April 10, 2025 • 42 mins
In this episode, Ann Coulter discusses the unprecedented judicial overreach affecting immigration policy during the Trump administration. She emphasizes the exclusive powers of the president over immigration and critiques the role of the courts in shaping national policy. Coulter reflects on her experiences in conservative media, the challenges of publishing, and her interactions with various political figures on television. It's a Numbers Game with Ryan Girdusky is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Monday & Thursday.
Subscribe to Ann's Substack HERE
#AnnCoulter #immigration #judicialoverreach #presidentialpowers #Trump #conservative #media #political #commentary
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Welcome back to a Numbers Game with Ryan Gerdowski. As
I announced last week, this is the first time my
podcast coming out twice in a week, so that means
twice as much data and stories and mean So thank
you all for being here again this week. Please like
and subscribe and give me a five star review to
wherever you're listening. It really helps from the podcast. In
December nineteen sixty, the band The Crickets released a new
(00:23):
iconic song where they declared I fought the law and
the law won. When the song was covered by The
Clash in nineteen seventy nine, it became a punk rock classic.
Turned to twenty twenty five, and President Donald Trump is
having his own fight with the legal world. It's not
over a girl or a gun like the Cricket song,
but it's over executive orders and liberal judges' efforts to
stop his agenda. From the start of his administration to
(00:44):
April first, President Trump has signed one hundred and nine
executive orders and there have been fifty three rulings by
district court judges to halt his actions. Now, I think
it's worth explaining the difference between different kinds of judges
for a second, district court judges are lower on the
level of federal judiciary. There are six hundred and seventy
judges who receive a lifetime appointment by the president, and
(01:05):
like the titlet in their job describes, they're just allowed
to hear federal complaints within a district. Once a complaint
is heard at the district level, it makes its way
up to the appellate court in each respective region of
the country, and there are thirteen appellate courts in the
entire country. Anyone who's paid attention to politics, especially over
the last decade, realized that the Supreme Court seats have
(01:26):
become a highly politicized issue because of the makeup of
the court and how it has become substantially more conservative,
especially compared to three or four decades ago. What people
and the media have paid less attention to is how
much President Obama, Trump, and Biden have remade the lower courts.
President Obama appointed fifty five Appellate Court judges in two
(01:48):
hundred and sixty eight circuit court judges over his two terms.
President Trump appointed fifty four appellate Court judges, almost as
much as President Obama in two terms. In one and
one hundred and seventy four court judges. President Biden appointed
forty five appellate court judges but one hundred and eighty
seven Circuit court judges, so President Biden got the most
(02:08):
amount of judges in the least amount of time. That
means if you're a liberal organization like the ACLU, the
Campaign Legal Center, or the State Democracy Defender's Fund, you
have over one hundred appellate court judges and four hundred
and fifty five district court judges appointed by the last
two Democratic administrations who are sympathetic to progressive causes and issues,
(02:28):
not to mention the judges who were brought in during
the Bush and sometimes Clinton years. It's called judge shopping,
where nonprofits and liberal activists will look for sympathetic judges
to give them favorable rulings, issue nationwide injunctions, and hold
everything up in court for months and sometimes for well
over a year. This was evident during the first term
of the Trump administration, when a number of executive orders
(02:51):
were held up by the Supreme Court judge and spent
up to a year or closer a year in legal
limbo because of district court judges. One such case was
Judge on Tiger. He's an Obama appointed judge in California's
Northern District, like around San Francisco. He's a favorite of
liberal activists since his decision in twenty fifteen to force
the California Department of Corrections to use taxpayer fund and
(03:14):
medical care to provide inmates with gender reassignment surgery. So like, yeah,
it's as crazy, Yes, you're hearing it as what I'm
reading it, So force taxpayers to give gender reassignment surgery
to inmates. In twenty eighteen and twenty nineteen, Judge Tigar
issued Nation one injunctions on Trump's executive orders to deny
asylum to anyone who didn't enter the country through legal
(03:36):
ports of entry, and against his Safe Third Country agreement
were asylum seekers who passed through multiple safe third countries
countries they could have declared asylum and but didn't they
waited to be in the United States. That was unconstitutional
as well. Another judge was Judge Derek Watson. He was
another Obama appointed judge from the US District Court in Hawaii.
On March fifteen, twenty seventeen, he ruled that Trump's travel
(03:59):
ban against several majority Muslim countries was illegal and placed
a nationwide hold on Trump's executive order. It means he
couldn't enforce it. It wasn't until June twenty six, twenty eighteen,
when the Supreme Court finally weighed in and Trump the
Hawaii that the Trump's executive order was in fact legal,
and followed decades of legal president where the president has
(04:19):
the right to control who and who is an admittency
the United States. Fast forward twenty twenty five. Thirteen Court
District Court judges, six appointed by Biden, three by Bush,
three by Obama, and one by Reagan. Yeah, there are
still Reagan appointed judges on the bench put temporary holds
on a series of Trump executive orders. John McConnell, Junior,
(04:40):
and Obama appointed judge, placed a nationwide hold on Trump's
freezes of federal grants. Amir Ali, a Biden appointed judge
who was born in Canada, placed a nationwide injunction on
cuts to funding to federal assistance programs governed by USIAD
and in the Department of State. John Bates, a Bush
appointed judge, that it was illegal for Trump to fin
fire federal workers that worked under Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs.
(05:04):
And then there's John Bassberg, an Obama appointed judge who
ruled a Trump's use of the Alien's Edition Act that
was created in seventeen ninety eight was illegal and even
said that it was the responsibility of the American government
to fight illegal aliens who were deported back into the
United States. This is unprecedented to have this many nationwide
(05:25):
injunctions against a single president. During the first from the
Trumpet presidency, he had sixty four nationwide injunctions. This is
more than all nationwide injunctions for all previous presidents combined.
My buddy josh Hammer, a very smart guy who should
follow on Twitter. He said the judicial overreach is unprecedented.
And Judge Clarence Thomas Justice Clarence Thomas rather addresses in
(05:47):
his decision over Trump the Hawaii district court judges do
not have this insane right to is that they're to
actually make decrees in district courtships for the sake of
the entire nation. During a call with josh, I describe
a situation and Joshua basically there were no nationwide injunctions
before the nineteen sixties that this judicial power laid on
(06:08):
an article through the Constitution does not have the right
to make decisions for the entire country. Congress does have
the ability, however, to reign in the power of district
court judges and abolish it tomorrow. The Congress could solve
this issue tomorrow. Actually, Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa, he
put out a bill to sit there and solve this problem.
The Supreme Court could reign in district court judges. America
(06:32):
is not a nation governed by a king, and these
judges remind themselves that they wear robes and not a crown.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
You're listening to it's a numbers game with Ryan Gradsky.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
We'll be right back to quote Wenny Williams, my guest
this week, is a legend. She's an icon. She is
the moment and culture. A best selling writer has an
amazing substack you should all subscribe to. I'll put in
the link below and thank you for being here.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
Well, this is quite a switch.
Speaker 4 (06:59):
You can see lots of my interviews with Ryan on
a substat which I know.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
I was thinking that before. I've never interviewed you before,
so this is a big deal. So, and I said
in my monologue earlier that the federal judges have done
a number on the Trump administration and putting federal injunctions
from a local district court judge. This is unprescedented. First
in Volume be two, that it's happening on issues that
(07:25):
the executive really has sole decision making on, like immigration.
Do you We've talked this privately, but is this normal?
Speaker 4 (07:33):
Like what?
Speaker 1 (07:33):
What? Like? How does a federal judge in San Francisco
have ruling over the whole country on immigration?
Speaker 4 (07:39):
No, it's really shocking, and I am hoping and I
think it's very possible the Supreme Court is going to
put an end to the nonsense. For one thing, what
you say, a lot of their rulings are things that
are clearly part of the president's plenary power, like immigration.
I wrote about it in my column this week, remember
(08:00):
or the Arizona whatever it was, speed ten or something.
Chris Coback wrote it, and by the way, the paper's
police part of the law was upheld, but the rest
of it was basically Arizona law saying we're just going
to comply with federal law. Congressional laws written, you know,
passed by the House and the Senate and then signed
(08:20):
by all kinds of presidents of different political parties. All
Arizona wanted to do was follow the federal law, but
the Supreme Court found that no, the president has control
over immigration because of his soul control over international relations.
And so since Obama had decided not to follow the law,
(08:41):
Arizona couldn't butt in and follow federal law, which was
I think was kind of crazy enough. During the Clinton administration,
little eight year old Eleon Gonzalez was sent back to
a brutal communist dictatorship.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
And what was the reasoning on that? One thing? And
one thing?
Speaker 4 (09:00):
The president has exclusive plenary power over immigration if Clinton
wanted to send him back, Clinton send him back, and
he and Janet Reno, lovely woman, they wanted to send
him back. Most recently and not covered heavily by by
the media, the New York Times, including a guy from Cato,
you'll like this when Trump. When Trump issued his I
(09:23):
don't care if it doesn't say Muslim. I like to
call it the Muslim band. It warms my heart. When
he issued his Muslim band, the New York Times op
ed page was bristling with with opinion pieces hot sneering
this is so unconstitutional, including some jackass from Cato Institute.
(09:44):
I looked him up at the time, and he went
to I mean, normally I don't I don't raise these things,
as you always point out.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
You're a college dropout and you're one of the people
I know. But this guy went to an utterly bush
lea in college. And I was thinking, New York Times, have.
