The MAGA Supreme Court's Assault on America

We're looking forward to the development here.

The biggest advantage of Shopify for me is that we don't need any technical requirements for this. We all know the background and the front end.

“And that's why we're looking forward to the online shop.”

We're looking forward to it. Then we're looking forward to the actual development. It's just the main task. Our whole business is looking forward to it. Now there's a customer test on Shopify.com.

I'm a little bit older and I'm the founder of Yaui. A few years ago, the customer's work and the most valuable specialised object. My wallet is on Shopify, because Shopify is in the same way as the other platforms I tested, with the famous friends.

I've been waiting for all the money.

All the tools for the development of the business are important, so that you can find out from the store. Now there's a customer test on Shopify.com. Welcome to Potset for America, I'm Dan Fyfer. You're about to hear a great conversation I just have at Lea Littman,

a law professor, co-host of Curcumedia Strix scrutiny, an author of lawless, house Supreme Court runs on conservative grievances, fringe theories and bad vibes. We talked about this week's monumental Supreme Court decisions on the Trump administration's immigration policy,

what's making Lea anxious about the upcoming decision on birthright citizenship, and the legacy of Rovi Wade, including how it's playing in the race to unseat Susan Collins and Maine. We also talked about some of the other decisions

we're expecting to come out of the court soon, including decisions on mail ballots,

transportation and sports, and the independence of the federal reserve. It was a great conversation, and we'll get to in a minute. Before we do, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to friends of the pod. Subscribers get access to ad prohibits it's a pod save America. Subscriber only shows like pod save America only friends in my show, Policoster,

and discounted tickets to Curcumedia that's including this false Curcum.

“Plus, it's the best way to support independent pro-democracy media.”

Head to Curcumcom/Franc to subscribe today. Also, check out my Substack newsletter with a message box, which is where I share all of my best, most in-depth takes, and I have a special deal for pod save America fans. Sign up now at Curcumcom/ESWDAN.

Get 20% off your subscription for an entire year that's Curcumcom/ESWDAN. All right, here's my conversation with Leah Lipman. Leah Lipman, welcome back to pod save America. Thanks for having me. Under these great services, so originally, when we scheduled this,

we thought there was a chance to Supreme Court would have released all of its big monumental decisions to the end of this quarter. Perusual, Simulito, John Roberts, have screwed up our best laid plans, but they have released a number of very important decisions that I want to talk to you about. And then I want to talk about the decisions that are looming,

that are doing to possibly ruin many people's fourth of July.

“Break, let us start with the case that I think has the most impact for the most people.”

Can I just start with the timing point? Please, please, please, please. Okay, because it's not just that you thought they would finish by the end of this week. It's that traditionally and historically, the court has finished releasing opinions in argued cases before the holiday week.

And these guys have one fucking job and they're not even doing that, right? Like, they cannot bother to do law and yet they can't finish according to schedule. Despite loving history and tradition, they cannot conform to this most basic tradition about how the Supreme Court works. Which is important for many reasons, but primarily for pod cast recording.

Exactly, exactly, super inconvenient. Okay, so good. This is important point to make him glad you made that point. I want to start with the case that I think has the most impact on the most people. This is the six three decision.

Everyone, listen, you can guess who the six and who the three are that will allow the Trump administration to rescind temporary protective status for 350,000 Haitian immigrants. This case is about a lot of things. It's a big deal. Talk to me about what was it's taking this case and what the ruling says.

Oh my gosh, this case is so maddening. I have just become angrier about it with every passing hour. So the case involved actually two different revocations of the temporary protected status program. And TPS is a method where the executive branch can offer immigration relief to individuals who undergo a rigorous vetting process, who are from certain countries.

When returning them to those countries would be horrific because of conditions in those countries. And so Haiti was one such country after devastating natural disasters coupled with the basic failure of the government. It's super dangerous to be in Haiti. And so temporary protected status was offered so too with respect to Syrian nationals.

Christine Holmes says we are just going to end these TPS programs for individuals from several

“different countries and those decisions to and the program were challenged.”

And these cases involve challenges to the end of TPS for Haitian nationals and Syrian nationals. By statute, Congress, because of the importance of the TPS program to people's lives, you know, they structure their lives around being able to live and work in the United States, require the executive branch to undergo a fairly rigorous process before deciding to end TPS. And specifically, the executive branch had to consult among different agencies to determine

that conditions in that country were indeed sufficiently different. That ending TPS was justified. And there's almost no question that the Trump administration didn't do that.

With respect to Haiti in particular, emails suggest that the Department of Homeland Security

asks the State Department to weigh in about conditions in Haiti. And then went ahead and canceled TPS before State Department even weighed in. That's not actually consultation. And I don't think there's any argument on that point. You add to that.

The fact that the president said viable grotesque things about Haitian nationals, and it sure looks like they decided to end TPS, not because conditions in Haiti had changed, but because the president just wanted to fulfill Stephen Miller's white supremacist immigration dreams. And so those were the challenges that the Trump administration violated

statutes by not following the required processes and violated the Constitution by implementing this policy out of racial animists, discriminating on the basis of race. And in the 6 to 3 opinions, Sam Alito was like, "I don't care, do you?" You know, on the statutory arguments he said, "Who cares whether or not they complied with the statute courts can't review whether they violated the statute or not?"

So that's a new finding, right? That is a new, entirely new rule. For decades it has been understood that even though the statute's

don't allow courts to second guess the secretary's determination,

ultimate determination about weather to end TPS, they do allow courts to ensure that the secretary followed the required process to ensure sound decision making. And Sam Alito, Enco, wipe away all of those rules and render all of these statutes on enforceable. They're basically guidelines at this point. The executive branch faces no consequences for openly flouting them. Donald Trump, Mark Wayne Mullin, could stand up tomorrow

and say, "We're not going to follow these statutes." And there's not a thing that courts could do about it in light of the rule.

“I want to get to the comments in a minute in the racial animists, I think that's very important”

and really plays a big role in why this is in a so-maning, in the opinion by leader so-maning. But what is the reason, you know, it seems like a pretty basic thing. Congress Wright's laws, the executive must follow said laws. If the executive does not follow those laws, someone who is standing sues, and the courts come in and say, "You did not follow those laws, you must do so many different." Is there something that they find an inherent authority

of the president immigration? What is the basis for saying the laws don't apply on this particular issue? It's so wild to hear you say that because this unfortunately was a theme of almost all of the courts decisions from this last week, saying that people whose rights were violated can't do a thing about it. Can't sue to challenge in federal courts. So here, their rationale was

Congress had actually decided to impose these rules on the executive branch and to foreclose the possibility that courts could review whether the executive branch complied with those rules. So they put the decision at Congress's feet rather than saying the Constitution doesn't allow courts to review those determinations. So now let's get to the racial and MS point and why that matters here. Because I think for people who have been following this saga for a long time,

the Haitian immigrants are the ones that Trump and J.D. Vance in the entire American media

“accused during the 2024 campaign of eating the pets in Ohio. That's what we're talking about here.”

