Trump Is Falling. Are Democrats Rising?

and your bank statement. Traditional security is built on predatory, multi-year contracts. SimplySafe is built on the wild idea that a company should actually earn your business every day with zero hidden fees or long-term traps. With SimplySafe you can customize your system to fit your needs. It 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.

SimplySafe is more than just a security camera. It's a comprehensive system of sensors, indoor and outdoor cameras and 24/7 professional monitoring. It's backed by SimplySafe's 24/7 professional monitoring agents who dispatch emergency help when you need it.

Over 5 million people value and trust SimplySafe with their home security every day.

We got a SimplySafe fan right here. You better cross the table from me. You bet. I set up SimplySafe incredibly easy to do. I customize it to my house. The sensors and the

“base station and the key pads came and then I installed it to matter of minutes and the customer”

service is great. The app is really easy and intuitive to use and you can rely on it and it gives you peace of mind. There you go. Right now our listeners will get 50% off of a new system when you sign up for a professional monitoring and your first month is free just visit SimplySafe.com/Crickad. That's half off at SimplySafe.com/Crickad. There's no safe like SimplySafe. (Music)

Welcome to Platesafe America. I'm John Favre. I'm John Loveett. I'm Tony D. Torne.

On today's show we'll talk about how the Iran War has re-ignited as gas prices reach record highs all while Trump's approval continues to crater with just six months left until the midterms. But could Democrats blow it? Of course we could. We'll talk about all the reasons why including redistricting hiccups Republicans wooing John Fetterman and Ken Martin crushing it at the

“DNC. Then I talk with strict scrutiny's Melissa Murray about the appeals court ruling on myth or”

Pristone, new threats to safe illegal abortion and Melissa's new book explaining the Constitution for you, the modern reader. Thank you. Quick and open before we start. If you are not a fan of right-wing propaganda or podcast ads, do we have a deal for you? Become a Kirk and Media subscriber cricket dot com slash friends so you can support our fight against the Magus Slop, clogging our feeds, and enjoy ad for episodes of all your favorite pods, including this show,

Podsafe the world offline. And love it or leave it, which amazing news is adding more episodes

in a brand new studio. Tell us all about it, love it. So love or leave it by popular demand by me. It's going to two episodes a week. We're doing it a brand new studio with a live audience upcoming guest. We have Melissa Ethridge coming on with Anne Wilson from Heart on on this week's show, which will be too you could maybe get a ticket if you really try. But cricket dot com slash events come see a bunch of our shows. We have coming out. Rachel Bloom will be on ton of guests

either very excited about and we're excited about the new show. And again,

“cricket dot com slash friends. If you want to subscribe. Absolutely. And we'd love it if you did.”

All right, the ceasefire in the around war has basically collapsed and oil prices are spiking again after Trump rejected Iran's latest offer to deal with the Strait of Hormuz before tackling the nuclear issue. The president then announced project freedom. His expertly crafted plan to have the US military quote, guide commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz, which almost immediately ran into the minor issue of Iran launching missiles and drones at said ships from small boats,

despite Trump repeatedly assuring us that Iran's military capabilities have been destroyed. Iran also resumed attacks on the UAE in Oman, the US sank Iranian boats in the Strait and Maradi officials said they're expecting imminent US and/or Israeli attacks on the Iranian mainland. And off we go, Trump who continues to tell us that he holds all the cards addressed the latest flare up at a White House event on Monday. Our country's booming now,

despite the fact that we're in a, I call it a mini war. Can't let Iran have a nuclear weapon. We had all new eyes and I said we have to take care of business because we can't let that happen. So we did a little detour and it's working out very nicely. Everybody was wrong. They thought that energy would be a $300, right? $300, a barrel and it's like at a hundred. They give me fake polls. They tell me about polls and this, you know, it's the interest that did a poll on the war

with Iran. And they said only 32% of the people like it. Well, I don't like it, not in like war at all. And they said 32% of the people are against President Trump. Well, when you explain it, like is it okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon? It wouldn't be 32%. But even if you said that, that'd be a 32% because the polls affect. We watched that in our office and got us to win on like that for about five hours, I think. Just it was a drone. It was an intermit. You're speaking

weaving back and forth between Iran and the economy and the evil. I know I said it and I

“regretted it. But the guy from Ponstars briefly showed up and he was gone. We were back to the”

Shbeel. So Trump keeps telling us he's holding all the cards. What kind of a kind of a card game do you think he thinks he's playing? Not a winning one. Yeah. So this plan, it's not the Navy ships or physically escorting other ships to the strait or hummus. Guiding you sounds like, we'll give you directions and wish you luck. Like, what? Right, based on what happens. Maybe they're calling it a coordination effort to guide ships with real-time information, safety

guidance and coordination. So like, I don't know GPS. So what does this? So, but as we saw today, Iran is very willing to take shots at these vessels. They're willing to take shots at other targets in the region. Depending on the guarantee that the strait or hummus isn't mine. So it seems like once again, more of a PR effort, they roll out over the weekend, ahead of markets on Monday. But it didn't work this time because the price of gasoline shot up again. The average price is at

450 per gallon. Now in the US, but you've seen analysts say, like, there could be a break at some point pretty soon in the global economy and get us to 7 or 8 dollars a gallon. So we just seem stuck here. There's a lot of troops stuck in the Gulf trying to figure out what's next. Iran is not going to backtrack. The bet seems to be that we can create enough pain for Iran, that they buckle and they capitulate. I still think that's a flawed strategy because the IRGC

doesn't give a shit about their own people and they have all the guns. But yeah, and 10 days

“Trump is supposed to go to China, which is by far the most important meeting of his entire second”

term so far. And now this is dominating the whole agenda, not the trade deal or anything else you want to get done. It seems like they're, we're now begging China to help put pressure on Iran

to have in the strait, which is amazing. They're just exactly where you want to be.

Look, if he said also today in that thing, not event that we just saw, uh, we're in, what is this? We're only in like the sixth week. It is the tenth week of war right now. Yeah, well, time flies when you're trapped in a conflict. You thought we'll last a few days because you have advisers who, um, uh, like to drink in the morning, uh, the, but allegedly, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the. The strait of our moves was open.

There was a question around Iran's nuclear program. Now the strait of our moves is closed. And there was a question about Iran's nuclear program. I don't know what kind of car game you're playing, where whatever number of cards you're holding the situation keeps getting worse and worse all around you. I don't even know if he has a couple of tools.

“Right. Yeah. I don't, and I also like, I, you know, he's holding all the cards, but he's playing”

Uno, the point of Uno is to have no cards. They were always no cards. They were literally

more cards. The more cards you have, the worse you're doing. Also, if you're holding a bunch of wild Uno cards, the games over my friend, you've won. You won the game of Uno, play those cards. Yeah. The, he's calling the blockade, the greatest military maneuver or one of the greatest maneuvers in history, then he sent a letter on Friday saying that we're actually no longer in any kind of a conflict. So don't worry about that. It's all resolved because we're saying that we haven't

fired on each other in a while, but they're still sinking ships. These things, if you attack our ships, then we will then destroy you, but then Iran has to go around and then fire at the ships that are in the straight because they can't legitimize that threat because they have to prove that that threat is empty and we just keep doing this over and over and over again. And also, again, so people know, the, the straight isn't like, green light, go, red light, stop. It like,

this requires confidence among the different commercial vessels that are going through the straight before they actually go through the straight. So Trump just shit posting or or telling everyone that, like, everything's fine and we're guiding ships and this and that, like, what do you think happens when there's a few more explosions and boat, even if even if we're knocking down some of the drones and we're blunt, you know, apparently we sunk six boats today,

small boats, we're doing this. Even if we do some of that, what do you think that's going to do to the confidence of these these ships and the companies that own the ships going through the straight? They're still going to do it. These are hundreds of millions of dollars of oil in the tanker. Like the scariest imaginable having an RPG shot at your giant tanker full of oil. Yeah, I mean, there's no way these insurance companies are going to cover it with the captains. They're

going to go through it. And also, yeah, pikes at the last week was trying to claim that they were no longer in hostilities. So the war powers act didn't apply. Well, so much for that argument, pal. Yeah. Also, I just, I, I feel as though the Iranians are a bit like squirrels. Like, I don't think they know where the minds are at this point. So it's like they didn't know idea. Like, you know, you're, you work on a commercial vessel. You're not in the military. You took a job. It had tradeoffs.

One of the tradeoffs wasn't, I'm going to get blown up in the fucking straightaway movies. I do this for money. I'm not, I'm not in the oil business for the love of the game. Right. Again, these ships have to be insured and who's going to give insurance on these ships. It also doesn't seem like the Iranians are taking Trump's threat that they will be quote blown off the face of the earth very seriously if they target US ships right now. No, I mean, I, obviously, they probably prefer not to get

bombs. You wouldn't, but, you know, I suspect most of the Iranian leaders feel like they took the hardest punch that the US and Israel could deliver and that they are still standing and that the

sure what targets Trump could hit now. I guess we could go back to like the war crime bucket,

“hit all the power plants, hit all the bridges. Maybe we talk about a tactical nuclear weapon, but”

that's just going to lead to mass civilian death and suffering and make the reconstruction harder. I don't think it's going to material change the thinking of the RGC abuse. Again, they have the weapons they're in control and it's existential. And they're willing to send, I mean, it is just despicable what they're all, like what they are doing. It's despicable closing the straight-of-war moves. They are sending people on small ships to their deaths for the purposes of like extracting

economic pain from other countries, like that is what they are doing right now. Yeah. And it's of course causing all kinds of havoc here at home. As you mentioned, Tommy, as you all saw for the weekend, spirit airlines formally ceased operations on Saturday. And I mean, that is a sort of a fancier term for just it just shut down. Just no longer there. No, not like we're not selling tickets anymore. Like thousands of flyers stranded, everyone with a future spirit ticket screwed. They said in the

court filing on Monday that quote recent geopolitical events resulted in a massive and sustained

“increase in fuel prices. Driving isn't much better. Average prices are now 445 a gallon or above”

$6 in many places, highest level since the pandemic, all-time record high here in California in Washington State. And then experts are saying we could hit a national average of $5 a gallon by Memorial Day. I know some of you craft political types are trying to link these things to the new forever war that Trump started. But here's a transportation secretary, Sean Duffy, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bescent, trying to explain just how wrong you all are.

