GLENN

The Gorsuch Pick: We're Thrilled to be Wrong

Throughout the primary, Glenn and his co-hosts remained skeptical about the likelihood of Donald Trump choosing a conservative candidate for the Supreme Court. However, following President Trump's announcement Tuesday evening, it was time for a promised mea culpa.

"Let me start with this because we always say we lead with our mistakes," Glenn said Wednesday on radio. "I was completely wrong on that. I stand corrected. I apologize to Donald Trump. He said last night, I promised you that I would do that. I'm a man of my word. He was. So kudos to Donald Trump on that, and I stand corrected."

In light of Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court, Glenn and his co-hosts not only stand corrected, they're thrilled to do so.

Enjoy the complimentary video above or read the transcript below.

GLENN: Well, boys, what do you think of Gorsuch? What do you think of what happened last night with Trump's nominee?

STU: Well, I mean, you know, we said on the air, leading up to this, that Gorsuch was the one that we would pick of the finalists.

GLENN: Yeah, out of the three.

STU: Yeah, he was my favorite of those three. So obviously there's nothing else to say, other than, I'm very pleased by it.

You know, I did -- you know, we talked about this throughout the primary. One of the main reasons why I did not like Donald Trump throughout the primary -- one of them -- was I did not have any confidence of him making this pick and making it well. And I am thrilled to be wrong on that.

GLENN: Yep.

STU: Because this is a great pick. He stuck to the list. He picked one of the ones I would say in the upper echelon in that list.

GLENN: Yep. Yep.

STU: And there's a lot of really positive things to talk about with Gorsuch. And you're right, you never know. He might not get confirmed. He might be a Roberts. And the one point I would disagree with you on is it's part of his legacy. It's part of Bush's legacy. It is Bush's fault.

GLENN: Oh, no, no. Correct. Hang on just a second. But wait a minute. Bush had this idea. And Ted Cruz told us because he tried to talk Bush out of this. Bush had the idea of, "Let's get somebody who doesn't have a record that we can push through who tells us they're conservative, but they don't really have a record on anything."

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And so I think that's why it belongs to Bush. I mean, everybody who vetted this guy, with an exception of a couple of areas, which we mentioned, but last week, this guy looks really, really good. So if he gets into office and he is not what his record holds, I think that's on Gorsuch and not on Trump.

STU: Well, it's mainly on Gorsuch, clearly. You know, individual responsibility.

GLENN: Yeah. Correct.

STU: However, with the amount of information that Donald Trump has about this guy that we don't, you know, you -- it is part of it. That doesn't mean. I can't -- you know, can't blame the guy. I don't even think you can blame Bush for the Obamacare ruling fully.

GLENN: I don't either.

STU: It's Roberts' choice, and he's the one who got into the Douche Hall of Fame because of it.

GLENN: Hang on a second. Let me start with this because we always say we lead with our mistakes.

One of the things that I said all the way through the primary was, "You think Donald Trump is going to put somebody, who is anti-abortion -- he's going to listen to his daughter. He's not going to listen to us. He's not going to fulfill that promise." I was completely wrong on that. I stand corrected. I apologized to Donald Trump. He said last night, "I promised you that I would do that. I'm a man of my word." He was. So kudos to Donald Trump on that. And I stand corrected.

STU: Yeah, and what a great way to be corrected.

GLENN: Yes. And we said we would do this -- nobody believes it. We said we would do this if we were wrong. We would apologize. I just did. And I'm celebrating that I'm wrong. I will stand -- I learned this from Abraham Lincoln. He said, "I will stand with any man when he is right, and I will walk away when he is wrong." That is my philosophy on Donald Trump. When he's right, I will stand with him and support him. When he is wrong, I will not stand with him, and I will fight him.

But that's the way -- you know, somebody wrote on Twitter last night, "All knees will bend." They were referring to Donald Trump. And they were mocking me for not supporting him. And said, "See, all knees will bend." No. All knees will not bend to the president of the United States. What is wrong with you?

PAT: Let's hope not. Let's hope not. Wow.

GLENN: What is wrong with you?

STU: You can keep that standard. No, thank you. Not going to participate in that one.

GLENN: No.

PAT: Isn't this the guy that Ted Cruz said he tried to talk Bush into, instead of Roberts in the beginning?

