Merrick Garland's Hearing And Legislating Equality- Or Even Equity | February 24, 2021

Here's your conservative, not bitter host, Todd Huff.
Have you watched any of this Merrick Garland hearing? Have you seen any of the clips sitting? The sound bites Yakkers? You know, I'm sitting here trying to determine if this guy can do more damage as attorney general or when he had been more damaged as a Supreme Court justice. And I'm not really sure to be honest with you, given how the court pretty much lets things slide by nowadays, given the recent decisions to not even care about the lawsuits pretending to election integrity in a way we'll get into those things and more. This morning, welcome to the program. I'm your host, Todd Huff. You can email me your thoughts, opinions, your feedback, your questions. Yes, I'll even accept that adoration and praise Todd, The Todd Huff show.com is the is the email address where you can send that information. So I want to start here, there was an exchange yesterday, I saw this in the post millennial, the post millennial here, which is becoming one of my I don't know one of my I don't say favorite, but I guess you could say one of my most favorite places to go online for some news and information and so forth. But we have Merrick Garland Merrick Garland is sitting before a Senate committee, going through the process of being well potentially confirmed as the choice for Joe Biden's Attorney General. And it's been nothing short of I think a disaster some of these things. Fact eyes commented at the conclusion of the program yesterday, we saw a headline that said something along the lines of Merrick Garland isn't sure and hasn't considered hasn't thought about whether or not crossing the border illegally into this country should be a law. And I thought about that. You see, going to be probably more than likely here, the attorney Attorney General the United States under in the Joe Biden administration, and he can't figure out he can't figure out the difference. Or if there should be a law, he hasn't even thought about it. And that says a lot about the Democrat Party, by the way, and I made a comment off the top. I said, I'm not sure if this guy would do more damage as attorney general or a Supreme Court justice. If you remember back in 2016. back around this time of year, Justice Antonin Scalia tragically passed away. And, of course, when there's a vacancy on the court, the President is responsible for making a nomination and the Senate is responsible for giving advice and consent on that pick. They have to to approve that pic for Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Justice. We've seen this happen recently, most recently with Amy Coney Barrett. Before that Brett Kavanaugh and before that Neil Gorsuch, who was the pick that replaced if you will, if you want to look at it this way, the Merrick Garland nomination now, Merrick Garland. Again, if you've listened to this guy at all, first of all, and I want to get to this in a moment, he conflates the issues of equality and equity, equality amongst all people versus equity amongst all people, I want to break that down, he uses those terms almost interchangeably. And this is what the left does. This is how, over the course of time over the course of time this is how you subtly and almost covertly change the opinions of Americans by using these definitions and words in ways that confuse or law the American public to sleep and into believing things that aren't true. And I want to talk about equality. equity in a minute as we play this Merrick Garland speed, answer the soundbite. But I want to, I want to, again, for a moment, just just think through, could this guy do more damage as attorney general or as supreme court justice. So again, he was nominated by Obama. In 2016, Obama's term ended, of course, January 20 of 2017 when Trump had the inauguration there, and Trump would say the biggest inauguration ever and of course, that
stirred up some some emotions and some feedback and some pictures and some comparisons of crowd sizes and all this sort of stuff between Obama's in 2009 and Trump's in 2017, their inauguration But Obama had nominated Merrick Garland to fill that seat vacated with the passing of Antonin Scalia, who, arguably, boy, we miss Scalia today, I will say that he would have been standing beside Clarence Thomas, I believe, in his his dissent over the Supreme Court, the decision not to hear the Pennsylvania case. But anyway, I don't want to go down that path. I just want to hit that. And I want to talk about this idea. You know, back at the time, Mitch McConnell said, Our job is to give advice and consent to the President. At the time it was President Obama, our advice is don't send us this nomination because we will not give consent. That's not how he says it. That's how I say it. And people got upset about this. They said that this was an abdication of duty, abdication of responsibility. This was a violation of, you know, the constitution and all these sorts of things. But it wasn't they said, they set a clear timeline, and they said, Whoever wins the election is going to get to nominate is going to get to nominate a Supreme Court justice. Now, for those of you that are astute, and we're following this back all those years ago, you will remember, Merrick Garland was presented to us as this moderate, it was almost like they were saying, look, as a compromise. So that you will hear have a hearing on this guy, we're not gonna we're not going to the Obama administration is not going to nominate someone who's a radical, like