20 Episode results for "Paul Stevens"

Remembering Justice John Paul Stevens

We The People

47:00 min | 1 year ago

Remembering Justice John Paul Stevens

"I'm Jeffrey Rosen President and CEO of the National Constitution Center and welcome to we the people the weekly show of constitutional debate the National Constitution Center is a nonpartisan nonprofit chartered Richard by Congress to increase awareness and understanding of the constitution among the American people justice. John Paul Stevens passed away on Tuesday at the age of ninety nine justice Stevens was the second and longest serving and second oldest justice to serve in Supreme Court history as well as <hes> one of the most revered on today's episode we remember Justice Stevens his judicial philosophy and some of his most influential majority opinions opinions and descends and I'm so thrilled and grateful that joining us to commemorate justice Stevens Life and legacy are two of his extremely distinguished former law clerks key CIA is professor of law at the Benjamin N Cardozo the School of law at Yeshiva University and Co Director of the floor Shammar Center for Constitutional Democracy. She clerked for Justice Stevens during the two thousand seven term and Daniel Farber is the show sat out professor of law at the University of California California Berkeley and Faculty Director of Berkeley Center for Law Energy and the environment he clerked for Justice Stevens during the nineteen seventy six term Kate Daniel. Thank you so much for joining us on this important occasion. Thank you so much Jeff. Thank you kate. Let's begin by summing up. Justice Stevens is constitutional legacy. What would you say to our listeners about the essence of his approach to the constitution well well? I think that he is someone who shooed grand theories of legal or constitutional interpretation so <hes> it's a hard legacy to sum up <hes> and it's a hard legacy to reduce to a formula and I think that's kind of by design I mean he was a consummate common lodge judge so we really believed that every case should be approached on its own terms with this kind of laser focus on the facts of the case <hes> and building on the cases that had come before so I think his methodology was very much a common-law methodology <hes> whatever the kind of subject matter advocates including Constitutional Cases <hes> I do think he believed that the constitution's really open into guarantees were meant to be given content by judges <hes> and at the document was meant to facilitate human flourishing <hes> and that there was going it'd be some disagreement about how that would all work <hes> but that when it came to figuring it all out there was really no substitution for just exercise of Judgment <hes> the posen Columbia has a wonderful piece from twenty eleven <hes> which he talks about justice Stevens vins and the kind of exercise of Judgment and obligations of judgment and just when it came down to it. I don't think he thought that grand theories really worthy answer. Just kind of the hard work of judging <hes> really kind of was the answer so I think that some people found that frustrating because in the right hands I think in justice justice Stevens hands. It led very much to just results. I think it might want to think in the view of people even didn't disagree with him didn't agree with rather in a number of cases <hes> but that in the wrong hands at that was kind of open ended and maybe an invitation to judicial wilfulness <hes> <hes> but I think he just had a lot of faith in the kind of good intentions <hes> and the hard work of federal judges as a premium court justices <hes> and I mean I saw him sort of extend that kind of presumption of good faith and good sense risk to his colleagues and to his law clerks into the lawyers arguing before him <hes> so I think that that is probably as good as a nation of as any. He's a real common law judge. I do think when it came to statutory cases he had a more kind of easily identifiable methodology. I think he was a purpose of s right. I think he really thought judges should look at statutes <hes> with an eye to the kind of purpose or intention of the drafters <hes> and he'd look at any kind of evidence he thought might be relevant. It's sort of to kind of illuminate that but sort of the purpose was always to be discerned in the context context of an overall statutory scheme and the overall goals and purposes of both the particular statute and the law kind of writ large <hes> but I do think his rejection of any real labels when it came to methodology was of a piece with his kind of independence more broadly he wasn't going to be boxed in <hes> you know I think it was a wonderful character trait that you sort of saw manifest and a lot of different ways <hes> and indeed as you say justice Stevens was very focused on case by case common law adjudication and in his absolutely riveting <hes> new book because it was published in May the makings of a Justice Reflections on my I ninety four years. He does talk about how the law school at northwestern his teachers emphasized the facts of each case rather than grand theories. Dan Your are thoughts on justice. Stevens is constitutional laws Venal just ask you. I made a stab at identifying a theme based on a wonderful interview I had with him in two thousand seven and that was the theme of impartiality in rejecting both partisan gerrymandering and firing hiring people for patronage reasons as well as <hes> certain forms of other gerrymandering. He emphasized the importance of government neutrality. Is that an important theme or would you add others well. I do think that's an important Horton theme <hes> in his thinking <hes> and I think it fits in <hes> to <hes> sort of broader sense and belief in institutions of government <hes> <hes> as not just being <hes> <hes> partisan struggles or <hes> arbitrarily producing compromises or reflecting ideology but as <hes> <hes> actually capable of <hes> seeking the public interest <hes> and I think for that reason I think that fits with the purpose of ISM that Kate was talking about because for that to make accents you kind of have to believe that Congress institution isn't just making these arbitrary backroom deals as some people seem to believe but that it actually is capable of pulling itself together and now at least in some rough sense seeking to further the public interest you have to think the judges are capable of being impartial and of seeking just solutions in cases <hes> you have to believe that the president isn't just operating with his died two or Herreid to reelection <hes> but instead again is trying <hes> <hes> to advance the interests of the United States and a that idea of pursuing the public interest. I think it has within it the idea of impartiality because the responsibility is owed to the whole public not just to say your own supporters Kate you are the host of our sister podcasts strict scrutiny. Dan Delighted to give a shout out to your your wonderful show and you also did a remarkable interview with justice Stevens recently for Scotus blog where he was so vivid about lots of topics including the fact that when interviewing law clerks he thought that getting getting along with them was really important. I always prided myself. He told you on the ability to choose good one key elements whether I thought I'd like the person so give us a sense of what he was like as a person you could talk about your own clerkship interview or just interactions with him in chambers chambers but <hes> he <hes> what was he like you know he he was just a remarkably <hes> kind and down to earth and unfailingly polite sort of gentle soul I mean he had an unbelievable razor sharp intellect recall for cases and doctrine <hes>. <hes> just blew us away. You know basically daily <hes> but yet it's really kind of you know gentle and unassuming demeanor and he was just you know <hes> a lovely and gracious boss so he you know he had been on the court for over thirty years by the time for him and yet he approached all of us. <hes> I think in sort of the genuine spirit of this was a collaborative undertaking we had opinions that were valuable and that he wanted to hear <hes> and when you know you have someone who's been in the corporate thirty years. He's saying you know we're we're grappling with this. You Know Eighth Amendment case or a second amendment case I mean these are sort of big important principles and <hes> <hes> it was terrifying. I think initially to be taken so seriously <hes> but then <hes> written a little bit about <hes> the experience but I think he had this kind of a transformational effect on everyone which is he just sort of. He had really I think high standards but he just <hes> I think he he kind of came in extending this kind of belief that you were sort of good enough to be there and then you kind of felt like you had no choice but to be good enough to be there and so you just kind of <hes> up your game because you kind of had to and you wanted to work to kind of earn this faith that he had somehow decided interposing you <hes> so he would you know he was he shared a lot with his law clerks so after the conference <hes> in which the justices decided you know Scott the cases and cast their votes <hes> they all return to chambers and not every justice was that forthcoming with law clerks so justice Stevens would come back and give us <hes> <hes> a lot of detail regarding not just the votes cast but <hes> a lot of what had been said in in conference which was really instructive as we sort of set to working on opinions <hes> but walk which and other Chambers Within Collins. I heard nothing like what what did these item what was said <hes> and you know we were free to share that that <hes> but I think you know he really did you just kind of collaborative undertaking <hes> you know he did famously and actually draft <hes> opinion you know he he wrote the first draft of every opinion himself <hes> sometimes those were just a few paragraphs sometimes they were really detailed for Strauss with sections and subsections citations so it really depended on the case but I think I mean so we have to go back to the theme of his attention to detail in fact I think he found it really essential to kind of work through not just kind of the legal of architecture of an opinion in but at least some of the facts to make sure that he really understood them so that he could be confident in output so he really didn't outsource that that first draft away most justices do <hes> and he and he was the only justice at the time who did not participate in the Cert Pool so oh he <hes> you know his law clerks reviewed we divided up and reviewed every <hes> Sur petition and at the time there were eight or nine thousand coming in a year you skim them and you write up memos only on the ones you think he might be interested in <hes> but it was a lot of additional work for his law clerks in for him <hes> but I think he thought it was really important. Just as a matter of kind of the institution it integrity that more than one set of eyes was set on every cert petition and we respected that <hes> a great deal <hes> I remember once lead in the term we were you know jammed with finishing opinions on the search for kind of piling up because you're doing the work as you're doing opinion work and <hes> he sort of wandering the chambers and I've heard he he did this with other law clerks to and he saw the big pile and he said something like you're going to take some of the sports I can. You know I'll just review it myself. No let us do that justice but he didn't think it was beneath him. He didn't think anything was beneath them and I think that that really was the kind of justice and and kind of boss he was wonderful. Stories very striking that for much of his tenure he was the only justice who wrote his own first drafts and for a time the only justice not the cert pool now there are more and those human stories are so vivid. <hes> Christopher is gruber now president of Princeton a former Stevens clerk told the story recently of <hes> Stephen's being in a room and a woman a law. Oh Clark was asked to get coffee and he realized what was going on and he said I think it's my turn to do that. Just an example of his thoughtfulness Dan you were clerking for justice Stevens during his first full term on the court that was a time when the Burger court was <hes> if not divided ideologically at least chafing under the leadership of Chief Justice Burger a discontent that was later aired in the book the brethren in nineteen seventy nine t tell us about what it was like to be with the justice as he joined the Supreme Court and how he got his sea legs on the job <hes> yeah <hes> so I think in many ways the clerkship experience was very similar to what Kate <hes> described <hes> <hes> I think <hes> to the extent that there were differences <hes> I think one of them was just the fact that at at that point in his judicial career <hes> he had not actually we've had any occasion to think about <hes> the constitutionality of the death penalty or of abortion or <hes> many of the other <hes> gerrymandering many of the other issues <hes> that <hes> <hes> <hes> were already coming before the court and so <hes> he was really kind of feeling his way to a certain extent <hes> and a very open to thinking about different approaches of it wasn't at all clear to us for example how he would <hes> come down on the abortion issue <hes> and <hes> I think that that <hes> many kind of an interesting time to see him kind of orienting himself he was expected to be fairly conservative member of the court <hes> and <hes> in the seventh circuit particularly in criminal procedure cases <hes> he had tended to be on the government side <hes> and <hes> so so he was very open he also spent I think <hes> I'm not sure say cates time but <hes> when we were clerking <hes> he was basically in chambers all day every day of the week <hes> or at least <unk> <hes> of the Monday through Friday <hes> and he was constantly popping into the clerk's office <hes> with you know having just had an idea and wanting to bounce it off somebody <hes> and I think that kind of <hes> interchange also bidder especially a <hes> an exciting year to be working with them. Well <hes> remarkable experience to see the makings of the Justice Kate. Dan Referred to the fact that justice Stevens was expected conservative when I interviewed him in two thousand seven he still called himself judicial conservative and said it wasn't he who changed but the clerk changed around him as in his view every desk disappointed after him with the exception of Justice Ginsburg was more conservative than the justice here she replaced <hes> one of the big areas where he seemed to change his mind was the death penalty. The Bays case was decided the term you were clerking and I think that represented <hes> th the moment that he changed his mind and in his book he says that his change of mind was also influenced by his youthful experience of seeing his father unjustly prosecuted and seeing the criminal justice system go wrong so tell us about bays and justice Stevens is evolving views about the death penalty sure yeah and <hes> in terms of his father was <hes> indicted and convicted for embezzlement when he was just a child after his family hotel into financial distress <hes> after the stock market crash <hes> and you know his father's conviction was later unanimously reverse and I think it did <hes> instill on him some degree of skepticism about the output of the criminal justice process <hes> you know he said it's a it's a good process people try their best but <hes> but it's not infallible and when you're talking about the ultimate punishment <hes> it would have to be I think at least that's where he kind of ended up and it was a progression no he got on the court <hes> even in nineteen seventy five the court had in nineteen seventy-two <hes> essentially put in place a moratorium on the death penalty <hes> and then reinstated after states you know purported to address the deficiencies have been identified in firm and in Nineteen. Seventy two so in seventy six the justice voted <hes> you know to allow some of these new state capital punishment laws to go into effect <hes> and then over the course of the ensuing decades. I think you know really did I. I think as you say jeff he he always said he didn't change much. <hes> <hes> I think the EH more the court in the country that changed. I think that the court certainly change but in some areas I think without question he did change <hes> so you know he. I think that he was part of this effort to try to limit the application of the death penalty. <hes> you know in a few different ways one the categories of individuals who were even eligible for capital punishment right he either you know he wrote the opinion in Atkin versus Virginia finding that <hes> individuals with intellectual disabilities were categorically ineligible under the Eighth Amendment for the Death Penalty <hes> and he voted or assigned opinions basically reaching the same conclusion for juvenile offenders and <hes> non homicide offenses <hes> but at the same time saw you know so there are certain ways in which the court sort of oversaw narrowing of the application of the death penalty <hes> but in other areas things like victim <hes> impact evidence and testimony testimony and <hes> the disqualification of jurors who <hes> oppose the death penalty sort of lots of other areas he found the court not willing to kind of mandate the kinds of limitations on the death penalty that would be required to produce a system in which there could be sufficient confidence <hes> and I'm not really sure at what point kind of the switch flip for him but it was in the opinion the case that <hes> led his announcement that he had concluded that the death penalty was unconstitutional was on base versus my term which was <hes> a case about a challenge to a lethal injection protocol. I'm not about categories. Categories offenders are really processes but the actual <hes> kind of mechanics of execution <hes> and <hes> and he wrote a long opinion that sort of <hes> kind of detailed his experience <hes> with sort of you know observing the courts interaction within stewardship of the death penalty <hes> over at that point just over three decades on on the court and concluded that <hes> essentially the experiment had failed and that the court <hes> hadn't been able to <hes> chronic create us or the the state end in the court. <hes> you know sort of the system in general just <hes> wasn't working. I'm well enough to sort of to the that that there was it did not <hes> sort of actually achieve the objectives or achieve sufficiently well that the death penalty purportedly advanced <hes> to kind of warrant continuing with the experiment <hes> but you know it but it wasn't a big dramatic announcement you know it was <hes> it was kind of sort of understated and very kind of classic justice Stevens you know when when <hes> Harry Blackmun announced he essentially reached the same conclusion he had this <hes> you know I think they're very beautiful. Opinion that this language no longer from this day Ford no longer like tinker with the machinery of death. There really wasn't anything quite like that in the justice Stevens opinion in Baze <hes> it was much more understated. <hes> <hes> and you know did something else so it concluded it announced he concluded the death. Penalty was unconstitutional but it also concurred in the in the the chief justice opinion rejecting the challenge of lethal injection protocol in that case <hes> because on current law as it stood right the death penalty was constitutional under the eighth amendment. You know he'd only he hadn't persuaded enough colleagues. I actually vote I ever totally understood but it meant that he continued to participate <hes> in the courts kind of administration of the death penalty both in Bays and in in future cases as opposed to kind of deciding to descend in a standing way from every death penalty case <hes> <hes> that has as I think both Justice Marshall and Justice Brennan had done <hes> and so it just allowed him to participate in the work of the court in this area in a way that I think maybe he felt he couldn't have done in the same fashion <hes> had he begun sort of to it just kind of dissent in a standing way all of these cases so I think that that that too is you know it was done. He did it quite differently from others <hes> but <hes> but in he he he continued demonstrate this respect for precedent I think in <hes> in the way he approached these cases subsequent today's down it was in July nineteen seventy-six that the court decided Greg versus Georgia concluding by seven to two votes that the death penalty did not violate the eighth and fourteenth amendments under all circumstances <hes> reversing the holding of the firm and case for years earlier is it right greg was decided just before you started clerking where they're death penalty cases your term and then tell tell us more about both his evolving views about the death penalty and about criminal procedure generally <hes> in his book he talks about Jerk and Texas where he says he might have changed his vote if he knew about the facts and viewed them differently. We're we're we're his criminal procedure and criminal law cases very specific Pacific or or did he actually become more liberal in other criminal procedure cases so in terms of the death penalty. <hes> Greg was <hes> in the spring before I started my clerkship during the summer summer so I wasn't there for that I think <hes> even <hes> the following year he had had started have thoughts about Djuric <hes> partly due to a law review Article <hes> criticizing the opinion in that case for for <hes> misunderstanding what <hes> Texas was really doing. <hes> we were very fortunate as law clerks I think in that <hes> the death penalty <hes> had not really had an opportunity due to <hes> <hes> start coming into effect again <hes> because almost all the states that wanted to have the death penalty had to Redo their laws in order to correspond to <hes> the court's rulings <hes> so we were not in the situation situation of having <hes> you know being repeatedly faced with these midnight <hes> <hes> stay order <hes> requests and so forth <hes> so <hes> the one death penalty case that we had was the Gilmore case which is a pretty unusual case. This was a death penalty case in which the defendant decided not to appeal the death penalty <hes> I guess in from a sense of remorse and <hes> he <hes> so he said he was willing to accept the death penalty but his mother filed a petition for review of the death penalty and really <hes> the what the court ahead to decide was whether she had standing to do so <hes> when he had decided not to appeal there was also a question about whether he was <hes> mentally <hes> <hes> capable of making a bad decision but there was evidence in the record from psychiatrists that he actually was not an incompetent <hes> and the court decided that she did not have standing <hes> so it really didn't get ultimately to the merits threats of the case <hes> instead of went off on the standing ground in criminal procedure cases <hes> I think they don't really stand out in my mind from that term. The one that I remember remember <hes> was one <hes> then involved. I as I recall a the question of whether the prosecutor had <hes> <hes> concealed evidence from a Defense Pence Council <hes> which is <hes> violation of the constitution and <hes> he had originally voted to reject that claim and then discovered when he was trying to write that first draft <hes> that he just could not right the draft in a way that satisfied him so he switched his vote <hes> and <hes> I think Burger <hes> was who had assigned the opinion to him was very unhappy about that and <hes> he got a series. He's of a really fairly dismal opinion writing assignments after that for a while <hes> but I didn't really see any signs in any large way that he was rethinking those issues I think that <hes> my sense is that he had not in the sense of a grand jurisprudential <hes> reversal but it more in the sense of feeling more concerned about privacy issues and more we're concerned about <hes> police abuse of authority that maybe he had been when he first joined the court kate another important case decided your term was the Heller case involving the Second Amendment and in in his book the makings of a Justice Justice Stevens reproduced a remarkable memo that he sent to <hes> Justice Scalia and his colleagues in the majority trying to persuade them to change their mind and to vote against recognizing an individual right to bear arms felt so strongly about that issue that in his book six amendments he proposed amending the Eighth Amendment to ban the death penalty. Tell us more about Heller and justice Stevens views about why it was so important important yet I I think he you know he felt incredibly strongly about the case then and and <hes> really all of his years after his retirement <hes> it's not the case that he I think if somebody's never quite got over and he's talked about it quite extensively publicly so <hes> so I do think it's fine to talk pretty freely about <hes> at this point so <hes> so you know of course Heller is a case in which the court five four concludes at the Second Amendment protects an individual right to gun ownership and to justice Stevens this was a radical and unjustified <hes> reversal of what had been the settled understanding of the second in amendment <hes> for over two centuries <hes> so coming out of conference of the case was argued in March and about coming out of conference was five four <hes> but the justice really believed that the case that that the position that this was you know a a right that was tied to militia a use as opposed to just <hes> <hes> purely protected individual self-defense <hes> gun ownership was so powerful that <hes> you know potentially Justice Kennedy potentially even Justice Thomas <hes> he writes he mentioned both of them in the book. I mean that was you know he believed that that they could be persuaded. I'm in so he took the unusual step in <hes> attempting to pick up a fifth vote of <hes> circulating his draft descent which he hoped would become a majority opinion prior to justice Scalia circulation of what what coming out of conference was the majority opinion so was already fairly late in the term <hes> and so we set to work drafting <hes> a complete descent that needed to beat the circulation of the majority opinion <hes> and so this meant it was a real sprint <hes> because just even one of this comprehensive kind of canvassing of the historical materials and once you know just sort of Pissy for himself sort of what what what he thought the record showed how it was best red and then you know when he became quite convinced that <hes> that his position was correct for one of the historical material in the draft opinion so we were sort sprinting doesn't matter weeks to try to get something done <hes> and by the end of April the date is in is in his book. <hes> we had a draft descend again. He hoped to become a majority opinion ready and yet he appended this pretty extraordinary memo to the cover <hes> the basically he said you know I'm not sure the rest of you appreciate. Just how grave error the court is on the precipice of making <hes> but it's not too late so please take a look at the enclosed <hes> and so we sent it around and then it was just kind of waiting <hes> and it was over a month between circulation based on the draft is sent in the circulation of Justice majority opinion but <hes> you know there were some intervening kind of conversations but very quickly Justice Scalia picked up the five votes he needed and then <hes> it. Was You know question of <hes> you know I remember when the draft majority opinion came around Atlanta in our inboxes like very late one night and it really attacked that descent that we had circulated over a month before <hes> in all kinds of ways and I remember feeling physically ill when i read it so I thought Oh God <hes> and justice even spread incredibly quickly so about two minutes later. I had an email in my inbox. That said you know he didn't make love us. <hes> and I remember sort of going okay. I don't actually know that expression and so I googled it so he didn't land a punch at the boxing expression right so that's good you. Didn't you know he didn't actually do anything to sort of call into question sort of the core premises of the draft descent so oh he he thought actually it was fine but it it meant that there were a lot of revisions at you know so scalia the final opinions and Heller there's a lot of kind of doing battle in the footnotes between the Stevens and the scully opinions <hes> but there was much much more sort of an earlier iteration so it's just in the weeks sprinting to the end of the term it was a lot of revisions back and forth <hes> with its two opinions kind of doing battle both above the line but especially in the footnotes <hes> but you know but there was that he's not able to pick up a vote and I think that that's something that <hes> that really stayed with him. He remained really focused on the Second Amendment <hes> and the kind of gray area the credit maiden Heller Dan the justice was criticized by some for calling for a repeal of the second amendment and for overeating Heller in the sense that Heller I seem to allow some reasonable regulations and may lower courts have upheld them under under Heller. What why do you think he felt so strongly about gun control and are there other issues <hes> from your clerkship that he felt especially strongly about that you want to put on the table? I don't know the answer to <hes> why he felt so strongly about gun. Control and Kate may have more to say about that <hes> I do think I think that <hes> <hes> Heller was apart from the specific subject kind of an affront to his belief in reason decision making by the Supreme Court and respect for precedent <hes> and and <hes> and from that point of view I think <hes> sort of like Bush versus Gore it was a really disturbing opinion. <hes> from his point of view <hes> the one thing that I remember him being really kind of emotionally emotionally involved in when I was on the court was the flag burning issue <hes> which is one where <hes> I think <hes> he <hes> a dissented <hes> more than once from <hes> Supreme Court opinions holding that flag burning was constitutionally protected speech and <hes> Federal Statutes Attempt to overstate standards attempting to ban it were unconstitutional and he felt very passionately personally about that <hes> at least at the time I felt that this was perhaps related to the World War Two experience <hes> and <hes> you know was something that maybe people vet generation including him. <hes> had a very different feeling about than say people of my generation <hes> but <hes> he never really at least at that time <hes> explained to explain the reasons for feeling quite so passionately about it <hes> it was not of course the only time that he disagreed with the majority about a free speech issue but it's the only time I'd that at least I can recall in which <hes> he seemed really kind of emotionally <hes> involved in the position he was taking fascinating. He he talks in his book the makings of a Justice about his views on flag burning he does note that his predecessor Lewis Powell on the one hand was an extremely patriotic veteran of World War Two but on the other hand supported a liberal reading of the First Amendment's wondered whether Powell would have agreed with him about flag burning. I should say that I had an unsuccessful clerkship interview with justice Stevens had written a note. On the unfortunate topic was the flag burning amendment unconstitutional and the justice found it preposterous both at Congress wouldn't have the power to ban flag burning and also that an amendment to the constitution purporting to ban flag burning might violate the natural rights of I've of free speech <hes> Kate <hes> what you read his remarkable book <hes> the makings of a justice there's so much in it and it's just I think the most riveting and candid book by a sitting or retired justice about the inside story of the cases decided during his term what cases and stories leaped out to you as unusually revealing. There's so many we could talk about from Bushby Gorda citizens united but I'll just let you pick yeah I mean I think Bush Gore definitely springs to mind. You know it's a case that listeners will obviously <hes> many will be familiar with right. The court intervenes essentially stop a recount in the State of Florida following the two thousand presidential election <hes> and fines for the Bush campaign basically on equal protection grounds <hes>. I thought there was a lot that was new in the account of Bush versus Gore. <hes> you know the equal protection argument <hes> just having crept in at the eleventh hour he basically says there was equal protection rationale <hes> in the final opinion because there are are there's at least one <hes> intervening <hes> opinion before the court sort of <hes> issues its final opinion in the case but the equal protection argument kind of creeps in at the very end and he says he doesn't think it was even discussed at conference right it just all of a sudden the majority and you know and that's part of <hes>. I think what he finds so frustrating about the case and I think he thinks <hes> you know because he he's got a line that I I think maybe you mentioned <hes> I'm Jeff Peace about it and that he says you know the Corp.. Basically had all this institutional capital that had accrued <hes> <hes> <hes> you know generally but he says specifically the United States versus Nixon when the court unanimously directs President Nixon to comply <hes> with a subpoena for the Oval Office tapes and you know that unanimous <hes> e e zero opinion right includes some Nixon appointees and a bunch of Republican appointees and it just really looked like the court transcended politics <hes> check an abuse of power <hes> and it was I think he thinks shining moment for the court and that in Bush versus Gore the court really squandered that institutional capital it hasn't really recovered from <hes> that kind of self inflicted blow <hes> and I asked him a little bit about in our interview so Taco but more about what it is about those two cases <hes> any says he's the subject matter. It's the you know the court appearing to transcend politics but it's also the quality of the reasoning right. Bush versus Gore says it's even worse than I remembered when I read it for this book <hes> and in part. That's you know it was a it was incredibly rushed process right so no really sort of find judicial. <hes> craft is going to emerge from something that is briefed and argued repeatedly over over the course of a few weeks in December <hes> but <hes> but he just says opinion just doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny <hes> and that's another one I think he <hes> you know I think he was mostly really able even when he was on the losing end of a five four case that he thought was super important <hes> to kind of put it behind him and just get it the next day and <hes> I extended his colleagues the same sort of goodwill that he always did <hes> and and sort of not even in years when he lost a lot of closed cases that he cared about <hes> not really get served ejected by it or bitter or or anything like that but <hes> and now that he was dejected bitter about these two but I do think that both Heller and Bush versus Gore or cases <hes> that he continued to be deeply deeply troubled by <hes> in for many many years thank you for <hes> noting that justice Stevens did would tell you in the interview that you had the majority opinion in Bush v even worse than I thought it was at the time I read it over more carefully working on the book. I've found that the pain is earned internally inconsistent as well as just not making any sense and then in the book he gives this this remarkable account of how the court made a factual error he says because things move so fast he was unable at the time to point out a serious factual error in its misunderstanding of the different versions of earlier rules that forbade the counting of dimpled dimpled chads. It's an example of a combination of his extraordinary attention to detail and his frustration with the fact that Bush Gore was a result in search of reasoning which only emerged after the decision was this made Dan Citizens United we should talk about he felt that it was unconvincing. Legally as a matter of original understanding unconvincing in terms of precedent given even the extensive congressional statutes regulating corporate speech dating back to the progressive era as well as being unconvincing as a matter of reasoning since he believed that not only the appearance of avoiding corruption but also the desire to equalize candidates. It's election opportunities was sufficient to justify regulation <hes> tell us more about his descendants citizens united and why you care so much about that issue well. I think it's important to remember that he had written the previous a decision McConnell that had a really <hes> taken a completely opposite approach to regulation of campaign speech than citizens united a not only in the specifics of <hes> the the <hes> issue of corporate speech really in the whole approach and he had <hes> gotten justice O'Conner to really join him and provide a majority on all that <hes> so he had all so I think think <hes> also his sense of respect for <hes> president was involved. <hes> in addition citizens united was a case in which <hes> the majority had to really work very very hard in order order to get itself <hes> in a position to be able to make a sweeping ruling because the parties had not asked for that <hes> if there were narrower grounds available and <hes> so it was also a case of <hes> of the court simply kind of flexing its muscles <hes> and deciding to change the law even though it really had nothing to do with the case <hes> or the arguments made by the council in the case before for it <hes> I think that <hes> perhaps <hes> his views on on <hes> <hes> these campaign finance issues can also be tied back to the <hes> value that you talked about earlier that he placed on impartiality reality because <hes> I think one of the fundamental <hes> concerns in dealing with corporate speech or speech by large owners and so forth is simply that government officials will not be impartial missile they will be beholden to campaign contributors to corporations that have ponied up a lot of money to support them <hes> even if not through a direct contribution <hes> or to you know powerful enrich individuals who supported them and <hes> in fact the majority seemed to be quite fine with that <hes> and seem to view it as just you know normal in the operation of government and I think <hes> you know even apart from <hes> some of the specific arguments it's about what's compelling interest. What isn't a compelling interest? I think that really violated his sense of you. Know the ideal that Democratic governments are supposed to be striving for Kate another important theme in jurisprudence is the need for the judiciary to oversee the executive and in cases from <hes> Clinton and Jones where he loud the civil suit to proceed to the wound yen case decided during your term involving the war on terror. He insisted on judicial oversight. Site of executive overreach tell about Bouma Jan and his general view about the need for courts to oversee detective sure and you not to step back a little bit earlier so in two thousand six he writes opinion in Hamden versus Rumsfeld <hes> and you know so from Hamdan Boumediene <hes> these cases right do involve the court <hes> checking the executive checking presidential power even <hes> here you know these cases arose in the context of the war on terror <hes> and <hes> and in Hamdan do the justice three to five three opinion <hes> that strikes down President Bush's military commission systems <hes> system and and I think some people were surprised in that you know that this decorated sort of four hero had one he'd been a naval cartographer he'd won them <hes> Bronze Star <hes> I he had this military background <hes> and typically the commander in chief gets a good deal of difference <hes> you know in matters of sort of military judgment <hes> but <hes> there are limits right and that's I think the principle that stands for <hes> that that <hes> lots of difference <hes> in military matters doesn't mean unlimited difference <hes> and so in the wake of hunt on the court passes the Military Commission Act <hes> <hes> and then a few terms later in two thousand eight then the Numidian case the justice doesn't right but does assign to justice Kennedy <hes> the opinion kind of reaching the constitutional question of whether the writ of Habeas Corpus is available to detainees at Guantanamo Bay and finding that in fact <hes> it is <hes> so I think that those two cases really do stand for kind of a muscular vision of the court's role <hes> you know even in you know in sort of insuring that <hes> basic procedures unfairness <hes> are present in that constitutional guarantees don't evaporate right even in times times of <hes> kind of urgent need or even in the context of urgent assertions of the need to defer to the executive now. I think that you know there's plenty of evidence that the lower courts didn't in particularly D._C.. Circuit didn't give full expression fashioned kind of some of the the the principals in those cases but in terms of justice Stevens Rolling the Supreme Court's role. I think those are really important. <hes> assertions of limitations on Executive Power Dan final question to you. Justice Stevens filed more dissenting and concurring opinions during his time on the court than I think any other justice part of that he told me in our two thousand seven interview was due to his experience investigating corruption in Chicago in nineteen sixty nine where he discovered that <hes> of course investigating getting whether a judge thrown a case in exchange for a bribe one of the justices judges on the panel had originally written a dissenting opinion which he'd suppressed and justice Stevens came to believe that had the opinion been released then that transparency would have served the cause of justice and avoided the scandal. If you had to pick I don't know one or two or three of justice Stevens greatest and most enduring dissents. What would they be many of his dissents? I think were a particularly eloquent and I think <hes> made an effort are to appeal to <hes> public values. <hes> I guess I would also mention his descendant Bush versus Gore which I think was very powerful not only in <hes> critiquing the we <hes> <hes> flaws in the majority's reasoning but in also explaining why it was that <hes> court's decision was deeply inconsistent with the fundamental values uh of <hes> impartiality and and <hes> <hes> use of reason to make decisions even under the most trying circumstances kate if you had to name <hes> one or two or all three of justice Stevens is greatest sense. What would they be? <hes> okay so you know. He was a great dissenter. He descended more than anyone else. In the history of the Supreme Court more separate opinions. I'm not sure about just a sense but defense occurrences <hes> so there are a lot to choose from but <HES> but they're a couple that I think spring to mind <hes> one is a descendant bowers versus hardwick the nineteen eighty-six case in which is a premium court upheld a criminal sodomy statute <hes> and justice Stevens <hes> wrote a powerful powerful descend <hes> that essentially then became the law in learn versus Texas Texas in two thousand and three when Justice Kennedy wrote a majority opinion striking down state sodomy statute and basically saying justice Stevens was correct you know his view should have carried the day in Nineteen eighty-six in it does carry the day today <hes> No. He didn't write Lawrence <hes> right he you know did he assigned it Kennedy <hes> but you know I think that his dissent in bowers really did pardon me become law <hes> in that case. I think that is one <hes> think a lesser known to send to visit. I've always thought was really powerful was is in <hes> Harris versus mccray which is in one thousand nine hundred eighty decision that upholds the constitutionality of the Hyde amendment <hes> so roe versus Wade nineteen seventy-three on finds a right to terminate a pregnancy but congress quickly passed the statute saying okay but if you're an <hes> an independent an indigent woman receiving Medicaid funds no federal money can be spent paying for an abortion <hes> and that the constitutionality of that law was challenged in nineteen eighty. The court upheld the Hyde Amendment and there. Are you know it's a five four <hes> <hes> decision in their four separate sense but justice Stevens Evans I think is an especially powerful to send <hes> and that he just mentioned one third on a lighter note that is from a two thousand seven case <hes> called Morris Versus Frederick but is sometimes referred to as the Bong hits for Jesus case <hes> involves some students who had <hes> assigned at a school school parade that says Bong hit the inscrutable science at Bong hits for Jesus and then they were suspended for <hes> you know advocating drug use I guess <hes> and the court <hes> sided with this principle and permitted the suspension consistent with the First Amendment and Justice Stevens dissented <hes> you know sort of on first amendment grounds but then had this like sort of funny aside about the importance of kind of speech about you know pressing public matters and marijuana policy is one of them and then he talks about <hes> you know having been a child during prohibition and there being certain similarities between the the the nation's current <hes> you know treatment of marijuana <hes> you know that sort of nominal illegality but widespread use and all this kind of uncaptured tax revenue that could be captured if in fact it was just legalized <hes> any sort of draws an analogy to prohibition which of course he remembers because he was a child during prohibition and so it's just there are a handful opinion which sort of makes points at only justice Stevens by virtue of having lived through so much of American history could possibly make <hes> and that that was definitely one of them thank you so much. Keep Sean Daniel Farber for moving rich and meaningful mingfu appreciation of one of the Supreme Court's longest serving and greatest justices Kate Daniel. Thank you so much for joining. Thank you so much Jeff Thank you for inviting us today. Show was engineered by David Stotts and Jackie McDermott and produced by Jackie McDermott research was provided by the National Constitution Centers Constitutional content team the homework of the week listen to Kate Shaw's great podcast strict scrutiny and read Daniel Barber's wonderful books <hes> Lincoln's constitution. I think the best book I've read about Lincoln's constitutional vision and also judgment calls which he co wrote with Suzanna Sherry about Supreme Court decision making please rate reviewing subscribed the people on Apple podcasts and recommend the show friends colleagues or anyone everywhere who's hungry for weekly constitutional debate and remember always dear we the people listeners that the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit we rely on the generosity eurocity passionate engagement with people like you across the country and across the world who were inspired by our nonpartisan mission of Constitutional Education and debate you can support our mission by becoming a member at Constitution Center dot org forward slash membership or give a donation nation of any amount to support our work including this podcast at Constitution Center Dot Org forward slash donate on behalf of the National Constitution Center. I'm Jeffrey Rosen.

John Paul Stevens Justice Kate Supreme Court Heller Dan Justice Kennedy Supreme Court Bush Gore Justice Scalia Jeff Peace Chief Justice Burger Congress Justice Ginsburg President Bush National Constitution Center Jeffrey Rosen president Daniel Farber Kate Daniel
The Clerks Eye View of Justice John Paul Stevens

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

1:11:20 hr | 1 year ago

The Clerks Eye View of Justice John Paul Stevens

"From Connecticut to California missing to Minnesota millions of American businesses are using Google tools to grow online the grow with Google Initiative supports small all businesses by providing free digital skills workshops and one on one coaching in all fifty states helping businesses get online connect with new customers and work more reproductively learn more at Google dot com slash grow. That's google dot com slash grow. It's really a statement about our times. I think that we tend to associate being kind of eccentric loner with not being predictable in a partisan or ideological sense may ask you may be an awfully elementary stupid question one of the ways you saw his humility the most. I was how he interacted with us. He just really conveyed to us that he felt like he could learn from us. As much as we could learn from Hi and welcome to amicus fleets podcast about the courts the Supreme Court and the law. I'm diabetic. Oh you liquid and I cover those things slate and this week we wanted to bring you are promised episode memorializing Justice John Paul Stevens who served for thirty five five years on the Supreme Court and died on July sixteenth at the age of ninety nine after suffering a stroke now before we get to justice Stevens let's note that we are two weeks and change away from the start of the twenty nineteen term which we will preview in depth next show with Dean Winchester Charinsky and although the court is not yet formally in session this week the justices handed down a surprise seven to two decision to allow president in trump's asylum ban go forward. That's the ban that prohibits any migrants who have resided in or traveled through third countries from seeking asylum in the United States so the ban will be allowed to stay in effect while this case is decided in the lower courts the decision which was not explained by the justices lifted a lower court. Stay of the policy and Justice Sunny Sotomayor writing for herself and Ruth Batur Ginsburg issued a very stinging dissent writing quote granting a stay pending appeal should be an extraordinary act. Unfortunately it appears. The government has treated this exceptional mechanism as a new normal historically. The government has made this kind of request rarely now it does so reflexively. Oh and then then she quoted friend of slate. Steve Vladeck on today's show as promised we wanted to spend some time talking deeply and reflective of lead to people who clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens Stevens who retired in twenty ten at the age of ninety was the second oldest third longest serving justice ever to sit on the court he also somehow migrated from being a pretty reliable centrist Republican jurist list at the start of his career to the quiet leader of its liberal wing by the time he retired something that I want to try to understand later on in the show but above all things Stevens was a man who prized what I can only characterize as these old school values of understatement humility liberty respectful disagreement civility patriotism that in some ways are unique to the greatest generation when he died. I said on this show that he he always somehow managed to surround himself with law clerks who embodied some of those qualities themselves and I'm delighted to welcome two of them to the show today I should note the today's show coincides with National Constitution Day which this year will be marked on Tuesday September seventeenth with us today is Sonya West S. Cheese Otis Brumby distinguished professor of First Amendment Law at the University of Georgia School of law where she focuses on issues involving the First Amendment and the US Supreme Court art her research appears in legal journals such as Harvard Law Review the Ucla Law Review the California view and she clerked for justice Stevens in the nineteen eighteen ninety nine to two thousand term. She also served as one of the honorary pallbearers at his funeral in July. Jamal Green is the Dwight professor of of law at Columbia Law School. His scholarship focuses on the structure of legal and constitutional argument green is the author of more than thirty law review articles. He's a frequent went media commentator on the Supreme Court and Constitutional Law. Jamal served as law clerk to justice John Paul Stevens in the two thousand six two thousand seven term so Sonya and Jamal welcome to the podcast. Thank you for making a little bit of time to reminisce a few months later. about justice jump Stevens. Thank you very good had to be here. Thank you so much for having me do either of you on a dispute the fact that the Stevens clerks were uniformly incredibly nice people. I I take the fifth definitely mostly Nice people. They're most people without naming names. maybe we can just start start with the biography. I think people probably know the general outlines but but maybe we'll pan back in review because he really was from an era that I think most of us just read about in books. just Stevens was born in Nineteen Twenty in Chicago to a prosperous family that survived financial ruin in the nineteen thirties as he watched his father Ernest Stevens arrested on charges that he and two other family members had embezzled funds to cover losses at their hotel sign it in your tribute you wrote that quote in the lobby of his family's downtown Chicago hotel the young John Stevens Cross paths with the lakes of Amelia earhart and Charles Lindbergh. Can you talk a a little bit about how these brushes with both great wealth and privilege and then great loss in near ruin may have affected his worldview. I think there are ways that some of these key moments in justice. Stevens is childhood how they might affect them affected him are both predictable in some ways and also in other ways really just utterly surprising so you mentioned how his father was convicted of embezzling and it was more than a million dollars and that conviction went up on appeal and was overturned by an appellate court who said that there was not a sq until of evidence that his father had committed a crime and that rather ma he might have had some bad judgment judgment he was acting with good intention in trying to save the hotel so justice. Stevens you know as a small child saw firsthand how the criminal justice system on how it can make a mistake but also how it has the power to correct that mistake he also saw how the toll of something like this the toll it can take on on his entire family while those charges were pending his grandfather died of of what they say was a stress induced stroke and his uncle fell onto a severe depression and ended up committing suicide so I think when you look at that part of his life it's just completely not surprising that he would eventually become a justice yes he was very protective of the rights of criminal defendants and Berry empathetic to the power of the criminal justice system and the importance of appellate the judges but there was this other way where his sort of childhood you know does not seem predictive of the justice. He turned out to be calm because you know at least on paper he grew up in a lot of the ways with basically every privilege you know he had great wealth at least for some time it was white. Protestant sent straight able bodied man right he just had he checked all the boxes he had all and yet nonetheless somehow he grew who into the justice who just had this absolutely uncanny ability to empathize with people who just came from very different backgrounds than his he he he had this ability to see out of the eyes of people from whom the world looked very different than the world inhabited Moldova any sort of thoughts on this point that I think so I mean this is a guy who were a bow tie. You know he was in some sense every privileged white guy and yet he really did have this. CA- patience ability to I don't know if it was admitted that he didn't know what he didn't know or to imagine himself into the shoes of someone else but it it is kind of an improbable quality especially in someone from that time who could have swan through life just. It's knowing that he knew everything. I think it's a took completely agree with what Sonya says. It's I think pretty hard to predict addict just just based on biography that someone like justice. Stevens turns into the really nice really sweet really empathetic person that he very clearly clearly was I mean sometimes a person is just a nice person and you don't know where that comes from. I do think there is something to the fact that he was was someone who didn't trust the power of the state and maybe part of that comes from growing up in Chicago in a place where everyone is kind of corrupt and part of that what is feeling like his family didn't get a fair shake from the government. I think part of that is he was one of the lawyers investigating some corruption in the Illinois court system before he became a judge and so he was sort of front and center with with power and how power can corrupt people and power can can really put someone in their replace and so again. I don't think you could predict that he was the mench that he was a but but there are parts biography that make you understand and the perspective of realizing that the the little guy is someone who little guy or gal is someone who might have a story story to tell it's also I think just hard to imagine that this is a person who lives through the jazz age. He lives through prohibition. He's famously in the stands at Wrigley Field when Babe Ruth calls his shot in the nineteen thirty two world series it really feels like he is a of another time altogether and then he's the last sitting justice to have ever served served in the military. He signs up in the navy. He serves as a code breaker. In World War. Two later awarded a Bronze Star and I wonder Jamal just in terms of I know completely right that we can't map biography onto who he becomes entirely but how his military service how his time time in the military and the way he thought about citizenship may have inflicted on the doctrine or the person or the jurists that he became well I I do. I think he's someone who saw a lot of the world and right part of that is is just coming from privilege and you're privileged to be meeting Amelia earhart in in in a hotel lobby an and privilege to be a very successful lawyer and so forth but he was from a cosmopolitan area he served served in the military as you mentioned with distinction he was a lawyer right. He wasn't just someone who served in the government. Caserta surrounded by the same people all the time so he is someone who got a really kind of cosmopolitan education and I think that that showed through in the kind of person he was and his approach to the laws well I mean he wasn't someone who is prone to grand statements about the law he kind of took things case at a time and looked for the kind of simple justice in each case and sunny. I know that the knock on justice Stevens has always been you know that one of the famous cases that he quote got wrong. I First Amendment purposes. which is what you think about all the time? Is The flag burning case. This is Texas versus Johnson the nineteen eighty-nine case that overturned a Texas law making burning American flag crime and he famously descents in this case and I think that the pat answer is let's because of his military service he just saw the flag differently and he couldn't regardless of his First Amendment Chops. He just couldn't get there. on flag burning earning is more complicated than that or is it. Just this is a guy who served in the fragment too much damn justice. Stevens had a lot of confidence in judging as John Gene as a profession Russian judging you know as a duty and judging and art and so you see some of these cases and I think that descent in the fiber in cases a great example where a lot of the argument and up against you know having this one thing this one symbol that the government is going to protect and not allow people to destroy because it's unique in its meaning. was a slippery slope argument like oh well. If it's you know that then you know what about other things that have national importance Patriotic Jake importance and you know what what about what's going to happen here and he had complete confidence that judges could say no flags different it's we're going to have you know just this one thing and it's different for a reason and so. I do think it has that Patriot military experience informing his decision but it also comes with this idea media that he trusts judges to be able to say look at the flag and say it is unique. It has a unique importance to Americans. It plays a unique role. It has a unique history and we we aren't going to be burning down the entire thing if we just say this. One item is off limits so I think it definitely strives from this sense of duty this sense of patriotism but it still is in line with along the way he saw the law and in First Amendment Law in particular just just a follow up and not in very much in the same vein. There's a well known case that Sonia will know involving regulating a porn in a theater and justice. Stevens has this opinion where he says you know it's not that this doesn't get covered by the first amendment but you know it's not the same as kind of core political speech and he kind of famously says you know no on March if their son or daughter off to war to protect the right to to show specified sexual activities on a theater screen now is just his confidence in the fact that a judge can make judgments about how far the constitution reaches and I think it's really the same kind of impulse in in in Texas versus Johnson even if many people on his sort of ideological side by disagree with him. I just like to point out one thing about the case and Jamal was just talking about one of my favorite parts about the line he just did about how no one marches their son or daughter order off to war he wrote that in the mid seventies he talked Heathrow and daughter about marching marching off to war at a time when that certainly wasn't how we viewed women's roles. That's off the topic here but it's always been one of my favorite parts actually about that line. No it's incredibly important. I guess this dovetails into this overarching question question that I have for both of you about just Stevens. which is you know? I read all the tributes including yours and it's hard to reconcile the language of Maverick and Loner and a guy who trusts his own judgment and willing to go it alone with all the ways that he was in a profound sense and `institutionalised. You know a creature of his family. His schools the law firm he worked at later. comes onto the bench. I mean this is not a person who comes across as iconoclastic and I would venture to guess one of the reasons. His confirmation goes so easily he is that he is such a creature of the institutions that make the Senate and the courts very comfortable kit. Can you help me understand how somebody somebody who's always characterized as a loner and a maverick is also very very very much a creature of great deference to the institutions institutions that surrounded him and brought him up. It's really a statement about our times. I think that we tend to associate being a kind of eccentric loner with not being predictable in partisan or ideological sense right so I think a a lot of what he was very easily confirmed in nineteen seventy five in about three weeks five minutes of argument before a sixty one seat the democratic majority and the Senate even though he was a republican nominee in part because he wasn't really someone who could be relied on on as a as a partisan vote he he as I mentioned before it wasn't a government lawyer right. He was an antitrust lawyer. I'm growing up and on the seventh circuit which which is the Court of Appeals where he sat before he was on the Supreme Court he kinda devout the reputation as someone who just kind of exercise his judgment lent and as you say Dalia he's he he wasn't an iconoclast right so he wasn't some kind of of of long haired Hippie Hippie or something and so when people call him a maverick they really mean to be saying when they say that is that you couldn't just sort of say he's in this column armor that column and that's where he's GonNa go you couldn't rely on his vote on which doesn't mean you couldn't rely on him as being someone who can be trusted as an institutional list or was going to exercise his judgment meant the opposite of that which is he's just going to go with his gut and his in his brain and not not really balanced on a label that you can attach to the case or to the litigants finance thoughts on on the same question. I completely agree. I mean when I think about justice. Stevens I often think about the very deep sense I think he had of of duty of duty to his country and to the constitution and to other people and so I think what he learned from his past as you talked about sort of institutionalists past and his time at the military Terry was that you know he had this duty that he needed to fulfill and when he was a judge that duty was to you say what he believed and believe me. There's no doubt he he definitely preferred it. When other people saw things the same way he did and agreed with him but you know if if they didn't then he felt like it was his job in his duty to do the courageous thing and say it alone so I think he he was a maverick in that he felt it was his job to you. Know say how a case he's supposed to come out and to stand alone if that's what was required so I'm hearing two of you say something interesting you know Jamal you just said and and you wrote it in your times piece. This is a guy who's confirm ninety eight zero just heartbeat in part because nobody knows quite what he is and sign. You're you're kind of saying the same thing which is at the time nobody knows quite what he is because he's just doesn't fit into to any coherent predictable ideological box and I wonder if and you flick it this in your sometimes peace Jamal but that those days are over those days are not regardless of what we can call the Senate polarized or we can say it's dysfunctional but but the idea of a nominee that you don't know who they are that's gone totally gone. I think part of it with him. I'm was just the particular politics of his appointment. It was right before a presidential election and Gerald Ford was a pretty weak president and was trying to do not make too much of a splash with his supreme court appointment but part of it really is just the times in which we live I mean there were several other a unanimous and pretty easy nominations. After his Justice O'Conner only got one no vote and that was from a Republican and Justice Scalia was unanimously confirmed so he here's a throwback in in so many ways but I think you know when you put that together with his personality with the bow tie as you mentioned and with his manner manner on the page it may have seemed as though he lined up with a lot of so-called liberal outcomes but in conversation you know you really could not detect even in close contact with him much of a partisan bone in his body. I couldn't even tell you who you voted for like. I have some guesses sign it. The question Shen of manner is the one that I come back to most often when I think about justice Stevens and I think the the homework characteristic that always comes up is this idea of humility that in an era toward the end of his career of the Rockstar justice you know who's on Fox and CNN and his hawking a book and his always got kind of brand that they're putting out there justice Stevens to the extent he had any brand at all it was modesty. I think and perhaps APPs most famously and we've talked about this before but everybody remarked on his tendency to ask questions at oral argument with this famous. May I ask a question line line so let's listen for one little second to this is how after ten years of covering justice. Stevens on the court. This is what I most often heard. He would open with mutter him. May I ask you what may be awfully elementary stupid question. According to lose its crew could Michael to me to understand the the effect of the judgment and you said there's six reasons why it's not normal ordinary jasmine. I really would like to hear what those reasons czar without interruption from all of my colleagues I would be happy to provide those justice what me through and we'll start with you. Maybe Sonya Hi is this complicated humility only because this is simultaneously a person who wrote all his own first drafts you know because I think his clerks or jokingly referred to as the most underutilized clerks because he did so much of his own work so he he was both very very very modest but then he didn't again participate in the cert pool so again helped me square the circle here place. I think humility is a really good word to describe justice Stevens because he definitely was someone who just did not stand on ceremony in fact when we were in DC or his funeral you know a number roof clerks or we were remarking on just how much he would have hated all that fuss you know it just means center whatever people talking it was it was just not where he wanted to be and he was well known to have spent a lot of his time in Florida where he was just John to a lot of people sort of a friendly a neighbor who was in the bridge club and he would never bother to correct anybody or or you know let them know what his day job was. so it really was something that was very true to his personality not just on the bench but in all aspects of of his life but I think you know the practices as you mentioned do demonstrate his humility he he wrote his own first drafts because he believed that was the best way to make sure or he was reaching the correct outcome he cared in particular about the facts of the case he wanted to really grapple with the facts he wanted to understand the facts and you know make sure he fully understood the record in the case and he felt like the best way to do that was to dig himself and to you know right right out that part of the opinion and he he was even known from time to time that he would go into his office to work on his draft and he would emerge having declaring that he had changed his take in the case in possibly even his vote because you know having gone through that process opened his eyes to something new about the case but I think as you know former locklear one of the ways you saw his humility. The most was how when he interacted with us. He just really conveyed to us that he felt like he could learn from us. As much is you know we learn from him which was just ridiculous but I'm very much an evidence. I think again of his humility I think Kate Shaw had a really nice quote in one of the tribute pieces where she said that it was simultaneously Tena Asli terrifying and also unbelievably fortifying for a little kid law clerk essentially to be told like okay it's on can you and that he really did trust his clerks immensely Jim. I wonder if I just mentioned the Cert Pool in didn't explain what it was so maybe explain for a minute what the cert pool is and what it meant that justice. Stevens opted out sure the cert pool is a way for the justices to divide the the politicians or the applications for cases to be heard when I was clerking. It was about eight thousand per year. I think it's roughly the same today and so it's very hard for any individual justice to review all those petitions of course the clerks help out but a practice developed really over the last several decades accolades where all of the clerks who participated in this thing called the cert pool would get on a wheel and just kind of divide the eight thousand petitions among themselves themselves and they would each write a memo that would be circulated to all the other justices chambers talking about whether the the facts of the case whether the case should be granted or not and it was recommendation and each individual chambers could then make their own decisions based on what the pool memos said but they were not the first point of contact each justice. Stevens and not being part of the pool was saying you know I don't want some other justices clerks to be the ones sounds to summarize a cert petition for me. I want that to happen in chambers and in fact when it did happen in chambers he didn't really want his own clerks to summarize the the petitions either. He just wanted us to kind of flag ones that he should read on himself and that really does I think speak to the humility see that we were talking about before which is in any number of practices including writing his own opinions for the first draft including not being in the cert pool including not getting you know elaborate memos from his clerks summarizing the cases the court was going to hear he wanted to make sure that he was arriving at decisions through his own mental process and not being influenced by other people recognizing that that really can change your mind if someone else's takes the first whack at something it it influences you and he wanted to make sure that the decision making was by the person who was confirmed by the Senate and appointed by the president and not by clerks. You're both checking me on this humility thing that I'm saying and I love that. You're both saying no. It is actually the consummate act of humility to say I actually have to make up my my own mind the opposite of what I'm thinking of in terms of very controlling or you know that that I can't be a part of a larger cert pool. Pull your both saying actually this is very emblematic of somebody who really felt as though humility requires him to do the work I would say so so I am hesitating a little bit because he was not a person who lacked self-confidence all right he was when he reached a decision he was he was very often often quite sure he was right but that was because he had taken the time to go through the facts to think it through to get a first impression that wasn't generated by someone else right and so he was confident in his process but he wasn't. He didn't think that he was better than other people. Camila had asked you for a favorite moment from oral argument and you came up with this kind of obscure exchange from Barnard versus Thorsten Justin this is argued in January of nineteen eighty nine here's justice O'Conner chiding a lawyer for calling justices judge. We don't think I think that it would work judge for several reasons. I think were generally call justice. I'm sorry what now keep hosting because here's justice the Steven wants it might be alleviated if we had more lawyers who were actually there judge Justice Stephen but it cannot your mistake judges also so made in article three of the Constitution by the way I so so tell me way too well. What is this when that you pulled for us as something that was representative presentative of something uniquely Stevens Ish why I think it's a couple of things about that clip one is that he's right and the Constitution doesn't say justice does a judge when it talks about the supreme court but it's also that he was kind of simultaneously accomplishing a couple of things he was trying to set the advocate at what s who was clearly nervous and rattled by having been rebuked by Justice O'Connor and saying really don't worry about it but also it was it really was a kind of chiding of justice O'Conner as well but in the most gentle kind of joking way possible and recognizing that it's hard to do that directly he really had a lot of what you might call emotional intelligence. I think he can reader room pretty well and and there are other examples of this and there's one in his obituary by Linda Greenhouse Times where she mentioned his anecdote where there's some some function the justices are having one of the female clerks has been asked to to hand out drinks or something and he takes over for her and says and so I think it's my turn now and I think that's just another example of ways in which as you say he didn't like anyone kind of being talked down to and but he was also very socially aware in a way that not every you know not everyone. has that set of skills sign your thoughts on that yeah. I know that you also have lots of stories about justice. Stevens just being like freakishly sensitive to kind of dynamics in a way that I think so many of the justices sometimes don't necessarily hone in on the most vulnerable person in the room he he did have kind of an uncanny way of doing that right you know he did and I I love that clip that you played because it's it is it's like all of it together like you know so it's kind it's funny and it's super smart all all in one just quick exchange and it just so much about him but he did and it was another way hey where. I think he was a surprise to people use. All this sort of you know reserved midwesterner. Who you know it was the opposite of sort of touchy feely you know hippy or whatever of of the generation maybe that came after him and yet when it mattered when it mattered to having this ability ready to figure out you know the power imbalance or who needed hugh needed a lift or who needed you know the kind word at at the right time he he was really amazing in that way. We're GONNA pause now to hear from one of our sponsors on this week's show and that what is the great courses plus. You know listener what you know stipulated but sometimes you don't know what you do now. Now you with me well. The great courses plus is here to fill in your knowledge gaps. We all deserve to be able to further our knowledge and with at this online streaming service. You never ever have to stop learning. There are thousands of lectures on virtually any topic you can possibly think of and even in some of those you might not think of all presented by top professors in their field so you could dive into topics like the human brain or if you listen to this show the Supreme Court in the Constitution or pirate wars or playing guitars or taking better photos or Taichi. There's a whole world of history knowledge and ideas for you to explore and the great courses plus APP makes it easy for you to watch or listen anytime anyplace so oh expand your mind and sign up for the great courses plus right now and for a limited time only amicus listeners can get an entire month for free but to start your free month. You must sign up today using this exclusive web address. Don't wait sign up now. The great courses plus dot com slash amicus vats. That's the great courses plus dot com slash amicus. It's back to school time and if you know a teacher or perhaps you are a teacher yourself. You know this one painful truth. Teachers spend an average of five hundred dollars of their own money every school year to buy supplies for their students and that's why donors choose dot org is here it to help this coming. Tuesday is National Constitution Day and by law that means all publicly funded educational institutions must provide programming the history of the American constitution this year in honor of the holiday amicus has partnered with one of my very favorite charities donors choose to help put resources into classrooms across the country that WANNA teach school kids about the founding documents the framers the courts and the law. That's right sponsoring this. Week's show is donors. Choose an extraordinary project that puts incredible resources into public school classrooms with you. The donor determining which project you want to fund donors choose was founded in two thousand thousand by Charles best who at the time was a teacher in a bronx public high school trying to madly photocopy little house on the prairie for his students and he reflected on the fact that he and his fellow teachers were spending their own money on books and art supplies and classroom materials so he sketched out a website that could match teachers seeking supplies to the donors who may WanNa to help out in one thousand nine years later teachers at eighty. Three percent of the public schools in America has funded a project using donors choose. Almost four million citizens and corporate donors have made those dreams come true. I have to tell you that donors choose became a personal favorite charity of mine. after Stephen Colbert donated. Oh needed a computer to a classroom in need when I appeared on the Colbert report years ago and in honor of Constitution Day. Donors choose has actually created needed a very special amicus webpage to help you fund amazing projects across the country. Ms McKnight's classroom in Florida needs resources for civic education and Mrs Hatch in Virginia wants to give her students annotated copies of the constitution so they can discuss gideon versus Wayne rate. I am just giddy about this sponsorship Ed so I donated to Ms Barron's classroom at the Allen Lock Charter Academy in Chicago because I wanted to be able to buy copies of keyser cons book. This is is our constitution for all of her students so go ahead visit our donors choose web page. It's donors choose dot org slash. amicus helped put much needed resources sources field trips text books into the hands of kids who will be the stewards of the constitution in the next generation and hey if you post on the AMICUS facebook page with your donation will read your messages on the next show. This is an opportunity to help kids start the school year with something really precious near own passionate commitment to Civics Education Jim. You can support these and many more teacher needs at donors. Choose dot org slash amicus and be sure to leave a comment about why you gave we will give a shout out to a few of your donor messages in our next episode and thank you and now back to our conversation with professors on your West and Jamal Green former clerks justice John Paul Stevens Jamaa WanNa talk about Dr a little bit and I want to start with the death penalty because it seems to me of a piece with a couple of the places where it's not clear to me whether Stevens changes or the world changes but he comes onto the court in Nineteen seventy-six he immediately is part of a block the votes to reinstate capital punishment after there had been a four-year moratorium and he writes you know with the right procedures. We're going to be able to ensure quote even handed rational consistent imposition of death sentences underlaw so he's bullish on reinstating the death penalty and then then he re really retreats from that in two thousand eight two years before he retires he announced in a concurrence that Yikes he now believes the death penalty is constitutional traditional. He amplifies that view after he steps down with an essay in the New York review of books so I guess my question for you is this one of those areas in which his views changed or did the death penalty change or did his understanding of the death penalty. I feel like it's reflective of this core your question we have about how this essentially centrist. Republican becomes a flaming liberal while I think it's a little bit of both he does change I think in a number of ways during his time on the court and the court of course moves very very strongly to the right during his time time there as well on the death penalty itself you know I think this is a really good example of what he wants called learning on the job right right where he takes over nineteen seventy six the case you referred to a case go greg versus. Georgia where he is part of block that reinstates the death penalty on the ground around that there is some way of administering this practice in a clear and rational way and then he's he's on the Supreme Court for thirty years where he's getting not just lots of applications for people to stay there. Death sentences really think carefully about the case not just lots and lots of actual death cases of the court is hearing being on the merits but also this practice of not being part of the cert pool where someone in his chambers is looking at petition after petition after petition after petition listen very carefully and over the over those three decades he developed view that this practice actually couldn't be administered stirred in a fair and rational way so I don't know if you quite call that changing one's mind or or rather just updating your views based on facts that are available able to you and more available to him as a Supreme Court justice and they might be the average person so that's super interesting Jamal. I'm hearing you say I hadn't thought of it before but part of removing himself from the surplus that he's just exposed to this immense number of capital appeals that maybe maybe some of the other justices are just not seeing and that has to inform the way he comes to think about it. Yeah I mean I'd say in fairness that capital cases are ones where the other justices justices are are quite likely to pay some attention but a huge number of cert petitions are prisoners who have some issue and almost always always. There's nothing the court can really do about it but you really do get a sense of how much injustice there is in the world even if it's something you can't do something about having a sense that people are not just sort of making things up but that it's an unfair world and if you have a chance to make it more fair that maybe you should be a little bit more likely to step in and do something about it sunny. I want to ask you again this core question. Maybe a different way. justice. Stevens insisted right up until the end that he had never moved that the court essentially torqued around him and you know Jamal has made this point. He's actually a pretty conservative guy who is trying to do justice case by case but ideologically he really did not think of himself as a liberal and he told the The New York Times in two thousand seven quote. I don't think of myself as a liberal at all. I'm pretty darn conservative and so again maybe through the Lens of the death penalty or not help us understand how he thought of himself when he really was by the the end of his time on the court without a doubt the leader of the courts liberal wing. I think he's making an important point. I mean he's he's completely right into the extent stance that instrumental already said that the court shifted dramatically to the right during his time of the enemy he might have moved a little bit left you but mostly you would just add this scorched just shifting you know everybody moving several seats down right to the right he joint he joined a court that had true liberal lions on it like Brennan and Marshall Marshall and today the center of our Supreme Court is Chief Justice Roberts who is a very very conservative justice so it's really just undeniable to sort of show show that change and I think he's correct to bring some attention to it but I I agree with Jamal as well that I think he is. Conservative you know in some of his substantive issues wherever talk about sort of indecency and protecting the flag or were decisions that were you know quite conservative that he maintained tained until the end he never reversed on in in any way but also just sort of an in other ways in terms of how he approached the law that he had this deep respect for a precedent and for facts and for history and for the role of judges and the and the bigger structure of the government that is conservative in its in its own sort of small Z. way but I think to me the fact that he just continued doing his thing and doing his work and deciding of the cases and saying in what he thought even if no one would join with him even if people were at the time accusing him of you know changing sides are changing teams and moving this way or that way and he just kept doing what he does is really the best example of how he's just the exact opposite of of a partisan just along those lines. I'm suspect Sonya had many similar experiences when she was working for justice Stevens but he had this remarkable ability to have complete faith in his colleagues on the court I mean when we talk about being a throwback to a different era he was not at least openly suspicious specious of his colleagues or thinking that they themselves were ideologues. Even though all the rest of us did and all his clerks did and he would come back from conference and there'd be some controversial case and he'd be on the losing side or in dissent and he'd say you know I bet when I circulate my opinion I maybe Nina will come around you know and and ah seems completely bonkers to people outside of the building but it was really just his fundamental kind of humanity and his belief inhumanity that never really went away and it it might feel a little bit naive at this stage of our collective life but it really made him I think you know you're probably sensing the adoration that his clerks have for him and people who know him had for him. comes from the stress she was just a fundamentally decent person who who trusted other people and I love that as a segue because I think one of the things that I read in in several obituaries was that darn if he didn't take his opinions rate to Nino Scalia and say you rough off this up right I mean he. He was very happy to be challenged. He was very happy to I mean this is something that Justice Ginsburg always said about Justice Scalia earliest that he made her a better writer he made her a better thinker and you know yes heap sometimes talk smack you know belittled her but that in the end of the day that give and take really really with something the justice. Stevens valued and I think can't remember where I read that you know even during Bush v Gore when tempers were really high in clerks would be taking umbrage because Justice Scalia would be poking at justice Stevens he just. I laughed it off. I mean this was really whether it's civility or comedy or some notion that it's all just for show show at the end of the day we're friends. He really was all in on that as a virtue of of justices right. I think it was all about the in the something that's Sonja talked about earlier all about his job as a justice right which is to come to a judgment bounce ideas off each other figure out what the right the answer is if you disagree at the end of the day publisher dissenter your concurring opinion and re up for the next for the next case and he never really abandoned ended that even as it appeared that the world was becoming really partisan around him that his job was still to be one of nine people each of whom he had a team to have a tremendous amount of respect for Sonya. That's on that when the year I was clerking anyway the two other justices justices that we saw in our chambers the most were Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas Justice Scalia who had marched down to engage in one of his you know one of their you know sparring debates that they love to have about the law just the same way he in justice Stevens might march down to Nino's office as he would say and Justice Thomas and he's chambers at the time I was there. We're right next door to ours he would be by just to talk usually about sports with justice demand and they were really the only two sports fans they would stand around the longest time talking about football talking about baseball laughing. I just have so many memories of just you know Justice Justice Thomas and he has just this hugely booming gutter all laugh. It's just a wonderful wonderful laugh and then you'd hear justice Stevens. He's really much more or of a of a chuck lert. I'd say chuckle in the two of them would just be having a great time so absolutely the idea that disagreements which were deep and heartfelt did did not stop him from connecting in the human way with all of his colleagues and I think with all sorts of people. He encountered in his life. Tomorrow I WANNA talk about guns for a minute because because it does seem like an area in which even after he comes off the bench having famously dissented in Heller which which is you know the case where where the second amendment suddenly has new force towards the end of his life. He's writing really radical things blake. Let's repeal the Second Amendment outright. You know he's really going completely rogue on the guns issue and I wonder if you have some uh-huh feary for white guns becomes one of the issues long after he leaves the court that he still almost fanatical about the idea that the courts gotten it wrong. You know I think that justice. Stevens would probably say that the rest of the country was going rogue and that he was being completely normal. I think it reflects something about the way he thought about judging which is very case by case which is very much. Let's figure out what makes the most sense here. Let's figure out what are the constitutional values at stake here and and and then those might point in different directions in any individual case and so you know the idea that there is some amendment to the constitution that gives you a kind of unqualified right to to own dangerous weapons was really. I think quite anathema to him as someone maybe partly as someone who grew up up in in kind of Gangland Chicago with father as a hotel owner but also just as someone who believed believed more than anything else in common sense and so I think he associated the second amendment with a particular kind of constitutional fanaticism autism that was against everything he believed in. We talked about the First Amendment earlier and how you can make some judgments about when when the First Amendment is is needs to be to kick in and when it doesn't and he felt very much the same way about the Second Amendment and and I just thought that it was kind of the Avatar for for for a kind of ideological constitutionalism runamuck an incentive maybe another good example of what we're describing his humility the or at least his willingness to say I I made a mistake another one of these issues. I think Jamal identified the country moves around him and he has to flag it for us but maybe the best example of him saying I think I might have been wrong is this two thousand eight case where he writes the lead opinion in a a case upholding the constitutionality of Indiana's brand new voter. Id La and just a suitor in dissent says there's no evidence evidence of the kind of voter fraud that Indiana's trying to curb and in the meantime. You're suppressing the vote. Justice Stevens is sanguine about this and then suddenly in two thousand thirteen he tells the Wall Street Journal. Maybe he was wrong and maybe just as suitor was right and that whoops sorry but opening the door to vote suppression. Is this another one of those examples of sort of voter. ID goes on to become well. The thing it is today today one of the most democracy suppressing enterprises that he blessed and he regretted it I think he will he definitely regretted how that case was used used and what was said to have stood for you know his actual opinion in that case is actually another great example of the sort of judicial humility that we talked about before four because he in that case dug into the record which you know apparently sort of the record that they were given based on the findings of the lower court judges ages you know didn't quite include all the evidence that he thought would be needed to to meet the standard in that case you know he looked very closely at the evidence. Look very closely at the record in the fax. Jackson fought very seriously about the standard he thought he was supposed to apply and he just felt like even though he has said that he didn't like these laws personally. He didn't support them. As a policy he matter he felt on the law that he had to rule a certain way so you know that was that same approach there that he was exercising but you're right. He looked back gone that later and he saw how it was used. He saw that future courts didn't necessarily read all his nuance that he you know he had tried to rely I on and and realized the Jusu was correct and that they needed to look at this more broadly and look at it you know the full picture and the full history there so yeah he I mean he was and he was always willing to admit errors and that's because he was always open to reflection and to listening and into rethinking and to being convinced until you're always free to try to convince him that he was wrong. Whether you were just or twenty-three-year-old law clerk and you would have an what an ear he you would you would get his attention his full attention and then he would decide whether you were right and if you conclude that he made a mistake he would he would admit it feels flake. One of the things that justice Stevens started warning us about particularly and maybe these two famous dissents one in Bush v Gore and one in citizens is united in two thousand ten is that the nation is going to lose confidence in the judiciary and I'm just gonNa read a tiny bit of both of these are landmark a sense but here's here's the descent in Bush v Gore in two thousand the majority opinion can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land it has confidence in the men and women who administered the judicial system that is a true backbone of the rule of law time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision one thing however is certain although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election the identity of the losers perfectly clear it is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law. Here's his dissent in Citizens United Twenty ten. Essentially five judges edges were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before US city changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law he was starting to send up a flare Jim. I'm all about partisan judges. The appearance of by as the appearance that judges were in the tank for outcomes long before it was cool to send up a flare and I wonder if you have any kind of great unifying theory of justice Stevens sense that the court was becoming broken and that the court was performing a kind of deep partisan rift that was losing the confidence of the electorate long before the rest of us while I do think he I do think he had that impression at least asked to those cases. This is whether it was before the rest of us I'm not sure it was unusual for justices to make those kinds of statements vincent. I think it was unusual for him to make those kinds of statements so he really just did that. In cases that he thought were especially egregious and I think Bush versus says Gore I think he had a very clear view that the court was reaching out and reaching out in very directly in partisan ways and citizens listens united I think is another one of these examples of the court not being able to take cases on their facts to be balanced about cases could be balanced about the first amendment and really taking out of the political process a law that was designed to address certain flaws in that process assists and so I think he he called it like he saw it and those were cases that in his view were especially agreed. I think is dissenting opinion in the Heller Gun case this is another one that's another example of that and one of his last sort of big opinions which is his dissenting opinion in a follow up to the Heller case which was a case about the the degree to which the Second Amendment would apply to state and local governments. That's really another one of his landmark opinions where he really is trying to to leave as his his legacy of view that judges should be exercising their judgment rather than being ideological not just partisan but being ideological and not being able to move in response to context. I love that because it's where we started I mean in a sense we've come full circle so in terms of he really felt that at bottom judges should judge and when they strayed from that when he strayed from that that was problematic but I think get such a it is kind of well done on these spontaneous unified theory it explains a lot and I think it leads me inexorably to the question they have for the both of you which is having very clearly been on ideological in nonpartisan and held himself out as somebody who didn't take partisan sides. How do we square that with his decision in last last year to take sides in the Red Cavanaugh confirmation it was so unlike him in some sense and also very very like him in some sense after them judge Cavanaugh testified and said things that suggested he could not be perfectly neutral it it was just as Stevens who surprised all of us coming out and saying maybe this is not a person who should be on the Supreme Court and I wonder again if if this is aboriginal or if this is Steven's very much taking the position Jamal that you just took which is judges should judge and this is somebody buddy who now seems as though he can't be fair Sonya you WanNa take a crack at that incredibly compound question. Yeah I agree completely with Aretha Jamal Said you know I think you could even look back. How Justice Stevens was an antitrust lawyer in that you know he was perfectly fine for the court to have these debates and to have these opinions that he may or may not be on the winning side of as long as that competition was fair. You know as long as people were acting honestly flee and playing by the rules and then you could trust the outcome but I think in some of those dissents that you read. He's frustrated because he doesn't feel like that's what's happening. He doesn't feel I liked the majority is doing and and he is concerned that he's not the only one who's seen that but that the public itself is going to be not syncing sort of fair play play so to speak on the court in terms of the opinions and therefore that they trust the outcome so when you get to justice cavanaugh I think he saw a lot of those those same concerns and a lot of concerns that we aren't going to have a process here that we could trust and that this is not how a judge is supposed to act and I think he also so the fact that he was one of the only you know of only three living retired justices at the time that he was in a very unique spot and in terms of being enable to speak out that the current justices were confined and that they wouldn't be able to talk about their views on this but anybody else has never been a supreme court justice and doesn't really know the job or know what it's like to sit in that chair and where those wear the robe but he does and so I think he feels that he was one of the few you people who was free to be able to come out and say that this is important and what I heard in those hearings is not appropriate that is an important attribute and to have the sense of fairness and demeanor and what he showed me. You know made me think that he doesn't doesn't have the right characteristics. I just WanNa read the quote so that we're clear what he didn't say. He said that Kevin the way he'd behave during his confirmation hearings suggest quote that he has demonstrated a potential oh biased involving enough potential against before the court that he would not be able to perform his full responsibility so he was not taking a chip shot at cavenaugh he was saying he had displayed and in the bill de to be fair in front of certain litigants but I guess Jamal. I want to ask you the same question. Maybe a different way which is simply simply to say just in the past week. We've had ruth bader GINSBURG making speeches about how much she admires and legs justice cavenaugh. We've had Sonya Sotomayor explicitly saying at events in the last week or two. We've turned the page. What's past is past world good. There's one story you can tell in which being judicial means we just say this is fine and then there's another story the one that I think sunny just told which says that sometimes you have to be a little bit in judicious in order to be judicial and I'm just wondering why justice Stevens at the very very end of a very long career in which he's so careful is willing to say. I think that the appearance of bias here will hurt the court because that's what he's saying. I don't want to speak for justice Stevens and at at all and I am sure he had his own thought process that he went through and figuring out exactly how much to say in that circumstance but it really it was quite an extraordinary moment for the country and an extraordinary confirmation hearing a just to think back to that time you know he made his comments not not after Justice Kavanagh's initial hearing but after the second round when he came back and was sort of yelling at senators and claiming a conspiracy spiracy by the Clintons other sorts of things and I I don't bring that up to disparage justice cavanaugh who from all I know seems to be a a perfectly nice person to get along with but what was on display at that moment was I think genuinely shocking and as Sonia said not everyone with his stature has the ability to call that out and I can only guess that he thought that it was his his responsibility to say that what he was seeing was not normal what we were seeing was not was not normal and I again. I think that's consistent with his reaction to push the Gore as well. I think one of the last lingering questions I have is we all know he famously retired in part because of the way he read his dissent in citizens united and he was stumbling over words. I was in the Chamber at the time I think we we're all trying to figure out what was going on later. He said he was actually suffering from a mini stroke so question for you. Sonya do you you think that he regretted leaving the court when he did. I don't think he does he was aware of the problem of being an aging justice and knowing joined when it was time to leave because it's not a position where there's you know it's really easy to be able to get sort of an honest trustworthy opinion from others about whether are you are still doing your job at the level that you should be doing it and so he has said that he actually had an agreement with justice suitor that just a suitor would tell justice. Stevens when he thought it was time to go because they were very close friends but the problem with that plan was then just a suitor goes and retires I so he's not out there anymore. to tell just events and so he has said that you know so then when you did have the issue that became public with the citizens united descent percent reading that he decided it was time to retire but I don't think he regretted it. I mean he had he had a forty year judicial career. If you include his time I'm on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals he was ninety years old and as I said before too I think being retired I gave him this freedom that he hadn't and had before like unlike unlike other justices. He didn't write books when he was on the bench. She didn't give a lot of interviews but once he left the bench and he was you know much more free to be able to do that to talk about what he wanted to talk about to write about. The law in new ways is and I think it seemed that he really enjoyed that period of his life and I missed him being on the bench. I'm really glad that he had that time last question question for the both of you at his funeral you were both in attendance Justice Kagan. She's the one who inherited his seat spoke to to all the clerks the Stevens clerks and said to them. This is essentially what you learn from justice Stevens what I learned from Ham and she said this he learned how to lead a good and honorable life you learn about treating people with dignity with courtesy with respect and with kindness he learned about the importance of putting all your legal talents and gifts towards serving others and I think I want to ask and we can start with you Jamal. It feels like another one of those anachronistic Akron Estate Values Right. This is a lovely value from somebody who lived in a different time who judged in a different time who served in the military in a different time. How does it land with you. In a moment you know as you've said where the whole country seems to have gone rogue not just on guns but on a lot of these values. How do you repurpose that call and that task in a time where kindness and courtesy and respect feels? It feels like it's not a part of what certainly would any of us does but what do anymore. I think I'd say a couple full of things. One is that as we've talked about you know he wasn't someone who was unable to call out when he was not seeing kindness kindness and respect and civility and good faith and he picked his spots. I'm for doing so but being humble person and being a respectful. A person doesn't mean that you have to put on blinders to what's around you at the same time he was a really generous person. I think I'd that's. The a word I would use which is to say he He. You always had a shot right to show him that. You're an honorable person person he he didn't he wasn't a bigoted or biased towards people at least not that I could tell and one thing about his chambers birds in general it was a it was a very Hara Zonta relationship. I mean we obviously all knew who the boss was but the way he would talk about cases cases. You know you'd sit down. He'd sit down on a chair. You'd sit down next to him and you would just chat about it. It wasn't like you gave him a document and reviewing your work right it was you were just talking to people who were learned in the law. One of those people was much much much more learned but he didn't he didn't act that way and I think that does show you as you move on in life and are in a kind of hierarchical relationship with other people how to treat those kinds of relationships so so. I I learned a tremendous amount from him and I think the country could as well Sonia same question. How do you repurpose these lifelong values about kindness and empathy and humility in an era where it just feels as though it is not a part of certainly judicial project and maybe the legal project as well yeah. I've been reflecting on that a lot you know ever since he died and and because in part because I think sometimes it's been hard to explain to people how you know I spent a year in this man's employ and how it could have such a profound effect on me yeah but I think it's exactly for these reasons. We're talking about just how he modeled this way of interacting with people of thinking about the world of having faith you know the that he had us in everyone you know he met that you know you had these abilities and you had this worth and it's so empowering cowering and and so while I find myself you know really sad to be going forward. In a world without justice Stevens I just kept finding myself thinking being that he would just have utter confidence and all of us that we are mostly all good right like profoundly good and humanity and that we are up to these challenges and we're up to the task of finding our way forward eat. He knows that we can do this and he would not be hesitant about not at all sunny West is Otis Brumby distinguished professor of First Amendment Law at the University of Georgia School of law where she focuses on issues involving the First Amendment and the Supreme Court her research appears in top legal journals including the Harvard Law Review. Ucla Law Review in California Law Review and she clerked for Justice Stevens in the nineteen ninety nine two thousand term. Jamal Green is the Dwight professor of law at Columbia Law School. His scholarship focuses on the structure of legal and constitutional argument. He's the author of more more than thirty law. Review articles is a frequent media commentator on the Supreme Court and Constitutional Law and served as law clerk to John Paul Stevens in the two thousand six two thousand seven seven term to the both of you. I cannot thank you enough for helping all of us understand. someone who I know was really a formative influence on the three of us. Thank you for being here. Thank you thank you thank you so much for listening to amicus but I'm wondering could you be enjoying this and all the other fabulously choose a little more lake by binging episodes without ever listening to a commercial by getting special bonus content from your most favorite favorite shows if you join our membership program slate plus all this and more. OSU It's only thirty five dollars for your first year and you can sign up for free for two weeks to check it out and that's not all by signing up for slate plus. You will be supporting this show and all of our journalism here at slate. We we know you value our work in our coverage and we truly value your support sign up for sleep plus and help secure sleet future to learn more to begin your free not too weak child go to sleep dot com slash amicus plus and that is a wrap for this episode of amicus. Thank you so much for listening joining. If you'd like to get in touch our email is amicus at sleep dot com and you can find us at facebook dot com slash amicus podcast. Today's as show was produced by Sarah Burney. Ham Gabriel Roth is editorial director of slate podcasts and June. Thomas is senior managing producer of slate hubcap. We will be back with another episode of amicus in two shortly Pesky here host of the gist next week my podcast the gist would be taken over by STANDUPS APPS IMPROV writers Gagman Manala journalists biologists to talk about five key aspects of comedy movies Improv late tonight podcast and stand on a lot about the biologist. We'll be kicking the week off with a live comedy show in New York City our city the Brooklyn part Monday September the sixteenth at the Bell House stand up Comics Hari Kondabolu Marina Franklin and Khalid Remond will be doing sets before joining me to discuss the tricky tricky art that is stand up comedy. Get your tickets now at slate dot com slash live in tune in all next week.

