[00:00:04] Broadcasting live from atop the Rocky Mountains, the crossroads of the West. You are listening to the Liberty Roundtable Radio Talk Show. Happy to have you along my fellow American Sam Bushman live with hard-hitting news the network refused to use and it all starts now on a Monday morning. Boy, we got a barn burner broadcast for you today.
[00:00:31] The question becomes, what about these judges? Are these judges out of control? Yes, they are. They're out of control, ladies and gentlemen, and we have very limited opportunities to get involved in what happens with the judges. We'll talk about that. We'll talk about the Supreme Law of the Land and more. To break this all down with me today, Lowell Nelson, CampaignForLiberty.org. Welcome to the show, my friend. Well, good to be with you, Sam. Thank you for having me.
[00:01:00] There's so much to talk about. So little time, it feels like. But judges are kind of an interesting topic because most people don't even think about them. Once in a while, they're on the ballot and all you have is a retain the judge, yes or no. And people don't really even know anything about the judges they're retaining. Most of the time, there's not very many judges on the ballot at a given time as well. And so it becomes a very nebulous thing. But, you know, we normally didn't worry about it in the past because we felt like, hey, the courts are kind of nonpolitical and dah, dah, dah, dah.
[00:01:29] We're finding out it's not true. They're super political. They're involved in so many things. They've shut down Trump's agenda over and over and over, sometimes justifiably so, but many times not justifiable at all. And they've turned this court system to a very political docket, to say the least, Lowell. That's right, Sam. You know, Utah is one of several states that has judges stand for what they call retention elections.
[00:01:56] Not every state does this, but there are, you know, quite a few states who do. In Utah, it turns out that judges are scheduled for retention election after they have served for three years, you know, after they get appointed. And three years after their appointment, then they get scheduled for the very first general election, retention election that's held.
[00:02:23] Now, these retention elections are held every two years, but, you know, judges are appointed for life, right? So they don't stand for retention in the election every time, but they do after three years of service, and then thereafter, after 10 years of service, every 10th year for Supreme Court justices, and every sixth year thereafter for every other level of judge in the state of Utah,
[00:02:51] whether it's appellate, district, or justice court. And so we do, as citizens, we do have an opportunity to say yes or no on judges. But they really, for the most part, they get an, on the average, 80% of the people favor retaining the judges. I mean, it's very, very rare for us to really kick a judge off the bench.
[00:03:14] I remember one judge in my lifetime that was kicked off the bench. Her name was Leslie Lewis, and this was in 2006. So this was 20 years ago. And it was because she got angry at the brother of a man who was accused of poaching a deer. And they had video of this, and this video circulated showing that the brother was at one point so disgusted
[00:03:41] with how the courtroom proceedings were going that he stood up from the gallery. He wasn't there, you know, in court. He wasn't on trial. He was the brother of the man on trial for, you know, for poaching a deer. Well, this brother stood up, exhaled, and left the courtroom. And so Judge Lewis thought this was a tremendous act of disrespect.
[00:04:07] And so she ordered the bailiff to pursue the brother of the man on trial, which the bailiff did. They arrested him, hauled him back into the courtroom in handcuffs, and then she just publicly excoriated him on the record, you know, for having the gall to stand up and leave the courtroom, you know, and ordered him held in a cell for roughly 20 minutes.
[00:04:33] Well, this was like caught on video apparently, and it circulated, and that judge lost her retention in the election. In fact, 54% of the voters said no to her. We don't want to retain her. And she lost her judgeship. And that was really the second district judge in modern Utah history ever to lose a retention election. So it's really rare here in Utah, Sam.
[00:05:02] But we have another judge who probably, well, I think deserves to lose her seat on the bench, and we're talking about a Utah Supreme Court justice named Jill Pullman, P-O-H-L-M-A-N, Pullman. It turns out that this is what she has done.
[00:05:22] And then I'm getting this from, you know, I also know this from the Utah Republican Party, because the Utah Republican Party is urging its members to vote no on Judge Jill Pullman. But the Utah Eagle Forum wrote this. Utah's pro-life law took effect when Roe v. Wade was overturned, but only for three days.
[00:05:48] And, in fact, Sam, I remember that weekend on Friday the Roe v. Wade was overturned, and so that put into effect our trigger law to block abortions here in the state of Utah. Well, on Monday there was a judge who filed, well, Planned Parenthood filed an injunction on Monday, and the court granted the injunction so that that law could not go into effect.
