Does Roy Cooper oppose court-packing and socialism? | Hour 3

So, I noticed a funny thing yesterday evening. Um, let's do my weekly live stream. And, um, I went over to look at, um, my good friend Ray's website, uh, Roy Cooper.com. Roy cut him loose. Cooper, former North Carolina governor and a U S Senate candidate now, uh, for the Democrats. And, uh, I went over to his website because, uh, I was, I was curious, um, about his position on something that the, uh, the house did. Okay. So the house ran a resolution and this resolution needs, uh, two thirds of the house to vote yes on, which is to, uh, to cap or to set the number of Supreme court justices at nine, the current number. And that would be a constitutional amendment. Okay. And so you need two thirds of the house. You need two thirds of the Senate. And then that amendment would go to all of the states, and the states would then have to ratify with three quarters, I believe. It's a high bar, which makes sense because you're trying to amend the Constitution, right? So you got to get two-thirds. And by the way, this is my argument when I talk about the Article 5 Convention of States, my support of it, and people get, you know, they oppose it, and they're like, oh, there's gonna be a runaway convention, and They're going to pass all this stuff. It's like that's not going to happen because you would still need two thirds of the House and Senate to approve whatever would come out of that. You would need or you would need the three quarters of states to approve it. So there are safeguards. That's those are in place. Right. And I'm not going to go down the path here of arguing over the Article five convention. I support it. And because it's it's laid out in the Constitution, this is how states can call for their own convention action. if the Congress does not run constitutional amendments that states want to see, right? And I point out in any debate about the Article 5 Convention of States that there already is a constitutional convention essentially in session. Whenever Congress is in session, they can push, they can approve constitutional amendments for the states to approve. The states still always have to approve them but they can always, the Congress can do this too. And if Congress refuses to do a constitutional amendment, then the states could activate this through the other mechanism. Anyway, so the point here is that they ran a resolution, Republicans did, ran a resolution to cap the, or to set the number of Supreme Court justices at nine. And all the Democrats opposed it. Now, why would Democrats oppose setting the Supreme Court number at nine. Well, that tells me that they do not want the number to be nine. They would like the flexibility, if you will, to change that number, to add more seats, or yes, yes, take some away, sure, but I doubt that's actually going to happen. I think what they have said, in fact, I know they have said that they would like to expand the size of the U.S. Supreme Court. This is called court-packing. This is what FDR threatened when the Supreme Court was ruling against him, was saying things like, hey, you want to create all these big government programs and stuff, and these are outside the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution. They were saying you can't do this. And so he said, OK, well, I'm going to pack the court. That's where the term comes from, packing the court. It does not mean appointing your preferred nominee through the process to fill a vacancy It means adding seats and then packing those seats with people that will vote your way. OK, so Democrats, it seems to me, do not want the number to be nine. So because I I'm a giver and in the spirit of uniting America and bringing people together, I suggest that we give them what they want. Right. Right. Let's go ahead and add a bunch of seats. I believe they've been talking about four seats. They want to add four seats to take it from nine to 13, because you want to have an even number. So four seats seems to be what Democrats have been interested in. So we should go ahead and do that. And I'm not really sure what the mechanism is to do that, but it's not a constitutional thing. Like, Seems like, I don't know, maybe Trump could do it himself. I don't know. Maybe Congress too. I'm not sure. But why don't we get the ball rolling on that? Because we first asked, hey, how about we limit the number at nine and you guys don't want to see that. So, okay, well, then we'll expand it to 13. We'll do that right now because you obviously want this to happen. Oh, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Not right now. We don't want this happening right now. Well, why not? It was because you want to be in the White House and control the Senate so you can pack the court with people you want on the court. Is that why? And that got me thinking, you know, I wonder if the Democrats do take control of the House and the Senate, then maybe they win the White House as well in 2028. And now they have the trifecta, as it's called. Is this something that they are going to do? I mean, they've been talking about expanding the Supreme Court size. So I started thinking, well, I'm going to the polls