STU: I don't remember that. I do remember that story, but I don't remember --

GLENN: Yeah, we should call Ted Cruz. See if we can get him on today.

JEFFY: Ted Cruz and Mike Lee both --

STU: We're not hearing you, Jeffy. He would have been awfully young.

GLENN: Oh, it's a dream come true. Hang on. Take a moment and just thank the Lord. That is something we've all been praying for: We can't hear you, Jeffy. Thank you, Lord. Amen.

STU: This pick is better than we thought.

GLENN: Yes. This is a day of miracles!

STU: Jeffy.

JEFFY: Knees will bend.

STU: His mic is not -- can someone turn his mic on, please?

GLENN: No, no.

STU: Or, I'm sorry, keep it off.

GLENN: Yes, thank you. Whoever is doing that, thank you.

STU: By the way, Gorsuch, I would say -- one of the reasons I liked him over some of the other justices is that he has kind of a Libertarian streak. There are elements of -- you know, there's a particular stance we can go over later where he's actually better than Scalia on it. And, I mean, he might not be better than Scalia overall. That's to be seen, of course.

GLENN: We'll see.

STU: However, when you can find anything where you're better than Scalia on an issue, it's pretty freaking impressive. And this is a good pick. A smart guy. And, you know, look, I'm thrilled to have been wrong about this one.

GLENN: Right. Right.

So I will tell you this: For anybody who said all they were voting for, for Donald Trump, was SCOTUS, thank you. You were right. You got that done.

And -- and I am stunned by it. Just stunned by it. Let's see now what the left does.

I will tell you, you know, I'm trying to have quick 144-character conversations with people. Let me go through a couple of -- a couple of things.

There was a couple of things that came out on this yesterday that independent to go -- let's see. Obviously, listener. You're corrupt. Media is uncorrupt. Hard stance against Trump.

Here. Glenn, we're enemies. I think I used to watch you -- I think I used to watch you every night on Fox. I was a fool.

Why are we -- why are we enemies? And one of them was from a liberal who said, you know, you are -- you know, I was -- I was just starting to consider you a friend. This is why you're not my friend.

Well, wait a minute. You were a fool if you think that I changed my principles -- anybody on the left who thinks that I'm suddenly a progressive, you're out of your mind. I've never said that. I've made that very clear. I've said that to everybody I've met with.

I have changed my tone, and I want to listen to you. And I want to reach out because we have to be able to model friendship. And here's what I responded: Scalia was a good friend of Ginsburg. They respected one another. Why can't we respect one another as well? We disagree, but we're not enemies.

And that was one of the biggest disappointments that I had. You know, I wasn't running the Scalia funeral, obviously. But the selfish part of me wanted Ginsburg to stand up and speak. And she has spoken out about him, but I wanted it at the funeral when everybody -- when all eyes were there. I would have loved Justice Ginsburg to stand up and talk about their friendship. That was one of the things that we've all missed.

Here's Scalia and Ginsburg, and the supporters of Ginsburg hate Scalia. And the people who support Ginsburg -- I mean, Scalia, hate Ginsburg. Why? They don't hate each other.

There's a difference -- let me say this. Let me correct something that is a long-standing problem of mine.

I use the word "evil" too easily. There is evil. I believe there is evil. But I will use the word "evil" sometimes with people, and I can't judge if people are evil. That's wrong. And I can't -- there's -- I'm going to try to stop using that word, unless, you know, we're pretty clear.

(chuckling)

GLENN: And stop using that word. I want to replace that word with wrong. They're just wrong. That doesn't make them evil. They're just wrong.

And we have to stop literally demonizing people. And I've done that for a long time. You got to stop.

Ginsburg is just wrong. Now, I don't know her. But Justice Scalia sure seems like a really nice guy to me. Not to the people on the left because all they do is look at his record of how he votes, and they just assume all kinds of things about him.

We look at Ginsburg, and we just assume all kinds of things about her.

But wait a minute, Scalia -- if we're right about Scalia, how were they really, truly good, deep friends. How is that possible? If he's really a good guy, he wouldn't be hanging out with evil. He would be hanging out with somebody who he profoundly disagrees with, but he likes.

Why is it that this pick has to be either saintly or evil, depending on which -- he's just either right in your opinion or wrong in your opinion.

