BREAKING: SCOTUS Greenlights Trump’s Cruel Immigration Policies

The Trump administration's excessive Christian nationalist rhetoric is only building,

“as we move toward the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.”

Those most caught in the crossfire are federal workers specifically, a multi-faith group of federal employees filed a new lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture for violating the separation of church and state and the religious freedom, promised in our constitution. Our friends at Americans United for separation of church and state received emails from multiple USDA employees. A handful of employees reached out saying the proselytizing Easter emails

sent by Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins to more than 100,000 USDA employees

isn't abusive power that violates the separation of church and state promised in the first

amendment. They are absolutely right. Conlaw, it doesn't have to be that hard. I mean, Constitution just straight-up says, shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Seriously, what is with these guys and erasing the first sentence of constitutional provisions?

“That's what birthright citizenship is about to. Anyways, the hits keep on coming from this”

administration, and Americans United is doing their best to keep up the fight against Christian nationalism. If you want to help head to AU.org/crucate to learn more about their work and how you can get involved. I'm also Shannen Maldonado, and I'm the founder of Yaoi, a singer of Kunstwerke and Han Gefertichte Objekte specialised. My role is on Shopee Phi, because Shopee Phi is likely to be part of the other platform I have tested with

Ambe Nutzer-Frontlichs. I have always thought about the future. All tools that

for the development of vocabes are important for example from Lager, findet man direct in the dashboard. Start a new course on Shopee Phi.com. My ask of our brethren is that they take their feet or follow us.

“Hello, this is Strix Kirtney, your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal”

culture that surrounds it. Where you're hosts? I'm Melissa Murray. I'm Kitchell. And I'm Lea Littman, and this is an emergency episode. We got four opinions today, including two major immigration cases. We wanted to cover right away. These immigration cases written by Sanaleto, which we can talk about recently. Yeah, we're done. We're done. We're done.

We're done. Basically folks, you already know, if Sanaleto is writing, we're crying.

We're talking about these cases right now because they are very, very significant. They will enable a lot of the Trump administration's gratuitously cruel, careless, and deeply deeply consequential immigration policy. These decisions will free this administration of most legal obligations. Maybe even give them a get out of law-free card to just do their worst with regard to people who are here in the United States who they believe

are not quote-unquote heritage Americans. Yeah. And there are a lot of what we might call legal problems with the analysis on display in Sanaleto's two opinions. But also, there's just kind of a bottom line sort of takeaway that we wanted to start with, which is, you know, a line from just a sort of virus descent in one of the cases that kind of sums up the two opinions together. And that is, quote, "the consequences of today's

decision are predictable, more people will die." And if you're thinking that sounds like dobs, you're right. Yeah. Also, Sanaleto. Yeah. Let's run that back again. Yeah, just one day, let's not forget anniversary and we will do more of that. So we're going to focus in this emergency episode on the case about the administration's termination of temporary protected status programs for Haiti and Syria and then the case about an asylum procedure that would allow the administration

to avoid processing asylum seekers as required by law, so long as immigration officials stop a person at the border. As we said, there were two other cases today. We will say at least a few words about those in our regular episode that will be in your earholes on Monday morning. And despite what you may hear about this very non-ideological non-partisan court, both of these opinions were 63 and both of them were about as bad as can be. Yeah.

Okay, so we'll start with the asylum case, Mullen versus Alotro Lado. Okay, so as you said,

case a get out of the law governing asylum free card. The specific question in the case is whether

an individual who has been stopped at or outside the border, quote, arrives in the United States for purposes of asylum law, which would mean the individual has to be allowed to claim asylum and have their asylum claim assessed. Here, the court held that for purposes of the relevant asylum statutes and alien arrives in the United States when the non-citizen crosses the border into the United States. As the majority reason, you don't say a running back is in the enzyme when they are

standing outside of it. Yes, this was Sam Alito's legal analysis of complicated immigration law.

