S3 E44 | As the Court Turns: The Lord’s Court

S3 E44 As the Court Turns: The Lord’s Court

Discussion topics in this episode:

  • According to the constitution, we have the right to a separation between any church and the laws of our republic. This is also intended to insulate our system of self-rule from a set of outside influences.
  • Our republic is intended to be a secular one. People should be free to practice religion, or not, without any state sponsorship of any one religion; including Protestantism, the religion of King Henry VIII, nor any other one.
  • The United States has been a historic salad of faith systems, both rich in its diversity and choices for citizens to exercise their freedom. From the U.S. Bill of Rights, Constitutional Amendment I:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

  • Take a moment to re-frame ourselves with some history, rather than this being a Christian or Judeo-Christian nation, it was Protestant to its origins. That was the Church the England that was brought over with the founders, not all of them of course.
  • Today 6 of 9 Justices identify as having Catholic roots and the other 3 are Jewish. It doesn’t sound very diverse and in fact, this is a major shift away from the historically Protestant backgrounds that justices used to have. We only highlight these facts because MVP and RWJ found them interesting. This court’s decisions will show how true their loyalty is to our constitution.
  • There are a number of civil liberties that are at risk given the make-up of our current courts as they are likely to perform an about-face march into the past. In reversing course, they will trample over many freedoms we enjoy today like to marry who we want or have children on our own terms. We may not be able to enjoy tomorrow, simply due to judicial reinterpretation of the constitution. Quite flippant if you ask us and will call into question, as it had happened in the past, the legitimacy of this third co-equal branch of our government.
  • This reminder that we should be left secure in our person-hood by the state according to the U.S. Bill of Rights, Constitutional Amendment IV:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”

  • Calls to Action:
    • Explicitly amend the constitution to remove ambiguity from women’s freedoms with the Equal Rights Amendment – ERA and also everyone else’s with the Equality Act. These could mitigate the court’s power to alter our lives at their whim or the minority rule circles in which they exist.
    • Support congressional candidates that are open to establishing term limits on the Supreme Court, life-term appointments are too much now that we live so much longer:

      • For context average life expectancy is now closer to the 80s and back when the court was established, life expectancy was merely 38 years.
      • On top of that, we now have two of the youngest and arguably unwise appointments to the court that may serve for life, possibly 30 years or more based on average life expectancy.
    • Become more aware of your state’s supreme court justices and the positions they take on specific issues and whether they align with your values.
    • Ask your U.S. Senator or House Member about unshadowing the shadow docket. We need more transparency for all federal courts, perhaps a C-SPAN for the courts?

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Liberty and Freedom for all” image by Serge Shop.

Voices

  • Michael V. Piscitelli
  • Raymond Wong Jr.

More info

  • We have transcripts are located at the end of each podcast episode’s page on our site. Check it out, but know this: It’s all AI. It’s not us. So thank you in advance for forgiving any and all errors.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed on this podcast are for listener consideration only and are not necessarily those of the show or its sponsors.

Special thanks to

  • Our ongoing supporters, thank you!
  • Our sponsor CitizenDoGood.com .
  • Intro music sampled from “Okay Class” by Ozzy Jock under creative commons license through freemusicarchive.org.
  • Other music provided royalty-free through Fesliyan Studios Inc.

Transcript

The following transcript was taken using AI technology. We cannot vouch for its accuracy. Read at your own risk. These are time-stamped from the day we recorded and unfortunately not name stamped.

Citizens Prerogative Podcast Closed Caption Transcript
S3 E44 As the Court Turns: The Lord’s Court

