 We have a new, well not a new judge, but a new, we have, Trump is finalized his nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy. And it is my last, you know, the one lowest on the rung from my perspective. So what we get, what we get today is, is Barrett, who is Amy Barrett, who is a Pellet Court judge in Chicago. She flew to Washington. She's being announced, I think, right now. She will face the Judiciary Commission, the Judiciary Committee in the weeks to come. And ultimately, I think Republicans are going to try to have a vote before the actual election on November 3rd. We'll see if they can pull that off. I'm sure the Democrats will do whatever they can procedurally to prevent that from happening. They're going to push it out as much, as much as they can. It's, I guess it was the expected choice. She's been at the top of the list pretty much that everybody has presented. You know, she's, she was, I guess she was just behind Kavanaugh, when they, just behind her, just ahead of Kavanaugh when they, when the previous, when they were placed Kennedy, she was definitely being considered then, I think Trump went with Kavanaugh in the end. But here we are. Amy Barrett is likely to be a Supreme Court judge. I think that the, I think Republicans are too cowardly not to appoint her. And I don't think given the, that we have no filibuster anymore for Supreme Court nominations that now the Democrats can't stop it. The Republicans have a three-person majority, 53 to 47, and it's likely that they will vote that way. Unlikely that any Democrats will vote for, for this, this nomination. Remember that the filibuster was first eliminated by the Democrats for presidential appointees excluding Supreme Court judges. Republicans then, you know, excluded the filibusters and all filibuster was needed for Supreme Court nominations that, and both of, both of Trump's nominees were basically, I think, got zero Democratic votes, maybe, maybe Gorsuch got some, but, but suddenly Kavanaugh did not. Kavanaugh just squeaked by, I think it was 50 to 48. Amy Barrett will probably come in at, well, I mean, two Republicans have said that they don't believe we should, they should be voting on this before the election. So if it stays a two, then it'll be, what it would be, 51 to 49 or probably 51 to 47 with the two Republicans abstaining. And then you've got Susan Collins in Maine who might also refuse to vote and it might be 50 to 47 with three Republicans abstaining. Of course, if one more Republican says we shouldn't have a vote before the election, then it's real trouble. So real trouble for Trump, real trouble for the Republicans. Andrew asked, what did I make of the criticism of her Catholicism? Well, I think in, ordinarily I would make much of it, but the argument is, and I don't know, we'll see, we'll see once she is being questioned in the Judiciary Committee. The argument is that she's not just Catholic, just like, like people are what they are. But you don't have that particular religious position. But that she is a devout Catholic and the Catholicism kind of dominates her way of thinking. And to the extent that one fears that her Catholicism will interfere in the way she interprets law, that a Catholicism would interfere in the way she rules, then yeah, I think it makes sense to worry about that. I certainly worried about her, not because of a Catholicism per se, but because from what I understand, from the little, you know, from the little I've read about her, from she is a real religionist. She really does, she takes a Catholicism super seriously. And I think she is more than likely to, if not, overturn Roe versus Wade, which I think she will do, given that there's probably a majority who will support her. But I think she will empty Roe versus Wade of content. And that's, I would expect that that's what she said she will do. She's well documented in writing that she does not have much respect for precedent. I don't have much respect for precedent either, so I'm not going to criticize it for that fact. But the fact that she does not have much respect for precedent, the fact that she and many conservatives, and again here I probably agree with them, believe that Roe versus Wade was badly decided, I think completely opens it up no matter what she says to her overwriting or overturning Roe versus Wade. I think there's now a clear majority, even if Robert doesn't vote with the majority, there's clear majority for overturning. I mean, Clarence Thomas is clearly on the side of overturning. I think Alito is too. And then it's an issue of what Gorsuch and what Kavanaugh would do. I'm pretty sure Kavanaugh would go with overturning Roe versus Wade. Gorsuch is the wild card. But I think ultimately, if he was the swing vote, he would go for doing it. And he might even get Roberts. So it might even be a six to three decision, not a five to four. So we will see. I think that would be a great tragedy if Roe versus Wade is overturned. And but it's more than just Roe versus Wade. It really is a question of how does her religion, how does her Catholicism, how does her view of the world as a devout, not just a mainstream, but a devout Catholic? How is that going to affect the way she views the law? And I think, you know, I have this wish, but I think it's more than a fantasy than a wish. I have a desire to see in my lifetime a Supreme Court judge who has respect for the foundations of the Constitution, not just for the written word of the Constitution. But it's for its intentions. I think that the Constitution has been gutted by the Supreme Court, gutted completely and empty of content. But what I would and the only way to resurrect the Constitution, the only way to revive the Constitution is to revive a proper interpretation of the Constitution. And the only way to revive a proper interpretation of the Constitution is through an understanding, through an understanding of the concept of individual rights. And I don't think there's a single judge there who understands individual rights. The closest might be Clarence Thomas, but he has a very limited understanding of what individual rights mean. Gorsuch might be a second, but none of the other judges have any clue as to what individual rights mean. And neither did Angelis Scalia, the guy who almost everybody thinks is the guru of great judges. But Angelis Scalia basically said individual rights were nonsense on stilt, as did Robert Bork before him. I mean, all these conservative judges in the past have been anti-individual rights. So without the concept of individual rights, without that anchoring, your understanding of the Constitution, the Constitution then becomes a vehicle for you to interpret in any way you want for the goals that you want. Somebody says what I think is more actually banning the sale of gas cars in California or roll getting overturned. I think it's more likely roll gets overturned because California won't ultimately ban gas cars if given that they won't have a grid. You know, the electric grid right now cannot support the homes and businesses that exist today. Imagine if you put on top of that, I don't know, 100 million, 150 million automobiles that have to be charged several times a day given the distances one has to drive in California. I mean, the grid cannot sustain that. Now, so I think ultimately California will have to compromise and allow for some gas cars or gas cars with high, whatever, high mileage or whatever. I don't know, but the idea that California can switch in 15 years to all electric cars and at the same time switch to solar and wind energy is basically science fiction. It's basically insane. What we need today, what I called a new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, whims, or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism, and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now, 30 likes that should be at least 100. I think at least a hundred of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it, but at least the people who like it, you know, I want to see, I want to see a thumbs up. There you go. Start liking it. I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this and you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So, you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share. And you can support the show at your own bookshow.com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals and show your support for all, for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this. And, and of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you, even if you just come here to troll or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on, when they're on. You'll get notified. So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support, like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one, all of those, please.