Best of the Program | Guests: Gov. Tate Reeves & Sen. Ron Johnson | 12/1/21

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance.

Fiscally responsible, financial geniuses, monetary magicians.

These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds.

Visit progressive.com to see if you could save.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates.

Potential savings will vary, not available in all states or situations.

A really good program today, where we have tried to look at all sides and try to give you a way to understand the news.

There's a couple of them.

One with Senator Ron Johnson.

He went after the political mess that caused Waukesha.

Then he also teamed with his other senator from his state, who is a Democrat, and they called for peace.

Well, Jason Whitlock, among many others, hammered him for it.

He's on, and I think you're going to feel really good about the conclusion of all of this.

Also, big day for abortion.

Yeah, Tate Reeves, the governor of Mississippi, joins us to talk about the case.

It's, of course, a Mississippi law that's going in front of the Supreme Court starting today.

We talk about that.

We're going to follow up on that conversation on Studos America tonight, Glenn and myself, talking about...

political ramifications, what happens with chaos in the streets and all of the unrest if Roe vs.

Wade is overturned?

There's a lot to think about on this one.

We'll go into that on Studas America and right after that, a brand new Glenn TV.

Yeah, Glenn TV tonight really gets to the five steps of revolution that the left has been working on for a long time and the role of the media, who is now doubled down.

They are a clear and present danger to the Republic.

All that and more.

Blazetv.com/slash Glenn.

Use the promo code Fauci Lied,

and you'll save 25% off.

And don't forget to subscribe to this podcast as well.

Just click subscribe, check it out, rate and review, as well as Stew Does America available every day.

You're listening to the best of the Glenbeck program.

The first leading cause of death in America

is heart disease.

Kills 659,041 people every year in the United States.

The third is cancer, killing 599,601.

What is the second leading cause of death?

You're not going to be able to find this if you look it up because

Apparently, we don't categorize abortion as deaths.

But if we recognized abortions as the death of a human being, a baby, it would be the second leading cause of death in the U.S.

One in four,

24% of women will have an abortion by the age of 45.

Over 60 million babies have been killed since Roe versus Wade.

Today,

in the Supreme Court, they begin hearing the arguments in Dobbs versus Jackson.

That's Jackson's women's health organization.

Lynn Fitch, who is leading the state's arguments, said, with this brief, we're simply asking the court to affirm the right of the people to protect their legitimate interest and to provide clarity on how they may do so.

So you have

Thomas Dobbs, he's an MD, he's the Mississippi State Health Officer and petitioner to the U.S.

Supreme Court,

Jackson

Woman's Health Organization, the only abortion clinic in the state of Mississippi,

and the first female Attorney General in Mississippi, Lynn Fitch.

She's representing the state of Mississippi.

The oral oral arguments begin today.

We're expecting the court to tell us

whether they're going to return this to the state or they're going to let Roe versus Wade stand as is,

probably sometime this summer, right in the middle of the midterm elections.

Going to be interesting.

There's also a big middle ground there where they could come up with something in between those two points where perhaps they allow states to regulate it more, but not all the way to the overturn of Roe versus Wade.

Correct.

Roe versus Wade is all about, and so is this.

It's all about viability.

Roe versus Wade doesn't really define viability.

And viability is different.

In Roe versus Wade, it was 28 weeks.

Now we're at 20 weeks.

So where is that line now?

It doesn't define it.

Never made any sense.

Never made any sense.

Obviously, right?

I mean, if something can change with technology, then how can that be a constitutional right, right?

Like it's such a bizarre

construction.

And obviously, the Constitution does not allow or provide this sort of quote-unquote right inside.

So

this is what the state of Mississippi is saying.

Roe and Casey shackle states to a view of the facts that are decades out of date.

It's time for the court to set it right and return the political debate to the political branches of government.

So

they want the court to clarify whether abortion is actually constitutionally protected.

Obviously, they're saying it's not constitutionally protected.

You don't have a right to kill a baby.

Nothing in text, structure, history, or tradition makes abortion a fundamental right or denies state the power to restrict it.

That power is reserved to the states.

If you killed a child in utero

after what was called the quickening,

you could be held for murder in

early America.

And before that in Britain and everything else, in England.

Once you knew that it was a baby and the baby was moving, you would be charged with murder if you did anything to kill it.

And coincidentally, or maybe not so coincidentally, it's about 15 weeks.