15:07:02 In times like these being a citizen is a big job. Thank you for joining us to celebrate the virtues of self rule, and debate the state of our republic.
15:07:10 Welcome to the citizens prerogative podcast. This is the voice of your nerdy host Michael biscuit Telly and we are blessed with a co host whose passion for our republic precedes him everywhere he goes, Raven long Jr.
15:07:25 Thank you Thank you I throw myself at the mercy of the court.
15:07:31 This is episode number 44, we’re still in season three and the name of this episode if it sticks.
15:07:39 As the court turns the Lord’s court.
15:07:48 So today we’re gonna be talking about.
15:07:50 Pretty much all about the Supreme Court zeroing in a little bit on its current state.
15:07:57 And of course, will bring to the table some calls to action.
15:08:01 I don’t think any of them will be new to any of you, but maybe they will, we’ll see how it goes.
15:08:08 So, Rana we’re doing a little bit of research.
15:08:11 As we usually do. This time we were doing I kind of live before we kicked off this episode.
15:08:19 And I think we were both a little surprised I know I was surprised by some of the statistics, we came across because you know we had an inkling about the religious leaning the nature of the court leaning towards religiosity.
15:08:38 And, but we were a little surprised about exactly how religious it is or how, you know, how it’s come to be the way it is or, you know, the state that it’s in so without be laboring the point, and you further.
15:08:55 We’re going to go ahead and jump into it so the first bullet we want to remind everybody, we have up here to talk about is just orient us all to the fact that, according to the Constitution.
15:09:08 This is under the First Amendment in there.
15:09:11 We have separation between, you know, in layman’s terms we like to say separation between church and the laws of our republic or church and state, somewhere in there, it really says that we’re all free.
15:09:28 Not to be bound to a religion, and essentially read into is that there should be no state sponsor religion.
15:09:35 So the idea there is that people should be free to practice, religion, or not, without any state sponsorship of any particular religion.
15:09:47 And it’s interesting because that also included, especially Protestantism, which was the Kings religion. Right. A lot of the people who were the original founders of this system are Republic, were probably Protestants, I mean there are probably all across
15:10:07 the board Lutherans whatever. But Protestants because those were mostly English companies that were established to create the settlements.
15:10:15 So, we have a very, I would say heavily Protestant past, but it was very interesting to see, to find out that today. So, we have nine supreme court justices that that hasn’t changed for a long time.
15:10:32 But what I didn’t realize I think right here in the same boat as me, is that six out of the nine justices are now basically have Catholic roots.
15:10:43 So it’s shifted because historically it was majority I believe Protestant basis I mean if anybody was bringing religion to it, it was a lot of Protestantism, and then now.
15:10:56 Six of nine are Catholic, and then the other three are Jewish.
15:11:02 So it’s interesting because it’s not very diverse from, you know, like a religious background or belief system perspective but I’m really surprised about this historical shift away from Protestantism.
15:11:14 And, and for anybody who’s been around for any period of time, you know you.
15:11:19 People think back to Kennedy president john f kennedy, and he was the first Catholic to ever be elected to the presidency, and in the country had a lot of reservations about it they were very concerned about him being beholden to the Vatican to the pope
15:11:35 right and we wanted our president to actually uphold the laws of the nation and our constitution more so than trying to, you know, bring the Vatican home to America.
15:11:46 Oh funny how things change and now the court.
15:11:51 The court is becoming Catholic.
15:11:54 And we have a few Jewish people on there and it’s interesting because when you think about it, who historically has been persecuted has now come to rule the court.
15:12:03 People are always, you know, there’s a lot of concerns out there anti semitism.
15:12:09 There’s always been a concern for the Jewish culture and people have that belief system.
15:12:15 Um, and then, you know, for a long time Catholics were always ostracize right because Catholicism basically came with Italian and Irish immigrants and they were not originally white when they arrived.
15:12:26 So calf calf solecism was not American.
15:12:30 But now it is
15:12:35 very interesting.
15:12:37 Excuse me.
15:12:40 So we’ll just take a little another moment here to kind of reframe ourselves with additional historical perspective.
15:12:49 So, rather than today Today you hear a lot about this being a Christian nation, or a Judeo Christian christian nation. And honestly, it’s really always had been a Protestant nation.
15:13:02 Pretty much to its origins. And like I mentioned earlier was the Church of England, and it was brought over with the founders.
15:13:26 Now there’s some debates as to the intellectual nature, intellectual ism and the intellectual nature of some of these belief systems or faith systems, but because the Protestants because the Protestant religion was present when the system was established,
