The Megyn Kelly Show - Supreme Court's Historic Free Speech and Student Debt Decisions, with Charles C.W. Cooke, Judge Amul Thapar, Kristen Waggoner, and More | Ep. 579

Episode Date: June 30, 2023

It's another day of historic Supreme Court decisions. Megyn Kelly is joined by Judge Amul Thapar, author of "The People's Justice," and Charles C.W Cooke of National Review to discuss the Supreme Court’s major decision about the Colorado web designer, how the First Amendment applies to the case, what the landmark decision means for free speech, the massive decision on Biden’s "student loan forgiveness" plan, the importance of separation of powers, hysterical reaction from MSNBC, why Justice Clarence Thomas has a "strong black voice" and the horrible smears against him, Biden's "normal court" comment, and more. Then Kristen Waggoner, CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom, joins to discuss her client's victory, how the use of pronouns can be forced speech, what comes next for ADF, and more. And "Chicks on the Right" hosts Amy Jo Clark and Miriam Weaver join to discuss Dylan Mulvaney speaking out about the Bud Light "brand deal," Bud Light's “cowardice" and the problem when companies go woke, alleged sexual assaults in gender-neutral bathrooms, the latest on trans men in women's prisons, how important it is to use your voice, and more.Thapar: https://www.amazon.com/Peoples-Justice-Clarence-Constitutional-Stories/dp/1684514525/Cooke: https://charlescwcooke.comWaggoner: https://adflegal.org/Chicks on the Right: https://chicksonright.com/links/ Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest and provocative conversations. Hey, everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. And what a day. Huge, absolutely huge. Two new major rulings, landmark rulings in one case from the U.S. Supreme Court on this, the final day of its session. The court today striking down President Biden's student loan, quote, forgiveness plan as an executive overreach, finding he lacked the executive authority to do this. And in a genuinely landmark ruling on free speech, the high court ruled that states cannot order Americans to violate their own religious beliefs, even when a state law purporting to be battling discrimination

against protected groups tries to require it. We'll get into the specifics of that ruling. You may remember the Colorado woman behind that second case, the one about the public accommodations and free speech. She came on this program. And in just a bit, her lawyer, Kristen Wagoner of Alliance Defending Freedom, who was also with her when she appeared on this program, will be here with her first reaction to their enormous win. I'm also going to be joined by Charles C.W. Cook, absolutely one of, if not the fiercest critic of the president's student loan plan. You may recall he's been calling for President Biden to be impeached over this executive overreach. Charles is not prone to that kind of incendiary rhetoric, but that's how strongly he felt about the egregiousness of what Biden did here.

So we'll have his reaction on the high court agreeing with him. But first, we are honored to begin today with Judge Amol Thapar. Judge Thapar sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He was President Trump's first appellate court nominee back in 2017. He was also on the shortlist of Supreme Court justices of names for the high court when Trump was choosing during his presidency and is believed to be again to be on that list if Trump wins in 2024 and frankly, if any Republican wins. He has a perfectly timed book out right now called The People's Justice, Clarence Thomas and the constitutional stories that define him, which I absolutely loved and blurbed because I loved it. And we just got lucky that Judge Thapar was booked to come on this program today, the biggest day of the high court's

term. Judge, it's an honor to meet you in person. Thank you so much for being here. Let me just get your overall reaction to the bombshells that were handed down by the high court this morning. Yeah. First, thank you for having me. It's really a pleasure to be here. I think the first thing the American people should take away and hopefully the book demonstrates this is that the majority of the majority in both cases is trying their best to get back to the meanings of the law and the original meaning of the Constitution. And they're spending a lot of time talking about that. I haven't had a chance to fully digest the opinions, but I think it just proves the thesis in my mind of the people's

justice, the book. Because Clarence Thomas, who you zero in on, is fighting with the majority in all of these cases. Yesterday's case striking down affirmative action in college admissions process. Today's ruling against Biden on his executive overreach with student loans. And critically, this free speech case. I have to tell you, and we'll get to more of the book in a minute, but I have to tell you, for me as a lawyer, it made my heart sing to see an opinion like this so strongly reminding the American people of the power of the First Amendment and chastising states who, in the name of equity, wokeness, however you want to phrase it, try to trample on those rights. Yeah. And one of the important things, Megan, not to forget is what the originalists are doing. They're not then textualists. They're not stating their opinion.

They're honoring the American people's opinion. And so when you point to the First Amendment, for example, it's the American people that decided that the First Amendment was a critical foundation in our rights, so much so that they enshrined it as the first in the Bill of Rights, in the Constitution. In fact, the Anti-Federalists fought tooth and nail for a right of conscience, and it was spelled out in more detail by James Madison in the First Amendment. And the whole point of originalism and textualism is to honor the will of the people. And when you do that, you most often favor the little person, because if the American people want to change it, the beauty of the court enforcing the Constitution

as written is the American people, if they disagree, have a mechanism to change it, whether it be amendments or through laws. But here, when it's a bill of right, a right they enshrined in the Constitution, as you point out, they have the court has an obligation to enforce those rights as they were understood at the founding. getting eroded bit by bit, whether it's by state laws that go unchallenged or by laws like this that a lower court will uphold in the name of, well, you know, we have a state law that protects that's basically an anti-discrimination law in public accommodations. And we just don't think that the First Amendment really is going to trump that. But this this court really put the lie to it today, saying that's not true, saying you can have anti-discrimination laws. In this this court really put the lie to it today, saying that's not true, saying you can have anti-discrimination laws. In this case, it's in public accommodations like it was a web design proprietor who would absolutely serve LGBTQ members. Absolutely. If you went in there and

said, I'm going to launch, you know, a realty company, she would have built your realty company for you, your website, despite your LGBTQ status. She didn't want to do same sex websites for them. That was the place she drew the line. And she came on this show and said, I'm not only fighting for people like me who don't want to do that. I'm fighting for people on the other side, same sex marriage proponents who don't want to accommodate somebody who wants to have them do a website opposing same-sex marriage and maybe bashing um something they believe in so this win is a win for all of us however i have to say i've been shocked at the amount the amount of jurists who won't stand up for this principle and i wonder how big you think this landmark decision is in shutting down this erosion of the free speech

principles yeah so let me stand up for my colleagues just a little bit here, because I think it's important that all your listeners know that we are trying to do our best. And it's helpful when the Supreme Court does this and gives us clear guidance, because a lot of these we struggle through the briefs, the arguments aren't raised, the right arguments aren't raised, and we're bound by the arguments that are raised. I truly think, for example, on my court, I've got a total of 15 active judges right now and a bunch of senior judges, and I see them struggle all the time with difficult issues, but I think every one of them is trying to get it right. We may approach it from different angles, but we're all trying to get it right. And it's really one of the great hallmarks of the court as an institution

is that despite the kind of what you see on the outside, on the inside, we all get along really well. And we're like brothers and sisters that have disagreements and we work really hard. And I think my circuit is emblematic of that. Yes, I agree. It's one of the best circuits. Definitely better than the Ninth Circuit and the Second Circuit, in my view. But let's talk a little bit about the opinion, because, you know, the court really gets into it and says the following, because we had Lori on this program, Lori Smith, and she is a small town woman who launched her own business designing websites and said, this is where I'm going to draw the line. I'm not going to do the ones that promote same-sex marriages. And there was a local law in California saying she must, that she has no choice and that she was also prohibited from even posting on her own website that she is opposed to same-sex marriages, would not even allow her to say how she felt and then tried to compel her speech. Right. So they silenced the speech in one lane and they compelled the speech or tried to in another lane. You will do the website. You will use your own words to support same-sex marriages.

And this is what the court wrote. Colorado defended its law. They said under Colorado's logic, the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic, no matter the message, if that topic somehow implicates a customer's statutorily protected trait. Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty. The court's precedents recognize the First Amendment tolerates none of that. And then it goes on to say, look, to be sure, public accommodations laws play a vital role in protecting the civil rights of all Americans.

But they say at the same time, this court has also long recognized that no public accommodations law is immune from the demands of the Constitution. In particular, this court has held public accommodation statutes can sweep too broadly when deployed to compel speech. So what they're saying is a local law, a state law that is meant to protect these communities, you know, minority rights, cannot trump the Constitution's free speech protections. When it's the state versus the Constitution and the right to free speech, the Constitution is going to reign supreme. Yeah, and I think the court's really been consistent of that. If you go all the way back to their Skokie case, for example, and the right to march in speech we might not want to hear, you'll remember, and this kind of goes to Virginia v. Black, too, which is in the book, you'll remember that speech we may not like, others are entitled to say.

And I think the important thing is really that this goes all the way back to the founding, where the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, the Anti-Federalists were going to stop the Constitution from being ratified if we didn't have rights of conscience. It was so important to them that people be protected from being forced by any government to say what they didn't believe. I mean, it's one of the great hallmarks of our country. In fact, it's why people can protest our rulings and often do. It gives them the liberty, the American people, the liberty to take an unpopular voice. And in fact, if you think about it, those unpopular

voices, sometimes they're unpopular 30 years ago, become more popular now because they're entitled to be voiced. And countries that don't allow people to have a right of conscience are the very countries where the separation of powers breaks down or their dictatorships or monarchies. And that just isn't the United States. And I really think the court has been consistent here from the Skokie cases to these cases to Virginia v. Black and other cases, as as I document in the book, I think. To your point, listen to how Justice Gorsuch, a Trump appointee to the high court, ends the opinion. It's absolutely gorgeous. He writes,

in this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views, but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. He writes, abiding the Constitution's commitment to the freedom of speech means all will encounter ideas that are misguided or even hurtful. Consistent with the First Amendment, the nation's answer is tolerance, not coercion. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Colorado cannot deny that promise consistent with the First Amendment. That is beautiful. That's beautiful. And it used to be uncontroversial.