Right, right.

So, that's the Mississippi law, is 15 weeks.

So, the state of Mississippi is arguing the decisions about abortion are policy matters that should be decided by the people and not locked behind the doors of an unelected judiciary.

She argues that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the lives of the unborn, the health of women, and the integrity of the medical profession.

So

they're not asking for an overturn.

When they say, this is going to overturn Roe versus Wade, no, it won't.

It won't in California.

It won't in New York.

It will overturn Roe versus Wade.

In theory, it could.

However, the states can just do it on their own.

Yeah.

So it's not going to overturn abortion.

It's not going to overturn abortion.

And let me ask you this: the Democrats are now saying

that

this is a point of revolution for them, that the Democrats will fight an open revolution if this happens.

Now, I don't know why that isn't being investigated by the FBI,

but

I could say the same thing would be true on the right.

If the federal government said, we are going to go house to house collecting all of the guns, there would be a revolution in this country from the right, correct?

I mean, if they were going door to door.

Door to door.

Yeah, I mean, I can't imagine that would be right.

I can't, right.

But I can't imagine that the people on the right would say it's revolution if the state, if the Supreme Court said,

states can do whatever they want.

You can have guns, not have guns.

The states can do whatever they want.

It still would be wrong, but people in Texas would say, move the hell down here.

We've been telling you for a while to get out of New York and get out of California.

Move to a free place.

That's what would happen.

And I don't believe that a revolution would actually happen if it was left to the states and the federal government back off, back off.

Now, I could be wrong on that, but this is something that they are saying if it's left even to the states because again, they're misrepresenting this.

The media is lying to you again.

The left is lying to you again.

This is not an end to all abortion.

It is saying let the voters of each state decide.

That's not good enough.

Now in 1972, things were a little different.

Things have changed.

We can literally watch babies grow in the womb now.

We have found out that they do feel pain thanks to medical advancements.

We didn't know that when Roe versus Wade was happening.

I mean, come on.

We didn't.

We weren't able to prove it.

Yes, that's a better way of saying it.

We weren't able to prove it.

When it was enacted, the idea also of a working mother was still seen as far-fetched.

The core argument back then, when it was first debated in the Supreme Court, is that abortion was necessary for women to achieve success.

Now, this,

you know,

this idea

predicates off a sneaky misogynist argument peddled by feminists that argues if women want to be successful, they need to overcome their womanhood and be more like men.

That's ridiculous.

The argument that abortion is necessary for women's success is a quintessential, outdated argument.

It assumes that A, motherhood in and of itself is not success.

B, mothers are unable to contribute in society in meaningful ways.

Three, that women without children contribute more to society.

And this is usually justified by discussions of how mothers earn less in the workforce, which reduces success to only financial success.

This has changed.

We don't have the same

country that we had in 1973.

And I know the left and the media would like to say, I know we don't.

We have one that's more like 1956.

But we don't.

We don't.

Now, the counter arguments to

this case is, and I love this one, It's Supreme Court precedent.

It's settled law.

Oh,

okay.

All right.

In fact, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the CEO, said the Supreme Court just agreed to review an abortion ban that unquestionably violates nearly 50 years of Supreme Court precedent.

Precedent doesn't mean that it's right.

And you'd know that if you knew Plessy v.

Ferguson.

Plessy v.

Ferguson is the separate but equal Supreme Court precedent from 1896 until 1954.

That was 58 years.

So just because the court said it once doesn't make it right.

And things

change.

So

what's going to happen?

Well, the Dobbs case actually has a real shot of returning abortion decision-making power to the states.

We know more about the development of babies.

We have disproved that women need to abort children to have any kind of success.

And there has never, ever, ever been and still isn't a sound constitutional argument to back up Roe versus Wade or Casey.

In asking for a clarification, Dobbs will push the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of how the judiciary is protecting abortion, a

pro-choice advocates are very afraid of because they know, as far as the Constitution goes, they don't have a leg to stand on.

That's what this is all going to decide.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

We have Senator Ron Johnson, the U.S.

Senator,

Republican from Wisconsin.

We want to talk to him about the Waukesha Christmas massacre.

Senator,

it's bothered me so much that the White House keeps saying our hearts are with the people of Waukesha,

although our thoughts and prayers are not good enough for them most of the time.

But

the White House is correct, and so are we.

Our hearts and our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Waukesha.

Horrible, horrible tragedy.