“I think he got an assist. I think he got an assist on that one from you know. And logic here requires”

divorcing the word in from the entire structure of immigration law. It's context. The fact that this provision exists in a broader statutory scheme. Why this provision wasn't acted and so on. We should talk about the broader context of all of this right now. So in 2016, the Department of Homeland Security responded to a surge of asylum seekers at the Southern border by implementing a metering system that imposes a daily limit on the number of asylum seekers that can be processed

in a given day. And to enforce that policy, DHS officials would stand on the U.S. side of the border. And if the allotment for the day had been met, they would stop asylum seekers from entering into the United States in order to be processed. So if you reached your limit for that day, people had to stay on the other side of the border, even if they were presenting themselves,

“even if they were interacting with officials from the United States. Despite the fact that”

asylum law exists and requires them to be processed. So there's this artificial limit and even when you're right on the border interacting with U.S. officials if they reach the limit you're out of luck. The metering policy, however, was rescinded in 2021. And if you're wondering, doesn't that make this case moot? Well, good for you, you could be a lawyer, but not for this Supreme Court. This is all to say that the court deciding to take up this challenge was totally

a choice because this issue isn't really live anymore because this policy is no longer extant. But evidently, the court just could not let pass the opportunity to tell the administration what it could do if it wanted to, say, revive a policy like this. And it is essentially handing through this very tortured reading of this statutory term arrives or arrives in an insane loophole to the administration. If you were two feet from the U.S. border in Mexico, that should not

give the administration the authority to deprive people of human rights like the right to claim asylum or to ignore asylum protections under like putting aside international law under U.S. statute. But right now, the administration under this reading may be able to circumvent a bunch of laws protecting asylum seekers just by physically obstructing preventing their entry at the border. And I want to situate this case within a broader trend of just rendering legal protections

at least the ones these guys on the court don't like completely unenforceable. So again, we'll talk more about this on our regular episode, but another decision issued last week said protections for legal permanent residents at the border. Those don't actually apply at the border because

L.O.L. a second, the terms of spending programs. Those can't be enforced against state officials

that are obligated by them because why we said so and we made a fun little analogy in a national human rights law that can't really be enforced in Cisco why because Justice Scalia didn't want to state court suits in Monsanto. That was a opinion decided by today. Those can't proceed because that would allow corporations to be sued and we'll talk about that in our regular episode. So just greatest hits, lots of bangers. Denying access to courts and severing rights from remedies

“and also just like big wins for the Trump administration. I think those are the two”

corporations and corporations who are obviously on the same side of these cases. Those are two big themes I think of this week's decisions. Well, it's also think another theme here is we do what the fuck we want to do like who gonna check me boo. I mean to reiterate, the court didn't have to make this decision. Like the metering policy is no longer in effect. The Trump administration however asked the court to take up this case and made moves about how maybe it could revive

this policy therefore there was not a moodness issue. Again, they wanted this case before the court

because they wanted the go ahead for basically obliterating what exists for protections

yolo yolo. We started off by referencing a line from just a so-to-my-or she was not going to go quietly

“and dissent in this case. We were not in the courtroom on Thursday so when the court issues”

decisions they take the bench and the author of majority opinion typically reads a summary and when the dissent feels really strongly about the case then they will sometimes also read what's called

the bench statement but I have never heard of like a reply from the author of the reviewer opinion

a rebuttal what there's no name for it because it doesn't happen but evidently a lito on the bench responded to just a so-to-my-or. Yeah so Christina at law dork Lawrence Hurley at NBC reported that a lito counter just a so-to-my-or with a further statement from the bench because he is the saddest whinyous little man never beating the allegations that he is nothing more than an angry 80-year-old grandpa who's brain has been adult by fox news and needs to tilt at the wind.

Sorry Melissa. So we do have a readout from the hill on what happened in the court room so as you just recounted he first briefly read the majority's position just as sort of my order then read her dissenting opinion when she criticized the majority opinion as agree justly wrong the hill reports that just as a lito lean forward in his chair prop to his chin on his hands and stared up at the ceiling okay that's such a picture.

Then when just a so-to-my-or commented about the majority opinions reference to the language of a rival in the context of immigration and briefly use the example of landing at Reagan National Airport a lito briefly set his gaze on so-to-my-or then after she concluded he softly cleared his

“throat before issuing a rare off-the-cuff response to a dissent not just a rare or I think kind of”

unprecedented unprecedented the conservative justice appeared testy as he said that there was much more that he would have added if he'd known that so-to-my-or would read her dissent allowed in full what a poor loser it also was winner it's just like this is just like remember obviously the is it not a twenty ten state of the union is right when he when he shakes his head when Obama describes citizens united and he just like cannot control himself this is I think

that energy and it's possible that he was stirred to taking this perhaps unprecedented step because just as a so-to-my-or was unspearing in her dissent and evidently from the bench

statement too so she said the court's opinion kind of amounted to well we said never again but

that turned out to be yes again after eighty years because as she notes international humanitarian law including protections for asylum emerged after the Holocaust and the international moral