15:13:29 there was most trust placed in that that it would not interrupt the programming that was planned for us, so to speak. Does that make sense right.
15:13:40 I believe so. And I think this journey has been good for for both of us because I didn’t happen to preach that there’s usually a pendulum history repeats itself.
15:13:53 And I should have known that this nation.
15:13:56 I criticize people that say oh things have never been this bad and I just did it with the the judgment of the sprint car right it’s never been this religious, it’s never been this polarized but in fact, the the chord itself and the nation itself comes
15:14:10 from these extremely religious roots and we have to understand that the Protestants left England because they were too fun and getting too loose in England right so they felt like the English people in general, had swayed too far from the teachings of
15:14:27 the church and such and so they wanted to free themselves and practice their religion, free to be as strict and uptight as they wanted, and and that is what we’re battling and we’ve, we’ve come from this really frankly the pilgrims I said earlier, why
15:14:42 did I think of the pilgrims right that fashion was not diverse and so when you think about that. We’re basically fighting that heritage.
15:14:53 Yeah, that’s exactly right. And not to put them down, but they were basically shunned by every country they landed until they got to America.
15:15:03 And if the natives, maybe if you know the first peoples that were here had the opportunity to cast them out they would have.
15:15:10 I don’t mean to laugh about that but you know, we all know how the history goes.
15:15:14 Goodness.
15:15:16 Interesting. So, here we are now we have the Lord’s court, coming to bear on us.
15:15:24 And it one little tidbit on that too which is interesting because we hear a lot about him Angelica calls in Magellan realism and stuff like that in the United States pretty forgiven.
15:15:35 But it’s interesting that it’s not anywhere there that we see, at least not in the Supreme Court not in the federal courts for the most part, and this was another piece of that came up in the research, I was not looking for anything about evangelicals.
15:15:50 It just comes up because they’re so active politically, very active politically but they don’t have the score appointments and there was a footnote in here and this is analysis, through NPR, where they are commenting that Catholicism in Judaism, are a
15:16:10 little bit more, intellectually oriented, as far as how the members of those communities are encouraged to spend their time.
15:16:20 Whereas, the angelic whole
15:16:25 system is set up for expansion and probably for profit.
15:16:29 So they focus their time and energy not getting into the halls of power but just expanding their flock, and thus the revenue of their church.
15:16:42 So then they can donate to people who will pass laws in their states or they have the most concentration of power right they haven’t really focused much on the federal level yet, but for the moment, the Catholics and.
15:16:56 And some of our Jewish brethren have ever arrived there.
15:17:01 It’s an interesting swing, it’s an interesting swing and in Time will tell.
15:17:06 Right, we, we can’t predict what’s going to happen but we have some pretty clear indicators so we’re just going to sound some of the alarms here that we need to keep our eyes on these things right we shouldn’t worry about what has yet to come.
15:17:20 But we should be aware of what may come to pass, and it may not be for the benefit of most of us.
15:17:27 We may be moving, we may be sliding backwards in time from a civil liberties perspective the freedoms, the freedoms we’ve enjoyed perhaps were more expansive in the past, then they will be in the future.
15:17:41 That’s kind of the indicator that we’re seeing so there are a number of civil liberties that are going to be at risk. Given the makeup of the current courts.
15:17:57 And there are indications that they will change the decisions of wiser courts that have come in the past, where we enjoy freedoms today, like to marry, who we want, or have children and family on our own terms, we may not be able to enjoy those tomorrow,
15:18:17 we may not have those freedoms those choices under the law, the way we do today, simply due to judicial interpretation of the Constitution, simply because of the opinion of five people in our country, which is pretty extreme.
15:18:39 And it’s actually quite flippin.
15:18:41 When you think about it.
15:18:44 And so we have to call it the question logic begs us to call into question.
15:18:50 You know, the legitimacy, if we start losing, especially state by state, you always know when it’s funny we’ve talked about this from drugs and other perspectives, it’s like, what state, are you in the.
15:19:02 Are you the freest right now in the country right and it was usually who passed, who started removing prohibitions against our freedoms to indulge in the things we want to indulge in.
15:19:14 And so, like, you know, there’s a handful of states where you can recreationally use certain drugs and you can and others. So you’re more free in those states and now we’re starting to see people were, you know, had a fair amount of freedom around things
15:19:27 like abortion rights. And that’s going to start getting restricted again as what we can tell is likely to happen. And so you’re going to have states where some United States citizens are more free than in others all world citizens of the same country.
15:19:46 The under certain jurisdictions, you’re going to have fewer freedoms.