[00:06:18] And so since then, which has been about over four years ago, 16,000 babies have been killed by abortion here in Utah. Yes, they've been murdered. Planned Parenthood argued that the law was unconstitutional. Well, Utah's attorneys responded that the law is constitutional, talking about the law to ban abortions, arguing that it protects all human life.
[00:06:44] Well, the Utah Supreme Court, which included Judge Pullman, agreed with Planned Parenthood, and babies have continued to die since then. Judge Pullman is the only Utah Supreme Court justice on the ballot this year here in Utah. So bottom line, Sam, is if you're a voter in Utah, then please vote no on Judge Jill Pullman.
[00:07:10] She is one of the judges who thinks it's okay to murder the unborn, and like we need her off the bench yesterday, Sam. That's how important this is this year. Sam? It's a sad tale to tell, ladies and gentlemen. This is kind of what I mean. Most people don't really realize, folks, that this is something that we have absolute control over. Yes, judgeships have a long, in my opinion, stint in office, probably too long. But being that they weren't meant to be political, I understand it.
[00:07:39] The problem is they've become very political. And what we need to start doing is publishing records of judges, what they've voted for and voted against, et cetera, on their stint on the court, what their background is, what they stand for, what they do. So Americans can clearly decide if they want to retain them or not. But my standard mode of operandus lull because of this has just been whenever there's a chance to vote a judge out, just vote them out. The likelihood of you ending up with a worst judge is pretty slim
[00:08:09] because the shorter amount of time a judge is on the court, usually the better they vote. The longer they're there, the more tenure they have or whatever you want to call it, the more they – it seems like they just get worse and worse over time like any politician seems to do. And so I usually just say don't retain any of them ever. And I know that might be an extreme view, but unless I can get a lot of details on the judge, it's very hard. And so I just have to say if I don't know, vote them out. And that's a sad tale to tell for the few that are good, but that's so rare that I feel like I'm on the most firm ground I can be
[00:08:39] without doing an expose or a dossier on each of the judges, lull. Yeah, you know, for legislators, we have like the New American Magazine publishes Freedom Index on all legislators, which is a wonderful service. There are 535 members of Congress, plus they do all of the members of every state legislature as well. Now in the New American Magazine in the Freedom Index,
[00:09:08] and so that's a tremendous service because it helps us know how our public servants are voting. And we should watch how they vote, not what they say, but we should watch how they vote and make our decisions based on that. But we don't have, as you so aptly pointed out, we don't have that kind of a service or an index running on the judges, on the decisions that they make.
[00:09:32] Now there have been a number of organizations that have tried to do this, and in some small way that has helped, but it's just not as big or as popular as the Freedom Index yet. And so you're ready. I would pray that they would expand the Freedom Index over at gbs.org and or I think it's newamerican.com. I would beg them to expand this to cover the judges so we could all get a handle on this.
[00:10:01] For one thing, if not, the Eagle Forum brought this to our attention and we agree with them and highlight this. This is a serious issue, especially think of all these judges and what they've really done. They wreaked havoc in America with lawfare till the cows come home. On both sides of the aisle, folks, this is not a political statement against one or the other party. They've had judges from, you know, that have been brought forth by all kinds of presidents and all kinds of leaders over the last 10, 20, 30, 40 years,
[00:10:30] and they all seem to be problematic by nature. Anyway, we want you to vote them out, folks, when you can. And most importantly, let's get more information on them. You got to vote as if the Constitution depended on it. That's a good idea. John and Nisha Whitehead with an incredible column will bridge the gap. Talk about that in mere seconds. You're listening to Liberty RoundTable Podcast.
[00:10:58] Attention collectors and savvy investors. We are excited to announce a momentous evolution in our journey. Introducing Freewater Coin Company, formerly known as Rust Coin & Gift. This rebranding takes us back to the very roots of where it all began, Freewater, Oregon. It's a tribute to the legacy of Al Rust and a celebration of three generations of dedication to excellence in the world of coins and precious gifts. Al, Brian, and Jake Rust standing strong through 64 years of service.
