Speaker 1: Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Dan Pfeifer. You're about
Speaker 1: to hear a great conversation I just had with Leah Littman,
Speaker 1: a law professor, co host of Perkymedia, Strict Scrutiny, an
Speaker 1: author of Lawless, how the Supreme Court runs on conservative rievances,
Speaker 1: fringe theories, and bad vibes. We talked about this week's
Speaker 1: monumental Supreme Court decisions on the Trump administration's immigration policy,
Speaker 1: what's making Leah anxious about the upcoming decision on birthright citizenship,
Speaker 1: and the legacy of Roe v. Wade, including how it's
Speaker 1: playing in the race to unseat Susan Collins in Maine.
Speaker 1: We also talked about some of the other decisions we're
Speaker 1: expecting to come out of the Court soon, including decisions
Speaker 1: on mail ballots, trans participation in sports, and the independence
Speaker 1: of the Federal Reserve. It was a great conversation and
Speaker 1: we'll get to in a minute, but before we do,
Speaker 1: please consider becoming a paid subscribe to Friends of the Pod.
Speaker 1: Subscribers get access to add three episodes of POT Save America.
Speaker 1: Subscriber only shows like Pot Save America Only, Friends in
Speaker 1: My Show, Polar Coaster, and discounted tickets to Crooked Media events,
Speaker 1: including this falls croocket Con. Plus, it's the best way
Speaker 1: to support independent pro democracy media. Hit at crookad dot
Speaker 1: com slash. Friends who subscribe today also check out my
Speaker 1: substack newsletter of the message Box, which is where I
Speaker 1: share all of my best, most in depth takes. And
Speaker 1: I have a special deal for Podsave America fans. Sign
Speaker 1: up now at crookad dot com slash Yes we Dan
Speaker 1: get twenty percent off your subscription for an entire year.
Speaker 1: That's crooked dot com slash Yes we Dan. All right,
Speaker 1: here's my conversation with Leah Litman. Leah Littman, welcome back
Speaker 1: to pot Save America.
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Under these great circumstances. So originally when we schede visually
Speaker 1: we schedule this, we thought there was a chance the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court would have released all of its big monumental
Speaker 1: decisions at the end of this quarter per usual, Sam Malito,
Speaker 1: John Roberts has screwed up our best laid plans. But
Speaker 1: they have released a number of very important decisions that
Speaker 1: I want to talk to you about it. And then
Speaker 1: I want to talk about the decisions that are looming
Speaker 1: that are doomed to possibly ruined many people's Fourth of
Speaker 1: July break. Let us start with the case that I
Speaker 1: think has the most impact for the most people.
Speaker 2: Can I just start with the timing point?
Speaker 1: Oh please, please do please.
Speaker 2: Okay, because it's not just that you thought they would
Speaker 2: finish by the end of this week. It's that traditionally
Speaker 2: and historically, the Court has finished releasing opinions and argued
Speaker 2: cases before the holiday week. And these guys have one
Speaker 2: fucking job and they're not even doing that right, Like,
Speaker 2: they cannot bother to do law, and yet they can't
Speaker 2: finish according to schedule. Despite loving history and tradition, they
Speaker 2: cannot conform to this most basic tradition about how the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Works, which is important for many reasons, but primarily for
Speaker 1: podcast recording.
Speaker 2: Schill exactly, yes, exactly, super inconvenient.
Speaker 1: Okay, So this is important point to make. I'm glad
Speaker 1: you made that point. I want to start with the
Speaker 1: case that I think has the most impact on the
Speaker 1: most people. This is the sixth to three decision. Everyone
Speaker 1: listening and guess who the six and who the three
Speaker 1: there are that will allow the Trump administration to rescind
Speaker 1: temporary protective status for three hundred fifty thousand Haitian immigrants.
Speaker 1: This case is about a lot of things. It's a
Speaker 1: big deal. Talk to me about what was at stake
Speaker 1: in this case and what the ruling says.
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh, this case is so maddening. I have
Speaker 2: just become angrier about it with every passing hour. So
Speaker 2: the case involved actually two different revocations of the Temporary
Speaker 2: Protected Status program, and TPS is a method where the
Speaker 2: executive branch can offer immigration relief to individuals who undergo
Speaker 2: a rigorous vetting process who are from certain countries when
Speaker 2: returning them to those countries would be horrific because of
Speaker 2: conditions in those countries. And so Haiti was one such country.
Speaker 2: After devastating natural disasters coupled with, you know, the basic
Speaker 2: failure of the government, it's super dangerous to be in Haiti,
Speaker 2: and so temporary protective status was offered, so too with
Speaker 2: respect to Syrian nationals, and so early on in the
Speaker 2: Trump administration Fall twenty twenty five, Christin Nomes says we're
Speaker 2: just going to end these TPS programs for individuals from
Speaker 2: several different countries, and those decisions to end the program
Speaker 2: were challenged and these cases involved challenges to the end
Speaker 2: of TPS for Haitian nationals and Syria nationals by Statute Congress.
Speaker 2: Because of the importance of the TPS program to people's lives,
Speaker 2: you know, they structured their lives around being able to
Speaker 2: live and work in the United States required the Executive
Speaker 2: Branch to undergo a fairly rigorous process before deciding to
Speaker 2: end TPS, and specifically, the Executive Branch had to consult
Speaker 2: among different agencies to determine that conditions in that country
Speaker 2: were indeed sufficiently different that ending TPS was justified. And
Speaker 2: there's almost no question that the Trump administration didn't do
Speaker 2: that with the back to Haiti. In particular, emails suggest
Speaker 2: that the Department of Homeland Security asked the State Department
Speaker 2: to weigh in about conditions in Haiti and then went
Speaker 2: ahead and canceled TBS before State Department even weighed in.
Speaker 2: That's not actually consultation, and I don't think there's any
Speaker 2: argument on that point. You add to that the fact
Speaker 2: that the President said vile, horrible, grotesque things about Haitian nationals,
Speaker 2: and it sure looks like they decided to NTBs not
Speaker 2: because conditions in Haiti had changed, but because the President
Speaker 2: just wanted to fulfill Steven Miller's white supremacist immigration dreams.
Speaker 2: And so those were the challenges that the Trump administration
Speaker 2: violated statutes by not following the required processes and violated
Speaker 2: the Constitution by implementing this policy out of racial animus,
Speaker 2: discriminating on the basis of race. And in the six
Speaker 2: to three opinion, sam Alito was like, I don't care,
Speaker 2: do you know? On the statutory arguments? He said, who
Speaker 2: cares whether or not they complied with statute? Courts can't
Speaker 2: review whether they violated the statute or not.
Speaker 1: So it's a new finding right.
Speaker 2: That is a new, entirely new rule. For decades, it
Speaker 2: has been understood that even though the statutes don't allow
Speaker 2: courts to second guess the secretary's determination ultimate determination about
Speaker 2: whether to end TPS, they do allow courts to ensure
Speaker 2: that the Secretary followed the required process to ensure sound
Speaker 2: decision making. And sam Alito and co. Wipe away all
Speaker 2: of those rules and render all of these statutes unenforceable.
Speaker 2: They're basically guidelines at this point. The executive branch faces
Speaker 2: no consequences for openly flouting them. Donald Trump Mark Wayne
Speaker 2: Mullen could stand up tomorrow and say we're not going
Speaker 2: to follow these statutes and there's not a thing that
Speaker 2: courts could do about it.
Speaker 1: In the rule I want to get to the comments
Speaker 1: in a minute. In the racial I think that's very
Speaker 1: important and really plays a big role in why the
Speaker 1: decision is so mending. In the opinion about lead US amending.
Speaker 1: But what is the reason? You know, it seems like
Speaker 1: a pretty basic thing. Congress rights laws. The executive must
Speaker 1: follow said laws. If the executive does not follow those laws,
Speaker 1: someone who has standing sues and the courts come in
Speaker 1: and say you did not follow those laws, you must
Speaker 1: do something different. Is there something that they find an
Speaker 1: inherent authority of the president immigration? What is the basis
Speaker 1: for saying the laws don't apply on this particular issue.
Speaker 2: It's so wild to hear you say that, because this,
Speaker 2: unfortunately was a theme of almost all of the court's
Speaker 2: decisions from this last week, saying that people whose rights
Speaker 2: were violated can't do a thing about it, can't sue
Speaker 2: a challenge in federal court. So here their rationale was
Speaker 2: Congress had actually decided to impose these rules on the
Speaker 2: executive branch and to foreclose the possibility that courts could
Speaker 2: review whether the executive branch complied with those rules, So
Speaker 2: they put the decision at Congress's feet rather than saying
Speaker 2: the Constitution doesn't allow courts to review those determinations.
Speaker 1: So now let's get to the racial animis point and
Speaker 1: why that matters here, because I think for people who
Speaker 1: have been following this saga for a long time, the
Speaker 1: Haitian immigrants are the ones that Trump and Jade Vance
Speaker 1: and the entire MAGA media accused during the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four campaign of eating the pets in Ohio. Right, That's
Speaker 1: what we're talking about here, right.
Speaker 2: Well, and it wasn't just that it is. The President
Speaker 2: said people from Haiti have aids. He called it a
Speaker 2: shithole country. He said they were Haitian nationals poisoning the
Speaker 2: blood of the country. A bunch of racist, vile remarks.
Speaker 2: And sam Alido does not even have the backbone to
Speaker 2: recite those remarks in his opinion, he just declares they're
Speaker 2: not overtly racial. I have no idea what that means.
