The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - Kate Shaw, Andrew Friedman, and Andrew Schulz

Episode Date: October 12, 2018

Andrew Schulz is a New York City-based standup comedian who has appeared in such hit TV programs as Sneaky Pete and Crashing. His podcast is titled, "The Brilliant Idiots." Kate Shaw is a Professor of Law and the Co-Director of the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy. Before joining Cardozo, Professor Shaw worked in the White House Counsel’s Office as a Special Assistant to the President and Associate Counsel to the President. She clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Andrew Friedman is a writer and chronicler of New York City's restaurant industry. He has authored multiple cookbooks and nonfiction books, and hosts a podcast titled, "Andrew Talks to Chefs." He is also the author of a new book titled, "Chefs, Drugs, and Rock & Roll: How Food Lovers, Free Spirits, Misfits, and Wanderers Created a New American Profession." He was quoted recently in the New York Times article, "Louis CK Performs Again, But Club Gives Patrons an Out."

You're listening to The Comedy Cellar, live from the table, on the Riotcast Network, riotcast.com. Alright, good evening everybody, welcome to The Comedy Cellar show here on Sirius XM Channel 99, The Comedy Channel. My name is Noam Dorman, I'm the owner of The Comedy Cellar. I'm here, as always, with the wonderful Mr. Dan Natterman. Well, not always. Last week I was out with a, had a bit of a stomach issue, but yes, more or less always. Yeah, you know, I was thinking about, I only had to get to the show, but who canceled? You gotta, you gotta tough it out and come on the show. Really? Have you ever had a stomach flu?

It doesn't matter. I assure you, you wouldn't be coming. So you've clearly never had one. I, I, I, no, I think you're wrong. I assure you, you wouldn't be coming. So you've clearly never had one. No, I think you're wrong. I think I would manage it. Anyway, Andrew Schultz is a New York City-based stand-up comedian who has appeared in such hit TV programs. Oh, please don't read my bio.

Oh, my God. Please don't. As Sneaky Pete and Andrew Schultz, in a podcast titled The Brilliant Idiots, which is apparently a really, really big... We're doing all right, man. We're doing all right. I heard you're packing houses all over the country based on this podcast.

You know what? It's been that and YouTube. I put my stand-up clips on YouTube, and that really changed my career. But I think it was the podcast that gave those people the push, and then YouTube kind of just took over, man. It's been the most amazing thing that's ever happened. This whole, like, niche audience thing that is, like, you can be a... No more universal famous people, man. Yeah.

Justin Bieber, last one. All right. Kate Shaw is a professor of law and the co-director of the Florsheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy. Before joining... I always tell you, these are too long. I'm a law professor. She was counsel to the president, special assistant to the president. Which president?

Which president? Barack Obama. Barack Obama. There's been other ones. It could have been Clinton. Maybe it's young for Clinton. She clerked for the Justice John Paul Stevens of the Supreme Court and Judge Richard A. Posner. He's a pretty conservative judge, right?

You know, he was a Reagan appointee. He moved pretty far left over the course of his time on the bench, and he wasn't much of a conservative by the time he left. So he was sort of in the mid-transition, I would say, when a clerk... Wasn't he the guy who put a dollar amount on everything when he was... Yeah, sort of knowing the value. People have accused him of sort of trying to put a value on everything, or the cost on everything, but sort of grasping the value of nothing.

So, yeah, this kind of, can you quantify suffering and life? And he was sort of one of the founders of the idea of law and economics, sort of rational actors sort of moving through the world.

That's kind of what we are and he moved pretty far away from that in his later years. I have a little bit of an email correspondence with his son, Stephen, just because I email him.

He has a blog. Really? Yeah. And Andrew Friedman is a writer and chronicler of New York City's restaurant industry. I'm going to skip.

He, also the author of a new book entitled Chefs, Drugs, and Rock and Roll. Chef, sorry, Chefs, Drugs, and Rock and Roll. How food lovers, free spirits, misfits, and wanderers created a new American profession. He was quoted recently in a New York Times article. Louis C.K. performs again, but club gives patrons an out. So that's, so let's, can we start with? Well, yeah, but fairly quick before we do this, and I only bring this up because we're here in real time.

There's an issue with the downstairs men's bathroom. So you might want to send somebody down there. It was fine when I used it. Did you use the stall or the urinal? How do you know this while we're sitting here? Because I was just down in the bathroom. I thought there might have been clairvoyance involved. All right, sorry, Professor.

There's no job too small for the owner of the club. As you know, when you own a business, everything is your jurisdiction. He is right. It's actually going to be worrying me now. Jose? I'll tell him. No, it's okay. Now, maybe going to be worrying me now. Jose? I'll tell him. No, no, it's okay. Now, maybe it's been taken care of. Tell the manager to check the men's room, bathroom, please, if you don't mind.

I was there only two minutes ago, and I can tell you that there was a messy situation. Do you guys edit this stuff out afterwards? Why would we edit that? That's gold. We have a little confluence here because Andrew wrote a... What's your first name? Andrew? Yeah, there's two Andrews. Let's go by this last name so we don't mistake.

Friedman. Friedman. Andrew Friedman was an expert witness in this Louis C.K. article. Right. And Professor Shaw wrote a column at Times about Justice Kavanaugh, and they both are kind of related issues this week, as a matter of fact. Don't tell that to Janine Garofalo. As a matter of fact, some of the backlash that I've gotten this week

has been that Louis chose to perform during the week that Kavanaugh was confirmed. They're both, I think, quite related in many, many ways. But, Andrew, what struck me about the article, so Melina Rizek, who I know, she covered the fact that we have a new swim-at-your-own-risk policy, which, for the professor's benefit, one thing I didn't know how to handle

was people being upset if they showed up and were triggered, to use that word, by seeing Louis. So now every reservation gets a swim-at-your-own-risk policy, which says people may show up that are not your cup of tea. If someone does show up that you don't like, you're free to leave, check on the house, no questions asked, so that everybody's on notice. Can I just say that technically that's not swim at your own risk? Yes, Dan.

Swim at your own risk. No, I mean technically swim at your own risk would be, hey, if you don't like it, too bad, and you're paying anyway. So it's swim with partial risk. All right. So, and so. I actually understand what Dan is saying. I understand what he's saying, too. He's actually right.

Sorry, is it not going? Did a lot of people take advantage of the policy? Some people have. Okay. So she wrote this, and then so she said, but writer Andrew Friedman says, blah, blah, blah. And the first thing that struck me was, who's this writer, Andrew Friedman, and why is he? Was it like, you know, someone in charge of, you know, what's Safe Horizons or somebody known to be involved? Like, this non-secretive guy, just only billed as writer, is going to have an opinion on our policy now as if you were some sort of expert witness.

So what, first of all, why are you in this article? And why didn't you agree with my policy? I was in the article because I made a reservation. It's a little painful for me to meet you and be here under these circumstances because I love this club and I've loved it for a long time.

But I made a reservation here I think for two Fridays back. And I got the standard confirmation email and it had something new, which is the swim at your own risk thing with the clip art of the swimmer. Right. And we just met, so forgive me.

You want me to be honest, right? Of course. I thought it was... I can cut it out if I don't like it. I thought it was... Honestly, I thought it was wishy-washy. I thought it was like, Louis, who was maybe my favorite comic ever, I thought it was, honestly, I thought it was wishy-washy. You know, I thought it was like, you know,

Louis, who was maybe my favorite comic ever, and I can get into why I felt especially disappointed by him and what's been going on. Yeah. But, you know, I feel like if you want to book him, you should book him. You know, he's someone people have particularly strong feelings about right now. And he's someone who's not able, I don't think, or maybe he could,

but he's not playing big venues right now. So these are like trial balloons, right, when he comes and does a drop-in. And I think if you guys want to have him be here, you ought to put him on the roster. People will know he's on the roster, and they can make a decision. And I also felt... Can I stop you there for a second? You can. Do you understand I can't put him on the roster. People will know he's on the roster, and they can make a decision. And I also felt...