Well, and it wasn't just that. It is the president said people from Haiti have aids. He called it a shithole country. He said they were Haitian nationals poisoning the blood of the country. Bunch of racist viral remarks and San Toledo does not even have the backbone to recite those remarks in his opinion. He just declares they're not overtly racial. I have no idea what that means. Given that the president also said he wanted to admit more people from Sweden in Norway

like again, he tried to say I guess there's xenophobic and really about opposition to immigration

And if he cannot bring himself to recite the remarks of the person who he saying isn't racist,

I think that's a pretty big indication that maybe the person is racist and saying racist things, but he just kind of said nothing to see here and legalized what the president did and said. And so this means for Haitians, but there are 350,000 of them I believe. If many of them is country for quite a while now, I think TPS have been around for almost a decade, right? Yeah, more than a decade. And so these people can all be deported now, either in their when they go to

“because you have to go to a regular check-in, right? And so they go to the next time they encounter a nice officer,”

a CBP officer, they could be deported. Same as true of Syria. And so now, I know Stephen Miller was on Fox News, minimizing the dangers in Haiti and comparing it to Chicago St. Louis, Los Angeles. But Syria seems like a harder case to make that this is a totally safe and fine place to go back to. I mean, I think Haiti is a really tough place. Maybe even tougher than Syria actually. Yes, exactly. And so this would be the largest legalization in the United States history. So while these cases

specifically are about Haitian national sincerely and nationals, the Trump administration has attempted to end temporary protective status for individuals from other countries, including Venezuela,

Nicaragua, El Salvador, and more. You know, when Trump took office, there were more than a million

people living in the United States with temporary protective status. And suddenly, all of those people

“potentially lose their legal authorization to remain in the United States. And your point about”

check-ins just drives home that people they are penalizing are the people who followed the immigration rules. They underwent this vetting process. They do check-ins with immigration officers. And so now the federal government knows who they are, where they are, and could be poised to effectuate these mass deportations. In her descent, Justice Kagan says, as a result of the courts order, they're basically telling the executive branch, you can put these people on the next plane

and send them off. And it's just cruel what the Supreme Court is potentially allowing and inviting the Trump administration to do. So for the non-serience non- Haitians who have protective status like you mentioned Venezuela, and so we also talk about people from Afghanistan, many of whom fled after the fall of the Afghani government, people who helped the American military and diplomats there, talking about Ukrainian refugees. All these other groups

can the Trump administration now just sign a piece of paper and remove their TPS, go through the fake process. They don't even have to go through anymore. Like, are we just like

one Steven Miller email away from all from 1.2 million or whatever it is people potentially being

deported? Potentially yes, and there have been cases challenging the recessions of the other temporary protected status programs as well, but in light of this decision telling courts, they can't review any of the statutory claims and excusing the president's gutter racism. It's going to be really hard for any court to pause those recessions. Great. So this is not this is on a truly terrible. And so then we have been to second, immigration decision that came

down. Now, this one is less immediate in its consequences and hinges as I understand it on the meeting of the word arrive in immigration law. Could you explain? This is another six three with the typical six and the typical three decision he explained was going on in this case. Yeah, so this case is about the meaning of asylum law under international law and statues of the Congresses past individuals who arrive in the United States are entitled to claim

asylum and they are entitled to have their asylum claim assessed in a legitimate process and procedure. What the Supreme Court said is an individual doesn't arrive in the United States and therefore they aren't entitled to claim asylum or have their asylum claim assessed if they are stopped outside of the physical borders of the United States. As Justice Sotomayor pointed out in her descent, this creates a giant loophole. It tells the executive branch so long

as you physically block people from entering the United States, you do not have to consider their asylum applications. You can just turn them away wholesale and that decision was entirely unnecessary.

“Part of what is so I think Haynes both about the asylum case and the TPS case is that the Supreme”

Court did not have to reach them on this asylum case. The case originated as a challenge to a policy that isn't in existence. It was a challenge to the so-called metering policy that began almost a decade ago and under that policy immigration officials would turn away people and say

be processed at the border had been met. That policy was ended. There was not in effect any

“policy that presented this question about whether the Trump administration could refuse to process”

asylum applications from people who they stopped outside the border. Instead the Supreme Court went ahead and just told them, well we've decided you could do this thing that you may want to do and therefore paved the way for them to implement another callous immigration policy. And so in the original metering policy which began at the end of the Obama administration, you would show up and say we just had there are too many people that we're not going to be able to

get to your case. Come back tomorrow and we will look at your case. And so at that point it wasn't an attempt to deny them. It was essentially recognizing you showed up at the door. We can't let you in the door. We're acknowledging you have the right to make yourself in case we are going to or we are going to allow you to do that on a different day when there is an actual someone who can hear it

“basically. Yes, that was useful. And so now this seems like such an insanely stupid decision on”

so many levels because it doesn't seem to argue that if you were someone who has a lit you believe you have a legitimate asylum case. You're a coming to the United States to evaluate yourself of your human rights to seek asylum consistent with our laws and traditions. You are better off speaking across the border. Exactly. And getting caught and then claiming in a salam case, then showing up at the front door and asking to present your case. This decision is unhinged as just

a sort of right in her descent. The consequences are predictable. More people will die. And among the reasons is it creates this incentive for people to try to sneak across the border because only if they manage to get into the United States borders, would they be able to claim asylum? This is another example of the Supreme Court adopting a rule that penalizes people who are trying to comply with immigration law by presenting themselves at the border and trying to assert

an asylum claim. It's basically funneling them into these trafficking organizations that are

“making money to get them into the country as it feels like it's so to me that's what it seems”

so insane about. And so the net result of this other than the consequence of the people who then now get injured, get hurt, get killed, are trafficked, young women and children who go to these groups and up in very bad places often and then attempt to get to the United States. What is going to happen is the Stephen Miller could just tell the CVP, don't let anyone like no one gets in. So we will not recognize any legitimate asylum claims that come in through the normal

process. Yes, it does not matter if someone could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they would be persecuted, tortured, killed in their home country. The administration can just refuse to consider that. Now, in this, I learned from your very, the very excellent emergency strict scrutiny podcast you guys that did that came out today yesterday. What is today? Time for reading any more. I listen to it this morning. But during the release of this decision

that's something very dramatic and quite, and perhaps unprecedented in the history of the Supreme Court happened, could you lay that out for us? So it's not entirely unprecedented, although it's a deeply rare. By tradition, what happens is when the Supreme Court releases an opinion, the author of the majority opinion will provide some remarks and offer a brief summary of their case. Occasionally, but only in rare circumstances, will the author of the descent

then proceed to summarize their dissent and reading portions of your dissent from the bench is reserved for very strongly held dissents where you want to signal a very obvious, strong objection to what the majority has done. So in the asylum case, just as such, my or red portions of her dissent, and then Samolito proceeded to respond. And having the author of the majority opinion in response after the author of the dissent summarizes their dissent has happened maybe once or twice

before, and just as Alito also intimated that well had he known, just as so to my or would have summarized more of her dissent. He definitely had additional things. He would have said because he could totally rebut all of her arguments, and it's just so pachelent. And yeah, un-bethitting a justice. Well, I mean, which is a long pattern to behave here for Samolito. Going back to the 2010 Supreme State of the Union where he was so set the Barack Obama damed disagree with the decision

to allow corporations billionaires to buy our political system that he had to react viscerally

and loudly during the -- he had basically had to heckle the President of the United States. Exactly.