To be really clear, yeah, Jeff Hill prices have gone up. This story was not written because of the Iran War. This story was written years ago because of what Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, people to judge and the DOJ, under Biden, what they did to prevent the merger from happening. What do they want? A nuclear Iran? In the Democrat role, the alternative is to have a nuclear Iran, I recognize that prices have come up. But they will start to go down immediately once the

straight issues are resolved. We are cognizant that this short-term blew up up in prices is affecting the American people. But I am also confident on the other side

“of this, prices are going to come down very quickly. I think the Iranians are starting to believe”

their own propaganda. It's just a good button on that. I just love the argument now that they've reached. It was like, yes, prices are high now. But just think of what will happen when

the war is over. It's amazing like the parallels to how like when Trump's up they're saying,

like my farm policy is not popular, but actually if it was described properly, people would be more receptive to it. Like he's doing Biden and then his people are out there going, actually, he's a longer-term causes of inflation. It's not because of this and it's not because of that and it's going to be okay. The ways in which they're out there trying to kind of spin this, it's just very, it's amazing how much it sounds like the way Biden was spinning us.

I was looking for so long. There has been this thought that like, well, you know, it seems bad and people are saying it's going to be bad, but you know, the prices of oil kind of got up and down and then they had come down recently and maybe it was going to be fine. But of course, it seems like right now it's all catching up and it's not just the hostilities in the Gulf that have reignited on Monday. It's just like the finally the supply issues for oil and not

enough oil going through the straight for the last 10 weeks. It's finally hitting oil prices and gas prices here, especially really hard. I mean, the price of jet fuel is nearly doubled in

the last two months. The FT reported the global airlines have cut two million seats from their

May schedules in the past two weeks. So you get planes increasing prices, the airlines are increasing prices. They're downsizing aircraft to be more efficient. The routes are all screwed up and so I said Delta cut 3.5% of its flights to save fuel. Do Thanza cut 20,000 flights between May and October. So like, I don't know, I'm no expert on airline mergers. I know they're all blaming Biden for blocking this merger, but even if you blame Biden for blocking the merger, spirit had gone

into bankruptcy twice and they asked the Trump administration for a $500 million bailout, which they were denied, could have done that. Also, you see that Trump initially tried to blame in an Obama and said Obama blocked a merger with another airline that actually went out of business in 1987. That would do a smoke on the planes too. That wouldn't be quite fly. So spirit online sucks. Like, I'm not my favorite to fly, but having them in markets was a really good thing

to pull prices down. And there's a study that showed that markets with spirit or discount airlines in them have 21% lower fares as compared to markets without them. So this sucks for all of us. So there were two mergers on the table, one was with Frontier, which is another ultra low-cost carrier and there was JetBlue. JetBlue offered more money. The CEO of spirit at the time said, "We shouldn't do the JetBlue one because it's not going to get approved." And it wasn't

going to be approved because it was clear that if JetBlue were to acquire spirit, all those ultra

been really neutered. But one of the ways it was neutered was to say it had had to, you have to show what the effect would be for consumers specifically. And there's all kinds of other effects that

“haven't been seen as important. But even JetBlue's on internal documents said this would cause”

cost to rise for consumers. Their own plans were basically to stop to make spirit part of JetBlue.

If Frontier and Spirit had merged, you'd have one bigger ultra low-cost carrier and there would be problems with that, but you would still have the competition that Tommy's talking about. The CEO was aware of these regulatory problems. The judge who did it was a Reagan appointee. This was just a clear cut case where the judge came in and said the law is the law and this would hurt consumers. And there was a famous quote, if you remember from the time, which is like

something, I don't have in front of him, I don't have in front of him, I lost it. But it was something the effect of spirit may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it has customers who love it. I don't know what those insane people are. But it served a purpose and so when it didn't get approved, one other point about this is spirit could have said, "Hey, if you don't approve of this merger, we're going to go out of business." And in fact, there's a provision in anti-trust

law. This is called the Failing Firm Defense. And they could have said that a trial. In fact, at the trial, the CEO said the opposite, testified the opposite that we have turned around. And things are going well and spirit now. And so didn't invoke the failing firm defense when they could have. So this whole report, this argument now, made by Republicans and the fucking tech finance douchees on Twitter that like this is all Elizabeth Warren's fault in

people to judge and in the Biden DOJ that if I've only jet blue had been able to buy spirit, then it could have turned around this failing company and blah, blah, blah. That's not what the CEO was saying at the time, under oath. And by the way, like maybe if the shareholders had not a dollar signs in their eyes and decided to merge with frontier instead of jet blue, it would have been a bigger airline that could have survived this. Like stepping back, you know, one way to

prevent airlines from going out of business is just to have one giant one. One giant airline that you let all these guys to consolidate into bigger companies can weather financial difficulties more

“than others. Not saying that like a market with competition is not without trade-offs, right?”

Like they're all kinds of examples of of of bigger companies are able to kind of weather financial difficulties more than smaller ones. The purpose of having anti-trust law is you weigh the cost and the benefits on behalf of consumers and a market that's competitive. And by the way, there is more turnover and more abilities for some companies rise. And some fault, that's the nature of having a free market economy and what you protect against monopoly. But in this specific case, it just

doesn't apply because the judge who did it was a Republican and the debt was stacked against it from the beginning. The other thing you don't see people pointing out is that like jet blue is also hurting. And they've lost money now for the last six years in a row, they've cut routes. There's a real argument that the merger could have led to two failed airlines instead of just one.

Jet blue would have taken on three plus billion dollars in debt. If they merge with spirit,

they're having trouble right now. We don't know what would happen. But it's not like it was a clear cut case where Jet blue buying spirit and taking on three billion dollars in debt is it's

“now cutting routes and losing money is like a big win for Jet blue either. Yeah, all their costs went”

up. And it's just like what's the dumb thing we're even arguing about? Like obviously, Jet fuel costs is a huge driver here of the problem. What are we talking about? Yeah. Pots of America is brought to you by Article Article makes it effortless to build a home that lasts without the boutique markup. They're curated collections of mid-century coastal and sandy furniture are designed to make some match perfectly. So you can create a cohesive

designer look that will stand the test of time. Article 7 is so well made. We've had stuff from article at the office for ever and you know people beat the shit out of this stuff. We got a bunch of a bunch of furniture that's meant to throw out. But article is just really tough and really well made. Takes a look and keeps on ticking. Article Office fast affordable shipping across the US and Canada with options for professional assembly. If you prefer a hands-off experience,

what if you prefer a hands-on experience? Have a question or need help with your design choices. Article's customer care team is available seven days a week with knowledgeable support and even free interior design services to help you get your home just right with article 30 days satisfaction guarantee. You can shop with confidence knowing that if you're not completely in love with your new furniture, you can easily return it. This piece of mine ensures that you can invest

in your home without hesitation. Article is offering our listeners $50 off your first purchase

of $100 or more to claim visit article.com/cricket and the discount will be automatically applied at checkout. That's article.com/cricket for $50 off your first purchase of $100 or more. Positive America is brought to you by AG1. The hardest part of taking care of yourself isn't knowing what to do. It's the effort of keeping up with it all. AG1 takes that effort off the table. One scoop. Eight ounces of water every morning. That's it. AG1 is a daily health strength

with a multivitamin pre and probiotics superfoods and antioxidants. One scoop. Eight ounces of water. That's it. The next gen formula delivers 75 plus ingredients backed by four clinical trials. Clinically shown to support gut health. Phil common nutrient gaps and improved key nutrient levels

one thing consistent. High quality, nutritional support every single day. No matter where you start,

“you're mourning. It's so easy to use. You wake up. Maybe you have an approtein shake. Maybe you're”

just having some just a glass of water, but I'll just scoop it right in there. Taste good. And you're like, okay, now I'm healthy. Yeah, you're healthy. And the rest of the day, just forget it. You know, you know, make sure you get those things that you're not going to get otherwise, you know? Exactly. That's it. You get those things for you. AG1 has over 50,000 verified five star users and comes with a 90 day money back guarantee. Visit drink AG1 dot com slash cricket to get a free AG1 flavor

sampler and a bottle of vitamin D3 plus K2 in your AG1 welcome kit when you first subscribe

a 72 dollar value that's drink AG1 dot com slash cricket drink AG1 dot com slash cricket. So all this comes as we are now officially six months out from election day in the political environment just keeps getting worse for Trump and Republicans. A bunch of new polling has Trump's approval down to the high or even mid 30s and is absolutely brutal on specific issues like inflation and Iran, which Trump himself acknowledged. He's been reading the polls as we saw in that

“clip. But on Monday, political playbook reported on a few reasons that Republicans are still optimistic”

that I thought could be a useful frame for us to discuss whether we're getting two high on our own supply of hope. I'm here. The first is the redistricting more, which we've been saying Republicans have basically lost, but maybe not after the Supreme Court's decision to further gut the voting rights act last week in Kale, a few Southern states are attending to redraw their maps before the 2026 midterms, even though it may require the legally dubious move of pushing

back the dates of their primaries or filing deadlines. Ron DeSantis signed Florida's new proposed map into law on Monday, though that will also face legal challenges. And even though Virginia Democrats won their redistricting referendum at the polls the other week, people are a bit nervous that the Virginia State Supreme Court hasn't yet ruled on whether it's constitutional. Where do you guys think the math stands at this point? So if you look at the cook political report,

they basically have 192 seats that they marked a solid Democrat, 11 seats likely Democrat,

14 lean Democrats. That's 217 seats that are probably going to go to Democrat than 16 rated toss-ups, but 13 of those are held by Republicans in three of the Democrats. They're defending a lot more. That is good for us, but it's not great. That's not popping up. That's not an askticking. And then to your point, the redistricting fights complicate things. They'll probably net four seats from Florida. They could states that might move before the midterms include Louisiana,

Tennessee, Alabama, and South Carolina that would all create more Republican seats. There will be lawsuits that complicate all of this, as you said, Virginia is up in the air. You know, longer term to 28. Some of the blue states could redistrict in ways that benefit us back. But it just, it feels closer than it should be with Trump at a 37% approval rating to me. Yeah, if you give the four seats from Florida, you get four seats potentially from this redistricting,

and then you lose the four that you were going to gain in Virginia. That's a 12-seat swing that you could potentially see, but nobody really knows. I don't know. I've seen different people are nervous about the Virginia redistringers, because there's been no ruling yet, but at the same time they ruled against some of the other objections. I'm not sure if it's just Democrats are nervous, or if there's a legitimate chance it gets thrown out. So, I'll go through the likelihood of

sort of that some of the recent developments that we saw. Louisiana is like the most likely where we're going to work GOP will pick up some seats, because it was the case was about Louisiana, the voting rights case, and so the most likely result there is the Republicans get one to two extra seats in Louisiana. That is, there'll be lawsuits there, but that is the most likely since it was directly impacted by the Supreme Court. And the governor literally declared a state of emergency

and delayed their primary, which should be happening right now, and they've kind of kicked it to July 15th, or until the legislature moves faster. So, yes, that process is very much rolling

“motion. So, yeah, the only thing that can stop that is lawsuits exceeding, but who knows, right?”

