school assignment.

1:12:36

Michael Jackson, not

1:12:38

a problem. There's a

1:12:40

teacher who made a Catholic student

1:12:42

wash off his ash Wednesday ashes, while another forced a Muslim

1:12:44

student to take

1:12:47

off her he job. People

1:12:49

not allowed to say Merry Christmas

1:12:51

at work or school during Christmas, the celebration of

1:12:54

the birth of Christ.

1:12:56

Now, our first amendment states clearly, Congress

1:12:58

shall make no law respecting an establishment

1:13:01

of religion or

1:13:03

prohibiting the free size

1:13:06

thereof. But unfortunately, those in power today are undermining this

1:13:12

very clear right that's enshrined

1:13:14

in our constitution. That's why it's so important that we have supreme court justices who are committed to

1:13:16

upholding the constitution

1:13:19

and bill of rights and

1:13:22

ruling according to those documents, not according to their own personal beliefs or otherwise.

1:13:24

And we need

1:13:27

leaders in Washington who

1:13:31

will do the same. Thank you so much

1:13:33

for joining us today until

1:13:35

next time. Mahalo.

1:13:54

Hello everyone. This is Tulsi here. Thanks

1:13:56

so much for taking the time to join me

1:13:58

here on the show. If you would like

1:14:00

to support this show, and the content

1:14:02

that we're creating as we take a stand for freedom and speak truth and with some

1:14:05

common sense during

1:14:07

these insane times please

1:14:11

visit tulsi gabbard dot com and click

1:14:13

on the support button. The only way

1:14:15

that we're able to

1:14:17

produce this show is through support

1:14:20

viewers just like you. Again, visit

1:14:22

tulsi gabbard dot com and click support.

1:14:24

Aloha.