Well, okay, but can I stop you there for a second? You can. Do you understand I can't put him on the roster? Do you understand the world that we're living in today where people wear it as a badge of honor to come down and disrupt... Yeah, but this is what my issue is. Even before that. That is exactly what my issue is.

So that's what you... I feel like this is like a little safety zone. Go back before that. Hold on a second. Let me take this Hold on a second. Let me take this for just one second. I think you have an obligation to put yourself in my shoes as the business owner. And are you going to look me in the eye and tell me as the business owner you would literally do that?

No, I probably wouldn't have him here right now. Okay, but you're criticizing for the way I did go about it. You're saying put his name on the roster. Yeah, or don't have him. For now. Can I just say one thing? Yes. And this is just a little back story on how comedy works at a Louis level,

is that those guys don't go on the roster, ever. So they really come at their convenience. So it's not like you can even say to Louis, I'm telling you seriously. No, but you can tell him not to come. People have been banned from this club. No, they have not. Yeah, a friend of mine was. It was a long time ago. No, he wasn't.

Okay, we'll talk off. Who was it? I don't want to say his name on air. I'll tell you later. Why was he banned? He mooned the audience. Do you ever hear of any story? Is it Aloubel by any chance?

No. First initial was S. And it wouldn't have been banned for that. Okay. But I guess the point I'm trying to make is like, if you want to make the ban, then that's your argument. But it's not about wishy-washy or not, because you don't have the opportunity.

It's like saying, I'd like to book Eddie Murphy for Thursday at 1230. You don't book Eddie Murphy. Eddie Murphy comes by and he goes on. I understand what you're saying, but what I'm saying is the way that thing was worded, it was like, we never know who's going to drop in. Proof. Yeah, but you can tell them they can't go on. Okay, well, let me tell you. Let me answer a few things.

You could. First of all, okay, so I'm going to answer all these things. First of all, in the article, you criticized that as if we were pretending we can't tell him not to go on. And I don't think anybody would have read it that way. What I was saying pretty clearly was we're not going to tell him he can't go on.

I don't think any reasonable interpretation of what I said would be I'm not able to tell him not to go on. I'm saying swim at your own risk because somebody you don't like may go on. No, but what it said was something like we never know who's going to show up. Yes, but you could know that if X person shows up,

we're not going to put him on. So it seems very passive to me. But the disclaimer doesn't say that I couldn't put him on, and that's what you said in the article. You criticized me for pretending that I couldn't ban him. Well, first of all, when you said in the article, I think they quoted about two sentences

of what was a 20-minute conversation. Yeah. So let me ask you a question. So I get the same blowback about Aziz. I was here when Aziz dropped in a few months ago. And you think that was okay? I thought it was great. Okay, so you draw your line at Aziz. Other customers we hear from draw a line to the left of Aziz.

I get a lot of complaints about the two of them together. Norm MacDonald got banned off The Tonight Show, and one of the things that stuck out to me about that was Jimmy Fallon told Norm MacDonald, says, Norm, people are crying. People on my staff are crying. Do you remember that? So that to me is like, well, actually,

even Norm MacDonald could trigger people to that extent. And I'm saying, well, I'm not getting, I'm not going to let Andrew Friedman stand. I'm saying, saying, I'm not getting, I'm not going to let, you know, Andrew Friedman stand. I'm saying, listen, I'm not getting involved in that.

If this is something, I'm going to have a willing audience and willing performers. Everybody comes in knowing what it is. And if it's not a risk that you want to take as a grown person with agency, as they say,

then I'm not dragging people into the comedy store. Yeah, that's why I didn't come that night. Right, but I'm saying, how could you criticize me for saying, listen, willing audience, willing performers, nobody's being fooled, everything is on the table, and you say no, even a willing audience and willing

performers shall not meet. It's wrong. That's not what I said. That is what you're saying. You said I shouldn't put him on. No, no, no. I didn't say that either. You just said that. No. It said. You just said I shouldn't put them on.

I said I would prefer you didn't put them on. Okay? But what I said was. But if I am going to put them on, is it a better way to warn people? The quote that they took, which was accurate, said there's plenty they can do. And what I meant by that was this passive language in your confirmation email. He didn't like the language. No, because it said we never know who's going to show up. What would you have really that was this passive language in your confirmation email. He didn't like the language. No, because it said

we never know who's going to show up. He would have liked you to say, look, we love Louis and he might be coming. Yes. Own it. So that's what you want to get me for. You're his friends. That's fine. I understand that. I would be loyal to him probably. You don't know if this person's going to come. That's what I'm trying to explain.

You truly don't know. It's not being ignorant. You truly don't know if that person's going to come. Is it really I'm trying to explain. You truly don't know. It's not being ignorant. You truly don't know if that person's going to come. Is it really unclear what I'm saying? I understand what you're saying. You don't like the language. You feel Noam should have said look, if he comes, we're going to put him on and we're going to be thrilled he's here. We're going to own it. But of course, that only covers Louis. There might

be other comics. There are other comics. It could say we're going to put on whoever we want. The way it was stated, we never know who's going to show up. How about this? And what I said was, there's plenty they could do, meaning you can decide not to put somebody on. That's all. That bothered me.

The other thing, P.S. This offer of leaving the club. First of all, I would venture to say the overwhelming majority of people there would be thrilled if Louis C.K. showed up. To get up in front of a drunken crowd, largely, or, you know, people who had a few drinks. No, but go ahead. Okay, a weekend comedy club crowd. Weeknight.

Go ahead. Whatever. Yeah. To get up and leave and think that's going to be comfortable for anybody. People have done it comfortably. But the other thing is. I saw it happen last night. And they didn't have to come But here's the other thing for me

To get a weekend reservation I don't come here during the week You can get one now that you know me To come here on the weekend You have to book at least a week out So that's your Saturday night So here comes the comic You don't want to see.

Great, you can leave. Then you're on McDougal or you're on 3rd Street at like 9 o'clock Saturday night. You don't have a reservation anywhere. What are you going to do? You don't have to come. Fine. You can go to Caroline's. You can go to Gotham.

How about give me some credit to say, listen, the guy is in one sense. This is the. Hold on. Okay, so what you're basically saying is we're not that far apart. I didn't interrupt you. Yeah. That you understand the guy's saying he has a principle. And he's ready to put his money where his mouth is.

Yeah. In the sense that he's telling everybody. And if they want to leave, they've eaten dinner. They've had drinks. And we lose the seats. We're sold out. And it's costing me a few hundred dollars a night to let people go. Somehow, to the world,

they got to find something that I didn't quite do right enough about that. Even though every single person who shows up... Something you didn't quite do right. It was like a two-sentence disclaimer. It's not like you did some monumental piece of writing. It's two sentences.

However, it tells them everything they need to writing. No, no, no. It's two sentences. You're next. It's two sentences. However, it tells them everything they need to know. Yes, these people might come. You know it when you choose to come here. And if it does come, you're going to have a free night out. And it just... That includes the steak, by the way. It just strikes me that it's never enough for some people. Go ahead, Andy.

So the argument it seemed like you were making is that this person's night is ruined. Potentially. No, because nobody's getting bumped when Louis does 20 minutes. The whole show goes on. So you see the whole show. They can step outside and come back, too. Exactly. There are people that did that last night.

They stepped out. Well, he went last. But I think one or two people stepped out. But you could come right back in and no harm, but I think one or two people stepped out, but you could come right back in and no harm, no foul. You took a smoke break during an act you didn't like, which happens a lot. Professor, do you have an opinion on this or is this something you don't want to talk about? No, I mean, look, it's your club. I think you can invite him if you want to. It sounds like you took decent, I mean, I think for my taste, it's probably an admission back

into polite society that's too fast. I don't think it was a long enough period in the wilderness. And I don't know what he did during that period. And it feels like, I feel like I have sort of Catholic instincts, although I'm not Catholic in this, in that there should have been some penance in the interim. And maybe there was, but we didn't hear about it, or at least I didn't hear about it. Well, he wrote that statement.

