Episode 249 Scott Adams: The Kavanaugh Future
Date: 2018-10-06 | Duration: 13:08
Topics
Jordan Peterson suggestion for Kavanaugh to accept and resign Top CNN headline: Trump is on a winning streak Rand Paul bill to fight opioid addiction
I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a "boss" somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I'm trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.
See all of my Periscope videos here…
https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1nAKERDOwylGL
Find my WhenHub Interface app here…
https://interface.whenhub.com
## Transcript
## [Introduction and the Simultaneous Sip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTz1qhenmiY&t=8s)
Hey Joanne, hey Dave, come on in here. Come in here and grab your coffee. I'm a little late this morning, not moving too quickly today. It will not be my favorite day, but I didn't want to miss a moment with you.
Oh, we have a thousand people, and now it's time for the simultaneous sip. Grab your bubbly beverage, your mug, your cup, your chalice, lift it to your lips—oh, that's good.
## [The Jordan Peterson Proposal for Kavanaugh](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTz1qhenmiY&t=71s)
I woke up this morning to the most unusual tweet from Eric Weinstein, and he was retweeting Bret Weinstein, and then Jordan Peterson retweeted Eric. All of them seemed to share an opinion that was a bit mind-blowing. Jordan Peterson stated it: he believed that Kavanaugh should take the job and then resign for the stability of the country, for the credibility of the courts, for the good of society.
Now, I don't think I've ever disagreed with an opinion as strongly as I disagree with that one. It feels like exactly the wrong thing to do—almost insanely the wrong thing to do, to the point where I wasn't sure it was really Jordan Peterson saying it or really Eric saying it. I had to make sure it wasn't a counterfeit first of all, and apparently it's not.
Peterson softened his position in a subsequent tweet. He said he's not certain it's a good idea, but it’s worth thinking about. I thought to myself: what exactly is the argument for that? How do you develop an argument for the position that Kavanaugh should take the job and then resign for the stability and credibility of the court and the system? He backpedaled a little bit, but not all the way; he just acknowledged he's not certain.
But the fact that that's even in conversation strikes me—without hearing a fully developed argument. When I retweeted it, I added this thought—and by the way, this is a good caution for all of you—the people that we're talking about, Eric, Bret, Jordan Peterson, the Weinsteins, these are really smart people. They have lots of credibility in terms of talking about big issues. Eric said that all of these thoughtful people are on the same side. I've never heard anybody say it until this morning. I guess I don't hang around with thoughtful people, which is my shocker for the morning.
## [The Reality of Supreme Court Decisions](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTz1qhenmiY&t=254s)
I can't see any argument made for that, but I also haven't seen them fully developed. I'm going to allow that I could be surprised because they are people who have surprising arguments that are sometimes surprisingly good. But my current thinking is there's just no way that's a good idea.
As many people said in the tweets, whoever was picked after Kavanaugh is going to vote exactly the same way. The whole point of the Supreme Court, at least the way it's drifted, is that you make the decisions in advance. The Supreme Court is no longer a body which gets together and makes decisions. I suppose it used to be—maybe it never was—but when you have a clear majority of either liberals or conservatives, the decision is made pretty much in the nomination and confirmation phase.
We don't know what the specific cases will be, but I can tell you in advance how they're going to be decided. If you have a conservative court, probably conservatives who understand the legal process are going to know exactly how the court is going to go on just about all of the questions. We might get a surprise—the court might have some rogue elements—it's possible, but not very likely.
The idea that the Supreme Court could improve its credibility by embracing the concept of "guilty until proven innocent" is such a head-spinner to me that I can't wrap my head around it. It seems to me that the most credible thing the Supreme Court could do would be to follow the laws of the United States, follow the Constitution, and be true to the principles upon which they have been sworn to uphold. Certainly, blaming people for things that can't be proven—and are not even likely to be true—would not be consistent with their mission.
In the imaginary scenario where he quits—and I don't see any chance of that happening, by the way—there would just be another conservative in another fight. It would be a total waste of time.
