On Wednesday’s Mark Levin Show, following the resignation of Justice Stephen Breyer, President Biden has said that he will nominate the first Black woman to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The practice of hiring someone based on race or sex has been found to be unlawful for schools, businesses, and others but when Biden does it it’s no longer a problem. The perverse ideology of American Marxism has crept into every facet of our government including the judiciary. Then, Anthony Fauci has famously flip-flopped on the mask issue multiple times and now he’s getting called out in a new ad by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Fauci’s lack of commitment is shielded from the public by those in the media that carry water for the Democrats. Later, in response to a guest’s comment about racism being a war, MSNBC host Tiffany Cross said, ” everybody needs to pick up a weapon and get involved because this is for the safety and lasting of the country.” Afterward, author Julie Kelly calls in to discuss how one federal district judge, who is angling for a spot on Biden’s Supreme Court shortlist, is handing out very stiff sentences to the political prisoners of the January 6th riot at the capitol. Kelly added that previous reports that then-Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris was in the building have now been debunked.
THIS IS FROM:
The Post Millennial
Supreme Court Justice Breyer to retire
Independent Women’s Forum
Defiant Harvard Stubbornly Demands To Keep Shunning Asian Students
Newsbusters
MSNBC Bizarrely Pretends Retiring Stephen Breyer Is ‘Conservative or Moderate’
ABC News
Another violence interrupter killed in Baltimore as community reels from gun violence
Washington Examiner
GOP who’s who rallies for Liz Cheney, Romney leads
Washington Post
Va. Gov. Youngkin’s assertive first week in office leaves Republicans jubilant, Democrats fuming
American Greatness
Did the Justice Department Lie About Pence and Harris’ Location on January 6?
The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.
Image used with permission of Getty Images / Washington Post
Rough transcript of Hour 1
Hour 1 Segment 1
It’s very difficult to follow the logic of the American Marxist the Democrat Party in the media truly is. We had a person testifying, I believe it was the director of the Office of Management and Budget, but it may be it was another person and it was a she. And she kept using the phrase birthing person. She would not use the phrase woman or lady. She was even asked about that, said it was disrespectful. Birthing person. Now, of course, I’ve spent months mocking it. Birthing person in our schools. Children are being taught. That it’s not what is between your legs that matters, it’s what’s between your ears when it comes to genitalia. It’s what you think you are, this bizarre, perverse ideology has been imposed throughout our bureaucracy, our military, our school systems. We even have debates over bathrooms and changing areas and in gym rooms. Even if you sign up for a foreign airline ticket, male, female, other, whatever it is. And yet now when it comes to the nomination of somebody to the United States Supreme Court, we’re very specific when it comes to Joe Biden, a black woman. Excuse me, a black woman, not a black person person. Which is what the administration had pressed and what the administration official had said, now it’s a black woman, an actual woman. Not because this individual thinks it is a woman, but because their genitalia, their biological genitalia indicates that this person is a woman. It’s really quite confusing, isn’t it, Mr. Producer? Now, Biden says he wants to appoint the first black woman to the Supreme Court. But he only wants to appoint certain black women to the Supreme Court, obviously those that agree with his ideology and activism. OK, got it. But the next question is. What if the individual. Is a black person by interracial marriage? Does that count? What if they’re one eighth white? Does that count? What if they’re black and Hispanic and intersectional situation, is that OK? Notice how little discussion there is about qualifications and substance. Jonathan Turley makes an excellent point over on Twitter. You know, I like Jonathan Turley, I don’t know him, I’ve never talked to him, I’ve never interviewed him. But he said Jen Psaki today just reaffirmed that the president will only consider a black woman for the next nomination, a threshold gender and race condition that the court itself has found unconstitutional for schools and unlawful for private businesses. But it doesn’t matter, of course. The Bush administration. Doesn’t have to comply with anything American, Marxist doesn’t have to comply with anything, the media do not have to comply with anything. We haven’t had an Asian-American on the court. Have we? We haven’t had a male Hispanic on the court. Don’t give me Cardozo, have we? I mean, we can go down a