PM Show Hr 2 | Talking with Conservative Steve Toth on Running Against Dan Crenshaw

Published Jul 16, 2025, 12:34 AM
No description provided

The Michael Verie Show is on the air. Professor Josh Blackman joined us the program again our legal expert aka mister smarty pants. We have had a busy Supreme Court session with some important rulings as it affects the Trump administration's ability to do their job and hence this country. And you, professor, let's start with the Trump v. Casa Inc. Case or Casa Inc. Regarding whether district courts can simply decide in anywhere America. Oh, you know what, Trump can't do that That ended up at the Supreme Court in an expedited fashion. Talk about that case if you wouldn't.

This is probably the most important case from last year. It involved Trump's birthright citizenship order, where Trump said that we will not give any citizenship papers to children of legal aliens. But the Quick didn't decide whether that order itself was lawful, and so they decided kind of a procedural issue, that is, how can it be challenged in court? Moments after Trump signed the order, judges in Washington and in the Northeast issued these universal injunctions that basically applied to everyone everywhere. So even though Texas hadn't challenged the policy, children of aliens in Texas would still be protected by it, and that's not how things we're supposed to work. So we have a six or three decision Justice Barrett Routh majority, and the court held that, no, you can't issue these injunctions, but we won't talk about whether Trump's order is legal. We'll do that later.

That was the upshot, leaving President Trump the ability to be the executive which our constitution empowers him to be.

Fair, right, Yeah, I mean you have these distrect.

Court judges who are truly intruding on the powers an executive and they're going beyond the powers of the judicial branch.

Do you recall ever seeing that in the modern era? Before?

You know, it started in earnest during the end of the Obama administration, ramped up during the first Trump administration, got even more during the Biden administration, and then during the second Trump administration.

Went off the chain.

You had more universal injunctions in the first few months of Trump than all of Biden combined. So I think the stream court really has to give in till the judges chill, you can't do this. This is not how we're supposed to run a system.

Well, my concern throughout all of this is that the Supreme Court should not be as important to our daily lives as it is and continues to be. And that is because they are in aged in legislative and executive actions and instead of simply judiciary behavior. And that concerns me because we don't elect a Supreme Court. But in any case, the case of Free Speech Coalition Inc. Versus Paxton, the state of Texas restrictions on porn and an age verification. Talk about that if you would. This is an.

Important case for Texas and many states. As I'm sure people know, the Internet has a lot of pornography, and some of it you have to pay to get. So it's like pornhob have always required people to register, but they didn't really do much to verify that they were actually adults. So it was unsurprising that a children and miners were able to access material. Texas enacted what I think is a pretty common sense law that if you want me to provide pornography online, you have to have age verification.

You and I old enough.

You knowrder Michael. Back in the day, if you wanted to go to the video story, you had a little beaded curtain, right, and you'd go there and you'd show your idea to get those other not they ever did this, but you would go there to get your adult videos. If you want to go buy a Playboy magazine? Who is you wrapped in that plastic and you have to go show your idea to the cashier. Online, there's no cashier, right, there's no video clerk. So will you verify your age? Is by uploading a copy of your driver's license? Is how you buy wines, how you buy tobacco, and lots of things. But people said, oh no, no, this will a chill or access to pornography. People will be afraid of sharing the information online. So it goes to the Supreme Court, and the court rules six to three that this policy is constitutional and Texas can use age verification that even though this might burden some adults from accessing their porn, it's a very useful means to protect children from this material.

So I think fair to say falls under constitutional authority because it's narrowly limited with a with a real purpose, or narrowly tailored with a purpose, as opposed to an outright ban on pornography, which could be argued is free speech not conclusive, right, just as Thomas wrote the majority and he said that, look, this isn't a ban, it's a restriction, and it.