Speaker 4 (10:00):
You ever published anyone who went to this college before
put Oh he comes on and sneers about how, oh
Trump doesn't understand the Constitution or the history Muslim ban
upheld by the Supreme Court, and why because the president
has exclusives.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
Power over immigration.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
So this isn't a matter of Trump defying court orders.
This is a matter of the courts defying presidential powers
in a really obvious and egregious way. I mean the
number of district course one thing I will give the
New York Times credit for.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
I salute them here.
Speaker 4 (10:33):
I was looking through some of the some of the
cases there are twenty seven district court rulings on arguing
we refuse to comply with Trump's policy on immigration, blindingly
unconstitutional for them to do this.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
Courts are stepping in. And one great thing in the
New York Times.
Speaker 4 (10:51):
List was which I've noticed they have not been doing
all the time. You have to go look it up yourself,
but I think probably enough people were asking it was
Biden judge, Biden judge, Biden judge, Biden judge, Obama judge,
Biden judge.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
It's overwhelmingly democratic.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
There's like two or three Bush judges, one ray in
Dress judge who's still around for somehow, and it's all
Biden Obama judges. Otherwise it's completely one sided. The judge
the case you mentioned, which is the Trump and the
Hawaii case over the Muslim band, which wasn't a Muslim ban,
but we'll.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
Call it that.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
There was, if not decades one hundred years of precedent,
the president has exclusive power to deny entry to any
alien or class of aliens that he deems inadmissible or
not for the benefit of the United States. And they
were like, no, I no, I don't believe it. And
like Clarence Thomas in his in his opinion, in his
(11:46):
ruling the approve running so there and said, did your
court judges don't have the right to do this. They
just this is insane.
Speaker 4 (11:54):
Yes, he is insane, and I mean I Trump seems
pretty cheeky about all this. He's my favorite, My favorite
case is the administration admitted.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
That they inadvertently deported.
Speaker 4 (12:10):
Someone who wasn't maybe definitely a gang member, and he's
now in an l.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
S gang member, maybe gang member Jason.
Speaker 4 (12:21):
But their argument is, but sorry, you courts, we have
exclusive jurisdiction over this and we're not bringing them back,
which I'm totally totally in favor of.
Speaker 3 (12:30):
I can't believe how great this Trump administration is.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
As you know, we'll get back to that in a second.
But it is the fact that an American judge said
to a present, you need to bring back someone who
was here illegally. That alone the two things that infuriate me,
and I'm very partisan in one way, but one is that.
The second one is that when I read somebody says
born in Mexico or Canada, went to college there, and
(12:57):
as a forty year old, like you've been in America
for how long we're or you were a federal judge exactly,
that was noticeable too.
Speaker 4 (13:04):
Yes, yes, yes, I'm glad you mentioned that Ryan grew Dusky.
I suspect do you remember that after Trump's magnificent Mexican
rapist speech, there was somebody was suing him. I forget
what it was for you probably remember.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
I remember that he complained about the case. Yes, I
remember that he was Mexican. The judge the case.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
Do you remember the case. I don't remember the case.
Speaker 1 (13:27):
I remember the inderal case, but I remember the judge
was Mexican. He made a big hurrah that the judges
partisan because he was born in Mexican.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
Right, That's what I wanted to address here.
Speaker 4 (13:37):
Everyone, I mean, everyone went mental over that. Oh how
dare you mention that he's a Mexican? Okay, except for
my entire life, I have been told that a criminal
conviction has to be thrown out if it's all white
people on the journey. So we cannot trust white Americans
steeped in the Magna carta and the rule of law,
who have been here for generations to rule on a
(14:00):
criminal case with a black defendant. If it's all white jurors,
well that it's just prime facia. That can't be a
correct jury verdict. Nope, throwing out the conviction. But Trump
meant mentions that this guy is a Mexican. With the
entire media is claiming that he called all Mexicans rapists.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
It's like there's a movie I forget what it was,
was like a who done it? And they were like,
I mean it was a lib woke movie during COVID
or during BLM, and they were like, the Mexican character
was so pure they couldn't tell a lie without throwing up.
It's that's how they treat a lot of these form
board judges who do make rulings, and I'm sorry they are.
I don't understand how you could be in America for
(14:41):
less than I don't know, fifty years and you're sitting
there and you're making rulings for the country as a whole.
President Trump in his first term, during the Mexican Muslim
ban or whatever last of it was, he had more
nationwide injunctions than all previous presidents combined. And he said
to Eclipse that during this term.
Speaker 4 (15:02):
Yes, now I think he should ignore them. He is
doing the right thing. This is a point I've made.
I'm not just making it for Trump.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
I just looked it up. I think I made it when.
Speaker 4 (15:13):
Bush was president and the issue was military trials for
terrorists captured on the battle field in the commander in
chief's wheelhouse, I think you would say, and judges were saying, no, no, no, no, no,
we want them in an Article three court.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
They must be in an Article three And at the.
Speaker 4 (15:34):
Time, I've always argued these are three co equal. I
love that word. It's like flammable and inflammable. So equal
branches of government. And worse than that, I mean the
executive branch, which is.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Equal to the entire judiciary.
Speaker 4 (15:54):
One man holds the power of all the executive power
of the United States, the legislature, you know, white camera legislation.
Speaker 3 (16:01):
Everybody gets the gist of that. These district court judges
hold like one.
Speaker 4 (16:06):
Even even acting as if you know, Chief Justice John
Roberts is as important as some puny district Court judge,
it's still about one two thousandth of the people.
Speaker 3 (16:16):
There.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
There are eight over eight hundred district cork and Appellate
court judges. So the fact that there are six hundred
and seventy district court judges so more than Congress, more
than both houses combined. No Senator can make a ruling
for the entire United States, but one of six hundred
and seventy ken It makes it feel like there is
a judicial supremacy versus a coequal branch.
Speaker 4 (16:40):
Yes, and I'm pretty sure there are at least five
justices who would agree with that. I not only should
Trump ignore the orders, I think he ought to start
calling up Chief Justice John Roberts and saying, I see
you have an interesting bunch of interesting cases on the
docket coming up. Would you mind setting a tenth chair
(17:01):
up on the dais because I'd like to hear the
oral arguments, maybe write an opinion or two. You should
start writing to district court judges. I would like to
be included in the evidentiary hearing. I'll be making a
ruling on that. It is just it is totally beyond
the power of judges what they're doing.
Speaker 3 (17:20):
And you know, maybe I'll write about this.
Speaker 4 (17:22):
But besides the fact that the president completely should be
ignoring them, it is as if he is calling and
asking to sit in on, you know, district courts engaging
in criminal sentencing.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
This is an.
Speaker 4 (17:35):
Extension of the left using the courts to get what
they can't get through democracy. And in particular, I think
to explain this simply because the course have been doing
this for such a long time, most people don't even
recognize the outrage that is going on courts, all courts,
(17:55):
including the Supreme Court. Per the Constitution, decide cases and
controversies the parties before them. That is what they are deciding.
They aren't finding anyone else to these cases. Now, they
may have to interpret a law in order to decide
that case or controversy.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
But the way all courts.
Speaker 4 (18:14):
Have kind of been operating, certainly the Supreme Court, where
I don't know, I think most of my life is
let's look at the law and the Constitution and we
will prommel gates an.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
Overarching rule for the entire country.
Speaker 4 (18:27):
Okay, that's making a law that isn't deciding.
Speaker 3 (18:32):
A case or controversy between two parties.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
So, for example, one of the cases I wrote about
this week, which I made clear in my column, the
Students for Fair Admissions versus Harvard. Technically, what the Supreme
Court did was decide a case between Students for Fair
Admissions versus Harvard.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
That's it.
Speaker 4 (18:55):
By implication, every other college and university in America. I mean,
I guess they can start, you know, just openly continue. Well,
they are openly continuing their discrimination. But you could sue
each one of these over and over and over again,
but you're just going to get these procureum decisions by
the Supreme Court right.
Speaker 1 (19:13):
If you're a lawyer and you want to make a
lot of money, just start suing colleges. And by the way,
law schools, business schools, states, businesses. I mean for NTUIE discrimination,
you have a cattle cade ahead of you.
Speaker 4 (19:28):
Yeah, but all of these cases, I mean, it's easy
to explain when the Supreme Court discovers mysteriously a clause
given providing a right to abortion in the Constitution, or
I might add or write to gay marriage that you
can read the Constitution and there's nothing about abortion, there's
nothing about gay marriage.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
But we are so used to courts issuing.
Speaker 4 (19:52):
Over arching rules by e laws and then applying the
law they have just invented to the dispute before them
that most people I think don't recognize.
Speaker 3 (20:04):
No, they're getting this exactly backwards.
Speaker 4 (20:06):
And what they're doing most of the time is absolutely unconstitutional.
Speaker 3 (20:11):
They aren't a legislature.
Speaker 4 (20:13):
We have a legislature. The judicial power is to decide
cases and controversies.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
Right, And it's a very post I mean it's post FDR,
but it's even really post Johnson that they or post Kennedy,
rather that they really just started becoming the de facto
decider of national policy eradicating both legislative rights but also
state rights in the meantime.
Speaker 4 (20:34):
Yes, And I'd add that the Constitution says, this is
a rough paraphrase, that they decide cases and controversies when
the law. I don't know this is the Constitution or
one of the founding fathers. They determine the laws and
facts when the laws and facts.
Speaker 3 (20:54):
Are disputed by two people, two parties. The party could
be Harvard.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
So you know, notice in this phraseology used by.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
Our founding fathers. I don't know if it's in the arguments.
I think it's just.