Yeah. And the other thing, Megan, that you're highlighting so well, but I think is important for your listeners is we should all imagine a government official we vehemently disagree with and then imagine them compelling us to give a message we disagree with. So that's the point you were making about this protects everyone. It doesn't protect one side or the other. And I hope everyone walks away from this decision and recognizes it reinforces the rights in the Constitution there from the founding to protect everyone's right to think differently than their government. Yeah, it's of course not the way it's being spun today. I'll just give you one example. People magazine's headline, SCOTUS sides with anti-LGBTQ web designer. She's anti, okay.

Slate, of course, a left-wing publication. The Supreme Court's blessing of anti-LGBTQ discrimination will haunt gay couples. PBS Supreme Court rules for Christian graphic designer who didn't want to work with gay couples. This will be misrepresented in pretty much all of the press other than, you know, Fox News and digital media. But this is why the book, if I can bring it back, is so important because the people's justice talks about how the criticisms that originalists favor the rich over the poor, the strong over the weak, the corporations over the consumers just isn't true.

And when you read the real stories of the cases, not the headlines, but the real stories of the 12 cases included in the book, you see firsthand that originalism actually favors more often the little guy, because that's honoring the will of the people or the will of the Constitution. And that's what you're pointing out here. It's often protects you from the government. Why? Because when the American people gave up and allowed the government to infringe on certain God given rights, it was a limited infringement that they allowed. And they retained the remainder of their rights, so much so that they put the Bill of Rights in place right away. That was a condition of the Constitution being approved,

was the Bill of Rights being there. And so when you honor those rights, you often honor the little guy against the government. It's a great, it's a very timely book because it, in essence, rehabilitates Justice Thomas, who required no rehabilitation to any of us who have been following his career and his jurisprudence. But he's been so demonized by the left. It was a great idea to do, especially from somebody like you with your credentials and the respect that you have in the legal community.

But it comes at a great time because he's really getting bashed right now, not only for his alleged they alleged these were improper gifts he took from donors. Not not true, not improper, but because of what they've been saying about him in the wake of the decision yesterday on affirmative action. And now in the wake of these, I bring to you which had in part Justice Thomas warring with Justice Sotomayor in the dissent and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in the dissent about what this would mean for minority communities. You point out in the book, Justice Thomas consistently, consistently in his opinions, whether they're the majority or the dissent, cites people like Frederick Douglass, Thomas Sowell, you know, brilliant legal black men who have sort of set the stage for his arguments. None of that matters to somebody like Joy Reid,

who's representative of many on the far left. Here's what she had to say in Sot 3. He, like Samuel Alito, appears to operate from a kind of rage, a sort of cold rage against the entire 20th century, the second half of the 20th century, which they find to be an affront to their own self-image and to their image of America as this country that is noble and that has always been noble and whose slave-holding founders were noble. He has been assisted by white patrons really his whole life. He seems to deeply resent all of the assistance he got and he wants to make sure that nobody like him ever gets that kind of help again because it helps his self-image so that he can lie to himself and fool himself and maybe hate himself a little less for having gotten

help all along his path to the Supreme Court. And it was only Black people's support in those polls that got wavering Democrats to vote for him. And he has repaid Black people with scorn ever since. A lot there. What do you make of it? Well, I would say I would point to the first chapter of the book and say the one thing I tell people is give the book to a critic and make them ask them to read it and then discuss it with them. The first chapter of the book talks about Suzette Kila's struggle to keep her home from a partnership with Pfizer and the city of New London. And I'm going to fast forward. The opinion reaches the Supreme Court and who the one justice

that takes the NAACP's invitation to return to the original meaning is Justice Thomas. And he's in dissent along with Justices Scalia, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor. And the reason he points out, among others, is that often eminent domain, the taking when the government takes it for it's supposed to be a public use, although, as he said, it was suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation. When they do that, they most often harm poor minorities. And in fact, in a predecessor case, 97% of the people that were displaced were black. And so he goes through and chapter by chapter, you're going to see, as you just pointed out, he often cites Frederick Douglass. He often cites Thomas Sowell as he did yesterday. And he has a little bit of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King in him combined. Yesterday, a little bit of

Martin Luther King. Sometimes it's a little bit of Malcolm X. I think the difference that people are missing is Justice Thomas. One of the things the book proves, and it's for ordinary people, is it proves that Justice Thomas has a strong black voice. It surprised even me. But what he has, and it comes from his upbringing, he was born dirt poor. His mom made $10 a week and couldn't afford to raise a young Clarence Thomas and his brother, so she gave him to their grandfather. And their grandfather ruled with an iron fist, but he also understood that education means emancipation, to quote Frederick Douglass and something Justice Thomas later quoted in the voucher case, the second chapter in the book. And he whenever Justice Thomas would complain to his grandfather, he'd say,

old man can't is dead. You know how I know I helped bury him. And I think you saw that in yesterday's opinion. His view was you could either choose victimhood. And if you chose victimhood, you'd use it as an excuse. Or you can show that you, too, deserve to get things done. And it's amazing because if you look at Chapter three, he predicts that Grutter will be used to segregate, resegregate America. Grutter was the case that upheld the use of race as a factor in college admissions. Keep going. Exactly. And he cites the stats yesterday. Forty three percent of colleges now offer segregated housing. Forty six percent offered segregated orientation programs and 72 percent sponsored segregated graduation ceremonies. He points out that HBCUs, he's been championing HBCUs since he

got on the bench, which is contrary to the narrative you'll hear out there. And he points out yesterday that HBCUs have produced 40% of all black engineers, 80% of black judges, 50% of black doctors, and 50% of black lawyers. Think about that. And Xavier, a historically black college, has had more success than Harvard at moving low-income students into the middle class. Wow, that's amazing. You point out, you mentioned the voucher case. It's another example of him fighting not just for the little guy, but of course, for students of color who get stuck in minority communities where the schools are not good and they can't get into a charter school or they can't get a voucher because of the teachers union. And he's been fighting for those kids, too, but he gets no credit for that from somebody like Joy Reid, who only wants to see racial preferences in the way that she understands that term enforced and promoted by Thomas. Yeah. And chapter two talks all about

that voucher program. And, you know, he points out that the affirmative action at the end of that case, he points out affirmative action is an unconstitutional bandaid in his mind on a much bigger problem that they're using the bandaid so they don't have to solve the bigger problem, which is failing schools that often fail poor and minority students. And if we fix that, those students would succeed. And the Zellman case is a perfect example that 25 buildings, school buildings in Cleveland had been condemned. And yet the students were still going there without toilet paper and soap. And they set up a voucher program, and it was challenged from the outset. And chapter two just details in gripping detail how that voucher program

goes all the way to the Supreme Court. And Justice Thomas is consistent in saying, look, this is what we need. We need to give people a chance. And we're trapping them in failing schools so they never have a chance. And the way what he calls the cognoscenti, meaning the elites, what they do is they put an unconstitutional bandaid on it by using affirmative action rather than setting people up for success. And he shows in the book shows how people like Warwick Dunn and Kathy McKee are amazing, black, amazing people who happen to be black and accomplish amazing things under the

hardest circumstances imaginable. So it proves that no matter your race, you can accomplish great things. And I think what people should step back and see is what Justice Thomas is really championing is the poor and the people that aren't given the tools to succeed. And he's trying his best. If you read The People's Justice, you'll see at every turn he's championing those people. And yet he is portrayed as the devil incarnate by the left. I mean, everyone's reaction to his dissents, whether it was in Dobbs overturning Roeing at the store at this her own story of how somebody had defended Justice Thomas to her as a good person. And she just openly scoffed at it as if it was impossible. And one of the things I love about the book is you get into who Justice Thomas is as a man to talk about when they honored him at Yale Law School. I've heard you tell that story and how he was Justice Sonia Sotomayor's comments about Justice Thomas. And, you know, this is his

polar opposite, I would say, on the high court pointing out what a good man this is. Yeah, it's her quote is amazing. I would say coming from her, it means a lot because she also cares passionately about people. And he says Justice Thomas is the one person in the building that knows everyone's name, that he cares deeply about the institution and people, the people in it. And I think you see that firsthand. He never forgets a person. In fact, the other day, Megan, there's this counterman case about truth true threats. And remember, Kathy McKee, if I just may for a minute, Kathy McKee wanted to sue Bill Cosby to write her name. And they said she couldn't because by suing him, she became a public figure and she had to prove actual malice, which Justice Thomas notes under New York Times versus Sullivan is almost impossible to prove. He then writes a separate opinion saying Kathy McKee should have this right. Two years later, he remembers Kathy McKee and he says by accusing a powerful man of rape, she was not given

the opportunity to sue. And just the other day in counterman in his dissent, he again cites Kathy McKee's case. So he never forgets the real people in front of the court. And when the book starts with an amazing story, and I don't know if I have time to tell it, but if I do, I'd love to tell a story about him, his interaction with the homeless person. Yeah, sure. Go ahead. He walks out of a daily mass with a few of his long law clerks and a homeless person comes running up to him and says, justice, justice, I have a petition for you, his law clerk's brace. And he waves them off and talks to him. And the man's animated. And when he comes back, the law clerks say, what's going on,