Speaker 2: Given that the President also said he wanted to admit
Speaker 2: more people from Sweden and Norway. Again, he tried to say,
Speaker 2: I guess there's xenophobic and really about opposition to immigration policy,
Speaker 2: which makes no sense. And also in any case, I
Speaker 2: don't understand why that would be constitutional. And if he
Speaker 2: cannot bring himself to recite the remarks of the person
Speaker 2: who he's saying isn't racist, I think that's a pretty
Speaker 2: big indication that maybe the person is racist and saying
Speaker 2: racist things. But he just kind of said nothing to
Speaker 2: see here and legalized what the president did and said.
Speaker 1: And so this means for patients that they're three and
Speaker 1: fifty thousand out them, I believe many of them is
Speaker 1: this country for quite a while now. I think TV
Speaker 1: has been run for.
Speaker 2: Almost a decade, right, yea, yeah, more than a decade.
Speaker 1: And so these people can all be deported now either
Speaker 1: in there when they go to the because you have
Speaker 1: to go to a regular check in, right, and so
Speaker 1: they go to the next time they encounter a nice
Speaker 1: officer or CVP officer, they could be deported. Same is
Speaker 1: true of Syrians. Now. I know Stephen Miller was on
Speaker 1: Fox News minimiz the dangers in Haiti and comparing it
Speaker 1: to Chicago, Saint Louis, Los Angeles, but Syria seems like
Speaker 1: a harder case to make that this is a totally
Speaker 1: safe and fine place to go back to.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think Haiti is a really maybe even
Speaker 2: tougher than Syria.
Speaker 3: Action.
Speaker 2: Yes, exactly, and so this would be the largest delegalization
Speaker 2: in United States history. So, while these cases specifically are
Speaker 2: about Haitian nationals and Syrian nationals, the Trump administration has
Speaker 2: attempted to end temporary protected status for individuals from other countries,
Speaker 2: including Venezuela, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Moore. You know, when
Speaker 2: Trump took office, there were more than a million people
Speaker 2: living in the United States with temporary protected status, and
Speaker 2: suddenly all of those people potentially lose their legal authorization
Speaker 2: to remain in the United States. And your point about
Speaker 2: check ins just drives home. The people they are penalizing
Speaker 2: are the people who followed the immigration rules. They underwent
Speaker 2: this vetting process, They do check ins with immigration officers,
Speaker 2: and so now the federal government knows who they are,
Speaker 2: where they are, and could be poised to effectuate these
Speaker 2: mass deportations. In her descent, Justics Kagan says, as a
Speaker 2: result of the court's order, they're basically telling the executive branch.
Speaker 2: You can put these people on the next plane and
Speaker 2: send them off. And it's just cruel what the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court is potentially allowing and inviting the Trump administration to
Speaker 2: do so.
Speaker 1: For the non Syrians, non Haitians who have protected that
Speaker 1: its like you mentioned Venezuelan's or we're also talking about
Speaker 1: people from Afghanistan, many of whom fled after the fall
Speaker 1: of the Afghani government, people who helped the American military
Speaker 1: and diplomats there, talking about Ukrainian refugees, all these other groups.
Speaker 1: Can the Trump administration now just sign a piece of
Speaker 1: paper and remove their tps or go through the fake
Speaker 1: process and even they don't even have to go through anymore, Like,
Speaker 1: are we just like one Stephen Miller email away from
Speaker 1: all from one point two million or whatever it is
Speaker 1: people potentially being deported potentially?
Speaker 2: Yes, And there have been cases challenging the recissions of
Speaker 2: the other temporary protected status programs as well. But in
Speaker 2: light of this decision telling courts they can't review any
Speaker 2: of the statutory claims and excusing the president's gut or racism,
Speaker 2: it's going to be really hard for any court to
Speaker 2: pause those recisions.
Speaker 1: Great, So this is not this is on us is
Speaker 1: truly terrible, and so then we have been sec We
Speaker 1: had a second immigration decision that came down. Now, this
Speaker 1: one is less immediate in its consequences and hinges as
Speaker 1: I understand it, on the meeting of the word arrive
Speaker 1: in immigration law. Can you explain this is another six
Speaker 1: to three with the typical six and the typical three decision.
Speaker 1: Can you explain what's going on in this case?
Speaker 2: Yeah, So this case is about the meaning of asylum
Speaker 2: law under international law and statues of Congress has passed.
Speaker 2: Individuals who arrive in the United States are entitled to
Speaker 2: claim asylum, and they are entitled to have their asylum
Speaker 2: claim assessed in a legitimate process and procedure. What the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court said is an individual doesn't arrive in the
Speaker 2: United States, and therefore they aren't entitled to claim asylum
Speaker 2: or have their asylum claim assessed if they are stopped
Speaker 2: outside of the physical borders of the United States. As
Speaker 2: Justice Sotomayora pointed out in her dissent, this creates a
Speaker 2: giant loophole. It tells the executive branch, so long as
Speaker 2: you physically block people from entering the United States, you
Speaker 2: do not have to consider their asylum applications. You can
Speaker 2: just turn them away wholesale. And that decision was entirely unnecessary.
Speaker 2: Part of what is so I think heinous both about
Speaker 2: the asylum case and the TPS case, is that the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court did not have to reach them on this
Speaker 2: asylum case. The case originated as a challenge to a
Speaker 2: policy that isn't in existence. It was a challenge to
Speaker 2: the so called metering policy that began almost a decade ago,
Speaker 2: and under that policy, immigration officials would turn away people
Speaker 2: and say we can't process your asylum applications if the
Speaker 2: quota for the number of individuals who could be processed
Speaker 2: at the border had been met. That policy was ended.
Speaker 2: There was not, in effect any policy that presented this
Speaker 2: question about whether the Trump administration could refuse to process
Speaker 2: asylum applications from people who they stopped outside the border. Instead,
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court went ahead and just told them, well,
Speaker 2: we've decided you could do this thing that you may
Speaker 2: want to do, and therefore paved the way for them
Speaker 2: to implement another callous immigration policy.
Speaker 1: And so in the original meeting policy, which began at
Speaker 1: the end of the Obama administration, YEP you would show
Speaker 1: up and they would say, we just had there are
Speaker 1: too many people today, We're not going to be able
Speaker 1: to get to your case. Come back tomorrow, yes, and
Speaker 1: we will look at your case. And so at that
Speaker 1: point it wasn't an attempt to deny them. It was
Speaker 1: essentially recognizing, you've shown up at the door. We can't
Speaker 1: let you in the door. We're acknowledging you have the
Speaker 1: right to make your assalud case and we are going
Speaker 1: to or we're going to allow you to do that
Speaker 1: on a different day when there is an actual someone
Speaker 1: who can hear it. Basically right, Yes, that was the
Speaker 1: And so now this seems like such an insanely stupid
Speaker 1: decision on so many levels, because it doesn't it seem
Speaker 1: to argue that if you are someone who has a
Speaker 1: you believe you have a legitimate asylum case, you're a
Speaker 1: company's United States to avail yourself off your human right
Speaker 1: to seek asylum consistent with our laws and traditions. You
Speaker 1: are better off sneaking across the border exactly and getting
Speaker 1: caught and then claiming in a solumn case, then showing
Speaker 1: up at the front door and asking to present your case.
Speaker 2: This decision is unhinged as Just as Sotamawyer wrote in
Speaker 2: her dissent, the consequences are predictable. More people will die,
Speaker 2: and among the reasons is it creates this incentive for
Speaker 2: people to try to sneak across the border, because only
Speaker 2: if they manage to get into the United States borders
Speaker 2: would they be able to claim asylum. This is another
Speaker 2: example of the Supreme Court adopting a rule that penalizes
Speaker 2: people who are trying to comply with immigration law by
Speaker 2: presenting themselves at the border and trying to assert an
Speaker 2: asylum claim.
Speaker 1: It's basically funneling them into these trafficking organizations that are
Speaker 1: making money to get them into the country as a tho.
Speaker 1: Just it's so to me, that's what it seems so
Speaker 1: insane about it. And so the net result of this,
Speaker 1: other than the consequence of the people who then now
Speaker 1: get injured, get hurt, get killed, are trafficked. You know,
Speaker 1: young women and children who go to these groups end
Speaker 1: up in very bad places, often in an attempt to
Speaker 1: get the United States. What is going to happen is
Speaker 1: the Steven Miller could just tell the CVP don't let
Speaker 1: anyone like exact, no one, no one gets in, so
Speaker 1: we will not recognize any legitimate asylum claims that come
Speaker 1: in through the normal process.
Speaker 2: Yes, it does not matter if someone could prove beyond
Speaker 2: a reasonable doubt that they would be persecuted, tortured, killed
Speaker 2: in their home country, the administration can just refuse to
Speaker 2: consider that.
Speaker 1: Now. In this I learned from your very the very
Speaker 1: excellent Emergency Strict Scrutiny podcast. You guys that did that
Speaker 1: came out today yesterday?
Speaker 2: What is today? Time doesn't mean anymore, it's June Friday.
Speaker 1: I listened to it this morning. But that during the
Speaker 1: release of this decision, that's something very dramatic and quite
Speaker 1: and perhaps unprecedented the history of the Supreme Court happening.
Speaker 1: You could you lay that out for.
Speaker 2: Us, So it's not entirely unprecedented, although it's deeply rare.