Tennessee wants to get a seat, wants to pick up a seat, the Tennessee Republicans, but they would basically

be eliminating all democratic seats in a black district, majority black district that has existed for decades. And their challenge is they have a timing issue, since the candidate filing deadline has already passed, and the primary is August 6th, and because they're dismantling the only black district that has existed for decades, it under the weir ruling in the voting rights act, you could still have a section to case there, and at the very least, you could have

litigation that would take a while to play out. So, like, Tennessee's not a sure thing, but their special legislative session starts this week. It does. Yeah, the day it just comes out. Yeah, they will also, so they will have to change the primary date. They will also have to retrow out. The reason that it's more of a legal challenge there is they will have to retroactively change the candidate filing deadline that has already passed, which Louisiana doesn't have that

already voted. Right, well, that is, yeah, so there's that. Alabama could get a seat, is it going to try to go for a seat? They have a bigger problem, which is they need to go to

to act on a separate case first and revert to old maps, not draw a new map. So, the VRA thing

was like, oh, if you're drawing new maps, whatever, they would have to get then the Supreme Court to act immediately, lift an injunction and go back to a 2023 map that the Supreme Court itself had already ruled was wrong. So, they have a bigger hill to climb. South Carolina, very, very hard,

“and it doesn't seem like the appetite is there, but they're going to try, but I think the timing”

it's used for South Carolina even worse, and in Georgia, camp has already ruled it out. So, Georgia is not going to go. So, here's the Virginia problem. The worry there, I was looking looking into this. So, the Virginia State Supreme Court is not like, it's not partisan like other courts, where it's not like elected directly, it's a point, the legislature appoints the seats on the court and therefore, 12-year terms. So, it actually has a slight, small, sea conservative

lean right now, which is why everyone's a little bit nervous about how they're going to rule.

They did allow the referendum to go forward in the first place. Right. But the issues now is people

are raising procedural issues in the legislature, not necessarily the referendum itself. It was procedural issues to like, there's some people are a little worried now, because they're not, it's not like a liberal court. It's not a very conservative court. Like Florida, everyone thinks, even though this could be a blatant violation of the Florida Constitution, the Florida Court is right wing enough that like Florida is going to just say sure and give

Ron to San Francisco seats. If it was like New York or California, we would probably the referendum

“would be fine, but because of the weird makeup of the Virginia court, I think that's why people”

are nervous. Yeah. Yeah, that's what's happening there. So, I'll, I'll told like, if Virginia and Florida both survive, it's basically we net out at Republicans picking up three seats in the redistricting war net. And if, you know, and then beyond three, you get like maybe five to seven depending on whether you get Louisiana plus Tennessee plus Alabama. So, you're saying, sorry, so it is net three across the entire redistricting fight we've just been fighting over the last

year. If Virginia survives and Florida survives. And then there's a potentially plus four to

Republicans through this, the post FRI thing. So, basically the floor is much worse for Democrats

after this, the ceiling, it all depends on sort of Virginia. And then if you go out to 2028, a bunch of states. Oh yeah. Right. It's a real bad. Illinois could decide to go nuts and be a 17 zero Democrat state. Like California could redistrict again. You could crack a bunch of Democratic districts, spread those voters across. You can do it in New York, Maryland, New York, planning on Washington, Oregon. So, if they Republicans move in 2026, we can't move until 2028.

Yeah, I mean, just the, I guess what I'm getting is the overall estimate for how much the Supreme Court of voting rights ruling will impact things. They're all over the place depending on where you look like it's like from a dozen to two dozen seats could be impacted to help Republicans. And then, fair fight, the Stacey Abrams group looked at a bunch of districts, the Democrats could change to help us. So, it's just like, it's a mess. It's impossible to know what's happening.

None of this is good for democracy. No, me, you could, someone just sort of posted this map. It's like a kind of a joke, I guess, but it's not really, which is, you could end up by 2028 or beyond where if it's a red state with a governor and a legislature that is majority of the Republican, there are no democratic seats left. And if it's a blue state with the governor and then there's no red seats, good seats left. Great. But that's just talk about polarization.

On Louisiana, Trump posted on Sunday quote, "We cannot allow there to be an election that is conducted unconstitutionally simply for the convenience of state legislatures if they have to vote twice so be it." Any idea what he's actually saying there, Lament? So, it's unclear who the, who the, who the they is there. Does he mean the legislatures have to vote twice as an approved new map, doesn't it totally make sense? If this is because Louisiana

is already voting, and that's why there's some question as to whether the election could proceed.

“I think that's what it has to mean. Now, like, who knows what the Supreme Court will do,”

but the idea that that, look, the Supreme Court's, this court is a huge fan of unleashing chaos and then being like we can't believe what's happening. We can't believe what your people are doing with our very obvious and simple ruling. But I do think it's a possibility that the Supreme Court would intervene in some way to say we cannot have a bunch of states throwing out their maps and having people revote in all of this chaos and that we in the run-up before an election is a

tradition of not disturbing election as it's already begun. I think that's what Trump is worried about. Yeah, and it does seem like they're even, that's why when I'm talking about Tennessee, it seems like they would be more likely to do that in Tennessee even than Louisiana because the Tennessee thing is really like throwing out the filing deadlines, doing a new primary, eliminating all the districts. It's like a really, it's a pretty. Yeah, the supposed to be

Supreme Court president, it's called the Purcell principle that says court, you should not be

screw Democrats procedurally, hopefully it should protect everyone from like really terrible things happening right before an election or people getting disenfranchised, but I don't know, we'll find out

“I guess. Yeah, so net net I would say, I think, however this ends up, I still think Democrats are”

favored to win the house, but this definitely could put a dent in the number of seats for we pick up, even if we do get a majority. So that's the house, let's talk Senate. We've been talking about how the path to a democratic majority in the Senate has been getting more realistic by the day, even though it would require defending every democratic seat and then flipping for Republican seats, but there is another potential wrinkle that JVL at the bowlwork and Jonathan Martin at

Politico just wrote about. John Fetterman, specifically the rumors that Republicans are trying to persuade him to switch parties or at the very least become an independent, which would deny Democrats a Senate majority, even if they pick up four seats. JMR reported that Trump has offered via Sean Hannity to totally get behind Fetterman and raise a lot of money for him if he makes the switch. Fetterman told JMR, he's, quote, staying a Democrat and that he'd be a, quote,

shitty Republican. What do you guys think specifically is there anything Democrats can or should be doing about this possibility? Just a matter, imagine a Democrat in making this offer via Rachel Maddo. It's so crazy. It's just like the losses over us at this point, it's just Hannity's so biased. I mean, this story, like the details are like Fetterman finds the online left really annoying. He's gotten close to Senator MacLeod. We've been there. He's close to

his wife, due to the poll, Goldman Sachs executive turned mad executive and then Katie Brittner husband, as you said, Trump is offering him money and political support. It's not really clear

“what Fetterman wants politically. It's like nowhere in this article. I think, look, hopefully the”

best case that Fetterman knows this conversation gives him leverage to get something. TBD, I don't know the guy. I like find it very weird that his thing is just like being super pro Israel now and like that's fine on policy. If you, if you believe in Israel and as right to exist and as right to defend itself, but he seems to take pleasure in trolling people that are worried about civilian casualties or the death toll. Like obviously this war is not good for anyone, not for Israeli,

not for Palestinians. So, but it's more than just Gaza. Like Fetterman also never seem to

criticize Trump, which is an odd political choice when Trump's approval rating is rock bottom. He jumped out after the Correspondent Center to like start defending the ballroom. Well, he's even more unpopular and even more stupid. So, I don't know. It's like some of the sense personal like Jonathan reported that Fetterman spent hours hanging out with Republicans in their cloakroom chatting them up. I get that all personal, all politics is personal. I get that

when people annoy you, you can get pushed out of their tribe. Presumably you run for office because you have beliefs and you want to do things to like turn those beliefs into policy or law.

“Maybe he does not, but it's terrible. It's a tough situation. I hopefully, I mean I think we should”

I'll just, you know, it does remind you that constantly knowing the shit out of someone is not going to get them to come your way, but I doesn't mean anyone needs to like not say what they believe them. Yeah, there was a post-buy like the Monroe County Democrats that said he's a traitor to Democrats, traitor to Pennsylvania. It's traitor to those who work tirelessly to to elect him, and that's a defense statement on some of these issues.

But according to Federman's, you know, by Federman's counties, and votes with Democrats 93% of the time, he's pro-Gay, he's pro-Union, etc. He's taking these heterodox views that I find strange, and he's doing it in a state that is not more red than an Arizona, for example, we have people that have been much stronger against Trump.

Now, the, the, the, the, the, the stab that I saw that I found, like, I didn't, I was first to

couldn't believe it made sense mathematically, there's a harrient in post of this that Federman has had a 108 point drop among Democrats. I was like, what do you mean? It means he's gone from plus 68 to minus 40 among Democrats. So I don't know if Federman's going to run again in 2028, but it's very clear that he will

have a huge problem if there is a primary challenge, and they're almost certainly would be given how weak he would be in a Democratic primary. The question is how to keep him on side until then, and I do think that's really, really important. Even, even, the Federman says in that piece, if, if Democrats get to 51, who do you think

the 51st vote would be, and he's referring to himself. So he's seeing what Power Manchin had, what Kirsten Cinema had, and he clearly enjoys being at the middle of things in a way that sort of feels vaguely familiar.

So I, I don't use any wrong with being incredibly critical of John Federman, but we have

this way on our side of deciding that someone isn't on our side, and then making it true. It's so weird. It's a balance, right? Because, like, of course he should be criticized, and of course he should face pressure to do the right thing when it comes to, say, like voting on Trump nominees, for example.

that 51st vote, then we'd rather have JD Vans making all the decisions.