I wrote the statement, of course. Yeah, and what did he do then? And then he also, apparently, according to the New York Times, he actually reached out to the people individually. And this is not a pro. I'm just stating the facts. It's not pro-Louis or anti-Louis. He lost probably $35 million.

He's down the memory hall of Netflix, down the memory hall of Amazon. He can't walk down the street. His children are probably embarrassed to introduce themselves as to who they are. I don't know what more. If he had strung himself up, I don't think anybody would have been astonished. So that's a pretty big thing now. Obviously, no one wants that. And I'm not minimizing.

But that doesn't mean he did what he needed to do as far as the victims go. But we don't know. But what do you think... Forget all that. What do you think of swim at your own risk? I think you guys are right. It's kind of a misnomer. Because you're saying we, the club, assume a little bit of the risk

because we're going to pick up your check if you walk out, right? So it's a little bit complicated metaphor. Oh, you're biking up checks? Right? Isn't that what you said? That's absurd. They watch the whole show. And they get a free dinner.

That's part of the idea. That's a horrible policy, though. I would just walk out when the guy came on, and then I don't have to pay for shit. Yeah, some people have done that. Very few, though. No, no, no, no. You pay the money for what you saw. No, no, I don't want that.

At least for the food and alcohol you drink. No. Well, here's one thought. So it's separate and apart from whatever Louis should have done in the interim vis-a-vis, you know, trying to work to see if there are ways to help the careers of some of the people that he hurt along the way, right? That seems like one possibility. Another one is, are you working to get more women in here? Could that be part of an effort?

You bring Louis in and you sort of try to figure out what the rest of the roster looks like. Let me, let me, let me. I don't know the answer to that. Let me respond. I want to respond to the letting women in here. They're moving him. Customers, obviously. By the way, somebody remarked that on the website,

all the comics that are on the website, they're all men. No, they're not all. On the front page of the website. I thought they were all men. Anyway, I believe that Noam is doing all he can to bring women into this club, but he will not compromise the quality of the show. So if, by chance, for whatever reason,

whether it's because less women go into stand-up comedy... Fewer. Go ahead. Fewer or less? She was referring to the audience, not the comics on stage.

No, she was referring to the comics. Yeah, the comics. Oh, you were referring to the comics. Why would you get more women in? For whatever reason... Just get funny people.

Get funny... Look, part of the problem here is that Do you care if your pilot is a woman? I care that women are represented in absolutely every profession and every sector of society. Of course I care. I care that women sit on the Supreme Court.

I care that women fly my planes. I care that funny women appear on stage. Even if it's a worse pilot, you'd rather a lady pilot. That's a false choice. Of course it's a false choice. No, it's a real choice. No, Andrew. Can I... There are structures of inequality in every industry, and it's just a question

of if there are things you can do. I'm not saying put on funny people on stage. I'm saying work on making sure that women have access to the same opportunities men do, and you probably are in a position to do something about that. So this is what I was getting at. I'm to the left of Andrew. There is this impression out there by people who, I don't mean this in a bad way, who know nothing about what our reality is, that they think that we have power and we have ability and have contacts

and we're part of the industry and we can blacklist people. And it all couldn't be further from the truth. We're an insular club here who doesn't know anybody in the industry. I don't know agents. I don't know anybody. The only people that I have met, like Judd Apatow or something, are just because they come here and do stand-up. There is a pipeline of stand-up comedy, which frankly,

I don't even know how it works. And in that pipeline, people start out as a comic and they perform wherever they perform in it. And by the time they get to us, we're already dealing only with the people who are killing around town. And of those people who are killing around town, I don't think anybody could ask me to put on anybody less than the people who are killing around town.

Why in the world would anybody think, especially with all the pressure on us, that we'd be resisting putting women on? We had a show a couple nights ago, Dancom, we had three Indian comics on, right? I don't know if it was a couple nights ago. There was a show that seemed heavily Indian

subcontinent based. Yeah, so it's like a year ago they said, or two years ago, why don't you have any Indian comics? I don't know. I got no Indian comics. Now we have a lot of Indian comics. We have a lot of women, not as many as men. There never will be as many as men right now anyway because the pipeline is not turning out as many women as men. So I don't know the industry, but there have to be points of intervention

that people could make earlier in the pipeline. There is nothing I could do, and I'm open to if I'm wrong here. I believe there is nothing I could do short of putting on a worse show right now. You can't put out a call. So you do have a network. You can't put out a call to the people in the network that says, look, you guys go see. You're here running your club.

But everybody else, the people who come here, also visit other clubs. And the smaller ones, the smaller towns, keep an eye out for good female talent. I'm looking for it. That can't be that difficult. Maybe you already do. One question. One question. Which is so interesting that you assume. That can't be that difficult. Maybe you already do. One question.

It's so interesting that you assume that I don't. Do you? Of course we do. Of course we do. I've said on this show many times, anybody out there listening, just send me your YouTube tape. Okay, but you just said,

all I do is get the big dogs in town anyway, so it sounded to me as though that's your game. But if you're doing it already, you know. The big dogs come organically, and then inorganically he seeks out those people who are not represented. She made a good point there but go ahead for sure so i guess my question is like you really just want to see the percentage of people that are doing it reflected right so it's like if 10 of all comics are women right if 10 of all comics are women you just want to

see one-tenth of the performers here to be women, right? If half were, that would be unfair. That would be over-represented, right? I don't know if she's saying that, necessarily. I think she's saying that if there are more white people in the NBA. She wants to see more white people in the NBA. Of course, of course. Nobody wants that. But that's what she's saying. I know that's what she's saying, but she wouldn't hold

that up with other things. But it's fine. Let's just go off the comic thing. So if 10% of the comics are women and 5 comics are on a show here and there's usually one comic per show, Noam is over-representing women in comedy

here. He should be applauded. You should be the feminist of the century. I'm being sarcastic. Obviously, my point is that the assumption is just because they're not half that there's something wrong, but it really is just up to women wanting to be comics. There's a lot

less male cheerleaders. I'm not sure wanting to be is the whole... To go back to Louis, this is not really my world, but my understanding is that there are some... As you hear the story, there are some promising female comics who end up having these kind of traumatic encounters

with Louis fairly early in their careers. And it's sort of, these are kind of like, these turn into roadblocks, even if you're not, even if in your mind, you don't quite see why these encounters were traumatic or destabilizing from a professional perspective, they were. And so, and probably those phenomena,

this is not the only instance of conduct like this in your industry. I'm quite sure of that. And if that's the case, then there are people encountering artificial obstacles and figuring out how to remove those so that you get more women in the pipeline eventually. Noam only controls this club, and he tries to create an environment in this club, which is all he controls. He doesn't control what happens outside this club. And I think, and believe me, if Noam, if there was a reason to bash Noam, I would do it.

That's sort of my M.O. The bathroom is broken, Noam. The bathroom. Did we take care of the duty in the toilet? Yes, I did. Go ahead. The Noam creates a, I believe, a safe environment for women in this club, which is all he controls.

And I think he does it pretty, you'd have to ask the female comics and the female waitstaff, of course. But I believe he creates an environment that is safe for women in this club. Okay, I appreciate that. And Veronica Mosey, you can just nod your head

yes or no. We're surrounded by female comics right now, and there is a longing for people to see a better world or whatever it is but what they do is they start connecting dots and making assumptions that I guess it's human

but they don't have the right to do it and I'm happy to see even someone who rises to the very very top of the legal profession in the country I believe is still human in that sense there's nothing I could do there's nothing I could do at the very, very top of the legal profession in the country, I believe is still human in that sense. There's nothing I could do. There's nothing I could do.