Speaker 2: By tradition, what happens is when the Supreme Court releases
Speaker 2: an opinion, the author of the majority opinion will provide
Speaker 2: some remarks and offer a brief summary of their case. Occasionally,
Speaker 2: but only in rare circumstances, will the author of the
Speaker 2: descent then proceed to summarize their descent and reading portions
Speaker 2: of your descent from the bench is reserved for very
Speaker 2: strongly held descents where you want to signal of very obvious,
Speaker 2: strong objection to what the majority has done. So in
Speaker 2: the asylum case, Justice So Too Mayor read portions of
Speaker 2: her descent and then sam Alito proceeded to respond and
Speaker 2: having the author of the majority opinion respond after the
Speaker 2: author of the descent summarizes their descent has happened maybe
Speaker 2: once or twice before. And Alito also intimated that well,
Speaker 2: had he known Justice So Too Mayor would have summarized
Speaker 2: more of her descent, he definitely had additional things he
Speaker 2: would have said because he could totally rebut all of
Speaker 2: her arguments, and it's just so petulant and yeah, unbefitting
Speaker 2: a justice.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, this is a long pattern of behavior
Speaker 1: for Samuel Aledo, going back to the twenty ten Supreme
Speaker 1: State of the Union, where he was so set that
Speaker 1: Barack Obama deigned disagree with the decision to allow corporations
Speaker 1: billionaires to buy our political system that he had to
Speaker 1: react viscerally and loudly during the he had basically had
Speaker 1: to hackle the present United States.
Speaker 2: Exactly exactly you think, right, The Tea party or whoever
Speaker 2: else invented hackling at the State.
Speaker 3: Of the Union.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, no, no, Sweet.
Speaker 2: Summer Child, it was sam Alito.
Speaker 1: Yes, a man who clearly has infulse control problems. Yes,
Speaker 1: particularly when criticized, perhaps by.
Speaker 2: Coins definition of a judicial temperament.
Speaker 1: Yes, when criticized by people who buy quins as having
Speaker 1: to be people of color the box in particularly.
Speaker 4: This podcast is sponsored by Squarespace. Squarespace is the on
Speaker 4: in one website platform designed to elevate your online presence
Speaker 4: and drive your success. Squarespace provides all the tools you
Speaker 4: need to promote and get paid for your services in
Speaker 4: one platform. Whether you offer consultations, events, or other experiences,
Speaker 4: Squarespace can help you grow your business. Squarespace offers a
Speaker 4: complete library i professionally designed and award winning website templates
Speaker 4: with options for every use and category. No matter where
Speaker 4: you start, your website is flexible to what you need
Speaker 4: with intuitive drag and drop editing, beautiful styling options, unrivaled
Speaker 4: visual design effects, and more ways to list what you
Speaker 4: offer no experience required. Squarespace domains makes it easy to
Speaker 4: find the best name for your business at one fair,
Speaker 4: all inclusive price, no hidden fees or add ons required.
Speaker 4: Make smarter business decisions with Squarespace's intuitive built in analytics tools,
Speaker 4: review website traffic, learn where to focus engagement, and track
Speaker 4: revenue from bookings, invoices or product sales, all from one place. Plus,
Speaker 4: Squarespace provides everything you need to bring more of your
Speaker 4: dream to life, whether that means building a website or
Speaker 4: adding a professional email service. Head to squarespace dot com
Speaker 4: for a free trial, and when you're ready to launch,
Speaker 4: go to squarespace dot com slash cricket to save ten
Speaker 4: percent off your first purchase of a website or domain.
Speaker 4: That's squarespace dot com slash Cricket.
Speaker 3: Podtavemeric has brought you by sleep me quick question. When
Speaker 3: was the last time you went to bed before midnight
Speaker 3: without your phone beaming blue lighted into your weary little eyes? Lastday, night,
Speaker 3: last night? Nothing, you go to sleep early.
Speaker 1: Nothing.
Speaker 3: Beer is worse with trying to fall asleep than having
Speaker 3: a full breakdown of the latest news cycle running on
Speaker 3: a loop in your head. Here's what's happening. The stress,
Speaker 3: the screen time, it all raises your core body temperature,
Speaker 3: and a body that's too warm cannot get into deep sleep.
Speaker 3: You're not just tired because the news is exhausting. You're
Speaker 3: tired because your body never actually recovered from the day.
Speaker 3: The good news is that you can do something about it,
Speaker 3: and it's simpler than you think. Lower your bed temperature.
Speaker 3: Sure you could develop better habits of mind and your
Speaker 3: Chilibad two point oh, the water based mattress topper that
Speaker 3: actively controls your bed temperature from fifty five to one
Speaker 3: hundred and fifteen degrees all night long, all night. No
Speaker 3: new mattress, no renovation, It fits over what you already have.
Speaker 3: Chili Bad two point zero actively cools or warms your
Speaker 3: bed using water, and water is key here. Chilibad uses
Speaker 3: actively chilled water to cool your bed, actually pulling heat
Speaker 3: away from your body. It's like the difference between standing
Speaker 3: in front of a fan and jumping into a cold pool.
Speaker 3: The new two point oh comes with a redesigned dock,
Speaker 3: quieter than ever, with a larger internal tank. The topper
Speaker 3: itself is now a premium performance grade cover that unzips
Speaker 3: for easy washing and has built in waterproof protection. And
Speaker 3: unlike a lot of tech out there, there's no subscription.
Speaker 3: You buy it, you own it. Two year warranty designed
Speaker 3: and assembled in the USA, just north of Charlotte. The
Speaker 3: Chili pad I have the one point I'm an upgrade
Speaker 3: to the two point zero, and basically you bet has
Speaker 3: an air conditioner on it. You can make it warm
Speaker 3: when you're cold. You can make it cold when you're warm.
Speaker 1: You can.
Speaker 3: You know what I'd like to do is I set
Speaker 3: it really cold before I go to sleep and I'm
Speaker 3: watching TV, and then right before bed I raise the temperature.
Speaker 3: Interesting because then as I'm falling to sleep, it's cool,
Speaker 3: but then I'm not cold in the night.
Speaker 4: Oh okay, that's interesting.
Speaker 3: Visit www dot sleep, dot me slash crookeet to get
Speaker 3: up to two hundred and fifty five dollars off your
Speaker 3: Chili Pad two point zero with code crooked. That's www
Speaker 3: dot sleep s l e E P dot m slash crooked,
Speaker 3: free shipping and free returns in a thirty night trial
Speaker 3: so you can test it out, dream big, and wake
Speaker 3: up better. The headlines will still be there in the morning,
Speaker 3: boy will they. You might as well wake up ready
Speaker 3: for them.
Speaker 1: Okay. Another big case happened here, and this one caused
Speaker 1: a different corner of the Internet to be a flame.
Speaker 1: The Maha corner of the Internet is very upset about
Speaker 1: a case where the Supreme Court tossed out a suit
Speaker 1: against Monsanto's parent company involving claims that the weed killer
Speaker 1: round up caused cancer. And this one is interesting because
Speaker 1: this is not our traditional six to three group of
Speaker 1: the sixth, the three we know and love, and the
Speaker 1: sixth we have come to detest in many cases. This
Speaker 1: is a seven to two decision where Kagan and Soda
Speaker 1: Mayor actually were with the majority and Katachi Brown Jackson
Speaker 1: and of course which I believe we're with. We're the
Speaker 1: ones who dissented. Talk to me about this case and
Speaker 1: did the majority get it right in this one?
Speaker 2: So the case is about the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Speaker 2: Redenticide Act, or FIFFRA.
Speaker 1: As as we call it.
Speaker 2: Yes, Shaw has called this one of her favorite statutes.
Speaker 2: I don't know why, but it's a federal law that
Speaker 2: gives the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, the authority to
Speaker 2: regulate pesticides. And what happens is companies submit their proposed
Speaker 2: label for their pesticide to the EPA and then the
Speaker 2: EPA signs off on them. And the question in this
Speaker 2: case is whether an individual could sue a pesticide manufacturer
Speaker 2: saying that the label that the EPA had approved did
Speaker 2: not contain enough information to adequately warn them about the
Speaker 2: danger of the product. And so here the allegation was
Speaker 2: Monsantos product roundup contains an ingredient that causes cancer and
Speaker 2: that's not disclosed on the EPA warning label. And so
Speaker 2: what the Supreme Court said here is this statute gives
Speaker 2: the EPA and the EPA alone the authority to determine
Speaker 2: what goes on a label, and the label can only
Speaker 2: be changed if the EPA orders a change or if
Speaker 2: the EPA approves a change. Private parties states they can't
Speaker 2: impose additional requirements beyond what the EPA has decided is warranted.
Speaker 1: And so where do you come down on this as
Speaker 1: as a law professor, legals call yourself.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I think the Court probably got it right here,
Speaker 2: in part because the agency has a lot of authority
Speaker 2: over how these labels are made and what goes on them.
Speaker 2: And I think there was a congressional choice to prioritize
Speaker 2: uniformity over other considerations and wanting a single process, a
Speaker 2: single decision maker to determine what goes on these labels
Speaker 2: and valuing the EPA's expertise over the expertise of say,
Speaker 2: state juries or state decision makers. And that's a choice.
Speaker 2: Congress considered the pluses and minuses, and I think the
Speaker 2: Court was probably right to say, we need to respect
Speaker 2: the choice that Congress has made. Now, I have other
Speaker 2: issues with the Manzanto decision, just considered it in light
Speaker 2: of some the other cases that the Court made, but
Speaker 2: I think standing alone, the Court probably got it right.
Speaker 1: And now this was about one specific case in misery,
Speaker 1: but there are other suits against Monsanto out there that
Speaker 1: will be tossed out because of this.
Speaker 2: Exactly yes, yep.
Speaker 1: And does this have an impact on broadly on corporate
Speaker 1: liability or the ability of individuals to sue companies along
Speaker 1: lines or is it pretty specific to this one Fiffra
Speaker 1: If I'm exactly Fiffer related ruling.
Speaker 2: It's pretty specific to the Fiffra Statute itself, because the
Speaker 2: Court focused on the fact that Congress, in that statute,
Speaker 2: has a provision labeled uniformity, and in the statute gave
Speaker 2: the EPA a bunch of authority over all stages of
Speaker 2: the labeling process. And that's not necessarily going to be
Speaker 2: true in other statutes. And so yes, it's going to
Speaker 2: insulate this set of corporations from this particular type of lawsuit,
Speaker 2: but not beyond that.
