'The Ingraham Angle' on Judge Jackson's record

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

This is a rush transcript of "The Ingraham Angle" on March 23, 2022. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: I'm Laura Ingraham, and this is the 'Ingraham Angle'.

And the last time Tulsi Gabbard was on this show, her commentary on the war in Ukraine was labeled as offensive by YouTube. Now, she's back on tonight with her reaction, and who she thinks was really behind it.

But first, lawless and lame. That's the focus of tonight's 'Angle'.


SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): You have people with vile crimes and you have language saying, they're vile crimes. But then you sentence them to very, very low sentences.

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, NOMINEE FOR THE SUPREME COURT: Senator, no one case can stand in for a judge's entire sentencing record.

CRUZ: Why did you sentence him for half the amount?

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): You're not recognized, Senator. Senator Coons.

CRUZ: You don't want her to answer that question?

SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): In an attempt to distract from your broad support, your deep record, your outstanding intellectual and legal credentials.

SEN. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R-TN): Can you provide a definition for the word woman?

JACKSON: Can I provide a definition? No.

BLACKBURN: You can't?

JACKSON: Not in this context. I'm not a biologist.

CRUZ: How would you determine if a plaintiff had Article III standing to challenge a gender-based rule, regulation, policy, without being able to determine what a woman was?

JACKSON: Senator, I'm not able to answer your question. You're asking me about hypotheticals.

DURBIN: No one questions, either your academic law school credentials, or your service as clerk, and as federal judge.

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): She has all the tickets in terms of her intelligence, her education.

JACKSON: I don't quite remember the basis for the Dred Scott opinion.


INGRAHAM: Now, what Americans saw on this confirmation hearing, to the extent that they're watching it all, is a complete farce. What they saw was a Supreme Court nominee chosen, not primarily for her intellect and stellar judicial record, but at least in part for her skin color.

Now, the Biden pledge to select a female African-American justice was both discriminatory and demeaning, as if somehow minorities couldn't make it without Joe's affirmative action. How insulting.

Now, much of the questioning by Republican senators was devoted to hot button cases, such as their lenient sentencing decisions in child pornography prosecutions. And, of course, in an attempt to blunt the revealing moments from Judge Jackson's performance under sharp questioning, Democrat senators have dwelled on her personal biography, or academic credentials, and the historic nature of her appointment.

Yet instead of insulating and rehabilitating her, they made her nomination appear even weaker, if that's possible.

Now, academic resumes, I think they're largely irrelevant given how political they've become. I'm talking about the universities, the law schools, they've all become political. And any Republican or so-called moderate, who's satisfied by the judge's attempt to come off as reasonable in this instance, or even as an originalist, if you can believe that. Well, that Senator is simply clueless or dishonest.

Judge Jackson's views express views about the proper role of the federal judiciary. They're only credible if they end up matching up with her actual judicial record, and they do not.

Now, a careful review of her judicial record shows that if elevated to the High Court, a Justice Jackson will simply be a rubber stamp for whatever the far-left demands. Contrary to what she claimed in her hearings, Judge Jackson does not feel constrained by either the plain language of a governing statute or court precedent when she's deciding a case.

Now, this is precisely what she did in a case called Make the Road New York v. Wolf, where a panoply of liberal attorneys general and immigration activists sue Trump's Department of Homeland Security.

Now, they asked the court to enjoin the DHS's decision to expand the category of aliens who were subject to immediate removal from the U.S. In other words, no immigration hearing, no long wait.

Now, at the outset, this was a frivolous case, because the court never had the authority to review it in the first place.

You see, Congress had passed a law that specifically delegated to the DHS Secretary, the sole and unreviewable discretion to expand categories for expedited removal.

Nevertheless, disregarding the plain language of the statute, Judge Jackson ruled against the Trump administration and sided with the plaintiffs, issuing that injunction.

Now, her decision, no surprise, was hailed by the open borders crowd because it thwarted President Trump's plan to crack down on illegal border crossers, who are just gaming the system. We've all seen that.

Now, to give you a sense of how radical her ruling was, two of the most well-known liberal judges on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals were in the majority overturning it. I'm talking about Obama appointee Patricia Millett, who was joined by Carter appointee, can't believe he's still on the court, Harry Edwards.

Writing, "The Secretary's decision is not subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act's standards for agency decision making, nor is it subject to the act's notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements. For those reasons, we reverse the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction."