“reckoning it provoked that's what this opinion largely dismantles yeah so she recounts quote one”

infamous incident when the voyage of the MS Saint Louis in 1939 over 900 Jewish refugees attended to flee persecution in Nazi Germany and were turned away only for many of them to be murdered and congress passed the refugee act in 1980 quote because it did not want this country to repeat the mistakes of its past being able to turn away refugees only for them to die horrific deaths and again this is what the court's opinion allows the administration to do to just effectively deny

anyone asylum protections even if they have very meritorious asylum claims and the administration would otherwise be required to consider them under federal law and international law because they just managed to block them at the board can I go back to justice elito i'm sorry like i definitely appreciated the history lesson both from you and from justice so to my word i think it's really useful context for people who aren't familiar with these statutes there is a provenance here at and one

worth remembering but i will just say just as so to my ear has a history of calling out her conservative colleagues on just like the batshit things that they do so if you'll recall and trump versus Hawaii which i'm going to come back to another point in this episode in trump versus Hawaii she basically talked about the travel ban and analogized it to the court's infamous decision in quorumatsu which was the case that basically greenlighted the internment of Japanese

people of japanese descent and japanese americans during world war two and the chief justice you know i i thought like with almost felt like he went back to the original opinion he'd wrote and just like oh by the way that's not true and we are dismantling karmazzi right now where it's no

longer good law was never good law and and yeah and so there he says the reference to karmots who

give us an opportunity to make explicit work already been like written in the annals of history but

but it's basically what a leader is doing totally hate being called on their shit like a leader is just more bitchy and mean spirited and the changes and but it's a sad story but they're all doing they hate being called on this they hate being totally on that all of them because as the hill suggests apparently the hill says that the other conservative justice is displayed little reaction to justice so to my or with several of them like bearer gorsage and tama staring down at their

papers and kavanos staring directly at justice so to my or throughout her speech

“from the bench as if she was the problem well i mean so again remember that remark that justice”

so to my or made for which she later apologized about you know i have a colleague and he's got rich parents and he doesn't know anyone who works a day job and he just had a touch and then she apologized for i mean i think there's there's there's a lot of stuff going on here um yeah and yeah they don't like to be called out they don't like to be called up by her and they also yes must have the last word um so whether that's in the form of an opinion or this kind of

final statement it's pretty wild they just one six three like you can out there but it's not

enough to win you must be celebrated as the most amazing justice who is doing perfect law

and no politics as well no one can criticize them on that tip do you remember after does when the chief justice issued his year and report to federal judiciary who's like you know what this

“all reminds me of or reminds me of segregation yeah where these judges stood up for the”

constitution and the rule of law in the face of massive resistance and all these segregation is came for them like basically you ladies who want rights over your body basically like segregationists and us where those noble judges standing up for the constitution and the rule of law and taking our rights away from controlling your body and all that we would like to integrate you into tradwife life this episode of strict scrutiny is brought to you by alloy health let's be honest

aging not always awesome i mean take a look at salmolido skin sleep disruptions hot flashes

brain fog and more i don't want my brain to work like Brett kavanaugh's menopause is inevitable but it's also treatable almost half of women go more than three years before seeking relief from menopause or perimenopausal symptoms why would we do that to ourselves if because 43% of women reported that their doctors never even mentioned menopause hormone therapy as an option for treatment another 40% didn't know where to go for a solution alloy can help you feel and look your best

through menopause and beyond offering unlimited access to expert physicians and safe science back treatments for your symptoms skin hair all delivered to your door everything is done online from the comfort of your home or anywhere no waiting for an appointment or in line at the pharmacy alloy is fast accessible and their treatments actually work here's how it works step one complete your intake alloy solutions are available by prescription so you'll need to complete an

intake form in patient verification step two receive a treatment plan from your doctor you'll be matched with a menopause specialized physician who will create a personalized treatment plan tailored to your specific needs step three get your three month supply once approved alloy ships your prescription directly to your door with automatic refills easy peasy look i can function without sleep just a fact so the prescribing physicians with alloy are there to help with hot flashes

and night sweats keeping you up at night i cannot recommend alloy enough join the 95% of women who tried alloy and saw relief in the first two weeks head to myalloy.com and use a code strict and tell them all about your symptoms and you'll get a fully customized treatment plan and unlimited messaging with your doctor plus you'll get $20 off your first order today head to my-a-l-l-o-y.com and use code strict to get $20 off your first order strict scrutiny is brought

to you by wild-alaskin company we pescatarian at home but we don't eat fishy smelling fish you know the stuff that doesn't taste fresh and just has that yucky smell and yucky texture ruins the meal really doesn't matter how much sauce you use and trust me i've tried but i don't want to give up eating fish at home i basically think of myself as part dolphin given how much