Speaker 1: And could these individuals sue the EPA for the for
Speaker 1: the label not being you know, fully fulsome enough to
Speaker 1: give them what they needed to know to make the
Speaker 1: right decisions here or these people just kind of screwed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So they can file Administrative Procedure Act lawsuits against
Speaker 2: the EPA and challenge the agency's actions with respect to
Speaker 2: these labels. That is not going to get them damages,
Speaker 2: you know, for any harm that they might have experienced
Speaker 2: because of a failure of these warning labels. But they
Speaker 2: could try to get the EPA to change them going forward.
Speaker 1: And you said that you while this in a vacuum,
Speaker 1: maybe was the right decision, you have concerns more broadly,
Speaker 1: I take it that is the fact that corporations are
Speaker 1: like one million in oh in the Roberts Court over
Speaker 1: the last twenty two years or whatever it is.
Speaker 2: That would be the general labor of the objection. And
Speaker 2: even if you just look at the decisions from this
Speaker 2: past week, so Montando Corporations can't be sued for labels
Speaker 2: that allegedly contain insufficient warnings that cause people to get cancer.
Speaker 2: Earlier this week, the court said you can't sue corporations
Speaker 2: for abetting human rights abuses that foreign governments commit. They said, corporations, however,
Speaker 2: can sue foreign governments, namely Cuba, for taking their oil.
Speaker 2: They said individuals who are incarcerated, they cannot sue state
Speaker 2: officials who violate their religious freedom rights. They said TPS
Speaker 2: recipients can't suit a challenge the executive branch for violating
Speaker 2: their rights under the statute. In another immigration case, they said, effectively,
Speaker 2: lawful permanent residents can't enforce this statute protecting their right
Speaker 2: to re enter the United States at the border. So
Speaker 2: who gets to sue to enforce their rights? Corporations. You
Speaker 2: can't sue corporations for violating international law, for potentially violating
Speaker 2: state tort law. You can't sue state officials for violating
Speaker 2: federal law. You can't sue federal officials for violating federal law.
Speaker 2: And so if you just aggregate all of these decisions together,
Speaker 2: it's like, Okay, who has rights, who doesn't? Corporations, everyone else.
Speaker 1: Bringing the TPS, And what's going to go back to
Speaker 1: something I meant to ask you before given this decision.
Speaker 1: What would stop a president AOC, Gavin Newsome, Kamala Harris,
Speaker 1: whoever else, from just deciding on day one that they
Speaker 1: wanted to grant tps to everyone from say Mexico.
Speaker 2: It's so funny you say that, Dan, because that was
Speaker 2: actually an argument in the case that the challengers said, Look,
Speaker 2: if you completely insulate these decisions from review, they can
Speaker 2: be abused in either direction. So in one of the
Speaker 2: final passages of the opinion, sam Alito suggests, well, look,
Speaker 2: the plaintiffs in these cases they throw out these hypotheticals,
Speaker 2: were not going to necessarily say those would be unreviewable,
Speaker 2: but maybe Congress could fix them. And so there was
Speaker 2: this narrow potential caveat that the court reserved for itself
Speaker 2: because they view themselves as the ultimate decision maker to
Speaker 2: potentially say, maybe some wholesale abdugations might be reviewable.
Speaker 1: So just per if, perchance, say a Democratic president wanted
Speaker 1: to unveil themselves of the executive authority that they found
Speaker 1: inherited Donald Trump's actions, there was a way for them
Speaker 1: to stop that from happening.
Speaker 2: Ding ding ding ding ding Perfect perfect, perfect.
Speaker 1: Perfect goodness. Make sure you know I didn't go to
Speaker 1: law stable, but I'm sort of I'm picking up what's
Speaker 1: happening here.
Speaker 2: I mean, from these decisions, it's not clear sam Alito
Speaker 2: did either.
Speaker 1: That's fair enough, fair enough, Okay, Let's get to the
Speaker 1: cases that have not yet been released and will maybe
Speaker 1: release Monday or Tuesday of next week. We think, we hope,
Speaker 1: who knows?
Speaker 2: Do we hope honestly? Like they're bad things?
Speaker 1: I mean, I hope, I hope for you, as someone
Speaker 1: who has a podcast schedule, you have to get to
Speaker 1: that that happens earlier in the week. Routh better, I
Speaker 1: would say for everyone Monday and Tuesday than Thursday, perhaps, Okay,
Speaker 1: all right. The biggest one is that everyone's waiting for
Speaker 1: is the one on birthright citizenship. Everyone seems to think that,
Speaker 1: since the Constitution is quite explicit on this, it would
Speaker 1: be seemingly impossible for the Supreme Court to do this.
Speaker 1: You hit a piece of the contrarian where you raise
Speaker 1: some real question, you have some worries about this, or
Speaker 1: I'd like to hear what those worries are. And I
Speaker 1: think it also raises some measure of concern that they've
Speaker 1: been sitting on this, like this is something they could
Speaker 1: have done in a one sentence order a year ago,
Speaker 1: and we've been waiting and waiting and waiting, And just
Speaker 1: based on what I've read in Reserve, the fact that
Speaker 1: they're waiting so long on this at least suggest that
Speaker 1: there's something going on. So what is going on here?
Speaker 1: Tell me about the case, Tell me about tell me
Speaker 1: about why specifically you have worries about what this decision might say.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So, the case is a challenge to the president's
Speaker 2: executive order that purports to deny birthright citizenship to some
Speaker 2: people who are born in the United States, even though
Speaker 2: the first sentence of the fourteenth Amendment says all persons
Speaker 2: born and naturalized in the United States and subject to
Speaker 2: the jurisdiction thereof, shall be citizens. So it's a wildly
Speaker 2: illegal executive order. And I think most people, even after
Speaker 2: the oral argument and even now, think it's more likely
Speaker 2: than not that the Supreme Court will say that order
Speaker 2: can't be enforced and it's unconstitutional. But and this is
Speaker 2: a big butt. The recent immigration decisions are really concerning
Speaker 2: the fact that the Court adopted such broad reasoning in
Speaker 2: cases where they didn't have to do so at all.
Speaker 2: I think is causing some people to rethink their confidence
Speaker 2: and what the Court might do on birthright. I think
Speaker 2: the delay could also signal that the decision isn't going
Speaker 2: to be unanimous, and if it's not unanimous, that's going
Speaker 2: to meaningfully alter the Overton window as far as what
Speaker 2: people's understanding of our constitutional multiracial democracy is. You know,
Speaker 2: if you have dissents by Justice Thomas and Alito, is
Speaker 2: birthright citizenship going to become a new litmus test for
Speaker 2: Republican appointees where the expectation is you will only be
Speaker 2: selected for a judicial seat if you would overrule birthright citizenship,
Speaker 2: just like you could only be selected for a judicial
Speaker 2: seat if you would overrule Roe versus Wade. It would
Speaker 2: also invite, you know, future challenges to birthright down the road.
Speaker 2: So I think those are some of the things that
Speaker 2: are on people's mind. But then there's this additional consideration
Speaker 2: for me, which is, even if the Court does the
Speaker 2: right thing, I mean, they just cannot get all of
Speaker 2: the credit and all of the plaudits that are inevitably
Speaker 2: going to be heaped on them for standing up to
Speaker 2: the president when as we were just talking about. They
Speaker 2: bent over backwards to greenlight some of the more xenophobic,
Speaker 2: white nationalist elements of his immigration agenda when they didn't
Speaker 2: have to do so. They are the ones that created
Speaker 2: the need for this case on birthright citizenship and indeed
Speaker 2: demanded that the federal government bring the case to them
Speaker 2: when last year in the nationwide injunction case, they refuse
Speaker 2: to just come out and say, even if lower courts
Speaker 2: can't block this policy on a nationwide basis, we Supreme
Speaker 2: Court kent because it's wildly unconstitutional. And instead they made
Speaker 2: the Solicitor General promise that he would appeal any unfavorable
Speaker 2: ruling back to them to give them the opportunity to
Speaker 2: be the hero. And so they were the ones that
Speaker 2: created this potential opportunity for great pr for themselves that
Speaker 2: will give them cover for who knows what else they
Speaker 2: might do in addition to all of the terrible things
Speaker 2: they've already done.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's interesting because John Roberts is a very political individual,
Speaker 1: and he tries and he's not a very good political individual,
Speaker 1: but he tries to be one. And so I can
Speaker 1: see in his simple minded view where he's like, we're
Speaker 1: gonna do all these terrible things, and then we're going
Speaker 1: to head into fourth of July break with this decision.
Speaker 1: That will cause everyone to say, see, all those liberals
Speaker 1: who want to expand the court and do term limits
Speaker 1: and say we're a bunch of MAGA shills are wrong.
Speaker 1: And then there will be a series of legal pundits
Speaker 1: who will then applaud John Roberts, and he will write
Speaker 1: off into the sunset is a hero.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: I mean, you say he's simple minded and not that great,
Speaker 2: but the end of your sentence, I just think is correct.
Speaker 2: When the Court, if and when the Court rules against
Speaker 2: birthright citizenship, there will be all of those takes and
Speaker 2: people talking about how the Court has stood up to
Speaker 2: the president and isn't just in the bag for MAGA
Speaker 2: and isn't on board with all of Trump's agenda. And therefore,
Speaker 2: you libs and you progressives who want to reform the court,
Speaker 2: what would you do if Donald Trump could reform the
Speaker 2: Court when he disagreed with it like that? There's going
Speaker 2: to be so much of that.
