The following is a transcript from the Pro America Report.
Welcome, welcome. Welcome, it’s Ed Martin here on the Pro America Report. And, man alive. You talk about having an idea and an issue Set that you’ve been talking about and and working on, and suddenly it’s all over the news. That’s how I feel this week and last week with the Question of due process due process. We’ll talk about that in a minute.
Welcome to the Pro America Report. Don’t forget, visit proamericareport.com. You go there, you can sign up for my sub stack. I have to reveal something to you. I’ve been testing the waters with that sub stack for about 6 weeks and I will after the first of the year. I have a system where I’m going to be able to. Post longer length, thoughts and writings. There on sub stack and it will pick up a lot so go there and sign up proamericareport.com. You won’t be disappointed. Also visit phyllisschlafly.com and. Sign up there. For our daily e-mail, it goes out from our Phyllis Schlafly Eagles 8:00 AM in the morning each morning, Monday through Friday. It’s called the WYNK. What you need to know. And we put a couple of things you need to know. A couple of things that you may not have seen some links and other stuff all there in an e-mail free we don’t sell your e-mail address. We don’t trade it, we don’t use it any other way than to communicate with you what you need to know and that’s also the name of this Segment each time we open up the program, the radio program and and and we turn into a podcast. Our opening segment is the WYNK. What you need to know. Sometimes you’ll hear me sometimes Ryan Hite, our communications director at the Phyllis Schlafly Eagles and the producer of the Pro America Report Radio and podcast, or even Mason Mohan, one of our colleagues, will be doing the WYNK. To fill in, they’re great. And a big help so you’re Gonna want to check That out, alright.
Today is WYNK. What you need to know what you need to know is If you’re looking at the Colorado Supreme Court, State Supreme Court case that has supposedly taken Donald Trump off of the primary ballot in Colorado, not the general election, but the primary. You would notice in the dissent some phraseology by one of the judges. I don’t. I don’t know if there was multiple dissents, but the one I was reading was a judge who’d been on the bench for over 30 years. I think he might have. Maybe he’s on the bench for more than 20, but he’s in practicing law. And talks about over 3 decades in practice and anyway seems to be an Experienced guy and. He writes, and he’s a Democrat, Democrat leaning, I guess. It’s nonpartisan. Once you’re on the bench, you don’t identify yourself as such. You don’t run formally in Colorado. You’re nominated by the governor, retained by the people for 10 year terms. So anyway. This guy wrote that he’s never seen such an abysmal description of conduct that takes away due process that does not grant due process.
What does that mean? What it basically means is in America, in our crown jewel, the Constitution, the rule of law. If you take something from Someone, their money, their liberty, their ballot access. If you take something, then they have due process. They have. They have the right to demand that it not be done in a way that is secretive and and unknown and hidden. And the reason is because More light, more transparency. A system that Forces accountability to to what you’re doing. It’s gonna make it more likely. It’s not gonna make it 100%, but it’s make it more likely that you get a fair outcome and you at least get a system that you’re bought into. So if you’re, if you’re, if you’re, you know, if you’re, you own a piece of property and the state comes along and says we want to put a a highway through there, they have to give you due process. Before they can take the high, there’s another constitutional debatable whether they should and could, but if they want to do that, that’s your property. They have to give you due process. They have to say this is what we’re doing. This is the reason we’re doing it. This is the law we’re citing. This is how you’ll be compensated. This is all these checks on the System.
And due process is the phrase that has been popularized over the decades and centuries to talk about this system.
One of the aspects of due process is a fair tribunal. That’s the Phrase used by A judge, the late Judge Henry Friendly, who was a Court of Appeals judge in the Federal Court of Appeals, wrote a famous essay on on due process that’s often cited, and I don’t know that he was that conservative or liberal. I don’t even know. But he lists these factors. The first one is a fair tribunal. Meaning you have to have an impartial judge, you have to have a tribunal that is not stacked against you. You have to. This is why you can sometimes get a Change of venue if you’re Particularly well known and not liked or or even. I suppose if you’re well known. And then your too Popular and the the news of what’s going to be exposed in the trial is going to be negative and people are gonna. Have a shock. You can get a change of venue, there’s you, you can ask for protections on the impartiality of the tribunal, of the, of the, of the the system managers, the judges, the jury. In the case of a criminal trial, the jury. So that’s what this judge in Colorado has has said it’s so it’s so obvious and so stunning that you’re taking something away. Donald Trump has not been convicted of insurrection anywhere. And that’s what the 14th Amendment talks about insurrection. Someone who’s been is, is, is, is an insurrectionist can’t serve well, you do. You just get to say do what can. I say that Joe Biden leaving the Border open is. It is it active insurrection, therefore, he’s an insurrectionist. Therefore, I could take him off the ballot in Montana, which is a red state that doesn’t want him on the ballot, it can’t be that way. It can’t be that way. There’s gotta be some standard
Also, because due process demands that you know what the charges are that you know how things are going against you so.