“i swim so i need the fish to keep me swimming wild-alaskin company offers the best way to get wild”

caught high quality seafood delivered to your door on your schedule here's what wild-alaskin

company has on tap each wild-alaskin box comes with individually portion filets vacuum sealed easy to prep and great for any meal no matter how quick or elevated it makes it super easy to portion size out the meals and everything is pre-cut for you and all their fish is quick frozen fresh from the alaskin waters which helps lock in as freshness texture flavor and key nutrients like

GMOs antibiotics or other additives every order supports sustainable harvesting practices

“and alaskin fishermen whose history is tied to the region and practice some of my favorites from”

the wild-alaskin company are the Pacific halvin halibut is firm but not too overpowering so it holds up well with thicker sauces like the sheet pan fish, tikka masala or goji jeng's mother fish i also like the Pacific rock fish that's more of what i use for lighter sauces like more of a Mediterranean flavor wild-alaskin company is so confident that their fish is the best that they

offer a 100% satisfaction and money back guarantee so you can try your first box risk free go to

wild-alaskin dot com slash strict for $35 off your first order of premium wild caught seafood that's wild-alaskin dot com slash strict for $35 off your first order thanks to wild-alaskin company for sponsoring this episode should we do the TPS case yeah because if you thought it was bad it somehow gets so much worse in the TPS case um yes because this is another six three Sanmelito authored decision and here the court basically said one immigration statutes or at least

some of them maybe all of them those aren't real laws that are actually enforceable against the Trump administration specifically here the court said that the federal statutes governing this temporary protected status or TPS designation and the kind of revisiting the designation either to terminate or extend it that those statutes which require certain procedures be undertaken before any modification is made and specifically before TPS status is canceled these statutes and their

requirements are basically not subject to judicial review full stop just to be cleared that's really

“important that the court is sort of hanging its hat on these are just not reviewable because there”

is very little question that the Trump administration failed to comply to the letter of the law here as we discussed in our live show in New York City last week the New York Times has reported and emails confirm that the Department of Homeland Security cancelled the TPS program for Haitian Nationals without waiting for the required statutory consultation with another department in this case the Department of State but don't worry the court manages to avoid that unfortunate

factual and statutory wrinkle by concluding that the statute doesn't permit review of the secretaries determination that TPS should be rescinded and to be very clear here the majority gives the term determination a very broad meeting that includes not just the decision to rescind TPS but basically the quote chain of events that leads to that decision and this again sparks the man with the butterfly meme is this textualism oh for sure for sure as Justice Kagan said quote very broad would be

one description for that reading of the term determination very strange would be another but in addition to rejecting the statutory claims the claims that the executive branch had not followed the laws as far as the required procedures they had to follow. Can we before we go onto the constitutional committee just can I say one more thing about the statutory because right those are the two arguments in the case right let the statutes weren't followed it's a statutory

argument and then there's a separate constitutional argument that also fails Leo we'll talk about in a minute but I just I was trying to figure out whether because in the oral argument I thought

“the plaintiffs attorney you know tried I think very kind of savagely to say if you guys”

accept this no judicial review argument then literally anything goes so administrations could cancel everybody's TPS they could like grant TPS to every country in the world and like they were trying to appeal to the conservative sensibilities of the majority by saying what if a democratic president decides to like let everybody in the world in using TPS designation and I just couldn't tell whether Alito tried to be like to leave a little crack open so that if there is a future

democratic administration they use his TPS in a way that is too expensive or too generous they might still say well we didn't say no judicial review just not much judicial review like I don't know if you guys had a read on that but it felt like there might have been some effort to kind of like see around that corner and make sure that if it came to actually raining in well these

fans of hate of this authority then they don't have very hate that's never going to happen

we're never going to have a democratic president because we're going to fuck up the election so hard change these districts so incredibly that it's going to be Republican rule forever yeah but just though that they may be just like built in suspending in case they are on successful somehow in doing that so anyway I just wanted to throw out that possibility but sorry Leah you're going to talk about the other the Constitutional Equal Protection aren't