15:19:50 And that would be, thanks to this court, the Supreme Court, which really logically just doesn’t it just doesn’t sit well, not with me. I mean I’m assuming the same for you right.
15:20:07 I wish that you know there was a, I’m a historian, at the heart, you know so history teaches a lot. There’s precedents there. And I believe a court that that believes in its own precedence and integrity, instead of a court that seems interested in turning
15:20:27 the tide of history. And it’s not just in what rulings we may see coming out, we are seeing opinions. We were normally there, they’re largely silent from their offices, they’re hinting and creating waves in the legal environment, which is generating cases
15:20:46 and opportunities to challenge existing precedents I’ve never seen anything like this but the game again. Yeah, my limited time here on this planet, but I it’s strange to me.
15:20:58 I’ve never seen the Court Act, seemingly in its worst interest, hinting dropping rumors in the trades, if you will, it just doesn’t seem normal. So that’s why it’s scary to me and I do agree that there is an extra layer of intrigue that’s affecting our
15:21:17 court system, and what could it be, besides the majority, that’s happening right now, there’s only one common thread there.
15:21:27 There is a minority of people who are dying to retain power and control over many of us.
15:21:36 And it’s not their place. It’s, it’s their place to have control and agency over themselves as individuals, but then to be affecting our liberties in such large swaths is inappropriate wholly inappropriate.
15:21:51 It’s, it’s self serving of something other than US citizens under the Constitution. That’s really what it feels like. And Time will tell right once, once the decisions start coming out we haven’t had decisions, really come down yet but we’ll definitely
15:22:06 see their hands, we’ll see how the card game and for the next round.
15:22:13 And we’ll have to read that will have to read into that and say, Okay, how far how willing is this court to throw away its legitimacy, or test the boundaries of its legitimacy
15:22:27 will be very interesting to see.
15:22:32 With that, time for break.
15:22:43 Here’s a message from our sponsors citizen do it, fulfilling a dream, we’re all possessing intrinsic love for self rule, that is reciprocated with free speech and equal justice under the laws.
15:22:58 Citizen do good values the promise of all of the amendments to the Constitution including some that have yet to get it up there, along with the original core documents, taken together they form a framework, and an operating manual for the Republic, and
15:23:13 provides us the means to change with the times.
15:23:21 The time is now to deeply re examine our current implementation of governance, for the dawning of a new day. We are a proud sponsor of the citizens prerogative podcast, a major partner in spreading the good word about civic love, and the power of change
15:23:29 for us all.
15:23:32 And citizen do good we want to empower all citizens to participate in their Republic and a reconstructive way with that goal in mind, we need your help to stay on mission and grow this community.
15:23:42 Please rate the podcast with five stars on iTunes through the app on the web or on your device. If you don’t feel like you can give us five stars let us know why and our sponsors Facebook page citizen do good.
15:23:53 Also make sure you join our newsletter at citizen google. com, you’ll get updates every couple of months and all of our antics not just the podcast.
15:24:01 While you’re there, check out the shop which has specialty merchant provides a way to make a one time contribution that helps us pay for production and hosting.
15:24:08 Feel free to share any suggestions you have directly through the Contact Us page. Thanks for your support.
15:24:15 You know, when we, when you were speaking before you covered on a couple things which was uh you know you said liberty, which you brought it up I was waiting for The L Word to come up.
15:24:26 And you also mentioned that, it’s not actually abortions not in the constitution right it’s not actually written into the Constitution. Clearly, but I also believe that you you could argue that in all kinds of fashions how we have we’ve been interpreted
15:24:47 the constitution over time, it is purposely. It’s purposefully vague and and the idea that you build a more perfect union in order to build a more perfect union.
15:24:58 The Constitution did not have a finale in it. And that’s why I’m surprised we talked about these original lists right because that’s what these. That’s what the.
15:25:07 That’s what the judges that that use this ideal of being original list of the Constitution well doesn’t say it, so there’s no protection. Well, that, that, That seems highly convenient to their specific argument.
15:25:22 When it comes down to it. What I’m really worried about is liberty, like you said, Michael that my greatest fear is that this is a grab against liberty.
15:25:31 This emboldens people who feel like they have a right to tell me how to live my life who to love, where I can go.
15:25:40 How I choose to address it have people address me all of this, all of these things that equate to my personal happiness my existence, which has nothing to do with another individual as long as I don’t harm them.
15:25:55 It seems very simple to me, but there’s this appears to be a sect of people that cannot sleep at night, unless they have direct control of what everyone else is doing with their private parts.
