1 00:00:17,199 --> 00:00:21,359 We're back with another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Emily Drasnski, 2 00:00:21,440 --> 00:00:24,600 culture editor here at the Federalist. As always, you can email the show 3 00:00:24,600 --> 00:00:28,719 at radio at the Federalist dot com, follow us on Twitter at fdr lst. 4 00:00:29,039 --> 00:00:32,840 Make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcasts, and to the premium 5 00:00:32,960 --> 00:00:36,439 version of our website as well. Today, I'm so happy to be joined 6 00:00:36,479 --> 00:00:39,920 by my friend and Nez Stetman. And Nez, of course, you know, 7 00:00:40,200 --> 00:00:43,280 as a senior policy analyst at the Independent Women's Forum, where she is 8 00:00:43,320 --> 00:00:47,679 also the host of High Noon and Excellent podcast. That is and As. 9 00:00:47,719 --> 00:00:51,240 That's every week, right, it's every week, but every four weeks it's 10 00:00:51,240 --> 00:00:54,159 with Emily, So that's why you should listen to it. Yes, lucky, 11 00:00:54,600 --> 00:00:58,439 lucky lucky listeners just can't get rid of me. And As is also 12 00:00:58,479 --> 00:01:03,399 a senior contributor to Federalist. And Nez more importantly, for the purposes of 13 00:01:03,439 --> 00:01:10,680 this conversation, you went to law school and decided to pour your money down 14 00:01:10,719 --> 00:01:17,000 the drain to the University of Virginia. Yes, yeah, so that makes 15 00:01:17,040 --> 00:01:21,000 me very qualified to talk about student loans. By the way, that's actually 16 00:01:21,040 --> 00:01:26,319 really true. Maybe like the legal commentariat is in this one particular case extra 17 00:01:26,400 --> 00:01:29,879 qualified to talk about the Supreme Court decision on student loans. But I should 18 00:01:29,879 --> 00:01:32,560 say, right at the outside here the reason I wanted to have Anson. 19 00:01:32,879 --> 00:01:34,560 We were chatting a little bit back and forth, and I realized she was 20 00:01:36,359 --> 00:01:40,319 very, very pumped up about the Supreme Court and about some of the misconceptions 21 00:01:40,359 --> 00:01:42,959 about what's just transpired in this last session of the Supreme Court. We now 22 00:01:44,000 --> 00:01:48,560 have another session of the Supreme Court, especially this version of the Supreme Court 23 00:01:48,599 --> 00:01:53,120 post Trump appointments in the rearview mirror, and a lot of huge decisions. 24 00:01:53,159 --> 00:01:57,640 I mean, last year, everybody was focused on Dabbs. Next year, 25 00:01:57,799 --> 00:02:00,959 it's likely everyone's going to be focused on Chevron, at least based on what 26 00:02:00,000 --> 00:02:05,879 we know right now. But in this session they decided student loans, affirmative 27 00:02:05,920 --> 00:02:09,879 action, three or three creative, and a case that I'm probably missing one 28 00:02:09,879 --> 00:02:14,080 am I listen, I said, affirmative action, right, Those are the 29 00:02:14,080 --> 00:02:15,360 big three? Yeah, those are the big three. I mean huge. 30 00:02:15,439 --> 00:02:20,080 Like to have three cases of that caliber in one session is absolutely monumental, 31 00:02:20,800 --> 00:02:23,560 And I think that's in an interesting way, goes along with what Alana Kagan 32 00:02:23,639 --> 00:02:29,000 said in the student Loan opinion in her student Loan opinion, which was, 33 00:02:29,199 --> 00:02:32,599 you know, it's not so much interesting how conservative, how my conservative colleagues 34 00:02:32,639 --> 00:02:37,719 decided this case, as it is their decision to take up the case in 35 00:02:37,759 --> 00:02:39,439 and of itself. So and as we'll get into all of that, but 36 00:02:39,479 --> 00:02:46,840 I want to start just by asking you what the big takeaways from this last 37 00:02:46,840 --> 00:02:50,599 session were, and we can then dive into the specifics of those three big 38 00:02:50,639 --> 00:02:53,759 ones as we go along. Yeah, obviously these are decided on very different 39 00:02:53,800 --> 00:03:00,159 legal grounds. I do think the defining aspect of this court just sit in 40 00:03:00,199 --> 00:03:05,159 that space between legal and politics, is they are clearly on their way to 41 00:03:05,199 --> 00:03:12,680 developing a unified conception of actually enforcing some of the separation of powers issues and 42 00:03:13,120 --> 00:03:15,199 reigning in the power of the administrative state, of the deep state, as 43 00:03:15,240 --> 00:03:20,439 you might like to call it. They seem to be quite serious about that. 44 00:03:20,479 --> 00:03:23,280 They seem to be moving towards it from several different angles. Here the 45 00:03:23,360 --> 00:03:28,919 student loan case is decided, or at least on the merits part of it 46 00:03:28,960 --> 00:03:34,439 is decided in part with reference to this major questions doctrine that they are developing 47 00:03:35,639 --> 00:03:40,560 about basically, and actually it is very common sense. I think you don't 48 00:03:40,560 --> 00:03:44,560 need a lot of legal least to understand this. It is that actually big 49 00:03:44,599 --> 00:03:47,800 decisions, big policy decisions, ought to be made by Congress, that Congress 50 00:03:47,840 --> 00:03:52,120 actually has the power to legislate. Right this going back to you know Bill 51 00:03:52,199 --> 00:03:54,360 on Capitol Hill, you know, sort of a house rock kind of stuff, 52 00:03:54,400 --> 00:04:00,159 that Congress in fact does have to legislate these large changes in American law. 53 00:04:00,520 --> 00:04:03,080 That sounds very basic, but it's not been the case now nearly for 54 00:04:03,120 --> 00:04:08,879 a century, and definitely aggressively not the case for the last fifty years since 55 00:04:08,919 --> 00:04:14,639 the nineteen seventies and sixties. So this is a major shift. I would 56 00:04:14,719 --> 00:04:18,040 argue that it's eminently reasonable. In fact, it is the plane reading of 57 00:04:18,439 --> 00:04:23,360 the way our system is supposed to function. But it's it's a monumental shift 58 00:04:23,399 --> 00:04:28,920 in terms of the court actually, you know, enforcing the constitutionality of you 59 00:04:28,959 --> 00:04:31,319 know, how how laws are supposed to be made, you know what powers 60 00:04:31,360 --> 00:04:36,199 executive agencies actually have. And I think that's overall going to be a very 61 00:04:36,279 --> 00:04:39,800 very good thing. Oh and by the way, enforcing their own role in 62 00:04:39,839 --> 00:04:43,600 all of this, which is when when you mentioned Chevron and some of the 63 00:04:43,639 --> 00:04:46,959 cases that are probably coming up in the next term. Um, they they've 64 00:04:46,959 --> 00:04:50,800 also stepped out. And this is what Kaigan called judicial activism, or at 65 00:04:50,839 --> 00:04:55,800 least a branch of what Kagan is probably going to continue to call judicial activism. 66 00:04:55,839 --> 00:05:00,720 But in fact, it is the court reasserting its proper role and doing 67 00:05:00,720 --> 00:05:03,680 the things it's supposed to be doing, which is policing these kinds of boundaries 68 00:05:03,720 --> 00:05:06,720 between the different branches of government, and not doing what it's supposed to be 69 00:05:06,959 --> 00:05:11,480 not supposed to be doing, which is inserting itself into matters that are very 70 00:05:11,480 --> 00:05:15,439 clearly left to the states or to the people in terms of the democratic Republic, 71 00:05:15,480 --> 00:05:19,319 which is policing all of these sort of cultural issues very clearly basically throwing 72 00:05:19,360 --> 00:05:23,160 those back to the people. That's the broad contours of what I see, 73 00:05:23,160 --> 00:05:26,360 and I think it's very encouraging well, and that gets interesting in the case 74 00:05:26,399 --> 00:05:30,879 of three or three Creative, which is sort of stress testing Colorado's law post 75 00:05:30,120 --> 00:05:35,319 Masterpiece, which is a decision I think Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion on 76 00:05:35,519 --> 00:05:40,879 and left a lot of conservatives dissatisfied, and I think left Christians very obviously 77 00:05:40,959 --> 00:05:47,160 Christians and people of all fay it's vulnerable to lacking constitutional protections, and I 78 00:05:47,160 --> 00:05:51,560 would imagine in this case you would argue, is this was entirely proper for 79 00:05:51,600 --> 00:05:55,839 the Supreme Court to add to the docket. And I'll just ask you that 80 00:05:55,879 --> 00:06:00,360 with one more question, kind of baked in the left latched onto this completely 81 00:06:00,360 --> 00:06:09,000 inaccurate narrative that because Laurie Smith never actually got a real request to create a 82 00:06:09,000 --> 00:06:15,959 website, um for a gay wedding, they tracked down one of the forms 83 00:06:15,000 --> 00:06:20,759 that was submitted to her website that was cited in the court filing and said, 84 00:06:20,800 --> 00:06:24,680 this guy is not even gay, he's married to a woman. And 85 00:06:24,839 --> 00:06:28,399 it is shocked that this was listed here. Um. You can you can 86 00:06:28,480 --> 00:06:32,680 just see here illegitimate judicial activism. You can see that this is all a 87 00:06:32,800 --> 00:06:36,920 specter. This is fake. Um. But with that in mind, and 88 00:06:36,959 --> 00:06:42,199 as obviously that's incorrect, it should just add, um, you know they 89 00:06:42,560 --> 00:06:46,360 standing was not an issue as it pertains to that particular question, and it 90 00:06:46,399 --> 00:06:49,160 didn't matter in this case that Laurie Smith, you know that that could have 91 00:06:49,199 --> 00:06:51,639 been a fake request, it could have been a real request. She didn't 92 00:06:51,680 --> 00:06:57,079 have an obligation to verify it. And uh, whether or not it was 93 00:06:57,120 --> 00:07:01,399 real, it doesn't matter. She was stress testing a prep application of Colorado's 94 00:07:01,480 --> 00:07:04,879 law, which