Nationals was the product of unconstitutional animus and racial discrimination so I think in one of

the more cowardly and craving moves Sam Alito has made which is saying something he refuses to even quote and include the foul racist remarks that the president made about Haitian Nationals before his administration canceled the TPS program for Haitian Nationals to my mind like he kind of goes see no evil here no evil speak no evil and applies that to the horrific blatant racism which included the grotesque remarks from the president about how Haitians have AIDS were eating

cats and dogs would poison the blood of the country and how Haiti is a shithole country when according to the president we should really be taking people from Norway and Sweden this apparently true Sam Alito's delicate eyes ears and pen who could not even recite this is not racist

“which means I think the effect of this ruling is to legalize racism you know as Justice Kagan noted”

in her dissent the majority declined to put these statements in print like they apparently find the statements so repellent and racially inflected that they don't go in the opinion and just to situate this case kind of in some context of the court's other jurisprudence talking about poisoning the blood of the country isn't racist but you know what is racist enforcing the voting rights act in multiracial democracy also from the pen of Sam Alito yeah not from his pen but also

trying to ensure a modicum of diversity in institutions of higher learning also racist also relying on state laws from reconstruction to justify restrictions on gun rights we'll get to that in our next episode that too is racist I mean those laws were racist but the reliance on it being racist is

“sort of an innovation of this majority yeah so there's lots of examples but trump's words”

those aren't among them yeah and also you know what is evidence of animus again not saying that Haitian nationals will poison the blood of the country but talking about how if someone wants to do business in a state they might have to comply with laws that go against their religious beliefs

that is animus yeah rule of law yeah I mean so Alito actually has the goal to basically say

you know he won't actually reproduce verbatim any of these statements and then he has the goal to basically say that this rhetoric is just the rough and tumble of politics like he says quote I I almost can't even believe that he put this in the opinion that he did just right he will political discourse by prominent public figures is increasingly couched in terms that would have scandalized the public just a short time ago and the statement cited by

me out respondents the plaintiffs in the case in the Haiti case especially those concerning Haiti and Haitian immigrants to this country exemplify this development it's just the coarsening of the cultural ladies everyone does it well also one additional thing he says about them he says quote the respondents that is a federal government identify a strong trace neutral explanation of these official statements the president administration's general stance on immigration

and it's obvious and typically toward past administrations TPS policies I'm sorry is there general stance on immigration racist and also do they not like the previous administration's TPS policies because they admitted black people like what the fuck is also there's xenophobia completely cleanses the racism like it's just wild reasoning I mean are you surprised by I mean like this is kind of like partisan versus racial gerrymandering it's not racism if it's xenophobia

it's not racial gerrymandering if it's partisan gerrymandering yeah duh again I think all of this

smacks of the court's decision and Trump versus Hawaii which upheld the third iteration of the

travel ban the one that had been sanitized to some degree and I really think although it's

“it's against tight you should read these cases in tandem with Kelle and the other voting rights”

at cases where the court is I think giving birth to a new understanding of discriminatory intent and basically it's this like no one white is ever being racist when they say blatantly racist things or when they organize extant government structures to disadvantage racial minorities that's not racism like the intent isn't there that that can be explained by other race neutral criteria or events instead as Leah alluded to before what actually gives rise to racism is

thinking about diversity thinking about equality and equity suggesting that the nation's history

and I'm thinking here specifically of the recent third circuit case that clears the way for the

national park service at the direction of the president to eliminate all references or many references to slavery and a public exhibit on independence mall that's the real racial intent here that is discriminatory and subject to judicial censure the rest of this you know it's all fine like there are perfectly plausible race neutral explanations for all of these things yeah I can't tell if it's like plausibly race neutral or the coarsening of our politics like

both of us or right yeah or both anything but racism yeah I mean yeah okay we are going to do

“some quoting from Elena Cagan's dissent which I think sums all of it up pretty well”

she says the plaintiffs are entitled to stay in the country while these suits go forward

remember this case these cases came up like way early like there was there have been some discovery but the cases were still ongoing so she says that and then she says respectfully I descent from the court's decision that they may instead be put on the next plane she kind of goes out of her way it's interesting at one point she says you know she does call the majority out in refusing to actually reproduce the racist statements at issue in the case but then she also says that those

actually contrast with the majority is quite respectful discussion of the conditions in Haiti and it's like the majority's refusal to denigrate Haitians as a group um I'm not quite sure

she goes out of her way it's literally in how way too nice to her colleagues yeah I mean it's

it this is why it's it is so hard and Melissa you said this you know calls to mind trump