“Yeah, just like we'd, I'm sure we would all rather have Jill Manchin in the Senate right”

now still. And now he, he just retired, but like, we have Jim Justice who's voting with Republicans all the time. Jim Manchin pissed us off endlessly, but still voted with Democrats most of the time. Jim Manchin wasn't the Senate right now.

We don't need anything to be talking about picking up three seats and not four. We also wouldn't have had any of the investments that Joe Biden made in the inflation reduction act at all, because it wouldn't have passed. I do think there's basically two points in the piece that I thought were worth it. One is that 93% number.

And because Federman has been going around publicly and privately telling people he votes with the Democrats 93% of the time, right? So that's on his mind. And then you guys have been, you know, summarizing this, but I love the way Jamart wrote it.

He said, he's like, I've seen this a million times.

The more one drifts from their political tribe, the more they're scorned and mocked by that tribe. Often in personal terms, this only prompts the person drifting away to accelerate their turn and adopt the language customs and some positions of the other tribe with an all show them determination, soon they're identifying somewhat entirely with the new tribe,

the path only goes in one direction. Now, you can say that that is incredibly immature, bad, whatever, like fine. It's life. We have this guy until 2028. It's going to be in the Senate till 2028.

That's the deal.

“And do you want him to stay a Democrat after 2026 or not?”

Because if he stays a Democrat after 2026, then we have a Democratic majority leader. And that means we're blocking Supreme Court appointments, all this other kind of stuff. Or at least we have a chance to do that. If we don't have a Democratic majority, then we have two years of just John Foon is leader.

And so then it's like, do you now does that mean Democrats need to compromise their positions where they disagree? No, of course not. But like, you don't have to be a dick to him, just for the fun of it and keep pushing him into the other side.

Yeah, it's a strange balance. And it's very clear from the piece and previous reporting on federalmen that he's way too online and reads all the criticism and takes it to hard and gets pissy about it. The good news is he says in the piece, he knows that Trump demands 100% loyalty, he knows what will happen to you if you don't give it to him, like Bill Cassidy or Tom Tillis.

But again, the weird thing to me is like, in the olden days, John Fetterman would want a thing. And your mark for a bridge in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh, like, what do you want, dude? Very interesting. Do you just want to troll people over Gaza?

Is that like your animating thing? Like, I understand, like, sort of taking positions where you punch left and punch right sometimes and that can be good politics doesn't seem like it is currently in Pennsylvania for him. So I'm just confused by this.

And again, we're not having a conversation right now about the 2028 Democratic primary in Pennsylvania and whether anyone should support John Fetterman. That's not what this is about. This is about from now until 2026 when he will be an office no matter what, do you want to push him into the Republican Party or not?

Yeah, the or do you want not to push him in, but do you want to do whatever it takes to stop him from getting into the Republican Party? Like, the fact that he can see to being a Republican, he's already flirting with it in his mind even though he's sort of publicly saying that he's not considering it all. But actually, Trump's Republican Party is so kind of unpleasant for anybody who's Heterodox

should tell us a little bit about how we should be dealing with people like this. You know, stepping back also, like, we hear all the time about how, like, we need to be a big coalition and that we don't have people have to have all the same points of views, like we need to be a party that kind of like embraces all of these things. That was just something we said, love it after 2024 and we lost and since he might a lot

people meet that. And it goes both ways, but it does go both ways. But part of it is like, okay, like he has taken positions that we think are wrong on immigration and I see taking positions that a lot of people in Democratic Party view are wrong on, say, funding is real military, like argue against those, fine, but that when people reach

a different conclusion and don't vote with you 100% of the time, what happens the next day? And it can't be that they're all traitor. So just can't be because they're a bad person or that you're a bad person. Well, I remember, I mean, speaking of broadening the tent, we can bring up his son

piker. But I remember like the fight I had with Hassan on the pod, not the last pod, but the one before the bigger fight was when he was like, yeah, you know what Joe Biden should have done to Joe mentioned. He should have like, you know, threatened his daughter within a DOJ investigation and it's

like whether or not you think, first of all, you can argue whether or not that's a good

idea for my legal and constitutional perspective, but beyond that, like, do you think that

“would have scared Joe mentioned into voting the right way?”

Or do you think that would have maybe said to Joe mentioned, like, fuck you people, I'm leaving and I'm going to the Republican Party because it's human nature to be like, oh, you're going to yell at me more and threaten me, like, fuck you. I'm going to go take my toys and go to the other party. Yeah.

Also, we do know that the Republican Party, if you don't do everything Trump says, it ends with him telling a mob to hang you with the Capitol, so the downside risk is a little greater on their side. But you're a rope for Fetterman, if you're a fucking pants, but you can see from the, you can see dude, compared to pants.

It's a really good point. You can get a buttress that buttress that fucking, uh, what do you call it, what's the thing you hang people from, uh, Gallo, Gallo?

You can see from the piece, too, like, Katy Britt and, uh, and what's his name, Dave McCormick,

they're like, working overtime to be nice to Fetterman because they think to themselves, oh, if we're nice to him, then maybe he'll do this. He must be so obvious. Yeah. I thought you have one of which with me again, it's like a Katy.

No, no, Katy Britt loves, loves hanging with me. I'm great. I'm John Fetterman. Lots of America's brought you by Zipper Kruder, sometimes when you're trying to hire somebody, you're not just looking for somebody who's qualified, but also somebody who's genuinely interested

in the role. When you find somebody like that, it makes all the difference because you find somebody who's both has the right skills and the right experience, but also really wants to be part of what you're doing.

“That's what we're always trying to find.”

Some boring and crooked. If you're hiring, you want a candidate who's passionate about your role, but you can't get that insight from a resume, unless you post your job on Zipper Kruder.

And now you can try it for free at zipperkruder.com/kirkadzipperkruder's powerful

matching technology finds qualified candidates quickly. And Zipper Kruder has a new feature that shows you the most interested qualified candidates first. So you meet the right people faster. Candidates can tell you in their own words, whether interested in your job.

No wonder Zipper Kruder is the number one rated hiring site based on G2. Find candidates who really want your job on Zipper Kruder for out of five employers who post on Zipper Kruder get a quality candidate within the first day. Try it for free at zipperkruder.com/kirkadzipperkruder.com/kirkadmeadyourmatch on Zipper Kruder. Pots of America is brought to you by Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

It hasn't gotten a lot of airtime, but President Trump's religious liberty commission is reportedly meeting with a specific focus, advancing a Christian nationalist agenda, rather

“than protecting universal religious freedoms.”

Religious freedom should be a shield for personal belief not a sword used to harm others. Currently, we're seeing this right being distorted by taxpayer-funded agencies that discriminate against prospective foster parents. By imposing a religious litmus test, these organizations are prioritizing dogma over the well-being and dignity of children in need of loving homes.

This is exactly what has happened to some of America United's clients. Liz and Gabe, Routon Ram, a Jewish couple in Tennessee, were ready to foster to adopt a child until a state-funded agency refused to work with them because they're Jewish. Amy Madonna, a Catholic mother of three, was rejected because she did not agree to an evangelical Protestant statement of faith.

Vatma, Maroof, and Britain, Esplan were turned away because they're the same sex couple. If you believe religious freedom should protect everyone. We need you to join the fight now, visit AU.org/kirkadzipperkruder and more, and become a member today. This fight is far from over and everyone of us has a part to play.

So in the category of Democrats being Democrats, there's also some new concerns swirling about the DNC, after Ken Martin's stellar performance on this very show last week, where he used to know about that ship in the harbor, like a zombie ladden's corpse. That's okay to say.

“He was a bit testy, I think, about his decision to not release the 2024 autopsy, despite”

promising to do so, as well as the state of the DNC's finances, which are not great. The weekend, Lauren Egan, at the ballwork, reported that some DNC members have recently considered trying to force Martin out, but that effort was, quote, "put on hold after members failed to identify and alternative candidate willing to step into the role," sort of like trying to be the new eye at whole, I guess.

Party members are also trying to force a resolution that would put constraints on Martin's spending and how he handles the budget. I can confirm the ballwork reporting. I've also talked to DNC members and others around the DNC who have talked to said that there's real conversations, there's been real conversations about trying to potentially

outst Martin. What do you guys make of how big of a problem this is?

What is the, here's what I don't understand.

What do we want the DNC to do between now and November, right? And it seems to me like, at this point, this November, we wanted to raise a ton of money, right? But even then, the DNC has very little to do with the midterms. So if we succeed in midterms, Ken Martin's going to say, "See, you're all bunch of bed

wedgers and I'm amazing and look at what the DNC did, that's going to be wrong because the DNC doesn't really have a lot of to do with the midterms. If we fail at the midterms and people say, "Oh, this is why Ken Martin's off," that's also not, doesn't really hold water because the DNC plays the biggest role in presidential elections.

So this is a 20, 20-28 issue, not a 20, 26 issue. I look, his performance in that interview was shockingly bad. Unlike obviously I'm biased here, I'm a host of the show, I'm your friend, I'm friends at Benwick, but I didn't go into the interview feeling like, "Oh, I beef with Ken Martin, I was just kind of like, what does this guy have to say?"

And I came away feeling like he was insulting my intelligence because on the optopsie debate, specifically, the 2024 DNC optopsie and why they haven't released it, nothing in that report could be as bad as the series of new cycles about spiking the report or going back on your promise to release it, nothing, nothing. And despite what he said, no one expected there to be a silver bullet in there, I did

hope there would be a granular look at the efficacy of voter contact or knocking phone calls, add spending issues that in hindsight move voters, vendors, or various individuals spent

And everyone is filling the void left by the lack of information with their priors, right? So the DNC defenders say I was all just inflation or Biden was too old, and the left says it was all Gaza, and we just argue in circles, add in finitum, and it's just sucks. It's a terrible setup.

“And there was a DNC member saying on Twitter that the truth is the autopsy report just”

never really got done or never got completed and never will be, and that's why it wasn't

released. And then that's true, that shows a lack of candor in previous statements and the interview with you that it's really bad and a problem. And so then the fundraising, like the fundraising is not good. There's a bunch of big donors on the sideline who will not give to the DNC.

I know that from personal conversations with them, and we can't pretend otherwise. So like this process about pushing them out or selecting someone new, like, I don't know how that would work, I also, I don't think you can can strengthen, like you pick someone to leave the DNC, you pick them to leave the DNC, you can't constrain how they spend money.