And one more thing on this: I would fully expect if the court -- the only real conservative left on the court was Ginsburg and there was a progressive president, I would expect the president to bring in a progressive. If half the country was a liberal, progressive -- were liberal, progressive citizens, I would not expect the Supreme Court not to represent their point of view.

I think -- and I don't know -- but I think I would actually be saying on the air, "Look, guys, it's Ginsburg. There's no one else on the court that represents 50 percent of the country." It's ridiculous to think that we shouldn't have one voice on the court that is actually making this case for a true constitutional conservative. If you don't -- if you can't see that as split as we are, would I love to have everybody a constitutional conservative on the Supreme Court? Yes. Do I think that's what the Founders would want? Yes.

But half of the country will feel completely alienated from the Supreme Court. We have to have faith in our system. You can't replace Ginsburg with Scalia. And you can't replace Scalia with a Ginsburg.

You have to have a real conservative replace Scalia. I think it's only right and fair.

We -- we -- we need to fight for our principles, but we also need to stand up for other people's points of view and let the best man win and the best idea win.

I have no problem fighting for my ideas. And I think -- I really think -- yesterday -- I want to tell you a story later. Yesterday, I went to a place, to a studio, and we all were driving over. And we were like, "This should be interesting." Because this individual used to be a progressive. And I mean a progressive that would make your eyes bleed, on a network that you would -- would, again, you would -- you would have no blood left on your body.

He invited me over to his studio and said, "I want to do a sitdown with you." And I said, "Fine." And before we started, he said, "You know, I saw the interview with you, with Tucker Carlson." And he said, "Tucker Carlson was going after you, and he didn't make any ground." And I said, "Yeah, because I really don't care anymore, so."

(laughter)

GLENN: And I said, "That's the secret. You know, everybody always told me, Glenn, stop caring anymore. And when you're trying to not care, it doesn't work. But when you really don't care, it's fantastic." So he said that, and I thought, "This is going to be an interesting hour. He may start to go after me."

He started the interview with, "Look, I used to be a progressive. I used to be a hard-core progressive. And then I noticed that during this last election that all of my friends who I thought believed in something were all switching tables and they were all starting to fight for things because the conservatives were picking things up that we believed in and the -- and the Democrats were excusing things from Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party that I'm like, wait, we're against all that stuff." He said, "So I'm finding myself now in a situation where people who are being intellectually honest on the conservative side, I'm there."

We had an amazing conversation. An amazing conversation. Are we going to agree on everything? No.

But the end of the conversation was, "So how many people in the country are actually tired of this back and forth bickering of the press that has no intellectual curiosity and no intellectual credibility or integrity?" How many people are sick of that?

He believes that we're in the silent majority. I think that may not be the case now, but I do think that may be the case down the road.

If you are intellectually honest and have integrity and you don't want to fight because it's nothing but a stupid game and you actually want to stand for things -- like Scalia and Ginsburg -- they disagreed, but they were good to each other. They liked each other. They respected each other. And they were friends.

Man, that's the world I want to live in. Because this one isn't working. This one is getting much, much worse.

Shorts

Was Elon Musk just RED PILLED?

It looks like Elon Musk was red-pilled yesterday. He came out and said he always voted for the Democrats, mainly because he thought they were the nice guys. Boy, did he wake up and he even said that he would be voting all Republican now. Elon, I would like to red pill you again. I wish we had faith in the Republican Party, but it's better than voting and pushing the garbage from the extreme radicalized left.

Shorts

Why the Disinformation Board was REALLY canceled…

Just three weeks after its announcement, the Disinformation Governance Board is being paused and Nina Jankowicz is now on her way out. I'll bet you, in six months, we'll come back around to this -- mark it in your calendar. We'll come around to this story and say, oh. Remember when they canceled that? Yeah. They just shifted everything, under this umbrella, to hide it.

RADIO

How the WHO's 'pandemic treaty' could CONTROL governments

On May 22nd, the World Health Assembly — which is the governing body of The World Health Organization — will meet in Switzerland to discuss next steps for its ‘pandemic treaty [and its] quest to use public health to expand The WHO’s power over sovereign states,’ Daniel Horowitz reports for TheBlaze. He explains how certain amendments to be added to this treaty could ‘allow the director-general of the WHO to declare a public health emergency in a country and unilaterally coerce its citizens to take certain actions.’ The far-left and global elite continue to destroy our sovereignty, Glenn says, and this is just one more step toward their desired global government.