Sonia Sotomayor, or Elena Kagan, we're gonna go with someone who's moderate someone that all people should be able to get behind. here's a, here's a judge who's respected, he's honorable. He's, you know, a moderate, which, again, these sorts of descriptions for judges and justices for me is patently absurd. It should not matter hear me say this, it should not matter. The ideology of a Justice of the Supreme Court, it should not matter as so long as they follow the law. It really shouldn't matter. It ideology is supposed to be reserved for politics, you had the political fight, the justices and the judges in our court system are supposed to be interpreting the law. That's why justice Cavanaugh said during his hearing, if you don't make some decisions as a judge that you personally disagree with, you're not doing your job, because your job is to interpret the Constitution and the law, not to interpret, not to insert your own particular beliefs and opinions into a case that's not your job. That is the job of politicians. That is the job of this political debate. And just the exchange of ideas that's supposed to happen in, in the political sense, but that's not how it works. When there's and what we would call a liberal justice. Today, a liberal justice really has come to this mean, someone who is willing to make up law on the fly, right, someone who says I don't like the way that things are in this particular law. That's why I want to find something hidden in the Constitution, like the right to have an abortion or like the right to marry someone of the same gender. Right people find these things and that find them in the constitution because the law, in fact, the law many times often prohibits the very action the court seems to seeks to enforce, as was the case with gay marriage, as is the case, oftentimes with gay marriage and with abortion. So it's actually used as a tool to overcome the will of the people. So that is what it's come to mean to say a liberal justice. It really isn't so much their ideology, it just their ideology is coupled with their belief that judicial activism is okay. In fact, we have some supreme court justices, I believe it was Stephen Brier who says it's okay to cite foreign law in an opinion. Citing foreign law, you think that Think about that for a moment that a law in I don't know, the elite, the liberals are going to cite laws from somewhere in Europe because they're so sophisticated and advanced and progressive over there. The idea that you can cite a law that's not even on the books in this country and your Supreme Court decision, that's why I've said on this program before, we're a half step away at being able to cite Harry Potter novels, or what you ate for breakfast that morning. Why not? Right. And so, anyway, that's the lay of the land in the court. And so when Merrick Garland was being nominated, and and Mitch McConnell and Republicans stood firmly, and they did not, they did not capitulate and agree to have the hearing, they actually followed through, and they said, Hey, whoever wins this election, Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump is going to get to pick the next supreme court justice. Basically, that was a big gamble at the time. That's one of the reasons why some conservatives or some folks that held their nose to vote for Trump were able to do so because they thought this guy's not gonna nominate some radical. I mean, Hillary when Hillary, if Hillary was going to be president, we were looking at people like Eric Holder as a potential supreme court justice or Susan Rice, people like this truly radical off the almost off the spectrum to the left, radical, Supreme Court Justice they would have been, and so it was a big bet. Republicans want it of course, only because Trump colluded with Russia, as I like to tell us, which is the most nonsensical gibberish I've ever heard in my life. I still define any person that tells me how that how that worked. How a strategy employed by President Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin actually worked toward the last step was let's let's let our marketing campaign word, let's let our ad strategy drive people to vote for you instead of Hillary. That's not how that's not how elections are stolen. That's not how elections are, I wouldn't have been a good thing to seek the input of the Russians, to have them interject themselves there. But I tell you what, it's not the same thing as stealing vote totals. And that's usually for those that are engaged in trying to influence or steal elections. That's the process, you count more votes than your side really got. And you tried to suppress the votes of the other side, and you don't count all those. That's usually how voter fraud and influencing elections takes place. But anyway, so all that happened. And as I'm sitting here, watching Merrick Garland, I'm listening to these, these questions in this exchange, and so forth. I'm listening to him. And I find myself wondering, would he have done more harm on the court than he would have? as attorney general? Now? Traditionally, I would say yes, yes, that's the case. But I look at what's happened. I look at what's happened. Since Trump's been in office, and we have Gorsuch we have Cavanaugh and we have Amy Coney Barrett. And I look at these cases that were sitting on the Supreme Court before the Supreme Court some of these decisions, and I look up and I see Clarence Thomas, usually, well, now looking at Dr. Fauci wearing two masks on the TV back here, which is distracting. But I, you know, I look here and I see Thomas standing firm for the Constitution in the wall. I see in most cases Alito, although Alito was absent Thomas in this particular case. And then I see you know, you have really two principled constitutionally and, you know, based justices on the court, then you have Gorsuch Cavanaugh maybe and I'm we're still trying to figure out Amy Coney Barrett. That's below that. Then you got john, john roberts, Chief Justice john roberts, who is unpredictable, but oftentimes and more times than I care to admit, finds himself aligning with the radical left, and those who are not afraid to do anything in their power, including ignoring the constitution and federal law to