Does make a difference. And there's a long tradition of governments using age verification for accessing adult materials goes back forever. It's different because it's online and there's a risk that you know, people's credit cards might be you know, released in people. You know, what kind of point did it like to watch that's blackmail material. That risk does exist, but I think it was enough to override the Texas enacted law well.

And I think what we can take from this is there has long been an American jurisprudential tradition that a law should be as narrowly tailored as possible and for a specific lawful purpose. And in this case, when you can make the argument that it is for the protection of children, that would be relatively consistent with American Jewish prudence. The case of Mahmood versus Taylor, the public school said to have violated the First Amendment religious freedom rights of parents by eliminating an opt out option for elementary students exposed to LGBTQ plus inclusive storybooks in the curriculum. Make that make sense. Please, This is.

Such a common sense case, Michael. In Montgomery County, Maryland, which is not Texas, they decided that children were not open enough to learning about gays, lesbians, and transgender people, and they need to bring books into the curriculum, even for five year olds in kindergarten to learn about this. And I hope was this would simulate discussion and break what they call heteronormativity. If you know what that is, you're normal rights to note that is when you're kindergarten. But this was designed to great this idea of what gays and lesbians and transgender people are. Some of these books talked about children, you know, saying I don't feel like a boy, I feel like a girl, and the parents said, well that's okay. So you can imagine that parents objected to their kids having this material. Initially, Montgomery County let kids opt out of this as their parents opted them out, but turned out almost everyone opted out, and so then they got really opt out and the children had to sit through this instruction. So this was a case really about religion, and these are religious parents. That's the case, suggests Mahmoud was not a Christian. It was a Muslim parent. But the Mahmoud family didn't want their kids seeing this material, which directly underminds what they teach about religion and morality and gender. Again, the courts put six to three on this one, and the court said, yes, parents be able to opt out their kids from this sort of instruction. There was a very vigorous as sensing that this is harmful for transgender people, and then that the Supreme Court shouldn't a school board, but they are very deeply d to write a parents to direct how their kids to talk.

Right one moment, Professor Josh Blattin aka mister smarty Pants is our guest. More Supreme Court cases.

Coming up nowadays can actually break your.

Ball, are you not at the time the Michael Barry shows.

Josh Latin and mister smarty Pants of the South Texas College of Law, Supreme Court expert is our guest. Let me, let's rush through a couple of these. We did have some rare unanimous decisions. One of them Ames versus Ohio Department of Youth Services, which is referred to as a reverse discrimination case. What's that.

So?

Ames was an unusual case where you had BAC heterosexual woman who allegeds to discriminate against for for BC being a heterosexual woman, and the lower court stakes she said, oh well, she can't bring a claim because she's heerosexual woman, and the court reversed that. Any times a discrimination either against someone a majority or minority sexual orientation, that still applies, you don't see a member of a majority group. This was a nine no decision by Justin Jackson, and I think it was, you know, a high leader mark for the court that not on these cases split sixty three, they often have nine hour results.

And also builds credibility. If you don't rule like a crazy person every time, at least someone can say, see, she's not totally crazy. Gun makers liability the Mexican government suing Smith and Western Brands to claim us liability over gun violence by drug cartels.

Yeah, this isn't unusual. Isn't the usual case? Michael. There's a federal law that prevents people from suing gum manufacturers because their guns are dangerous. The reason why is it, Well, uns're dangerous. That's a big exist for But Mexico tried to sue Smith and Wesson, saying, oh well, the problem is that they marketed these guns improperly. They tried to appeal to all these gang members and these cartels they named guns after, like you know, drug runners and stuff. And the Supreme Court said, no, you can't do that. As a federal ban on soon gun manufacturers and Mexico can't get around this. This is a case of the lower courts allow of the suits to go forward. He got a bankrupt that Smith and West and put these gun manufacturer in a business. So again the court had some high water marks where they were nine to oh, realizing that you can't you can't do this.

Another nine O ruling on May fifteenth, police use of excessive force in the Barnes versus Felix case.