Speaker 4 (21:05):
I think the Constitution just says cases are controversy and
any even it doesn't stay using their policy judgment to
decide the cases. When two parties disagree law and facts,
that's it they decided. Then they bind only those parties.
Now another party comes along and makes the exact same argument.
(21:29):
It could be an estoppel doctrine or other things going on.
But technically the Court is deciding only the case of
the two parties before. And so imagine these nationwide injunctions,
I mean talk about making laws.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
It's it's so beyond the pale.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
Because Trumpy Hawaii mentioned before which was the Muslim ban.
It took sixteen months to go from district court to
Supreme Court. You do that two or three times, and
the administration's over. It's done, with the next presence to go.
I mean, that's what their ultimate goal is, through both
judge shopping and through law fair in this practice of
finding the nonprofit that will sponsor the lawsuit, the judge
(22:09):
that will hold it up, and then you know, Ninth
Circuit or whatever circuit holds it until the Supreme Court
finally hears it and you start another lass in the
same issue. It just goes on and on on. What
has surprised you the most about the tru administration thus far.
Speaker 3 (22:23):
That I'm in heaven every day.
Speaker 1 (22:28):
We finally got the executive order on birthright citizenship.
Speaker 3 (22:32):
We finally got the president. I voted for them.
Speaker 4 (22:34):
We finally got the president I wrote a book about,
I campaigned with in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
We finally got them.
Speaker 4 (22:41):
I'm and thank you liberals for just an absurd number
of criminal prosecutions trying to kick him off the ballot
in Colorado and the New York and Latisia.
Speaker 3 (22:52):
James and Atlanta.
Speaker 4 (22:54):
They were all preposterous, as I think I've said before,
the only case where there was actual a law broken
was the documents he had squirreled away at mar A Lago.
But you know, considering and he did, and he did
sort of egregiously refuse to return them. I don't know
that a dawn raid was necessary.
Speaker 3 (23:16):
I don't think they right Malani is underpants draw.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
Right, right right? I mean, knowing who he is, it
wasn't like the liberals accused that he's going to sell
this to the Russians. It was probably just to show
his friends, like, look what I have. This is totally yeah.
I mean it's just a brag. I mean, knowing who
Trump is, it was just a brag to somebody. How
what the president?
Speaker 4 (23:41):
Oh what if he sells them to the enemy. No,
it was one to brag about him. And look at
this letter I got from Kim John.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
No.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
I mean, he's been extremely aggressive on immigration, on trade.
I I know we're going to agree, So what's I mean?
I hate him asking this question. They know what's going
to agree. I think the absence of Jared Kushner speaks
volumes to this administration, and.
Speaker 3 (24:06):
No one giving Stephen Miller the run of the place.
You know when they.
Speaker 4 (24:13):
Okay, fine, Miller, you hung in there, and maybe you
are going to save the country now. But when Trump
signed his third funding bill term one, as he's about
to lose, I think that was right. But we still
had the Republican House in the sense, yeah, with.
Speaker 3 (24:27):
No Wall funding.
Speaker 4 (24:29):
And by the way, Fox totally ignored it. It was
only because I went ballistic and Drudge threw it up
on when it was actually Drudge threw it up on
the Drudge Report that people even knew this is the
third funding bill you are signing. You've said the last
two times, I'll never sign a funding bill again without
without Wall funding.
Speaker 3 (24:50):
And I emailed.
Speaker 4 (24:53):
Miller at the White House and at the time and said, congratulations,
you've wrecked the country.
Speaker 3 (25:02):
He's made up for it.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
I mean, you know what I respect about you and
I want to say to you on my podcast is
that unlike ninety nine point ninety nine eight percent of
the people who are in conservative media, you don't seek
to be to lose yourself in order to stay in
the sphere of influence, which everyone else kind of does.
They don't care what they say, what they believe, because
(25:24):
they want to be in the sphere of influence. What
has changed in your I think third decade in political
media as far as the media, the way that political
figures have influenced politicians, I mean, was only three cable
news networking. I'm SOMEBCCN in the box news. It was
a much more you know, they package what a Republican
(25:47):
was supposed to sound like. And you were always out
of the box because and you were interesting because you're
out of the box. What is it now like when
you have social media and a million because it feels
like there should be more different opinions, but there's a
lot more of the same. They all want to be
in the sphere of influence.
Speaker 4 (26:02):
Yes, And actually, the way the reason I even remember
what the answer to that question is, that's how I
began my first book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Because until
I moved to Washington to work for the Senate Judiciary Committee,
I didn't own a TV. And then I got one
because I wanted to be able to.
Speaker 3 (26:23):
Watch c SPAN because I'm cool that way.
Speaker 4 (26:28):
And so for the first time I'm watching TV while
while workings in a Judiciary committee, and then and then
doing a lot of TV on on. Luckily we had
a president who was a felon, which was really.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
Great for a lawyer trying to not practice law.
Speaker 4 (26:46):
And what I noticed was, for one thing, the hurting everyone,
everyone will say the same thing, and for protection who
I don't know who the first person is, you know
who's the first move or here, and then they will
all say the exact same thing. And I didn't realize
(27:07):
what the rules were, so I'd come along and the
first like ten times this happened, I thought, Wow, I
must be misunderstanding something, because I think that's totally wrong.
For example, how the Supreme Court was going to come
out on Jones v. Clinton or I guess at that
point it was Clinton v.
Speaker 3 (27:27):
Jones.
Speaker 4 (27:29):
I'd written articles for Human Events saying, she's totally going
to win. This is what the precedent is. Of course
she wins. She won nine to zero. I was the
only person saying that. I was writing the article. The
day after the night of the Supreme Court argument, I
hear the flop of the New York Times in front
of my apartment. I get up and I read Linda
(27:50):
Greenhouse and what everyone was saying was they're going to
split the baby, split the baby. She'll be able to sue,
but it won't be during his presidency. They're going to
split the baby. And it did make me sit back
and think, am I Am I wrong about this? And no,
I looked at the case law again. Nope, I think
I'm right, and I swear to you, Ryan grew Dusky.
(28:10):
I was the only person saying that. But then when
the result comes out, not that I'm demanding credit, but
you know, a little pat on the head would be nice.
Speaker 3 (28:20):
No, no one will remember it. And why will no
one remember it?
Speaker 4 (28:22):
Because they all were saying the same wrong thing, so
no one can point it out.
Speaker 1 (28:27):
And you, yeah, and you still have today, is that
the same wrong thing? Because it's what's acceptable, Like it's
acceptable even in like the conserved ghetto, as I call it,
Like this is what the opinion is. It could be
asked and it could be wrong. And sometimes you'll hear
like during the first step back when Trump passes. Not
to muddy any love on Trump, but it was a
(28:48):
bad bill that he said.
Speaker 3 (28:49):
Now his first term really sucks.
Speaker 1 (28:51):
Yeah, so he would say the first step back, which
was horrendous, and he later, according to several juris, regretted it.
But you would hear conservatives. Conservatives sit there and say, well, here,
Hillary Clinton talk about a minority of black people committing
a majority of crimes, and how racist she is. I'm like,
(29:14):
she's right. Everything she's saying here is correct, and you
shouldn't oppose it just because she's saying it when it's correct,
and it will drive me personally insane.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
I will.
Speaker 4 (29:25):
I think the highlight of the Trumps stupidity term one
was in his first debate with Biden.
Speaker 3 (29:32):
I include it in like every third column I write. Now.
Speaker 4 (29:35):
It still makes me so angry. After eight months of
BLM riots and cities being burned down and the homicide
rate going through the roof Donald's Trump bragged, I'm letting
people out of jail now. Black people hate you. You
call them super predators. And by the way, he didn't
(29:55):
call black people. Neither Biden or no one else called
black people super predators. They called super predator super predators.
As you're we're seeing in New York City right now.
I mean, it's always the case that like ninety percent
of the crime is being committed by ten percent of
the people. Lock them up and you go a long
way to solving the crime problem. That's the super predator issue.
(30:16):
It's a perfectly legit issue. The way to attack Biden
was that he's weak on crime, not that I'm letting
people out of jail on that.
Speaker 3 (30:25):
But let's talk about happy days the new Trump administration.
Speaker 1 (30:29):
Now, I go back to the media appointment. What is
the biggest change you've seen in three decades in conservative media?
Has it gotten better than it was in the nineties
or has it gotten in two thousands and tens or
has it gotten worse.
Speaker 4 (30:41):
Well, they're just as stupid, but and just as heard like.
But oh my gosh, it's a huge difference. I've done
a podcast on it. I mean, it blows me away
every single day. When after Romney lost, and long before that,
I mean, Republicans just kept pushing an amnesty, kept pushing
an aim amnesty.
Speaker 3 (31:00):
McCain did it, Bush did it. Romney didn't.
Speaker 4 (31:03):
But as soon as Romney loses, but he was the
toughest on immigration, believe it for sure. Yeah, in twenty twelve,
then you know the RNC I think tank, they get
together the brains of the operation and their ideas.
Speaker 3 (31:19):
We've got to be for an amnesty.
Speaker 4 (31:21):
And I think Rush was I know Hannity came out
for an amnesty.
Speaker 3 (31:26):
And so, I mean those were those were dark days.
Speaker 4 (31:29):
It was down to I mean I didn't know you
then I assume you me Stephen Miller was that drouge
A few drudge Yeah, basically anyone who's ever lived in LA.
That great talk radio host McIntyre. I can't remember his
first name, but he was KABC LA. He wouldn't I
(31:51):
think he didn't vote for Reagan. He didn't vote for
Bush because of because.