And for those of you who think, Well, come on, Laura, all we need to do is get a new president to stop Biden's current border crisis. Why are you sweating this decision? Well, if you think that, you're wrong.

One of the main drivers of today's border crush is the Biden DHS's decision to summarily toss the rules that the Trump people had put in place to expedite the removal of migrants, again, who are just gaming the system, which frankly is most of them.

The moment those rules are reinstated under a Republican President, we assume they would be, they will again be challenged by the ACLU and radical immigration rights groups. And right on cue, a Justice Jackson will vote to enjoin those rules and ultimately to invalidate them altogether.

What does that mean? Millions of aliens will keep pouring across the border, along with a deluge of criminals and deadly drugs. And if she feels justified ignoring the plain language of a federal law in this case, she'll feel just as justified ignoring it in any case where she wants to arrive at a certain result.

Now, in case you wondered, this is what it means to be a true judicial activist. In the end, Judge Jackson believes that she, not the founders who wrote the Constitution, knows best.

Now, for years now, Democrats have been beating the drum on the supposed dangers to democracy that look everywhere. But this nomination is the epitome of a danger to democracy.

One person with life tenure in a (inaudible) twisting the relevant statute or court precedent to reach whatever policy goal she prefers.


SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): Increasingly, many, if you see public opinion polls see the court is over-politicized or out of touch. At the same time, we've seen an alarming rise in threats targeting members of our judiciary for just doing their jobs.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): I do think the court's crisis of legitimacy is the result of divisions within the court.


INGRAHAM: Now that's really funny. Now, their party starting with the Bork hearings in 1987, they've continued to this day, the politicization of the judiciary. So if anyone's to blame for politicizing at all, it's the activists who want the court to act as a super legislature against the will of the people, that Blumenthal in this case and even Klobuchar who should know better.

And here, it was one runaway judge blocking the agenda of a duly-elected president in order to advance an open border's agenda. And for all of us, so-called moderates in the U.S. Senate, that means you, senators like Joe Manchin, Jon Tester, Kyrsten Sinema, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, voting to confirm Judge Jackson is the opposite of being a moderate.

Because the moderate position is to say that you will not vote for a nominee who believes that she has the veto power over what Congress and the President have lawfully decided.

Now, think of it this way. Does anyone believe that Justice Scalia supported flag burning? Right. Of course, not. But he nevertheless ruled in the 1989 Texas v. Johnson case that it was protected speech under the First Amendment.

But Justice Scalia in 2012, said, "Look, if I were king, I wouldn't allow people to go about burning the American flag. However, we have a First Amendment, which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged. And it is addressed, in particular, to speech critical of the government."

Then he said, "I mean, that was the main kind of speech that the tyrants would seek to suppress. Burning the flag is a form of expression", he said.

Well, where the rubber meets the road on the rule of law that everyone likes to invoke, is where the language of the law forces you to do something you don't much want to do, you don't even like. Judge Jackson has found herself unworthy of the sacred trust that we put in the judiciary.

In certain instances, there are gray areas. The statute is ambiguous. The words are ambiguous. But such was not the case and her decision in this immigration matter. In this case, Jackson viewed herself not as a judge, but as part of the resistance to stop Trump.

Now, this is why our nomination was so ardently pushed by the most far-left groups out there. Remember, she swore to uphold the laws of the U.S. and yet refused to be bound by the plain language of the statute?

The word sole unreviewable discretion means it was unreviewable discretion. How hard can that be to understand? Not ambiguous at all. And to Senator - senators Collins and Murkowski, how can you possibly support this nomination? When has there been a nominee with such extreme positions who refused to be straightforward in her answers?


JACKSON: I'm not able to comment on them. Senator, I'm not able to answer that question. Senator, I don't know.

Senator, I don't have any comment. Again, it's hard for me to answer that question in the abstract.


INGRAHAM: Now, if you vote to confirm her, you are genuflecting to the notion of the Imperial Judiciary. That means when Democrats get a critical mass of activists on the Supreme Court, it's not only goodbye to border enforcement.

It's goodbye to the Second Amendment, goodbye to the rights of moms and dads to raise their kids as they see fit. Goodbye to the right of the unvaccinated to live freely in society. And someday, goodbye to the right maybe to even drive a gasoline-powered car wherever and whenever you want.