I think it was. The Appeals Court said the state declined 95 00:07:05,279 --> 00:07:10,720 to approve that they wouldn't be using it in a way that failed to protect 96 00:07:10,720 --> 00:07:13,839 its own citizens. So let me toss that over to you, as somebody 97 00:07:13,839 --> 00:07:15,920 who's actually, you know, been to law school. I can keep using 98 00:07:15,959 --> 00:07:20,439 these words all at what, but you take it away from me. I'm 99 00:07:20,480 --> 00:07:24,720 not that more advanced than you are. I never practiced law. Actually, 100 00:07:24,720 --> 00:07:28,120 this might be the one thing that I'm quasi qualified to do which you are 101 00:07:28,120 --> 00:07:31,800 equally qualified to do, which has read Supreme Court opinions the fun part of 102 00:07:32,079 --> 00:07:39,000 law school as far as I was concerned. But no so to some extent, 103 00:07:39,079 --> 00:07:42,480 this is true in the sense that a lot of these cases are tied 104 00:07:42,600 --> 00:07:48,680 up by specially selected plaintiffs right, especially selected for the purpose of challenging some 105 00:07:48,800 --> 00:07:53,199 particular law or aspect of the law. This is true, of course, 106 00:07:53,240 --> 00:07:57,000 on both right and left. For example of the famous case Lawrence v. 107 00:07:57,120 --> 00:08:01,160 Texas Right, which struck down sodomy laws and texts. Nobody was enforcing sodomy 108 00:08:01,240 --> 00:08:05,560 laws in Texas in two thousand and three. I hate to tell you, 109 00:08:05,720 --> 00:08:09,839 nobody was being arrested for committing sodomy, arrested, charged, and sent to 110 00:08:09,920 --> 00:08:13,199 jail in Texas in two thousand and three. It was it was an arrangement 111 00:08:13,279 --> 00:08:18,480 between a friendly prosecutor and UM and the prosecuted right basically saying, please do 112 00:08:18,600 --> 00:08:24,000 prosecute me for sodomy so that we can take this rame court UM and and 113 00:08:24,319 --> 00:08:28,959 potentially test whether the Constitution protects a right to sodomy. Right. So that 114 00:08:28,040 --> 00:08:35,600 was right privacy. But we'll I was gonna say it wasn't Masterpiece some like. 115 00:08:35,840 --> 00:08:39,720 Wasn't there some judicial activism involved in Masterpiece? Because Phillips was getting like 116 00:08:39,759 --> 00:08:46,440 sort of stress tested by LGBT activists who were confronting him with insincere and increasingly 117 00:08:46,480 --> 00:08:50,600 absurd demands. And in some sense that's kind of why we're here in Colorado 118 00:08:50,639 --> 00:08:54,159 anyway. Yeah, right, Um, But like I said, both sides 119 00:08:54,519 --> 00:09:00,759 do select their plaintiffs and search for, um, somebody that has the perfect 120 00:09:00,759 --> 00:09:03,120 case to try to tee up some of these legal issues. At least a 121 00:09:03,159 --> 00:09:05,679 lot of public interest law firms do. Now, some of the cases are 122 00:09:05,000 --> 00:09:09,519 just very organic in that way. Somebody has their rights violated, or so 123 00:09:09,600 --> 00:09:13,440 they think, they hire a law firm to protect them. But a lot 124 00:09:13,480 --> 00:09:18,840 of these cases are you know, public interst law firms or people who believe 125 00:09:18,919 --> 00:09:22,759 that some aspect of our court doctrine is wrong and they find plaintiffs that suit 126 00:09:22,960 --> 00:09:26,120 their their needs in that sense. So that's not unusual. It's not a 127 00:09:26,159 --> 00:09:31,399 one sided thing in terms of three or three itself. I mean, I 128 00:09:33,320 --> 00:09:39,080 think that this should have been a nine zero case because there are a couple 129 00:09:39,200 --> 00:09:45,080 I think axes of this case that in other cases in the future may require 130 00:09:45,159 --> 00:09:50,279 a lot of you know, sort of wrangling and refining because I think they're 131 00:09:50,320 --> 00:09:56,080 they're actually too quite difficult to axes of of sort of societal tolerance you might 132 00:09:56,120 --> 00:09:58,840 say that need and I'll lay those out in a minute. But on this 133 00:10:00,039 --> 00:10:03,399 particular case, both parties stipulated this is expressive conduct, right. So both 134 00:10:03,440 --> 00:10:09,919 parties basically said, this is usually what the First Amendment protects. This kind 135 00:10:09,960 --> 00:10:15,240 of expressive, creative sort of of action is in fact speech, right. 136 00:10:15,279 --> 00:10:20,039 So there's some conduct that is considered the equivalent of speech, and then there's 137 00:10:20,039 --> 00:10:22,639 also some speech that's the equivalent of conduct. Right. You might have heard 138 00:10:22,879 --> 00:10:26,679 of fighting words, right, which is a very small category at this point, 139 00:10:26,720 --> 00:10:30,639 but fighting words, right, Like, there are some things you can 140 00:10:30,679 --> 00:10:33,480 just say that are the equivalent of an action in our law. You can 141 00:10:33,519 --> 00:10:37,639 imagine harassment, right, You could imagine somebody following somebody down the street, 142 00:10:37,720 --> 00:10:41,320 like screaming slurs at them over and over again. Well, just saying the 143 00:10:41,360 --> 00:10:45,440 slur is protected, but doing that in conjunction with it, that's that is 144 00:10:45,519 --> 00:10:50,639 criminal in most states. Right, So there is this sort of distinction is 145 00:10:50,679 --> 00:10:56,039 sometimes difficult to sass out between speech and action. But here both parties stipulated, 146 00:10:56,080 --> 00:10:58,279 so they kind of you know, all of that to the side, 147 00:10:58,519 --> 00:11:01,279 right, That was not the issue before the court. It's it's it's whether 148 00:11:01,960 --> 00:11:07,919 this kind of quote unquote expressive conduct ought to be protected by the First Amendment 149 00:11:07,960 --> 00:11:11,759 and by the freedom of speech. And the answer is very clear like that 150 00:11:11,840 --> 00:11:13,240 it is. That's why I say this should have been nine zip. But 151 00:11:13,360 --> 00:11:18,799 once you leave aside that sort of complicated decision about what constitutes action and what 152 00:11:18,840 --> 00:11:24,159 constitutes speech where there could be legitimate disagreement between the left and the right wings 153 00:11:24,159 --> 00:11:26,840 of the court on that, once you leave that aside, this should have 154 00:11:26,879 --> 00:11:33,120 been okay. Well, if it is expressive conduct, there's no way in 155 00:11:33,159 --> 00:11:37,639 which that should have been restricted. Right, So it's kind of disappointing, 156 00:11:37,679 --> 00:11:41,080 it's kind of crazy that it didn't end up that way. But but this 157 00:11:41,240 --> 00:11:45,399 is I think of an important victory and as you say, sort of capstone 158 00:11:45,440 --> 00:11:50,519 and clarification of the masterpiece rule. I think it's important that this is not 159 00:11:50,759 --> 00:11:54,519 on religious liberty, though primarily this this case did not turn on religious liberty. 160 00:11:54,519 --> 00:11:58,440 She could have been not you know, her religious faith was almost aside 161 00:11:58,440 --> 00:12:03,200 the point um she could have want not wanted to do this this website um 162 00:12:03,679 --> 00:12:09,240 because she let's say, like was asked to do or a website for a 163 00:12:09,360 --> 00:12:13,240 KKK themed wedding, Okay, and she didn't want to do that. That 164 00:12:13,240 --> 00:12:16,399 that was that was sort of that was against her beliefs, whether it an 165 00:12:16,399 --> 00:12:20,440 anti gay wedding, not an anti gay wedding, but that would be a 166 00:12:20,480 --> 00:12:22,480 weird that would be a weird type of ceremony. But like an anti gay 167 00:12:22,559 --> 00:12:28,039 cause, an anti gay groups like annual meeting or whatever, anything like that. 168 00:12:28,799 --> 00:12:31,679 This is very much about whether or not as citizens of this country, 169 00:12:31,720 --> 00:12:37,840 we have the right to uh create and express ourselves um in line with what 170 00:12:37,879 --> 00:12:43,399 we believe, and whether other people can compel by laws to create something UM 171 00:12:43,440 --> 00:12:46,399 for a cause that they support and we don't, right, so, or 172 00:12:46,440 --> 00:12:48,960 that the artist doesn't UM. And when you think about it that way, 173 00:12:48,960 --> 00:12:52,559 it seems very obvious. Right. You know, you go to an artist, 174 00:12:52,559 --> 00:12:56,440 you asked them to commission a painting, um, but you wanted something 175 00:12:56,480 --> 00:12:58,279 that is like wildly offensive to that artist. Right. Maybe you want a 176 00:12:58,320 --> 00:13:03,679 portrait of Donna Old Trump in Napoleon's uniform with epaulets on right, and underneath 177 00:13:03,679 --> 00:13:09,120 you want it to scroll God Emperor Trump. All right, there are plenty 178 00:13:09,159 --> 00:13:13,559 of artists who do not want to create that object for you. You do 179 00:13:13,600 --> 00:13:16,759 not have you should not have the power of law to compel them to do 180 00:13:16,840 --> 00:13:20,960 that. So that's really what this case turned on. That being said, 181 00:13:22,039 --> 00:13:30,360 leaving aside that access in between conduct and expressive conduct versus speech versus like commercial 182 00:13:30,360 --> 00:13:35,480 conduct conduct. So for example, like a commercial transaction that has no expressive 183 00:13:35,519 --> 00:13:39,799 conduct, if you're just selling envelopes for example, right, that that has 184 00:13:39,879 --> 00:13:43,799 fewer protections in this regard than something like this that is closer to an artwork 185 00:13:43,879 --> 00:13:48,200 or an expression. So that, leaving aside, that's one whole axis of 186 00:13:48,320 --> 00:13:54,879 debate. I think what's interesting about this case. It's not actually in this 187 00:13:54,919 --> 00:13:58,240 case, but I could imagine a similar case that would bring up some of 188 00:13:58,240 --> 00:14:03,399 these issues. And it goes to something that the lower court said on this 189 00:14:03,440 --> 00:14:07,720 and they actually ruled that this woman was a monopoly of one because her expressive 190 00:14:07,759 --> 00:14:13,000 conduct was you know, essentially she had an esthetic monopoly on a particular kind 191 00:14:13,000 --> 00:14:16,600 of wedding invitation is and that's absurd, right that that's completely absurd. But 192 00:14:16,639 --> 00:14:20,200 it got me thinking about, you know, where this line is, and 193 00:14:20,320 --> 00:14:24,799 it leads into the hobby lobby side of things as well, because the question 194 00:14:24,919 --> 00:14:28,840 is, at what point are our constitutional rights for cement or otherwise, um, 195 00:14:30,000 --> 00:14:31,600 whether it's it's religious liberty under the first Member, where it's free speech 196 00:14:31,639 --> 00:14:35,919 under the First Amendment right, or whether it's it's one of our other rights. 