Right, this is one of these issues that sort of pops up over and over again about when you're able to sue police officers for engaging in excessive force. And I think that again the court was pretty unanimous here.

Right.

It's generally the police get different, but sometimes a little bit too far. They have these subject to liability and I think even we all agree sometimes and you're a lot of work, you screw up and people get treated poorly. She gets some really.

Concord another Nino decision, regulation of flavored vapes FDA versus Wages and White Lion investments.

Right, this isn't really even about vaping. It's more about sort of the process that can go forward before you sort of make these regulatory changes. It's kind of a nerdy decision, but again not about vaping, but kind of just about the administrative process that you go through.

Why do you think they took that case because they don't have to.

Usually it's to settle what's called a split where the lower courses are divided. An issue also, it's an issue of importance where a lot of people in the vape industry were really, you know, whyt to get the disue settled, but went to nine to oh, especially nine zero reversal. That doesn't mean the lower court got it wrong. It just means that the court says, here's for the national standard. Here we're going to do it.

The case of Ghost Guns Garland versus vander Stock seven.

Yeah, this one sucked. I also know lawyers on this case. My colleague Chat Flora is another lawyer in Houston. We legated this case for several years. For the longest time people have been able to make their own guns at home. You know the eighty percent receiver kits. People have done this for years and then recently decided no, no, no, you can't, you can't. You can't make these guns at home. Even having a block of metal itself is a gun. You can do it through a background check. When the government changes are positioned on short notice, it's usually signed. Something's up. But we lost this one. I think the government, both Biden and then Trump, persuaded the court that these ghost guns are dangerous and we can't have them. So I'm so little, a little bitter on this one.

We lose the case because run him to TikTok versus Garland, Supreme Court unanimously upheld a law that sought to ban the wildly popular app TikTok in the US unless it were sold. That's the New York Times description.

Yeah, this is a this is an unusual case because Congress bipartisan vote to band TikTok. The Streame Court said this law is constitutional, that it can't go to an effect. Yet. I'm sure people listening have TikTok on the phones right now. Why because before Biden left office, he said I'm not going to enforce this law, and Trump said, I'm not going to enforce this law. So with this law on the books and the Streme Court have held it, yet TikTok continues, and I guess Trump's trying to work out some big beautiful deal to sell TikTok because it's owned by the Chinese. But it's one of these weird cases where the court spoken it didn't really matter the law.

The law soul never went to effect, which is interesting because they don't have a self enforcing mechanism. So for everyone who says, well, the Supreme Court ruled this about Trump and they're so upset about it, you know, he is disregarding the ruling. Well, who was the president who said I've heard your ruling, now enforce it. I'm trying to remember who that was.

But well, people say with Jackson, but he never actually said it's coming miss But it got the gist right.

United States versus Scremetti, the Tennessee case.

Oh, this is a big one, Michael So, Tennessee, like Texas and acted laws that banned what they call gender transition medicine for minors. This is puberty blockers, cross sex hormones. And then even you know operations to change genitals. People said that no, this law is on constitutional, it's form sex discrimination, and that it infringed in the rights of parents to provide this medical treatment to their kids. The courts puts six to three in this one, and the opinion is by Chief Justice Roberts. It was kind of a narrow decision. All Roberts said is this is just a regulation on age, because if you're over the age of eighteen, you can get this treatment. If you're age eighteen you can't.

I'm not sure if.

That's quite right. I mean, it's pretty much about sex that if you are a boy and you want to get these drugs and you're trying to become a girl, you can't. But if you're a boy trying to say the boy, you can get these drugs. It's kind of a weird ruling and it kind of avoided the underlying issue. I think the basic issue here is that the state kind have an interest in saying we don't want miners changing their genders, and we think that this is tough that could be harmful to them. Later on in life they might decide to detransition. That the science is far from settled, and we don't want this.

So the court I think got the right result.

But the reasoning was not as tie as it should have been.