Speaker 1 (31:55):
That lady from southern California. Two. She was a big
anti immigration, right remember her name either. There were very
very Michelle Malkin at the time. She wasn't work anymore
in the media, but there were very very very few
because and then we turned out that the autopsy was
doctor to make it seeling and it wasn't even real
begin with because special interests always had I tell I
(32:18):
give special I like talks to people who are like
twenty one twenty two I employees or twenty one twenty
two who never knew the nineties, unfortunately, who never knew
how great America was unfortunately, and they also never knew
how bad it was in the when I started coming
writing articles like six o seven, and it was at
that time and I became a Republican, as I said,
(32:42):
anyone who's against amnesty for legal immigrants, I am for
because I saw how it transformed Queens, New York, where
I'm from born and raised, and I said, this is
they have like dead chickens in backyards now formerly very
nice German or Italian neighborhoods. So I just was like,
this is not the neighbor I grew up, and this
is I see the transformation having for my eyes, and
(33:02):
it is a remarkably better Republican party than it was,
even though it's even just that.
Speaker 3 (33:06):
All the idiot talking heads, I mean, it's just stunning
to me.
Speaker 4 (33:09):
And you know, I'll retweet them sometimes, but they're like
direct quotes from Adios America, and I don't know if
you know.
Speaker 3 (33:16):
Adios America was not well.
Speaker 4 (33:17):
Received at Fox News, it was not well received. It
wasn't well received by my own publishers, Salem.
Speaker 3 (33:25):
They wouldn't allow me to participate in radio events. I
used to always do it to promote any other book.
Speaker 4 (33:31):
Now they've actually published this book and I would be
banned from from.
Speaker 1 (33:34):
Really yeah all of well you told me one time.
So in publishing, the way it works is if you
have a first time bestseller, you don't make money off it.
You make it money off of year advance of your
second book. You didn't make money for your second book.
I don't think right. Is that correct?
Speaker 3 (33:50):
No one would publish it.
Speaker 1 (33:53):
What was your second Bookander Slander? And it was a
bestseller number one?
Speaker 3 (33:59):
All summer.
Speaker 4 (33:59):
I publishers are all summer, but no one would publishing.
My agent, Jonie Evans, would forward me some of the emails,
and she was in with all the publishing houses. You
couldn't have a better book agent. And I just remember
one of them with the publishers saying, we do not
think this would move the public dialogue forward. So I
(34:22):
responded to Joni saying, wow, that's so weird. I thought
publishers made money. And how many books they sold.
Speaker 3 (34:28):
I had no idea.
Speaker 4 (34:29):
It was how many inches they moved the public. And
there's a chapter in Slander about how publishers they would
give quotes about how they kept remember that woman Naomi Wolf,
They kept giving home million dollar advances, they kept losing
money on them, and then the head of the publishing
company would say yes, but was so proud to have
her as an author, and there were all these books.
(34:49):
Actually it was my mother who pointed this out to me.
When High Crimes and Mister Meanors was a smash bestseller,
my mother got a little resentful that everyone kept referring
to it as a surprise bestseller. My mother's very sensitive
to any slight toward me. And I thought, huh, that's funny,
And so I looked up on Nexus and there was
(35:11):
one massive conservative blockbuster after another, and they were all
described as surprise best sellers. They were literally published by
a mainstream publisher. Yeah, there was God and Man at Yale.
I think Whittaker Chambers witness some of the really big ones.
(35:33):
Probably the one on true story of Chapelquitica, I don't remember,
but it's.
Speaker 3 (35:36):
In that chapter.
Speaker 4 (35:37):
And luckily my publisher for Slander was Steve Ross, God
bless him, who actually did think that a publishing company
Crown should make money, and so they wanted it. But
I've been sitting with this book for a year.
Speaker 1 (35:54):
Anyone ever apologize or say, hey, we lost money on you.
I wish you would have done it.
Speaker 4 (35:58):
No, but Steve Ross was happy because he he published it,
and I forced the publishing industry.
Speaker 3 (36:05):
They said it would take a year to turn around.
That used to be.
Speaker 4 (36:09):
It's hard to believe now given technology, but it used
to be you'd turn in a book and it would
come out as a book one year later. And they said, okay,
this will come out one year later. I said, I
can't do that. I got to go back to Regnory.
I just I can't sit with this book anymore. It's
got to come out now. I know it's got to
come out now. And and so they fiddled around and
they said, okay, we'll put it out in June. And
(36:30):
my editor later told me that the reason they were
resisting so much was they always knew they could do
it in two months, but no one wanted to work
that hard. So now everybody well very quickly.
Speaker 3 (36:43):
Now it's so much easier with con writer.
Speaker 1 (36:47):
Well, and thank you so much for coming on my podcast.
Before I leave you, I have I mean, there's I
have so many friends who always like, well next to me,
see An, can you bring me with me? And I'm like, uh,
you'd probably be too spanished, whatever, but I want to
ask one of their questions. You very famously had a
lot of arguments on television with like Barbara Walters and
(37:09):
Katie Couric, and you know, just like you know spats
on air, Chris Matthews when you called John Edwards a
woman one of your best moments. Who is someone on
TV that you enjoyed personally that you just argued with
for the for the sake of it on televisor working
for the political reasons?
Speaker 3 (37:28):
A fair number of them.
Speaker 4 (37:29):
I don't know if they exist anymore. Alan Combs, obviously,
Bill Joy Behar. There was a guy, Rick Sanchez on
CNN who hilariously was canceled for he said something about how.
Speaker 3 (37:45):
Jewish power over.
Speaker 4 (37:47):
The media, and to prove him wrong, they got him fired.
Speaker 3 (37:54):
Way to go, Wow, he was wrong, all right?
Speaker 1 (38:00):
And where can people get your substack? You're fantastic substect
that everyone should subscribe to.
Speaker 4 (38:06):
Thank you and Culter dot substack dot com. I have
an interview with Michael Shellenberger comming and right now the
Seth Dylan interview is up.
Speaker 3 (38:14):
And you got my columns every week.
Speaker 1 (38:16):
Her comms are great, her podcasts are better. And Coulter,
you're amazing. Thank you for being here.
Speaker 3 (38:21):
Good to talk to you. Ryan, You're dusky.
Speaker 2 (38:23):
Hey, we'll be right back after this This is the
ask Me Anything part of the show where listeners can
sit there and send me an email Ryan at Numbers
Game podcast dot com.
Speaker 1 (38:34):
That's ryanat numbers Plural podcast dot com. Chew me an
email about literally anything, and I'll ask. I'll answer for
you the best my ability. This question comes from Wes
West asked, your school board pack did very well in
Wisconsin while the Supreme Court candidate lost by double digits.
Why do you think you were successful locally more than statewide?
Conservatives work? That's a great question. So I have a
(38:56):
school board pack the seventeen seventy six project. We do
school board races across the country. We did I think
twenty seven races in Wisconsin and we won twenty of
the twenty seven twenty six We had a seventy five
percent victory rate in a day that wasn't very good
for Republicans. Statewide one, school boards are more localized, so
we had a lot of regions that were very conservative
(39:17):
and they voted for the conservative judge. Those a conservative
rather school board canate as well as a conservative judge.
That partly benefited us. But I think when he comes
to Wisconsin and why Republicans and Conservatives fell short. I
think there's a number of reasons. One, I think Elon Musk.
I know Conservatives love him, but among Americans as a whole,
(39:39):
they don't like Elon. Elon's favorability ratings are very low,
much lower than President Trump's or Vice president of vanceas
he comes across as you know, obviously very wealthy and
possibly doing business with a federal government or having control
in federal government that he gets brands from which people find,
you know, not tasteful. But they find him weird. That's
(40:00):
just the truth of the matter. They find him weird.
He's somebody who's talked about things like putting chips in
people's brains and having you know, multi planet empires, and
he's just talked about things about humanity and a post
human world that I think people find very very off putting,
including Republicans, including Christians. That makes people question things. His
(40:24):
love of AI, I think gives a lot of people
some anxiety. So him going to Iowa doing events, being
the face of the rally instead of something like Trump,
I think actually hurt the conservative candidate. Secondly, on early vote,
the Democrats did a very robust early vote plan. They
got people out early, so on election theydempt to wait
for election day. We've seen this problem for so long.
(40:47):
Republicans like we have seen this problem constantly where we
do not get our lowro pensity voters out and they
get theirs out through the early voting system. Republicans got
a lot of voters out. We had a good candidate,
he did a hard work, he did a good job.
He wasn't a bad candidate. But election day, just the
way we run elections now, it starts way before the
(41:08):
actual first Tuesday November. It starts months ahead of time
in some places because the early vote, and we have
to treat it like that. And I think that lastly,
as I said before, we worked in certain regions like
Waukesha County and other counties that may be more conservative
than to it, and we were reinforcing conservative margins. We
did flip two school board districts, but that mattered immensely
to it. But I think that when it comes to
(41:29):
Wisconsin and all future elections, I don't think that Elon
Musk should be the face of the of the anti
liberal movement. I just think that people find him strange
at best and off putting at worse. The Roman salute
Nazis lootsuff doesn't help, and we have to do a
better job of that. I'm not saying he has no value.
I'm not saying he's a bad person. I'm not saying that.
(41:49):
But for the face of voters when they question who
would you like to have a beer with? I think
they might like to ask elon a couple questions, But
autistic men in their mid forties with fourteen kids, team kids,
what HA made is with five or four different women
is not their first choice. That's my best opinion of it.
And that's why I think we do better locally than
conservatives did statewide. Anyway, thank you so much. Please submit
(42:12):
questions for next week and every question every every show afterwards.