This is a big deal and I think it’s helpful that he’s not perceived as a conservative or a. A Democrat or Or Republican this judge. I think it’ll get some attention. Which brings me to my next point.
I have to say it’s amazing to me to watch what I now have, I’ve taken to calling it The tyranny of The experts, the tyranny of the experts. You would think after COVID we would have given up on experts as the people who can tell us exactly how things have to be, that this is the way you must accept the facts or The law
In this case, I’m talking about a guy named Mike Luttig. Mike Luttig was a long time judge. He clerked for Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. He was a long time judge on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. He was talked about as the US Supreme Court judge, by all accounts, considered very smart, very capable. I’m not here to, to, to, to diminish That at all. And uh, but he he got passed over and when he got passed over and wasn’t going to get the big job, the Supreme Court, he went out into the private sector. I think to somebody like Boeing. I’m pretty sure. It was Boeing, and when you’re a a former 4th, when you’re a former Court of Appeals judge like that and you’re in your. In your, you know relative youth. I think he was in his late 50s. You go off the bench and yeah, he became general counsel for Boeing. That’s a big job. That’s a really big job. I mean, that’s a job. The general counsel of Boeing is kind of. It’s not that it’s a a titular head, but you you’ve got a staff of of dozens and dozens of capable lawyers. One one set of lawyers is doing litigation ones doing compliance. You’re kind of the captain of the ship like you are when you are a judge. And so he made a boatload of money, a boatload if you’re the general counsel of Boeing for a decade or so, however long he was. You’re so he’s got tons of money, so now he’s got tons of money. He lives in Northern Virginia, where Boeing is allowed him to live, his headquarters, where he was a judge.
And he’s basically become the expert that the people who want to cite. When they want to hear him go against Trump because he was passed over, in my opinion, Luttig was passed over and has never gotten over it, and so. Luttig is the guy that bring out and they say with great fanfare here’s the expert and he says Oh yeah, the Colorado Supreme Court ruling is completely unassailable. It’s it’s perfect. And he goes on and on and on now.
Why should we trust him? At this point Why should we trust him? I mean Jonathan Turley, who I think is probably as smart, maybe smarter. He wasn’t a judge for years. He’s been a professor. That’s Turley’s over at is it George Washington law school. And so the reality is and and but Luttig is is run out as an expert. And they cite Laurence Tribe from Harvard, and that guy has used to be, you know, before you could really look at these people closely and see what motivated them. He was often cited as one of the great constitutional scholars. He’s got full on TDS. But here’s my point.
I don’t think. You know my distrust and verify which I ascribe to The government, you know, the old Reagan phrase that he used was trust, trust, then verify, trust, trust but verify. And mine is distrust. Then verify. That you the starting point is you can’t trust them, can’t trust government and mine. Mine is designed to talk, to talk. Just. To government so. Distrust. Then verify it.
But I have to say you have to apply it to experts now too. When it comes to experts, you have to say what’s the ax that’s being grinded? What’s the? What’s the way that this person is saying something? Or the positioning that is beneficial to the regime, the government to some interest. So distrust right off the bat. Then verify. And so with with Luttig all you have to do is look a little bit and it. It’s completely nonsensical. To try to defend, it’s one thing to defend the Colorado opinion. Say something like they have the right to look at to to make this assertion because it’s not been completely litigated before, and even if they’re wrong, that’s what they’ll find out in this process. That’s different than saying it’s unassailable that it’s unassailable, and and then breathlessly being interviewed on in this case Politico, for a lengthy interview that explains how bright you are. The tyranny. Of the experts and the only way. To beat that. Just like the tyranny of our government is distrust, then verify distrust then verify. Flip on the head when somebody says Ohh Michael Luttig. Former Judge, General Counsel of Boeing credentials are the clerk for Scalia. You could tru-. This is a guy you could you list those credentials as an expert, you said, oh, trust them. Distrust and then verify flip it on its head, especially when it comes to things related to Trump. Amazingly.
So we gotta take a break. We’ll be right back. Don’t forget visit proamericareport.com sign up for the sub stack there. And also PhyllisSchlafly.com to get our daily emails. And the daily WYNK, be right back.