Talk us all the way up to the break. I'm going to give you talk through the music until we cut you off. How has this court been different than you expected it to be?

Well, so far, I think the Court had a fairly decent term, and I think we're they sort of said to the lower courts, you need to stop the rate at which they're ruling against Trump and basically stopping from doing anything as too much. A lot of these cases will eventually get to the court in a couple of years. We can't have these lower courts issued universal injunctions and after the we often talk about the trumpepointees.

This was Kavanaugh's best term.

I think he did a pretty good job this term. Gorcich okay, Barrett okay, but Kavanaugh good one. Hell yeah, we're gonna take your ar fifteen opao. Oh yes, yes, yes, oh yes.

What is being called crypto week? The bitcoin bulls are very, very hopeful. This is the week. Bitcoin is the original digital currency, and it hit a new high of one hundred and twenty three thousand yesterday. More than double its value from one year ago. We have a show sponsor called Archpublic dot com. They do not sell bitcoin. It is a platform through which you buy and sell bitcoin. It is more the exchange than it is the seller of the coin. But it's based on a set of algorithms they have created that allow you to trade at to buy and sell. To simplify what they do at a certain time, whether you know, if bitcoin rises to one twenty five thousand, you could buy at that number, or if you're worried that it's dropped, it's going to drop if it drops to one twenty, so you could have kind of a stopgap gap a floor of one twenty. The reason that's important is because whereas the New York Stock Exchange is only open for a limited window during the day, bitcoin can be traded twenty four to seven. So if you're trying to sell at the moment that it hits a particular number, that might happen at two eighteen in the morning and you're not around to see that they are well. I will get into that in just a moment, but this is for folks who are watching cryptocurrency. This is the week to watch it because what Congress does this week could make Crypto go absolutely crazy. It's going to be interesting to watch the aforementioned to Steve Toath announcing today that he will be running for Congress representative from currently state representative. Steve Toath, Welcome to the program. Great to do with you, Michael.

You're not supposed to call me representative though my wife wi't let me hang out with you.

If you do, Yeah, I understand. Yeah, representative to take out the trash. That's that's an old standard and I love it.

Uh.

First of all, let's talk about before we get into your biography. I always ask if you're running against a candidate in your own party who is holding an office, there needs to be something you feel they're not doing well and you can do better. And so let's start with that premise.

Yeah.

So Frenshaw came into the Woodlands, which house Sister fifteen that I represent one of it is in Congressional District two, and this is you know three ors two three years ago when he sided with the Democrats to say that we want to pass legislation that allows five thousand people into the United States every single day, and when it hits five thousand, it then drops down to fourteen hundred, so sixty four hundred people into the in the United States every year, in other words, nearly two million people. Michael, and when we said it's not acceptable, he just absolutely belittled us, denigrated us, Me and Senator Creighton saying this is not acceptable. We're not going to put up with that. We want the border closed. And he said this is the best that we can do.

And we're like, just close the border.

And if you won't close the border, get.

The hell out of our way.

We can close the border. And he laughed at us and said, Texas can't close its border. You need the FEDS to do that for you, which we've closed the border in the past.

We have done that.

The only thing that we needed was for the United States federal government to get out of our way.

So that we could do it.

And so, yeah, he betrayed us, absolutely has betrayed us. You know, Trump saying closed the border, and Biden said, we can't close the border. We need legislation to close the border, and you know, in the Democrats and then Crenshaw sided with Biden to keep the border open and to allow this catastrophe to go on.

You know, I find Cringshaw to be consistent with neocons in that they want to send our men abroad to fight every war and open our borders to allow illegal aliens here. Those two go part and parcel. And it's not until you understand the the forum that they go to in Davos and that that is the mindset wars abroad illegal immigration at home, and they hold dear to both of those. But almost every Neocon is for wide open borders of some sort or another. And it's interesting how those two go together hand in glove. It's almost as if that's how they're told they're supposed to feel on the issue, and it's very disturbing. They also want to relocate as quote unquote refugees half the countries that we after we invade and bomb and lose our men, let's bring some of their folks home while we lose hours over there. It drives me nuts. I'll let you talk. You're the candidate. Let's talk about you. Let's talk about who Steve told this for someone who doesn't know who you are.

