Carolina Journal Radio No. 924: State should take new steps to fight collusive lawsuits

From chair to current and the largest city to the smallest and from the statehouse into the schoolhouse Carolina Journal radio your weekly news magazine discussing North Carolina's most of public policy events and issues welcome to this final addition of Carolina Journal radio I Michiko got during the next hour, Donna Martinez and I will explore some major issues affecting our state. The addition of justice Amy Cody Barrett to the US Supreme Court has revived the discussion about original is you'll hear one experts take on the role of legal precedent for originalist judges go to Roy Cooper once Medicaid expansion are there better alternatives by John Locke foundation export, offer some ideas, free trade is faced attacks from high profile figures in both major political parties, even supporters of free trade have different opinions about how to achieve the goal you'll hear one top economist assessment and Donna Martinez and I will say goodbye to Carolina Journal radio will also offer you new ways to keep up with top North Carolina political and public-policy stories. First, Donna joins us with the final Carolina Journal headline when you think of a lawsuit. You naturally think of a dispute that pits one person or group or company with one point of view versus another person or group or company with a different point of view, but that is not always the case. In fact, your life is impacted by what are called collusive settlements of some types of lawsuits and it's happening right here in North Carolina. Andy Jackson is the director of the scimitar Center for Public integrity at the John Locke foundation. He joins me now to explain what this is and how we can protect North Carolinians from some of these collusive settlements and welcome to Carolina Journal radio this whole thing starts with friendly people, friendly opponents and we use the word opponents" they team that sounds crazy because you think that there filing a lawsuit because there's a dispute, why did they team up will the basic reason people team up in this kind of lawsuits is that they have some kind of mutual goal either explicitly stated or sometimes just implied because they come from the same basic background basic viewpoints that they need. Essentially, a court intervention to accomplish what they want to get accomplished, they can't do it on their own. There some kind of something in the law that works against both of them or sometimes in a private sphere sometimes is a contract that maybe both of them want to get out of court to release one of the sides from the current contract to join a new contract and so they essentially get together one side sues the other. Once again, this may or may not be planned in advance and then they decide to reach a settlement that which gives the stamp of approval from court on that some of the compass on the interesting that they can accomplish it on their own, but Andy isn't the state legislature supposed to be that the body that makes law amends the law gets rid of law.

How is it that this is happening in court and does it does the general assembly in their intent with their legislation is being changed in court. Does it make them really ineffective the potential he does.

This is the real issue with collusive lawsuits them if there's just too parties, they can probably work it out obviously without a loss of consortium agreement, but the real problem is that with these lawsuits is that there usually 1/3 party that is good be negatively affected by this. So with state laws.

Clearly, the body that makes the laws. In our case, North Carolina the general assembly.

They have an interest in seeing that if they pass a law as long as it's a constitutional law that it is something that is going to endorse something, since that is their role in government that you can't have other parties just essentially getting rid of a law because they don't like it and so that's the real danger and thus the reason that the general assembly actually has this in the Constitution has the right to intervene in such lawsuits. Unfortunately, as we saw in a recent case that didn't really work out exactly and it was a very, very important cases involve the state board of elections help us understand what the lawsuit in the collusive settlement was all about. While this was a couple of things on the one front Karen Brinson belles is Executive Director of the state board of elections. She had tried to loosen. We can whatever verbiage you want to use protections against absentee ballot fraud at various times ballot harvesting undue influence over people in assisted living facilities, which is something that is against the law. North Carolina because of the coronavirus epic.

She would been using that as a reason to try to loosen those laws see that several attempts once he asked the general some way to make some changes and they did agree there is this big bipartisan elections bill that passed and so some of the changes that she asked where she got. They rejected some of those other ones. She also tried to change it through administrative rules within the law, but this body. North Carolina called the rules review commission also rejected that attempt.

They said that's not within her power emergency powers as Executive Director and so she was essentially stuck. She had a whole body of things loosening some of these laws changing early voting times that she clearly had wanted to do but couldn't do legally and walk walks Mark Elias.

