Indeed should not have gotten to this point where it first should have stopped
with that Texas federal judge, Kacsmaryk.
Because, as we just learned, he failed to disclose appearances that he made on a far
right radio show, and they seem to undermine the judge's objectivity.
Now, this omission,
it went down during the Senate confirmation hearing back in 2019.
Where now Judge Kacsmaryk, who has a lifetime appointment,
was supposed to submit all of the evidence of his writings or appearances so
that the Senate Judiciary Committee could weigh them.
Which is the normal process and protocol for any nominee for a judgeship.
Well, as it turns out,
Kacsmaryk didn't tell us about the two times that he went on Chosen Generation.
It's a radio show which offers a biblical constitutional worldview.
In his first appearance on the show, the topic was the homosexual agenda.
And this is what the right-wing judge said.
I just wanna make very clear, people who experience a same sex attraction are not
responsible individually or solely for the atmosphere of the sexual revolution.
You know it, it's a long time coming.
It came after no fault divorce.
It came after we implemented very permissive policies on contraception.
The sexual revolution has gone through several phases.
We just happen to be at the phase now where same sex marriage are at the fore.
But through the progression or
regression, I think you can see five areas where there will be a clash of
absolutes between the traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage.
And the revisionist,
redefined vision of marriage that you saw in last term Supreme Court opinions.
Kacsmaryk said, before outlining those areas as over tax exempt statuses,
adoption services, federal government programs, and
discrimination at universities.
Now, interestingly enough, those statements were made in February of 2014,
which is just about five years before tax merits was elevated to the bench.
And the judge also happened to complain about the federal government support of
same sex marriage, even though he had previously worked for DOJ.
It really seems that this man takes a lot of issue
with anything that's not Christian, CIS, het normative.
Am I the only one reading it that way Cenk?
>> Yeah, but look, there's the absurdity that we all treat these justices and
judges, he's a judge, not a justice, of course, as really neutral.
Then they go have these confirmation hearings, and they all are like issues.
I've never heard of any issues.
Opinions, I would never have an opinion.
The whole thing's a farce.
We all know either they're conservative or they're liberal, and
they largely agree with those.
They might have a little variance here and there, right?
And that's normal.
We're all human beings.
But overall, the conservatives believe deeply conservative things, and
the liberals are usually corporate Democrats, okay?
So that's how it goes.
And yet the media plays this force.
And I remember so well when justice Roberts was up for approval in front of
the Senate, and he's, I just call balls and strikes, whatever is the fairest.
I'm like, dude, you have a whole judicial history where you ruled with
the right-wing 98% of the time.
So what the right-wings always throwing strikes, and
everybody else is throwing balls.
But the media and all the politicians go along with it, like, yeah, okay.
He says he's just throwing balls and strikes.
We can't tell who he is.
We don't know how he's gonna rule in the Supreme Court.
We all know how they're gonna rule.
So, Kacsmaryk, he's a religious fundamentalist.
Of course, of course, of course,
does he believe that gay people shouldn't have the same rights as straight people?
Of course, should you be on the court if you think that
different Americans should not be treated equally?
That they should all be treated depending on their identity, and
they should have different sets of laws?
No, you shouldn't be.
But unfortunately, a lot of people in this country do believe that.
So it is what it is.
The right-wing doesn't really believe in democracy.
They don't really believe in equality or equal rights.
And there's gonna be a ton of right-wing justices.
Just don't pretend it's absurd.
Just keep it real, Alonzo.
>> [LAUGH] And I have to laugh.
Because whenever these judges come across with their religion,
with their, I don't even know what you call it, their moral values or
whatever you call, their leader is Donald Trump, okay?
Now, I'm no expert on religion, but I'm gonna go with thou shalt not commit
adultery is in the top ten, and he's in court right now for committing adultery.
Their moral decisions, their moral compass is so off, you can't take it seriously.
And it's the same thing with ethics.
Of course, he didn't say he was on this right-wing website or talk show,
whatever, because it would be held against him.
The only problem is, it's not held against them.
There are no ethics panels.
They're not being held to any standard.
And again, this goes to the highest court, right, the Supreme Court,
where we have justices who are making decisions based on religion.
We had Amy Comey Barrett talking all this stuff about the man is in charge at home.
And then you're, so what if your husband says it's a different decision than you
make and that question doesn't get answered?
The problem of mixing religion and government, it just doesn't work, and
it's not supposed to happen.
Unfortunately, it does and the justices, the judges,
they are supposed to only call balls and strikes, but they obviously don't.
It would be like each umpire just deciding, my strike zone is the right
half of the plate, or my strike zone is the left half of the plate.
The game doesn't work that way.
>> Yeah, I just wanna say, too.
And it's not just the usual stuff about people with same sex attraction and
the sexual revolution.
Where people just get to decide what they wanna do with their own life and body.
It's ruining America, right?
Well, this is just that stuff.
If you notice in the quotes that Adrian read to you guys,
he's against no fault divorce.
Why should we fight even more during divorces?
[LAUGH] No, it's your fault, it's your fault.
That sounds really healthy for the family.
Such a weirdo thing, he's going back so old school.
Yeah, the Bible is against divorce, but
most Christians gave up on that long time ago because half of them got divorced.
[LAUGH] But this guy's still fighting that fight.
He's saying we're too permissive on contraception.
He's still fighting that fight.
So of course, a guy who bases his worldview on fundamentalist
religion is not going to make rational decisions on
the courts based on the facts in front of him or science.
He's gonna make it based on his worldview, which is, hey,
whichever rabbi came up with this 2500 years ago was right.
You need to put a goat skin on before you have sex.
No, wait, don't put the goat skin on before having sex.
Contraception bad, so [LAUGH] America do you still wanna be ruled by these guys?
>> Well, I definitely don't.
By the way, I think with the whole no fault divorce thing,
I think what he's basically saying is that he wants you to only be able to divorce if
you have a rationale or reason for it.
That people shouldn't just be able to say, no, I don't wanna do this anymore.
That you need to point to something that's like adultery or abuse or something.
But it all definitely sounds like it's ways in which to control the destiny of
women and also to ostracize any kind of marginalized group,
which very much sounds quite right-wing.