[00:11:27] Discover a world of exceptional service at Freewater Coin Company, your premier destination for genuine, honest money and precious gifts. Under Brian's expert guidance, Freewater Coin Company, building on the legacy of Rust Coin & Gift, continues its tradition of trust and excellence. Visit us at our Provo, Utah location. Explore our treasures online at freewatercoincode.com or call us at 801-377-1574. Freewater Coin Company,
[00:11:54] where your future is built one honest coin at a time. This is a battle. A battle between truth and deceit. A battle between forces that would enslave this country in darkness and between a media that wants to present you with the truth. We are being censored. America's news outlets no longer provide the truth. 90% of news outlets in the United States are controlled by six corporations. The mission of The Epoch Times is to chase the truth,
[00:12:24] to ground all statements and facts. Theepictimes.com Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. This is Lowell Nelson here, riding shotgun for, or with Sam Bushman, your host here on Liberty RoundTable Podcast. We're talking about the Constitution at Fairbat this morning, and John and Nisha Whitehead have a column that was posted at ronpaulinstitute.org
[00:12:55] just last week. And it's a really great column because it points out something that is, well, let me just jump into this. Thinking for yourself, you know, thinking independently was considered a virtue once upon a time. Questioning authority was admired, you know, once upon a time. But today, if you question a Democrat public servant, then you get called a Republican.
[00:13:23] And if you question a Republican, you get called a Democrat. If you criticize President Trump, you suffer from Trump derangement syndrome. If you criticize his opponents, then you are accused of enabling authoritarianism. And so the Whiteheads write that, quote, somewhere along the way, Americans seem to have forgotten that independent thought is not an act of political betrayal. Neither is holding government officials accountable to the Constitution an act of betrayal.
[00:13:53] End of quote. And here really is the most important question in this column. He says, they write, quote, the most important question is often the last one we think to ask, is what the government is actually doing constitutional? That's the question. You know, is the government action constitutional? That's a very important question. You know, and it shouldn't matter whether the public servant is Republican or Democrat,
[00:14:21] male or female, or whether you like him or not. What matters is whether the government action, you know, that's being contemplated is constitutional. That's the important question. The Whiteheads write, quote, perhaps the most troubling aspect of this political circus is not merely the conduct of those in power, but the willingness of so many Americans to excuse, rationalize,
[00:14:45] or even celebrate abuses of power when they are committed in the name of a political cause they support. This is how constitutional government begins to lose its meaning, not necessarily through a single dramatic overthrow, but through the gradual abandonment of principles that were supposed to apply to everyone. Free speech becomes a right worth defending only when the speaker agrees with it.
[00:15:13] Due process becomes a technicality when the accused belongs to a group we distrust. Government surveillance becomes acceptable when it targets our political opponents. Executive overreach becomes decisive leadership when exercised by our preferred president. End of quote. Pretty insightful, I think. I mean, that was a long quote, but that outlines the problem perfectly.
[00:15:38] When our president does something unconstitutional, we don't raise a peep out of our side because he's our president, and we like to grant him power, right? Well, the irony here is that people who would never willingly surrender their own freedoms, they can become quite indifferent when those same freedoms are denied to someone else.
[00:16:05] So should Republicans question public servants who are also Republicans? Well, yes, absolutely, of course. In fact, a public servant who is truly serving the cause of liberty should welcome such questioning. And I would. I mean, they should want to be kept on the path of liberty. In fact, Sam, I have a T-shirt from the Utah County Republican Party that says, question like a real Republican. That's what's written on the T-shirt.
[00:16:34] Question like a real Republican. And what that really means is, hey, you can criticize anything that the Republican Party criticizes, but if they don't criticize it, you better not. Right? Well, what it means is, to me, what it means is we should be asking a lot more questions of our Republican public servants because most of them here in Utah are Republican, but we're not questioning the way we ought to question them.
[00:17:01] And it's because we're the same party. Well, I don't think parties should matter. I don't think gender should matter. I don't think, you know, race should matter. We should question everybody, especially our public servants. In fact, we should probably question one another more often than we do and see what we really think. In private conversation with our neighbors, with, you know, our colleagues at work, you know, everybody. We should be talking, questioning them all the time. Well, it turns out.
[00:17:31] Well, I think John and Nisha Whitehead's comment on this is perfect, ladies and gentlemen. It basically says this. After all, the real betrayal of America is not questioning those in power. It's surrendering our principles to keep them there. Now, that, to me, is one of the most poignant quotes I have read in a long time. That really tells the tale. Let me say it again.
[00:17:59] After all, the real betrayal of America is not questioning those in power. It is surrendering our principles to keep them there. That's really the telltale reality. Party aside, sir. Oh, absolutely right, Sam. I love that statement. And that really puts the onus on us, squarely where it belongs, right?