If you're at that point, you should get a new person in there, this person needs to be able to spend money. I just, I came away shocked that like a political professional struggled that badly and just answering questions that I feel like we're asked in good faith and could have been answered better, but just it was the, the, a mess.

It is now like accepted as a fact that the DNC covered up the autopsy because it showed that Kamal Harris lost because of Gaza. That is like on the whole parts of the internet, that is just an, a known thing that we all know about the fact of this, of this report. Now there has been reporting that that played a role, and I would like to know what that

information is, but it just speaks to the damage done by either not finishing the report or not, and like the way in which saying you're not going to release the report and not finishing the report go hand in hand is this thing kind of just sort of slowly, like kind of ends with a whimper, probably not going to put it out, like the work, you know, everyone kind of slows down, the meetings get canceled, and also there's no report and nothing

to release, and so like part of the problem is there's no way to answer for that at an interview

now because what should happen is go back in time, aggressively finish the thing and get it up door. Yeah. What I, what I have heard, and by Tommy said there was a DNC member on Twitter who said some of this, but then I've heard it from other people.

I've heard it from others too. I lots of other people.

“I think just the tweet that Ken Martin had his friend Paul Rivera, who was unpaid, which”

is why Ken was telling me that he was like, well, we didn't spend hundreds of thousand dollars on it, and I was like, oh, it's a free report, and he was like, well, so he, he got this guy to do it. The guy went around and talked to people, didn't even talk to all the right people, a lot of people weren't interviewed at all, did a shitty job, and Ken the whole time was like,

just letting him do his thing, and then when he came back and didn't have any of the good information, then they just wrote up the report what they had, it was a garbage report, and they realized they couldn't release it, and so instead of either saying like, this was a bad thing, I'm going to try another, you're going to try another out of the top, so we're going to hire someone else, we're going to do it right, has apparently just decided it's

not be honest about it. Yeah. I've heard that very much people too, and I can't confirm that it's true or not. It would certainly, well, I've heard of, we've heard from a lot of people who are like in the nose.

Yes. But it certainly does a better job explaining why you would endure this torturous series of new cycles about a thing rather than just dump it out over Christmas or something, and just like move on. I've also talked to people who have raised money at the highest levels for Democrats for

a very long time, and they said that the finance situation is a disaster, and he can talk

about state investments, and this and that, the problem is he is spending more money than

he is racing. That is very simple, and it is his mismanagement of funds. And so even if he was raising a lot more money and have more success there, if you're spending more than you're racing, it's still a problem. And to all of his talking points about investing in state parties, the portion that they're

investing in state parties, still, even if you take all that money, that doesn't know where near makes up the large gap between the fundraising and the spending that's going on at the DNC right now. So there is a mismanagement. Since I don't review, I've heard from DNC members from people inside the DNC, current

and former officials, and heard from donors, and then those people have told me they've heard concerned from party leaders, former DNC chairs, who are very upset about this, and no one knows what to do because, I guess, time into your point, like the bylaws, make it very difficult to actually outsmart and so people are sort of wondering what to do now.

“And look, I think Amanda Littman, our friend, who runs run for something, you know, she”

made a good point about this, she put a video about this on her Instagram, but the real challenge here is building trust in the Democratic National Committee ahead of 2028, because what the DNC does ahead of 2028 is they're going to set the primary calendar, which is going to be very contentious, because depending on which state's go first, that's going to help different candidates, they are going to set the debate qualifications and who

And so we are going to have a rockest primary in 2028, and the, you know, the, the, the,

“mostly the referee of that primary is supposed to be the DNC, and I do think that, like,”

it's incumbent on all the candidates who are going to run in 2028 in their campaigns to like, speak out publicly and get some transparency, more transparency than we've gotten from Ken Martin on what the rules are going to be, how the process is going to go, make it transparent, whatever happened at the fucking autopsy, and like what's your plan to be financially viable in 2028, because it is important for the DNC to have money ahead

of the presidential election in 2028?

Yeah, I guess the thing is, I agree with all that, it's like right now, the most important

thing is that like every conversation we're having about the Democratic National Committee, like it is important, we're going forward, but for right now it is like about democratic party problems that ultimately will have no impact on what happens in 2026, and that doesn't mean we don't have to have this fight in this conversation right now, the thing I think. Well, yeah, no, because it's at that point in love with it, like the folks I was talking

to said like their biggest worry is 2026 happens, we do well, and then Ken Martin's like see you are all wrong, bunch of bed wetters, and blah, blah, blah, and we're moving on, and then suddenly you're in the primary and the 2028 primary, which happens like right up to the midterm elections and by then it's too late to solve the problem. Right, the question right is the fight over who would be DNC chair plus the sending money

all over the world, combined with the, the, either the inability or refusal to release

“the autopsy, you have to gather created this storm, and the question is what are those”

are due very specific problems, right, that like they may carry knock on effects into the next year, but they don't actually speak to whether or not he would be able to do those jobs, right, like what he would do to run the party in the next year, but like what I took

away from this is like we saw him at that party, I'd always seen Ken Martin in these kind

of like talking point mode interviews, which I found generally frustrating, but not more to or less than any traditional politician, but at that, at that meeting he was so intense and direct, like in a way that I'd never seen in a kind of public facing way, it was like, oh, like there's the real guy, he's like an operator, like an actual kind of like hard-nosed guy, he was like pretty upset about bad coverage pissed about it, thinks it's unfair, wants

to argue about it, wants to make his case, and I thought, oh, that's like an interesting kind of version of this person that I hadn't seen because publicly he does a kind of more traditional Democratic politician thing, and I think what I took away from the interview overall is like the era of that kind of talking point is over, like don't talk down to people like this, it doesn't fucking work certainly not solving your problem.

It was direct, but he's also very, it's very defensive and what you've heard from DNC people and people in the Democratic Party is that the relationship building element of the job,

“which is also important for the Democratic National Committee Chair is lacking in a bit”

and so it's very insular and he has not reached out to people, especially people who like supported any of his opponents in that race, which is tough. But also like, his whole point was like, we're looking forward not backwards, and it's like, well, none of us want to wallow in the past, but it's about learning from and correcting mistakes and like look at the Democratic Party right now, we have not learned from and

corrected a lot of mistakes, like remember on voters were like, hey, you have a gerontocracy problem? Have we solved that? Beyond room moving Joe Biden, then take it, absolutely not. But he's doing this like bill bell check, we're on the Seattle, we're on the Seattle thing, it's like we want to figure out what we screwed up last time and fix it and it was

very frustrated. And his repeated point about lessons were released in the lessons, the lessons I encourage everyone to go on to the DNC website and sign up for the 200 page lessons report and see what it is because it's not really a lot of lessons, it's a lot of it is lessons from success in 2025 and then like various case studies from different groups that are just

sort of pasted into the document like our friends at swing left, who did a lot of that research door to door or when they were, which is great, we love it, but like that's not, that's not an autopsy of 2024. No, it's not, whenever someone says like, we got to look forward, we can't look towards the past and it's like, okay, where do you learn from? Because I only, I face the past.

The future is, but actually in a lot of ways, behind me, I only find out what's going to happen there when it becomes the past. The president is infinitely small. So I tend to live in this present that I can't really quantify and everything I know, 100% of it actually comes from the past, which is interesting.

So I don't know how you're supposed to learn from the future as before you've gotten there. So I'm like, I'm asking my wife. Yeah, past is a good place to look to find answers. I find. I find.

Anyway, it's an issue. It's an issue. Looming over all these issues, though, is the fact that even though Trump and the Republicans are pulling horribly, the Democratic Party is in popular with voters, either, Lakshijane at the argument had a piece last week pointing out that the collapse in Trump's approval

ratings has not yet resulted in Democrats gaining by a corresponding amount on the generic ballot.

So basically, in their analysis of polling, Trump has gone from negative 16 to negative 22 between

And yet, some Democratic candidates are still pulling quite well against their Republican opponents. So that's good. Even in purple states, maybe the most prominent example here is John Oshoff in Georgia, who has also gone all in on a corruption message.

Here's his latest very good, very viral video. We're told a story. Work hard, play by the rules, and you'll thrive, no matter who you are, or where you start, the grind will pay off.

And for too many this story just isn't true, the problem is a corrupt and failing political

system. The problem is that the people's elected representatives don't represent the people. They represent the donors and special interests. Corruption is why things don't work for ordinary people. To fix it, we have to understand it.

Corruption's impact is an abstract. It shows up in our daily lives. Take prescription drugs. So he goes on there to talk about how, you know, when Bush passed Medicare Part D, prescription

“drug program in 2003, that's what stopped drug company, or stopped the United States government”

from being able to negotiate for lower prices with the drug companies, just like other countries do. And that like, I remember talking about this when we were back in the Senate, Billy Towson, who was the head of the House Committee there, then left Congress to go be the lobbyist. For the political companies, he used that to tell the story of how, in the Biden administration,

he helped lead the fight in the Senate to actually let lower prescription drug prices for a lot of these prescriptions, which I thought was the way he told it was a more effective and better story than he ever heard from the actual Biden administration itself, even though they were very responsible for the win. But what did you guys think of that video and also just whether Osloff's message should

be a model for other Democratic candidates?

I mean, I think the corruption message is really powerful, because it's true, and it also

gives you a why to explain why things are so broken. You're not just blaming the other side, you're blaming something more tangible. And I think it also speaks to the moment, which is that voters are furious. They want to burn down the system. That was true in 2016, Trump effectively channeled that fury.

“I think he's lost those voters now, but those voters are probably even more angry, right?”

Because they're pissed off about prices and inflation. And so Obama ran against Washington, Bill Clinton winner, ran against Washington. And also I think when you run to Trump to do, and when you run on that kind of message, hopefully it creates a mandate to actually change some of the things that we're talking about in there.

But it also does let us tell a story about Trump that it isn't just like he's bad. Because I think what Trump is done to like personally charge the corruption in government is so far beyond Billy Towson becoming a farm a lot of years. It's like good old days. His kids follow them around on foreign trips, and they make real estate deals in foreign

countries afterwards. We all watch, remember the Board of Peace event. Yeah. He was looking like Egypt when the president of Indonesia was like, "Hey Donald, should I call a Don Jr. or Eric to cut a deal," right, remember this?

They're making billions off their crypto interests. They even sold half of it to this Emirati-back company. Eric Trump is advisor to a robotics company, because he's a big robotics, drone genius, apparently.