My eyes are peeled for anybody of talent all the time. It would take a whole load off of me. Have you seen Randy Rainbow? To be able to put on, to find some killer female comics. A year ago, a year and a half ago, Michelle Wolfe walked in. We never heard of Michelle Wolfe. She's a female. Nobody cared. She started killing.

Quickly, she had a spot, like ten spots a weekend, like in every single show. So, why did that happen? So, what is that process? She doesn't just walk in the door, right? She was young and up and coming at the time. As soon as she was... She was introduced by somebody. Her merit was rewarded, is what you're trying to say. As soon as it was clear that she was young and up and coming at the time. But I'm saying as soon as she was... She was introduced by somebody.

Right, but who's... Her merit was rewarded, is what you're trying to say. Yeah, as soon as it was clear that she was great... None of it's pure merit. There's always... She's got to get in the door somehow, right? Yeah, she was hot in the industry and people were talking about her.

Yeah, okay, so that's right. So she became a big dog. She became a big dog. But no one will look at any... But Lord knows he's got a lot of time on his hands. He will look at any video that you send him. Is that fair to say? Yeah, and by the way, our general manager is a woman. Our booker is a woman

and has been for 30 years. Most of our floor managers are women, and I will get a... I got one today for a YouTube clip from a woman, like in her 40s, whatever it is. I send it out to Liz and Essie. What do you think? And if they like her, we'll book her. I mean, it's... But, you know, but that's as far as I can go with it. And by the way, we have tons of, book her. I mean, it's, but, but, you know,

but that's as far as I can go with it. And by the way, we have tons of women working here. I don't think we're like keeping women here, but it will never be enough to someone who

puts a magnifying glass to this cause. As a customer, I, no, I just, I agree with that. I've never, no, I've never felt a, a, um,

a bias. I've never felt a bias here as a frequent guest. No, I have had shows that were all men and I've never felt a bias. I've never felt a bias here as a frequent guest. No, I have had shows that were all men, and I've gotten complaints from customers. And I write them back, and what I've said is, listen, the only show worse than the one that you saw would have been the one that you would have seen if I had put on a woman just for being a woman. Believe me, we had the best comedians who were available at the time. There's a question I have.

Go, go, go. I'm just curious, how do you feel about sports which are dominated by black people? Do you have the same reaction? How do we get more Asians into the NBA? I mean, look, I would like representation sort of in all spheres. I'm not sure. How do we do that? How do we get more Asians into the NBA?

What is your theory on that? I don't have developed a view on that. You just had a great idea about comedy clubs. I want to know how you get them to institute. Can I answer on her behalf? Can we just let the professional tell us? Can I answer on your behalf? I think you might agree with me.

Sure. We have a history in this country of certain groups being discriminated against. So the fact is, when we see certain disparities, our antennae go up. What's going on there? Because blacks have been traditionally discriminated against, when they dominate something, we're not worried about that. We're not worried about anybody. But what happens, what this has morphed into,

is a call sometimes for diversity for diversity's sake. Right. And I think that's where the logic begins to fall apart. In other words, we're no longer even worried to make sure that you're judging everybody individually. That's not even good enough anymore. You have to create a certain outcome. Equality of outcome. And in that case, he's right.

Then he becomes correct about the NBA as opposed to stopping short and saying, no, no, no. As long as we're sure you're not discriminating, that's all we can ask of you. So philosophically agree. Here's the qualifier I'd put on that. I saw something recently. Linda Holmes, who's one of the hosts of Pop Culture Happy Hour podcast, who I think is really smart. She was tweeting the other day. I forget the exact topic, but it was something related to what we're talking about right now right and her analogy

which i thought was brilliant was to think of a mixer like a sound mixer right yeah and if you are somebody uh who's in the majority right you may believe that you see and i'm this isn't i'm not talking about you specifically you may believe you see everything equally, right? But there may be one channel that you need to turn the dial up, right? That you're just, you have a blind spot. Like a dog can hear frequencies you can't. But that was a really, I thought, smart analogy to this whole

last ten minute conversation. Yeah, it is. If there's some evidence that can be presented that that's what's going on. Well, it's all going to be subjective. I mean, someone in the last couple weeks here used the term Rorschach test. That's probably me. I think a lot of these cases are Rorschach tests. Yeah, but I can't tell you how many conversations I have with comedians,

not just about women. I say, is there anybody out in town that you know about that I should be using? I ask all the time, men and women. And every time it does happen, like Emmy Blotnick. Blotnick. Who's a new female comedian, she's killing. She was around and we didn't know her. I don't know why we didn't know her.

Some comics are intimidated. And I took it as our failure that we didn't know her. And not because she's a woman, but because she was a great comic around town. And there's other people like Aparna Nansharla, who's blasting us in the Times. You're still defending this idea. She will not only not perform here, she won't even sit and talk to me. When I called, I said, listen, you wrote this article. You want to come have coffee to discuss it?

It's as if somebody wrote an article about bashing Israel. Yeah. And I complained about them. And then they reached out to me and said listen no I don't think you're understanding my position why don't we meet for coffee sometime I want to talk to you about it I'm like no I don't want to talk to you I've already decided what you meant and who you are

I don't need anything so I deal with a lot of that and I always reach out to almost everybody who writes something negative about me because I feel like I have a side to this 9 out of 10 won't even answer. No interest in talking about it. They shirk from it.

So that says something, too, by the way. Can we get to Kavanaugh? Can I quickly add one thing before we get too far from it? Can I add one P.S. on the Louis thing? Absolutely. Whatever you want. The only thing I wanted to say, which I think makes his case special, at least to me, right, as a huge fan of his.

Yeah. I think there was such a moral underpinning to his entire body of work, to his public persona, that makes it especially disappointing to a lot of fans I know. Yep. What happened and how, you know, he can turn how someone drives in traffic into a moral statement. He talks about parenting. He talks about how men treat women. You know, he came out against Trump in writing.

The way he broke down the finances of that special he did that he sold up himself on the Internet, where, you know, he only took 25%. You are a CK expert. Yes. Go ahead. I'm a huge fan. No, it was a really upsetting thing to me. That's why it hits you harder.

That's why it hit me harder. That's why I think he's a special case. And to the point Kate made and you made when we don't know, the thing to me that's absent in a lot of these cases of these comebacks that people are looking for, and in the restaurant industry we have Mario Batali kind of sticking his toe in the water, is to put it in 12-step terms. I've said this in other interviews, where's the amend? I feel like there's

this step that people have skipped. Louis, it hasn't even been a year, and I'm not saying he should be off in Siberia forever. I believe in second chances. I thought if he ever did try to come on stage, and Janine Garofalo, was it last show? A couple shows ago?

A couple shows ago, yeah. She said, I'm You know, she said, you know, I'm with Louis and Louis, no one's talked more about their own shit than Louis C.K. I was really surprised

that he came up here and didn't talk about it. Yeah. Like, that was very... That was almost shocking to me. He's begun to talk about it a little bit. Now he addresses it, yeah.

He's begun to and he's getting there. But these are all legit criticisms of him. So that's all. I just wanted to say that. I don't find them to be legit criticisms of me. And I don't, no, honestly, I think that, you know,

you and Professor Sharp would probably like to, the world to react to Louis Such that they don't want to see him anymore. You wish that were the world we were living in, that they didn't want to see him. I just said I believe in second chances. No, no, right now, that they probably don't want to see him anymore. You wish that were the world we were living in, that they didn't want to see him. I just said I believe in second chances. No, no. Right now,

that they probably don't want to see Cosby. And then when they find out that the world... He's gone forever. That the world kind of does want to see him, well, actually, Louis, no.

You should actually punish yourself. You need to stay home. And he's like, well, I'm not. Nobody punishes themselves. So the last-ditch effort seems to be the club owner.