He is an attorney whose fairly well-known in North Carolina nationally for being a Democratic kind of do till blue lawyer. She had been a lawsuit and, lo and behold, many of the measures in that lawsuit were along the lines of things that Karen Brinson Bell had requested earlier so it was really strange of the state board of elections actually voted to put her in charge of negotiating a law settlement with Elias because of the similarity of some of their views is hardly surprising that the settlement became out was something that in a lot of ways agreed with Brinson belles. Prior positions where does that leave the general assembly, specifically when it came to this lawsuit, presumably they would be thinking the legislative leader say wait a second, we pass this bipartisan law. We made some changes based on Cove in 19 things that we needed to be addressed, but now one person and actually two people one person who sues and then the director of the state board of elections get together and negate some of that but that's what happened and back to the leadership of the house and the Senate pay per North Carolina laws. This is also in the books. They are called intervening defendants. They said we were going to go ahead and make ourselves defendants in the case along with the state board of elections so that now Mark Elias is also suing us and so what should've happened to that point now that they are intervening defendants, their part of the lawsuit is that they would be part of folks entering into negotiations over settlement probably leading to there being no settlement in this connection going to a full trial but that's not what happened. The judge in charge, Brian Collins, who has kind of a history of animosity towards the general assembly once called it a usurper body. He complacently called the Gen. assembly in us. In a separate case earlier because 2019 or maybe early 2012.

Look up the date that he had called the Gen. assembly a usurper body in a case that has since that he ruled on that has since been overturned on appeal, so he arty has not demonstrated animosity and so even though the general symbol leadership were intervening defendants in the case, he decided that this did a really big deal for election law, even though it clearly did it dealt with emergency powers, and so he cut them out. He said I don't have to brief them on this and so even though these are defendants. The judge said no you're not. So we've seen this very consequential example of how these collusive settlement work and what can we do about that someone would think the legislature having our experience, this would be saying you know where the policymaking body here. We need to do something. What is it they need to do this when you essentially have two branches teaming up on one which is what we have here with the way that Judge Collins rule is difficult. Probably the best way is the tighten up the law because what you since I had with this loophole. Yes, the law says that the branches have to be. They can be intervening defendants, but it doesn't specifically say that they have to be included in any kind of settlement. So I think the law needs to be made much more explicit on that point. Add some language the law so that judges can't willy-nilly decide not. Even though your defendant. I'm not really counting on this. They're going have to be a party to any settlements that come on lawsuits based on the law and we will have to wait and see if we do indeed see an effort to address this in the 2021 Gen. assembly and they will be back a little bit later in January. Andy Jackson is the director of the scimitar Center for Public integrity at the John Locke foundation.

He writes about all sorts of election issues.

You can find his work at John Locke.Annie, thanks for joining us this much more Carolina general radio to come in just tired of fake names tired of reporters with political axes to grind.

What you need to be reading Carolina Journal honest, uncompromising, old-school journalism, you expect and you need even better, the monthly Carolina Journal is free to subscribers sign up at Carolina. Journal.com. You'll receive Carolina Journal newspaper in your mailbox each month.

Investigations into government spending revelations about boondoggles of the powerful leaders are and what they're doing in your name and with your money. We shine a light on it all with the stories and angles. Other outlets barely cover but there's a bonus print newspapers published monthly by our daily news site gives you the latest news each and every day lot onto Carolina Journal.com once, twice, even three times a day. You won't be disappointed. It's fresh news if you'd like a heads up on the daily news sign up for our daily email do that Carolina Journal.com Carolina Journal, rigorous, unrelenting, old-school journalism, we hold government accountable for you.

Welcome back Carolina Journal radio amateur co-guy, the death of US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the debate over a new justice to join the Supreme Court remind us of some key constitutional questions.