Twenty-four million dollar Pentagon loan in Rio Bartiromo's like, "Hey, congrats, Eric.

Well, well done." That Don Jr. advises calcium and polymarket, which these Trump officials are using to bet on shit they are doing with insider information. Jared Kushner is negotiating with Russia. Ukraine is real Iran.

All these Gulf countries, 99% of the money he's raised in his investment fund is foreign. He's trying to raise $5 billion more from mostly foreign interests. He was doing so with the sideline of an event at Davos. He is not filed a personal financial disclosure for him. So like, this story, it's very real.

“It tells itself, if you have some time, and you have the year of the person, and I think”

Osof has done a better job, prosecuting that case than most, because he's consistent. And one thing he says in that video that we didn't play here in San Luis sum 2 is, and look both sides do it, both sides do it, which is the scale of it on the right, and especially with Trump is just financially greater. But like, it is important to voters to acknowledge that like, yeah, Democrats are fucking

perfect on this either. Yeah, I look up into these two questions, and it's like, what is the source of America's hills, and then what is the best message going into the midterms? I like the corruption message is great. I think this video is great, like Democrats are corrupted by the money in politics, because

we're all people and money corrupts, and it has made it so that Democrats when in power do less make less change, make more compromise, it takes more to get certain votes, because those people are either, either they're explicitly in their own minds, trying to protect their donors, or they kind of convince themselves they believe what it's financially

This happened when we were passing Obamacare, everybody claims Joe Lieberman for killing

the public option, but actually it was a bunch of Democrats in the Senate when we had 60 votes that stood in the way of having an option for people to get public health care, like Medicare, because of lobbying, because of fear of negative ads, because Joe Lieberman had a bunch of insurance companies in his state, but even even more after that Joe Lieberman personally stopped a Medicare buy-in for 55 plus that would have made a huge difference

for everybody, and he did that because he had donors in his state, and even though he was retiring, he did it at their behest, so like these things do make a difference in it, it is both signs, but like we're in this mess, why is this corruption tolerable, because Republicans are excusing it, Barack Obama wins in 2008, he is punished in part because he is paying for the consequences and economic fallout of the previous Republican

administration, Joe Biden, and Democrats are punished because of this mismanagement of

the pandemic and the economic fallout that came after that pandemic, but when you like Democrats, they tend to do things that are more popular, more economically progressive, and when you elect Republicans, you end up with tax cuts for the rich, and deregulation that happens every time, most of what our politics is, is about obfuscating that for people.

“I think in a world in which people don't generally believe that instinctively, and they”

come to doubt and mistrust Democrats for reasons having to do with economic mismanagement, but also because of a whole ecosystem that exists to make Democrats look extreme and silly, and because some Democrats have taken stupid and embarrassing and unpopular positions, I think it is smart to have Democrats making an argument like this, but to me, the goal is for each Democrat, to make the best argument they can, tell the best story because nobody

votes for generic Democrat. They vote for the Democrat on their ballot, and then how we address

our broader problem with the electorate, where people mistrust us, don't believe us on the economy, but they don't believe that we'll do what we say on the economy, and they still believe we'll do what we said in 2020 on everything else, that to me is a fight we're going to have to fight in the primaries in 2020. Yeah. I mean, to the broader question of that lecture raises in that in the argument piece about why Democrats aren't gaining on the generic ballot

by as much as Trump's approval is following. I do think there's probably a number of reasons. No, definitely. But I do think that there is just a severe lack of trust in the Democratic Party and the Democratic brand that comes from decades, but it also comes specifically from everything that happened at the end of the Biden administration, Joe Biden running as part of it.

So, Laxia points out the Democratic position on crime is a big part of it or at least what the perception of the Democratic position on crime is, which was unfortunately hurt by the defund the police discussion, which of course, you know, you know, you know, you have Democratic candidates saying defund the police, but enough activists were that the perception became the Democrats want to want to stop defund the police. Most Democrats

didn't, but if you did, for you did, and those were the voices that were elevated by

“some often by the other side. Yes. I think some of the positions on board are”

security and immigration contributed as well. There's some cultural issues as well. So, like, there's a lot going on, but I think even beyond all those individual issues because I do think if you take an unpopular position on an issue because you really believe in that position and you sell it and you say, I'm sorry that I'm not on your side on this, but this is just what I believe that is one thing. There's a perception that Democrats

are just like maybe I'll be on this side of this issue, but then maybe I'll change if somebody's unpopular and the wishy washyness, which is another version of corruption that's not just money, it's power and fame corrupting as well, right? Like I like my position of power and I don't want to lose it, and so I'm going to say what I think is popular. There's lack of faith in the political system generally, which I think spreads to everyone.

Yes. I think on the Democrats to look inward, I think that voters had high hopes for Obama, they didn't feel we're met, right? That's an area where we all look inward. On the Biden administration, this is what so annoying to see Hunter Biden running around and blaming everyone but himself for his father's political standing because he did more to nullify the Democratic party's position on waging this corruption messian against Trump than literally anybody else because

of his scummy business dealings. And yes, there's nothing compared to what Don Jr. and Eric Trump

“do on a given Tuesday, but still he was a huge problem, and that's why it's so like”

galling to hear him out there. But yeah, I think there was a broader trusting with Joe Biden where we as a party were like, no, no, no. He's not too old. He's totally fine. And then he ran again and voters firmly rejected it. Then there were the pardon issues you were talking about. That said, I do think like, I'm worried about us not doing better in the generic ballot rating, but we have no leader. We have no stand up there. That's a huge part of

it. We are, yes, we are off sides where the electorate is on some issues. Like the Washington Post just had a poll out this weekend. It found 53% of voters think Democrats are too liberal, but the similar number of thought to Republicans were too conservative. So like people just maybe don't like the other side. What gives me some hope for the midterms? I think they're going to be a referendum on Trump and the party in charge. I also think it's a turnout election.

And if we can turn out our far more motivated base, then we will win. And then that same

of Republicans. So our side is considerably more motivated to go out right now. I have now heard from a few people who have just asked me advice on who to support what Democrats support,

“where to put their money their time. And I think that I keep hearing is, you know who I want to”

support this time around? Because of the state of the politics of the party, first time candidates,

new candidates. And there is something, this is where the Joe Biden issue and the Ken Martin issue are somewhat connected because there is a, like, don't piss on our leg and tell us it's raining, kind of thing where you look at Democrats and it was very obvious that Joe Biden was too old and then a bunch of people in the party were like, no, no, he's fine. Everything's great. The debate performance was fine. No big deal. And then Ken Martin's like, well, we told us you would release

the autopsy and you're not releasing the autopsy. And he's like, we are releasing it. We have been releasing it. You know, just like, when you, when someone tells you something, it is obviously seems dishonest because we all have eyes and ears. Like, you lose a level of trust in that person and that institution that is hard to get back. You know, and I think that's, that's

part of the issue as well. Yeah. I think that's right. The age thing is a stand-in, though, for,

because like, if you look at who were the people that were the most behind Joe Biden even towards the end, it was actually, it was, it wasn't ideological, even like Bernie and AOC were the ones that were behind the protesters. But people really know what Bernie stands for. They really know what AOC stands for. And I don't think AOC or Bernie particularly pay a political price for that position in part because they're deeper kind of values are so clear. And what AOC of to me is doing with these

kinds of anti-corruptionists with the story he's telling us, he's trying to have a kind of ideologically kind of broad story that kind of can represent a vision for what Democrats stand for, what they care about. And to me, what I worry about, what does it mean to care about corruption? Because if we can win, and then all of a sudden we're talking about whether or not to do hearings, there's going to be a ton of pressure from polling when you're because even you ask people,

you know what the polling is going to say? Do you want people to look backwards? Do you want to look forward? Oh, I want people to go forward. Do you want people to investigate Trump or do you want them to focus on issues that are affecting your family? I want them to focus on issues affecting my family. And I worry that that kind of like simple reading of what the polls will certainly say will lead people to think, oh, we shouldn't, we got to just focus on not focused on what

Trump did. And that was bad. And I hate it. You know, I've always been against it. But we got to

focus on my plan. And I get that. But one way you prove to people that you really care about something, that you're really stand for something is you say, look, we got to get to the bottom of this for the future. We got to do this even if the polls say it's bad. We got to make sure we root out this corruption to protect our country from a future Trump. Whatever it sounds like, but we have to be willing to actually put real kind of, put our shoulders behind

an actual anti-cruptan agenda when we're in power. Yeah, I agree. All right. When we come back, I'll talk to strict scrutiny's Melissa Murray about the latest rulings on abortion medication, the voting rights act in her new book. That's right. And we come back. Parts of America is brought to you by aura frames looking to upgrade your mother's day gift

“beyond the usual flowers. Look no further than aura frames. That's what we, John, I've been talking”

about this. How great an aura frame is as a gift for mother's day. Because, you know, you get flowers, you get something expected. But if you go with an aura frame, you can load it up with a bunch of pictures. And then that's like a gift that keeps on giving. And moms love frames with lots of pictures in them. It's just so easy to continually upgrade the gift. It's like months after you give it. You just, you know, pop in some pictures on your app. And suddenly your mother or your father or whoever you

give it to gets a nice little present. Yeah, like, you know, let's say, you know, the flowers are long dead. But now, what are you going to do with all those photos? You took of your family on that cruise to the straight of our moves. Free unlimited storage. Add as many photos and videos as you want. Preload photos before it ships. You can keep adding photos from anywhere anytime. Personalizer gift. You can add a message before it arrives. There's a gift box that's included.

