How Biden Set Harris Up to Fail

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
This was a fascinating story, andI didn't get time to address it last
week. But it has to dowith Kamala Harris as the borders are,
and I think that the commentariat aroundit is kind of getting it wrong,
both on the left and the right. A little bit on the right is

(00:24):
getting it a little bit inaccurate.The commentariat on the left is to basically
try to disappear the reality of Harris'sinvolvement in the border and make it appear
as if the relative stability at theborder, as compared with the first three
and a half years of the Bidenministry or the first three years of the

(00:45):
Biden administration, all the border's fine. See, Biden got it all under
control after making it out of controlas soon as he came into office.
So Harris, no, Harris wasdoing fine. She was never the borders
are. And we had this sillyfight last week for about three or four
days where everyone was peeing their pantsover the notion of whether or not Kamala

(01:11):
Harris was the borders Zar, whichis such as she was never the borders
Zar, and you had these outletstrianngrily insisting that she was never the borders
are in spite of the fact thatthey had written articles calling her the border
Zar. And it's such a sillything to argue about because clearly President Biden

(01:32):
designated that he was going to puther in charge of a lot of stuff
relating to the immigration problem that wasemerging in the first year of his presidency.
And czar is not within American governmentsome formal title. It is an
informal moniker that the press puts ona person when they've been designated in some

(02:01):
way to be the point person,usually for a presidential administration to tackle problem
X, Y or Z. Sowas she formally appointed the czar? No,
there's no formal appointment process for someoneto be quote the borders are.

(02:22):
But President Biden designated that he wasgoing to make Kamala Harris ort of this
point person for this and it's thatdesignation that I want to talk about.
I read this fascinating piece from NationalReview. You can read it at my
Twitter account Twitter dot com slash FresnoJohnny at Fresno Johnny. It's written by
Noah Rothman. It's really interesting theways in which Biden clearly did not like

(02:52):
Harris. And it's been my thesisall along. Biden never wanted to pick
Kamala Harris as his vice president.He was forced to do so because Democrats
felt pressure to have their ticket includesomeone who wasn't an old white guy,
and because the donors liked Harris.Harris comes out of California, she comes

(03:16):
out of northern California. She comesout of the Willie Brown magic circle of
donors. She was connected with SiliconValley people. Donors loved Kamala Harris,
and they clearly foisted her upon JoeBiden. Biden had no reason to like
Harris. They had never worked togethertheir time in government, never overlapped.

(03:37):
Biden leaves the vice presidency when shestarts in the US Senate, so they
have no history of working together inthe Obama administration, in the Senate,
anywhere. And in fact, Harristried in a ham fisted way to call
Joe Biden a racist to his faceduring the debate, which apparently is something

(04:00):
that Jill Biden seems like a womanwho holds a grudge, never forgot,
and never liked Harris. So whatseems to have happened is that Biden gets
saddled with Harris drags her across thefinish line to win the election, and

(04:24):
then he proceeds to give her sortof ownership and responsibility for problems he knows
are not solvable, including the borderthat basically Biden so little regarded her and

(04:46):
so disdained her, so disdained herability or lack of ability as a politician
and as an executive, that hejust sort of dumped several of his problems
into her portfolio of stuff she workedon, and basically things that he knew

(05:08):
were not really solvable, he wouldsort of assign to her so that she
would take the blame and look likean idiot. So here's the piece.
Harris's record is a story both ofincompetence and of how little faith her own
allies have in her political acumen andcapabilities as an executive. Since Joe Biden

(05:32):
announced his intention to withdraw from Americanpublic life at the end of his term,
the Trump campaign and its Republican allieshave focused on their new opponents subpar
performance handling border security. The GOPstrategy makes sense for all the media's efforts
to revise or even erase history.Harris was in function, if not title,

(05:53):
although even that, like title,no one gets formally designated with this
title in function, if not title, was the Biden administration's Borders Zar.
And yet the Republican Party's approach tothis messaging campaign has so far been to
frame Harris as a fully empowered functionarywho nevertheless bungled her charge. In reality,

(06:15):
the Biden administration set Harris up tofail as a way of providing the
president cover for his own dismal mishandlingof the border. It was only two
months after Biden's inauguration, with allTrump's COVID era restrictions still in place,
that encounters between migrants and patrol agentsexploded at the US Mexico border, soon

(06:38):
to eclipse even pre pandemic highs.That same month, the President tapped his
vice president not to bring the crisisunder control, but to take the blame
for it. So here's the criticalpart. Harris was not empowered to oversee
the administration's policing efforts on the border. So these are all the things that