whole list of what would be first, I believe. Now, here would be a first. If a modern Democrat president would nominate somebody who is faithful to the Constitution. That would be pretty cool, don’t you think? I mean, we haven’t had an illegal alien sit on the Supreme Court, to the best of my knowledge, we haven’t had a lesbian on the Supreme Court or a gay man on the Supreme Court. All kinds of firsts, if you ask me. Folks, this is the Supreme Court of the United States, there’s nine members. It is a court that has involved itself and damn near everything. Whether you’re black or white, red or brown, yellow or albino. When the court reaches a decision. That decision can affect your life, can affect your family, can affect this country. Forever. So isn’t it? More important. That the individual stand for the Constitution. Isn’t that the purpose? I understand Washington plays these games, I understand the media play these games, I understand major corporations play these games, I understand Hollywood plays these games, but out on the street. In the community, in the neighborhood. Where people live and work. Doesn’t it matter what the individual actually stands for when it comes to the notion of adjudicating very important cases that can affect everybody in this country? And we haven’t heard one syllable about this so far. Not one. Names are being thrown around, names you’ve never heard of before. People who either Obama or Biden have appointed to various federal positions. That’s the qualification, so they ought to be a little bit more specific. They want a left wing activists, black woman. Who they likely appointed to a prior position that really tightens the field, doesn’t it? That really tightens the field. So now the Supreme Court is treated the way the admissions policies are treated at Harvard University, Asians may not apply, Jews may not apply, whites may not apply. Blacks are on alert on the wrong side of their ideology. They may not apply either. Just certain people are qualified. By their physical nature. You know who should be most concerned about this, folks, Minorities’? Jews, Hari Krishna, Muslims. Blacks, Hispanics, minorities. Because this is no way to run a republic. You want an individual on the court? I was going to comply with their oath, who’s going to follow their oath? That’s all. Well, that’ll be the test, no. Thievin. When they narrow the selection to a black woman. That black woman is going to have to be of the left. They’ll say she’s a moderate the way they lied about Joe Biden. The way they lied about Merrick Garland, the way they lie all the time in the media and in the Democrat Party. But the truth is, she’ll be black, she’ll be a woman, but she’ll also be a leftist, and that’s really what they want. So can we stop with this person person stuff? No. Can we stop with the bathrooms in the gymnasiums now and the. Now, now we’re going to keep that up, we’re going to keep that up. Can we stop with indoctrinating our children about these various perverse ideologies and the transitioning and genitalium and what you do with genital use and pronouns and. No, no, no, no, no. The goal is to destroy the family. The nuclear family. But when we appoint people to high position like the Supreme Court, then we can resort to the throwback language I call a woman a woman, not because the person thinks he or she is a woman, but because she actually is a woman. Go figure. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 2
The January six media, the Russia collusion media, the impeachment media. The coup against Trump media. The only illegitimate president is Trump Media and their Democrat masters. They’re going to do the same thing here. Remember the cabinet hearings? The cabinet hearings or whomever the nominee is, be treated the way Brett Kavanaugh was or Bob Bork was or Clarence Thomas was. Of course not, first of all, the Republicans don’t have a stomach for that. Secondly, the media will not work with the Republicans, nor will the media work with anybody who comes forward and makes any allegation. About one of their precious leftists, and if anybody raises any substantive questions, they will immediately be called a racist, especially if they’re a white male. Because this is how the game is played now, this is how the propaganda will work. Where the hell is that phone? Shut it off. Yes, yes, yes. This is the nature of the nature of where the country has slid when free speech is no longer free, free for some people to make any outrageous allegation they want. But for others, it’s a completely different reality. By the way, as a footnote, as I watch during the break, this Russia building up and there the war machine against Ukraine and so forth, I wonder how much of their equipment I hope none is our equipment. They came out of Afghanistan. You do have to wonder, don’t you, Mr. Biddeford? Because we have that genius in the Oval Office, you know. How come the president