It's Ryan at Numbers game podcast dot com. Ryan at
Numbers thoral podcast dot com. I appreciate you all being here.
I appreciate you all for listening. Please like and subscribe
on the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcast where you get your podcast.
I'll see you guys next week. Thank you again for listening.
Welcome back to a Numbers Game with Ryan Gerdowski. As
I announced last week, this is the first time my
podcast coming out twice in a week, so that means
twice as much data and stories and mean So thank
you all for being here again this week. Please like
and subscribe and give me a five star review to
wherever you're listening. It really helps from the podcast. In
December nineteen sixty, the band The Crickets released a new
(00:23):
iconic song where they declared I fought the law and
the law won. When the song was covered by The
Clash in nineteen seventy nine, it became a punk rock classic.
Turned to twenty twenty five, and President Donald Trump is
having his own fight with the legal world. It's not
over a girl or a gun like the Cricket song,
but it's over executive orders and liberal judges' efforts to
stop his agenda. From the start of his administration to
(00:44):
April first, President Trump has signed one hundred and nine
executive orders and there have been fifty three rulings by
district court judges to halt his actions. Now, I think
it's worth explaining the difference between different kinds of judges
for a second, district court judges are lower on the
level of federal judiciary. There are six hundred and seventy
judges who receive a lifetime appointment by the president, and
(01:05):
like the titlet in their job describes, they're just allowed
to hear federal complaints within a district. Once a complaint
is heard at the district level, it makes its way
up to the appellate court in each respective region of
the country, and there are thirteen appellate courts in the
entire country. Anyone who's paid attention to politics, especially over
the last decade, realized that the Supreme Court seats have
(01:26):
become a highly politicized issue because of the makeup of
the court and how it has become substantially more conservative,
especially compared to three or four decades ago. What people
and the media have paid less attention to is how
much President Obama, Trump, and Biden have remade the lower courts.
President Obama appointed fifty five Appellate Court judges in two
(01:48):
hundred and sixty eight circuit court judges over his two terms.
President Trump appointed fifty four appellate Court judges, almost as
much as President Obama in two terms. In one and
one hundred and seventy four court judges. President Biden appointed
forty five appellate court judges but one hundred and eighty
seven Circuit court judges, so President Biden got the most
(02:08):
amount of judges in the least amount of time. That
means if you're a liberal organization like the ACLU, the
Campaign Legal Center, or the State Democracy Defender's Fund, you
have over one hundred appellate court judges and four hundred
and fifty five district court judges appointed by the last
two Democratic administrations who are sympathetic to progressive causes and issues,
(02:28):
not to mention the judges who were brought in during
the Bush and sometimes Clinton years. It's called judge shopping,
where nonprofits and liberal activists will look for sympathetic judges
to give them favorable rulings, issue nationwide injunctions, and hold
everything up in court for months and sometimes for well
over a year. This was evident during the first term
of the Trump administration, when a number of executive orders
(02:51):
were held up by the Supreme Court judge and spent
up to a year or closer a year in legal
limbo because of district court judges. One such case was
Judge on Tiger. He's an Obama appointed judge in California's
Northern District, like around San Francisco. He's a favorite of
liberal activists since his decision in twenty fifteen to force
the California Department of Corrections to use taxpayer fund and
(03:14):
medical care to provide inmates with gender reassignment surgery. So like, yeah,
it's as crazy, Yes, you're hearing it as what I'm
reading it, So force taxpayers to give gender reassignment surgery
to inmates. In twenty eighteen and twenty nineteen, Judge Tigar
issued Nation one injunctions on Trump's executive orders to deny
asylum to anyone who didn't enter the country through legal
(03:36):
ports of entry, and against his Safe Third Country agreement
were asylum seekers who passed through multiple safe third countries
countries they could have declared asylum and but didn't they
waited to be in the United States. That was unconstitutional
as well. Another judge was Judge Derek Watson. He was
another Obama appointed judge from the US District Court in Hawaii.
On March fifteen, twenty seventeen, he ruled that Trump's travel
(03:59):
ban against several majority Muslim countries was illegal and placed
a nationwide hold on Trump's executive order. It means he
couldn't enforce it. It wasn't until June twenty six, twenty eighteen,
when the Supreme Court finally weighed in and Trump the
Hawaii that the Trump's executive order was in fact legal,
and followed decades of legal president where the president has
(04:19):
the right to control who and who is an admittency
the United States. Fast forward twenty twenty five. Thirteen Court
District Court judges, six appointed by Biden, three by Bush,
three by Obama, and one by Reagan. Yeah, there are
still Reagan appointed judges on the bench put temporary holds
on a series of Trump executive orders. John McConnell, Junior,
(04:40):
and Obama appointed judge, placed a nationwide hold on Trump's
freezes of federal grants. Amir Ali, a Biden appointed judge
who was born in Canada, placed a nationwide injunction on
cuts to funding to federal assistance programs governed by USIAD
and in the Department of State. John Bates, a Bush
appointed judge, that it was illegal for Trump to fin
fire federal workers that worked under Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs.
(05:04):
And then there's John Bassberg, an Obama appointed judge who
ruled a Trump's use of the Alien's Edition Act that
was created in seventeen ninety eight was illegal and even
said that it was the responsibility of the American government
to fight illegal aliens who were deported back into the
United States. This is unprecedented to have this many nationwide
(05:25):
injunctions against a single president. During the first from the
Trumpet presidency, he had sixty four nationwide injunctions. This is
more than all nationwide injunctions for all previous presidents combined.
My buddy josh Hammer, a very smart guy who should
follow on Twitter. He said the judicial overreach is unprecedented.
And Judge Clarence Thomas Justice Clarence Thomas rather addresses in
(05:47):
his decision over Trump the Hawaii district court judges do
not have this insane right to is that they're to
actually make decrees in district courtships for the sake of
the entire nation. During a call with josh, I describe
a situation and Joshua basically there were no nationwide injunctions
before the nineteen sixties that this judicial power laid on
(06:08):
an article through the Constitution does not have the right
to make decisions for the entire country. Congress does have
the ability, however, to reign in the power of district
court judges and abolish it tomorrow. The Congress could solve
this issue tomorrow. Actually, Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa, he
put out a bill to sit there and solve this problem.
The Supreme Court could reign in district court judges. America
(06:32):
is not a nation governed by a king, and these
judges remind themselves that they wear robes and not a crown.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
You're listening to it's a numbers game with Ryan Gradsky.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
We'll be right back to quote Wenny Williams, my guest
this week, is a legend. She's an icon. She is
the moment and culture. A best selling writer has an
amazing substack you should all subscribe to. I'll put in
the link below and thank you for being here.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
Well, this is quite a switch.
Speaker 4 (06:59):
You can see lots of my interviews with Ryan on
a substat which I know.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
I was thinking that before. I've never interviewed you before,
so this is a big deal. So, and I said
in my monologue earlier that the federal judges have done
a number on the Trump administration and putting federal injunctions
from a local district court judge. This is unprescedented. First
in Volume be two, that it's happening on issues that
(07:25):
the executive really has sole decision making on, like immigration.
Do you We've talked this privately, but is this normal?
Speaker 4 (07:33):
Like what?
Speaker 1 (07:33):
What? Like? How does a federal judge in San Francisco
have ruling over the whole country on immigration?
Speaker 4 (07:39):
No, it's really shocking, and I am hoping and I
think it's very possible the Supreme Court is going to
put an end to the nonsense. For one thing, what
you say, a lot of their rulings are things that
are clearly part of the president's plenary power, like immigration.
I wrote about it in my column this week, remember
(08:00):
or the Arizona whatever it was, speed ten or something.
Chris Coback wrote it, and by the way, the paper's
police part of the law was upheld, but the rest
of it was basically Arizona law saying we're just going
to comply with federal law. Congressional laws written, you know,
passed by the House and the Senate and then signed
(08:20):
by all kinds of presidents of different political parties. All
Arizona wanted to do was follow the federal law, but
the Supreme Court found that no, the president has control
over immigration because of his soul control over international relations.
And so since Obama had decided not to follow the law,
(08:41):
Arizona couldn't butt in and follow federal law, which was
I think was kind of crazy enough. During the Clinton administration,
little eight year old Eleon Gonzalez was sent back to
a brutal communist dictatorship.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
And what was the reasoning on that? One thing? And
one thing?
Speaker 4 (09:00):
The president has exclusive plenary power over immigration if Clinton
wanted to send him back, Clinton send him back, and
he and Janet Reno, lovely woman, they wanted to send
him back. Most recently and not covered heavily by by
the media, the New York Times, including a guy from Cato,
you'll like this when Trump. When Trump issued his I
(09:23):
don't care if it doesn't say Muslim. I like to
call it the Muslim band. It warms my heart. When
he issued his Muslim band, the New York Times op
ed page was bristling with with opinion pieces hot sneering
this is so unconstitutional, including some jackass from Cato Institute.
(09:44):
I looked him up at the time, and he went
to I mean, normally I don't I don't raise these things,
as you always point out.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
You're a college dropout and you're one of the people
I know. But this guy went to an utterly bush
lea in college. And I was thinking, New York Times, have.
Speaker 4 (10:00):
You ever published anyone who went to this college before
put Oh he comes on and sneers about how, oh
Trump doesn't understand the Constitution or the history Muslim ban
upheld by the Supreme Court, and why because the president
has exclusives.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
Power over immigration.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
So this isn't a matter of Trump defying court orders.
This is a matter of the courts defying presidential powers
in a really obvious and egregious way. I mean the
number of district course one thing I will give the
New York Times credit for.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
I salute them here.
