over kabul in afghanistan to the taliban, women in afghanistan have fewer rights now because we have a female vice president here who can t even speak correctly. so they know all of this is coming. the second half of 2020 two is going to be even worse than the first half. now, the new york times, let me just tell you quickly, as a pollster is notoriously pro democrat, pro hillary in 2016, biden in 2020 just quickly in in twenty 20, they said trump was going to win montana by six. he won by 16. they said he s going to win kansas by seven. he won by 14. they said your bottom is going to win ohio by one. he lost by eight. he was going to win florida by three. he lost by three. the list goes on and on . so sample sampling s never really great. it s never really great for republicans, always tilted towards biden and it s their poll. the new york times poll that says sixty four percent of democrats want somebody beyond joe biden. 2020 four. 94% that basically everyone. 94
decision came down. and i think a lot of people have to ask the question, what is the goal here? ultimately, is the goal to havea the justices go back and say, wait a minute, we madeto a mistake, we want to changein our mind on this decision? obviously, that is not going to happen. so one can only determine thatal the goal here is bullying like the left loves to do and intimidation so that the next time there is a n major decision made by the supremee court of the united states, they re going to have to think twice about it because the message coming from the democratsssag on the left if you don t reachch a decision tht we agree with, then anything goes, we will harass yous will harass your family. heck, there might be attempts on your life made, but that is who they are now. they have finally shown all of a their cardsll. and this is so antithetical, sean, to who we are as americans and everything we stand for. our institutions were not like this.graceful and
guns, even if they are i illega. a lawyer and editor to join us now. thanks a lot for comingla us tonight. i have written a lot about the aclu and its history on speech and going back, literally, almost 100 years, they have defended people nobody else would. their position has always been, a free speech doesn t protect unpopular speech, it s not really free. it s a meaningless right unless it protects the minority. i don t see that anything s changed. we don t have more nazis in america than we had 30 years ago,h so why wouldn t you be standing with that tradition of protecting free speech? tucker, two things. first of all, the aclu is a private organization. it has limited resources and it s not going to take on, nor does it have to take on, every client in the world. it has made made a decision tht