Justice? And he says to them, these are hard days for him. He then relays the story that the homeless man was addicted to drugs a few years ago, and Justice Thomas counseled him to get off drugs because his mom and him had had a falling out over his drug use. He got off drugs and reconciled with his mom and his mom had just passed away. These are the stories that aren't told. That's what the people's justice is for, to tell the character of Justice Thomas and show how the cases are different than everyone portrays them. And you read the facts alongside the litigants and see firsthand. The evidence is right there in the case law and what he's written, whether it was his majority opinion writer or as the dissenter. A couple of quick questions before. It's just too great an opportunity to have somebody like you here. We talk a lot on this show about how, you know, the left's diehard push for equity at all costs and woke ism is affecting law schools. You know,

what we saw at Yale Law School when we had a judge from the Third Circuit get shouted down, you know, just sort of this complete abandonment of core principles to students who want to see hate speech banned, notwithstanding the provisions of the First Amendment and so on. And we wrestle a lot on the show with whether the courts will be, you know, a bulwark, bulwark against that, whether they will stop that because the law will not allow these kinds of things or whether the law is slowly but surely surrendering to this agenda as these law students become lawyers and then judges. What do you think? You know, again, I work with colleagues, including all of my new nominee,

all the new nominees to our court, and I find them to be incredibly thoughtful, willing to discuss different ideas. I'm very hopeful for this country. Like Justice Thomas, I recognize that, quote unquote, what we call the elite schools aren't always the best schools at times. And you can look at Justice Thomas's hiring record. He proves that when he hires from a diverse set of schools because he doesn't want to listen to what the elitists say to him about who he should hire. And so he hires from the widest cross section of schools and hires people from schools that don't don't have these issues and they have thoughtful discussion and debate. I would say I've heard that after the incident at Stanford, even Stanford and the dean there should be commended. She's done a good job of stamping it out and saying, look, we are going to have these discussions. So I do think at a lot of these law schools, they might be the silent majority, but a lot of the professors are very intelligent and want to engage in this discussion.

That's why they went to teach, to tangle with intelligent students. And so hopefully incidents like that are going to cause law schools to reassess. And I do think Dean Martinez at Stanford should be commended for the steps she's taken to foster diversity of speech and allowing people to voice different views. And I hope that's going to be the message going forward. And I'm confident with deans like her, it will be. I've always tried to respect the Supreme Court because I understand even if I disagree with the justices jurisprudential approach, jurisprudential approach, I respect them. They're making pretty big sacrifices. You are too. You could be making millions if you were in private practice right now. You don't get paid

very much to sit on the federal bench. And that's very much true of every one of the nine justices sitting on the high court right now. It's not, unfortunately, the case for everybody. And I thought yesterday Joe Biden made an extraordinary remark when he was asked about this high court on his way out of his quick press conference reacting to the affirmative action case. Here's what he said. It's all legitimacy. Is this a rogue court? This is not a normal court. Not a normal court is how he described this particular court right now. I'm sure because it's a 6-3 court in favor of the conservatives.

But what do you make of that, I think, extraordinary comment by the president of the United States? Yeah, I mean, I don't want to get involved in politics, but the one thing I will say about the justices on the court is I know all of them other than Justice Jackson, who I also think the world of, but I know eight of them pretty well. And they're all amazing people just trying to do their job. And I hope the American people go past that and read their decisions. I mean, they spent 237 pages yesterday trying to explain their disagreements and talk about what they thought about affirmative action. And I thought it was really telling that the debate was pretty civil. And while it was heated in words at times, it still remained that way. And I think the court genuinely tries to get

it right. And I think what a lot of people don't point out is there are a lot of strange alignments at the court to the outside world, but to the rest of us, it makes sense because they're all working through the materials and trying to do their best. And I really think it's one of the great institutions because we can disagree without being disagreeable. And I hope the rest of the country will follow the court's lead in that regard. Well, it's exciting to think that, you know, potentially, if we got a Republican president next time around and somebody who you love and respect, like Clarence Thomas decided he would take that opportunity to step down, we could be seeing you subjected to those Senate

cross examinations and possibly as a future Supreme Court justice. Thank you so much for your service to the country and for this amazing special book. It's called The People's Justice, and it will give you the information you need to defend Clarence Thomas against these vicious critics who malign him without a thought for their own integrity or the truth of what they're saying. Thank you, Judge. Thank you for having me. All best. Okay, up next, Charles C.W. Cook on the bombshell rulings that came down this morning. I bet he's dancing right now at his desk over the student loan forgiveness decision. He's been railing about it from the start in a intellectual, smart, and sassy, for Charles, way. He's next. People think that the president of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness.

He does not. He can postpone, he can delay, but he does not have that power. That would, that's to be an act of Congress. She was absolutely right. And today the U.S. Supreme Court agreed. Welcome back to The Megyn Kelly Show. I'm joined now by Charles C.W. Cook, Charles, a senior writer for National Review and host of the Charles C.W. Cook podcast. Charles, are you dancing? Are you dancing? It's the high court agreed with you and Nancy Pelosi on this. Yeah, I was so nervous before the decision came down this morning, having spent the last year writing monomaniacally about this, that my Apple Watch actually asked me if I was okay, because my heart rate was so high.

I knew it. Yeah, I'm dancing. This is a huge deal for America. I have noted before that the student loan part of this is the detail the core of it is separation of powers and the question at hand was are those separation of powers going to stay intact and thank goodness today the court said yes they are they ruled six to three in an opinion written by the chief justice John Roberts, who's been busy. He wrote yesterday's or no.

Yeah. Yesterday's affirmative action opinion as well. Gorsuch wrote the case on on the the woman who designed the website. And they made clear I mean, it's funny. I had the same experience as you because first we saw the update saying on the one case, there's a pair of cases on the one case. They said there's no standing. These two plaintiffs can't bring this case.

And it was like, oh, don't because you see, Alito wrote it was like, oh, one case, they said, there's no standing. These two plaintiffs can't bring this case. And it was like, oh, don't, because you see, Alito wrote it. It was like, oh, that's promising. And then it said no standing. It was like, oh God, because they could have found no standing in the second case too, but they didn't. They decided to decide that case on the merits and said, he went too far. He doesn't have the power to do this. And maybe you can explain to the audience why. Why doesn't he have the power to just cancel student debt? So you played at the beginning of this segment that Nancy Pelosi clip. And there's two things that I think are really interesting about that Nancy Pelosi clip, which, by the way, made it into the majority opinion verbatim.

The first thing is how she says what she says. She is essentially what would be called if she were male, mansplaining this to the audience. She thinks they don't know this obvious truth. And she sounds almost exasperated. Now, of course, the president can't do that. How quickly the tone changes when she wants something. Then there's what she said. She is a legislator. She has been a legislator for a long time. She was a Speaker of the House for many years for the Democrats.

The U.S. Constitution vests all legislative power, not some, not in certain circumstances, all legislative power in Congress, in the House, and in the Senate. That includes everything to do with the budget, taxes, spending, borrowing, and so forth. Anything that the President of the united states does and his branch is article 2 not article 1 i should tell you something about the order of importance that's anything that the article 2 branch the executive branch the president does has to be explicitly authorized by congress he does not have any free floating powers when it comes to legislation

or budgeting. And Congress has not given him any power. It is very simple. Biden knew this. Nancy Pelosi knew this. The Department of Education, which looked into it in 2020 and 2021 knew this. Everyone knew this. This was self-evident. Congress has never voted to allow student loans to be forgiven. This went to the court. The court got past the standing issue, which was, I think, the only circumstance under which this could have been sent back. And they rightfully struck it down. And it should have been nine to nothing. If you believe, as I do, that the core of the American constitution is separation of powers, there's no way to disparage the rest of it,

the Bill of Rights, the Reconstruction Amendments, and so on, but the core of it, what separates us from every other country is separation of powers. This is a great day in American history. We didn't want a king. That was one of the main reasons. We fought a whole war and tried to establish our own independent union. We did not want an all-powerful executive at the

top of our government. And somebody should have told that to Barack Obama and to Joe Biden, who now twice in about 12 months or so has been rebuked by this court for acting like a king. Acting like a king and knowing he was acting like a king. I mean, at least former presidents have had the gall to hide it. I should say guile, not gall. Biden had gall in that he has said in other circumstances that this is illegal. If you go back to earlier Supreme Court cases on the eviction moratorium,

on the vaccine mandate under OSHA, he knew, he knew what he was doing was illegal and he did it anyway. And that was the case here. And, you know, I would go one step further than you did, Megan. It's not just that we didn't want a king, which of course we didn't. I say we now as an American citizen, despite my accent.