Like I said, like Twitter, you need to stop. You have the ability to prevent the people who want to see him from seeing him and you need to do that for us. I'm like, no, no, no. This is not, if you think about it, that's not the world you want to live in because

very, very soon, someone's going to pick up the New York Times and read a few sentences about somebody and commit a terrible injustice to somebody that was not fair. And the Catholic side is that a lot of these people who deny, deny, deny, like Bill Clinton, who has real credible evidence of wanting to Broderick, who's out there

doing a news speaking tour with the feminist ICANN, Hillary Clinton, and believe me there's going to be no hall, restaurant, nobody's going to get the grief that I did for hosting Bill Clinton. Tyson has a cartoon. He'll be at the Democratic Convention. A cartoon for kids.

So this is a singular, if that's the right word, standard that really is being laser-beamed on me at the Comedy Cellar, which I have not seen and never have seen anywhere else. As far as I'm concerned. Tupac just had a biopic. Oh, well, Chris Brown is on... I know you want to move on, but this clause does exist because of Louis C.K., correct? No. We had a long history

before Louis C.K. That clause appeared... I thought you said club. No, that appeared in the last couple of months. To give you an honest answer to that, the answer is yes, but... I thought you said club. The answer is, it It wasn't there the last time I bought it. No, no, no. I thought you said club. Yeah.

The answer is it had occurred to me prior. It was not the first time that it occurred to me because we've had toxic individuals. I don't like that word, but we have people who are controversial radioactors before. Yeah. And the first time I thought about this was with Michael Richards. I hope he doesn't walk in here. He didn't perform

years ago. But yes, it really came to a head again with the Louis thing. I needed to decide what to do. And then when the Norm Macdonald thing happened and I realized that even Norm Macdonald could now be considered to be unacceptable because of what he

said about Louis. I'm like, no, this is a different world I'm living in. And I need to make it clear to my customers. Now, you were saying that this had dawned on you as early as Michael Richards. But was it swim at your own risk? Or was that a real... Because I know you're very proud of yourself

for that with the swimming guy. Did you think of that when Michael Richards came out? No, I think I thought of that. But it did occur to me that concept, as I've uttered that concept at other times, so it came easily to me now. Should we do

Kavanaugh, just so we don't run out of time? So Kavanaugh, so it's too bad that it's after the confirmation, after he's confirmed, but the professor wrote an article in the Times that I was surprised at. It's an excellent episode, by the way, Noah. Thank you.

And let me see if I... Excellent. Not good, excellent. So the headline that first struck me, and then we'll get to the argument. Wouldn't you agree, Friedman? Yes. The headline is, How strong does the evidence against Kavanaugh need to be? It said, even if

it wouldn't support a criminal conviction or civil liability, a merely credible allegation is enough to disqualify him. So the first thought I had, and it's really why I wanted to get you on, is that, so you correct me if I'm wrong here, the standard of proof in a civil case would be preponderance of the evidence, which is like

50.001%, like more likely than not. So to me, what I thought you were saying was that even if he probably didn't do it, even if he probably didn't do it, that he should be disqualified.

I think even if we'll never know, and that's sort of where we were when I wrote the piece and where we are now, and that uncertainty is enough to disqualify him. So I'm not even conceding that he probably didn't do it. It's possible. I just think it's an absolutely unknowable set of facts. And in light of that, I don't think that that uncertainty should be resolved in his favor. Right.

But just to hold you to the fire a little bit, it says even if it wouldn't support civil liability, which could only mean he probably didn't do it. Less than 50% chance. It just means we can't get to certainty. It doesn't mean he probably didn't do it. No than 50% chance. It just means we can't get to certainty. It doesn't mean he probably didn't do it. No, no. Civil is less than 50. Those are different. I'm a lawyer.

She knows. She's a dean. I'm just saying. So you agree if the majority... Listen, if I said there was a 50.1 chance that he did it, we'd say he probably did it. And we'd say that met the civil liability standard. If I said there's a 49% chance that he did it, we would

say he probably didn't do it. It does not meet the civil liability. So when I hear it does not meet the civil liability standard, to me that is synonymous with saying he probably didn't do it. We don't have evidence that would get us across the 50.001 threshold. It's a slightly different...

I would continue to resist your formulation. I don't want to concede that he probably didn't do it. I just want to concede that we wouldn't be able to get even above 50% certainty if ordinary sort of proof principles were advised. But what is the threshold if we felt there was a 10% chance that he did do it? 10% chance, this is hypothetical. Would that be sufficient for you to say he should be disqualified from the Supreme Court? What exactly percentage is enough to say adios Kavanaugh?

So I argued in the piece that it's a very context-dependent kind of analysis. And so sort of who's being replaced, so the outgoing justice, so you have the swing justice on the court, Anthony Kennedy, whose seat is in question, who probably holds the decisive vote on everything from affirmative action to abortion, maybe contraception, campaign finance, environmental regulations. I mean, just a huge swath of issues. This is the decisive vote. And that's actually always a matter of the Senate's always looked more closely at nominees who are going to fill swing seats. So Neil Gorsuch, now I don't think he had anything like this in his background,

but he's replacing Antonin Scalia. Balance of the Court's not going to change at all. He had that horrible trucker case. Right, so the frozen trucker was the biggest sort of controversy. And it was, you know, a heartless outcome, although, you know, there's an argument that he was constrained by the Texas statute. Now, you might think the Texas statute isn't the only thing that matters. I agree with you.

I'm going to be perfectly honest with you. You lost. No idea what we're talking about. Essentially told the guy he had to choose between his life and his job. So you're saying that because the court is already conservative, we should be extra vigilant

with regard to Kavanaugh. It's perfectly appropriate for the Senate to do closer scrutiny when it is kind of this deciding vote. I'm not sure that it is kind of this deciding vote. Well, I'm not sure that it is appropriate. I don't know that advice and consent means that. Well, we don't know what it means because the Constitution doesn't tell us.

We can sort of just look to the way the Senate has discharged its advice and consent role historically. And actually, I think it has looked more closely at seats that are pivotal. And you can disagree that that's desirable. But I do think historically that's basically been true. And then I think you do have this moment, right, to sort of, you know, to call back the conversation we were having earlier in which, you know, accusations of sexual mis full investigation of, and B, we just don't really know, apart from this extremely credible testimony, that might not get you across the 51 or 50.001% threshold. But, you know, testimony is evidence, right? That's pretty significant evidence right there in front of the Senate. Can I amplify on that? I was against Kavanaugh's... What if they put a swim at your own own resign in front of the supreme court bill that basically cut because i think he was is

he's lying about a few things and then that disqualifies and but two things uh... jurisprudentially uh... look doesn't look at all like the uh... democrats gonna take the senate so i imagine that any nominee is going to vote the same way as cavanaugh except that cavanaugh is probably less likely

to overrule Roe versus Wade, both because of who he is and because Justice Roberts, I don't think, would allow the court to do such a thing based on Kavanaugh's vote, as opposed to this woman, was her name Barrett? Amy Coney Barrett, yeah. Who looks like she might eagerly overturn Roe versus Wade. So in a certain way, people on the left have dodged a bullet here i think in what they actually get it out of this i'm not in the different timeline might have been cavanaugh gets rejected

republicans pick up a few seats barrett gets uh... uh... point is and rovers that is that is a very plausible if not probable outcome i i but i think that our comments is you know maybe not quite as likely but certainly but i don't have anything out there that was a good but i wanna get outcome. But I think that outcome is maybe not quite as likely, but certainly possible. But I want to make an argument in your favor that I thought of, and I don't know if you've heard his argument before. Normally, testimony

in a civil case, in my opinion, is automatically discounted and discountable by the fact that someone is out to try to get money. So yeah, there is a built-in motivation. You want to win the lawsuit. You want the million dollars.