Russia to approve a Supreme Court nominee of a president with, what, an approval rating that always seems to be hitting new lows. That, my friends, is a violation of the basic sacred duty that each and every senator himself or herself has agreed to. That means every word of the oath that they took to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. That is an oath just as sacred as the oath that the nominees have to swear to as well. And that's the 'Angle'.

Joining us now is Senator Tom Cotton, who was part of this, I call it a farce, because all of these have become politicized over the years.

Senator Cotton, this point of this one case which I decided to focus on. It's an area of laws, you know, for many years (inaudible) that I think has been largely bastardized by (inaudible) and sadly (inaudible) What does this tell us about her judicial philosophy, which she decided she wasn't going to really address today?

SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): Laura, the case tells us that Judge Jackson is a far-left activist. She always has been. Just because she put on a black robe 10 years ago, she didn't change it.

As you outlined, she took an immigration law that removed all jurisdiction from the federal courts for expedited removal. The Trump administration acted on that law and she still reviewed it, and she still enjoined the Trump regulation nationwide.

Her Court of Appeals, one of the more liberal Court of Appeals in America, said that it was a blatant disregard for the plain language of the statute. Goes to show that far-left activist will take the steps they want to achieve the results. There was another case that I highlighted, Laura, of a fentanyl kingpin.

She (inaudible) to mandatory minimums in 2018 to 20 years. She apologized at the sentencing hearing to him. She said she was sorry she had to do so and shared his frustration.

He came back two years later for a bogus COVID early-release motion. She denied that as she had to, but then she just took it on her own initiatives to strike 7.5 years from his sentence which she'd never wanted to impose in the first place. That's the kind of--

INGRAHAM: Senator, we actually have a part of that--

COTTON: --we saw on display in the last two days.

INGRAHAM: Senator, just so people who didn't watch the hearing today, I want them to see what you're talking about, so they understand how important this is. Watch.


COTTON: Before you granted this fentanyl kingpin's motion to reduce its sentence, did you contact any of the victims?

JACKSON: Senator, Mr. Young was not released. His sentence was reduced. And I did not contact the victims in this case, because there were no victims. He committed (inaudible) victims in his case.

COTTON: Drug crime is not a victimless crime.


INGRAHAM: I mean, we've had 51,000 overdoses, I believe, just in the past year. Most of them involve some level of fentanyl overdose. Isn't that right, Senator? How do we call that a victimless crime is beyond me.

COTTON: Yes, in the last full year, that - for which we have data, it was 100,000 overdoses, Laura. So that's not just 100,000 victims, but hundreds of thousands of loved ones, of parents and husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, children, friends, who are being killed by the poison that is larger coming in across our uncontrolled southern border.

But Judge Jackson, like so many far-left activists, thinks that mandatory minimums for drug crimes are too harsh. Just like she apparently thinks that mandatory minimums for child pornography are too harsh. She consistently sentences on the lowest (inaudible) or even deviates downward (inaudible) guidelines. That's what we've seen over the last two days examining her record that she is a far-left activist, who always - almost always finds a way to sympathize with the criminals, not the victims.

INGRAHAM: Senator, I just still can't believe sole unreviewable discretion. That's what the statute says in the immigration case. And she refused - just refused to apply it. And said, Oh, no, I can review that and totally invalidate that. Unbelievable. Senator, great job today.

COTTON: It's astonishing, Laura. And as you said, her Court of Appeals in Washington, DC is not exactly a bastion of right-wing thought. It is one of the most liberal Court of Appeals in America. And they've been repeatedly reversed by the Supreme Court for engaging in similarly egregious decisions.

But even they said that this was beyond the pale. It was one of the worst examples they had ever seen of disregarding the plain language of the statute. I don't know how you can misinterpret so unreviewable discretion.

INGRAHAM: Yes. Senator, thank you.


DURBIN: We face our constitutional responsibility to advice and consent.

KLOBUCHAR: We're here to carry out one of this committee's most solemn constitutional obligations to advice and consent on President Biden's nomination.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Senate's advice and consent clause and our role is especially important these days.


INGRAHAM: But what does that phrase mean exactly? Advice and consent? And does it require the Senators give special deference to the president, even when he or she is nominating a obvious judicial activist?

Joining me now is Harmeet Dhillon, civil rights attorney, chairwoman of the Republican National Lawyers Association. Harmeet, give us some clarity on this. It's article II, section II, clause II of the Constitution. Yet listening to some of these senators today, one would think that basically the president can nominate anyone he or she would like to nominate, regardless of whether that nominee just would shred the Constitution.