You're one of us. We didn't want a king like the British had, but the British also did not want the sort of king that Joe Biden was trying to be here. The founding fathers and the colonists who preceded them were in love with the glorious revolution of 1688-89 in England, which pushed power away from the king, especially when it comes to budgeting, which this falls under, and put it into parliament. We also, in Britain, I'm doing we for both now, we didn't want a king either, or at least we didn't want a dictator. So even the system that the American founders rejected would have said, no, the king does not have the authority to take this sort of action on his own. He didn't go through Congress on any of the two prior items you mentioned or this item because he couldn't get it passed.

He knew it. And so he just didn't end around the Constitution. And in some ways, I see today's decision on the free speech case with this web design web designer who didn't want to be forced to compel to have compelled speech in favor of gay marriage as the same. You've got a group of state legislators out in Colorado who, in advancing their woke, quote, inclusive equity based agenda, said to all of the businesses in their state, you must you must silence your own private beliefs about same sex marriage. And you must actually, if asked to support it, whether it's through baking a cake or taking photographs at a wedding or doing a wedding website for a same sex couple. You have no choice entirely forgetting the First Amendment. And here again, that overreach was struck down by a same sober Supreme Court reminding them

there is a constitution. There's Article one, there's Article two. And then on this case, there's the Bill of Rights. And then in number one is freedom of speech. Yes, and this was a freedom of speech case, as you say. It's being cast in the press this morning as a religious liberty case or a case about LGBT rights. It's really much broader than that. This is about compelled speech. It is simply not true, as I've seen some claim, that this has allowed private businesses to say, we will not serve a certain class of people. That's not true. This case involved a woman who said that she would quite happily serve anyone, gay, straight, Muslim,

Christian, atheist, or what you will, but that she did not want to use her creative talents to express certain viewpoints and certain ideas. And I think everyone should support that. This is not a left or right thing, or it shouldn't be. It's not a gay or straight thing, or it shouldn't be. It's not an atheist or Christian thing. It shouldn't be. That's fundamental within the American order. And it's telling, isn't it, that the criticisms of the cases that have come down over the last two or three days have not focused on the Constitution or the law, but the results. So now, today, we're told the Supreme Court took $10,000 away from people, not the Supreme Court upheld Article 1.

Let me just give an example of that, and then I'll let you finish your point. Chris Hayes of MSNBC, God damn it, this truly, truly sucks. Lots of very bad things this six to three majority has done. But them deciding you are now $10,000 poorer than you were yesterday is really a hell of a thing. Keep going. Well, look, that is a major network host in the United States who seems only to care about outcomes, who doesn't mention the law, who doesn't mention the controversy in the United States, who seems only to care about outcomes, who doesn't mention

the law, who doesn't mention the controversy in the case, and who also pretends that anyone who was involved in this had more or less money at any given point, when of course they didn't. Anyone who owes $10,000 owed it because they borrowed it and spent it and benefited from it. And Joe Biden never had the authority to change that, as we found out today. But I was going to say that, you know, that's the response you get on this one, not discussion of Article One, or the statute in question. Yesterday, with affirmative action, the responses have all been, look at this thing that might now happen

that I don't like, rather than the meaning of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. This morning, with the 303 case, well, what will happen to this person or that person? Not what does the First Amendment say? One of the great things about having a constitution as we do, and it doesn't always yield outcomes that I like, is that you know where you stand. The state of Colorado should have known that the First Amendment is in place and it applies to it. And if they want to change that, then they're going to have to repeal it. They can't just do whatever public policy they wanted to achieve. Anyway, the same is true with Joe Biden. If the Democratic Party wants to forgive student loans,

by which I mean transfer the liability for them to the people who didn't borrow them, then they can do that through Congress. I think it is a terrible, divisive idea, and that it would be politically disastrous and deserve to be. But if they want to do it, they can. They can introduce the bill into Congress tomorrow. They can convince enough people in there to pass it. Joe Biden can sign it and then implement it. Until that has happened, can't do it.

I've got to talk to you about two other MSNBCers because it's just extraordinary. Mehdi Hassan is another one. His tweet, 43 million Americans who were promised relief by an elected president just got screwed over by an unelected group of justices, half of whom were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote and benefited from a stolen seat. Yep, it's all totally fine. Nothing to see here. To your point, absolutely nothing about the law and actually what was required. Just mad, just mad that unelected judges applied the Constitution. Secondly, Nicole Wallace had an interview with Joe Biden yesterday, an extraordinary interview. And in the course of that interview, he, number one, a good thing, said he doesn't want to expand the court. He doesn't want to pack the court.

He says that will politicize it forever. Good. That's a good result. But number two, Charles, she did not ask him about Hunter Biden or the scandal swirling around the two of them at all. I mean, what a dereliction of journalistic duty. Yeah, this story, at the very least, warrants relentless investigation. I think you listened to the editor, so you may have heard me say this, but at this stage in the proceedings, we know more about this scandal than we did with Watergate at the same point in the scandal. I'm not saying they will end up the same. Perhaps there's an innocent explanation for

everything. But if you are a journalist, the red flags that we already have should warrant relentless investigation. And that includes on television. It is absolutely absurd that Nicole Wallace could not ask Joe Biden about this when she had him sitting there. And not just ask, but push back if he did what he likes to do, which is to say, I love my son and I'm proud of him, which is great. I'm glad he loves his son, genuinely. And if he's proud of him, that's great too. But it's not the question at hand.

We can assume that. That's a constant. Most people love their children. The question is whether or not anything untoward happened here. And I just do not, well, I was going to say, I do not understand why the press isn't digging into it. Of course, I understand why they're not digging into it. But I am as appalled by that as you. Yeah, it was a dereliction of duty. And it gives you a flavor for what's happening at MSNBC, those comments, and her sitting across from the president saying, just completely ignoring the a dereliction of duty and it gives you a flavor for what's happening at MSNBC. Those comments

and her sitting across from the president saying just completely ignoring the biggest story. Here's Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, her reaction. Justice Alito accepted tens of thousands of dollars in lavish vacation gifts from a billionaire who lobbied to cancel the student loan forgiveness. After the gifts, Alito voted to overturn. This SCOTUS's corruption undercuts its own legitimacy by putting its rulings up for sale. I mean, talk about gymnastics to try to tie two totally unrelated things together in order to further what the left might call a conspiracy theory.

Well, there's two big problems with what AOC says there. The first one is that the scandal that she's referring to is not a scandal and has been exposed as such, because in the report that was written about Alito's behavior, in I think it's paragraph 73, it points out that he was explicitly not obliged to report that trip or to turn it down. So she's pretending that there is a scandal where there is not. I think the bigger point, and this applies really to criticisms of other Supreme Court justices, is that it's not at all obvious, by which I mean it's invisible, what the post hoc ergo propter hoc is supposed to be here.

Can you find me an example in the last 10 years, 15 years, with Clarence Thomas, 30 years, of any of the justices who are being targeted writing opinions that are outside of the norm for them and their ideological priors. Clarence Thomas doesn't do it. Justice Alito doesn't do it. I can't think of an opinion that any of them have written where you've said, my goodness, that's very strange. Why did this person come down like this, let alone being able to track that back to a given individual or plaintiff? This is a scurrilous insinuation, and AOC should be ashamed of herself for advancing it. Lastly, the president just tweeted in response to these decisions, unthinkable, unthinkable. This fight isn't over. I'll have more to announce when I address the nation

this afternoon. So, okay. What does he plan on doing? I think in particular on student loan, quote, forgiveness, you're right, wealth transfer. They're not going to give up. We've been hearing a lot of that. We're not done. We're going to try again. So what do you see them doing? And is it likely to wind up back in front of the very same court they just failed in front of? Well, it needs to be over. The problem he's got is that even the more limited powers that the court confirmed that the president has under the Heroes Act have now expired because the emergency that was COVID has gone. The Heroes Act isn't some freestanding source of power. You have to invoke it with an emergency

and there isn't one. So unless he has some other concocted plan, then I suspect it'll either come to nothing or end up struck down again by the Supreme Court. Yeah, he's out of luck. And that pesky First Amendment isn't going anywhere either. Charles C.W. Cook, thank you. Great to see you. Thanks for having me. Much, much more ahead when

Kristen Wagoner of Alliance Defending Freedom joins us with the potential impact of this ruling, and it's big. Joining me now, Kristen Wagoner, CEO, President and General Counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, whose firm represented Lori Smith in the so-called 303 creative case we've been discussing this morning. They were handed a huge victory at the U.S. Supreme Court this morning, a decisive victory in a landmark case. Kristen, congratulations. Welcome back to the show. What did you make of the ruling? Oh, we are so delighted by it. It has been seven years that Lori has waited to have justice and to be able to speak freely and even longer for others who would be impacted by this decision. So we're thrilled about it. And we know that it is a broad victory that protects the speech rights of everyone, even those who may disagree with Lori or others on marriage. When you came on, and I recommend the episode to all of our listeners, it was at number

407, if you're searching our archives, with Lori. We talked about how there was the Colorado baker, right? Jack Phillips, the baker, who did not want to bake the cake for the gay wedding. And he won that case. You won that case at the Supreme Court seven to two. But then Colorado went on to cause all more problems for Jack Phillips despite his victory. And I was asking you, how are they able to do that? And how you know, how are we now still dealing with this issue? And you pointed out, well, that was a free exercise case. That was that was a case under a different provision of the Bill of Rights.