## [Why the "Credible Court" Argument Fails](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTz1qhenmiY&t=379s)
Given that we know the court will vote conservative—that's the whole point. The whole point of the people who elected Trump was to get this judge. You get this judge, or this kind of judge, exactly because you know how he or she will vote ahead of time.
If you say that we already had a credible court and this one thing is going to put a taint on it, I would say you're not really paying attention. We don't have a credible court; we have either a conservative court or a liberal court. That's all we can have. We only have those two choices. Nobody gave us the option of the "credible" court.
Now, if you want a credible court, you nominate to deadlock them. If you want the court to be credible, nominate either a conservative or a liberal to balance it out so that they're always deadlocked. If you can give me an opinion from the Supreme Court where they're completely deadlocked in terms of conservative and liberal, and still one of them—doesn't matter which one—changes sides to get a decision, I would say that could be credible.
In fact, I've suggested that if I became president (which isn't going to happen), that's what I would say about the Supreme Court: I would stop having a conservative Supreme Court or a liberal Supreme Court. I would attempt to deadlock them so that they couldn't make any decisions. That would put a lot of power in the lower courts, but if the Supreme Court wanted to change that, somebody's going to have to switch sides.
## [CNN Headline: Trump Is on a Winning Streak](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTz1qhenmiY&t=501s)
I'm just looking at your comments now. Here is the top headline on CNN's website. When I say the top headline, I mean the one that's at the top and to the left, because those are the important headlines. Whatever is left and top are the things they are concentrating on as the news of the day.
CNN: "Trump is on a winning streak."
Trump is on a winning streak. Let me tell you the worst anti-Trump thing on this page—this is CNN—and here's the worst thing they say about Trump today on their page: "Melania's hat evokes colonialist comparison." That's it. That's the worst thing they had to say about Trump today: that Melania is in Africa doing the work of the angels, visiting poor places in Africa, and the best CNN could come up with this week is that the only thing Trump is getting wrong is he sent his wife over there with the wrong hat.
She is from Slovenia. Did they colonize a lot of Africa? I don't remember that in my history.
Kavanaugh has not been confirmed. I suppose if there ever was going to be a surprise, this would be it. This is a weird world in which it would be hard to imagine that people aren't at least considering doing something wild during the confirmation vote, but we'll see. As the President likes to say, we'll see.
## [Rand Paul and the Opioid Bill](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTz1qhenmiY&t=624s)
I'd like to put in a plug for Rand Paul, my second favorite politician, I think. Rand Paul apparently is one of the sponsors of the opioid treatment bill. There's a big bill that must be on the President's desk by now for battling opioids, and he gets a lot of credit for that.
As you know, this afternoon I will be reading a eulogy at the funeral of my stepson, who died this week from an opioid overdose, we think, and probably fentanyl. We're still waiting for a confirmation, but it seems likely.
Once again, I've been telling you for a while that Rand Paul is one of the few adults in Congress. I haven't loved everything he's ever said. Sometimes he can get a little technical; sometimes he's not—I would say he's not inspirational. His persuasion game needs a lot of work. He tends to be more science-based, more logic-based, more rational.
It sure helps for making laws, though. If you're going to make the law, Rand Paul is a pretty strong choice because he's got a lot of qualities that Congress sorely needs. You need more people like Rand Paul who can understand the technical parts. He's willing to think out of the box. He's not going to take the party line just because it's the party line. He's a real leader. He's grown on me. It seemed to me that earlier in his career he was looking for his voice, and it feels like he's found it now; he's found his stride.
## [Tucker Carlson's Book and Closing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTz1qhenmiY&t=748s)
You bought Tucker Carlson's book? I'm hearing good things about Tucker Carlson's book. I do plan to read it. One of the reviews that you hear about Tucker's book is they always start with how good the writing is. I'm halfway sold just by hearing that. If the writing is that good, it's probably worth a look. I probably will.
Thank you for your thoughts and prayers. We will survive. I'm going to sign off now because I have a lot to do this morning, as you could imagine, and I will talk to you all tomorrow.