Speaker 4 (10:33):
I was looking through some of the some of the
cases there are twenty seven district court rulings on arguing
we refuse to comply with Trump's policy on immigration, blindingly
unconstitutional for them to do this.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
Courts are stepping in. And one great thing in the
New York Times.
Speaker 4 (10:51):
List was which I've noticed they have not been doing
all the time. You have to go look it up yourself,
but I think probably enough people were asking it was
Biden judge, Biden judge, Biden judge, Biden judge, Obama judge,
Biden judge.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
It's overwhelmingly democratic.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
There's like two or three Bush judges, one ray in
Dress judge who's still around for somehow, and it's all
Biden Obama judges. Otherwise it's completely one sided. The judge
the case you mentioned, which is the Trump and the
Hawaii case over the Muslim band, which wasn't a Muslim ban,
but we'll.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
Call it that.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
There was, if not decades one hundred years of precedent,
the president has exclusive power to deny entry to any
alien or class of aliens that he deems inadmissible or
not for the benefit of the United States. And they
were like, no, I no, I don't believe it. And
like Clarence Thomas in his in his opinion, in his
(11:46):
ruling the approve running so there and said, did your
court judges don't have the right to do this. They
just this is insane.
Speaker 4 (11:54):
Yes, he is insane, and I mean I Trump seems
pretty cheeky about all this. He's my favorite, My favorite
case is the administration admitted.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
That they inadvertently deported.
Speaker 4 (12:10):
Someone who wasn't maybe definitely a gang member, and he's
now in an l.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
S gang member, maybe gang member Jason.
Speaker 4 (12:21):
But their argument is, but sorry, you courts, we have
exclusive jurisdiction over this and we're not bringing them back,
which I'm totally totally in favor of.
Speaker 3 (12:30):
I can't believe how great this Trump administration is.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
As you know, we'll get back to that in a second.
But it is the fact that an American judge said
to a present, you need to bring back someone who
was here illegally. That alone the two things that infuriate me,
and I'm very partisan in one way, but one is that.
The second one is that when I read somebody says
born in Mexico or Canada, went to college there, and
(12:57):
as a forty year old, like you've been in America
for how long we're or you were a federal judge exactly,
that was noticeable too.
Speaker 4 (13:04):
Yes, yes, yes, I'm glad you mentioned that Ryan grew Dusky.
I suspect do you remember that after Trump's magnificent Mexican
rapist speech, there was somebody was suing him. I forget
what it was for you probably remember.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
I remember that he complained about the case. Yes, I
remember that he was Mexican. The judge the case.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
Do you remember the case. I don't remember the case.
Speaker 1 (13:27):
I remember the inderal case, but I remember the judge
was Mexican. He made a big hurrah that the judges
partisan because he was born in Mexican.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
Right, That's what I wanted to address here.
Speaker 4 (13:37):
Everyone, I mean, everyone went mental over that. Oh how
dare you mention that he's a Mexican? Okay, except for
my entire life, I have been told that a criminal
conviction has to be thrown out if it's all white
people on the journey. So we cannot trust white Americans
steeped in the Magna carta and the rule of law,
who have been here for generations to rule on a
(14:00):
criminal case with a black defendant. If it's all white jurors,
well that it's just prime facia. That can't be a
correct jury verdict. Nope, throwing out the conviction. But Trump
meant mentions that this guy is a Mexican. With the
entire media is claiming that he called all Mexicans rapists.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
It's like there's a movie I forget what it was,
was like a who done it? And they were like,
I mean it was a lib woke movie during COVID
or during BLM, and they were like, the Mexican character
was so pure they couldn't tell a lie without throwing up.
It's that's how they treat a lot of these form
board judges who do make rulings, and I'm sorry they are.
I don't understand how you could be in America for
(14:41):
less than I don't know, fifty years and you're sitting
there and you're making rulings for the country as a whole.
President Trump in his first term, during the Mexican Muslim
ban or whatever last of it was, he had more
nationwide injunctions than all previous presidents combined. And he said
to Eclipse that during this term.
Speaker 4 (15:02):
Yes, now I think he should ignore them. He is
doing the right thing. This is a point I've made.
I'm not just making it for Trump.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
I just looked it up. I think I made it when.
Speaker 4 (15:13):
Bush was president and the issue was military trials for
terrorists captured on the battle field in the commander in
chief's wheelhouse, I think you would say, and judges were saying, no, no, no, no, no,
we want them in an Article three court.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
They must be in an Article three And at the.
Speaker 4 (15:34):
Time, I've always argued these are three co equal. I
love that word. It's like flammable and inflammable. So equal
branches of government. And worse than that, I mean the
executive branch, which is.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Equal to the entire judiciary.
Speaker 4 (15:54):
One man holds the power of all the executive power
of the United States, the legislature, you know, white camera legislation.
Speaker 3 (16:01):
Everybody gets the gist of that. These district court judges
hold like one.
Speaker 4 (16:06):
Even even acting as if you know, Chief Justice John
Roberts is as important as some puny district Court judge,
it's still about one two thousandth of the people.
Speaker 3 (16:16):
There.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
There are eight over eight hundred district cork and Appellate
court judges. So the fact that there are six hundred
and seventy district court judges so more than Congress, more
than both houses combined. No Senator can make a ruling
for the entire United States, but one of six hundred
and seventy ken It makes it feel like there is
a judicial supremacy versus a coequal branch.
Speaker 4 (16:40):
Yes, and I'm pretty sure there are at least five
justices who would agree with that. I not only should
Trump ignore the orders, I think he ought to start
calling up Chief Justice John Roberts and saying, I see
you have an interesting bunch of interesting cases on the
docket coming up. Would you mind setting a tenth chair
(17:01):
up on the dais because I'd like to hear the
oral arguments, maybe write an opinion or two. You should
start writing to district court judges. I would like to
be included in the evidentiary hearing. I'll be making a
ruling on that. It is just it is totally beyond
the power of judges what they're doing.
Speaker 3 (17:20):
And you know, maybe I'll write about this.
Speaker 4 (17:22):
But besides the fact that the president completely should be
ignoring them, it is as if he is calling and
asking to sit in on, you know, district courts engaging
in criminal sentencing.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
This is an.
Speaker 4 (17:35):
Extension of the left using the courts to get what
they can't get through democracy. And in particular, I think
to explain this simply because the course have been doing
this for such a long time, most people don't even
recognize the outrage that is going on courts, all courts,
(17:55):
including the Supreme Court. Per the Constitution, decide cases and
controversies the parties before them. That is what they are deciding.
They aren't finding anyone else to these cases. Now, they
may have to interpret a law in order to decide
that case or controversy.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
But the way all courts.
Speaker 4 (18:14):
Have kind of been operating, certainly the Supreme Court, where
I don't know, I think most of my life is
let's look at the law and the Constitution and we
will prommel gates an.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
Overarching rule for the entire country.
Speaker 4 (18:27):
Okay, that's making a law that isn't deciding.
Speaker 3 (18:32):
A case or controversy between two parties.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
So, for example, one of the cases I wrote about
this week, which I made clear in my column, the
Students for Fair Admissions versus Harvard. Technically, what the Supreme
Court did was decide a case between Students for Fair
Admissions versus Harvard.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
That's it.
Speaker 4 (18:55):
By implication, every other college and university in America. I mean,
I guess they can start, you know, just openly continue. Well,
they are openly continuing their discrimination. But you could sue
each one of these over and over and over again,
but you're just going to get these procureum decisions by
the Supreme Court right.
Speaker 1 (19:13):
If you're a lawyer and you want to make a
lot of money, just start suing colleges. And by the way,
law schools, business schools, states, businesses. I mean for NTUIE discrimination,
you have a cattle cade ahead of you.
Speaker 4 (19:28):
Yeah, but all of these cases, I mean, it's easy
to explain when the Supreme Court discovers mysteriously a clause
given providing a right to abortion in the Constitution, or
I might add or write to gay marriage that you
can read the Constitution and there's nothing about abortion, there's
nothing about gay marriage.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
But we are so used to courts issuing.
Speaker 4 (19:52):
Over arching rules by e laws and then applying the
law they have just invented to the dispute before them
that most people I think don't recognize.
Speaker 3 (20:04):
No, they're getting this exactly backwards.
Speaker 4 (20:06):
And what they're doing most of the time is absolutely unconstitutional.
Speaker 3 (20:11):
They aren't a legislature.
Speaker 4 (20:13):
We have a legislature. The judicial power is to decide
cases and controversies.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
Right, And it's a very post I mean it's post FDR,
but it's even really post Johnson that they or post Kennedy,
rather that they really just started becoming the de facto
decider of national policy eradicating both legislative rights but also
state rights in the meantime.
Speaker 4 (20:34):
Yes, And I'd add that the Constitution says, this is
a rough paraphrase, that they decide cases and controversies when
the law. I don't know this is the Constitution or
one of the founding fathers. They determine the laws and
facts when the laws and facts.
Speaker 3 (20:54):
Are disputed by two people, two parties. The party could
be Harvard.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
So you know, notice in this phraseology used by.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
Our founding fathers. I don't know if it's in the arguments.
I think it's just.
Speaker 4 (21:05):
I think the Constitution just says cases are controversy and
any even it doesn't stay using their policy judgment to
decide the cases. When two parties disagree law and facts,
that's it they decided. Then they bind only those parties.
Now another party comes along and makes the exact same argument.
(21:29):
It could be an estoppel doctrine or other things going on.
