tv Sen. Mike Lee Saving Nine CSPAN July 3, 2022 11:10pm-12:01am EDT
if you're very kind. thank you and welcome to all of you in this nearly packed auditorium, but those of you also who have joined online. for a gentleman who needs very little introduction? and who is a great friend of the heritage foundation and no doubt as i scanned the audience a great friend of many of you individually. it still is a pleasure to introduce senator mike lee and i'll introduce him this way not just as one of the most
thoughtful members of the united states senate not just one of the patriots of our age but someone who in spite of all of the challenges facing this great republic remains steadfast in his cheerfulness and so it is a wonderful privilege on behalf of all of us at the heritage foundation to introduce our friend senator mike lee. thank you. senator good afternoon to you. thank you. yeah good to be here. thanks. thanks for being here. so we're going to get into this wonderful book, which i told you earlier in the week. i had skimmed i have since read so i did my homework. and you can decide how well i did based on the questions. but before we get into the book, there's a lot going on in washington this week. i know you don't mind a question about that. what's your assessment of what's happening in the country right now? well a lot's happening including the fact that we've got people
who want to protest at the homes of supreme court justices. we've got federal statute that makes that a felony offense and a president who's unwilling to condemn it or direct that his law enforcement personnel arrest people for doing that and that's creating other problems like those that we saw at the home of justice kavanaugh early yesterday morning. we've also got a country that's responding to some tragedies. understandably wanting to respond and not always responding in a way that is respectful of the procedures required by our constitution. excellent segue for a man here to talk about his book regarding the institution of the supreme court. so i have a couple of passages all key in on and i know that you have some things you want to highlight for us in it, by the way, there are books available after this is over and we were going to get to your questions in time. but before that what what
motivated you was was there a light bulb moment where you said, i'm gonna to write this book about saving this for it started in the fall of 2021. we saw the first debate between president trump and then vice president then former vice president biden. a question was asked to joe biden. will you pack the court? and i thought i assumed the answer would be no, of course not that's a terrible idea. joe biden after all as i said senator had been very clear about this. he called it a bonehead idea. he said it was a bonehead idea back then it would be a bonehead idea to do it now, and i thought he would stick with that that has after all become the norm. it's become something that has united people along every point along the ideological spectrum quartz packing is bad. so when he equivocated, and uttered some barely intelligible sentence that sounded like i
can't say yes, because if i say, yes, i'll get criticized. so i'm just not going to speak to that that worried me. i hope that my concerns would be laid in the early months of his presidency. they were not instead. he created a commission to look at the idea of it. that's so that was warning bell number two. and after warning bell number two, i realized nobody's really written a book about this. no one has explained comprehensively why court packing is so bad why it was universally condemned from the better part of the last 85 years since it was last attempted. and perhaps most importantly no one has ever told the story of the lasting and damaging impact that the last court packing attempt had not only on the supreme court itself. but on all of us on our system of government on the the separation of powers between the three branches and the distribution of power between the states and the federal
government. well, thanks for writing it and i remember sometime in that timeline of that debate and when it was apparent that president of the united states joe biden was serious about this that those of us, especially on the right, but across the political spectrum took for granted that we were always going to win the argument about keeping the supreme court at nine justices. so, let me let me read this statement from earlier in your book. these are your eloquent words senator. that consistency and stability are what give our system its reputation as the best in the world free from political influence. a reputation that has serious implications for the nation's wider cultural and economic vitality you write. and you conclude this paragraph by saying? but if all roads in the federal judiciary lead to a political rubber stamp court for either party that reputation would erode and eventually disappear. are we seeing that even or the prospects for that even without core packing? yes. yes. we are seeing it and it's it's
no coincidence that we're seeing that at the same time. difficult to unravel the chicken from the egg at times and this is one of those moments they're doing it because they want to pack the court and the reason they want to pack the court is because they want to do that. the problem here is that they've created a monster they meaning the left. they have politicized the court by having the court take debatable matters of public policy and move them beyond debate. bootstrapping them onto the constitution even though the constitution says nothing about them roe versus wade perfect example of this constitution says nothing. about abortion it's not just that it doesn't contain the word, but it contains no language referring to the concept of abortion. and what that means is that it's it's up to the people's elected lawmakers and typically that's going to mean at the state and local level to decide these