Justice John Paul Stevens Stev justice Stevens Supreme Court Jamal Green government Justice Justice Thomas Justice Scalia Chicago law clerk Justice Sunny Sotomayor Senate Sonya president Steven Amelia earhart Google United States Justice Ginsburg Texas
The End of an Era, and the Cult of the Constitution.

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

1:00:20 hr | 1 year ago

The End of an Era, and the Cult of the Constitution.

"There's no plausible intelligible reason for us to continue to tell ourselves as fairytale there especially not in this day and age and and we have seen the consequences of not confronting writing this up pretending as though our founding was anything other than what it was and it is long past time for us to do something in terms of actually facing it and trying to reckon with it <music> Hi and welcome back to amicus slates podcast about the law the rule of law and the Supreme Court. I'm diabetic and I cover those things for slate this week amidst all of the tweeting and the Jeffrey Epstein and the Michael Cohen so in in the new illegal asylum orders the American legal world actually lost a giant in the person of John Paul Stevens former justice of the U._S.. Supreme Court who died at age ninety nine from complications following a stroke the tributes tributes and remembrances in recent days got overshadowed by some of the most rancorous behavior Washington has ever seen and that's too bad <hes> just reading the accolades offered up by his former clerks who revered him and his colleagues colleagues at the High Court who all seem well aware that his death represents the absolute end of an era it served to remind all of us about the dying values of civility softspoken nece temporariness generosity acidy justice Stevens always always opened his questions at oral argument with May I just ask and that was right before he would slice an argument into gentle symmetrical ribbons this fall we will I promise dedicate an entire episode Oh to justice Stevens his life his jurisprudence and we'll talk to some of his former clerks and oral advocates about his really controversial decisions in the flag burning and voter I._D.. Cases and all the ways in which a quote moderate conservative became eventually the courts liberal lion and here's a spoiler he always claimed the court moved around him and a spoiler to the spoiler. I believe him <hes> for today. Just a memory of mine this this is the last time I saw him personally. Just over two years ago we did an event together before a packed house and he was as vigorous and charming as ever funny and thoughtful and respectful even as he pushed back at some of my impertinent questions from the stage in the Green Room I mentioned that one of my very favorite people on the planet was his former clerk now a law professor and his whole face lit up as he told me how proud he is to know her well. That clerk was Sonya West with whom I wrote a remembrance this week at slate and we'll put it on the show page and no insult intended here to any former clerks of any justices <hes> now before or future but I would always tell people who are clerking at the court to befriend the Stevens clerks if if not to marry the Stevens clerks he had an uncanny knack for picking people who were just like him they were softspoken brilliant willing to admit flaws never perfectly comfortable in the spotlight they were his family and he was there and our thoughts go out to them and his family this week. A friend reminded me of a Stevens descent this week that didn't get enough press attention in a case called pinhurst versus Haldeman about the reach of the eleventh amendment. Now this dissent was written in Nineteen eighty-four and it's a descent that could serve in some ways as a eulogy to a whole way of looking at the court as an institution. Here's John Paul Stevens dissenter long before he would become John. Paul Stevens Liberal icon quote this this case has illuminated the character of an institution. The record demonstrates that the Penn State School and hospital has been operated in violation of state law in nineteen seventy seven after three years of litigation the District Court entered detailed findings of fact that abundantly gently support that conclusion and then there's a break and the bulk of the opinion and then he continues in his conclusion as follows quote throughout its history. This court has derived strength from institutional self-discipline. Glenn Adherence to settle doctrine is presumptively the correct course departures are of course occasionally required by changes in the fabric of our society when a court rather than a legislature initiate such a departure it has a special obligation to explain Blaine and to justify the new course which it has embarked today however the court cast aside well-settled respected doctrine that plainly commands affirmative the court of Appeals the doctrine of the law of the case the doctrine of story decisiveness the Court Court repudiates at least twenty eight cases the doctrine of sovereign immunity the doctrine of pendant jurisdiction and the doctrine of judicial restraint no sound reason justifies the further prolongation of this litigation or this courts voyage edge into the sea of undisciplined lawmaking as I said at the outset this case has illuminated the character of an institution. I respectfully dissent and quote John Paul Stevens rest in peace and now let <hes> crying again and now let's turn to the constitution or more accurately some of the misplaced beliefs we have in it or perhaps more accurately still the religious fervor her Americans reserve for a document that it turns out many of them have never read this episode is part of our summer series where we take the opportunity to step back to think big to look ahead and look back and hear from some of the most interesting the people working in and writing around and thinking about the courts and the law and the rule of law and that's why we wanted to talk to Marianne francs whose book the cult of the Constitution was published this spring by Stanford University press francs is a professor of law at the University of Miami School of law where she teaches First Amendment Law Criminal Law and procedure and family law she serves as President and legislative and Tech Policy Director of the Cyber Civil Rights initiative which tries to regulate online harassment and abuse and she was the drafter of the first model criminal statute on revenge porn. She's a CO producer of the two thousand fifteen documentary hot girls wanted and one of the reasons I wanted to have Marianne on the show is because I tend to be for all of my political leanings a pretty small c conservative when it comes to the Constitution and the law for the most part I revere courts I revere the Constitution and I always start from the premise that when those things are working world just I better off well. Marianne Franks is an I think it's fair to say this more reflective of the <hes> blow it all up school of Constitutional Analysis and I actually say this as a compliment whether you agree or disagree we just want to dive into her work and see whether I am really as Stodgy in a grumpy old GRANDPA as I sometimes fear I have become so Marianne francs welcome to amicus. Thank you so much for having me <hes> I I wanNA give you a chance to tell me <music>. I'm wrong before we even move onto the merits <hes> I know you're not total nihilist but I know you're much less reverent than I am <hes> and I want you to maybe talk a little bit about even before we get to the cult of the Constitution your academic background <hes> comes to this little bit by way of philosophy moral philosophy and there's a lot of actual <hes> theological and religious <hes> thinking baked into the way you approach this so so so maybe start from there. Tell us how you got here and why it is that you're much more mistrustful of the cult that we've created around the constitution in this country certainly so you're you're exactly right. There is very much the background of all of this kind of crisis of faith in every sense <hes> not just in the law but also in this kind of more existential philosophical and somewhat religious sense as they say in the preface to the book there the the kind of frame name for the project was falling away in many respects from my own upbringing as a fundamentalist as a southern Baptist realizing that there were these extraordinary similarities between the way that people in my church would read the Bible and the way that I would see people around me reading the Constitution and when I say around me as you made reference to this is over a decade working on issues of privacy of sexual violence of gun violence and hearing hearing from people who not only disagreed with what I was saying or the policy proposals that I was making but would often would often say things along the lines of this because you don't respect the constitution or it's because you don't understand the first amendment or you don't value the Second Amendment and it was so eerily reminiscent of much of my religious upbringing that it wasn't just about disagreement it was it was a kind of being cast aside as a heretic almost say that if you don't have faith in this document in the way that we whoever that we happen to be at that moment then there's something fundamentally wrong about the position that you're coming from and that would make it so difficult to have these conversations because it would shut down a lot of the I think very productive discourse that people so can have an academia and elsewhere where we talk through the differences we might have an interpretation and application so this project really was a kind of drawing together of my own background as someone who was raised in a religious community and became I'm very skeptical and disillusioned with it and the same experiences I was having on the legal front and recognizing that the the problem that I seem to be saying over and over again was this highly selective reading and very self interested. I'm reading that. Most people were doing of their sacred scripture whether that was the Bible in my in my upbringing or whether it's the constitution now and I include myself in that because I think the attachments that most Americans have to the constitution are exactly as you say where were raised raised on it in a certain way we're raised to respect it in a way that is different from probably any other document or any other texts that we have and so it was a it was a hard project in many ways because it felt painful to talk about the constitution this way but but I do think that I distinguish myself from you know the garrisons at a blow it all up you know set the constitution on fire. I do believe that there is a way to remain faithful to the constitution that is good faith as opposed to bad faith. It's just that that's a very difficult and demanding kinda fidelity so talk about this a little because I think I've often said <hes> without unpacking it to the extent you have in the book that we are the most religious secular country three in the world because we really worship at the Temple of the U._S.. Supreme Court the Justices you know pat around in robes <hes> it's built to look like a temple quite literally <hes> we take their words as oracular and and then we fantasize this document and we pretend that baked into the document right is separation of church and state and yet at the same time we revere the document and one of the things that you flag they think in your first chapter after is the ways in which Americans love the constitution they worship it. They you know huge swaths of Americans believe if they believe in nothing else no formal church they still believe in the constitution but you say they've never read it and they don't know what's in it right right and that's that extraordinary combination of reverence and ignorance and I don't mean that in a pejorative sense necessarily but a literal sense as in you know polls have shown that the average American has never read the Constitution Russian and its entirety so we're talking about this incredible emotional investment in a document that many people most people don't really have much idea about in terms of its actual words in terms of its actual history and that to me is always very troubling as an intellectual or as an academic cautious thoughtful person. It should be alarming. I think to us if we have such an emotional attachment to something. We don't actually know that well so the other thing before we talk Gabella doctrine I wanted to talk about the other marker in your book that you lay out really early <hes> which is insiders and outsiders <hes> those with power those without and you talk about your own story <hes> not just growing up in a fundamentalist church church but born the daughter await American World War Two veteran but a Taiwanese mother and being kind of other D- even within the church context for a lot of your childhood and I wonder if you could talk a little bit about the ways in which that that makes you sensitive to the baked in assumptions in the constitution about White Male entitlement to power right it it is I think the background that I have the that is to say the the racial background the background of poverty all of that helps estrange May to some extent from these dominant culture and that's what I think in some ways made it possible for me to write a book like this into come to the understandings that I you have that sense of never quite belonging and try to say this elbit carefully in the book that it wasn't that the church was hostile to us in many ways. It was a much more welcoming environment than my my school for instance or my my everyday experiences outside of our house but at the same time Pine Bluff Arkansas where I grew up isn't extremely divided town between white and black and that seems to be the the principal dynamic it has the dubious honor of being being named the the most dangerous little town America by <hes> The independent which did a profile on my hometown a few years ago. It's it's it suffers from high crime rates. It suffers from racial divisions. It is a struggling city in many ways and there's there's a sense in which if you don't line up with one of those cultures you are really out of place in a very significant sense and to some extent that's that is a privilege right because it means that you're not affiliated with one side or the other and this really absolute flute sense and so you can escape <hes> some of the really terrible things I think that happened especially to racial minorities on a regular basis in Pine Bluff Arkansas but it was also since being very much outside of any understanding that anyone in that city had and there's this complicated dynamic to of the model minority the idea that Asian somehow are the minorities you don't have to think too much about because they're quiet and they're not really going to get up to much trouble but how that also complicates your interactions with with both the black culture and the white culture and then overlaid with this whole culture poverty which is really. I think something that that was a real marker. I think for my childhood so the benefit of it was that it set me apart in a sense that made it possible for me to observe without feeling too much at home in any particular context and I think there's something productive about that or there can be something productive about that. When you're not really at home in any given community it gives you the chance to cast somewhat of a critical eye on what you see <music> you're opening salvo here is about the framers and you really go hard? <hes> on the you know the the story we tell each other which is will yeah. They were a little racist but they were visionaries. They were revolutionaries. You know there's only so much they could do in the context of the moment they were in and you hammer that argument <hes> pretty hard at it. It's reminiscent to me of some of Rebecca tracers work <hes> in her book about anger where she's saying. You know lets that's retail. This story is a story in which women actually knew all along that with the framers were doing was repurposing hierarchies they were throwing off sort of bridge British hegemonic rule but imposing their own and they did it knowingly <hes> both in the context of race and gender and I wonder if you can talk a little bit about <hes> why it is that we have been so sanguine <hes> in telling the story of <hes> the great and perfect framers who just were a little blinkered on race and gender rather than the story you tell which is they made a very deliberate choice. <hes> you say we always talk about the compromises they made that they didn't actually give up anything. Talk a little bit what about why that gets left aside in our talking of the founding era this is again one of those moments where I see these overlaps between religion and the constitution because I think you see a lot of the same things when you talk to for instance people who grew up and any Christian church whether that's Catholic or southern Baptists or what have you there's this constant sort of rationalization <hes> of what is fundamentally irrational and self interested and I think part of it is it is because it's harder to do anything else right if we actually confront what our origins are if we actually confront the system that we are all to some extent Lockton to you. It's a it's a very it's very disorienting and destabilizing confrontation Asian because we would all prefer to think that the founders were human but that is to say we recognize their limitations but think of it mostly in those terms that they didn't know certain things that with the benefit of history and what we know now they would be different they it'd be enlightened and it is pretty clear from the history that that's not true. This was a pretty blatant power grab on the part of these revolutionaries and the idea that somehow we need to cut them some slack because they couldn't possibly have seen racial and gender equality as there's possibilities I think we can understand based on what people like Abigail Adams were writing and talking about the time that that's not true they had every opportunity to consider and they deliberately chose what they chose but I think it's because part of it is that we are stuck stuck right. We we are stuck in this history by the time any of US develop the faculties to think about this critically. We are probably adults. We've been we've already been raised on a diet of reverence for the founding fathers and it's just really difficult. I think to to confront that sort of history without feeling incredibly guilty and if there's one thing that humans don't want to do is feel guilty about really anything but certainly not something that they have up until that point taken pride in and what I think is important is that we create a space for people all to feel guilty without feeling as though everything is lost it is okay to say that our history is what it is. It is okay to come out and say that without saying everything is terrible and there's nothing legitimate about America. We don't have to go that far are and there seems to be a lack of space for having that conversation to be honest and confrontational about the limitations and then think really hard about what that then means about what society has to do differently in terms of making up for that or confronting that but not as a kind of condemnation of every personal life today as being hopelessly compromised because of our our founding. I think that the the worst thing that we can do is to be that extreme about it as to really shut off the conversation before we can get it off the the ground which is to say now. Let's confront this and see what we can do but there's absolutely no. There's no plausible intelligible reason for us to continue to tell ourselves as fairytale there especially not in this day and age and and we have seen the consequences of not confronting this of yeah pretending as though our founding was anything other than what it was and it is long past time for us to do something in terms of actually facing it and trying to reckon with it so I love that as a segue because I think what you've done here is married the. The mythology of who we were to the mythology of who we are today and I think what you argue in the book is the thing that allows us to say the framers were perfect but a little blinkered is is the thing that allows us to say and we are perfecting ourselves day after day and becoming more equitable and fair intolerant your book the meat of it opens its Charlottesville 2017 <hes> and I you know lived in Charlottesville for eighteen years so it was it's hard to read <hes> about Heather Heyer and to read about <hes> the Nazi <hes> rally but I think one of the things you debunk is the idea that everybody's commentary in the days after Charlottesville was Charlottesville is not who we are as Americans. This is not who we are and your conclusion is dude. This is precisely <hes> who we are <hes> I- interpolated the dude there you didn't write that <hes> but but <hes> I I think your point is that the lies we tell ourselves about our past and how sort of white male privilege or baked into the founding documents enable the lies we tell about ourselves today right exactly that if it were only that we were engaging in this mythology and it was it's a false one historically or otherwise and that's all there is to it then. Maybe we don't need to have this conversation but what we know is true. I think what we have to admit you at this point if if not by two thousand seventeen of we should've certainly confronted though what happens when you don't recognize the flaws in your founding what what happens when you don't recognize the fact that the Mythology Ism theology it tells you constantly you're constantly saying that to yourself <hes> and characterizing Americans generally as being what we should have aspired to be as if it were true and that's exactly what I say is wrong right with the constitutional founding was it was an expression of equality as though it had happened as opposed stews project to be fulfilled as a project to be fulfilled it is an extraordinary document. It's an extraordinary aspirational project but there's something incredibly perverse and exactly anti progressive and anti <hes> enlightened right about the idea of trying to assert that at that time we're at this time we are in fact committed to equality so I think it is that troubling moment where instead of taking those principles as things that we could aspire to we rush over to say no. We're already those people bull. We have a couple of laws at the margins but we're already those people and yes it was extraordinary to see everyone across the political spectrum saying what happened in Charlottesville does not represent what America is when when it so clearly did it so clearly represents exactly the cost of not paying attention and having for centuries told ourselves that we are something that we are not in Charlottesville for you stands for the two arms of your book in some sense are free speech fundamentalism and gun fundamentalism journalism and and I think you critique the left and the right respectively for taking each of those analytically to a place that almost inexorably brings us to Charlottesville it becomes the manifestation a station in the book of left-wing orthodoxies about speech right-wing orthodoxies about guns the first and the Second Amendment get together have a baby and it is the catastrophic things we see in August two thousand any seventeen in Charlottesville and I wondered as I read it. If you had some sense that you could see this coming. I think we certainly should have seen it coming and there's a third part of this. I mean you're exactly right that. The book is mostly focused on the free speech each fundamentalism aspect and the gun fundamental fundamentalism aspect but also what I call the Internet fundamentalism aspect which is closely tied to that First Amendment <hes> Orthodoxy but one of the things that I can trust Charlottesville with is is skokie march of the nineteen seventies this idea this kind of heyday of liberal commitment to bad speech and defending bad speech and how different things are in terms of the littoral weaponization of certain ideologies and also the mass mobilization that the Internet has made possible and so I do think that Charlottesville even refurnish Charlottesville as a wakeup call is in some ways disingenuous because of course we have seen this coming. We we've seen this coming really throughout throughout every cycle in history right every time there has been a tiny breach. Let's say of the White Male monopoly when you've actually seen some possibilities of it of it being chipped away whether that's Obama's election or whether it's <hes> women actually attaining obtaining power in the workplace what we see is a vicious backlash every time and again because we have never reckoned with the prejudices and limitations of Our history it just keeps getting compounded so you get these moments these brief reprieves of sort of liberal tolerance or progress and you know that that's always going to unleash what is never really been fully dealt with and there's this sense in which there's an investment in that across the political spectrum because as much as it may be. We're look like Democrat versus Republican. It's really just white power and everything else and that's what it's always has been and we're just not willing to talk about it that way. There's a strange idea or the strange thing that happens where liberals can see it when they see in second amendment fundamentalists or when they see in the far right but they can't see how much of it reflects the shared commitments that they actually have that Americans actually have across the political spectrum so I do think that Charlottesville was a belated SORTA wakeup call it couldn't have been any more symbolic it couldn't have been any more of a of an on point illustration of all the things that are fraying at the edges of our society today but we have seen this over and over again. This isn't new it was simply one of the most <hes> reported on documented and seen in real time moments where we see the actual clash between people who think that America stands for one thing and people who think that stands for another and the sheer weight of what it means to not have fully league reckoned with any of that Marianne when you talk about our failure to reckon with or adequately deal with these things are are you talking about a constitutional project. Are you talking about <hes> discourse. What would it look like to have the reckoning that you say we've missed out on? It's difficult to answer that without thinking. About which plant history could it have happened because there's a part of me that wants to say if the founders had actually done what they said then then we would be in a very different place if it actually meant when you write we the people and you mean it when you take the lessons of this incredible thing that you're doing when you are deciding. There's been oppression up to this point. We recognize what tyranny looks like and not only do we recognize it in the sense that we personally those of us in power relative power see it but also now we also realize how we have been doing this to people who are even less than power than we are. If there had actually been that moment of real revolution then it's it's hard for me not to want to indulge in what that would look like that it would have been this empathetic wakeup call to say we know what tyranny looks like. We know it. Exploitation looks like and not only do we reject it for ourselves. We reject the sense in which we are doing it to other people when we're doing it to people who don't look like us so of course that would be a very different history to right and I think the there's a practical question of saying well okay that didn't happen so now what and I think you know you see the reconstruction amendments trying to get at it somewhat what and then when you have the text of the Fourteenth Amendment as they say in the book the Equal Protection Clause I think now you actually have a textual basis on which to hang much of what I would consider to be the project of equality in the project of real democracy and we've really really not done that. We've really failed our our commitment to the fourteenth amendment. We have treated the constitution when we tend to give it the salience in this power. It's re- it's rarely ever in service of equal protection. It's usually in service of some writes some super right that we have latched onto that we have a very fetish is attachment to you so what I guess it would look like is in you can take it in pieces. You could say how could First Amendment doctrine have looked differently <hes> in these certain cases if we actually were committed to equal protection for freedom of speech. What would the Second Amendment look like for that reason? I think we could probably do it with every right that we hold dear as Americans so I think that's one way that we could think about it. There's there's obviously other possibilities which is to just sort of start. All over right people have thought about. Should we just really just get rid of the constitution has outlived its usefulness. I haven't thought so much about those possibilities because they don't seem particularly realistic but I do think if if it's true that one advantage edge of where we are as a country is that we think we care about the constitution we think we care about these values. Then we need to practice being principled and our commitment to those values we could do that. That seems like a plausible project although depressingly when you start talking the reconstruction amendments what I think is that in some ways moves us backward right. I mean it initiates the kind of backlash so when you do it in a formal manner you know following the constitutional guidelines for effecting the kinds of change without empathy that you've just described what you get is Jim Crow right you get a backlash that is more votes oppressive more apt to segregate even than what came before and that makes me. I wonder if maybe the constitution just can't be the vehicle for the reckoning you're describing because when we try and courts as you point out in the book tend to be the most conservative and reactionary entities to begin with that. We're doing this backward. Because it's not capricious enough to hold the kind of change you're describing I think that may be right and it is a it is a very depressing conclusion that I've tried to avoid in the book but but I do I do wonder her. What would it look like to actually give the fourteenth amendment of kind of enforcement mechanism and and it's hard to know where to start right because all the things that you're mentioning and we can start just from there we can say look if your if your vote doesn't actually count the way that it should all of this is meaningless? There's very little that any of us can do but I I do think that as a matter of at least harm mitigation if not revolution we can talk about trying at least to take away this false legitimacy that people are able to grab onto you by invoking the constitution that false sense of of legitimacy is the best word I can think of which which people that are draped themselves in when they say well the First Amendment obviously doesn't allow you to do this or you. You are obviously violating the second amendment if you don't allow people to take assault rifles into playgrounds that we should at least as a at a minimum what we can do is start taking away from that really really quite ludicrous sort of of `constitutionalisation that we can try to de-legitimize that kind of conversation so that the Constitution doesn't shut down our discussions but actually provides us with a pathway forward so I'd like to think that at a minimum that could happen but of course that kind of incremental ISM given the state of the world right now how dire everything actually is it does sound unsatisfying and I there are moments. When I really thought it really does mean? We're going to have to start all over but I don't know how we start that project either. We're GONNA pause now to hear from one of our wonderful wonderful sponsors on this week show and that is our friends at Pitney Bowes do not waste any more time waiting in a line to send mail and packages you can avoid any confusion around finding the best postal rates for your business with Sen then pro online from Pitney Bowes. You can send your packages and mail without ever leaving your office rate from your desk for as little as four ninety nine a month you can save time and money no matter what you're sending from packages is to overnights just click sand and save with this new offer for San Pro Online and get this starting at only four ninety nine a month. You can print shipping labels and stamps from your own printer easily compare rates using their online software gain access to Special U._S. P._S.. Savings for letters and priority mail shipping and track all your shipments and get email notifications when they have arrived awesome rate and guess what for being an amicus listener you will receive a free thirty thirty day trial to get started as an added bonus. You'll also receive a free ten pounds scale shipped right to your door to help you accurately way your packages go to P._B.. Dot Com slash amicus to access this special offer and get a free thirty day trial plus a free ten pounds scale to get yourself started that's P._b.. Dot Com slash amicus experience the better way to ship with a free trial of Centro online from Pitney Bowes. We know you value the journalism that we do. It's late and now more than ever. Our work needs your support. The very best way to support the work we do is via our membership program slate plus and with a slate plus membership. You can enjoy this and all of slates podcasts AD free plus. You'll have access to exclusive bonus content from some of your favorites late shows. There's a free trial to be found at slate plus dot com slash amicus and now back to our conversation with Professor Marianne Francs of the University of Miami School of Law about her new new book the cult of the Constitution talk for a minute about you raise the dichotomy and in thread it through the book of this tension between civil rights versus civil liberties the point being I think that we're so completely informed by liberties we have this kind of market view of of liberty and this zero sum view of liberty that has occupied the field to the extent that talking about civil rights and even interesting anymore. Can you talk a little bit about that dichotomy and and what that means in this context yes so the civil rights civil liberties dichotomy that that I perceive I think the best way to describe it is that the civil rights approach looks at the world and looks at the values and the rights and privileges that people should have in terms of the history. It's a very historic is view of rights and privileges and it's a very pragmatic one. It recognizes that if we were to stop time right now how we would recognize that people are not equally situated when it comes to certain rights and freedoms the civil liberties approached by contrast. I think always participates in this completely fantastical sort of view that we're all awesome how granted equal access and therefore the only thing we need to be worried about is any change of the status quo so I think the civil the civil rights approaches constantly looking to see what are the deficiencies here who has been left out who has been oppressed who has been marginalized who's been deprived saved and how can we and we being very capriciously conceived as the government or the private sector or individuals citizens. How can we achieve a more equitable distribution of rights and resources whereas the civil liberties approach is very market like it really does begin to merge as I say in the book with a kind of libertarianism more generally which is this idea that the free market works and whoever is a is losing out under the status quo is losing out because they're not as good they haven't decided to compete as effectively and it's a very individual focus kind of idea? It's very anecdotal. It's very easy to gypsum hysteria about this. If you can say well this one person had an experience where they weren't allowed to say what they wanted to say or or <hes> defend themselves the way they wanted to defend themselves as opposed to thinking in terms of social impact and the actual general welfare the Public Welfare and I think that we the civil liberties approach to rights and freedoms has really won the day we are constantly talking about whether or not conservatives are being suppressed online or whether or not <hes> white men are being the most persecuted group in history right now. We're actually having that kind of conversation which is such a D. historic size and completely cut off from actual reality discussion and it's partly because we've lost sight of the sense of group identities and what our world has actually looked like since its founding so I think that that is one key piece to all this is that we don't think in terms of history we think in terms of right now. How do I feel who do identify with your chapter on guns and later your chapter on speech makes the point that there's been a creeping change in definition of what fully fully realized Second Amendment Liberty would look like and that the line keeps moving and it moves sometimes imperceptibly but quite shockingly and can can you talk about a little bit <hes> in the gun context and then we can do it in the speech context too but what was orthodoxy in terms of the very borders of one the Second Amendment demanded even twenty years ago forty years ago is now not acceptable and how that happens right in the gun context it is extraordinary what has happened in the last few decades you had kind of maybe uniquely for a constitutional right really not much conflict over what the Second Amendment meant for so long pretty much? Everyone agreed that to the extent that it was referring to the right due to <hes> to weapons in specific sense it was a militia right that had to do with thinking about the history of this country and thinking about what was needed and the fears that the founding fathers had a standing army and the idea that we the people would need to protect themselves against a tyrannical government and that that was something that was in there as a kind of last resort right because it's pretty extraordinary when you think about it if you rise up and and use arms against the government then you're really declaring revolution and so oh it is extraordinary to see how that that idea had been sort of lying dormant they are in the constitution for some time and then gets activated in the nineteen seventies by the National Rifle Association and becomes completely imbued with the culture the wars of the day and ever since then has only gotten worse and what gets projected onto this new second amendment this idea of individual rights and an extraordinary way really does does illustrate what we were just talking about about the difference between civil rights and civil liberties instead of talking in terms of groups of people being oppressed by a major force such as the government. We're now talking about individuals saying I need to have a gun in every circumstance so that I can defend myself against every other citizen not up the government which has more power than me but my fellow citizens that I fear and hate so that has been quite a turn and it's one thing to move that way as a policy to have a group of people in society who have different views. Let's say from the mainstream about how many weapons when should have what self-defense looks like but to constitutionalize it the way that the N._R._A. has is really kind of extraordinary because it now carries with it the weight of do you hate the founding fathers or don't you right. If you don't want me to have my my air ten in the school yard then you hate the constitution that is really a very chilling move and the N._R._A.. is almost single handedly responsible for that and of course the Supreme Court helps <hes> and Heller but didn't go as far. I think is the N._R._A.. Certainly would have wanted but certainly put it on the table to say we are now definitively going to say that the Second Amendment is about this individual right to self-defense drew guns and none of that actually makes sense whether it's the individual part or the guns part or the self defense part because that's. Is Not in the text and it's on and the history but now we're all living in the world that the N._R._A.. Has helped create which is that is what the constitution tells us and instead of thinking as we often I think think about the bill of rights as this kind of check on the government power. It's this kind of affirmative positive <hes> positive sort of force where we get to pass all these laws that say you have to allow guns everywhere so it's not this limitation on the government. It's actually a positive right on the part of the people to say I want what I want everywhere and it doesn't matter who I whose welfare I happen to risk when I get the thing that I want so that is something that I think is remarkable and unfortunately has been I think echoed now in the First Amendment and other civil other civil liberties approaches but that is really something extraordinary to see is that that `constitutionalisation of a very idiosyncratic view of what the Second Amendment could be that then becomes it's almost circular right it starts out as a a kind of populist sort of idea of what the Second Amendment should look like it gets constitutionalize and then it gets sort of re popularized and so people who don't care anything about the constitution or about history are really sure that the second amendment gives them the right to have guns wherever they want and it becomes a mantra for for certain groups in society so it is not just happening on the the sanctified supreme court level but it's really at the level of the general population and because it's guns as opposed to something else it it is something that we were all having to live with. All of us are being endangered by because people's view of what it means to be faithful to the constitution in this sense means have as many guns as possible and no restrictions on them anywhere and this goes to a little bit to your pucks on both houses his worldview because I think in fairness it was progressive legal scholars who were pushing the idea of an individual right to bear arms. I mean it was certainly growing in steam over the decades but I think tell me if I'm wrong but part of it was when progressive legal scholars jumped into the debate on the side of individual rights making exactly the claims you just advance which is look if we believe in a robust first amendment we have to believe in an equally robust second second amendment that wasn't coming from the political right that was coming from the Progressive Legal Academy as well and I think it goes to you know sort of your arguments about how in the First Amendment Sphere we have the same problem which is if we I used that as the benchmark that we have to have almost unfettered first amendment rights then pushing the boundaries of what Second Amendment Rights looks like fairness right. That looks like parody. I think that's right there. There is a fascinating convergence as you say there was definitely a deliberate move on the part of the gun lobby to to encourage writing on the subject of let's talk about the Second Amendment as an individual right but you're absolutely right it also came from liberal academics who you were saying if we're going to be consistent about the nature of individual rights under the constitution that it means it for Second Amendment two and it's it is one of those those moments where liberalism broadly conceived does this thing where it tries to be principled even about things ah you know where there were the outcomes are may be a rather sinister so to prove just how committed we order principle to show we even mean it about the second amendment without possibly thinking about how well there's another alternative here which is that maybe we're not so right about the way that we've been handling playing the other rights under the the the constitution so it was an extraordinary convergence right between a certain kind of liberal thinking and a very motivated very sort of <hes> I think in some ways weirdly corporate but but also in some ways grassroots kind of pushed to say this is what the Second Amendment should mean. I'm glad you got to Wehrley corporate because I think that's a big chunk. In both your second and First Amendment discussions of of how money and monied interests are driving a lot of these tendencies to push the borders and you talk in your chapter about speech you talk about the A._C._l._U. in in your view getting on the wrong side of citizens united getting on the wrong side of corporate speech and I wonder how much your view of this certainly would be different if we didn't have big big big money interests <hes> pushing for corporate speech on the one hand or the notion that you know opposing unions is protected First Amendment speech that part of what happens is that corporations and big money and lobbying groups get very invested in pushing doctrine in a certain way and there's no counterweight I in some sense. I think your point in the book is this idea of the marketplace of ideas allied the fact that there's actually a marketplace of money <hes> that distorts exactly that and this is what makes us even more complicated because it's hard to imagine a world in which that didn't happen but we know that we live in a world world now where corporations because of because of the government exist as these kind of monstrosities and monstrosity in a very specific sense that you know we like to believe that as civilized members of a society we we are at least somewhat limited in terms of the harm that we can cause others because their consequences for our actions at least at some point the corporation is truly inhuman in that sense because you the ability at least in the Modern Day Corporation to insulate these entities against the negative consequences of their actions while allowing them to endlessly profit from their behavior and that sets up a real problem and now when you get corporations into the mix of of now being able to claim they have a constitutional rights. It's sort of the worst of all possible worlds you've created this entity that is relentless in its pursuit of profit and completely indifferent to the impact that it has on the General Welfare and the new constitutionalize is that not only do they have that ruthless power in the marketplace we are also going to invest them with constitutional dignity so that they can make that claim as an ideological matter and I think that's really the worst position for us to be in Marian. I WanNa talk about your work mark <hes> on the Internet because it predated <hes> this book and then I think you're chapters in this book on speech. Make precisely the claim you just made about corporations which is essentially this notion that there nobody is harmed by speech each unless they get punched in the mouth just doesn't map onto the current age and I I wonder if you could back up and talk a little bit about the ways in which you analyze speech on the Internet whether it's revenge porn or harassment or the kind of shocking rocking bullying that has driven women off line in terms of the real and material harms that you're describing in the ways in which are kind of quaint early twentieth century notions about you know fighting words doctrine or fire in a crowded theatre doctrine. Just doesn't get us where we need to go. When in your view speech has long past the line of these are just ideas right and this really does take us right back to the formation of the bill of rights themselves the way they're constructed in these kind of artificial isolated ways the presumption being that if you're going to say the government should not infringe upon my right to speech the presumption there is that you have a right of free speech that you are not prevented in a host of ways ways from ever expressing what you want to express? There's this real sense of luxury that that you just presume that you have these rights in the only limitations that there need to be our when the government are upon the government and that I think if you if you had I had women are non white men to help craft what we think of as our most fundamental rights. I think you would have heard something very different because of course if we think about the question of what does it mean to protect the right of speech or defense or property to to someone who's enslaved you get a very different answer if you get that question for a woman who is essentially lost her legal and social identity when she gets married you'd get a very different response so we have this really long history in this country of just not paying attention into the kinds of harms that anyone who doesn't happen to be white and male and for along part of history wealthy <hes> the kinds of problems that they don't have to face so speaking specifically about the experiences of women. Would we know that it doesn't take much to take away their rights of free speech you can if we're talking about the forces of domestic violence or harassment or <hes> sexual harassment at the workplace or whether it's invasion of privacy or whether it's exposure of someone's sexual identity these are always in which you can effectively shutdown wom- entire life that her career her educational <hes> capabilities her intimate relationships simply by promoting a certain view of her as a promiscuous person or as someone who cannot be trusted when it comes to certain matters of domesticity so this idea that somehow the only thing we need to worry about are these these bizarre categories at the Supreme Court has come up with and it's always extraordinary to think about people saying that the First Amendment protects is everything except for these clearly historically <hes> labeled <hes> categories those categories that are apparently agreed upon are some of the worst categories we could possibly have come up with they make very little sense and they have very little relevance for the Present Day. Fighting words is an example obscenity is another one and people think about the prohibition on Child Pornography Forget that that didn't happen till the nineteen eighties so as far as historically settled upon it's actually extremely new and so it is a strange thing and that the people who are most convinced of of what they think is the settled doctrine of the First Amendment have not recognized that settled doctrine really is unintelligible on its face that if we're trying to make any kind of sense of what the Supreme Court has. Has Done with regard to the first amendment. It really is nothing more than saying. There are certain kinds of speech that we think are more harmful than they are beneficial and therefore we're going to exempt some of them from protection and as much as the court itself pretends like that's not the case so in U._S._B.. Stevens is claiming as though that is not the balancing test that they've taken they absolutely have always taken that and that isn't just true about those clear categories of speech. It's true about everything that doesn't get even cast as a first amendment issue so we don't really I think in every time I say this now I will. Someone's going to say it soon but there's a whole host of things privacy regulations rules against fraud rules against security regulations all of those things that aren't even characterized as first amendment issues so I think that it's not even so much that people have not assumed that harm in the First Amendment context can be more than physical. I think we do recognize that securities regulation price fixing all of that kind of stuff recognizes that but there's this tendency to not see see those categories when you're trying to tell someone don't try to expand the first amendment. Don't try to change the status quo. It's a kind of it's a way to make invisible the kinds of choices that are being made on a regular basis and to try to tell anyone who's calling for reform or recognition of certain types of harms that they're trying to do something radical in strange and just trying to <hes> you know force a kind of new social ideal onto freedom of speech which has been basically the same forever so I think there's a lot of unpacking to due to say look if you're going to even stand up for those categories that are supposedly settled within the First Amendment then you have to take a very hard look at what the court was trying to do and if you recognize that those categories exists and you want to defend them then there's absolutely no reason to not think think pretty expansively about the kinds of harm that historically and to this present day continue to affect certainly <hes> women but also really anybody who happens to become a target of certain social and private forces and it's interesting because this is the perfect perfect analog to your analysis on the Second Amendment. which is we now live in a world where everybody believes that the price of freedom is that everybody gets to take a gun to the playground and the price of freedom is that they can drive women off the Internet by calling calling them whores and that isn't set in stone anywhere that's just a kind of in the Zeitgeist of what we have all come to believe that the first so even if we're talking about facebook which isn't the government <hes> we all just take as an article of faith it goes back to your faith framing but as an article of faith that there's nothing that can be done to regulate facebook because First Amendment <hes> so? I think it's it's a it's this creeping powerlessness in the face of a widespread red recognition that actual harms are being done. Yes and I think that that kind of Faux powerlessness is not an accident because the powers that be that say there's nothing we can do are the powers that are not being harmed right. There's a reason why facebook wants to convince us that nothing can be done. There's just too much content. There's no way to to regulate this in a way that would be principled. There's a reason why the powers that are in control in government and at the corporate level and at the educational level and at every other level will say yes. It's just too complicated. Yes there are some problems but trying to deal with those problems would actually be worse than the problems themselves so we have to take a very hard look at who saying those things although an extraordinary thing that is happening in the last decade or so as that that you do now have the powers that be at least currently. Let's say this current administration saying well. We actually think that facebook should be broken up or we do think now that conservatives are being censored on facebook and so we now think that we should have some government intervention which is such a strange thing to be hearing from conservatives and from Libertarians who have been saying all of this time that the market should take care of things well the facebook's policies whatever we may think of them that is the market taking care of things and we should be highly suspicious suspicious of any entity now who suddenly concerned about that who suddenly say now. We don't think the rules are fair so I'm very very skeptical of where that's coming from but it does underscore this idea that we want to believe that there are certain certain things that simply cannot be changed the people who are saying that are deeply invested in things not changing and what really does need to happen on some fundamental level is for people to call that out and say well of course facebook is going to say that of course people who are empowered going to say that because it is in their best interest to do so but that doesn't make it true and it doesn't mean that we can't ever do better Marian I wanNA end where the book ends <hes> which is on the sort of hopeful note of the equal protection section clause and and I guess this is going to have to be your next book because it's short chapter and I wanna I wanna hear much more about it but you do map onto the equal protection clause that Conti in categorical imperative the golden rule you know you you've got such a hopeful and optimistic view of the equal protection clause in my own view is probably in this one place more cynical than yours. which is you know? We've had it for a long time. It's not getting us where we need to go. You can always say intermediate scrutiny walk away. I'm much less persuaded that if you're going to in your words not burn down the constitution if you're going to move forward with it that the equal protection in clause builds the thing that that the word you use at the very beginning which is empathy <hes> you know because underneath the content you know moral imperative underneath the golden rule there. Is this notion that other people matter as much as you you do and I don't know that that's a constitutionalize -able notion. I think that is right or wrong. Baked into the fatal flaw that the framers made which is that other people didn't matter as much they did tell me I'm wrong. I want to believe that you are wrong and the way that I have thought about it up to. This point is that as imperfect as the fourteenth amendment is I do see it as this this belated needed attempt to confront the sense of the past and not trying to idealize the moment that it was created in history. There are all sorts of problems with the way that the amendment came about and the intentions behind it and way that it's been applied or not applied since then and so all of that conceded the the attempt of this project though is is deeply personal in this going back to the sense of my previous upbringing not only only as a religious person but also as a conservative person and this this this remains a conflict for me because my entire family remains religious and conservative and I don't want to lose them in any kind of meaningful sense so what I've struggled struggled to say and I continued to struggle to say and still believe is a is a powerful conversation to have is there is if nothing else a moment at which we are all saying we care about the constitution we can do something with that the fact that people at least believe on some level that they are they're faithful to the constitution is a good starting point. The other thing that people say that I think we can all say is true now. Everyone seems to be quite acutely conscious of the pain that they're suffering. Everyone seems to be clear on the fact they are suffering some kind of oppression. We can also do something with that that is to say. I think it's true that everybody is suffering from some form of oppression. Everybody is suffering from whether it's <hes> job insecurity or whether it's poverty or whether it's identity identity crises or whatever the case is people are all suffering what I'm hoping that the book can try to help people to see if you can recognize the suffering in yourself. This is back to the founding conversation. The better way to have a revolution is look around the world to say well if I'm suffering and I have these things what about the person next to me who doesn't have this thing. It doesn't have this thing or has this extra prejudice that they have to shoulder. Can we focus not deny ourselves that moment of saying yes we are suffering. We we are having we are not who we want to be. We are not allowed to to have the freedoms and the expressions and the life that we want to have but I look at my neighbor and I see that they are struggling with the same things and they have this other burden. Can we say that to be committed to the constitution to be committed to the authenticity of experience. Can we say then that would require us to look at that person and say I see where you are and I also care as much about lifting you up as I care hear about lifting myself up so when I defend with all of the emotional and sort of religious attachment that I have to my rights that I fight fiercely for you because I know you're going through more. That's the hope that this this book could at least start that kind of conversation. Will I very much WanNa live in that world with you so let's end on the hopeful note. Marianne Franks is a professor of law at the University of Miami School of law where she teaches First Amendment Law Criminal Law and procedure procedure and family law she serves as President and legislative and Tech Policy Director of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. She's also a Co producer of the Twenty fifteen documentary hut girls wanted and Marianne. I think you so very much sh for coming on the show and that is a wrap for this episode of amicus. Thank you so much for listening. If you want to get in touch we love your mail and our email is amicus at hat sleep dot com. You can always find us at facebook. Dot Com slash Anka's podcast. Today's show was produced by Sarah Burning Gabriel Roth is editorial director of sleep podcast and June. Thomas is senior managing producer of slate.