So of course we take what you say with a grain of salt. So the very same testimony in a civil suit, I believe, is much more credible here because there is no motivation for her to lie. As a matter of fact, she brought up his name prior to the suit altogether. So I think that's worth thinking about. And prior to his selection, right? So as soon as his name... Do you agree with that logic? Sorry, I totally agree with that logic. I do think the fact that

she comes forward to try to dissuade the White House from even selecting him, right? She's sort of saying, I don't want to be in the public eye. I want to save you from the country going through this. So just choose somebody else. And as you said, some of the other people on there are probably more conservative than Brett Kavanaugh in at least a few sort of peripheral ways. They were all quite conservative, including obviously Justice Kavanaugh now. I get used to saying that. Justice

Kavanaugh. You have a very good, very soothing voice. Do you do great radio on a regular basis? I do podcasts occasionally, but that's pretty much it. I do a little radio. It's like an NPR voice. Do you do great voice? Great radio on a regular basis? I do podcasts occasionally, but that's pretty much it. I do a little radio. It's like an NPR voice. Go ahead, Andrew. It seems that

whenever I hear people discuss this, it seems that it's never really about Kavanaugh, but it's rather people who don't want women to lose the right to have an abortion and people who don't want men to lose their career off of an allegation. It really doesn't seem to be whether there's enough information to convict or not.

It's just two groups trying to protect their interests, right? No, I've spoken to people, writers. Even you just right now are making that argument. I'm making that argument. I've spoken to people. She brought it up about how— Let me answer you. Can I just finish this? You brought up your first thing was in this certain situation where a Republican—

or sorry, a liberal judge is going to be replaced by a Republican, we should have a little bit more intense background check, et cetera, right? So you weren't going, we should have a more intense background check because this chick got raped maybe. It was because a Democrat was being replaced by a Republican. That's the context. I'm just saying. He said that was a factor. I just want to add that I've spoken to some conservative writers about this,

and they are very, very much about the presumption of innocence as a guiding principle. And I have to tell you... To protect themselves from allegations. No, no, no. No, no. I'll tell you something. As a boss, I think I told a story last week.

Like, sometimes we get professional bar spotters here. And a bar spotter comes in, they try to catch a bartender stealing. And I'll get a report. And they'll catch somebody. They'll say so-and-so took the money, didn't put it in the register. And I'll confront the bartender. And if they deny it or if they say it was a mistake or something like that, I will give them another chance. I would rather take the risk of them stealing again.

And by the way, nine times out of ten, they do. And I do catch them again. But that is an internalization of the presumption of innocent, that I would rather take the risk than let a guy walk out of here getting fired for something he didn't do. Even on a small scale, that's an outrage. And it's worth – and people shouldn't dismiss people who are prioritizing that because as that erodes, we will end up having the – I believe the pendulum quickly swinging to a place where we don't want it to. We're going to have another Tawana Brawley. We're going to have another Duke case. Of course we're going to have these things soon enough.

And they're going to happen faster because of the climate that we're in. And we need to worry about that. Let me extend the analogy a little bit. So I don't know if when you're hiring at the hiring stage, so it's one thing when somebody's already got the job. That's kind of the status quo is they have the job. So you want to be quite, you know, there has to be something pretty important that's going to happen before you're going to unsettle the status quo. You have to be pretty sure. That's kind of how I feel about people who have said, well, Brett Kavanaugh should, even if he stayed in the D.C. Circuit, he should have been impeached

based on these allegations. And my view is like, actually, no, the burden is on the individual seeking to change the status quo. And I don't think these allegations without Moore were sufficient to justify impeachment. He should for sure have been able to keep the D.C. Circuit job, at least based on the information we had in front of us, though I did think that the kind of partisanship in his second Senate performance was really troubling, even for a D.C. Circuit judge. Let's talk about that, too. But it's different. Yeah, that's what I...

But if somebody came to you... If you were interviewing somebody to hire as a bartender, and you called a reference, and they're like, there's a sexual assault accusation. We can never figure out if it really happened or not, but that happened. Would you hire him? Probably not. Somebody came to me with that accusation from 35 years ago when they were 17. And you have a list of awesome

other general managers. And drunk. And I knew that for the following 35 years after that, everybody that had worked with them, left or right, women, I would not consider that. I would feel, listen, I can him. Left, right, women, everybody, women, like, just, I would not consider that. I would feel, listen, I can't,

I can't, now, extreme court justice is not a general manager, I understand that, but I have to tell you, I'd be like, listen, I can't take into account

an accusation from 35 years ago because we've said this many times as a society over the last six months, all of a sudden we kind of stopped saying it,

which is that a creep really usually maintains itself as a creep. When Weinstein came out with one thing, it came out with 50 things. When Cosby came out with one thing, even people, I mean, this is generally something that

people do as a pattern in their lives. And if somebody does something once at 17, even something horrible, and then they turn themselves around and don't do that anymore and don't lie about it, I personally, I would say no. I could be very proud of my country, even if somebody did worse than that, who came clean about it, turned his life around and 35 years later he became Justice Supreme Court.

You both just, Kate and Noam just just mentioned this really quickly, right? But it's, however we got to what we found out in the second visit to the Senate, right? The things he said in his statement, to me, were disqualifying. And to a lot of people. I'm not saying anything we haven't all heard. Your old judge. Wait, wait. Before we move on to that. Justice Stevens.

Stevens. I mean, that is unprecedented. Before we move on to that, let's. Stevens, I mean, that is unprecedented. Before we move on to that, let's make sure we tie it off the previous. Is there anything else you want to say about the perjury? Okay, so go ahead. Well, I feel like that, whether right, wrong, whatever,

opened the door to this window into these huge problems. And I don't know, you I'm sure could tell us, if he perjured himself. I've heard, I don't understand why people are quibbling over that word, but he clearly was lying about terminology. Well, you know what? The truth is that I was

sure, I wrote a Facebook post about like this devil's triangle thing, but then four people wrote a letter saying, no, this was our game. And then I saw an article somewhere else saying, actually, the term devil's triangle for sex didn't even exist in the 80s. So I hate to say it. Okay, but there was the whatever the girl's name. Renata Alumni Club.

That was a compliment. I mean, come on. Whether you thought that was sharpshooting and being silly and going through a yearbook is beside the point. He was under oath, and he lied. Is that not perjury? I think the quibbling is just about whether it was sort of intentional or whether he sort of shaded the truth and was a little not forthcoming but didn't actually intentionally provide false testimony. The only thing I would find him commendable for lying under oath for

would be to spare this woman, Renata, the shame. He should have just said, look. I know you're not supposed to lie under oath, but if that's all it was, I would figure him for that one. He should have just said, look, I'll be honest with you. Renata wouldn't give it up. We tried. No.

I mean, we tried to crack that nut for years. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Dan, really, that we should cut out. Why? I mean, he could have said, look, the truth is we couldn't get her. We couldn't get her. It's not a good look.

I'm going to tell you why. Because, yeah, when you're discussing certain things, it just makes you look like you're flippant about something, which is very important. Here's a question. You could have spared Renata. We were kids. We were boasting about something that never happened, and I'm sorry, and I feel awful about it. Precisely what I just said.

But precisely what I just said, which no one won't cut out because you have that different way of saying it. Yeah, maybe I'm from the streets. I don't talk as good as you. I don't have your mind for big business deals. But basically, we're on the same page with Renata. Don't cut that out, Louie. I actually take a different view of that. I think that I've seen people have meltdowns before.

Like we were talking about Louie before. I wouldn't be surprised if he strung himself up, presuming the guy's innocent. If he's lying, then it doesn't even matter. To be accused of gang rape and to know that your daughters are never going to be able to even introduce themselves again, maybe for the rest of their lives without hedging,

to know that you can't even go to a restaurant. Essentially, your whole life is shattered. To have an emotional meltdown in that situation and then judge a person for it, I would not be the person to do that. And I would add that if most people saying that, if they were on his side, would simply regard it as righteous indignation.

But it was a partisan meltdown. So what? That's the crux. So it was a partisan meltdown. So what? That's the crux. So what was keeping the letter back for six weeks? Was that partisan? Was it just a coincidence? No one knows. What?