things. but in 1973 seven of nine lawyers wearing black robes occupying that building just a few hundred yards from here decided that they could make it part of the constitution even though it's not in there. and so they did. so what we're seeing now is the predictable foreseeable result of that 49 years later. we've realized that this is not a traditionally manageable standard. we've realized that it finds no foothold in hundreds of years of anglo-american precedent leading up to the constitution is nothing in the constitution about it. it's and and it's subject to these multifarious inconsistent applications. so none of these things suggest that this precedent can survive and the president is i'm happy to say on the verge of being jettisoned, but the left is furious about this because they're not content to fight these particular battles in the court of public opinion or in legislative bodies, and that's why they're pushing back sure. so we'll get into some of the
contemporary debates even as we sit here, but you do a really good job in the book of tracing the history of this and i think if you were to pull people in this audience and those online we would immediately think about the 1930s and fdr, but what i really appreciated among other things about the book is you talk about wilsonian progressivism, which is really what we're fighting in a lot of respects give the audience, you know, even if they may be familiar with that a sense of how important that foundation is. that is the era. will sony and progressiveism to the contemporary debate. yeah. woodrow wilson whenever my my kids want to really hurt me they will come up with a a fake argument that i fall for every time that they have decided that woodrow wilson is one of their favorite presidents. i have that really hurt. somebody really hurts. look woodrow wilson was the first american president to hold a phd. he was also the first american president to be openly contemptuous toward the
constitution and he genuinely was he was he had a religious zeal for the progressive cause and as part of that he believed that we had to have experts unvarnished untainted experts to govern the unwashed masses and that the unwashed masses should be sort of kept away from the true decision making in government. of course, this is an athama to the constitution. it didn't work within it. and so woodrow wilson was openly hostile toward it. he tried to move away. he was the first president to push aggressively toward a weakening of of the concept of federalism the supreme court was astute and alert enough to push back on them on that. it wasn't a perfect resistance, but it was an effective resistance against his efforts, but he planted the seeds and those seeds later found more fertile soil a couple of decades
later under the administration of president franklin d roosevelt, they did and so walk us through if you don't mind senator that story i think probably again thinking about our smart. well read audience here and online people could recount the highlights of that but one of the great parts of your book is that you get into the details of the attempt by fdr and his political allies to expand the court, but also why it failed, i think that that has some relevance to the conversation today. okay, so in chapter 4 and chapter 5 of saving nine. i i walk through starting with chapter 4. explaining what happened to president franklin d roosevelt during his first presidential term. he wanted to be kind of the savior of the american people during the great depression. he was going to you know, come into town on his white horse and save everybody and he was going to do it by dramatically expanding his role as president of the united states and the role of the federal government in general.
with respect to the problems facing the american people during the great depression. this in his view required him to advance legislation aggressively giving the federal government a significant role in things like labor and manufacturing and agriculture and mining and a number of other activities that while economic in one way or another affecting commerce in one way or another. or not themselves interstate commerce those things after all take place in one state. at one time but he nonetheless advanced this this aggressive argument under article one section 8 clause 3 the commerce clause that part of having the power to regulate. commerce between the states encompasses necessarily the power to regulate things that affect interstate commerce. she prior to that time. for the first 150 years of the republic. that power had been understood
to do essentially two things to give congress the power to regulate interstate commercial transactions if i'm in virginia, and i'm selling something to you. you live in maryland. congress has the power to set up a system of laws that will govern that transaction should it choose to do so and to impose a negative power on state laws that would interfere. the other principal power that's derived from a power to regulate channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce today. we would think of those as interstate airways airwaves waterways roadways canals and so forth. so this was really a new frontier that he was pushing for the commerce clause remember that perhaps the single most important element or one of them one of the most important elements of the constitution was that as these twin structural protections the vertical protection we call federalism that keeps most of the power close to the people the state and local level. then there's the horizontal
protection that we call separation of powers delineating the responsibilities of the branch that makes the laws congress the branch that enforces the laws the executive headed by the president and the branch that interprets the laws when necessary to do so to resolve a dispute as to the laws meeting in particular case. he didn't like. particularly federalism because it was going to serve as an impediment. for him to be the savior of the american people that are during the great depression. so he pushed this aggressive interpretation saying look, you've got to interpret the commerce clause is given congress the power to regulate anything that affects interstate commerce. and pretty much everything affects interstate commerce. it's like the butterfly effect the concept that a butterfly or swarm thereof flapping wings in the amazon somewhere in brazil will affect wind currents and weather patterns in florida. the supreme court thankfully had already rejected similar