Union? No, no, no, no, no, no, sweet summer childhood with Samolito. Man who clearly has impulse control

“problems. Particularly when criticized perhaps by coincidence, definition of a judicial”

tab for man. Yes, really criticized by people who by coincidence have to be people of color. This podcast is sponsored by Squarespace. Squarespace is the all-in-one website platform designed to elevate your online presence and drive your success. Squarespace provides all the tools you need to promote and get paid for your services in one platform, whether you offer consultations, events, or other experiences, Squarespace can help you grow your business. Squarespace offers a complete

library of professionally designed and award-winning website templates with options for every use and category. No matter where you start, your website is flexible to what you need, with intuitive drag and drop editing, beautiful styling options, unrivaled visual design effects, and more ways to list what you offer, no experience required. Squarespace demands makes it easy to find the best name for your business at one fair, all-inclusive price, no hidden fees, or add-ons

required. Make smarter business decisions with Squarespace's intuitive built-in analytics tools, review website traffic, learn where to focus engagement, and track revenue from bookings, invoices, or product sales all from one place. Plus, Squarespace provides everything you need to bring more of your dream to life, whether that means building a website or adding a professional email service. Head to Squarespace.com for a free trial, and when you're ready to launch go to

Squarespace.com/cricket to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain, that's squarespace.com/cricket. Potiv America's brought you by Sleep Me. Quick question, what was the last time you went to bed before midnight without your phone beaming blue light into your weary little eyes? Last night, nothing you go to sleep early. Nothing pairs worse with trying to fall asleep than having a full breakdown of the latest new cycle running out of

loop in your head. Here's what's happening. The stress, the screen time, it all raises your

core body temperature, and a body that's too warm cannot get into deep sleep. You're not just tired because the news is exhausting. You're tired because your body never actually recovered from the day. The good news is that you can do something about it, and it's simpler than you think. Lower your bed temperature. Sure, you could develop better habits of mind. Enter chili bed 2.0. The water-based mattress topper that actively controls your bed

temperature from 55 to 115 degrees all night long. All night. No new mattress, no renovation. It fits over what you already have. Chili bed 2.0 actually cools or warms your bed using

“water, and water is key here. Chili bed uses actively chilled water to cool your bed,”

actually pulling heat away from your body. It's like the difference between standing in front of a fan and jumping into a cold pool. The new 2.0 comes with a redesign dock quieter than ever with a larger internal tank. The topper itself is now a premium performance-grade cover that unzips for easy washing and as built-in waterproof protection. And unlike a lot of tech out there, there's no subscription you buy it. You own it. Two-year warranty design and assembled in the USA.

Just north of Charlotte. I love the chili bed. I have the one point I'm an upgrade to the 2.0.

And basically, you bed has an air conditioner on it. You can make it warm when you're cold.

You can make it cold when you're warm. What I like to do is I set it really cold before I go to sleep and I'm watching TV and then right before bed I raise the temperature. Interesting. Because then, as I'm falling to sleep, it's cool, but then I'm not cold in the night. Oh. Okay, that's interesting. Visit www.sleep.me/curkit to get up to $255 off your chili pad 2.0 with code Crooked. That's www.sleep.sleep.me/curkit free shipping and free returns in a 39 trial so you

can dust it out, dream big and wake up better. The headlines will still be there in the morning. Boy, will they? You might as well wake up ready for them. Okay, another big case happened here. And this one caused a different corner of the internet to be a flame. The maha corner of the internet is very upset about a case where the Supreme Court tossed out a suit against Monsanto's parent company involving claims that the weed killer

round-up caused cancer. And this one is interesting because this is not our traditional sixth-three group of the three we know and love and the sixth we have come to detested many cases. This is a seven-two decision where Cagin and Sotomayor actually were with the majority

“and Kataji Brown Jackson and, you know, of course, I believe were with where the one-two”

dissented. Talk to me about this case and did the majority get it right in this one? So the case is about the federal insecticide, fungericide, and redenticide act or fifth fret. Fifth fret, fifth fret as we call it. Yes. Case shot has called this one of her favorite statutes. I don't know why, but it's a federal law that gives the EPA the environmental protection agency the authority to regulate pesticides, etc.

And what happens is companies submit their proposed label for their pesticide to the EPA and then the EPA signs off on them. And the question in this case is whether an individual could sue a pesticide

to adequately warn them about the danger of the product. And so here the allegation was,

Montzantra's product round up contains an ingredient that causes cancer and that's not disclosed on the EPA warning label. And so what the Supreme Court said here is this statute gives the EPA and the EPA alone the authority to determine what goes on a label. And the label can only be changed if the EPA orders a change or if the EPA approves a change. Private parties states they can't impose additional requirements beyond what the EPA has decided is warranted.

“And so where do you come down on this as as as a law professor in the school of yourself?”

Yeah, so I think the court probably got it right here. And part because the agency has

a lot of authority over how these labels are made and what goes on them. And I think

there was a congressional choice to prioritize a uniformity over other considerations and wanting a single process, a single decision maker to determine what goes on these labels and valuing the EPA's expertise over the expertise of say state jeries or state decision makers. And that's a choice Congress considered the pluses and minuses. And I think the court was probably right to say we need to respect the choice that Congress has made. Now I have other issues with

Montzantra decision just considered in light of some of the other cases that the court made,