Speaker 1: But those takes are why America's most popular and influential
Speaker 1: Supreme Court podcast exists. Right, you will be you, You
Speaker 1: Kate Mussel will be on that wall back against that.
Speaker 1: I know that.
Speaker 2: Yes, I mean we have been screaming about this for
Speaker 2: over a year.
Speaker 1: At all, and trust to the Supreme Court is at
Speaker 1: an all time low. So don't think you're not You
Speaker 1: have not put your wheel to the your shoulders to
Speaker 1: the wheel of history.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, send strict scrutiny to more friends, challenge, but no,
Speaker 2: I mean, it's not to say it's going to work,
Speaker 2: but it is going to generate some of the coverage
Speaker 2: that they want, and it's just going to be annoying
Speaker 2: as fuck when it does.
Speaker 1: Yes, So let's say hypothetically this is a seven to
Speaker 1: two decisions and in you know, Alito and Thomas or
Speaker 1: whoever else they are against it. Can you fathom in
Speaker 1: your brain what that argument would be like? It is
Speaker 1: hard to find something as plain text as this in
Speaker 1: the with as with as a simple and specific application
Speaker 1: as this. You know, It's like, obviously freedom of speech
Speaker 1: is in there, but then they are all kinds of
Speaker 1: different applications you can take on it. This is basically like,
Speaker 1: if this happens, you are a citizen and Trump and
Speaker 1: administration is arguing if this happens you are not a citizen, Like,
Speaker 1: what is the what is the the legal argument someone
Speaker 1: could muster as bullshit and fake as it would be
Speaker 1: that would say that birthright citizen is not a lot kid.
Speaker 1: They could be curtailed or stopped by it by an administration.
Speaker 5: Ah.
Speaker 2: Yes, So, having ventured into the dark recesses of right
Speaker 2: wing legal circles, I can offer you at least two.
Speaker 2: So one would be to say that there is a
Speaker 2: recognized exception for birthright citizenship, that birthright citizenship do not
Speaker 2: extend to the children of invading armies. You know, if,
Speaker 2: for example, Canada decided to invade the United States, and
Speaker 2: you know, officers who participated in that invasion had children
Speaker 2: born in the United States while they did so, then
Speaker 2: those children would not be citizens of the United States.
Speaker 2: And some on the right have argued that unauthorized immigration
Speaker 2: is the equivalent of an invasion of the United States,
Speaker 2: you know, borrowing on great replacement theory and other white
Speaker 2: nationalist tropes. And so one possible legal theory is the
Speaker 2: justices could equate unlawful unauthorized immigration with an invasion and
Speaker 2: say children who were born to individuals without legal status
Speaker 2: in the United States are the equivalent of the children
Speaker 2: of invading armies. That's one possibility. Another possibility is the
Speaker 2: court basically reads the exceptions to be the rule. So
Speaker 2: the phrase, as we were talking about in the fourteenth
Speaker 2: Amendment is all persons born and naturalized in the United
Speaker 2: States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. And
Speaker 2: part of that exception recognizes that children of foreign diplomats,
Speaker 2: for example, you know, they are not born as United
Speaker 2: States citizens, just like children of invading armies aren't United
Speaker 2: States citizens. And so part of the federal government's argument
Speaker 2: is to basically take those quite narrow exceptions and generalize
Speaker 2: them into a rule that basically swallows the rule of birthright.
Speaker 2: That says, well, individuals whose parents don't have an allegiance
Speaker 2: to the United States, their children can't be citizens. And
Speaker 2: so those are two possible avenues. Both are ridiculous, and
Speaker 2: I think rest on underlying racist tropes about who is
Speaker 2: sufficiently American that birthright citizenship was intended to Rebut that's
Speaker 2: exactly what dreads God versus Sandford did when it concluded
Speaker 2: that individuals who are descendants of its slaves persons couldn't
Speaker 2: be citizens because they too weren't American enough and didn't
Speaker 2: have allegiance to the United States, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2: But I think that those are two of the theories
Speaker 2: that are on hand.
Speaker 1: That's very dark and very disturbment. Thank you for visiting
Speaker 1: the dark side to share that, share that with us.
Speaker 1: I think it's also notable that maybe the decision will
Speaker 1: come out right about the time the United States World
Speaker 1: Cup team is playing in the knockout round, where the
Speaker 1: leading scroller World Cup team is someone who has their
Speaker 1: citizenship through birthright citizenship. Just just just a fact for
Speaker 1: that now. Obviously, if they were to rule this just
Speaker 1: I know, we're in the dark hypothetical place here, it
Speaker 1: wouldn't be they couldn't make would they make it retroactive
Speaker 1: or like?
Speaker 2: So this is part of the uncertainty. You know, the
Speaker 2: administration developed guidance about how they would implement the birthright Order,
Speaker 2: but courts blocked that before the order would take effect.
Speaker 2: So we don't know whether the Supreme Court would say
Speaker 2: those injunctions vacated individuals who were born in the the
Speaker 2: United States after this executive order was promulgated, they are
Speaker 2: not citizens. We don't know whether the court would say no,
Speaker 2: this just applies perspectively. Now that we have said it
Speaker 2: can be enforced. It's all TBD. This new lawless, very
Speaker 2: uncertain era, it's all for grabs.
Speaker 4: Pod Save America is brought to you by Simply Safe.
Speaker 4: No one wants to imagine their home getting broken into.
Speaker 4: But the scary statistic is that every twenty six seconds
Speaker 4: in the US, a family experiences a break in. Scary, yes,
Speaker 4: but that's why simply Safe has worked to make home
Speaker 4: security accessible to more American families. But here's one American
Speaker 4: family right here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the love American family, the love its have had.
Speaker 3: I set up a simply safe and credibly easy to do.
Speaker 3: You can customize it on the website, it arrives you
Speaker 3: set it up in a matter of minutes. Base station
Speaker 3: and the number pad and all the little sensors, and
Speaker 3: then the app is great. The customer support really reliable
Speaker 3: and it gives you peace of mind.
Speaker 4: With simply Safe, you can customize your sim to fit
Speaker 4: your needs, then ships fast directly to your door. The
Speaker 4: app guided set up is simple and there's no drilling required,
Speaker 4: so you can install and arm your system in under
Speaker 4: an hour. Simply Safe is more than just a security camera.
Speaker 4: It's a comprehensive system of sensors, indoor and outdoor cameras,
Speaker 4: and twenty four to seven professional monitoring. Over five million
Speaker 4: people value and trust Simply Safe with their home security
Speaker 4: every day. Right now, our listeners will get fifty percent
Speaker 4: off a new system when you sign up for professional monitoring,
Speaker 4: and your first month is free. Just visit simply safe
Speaker 4: dot com slash crooked. That's half off at simply safe
Speaker 4: dot com slash crooked. There's no safe like simply Safe.
Speaker 3: Padda America is brought to you by Willie's Remedy. I
Speaker 3: Love Willie's Remedy. Willies is a premium THHC and few
Speaker 3: social tonic crafted by the legendary Willie Nelson and the
Speaker 3: man's genius. It's a low calorie, low sugar alcohol alternative
Speaker 3: that actually works, delivering fast acting you fork social buzz
Speaker 3: without the regrets that come from alcohol. Willie's Social Tonics
Speaker 3: come in five mg and ten mg doses with the
Speaker 3: best in class flavor experience so smooth and balanced you
Speaker 3: barely realize you're drinking a THHD product at all. We
Speaker 3: had Willy's Drinks at the wedding. We call it the
Speaker 3: grin and Tonic.
Speaker 4: I have finally tried Willies. It's awesome.
Speaker 3: It really is. It's great.
Speaker 1: It's really it's a great like.
Speaker 3: It's my favorite thing. I like. We just bought a
Speaker 3: bunch of other bunch of better than an.
Speaker 4: Edible hits faster but also smoother.
Speaker 3: You can enjoy the tonics as a shot, zipped over ice,
Speaker 3: or mixing your favorite monktail. Each bottle of Willie's is
Speaker 3: third party lab tested for accurate dosage, so you can
Speaker 3: trust and customize your experience. Willi's unque blend of THHC,
Speaker 3: cbdcbg NL fienine delivers a feeling of calm, clarity, furia,
Speaker 3: and relaxation. One shot of Willies helps you relax, unwind,
Speaker 3: andy stress. It's perfect for taking the edge off at
Speaker 3: the end of a long day or socializing with friends.
Speaker 3: Willis ships directly to your door in forty plus states
Speaker 3: and has sold out three times in the first six
Speaker 3: months with over three hundred thousand plus happy customers. So
Speaker 3: order now at Drinkwillies dot com and use code Crooked
Speaker 3: for twenty percent off your first order, plus free shipping
Speaker 3: on orders over ninety five dollars and live like a legend,
Speaker 3: drink Willies dot com code crooked.
Speaker 1: So looking at the other cases that are out there,
Speaker 1: and they're still some pretty big one. So there is
Speaker 1: one involving a ban on trans participation in youth sports.
Speaker 1: There is one about whether the president was able to
Speaker 1: fire Lisa Cook from the FED Board. And then there
Speaker 1: are two election cases. Am I missing any other big
Speaker 1: ones out there? Are those the ones?
Speaker 2: Those are the ones that I would say are the
Speaker 2: big ones. Well, so when you said Lisa Cook, it's
Speaker 2: not just a case about Lisa Cook. There's also a
Speaker 2: case about whether Trump can fire the head of the
Speaker 2: Federal Trade Commission.
Speaker 1: And all other are They're.
Speaker 2: Not jointed, They're two separate cases.
Speaker 1: Okay, he may maybe explain these two cases for us.