HARMEET DHILLON, CEO, CENTER FOR AMERICAN LIBERTY: Well, thank you, Laura. This really goes to the fundamental point of checks and balances, and there is a role for the Senate. And the role is not simply to rubber stamp.

It's also not to make grandstanding, boring speeches and talk about themselves, which a lot of them do in both parties. It's to give a critical eye to the nominees that are going to hold in this case life tenure on the highest court in the country.

But even the Court of Appeals judges are subject to the scrutiny and all the federal judges. And so, I think where the foul really occurred here was at the district - from the district court elevation to the Court of Appeals last year, where Republican senators had a chance to really flesh out these issues and they didn't.

And so a lot of that evidence about the sentencing record and judicial activism and critical race theory. We had that information already. They just chose Lindsey Graham and the other two senators approved this nominee for a very important court. And now we're at this situation.

That said, there have been many instances over time when the Senate, even senators from the party of the president have refused to give a hall pass to the nominees of the President, particularly in this life tenure situation.

During the Trump administration, for example, Senators refused to allow a couple of the presidents and District Court nominees to proceed, because they didn't have sufficient experience. So this is the time for the senators to step forward.

In my opinion, going into the beginning of the hearing, I thought, OK, this is a really liberal nominee. But she kind of checks all the boxes. It's probably going to be fine in terms of - she's not going to say anything crazy. She has said some things that are very disturbing. And what we learned about her record during these hearings is also very disturbing.

And frankly, the answers she's given and I think the disingenuousness that she's exhibited and answering these important questions. What is a woman? What is your position on some of these important issues?

Today, 15 minutes of downloading porn, like, why should somebody go to 30 or 40 years of prison for that? That's because that's what the statute says. And if you don't like the statute, you should not be a judge on the high court. You should resign from the bench and run for Congress.

So I think the senators are in there. It's their duty to vote according to what they believe is somebody who's fit or not fit for the highest court in the nation. And I think this judge has shown during these hearings that she should not be--

INGRAHAM: Here's the problem. Harmeet, here's the problem. People vote on personality, on life story. They don't want to be considered mean. They don't want to be written up in the New York Times, or The Washington Post. It's a first. So you can't vote against the first.

That's what this has gotten boiled down to. Not all the senators, some senators take their job seriously. But they - I keep forgetting it. The senators have to take an oath of office as well to defend the Constitution.

DHILLON: That's right.

INGRAHAM: That's what they're supposed to be doing. And they're not living up to it if they don't take this job seriously. We got to go.

DHILLON: Exactly right.

INGRAHAM: Harmeet, we got to go. But--

DHILLON: Thank you.

INGRAHAM: Yes, Harmeet. Thank you.

Now, as Biden touches down in Europe. He's going to reassure NATO, right? Well, his administration's plan to extend this war is being laid bare. Tulsi Gabbard has reaction. Plus, she responds to what Big Tech did to her last appearance on the show. You won't believe it. Stay there.


INGRAHAM: Now, after being criticized by both parties for a rather weak and disorganized response to Vladimir Putin, the administration today trotted out its new global criminal justice ambassador.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Based on information that is currently available, the U.S. government assesses that Russia's forces are committing war crimes in Ukraine. We are committed to pursuing full accountability for war crimes in Ukraine, using all of the tools that are available to us, including criminal prosecutions.


INGRAHAM: Now, that could very well be true. But does language like this help end the bloodshed sooner?

Joining me now is Niall Ferguson, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Niall, it seems that this was - it seemed like this was a response to criticism that they've been feckless in their response to Putin. But people are seeing these horrific images of civilian targets being hit, innocent people being killed. And how does this then perhaps affect Putin's mindset as this war enters its next stage?

NIALL FERGUSON, HOOVER INSTITUTION SENIOR FELLOW: Well, Martha, this is - it's not a simple matter.

INGRAHAM: It's Laura, but

FERGUSON: We must always remember that a delicate balance has to be struck here. We've got to supply enough weaponry to Ukraine to keep them in this fight, so that they don't actually lose.

And that's still not a certainty, because there are still things that the Russians can do after Mariupol falls. They have many more missiles. This war is by no means over. And I think it's premature for people to start saying, the Ukrainians have won it. All you can say is that they've not lost it.