“but I think standing alone the court probably got it right. And now this was about one specific”

case in Missouri. But there are other suits against Montzantra out there that will be tossed out because of this. Exactly. Yes. Yep. And does this have an impact on broadly on corporate liability or the ability of individuals to sue companies along lines or is it pretty specific to this one? Fifra? If I'm to have a different, yes. Fifra related ruling. It's pretty specific to the Fifra statute itself because the court focused on the fact that Congress in that statute has a

provision labeled uniformity and in the statute gave the EPA a bunch of authority over all stages of the labeling process. And that's not necessarily going to be true in other statutes. And so, yes, it's going to insulate this set of corporations from this particular type of lawsuit, but not beyond that. And could these individuals sue the EPA for the, for the label not being fully before some enough to give them what they needed to know to make the right decisions here or these

people just kind of screwed. Yeah. So they can file administrative procedure act lawsuits against the EPA and challenge the agency's actions with respect to these labels that is not going to get them damages, you know, for any harm that they might have experienced because of a failure of these warning labels, but they could try to get the EPA to change them going forward. And you said that you, well, at this in a vacuum, maybe what's the right decision you have concerns more broadly,

I take it that is the fact that corporations are like 1 million in O in the Roberts Court over

the last 22 years, whatever it is. That would be the general flavor of the objection. And even if you just look at the decisions from this past week. So, on send out, corporations can't be sued for labels that allegedly contain insufficient warnings that cause people to get cancer. Earlier this week, the court said you can't sue corporations for abetting human rights abuses that foreign governments commit. They said corporations, however, can sue foreign governments, namely Cuba,

for taking their oil. They said individuals who are incarcerated, they cannot sue state officials who violate their religious freedom rights. They said TPS recipients can't sue to challenge the executive branch for violating their rights under the statute. In, you know, another immigration case, they said effectively lawful permanent residents can't enforce the statute protecting their

“right to re-enter the United States at the border. So, who gets to sue to enforce their rights?”

Corporations, you can't sue corporations for violating international law, for potentially violating state tort law. You can't sue state officials for violating federal law. You can't sue federal officials for violating federal law. And so, if you just aggregate all of these decisions together, it's like, okay, who has rights who doesn't? Corporations, everyone else. You're bringing the TPS in what's been to go back to something I meant to ask you before. Given this decision,

what would stop a president, AOC, Gavin Newsome, Kamala Harris, whoever else from just deciding

It's so funny, you say that, Dan, because that was actually an argument in the case. That the

challengers said, look, if you completely insulate these decisions from review, they can be abused in either direction. So, in one of the final passages of the opinion, Sam Alita suggests, well, look, the plaintiffs in these cases, they throw out these hypotheticals, we're not going to necessarily say those would be unreviewable, but maybe Congress could fix them. And so, there was this narrow potential caveat that the court reserved for itself because they view themselves as the

ultimate decision maker to potentially say, maybe some wholesale applications might be reviewable. >> So, just if per chance, say, a democratic president wanted to unveil themselves of the executive authority that they found inherited Donald Trump's actions, there was a way for them

to stop that from happening.

>> Perfect, perfect, perfect, perfect, perfect, good. It's make sure, you know, I didn't go to law school, but I'm so sorry to pick it up, I'm picking up what's happening there. >> I mean, for these decisions, it's not clear Sam Alita did either. >> That's fair enough, fair enough. Okay, let's get to the cases that have not yet been released and we'll maybe release Monday or Tuesday of next week. We think we hope who knows, do we hope

“honestly, like their bad things? >> I hope for you as someone who has a podcast schedule,”

you've got to do that happens earlier in the week without better. I would say for everyone Monday and Tuesday, then Thursday, perhaps. Okay, all right, the biggest one is everyone's waiting for us, the one on birthright citizenship. Everyone seems to think that since the Constitution is quite explicit on this, that it would be seemingly impossible for the Supreme Court to do this, you had a piece of the Contrary and where you raised some real questions. You have some worries

about this, so I'd like to hear what those worries are. And I think it also raises some measure of concern that they've been sitting on this, like this is if they could have done in a one sentence order a year ago, and we've been waiting and waiting and waiting, and just based on what I've read and reserved, the fact that they're waiting so long on this, at least to just that there's something going on. So what is going on here? Tell me about the case, tell me about, tell me about

most specifically, you have worries about what this decision might say. Yeah, so the case is a challenge to the president's executive order. That reports to deny birthright citizenship to some people

who are born in the United States, even though the first sentence of the 14th Amendment says

all persons born and naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction,

“thereof shall be citizens. So it's a wildly illegal executive order, and I think most people,”

even after the oral argument, and even now think it's more likely than not that the Supreme Court will say that order can't be enforced, and it's unconstitutional. But, and this is a big but, the recent immigration decisions are really concerning. The fact that the court adopted such broad reasoning in cases where they didn't have to do so at all, I think is causing some people to rethink their confidence in what the court might do on birthright. I think the delay

could also signal that the decision isn't going to be unanimous, and if it's not unanimous, that's going to meaningfully alter the overton window as far as what people's understanding of our constitutional multi-racial democracy is. You know, if you have decents by Justice Thomas and Alito, is birthright citizenship going to become a new litmus test for Republican appointees, where the expectation is, you will only be selected for a judicial seat if you would

overall birthright citizenship, just like you could only be selected for a judicial seat if you would overall rovers this way. It would also invite, you know, future challenges to

“birthright down the road. So, I think those are some of the things that are on people's mind,”

but then there's this additional consideration for me, which is even if the court does the right thing. I mean, they just cannot get all of the credit and all of the plaudits that are inevitably going to keep me peeped on them for standing up to the president. When, as we were just talking about, they bent over backwards to green light, some of the more xenophobic, white nationalist elements of his immigration agenda when they didn't have to do so, they are the ones that created

the need for this case on birthright citizenship and, indeed, demanded that the federal government bring the case to them when last year in the nationwide injunction case, they refused to just come out and say, even if lower courts can't block this policy on a nationwide basis, we Supreme Court can, because it's wildly unconstitutional. And instead, they made the solicitor general promise that he would appeal any unfavorable ruling back to them,

to give them the opportunity to be the hero. And so, they were the ones that created this potential opportunity for great PR for themselves that will give them cover for who knows what else they might do in addition to all of the terrible things they've already done. Yeah, it's interesting because John Roberts is a very political individual, and he is

his simple-minded view where he's like, we're going to do all these terrible things, and then we're

“going to head into fourth of July, break with this decision that will cause everyone to say,”

see all those liberals who want to expand the court and do term limits and say we're a bunch of mega-shills are wrong, and then there'll be a series of legal pundits who will then applaud John Roberts, and he will write off into the sunset as a hero, right? I mean, you say he's simple-minded and not that great, but the end of your sentence, I just think is correct. When the court, if and when the court rules against birthright citizenship, there will be all of those takes, and people

talking about how the court has stood up to the president, and isn't just in the bag for Maga and isn't on board with all of Trump's agenda, and therefore you lives and you progressives who want to reform the court, what would you do if Donald Trump could reform the court when he disagreed with it? Like, that there's going to be so much of that. But those takes are why

“America's most popular influential Supreme Court podcasts exist, right? Like, you will be, you,”

you, Kader muscle will be on that wall fighting back against that. I know that, yes. I mean, we haven't screaming about this for over a year. And trust in this Supreme Court is at an all-time low. So, don't think you're not, you have not put your wheel to the, your shoulder to the wheel history. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Since Strix grew it need to more friends challenge, um, but no, I mean, it's not to say it's going to work, but it is going to generate some of a coverage that they

want, um, and it's just going to be annoying as fuck when it does. Yes. So, let's say hypothetically, this is a seven to decision. And, you know, Alito and Thomas, whoever else, they are against it. Can you fathom in your brain? What that argument would be? Like, it is hard to find something as plain text as this in the, with as, with as a simple and specific application, as this, you know, it's like obviously freedom of speech is in there, but then there are all kinds of

applications you can take on it. This is basically like, if this happens, you are a citizen.