15:26:11 Yes, I don’t mean to laugh but it’s spot on.
15:26:16 And it’s, it’s such a peculiar system too, because when you think about it, how little is explicitly in the constitution so we get we were, we basically segregation, is no longer a thing primarily because of the Commerce Clause.
15:26:37 There is no nothing in the constitution that says segregation is, you know, illegal, it’s.
15:26:44 And then, in this whole case of abortion it comes down to the right to privacy. So yeah, abortion is not in there. The fact that a woman has rights unalienable rights equal to a man is also not in there.
15:26:59 You know there’s a lot of stuff that’s not in there and so these originalist when they read only the words that were written.
15:27:06 It almost throws away all precedence in the past which is not how the chorus supposed to work. It’s not supposed to be fundamentalist.
15:27:12 It’s supposed to evolve. And you know what we have the power to take away this interpretive.
15:27:18 You know this interpretive power, essentially they have to say, oh right to privacy yeah no longer does that extend to a woman being able to get an abortion in private, and not the state has no interest in needing to know that and your neighbors don’t
15:27:33 need to know that you’re having an abortion that’s between you and your doctor or that you have cancer. Right, or whatever. I mean, obviously, cancer and children are completely separate things but that the idea that it all stems from this right to privacy.
15:27:49 It’s interpreted in the right to privacy is interpreted and extrapolate that well.
15:27:55 Let’s get past that, let’s stop giving the courts the opportunities to interpret our liberties, in and out of our lives.
15:28:06 And let’s amend the Constitution. So now we’re moving into calls to action.
15:28:11 Because really, if we want to get rid of this pendulum and the ability for originalist versus contextual lists or whatever the heck they call themselves to justify coming up with cockamamie decisions that aren’t based in real logic and not based in enlightenment
15:28:27 principles upon which the whole system was founded.
15:28:31 We will have no way to fight this but we do you know the court literally has no teeth, it only has teeth, where we didn’t take them away.
15:28:41 And so when we pass, for instance, okay there’s a couple of amendments that are halfway through Congress right i mean i think i’m pretty sure to have these past I think both of these have passed the House of Representatives, but who knows if we’ll ever
15:28:55 get through the Senate so we can remove the ambiguity in the constitution and explicitly secure women’s freedoms with the Equal Rights Amendment era spin around since the idea of it’s been around probably since the beginning of time but it’s only been
15:29:08 been floating the halls of Congress since like the 70s, but it’s still around, and it’s something we need to do if we amend the constitution and give women equal rights to privacy and everything else.
15:29:20 Then, a lot of these areas the core is inserting itself, or is being insert on our behalf, should be taken away, it’ll go away, and then beyond that there’s also the Equality Act.
15:29:34 So if we’re able to pass the Equality Act and the Equal Rights Amendment.
15:29:39 Then who you know who I identify as who I am, who I love. And what I do with my body is no longer, it’s explicitly you can be in originalist, as long as it’s written in there.
15:29:51 Leave me alone.
15:29:53 But we can’t do it if we don’t amend the constitution otherwise these justices this five out of the nine five people get to decide our liberties that there will
15:30:07 be other thing we’re going to ask people to do, so be aware, you know, Equal Rights Amendment we want that support in Equality Act. You also need to keep an eye out for congressional candidates that are open to establish term limits on the Supreme Court.
15:30:20 So one of the things that we have at the Supreme Court today is that they’re pointed for life.
15:30:25 And when the system was established, average life expectancy was 38, years.
15:30:34 38 years.
15:30:36 And now we’re closer to 80, years.
15:30:40 It’s huge.
15:30:42 And the idea was yeah we want one of the three branches of government to be more stable than the others right so that’s why you look at, we don’t necessarily we don’t have term limits except for the presidency thanks to a wise president in the past, we
15:30:55 don’t have term limits necessarily on Congress right now the presidency is the only thing with term limits which is good because we don’t want a king.
15:31:03 We don’t want kings.
15:31:05 But Congress could use some term limits. I think that’s a perennial debate but especially the Supreme Court when you think we’ve gone from 38 Years Day two years for average life expectancy and these, the last three were appointed, and they’re, you know,
15:31:20 they’re less than 50 years old or whatever.
15:31:22 So they’ve got a long way to go. So what would be really helpful to is to try and put in some term limits for these folks, so we can get a little bit more turnover and hopefully people are current with the times now doesn’t always work out to our favor.
15:31:36 But it is one option that we could have in place.
15:31:40 That would help give us an opportunity to make sure that the pendulum can swing, maybe a little bit more quickly than it does today so I don’t know how many proposals are out there for establishing term limits on the court but it feels like 20 years.