You can share your photos and videos. Everless that you download the free aura app or text photos straight to your frame. Make Mother's Day special with aura frames. Name the number one digital frame by wire cutter. You can save on the gift moms love by visiting aura frames.com for a limited time listeners. You can get 25 dollars off their best online Carver Matt frame with code Crooked that's a you are a frames dot com promo code Crooked support this show by mentioning us

to check out terms and conditions apply. Melissa, welcome back. Thanks for having me. Congrats on

“your new book. Thank you. It's going to be coming out on single to Maya. I think the best thing to”

do to celebrate is to pour salt all over it. Like it. Maybe do some body shots. I don't know what you think. You know, people will be hearing this on Tuesday on single to Maya. I'm going to be doing that then. That's what I'm going to grab my coffee. I mean, taco Tuesday, taco president, single to Maya. What's this is perfect? The book is the US Constitution, a comprehensive and annotated

I just want to start with a little legal news. Specifically, the latest legal news on mythopristone, the abortion medication responsible for about 65% of abortions in the US. Can you walk us through both what the fifth circuit ruled on Friday in the Louisiana versus FDA case and what the Supreme Court did on Monday? Sure. So let me roll back a little bit. Some of your listeners will remember

“and if there are strict scrutiny listeners, they'll definitely remember that there was a case a”

few terms ago in the court called FDA versus the Alliance for Hypocratic Medicine. And I had such a hard time with the name of this case because I kept saying hypocritical medicine is something of a foretian. I was going to say yeah. Right. So these are a group of pro-life doctors that were challenging the FDA's approval of mythopristone. And that case was argued before the Supreme Court the court in an unexpected decision in advance of the 2024 election said that there was no

jurisdiction to hear the case because the doctors who were part of the Alliance for Hypocratic Medicine lack standing, which is to say that their professed injuries because of the FDA's approval of mythopristone were too attenuated to actually sustain federal court jurisdiction. So the case was thrown out although the court obviously didn't answer important questions regarding the FDA's approval of mythopristone. It's authority to approve mythopristone nor did it weigh in on the absolute ridiculousness

of some of the claims that the Alliance for Hypocratic Medicine were making. In any event, a new group

“filed a lawsuit this time in Louisiana. That was honestly the biggest surprise that they didn't go”

back to Emorillo and Judge Matthew Kesmerick to file this case. They instead filed it in Louisiana. And last Friday, the fifth circuit, her issued a decision on the case where they effectively

issued a nationwide ban on mythopristone, basically saying that the FDA had not done what

needed to do in approving it and that there were questions regarding the FDA's approval of mythopristone that required staying the distribution of the telehealth aspects of the restrict of the protocols for distributing mythopristone. So I just want to emphasize like the fifth circuit did this but they got a real assist from the Trump administration. So the Trump administration has been at great pains to stay out of abortion likely because they recognize it's a really bad

issue for them. I'm a whole idea of women dying in parking lots. It doesn't sell well even in the red states. So the administration has been pretty hands-off on abortion and reproductive rights. But the FDA under Secretary Bear Juice, aka RFK Jr, has been making some statements about mythopristone. For example, they've made they've challenged or questioned whether the FDA's approval of mythopristone was appropriate. They've challenged or said that some of the requirements for

distributing mythopristone by a telehealth or through the males should be questioned or re-examined. So in making those kinds of statements and concessions about the efficacy and safety of

mythopristone, the administration basically laid the groundwork for the fifth circuit and indeed the fifth

circuit cited many of these statements from administration officials at the FDA in making its decision. So they relied on those statements. So this wasn't issued by the Trump administration. They didn't put a ban on mythopristone, but they certainly gave the fifth circuit a glide path for doing so. So the fifth circuit's stay or the fifth circuit basically had this nationwide ban that went into effect on Friday. The issue did it around four o'clock central time five o'clock

in the east and it is a nationwide ban. And on Monday the Supreme Court found through the circuit justice who is assigned to the fifth circuit like this is Justice Alita. So interesting. Yeah.

“He stayed the ruling. This is obviously important because a stay means that mythopristone”

is now available again on a nationwide basis. But one of the things that are front of the pod Steve Latic noted in his substack and on blue sky is that Justice Alito will issue stays in cases that come to him on an emergency basis. But in cases where he's more sympathetic to the causes, the stays are usually indefinite. For cases where he's not particularly sympathetic to the causes or the issues underlying the case, he makes the stay time limited. And in this case it was

a time limited stay. So this sets up a schedule for briefing and whatnot. And you know this will be back before the court. But the stay will not be finite. There's going to be a timeline on this.

So in this new case, I noticed the manufacturers of mythopristone filed a brief that basically

already rejected. Do you buy that argument and more to the point? Do you think the court will? Well, I do buy the argument. Again, the arguments that were made and rejected by the court in FDA

“versus the Alliance for Hypocratic medicine talked about, you know, like you have to like when”

people are using the phopristone, the doctors are denied the aesthetic privilege of watching babies born. It's just like, okay. So it's like really fanciful stuff. And I don't know that it's that

much better here. I mean, they're basically arguing and in very fetal person forward terms that

the state of Louisiana is prevented from protecting unborn life because mythopristone is available nationwide and can be distributed via telehealth and through the mail. Hard to make that as a specific injury to Louisiana specifically. You know, there's also a discussion of the whole question of the safety of mythopristone and they note that there are two people in Louisiana who suffered ill effects from the use of mythopristone, but they also say that, you know, over thousands of women have been

using mythopristone since Rovers's Wade fell in dobs. So I mean, make that make sense. You know, thousands of women are using it. Two women experience ill effects. Therefore, it's a safety concern and that's one of the predicates under which they're bringing this lawsuit. So I don't buy their claims of injury. I don't know that the court will be a skeptical this time of those claims

as they were when this case first came or a case like this came before the court. Again,

one FDA versus the Alliance for Hypocratic Medicine was before the court. It was right before a really consequential election. It was just after the Supreme Court overruled Rovers's Wade and Dobs.

“I think the court knew that the galvanization of abortion for aver was not great for the court.”

Also not great for the Republican Party. I don't know if they're thinking that the same kinds of popular conditions exist right now. The abortion question for a lot of people may have fallen to the wayside right now. Just because the administration hasn't done anything explicit or obvious as an overture toward abortion rights. People are worried about other things, the economy, the war, and Iran, on and on and on. This might actually be a moment where the court is like,

you know, nothing to see here. No one's paying attention in the way that they were between 2022 and 24, and this could be the moment. I mean, even if the court buys the standing argument, this time around, wasn't a big line of legal reasoning in Dobs that the states must decide this, this cannot be a federal issue. And if they rule against Mr. Preston here, doesn't that make this, and that just a national effectively a national ban on all abortion medication.

Look at you making constitutional claims, John Fever, almost like you read Brett Kavanaugh's concurrent with the states decide what they want, federalism for everybody. Yeah, I guess it's true that this question certainly could be decided on federalism grounds like Louisiana has made a choice for itself, and certainly they could address the question of the importation of Mr. Preston into its borders for use by Louisiana's. But the broader question of a nation-wide ban,

like that seems to be a question that's asked and answered by the whole concept of federalism.

Whether this court will do that, I mean, it's basically the bottom line is will this court be

principled about its prior stances on questions like federalism, the sovereignty of individual states, including blue states that may want to allow for access to abortion, and just or whether they'll just do what they want to do, because they can, and they have a supermajority of six, and when you have six, they let you do what you want. Let's take the optimistic view and say

“that Scotist does the right thing here. The Trump FDA. Are you Kate Shaw? Well, what's going on here?”

It's, don't worry, I'm going to bring us back to this more of just an exercise. The Trump FDA is you pointed out, is still doing its own review of Mr. Preston prompted by a debunked project 2025 report. So is there a case to be made that the legal fight is it may be beside the point at this stage? Like, could we just see the FDA itself cause us to lose telehealth and mail order if it pressed down either way? So any agency action, I'm sure, would be challenged by

case and go forward. And again, the whole question, the timeline of this case may be upended,

like whether this is an emergency appeal that was made to justice a leader in his capacity of circuit justice, so that sort of while the litigation is pending. But the next step for the litigation anyway would have been the Supreme Court. So this is an initial day. There's going to be a question about whether the court takes this up. Something could obviously happen at the FDA.

“That possibly could move this case, but I think anything the FDA does, but likely to be challenged.”

But it does seem like this is a tricky one in which if the court rules for Louisiana, like, what does that mean for someone in California or New York or Massachusetts, trying to get a Miffa Pristone prescription? I think it depends on how this decision writes. You know, if this is a decision that takes seriously the question of federalism as you alluded to earlier, then there is probably an opening for someone in California. It just may limit

the importation of Miffa Pristone to states that have very robust restrictions on abortion. It wouldn't necessarily, depending on how it's written, it wouldn't necessarily prevent people from Louisiana from leaving the state unless Louisiana wrote a law that, you know, made it impossible for people to leave the state, although I think that could be challenged on constitutional grounds regarding the right to travel. Brett Kavanaugh mentioned that in his concurrence in jobs as well.

So there are a lot of open avenues. I think one thing that is really interesting and deeply implicated by this quaste of the questions it raises is what happens to physicians in blue states who prescribe Miffa Pristone and then the prescriptions are going to people in other places, whether it's Louisiana or whatnot. And those are big questions unlikely to implicate the state of shield laws that have been enacted in the wake of dobs that haven't really been tested

at the Supreme Court yet. Let's move to another cherry topic. The other big court ruling from the other week is Kale, which was about the voting rights act. It was a six-three decision again with our friend Alito writing for the majority. What did the court do there? And what is the actual practical consequence going to be? Do you think over the next two, four, six years? Well, what did the court do there? So what does the court tell us it's doing? And what does the court actually do

may be two very different things? And maybe we should parse that for a little bit. The court in that case said that it was doing no more than realigning the terms of section two of the voting rights act of 1965 with the jurisprudence that it is issued. Anytime the court says it's realigning something, it's pretty much either eviscerating it or overruling it. So they are presenting this as a kind of modest change or update. But as Justice Kagan said in her descent, it is effectively

the evisceration of section two of the voting rights act. And to understand what she means by that,

“I think you have to understand the procedural posture of this case and what the case was actually”

about. One thing to note here was that back in 2023, the court took up a very similar case called Allen versus Milligan. It was about Alabama's congressional map that was drawn in the wake of the 2020 census. Alabama essentially packed its black citizens into one district that map was challenged as an impermecible racial gerrymander under section two, a lower court agreed it wasn't impermecible racial gerrymander and it ordered Alabama to draw a new map with more representation for African

Americans. And so Alabama drew a map with two voter opportunity districts where minority voters would have the opportunity to elect the candidates of their choice. Fast forward to October term 2022 but June 2023 when the court issued its decision in Allen versus Milligan. The map

that had been drawn the second map with the two voter opportunity districts had been challenged

as itself an impermecible racial gerrymander because they were thinking about race when they were

“trying to remedy the racial discrimination of the initial map which seems right like you have to”

think about race if you're trying to vindicate the interests of minority voters after the state has screwed over the minority voters with the first map. And the court in that case said this map is fine by six to three votes. So they upheld the new map with the two minority opportunity districts. Subsequently the same thing happened in Louisiana. So it's a virtually identical case. Louisiana draws its maps after the census. It makes one opportunity district for black voters even though

black voters comprise about a third of the Louisiana electorate. A court says it's an

a group of non-African American voters challenge the new map with the two opportunity districts

“as an impermecible racial gerrymander on the view that in trying to remedy the discrimination”

done by the first racial gerrymander the state has now engaged in more racial discrimination.

