 So I thought I thought this idea that that row is actually pretty good was new to me and and the points about about individual liberty Was it was I didn't know and then of course You know the right to privacy has always been troubling because you know right to privacy. There's no right to privacy But hey, I'll take a right to privacy over no rights So if you can justify Protecting my freedom through privacy, then I'll take that over Never justifying, but you know not not being willing to protect my freedoms at all So that was that was I thought was really interesting. I had read I think I read the draft of dobbs I didn't read the final decision I thought the I thought dobbs was awful But then uncle's convinced me it's even worse than I thought it was It really is a bad decision. It's it's And the conservatives are cheering this decision. This is what's spooky about it It's not it's it's not just that these are supposedly really really intelligent people like I really think Gorsuch is really smart, right? I don't know about elito. I'm suspicious And and and this woman barrett is I mean, she's a catholic cultist She's not even just a cath ordinary catholic. She belongs to a cult within catholicism So she's a nutcase, but I thought Gorsuch was at least really really smart and cavernal. I don't know Hard to tell cavernal, but uh and and thomas I think is really smart, but This decision is really bad And then you get it's you know, you get a lot of these Constitutional scholars in at law schools Uh who are applauding this decision is conservatives, right applauding this decision And I always thought originalism was suspicious and I didn't like the textualism We need to study the text But now this idea of of history and we need to go what were the common views at the time and and uh You know, what were the laws at the time? What are recognized rights at the time when this was written and a lot of this is driven By a negative thing but a lot of it is driven by fear And the fear is that if they recognize the idea of the ninth amendment that idea of enumerated rights And that we we can we can even discover new rights because there's technologies changes. You might have right to things that Wasn't imaginable, but if they do that they're opening up the door to the left Saying well, then I have a right to a job and I have a right to food and I have a right to It was a right from right to freedom for fear wasn't that one of uh, uh, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's uh, uh three freedoms, uh, I have a right to all these things that is They can't conceive since they cannot conceive of an objective perspective on rights They cannot conceive of the idea that rights Objectives aren't intrinsic. They're not in you. God has not placed them in you nature has not placed it in you But they're objective. There's something we as human beings identify as necessary a necessity Of social interaction of of human life a necessity That results from the nature of human beings, right? But it's objective and now we can look at new phenomena and say Okay Is this a right or isn't is there a right to this or isn't there a right to this because we can take this principle of you know freedom to act And free of coercion and we can use this principle to apply to have right of them concretes But it is an objective principle. It does have a clear identity No, see once they give up on intrinsicism once they they they recognize and this is true of the religionist Once they recognize they cannot defend rights On the basis of religion they cannot defend they can't write in the in their opinion God did this and this and God, you know, and therefore we should they can't write that So they don't have what they perceive as the only defensive rights Which is an intrinsic defensive rights that coming from God Since they cannot defend that what are they left with they've left with subjectivism And there's the subjectivism on the left to subject their subjectivism It's all this and they're afraid of that that scares them because they can't defend themselves against the left in that circumstances So as hong ka said so instead of that, what do they refer to the subjectivism of history? Whatever history did that's okay. Whether they were right whether they weren't who are we to judge right to judge We would have to have an objective standard We would actually have no have to know what rights are And we can't do that, you know, unless we're being in religion and we're not allowed to do that And even then what do rights actually mean? God didn't actually tell us, right? He gave it gave it them to us, but then forgot to tell us. There's no manual He forgot to give us an instruction manual for the rights that he implanted in us So they have this stuck. I mean, I meant always used to say in transicism at the end is always subjectivism right the idea That knowledge is you get from revelation is subjectivism because There is no revelation. So what do you when you when you say god revealed this to me? What are you actually saying? I feel that I my you know, I dreamt that I had a delusion. I was an LSD whatever It's your emotion. There's no since god didn't talk to you since there is no god Then it it all boils down at the end of the day to subjectivism. There's nothing, uh, there is nothing else um so, uh The shot's about here. There he is. Oh wait. Thank you Appreciate it. I thought he was here Uh Is that two songs or one song? Is those two songs? Yeah, okay All right, that's mine Yeah, okay. Now we get it. Oh cause we still