arguments that were presented during woodrow wilson's time in office culminating in a case called ham murphy dagen heart that dealt with a a specific type of child labor when fdr came along they stayed pretty close to that precedent. and they pushed back up. they invalidated a lot of fdr's legislative agenda. this happened in slow motion over the course of about four years. he got tired of losing and by the time he won re-election of the fall of 1936. he said that's it. i'm i'm going to show them who's boss now. so that's when he started. he had for some time been trying to demonize and delegitimize the court denigrating individual justices who were opposed to him. most notably the the combination of four justices whom he deemed the four horsemen the four horsemen of the apocalypse is what he called and and the one i
regard as the intellectual leader among them was got him george sutherland the only supreme court justice ever to come from utah himself a byu graduate and the appeals. yeah. yeah, very handsome man. that could lead to a question from the audience by the way miles it could it could okay my my dad wants. helberg sutherland professorship of law at byu. okay. anyway, he hated the four horsemen hated them with a white hot passion, especially because they were winning. because most of the time the four horsemen could get at least one of the of the moderates in the court. up to join with the four horsemen including an especially associate justice owen roberts and they joined with them and they're in their interpretation of the commerce clause in some cases. it was unanimous or nearly unanimous and they're pushing back on fdrs intrusion into federalism. so we got tired of this so we
started demonizing demonizing the court especially the four horsemen. saying there were too old. they're out of touch. they're lame. they listen to nickelback. i don't know what it accusation. yeah, it's fighting words. really. and is reached this crescendo to the point where he was ready to push in 1937 legislation giving himself the authority to appoint as many justices potentially bringing the court up to 15. it was this. byzantine labyrinth of complicated formulas that it created including giving him the power to appoint one new justice for each justice having attained or exceeded the age of 70 on the existing court. it was really weird. he found as his lead sponsor for that guy named joe robinson. joe robinson was a us senator from arkansas serving at the time as the senate majority leader. and he was also on the judiciary committee. he asked joe robinson to run the
legislation joe agreed. and he was determined to tear this down. here's the problem. while the legislation ultimately failed it failed in a way in part because it succeeded in intimidating and bullying the court. the court had after all just moved into its new chambers it moved in on april 12th. 1935. this beautiful marble palace that they occupied they didn't want their parade reigned upon and apparently owen roberts was persuaded and bullied and intimidated because in a case decided two years to the date after they had moved in april 12 1937. is switched his vote in a case that's rarely discussed in civics classes rarely discussed in college or not disgusting very much even in law schools. name of the cases nlrb versus
jones and laughlin steel company in that case owen roberts buckled to presidential intimidation. to switch his vote joined the free musketeers those loyal to the president on the court. along with chief justice hughes in rewriting the commerce clause reinterpreting it to mean that congress can regulate any act every activity that went in the aggregate has a significant effect on interstate commerce from that moment forward. we went from being a limited purpose. federal government to a general purpose national government that in turn led to congress choking on the volume of its own power. you've got to make all these line drawing decisions when you can legislate that broadly and all of a sudden you're in charge of a huge expanse the sky's the limit. so congress stopped really making law started delegating the lawmaking power to unelected on accountable bureaucrats and that in a nutshell is why we're 31 trillion dollars in debt today.
that's why today most of our laws measured by weight volume word length economic impact are made by unelected on accountable bureaucrats. it's why we work several months out of every year just to pay our federal taxes only to be it's not nearly enough. so all of these things came about as a result of fdr's dastardly court-packing plan, which failed legislatively but succeeded by bullying an intimidating the court and disubision. thanks for that explanation. so i have other questions, but i know the audience will have even smarter ones. so if you have a question, raise your hand and one of my colleagues will come to you with a microphone, please wait for the microphone so that everyone can hear your question. we'll start down here. served microphones coming your way. oh hi. um. augusta salzona, i happen to be a graduate of woodrow wilson senior high school, washington dc which i just changed the name for by the way. my question is this in the event
that the current president the united states does not. complete his term for whatever reason what can we especially social conservatives but conservatives the conservative movement, whatever label you want to put on us all this due to we can what can we do? can we do or should we do legally speaking to prevent kamala harris from making the next supreme court appointment? okay, so your question asks if president biden doesn't complete this term of office. what could we do to prevent her from being elected president or just i guess by operation a law. she would be president right that could you know, right and so what could we do to stop her from putting anyone on the court?