to make sure that they can legislate from the bench and that would include Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Briar, that's oftentimes where john roberts finds himself so then you have these really the swing Justices of that point become become Cavanaugh, Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, and so I find myself wondering, you know, would he have What would he have? Where's he gonna find himself having more ability to push the radical agenda? I mean, he can, he's going to ignore federal law on immigration, they're going to change and executive order this thing up to where they don't have to effectively comply with reasonable restrictions and immigration law. In fact, I saw the other day that some are questioning whether Biden's immigration policies effectively eliminate ice, which is something the radical leftist socialist have been clamoring for for some time, because after all, borders are not fair. borders are not something that this world needs, say the the radical left. And you know, when you have a country, that that has so much social welfare as we have, and you have open borders, it doesn't take long for much of a genius to realize that that is a problem that is a massive problem for for the economic safety and health of the country. My heart breaks for people that don't have that aren't able to come here. But I also understand that opening the border, having social welfare programs that effectively are already bankrupting this nation and opening that up to millions upon millions of more people is not a sustainable method. It's not going to work. We cannot do that. And that's what we're going to be headed towards. And so in that sense, I find myself wondering if he can do more damage. Of course, someone else would have done the same thing under Biden, but what do you do more damage as attorney general? I don't know. So, but I do want to share some of his soundbite. I want to share one particular soundbite where he had an exchange yesterday with Senator Josh Holley of Missouri, who the left hates who the left calls and insurrectionists, someone who has effectively tried to cause a civil war. That's basically the narrative against Josh Holly. Holly's asking Merrick Garland questions yesterday, and I want to share this exchange and talk about his misunderstanding of the terms equality and equity. I don't know if it's a misunderstanding. It's a deliberate misrepresentation of what those words mean, for political purposes, and we'll do that after the break. Sit tight. You're listening here to the home of conservative, not bitter talk. I'm your host, Todd Huff back in just a minute.


Welcome back. By the way, we've know you've heard the the ads for our support our advertisers program, that's a newer thing that we're doing. It's kind of a place where you can go and see all of the folks that helped make this program possible. And so it's kind of the inverse of the canceled culture, right people here. In today's world, they see someone who's given money to a Trump campaign. Oh, we can't have that someone has allowed Josh Hawley to have a an event in their offices or their their facility or what have you can't have that. So people start to boycott those organizations, we actually think we want to work on the opposite perspective, if people can be drawn to not do business with people, because they hate them having anything to do whatsoever with the other side. We think it's a more powerful emotion and better to say, Hey, how about we just consider those folks who helped make the program we have possible now our advertisers, they don't necessarily agree with what I'm saying? I mean, they absolutely should. Let me let me be clear on that. They absolutely should. But they don't necessarily. Many of them do. Some of them may not, that's between them and whatever. But the point is, is that we're trying to create this, this environment where folks can go and support our advertisers.com is where you can go and see a list of folks and you can continue to see that built out over time, but I want to mention one of those. One of those is one of our newer advertisers. That's Blake Hornsby with Northwestern Mutual. Blake. I've actually known Blake for a long time. played football with Blake at Butler University. So if you are in you know considering options for things like life insurance or in financial planning, what have you considered Blake, he's in Greenwood Lake hornsby.com is the website address where you can go check him out, get to know him a little bit better. Blake hornsby.com and be sure to tell them that topic. The Todd Huff Show sent you. So I want to get here too. And I don't have a lot of time here, this segment because I was long winded in that first segment, which, you know can happen from time to time, I want you to listen to this exchange. I'm going to go ahead and queue this up and play this anyway, I think it's about a minute.