But technically the Court is deciding only the case of
the two parties before. And so imagine these nationwide injunctions,
I mean talk about making laws.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
It's it's so beyond the pale.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
Because Trumpy Hawaii mentioned before which was the Muslim ban.
It took sixteen months to go from district court to
Supreme Court. You do that two or three times, and
the administration's over. It's done, with the next presence to go.
I mean, that's what their ultimate goal is, through both
judge shopping and through law fair in this practice of
finding the nonprofit that will sponsor the lawsuit, the judge
(22:09):
that will hold it up, and then you know, Ninth
Circuit or whatever circuit holds it until the Supreme Court
finally hears it and you start another lass in the
same issue. It just goes on and on on. What
has surprised you the most about the tru administration thus far.
Speaker 3 (22:23):
That I'm in heaven every day.
Speaker 1 (22:28):
We finally got the executive order on birthright citizenship.
Speaker 3 (22:32):
We finally got the president. I voted for them.
Speaker 4 (22:34):
We finally got the president I wrote a book about,
I campaigned with in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
We finally got them.
Speaker 4 (22:41):
I'm and thank you liberals for just an absurd number
of criminal prosecutions trying to kick him off the ballot
in Colorado and the New York and Latisia.
Speaker 3 (22:52):
James and Atlanta.
Speaker 4 (22:54):
They were all preposterous, as I think I've said before,
the only case where there was actual a law broken
was the documents he had squirreled away at mar A Lago.
But you know, considering and he did, and he did
sort of egregiously refuse to return them. I don't know
that a dawn raid was necessary.
Speaker 3 (23:16):
I don't think they right Malani is underpants draw.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
Right, right right? I mean, knowing who he is, it
wasn't like the liberals accused that he's going to sell
this to the Russians. It was probably just to show
his friends, like, look what I have. This is totally yeah.
I mean it's just a brag. I mean, knowing who
Trump is, it was just a brag to somebody. How
what the president?
Speaker 4 (23:41):
Oh what if he sells them to the enemy. No,
it was one to brag about him. And look at
this letter I got from Kim John.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
No.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
I mean, he's been extremely aggressive on immigration, on trade.
I I know we're going to agree, So what's I mean?
I hate him asking this question. They know what's going
to agree. I think the absence of Jared Kushner speaks
volumes to this administration, and.
Speaker 3 (24:06):
No one giving Stephen Miller the run of the place.
You know when they.
Speaker 4 (24:13):
Okay, fine, Miller, you hung in there, and maybe you
are going to save the country now. But when Trump
signed his third funding bill term one, as he's about
to lose, I think that was right. But we still
had the Republican House in the sense, yeah, with.
Speaker 3 (24:27):
No Wall funding.
Speaker 4 (24:29):
And by the way, Fox totally ignored it. It was
only because I went ballistic and Drudge threw it up
on when it was actually Drudge threw it up on
the Drudge Report that people even knew this is the
third funding bill you are signing. You've said the last
two times, I'll never sign a funding bill again without
without Wall funding.
Speaker 3 (24:50):
And I emailed.
Speaker 4 (24:53):
Miller at the White House and at the time and said, congratulations,
you've wrecked the country.
Speaker 3 (25:02):
He's made up for it.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
I mean, you know what I respect about you and
I want to say to you on my podcast is
that unlike ninety nine point ninety nine eight percent of
the people who are in conservative media, you don't seek
to be to lose yourself in order to stay in
the sphere of influence, which everyone else kind of does.
They don't care what they say, what they believe, because
(25:24):
they want to be in the sphere of influence. What
has changed in your I think third decade in political
media as far as the media, the way that political
figures have influenced politicians, I mean, was only three cable
news networking. I'm SOMEBCCN in the box news. It was
a much more you know, they package what a Republican
(25:47):
was supposed to sound like. And you were always out
of the box because and you were interesting because you're
out of the box. What is it now like when
you have social media and a million because it feels
like there should be more different opinions, but there's a
lot more of the same. They all want to be
in the sphere of influence.
Speaker 4 (26:02):
Yes, And actually, the way the reason I even remember
what the answer to that question is, that's how I
began my first book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Because until
I moved to Washington to work for the Senate Judiciary Committee,
I didn't own a TV. And then I got one
because I wanted to be able to.
Speaker 3 (26:23):
Watch c SPAN because I'm cool that way.
Speaker 4 (26:28):
And so for the first time I'm watching TV while
while workings in a Judiciary committee, and then and then
doing a lot of TV on on. Luckily we had
a president who was a felon, which was really.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
Great for a lawyer trying to not practice law.
Speaker 4 (26:46):
And what I noticed was, for one thing, the hurting everyone,
everyone will say the same thing, and for protection who
I don't know who the first person is, you know
who's the first move or here, and then they will
all say the exact same thing. And I didn't realize
(27:07):
what the rules were, so I'd come along and the
first like ten times this happened, I thought, Wow, I
must be misunderstanding something, because I think that's totally wrong.
For example, how the Supreme Court was going to come
out on Jones v. Clinton or I guess at that
point it was Clinton v.
Speaker 3 (27:27):
Jones.
Speaker 4 (27:29):
I'd written articles for Human Events saying, she's totally going
to win. This is what the precedent is. Of course
she wins. She won nine to zero. I was the
only person saying that. I was writing the article. The
day after the night of the Supreme Court argument, I
hear the flop of the New York Times in front
of my apartment. I get up and I read Linda
(27:50):
Greenhouse and what everyone was saying was they're going to
split the baby, split the baby. She'll be able to sue,
but it won't be during his presidency. They're going to
split the baby. And it did make me sit back
and think, am I Am I wrong about this? And no,
I looked at the case law again. Nope, I think
I'm right, and I swear to you, Ryan grew Dusky.
(28:10):
I was the only person saying that. But then when
the result comes out, not that I'm demanding credit, but
you know, a little pat on the head would be nice.
Speaker 3 (28:20):
No, no one will remember it. And why will no
one remember it?
Speaker 4 (28:22):
Because they all were saying the same wrong thing, so
no one can point it out.
Speaker 1 (28:27):
And you, yeah, and you still have today, is that
the same wrong thing? Because it's what's acceptable, Like it's
acceptable even in like the conserved ghetto, as I call it,
Like this is what the opinion is. It could be
asked and it could be wrong. And sometimes you'll hear
like during the first step back when Trump passes. Not
to muddy any love on Trump, but it was a
(28:48):
bad bill that he said.
Speaker 3 (28:49):
Now his first term really sucks.
Speaker 1 (28:51):
Yeah, so he would say the first step back, which
was horrendous, and he later, according to several juris, regretted it.
But you would hear conservatives. Conservatives sit there and say, well, here,
Hillary Clinton talk about a minority of black people committing
a majority of crimes, and how racist she is. I'm like,
(29:14):
she's right. Everything she's saying here is correct, and you
shouldn't oppose it just because she's saying it when it's correct,
and it will drive me personally insane.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
I will.
Speaker 4 (29:25):
I think the highlight of the Trumps stupidity term one
was in his first debate with Biden.
Speaker 3 (29:32):
I include it in like every third column I write. Now.
Speaker 4 (29:35):
It still makes me so angry. After eight months of
BLM riots and cities being burned down and the homicide
rate going through the roof Donald's Trump bragged, I'm letting
people out of jail now. Black people hate you. You
call them super predators. And by the way, he didn't
(29:55):
call black people. Neither Biden or no one else called
black people super predators. They called super predator super predators.
As you're we're seeing in New York City right now.
I mean, it's always the case that like ninety percent
of the crime is being committed by ten percent of
the people. Lock them up and you go a long
way to solving the crime problem. That's the super predator issue.
(30:16):
It's a perfectly legit issue. The way to attack Biden
was that he's weak on crime, not that I'm letting
people out of jail on that.
Speaker 3 (30:25):
But let's talk about happy days the new Trump administration.
Speaker 1 (30:29):
Now, I go back to the media appointment. What is
the biggest change you've seen in three decades in conservative media?
Has it gotten better than it was in the nineties
or has it gotten in two thousands and tens or
has it gotten worse.
Speaker 4 (30:41):
Well, they're just as stupid, but and just as heard like.
But oh my gosh, it's a huge difference. I've done
a podcast on it. I mean, it blows me away
every single day. When after Romney lost, and long before that,
I mean, Republicans just kept pushing an amnesty, kept pushing
an aim amnesty.
Speaker 3 (31:00):
McCain did it, Bush did it. Romney didn't.
Speaker 4 (31:03):
But as soon as Romney loses, but he was the
toughest on immigration, believe it for sure. Yeah, in twenty twelve,
then you know the RNC I think tank, they get
together the brains of the operation and their ideas.
Speaker 3 (31:19):
We've got to be for an amnesty.
Speaker 4 (31:21):
And I think Rush was I know Hannity came out
for an amnesty.
Speaker 3 (31:26):
And so, I mean those were those were dark days.
Speaker 4 (31:29):
It was down to I mean I didn't know you
then I assume you me Stephen Miller was that drouge
A few drudge Yeah, basically anyone who's ever lived in LA.
That great talk radio host McIntyre. I can't remember his
first name, but he was KABC LA. He wouldn't I
(31:51):
think he didn't vote for Reagan. He didn't vote for
Bush because of because.