(07:01):
Biden didn't actually task Harris with.She wasn't allowed to oversee policing efforts.
She wasn't allowed to spearhead negotiations onCapitol Hill for Congress to pass new laws
regulating asylum. She wasn't allowed tonegotiate deportation with countries beyond Mexico's borders from

(07:28):
which most of the migrants were coming. So again a lot of this at
that time, it was not Mexicanmigration. It was coming from Central American
countries south of Mexico. She wascharged. Here's the actual tasks she was
given. She was charged with,quote, talking to the leaders of Mexico

(07:49):
and the nations that make up CentralAmerica's northern triangle to address quote the root
causes of migration, gang violence,and trafficking and cartels, as the president
said at the time, but alsonatural disasters hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.
Rothman, in his piece writes,if the vice president had the power

(08:11):
to mitigate phenomena like that, she'dbe overqualified to merely preside over the Senate.
In fact, as he writes,Harris wasn't granted any power at all,
and she treated the role with whichshe'd been saddled like the burden that
it was. Within weeks, herconspicuous failure to even visit the border she'd

(08:37):
been tasked overseas became a political liability, won her lack of political talent only
made worse. But within a fewmonths of her accession to the role,
Harris started producing the only results shecould. She got a commitment from twelve
private companies to quote invest in CentralAmerica. She was able to deploy us

(09:00):
A USA disaster team to provide foodassistance and poverty reduction, and she got
three hundred million dollars in humanitarian assistance. All this supposedly to mitigate the push
factors driving migrants north. Its effectswere obviously negligible. The initiative's failure came

(09:22):
at no surprise to Kamala Harris orher staff, so by twenty twenty one,
Harris herself was leaking to reporters aboutwhat a BS situation she had been
set up for. Harris's aids isRothman writing here, Harris's aids were telling
reporters that they had begun to panicover the torment to which Biden had consigned

(09:45):
them. As CNN reported at thetime, her assignment was being mischaracterized and
could be politically damaging if she werelinked to the border, as indeed is
happening right now, indeed potential potentiallyopening her up to criticism for the handling
of the seemingly intractable problem was whyHarris was tapped to be the face of

(10:05):
the administration's failures on the border inthe first place. So Biden was deliberately
just dumping his problems into Harris's lapso that she could be the fall gal,
not the fall guy. The fallgal the President's staff, Rothman continues,

(10:28):
never missed an opportunity to undermine Harris'sconduct in her new role, promulgating
the subtle implication that the horrors atthe border were an outgrowth outgrowth of her
mismanagement of the crisis. The exercisein misdirection was so effective for the Biden
administration that it went back to thesame well on several subsequent occasions. Harris

(10:50):
was soon given the task of combatingstate level Republican efforts to reform voting systems,
over which she had zero authority.The White House dispatched her to Europe
to stop Russia from invading Ukraine,three days before Russian forces cascaded over the
Ukrainian border, all the while WhiteHouse staff scoffed at her failures in on

(11:13):
background conversations with the press. Herportfolio is trash. Harris ally Bakari sellers
complain in October of twenty twenty one, those sentiments were likely reflective of Harris's
own consternation. Maybe I don't sayno enough, she half joked in an
interview with b Et that year.But the reported tensions between Harris's office in

(11:35):
Biden's staff, and the lingering hostilitytoward Harris nursed by Jill Biden, who
was said to have not forgiven theVice president for sandbagging her husband in the
Democratic Party's twenty nineteen primary debates,are indicative of why she was treated like
a receptacle into which the most thanklessand insurmountable tasks were dumped. And beyond

(12:03):
that, there was also constant leakingfrom the Biden camp that Harris was unelectable.
The president's staffers routinely retailed the notionthat Harris was unelectable to the presidency,
in part because of how poorly shemanaged the roles with which they had
burdened her. Engineering This self fulfillingprophecy served President Biden's purpose at the time,

(12:26):
which was to neutralize his most viableDemocratic rival. Isn't that amazing that
Biden just viewed Harris as his chiefrival the chief person he had to be
afraid of unseating him for twenty twentyfour, and so he was actively undermining
her the whole time politically, andhis staff was actively undermining her the whole

(12:48):
time politically and dumping all of hisproblem, all of his failures, just
getting dumped into her lap. Soit is a thing of like I think
in general, Harris Harris has totake responsibility for the failures of the Biden