I'm pausing here because I think I said, there were two exchanges that I've had clips for. And I think I said, Josh Holly, I'm wrong. This one was Tom Cotton. And that's why I've been pausing here as I'm looking at this What? What am I thinking about here, but this is this is Tom Cotton. So another senator from from Arkansas, Tom Cotton, asking Merrick Garland, Merrick Garland to articulate some things about equity. And I want to talk about this because I think this is important. I really do. But listen to this exchange between Senator Tom Cotton, not Josh Hawley. That was another exchange about something else that I had a soundbite pulled up here for, but this is Tom Cotton, and Merrick Garland. Going back and forth about equity and equality. Here you go.
equity. Do you agree that core concept Judge of American law is that the government can't discriminate against a citizen on the basis of their rice? Absolutely equal justice under the law right there on the steps of the impediment above the Supreme Court, not only is it unlawful, it's morally wrong as well. Yes, I think discrimination is morally wrong. Absolutely. You're aware that President Biden assigned an executive order stating that his administration will affirmatively advance racial equity, not racial equality, but racial equity. Yes, and I read, read the opening of that executive order, which defines equity as the fair and impartial treatment of every person without regard to their status. And including the individuals who are in who have been an underserved communities where they were not accorded that before. But I don't see any any distinction between. In that regard, that's the definition that was included in that executive order that you're talking about, sort of you racial equity and racial equality are the same thing. I don't know, this is a word that is defined in the executive order as I as I just said, so I don't know what else I can't give you any any more than the way in which the executive order defined determinate was using. Thanks, judge.
Okay, and that may seem at first glance, like somewhat of a benign exchange. But I want to talk about this, because this is how this is done. This is how this is done, you you conflate definitions of words, you switch them out, equality is no longer doing what they, those lovers of big government wanted to do see, used to, you could run elections and say, Hey, are you have a campaign and say, Hey, vote for me, and I'm going to make everything, you know, make sure that there's equality for all people. That's not cutting it. Now. fact, you have a whole movement, where people are supposed to denounce their whiteness, and all this, I mean, ridiculous sort of stuff. I referenced this a couple of maybe last week, New York publics, New York City public school, asked parents to reflect on their whiteness, and to determine which of the eight white identities they have on the spectrum. I mean, it's patently absurd, but this stuff is getting more and more real. And when you allow words to be switched out, and you go from equality to equity, and we're going to talk about this after the break. Even Kamala Harris has something posted on Twitter, which I'm going to share with you as well explaining the differences and saying that there are important differences between equity and equality. Well, that's true, there are differences. But what they want to do, what they want to do is now say we can make all things equitable equality is not enough. So in order if we had trouble giving government government enough power to ensure equality, how much more power are they going to need to get equity and I'll explain that after the break, but a timeout is in order here, you're listening here to the home of conservative, not bitter talk. I am your host, Todd Huff back here in back here in just a minute.