Among them, how much should justices follow Supreme Court precedent, the doctrine of stare decisis. What about if the justice thinks the president was wrong. It's a topic that prompted a recent online form for the Duke Law school Federalist Society. The featured speaker, originalist constitutional law professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown is important to observe that the Supreme Court has never treated its previous decisions as binding in the same sense that lower courts are bound never a course, the court does periodically invoke the doctrine of stare decisis and attempt to explain when prior decision should be followed or not is it didn't Planned Parenthood versus Casey but in practice it's fair to say that, quite unlike the inferior course Supreme Court asserts it the power to overrule its own previous decisions. We repeat that the Supreme Court asserts the power to overrule its own previous decisions. Even if the precedent is long-standing and even if they it has been reaffirmed on many occasions, if you think about it. That has to be the case because under our system, only a constitutional amendment can reverse a ruling of the Supreme Court. We need the Supreme Court to reverse its own rulings when those rulings are later thought to be mistaken. It sort of inevitable that Supreme Court is not to be bound by its previous decision way lower courts are bound Supreme Court previous decision, Barnett says different justices will approach court precedents in different ways. Now for some justices, Roe versus Wade or really plan put Planned Parenthood versus Casey is currently and will always be in play and subject to reversal for other justices. Citizens United and DC versus Heller and a host of other Rehnquist and Roberts court decisions are susceptible to reversal unless we forget modern regionalism arose in response to the new Deal, Warren Burger, courts wholesale rejection of precedents that stood in the way of their agenda when the judge did justices really want to change direction. Stare decisis poses no real ops to goal to them doing so if they want to they can do it if there is a will there is a way that is the reality, stare decisis, and at the Supreme Court level and it is always been the reality at the Supreme Court level now. This means that in practice. Unlike inferior court judges on originalist Supreme Court justice, like all other Supreme Court justices has the option of voting inconsistently with previous opinions or decisions of the court. Barnett says even though all justices are willing to break with precedent when it suits them.

Some like to invoke the concept of stare decisis. Justices invoke this doctrine of stare decisis when for a variety of reasons. They don't want to reverse the precedent that they also do not feel comfortable claiming was correct here listening to Georgetown constitutional law professor Randy Barnett speaking during a recent online forum for the Duke Law school Federalist Society Barnett addressed a basic question, is there any proper role for horizontal stare decisis of the Supreme Court. If we ever do have a majority of originalist justice is now at a minimum I would say this, Supreme Court justices should give stare decisis wait to previous opinions of the court that a justice is satisfied utilized originalist reasoning in good faith.

Justices you give stare decisis wait to previous opinions of the court that a justice is satisfied utilized originalist reasoning in good faith. The reason for this is epistemic originalist research is difficult and time-consuming.

We cannot be confident. None of us can be confident of the conclusions of originalist analysis until it is subjected to genuine peer review by other originalist scholars holding different views. I myself when I read a very powerful originalist piece of scholarship about an area that I don't know that much about which I find personally persuasive.

I may be persuaded as a working hypothesis and well maybe that's right.

Or maybe that is right, but I wait until I hear what other originalist scholars or other even on originalist scholars say about the evidence, who don't agree with that and then I can way the competing arguments and see which is stronger so I have to reserve judgment until I hear what other people have to say. That's not her. That doesn't happen overnight.

Now once the court has reached a conclusion on the basis of peer-reviewed originalist scholarship.

There is a good very good Prudential reason for originalist justices to defer to that decision, unless and until it is called into question by persuasive competing originalist scholarship. Barnett says opponents of a ritualism focus on the way. It might change existing law, but ritualism often leads to the same outcomes as other approaches to constitutional law.

This suggests another option for originalist justices as well as for lower court judges and that is to follow the holdings of previous cases bollix blaming in majority or concurring opinions.

Why these results are consistent with original meaning.

The more this is done less threatening originalist becomes non-originalist and the easier it will be to alter or reshape existing doctrine to bring it into closer alignment with original meaning. Barnett outlines two goals for originalist judges.

The first goal is the achievement of originalist outcomes in the world of ideal theory.

Originalist judges would reach up to Ed and justify originalist outcomes on the basis of originalist reasoning every time yet where this is not feasible. Originalist justices should still strive for originalist outcomes or results on originalist outcome is an outcome that he required or permitted by the original public meaning of the Constitution's text in contrast with an outcome that conflicts with that meaning Matata versus city of Chicago again is an example of this. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Glenn Kennedy, the joined a non-originalist opinion by Justice Alito that reach the same result outcome is Justice Thomas's original obit, originalist opinion from an originalist standpoint that is much better than the stance taken by the four progressive dissenters would've denied her individual right to keep their arms altogether.