(13:09):
administration. If she thought the Bidenadministration were such a sinking ship, then
she either needed to make her objectionto things known or resign so by which
she never did. So I thinkany vice president has to take some of
the crap for the failures of theadministration she serves it. But I do

(13:35):
think it's really interesting how, infact, she wasn't really very empowered when
it came to the border, andthat was by design. It was Biden
deliberately trying to set her up tolook terrible, to take the fall for

(13:56):
him, and to damage her politically, because Biden knew that once twenty twenty
four came around and he was eightyone years old, people would be people
would have the knives out for him. So obviously his effort to do that
it didn't quite work. When wereturn the silliness in some ways of blaming

(14:18):
Harris for Biden's problems, at leastfrom a governmental perspective. That's next on
the John Girardi Show. I thoughtthis at the time when Republicans were pushing
for the impeachment of Alexandro Majorcis,and I think this has to relate to

(14:39):
Harris's failures at the border. Andwe're talking about this really interesting piece from
National Review by Noah Rothman where he'sdetailing how, yeah, it's not like
Harris covered herself in glory with theborder, but it's actually kind of a
more rather than just a story ofHarris being incompetent, it's really actually this
story of Biden deliberately dumping all ofhis problems, his administration's most intractable failures,

(15:09):
dumping them into Harris's lap, likesort of publicly saying that she's going
to be the point person for X, Y or Z, but not actually
giving her the authority to do anythingabout it and so, and thus putting
these unsolvable problems into her purviews sothat she takes the fall for it,

(15:31):
and she looks bad. Why BecauseBiden hated Harris's guts and he saw her
as a threat to himself politically,which it turned out she was, and
so he would dump all of hisproblems on her, including the border.
And I sort of thought this atthe time with my orkus, like why
are the Republicans bothering and peaching Mayorcis? Is only one person in the executive

(15:58):
branch has ultimately executive authority, thePresident. The executive power of the United
States law enforcement power in the UnitedStates government is vested in Article two of
the Constitution in one person, thePresident. All of the inferior officers of

(16:22):
the United States, all the inferiorofficials who exercise some level of executive power,
they are exercising the President's delegated power, and thus they have to do
what they do in accordance with howthe President wants it done. And that's

(16:42):
why I always thought impeaching Maorcus wassilly, Like Majorcus wasn't doing anything.
The Republicans wanted to impeach ma Orcisfor the policies Maorcus was adopting for how
to regulate immigration, for how toregulate the border. It wasn't for something

(17:03):
like my orcus was accepting bribes.It was stuff where my orcus was obviously
clearly carrying out the president's wishes.So if all my orcus is doing is
carrying out the president's wishes, Okay, I get being upset with my Orcus.
I get maybe the argument that myorcus is doing things that are contrary

(17:26):
to law, or that they arelawless, or that he's violating his oath
of office. But ultimately the biggerfish here is Biden. Why not impeach
Biden over it? If you're gonnaimpeach anybody at all, which maybe is
just a fool's Errand in general,impeach Biden, not my Orcus, or
my Orcus is just doing his job. He's just doing what he's told.

(17:51):
He is carrying out the executive authorityof the United States' wishes. And that
executive authority was Joe Biden. Soit is a thing of like, yeah,
Harris is a failure in this regard, in that regard, in this
regard, in that regard, butall the authority that Harris had was delegated.

(18:18):
She would have no authority unless itcame to her from above to if
I may rip off the words ofChrist to paunch the pilot. All of
the vice president's authority other than breakingties in the Senate, comes to her
from the president, like she onlyhas jobs within the executive branch insofar as

(18:44):
the president wants to give her ajob. And that's kind of the interesting
slash weird thing about the vice presidencyis that, frankly, it's kind of
useless for governance. I mean,you can get a vice president who is
super competent and you want to havehelp you with all kinds of things and

(19:07):
manage all kinds of stuff. Oryou can pick, you know, a
total lummocks or I don't know,you can pick a total doorknob who just
sits around and does nothing and helpsyou win a swing state. And honestly,
I think getting a dufist who justhelps you win a swing state at
the end of the day might bemore useful because you can just have other

(19:30):
advisors advise you. You can haveother delegated people do the kinds of delegated
things you would have the vice presidentdo. The vice president has no authority
on his or her own. AndI think that's the fascinating thing about Harris
is that most of the things thatI mean, Look, you're the vice
president. You deserve to take crapfor the failures of the administration you serve