Read more: https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-states-mus...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I read some stuff this morning. I've been doing some research on what's happening with the WHO. And I read their stuff today, that will make your head explode. And is really evil and important.

But let me give you this today, from -- from Daniel Horowitz at TheBlaze. States must preemptively nullify any WHO international pandemic regulation.

I'm going to read it verbatim because it's just so well-written. And now is the time, that things are shifting. We're going to. There's going to be a New World Order out there. And we've got to lead it. And we have to unite the rest of the free world in doing it. That's Joe Biden. March 21st, 2022.

Any Republican that is running without mentioning your intent to fight the global pandemic treaty or regulations, might as well run as a Democrat. This is really super important, and it is beginning to happen next week. On May 22nd, the world health assembly, the governing body of the World Health Organization, is going to meet in Geneva Switzerland to discuss the next step in its pandemic treaty. And the quest to use public health to expand the WHO's power over sovereign states. Representatives from 193 nations, including the US, will be attending the only country, not invited is Taiwan.

Gee, I wonder why. So what is this treaty? On January 24th, 2022, the director general of the WHO explained the treaty was a priority, to urgently strength the WHO, as leading and the director authority on global health, at the center of the global health architecture. He laid out the guiding principle of this plot. We, quote, all want a world in which science triumphs over misinformation. Solidarity triumphs over division. And equity is a reality, not an aspiration. He said, we are one world, we have one health. We are one WHO.

Now, this has not been announced. Biden has not even spoken about it. They are deathly quiet about this. But they're going to be approving amendments. The proposed amendments are essentially going to allow the director general of the WHO to declare public health emergencies in any country. And unilaterally coerce its citizens to take certain actions. Here's one of the amendments, a critical section from article nine. The WHO shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the state party, whose territory the event is allegedly occurring. But this is the way it's going to read. Now, WHO may take into account, reports from sources of other than notifications or consultations -- consultations shall assess these reports, according to established principles. And then communicate information on the event, to the state party, in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring.

Now, they have scratched out, before taking any action based on reports, the WHO shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the state party. That's all gone. They're taking that out.

So WHO gets information, has reports, and they can act without verifying with the president or anybody else.

Why would you be erasing the requirement, for the WHO to consult with the government?

Number four. If the state party does not accept the offer of collaboration within 48 hours, WHO, it used to say, May. It now says, WHO shall -- when justified by the magnitude of public health risk, immediately share with other state parties, the information available, whilst encouraging the state party to accept the offer of collaboration, by the WHO. It used to say there, while taking into accounts the views of the state party concerned.

So they're erasing all of our sovereignty. This is going to be another thing. They're going to say, is a conspiracy theory. It is not. You can look it all up. It is the world health agenda. From the World Health Organization. They are meeting in Geneva, on May 22nd. So that's next week. They are intentionally quiet on this.

Because they know the power. Now, we also know what the WHO is. You remember, when everybody was saying, we have to get out of the WHO.

They're just a tool of China. Why would you say that?

Forget that I mentioned that Taiwan is the only country that is not invited to this in Geneva.

PAT: Yeah. That's completely -- completely irrelevant.

GLENN: Completely. Amen, brother.

PAT: I don't even know why you brought it up in the first place.

GLENN: Thank you. Thank you.

PAT: It's a good thing they weren't actually -- I wish we weren't invited to it.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you this. Another reason why Donald Trump. They fought so hard to keep him out: Because he wouldn't have --

PAT: He sure wouldn't have. That's exactly right.

GLENN: He wouldn't have empowered the WHO.

PAT: Well, he took us out of the WHO.

GLENN: That's exactly right. And this president is not only putting us back, they're taking away our sovereignty.

And so it's one more piece to the global governance of the left. Warning.

Shorts

Kamala repeats herself 5 TIMES in 30 seconds…

Kamala Harris, America's no. 2 in command, just spoke at a climate change conference. So how'd you think she did? Was she eloquent and able to lay out a vision for a better world? Probably not, but check this video out and let's all find out.