Speaker 1 (31:55):
That lady from southern California. Two. She was a big
anti immigration, right remember her name either. There were very
very Michelle Malkin at the time. She wasn't work anymore
in the media, but there were very very very few
because and then we turned out that the autopsy was
doctor to make it seeling and it wasn't even real
begin with because special interests always had I tell I
(32:18):
give special I like talks to people who are like
twenty one twenty two I employees or twenty one twenty
two who never knew the nineties, unfortunately, who never knew
how great America was unfortunately, and they also never knew
how bad it was in the when I started coming
writing articles like six o seven, and it was at
that time and I became a Republican, as I said,
(32:42):
anyone who's against amnesty for legal immigrants, I am for
because I saw how it transformed Queens, New York, where
I'm from born and raised, and I said, this is
they have like dead chickens in backyards now formerly very
nice German or Italian neighborhoods. So I just was like,
this is not the neighbor I grew up, and this
is I see the transformation having for my eyes, and
(33:02):
it is a remarkably better Republican party than it was,
even though it's even just that.
Speaker 3 (33:06):
All the idiot talking heads, I mean, it's just stunning
to me.
Speaker 4 (33:09):
And you know, I'll retweet them sometimes, but they're like
direct quotes from Adios America, and I don't know if
you know.
Speaker 3 (33:16):
Adios America was not well.
Speaker 4 (33:17):
Received at Fox News, it was not well received. It
wasn't well received by my own publishers, Salem.
Speaker 3 (33:25):
They wouldn't allow me to participate in radio events. I
used to always do it to promote any other book.
Speaker 4 (33:31):
Now they've actually published this book and I would be
banned from from.
Speaker 1 (33:34):
Really yeah all of well you told me one time.
So in publishing, the way it works is if you
have a first time bestseller, you don't make money off it.
You make it money off of year advance of your
second book. You didn't make money for your second book.
I don't think right. Is that correct?
Speaker 3 (33:50):
No one would publish it.
Speaker 1 (33:53):
What was your second Bookander Slander? And it was a
bestseller number one?
Speaker 3 (33:59):
All summer.
Speaker 4 (33:59):
I publishers are all summer, but no one would publishing.
My agent, Jonie Evans, would forward me some of the emails,
and she was in with all the publishing houses. You
couldn't have a better book agent. And I just remember
one of them with the publishers saying, we do not
think this would move the public dialogue forward. So I
(34:22):
responded to Joni saying, wow, that's so weird. I thought
publishers made money. And how many books they sold.
Speaker 3 (34:28):
I had no idea.
Speaker 4 (34:29):
It was how many inches they moved the public. And
there's a chapter in Slander about how publishers they would
give quotes about how they kept remember that woman Naomi Wolf,
They kept giving home million dollar advances, they kept losing
money on them, and then the head of the publishing
company would say yes, but was so proud to have
her as an author, and there were all these books.
(34:49):
Actually it was my mother who pointed this out to me.
When High Crimes and Mister Meanors was a smash bestseller,
my mother got a little resentful that everyone kept referring
to it as a surprise bestseller. My mother's very sensitive
to any slight toward me. And I thought, huh, that's funny,
And so I looked up on Nexus and there was
(35:11):
one massive conservative blockbuster after another, and they were all
described as surprise best sellers. They were literally published by
a mainstream publisher. Yeah, there was God and Man at Yale.
I think Whittaker Chambers witness some of the really big ones.
(35:33):
Probably the one on true story of Chapelquitica, I don't remember,
but it's.
Speaker 3 (35:36):
In that chapter.
Speaker 4 (35:37):
And luckily my publisher for Slander was Steve Ross, God
bless him, who actually did think that a publishing company
Crown should make money, and so they wanted it. But
I've been sitting with this book for a year.
Speaker 1 (35:54):
Anyone ever apologize or say, hey, we lost money on you.
I wish you would have done it.
Speaker 4 (35:58):
No, but Steve Ross was happy because he he published it,
and I forced the publishing industry.
Speaker 3 (36:05):
They said it would take a year to turn around.
That used to be.
Speaker 4 (36:09):
It's hard to believe now given technology, but it used
to be you'd turn in a book and it would
come out as a book one year later. And they said, okay,
this will come out one year later. I said, I
can't do that. I got to go back to Regnory.
I just I can't sit with this book anymore. It's
got to come out now. I know it's got to
come out now. And and so they fiddled around and
they said, okay, we'll put it out in June. And
(36:30):
my editor later told me that the reason they were
resisting so much was they always knew they could do
it in two months, but no one wanted to work
that hard. So now everybody well very quickly.
Speaker 3 (36:43):
Now it's so much easier with con writer.
Speaker 1 (36:47):
Well, and thank you so much for coming on my podcast.
Before I leave you, I have I mean, there's I
have so many friends who always like, well next to me,
see An, can you bring me with me? And I'm like, uh,
you'd probably be too spanished, whatever, but I want to
ask one of their questions. You very famously had a
lot of arguments on television with like Barbara Walters and
(37:09):
Katie Couric, and you know, just like you know spats
on air, Chris Matthews when you called John Edwards a
woman one of your best moments. Who is someone on
TV that you enjoyed personally that you just argued with
for the for the sake of it on televisor working
for the political reasons?
Speaker 3 (37:28):
A fair number of them.
Speaker 4 (37:29):
I don't know if they exist anymore. Alan Combs, obviously,
Bill Joy Behar. There was a guy, Rick Sanchez on
CNN who hilariously was canceled for he said something about how.
Speaker 3 (37:45):
Jewish power over.
Speaker 4 (37:47):
The media, and to prove him wrong, they got him fired.
Speaker 3 (37:54):
Way to go, Wow, he was wrong, all right?
Speaker 1 (38:00):
And where can people get your substack? You're fantastic substect
that everyone should subscribe to.
Speaker 4 (38:06):
Thank you and Culter dot substack dot com. I have
an interview with Michael Shellenberger comming and right now the
Seth Dylan interview is up.
Speaker 3 (38:14):
And you got my columns every week.
Speaker 1 (38:16):
Her comms are great, her podcasts are better. And Coulter,
you're amazing. Thank you for being here.
Speaker 3 (38:21):
Good to talk to you. Ryan, You're dusky.
Speaker 2 (38:23):
Hey, we'll be right back after this This is the
ask Me Anything part of the show where listeners can
sit there and send me an email Ryan at Numbers
Game podcast dot com.
Speaker 1 (38:34):
That's ryanat numbers Plural podcast dot com. Chew me an
email about literally anything, and I'll ask. I'll answer for
you the best my ability. This question comes from Wes
West asked, your school board pack did very well in
Wisconsin while the Supreme Court candidate lost by double digits.
Why do you think you were successful locally more than statewide?
Conservatives work? That's a great question. So I have a
(38:56):
school board pack the seventeen seventy six project. We do
school board races across the country. We did I think
twenty seven races in Wisconsin and we won twenty of
the twenty seven twenty six We had a seventy five
percent victory rate in a day that wasn't very good
for Republicans. Statewide one, school boards are more localized, so
we had a lot of regions that were very conservative
(39:17):
and they voted for the conservative judge. Those a conservative
rather school board canate as well as a conservative judge.
That partly benefited us. But I think when he comes
to Wisconsin and why Republicans and Conservatives fell short. I
think there's a number of reasons. One, I think Elon Musk.
I know Conservatives love him, but among Americans as a whole,
(39:39):
they don't like Elon. Elon's favorability ratings are very low,
much lower than President Trump's or Vice president of vanceas
he comes across as you know, obviously very wealthy and
possibly doing business with a federal government or having control
in federal government that he gets brands from which people find,
you know, not tasteful. But they find him weird. That's
(40:00):
just the truth of the matter. They find him weird.
He's somebody who's talked about things like putting chips in
people's brains and having you know, multi planet empires, and
he's just talked about things about humanity and a post
human world that I think people find very very off putting,
including Republicans, including Christians. That makes people question things. His
(40:24):
love of AI, I think gives a lot of people
some anxiety. So him going to Iowa doing events, being
the face of the rally instead of something like Trump,
I think actually hurt the conservative candidate. Secondly, on early vote,
the Democrats did a very robust early vote plan. They
got people out early, so on election theydempt to wait
for election day. We've seen this problem for so long.
(40:47):
Republicans like we have seen this problem constantly where we
do not get our lowro pensity voters out and they
get theirs out through the early voting system. Republicans got
a lot of voters out. We had a good candidate,
he did a hard work, he did a good job.
He wasn't a bad candidate. But election day, just the
way we run elections now, it starts way before the
(41:08):
actual first Tuesday November. It starts months ahead of time
in some places because the early vote, and we have
to treat it like that. And I think that lastly,
as I said before, we worked in certain regions like
Waukesha County and other counties that may be more conservative
than to it, and we were reinforcing conservative margins. We
did flip two school board districts, but that mattered immensely
to it. But I think that when it comes to
(41:29):
Wisconsin and all future elections, I don't think that Elon
Musk should be the face of the of the anti
liberal movement. I just think that people find him strange
at best and off putting at worse. The Roman salute
Nazis lootsuff doesn't help, and we have to do a
better job of that. I'm not saying he has no value.
I'm not saying he's a bad person. I'm not saying that.
(41:49):
But for the face of voters when they question who
would you like to have a beer with? I think
they might like to ask elon a couple questions, But
autistic men in their mid forties with fourteen kids, team kids,
what HA made is with five or four different women
is not their first choice. That's my best opinion of it.
And that's why I think we do better locally than
conservatives did statewide. Anyway, thank you so much. Please submit
(42:12):
questions for next week and every question every every show afterwards.
It's Ryan at Numbers game podcast dot com. Ryan at
Numbers thoral podcast dot com. I appreciate you all being here.
I appreciate you all for listening. Please like and subscribe
on the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcast where you get your podcast.
I'll see you guys next week. Thank you again for listening.
Host
Gill Alexander
Popular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!