And this case involving Lori Smith and their web design is a pure free speech case. And it's a huge free speech victory. So discuss the significance of what the Supreme Court has just said about free speech in the First Amendment. The court said that it's wrong for the government to force someone to create expressive content that they object to, that simply the government can't misuse the law to try to compel someone to say something that they don't believe. And in the Jack Phillips case, which is referred to as the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, there was a free speech claim that was asserted because Jack's cakes aren't like the kind of cakes you might buy in a grocery store, but they're custom cakes, particularly his wedding cakes are all custom. They're designed to be unique and one of a kind, and they have inherently expressive

content in the message they send. And he designs other cakes as well that may have written words on them or symbols. So it's not that all cakes would be expressive content, but certainly most of Jack's would be. And the court, rather than address the free speech arguments in Jack's case, they focused on the free exercise arguments because Colorado had showed its hand in how hostile it was towards Jack's beliefs by comparing them to owners of slaves as well as perpetrators of the Holocaust in a hearing. They did that. So the court said, no, we've seen enough here. There's so much religious hostility.

It's clear he didn't get a fair shake. And now Colorado continues to pursue other people like Lori and suggest that their law can compel speech. And so Lori filed her case before Jack's was even decided in Colorado. Today is a resounding victory for free speech and the right of all artists, both Jack and Lori in creating expressive content. Now, with all due respect to Jack and Lori, I care more about the bigger picture of free speech, right? Because most of us don't bake cakes or do websites for

any couples, nevermind same sex. And when I read this order, I'm full of joy because I've talked to you before about some of the other cases you have. And the one that came to mind first was the battle ongoing right now in this country over things like preferred pronouns, where more and more employers and schools are being mandated to say the quote preferred pronouns of choice, or they're guilty of a hostile work environment, or they're guilty of harassment or some sort of discrimination against the people demanding we use their pronouns for themselves, not their biological pronouns, not scientific fact-based pronouns. That too is forced speech that goes against sometimes religious beliefs, but separate and apart from our religious beliefs, our biological scientific beliefs. And when I read when Colorado's

public accommodations law, meaning it's anti-discrimination law and the constitution collide, there can be no question which much must prevail. I think Kristen Wagoner is going to use that line among others in this decision to fight for those of us who don't want to be forced on the preferred pronouns nonsense. You're absolutely right. We have a number of cases where people have been fired for using a person's given name or the name they request, but declining to use their preferred pronouns, not using other pronouns, just simply not using a pronoun. They've been fired or disciplined for that. And so those cases are ongoing. And this decision is going to have a real impact and a decisive impact on them. And I would just encourage every American to

actually read the decision. It is a tour de force of our First Amendment law. It explains why we protect speech, even speech that we might dislike, and what the value of that speech gives us, the pluralism that we have, the strong republic that we have, the curve on government authority, and why those things are so important. So it's reaffirming law that was already in place, but it's applying it to our cultural moment, and that's critical. The high court in the majority opinion writes as follows. It is difficult to read the dissent in which the three liberal jurists joined together, Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson. It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at

the same case. Much of it focuses on the evolution of public accommodations laws and the strides gay Americans have made towards securing equal justice under law. And no doubt there is much to applaud here. But none of this answers the question we face today. Can a state force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead? How broad is this likely to go? I mean, will it go beyond companies like Lori's that provide, quote, expressive services? Because to me, that's one of the battles you faced was proving that that was speech. If you've got people actually speaking their mind, you know, in Again, when there is speech involved, the court has said you cannot compel it. That free speech is for everyone. It's for the LGBT website designer, the Democrat speechwriter, the pro-abortion photographer. what we believe without having to fear that the government's going to impose jail time on us, which some of these laws actually do have jail time in them. And again, I would just reaffirm the court literally explicitly says tolerance, not coercion is the path that this nation has chosen

and that we need to remain on. So it's a great victory for free speech. And I think it's been maligned by some in the media and misrepresented public accommodation laws and non-discrimination principles continue to exist and apply peacefully and coexist with the First Amendment. And that was the court's ruling today. I mean, they the people writing about this already and even the majority opinion points out the dissent suggests this is actually a newfound upholding of separate but equal. It's not true. Lori Smith is not refusing service to people who are part of the LGBTQ community. They can come in and have her design any website for them, and she'll do it willingly. Just not one that conflicts with her religious beliefs. And she can't be compelled to say

she supports same-sex marriage when she doesn't. But of course, it's an intentional decision to be obtuse about this. Well, and it is disappointing and disingenuous. Again, as the majority points out, the dissent basically is litigating a completely different case. And what's important about this case too

is that the facts are agreed to by Colorado. It's not in dispute whether Lori serves everyone. In fact, Lori has clients who identify as LGBT and she's never designed a website or created a message that violated her beliefs, whether those are beliefs about not disparaging people, whether they're political beliefs or other beliefs. So certainly marriage is something that she believes is a sacred union between a man and a woman, and she's not going to betray that conviction. But there are also other messages she won't express. And it doesn't matter who requests those messages. I read some of these earlier with Judge Thapar, but just a sampling. You've got People magazine saying SCOTUS decides with anti-LGBTQ web designer. You've got PBS saying Supreme Court rules for Christian graphic designer who did not want to

work with gay couples and so on. Lots of spin like that, like she didn't like gay couples. Meanwhile, on my timeline, Kristen, on Twitter, I've got lots of gay and lesbian followers on my Twitter account saying this is a ruling in favor of us all. They don't want to be forced to do something that would speak against gay marriage. Well, think about, you know, whether it's abolition or it's women's rights, women's voting rights or the 1964 Civil Rights Act, all of those things, that social progress that took place, took place because we all had the right to speak freely. And those who advocated for same-sex marriage had the right to advocate for it and to see whether to make it popular or unpopular. What today's orthodoxies are can be

tomorrow's heresies. And that's the beauty of the First Amendment. This case is about whether the government has the raw power to tell us what to think and what to say. And thankfully, our Supreme Court stood in the way of that and said, no, we are sticking with the First Amendment. But what's so interesting about it is this was a situation in which a Colorado anti-discrimination law, public accommodation law, saying it's basically you can't deny service to blacks, gays, women, whoever you want, which is a good law in principle. But whether this anti-discrimination law, when it clashes with the First Amendment rights of an individual, which one will will rule, which one will take precedence? And here the court said it's going to have to be the Constitution. You cannot compel someone to say something they don't believe. That's again, I refer to the preferred pronoun thing.

That's what's being mandated of us in the workplace setting and elsewhere. And I know you've got cases along those lines, which you just referenced. So is this really going to be a game changer or is there a distinction that is going to be exploited by the other side to say, no, this case is different because it involves public accommodations? There isn't a distinction. It's about whether the government has the power to force someone to say something they don't believe.

And so whether that falls under public accommodation law or some other policy, the court gave a resounding answer today that the government does not have the power to do that. We know all the way dating back to the founders, all the way forward to all the precedent in the First Amendment, that the first thing that those who are in power try to do is to censor individuals. It's to assert that power by removing the free speech rights that we have. And we see that abroad and have seen efforts in the United States. So again, this is an effort that we should all applaud and a decision that we should rejoice in because it ensures that we all have the right to be able to debate ideas and to explore truth.

And that's how social progress results is from having this debate and entering the marketplace. Does it change if somebody, you know, workplace harassment laws or what have you, they tend to be state statutes, but does it change if the litigants in the next proceeding say, under the Equal Protection Clause, we're entitled to be spoken to in a way that's not harassing and diminishing and discriminatory. So now you've got a constitutional right versus a constitutional right. You know, let's go 14th Amendment versus First Amendment. It's not a Colorado state law. It's Constitution versus Constitution. You know, we do have the right not to be harassed clause of the Constitution. And in applying the free speech clause, it applies to whether the government can force you to do something or say something, essentially, whether the government can force you to say something. So, you know, harassment and that would would not it's not protected speech, you would say, in the workplace. But it also I mean, we have to think of the court's recent decision this last term as well on what mens rea is necessary in certain laws and things like that. But no, no, no, because it would be because like in places like New York, they've outlawed the term illegal alien. You're not allowed to say that. They've also said that

it's workplace harassment to not use, like the government of New York has said it's workplace harassment to not use preferred pronouns. So now we're getting into not just, you know, a state provision necessarily, but invocation of constitutional rights. Okay, now I'm tracking with you, because I thought what you were suggesting is that a private individual who might have a view on marriage, you know, would that be harassment in the workplace? But what you're saying is whether the government can pass a law compelling pronouns and suggest that it is harassment. And I think this decision applies to that. It applies to the government's actions to mislabel or to relabel speech as discrimination. The government cannot relabel speech as discrimination and then censor it. So it would apply in that context.

That's what this is so huge. This is so huge to the point you just made the leftist winning all of these wars politically and culturally by controlling our language. And now you've got the big behemoth of the U.S. Supreme Court saying legally, you can't do that. You will not force people to comply with your chosen words. Otherwise, you'll deal with us. Yes. And it's something that we need to continue to be vigilant about and make sure that the lower courts who sometimes are obstinate will continue to enforce the rule that the Supreme Court has laid out. Or actually, it's not a new rule. It's reaffirming the time tested tradition. I mean, it's such a novel concept that Justice Sotomayor would suggest somehow that it's OK to compel speech.