No one knows. We don't know. Well, we do know that it was partisan. Listen, partisan is not the end of the world, but I'm saying he knows that this happened to him on this schedule as a partisan decision. He knows. I was to him on the schedule as a partisan decision. He knows. I was getting emails all the time about he was so concerned with Monica Lewinsky's vagina and all this stuff.

There was this whole that he was too interested in the sort of details of the Lewinsky thing. This was all out there. And in his meltdown, he spit out all the stuff that was coming at him. Was it wise? No, he probably shouldn't have said that. But he didn't spit it out. Some of that was in his written opening statement. Some of it was and some of it wasn't. I

would just give... I just know that if you were for Judge Kavanaugh, you would never be saying, oh, but I was for him, but that partisan thing, now he's disqualified. A guy about to be confirmed saying what goes around comes around? So let me ask you this question. he's disqualified. A guy about to be confirmed saying what goes around comes around. So let me ask you this question.

That's mob stuff. If you found out tomorrow that Ford lied, she made the whole thing up. If you found that out, he's totally vindicated. Would you still look me in the eye and say, yeah, but he's still disqualified because of that outburst. Of course.

Even if the whole thing was made up. Of course. I don't believe it. Listen, this is someone who's going to be on the Supreme Court of the United States who doesn't have at least the discipline, even if that's in his head, to not say that out loud is... I can't believe if she made it up, anybody would say... You can't be upset if you call the gang rapist.

It's weird to keep... I'm not talking about being upset. This is a failure of human empathy, in my opinion. Listen, I compare it like you shake up a can and the pressure builds inside the can. Leave it alone. This is like... Don't go there. This is like...

I saw it. I'm going to be your friend. This is like emotions. Yeah. And it builds up. It builds up. But it's very difficult to open that can just a little bit and not have the whole can empty out.

That is my analogy to human beings. Yes, and if you did that in front of your staff, you could apologize, but it's a Supreme Court position. You know what? This bothers me,

what you're saying, and if there's a God, he will test you. What are you? I really mean that. In a situation where your life is shattered in front of the whole world,

not just your life, your family, your children, everybody, and you don't react to it just right. It comes out emotionally in some way. You say the wrong thing, and this becomes then. It doesn't even matter anymore if you did it. This becomes what we're going to hang our hat on. I think that if that's what we're descending to, I think that, guys, we're too filled with hate right now.

We're too filled with partisanship. It was never about Ford. It was always about how he felt about abortion. That's what it's all about. And they're looking for anything to discredit him on. It's becoming about tribalism and hate. What tribe is worth? The first step in bigotry is to dehumanize somebody.

And when people can no longer look at the man who they oppose with every fiber of their being for what they disagree with about him. And what do they disagree with? And allow him, about those things, but allow him the human weakness to have an emotion, to be under a stress that none of us could imagine. Listen, I was like, I wish, it's terrible. I thought he should resign.

That would be the honorable thing, resign. This is terrible for the country. Even if he's innocent, it's terrible for the country. This is terrible, terrible, terrible. From the Supreme Court, just to withdraw his nomination. I don't know. I don't think Andrew was showing lack of empathy. I feel I do. I think I understand. You're talking about Andrew Schultz or Andrew Friedman? No one would make that statement about me.

The empathetic Andrew. But I don't, nobody begrudged him. I don't think the emotions it really was the partisanship and let me just say people in the criminal justice system innocent people end up on trial for murder, for rape for all kinds of horrible acts

and they're actually not permitted to have meltdowns on like in a courtroom, right? They have to comport themselves with decorum and respect for the surroundings and they do I mean on the innocence project

Have you ever been in a courtroom? Yes, course. Judges lose their shit all the time. Defendants are not permitted to. They've got a weapon. I'm talking about defendants. People who are charged with crimes they did not commit right and you don't really see meltdowns like this. Maybe they happen occasionally but these are individuals who are facing loss of liberty not loss of a job like this. I think it's Yeah but he's going up for a job that's going to be in front of the whole world. Listen, I wouldn't judge my enemies on that meltdown. I just wouldn't.

Okay, but you do know that there are major legal thinkers in this country who have said arguably he will have to recuse himself from any case that comes before the Supreme Court that has a whiff of partisanship to it. Well, he's not going to. I'm going to tell you that right now. He's not going to. The Nixon justices didn't recuse themselves during the Nixon— the Clinton justices didn't recuse themselves. They're not going to recuse themselves.

And I think that, you know, at some point, as a dude just watching, I'm like, you know, the partisanship of the whole thing is so obvious when 49 senators on one side and 51— that for the man to utter the fact that, listen, this is partisan, it was sensual. He didn't even just say that. He said what goes around comes around. Well, that's because it has.

What does that mean? I'm going to pay you back from the bench. What it means is that this has been a tit-for-tat starting with Bork, wherever you want to start the story, Harry Reid, and what he's saying is that the next time it's going to be a Democratic nominee, and so, and what he's saying is that the next time is going to be a Democratic nominee and I think that to punish the guy

because he had the nerve to utter what we know is true, that this is a partisan battle going on here. I just don't, I just don't see it. But you know,

the obvious thing that a lot of, if he were delusional, I'd say, you know what, he's delusional. But a lot of pundits have pointed this out.

Neil Gorsuch didn't have any of these issues. Why would he? Nobody can. Exactly. No, you know what, he's delusional. But a lot of pundits have pointed this out. Neil Gorsuch didn't have any of these issues. Why would he? Nobody can. Exactly. No, he was replacing, he was probably from the Republic. Can I just ask a weird, this is a weird question. Hit it.

If you were a rapist, why would you be pro-life? Huh? Yeah. Well, because he theoretically don't rape no more. But no rapists don't stop raping. Assert control over women's bodies would like to control what women do with their pregnancies. There's nothing inconsistent about these two things. They don't want to keep that around. That's just proof

right? I don't think that if you were a rapist you would be pro. I'm being said dead serious. I'm withdrawing from this extreme. I'm being dead serious I'm being dead serious I think it's a reasonable thing. Like this is somebody who you would not want evidence of that. Have you seen The Paper Chase, Andrew? No, what is it? It's a law school movie.

John Houseman, you're right out of class for that one. Really? No, I think there's something to that. I think a rapist wouldn't be concerned about whether the baby sticks around or not. I will say this, that if Roe falls, I think that's good for the comedy seller. Because more tourism in New York. More people in general, you're saying?

No, no, because New York will still have abortion and people will come here. And whilst they're here for an abortion, they'll come to the show. Cheer themselves up. Professor, do you think Roe's going to fall? Yeah, I think it's pretty possible. I mean, I think that, look, a lot of people have said either it'll fall or it'll be eroded beyond recognition. But actually,

if a state passes a six-week ban and the Supreme Court takes it up, you can't affirm Roe and, six weeks, or an eight-week, you know, like any one of these very early bans, you can't pretend to abide by the core holding of Roe and allow something like that to stand. So they may not be able to avoid the direct question. And I don't think that, I think that in part, maybe because of this whole experience, I don't think they'll do it in the next year or two, but I think they're going to uphold some very restrictive laws. And look, it all comes down to John Roberts. I don't, I think the chances I would say are better than 50%, but I wouldn't say I'm certain. You like Roberts?

You know, I don't know him personally. I think he cares about the institution of the Supreme Court, and I think that he's extremely conservative, but he's an institutionalist, and I think that he will be a moderating influence on this court. I actually thought Kavanaugh would be, too, before the hearings, not even the second hearing, but the first one. But coming out of the first hearing,

I thought it's really for liberals, for conservatives, and Roberts has the new median justice. Professor Shah, a modest proposal. Is it possible, not a modest proposal, but whatever it is, is it possible to be pro-choice but anti-Roe? I think that Noam is sort of in that category. Noam believes that a woman should have a right to choose, but that the Constitution does not guarantee it.