197 00:14:35,000 --> 00:14:43,399 At what point do those rights cease to attach to an organization? And 198 00:14:43,679 --> 00:14:46,360 this is really the Mitt Romney question, right or corporations people too. And 199 00:14:46,840 --> 00:14:52,159 there seems to be like a spectrum to me that is going to have to 200 00:14:52,200 --> 00:14:56,519 be hashed out as to how far these kind of protections go or ought to 201 00:14:56,600 --> 00:15:01,360 go. When you have this one you know, based business, small business 202 00:15:01,399 --> 00:15:05,360 of one that's an expressive, expressive business like an artist, right, selling 203 00:15:05,360 --> 00:15:07,399 their works. It seems very obvious. So in this particular case, it 204 00:15:07,399 --> 00:15:11,000 seems very obvious. Right, Um, there are any number of other places 205 00:15:11,000 --> 00:15:13,799 to build wedding websites. Too bad for you if you liked the way she 206 00:15:13,879 --> 00:15:16,679 designs the flowers in the corner. You know what I mean? Too bad? 207 00:15:16,840 --> 00:15:20,639 Right, You don't get to force artists to do exactly what you want 208 00:15:20,240 --> 00:15:24,559 by the force of law. In the middle, I would put something like 209 00:15:24,600 --> 00:15:30,480 hobby lobby that asserted a religious liberty claim in a corporation that was still very 210 00:15:30,559 --> 00:15:33,200 much held. And I'm not an expert in the various corporate forms, but 211 00:15:33,279 --> 00:15:35,399 I think it's called a closely held corporation, which came up in the case 212 00:15:37,080 --> 00:15:41,120 because they the family was still very much in control of the company, right, 213 00:15:41,120 --> 00:15:46,559 it was very much still in the hands of the family. So there's 214 00:15:46,600 --> 00:15:48,360 that's that's a case that's sort of in the middle. In the middle, 215 00:15:48,360 --> 00:15:54,200 also, you might talk about organizations that have a particular expressive purpose, right, 216 00:15:54,240 --> 00:15:58,080 so the Heritage Foundation or the Federalists for that matter, right, you 217 00:15:58,120 --> 00:16:00,960 know, Um, those organizations the product they sell, or the New York 218 00:16:00,960 --> 00:16:08,200 Times is a expression of a particular point of view. And it would seem 219 00:16:08,320 --> 00:16:14,360 very weird, for example, to apply uh sort of neutrality or require some 220 00:16:14,440 --> 00:16:18,440 kind of neutrality for example, and a hiring on the basis of political opinion 221 00:16:18,120 --> 00:16:22,399 to places like that. But then if you move to very very large or 222 00:16:22,399 --> 00:16:27,399 even multinational corporations that are in they're publicly traded companies, right, so they 223 00:16:27,399 --> 00:16:30,120 have they have a board, they have shareholders, they might have a CEO 224 00:16:30,200 --> 00:16:34,440 that's the figurehead of it, they have thousands of employees right and there, 225 00:16:34,480 --> 00:16:40,879 to me, the question becomes much less clear, both because of the potential 226 00:16:40,919 --> 00:16:45,679 market share of the company and also because that expressive intent or for example, 227 00:16:45,559 --> 00:16:48,440 the religion quote unquote of the company. What does it mean to say that 228 00:16:48,519 --> 00:16:53,840 a company of you know, millions of people has a religious liberty interest. 229 00:16:56,240 --> 00:16:57,879 So of course, the sort of old Republican way of thinking about this is 230 00:16:59,000 --> 00:17:00,399 very much the mit Romney way, which is, you know, corporations are 231 00:17:00,399 --> 00:17:03,799 people, their their fiction, but we treat them as though they're a real 232 00:17:03,839 --> 00:17:08,319 person and they have certain rights attached that. I mean, I'm not necessarily 233 00:17:08,319 --> 00:17:11,640 convinced that that's the right way to think about it, and I think there 234 00:17:11,799 --> 00:17:15,160 I could imagine a version of this case for example, that you're talking about 235 00:17:15,680 --> 00:17:21,480 a huge company like you know, I don't know Facebook, that wants to 236 00:17:22,200 --> 00:17:27,559 censor particular views. That is, if it were if it were a government 237 00:17:27,640 --> 00:17:33,720 entity, it would be violating the First Amendment right um and wants to exclude 238 00:17:33,720 --> 00:17:37,079 certain customers deny service to certain customers on the basis of X. Right. 239 00:17:38,240 --> 00:17:41,720 First of all, what are the X is going to be? One very 240 00:17:41,720 --> 00:17:45,640 clearly is going to be race always that we have at a pop public accommodations 241 00:17:45,759 --> 00:17:49,079 piece of the puzzle. But it's not clear to me that that there shouldn't 242 00:17:49,079 --> 00:17:53,839 be other pieces of that puzzle. Maybe maybe we do require huge corporations. 243 00:17:55,240 --> 00:18:00,400 Maybe their interest in having a quote unquote expressive you know uh sort of purpose 244 00:18:00,519 --> 00:18:07,799 or speech is less than the interest of Americans to be able to freely exercise 245 00:18:07,880 --> 00:18:11,680 their own speech, right if I just I just think it gets much more 246 00:18:11,720 --> 00:18:14,279 complicated when you're talking about these very large corporations. So I think there are 247 00:18:14,279 --> 00:18:17,200 two axis that this is going to go down. This case should have been 248 00:18:17,240 --> 00:18:21,000 a slamdunk nine zero because it's so obvious. But one is that speech conduct 249 00:18:21,000 --> 00:18:25,039 distinction that's been fleshed out in both directions by the Supreme Court for quite some 250 00:18:25,079 --> 00:18:29,440 time, and it's continue to bedevil the Court. And then the other one 251 00:18:29,440 --> 00:18:32,400 that I think we really haven't dug into enough at all, and it has 252 00:18:32,440 --> 00:18:36,039 to do with all of the tech cases. And you know, to what 253 00:18:36,200 --> 00:18:41,240 extent they hold a monopoly, To what extent large corporations can exclude half the 254 00:18:41,319 --> 00:18:45,559 country and refuse to serve them, To the extent that an entire class of 255 00:18:45,680 --> 00:18:51,640 customers cannot find an alternative for a given service in a given market. I 256 00:18:51,680 --> 00:18:56,119 think these are all like interesting questions that we'll see probably come to the Court 257 00:18:56,119 --> 00:19:02,400 in the next five years. Every year, children are trafficked around the world. 258 00:19:02,440 --> 00:19:06,559 And now there's a new movie aimed at raising awareness to this often unseen 259 00:19:06,759 --> 00:19:11,079 horror. It's called Sound of Freedom from Angels Studios. Sound of Freedom is 260 00:19:11,119 --> 00:19:14,680 based on a true story. It shines a light on even the darkest of 261 00:19:14,759 --> 00:19:18,359 places. After rescuing a young boy from ruthless child traffickers, a federal agent 262 00:19:18,519 --> 00:19:23,119 learns the boy's sister is still captive and decides to embark on a dangerous mission 263 00:19:23,160 --> 00:19:26,319 to save her. With time running out, he quits his job and journeys 264 00:19:26,319 --> 00:19:30,440 deep into the Colombian jungle, putting his life on the line to free her 265 00:19:30,599 --> 00:19:34,640 from a fate worse than death. Starring Jim Cavizo, the actor renowned for 266 00:19:34,680 --> 00:19:41,400 his unforgettable portrayal of Jesus in The Passion, and Academy Award winner Mira Sorvino. 267 00:19:41,599 --> 00:19:45,759 The film is directed by Alajandra Monteverde. It's rated PG thirteen. Again 268 00:19:45,799 --> 00:19:49,359 It's based on a true story and it will be theatrically released in the US 269 00:19:49,480 --> 00:19:53,200 on July fourth, twenty twenty three. You can buy your tickets online. 270 00:19:53,279 --> 00:19:57,519 New theaters are being added daily, so check out the website for current information, 271 00:19:57,640 --> 00:20:03,359 and that is Angel Slash Freedom and listen. I've seen the trailer. 272 00:20:03,519 --> 00:20:07,799 Check out the trailer. I think you're gonna want to go see this film, 273 00:20:07,920 --> 00:20:11,920 especially in theaters. Just a fascinating glimpse at again, something that is 274 00:20:11,960 --> 00:20:17,160 a true story. It explores these themes of human trafficking, bravery, and 275 00:20:17,279 --> 00:20:21,240 justice. By supporting the movie, you contribute to raising awareness and propelling a 276 00:20:21,279 --> 00:20:26,640 movement to save children around the world. It's also a pay it Forward initiative. 