We need to encourage the Europeans to make tougher sanctions, because until they stop buying Russia's oil, Vladimir Putin is getting a billion dollars a day in oil revenues. And that keeps the war going more than anything else.

But at the same time, the United States needs to be pushing for enter this war, allowing it to carry on, in my view, is extremely risky. Partly because of the things that Putin could do if he becomes desperate. But also because I think there's a danger that the Ukrainian defenses begin to weaken.

And my worry about the administration's strategy is that it really seems to what this will just keep going. There isn't a significant diplomatic efforts to end it. We're essentially leaving that to the Europeans, or even the Turks and the Israelis.

And calling Putin a war criminal, I do believe makes it more difficult to arrive at the kind of ceasefire that is, I think, urgently needed.

INGRAHAM: Well, Niall, today, I can't remember which administration official, but said this today. But basically came on and said, Well, there's no sign that Russia is serious at all about these ongoing negotiations.

I'm not sure what they're basing that on. I guess, the fact that the war continues and the pummeling continues. But I just thought that was rather odd. I mean, we all want this to end. And we want to get to, yes, of - we can agree to something Zelenskyy seems to have come around on some of the NATO membership points. At least there's an indication that Russia is amenable to coming up to some ultimate agreement.

But it's - to your point, it just seems like the administration right off the bets - Oh, no, they're not serious.

FERGUSON: Well, the problem is that the longer a war goes on, the harder it becomes to end. That's the kind of general historical rule, because the stakes get higher. As the casualties mount on each side, it becomes harder to compromise. And that's part of the problem about letting wars run on for months because months can turn into years. We don't want a Syria in eastern Europe, and there's a real danger of that, in my view.

The key here is that the Russians aren't ready to negotiate in earnest because they still think they can make gains and Vladimir Putin wants to negotiate from the strongest possible position. So one has to watch very carefully over the next few weeks, can the Russians achieve what they are trying to achieve, which is to rollup the Ukrainian defenses in Donbas and also make further gains in the south along the Black Sea coast. I think the possibility of besieging Kyiv is on hold and may even have been dropped. So they are looking to make gains before they negotiate in earnest. I think that's right.

INGRAHAM: All right, Niall, thank you, great to see you tonight.


TULSI GABBARD, (D) FORMER HAWAII REPRESENTATIVE: Nothing of the Biden administration has done has helped to make this situation better, has helped to deescalate the situation. What is happening before our eyes right now is exactly what they want to see continue. Why is that? Because it's good for the military-industrial complex. It allows them to have this proxy war with Russia.


INGRAHAM: Now, that was the last time on the show where there was speculation about what motivates our elites kind of seemingly drag out this conflict to the point that Niall just made in Ukraine. Apparently Tulsi Gabbard's remarks hit home because it wasn't long before big tech censors got to work. Google and YouTube flagged that clip as inappropriate and offensive to some audiences.

Back with us now is Tulsi Gabbard, former congressman and former presidential candidate. Tulsi, why is calling out what many have called the military-industrial complex now offensive to big tech?

TULSI GABBARD, (D) FORMER HAWAII REPRESENTATIVE: Yes, Laura, that was not the only example. I've got to tell you, just before coming on your show today I found out that Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, is also suppressing my voice. Normally, on average, videos that I post on Instagram get somewhere between 250,000, 300,000 views, tens of thousands of likes. The video that I posted last night or early this morning got about 10 percent of that, around 15,000 views and a couple of thousand likes.

And it is very clear that there during all they can to suppress my voice, suppress the message that I'm carrying out. And it just points to yet another example of this larger machine that is very clearly at work that is controlling our marketplace of ideas, and this machine is made up of the power elite. It's made up of these big social media tech giants. It's made up of the politicians, the powerful politicians from both parties in Washington, the military-industrial complex, people who feel directly challenged when anyone dares to question their narrative, the message that they want the American people to hear. And so while they can't silence me, they're going to do all they can as we are seeing they are doing all they can to try and make it so as few people dare to hear my voice, to hear something that asks questions or that's different from that mainstream narrative.

INGRAHAM: You must not ever challenge what the elites say, apparently, on pretty much any given issue now, whether it's about gender transformation, any of these hot button issues. By the way, this new FOX News poll, Tulsi, shows that 55 percent of Americans oppose giving Ukraine military aid if it risks war with Russia, 36 percent support military aid to Ukraine even if it risks war with Russia. So I guess these big tech censors are happy to censor the views of the majority of Americans.