Well, I appreciate that.

What I can report from Waukesha is the healing has begun.

It began literally the moment of the tragedy, as you saw the citizens of Waukesha respond with just

compassion.

integrity

as they were dealing with the victims.

again, I'm just, I'm haunted.

And I wasn't there.

I'm haunted by the thought of little children on the curb waiting to see Santa Claus and the dancing grannies instead of seeing the slaughter.

So it's going to take an awful lot of time to heal.

But the very next night, they held an interfaith prayer vigil.

I think it was probably over a thousand people that showed up.

I was able to attend and just talk to members of the community, the first responders.

I mean, it was, I'll never forget it.

Sorrowful and yet hopeful, I guess, because so often, Gwen, you know, this is in the midst of one of these horrific events that caused by the worst in humanity.

The best of humanity is often revealed.

And

I think we witnessed that, again,

right away in Waukesha.

And as the city continues to heal, I think we'll continue to see that.

So they'll recover.

But I know they truly appreciate the thoughts and prayers.

I know they're appreciating the financial supports, Community Foundation.

I I think they've been,

I don't want to say overwhelmed, but I think they're incredibly appreciative of all the thoughts and prayers and all the financial assistance coming in to help people that heal the grievously injured.

We still have three children in critical condition, a number of the other adults in critical condition as well.

So this is going to be a long, long road to recovery.

All right.

Let me take you through a timeline here.

You first slammed Democratic officials following the Christmas parade over the weekend.

You said, when you look the other way, when you almost encourage lawlessness, I would drop the word almost, just like let's face it, you have political figures doing during the summer riots of 2020, encouraging people to donate to the bail fund so you can bail these people out.

When you encourage lawlessness, you're going to get more of it.

It becomes more and more violent.

It starts spilling over from crime-ridden, generally democratic governed cities into surrounding areas.

That's probably what we witnessed here in Waukesha.

You started to get all kinds of heat from the left on that.

Do you still stand by those words?

Yes, I'm outraged by what happened because it never should have happened, Glenn.

It never should have happened.

The accused, now call him the accused.

He never should have been out on the street, but it's the the catch and release, not only at the southern border, but we have catch and release within our criminal justice system and you've got the left pushing either low bail or no bail and again you had you know the the current vice president after the minneapolis riots encouraging people to donate to a bail fund to bail the rioters out you have the press looking the other way as during the 570 plus riots during the summer instead that all the focuses on on january 6th as much as i condemn that now I'm also condemning the violence, the 2,000 law enforcement officers who were injured during those summer riots, the couple dozen people killed during those, the $2 billion worth of profit damage.

We're all supposed to look away from that,

but we focus instead on

when there may be a perpetrator that comes more from the right side of the political spectrum.

So, no, I'm outraged by all of this, but I am outraged for the citizens, for the community of Waukesha that are suffering.

when they shouldn't have, have to.

This never should have happened.

And we've got to call it out.

You know, part of the healing process, part of the due process is to examine why is this guy in the street?

Why was he able to commit this evil, heinous act?

Why?

And then correct it.

So

that's going to be part of the process.

Go ahead.

So help me out because just a few days later,

you come out with a statement with Tammy Baldwin, who is your cohort there in

Congress.

She is the Democrat senator from Wisconsin.

And you write this, it has come to our attention that outside individuals or groups may attempt to exploit the tragedy that occurred last Sunday in Waukesha for their own political purposes.

As the U.S.

Senators representing Wisconsin, one from each political party, we are asking everyone to consider such action to cease and desist.

We have full confidence in the local officials who responded with extraordinary professionalism, competence, integrity, and compassion.

They have many difficult duties to perform in the coming days, weeks, and months, and they should be afforded the respect and support they deserve to undertake their responsibilities without outside

interference.

You go on for a couple of more paragraphs, but it's basically the same thing.

What's angering some people on both sides is you just made it political by saying what you just said, and now you're saying don't make it political.

Well, how is this not a political issue?

So I guess you have to read carefully what I said.

I was trying to head off the past action that could result in potential violence again in Waukesha.

So

I had received from the people I spoken to on Monday, I get a call that Friday, that they are concerned that groups from both sides were going to descend on Waukesha to protest or whatever, and they were concerned of a clash and maybe more violence.

And so all I was reacting to, then they asked me, can I do anything to help?

And I said, well, I could issue a statement.

I could could try and get Senator Baldwin on it on a bipartisan basis.