(19:52):
under. And Harris should take someblame for the crisis at the border,
for this, for that the otherthing. If Harris was truly thought that
the Biden administration was doing stuff wrongand was not empowering her appropriately, then
she should have piped up about it. But she never did so. I

(20:14):
think she hasked to take the crapfor the failures of the Biden administration.
But it is interesting how Biden wasreally deliberately setting her up to fail because
of how much he seemingly loathed anddisdained her. When we return the bogus
Supreme Court quote reform rules that Bidenis pushing now and Harris is also embracing

(20:37):
now. That is next on theJohn Girardi Show. I've been talking the
last several years about the ridiculous andI'm hardly some uniquely insightful commentator or observer
of these things. By the way, a lot of smart lawyer commentators have
been seeing this same thing happening andpredicting what's coming down the pike. The

(21:00):
constant barrage to create a sort offog of news, the constant barrage of
stories around individual members of the SupremeCourt, and all concerned all the conservatives,
none of the liberals have ever doneanything that scans in spite of let's

(21:21):
bring up lots of examples of liberaljustices doing all these same things. Story
after story after story after story overthe last three years have detailed ways allegedly
in which conservative justices on the SupremeCourt engaged in alleged ethical improprieties. Clarence

(21:44):
Thomas was friends with this billionaire andtook a bunch of flights on his private
jet. Chief Justice Roberts's wife isa high powered attorney. She's kind of
like an attorney headhunter who helps bigtime law firms recruit kind of partner level
attorneys to move laterally to to newfirms, and she gets compensated very handsomely

(22:14):
for that. Not exactly a surprisingthing that a Supreme Court justice is married
to a lawyer. That's happened manytimes before. Ruth Bader Ginsberg's husband was
a very high powered tax attorney inDC. Amy Cony Barrett's husband was I
think a former federal prosecutor, andI think now he's got a practice in

(22:34):
d C. So John Roberts's wifeis a very successful attorney as well,
but both this raises questions about proprietshe trading in on her husband's name inappropriately.
Forever all the BS stories about samAlito, which, by the way,
like the story all we've discussed samAlito's wife was flying an upside down

(22:59):
American. We know all about allthe different flags that the Alito family has
flown outside their home, but weonly just learned a week or two ago
that the Biden administration hasn't had acabinet meeting since before the Israel war started
in October of last year. Bythe way, have you noticed no stories
anymore, no leaks, no storiesanything about Biden being seen Isle anymore.

(23:22):
After two solid weeks of the pressdumping all their notebooks out, every story
they had collected over the last threeyears about how obviously senile Biden was book
the vault, now all of asudden, we're silent. Anyway, So
their story after story after story aboutthe Supreme Court justice, and it's always

(23:45):
the conservative justices being in some waycorrupt, violating ethics rules, not reporting
gifts they received and everything the Courtwas doing was in accordance with sort of
the ethical standards that the Court sortof sets for themselves. And why does
the Court set ethical standards for itself. Well, lower courts abide by different

(24:12):
kinds of ethics rules set for them, but the Supreme Court is a kind
of coequal branch of government to theexecutive branch and the legislative branch. And
basically, excuse me, Basically,the Supreme Court has sort of taken the
posture of no, we can't havethe legislative branch mandating our terms of conduct

(24:36):
for us anymore so than we shouldbe able to mandate the terms of conduct
for the executive branch or for thelegislative branch for how they do their jobs.
We're a co equal branch of government, so we'll have a body of
ethics rules, but it's our ownbody of rules that we set for ourselves

(24:59):
as a co equals branch of government. And that's just the way it'll be,
much like Congress sets up Congress hasrules and procedures for kicking someone out
of Congress for misconduct. That's howwe're going to run this. That Congress
doesn't tell us what to do.So now beyond that, beyond this ethics

(25:22):
thing where basically they've taken a bunchof non stories and they've been able to
gin up enough non stories over thecourse of the last year that it creates
what I call the fog of news, where it doesn't matter that the twenty
stories or whatever it is, thatall twenty of them have been ludicrously you

(25:42):
know, ludicrous reaches to try tosomehow say that conservative justices are corrupt when
really they aren't. There's nothing there. It doesn't matter that none of the
twenty stories work, the fact thatthere have been so many story stories of
alleged corruption by conservative justices on thecourt and noticed that oh, no liberal

(26:06):
justice has ever done this, anda lot of a lot of the stuff
they're criticizing people for it's stuff thatthe liberal justices did too. Oh,
Clarence Thomas accepted free flights when hewas asked to go speak at you know,
such and such. Yeah, RuthBader Ginsberg received free flights when she
went and spoke over here. Sonyasodomy Are received free this when she went