277 00:20:26,680 --> 00:20:30,799 That's a concept where generous individuals provide free tickets for others to see the 278 00:20:30,880 --> 00:20:33,720 film. If you want to pay it forward, so that they can pack 279 00:20:33,759 --> 00:20:36,799 the theaters the week of July fourth. You can do so once again at 280 00:20:36,839 --> 00:20:40,799 angel dot com slash freedom. And if the price of a ticket is keeping 281 00:20:40,839 --> 00:20:44,880 you from going, generous fans have paid it forward tens of thousands of free 282 00:20:44,920 --> 00:20:48,880 tickets worth of money, so you can you can see the film opening week 283 00:20:48,920 --> 00:20:53,200 and you can get a free ticket also at angel dot com slash Free Tickets 284 00:20:53,440 --> 00:20:57,400 help spread that message worldwide. Sound of Freedom is coming to theaters July fourth, 285 00:20:57,559 --> 00:21:00,880 so you can buy your tickets today to reserve a spot opening week. 286 00:21:00,960 --> 00:21:04,319 And the more theaters are sold out, the more awareness is raised on this 287 00:21:04,400 --> 00:21:08,799 issue that so often does go unnoticed. Find a theater near you by visiting 288 00:21:08,839 --> 00:21:14,880 angel dot com slash freedom. Get your tickets today at that same website once 289 00:21:14,880 --> 00:21:22,759 again, that's angel dot com slash Freedom. Yeah, and again, the 290 00:21:22,880 --> 00:21:27,160 media took through the three creative and just it was idiotic. The coverage of 291 00:21:27,200 --> 00:21:30,319 it was just completely idiotic. You had multiple news outlets to the point where 292 00:21:30,359 --> 00:21:37,319 even the like absolutely depraved fact checking industry. I saw slap I think NPR 293 00:21:37,519 --> 00:21:41,240 with a fact check for saying that Laurie Smith refused to serve gay customers when 294 00:21:41,279 --> 00:21:45,920 in fact, it's on the first page of the opinion that the state and 295 00:21:45,000 --> 00:21:49,960 Laurie Smith both agreed she would serve any customer, regardless of any of their 296 00:21:51,039 --> 00:21:55,440 status as protected class. She just, you know, gay customer wants her 297 00:21:55,480 --> 00:21:57,640 to do graphic design for anything else, make a website for anything else, 298 00:21:57,640 --> 00:22:00,880 fine, she just didn't want to do it for the wedding. And it's 299 00:22:00,920 --> 00:22:10,559 just incredible how willfully the media is spreading a false narrative about the story. 300 00:22:10,599 --> 00:22:14,960 And that's something that actually one thing I want to ask you about seeped into 301 00:22:15,680 --> 00:22:18,920 the descents, not just in this case, but in the case of particularly 302 00:22:18,960 --> 00:22:25,640 the affirmative action decision I think three or three and the affirmative action case. 303 00:22:25,720 --> 00:22:33,160 We're just egregiously embarrassing for the presidents who have nominated these justices from the left, 304 00:22:34,599 --> 00:22:38,880 it was these were the sophomoric descents. I say that as somebody who 305 00:22:40,039 --> 00:22:42,480 genuinely thinks it's important. We talked about this on actually net Con Squad, 306 00:22:42,519 --> 00:22:47,119 which both of us to do for the m and Broke Foundation on this week's 307 00:22:47,119 --> 00:22:52,079 episode. Listen. I think it's important to have fair representations of the conservative 308 00:22:52,079 --> 00:22:56,000 and liberal positions present on the Supreme Court. Centrist positions whatever, so that 309 00:22:56,039 --> 00:23:00,759 they can kind of duke it out in their descents and their opinion. What 310 00:23:00,839 --> 00:23:07,720 we saw from contains Brown Jackson and Soda Soda Mayor was just even Elana Kagan 311 00:23:07,759 --> 00:23:12,519 in some cases was just embarrassing, especially in three or three in the affirmative 312 00:23:12,559 --> 00:23:17,519 action cases. And as I wanted to toss you that question with the reality 313 00:23:17,519 --> 00:23:22,920 that like or with the I guess assumption that these justices are supposed to be 314 00:23:22,920 --> 00:23:32,640 better than your average like liberal arts graduate who blogs for BuzzFeed, and yet 315 00:23:33,319 --> 00:23:37,400 that's what these descents read like to me. It will first all all engage 316 00:23:37,400 --> 00:23:41,640 in some ranks speculation to some degree. It's very clear to me that Kagan 317 00:23:41,799 --> 00:23:47,000 is the best of the liberals, that she's very intelligent, and actually she's 318 00:23:47,039 --> 00:23:49,839 just you know, I think she understands that at some point her descents are 319 00:23:49,839 --> 00:23:55,319 going to have to grapple with the analysis that the rest of the Court is 320 00:23:55,359 --> 00:24:00,480 actually using, which is largely a textual and originalist analysis on some of these 321 00:24:00,559 --> 00:24:04,000 questions. So you see her trying to like basically flip her brain from liberal 322 00:24:04,039 --> 00:24:11,079 mode into originalist mode and then trying to find arguments within those parameters. Um 323 00:24:11,119 --> 00:24:14,240 which, by the way, I think it would be will be very good 324 00:24:14,279 --> 00:24:18,720 for the court, like if if um if basically we can set the cannon 325 00:24:18,799 --> 00:24:22,599 of construction as originalism um and then have sort of different arguments within that. 326 00:24:22,640 --> 00:24:26,160 I think that's an enormous improvement. Um. So she's she's on sort of 327 00:24:26,200 --> 00:24:30,440 one end of this soda mayor. To me, I'm not convinced that she's 328 00:24:30,480 --> 00:24:36,319 really particularly bright. Um. Sorry, are you saying maybe she's not a 329 00:24:36,480 --> 00:24:41,160 wise Latina? Well, she's like that phrase, I think it was her, 330 00:24:41,759 --> 00:24:47,039 Oh, it was her. I think she said something like I would 331 00:24:47,039 --> 00:24:51,359 hope that a wise Latina, with the fullness of her experiences in life, 332 00:24:51,480 --> 00:24:55,720 would be able to come to a better decision. Um, I'm going to 333 00:24:55,759 --> 00:25:06,079 start referring to as a wise poll wise bull up anyway. But in between, 334 00:25:06,119 --> 00:25:11,279 I really don't know yet about Katangi Jackson. Her affirmative action logical, 335 00:25:11,359 --> 00:25:15,319 She strikes me as very ideological. But you know, back and forth, 336 00:25:15,480 --> 00:25:19,759 her attempt to grapple with what Clarence Thomas was writing about. They're both clearly 337 00:25:19,799 --> 00:25:23,440 pissed. They were both clearly pissed, pissed off. It was personal, 338 00:25:25,119 --> 00:25:27,720 yeah, but it just again like obviously both of us are biased ors Justice 339 00:25:27,720 --> 00:25:33,759 Thomas, because at least I'm sure we're both the greatest American living supreme in 340 00:25:33,839 --> 00:25:38,160 every sense of the word. But in this case, I mean a yeah, 341 00:25:38,200 --> 00:25:41,279 both of them obviously come to this with with personal experiences and that means 342 00:25:41,279 --> 00:25:47,039 sort of personal stakes. But at the same time, it was just sad 343 00:25:47,119 --> 00:25:52,119 to watch her grapple with his legal reasoning in a way that again it sounded 344 00:25:52,160 --> 00:25:56,319 to me like a college freshman trying to like fight with the professor. It 345 00:25:56,400 --> 00:26:00,000 was. It was just like really pathetic. Well, if I'm going to 346 00:26:00,079 --> 00:26:04,000 put the most generous construction on this, what I would say is the entire 347 00:26:04,119 --> 00:26:08,839 legal apparatus, you know, from law schools on up right up to the 348 00:26:08,880 --> 00:26:15,400 ABA, to all of these professional sort of constructs around the law, that 349 00:26:15,559 --> 00:26:22,200 they have been operating in a world where basically they get to ignore the right 350 00:26:22,680 --> 00:26:26,799 for a very long time. And you know, you have this famous speech 351 00:26:26,799 --> 00:26:29,519 of Edme standing up in nineteen eighty three and saying no, like we need 352 00:26:29,559 --> 00:26:33,480 to basically, and this is the beginning of the Federalist society saying no, 353 00:26:33,559 --> 00:26:38,119 like originalism is a legitimate canon of construction. This is, in fact the 354 00:26:38,200 --> 00:26:42,119 only sane canon of construction. This is how we should be reading law. 355 00:26:42,160 --> 00:26:47,359 We should be thinking about it in an originalist framework. Should be thinking about 356 00:26:47,359 --> 00:26:48,799 what the fun when we're talking about the Constitution, we should be thinking about 357 00:26:48,799 --> 00:26:52,799 what the founders and what the general public meaning of these words were when they 358 00:26:52,799 --> 00:26:57,759 were actually ratified by the people of United States. Right, so that, 359 00:26:57,920 --> 00:27:03,519 but prior to that, and then for a long time afterwards, until I 360 00:27:03,559 --> 00:27:07,519 think that this flip on the court basically the entire legal apparatus, and which 361 00:27:07,559 --> 00:27:11,759 you could rise and fall and be a smart, you know lawyer who then 362 00:27:11,039 --> 00:27:14,839 goes out in practices or gets a Supreme Court clerkship, and then comes back 363 00:27:14,880 --> 00:27:18,039 into the academy becomes a law professor. Right, you never had to grapple 364 00:27:18,119 --> 00:27:22,559 with conservative thought. And actually I was thinking about this a lot watching the 365 00:27:22,920 --> 00:27:26,680 Stanford Law you know performance a few months ago, from the students screaming at 366 00:27:26,759 --> 00:27:33,400 Judge Duncan unable to actually listen to a relatively bland talk of his. How 367 00:27:33,519 --> 00:27:38,680 are our law schools going to produce lawyers who can even argue in front of 368 00:27:38,680 --> 00:27:45,519 the Supreme Court because they are incapable of confronting the actual arguments and responding to 369 00:27:45,559 --> 00:27:51,640 them, but within the four corners of that courtroom, you have to because 370 00:27:51,839 --> 00:27:55,119 now the originalists are somewhat in charge, right, Yes, you know Kavanaugh 371 00:27:55,279 --> 00:27:59,519 and Roberts are sometimes a little squishy in the middle and so on. But 372 00:27:59,559 --> 00:28:03,559 like fun to mentally, you need to be able to make an originalist argument 373 00:28:03,559 --> 00:28:07,640 in order to sway the middle in that court. Now that has not been 374 00:28:07,640 --> 00:28:11,759 the case in the modern history of the court. So to be sort of 375 00:28:11,799 --> 00:28:18,000 intellectually generous to the newly dissenting three, they've never had to do this before. 