Just ask people, please don't do that.

Now, we weren't specific.

I didn't want to give anybody ideas.

This was just something that May had been planning.

We were just trying to head something off of the past.

But I was talking about action.

I was talking about potential violence.

This is obviously a political situation.

And I, by the way, I share, so yeah, I'm getting a lot of criticism from the right.

I basically agree with them 99% in terms of what they're talking about because I am outraged by the fact that the left wouldn't stop talking about, for example, Charlottesville.

They won't stop talking about January 6th.

But you don't hear much about the

assault on the Republican members of Congress on the baseball field.

I don't think Walkstraw is really much on anybody's front page other than in right-wing media now.

So trust me,

both of us are recipients.

of grossly unfair coverage by the left, the left-wing media, the distortions, the lies, the false narratives.

So, no, I'm not happy with it at all.

I think I blame the press for so much of our divisiveness in this country.

They exacerbate it.

They're the ones that like the fuse.

So, I completely agree with, even people criticize me.

I understand why they're criticizing me, and I agree with them.

But again, they're just getting it wrong that I was inferring that don't make this political.

It is political.

This occurred because of political decisions on no and low bail that need to be protected, or corrected, but they need to be called out.

So, again, I think what I, my statement was misconstrued.

Again, they didn't understand the backstory.

They didn't understand I was responding to requests to help to try and head something off of the pass.

We didn't want to see more violence.

Again,

I'm talking to people who had to help pick up dead bodies off the pavement.

They had enough to deal with.

They didn't need to deal with additional protesters and people taking advantage of the situation,

physical presence, potentially resulting in violence.

That's what we're talking about.

Coming in from other parts of the country, too.

Usually these protesters

are bused in.

So what do we do

about this?

What can be done?

I mean,

the media is truly, truly responsible.

The best example, counterexample of this, is what happened in Charlottesville.

That story, everybody knows.

Donald Trump

took the brunt of that one because basically he said kind of the same thing.

He was saying, there's good people on both sides.

I condemn those who do the violence,

but

let's not

bunch everybody into this together.

He was saying, let's look at this rationally.

The press wouldn't do it.

You're saying, Just give me,

we have to talk about politics, but let's be rational rational on the ground.

Let's not do anything that calls BLM in

or, you know, any white supremacist group in, correct?

Yeah, right.

I just didn't want to see

physical presence that could result in violence.

Okay.

But no, the political discussion has to take care or take place.

And there's no doubt about it.

The media, the bulk of the mainstream media, the social media, they are far left.

Now, fortunately, we still have freedom of the press.

So we've got you, we've got the Blaze, we've got other conservative outlets.

So, we have freedom of the press, but we are, by and large, overwhelmed by the left press in the mainstream media.

It's a huge disadvantage that we have, so we've got to work harder, we've got to work smarter.

We do need to remain unified as much as possible.

I think that would also be helpful,

Senator Ron Johnson.

Thank you.

It is

becoming increasingly difficult

to be able to hold people together when we are absolutists.

You are either absolutely my enemy or you're absolutely my friend.

And

one issue or one disagreement on approach

changes everything.

And that won't work.

That just won't work.

We have to be able to

have some reason if we're going to be able to stick together.

No, it's a losing strategy.

It's just a losing strategy.

We need to cling to our first principles.

We need to understand what do we agree on.

And from the right, we all agree on.

I think this was Donald Trump's greatest achievement.

He assembled a coalition of people that fervently love this country.

And in addition, they recognized what made it great, not big government, individual liberty and freedom, operating within a free market system that allows them to dream and aspire and build and create.

That's the coalition that we need to keep together.

And yeah, we're going to have our differences.

You may not agree with everything everybody says or how they write something, but we need to focus on what we are trying to accomplish.

We're trying to save this country because the left is destroying it.

So again, you know, some people may not like the way I issued that statement on a bipartisan basis, but I would do it again because it's the right thing to do.

If there's no, there's no riding yet in Wakshaw, and that's a good thing.

Maybe I helped prevent that.

I don't know.

But it was worth doing.

It was worth trying to help.

But at the same time, we have to recognize the left is destroying this country.

They are our political opponents.

We need to focus on them.

We need to exert our energy to defeating them.

And when I say defeat, I mean sweep them from power at the national level, at the state, and at the local local level, primarily at the local level.