(26:26):
to speak over there. Elena Kagan, like, it's a lot of it
is stuff that the liberal justices havealso done, but it's not an ethical
issue when Justice Bryer did it,or when Justice Ginsburg did it, or
when Justice sodomy or does it.They even tried to make a story out

(26:47):
of Neil Gorsich, like he hada home in Colorado and he was selling
it and somehow this was an ethicsfile. Almos another lawyer in Colorado,
but some Democrat lawyer in Colorado andcourses was like, yeah, I sold
my house. I don't know howthat can be an I made money off
the sale of my house. Okay, that's not an ethics violation to sell

(27:08):
your house. Now, because theyhave this fog of news, as we
call it, they deliberately build upthese phony, baloney stories in order to
justify proposals to in some way alterthe makeup of the Supreme Court and thereby

(27:37):
get more liberal results, because that'swhat they want. You have to understand
how fundamentally liberals think that the universeis not right, that the universe is
in fundamental disorder because the Supreme Courtis not controlled by liberals. They have
controlled the Supreme Court fundamentally. Theyhave controlled the Supreme Court since nineteen thirty

(28:00):
seven. It's been their court,and any political issue that they really cared
about they could always count on theCourt to bail them out. I mean,
they managed to make abortion legal nationwidewithout us, without like a single

(28:21):
Democratic vote on the subject, justa snap of our fingers. In nineteen
seventy three, we went from acountry where most of the country outlawed abortion
to every single state in the Unionhad legal abortion for all forty weeks of
pregnancy for any reason. Snap ofthe fingers. Gay marriage becomes the law
of the land. With a snapof the fingers. This that the other
liberals have fundamentally controlled the Supreme Courtfor all They fundamentally controlled it for almost

(28:48):
ninety years, for over eighty years, and Ginsburg dying in September of twenty
twenty and being replaced by Amy ConyBarrett, they think is the greatest disaster,
the greater disaster than the Titanic,thinking it fundamentally puts the universe in

(29:14):
disarray, and particularly rov Wade beingoverturned, that they cannot tolerate it.
So conservatives who tolerated this for almostninety years and say, well, I
guess we got to do the hardwork of electing presidents and electing senators who
believe in the more limited role forthe courts and who will start the federalist

(29:37):
society and will the hard work ofworking within the system. So Conservatives like
schmucks for eighty plus years kept theirnoses to the grindstone until eventually winning enough
elections, getting enough presidents who areconvinced of more limited role for the courts,

(30:00):
and got enough senators elected that theycould both nominate and confirm less liberal
justices to the Supreme Court. Andnow there is a six justice Republican majority,
Republican appointee majority, and Liberals havingbeen out of power on the Supreme

(30:22):
Court for all of five minutes.Liberals are absolutely apoplectic about it. And
so Biden and Harris are proposing onethe idea of term limits for Supreme Court
justices and an ethics code. Now, the ethics code is problematic. It

(30:45):
would be problematic for Congress to passa law imposing an ethics code on the
members of the Court again for thesesort of separation of powers arguments. But
the real thing, the thing thatthey really care about, the ethics thing
is a side issue. They don'tactually care about this ethics thing. They've

(31:06):
made a big deal about alleged ethicalviolations in order to rationalize the thing they
really want, which is term limits. And they want term limits. Now.
They never gave a crap about termlimits for the last again, almost
ninety years. Why well, becausethey owned the court for the last ninety
years. They didn't want term limits. They wanted those old geezers, those

(31:30):
old liberal geezers like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, hanging on for dear life to the
bitter end. But now that they'vegot you know, they're staring down the
barrel of Amy Cony. Barrett's goingto be on the Supreme Court for another
thirty years. Now, they're playinga different tune. So here's the problem.