376 00:28:19,599 --> 00:28:22,960 You can go your entire life in the legal world and make it all 377 00:28:23,000 --> 00:28:30,119 the way to the Supreme Court, never actually confronting originalists conservative jurisprudence. You 378 00:28:30,119 --> 00:28:34,720 can just ignore it. That's no longer true because there's a current composition of 379 00:28:34,720 --> 00:28:40,839 the Supreme Court. So they're they're they're wet behind the Earsagan Kagan will probably 380 00:28:40,880 --> 00:28:45,440 make more arguments within that construction going forward, and they already see that just 381 00:28:45,480 --> 00:28:49,160 because she she'll realize she asked you, and she's smart enough to switch m 382 00:28:51,599 --> 00:28:52,880 So to my aura, I doubt it. I think she's just I think 383 00:28:52,880 --> 00:28:57,799 we're just going to get op eds from her. A Kagan vote with the 384 00:28:57,799 --> 00:29:04,279 conservative justices in three h three would have been really interesting because she strikes her 385 00:29:04,359 --> 00:29:07,000 views are never going to match up, right, but she realizes what the 386 00:29:07,039 --> 00:29:11,480 game is and how to you know what the parameters of the game she's playing 387 00:29:11,480 --> 00:29:14,720 now well, and also just like even to your point about it, how 388 00:29:14,759 --> 00:29:19,039 it should have been decided nine zero like the old ACLU liberal approach to speech 389 00:29:19,079 --> 00:29:22,799 protections would have been all over this. In fact, I think ADF Kristen 390 00:29:22,839 --> 00:29:26,400 Wagner or argued this case of the Supreme Court on behalf of Lori Smith. 391 00:29:26,599 --> 00:29:30,839 I think I actually like built a coalition of artists to come together on this 392 00:29:30,960 --> 00:29:34,839 and and say, like absolutely this case should go in a particular direction because 393 00:29:36,880 --> 00:29:40,599 this is a matter of speech protections and to your point, much broader even 394 00:29:40,640 --> 00:29:45,680 than religious liberties. So that you know, the affirmative action decision, actually 395 00:29:45,920 --> 00:29:52,599 all of the decisions, we had some really good writing from Justice Thomas this 396 00:29:52,880 --> 00:29:59,519 round or the session, some actually kind of interesting stuff from you Injustice Roberts. 397 00:30:00,000 --> 00:30:03,440 Do you have any takeaways or are there particular parts of these of these 398 00:30:03,440 --> 00:30:11,240 decisions you think people should pay the most attention to from any of the conservative 399 00:30:11,240 --> 00:30:15,640 justices or even from the liberal justices in terms of like representative examples of bad 400 00:30:15,680 --> 00:30:19,200 logic. Was there any part of one that stood out well? Obviously what 401 00:30:19,240 --> 00:30:27,279 we've already talked about, the seemingly personal exchange between Jackson and Thomas. I 402 00:30:27,319 --> 00:30:30,880 mean, it's it's not lost on anyone that there's two black members of the 403 00:30:30,880 --> 00:30:34,920 Court and this is a decision on affirmative action, and I you know, 404 00:30:36,039 --> 00:30:38,079 look, we're biased, as we already said about Justice Thomas. But I 405 00:30:38,079 --> 00:30:41,200 think this is this is going to go down in history, is one of 406 00:30:41,440 --> 00:30:47,920 sort of the great defenses of a color blind constitution and the importance of that. 407 00:30:48,480 --> 00:30:52,279 But overall, I mean, look, it's funny because some of these 408 00:30:52,319 --> 00:30:56,759 are very legally important and some of them are very politically important. Some of 409 00:30:56,759 --> 00:31:00,759 these decisions right, So legally, I think it's monumental that the Court is 410 00:31:00,799 --> 00:31:10,440 now getting rid of this always um kind of on shaky ground exception to the 411 00:31:10,480 --> 00:31:14,720 color buying Constitution, to to sort of Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence, to the impermissibility 412 00:31:15,039 --> 00:31:21,519 of using racial preferences constitutionally. So I think it's monumental in that sense. 413 00:31:22,359 --> 00:31:26,759 How it's going to play out practically is really still too early to tell because 414 00:31:26,799 --> 00:31:32,680 it's it's it's just the beginning. You know, the universities are already indicating 415 00:31:32,720 --> 00:31:34,880 that they're going to find, you know, a new loophole for this, 416 00:31:34,960 --> 00:31:40,039 even though this decision says, and don't you dare use this loophole for example, 417 00:31:40,079 --> 00:31:42,799 the essays, you will strike it down again. You cannot use you 418 00:31:42,799 --> 00:31:48,680 cannot use these other factors as a proxy for race. But nevertheless, like 419 00:31:48,720 --> 00:31:52,559 they're definitely going to try to do it. They've already like intimated as much, 420 00:31:52,599 --> 00:31:56,720 I mean, like and as this is this issue is you're like genuinely 421 00:31:57,000 --> 00:32:02,200 extremely helpful on and can get into the weeds one So let me just tee 422 00:32:02,279 --> 00:32:07,039 you up here, because I think a lot of people might not know how 423 00:32:07,079 --> 00:32:09,240 the essays are used that they're I think it was like what one of four 424 00:32:09,279 --> 00:32:13,839 criteria before this decision, you know, you're allowed to use race as one 425 00:32:13,839 --> 00:32:16,160 of four criteria was used by some of these schools, and then they would 426 00:32:16,200 --> 00:32:22,920 take the essays or the personality you know, interview criteria and knocked down Asian 427 00:32:22,920 --> 00:32:29,599 Americans very conspicuously in ways that they weren't doing to other people. Harvard my 428 00:32:29,680 --> 00:32:35,519 alma mater, George Washington University we've seen statements from universities, you know, 429 00:32:35,680 --> 00:32:38,680 X, Y and Z corporations are fretting that their talent pipeline has been disrupted. 430 00:32:38,720 --> 00:32:43,519 How can we get divert people into Deloitte now, etc. Etc. 431 00:32:44,440 --> 00:32:49,440 God forbid they hire somebody without a college education. And as tell us what 432 00:32:49,519 --> 00:32:52,720 we can, basically give us your highlights from the decision, and then as 433 00:32:52,720 --> 00:32:57,799 you were sort of steering the conversation to what this actually does, given how 434 00:32:57,839 --> 00:33:05,440 adamant the schools are about having their sort of racial preference regime to continue on 435 00:33:05,519 --> 00:33:12,880 in the future. So in terms of lawfare and legal ramifications, this isn't 436 00:33:12,960 --> 00:33:15,799 that the principles involved here do not stop at universities, right, And I'll 437 00:33:15,839 --> 00:33:20,160 get to in a minute the battle with the universities that this is going to 438 00:33:20,200 --> 00:33:23,680 be. But the reasoning here, theoretically, first of all, applies to 439 00:33:23,720 --> 00:33:30,279 all government programs that that wait according to race. So there are preferential loans, 440 00:33:30,039 --> 00:33:34,680 there are all kinds of programs that are designed at you know, to 441 00:33:35,119 --> 00:33:39,720 increase representation of underrepresented minorities and so on. Those things are all now sort 442 00:33:39,720 --> 00:33:45,119 of ripe for challenge now that this declaration of the color Blind Constitution has actually 443 00:33:45,240 --> 00:33:52,400 been made. Even more interesting to me would be, you know, these 444 00:33:52,440 --> 00:33:54,680 are not the same things. The Civil Rights Act and the various titles of 445 00:33:54,720 --> 00:33:59,359 that and then the Fourteenth Amendment analysis, but there's a lot of cross pollination 446 00:33:59,400 --> 00:34:04,119 between the two illegally in terms of like what doctrines are sort of imported from 447 00:34:04,160 --> 00:34:07,960 from different kinds of analysis. And to me, the next logical step here 448 00:34:07,960 --> 00:34:12,840 would be to actually aggressively use the public accommodations piece of the Civil Rights Act 449 00:34:12,880 --> 00:34:17,599 and declare that companies really cannot discriminate on the basis of race, because what 450 00:34:17,679 --> 00:34:22,000 obviously when the Civil Rights Act was passed, this was more we were more 451 00:34:22,079 --> 00:34:23,639 thinking about, you know, as a customer, am I going to be 452 00:34:23,679 --> 00:34:30,760 discriminated against? You know, this is this motel on the Southern Highway going 453 00:34:30,760 --> 00:34:36,360 to serve the black customer? But theoretically, like this is also and there 454 00:34:36,440 --> 00:34:39,360 is an entire title about employment, and we have all of these discrimination cases 455 00:34:39,920 --> 00:34:44,719 under Title seven and of the Civil Rights Act about discrimination on the basis of 456 00:34:44,760 --> 00:34:52,639 race unemployment. Every major corporation, every major corporation, I would bet serious 457 00:34:52,679 --> 00:34:58,039 money, is discriminating on the basis of race in their hiring and promotion practices. 