The court has never done that in the history of the United States. That would be brand new. And so we need to be vigilant about protecting speech. We still have to show up and defend these cases. But now we have a tremendous decision to do that with. I'm so excited about that. This is like, it's such a reaffirmation of the fundamental principles that this country was founded on. I'm going to be celebrating this on July 4th. I am going to be celebrating your ruling and alliance defending freedom and Lori Smith, Lori Smith, who is not this person of privilege. She came on the show. She talked about how her mom starting a small business inspired her to try it, but she was, she knew she was in the face of this law that was going to conflict with her business. Here's a little for the audience who

didn't get to meet her of Lori. you guys came on again in episode 407. Yes, I work with people from all walks of life and I currently have clients who identify as LGBT. So my case has always been and always will be about the message that I'm being asked to pour my time and my talents into promoting. It's never about the individual. It's never about the individual.

It's always about the message. I mean, I love it. And I'm sure, have you spoken with her? Is she thrilled? Oh, I'm with her. Yeah. She's here in DC because we knew it when she, I mean, she's not here right now, but we knew it was coming out this week. And so we've been together and it's just been a really candidly and emotional day for us all to see this victory and to know what she's gone through. It's a great day today, but you've got seven years of really horrible things happening, being doxxed with your home address, having death threats along the way. And yet she has been tenacious and persistent to stand not just for herself, but for all

of us one person can make a difference this case you bet huge it's huge and by the way i've never actually looked at i'm sure i should know the answer to this but do you guys rely on donations to find can we can we donate to you how can we support alliance defending freedom which is at the pointy end of the spear on this case and so many other important ones. Well, all of our work is pro bono, meaning it's free of charge to our clients. So we would welcome any help. And we will be litigating this decision across the country to ensure that, again, the lower courts and government officials protect the right of free speech, even if they don't want to.

God bless you. All our best to you and to Lori, too. Please pass along our congratulations. Thank you. All our best to you and to Lori, too. Thank you. Please pass along our congratulations. Thank you. It's just so great to finally have a sane Supreme Court doing the right thing, isn't it? It's just great to have those principles that we grew up understanding were a fundamental right of ours as American citizens, as humans, and then protected by our government would be there for us. And it's maddening when you see them eroded bit by bit by lower courts or by the left and crazy legislation. And now we have a whopper of a Supreme Court opinion, six to three saying, no, no, this

ends now. It's huge. Up next, very excited to meet and introduce you to a couple of ladies who go by chicks on the right. And we'll talk about Dylan Mulvaney reopening the fight with Bud Light and how they're now responding. Oh, well, we've got to address another big story in the news today. Dylan Mulvaney breaking his silence for the first time on the Bud Light controversy. To tackle that issue and many more,

I am joined now for the first time by the Chicks on the Right. Love that name. The Chicks are duo Miriam Weaver and Amy Jo Clark, also known to their audience by their nicknames Macarena, love that, and Daisy. Welcome to the show, Miriam and Amy Jo. So nice to meet you. It's great to be here. Great to be here. And what a day. What a day for chicks on the right. Everywhere. Fantastic. I mean, you got to say a day for you. We just saw you celebrating and we're right there with you. Right. We're rooting in the background. I'm so proud of the Supreme Court. And I have to say, I am so grateful to Donald Trump. I am hugely grateful to Donald Trump. He he's responsible for three of those justices who have been part of that six person majority over the past couple of days. And you got to anticipate this becoming

an issue on the campaign trail and a feather in his cap. But this is what I mean. Elections matter. They really do have consequences. Amen to that. Yeah, absolutely. Although you could the flip side of that is that there will be a lot of anger towards him from the left. I mean, they're going to think this is exactly why he shouldn't be president again. And so it always goes both ways. Well, yes, exactly. Because look at what's been happening to the Republicans in the wake of Dobbs. They've been losing. You know, Dobbs was held against them to some extent, at least in the midterms when they did more poorly in the House than expected and they lost the Senate where it was potentially on the table. So, yeah, there could be backlash to this. I don't know. I don't think it's going to because

affirmative action. America's against it. Minority groups are against it. Democrats are against it. If you look at the polling, even Democrats are against it. So I don't think it's going to have the kind of backlash that Dobbs did. And today's opinions, I mean, it's basically upholding free speech and striking down the student law. It was like the young people. OK, I guess they might get mad that it was struck down, but they're not the hugest voting bloc anyway. Am I wrong? They're a big one. I mean, the student student loan thing, they were losing their minds like the young people, although we did see a lot of people like when we started our site back in what, 2009, Miriam, was it 2009? Like it was 2008 was around the time that Obama mania hit. And that's when we saw a lot of young people come out to the polls. And we were like, what is going on? And listen, young people are a force.

And so with the student loan thing, it is a little bit of a concern because, I mean, this is as common will call them the idiots. Right. These are the well, these are the stupid. Well, the other thing is, there's not a group within the Democratic Party that hates Joe Biden more. The young people want him gone, desperately want a different. I think he's only got 20 percent support for him being the nominee. And so this could be exploited by the Democrats to try to get them reanimated to get out there and support the old man. They do like the free stuff though, Megan. They like the free stuff. That's the thing. I mean, who doesn't? But then there's the pesky matter of the Constitution. This is so annoying. That's right. Absolutely. I know. I'm so excited because it's just I've lived long enough with the Supreme Court to just learn to be disappointed or just learn that the victories are going to be just eked through. not a strong six to three ruling that is sweeping and clear. It's just it's the dawn of a new day. OK, let's talk about. I would like to ask you, though, Megan, if I could, because you're an attorney.

And so I'm curious because I was listening to your prior guests and I'm curious this Michigan law that the House just passed in Michigan saying you can go to jail with a felony and pay a ten thousand dollar fine. If you misgender someone. Will this impact that? Because it seems like it should. Yeah, it should. That's what I was trying to get at with Kristen. You know, what will all these state laws trying to basically contradict the Constitution? Are they in jeopardy now? And yes, I mean, there's the U.S. Constitution reigns supreme where there's a conflict. The U.S. Constitution reigns supreme. Where there's a conflict, the U.S. Constitution reigns supreme. And so everything's in jeopardy. It's on. This is going to lead to a whole slew of cases and litigation. And with this six three majority

not going anywhere, I think we're going to get a lot of rulings we like. You know, the Supreme Court issued that that case not long ago. Gorsuch joined with the liberals saying you don't have the right to discriminate against trans people in the hiring decisions in the workplace. That's, I think, the right ruling. I get that. You know, you don't want to say you can't have a job because you're confused about your gender. But this forced speech is something totally different. And so while this case didn't deal with that issue, it set the stage for that issue to go the right way. Yeah, beautifully, just beautifully, especially when they keep changing the rules on semantics. I think that you guys hit it on the head in that last segment when they keep changing the rules on speech and semantics. And, you know, liberals are known for doing that. And, you know, we're we're told different things about speech every day and they change that. And then they're like, OK, now we're going to tell you what you can and cannot say based on the rules that we've changed on semantics and it's like what every day the rule book is different and it makes it so confusing for people we talked yesterday about that lgbtq advocacy group that wants to change vagina into bonus hole right no what like what court in the land is gonna uphold

that exactly well i mean this, things are so crazy now, but I saw that yesterday and I was like, absolutely not. I mean, I think I said other words that I can't say probably on the air, but I actually tweeted those words. Did you?

Good for you. It's insane what is happening. I always joke because we have our panel of Carrie and Britt who are, they founded the Battle Cry. They fight all these battles

and this is what they would have to say. It's a no. It's a no. It's a no. It's a hard no. Hard no. Yeah. Yeah. I think I would have said an F no.

This is madness what we're seeing. And they're trying to erase women, which is precisely what I feel like a lot of the transgender movement is, is the erasure of women and girls. And I think even, you know, a lot of gay people are starting to speak out against it because of that. Oh, yeah. I was talking to two gay men last night who are fans of the show,

and I bumped into them at dinner. We were talking about how angry they are at the, basically the conversion therapy that these trans activists are trying to do on little gay boys, who if they would just leave them alone would be up to would grow up to be gay men and not trans and yet they're trying to make them into women fake women right and so many gay people don't want to be lumped in with the the t part of the lgbtq whatever like all the letters there they don't want to be lumped in with that because some of those people and we saw it with pride and all the parades and all of that, all the danglies that nobody needs a lot. I mean, you know, they don't want to be associated with that.

They just want to live normal lives and not be looked at like complete freaks, which is what always represents the Rainbow Brigade, the Alphabet Brigade in those pride parades. It's true. You look and you think, what are you pride? What are you pride prideful about because i'm proud of that proud of that the naked men in front of the young children and that brings me to dylan mulvaney um i'm offended by this post she he refers to himself as a woman like just not even a trans woman anymore okay whatever um and dylan mulvaney interestingly has finally spoken out about the Bud Light controversy and points out in this. I'm not going to play the whole video is long, but points out in the beginning. I was very rattled. I intentionally didn't say anything, but puts the lie single tear, but puts the lie to what Bud Light wanted us to believe, which was, you know, through leaks, they were basically saying this wasn't a partnership. It was just some low, low level minion who sent one can of beer to Dylan, not sanctioned. But now we know they've fired that woman in marketing, Alyssa. They fired her boss, the head of marketing. So it sounds like it was more than a low level minion who acted rogue. And Dylan Mulvaney is apparently confirming that in a bizarre post. Take a listen to part of it.