15:32:04 Ray and I were just debating it internally and we’re like, yeah, 20 years I started with 12.
15:32:01 And then did feel a little too short because you think about two years for the house, six years for senate seat for years for the presidency.
15:32:10 You know, you want some multiple of those things so I thought hey why not twice as long as the Senate, but senators can get reelected as many times as they want.
15:32:19 So, I think 20 years feels right.
15:32:36 Ruth Bader was in there for a pretty long haul Wasn’t she. Yeah, she she’s the longest one of the law, so 30. I’m just saying that. I think when we when we look at limits term limits, we were right, with the president role.
15:32:52 They took care of that we took care of King make the king issue. But when it comes to the the court. We just have to understand that nobody expected someone to be on the bench for 20 to 30 years.
15:33:07 And that wasn’t the original expectation. Okay. It also wasn’t the original expectation, with gun ownership, because people were using muskets back then, which had much different load times than automatic rifles.
15:33:33 interpretations, as as we continue to evolve as a society and the internet didn’t exist. Does that mean we should ban it because there’s nothing, allowing us the access information. It’s just, it just drives me crazy but, you know, I’ll just jump into
15:33:38 more with the most recent decisions right, it’s like you go to bed, and you wake up, and the Court made a decision and no one’s really sure. It happened in the middle of the night and everyone’s trying to interpret it over breakfast, it’s, it’s these
15:34:03 decisions that are coming that have allowed Texas to still operate with no clear decision oh but we’re looking at it so if we had basically a c span for the courts for the federal courts in general, there is no broadcasting or public available record
15:34:22 of what’s going on in the federal court system and I think that’s a problem. Transparency is key. Then everyone can keep their million year term limits.
15:34:33 As long as we can see exactly how inept they are, but then we need the right to recall, we didn’t put that in the list, but I’m adding it of course, the right to recall, along with being able to see what’s going on and these federal courts.
15:34:48 It’s either one life appointments and recall, or, or, or the other right limits, I think has to be one or the other, can we agree on that.
15:34:57 Yeah, yeah, but that doesn’t leave as much opportunity because technically we have recall, but that’s not citizen driven initiative, it is.
15:35:07 It’s impeachment are always talking about the citizen here is his prerogative.
15:35:13 Yeah so technically I don’t know if everybody is aware of this but Congress just like it can impeach and remove a president, it can impeach him remove a judge.
15:35:22 And although it’s only happened one time for the Supreme Court and our entire history.
15:35:27 And I think it was a judge who was impeached I don’t think they were removed.
15:35:32 And I can’t recall who it was but otherwise it was lower federal federal benches below the Supreme Court. Over the years, several judges have been impeached and removed by Congress for poor conduct.
15:35:48 Essentially, but we all know what kind of a political show impeachment is and isn’t all that much different. It wouldn’t be all that much different. I suspect and you know how effective is that, for the sake of oversight.
15:36:04 I don’t know, as long as political parties or appointing justices and stuff like that it just doesn’t feel like it’s going to work well right because it’s the parties now we’re driving, who does or doesn’t get impeached etc.
15:36:16 it’s not for the best of the Republic.
15:36:21 So would be nice to have something more like a recall, I agree.
15:36:26 Last call out here is just to be aware of your state supreme court justices So, you know, the bench the federal bench has multiple tiers to it and pretty much begins at your state supreme court level, and you know you should understand who that judges
15:36:41 and how did they get there and if they’re going to be retiring anytime soon you have a vested interest in understanding who’s going to replace them or who possibly may replace them and whether you elect that person or you will ask the person that replaced
15:36:55 Islam, you need to understand that, depending on how your state is how your state constitution is written.
15:37:02 It’s very important to know who’s in these places because they don’t even have to pass laws, they just pass an opinion based on a law and absence of an appeal it sticks.
15:37:15 And it doesn’t make it right. It’s just the decision and that’s the system we have it’s an adversarial court system designed to come to a conclusion.
15:37:24 Justice is blind.
15:37:26 Justice is not really a factor.
15:37:30 That’s another story for another day.
15:37:37 Think that’s going to do us.
15:37:41 We’ve been your host thank you to Mr. Raymond one Jr.
15:37:45 And thank you mr biscuits le it truly has been a judicial school of thought.
15:37:52 It’s been something that’s for sure.
15:37:54 For information on this and other episodes head over to citizen do good.com, and click on podcast. While you’re there, hit up the Contact Us page and leave a comment, we’d love to hear from the community. Special thanks to you our listeners we saved the best for last. You are the best and you have been for years. Thank you for your support we know it’s painful and we love you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: