Aired 2 months ago 43:08

Trump takes Saudi Crown Prince's word on journalist murder; Trump, Chief Justice spar over Trump's "Obama judge" remark; After close call, top U.S. commander spotted with assault rifle; Trump on China talks: "my gut has always been right"

Trump politicizes call to troops to rip migrants, judges; Trump's Thanksgiving call to the military turns political; Trump asks troops about operational details on live TV; Trump politicizes call to troops to rip migrants, judges; House GOP subpoenas Comey & Lynch for private testimony; Mueller uses Papadopoulos' tweets against him in court filing; Trump: 9th circuit court "a big thorn in our side"; Trump escalates dispute over John Roberts defending judiciary; Teen, who decried gun violence in essay, killed by stray bullet; Is market's roller-coaster ride a sign of looming downturn?; Growing number of retailers closes doors on Thanksgiving; Baby dropped from third-floor window to escape fire; Chef Jose Anders cooks Thanksgiving dinner for fire victims; American missionary killed after contact with isolated tribe via Knit

Erin Burnett OutFront

Aired 2 months ago 42:09

Trump's Thanksgiving call to the military turns political; House GOP subpoenas Comey & Lynch for private depositions; Iran: U.S. bases in region are "soft targets" for our missiles; Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson tee for $9M prize

Trump: Whether Crown Prince did or didn't, he denies it; Trump brings up domestic politics with commanders, troops; Trump asks about operational details on live TV; Trump threatens to completely close border over caravan; Trump: military along border can use "lethal force" if needed; Trump: Acting Attorney General Whitaker "a highly respected man"; Obama: "don't buy" idea that woman or minority can't beat Trump; U.S. General appears with assault weapon in Afghanistan; Trump: 9th circuit court "a big thorn in our side"; Trump, Chief Justice Spar over Trump's "Obama judge" remark; Trump escalates dispute as John Roberts defends judiciary; Girl who wrote essay on gun violence killed by stray bullet; mom drops baby to bystander in dramatic rescue via Knit

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Aired 2 weeks ago 160:53

2000 - AOC Dances Into Congress, Drives GOP Up The Wall w/ MR Crew

Jaronnie era. Every day. Passable fry that means Monday his casual Monday, Tuesday, casual Tuesday, Wednesday, casual. Thursday, casual Thurs. That's what we call it and Friday casual. Jarrai rumpole with Sam cedar. It is Friday January fourth two thousand nineteen. My name is Sam cedar. This the five time award winning majority report. We are broadcasting live steps from the injustice ravaged Gwanda canal in the heartland of America downtown Brooklyn US. On the program today. New congress worn in with the most diverse house ever. Also Republicans in the Senate are beginning to crack under the weight. Of the shutdown. While Democrats introduce major voter reforms Medicare for all hearings set to be held. Democratic governor of Maine signs in order to give seventy thousand Mainers health insurance. Meanwhile, a Bolton and palm peyot. Set out on their exact excellent war mongering adventure. And workers win. As the Obama National Labor Relations board joint employer ruling upheld in DC circuit court. Shita to Leib wants to impeach the am effort. Offer. And the economy adds over three hundred thousand jobs. Unemployment ticks up just a hair, but actually for good reason, all this and more on today's majority report, ladies and gentlemen, we mentioned this yesterday doing a slightly special thing just to kick off twenty nineteen and I got say kudos to me for not for not stumbling too much over twenty nineteen in the beginning. Opening of the of the show I was convinced. I would do that. I probably will do that next week, but I managed to get through all of the first half week of broadcasting on our program. Casting. Let's say on our program without messing that up. So I'm very very pleased with myself should also say today, we're doing slightly breaking format. No guest today. We're gonna get phone calls quickly. Get two big stories big in my mind stories that I wanna talk about before we get there. And then we'll take calls, and we will talk about movies that we saw on break if we happen to see any as opposed to having a movie recommendation, so this we may be backward. Looking a little bit on these movie recommendations, I also want to say to the that we've been getting a lot of emails lately, and they have been it's extremely gratifying. I don't have a chance to answer them. All. But for the most part, I read them all fairly quickly as they come in got one. Two or three or four five six sometimes more day just from listeners who are either like relatively new or longtime who are just telling us. I mean, maybe this time of year people get a little more sentimental. I'm not sure, but and telling us that they appreciate the show, and I just wanted to acknowledge that until you, you know. We do read them got an Email from a a. Like a fifteen year old. A young woman who is in high school. Apparently, her teacher is a bit of a jerk. I'm not gonna say her name Sinn case her teacher. But it sounds like your teacher does not listen in says. He is. Basically. Suggesting or not correcting people when they talk about the communist that was voted in in New York that would be a o c. There's and she her mom is a Trump supporter who does not like her questioning her teachers she lives in a conservative district where there's little funding for anything outside of sports. Did it sounds a little bit like a a crap show? But I will tell you this. If you are. If you're you know, there's no worst time for some people than high school and junior high and having paid junior higher in my own home. I can attest to this and having actually gone to junior high myself that time, of course, it was the horse buggy that made it so difficult when you would get there every day on the on the horse and buggy, but I will tell you you know, that is one of the great things about highschool. Enjoy it to the extent that you can. And then know that then you're able to fly the coop. And it only gets better it only gets better Amen to that. So but thank you for listening and appreciate it. And she's. She. Thank the majority of the Michael brook show, and the anti-fraud some of my favorite things to watch. And listen to you're all doing something revolutionary. She ends the Email. So it was very kind very sweet. And thank you and much appreciated for letting us know that you're out there and hang in there. Good luck. Man. I think I down proof. I think I counted down the days until I could move to New York for like two years in the back of my diary, no joke. There you go. Like, dad, girl advent calendar. Exactly. And I think there's a lot of people who do that just skipped out on middle school. Crushed. Well, think is like this. Email and she's she lives in in Ohio and. That Email and what what was the latest conservative hit job on? I wanna say hit job, but really failed hit job on A. O C reminded me of footloose, not the remake the original where it was a legal to dance in the town. And who is the six to six degrees of Kevin bacon was was the rebel came to town totter, but had a dance and. There is I there's something deeply deeply wrong with the conservative movement, and they are. You know, I don't hold much stock in this. Because I think they're terrified of a lot of things and much of them are made up. Right. I mean, like, I don't I don't think the reason to. I'm not in favor per se of the caravan because there were people in Michigan who were afraid that the caravan was gonna come and take their house or something. And so my support for Heo OC is not founded in the fact that they are so terrified of her. But I will say that I am beginning to get more enjoyment than I think person, should you know, out of how afraid they know the phrase living in someone else's head, right? Kley? So. They have been the the gateway pundit is that who it was or somebody someone on some right wing outfit. Some of the miscue seventeen seventy six oh, very very, very happy. I'm talking about yesterday. They are two days ago came out with the relation that in high school. Alexandra, a oh Cortez went by the name, sandy, and that they confirmed what she had been saying publicly was that we moved out of town into a richer town where we were ended up being one of the poorer members of the town. So I could go to a good school. You know up in just outside of the city outside of the Bronx. And. That apparently was I'm not sure exactly what the Laurie was areas. Republicans always resort to like the most crude form of identity politics. So they're basically saying like, she's not real, right? It's like it's like Rick Ross. He was he was a security guard. It wasn't real like she was she didn't she's working class credit or family scrap together. Savings to make it a possible for to go to public school bullshit. I just saw the France she misrepresented her past like, whatever, whatever. Yeah. So that fad that failed. But these detectives on the right? Found this incredibly damaging video that they put up on live leak. This is the place where they literally put like snuff films, right? And this is it folks if you're at home police it down because it turns out that at one point in her past Alexandria, Cossio Cortez. Danced. With the guy then with a girl what the hell. Okay. Now. I know there's probably a lot of you are disturbed out there solution just fail on the green new deal guys. She clearly was younger, but that's no excuse for dance Arctic that Allah here is. Well, no. But we don't know that when this is relief. Oh, we don't know that she's at least as junior senior high school, right? So I mean still Ryan still stands. Okay. I was appalled. But here's now aside from the fact that they thought that this would that video would somehow be damaging to her and everybody was like, oh my God. This is incredibly charming. Wow. She like like, what an authentic person who, you know. Like it turns out, and this is what even more bizarre about this. That was not the video. What they did is they took clips of her from another video, and they changed the music the music you heard in that was called tom-tom by by Tom. Tom fever, tom-tom fever like the that Josephine Baker would come out to in her little bananas skirt. Right. Let's put a pin in that. As to why they did that. But it turns out that what that video was from was from a video that was made in at BU by a bunch of kids. Who were doing the list? Oh, mania Meema centrally from like, I guess ten years ago or so about two thousand nine two thousand ten and I'm not convinced. This wasn't even like commissioned by b you because it's all be used Newton's wearing BU clothing. And they're trying to like, it's it seems like it's like a promotion for the admissions office based upon this mean that was going around on video. So let's watch this part of it. It's a different song. It so weird. Like, I don't know if they thought like we can't show that can't show any like sort of like average white guys in there or something. I think they wanted to make it look like a vanity project like she just wanted to be filmed, dancing or something weird. But here here is the original narcissistic, folks heart are there. Are there? Original video. Believable. Okay. Now that I know I can't I can't take it anymore. Although it does bring back some some rough memories for me because that's right next to the law school, which I attended for year and that sometimes hard for me to watch. But they for whatever reason they cut out parts of that video in put it with that new tom-tom using that does sound like Josephine Baker. And I think was supposed to be reminiscent like sort of like, this is what's happening way up town. And there's some like like crazy jungle music going on like smoking some jazz cigarettes. Yeah, exactly like, it was in the negroes devil. Stick. Kana? Fhu priestess is coming out. I can't for the life of me. Like, why didn't they just release the original video or why didn't they make the other video more nefarious? Like, they're so out of touch that they can't even like, I don't know how you would demonize her from that video, but they did such a bad job about it. And then the interesting thing about this whole thing is that that list of mania thing was a mean that was part of a mash up that came from the breakfast club scene. So she was playing the ally Sheedy role in it and the guy doing this the was playing like the. Yeah. This is this is this is the original video that stuck with me. So she's doing the ally Sheedy thing coming around, and the, of course, you play that role Narcisse. She's right Narcisse. Okay. So that's what that came from. But the funny thing about that was that as these mashups started going around where there was like different kids from around the country started doing these videos Lawrence Lessig used it. As an example for why we needed creative Commons copywriting, and he actually did a video about it, including these clips that was then forced to be taken down by the publisher of the list of mania music, and he went on to sue them and win and it it fundamentally altered the copyright dynamic online for all these memes. So the there's so much. It was such a the fail the electronic frontier. Fundation should get behind now. After this, exactly. I mean, it's just one more reason why like your internet freedoms in some ways, she played a small part in our internet, freedom, freedoms, unknowingly and. It is it she's ruining the breakfast club because that woman's white. The example sick of it. It's like Ghostbusters this the widow and the Brennan's is white. She just just is. And so. Eos? This is Chris tweeted this out also that she's a troll addition everything else. The mayor Hirsch Representative who's good at posting. And it's so bizarre and exciting. So she drop this like Johnny minutes ago in response to the failure to I don't know what they were supposed to do. But here it is play. This is pretty funny. Just dance outside. Gutter song choice that also I mean, you know, what they're going to do. They're going to take that they're going to pull them use it out, and they're. They're gonna put secure as she will. All right. Well, that is that is I don't know. I response that was honestly like I was sad for the person. I was like is this person ever been outside? They have any friends like how warped do you have to be to think that this is Dan he literally mentions digital for analogy in his bio, so they'll probably. Probably not. Well, let's get onto. So some some news that that took place. Now, look the. We we've you know, we've talked about this all week the bills that the Democrats in the house pass do nothing except for set a marker and establish a baseline. We hope for what they'll do if they get the Senate as well. But it also does create what they do in the house. Also does create a tremendous amount of pressure on the Republicans in the Senate who are running for re election. So yesterday, the Democrats passed two pieces of legislation one was the essentially the funding Bill the continuing resolution that they got from the Senate. Last year Senate. And that goes back to the Senate. And Mitch McConnell is saying that he will not bring up vote, however in the past twenty four hours, Cory Gardner. Susan Collins Kapito from West Virginia. Others who are basically starting to worry g even Joni Ernst who were starting to worry about their re election in twenty twenty are getting nervous because you know, we're still in that zone. There has been already a tremendous amount of of needless suffering innings -iety, experienced by over eight hundred thousand federal workers and contractors some of whom may expect never to see the money from the work myths, others who will build up debt in in of getting back pay for this. We've also seen a freeze in federal workers a pay raise of one or two percent that they were supposed to get. And it also debilitates the ability of these agencies to look forward past the next couple of weeks and actually do any real planning. But as the weeks go by the suffering is going to increase exponentially. You're going to start to see people on food stamps lose their funding perhaps as early as early February. You're gonna see people lose their section eight housing. You're gonna see people of farmers lose their ability to get loans into get funding into get the the slush fund payments that they were supposed to get for the tariffs this. That's why Joni Ernst is a little bit worried. And so this pressures going to increase and Nancy Pelosi to her credit understand this dynamic apparently far more so than Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell is just sitting there hoping some deal can be struck. Here is Nancy Pelosi. Coming out and talking to reporters and explaining essentially what the dynamic is right now. Is an in morality. It's not who we are as a nation. And this is not a wall between Mexico and the United States that the president is creating here. It's a wall between reality and his constituents his supporters. He does not want them to know what he's doing to Medicare netted and social security in his budget proposal. He just not want them to know what he's doing to clean air and clean water in the rest in his department of interior, and of of EPA, you just not want them to know how he is hurting them. So keeps the subject on the wall. He's a master of diversion. We're trying to open up government. We've giving them tour path to do. So all right. I'll tell you what was skilled about that everything the message. She wanted to get across with bookmarked with the wall because she knows the press is only going to cover stuff that has the word wall in it. Because that is what that is the society we live. We all participate in it. When we buy products that are advertised on television. And what that's just the way it is. We're just gonna have to wait until basically the boomers the gen Xers die off in the world can be owned by millennials who just watched on YouTube, and but that is that is the world in which we're living in. So that is the dynamic right now with the government shutdown. It would be. It would be fascinating to watch. How the senate's going to crumble, and what they're going to come up with because I think there's a decent chance what we may end up seeing is some type of compromise. Where again, we said this last year around this time, I would take a permanent fix for all the DACA, folks. And Dopp, but even just DACA, frankly to star with for two and a half five billion dollars worth of wall. Who cares that wall's not going to get built? There's not going to be. There's just five billion dollars isn't going to do it Trump deeds to bring that back to his base to pretend that the walls being built fine. Give them the five billion dollars, take DACA and say, what happened to Mexico? Maybe also I'd like to also the protected status for Haitians as well, which was really seen. I've just wanna to put that on the table something that would be great thing to at. I know it's not necessarily possible. Let's try to add. The broadly the point being yes, if you were to drain all the things for real. Yes. Exactly agree. Exactly. Because no one I mean up the part that goes through a butterfly sanctuary. We can't allow that to happen. But the thing it's none of it's going to go through anything. This five billion dollars are going to end up spending on just like, you know architecture firms. We're going to spend it on my trip to Mexico where the pay me the rest of it and thanked me, but every day that passes the Democrats get more leverage here. And the, you know, the problem is, of course, is that the Democrats broadly. Speaking broadly, speaking in general, feel more pressure just broadly, if you're in Joni Ernst, and you come from Iowa, and you're worried about the farmers be you're worried about all the stories about the farmers who are getting screwed over because they're not getting their slush fund payments, and they can't get loans. And farms are starting to go bankrupt. Because of this. You're gonna feel that pressure directly. But even if you're not if you're a democrat, and you're not comp- your district is not completely implicated by you don't have that many federal workers or you don't have any, you know, specific things. That many snap recipients. The bottom line is the though the broad force of your constituents are concerned about government being shut down. Even if it doesn't directly implicate them in a way that Republicans don't aren't. So that's there's a little asymmetry there. But once these real things start kicking in the senate's gonna crack, and they're going to go to Mitch McConnell, and they're gonna go like, I'm not giving up my Senate seat because Donald Trump, and I'm not going to give it up it in gen- in you know, in February of twenty nineteen. So we shall see. What happens? Meanwhile. Democrats passed a nother piece of legislation and that is the for the people act. This is a great piece of legislation as far as I'm concerned, both from the perspective of it's good policy. And it's good politics. And one of the things that we were talking about as Democrats take over the house was they need to start passing things that also help them maintain power. But and it just so happens that there's a cross section in that van diagram of things that are help keep them maintained power. And also are. Based on democratic values and just simply Justice, and that, of course is of voting reform. So the Bill includes a requirement that all states automatically registered voters who submit paperwork to a state government agency, unless the person ops out, so that's motor voter registration that it's I mean, it expanded whatever business you would have with the state, Medicaid anything. Good stuff provide same day voter registration in every state allow fifteen days of early voting with sites located near public transportation. Use nonpartisan redistricting commissions to draw new congressional maps, this is like the whole thing that like Greg Sargent called for the other day, enable online voter registration count provisional ballots from eligible voters filed at wrong polling place and use paper ballots in addition to electron voting systems it. Would ban post released felon disenfranchisement? So that's five million Americans would regain their voting rights. Bill, however would still allow states to disenfranchise people while they're in prison. States would be banned from engaging in voter caging, which is that stuff like cross check. It would be impermissible for states to remove someone from the voting rolls for failing to vote in a previous election, which is often used if you haven't voted in the past election. You got a letter, and you didn't return it. You get kicked off the rolls. Election day would be a federal holiday for two million plus federal workers and non-government employers would be encouraged to give the day off to private-sector employee's that doesn't go far enough in my mind. It should be national holiday but colleges and universities to be designated voter registration agencies. Absentee ballots would no longer require postage. So you wouldn't get votes thrown out or be any more difficult to vote that way, it would increase funding to help states update and secure election infrastructure. The election assistant commission would oversee these updates and mandated reports on its progress. So we get a sense of what's going on around the country. The election systems would be deemed critical infrastructure. It went on to say. To to resolve some declarations in findings, which will basically be the premise for future legislation that will be introduced soon, including fixing the Voting Rights Act section five. We've been talking about this for for years since the supreme court rolled it back. 2013 that Representative Teri Sowell Sewell from Alabama introduces legislation which will move on a separate track during the committee's. There's also the Bill also asserts support for statehood for district of Columbia protects native American voting rights and the right to vote in US. Territories it also addresses campaign finance reform. And this is the most interesting part, it creates a public financing system for house elections that provides six dollars in public funds for every one dollar and funds raised from donations up to two hundred dollars. So people understand that now New York City has a very similar program. In fact, that reminds me. No, Miki conce is running for public advocate. In the next eight days. I think it is your donation of up to I think it is two hundred fifty dollars will be matched by the city by eight times. So if you donate ten bucks to her or twenty five bucks to her if you if you donate ten bucks to her. It's gonna be worth eighty if you vote one hundred dollars it's going to be worth eight hundred dollars to her. And I believe this goes until the next eight days. So we've got a link at majority dot FM to to go and do that. No pitch for membership today. Just go do that. But this, but aside from that, the New York City one is a is a great program. And this would be great to have. Nationally. In addition. It also includes the disclose act which mandates that nonprofits and other groups disclosed their sources when they contribute to election campaigns, a lot of these five three C once now that purport to be nonpartisan. This is the way that they get dark money into campaigns. Package. Honest ads require act requires a disclosure of digital political ads on tech platforms. The F E C would be reconfigured from six members to five to prevent deadlocks on important issues. It's more often than not they they deadlock and nothing happens coordination between super PACS and candidates would be more clearly defined and banned. There's also a surgeons and findings that would implicate future legislation including a declaration that the constitution should be amended to overturn not just citizens United. But also Buckley v Vallejo. The Bill states and intent to ban anonymous shell companies from funding campaigns to prevent the potential for secret foreign money to seep into elections. And then there's some ethics ref reforms as well. And the supreme court would be covered under that ethics code. So Ginny Thomas might have to find a different job. Rather than being a conduit to her husband and right wing money. So this is all good stuff. And here is Nancy Pelosi, basically gaveling in and. Expressing what they intend to deal with in the democratically controlled congress. This congress must accelerate a future that Vance's America's preeminence in the world and opens up opportunities for all building comedy that gives all Americans the tools, they need to succeed in the twenty first century public education, workforce development, good-paying jobs and secure pensions. We have heard from too many families who wondering this time of innovation globalization. If they have a place in the economy of the future. We'll must remove all doubt that they do and say to them individually, we will have an economy that works for you. Player that we will Paul upon both thinking to address disparity of income in America, which is at the root of the crisis of confidence felt by so many Americans as Justice Brandeis said we may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we cannot have both. We must end that injustice and restore the public's faith in a bitter future for themselves and their children. There you have it. So that is day one for the Democrats in the house. One of the story before we go to the the callers. There was an important ruling this happened. I guess actually on the twenty eighth couple days ago and. Again, the implications of of elections are go far much further. I think than we anticipate and some of the most important. Dynamics that implicate policy in effect. The real lives of people happen at surface that below the surface in a way that we can't see. And this is this story sort of combines a couple of things that I don't think people think about enough so in twenty fifteen the National Labor Relations board which had a majority of democratically appointed commissioners. Because Barack Obama was the president, and they have five year, terms and unions have a lot more sway over democratic president. Even if he never put his walking shoes on and walked with them in Wisconsin, which was a huge disappointment. But unions have much more sway over democratic president than they do over Republican president. And so those labor those commissioners were very pro labor. And in a a pretty dramatic ruling in two thousand fifteen. The NFL are b. Rule that companies and franchisers with both indirect and direct control of employees could be held liable for labor violations committed by contractors or franchisees. So what does that mean? It means that the the McDonald's and can't know Hieaux owned by. Brendan. Can be held that that not only can Brandon beheld liable for punishing people who go out on strike or for wage theft. But McDonald's headquarters Cantu because McDonalds has enough control over what that franchisee does. Even though he's the owner, they set the prices, they set a lot of the standards. They have enough control that they are considered joint employers. This was this particular case was centered on a business called Browning ferris in California. Which is a recycling company. And they contract with another company to provide. Workers to sort and clean the recycled products. So in two thousand thirteen a union petitioned, the National Labor Relations board to represent. These these contractor workers, not browning-ferris, but the other company lead point lead point. But also Browning ferris was named as joint employer. So this is what these companies do they hire basically temp agencies. So that they don't have the responsibility, the labor responsibility for these people. And the National Labor Relations board said no you can't get away with it. The Trump administration. And is obviously against that ruling tried to reverse it can't on its own. They were taken to court. Well, the DC circuit court. A panel of three judges just ruled two and what two to one in favor of the National Labor Relations board, ability and responsibility. To hold employers in that situation as jointly liable for labor violations, etc. Etc. And. There's two things you should know about this. One is. The Trump National Labor Relations board cannot reverse this. In fact, they have a responsibility a statutory responsibility to rule in this way. And so there is legal leverage anytime, they don't. Going forward. But to. The judges the two to one decision in this panel of judges were appointed by Obama. The reason why they were able to appoint these judges. And if it goes to the entire on bunk as they say of the DC circuit court, the reason why they will lose their two is because Harry Reid got rid of the filibuster. When Republicans were refusing to see more judges on that court. It was four four. They wouldn't seat the other three judges. It's supposed to have eleven members. They said that's eight is plenty. This is the most important court, and we've talked about this court a lot this is one of the most important courts after this. This is the most important court in the country after the supreme court, and in some ways, it's more important because deals with a lot more cases. And the reason why this is going to stand for labour is because. A democrat with whom I had many many policy disagreements was there. So in that can't know Hieaux McDonald's. They're going to be subject to. To wage increases or they're not going to be able to punish their workers for going out on strike, but fight for fifteen. There's going to be a lot of Justice for workers because of this. Now, it's possible. It could go to the supreme court. And we now have a Republican controlled supreme court. It's conceivable the overturn it. But I imagine. If that happens it won't happen for a couple of years. And who knows but these are the implications of all of these things that happened years ago that will have implications going forward. And it's important to be aware of like, you know, much of the governing that happens happens on this level. And you know, unless you read the national law review, you're not gonna see it. For I guess the intercept also reported on coned. All right. Let's go to the phones, shall we? You calling from a to one zero area code who's this? Good afternoon. Famas Johnson and Tonio Sean in San Antonio. You're in pole position twice in two thousand nine hundred already you going for some type of like a record. I mean, just just interested to make my point here. Okay. All right. Okay. Yeah. On a dress them issues for my call on Wednesday. I agree with Michael that when you considering supporting a candidate Pol policy should be the main factor. You know, Bernie put out a fundraising Email on December twenty seven stating. I'm the best candidate to be Trump. Then I'll probably run one of the rare occasions where I disagree with Bernie. And it seems like a hedge because you know, what is he basing this on is it on the assumption on the hypotheticals, did you know, 'cause he's been slightly behind the Biden for almost two years. And I don't think he's basing this on some kind of abstract feeling and I encourage Bernie to run because he said largely against Trump though, not as large largest Biden. And I I want to express my disagreement with you about the reliability of long-term hypothetical polling. I'll acknowledge that the longer you. Go back is decrease in the reliability of polls. But there are. Are exceptions. You mentioned how Jeb was weeding and Michael mentioned how Lieberman was leading couple months after the midterms. And I'm basing it on looking a month back for for polling data based on an average of polls for the election that was taking place. Twenty two months later, though Romney was actually beating Jeb at that point two thousand fifteen the only other eventual nominees did not have pulling leads at this point in the twenty first century were Obama and McCain in two thousand and seven. So the fact is that a majority of way, we made you twenty first century. Yeah. All right. Well, I mean, how many elections have there been in the twenty first century? So so in the twenty first century had polling lead at this point the election. The ratio is sixty percent to forty percent. So if you fast forward, six months later, once Trump got in he quickly had pulling weeds, it replicated, his leads. Did he had in April of two thousand eleven when he was considered running, and he never relinquished that leading two thousand fifteen and one of your greatest moments as an analyst when you're on Hayes this show after Trump and now, and you said Trump will probably win the Republican primary. I think it's because of your dedication to your job. I believe you mentioned the those leads from two thousand eleven on this show, or at least remembered that they happened, and I'll admit that in two thousand and three after Lieberman did not run Howard Dean had lead before Carey took over and the lead in January two thousand and four never didn't. He. Never relinquish that. Lead in January two thousand and seven McCain and Obama had primary leads that spread that spurred them the victory over Clinton and Giuliani who had national December two thousand seven the biggest roller coaster ride for pulling was in the Republican primary of two thousand and twelve where right. You know at this point Romney did have a lead. But then, you know, Trump Huckabee Perry Cain and Gingrich all had Leeds before Romney took over in February of two thousand in twelve. So you know, it's been twenty seven years since Bill Clinton who's pulling it one percent won the nomination and forty three years since Jimmy Carter achieved the same feat. The fact is historically people who are in the middle or the back of the pack. Even at this point, you know, rarely win the nomination of their party, you know, every nominee the twenty first century had polling or delegates. Leads by February of the year of the election. So do you wanna comment on that? Or do you want to talk about? I mean, you know, the. All I can tell you is. I don't I mean, I don't want to. I don't have a strong comment on the validity of polls at this point. There are I think the idea that in some instances, they are accurate in some instances. They're not in the context of the the twenty first century. I think indicates my contention that they're only they're they're not they're only somewhat reliable. But to that extent. If you if you if you think it's the case that. If you think it's the case that Trump is the, you know, if you think the pulling that important that all I can tell you look at the polls, and it doesn't look like Trump can win. Right. Like doesn't like like if you look at the the polling, right? I'm looking at like the last NBC while Street Journal poll, and this was from I don't know, I guess in December. Definitely Trump twenty three percent. Although week later it was actually eighteen percent. Probably Trump eighteen percent. So thirty six percent of the population. That says either definitely or probably Trump definitely democrat is like thirty eight percent. Probably democrat is another eighteen percent. I mean other fourteen percent. So you're already over fifty percent and a generic democrat versus Trump now. But we don't know if it's going to be Trump Trump could get hit by a bus. You could have a heart attack get chicken bone. I mean who knows? I think the most important thing is maybe not the exact numbers. But the fact that there's no evidence that anyone would be substantially better than Bernie at beating Trump. So that's not an argument that against him. Evidence. What I said yesterday. That's exactly what I said. Now, what takes my point agreement? That's doing that is what I Michael Brooks yesterday. Bernie would don't reverse yourself. Compelling arguments that I'm sure I can't back up with statistics. Just like would make sense. Then shouldn't have thought expire. No one is refuting that the polling broadly. Speaking may be Biden's pops up in one poll, that's better. But broadly speaking, no one's refuting that. With Mike from I gotta say if I am going to end this is not based on polling. This is purely based on both substantive as well as stylistic arguments in instincts, the the worst and the ones that I'm scared of our Jila brand Booker and Harris from pure in addition to having problems a lot of problems and politically and ideologically, I think that I don't see them being Trump necessarily, we could get to point where anybody who'd be Trump because it's such a disaster. But even this far out those of you know, but those are the three it's worth noting. I have a huge question Mark about their capacity to do it needs to be done to actually win a general. Well, this on the other hand, here's the beauty is that a prime member Mary much more primary gives you actually a sense of like how they actually will be as a candidate. Sure. I don't know. I still laying markers be much harder for Bernie Sanders to win the primary and the general. Election. Interesting John, thanks for the call pre sheet it. Okay. Thank you. John seems like he's like he's like. Some type of joke. John John pulls up from top of the key. I like how he also butter. He smacked you around. But his, Yup. Right. Yeah. Like it. Like you were wrong. But you are also right? That was a great moment yet on Hayes your now, supposes pathetic, six five. Oh, Eric who's this where you calling from? Hello. Hello. Hello. Is it me? Yeah. It is. Can can you hear me? Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Jackson Powell Alta, Jack from Palo Alto. What's going on? Guys. I first time caller. I listen to you guys every day. I used to watch Fox News for our MSNBC for our that was just Portugal on me. Jack. Why'd you do that to yourself because I try to be, you know, get both sides of it. Okay. And informed myself. And then I found you guys, and I just want to clone say happy new year, and thanks so much of for informing me and being funny as well. And yeah, I really have questioned for you guys. Will you think pay go? Well, I think pay goes bad. And I think, you know, the there's a statutory requirement from pay go, which I think it would take it would take the Senate and the house to overturn. But there's also just sort of a a secondary sort of house rule, which I think there was some there's some belief out there that if you were to get rid of the house rule. Okay. So there's two different things. One is there's a law that was passed by congress and by the Senate, and then there is sort of a. A directive if you will that the house can't that that the house rules. I mean, it's it's not as it doesn't have the same force of lodge. Just by what congress needs to operate under at the you know as decided at the beginning of the year, just by congress, right? Something to become a law needs to be passed by the house and the Senate and then signed by the president. And I think it would have been a good sign. A two for the house to have gotten rid of that. So that they at the very least. Are publicly declaring that it is unnecessary to. To have stuff be deficit neutral when you pass this agenda now. There was an argument that you can waive this. There's going to be an attempt to to get rid of it after the fact, that's all well and good. But so I was a little disappointed by that. But I guess, you know, from what I've seen in terms of the reporting the progressive caucus decided that there were there were bigger fish to fry. But in general, it's bad. I mean, look, there's two different ways. You can look at this. You can look at this. That deficit spending is specifically required in times of of slow economic activity. And you can also look at it as deficit spending is completely irrelevant because of the nature of our monetary system and under either one of those perspectives pay go is silly. And it's also silly from a political standpoint. So and I because I just don't think there's that much of a constituency out there that are looking for their legislation to be value revenue. Excuse me deficit neutral. I just think don't. Go ahead. And. I just also another question. How many times do the Republicans hostages weapon the face with Donald Trump's, and that's the toot before they actually will lies that supporting him will damage the party? And I hate Republicans. I have Republicans in my family lose the why I had to watch FOX's because I had to get their talking points and know how to the debate them at the family table because with the disability ill. My housing situation is a little bit. If he and I will choir, you know, managing stuff with my family and not getting into completing the arguments. So. Yeah. My sympathies that year. Him in the face. I can tell you what that number is. It's called Infinity. We will never get there. There will never be a moment where they go. Hey, wait, a second. This guy seems to be a bit of a jerk and clueless. That's not going to happen. So all I can tell you is. Hanging there and have fun at those family meals. Remember, you know, a lot of other things to recommend your family aside from politics. Absolutely. I tell them to what she in. You know, check you guys all the time. And I feel like they, you know, some of them have started to 'cause they go. Wow, you're so you're so you seem to know of within you seem to be so header on these issues. Oh, yeah. You should check out the majority will. So you guys have a great day toll everyone to sue your say what's up, and it was thanks, man. High shit Jack from Palo Alto college five one zero area code who's this where you can. That me yet is you. Oh, hi, FAM. This is ISSA from Indiana listening to you guys. I'm good. I've been listening to you guys for a few months now, I love you guys just wanted to I guess call into kind of a little bit defend tool Gabbard because she did vote against the pay go provisions during the house vote last night. And also, I think in general regarding India, I know Michael had mentioned being anti imperialist on all fronts, not just against American period. Resum, and I think like a forgotten aspect of India is that it has experienced hundreds of years of Islamic imperialism with the mobile dynasty. So and like a lot of leftists in India want to learn about politics, and like political ideology from the west and kind of map that over and it doesn't map over as neatly an easily. So I feel like a lot of people. In the west or little I wanna say maybe misguided about where people are coming from. When they talk about like religious minority issues in India. So can I. Can I can I just say, okay? So I understand like in the grand sweep of history that that might be true like in a very long-term sense. But in the last say, like just postmodern independence, and at least when I'm responding to is let's get really specific when Mody was head of Gujarat state like the right, essentially, I don't forget the title. But who's governor, right? Would be like the analogy. There was a two day cut like mass murderer of Muslims like and Christians as well. Now, there's disputes of like what was the precipitating event. And there's a dispute basically of whether Mody actually ordered and was part of literally like orchestrating mass murderer or whether he just simply totally stood by and watched it and let it happen now in the eighties. The congress party stood by wall seeks were murdered after the assessing. Nation of Indira Gandhi. So I get that there's a Hispanic for that too. But that being said, this guy was banned from visiting the United States, and you know, in the United States. It was not because of the Muslims. It was because of Christians, right? Like, this guy is directly a participant in a serious crime against humanity. And that sense of of Hindu, far, right politics. I understand what it criticizes with a western Centric perspective. But it also negates like if you read I'm a big I'm very influenced by Martin he wrote in the argumentative Indian about the history of Indian pluralism and Indian Hindu, right and Muslim tradition. The Hindu, right? Like every other right wing fascist movement invents history that excludes others and is chauvinist right now. Right. So she supports that. I can't get with that. And it tracks with Syria tracks with Israel attracts with her refugee stance. Like, that's why it matters to me. I I think it's something again. Into and there's subtle points made for sure, but there's big macro takeaways that make her a big problem. Yeah. I mean, I agree. Like, I don't think she should have like blanket support from. Oh, the I I don't either even though a lot of people around me do I mean, there's definitely like you can have a more nuance criticism. Like he's doing good and some like sociocultural ways, but he's also pushing neoliberal liberal agenda behind the scenes, obviously. So yeah. Like, I get that there's nuance to it. But I guess like the left is just really when sometime. Sick. Boy, stuck just gotta say specifically that he was complicit in the mass murder of several thousand people in two days, including like we're talking like cutting uteruses off a pregnant woman stomachs like I mean, how is he complicit? He didn't order the security forces to stop it from happening at the least. And that's the most benign Turpin. There's credible reports that he instigated it and called for it in his rhetoric and people close to him and his government have been arrested and charged on it. Well, look, here's the bottom line there. I am glad that she is providing a vote in on. In situations. Like, the pay go thing. And I think that's helpful. I just think to the extent that we push back on these things. It's not so much that she's not right to be congresswoman from a Hawaii. It's that there is stuff that's going on. And she and she has a good record on some other things too. I'm not so excited about her sort of full throated. It's what what comes off to me is full throated endorsement of of of sod in Syria. It's one thing to say we shouldn't be there. But it's another thing to say we shouldn't be there because we don't have the ability to to have a good outcome as opposed to like Assad is just the guy who loves people right in. And so the the issue I think for us is is less that she shouldn't be a congresswoman from Hawaii that the. The the deification of her is unwarranted and is dangerous. And I think that's where we're fan. But I I'm sorry. What was your name again? He shouldn't. All right. What you should think. So much of the phone call. I appreciate it. All right. Thank you. Thanks, michael. Thank you so much, please call back. I wanna I wanna do more. And learn more about it for sure. And obviously doing more this on my show. Gone for four zero five area code who's this? Where are you calling from? Eri Evan Gregory from Oklahoma, Gregory from Oklahoma. There is long time. No talk to. Yeah. The internet. What's going on? Oh, oh, everything. Nothing. Let's see here. Last time. We talked was like April west years. Okay. So let me start. I've walked to say try keep a short that. There's a lot here. Let me see here. Gregory don't don't don't don't don't make this everything since last April. All right. Like just like okay highlight since November. Okay. So I became really depressed last year. A lot of bad stuff happens of. Like, my parents got divorced or arguing divorce. I'm sorry to hear a lot of things. Yeah. A lot of things in my personal life. Kind of got you know, out of whack. So I had to deal with that. And. The here had some issues with all to going on in my state, not very not looking very good here. Oklahoma, although one ram proud about which you guys didn't really talk about is. We finally have our congressman from Oklahoma. Who's a democrat in? It's for my district, Oklahoma City district. That's good can. Yeah. It's a really good. She's a beacon of hope for Democrats here in Oklahoma. Because we were like really just appointed. That are gubernatorial candidate lost to Trump mini-me. Oh, so, you know, education health gonna keep going shit here in the state because soon here and. Yeah. So some those gonna say, oh, I've had a revelation about Jimmy door. Oh, all right. But wait a second. How I that. All I heard that we the rest of us in the studio were concerned about your well being Greg. But now, yo Sam. I've got a comment on on your parents split. But let's here we have today by Jimmy door. I. Well. Well, all during August September play. My depression was real like bad jump. I stopped following politics. Order bit. Are you can watch shooting Jordi report? And but I remember watching Jimmy door video where he criticized C four endorsing injury quote move right after the primary, right? After I started thinking a little bit more about Jerry or how he doesn't really like medium. We might be both addressing and thinking more to the locker fees. But for me, I support the Democratic Party. And I want to change the didn't protect party he does really care about and knee, washing his videos, kind of like, you know, made me feel like weird about watching videos and also the person trying to change the Democratic Party. I kinda feel like in a way he's childish towards that idea. At the end of the day. If we don't change the Democratic Party. It's still better to have the hours, and you know, not right? But Gregory me like you are doing great. And you know, you have Carl back tech. She did not officially endorse Cuomo. She gave an antidote answer to an interview question where she was like, I support all the Democrats. Right, right. Right back amount. She dance video because she loves him so much. She went also very last summer. I joined the essay. Oh, good. Awesome. Gross. Yeah. Greg everything sounds like it's going well for you. I can tell you this about the the break-up of your parents having both had my parents split and being part of a split. I can tell you that it gets better. You know with some time. I know it's difficult very difficult difficult. I'll be I'll be twenty one next fun then like their adversaries like right after my birthday. So I it's like. Awesome. 'cause like. I'm not gonna get into get into to to deeply. But I can tell you this like, you know, you got up their people they deserve happiness going forward. You are all going to be happier. You're still a family. It's just a you're structured a little bit differently. And so, you know, your parents still love you. So that's the important part. And you, you know, certainly, if you I mean, you know, joined DASA you got that going for you, and you realize the Jimmy door is not worth watching. And so as far as I can tell buddy you doing good so hang in there. All right. Thank C doing what you're doing guys. Thanks, greg. Take care. Greg gluckman? There you go. That's one of those guys that you're talking about. What's that billionaire that should homestead leftists jam subsidy? Pigs. Jack. Gone from two six seven area code who's this where you calling from. Hello. Hello. Oh, hi, hi. This is STAN from Philadelphia Stanford. Nice to talk to you. Yeah. Here. I would bring up a two things wine. I really cook story is that like I was encouraged by Mike and calc linski to call my Representative or a Representative after that whole of haute in congress to about Yemen. Trying to pull us out. Yeah. Yeah. So I I follow their advice. And you know, I'd never done it before I called my Representative. I was really so I called, but I didn't know untold me that anyone would actually answer. I thought it was gonna be like an answering machine. I Iran I was going to rant. You know? Right. Really, let them know how I was very unhappy. But no someone actually entered and it's very different. To do something like that. When there's like, a nice staffer who's politely ass answering your questions, you know, Kyle was saying like, you know, like, they're the genocide caucus. I think or was his name for them. And so, yeah, it's it's it's an empowering a moment to actually call your inventive. Something you've been encouraging yourself many times before you know, the bottom line is. They these people are they're they're they're normal people. I mean in the sense that they react to things like people normally do. And so if you call and you sound like a, you know, a responsible, you know, calm individual. It's going to have more weight. I mean at the end of the day, it's just a number. But. If you know, there's no doubt my mind that these staffers get off the phone, and they go. Whoa. You know, they'll they'll take it down. They'll put you in the computer, and they'll say one call and that call is worth they have an algorithm. I don't know what it is these days. I would imagine, you know, I don't know what it is. But it you represent hundred maybe two hundred maybe five hundred people in the district that one call and on top of it when you get off the phone, you know, when they're done answering the phones at the end of the day. There's no doubt my mind. They go into the chief staff, and they're like, how do these caller sound? And if that person says. Sound like very rational people that that implicates their thinking on this. I mean, it does I don't know that's gonna change anybody's mind, but it does. And so, you know, it's all sort of the same theories that clean for gene movement. Fortunately society is changed in such a way that you don't always have to wear a suit to look like a responsible individual. But think yeah. But but appreciate your call on us. And or. So I was also going to talk about the the Guatemalan child who who died. Yeah. So the big I believe it was democracy. Now who brought up the fact that you know, she wasn't an digit. I mean family, and how her whole tribe was uplifted uprooted by like a US in western extraction policies, and how they actually had to around their tribe to escape this extractive policies that we've been lamenting right on their on their land. Right. And then from there, it's kind of like a direct line. Also with the violence that we've spread in Central America, drug policy or through are just packed. Right. And all of these things, you know, had pushed their family right to to force them. Great to us, right? And. Then v idea that it's simply a choice. Right. You know, Kristen gel brand gets Fox News and says, you know, this is a choice. He made com. Kristen gillibrand Kristen Nielsen. Christmas. Thank you. Sorry about that to come to come to the board to to take on dangerous trek. And then she dies, and I think through the direct line of thinking in this in this conservative mindset relates back to your call with that libertarian gentleman. I forget his name. But he had said something about how you know. It was wrong for the north to the man to demand that sleeves be released. Right. And how it's so easy to sacrifice bodies. Right. The the bodies of of black and Brown people in that like, well, we should have gotten some sort of dialogue southern slave owners. Right. And then to convince them to. To release their slave or wait for my market forces to allow that to happen. Meanwhile, generations of black people would have been born and died in slavery under that brutal system. But it's just okay. You know, I just, you know, the news like this spectrum this long tradition in the conservative mines that simply sacrifice. He's bodies for you know, right Bronco white comfort. You it's also you could also say that there's a lot of racist the principal in the in the way that they operate predate the call STAN the three of the children that have died at the border were all indigenous spoken digits languages, right? And. Yeah. I mean it. You can also see it in terms of like sort of these the there is some type of a lot of also to sort of comes from this sort of conservative mindset that. Quasi religious that. Like if you found yourself in a bad situation, it is because in some way, you you deserve it and whether it's like poverty or whatnot. And of course, but you know, I saw the story today. We don't have the clip of it. But in Britain, there was a there was a headline something like, you know, judge says drug dealers can get off because they're Texas the texts that they wrote had such great grammar. And it was like the whitest defendants you could ever find. Right. I mean that is days. My that kilo be procured. Well, and it also turned out that there grandma's actually atrocious. That's the other. That's the other benefit you get by grammar. Yeah. They had great grammar. That's the rate. Where's everyone round? Here's grammar. Couple of clips this this clip, I actually found pretty touching. The for the first time. Native American woman was elected to congress. And in fact. We have to this year. I is Deb how intolerant Holland who was it on this program. I interviewed her for was in the at net roots nation and the second cherise David's. David's is a an attorney and a former mixed martial arts of fighter. She's a member of the ho-chunk nation sell for the first openly LGBTQ member of congress from her state, and Holland is a member of the Laguna Pueblo. She's an attorney and she went served as their state's Democratic Party chair here. The two of them hugging. It's it's pretty touching. As an order. Congratulations. You are now all members of the one hundred and. It's very sweet. That you know at grandma. Meanwhile. Really enjoying this incoming class of of of a big, of course, sees great. But I've been going strong in the like, let's always include Rashida to live and our shot outs. And she's the Damian Lillard to the Steph curry, yes. And just the the class rage the energy. I love it. Yeah. She's she is someone who's going to need a lot of support in her next election because she got in there. It was a bit of a surprise. I think and they're going to be going for. I mean, they're going to gun for AFC. But I- good luck with that. I think they're going to have a tough time on seating her. But Rashida tha Leib she's, but she is not it does not appear that that understanding that she's going to have to fight very hard for her election is in any way, inhibiting her expression of as a congresswoman she is. I'm not sure from where in Michigan. She's from imagine close to Detroit. I think it is. Right. She was endorsed by the Detroit DSL that makes me. Thanks. She's from near there. She was. Yes, she's a. Conyers district. Yeah. So there was a I guess a function for move on dot org, and here she is speaking about what she hopes will happen to Donald Trump. And you win when your son looks at. You says look you won Billy's. Don't let baby they talked because we're going to go on there. Really peace motherfucker. The well they're posting their swearing congresswomen. Do how I've just I've al- political skepticism of the impeachment that you have. And then it's like that. Well, that was the best case I've ever heard, right. Exactly. Now, it's articulated like that then I totally support this effort. I hope the right wing manages to put that to music. So they. So they could attacker, right? Oh, there's tons of outrage. Cupid's rashida. Well, I mean, it's like, okay. The I the as the obvious with arts Trump, but even even on a smaller level, and I I don't care. I think the best thing about Tom Perez is his swearing, but like Tom Perez out there. Carrying some norms are bad and to be respected point scarred. Her her son was like a Palestinian Americans. He's out of super easy life ever dealt with any kind of challenge. Here's mom say the F word about this grotesque monster that runs our country must a little bit nervous. Yeah. And even congress people that I'm not necessarily fan of our at least saying the right things, here's represented Madame shift. I I'm not I don't, you know, I I don't have strong feelings about Schiff one way or another. I'm not voting records fairly decent. Not great. But here is Chris Hayes. Let me put this way. This is a good measure of where the Democrats are today as opposed to less than a decade ago. Here is Chris as interviewing Adam Schiff broader questions question. I want to ask all democratic leadership. We're living right now through this era of kind of polarization institutional norms finding and I think maximalism, increasingly employed. Tactically, legislatively, K one of the big victories or. Congress when they got the majority two thousand ten a use the debt ceiling default as a kind of threat to get no steady legislation passed it worked. It was incredibly reckless. It was unprecedented. Nearly what is your personal theory of your wielding of power, and you respect from norms balanced against imperatives to deal with what you're dealing with. Well, I think we need to get back to operating rationally and civilly we have to stop holding the government and all of its employees and contractors hostage when you can't get the votes for your priority. Whether it's a wall or anything else, so we need to get back to some rational order. We don't want to repeat the mistakes the excesses the over zealous. Partisanship of the Republicans. I hear that all the time. But what if that's the way the world works? Now, what if you cannot unilaterally put Humpty Dumpty back together? I don't accept it. And I can't accept it. I think you know, we fight hard, and we fight tough and smart for our priorities. But we also recognize something bigger than us that we're going to come and go in this beautiful building behind us, and we have an obligation to the entire country and and to its institutions right now, this is the most precarious time in my lifetime. In terms of our? Public. We have a president who denigrates the freedom of the press who goes after the independence of the judiciary. And in so many ways, I think is threatening the the livelihood of our democracy. The answer to that cannot be more of the same that just drags us. All down congressman shifty new chair. Now, the part that I that that I'm I hang my hat on on some level is that his criticism of breaching of norms all of the Republicans. I don't expect this guy to get out there and say we're gonna impeach them the effort, but I do think that there is an awareness there that they cannot allow we saw in the context of the the rules that they passed where the Gephardt rule, for instance, where there's no longer a separate vote on extending the the debt ceiling or raising the debt ceiling stuff like this where they used to do because we want him make the process fluid wanna give people like they're basically saying, look, we're done playing those type of games. Now. I don't know how long that lasts. And I can understand why shift, you know, not using the same sort of partisan language that we see from others because he could very well be the the guy who is presenting the most amount of evidence in that impeachment trial. Frankly, what if shift concert sort of workers are Jeff flake where he just acts like as if this is returning dorm order, but meanwhile, the grounds underneath him are swell into massive progressive action. That's what I've always wanted to. That's like the guy like the person who runs like a Clinton or Tony Blair campaign. And then just like governs like Corbin or Sanders, but it always like this massive reappropriation of housing to give to homeless people. That's a public private partnership. This is the third way. Exactly. Well, that's my plan for the libertarian debate for the presidential debate. That I go to be attending. I saw somebody security libertarian somebody on my social security. The libertarians definitely third way and somebody my discord I said. What do you think about as as as as, you know, offering because for being honest, clear, not sort of your you're on the the center of the libertarian party? I am in the radical center of libertarian SEIs Lii and to appeal to grand coalition well block running mate. I mean, I would maybe. Well, yeah. Let's Walter block. Wow. That's fascinating proposal. What are your views concerned? Just spit ball. He couldn't anything Jewish ship. The federal government being that business really be that business to roll Sam, but you ever play chart play chess thirteen. Philias reducton day free agents. This is interesting AFC was on Anderson Cooper. We're not gonna play the video because CBS very up tight about that. But we will play the audio and. It's interesting like this is just an example 'cause Brendan I were listening to this beforehand. And it's truck me there was two options that today. Oh, see had an answering this question and both are worthwhile. But it's interesting construction, but you know. Let's just listen. This is interesting Cooper giving her the like. Krino deal. What planet are you from type of questioning because they're they are they get very nervous with anything that is left of left of center. Is it his mom like Gloria Vanderbilt? Yeah. We'll make sense or just me. He doesn't even like, you know, Anderson Cooper's got a nice chunk of change himself. I mean, it is the fear is not that they're gonna they're they're they're wealth is going to be x appropriated the fear is just of like. There's just an uncomfortable. Ity I think inherent uncomfortably with with any type of genuine leftist proposal, and this isn't even that radical. But that's the issue here you're talking about zero carbon emissions. No USA fossil fuels within twelve years. That is the goal. It's emphasis on how was that possibly everybody. Having to drive an electric cart. It's going to require allows think about this. Like the idea. I we are inundated with stories about self driving cars, right? Like like like, the idea that interesting Cooper would say to someone like every like self driving cars in twelve years. He would never say that like technology like the idea that we all have electric cars and twelve years is that really? That crazy of. Can't get out of the paradigm where everyone drives rowdy cars all the time. Require change your infrastructure. Totally right, Jamie. But that even undermines even more hell ludicrous. That is like more people being electric cars is like the easiest part by far of any like the part that all businesses on board with the part that there's aren't Dion the part that we valorize in every form of media with tesla like issues. Bizarre. It's like the most like, yeah. Like, I say like, well, then certainly by twenty years, we think that there's going to be that. We're not going to be driving all electric cars and twenty years ABC's and urban planning is going to be completely different. What does he think? What it what it when Jerry Brown just signed all California's renewable I think in twenty years of target. What did you think that means Jerry Brown's like an gust respected, centrist governor that such bizarre. Pull. Now, if she said, we're all going to be driving electric jet packs that would be crazy know but gun. I was that possibly everybody having to drive an electric car. It's going to require a lot of rapid change that we don't even conceive as passable right now. What is the problem with trying to push our technological capacities to the furthest extent? Possible would require the raising taxes there's an element where yet there people are going to have to start paying their fair share in taxes Jewish specific on the tax route. You know, you look at our tax rates back in the sixties. And when you have a progressive tax rate system your tax rate. You know, let's say from zero to seventy five thousand dollars may be ten percent or fifteen percents et cetera. But once you get to like, the tippy tops, I on your ten million dollar. Sometimes you see tax rates as high as sixty or seventy percents that doesn't mean all ten million dollars taxed at an extremely high rate. But it means that as you climb up this. Ladder. You should be contributing more. Would you are now? I just want to say something like I don't wanna be overly critical. But she's underselling the tax rate changed in nineteen sixty three. I think under. Kennedy Kennedy, and it was dropped the top marginal tax rate was ninety percent. And it was dropped to seventy five percent or so under Kennedy and that ninety percent was not on the ten million dollar in in nineteen fifties. Nineteen early in early nineteen sixty dollars that would have been the that would have been three million you get three million. And then every dollar after three million. This is in today's dollars you pay ninety cents in taxes. So she was peddling it. But of course, to interesting Cooper who has been a news person for twenty some odd years, and I get it. We're all busy. Okay. But you could just Google historical tax rates just for the heck of it and realize like what she's saying is. A mainstream proposition or it let the very least like the like astound that like this Stanichev that he registers like either he is acting pretending or just like completely ignorant of some of the basic questions like if you get there, and you're going to ask for a specific tax rate from congress person. Would you never ask anybody like, you know, you never you never asked that question. But if you, but if you're going to, you know, it to your viewers, and frankly to your own self respect to get a sense of what she's saying means in the context of American history. Right. And he doesn't, but he responds like this like flying cars, and do you know, what if DR's threat was for the top merger rate can anybody guess hundred percent hundred percent Aleutian weeks? Yes. And and. So art, but but but continuing because he's just his mind is below she she might as well have said him like our here's the plant. Everybody's gonna walk on stilts everybody, including pets, including pets, and we can train them. We can train the pets to walk on stilts at an extremely high rate. But it means that as you climb up this ladder, you should be contributing more what you are talking. They're just big picture is radical agenda compared to the way politics is done right now. Well, I think that it only has ever been radicals that have changed this country. Abraham LINCOLN made the radical decision to sign the emancipation proclamation. Franklin Delano Roosevelt made the radical decision to embark on establishing programs like social security that is radical. Do you? Call yourself a radical. Yeah. You know, if that's what radical means call me radical. Now, here's the here. That was the part that Brendan are listening to. And I was like, I don't know if I would've taken that tact. Because she could say like, well, you know, it's not radical in the context of American politics beyond like the past twenty five years thirty years this country. You know, we're talking about ten percent of the history of this country that I understand why she took that tack, but I can tell you that an hour later. CBS headline was Alexandria Cossio, Cortes dot dot quote. Call me radical, you know, they're not gonna like now it's not that big of a deal. But this is this is like there is a tremendous amount of of forces that are arrayed to make her seem like she some type of alien some type of like of dancing on Rouf's alien. It's funny because I you know, opera pov- this. This morning at eleven twenty AM whoever runs Bernie's account. I think it was kind of indirectly responding to that said is it quote, unquote, radical to demand all Americans have healthcare that billionaires pay their first year of taxes and workers earn at least fifty an hour, and that we transform our energy system in order to combat climate change. I don't think so, and I I don't shy with all from the word radical. But I actually think it's affective, especially if you are a radical to really keep pointing out that single payer, healthcare and a slight bump in the minimum wage and doing the bare minimum scientifically necessary to deal with climate is moderate obvious shouldn't be controversial remotely. Of course. I think it was a similar construction to it. She said in the interview like I don't think she was literally saying, I'm a radical. No, no, no, no. I agree. There's two different constructions one is like. You know, the classic if you know defining down what radical means or the other is defining down what you know. What is one is defining down with the term radical is? And the other is attacking the concept that what she's proposing is radical. And so, you know, I it's just a choice. It doesn't really it. Probably didn't matter which one she chose one way or another. They were going to try and make it seem like she's proposing. You know, everybody just everybody's gonna be on stilts. That's just the way it's gonna work, and if not then you're up against the wall, but red-state caught on a little bit. This is pretty fight that we should have done this after the. You don't say. Afternoon. They're like attacks on a Qazi Cortez are reaching self-defeating levels. Let me suggest this one of the features of twenty eight was the essentially the right's favourite young upstarts socialists, defeated feeding longtime democratic member house, and it goes on. But what was justified criticism over her early mistakes of showing off her ignorance is crossing into self-defeating pointlessness and gaining her defense from fair minded conservatives. I would say not reaching self-defeating levels. I would say surpassing self-defeating levels, but I would say keep up keep up the good work. I would say, you know, thoughtful. But dude, you know, you never know there might be other clips of her out there doing things that are benign. So keep looking don't sleep on you million yourself here. She is jump roping at one point. Yes, don't forget. This is the third way in between continuing neoliberalism and full-on proletarian revolution. So third way. She's a moderate. She's the compromise candidate calling from two one four area code who's this where you calling from. Two one four. Two one four. Two one four. Let's go to call from an eight one eight area code who's this. Hello. Can you hear? Yes. Eight one eight who's this? So from Jamaica Marku, everybody. Holidays at all. Yes. Thank you. Hope yours. We're good too. Spent most of but. Sorry. Yeah. But so. Are you guys worried about ABC's security this level session is kinda weird of it? I mean seen still funded discord where anything she does there like on. I don't know. It seems kind of bizarre for me is creepy obsessed with AM. No, that's not what he means. You mean, you're not every single far-right reaction. Yeah. I get what you mean. Yes. I see I think I imagine that she's you know, being aware of it. But I I don't know that she's in any more danger or any less danger than than than most. It's conceivable. I mean, frankly, I think like, you know, the the danger is less like her, politics and more just that she's a popular woman. And this is something that I think women who are in the public eye are all you know. Subject to. But maybe she goes out in public, a, you know, a little bit more than your average sort of celebrity politician, but endangered on multiple levels. Right. Because she's a woman she's a woman of color, and she is some kind of democratic socialist. So there are a lot of people who might be act to get her. Yeah. Yeah. I've been I'm I'm just looking like even daily called when you guys brought the dance video which made their normal to me. Oh, she's not a weirdo politician. But but then though, I don't know it seems like it's all like meat red meat. So I'm a little worried about because look crazy, right? When behaved when they were in pole know that they're losing poll who knows what they're going to be. Yes. I think there's something to that for sure. But my my experiences there a lot more toxic when they're in power that they. You know that they energizes them. I it's just more of a bully mentality. I think they're toxic. No matter what I think that's true. But I mean, I guess just from my experience during the Bush years like, I know that. I was always aware of stories about you know, when Janine would get approached and threatened and whatnot. And it was, you know, close proximity to the beginning of the war in her speaking out against the war. But as you know, Republicans lost power, they they recede in some weird way. But start acting like libertarians. Yeah. Exactly. But I I I understand the concern. I appreciate the call. Dave have a happy new year. You. Go to a two one five area code who's this where you calling from. Hey Sam how? Happy holiday. Happy holiday to Michael and everybody just wanted to say hi new year. Great to hear from you. She ever good new year. But says me new years. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We had a good New Year's everything's good. I'm really happy. Again. I'm kind of happy that we're in control. I mean, I kind of feel like we're the tide turning and it's better. And it's kinda like you can watch politics a little bit more now and be like not so pissed off every second. And I love how Trump's not getting as well. And I hope Nancy stays the course because we're supporting of her some feeling good about that. And I just wanted to say a few things just real quick in reference to the presidential Kenny for twenty twenty. I mean, I know it's fun to talk about everybody that wants to be president. And I know everybody has a certain person that they'd like, but don't you think that we all should just get around whoever gets nominated? Yeah. But yeah. But after the nomination, I mean, I think that's the thing is that I think look I am all for people being full on, you know, say aggressive, but but but not holding back in terms of supporting their candidate, their choices. What primaries are for? I don't believe in the concept of that you can really materially damage a candidate in a primary, particularly particularly in the national a presidential election. I don't I don't I don't subscribe to that idea. What was that? I don't subscribe to that idea played this this is not being bag, and she could hear it. Oh, it's not being bag that was just. I didn't not look it's not being back. It's not being back. I mean, like, I have a certain kind of you know, like, I will support anybody who ever. I mean, I like more that I like more that. I don't like I mean, I'm not real excited about certain ones. But. Mindy vian all subtle. Right. Coy? Choose not say talent, she's have to say, no, I just you know. I mean, I think some ways I'm always curious, right? I said, so yes, I want curious. Why are you? I would like to run. Give me would you mind giving your favorite your favorite, and you're gonna might the Twitter thing. I mean, whatever this this thing over here. Okay. The is going to get. Okay. Blowing me up way. First of all let me be before. I say that I I wanna give back from Palo Alto. Big shout out. That was a really good call. And I from Indiana, no fucking clue what she was talking about. And Greg from Oklahoma, please feel better 'cause we're all with you. Okay. Just wanted to say that. Okay. But who my dream sick? It would be you'll yell at me. I love Kamala. I love her. I don't think similarly. About politics. We would just your least favorite after I just wanted you. I'm not gonna say anything and people be don't bother Mindy on Twitter about this. We'll slowly don't care. I can take it. Sure. You can. Exactly. Twitter battle. All right. Who's your least favorite? I mean, I don't like somebody like who's who's who's who's the boring ones that are running thinking about running. I can't remote. The senators that are running what Kamla Harris, boom. I'm just no no Cup of the Senator guys that are running Booker booker's so boring. You can't sure Graham win. I'm not crazy about sharp Brown. I would not be excited about a Bloomberg grind. I'm glad like an these gone and. Call before everybody else might I say Jesus Christ. What what you're say. Of course, it went Bernie, but we always said of avenue wok and people tough we need. And then he, of course, went away anyways. All right fair enough. Well, anyway, my dream a good ticket for me while I would being a middle aged middle class woman with kind of like, I can go either progressive, or I can go centrist depending upon because of my age, I could be more centrist. But because of who I am I could be a little more progressive. I mean, I think Biden and Kamala could win that's just my opinion. I think I literally like my last choice ticket. I think as a could win. Yeah. That's totally true. Right out of the gate. That's my prediction. What's that? I think bios going to get me to write out of the gate. I don't know that he's going to even run. I don't think he's going to run because I think Bego cancels his path. But I I mean, they don't come out would be a good ticket. There's a lot of good. I mean, I'm not thrilled about Joe Kennedy. If he runs, you know, what I mean, they're all a lot of them are corporate. They're take take big money. I mean, I don't know. It's it's gonna be a tough field. I Liz with Warren. I don't know she can win. Do you think she can win? I think she can win. What about Bernie? About the main man. He's got some pretty bold ideas. Right. Was booker. He doesn't seem real Jewish to me. Are you fucking critic me? No. I like Bernie I seriously. I think that whoever wins in twenty twenty we can start refining it twenty to twenty four like to refine it to get more progressive. That's the way I think I think we just need to take back the office. I don't think Trump's gonna run again. I don't think he's going to be around to run. I think he's gonna gonna get make a deal. I think he's going to be gone by the end of nineteen. That's just my opinion. And I don't think he's going to run again. I don't think he can win again. I I don't I the the idea of Donald Trump making a deal to escape conviction after his non inconceivable. I appreciate the call Mindy happy new year. Although I predict I think it's going to be Trump Nikki Haley, and we need to particularly that's another one with centrist idiots disgusting that they ever gave her any cover, but people really need to sharpen the knives on her. And I think that I think she's going to replace Pence. And I think that in the dumb idiot new cycle that's going to get you a little bit of like, oh my God. Of course. He's a different background. And she said the Trump is rude one. She's a woman not Serra pay. Right. It's going to be disgusting. And we need to remind everybody her record what she said about Bolsonaro and be extremely aggressive. And I'll tell you something. And you know, this is why I think there's like folly, and this is why we've been saying from day one that the never Trumper phenomena in to the extent that there's any of these individuals who are sincere, and I don't know. I don't know how you rate sincerity. But even the most sincere of them are. Really, not useful. They're not useful. You can you. Can you can assume that they are? But it's really look they have no constituency, and here is here is I don't know if I would call this exhibit, a this may be exhibited. I dunno somewhere around. Jay Renee numbers. Now, right. But here's exhibit whatever of of never-trumper that is, you know, basically, showing their hint. Here's Anna Navarro. Right. She she's been a longtime never-trumper right since throng since any from the beginning. And she I mean, Trump is actually even called her out hasn't he? Yes, I've believe so I think so I think so and here she is on CNN with who else is on there with their Seville, crystal, Simone Sanders, smoking Sanders Sloan Sanders, former spokesperson for Bernie Sanders and Bill Kristol former cheerleader of genocide and and wrong about everything looks like he's eaten all his mistakes to these days. But nevertheless, I'm not gonna go there. Just. Sorry. I didn't mean to. But here's an Avar telling you, if you didn't know before that, never Trumpers are useless. But I mean, look you're going to have this is gonna be a democratic primary where maybe twenty. People put their put their name in the hat out of those five people. I think maybe ten of those campaigns very viable to go very wrong way. We need a robust primary. I think democratic voters are really looking for someone that they can trust in what they're saying. You know, I don't like Donald Trump. I'm not a fan, but the people that voted for him, trusted what he said, even though I think he's alive. So they're look voters are looking for somebody that they believe it's Kanta leeann authentically, delivering their message as a as a Republican who cannot stand Trump never supported him. Never will. I am begging Democrats to please give me somebody that I can vote for. I'm ready to vote for a potted plant. I ready to vote for a hologram. I'm not sure I'm ready to Elizabeth Warren. And so, you know, I think I hope that Democrats think about themselves falling in love and somebody that can get their juices flowing and their loved tank filled, but can also appeal to people like Bill Kristol Anadarko who really don't wanna vote for a hologram. We'd right. Vote for somebody. That's gonna pulse of brain. Who is that person for a hologram though? It could be an upgrade. Yeah. But here's the point. I mean side from like the sort of the creepy fall in love with and get your love juices flowing. We don't need and Navarro and Bill Kristol to vote for a real democrat as opposed to a hologram or potted plant who's not gonna do anything that offends them in any way. We don't need them. We just need them not to vote for Trump. And if they're not gonna vote for Trump. Great great. We have the numbers the midterm showed that if they stay home and don't vote for Trump. But you know, what they supposedly didn't last time. They're useless. So don't promote them because all they're going to do is under cut a good democrat running for office period. End of story. There is no other part of the story. That's why I just put a period, there's a phrase called, beggars dot dot dot beggars. Can't be choosers when Ronald Reagan funded contras. He did it with a degree, and it caught my love juices flowing. And when the contras murdered nuns and killed the people they did it with a of class and respect for the office. Listen think about how many Democrats you're going to lose if the standard for a to vote for a democratic presidential candidate is one that Ana Navarro and Bill Kristol convoked fulfilled. Chris potential democrat any do usually crystalline. I are looking for someone who is not overtly racist and supports many words in the Middle East. And if you cannot do that. You might not get maybe we'll should nominate Jeb Bush, Jeb Bush will be an incredible democratic nominee. He has a certain degree of class. They're gonna of integrity. Never trump. Conservatives are going to try to find a home in the Democratic Party. And this is a tactic that the Democrats have tried before and failed trying to pander to moderate conservatives wealthy suburbanites. Like, if we are going to realign the party into something that is more of a labor party than it's ever been in a long time. We can't have those people. They're useless. They're useless Jeb Bush than useful Jeb Bush, had not used the N word since at least nineteen ninety that is the type of integrity that Bill Kristol, and I are looking for along with an invasion of Iran using the proper pronounce that will give my love to knowing. All right. Lastly, speaking about love juices. This was a very sentimental moment where Mike Pence had to pretend to not be freaked out by this is really funny, as you know, Mike Pence is a. Is an ideological and a valid homophobe. He is an ideological and avowed oppressor of women his a fundamental fundamentalist Christian. Who is also a FIA crat and. He is having to swear in Kristen cinema who is going to probably be tied for my least favorite democratic Senator. But in this one moment, I'm going to allow myself to enjoy the avowedly homophobic, Mike Pence having to swear in the first out by sexual Senator on a LA book. She's also atheist not a bible, and she seems to be perfectly aware of the fact that she might have the ability to make Mike Pence uncomfortable, and is enjoying it almost as much as I am. And here we go. Frisch? Wanted you stand. You'll be right. Gonna get a spouse. Just can't. Chess. Hear what you said. Can we get a spouse? Right. Because of course, now Mike Pence is not allowed to be alone with a woman, and that is what he's referring to without. Yeah. Without? Without his wife there to protect him from the Baginda dente. So. So if you hold here put your right into the. Tips here. I'm new at this. If you write him. Solemnly support and defend the United States against all enemies foreign. Bear an elite. That you take this edition free. Any mental reservation purpose of days, and you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office which about to enter so help. Gun. Really? Congratulate g asking ask him. I feel like she asked like what what what is it like working with the President Trump? I just play it back can't make out what she said. She's giving him a hard time. Yeah. In a very. Look at the handshake. That's what I also noticed. I think she like like if she pulled the Trump in like Howard gone for awhile slight Trump pull there. But it's, but it's like she's kind of what like what's very funny to me. She's like, she's I mean flirting with them like, that's what's so funny about it. She's and she's wearing like, it's, you know, it's totally fine. But it's not like a typical like what you showing elbowing elbow. She do she showing shoulders. I mean, why big? No. I mean, but especially by pets. I think like I don't know when she's like a horrible sort of Joe mansion type all like her style, more, right? I let's let's see if we can make out what she's saying also watch the hands here. Okay. Right record, go back. He lets go and she doesn't. Yeah. Right there right there. Right. Right. Watch. Who's? Women. I. Really? He's got double the by germs now. Yeah. That was also go from horribly self reply repressed person, which is one theory or like see crushing on cinema there. Well, he no she he tried to let go of her hand. I know. But at the end, but it was like to try to let go because this is I should not feeling what I feel. By sex. Yeah. There's still much too much loved uses. Okay. Dude. That is. That's exactly why he that's that. That's the explanation for his entire world view like well, right? There's that moment with with where he lets tries to like overhand, and she holds it there to ask him one more thing and he quickly deserted. Yeah. He does it not want to be alone with women because he thinks he would just not talk to them or touch them or look at them. Right. We just wanna be tempted. Exactly temperature says he's going to go back and be like God is going to be. So proud of me for how nice. But not how hard. Won't be proud about that. Or do you think that he like takes out some type of like of of thing that you slap your whip your own back, right? Like, an Opus Dei thing. Richard on right? God he's beating himself with a switch while she like jokes about it. With a friend jarring exact like the film cut. Let's go to the phones calling from eight three to Eric code who's this? Where are you calling from? Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Yeah. Who's this? Where are you calling from? Dimitrius from Houston. It's from Houston. What's on your mind, buddy? Well, I was I want to say thank you guys so much for the work that you do you guys have been really huge influence on me. And because of that, I've become a socialist, basically. But yeah, I mean, you got you guys work is just amazing. So please keep it out. But I wanted to get your guidance take on the whole like, I don't know if you already dresses, but I want to get you guys to take on the whole Lewis CK situation and like the twice. The super weird like. MTC like stand up. They've kinda did. And how like this seems to be like a lot of right wing reactionary for like, basically taking what? Yeah. Excited over in. Like, there was this a particular tweet from I think his name is Kyle Smith. He's a like an art are like film critic for the national review. And he basically fraying CK's joke about the parkland students, basically saying that what he said was correct because you know, being survivor of school shooting doesn't give you type doesn't give you any type of policy expertise and the tweet us piss me off because it was like, well, that's not what the job was of about all the power. He was saying. You know, chest ising people these these park with students, basically being activists being young and having an opinion. Right. He wasn't Mickey some type of in-depth political. Well, let me play because yesterday we talked about it was it yesterday. I think Wednesday on Wednesday. We talked about it. I back. Two things. Okay. Let's take the parkland thing I. And let me just say broadly speaking, I mean, only heard those two minutes. I just thought it was bad comedy just to start with the parkland thing like I thought it was sort of just silly. And I mean, silly insofar as like really inconsequential, and and just not funny, I found it a little bit. You know, it's transgressive. I get it. It's a little bit shocked jockey, the part that I found that was really disturbing to me was. The the stuff that preceded that the the trans stuff I found to be even more disturbing. I mean, look the parkland stuff. I think it's a it's a dumb joke. It doesn't fit with the premise of his joke. Which was hey, you know, when I was a kid we were just f- ups, and we would just party in fifty year olds. Like me said, you know, you guys are losers. It's sort of like, you know, one thing that I know. I mean, I know Louis, and I know that he did not go through a school shooting. You know, he's definitely maybe had, you know, some definitely went through some difficulty as a kid, but but nothing that traumatic I can only imagine, you know, but, you know, comedians make make jokes like that. And they're they're, you know offensive. But I thought the trans stuff was was was far worse because. In addition to being literally a joke that you would hear someone tell in like nineteen eighty two. I think literally told many times by Rush Limbaugh using that same actual like voice that Fey voice of like, the politically, correct. You know, whatever voice that he used to be people and trans people, but also transpeople I think even back then and in addition to that that the hacking of it. You're talking about people who are there, and you could make this argument about parkland kids to, but, but they're, you know, the parkland kids, you know, exist in because of a moment as it were. But you're talking as a group of people people who are literally beaten to death because of their identity, and I mean, you know, parkland kids, obviously went through a horrible trauma. But there they don't go around it like, you know, are are potentially beaten to death because they're parkland student trans people are, and it's not only just like a stupid joke that I think is is is beneath his talent as a comedian. It's it is really like your it is it is bullying. And it is a Vera Lynn form of bullying, and the whole construction of the joke is just ridiculous. The idea that like to say the subtext of the joke is this. When we when I was twenty I was an up and fifty roads look at me go like, you're an F up. What do you do you live get it together? And now that I'm fifty I'm like looking at twenty year olds going like, what do you do with your life? Get it together. He misses the whole funny part about that. Which is that he's an old person like me and his perspective on the world has ossified. And it is stuck in the same perspective as it was thirty years ago where people should be like me that's the proper way to be a youth. Right. Which is always what the complaint old is it just it just that what being youth means changes fifty years ago. People were not taking mushrooms they were snapping their fingers listen into jazz. And that's how the. Like, you know, it's just it's just a myopic dumb joke. That also on top of it is a just a right-wing talking point. And it's incredibly bullying and insensitive, and it really disappointing. But it really betrays a lack of self-awareness, right? When calling card has always been self awareness. Absolutely. Appreciate the call. It's always been like that self-awareness in some measure, of empathy for someone who does not. Somewhat empathy. Unexpected right? Like, he's done some stuff that I think is is very empathetic and e-. That's what was so really disappointing about it. It was like there was a total lack of self awareness, toll, lack, of empathy. And he usually like knowledge is the ways in which he has shitty. And kinda makes a joke out of it. And that that's not there this time, exactly. Conference five three zero Erica who's this? Where you calling from. Hi fan. This is Steve California. Stephen cali-. What's on your mind? I have a. I was wondering if you go over a little bit. What happens with the pledged delegates at the twenty twenty democratic convention. The reason I'm asking is for example, if you had a race in which Bernie got let's say fifteen hundred delegates and Biden thirteen hundred and Warren got a thousand is there pressure slash a rule in which Warren's delegates would be prompted to vote for her. Or can they switch over and cannot be an excuse for the super delegates to come in and say, nobody got to the magic number. And so we're going to give all of our votes to Biden and pass Bernie. The I don't know when the super delegates pledge at that point. But I there's no that forty. Good. The new rule seem to be that seem to be that they're they don't come in until the second vote. But that seems to suggest that if nobody gets to the whatever the magic number is then there would be a second vote. And if you're gonna have a bunch of candidates, you're probably not going to have like last last time, it was two candidates. So you get somebody gets over fifty percent by you know, by the way that works. If you have six candidates, it's gonna be much harder or get fifty percents candidates fast pledge their pledge their delegates to another candidate. Now. I don't know if those delegates actually have to have to in. It may be a function of the state's rules Pacific rules in the Democratic Party in those states. But I don't believe that those delegates have to be faithful to whom pledges them, right? In other words, like Warren could come in say. I pledge my delegates to Bernie Sanders, and I'm pretty I'm pretty sure I don't know how faithful they all have to be. But that would be happening out, which I also happen to think would be more likely in that situation. I wanna why we're when we're beginning in talking about how it could be a good thing to have several recipes in debates, and so they can sort of debate the nuances of these issues and move the Overton window. I don't wanna get into a position in which a bunch of progressives end up screwing themselves because they let the super delegates in over John. You know, I'll check on that as we get closer to it. I'll check on that. But I'm I'm people throw their delegates to in the second round to the candidate choice. I believe appreciate the call. All right. Thank you for calling from eight five seven area code who's this where you come from. Still have twenty five people in line eight five seven eight five seven going once going twice. Hello. We got it. Just. Yeah. All right. All my. Is this literally time you've ever used the phone because it's not good. I had to speak finishing McAlpine homework. Okay. All right. What's your name? Where are you calling from? Short from Chicago, George from Chicago. What's what's on your mind? Gotta be start pick up the pace a little bit here, buddy. Okay. Sure. So my lecture is actually so I'm looking at the twenty twenty today. So I believe that Hillary is gonna make an attempt to run. Do you think it would be good shrive issue that all the progressive candidates make for the punching bag as in point out, the Houston reason that we have Trump, and you're gonna focus on your accounting homework right now. I think like know that you're like four hypotheticals down the road. I I love it. I I yeah. I don't make the punch mega. It's he'll have totally force. Putsch that pitch in the face. You're punching bag actually, you know, what boscq are my show last night. Who was the guy? I appreciate the call, man. Boscq was like if you're like this is us like peak. You know, socialist, Bernie, whatever he's like if you're still like this just I forget, the we put it. But like if you're still on Hillary Clinton, and an on an addition that if you don't feel some as your of like sympathy for just on a personal level, right? A mental unless you're always the caveat unless you've literally been like the receiving end of her policies like particularly foreign policy. That's that then. Okay. Of course. But like if you're just like schmo on the street doing your counting homework with really bad phone connection. Live hillary. Worry about it's not. Julia might never happen. Right. Calling from a let's see sounds like it's overseas come from seven seven zero Erica. I don't know. It's a plus four four who's this? Where you calling from. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. You're on. Okay. Yeah. I actually got a good quick one. It's only a few weeks away from Valentine's Day. Do you think that Trump will be inviting Brazilian president of considering they can share like fascism in the Americas as part of Allentown day celebration that would be lovely to see that would be and always better to see someone in person than send a card. That's what I always say. But put his main opponent in jail. Oh my God. His Justice minister, I put the biggest most important figure in their country in jail. Jeff Sessions wouldn't even stand the Russian time. There would much rather them just have a romantic dinner together, then decide to like invade Venezuela. Let's put it down. We're gonna put a Trump resort at the source of the zone. Appreciate the call probably in the works, man. Com from a five one seven area code who's this where you calling from got to be quick. Hey, saying this is Jake from Michigan Jake from Michigan. What's on your mind? I just want. You know, I'm home from work right now sick. That's how much I love you guys. Call in very solid sick. So something better to do. So I kind of a question about. Outdoorsman people kinds of Asianised, and and people that. Our fishermen hunters, whatever it's kinda interesting being for Michigan. And it kinda seeing different people out in the woods and stuff. And and all the diverse backgrounds political of you know, conservatives liberals right being outdoors. And I think there's a real for people to come together on this and. Basically. Basically for the over arching thing with the environment instead of bickering at each other teddy Roosevelt conservation, right? I mean, these they used to call themselves contradictions and outdoorsman and outdoors women used to be that used to be a big environmental pitch. Like you want to save the the environment. So that we can have enough, you know, animals to shoot at and or to go camping or hiking or something. Like that. Like, yeah. Look, I think that's healthy. But the NRA has done a very good job of poisoning that. Well, and you know, I think I think look there has been an attempt to over the past ten fifteen years to figure out how we can bridge this gap. And frankly when I look at Anna Navarro who has built a career on being not an never-trumper say I would vote for. For a potted plant, but not actually a thinking member of the Democratic Party who represents the fundamental values of it like fairness in whatnot. When it comes to like, you know, predatory lending whatnot. It it. I think it should drive home the point to people that it's great you go out into the woods, you're going deer hunting or pheasant hunting, or whatever it is. And you can have a good conversation with the guy next to you and get them involved. That's great. I'm all for that. But as a political movement to go start seeking out those people, I think the return on investment is just not enough to warrant the effort and the the downsides, and so that's my feeling there. But, but yeah, that conservationist thing that's been around for a long time. I understand Democrats out the, but what if you could find someone who is involved in. I don't know as an example, bankruptcy and Wachovia who signed early letter say that we should invade Iran. Then Bill Kristol and our juicy really low it drop auction. We take that like I want someone that Bill Kristol, and I can vote for you pull that as a drop, please the. Opportunity. There's for local DS's because privatization of public lands is not popular. Right. Those rights and that refrains the debate. And I think I think there are some people who also in the Nebraska section of the pipeline keystone that also the imminent domain domains. But no, but some of those people some of them particularly that when hit so hard on them, it opened them up to a wider critique of oil industry the environment. It shifted broader politics got we'll see, but I think more so than trying to get right wing populace to be left wing populace. Which is maybe not gonna happen. Like, I saw my friend try and fail miserably to get her gun loving swamp. Yankee dad into Bernie instead of Trump. He was like, Nope watched. Fox News all day. That's that's it. But what we maybe do need is to get left populace more into things like self. Defense and preparez them 'cause we might need those things down the line by think I would focus on doing the split between there are two different kinds of outdoorsman and how they see themselves. There's the one that came like basically post nineties, whereas the weekend warrior types, who by a are fifteen and Cam and pretend like they're soldiers. But there are a lot of guys just have been doing pheasant hunting since they were kids. And I think those people like they like, I think there is. No, I don't Democratic Party. You don't do think in all these areas? I do think that it's not used margin. But I do think there are some people who they're not swing voters. The dumb way. It's usually presented like they're waiting for Bloomberg. But they are actually swing voters in the sense that they are kind of not sort of all over the place. All right. I'm gonna we got to be quick on the rest of these calls here calling from six one two area code who's this. Where are you calling from? Hi, brenda. How are you? I'm doing great. And I just wanted to call and thank you for a year of fantastic podcasting and commentary wanted to Michael for I I really like, Michael he's he's fantastic. And I wanted to shout out to Jamie. 'cause I know what it's like sometimes to have to try to fight for you know, a little bit of space in a row. Phil guys. Thanks. Sorry. Not not exceptional confrontation. I know. I know they don't exist. Well, Brenda happy new year. Thanks, thanks for listening. Let's hope that, you know, I'm on site based assistance, you know, from from HUD, site based assistance was hope that that doesn't go. Hanging there. Hopefully, this'll was in the next three or four weeks. Hopefully, this is it doesn't go any pass the next couple days. But. Yeah. Ask one question. I'm sorry. I'm white as white as white. And could you tell me what the significance of the show far is for you? Oh, well, the show far is blown at the high holidays at at Russia Shawna and during Kapoor in it's basically just to announce the new year essentially and the ten day period in between there, which is sort of weird. But it goes the new year begins then you have basically a ten day period to Aton assess what you did last year and then not do next year. Appreciate right for for not for not going about that. All right. People don't g kept it. Politics. She calls it at least the show far as opposed to the Jew. What we traditionally call it in the community gone from three oh, two area code who's this. Where are you calling from? Hi, this is this is Lincoln, and I'm calling from Philadelphia. Philadelphia. Got to be quick, buddy. Okay. Well, just to since it's real quick the previous caller Brinda vest on like a dude. Well, it wasn't. Well, it sounded like it. Great. Good for Lincoln. Listen, if you're gonna call in and trill bring bring your a game not you're like e f or g game. All right calling from an eight one. Oh, because I liked trolls. I would've engaged you for the rest of the show. Yeah. The only part of my relief of that total failure was the fact that we're not going to be here for another thirty minutes. A Sam argues with some fucking moron colleague from an eight one zero area code who's this. Sam see. Shortly. I got through who's this? This is Matthew from Michigan. Matthew from Michigan? What's on your mind? What's up? We'll only getting calls from Michigan in Philadelphia. Russian. I just wanna I wanted to driving right now. So okay, I'm sorry. What? But I'll make it quick. Last two years with this monstrosity that we got in the Oval Office, right is driven crazy. But I got they Trump because I discovered you guys. Oh, well, then, you know, I guess silver linings. Yeah. So I just wanted to say, hi and happy new year, and I'll call you. All right. And appreciate the fuck you. All right. Good to talk to you to sound. Like, you know, you sound like Joe Glaser also from Michigan calling from a seven six area code. We got three more calls seven six who's come from? Hey, this is Thomas calling from Georgia Georgia Thomas from Georgia. What's on your mind? Got to be quick. Okay. So I consider myself progressive, but I'm a little bit concerned that just raising the minimum wage is going to fix the problems. And the issue is that the system is still going to be the same. So these corporations are just going to hike up their prices because now people are making more money, so they can pay more. What are your thoughts on attack system where the prophets have to go towards the employee's? So if a company makes more than you know, say eighty percent of their profits. You know, go over what they're paying their employees. The government is comes in sleeps it off the top. So they're penalized for doing that. What what are your thoughts on something? Like that. I think what you're talking about. Bernie Sanders, it suggested something to that effect like it can fiscal Tori tax. If there was some type of relationship may between. The cease wieght and the workers. I mean, I think look I I don't know. There's arguments about you know, corporate tax versus personal tax. I broadly speaking and for a fiscal, Tori tax policy on I would be very comfortable with returning to, you know, the the taxes from that we had in the fifties and sixties where if you make over three million, I might change the number down, or you know, up, but it, but but brought like the broad outlines you make over three million dollars every dollar after that is tax like ninety percent rate. I would have no problem with that. And I think that's really I I don't know if you wanna like have a go directly to the workers as opposed to ago and fund governmental programs that are universal in their nature. You know, and I think like, we know. What broadly speaking what we want those to be we want there to be a universal health care insurance system. We want there to be a free college option in every state in the country. I would then move to relieve student debt more or less across the board. I, and then I would nationalize some of the some of the stuff in this country that involve like, you know, energy, and maybe also like internet infrastructure, but that you know, I specifically going in and going company by company to return profits specifically to workers. I mean, I think like I would and we're seeing already legislation that would encourage worker owned enterprises. And I think that's good. I, but I think the way you're talking about it. I don't know if it's the most efficient, but appreciate the call. All right. This is a headshot from Bernie right here. I love this Bernie say represented. Liz Cheney daughter of Dick Cheney yesterday attack the fraud of socialism. Really, I wasn't aware that it was socialism that lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq got us into a horrific war that we should have never started. Mike. All the fuck allow. Yeah. Keeping up with the young. There you go. Fuck you two more calls coming from sixty six area code. Who's this word calling from? Hello is his name. Yes. It is you you are the second to last call of the week. Oh, Hello Sam. How will make it really quick? I thank you for taking my call and renamed drill. Your last libertarian debate. Ever. Remember, the guy they it was very informative. Thank you. And a very funny. Thank you for doing that. And my brother is starting to get into that sorta philosophy of free market, and the government is stupid. And I would like if you could give me thirty seconds of your time to explain to you. How I understand there's no free market. Okay. Go ahead. So you can just okay. The way understand that. There's no free market is the reason is if a free market is completely free. It's not free from that dark canned of GD and cronyism and all that that stuff so that's not free. So if you regulate a market, then to keep it free from all that bad stuff, then it's not a free market any more. So that's why there's no free market chemistry together. Right. There's no. Free market because government is the market only exists because of of society and government having set up a structure in which that market exists. Money would have no value money would have no value. Were it not for taxes? Right. The reason why the money in your pocket has value. The store will take it because the store can only pay taxes to the government, which has a monopoly of force in those dollars. Okay and corporations all the players in the market in some way are implicated by government policy on day one. The he needs to show you if he thinks there's a free market. He needs to show you a market that takes place outside of the confines of government regulation, and it doesn't exist. And so once the government has entered into once the government is there and his created the market. It is all a political choice as to who is going to have the most power in that marketplace. Whether the power is going to be a symmetrical, or whether it's going to be there's going to be some type of of a quality of power when you allow people to assemble as a corporation and allow them tax benefits on the money that they make allow them to to step back from liability for products that they make or a massive certain amount of money at a different tax rate. Then the people. They're negotiating with. You are putting your thumb on the scales. And so the question this question is simply going to be where where are you going to put your thumbs? And how much force you can exert. And that's the question. There's no question. There is no free market. It simply does not exist for you to have a free market. You gotta go to like, maybe like, you know, the outskirts of you know, in Somalia and. And even then let's stop using Somali. Pulling it together. Right. Yes. It basically just warlordism. What I told my brother he gave an example that he stopped at some Bank. And some guy was offering stereos really cool serious at the back the back of struck and he bought cheap, and she was driving home. I should've just inside of the bucks. There was a natural stereo in. There could have been selling rocks because that's one of the main scans that they do. Right, right. And I told that's exactly what there's no free market. That's exactly why best buy if they don't. Further because not only is there. No free market. How did that guy? Get to where he was. How do they drive? He didn't drive in a road to sell those. Conquered the land were honestly. It's already it's just not possible. And but. Exactly. All right. A new brother. But but all right. I gotta take final call of the first week twenty nineteen. We have taken every call except for one that has been on the line for over sixty minutes. We still have nineteen callers on the line. But we've done our best to get through as many calls as possible today. But you calling from the two one zero area code are the final color. The first week of twenty nineteen. I might. Hi, it's an honor. I'm sorry. My name is Cody from San Antonio show, John from to hey creek question field because of Indian with my dad trying to convert him a little bit for a while. He's kinda he and I grew up watching like Fox News like back two thousand eight we were like your stereotypical, FOX people. But you know, I was only like twelve at the time. So kind of you know, and you know, I didn't really actually the only thing about politics, but I was just repeating save usual stuff. Right. The Republican party. So it's kind of a kind of a lens look at Republican politics. Now, just the load of unformed of of. I would just say since he got the libertarian debate coming up and everything I would just ask you my question. Never is there. Just 'cause I could argue that about Medicare for all it's. But getting to him really, I think mostly under taxes part of everything, but he lives to come back and say, you know, the the massive military budget, which is the next seven or eleven countries are whatever combined is really necessary. I guess I would just ask us good way to get through to libertarian kind of a right libertarian about how much military spending hinders this country, and how much and how could on translates you better people like so the reality is is that we don't need the money. We don't need the savings from the military to pay for Medicare for all. I mean, the reason why it's a problem to expend that much money on on the military is that we're expending a lot of money, and we're not getting a good return on investment in terms of improving people's lives, and on top of the fact that hit encourages us to do stuff that really hurts hundreds of thousands of people. Now, I don't get the sense that your father might be able to that argument. But I mean, the the the the point being I think that like you simply say like if we were to return to the tax rates of his heyday in the fifties. And the sixties we could pay for Medicare for all multiple times over we could we could provide for free college education mo- multiple times over I mean, so you know, we didn't worry about the deficit when we gave a massive tax cut to corporations who didn't need that money. And so, you know, I wouldn't even focus on pulling it. From the the military, particularly based upon what I suspect your father's interested in but. Is there is there a way that instead of I mean, I'm just thinking like, I don't know. Maybe I'm maybe I'm trying to make her with work point. It's you've got a good. You've got a good point. I don't think I've been seeing it from that angle. If you don't need the military budget. I just you know, I think it's it's funny to me. How many libertarians are are don't spend a dollar on a damn thing except for you know, the military, obviously, you're right there. Yeah. That's I would this. I'll close quick and all she go. I just wanna say to Mr Michael brook some of the fan. Thank you for shitting on Derek Fisher for twenty minutes of fan of San Antonio wash shop. So I wanna appreciate you. Guys are great watching thicky that happen. All right. Pretty cody. Folks that is the program for today. We will see you on Monday. In that goes streak. Get to wall. I'm. Was. Sure. The option. Breaks.

The Majority Report with Sam Seder

Aired 3 months ago 71:42

OA217: Can Ethics Complaints Take Down Kavanaugh?

Today's Rapid Response Friday follows up on the State of Florida and... sadly... returns one last time to the story of Brett Kavanaugh and the ethics complaints lodged against him and referred to the Tenth Circuit.  Oh, and we give you real stuff you can do to make a positive difference!  You have to listen! We begin with a follow-up to Tuesday's episode where we break some news regarding the Democratic Party's lawsuit in Florida to extend registration for voting in the 2018 midterms before checking in on the Common Cause/League of Women Voters lawsuit we first discussed on Episode 216. Then it's time to tackle the ethics complaints filed against Brett Kavanaugh and referred out by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #97 regarding the tort of negligent misrepresentation.  Thomas needs to go 4-for-4... can he do it?  You'll have to listen and find out!  And, of course, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances Thomas will be at QED in Manchester, UK on Oct. 13 and 14. Show Notes & Links This episode is sponsored by Audible!  Go to audible.com/lawpod or text lawpod to 500500 for the 30-day trial and free audiobook! Click here to read the court's denial of the TRO filed by the Democratic Party's in Florida to extend registration for voting in the 2018 midterms. And click here to read the newly-filed Common Cause/League of Women Voters lawsuit we first discussed on Episode 216. We first discussed the Code of Judicial Ethics on Episode 193. This is the Roberts letter referring the Kavanaugh complaints to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Click here to read the Rules of Judicial Conduct and Judicial Disability, with proposed changes. The law we discussed is 28 U.S.C. § 351 et seq. WHAT YOU CAN DO!  Click here to comment on the proposed changes to the Rules of Judicial Conduct and Judicial Disability. And if you want to apply to work for Fix The Court, check out their notice here. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Opening Arguments

Aired 3 months ago 68:55

OT2018 #8: "Animal Magnetism"

Welcome to first Mondays your weekly playbook for the supreme court. I'm Dan apps. Marin Levy, I'm Steve sax. And this is our very first episode. I think that in which guests hosts outnumber regular hosts. So I need some backup for this one in Samuel is still out on paternity leave very hopeful that he comes back soon, but giving him a little bit of extra time. And today, I think we might not even take any cheap shots at him. But we'll see how the progressives. So thank you both for joining me. Your old stumping around. Yeah. So it's it's great to be back. It is a little weird having guests hosts because you all sort of see the way the creative process really works. And there's this moment where you're each texting me. And you said, okay. So how are we going to prepare for the episode, and I sort of said prepare, and I think you've opened a little surprised at how seat of the pants this operation is. But we still get it done. I like it where we're going with the flow. But I do have to confess. Oh, this is the first time I've ever done a podcast. I don't even know the right jargon. Here. We podcasting. Is that what's happening? We are. We are doing something in that in that general variety there we go. Oh, that's accurate. Thing is happening. I've always been told that radio. I get that a lot too. So thank you both. So you all both teach civil procedure. Right. We share Diego. So we're going to be talking a little bit about issues that you to know about. And I know nothing about which is hopeful. And so what I'm gonna teach you today to view is how to be a supreme court pundit. And it's a lot like being the weatherman, you can get everything wrong, and you keep your job forever. So it's a lot of fun. So let's just get going. Let's do it. So some news we start with supreme court related or ten generally related news. And this is going to be a little bit more ten gentle, but the Harvard law review released its annual supreme court issue recently, and it should really interesting stuff in there. There's forward by Colombia's Jamal green. But the thing that I wanted to focus in on was the crossword you'll see this, of course, would never miss it. This is Justice. Kennedy themed crossword, this is a new feature for the Harvard law review. What do you think should we should we see more of these in legal scholarship? Yeah. Right. I mean, I think that's the kind of thing that you go into one's tenure file. I think really the green bag should sue her trademark. Yeah. That's a great great publication, very fun source of legal related news and things like that and little tidbits like like crosswords. But this one is fun. I run United some funny. Clues in this cross. Where did I thought this was delightful? I of course, we get shutouts for the ninth circuit for Sacramento, juicy mine, it's not it's indirect, but there's they did work apps at answering. I think I was to focus on Leona Lewis of bleeding love fame has made her way onto this crossword. I don't think she normally shears billing with Justice Kennedy. But thank you Harvard law review for putting him side by side. You know, Justice Kennedy has a lot of interests, and maybe maybe that's one of them. So other news. There's apparently a new book in the works about Justice Brad Kavanagh by couple of New York Times reporters, Kate Kelly, and Robin pogrebin normally culture business reporters pas about this. Yeah. So this is an interesting story here. Right. So I mean, you just alluded to the court is not their usual beat. But they came into the story in an interesting way so cake Kelly actually is from the DC area and had some overlap with Kevin on terms of her social circles and whatnot. And she was given some documents by someone who who I think was contemporary of cabinets, including the yearbook information that we now know so well, right? And then at the same time, we have Robin. Pogrebin being brought into the story. So she actually was a classmate of Justice Kavanagh's at Yale. And she knew some of the folks involved in some of those stories, so the two of them got together and have been doing some important work. And I wanted to bring their their story out to the public. So we're going to get the inside scoop on a squeeze. And all right. Yes. The whole cast of characters I think maybe from their perspective some accounts that were missing from the FBI report will be very interesting. But I do just find it so bizarre how for a few weeks earlier this year, we all were diving deep into the precise. Details of this one man's party life when he was an eighteen year old or seventeen year old high school students, just it's just really strange opinions squeak guy, he doesn't quite checkout and the calendar pages. Oh, the calendar pages. Mark judge. Oh, he's he's trouble. Yeah. I have to say, I mean, you know, I'm all for books being written about the justices. I am a little sad that we're gonna be revisiting this. There's a way in which I. You know, like to let it die for a while and move forward. But we'll see what the book tells us. Another piece of news supreme court kerchief bonuses at law firms are now up to four hundred thousand dollars. Well, Steve if I recall correctly, you're one of the only report clerks who went to a law firm, and then somehow talk yourself out of getting a bonus. Is that right? Yes. I made sure that I was known near that. I already accepted the principle right is because they're just not consistent with you read it understand. No. I think it's more that just I was too interested in entering the ivory tower to spend the necessary years earning a large amount of money. Would you have changed your mind? If I told you that large amount money was four hundred thousand dollars. I think I might have it's getting to be or even one million. It's getting to be really high. And you know, e n has said previously one of our bonus facades that it these really starting to trouble him. Obviously, he took the money and ran into trouble hamming wants to sort of pull the ladder up from new guards. Regards. I gotta say this level of money is is actually starting to make me a little bit uncomfortable. And I've got to think some of the justices are uncomfortable with this. I'm sure they're uncomfortable exceeds their annual salary. So I'm sure that they are very uncomfortable. The idea that each of their clerks is going to cash in on something that that would be an item in at this point. Is it hard to justify this as you know, just you're getting really experience people mean this has to be at some level paying for access right insight into particular justices. Even though you can't work supreme court matters for two years. What do you think you can? I think to be honest, it's really a recruiting play. And I think that it's more of a fight between all firms than it is between sort of law firms and clerks are law firms and the court many law firms cannot pay for hundred thousand dollars and the results that any law firm that either cannot or does not wish to pay four hundred thousand dollars is not getting any law clerks because no one is willing to themselves give up fifty thousand to work at some different. And you're saying that. Law firms are doing this. And I I agree with this is some degree because they're trying to get better law students, bigger, summer classes, and they think we're so prestigious we have all these court clerks, and indeed lots has been in recruiting. Right. It is. But if they think that they're getting that year's top talent of Jones day can pull down eleven law clerks in a single year then five years from now, they've got some pretty terrific young partners. Yeah. And they they hired eleven quirks four point four million bonuses, which which is a lot. And does make me wonder whether that we are going to see more clerks not only go into private practice initially. But then end up, you know, you get comfortable you stay there. There certainly is my anecdotal sense that there are fewer supreme court clerks going into the kademi. I think there's lots of reasons to explain that. But this might be part of that. I don't know what you think. Yeah. I think that's right. I mean, part of it also is looking at the change in the in how people enter the legal academy today. Right. I mean. So now, you have to written at least a few articles. And so on back in the day was a little bit easier. You could just have a very. Shiny resume. Maybe a student note or something like that. And you could get in the door. And so the more that we up the requirements on the entry level market side. Right. The harder than it's going to be for somebody who's been in private practice for a couple years to be able to make that leap over its typical private practice. Not only do you have to worry about conflicts. You might be writing on issues that your clients care about. But also just in terms of the daily life. You're not going to head home and fire up west law again. Yes, I I was not one such person when I was in private practice. I have friends like Richard Ray who were able to do that. I think he wasn't working that hard my sense, so Richard. So there's much tried. It's not against the end. It's richard. So that's fair. All right. So more. Let's talk a little bit about orders list, or what we call the shadow docket here. Now that will boat is a regular participant on the show. Just last week. We're going to give him a t shirt or something swagger. T shirts in the mail. Let's see. And so we have a one cert- grant in a case called PDR network versus Carlton and Harris chiropractic, and I wanted to sort of see what this case was about and pull the petition and looked at the question presented got a little lost. I can't imagine. This is an outrageous question. This question presented the rules. Spring court say you're supposed to put the question presented on the first page supposed to be really easy for the clerk who's unfortunate Clark writing the pool memo to crack open the petition and know exactly what the cases about. This question presented goes on for three pages. You do not actually know what the question is until you get to page Romanet three and it's presented an extremely argumentative manner. You know to the describes the situation saying ignoring cannons misspelled of statutory in the Ford also. It really is not playing the role that a question presented is supposed to play this. I was thinking about this quite a bit, right? Because I mean, typically with QB's we do see some some styling in a certain people are going to be asking a question, you know, coming out from particular angle that could be helpful to them. But then there's a then we have to ask where is that line right at what point do you cross over to being to argument, you want to frame it in a way that does advocacy that sort of says, this is the issue going to frame it in a way that the answer means that you win right? But I would say this is not helpful right? This is three pages of argument before the questions, and here's why we ended at a dust. The question presented are maybe just shorten that up a little bit. I it's also because the other parties are also expected to use the questions presented in there. And they can they can reframe them if they think that's necessary. But the idea is that you're supposed to provide something that court can use when you look at solicitor general briefs, for example, their their questions presented are the question presented by the case. That's something everyone in the case can pretty well agree on if they might have framed it slightly different. But maybe this is the way of the future. We'll just put the whole brief at the front. And then the last page will be thus the questions presented are in the questions. And then the conclusion right exactly really poses. The question of how do you stop this? Because obviously the supreme court in this case reframed the question presented it limited. The question. Should we read that that I can read it the says the order granting cert- says the petition for richer? Sherry granted limited to the following question. Whether the Hobbs act required the district court in this case. To accept the FCC's legal interpretation of the telephone consumer Protection Act as about two lines a little bit of a slap down. They do that. Sometimes when they want to sort of change the issue or to make sure that the petitions really going to be limited to one thing. I think here they're trying to send a signal they are, but it's a very muted signal because after all the granted the petition. Yes. So you know, you one you got your case to the supreme court, and I think really the only way to to send effective signals either just about s- petition and say sorry, you're out of talent was not compliant, or if they don't want to do that just order the counsel of record to reprint all of the briefs at their own expense. And I think that parties would start learning that maybe you should tighten ever question presents. There's other things they could do you get the Marshall court to bring counsel to the secret prison underneath the court. While the Marshall is is is not busy impeaching the president Tarling. About. So that's that's one option. So yeah, I I didn't like this someone actually sent me this petition a few months ago. And it's like look at this. This is really really funny, and I sort of intended to say something about the show, but was too lazy to actually get to it. And so missed an opportunity to flag this in advance. But glad glad I came back. It's actually very interesting case, though, it might turn out to be a real sleeper case for separation of powers because it deals with the question of whether in private litigation. A court is empowered despite a jurisdiction narrowing statute to revisit the FCC's interpretation of its authority under this junk fax statute. And I think that really raises a number of problems USB climbed problems to what extent can congress say that the FCC gets to determine the meaning of the statute for purposes of other cases, could be a very interesting case. But it's very much masked in this extremely convoluted as their Chevron issue buried in here too that they describe it as a Chevron issue because they describe. As you know, the statute unambiguously forbids what the agency did here. But really, it's not a question of Chevron. It's a question of agency compliance with statute if the if the party is right, then the agency just lacked authority to do what it did. And if a statute reports say that only a particular court can make that decision and only within a certain number of days of the of the issuance of the rule that could be a real constraint on other people's ability, even as applied challenge that ruling later is that what you think that ultimately took it because I mean looking at this. I was I was surprised that they took it. I think there is a split buried in here, though, it may be difficult to extract. But yes, certainly Turnley the refrain each seventeen. Roman to underneath the tide schedules. But really the reframed QB gets an important issue of delegation separation of powers, and I'm curious to see what this case will turn into. It's also curious the FCC isn't here. I mean, there's no equivalent to supreme court ruled for B or the twenty USC twenty four three that requires you to notify an agency challenge is brief and there was no CVS, gene. They didn't file an Emeka. If the court didn't ask the the s g to weigh in, and so there's really no mechanism when you're challenging regulation as contrary to statute to alert the agency in a way that there is a mechanism right now to alert congress articulate, the attorney general. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Do you think there should be such a statute? Absolutely. Yeah. I see a law review article coming out of this. I'm sure we will dig more into this one later. But this is why we get guest host because I just like, oh, look this is super long and you're like, oh, here's some substantive thoughts about the case. Sorry. Yeah. No, no. This is this is great. And we also have probable jurisdiction noted in an appeal on the mandatory appellate docket in a racial gerrymandering appeal from Virginia it's called Virginia house delegates versus golden Bethune hill. It's a case that has come up to the court before. And there's also a in the jurisdiction statement. There's a there's an additional standing question did. It was interesting that the court did note here that you know, in addition to the questions presented by the jurisdiction statement, the parties are directed to fully brief the falling question. Whether appellants have standing to bring this appeal. Right. I think that'll obviously be important issue. Right. So we we have an appeal by the Virginia house of delegates just one house of the Virginia legislator in Virginia is declined to peel, right? Yeah. The solicitor general for the said, we don't want to appeal this. We're okay, we'll live. With the ruling of the of the district court, and to my mind, the issue isn't so much standing as one of proper parties because it's not clear to me that the Virginia house of delegates has the independent ability to show up in court any more than if GM's marketing department, really disliked the way a case was going, it could intervene when the rest of General Motors was willing to let the case live and really we've got the Commonwealth Virginia acting through its attorney general and solicitor general saying, no, we're okay with this and one house legislature claims to be a party capable of suing and being sued in and intervening. And this is a similar problem to what Rosen its Hollingsworth, right? The covering gay marriage case right there. I think that the issue was more standing like in that you had an independent group that had sponsored was not right. The the proposition than wanted to come in and defend it here. The that group Shirley could soon be sued under its own name. What's what's more? Puzzling is whether the. Virginia how some delegates is a thing in the eyes of law independently of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and I don't have an instinct on that question. And if you do my only instinct is that it seems like a question ought to be settled by Virginia law, whether the house of delegates can sue on these issues or not and the attorney general at least thinks that it can't we, you know, there was another case the posted interesting similar question. When Clinton was in office office of the president versus office of the independent counsel. You don't see that every day. No. So we had the normally the solicitor general files for the United States with a in a brief with a gray cover, and that case believe had three gray briefs. There was a brief from the office of the president saying that the first lady than Hillary Rodham Clinton could not be forced to turn over certain documents. There was a brief from the office of the independent counsel who by statute was representing the United States. And then there was a brief from the United. States amicus curiae through the attorney general and Michael driven later wrote a reminiscence where he said that he was glad that there was such a brief. But he hopes that that caption was never used again. Here. Here is very strange to have three different briefs claiming to be the position of the US government. You know, hopefully that doesn't happen too often makes a lot of work for the clerk's office. I imagined for your file these things in some ways, it might have been appropriate for the clerk and the court threw the clerk to decide which actually is the US maybe just decide based on whoever writes the shortest question presented good town. Rocks, paper, scissors. But that's better. Today's episode is sponsored by true Panin. True pain is medical insurance that helps protect your pet and your finances. When I was thinking about getting a dog, one of the things that freaked me out the most was the financial part of it. And what I would do if my dog got sick or injured or eight something it wasn't supposed to and I got hit with this huge vet Bill that I couldn't afford. So I started looking into pet insurance, and I actually have true banyan for poly. So if your pet gets sick or injured true painting can pay up to ninety percent of the Bill. They can even pay your vet directly. So you don't have to wait for reimbursement. That sounds like something you can use to trupanion dot com slash first. Mondays answer few simple questions about your cat or dog. And then you can get an instant quote pick the plan that works for your budget in your done. And this is actually one of the things that I like most about true pain is I was able to customize what my deduct. Cable is true pain is the trusted name for nearly a half million pets and more than twenty thousand veterinarians. When your pet is unwell the last thing you want to think about is the cost of medical care. So let trupanion policy help give you peace of mind by pain up to ninety percent of the cost. Go to trupanion dot com slash first Mondays to learn more and get a quick quote, make sure to use our special you are L because that supports the show that's true pan. Yeon T R U P A N I O N dot com slash first. Mondays trupanion dot com slash first. Mondays trupanion is underwritten by American pet insurance company. Terms and conditions apply. See website for details. So it was very much hoping we were going to get some opinions to talk about this week the court had a nonargument session. But I guess they are still running the opinions. They didn't release any merits cases. We do have some statements respecting denial of a cert petition in a case named Reynolds rent on a few talk about that one. At all. We have a statement by Justice prior respecting tonight, we have a concurrence from Justice Thomas concurring, the dial, and we have a dissent from denial from just a soda my or there's a lot going on in these really know where to start. Yeah. This is it's a sticky situation. So we have a case on this is one of quite a few right in coming out of Florida. So these involved claims of air under Hersi, Florida Ray, which had said that Florida's capital sentencing scheme violated the constitution because it required judges and not juries to find aggravating circumstances necessary to impose death sentence. So just prior here says he agrees that the. The serpentine here shouldn't be granted. But he ended up writing a statement, right? Respecting denial, and this is really interesting. Right. So he wasn't writing a concurrence. We he's he's writing a statement. And puzzled over what this means. And what the difference between a statement respecting denial isn't a concurrence and people are listeners came up with all these different theories. We never got a conclusive answer. It seems like basically justices call their statement, whatever they want, and they haven't really thought about it. Systematically. Yeah. I mean, I it feels like he wants the space to say, I feel kind of uncomfortable. What I'm doing here? And so he's sort of goes through is this is one of a bunch of petitions raising this issue in they raise a bunch of several issues that made me uncomfortable, one of which you you flag to talk about so one the first concerned that he mentions right up front is the the kinds of delays that we see that capital. Defendants is he puts it have to endure as they're awaiting execution. So he actually makes reference to one petitioner a case that they had recently denied who was actually sentenced to death in nineteen seventy six right? So he's clearly troubled by this that people would be. Be sitting around waiting. Did. He see what was going on in the courts. Of course, Justice Thomas had his own thoughts about that. Just as Thomas is not really having this. No, he particularly takes issue with Justice prior describing the petitioner as having endured a long way of prior to executions had no that the petitioner sought of many delays in the execution that the reason why the sentences not been carried out of the petitioner raised a number of procedural objections. And I think to that I think what is clear from Justice Thomas's opinion is that he is deeply skeptical, and that is putting it lightly of of the procedural barriers that Justice briar finds in this. I describes Justice fryer is the drum major in the parade of precedents that had led to new standards that required going back and revisiting the sentence again. And again, this was pretty pointed language. Thomas. He's quoting something Justice Scalia has said who is usually a little bit more pointed my sense is that justices Byron Thomas pretty friendly seeing them on the bench. They've been sitting together for a long time. They often show chatting and joking with each other. But this was this was not friendly. Now, I think as I really the opinion I think Justice Thomas telling Justice Rier, the stop tinkering with the machinery of death as Blackman once put it either you think that the death penalty was unconstitutional, and you should just say so just prior suggests but don't try to say that there are all these new as yet unforeseen eighth amendment barriers that sort of death is increasingly different the more. We look at it. Either decide that it's unconstitutional or say that that it is constitutional and the sense can be carried out. So another thing that's interesting about Justice, Thomas's concurrence. And this is something he does in most capital cases, when she writes, he is very lengthy graphic description of the underlying cry. If the petitioner, and then he has a footnote where he goes into some of the other crimes involving some of the other petitioners whose cases were also denied, and, you know, interestingly Justice soda, my or in her dissent from denial sort of has a very subtle response to that where she just says, you know, I acknowledge that these crimes are really serious, but it's also a responsibility to ensure a fair process, and I will say that I understand why Justice Thomas does that the fact that he always does that has tended to make me a little uncomfortable. I don't know if you'll have views on that. Yeah. I mean it right. So it seems clearly like a strategic move, and I take it to be at least somewhat responsive to Justice priors concern that, you know, look where we're gonna look at these petitioners to think about all that they're enduring right? And I think that then this is an important counterpoint right before we think about them. Let's also think about the crimes they committed in what you know, the victims had to endure. So I take that point. But ultimately, I think I'm sympathetic to Justice Sotomayor here. The sure of course, we have to be taking that into account. But at the end of the. Day. You know, there are these larger questions we have to be addressing here also relevant in the case. Because part of the issue is this harmless error with the jury Shirley have come to the same result. Anyway, and I think that fact some of the evidence of the underlying crime, and what the jury would have heard and what they would have known happened does help illuminate. Whether we think there's a real possibility civically would the jury have made the same recommendation finding that the defendant was eligible for death here. They just made a recommendation knowing that it was the judges responsibility and harmless error question, right? And the the Florida court reason at least in part that if you've got a unanimous jury recommendation that yes, we think judge that you should impose the death penalty. There's not really much danger. That had we asked the jury to make the ultimate decision. They would have come out the other way and one way to know that is to know what evidence they heard in this kid's fair, although that is being a little too charitable Justice Thomas because he does this in every case like this where there's no plausible. That it's related, right? Well, it depends. It depends on how you think of the eighth amendment. I mean, certainly on a on a proportionality analysis, which isn't necessarily Justice Thomas theory. But if you think that that the crime should be the punishment should be proportional to the crime than it may matter. What exactly the crime was? So I do agree that in general, the fact that somebody did really really terrible things doesn't excuse the legal system. Not following what it's supposed to in processing. Yeah. So later today, I will find an example for you where he does this case that is not if you can't even construct the best lawyerly argument, you know, if only spent a couple more years at a firm you have gotten that bonus. And. So that's about it for know news order stuff like that the court did not give us quite as much to work with this week as last week. Nobody has yet eloped to Cuba in her been no injuries. It sounds like Justice Ginsburg is on the men after her fall. And breaking ribs sounds like she's she's doing well. But I haven't heard any updates in the last twenty four forty eight hours. And so because this is kind of a dead week. Where court didn't really do anything last week. I don't really doing thing next week. We're going to use this opportunity to talk about a case that might have otherwise slip through the cracks. We can't really preview every case given the the crunch of the term, but have to sue pro experts here. So we thought we would talk about a Supra case. And luckily stars align, and we have a good one to talk about it's called nutraceutical Corp versus Lambert. Does I one of you want to sort of introduce the the case? Sure, I am. I am. Happy to though, I will say mom, if you're listening at home. This is the time to put on your ear muffs. So the key starts out. We have a trailer 'but who purchase something called Cobra sexual energy. This is in a ledge aphrodisiac, a dietary supplement manufactured and marketed by nutraceutical. And of course, the FDA has not approved. What kind of ingredients are in that good question there danso? So it claims that it contain performance enhancing herbs, I'll leave that to your imagination. But it would provide users with quote, an right? I'm going to be blushing here animal magnetism and potency would okay. So Lambert, then apparently based on this believe that the product would judge on the ninth circuit wrote enhance his sexual performance. And of course, had he known that the labels claims were false. He would not have purchased the product. Yes. But he's not just trying to his own behalf right now. They were many many people who decided. Really has products the class Representative because you have to decide that you want your name on the capitol as someone who not only purchased this product. But then discovered that it did not work. Right now seeking a full refund. One for the team there. And so I just wanna get out there and dispel rumors. I'm not a class member or purported class number. Thank you for that. Disclaimer. Right. So speaking of claim so the claim is that this up lament there will the whole bunch of claims. But the one of the claims here is at the supplement violated the FDA's aphrodisiac drug rule. And right who knew there was such a thing, certainly not me. So because it claimed to increase I think I can't even get through all this without blushing. Basically, the it's radio there's no video plus your way. Thank you. Right. But the idea here is that had not actually gone through the necessary clinical testing as required by various statutory provisions, and it didn't have FDA approval. So that was another problem against it. Steve you want to jump in here. A little so Lambert brings a suit on behalf of a class. And while the classes initially certified, it's then decertified, yes. On the argument that he doesn't have enough evidence to measure damages. So the theory is that because this product did not work everyone who purchased it should be titled to a full refund. Now normally in class actions, you have to have evidence you have to show that the class issues predominate over the individual issues. So that it's amenable to reclassifies really seem enough. I feel like you need expectations damages here. The loss of consortium perhaps, but the the if just so wrong. So if you if you can't show that the court is capable of handling this as a single case across the entire class. It shouldn't be treated as a class, and while Lambert had evidence of what these suggested retail price was and he knew what the price that nutraceutical charged over its own website was and he knew the price that he paid for this product. He couldn't introduce evidence of the price that everyone else paid for the product. And so the district court held that wasn't good enough. And that they couldn't handle the class as a class action. And so it decertified the class, and we should just say here. This isn't an instance in which a district judge just changed his or her mind. So it's an interesting story, right? We have a district initially saying that there is a class here that judge retires. We have a new judge assigned to the case. And that's why we have this. You know, we're switching midstream here. It seems kind of inappropriate to do that. It seems like if that happens, you know, you should maybe just live. With the rulings at the earlier judgment. What do you think? Well, I think that the the ruling is a questionable on its merits, certainly a jury would be entitled to conclude, you know, to to make findings of fact about what the average retail price was given the evidence that they had certainly if somebody had burned down, Mr Lamberts house, and among the things destroyed where his bottle of Cobra sexual energy pills, you he would be able to seek damages and the jury could make some determination using only the evidence that they had. But Nettie case even assuming that that were the right decision a district court candy certify class whenever it decides. That decertification is appropriate classification is not final until the cases over yet. But it just as a general matter do think that if they knew judge comes into a case, they should just say I'm gonna live with earlier rulings in the interests of not re-litigating everything already been decided or they should just take a fresh look at everything it depends. I think there's some argument for deferring to the prior judge, especially if they had held evidence. Chery hearings. Eight actually looked in the witnesses is and so on. But in a case like this. It might be seen as really more of a question of law that the new district judge, or at least I questioned discretion that the news judge could reasonably go back on. Okay. So this is going to get us to what this case is actually about because it's the in insofar as concerned, it's not actually about whether these Cobra sexual energy pills were active or not they're not going to be. That's not one of the questions presented in the case. Although I wish it were. What is the case really about? So we have this interesting the backstory continues to the during a status conference. This was ten days after the order to decertify the class Lambert informs the court that he intends to file a motion for reconsideration. And so the district court than at this point instructs Lambert to file the motion within ten days. So this would mean twenty days after that initial order to decertify the class and Lambert, of course, does at ten days later, he moves reconsideration and asks for recertification, but the problem is. That now Lambert adding lost his motion for reconsideration wants to appeal and ordinarily classification, would not be sort of thing that you could appeal immediately that would be an interlocutory peel. It's before final judgment under twenty twelve ninety one. You normally have to wait for final judgment. If you want to contest what's gone on the district court, except that there's a special exception under rule twenty three f how does that work? How does that normally? So if you want to get a classroom education grant or denial appealed you can petition the court of appeals within fourteen days after the order granting or denying classification. So there's a special exception congress provided the supreme court with authority to create new grounds for interlocutory appeal. And it did I think this is the only time it's ever used that authorities in creating Twenty-three f that allows interlocutory appeal for clarification decisions, right? So we have this appeal going up to the night, sir. Circuit. And then, of course, one of the things at the courthouse to figure out is it timely. So he didn't do it within fourteen days original order, but did it within fourteen days of this denial of the motion for reconsideration, right and one interesting thing about role Twenty-three half. And I should interject here that what I say is purely my own views and not those of the appellate rules advisory committee. Unlike another statute concerning into Tori, peels, twelve ninety one a which allows into auditory peel for orders that grant preliminary injunctions deny preliminary junctions or modify preliminary junctions or refused to grant or modify ballooning, basically, anything subject verb injunction. You can get an interlocutory appeal. That's not how Twenty-three f seems to be framed. And so even though you would think that, hey, if classification is the sort of thing that needs an early appeal, maybe losing your motion for reconsideration should be the sort of thing that that you can appeal. In fact, that's not how twenty three f works it only gives you fourteen days after the grant or the denial of class, sir. Yes. So there a couple of different issues at the ninth circuit had to Wade through not to figure out was this appeal timely. So the the first thing that they had to look to you was whether the motion for reconsideration filed within that fourteen days of the certification order would that toll the Twenty-three? F- deadline, right. And and on that actually, the nicer could look around at a bunch of other circuits who've waited and said absolutely right in general when you when you seek to have an order reconsidered, the ideas that it's not it's not final yet. We haven't really come to rest and the appellate roles themselves make provision for this after final judgment. If you make a motion under rule fifty nine you want a new trial something like that. You can do that twenty eight days after judgment, and we'll toll the time for a peel until everything is by tolling. You just meet pause. You don't start the clock actually actually under under four four. You do restart. You get new fresh thirty days after your new trial motion is tonight. I think that's right. But of course, that's a great thing about being a podcast or weather, man. I might be wrong. If you are I can't even get it that out so excellent one lung bleep yet. So so the the knights circuit didn't stop there. Right. Because it it then wanted to go onto kind of had to consider could could the deadline be told as a result of additional equitable circumstances. Right. So in this case, we have of course, the district judge saying Lambert, that's fine. Take another ten days right in order to file your motion for reconsideration. And the question was that representation is that the kind of thing that could also told the deadline and here the nicer took an interesting approach. So the night there circuit said that in general motions for reconsideration toll things. And also when a judge tells you that you can take more time that's a scenario when courts often said that that will provide for equitable tolling. Even if a deadline is otherwise mandatory. If the judge said, it was okay. Then it's okay. Of course, here the judge district. Judge didn't say I'm giving you more time to a. Appeal. Couldn't do that the rule trying three f is pretty clear that there aren't extensions to be granted what the judge said was you can have more time to ask me to reconsider right? And so it's not really clear that that does anything these appeals. It might just mean that the district court is giving him more time to talk to the district court, but this very special very unusual exception that allows you to take a case up to an appellate court before it's done might not be available once fourteen days of past of course. Right. But then the nights are. So we this panel the night circuit again an opinion here by judge saying, in fact, we are going to find that these additional equitable circumstances may warrant tolling here. And as as the judge notes, we are parting ways with some of our sister circuits on this, right? This is what gives us the circuit split. The night circuit is the only one to create this is probably not a good sign, but just sort of put this in context and you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but there's. Been a lot of cases last decade decade and a half where the court has been trying to sort out whether things are trickle jurisdictional rules and management claims processing rules, and the court famously in bulls versus Russell said the deadline for filing a notice of appeal jurisdictional couldn't be extended for equitable reasons here, I think there's consensus that this is not just actional. But then the question is does that mean if it's not jurisdictional that you can get equitable exceptions or not right? So we know that if it is just that equitable told is off the table. But that doesn't mean that it's always on the table for everything else. And even if it were on the table, would it be properly invoked here? I think both of these issues are the things the parties are fighting over. You know, this is not in a statute. It's a rule. It seems like the sort of thing that's merely a mandatory claims processing role, but it is mandatory if the other side objects as happened here. The other side says, hey, your petition is too late. You only had fourteen days normally that sort of rule something. That the peo- skorts have to listen to and indeed a lot of the flexibility that the appellate courts are given on other topics is denied them here. So frapp two says essentially that appellate courts conspiracy. The rest of the rules of procedure whenever they want to free up except for the time limits under prop twenty six and one of the time limits under to mix concerns the time to petition for an appeal when you have to pretend for our listeners in Massachusetts, Steve is not talking about the things that the rest of the hundred milkshakes. He's like method rules of procedure. But I like that you're on a nickname basis with. Yeah. Frappe night, relentless. And so if you understand this, I don't really understand what is the relationship between doctrines like equitable tolling, and this equity this tradition in Anglo American legal history that there is two separate court systems. The chancellor where does this idea of equitable tolling, come from the generic power that courts have what is that? I don't really understand. Well, so the nine circuit itself took this on right? So it said equitable exceptions arise from the quote traditional power of the courts to ply the principles of equity jurisprudence rates doesn't that helpfully answer the question? But the the idea here is, you know, the Corcoran goes on to say we need things like equitable tolling to soften the harsh impact of technical rules, which might otherwise prevent a good faith litigant from having her day in court. So we have equity often in the back on this is something that we you know, we will see judges reaching for to to give us a result. That would I think strike perhaps as more fair or just I mean, that's the intuition Elise on the part of these judges, right? And it's a little hard for me to figure out how this would've worked in the in the old days before the fusion of. Law and equity if you really had separate mock courts equity courts, couldn't go to the chancellor said give me more time in the law quirk, right? Could you sometimes? I'm not sure that that's that's what would be done here. Right. And of course, I was actually just talking to Sam brea about this this morning, great remedy scholar. So oftentimes, you'll see various doctrines that arise in equity of jumping the river over to law right in part because they are just so useful to judges in particular cases, potentially like this one just a quick plug. We recently released a bonus episode on our patriots stream or we talk about one of San Braise articles, and specifically the role of equity in this room courts entered in this topic check that out but back to back to what we were talking about. So so let's frame that frame the issue now. So it makes sense to have some exceptions just for fairness from strict jurisdictional non-jurisdictional deadlines. And if the if the appellant got hit by a bus as he was walking to the courthouse to file his appeal. Normally, you would think hey that should get you out of a fourteen day time limit, but you know, the the courts and congress. Also have power to write in a get hit by a bus clause or other kinds of powers to grant exceptions. And those aren't present in this rule. And if you're kind of, you know, back to first principles kind of person, look, what do you think about this generally before we get into the specifics of this case, these ideas these equitable exceptions, you comfortable with them? So I think it's perfectly possible that they might be part of the law. It really really depends on the top background principle. That's, you know, around when the laws I passed the rules are I and acted as a backdrop as anybody know anything about that. So, you know, in in seventeen ninety two when the attorney general said supreme court what are your rules of procedure because we don't have any. They said, well, we think that the rules that govern common-law cases in the English courts and equity cases before the English chancellor, the ones that we're going to apply here until we're told different. And so, yeah, if this was this was something that crawls good work back to her back to the rules, enabling act. Well, what's interesting is that the rules enabling act only concerned rules of practice. In procedure repeal it designated for super session a statute that had empowered the supreme court to make equity rules into follow the practice of chancery. When those rules didn't cover the subject, but it's ability to actually get rid of that altogether is not clear because remember the rules in neighbouring acting only concern rules of practice and procedure. And if they're this probably qualifies, but there are a number of areas what when might call substantive equity law things like latches, I'm not really clear thing, you know, when the rules for the standards for getting an injunction. It's not clear at least whether the rules, enabling act would allow the supreme court to alter the standards for getting an injunction, and it might well be that in the absence of legislation by congress. They're stuck with whatever chancery did could this. This is really interesting now really focus on the issue here. And I think there's two things going on. So I I to figure out is is the thing that happened here is clearly inconsistent with. Text of the rules. And then let's resolve this question about whether they're equitable exceptions. So the respondent Lambert tries very hard to argue that there is some text in the rules of civil procedure and appellate procedure. That helps them out here argues that because this is an order from which an appeal lies. It's then considered a judgment for purposes under rule fifty four and fifty eight and so ruled fifty nine e for a motions to alter or amend judgment is really the kind of motion he was making here, even though that's not how people perceived it at the time. And therefore, he gets the extra tolling that's available for a rule fifty nine emotion that at least in my view is quite a stretch. And it's really dangerous when the lead argument in your brief is essentially running away from the reason why you won in the court below. Yeah. I think that's right. And then, you know, it does take us back to this bigger question of, you know, do we want courts applying these various considerations. And these types of cases in it have, you know, whenever Steve starts talking his formulas talk. I have a hard time listening to anything else. And yet and yet it's right there really is something I think intuitively appealing about having that equitable safety valve in the background here. Right. I mean for those of us who are feeling sympathetic to trae Lambert in having a district. Judge say, hey, you have more time here. Right. Absolutely rated today. Anything about the appeal has no luck. He has. No, yes. Yes. Has no actual problem. He buys these pills. They don't work. He tries to appeal. It's too late. I mean, it's just you just you gotta feel for the guy. But I certainly hope so what mortality in the US reports. But at what cost cost bit Steve actually was making me feel better about this. Because I was thinking, you know, if we go the formalist route here what what would we have to offer this poor guy? And Steve had a good thought. So it's pretty clear, at least in my view that the district court was wrong on this classification decision for all the reasons the ninth circuit explained when it got to the merits of the case. Look, you know, you should be able to make this kind of damages theory. You should be able to process it as class reasonably well. So now, assuming that Lambert loses he's going to go back to the district court always make another motion for reconsideration of the classroom vacation decision. And if the district court denies that to eventually he'll get to final judgment at which point he can bring an ordinary twelve Ninety-one appeal and say, hey, for all the reasons the ninth circuit explained their decision will have been vacated. But the reasoning is still there, you know, the this was an error, and you should really fix it. So I think I think the district might well read the tea leaves and decide maybe it should change its mind sooner rather than later. But here's what's going to happen with this guy. He's going to go get a completely different panel. That's going to do something wacky. He's going to have to go back to the supreme court again, he may very well have to have to be a repeat player here. And may maybe few years, we'll have Lambert too. So one can only hope so text of the rules, not very helpful. And so what about this question about equitable exceptions, putting aside the? The text of the rules or maybe not coming up with that aside. The problem with equitable exceptions is that they're exceptions. I mean, a rule can say you have ninety days, and it doesn't say anything about equity and the question is does it go without saying that there are equitable exceptions here. The one thing I would say is that of all the places to find them an interlocutory appeal rule would be the place, we would be least worried about needing an equitable exception. Because again, this is an exception to the normal rule that you wait until the end of the case after the end of the case, you can have all the issues before the appellate court. So if the worst thing that happens to you, even if you're hit by the bus on the way to the courthouse you can still appeal after final judgment. And so the the need for a special emergency exception might be at its Nater here. Right. We have a safety net coming after all this for for Mr. Lambert, those are sort of like policy considerations. Like, what is the court going to consider in trying to answer that that question like how leaving approach the question? I mean, they'll look at all the president on equitable tolling, which at least in. My view are kind of all over the math yet. So it's not it's not a clear formula, and others may have may have different views. At least to my mind is not a clear formula for what the courtroom do next. Just unrelated question is it is it do you agree with the idea that because the rule is jurisdictional it can't permit equitable tolling because that's never seemed obvious to me either to be honest. No. And I'm not totally sure that this rule isn't jurisdictional in the sense that the the courts have typically taken the approach that if it's a time limit in a statute about appeals, then it's a sexual that seems weird to me. Congress knows how to talk about jurisdiction when it wants to talk about yours diction, it might just be a mandatory rule. But here we do know that talking about jurisdiction because this is an exception authorized by twelve ninety two E and put in by the supreme court and Twenty-three f to the otherwise applicable rule that you can't take an interlocutory appeal on this topic that the only way you qualify for appellate jurisdiction is if you get through whatever, you know, whatever barriers Twenty-three puts in front of you. And if one of those three rather and one of those barriers is a time limit, maybe there's no jurisdiction here. Yeah. That's Drake's is right. And. I'm actually interested in in in where this all came from. I mean, this this line that we're drawing anyway, right between the claims processing and could you? Ginsburg term the mandatory claims processing rule where does that come from contract? I used to know this a little bit better. I cannot remember. But the there certainly does have to be a difference between for longtime the court used the word jurisdictional very loosely, and they came into clean that up. I think with some help from Justice Ginsburg. Yes. A long history of of calling things mandatory and jurisdictional whether or not they actually stripped any court of jurisdiction to consider a claim. And there were also plenty of what we're called drive by jurisdictional ruins where the court would find jurisdiction and act on it without really saying why or what it was doing it. So now, we have a sense of both the court and congress are more careful about using the word jurisdiction than they used to be. But that still gives us question. What do we do with all the old cases that used it somewhat loosely? When do we believe them and went only, I'm interested to see what's going to happen with the court. I don't know how this is gonna come out. Well, that's a problem because I'm about to outsource the official. First Mondays prediction. To the two of you. You can go with a toss up lean or lock or likely. I I would say I would say this is a likely reverse. I don't think the court granted cert here to affirm. Yeah. And so reverse the ninth circuit and say at least this the kind of equitable exceptions recognized here are not appropriate. You're going to likely rather than lean so likely feel stronger about that. Yeah. I guess I'm going to go the same direction. Not just because I like agreeing with Steve generally. But giving given where the circuits have been on this issue that seems like a pretty safe bet to me. Okay. Well, as I said there is no sanction for being wrong. And in fact, I immediately forget what our predictions are after we do them. So then I'm always say we were totally right because I don't actually remember. So there you have it the official first Mondays prediction. So we had some other things I want to talk about. But I think might be time just to go onto questions. Let's any final funnel thoughts from the two of you about this case. Okay. Well, I like to open up the floor put it to bed so to speak. Sorry. I just had to you. Did you didn't have to? But I appreciate that. You did. Okay. Open for audience questions. I have the first question lineup might be the most distinguished questioner. We've ever had on the show. Please introduce yourself. I'm Walter Dellinger on the faculty here somewhat acting solicitor. Acting solicitor general United States. Yeah. Coming up here. So here's about question. What is a podcast? I've been trying to figure that out. I'll come back to that question at elaborate just a couple of quick observations one on the on the four hundred thousand dollar clerkship bonus which I am party to paying saving in my day. We didn't get such bonuses. And I share the Justice is covered. But the justices could solve this problem. All we have to do is say if you accept my clerkship. You will agree not to take any compensation explicitly and to your having had this clerkship. And that was solved the problem if they wish to do. So. Secondly, the most interesting case, you talked about not involving sexually enhancing herb. Was Virginia house of delegates that did that make us brief and Hollingsworth against Perry on standing looking at the the Virginia case this is. Not too infrequent situation here. Republican legislature had a redistricting plan which was challenged by democratic challengers and found to be a racial gerrymandering by the three judge court, and they governor and the attorney general and the solicitor general the governor turning channel happen to be Democrats thought the result was fine and persuasive in the district court chose not to seek review in the supreme court whereupon, the Virginia house delegates has done so stave just an imitation of what you said it helps clarity in their model. Their muddle papers are not clear, they're really making both claims the same thing too. And Hollingsworth there claiming I eight we have an article three injury. As an institution as the house of delegates. We are injured in our capacity as that house, and Secondly, we can represent the Commonwealth of Jim and it clarified. They're they're actually quite different considerations for each of those clarifies it to think that way. And I think they they as I did in all his parachute loose on both of those. So back to my original question. What is the podcast? I'm interested because it seems to me that the justices are influenced to an increasing degree by matters outside the briefs of the parties. Now, even more outside the amicus brief Steve is filed a brief. It was cited by the an Abacus recited by the court. But now they're being influenced by the fact that quite serious writing is being done after oral argument on balkanisation on just security on on on on various, other blogs and podcasts, and my sense is I don't know what you also is that the clerks. Are listening to this these things, and they are reading slate and balkanisation and a very difficult question. If your attorney involved in a case is agreed which you're comfortable following up after oral argument by writing or participating in someone who is writing for balkanisation appearing on. I the first Monday podcast knowing that that is working its way back into the influence of the court. In addition to the page limits of the merits an amicus race ago back to rules. That's that's really interesting. I think it is the premise of the question. The last part of question is definitely correct? That people if the court are reading blogs, they're just aware of stuff, generally, you know, I think some clerks listened the show for sure is that troubling. I don't know. I think it depends on what they're getting. I mean, I think if they're getting extra record factual information that seems really troubling. If it's just. Stuff about the law. Maybe that doesn't bother me as much. I don't know. What do you think? Can you tell if you get downloads from within supreme court dot gov? We have not tested at that level of granularity. Yeah. We just meet some clerks very nervous. But even before blogs before all the stuff, I mean, someone could go say clerk or a Justice is trying to figure out what they think about a case. They can always go read a large vertical. Right. And see what this particular professor thought about the issue, and they can take that into consideration. Now, they can get that sort of more real time like with blogs. But is that fundamentally any different? I mean, maybe it's different. We're having the advocates on the show and they're saying, well, here's the thing. I would have said if I'd had five more minutes my argument. Maybe that's more troubling. I'm not sure I think something like this. The question is always how different is this really in kind from what we've had before. Right. And when you think okay clerks would be free to read up ED's in newspapers, right, or as you said, go back to law review article. So so what feels different about this? And I agree. There is something the the thought that somebody could be trying to get a few more minutes on their argument that that strikes me is different. But. I'm not sure quite how much it also seems to matter. I mean, in some sense, you worry about X partake communications. This is a way to get material to the justices to the decision maker without going through the corporate on the other hand the opposite of expertise in front of everybody is entirely public. And if the other side wants to respond, and and you know, in general, I would think that nowadays a good advocate would be sensitive to the court of public opinion would be sensitive to where where discussion is going. I have my own conflict on this after writing the amicus brief Walter nervously mentioned in which Dan was invaluable help the after argument, I wrote a recap of the argument that went up on Volk, and it, you know. You know, I don't know if any clerks were reading, I don't know where it was going. But certainly it seemed important to me to address arguments that were being made because this was part of the public record on something that I'd I'd written. It is funny. I mean ways this brings us back to the discussion of equity, right? I mean in some instances, you might feel it is very important, right? That this additional piece of information get out there for even though we would think formerly based on the rules, not really supposed to be doing this kind of thing in that way, really depends on whether you see oral argument time, and and the briefs as a limit on the party's submissions or as a guarantee, you get this many housing words, you get this much of the courts time during which will be doing nothing else. Other than listening to you. Or maybe, you know, checking the sports scores. But the basic idea is, you know, it's additional time for you. Not a limit on the differences at the court. It's distributed equally. Yes. In different on the other hand different parties may have better or worse abilities. To influence public debate. So I'd imagine big companies are more able to place op EDS to get stuff in blogs. Do all the stuff that's necessary to get more information fun of the the clerks injustices. Maybe. So some some reason to be concerned. Yeah. I do wonder if then that create some kind of almost like an obligation on the part of somebody like you write that when you're giving your time that you're cognizant of who you are giving it to right? Yeah. Yeah. We you know, we like to pretend to be fair and balanced. Good job of pretending, but aggression, Palma three. Oh here to quick question off of the the Virginia Haussa delegates case to what extent you think? A state attorney general has a legal obligation to try to defend the laws of its state his or her state as much as possible, or if they actually think no like this law violated certain constitutional provision. They should concede that. So at least in part that's a question of state law. And it's a question of the state to determine what duties it wants to give to its attorney general. But of course, you know, the federal constitution and the laws enacted in pursuance there over supreme law of the land. And so it is part of the law that a state attorney general must enforce they swear nose to the constitution to and so if they conclude that a state enactment is contrary to the federal Voting Rights Act say it's not clear to me that that. They necessarily have to give every reasonable defense of the state statute, they could conclude that look on the merits strong. The thing that worries me, though, is that this to the extent that we don't have any restrictions on that this could be sort of a back door way to repeal statutes, you don't like you could just have sort of collusive location, and let's say you have property change. And you have the stage AG or even the federal s g go into court and say, yeah, we can see it. It's all constitutional just energy against us. And we won't be able to enforce the statute you can imagine something happening like that. And if it was easier to do that, it's just a way to bypass the normal rules for legislation. Right. That's a problem with, you know, take care of 'cause and similar obligations generally in the president always has the ability or a state governor, perhaps might have the ability to say, I think the state law is unconstitutional, and I will not enforce it. And indeed, that's their obligation. If they honestly think it's unconstitutional. So one of the big questions in the litigation leading up to US v. Windsor was. Could the federal government take the position that the defensive marriage ACT's prohibition on recognition of same? Sex marriage was unconstitutional and the same time enforce it on the ground. Not right people social security checks because it claimed that they weren't really married. Even though this Lister general was at that very moment. Taking the position that the statute was constitutional that seems way more of a problem to me than a thoroughgoing decision by the executive branch, either of a state or of the United States that look all the law includes the constitution statutes unconstitutional, they can't act on another wrinkle, though, of course, is states can have divided fragmentary executives. So you could have a situation with the state AG in whom the litigation authorities vested feels one way about a statute and the state governor in whom the enforcement authorities invested feels differently. That's not the case in the federal government. We have a unitary executive. And so there is. Less room for for those kinds of divisions. Hello, I'm Michael Collins. I'm a free L here. And I've got a bit of a follow up on. Professor Darren dull injures question that goes on. We've just like practice advice. Now, we as a turns obviously have a duty of candor when talking to the court and that probably carries through when talking to reporters about our case. But that does not consistent with the fifth amendment carry through to the reporters reporting to other parties making news how would that affect your answer? When we realized that these other extra judicial sources like podcast, obviously, not yours, but other podcasts. Might be providing the court with false or misleading information. Podcast people actually listen to. No, I think that's that's a real issue. And it also raises the question what about attorneys who are members of a bar, but aren't representing a party in the case. What do do they have when they're commenting on public affairs? But I think that is a very difficult ethical question. If an attorney says something that they know will others will misunderstand and will repeat the misunderstanding that to me sounds like you're getting others to support your ethics violation. Now to extent that we're worried particularly about the parties and their council using this as Vert where limits, I mean, they would still have an obligation. I think they're trying to influence the tribunal even indirectly to be candid in their comments that they give to blogs or whatever. But yeah, it is it is concerning and it does it is a reason why maybe you don't want justices to be doing too much of extra record research. This is we've talked about this before. Follow up. Follow up, which is that which concretizes. Well, not certain did the right thing. Now, we represented my firm Antoine Jones said US Jones, which is the case. And I did not argue the case we had calcified argue the case below in the court of appeals do the argument. I would not have done this. If I'd been arguing, but the morning of the argue, but I didn't interview with the totenberg, and I made a point that I might not have been coming in the brief which was if the government serious, correct? There is no I Amendment No fourth amendment interest here than any police officer, the metropolitan Eric and place cheapie device under the undecided. The cars of any of the justices spring court just because they want to find out where they go after they leave the court, and when Michael driven got up to argue for the government. Chiefs said Mr. even before you begin is it your position. Colin I wonder where he got that question from that was that was a stunning moment in the argument where he's sort of pauses, and he says the justices of this court. I know he had lost at that point. Exactly. The case was over at that point. I being involved in the case and being counsel for jobs. I wasn't quite comfortable making that point. But I really wanted it may, and that's the I think if I'd been arguing council that day, I would not have wanted to do an interview that morning, but that's sort of expanding the scope of the oral argument, perhaps this is the bias somebody who went into academia instead of taking the clerkship on us. But you know, I think it's a good thing for the supreme court to think about as much as they can think about before they make a decision and the supreme court's deliberations are part of a more general public deliberation. Among the legal community about an issue. We have lots of rules for the specific presentations to the court, but I don't think that the justices necessarily need to close their ears to legal arguments that are made outside the courthouse. They might need to is Dan mentioned the might need to carry a lot about the factual record. But that's one of the reasons that that, you know, they they listen to crazy Miki, you know, they can listen to all sorts of folks outside the courthouse and make decisions accordingly so long as they're not having their clerks try to put on the clothes and a certain amount of time and the famous judge pose nerve gas, and he pictures in his, of course, draw dawned in the protective gear donning and doffing. Yes. Okay. Well, I think that might be a good place to wrap it up. So thanks very much to do Claude journal for hosting us and to do McGaw Boorda for helping with av needs. Thanks to our producer melody row. All and last week's guest producer, Catherine thank and our operations manager, Shannon McHugh Samuel. Thanks, also to our partners Scotus, blog and backyard media. And of course, thanks to our sponsor for this week's episode trupanion. If you want more information about their pet insurance policies, go to true, Panin dot com slash first. Mondays that's T R U P A N I O N dot com slash first, bundy's please subscribe on patriot for exclusive content, like bonus episodes and access to the chat room on slack. At patriot dot com slash first Mondays please rate and review on the store, and please subscribe to the podcast in your podcast listener app of choice. So that you get all the episodes instantaneously downloaded when they come out and. This episode, please send it to your favorite Duke law school graduate. I have to say, Dan, Richard, Nixon is not going to get a lot of Email. Although, although he did have a great amount of experience with tapes. He sure won't.

First Mondays