A second goal for originalist judges is to place a high value on political or ideological neutrality for the originalist product project to succeed. Regionalism must have wide appeal for this reason, it is especially important that originalist justices and judges be willing to reach originalist outcomes, even and perhaps especially in cases where the result is one that would be favored by liberals or progressives and opposed by conservatives or libertarians.

Let me put this another way, the originalist project would be sabotaged if originalist judges and justices disregard per precedent in favor of a regionalism when at least outcomes they like and then turn around and disregard a regionalism by relying on a writ on non-originalist precedents when a regionalism leads to results they dislike progressives are deeply suspicious of regionalism overcoming that suspicion is a large task, but it is difficult to imagine that the perception that a regionalism is simply a cover for right-wing ideal judicial ideology can be overcome if originalist approach stare decisis in anything other than an ideologically and politically neutral manner.

Barnett pointed originalist judges toward an overarching goal even originalist to believe that the rule of judges should never trump the rule provided by the original meaning of the Constitution itself and by this I mean originalist like me need to come to grips with how virtuous original justices and inferior court judges should comport themselves in a principled manner. In a world of imperfect knowledge of what original meaning requires has worked as well as a world of collegial courts that for now at least, are still dominated by non-originalist judges, but we must never lose sight of the ultimate goal of attaining consistency with the written cost of tuition to which all justices and judges have taken an oath, a written Constitution that is superior to the Constitution that has been given us by the Supreme Court.

Regionalism claims that to the extent the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was adopted a faithful judge has a duty to follow this fixed meaning unless and until a superior authority says otherwise. Justices file of the Supreme Court should be striving to restore the meaning of the cost of tuition. The whole Constitution.

The doctor stare decisis is not a justification for their failure to do so. It is merely an excuse. That's Georgetown constitutional law professor Randy Barnett discussing a ritualism and the importance of court precedent. He offered these remarks during an online form for the Duke Law school Federalist Society overture with North Carolina general radio in a moment. If you have freedom we got great news to share with you now. You can find the latest news, views, and research from conservative groups across North Carolina all in one place North Carolina conservative.com it's one stop shopping. North Carolina's freedom movement and North Carolina conservative.com. You'll find links to John Locke foundation blogs on the days news Carolina journal.com reporting and quick takes Carolina journal radio interviews TV interviews featuring CJ reporters and let foundation analysts, opinion pieces and reports on higher education from the James Dean Martin, Center for academic renewal, commentary and polling data from the scimitar's Institute and news and views from the North Carolina family policy Council. That's right, all in one place North Carolina conservative.com that's North Carolina spelled out conservative.com North Carolina conservative.com. Try it today. North Carolina is changing not just day-to-day but outward to our minute to minute. Even 2nd to 2nd, how can you keep up with the changes, especially the ones that affect you, your family, your home, your job, make the John Locke foundation and Carolina journal part of your social media diet on Facebook like the John Locke foundation like Carolina. Journal follow us on Twitter at John Locke in the sea and at Carolina journal news, insights and analysis you'll find nowhere else. Thanks to the experts at the John Locke foundation and thanks to the first-class investigative reporting of Carolina journal. Don't wait for the morning newspaper. Don't wait for the evening news if it's happening now it's happening here the John Locke foundation and Carolina journal. Have you covered with up to the second information like us on Facebook the John Locke foundation and Carolina journal follow us on Twitter at John Locke in the sea and at Carolina journal.