And Trump and administration is arguing, if this happens, you are not a citizen. Like, what is the, what is the, the legal argument someone could muster as bullshit and fake as it would be, that would say that growth rate citizenship is not a lot, kid, they could be curtailed or stopped by it by an administration. Uh, yes. Um, so having ventured into the dark recesses of right wing legal circles, I can offer you at least two points. One would be to say that there is a recognized

exception for birthright citizenship, that birthright citizenship does not extend to the children of invading armies. You know, if, for example, Canada decided to invade the United States and, you know, officers who participated in that invasion had children born in the United States while they did so, then those children would not be citizens of the United States. And some on the right have argued that unauthorized immigration is the equivalent of an invasion of the United States, you know,

borrowing on great replacement theory and other white nationalist tropes. Um, and so one possible legal theory is the jussuses could equate unlawful unauthorized immigration with an invasion and say children who are born to individuals without legal status in the United States are the equivalent of the children of invading armies, that's one possibility. Um, another possibility

is the court basically reads the exceptions to be the rule. So the phrase as we were talking about

in the 14th Amendment is all persons born in naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. And part of that exception recognizes that children of foreign diplomats, for example, you know, they are not born as United States citizens, just like children of invading armies, aren't United States citizens. And so part of the federal government's argument is to basically take those quite narrow exceptions and generalize them into a rule that

basically swallows the rule of birthright that says, well, individuals whose parents don't have an allegiance to the United States, their children can't be citizens. And so those are two possible

“avenues, um, both are ridiculous. And I think rest on underlying racist tropes about who is”

sufficiently American, that birthright citizenship was intended to robot. That's exactly what dreads God versus Sanford did when it concluded that individuals who were descendants of its slave persons couldn't be citizens because they too weren't American enough. And didn't have allegiance to the United States, et cetera, et cetera. But I think that those are two of the theories that are on hand. That's very dark and very disturbing. Thank you for visiting the dark side, too,

sure that sure that with us. Um, I think it's also notable that maybe the decision will come out,

the leading scorer wrote a cup team is someone who has their citizenship through birthright citizenship,

“um, just just a just a fact for that. Now, obviously, if they were to rule this, just I know”

where the dark hypothetical place here, it wouldn't be, they couldn't make what they make it retroactive, or like, so this is part of the uncertainty, um, you know, the administration developed guidance about how they would implement the birthright order, but courts blocked that before the order would take effect. So we don't know whether the Supreme Court would say those injunctions, vacated individuals who were born in the United States after this executive order was promulgated,

they are not citizens. We don't know whether the court would say, no, this just applies prospectively, and now that we have said it can be enforced, um, it's all TBD, this new, lollus, very uncertain era. It's all for grabs. Pots of America is brought to by simply safe. No one wants to imagine their home getting broken into, but the scariest statistic is that every 26 seconds in the U.S. a family experiences a break in.

“Scary, yes, but that's why simply safe has worked to make home security accessible to more”

American families. But here's one American family right here. Yeah, I love it. The love it's the love it's have, uh, uh, uh, I set up a simply safe and, uh, credibly easy to do. You can customize it on the website, it arrives, you set it up in a matter of minutes, base station, and the, the, the number pad, and the, all the little sensors, and then the app is great, the customer's port really reliable, and it gives you peace of mind. With simply safe, you can customize your systems to fit your needs,

then ships fast directly to your door. The app guided setup is simple, and there's no drilling required so you can install an arm your system in under an hour. Simply safe is more than just a security camera. It's a comprehensive system of sensors, indoor and outdoor cameras, and 24/7

professional monitoring. Over 5 million people value and trust simply safe with their home security

every day. Right now, our listeners will get 50% off a new system when you sign up for professional monitoring, and your first month is free. Just visit simplysafe.com/cricket. That's half off. It's simplysafe.com/cricket. There's no safe. Like simplysafe. Pots of Marigas brought you by Willi's remedy. I love Willi's remedy. Willi's is a premium THC and few social tonic crafted by the legendary Willi Nelson and the man's genius. It's a low calorie low sugar alcohol alternative that actually

works delivering fast acting, you fork social buzz without the regrets that come from alcohol. Willi's social tonics come in 5mg and 10mg doses with the best in class flavor, experience so smooth and balanced. You barely realize you're drinking a THC product at all. We add out Willi's drinks at the wedding. We call it the green and tonic. I have

finally tried Willi's. It's awesome. It really is. It's great. It's really. It's a great

eyelet. It's my favorite thing. I like we just bought a bunch of other bunch of others. Better than an edible. It's faster, but also smoother. You can enjoy the tonics as a shot. Sipped over ice or mix in your favorite mocktail. Each bottle of Willi's is third party lab tested for accurate dosage so you can trust and customize your experience. Willi's unique blend of THC, CBD, CBG, and L-theanee, delivers a feeling of calm clarity, foria and relaxation. One shot of Willi's

helps you relax and wide and distressed. It's perfect for taking the edge off at the end of a long day or socializing with friends. Willi ships directly your door in 40 plus states and has sold out three times in the first six months with over 300,000 plus happy customers. So order

now at drinkwillies.com and use code crooked for 20% up your first order. Plus free shipping on orders

over 95 dollars and live like a legend drinkwillies.com code crooked. So looking at the other cases that are out there and there's also pretty big ones. So there was one involving a ban on transportation and youth sports. There is one about whether the president was able to fire Lisa Cook from the

“fed board and then there were two election cases. Am I missing any? Any other big ones out there?”