(31:53):
Now, when we return, I'mgoing to talk about the constitutional problem.
The constitutional problem is that Article threadof the Constitution guarantees lifetime appointments.
When we return, we'll talk aboutthe absurd way that they're going to try
to say, oh, well,well, term limits for Supreme Court justices.
You don't need to amend the Constitutionto do it. That is next

(32:13):
on the John Gerardi Show. PresidentBiden and Vice President Harris have introduced some
proposals for quote reforming the Supreme Court, one of which is an ethics code
for Supreme Court justice, a mandatoryethics code, as opposed to the Court
imposed the Court imposed ethics code,which the Court has a self imposed ethics

(32:37):
code for various kinds of separation ofpowers reasons. But that's really a side
show. The thing that actually theliberals care about because they cannot stand the
disorder in the universe of Republican appointeesbeing in control of the Supreme Court for
the first time, and well moreconservative leaning justices anyway, being in control

(32:59):
of the Supreme Court for the firsttime in eighty plus years. The thing
they really care about is term limits. Now, at first, in that
you might recall in the twenty twentycampaign you had liberals saying we should we
should pack the court, we shouldincrease the number of justices so that Biden
can appoint all the replacements. AndI think Democrats realize that's a very unpopular

(33:19):
proposal. No one was going tobuy that, so they decided, well,
what sounds a lot more moderate thanthat, term limits. Term limits.
There you go. Here's the problemwith term limits. Article three of
the Constitution says that the justices ofthe Supreme Court or of any inferior courts

(33:40):
established by Congress, shall serve ingood behavior. In good behavior is a
term of art, and it basicallymeans for life. It's not limited by
a term of office. You're justallowed to serve as long as you want.

(34:04):
It's a lifetime appointment. That's howjust judge ships, including being on
the Supreme Court have been understood.Now. The idea that Biden cooked up,
and it sounds like it was JoeBiden called his old buddy Larry Tribe.
Lawrence Tribe was a retired law professorat Harvard. Lawrence Tribe was kind
of like the peat best of liberalSupreme Court. Justice Pete Best was the

(34:27):
fifth Beadle, you know, theguy who almost made it as a member
of the Beatles but didn't quite so. Lawrence Tribe was the would have could
have should a Liberal candidate for theCourt. Everyone sort of thought that maybe
Bill Clinton would nominate him to theSupreme Court, or maybe Barack Obama would
nominate him to the Supreme Court,and it just never quite worked out,
never quite between. Well, Clintonneeded to appoint a woman this time,

(34:49):
and Obama was appointing this person justdidn't didn't work out for Larry Tribe.
So he's a law professor at Harvardand he's, you know, in his
old age. He calls up,Biden calls him up, a couple old
geezers yacting on the phone, andTribe and Biden sort of cook up this

(35:10):
idea. Well, okay, yeah, the Constitution says in good behavior,
so that's like a lifetime appointment.So you know, we can't kind of
you know, if you want tochange the Constitution, obviously you can't do
that with just a normal law passedby Congress. So maybe what we should

(35:31):
do then is say, well,no, no, no, no,
no. They still get a lifetimeappointment, but basically they can only serve
on the Supreme Court for this manyyears and then when they're done with that
term, they get to be therest of their life appointment on one of
the lower courts. So maybe maybeyou get kicked down to, you know,
whatever circuit you happen to live in. So if you're from California,

(35:53):
you're a point nominated the Supreme Court, you serve there for all these years,
when you're done with your Supreme Courtterm, to go be a judge
on the Ninth Circuit Court. Ofappeals, which is bs that doesn't work.
It's clearly the judgeship that's protected forgood behavior by the Constitution is that

(36:19):
judgeship. It's not the idea ofyou can just sort of swap people around
from this judge ship to an inferiorjudge ship. And that is a thing
that the Constitution is very conscious of, is people getting jobs and getting compensated
for jobs, and the law isvery conscious of if you get a job

(36:44):
taken from you, that can createa cause of action for you to sue
if that compensation, if that workis taken if that office was taken from
you wrongly, or was taken fromyou unlawfully, Like people being appointed to

(37:06):
things and then having that appointment takenaway from them. That's a big act.
So the idea that, to me, it just seems preposterous to me
that the framers of the Constitution wouldsay, oh, judges can keep their
judge ship either on the Supreme Courtor on one of the inferior courts in
good behavior, but can have ahigher judge ship taken from them based on

(37:28):
an arbitrary deadline made up by Congress, some arbitrary term made up by Congress
and given a worse job, alower status job, which is what the
circuit. It's undeniable. The SupremeCourt is supreme. Okay, It's a
more important job than being on theninth Circuit or the DC Circuit or the

(37:49):
eighth Circuit, of the first Circuit, whatever. It's undeniably a more important
job. It's the court you appealup to. So these proposals from Biden
and Harris, I think are meantto excite the ultraliberals in the party,
but I don't think they could actuallywork. I think they would face real
constitutional problems because you'd have to amendthe Constitution. You can't amend the Constitution

(38:12):
with a simple bill. That'll doit for the John Girody Show. See
you next time on Power Talk.