Who knew you could shop and invest in freedom at the same time it is true online shopping is now a great way to support the John Locke foundation just shop using the Amazon smile program and designate the John Mott foundation to receive a portion of your purchase amount that's right you shop Amazon donates money to pass the John Locke foundation cares how long. Time to smile.amazon.com Amazon smile is the same Amazon you know same products same prices. But here's what's better. Amazon donates 0.5% of the price of your eligible Amazon smile purchases to the John Locke foundation to try it. Be sure to designate us as the nonprofit you want to support. It's that easy. So now not only will you enjoy what you buy. You also support freedom. Don't forget log on to smile.amazon.com today, something nice and help defend freedom, help support the John Mott foundation will get back to Carolina journal radio amateur coca estate task force looking into healthcare coverage. Recently, listen to ideas from the John Locke foundation Jordan Roberts spent nearly 3 years focusing on healthcare issues for the Locke foundation. He offered thoughts about coverage issues during an online briefing. What is the problem we want to solve, and it's me, it's that health insurance can be unaffordable for those who don't get it from work or from a public program and a second part of the problem is that those who have health insurance may struggle to pay the premiums and out-of-pocket costs. So at the root level, it's that the problem is that the products we have on the market right now can be unaffordable to a lot of North Carolinians in Salem. What causes this problem and this may seem intuitive, but the cost of healthcare drives the cost of insurance.

What I mean by that is, the services, the price of services. That is what gets priced into our premiums and you can look at the research that the United States pays more than any other country for the procedures of healthcare and so part of this discussion needs to focus on reforms that loosen healthcare regulations and bring down the cost of care, where I see the opportunities for reform are mostly in the individual market and the out for those who don't get health insurance from work of the government, individual market is really that the only place to get out first solution that I want to talk about is state empowerment and relief waivers and sometimes these are called section 1332 waivers or state innovation waivers but were all talking about the same thing here, but essentially under section 1332 of the affordable care act states can apply to the federal government to waive regulations imposed on the individual market and what this does is it gives states the opportunity to exert a lot more control over the health insurance products that are offered to its residents. So there's been a lot of talk about Association health plans essentially Association health plans are a type of large group health plan offered by business and trade associations to its member employers. These plans allow the small businesses, self-employed owners to band together to purchase health insurance as a large group and so why does it matter to purchase a large group.

While the ACA segmented the market so there's a different set of regulations for small and individual group plans as compared to large group plans and sell these mom-and-pop shops and individual retailers can get together and buy health insurance is a large group plan they can get plans is at a much more affordable rate and this helps everyone you know they may be a part of that that member Association.

The other subjects. All the same rules that current large group plan group health plans are so any large group health plans. We are operating under the same rules.

That's Jordan Roberts of the John Locke foundation is offering ideas about healthcare coverage reform.

Roberts made these comments during a recent meeting of the state task force set up by the governor will return with Carolina journal radio in a moment where doubling down on freedom at Carolina journal radio were proud to bring you stories that impact your life and your wallet. And now get twice as much freedom when you also listen to our podcast headlock available on iTunes and@johnlocke.org/podcast headlock is a little bit different.

It's a no holds barred discussion that challenges softheaded ideas from the left and the right, like Carolina journal radio headlock is smart and timely but with headlock you'll hear more about the culture wars get some more humor as well.

We guarantee great information and a good time double down with S. Listen to Carolina journal radio each week and listen to headlock to remember, you can listen to headlock@johnlocke.org/podcast or subscriber download each week iTunes Carolina journal radio and headlock just what you need to stay informed and stay entertained both brought to you in the name of freedom by the John Locke foundation of Qu�bec, Carolina journal radio amateur coca time.

The basic ideas of free trade faced increased scrutiny, especially since the 2016 presidential election campaign and the challenges come from more than just the out and out opponents of free trade.

The topic cropped up during the recent online annual conference of the group.

Classical liberals of the Carolinas, George Mason University economist Donald Boudreaux contrasted two groups of people who both support free trade. I call these two groups. The multilateral list and the unilateralist of the multilateral's are the most prominent and dominant of the group in public policy discussion. We are not completely ignorant of trade are not na�ve mercantilists or na�ve protectionists. They understand the trade is a positive song process is chair with unilateralist. The ultimate goal of a world completely devoid of protective tariffs and export subsidies, subsidies for that matter, but they do they differ from the unilateralist in that they reject categorically policy of unilateral free-trade book the multilateral list. I think if you knew you look at the prominent trade people not so much the trumpet ministration but prior to that, Rob Portman and the other people who'd been trade negotiators for the US think that they are even Cordell whole I would put in this degree. Cordell whole important to this category. The multilateral say understand free-trade with but that they reject unilateral free-trade and and as you know most of you know, economists are a strange breed will be 10 most people at least a large number of us. Surprisingly large number compared to the general population tend to support a policy of unilateral free-trade.

