The following is a transcript from the Pro America Report.
Welcome, welcome, welcome. Ed Martin here on the Pro America Report. Hey, we got a lot of guests. Excuse me, we’ve got a lot to cover today. And we’ll get to it all. I’m we have our friend Todd Bensman will give us an update. We also get an update from Woody Woodrum in California, the California Screaming Eagles conservative group there. And so, Todd Bensman, we’ll talk about, I can’t wait to ask Todd Bensman of the center for Immigration Studies about the State of the Union and Joe Biden saying he wants to secure the border. He could do that if he wanted. He’s just not doing it. So we’ll talk with Todd Bensman about that. All right.
First, what you need to know today. What you need to know today. Look, here’s something I want to preview for you. What I want to preview for you is what’s coming is a fight over pro life. It looks like this summer the U.S. Supreme Court will have a decision that may reverse Roe v. Wade. Could happen. In which case states will have a chance to decide about abortion.
Earlier today, earlier on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in which Kentucky passed a law, let me find this, hold on. Let me make sure to get you this to your right. Kentucky passed a law and the law was challenged by folks and the Kentucky attorney general said, hey, wait a second. I want to get in on this action. And so he wanted to get in and he filed
a brief and we actually, the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, filed a brief with him that allowed us, saying he should be allowed to intervene because he wanted to defend the pro life law that was passed in Kentucky.
But the governor, who’s a Democrat, pro abortion Democrat, said he wanted to leave it stand. And the attorney general said, wait, I’m elected by the people, too. I want to defend this law. It’s an interesting argument because on one level, you often say the attorney general is the lawyer for the governor of a state? But it’s not true. And here’s why it’s not true, because at least in Kentucky as well as Missouri, which I know best, there are lawyers that work for the governor.
But the attorney general is elected to his own constitutional office with his own rights and his own role in the Constitution. In 2012, I was the nominee for attorney general in Missouri. And at that time, we were all roiled by the Obamacare controversy. Obamacare had been forced through the legislature, through the US Congress. And then we were being told every state had to take it and had to live with it in whatever way it was coming down upon them. And lots of the mandates and things were being required on the citizens of the States and States didn’t want it.
And so I learned up close and personal how important it was to have attorneys general who stand up. And actually, we used to talk about standing in the gap. Standing in the gap. And the reason why is because We the People give our sovereignty to the federal government. But we only do it through the States. We don’t do it directly. We actually are a Federalist, a federal system that has this built in check and balance. And so when we take our sovereignty, We the People have sovereignty in America. We decided to band together, different than, different… in other parts of the world, the sovereignty of a nation went to the King, the divine right of Kings. And the King gave sovereignty to the people. It was by his great generous act that he gave sovereignty.
Think about England, sovereignty to the people. No, in America, We the People have sovereignty from God directly to We the People. And we give that up to the federal government, but only through the States. Only through our sovereignty, only through our States. And therefore, the attorney general has a role, one would say a duty, it could say an obligation, but certainly a role to stand between We the People and the federal government and articulate the importance of these positions.
Well, that’s what Daniel Cameron, the man who is the current attorney general of Kentucky, did in this case. He said, wait, there’s a law that’s been passed by Kentucky, by the legislature that has to do with limiting abortion. I think it’s eleven weeks or so. And he said, I’m going to defend that. If that’s going to be challenged, I should defend that. The governor who’s pro abortion said, “Well, I’m the governor.” If that law passes and I think they passed it by overriding his veto, then he’s not going to defend it.
Well, the attorney general has that right. And 8-1 the US Supreme Court ruled this week that the attorney general does have the right to get into court and defend that case, and it’s 8-1, right? Sotomayor was the only one that was against it. And so even Kagan and even Breyer in this case were on board saying, “oh, wait a second. This is something that the role the Constitution contemplates,” which is a good sign. It also means, by the way, that there’ll be times where Democrat attorney general in a place like California, it’s hard to imagine that there could ever be a Republican governor and a Democrat attorney general in California right now. It did happen under Schwarzenegger, of course, a decade ago, a few years ago. Unlikely right now, but could happen.
It could happen. In Missouri for a period of time. We had Republican governors and we had a Democrat attorney general under Jay Nixon. Jay Nixon was the attorney general and Governor Matt Blunt was the governor. I know that one pretty well. And so that could happen. And there’ll be a time, then, therefore, where a Democrat will say, I get to stand up and play this role. We should welcome that. We shouldn’t welcome it only on one position, say on the issue of abortion. We should welcome it under the idea that we want the attorneys general to stand in the gap between our sovereignty as citizens and our citizenship in the state and the federal government.
As another check, as another creation of balance — it’s a very good one. It’s a very important one. It’s one we should be clear about. And it’s great that the Supreme Court did that. I have to say, one of the great things that my organization that I work with, the Phyllis Schlafly Eagles does, is find these opportunities to contribute to the legal debate. In this case, an amicus brief filed on behalf of Attorney General, Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron to allow him to say, hey, he does have that right. It’s good stuff. It’s important stuff. I’m glad it’s happening and proud of it. And even better that the Supreme Court was eight to one.
Now, again, be aware this is going to be a contentious six months, five to six months. I guess it’s less than that now. It’s already March — March, April, May. So three or four months. By the end of June, maybe the 1st of July, we’re going to see up close and personal what the decision in the Dobbs case is. And I think it’s going to change the direction of the country being a very positive way. Yeah, let’s see, July, yeah. June 30, they start putting down decisions, and by the end of June, sometimes the first days of July will be the last decisions of the US Supreme Court from this term.
But here’s the trick. The last day of the month, excuse me, the last day of June, the 30th, is a Thursday. So the first is a Friday, and then it’s 4th of July weekend. Right? So the 4th of July weekend, Monday is July 4. Monday is July 4, therefore, you can rest assured that that decision will come out either on the 30th, Thursday, or on the 1st, Friday. 30th of June or the 1st of July, because there’s no way that they’ll wait until after July 4.
That’s just a reality of the way the court deals with those decisions down the stretch. The most controversial will be done in the last and that’s what you can count on. So that’s what we’re looking for. It’s going to be a huge deal. It’s going to be a huge decision. And I think a lot of people are going to be paying attention. A lot of things are going to change.
So we’re going to talk more about that in the coming weeks. All right, please visit Proamericareport.com. I had an interview last week, ten days ago, with my old friend John Cribb, the author of Old Abe, and someone emailed me over the weekend and said, hey, what about that interview, where can I get it? Promericareport.com, proamericareport.com is where you can go and see all these interviews and get all these interviews and be able to take a look at that. So do that. All right.
Coming up in a few moments. Let me see. I’m trying to look at my notes here. Coming up, yes, we’ve got today Todd Bensman giving us an update, especially on the guy who’s on the terror watch list. He’s on a terror watch list and I have to say he’s now gone up to Detroit. He got through the border because the border is wide open and we’ll get an update from Todd Bensman. And then we also will talk with Woody Woodrum about California and the California Screaming Eagles.
Woody’s got a strategy – it’s interesting – he’s got a strategy on open races for the state house. He’s got an opinion that they need opponents. They need Republicans running against these Democrats even if they are long shots, because they make the arguments. We’ll hear from Woody Woodrum in a moment. Alright, everybody, we’ll take a quick break. We’ll be right back. It’s Ed Martin here in the Pro America Report. Back in a moment.