Welcome back. So we're talking here about equity and equality, referencing a question and exchange between Senator Tom Cotton I mistakenly said, Josh Hawley, I like to correct myself immediately. So rare to have to do that. Kidding. But So Tom Cotton asks about this executive order that uses the word equity in it instead of equality, which my my first question is, What in the world? What in the world do people expect a government to be able to do? What in the world? Do they expect? A group of people living in Washington DC, who candidly have never really lived in the real world, many of them our lifetime politicians, Joe Biden has been in Washington DC, longer than what's the median age in America. As looked at the median age in the US, I'm going to I'm sure it's a Biden's been in DC longer than the median age of the average person in this country. In other words, he's been in DC longer than the average American person today has been alive. I can almost guarantee you that I don't know what it is. But because it's been half a century, it's been half a century he's been in DC, riding that train. Right. 38.3, as holds up on the paper, that is the median age of someone living in the United States of America. Courtesy, I'm guessing at Google or something, but 38.3 Biden's been in DC for half a century, almost. So we're looking at at least 10 years, or roughly 10 years longer. Biden's been in dc 10 years longer than the average person has even been a live. And he's lived in that bubble. And I can tell you from having gone to school out there just for a semester on a semester exchange program, it doesn't take you long if you've visited Washington, DC more than a couple of days. I think you can feel the bubble. It might take it might take a week. I don't know. Am I only take a couple days if you're if you're really into you know, deciphering those sorts of things. But it is a bubble unto itself. It is not reality it some of the wealthiest counties in the country are outside or the suburbs of DC. And why is that the case? Because all they've taken it from everywhere else. You know, I had a listener who emailed me, Bonnie, we answered some of her dress quickly some of her questions yesterday, but she was asking, you know, what the republican party can do to educate people on, on where the money really comes from? right that the taxes come from people, taxes come from people who work who produce something, and the government takes a portion of it. Now you won't find me against all taxes. That's an anarchistic or against all taxes, I'm against, you know, taxes, enough taxes to to operate a government that has that is working within its constitutional confines, within the restrictions and the the layout written in the Constitution. Right, that's that's what I'm for a limited government. If you don't think that people in DC can come up with things to come up with, you know, to, for the government to do and then charge you for them. That that that's that's naive. The government can grow as big as it needs to grow in its mind. And they can find things to do and find ways to not only enrich themselves, but to enrich the surrounding counties of Washington, DC, because you have to have all the other experts, all the other lobbyists, all these other support systems, you know, private companies, or whatever that looks like that work alongside of the federal government, because the federal government doesn't produce a darn thing.
It doesn't produce anything it takes from the producers. Fact Reagan brilliantly once said that the government's view of the economy can be summed up with these three short phrases, if it moves, tax it, if it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it, and that circle gets a score on that because that is exactly that is exactly right. That is how how the government works and they will constantly find more things to do. And now they've moved on apparently from just not only ensuring that there will be equality, but now equity. And it's a subtle thing. But I'm going to play this soundbite from Kamala Harris, from one of her speeches where she talks about the differences, the important differences between equity and equality. She's arguing that the government should Effectively move towards ensuring equity instead of equality. Now these things are attractive to people when they hear it, especially if you have experienced terrible treatment at the hands of, of people, for whatever, whatever reason, but if you were targeted because of your race, that's terrible. That happens still in this country. People have experienced that. It's not systemic. It's not the government being what it once was, which was racist against against African Americans by considering them property. At one point, we have remedied that we have fixed that. But there are still cons, there's still consequences of these things. And there's also still racist individuals, but the idea that you can look to government and say, make sure that everybody treats me the right way. I mean, gee whiz, folks, I'm a conservative Christian, many of you are conservative Christians, people don't always treat me the right way I will, I can assure you, I am never going to call up my representative and say, make sure someone treats me the right way. That's just not the way that this works. That is a total denial of human nature and a total misunderstanding of the role of government. Now, if someone is harming me, the government can step in and prosecute people, right? I mean, there's a line there where they, they can step in and do something. But if someone just wants to belittle or to, you know, be hateful, there's not a whole lot that that that can be done, that we are best suited to either mock these folks back, ignore it. Whatever I