I took a brand deal with a company that I loved and I posted a sponsored video to my page. And it must have been a slow news week because the way that this ad got blown up, you would have thought I was like on a billboard or on a TV commercial or something major. But no, it was just an Instagram video. What transpired from that video was more bullying and transphobia than I could have ever imagined. And I was waiting for the brand to reach out to me, but they never did. And for months now, I've been scared to leave my house. I have been ridiculed in public. I've been followed. And I have felt a loneliness that I wouldn't wish on anyone for a company to hire a trans person and then not publicly stand by them is worse, in my opinion, than not hiring a trans person at all.

So Dylan is the victim and we should feel sorry for Dylan. But isn't it indicative, though, of what companies do during Pride Month, too, is that they, you know, they latch on to this notion of like the rainbow and pride and everything. And then on July 1st, it all goes away. I mean, they're basically using all these people, right, to make money. So, I mean, he's shocked that that they weren't holding his hand and like being as BFF. And then, you know, I just I find this it's just very it's very telling of just the whole the whole movement in general and how these corporations will use these people to make money. I mean, this is it's like welcome to corporate America, sweetheart cowards. He's not wrong about that. They were complete cowards with respect to Dylan, with respect to the rest of us who have been complaining. They've been trying to skirt this middle line, Miriam, which has been a fail.

We all see it's a fail. That's why we remain angry. Well, there are not enough eye rolls, first of all, for that video. I mean, it was just nauseating to watch it. I love that you refer to him as him. I wonder how much longer you're going to be on YouTube as a result of that. Forever. They are not going to censor me. But the thing about it is the CEO of Anheuser-Busch has been such a weenie about this whole issue.

And so in trying to be woke and sending the can and getting this advertising deal, which we now know was a sponsored deal, it wasn't just Dylan making an Instagram video. This was a sponsored deal. Now he's coming out and he's being so wishy-washy and trying to say, well, we just sell beer to everybody and we just really care about our employees and not even addressing the fact that Dylan has called them out for not reaching out, which they didn't have to reach out to him. I mean, they sent the can and that could have been the end of it. But this is what happens when companies go woke. Now everyone is mad at them because now Dylan has made his fans all mad at Anheuser-Busch, the LGBTQ, whatever community is mad. All the right wingers are mad. Everybody's mad. And so I suspect that now this is now that Dylan has released that video, we're going

to see another tumble in the stock of Bud Light. And they deserve it. I want to know more. He says, I took a brand deal, a sponsorship. What exactly happened? Did you get some sort of money for promoting Bud Light in those posts? And if so, were laws complied with? Some of my audience has pointed out when you're marketing liquor, there are all sorts

of restrictions on you as a promoter, a marketer or an advertiser. And I'm sure he didn't comply with any of them. So let's find out. Like now that he's admitted this was a partnership, a brand deal and a sponsorship, what did he get out of it? And were laws complied with this Anheuser-Busch CEO? I'm sorry. I know he's a former Navy SEAL, but he's no Rob O'Neill. OK, he's he is not my idea of the nation's best and brightest. He says their response at the company in response to Dylan, this latest hit, is that Anheuser-Busch is committed to the programs and partnerships we have forged over the decades with organizations across a number of communities, including those in the LGBTQ plus community. That's it. They don't mention Mulvaney. They just say they're committed to their partnerships, including those in the LG. They're so pathetic and weak. Take a damn position. Are you sorry? Are you not? Whose side are you on? How do you feel? I would love to get this guy in my in my clutches so I could just put it to him. Like, give me a damn answer, sir. Yeah, I bet that I gosh, I bet the seals like hate that he's a seal. I know now that seals are all about.

They've got balls. They're known for their ginormous balls. I know. Yikes. I don't know what happened with Brandon. OK, let's talk about a couple of other things that are in the news. Hunter Biden sits down for an interview with Nicole Wallace, not Hunter Biden, Joe Biden. Joe Biden sits down with Nicole Wallace. And in the course of the 20 minute exchange, she doesn't raise anything

about Hunter Biden or the scandal. And one of the pieces of the Hunter Biden scandal, I know that you guys have been covering, is Hunter Biden's love child that Joe Biden, and while everybody in the press lectures us about his fathership and he's just a loving father and really this is just you know a story about father and son want to ignore the love child hunter won't let the girl have his last name jill and joe don't refer to this girl and he didn't want to acknowledge paternity or pay anything for this girl so what do you make of it it's awful i mean i think he he gave her he offered the mom and I think she took it, which we don't understand why she did this. But he offered her one of his paintings, one of his blow art paintings or something.

And she took that. I would have been like, yeah, I would have been like, I think I'll take the cash. Thanks very much. If you think you can sell one of these awful things. But, yeah, she took one of those. I feel so sorry for this little girl because the mom wanted to take things. But yes, she took one of those. I feel so sorry for this little girl because the mom wanted to take the Biden name, which I can sort of understand if you want to get the notoriety for the name. But at the same time, that little girl's

grandfather is the president of the United States. Right. Exactly. But I mean, I guess. But honestly, let's get real. She's probably better off just not being any part of that family, don't you think? I don't know. I feel like she probably is not going to have a lot of advantages with her single mom, who's a stripper, who got pregnant out of wedlock with Hunter Biden, who's a hot mess of a man. I mean, it's like not looking all that promising. But being part of that family, I mean, being a child or a grandchild in that family, I feel like none of those children have fared very well either. I mean, they've not really made much of themselves if you're a child, a Biden child either.

It's also very suspicious that this deal happened because it seemed like that mom of Navy was so, we were cheering her on because she was so aggressively going after Hunter and going after him when he tried to lower the child support. And she was all about going and getting full discovery of, you know, show me what you make then and where you get your money. And so we were we were on our show just absolutely cheering her on. And so then all of a sudden for her to now be basically agreeing to a huge cut

in the monthly child support and not be allowed to take the name for her daughter. It just feels very sketch. Yeah. Like something happened. Like what happened to her? Like was somebody saying something to her or were they strong? We just we feel like there's something more there that we don't know. You never know with the Biden family. I mean, his detractors call it the Biden crime family, given all the allegations that have been thrown. We just we don't know. And hopefully we will. But we don't know yet. Let's talk about what's happening with respect to women's rights and the trans community beyond Dylan Mulvaney. We touched on this the other day, but it's now in the Daily Mail and it's getting more attention over in the UK. A teenage boy has reportedly been arrested over allegations that female pupils were sexually

assaulted in gender neutral toilets. Now, this to me is very interesting because some have said, OK, if you don't if you're a restaurant or you're a school or YMCA and you don't want to have to have, you know, male and female locker rooms or male and female bathrooms because you're going to get the trans people using the one that they align with under these laws that require that. Maybe you just do gender neutral. You know, there's one bathroom. Everybody uses it like on the airplane, you know, just duck, you know, which, by the way, I object to you go in there. The urine is everywhere. It's like you step on it like on the floor, the pee that's on the floor of the bat that is from the men that is not from the women like it's got its own problems okay unless there's turbulence megan unless there's shaking

that's true the shaking well it could be the squatters i'm totally against the female squatters to just clean up the seat and put your bottom down on it. Otherwise, you're hashtag part of the problem. Anyway, on a more serious note, they tried to do this over in the UK in this school said, OK, we'll just have a gender neutral bathroom where everybody can go. And that is where a quote for a quote, serious sexual assaults took place in these unisex toilets that can be used by both the girls and the boys. So this is not the future. And this will be buried because the mainstream press doesn't want us talking about stories like this. If only someone could have predicted this. Right. If only. Who saw this happening? You know, like we we interviewed Riley Gaines a couple of months ago. And, you know, one of the riley gains um a couple months ago and i you know

one of the things that stood out to me just about that whole debacle with her and um you know with leah thomas is when she was in the locker room with with him is that there were what 34 girls on the team and i what stood out to me the most was that there was nobody else that spoke out but her. And 34 girls on the team, I think there were more than 34 girls on the team, but she said that there were at least 34 that agreed with her. And I thought to myself, okay, so there's 34 girls. That means there are 68 parents that obviously agreed with those girls that had to be mad that there was a biological boy in the locker room with those girls. If as a parent, I have a swimmer, a state level swimmer. She's 13. And I have discussions with my husband a lot about this.

And I always say, what are we prepared to do if this happens to our daughter. And I can guarantee you, I will not sit by just because I'm afraid that somebody is going to call me a name or that I'm afraid that my daughter is not going to be able to get a job because she spoke out. Because, I mean, that's that's the reason that all of this is taking off so much. And we've all been silenced is because people are wusses. Say, you know, it's because they're afraid. Interesting point, because Riley Gaines, she didn't. She's a hero. Don't get me wrong. It took her a couple of weeks to find her voice and actually speak out about what had happened to her.

But she did. And now one of the other girls is speaking out to over with Matt Walsh at the Daily Wire. But the others are nowhere to be found. You know, you're raising a good point. Like all this time after. Where where's her army? You know, you're raising a good point. Like all this time after, where's her army? You know, we're part of her army, but where are her fellow women who had standing to object like in a court of law?