this November, and I have a choice for U.S. Senator, and it's a six-year term, which means that Senator is going to be there after 2028. So where does Roy Cooper stand on this idea? So I went to his website. And what I learned by going to his website, there's nothing there. His website is essentially, like every page is volunteer your time for my campaign, or Donate money. He's got a couple of press releases up there, and it's about the launch of his Make Stuff Cost Less Tour. It's got a very catchy slogan, very good branding there. The Make Stuff Cost Less Tour. So there's a couple press releases, like literally three press releases. And then when you click on the link at the top and there's only like donate, donate, Give me your time. Give me your money about me. Like, I'm just a simple country lawyer, bio. And then there's the make stuff cost less. And you click on that. And it's just this, you know, Medicare for all. It's like bring down electricity prices. I mean, there's no policy prescriptions in any of this, of course. It's just the stuff that he says on the campaign trail at his carefully curated meetups that he's been doing. And it got me thinking. He doesn't post any of his positions on any of these items, on any of these issues. That he's going to be in the Senate if he wins and the polling is in his favor at this point. Maybe somebody could ask him that. I've asked him on Twitter. His campaign doesn't respond to me for some reason. But maybe a reporter who gets the invitations to his events and is not prohibited from entering and even gets to throw a question out to him. Maybe you could ask him, like, please, could you ask him, hey, do you want to expand the size of the U.S. Supreme Court? If that bill were to be run while you're in the Senate, would you vote for that? And then would you only nominate Democrats to those four seats in order to swing the majority control back to the Democrats? Is that what you would like to do? Would you be on board with this political strategy? Because that's what that is. I mean, I kind of feel like we should know. Like if you're trying to basically overthrow the U.S. Supreme Court, I feel like that's something that voters should know. Maybe a reporter could ask it. I mean, okay, a reporter could ask it after you ask him who his favorite player on the Carolina Hurricanes hockey team is. Of course, naturally, right? You got to ask that first. But then you could ask him about the overthrow of the Supreme Court. Appreciate it. All right, for over a year now, you've heard me talking about Create-A-Video, great local company in Mint Hill that has helped more than 2 million families preserve their memories by turning old photos, VHS tapes, film reels, and slides into lasting keepsakes. Now, Creative Video is helping families and groups create brand new memories while they're traveling. Introducing Group Travel Videos, perfect for family reunions, church mission trips, group vacations, destination weddings, student trips, senior adult groups, sports teams. I mean, really any gathering of people that you care about that's traveling together. Group Travel Videos gives your traveling pack a private app where everyone can share photos during the trip, Send messages. Share stories. and important documents, even a traveler safety locator feature that works only during the trip. And family members and friends back home can follow along and enjoy the experience in real time. No social media, no ads. It's totally private. No emails, phone numbers, account setups or hassles. With Group Travel Videos, you'll capture today's moments on your special trip while they're happening. Then, after the trip or gathering, they'll professionally turn your shared moments into a beautiful storytelling video that your whole group can stream and download and treasure for years. Check out GroupTravelVideos.com. That's GroupTravelVideos.com. Or call 704-846-7870, extension 206. And when you do that, ask for Katie. But Pete, can I just email? Well, yes, you can. You can email Katie, katie at grouptravelvideos.com. Group Travel Videos, from old memories to new adventures, preserving life's moments for a lifetime. Alrighty, from the text line, Cal says, Has everybody forgotten that Roy Cooper... shut North Carolina down and eliminated thousands and thousands of small businesses here in North Carolina. Um, I don't know how many small businesses were eliminated. I don't know if it's thousands and thousands. Um, I mean, it was more than one. I know that businesses never really recovered. Um, but I think, yes. Um, and for, you know, a lot of Democrats, it, you know, none of that mattered because like he was saving them because remember, you know, there were, there were, there were extremes with the COVID stuff. There were extremes on both sides. There were some people that said COVID didn't even exist. And then there were some that were like, COVID's killing everybody. Right. And so for a lot of the people on the left, they were in the COVID is killing everybody camp. And so everything that Roy, and I still encounter these people on social media, um, when talking about the COVID era, um, Yeah, they they would have had people literally make the argument that Cooper should have done more. He should have locked us down harder. 