Speaker 2: Sure. Yeah, So one case involves whether Donald Trump can
Speaker 2: fire a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission and all
Speaker 2: other independent agencies that are led by these independent multi
Speaker 2: member commissions like the Securities in Exchange Commission or the
Speaker 2: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or you name it, National Labor
Speaker 2: Relations Board, et cetera.
Speaker 1: The Federal Reserve verse that's separate.
Speaker 2: Well, the Federal Reserve is that separate case, because what
Speaker 2: happened is earlier in the Trump administration. Trump fired a
Speaker 2: bunch of these heads of multi member commissions, even though
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court has a case that's nearly a centuries
Speaker 2: old that says Congress can limit the president's ability to
Speaker 2: fire the heads of these multi member commissions, specifically the
Speaker 2: Federal Trade Commission. So Donald Trump fired people in violation
Speaker 2: of these laws, and the Supreme Court said, actually, we'll
Speaker 2: let him do that while the litigation is ongoing, because
Speaker 2: we Supreme Court have decided to adopt this great new rule.
Speaker 2: It's called the unitary executive theory, and it means the
Speaker 2: president gets to have near plenary power to fire people
Speaker 2: who exercise significant executive power. But then they added descendants
Speaker 2: except the Federal Reserve Board, because that has a distinct
Speaker 2: historical tradition in the tradition of the Bank of the
Speaker 2: United States. That bespoke fed exception, of course, illustrated that
Speaker 2: their new unitary executive rule was catastrophic immediately once it
Speaker 2: would be unleashed onto the world, because it would give
Speaker 2: the president the power to effectively blow up the United
Speaker 2: States and global economy. But that didn't give them pause. Instead,
Speaker 2: they just created that bespoke exception. And so what did
Speaker 2: Donald Trump do? He went ahead and tried to fire
Speaker 2: a governor of the Federal Reserve Board. Because you know,
Speaker 2: when you give a fascist a cookie, what happens, right,
Speaker 2: They try to take another cookie. So then the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court ended up with these pair of cases, and one
Speaker 2: set of cases asks is it constitutional for Congress to
Speaker 2: attempt to limit the president's ability to fire the heads
Speaker 2: of these multi member commissions. That's a hugely important case
Speaker 2: because if the Court hands the president that power, they
Speaker 2: will be giving him the power to control these agencies
Speaker 2: that exercise such sweeping powers over our lives, over government contracts,
Speaker 2: over what the corporations have to comply with the law.
Speaker 2: You know, Federal Trade Commission for example, they police Amazon,
Speaker 2: you know, they police antitrust law. If you tell the
Speaker 2: president and you can fire people who don't enforce anti
Speaker 2: trust law the way you want them to, that's allowing
Speaker 2: him to give murders to his friends and penalize his enemies.
Speaker 2: So that case is super consequential. But they also have
Speaker 2: that case about Lisa Cook, and that case asks, well,
Speaker 2: given that this statute does limit the president's ability to
Speaker 2: fire Lisa Cook? Did the President comply with those limitations?
Speaker 2: So I don't want the Cook case to kind of
Speaker 2: obscure the significance of the other case will, which will
Speaker 2: affect every other independent agency.
Speaker 1: Let me ask a question on the independent agency case. Now,
Speaker 1: the president gets to a point. The heads of all
Speaker 1: of these jobs, right, and they are approved by the Senate.
Speaker 1: And the reason the President can't just fire them like
Speaker 1: he could fire his Department of Home his Secretary of
Speaker 1: Homeland Security or whatever else is because the way the
Speaker 1: law is written says they can only fire him for
Speaker 1: cause exactly what it is, yep.
Speaker 2: Because Congress decided these agencies would just run better if
Speaker 2: they were somewhat insulated from politics and relied more on expertise.
Speaker 1: And then the question before the court is whether the
Speaker 1: president's inherent executive authority override that, whether the Congress does
Speaker 1: not have the constitutional authority to him in that specific
Speaker 1: executive authority.
Speaker 2: Right exactly, whether the Constitution entitles the President to say
Speaker 2: you're fired no matter what Congress is okay.
Speaker 1: With the And then that the possible exception of the
Speaker 1: FED because of its unique.
Speaker 2: Tradition, because the justices have stock portfolios.
Speaker 1: Yes, exactly, they're all they're all quite wealthy. And Clarence
Speaker 1: Simma says, several very close friends who who need that
Speaker 1: money to send him on vacation.
Speaker 2: And exactly, private jet fuel don't pay for itself. Down.
Speaker 1: Okay, sor Ry, Let's get to the transports case. This one,
Speaker 1: if I remember correctly from the oral arguments earlier this year,
Speaker 1: seemed quite dire in what we thought the Court would read.
Speaker 1: But maybe talk about that case and if there's any
Speaker 1: c any hope here.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So this case is about whether state laws that
Speaker 2: effectively ban transgender athletes from participating in sports violate either
Speaker 2: Title nine, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex
Speaker 2: in educational programs or educational institutions, and also whether these
Speaker 2: state laws violate the Federal Constitutions guarantee of equal protection.
Speaker 2: The oral argument in the cases was awful. The lawyer
Speaker 2: for the federal government, who of course was arguing in
Speaker 2: support of these state law bans and against trans athletes,
Speaker 2: said one of the more grotesque things I think that
Speaker 2: has ever been said at the Supreme Court lectern when
Speaker 2: he referred to trans athletes as males who take performance
Speaker 2: enhancing drugs, and I just don't think there's any question
Speaker 2: that the six Republican appointees are going to say these
Speaker 2: state laws are consistent with Title nine. The only lingering
Speaker 2: question is whether they're also going to say these state
Speaker 2: laws are constitutional, or whether they will instead send the
Speaker 2: case back to the lower court to decide that constitutional question,
Speaker 2: perhaps with some additional fact finding. I honestly think that
Speaker 2: is the best we can hope for at this point.
Speaker 2: And the other thing to watch for is whether you
Speaker 2: get separate writings that say, not only does Title nine
Speaker 2: permit states to ban trans athletes from participating at sports,
Speaker 2: potentially it requires states and schools to ban trans athletes
Speaker 2: from participating in sports. So that's kind of the spectrum
Speaker 2: of possibilities. It's very bleak.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So we have two sort of major things that
Speaker 1: I guess go beyond sports participation. Right. One is suggesting
Speaker 1: that Title nine would require some measure of discrimination against
Speaker 1: trans people, whether that could be in anything involving education, right,
Speaker 1: funding scholarships across the board. Right. So that's one that
Speaker 1: seems quite bad. And then even worse, I would imagine,
Speaker 1: is making some case that I mean, am I overreading
Speaker 1: this that the net result of inequal protection finding here
Speaker 1: would be that trans people have no equal protection rights.
Speaker 1: Being trans would not guarantee equal protection rights in the
Speaker 1: way that being black, or a woman or of a
Speaker 1: certain religious group.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the danger is the Supreme Court says laws that
Speaker 2: discriminate against trans people do not trigger any kind of
Speaker 2: meaningful judicial scrutiny. So courts should just defer to governments
Speaker 2: that discriminate on the basis of gender identity and give
Speaker 2: those laws a pass. Given the extent to which states
Speaker 2: and the federal government have been trying to erase trans
Speaker 2: people and strip trans people of their rights, that would
Speaker 2: be a really concerning development because it would make challenging
Speaker 2: all of those laws or policies that are anti trans
Speaker 2: in court.
Speaker 1: Could Congress, then, in a different world, with a different
Speaker 1: Congress and a different president, do something to address that
Speaker 1: by passing laws that would guarantee like either amending Title
Speaker 1: nine or like what would a Congress do that would
Speaker 1: solve that problem?
Speaker 2: Potentially, Yes, so Congress could enact a statute. Maybe the
Speaker 2: statute itself just prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender identity,
Speaker 2: no matter the context in school and elsewhere. Maybe Congress
Speaker 2: creates a spending program that says, look, if you receive
Speaker 2: any federal funds, you have to promise not to discriminate
Speaker 2: on the basis of gender identity. Those are two possibilities,
Speaker 2: and yet I am left with but the Supreme Court,
Speaker 2: I cannot rule out the possibility that this Court would
Speaker 2: invalidate those laws, maybe saying well, they exceed Congress's powers.
Speaker 2: Maybe the Court would say, well, those laws actually discriminate
Speaker 2: on the basis of sex in violation of the Federal Constitution.
Speaker 2: You know, maybe the Court would say they had another
Speaker 2: spending clause decision, and this is one of the other
Speaker 2: awful decisions from this week, where they basically said spending
Speaker 2: programs can't be enforced against the state officials who are
Speaker 2: carrying them out. So maybe they would make those spending
Speaker 2: conditions effectively toothless. But there are things Congress could do.
Speaker 2: But basically anything Congress could do that is good requires
Speaker 2: a different Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Which is that's true of all that is true of
Speaker 1: all things, all things, Yes, so stipulated agreed to. We
Speaker 1: have to deal with that. The Supreme Court is also
Speaker 1: considering a Mississippi law that allows the five day grace
Speaker 1: period for mail in ballots rechieved after election day to
Speaker 1: be counted. This laws, of course being challenged by the RNC,
Speaker 1: and this has implications both for Mississippi and perhaps more
Speaker 1: broadly like in California now where Spencer Pratt, who is
Speaker 1: a MAGA favorite, his chance spot in the runoff went
Speaker 1: away as more votes came in. And so talk a
Speaker 1: little bit about this case and if it has broader
Speaker 1: implications for this grace period for mail in balloting, which
Speaker 1: is Trump is to try to write the executive order
Speaker 1: to try to stop the Post service and delivery mail
Speaker 1: in ballots, although that was stopped by federal court. Just
Speaker 1: talk a little bit what's going on there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So the challenge here, the Republican National Committee says
Speaker 2: this federal law that creates election day as this first
Speaker 2: Tuesday in November, that prohibits states from counting ballots that
Speaker 2: are received after election day, even if they were postmarked
Speaker 2: on or by election day. If the Supreme Court adopts
Speaker 2: that theory, that would nullify or change how votes are
Speaker 2: counted in twenty nine some states. And of course we
Speaker 2: are a few months away from the mid terms. I
Speaker 2: think there's a real concern that changing the rules of
Speaker 2: the election at this point would put state and local
Speaker 2: election officials in a really tough spot because they have
Speaker 2: already begun to prepare to administer the election in accordance
Speaker 2: with what their state rules are now, and requiring them
Speaker 2: to all of a sudden change on a dime because
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court read election day to be this magical
Speaker 2: unicorn of a date on which everything but only some
Speaker 2: things have to be completed by, would be hugely destabilizing.
Speaker 2: I also think it would create a lot of voter
Speaker 2: confusion and chaos that could potentially lead to voter suppression
Speaker 2: and people, you know, not actually returning their ballots and whatnot.
Speaker 2: So I am very concerned about that case just because
Speaker 2: of its potential destabilizing and sweeping implications, and also because
Speaker 2: of what it might invite next. If the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: says states can't count ballots that are received after election day,
Speaker 2: why can states count ballots that are received before election day?
Speaker 2: If election day is this magical day that everything is
Speaker 2: supposed to happen by, why can they count ballots after
Speaker 2: election day even if the ballots were received before election day.
Speaker 2: So part of what is so concerning about this case
Speaker 2: is it could call into question so many established voting
Speaker 2: practices that we have just taken for granted, in addition
Speaker 2: to fucking with him at terms.
Speaker 1: And the change here, potentially is that the courts to
Speaker 1: date have given states, because of the Constitution why latitude
Speaker 1: in how they conduct their elections. And many of the
Speaker 1: cases that have been thrown out, even some Trump cases
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty, are based on that principle that the
Speaker 1: Constitution grants the states to do it, they have to
Speaker 1: do it in accordinance with the Constitution. But beyond that,
Speaker 1: you want to do your election all by mail, you
Speaker 1: can do that. You want to count them, you want
Speaker 1: to count ones that arrive after election day, but a
Speaker 1: postmarket four you can do that. But that it could
Speaker 1: open the door to other things going.
Speaker 2: Forward here potentially, So even those states, of course have
Speaker 2: the general authority to run elections, Congress can establish rules
Speaker 2: regarding federal elections. Now the president can't. So all of
Speaker 2: his unhinged theories about what he can then can't do,
Speaker 2: and what he does and doesn't want, right, I think,
Speaker 2: are still wildly illegal no matter what the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: says in this absentee ballot case. But this federal law
Speaker 2: that just again creates an election day in no way
Speaker 2: displaces how states have conducted elections for years, and so
Speaker 2: I think the challenge is what other challenges to other
Speaker 2: state laws. You know, this theory would invite in addition
Speaker 2: to the position that would put state and local election
Speaker 2: officials in the lead up to the midterm elections.
Speaker 1: And it probably is worth noting that the people who
Speaker 1: are probably most disinfranchised with this are military members serving overseas,
Speaker 1: which are where a lot of the ballots come from.
Speaker 1: They show up after election.
Speaker 2: Day, that is indeed true. Indeed, the practice of you know,
Speaker 2: voting outside of election day partially originated during the Civil
Speaker 2: War to ensure that Union soldiers would not be disenfranchised.
Speaker 2: There is always a possibility that the Republican appointees announced
Speaker 2: no ballots can be counted after election day if they're
Speaker 2: received after election day, except for overseas uniformed officers. Now,
Speaker 2: that might not protect the families of people who are
Speaker 2: stationed overseas and whatnot, and that would also create its
Speaker 2: own form of chaos. But who knows.
Speaker 4: Pods of America is brought to you by armor colostrum.
Speaker 4: When you prioritize your body's baseline, You're better equipped to
Speaker 4: show up with focus and energy no matter what the
Speaker 4: day holds. Armor Colostrum is a simple, nature inspired addition
Speaker 4: to your daily wellness routine. While many turned to probiotics
Speaker 4: for gut support, they often only focus on one part
Speaker 4: of a complex system. Armor colostrum works differently by providing
Speaker 4: comprehensive nourishment for your gut's natural barrier. It's designed to
Speaker 4: help sustain your microbiome and support your body's natural defenses
Speaker 4: against the stressors of modern life. Elevate your self care
Speaker 4: from the inside out. Armor Colostrum provides a blueprint of
Speaker 4: nutrients that complement your body's natural renewal processes, from supporting
Speaker 4: skin and hair vibrancy to assisting with daily recovery. It's
Speaker 4: the ultimate tool for those looking to optimize their well
Speaker 4: being at the cellular level. Research has also shown that
Speaker 4: colostrum can be a powerful ally for your active life.
Speaker 4: It supports the body's natural ability to obsor orb nutrients
Speaker 4: and maintain lean muscle. We've worked out a special offer
Speaker 4: for my audience received thirty percent off your first subscription order.
Speaker 4: Go to Armor dot com, slash cricket or enter cricket
Speaker 4: to get thirty percent off your first subscription order. That's
Speaker 4: a r m R a dot com slash crooket.
Speaker 1: The other case is actually one that has gotten very
Speaker 1: little attention, but this actually has potentially dramatic impacts. In fact,
Speaker 1: some have said that this case, which involves how whether
Speaker 1: party party committee parties can coordinate with candidates, would be
Speaker 1: the biggest campaign financision since Citizens United, which is saying
Speaker 1: a lot because we've had cases like McCutcheon and others
Speaker 1: in the middle here also in the oral arguments here
Speaker 1: did not seem particularly encouraging. So maybe try to explain
Speaker 1: this case to people, why, why, why they should care
Speaker 1: about it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so it sounds technical because it's a challenge to
Speaker 2: what's called a coordination limit, as you were saying, which
Speaker 2: is a political parties ability to coordinate how they spend
Speaker 2: their money with a candidate. It effectively amounts to a
Speaker 2: ban on political parties donating money to a candidate, because
Speaker 2: if they coordinate, they're effectively giving them money to the
Speaker 2: candidate to decide how it could be spent. And there
Speaker 2: is a concern that if you say, while contribution limits,
Speaker 2: actually those might be unconstitutional, that is like the last
Speaker 2: remaining vestige of campaign finance law, because even as the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court has opened up these pathways for corporations super
Speaker 2: packs to spend an unlimited amount of their own money
Speaker 2: doing their own advertising, they have not yet struck down
Speaker 2: limitations on billionaires and corporation's ability to give money directly
Speaker 2: to candidates. And once you start saying, actually, contribution limits,
Speaker 2: those are no good either, then that invites individuals giving
Speaker 2: directly money to candidates. And I think that's one of
Speaker 2: the big concerns about this case.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like in practical consideration, right just so, there's two things.
Speaker 1: There's there's what this case would mean right now and
Speaker 1: how elections are conducted today, and then there is the
Speaker 1: larger question about whether contribution limits at all are now
Speaker 1: a violation of free speech, which leads to instead of
Speaker 1: Elon Musk writing one hundred and spend one hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty two million dollars or whatever it was too in
Speaker 1: a series of outside groups to like Donald Trump, he
Speaker 1: just gives Donald Trump one hundred three two million dollars.
Speaker 2: Cut out the middlemen.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's that seems bad, But just like as you
Speaker 1: think about it, now, you can give about seven thousand
Speaker 1: dollars to a candidate, ye person, you know, half in
Speaker 1: the primary, half in the general as an indisgdient whether
Speaker 1: you are you or me or Elon Musk. That's the
Speaker 1: most we can give directly to Grand Platner, John asof Recooper,
Speaker 1: whoever else you can give. Ji Visual can give one
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty two thousand dollars under thirty thousand, nine
Speaker 1: ndred dollars to the DNC or the RNC. And so
Speaker 1: now instead of giving my seven thousand dollars, my low
Speaker 1: over seven thousand dollars to Grand Planner, I just give
Speaker 1: one hundred and thirty two thus to the DNC and
Speaker 1: then they spend that on behalf of this matters more
Speaker 1: in presidential campaigns than it does anything else because that's
Speaker 1: where we spent directly. But it does have big implications
Speaker 1: and just once again gives more power to rich people.
Speaker 1: This is almost certainly going to the court will proof this.
Speaker 1: This is in line with every other decision they've made
Speaker 1: since John Roberts became the Chief Justice, and the Trump
Speaker 1: administration isn't even defending the law here they are. They
Speaker 1: are on the other side of it because it's the NRSC,
Speaker 1: the National Concentatorial Committee, is the plaintiff in the case.
Speaker 1: So this one is this is a big mass. This
Speaker 1: is one for election. Nerds are paying a lot of
Speaker 1: attention to him, people who work on elections. But they
Speaker 1: got some pretty big implications for what else, what else
Speaker 1: is to come in our politics?
Speaker 2: Yeah, completely, because in the short term it would just
Speaker 2: rapidly increase the amount of money that rich individuals can
Speaker 2: give directly to candidates. But then in the longer term
Speaker 2: it potentially opens up a pathway for no limits at all.
Speaker 2: There is a small outside chance that the court says
Speaker 2: there's no actual controversy here in the case is moot
Speaker 2: and they don't decide it. But that is the best scenario.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, I mean this course, Supreme Court, there's
Speaker 1: always hope, right like, yeah, give them that they have
Speaker 1: one thing. They've earned the benefit all right. Before we go,
Speaker 1: I want to hit on Rovy Wade. This past week
Speaker 1: was the four year anniversary of the Dobbs decision, which
Speaker 1: overturned the Rovy Wade decision. The legacy of that decision
Speaker 1: continues to live in our lives, in our politics everywhere.