They're just letting her take all the slings and arrows. They're afraid. They're afraid of getting canceled. And I think parents are too. Parents are afraid of standing up for their children because they're afraid of getting canceled in their workplaces. They're afraid of standing up for their children because they're afraid of getting canceled in their workplaces. They're afraid of being called transphobic. They're afraid, Megan.

So, I mean, that's I think that we just have to stop being so afraid because of this small minority that has they just they feel like they have such a stronghold on the culture now because they're like, we're in charge now. Like we get to say, because if you say anything against us, we will cancel you. We will call you all the names. We will cancel you or make sure that you lose your jobs. You lose your standing in the community. And people feel I mean, they feel as though that will actually happen. And they just won't stand up. They won't stand up for their children, which is just astounding for me.

I just can't believe that that's happening. But it's kind of like these Supreme courses today with Lori Smith. I mean, and like your previous guest talked about it can one person. You said it. One person can make such a difference. And you're starting to see the trickle effect right from Riley speaking out. There's other athletes that are starting to come and speak out. And we encourage

it every day on our show. We're always saying to our audience, please, if this matters to you, don't be quiet. You have to use your voice. Because I think it, as soon as one person speaks out, they're no longer, people out there who have been quiet no longer feel alone.

And then they feel like, okay, well, if she can say it, then I can too. And then it creates a groundswell. That's the only way to get the point across. Call Alliance Defending Freedom. Yeah. Yeah. That's literally the reason that we started our website. That's literally the, that is the, the, the nucleus for us. That's the, that's the nucleus for Chicks on the Right. I mean, we have this little, this little group of, you know, misfits where we're like, we, we started speaking out and then people started going, okay, well, these are just two best friends who started talking about this stuff. And, you know, they are, they, they

speak for me. I, they're saying all the things that I want to say, but I don't really want to say out loud. And so we do that. And I think that's one of the reasons that we appeal to people is because, um, you know, we, we say the things and we do it in kind of a funny way. Because you also have the Navy SEAL balls. This is what we do on our show. We just kind of hold up our hands and say, you got to have balls. Right. Hold them up. Squeeze them a little bit. We do that. So another another motivating factor is what's happening to the women in the prisons. And just because they committed a crime and went to prison doesn't mean they don't deserve our help because they're being molested and raped and abused by men, by men who tend to be the violent criminals.

They just do. And so this latest case is, of course, out of California, because that's where they all are happening, because that's the state that's sending the men into the women's prisons in droves. And the latest case has to do with a man named David Warfield who changed his name to Dana Rivers. He's 68. So this is a man who was a union leader for the American Federation of Teachers, Randy Weingarten's organization. He was a teacher out in Antelope, California, and wound up getting fired. Then they settled out of court and he agreed to resign and receive a big settlement. He went on to murder a 57-year-old woman named Patricia Wright, her wife, Charlotte Reed, and their 19-year-old son, Benny. So this man, who went as a woman, commits this hideous murder. They say that they found their bodies riddled with bullets and stab wounds. Charlotte Reed, the wife, had over 40 stab wounds

on her body. The son, Benny, 19 years old, had been shot to death. And when police arrived at the home, they found the man, Rivers, drenched in their blood, running from the doorway of the house to an awaiting motorcycle where he was found with knives, ammunition, and a set of metal knuckles. Charged with three counts of murder, arson, and so on. Pleaded not guilty, goes to jail. Nobody was persuaded that he didn't do it, I guess. I'm not sure exactly. Yeah, he was sentenced to 33 years. The judge called it the most depraved crime I've ever handled.

The most depraved crime I've ever handled. Well, of course, this month, he was transferred from the men's prison to the California Women's Facility. And Gavin Newsom approves of this. The ability for him to go was thanks to this California Transgender Respect Agency and Dignity Act. And it was co-sponsored by, wait for it, Scott Weiner, the same guy who was pushing this legislation to make parents who don't affirm seen as a criminal abusers in the eyes of the law.

What do you make of it? It's just vile and it's and it's predictable. I mean, that's what's so aggravating, I think, about all of these situations that we hear about. Everyone that is against moving biological men into a women's prison, every single one of us who stands up and says, hey, that might cause a problem and here's what it might cause. It's like we're completely ignored because we have to protect the feelings of this crazy person who doesn't even know what gender he wants to be. Or he's just a sexual deviant who wants to have an opportunity to hurt more women. I mean, this is so predictable and I don't understand why we have to cater

to the feelings of this tiny minority of people when it puts so many others at risk. Yep. One third, one third of male inmates who have requested transfers into the women's prisons since that California law passed are registered sex offenders. Oh my gosh.

And can, I mean, can they not see it's so evident? Like that's exactly what they're doing. They don't care. And yet people like Gavin Newsom and the left want to tell us they're pro women. They're the ones fighting misogyny. And for the, you know, the rights of equity of what women, what the equal right to be raped while you're behind bars and you can't get out. What? We don't want that. Right. It's a bunch of crap. It's just a bunch of crap. It's infuriating. How can they not see it? That's it's just right there in front of your eyes. Well, it's like Riley told us about Leah Thomas, that clearly with Leah, it is a sexual fetish. Yes. He actually gets off on being around

those women and making them uncomfortable. And so this is it's so common. And the fact that there's people who are so hell bent on protecting the deviance is hugely problematic. And it baffles me that we continue to make these mistakes over and over again with obvious consequences and again i don't understand where like if that is the case if that actually happened if they saw that this guy was getting turned on in a locker room with a bunch of girls where where are the freaking parents i have to tell you i i know i'm older and you know i'm in my forgive me my f at So, like, I'll say anything now. But if I saw Leah Thomas sitting there with an erect penis in his women's bathing suit in my locker room, I'd go over there. I'd be like, you get that thing out of here.

Get out of here. You put that thing down and you get out. Yeah. And can you imagine if you saw him with one of your girls? Oh, no. I mean. or what would your husband do? Because I know what my husband would do. I know. I shudder to think. Well, here's my question for you. Let me end it on a politics note because we have a couple of minutes left. I'm curious as to what you ladies think about the GOP race and who you like, because, you know, I know so many people love Trump.

He was the president that obviously gives him a huge advantage. He's pacing outpacing DeSantis by between 30 and 40 points in most of these polls. But on this issue, DeSantis so far seems like he's to the right of Trump. He's come out very clearly and said a man can't become a woman. This is nonsense. And I'm going to shut this stuff down. Trump has not yet said any of that. So and I know that's not the only issue, but where are you guys floating right now on the politics race? Mom, you can start. Well, I was a DeSantis girl well before he even declared that he was running for his second term as governor. But I will say at this point, because I, like you, Megan, I'm very angry at him for not coming on our show. So and I'm losing my patience with that. And so I at this point, I he's still I

think from a policy perspective, he's still my favorite, although I have huge, awesome regard for many of the other candidates in the field. And so at this point, I just want anyone but Biden. I'm sort of a never Biden person at this point. And so whoever ends up winning the nomination, even if that's Trump, who is not my favorite, I'm going to get behind him because we have to get Biden out of office. Yeah, that's kind of where I was to be the angry suburban Republican women who hate Trump. But he could still get your he could still get you. Yes. Yeah. Yeah, he could, because I exactly I just don't want to a commie and off. I don't ask for a lot. Right. I really feel like that's not asking for a lot. I just don't want this this country to be on the road to socialism and like just put under. I just want to make sure my kids have a decent country to live in in the next, you know, 20 to 30 years. So for me, I think same thing. I just I feel like, you know, DeSantis is great. I think Vivek is awesome. He I mean, he gave us the time of day. We're nobodies.

And so he actually sat and talked with us at CPAC. And I think that that is a really lovely thing for him to do. He will talk to anybody. And I really like that. You know, DeSantis is great. I just I would like to see them all debate. That's one thing I would like to see Trump do. I've heard him talking about not debating. And I really think that that is not in his best interest. He should get up there and debate with the rest of them. If that's something that he's not thinking about doing, he should do that. All of them should. It's their responsibility to get up there and show us what they got. So what do you hear from your friends? Are they like are you know, you're in the middle of America. You're talking to these other women. Are they open minded now to Republicans, to Trump?

You know, DeSantis, I think, is generally acceptable to most Republicans. But has there been a shift given the radicalism of this administration? It's interesting, you know, from a friend and just like personal relationship standpoint, I I hear mostly from people who are like minded and they don't want Trump to be the nominee, even though that looks really, really likely. But in our audience, they have a huge audience of Trump, like loyal Trump supporters, to the point where I get worried about them sometimes because I'm like, you guys are treating him as though he's entitled to just be like the

monarch. And I feel like we don't owe him a second term. I mean, he should be earning that second term. And so I get a little turned off by the own members of our audience sometimes when they get a little bit crazy, but they also get very mad at me whenever I criticize him. So we walk this weird, weird line. It's a long, it's a long-term relationship, right?

You get, you get mad some days, you get love some days, but it's long-term. And I hope your, your show is too. Miriam and Amy Jo, thank you so much for coming on.

Chicks on the right. Great meeting you. Thank you so much. Great to meet you. Have a great weekend. And all of my audience, you have a great weekend too. We'll be back on Monday with Mark Stein. Thank you so much. Great to meet you. Have a great weekend. And all of my audience, you have a great weekend too. We'll be back on Monday with Mark Stein.

We love Mark Stein. Have a wonderful weekend. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.