I'm a small business owner and I'm a pastor. I've done marriage, family of counseling for thirty years and It's been the greatest thrill in my life. I still do a lot of it. I love veterans. I feel a deep sense of obligation towards them because I feel like I missed out on something as a young man. We're at peace, we weren't at war when I got out of school, and I never went into the military.

I feel like I should have.

I feel like.

All young men should do that.

It's it's something of a character building experience, but it's also an incredible thing to do for your nation. And I feel like I missed out on that, and I feel like I just have an obligation towards it.

And so I got involved.

With Chad Robis Show several years ago.

And starting Mighty Oaks for a faith based veteran service organization, and it's just been the greatest thrill in my life to be part of it. I'm married for forty two years. I am a grandfather. I have Michael two sets of twins. Both sets of twins were born six years apart to the month.

And what else can I say?

A small business owner have a dozen employees and we have a.

Full construction and service business.

And you've done that for how.

Long third twenty twenty five years.

And you have been a state rep. For how long.

This is?

This will be my fifth term and I'm right now it's about eight and a half years.

So the obvious fact running for uh Congress in even numbered years, you'll have to give up your state rep seat?

Correct? Correct?

And is there a candidate in the offing that you support or you're just leaving that open to the to the to the voters. Yeah, all right, hold hold in for this moment. Your big Michael Berry State Representative Steve Toathe is our guest. He is announcing today. There will be a gathering this evening for the big announcement that he is running for the United States Congress. The last congressional candidate we had to announce on our show was Morgan Latrell, who cruised to a big victory in his race. Steve tothe will be ten year state rep. Challenging Dan Crenshaw, who will be finishing his fourth term as a United States Congressman. Steve Toad, let's talk first about tonight for folks who want to come out and be with you at your announcement, can you give those details?

You bet?

Michael, So we'll be at Grace Church for pizza and food and fun. Chad Prather and Kenny Webster are going to be master of ceremonies, and it just should be a great time. We're going to have several of the Freedom Caucus people there, including Ny Chastline, who's going to be heading up the Freedom Caucus for the Texas House next year. And yeah, it should be a great, great evening. We're really excited about it. A lot of people. We've had over one hundred people of step forward and endorse my campaign, and we're excited, really excited.

You know, usually a first time or usually a candidate for office may not have a political background and votes they've taken and actions they've taken, and fights they've been willing to engage.

But you do.

I think that gives you a certain amount. There is a frustration in the land right now, especially in that congressional seat, where folks say Crenshaw is not one of us, he doesn't share our values. He belongs to the swamp, he belongs to the establishment, he belongs to the people who fly you to Davos in Switzerland and give those big speeches. I think being a more regular person, a real person at church, a small business fighting in the state house. I think that gives you an advantage. It's tough, it's tough to beat a sitting congressman, but I think that gives you a leg up that most folks would not enjoy.

Yeah, I mean, you've been in an elected office. You know how it is, and you know how elected office changes people. And I have a pastor friend that once said to me. He said, he said, you don't know a man's character and what he's really made of until you drop him in hot water. In that way, they're kind of like a tea bag, right, you don't really know what it tastes like. You don't really know what it is until they're dropped in hot water. And there's no hotter water than politics. And there's just something about it when you get into when you get into an elected position, that for whatever reason, it tests a man's character, and so many of them. I like, you got behind Crenshaw. I was really concerned about who they were running for that office, and it was an anointed state rep. That had a terrible voting record, total swamp creature. And then along comes this guy that's a war hero, Navy seal, which you know, well, I love Navy seals, I love veterans, and I thought this guy was going to be great. Morgan has done a great job, Michael, he's just been amazing. Wesley Hunt's done a great job. Amazing two guys. But Dan just wanted to become part of the furniture in Washington as soon as he got there.