didn’t say that he wanted to name the first indigenous person? To the Supreme Court. Not enough votes there, I’m sure. Nanana votes there. Harvard, Harvard, what a disaster. Pointed out by the Independent Women’s Forum, remember how last summer’s horrifying Atlanta shooting deaths of eight people, including six Asian women, spurred a season of stop Asian hate sentiment to empower and protect Asian-Americans? It forgot all that very quickly. You see, Harvard doesn’t like too many Asian students getting accepted to their hallowed halls, writes Gary Sheffield. Harvard is upset that on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court, except the two cases challenging racial preferences and student admissions both at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. Imagine the irony here. Actually, you don’t have to imagine it. The man in the Oval Office announces that he will only be considering a black woman. To the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court’s taking up two cases. So an ethnic discrimination. You notice that Mr.. These schools use race to suppress the number of Asian students and white students, but to a lesser degree on campus in order to get more spots to black and Latino students. Asians are just too bright in terms of CPAs and standardized tests. Obviously. They reverse suffer from the white dominant society, Mr. Producer, who wouldn’t you say? The universal equalizing yardstick to measure student achievement, standardized tests and peers are obviously discriminatory. And Carrie writes, As a graduate of the Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, I was saddened to receive this email in my inbox this afternoon from Harvard University President Larry Backhouse. Larry Bachao clearly is not a black woman. Why is that? Why is that? I look at the United States Senate and I have to ask myself, is Chuck Schumer blank? No. It’s the number two doofus little Dick Durbin, is he black? No. Well, exactly how many black Democrat senators are there, Mr. Bridges, other than Cory Booker, I could be off. Oh, there’s the gentleman from the radical kook from Georgia. That’s to. Is there a third? I must confess, I haven’t memorized everybody. It’s your third. When you consider the black voter. As a group gives over 90 percent of its vote to the Democrat Party, maybe Joe Biden ought to be paying attention to that. But no, that’s not going to happen. There you have it. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 3
I’m not going to spend the whole show on the court. There’ll be plenty of time for that. Trust me on that one. Plenty of time. But what was done to Stephen Breyer today was pretty disgraceful. And I’ve been around a little while. I worked in the Reagan White House, as a matter of fact, during the period I worked in the Reagan White House and presidential personnel, my duty, at least in part, was going through and vetting nominees to the various federal courts. And I would prepare a rather substantial notebook for every weekly meeting that my boss, John Harrington and Becky Norton Dunlop to tremendous patriots would take when they would have a meeting with President Reagan and James Baker and some of the others who were in on the decision making process. Ed and Ed Meese, counselor to the president, who would obviously become attorney general. There’s a number of men and women on the court today or who’ve since retired because we’ve all gotten older, who have no idea what role I played in supporting efforts to put them on the court’s. But I also know this. This leak occurred at the White House. Could have been a staffer, could have been something that Biden said to somebody, but the leak came out of the White House. Not even the Justice Department, and that does a great disservice to a man who serves on the court for decades. Stephen Breyer. He wanted to do it his own way, but gave a heads up to the current administration so they’d have time to find a replacement. Very foolish of him. So they leaked it. Now, does anybody have any idea why they would leak it? I think most of you know why to lock it in. So he can’t change his mind, not that he would to lock it in. And to get all their radical left forces ready. To battle. They’re billionaires, they’re corporatists, of course, their media friends to battle and get them ready. That’s why they did it. There’s no question about it. I don’t have to be a reporter to figure this out. He wasn’t going to do it until the end of his term, which is in June. Sometimes it bleeds in early July, but that’s the way they did it. And. I thought you should know. That they politicize everything and then the the media today playing right into this, the media should be reporting on this, right, just as a factual matter. But that’s not what’s happening. Lara Coates is the senior legal analyst for CNN. I assume she’s African-American. I don’t watch it. She said she’d be overjoyed that somebody who