Charlottesville America John Paul Stevens Supreme Court Marianne Franks harassment University of Miami School of Stevens District Court Supreme Court Paul Stevens High Court court of Appeals
A Judge, on Judging

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

1:04:29 hr | 1 year ago

A Judge, on Judging

"Hi, I'm Noah of the daily show with Trevor Noah, which is also a pod cost. Did you miss last night's episode catch up with the daily show with Trevor Noah is dishing? You'll also get extended interviews with our guests in case you missed its conversations with people like Barack Obama and Jennifer Lopez and special episodes of between the scenes where I have candid conversations with audience members during commercial breaks. It's everything you love about the daily show except for the dimples, but we are working on technology to make an audio version of those two you can listen to the podcast Monday to Friday, mornings everywhere podcasts costs are available daily show with Trevor Noah addition subscribe now. How many federal judges does it take to change a lightbulb? There's two answers one is just one he holds up the light full and the entire world revolves around him. But the other one I think is more spot on is change change who said anything about change. Hi, and welcome to Anika slates podcast about the law. The supreme court and the rule of law in America. I'm quick I cover some of those things for slate. And thank you up front to slates own. Mark Joseph stern for guest hosting our last episode. Where shall we begin at the supreme court this week? The justices continue their long quiet March to June and their final opinion. No more oral arguments from them until October. Former Justice John Paul Stevens who is nineteen nine unveiled a new auto biography and mad ping pong skills on NPR and vice president Pence claims the president will be asking the court to do something about broad nationwide injunctions from lone district court judges, stay tuned the country. Meanwhile, finds itself on the brink of what Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler are calling eight quote constitutional crisis over the White House's blanket refusal to comply with pretty much any congressional oversight in the next few weeks. This huge impasse is going to have to get resolved likely in court, and we. We at Magus will be there to bear witness. Also, there are states like Alabama and Georgia that are now passing all out abortion bans in the hopes of forcing the high court to overturn Roe in Alabama. The legislature is just full out gambling on the hope that fifth Justice is waiting to strike road down sooner rather than later. We will be on that as well. It's a lot. But we're going to try to cut through the noise and do something that I have wanted to do on the show for a very long time. Every show I tell you that amicus is sleep podcast about the courts and the law and the rule of law, right? And most shows we will then talk to lawyers and law professors and writers and journalists, and we even hear recordings of the justices themselves at oral argument, but I never get a chance to talk to real judges. We wanted to hear from federal Jewish for a long time on the show. We've known how constrained they are by the Jewish. Canons that don't allow them to discuss their specific cases or national politics and this week in an amicus. I we have somehow persuaded judge Robert last week to come on the show to talk about judges and judging injustice, and that's awesome. Judge last week is a federal judge on senior status with the US district court for the western district of Washington. He sits in the sunny city of Seattle Washington, he joined that court in nineteen ninety eight he was nominated by former President Bill Clinton judge last Nick served as chief judge of that court from two thousand four to twenty eleven and judge Robert last Nick, welcome is such a joy to have you on the show. Glad to be here. And thank you for being our first sitting judge. I wanna be clear that there are so many ethical rules that really cabin what you're allowed to talk about. So you when judges are quiet. It's not because they're grumpy or taciturn it's that they're really not meant to comment. And I think my first question is doesn't that just massively disadvantaged the whole bunch of you not being able to talk think most of the time, we are kinda grumpy. That's why we don't talk. And I think it's fair to say that we're better off with some of the judges not talking, but other judges, I think really could present a very human. But also, very enlightening exposure to the public. I'm really proud of what federal judges do. And I wish people could see us doing what we do on the bench more, for instance, cameras in the. Courtroom. I wish they could see and hear from us. Speaking about those areas that we can't talk about what is it. That makes the third branch different. What is it? What does it mean? To have a lifetime appointment, what does it mean to be a district judge or an appellate judge or supreme court Justice? How is it different? Why? Article three written the way it is those are things we can talk about. And I wish we would more often and thinking of before she came on the supreme court bench Justice, only, then Elena Kagan said I wish people could watch or arguments even at the court because they've fallen love with what the court does. And then when she got on the bench, she kind of changed her mind, but I do think that. The fact that what the public sees is confirmation hearings, which are the most toxic pernicious version of what a judge does. And then they shut off the cameras, and we don't get to see everything that happens after the addition, it has to be bad that that bargain seems like it's the worst of both worlds agree with you completely on that. And part of it may be is my journalism background. But I answer questions when I can I say what I can't answer. I'm make myself available to members of the media to who just wanna bounce something off me. Did I get this right to understand it? You know, we have a lot of things that we do procedurally that are very difficult to figure out you haven't clerked for the ninth, circuit know that the in Bonk system makes people's eyes roll, and they misunderstand you're gonna have to explain what the bunk. This is for our listeners love, I'll take the rest. You know, we have three judge panels. And then the if the aggrieved party that didn't win before the three judge panel thinks it's such an important issue. It could should go to a larger group of ninth circuit judges eleven only drawn out of a bingo container with the chief judge. Now, sit Thomas from Montana, and then ten other of the act of judges, and they rehear the case there, it's not an appeal from three judge panel, the three judge panels opinion goes away, and it's reheard by the in Bank and a lot of times the media thinks that the unban is an appellate stop after the three judge panel. And that all the judges are on the environment. Not just ten and the chief, but the entire court. And so you get a lot of misunderstanding in there. How do we pick the chief judge that's a complete mystery to a lot of people, and it's a form. Bula the most senior of the active judges who has not yet sixty five and has not yet been chief judge, and it's different than the supreme court where the chief Justice is appointed and stays as chief Justice parenthetically because when you pick the chief judge of a district or circuit the way, I just described you could end up with somebody who really isn't best suited to beat chief judge, and that's happened. So the the federal judiciary looked at maybe we should change the way we pick chief judges, and they looked at how popes are selected, and how deans are selected and how CEO's are selected and the ran report came back and said there's no consensus on what's the best way. But what you do is the worst way. So we decided to keep it. I was going to say, which did you pick the pope method or no you hit? When those same old same old, chimney and smoke. Just same old formula. I wanna talk about it every single thing. You just said, but I want to explain senior status because you took senior right? And folks, I don't know what that means. And I think we're we're in a very overheated climate about judicial vacancies. Can you explain what the process is? You're you're a fulltime sitting judge. And then you take senior status. How does that work? The formula is you can go on senior status when you are sixty five or older and your years of service as a federal article three judge added to your age of sixty five equals eighty the rule of eighty. So if I'm sixty five and I have fifteen years of service, I can go on senior status because sixty five plus fifteen is eighty but if I'm sixty five only have ten years of service. I can't go on senior status for another three years because sixty six. Only have eleven sixty seven I'll only twelve but by sixty eight I have thirteen and now I reached the rule of eighty when you go on senior status it allows the president to appoint someone to take your active position. And so I went on senior status in January twenty seventh on my birthday and twenty sixteen when I turned sixty five because I had sixteen years of service, and therefore we're actually seventeen years of service and added up to the rule of eighty but three and a half years later, I'm still not replaced yet. Because either the president nominates nominated someone who didn't receive a hearing or someone has been talked about for nomination. But also didn't get a hearing. And when congress the congress where that nomination has made expires we go back to square one. And so right now my position and three. Others in the western district. Washington are open where the judges on senior status, but without a replacement that's very difficult for court because senior judges tend to wanna cut back their caseload, but only wanna do. So when someone has been appointed to take over that position. So you're not still doing it. One hundred percent of your former caseload, are you? I'm not a hundred percent, but I'm higher than. Yes. Am up in like three quarters in such and you're saying this, very civilly politely. But it's in fact, I think a cause of huge frustration that there are normal number of judges who would like to be playing with their grandchildren who are still sitting for the indefinite future. Right. I mean, this is a problem. It is a problem and we've tended to go through peaks and valleys in getting judges confirmed. But if you have senators from one party as we do in Washington state and president from the other party there needs to be a mechanism for reaching consensus. We have had a bipartisan merit selection panel in our district since nineteen ninety eight. I was the first one that came out of that process. And I can honestly say Dalia that if you look at the judges who are appointed by Ronald Reagan, and George W Bush and the judges who are appointed. By Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. There's no difference in what we do. We are judges. There's no adjective in front of our name as to who appointed us, or you're the black judge of the Jewish judge or the woman judge we are judges. And in the best sense of the word where federal judges who as I say, we would generally handle each case almost exactly as our colleagues would. And I think this move to politicize who judges are. So that you're a a Republican appointed judge or you're a democratic pointed judge your woman judge or minority judge is very bad for the federal judiciary. And I think that's was behind chief Justice Roberts. Finally, speaking out to say, we don't have Obama judges and Bush just we just have article three federal judges cynic is going to challenge you on that the same way most people. Challenged chief Justice Roberts when he said it and the pushback was, oh, of course, there are different judges. And of course, you know, you are reflective of the president who appointed you you just have to say this to try to, you know, look Iraqi leader and magical and notice I didn't say it was true everywhere in our district. But I, unfortunately, it has changed on the US supreme court where everyone is totally predictable. You've lost the David suitors, Sandra Day O'Connor and John Paul Stevens. Yeah. And the been replaced by people who have been vetted to work into a certain of philosophy. And I think that's very unfortunate. But I think it's there the US supreme court to a lesser degree at the circuit court, but still at the district court. I think we have more no adjective judge, and I just want to ask journalistically because I know one of. The things I've heard a lot from judges from federal judges when they give me their laundry list of complaints about journalism ranking for higher than not understanding the bunk system is the complaint that we throw in appointed by Clinton after their names. And my editor would say that's really useful and important information, which last night couldn't argue with your editor is important information. Unfortunately, it and I fought that for a long time. But the reality is is there it is necessary. And when you have the president of the United States criticizing somebody is who appointed them, that's an Obama appointee. So therefore, it sends a message I think that he wouldn't necessarily do that as a Clinton appointees since it was his Clinton who appointed his sister to the circuit court after she had been appointed by a Republican president used to see that a lot more where person would get to the district court. Pointed by president of one party and the circuit court appointed by president of the the other party. Based on on on their body of work not based on who they were loyal to. So you're I I don't wanna go round and round on this. But I think that you're describing win win. Chief Justice Roberts says we don't have Obama judges and Bush judges we have judges to me, that's very lovely and aspirated melty, you it's it's still as a predicate largely true at the district court level. Yes. Okay. Can you just talk a little bit about how long you wanted to be a judge? Did you have little black robes when you were kid or did you? I know you meandered your way even to the law. No, you were I we have to talk about your background in journalism. But I know this wasn't a straight line. But when did you say, I wanna be judge? I think it was what I was trying cases in the nineteen eighties as deputy prosecuting attorney and King County, and I saw how important it was to have. Have a trial judge who could control the courtroom. But make sure that everyone got a fair shake the defendant, the prosecution the victims the jurors the witnesses and the like one of the great things about being general assignment. Reporter is you learn something almost every day because you're assigned to work on this story, or that story well in the trial court, you learn something on almost every case you get because you're dealing with a patent for running shoes one day, and you're dealing with an employment discrimination case in a field. You never thought about in another case, and you have a criminal case that involves the internet and people from Ukraine. So I love the fact that I'm still learning every day about something very interesting while I'm also trying to control the courtroom deal with jurors and witnesses and give everybody a really fair trial. And when you you know, when you do that, and you kind of know it yourself, but you know, I've. Had people say to me at the end of long cases, couple of criminal cases, where the defendants who had been through the system. So many times said judge did a really good job. And I said well coming from you that means something because I know you've seen a lot of trials and a lot of judges. So that the winners always complimentary. But when somebody who's lost and been convicted says, you did a great job that makes you feel good what proportion of your time. If you had to lay out the pie chart is trying cases what proportion is reading and writing what proportion is going around and giving you do a lot of speaking and a lot of panels and a lot of how does it in state court? I was state court judge for nine years before I was pointed to the federal bench was trying one case after another civil and criminal, and it was fun. But it was draining because your reward for finishing one as getting another in the federal court system. And it's changed over the twenty years. We're seeing the vanish. Shing civil jury trial for various reasons. Expensive discovery fear of what juries might do with damages awards. But also a diminishing bar. That's comfortable trying cases. They just don't have the experience and their little frayed of jury trials, whereas more comfortable doing mediations arbitrations or things like that. Then judges themselves are being trained not to the point that I actually went to a seminar once where the federal judge who was explaining how you deal with an employment scrimmage in case, basically said if you end up going to trial to a jury trial in this case, you are a failure. I don't think that's true. We need to have some cases go to trial. That's all the law evolves. That's how the common law develops. That's how courts get to look at it and say, you know, that it's time for policy change here. And if we push all these civil cases. Away from the courtroom and jury trials were doing a disservice to our Justice system, and that Twi I'm reason I'm here is this NYU civil jury project to try to get judges to think about ways we can bring back the jury trial in the criminal area. Because federal prosecutors have so much control over charging. We've really become a plea bargaining criminal Justice system, and it's the odd case that goes to to to a jury trial. So it's it's very much changed. And and I don't think it's a good thing. You just said something that struck me slightly astonishing. I've always thought the closing of the courthouse doors, and the decline of of cases going to trial was just a function of expediency and laziness and systems, you're saying young lawyers. Don't want to do this work. I don't think they get a chance to do it. And they're they're scared. You know, the first few years in a firm, they may be looking in a dark room at electronic discovery to read a bunch of emails and text messages, and they are not used to being in the courtroom, some of our judges like judge Pittman rewards people by granting role argument on motions, if they use a young lawyer, a woman lawyer, minority lawyer, and and Jack Weinstein's doing the same thing in eastern district in New York. And so we're trying to develop reasons for the younger lawyers to get their experience in the. It room even just arguing motions it's getting harder and harder. But you know, I think what we did is we we said that one point alternative dispute resolution should be utilized it and it offers great relief for way too expensive trials and for overworked federal judges. We're not overworked we can do more and that alternative dispute resolution still has a place. But we've promoted it, I think on unfortunately and unfairly to the right way for judges to almost coerce people into doing some sort of alternative dispute resolution. So I think we need to reclaim our role as people who preside over the Justice system, not just the resolution system, and where does the cost of the Justice system filter into all this m asking in part because a judge told me just this week that in her court parties. Can't get a court reporter unless they pay for it now. And I was like how would you have a record? Could you have an appeal and she said, yes, a problem? I mean, nothing is funded in the state system. That's very very true in the federal system. We've been very successful getting budgets from congress because of great advocacy from the judges and the administrative office to show what we do. And what resources we need to get the job done? I mean, we pay for federal defenders out of our budget, and that's a big ticket item. We do US probation and pretrial that's a big ticket item. And we do cases with case load. That is very challenging. Sometimes if we didn't have our senior judges to help out and in our district, we have judges in their eighties and seventies who are trying more than a half a case load and carrying more than half a caseload. If we didn't have those senior. Judges. We could not we'd be so backed up it would be a disaster. And I think the bar needs to step up more and say give the judges the resources they need to get the job done. So this tells into this thing that I know you've been thinking about and working on so hard, which is the relationship between race and the Justice system. And I know you've you done a ton on implicit bias and access to Justice. But I think this is an issue that maybe has not surfaced in a while because there's so many other things going on. But this is a very very real problem in the in the both the state and federal Justice systems, it is and we've tended to want to ignore it in the federal judiciary. Frankly, I was fortunate to be on the judicial conference US, which each circuit has chief Circuit Judge and district judge selected in various ways, and we meet twice a year. Here in Washington DC. It's chaired by the chief Justice, and it's the policy making body for the federal judiciary. But in my time on the traditional conference and chief Justice Roberts appointed me to the executive committee to I wanted to try to get us to add a new committee on fairness, racial, fairness, we have one in the ninth circuit. And I'm on it. And it really is looking at issues that are just not getting attention pretrial release who gets it who doesn't what are the statistics say about minorities and the like sentencing, we know that there's unfairness and sentencing based on race. Where does it come from? What can we do about it? And I thought that for a while my idea was being well received. But ultimately the decision was made. We're not gonna have a separate committee. We're not gonna have a separate task force. But we're going to ask each one of the standing committees. To look at racial fairness within the context of what they were otherwise charged with, and frankly, I I don't think that was a good decision. I respectfully disagree with that one. And I'm trying to do what I can in the ninth circuit to to bring back a concept of we have to deal with implicit bias. We have a video that was developed in in our district that from the bench and the bar and the academic community to deal with the issue of unconscious or implicit bias. And we now show it to every jury civil and criminal, and we're getting wonderful feedback from the jurors about how it made them slowdown made them think if that person was a different race would I be looking at this case differently. And I we need to to break out of our reticence to ever change. And that's really what's behind it. It's not that. There are. Over and and racist people. It's just that there's a discomfort dealing with certain issues, but you know, a little bit. The federal judiciary is kind of like the difference between state and federal states and the federal government in that the states are the the labs right for trying things out. Well, we have a lot of districts of federal US districts courts that are trying things out, and we tried out the video it's now being used in northern district, California. It's being used in state court municipal court. We've had tons of interest in it. And it's getting a lot of attention it Mike go from Senate from the top down. It'll go from the bottom up, and there are many people are just heard judge Bob Conrad in North Carolina is having courtrooms built in the jeffersonian style in a new annex where the jurors will be in front of the judge. So the jurors. They're back to the judge looking out at the witness stand. The witness will be facing both the judge and the jury straight on. And then the lawyers will be on either side. This is how it was in Jefferson's time to emphasize that the judge and the jury are the ones who are making the decision the judge on the law, the jurors on the facts, and they would have a different perspective in view. Now. I'm a Hamill Tonia, not a jeffersonian. So I don't want that in my courtroom. But there's an example of people thinking outside the box. Let's try it. And see and see what the reactions are does that mean that you're in perpetual conversation that we don't know about with the social scientists and with psychologists when I mean is that a where do these notions? Where are they born? I wish I could say yes to that question because I really think that we could learn a lot from social science and in the area of implicit bias. That is absolutely true. And we were influenced by. Song Richardson, who's now the dean at UC Irvine law school and Jennifer Eberhardt at Stanford and other writers on implicit bias. And we took that to heart. But we don't do that enough. You know, there's a the federal judge joke. I don't know if you've heard it how many federal judges does it take to change a light bulb? And there's two answers one is just one he holds up the light bulb and the entire world revolves around him. But the other one I think is more spot on is change change who said anything about change. We just don't think we should change. And when you think about every other aspect of life how much it has changed. We're trying cases basically the same way with a little bit of electronic display of evidence as was done two hundred plus years ago. Well, that's true of legal education. Right. We're still, you know, terrorizing people with Langdale, Ian, you know, Socratic shouting. I mean, it's just true of this profession that we're so. Resistant to giving up old conventions and norms. Even though there for all the reasons that we could talk about really, you know, no longer service. But I think that there's an awful lot of people in this profession that lake it because it's a small c conservative professional true. And there are definitely certain advantages to it you want that predictability and consistency. And I and the chief Justice who is 'institutionalised looks back at other chief justices and sees steadiness, and consistency and predictability and independence. And those are extraordinarily important parts of our lives as federal judges. So it leads to my question about governance and transparency, which is a problem. I think. And there's a couple of problems with the judicial conference, and I was on there, and I loved it. It was wonderful experience got to meet, no, Merrick garland, and Bill Traxler and Joel davina these fabulous chief judges from circuits around. But remember how I told you how you become a chief judge the most senior on the Nath. And so it means that when we're looking around the table, the judges are all pardon expression on the old side. And so we don't get up and coming people on there for the most part now district judges are chosen differently in in different circuits. You know, they were some them are elected some of them are rotating by states and things like that. So we have some younger, but all the chief circuit judges are there because there the longest serving in their circuit. And you know, sometimes you get people who well, that's the way we've always done it. We don't wanna. Change or you have people who are not really up on the technology and the ways that we could make things better because they just are of a different generation. I mean, we're still giving out no pads and pens to jurors who are twenty one or twenty four years old who haven't used the notepad and a pen in their lives. How about a laptop how about letting them hold onto their electric devices and trust that they're not going to Google search every witness we need to to break out of the box. But then the other part is when we do meet in Washington DC in the beautiful United States Supreme court. There's nobody watching what we do because we don't let anybody in. No journalists. No members of the public. There's no transcript there's David sellers are wonderful press person will come out with the chair of the executive committee usually couple of hours later with a one paragraph statement of. This was the big highlight from the meeting, and it's of course, crafted in a public relations sense, not an an a new sense. You never see the debate to aren't that many frankly, and you never get a report on what's going on. We're driven by committees. Which also meet in private except for certain ones that have public hearings on civil rules or criminal rules. There's very little that you ever get to know about that. I wish we would do things more in the light of day. We're gonna pause now to hear from our great sponsor on this week's show. And that is the great courses we all need a break from the constant and relentless new cycle. And the great courses plus is a fantastic escape with the streaming service. You can pick up a new hobby or build your knowledge base on almost any topic. You would ever wanna know about like, maybe the great palaces of the ancient world or life lessons from the great books. And there are also how? Two courses on doing everything better from cooking to stargazing to taking photos. You can explore thousands of fascinating lectures, all presented by a ward winning experts who are passionate about what they teach. And with the great courses plus app, you can escape into this vast world of knowledge at anytime. You can watch listen whatever works best for you this week check out. The course the everyday gourmet the joy of Mediterranean cooking. This is a course that explores tapas and olive oil, and the wonderful clean eating that Mediterranean cuisine has to offer a master chef from the culinary institute of America will teach you how to create amazing dishes in your own kitchen. Tabas empower yourself with knowledge. Sign up for the great courses. Plus today for a limited time, they're offering amicus listeners, very special offer forty days four free. That's forty days of unlimited access to their entire fascinating library, but the only way to get this offer is by signing up through this special. You are L start enjoying forty days for free. Sign up at the great courses, plus dot com slash amicus. That's the great courses plus dot com slash amicus. We know you've valued the journalism here at slate. And now more than ever our work needs your support and the very best way to support it is via our membership program slate plus with a slate plus membership you can enjoy this all sleep pud casts ad free. And you'll be supporting our work at the same time. Now more than ever that matters. There's a free trial to be found at slate plus dot com slash amicus. Now, let's return to our conversation with judge Robert last Nick senior US district. Judge of the United States district court for the western district of Washington. I know you and I have talked before about judicial misconduct in some of the ways in which the judiciary really wants to both signal that it's responsive in concern. But also, we're handling this. And you can't see and it's the exact paradox. We opened with judge which is one needs to do those things in order to have public trust. And I absolutely sympathetic to John. Rob Roberts impulse to say nothing to see here. No misconduct. It's being handled. And also the sense that, you know, all these young women who want to come and tell their stories and beyond every committee about sexual misconduct that can't work, I suppose, but I don't understand why there isn't the next step of understanding, which is that utter lack of transparency doesn't foment public confidence. It foments. Really legitimate grousing about the fact that everything looks like a cover of. Especially I wish that when there is a major issue like the judge Kozinski thing that the fact that a judge retires or resigns should not end the inquiry to me, even if you're not gonna discipline that judge because you don't have the ability anymore 'cause here she is not a judge you need to know. What went wrong what levers were used by the judge to isolate intimidate and harass and what how did the system fail, and that I don't think we ever came to a reckoning with that a number of times when judges said, okay, I'll just resign. And everybody was like great. We got rid of that bad apple now, we can move back to our draw the wagons circle state of mind. So so it sounds like you're saying that what at some point this entire top down. Governance system is going to require is exactly. Kind of person that can never get to the top in this kind of governance system. Right. I mean, it would require somebody who is absolutely willing to say. Fling open, the doors, admit vulnerability and little hang out. And that that can't happen for reasons that I guess I understand, but it's a little dispiriting wouldn't sit can happen. It's highly unlikely. Okay. And and in many respects, you know, the chief Justice is such a charming, and and telling really wonderful delightful person to interact with, but he was not someone who was interested in opening the levers that you just talked about if we had a chief Justice who was of the belief that allowing cameras in the US supreme court is not a terrible thing. In fact, it could be a really wonderful thing. You could see some change. What's your best argument for cameras? I I know mine is a journalist. My best argument for cameras is the more the people see what we do the better. We look and the more confidence they have in us, and you know. I know that. A number of justices who used to feel that way when they were circuit judges or academics. When they got there. They say, oh, we can't do it. We can't do it. But I'm not heard good arguments for that to me, these are important policy issues. They are talked about in the most intelligent and civilized way. Nobody screaming at each other. Like you get in congress. Nobody's issuing decrees and proclamations and executive orders that are inexplicable. The the the idea of saying our opinion speak for themselves. Not in this environment. We need to to let them see what we do. And how we do it and judge Robart handled the police case in Seattle and those were televised. They're not live stream the case for one second. It was one of those ones where department of Justice in the. The Obama administration came forth and said the city of Seattle police department was policing in ways that violated federal rights of individuals, and they needed a federal judge to oversee changes in the department. The city of Seattle agreed. But at a certain point they disagreed about many of the other other underlying issues and judge Robart. In addition to all his other cases at took that process on still dealing with it, but it's a tattoo tremendous positive impact on our community. And it was good for people to see how a judge handles very difficult case like that. And when I had my three D gun case to which is still in front of me. But I did that preliminary injunction argument with the cooperation of the parties. So it could be seen. And I think those the more people see what we do the better. It is for the federal judiciary in terms of public confidence. In what we do think that most of the sitting justices when they testified at congress why they don't want cameras up just make security arguments. I mean, I think the principle thing they say is some version of I'm not safe. What's the answer to that? Is that is you don't seem to worry about. That when you go in the book tour. So I just don't think that that's an issue. And the other issue is well, some people may not ask questions if the cameras on your ready had that or some people may grandstand and ask a lot of questions with the camera on your already have that too. So it it's not really going to change the behavior. I believe I remember once hearing Justice Ginsburg at one of the circuit conferences when she was pressed on why the Canadian supreme court has had cameras since the seventies. And I think her adore ably Ginsburg ish answer with some version of, but those are Canadians implication being what they don't grandstand. They barely speak. But I do remember hearing at the time. I think the supreme court the chief Justice of the Canadian supreme court saying one lawyer tried to get grants, Dan once I stopped. And and I think it's this notion that you can't control advocates in front of you. I mean, that's your job. That's our job in the the Washington state supreme court has been. Having televising all their oral arguments for years and not have not had any problems with security or any problems with grandstanding or any problems with shutting down justices who want to ask questions. So it's just that's the way we do it. And it'll it'll only change if you get a chief Justice who really wants to change. I remember when the ninth circuit argument, the first argument in the travel ban case was being the audio was being streamed watching people crashing the website in their eagerness to listen. And I thought this has to be teachable moment for the federal judiciary? Millions of Americans are Li listening to oral argument in a case. And yet it seemed to move the needle. And I thought that the judges did a great job and the lawyers did a great job. And why not let people see that? There's a lot of interest in it, isn't it look at the the play on Broadway now about the constitution, which is also from Washington state. And people are really excited about why do we have three branches of government? What does it mean with this separation of powers, and how do branches coexist with each other? And I think that's great to have people wanting to learn more about the government in how it operates including judiciary jurors Google during. During track. Not I tell them not to do any research on their own. I don't want them googling the defendant to see his prior records are things like that. So yeah. No. I say what we what we're everything you need to know about this case, you will get in the courtroom. And can they tweet tweeting? No Facebook ING. No blogging adhere to your roof. Yes. I believe. So I guess you would find out if they were I think we'd find out if there was a big problem. But you know, sometimes there there are, but I always tell them soon as cases over you, can bore your friends and relatives with every detail. But not until that, what do you read? Well, I'm I'm very proud to say that one of my colleagues from Edwin Markham junior high school on Staten Island Sigrid newness won the national book award for her book, the friend, which I think is a wonderful book. I love her work. I am a big Stephen King fan. I think I read the shining for the tenth time in the last three months a creepy. But I like a good take me away story and the biography of Louis Brandeis went to Brandeis university by Jeff Rosen, and those are where I am right now. I remember asking a federal judge if they read law reviews, it's not a trick question or do not read law. So this goes a little bit back to your initial point about. Legal academics still largely believed that that's where they are influencing the conversation and not a ton of judges read the law reviews. That's very true. No, maybe it's different at the supreme court with the clerks. I don't know. But for the most part, it's pretty irrelevant to what we do less. I it's a law review article praising something I. Read it over and over and provide it to everyone. I can't talk about how you use your clerks. Well, I am so blessed to have a career law clerk LB Craig no who has been with me since day one. And she is such a indispensable part. She recently told me that her doctor husband had given notice that he's going to step down from his job in hospice care in a year. And I mentioned it to my wife, and she said, oh my God. Don't tell me LB's gonna leave too because you won't be able to do your job without her confidence. But LB loves her job. And she is not leaving. Thank goodness. But she's in the mazing lawyer, and she does tremendous amount of research for me. And in the best of all worlds LB will or any law clerk will give me a case for that. I have coming up for summary. Judgment motion to dismiss whatever the motion is. And say judge, here's the briefs. Here's the cases you need to look at. And here's a proposed order if I agree after reading the briefs, and I agree with the decision than I read the order more like a editor to to make it sound. Like, it's my voice when drives LB crazy is a chill rite of thirty page opinion. And I'll add a paragraph that I know is going to be but the media picks up on because that's the journalism background. And then they quote, the little part of the opinion that I actually wrote, but that's part of the team work there. She's not in it for the glory. Like, I am. But and then on the other position, I have a long term law clerk that turns over one or two years depending on that person. And the grew the greatest part of the job of being a federal judge is working with law clerks. They are so brilliant. And they keep you young and keep you. Engaged. So that's really tremendous tremendous part of the job too, many in my humble opinion law students in this are listening to this. And they're thinking how do I get a clerkship? How do I become a judge? I mean, there's so myopically obsessed with the judiciary. I don't hire clerks directly from law school. I want them to have at least a year of practice or clerking for state supreme court or similar clerks clerkship. So that you come with the idea that you've been exposed to some aspect of the real world. And we get such incredible people applying that it's okay, judge pacman does something similar, but she also requires that, you traveled somewhere and did something in Africa or some, you know, something where you gave yourself. And and I think that encouraging people to become law clerks, not just. To get a check on your resume. So you can get a bonus and something later on but to have experienced some part of the world, and then bring that point of view to chambers is a good thing. I read that you when you advise trial attorneys, one of the things that you tell them is stop saying the evidence will show right this. The the evidence will reveal that that's a tick that we've all picked up from law and order that gets, you know, where when you're doing opening statement, you should tell a story the trial courtroom is all about telling stories, and you don't tell the story, you know, by saying this book will show that that creepy hotel up there in Colorado is really haunted. You know, you just say. Get right into the story and used the characters that are your witnesses to tell a story. And then that's the way to bring jury to what we're doing. So yes, there certain quirks that I have no halftime motions not basketball game, and at mock trial, which occasionally I do in state of Washington, I'm already well known among the high school kids don't ever say halftime ocean frontage last night. What is your best advice for with so many law students who listen to this show, many of them listen to the show instead of studying for the bar? What is your best advice about and this is just gonna sound ridiculous spiritual? But a life well lived in this profession because boy, do we screwed up sometimes as lawyers it is important to keep track of what is it that makes you happy and most of the lawyers who say they're unhappy frankly are working for big firms. They may be making decent salaries, but they're not happy with their work. Most of the lawyers who are happy with what they do are working for public defenders. Prosecutors immigration lawyers environmental protection doing something that enriches their life and makes them feel like. They're making a difference in the world. It's hard to say you making a difference in the world when you're totally somebody's briefcase for a big law firm, although you're making a lot of money doing it. And so it's it's always keeping your eye on. What is it? What is the real reason I became a lawyer? If the real reason he became a lawyer was to make a lot of money fine. Go ahead and do it. That's fine. But if the real reason, you became a lawyer was because you were inspired by to kill a Mockingbird or you were inspired by some lawyer who you saw stand up to injustice and take a a real principled stand. Be that lawyer you can be that lawyer there are people out there who are actually doing things like that and are enjoying their life and making a better impact for their community. And what what's the answer when they say, but my loans and big law and this entire system Jerry rig to push me into carrying sons briefed. As what's is it just broken the is tough when you're talking about not just the loan but six figures. Yeah. Yeah. That's a wish. My revised to them has changed that damn system. That's just unfair. Yeah. I wanna go back to Tokyo journalists for minute only because. We fought the current president for knocking journalists in journalism and fake news. And we can talk about that or not. But every single sitting member of the current supreme court has done the same in some context or other. They they take their wax at the press sometimes in very cartoonish ways. Don't like how we're doing our job. And I know there's a healthy good systemic tension that should exist between the the press and the courts, but I'm wondering Where'd the line is between what you do in your need for us to not call you out by name. Not misunderstand cases. Do the things we do wrong and us acting as a check on you, which we have to do. And I'm trying to figure out what what's the right amount of checking. We're subject to criticism absolutely as judges. And the media has a right to criticize us, I think they also have a right to try to get it accurate. But if they're accurate, and they just have a different opinion about that's a really stupid decision. This judge made. I'm okay with that. Not everyone agrees with everything. I do all the time. And I'm not right all the time the appellate courts tell me that. But you don't want to personalize it in a way to say that judge is evil or that judge is is a traitor, and this judge is patriot things like that. So I think that if you're talking about criticism of the media by judges or criticism judges by the media as long as it's done in a respectful way. That's perfectly. Okay. And I don't have a problem with the president criticizing judges either as long as he's doing it in the you know, we disagree. I would prefer for. Him to say we respectfully disagree with that. And we're going to appeal it, but you know, when he says, he's a mexic- Mexican judge or so-called judge that's bad. And and because that inspires the the hatred and the danger factor, which is not fair. And I think Justice course, said it's disheartening and discouraging when anyone attacks judges for their race or their national origin or their gender or anything like that. But this goes back again to your initial framing which is when the president is out there saying the entire ninth circuits ox, or you know, judge Robart is a so called judge. And then in this kind of subsonic whisper John Roberts after months and months response or really subsonic almost inaudible whisper Neal Gorsuch says that's disheartening. There's such a disparity in the tools the rhetorical tools in the megaphone. To this debate. And I wonder is it just time for someone to say. And it doesn't have to be you. It doesn't have to be now. But someone to say, this is really, and I I don't even think it's you know, you're sort of flagging the the danger issue, right? That it's bad to whip up public fury at anyone judge. And we know that that happens. I think the judiciary itself suffers I mean, it's not it's an institutional problem and judge Roburt hood to endure so many death threats. And so it was under twenty four seven Marshall protection. I happened to sit on the circuit with judge Clifton from Hawaii who had been on the appeal and he was under twenty four seven. So when we went to lunch, you know, the marshalls had to come with us. And of course, in that part of San Francisco, it's probably good to have Marshall action. And you it's a serious serious issue. There's no doubt about it. But. Also, the number one thing that was said to judge Robart in those emails and hate mails. And everything was I will never vote for you again. So the pit up. Okay. We see where it's coming from. Can we talk about Bob Dylan? Sure. Okay. So so you are on record as being one of the biggest Dylan fans in the federal bench. If my data is correct. Is that still correct Dylan is the most quoted songwriter still? Many of them like really bad use of quotes to including one from the Justice. Oh, no. I feel that we need to unpack some of this. You quoted Dylan before quoting Dylan was cool. Right. About eighteen years ago in the nineteen years ago in a case where we were looking at what was the congressional intent for title seven when it was passed in the nineteen sixties. And I put a footnote in about context that this was at a time great turmoil in the country. And we're the lyrics of Bob Dylan about the times, they are a changing senators congressman, please hit the heed the call. Don't back up the doorways don't something the halls. See who gets hurt? We'll be he who has stalled and it made sense in that context. I don't do it just to show I know of Dylan quote or anything like that. But it actually the first time I used it was oral argument of very interesting immigration case where we sat sort of like in Bonn, which we never have done before. Or after all the act of judges heard this appeal because we all. Had similar cases and an involved. What do you do with a person who's been ordered deported? But the country won't take that person, Vietnam and Cambodia were big. And then they were bunch of year was nineteen ninety nine and we had the oral argument. I am the youngest judge on the court then by about twenty years, I was forty seven. And in the argument, I asked the government lawyer I talking about the chimes of freedom, and I talk about for each unharmful, gentle soul misplaced inside a jail you gaze upon the chimes of freedom flashing, and there was like almost an audible gasps from the public interest lawyer public defender community that oh my God. We now have a judge who quotes Dylan. And as I left the the bench with my colleagues who were as twenty or more years older than me one of them said now where is that from and what's that song? And you know, but he liked it. And he wanted to use it himself kind of thing. So that's how I kind of got that. And then later on when I did the advocate. They I talked about how I was considered scandals traditional star because I just dispense contraceptive. Save whales and quote Dylan. Is there something about and I just say this as like a person who forces my children to listen to Pete Seeger. And they have no idea why I'm doing this is is there something about Dylan beyond just the Bob Dylan of it. That speaks to you. Is there some through line? I mean, there's so much and maybe we'll put up on the show page because the article article all the lyrics is fantastic. And let me back up for one little minute and say for listeners that there was a encyclopedic article in the LA times in twenty eleven but Carol Williams about the massive grip of Bob Dylan lyrics on the federal court, and we can the link onto the show page. But is there some through line from the Dylan? You're listening to as a kid in New York. And and what you're still trying to say or think about wh why Dylan what he spoke to my. Ration-, and you know, look, he's won a Nobel prize for literature. So it isn't just that. He was speaking to this one kid in New York City who was listening to WBAI and and finding a whole new world opening up. But it it stayed with me again going back to my answer. The previous question is those songs are about Justice. Those songs are about being focused on trying to make this world a better place, whether it was civil rights or peace or things like that. And and I think Dylan provides a touchstone for me of remembering why I'm where I am doing what I'm doing. Now, my kids are like dad that is so lame. Can't you at least talk about somebody who Cardi B? Now, I will say this. I had Chris Nova Selleck from Nevada in my courtroom on a case, and we were talked to each other like a huge nirvana fan. So it isn't like I'm just stuck in the past or anything like that. But my daughter now works Spotify. And Amanda sends me play lists and things to listen to. So I'm trying. All right. Maybe we're gonna have to get hold of your player lists and put it up on the show instead of asking what books. I'm gonna ask you one last question. And it's it's the sober one. That I give that I ask guests when when I know that a lot of folks are listening to the show or just feeling rattled and worrying about the guardrails. So the question is essentially this. I think that you and I are both people who are the most conservative radicals in the world. Right. We believe in the rule of law and in systems, and in the words of the constitution. And that's that matters to us. It's not fanciful thinking. But I think we live in a time where a lot of folks are finding themselves very destabilized by truth has no meaning and everything's up for grabs. And what gives you hope young people give you real hope I see it in my own children. I see it in young people around the country and around the world. And you know, the path is never always up two steps forward. One step back once forward three steps back, but I believe in in this country. You know, I it is it is a country. Conceived in slavery, and dedicated to the proposition that only white men are created equal. So you gotta you gotta get past that conceived in liberty antenna. Kate is the proposition that all people are created equal. That is not what the country was started on. But the country has evolved in a way that never would have been predicted back in in seventeen seventy five or seventeen eighty seven. And for the most part, those advances have been from the people not from the courts sometimes from the courts, but it's much better. When it comes from the people themselves not imposed on the people by judges. And and I think that's a it's there's a give and take and a tug in an pool. But I think we're ultimately moving forward and the young people will make sure we continue to move forward in the federal judiciary will persevere and. We will be there to make sure justices done I'm not going to be able to get you to sing a little Bill. And now, you don't want that would be a really that's all it would be now we don't wanna do that. Judge Robert lessening is on senior status with the US district court for the western district of Washington. He joined us here in Brooklyn. Thank you judge. This has meant the world has been great for me too. Wonderful. And that's all there is for this episode of amicus. Thank you so much for listening if you'd like to get in touch. Our Email is amicus at slate dot com, and you can find us at Facebook dot com slash amicus podcast. Today's show was produced by the divine saw wearning him. Gabriel. Roth is editor director of sleep podcasts and June. Thomas is managing producer of sleep podcasts. We'll be back with another episode of amicus into short weeks.

chief judge United States president Chief Justice Roberts judge Robart Washington Bill Clinton congress Washington DC Washington John Paul Stevens Barack Obama Seattle Trevor Noah law clerk Bob Dylan Robert editor
Day 908: Most Republicans stand by Trump as House votes to condemn his racist tweets

The 11th Hour with Brian Williams

45:11 min | 1 year ago

Day 908: Most Republicans stand by Trump as House votes to condemn his racist tweets

"Tonight the House of Representatives votes to condemn racist remarks by the president and yet the president who claimed again today doesn't have a racist bone in his body continues to go after four women of color all duly elected members of Congress and the Republican who is no stranger to criticism or Presper bny who is considering challenging the president in his own party on the economy. The reporter who broke the story standing by for us and a towering figure of American law is gone on nine months from his one hundredth birthday tonight. How the story of Justice John Paul Stevens would be simply impossible in the America of nineteen all of as the eleventh hour gets underway on Tuesday night? Well good evening once again from our N._B._C.. News headquarters here in New York. This was day nine o eight of the trump administration and while there's no joy in it one way of summing up today okay. Is this our government's broken. Our politics are broken. Washington is no longer functional and the cracks in our society are deepening much of this day was taken up by the discussion of racist statements by the president then then tonight came the news that had so many people thinking back to when we were different the death just tonight of retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens at the age of ninety nine. We'll have more on his extraordinary life and legacy Agassi later on in this broadcast but I to the news of this day and tonight that includes a rebuke of the president of the United States vote of Congress to condemn him for telling four members of Congress all U._S. citizens to go back to their home home countries. The Washington Post described the scene on the House floor earlier this evening quote the imagery of the two hundred forty to one eighty seven vote was stark diverse democratic caucus cast the president's words as an affront want to millions of Americans and descendants of immigrants while Republican lawmakers the vast majority of them white men stood with trump against a resolution that rejected his racist comments that have legitimized fear and hatred of new Americans and people people of Color only four Republicans in the House voted against the president here they are will heard of Texas Brian Fitzpatrick Pennsylvania Susan Brooks Indiana Fred Upton Michigan. They all voted for the Democrats macron's resolution former Republican now independent just a mosh of Michigan also voted with the Democrats House Minority Whip Steve Scalise Republican of Louisiana and Democratic Congressman. John Lewis of Georgia Asia each offered their own closing arguments shortly before the vote was called rather than engaging in this constant barrage of personality attack that we've seen week after week after week. The American American people expect us to be spending our time up here fighting for the issues they care about. I know racism when I see it. I know racism I feel it and at the highest level of government there's no room for racism every nation and as a people we need to go forward and backward. We should probably add the obvious John Lewis is an icon of the civil rights movement. This afternoon's vote was preceded by a raucous floor session which erupted after Speaker Pelosi openly called trump's remarks racist Republicans immediately moved to have her words stricken from the record along Party line vote. Her words remained hours earlier at the White House. Trump continued his attacks on the four members of Congress for a third day repeating his grievances during a morning cabinet meeting. It's up to wherever they want. They can stay but they should love our country. They shouldn't hate country terrible when people speak so badly about our country when people speak so horribly I have a list of things you have not going to bore you with it because you would be bored would right it anyway but I have a list of things hearsay said by the Congress women that is so bad so horrible that I almost don't Wanna read it. It's so bad. The president also defended his attacks on social media writing this those tweets were not racist. I don't have a racist bone in my body. The so-called vote to be taken as a Democrat con game. Republicans should not show weakness and fall into their trap. Republican leaders seemed to have taken that last line to heart today they lined up to swear their unfailing loyalty and devotion to Donald Trump. Even when the questions were a tad close to home she should go back two hundred criticism well. The Sector Secretary Transportation came here at age legally not speaking a word of English in as realize the American dream. I think everybody ought to tone down their rhetoric president roses and I think the tone of all of this is not good for the country the president's tweets that said go back racist no. I believe this is about ideology. This is about socialism versus freedom. The administration's defense of the president's words started this morning with White House Counselor Kellyanne Dan Conway on Fox News they represent a dark underbelly in this country of stop being so afraid of and adoring of four people got here a few short molly not long after that Conway reignited reignited the controversy during an exchange with a reporter in the White House Driveway Tressler was not telling these these four congresswoman Shubra Church. They're suppose a countries of origin to which countries was which your ethnicity because I'm asking you a question. My ancestors are from Ireland. Italy is not rolled into the question. It is you're asking about he said originally originally said originally from he's tired he we a lot of us are sick and tired of this country of America coming last two people who sworn oath of office. That's about how that went and here for our leadoff discussion on a Tuesday night Robert Costa the national political reporter for the Washington Post and moderator of Washington Week on P._B._S.. Donna Edwards former Democratic member of Congress from the Great State of Maryland now a Washington Post columnist and Tim O'Brien back with us as well executive editor of Bloomberg opinion he also also happens to be the author of trump nation the art of being the Donald Good evening and welcome to you all and Robert. I'd like to begin with you everything at the everybody at the White House okay with this. This is now a third straight days news cycle taken. Taken up by this or do they see this as an effective weapon of some sort ineffective weapon. Perhaps they argue about the twenty twenty presidential race dividing the country. They know they have inflamed the nation civic fabric with the president's racist tweets and comments step began on Sunday at the same time Brian talking to my top sources tonight Republicans in Congress and some even in the White House acknowledged that the president may have played a reelection strategy here but he is jeopardized his congressional channel. Agenda still has to try to get the U._S. M._C._A.. Trade deal through still has to try to extend the debt limit all of that up in the air as the Democrats move forward with this legislation including what the Republicans Donna Edwards. I need an honest answer your the the only former member of Congress. We've got to ask this question of. Are you surprised only four Republicans climbed over. Actually I was surprised and pretty saddened that that's true. I mean the history books in the United States are going record that the president of the United States was condemned by the Congress as a racist and you know he may say he doesn't have racist bones in his body but everything about what he's done from the birtherism to the Charlottesville bill both sides to these current statements really speak to his racism and it's unfortunate that Republicans in Congress more than just for them in one independent could not find their way to condemn the president's statements nets Tim O'Brien. We often have you on the air with a mutual friend of ours on a Pulitzer winner from the Washington Post Eugene Robinson because you gentlemen are so good together here in the studio. I WANNA show you you jeans reaction on this network earlier today. Go back to Africa was was a champ from the segregationists who tried to keep students from integrating what had been previously all white schools tried I to keep public accommodations segregated for whites only and that's essentially what the president has said not just essentially that's literally what the president said to four congressmen women of Color. I'm not quite ready to go all the way to the political ramifications of this or that it just has to be called out as unacceptable racism Tim as the trump expert here so much can be done with a wink and a nod when you're a civilian you can even question whether or not a president of the United States was born in Kenya when you're president the stakes get higher to Eugene's point. Is this a bigger than we've played it but just because life is like the frog boiling experiment. You know I'm sitting here watching Kellyanne Conway on a sweltering hot day in Washington thinking you know they have an air conditioned briefing rooms inside that building but we stopped using that and you know Kellyanne Conway I think who is usually fairly deft on her feet in terms of pursuing her agenda and turning these kinds of questions on her own interlocutors start started to go down this very slippery slope of of questioning or reporter about his ethnicity and I know where she was probably trying to take that which was to sort of say we all have these inherent biases we all come from somewhere else but on a day like this it shows how tone deaf and I think almost to the oh I would call it even hateful this White House can be around this specific issue which is the issue of race and they are tone deaf and hateful because I think it's coming from the top. Donald Trump didn't start being racist when he got inaugurated Rita's president. There's a long history behind this. He and his father were prosecuted by the not prosecuted sanctioned by the Justice Department for discriminate against prospective tenants of color at their housing developments in the nineteen seventies trump inserted himself in the late nineteen eighty s into the central park five jogger case he continued to claim that the Latino and black teenagers falsely accused of assaulting that woman were guilty he he always talks even now about people having good genes. There's a whole series of boxes you could tick off about what do we define racism by and he ticks off every one of those boxes when he did that is a private individual. I don't think people winked editing. He became he was he was exiled in a lot of ways from New York life from business circles and social circles but I think you correctly point out as a private citizen in a bit as a businessman. The radius of his damage was much tighter. He is now the leader of the most powerful Western democracy and he's failing to overcome as past and instead what he's doing is wallowing being in the worst parts of himself and racism is clearly one of those parts. The aforementioned leader of the most powerful Western democracy has just employed his cell phone inside the residency of the modern air conditioned White House so great to see this is let's see here 11:05 just as we were underway so great to see how unify the Republican Party was on today's vote concerning statements. I made about four Democrat congresswoman. If you really want SOC- statements look at the horrible things they said about our country Israel and much more they are now the top most visible members of the House Democrats who are now wedded to this bitterness and hate the Republican vote was one eighty seven to four wow also this was the first time since Nineteen eighty-four that the speaker of the house was ruled out of order and broke the rules of the House quite a day Robert Kosta. You just reeled off off the top of your head a list of the things not being done. It's an enormous list of things not being done and when in a city like this New Yorkers watched the lights go out on a Saturday night plunging the city into darkness say nothing of the fact that the mayor's out running for president in Iowa Iowa that's for a conversation at another time it puts things like I'll say it infrastructure into the public mind and the public public consciousness front and center and let's not as a reporter here put aside these Republican Republican votes who supported the legislation two of them one will heard from Texas african-american a veteran he said enough he broke with his party Brian Fitzpatrick the key swing district Philadelphia suburbs suburbs of Pennsylvania Bucks County. He said I'm going to go with the Democrats and is a former F._B._i.. Agent a retired F._B._I.. Agent one of the most competitive seats in the country. There are cracks in this party most of them when I talk to them privately they say a Senator Sanders told me today at the Post that they live in fear of the president because they need his political capital to win reelection in twenty twenty but they also know they have to face history and history will look back at these moments but they say they have already swept along in this riptide ever really since Twenty fifteen and twenty sixteen but twenty eleven and twenty twelve when everyone from Mitt Romney now senator from Utah to other top Republicans accepted the support of a birther Donald John Trump than a businessman. This man who questioned whether President Obama was from this country. This kind of attack has been central to president trump's political career for at least the last decade making others opponents feel like they're not American and casting them in that way and Bob. How do they pass something that used to be just one of the things they did like the debt ceiling which is looming? It's going to be very difficult. You have the Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin essentially pleading with Congress to extend the debt limit now. He thinks it's going to come up by September not later in the year. You have the full faith and credit of the United States on the line the markets which have been spiked up would be rattled by any kind of failure to extend the debt limit but how in Congress that is so on edge that you have them fighting on the floor of the House of Representatives about racism and the president. How can they get anything done speaker Pelosi her top allies telling me wants to get something done? She thinks she can can get a budget deal. Perhaps even before recess but it's a challenge for her because she has so many Democrats now because of the president's conduct sane enough we don't want to deal with him on the debt limit or immigration or anything we need to impeach him now and that's what Speaker Pelosi is facing that those tremors in the ground so Donna Edwards again as our former member of Congress. Could you make an argument that trump has diluted the power of Congress to get things done or is that too oxymoronic to withstand scrutiny no. I don't think so but I do think that there's a reckoning coming for the Republican Party because they're not going to be successful and you know the president drives this race baiting narrative because he sees it as a way I think to gin up his base that he can hold onto that thirty thirty five or forty percent going into the election but it's simply not going to work and I think that for the president if he wants to get anything done at all that he can tout his an accomplishment. He's not GonNa do it like this and I'm with the rest the Democrats I'm T- I'm ready to wash my hands of this president because he's just too slimy and he's just dirty and you know what I wouldn't put it past him to throw up another distraction next week because he knows that Robert Mueller is going to be on on Capitol Hill and that I think is going to be a turning point in terms of the way that Democrats and perhaps some Republicans maybe a handful of them are going to be willing to deal with this president of the United States Tim O'Brien. I say this guardedly but it's a related topic and that is Jeffrey Epstein who now be the May be the best known of Sexual Predator in the United States. This was today's N._B._C. News reporting on it and what exactly they've recovered from inside his New York mansion the passport this other passport with his photo but a different name was for personal protection in the event of traveled a dangerous areas only to be presented to potential kidnappers hijackers terrorists should violent Thailand episodes occur his lawyer Reid Weingarten wrote in court papers Tuesday saying that Epstein's Jewish faith and ample finances made him a target in the Middle East in addition to the passport federal agents found piles of cash rush and dozens of diamonds inside a safe in his townhouse in court papers filed Tuesday. The prosecutors detailed the discovery seventy thousand dollars in cash as people do and forty eight loose diamonds ranging from one to two point three eight carrots. I don't mean to laugh. None of this is funny question to you having reported on guys like Epstein in this circle. How far does this go well well? The court obviously has reason to worry about Jeffrey Epstein being a flight risk because two jets to jets couple of diamonds but if you WanNa get across borders you have a lot of cashing of diamonds they can tell whatever story they want about the passport but everything else in that safe Dave speaks to someone who wanted to be able to get out of town quickly and not be traced. I think there is still too big shoes to drop in this case. The first one is what what does the southern district of New York going to find in his files videotapes or or photographs. We had cameras all over his houses so I think there's gotta be a certain number of men who are worried about what that evidence might show. I think the other really interesting thing and all this and it's still too big mysteries. How did Jeffrey Epstein make money? How did he wind up being able to stick take seventy thousand dollars in cash and diamonds into a safe for safekeeping? It's not clear to me that he would have done that. Only through bribing people about dirty secrets he might have on video tapes. I think there's a possibility that Iran illicit financial transactions for clients. He might have parked stock. He could have laundered money. This is entirely speculative but but the Fed the feds have said he made about ten million dollars a year and he did that consistently over a number of years and they had about five hundred million dollars in assets that kind of money wouldn't just be popping in and out of his accounts if all he was doing was opportunistically bribing wealthy people so if he's if he's a more of the Bernie madoff kind of characters is develops. There's also going to be a whole whole range of relationships tied to that could be also embarrassing for a lot of very powerful and wealthy people exactly that's the world we're living in in July of twenty nine thousand nine hundred with our great thanks to our leadoff guest tonight Robert Kosta Congresswoman Donna Edwards and Tim O'Brien thank you for starting off our discussion and coming up the surprise possible opponent who could try to take on Donald Trump and republican primary later the voters will get to decide whether or not audits offensive to tell an American to go back where they came from more on the issue of race in this twenty twenty campaign and as we go to break on this fiftieth anniversary of the launch of Apollo Eleven look at that pictures of the projection section of the Great Saturn five rocket onto the side of the Washington monument tonight on behalf of a grateful nation as the eleventh hour is just getting started on a Tuesday night. Hi It's Katy Tur WanNa keep up with M._S._N._B._C. While you're on the go subscribe to the M._S._N._B._C. daily newsletter. You'll get the best of what you've missed. During this unprecedented era of news text M._S._N._B._C. Two six six eight six six to subscribe. You may know the face former South Carolina governor. Dan Republican Congressman Mark Sanford says he is mulling over a primary challenge to fellow Republican president trump in an interview with Caitlin Bird of the Charleston Post and courier Sanford said he'll take the next month to think about a potential and she'll run says he wants to push the debate on the deficit and government spending and says quote sometimes in life. You've got to say what you've got to say. Whether there's an audience or not for that message I feel convicted the post and courier points out that the scent that Sanford would face huge odds against getting any traction with his own party. The South Carolina Republican Party Chairman issued a statement that reads quote. The last time Mark Sanford had an idea this dumb it killed his governorship. This makes about as much sense as that trip up the Appalachian trail that of course a reference to Sanford's o-9 extramarital affair and the cover story for when he was visiting his mistress in Argentina Sanford has been a frequent critic of president trump. He lost his house seat after trump endorsed his primary opponent in two thousand eighteen but then the seat ultimately fell to the Democrats with us for more the aforementioned Caitlyn bird political reporter for the post and Courier newspaper in Charleston South Carolina and the Nita Kumar White House correspondent and associate editor for politico. Hey caitlin start with a just an aside hear. That quote didn't read right. was that are reading or is there something I'm missing. Why does he feel convicted? He feels a lot of conviction. The quote is correct. He did say I feel convicted but but what he meant is that he feels a strong pull to do this to find out in the next thirty days whether or not what he's selling in this political season to use a phrase he likes to us down here whether or not voters are interested in buying what he's selling selling whether that's in the form of a twenty twenty presidential primary to President Donald Trump or whether that's pushing forward with a think tank or some sort of an advocacy group to really push this debate surrounding debt spending on deficit and government spending and Caitlyn you know you and I have both met <hes> politicians who just don't seem right if they're out of office if they're not in office or running for office and I won't ask you to make a judgment but is is anyone making a case that this is just ego and it may be something of a suicide mission well Congressman Sanford and Governor Sanford and I actually talked about this today when we had coffee and he shared shared his plans to really explore this seriously in the coming months and it's not about ego for him. That's what he tells me for him. This really is not so much about going down with the ship. It's about out fighting for what he's always fought for. In the last twenty five years he's held political office in to your point to politicians who do seem out of place when they try to return to the private sector we saw Mark Sanford go to Chicago and try and take that twenty five years of experience in politics with him but still this drumbeat that just stuck in his mind as he put it to me it just lingered and he's someone that if he can't shake it he's going to pursue it in some form or fashion and that's what at these next thirtysomething days are going to be about and I'm sure all of us are going to be counting down those days on the calendar to see when he makes a decision and whether it actually is going to be a serious twenty twenty Republican presidential run Anita I noticed Sanford. I had an interesting media outing tonight with to Chris's one named Hayes the other Cuomo Chris Hayes was trying to get him to acknowledge that deficits matter most Republicans when the Democrats are in control the government Chris Cuomo was trying to get him to speak out against Racism vis-a-vis Donald Trump both did not go smoothly or well. We do know about Sanford Anita that he he is one of the button pushers for Donald Trump. I'm GONNA play this clip from trump and talk about it on the other side. I haven't liked him too much. I wasn't a big Fan. The Tallahassee trail must be beautiful place. Unfortunately he didn't go there no he didn't a lot of people were wondering where Tallahassee trail was. We've checked with Tallahassee. They have trail. No one specific trail is a thing there. That was the Appalachian trail. What is it about Sanford and trump? I needed you think well I mean you know president. Trump doesn't like any criticism and we can name some of those big critics on one hand right Jeff Flake Bob Corker Justin Amash right now so mark Sanford did not shy away from talking talking about him talking about not just the issues they disagreed on which obviously Republicans are going to disagree with him on Tariffs and and other things but it was personality it was when Congressman Sanford said facts facts didn't matter to president trump or that he fans the flames of intolerance so those really really got under his skin and as you referenced not only did he support his primary opponent he supported her hours before the polls close and and really looked like he made the difference right. Obviously he lost so he felt like he had some he he got. He got punished at me. He said what he wanted to say. So I mean those two definitely have a history here good point both of our guests terrific reporters orders both have agreed to stick with us over the break and coming up the impact of the president's continued attacks on minority members of Congress specifically the impact. It's having out on the campaign trail. When we come back as you might imagine the Democrats on the twenty twenty race have had more to say about President Trump's weekend tweets attacking the four Democratic members of of Congress during a campaign event in Iowa early today? Senator Kamala Harris called the comments vile ignorant and hateful. She addressed it again on C._N._N.. He wants to distract bye bye bye starting a whole lighting fires around the issue of race ethnicity it it's disgusting. Is this a turn. There's so much rage about this. Is this a turn for you there. There is so much that is disgusting about this. I think it is a turn for this president that it couldn't get any worse apparently yes it just did how low can he go can get Laura. I don't know but he needs to go back where he came from and leaves that office and so that's why I'm running Kamala Harris with correspondent kyung on C._n._N.. Still with US Caitlyn bird and Anita Kumar Anita. I want to read you this from the New York Times aides to Mr Trump's campaign conceded that the president's tweets about the four women on Sunday. We're not helpful. We're difficult to defend in caught them off guard they would have preferred he had not tweeted that the four women all racial and ethnic minorities should go back to their own countries but they said that his instincts were what guided his campaign in two thousand sixteen. How often have we heard that before when his attacks on immigrants resonated resonated with alienated white voters in key states they believe if there is political value in having the squad as the new face of their political opponents when Mr Trump is tracing a path to re election that runs through Pennsylvania Michigan and Wisconsin where the four women are unpopular Anita Kumar your reaction? Yes I mean definitely the White House and the campaign were slow to respond because they didn't really know what to say Republicans to and now we're a couple of days into it and you can see where they're going. which is these four women are the foil of the president and they? Want to talk about their policies and call them socialists and communists so I I think they've sort of figured out now what that message is going to be but there is a new Reuters poll out tonight showing that Republicans that Donald Trump has gone up with republicans five five percentage points in the last couple of days so perhaps he is going to you know maybe his instincts were right there in terms of this might appeal to people that he's trying to appeal to. It's certainly not going to appeal to independents or Democrats. He's he's obviously gone down with them but you know as you know Brian very well the president's banking on his base his base coming out to vote. It's all going to be about the turnout for him. He's not really reaching across the aisle good thing poll numbers of never mattered to Donald Donald Trump. Hey CAITLIN. I have one for you and this is south. Carolina Democratic primary this a Fox News poll July conducted July seven to ten Biden really very healthy lead for where we are in the race and the state. We're talking about about thirty five percent falls off a cliff until you get to Bernie Sanders Comma Harris at twelve and then way down Warren at five booker at three and so on what do you make of the race thus far in South Carolina <hes> and we kept hearing anecdotally stories about voters in South Carolina who thought the Biden dust up with the comments he made about the segregationists he had to bump up against in the Senate was overblown by the national and coastal media. That's what I heard when Joe Vice President Joe Biden came to Charleston just a few weeks ago and it's good to point out to Brian that while he was here in South Carolina specifically in Sumter South Carolina he he apologized for working with those segregationists senators he apologized for the words that he used to describe working with those segregationist senators and he told the press afterward in Charleston that he intentionally apologized in South Carolina because the racial makeup in South Carolina he knows as well as you and I do that black voters are the heart and soul of the Democratic Party in South Carolina and they are going to turn out in numbers when that primary comes around Joe Biden has a lot of ties here in South Carolina so so far in my conversations with voters yes. Biden seems to be the front runner but we can't forget that this is an historically large field of candidates that we're dealing with so even when I'm talking with voters and they're telling me yes yes. I know Joe Biden. I know what he's about that. Familiarity is comfortable to me. They're also pulling me aside and saying but I kind of want to see what these other candidates have to say heck. I'm still learning some of their names. There's so many of them. We can't get them all in one wide angle lens on a debate stage. I mean it's insane. How many candidates were seeing and from voters perspective which we have to keep in mind as we analyze this race? There are so many people still to learn and who still have to distinguish themselves from one another because right now. It's a giant massive Democrats and some of them are really struggling to make their selves stand out in this race our thanks to both of you for coming on. We hope you'll continue to come on our broadcast Caitlyn Bird Anita Kumar thank you both then coming up one of the the president's closest senior aides compounds the controversy concerning the president and racism when weakened in this is the latest example of harassment and embarrassment trying to harass embarrass people closest to the president the chairman knows and everyone knows that there is a long standing by bipartisan precedent. Both parties have invoked that you claim immunity immunity for the President's senior advisors obviously qualify as one this is about me going on TV and stating facts and they're trying to silence when you take away my first amendment. I'd be happy to testify to civil clear. I have nothing to hide. I've done nothing wrong. Kellyanne Conway remains defiant as you heard there refusing to comply with a subpoena to appear before the House Oversight Committee last month she was cited by the office of special counsel not the one related to Muller for violating the Hatch Act Act. That's the law that in part for bids federal employees from using their official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election more on that later the investigative body cited at Least Fifteen Times Times Kellyanne conway voice support for Twenty Eighteen G._O._p.. Midterm candidates on twitter as well as at least ten instances where she talked about campaign matters during television interviews per White House instruction. She skipped Monday's hearing where she was scheduled to testify about these allegations in a letter to the committee the White House counsel claimed quote Ms Conway cannot be compelled to testify before Congress with respect to matters related to her service as a senior advisor to the president didn't well the chairman allies. Your comings of Maryland has scheduled a July twenty fifth vote to hold her in contempt of Congress if she refuses to cooperate thankfully with us tonight to talk about all of it is Barbara mcquade veteran federal prosecutor prosecutor former U._S.. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan and Barbas you listen to Kellyanne is that does that make sense. Can She hide behind whatever that thing is. She was talking about legally. No not at all you know we've heard that the White House invoking this doctrine of executive immunity which doesn't exist there is one and only one court that has ever addressed it came up when Harriet Myers was subpoenaed to testify during the Bush administration and the court there said it doesn't exist if an aide to the president is subpoenaed to testify they must appear now they may invoke executive privilege that is a legitimate doctrine but it has to be invoked on a question by question basis when it gets into candidate advice and deliberations between the president and his aide. It's a very narrow area the idea that she doesn't have to show up whatsoever is legally insufficient and the house should really push on this because I think they'll prevail in court if they do <hes> I'm just the the phrase. The contempt of Congress does focus the attention. What are the consequences well? I think that what they would have to do ordinarily you can get the Justice Department went to come in and bring a case in this instance because they're aligned with the executive branch and they've given an office of Legal Counsel Opinion Consistent with what Kellyanne Conway is doing. I don't know that we can rely on them. So instead what I think they would have to do is file a lawsuit lawsuit and try to get that to get a court order to get her to comply with the request of Congress if she were to then be in contempt of court the court could use its contempt powers to jail her Barbara. I have to say I was a White House intern. When I was a very young man a long long time ago and they drilled into us the hatch act how serious it was a we you know among us had never heard of it but we sure knew about it when we were there yeah and the same is true of any federal employees I worked at the US Attorney's Office in Detroit for nineteen years and we had training on the Hatch Act and reminders all the time we all knew what we could and could not do and so the idea that she is not only? Flouting the law but then when it's she's called on it she continues to blatantly disregard the law. You know I think from time to time people make mistakes when they're in public office and they crossed the line but once it has brought brought to our attention now she continues to who violate that law the Office of Special Council has recommended that she be fired for her blatant disregard for the law and instead she is flouting it with impunity and the reason for the law. This is not a technical as you know Brian and from your White House internship the purpose is so that the American public understands that governing is different from politicking absolutely right Barbara mcquade has agreed to stay with us as we fit in a break when we come back the conversation gets really interesting thing because the conversation turns to that man you can help me in my epic struggle for vindication and survival revival by ordering your very own personally signed Roger Stone. Did nothing wrong t-shirt as you reach for the phone. Let me just tell you that maybe the last instagram post we see from Roger Stone for a good long while a federal federal judge today ruled that President Trump's friend of thirty years give or take the longtime political dirty trick artists may no longer post on social media until after his trial according to the New York Times Judge Amy Berman Jackson told Roger Roger Stone's quote. I am wrestling with behavior that has more to do with middle school than a court of law. Her New Order expands a previous gag order from back in February which you may recall barred stone from talking to the media about the case stone appeared to ignore that order when he then posted a photo of Judge Jackson next to what certainly looked like crosshairs from gun sight a month later he shared this on instagram suggesting he'd been framed by the special counsel and then two hours after the hearing today. This appears it's posted on Roger Stone's wife's instagram account apparently because the federal judge didn't say anything about Mrs Roger Stone just her her husband Roger Stone who is facing charges of obstruction of justice witness tampering line to Congressional investigators in an indictment secured by one Robert Muller and again thankfully still with us is Barbara mcquade <hes> Barbara. Do you think the judge was liberal in not throwing him in jail or is that the next step we're looking at here. She is being incredibly patient with him and it may be because she wants to make a very sound record for inevitable appeals in this case but I do think that her order has some sense to it. You know I think that for people who see him violating her orders they wonder why she doesn't just lock them up but detention is reserved for for people who are either a risk of flight or a danger to the community and he really hasn't demonstrated that what he's demonstrated instead is inability or refusal to comply with her orders now. Sometimes a refusal to comply with an order is seen as an indication indication that we can't count on you to show up when you're asked to show up for trial either if you can't follow other orders of the court but I think what she tried to do today was to impose a remedy that directly addresses the harm and that is the inability to seat an impartial jury if he is out telling the world that this is all a witch hunt that he's innocent then it will be difficult to seat an impartial jury and so she has tried to take away his megaphone by telling him he can't post on social media what what she can't do is restricts his wife and family members from posting social media and so now now they appear to be doing that that isn't going to help Roger Stone's argument however and it could further enrage a federal judge never a good thing now no but I do think judges are careful not to let their their rage or their anger get the best of their decision making so. I'm sure she's not happy about it but I don't think she's going to revoke his bond on the basis things that his wife posting online I think our goal is to just avoid a circus like atmosphere so that when the trial ultimately comes around it can be based on the facts and the law that has seen in the court and not on things external to the court but Roger Stone's seems determined to try his case in the media barb. Thank you as always for clearly explaining the law to all the rest of us in the audience. We appreciate it Barbara mcquade back with us on the broadcast tonight coming up an American story that could never be duplicated as we remember a man who greatly impacted did the life. We all lived just today when we come back last thing before we go tonight as we mentioned earlier in the broadcast retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has died and because words matter so greatly these days this should be set at the outset and it should be clear. He was a thoroughly decent man who was appointed by thoroughly decent president while it was Dick Nixon who I made made Stevens a federal judge all the credit for all of Stevens accomplishments on the court goes to President Gerald r Ford who was so proud to have appointed him. He was the third longest serving justice in our nation's history. Gary Stevens was born in Chicago. Just after World War One he was immediately recognized as a brilliant kid and immediately went on to become a brilliant young man he sailed through the University of Chicago scored the highest G._P._A.. In the history history of northwestern law school along the way found time to go off and serve in World War Two as a code breaker returning as a decorated navy veteran with a bronze star he was confirmed by the U._S.. Senate ninety eight to nothing back when they did did that kind of thing he came onto the court as a conservative and was considered a liberal by most people by the time of his retirement pro abortion rights pro affirmative action pro gay rights anti-death penalty. He insisted he never changed but the court changed around him he served on that court from Nineteen seventy five to twenty ten considered a prolific dissenter powered by a blazing intellect he thought Bush versus Gore and citizen United Citizens United United where the courts biggest mistakes of the modern era he was a lifelong cubs fan proud of his role in baseball history for having attended the nineteen thirty two world series game where Babe Ruth so famously called hauled out his own home run shot Stevens lived long enough to watch his cubs win their first world series of his lifetime back in two thousand sixteen justice Stevens just wrote his autobiography he told his story and then promptly left the scene the very telling last line in the New York Times Book Review Is this the chances are slim very slim that will see another republican appointee like him anytime any time soon John Paul Stevens of Chicago Illinois was ninety nine years old and that is our broadcast on this Tuesday night. Thank you so much for being here with us good night from our N._B._C. News headquarters here in New York.

Donald Trump president Congress White House reporter Donna Edwards Tim O'Brien Republican Party Kellyanne Conway United States Washington House of Representatives Supreme Court Congressman Mark Sanford Justice John Paul Stevens New York Joe Vice President Joe Biden Brian Washington Post

Wednesday, July 17, 2019 - The Christian Science Monitor Daily

The Christian Science Monitor Daily

14:01 min | 1 year ago

Wednesday, July 17, 2019 - The Christian Science Monitor Daily

"<music> welcome to the Monitor daily podcast Wednesday July seventeenth. Thanks for joining us. I'm mark sappy and I'm Kendra Nordine beyond United States Supreme Court justice. John Paul Stevens was retired when our Henry gas began covering the Supreme Court but on hearing the news of Mr Stevens passing Tuesday I reached out Henry to ask what he had learned about him. Since it soon became clear to me and we wrote back that Mr Stevens embodied to kind of jurists that has become exceptionally rare since he retired in twenty ten Mr Stevens was appointed by Republican president Gerald Ford after a career as a moderate conservative antitrust lawyer in thirty five years on the court however he gradually became a liberal bastion in his opinion though he didn't shift at all he said he was learning on the job guided by a commitment to deciding cases in a humble restrained manner one statement of appreciation called him an incredibly decent human being and thoughtful jurist the court Mr Stevens believed shifted around him indeed there are few surprises coming coming from the Supreme Court these days the justices come with clear judicial philosophies that are rigorously vetted along partisan lines. Perhaps the only predictable thing about justice Stevens Henry says he learned where the snappy he bow ties he war now to our five stories we look at how fast politics can change the most overlooked and intriguing recent U._S.. Russia story and a poet's wisdom for the world today in our first story in a world of political hot takes and partisan outrage it can feel as if an opposing politician or party is doing. Irreparable damage but main shows how quickly and dramatically things can change as governor Paul Lepage spent eight years dismantling Maine's environmental policies. His successor is on a mission to restore them under her leadership. The legislature has passed fifty six pieces of environmental legislation pledge to nearly eliminate carbon dioxide emissions by twenty fifty fifty band foam food containers prohibited offshore oil and gas drilling stiffened river and Lake Protections and establish new office to help plan for climate change. It was like night and day when the new administration came in says Renewable Energy Developer Matt Kerns not everyone is thrilled about the surge of legislation when you have one party rule in any legislative body body you have a lot of voices are not heard cautions republican state Senator Matt Pouliot but Senator Pouliot acknowledges then after the tempestuous years of Mr La- page this legislative session Russian was more subdued and civil some see in that change and in the flood of environmental policy changes a precursor for the nation when you see a rising tide at the state level. It's often followed followed by meaningful action in Congress says Jamie Demarco a lobbyist for climate action. The story was reported by Doug Struck in Waltham Maine for the Monitor. Did you hear the one about the time the West and Russia cooperated. That's not joke. Actually it just happened in eastern Europe with both teaming up to topple a corrupt upped oligarch in an overlooked story. The tiny Balkan state of Moldova has long been regarded as a captured state dominated by a single powerful Oligarch Vladimir PLA hot nuke. DOC But last month against all current geopolitical expectations Russia and the Western powers combined to effect peaceful regime change and oust Mr Pla hot new from power now now some hope that the experience will serve as a stepping stone to resolving other greater tensions between Moscow and the West including in Ukraine analysts dress that Moldova is probably nobly a unique case but there are intriguing similarities Ukraine and Georgia also struggle with oligarchy meddling in politics have frozen conflicts with breakaway prove Russian statelets on their territory and suffer from persistent social discontent and Russia's biggest nightmare. The prospect of NATO taking in Ukraine and Georgia has fallen off the alliance's agenda would happen in Moldova Ova took everyone by surprise we might see it as a straw in the wind says feodor Lukianov editor of Russia in global affairs at least it suggests that great power cooperation can help to normalize the situations situations in these countries that line between Russia and the West the story was reported by Fred. We're in Moscow for the Monitor. Ethiopian Jews hold a unique place in Israel's history but the reality is that they have been largely left behind a recent shooting is forcing Israel to consider its views of race and religion the covert operations that brought thousands of Ethiopian Jews to Israel decades ago are among the dramatic moments in the country's history a visceral realization of a biblical promise to gather together a nation of exiles but but their absorption and integration have been a challenge now continuing protests over the police shooting of a young Ethiopian Jew are forcing Israelis who often give little attention to the tiny immigrant community. ENTITY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ANTI black racism is real at a special session Monday of parliament speaker Yuli Edelstein said we need to honestly say that as a society and as a country we have not done everything necessary for their integration saying that there had been sometimes racist or patronizing treatment because of their skin color Mikhail Alvarez Samuel an Ethiopian community activist says Israeli society needs to confront racism in a more direct way. I've never heard of any policeman taking out there gun and shooting the white kids. She says she wants an independent inquiry into police behavior an acknowledgement knowledge of anti-black racism and educational programs to fight it nevertheless she adds. We are Zionists. We are building this country. We are all Jews. This is our nation. We don't in have another place. This story was reported by Joshua Mitnick in Tel Aviv for the Monitor. Amid the worst downturn in thirty years. One in Kansas farmer sees hope in the people around him. This is part three in the summer series on people who are facing and successfully navigating America's most intractable challenges it was January when then Glenn Branca's best friend from kindergarten call to say Mr Brung House Hacia had collapsed on the combine and grain trucks he had stored there. They had to wait until mid April to pry the frozen roof off the vehicles else by then Mr Bronco had lost more calves and lambs in the wet cold winter than in the past four years combined and like farmers across the country he was facing the worst agricultural downturn intern since the one thousand nine hundred eighty s which has been worsened by President Donald Trump's trade war with China the top destination for American soybeans but even when it seems that everything from the weather to Washington politics. Politics is thwarting American farmers best efforts. They have each other silly non and a new crop to cultivate whether it's soybeans or the next generation of cans this Bronco finds great hope in the a young people he works with in whom he observes a little less focus on themselves and a little more on community service and society. The story was reported by Christie Case Bryant for the Monitor old poets are often the stewards of societies contemplation chroniclers of its changes. One message of America's Newest Young People's poet laureate is extraordinary things are in the small and silent John Phillips Santos had just started at Churchhill high school and San Antonio when Naomi Shehab Ni- rolled into his class as the visiting teacher he and his fellow students were studying the works of Melville in Whitman she brought in Joni Mitchell's blue album she always had not only a sense of how to invite the spark of Poetic Exhibition in young people what was willing to work to make that real says Mr Santos now an author and mentor at the University of Texas in San Antonio Miss Shehab Nye was recently named Young People's poet laureate by the poetry foundation young people need more exposure to poetry. She says not just for when their children but for when they're not politics justice and identity are recurring themes in her work and she doesn't shy away from politics and conversation either avoiding politics only hardens divisions she says and poetry can help break down some of those divisions if you're a person living in the city and you read a rural book that moves you. You just got bigger. She says that's one of the biggest jobs of literature making that bridge and inviting people to cross it. The story was reported. Courted by Henry Gas in Austin for the Monitor now commentary on poverty from the Monitor's editorial board despite progress against poverty in the past past three decades experts still struggled to define it and measure it in the latest report on global poverty from the United Nations scholars. Try to new less simplistic tech they use ten measures such as insufficient sufficient nutrition and unsafe drinking water to gauge progress across one hundred one countries they found twenty three percent of people are still considered poor on this multidimensional poverty index yet in a closer look at ten countries countries they found encouraging news. The bottom forty percent had moved up quickly in recent years. Some two hundred and seventy million people had escaped poverty on this latest type of indicator this more granular information will help refocus refocus anti-poverty approaches such as foreign aid programs yet. The debate continues over what poverty is what about non material factors that are more difficult to measure progress against poverty property requires progress in understanding what the poured themselves perceive as quality of life sometimes it is more than clean water safe home or a good education wrap for the news. You can find the full length versions of these stories in today's issue or at C._S. monitor dot com slash name. Thank you for joining us today. Please come back for our story about the tension between two very different definitions of racism in America. We'll be reporting from a rally for President Donald Trump and the district of one of the targets of his recent tweets Massachusetts Representative Ianna Presley today's Christian Science Spiritual Perspective column shares how in Sudan one step forward often seems to come with two steps back but there's a powerful basis on which to hope for meaningful progress find the column in today's as issue retzias monitor dot com slash. We want to give a quick. Thanks to our staff including today's audio production team some athlete purpose Tim Malone and Keffer.

Russia John Paul Stevens president Supreme Court America Russia Stevens Henry Henry Gas Donald Trump Israel Ukraine Mr Stevens Moldova Moscow Senator Matt Pouliot Kendra Nordine United States Gerald Ford Mr Brung House Hacia
House votes to condemn Trumps racist tweets

The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell

44:14 min | 1 year ago

House votes to condemn Trumps racist tweets

"Now it's time for the last word with Lawrence O.. Donald anything you didn't do more time. Do you want to want to 'cause I. I wouldn't dare try to do that throughout half my show and ended with singing on T._v.. Do you know how messed up all of this is. The Rachel Greatest Hits of singing on T._v.. Another very important entry. How long are we have to wait for the next one Rachel before not to me no that that's why it's so that's that's been almost ten years birthday coming up? Now we go. Thank you very well. During the presidential campaign Republican Congressman Kevin McCarthy who is now the leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives said Ed behind closed doors that he believed the Donald Trump was actually a paid agent of Vladimir Putin. He said he thought Putin paid trump now. Kevin McCarthy is a public worshiper of Donald Trump. He would attack anyone who said anything like that might even attack me for reminding the world that Kevin McCarthy said that the Republican senators who ran for President Against Donald Trump Marco Rubio Ted Cruz Lindsey Graham they all called Donald trump a conman repeatedly in the campaign. They called him a liar during the presidential campaign and now they are all public worshipers of Donald Trump. How did that happen? The first best answers to that question will be found by future historians in Tim Alberta New Book American carnage. This is the perfect night to have Tim Alberta joins us as he will later in this hour after a day in which Republicans once again fell in line with Donald trump up and defended the indefensible but this time there were four defections that means president trump has four new members of the House representatives to attack the four Republicans who voted to condemn Donald Trump's racist attack on on four Democratic members of the House of Representatives all of whom are women of color. The four Republicans who stood on the right side of history in tonight's vote are Fred Upton of Michigan will heard of Texas Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania Selena and Susan Brooks of Indiana those Republicans saw Donald Trump's tweeted defense today and in their votes tonight they said No. We don't believe Donald Trump every other republican who voted not opt to condemn the president but voted in effect to condemn themselves they did that. They voted to condemn themselves in history as actively complicit in the president's races before the vote. The president tweeted those tweets. We're not racist. I don't have a racist bone in my body so-called vote to be taken as a democratic con game Republicans should not show weakness and fall into their trap. I don't know why why the president capitalizes the are in the word racist the way religious people capitalize the letter G. in God out of reverence for that word is it Donald Trump's reverence for the word racist. Is that what he is signaling to racists with that upper case are for racist. Is that what he's doing every Republican showed weakness and fell into into Donald Trump's racist trapped today except those four Republicans who voted against Donald Trump's racism. Why is it always the bones wide to racists always talk about their bones as in? I don't have a racist bone in my body says the president of the United States does he say it that way because even Donald Trump knows what it would sound like if he said I don't have a racist thought in my mind I've never had a racist thought. In my mind signed it could not be easier in this House of Representatives to know how to vote on a resolution condemning racism because seventy nine year old John Lewis of Georgia is still a member of the House of Representatives. John Lewis was is of course a scarred veteran literally scarred veteran of the civil rights movement beginning in the nineteen fifties. When he was a teenager he was in the march across the bridge in Selma Alabama nine hundred and sixty five with the Reverend Dr Martin Luther King Junior John Lewis was beaten nearly to death that day by the government officials with badges who wanted him and Dr King and all of those marchers to go back to go back away from that bridge to go back away from progress to go back and live in submission to their governmental authority? Donald Trump's go back to where you came from ramp against Congresswoman Alexandra 'cause you her test Congresswoman Ileana Presley Carson Rashid Rashid <unk> lead and congresswoman. He'll Hunt Omar is the twenty first century trump White House version of what the police did to John Lewis on that bridge in Selma and he knows John Lewis on days like today. If you listen to one speaker in the House of Representatives debate it should be the honorable John Lewis Arise arise with a sense of righteous indignation to support this resolution. I know racism when I see it. I Know Racism Fan. I feel it and at the highest level of government there's no room for racism. The world is watching the our saw and dismayed because it seems we have laws based on way as a nation as a proud and greet people we want Congress and we are here to Sir one house the American House the American people some of us have been victims or the stain the pain and the hurt the racism in the fifty s and during the sixty segregationists told us to go back we protest new flyer rights they told minister freeze rabbis and non to go back. They told the innocent look children seeking just and equal education to go back as a nation and as a people. We need to go fall what back with leading off our discussion is Democratic Debbie Dingle of Michigan. Someone who was on the House floor today also joining US corrine jump here chief public affairs officer for move on Dot Oregon and M._S._N._B._C. Contributor and Suzette Hackney Director of opinion and community engagement for the Indianapolis Star. She wrote an editorial. They're entitled trump is an unhinged racist and. Indiana's Congressional members are wimpy Sycophants Cartoon Debbie Dingle. I want to start with you. You were there you were on the floor. It took a while of parliamentary handle haggling to get to this vote but it turned out that there were four Republicans and only four who joined you in this vote Justin Amash recent Republican now an independent also joined you in this boat and I guess we are now awaiting the tweet attacks at minimum that <hes> Donald Trump will deliver it will deliver to those four Republicans well off four of those Republicans who as well as just in our good friends and <hes> yesterday they spoke up and spoke out against this hatred president of the United States job optus tendonitis and those tweets are dividing us as a country and it's got to stop in at some point you've got to speak up and speak out and Susanna Hackney. Your article came out before this vote and it may be that you moved one of these votes in the Indiana delegation. Yes Susan Brooks who has the political freedom. She is not running for re election <hes> she did. She did make a statement saying that that the comments were inappropriate but most of the Indiana delegation did not do so and I did right and I said that we all needed to speak out about this. It did not matter which political party green your reactions what we saw in the house today so what we saw today in the house outside of these four very brave Republicans because now like you said they are going to be attacked by Donald trump any minute now any second now is that you have Republicans who decided that they were. WE'RE NOT GOING TO CALL OUT DONALD TRUMP's blatant racism and what did they do instead they attacked Democrats for bringing forth eight very simple resolution to call out that said racism and here we are in twenty nineteen. You have have one party that has the Senate that has the White House that refuses to call out racism but we shouldn't be surprised Lawrence because I'll say this we knew Donald Trump was a racist in twenty eleven when he decided to be the grand wizard of the birther birther movement what happened in Twenty fifteen they nominated him they elected him and now they encourage him and this is where we are today. In two thousand nine curse wounding Nick Ramsay WHO's one of the producers of Brian Williams eleventh-hour pointed out on twitter today that what the president said looks like a violation of federal law under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's rules which say examples of potentially unlawful conduct include insults taunting and or ethnic epithets such as making fun of a person's foreign accent or comments like go back to where you came from whether made by superiors or co workers so it is possible that anyone else working in the federal government could could have been fired for what trump said. It's just that the only way to fire the person Donald Trump's job is through impeachment if that were to his tweets where have been said at any workplace across America it would have been an instant firing situation situation and I wanNA speak beyond these four colleagues of mine but I was xenophobic because well I represent the one of the largest Muslim populations in this country. This man does not understand what he's doing too little children I go into the grade schools here and I have children grabbing my legs telling me they're afraid that someone is going to come into their house. In the middle of the night. Take their family out and never be seen again. This is the United States of America in two nineteen. This is not Germany mini and we need to think about the message that we are sending it to people we are trying to divide this country with fear hatred. It's divisive and not acceptable. Let's listen to Donald Trump in the past in the way he describes himself as not being a racist. You're racist. You're racist. You're racist they keep saying. Are you racist absolutely not so many of my friends who are black they say you. You are the least racist person I am. The least racist person that you've ever met believe me Suzanne your reaction to the way Donald Trump defends himself on this well he started by saying he might as well have just said. I have many black friends it. It's just laughable at this point Korean. I am the least racist person that you have ever met. Basically that's what racist people say exactly that is in of itself the badge he's saying he is less racist than you right. He's saying he's less racist than John Lewis Right. He is taking a higher moral ground for himself in John Lewis and like I said that's what racist people say and my best. His friend is is is black or you know I have. I have no not not one racist bone in my body which I don't even know what that means. Please tell me where that would be that racist bone in your body and by the way what does a non racist bone looks like I mean it is Donald Trump. Trump is who he is. He has shown us that over and over and over again in his policies the way he talks about black people the way he talks about Mexicans when he first entered the race he is who he is and the problem is Lawrence. Is that the the reason why he continues. This behavior is because Republicans do not hold him accountable. They do not call him out. So what does he do. He doubles down and he triples down and he's not going to stop because he believes it works. Let's listen to what Speaker Pelosi said on the House floor today. Every single member of this institution Democratic and Republican should join us in condemning the president's racist tweets to do anything less would be shocking rejection of our values and shameful abdication oath of office to protect the American People Carson Dingle. What did it feel like on the house today the over in the House floor the overall sensation of that full experience on the floor? You know it was ten times. You know that it broke down when Republicans were trying to get processed votes that didn't get it the substance they were trying to their learning tactics from president trump which is divert from the attention on the issue. That's really at hand but our caucus was united. I have not seen our caucus this united in standing ending up to hatred that we simply cannot tolerate anymore. President trump gave us a gift on Sunday. He united our caucus in a way it hasn't been in months and what is what is what do you see in these. He's four votes these four Republican votes and I going to you on this. YOU'RE IN INDIANA. It's a very republican state one of the members of the Indiana delegation who you pointed out specifically in your column before this vote. I voted against the president today. She is a retiring member but she's an important member of the house. Is there something in this <hes> for future possible cracks of Republicans support for the president. Absolutely I think that Republicans are going to have to start listening to the American people yes. I live in a very red state. I have heard from so many readers who who reached out to me today on both sides of the aisle and they said this is unacceptable susceptible. We as Americans cannot allow this this kind of division to happen any longer and I think that if these Republicans are going to represent their voters they are going to have to start listening to their to their voters. Others and Americans are very unhappy. I've gotten tons of e mails from Republicans who say I'm a Republican all my life but we cannot continue to go down this road and Corinne. The President of UH had an opportunity to move on from this. He is the one who kept it alive. He's the one who started a tweeting a day tweeting about this everyday lester days so this is clearly a decision of his to keep this going right. He believes that it works. He thought he was going to continue the divide right. Just think about what we were talking about on Saturday or early Sunday which was Nancy Pelosi versus the squad as they're called right and what he did. It's so true with the congresswoman. When did he delivered a gift to Democrats because he thought he was he thought he could get in there and divide the two sides and into the democratic side even more and all he did was unified them and it backfired on him what he did? Bringing bringing in inserting racism actually hurt him more because the majority of the people do not want to hear that that's what we saw in two thousand eighteen when he doubled down with the caravan we double down on immigration people people came out and voted against what Donald Trump was about it was a referendum on him. He did not learn his lesson. He's thinking now I'm going to triple down and it didn't work and now you see a unified Democratic Party and they are where the majority of the people are occurs when dingle take us inside aside the Party caucus meeting before this vote in in situations like this generally the as many if not the entire party gathers behind closed door to talk about what's going to happen on the House floor today. What was that meeting like today? You know it was a candid conversation but frequently when you're in meetings like this or a lot of different opinions and there wasn't anybody who didn't know that we needed to take this vote that we needed to stand up. I think that we want to make sure that we stand up to hatred. We stand up to division but at the same time we can't let him divert us every single day. We've got to get back to doing the people's business we've got to deliver for the people so we've got to get back to healthcare which he's not delivering Dan. He's not lowering prescription drug prices. We have to get back to talking about the environment to infrastructure so we're also focused on how we got to get back to working for the people which he would like to keep us off that message every day. That's when he does we cannot and not let him keep us from delivering for the people that we promised to rockaway. He's got to deliver for these people to. He got elected in Michigan because he talked about many of these issues. If we haven't done something about it he's going to have problems in in in this next. Election assumes that as a member of the press how do you see the challenge for journalism in this in in how to cover these kinds of outbursts by the president well first of all we just have to cover the truth and we have to call all it what it is. We can't dance around it. It's racist it was racism and those and that's why you saw many publications <hes> that came out with very hard hitting editorials and columns like mine calling it what it is is we have to stand up for America we are we we guard America that is our job and that's what we will continue to do. <hes> you know there's the fake news that's throwing around and you know he gets his base all ramped up talking about us and and <hes> booing us at his at his rallies and such but I think we've done nothing but proven that we are here to cover this administration to cover this president to uncover cover the truth and that's what we will continue to do. Carson Debbie Dingle currying jean-pierre says at Hackney thank you all very much restoring us off tonight really appreciate it and when we come back later in this hour Ezra Klein will be here we will discuss what Suzanne was just just talking about and what this means in both political journalism and the presidential campaign going forward also tonight Neil cut y'all will join us with his memories of justice. John Paul Stevens retired Supreme Import Justice who died tonight at the age of ninety nine. Hi It's Katy Tur want to keep up with M._S._N._B._C.. While you're on the go subscribe to the M._S._N._B._C. Daily Newsletter Zuleta. You'll get the best of what you've missed. During this unprecedented era of news text M._S._N._B._C. Two six six eight six six to subscribe today four Republicans broke with the President and voted to condemn Donald Trump's most recent racist comments but that's for more Republicans than usually break with the president. Donald Trump has taken complete control of the Republican Party is obvious to everyone how he did it is not that story is told in the new book American carnage on the front lines of the Republican civil war and the rise of President Trump by Tim Alberta it tells the story of Paul Ryan's Public Subservience to the president in Paul Ryan's own words quote. I told myself I got to have a relationship with this guy to help him. Get his mind right because I'm telling you he didn't know anything about government so I thought I can't be his skull like I was. I wanted to scold him them. All the time what I learned as I went on to scratch that Itch I had to do it in private so I did it in private all the time and he actually ended up kind of appreciating it. We had more arguments with each other than pleasant conversations over for the last two years and it never leaked today. The man who took Paul Ryan's Place House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy insists that Paul Ryan never said that you're quoting something based upon a book that I have not read and then I hadn't talked to the Speaker Ryan. I know that's not the words what he would use because I've been in rooms with them and with the president and joining us now is the author of that Book Tim Alberta He is the chief political correspondent for Politico magazine and the author author of American carnage. Tim So Kevin McCarthy says your book is false. Paul Ryan never said that. I'm happy to give him the audiotape. I'm not sure what else to say should have brought it to the majority of what. So it happens to be on audiotape but this is the very same a Kevin McCarthy who during the campaign of was quoted from behind closed doors from a secret staff source Republican staff source saying he believed that Donald Trump took money from Vladimir Vladimir Putin and theory is today doing exactly a public execution of the transformation that this book describes for Republicans going from trump takes money from Putin to. I don't believe Paul Ryan would ever have said that about Donald trump how dare he why would he say that about the Dear Leader Look Kevin McCarthy is just one of many Republicans who has noted Lawrence has essentially fallen in line behind president trump and they do so for any number of reasons political self preservation a a fear of backlash from the president and from the president's base and I think what's so fascinating in surveying this this modern Republican Party is how far it has come in such a short period of time. This was not a Trumpian entity as recently as ten years ago George W Bush presidency for its many failings was presidency built upon these ideals of Compassionate conservatism and refugee resettlement was a huge priority reentry programs for prisoners education in urban environments. These were the the bedrock domestic policy goals of the Bush administration of course we know that they spent tens of millions of dollars trying to alleviate AIDS in Africa. The list goes on the point is what you've seen is nothing short of a wholesale transformation of the Republican Party in the last decade and there's a lot that goes into that it's it's. It's a long story obviously but what you're seeing today specifically. I would say what you've seen over the last ninety six hours in terms of the Republican Party's response to Donald Trump's remarks or in most cases their lack of response to his remarks speaks volumes about where the party is and how firmly Donald Trump has taken the party of Reagan the Party of George W Bush and turned it into the Party of trump. Yeah there's no previous Republican president who would have stood for any of this <hes>. I'm fascinated by the policy switches on things like international trade and other things <hes> it is stunning to me because that's that happened over a very short period of time people who had completely different views of international trade a during the presidential campaign just just over two years ago <hes> guys like Chuck Grassley and others going completely going along with these tariffs <hes> that they would have never gone along with before it's one of the best stories that got no attention at the time very little attention at the time was that in the heat of the Two Thousand Sixteen Campaign Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz who did not get along. These two guys wrote a joint op ED in U._S._A.. Today endorsing basically legislation that would have given President Obama President Obama the ability to negotiate trade agreements and Ted Cruz about three weeks after this op Ed published and again he's in the middle of this hotly contested primary against Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and his team were very smart. They've got their ear to the ground. They're watching what trump is doing and they're seeing this appeal that he is achieving with the electorate and he is obviously shattering Republican Orthodoxy in so doing and crews says guys look. I think we need to have a change of heart here. I think we need to come out and publicly quickly disavow that stance that we took with Ryan a couple of weeks ago and guys said what are you crazy. We just wrote this bed and basically the decision was look to we get accused of being a flip flop or now and where that for a couple of weeks and take the beating or do we allow trump to bludgeon us on the issue of trade for the next year and a half now. That's a small anecdote but it speaks volumes about where people were at that point in the party because again you spoke to it a second ago. The rate of change is what is so whiplash inducing just point. This didn't happen it over a period of thirty or forty or fifty years. It's really happened you can even consolidate it down into a period of probably thirty six months in which some core bedrock Republican principles that had been held since the Reagan era have essentially been thrown out the window. Everyone marvels at the trump relationship. AH TO EVANGELICAL VOTERS WHO indulged trump's own words are privately referred to in your book as the F. Ing evangelicals now. It's a term of endearment. I should note so it's fascinating obviously we're we're all transfixed on this relationship between the White Evangelical Republican Voter Donald Trump and obviously this is a group of voters who had spent years demanding a certain degree of moral leadership from from the highest office in the land and really from all government officials and people want to know how could they have possibly forged this partnership with this guy this thrice-married philanderer who who paraded the you know the pinups in the porn stars at through the tabloids and I think the I answer Lawrence is really quite simple. Actually it's transactional. We know that Donald Trump is transactional. I think what we don't fully appreciate appreciate about. Evangelical voters is many of them felt. Let down by George W Bush presidency they felt like we had elected one of our around a guy who famously said that debate that Jesus was his role model a guy who sits in the pews with us but he didn't do all that much for US member on a lot of these social issues a lot of the conservative movement thought the George W Bush was kind of weaken the knees so by the time two thousand sixteen rolls around and these people feel like they've been trampled under Barack Obama and the American left of the last eight years and they are under siege from forces of culture and politics. They're looking for somebody to get in the arena and start throwing haymakers and trump again. Give them credit. He's prescient prescient. He sees this and trump goes to them and basically says look. You know that I'm not one of you. I can't speak your language. I don't agree with you probably have these issues but I'm willing to go to war for you guys in a way that none of the rest of these Republican patsies are willing they might talk a good game but when the going gets tough they're going to fold because they are all creatures of political convention. I am not I'm beholden to no one and it is impossible to articulate just how appealing that message was to these evangelicals and essentially became this transactional sexual relationship they would give him undying allegiance and he would give them everything they had wanted to didn't get out of George W Bush Tim Alberta and the book is American carnage in it is the single best explanation of how we got to trump isn't in the Republican Party ten when the bookstore slows down. I need you to come back to do this. One question which I think will take an entire segment and that is when the next president of the United States takes the oath of office does trumpism disappear. You have some time to think about it and we're GONNA do a few minutes next next chance you get to come by good homework. Thank you and when we come back the House vote. Today was a turning point perhaps for four House Republicans and it has definitely been a turning point four American journalism. We'll have more on that later in this hour with as reclined. Does it concern you that many people saw that Tweeden's raises and that white nationalist groups are finding common. I'm in caused with you on that doesn't concern me because many people agree with me as reclined tweeted that that exchange summarized Donald Trump's entire political career which of course begins with Donald Trump telling racist lies. About President Obama's birth certificate today Columbia Journalism Review officially gave its permission for the news media to call racism racism quote go back to where you came from his textbook racism one week contorted ourselves ourselves to dance around that fact the truth is injured. This does seem like a turning point for the American news media much like September two thousand sixteen when the New York Times I used the word lie to describe something Donald Trump <music> said but by that time Donald Trump had already lied his way to the Republican presidential nomination and was a couple of months away from lying his way with some help from Russia to an Electoral College Victory Today the Arizona Republic editorial board he published an editorial entitled Trump's racist tweets are a wakeup call for Republicans and Democrats. The editorial says there's a great deal of denial going on in America. We've seen enough over the transom to know plenty are making excuses for trump. Here's some free advice don't yesterday the Tampa Bay Times editorial board published editorial entitled Trump's racist rant requires a collective response. The editorial says trump's unrelenting attacks on these four minority women who were all young and freshmen house members are a new low for this president they fit his pattern of racial demagoguery and appeals to white nationalists. The Houston Chronicle's editorial board published editorial entitled the President is a Bigot Patriots creates can't stay silent on racist remarks. This editorial says let's not mince words they are the racist rantings of a bigot not an American Patriot who truly believes in the constitution he swore to defend defend as president after this quick break we will be joined by Ezra Klein and green jean-pierre. We'll be back to discuss what the news media's new condemnation of Donald Trump's raises and adds to the House of Representatives condemnation the passed the house tonight. Here's Democratic presidential candidate Senator Harris in Davenport Iowa today. I've personally been told that go back to where you came from you too. You and I bet we took a everybody. Raise their hands right right and in the back people are raising their hands to it is vile. It is ignorant. It is shallow. It is hateful and it has to stop it has to stop journals discussion. Now is as reclined find the editor at large of vox and the host of the podcast. The recline show Corinne jump here is back with us and cream. Let me start with you. Have you been told to go back. Where you came from? Absolutely my parents have been told to go back from where they came from. I have my parents are Haitian American. They're clearly immigrants in this country. They've been here for decades. You were born here. I was blowing actually Martinique so I- immigrant myself and I've heard it all of my life but I think if you're a person of color living in this country <hes> you have heard that awful historical nasty racist talking point that Donald Trump throughout their in the tweet on Sunday and double down on Monday and it is hurtful and it basically is saying to you do not belong. We do not want you here. Even though you are as American as anyone else even though you give to society even though you've this is the only place that you may have known like myself and what he did really really lays out who he truly is and Ezra other populations through our history immigrant populations Jewish population Irish Italian they all heard this at a certain point after their arrival Oh and as they continued through American light life to go back where you came from. This is classic racism. I mean it doesn't get it doesn't get more costly than this and it's what Donald Trump's fundamental career has always been founded on the idea <hes> that he is out there saying what what many people agree with is the way he put it. I think the hard question that trump constantly is not whether we in the pressure call racism racism of course we should the question is whether or not we should let him dominate the political agenda with it whenever he wants. The thing that I always worry about Donald Trump is it. He has understood on some level. I don't know that it strategy but it certainly at this point intuition that if he loses control the conversation he can always say something outrageous something offensive and then it is at least back along the divisive lines that he prefers arguing around it is at least back under the argument he wants to have <hes> not the arguments that he is uninterested in or doesn't want to have again the point or something it's strategy or even that it is wise but he has figured out that there's this hack of acting outrageously and offensively as Kamala Harris says it'd be nice for it to stop but it isn't GonNa stop. It's his core political move and I think that's one of the real challenges here to the press not just how to what do we call it. But when do we choose to cover it or when do we choose to say Donald Trump insulting people again and he doesn't get control the nation's agenda every time he does it Yeah I. It's such an important point and Corinne the the <hes> one one of the arguments. That's been put out there. Is that by covering this the way we do <hes> we give it more volume. It's one of the I try to take as much care as I can in this. I don't show trump video unless I absolutely have to <hes> aw I am using the fact that I'm trusting people know everything that Donald Trump or a lot of what Donald Trump has said about this and what I'm emphasizing tonight is what John Lewis has to say about this and what others have to say about it so it does present a challenge a serious warriors challenge in how you cover this. It's been a challenge for everybody's been a challenge clearly for Republicans and Democrats on the hill. It's been a challenge for the media on how we you. How do you deal with Donald Trump because what is happening is he is not normal and what we're doing is we're treating him kind of in the in the guidelines of of of the rules right like Oh yeah? He's not normal we're going to we're going to have the same protocol. We're going to follow the rules as with any other president what I think we have seen in the last last twenty four forty eight hours with press with Congress is that they are seeing okay enough is enough. We are not treating this guy like he's normal anymore because he is not so. Donald Trump is he overwhelms the system intentionally he throws controversy after controversy and hope something sticks and we just can't allow that to happen as Rosa was saying we need to be able to separate the signal from the noise and I think this is the moment that we're in right now and I hope that it continues but that's what's been going on for the last two years as an cringing. You both stay with us because we I'd like to squeeze commercial break here when we come back as I just WanNa go to the question of. Is this a turning point. Is this a turning point for journalism what we've been through the last couple of. Says we're GONNA do a quick break here. We'll be right back and we're back with Ezra Klein and Corinne jump and Ezra. This feels to me like a turning point in media coverage. I remember vividly September of two thousand me sixteen. The first time I saw the word lie in the New York Times. It was actually a headline the first time they used it about Donald Trump was after he got the Republican nomination a now. It's every day news. Media has been completely converted to Donald Trump is a liar they use the term is that where we are now with Donald Trump and racism they might be if not already figured out the tunnel trump is racist. I don't know I don't know what more is needed here. This is not new information to me but but it might be occur in a quick last word so I think what we have the way we have to look at it going into twenty twenty as don trump wants us to be choice twenty twenty to be a choice on on the election. We need to make it a referendum on him. That's what we need to do. Just like we did in two thousand eighteen make it about him. Make it about changing where we are in looking about who we are and what we want this country to be it has to be a referendum so so that's what Democratic candidates to what the Democratic candidate should be doing but also plays he's into what the media should be doing as well. It's like okay. Turn it turn it on its head. Don't play on his turf right play. Play it the way that that you want to play it because he's going to continue to play all of us if we if we followed his is L- his lead right if we go down that rabbit hole so it's a little bit of both what media should do and also went candidates should do we'll leave it there for tonight. Corinne jump here as reclined. Thank you both for joining us really appreciate and when we come back deal cut y'all will join us on former Supreme Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens who died tonight at the age of ninety nine. He was active in his retirement and even though he was appointed by a Republican president. He said that he believed Brett. Cavanaugh was not fit to serve on the United States Supreme Court Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens the third longest serving justice in the history of the court died tonight of complications following a stroke he was ninety nine years old justice Stevens was appointed the Supreme Court night and seventy five by Republican president Gerald Ford he served on the court for thirty five years. Although a registered Republican justice Stevens often sided with the liberal wing of the court he insisted that it was the court and the republic was not him but it was the Republican Party not his views that shifted over time he supported a woman's right to choose abortion. He voted to reinstate eight the death penalty a decision. He later said that he regretted during the Clinton presidency he led a unanimous court in ruling that a sitting president could face a civil lawsuit while in office he offered a blistering dissenting Opinion Canyon to the court's ruling in Bush versus Gore which decided the presidential election in two thousand he retired in two thousand ten at the age of ninety and was awarded the Medal of freedom by President Obama the country's highest civilian honor but he he remained active in his retirement after the mass shooting in Parkland Florida in two thousand eighteen just justice Stevens called for the repeal of the Second Amendment and last year he called then Supreme Court nominee Brad Kavanagh unfit to serve on the Supreme Court in a statement tonight Chief Justice John Roberts said quote justice Stevens devoted his long life to public service and putting thirty five years on the Supreme Court he brought to our bench in inimitable blend of kindness humility wisdom and independence his unrelenting commitment to justice has left us a better nation journey discussion now is Neil cut yellow former acting U._S. Solicitor General M._S._N._B._C. Legal Contributor Neil. We feel especially lucky to have you tonight. You're actually argued cases in the court and argue cases to justice Stevens your reflections tonight on his career. Well I think Lawrence all of us in the Supreme Court Bar are heartbroken and I think the chief justice captured the man well well. I mean I had the privilege of arguing I think over two dozen cases before him and every single time it was always the same thing like ask just a couple of questions to us. They were always the devastating ones the ones that you like really practice practice in hoped no justice would ask and he was just a towering intellect and the prince of a man just the politeness the courteousness and the diligence and the nonpartisanship way what she approached the job <hes> when people think of the rule of law in this country and going back and the phrase in the Massachusetts Constitution a seventeen eighty that we are a government of laws not of men that describes justice Stevens and he was a Republican but he did not like what he saw Republicans do a recent years. He said the Senate absolutely should move on the confirmation of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in the last year of the Obama Administration. Yeah I mean it's a striking thing thing to see the news tonight. Justice Stevens the horribly sad news about his passing at the same time as the House has voted to condemn the president for his racist tweets. I mean justice Stevens really was a proud member of the Republican Party that stood for something that stood for American values that stood for decency and respect to all and I think you just see with a vote tonight like the party moving in an absolutely different direction erection and you know my hope is that people all Americans will reflect on justice Stevens his legacy and realize that you know there are fundamental values to this country you can disagree with people on the left or right but but we have to treat people equally and that's what his entire life's work was about a justices career has both of ruling opinions and dissenting opinions and his dissent in Bush v Gore is one of the most memorable <hes> that most of us have ever read he wrote a although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election. The identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial impartial guardian of the rule of law <hes> that was a very tough experience for him and others on the Supreme Court yeah and also as lead against I was one of Gore's lawyers in that case and you know it was heart wrenching to see the decision come down and for every loss at justice Stevens had he had a number of enormous wins but the very first case Oregon Supreme Court han-dong versus Rumsfeld in which I represented actually Osama bin Laden's driver justice Stevens ends wrote the opinion cast the deciding vote to say we have to protect the constitutional rights that people even at Guantanamo even accused of doing the worst crimes imaginable and justice Stevens himself he served in the navy he understood stood the values that this country stood for including including the Geneva Conventions and so <hes> again. It's just a really important lesson particularly at this juncture in time to think you know there are things principles important.

President trump president Donald Trump President Obama Republican Party trump don trump House of Representatives United States Court Justice John Paul Steven Indiana John Lewis Lawrence Michigan Tim Alberta Republican Party George W Bush America
A Eulogy for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Radio Free Flint

12:56 min | 4 months ago

A Eulogy for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

"It was two, thousand and three. I walked into the. Supreme Court, building? Washington DC. To give what was. My view. Arguments and. Historic Case Flint's first criminal case to ever reach the High Court. Obviously over the years. I dreamed about. Appearing in that court. As every lawyer does was honest with himself. And on that bench were we're giants. Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice. Sandra? Day O'Connor. Justice? William Rehnquist. But none stood taller than. Justice. Ruth Bader GINSBURG. Later became known in her eighty says a Torius RPG. She was. Some kind of? Some kind of woman. Some impressive. Strong. SMART. Enormously resourceful intellectually. I had the privilege of. Representing the people of the State of Michigan in particular those from genesee county. In front of that court. On that day. In May in in May. and. As a result of that experience Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Was indelibly etched in my head. She asks questions of. My opponent. And Myself. And what I recall most vividly about that experience. Was the exchange that The justice had with my opponent. And in the case was particularly, it was a technical case that had to deal with double jeopardy questions of whether. Person could be. Tried twice for the same offence. Justice GINSBURG. Engaged in Colloquy with my opponent. Essentially, went something like this. You know. What would you tell your client at the end of the court's ruling? What would be your advice to your client at that point? Because my opponent deny argue the case didn't represent the defendant. Who He? Had was representing in front of the court in. At the time, a trial and flint. My opponent was speechless. Justice Ginsburg sat up and said. I know exactly what you would say I know exactly what you would say. And Having, read her biography and inner past getting to the Supreme Court. It was clear that. Justice Ruth. Bader GINSBURG had an enormous amount of. Experience. That dwarfed the entire Supreme Court. In Criminal Law. She had tried. Over a hundred. And forty cases. Excuse me she had appeared in more than one hundred, forty cases before the High Court and she had spent a career. Representing. PEOPLE WHO Had the system fail them or not serve them right so she took that Point of view as an advocate for the American Civil Liberties Union. Onto the high bench. Her. What was amazing about her is how truly? Smart she was and how she was able to use that intellectual skill. To help those in empathize with those who were powerless. An who who, who weren't given all the prerogatives. That so many with the high price lawyers. With the well. Endowed. Family Trust. Or who had nothing much more than the clothes on their back and barely house to in. She stood for everything that was right about America. I was sad to learn today. About her passing. because. In my lifetime, there are very few people who have left. This earth. Who had served in government? Who made a big impression on me? I can only think of John Kennedy and I was yet a young boy. At that time. Robert Kennedy Martin. Luther King never served in government but left. One Hell of an impression. For what they stood for for what they believed? For how they listened to others and what they what they meant to leave. Not Self serving. But they were in service to their country. And to humanity. I wanted to spend a second or two to explain to you what some others have said about Ruth Bader Ginsburg. One case Justice Ginsburg who had talked to national public radio about what was like to hear constant rumors about her own death. Justice Skin Justice GINSBURG. had some life principles in one of those was insist on your own survival. So, she said quote there was a senator I. Think it was after my pancreatic cancer who announced with great glee that I was going to be dead within six months. That senator whose name I have forgotten is now dead himself and I am very much alive. Kuenssberg went on to say that. She was hoping that her own eulogy wouldn't be written for many years and in the NPR interview referenced opera singer Marilyn Horne who's diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in two thousand and five and said, I will live. She was an amazing. Person because she. Believed in the notion that you need to cultivate a beginner's mind. One of the things that kept. Justice. GINSBURG intellectually spry. was she was opened a new information in ways that's rare among public officials over status. According to National Public radio during oral arguments in February Ginsburg in connor determined that was unfamiliar to her immediately asked about it. GINSBURG's question was unrelated to the dispute. Insistence on. sating satiated her curiosity is what made the moment such a flying demonstration of an expert remaining ever fresh. Justice GINSBURG. Believed in gender equality. She believed it must be lived. Perhaps, no other public official, a history of this country. Ever, did more adverse did stronger. And ever made in understood how to make changes. To make America place. where. Gender. Does not matter as to employment and other opportunities in society. She. Was a person who? Captured the imagination of. My daughters. And a lot of women in this country simply because. She stood out as somebody who believed in something bigger than herself. She taught at Columbia loss off school. She was a leading. Attorney for the ACLU's women's rights project. She did all this while raising. Two children. Of that during a time when she was litigating cases before the United States Supreme Court. Mind you that an attorney who peers in front of that court rarely. Does full time in. That's their whole business. There aren't very many of those lawyers. Around. A May argue two or three maybe four cases a year in front of the United States Supreme. Court. So the complexity and nature of the cases that she was preparing for required enormous amounts of research. Leaf of Fester wrote in an article for courts. Online magazine quote one of these calls came. The morning after Ginsburg stayed up all night writing a brief working at her Columbia Office. She picked up the phone and gave appointed responds quote this child has to parents please alternate calls. It's his father's turn on quote. Ruth Bader Ginsburg lived which she believed. `nother thing she believed in In her life principles was life changing inspiration can come from anywhere. and. In Ruth Bader GINSBURG's life. She was open to other people's points of view. And whenever? She. Heard the word feminists. She helped to shape. What's possible for women? She also believed that a woman should be vaction. Called Vision and action. We can join hands with others like mind. candling lights along paths leading out of the terrible terrifying darkness. May those lights guide us through the coming days? Another thing that Ruth Ginsburg believed in was not taking yourself too seriously. She was not up above appearing at mock trials for Shakespearian characters she loved opera and actually appeared at one point on stage in an opera but she did not put anything ahead of her work including three broken ribs. Lastly one of her principals was. You're never too old for fish net. Enough said. So. With all of that. It's hard not to celebrate the life. Of Ruth Bader Ginsburg she is one of those Americans that will live on in history and her legacy will be bright. Sad to see her go. It's sad to see people who even in this day and age cannot see beyond. Their own. Their. Own Self. To not take a moment to pause. In recognized the tremendous. Accomplishments of this woman. Because it wasn't always in the winning that she made the best points. Often, it was in dissent. We should never forget that as Americans. No matter how divided we are. Rest in Peace Ruth Bader. GINSBURG. America love.

Ruth Bader GINSBURG United States Supreme Court High Court Justice John Paul Stevens Justice Ruth Supreme Court America William Rehnquist American Civil Liberties Union Case Flint Justice GINSBURG. Washington Sandra John Kennedy Michigan Luther King genesee county NPR United States
Wednesday, July 17th, 2019

Up First

15:49 min | 1 year ago

Wednesday, July 17th, 2019

"On the House condemned racist remarks by the President Most Republicans objected to using the word racist the house just voted to condone this violation of decorum. Let me that word so explosive. I said I'm Steve inskeep with Noel King and this is up I from N._p._R.. News Planned Parenthood said it's president is leaving after less than a year departing leaders said tense relations with the board or partly to blame what's the change mean is public public debate over abortion rights intensifies and let them run say protesters in Moscow for office that is they say opposition candidates for Moscow city. Council election are being kept off the ballot. We'll here from our reporter. WHO's on the scene stick with us? We got the news you need to start your day. President trump used racist language and that has led to turmoil over whether Congress can call all the president's language racists near the House voted to condemn the president's remarks about four congresswoman of color. You may recall he picked up an old phrase against immigrants telling all four United States citizens to go back where they came from. It was such an explosive statement the just discussing it in the House of Representatives yesterday triggered protests against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi here were her words that became the focus of debate every single member this institution Democratic and Republican should join us in condemning damning the president's racist tweets to do anything less would be a shocking rejection of our values and shameful abdication oath of office to protect the American people you you hear the first murmurs of protests there Republicans objected to the use of the word racist against the president is a violation of house rules but thous did go on to pass the first house rebuke of president in more than one hundred years n._p._R.. Political Reporter Tim Magazine is in studio with us. Go Warning Tim good morning so it sounds like things got a little crazy on the floor of the House last night and then there was a vote. Tell us about what happened sure. The vote was mostly along party. Lines is the house split two hundred forty two one eighty seven so let's talk a little bit about the resolution actually said it stayed at the House. Quote strongly condemned President Donald Trump's racist comments that legitimised and increased fear and hatred of new Americans and people of Color it also states that immigrants quote have made America stronger stronger in that those who take the oath of citizenship or every bit as American as those whose families have lived in the United States for many generations as Steve pointed out at Tim lawmakers were fighting over whether the term racist was even allowed and they reciting these rules of decorum which which I'm unclear on what did the rules say so as it was interesting because the resolution itself as I just quoted calls the comments racist okay so there was an hour's long back and forth between Republicans and Democrats on whether you could characterize the president's comments as racist whether it <hes> conform with house rules so there's no actual house rules that says explicitly you can't call the president's words racist but the house is a rule against making debates personal and and this goes way back to a manual written by Thomas Jefferson <hes> these rules basically have been interpreted over many many years to include precedents and these president accidents say. It's out of order to call someone's comments racist on the House floor. Congressman Collins is the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and this is what he said when we consider the power this chamber to legislate for the common good. I wonder why my colleagues have become so eager to. To attack the president they are willing to sacrifice the rules precedent and the integrity of the People's House for an unprecedented vote that undercuts very democratic processes. I guess we should mention we've heard about these rules before there was a congressman who accused President Obama of lying during a speech in Congress and he was he was rebuked for that. You're not supposed to get into somebody's motives right. That's correct. I mean this is this is something these rules are constantly changing due to precedents and rulings from the chair but it is notable that Republicans sought a debate over whether you could technically call the president's comments racist and sought to avoid bit debate over the substance of the president's comments itself whether the president was right or wrong to say what he said now about a dozen House House Republicans spoke out against the president but only about four Republicans ultimately joined with Democrats to support this measure <hes> and and also a an independent Justin Amash who was formerly Republican also joined with Democrats okay so the House passed this resolution solution to condemn the president's remarks what happens next so it's really difficult to say right. The the president has the ability like no one else to totally up end the agenda in Washington D._C.. Democrats had other plans this week. They wanted to address the minimum wage. They wanted to negotiate a budget deal. They wanted to vote on holding the attorney. General in contempt over the twenty twenty census and all of this was stalled by these parliamentary maneuvers these rules and Democrats rushing to respond to another provocation by the President and Republicans is being asked to either condone or condemn these comments N._p._R.. Political reporter to Mac thanks so much next lot all right the fight for abortion rights has become an enormous battle addle in courts and states in this country and now planned parenthood has removed. It's president a dramatic moment. Dr Lena Win is only the second medical doctor to lead the organization. It's more than one hundred year history and she was in the job for less than a year then planned parenthood yesterday she statement announcing her departure and wishing her well. She says she was forced out after what she described on twitter as a secret meeting of Planned Parenthood's board N._p._R.. Sarah maccammon covers reproductive rights. She's with us this morning. Hi Sarah Good morning all right so there's clearly something going on here. Between Dr Lena Win and Planned Parenthood's board. Would we know about why she was forced out yeah as you noted a win said it was a secret meeting that that pushed her out and that it came after what she described as good faith negotiations <hes> that had been going on over her exit when released along letter in which he says she was on her way out over what she called philosophical differences with the organization and she said in one point at the letter that she'd she'd come to work on a broad range of healthcare issues issues but the quote the new board leadership has determined that the priority of planned parenthood moving forward is to double down on abortion rights advocacy when did go onto say she understands some of the reasons for that shift and she will do everything she can to ensure a smooth transition uh-huh and planned parenthood itself has not said much right. They've not given an official explanation for what's going on. I know they've been talking to people behind the scenes. Can they give you any clarity right. They've pretty much thanked her for her service and wished her the best but yeah behind the scenes. I'm hearing a number of reasons I've heard several people close to the situation say that that there were issues with wins leadership style from the beginning that a lot of people at planned parenthood didn't see her as a great fit with the organization <hes> a lot of key leaders and other staff left planned parenthood soon after she came in another factor. I've been told is that when came from public health background and she was as we've said a doctor she was a former public health official in Baltimore and my sources say she seemed more comfortable talking about Ah this broad range of health issues that refers to in her letter than really advocating for abortion rights and this of course at a time when reproductive rights advocates feel very much under attack at the federal and state level rate exactly I mean this has been the big news over the past couple of months. Since these these new restrictive laws being passed planned parenthood a big part of that what does that mean for this organization now right well. She was senior bringing in a medical doctor was seen as a good move first of all because planned parenthood wants to place abortion in that larger context list of healthcare but again she wasn't seen as leaning in heavily enough to that issue. I'm told that a lot of people come to planned parenthood because they're proud to work on abortion rights and other issues in in so again. That wasn't a fit what it means now. I think it says a lot that they've let their president didn't go at this time with so many challenges potentially Supreme Court Challenge Shaping up in the next couple of years heading into an election year. You know clearly there wasn't a fit there as we've said <hes> stepping into the role on an interim basis is Alexis McGill Johnson a longtime. I'm planned parenthood board member. Well liked from what I've heard. She's going to have a lot on her plate of planned. Parenthood says they hope to have a permanent president in place by the end of next year but again next year is a campaign year so <hes> this is a big job for this person and a left her planned parenthood to worry about thinking about in the meantime yeah absolutely N._p._R.. Sarah McCarron Thanks Sarah. Thank you all right now. We have a story of Russian election interference and I am being slightly arched. I suppose so because this is not Russian interference and U._S.. Elections but Russian interference alleged in Russia for the third consecutive day demonstrators in Russia rallied to protest for free and fair elections demanding that opposition candidates be allowed to run from Moscow's City Council sports. That's the sound of protesters chanting Russia without Putin. N._P._R.'s Lucian Kim was at that protest last night we have I'm on the line Good Morning Lucian Good Morning Okay. Here's what I don't understand. You've got protesters protesting something that's going on with a city council election in Moscow but they're shouting Russia without Putin. Can you explain what brought protesters out out into the street well. The impetus was the Moscow election commission barring a about a dozen opposition candidates from the ballot in September elections for the city council and these independent candidates had to click thousands of signatures from voters odors and the commission ruled that too many of these were invalid. I spoke to one protester. His name is <hes> Vladimir Kuznetsov. <hes> who works in banking peaceful is with US Sydney is getting so what are you thing is that he himself volunteered to collect signatures and he's upset that they've now been thrown out. I spoke to a number of protesters what really struck me was how restrained and subdued they were <hes> the system. They're up against is very powerful. Powerful political protests here in the past gone nowhere. <hes> and these protesters are still in a tiny minority I wonder was it dangerous for people to be out there last night while there was a police presence but the police was very restrained held back it was an unsanctioned <hes> demonstration so of course there was always that element of danger there is a protest about city council really a protest about something bigger. Is this really about just rights more broadly the right of Russian people full to be able to vote to have elections without them being in interfered in absolutely everything you said into go back to your initial question about you know. Why were the people chanting Russia without Putin? Actually this whole issue issue is about President Putin the next presidential election isn't until twenty twenty four so opponents are now focusing on local elections and they're really trying to make any inroads into this very monolithic system. <hes> Moscow is the. A key here it's Russia's largest city also were the opposition has a potentially large <hes> support base so the idea here is because turn out for these kind of elections is usually very low if they have a very enthusiastic campaign by well known opposition candidates dates they actually have a high chance of getting into the city council and of course that's why they're candidates were denied a chance to run us a small race to chisel away. That's really interesting. Let me ask you <hes> what's the government's reaction been does. Vladimir Putin have have a reason to be worried. Does he seem worried. Well Putin spokesman has said that the Kremlin is following these elections but of course this is a local issue for local authorities to decide <hes> Putin has no reason to be worried yet but keeping Moscow residents happy is probably one of his biggest headaches they are the best educated most affluent and most <hes> demanding part of the Russian population. The government has really poured billions of dollars into the urban renewal projects <hes> to keep Muscovites lights happy and so the opposition really wants to turn these city council elections into a new issue rally around <hes> and they're hoping for big turnout at a demonstration this weekend N._p._R.'s Lucian Kim. Thanks thank you <music> retired Supreme Court justice. John Paul Stevens has died. He spent thirty four years on the Supreme Court and he was still making the occasional biting comment about public events right up until his death in Florida at the age of ninety nine. John Paul Stevens was was nominated to the court by a Republican president Gerald Ford in one thousand nine hundred seventy five but he became a leader of the courts more liberal wing he wrote majority opinions on Property Rights Immigration and school prayer. He also wrote a memorable descent in the year two thousand when a five to four court majority decided the presidential election in favor of George W Bush Stevens was on the losing side and he wrote the ruling would undermine quote the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law now because court sessions are not on camera. The Nation did not very often here John Paul Stevens voice but he spoke out after his retirement in two thousand ten and this year he told N._p._R.'s Nina Totenberg that he didn't like the direction. The court is moving in some the decisions really are are quite wrong in quite a country to the public interest. He was also not a fan of present day politics in my job. I avoid a political commentary but <hes> I am offended by much at the <hes>. The leaders of our country are cage in now but in his retirement went stevens wasn't writing books talking about his time on the Supreme Court he did do something else. I'm a person who ooh please faint boom wants to know he had by then earned the right to some recreation John Paul Stevens was a veteran of World War Two who enlisted the day before Pearl Harbor December six nineteen forty one and spent most of the next seven seven decades in public service and that is up I for Wednesday July seventeenth. I'm no well king and I'm Steve INSKEEP UP. I returns tomorrow and in the meantime check out the indicator from planet money and bureau daily podcast about money work and human behavior on their latest episode paying off student loans is daunting and tedious shows producer Darius Roffe on seeks guidance from a financial advisor about what to do with his higher than average amount of debts. The world is complicated but knowing the pass us can help us understand. It's so much better. That's where we come in. I'm run that Fatah unremitting at Louis and we're the host of through line N._p._R.'s history podcast every week will dig into forgotten stories from the moments that shaped our world through line.

President President Putin president Moscow Supreme Court Steve inskeep reporter John Paul Stevens Russia House of Representatives United States President Obama Donald Trump Congress House Speaker Nancy Pelosi George W Bush Stevens Sarah Good Lucian Kim
Full Episode: Tuesday, July 16, 2019

Nightline

20:03 min | 1 year ago

Full Episode: Tuesday, July 16, 2019

"Is there something that interferes with your happiness or is preventing you from achieving your goals better help online counseling. Is there for you connect with your professional counselor in a private online environment schedule secure video or phone sessions plush chat and text with your therapist listeners. Get Ten percent off your first month by going to better help dot com slash. Nightline is nightline tonight breaking news former former Supreme Court justice. John Paul Stevens dead at ninety nine the courts third longest-serving justice what we're now learning plus twenty years after that fateful night that fatal flights a look at the last days of J._F._k.. Junior born to a life of privilege and pain the rare candidate footage the life and legacy of an American and the Lion King The circle of live reimagined the imagined the new reboot of the Disney classic the journey back to Africa and new voices bringing old friends to live beyond saved Donald Glover Seth Rogan are Robin Roberts with the famous faces is behind them beloved character good evening. Thanks for joining us. We begin tonight with breaking news. Retired Supreme Court justice. John Paul Stevens died tonight in Fort Lauderdale Florida after suffering stroke yesterday president Gerald Ford appointed Stevens in one thousand nine hundred seventy five as a moderate but he eventually merged as the courts leading liberal retiring after serving thirty five years on the nation's highest court. I think I've been told over and over again in case after case after case that I'm some issues that surprised people yes but all judges do there. In Two thousand twelve President Obama awarded him the Medal of freedom just as John Paul Stevens with ninety nine years old we turn now to the tragic plane crash exactly twenty years ago tonight that was already worry and concern on Cape Cod Massachusetts a a small private plane had failed to land is expected the pilot John F. Kennedy junior the accident that killed the son of a slain president also marked a turning point for a country that had always wondered what might have been. Here's my nightline hotline clinker Byron Pitts for J._F._K.. Junior it seemed his birthright and his bird all of it in abundance the Kennedy name the Kennedy looks and sadly the Kennedy Luck <music> for all times a president son America's royal romantically linked to model Cindy Crawford celebrities like Madonna Sarah Jessica Parker and Daryl Hannah John was used to the kind of attention that he god being his mother son and his father son but things were different when he was slowly people's sexiest men. Do you mind all the stuff about you. People can say a lot worse things about you right then you're attractive and you will now twenty years after his death in intimate look at the life and legacy of John F. Kennedy junior rarely seen footage of his battles with the Paparazzi much and new details about the data and now the young man who we remember playing under John Kennedy's desk is here to introduce his uncle. The Kennedy family has begun to arrive re enter the national political spotlight at the nineteen eighty-eight Democratic Convention on non political leader but I can't speak for those of my age who've been inspired by teddy to give their energy and their ideas to their community and not just to themselves he wrote that speech and he was someone who obviously suddenly saw the possibility of another candidate in the white no longer the little boy that's the nation's memory at his his father's funeral as Duffin passed by Jackie lean down said now say goodbye to your father and John delivered that would be the most famous insult by Daddy said caddies saying such John John's. Orange Third Birthday John and his mother adore each other Jackie. She didn't want him flying. One of the reasons for that was the horrible track record. The Kennedys had with flying. They've Jackie was alive. He would not have pursued getting his pilot's license but she had died one year after his mother's passing the ambitious Bachelor Launches Publication Joel Ladies and Gentlemen Me George in what John did is different because there were serious ideas within the pages of George magazine and then there were also you know flashy celebrities ultimately this magazine is going to stand and or fall on whether or not it's good magazine and couple issues on down the line. My last name is really gonNA Matter Wild John Tail End of his relationship with Daryl Hannah a he went to buy a suit Calvin. Klein was a personal shopper there named Caroline Beset. She was graceful professional. Lovely stunning blonde very personable. Heroin was very independent. She was the strong woman and I think he loved that and then John Carroll would walk into an event. The entire place with stop. Caroline was really having a hard time with Paparazzi. Just was a slow slow erosion of happiness of privacy that she didn't know how to handle from the very beginning they had a volatile relationship and unfortunately the cameras were always their record that there it was one particularly revealing moment when they were dating and on the beach and suddenly they encounter come on John. Do that my girlfriend. She's the long autographs what every several partner WHO's not used to this and she didn't ask that may John Angry but despite being hounded you by Paparazzi the couple remain strong were always giggling and laughing and kissing John Actually managed to keep his marriage to caroline in November of Nineteen ninety-six a total secret some of his friends to Cumberland Island off the coast of Georgia but after slipping away for their intimate wedding life back in New York City was anything but peaceful caroline started to have a lot more fears anxiety eighty she really couldn't go out day or night without being followed and filmed in July nineteen ninety nine the young couple along with Caroline Sister Lauren plan what would become a fateful trip to a family wedding and Kennedy small plane and John and Caroline were headed to Hyannis Port for the wedding of Bobby Kennedy's <hes> youngest child worry. The group met at an airport outside New York City were caroline made what may have been her last phone call. She had just got into the airport. She was just calling to say we're ready to take off and then she said I love you and I said I know I know we hung up. John Actually took off at eight thirty eight P._M.. And it was just about getting dark I flew out of the well same night and almost the same time John I was going to Nantucket when I flew pass Martha's vineyard that night I said to my nephew look. There's Martha's Vineyard. You said I can't see it. I looked out of the airplane window is that I can't see either. They never made it to Martha's Vineyard Kennedy's plane going down it lent seven miles from shore. He was thirty eight. I was midnight and it was John's friend and he was at Hyannis airport waiting for them and just one of those moments where the minute I heard his voice. I just knew good morning. I'M BERTHA COONS AT A._B._C.. News headquarters in New York. We are interrupting your program this this morning for some inspiration of all John F. Kennedy junior the son of the slain president A._B._C. News has reports that his plane is missing as time went onto searchers began to find some records. Some wreckage began to wash ashore actually early on Martha's vineyard after five days searchers found the plane in the bodies of John Caroline and sister Lauren still strapped in their seats investigators with the National Transportation Safety Board determined that this was pilot error essentially John F. Kennedy junior suffered from what's called spatial disorientation so essentially he flew into a haze it was at night he had trouble seeing and he was only certified to fly visual flight conditions. We lost a dream. We lost a legacy we. Lost so many things they were prince and princess the beset family lost their two dollars and it's unthinkable. How do you recover from something like that? John was the last glimmer <music> of and to see that there was once a spot call camelot and our thanks to Byron for that report up next the circle goal of life full circle the lion king coming back with a superstar cast old and new technology is supposed to make your life easier right right. Don't let your business be limited by the software. You haven't place whether you're looking to replace or just considering your options. CAPTERRA is here to help you read thousands of real reviews on software options specific to your business needs at Capterra dot COM com slash nightline with over eight hundred fifty thousand reviews of products from real software users. You'll discover everything you need to make a well informed decision unsure of where to start go to capterra dot com slash nightline and use the searcher categories stories option to find your exact needs check it out for free visit CAPTERRA DOT com slash nightline to find the tools to make an informed software decision for your business. CAPTERRA DOT COM slash nightline capterra that C. A. P. T. we are a dot com slash nightline capterra software selection simplified. It's as if we're coming full circle on the circle of life as a new generation of fans as being introduced to the Lion King it's the live action reboot of the Disney classic pushing the envelope with virtual reality as a powerhouse cast it creates a buzz in the Beehive Robin Roberts with the exclusive behind the scenes. Look all these people such babies people really really love the lion king they do the Simba thing at sporting events raise those beautiful ladies and the Air Hukou Kuna Matata since its debut twenty five years ago hundreds of millions of people have seen and come under the spell the Lion King. I still like a Kuna Matata title like when I put my life phone on shuffle like Bisong still come up who Matata. He's you hear that means no worries when I was in school. I don't remember anyone ever using the phrase no worries and you hear it every day and now a new generation of fans is being introduced to the Lion King Director. Jon Favreau gave me an exclusive peek behind the scenes of the new film during production. It's the same story fans have loved for twenty five years. The fabric has used virtual reality to give it a whole new. Look taking it to the next technical level. Can you explain to people how I'll try. It's kind of hard because has never never been done before and it's it's a it's a mixture of technologies. We had to make it feel like a live action film as much as possible but there's nothing real in the movie. There's no real sets. There's no real animals. There's no motion capture. There's nothing there's nothing but pixels. Those pixels looked just like animals to me. John showed me part of the movie and I could not tell the difference but in kings time his son I just thought it was completely remarkable remarkable and just pushing the envelope and in extraordinary way wildly complicated I could explain it. It will take far longer than you'll ever use. On this show I can described. I can't explain it describes. I have no idea what she's talking about. The cameras at one point sort of virtual reality helmet on me. No idea what they Disney has your brain to keep the human touch. The photography wasn't computerized the cameraman operated a real camera linked to the virtual reality program by Lion Lion. I wanted to make the naturalism not just be in the technology in the rendering but also in performance hakuna Matata Matata. Most people get bigger reaction. I wanted overlaps. I want to talk station. I wanted people to try things in the circle of life. <hes> let's talk about the cast James Earl chose who else could play Fossa not always scar one day it will be my son who rules and when I worked with him he likes it. You have any <hes> <hes> direction it's good for dotes director and he didn't know what to say that was like no just sad because even just you talking to me about it sounds like Mafa so time is rule rises and fools like the sun and the rest of the cast is new and it stiller a host of award-winning dramatic and comic actors now. Did you envision even when you're thinking about award Hog Seth Rogan Yeah that was a pretty hard piece of casting to do voices great a real laugh from him sounds even better than a sage laugh data and in a casting coup that created buzz in the beehive and on social media worldwide Nala is the one and only beyond say you have to take place as it was important to the director that Nala in that the females in this fail were heroes and he put Nala right alongside Simba in the big fight and I thought that was really interesting and very real because you know where the fighters everything you see exists together in a delicate balance making the lion king for a new generation of viewers poses up particular challenge the hard part about online to everybody knows it people love it how much you honor it. How much do you straight from it? How much do you give people exactly what they're expecting and how much do use avert those expectations? That is the biggest challenge what it's the process of doing okay. There's some scenes that you shouldn't touch their others ones that you're like a I can do something different here. How do you go about making that decision? There's a process that I use but but it's just I make a list of everything I remember from it without looking it. What are the moments that I feel are important? What are the things moments I think I have to hit and so we had hit those moments but then take a step further breathing more reality into it but still honoring the fable able in the fairytale is at its core from the joyful exuberance of childhood to the lessons of maturity if you look beyond the adventure and the sentiment the lion king is a story about life? There's I get older her as my kids grow up you realize that the job of a storyteller is to prepare them for what life has coming and not everything's pleasant but there is a way if you show up to it in the right way way with the right support. It's still it's still a happy movie. It is a happy moving and there's no better example of that feeling than Hukou Matata. An anthem of happiness embraced around the world. KUNA TAT slimy can't wait the lion king is in theaters Friday and full disclosure. Disney is the parent company of A._B._C.. News and finally reading is good for you. Just ask these two young the sisters from Delaware Sisters Zara and Haley Willard are helping kids fall asleep by sharing their passion for books the duo hosting alive bedtime story session on facebook every night. I'll be reading how Jelly Roll Oh lord invented jets picking books up at the library each week with characters who look like them using the power of their voices to spread the power of reading today I will buy round and busy I and carrying on the spirit with Gusto that's nightline you can always catch our full episodes on Hulu cannot America. Is there something that interferes with your happiness or is preventing you from achieving.

John John F. Kennedy John Caroline John Paul Stevens Disney president Matata Matata Kennedy Supreme Court John John Martha Byron Pitts John Actually Seth Rogan Caroline Sister Lauren John Carroll Robin Roberts Air Hukou Kuna Matata John I
How World War II shaped John Paul Stevenss approach to the death penalty

The Daily 202's Big Idea

11:30 min | 1 year ago

How World War II shaped John Paul Stevenss approach to the death penalty

"<music> good morning. I'm James From The Washington Post and this is the daily to for Wednesday July seventeen in today's news the House votes to condemn President Trump's racist tweets. The uproar has derailed the roll out of the administration's new immigration plan and planned parenthood ousts. It's president after less than a year on the job but I in the big idea. Former Supreme Court justice. John Paul Stevens died last night at a hospital in Fort Lauderdale Florida. He was ninety nine a moderate Republican from Chicago. He evolved into the leader of the courts liberal wing over thirty five years on the High Court before retiring in two thousand ten is the third longest serving justice ever justice Stevens left his stamp on nearly every area of the law writing the courts opinions in landmark cases on government regulation gave us the Chevron Doctrine Karen Intellectual Property and civil liberties the also spoke for the court when it held presidents accountable under the law writing the nineteen ninety-seven decision that required Bill Clinton to face Paula Jones's sexual harassment suit and the two thousand six opinion that Bar George W Bush from holding military trials for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay without congressional authorization Stevens was bored in Chicago on April Twentieth Nineteen Twenty. His family lived in Hyde Park right next to the University of Chicago. His grandfather jeans Stevens was the founder of the Illinois Life Insurance Company and owned the Lasalle Hotel which the justices Father Ernest managed in one thousand nine twenty-seven the family opened the Stevens Hotel in Chicago August which was billed as the largest hotel in the world at that time John Paul enjoyed a privileged childhood he attended the best schools he met celebrities like Charles Lindbergh and Amelia earhart at the hotel and he was lucky enough to be the in the crowd at Wrigley Field on October first one thousand nine hundred thirty two when Babe Ruth hit his famous called shot homerun off cubs pitcher Charlie route but the Stevens businesses that that made them so affluent went bankrupt during the Great Depression and Justice Stevens his father his grandfather and his uncle remain Stevens were all indicted on charges of alleged financial misconduct shortly after the indictment James Stevens wins had a stroke so he was excused from trial Raymond Stevens committed suicide. A jury convicted Ernest Evens Nineteen thirty-three of embezzling one point three million dollars but his conviction was overturned in nineteen thirty four by the Illinois Supreme Court. Which sharply criticized prosecutors for bringing the charges noting that there was not a Scintilla of evidence of any concealment or fraud attempted the family had always said they just take had taken a loan from the Life Insurance Company to support the hotel but the experience reduced the wealthy family to a lower middle class lifestyle it also taught justice Stevens an enduring lesson they brought with him to the bench about the harm that even well-to-do you citizens can suffer from over zealous prosecution and other flaws in our justice system his experience during World War Two also really shaped his worldview and eventually his jurisprudence he joined the navy is an intelligence since officer on December sixth nineteen forty one? That's right the day before Pearl Harbor was attacked. He liked to joke in later years that his commissioning had provoked the Japanese to strike because they took it as a sign of American desperation he spent the War at Pearl Harbor working as a signals intelligence officer. His specialty was traffic analysis the compilation of Japanese messages to discern patterns in communication that might help identify relocate and enforces. He was awarded the Bronze Star for Helping Dakota the code a particularly difficult Japanese radio call sign his work allowed us to shoot down Japanese Admiral Seroku Yamamoto's airplane. This strategic coup was only possible because Stevens had decoded Japanese radio transmissions that had been intercepted but the targeting killing of Yamamoto really troubled a young Stevens he explained a few years ago that so his first doubts about capital punishment which he considered another form form of deliberate killing by the state of named individual when Gerald Ford I put Stevens on the court he was pretty conservative. INDEEDY CAST A fifth vote to permit states to reauthorize the death penalty just four years after the court had invalidated invalidated it but as the country the court and the Republican Party moved right justice Stevens did not he began to take a more favourable view of affirmative action and he started fighting the limit the scope of the death penalty citing his World War Two experience in two thousand and to justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion in a six to three decision that banned the death penalty for the mentally disabled in two thousand five after years of condemning the death penalty for offenders younger than eighteen which the court upheld in nineteen eighty nine justice Stevens persuaded Anthony Kennedy he won Kennedy's vote The critical fifth vote for his side and capital punishment for minors is no longer allowed in this country today. As a result and that's the big idea here are three other headlines. That should be on your radar. This Hump Day number one divided House voted last night to condemn president trump's racist remarks telling for minority congresswoman to go back to their ancestral countries with all but four Republicans dismissing the rebuke is harassment while many Democrats pushed their leadership for harsher punishment of the president the imagery of the two hundred at forty one hundred eighty seven vote was stark a diverse democratic caucus cast the president's words as an affront to millions of Americans and descendants of immigrants will republican lawmakers the vast majority of them white men stood with trump against a resolution rejected as quote racist comments that legitimised fear and hatred of new Americans and people of Color. All four of the Republicans who broke ranks. Maybe gone after next year will heard from Texas is the loan black Republican in the house. He represents hundreds hundreds of miles of the southern border and trump lost his district by huge margin in two thousand sixteen and we'll do so again in twenty twenty. He barely survive by a few hundred votes in two thousand Eighteen Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania considered one of the most vulnerable incumbents up for reelection next year and the philly suburbs suburbs. Susan Brooks of Indiana's already announced her retirement and many expect Fred Upton of Michigan to retire as well Justin Amash from western Michigan quit the G._O._p.. Earlier this month and it's called for trump's impeachment also voted for the resolution the debate played out on a Raucous House floor. Islamic attacked one another's motives and repeatedly questioned whether their opponents had violated longstanding rules of decorum those rules ultimately were changed. They literally changed the rules. After Republicans challenged Speaker Nancy NC Pelosi's use of the word racist well Democrats United Behind the resolution that passed they were unanimous and supporting it many of her rank and file members said they want Pelosi to do more dozens signed onto way censure resolution that was filed by Steve Cohen from Tennessee who called trump's comments uproarious and deserving of a more serious rebuke authority or possibility though for Pelosi came from Al Green from Texas he filed articles of impeachment against trump last night under special procedures that could bring them up for a vote by the end of the week. That's a dilemma for Pelosi continues to resist calls for impeaching trump since the Senate won't take anything up senior Democratic AIDS expect back the speaker will move to either kill the resolution referred to committee effectively sidelining the matter but either option would pose a difficult vote for her caucus of which more than eighty members have supported launching an impeachment inquiry number two. That floor fight last night in the house over the racism resolution forced the cancellation of meeting at the White House in which the president was going to talk with top Republican congressional leaders about his new immigration plan senior Republicans in the Senate on Tuesday immediately began downplaying downplay the prospects of the new White House proposal an effort. That's being led by senior adviser Jared Kushner the president's son-in-law. They haven't even been briefed on the details but they say it's dead on arrival one G._O._P.. Senator told us there's just no bandwith to debate it. A senior Republican aides said Mitch McConnell McConnell doesn't want to waste time on legislation that has no chance of garnering sixty votes to advance in the Senate but in a cabinet meeting yesterday Kushner preview details of the six hundred twenty page legislation and said that he's worked with roughly two dozen G._O._P.. Senate offices to try and trap graph the bill apparently though he's considered no Democrats what administration officials said that about ten Senate Republicans will co-sponsor the Legislation White House aides have previously described a new point based system that ranks perspective immigrants on factors like education levels English speaking abilities in professional skills meanwhile a group of plaintiff's led by the A._C._l._U. filed suit last night against the trump administration in U._S.. District Toward San Francisco in an attempt to halt the implementation of the new policy that disqualifies most asylum salom seekers who pass through Mexico before reaching the United States number three the president of planned parenthood was unexpectedly forced out of her job yesterday afternoon in a dispute over her management style on the direction of the nation's largest women's reproductive rights organization amid growing political and legal challenges to abortion planned parenthood's board met in emergency session for several hours on Tuesday and approved lane of wins immediate departure just eight months after she got the job the organization organization faces growing financial peril from trump administration rule that took effect on Monday barring federally funded Family Planning Clinics from providing referrals for abortions. It's also under attack by antiabortion lawmakers at the state and federal level and it's threatened by the prospect that the nineteen seventy-three ruling Roe v Wade legalized abortion could be overturned by the Post Brett Cavenaugh New Conservative majority on the court a person aware of the planned parenthood's boards perspective said the organization had tried to work with win for six months to correct problems with her management style. This person said it resulted in serious conflicts and that she had difficulty working with staff. The organization announced the appointment of Alexis McGill Johnson a former board chair in the head of an antidiscrimination organization is acting the president and said the search for a new president will begin early next year it planned parenthood spokeswoman said that the terms of one's departure had been negotiated over several weeks but then when went on twitter and said that was a lie and she lashed out at the board quite an internal fight with so many external challenges and that's the daily to to for Wednesday July seventeenth. Thanks as always for listening. I'd really love to know what you think of this podcast what you like or don't like if you can take our survey I'd be really grateful and.

president John Paul Stevens President Trump Raymond Stevens Senate Stevens Hotel Chicago Supreme Court Stevens Admiral Seroku Yamamoto Texas Illinois Supreme Court Washington Post Speaker Nancy NC Pelosi officer High Court harassment Republican Party
Four key senators undecided on Kavanaugh hours before vote; Key red state democratic senator voting "no" on Kavanaugh; GOP Senator will miss Kavanaugh vote; Impact unclear

Erin Burnett OutFront

51:01 min | 2 years ago

Four key senators undecided on Kavanaugh hours before vote; Key red state democratic senator voting "no" on Kavanaugh; GOP Senator will miss Kavanaugh vote; Impact unclear

"Support for out front comes from our friends at rocket mortgage by Quicken Loans who were excited to introduce their all new rate shield approval. If you're in the market to buy a home rate, shield approval is a real game changer. And here's why I quick and loans will lock your rate for up to ninety days while you shop. But here's the crucial part. If rates go up your rate stays the same. But if rates go down your rate also drops either way you win. It's the kind of thinking you'd expect from America's largest mortgage lender to get started. Go to rocketmortgage dot com. Slash out front. He is impulsive narcissistic. He's way way indicative. He has no memory of being elected president and only one man. One bird man can get him out. Take the case. Harvey Birdman attorney general Sunday up Tober fourteenth at midnight on a doled swim. Next just hours away from the first keyboard on Kavanagh's nomination for senators, still undecided is judge Cavanaugh about to become Justice, cavenaugh and protesters confront Senator Orrin Hatch over Brad Kavanagh. His response grow up and a former supreme court. Justice speaks out why he says cavenaugh should not be confirmed the reporter who spoke to Justice. John Paul Stevens is my guest. Let's go out front. Good evening. Everyone. I'm Kate Baldwin in for Aaron, brunette out front tonight. The vote is set just sixteen hours away as the bitter battle over Brett Kavanagh is coming to ahead and here's what senators are combing through and have been all throughout the day. Forty five pages interview summaries, nine people interviewed sixteen hundred pages from the FBI tip line. And what was in all of those pages? It literally depends on who you ask. I know if you've heard the story before it has become the definition of a tale of two reports. So let's start with Republicans. What did they see. For sure is the FBI report did not corroborate any of the allegations against Judge Kevin all the witnesses. They dented saying they were present at the event, have all refuted their allegations. So I think that ought to settle it after investigations from both the committee and the FBI we have found nothing. Absolutely nothing to cooperate accusations against him. And we need to confirm him right away Republicans, clearly focusing on what was in the report as for the Democrats, their focus is on what was not in it. It's very frustrating that they didn't do a thorough investigation that they didn't interview all the relevant witnesses out fears have been realized that this is not a thorough investigation. It looks to be a product of an incomplete investigation that was limited perhaps by the White House. And while they each of course, have a vote, ninety. Six of them have have had declared which already declared which way they are going even many most of them even before any of the hearings leaving all of the power in the hands of four senators who have yet to declare their vote. Here's what they are saying tonight, Republican Senator Susan Collins. She called the report very thorough Republican. Lisa Murkowski is saying even less Republican, Jeff flake says, he's seen no additional corroborating evidence for the allegations against capital and democrat, Joe mansion he says, he's only halfway through the report, so he's not commenting protesters trying to sway those undecideds rally. Outside the supreme court today. And as for the president, how is he feeling about his pick tonight? Listen to this. Doing very well. The judges doing well. Phil Mattingly out front on Capitol Hill for us tonight fill where do things stand? I guess we have to say at this moment, look the choose your own adventure. We've seen for the vast majority of the senators is certainly kind of laid out in full. But as you noted, it's about four senators right now in. Here's what I've been told just over the course of the last couple of minutes. The votes aren't locked in yet. That's from GOP that have been in touch with throughout the course of the day. In fact, Senator Susan Collins just a short while ago left the classified briefing room where she's been reviewing the report multiple times. She would not comment on where she stood, but she did say she had completed reviewing the report. I think this is important to note. Kate is everybody's trying to kind of read the tea leaves about comments or body language or hearing from senators. What questions were asked during the briefings by those undecided senators. The key point is this those senators have been doing their work throughout the day. Multiple times. They've gone to the room to review the report. They've received staff briefings, they've reviewed the transcripts on their own and they are not yet ready to say where they are. Here's what we know. Going forward. Obviously, as you noted, Heidi Heitkamp and other undecided democrat going into this day is a no a very strong statement as to why Senator Joe Manchin. A lot of people thought maybe all of these senators were vote together. Senator mansion still undecided told us earlier today. Heidi has her vote. I have my vote. They're making very clear. They're not a monolithic group right now. They're each coming to their own conclusion here. The question on that Kate is going to be win. Obviously I can tell you Republican leaders feel optimistic right now, feel like they're in a good place, but as you know, better than anybody until those votes are cast until those senators walk onto the floor, it really is still jump ball at this moment. Don't count them yet to see, Phil, thank you so much long night early morning ahead for you out front Louis. Now, John Avalon, John Avalon CNN senior political analyst, Gloria borger sair CNN cheap political analysts, and Phil Mudd former FBI senior intelligence advisor, Gloria. I know you can't count the votes until they've been cast, but what is your gut telling you tonight? It's annoying confirm with Mattingly. I'm with Mattingly look. I mean, we know the Jeff flake you you, you listed the senators. We know that Jeff flake wants to get to, yes, he voted for yet. He voted for cavenaugh in the committee, and I think Mark hausky is a real question Mark here and we just, we just don't know. Susan Collins went back to read tonight. She told Lauren FOX that that she read many of the tip line transcripts, which is very interesting to me. I mean, you know that that is extensive people calling in over the transom saying, look, I really wanna talk to you about about Cavanaugh. Those are things that were not investigated by the FBI. So you know, you put it all together and Kate, you covered Capitol Hill. You know, it's hard to predict and it ain't over till it's over. I know why the Republicans are feeling good and they should. But again, it's just kind of unpredictable. I mean a week ago. Sweet Cavanaugh was gonna get confirmed easily. So who knows? Who knows? Wise words, Laura? Who knows he's exactly right, John. I want to show you in in for everyone. Watching the scene in DC today wouldn't some protesters. They received word that Heidi Heitkamp. One of the undecideds announced that she was voting against cavenaugh and watch this. Of mystery. But again, as we're talking about it is so unpredictable where the other senators are going to are going to land. I'm sitting here wondering honestly, what happened this week? Coming up for me played. Thank you for that. In this jump ball moment. Look the off ramp that the senators in the center desired the American Bar Association offered an FBI investigation is been completed. The problem is it seems like the Democrats would say the fix was in and the Trump administration and the White House. Contrary to the president's assurances could strain the investigation. So it's not complete. It's still voters in the center who have the power. It will be, I think a a bit surreal bit of kabuki. If all the senators ultimately ended up retreating to their partisan corners. There are a lot of smart money citizen passes for wisdom in Washington for a reason that that will happen. But Murkowski and Collins seem to be doing their due diligence on their own, not farming it out to staff and they deserve a degree credit for that. But this this, the tribalism that's been merging here is not gonna disappear. It's bad. Let's start with garland. And this wound is not going to heal quickly for the supreme court. United States or the Senate fill in terms of what they're looking at. Forty five pages of interview summaries, sixteen hundred pages from the f. b. i. tip line. Nine additional people interviewed Mark judge, which was one of the people everybody wanted to hear from. He was interviewed for three hours Senator say, does that to you? Sound like a comprehensive investigation? No, but that's not what they are asked to do. I mean, you ask for Meatloaf and you want to know, why do you don't get a T-Bone look? This is not an investigation conducted for criminal purposes. There is a client that client is the. Senate in the White House that client in the executive branch goes to, in essence, a contractor that's the FBI and says, there are some specific slivers of this guy's life. I want you to look at in so centers, including Democrats who I presume signed off on the guidance that went to the FBI want to know why don't you get a comprehensive background investigation. Let me tell you something my background investigation when I was twenty four years old and had never done anything, took nine months. These folks took three days to answer some specific questions from the Senate. And now senators wanted ask, why did we get a T-Bone when they initially requested Meatloaf? That's why they ask for an investigation. They got it. John. John obviously felt makes it an important authoritative point about the difference between a criminal investigation by the FBI and what they've been asked to do by the White House. That said, of course, Brad Kavanagh has had six previous FBI investigations. The first one very may well taken nine months, and I think that the problem Republican senators and we're many that we're going to come down here is given these allegations, given the credibility of Dr Ford is there corroborating evidence. And if there is not corroborating evidence from these additional interviews, however, non thorough they may have been. But if no, there's not additional corporation. How can you vote against him on these grounds? That's due process question that some senators are wrestling with tonight, and I think in that goes to Gloria, what you what you mentioned about Susan Collins, Houston, going into the secure room three times as what I saw reporters talking about to read the three times. I mean, what does that clearly tells me that she's not of struggling? I don't want to apply apply that to her, but it. That's what it almost feels like. I think I think that's probably a very good word. I think that she was clearly concerned. I think the big question here has been, what was the scope of the investigation? Yes, to begin with and this is what the Democrats are talking about, but the president of the United States and the White House is the client. I mean, the White House and the Republican Senate had been sort of shifting responsibility for this at least. Yes. So you know they were responsible for the scope? No, they were responsible for the scope. We have not seen a document that says, this is what they were tasked to investigate if they were tasked, and I believe that they were tasked to investigate these allegations and not questions about drinking, for example, or his behavior when he was when he was an adolescent. So the Democrats are disappointed and the Republicans are saying the FBI did its job. We just don't know exactly what that job. Exactly. We don't know fill. This is one of the most confusing elements of this and and I don't understand why people can't just be straight about this one thing who set the scope and who set the parameters for the FBI. Because if you look at it today this morning, the White House said that the Senate set the scope Raj Shah saying, we deferred to the Senate is how they put it. Then Senate Republicans, they've been pointing the finger at the White House and then this afternoon, here's Mike Lee said. We did not come up with a list of people who the FBI she'd interview. The FBI was requested to conduct an investigation into any and all credible current accusations of sexual misconduct by judge cavenaugh and the FBI made the decision from there as to who to interview. So the FBI sent his own Forever's apparently fell. I don't know why isn't this? This one thing, at least a straightforward answer. I think because Republicans think they can get a vote through before they actually have to answer that question because it will come out. Let's be clear about this. This is not the information that the Senate requested is not classified. We're not talking about the background on judge Kavanagh's personal attributes, thirty five years ago. It's this is what we want you to investigate. If if you release that information, it's not a leak. Leak is releasing classified information. I think there's a timing issue. My guess is the Republicans are saying, we want to keep the even if it leaks in a couple of days. We're going get a vote tomorrow. And before people realize that we asked for a nothing burger, we're going to get this guy through to the Senate, and then you can debate the parameters the investigation later, but it's going to be too late and John. I mean, Republicans are hip broken said today. It would be up to the White House, which I'm sure is true what the parameters, what the if they would release set parameters to the public. Do you think there's any chance of the next sixteen hours that will happen the should? It would be if transparency and democracy and there's probably a snowball's chance in hell. They're actually do that because they do as Phil said, just want to get this through. It can do all the document releasing you want after the fact that they want to get this through. And that doesn't show good faith for for the stakes of a lifetime. I mean, with all of this that we have said and all the confusion that there is Americans are on edge. They've been wanting answers, especially after this one week delay this investigation. They were searching. Everyone is searching for answers, and it is very sad tonight to have to say. It seems like there are very few still. Thanks. You guys. Out front next anger, boiling over protesters face off with Republican Senator Orrin Hatch is he's getting into an elevator. Wait till you hear this fiery exchange. Plus the Trump campaign sends an Email saying, cavenaugh cleared is the White House already taking a victory lap tonight and former supreme court Justice, John. Paul Stevens on why Brett Cavanaugh in his view should not be confirmed. I think his performance during the hearings cause me to change my mind. Support for out front comes from our friends at rocket mortgage by Quicken Loans. Let's talk about buying a home for a minute because of rising interest rates. There's a lot of unpredictability when it comes to buying a home these days, it's causing a lot of anxiety with folks. Well, our friends at Quicken Loans are doing something about that. They're calling the power buying process. Here's how it works. Quicken Loans will verify your income assets and credit in less than twenty four hours to give you a verified approval. This gives you the strength of a cash buyer. Then once you're verified, you qualify for their all new exclusive rate shield approval. I, they'll lock your rate for up to ninety days while you shop. Now, here's the best part. If rates go up your rate stays the same, but if rates go down your rate also drops either way you win. It's the kind of thinking you'd expect from America's largest mortgage lender to get started, go to rocket mortgage dot com. Slash out front rate shield approval, only valid on certain thirty year purchase transactions, additional conditions or. Exclusions may apply based on Quicken Loans, data in comparison to public data records equal housing lender licensed in all fifty states and MLS consumeraccess dot org. Number thirty thirty. A major political gamble tonight. One of the most vulnerable Democrats in the Senate tonight taking a stand on how she'll vote on Brad Kavanagh. Listen. It's a lifetime appointment. This isn't a political decision. If this were political decision for me, I certainly would be deciding this the other way. I can't get up in the morning and look at the life experience that I've had and say, yes to judge cabinet. Senator Heidi Heitkamp, right there of North Dakota is trailing. Her Republican challenger. Now by twelve points according to the latest poll of third end. A third of voters said in this poll a vote against cavenaugh would mean they'd vote against her out front. Now, national affairs correspondent for the nation, Joan Walsh and former adviser to Senator Mitch McConnell. Scott Jennings grew to see you guys Joan. These poll numbers play on the Fox News poll and Heidi Heitkamp being down more than she even more than she had been. It's exactly why folks thought Heitkamp was trying to find a way to. Yes, I think she probably was trying to find a way to, yes, she's kept her vote pretty close to her best. She's got an opponent who has who has made a lot out of this and says, it doesn't even matter if judge Cavin on did the things that he's accused of he should be on the court anyway. So it felt to me like like there were there was a political reason for her to do this, but I also was really struck by the pain in her voice tonight. Kate as she made that remark and talked about waking up and knowing that her own life experience would not let her vote for judge cavenaugh. And I think this is another example we saw Semyon Murkowski earlier in the week, give kind of an offhand answer to the question. Have you had to event? Yes, I have. I think more women, particularly women of a certain age. Women over forty are not just because of Dr Ford, but other things. Going on are looking back there at our life experiences and thinking the things that we kind of dismissed as just, oh, you're just got to be one of the guys to be in journalism to be in politics. You got to just shrug this garbage off. These things are attempted assault, and a lot of us have had to sort of recap recalculate, but bar experience cynically and raw politics with that. Do you think she's lost race? I don't know. I mean, maybe I also saw I literally counted hundreds of people on Twitter tonight who at least said that they had given her money, ten dollars twenty five dollars. She's not getting rich, but there's definitely going to be a positive. Outpoint. I don't know if it can be enough to save always dangerous to base any public opinion on what you hear on Scott Brad Kavanagh is such a shot in the arm for Republican Senate races, which folks see, why isn't it the same for Republicans in the house? Do you think? Well, it's the geography Heitkamp's case Heitkamp is is a liberal Democrat tries to play like she's a moderate or conservative democrat back home, and I thought what was notable about her clip is that she admitted my constituents want me to vote for cavenaugh. She said that would have been the politically Smart Choice, but she's gonna do just the opposite which tells me she's basically concluded that she's already lost the race. And so she's going to vote what's in her heart, and that's perfectly fine and her right to do as a Senator. But I suspect she's gonna lose her race. I think the geography and the house is different. We've talked about this before are twenty five house districts where Republicans represent them in congress, but Hillary Clinton carry them in two thousand sixteen. Those districts are much different in terms of their political dynamics than. Say, North Dakota, Montana, Missouri an Indiana or West Virginia Senate race, and I wanna I want you both the weigh in on this. This video caught well caught ivories. I caught my eye today to Senator Orrin Hatch, getting into an elevator and Capitol Hill met by protesters. We've seen this this week and last week before, and let's just say he did not have the Jeff flake reaction much this. Why are you to talk and exchange with us sales? You wave your hand at beans. I mean that hand wave Joan. He's retiring. So maybe he doesn't care. But I mean, is he doesn't care. He doesn't care, but you know, that's an ad that the Democrats are going to run. The other thing today that I saw as a potential ad a it was like a portrait. It was like an old oil portrait of the five or six old white male senators who gathered together today to tell us why the FBI had exonerated judge cavenaugh and to cry bitter tears for the wrong that was done to judge cavenaugh and express virtually no, if any, at all, sympathy for the experience of Dr Ford women saw that women will see that in in campaign ads, it's really a terrible look for them. I don't know, Scott, you, you know, Mitch McConnell, you know very well. And I just don't see him reacting that way. I think he's more politically astute than react that way. Yeah. Well, this video was interesting. I mean, if you think fussing at Orrin Hatch and blocking his elevator is going to change or enhance his mind and you don't know Orrin Hatch, I saw this video. I mean, you know he is. I mean, the the group that posted this video is called vote pro-choice and the vote pro choice group. Of course, you know, that tells you everything. You need to know about what their aims are here, and it's about abortion, politics know something Jones said that I think is interesting. I see this in my Twitter feed all the time. It's this ageism in a midterm election, older voters make up a larger proportion of the electorate than they do in presidential elections. And I keep hearing people say, old white man, old, white man. Well, guess what? There's going to be a lot of older voters go to the polls. And I think when I hear people like Joan and other Liberal Democrats sort of tax people for being old, I wonder how that sitting out there with older voters of any political stripe. The idea that because you're old, you're not supposed to have an opinion about national affairs. I don't think that's going to really. Think that's at all what I was saying. I do think that it was exactly what you said. Old white men. I did say that, but I'm not saying that they have no place in our democracy. I'm saying that a party that is trying to represent the half is worthless. Opinions. We're didn't say their opinion was worth. I said, it's a terrible look for a party that wants to represent half more than half of the country. The part of the country that isn't white and the part of the country that's young, a healthy political party Scott. And you know this deep down your heart to would have more younger people in it. It would have more women. There would be women in that in that picture with them arguing their own, uh, smart politics for their district, but they would be women that would be representing the selves. You are stuck with a situation just like in that judiciary committee hearing last week where you have eleven old white men who are not capable of of handlery go again like, oh, I tell you what keeping keeping keeping tagging ising the nation's older voters. He's not going to turn out well for the Democrats you keep you Denver. All are looking at a surge of younger voters to the polls. And I think it's only fair that we have some representation of younger people. I'm sixty years old Scott. I'm not saying pushed people out onto an ice floe. I just think that your party has a real problem with locking out women and people of color and young people out of leadership positions and in your heart of hearts. You know that to even if you think it's kinda cool that old people vote in the midterms which they do. We'll see one one thing I think at first of all, I think it's cool for anyone to vote. I think it's especially cool when people vote in any state in any jurisdiction. And I think everybody's vote counts as same old and young. And I think everybody ought to vote because if they do and they listen to these arguments, I think they're going to come down on the side of the Republicans in this election. I think the good plan. I also think it would be very cool if instead of this moment seeing more division, as we saw plowed an elevator with Orrin Hatch are we see in how Republicans and Democrats are talking about this report. I would love to see. It would also be very cool if for once instead of doing more to divide the country. The Senate could take the lead on trying to unite the country. But again, apparently my name is leanna tonight. Great to see you both. Thank you. Upfront next just in just into CNN a Republican Senator now says he won't be voting on Saturday. Does that change the math for cavenaugh and if Cavanaugh is confirmed, does he need to recuse himself from cases involving Democrats or sexual assault. I'm eighty cats and UCLA his Chris Wilkes is on March madness three sixty five. Hopefully though some of those would everybody coming on the Brian come check off some UCLA games right out today to see the open, come subtracted. March man is three sixty five now at apple podcasts and spot upon. Breaking news coming in right now. One Republican Senator says he will not be in Washington for the final cavenaugh confirmation vote on Saturday. We're talking about Republican St., Republican senators, Steve Daines of Montana. He would vote. Yes on cavenaugh. He now says that he's not going to be in Washington because you'll be walking his daughter down the aisle. Yes. You heard me, right. I don't have to remind you that every vote here is critical. Republicans cannot afford to lose more than one Republican Senator. If all Democrats vote, no, let me get back over to the hill, get get over to Phil Mattingly for more on this fill. This is clearly potentially a very big deal. And it's also your occasional reminder that senators are people too, and Senator dance has made clear that he will not be here on Saturday. I'm told Kate that he made this clear to Senate Republican leadership of couple of days ago that this wasn't news to them and that they were planning for this possibility. Here's what we need to know about the numbers right now tomorrow the vote was just a short while ago set by Mitch. McConnell, the Senate majority leader to take place at ten thirty that will be the first vote. It is a procedural vote. That is the vote. If they have the requisite number of votes there than this process moves forward. The next boat would be the confirmation vote. The final confirmation vote, which would take place on Saturday. What we know right now is including Steve Daines, Republicans have forty eight members that are yes votes. And there are four undecided between three Republicans and one democrat, they need to of those Republicans or one democrat to come over tomorrow, and then they would have the requisite number of oats. They'd have need to have at least fifty. They want to get at least fifty one if they get more than fifty votes. And Steve Daines leaves and isn't here on Saturday. It is very possible that they hold the vote on Saturday anyway because they've got what they need to be able to move forward. They're at a fifty or fifty to forty nine vote. If they do not. The majority leader has the option and ability to push the final vote a day or two in advance. So Steve Daines could come back so they are preparing for this. They acknowledge it's a possibility, but can I think one of the key things here is a tomorrow is the crucial vote and that. It's just underscore even more now and be in a story where there has been about seven million twists and turns and nobody seems to know what's going to happen next. This is just another one that could prolong process that I think has been deeply difficult for everybody involved for another couple of days. Yeah, throw another twist end, but at least it's for something human, like a wedding. Great to see you. Thanks film out front now. Democratic Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland Senator. Thank you for joining me. Kate, it's good to be with you. Thanks. Thank you. So you you've heard the news about Senator Danes. Do you know of you got any word of what this means for the final vote on Saturday. Certainly goes complicated. The one additional Senator every vote is critically important as you pointed out there at this point, four members who have not declared how the intend to vote. So I think it's really out right now whether Senator McConnell will continue to vote on Monday on on Saturday or not. But at this stage we're all expecting vote Saturday afternoon if the cloture vote passes tomorrow morning. Yeah. First and foremost, the most important will be what happens tomorrow. Let's talk about the report. The FBI report that you all were able to read today. What was your biggest takeaway. Well, I know we're not allowed to talk about the specifics, but it's become very apparent on the news reports that it was a limited number of interviews that he did not interview the principles after they interviewed the individuals involved. It really they didn't interview a lot of people who were suggested of by those who came forward with these allegations. It was incomplete, and I think they're more questions that remain than were answered as a result at the FBI report that having been said, we know what judge Cavanaugh said, and the way he responded to Dr Ford's comments show that he has doesn't have the judicial temperament that he's extremely partisan. And these are issues that I think still remain and ones that have not been answered by a judge Cavanaugh. One point that I've heard consistently from Republicans though, is that in there in the in the report, they say, no corroborating evidence that there's nothing in there. Report that we don't that that they didn't already know. Is that what you saw though, even if you think it's complete, do you. Insurance. About sure that's accurate. And again, I can't comment as to the specifics that are in the report. I just don't think that's a fair characterization learned some information from reading the report, but it certainly incomplete. There's a lot more questions that I would like to have answered and it goes to the process. This investigation report should have been done before the hearing involving Dr Ford. We also should have had under oath the witnesses that were there that Dr Ford claimed were there not Mr.. Judge should have testified in open court in open session before the judiciary committee, not having that. It raises a lot of question marks as to whether this has been a fair investigation for Dr Ford. Her comments were powerful. They were, they were very serious charges, and the process should have given her the opportunity to have a more thorough investigation Senator. We've all come very, very custom to re Republicans say this and Democrats Democrats say. This, and it's never the same thing. But on this senators, flake and Collins, they joined with Democrats in calling for a pause and another look and another investigation. And they said today that the in in this report, they thought it was a thorough investigation. Why do you think they are satisfied that it was thorough and you are not. Well, there are people that the dentist by by those who are brought forward, these charges that were not interviewed by the FBI. These are the witnesses that are relevant to those who brought these allegations. They should have been questioned the time here is the same, and that's what's so confusing Senator to everybody and sad that you're looking at the same piece of paper and at least what's in the paper. You guys can't agree on this on what it is. And that's why I regret that. This wasn't done prior to the hearing and wide. Some of these individuals did not testify in open session. It'd be a four day hearing. Well, what would happen if you had Mr. judge before the committee, then we don't have to give our interpretation. You'd be able to note the interpretation of what he said. That's that wasn't provided to the judiciary committee Senator right now, do you think this game is over you think the judge Cavanaugh will be confirmed. You know, each individual senators come out to make his or her own mind. We know four have yet to make their decisions. I know they're going through a very difficult process. So no, I'm not gonna probably treat judge what my colleagues are going to do. I had decided, and I made this clear. I spoke on the floor of the Senate today. I decided to get judge cavenaugh before these allegations came out. I did that based upon his judicial record the decisions of the cases that he had my concern as to whether he'll be an independent voice on the supreme court or just allow the president to do what he's doing, particularly his interference in the judiciary. I'm concerned about his opinions in regards to your right. So an environment versus polluters or women's healthcare issues and economic issues versus consumers and list goes on and on and on. So there's to me, this is about the next supreme court Justice lifetime appointment feting next generation. I want to hear this debate. And I hope every Senator will make up his or her own mind and no, I'm not prejudging what's going to happen tomorrow or Saturday. All right. We will wait to see exactly what happens when that closure. What happens tomorrow Senator. Thank you. Thank you out front. I next a former supreme court Justice and lifelong Republicans speaking out tonight about Brett cavenaugh saying he does not deserve to be confirmed. Why is he speaking out? And why is he saying that we'll tell you and Senator Susan Collins. One of the undecided votes in the cabinet nomination facing intense pressure from voters on both sides. What will she do? We have a special report. And I've got your who's Chris Mannix on Bleacher reports. The full forty eight l. as you would think differently, they believe that playmakers around the Braun is going to work because the weight of on. You're going to have known. James a lot of time, longtime in LeBron's card. I'm not exactly sure other coun- forty eight is now available on Spotify and of course you can always listen, subscribe on the beach report app, apple podcasts over ever. You listen to podcasts. Breaking news, retired supreme court, Justice, John. Paul Stevens says, Brett cavenaugh does not belong on the supreme court. Here's what the ninety eight year old Justice and lifelong Republican said. Just a short time ago. Listen. I thought he had definitely the qualifications for to sit on the supreme court and should be confirmed if he was ever selected. But I've, I've changed my views for for reasons. They have no really no relationship to his intellectual ability or is record as a federal judge. He's a fine fed federal judge, and he should have been confirmed when he was a nominated. But I think his performance during the hearings caused me to change my mind. Out now Palm Beach, post reporter, Frank, Keribino. He is a person to interview Justice Stevens earlier today. Thanks for coming in. It's my pleasure. Kate. This is really pretty unheard of Justice, criticizing the nominee for the court in public. How did this come about. Well, it was really an accidental happening. There's a group in south Florida that is dedicated to providing educational opportunities for retirees. It's called the institute for learning in retirement and they have a woman there who is a good friend of Justice. Stevens doesn't matter of fact, they played bridge together. This is a real south Florida story. Yeah, and play bridge together. And she sort of said, how about speaking to this group? And he said, okay, so the sort of went around all the protocols of dealing with the the office and the US marshals office and everything. And it was just done sort of a bridge group thing, and they book the judge about several months ago. It was way before the cabinet case, and it just so happened that the that these hearings coincided with the event today and and so that's it was it was sort of accidental so he didn't. He didn't go out and say, I want to say something about the the. Confirmation hearings of judge cavenaugh. He was just out there doing this, talk on it just so happened to coincide with that. That's how this happened. Did you get the sense that he knew how big of a statement he was making. I think so, you know, I I was planning to ask him about it and he brought it up before I even asked him. He was, we were talking about citizens United, which he wrote a eighty six page dissent. And it still bothers him the the majority opinion in that case and and talking about it. He mentioned that an odd thing and citizens United was that was the judge cavenaugh cited his dissent in a related case that related to two political money coming into campaigns and and he thought that was good. And he made some sort of a joke saying like, well, that's because he's a good judge. And then that kind of led to to the quote, you're just played the sound bite where he then talked about how we really thought judge Cavanaugh was eminently qualified to be on the court. But then when he watched the hearing last Thursday, he changed his mind because of the temperament that judge cavenaugh. Splayed to the senators. I do one moment though Stevens was on the bench during the Clarence Thomas hearings and you asked him about that parallel. Let me play that for years. There's nothing that clearance in the hearings that disqualified him to storm. Sit from sitting in cases free, came on the court. I disagree with them. Most of is important rulings that as a person I'm very funded him. He's a very, very decent likable person and you cannot help. But like Clarence Thomas, which I don't think necessarily would be true of this particular. I thought that was a while moment. What do you make. That was very strong and a little bit unexpected because he put judge cavenaugh in a in a level where he thought that that through his own testimony, he had put himself in a box with the future of his deciding on a contentious cases and that while he thought he made the distinction that that Clarence Thomas in defending himself didn't jeopardize his role in deciding cases going on the court, but that judge cavenaugh did that his behavior was was so sort of antagonistic to the Democrats that it would sort of affect his ability to be on the court. Frank, thanks for coming in and really appreciate it. As a pleasure. Thank you. Thank you out front with me. Now the judicial crisis networks, chief counsel and policy director. Carrie Severino also a former clerk of Justice. Clarence Thomas who were just discussing and former child abuse, insects crimes prosecutor, Wendy Murphy. Kerry Stevens is a lifelong Republican. Yes of often joined the liberal bloc on the bench in his later years. But. Taking away liberal or conservative leanings kind of on this. What's your reaction to Justice Stevens speaking out against someone who could be Justice? All right. Well, let's let's be, let's be clear. He was the leading liberal on the court that doesn't change the merits of you're saying, but we should describe him accurately. I was disappointed to see his comments. I think if you see a lot of parallels actually between Justice Thomas's speech, the high tech lynching of very passionate defense himself. He gave in his hearings and Justice Kavanagh's. When you have a man who is falsely accused defending his reputation and defending his family and his reputation, it's not surprising. Judge Cavanaugh actually headed an op-ed in the in the Wall Street Journal today, saying, look, I, I was very passionate. I probably should have been less, you know, maybe maybe less so, but I have a commitment to to being partial and remember his first hearings were he was actually. Filibustered by the Democrats. This is a very contentious time when he was. He was up for the circuit. He had to have a whole second round of hearings years later because of that and nonetheless in his twelve years on the bench, he was really noted for being someone as as a Justice Stevens even noted with his his sighting of Stevens descent. He was someone who is known as being incredibly even handed and fair across the board. That's why you had everyone from Obama. Solicitor general, Don really to Yale Law professor and Stevens agrees that he's, he's qualified. He thinks he disqualified himself and how he acted in this hearing. I'm not talking qualifications. I'm talking about someone who could put who put a very bitter partisan rancor of his his appellate court hearings behind him and was able to move on and be a very even-handed judge. I think we'll see that happen again in this case. Again, I think what we saw was passionate about without being attacked, but it it didn't have to do with something that's going to disqualify him. Generally, I'd have to just respectfully disagree with Justice Stevens. Wendy with the justices. It's a small club. Obviously. I mean, those who serve on the high court and a very quiet club. They don't really talk about each other other than in very friendly terms. Whenever they do interviews. What are his former colleague supposed to do with this now? Look, I think what Justice Stephen said today was important on a number of levels, and he wasn't just saying that he didn't like judge Kavanagh's demeanor. He was saying, this is not even a likable guy. I thought that was stunning. And what I liked most about what just what Justice Stevens said was that he was coming from the view of the critical importance of keeping the supreme court with integrity and in the eyes of the public above the fray. I mean, that's how so many people feel in this country, whatever you think of judge Kavanagh's rulings, his behavior was unacceptable on every level. He wasn't just passionate. He was rude. He was disrespectful. He was sexist. He was incredibly inappropriate with Senator klobuchar. There's just no way around that and for Justice of the supreme court retired to comment on. On that. I felt refreshed about it. I thought, wow, there's hope that people in this country actually think the nonpartisan demeanor of supreme court judge matters and it really, really does I learned in law school about Marbury versus Madison, right? The case that says the judicial branch of government is a is a step above the others because they are beyond political reproach. They are supposed to be better than the rancor we see in the other branches and that's gone. Now if judge Cavanaugh gets on the court, the public disrespect will grow for the court and that sad. Carrie, I do. You mentioned. You mentioned that Cavanaugh wrote an op Ed that was really just released in the Wall Street Journal and they just posted it and let me read you. I'm reading it for the first time with you, but let me read this altogether. Part of what he wrote he wrote. I was very emotional last Thursday more so than I ever than I have ever been. I might have been to emotional at times. I know that my tone was sharp. And I said, if you things, I should not have said, I find that fascinating because what I have heard from from you and from many people whose everyone who supports Brad Kavanagh is that he has nothing to apologize for in what he said in right here. He's saying he clearly thinks he does. Well, he what he's saying is his tone was sharp, but I agree he had a sharp tone perhaps, but what you're describing is something, oh, this was out of line. This is this wildly inappropriate. That is not a fair. I'm not. I'm not talking about other guests. It's that's not a fair description of what happened and I would. I would have to say, I think if. There's something a little unusual. It's that Justice Stevens would comment on these things. We've seen Justice Ginsburg also come at in a much more partisan way. Recall her interviews she gave before Trump's collection and Trump a faker. She kinda faker. She said she wanted to leave the country, right? But I'm just saying this was knowledge it. She apologized right? Did ended it destroy the entire time. Do we want to know does does one wrong make due to wrongs make a right? Do we need to go there right now in? No, I'm just saying everyone who is who is fine with that should should not question this, and that was a much this is so much lower level than than her comments will win. This is what Laura leveling route Ginsburg said, oh, absolutely. Let me just play it then let me just play. Let's just play some of what he said during the hearing. All right. The behavior of several of the democratic members of this committee. My hearing a few weeks ago was an embarrassment this whole two week effort has been calculated, an orchestrated political hit, fueled with a parent pent up anger about President Trump and the two thousand sixteen election. Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons what goes around comes around. I would. I would assume those are some of the comments that he says that he may make not maybe should not have said Wendy, you get the last word. Well, yeah. Among other things, look, this is a guy who's made clear that he is partisan. He shouldn't have done it. The fact that this is now going to be a partisan vote is a problem for this country. That's why the one thing I hope happens is that either Senator Collins Makovsky puts principle above party. This country needs to feel hope that this is not about left right. It is about the integrity of the court. Thank you both for being here. Fascinating. I appreciate it l. front next Senator. Susan Collins is we were just talking about a key vote in the cabinet nomination tonight. She's still undecided and undeclared facing enormous pressure in Washington clearly and definitely in her home state how will ultimately vote. It is football season and the SIMS left. Go podcast with me out of love, go and me, Chris, have your NFL needs covered. We've got guests. We got Phil breakdowns picks and predictions. We've got you covered and for college football offense. Then you need to check on that. Nowhere from stick to football and mellow encounter. Rogers covered the draft, the Heisman race and the road to the championship every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. And if your fantasy team needs help, that's where I come in on that camp, host the fantasy camp, get your lineup to duck and into the win column. So subscribed to Simpson left combs stick to football and fantasy camp today. Breaking news Republican senators. Steve Daines of Montana has announced that he will miss Saturday's. Final confirmation vote for Brad Kavanagh, which could have a big impact on the path forward. Republicans cannot afford to lose more than one Republican Senator. If all Democrats vote, no. And one of the biggest question marks tonight for the Republicans senators, Susan Collins of Maine, pull us out of all up front. No one. This confirmation do not print a blind eye from the whole of congress. To the streets of Portland, Maine, Senator. Susan Collins is getting an earful. The senior Republican Senator from Maine, still undecided could be the key vote. The decides if Brent Kevin is confirmed to the supreme court good afternoon. Collins office the phones in her home state office, keep ringing his constituents and other concerned citizens or calling in and all the sound of the Senator for you and stopping by the final attempted making their voices heard ahead of Saturday's vote. Most of the people we encounter today seem to oppose Kevin appointment. Unconcern is his honesty. And temperament join a Brinker is one of I know she's in a position of influence right now, and it just want to make sure she was here for hearing from us voting. Yes. On cavenaugh may be welcomed by Collins's fellow Republicans, but could cost her bipartisan support at home. Seems like this some serious political consequences. It would come with boating. Yes. Seriously? Yeah. I mean, if she, yes, she's never going to have my vote again. Brinker isn't alone. Voter after voter told us they have supported college of the past, but may reconsider twenty twenty. If Senator runs for reelection. Susan Collins actually ran on being a pro choice Republican. And if she votes for Cavanaugh, I think she's going to have a major problem in Maine, major major problem. It's not just voters hoping to sway the Senator fight over the controversial supreme court. Nominee has spilled onto the airwaves a model of integrity, humility. Advocacy groups in Maine have poured more than two million dollars into to persuade Collins. It sounds like a serious allegation, and I think it should be fully vetted. The protests likely to continue reading up to the vote. What's yet to be seen is if any of this will have an effect on Collins's decision that they're being very. Now, Kevin, how does have some support among constituents here? So to calling staff telling me that they have received visitors and phone calls from constituents urging the Senator vote? Yes, this weekend k. two very different sides here. Very different opinions. They do have something in common note, they understand that the political stakes are high net just for Kevin on their Senator to. Absolutely polo. Thank you so much so much weighing on Tuesday Collins tonight. Very clearly. Just look at that piece. Thanks so much for joining us. A three sixty starts right now. There was no one like Anthony bourdain. There was new show parts, unknown EMMY award winning CNN original series returns for one less ride around the world. Can the nesia two story of Spain. Far west Texas to the Moe's chairs, Anthony, bourdain parts, unknown the final episodes, Sundays at nine on CNN.

Senator Democrats Sweet Cavanaugh Senator Susan Collins FBI judge cavenaugh Senate supreme court Senator Orrin Hatch Brad Kavanagh Kate Baldwin John Paul Stevens president Dr Ford Senator Mitch McConnell White House Senator Heidi Heitkamp Jeff flake John Phil Mattingly
July 17, 2019: Trump's Racist Tweets; Medical Myths

Here & Now

42:23 min | 1 year ago

July 17, 2019: Trump's Racist Tweets; Medical Myths

"From N._P._R.. And W._B._Z.. I'm Jeremy Hobson. I'm Robin Young. It's here now. President trump is promising to tout the strength of the economy and people who love and hate our country in a campaign rally in North Carolina tonight his first since his racist this is tweet Sunday that four democratic congresswoman of color should go back to their countries even though they're all American three born here last night just four Republicans joined Democrats in passing a resolution condemning those tweets. Let's bring in our political strategist just bill press democratic strategist bill. Hello Hello and Alice Stewart Republican strategists. I Alice Hi Jeremy Hi Robin Okay so <hes> Most People Alice agree that it is racist to tell someone to go back to the country that they came from even though in this case cases Robinson said <hes> three of the four born in the U._S.. <hes> this is from the equal Opportunity Equal Employment Opportunity Commission factsheet on the rights of immigrants under federal anti-discrimination laws examples of potentially unlawful conduct include insults taunting or ethnic epithets such as making fun of a person's for an accident or comments like quote go back to where you came from whether made by supervisors or co workers that would be illegal in the workplace why a Republican so Afraid Alice to call out president trump on this because those that have called out the president previously have faced primary challenges and it comes back to haunt them but but let's let's unpack this a little bit. The the words you use clearly inappropriate they were wrong it was and it was insulting but when I do give I do give him the benefit of the doubt with regard to the purpose of what he was saying and Liz Cheney said it best yesterday. She said his comments were not about the color of the four congresswoman woman skin. It was not about the race. It was not about the gender the comments were about their overall socialist policies. When it comes to being antisemitic when it comes to <hes> A lot of comments they've made a about religion about America and about pro-life issues and about <hes> late-term abortion those are the kinds of issues that the president has had a problem that is what he was going after he said in an artful way but those that is the point that he was trying to make bill? I have to let you in on this one. Go Go for it. Well first of all <hes> breaking news <hes> I'm not one but it is okay to be a socialist in the United States of America and not be condemned and not be told to go back where you came from look I'm. I'm tired of playing games with us. Write these were comments. Were disgusting. They were racist comments. You know it's I'm tired of people saying Donald Trump is not a racist. He's just a man who says some racist things. This was a racist comment against people of Color. I grew up in segregated town in Delaware and I remember as a kid hearing people say to black people and they didn't call them that they call them something else in you know what I'm talking about. Go back where you came from I never I thought we made a lot of progress in this country. I never thought I would hear those words coming from the president of the United States and I think we're left in the situation today where the fact is we have a racist in the White House. He was a racist as a businessman as a candidate for racist campaign as president and that's a fact and it's up to the American people to decide. Are we better than that or not and we'll have a chance in twenty twenty I have to ask you. Are you saying that if someone is <hes> for abortion rights let's say or for Medicare for all which countries that are democratically socialist have more government involvement in medical care. It's okay for the president of the United States to tell them they should go back to their country of origin no Robyn I'm not I'm I'm talking about the overall unified policy W- we have of of the four women in the squad. It's like if somebody's policy. If you agree disagree with somebody's policy that's what governments about it's okay to kick in visit a country that is not okay and that that is not where we should be in this country the the point was and that I I hope Republicans will continue to make it as the overall ah comprehensive policy of the four them as I said green new deal late term abortion <hes> socialist policies antisemitic comments that they are they have not been called out for adequately on Omar. I'm talking about the the comprehensive group and if you remember it was just last week where congresswoman Cossio Cortez was going after Nancy Pelosi for what she called the quote explicit singling out of newly newly elected women of color so she had this argument last week with Nancy Pelosi. She's got it this week with with President trump and this is something I would like to think we would get past that the name calling and the the racial aspect of this and and look at it for what it is policy if I may if I may the way to get past this is for Republicans some backbone for Republicans to stand up and say this is wrong Mr President we're with you on your policies. This is wrong now. CUT It out. If I could just make one other point I remember those sixteen candidates on stage in the Republican primary including Ted Cruz was working for not one of those candidates would have made a comment like this they they would not have made it and if they did make it they would have gotten away from it. It's time to stop coddling the racist Donald Trump the only way to get beyond this. I just have to ask you about something else. Just brought up analysis. You did it out today. I did taste well the L. A.. Alexander Cortez's own words and a lot of Republicans are citing these words saying it's the Democrats who are racist because after that democratic infighting over the Immigration Bill <hes> Oh Cossio Cortez said Speaker Pelosi is explicitly Lee singling out newly elected women of color. She's that infighting on the democratic side opening the door for Republicans to make this claim that it's it's the Democrats who I attacked the four no no no. I hear that all the time I see that written all the time I think it's silly look first of all. She did say that you've made it be followed up and said no no no. I was not suggesting at all in any way that Nancy Pelosi is a racist she also said that Robyn and <hes> and she pointed out I think the Speaker pointed out correctly that the squad the four of them made so much noise and they opposed that bill that provided more of support to the border which was the moderates wanted in progress was denied and Nancy pointed out that's great but there we're only four of them and they had four votes and they got nobody else to vote with them so she was just pointing out that their political power in the congress is not that great well. I think that's a fair point has not a racist point at all. It's a numbers. Well that it's it's changed significantly because now the squad is virtually in control of the Democratic Party all behind her and I'll say this I think miscalculation on the part of this conversation we're having because it was last week. It was just a few days ago. There was tremendous infighting in the Democratic Party. Now they are unified against president trump. It will be interesting to see thank you on that point on that point. Bill is trump getting what he wants right now by having us for the last many days everybody talking about these tweets and the reaction to them and and putting forward four of the most liberal members of the Democratic Party as as for many right now the face of the party or the whole parties having to come a defendant. Is this exactly what trump wants in a world where one word answer yes A. He knows exactly what he's doing. This is a deliberate strategy. He is building look. He's going campaign rally tonight. He is building his campaign for twenty twenty which is all about going to be divide divide divide in in and it worked in two thousand sixteen. I'd like to point out it did not work in twenty eighteen when it was Caravan Caravan Caravan Right. That was the whole thing to instill fear. Now it's squad it's A._O._C. or whatever strategy and he thinks it's going to a world. I don't think it is so far because I just want to come in. We have well hold on in a couple of minutes we have we haven't been paying attention to the democratic twenty twenty candidates and their health care bills trying to differentiate themselves Biden Kamala Harris Bernie Sanders and the Jeffrey Epstein story has has been wiped from the sketch and M._S._N._B._C. host. Mika Brzezinski reported this morning about an N._B._C. Video from Nineteen ninety-two a donald trump partying with the now you know the sex offender but newly accused of sex trafficking Jeffrey Epstein and they're appearing to talk about women. Let's listen trump gestures to one and appears to say to Epstein look at her back there. She's hot and then the trump says something else into X.. Teams ear that makes him double over with Western Alabama's Republican strategist. Are you worried that the story isn't going away if it does it will be certainly troubling Epstein. This is done and gotten away with. I'm talking about Donald Trump's friendship exactly I think it will certainly be troubling wha what obscene done is disgusting and despicable <hes>. I'd like to think that there's no more more to it than that video right there but <hes> you know this is something we need to make sure and and address Epstein for for what happened to him what he did making sure that justice is done on him this time and he serves the time that he should serve which is the the rest of his life behind bars that that should be the focus more than anything is making sure that justice is served. Okay I in just thirty seconds. We have left bill. We've got a democratic debate the next one coming up in about two weeks we spoke actually today on the show with Cory Booker who's down around one or two percent in the polls right now but he's saying look this is very early. Do you agree with that. Is it for all the candidates who are really low in the polls right now. Is it too early to say that that matters it is very early. He's right about that but it's also true that there are now. If you want the big five right I mean it's Joe Biden. It's Bernie Sanders. It's Elizabeth Warren is camera Harrison and Pete Buddha judge. Even though it's early it's going to be very hard for any one of those candidates who are good people cory Booker Cam I mean I mean <hes> amy or whatever to break through because they won't have the resources to put grow around. Bill Press the Democratic Strategist Alice Stewart Republican. Thank you so much here now. How is supported by daily harvest daily harvests delivers carefully sourced chef crafted smoothies soups harvest bowls overnight oats and more all built on fruits and vegetables each single serving Cup can be prepared in minutes daily harvest is designed designed for convenience so you can load up on fruits and vegetables first thing in the morning before bed at any time in between learn more about daily harvest and get three cups in your first box when you go to daily harvests dot com and use Promo Oh code now that's Daily Harvest Dot com use Promo code now? When it comes to health there are a lot of myths put on your coat or you'll catch a cold cold cracking your knuckles causes arthritis caffeine stunts your growth but none of them are true and it turns out a lot of conventional medical? Wisdom isn't right either in fact there are at least four hundred common medical practices that are completely contradicted addicted by published peer reviewed Scientific Studies New York Times Science reporter Gina Colada writes about these in her recent article ten findings that contradict medical wisdom doctors take note. She joins us now. Welcome back thank you. It's so good to be back back on the show and tell us first of all there are actually studies that show that the studies the previous studies are not true right. What what these researchers did is? They said well you know when we train medicine. We read all these textbooks and everything thinks seems to fall in place in a very logical way like for example people who eat a lot of fish seemed to have less fewer heart attacks and fish oil seems to have antioxidant so therefore everything is is falling into place beautifully save publishes studies saying Fish Oil has got to be protective against heart disease and then somebody says well. Let's do a study and we'll get people fish oil or not visual and see what happens and guess what it doesn't make a difference. This is the typical supplement this was so painful to read and should it does make sense because fatty fish has omega three fatty acids supplements of Omega. Three lower levels of triglycerides high levels of triglycerides are linked to increased risk of heart disease therefore if you take the supplements you should have less risk of heart disease. Put no well you know that's what really instigated this study the researchers he said well there's all these blind alleys in missteps and medicine and you think everything seems to be logical progression and here's the answer but then sometimes things that seem totally logical really aren't true anyway and there's millions of examples people started writing to me saying. Why didn't you include this? Why didn't you include that and I said you know what I was writing about? A paper that was published in a journal called me life and what they did was they took. took three major medical journals took several years of their pay of their publications and said we're GONNA look for clinical trials or people were randomly assigned to one thing or another that contradicted conventional medical wisdom say it didn't take the whole universe and yes. There are a lot of other things that were not in there but that's just sort of shows once again all these things that fooled people for so many years I mean I still remember the Beta carotene study years ago. Everything worked even than animals are protected against cancer. Everything was perfect and then they did a clinical trial and people who are smokers at high risk of lung cancer. Guess what those took Beta Carotene had more lung cancer. They stopped the trial. It's it is heartening well. Here's some more Gingko Biloba does not protect against memory loss and dementia despite two hundred forty nine million in sales of those supplements so Ginga Boloba no protection against memory loss. It was always thought that if teenage H. Girls were forced to carry around a a life like doll they would not get pregnant because they would understand the responsibility. Actually the girls carrying around the dolls had more pregnancies. I felt for that one. You know I thought that makes so much sense right when you read about these girls carrying around the dollar. Do you think okay now you get it you ever had a baby. You know what it's like but no doubt they want babies so that one didn't work step counters and calorie trackers. Don't help you lose weight. I'm taking mine off immediately. In fact the people who wear the FITBIT's and such they actually lost less weight than those who just followed good good advice on probably felt virtuous that they thought they could then the next thing you know actually were reading currently in the paper that you know more exercise might actually make people eat more. They psychologically feel like exercising more so I can eat more and then they don't lose any weight if a pregnant woman's water breaks weeks prematurely the thinking was that baby has to be delivered immediately and you see it all the time in the you know movies. There's the shot of the woman's feet. There's the water rusher hospital liberty baby but the baby does not have to be delivered immediately that was surprising because you would think okay now. The sterile environment is breached right that baby's GonNa get an infection now now that doesn't apply apparently if you are really at your term you know it's really do. It's time you don't say well. Let's just wait a few more weeks but if you're like a week or two weeks ahead term you can wait and it's better for the baby. Newborns left to just state are healthier so leave them there. Keep growing. They have a lower risk of death fewer respiratory distresses than those who rushed into into the world in delivery. Here's one that actually the times began reporting on this very early on it's about torn meniscus and I remember when the First Times report came out saying that the thinking was if you have a torn meniscus get it fixed but the Times reported a based on a lot of research at that time in this was a few years ago no especially after a certain age and this is one of the conclusions torn knee meniscus try physical therapy first surgery later. Oh you know it always seems like surgery should be a last resort on some of these things it means her theresa drastic and surgery if you actually remove part of the meniscus that causes arthritis later actually not that much later so you know it's kind of scary. I like the physical therapy idea well. Where were you when I had my meniscus surgery a little late for some of US <hes> to protect against asthma attacks? It was thought you have to keep your house. Dust free no might mice cockroaches but well they had this thing called integrated pest management mostly supposed to get rid of mice. Now you want to get rid of mice anyway. I mean who went mice running around your house but people who at this special program that was supposed to really clean your house they had this is much asthma as people who didn't have it and I guess ask us like everything else is so much more complicated than we think emergency rooms. This woman was so disturbing given the OPIOID crisis to treat emergency room patients in acute pain. A single dose of oral title opioids is no better than aspirin and Ibuprofen. The only problem with that is that I found out later that that study was criticized because they said well the opioid dose wasn't high enough and the ibuprofen dose was really high so maybe there's an argument about the doses but on the other hand if these standard doses then why do you WanNa give somebody an opioid is really when you don't have to Ibuprofen will do just as well peanut allergies they occur or whether or not a child is exposed to peanuts before age three. What thinking is that upsetting? Well people used to think that while the child's immune system is developing if they're exposed to peanuts and they have a tendency to get a peanut allergy then they're set for life. They're allergic to peanuts now. It turns out that not only is that not true but there's in clinical trials with especially like peanut dust and you sort of take it in a capsule and you give the kids when they're really young and they say that prevents the allergies energy it doesn't cause them that gives them peanuts well and as it turns out children exposed to peanuts before they're even one year old have no greater risk of peanut allergy's one last one testosterone treatment does not help older men retain their memory Marie. Would you say the <hes> Gina Kolata that you heard from a lot of people saying but there's this one this one this one. There's so many more and hopefully you'll do another column but were there are also people just really resisting mostly. I had people saying it's about time and and people believe all sorts of stuff but then again the people that write to me may not be the general public I had some people saying you are total idiot and here's this fake news and Blah Blah Blah and then I would always say in. They thought I make things up and I said you know I always play respond. I'll say I'm sorry you feel that way did link to the original study and you might WanNa take a look at what it said and you may not disagree when you see the actual paper heard that reported on the papers that contradicted the conventional wisdom but mostly people were oh well could. I'm so glad you wrote that and I just spent a good deal of time. You know throwing out fish oil supplement on by the way does that mean that fish itself isn't protective against heart disease. The whole diet thing is so hard to know what's true and what's not true so people keep saying well people eat fish. It's really good for you and it probably is really good for you but there's so many differences between people who eat fish and people who don't there's differences between people who take a pill even a sugar pill every day and people who don't I remember that came up with the women's Health Health Initiative where they were asking do <hes> these these hormones menopause estrogen and progestin protect against heart disease and death and every study seemed to say look at this the women who are taking proper. That was the drug they they live longer. They're healthier. Everything is better. Their memories are better everything so therefore if we look at these big studies of populations pro is really protective and then they did a clinical trial and it was not exactly protective in fact for some conditions it was worse than taking a placebo so the National Women's health network that up F._D._A.. Meeting and said well we learned. Is that anybody who takes anything every day like sugar pill anything. They're generally a healthier person than someone who doesn't because they care enough to actually do it every single day so it could be you know the people who eat fish once a week they just care enough to eat fish once a week and they're just going to be healthier so it's really hard the Diet to know raising New York Times reporter Gina Kolata will link you to her article ten findings that contradict medical wisdom take note that here now dot Org Gina. Thanks as always thank you. It was really a pleasure talking to you. Thanks again Boeing announced today that it will dedicate half of its one hundred million dollar fund for families of victims in the crashes of two seven thirty seven Max planes to provide what had caused near year-term relief for those families meanwhile the seven thirty seven Max is still grounded. There are new problems and it will be months at least before the planes can fly again for more. Let's bring in Seth Kaplan here now transportation analyst. I said I jerry okay. Let's first talk about this. Victims Fund Boeing already set aside one hundred million dollars to compensate families of the victims. It looks like they're now speeding that up why they're trying to get ahead of this to the extent they can Boeing was criticized in the initial days and weeks after that second Max crash for really being behind not being at all proactive sort of long after the world had decided that Boeing was at least largely at faultier Boeing really wasn't admitting that that might so you've been a sound legal strategy journey to not admit fault but it was a terrible public relations strategy and so I think now you have Boeing realizing that look it's going to be on the hook for some compensation one way or the other might as well to the extent possible be proactive on a day today Boeing when you have families of the victims of the crash testifying on Capitol Hill One man who who lost nearly his entire family when the crashes happened and Boeing grounded ended the seven thirty seven Max. All of their statements seemed to indicate that they were going to get them back flying again pretty soon. Maybe over the summer now it's delayed until at least the fall maybe even next year. Wh Why is it taking so long for them to fix the problems. I don't think any of us saw lasting this long. I remember you talking about this back. Then and I kind of thought well the the most optimistic scenario. The idea that it might just be weeks was fanciful but late summer something like that look look. There was a new problem in late June. That's that's one big issue a apparently a microprocessor that could fail <hes> not part of exactly the same original issue. I mean it had to do with with the pitch the nose going down around but a new issue we're F._A._A.. Test pilots couldn't easily overcome it and basically said Hey Boeing you. GotTa go back in and fix this and so a Boeing kind of lost any kind of visibility in terms of guessing exactly one this could go the place we'll be back up in the air and you have airlines now yet canceling flights into November and these airlines you know if anything that's conservative. They don't like to cancel and then have to reschedule flights so that doesn't mean they are sure the planes will be back up in the air in November means. They you feel comfortable that they'll be grounded until about that. So what is it doing to the airlines that relied on the seven thirty seven Max. I I saw last week that Delta came out with its earnings. They didn't have any taxes and they're actually benefiting from the fact that they didn't have any maxes Delta very fortunate to be alone among the big four U._S.. Airlines <hes> American southwestern united all have that Max exposure so they've all had to cancel some flights that means a little more business for Delta and just far less disruption disruption for Delta and the problem for airlines around the World Jeremy Actually grows by the day because don't forget that nearly four hundred maxes of nearly four hundred Max is that we're grounded back in March will Boeing by now would have hoped to deliver another couple hundred Max is airlines. Were counting on those to be flying by now so the disruption actually grows because of that. That's at Kaplan here not transportation analysts said thank you. Thanks very uh the emmy nominations are out and the final season of the H._B._O.. Series game of thrones picked up the most nods thirty two including best drama series but challenging the H._B._O.. Behemoth is bodyguard the first show from the B._B._C. to be nominated for an outstanding drama series Emmy since Nineteen Seventy-two Netflix distributes that show in the U._S. bodyguard stars Richard Madden as Sergeant David Bud a police officer Sir who stops a terrorist attack and is assigned to protect the U._K.'s home secretary. I was in Afghanistan killed nearly go kill myself. Nothing politicians cowards hours in these people Tocqueville never spell jokes wound blood cholesterol dommage madden won a golden globe for his role on the show earlier this year and prior to bodyguard he was best known for playing Robb stark in game of thrones. I spoke with Richard Madden last December and and I asked him what attracted him to his role in bodyguard. Am I think what really got me going was kind of ambiguity of all the characters they all eleven such agrees on of what's good and what's bad what about each of them and and the scripts kind of plays with ideas rotor and that was something that was really exciting to me are very human and their motives under motive changing throw the sure thing that was really exciting and it was kind of it was a brilliant read and that's what really drew me in because your character in particular. You're you're a hero but at the same time you're you're doing a lot of things that maybe you shouldn't be doing yeah you can ease a hero and a villain Andy's. He's damaged on these really strong in these protector and these victim you know these kind of these brilliant contrasting things well at one of the things that <hes> the show gets into which is very topical right now is is the idea of post traumatic stress disorder P._T._S._d.. which is something that your character suffers from after time serving in Afghanistan I want to listen to a scene from the first episode when your character meets up with an old war buddy who wants him to join a veterans support group? Yes was one that if you turn up sometime so books not really my thing that must neuron elman that was a crazy. They're chatfield out behind me no proper civvy street P._T._A.. Still Your job application is going to run this because it's not visible so as you were preparing for this role. Did you meet with people who have P._T._S._D.. He I did. I spoke to some people one of the main problems with with talking to people about P._T._S._d.. Is People don't want to talk about cut it to David but he's he's in denial about what has his situation situation is and how that affects them and how bad it is for him which is not as simple as we see in the movie. Sometimes this someone drops the glass in the they dive for cover and have mud flashbacks. I mean that can be an element of I think there's is a lot more subtleties and a lot more constant living with this this disorder that said that that was more important for me to bring an shoulders subsidies and how people actually coty something all day every day with them so as an actor. How do you do that? How do you express the tension between those multiple layers of emotion? That's a very difficult question to answer. I'm not quite sure how did I think it was just trying to build this character build that into enter him. You know this this this denial but this kind of constant bursting all the points and which is particularly difficult for a man who's who's who's a protector and trying to kind of very much look after everyone else and not taking care of himself. I WANNA listen into another clip from the first episode your character's boss <hes> and also lover at some point is the U._K.'s home secretary who's played by Keeley Hawes <hes> and she expresses some hawkish views on the Middle East during a TV interview at the BBC we see and later your character confronts her about it here this. May I ask them then view that until it did you mean what you said. I'm sorry about the Middle East the I don't only say what the people want to hear. I'm about doing the right thing making the hard choices. This thing is David Slash Dave. I don't need you to vote for me and he's attacked me. Rest assured mom I'll do what's required university Abedin as I was watching that I was thinking to myself. I wonder if this could have even aired or would have even aired ten years ago ago like right after the Iraq war. This is such a a feeling that a lot of people are thinking now about the sort of hawkish nature of a lot of governments in this world <hes> it was just a really really interesting in part heart of the story there where he's kind of he can't help himself this all this things that are built up and say are kind of bursting in very much oversteps Elaine in having that conversation with her because he can't help he's got a lot of rage in an in anger at the system and these people that are not position. What is it like to do a show like this where there are in this case six episodes and that's it for the moment <hes> I mean it's brilliant? I love this connect contained element over really means NSA's an actor. I can throw myself into very much dead for kind of five months. Shoot which is very grueling an intense and and you know if it was to be like some other show formats in thirteen episodes contain months shoot. I'm not sure how how well that would go. I kind of I love the intensity of a and this kind of really fast paced you know high-octane drama that we managed to get with with the kind of contained six episodes. How does it compare with game of thrones and very different? I mean very different because in game of thrones is such a huge ensemble and bodyguard is very much commerce can have just on on my character all the time so that kind of brings a different way unto and responsibility which knowing very much enjoyed. Do People still stop you on the street read and talk to you about being Robb stark or have you has this show and its success overtaken that for you and absolutely people still <hes> told me about Robb stark which which I love because it was a very close to my heart and it's just I mean I'm <music>. I'm really thankful for the opportunity to play David Bud and be an bodyguard nuts. You know something else that I'm not kind of purely defined by just one show and which is really exciting for me of tried my best since I left art show to to be diverse and try different rules and different things so I'm really glad that that something they bodyguard is done so and traveled so also you know I can. I kind of am not just <hes> typecast this opposes this young prince or king. I can <music> I can do other things and it's been nice to be able to express that prince or king who died so so gruesomely never had wedding. Are you like afraid to go to weddings. Now you know because you know no no no until I think that's a very different world actually right so I was reading an interview that you did with the Sun newspaper and you said that you got into acting because you were shy and overweight as a teenager or that was part of the reason I wasn't overweight at that tame I was <hes> I was very shy as very shy kid and I got into acting to maybe until you see it's it's trying to combat that and day conference for went to high school and that's where we are my acting career started. I got film when I was eleven and then a T._v.. Show for a few years to at school and it can erode on from there and what's been the toughest moment for you over the years the toughest moment I mean it could be a career right. You're always auditioning. Come be tough career I think I did actually I did God. I've been doing a lot of theater for many years and very much wanting to get into to come reacting and more television and film stuff and I think in the U._K.. It can be very much one of the other when you starting you kind of you can only be in one of the circles of the time and I made a deliberate effort to stop stop theater for a while and focus on trying to get to work and actually I was out of work for ten months untied very little money. Actually my last money at spent on my rent was going to have to go back and move in with my. Appearance and that was really tough depressing time and then right at the end of that ten months I got cast in this show called game of thrones that changed the game for me but so one of the best things optima life came of one of these darkest moments you still watch game of thrones. Even though you're you're dead on the show Oh yeah very much as soon as they don't give you the script beforehand to tell you what's going to happen. No thank- thankfully they don't anymore. That's one of the joys of being dead knows I can just see what happens season and and I don't know what's going to happen next and in luckily my friends <hes> the the not not tell me anything not a bit anyway because H._B._O.. Would kill them to not tell me what's going to happen and I can just be of you're no which is really grateful that is Richard Madden who stars in the Netflix show bodyguard he was also Robb stark in game of thrones but checkout bodyguard. If you haven't already Richard Madden thank you very much. Thank you very much and obviously Richard. Madden spoke with me last December before game game of thrones ended his show bodyguards for an emmy for best drama series. The EMMYS are September twenty second. We want to spend a few minutes now. Remembering John Paul Stevens the former Supreme Court justice who died yesterday at ninety nine the third longest serving justice on the court when he retired in twenty ten nominated by Republican president Gerald Ford joining the court in Nineteen seventy five Stevens wrote opinions and some the court's landmark cases including the death penalty criminal law and civil liberties and he stayed active in public life after he left the bench writing books doing interviews and we'll be basil on is a staff writer for the New York Times magazine a fellow at Yale Law School. She joins us now and emily. I you're just your thoughts on John. Paul Stevens passing and his significance on the court I mean it's just such a landmark because we are so unlikely to see another Republican appointee Lake Justice Stevens again and let I mean by that is that he was not chosen for his ideological predilections. He was chosen as an antitrust lawyer who seemed like a pragmatist to President Gerald Ford. You know what would you say to those on. Republicans are on the right now saying well. This was actually just a justice who betrayed us. <hes> you know because you write that the fact that he was praised by the Republican who appointed him and Democrat Barack Obama says more about the distance to the right that the party the Republican Party moved then his shift to the left. You do agree. Do you disagree with those who say he just ran to the left I don't I don't think he ran to the left. I think he's certainly moved toward more liberal positions. There's a pattern of this among Supreme Court justices and you can say that it's a betrayal of their conservative roots or you could also imagine that there's something about the experience of being on the court award and digging deeply into these very divisive cases that makes people more prone to seeing the constitution as a living document that changes over time and that these more wooden interpretation of the constitution based on what it meant when it was written in the eighteenth century just becomes unsatisfying and I think that was certainly what justice Stevens felt. He was someone who very much believed that looking at the impact of court decision on real people's lives you wrote in your recent review of his latest. This book the making of a Justice Reflections on my I ninety four years that he was the last of a group of Republican appointees who breathed compassion into the law put the impact of their decisions on real people above arid theories yeah so one example of that is the death penalty when justice Stevens joined the court in the mid nineteen seventies the court had really to try to figure out whether to allow the death penalty could continue in America and justice Stevens with someone who wrestled with that question Christian at that point he said yes. There is a place for this ultimate penalty in our in our constitution and then he watched over many years how the death penalty was actually applied and he got very concerned about how arbitrary and unfair and racially discriminatory you could be and he changed his mind and that kind of willingness to look at evidence that is what seems rare to us now in fact he called that if I've got this right the only regret of his Supreme Court career but he also so called <hes> Bushby Gore this is the case that settled the election in George Bush's favor and the citizens united decisions on campaign financing two of the courts biggest mistakes. That's right Stevens was in dissent on both of those decisions. He worried a great deal because they seemed like nakedly political decisions he'd see them as necessary that they were going to hurt the court as an institution and also hurt the country he wanted the justices to whenever possible rise above politics and he did not think that was what they were doing in decided at election intervening election in which it wasn't really clear him that the Supreme Court should have a role and then in citizens united you see them opening the flood gates of campaign contributions from corporations and unions and he thought that was a big mistake. We know that though ninety nine he'd been speaking to people recently <hes> very cogen very you know giving interviews. Do we know how he felt about recent didn't Republican appointees. He was concerned about how politicized Kavanagh's nomination became about how intemperate he saw some of Kavanagh's statements he made that clear and then when he was criticized for getting involved in that process process he kind of backed away from it so I think he had very keen opinions and it kind of sense of history about the courts evolution and there were aspects of the courts legacy he wanted to be deeply protective of he was committed `institutionalised and just I emily. I'm I'm I'm reaching her. I don't know if you had you spend time with them. What was he like as a person he was an incredibly engaging lovely man? I called him a few years ago. Because I was writing a piece about judges who make mistakes who look back and imagine that they regret decision they've made that's not a subject. A lot of judges WanNa talk a whole lot about because they'd rather see themselves as infallible right but justice Stevens was happy to get on the phone with me and explain to me how his thinking thing about the death penalty has evolved how he also regretted decision he'd made upholding voter identification law in Indiana and again the difference to him was he thought in retrospect that the evidence was clear that those kinds of laws can I make it harder for people to vote in a way he didn't understand at the time he was very driven by evidence. Of course he took your call justice. John Paul Stevens again died at ninety nine. Emily Babylon staff writer for the New York Times magazine fellow at Yale Law.

the Times President trump United States President Boeing president John Paul Stevens Richard Madden Alice Stewart Cory Booker America Bill Press Robin Young donald trump Liz Cheney Delaware Robb stark Supreme Court Democratic Party Jeffrey Epstein
Repeal the 2nd Amendment?  03.10.2020

RADIO GAG - The Gays Against Guns Show

27:38 min | 11 months ago

Repeal the 2nd Amendment? 03.10.2020

"Radio gag then gays against Gun show prepared a gay evening. Everybody this is this is welcome to radio. Gag the weekly gays against Gun show. Radio GAG is your weekly update on how to end the American gun violence epidemic. I'm Virginia Vets. Doom and tonight we're devoting the whole show to a conversation. With Professor Allan J Lichtman author of repeal the Second Amendment in this new book. Dr Lichtman takes us through the entire history of the right to bear arms amendment with its infamously thorny well regulated militia clause. He looks at background. Documentation of the founding fathers deliberations about the amendment. He finds that nobody ever met that. An individual has a to their own gun. So how did we get here? Dr Lichtman also gives a disturbing history of the NRA and how they almost backed into making gun ownership a second amendment right. Finally and most exciting. He offers in his last several chapters a path to repeal and ends with a post repeal vision of national laws. That could keep us all safer. Welcome Dr Lichtman. Thank you so much happy to speak with you. Great First of all. I want to say that repealing. The Second Amendment is not the official platform of gays against guns or any other group. We work with like MOMS demand action Strangely it's a pretty radical idea but speaking for myself only I've been waiting for someone to say what you've said in your book so much. What prompted you to write it when you did. What made you say this is important? And this is the time to get this idea out into the world. One as an story I studied Baden America and I realized since nineteen ninety four quarter of a century gun control movement hasn't achieved anything in Congress. In fact it's slipped backwards. The salt weapons ban was at lapsed and a new law was passed in two thousand and five shielding gun manufacturers from liability for misuse of the guns and also gun dealers from liability. Secondly I realized particularly watching presidential campaigns that the strategy of the gun control movement. Just wasn't working that you can't just say we support the second amendment but that's like playing the game not to lose rather than to win next. I was inspired by an op-ed piece by the late. Great Justice John Paul Stevens by the way Republican appointee who voted buff. Grow unconservative on the court who wrote an OP. Ed saying the only way to redeem the deaths of those who died from gun. Violence in America is through repeal of the Second Amendment from these sources. I realized the game needs to be changed if we really want to have meaningful national gun control legislation. We need a new strategy a bottle on and I went to Brandeis University and I was also inspired by with the late. Great Justice Louis Brandeis said that some of the greatest things in the world always seem impossible at the time yes. I hear that I hear that quote attributed to to a lot of different people I I agree And I'M GONNA get to A little later on your your steps for getting us there but one of the most interesting thing in the book to me was the history The actual amendment as enacted by Congress in seventeen eighty nine and ratified by states in nineteen. Ninety-one reads quote a well regulated militia comma being necessary to the security of a Free State Comma the right of the people to keep and bear arms comma shall not be infringed. I know scholars have theorized about even those commas and what exactly connects the beginning about the militia to the end part about the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Can you talk a little about what you've concluded the founders meant in the Second Amendment before I do that? I want to coach something from nineteen fifty five nine ancient history. This was a memo by constitutional authority which said that the history and the court decisions clearly indicate that the Second Amendment was intended to protect and collective writer defense through a well regulated militia at did not come from some gun control group. That did not come from liberals. That was an internal memo. I uncovered for the first. I'm written by the Constitutional Authority for the National Rifle Association. Talk later about how that changed but go back to the second amendment a couple of things not a single person involved in drafting in acting on ratifying the Second Amendment said that it protected an individual right to keep and bear private arms. That's why all Gung Loppy people have to turn to other sources and even in those other sources. They can't find anything which is why that website they have all kinds of doctored and distorted quotes. My favorite is the one they quote from. Thomas Jefferson which says we need arms for defense. Well he wasn't talking about weaponry. He was talking about being armed with information. He was requesting letters to help them in political arguments. But that's been reinterpreted by lots of folks and the gun lobby has Jefferson's of weaponry. Wow now have something we hadn't had earlier on. And that is the digitisation of millions upon millions of documents from the constitutional period and I've studied them and other scholars have studied them and almost entirely use of the term. Air Arms is used in a military since it is almost never millions of documents ever use in the sense of private arms. But here I think is the ultimate clinching argument. A lower doesn't reflect all that well on the framers it is absolutely who framed the Second Amendment James Madison. And what did James Mattis George Washington? Thomas Jefferson in so many other of the Virginia Patriots own slave. You think for one moment that James Madison and all of those other leaders of the slave states and even leaders of northern states with this tremendous prejudice against people of color would have one moment voted for an amendment that would have given black people in America. Leave aside slaves just in America. Right to keep and bear five at arm's not for one second but because it's tied to the well-regulated militia that keeps arms out of the hands of black people and other nine white personals because only white people could part of the militia underlaw. It wasn't until the civil war that black people were admitted into the volition. I think that is an absolute cleansing argument. Along with all the I agree. And that's that was one of my favorite things in the book is how you kind of ran ran through the book. How You know as part of the country recognizing with a genocidal white supremacist past You know that point and how the NRA supported gun control for about a second in California. When the Black Panthers took up arms and the way. Stand your ground. Laws are enforced I think that's a really interesting thread running through the book. Starting with with that point about the Yes I trust the whole history and I also point out. America has an incredibly rich tradition of cutting controls going all the way back to the colonial period extending through the nineteenth and well into the twentieth century and I point out that a single gun control measure state or federal was ever struck down under the Second Amendment until two thousand and ten when a five to four decision of the Supreme Court written by Antony. Scalia finally adopted the new. Nra interpretation of the Second Amendment by the way you know Antony. Scalia was the great you know. Great Great thinker and he was the most prominent Profounder of the idea of originalism. Go back to the original intent of the famous well. He couldn't do that in this case. Because there is no original content as we pointed out for private rooms so he had to go to lots of other sources. But don't take my word for it as you saw the book eyesight. Conservative scholars including judge poisoner most heavily cited a constitutional scholar of the Twentieth Century Eminent Seven circe conservative judge. Who skated Scalia? For not adhering to originalism but instead committing the sin that conservatives have always said liberals have done as an example the Roe v Wade decision on abortion rights and that is read their own contemporary values into the constitution. That's what's did. Yeah and I right and you were you. Were doing the originalist work with all that great scholarship and in the beginning part of the book L. Not a shred of evidence for this. What the other thing that could says. Oh they want people to have private arms so that they could rise up against their government if they're covernment should become too radical. Anyone knows a shred of information about the federal famed and adopted. The Second Amendment knows that they were strict. Stodgy all and order. Guys Alaska that they ever wanted. Tolerance was an uprising on citizenship. In fact on the Federal Presidents George Washington and John Adams. What did they use the militia for to stamp out internal repair by citizens whisky? Rebellion decrees rebellion. I I that's I was so that's was my next question because it was I had a little bit of Dissonance THERE I I didn't know until reading your book that that militia in the amendment referred to a kind of junior varsity for the army navy that the founders were preparing for attacks by other countries with this kind of backup citizen army and I also learned from your book that militias were officially replaced by the National Guard in nineteen. Oh three so. We don't even have militias for over one hundred years and and I was connection that you that you made that I want to go into there was. I was really shocked to read that right around that time. Nineteen three the. Nra made a deal with the federal government to get Sir plus our arms from the military at a for its members That's just another in this strange like Distortion of this of what a militia is and was four. I thought Leads into that little known relationship between the NRA and the gun lobby and the military can you tell a little about that yes the NRA was died at the time that it's called the tact and into. North Korean was adopted to establish the militia had also established a federal program of marksmanship. Much fun out to the NRA and supplied the array with surplus weapons targets with bullets and save the Internet. The Internet was dying. It was more open and in fact. I quote The CEO the NRA saying we became a quasi-governmental organization was the government the government socialism. If you will that saved the NRA which is so ironic because as you know you have the NRA pouting table and shouting against the government and handouts and socialism and yet that is really the birth of the modern in our right and that was Yeah another sort of weird threat of all that is I think I was confused about the the what a militia was in part because my association with the term. I remember when I I was hearing a lot was after Timothy McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma City Federal building so I thought of militia as Oh. That's the gun nuts. Who want to rise up against the government and then recently the NRA has Sort of suggested that the right to bear arms is connected with this radical anti government stance as you said And in your chapter. I know I know it's exactly the opposite in your chapter called the NRA reinvents the Second Amendment You quote and I remembered this. This came back to me How the NRA President Wayne Lapierre referred to the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms as quote jackbooted government thugs with the power to break in our doors. Sees our guns destroy our property and even injure or kill us and I didn't remember that it was only one week before the Oklahoma City bombing that killed a hundred and sixty eight people so I mean it's it it gets into bizarro world here but but you know you WanNa talk a little about how the NRA twisted things around. I mean the opposite. There are three stages of three or four stages of the first is the one I mentioned. It starts at eight hundred seventy one and they were just signed. Do Marksmanship was founded by civil war? Veterans Grant was one of the president's or the NRA dying and killing five socialism by the government in the early twentieth century and advocate. Absolutely become an anti gun control Lobby in the nineteen thirties. When it opposed the federal national gun control laws They designed to keep things like shooting guns and saw shotguns from the hands of the public but on the fences Second Amendment fact when asked with this in my book I wanted to congressman about the Second Amendment. Senior the enemies. That's not relevant. That's not the big and that was well into the twentieth century then in nineteen winter it out you know when the Black Panthers gone alarms that alarm lots of folks associated with the gun lobby but the critical change came in nineteen. Seventy seven the so-called Mu Fault in Cincinnati the annual meeting in Cincinnati with a new militant ship took over the Iranian shifted its emphasis from marksmanship and hunting and gun safety the Anti Gun control and then adopt hijack second amendment and completely twisted its meaning from what even the array off early onset. This is maybe the greatest public relations crew in American history. Certainly one of them. It's sponsored all the scholarship change. The scholarship on the inner. It wasn't done by historians was done by warriors they call it low office scholarship associated with the NRA and they got Charlton Heston. You know the great actor. The Public Face Call Dad hands critical and they're critical argument. Now was the second amendment which they completely distorted to authorize an unlimited right keeping crowded on keeping mind interest as you know we want to protect law-abiding citizens from the criminals. But they could care less. Who gets the guns bangers tug dealers people you know inclined to suicide domestic abusers just last year the NRA lobby against the protection of women from violence? Act Why because it would take gerns out of the hands of domestic users who kill so many women each they don't care who gets the guns remember who's paying the bills to a significant extent kind makers and you know the more guns. They sound no matter who they who gets them with money. The gun manufacturers baked and the money goes to the NRA by the way must become a racket as you may seeing in my book. One point four eighteen dollars to Wayne Pierre. The one point two billion dollars to the number two guy Half a dozen or more making upwards of six hundred thousand dollars and there's supposed to be charitable educational organization and by the way that doesn't trickle down to the rank and file as I point out. Why Book Yeah No? There's quite a with our schmancy What's the Ackerman that they've hired the Yeah it you're just doesn't count all the parts on the talk now. Beverly Hills wardrobes exactly the guy not uncle. Dick and the deer stand Yeah with his shirt Dissension among you know some of the members leaders of the It's a cultural gap Yeah reading you know these quotes by Lop here and others Lapierre's said In arguing against an international arms treaty if every family on the planet owned a good quality rifle genocide would be on the path to extinction and around the same time. I know we have reggie is just making the face of disbelief which I made through this all this stuff about the NRA. They said the twenty twelve massacre in the theater in Aurora Colorado was an inside job by the government to win support for the Arms Treaty Even their whole argument that guns make us safer which flies in the face of so much data like a strict strict states to lack states on our country to other countries. And I just I wanted to ask you reading so much about the NRA message it. It gets disorienting the same way. Having trump for president is disorienting was thinking. How like some evil doers are smart and strategic and they seduce people by painting reasonable. Picture of why you need to do their evil but the NRA and trump both are are. It's more Orwellian and everything they say is so lacking in sense that it feels nihilistic like there's nothing even to argue against like you're saying things that that don't make sense and since trump's election I've read that that's an actually authoritarian strategy. So I wanted to. I wanted to ask you. Why do you think the NRA consistently doubles down on? It's nonsense on things that just literally make no sense. And why has it been effective harsh? Second Answer Second Question Answered Your First. They keep doing it because it worked. Same thing with trump not gonna change because he's never been held accountable for what he's done and you know each second amendment strategy to anyone anywhere anytime no matter what you want to get. Guns is working and this is called the big lie. And you're right. It is the favorite tactic of autocrats. Say something no matter how outrageous say say it loudly enough and a good segment of the Public. Come to believe it. On of course all of an expression of that was given to us by George Orwell in his nineteen where it reaches the point you know or as these feminists plenty leaders learners very much with the. Nra is dishing out you know you mentioned quoting array. Democracy is by far the safest one in the world because they all have these strict countries. Right you know criminal should be preying on the innocent well as I point down in my book our closest beer nexus seven group which is nations like Germany Italy and Britain and Canada plus Australia. Get this and American is more than twenty times per capita per person likely emerged by gun then resident of our democracy that twenty percent twenty times and when it comes to suicide by guns and by the way there were more gun suicides in America over twenty. Three thousand and Burgess which about two thousand. An American is seven times more likely than a resident per capita of appear nations to commit suicide by gun but forty percent less likely to commit suicide by other move these other nations. They have violent video games. Island culture poverty. You know simulation mental health differences is gun control. Same thing with the staged down. I I knew this was going to happen. The the half hour flies by And they're so much I know and there's so much more that I wanted to talk about but I will just say to the listeners. Pleased by this book. Because there's there's a great Sort of analysis of the history and the problem but as I mentioned at the top the really inspiring path. Forward using prohibition we have repealed an amendment before it is possible and there are other examples that you give you know Tobacco and cars and their other industries where it seemed like gay rights yes which was a great one who would have thought that they would be gay marriage. I love that you included that in there. That was that was a nice one for for our group So I just want to thank you so much for For talking with US and encourage everybody listening to buy repeal the Second Amendment by Alan Jay Lichtman important important book thank you for writing it. Great substantive discussion weaker of our. We could have I know. But all right bye-bye So to find out more about working with. Us please go to gays against guns dot net or follow us at gays against guns New York on facebook and Instagram or gag. No guns on twitter also be sure to check out our website to learn more about gag chaper chapters or others in Orlando L. A. DC Chicago San Francisco We invite everybody listening to come join US although in these Corona Virus Times. We actually aren't having our Thursday meeting this Thursday So online is a better way to connect with us now Who knows what's going to happen and when but For this Thursday our every other week meeting is is not going to be meeting in person. another great way to get involved is by coming. Wbai BUDDY WBA. Body is someone who keeps our unique volunteer run radio show going by giving a small donation every month. Just a tiny donations. So please go to. Wb A. B. A. I. DOT ORG or call five one six six two zero three six zero two and become a be a body buddy in the name of Radio Gag. Thank you so much for listening. We are back next Tuesday and every Tuesday at six thirty PM We have time for the Saint Louis. Great so don't forget you can listen to our previous shows anytime on the website or any major podcast platform. We leave you with our fabulous political singing quartets out louise with a song that I think goes perfectly with Dr Lichtman Book. We gotta have faith that we can break this lobby and every no and generic ours. You take drains away while we all the cash you OUGHTA and then to one million with your heart. We don't care y'all we are show. Dogs Pat thanks. We gotta have paid paid back. We will go back to yesterday. So the lease that's way lose pass. We're GONNA break then. We will reveal the name of another day with a lot of bad news to be. Shun slithered new.

National Rifle Association America Alan Jay Lichtman NRA Thomas Jefferson Black Panthers James Madison Scalia Professor Allan J Lichtman president Justice Louis Brandeis Air Arms Virginia Vets Brandeis University John Paul Stevens Twentieth Century Eminent Seve Wayne Lapierre
October 5, 2018

POLITICO Playbook Audio Briefing

04:07 min | 2 years ago

October 5, 2018

"Good Friday morning, Jake Sherman and welcome to your political playbook. Audio briefing sponsored by pharma, and I'm Anna Palmer were kicking off the morning with a look at the mood in the capital as Brett Kavanagh's nomination appears to be engine toward the finish line. The capital has become flooded with protesters harketting back to twenty ten when the right loudly opposed the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Three hundred and two people were arrested on Capitol Hill. Yesterday for quote, unquote unlawfully, demonstrating in Senate office buildings. Capitol police were walking around with zip ties in their back pockets, checking staffers badges multiple times when walking the capitol complex when we went to get a coffee and cups in the Russell office building, we were greeted by a group of protesters who wanted to know we worked for a Senator, presumably looking to try to change a vote, several rank and file senators have fulltime police escorts and unusual dynamic in a building where elected officials usually roam free. It's something. Reporters, hope doesn't stick. The critical procedural vote to end debate will be this morning at ten thirty AM Burgess effort, and a lotta shore have all the details in the political lead all writing that Republican leaders all, but guaranteed Kavanagh's confirmation yesterday as both senators, Jeff flake and Susan Collins, giving courage, ING remarks about the FBI's report. One important detail. The vote could drag into Sunday if Republican leaders need Steve Daines of Montana, Dane supports cavenaugh, but is attending his daughter's wedding in Montana on Saturday. That will only matter if Friday's procedural vote is tied. Our colleague, Alex Eisenstaedt tweeted that the NRA has begun cancelling at least some of its ad reservations in North Dakota. After Heidi Heitkamp said she would vote against Cavanaugh while things seemed to go well for cabinet in the capital yesterday, retired supreme court Justice, John. Paul Stevens said Kavanagh's performance during the hearing at caused him to change his mind because he demonstrated a potential bias that could make Cavanaugh unable to. Perform his full responsibilities justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan will speak at Princeton both. They're all maters tonight at five pm. The Washington Post editorial board came out against Cavanaugh. It's the first time that paper has opposed Scotus nominee since Robert Bork in nineteen eighty-seven. And cavenaugh himself has responded to those judicial temperament critiques writing in an op Ed in the Wall Street Journal. He writes that he is an independent, impartial judge, but did he was emotional during his testimony because he was there as a son, husband and dad. First lady Melania Trump who's on her first solo trip to Africa, will give an exclusive interview to ABC that will air tonight on a special edition of twenty twenty at ten pm. The president was in Rochester, Minnesota last night for a political rally where he called Democrats, truly the party of crime. Facebook's. Joel, Kaplan was on the hot seat after appearing at bread. Kavanagh's hearing last week. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Mark Zuckerberg has faith anger over Kaplan's pub. Support of his friend cavenaugh. The company is planning to hold a town hall meeting this week to address employee concerns. Kaplan is a friend of Kavanagh's from the Bush administration. They were in each other's weddings, and the New York Times is reporting. Republicans are hoping anger over Kavanagh's treatment will push GOP voters to the polls. Foreign policies reporting that Trump is considering firing, air force, secretary, Heather Wilson over her handling of Trump's initiative to start a separate space force in the US military on the political front. Marc Caputo reports that Florida congressional candidate. Michael waltz snubbed Trump after declined to publicly go on the political stump in the state that trip was later nixed altogether. Carla Marinucci was in Fullerton, California for us reporting that foreign vice president. Joe Biden was on the stump looking to boost democratic support with an impassioned call to arms. Here's what's on tap for Trump today. The president will participate in the defense industry based report presentation in the Oval Office at quarter to two PM. He will also participate in the. Signing ceremony for the FAA reauthorization Bill. That's at two forty five subscribed to playbook at politico dot com. Slash playbook.

Brett Kavanagh Melania Trump vice president Cavanaugh Kaplan Capitol police Senate Jake Sherman Senator Anna Palmer Robert Bork Montana Steve Daines Heidi Heitkamp Sonia Sotomayor The Wall Street Journal FAA Facebook
House passes resolution condemning Trump's racist remarks

MSNBC Rachel Maddow (audio)

45:34 min | 1 year ago

House passes resolution condemning Trump's racist remarks

"The show we did nine eastern on M._S._N._B._C. as you can tell I'm scrambled here onset just as I'm starting to show in part because we've just thrown out the first half of the show because of the breaking news that has just broken in the past few minutes sorry for my fumble fumble at the start there but N._B._C. News has just confirmed in the last few minutes that retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has died at the age of ninety nine. He died at Holy Cross Hospital in Fort Lauderdale Florida of complications following a stroke stroke that he suffered yesterday. Justice Stevens died peacefully his daughters were at his side. When he passed he survived by two of his children nine grandchildren? He served on the court for nearly thirty five years third longest serving justice Supreme Court history. He was a Chicago native he was more into one of the wealthiest families in Chicago. He enlisted in the Navy was decorated code breaker during World War Two in the Navy on the bronze star. He was appointed to the U._S.. Circuit Court of Appeals Appeals by Richard Nixon and then five years after that was appointed to the Supreme Court by Gerald Ford by the tire he retired from the Supreme Court in two thousand ten he was considered to be the most liberal member of the court the leader or of the liberal minority but he had been appointed by first of the appeals court by Nixon then to the Supreme Court by four both of those appointees Republican presidents. He always maintained that he considered himself to be a conservative. He's not become more liberal but rather the court and American electoral politics evolved away from what it once was in terms of his tenure on the court justice Stevens famously dissented the Supreme Court struck down laws banning flag burning that was one of the only very famous decisions in which he was involved in which he did not side with the liberal wing of the court he did lead the unanimous court ruling the Clinton era. Are that determined that a sitting president can face civil lawsuits while in office piecing together his record though almost doesn't give you the some of its parts when it comes to John Paul Stevens I mean in terms of his rulings he was he wrote the majority opinion and Atkins Virginia in which the court banned capital punishment for the mentally impaired he later stated after he retired from the court that his one vote that he regretted regretted was the opinion that he wrote in nineteen seventy six to uphold the death penalty overall he authored approximately four hundred majority opinions he offered the majority opinion and one of the key Guantanamo cases that determined that Guantanamo detainees detainees needed to be able to face court martial rather than being detained indefinitely he also somewhat famously wrote the dissenting opinion in Bush v Gore on the losing side of Bush Abi Gore but in terms of his overall legacy Casey. It's not just that he was on the court for so long. It's not just that he was appointed as a moderate conservative and went on to lead the liberal wing of the court it's that he was respected so widely by everybody who had anything to do with him and his legacy was considered to be one of such integrity and thoughtfulness and skill on the bench that it's it's hard to imagine there ever being another justice like him. President Gerald Ford who nominated Justice Stevens to the bench famously wrote in in two thousand five that he would let histories judgment of his entire presidency rest entirely on his decision to nominate John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court Justice Stevens retired at the age of ninety two thousand ten President Obama presented him with the medal of Freedom Presidential Medal the Freedom Chief Justice John Roberts the current chief justice at the Supreme Court released a statement tonight on the occasion of Justice Stevens his death saying quote on behalf of the court and retired justice's. I am saddened to report that our colleague Justice John Paul Stevens has passed away son of the Mid West heartland and a veteran of World War Two justice Stevens devoted his long life to public service including thirty five years on the Supreme Court he brought to our bench inimitable blend of kindness humility wisdom and independence his unrelenting commitment to justice has left us a better nation we extend our deepest condolences to his children Elizabeth and Susan and his extended family again breaking news tonight Justice John Paul Stevens has died at the age of ninety nine joining us now is Linda Greenhouse. She's a lecturer Yale Law School. She's covered the Supreme Court for the New York Times for all the best stuff for nineteen seventy-eight until two thousand eight MS greenhouse. Thanks very much for joining US tonight. I really appreciate you being here on short notice thanks for having me Rachel's obviously justice Stevens was old. He was ninety nine years old. He was known to have suffered a stroke and have had some other health problems so it's not biologically a shock that we are hearing this news but it does feel shocking to know that he's gone just because of how how large looms and in legal American culture. What's your top line thought tonight about his passing his career on the court as a reminder of the way things used to be sad somebody like him could be appointed by a Republican President <hes> without any particular ideological overhangs <hes> president for assigned his Attorney General Edward Levy to just find me? The best person and I you know just mentioned one other thing that reminds us how things have changed so John. Paul Stevens was the first justice to go on record after the court decided the abortion case row against Wade so roy against Wade was decided in January nineteen seventy-three John Paul Stevens was nominated by Prison Ford in December seven thousand nine hundred seventy five almost three years later. He did not get a single question at his confirmation hearing about abortion. That's just tells us something and what I think it tells us is that it was only later that abortion abortion became the political lightning rod that we have all grown up thinking of it as and it was just just another issue among many back in nineteen seventy five. It's interesting to me the <hes> SORTA heterogeneous nature of that issue of publicity and the courts in politics and the courts when it comes to Stevens career. I mean that anecdote that you just mentioned about abortion. There is incredible. He's also I believe he was the last justice to be confirmed to the court without out having his nomination are confirmation hearings televised. That's another matter has changed. I think the politics and the way Americans view the court at the same time though after he stepped down at the age of ninety he was quite a public figure quite a public intellectual and made lots of statements and lots of issues before the court and about the constitution and about the current president for example as recently as a few weeks ago this year he did he didn't shy away from the idea of the court as Publican as a public institution and one not something to say about political matters. Well that's right. I mean he wrote on three books. In most recent was a memoir that came out the spring. It's called the making Nova Justice my first ninety four years and actually I'm just reading think it right now is that as it turns out on account of amazing long live <hes> and he wrote a book about the parts of the constitution that he thought should be amended. He wrote a short memoir about the chief justices that he research with he wrote for The New York Review Books. I always have the feeling I never talked to him about that. He was a tiny bit. Sorry that he retired. He retired quite abruptly in twenty ten after he decided added to retire after reading from the benches dissenting opinion in the citizens united case about what she felt very strongly and he found himself stumbling over words and that was unlike him <hes> turned turned out it had a small stroke and he decided it was time to retire but he obviously lived another nearly decade in quite robust health intellectually if not if not physically on so I think seeks some of some of what he did in those years was to kind of feel the time in feel that he was he phillies still have something to contribute something to tell us any certainly did when docile to ask skew about this idea that the court sort of shifted around him which is the way that he described it. He never described himself as having changed in his position on the ideological number line or having become more liberal even though he was nominated by Republican the Republican president and ultimately was seen as a leader of the liberal wing. What was he like in terms of comedy among the justices in terms of as as as as the makeup of the court change during his decades on the bench coach? What was he like in terms of putting together majorities putting together consensus? What was he like in those those conferences with the other judges well? I think that really years the sort of knock on him was that he was go it alone. In kind of justice features said we always the right thing to say <hes> he had a number of famously solitaire opinions and that sort of thing but once he became <hes> the senior associate justice <hes> which and and he says he happened to be on the liberal side of the benched by then he was really in charge of kind of marshalling the the Liberals I he became quite strategic. I think <hes> I just you mentioned in your kind of open that you gave her the top of the hour that he wrote <hes> One and actually wrote a couple of the major Guantanamo decisions in which he was able to <hes> right in a way that guy is Kennedy's vote for instance and former majority <hes> for the right of the Guantanamo detainees to get before federal judge and he you know he became more strategic and I'll just say one more thing about that. I mean it's true that <hes> the court changed around him but but he wouldn't have denied he didn't deny that his own views that change for instance he lay in his career came out against the death penalty for instance and he gave a talk. Oh maybe about ten years before he retired in which she said you know. Part of the job of being on the court is learning on the job and to keep learning and I always read that as a kind of <hes> you know coded way of saying yeah sure I've changed my mind about things and he was he was open to change and I you know I think he would listen through to every argument <hes> but he didn't see things <hes> toward the end in the same way he necessarily had seen them in the beginning Linda Greenhouse. US Lecture at lecturer now at Yale Law School former Supreme Court reporter for the New York Times Linda. You were the first person I wanNA talk to tonight. When I heard this news thanks for making time to us? I really appreciate it of course because I can thank you joining us. Now is cliff Sloan. He was a clerk for justice Stevens at the Supreme Court is now visiting scholar at Georgetown Law School just the next step in what has been a long career in public service including high level positions at the State Department Mr Sloan. Thanks very much for joining us than I appreciate you making time on short notice think hugh appreciate being here so I know that this is just breaking news. We're all learning this just over the last few minutes but given your experience working closely with justice Stevens your experience clerking for him. I just WanNa ask what what you can add to our understanding of him as a jurist and as and as a man as your as your employer for the time that you spent in his chambers well let me start as a jurist and he is truly one of the greats unquestionably questionably one of the greatest Supreme Court justices we've ever had he was the rule of law justice when he was I put on the federal bench. Somebody described him as a judge's judge and that is the perfect description because he was the rule of justice whether it was Guantanamo as Linda greenhouse was just saying an upholding the legal rights there whether it was in his memorable in historic descent in Bush Viga were or in his decision in the Paula Jones versus Bill Clinton case where he said and it was controversial at the time for the court that litigation could proceed because the president is not above the law he always stood for the for the rule of law and he was not a predictable play with him. One saw the Supreme Court at its best which is the supreme court rising above predictable the political partisanship predictable political sites and standing for the majesty of the what and when could go on and on in different fields of law that his influence on the law tremendously consequential gay rights rights abortion free speech on the Internet just on and on and on he had such a profound impact in his thirty five years. I know sorry go ahead. Sorry guys just going to say is great. As he was as a justice he was truly truly a very special man he was kind and gentle and let me just give you one example and for his powerful legal insight and his intellect he was the most unassuming guy and he would love to tell the story of when he first moved to Washington when he came on the Supreme Court and who's doing the things that you do when you move to a new city he was opening a bank account in that kind of thing and he's filling out the bank application and there's a space for occupation and he puts down justice and the bank official shrugs and says okay last week I had a guy who said peace and he's just he loved that story and that tells you a lot about him this person let me just ask you a cliff. I know that the justice Stevens like a lot of Supreme Court justices after they retire from the bench or even while they're still on the bench for older justices sort of preside over a community of clerks that they're clerks who served with them over the years they stay in touch touch. They I know the justice Stevens out of his way to to hostess clerks and to see people frequently right up through this year I wonder if in that community if he ever engaged with his former clerks and with his colleagues about his decision and to maintain this public life that he did after his retirement as Linda was saying writing multiple books writing a book about suggested amendments to the Constitution a writing op Ed in the New York Times just last year in which he said that people who are looking for gun reform in this country should seek a repeal of the Second Amendment he made very pointed comments about President trump and his necessity and following the long terms of complying with subpoenas he really stayed at the forefront of a lot of very controversial public issues even after his retirement. I wonder if you've ever talk to him about those matters if he ever know if you know anything about whether he he wrestled with that at all well he felt very very strongly about these legal issues in these public issues and anytime you talk talk to him he was just brimming with ideas and insights and he actually had a get together of all of his former clicks just this past mate to celebrate his ninety ninth birthday which was in April and the publication of his wonderful for memoir about his entire life including in detail his time on the court and you know racial to your point. It was very interesting because at that gathering the there was a question and answer session and one of the clerk work said Justice you care so much about the rule of law in the rule of law is under such attack in faces so many challenges these days and what can we do and he looked out at all of us and he said all you can do who is do your best every day in fight as hard as you can and I want to say that while we are all touched by sadness that we have lost this great and wonderful man. We also want to celebrate his his life. In the best way of honoring him is to do exactly what he said which is to fight every day as hard as we can for the rule of law and he understood deep to his bones that that has never are more important than it is today and so I would like to suggest that the occasion of his death is an occasion for celebrating this man's wonderful life and his values and it is a case it is an occasion for all of us to redouble all in re triple our efforts to fight for the rule of law because he felt so strongly that there is nothing more important to our American system and Rachel answer to your question every day in every conversation he thought about that very very very much and cared about it very deeply. Cliff Sloan was a clerk to justice Stevens up the Supreme Court. He's now visiting scholar Georgetown Law School Cliff. Thanks for making time to join US night getting to the studio as we were about justice Stevens his passing tonight. I really appreciate you being here. Thank you Rachel right before we got word of the passing a former Supreme Court Justice Sean Paul Stevens tonight again breaking news he has passed at the age of ninety nine he leaves behind him a community of former clerks and admirers and colleagues sort of unparalleled in the judiciary in terms of the respect that people had for him I think across the ideological spectrum and the integrity with what she was seen to have lived his life just very sad day to lose justice Stevens but also as cliffs along with slaying. They're saying they're an opportunity only celebrate his ninety nine years on the earth as we were learning the news of Justin Stevens is passing today of course it had already been very hectic day of news just tonight. A Democratic congressman named Al Green brought articles of impeachment to the floor of the House against President Donald Trump congressman green did this tonight against the wishes of the Democratic leadership in the House but he did it in concert with the wishes of dozens of democratic members of Congress who do want impeachment proceedings to start against president trump. That's also true of lots of the voters who make up the base of the Democratic Party so there is ongoing drama about this decision by Congressman Green tonight not only because impeachment articles are inherently dramatic but also also because of the conflict between these backbench members like Congressman Green who are pushing for this and the leadership of the House that really does not want it at least not in this way at this time tonight there was further drama in the House as well as all democrats a handful the Republicans voted to condemn the president's recent racist attacks on a handful of female minority members of Congress who he said should go back to where they came from as if they're not Americans as if they're not serving members of the U._S. Congress for several hours today during the debate over that measure congress was was brought to a halt by what amounted to a food fight over whether or not House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was allowed to call the president's racist tweets racist tweets honestly there was like an entire Tony Awards worth of drama just in the House of Representatives just this afternoon tonight and some of it is ongoing. We're going to have more ahead on on that for you tonight. It was also drama today in court the A._C._l._U. Today filed an emergency legal action to try to block the trump administration from essentially ending asylum law as we know it in this country there is a long standing right in this country for you to apply for asylum here. If for some reason you are not safe. Are you fear persecution in your home country. The trump administration is trying to undo that they only announced yesterday that they were going to try to essentially up and asylum laws. They tried to put it into effect as of today after announcing it yesterday the A._C._l._U. acted today in court to try to block them from making that change. We're keeping an eye on that also today. In Federal Court in New York the judge who had initially blocked the trump administration from messing with the census to try to use the census to engineer and undercount of Latinos and immigrant communities that New York federal judge today permanently enjoined the trump administration from even trying to use the census in that way after many lower court rulings and a Supreme Court ruling the trump administration and ultimately the president himself had to admit defeat in the courts on this issue but just in case there was any doubt Federal Court district judge in New York who initially ruled against the administration on this today issued a permanent injunction barring them from even trying it and a Maryland federal judge who who had issued a similar ruling is now being asked by the plaintiffs in that case to do the same so it's sort of a belt in suspenders thing right now in terms of whether or not the trump administration is going to try to change the census tomorrow the head of the agency that runs the Census Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Attorney General William Bar are going to face a vote in Congress holding them in contempt on the census issue holding them in contempt for refusing to handover documents to Congress about the whole census fiasco attorney ready general bar in the past has freaked out a little bit when he has faced the prospect of being held in contempt. Even see has frequently ignored binding requests from Congress when the House votes tomorrow inevitably to hold him in Wilbur Ross in contempt. I think you should therefore expect some so some fireworks from well William Bar and the Justice Department is that census disaster continues to pinball its way through the administration. I should also tell you that in terms of court drama tonight there was also a remarkable hearing a remarkable court ruling ruling today in federal court in Washington in which one of the president's longtime advisors named Roger Stone is on trial for lying to investigators about his contact with wikileaks and Russian intelligence cutouts during the campaign Roger Stone today was. Ordered by a federal judge to not just stopped talking publicly about his case. The judge already ordered him he to do that now. She's gone further and banned him from social media as of today she banned him from using twitter or instagram or or facebook for any purpose he has continually pushed the envelope of the gag order that the judge had already instituted in that case he has been pushing that she further restricted him today and said he couldn't use social media at all if he wasn't going to be able to use it properly and avoiding the gag order in this case perhaps inevitably and also amazingly within two hours of the judge's order saying he could no longer use twitter or instagram facebook within two hours of that order Sir Roger Stone's wife was on instagram posting stuff about herself and Roger in today's hearing so it's clear at least that the spirit of what the judge was trying to do here is not being followed by Roger Stone and his family and presumably his lawyers. It actually turns out legally to be sort of a fascinating turn in this case that we're gonNA have more on that coming up this hour. Well like I said it has it has been a whirlwind newsday particularly in terms of of legal news but just is capped with a very sad breaking news that were just learning this hour that former Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens who became the leader of the liberal wing of the court and has later years having initially been appointed to the bench by by Gerald Ford. I'm considering himself a Republican. Excuse me considering himself. A conservative John Paul Stevens a remarkable career on the bench to sentence citizens united the descent and Bush fee or the ruling that blocked that execution of the the mentally ill a key rulings in terms of prisoners at Guantanamo being allowed due process. John Paul Stevens has died tonight at the age of ninety nine. We've got much more to get through this hour. Stay with US hi. It's Katy Tur- her want to keep up with M._S._N._B._C.. While you're on the go subscribe to the M._S._N._B._C. Daily newsletter you'll get the best of what you've missed. During this unprecedented era of news text M._S._N._B._C. to six six eight six six to subscribe this is the title resolution condemning President Trump's racist comments directed at members of Congress whereas the founders conceived America's haven of refuge for people fleeing from religious and political persecution and Thomas Jefferson Alexander Hamilton James Madison L. emphasized that the nation gained that attracted New People in search of freedom in livelihood for their families whereas the Declaration of Independence defined America as a covenant based on equality the unalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and government by consent of the people whereas Benjamin Franklin said at the constitutional convention when foreigners after looking about for some other country in which they can obtain more happiness give preference two hours it is a proof of attachment which ought to excite our confidence and affection whereas President Franklin Roosevelt said remember remember always that all of us and you and I especially are descended from immigrants and revolutionist whereas immigration of people from all over the Earth has defined every stage of American history and propelled our social economic political medical scientific cultural artistic and technological progress as a people and all Americans except for the descendants of native people and enslaved African Americans are immigrants or descendants of immigrants whereas the commitment immigration asylum has been not a partisan Amazon 'cause but a powerful national value that is infused the work of many presidents whereas American patriotism is defined not by race or ethnicity but by devotion to the constitutional ideals of Equality Liberty Inclusion and democracy and by service to communities and struggle for the common good whereas President John F. Kennedy whose family came to the U._S.. From Ireland stated in his nineteen fifty-eight book a nation of immigrants that the contribution of immigrants can be seen in every aspect of our national life we see it in religion and politics ticks and business in the arts and education even athletics and entertainment. There's no part of our nation that has not been touched by immigrant background. Everywhere immigrants have enriched and strengthen the fabric fabric everywhere immigrants have enriched and strengthen the fabric of American life whereas President Ronald Reagan and his last speeches president conveyed an observation about country which I love whereas President Reagan observed the torch of Lady Liberty Symbolizes Freedom represents our heritage. The compact with our parents are grandparents. It's an our ancestors and it is the Statue of Liberty in its values that gives us are great and special place in the world whereas other countries may seek to compete with us but in one vital area as a beacon of freedom and opportunity that draws the people of the world no country on earth comes is close where it is the great life force of each generation of new Americans that guarantees that America's triumph shall continue unsurpassed through the twenty first century and beyond and it's part of the magical intoxicating power of America whereas does this is one of the most important sources of America's greatness we lead the world because unique among nations we draw our people our strength from every country and every corner of the world and by doing so we continuously were new and enrich our nation whereas thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity where a nation forever young forever bursting with energy new ideas and always on the cutting edge always leading the world to the next frontier whereas this openness is vital to our our future as as a nation and if we ever closed the door to new Americans are leadership in the world would soon be lost and whereas President Donald Trump's racist comments have legitimized fear and hatred of new Americans and people of color now therefore four beat resolved that the House of Representatives believes that immigrants in their descendants have made America stronger and that those who take the oath of citizenship are every bit as American as those whose families have lived in the U._S.. For many generations. The House of Representatives is committed committed to keeping America open to those lawfully seeking refuge and asylum from violence oppression and those who are willing to work hard to live the American dream no matter their race ethnicity faith or country of origin and the House of Representatives strongly condemns uh-huh pet president donald trump's racist comments that have legitimized and increased fear and hatred of new Americans and people of Color by saying that our fellow Americans who are immigrants and those who may look to the president like immigrants should go back to other countries countries by referring to immigrants asylum-seekers as invaders and by saying that members of Congress who are immigrants or those of our colleagues who are wrongly assumed to be immigrants do not belong in Congress for in the United States of America that resolution this evening condemning the president's racist tweets was passed in the House of Representatives it target the vote was two hundred forty two one hundred eighty seven the resolution received the votes of just four Republican members of Congress as well as recently exiled Republican public turn independent Justin Amash the vote was gaveled in just before seven o'clock this evening following some impassioned speeches from Democrats on the House floor telling four members of this body to go home because of where do you believe they are from is racist. There is racism coming out of the White House. I know racism when I see it. I Know Racism Fan. I feel it and at the highest level government there's no room for racism. They are just as American as any one of us and it's shameful that the leader of our country would seek to disparage them for political gain. It's not the first time I've heard go back to your own country but it is the first time I've heard it coming from the White House. After the president's tweets the Neo Nazi daily stormer website gloated that this is the kind of white nationalism we voted for now. We have have to decide. Is this kind of politics that we want. In our country. The lead author of tonight's resolution condemning the president for his racist remarks is a Democrat who was not born in this country although he is not one of the Democrats who was is targeted by the White House for it. He's the man who you saw their speaking at the end their New Jersey Congressman Tom Malinowski he joins US next House of Representatives. Tonight voted to pass a resolution Lucien condemning president trump specifically condemning president trump's racist comments directed at members of Congress joining us now is the author of this resolution that has passed the House tonight New Jersey Congressman Tom Malinowski Sir. Thanks for being here tonight. Appreciate you making time. Thank you Rachel and thank you for reading the resolution. That's the first dramatic reading I've heard well. Unfortunately I'm a bad actor and so it wasn't as dramatic as it should have been good well. It's it's an eloquent piece of work and I know you're the lead author of this resolution. I have to ask about your thought process that went into asking the house to weigh in on something like this formerly and why you structure this the way you did. I I saw the tweets with everybody else this this weekend <hes> and as you mentioned unlike three of the four congresswoman that the trump attacked I I was actually born in a foreign country. I'm an immigrant I I I took that oath to support and defend offend the Constitution of the United States for the first time when I was ten years old getting sworn into a citizen of the United States five years after my mom brought me here from Poland and so I thought you know I don't I don't necessarily share the same politics politics is A._F._C. or congresswoman play or Omar but if you're going to go after my fellow members of Congress because of where they are from or appear to be from or how they look you're going to have to go through me and so offer this resolution and I'm glad the House passed it today. We said that we are better than this. President doesn't speak for the country we do. I know there was a lot of consternation in the house. During the debate over this resolution about the use of the word racist assist it's in the title of the resolution condemning President Trump's racist comments directed at members of Congress House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to deal with a real tempest today when she used that word to describe the president statements as well there was a big controversy over whether or not she was allowed to describe the president's remarks that way did you struggle at all with whether or not to include that specific word expecting that it would be as much of a lightning rod as it was it. It's hard to avoid obviously they were racist. These these words words that that that people who are immigrants who look like immigrants should go back to other countries. That's that's classic racism. That's been thrown generation after generation of new arrivals to America whether they're Irish or Polish Italian or Indian or or Muslim or Jewish so I I didn't struggle with it. Intellectually it turns out. There's an Arcane House rule that says you can't accuse the president of being racist in a speech on the floor a little hard to defend a resolution condemning. Condemning his racist remarks if you can't refer to them so we had this was a distraction because some of the Republicans I wanted us to be talking about this and not the the main issue which is the most powerful person in this country. Harry is saying things that we teach children to be wrong. You did get a handful of Republican votes. She got four Republican members joining all the Democrats in this vote today plus Justin Tamasha recently left the Republican Party. Did you expect more more than that. Obviously it was interesting to see the president sort of whipping Republicans to not side with Democrats on this to not vote in favor of this resolution that signal to me at least that the president cared about this outcome. I wonder what your expectations are. Of course he cares. He wants us to think he doesn't but of course he does. Of course I hope for Republican votes and you noticed I'm sure when you read the resolution half of it was from Ronald Reagan and what I really wanted. What we wanted was for every member of Congress especially my Republican colleagues to choose between Reagan's open hopeful confident vision of America and President Trump's fearful vision and you know I'll take I'll take the four plus Justin International chose Reagan we will build on that and the rest will have to answer to their conference in Jersey Congressman? Tom Malinowski. I was in Congress now as the latest iteration of his long career in public service our thanks for being here tonight appreciate initiating making time. Thank you so much much more tonight. Stay with us in February of this year the president's longtime friend and adviser Roger Stone had what he thought was a bright idea. Mr Stone is awaiting trial. Oh on charges that include lying to Congress about his interactions with wikileaks during the two thousand sixteen campaign when they were releasing information stolen by the Russian government and while he's awaiting trial while he's being allowed by the court to await his trial at home and free instead of in jail which was the other option and which is within the courts power to order Roger Stone decided that it would be brilliant idea to post online a picture of the federal judge hearing his case with a crosshairs appears next to her head that earned him a strict gag order from the judge judging Amy Burma Jackson Banning Mr Stone for making any public statements about his case or about the broader Russia investigation from which his case has sprung then last month Roger Stone had another bright idea this time he would go on instagram call for former C._I._A.. Director John Brennan to be quote hung for treason which again would seem to fly in the face of that gag gag order and that was one of many recent Roger Stone Posts and ripostes related to his case and the Russia investigation more broadly well eventually when there's a federal judge overseeing your case and you've been ordered not to do stuff like that you do someday have to answer for it today at a federal court hearing in Washington. It was abundantly clear that Judge Amy Berman Jackson was done with Roger Stone's Shenanigans Judge Jackson started by reading back to him stones own words begging in her courtroom for a second chance hance judge Jackson said today quote my first question for you. Is there anything unclear about my order or gag order stones lawyer responds no. Do you agree that Roger. Stone is one hundred percent responsible for his instagram posts. Yes judge Jackson all right right. I want to go through a number of communications one by one did he. After I issued my order sent a text message to Buzzfeed News saying Michael Cohen Statement regarding the Russia investigation is not true stones attorney. He did Judge Jackson so what about the Instagram Instagram Post from March twenty nine th about Adam Schiff stones attorney yes just Jackson. How about this one from June second stuns lawyer answers before she even asked the question yes? This was Mr Stones Stones attorney quote. I understand the government thinks that she crossed the line and apparently you think that he may have crossed the line Judge Jackson. Don't tell me what I think. By the end. Judge Jackson was as they say in law school on Forego the judge quote the clarity already of my order is undisputed the fact that the defense said it was fine and the order was not challenged on First Amendment browns or any other rounds as a matter of record. It didn't take a week before the defendant was emailing buzzfeed calling a witness in this investigation a liar to suggest that Roger Stone's posts are not statements by Roger Stone about this case ignores the essence an exponential power of social media and what makes different from writing a letter or talking on the phone. Maybe his lawyers don't understand it but he does. It is obvious to me. The judge continues that you either can't differentiate between the very broad range of speech that you're entitled to engage in and the limited restriction I imposed on you are the you can't understand it for. You won't quote twice given you the benefit of the doubt your lawyer Mr Stone had to twist the facts twist the plane meaning of the order and twist himself into a pretzel to argue that these post didn't cross the line and in the end it was unpersuaded Sive Judge Jackson quote. So what am I supposed to do with you. It seems as if once again I'm wrestling with behavior that has more to do with middle school than a court of law whether the problem is that you can't follow simple orders or you won't I need to help you out and the remedy appears to A. B. to modify the conditions of release and make the restriction even more clear so that it calls for no interpretation on your part whatsoever and then she slaps a social media muzzle on him ruling that he has banned from posting hosting anything from here on out on instagram or on twitter or on facebook. He's banned from posting anything from liking anything from reposting anything from re tweeting anything no forwarded anything nothing so I have some questions I mean one or the other things. The judge could've done here was say you violated my order. This order is part of why you're free and not in jail awaiting trial maybe now you should spend the rest of the time that you're awaiting trial in jail. Why didn't that happened today? Why didn't the government prosecutors ask for that today and isn't Roger Stone just going to keep posting on other social media than us that aren't instagram twitter and facebook I have I have questions the perfect perfect person to ask who's here next? Day was a federal judge in DC. Today ruled that while the President's longtime advisor Roger Stone is awaiting the start of his criminal trial. He's no longer allowed to post things on social media. He's repeatedly Lee blown through the ban that judge put on stone making any public statements about his case in about the Russia investigation more broadly now as of today's order stone is banned from posting anything anything at all on facebook on twitter on instagram and then two hours later we got this Roger Stone's wife posting stuff about him and today's hearing on Instagram. You're having a glass of wine with your dinner tonight. have an extra one for the judge in this case <music> frustrating days at work but this joining us now is Chuck Rosenberg Former U._S. attorney former senior justice department and F._B._I.. Official Chuck thanks for being here tonight much appreciate it my pleasure because of the previous interactions between during the judge and Roger Stone and legal team on this issue. I expected that if this judge found that Roger Stone had blown through that gag order yet again that she would change the terms of his release that she might say all right. You'RE GONNA wait for your trial while in jail since you can't follow the rules of this court. was that a reasonable expectation or was this a more likely outcome what we saw today. No I think that's a reasonable expectation. She has been infinitely patient and Rachel for more context. If you recall and I know you do one of the things that students charged with his witness tampering in count seven of his underlying indictment he told a witness to prepare deny that alone could be enough should be enough often would be enough to get someone detained pending trial. Why do you think the judge is airing on the side of sort of leniency or I mean it was striking that the prosecutors in this case today didn't explicitly ask the judge to confine to confine stone they didn't they didn't ask for any the punishment whatsoever they simply seem to be directing the judge to further restrict his speech? It may have been the government expected that she would after three strikes provoke his bond and put them in jail. What I think the judges doing however is a little bit different? She's playing long game. She has been credibly patient but she's also wise. She's keeping a very clean record number one and number two her primary concern as frustrated as she may be with Mr Stone is that a both parties not just the defendant but both both parties get a fair trial and so as long as she was convinced that she can draw a fair jury and that he's not influencing witnesses. It appears that she's willing to give him a little more leash. I'd be very surprised if he violated yet again again. Another gag order that she was continued to let him remain out on bond pending trial to that point we did see two hours after her order. Mr Stones Wife Start Posting about him photos of him and discussion about today's hearing on instagram that's obviously from her and not him WOULDA judge would a court usually expect that a defendant's immediate family members would respect the same sort of restriction that was imposed on the defendant. There's the spirit of the order which they're clearly violating and then there's the letter wrote the order which she apparently did not violate but this is not a judge to be trifled with remember. She didn't hesitate to revoke Mr Manafort sponde- when he was tampering with witnesses so I'm not sure <hes> Rachel that this is the straw that breaks this particular camel's back back but they're getting awfully close and it's not wise and by the way in the end because he will be a convicted felon. This will be the visual sentence him. Don't forget that I'm sure she won't forget it. Chuck Rosenberg Former U._S. attorney former senior Justice Department official check as always voice. Thank you stay with US best new thing in the world. Today we have not done one of these in a long time but come on you know we can use it all right. This is so great great folks at C. Span to a public service each in every day they broadcast the day to day happenings of the floor of Congress. No matter how long drawn out in boring you can imagine C.. Span employees get to see a lot. That's exciting but sometimes they get bored. Maybe they need a little innocent blowing off of steam who can blame blame them so great. This is the span of a roll-call from the houses resolution to condemn president trump tonight. Just listen through to the very end you do long Lalla Naser hundred eight seven. The resolution is adopted. Dude Not God bless you C.. Span God bless every single person who works for you best new thing in the world today that doesn't for US tonight. We'll see again tomorrow the wage you'll meadow show weeknights at nine eastern on M._S._N._B._C..

president Justice John Paul Stevens Supreme Court Congress President Donald Trump Roger Stone US Rachel attorney instagram House of Representatives America Federal Court President Ronald Reagan President John F. Kennedy Circuit Court of Appeals Sean Paul Stevens Guantanamo
"A Dark Underbelly"; A Steyer Calling; Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Dies

Anderson Cooper 360

47:03 min | 1 year ago

"A Dark Underbelly"; A Steyer Calling; Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Dies

"It's an edge of your seat. Thrill ride that will change overseas forever. The Movies Sundays Nine PM on C._N._N.. Tired of spending hundreds of dollars for prescription glasses visits any today at Xeni Dot dot com slash C._N._N.. Good Evening on the fiftieth anniversary of the launching the first mission to the moon another bit of history members of the House of Representatives tonight passed resolution condemning president of the United States for racism specifically president trump for his recent twitter tax on four non white congresswoman now just to refresh your memory. He told them to go back to their home countries. Even though three are from this country and the fourth is a naturalized American citizen just like first lady. Melania trump is in in his first wife as well so fifty years ago the first human being set foot on another celestial body and fifty years after that pioneering American accomplishment for all humanity this one giant leap for mankind only four Republicans broke ranks and supported the resolution in the meantime whatever efforts most Republicans or the White House or making to change the subject to pivot in Washington speak. They're not getting much help from the president himself or frankly from one of his key advisors Kellyanne Conway. Here's what the President tweeted this morning. Those tweets were not racist he wrote. I don't have a racist bone in my body. The so-called vote to be taken as a Democrat con game now. The president may know a lot what about CON Games but it's not clear how in touch with his body he really is a short time later. The man without a racist bone in his body allegedly again told the four non white congresswoman three of whom were born in America to leave comedy that they're not it's up to them the wherever they want. They can stay but they should love our country. They shouldn't hate our country. You look at what they've I've said I I have clips right here. The most vile horrible statements about our country about Israel about others <hes> it's up to them can do what they want. They can leave they can stay. They should love our country and they should work for the good of our country. So those are two of the administration's three fullbacks the president elsewhere also called the women socialists or communists in here. You heard the other two essentially America love it or leave it which in itself has is a pretty ugly history and not a racist but you are all anti-semite anti-semites and to be fair one of the congresswoman Ilan Omar apologize earlier this year for accusing Israel wielding too much power in Washington and suggesting that Jewish Americans have dual loyalties exact words. I WanNa talk about the political influence in this country that says it's okay for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country now that said the president has a long history of completing any criticism of Israel with anti-semitism and a presuming as he did after the tree of life massacre that Israel's ambassador somehow speaks for all Jewish Americans in any case if he is really truly trying to make this about anti-semitism. Perhaps it's not a good idea for one of his top advisors to have the following exchange with a reporter earning Feinberg the previous question if the president was not telling his four to return to their supposed countries countries which countries was referring. What's your ethnicity? He says bill because I'm ask you a question. My ancestors are from Ireland in Italy the one hundred to rush it is abby about he said originally said originally on and you know everything you said since and to have full show our conversation dependence already commented that they're already comment on that and he said a lot about this. He's put out a lot of tweets and he made himself available to all of yesterday interesting. He's tired he we a lot of us are sick and tired of this country of America coming last two people who sworn oath of office sick and tired of our military being denigrated sick and tired of the customs and Border Patrol people that protection checking people I was with who are overwhelmingly Hispanic by the way okay Kellyanne Conway. They're asking reporter his ethnicity now why she would do that who knows the reporter has since tweeted quote. I don't think she was being antisemitic and she tweeted quote. This was meant with no disrespect. We are all from somewhere else. Originally I asked the question to answer the question and volunteer my own ethnicity. Italian Irish like many I am proud of my ethnicity love the U._S._A.. Say and grateful to God to be an American all right if anyone can tell me what she actually cleared up with that tweet I would happily here from you. She meant no disrespect. She claims were all from somewhere originally. She says and she says she asked the question to answer the question. I honestly have no idea what that means. If you're looking for more clues to her intent at the same press event she said before Congress woman of Color Represents and I'm quoting a very very dark element in this country unquote and which she says she's sick of and also this morning on Fox News she said something similar listen. We're tired sick and tired of many people this country forget these for it they represent and <hes> a dark underbelly in this country of people who are not respecting our troops are not giving them the resources and the respect that they deserve does not just these for women of color they represent a dark underbelly in Kellyanne Conway's always and somehow she brought in the troops and that they're being disrespected and under funded by these four women and this dark underbelly has the president ever told Bernie Sanders you know arguably real socialist Elissa Democratic Socialists and occasional critic of the Israeli government who's obviously male and obviously white to go back where he came from. No he hasn't a lot to talk about right now. Too Republicans joined shortly with their tape but joining us now is democratic congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee Congresswoman Jackson Lee voted yes on this resolution tonight condemning the president's comments when the President says he doesn't have a racist bone in his body. I you know I always wonder how anybody can say that. We all have biases. We all have things that we need to work on. What do you make of what is going on right now? Well Anderson. I'm hoping by the four hundred two hundred forty person vote today that there's some sense of calmness and harmony brought to the American people enter the United States Congress it was a bipartisan vote and it rejects really the president's own interpretation of himself and the distortion that he is given to America's America's values and takes away the distraction that he always seems to want to put in play. I don't know whether he wants to call himself racist or whether he has a racist bone but his words and many of I know that words can be inciting and they can provoke war over peace. How do you say that a federal judge of Hispanic background is a Mexican and cannot be fair? How can you say that five boys vindicated in New York for a crime they did not do are either still guilty or be part of a hanging crowd that puts a New York Times ad that says execute them or how do you talk about s whole countries I think the president has to have to look inward and that's why this resolution h res- four eighty nine and arrests that I put in a trance four nine four captures his words but it also captures the essence of the goodness of America so Mr President? Let me just say I don't know what the definition of racism is but I do know that your words words your words that you have offered to the American people are racist. You said this was a bipartisan vote. The truth is only four of your Republican colleagues supported it well. I think we had four and went independent. That's a good number because obviously my good friends unfortunately rather than seeking to bring us together. They chose to walk in the drumbeat of president trump and that's unfortunate but I will never give Oh bob on reaching out for them to have a better understanding that the nation should be promoted over the wishes of the president the word demagogue is where we use last night and and basically meet somebody for viewers who don't know basically being somebody somebody who uses other people's prejudices or bias is for political purpose and it seems like whatever is in the president's head or in his heart he is. I mean he's playing with very dangerous. Themes Very Rau- dangerous themes that have a terrible history in this country and there's a real danger to this and then to categorize it as you know this dark element and they don't want to support the military and they're sending thing messages the military that it's only the White House and the Republicans who are supporting them in funding them. Does it worry you that these are these are deep waters here but interestingly enough Anderson as I was coming here I I heard heard some commentary about the fear of an individual who said the next step is violence. We must not suffer violence when I spoke on the floor today indicated when my colleague said why are we doing this we could be voting on education Asian bills or infrastructure bills. I said Dr King said why we can't wait a we cannot wait to stifle out the violence and it is a concern and the reason is concerned. We know the era of Germany in the nineteen thirties and we know how how the history suggests that individuals who felt that they were left out were provoked by those who wanted to use that for their own advantage. The President now has one distraction at the border where he thought immigration was going to be his selling ticket for victory in two thousand twenty now he sees the American people Paul that the way children are being treated and just plain human beings being treated at the border and he is not any more successful in that narratives he was with the border wall. So what else does he do. Then then he begins to characterize four very fine women distinguished members of Congress who I believe are as patriotic as any others and love the country because they have backgrounds that would suggest that this country is a place that they could work with and make things better how would he characterize them as hating the military absolutely absurd but it is a distraction and a narrative the same one that he used for the birther movement for President Obama so it has to be good people have to stand up and though Dr King is no longer with US and other peacemakers that worked through the various movements of this nation it is our responsibility and that's why we took that vote two hundred forty members of Congress. I wish there were more on the other side of the aisle but we made a statement on behalf behalf of the American people jackson-lee appreciate your time tonight. Thank you thank you for having me coming up next live report on how this all played out behind the scenes dramatically at times on the floor later my conversation with a man you probably know from all those impeachment commercials Tom Star why he he is now. Entering the race to be the Democratic nominee for president support for Anderson Cooper three sixty comes from our friends at rocket mortgage by quicken loans imagine how it feels to have an award winning team by your side through every step of the the mortgage process. It's awesome an exactly what you get with rocket mortgage by quicken loans. Their team of mortgage experts is obsessed with finding a better way which means that their number one goal is to make the home buying process smoother for you with a history of industry leading online lending technology. She developed in the heart of Detroit rocket. Mortgage is changing the game visit rocket mortgage dot com slash A. C. Three sixty and take the first step toward the home of your dreams equal housing lender licensed in all fifty states nmlsconsumeraccess.org number thirty thirty rocket mortgage mortgage by quicken loans push-button. Get mortgage talking tonight about the vote I condemn the president for racist tweets at the outset we were interested in how many if any Republicans would vote for it in the end as I said four did to from swing states to from Red States one African American independent just in a marsh a former Republican also voting yes. He voted coming up shortly. How some Republican women voters see all of this but first C. N.? N.'s Phil Mattingly joins us now from the capital so you have four Republicans albertans voted for the resolution. Is it a surprise it was that small surprise that four actually did you know it's interesting. Anderson is over the course yesterday. So at least scattered number of Republicans rebuked the president asked him to pull back his tweets save the tweet asking for Democratic members of Congress to go home was wrong that shifted today this morning the president tweeting that all Republicans should line up against the resolution of Condemnation House Republican leadership showing a united front behind the president and I'm told behind the scenes means House Republican leaders made clear to their rank and file they should support the president. They called the Resolution a distraction. They said it was a personal attack on the president and what we saw over the course of the day is what we've seen repeatedly over the course of the last two and a half years when issues become partisan addison want becomes Democrat versus Republican Republicans lineup behind President Trump going into the vote Anderson. I was told five at most maybe as few as three it ended up with four and one independent the reality is when it comes down to it regardless of the tweets the public comments or the doubling down the Republican Party is the Party of President Trump and Republicans will line up behind him just about every time machine that lesson over and over Phil Mattingly thank you of the many questions being asked over the past few days. One of them has been what does all this mean for the Republican Party for that part of the story to conservative C._N._n.. Political commentators former Republican National Committee chief of Staff Mike Shields and Amanda Carpenter who served as communications director for Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz Mike. What does it say that that four Republicans voted to condemn the president? I think that it says that most of them didn't and I think that they saw what Kevin McCarthy said today that this is about politics the House Democrats want to condemn some things they think are racism but not other things they think are racism and their own caucus and I think this is where we are. This is the partisan the place that we are the Democratic Party is now essentially the we don't like Donald Trump is a person is party. They've won control of the House. They have no real agenda their their candidates in the in the primary debates tried to talk about policies here comes the squad todd in and Nancy Pelosi to bring us right back to. Let's just hate on trump every single day. That's what's filtering down to the American people and so what it says to Republicans is that this is all politics and the country doesn't care. They want to actually do something to make their lives. Is Better Amanda. Is that what it says the country I think it says something different listen. I understand Washington. I've worked there and how party politics work and everybody holds hands and jumps together on tough votes but what about just normal people I know that if I were in a supermarket or on my children's playground or in my church and somebody came in and pointed a some minority and said get out of here and go back to your country I know where I would stand and it wouldn't be with the person who who said that horrible thing. Tell them to get out and say it's time to leave Sir <hes> we can't tell the presence leave fully understand that <hes> the resolution isn't GonNa make them leave the only thing that's GonNa make him change is when he's threatened in by political power and the Republicans have lined up behind him and it's really hard to watch a lot of people just turn into monsters defending this guy and so it's fine for the Democrats do realize that resolution is not going to do anything I think every time he says does one of these horrible racist things there should be a nationwide petition drive for every person commits to registering ten new voters. That's the only way that I can think to tame him and it's the only thing that could possibly discipline. These people people who keep falling in line Mike this the Republicans interpret. This is just all about politics you know Kellyanne Conway is now saying that you know there's this dark element. Widespread is not just these four and they hate the troops and that they're trying to fund the troops and they don't support the troops. I mean isn't that just pure politics. I mean there's no I don't know where she look pivoting yeah and let me be clear. I don't think the president should should've tweeted what he tweeted. I I think it's wrong and I don't think it's the right thing to do and I'm glad he clarified that today and sort of said people that don't like the country. He's trying to cast it as that I think Kellyanne was also trying to get to that conversation. There is a cultural conversation conversation going on right. Now we have people that are kneeling during the national anthem. We have people that erected in a Mexican flag over an ice facility. <hes> there are conservatives who think America is great and needs to be better and there are some people on the left who think that America is I. They some bad had the Michelle Obama said the first time I've ever been proud of my country is when Barack Obama got elected and there's some people on the left that culturally believed that they want to change what America is and there's people on the right that WanNa make America better. That's a cultural clash. That's the conversation the president's trying to have. I think the squad is playing what they want to have the same conversation as well. That's the real political conversation that's going on here. I guess it's just hard to watch every day now because donald trump were debating whether he's racist. I think it's pretty clear he is in when we're talking about the the country. Yeah that's fine. I'm not going to debate you on it. I know what he says. I know how he acts. I know when I go into a parking lot and very red places in America and there's a trump sticker on the back of the truck in a minority walks by and sees it and takes a step back. That is the connotation that Donald Trump has an America so if you WANNA talk about the trickle down effect and with the culture wars there's people who who are scared and there is no debating whether he's racist they don't care. What do you think they know what they know? I know what I know. I know where I would stand. If someone in my regular life said the things he said and it would never be with him. What like you know somebody who clear you know you work for the Republican Party you love you know? This is something you go to your life to do. You believe the Don trump is is a demagogue. I mean that he is basically praying whether he believes this stuff or not whatever whatever is in his head or in his heart that he is using people's biases or their deep held prejudices or fears and playing on that to maintain power that that is the definition of a demagogue yeah two things first of all I think the president regardless of your race or background loves you if you agree with them and I think the president regardless of your race or background doesn't like if you don't agree with him and he does seem to be able to go after he does. He does seem to be able to go after people of color with a particular bler particular Uzi Azam. I mean you know it's it's calling African American football players sons a bitches people who says that people Nigeria live in huts and that come from countries and they have AIDS I mean he does seem to have a particular zest for going after people he perceives as different and or weaker in some way and yet there are people of color that a his supporters that he holds up and praises and talk show and all the other people you gotta give and what's what really matters to him is what is is look. I think Brock Obama was was a demagogue. I believe Nancy. Pelosi is a demagogue. I believe they're Democrats that where we are in the polarized politics that we were in the country is leading us to a place where this is the kind of rhetoric we have an both sides are playing into it. We saw it today. The House floor voting on this is a completely demagogic thing to the fear that a man is talking about Democrats stoke it because they think they benefit from it all right. We gotTA leave their. Mike Shields Appreciate Amanda Carpenter. Thank you still to come tonight. WHY President trump seemingly cannot quit attacking those four female lawmakers and the reaction to this racist attacks from some female members of his base support for Anderson Cooper three sixty comes from our friends at rocket mortgage mortgage by quicken loans? Their team of mortgage expert is obsessed with finding a better way which means that their number one goal is to make the home buying process smoother for you get started online rocket mortgage dot com slash A. C. three sixty equal housing lender licensed in all fifty states nmlsconsumeraccess.org less consumer access dot org number thirty thirty what's going on at the White House and on Capitol. Hill is not the only part of today's story the House vote condemning the president's tweets next year voters are of course GonNa have their say so we were curious whether the president's base was still behind him particularly weeklies female supporters did any object to his racist attack on the four female lawmakers or is it all just politics as Mike said earlier three sixties indicates spoke with some of them in Dallas. How many of you don't think what the president said was racist? Raise your hand. These eight Republican women from Dallas don't see anything wrong with president trump telling four democratic congresswoman to go back where they came from. He was saying that if they hate America so much because what we're seeing out of them and hearing hiring out of them they hate America. If it's so bad there's a lot of places they can go. I'm a brown skinned woman. I am illegal immigrants. I agree with you think that's racist not at all. Actually I think it's just I know it's a demonstration of how their ideology spills over even though they're American now sub speak they're not acting American. I'm glad that the president said what he said because all they're doing healing is it they're they're they're inciting hatred and division and that's not what our country's about we. It's it's not about that at all and I know the president's does with some of his own comments his own racist. He didn't say anything about color color. We know the president is not racist. He loves people from Hispanics Black People all across the board. Let me just share with you. The definition of racism from Merriam Webster Dictionary a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race based on that definition. Do you not think the president has been saying to these black lament for two years. Two of his wives are immigrants He. He is not a xenophobic racist. If the first black billionaire is endorsing president trump. How can you call him racist so these these Congressmen who said they ran for Congress ran for office because they explicitly love this country? You're saying that's a lie so yes say they hate this country. Yes to these questions it's clearly that they're very manipulative to cubes as instead of extracting the truth. It's a tactic because when you say you know. Don't you think he's racist. You're accusing US Your Casey. I'm not accusing me. I'm asking you what you think how we attack. It's relevant it has nothing to do with the real issue has nothing to do with the premise of the issues here xactly and in whatever color framework why do you keep. Do you think it's just a coincidence. These four congresswoman that the president is going after none of them are white. I don't think it matters. It's idiotic the Arctic we'll have all out there saying so it doesn't matter whether they're white man woman brown yellow anything. I wish that the white ones that they are they not racist how come they befriended one of their white female congresswoman my colleagues and her joy as they won't too good point Mike White people come on their racist at how many of you still plan to vote for president trump absolutely absolutely Randi Kaye C._N._n.. Dallas perspective now Maggie Haberman New York Times White House correspondents political analysts also seen director David Challen <hes> I I don't know how that the last lady knows who they are friends with and not friends with the idea that they have no white friends seems odd to me that she would project that onto them David the president going out of his way to make these four liberal progressive congresswomen in the face the Democratic Party clearly or become the face of the Democratic Party away from we saw in Randi's piece that strategy certainly seem I mean if that is actually part of a strategy or if it's just part of the add on effect of his going after them it certainly seems to be having success with with the women in that room no doubt about about that and <hes> we should also mention Anderson this is a tried and true tactic from previous presidents of both parties to take <hes> in terms of trying to create a Boogie men or women right he used to be Teddy Kennedy Kennedy and Hillary Clinton that Republican or Newt Gingrich's conservatism would be used in held up but it was all policy based it was all ideological differences that that is what the scare tactic was if you will for for political currency what Donald Trump is doing that is different here is he's doing it all as those tweets indicated based on race and gender and religion not about policy now I know he's trying to correct that in the days after his team is trying to spin that in a way in the days after but that tweet that what he was doing there was not based on policy at all. That's what made this if as you said if this really was political strategy different <hes> this time around but this isn't really any different than when Irish immigrants were here fleeing the famine and they weren't allowed into restaurants they weren't given jobs they were told to go home then and a wave Italian immigrants came and they were castigated and told to go back to their home that they weren't loyal Catholics. Were told you know my dad grow Mississippi believing that a Catholic in his neighborhood had a secret tunnel in their backyard byard that went to the Vatican so they could convene have secret instructions from the pope. I mean there is that we have a history of other rising people and that's where the president's playing sure this. This is a president who grew up in a certain moment in time in New York City where <hes> all politics were tribal and race based and almost every politician in New York City in the seventies and eighties used race in some way or another and it worked and that is where Donald Trump learned what he knows about politics that is not a defense by any stretch of the imagination of what he is doing but that's why it is a tactic. I don't think it is a strategy that strategy implies that he's got some drawn out plan. I think that he just kind of stumbles into these things after he reacts and then he finds a way why they can be good for him. <hes> there is a long history of ushering in this country. <hes> three of these women <hes> are born here. <hes> one was not <hes> and telling three women I mean I still have to keep coming back to the reality of him. Trying to say over several days he wasn't really saying that we have heard Donald trump and his aides say for four years when when he says something <hes> that is controversial and he usually leaves himself out they say he wasn't really saying with the media said he is clearly saying what we all said he said he repeated it repeatedly and then and then he then tried to turn it into socialism the difference here is the president of the United States saying it this way. I don't really recall anything certainly not since World War Two of a president of the United States saying go back to your country. I mean David when when when you're in a bar and some drunk person is yelling at somebody else and go back to where you came came from you know you can address that person you can walk away. You can just throw your hands up and say okay. This is some drunk idiot <hes> when somebody you know roll down a window and screams at somebody on the street go back to where you came from but this I mean this is the frigging President United States. I just find the the so depressing that we're sitting here. Actually just like politely discussing you know the President United States telling Americans a naturalized or in the majority of the case these four actual born here native born Americans and naturalized Americans are just as American. They're telling you to go home. I mean it's it's just depressing. I mean I don't care if it's politics. I don't you know whatever whatever it is. I just think it is a really really depressing time at totally agree with you. It is depressing and that's why I think it's so important Anderson that what we are as you say politely discussing this that we do separate out the Predator. The president's behavior here has nothing. It's it's not partisan. It's not politics that that racism deserves to its own attention of what it is and it is not in a bar you are right these but and of course that should not surprise us because Donald Trump has not treated the office of the presidency as someplace to behave differently than he did as a private citizen never that has not been the case. He's taken how he has behaved as a private citizen into the Oval Office. See No reason it shouldn't exist in that context as well but but to insert what he's doing into the typical sort of back and forth Cable News Partisan Lens I think misses the point of this moment entire this goes much deeper and these are faultlines in America in American culture and history. They're very dangerous. Jurist pry open deeper and deeper and for Kellyanne Conway who campaigned against him before she was with him to now be saying oh they're against the military. They don't support the military. I mean again. It's just it's really depressing Maggie Haberman. Thank you Dave just ahead my one on one with Tom. Star the billionaire running for president as the outsider populist is reaction to the president's racist remarks and why he thinks he is the one to beat Donald Trump. No one knew what it Donald. You guys are terrible taking care of their health. Whether it's a knee injury bad back or something worse guys usually more comfortable rub some dirt on it than seeing a doctor. I'm guilty of it myself. The same is true for erectile dysfunction study. Shows seventy percent of guys who experience D don't get treated for it. Thankfully Roman created an easy way to chat with a doctor online with Roman. You can get medical care for E._D.. Appropriate from the comfort and privacy of your own home you can handle everything online and inconvenient convenient discreet manner getting started as simple just go to get Roman dot com slash A. C. Three sixty incomplete an online visit. If your doctor decides the treatment would be appropriate they can prescribe genuine medication that can meet delivered in discreet packaging right to your door with free two day shipping guys go talk to the doctor. Erectile dysfunction can be tough to tackle but it's really important to get checked out with Roman. It's easy to connect with a doctor. Just go to get Roman dot com slash A._C.. Three sixty to get a free online visit is it and free two day shipping. That's Roman dot com slash A. C.. Three sixty for a free visit to get started. GET ROMAN DOT com slash A. C. Three sixty the latest candidate to enter the race for the Democratic nomination for president is Tom Steyer is he's a billionaire. One Time Hedge Fund investor most recently he spent millions on impeachment ads against the president but his focus is bigger than that he says we began our discussion with the racist remarks president trump. I tweeted on Sunday first first of all these these new tweets from the president to start with this but you see them as racist. Did they surprise you at all look there obviously racist and he's obviously going after some of the most progressive important Horton leaders in the Democratic Party but this is what this president does is. He creates a fuss. He creates a confrontation. He in effect has a big circus going so people don't pay a lot of attention to his failed policies. That's what he does. He tries to get attention to get away from what actually matters to him and his bluster and his racism. Do you feel like you know how to run against him. I mean have you gone against people like this in your life because you know what Sixteen Republicans in two thousand sixteen who thought they knew how to run against him and didn't listen Donald Trump is a failed businessman if you look at he has a path of bankrupt casinos and banker businesses that he's left. He's following following the exact same strategy in the United States of America for twenty seven years thirty years. I was in the private sector very successfully building Berry small investment business into a very large investment so if you're running against him. Do you go tweet for tweet. Do you ignore do what no I think. The right thing to two things you need to one is it can't be about him. The question for the American people is what is the vision of what we can do together going forward. What do we need to do to get this country back on track? We have a broken government. It's basically corrupted by corporate cash. How do we return power to the people of buying for the people everybody? That's actually the question in front of Sanderson but but you so far I mean the question that has brought you into most people's consciousness. snus lately has been the impeachment question which is what you put a lot of money behind running ads for it brought you into headlines. You're saying you're running on more than just getting rid of Donald Trump. Oh absolutely look the question for the American people is not Donald Trump. The question for the American people is what do we do to get this country back on track to retake our government actually for the last ten years Anderson what I've been doing as an outsider is trying to get power back to the people directly directly in every way I can't I mean I've run propositions across the United States where you go around the legislature that is controlled by corporations and go directly to the people and have a vote and I also started the biggest grassroots organization in the United States of America the next Gen America. This is about an outsider taking on an breaking the corporate stranglehold on her government. That's the question in America. That's certainly how Donald Trump positioned himself whether you believe he was so good businessman or or not that was he was the outsider he was going to drain the swamp on these tweets does it. Do you think this kind of stuff works because look. There's a lot of people who you know. Sitting in a bar might say you know these people should get out of America if they if they're are they don't like it. They're not from here. The he is echoing something that's out there now. He wants to frame this election in the way he wants but what's really important for the American people is something completely different. If you listen to the Democrats let's have a series of policies all of them important and nuance which healthcare policy which green new deal and on the real question though is we have a broken government. We can't deal with the basics of what's going on and the question is how how do we break that. That's what Americans but just being elected president which is obviously big step. That doesn't on break a government. We need to go to the people in this election. This is going to be a huge turnout election. It's going to be a generational. It'll change election in the question is what is the vision. We're going to organize around and the vision has to be in my opinion only two things we only need two things we need to break the corporate control of our government and we need to deal with climate change on day one. Are you the person though to do this talk about generational change no disrespect but <hes> you're not the the youngest person in the race. You're also wouldn't be the oldest certainly but you know the criticism has been a Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden and that Joe Biden's out of the game you really you haven't been in the rough and tumble in in this major funder of Democrats over the last ten years. I respectfully disagree for the last ten years as an outsider I have been taking on the corporations operations and winning Bernie Sanders said look. We get exactly what he said. I'm bit tired of seeing billionaires trying to buy political power was with Warren has also sort of invaded the same kind of thing. How do you respond to that is is a billionaire really what America needs look look? I think the question here is whether America needs as an outsider. The real question is who is going to connect with Americans and who can actually do what I'm talking about which is to break this corporate strangled. Let me say one other thing. If you look at the four people who are the top candidates in the pulse. They're all either senators former senators. They've been there for a combined over seventy years so the real question is if you want if you realize this is the point that to get any healthcare plan to get any green new deal. Get any of the things that we want. We're GONNA actually have to break this corporate stronghold. Should you go with an outsider. Who's been doing it successfully head to head with corporations or should you go to somebody from Washington if you if you enter the race you run a tough race? You don't get the nomination would you are you pledging to support whoever the Democratic nominee is absolutely supporters known initially support with your time we'll we were the biggest grassroots organization the United States. We were on four hundred twenty college campuses just as a number you know we knocked on tens of millions of you. Are you would get all of that behind. I've read the Democrat I told the people in organizations full speed ahead. We're going to do that. There's there's no question here. This is an emergency. I think one of the big differences I think we're in an emergency Anderson. That's why I'm running is because I think we have simple things to do but they're hard. We'd better name them and go after them and do them and so you know when someone says because I've got four kids. I felt like I cannot sleep unless we deal with this out because the other thing that's true is if we solve those things we are in a great position as a country. Yeah we can do all the things we want. We can get health care for every weekend. Get Quality Public Education from pre K. through college with skills training for your life we can guarantee clean air and clean water as a right for every American. We can have a living wage for every American we have. We're the very rich people keep acting like we're broke. We can't afford to do anything we're failed society. That's absolutely wrong. We can put ourselves by doing those two things in the best the position of any people in the history of the world. Do you pledge to if you don't get the nomination to not run as a third party absolutely not I. I'm a Democrat I would never do that so absolutely not would not run coach Independent. No I would never do that. I'm a Democrat I will support the downs some star appreciator Tom Anderson Cooper. What a treat? Thanks very much the interview around a lot longer than that. You can see the whole thing online sad news to report at C._N._N.. dotcom or A._B._C. through sixty dot com. We also sad news to report right now. Breaking News Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has died really look back at his legacy and quite a legacy it was he was the third longest serving Supreme Court justice when we come back remember to create an ad like this one visit pure winning dot com slash C._N._N.. This breaking news and it is sad news even more so given the rest of the news today retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens had died following a stroke in Fort Lauderdale Florida. He was ninety ninety nine years old chicken quickly with Chris what he's going to be working on for Cuomo Primetime today will be covering this as well Chris well. It's hard to argue with a ninety nine year life but the legacy will extend even farther than that is a reflection of a time gone past for the Supreme Court. Frankly we are in a hyper partisan period. We see it with these tweets. Can you believe that only four members of the Republican Congress would openly condemn with this president said as racist gotTa tell I am a little surprised but really we're going to go through. I am a little surprised. I really believe that. This was bigger than politics I really do there is no other way to look at what he said. Everybody knows what it's about especially this president but we are where we are. We will show you the numbers why why the Republicans were so afraid to acknowledge what everybody knows to be true all right Chris. We'll be looking at that about six minutes from now. John Paul Stevens was a true voice of moderation. True champion of the Law Pamela Brand Brown has a look back added a remarkable life and career John Paul Stevens was a conservative Republican when President Gerald Ford nominated him to the Supreme Court in Nineteen seventy five but he stepped down more than three decades later later as a leader of the liberal side of the bench arguing the court change not as judicial philosophy has moved dramatically. That's right and I guess a radical word may well apply <music> Stevens grew up in his family Chicago Hotel. During the roaring twenties and World War Two he analyzed radio signals for the navy before becoming a lawyer Judge and Supreme Court justice he retired at ninety years old replaced by President President Obama Appointee Elena Kagan justice Stevens is probably one of the least known justices publicly and it's ironic because he has had is big an impact on the Supreme Court in American society as any justice and his career Stevens voted in favor of abortion rights affirmative action and gay rights long before it became mainstream in nineteen eighty six when I was clerking for the Supreme Court issued an opinion that said that it was okay to have criminal penalties for gay consensual sex seventeen years later Supreme Court reversed that opinion and said Justice Stevens was right in his dissent in that case near the end of his tenure in two thousand eight he strongly wrongly oppose the death penalty firmly believe it's unwise policy I think is more difficult question as to whether it's a constitutionally permissible punishment when Stevens view did not carry the day he crafted powerful dissents in citizens united a landmark two thousand nine campaign finance case the majority rule the government could not Bam political spending by corporations his dissent Stevens accused the majority of rejecting as he put it the common sense of American people. He didn't mince words about the two thousand decision cleared the way for George W Bush's presidency writing quote the identity of the loser is perfectly clear in as the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law. What are some of the other areas where the court ruled in a way you wish it he really had well? Do we have just an hour Stevens also disagreed with his liberal colleagues when the court ruled burning in an American flag was considered protected free speech he said quote sanctioning the public desecration of the flag will tarnish its value both for those who cherish the ideas for which it waves and for those who desire to down the robes of martyrdom by burning it. I don't think anybody who heard him read that dissent the passion with which he looked at the flag and what it meant for him could really ever think about the American flag the same way when you look at it whatever you thought about the legal issue on the the bench was known as a soft-spoken mid-westerner with a Syrian intellect extreme <hes> gentlemen leanness a courtly manner with one of the most acute razor-sharp minds. Frankly that's ever sat on the court Stevens retired heard in twenty ten receiving the Presidential Medal of freedom two years later and in two thousand eighteen after a school shooting in Florida he pinned op Ed calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment he was ninety seven years old at the time but John Paul Stevens wins mind and his words were still razor-sharp join us now by phone C. N. N. legal analyst and Supreme Court Biographer Joan Bisque Biscuit Pick Joan you know the history. The court has as well as anyone. Let's talk about John Paul. L. Stevens is legacy. You know Anderson just what Pam said right now about how razor-sharp he was. I just talked to him about a month ago. He just finished his latest book and he still wanted to be so much a part of the dialogue dialogue in America and I think one thing he did was offer exhibit A. to the kind of <hes> promise that Chief Justice John Roberts has said there are no such thing as oh Baba judges or trump on judges because and point the public Gerald Ford in one thousand nine hundred seventy five and he certainly couldn't have been predicted as someone who voted along the Republican Party lines he offered such a moderate to liberal leaning view at the end of his life. He wanted to ensure a greater protections for free speech. Although he really thought free speech <hes> he really fought conservative effort to lift regulation of campaign finance he continued to argue for <hes> <hes> narrower gun rights he opposed the Supreme Court's ruling broadening broadening the ability to <hes> have gun ownership rather than regulation so across the board more than thirty years influencing all areas of American life <hes> just an extraordinary legacy again the third longest serving a Supreme Court Justice Joan cubic appreciate it Chris. We'll have more on the life and the legacy of justice Stevens News continues one and handed over crystal Cuomo prime-time Chris. I am Bill Kristol feeling confused about politics.

president President Trump President America Anderson Cooper United States Congress Republican Party Kellyanne Conway President Obama White House Democratic Party Don trump Senator Ted Cruz Mike Washington Supreme Court Dr King Bernie Sanders Brock Obama Israel
THE BOURNE IDENTITY w/Paul Goetz and Dr. Steve Ramirez

Bad Science

45:55 min | 10 months ago

THE BOURNE IDENTITY w/Paul Goetz and Dr. Steve Ramirez

"Hi Guys My name's what is her name. I can't remember my name. Sorry I can't remember name room from anything about myself but I still know how to host a podcast. Thank God today. We're talking about the Bourne identity. A lot of people writing in saying they wanted to hear about a contagion and so we are GonNa do contagion on a different episode. That will be coming up But this is our first remote quarantined episode. But I'm very excited about it. It was so much fun to record and this movie is Awesome Bourne identity rules. I've always loved it so let's get right into it and I will see you later. My Name Is David Frost That can't be it's no I know what it is. It's Charles McClintock. Did the movie or will we have to fight cyber welcome to bed science. I'm easing Edinburgh today. We are talking about the Bourne identity in the first ever add signs recording from my apartment. So that's exciting and I guess somewhat frightening also to help me get into all of that. I have two very wonderful guest first of all You might remember him from What episode was it fall? We did like they've got episode zeal. We did the Gods L. episode. He's a good friend of mine. He's an actor writer and improviser. Paul Gets Hello. Hello good to be back sort of back. Now I am I am I screwing this out. Well I mean a little bit. You're chop your little shop. Feel you're me a little bit delay but we are going to power through and deal with it joining us and hopefully helping us through. This tremendous time that we're all living in is a professor of neuroscience at B. U. It's Dr Steve Ramirez. I thank you for having me. Yes thank you for digitally joining us and I hope this is not driving you up the wall. No not at all. I only pacing up and down my bedroom right now. So can't be too bad okay. Good so maybe we actually blame you for the lag because you're moving so much so that satellites are having a hard time like configuring your location. I am pacing also so we can share the blame. Okay so anyway. We're talking about the Bourne identity today. Which came out in two thousand and two and I was already just off the bat shock that it was eighteen years ago. This movie came out because I remember when it came out and before we dive into it. There's a few things here. I wanted to mention specifically deductor. Steve Because I was looking stuff about you. And there's just a fascinating articles since we are talking about memory. Today our protagonist loses his memory. You famously implanted. False memories into mice. Is that correct? Yeah that's correct. So we had a handful of experiments where we were able to either artificially reactivate memories of mice or actually implant false memories in my says. Well okay now so that people don't think that you are some sort of evil sorcerer for the rest of this podcast. Can you explain why you were doing that? Or what the memories were yes. So what the reason why. We want to be able to artificially reactivate memories is to really figure out two things it's like. What does this tell us about how memory works? And what does this tell us about? How the brain works or how the brain can work really so you can imagine cases where you can reactivate positive memories. Let's say in an animal that we think is model certain symptoms of depression. Or You could imagine being able to really turn the volume down on the emotional oops of let's say negative memory in an animal that we think is modeling things like PTSD anxiety so at the end of the day. It's really twofold. It's to try to figure out. How does this remarkable thing that we called memory actually work and then can we hijack it even to try to give it some kind of therapeutic purpose? We normally don't think of memory as a kind of drug but in this case if we can artificially leverage may we can't push it into that kind of therapy like territory. Wow that's fascinating and so and you're able to have some modicum of success right. I mean you were able to make their do might have depression. I feel like I'm going crazy. Just talking about this But you're able to kind of alleviate their their stress or or remind them a better time where they were meeting female mice gasol basically with the idea of planting a false memory. It's twofold so we can get an animal for instance to be scared of an environment where nothing bad actually happened there or the opposite we get an animal actually really like an environment that it's in even though something good didn't happen there. Okay you think this can be replicated on humans like why. Can we not do this now? Because I'm scared of stuff all the time and we'd love to avoid that. Yeah so we think maybe down the line in a sense because the way that we do this it's really invasive and it requires a brain surgery and genetic engineering brain cells to do all sorts of things and we're not going to be doing that in humans anytime soon and to an extent we don't really have to write like if I want to reactivate a memory in you. I don't have to go in and start engineering your brain to do all sorts of fun stuff. I could just ask you. Would you do last night. And then you got like that memory now comes out of dormancy and it comes back our mind and it's now active so I think that what we're doing an animal's at the very least. I hope can be kind of blueprint for what we may be able to do in humans one day and ideally in as noninvasive of a manner as possible while. Okay Yeah. I hope you're right. Also I wanted to just ask before because I have tons of memory questions. I'm fascinated by memory as listeners of the podcast may know but because of what's going on right now I thought I should bring up the fact that everyone's talking about the virus sicknesses just on everyone's minds right now on the TV's on their phones. And I know that the brain is incredibly powerful in ways that we barely understand. And so do you fear people thinking that they're sick which can turn into actual sickness I think you know there is this kind of you. Can't stress yourself out too much. Of course you can really kind of spiraled down this most anxiety rabbit hole that can exist for sure so I have no doubt that you know with everything with the virus going on right now. This is practically the entire world's mind right now and maybe it depends on the kind of person tune. Everybody is different. Like you could imagine that if you're already susceptible to the effects of stress or anxiety than everything happening in the world right now absolutely does not help. But you don't want the opposite to where you're so free going and stuff that you just kind of ignore what's happening in the world too so I think that a little bit of stress and anxiety tends to be a good thing because it keeps us on edge it helps us from actually making bad decisions and you know I have no doubt at the least lift. What's happening right now in the world that this is really making a permanent stamp on people's brains right. I mean you. Have you have the whole world paying attention to one thing and that rarely happens? Yeah Are we past the point of handshaking? Do you guys think that that's over now for the foreseeable future. Maybe I would really be more concerned about losing the high five personally. I'm just more of a high five Guy Luke but that's rare people don't really high five. You know the time in real life. People don't like it. Hi Fi but it's fun. I like I five. It's kind of interesting because right now I mean like you know. We'll we'll be going through this for a while and this is something that I told my lab. We already shut down and stuff and everyone's at home trying to be safe and have good practices and so on but I told them like the entire world is basically usually the world asks you to be a Good Samaritan Contribute to some 'cause pay for this go out to the world and do something in the whole world right now is just asking us like look. Just do nothing I just stay home and literally do-nothing and it's interesting to see how many people actually have a hard time doing nothing and I mean I'm I'm one of them when it comes to getting a little bit like Ansi actually needing to get stuff done but hopefully hopefully. It's something that with on. Let me just we're talking about neuroscience and science in general. Hopefully that this is one of those things that the miracle that is science in and of itself in the people behind it could really continue to push forward for a cure vaccine. Yeah I'm definitely relying on people like you to figure this out and solve this and I'm trying to stay productive and work. It feels like almost a return to older times in in hopefully good way where we can concentrate on our home life and I don't know what people do garden. I guess play chess. Oh Yeah I mean even you know walking around like just being on my balcony and seeing people walk by people are waiting more than being a little bit more friendly in even though that there is this blanket of tension for sure you could tell that there is a little bit of a withdrawal going on in terms of actually socializing and actually be able to have some kind of face to face interaction and I mean the high five is a great example. I was just talking with my partner about like you know. What if we lose the handshake? That's the elbow bump is going to come in like. That's going to be the new handshake and it's going to be really interesting to see how many of these different kind of norms. We ended up adopting long-term as well. It's it's funny to think that normally you would think of someone not greeting you with a hearty handshake as being unkind but now it's an ultimate kindness to have someone stay away from you right so really nice thing doing right thing. I also really enjoy it. How much of a performance handwashing is now? I don't know how soon I'll be in another public bathroom but the last time I was I was. It was made very apparent that everyone was washing their hands. Under hot water for twenty seconds or more of your washes your hand for five seconds or less. You just GONNA get distinct guy from everybody there because guy. That's really funny. It's not just about like people who don't wash their hands are treated as criminals and the police need to be called. But if you've watched your hands for like five ten seconds and it's like wow what an asshole. I can't believe him. There's no way that water got hot. There's no way I checked it. Yeah okay so let's let's hop into the movie for a second. We'll we'll kind of hot back just because that's how my brain works which maybe you can explain to me. Steve. I like to mix things up but the movie starts if you in case you haven't seen it with Matt Damon in the water. He's found by a boat and he doesn't remember anything about himself and there was a few things right off the top like he has these bullet holes in his back and I specifically because I know Paul really wanted your thoughts if you even notice that like the bullet holes looked like a perfect circle in his back the anyone see that but yeah Oh yeah absolutely. I was wondering it looked like the bullets really smashed flat against his back muscles like immediately like they got in and then they stopped and I was wondering how often that happens and specifically when it comes to that scene. I wrote down the opening sequence with the surgeon. Sailor was awesome. I was like you never get this. You never get. Oh okay immediately. The first guy we see knows just what to do. And it's surgery you. You just get so much information right away. I was thrilled. I was thrilled by the INTRO Steve Dunn Surgery. I think mostly brain surgery but did the did that. Look Kosher to you. Do you approve of his methods. Convenient that you know. The person that's on the boat knows exactly what to do to get to perform the stuff because usually you know this was real life and somebody washes on washes up on a boat late that you're like well crap. I have no idea what to do right now. Other than doctors but it was interesting. The pattern of bullets for shared in terms of memory. Like it's interesting to think of like what were the. What was the kind of damage that happened to the brain whether it was you know inhaling too much water while being underwater or the trauma of actually being shot at and losing consciousness? Princeton's am I really trying to tease out? Which is the one that produced Anisia or maybe it was just a combination of both in this case. Why can't remember throughout the movie yet is? Is that a is. I mean that's like the big question of the movie I guess. Is this a likely scenario? Or even if it's unlikely or if it's a rare is that just a common thing that could happen where you're either because you're shot in a certain part? I thought maybe it had to do with like his spine or yet being unconscious in the water losing consciousness. Can you lose who you are but remember how to do everything in life? Yeah so that's that's I think in my opinion money question of this entire V. on I use this in a class that combines neuroscience in Hollywood that I teach to illustrate this exact point where there's two parts here With regards to what it takes to produce initia- sure like if you if you're underwater and your brain is deprived of oxygen. I mean in just a few short minutes your brain cells are going to start dying and then after maybe like a dozen or so minutes. Then you're in a really deep deep unconscious state. So that absolutely can produce brain trauma it can produce a multitude of different kinds of Asia for sure now with regards to waking up and saying okay. I. There's a great scene in the movie where he's at a diner he's just you know. I walk in here I've memorized already every single car plate. I know how much the how much the guy sitting at the bar ways. I know that the bartender is a lefty and I can hold a gun and I know how long I can run for a mile without losing my breath but then how come. I don't know who I am and that I think there is a lot of basis in truth to that because we do have what we call different memory systems quote unquote in the brain. And then the one that he's missing is our so-called episodic memory system which is basically our ability to recall episodes or experiences of our past but that that can be somewhat different from our motor memory system. Which can be you know why we know how to play the piano while we can walk and run while he knows how to shoot a gun in my he knows how to do everything that mixed martial arts that he knows how to do so that. I think the movie actually gets right where he doesn't remember who he is because he has amnesia of the episodes that has personally experienced episodes of his past but his motor memory is has motor functions and everything that he's learned like shooting a gun and being able to do one on one combat remains intact because the different parts of his brain that enabled those motor outputs have remained undamaged. Are Those different physical. Parts of the brain that are being effective like is one piece of the brain the one in charge of episodic memory you WanNa make the disclaimer. That it's not like a waffle where this square is memory. The Square is motor the squares consciousness. This square is breathing. It's more spaghetti. Like everything is intertwined in the brain than basically like every corner of the brain talks to every other corner of the brain for all intents and purposes. But it's like broadly speaking. Yes in this case the parts of the brain that we think enable our capacity to recall our past for instance we think are largely different parts of the brain that we think enable our motor functions. Again might be able to do mixed martial arts intruder guidance on so in this case like you could imagine that damage to one part of the brain. You can definitely get cases of Amnesia where you don't know who you are whereas damage to different parts of the brain. You might even get some things. That look like Parkinson's are you. Get some of these diseases that actually Impair Motor functions in general. So we do think that there is a little bit of a non overlap between those two which is why you can get this dissociation of Matt Damon. Not Knowing who he is and yet he can perform of the martial arts that he doesn't movie well just to sort of a fact. Check one one thing here that standing out as maybe different to me would languages in that same category because he also seems to remember multiple languages. Yeah exactly that's another that those are through other parts of the brain we can call them brain regions or lately. We've been calling him brain circuits which basically just multiple areas connected to each other in the brain and we think that the language circuits of the brain somewhat different than those that enable us being able to recall our personal memories which those circuits we think are also different than does that enabled us to be able to run a mile without really getting gas or anything like that. So that's the part where I think. It's actually pretty realistic. In that sense that he can remember. Multiple languages are remember how to do these motor functions but not remember who he is and we have examples of this in real life like plenty of patients who either through some kind of accident or through some surgery for instance lose their capacity to do one of these functions such as being able to either form new memories or recall memories of their past but they can still play the piano and they can still ride a bike and they still talk English. They still recognize food. Their wife is the work so we do get these kinds of real life. Examples that occur as well the scene that you keep referring to the scene where he's listing Everything that he's thinking the you know everything that he knows Once he enters the diner that's specifically made me wonder maybe write down the question. Did Matt Damon get this part because of goodwill hunting? Because they reminded me of that famous. Good will hunting scene. Where he's doing the you've been reading Gordon would but you forgot about Vegas. It's like there's several sequences in this movie where he lists listing things he knows and he's very good at that. You can tell he's practiced at this is. Maybe where nothing was. Maybe typecast here. Because his character in the Martian or in good will hunting even departed or the Bourne identity could imagine the producers and directors be like all right not. Just just be yourself in the sea. Just don't act just be yourself and then it comes across there because that's that's exactly the common denominator. I think that can exist across these movies that the personality type tends to be somewhat similar at least Character Portrayal Yeah. I love you wrote with with this guy. Amnesia looked so good on him. It was like no part. Personality could be bad because he was technically just a sensitive. Do F- I don't know I don't know why I can do all this stuff. You know just so like it is interesting to see a Mesia in a sense glorified on the big screen because you can imagine the inner teenager must be like. Oh I wanNA know who I am and yet be able to kick ass drop of a hat. Yeah I want to tell her. I don't my name is I was actually GonNa ask in terms of your expertise with people with Amnesia. Is it often a thing that people that suffer from it become better or in some way? Improved people through the experience. It's a fantastic question and unfortunately like what we tend to see. Is that one of the reasons why we think memory is so important is because it's the thing that really threads and unifies our overall sense of being so without it. We kind of have a little bit of broken identity so unfortunately in cases of Amnesia or severe in Asia it could become really debilitating in this case that gets. It can become very impairing so even like in the movie. Memento for instance you. Can you can kind of see how the character here is just like basically literally shattered throughout the movie personality wise? So usually it's not like a whack a mole effect where you have. Nesia for one thing. But then you get these superpowers and become better in different parts of life. It's like for the most part Become actually pretty pretty socially debilitating which is why personally debilitating as well. Which is why. It's one of these things that it's still a great mystery to Hawaii. It occurs in how to try to fix it but at least something I think modern neuroscience can take seriously so this should be called the broken identity. I think we can James. I just wanted to bring up is completely nonsense related at all but There's a part where they are activating the other assassins to go. Get Jason Bourne. They're like very quickly going through the computer graphic sequence one of them one of the names of the assassins is chimp H. I. M. B. That's his whole name and then it says next to code name so that's his name. The code name is like Oh that was that was Clive Owen. The professor. Yes. Yeah yes so. His name is not cheap. It's chimp I think my favorite of the other assassins introductions was the guy. He's the last guy you see. He's the guy you end up. Who ENDS UP Killing Chris? Cooper win when you see him lying in his bed with his gun on the bedside table next to like a profile next to that and he's just looking up Waiting for the phone during I loved that he's essentially just a human screen saver waiting to kill very into that intro to that character anything for cooking or like reading window I kill. Yeah speaking of these assassins. I also really really had to mention that. The first assassin All of these guys are supposed to be like kind of born level right. They're all like super pros. That are trained by top. Whatever black OPS military and this guy chooses to via rope crash in through with a machine gun already fire me. It's just those videos of videos out of the army. Cops that are like they go in and bust through the door with this big piece of metal and then the other person just like text the doorknob and it was unlocked the whole time. And you can just do it that way. Like it's just there's a lot more mundane as of breaking into a guy exits the same way. He runs through the glass window like even for killing himself. There's easier ways there's also yeah about the BUZZER. Hollywood movies wondered this. Where like you see this in the Bourne. Identity basically every other mission impossible any action movie. Where like the hero is running running? There's no escape and they just like jump through the window. I'm like are these windows just made out of cardboard I feel full speed ahead against like a window in like a building. You're not breaking through that thing. These things are pretty strong. Yeah I mean maybe the key is Steve. Just you're doing a next time. You need to be actively firing a machine gun right. I'm with you on that first one. Because he's swinging. He's got his combat boots out in front but the second one he literally runs into like with his face. Yeah I just could not understand why he would do that. The entrance or the exit. Because it's reported later that he's dead well and this there's nothing there's nothing given to us. That explains it anywhere in the movie. Like even like you get you get to clive. Oh and after Jason shoots him in the field. Any any gives that little speech about like look what they make us. Give up and that doesn't explain anything either like you're really just like well okay. Well why why? Why did you do this and also why is your personality different now because the whole movie you were Stone Cold? I get orders. I kill people and then we're supposed to feel something like I I was I definitely felt like. They gave the short end of the stick as far as like explaining where these people come from. And how they're activated. I totally agree with you as far as like. I didn't know what was really going on at the end of the movie. I couldn't even tell if Jason born remembered it stuff about his life like clearly remembers this stuff on the boat now pulling the trigger because he saw the guy with his family. Both I don't know what else he knows if he knows anything else about his life. Now and then I think the Clive Owen. Thing was was more than saying once you're in you can't get out. It's like a gang. Almost you know like for whatever reason they got suckered into this business at now they're just kinda screwed but again and not to harp on this because I know we can get into a lot of memory important information here but that scene with the guy coming in the window and then jumping out and killing himself was completely just out of nowhere to me. I couldn't imagine Matt Damon's character coming up with a plan like that agreed right. The only move here is run straight out the window onto the street. That would be funny to watch him. Tell Marie to do that with them. Come on we ought to run for Senate that we know come on. Let's go wait. Let's think about your brain really is messed up right. We're GONNA take a quick break and we'll be right back. It's a trying time. The challenges all of our basic assumptions. However one thing that brings us all together is our common humanity now more than ever teams must come together and work together to solve big challenges and Trello is here to help trello part of Atlassian collaborative sweet as an APP with an easy to understand visual format plus tons of features that make working with your team functional and just plain fun teens of all shapes and sizes and companies like Google fender and even costco all use Trello to collaborate. And get work done with Trello. You can work with your team wherever you are whether it's at home or in an office no matter what device. You're using computer tablet or phone Trello sinks across all of them so you can stay up to date on all the things your team cares about. Keep your workflow going from wherever you are with Trello try Trello for free and learn more at Trello DOT com. That's T. R. E. L. L. ALL DOT COM trello dot com. The break is over. Here we go back to the show about. I wanted to say a couple things just in relation so the scene where he remembers not killing the Guy Because of the family very. I don't remember that from the first however many times I saw this before last night. I didn't remember that part. But it's very significant because it specifically shows you because the whole movie is the question of. Maybe he's good personnel. But who was he before? Was He an evil person and I guess that sequences to show you that no he was always good but I find that to be less interesting story. You know what I mean like. And also if he was always good that just opens up the question of why he was okay with killing a million people before that right. Yeah that's what I was GONNA say like even if you feel bad killing somebody in front of their family. That means that if his family wasn't around at that time he would kill that guy right exactly and then the other thing I wanted to say. Is that tread stone? Which is the organization. I guess that grows or whatever these killers and puts them out for higher I realized that their business model for as off a business at it is is pretty perfect and they really got a bad break on this one because if this one agent had died in the field and not Gotten Amnesia forgotten who he was but retained every single special skill enough to that he could hunt them down and really bring the trouble to their door. Like they'd be fine. They be totally fine. And it's like a one in a million shot that this happened crazy. Never thought about that before true. I feel for redstone. Good y'all got often purposely run government organization. Is it the government or are they? I didn't feel that was clear either. It's like yes. Some like shadow part of the government. I feel like it's almost like government. The like the deep. Nsa right it's like it's like when prison came out of the NSA basically like the really shady stuff happening like under like more behind the scenes to keep the fabric of society intact so yeah basically some some aspect of the US government that we're not supposed to know anything about but they're the ones really saving the world behind the scenes and doing very well. I miss how many movies used to involve a room full of guys following one guy on a bunch of monitors speaking across the room to each other like it wouldn't make sense in terms of a movie today because everybody would be connected online but there was so much of that and I think I remember that being all of these movies all these born movies that yeah there was a lot of really funny scenes of yeah the like whatever director guy just yelling instructions to people in like do it now. We need to now. Let's go let's go and then just like insert shots people typing and shit. Yeah why and I love the sparse. The sparseness of the office they were in. It looked like a basement. They were just like in basement. Full of old computers from last year or something. It was like. Yeah it's your treads don't like you're supposed to like you can literally like engineered human psyche in this case in your first of all your basement and then what's Hilarious de seems to whenever there barking orders at like you start seeing like a code appear onscreen your this is just garbage like literally just typing in random letters and numbers and that's supposed to be like the signal that sends like Listened to go. Kill Jason Boring so funny I love all that stuff man I want it. Just I don't know it makes me laugh to just see computer graphics stuff like I guess. Because you don't think it's going to be like outdated but now. This movie is eighteen years ago so now when you see like the cool computer graphics of two thousand two. It looks insane. I had very curious to see the new one that because he did one like a year ago or two years ago. Just called Jason. Born and I want to see to what extent the tech is updated or believability sake in in the modern age. Yeah and I don't think that's his name right. Don't we find out one of the other ones that's not even frigging name is Yeah I think Julia stiles character to know his real name or something like that. Yeah he does. He does figure out that Jason Barn was just his his codename. Israel like Bob or something blind right yeah or David or something like I remember just being a huge twist moment at its. I don't care I don't care what his name. We never knew if that was his name. I don't know his name your Okay I have to mention that since we're just talking about that movie at this point that Walter Gugans is in this movie a really fantastic monologue. I was thrilled to see him. Wearing like Suspenders and he's like talking about the girl who I can't remember her name now but I I love that scene. I thought that was so great. one thing that. I thought was fun. To notice was first of all. I mean I. I generally speaking of Matt Damon as a pretty good looking guy but I forgot how how handsome he was as a young man. I mean this this vintage Damon really something to behold whereas young Clive Owen. Much worse looking than current plan. That would be interesting. Yeah that was my takeaway. He looked weird and lumpy as a young man. That your professional your take on my dating profiles is weird lumpy Clive. Oh okay before we get back into info science land. I did read on your website. Steve that you love the wire. That's your favorite shows. And I stopped at season two of the wire like a year or two ago because they got into like the and I lost interest. Somehow in the whole doctors investigation. So I wanted you to pitch me why I should keep going and then I wanted positive. I don't know if we ever talked about the wire. Paul oh I can't wait so it's basically like it's kind of the the nitty gritty action of breaking. Except it's it's not a slow burn with a lot of like the story development of I'd better call. Sal which is like a lot more pensive and it takes a while to really really dig your teeth into it and I think that with the wire it's basically from from season one on does not really it didn't feel like that much of a a slow buildup. It's like there's always something underlying it always feels like very gritty and it always feels like you're kind of on the streets with the characters as well and I mean especially like in the subsequent seasons. You're just kind of your. It almost feels game of thrones e-except real life where you're invested in so many characters and you're like I just had no idea who's GonNa live or die because the reality unfortunate reality of crime and stuff that can happen in the real world is that the residents are in the of life and death that really can be just right around the corner and I think that it's that kind of edge in your seat. No idea what's going to happen each episode into each character that maybe even for either multiple episodes or seasons really that that really kept me going. Maybe I think maybe that's a way where it's like. It's game of thrones minus. The last season meets the best parts of breaking bad meets. The storytelling better saw Wah of sterling view. Wire recommendation there. If you're Ford Is there a dip in season two like or am I just a stupid now? There is there is there totally ended up. Yeah I have heard of this before the season to fatigue or whatever you WANNA call it the I believe that season two is the. It's sort of an odd season that does sort of make or break some people's viewing experiences. I am I think of season two is under misunderstood and underappreciated however I am a fan at personally I'm just a big fan of the Franks vodka character in his troublesome sons Ziggy but regardless The the one thing I will say that I think is telling about how viewers and therefore the creators feel about season. Two is the one unique aspect of the wire. Is that every season. Introduces you to a new aspect of the city of Baltimore. And you're following like a new New Business Organization or or In in season three they add a political candidate storyline. So you sort of get a look at the government and how that's run so the as the show goes on you just build more and more and more of this world and you you not only get these new characters but you retain them so by the end of the show no matter how many you've lost you now have all these new cast of characters you have this enormous cast by the end all of whom you're following a down different story threads but the one story thread that they do not keep is the ducks so I think Oh interesting yes I think People just sort of didn't retain interest in that's right because it's unrelated to the major story whereas when you get back to season three they jump right back into stringer bell and Avon Barksdale and it and it's sort of like it R- It ratchets the main story up quite a bit so I definitely I would recommend stick again. It's all right. Well I will watch the wire and you know. We'll probably do an episode about at some point about Baltimore police gunfire. I don't know we'll figure it out so a couple of questions here. I wanted to ask about any kind of do this whenever we have an expert in neuroscience because I'm fascinated with memory as I'm sure you are as well clearly and I hate when I can't remember certain things Small or big honestly it just bothers me and I feel frustrated by Constantly trying to improve my memory and that's kind of one of my stable questions for experts like you do things every day that help you Like I've I've talked to some people before. Said they lake less decisions per day. You know so you know. Their their food is done for the week or or they're wearing the same things or you know that back. Help them or putting things in the same place you know like my keys are always in this location. So I don't need to think about. Where did I put my keys? So you have any advice on the front. Yeah I think it's a couple of things and it's kind of an answer that nobody really likes. Because they're the hardest things to do but as far as being able to either improve memory or have a good memory or if anything prevent memory decline and this applies not just a memory but to like cardiovascular disorders and mental health in the works basically everything that is that can exist in the human body. Like you don't really don't have any silver bullets for these other than we know. That are like aerobic anaerobic. Exercise is a really good thing and getting a good night's sleep routinely is a really good thing. Having a healthy diet is a good thing and then having some kind of like social enrichment or any kind of interactions with the world or whether it's society or whether it's you know whatever habits that you have extracurricular is that you have basically between sleep and exercise in Diet and leaving living some kind of enrich lifestyle that that that kind of cocktail seems to be this recipe for at least like mitigating cognitive Klein or memory decline as well as again like everything else that can exist in the body from cardiovascular disorders to mental health to the works. But that's just basically more of a you know it's not necessarily a one-size-fits-all approach by any means but don't seem to be the things that routinely pop up over and over again when it comes to trying to maintain a healthy cognitive state awesome. What about coffee? You drink coffee love coffee. I feel like it was on. It was my sophomore year in college when I was pulling an all nighter for studying again at chemistry and that was like all right like I. I was never a coffee drinker announced. You know what screw it like all friends swear by it and then I had it in. I was just like where the hell has this. Been my entire life like. Why didn't nobody tell me about starbucks? And since then it was just all down hill right. How many coffees we talking about predict. I limit myself to two cups so I usually try to nurse two cups throughout the day and that usually seems to be enough like sometimes you know my the real kick that. I tried to get his if I can get in a morning jog and then right when you're hitting the runner's high afterwards if you don a cup of coffee than. It's a little bit of euphoric feeling. But obviously that's a lot tougher these days. It is something that I try to do. Routinely where if you can time the post run coffee than you start the day. Feeling fantastic man. I've that's a great tip. I've never tried that. I typically will have like a cup while I'm getting ready and then I try to get a workout in in the morning but but yet typically I'll have coffee beforehand so now I'm GonNa. I'm GONNA try that. That's cool all was what your coffee intake Yeah I would say I'm a two a day or I used to and I think that this is so crazy now. I used to prefer tea and I do still like tea but it's I think it was with my girlfriend that somewhere along the line in last few years I just started enjoying coffee for the flavor and like not. It's never been something that I necessarily felt like. I needed caffeine wise. It's just like I. now think of it. Is this wonderful luxury. You know that I can have in. That can taste so good and I have an issue. And maybe you already know this about me Ethan. I I have a bit of an issue with drinking. Cold drinks too fast. Like exclusively fast so a hot beverage A- and it's SIP ability is a real you know it's it's a treat for me. I'm with you on that. Ten Volt we Three of us have similarities. I also do two cups a day and a hot coffee can last me two to three hours. I'm not saying it always does but it can. I will skip it. But you're right if I have a cold brew It's done I will. I will down it within a minute and a half tops on totally with you on. This might live makes fun of me for this all the time. Where when I have a cup of coffee like I don't. I'm not drinking it because I usually drink iced coffee whether it's winter summer but I'm not even drinking it because I enjoy it. I'm just like drinking it because I like need its effects just down the cold brew and I'm like all right. It's almost like you're shock. Gumming a coffee in the morning. Then you're good to go. Yeah absolutely and I also guess. Have become somewhat of a SNOB. Now I have like the whole pour over chemic- set up here at home and I just I compared to t- like you said Ball. It's just not even close manages. Love the the whole tradition. Like the you know the setup of like doing it in the morning and the smell and the taste. It's it's euphoric for sure So you know if you're out there and you roast beans just feel free to send them to me Email meals you might address at school. Finally just had to ask an unusually. This goes almost nowhere but maybe have some sort of opinion on it. The whole nutro picks craze which I guess has something to do with Bora identity because he has these ridiculous memorization abilities. Like you said where he can just look at six license plates and then remember them twenty minutes later talking in a diner and I dunno people claim to swear by these things. So is that something you think is interesting or is that just a hoax? Feel ABOUT DETROIT. Six. Yes so there's a a yes no here. So it's like neutral kind of like the tried to be steroids for the brain right where it's like the your brain muscle conflicts more and more with new topics you can make up. You can have incredible memory or incredible cognition or these things and I have no doubt that there can be some cognitive enhancing chemicals out there. I mean it's like all you need to do is have a cup of coffee in the morning and you realize how much slightly are how much more alert you actually might be. Or I'm this can be similar for people for instance who are prescribed adderall. And Mike how that how that makes them feel to be able to focus and so on so. I have no doubt that there is like these these kinds of either drugs or chemicals that exist that can temporarily enhance our vigilance or so on the problem. There's two problems here is that one is that Most like most drugs can be very addictive. And that's GONNA come with a thousand one side effects because that drug wasn't designed to make you a genius. It was designed to try to alleviate some kind of symptoms such as gin ability to focus for prolonged periods of time and now the other part You know it's kind of like in the movie limitless to where it's like. The Cooper takes his N. Z. T. Pill and it's all you can unlock all the different corners of your brain and you can basically be disciplined to write books and memorize are learning to play the piano in the day. It memorized books and so on now. The thing is that this is kind of like one of those. You know those ads of like. Oh what would happen if you can unlock ninety nine percent of your brain at the same time? What could you do as a result? The the sobering reality is that if you were to take a drug that were to unlock nine percent of your brain at the exact same time. But what happened is that you would have the most massive seizure known to mankind like that's literally the definition literally. The definition of a seizure is an overabundance of neural activity. So drug claims to do that is gonNA be a drug. That just gives you epilepsy. Which is not a good thing so I think that in this case it's like you know there. There are certain elements of new tropics. That it has going for it like again. Like whether it's the amphetamines our at our house or things like that which can be good when prescribed and when when actually prescribed in this case responsibly on the other hand like the idea unlocking different corners of your brain. That's people who take LSD MD may virtually any one of these drugs will say like I had this realization? It's a yeah but you were also a Blob. Melting into the grass on the side of the river. So it's like the side of very really like the side of their very are very real as well so I think for now it's a little bit more fiction than fact in terms of being able to balance these kinds of drugs by but who knows right we also on the flip side with the kind of counter argue myself it's like we have certain onyx in certain prosthetic limbs that can in certain senses outperform our current limbs in my you know we can. We can extend bionic limbs or have prostheses that have twelve computers on them and can do these amazing amazing feats of bio mechanical amazingness. So maybe one day we'll have that for the brain right but for now for now the brain is still not still a little bit a little bit smarter in this case. Will I hope that you are on the case and bad one day soon? You'll be emailing me letting me know that you can update my brain Smarter and have a better memory in better host for everyone listening but Until then I WANNA thank you. Both for joining me on the POD. I hope he had fun. I had a great time talking to you and And hope to have both be back awesome. Thank you so much. It would be a thrill. I can't wait always a thrill Paul Stevens a new thrill. But I'm sure it will be repeated and maybe I mean I was GonNa say we could do Bourne identity two or three whatever the hell they're called but I just remember it being so shaky and I'd like the camera was so Shakey's I don't even know if I want to rewatch those not to be rude to the Creator's we could skip ahead to five and see where he's at now. You know just catch poking fun. Twenty years down the road. Yeah I'd be done. That would be my suggestion. Great Okay so we'll reconvene for Bourne identity five the board list identity and read the Synopsis. Of Two through four. Sounds great all right. Thank you both have a good day you to save but Signs is hosted and produced by me and Edinburgh are so c producer is. Emily felt our engineer. Is Jeremy Schmidt? Bats is is edited by Lucas Bolinger and our social media is managed by blue whale media. Shout out to Jane Kate. I love you. Don't tell my girlfriend falls on instagram. At Bats pod. There's movie like US discussing the PODCAST. Feel free to email at bats is at secret DOT com. That's bad science at Secret. Dot Com and please leave an IT tunes review. Give us five stars calling Uber driver but it does help. Make sure people know about the podcast which we really hope and the executive producer is what is his name? All I know is I must know his name. I've known him for many many years. And it's and it's Brandon Bush. Bush Sqi it's Brandon Bushy. What's this sorry? I'm being handed a card? Oh Brett Kushner. That's right. Sorry are executive producers but Kushner. Thanks for listening.