“versus why like absolutely I have a piece that I think will be out by Monday I think this is just”

so much worse because in Trump the why I at least read it as having there is this like through line of a the presidents there is at least a distaste that the Roberts opinion is able to muster about the statements which you don't have in the elite opinion because like he won't even explicitly talk about them so it's not enough but it's more but I do think you also have at least on my read of Trump versus Hawaii dislike the tenor of the opinion is okay the president said

some crazy stuff but there was this interagency process and like those experts like cleansed the process of like whatever discriminatory change the president statements that is way better at this than Sam Alito yeah I you're using and he assigned him this opinion yes right so and stay silent not writing anything separate I thought was a very revealing choice because yeah he doesn't have you know even if he wanted to call the administration out in the way that

he did in the census citizenship case and the darker decision case he doesn't have the votes to do it but he all he does have his vote and he decided to give his vote fully and without a separate writing at all to Sam Alito and this upholding the list says see which got your voice slash pen John like what's going on yeah well I mean the best part is Samuel Alito is only to happy to carry water for the chief justice to do this I mean like I mean have you ever seen a more

willing but slaughter yes sir I'll jump into the racism yes I'm sure he will ask for these opinions he wanted to rescue you know I mean I'm sure he did I mean but like my point with regard to you know

“it's gotten so much worse like I don't absolve John Roberts of it I mean like I think he just”

makes it look more decorous in Trump versus Hawaii he's better at it he's better at making it look just you know okay it's not totally like there are reasons and and here's why you even though we know that Trump said those things and of course they inflected the process by which that executive order was promulgated of course it did but now they don't even care about just sort of like okay we're going to deal with this but there are actually these other reasons that they're like you know what

there's no racism here because what there really is a xenophobia and that's okay that's like that's a choice I mean it's the same way we used to hate partisan gerrymandering we wrote a whole decision about how unseemly partisan gerrymandering is and now you know I John Roberts I'm going to seed the pen to Sammelito to talk about how partisan gerrymandering is your birthright if you're a Republican completely you know what even though this is a short episode I think we need to have

our evergreen segment we need to talk about justice clearance Thomas do we I think we do yes because you know what he would go further shut these a little opinions not far enough for clearance Thomas no how far does he want to go we yeah he would make it a fish fish um he would say that the equal protection guarantees actually don't apply to the federal government also even if it was racial discrimination that wouldn't be unconstitutional fifth amendment you endanger girl

includes a due process clause that has been interpreted by this court involving versus

“sharp a companion case to Brown versus Board of Education to include an implicit equal”

protection guarantee that applies to the federal government as much as the states and apparently clearance Thomas takes that personally well if justice Thomas has to live through the indignity of

seeing the court enforce the first sentence of the 14th amendment he really wants to take the fifth

amendment out to the wood shed you know he he needs a little consolation prize anyway folks if

“in the next couple of weeks probably next week when we get the courts decision and birthright citizenship”

and you hear all of those hot takes talking about how decorous this court has been how they really

stood up for the rule of law they stood up for the constitution and they went toe to toe with

this president did not blink how much did it come back and run this episode back and just think about all the things the court did on immigration before it did that one thing that I actually

“could have done a year ago but yeah yeah please do not forget everything that happened this week”

including how the court again enabled a lot of the racist xenophobic elements of Trump's immigration agenda sometimes go to itously right just telling them they could do something they weren't even doing at the time yeah yeah all right ladies till next time opinions coming down well we'll we'll we'll we'll we'll we'll have an episode in your ears an eyes on Monday court will have more opinions or eight to go so probably Monday and Tuesday is that what we're

assuming definitely Monday and Monday will not be the last day I'm hoping it's Tuesday and it won't go into July because what is taking them so long I know girls are fighting you I'm the most right wing you're the most right wing is this racism or are we saying racism is legal we need to mull over that a little bit longer I would go further and overall the whole constitution actually all right well we got a couple days of suspense until we figure out which of the above it actually is

why not Sticks journeys at Cricket Media production our show is produced by Melody Raoul and Michael Goldsmith Jordan Promise is our intern our team includes Matt DeGroat, Ben Heskot, Johanna Case, Kenny Moffett, Eric Shoot and our music is by Eddie Cooper our production staff is probably unionized with the writer's guild of America East