Yes, I think that's possible. My opinion on Roe is that I'd prefer if it stayed. In certain ways, I prefer that it stayed. I think the decision is not logical. But plenty of feminists, plenty of liberal scholars think that it's not a well-reasoned decision. And Casey kind of tries to ground it a little bit more in liberty and equality a little bit more than Roe itself did. I have the feeling that if they overturn

Roe, you're not going to see any fewer abortions in the United States of America. I think that even some of the states that we suspect will start outlawing abortion will have a window for abortion and people travel

and now there's drugs on the market that we didn't even conceive of. Like my wife, whatever, but she had to take a labor-inducing pill. And these are readily available. There'll be plenty of access for women of means, but it's going to have a huge, if they did overturn Roe, there would be a huge impact on women in rural states without access to resources. I hope not. There's no way that would not follow.

If that's true, you never know. Stranger things will happen, but if that's true, that would be why I would hope they would keep Roe. But I don't think it holds up to logic. What if people start using more protection now? Because the issue before was not only... Can I make the point?

The issue before was two-fold, right? Abortion was not illegal, but there was no sex education whatsoever. Now you have sex education. Now we know at a very young age what's going on. We have contraception that's readily available for anyone wherever they want. It's very cheap and easy to access. Now what if you get rid of this condom and all of a sudden, not condom, you get rid of this abortion and now there's no safety net.

Now it's like, hey, we've got to use this or we could be pregnant. I think it's not going to be, I don't think it's going to be as shocking a turnover as people assume. And it might be the exact opposite. What you're saying is that some people might be more, some people do. I'm saying that abortion is kind of, it's like welfare. But the fact is that for people who are not in that cohort, as they say, it could be tragic for someone who, you know, doesn't have money and has...

We understand. All of this can be a failure of empathy, by the way. On every side of a lot of issues, I just think people... Why are you looking at me when you say that? I'm incredibly empathetic. We're at an hour where time is up. I think this was a very good

conversation. Probably not bad for a comic for a how do we get the Chinese into the NBA that's what we need to know you guys can have that conversation in the next podcast we're bringing you back for a legal mind we were pretty good right and this is actually my first time I'm sorry to say

here so I gotta come back and actually see a show you're not from upstate New York by any chance you sound very much like a young lady I went to high school with and look like her, too, that is from Plattsburgh. No. Chicago. So you're not related to the Woodwards of Plattsburgh. Don't think so.

Okey-doke. To be a clerk for Supreme Court Justice, I mean, that is a—you were a clerk for Justice Stevens? Yeah. That's no joke. Oh, I didn't know that she was. Have you seen Kavanaugh's—he's got an all-female clerk status. But he's always been like that. 21 of the 25 that he had when he was a federal judge.

And they're all beautiful. Well, when I have my Me Too accusation, believe me, it's an all-female show at the Comedy Cellar. That's what it's going to be. That's how I know he's guilty. How? The all-female thing. You're clearly making a point, right?

You're going, I'm innocent. Can we end with this? You have five more minutes? I'd like to go around the table. I'll put my head on the top and then go first. If you had a gun to your head and you had to say, what exactly happened? You want to direct the scene in the movie. That bedroom.

That's a good question. What do you think? It's a guess. Yes. This is what I think happened. Go. Are we going clockwise or counterclockwise? I would prefer we go clockwise.

That's this way. Okay. I believe the most likely thing is this. He was there. He was on the bed with her. He was a drunk 17-year-old prep school kid with no experience with women. So drunk, as she says, that he could barely even

lift up. And he was coming at her hard and physically. And from her point of view it was terrifying traumatic from his point of view he barely knows what he's doing uh what he's doing and most likely i don't just just like it it was not not the intention to rape but just the intention that the guys will understand of like you know this kind of uh uh physical thing that men do but shouldn't do, especially 17-year-old drunk guys. And that's why we have a situation of a woman who is traumatized and a guy who behaved like a creep

but actually never had a lifetime of being a creep or a rapist or any of these things. And if he remembers it, he feels in his gut that, you know, I wasn't attempted rape, I'm just going to lie about it. And if he does remember it, it's because it wasn't even to him. Maybe it was a significant time fooling around

in a bed with somebody. That's what I think is the most likely. Reasonable. It could be way worse. I don't think it could be much better for him. Reasonable. To the left of that would be like she made it up or something like that. Sure. And even mistaken identity, I find very, very, very hard to understand. No, not that different. I think it happened from her perspective exactly as she testified,

and I think it's quite likely that he was so drunk he just doesn't remember the events of that night at all. So what was in his mind, what he intended, who knows, but I think it's quite possible he doesn't. And that's a way to reconcile their testimony. He doesn't remember it, but he did really minimize his drinking as a teenager. He's clearly lying. He was a heavy drinker, and he sort of alluded to that in his testimony. He all but conceded it, but he didn't come out and admit it.

And in a way, if he did open that door, that allows people to draw the conclusion that the things did transpire just as you described them, and that isn't good for him. So instead he insisted it never happened. And he wasn't much of a drinker. Breedman. Yeah. I mean, that was one of the most unflattering bits of testimony, right? That was his Klobuchar saying.

That's what that was about. Was it, have you ever blacked out? No. Have you? Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Senator. You know, take a composite of what you both just said, and that's basically where I am.

There's also another dude, right? Judge His name is Judge, yeah Okay, so this is what I think I think Kavanaugh and Judge are like Yo, this girl's down to do whatever I promise you she's with it Let's just go upstairs, see what's going on Judge is like, yeah, let's do it, blah, blah, blah

They're really drunk, right? They go, he maybe starts to like touch her She's like, what are you doing? it, blah, blah, blah. They're really drunk, right? They go. He maybe starts to, like, touch her or something like that. She's like, what are you doing? He's being a douchey fucking guy. And he's like, come on, it's fine. Don't worry about it. Don't worry about it. She screams.

He goes, what are you doing? Puts the hand on the mouth. Not, you're going to get raped. But, people are going to think that we're trying to rape you. It's not, I want to rape you. It's, people are going to think that we're trying to rape you. This is your, I want to rape you. It's, people are going to think that we're trying to rape you. This is your best guess. This is my best.

This is what I truly believe happened. She stopped screaming. They let go. They're still drunk and shit like that. She leaves. They literally, if two guys wanted to rape a girl. The story is that judge jumped on and they fell off the bed and she ran out. This is what I think.

Okay. That screaming could have happened on the bed as well. It doesn't matter exactly where it was. It could have, but you believe that. My assumption is that the hand on the mouth was not, you're about to get raped. It was, I don't want people to think some fucked up shit that we did not want to happen is happening up here. Very similar to if you're beating up your little brother and he goes, Mom! And you go, eh!

I don't know. I don't want to get in trouble. They leave. I don't think that he blacked out. I don't think that he was so drunk he blacked out he forgot this whole thing. I think he either did it or was never there. My assumption right now is

this thing happened, but it was never his intention to rape this girl. I don't remember every single making out incident I've had that't remember every single, like, making out incident I've had that panned out one way or another with women for 35 years. Sure. Take what Andrew said.

Even without backing up. Take what Andrew said. Put it in Professor Shaw's voice and tone, and you have my response. Well, that's why you cleaned up. And you also think he remembers it if it happened? No.

No, I don't believe he did. But he may think that, well, that sounds like something that might have happened, but I don't recall. I think you remember every intended rape that you have. No, but that's the thing. You don't remember not intended rapes. You don't remember just a hookup. And so it is possible that this guy did try to hook up. Directly, as far as intended rape.

But I would assume if you had that devious, sinister idea that night, and this is not something that frequents your mind, you would recall. We have to go. I think it's bad for you. As I said, I think it's terrible for the country that he's on the court. And I think that people on all sides of this actually should

understand that. It just is not, the country is already coming apart. It does not help. It doesn't help at all. No, once again, the email for comments, suggestions, questions. Podcast at ComedyCellar.com.

And remember, swim at your own risk. Thank you. Good night, everybody. Bye.