Those are the ones that I would say are the big ones. Well, so when you said Lisa Cook it's not just a case about Lisa Cook. There's also a case about whether Trump can fire the head of the federal trade commission and all other. Are these cases if we really do separate? They're not joint. They're two separate cases. Okay. You may be, maybe explain this to cases for us. Sure. Yeah. So one case involves whether Donald Trump can fire a commissioner of the federal trade commission

and all other independent agencies that are led by these independent multi member commissions, like the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or you name it. National Labor Relations Board, etc. The Federal Reserve, for a separate. Well, the Federal Reserve is that separate case because what happened is earlier in the Trump administration trump fired a bunch of these heads of multi member commissions,

even though the Supreme Court has a case that's nearly a centuries old that says Congress can limit the president's ability to fire the heads of these multi member commissions, specifically the federal trade commission. So Donald Trump fired people in violation of these laws

because we Supreme Court have decided to adopt this great new rule. It's called the Unitary Executive

Theory and it means the president gets to have near plenary power to fire people who exercise significant executive power. But then they added a sentence except the Federal Reserve Board because that has a distinct historical tradition in the tradition of the Bank of the United States. That bespoke Fed exception of course illustrated that their new unitary executive rule was catastrophic immediately once it would be unleashed onto the world because it would give the

president the power to effectively blow up the United States in global economy. But that didn't

“give them pause instead they just created that bespoke exception. And so what did Donald Trump do?”

He went ahead and tried to fire a governor of the Federal Reserve Board because when you

give a fascist look at what happens right they try to take another cookie. So then the Supreme Court ended up with these pair of cases. And one set of cases asks, is it constitutional for Congress to attempt to limit the presidency ability to fire the heads of these multi-member commissions? That's a hugely important case because if the court hands the president, that power, they will be giving him the power to control these agencies that exercise such sweeping powers

over our lives, over government contracts, over whether corporations have to comply with the law. Federal Trade Commission for example, they police Amazon. They police anti-trust law.

If you tell the president, you can fire people who don't enforce anti-trust law the way you

“want them to. That's allowing him to give murderers to his friends and penalize his enemies.”

So that case is super consequential. But they also have that case about Lisa Cook. And that case asks, well given that this statute does limit the presidency ability to fire Lisa Cook did the president comply with those limitations. So I don't want the Cook case to kind of obscure the significance of the other case will, which will affect every other independent agency. Let me ask the question on the independent case. Now the president gets to a point

the heads of all of these jobs. Right. And they are approved by the Senate. And the reason the president can't just fire them like he could fire his department of home, his secretary of home and security or whatever else is because the way the law is written says they can only fire them for cause. Exactly. Because Congress decided these agencies would just run better if they were somewhat insulated from politics and relied more on expertise.

And then the question before the court is whether the president's inherent executive authority override that whether the Congress does not have the constitutional authority to hem in that specific executive authority. Exactly. Whether the constitution entitles the president to say you're fired no matter what Congress is. Okay. With the and then the the possible exception of the Fed because of its unique tradition because the justices have stock

portfolios. Yes. Exactly. They're all they're all quite wealthy and Claire and Simon says several very close friends who who need that money to send him on vacation. Exactly. Private jet fuel. Don't pay for itself down. Okay. All right. Let's get to the transports case. This one. If I remember correctly from the oral arguments earlier this year seemed quite dire in what we thought the court would maybe talk about that case and if there's any youth see any

hope here. Yeah. So this case is about whether state laws that effectively banned transgender athletes from participating in sports violate either Title IX which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs or educational institutions. And also whether these state laws violate the federal constitutions guarantee of equal protection. The oral argument in the cases was awful. The lawyer for the federal government who of course was arguing in support

“of these state law bands and against trans athletes said one of the more grotesque things I think”

that has ever been said at the Supreme Court lectern when he referred to trans athletes as males who take performance enhancing drugs. And I just don't think there's any question that the six Republican appointees are going to say these state laws are consistent with Title IX. The only lingering question is whether they're also going to say these state laws are constitutional or whether they will instead send the case back to the lower court to decide that constitutional

question perhaps with some additional fact finding. I honestly think that is the best we can hope for at this point. And the other thing to watch for is whether you get separate writings that say not only does Title IX permit states to ban trans athletes from participating at sports

that's kind of the spectrum of possibilities it's very bleak yeah. So we have two sort of major

“things that I guess go beyond sports participation right one is suggesting that Title IX would”

require some measure of discrimination against trans people whether that could be in anything involving education right funding scholarships across the board right so that's one that seems quite bad and then even worse I would imagine is making some case that I mean am I over reading this that the the net result of an equal protection finding here would be that trans people have no equal protection rights that they are being trans would not gear in TV

protection rights in the way that being black or a woman or of a certain religious group. Yeah the danger is the Supreme Court says laws that discriminate against trans people do not trigger any kind of meaningful judicial scrutiny. So courts should just defer to governments that discriminate on the basis of gender identity and give those laws a pass. Given the extent to which states and the federal government have been trying to erase trans people and strip trans people

of their rights that would be a really concerning development because it would make challenging all of those laws or policies that are anti-trans in court. Could Congress then in a different world with a different Congress in a different president do something to address that by passing laws that would guarantee like either a many Title IX or like what would a Congress do that would solve that problem? Potentially yes so Congress could an act of statute maybe the statute itself

just prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender identity no matter the context in school and elsewhere. Maybe Congress creates a spending program that says look if you receive any

“federal funds you have to promise not to discriminate on the basis of gender identity. Those are”

two possibilities and yet I am left with but the Supreme Court is cannot rule out the possibility that this court would invalidate those laws. Maybe saying while they exceed Congress's powers maybe the court would say well those laws actually discriminate on the basis of sex in violation of the federal constitution. Maybe the court would say they had another spending clause decision

this is one of the other awful decisions from this week where they basically said spending

programs can't be enforced against the state officials who are carrying them out so maybe they would make those spending conditions effectively toothless but there are things Congress could do but basically anything Congress could do that is good requires a difference of pre-incourt. Yeah which is that's true of all. That is true of all things. All things yes so stipulated agreed to we have to deal with that. Yeah the Supreme Court is also considering a Mississippi law

that allows the five-day grace period for mail-in ballots received after election day to be counted this laws of course being challenged by the RNC and this has implications both for Mississippi and perhaps more broadly like in California now where Spencer Pratt who is a mega-favorite, he's his chance spot of the runoff went away as more votes came in and so talk a little bit about this case and if it has broader implications for this grace period for mail-in

balloting which is Trump is trying to eroding executive order to try to stop the poll service from delivery mail-in ballots although that was stopped by federal court to talk a little bit what's going on there. Yeah so the challenge here the Republican National Committee says

this federal law that creates election day as this first Tuesday in November that prohibits

states from counting ballots that are received after election day even if they were postmarked on or by election day. If the Supreme Court adopts that theory that would nullify or change how votes are counted and 29 some states and of course we are a few months away from the midterms.