GABBARD: That's really what's at risk here is this marketplace of ideas, our freedom of speech is fundamental to who we are as Americans, and those numbers are encouraging to see, because I think people realize what is at stake when you pit two nuclear powers against each other, the United States versus Russia, and really what is it all for. You and I have had this conversation before. We were told by President Biden that this is something that must be done, freedom isn't free, we have to pay the price. But it's not Joe Biden or Kamala Harris paying the price. It's everyday Americans all across the country who are struggling every day to make ends meet who are paying the price for the fact that this president is failing to do all that he can to bring about an end to this conflict.

INGRAHAM: The war crimes comment today -- again, very well may be true, right. But you have to ask the next question, where does that take someone who they say is so unbalanced, perhaps mentally unbalanced, as Vladimir Putin, does that corner him? It's like, what the heck, push the button? Does it send him into a complete wild, crazy rage? I don't know how you game that out. I'm not an expert on that. But it would seem that that doesn't get you closer to a resolution, Tulsi.

GABBARD: It doesn't. I think it's important to be clear that Putin and Putin alone is responsible for his invasion, Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the atrocities that are occurring there, and really the death and suffering of so many Ukrainians that we're seeing and we're heartbroken to see every day coming through our television screens and online. We as Americans need to hold our president accountable and responsible to see what he is actually doing, what is his strategy to bring about an end to this conflict, to encourage negotiations. And thus far we have not seen at all.

INGRAHAM: They'll be plenty of time to hold him accountable as this has to end. Tulsi, thank you.

Biden's Supreme Court pick may just have a new catchphrase. And Hillary wants some movie suggestions, so we have some for her. "Seen and Unseen" with Raymond Arroyo is next. Stay there.


INGRAHAM: It's time for our "Seen and Unseen" segment where we expose the cultural stories of the day and how they impact you. For that we turn to FOX News contributor, Raymond Arroyo. All right, Raymond, you've been these hearings, these Ketanji Brown Jackson hearings on Capitol Hill. What have you seen?

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Miss Jackson, whatever her talents, Laura, she doesn't seem ready for primetime. She either genuinely does not know rudimentary things, or she's been coached to evade every question. But there was one phrase she used again and again.

INGRAHAM: What was that?

ARROYO: I don't know.

INGRAHAM: What was the phrase?

ARROYO: I don't know.

INGRAHAM: Never mind, just roll the tape.


LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: Can an unborn child feel pain at 20 weeks in the birthing process?


SEN. JOHN KENNEDY, (R-LA): When does life begin?

JACKSON: I don't know.


JACKSON: I don't know.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The fetus can live outside the womb after about 23 weeks. Is that your understanding?

JACKSON: Senator, I haven't studied this, so I don't know.

KENNEDY: When does equal protection of the laws attach to a human being?

JACKSON: I actually don't know the answer to that question, I'm sorry.


ARROYO: Laura, my question would require a much shorter response. What do you know, Judge Jackson? Her judicial theory is absent or unknowable. She doesn't know how to define a woman. She doesn't know when human rights begin. She's got trouble. But fear not, Cory Booker came to the rescue, finding his inner Oprah, Laura.


SEN. CORY BOOKER, (D-NJ): I'm not letting anybody in the Senate steal my joy.

Don't worry, my sister. Don't worry. God has got you. And how do I know that? Because you're here. And I know what it's taken for you to sit in that seat.


ARROYO: Chairman of the empathy caucus, Laura.

INGRAHAM: It is awards season. It is awards season after all.

ARROYO: It is.

INGRAHAM: Best actor nom.

And we have a positively boosted update, Raymond. Hillary Clinton revealed that she has COVID, though her symptoms, thankfully, are mild, and she's feeling fine. But she then asked for movie recommendations for quarantine.

ARROYO: I have some for her, Laura. Last fall, FX premiered a riveting drama. It was called "Impeachment, American Crime Story." It's even set in the White House. I think she would like it.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You told me nothing happened, you said it was all made up, you -- promised me! Selfish piece of -- how do you think I'm feeling? I am devastated!


ARROYO: Would bring back fond memories for Hillary, at least. Bill is still ducking and weaving whenever he comes into a room at home. Or maybe she just wants to serve Netflix, Laura, and see what she comes across.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hello, emoji, are you ready for an amazing adventure?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No! No! We have to do a much better job.


ARROYO: Laura, you know what Hillary is really watching at home during this quarantine, don't you?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One of the most vilified women in American history.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She is so smart people always believe there is some deviousness.