458 00:34:58,079 --> 00:35:02,880 Today they are discriminating again whites into a lesser extent agents because they want 459 00:35:02,960 --> 00:35:08,480 to put a diverse portfolio of people in their leadership. Okay, some of 460 00:35:08,519 --> 00:35:12,239 them are completely open about it. Some of them are less open about it. 461 00:35:12,599 --> 00:35:15,039 Right, And it is more complicated because you don't have sort of something 462 00:35:15,079 --> 00:35:19,760 as simple as a GPA and an SAT score. But you could do something, 463 00:35:19,760 --> 00:35:22,679 for example, of years of experience, years in management experience. I 464 00:35:22,719 --> 00:35:27,679 guarantee you if we got into Discovery and some of these large corporations, if 465 00:35:27,679 --> 00:35:30,000 we got to the point of actually getting some of those numbers, you would 466 00:35:30,000 --> 00:35:37,320 see disparities, perhaps not quite as obvious as in university admissions, but still 467 00:35:37,360 --> 00:35:44,519 like very substantial disparities about what background is required to get a promotion if you 468 00:35:44,559 --> 00:35:47,880 are a black woman versus a straight white man in these large corporations. So 469 00:35:49,320 --> 00:35:52,440 that I think could be even though it's not the direct legal consequence. There 470 00:35:52,440 --> 00:35:54,440 has been in the past a lot, as I said, of this cross 471 00:35:54,440 --> 00:36:00,760 pollination between analysis in these different fields that address racial discrimination, different laws that 472 00:36:00,800 --> 00:36:07,960 address racial discrimination. So I think it could be quite potent if conservatives have 473 00:36:08,039 --> 00:36:14,199 both the sort of the will to do this in a serious way. To 474 00:36:14,280 --> 00:36:19,480 really enforce color blindness in a serious way. I think it could be a 475 00:36:19,480 --> 00:36:23,440 bombshell, and I think I think it could be very very important. But 476 00:36:23,840 --> 00:36:28,000 as I said, enforcing it against universities, it's going to be I mean, 477 00:36:28,039 --> 00:36:30,320 it's going to require more than a Supreme Court case every two terms. 478 00:36:34,760 --> 00:36:38,079 The Washtout on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski. Every day Chris helps unpack 479 00:36:38,119 --> 00:36:43,039 the connection between politics and the economy and how it affects your wall is America 480 00:36:43,159 --> 00:36:46,119 not number one anymore? Sometimes it takes admitting we have a problem to'll be 481 00:36:46,119 --> 00:36:50,880 able to fix it. Between parental rights over their children or the government paying 482 00:36:50,880 --> 00:36:53,320 big tech for your private info, how can we right our wrongs to go 483 00:36:53,360 --> 00:36:57,400 back to being the shiny city on the hill. Whether it's happening in DC 484 00:36:57,599 --> 00:37:00,599 or down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially being warmed. Check out 485 00:37:00,599 --> 00:37:04,400 the Watchdoto on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify or wherever 486 00:37:04,440 --> 00:37:12,559 you get your podcast. And I absolutely want to ask you about the student 487 00:37:12,639 --> 00:37:16,519 loan question, um, because I know again this is like actually really the 488 00:37:16,880 --> 00:37:23,280 Nez Stepman Supreme Court session. It's like so specific to your interests. What 489 00:37:23,320 --> 00:37:28,719 are you doing behind the scenes. I went fishing with Jessice Thomas. That's 490 00:37:28,760 --> 00:37:32,239 the oh you took him on your mega yacht. To be clear, I 491 00:37:32,239 --> 00:37:35,800 would love to go fishing with Jessice Thomas. I've never been fishing with just 492 00:37:37,079 --> 00:37:42,320 this is I have to send this to Pro Publica now because I think you 493 00:37:42,960 --> 00:37:45,480 took justice time. I know you have that Maga Yott. You don't talk 494 00:37:45,480 --> 00:37:49,480 a lot a lot, but it's it's doctor and it's actually docked in my 495 00:37:49,880 --> 00:37:53,880 four hundred fifty square foot Okay, but it all makes sense now that I 496 00:37:53,960 --> 00:38:00,440 know, um that aside your obvious conflict of interest, aside um this student 497 00:38:00,559 --> 00:38:07,000 loan question, there was I actually do think there was a legitimate conversation about 498 00:38:07,039 --> 00:38:12,400 standing in this case. The States that brought the student deck question. There's 499 00:38:12,440 --> 00:38:17,280 a legitimate question on standing. But one way to ask you about that case 500 00:38:17,280 --> 00:38:23,119 would be with Chevron coming up next session, with Chevron on the table next 501 00:38:23,159 --> 00:38:29,440 session. Increasingly now that you know you're seeing these six three decisions come down, 502 00:38:29,480 --> 00:38:32,840 and you know the post Trump Supreme Court is a somewhat conservative place on 503 00:38:32,880 --> 00:38:37,199 some of these major questions. With Chevron on the table, we're really litigating 504 00:38:38,119 --> 00:38:44,440 or potentially looking at a curbing of bureaucratic authority of executive authority. I think 505 00:38:44,480 --> 00:38:46,480 this case is along those lines. Well, obviously this case is along those 506 00:38:46,519 --> 00:38:52,360 lines. But what does it mean for how far the left has pushed those 507 00:38:52,440 --> 00:38:54,880 questions, you know, since the age of Teddy Rosult and Woodrow Wilson and 508 00:38:54,920 --> 00:39:00,000 then into the Biden administration when we're looking both at the case and then potentially 509 00:39:00,079 --> 00:39:05,360 with the Chevron doction on the table next session. Okay, so these are 510 00:39:05,360 --> 00:39:07,960 two slightly even though they're both hemming in the power the administrative state. But 511 00:39:07,960 --> 00:39:14,199 there are two different lines here, right. Chevron is about when the course 512 00:39:14,280 --> 00:39:19,239 will step in when agencies are interpreting their own powers. So when an agency 513 00:39:19,719 --> 00:39:22,519 reads the statute and then they issue a regulation or dear colleague letter or whatever 514 00:39:22,599 --> 00:39:29,320 it is, the question of Chevron deference is whether the court will defer to 515 00:39:29,760 --> 00:39:32,119 their reading of the statute the agency's own reading of the statute. Now, 516 00:39:32,119 --> 00:39:37,800 this is obviously like take a man out of the street, ask him if 517 00:39:37,840 --> 00:39:40,599 you think that we should trust an agency to interpret the limits of its own 518 00:39:40,679 --> 00:39:46,559 power. Right, there's an obvious conflict of interest here, right, But 519 00:39:46,599 --> 00:39:50,079 the Court nevertheless said Okay, So, like a lot of these statutes are 520 00:39:50,159 --> 00:39:54,960 quite technical. Let's say you're an EPA and you're reading some like not the 521 00:39:54,960 --> 00:40:00,280 basic part of the Clean Air and Water Act, but some very like you 522 00:40:00,320 --> 00:40:02,840 know, niggly paragraph down, you know, five six, you know, 523 00:40:04,079 --> 00:40:08,480 paragraphs of a very technical stuff about what the EPA isn't isn't supposed to do, 524 00:40:09,199 --> 00:40:15,000 or what the EPA is and isn't supposed to enforce. Right, So 525 00:40:15,039 --> 00:40:17,519 the Court back back in the eighties, um, including conservative members of the 526 00:40:17,519 --> 00:40:22,480 Court like like Scalia at that time, said basically, well, look, 527 00:40:23,119 --> 00:40:28,079 yes, we retain this sort of theoretical power to review this, but we're 528 00:40:28,119 --> 00:40:32,920 going to defer unless we have a really really clear instruction from Congress. Super 529 00:40:32,960 --> 00:40:37,559 clear it says you know, it says black and the agency interpretation is white. 530 00:40:37,840 --> 00:40:44,199 Right, Um, we are going to defer to the agency itself and 531 00:40:44,280 --> 00:40:46,440 unless we have some really spectacular reason to overrule it. So like this is 532 00:40:46,480 --> 00:40:52,079 about where the bar is for overruling an agency regulation or interpretation of one of 533 00:40:52,119 --> 00:40:59,760 these statutes. So that is now getting pushed in a little bit, but 534 00:41:00,000 --> 00:41:04,079 it's really about hopefully in the next term, we have had West Virginia Verse 535 00:41:04,119 --> 00:41:08,039 CPA, and hopefully we will have in the next term some more narrowing or 536 00:41:08,079 --> 00:41:12,480 even the overturning of Chevron, which would be huge, but at least narrowing 537 00:41:12,599 --> 00:41:15,519 of that deference. That's about their own power of the court. They're saying. 538 00:41:15,719 --> 00:41:20,199 They're reasserting the power of the Court of themselves to go in and say, 539 00:41:20,400 --> 00:41:22,079 no, we're going to read this statute and we're going to do our 540 00:41:22,079 --> 00:41:27,360 own interpretation of it. We're not just going to automatically say that the EPA's 541 00:41:27,400 --> 00:41:31,559 interpretation of a statute that they're enforcing supersedes our own, because this is actually 542 00:41:31,599 --> 00:41:36,199 what the Court is supposed to do, right, read statutes and interpret them. 543 00:41:36,199 --> 00:41:38,280 It's very, in some sense, a very weird way to step back 544 00:41:38,320 --> 00:41:40,119 from the job of the court to say no, no, no, we're 545 00:41:40,159 --> 00:41:44,199 going to hand this opt to bureaucrats. So that's about their own power. 546 00:41:44,639 --> 00:41:50,920 The major questions doctrine is about the power of Congress versus the executive agencies. 547 00:41:51,320 --> 00:41:54,719 Right, So theoretically it's the power of the president versus Congress, but as 548 00:41:54,760 --> 00:41:59,840 we know, you know, these agencies operate largely without presidential oversight as well. 549 00:42:00,119 --> 00:42:05,920 Leave that aside for a moment, So it's about whether, and in 550 00:42:05,960 --> 00:42:08,239 some sense it's the same because you're talking about statutes and how far agencies can 551 00:42:08,320 --> 00:42:13,320 read it, and that's why that's the commonality between these two things. But 552 00:42:13,400 --> 00:42:16,800 in this case, it's about, Okay, well, Congress, on what 553 00:42:16,920 --> 00:42:22,920 level does Congress need to speak right and what sort of importance level of policy 554 00:42:22,960 --> 00:42:29,760 decision making can the agency not make those decisions without Congress. And in the 555 00:42:29,800 --> 00:42:34,840 case of the student loan student loan forgiveness plan, right now you're talking about 556 00:42:34,880 --> 00:42:39,760 billions of dollars. Appropriation is the most basic power of the legislative branch. 