yes. yes for making legally from making the next supreme court. justice appointment. okay. yeah, we did not start with a softball. right, right. okay. so we've got an election coming up in november. it's an important midterm election. it's an election in which republicans appear almost certain to regain the majority in the house of representatives. i'm now becoming increasingly confident that we're going to do the same thing in the senate. if we have control of the senate. and we'll have a significant amount of say in. who can get confirmed to what position? now this could turn several different ways. i don't i don't know. how a president harris or a president biden for that matter might. react to a reality in which we take the majority during that second half of this presidential term. it's possible that it would take
a pragmatic term and they would. take count of the change circumstances and nominate someone who could receive a majority support from the majority of? of the senate there are so many variables within that equation not i can't reduce it to a single answer that will give you. degree of certainty there are and there are a lot of ways that could happen, but it would look very different. i think than the judicial nominations that we've seen from this administration, which have been very very radical. i mean, even if we just compare them to the obama administration's nominees, these are really different even from those he even still i would say that well, of course you you and your colleagues exercise great scrutiny. over president biden's supreme court nominee who will join the court soon that you are very thorough.
she got a very fair shake from from our side. so to speak we can't count on that which also speaks to one of the points you make in the book, which is that the radical left has become so radical they really want to play by different rules. right right radical and further radicalized by virtue of the fact that they control so many institutions. higher education education generally news media entertainment media and so many corporations so they've gotten kind of i don't know whether the word is lazy or reckless or sloppy because of the fact that it's gotten so easy for them to do so many things that in turn has made them a little too aggressive for their own good. yeah. next question. we'll come to this side here. there's a gentleman right there in the middle. thank you very much. so, my name is carl demarco. i'm with the daily caller news
foundation and yesterday the atlantic put out an article on this very topic of the supreme court and its future and i had two brief questions one was that they accused the supreme court of developing this idea of judicial supremacy after the civil war in order to prevent allow southern states to prevent granting rights to newly freed african americans. i don't know if you could speak to that if it is true or and they said it's not in the constitution. it was not what the founders intended. so, i don't know if you could speak to that exactly so judicial supremacy. this is a term that i've heard thrown around recently, and i've never heard a consistent definition of that not entirely sure what people mean by it. the supreme court does have the ultimate authority to decide cases and controversies properly brought before the jurisdiction of the court. and that means that the where
there's a disagreement as to what a particular provision of the law whether it's statutory or constitutional about what it means they get to decide that case now, they they issue the final judgment. the judgment is what it is. that is the judgment and it is supreme in that regard. some people throw around the term judicial supremacy as if it has a stock and trade meaning beyond that i think some of those suggest that the court doesn't have the power to just issue advisory opinions speak broadly as to all things. it has the ability to issue. rulings in interpret provisions of law in the case in question, which it certainly does. so anyway, i'd have to read that article to figure out what they mean by judicial supremacy, but that word throws me a little bit. it's been a question down here on the first row. we'll take that one before moving back to the other side of the room. thank you.
comments. i was wondering if you could speak more to president biden's motivation for the supreme court commission. and also whether you think it accomplishes it accomplished his goals. yeah, so it's always tough to know what another person subjectively intended by doing a particular thing. and so i have to be careful there not to claim to have a attributes of clairvoyance that i definitely lack what i do know is what effect it had. if if one did to pack the court. one would need to move what i refer to in saving nine is the overton window, you know move the the parameters around what's considered appropriate legitimate political discourse and what's considered an appropriate proposal and what isn't so if you wanted to normalize it you might put
together a big commission full of lots of blue ribbon law professors and very distinguished retired judges. you put that together and say, oh, let's get the the brain trust in place it standard progressive play by the way. this is what they do. we're gonna have the experts decide more than anything else and then you have them come out with something recognizing that the country is not quite ready to accept a recommendation. oh, yes. let's pack the court, but they come out what they non-conclusion in their response and in the last couple of chapters in saving not talk about this as well by coming out with the non-conclusion it really it's reminiscent. i don't always quote rush lyrics in heritage presentations, but nickelback, and rush and yes conversation if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. and by choosing not to decide by choosing not to come out against court-packing. they really were putting their
impriminter the perimeter of their approval on it. so that is exactly what i would do if i were him and i wanted to do this. and it's also consistent with his refusal to answer a couple of with his accidental admission in the debate. well, i can't answer. yes because no criticized me. so i'm just not going to answer. so anyway, that's my best effort at reading as much. good job there senator. the question here, ma'am. you right there looking at the cameras microphones you to come your way. i also want it noted that i didn't quote nickelback or site nickelback with approval let the record show. yes. thank you very much. senator lee. thank you for being here and speaking. i was just wondering i know you did say you don't have clairvoyance, but i just want to hear your opinion on is their hope for a return of a more bipartisan dialogue within congress in particularly the senate so that these debatable issues don't have to be so polarized and can actually be