[00:18:22] Because if we don't question those in power, then we're only encouraging them to continue their encroachment of power, their abuse of the power that they have. You know, a document is not going to keep them in line. The Constitution is great. I absolutely agree with that. But it's just a piece of paper. It's just ink on parchment.
[00:18:44] And it does nothing to keep our public servants in line unless we, the people, insist that they stay in line. And when they cover outside the lines, when they go outside the constitutional warrant, then it's up to us to question them and get them back in line. And so, yeah, the responsibility is ours, Sam. You and me and all the rest of the citizens in this country, no matter where you live,
[00:19:13] we need to be questioning those in power, those who, you know, have the mantle of power, and most of whom are abusing this grant of power that we've vested in them just by virtue of their being a public servant. Great call, Sam. The other thing I want to mention about this, folks, is this is really important to consider, okay? When we have the Declaration of Independence, was there parties involved?
[00:19:44] Not at all. Yeah. Yeah, there was the American side and there was the English side. You either wanted to be under King George or you wanted to be free, right? Mm-hmm. There was no other parties. You're right when the answer is no, but I'm just making a point. The point that I'm getting at is set aside governments for a second. Set aside political parties, private entities that masquerade as getting a special favor at the trough of government. Set that aside for a second.
[00:20:12] And when it was Declaration of Independence time, there was only freedom or king. That's how we need to look at it today is, hey, if it backs the principles of the Supreme Law of America, we're for it. And if it doesn't, we're against it. Parties aside. That's something that we really, in my opinion, would do well to pay attention for, ladies and gentlemen. Now, Andrew Napolitano writes great columns. And I love what he writes 99% of the time.
[00:20:40] Once in a while, I need to differ with him. And his title of the article today that he writes is called Our Failed Constitution. And I want to change that title slightly before we get into it because I agree with the column. I just disagree with the title kind of. Because the Constitution isn't failed. It's our, it's the people. It's our willingness to demand and insist on application, peer application of the Constitution that's the problem.
[00:21:10] The Constitution didn't fail. Our failed adherence to the Constitution is how I would probably change it. Don't mean to be critical of Napolitano, but I do think there's a subtle but vital difference to point out, Lowell. Well, and I totally agree, Sam. I think he used that title just to catch your attention. Because there's a lot of us who, you know, like you, Sam, we support the Constitution. And it has not failed us.
[00:21:37] But what, and the same point that Whiteheads made in their column is that the people have failed to keep the public servants in line with the Constitution, right? They swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, but then they break their oath because they refuse to follow the Constitution. So it's not the Constitution that has failed us.
[00:22:01] It's the people who have failed to keep the public servants in adherence to the Constitution, just like you said, Sam. And so I don't mind changing the title a bit at all because I think you're exactly right. People need to do what's right and insist that their public servants follow the Constitution.
[00:22:27] And so, you know, diving into this column just a bit, it's, you know, Andrew Napolitano, he chronicles the erosion of the Constitution in this column today. But that's important because just like Patrick Henry, it behooves us to be willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it. That's what Patrick Henry said in his give me liberty, give me death speech, right?
[00:22:53] He said, in other words, if we don't know what's going on, then we cannot stop this erosion of the Constitution or the principles of liberty that the Constitution was designed and written to protect. So Judge Napolitano begins his column by describing the purpose of the Constitution. I love this statement, too, by the way. Quote, the U.S. Constitution was ratified to create and to restrain the government.
[00:23:20] It established boundaries beyond which the government may not venture, even when it invokes national security, public order, economic necessity, emergency, or the will of a popular majority. Its purpose is not to make government more powerful, but to keep the government off the people's backs. End of quote. I just love that, Sam, because the Constitution was written to restrain the government.
[00:23:50] You know? I think it was more than to restrain. I think it was to chain down those who would betray us. And I simply submit to you that using parties above principle is a betrayal of we the people and the supreme law of the land to which our founders bled, suffered, and died for, ladies and gentlemen. This is critical, not just hyperbole on our part. We believe in God, family, and country. Testify God lives. And he set the family as the fundamental need of society.
[00:24:19] And he has government to protect all of us from despots and tyrants and thugs and thieves. And we the people need to stand for God, family, and country and protect life, liberty, and property. For Lowell Nelson, CampaignForLiberty.org and yours truly at LibertyRoundtable.com. Wow. God save our constitutional republic.