557 00:42:39,880 --> 00:42:45,159 Right Congress spends money, the president is supposed to execute in accordance with that 558 00:42:45,280 --> 00:42:51,480 spending. And now we have a president and an agency saying we are going 559 00:42:51,599 --> 00:42:55,639 to spend billions of dollars with the stroke of a pen the way that we 560 00:42:55,800 --> 00:43:00,679 think it should be sped on very very shaky statutory ground without additional instructions from 561 00:43:00,719 --> 00:43:06,000 Congress. So that's that's what's at a play here. But both of those 562 00:43:06,000 --> 00:43:09,559 things are going to start to constrain. Hopefully as you terms go by and 563 00:43:09,760 --> 00:43:15,960 the court develops, all of these different limitations will really constrain the power of 564 00:43:16,039 --> 00:43:20,079 agencies, which, as I said, something that hasn't dealt with so far 565 00:43:20,280 --> 00:43:22,079 very much the court that a third prong of us might come along at some 566 00:43:22,159 --> 00:43:30,480 point is the independence of agencies, both from Congress and what role Congress has 567 00:43:30,480 --> 00:43:34,159 an oversight of these agencies, and then even more especially from the president, 568 00:43:35,280 --> 00:43:40,679 because we even in statute we have some some agencies independent agencies that are allegedly 569 00:43:40,760 --> 00:43:45,239 sort of have certain powers apart from the president, and they're really like creatures 570 00:43:45,280 --> 00:43:51,199 of Congress. But even within the rest of these agencies, we know that 571 00:43:51,239 --> 00:43:57,320 on a practical basis, oftentimes the agencies are defying instruction from the president. 572 00:43:57,480 --> 00:44:00,639 Right, So we really do have That's why it seems like nothing ever changes 573 00:44:01,039 --> 00:44:05,760 in the country, right, because we really do have an enormous amount of 574 00:44:05,760 --> 00:44:09,639 our governance on autopilot with these same permanent bureaucrats who make the same decisions no 575 00:44:09,719 --> 00:44:14,800 matter who's in office. Um. And that's why it really does seem like 576 00:44:14,800 --> 00:44:16,559 if people check out of elections and so forth, because it seems like no 577 00:44:16,599 --> 00:44:21,519 matter who we elect, things don't change very much. And it's why we 578 00:44:21,519 --> 00:44:28,880 can have a you know, clearly mentally senile person in the presidency because who's 579 00:44:29,000 --> 00:44:30,760 there's all this palace intrigue, who's running who's running the country? That the 580 00:44:30,760 --> 00:44:35,079 agencies are running the country because they were running the country ninety percent of the 581 00:44:35,159 --> 00:44:43,239 time. Anyway, this um sounds and as somewhat like a rare, if 582 00:44:43,360 --> 00:44:47,480 unintentional white pill from you. And I know we were talking with Josh Hammer 583 00:44:47,519 --> 00:44:52,400 and Ben Weingarten about this over on nakon squad M. Josh felt sort of 584 00:44:52,119 --> 00:44:57,920 characteristically optimistic, and I think you actually even offered to bring everyone down, 585 00:44:58,000 --> 00:45:06,239 which sounds characteristic. But why, looking ahead, should people not say, 586 00:45:06,760 --> 00:45:09,880 listen, if you know, we're if these questions are coming to the court 587 00:45:09,960 --> 00:45:15,920 in the absence of congressional action, and if the quarters in a position to 588 00:45:15,400 --> 00:45:21,440 really smack down these extra constitutional mechanisms. I mean, think of if something 589 00:45:21,480 --> 00:45:25,639 like DOCCA Obama's executive order on DACA had come to this court. You know, 590 00:45:25,639 --> 00:45:30,760 so this is the sixth three court, this is I mean, some 591 00:45:30,800 --> 00:45:36,599 of these challenges could be pretty pretty difficult for the extra constitutional sort of bureaucratic 592 00:45:36,639 --> 00:45:39,800 regime to recover from. Or maybe I'm wrong about that question. So basically, 593 00:45:39,840 --> 00:45:46,360 why shouldn't we take this as a giant, delicious um white pill and 594 00:45:46,880 --> 00:45:52,639 white pill. I feel I fear that we're using and lingo that is revealing 595 00:45:52,719 --> 00:45:54,880 us to be people who spend way too much time on Twitter. You know 596 00:45:54,880 --> 00:46:00,039 what, why should we not see this with some sense of optimism rose colored 597 00:46:00,079 --> 00:46:06,480 glasses, I think is the old way to say that. Look, I 598 00:46:06,559 --> 00:46:10,480 think this is very encouraging. The big question mark is how it will be 599 00:46:10,519 --> 00:46:19,320 received. And I mean, so far we've seen three different prongs of attack 600 00:46:19,440 --> 00:46:23,760 from the left to try to delegitimize the Court in response to not just this 601 00:46:23,880 --> 00:46:29,760 particular set of decisions, but the last term, the Roby Wade being overturned 602 00:46:29,760 --> 00:46:34,480 and everything else. Look, we saw how the deep state responded to the 603 00:46:34,480 --> 00:46:38,639 American people lefting Donald Trump, and that was to cross all kinds of you 604 00:46:38,679 --> 00:46:43,800 know, for the people who scream about norms, to disregard some of the 605 00:46:43,840 --> 00:46:50,199 most important norms in a constitutional republic, like not prosecuting your domestic political opposition, 606 00:46:51,079 --> 00:46:55,360 like making sure that major foreign policy decisions run through the president and that 607 00:46:55,440 --> 00:47:00,559 the elected president has control over the military. Those that's a pretty big one, 608 00:47:00,960 --> 00:47:07,320 um, you know. So, and spying on a domestic campaign on 609 00:47:07,360 --> 00:47:15,920 the thinness of possible pretexts, treating the cases of different political opponents wildly differently 610 00:47:15,199 --> 00:47:21,199 by the FBI. Um. These are all really important ones. Um. 611 00:47:21,360 --> 00:47:27,440 So it remains to be seen to me how the left will respond to this. 612 00:47:27,719 --> 00:47:30,440 I've heard three possible ways to do legitimize and de legitimizing the Court so 613 00:47:30,480 --> 00:47:37,360 far. The first has been the probablia propablica reporting that we and then everywhere 614 00:47:37,440 --> 00:47:42,039 reporting um that that we were sort of alluding to with our jokes earlier, 615 00:47:42,079 --> 00:47:45,679 which is to try to portray the court is corrupt. Um. There is 616 00:47:45,760 --> 00:47:49,079 nothing to this reporting it is. I mean, every time I read it 617 00:47:49,119 --> 00:47:54,119 and I just don't understand it. It's something completely ordinary with a bunch of 618 00:47:54,119 --> 00:48:00,360 adjectives jammed in to make it seem really shady. But the end of the 619 00:48:00,440 --> 00:48:06,199 day, what you've got is that some justices have a rich friend. Um. 620 00:48:06,480 --> 00:48:13,320 The rich friend has basically no alignment in terms of judicial opinions. There's 621 00:48:13,320 --> 00:48:19,599 some extremely ten you know, tenuous third degree connections between some you know, 622 00:48:19,679 --> 00:48:25,000 alleged connection like overlap between some interest but there's not even a clear pattern of 623 00:48:25,000 --> 00:48:30,760 the justices ruling in the favor of those interests. The idea that that Justice 624 00:48:30,800 --> 00:48:38,400 Thomas gets his judicial philosophy from Harlan Crowe is absurdum and potentially racist depending on 625 00:48:38,440 --> 00:48:43,480 the context. I mean there's long been of course, it's always as never 626 00:48:43,519 --> 00:48:45,920 Clarence Thomas's idea, right, Like he couldn't have possibly come to his judicial 627 00:48:45,920 --> 00:48:51,639 philosophy himself. Um, he's got to be his his white wife or Harlan 628 00:48:51,719 --> 00:48:54,280 Crowe or you know, a million other or one Scalia was alive. It's 629 00:48:54,320 --> 00:49:00,000 he's a mouthpiece for Scalia, despite having different judicial philosophy on so key aspects 630 00:49:00,000 --> 00:49:04,320 then Scalia, including on Chevron. I think I might be wrong about that, 631 00:49:04,400 --> 00:49:09,400 but on for sure, on sort of criminal protections, procedure protections, 632 00:49:09,440 --> 00:49:14,079 they differed. Um, same thing with Harlan Coe. Harland Crowe is a 633 00:49:14,199 --> 00:49:21,199 moderate sort of no labels republican who is pro choice. Please explain to me 634 00:49:22,480 --> 00:49:25,079 how you think that he's like governing Clarence Thomas's decisions. I mean, it's 635 00:49:25,159 --> 00:49:29,960 ridiculous, um, But I do think that these repeated, you know, 636 00:49:30,119 --> 00:49:32,760 stories which you could easily to be clear, could and have found, like 637 00:49:32,840 --> 00:49:37,360 Luke Rosiak has found corresponding stories on all of the sort of the left members 638 00:49:37,360 --> 00:49:43,559 of the Court. It's really the result of the Court being less politicized than 639 00:49:43,599 --> 00:49:45,960 the rest of our politics more than anything else in the sense that there's a 640 00:49:45,960 --> 00:49:50,159 lot of personal relationships involved. The community around it as quite small. You're 641 00:49:50,159 --> 00:49:54,039 going to be having lawyers who argue in front of the court on a series 642 