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I provoke strong opinions. What you see is what you get.


ARROYO: Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the most electable of all?

INGRAHAM: What difference does it make? Imagine spending that quarantine together, Raymond, you and Hill. Raymond, thank you.

Something disturbing is sweeping the nation. Depraved, criminal acts being perpetrated more and more by teens. But what's causing this? A stunning report coming up and moments.


INGRAHAM: We all know about America's rising crime rates, especially violent crime in urban areas. But did you know that an increasing number of these depraved acts are being committed by young teens? FOX's Matt Finn is in Los Angeles to tell us more. Matt?

MATT FINN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Laura. Over the past few days, extremely disturbing crimes committed by teens in Chicago. Three boys 14 and under were charged with felony charges of aggravated carjacking of a 50-year-old man. In Ohio, two 13-year-old boys arrested on rape charges. Here in California, a horrifying robbery video. In San Francisco Monday, a Chinatown camera store, three teens used a hammer trying to smash the glass cases, but they are Plexiglas and do not crack. A co-owner grabs a bat and starts swinging. Neighboring workers rushed in to help. The co-owner said he got pepper-sprayed, hit in the head with a hammer, needing 10 stitches.

And in New Orleans, a 73-year-old grandmother was killed after her arm was ripped off during a carjacking. Video appears to show the woman innocently in her own car when a group of teens rushed in and carjacked her. Neighbors and witnesses were screaming and tried to intervene. Linda Frickey's arm got caught in the seatbelt and was severed as the four teens drove her car away, dragging her for one block. The stolen car was recovered about 13 blocks away.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And I can't say this enough. When they pulled away and she was in that strap, they made the decision to murder her. They should pay for it.


FINN: New Orleans police arrested four minors for that deadly carjacking. The police superintendent wants them charged as adults. Laura?

INGRAHAM: Matt, that is so upsetting on so many levels. Thank you.

FINN: It is. It is.

INGRAHAM: Joining me now is John MacArthur, Grace Community Church Pastor. Pastor MacArthur, it's good to see you tonight. I immediately thought of you because I wanted to ask you what you thought was at the heart of this, these intercity youths, this is happening across America. How did things get this bad?

JOHN MACARTHUR, GRACE COMMUNITY CHURCH PASTOR: Well, I think you know, Laura, that humanity is capable of some horrendous crimes, whether it's killing a senior citizen or bombing a hospital full of children in the Ukraine. And God has built into society some restraints. The first restraint is the knowledge of God, that there is a righteous and holy judge to whom we are accountable. That is a restraint on evil.

Beyond that, there is the law of God written in the heart, every culture knows what is right and wrong because universally, that's part of being created in God's image. There is the conscience. We have a society basically that has removed God, so that transcendental restraint is gone. That has flipped morality on its head, so conscience is misinformed.

The next restraint is the family. Destroy the family and there's no opportunity for disciplined raising of children to make them socially capable of interacting in a positive way. The family falls apart, and the next barrier is the police, and by then, it's beyond them. Witness the riots last summer when the police just stand there and watch.

So it's a sequence of things where this society, the young in the society, have smashed every divine restraint down, and it overwhelms the final governmental institution, which is the police. And then you can add -- throw in how much lawlessness there is at every level, whether it's even politicians, or whether it's the immorality of heroes, athletes, movie actors. The culture is so immoral, so against the family, so against God, and you sow that, and you reap exactly what we get today.

INGRAHAM: Pastor MacArthur, I think people just wake up and they think how did this happen, but you just laid it out beautifully in all of its sad, disturbing ways, that this happens over time. And every institution which acts as a check on the individual is under attack or cast aside, and we have the results around us. I knew you would state it so succinctly, and we really appreciate you joining us tonight. Next time I will have you on for longer. Pastor, thank you.

And up next, Nancy Pelosi on Joe Biden, what could that be? The Last Bite explains, next.


INGRAHAM: Who says Nancy Pelosi isn't wit, clarity, and intellect all rolled into one?


NANCY PELOSI, (D-CA) HOUSE SPEAKER: Joe Biden is a great president. He is a gift. As I've said to him, don't say I told you this, but I've said to him sometimes I'm glad you didn't win before because we really needed you to win now for president.


PELOSI: He's perfect, he's perfect for now.


INGRAHAM: Perfect.

Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2022 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2022 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.