looks like her would sit on the Supreme Court in a country like this. Cut five, Mr. Producer, go, what would it be like for somebody on the Supreme Court finally who looks like you? I would be overjoyed and thrilled to know that somebody who looks like me and has the mental prowess that each of these women have and the credibility, the capability, the distinction of having served as judges and as extraordinary lawyers over their time. When finally and I emphasize the word finally, finally given the opportunity to sit on the highest court and said, here’s Laura Cote’s, who’s the senior legal analyst. Does this sound like an analyst? So every one of these women and I don’t know who she’s talking about, frankly, is qualified, capable. And credible, that’s not the way Republican nominees are treated, whether they’re women, whether they’re minorities, whether they’re white. That’s not the way Republican nominees are treated. That this is a great time and Clarence Thomas is nominated. Now. Not at all. Go ahead. Definitely was taken lightly and we talk about the many decisions that are before the Supreme Court of the United States. I never had the luxury of leaving any part of my identity at the door before I walked into a courtroom, walked into a boardroom, walked on to these various steps on CNN. I brought with myself the entirety of being a black woman, the lived experience of what that’s like in a country like this country like this. She’s the senior legal analyst at CNN. Go ahead. It’s incumbent upon our country to recognize that if we do not bring all of America and the holistic views of people, including black women, then we are doing a disservice to any objective evaluation of laws in this country. All right. Now she gets a little bit more detailed in your next comment. Cut six go. Just think of what’s before this court, just this term alone, the Mississippi abortion ban, or we’re talking about discussions around the profound disparate impact of these laws against black and brown women. And stop, stop, stop, stop right there. This is all political. Everything she’s saying. I could talk about the disparate impact of abortion on black and brown women. Little black babies and little brown babies are aborted. Far beyond their percentages is a racial population in this country. So depending on your viewpoint, like a my viewpoint, if you talk about disparate impact, that’s the disparate impact. More little black babies and brown babies are dying as a result of the right to choose, her obvious perspective from the left is. They don’t have enough access to abortion. So here she is engaged in a purely, I would argue, political discussion about outcomes and the fact that I’m even raising this, you’ll see, because I’ll bring it up tomorrow, means I’m going to come under attack. Does it, Mr. President? And yet there’s nothing I’m saying that’s racial racialist. I’m just responding to her comments. So the mindset. She’s a legal analyst. It’s not of a person being objective and trying to apply the Constitution to the facts, you’re there to represent a viewpoint, not even a people, frankly, a viewpoint. And that viewpoint is an activist left viewpoint. That’s what she’s saying. Go ahead. Wouldn’t it be great to have a black woman talking about these issues? How about the discussions about affirmative action? We learn from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, where she described herself as the perfect affirmative action baby those years ago, describing it unapologetically of the gains and the benefits she’s pushing for quotas and affirmative action. Which obviously is purely race and ethnicity based, regardless of your race and ethnicity, which are now being used to prevent Asian Americans from attending certain schools. So why not just have plebiscites? Well, I have a court at all and people will just vote, so everybody’s represented. This is a court. It’s a court where everybody on the court is supposed to take an oath to uphold the Constitution. It’s not your personal view on abortion based on what you believe a particular community thinks or doesn’t think it is your best. Academic intellectual effort to comply with the rule of law. She’s a legal analyst. When people go before the courts. Whether it’s the divorce case or contract case or trespass case or a monumental case. They don’t want their decisions based on the ethnicity of the judges. And she should know that. Because if that were the case, perhaps minorities would lose far more than they lose now. It’s to try and look beyond that and do what’s right. If you want to be an activist, conservative activist, a Marxist activist, a liberal activist in the courts, the wrong place for you. Go ahead. A race conscious admissions process. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have a black woman in that position as well? I want to be wonderful to have an Asian woman in that position as well. Who might have a counterbalancing point of view, if that’s what we’re doing here? When these court cases are written, she’s a legal analyst, Laura Cotes. They’re not written. Clarence Thomas is say, from a black person’s perspective or Pryor doesn’t say from a male’s perspective or Sotomayor doesn’t say from a Hispanic perspective, and Kagan doesn’t say from a woman’s perspective, they tell you what they think the law is. Isn’t this what we’re supposed to do when police officers stop us? We don’t want them to say from my perspective as of this or that and your perspective as of this or that, you’re under arrest. What are you talking about? People want a fair shot, they want to be treated like individual human beings. They want. And adjudication as fair as possible. Not based on external factors. Physical factors of the justice, the ethnic factors, the religious factors of the just No. Go ahead. What their holdings will be, but I am assuming that they will. But you are. She says it would it be wonderful to have a black woman in that position? I’m not assuming what their holdings will be because she realizes that’s what she’s doing. Because. If your perspective is that people from certain communities, whether it’s faith or race or whatever it is, have a certain perspective, and so that perspective needs to be on the court. Well, then, of course, you’re talking about influencing, they’re holding. Go ahead, be with them, and we will be better for it. All right, there you go. Now, they’re also trying to redefine Stephen Breyer, Andrea Mitchell, of course, is up for the task, as News Busters points out. Cut seven go. One thing that occurs to me is that he was a rather conservative or moderate, if you will, or more nuanced than many progress is made of light on big economic issues when they hit the court. But on the core issues like which big economic issues are you talking about? Andrea, what are you talking about? What in the world are you talking about? Do you even know what you’re talking about? Which case are you talking about? Wouldn’t it be what case? Which cases are you talking about? But on the core issues of personal liberty and freedoms, go ahead. Liberty and freedoms and same sex marriage and guns and choice on abortion. He was completely in sync with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sotomayor, right? Yes. Justice Breyer was a reliable liberal when it came to those kinds, of course. She’s a former U.S. attorney and is a former U.S. attorney. Of course, she knows everything. Go ahead. Cases. He was someone he used the word pragmatist. And I think that’s the way people tend to he wasn’t. And you know what? This just shows you the utter ignorance of these analysts. When you talk about the court in these cases, it’s not about a pragmatist. It’s not about a conservative. It’s not about a liberal. These are political terms applied to political situations and political people. When you’re talking about the court and analyzing decisions, you’re talking about the approach that a person takes. The approach that a person takes, that’s why I’m saying Laura Coats was kind of talking out of both sides of her mouth. So when they say he’s a pragmatist, how can you be a pragmatist when it comes to the Constitution? You either uphold it or you don’t, or if there’s an ambiguous ambiguity, you either do your best to discern what was intended or you don’t, you know, not a matter of being a pragmatist. You’re not a centrist. You’re not any of those things. This is the problem with Chief Justice John Roberts. There’s no discernable principles, none. More when I return
Hour 1 Segment 4
Nominees to the court by Republican presidents. Are expected to be brutalized to have their characters assassinated. Now. Have lies spewed about them, embraced by The Washington Post and New York Slimes and the rest of the dark money operatives and front groups that are out there, they raise millions, tens of millions. They are poised to do as much damage as they can to the reputation of anybody goes to the court who does not embrace their tyrannical and autocratic ideology. But nominees by Democrat president are expected to slide right through. Don’t you dare raise a character issue. Don’t you dare go to the media with any stories about. High school or junior high or college drinking, drugs or sex, no, you better stay far away because they’ll expose you or maybe the FBI or knock on your door and say you’re interfering with an official. Process. And if pro-life, to show up at the confirmation hearings and disrupt them, you can be sure that those serve a lot of time in some dungeon somewhere in and around Washington, D.C., but not if you’re Code Pink, are just code left wing. Now you’ll be ushered out. Maybe you’ll get a little record, then push it through the back door and give me some tofu. Two different worlds where we are the nature of the soft tyranny leading to a harder and harder. Ladies and gentlemen, I shall return.