We want free trade regardless of policies are being pursued by other governments.

What accounts for this difference in an worldview for the multilateral's VC China gaining to China games because it gets protected from imports from the US and the US suffers because it imports less than it did previously in this case to China.

I think the fundamental difference in what accounts for the differences in the two logics and will show you between multilateral list and unilateralist is that multilateral for all their good thoughts about trade, they still commit the fundamental mercantilist mistake of believing the trade benefits are ultimately found in the amount of the country exports and not in the amount that a country imports Boudreaux used an economic concept called game theory. He started first with multilateral lists and look at their assessment of a competing country China adopting protectionist policies.

So if China moves from free-trade protectionism in the US remains of free trader in the multilateral's view, the Chinese gain an unfair advantage. They get protection from American from imports coming for America and they are they are doing so. Their protection prevents to produce America's exports to China because multilateral lists, believe, understand, along with unilateralist beliefs multilateral so I'm speaking of who with a group dominant players in trade policy.

The gains to the above protecting country. In this case China or less, than the losses to free trading country.

Multiple these multilateral's to whom I'm referring that they do believe that a world of free trade which every countries is trading freely is the best of all, all available worlds all possible worlds, but countries can gain in their view by adopting protectionist if the other country, or other countries remain in the state of free trade when China moves toward protectionism. China gains America loses, but Americans aren't American government is and isn't Dawn. I can gain by itself moving to protectionist. So if in response to Chinese protectionism. America adopts protectionism.

America cuts its losses and of course by moving to protectionism America conflicts losses also on the Chinese Chinese course would like America to remain resolutely free-trade. And this is why I think the multilateral sleep is crazy for the unilateralist to support the policy of unilateral free-trade. What's why that's crazy they say in the.

The. The if if if if America resolutely sticks to policy free-trade.

The Chinese are gaining we can at least cut our losses by matching the Chinese protection NIST policies with our own protectionist policies.

That's economist Donald Boudreaux of George Mason University, speaking in a recent online form for the group. Classical liberals of the Carolinas. He was just describing a group of free-trade supporters.

He dubs multilateral lists. What about his other group. The unilateralist we recognize something that you know what that the multilateral's don't imports of course are the benefit of trade in exports or the cost of trade or cost bearing. Of course, because they bring us imports would presumably worthwhile if China were to move to protectionism. The first thing I notice is that the great bulk of the damage of China's protectionism falls on the Chinese people themselves. Unlike some na�ve free traders more that many of them, but there are some na�ve free traders we unilateralist understand that foreign government protectionism does impose some damage on the home country. When China moves to a policy protectionism.

In this example, it reduces America's payoff. Importantly, the damage to America is much lower than the damage that the Chinese protectionism imposes on China itself. That's a fundamental feature of the way unilateralist thing we do recognize that it is a a cost that there is a cost that Americans suffer as a result of Chinese protectionism. Adam Smith was very explicit about this in book 4 of the of the wealth of Nations. He understood that when foreign countries impose import restraints that that reduces the ability of producers in the home country to export, therefore, that might reduce the ability of home country produces to take advantage of economies of scale and and that inability to take advantage of economies of scale might well result in a net loss to the home country but unilateralist. I believe there's a danger that if we if we follow the multilateral list environments and adopt their own protectionism, we're not going to increase our payoff is the multilateral's believe, we want to further suffer losses. In fact, the losses that we will inflict on ourselves will be larger than the losses that we are suffering from those that are inflicted on us by China's protectionism. Yes it is true we recognize that when we adopt protectionism. Just as when the Chinese adopts protectionism that impose some bosses almost what if we were to adopt protectionism that would impose further losses on the Chinese and so if we move to our own policy protectionism within the payoff to both countries is reduced at a first pass. The unilateralist is is no point in doing this whitewash we make ourselves even worse off.

Yes, you may China resolve what you make ourselves in worship.

