Best of the Program | Guests: Sen. Mike Lee & Edwin Black | 12/2/21

Bundle and safe with Expedia.

You were made to follow your favorite band, and from the front row, we were made to quietly save you more.

Expedia, made to travel.

Savings vary and subject to availability.

Flight inclusive packages are at all protected.

Really important show today.

We go through all the details of what's happening in the Supreme Court, and I think we talked to the only guy that both Stu and I would say really is probably the leading authority on what this

Supreme Court is going to do.

And it's a pretty stunning 20 minutes with Mike Lee.

Yeah, it really is.

And there's a little hope there.

I mean,

more hope than

I've had in a long time.

Right, that's for sure.

And there's a lot of facts in today's podcast that you're going to hear about what the ruling will really mean, because it's all going to be twisted.

Yes, Roe versus Wade could be overturned, but what does that really mean to the average person?

And what happens after?

And I think I lay out a pretty good case for what America will begin to look like soon if the Supreme Court does overthrow Roe versus Wade.

That,

and Edwin Black, who is one of my favorite people in the world, talking about the seven steps of the Holocaust.

And we just touched on

the things that have happened here recently.

We are moving at light speed in the wrong direction.

Oh, and one other.

A woman who is facing over two years in prison because she opened her restaurant in Minnesota the second time the governor put his quarantine law in.

And you won't believe this story.

Her case goes to a jury on Monday.

Help her out.

All this and more on the podcast.

You can give us a little Christmas present.

Go over there, click subscribe to this and Studos America.

Rate and review the podcast if you would.

Five stars is the appropriate number of stars.

And we really do appreciate it when you do that.

You can also subscribe to Blaze TV at blazetv.com/slash Glenn.

Special promo code going on right now.

Fauci Lied.

It'll save you 25 bucks.

You're listening to

the best of the Glenn Beck program.

So

thinking about, thinking ahead for a little bit, and I am not getting ahead of myself on this.

I do not believe that this is a sure thing, that Roe versus Wade is going to get overturned or anything like the media is presenting it.

But let's just say it does for a second.

Let's just go down that road.

It's supposed to come out in like July 2022, a few months before the midterm election.

Yes.

How does something like that affect politics?

Well, first, can we start with what does it mean to overturn Roe versus Wade?

Because I think that if this truth gets out, it changes that question.

That's true.

I mean,

we can overstate the importance of this, frankly, even as conservatives.

Yes.

You know, for example, the Mississippi law limits abortion to 15 weeks, by the way, written by a female nurse.

So for all the idea of like, oh, well, these men keep trying trying to tell me about my body.

Yeah, a female nurse wrote the bill.

Okay, so just zip it.

I'm so sick of this crap.

But if you look at the 15-week bill, let's just say that was approved and Mississippi went to a 15-week plan.

You can have abortions up till 15 weeks.

That would still allow about 95% of abortions.

Correct.

Okay.

However, I believe Mississippi is one of those that have already on the books, like Texas does, if Roe versus Wade is ever overturned,

it's automatically a no-abortion state.

Let me take this step by step, though.

What they're actually talking about is this Mississippi law that limits it to 15 weeks.

About 95%

of abortions happen before 15 weeks anyway.

Okay.

So, and you have to believe there's about 4% more.

That happen between 16 and 20 weeks.

And my guess is they move those up a few weeks, right?

Most of the people that would normally have the abortion between 16 to 20 weeks have it a little earlier before 15 weeks in this situation.

That would bring you to about 99%

of abortions.

And then you're at a situation where there's still opportunity, if you want to go past that, to go to different states.

Go to California.

So, what would this actually do?

How many abortions would it actually prevent?

Would it turn us into the handmaid's tail and have a Gilead government cracking down on us so that women have no choice whatsoever and all these rights are taken away?

No.

Unfortunately, by the way, it would still result in pretty much everybody that wants to have an abortion having an abortion.

If Roe v.

Wade were to get overturned completely, however, as you point out, many states, red states, have triggers in their constitution.

Blue states have the opposite triggers, which automatically would make abortion illegal in their state.

Various ways to do this, but basically,

if that ruling comes down in a bunch of states, you just have it be illegal to have an abortion.

And in states like California, for example, it would automatically become legal.

So

right off the bat,

you wouldn't have, you'd have a bunch of different changes in the law, but there would be states where it would be illegal.

There's a pro-abortion group that came out with a map that said, here's what's going to happen.

And they, and I think this is

optimistic from our point of view, said about 26 states would get rid of it.

I think that's probably too high, but it's, you know, it's probably at least 20 states that would do it.

But I'm taking their map because they're a pro

choice organization and they want, they see this as a violation of rights.

So, what is the most arduous thing that could happen to a woman who wanted to have an abortion?

What is the worst case scenario?

How far would you have to drive to get an abortion in the United States?

The absolute farthest distance would be basically from southern Florida to North Carolina, which is about a 12-hour drive.

Now,

that's not nothing, right?

It's probably a lot harder than it is today.

What if you can't drive?

You're a woman and you can't drive.

Then you could fly in two hours.

What if you don't have any legs to be able to, you know, get to the airport?

Then I guarantee you there will be a pro-choice organization that will transport you across the world.

There's no legs and no hands, so you can't answer the phone

you hopefully you have an alexa nearby and you can take the phone call that way what if you're so poor and you live in a place where the internets are also slow

See, these are the people you're not thinking of.

That is definitely not the person I'm thinking of.

But yes, there would certainly be a way there.

But my point, though, is that a two-hour flight, which by the way, costs less than the actual abortion, would be an option for you to fly into one of these states.

or you would have to take a, you'd have to drive one day, have the operation, maybe stay over in a hotel and come back after that.

It's not nothing, but is it honestly, honestly,

do we actually claim that this is some massive violation?

Even if you believe abortion is a, is a, I know, but it's not honest is what I'm saying.

No, I know that.

Even if you believe abortion is a fundamental human right, which is completely against all history and common sense.

But if you do believe that, what you would have to do is invest a day or two in traveling to get one.

And I guarantee you, all of these organizations that say it's a human right and want your donations are going to accept donations from rich liberals all around the country to transport these women to these places to do this.

And they will, just like you realize when you have

different tax laws on tobacco, there will be abortion huts popping up right on the border of all of these states to serve all of these people.

I think that's a terrible outcome, but we have to recognize that it's real.

What else is real is there are organizations that already exist overseas that will mail you abortion pills if you live in an area where they believe abortion is too restrictive.

The rules against it are too restrictive.

So it is going to be

basically impossible to eliminate this horror show

by law.

The only solution to this long-term, and this does not mean that we still go through this court process, we still make it illegal everywhere we can.

We do everything we can to save even one life because that's really important.

But the only way to make this horror show to go away

in a real long-term fashion is to win the hearts and minds of people, to realize how terrible this is.

If you made slavery legal tomorrow, no one would be getting slaves because everyone recognizes that slavery is terrible, right?

You have to win people over on this.

You have to persuade them over a long period of time.

I believe honestly that that will happen.

I do believe eventually this country and this world will eventually see this process for what it is, but it's going to take a long time.

All right.

So that is why our, that's why Planned Parenthood is in our schools right now.

They're in our schools right now.

This is why this is all being jammed down their throats because they believe you have to win the hearts and minds of kids and the next generation.

And they are doing that effectively.

Now, your original question to me was, what does this mean politically?

Yeah, how does this affect the 2022 election?

Because I will say that

I think it could honestly cost Republicans the election.

Fine.

I think that's where I am too.

You know, you want to say if that's the cost of getting rid of Roe versus Wade, then that's the cost of getting rid of Roe versus Wade.

Okay, here's the thing.

Here's what's going to happen if it was overturned.

And again, we're looking at July.

The media is going to hype this as if it's a loss already for the left.

They'll be doing that now until the court comes out.

They are going to be saying,

you know, we're going to be living,

you know, the handmaiden's tale.

It's coming, it's coming, it's coming, just to juice the left up.

That's what's going to happen now.

And it already is.

If it does turn out that they don't take any half measures, which I don't know, I can't find them in the court case yesterday, at least,

they're going to have to decide it either stands

Minnesota, the viability thing is

either good or we're going to stick to Roe versus Wade,

one or the other.

And it will have abortion huts on on all of the borders of states that don't do abortion.

It's a horrible outcome.

You're going to see the biggest thing is a bigger divide in America.

And this is why I said, okay, if it costs 2022,

I know this is

dangerous to say because we can't afford to lose 2022.

But this is a sole thing.

If we are on the side of saving children, and we are,

these are babies, these are children.

This is the second leading cause of death in America, abortion.

It's between heart disease and the third is cancer.

Abortion is number two.

Think of the souls and the blood that is on all of our hands.

So if we lose, fine, so be it.

That may be the sacrifice that we give up and say, Lord, can you help protect us again, please?

Because we may lose.

We really need some divine providence to happen here.

And I would rather trust God

than the voting machines, quite honestly.

And I'd rather position myself on his side and the side of history.

You just have to know we are on the right side of history.

Science is going to continue to move that line of viability back further and further and further.

People are going to see,

in the end, what a monstrosity this really is.

I believe truly that in a hundred years, we are going to be looked back on as barbarians

we they you they really just killed all their children it was the second leading cause of death and people didn't even talk about it we are going to be looked at as barbarians

so what's going to happen you're going to have a deeper divide and you're going to see the death cult get stronger

they are because you know and i know that when it says

15 weeks, if they decide that the Mississippi law stands, that means that you can now have states decide we're not doing abortion or we are.

Everyone knows that Mississippi is not going to say 15 weeks.

If they're really free, they're going to say no abortion.

Texas, no abortion.

And there's several states that will say no abortion.

They're not going to say in the blue states, oh abortion as it is.

They too have an agenda.

They want abortions after birth.

So you're going to see states that go further in the other direction.

You're going to see evil increase in those states.

Guarantee it.

Guarantee it.

They've already told you that's what they want.

Let the baby be born, and then the mother has a time period where she can decide whether she wants to keep it or not.

They've already said that in Virginia and in New York.

So

I personally like to know what I'm dealing with.

And I believe that we are not fighting flesh and bone.

We're not fighting our neighbors.

We're not fighting the Democrats.

We're fighting evil.

Evil has a chokehold on a lot of people right now.

And I'd rather have all of the people who aren't

captivated by evil yet before they get sucked in because it's awfully seductive and easy, I'd much rather have it exposed.

So the good people can remain good people and say, yeah, we're not part of that at all because look at the death cult this is.

They said that they were just standing up.

They're not.

They're now killing babies after birth.

Get out of there.

This is the best of the Glenbeck program.

We are dealing with so much insanity.

So much insanity.

And I'm telling you, all we have to do is just live by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Every argument you have with people,

you should be able to know, I can talk to you or not just by asking this.

When they start, they ask you something political, they want to talk about political, say, hey, listen, I just want to know

the ground rules here before we talk.

I want to know if we have enough in common

to be able to discuss things.

Because if we don't have this in common,

then we're just going to argue.

And I'd rather just be your friend.

And the question is, do you agree with the Bill of Rights?

Do you agree with the Bill of Rights?

Because if you agree with the Bill of Rights, so many of our problems leave the political realm and become very clear, very common sense.

Do you believe in the Bill of Rights?

That's why it's so dangerous when politicians say, this isn't about your freedom.

Yes, it is.

Because once you start cutting the corners of the Bill of Rights,

all freedoms are lost because it's a little here and a little there and a little here and then a little more over here, and it's all gone.

And that's the point we're at.

Let me give you an example.

Should the government be able to close you down and drive you out of business without compensation?

And I mean real compensation.

I think the lawsuits against the federal government is you put my business out of business and you should pay for my business

because you took it from me and you wouldn't let me open up.

And if I tried to stay alive, then you came in and you put all kinds of fines on me.

You even threatened me with jail time.

I'm going to give you a story that this woman, all she did is she has a restaurant.

She tried to keep it open.

She faces criminal charges.

for staying open during COVID-19 mandates.

Her jury trial is is coming up on Monday.

She could go to prison.

This is insane.

Lisa Hansen is with us now.

Hello, Lisa.

Hi, Glenn.

Thank you so much for having me on your show.

I can't believe, I mean, most of us feel, you know, I live in Texas.

COVID is not a thing anymore.

It just doesn't bother people down here anymore.

Where are you?

Tell me the story of what happened.

So I guess just if i can start off with this glenn um i just want to be very clear to your listening audience and this has been my message all along you know in the beginning when um all this took place uh that this is never the the fight that i'm fighting has never been just about me and my company um if it had just been about me and my company i would have just closed my doors and walked away and figured out how to pay off the debt you know quietly and and gone off in into the you know great blue yonder or whatever but right this has been about the people of minnesota and really for the people of the United States of America.

I'm thinking here, our children and our grandchildren.

So just to be clear, that's what this is all about.

There's no way I would have fought this fight just for little old me.

So what happened, Glenn, back in last year, 2020, you know, the governor, our governor, Governor Waltz,

closed down bars and restaurants and some other small businesses the first part of the year,

early in the year, and I complied.

Second shutdown, and I didn't survive.

The business somehow we kept our doors open.

We did everything we could do.

You know as entrepreneurs we try to figure it out.

But I said I can't survive a second shutdown if he does this again, which he did.

He shut us down a second time in November of 2020.

Told my husband, I said, I'm either shutting down permanently, closing my doors forever, or I am opening up fully.

Because what he's doing, what the state is doing against us is wrong.

So

I guess it,

you know, chose to open up fully because that was the right thing to do.

And

it was the right thing to do for our kids, for our grandkids.

I have eight kids.

I have nine grandkids with three on the way.

And I'm thinking of them and future generations and everybody else's kids and grandkids, right?

This is America.

So

once I opened back up fully,

stopped following the unlawful mandates that are not law.

Governor can't make laws.

The state comes after me hard and heavy and

files criminal and civil charges against me.

And that's what I've been dealing with.

And we're going on almost a year now.

It was December 16th last year when I opened my doors fully, the day after I got a cease and desist from the state.

And in Minnesota, I just want to make sure, in Minnesota,

the governor has no right to enact a law and no authority with the executive branch to enforce even the emergency orders.

Is that right?

Absolutely right.

He has no no authority.

There's no authority.

The executive branch has no authority to enforce his executive orders.

He didn't even have, he calls it a

act of nature, which in 2005, the legislation actually took away the power or the authority for governor to enact an act of nature

the emergency order, yeah, due to emergency order, right?

So instead, in his executive order, he calls it, excuse me, not act of nature.

I'm using the wrong terminology here.

He called it a

act,

he called it an act of nature, but in the next sentence in his executive order, if you'll look at it,

it is actually, he refers to the federal government calling it a health emergency.

So which that the health emergency is what the legislature removed

from the governor to

be able able to enact that sort of mandate.

So anyway, we have so much corruption on every level.

Not only is

the executive branch,

I guess the best way to describe what's happening is that the judiciary is in lockstep with the executive branch in allowing the governor to usurp the limitations of power that are placed upon him by the state and federal constitutions.

So the judicial corruption involves, or in my cases, involves a refusal to address legal issues, absolute refusal,

that have answered, if they were answered by a truly independent judiciary having the duty to protect the rights of the people from the usurpation of the power by the legislative and executive branches, it would destroy the power structure that now has the people serving the government contrary to the original order of sovereignty of God-man government.

That's really what we're dealing with.

Your problem in Minnesota is you've got George Soros affecting your judiciary, and you also have Keith Ellison as your attorney general.

I mean, you're in trouble up there.

Those are two major problems, aren't they?

Yes, they are.

They are.

Yeah, yeah.

So, what we have as far as the judiciary process here is, you know, I've had a very,

I work with a great team, National Action Task Force.

They've been, you know, helping me as I'm going through this.

and I present as sui jurist or some people might want to say pro se.

And so I don't have a lawyer and the reason that I'm doing that, and I think this is really important, Glenn, what I've seen from other folks in the state of Minnesota going through the same things that I am where they defy the governor's suggestion to shut down.

You know, the state comes after them.

They hire a lawyer.

What I'm seeing happening is they're losing their cases.

They're making plea deals with the government.

And I said, that's not going to do what we, what we are looking for is we're looking for a return of liberties and freedoms in the state of Minnesota.

And so the only way to be able to do that is to go into this court of law without an attorney because attorneys are so dang limited.

So I'm, I just, I, you know, I've watched enough Matt Locke and

enough

LA law to know not having an attorney is usually frowned upon.

And especially in the state of Minnesota, they don't like it when you step outside of the rules of their game.

And so they have tried to force me.

In fact, in the civil case, Glenn, I'll let you know this.

The civil case has actually been ruled upon by

a judge.

And

he ruled, he would not allow me, listen to this.

I'm a single shareholder.

I own my company.

I'm the only shareholder.

He would not allow me to represent my company that was being sued by the state.

Although, even though the statutes, the Minnesota statutes clearly allow a single shareholder to represent their company, he would not allow it.

And so therefore, I was not allowed in the courtroom.

And therefore, I have what, that's an $18,000 fine or a sanction against me because I supposedly lost that case because he would not allow me, he wouldn't follow the law and allow me to represent my company.

This is insane what's going on.

You're looking at, what, almost three years in jail.

Right.

Right.

It's a real possibility.

810 days.

That's how I say it.

$810.

$9,000.

Yeah, up to $9,000 in fines.

So pretrial happened last week, the day before Thanksgiving.

We went into pretrial.

It was probably, I was told it was one of the longest pretrials, or maybe the longest pretrial in the history of one of the deputies that was there

watching over the case.

And it was almost a three-hour pretrial.

The reason it was so long is because there are so many legal, constitutional, statutory, legal issues on the record, and I went point by point by point with the judge.

Now, in a pre-trial, according to statute,

the judge is required to hear and to make determinations

at that pretrial.

Correct.

No determination was made.

Zero determinations were made.

Now, I'm going into pretrial on Monday, December 6th, with

no, sorry, not pretrial, jury trial.

I'm going into jury trial on Monday, December 6th.

I have

no determinations have been made.

No rulings have been made.

No answers have been given to me on all my legal issues.

And I did send you that document.

I know it's a lot to go through, but it's really interesting to see how this is all playing out.

It's as if there's no rule of law anymore.

The judge should have,

and you know what, Glenn?

I still have, no, today is Thursday, a week later.

I still have no determination from the judge on

the verge of the error.

I mean, is the judge just going to tell you, oh, yeah, you can't bring that up.

You can't do that during the trial?

I wouldn't be surprised.

I won't be surprised.

And I will stand on my constitutional and common law rights.

I will absolutely stand on

what is given to us as the people.

I'm going to hold his feet to the fire.

And

he's got to do one of two things.

He's got to allow me to present my defense.

I have the right to defend myself.

So

let me ask you,

is there video allowed in this trial?

I mean, do they have a camera that you can get public access for?

Well,

if I understand you correctly,

no, there's no video, no audio allowed in this public trial, mind you.

Find out about that because

I'd love to have some attorneys watch this.

This should be seen.

If not, I'd like to know somebody who is a real journalist that is on the freedom side that could actually go to the court, or maybe there's somebody in our audience that is a very good attorney that could go sit in the court and give us a blow-by-blow on what's happening in your case.

I've got a run, but I do want to say this.

She has set up a GoFundMe page.

Her goal is to raise $30,000 as of

Wednesday afternoon.

That was yesterday.

$12,000 have been raised.

What is the GoFundMe page?

It's GoFundMe slash We the People together.

And that's a hyphen in between.

We hyphen the hyphen people hyphen together.

We the people together.

Gofundme.com.

Thank you so much, Lisa.

We will follow up on this and let you know what is going on.

And if there's anything we can do to help you, let us know.

Again, gofundme.com/slash we the people.

The best of the Glen Bank program.

So there's an anarchist brief that was filed.

Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley,

as a friend of the court supporting this Mississippi law, we wanted to get Mike Lee's thoughts on

what happened yesterday and where the court may be headed.

Hi, Mike.

Hello.

Good to be with you.

Yeah, good to have you.

So tell me,

I can't wait to hear.

Look, there were really strong arguments made yesterday.

They made a great case against Roe and against Casey.

At the end of the day, as I pointed out in the front of the court brief that I submitted along with Senators Hawley and Cruz,

There isn't a constitutional case to be made for Roe and Casey, nor is there a case for applying starry decisis and deferring to the court's own prior precedent here because that precedent has proven so unworkable.

Shoot, the lower courts,

let alone the Supreme Court itself, can't even agree on what Roe and Casey mean and what its outer bound limits are.

And for that very reason,

it can't stand.

But there's a reason for that.

When you make something up out of whole cloth, when it has no foundation at all in the Constitution or in 500 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence, things are going to get really messed up.

And that's exactly what has happened.

I think yesterday a compelling case was made for the fact that Roe and Casey will be overruled and that the Mississippi law will be upheld.

So in your conclusion on this Amakuts brief, you say the status quo is unattenable.

Where legal doctrine has repeatedly failed to offer clarity, where it is proved unworkable in the past and will likely engender unpredictable consequences in the future.

Its existence constitutes an open invitation to judges to interpret it according to their own policy preferences, usurping the constitutional prerogatives of the legislature.

That actually, I think, is

the other side feels kind of the same way: that you can't have you cannot

have a halfway measure here.

It's either all in or all out.

Yeah,

I think that's right.

And I think the answer has to be all in.

And the reason, Glenn, is this is a legislative determination.

It is not a judicial one.

It's not rooted in the Constitution.

And to be very, very clear,

it's important to remind ourselves that overturning Roe and Casey does not

mean that abortion would all of a sudden automatically be be unlawful throughout the United States of America.

It doesn't make it illegal, doesn't make it criminal, it simply says people can decide these things through their elected lawmakers.

And the folks in Mississippi have decided that they want to protect unborn human life after 15 weeks of development, after the baby has developed eyelids and fingers and toes and the baby can suck her thumb.

Other states might decide to do differently.

I suspect that the abortion laws in Massachusetts and New York post-overturning of Roe and Casey would look different from those in Mississippi or Utah.

I think, Mike, I think they're going to.

That's what we live in.

That's our formal government.

I think that we are looking at the, you know, because we're not going to limit it to 15 weeks.

If this is overturned, Texas and Mississippi, they're going to say, no, no abortion here.

But you're going to see the opposite in California and Massachusetts and New York.

You're going to see, yeah, well, maybe I can kill them

after they're born because that's really where they're going.

It's a death cult and that's really where they're headed.

That's what they want.

And

I think you're going to see some real

crazy but eye-opening decisions in states

if this is overturned.

Would you agree with that?

Yes, I think that's absolutely right.

That's how the Constitution works.

People are allowed to enact foolish, crazy, ridiculous laws in their respective states.

Not every bad idea is unconstitutional.

And no matter how bad their laws get in this area, it doesn't mean that they can't do it.

Our constitutional structure is set up in such a way as to allow people to enact the laws that they deem appropriate, subject to certain limitations imposed on the states by the Constitution, as long as you don't transgress one of those.

And an abortion isn't on the list of things that states can't do in the Constitution, then you're okay.

So when you had, I think it was Kagan yesterday that said,

you know, there's lots of things.

No, Sodom IR.

There's a lot of things that are not in the Constitution.

I actually cheered.

for that because they were going for what specifically, what right in the Constitution is being violated?

And they couldn't really come up with one.

They asked several times, what is it that you're saying is constitutionally protected here?

And Sotomayor came out and said, Well, there's lots of things that aren't in the Constitution.

Well, yes, doesn't that make the case for Mississippi that it goes back according to the 10th Amendment to the people and the states?

Yes, that is absolutely what it says.

By the way, speaking of Justice Sotomayor, I thought she was very tone deaf on this and so many issues.

One lowlight of the entire conversation was when Justice Sotomayor very offensively stated that a baby's reaction to painful stimuli in the womb does not necessarily indicate that the child, in fact, feels pain.

And she referenced people in vegetative states.

that have some muscle movement to painful stimulus.

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

Hang on just a second.

Let me play that cut.

Cut up, people?

Cut 18 from Sodomiora.

Here's what he's talking about.

The literature is filled with episodes of people who are completely and utterly brain dragged responding to stimuli.

There's about 40% of dead people who, if you touch their feet, the foot will recoil.

There are spontaneous acts by dead brain people.

So I don't think that a response

to

by a fetus necessarily proves that there's a sensation of pain or that there's consciousness.

Well, what

position, A, the science will show that's not true.

Follow the science.

I hate to say that.

The science will show that's not true.

But what in her judicial role, Mike, gives her thought that maybe

that's a good constitutional point to throw out there?

I almost hesitate to answer the question because it's so gruesome.

But I think she somehow thinks that unless a person is able to communicate with the world, if they are in a vegetative state or if they are, as she put it, dead brain people.

I don't know what a dead brain person is.

I assume she meant brain dead people.

That they're not human life.

See, that's the essence of what we're dealing with here.

We're dealing with human beings who are deemed less than human.

Glenn, bad things happen in any civilization.

Bad things have happened in our civilization whenever we have allowed societies to treat some people as not human.

That's exactly what's happening here.

And they've made it up out of whole cloth.

Look,

we need to get back to the Constitution here, and we need to allow elected lawmakers to make laws, not nine lawyers dressed up in robes.

I will tell you this, Mike, that I really believe I read an article that said pretty much the same thing today

from the Federalist:

that

the response will be, in the end, from the right,

Mike Lee, that Mike Lee will be the next Supreme Court justice.

If this fails,

we are so fed up with

giving and, well, we're just going to trust.

And we didn't really know for sure.

We want to know.

We want to know.

It's time to know.

Do you believe that that is a constitutionally protected right or not?

And if you say no,

it's not great.

If you say, well, I'm not sure.

I wouldn't want to speak out about that.

Goodbye.

It's time to know that our Supreme Court justices understand the Constitution and read it the same way as the people who are electing the president to choose that person.

It would be a novel concept for us to know that.

It's especially important when you live in an era in which judges have taken upon themselves the mantle of lawmakers.

I look forward to the day when that's no longer the case.

But I want to be very clear.

This is that case.

This needs to happen now in this case.

There isn't really going to be a better opportunity than this case.

If they try to find a middle ground on this one, if they try to preserve Roe and Casey while upholding this law, it doesn't work.

Why?

It's not going to work.

Because we will be saddled with the same infirm foundation that we've had for 48 years.

Look, there were 19 years that passed between when Roe was decided in 1973 and Casey was decided in 1992.

The time

that a decision was rendered, Justice Kennedy proclaimed for the court, oh, okay, the debate is finally over.

We're finally putting this to rest.

19 years after Roe, 29 years have now elapsed since Casey to now.

It hasn't been put to rest.

And it hasn't been because it's built on nothing.

And you can't take a debatable matter in society and render it beyond debate while quoting the Constitution unless what you're quoting from the Constitution actually supports what you say it does.

This isn't going away.

This case has to be decided, and that decision has to involve overturning Roe versus Wade.

Looking at their case on the other side fairly from their perspective, can you find anything

in what they say that ties to the Constitution?

Not the way you read it, but the way they read it.

Can you find, because I couldn't find it yesterday, and I think that

Thomas and others were like, where?

What are we talking about?

Can you find what they're saying is constitutionally protected?

No, no, you can't find it.

And have they articulated anything?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, if they explain it.

Now, very rarely, when you try to pin someone down, will they go through all the motions to explain it.

But if you did, if you could, for those who could go through the analysis, they couldn't do it without falling back on these really weird terms, talking about emanations

collectively overlapping and forming penumbras.

going out from freestanding existing constitutional protections that are themselves broad enough to cover privacy within the marital bedroom extending to the killing of an unborn child.

Those kinds of verbal gymnastics are what you have to go through,

adding inference upon inference based on language that's not even in the Constitution.

That's how they got to the Fifth Amendment.

I think because I heard them quote the Fifth Amendment, I'm looking at it and I'm like, there's nothing in the Fifth Amendment that would even remotely cover abortion.

Is there?

Okay, so

they would have been more likely referring to the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

We're dealing with the state law here.

The 14th Amendment's due process clause deals with the states.

The Fifth Amendment's due process clause deals with Congress, with the federal government.

And so they believe that it's an outgrowth of due process, therefore the 14th Amendment's version of the due process clause.

And that due process, when read in conjunction with other freestanding freestanding protections in the Bill of Rights

includes abortion because there are emanations from each of those freestanding protections and those form penumbras or these shadowy things.

It makes no sense.

Look,

when my twin boys, James and John, were in junior high, I required them to read Briswold versus Connecticut, which was the predecessor case to Roe v.

Wade.

I put them in different parts of the house.

I wanted them to read it and just see what they thought.

They could both recognize in junior high that this was made up, that this was like an insult to verbal gymnastics.

These were contortions.

They were deceptions.

Let me pretend I didn't know that.

Let me pretend I didn't know that case by heart.

What was the name of it again?

You had your sons read?

Connecticut.

What is it?

Yes,

Griswold versus Connecticut.

Okay.

I'm sure this is discussed all the time at a dinner table in the middle.

Oh, yeah.

And my kids, I had them read it

long before you're, I had them read it in fourth grade, but that's a different story.

Real quick, guys, I've got to go to a network break, but Mike, how does this end, do you think?

I believe it ends with the overturning of Roe versus Wig.

I think there will likely be five votes, possibly six, to overturn Roe and Casey.

The Supreme Court, the nine justices alone, no staff, anyone else, will meet tomorrow afternoon in private to discuss the case.

The case will then be more or less decided.

We won't know what the outcome is until likely late June.

Wow.

So, Mike, if you're a praying person, I'd encourage you to pray for the court between now and tomorrow.

Thank you so much.

God bless you, Mike.

Thanks.

Senator Mike Lee from Utah, and I hope someday a Supreme Court justice.

If you thought goldenly breaded McDonald's chicken couldn't get more golden, think golder because new sweet and smoky special edition gold sauce is here, made for your chicken favorites at Participate in McDonald's for limited time.