And the second round of racial discrimination is racial discrimination against white voters. And in the decision that was issued last week, Justice Lido said, yeah, that sounds right. Even thinking about race in the context of trying to remedy past racial discrimination is itself a racial violation. So this is basically applying to the context of voting rights, the same logic that this court has used in the context of affirmative action. Like

the Constitution does not see race at all. If you're even thinking about race, even if it's for remedial purposes, that is suspect and should be invalidated. And if you are going to use race as a remedy, the only context where it will be applicable and permissible is in circumstances where you can prove intentional discrimination, which is really, really hard to do, especially in the context of voting where and especially in the south, often race and political

affiliation run together. So most black voters in the south are going to be Democrats. So if black voters say, hey, listen, you just totally deluded our voting power. This is a racial discrimination issue, it's a racial gerrymander. The state just has to say, no, we were doing this because we were trying to consolidate partisan advantage. And that's probably true, but it doesn't mean it's also not racial discrimination. But court says, full stop, you've got to have absolute proof that

this was intentional racial discrimination. Most states are not dumb. Most state officials aren't dumb. They're going to figure out how to do this without making it look intentional and they're going to keep doing it. And that's really the danger of this case. We're going to see more and more districts being drawn in ways that disadvantage minority voters and voters of color. We're going to see more and more states try to consolidate partisan advantage. Marshall Blackburn of Tennessee

reportedly said that, you know, this decision leaves the state legislature of Tennessee free to make Tennessee a red state in perpetuity. All of this is unbelievably anti-democratic, but it's also deeply deeply anti-multi-racial democratic, right? Like, this is how you kill a multiracial democracy. So, how did the court differentiate its ruling in the Louisiana case from its ruling in the

“Alabama case where I believe Roberts and Kavanaugh voted with the liberals in that case?”

Well, I think part of how they did this was that they created a new question to be asked. So,

the case, Louisiana versus KLA was actually first taken up in October term 2024. There was

oral argument. The court was expected to issue a decision by June 2025. In June of 2025, it said, wait a minute, we're going to hold this case over till the next term. They ordered another set of oral arguments and then they instructed the litigants to answer a new question that the litigants didn't even ask. So, this is a question. The court was supplying and the question was whether the use of race in the context of remedying this racial, jerry-mander violated the

14th and 15th amendments. Nobody asked them to brief that. Nobody wanted that. The court wanted it and they wanted to get to that question and part of how they're distinguishing is because of that question and the unique circumstances around that. So, that question was not even asked or answered in the Alabama case and this was just a way to, okay? Cool, cool, cool. If the goal was to just gut section two, which it functionally does, why dress it up in the way that Alito did, is that just

“his style or do you think there was a strategic reason to do that? Well, I think there's two strategic”

reasons. One, redowns to the benefit of the court. The other redowns to the benefit of

non-African American litigants. Let me explain the court benefit first. This is a court

that for almost every year that it has had a conservative supermajority has overruled some precedent. So, rovers is weighed in 2022. The affirmative action precedents in 2023, Chevron in 2024. I think if they had actually gutted the voting rights act, basically overruled jingles, which was the jurisprudence that really laid out the factors for drawing these minority, a majority minority districts, that would have raised some eyebrows from a lot of people who

think this court is really on one and probably needs to be curved. So, there's that issue. I don't think the court could say we're just completely throwing out the voting rights act. And, you know, for understandable reasons, it would have really galvanized I think popular antipathy against the court. The other thing, though, that simply preserving

litigants every time a state tries to remedy. So, blue states trying to draw opportunity to

check. Now, non-African American litigants can come in and say that violates my right. So, in California, for example, this new redistricting effort that is being done to counteract what is happening in Texas and in other red states, if non-African American voters say that the state has drawn this for the purpose of consolidating racial minority groups political power, then all of a sudden you have a section two claim that can be brought and that the court is

probably going to look at and they're probably not going to think that it's an effort to consolidate partisan advantage that really going to focus on the racial aspect of it. All right, the happier news, your new book, which when people hear this, will be out. Called the US Constitution, a comprehensive and annotated guide for the modern reader.

“Obviously, this question first, there are a lot of books about the Constitution. Why this one? Why now?”

First of all, this is for the modern reader. And, all right, I don't, yeah, like, like, think about it.

Who are you? If you're a modern reader, this is for you. If you're Sam Alito, it's probably not for you. Yeah, you're not a modern reader. Why now? Because I think we need to engage with the Constitution, perhaps now more than ever. Right, this is a document that was meant to be read. It was meant to be debated. And if you ask most Americans, I think very few people have read the Constitution cover to cover. In part, because some of it's just really boring. Trust me,

I read it and I wrote about it. And it was like, there are times I was like, whoa, article one's really long, but I did it. So you don't have to. And I go through and I explain what every single clause is doing, what it's for, what they were animated by when they decided to include it. There's all kinds of really fun stories about the Constitution that you probably didn't even know that are in this book and detailed here, ordinary people who make claims on the Constitution

“and manage to affect constitutional change. Like, that's important to know right now. We live in a”

world where we act like the Supreme Court is the final word on our rights. And I guess that's kind of true, unless we take seriously the idea that we can be constitutional change makers in our own right. And in fact, there aren't people in our history who have done exactly that and have changed the Constitution and made it more responsive to we the people. Talk about the project of explaining the Constitution to a general audience, the modern reader,

if you will, in a moment when it's meeting is this contested. So this is not what I would have done on strict scrutiny. So one of the things my editor and I talked about at length was whether this was going to be as forthright about my particular take on things as we are on strict scrutiny. And we decided that maybe it was just better to sort of explain things, really focus on the history of certain things and do a kind of one group says this, one group does that. In order to give

people of all stripes the tools that they need to dive deeper, make their draw their own conclusions.

“And I think those probably the right choice. I think there are certainly some places where my”

own views come into play and shaping the book. Like for example, one of the things that I felt very strongly about was being absolutely forthright about all of the ways in which slavery is

literally all over the original Constitution, even though the document never says the word.

But there are all of these compromises, not just the three fifths compromise, but lots of different compromises about whether or not this is going to be a free nation or whether we're going to allow half the country to own people. And that literally shapes the document. It shapes some of the amendments that we have and it certainly shapes the way this country tries to knit itself back together after the American Civil War. So those are choices. You do such a great job of

making the Constitution and the law feel sort of real and alive to people who do not have legal degrees. You do that on strict scrutiny. You do that on TV. And now, now in this book, what's one thing you want just a regular lay person with no law degree. Maybe like myself to who picks this book up and reads it to sort of walk away understanding about the Constitution both in what the founders intended when they wrote it and what it means today. Well, let me say two

things. One for the reader like you who doesn't have a lot of degree and maybe one for the reader like John Leather who thinks he has a lot of degree. And for you, John Favreau, I'm going to offer this origin story about the project itself. So there was a time you'll remember this time when I was in these Twitter streets quite a lot. And I really was and Twitter was fun back then. It's really fun. It used to be fun. Anyway, I was in the Twitter streets and

in the dirty South. So I know Uncle Luke as the lead rapper of two-life crew. And he was out here in these Twitter streets talking about all of the things that Joe Biden should be doing. President Joe Biden should do this. President Joe Biden should lower the price of gas. He should

do this. He should do that. And I just reading this litany and I was like, wow, Uncle Luke is never

read the Constitution because Joe Biden can't do any of these things. Like, oh my God. And that was sort of the origin story of this project. I think I wanted Uncle Luke to know what the president can do, especially now that he's running for Congress. I really hope he'll buy this book and read it.

“Because if he's going to be an elected official, I think this is critically important right now for”

him. He is the audience. He is the primary audience for this book. Maybe not primary, tertiary, perhaps. I think this is a book for all Americans. This is the document that scaffolds are government and indirectly are lives. You should know what it says and what it doesn't and what it authorizes and what it does not. You should know that this is a trauma informed document. When these guys sat down to write the Constitution, they were going through it.

They had this period, this colonial period where England was literally on their next constantly. So they wanted to have rights and they wanted to be able to have a society where

“they were free to do things. But then they'd also just had this revolutionary war against the”

biggest global superpower in the world. And they were basically trying to fight them with what

was a government that was made up of like friendship bracelets. And they're like, we actually need a strong central government, but not one that's so strong that it becomes despotic. Like that's the tension. And they tried to structure this government that is limited. And we need to remember that. And this is now for John Love it. This is a government right now that doesn't feel that limited and in being unlimited and even excessive in certain ways, that's not in keeping with what they

were trying to do and what we have continued to try to do and what this book reminds us is that there have been times where the people have just said, I'm not having it. I'm not doing this anymore. I want something different and they've actually stepped up and they've made constitutional change. Fantastic. I'm excited to read this, especially as we head into America's 250th birthday.

“I think it's probably a good time to take a look at that constitution and see where we started”

and where we are now. I think the 1776 commission's going to love it. You think you think Trump's going to maybe hold it up at the White House and one of the, I feel like the UFC celebration. You think that I mean? I think it might be in the gift bag. The book is the U.S. Constitution, a comprehensive and annotated guide for the modern reader. Everyone go pick it up. Please, it is, uh, I, you know,

know from talking with you and being a strict scrutiny fan that it's going to be fantastic and you're going to learn a lot and you're going to enjoy it. So take a look. Most of Murray,

thank you as always for joining Potsay for America. Thank you for that great wind up. All I will

add to it is, um, will be wild. Thank you. That's our show for today. Thanks to Melissa for coming on. Dan and I will be back with a new show on Friday. Potsay America is a crooked media production. Our show is produced by Austin Fisher, Saul Rubin, McKenna Roberts, and Ferris Safari with Reed-Chirlin, Elijah Cone, and Adrian Hill. Our team includes Matt de Groat, Ben Hefco, Jordan Cantor, Charlotte Landist,

Carol Pelev, David Tolz, Mia Kelman, Ryan Young, and Naomi Sengel. Our staff is probably unionized with the writer's guild of America East.