Welcome, everybody. Welcome back to the Bill Bennett show with Claude Jennings. Hey, Claude.

Dr. Bennett, how are you? Good. We have thoughtful conversation we hope it is. Claude's always thought.

Well, usually thoughtful conversation about the news of the day we address the existential threats to America.

We're going to catch up on emails today. Your emails. We got a bunch of them and we want to respond to them as best we can.

A few things we want to talk about. Let me just say off the top of Judge Kataji Brown, she's going to be confirmed.

Right. Right. She was voted supported by Republicans on her way up and she'll make it through.

You know, the way it is now, if you got a majority Republicans, they put ever Republican, that person goes in.

I tend to think our candidates are stronger Republicans because they take a...

They've got to be because they take a beating from the Democrat senators. Think of Kavanaugh and think of Barrett and so on.

And that's not happening here in this case. And you know, she seems co-opinant and we'll see, but she'll be confirmed any comment on that.

What I've always found interesting is that most of these judges by the time we get to this case, right, have been confirmed for another seat, right?

So what's so different, I mean, I understand it's a Supreme Court, but if you follow what I'm saying, they've been confirmed already for other things.

And they've been questioned and stuff. So I wonder why there's a hesitancy, and I get it because it's a Supreme Court.

Is that the only reason if they've already been confirmed for other things?

Well, you say it's that the only reason. It's a big reason. It's the law of the law. It's the final say.

It's where the buck really stops. And it has become increasingly the case that issues of real contention in the country end up in the court.

You know, where we're going here, abortion, you know, the state's rights, guns, you know, things that really matter to people.

The final decisions end up in the Supreme Court until they decide to make them unfinal. But only they can do that.

Now, legislature can legislate things. And thereby undercut Supreme Court decisions if they do not violate the principle enunciated or the precedent enunciated by the court.

But the court's different. It's above all else. I mean, this was the principle in Marburg versus Madison back in the 18th century. And so there it is.

And so it is a big deal, right? And because of such a big deal, it should be on the merits.

And it ain't always on the merits.

...