And we've allowed radical leftists to take over our school boards, which is why they're teaching critical race theory.

We took our eye off the ball, focusing everything on the federal government.

We need to focus and be as relentless as the left is in preserving our freedom as they are in taking it away from us.

Thank you very much, Senator Ron Johnson.

I appreciate it.

God bless.

Thank you.

You bet.

By the way, I believe, I'm not sure if it's up on the website yet.

Do we know if he wrote an op-ed?

And

Jason Whitlock disagrees with him.

He's going to be on with us in about an hour.

Hopefully, Jason was listening to this

and he's going to respond.

But he's already written an op-ed that was placed on the Blaze.

And so the senator asked for the same opportunity.

And we're giving him that opportunity on the Blaze.

You'll be able to find it at Blaze.com.

Back in just a second.

The best of the Glenbeck program.

From Mississippi, the Governor Tate Reeves is joining us now.

Oral arguments begin today on Dobbs versus Jackson, and he is here to tell us all about it.

Governor, how are you, sir?

Good morning, Glenn.

I'm doing great today.

I hope you are as well.

I am.

I am.

It's a good day.

I'm actually very optimistic about the chances of this case after talking to your really great Attorney General, the first woman Attorney General in Mississippi's history, Lynn Finch.

Finch.

Yeah,

today is a day that many of us in the pro-life movement have been waiting for for a long time.

In fact, some even longer than I have been alive.

The Roe v.

Wade was decided, the decision came down in January of 1973.

And so for almost 50 years, Roe has been the precedent that was set.

But many of us, and I presume most of your listeners, just really believe that it was decided wrongly back in 1973.

And then you also have

the Casey case that occurred in 1992, which really helped establish the viability provision,

and we believe that was wrongly decided as well.

If you read the Constitution, and I've read it,

there is no guaranteed right to an abortion in the United States Constitution.

In fact, not only is there not a guaranteed right, there's also nothing in the U.S.

Constitution that prevents states like Mississippi and others from placing reasonable limits on those abortions.

And the case that's before the court today certainly places reasonable limits.

So

that's the thing, reasonable limits.

We are so far beyond reason.

The two countries that have

zero laws on the books to stop people from abortion, you can abort a baby, you know, while giving birth, it's China and North Korea.

And we are right there at that doorstep.

We are way out of line.

And this isn't an overturning of all abortion.

This was, I mean, you were the Speaker of the Mississippi Senate, if I'm not mistaken, and you brought the heartbeat bill and got that passed.

So

this is not,

well, take me through that from the beginning and how we got here.

Yeah, no question.

And I think your point is so important

because

those in the abortion on demand crowd try to convince the American public that

the abortion laws in the U.S.

are mainstream across the world, and they're just simply not.

As you correctly pointed out, the laws in California and New York with respect to abortions are more similar to China and North Korea than they are any other country around the world.

In fact, there are 42 countries in Europe, Glenn, that allow for elective abortions.

If this Mississippi law is upheld, then there will still be 39 countries

Europe that have more restrictive abortion laws than Mississippi, which I think is one of, if not the most conservative states in the United States.

And so this law just

gets our state to a point where we are more in line with mainstream countries around the world.

My goal ultimately would be

I'd love to see the court overthrow Roe v.

Wade.

That's because there is because it was wrongly ruled.

But they don't have to do that to allow this ban to go into effect, and that would ultimately save lives.

And that's what we've been trying to do for many years is find ways in which to

pass restrictions that save babies' lives.

So you are, but I want to make sure that people understand that if this goes, you're not arguing to ban all abortions in America.

You're saying leave it to the states to decide.

Get it out of the court system.

Leave it to the people to decide this.

So California would probably end up doing more abortions.

New York would end up doing more abortions.

But you would do far less, if any.

Well,

we believe that

that's what the United States Constitution contemplates is it is the 50 labs of democracy in the states that should be making these decisions.

There's no guaranteed constitutional right to an abortion in the U.S.

Constitution.

And

our founding fathers were very

tactical and very intelligent in

saying that anything that the Constitution doesn't give explicit authority to the feds on should be decided in the individual states.

And so, no,

we're not asking the court to outlaw abortions.

We're just simply asking the court to recognize that it's the individual states that should have the opportunity to set their policies based upon the will of the people in those individual states.

So, the left loves to scream, my body, my choice, not when it comes to vaccines.

What is the difference here between these two?

Why is it my body, my choice in one regard and not with vaccines?