Let's stick to policy free-trade.

Regardless of what China does. There's a point to Boudreaux's efforts to contrast the multilateral lists who support trade negotiations and some forms of protectionism with the unilateralist who never support limits on trade this logic, I think, gives us reason to doubt that that retaliatory tariffs would work his reasons for why unilateral free traders don't put much stock in the actual feasibility of practicality of of retaliatory tariffs. That's economics Prof. Donald Boudreaux of George Mason University. A recent featured speaker at the online annual conference of the group. Classical liberals in the Carolinas literature with North Carolina joint radio in a moment real influence.

You either have it or you don't and at the John Locke foundation we have it, you'll find our guiding principles in many of the freedom forward reforms in the past decade here in North Carolina. So while others talk or complaint or name call. We provide research solutions and hope our team analyzes the pressing issues of the day jobs, healthcare, education, and more. We look for effective ways to give you more freedom, more options, more control over your life.

Our goal is to transform North Carolina into a growing, thriving economic powerhouse, the envy of every other state. Our research is how policymakers make decisions that ensure you keep more of what you earn. Expand your choice of schools for your kids. Widen your job opportunities improve your access to doctors. The recipe for stability and a bright future for truth for freedom for the future of North Carolina. We are the John Locke foundation of Qu�bec.

The Carolina Journal radio and this segment of Carolina Journal radio is somewhat bittersweet because it marks the end of the program. This is Mitch Coke I joined by my cohost Donna Martin is not you normally be in the spot of closing the show but would go to close this episode together.

We were actually closing the show's right.

It's hard to believe management after a number of years of really bringing such important and we hope in lightning and sometimes even find information to North Carolinians listing to Carolina Journal radio. This is the final episode of Carolina Journal radio but just this format. You and I are gonna continue to be talking about public policy and politics in North Carolina will talk a little bit about how they can hear each of us might.

It is been an incredible ride. I've enjoyed it so much, not only working with you, but being able to help people understand the different choices that are state lawmakers are our ploys to make things that will impact their lives, their livelihoods, their wallets their kids. It's been an incredible ride. I've enjoyed it. You mentioned a number of years. The show is been on for almost 18 years and you been a part of it from not the very beginning, but almost the Glendale and I joined about 2 1/2 years into it near the end of 2005 working to talk a little bit about some of the things that we see ahead. But first, let's take care of some housekeeping. First item is as you mentioned Carolina Journal radio is ending, but that doesn't mean the people have to stop listening to either one of us.

People can listen to you on a daily basis and on a weekly basis. First let's start with the weekly item through the John Locke foundation. If folks don't already know this, you basically host an hour-long program they could see on Facebook potentially on YouTube as well. Every week, in which are interviewing panels interviewing experts talk to us about the Shaftesbury society. I am so delighted to be able to host these these get-togethers, panel discussions, really conversations with experts.

It's every Monday at 12 noon and it is live streamed on the John Locke foundation's Facebook page and also on the John Locke foundation's website, which is John lock.org so I you have to do you want to preregister to have the link sent to you. You can but you can also just a logon to the Facebook page or the website Monday at noon and I host this conversation we talk about a lot of the same types of things Mitch that you and I been talking about and Carolina Journal radio for four years but it is fact a lot of the segments are Carolina Journal radio have been excerpts of the program exactly and is just so rich with content, and we usually have the 234 panelists and we talk about a particular subject, so I really hope that folks them. If you haven't taken advantage of that to this point that you will join us for the virtual Shaftesbury society presentations Monday 12 noon and if that's not enough. You're also on the air every day on W PGF radio which you can hear in Raleigh, but anywhere that that that folks listen to this program you can listen online. Tell us about tell your daily show with her husband Rick. It is 5:57 PM live weekdays on W PGF. If you're in the triangle. You can hear that it 680 a.m. You can also go online W PTF.com and also there is a W PDF app and you can listen live there.