00:49:54,079 --> 00:49:58,719 of cases that are repeatedly appearing before the court. Both sides, you know, 643 00:49:58,840 --> 00:50:01,239 go and give talks the Federal Society and the American Constitution Society, which 644 00:50:01,280 --> 00:50:07,320 is the liberal version of the Federalist Society. You know that this is at 645 00:50:07,320 --> 00:50:10,760 the end of the day, this is a quite small sort of community of 646 00:50:10,840 --> 00:50:15,840 people. So there are going to be overlap, overlapping and protection sort of 647 00:50:15,920 --> 00:50:20,159 like you're going to find personal relationships between people. But yeah, like this, 648 00:50:20,159 --> 00:50:22,280 this reporting could have been done at anytime. Why is it being done 649 00:50:22,320 --> 00:50:27,599 now? I think it's to legitimize the court and try to make it appear 650 00:50:27,599 --> 00:50:31,119 corrupt, which is a pretty easy sell in an era where people are very 651 00:50:31,199 --> 00:50:35,639 easy to convince that our institutions are corrupt because so many of them are. 652 00:50:37,199 --> 00:50:39,800 And then the other two aspects I've seen. So there was an op ed 653 00:50:40,239 --> 00:50:45,840 in the New York Times by a law professor whose name escapes me, but 654 00:50:45,039 --> 00:50:52,480 impromatured given the impremature by The New York Times that basically the executive branch should 655 00:50:52,480 --> 00:50:58,000 refuse to enforce Supreme Court opinions. That would be one way of deligitimizing. 656 00:50:58,000 --> 00:51:00,239 And then, of course we have the one that's been kicked around for the 657 00:51:00,280 --> 00:51:05,840 last three or four years, which is packing the court. And so that's 658 00:51:05,840 --> 00:51:08,199 why I guess that will be the the black pill with the white pill or 659 00:51:08,280 --> 00:51:12,960 the you know, we don't actually know if those those attempts are going to 660 00:51:13,000 --> 00:51:15,280 succeed. They very well may, but but that's that's there is going to 661 00:51:15,320 --> 00:51:21,599 be an attempt to delegitimize the Court because some of these decisions, even though 662 00:51:21,639 --> 00:51:23,760 they're not, they by no means always go, you know, sort of 663 00:51:23,800 --> 00:51:27,639 the way the right would like to, especially with with Justice Kavanaugh, but 664 00:51:27,679 --> 00:51:31,480 even with Justice course that who has his own ideas about textual interpretation UM in 665 00:51:31,559 --> 00:51:37,599 Bostock and elsewhere, and then has has this very long standing which actually I 666 00:51:37,679 --> 00:51:42,920 kind of have a soft spot for this long standing sort of UH perspective on 667 00:51:43,000 --> 00:51:51,079 cases regarding UH reservations and Indian UM Indian government. It just strikes me that 668 00:51:51,199 --> 00:51:54,840 Justice Justice Gorsuch is the only Western member of the Court Um, as well 669 00:51:54,880 --> 00:52:00,400 as being I believe the only Protestant, and actually I think that that probably 670 00:52:00,400 --> 00:52:04,559 has a lot to do with how he sees some of those issues. But 671 00:52:04,639 --> 00:52:09,480 maybe the only Protestant conservative thin Kanji Brown Jaction is definitely Protestant. Yeah, 672 00:52:09,599 --> 00:52:14,800 it's not Catholic like the rest of them. They are. They really are 673 00:52:15,239 --> 00:52:19,920 talk about the puppet master. I'm kidding, Oh my gosh, Catholic listeners 674 00:52:19,920 --> 00:52:23,679 are about to Yeah, Catholics and Jews picked up most of the Supreme Court. 675 00:52:23,840 --> 00:52:27,800 Um so, yes, I guess if if, if, if Justice 676 00:52:27,880 --> 00:52:30,400 Jackson uh is a Protestant, should be the second Protestant on the Court in 677 00:52:30,480 --> 00:52:35,800 a overwhelmingly um, not overwhelmingly anymore, but a majority Protestant country. Um 678 00:52:35,840 --> 00:52:37,440 So, if we want to talk about being counting in affirmative action, maybe 679 00:52:37,480 --> 00:52:40,920 they need more Protestants on the on the Supreme Court. But um, I'm 680 00:52:40,960 --> 00:52:49,239 ready and willing, ready and willing to serve bad joke. But actually, 681 00:52:49,239 --> 00:52:52,239 by the way, this is something that's that's really great about the Federalist Um. 682 00:52:52,320 --> 00:52:54,400 I've always saw I'm, you know, sort of this atheist, Jewish 683 00:52:54,440 --> 00:52:59,840 background person who I think this is really great about the Federalist It's something that 684 00:52:59,840 --> 00:53:02,039 people don't talk about, is that there are a lot more Protestants on the 685 00:53:02,039 --> 00:53:07,920 Federalists writing staff and among their columnists then there are even on most like most 686 00:53:07,000 --> 00:53:15,000 conservative publications are staffed largely by writers who are either Catholic or other categories like 687 00:53:15,039 --> 00:53:21,159 agnostic Jews for the most part of some religious Jews, but more agnostic Jews, 688 00:53:21,800 --> 00:53:27,760 and unlike a fake racial category like AAPI, which brings together people from 689 00:53:27,800 --> 00:53:30,440 all over the planet. Of course, religion does infuse, or lack there 690 00:53:30,480 --> 00:53:35,280 of, infuses a lot about our worldview, and I think it's it's good 691 00:53:35,280 --> 00:53:38,079 that there's a magazine like The Federalist or a website like the Federalists that actually 692 00:53:38,119 --> 00:53:43,639 showcases the thought process of a lot of conservative Protestants, who, after all, 693 00:53:43,719 --> 00:53:46,280 make up the majority of conservative voters. We get it, you are 694 00:53:46,360 --> 00:53:51,320 sucking up in as. No. No, I think it is actually like 695 00:53:51,440 --> 00:53:57,679 parts of a Federalist just waiting for the Protestant integralist movement to take off. 696 00:53:58,000 --> 00:54:01,119 Oh no, it won't happen. But that's why I would feel comfortable with 697 00:54:01,159 --> 00:54:05,159 it. Well, yeah, you're you'll get fully on board. Well, 698 00:54:05,199 --> 00:54:08,199 note, I think that's very, very true, especially for conservative publications, 699 00:54:08,239 --> 00:54:14,440 and when you have a big swath of the country that's like nondenominational Protestant or 700 00:54:14,800 --> 00:54:20,800 you're just Protestant in general, not a very well represented demographic both with like 701 00:54:20,880 --> 00:54:25,320 I would argue black Protestants or sort of like royal white Protestants in media. 702 00:54:25,400 --> 00:54:29,960 So I totally agree with you on that tangent. But anyway, I started 703 00:54:29,960 --> 00:54:34,280 for interrupting, I that was that was it. I just I think the 704 00:54:34,320 --> 00:54:37,760 court there will be a big movement to de legitimize the Court. Um, 705 00:54:37,320 --> 00:54:43,079 it's going to put us on kind of the opposite I feel like a trajectory 706 00:54:43,480 --> 00:54:45,760 or fighting position. Then most of the right is now, which is I 707 00:54:45,800 --> 00:54:53,159 think very much on the side of either reforming or even detonating and beginning anew 708 00:54:53,280 --> 00:54:58,719 in a lot of our institutions. But I think in this case we're going 709 00:54:58,760 --> 00:55:02,199 to have to defend the institution of the Supreme Court. And of course it's 710 00:55:02,239 --> 00:55:07,960 all eminently fair, just on like the basic political sense, this is completely 711 00:55:07,000 --> 00:55:09,440 fair. Of this is how the cookie crumbles. You had control of the 712 00:55:09,480 --> 00:55:14,280 Court for decades. Now that the Conservatives have the control of control of the 713 00:55:14,280 --> 00:55:16,239 Court, they're going to decide cases a different way. You do not get 714 00:55:16,280 --> 00:55:20,079 to change the rules of the game. But of course the left that is, 715 00:55:20,079 --> 00:55:22,719 like the left is on that in so many other areas of politics that 716 00:55:22,840 --> 00:55:29,320 it would be foolish imagine they would not try here too. Yeah. No, 717 00:55:29,400 --> 00:55:31,400 I was going to say exactly that, like it's they were doing. 718 00:55:31,679 --> 00:55:37,039 They were getting how many speaking on a rarea or like private jets, whenever 719 00:55:37,079 --> 00:55:42,159 you name it, and now it's just delegitimizes the court anyway. All that 720 00:55:42,280 --> 00:55:45,079 is to say, and as a Stepman, we so appreciate your wisdom, 721 00:55:45,320 --> 00:55:50,719 your insight, your candor on today's chat, on this podcast, Emily, 722 00:55:50,760 --> 00:55:52,280 it's just so nice to me on my podcasts, so mean to me. 723 00:55:52,400 --> 00:55:57,440 I don't know what it is. It's like a schizophrenic. I feel like 724 00:55:57,440 --> 00:56:00,320 I mean to when Rachel's here as well, because it's better to you have 725 00:56:00,360 --> 00:56:06,960 a foil or I guess I'm made to both of you. Anyway, All 726 00:56:07,000 --> 00:56:08,920 that is to say, we genuinely appreciate it. This was really helpful, 727 00:56:09,039 --> 00:56:15,440 especially for those of us who sometimes get lost in the legal Sauce so and 728 00:56:15,559 --> 00:56:20,960 as Stepman, a senior policy analyst over at the Independent Women's Forum, also 729 00:56:21,000 --> 00:56:22,800 a senior contributor to the Federalist and the host of High Noon, which you 730 00:56:22,800 --> 00:56:27,519 can find wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you so much for stopping by 731 00:56:27,559 --> 00:56:30,079 once again. Thanks much for having me. Emily, you've been listening to 732 00:56:30,119 --> 00:56:34,679 another edition of The Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Emilijasinsky, culture editor here at 733 00:56:34,679 --> 00:56:37,239 The Federalist. We'll be back soon with more. Until that, would be 734 00:56:37,320 --> 00:56:57,000 lovers of fram and anxious for the fray you today