Speaker 1: It is coming up in this main Senate race where
Speaker 1: Susan Collins is running against Granmp plant there and she
Speaker 1: got asked about it on Fox News. I wanted to
Speaker 1: play the clip and get your reaction to it.
Speaker 6: You held out for quite some time on your vote
Speaker 6: of support for just now Justice Kavanaugh. Is this an
Speaker 6: issue that you think is troublesome for you in this
Speaker 6: race now that Roe v. Wade was overturned in Maine
Speaker 6: across the country.
Speaker 5: Well, first of all, let me make clear that I
Speaker 5: disagreed with the Supremes of Courts six to three decision
Speaker 5: overturning Roe v.
Speaker 1: Wade.
Speaker 5: But the fact is that whether Justice Kevanaugh were confirmed
Speaker 5: or not, Roe v. Wade would have been overturned given
Speaker 5: the six to three votes.
Speaker 2: Not true, Sammlido says.
Speaker 1: Could you maybe explain where Susan Collins has her facts
Speaker 1: wrong on this one?
Speaker 2: Where to start?
Speaker 1: There's so much about it, you go, okay.
Speaker 2: We'll start with the factual inaccuracies. Had Justice Kavanaugh not
Speaker 2: been confirmed, there were not five votes to overrule ro
Speaker 2: versus Wade. Chief Justice Roberts did not vote to overrule
Speaker 2: roversas he instead voted to change the legal test in
Speaker 2: a way that would have expanded state's ability to restrict
Speaker 2: abortion more so than they could have done before the decision,
Speaker 2: but not to the point of overruling Roversus Wade. So
Speaker 2: that's just factually inaccurate. There were just five justices who
Speaker 2: voted to overall Row, and to.
Speaker 1: Be clear, she confirmed the fifth justice.
Speaker 2: And she confirmed Brett Kavanaugh exactly who was one of
Speaker 2: those five. So facts not so great. Second, I absolutely
Speaker 2: just despise this framing of I disagree with the Court's decision.
Speaker 2: I don't regret my vote because it just makes me
Speaker 2: wonder what great things has Brett Kavanaugh done that make
Speaker 2: the loss of women's lives, their fertility, their health worth it,
Speaker 2: Like how many women have to lose their lives for
Speaker 2: you to conclude that, actually, maybe you do regret your vote.
Speaker 2: So that is just horrifying. And then there there's this
Speaker 2: sense that maybe she, you know, made this decision, but
Speaker 2: it didn't really affect manors, which is also wrong because
Speaker 2: you know, people who live in Maine, which still has
Speaker 2: abortion access, might travel and sometimes people experience medical emergencies
Speaker 2: that might require medical care, including abortion care. And if
Speaker 2: you're traveling in a state where after Row abortion is banned,
Speaker 2: you are potentially in a circumstance where you could not
Speaker 2: receive medical care. Add to that the fact that the
Speaker 2: medication abortion rulings potentially jeopardize access to medication abortion even
Speaker 2: in states like Maine that want to protect abortion, and
Speaker 2: I just think she is really papering over so many
Speaker 2: of the horrific consequences that her vote to confirm the
Speaker 2: fifth vote to overrule ROW have had. And it just
Speaker 2: one of the more tragic things about the twenty twenty
Speaker 2: four presidential election is I think people came away from
Speaker 2: it thinking, well, actually, the Republican Party isn't going to
Speaker 2: bear any consequences for overall ROW, and the public has
Speaker 2: just decided not to force them to pay a price
Speaker 2: for again the loss of lives, health, fertility, more that
Speaker 2: we have seen in the wake of ROW being overruled.
Speaker 2: And I hope that is not the case. I hope
Speaker 2: that in twenty twenty six, you know, people who enable
Speaker 2: this post Row landscape are held accountable. But it is
Speaker 2: just very depressing I think anytime I think about the
Speaker 2: fact that people just decided to give a bunch of
Speaker 2: politicians a pass for what they have unleashed on people
Speaker 2: in this country.
Speaker 1: So let me can I give the counterpoints of that,
Speaker 1: because let's do it, because I talked this on Polar
Speaker 1: Coaster this past week because of the anniversary of Dobbs.
Speaker 1: And what is really interesting about the polling on this
Speaker 1: is abortion was a very divisive issue in this country
Speaker 1: up until the moment of Dobbs and the number of
Speaker 1: Americans who consider themselves pro choice. It reached an all
Speaker 1: time high right after Dobbs and four years later has
Speaker 1: stayed the same. It has not gone down as obviously
Speaker 1: in that immediate aftermath and in that election in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two, as these republic states are rushing to pass
Speaker 1: their bills, abortion was the number one issue in politics,
Speaker 1: was discussed everywhere. People were dealing with It was just
Speaker 1: a topic of conversation. As it's dropped in salience, it
Speaker 1: has not changed the politics of which I think is very,
Speaker 1: very positive and creates the path for accountability for these people.
Speaker 1: And there are opportunities in twenty twenty six to hold
Speaker 1: these people accountable. You have Susan Collins, you have Ken Paxton,
Speaker 1: you have an array of officials in Ohio right in
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of other states that passed some of
Speaker 1: the most the cruelest and most retrograde reproductive rights laws
Speaker 1: in this country can all pay the price. Everyone should
Speaker 1: go to vote saf America dot com to figure out
Speaker 1: how to do that. But I really do believe Donald
Speaker 1: Trump was this unicorn figure because even though he is
Speaker 1: the person other in Susan Collins, most responsible for Row
Speaker 1: being overturned, no one actually believed that he truly was
Speaker 1: anti choice. Like I remember in focused scripts people would say, people,
Speaker 1: if you asked in a focus group with Donald Trump
Speaker 1: was anti abortion or anti choice, they would laugh and
Speaker 1: would say he un yeah, and he probably like, I mean,
Speaker 1: here's a guy who cheated on all his wife, sleeps
Speaker 1: around like this discuss he's a disgusting cad. He's from Manhattan.
Speaker 1: He probably like, obviously he doesn't care about abortion. That
Speaker 1: is not true of the rest of the republic'sertainly not
Speaker 1: sure of Ken Paxton, who is a principal architect of
Speaker 1: that law and the enforcement of that law. And so
Speaker 1: there are opportunities to hold people accountable here and like
Speaker 1: this is I do believe that Dobbs was a it
Speaker 1: did not bear It did not bear fruit in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four because of a long list of unique circumstances
Speaker 1: that be deviled that election that we don't have to
Speaker 1: get into, but was a fundamental signature moment that changed
Speaker 1: politics in this country in ways that will sure those
Speaker 1: people are held accountable, and more and more states will
Speaker 1: elect the right people to put in place laws and
Speaker 1: maybe one day we'll have a Supreme Court that can
Speaker 1: undo the damage that was done there.
Speaker 2: I very much, I very much hope you are correct,
Speaker 2: and I just worry that I have rarely gone wrong
Speaker 2: in estimating the amount of misogyny that Americans will tolerate
Speaker 2: in their politics. And again, I very much hope you
Speaker 2: are right. May it be the case, and we have that.
Speaker 1: We have the ability to impact that ourselves. Yes, right now,
Speaker 1: everyone exact to impact that.
Speaker 2: In many different ways, whether that is like calling your
Speaker 2: officials to remind them that actually you do care about
Speaker 2: abortion access and reproductive rights. Are your senators confirming nominees
Speaker 2: giving blue slips to nominees right who you don't think
Speaker 2: will protect reproductive freedom in for instance, yes, you know,
Speaker 2: not naming names, but.
Speaker 1: Someone who is on the ballot in twenty twenty eight,
Speaker 1: chase the primary challenge yes, yes or again?
Speaker 2: Electing officials helping to get out the vote, to help
Speaker 2: elect officials you know who will protect reproductive freedom, you know,
Speaker 2: and to vote against people who didn't. All of those
Speaker 2: are ways to make this happen. And I think we
Speaker 2: kind of need to make reproductive freedom a salient issue.
Speaker 2: I think is part of protecting democracy. Like you can't
Speaker 2: really separate these two things.
Speaker 1: So yeah, fingers see. That seems what was perhaps not
Speaker 1: the most optimistic and hopeful pod that we've done in
Speaker 1: Patzave America for the last many years, although quite insightful,
Speaker 1: interesting and entertaining, I would say maybe we can end
Speaker 1: on that positive ish note. Leah Liman, thanks so much
Speaker 1: for joining us and everyone check out Strict Scrutiny. You
Speaker 1: guys have another podcast out this week on Monday. Was
Speaker 1: talking with some decisions and then maybe more depending on
Speaker 1: what we hear from the rest of the court. Is
Speaker 1: that right?
Speaker 2: That is all correct? New episode on Monday, and then
Speaker 2: likely additional episodes whenever the Supreme Court does fuck knows what.
Speaker 1: Leah, Thank you so much. Thanks thanks a Leah for
Speaker 1: stopping by. John, John and Tommy will be backing your
Speaker 1: feed with a new episode on Tuesday.
Speaker 4: By everyone Positive America. Is a Crooked Media production. Our
Speaker 4: show is produced by Austin Fisher, Saul Ruben, McKenna Roberts
Speaker 4: and Ferris Safari, with Ree Cherlin, Elijah Cone and Adrian Hill.
Speaker 4: Our team includes Matt de Groate, Ben Hefcot, Jordan Kanter,
Speaker 4: Charlotte Landis Krol pel Avive, David Toles, Mia Kelman, Ryan
Speaker 4: Young and Naomi Single. Our staff is probably unionized with
Speaker 4: the Writers Guild of America East