“I think there's a real concern that changing the rules of the election at this point would put”

state and local election officials in a really tough spot because they have already begun to prepare to administer the election in accordance with what their state rules are now and requiring them to all of a sudden change on a dime because the Supreme Court like read election day to be this magical unicorn of a date on which everything but only some things have to be completed by. Would be hugely destabilizing. I also think it would create a lot of voter confusion and chaos

that could potentially lead to voter suppression and people not actually returning their ballots and whatnot. So I am very concerned about that case just because of its potential destabilizing and sweeping implications and also because of what it might invite next.

why can states count ballots that are received before election day? If election day is this

“magical day that everything is supposed to happen by, why can they count ballots after election”

day even if the ballots were received before election day? So part of what is so concerning about this case is to could call into question so many established voting practices that we have just taken for granted in addition to fucking with the midterms. And the sea change here potentially is that the courts to date have given states because of the Constitution, why latitude in how they conduct their elections and many of the cases that have been thrown out even some Trump cases

in 2020 are based on that principle that the Constitution grants the states to do what they have to do in accordance with the Constitution but beyond that you want to do your election all by mail, you can do that. You want to count ones that arrive after election day but a post-market four, you can do that but that could open the door to other things going forward here. Um, potentially so even those states of course have the general authority to run elections,

Congress can establish rules regarding federal elections. Now the president can't, so all of his unhinged theories about what he can then can't do and what he doesn't

“want, right? I think are still wildly illegal no matter what the Supreme Court says in this absentee”

ballot case, but this federal law that just again creates an election day in no way displaces how states have conducted elections for years. Um, and so I think the challenge is what other challenges to other state laws, you know, the theory would invite in addition to the position it would put state and local action officials in the lead up to the midterm elections. And it probably is worth noting that the people who will probably most disenfranchise with this

are military members serving overseas, which are where a lot of the ballots come from, they show up after election day. That is indeed true. Um, indeed the practice of, you know, voting outside of election day partially originated during the civil war to ensure that union

soldiers would not be disenfranchised. Um, there is always a possibility that the Republican

“appointees announce no ballots can be counted after election day if they're, you know, received”

after election day except for overseas uniformed officers. Now that might not protect the families of people who are stationed overseas and whatnot. Um, and that would also create its own form of chaos. Um, but who knows? Pots at America is brought to you by Armour Calastrum, when you prioritize your body's baseline, your better equipped to show up with focus and energy no matter what the day holds.

Armour Calastrum is as simple, nature inspired addition to your daily wellness routine. While many turn to probiotics for gut support, they often only focus on one part of a complex system. Armour Calastrum works differently by providing comprehensive nourishment for your gut's natural barrier. It's designed to help sustain your microbiome and support your body's natural defenses against the stressors of modern life. Elevate yourself care from the inside out,

so Armour Calastrum provides a blueprint of nutrients that complement your body's natural renewal processes. From supporting skin and hair vibrancy to assisting with daily recovery, it's the ultimate tool for those looking to optimize their well-being at the cellular level.

Research has also shown that classroom can be a powerful ally for your active life.

It supports the body's natural ability to absorb nutrients and maintain lean muscle. We've worked out a special offer for my audience, received 30% off your first subscription order, go to armra.com/cricket or enter cricket to get 30% off your first subscription order. That's aramra.com/cricket. The What-A Day podcast you know and love is shaking things up. You already know the five days a week,

I, Jane Coston, bring you the need to know news and expert analysis on the big stories shaping today and tomorrow. Stories like how social media warps our perception of the world and the strange reality of who is signing up to work for ice. All in less time that it takes to roast a chicken. And now, What-A Day episodes will be hitting your YouTube and podcast feeds in the afternoon. You'll get the breaking news even faster. Check out one today.

Now, dropping in the PM on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts. The other case is actually one that has gotten very little attention, but it actually has potentially dramatic impacts. In fact, some have said that this case which involves how, whether party committee parties can coordinate with candidates,

lot could be fact cases like McCutchen and others in the middle here. The, also in the

“rural arguments here did not seem particularly encouraging. So, maybe you could try to explain”

this case to people why they should care about it. Yeah, so it sounds technical because it's a challenge to what's called a coordination limit as you were saying, which is a political party's ability to coordinate how they spend their money with a candidate. It effectively amounts to a ban on political parties donating money to a candidate because if they coordinate, they're effectively giving the money to the candidate to decide how it could be spent. And there's a concern that if

you say, well, contribution limits actually those might be unconstitutional, that is like the last remaining vestige of campaign finance law because even as the Supreme Court has opened up these pathways for corporations, super PACs to spend an unlimited amount of their own money, doing their own advertising. They have not yet struck down limitations on billionaires and corporations ability to give money directly to candidates. And once you start saying actually contribution limits,

those are no good either, then that invites individuals giving directly money to candidates.

“And I think that's one of the big concerns about this case. Yeah, like in a practical consideration,”

right? Just so there's two things. There's what that there's what this case would mean right now and how elections are conducted today. And then there is the larger question about whether contribution limits at all are now a violation of free speech, which leads to instead of

Elon Musk writing a hundred and spending $132 million or whatever it was to in a series of

outside groups to elect Donald Trump. He just gives Donald Trump a $132 million dollars. Exactly, cut out the middleman. Yes, that seems bad, but just like it as you think about it now, you can give about $7,000 to a candidate. Yeah, that person, you know, half in the primary half in the general as an integer, whether you are you were me or Elon Musk. That's the most we can give directly to Grand Platner, John Ossoff or a Cooper whoever else. You can give an individual can give

a hundred and thirty two thousand dollars, hundred thirty thousand nine hundred dollars to the DNC or the currency. And so now instead of giving my seven thousand dollars, my little over seven thousand dollars to Grand Platner, I just give a hundred and thirty two thousand dollars to the DNC. And then they spend that on behalf of this matters more in presidential campaigns. Then it does anything else because that's where we spent directly. But it does have big implications and just once again

gives more power to rich people. This is almost certainly going to the court will proof this. This is in line with every other decision they've made since John Roberts became the Chief Justice and the Trump administration isn't even defending the law here. They are on the other side of it because it's the NRSC. The National Policy Center for All Committee is the plaintiff in the case. So this one is, this is a big mess. This is one for election nerds or paying a lot of attention to

and people who work on elections, but they get some pretty big implications for what else is what else is to come in our politics. Yeah, completely because in the short term it would just rapidly increase the amount of money that rich individuals can give directly to candidates, but then in the longer term it potentially opens up a pathway for no limits at all. There is a small outside chance that the court says there's no actual controversy here in the case's mood and they

don't decide it, but that is the best scenario. I mean look, I mean this course spring court,

there's always hope, right? Like we've given them that they are they one thing they've earned

it's the benefit of it. Before we go, I want to hit on Rovey Wade this past week was the four-year anniversary of the dobs' decision, which overturned the Rovey Wade decision. The legacy of that decision continues to live in our lives and our politics everywhere. It is coming up in this main Senate race versus in Collins is running against Grand Planner and she got asked about on Fox News. I wanted to play the clip and get your reaction to it. You held up for quite some time on your

vote of support for just now justice, Cavanaugh. Is this an issue that you think is troublesome for you in this race now that Rovey Wade was overturned in Maine? Across the country.