sorted out in the legislative body. yeah. a great question there is let me explain my vision for how that happens. the best way to enhance respectful bipartisan dialogue within congress is to follow what the constitution says and do what it requires and has required the entire time. it's been in effect. because when you do that you take a lot of issues off the table and you reserve those for the appropriate decision makers. we are supposed to be in charge of national defense immigration a uniform system of weights and measures bankruptcy laws regulating trade between the states foreign nations and with the indian tribes the interstate commerce and granting letters of mark and reprisal which are awesome when i hope to get one one day because i want to be a pirate. i was tempted to name one of my son's mark m a r q u e and my
wife sharon vetoed that with good reason. if we focused on those things, i mean there are a few other powers, but that that gives you the basic gist of it. if we focused on those things we do it much better job on those. we wouldn't have a buddy holly era antiquated immigration code. you're warming up with the buddy. holly reference that's getting better. yeah, it's getting better. and we also wouldn't have open borders because would be more focused on the few things that we are supposed to do. the problem has been that since april 12th 1937. since owen roberts cowardly flip in response to franklin d roosevelt's dastardly threat we have been a national government with general jurisdiction. and we're a very diverse country. we come from diverse backgrounds. there's enormous diversity in difference of opinion a region by region state by state the founding fathers knew this.
i mean a lot of that was true. way back in 1787. it was in many ways. no less true than that. it is today. we think that we're somehow special and we can just do better because you know, we're modern it. no human nature is what it is the higher you go in terms of levels of government the more difficult. it's going to be to find consensus. so anyway, we could get there, but we would have to start respecting federalism again, which is why that's my whole point when i first ran for the united states senate in 2010. i be an exaggeration to say it was based on a dare, but i told a couple of friends. i don't think i could ever run for that because i would would run a us senate campaign based on federalism and separation of powers. because that's the way we get there. this man good afternoon, senator. my name is sophie. i'm interning on the hill and i'm from the great state of florida earlier today you made
reference to the shaky legal grounds upon which roe versus wade was ruled on and that it is not an enumerated right in the constitution. however, a couple other rights that we generally accept right to privacy gay marriage neither of which are explicitly enumerated in the constitution. so i'm wondering what the distinction is between illegally sound right like the right to privacy which again is an explicitly enumerated in the constitution and then the feeble legal grounds that you suggest roe versus wade is based on so the distinction between those two rights. yeah. great question. i'm going to try to answer to succinctly as possible because otherwise i'll go down erotic hole and we'll be here for hours on this one. short answer your question is i mean the constitution does protect privacy. there's nothing in there that says the right to privacy which is part of the problem with this line of cases. is that by pointing a term and
then attributing it to several amendments you're creating a right that's difficult to to apply but the constitution does in many respects protect privacy. most notably in the fourth amendment. that's all about privacy the fifth amendment also has protections that are all about privacy. so there are elements of that as for the distinction between row. and obergerfil the gay marriage case. okay, i would have decided obergerfelt differently and have indicated as much that said it is very different. ban, then the case then the dobbs. draft opinion because obergerfil is very different than row. as a matter of story decisis and as a matter of where the country is, i don't see the same amount of national division remaining.
with regard to obergerfil as there has been ever since row. and when you apply the doctrine of story decisis, the court looks among other things at how judicially manageable the cases the extent to which it's created uncertainty and chaos within the law based on the difficulty or ease with which it's it's applied. just as alito actually does a masterful job of this in his dobb's opinion and for any of you who haven't read justice league's opinion regardless of how you feel about abortion regardless of how you feel about gay marriage or anything else. you really should read it because it's very instructive. it's informative and it's persuasive and he very ably and thoroughly differentiates. cases like obergerfil of from row. so yeah, i i don't think that's i've seen a lot of people make that argument that if dobbs overrules rho than another case
will certainly overturn obergerfell. i just don't think that's accurate. thank you. last question. we'll come down here to the center of microphones coming your way, sir. hi, i'm james romano. i'm an intern on the hill from indiana my question for you today. senator lee is is the executive branch targeting the structure of the supreme court in order to remove one of the last checks and balances for their quasi legislative bureaucracy, or is there a possibly another motivation for targeting the supreme court? all right. so the first half of your question the answer the first half of your question is yes, i mean they are and that's the whole the whole point of saving 90s to make the case that they are talking about expanding the court. not based on an assessment that the court is understaffed and
overworked. it's not a human resources issue that you know nine is simply insufficient to do the work. it is rather to achieve a different substantive outcome. in cases, which makes it you know, wildly inappropriate. i think it's always inappropriate. that's why i support my friend ted cruz has introduced a constitutional amendment that would lock in in at 9:00 and like wholeheartedly support it. ted cruz, by the way, not a nickelback fan somebody unfairly accused him of that a few years ago and ever since then i felt the need to defend him on that point but being a texan he has to be a buddy holly exactly exactly. i do think that one of the things that could be on the chopping block. in addition to row is the legal framework that has given this unfettered rain to the federal administrative system the administrative law system. and so i i suspect that could be part of it. it's not just row.