And that's a great question, and it's a fair question.

Here's what we've learned with respect to the vaccines.

Even Dr.

Fauci admitted on Sunday that the vaccines

are pretty effective, are very effective at keeping you from becoming hospitalized and from having a severe case.

However,

What we have learned as more and more data comes out is

there is certainly individuals that are vaccinated that are contracting the virus and there are those who are vaccinated that are spreading the virus.

And so the vaccine, in my opinion, is exceptionally helpful in reducing the severity of your case, but that gives you as an individual the ability to make your own decisions as to what's best for you and your family.

Conversely, With respect to abortions, and this is where the left just completely gets it wrong.

They want to to scream my body, my choice, and completely ignore the fact that there is an additional unborn child in that womb that they are aborting and ultimately killing.

And so that is where the distinction lies is, and abortion is, in my view, by definition, the killing of an innocent unborn child.

And that's when it's no longer just about your body.

It's about the body of that unborn child.

And it's why, Glenn, it's so important that people like and people like Attorney General Fitch and other like-minded pro-life people around America stand up for that unborn child because they don't have the ability to stand up for themselves.

You know, it's interesting.

The founders really addressed this.

I was shocked when I found this out.

We have these debates in our Mercury historic vaults.

The founders talked about abortion,

but they didn't do it on a federal level.

They did it on a local level.

And

the argument was when you know it's a child, the quickening is what they called it, when you know the baby has moved and you know it's a child, you will then be causing murder.

But if you don't know that, the quickening hasn't happened and something happens, then you're okay.

But that was again for a local and state issue, not a constitutional issue, and they were very well aware of it back then.

Well, there's no doubt, and the important point here is that here's another

example of where the left

really

chooses to ignore the facts.

They love to scream about following the science.

But when it comes to abortion policies, they completely ignore the science.

And the fact is, since Casey was decided in 1992, the the science has changed.

Since Roe v.

Wade was decided in 1973, the science has certainly changed.

And the reason it has changed, when Roe was decided, we did not have sonograms.

When Roe was decided, we did not have ultrasounds.

And every single time the technology gets better, the more the science comes down on the side.

of protecting unborn children.

Here's what we know about a child at 15 weeks.

We know that that child has a heartbeat.

We know that that child is pumping multiple quarts of blood each day.

We know that the baby is developing its lungs.

We know that the baby can move.

We know that the baby can take its fingers and hand and open and close it.

And most importantly, perhaps, Glenn, we know that that baby can feel pain.

And because of that, we believe that

we have

an obligation to protect that unborn child.

How do you think Supreme Court's going to rule on this case?

You know, because the left is saying, oh,

this is practically a complete

religious, zealot,

rightist court.

No, it's not.

I mean, I don't count on all,

not necessarily counting on John Roberts.

you know, actually voting for this.

What do you think?

What are the odds, do you think?

Well,

I'm cautiously optimistic.

I'm cautiously optimistic that the justices on the Supreme Court are going to

stay away from

any political considerations because that's not the role of the court.

That is the role of the legislative branch of government, and that's the role of the executive branch of government, is to recognize public opinion and make decisions accordingly.

But

the judicial branch's job is to is to read and interpret the Constitution and I think a simple reading of the U.S.

Constitution

shows you that there is no guaranteed right to an abortion in that document and there is nothing in that document that prevents the states from passing their own laws.

In fact, that is really one of the fundamental principles that this country was founded upon is that anything

that is not specifically delineated for the role of the federal government is to be handled by the states.

Correct.

And so I'm optimistic for that reason.

And I know that there have been literally millions and millions and millions of Americans praying for

our legal counsel who is literally, as we speak, making these arguments before the court.

And I hope that that will continue in the coming days and weeks before the decision is handed down.

And we think it'll be months, obviously, before we ultimately get a decision.

Yeah,

probably in July.

Perfect for the midterms.

Governor, thank you for everything that you've done for life

and everything the state is going through right now.

It is probably the most important thing that we can do.

If we don't get ourselves on the right side of history on pretty big things like this,

you know, we are going to have a tough fight on everything else.

Thank you so much, Governor.

Thank you so much for having me on, Glenn.

Have a great day.

You too, Governor Tate Reeves from Mississippi.

You might want to say a prayer now for the legal team.

They are in the Supreme Court right now doing oral arguments.

And this could be a big one.

This could be a big one.

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.