Rick and I talk about current events. The news of the day. We talk about public policy. I would talk about entertainment and Mitch. You have been aghast in a cohost with me a number of times so it's it's meant to catch people up and to give some perspective to the news of the day until folks can join us said in multiple ways. I hope they will. One other way that people can hear some of the continuing conversation. Now the Carolina Journal radio is ending is through the headlock podcast and I say headlock, although I don't think that pain is going to weep in for several years now having this this podcast called headlock, but it's probably going to change its name.

I've been hosting it.

Most recently and now am cohosting with our colleague Brooke Medina and a people could go to John lock.org/podcast to get it directly or you can find the headlock podcast. Most of the places where you find podcast so look for headlock, you find that there another thing I want to point out is that people who are interested in the types of interviews that we've done it Carolina Journal radio can also go to Carolina Journal.com and find videos we been posting videos of the radio interviews for a long time, will continue to post videos of interviews. Probably not all in the eighth 1/2 to 9 minutes is a need for Carolina Journal radio but a bunch of the same types of things a Carolina Journal.com so that's going to be something very important for people to know if they want this type of material moving forward and Mitch Mitch. I think the bottom line is that there are so many ways now for folks to be able to continue to access you and me and others here at the John Locke foundation. Whether you're interested in hearing us or watching us or logging onto our website or blog which we help you do multiple times a day. Locke foundation is here to stay. Before we kind of turned to what's next for the future of our state and public policy because were both can have a couple of thoughts on that. I do also. Before forgetting want to thank the people who been involved in preparing this program for you and I've been hosting this, but it also takes a lot of effort to put the show together if you like the way it sounds. You could also thank the team at Carolina broadcasting a long time into spin host Tom Campbell owns that company and the people specifically who been most involved in the show had been met.

Cory, who assembles it week to week. That, and Cynthia Whitaker, who's been involved in assembling the information for all of the affiliates keeping them up-to-date so we deftly want to thank Matt Cynthia Tom Campbell and that whole team at Carolina broadcasting, Inc. you guys appreciate all of your help and your support over the years will and couple the couple minutes that we have left you, and I have both been following North Carolina public policy for a long time give us some thoughts about what are the main things you're gonna be watching for in 2021 Mitch I think I'm everything will continue to be dominated by what I hope is our lifting ourselves out of the coven 19 pandemic. Not only is at a public health emergency.

But we know that it is really shined the light on the incredible powers of the governor of North Carolina, not just Roy Cooper but the governor's seat itself and we have seen Gov. Cooper take a very muscular robust approach to having power over people's lives them attached to that the pandemic he's used it long term that is brought about all sorts of questions about the whether or not it is a good idea to have one person have that type of singular power over months and months and months I think were gonna see the state legislature have an interesting discussion about that because Sam precedent is being set here for future governors what they made deemed to be an existential threat to North Carolina should they decide to harness that power as Gov. Roy Cooper has and I think one of the other interesting pieces that goes along with that is just how Gov. Roy Cooper and the Republican leaders of the Gen. assembly will work together or against each other during the next two years we saw that there was quite a bit of stalemate over the last couple years as the general simply had its priorities.

Governor had his priorities when they didn't meet rather than sitting at the table and saying what can we get out of this that we both like.

In many occasions it just ended up being stalemate. We don't even have a new budget that we have a tablet for couple years because they haven't had agreement shall be interesting to see whether we see more future cooperation or continued stalemate over the next couple of years and that could also fit in with this whole notion of what kinds of powers to the two branches have be quite an interesting 2021. We are at that time.

Here in the final episode of Carolina Journal radio on behalf of my cohost Mitch.

Okay I'm Donna Martinez, folks.

We've enjoyed so much having a part of our lives here Carolina Journal radio. Thank you for listening.

Carolina Journal radio is a program of the John Locke foundation to learn more about the John Locke foundation donation support programs like Carolina Journal radio sending email to development John Locke done call 66J LF info 166-553-4636 Carolina Journal radio is the John line foundation, Carolina spring market and maintaining Carolina broadcasting system, Inc. all opinions expressed on this program and are selling those did not merely reflect the organization.

For more information about the show. Other programs and services of the foundation. John Locke toll-free at 868 JL and would like to thank our wonderful radio affiliates across Carolina and our sponsors.

Carolina Journal radio. Thank you for listening. Please join us again next week