it's also it's also their ongoing progressive commitment to the erosion of both federalism and separation of powers. and by the way those deviated from in lockstep they both occurred together. that's why i pinpoint the deviation from federalism and the deviation from separation of powers. i trace it all back to april 12 1937 because you can't deviate from one without deviating from the other and if you took steps to restore either one you would incrementally restore the other. so yeah, i think that's that's part of their game here. great question and senator as i told you the questions would be fantastic. don't you agree? absolutely, so that was the last question from the audience last question for you i have and it's it's to cue some closing comments for you as we wrap up here and thank you, of course for being here and it is swerving from the political and to some extent even the academic. down to the practical i know
that people in this audience. we have a lot of interns here from the hill obviously people who are not interns because you look like people with expertise. that well said john malcolm. obviously people online of very backgrounds, but all of us, this is the point regardless of what we're doing right now. want to leave this auditorium and play some tiny role at least in preventing court packing from happening. what's the advice do you have work that you have horse? read saving nine. well played well played. and i mean, i mean seriously if pick up a copy of it if you can't afford a copy come borrow one from me or i thought you say borrow one for me or yes. yes. look. it'd be great if everyone bought one, but even if not, everyone buys one, just if everyone should read this. i wish everyone in america would breed. this book the reason i say that is because the reason stuff like this can take hold today.
is because for reasons, i don't entirely understand. these stories that i tell in this book and the connections that i make. to changes in our law in our legal system. in our deviations away from the constitution. they've been kind of cleansed from what we're paying taught in school. they just don't teach this stuff anymore. they really don't teach federalism at all. nor they teach the connection between federalism and separation of powers that the minute you take power from the states and the people and move it to washington. it's immediately going to create kind of a log jam and congress. so congress will outsource the law making power because it's, you know, too difficult and politically perilous to weigh in on so many issues and do all the line drawing. so instead we pass a law that says we shall have good law in area x and we hear by delegate to commission why the power to make and interpret and enforce
rules carrying the force of generally applicable federal law make it so and as a result, we're never accountable. and when bad judgments are made by commission y whether it's epa or osha or whatever it is. people will come and complain to members of congress and congress members of congress will beat their chests and save those barbarians. i'm going to write them a harshly worded letter and that will teach them as if that were our job and our responsibility just to write parsley worded letters. we created the the piece. and it all started as a result of fdrs court packing effort. you see our constitutional system our experiment in self-government really depends for its legitimacy for its sustainability. for its vitality on the existence of an independent judiciary is anthony's scalia used to say any tinhorn dictator can have a bill of rights, but
whether that means anything depends entirely on whether there are protections in place to protect the people and freedom against the dangerous accumulation of power in the hands of the few. without an independent judiciary your rights mean nothing without the independent judiciary the structural protections that are upstream from and the natural condition precedent for all rights and all liberties. can't exist. it is the nature and tendency of all despots of every level of all leaders of every level to want to accumulate more power. and unless you've got an independent judiciary applying freestanding principles designed to protect liberty that will fade and will fade quickly. most of the stuff isn't being taught anymore. not in junior high or elementary school not in high school not in college not even in most law schools. so what i've tried to do with this is as someone who started watching supreme court arguments for fun at the age of 10 long story. i was there with my friend chuck
cooper literally as i've tried to compile a lot of these lessons that i picked up through my life and bits and pieces that i picked up from case law and legal trends. and put them in one place. you'll never lose another argument politically if it relates. to almost anything washington does after you read this. but more importantly you'll be well equipped to help us build a groundswell effort to demand that we have an independent judiciary because we can't have this with torque packing. please help me save the court help me save the constitution. thank you.