choose, oftentimes to just ignore it, I, you know, I get a decent amount of it. But I did I genuinely don't care. In fact, I find myself saying, more times than not, that's just their, that's their problem. That's not my problem. If you are offended by something I say on here, and I might make a mistake and heal, but but the idea that if you're offended by the majority, the vast vast majority of what I say on here, then that's probably the person who's listening is problem, not mine. Because the things we're talking about are so fundamentally, I think, basic, and, you know, rooted in just, I think reality and truth doesn't mean that I don't ever make mistakes or say things the wrong way I get that. But it's not my my problem. If someone if someone has those feelings towards you, same same sort of thing. And it's not always easy to get there mentally. And I can tell you, I've I feel like by the grace of God, I'm currently in that position. I don't care what these haters have to say, right? I mean, I just I can I don't need them. In fact, I that's why I connect with you so well, because I appreciate the the connection we have in the agreement we have on on so many things. But anyway, Kamala Harris after the break, I'm gonna play this soundbite. She's gonna talk about the differences between equity and equality. And again, it's not just that the government is when it's just from equity to from equality to equity. It seeks from trying to make sure that people are treated equally to make making sure that outcomes are now the same. When you talk about a whole nother ballgame. This is where you start hearing terms like reparations, and that sort of thing. Coming into the mix and buckle up, by the way, because I've I've read and heard that that's being kicked around by the administration as well. So timeout is in order here. Come back and continue this conversation. You're listening to conservative, not bitter talk. I am your host, Todd Huff back here in just a minute.


Welcome back. All right, really quickly, I'm gonna play. I'm gonna play this soundbite from Kamala Harris explaining the differences between equality and equity. And again, we're, we're into this discussion because of Merrick Garland and an executive order that question that Senator Tom Cotton and asked him which we played earlier in the program. But these these subtle differences make a big, big difference the government, which hasn't even done, I mean, in the minds of the left has not done anything to really ensure equality. Now they're moving on to equity, which is a much much bigger, much, much bigger thing. Here's Kamala Harris. This is a tweet she sent out. On the eve of the election Well, about a week before the election a few days before the election explaining the difference between equality and equity which meriton darlin didn't seem to understand but here, here we go.
So there's a big difference between equality and equity. Equality suggests, oh, everyone should get the same amount. The problem with that, not everybody starting out from the same place. So if we're all getting the same amount, but you started out back there, and I started down over here, we can get the same luck, but you still don't be that far back behind me. It's about giving people the resources and the support they need, so that everyone can be on equal footing and then compete on equal footing. equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place,
we all end up at the same place, government, I guess, can make sure that that happens. Is government according to Kamala Harris, according to the radical left can make sure that we all end up at the same place you ever think how who's the person that determines us? Who's the person that determines? Who starts out with more? And what's that equation even look like? Me, I can see some bureaucrat now with his iPad, her iPad coming around evaluating a circumstance Okay, this person, his or her family's income was this this person's is this but this person is better at speaking, this person is more articulate this person is of this gender, this race, and I guess there's a formula the government's going to come up with, plug it in, and tell us tell us what's equitable. It is beyond asinine to me to think that this is even something an educated person would really believe is practical. This is something that is designed to be patronizing to a certain group of people that will vote for this because it sounds good. This is non sensical jibberish is what this is gonna take a break, come back and wrap up. be back in just a minute.


Folks, this is how it is done. This is how over the course of time they can get people to subtly change their viewpoint and perspective. They can suddenly get people to change their viewpoint and perspective, because no one's gonna say they're against equality who wouldn't be against equality? And I'm not suggesting anybody should, by the way. I'm just saying now they've switched the the definition, or they are in the process of switching the definition to equity. Which, again, how in the world is government going to do this and I want to paint that picture again, of some bureaucrat coming in with an iPad with some formula on it, where they plug in variables that they determine that they use to determine what is equitable. I mean, do we factor in who's better looking? Do we factor in the height and weight the physical appearance of people the I mean, what where does this stop? Where does it stop the branded clothes they wear? I just I mean, the types of friends they have, how do we do this? government's on it though, folks, Kamala Harris, Merrick Garland, Joe Biden, they'll have this problem fix and no problem and no time at all. I gotta go. Thanks for listening. scgc tomorrow, take care.