Well first of all, let me make clear that I disagreed with the Supreme Court's

“sixth and three decision overturning Rovey Wade, but the fact is that whether just as Cavanaugh”

were confirmed or not, Rovey Wade would have been overturned given the sixth and three vote. Not true, Samuel Edo says. Could you maybe explain where Susan Collins has her facts wrong on this one?

not been confirmed, there were not five votes to Rovey Wade. Chief Justice Roberts did not vote to Rovey Wade. He instead voted to change the legal test in a way that would have expanded state's ability to restrict abortion, more so than they could have done before the decision, but not to the point of overruling Rovey Wade. So that's just factually inaccurate. There were just five justices who voted over Rovey Wade. And to be clear, she confirmed the fifth justice. And she

confirmed, Brett Cavanaugh, exactly who was one of those five. So facts, not so great.

Second, I absolutely just despise this framing of, I disagree with the court's decision. I don't

regret my vote. Because it just makes me wonder, what great things has Brett Cavanaugh done that make the loss of women's lives, their fertility, their health worth it? How many women

“have to lose their lives for you to conclude that actually maybe you do regret your vote?”

So that is just horrifying. And then there's this sense that maybe she, you know, made this decision, but it didn't really affect mayors, which is also wrong because, you know, people who live in Maine, which still has abortion access, might travel. And sometimes people experience medical emergencies, that might require medical care, including abortion care. And if you're traveling in a state where

after row abortion is banned, you're potentially in a circumstance where you could not receive

medical care. And to that, the fact that the medication abortion rulings, potentially jeopardize access to medication abortion, even in states like Maine that want to protect abortion. And I just think she is really papering over so many of the horrific consequences that her vote to confirm the fifth vote to overall row have had. And just one of the more tragic things about the 2020-24

“presidential election is, I think people came away from it thinking, well, actually the Republican”

party isn't going to bear any consequences for overruling row. And the public has just decided not to force them to pay a price for, again, the loss of lives, health, fertility, more that we have seen

in the wake of row being overruled. And I hope that is not the case. I hope then in 2020-26,

you know, people who enable this post-row landscape are held accountable. But it is just very depressing. I think anytime I think about the fact that people just decided to give a bunch of politicians a pass for what they have unleashed on people on this country. So, let me give the counterpoint to that because I talked with some polar coaster this past week because of the anniversary of dobs. And what is really interesting about the polling on this is

abortion was a very divisive issue in this country up until the moment of dobs. And the number of Americans who consider themselves pro-choice reached in all-time high right after dobs. And four years later has stayed the same. It has not gone down as obviously in that immediate aftermath in in that election in 2022. As these Republicans are rushing to pass their bills, abortion was the number one issue in politics. There's discussed everywhere people were dealing with

it was just a topic in conversation. As it's dropped in salience, it has not changed the politics of

“which I think is very positive and creates the path for accountability for people. And there are”

opportunities in 2026 to hold these people accountable. You have Susan Collins. Yes. You have Ken Paxton. Yep. You have an array of officials in Ohio right in a whole bunch of other states that passed some of the most the cruelest and most retrograde reproductive rights laws in this country can all pay the price everyone should go to vote safe america.com to figure out how to do that. But I really do believe that on Trump was this unicorn figure because even though he is the person

other than Susan Collins most responsible for robbing overturned, no one actually believed that he truly was anti-choice like I remember in focus group people would say. But people if you asked in a focus group of Donald Trump was anti-abortion or anti-choice, they would laugh. I would say he that he jumped on Tory people. He believes in nothing. Yeah. I mean here's a guy who she don't know was wives, sleeps around like he's a disgusting kid. Ace from Manhattan,

he probably like obviously doesn't care about abortion. That is not true for the rest of these Republicans certainly not sure if Ken Paxton who is a principal architect of that law and the enforcement of that law. And so there are opportunities to hold people accountable here. And like

long list of unique circumstances that be deviled that election that we don't think it into.

“But was a fundamental signature moment that changed politics in this country in ways that”

will ensure those people are held accountable. And more and more states will elect the right people to put in place laws and maybe one day we'll have a Supreme Court that can undo the damage that was done there. I very much hope you are correct. And I just worry that I have rarely gone wrong in estimating the amount of the sojourney that Americans will tolerate in their politics.

And again I very much hope you are right may it be the case. And we have that we have the ability

to impact that ourselves. Yes. Right now everyone will have to go and impact that.

“In many different ways. Yes. Whether that is like calling your officials to remind that”

that actually you do care about abortion access and reproductive rights are your senators confirming nominees giving bluestlips to nominees. Right? Who you don't think will protect reproductive freedom? I don't have any friends since. Yes. You know not naming names but

someone who is on the ballot in 2028 and it will be based on primary challenge. Yes or again

electing officials helping to get out the vote to help elect officials who will protect reproductive freedom. You know and to vote against people who didn't. All those are ways to make

“this happen. And I think we kind of need to make reproductive freedom a salient issue. I think”

is part of protecting democracy. Like you can't really separate these two things. So yeah. So that seems what was perhaps not the most optimistic and hopeful pod that we've done in positive America for the last many years. Although quite insightful, interesting and entertaining I would say. Maybe we can end on that positive dish note. Leo Liment. Thanks so much for joining us. And everyone check out strict scrutiny you guys can have another podcast out this week.

On Monday was talking with some of these decisions and then maybe more depending on what we hear from the rest of the court is there right? That is all correct on episode on Monday and then likely additional episodes whenever the Supreme Court does fuck knows what. Leo, thank you so much. Thanks. Thanks a lot for stopping by. John John and Tommy will be backing your feed with a new episode on Tuesday. Bye everyone.

Pods of America is a crooked media production. Our show is produced by Austin Fisher, Saul Rubin, McKenna Roberts and Ferris Safari with Rechirlen, Elijah Cone and Adrian Hill. Our team includes Matt DeGroat, Ben Hefcoat, Jordan Canter, Charlotte Landis, Kiro Kelovi, David Tolz, Meakellman, Ryan Young and Naomi Single. Our staff is probably unionized with the writer's Guild of America East.

The What-A Day podcast you know and love is shaking things up. You already know the five days a week. I, Jane Coston, bring you the need to know news and expert analysis on the big stories shaping today in tomorrow. Stories like how social media warps our perception of the world and the strange reality of who is signing up to work for ice. All in less time that it takes to roast a chicken. And now, what-a-day episodes will be hitting your YouTube and podcast

feeds in the afternoons. You'll get the breaking news even faster. Check out what-a-day, now dropping in the PM on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.