nationally. Yeah, I actually like cause we stills in ash Um, cool Finally somebody's asked me to review a song from a group that I know of Be actually like so, um, uh teacher children is a song. I like the music of I don't remember the lyrics I probably hate them. Maybe they're good. I don't know most rock songs. I hate the lyrics and but but this way I like I like the music there. Um, all right Where were we? So, yeah, so it's this escape they can't use intrinsicism because it means nothing The left with subjectivism they they were afraid to deal with their argument versus the left's argument in terms of what rights are because They probably lose because if you're subjectivist and everything it opens up to everything So the only way they can limit the scope of rights to what they Mostly feel is the right thing to do is by referring to history and they think they gain some objectivity there of course, even there they they They they pervert and distort the history because, um, uh, this didn't come in up in on cost talk But it's it's interesting that they're using as their historical reference the 14th amendment So what they did was they looked in in the Dobs decision They're using the 14th amendment as their historical context. So they look at the laws and what was common in the culture In the in the uh in the 1960s in the 1860s right in the 1860s America And in the 1860s america there were actually laws on the books criminalizing abortion So that had been something that developed in the 19th century. What's interesting though is when the constitution was written in 1789 There were very few laws on the books outlawing abortion Indeed common law coming from england viewed abortion as as non-criminal If the woman would state that she had not felt the baby king yet So if there was no It's alive vital no vital signs then There was no criminal prosecution Um, and and that was came from from common law from england. So if they'd used the standard of 1789 They would have had to say abortion should be legal until I don't know heartbeat viability something right Instead by using the standards of which they cherry pick right in 1863 1860 Whatever whenever the 14th amendment was written was ratified 65 maybe They get to they get to You know not have any any principle around abortion around abortion. What's interesting is the same court same week rules and guns For its historical context It uses 1789 not 1865 Again, they're using the 14th amendment which was in 1865 But it's the the laws on the books in america are not convenient for their case in 1865 So cherry pick the 1789 and now they're referring to the constitution and not to the 14th amendment So cherry picking their history. They're not even really doing history. They're cherry picking And of course history changes. So you got a cherry pick. So when what is the what is the generation account? What are the years that matter? Well, the years that are going to get me the answer that I want to get which is the bottom line here and uh, so I don't know. It's I've got to do this talk on optimism on thursday. I don't know It's very depressing when You know, some of the smartest people they are Supreme court justices they've done a lot. They've gone through a lot. They're obviously smart people They're And they don't get it I mean, they don't get it. They don't understand This is my sense of politicians when I told you I used to visit congressmen. They just have no clue. They don't understand And they have no concern. They can't think of principle The there's no principles on which they really rely Uh, they they know their position on concrete issues and then they they in a sense They build the law to justify those positions and that why we have today a court where these are conservatives These are liberals. We know exactly how they're gonna vote. We know exactly how they're gonna vote There's no I mean, there are a few cases where you get some mixture, but generally It's click cut. Why because There's no principles. So, you know, so it's not that they're no principles It's that the outcome is already set in advance in their minds And now they just write a ruling to justify it rather than struggling with the issue And figuring out and figuring out what it really means and what the answer really is So I again, I recommend everybody who hasn't heard on-course talk Really Listen to it. Watch it on youtube whenever it comes out It was really good and it I think it gave some new dimensions To the whole dobs case and it is it it depressed me further Than I was before so it was more negative than Then even I thought the decision was primarily because of how weak The whole process now is of making these decisions and and describing them and and arguing for them You know, they are It's It's not good Thank you for listening or watching the Iran book show If you'd like to support the show We make it as easy as possible for you to trade with me. You get value from listening. You get value from watching Show your appreciation. You can do that by going to Iran book show dot com slash support I'll go to patreon subscribe star locals and just making a Appropriate contribution on any one of those any one of those channels Also, if you'd like to see the Iran book show grow Please consider sharing our content and of course subscribe Press that little bell button right down there on youtube so that you get announcement when we go live and for you Those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who already supporters of the show Thank you. I very much appreciate it You