704 number says, I totally agree that we should go ahead right now and add the four Supreme Court justices just like the Democrats want to. I mean, like you want to do this. So we're going to do this for you. Why would you oppose it? Um. Jonathan the Troll, he's back. When Republicans refused to consider President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland because it was too close to the end of Obama's presidency, but then did approve Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett at the end of Trump's first term, for all intents and purposes, wasn't that court packing? I know this is a popular argument, Jonathan, on the left, but no. And I will tell you why. But you have to be honest. You have to be honest when I tell you what this is about. or what it was about. This was the so-called Biden rule. I'm not kidding. It was called the Biden rule because Joe Biden was the one when he was in the Senate and he was leading the judiciary, which controlled the nominees and stuff. This was his rule. They set this up. They were the ones that set that standard, which was if there's a presidential election coming, and the opposing party controls the Senate, then they would not accept a nomination. They would wait to hear what the voters had to decide on who the next president would be so that president could put their nominee in place. That was the Biden rule. Okay, so when Obama nominates St. Merrick Garland, peace be upon him, and Mitch McConnell's in charge of the Senate. He cited the same tradition in the Senate. And the Senate runs on a lot of these traditions that Democrats seem intent on blowing up all the time. But this was the Biden rule. And the Republicans said this at the time. We are following the standard that you guys set when the shoe was on the other foot. So we're doing the same thing you did. And remember... The Senate has the power to advise and consent. They don't have to consent. They don't have to. And that's how you end up with presidents that make a nomination, and then the nomination gets derailed. What was her name? Harriet Myers. Remember her? And that was Republican on Republican. George W. Bush nominated, I think her name, Harriet Myers, right? And the Republican Senate was like, yeah, no, that's not going to happen. And he withdrew the nomination or she or she refused it or something. But it killed her, her chances. So the Senate can block a nomination if they want to, regardless of the party. But see, this is why this whole argument of yours that like, oh, this is court packing. No, it was a tradition that was set up by Joe Biden that was then followed by the Republicans themselves. when the situation was inverted. And the difference with Amy Coney Barrett was that that wasn't the timeline of the presidential election and the control of the Senate. Those factors were not the same, right? So again, I know that this is a popular argument that you guys make on the left that's like, this was court packing. Court packing has a definition, The definition is rooted in the FDR example that I told you, which is you grow the size of the court, you add more seats, and then you pack it with your loyalists, right? That's the point. That's why the term was invented. Like literally at the time, they started using this term because they had never seen this before. And so this is what it was called. And so that's the meaning of the term. It doesn't mean making appointments as a president to fill a vacancy. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. Mike says, Cooper is doing nothing more than following the new Democrat playbook. Not long ago, they discovered by saying less, they could advance their political careers significantly. It's the same as not having debates, because if they were to have more debates, they would be exposed. Yeah, I saw somebody made a good point about this is that, you know, the debates are basically a job interview for us, the employer. And by refusing to debate, it's like you're refusing to do an interview for the job. So, like, if you're not willing to debate, I find that to be disqualifying. But if both candidates refuse to debate, we are all worse off for it. And now I can't hold one of you accountable versus the other. Yeah, this is basically Joe Biden's basement campaign, right? Or Barack Obama's blank slate candidacy. I'm not going to tell anybody what I believe. I'm going to speak in these flowery terms. I'm not going to give any specifics on things. I'm going to have slogans and people will write upon my candidacy that which they believe I am. That's what he said. Okay. That, that was what he, he and his campaign people, they did that intentionally. They were proud of it. They were like, this is how we did it. It was a blank slate candidate. So he didn't say anything, but people saw him and they heard him and they were like, Oh, I bet he believes these things like I do. And it didn't matter. Um, Beth's favorite Russ says, I don't know, Pete, I think Cooper fully encapsulates the depth of his candidacy. Also, I thought an Article 5 convention had to have a clearly defined agenda