It's frustrating because I've seen things he has said doing interviews where it's late at night. He doesn't seem to be at himself. He's very angry, he's raging, he's very insulting of any constituent who questions him. It is most disappointing. It's not just that he's gone up there to do nothing, it's that he's gone up there to be a person who attacks the very people who voted for him, as if they're a bunch of heathens or heillbillies and idiots, and they don't understand the things he does. Very disappointing. He has also reacted in a snarly manner when questioned about how he has seen such incredible percentage trade increases on his stop trades. I think I think voters have every right to ask that question, and he starts cussing when they ask that. That's it's pretty ridiculous. If you ask me, he's out performing Warren Buffett.

The only person he's not outperforming is Nancy Pelosi.

And well, maybe you know what a career could be. But I don't know if he could do so well of you. He doesn't have inside information, right he and Hillary Clinton?

Right, I mean, they're just amazing.

It's an interesting thing, you know. I guess the one thing you could be really proud of in your congressional service is the one thing that the base absolutely despises you for because it's so incredibly, incredibly questionable at a minimum. And I'm holding my tongue. So what does it take to win this race? Let's talk about the parameters of this district and what this district looks like.

So it's the southern half of Montgomery County, basically all of House District fifteen, which is my district, and it goes all the way over to the east side of Montgomery County, over towards Splendora and Montgomery County is actually fifty five point five percent of the district Harris County. The east side of Harris County is only forty four point side of it, and it goes over you know, starts in the northeast of Harris County, which is Kingwood down to a task Casita, Crosby, and Channel View and that's pretty much. And then it goes along the southern part of Montgomery County, northern Harris County, which is the Woodlands Creek.

Side, and it has I've looked at the numbers in a minute, but it has been a reliably Republican district in November, which makes this primary like the general and a very very important primary. You know, it strikes me that Crenshaw is probably a better November candidate than he is a March candidate.

Exactly.

And one of the things that he has prided himself on when we're doing is redistricting. I was concerned about how the district was being drawn. I wanted to draw redder, I want it. I wanted it to be an eighty five percent district. And he cussed me out for wanting to bring more rural area into it, less democrat less democrats into it, and he said, only I could win a district like that, and like, you're.

Proud of that.

I mean, I don't want to work with Democrats. I want to defeat him. I want to beat him because that's what they want to do to us.

Yeah, I think Crenshaw recognizes that he is better being a candidate for Democrats who they can deal with, than Republicans who he won't. He won't follow what Republican primary voters want as their baseline. I think Republicans scare him a lot more than Democrats.

I really do.

Oh absolutely, he does not understand who the Republican base is because he's not part of you. He's never part of it. He did a really good job posing as one of us, but he's never really walked the line. He's never walked the party line. He's never been interested in anything that we've really had to say to him. I've reached out to in my office from time to time. You know, all of constituents that will have federal issues, and from time to time congressman will have issues that are state issues, and we work together. We've never been able to work with him ever. And so when I have an issue federal issue for a constituent, I reach out to Wesley Hunt, or I reach out to Morgan Latrelle, and their offices are amazing.

State Representative Steve Toath announcing today he is challenging Nan Crenshaw on the second Congressional District, once represented by Ted Coe for a number of years. That announcement tonight to the big party tonight at Grace Woodland's Church at six point thirty. We've got about a minute or so State Representative Steve Toath, why don't you talk about what you've done in the State House and I'll let you take it to the direct.

And one of the greatest challenges that we've got. Fifteen years ago when I got into politics, we were winning elections statewide elections with twenty four point margins. Now it's only eight. We've got to do a better job and empowering parents and getting our school back because they're inculcating our kids into Marxism.

We know that this nice last thank you and good night.