specifically to avoid turning into a free-for-all. Is that not correct? It's not. It's best practice to do so. And that's the way it's been organized so far is to have an agenda like this is what we're going to have. But no, it can actually open up more and debate other things. But the approval is always the same method. You can propose whatever you want out of a convention. That doesn't mean that the states are going to approve it. You still got to get three quarters of the states to approve it. So that prevents the runaway convention. On the text line, Sean says, to ask a candidate for Senate if he favors packing the Supreme Court seems like the perfect question for a journalist to ask. How do we get a journalist in the same room with Roy Cooper, though? That is the question. That's the question. Graham says, how in the world can anybody vote for Roy Cooper after the way he talks to us like we are first graders? He treats us like little kids. Do as I say and be quiet. Do not ask any questions. Yeah, this was the thing that drove me nuts during the COVID days when I was covering all of the COVID briefings. The way Cooper... and Cohen would talk to people like they're kindergartners, like. You just don't understand everybody. You just don't know. That's a good question. See, the reason is the science and data. That's what we're following. Don't you want to follow the science and the data? Because that's what big boys do. Yes, big girls follow the science and data. Yes, you are. Who's a good reporter? It was so annoying. But then again, like people, you know, reporters that would ask tough questions were never allowed to ask the questions they got. They got. sent to a different waiting room, and nobody from that waiting room ever got to ask any questions. They specifically culled the reporting corps, and only certain outlets got to ask questions every single week. Greg says, while Cooper was bad during COVID, his refusal to speak on issues or speak on anything during campaigns is what really grinds my gears. Well, here's another one. The House also did a resolution this week that would oppose socialism. It was just a resolution. It's not a law. It's not a bill or anything. No constitutional amendment or anything. It was just a proclamation, basically. Socialism is bad, basically. For the past few months, the Democrat Party leadership has stood by while the Democratic Socialists of America poach incumbent House and Senate seats in primary after primary. They have not lifted a finger to punish other Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or AOC, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Ro Khanna. These folks are all out there endorsing the DSA candidates, endorsing the DSA attempt to to seize control of the Democrat Party. Instead, the Democrat leadership, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, right? What do they keep saying? We have a big tent. We welcome these debates. We heard it from our pal here on the show, Mike, the former Democrat Party attorney. And And Mike says, oh, we want to have all the opinions. There's a lot of room in the tent. You know, these energetic young people with their progressive ideas. Like, I think it makes us stronger. That's how they talk when it comes to the DSA. But when the resolution is, do you oppose socialism? All of a sudden, well, that tent ain't so big. Very interesting. Interesting. When it comes to opposing socialism, the tent flaps come down pretty quickly. And all of a sudden, the commissars suddenly discover party discipline. So what happened was you had two centrist House Democrats stepping in to save Mike Johnson's effort to pass a non-binding resolution to condemn socialism and to demand the Senate take up the House-passed Save America Act. So all this was was a non-binding resolution, two components, condemnation of socialism and telling the Senate, do your job, vote on this thing one way or the other. And because these two Democrats jumped over and voted with the Republicans, the measure passed. And this is a simple majority. That's all they needed. So it passed. But every other Democrat voted no. So here's another question for Roy Cooper. Would you condemn socialism? Like this resolution, would you have voted for this if this thing, when it comes over to the Senate, would you sign on to this? How about the SAVE Act? Nothing on his website about that either. Would you support the SAVE Act or no? Voter ID for everybody? Well, no, he definitely won't do that because he's always opposed to voter ID in North Carolina, of course. So definitely know he won't do that. But like, what are your thoughts on socialism? Or what are your thoughts on the DSA and their rise inside your party? You down with their agenda? Hmm? So what Johnson was, he overcame a revolt from Freedom Caucus members over the continuing resolution, which also passed, because this resolution for the socialism, or against socialism and for the SAVE Act, that thing was jamming up bills and resolutions that were behind it. So Johnson was able to move this thing, and then that allowed other things to move. And the Freedom Caucus members weren't happy about this other resolution. Anyway, so you had Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Glusenkamp Perez of Washington. Both of them backed the procedural vote, which then allowed Republicans to bring several bills to the floor. And the reason why, well, for Golden, was that It helped pave the way for a priority bill for him that supports the lobstermen of Maine, where he's from. The bill already has White House support and Golden and others were hoping that it could become law this year. So Golden made the deal for his constituents, which is what he is supposed to do, right? That's what he's supposed to do. And so now Democrat leadership, They have the knives out for golden. Well, that's not very big tenty of you. What's up with that? So you can be for socialism and be in the tent. But if you're against socialism in a resolution doesn't mean anything, but you're going to get something that you need for your constituency. Well, now you need to be punished. So once again, I make these pleas to the North Carolina Political Press Corps to ask if you get a chance, if you get to be in a room with the Senate candidate Roy Cooper, could you please ask him about something substantive? OK, something substantive. I've given a whole bunch of options ripped from the headlines, law and order style, and One of them could be, do you support packing the U.S. Supreme Court? Another could be this resolution that was passed in the House that condemns socialism. Do you condemn socialism? Are you a fan of socialism? What do you make of the rise of DSA? Do you endorse Abdul El-Sayed and what he has said about Jews and 9-11 and all of that? Ask him some of those questions. But for some reason, I mean, there's a ton more because you got all of the DSA platform stuff that's in there, too. You can ask to abolish ICE, open the borders again, no voter ID. Like you can ask all of these substantive questions before the election. OK. Because the Democrats keep saying we have a big tent for the DSA. But when. Two Democrats vote with the Republicans to condemn socialism. Now the knives are out. This, again, from Ed Morrissey at HotAir.com. The same Democrat leadership that looked away as its own incumbents helped roll the DSA Trojan horse into the primaries wants to enforce party discipline now. Axios reported that Hakeem Jeffries wants political blood for this supposed betrayal, while perhaps a few lame duck incumbents wonder what happened to that big tent. This is from Axios. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is taking an uncharacteristically aggressive public approach to the defections to the thrill of some of his members. Representative Jared Huffman, Democrat from California, said, I bleepin' love it. We have to draw a bright line here and kick some butt or this will be the new norm. Of course, he used cuss words because that's how you show that you're authentic is to cuss a lot, you know, just like our North Carolina Democrat Party chair, Breezy Clayton there. So he loves it. Got to draw a bright line. We're not going to condemn socialism and you're going to have party loyalty. We're going to vote against this thing. And how dare you get something for your constituency, for the main lobstermen, Another House Democrat said Jeffries and his deputies are, quote, right to make an example of these two rogue centrists. Morrissey writes, why did Jeffries et al and his crew, why did they decide to draw the line in the sand on this? It's a non-binding resolution. It doesn't do anything. It's like proclaiming today ice cream day. you know? So why are you all upset about this? Why are you drawing the line on this rather than your members cooperating with the DSA to target incumbent Democrats in deep blue House districts? Not to mention... the rush to support the DSA-backed Senate candidates in Maine and Florida and Michigan, all of whom put Democrats' ambitions for control of the upper chamber on life support, right? Why are you not enforcing party discipline on this stuff? This is why I've been saying the Democratic Party does not have a natural immunity to the DSA takeover. to this parasitic ideology. They don't. They're not going to be able to do it. And you can see it in this vote yesterday. Leadership is upset that they put all of the front liners in the position to take hard votes. They're very upset, said a House Democrat. What was the hard vote? A condemnation of socialism? A call for the Senate to finally take up a bill that the House already passed? How do either of these represent a hard vote? The voter ID at the core of the Save America Act is wildly popular among all voting demographics, including the Democrats. So why? You're circling the wagons around the socialists and then you're drumming the centrists out of your big tent. That's what's actually happening. All right, that'll do it for this episode. Thank you so much for listening. I could not do the show without your support. and the support of the businesses that advertise on the podcast. So if you'd like, please support them, too, and tell them you heard it here. You can also become a patron at my Patreon page or go to thepetecalinershow.com. Again, thank you so much for listening, and don't break anything while I'm gone.