Matt Damon Dr Steve Ramirez Paul Stevens Amnesia Clive Owen Jason Trello Jason Bourne Edinburgh professor Asia David Frost Hollywood depression Charles McClintock Cooper writer Baltimore
MOTW #15:Second Amendment (Part 2) and Memorial Day

The Sheepdog Project

49:12 min | 1 year ago

MOTW #15:Second Amendment (Part 2) and Memorial Day

"Everybody welcome back to mind, the warrior docu with you, as always today this, it's going to be released on Memorial Day. Don't say happy, Morial day, man. That's, that's something that. I don't know how you should express that actually. But it's not it's a somber day ES today of celebration. I think too many people today off, but it is today, a celebration because great, people did amazing things laid down their lives. And we have freedom because of that. So, you know, it's an important day to remember those who gave their lives. Right. Very important day. Almo- Morial day to me. I always think about there's one individual in particular I was thinking about, and staff sergeant from first range of Italians named with Jeremy cats in burger. He was killed in bacteria province Afghantistan on June fourteenth two thousand eleven and I didn't know Jeremy. I wish I did. I didn't know him. I mean, I knew his face, and I knew him from seen him in the gym on the fob guys just respected of and. I wear the memorial bracelet with his name on it. So every year on this day, and we're actually coming up, you know, you said June fourteenth right around the corner show. Coming up on the anniversary of his death. So this time of year, you know, I always I always think about Jeremy, and he was survived, by his wife Kaleen and a son ever James. And so. Look up. You know. Put it put a name to this day for yourself. You know, I learned a lot of people do that. A lot of people do triathlons. They do track on in honor of Glen woods shout out to Glen who I know lists the podcast, good friend of mine, high level judoka Greg great jujitsu gyro. Great. Dad just agreed all around sheepdog, great, dude. I know Glen does that, you know, he does he does triathlons to honor fallen heroes and. Make it take. If you don't do anything else home, Morial day, man, you know crack go go on Google and, you know, look up the name the names of somebody who, who died in a conflict for your freedom and make that a person that you're gonna remember every day in and maybe learn a little bit more about him. So I don't wanna get too morose man. I'm going to jump into to the topic at hand, which of course, we know we're back on the second amendment today. This is part two of the podcast on the second amendment. I think it's particularly important because the second amendment is about our constitutional freedoms and on Memorial Day. We're celebrating the individuals who gave up their lives, so that we can have those freedoms, and we need to appreciate that we need to not sully their memory by taking our freedoms for granted or by giving up our freedoms without a fight. So I'm gonna start off again, by reading the second amendment again, as I did last episode a well-regulated militia being necessary to the. Purity of Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And it's important that I read it again this episode because we're really going to break this down. Bye, bye wording this time and talk about what the second amendment really means. And why we have it in the constitution. Why it's so important, why it was included white, is where it is in the constitution and everything else about it. So last episode if you didn't listen to last episode on the second amendment go back and listen to it because that'll set the tone for today, I talked about the statistics and those statistics are, what are used as a battering ram, what they're used as a as a hose to try to force feed us restrictions on our second amendment rights. Speed on second amendment rights. So this something that I saw today that I it was by person on online that I normally agree with and actually disagreed with this statement. No man can grant another man writes, your rights are your rights, whether you believe in supreme being God almighty or yet, whether you believe that we were all just the result of no divine interference whatsoever. Just the result of random chance, we are all self-aware, being self directed and we all have these rights, and we're endowed with these rights from the moment of birth for the moment of creation. I'll say it that way. So we all have these rights and no man gives another man's rights. What the constitution does. Is it recognized legally recognizes the rights that we already have? And there are amendments to that constitution because it was not a flawless document has it originally came out. If you saw the movie Lincoln, you know, the I n last use of the word slavery are its abolition, very important, right? The right. Women's suffrage was not built into the original constitution. No man gave a woman, the right to vote, okay? That to think so is incredibly misogynistic, chauvinistic, whatever, you know, the sexist whatever you wanna call it finally, some men woke up and recognized that women have the same divine rights as men do, and they put it in legal, documentation, so don't ever. Let anyone say that, you know, oh, the nineteenth amendment gave women the right to vote bullshit. Okay. They had the right to vote all along, and it was denied to them through legal process, and eventually, that was remedied through legal process law is a construct of man rights are inalienable rights, or something that you have not every law system around the world recognizes them properly. But these are rights that, that everyone on earth has own. Only the constitution, our say the cost to Shen only applies to us United States citizens. But and I know the smart human on that, right? That's my view on it. But the fact of the matter is, these are rights, that every everyone should have a right to free speech to be heard to be free from persecution free from unlawful search and seizure, free to keep him bear arms. All of these things are in, in my opinion and alienable. The framers of the constitution when they wrote the Bill of rights, you know, it's like, hey, we want people to be able to say what they're gonna say. People got persecuted before for speaking their mind, we want people to be how, how are we going to guarantee that they're free from that persecute persecution? Well, they have to have the tools. To maintain that freedom. And that's where the second amendment comes in. And that's why in my opinion, there ordered in the way that they are. But, again, the red herring always comes out, right? The red herring always comes out in the statistics that I talked about in the last episode. Let's, let's kind of reflect back on that for just a moment because what's the big thing that we are. We keep hearing. Now when we talk about restriction of second amendment rights is the scary assault rifles. Right. Which really is assault rifles, not actually thing. But, you know, whatever you wanna call them, you know semiautomatic rifles with the. Magazine capacity in excess of X whatever might be. So what, what they never want to bring up in that what I didn't bring up in the in those numbers, you know, and you can go back and listen to the numbers tack, the number two percent onto that, okay? Two percent is the number of those firearms those gun deaths those one person killing another person two percent of those are these scary assault rifles. So that's borderline insignificant. If they're gonna beat us up with these statistics. You know, first of all, the forty thousand number that they keep throwing out there that we debunked right off the bat, right? How many people you think are committing suicide with an assault rifle less than two percent guy? So really what we're talking about is two percent of that fifteen thousand change at the end of the day. But that's what they're always pointing to when they talk about restrictions on the second amendment is the scary. The scary black rifles. Right. The scary assault weapons. So shotguns represented statistically equivalent number of that right around two two percent some studies, maybe even higher could be as high as four percent. But nobody's ever talking about outline shotguns. In fact, the former vice president Biden, who I could do a whole show on talked at great length on how everybody should own a shotgun. Well, why is that? Why is it? Okay to tone. A shotgun when those are killing a lot of people suicide by shotgun is actually fairly common and pretty messy. Why is it? Nobody's talking about that war. We're gonna we're gonna get into that. So we subtract the two percent of Saul rifles. We subtract the two percent of, of shotguns ninety per six percent of the firearm, murders are handguns. Years and years and years ago there was a big push to get rid of what they called the Saturday night special, and I'm not going to get into that because it's, you know, the, the argument that I think was justly made was the basically what they wanna do. They said we wanna take these low priced handguns off the market because they're being used in crimes, and that was true. But it was also true that it was these lower priced handguns that people were going to gun shops, and buying for home protection. That was, what the liquor store owner had behind the counter when I was growing up. That's what the guy who ran a restaurant carried in his pocket. When he was taken the, the money envelope to the Bank to the night. Depository at night was these little Saturday night specials, and they did not get banned thankfully, because people did need them. But nowadays, you never hear about that even though the ninety six percent of the bad things are being done by hand guns. You don't hear people talking about we need to ban handguns. You'll hear a little bit about magazine capacity, but not handguns. It's always the scariest rifles nobody needs to own an assault rifle. You're not gonna hunt with that. It's not for protection. You don't need that. Well, I'm gonna answer a question with a question. So why is it that they're not talking about the handguns and to an extent not, and not talking about the shotguns either? Why, why is that? Well, I you have to ask yourself, what's the purpose of the second amendment is it about hunting, which you can do with shotgun? You can do with the scoped rifle that only carries five rounds, you know, that's the would New York governor, you don't need ten rows to kill a deer was the second amendment about hunting. No. Hunting is never mentioned in the constitution. Is it about sports shooting? No, it's also not about sports shooting. Is it about when we're talking about the pistols, and we're talking about shotguns behind the counter, or under the bed, or behind the door is the second amendment about personal protection from crime? No, it actually isn't. And I'm a supporter of all these things I want people to be able to protect themselves against crime. Obviously, I've made that a huge chunk of my life. Right. Training people in that working with companies to like sheepdog response is, I want people to sport shoot because I think it makes them better with firearms, I think it's good. I think it's good for the firearms industry, I think it's good for people who shoot to be involved in those competitions. I think hunting is an important part of our ecosystem as it exists, now, I think it's a great way to get outdoors. I think it's extremely rewarding. You know, it's important for nature to portent for you. Kill what you eat. I think all of those things are important. And I think they, they are secondary to what the second amendment is really about which I'm going to get into, like I say, I'm an advocate of all those things. But the if those were the things that were important, let's say they the founding fathers wanted everybody to have a pistol to protect themselves. In case, the police couldn't get there, then the second amendment would have said something to the fact of protection of individual life and property being necessary, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. They didn't say that. In fact, it appears that they're less concerned with the individual than they are the Free State, it talks about the Free State, and the importance of it, we're talking about preserving the Free State not preserving your company's payroll, not good serving your inventory in your convenience store. Not even preserving the life of you and your kids when a burglar comes through the window, we're talking about preserving the Free State. That's what they were concerned with. That's why they wrote the second amendment the second amendment exist to protect the Free State from tyranny. Could you accomplish that with pistols, shotguns? No probably not. That would be difficult. We're gonna talk about the, you know, the, the schematics of things like this. But the fact of the matter is. A populous, who was only armed with revolvers and double barrel. Shotguns would be. Basically open for the taking for tyranny to swoop right in. So we're gonna up moment. I'm going to go back through the amendment basically word by word. So there's a great deal of contention specifically around the words. Well regulated militia, right, you'll hear various arguments about that. Okay. So people say, we'll rag well regulated. Well regulated, what that means is, so they're talking about the, the army, they're talking about the national guard because that's well, regulated. That's what well regulated means. So does it mean that so I was curious about that. I my, my gut told me that, that, that could not be the case when they were talking about. Well, regulated. So I looked to some people that were a little bit smarter than I when it came to this, okay. Because the question is does regulation mean licensing doesn't mean registration. You know that's fine. Okay. If you wanna have the second amendment, it's about to be well, regulated. That means you have a registry of all your weapons will it doesn't say anything like that. It doesn't say a well regulated militia shall keep a list of all their weapons at the county courthouse. It doesn't say that. So the question is did the term. Well regulated we don't hear that a lot in common parlance, now. So in the vernacular of the time of the late seventeen hundreds, did it have a common meeting? Well, apparently it did fellow by the name of Dr Robert caught trial spells last name for you. See OT R O L has done exhaustive research on this. And here's what he determined he says through his research that the term. Well regulated is in reference to proficiency in the in the use of tools of warfare. Well, regulated means proficient. Well regulated means. Suited for. Right. It means prepared. Okay. Today, we might have said a little bit different. We might have said, a proficient, militia or a militia. Possessing, adequate marksmanship skills. We might have said, something like that back then they said, well regularly, you know, that, hey, that guy's will regularly know recently, it's kind of already fallen out now. We started saying saying that's legit. Right hundred years ago, or hundred years from now, a saying, that's legit people might not have understood that right? You'll even you'll use in describing a person, right? He's legit. You know, meaning he's, he's a good person, somebody that you can rely on got legit. He's got legit submission skills. Whatever might be they wrote this using the, the, the verbiage of the day. If they meant the term regulated as a restriction as some people have maintained than why would they point this out? And again, I talked last episode about how it's short sweet. It's to the point. Right. Why would they point this out and then not in the same breath in the same amendment? Say how you're gonna do that. You know, oh, it's got to be well, regulated, good luck with that. And then just leave it. And we have no evidence that in the early days after the constitution was written that there was some tour type of regulatory thing going on to keep the it. Well regulated and they certainly didn't mention it in there. That's not absent mindedness. This thing went through a lot of. A lot of test drives before they finally put pen to ink and signed it. If they had intended, that let's say for the sake of argument that they had intended regulated to mean exactly what some of the second amendment opposition say, it does then it would have been worth something like this, a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a Free State. All militia members Shelby required to conduct supervise training every other fortnight and muskets shall remain secured in the armory when not used for fischel duties. That's what the second amendment would have sounded like notice. It's not a whole lot longer. Okay. It's not like they're running out of ink. Okay. Somebody in the room would have raised their hand and said, what do we mean by regulated? You've all been in something that's, that's occurred by committee questions are going everywhere. This is early in the constitution. They're not tired. They're not ready to go home. They're not running out of ink. Somebody's gonna ask that question. What do we mean by Ray? Well regulated that might mean something John, that might mean something different to me than it does to, to Alex James. What do you think about that? What do we mean by well regulated they didn't need to explain it because again, it was common parlance of the time. They didn't give anything had. They said you had to maintain him at the armory that would have been ridiculous anyway. Because it would have taken days to March to the nearest army to get them by that time. Any conflict would have been over. They had to have in Roger standing orders fifty rounds powder and ball at the ready musket clean as a whistle. That's, that's well regulated. Right. Maintained in their house, and they practice with it, proficient with their shooting, squirrel. They're shooting deer their target practicing. That's well regulated, not maintaining it. An armory not maintaining it on a list, not only getting issued to you by the government. That's not what they met at all. You'll also notice that the word musk it never appears in the constitution. So when people say they never envisioned assault rifles. No, they envisioned exactly what the army would carry and civilians, having exactly the same thing. That's what they envisioned. They also never envisioned the internet. Okay is that grounds for limiting the first amendment? I'm shocked to say that, now, some people think it is. And I disagree. I needed a drink. Get worked up. So let's talk about the word militia. So I talked a little bit about this before. So people say that the militia, where we have the militia, it's the national guard. It's a standing army. No, that's not the militia there to step separate things. So at that time, the standing army of career soldiers was a tool of the government K remember, they just came out of a war where they thought a standing army. A militia is derived from the civilian populace guy. It's all able bodied men between the ages of seventeen and forty five depending on which document you look it up. And when they're called upon there to protect the lands to protect the people. All right. They're not gonna have time to train. They're not gonna have time to go to an armory and get outfitted. They need to be well regulated, they gotta have that stuff at home. Really, really important distinction. This was a time again. You know, the we were fledgling nation. We just come out of a war for our independence, and they knew what they want, and what they didn't want, and they were very careful and putting plume to paper putting quilted paper and outlying all that. So let's talk about patriotism for just a moment. Are you a patriot? I consider myself to be a patriot can a bar of soap be patriotic. Would you if I told you I have a bar of soap that is patriotic? Would you tell me I was crazy? Well, you might. But what if I told you that bar of soap was the big ass brick of soap from Duke cannon? I think then you tend to agree with me. Duke cannon. That's a patriotic company right there. That is a company that sells hygiene supplies, personal hygiene, supplies, toiletries. And they have a patriotic name, Duke cannon. It's like it's like an a seventeen hundred version of Duke nukem. That's how cool that name is that's a patriotic name so you know, they're going to a patriotic soap this is a bar of soap so patriotic that you're gonna find yourself. Standing at attention and humming the national anthem in the shower as you wash yourself with this big aspirin of soap I can almost guarantee it. They still superior quality grooming goods. I use them. I travel use the travel sizes when, when I can't I take him anyway. You know, and we don't want thing I hate is, and I'm not a smell good type of guy. But one of the reasons I don't use Cologne, and sometimes they'll travel places with the wife and we're gonna go out for a nice evening. And I'm wearing my nice cowboy boots and my nice jeans and a jacket. Maybe a bolo tie and I don't travel with Cologne. I didn't travel with Cologne because I didn't want it to break in my suitcase. That's a disaster. Right. Because I don't trust the baggage handlers. But Duke canon has a solid Cologne. It's foolproof. It's not gonna break and it smells awesome. You don't smell like some Pachulia hipster. Right. You smell awesome. You smell patriotic, so you need to check it out. You need to do cannon dot com. You need to check out all their products. They have the news anchor poem aid for those of you with a Koi. For those you with the hair. A news anchor would use it Ron burgundy would use it could probably make a wolverine per. So go check it out. Go to do cannon dot com. Use the promo code M, O T W and get fifty percent off on your first order using that promo code free shipping and all orders over thirty five dollars. So that's all I'm gonna say about do cannon, and they're amazing products that are patriotic. So go back to the constitution. So let's talk about the constitution. A little bit more. Let's talk about what those words mean. So I'm gonna I'm gonna use the ammunition of an opponent. So there's arguments, is it about hunting? Is it about personal protection in the home? What is it about sports shooting? I say it's about none of those things. So let's take somebody who's on the other side of the coin as far as the second amendment who agrees with me on this point. Former supreme court Justice John Paul Stevens who has been one of the harshest and most high profile critics of the second amendment wrote an article. In which he admitted that the true purpose of the second amendment was unmistakable. Okay. He said this in an air in an editorial, and I'm quoting him directly concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment. That is so important that I'm gonna read it again. When people tell you that we don't need the second amendment because we've got an army to protect us. Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment. Right. And I don't say that lightly. I'm somebody who gave thirty two years in uniform and dam. Sure wouldn't have been on the side to come to your house, and take your guns, believe me, what's really alarming about this. So, so you would think in reading the statement, right? This guy formed supreme court Justice says that, wow, he signed with us, this guy's pro second amendment. No, guess what? The title of the article was repeal the second amendment. How scary is that, that the guy openly he says, in plain terms, why we have the second amendment and is calling for it to be repealed. What side are you on John? Paul stevens. I'm just really glad that he's not on Skoda's anymore. The idea that he was ever on the supreme court actually chills me right down to my bones. So this brings me to the next point of argument this need to drink before this one. This is the big argument that I hear all the time. And I've heard it from physicians who are anti-gun. I hear you see this, this argument on the internet all the time from people have no idea what they're talking about. And I'm going to tread into some, some difficult territory year. But then, hopefully trite backout. So here's the argument. It isn't like a bunch of rednecks, with, with their with their AAAR's ours going to stand up against tanks and rocket launchers, who is that more on congressman who said, well, you know, we got nukes so good luck with that. Yeah. Okay. You're more on. Okay. People's I'd like to see how the NRA would do against a drone strike. Moab. All right. You're, you're more on, okay? This first of all, your, your demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on a number of things a number of things. First of all, the idea that the United States military as it exists as a volunteer force in its current shape would go marching through the streets. Turning guns on our own Sulaiman's is ridiculous. Okay. So and second of all, if you the type of person that does believe that then you should actually want everybody to be armed. Okay. So there's multiple flaws in that logic. The other flaw in that logic. And I'm gonna say this. And again, this is where I'm going to tread lightly because I don't I don't wanna sound like a whacked out conspiracy theorist. I don't wanna sound like an advocate, first of all, I am a patriot. I took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States. The officers appointed a over me, the, the president is states. Officers appointed over me, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay. I that oath, never expires. I still have that oath. Okay. I support our duly elected officials in the performance of their duties. I support the constitution. I support our military. All these wack job conspiracy theorists that advocate for the violent overthrow of the United States. Those are domestic terrorists, and you need to turn them in K, because plain and simple those MSA again, those are domestic terrorists, you need to turn them in. Okay. So don't lump me in with those people what I am. I'm saying is if it should if it God forbid should ever come to pass that we did have some torpor four form of Toronto government, somebody who try to violent takeover, somebody who didn't want to give up the reigns of power, even though where they were elective out of office. Somebody blatantly violated the constitution and thumb their nose at the law, and, and, you know, wouldn't would not be removed from office and attempted to use the military to subvert costitution law on the will of the people, then basically what you would have is unconventional warfare. I spent seventeen years of my career training as an expert in unconventional warfare. So the concept that a guerilla army armed with semi-automatic rifles cannot stand up to tanks as been disproven in places. Like vietnam. Places like Afghanistan difficult for us, and they threw the Soviets flat out. You know if what you're saying is true. Then the Iraq war would have been over in a blink of the eye, and it would have been just done. Right. That's not Peyton not true. Okay. Because first of all, they're not gonna drone strike neighborhoods. They're not going to nuke. Austin, Texas, right? This, this would be very restrictive ROE and, and it would it would be ugly. It would be very ugly to be, it's something that I hope to God are never country, never asked to go through, and I don't like the way people throw around the we're on the brink of a civil war, shouldn't even be talking about that. First of all, we're not second of all, it would probably about ten minutes. But that's not the story. Don't, don't even say that, man. We're not on the brink of civil war. But, you know, this, this isn't a thing of it as an insurance policy. You know, the fact that should we ever need it. You know, we have the tools to stand up against Toronto, government movie, red dawn, which a lot of people laugh at greater 'lustration of some of the things that would happen, if we ever would have got invaded by the Soviets at the height of the Cold War. And Soviets knew that don't think for one minute. They didn't. There's a quote that was attributed to the, the Japanese, which I believe is actually a false quote. That was never said that there will be an American with a rifle behind every blade of grass. And I don't think I think that's actually a myth. I don't think that was ever said, but I do know from seeing from reading books, and, and seeing video of debriefings of, of Soviet defectors, the, the armed pop of the United States was a legitimate concern, you know, if the even if even if the these the Domino's through central and South America. And cited to violate the Monroe doctrine, basically, come right up through Mexico. That was a legitimate concern that they always had. So that's up to about when, when people say things like, oh, rednecks, they are the NRA against a MOAB. They're showing their own. Ignorance, so I usually don't even bother debate them. Because if I start debating him, then, again, I sound like one of these Whack-job conspiracy, theorist basically, and I don't wanna sound like a domestic terrorist. So I don't wanna debate that, but basically, they're stupid. This has been proven I'm going to run through a list of people that disprove that theory, the Maccabi burgers, the Scots the seeks the American revolution the in the Philip downs of Philippines, Zulu, the bore the check the French resistance in World War, Two, the mujahedeen analyst goes on and on. So people just don't understand this. Reinsurer not, because I'm actually using my blog is notes. Talked about that. So the long the short of this is. We enjoy a lot of freedoms. We enjoy the freedom to drive on interstate highways. We enjoy the freedoms to purchase drink alcohol. Some places you have the freedom to consume cannabis. We have the freedom to own firearms. We have the freedom to procreate and have children, all things that I'm describing to you come with responsibility, the freedom of speech comes with responsibility. You know me being on this podcast is comes with responsibility. That's why I'm not trying. I'm not fanning the flames and giving you a bunch of bullshit rhetoric because I recognize that I have a certain amount of responsibility in putting this information out there to my tens of thousands of listeners is all comes responsibility. All freedoms do, and that's something that we have to live with the, the right to keep him bear. Arms comes with responsibility. And it, it comes with the downside, right? It comes with the fact that the availability involves all the numbers that we talked about in the previous podcast, and I do not minimize those numbers by any stretch of the imagination. I report them accurately, unlike those who would argue with me, right? Because they recognize that the numbers the true numbers in and of themselves are not inflammatory enough. So they have to be those numbers up, and they have to quote them out of context cry. I don't do that. I still see the numbers as a problem. But I've you that in a different lens and again, I'm not minimizing those, but let's, let's tickle it, we're gonna reflect back. So the firearm murders number from twenty seventeen that I talked about the previous episode was fifteen thousand six hundred eleven k so every year. That's fifteen thousand six hundred eleven people who would otherwise live. They hadn't have had their life taken as a result of someone using a firearm, we can are you all the live long day about the fact that sixty percent of those were bad guys doing, bad things we can argue all the live long day about if somebody doesn't have a gun. They'll have a knife or a truck, or choke, somebody or you know, or whatever they might be okay bless just take the number for what it is. So let's talk about the flip side. Let's talk about let's say we wave that magic wand, and we didn't have guns tomorrow. Okay. And this is when you're talking to your associates who are particularly anti Donald Trump, who seem to think that Donald Trump is going to round people up that he doesn't agree with and put them into camps based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, whatever that might be eater, mind them that people like you and people like me are the only thing that stand between that k? I don't I don't think for a minute that Donald Trump would ever try to President Trump. Whatever tried to do that. But I don't know him that well, what if he was the type of person who said, well shit, the, the can't fight back? I can never leave office. I'm president forever. And I'm gonna around people by disagree with. I'm gonna put it in camps. What if he was as bad as some people think he seems to be well, then, guess what? You know, even though I voted for him, I'm the first guy out there on the street and you'd better be thankful that I have the, the tools, of course of force. Because otherwise we're gonna roll over insure soft underbelly, and there's nothing to do. So let's talk about those numbers again fifteen thousand six hundred eleven firearms murders per year. Compare that to the seventeen million. Killed under the Nazis seventeen million deaths cry grant, that's not one year in. Let's even say that was over fifteen years. That's a lot. That's a lot of death man Soviet rule under stalling twenty million. Socialism, communism is probably killed more than more people on our definitely than any religion. We can do an episode about that. We'll talk about the, the bullshit line. They're more people. Kill the name of religion completely not true. Communist China, thirty five million three hundred twenty six thousand and that's a conservative estimate, because it's hard to get information out of communist China. Cambodia under Paul pot one million eight hundred seventy one thousand the Armenian, genocide was one and a half million people one and a half million innocent Armenians were slaughtered, by the Turks because they didn't have the means to fight back. Think about that. Slaughtered in the streets. There's videos out there. There's, there's still photographs out there rather. I don't think there's any videos of, of Armenians being slaughtered in open fields, one and a half million of them. Because they didn't have the tools to fight back. These numbers are the cost of not having the second amendment, and that's the way I look at it. And that's my opinion might not be the most popular not everybody might agree with it. And I and I'm, I'm not gonna say, I'm never gonna use the phrase small price to pay. Because I think anytime a human life is lost. That's a that's to higher price. But you have to wait against the alternative and those numbers that I just gave you those are the alternative. Those numbers don't make it easy easier for anyone who this issue is personal to. And I will I don't ever debate anybody who this numbers personal to, you know, personally lost a loved one. You know, I would never go to the Brady family. I would never do that because I think you're starting off the argument in a bad place. You starting off. We're one people is starting off with a lot of emotional investment. And I look at this through the lens of logic. Would I have a different opinion? If I had a lost a family member of gun violence. Well, I have lost family members to firearm suicide. I have lost close. Friends military friends to firearm suicide that twenty two sue veteran suicide today is not just a number to me. Their names that go along with that, that is personal to me. But I think the alternative is extremely costly. And you, you know, they say, you know, the worst thing somebody can say it, always it'll never happen here. Right. Or I can never happen again. I'm a firm believer in that. It's an are there countries that don't have the right to bear arms, and don't, don't have a Toronto, government will. Yeah. And that's that's great. Right. Those are also countries that potentially if, if we ever did have a tyrant go marching across the globe again. Probably need some help, you know, and they have other issues and those countries might lose themselves not because of a Toronto government because of other means. So I think it's important man. I think the second amendment is important. I hold very dear of a second amendment advocate. I also believe in background checks. I believe in checks, and balances, I don't believe a person. I don't know the answer to the extensive mental health history question, man. I really don't. Because it scares me that especially knowing how many anti-gun physicians are out there. That one of them could just decide you don't need to have your guns and make a phone call in the sheriff is showing taking guns away. That scares me a little bit because I don't necessarily trust those visions. Now, I've seen the flip side of that, too. I've seen people complaining about getting their guns taken away, who needed to have their guns taken away, because they did have a legit mental health issues, and I don't have all the answers and I'm open to input on their because I recognize that that is a real problem. I mean it when I say we have a mental health problem, disguises gun problem, and I don't have all the answers man. If somebody out there listening, does, you know, Email me, I believe people need due process before they have their rights taken away, but. Sometimes one o'clock in the morning on a weekend when somebody said some crazy things. In, in implicated that they're going to harm themselves or harm. Others something's gotta be done. I, I don't think anybody would deny that, you know, I'm not saying you lose your right forever. But I'm saying we, we have to have the tools to prevent these tragedies because it is a mental health problem. So you can't answer. He can't have both ways. You can't have it that second amendment shall not be infringed, constitutional carry. I don't believe in constitutional carry, by the way, a lot of you probably gonna hate me for that. And I don't believe in it years ago, I was asked by somebody, they said, I think if you've been in the military that you should be able to walk walk into the local courthouse show, your ID card, and they should issue you concealed carry permit and I said hundred percent disagree with that, because, you know, not I carried a weapon more days than I didn't in my military career. Not everybody can say that. And I certainly don't believe in, in cost to carry. I believe cost to tional ownership. Absolutely. I don't think the constitution sorry man. So again, so you're gonna I know I'm gonna get eight male for this. But I don't believe in constitutional Carey, and I don't think you're gonna be able to convince me otherwise because I don't think everybody's safe. I. I think you can keep him you can have them in your home. I think, you know, God forbid, the day ever comes that we need them. I'm glad you have them there. But that doesn't mean I want you carried around every day. You know, and that might be because you haven't had the proper safety classes that might be because you're Medicated. Self Medicated or otherwise, I don't know. But I'm not a believer in constitutional carry. I do think that once we need to come up with a comprehensive concealed carry that's national. Goes past just state to state reciprocity. But I don't believe in constitutional carry. I kind of got on a rabbit hole. But I, I have to say that because I have to be very I have to be very clear about where I stand on this issue, very pro second amendment, but we need checks and balances, and I believe firmly in background checks, although I recognize that there's no such thing as a gun show loophole. You know that's a myth, right? That's what they're talking about is a private sale between citizens and I don't know the answer to that, either. Because unfortunately, in the case of the San Bernardino shooters, that was essentially a form of exploitation of that another person was buying the proxy purchase. And I think we need to avoid that, you know, and I think it's incumbent upon all of us as gun owners and I can tell you one hundred percent that every firearm, I've ever owned in my life, I either still own or I sold it to someone that I did, I did a background check on. Okay. I and I and I'll tell you this flat out. I have only sold to firearms in my entire life was to a private a licensed private investigator, who was also a criminology professor at Georgia Southern university that was a shotgun. And I sold a car being to my company sergeant major. So I know what happened to both of those firearms. I would never sell a firearm to somebody who just walked up to me at a gun show. Saw that I had it on my shoulder. I just wouldn't do that. And I think it's incumbent upon us, if we're going to exercise this freedom to exercise the responsibility as a community of gun owners that we are responsible in what we do with our firearms and that includes chain of custody. All right. You know, think about if you know that person think about if that's a person that, you know, that, you know, is not going to go shoot up a school or shoot up a mall. You come on people. We can't we the, the more we are reckless with this freedom. The more chances. We have of it being encroached upon. It's gonna get harder and harder to defend as people make stupid decisions and granted, there's never to my knowledge. There's never been a mass shooter incident with it was traced back to a gun show. I know as recently as a few years ago, somebody definitely research that individual point. And there was none. Let's keep it that way. Okay. There are shooters that have been traced to proxy purchases. And, you know, that's another thing if somebody comes and tells you gives you some Sauber story about, hey, I really wanna get this, but I can't. Yeah. No. I don't buy beer for the kids hanging outside a seven eleven on a Friday night, even though that's how I got my beer. When I was a teenager 'cause I know how many times I almost killed myself and I wouldn't buy a gun for somebody who came to me with a sob story of ham in from out of state. I really wanna shoot this three gun or whatever it might be or whatever her, you know, my ex wife filed a restraining order, you know, uh he's full of shit. And right now, I can't protect myself. No, you probably have a domestic violence charge pending, and that's why you can't buy a firearm and that's not somebody that would help out so freedom responsibility, man. They go hand in hand. So I'm gonna circle back to the point at the beginning, if the real issue was gun deaths was the red herring number than they, they wouldn't even care about the scary black assault rifles. It will be all about, shotguns, and pistols. And it's not. Okay. And at the. End of the day, if we had to give up something. That would give it up the shotguns, and pistols, would almost be justified because the militia doesn't really need those still not giving up my shotgun. Or my pistols, but it is what it is. So remember these when you're making the argument, go to Dr Mike Simpson dot com? D R. M. I E S, I M P, S O, N dot com. Click on blog both a summary of both last episode. And this episode are on there, you can avail yourself with the facts you can have them at the ready. Whenever somebody wants to debate you cut and paste online, which a lot of people doing off a fucking Wikipedia anyway. Oh, also make sure you go to strikeforce energy dot com and check out what they have their all the stuff to keep you energized. Developed by a former navy seal veteran owned operator approves strikeforce energy products. I personally can't get enough. Use 'em OT w at checkout to get. A little bit of money off of your purchase. And forget, also to go to Duke canon dot com. D. U. K. E. C. A. N N O, N dot com. Same deal. Their. Use 'em OT w at checkout to get your big ass brick soap your beard wash. Your poem made whatever might be, and you're gonna save some money because you're alone line to the warrior listener we are about out of time. So I'm gonna leave you today. People are big fans of the musical Hamilton. Here's a quote from Hamilton that a lot of Alexander Hamilton, that a lot of people don't probably remember the constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms from the mouth of the man himself Alexander Hamilton. Remember that everybody until next time live life like a warrior.

United States army Justice John Paul Stevens Toronto Almo- Morial Alex James NRA Jeremy Google president Cologne Lincoln MOAB Saul Glen woods
#135 Twitch Begins Testing Sub-Only Streams

Latest In Tech News

32:11 min | 1 year ago

#135 Twitch Begins Testing Sub-Only Streams

"Which begins testing sub only streams and more coming up on today's episode of lace and tech news. Here. You're just in time for the latest episode of the world's only three and one show on tech gadgets and gave me news. That's right. This is tech news. My name is Taylor American. Well, I know you're expecting a show yesterday and the day before and well to be Frank. I'll tell you what happened. No internet. And I finally figured out the reason why today and I posted about this on on our Twitter feed. At Texans gadget if you don't follow us there that it turns out in my neighborhood. They were doing construction work on railroad tracks and hit the underground internet cable line which knocked out internet for most of the people in the area. Thank you construction workers, big round of applause over the actually did job, right? This time hopefully union, you know how to do your job. Right. And. And. I'll, I'll I'll with that being said, I'll pertain from. Rendering anymore jokes on unsaid subject, just make sure you do the job, right? And you won't have any complaints. So yeah, it'd be because of that there was no show Tuesday. Noor was no show Monday night. The week had a great vacation on back from that. And as far as you're concerned, barring any. Okay. Now, I just went jinxed it, but there probably won't be any more further problems. We won't have to worry about it anymore. We should be able to get shows out four while weekday for the rest of the year is just June is usually my vacation month today liked to take off, and it's nice great weather outside currently have window open in might hear some traffic from time to time outside, but not do about that. Hope you guys are enjoying your summer. Speaking of which, by the way, I know I am didn't get to jump at any lake or go swimming yet, but up enjoying the warm and being outside and going hiking interest, enjoying some time off. So flee you guys able to do that as well. I know I'm excited about today's lineup that we have today, we'll be taking a look at twitch is testing sub. Only streams, followed by a YouTube ING. Youtube ING while you to giving you more control over your homepage in up next videos a little bit too late there YouTube. But okay, great. I'll also we'll be looking at Zula has a new tool for tricking advertisers into believing your filthy, rich. Also, we'll be taking a look at a narrative experience, coming to the pub, g universe a robot planter that follows the sunlight and throw the tantrum. If you don't water, it, Apple's new messaging app doesn't need WI fi, or even cell service to send and receive messages. And finally, we'll be taking a look at a flying insect like robot that is getting closer and closer to independent flight. But before we get to all of that, did you know that there's a GameBoy that works with a singer sewing machine. It's true and I watched it on TV last week while on vacation just plug in the game cartridge in you can operate the show sewing machine via the game. Boy, it was. It was pretty incredible in, there's only only a very select few copies ever made, I think the show. Oh, that was watching for they're trying to pawn off or purchase it or buy it from collector, it was actually pretty interesting. So, yeah. Just in case you're wondering who can I control my singer sewing machine for my GameBoy? Yes, yes, you could. So with that out of the way, let's move onto the next one. Well. Next one being what happened today in tech history being today is June. Twenty six twenty nineteen on this day nineteen ninety seven to Communications Decency Act was declared unconstitutional in a US supreme court ruling of seven to two the act passed by both houses of the congress sought to control the content of the internet in an effort to keep a while x rated content from minors, in opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the supreme court ruled the act violation of free speech as guaranteed by the US constitution. I guess the L U was involved in. I don't know. It was. It was really weird on only thing to say about that is when it comes to first amendment, right? All it does, is guarantee that the government will not infringe upon right? Bestowed upon said, individual not by the government. So also on this day in. History. In nineteen seventy four universal product code known as the U P C is used to ring up a purchase for the first time at a Marsh supermarket in Troy, Ohio. The first item scan was a ten pack of juicy fruit gum take that to your trivia, contents guys. So with that Atalay. Let's head onto today's feature story. All right. So I up twitch not, not the symptom of you. On a bouncing around normally in everyday life. But the the video game streaming site. Owned by Amazon is testing subscriber only streams. Finally, a new interesting feature one that I had been wondering, for quite a while, if they're ever going to introduce said thing, and I guarantee you, if the test goes, well, which, I don't see any reason why shouldn't I guarantee you other streaming services including YouTube will start looking at this, if they haven't O'Reilly. Put a pin in that one. Start rolling out some feature of this as well. So a twitch channel subscription might soon get you considerably more than emotes, aunt free-viewing in access the special chat rooms services, launching a beta for subscribers streams or live broadcasts that are while you guessed it limited to people with active subscriptions Mont privileges. Envy IP status. It won't be thrilling. If you don't like pain for twitch, but it could help creators, who want to reward pain fans with behind the scenes specials all request game sessions and other perks non-subscribers will still get a preview of these streams with immediate access. If they choose to sign up on demand videos, we'll be available to subscribers while clips won't have restrictions. Now, the beta is available now to any broadcaster who has reached affiliate or partner status in. Yes. Which is aware of the potential for abuse by creators, who might want to lack questionable content behind some only live streams now you're only offered to while. How to offer subscriber streams if you haven't violated community guidelines, impasse ninety days and anyone can report potential violations, even if they only saw an offense during the live previews. This does risk, creating different tiers of twitch experiences, whereas some content is lack behind a pay wall. But me personally, I don't see any problem with that. However, could easily appeal to experience, which broadcast is hoping to boost their subscription counts that intern could be more which users see to start broadcasting in the first place or step up to reference, you might benefit simply by seeing more and higher quality streamers, even if you have no inclination to pay. So what are your thoughts surrounding this guy is now I know. I personally, well, I've been in the livestream arena for a while. On twitch but I seem to find my home more in mixer. So I know this is true for twitch. But what about for mixer? Would you guys think if you stream on mixer let me know, your thoughts down in the comment section if you're watching this video, and if you're listening via the podcast, hey, shoot a semester over on Twitter, as we're usually active in chat with all of you guys. I know. New features abound in introduced properly, an implemented correctly. Can be very much benefit to the community at large in long if you do it, right. I don't I don't see any problem with this. I mean, which kind of has to change or die. You can't keep something going the same forever without a dine out. Yet, yet innovate as the beauty of tech. So I for one I'm quite excited about this. I can't wait to see what happens. Maybe on a mixture into things on YouTube side of things. But yeah, I mean I always thought like here's my thinking way back when with live streaming. I said to myself, and I'm sure I'm not the only one why in the world, would I wanna pay five dollars a month to get an ad free viewing experience and access to emotes? I feel like I'm not getting anything. I'm all literally doing is I'm subscribing to a channel that I don't have to worry about seeing ads pop up on, I get, you know perks leading me. No, I can use this amount. I also get like VIP a VIP. I can also get a like a subscriber message like for resolving or or certain indicators of how long I've been said. Subscribe, which is always cool for great bragging rights, but it's always like, but why is that worth five dollars? Now, I don't know if ninja has weighed in on all of this. Maybe he has. But his thoughts are. But I don't know for me. I was like, why would I. Why would I want to do that? You know, give me give me more value. Well, maybe this could be the start of providing said, quote, more value behind subscriber only streams on twitch now. It's kind of give me a reason as to why would want to subscribe to said person because they'll have subscriber only streams, and then I'd be more inclined to watch because it's like paid for contantly cable. Although cable offers way too much, watered, it down anyways. So what I think so far on this very interesting development coming from twitch can't wait to see how to throw out. Can't wait to see how to test goes. If other platforms decide to start adopting it. But more importantly, love to hear what you guys think. So be sure to drop your thoughts in the comments section. Moving onto some more tech news. Youtube is finally giving you more control over two videos, its algorithm puts in-your-face. Now here's inasmuch as I'm going to say about said. Topic without becoming too. Controversial one way or another even though I ready know what my thoughts are on this entire narrative. Youtube recommendation algorithm. Doesn't have the best track record. It's been caught mixing up inappropriate videos, featuring popular kids entertainment characters and not to say that YouTube kids has been doing any better pushing home videos of children, a pedophile and even radicalizing youth towards extreme. It's politics this that, and the other thing, but it's kind of stupid because it's looking at an algorithm protected by while obviously trade secret by YouTube and YouTube said, well, I guess we'll just have to adjust the algorithm this way any other way in this is great. But. Here's as much as I'm going to say on it. Why couldn't you ever give that control over to the viewers on your platform, watching your content? I mean this is a great. This is the great mystery of like the internet for like the past, like four years now is going seriously. Have you are you new here? Like, I remember back in a day, when Hulu ran ads and you could say I like this ad or I don't like this ad and Hulu Kundun Taylor its interests, the best way possible. Or if it was inappropriate. You didn't wanna see these kind of ads. You could say black, this kind of add, all of this information, fed back to Hulu and they figured out. Oh, these are the kind of ads people want to be shown. Same thing with the TV shows. They're very specific. Limited type content. We wanna watch and we'll go looking for it. And if you don't find it, we ain't gonna watch it, and unless your recommendations are based on our viewing patterns in viewing history and what we like to watch don't like watch and you happen to find out stuff that we like and we keep looking on it. You can track all kinds of stuff, then what's the point? Cheese. So here we call roundabout again with YouTube against that backdrop. The video platform announced is going to start giving users greater control over what content pops up on their homepage. And up next videos, parents. That was a big problem to people said, stop letting this auto play feature happen. You want to know how difficult that was click. I just turned it off. I really have auto play on my on any of the YouTube videos that I watch rarely ever saw in the video stops because it's reached the end. That's all I see. Alot. Oh, You Tube YouTube. You have a great legacy of doing something stupid without knowing it. In backtracking to do the right thing. How about do the right thing. I put your foot down draw the line in the sand and state is where we stand too bad. Jeez. So on YouTube, Tuesday, YouTube outlined three changes at plans on implementing over the coming days, I users will be able to explore topics in related videos if they screw up on homepage. When browsing up next videos, so if you like them are, you might find a topic suggestion for Marvin. Does if you're an aspiring Baker, you might find a baking topic and YouTube says it two options are based on existing personalized suggestions, but may also be related to a video. You're currently watching or similar videos published by that channel the second changes you'll be able to remove suggestions for channels. You have zero interest in watching by tapping the three dot menu in selecting don't recommend channel most interesting is YouTube third change suggested videos will feature a small box underneath explaining why this video in particular is being suggested for you will. Wow. All these are welcome. If not overdo changes. Youtube is algorithm has been well, not too lightly. Run through the mud by people from all over the place for random in various reasons, some of which border on. Overtly stupid too. Are you drunk? So here that said the raw d features will be gradual and somewhat sporadic. Explore topics will be available for signed in users on English on Android YouTube app. Only remove channel feature. However, will be available globally on I Android, and Iowa starting today. Meanwhile, only Iowa's uses will be able to figure out why videos are being suggested to them today. Youtube says all the features will come to every platform Iowa's Android, and desktops soon. But didn't offer up an exact timeline is ultimately baby step in the right direction though it will take a while to see if it has any impact in addressing well YouTube in a bigger Google problem of oversight and leaving stupid things alone. But on the bright side, while maybe you won't be getting video suggested, if you didn't wanna watch in the first place, to, which I said, right this way didn't watchmen firstly. So all right. And I'll set on topic. Let's move on. So I found this one interesting, there's an article by because modal, by the way, if you guys are interested in getting all the show notes and articles that we've mentioned there with at an over to tech news. Gadget that net to get all your show. Goodness forte. If you're watching on YouTube is linked, down below a description. If you're listening to the podcast, well, you're in luck the links we used to the articles in today's show are right there in the app for your tapping pleasure. All you gotta do is literally tap on the Lincoln. It'll pop open the whole entire article, so but Zillah has a new tool for tricking advertisers into believing your filthy, rich. So if you want us to ads being served, you are eerily similar to stuff. You were just browsing online. It's not on your head, and it's the insidious truth of existing online, without installing a bunch of browser extensions. But there's a tool now that while chemically sir. Absurd. In execution can stick it to the man, namely advertisers by effectively disguising your true interests, while hope you like tabs, the tool called track this was developed by Mozilla, Firefox, folks. And lets you pick one of four profiles hype beast, filthy rich doomsday or influencers, you'll then allow the tool to open one hundred tabs based on the associated profile type data brokers advertisers, build a profile on you based on how you navigate the internet spend known for quite a long time. Now, if you haven't heard about this before welcome, this is how it goes. It's they build a profile based on how you navigate the internet, which includes the web pages. You visit so whichever one of these personalities you choose will theoretically be how advertisers view which in turn will influence the type of ads you see, so the author of this article tried out both the filthy rich in doomsday. Prepar profiles. It took a few minutes for all one hundred tabs to open up for each on chrome. If your computer that doesn't have much ram, just know that you might have to restart after everything freezes now for the former there are a lot of yet sites luxury designers stock market sites. Expensive watches in some equestrian real estate brokers. A page of sign up for a MasterCard gold card and a page book go room at the GM grand for ladder links to survival supplies. Checklists tents Mylar blankets, do Zeh movies, and a lot of conspiracy theories or hasn't that suit. Now as zilla noted in a blog post announcing the tool, it will likely only work as intended for a few days, and then we'll revert back to showing you adds more in line with your actual viewing preferences. This will show you ads for products. You might not be interested in at all. So it's really just throwing off brands who wanted to advertise various specific type of person you'll still be seeing ads eventually, if you use the internet as you typically would day today, you'll start seeing ads again at align more closely to your normal browsing habits. Of course, you're probably not gonna fire up one hundred tabs to routinely trick advertisers. The tools more of a brilliantly ridiculous. If not true ish not lengths. We have to go to only temporarily be a little less intimately targeted but well. Draw away if you want to you have to help have a few days. So if you wanna have fun, it's called track this, and you can go to track this dot link at fun. All right. Moving on to some gaming ish kind of news. A narrative experience is coming to the pub g universe. And well see the funny thing pudgy probably isn't the first game you think of that's begging for a story driven element. But it isn't stopping its creatives from trying, I think rumor had they've been trying to do this for quite a number of years now, never really succeeded. 'cause pudgy apparently took up too much of their time trying to fix bugs as part of an announcement that sledgehammer games founder, Gwen show field when we're on a new studio striking distance pub, g corporation revealed that the just formed unit is working on an original narrative, experienced set inside the pudgy world, what that entails really clear, but we wouldn't rule out frying pans chicken dinners might have underlined back story accompanying each show field. At least has experience to make it something special if you don't know who he is. He's best known for leading the development behind dead space at visceral game. But you may recognize him as a co founder of sledgehammer games there. He spearheaded work on call duty games ranging from modern warfare three through to twenty seven World War Two now. It's now clear, we're show field ended up after the turmoil at sledgehammer kind of bit about bug. You went joint now there's no firm timeline for the game. However, the real question may be about its chance of success of jeez. Archrival fortnight also has a more story driven world called save the world, which is preceded the battle ROY out option, but quote on quote, according to a fortnight audience nobody ever played yet if that was the problem, nobody would be playing in a win even being action. But whatever at virtually anyone can tell you, though, it's audience is a tiny fraction of the multiplayer base striking distance. We'll have to convince gamers that can avoid that outcome and create an experience that stands well on its own under the YouTube video to go along with it. Introducing striking distance so hopefully, good luck to them. And good things to follow. Moving onto some gadget news. I know most of you are interested in robots doing the work for you. Well, this robot is a robot planter that follows the sunlight in throws tantrums, if you don't water it now, I know this is a couple of months old, but I figured figured I'd pull it out of the archives here in. Well that you guys feast your. Robot. Goodness in wallet. Don on purchasing said device -cause while this revolutionize your life. It starts off your phone aspiring house plant people is a new must have planter in. It's so much more than a trendy. Terra cotta pot a robot planter can keep your house plants live, because we now live in a future, even if your thumb is anything, but green your home can still be in Eden of Ivy and ferns all of this, thanks to a new robot friend, that doesn't look like the sweetest six legged spider ever seen the future is now people in spider plant in a quarter of while the authors room is here for it dogs and cats are cool, but millennial seemed to be more in house plans than house pets. National gardening survey in two thousand sixteen reported at out of six million people who took up gardening twenty fifteen five million we're Montiel's now. You can pick up a new house plant friend in your coffee, shop, these days, it's safe to say a lot of us are avid. Indoor gardeners with the robot planter. Well, now you can get healthy plants, but also makeshift house pet a heck so plant as so-called here dancing on screen for us, if you're watching a video at least was created by VIN Cross's founder son, Tian key, after he witness a dead sunflower pretty sad at the flower exploit that could have been saved if it were just mood into the sun. So he thought, what should I do solution greater robot planter that will move the plant, according to wherever the sun is in your house like a cat, always trying to catch that sunny spot by the window, while his planter as one mission in keep your plan to live? It will find the sun for your plan. And then the shade when the plant needs a cool down when you're planning needs water. It will throw a temper tantrum as seen here by stopping your own. So, you know, the grabbed watering can. But just because it's pain most of its program mind to your plant. It doesn't mean it won't interact with you her food and wine, the heck supplant. In reportedly play with you. If you touch it space, if he has the ability to spin around and even the happy dance in sunny spots of your home, because vitamin d is powerfully, all I think of the heck supplant as your indoor gardening assistant while you'll have to prune in water, your plants. The plan to will make sure to get the optimal lighting. It doesn't just crawl to the light is, spins, so every leaf of your precious plant can soak in the rays of that's not considered innovation. Well, you probably watch wrong video then so get out here. Caring for our plants is well pretty impressive. Now, we just don't have to worry about it as much really all we have to do now is watering, the plant. So if you guys are interested, the heck supplant or is not yet available for purchase. But the original heck's is for cool price of nine hundred fifty bucks. So you're interested is link. New guys. Can learn more? All right. Moving onto some more gadget news, Apple's new messaging app doesn't even need wifi or even cell service to send receive messages. Now you might be wondering to yourself, what new newfangled technology could possibly exist to explain this. It's not new. I've known about it for quite a while now in addition to showing off the world's first phone with a camera under the screen at 'em. WC twenty nineteen in Shanghai APO unveiled a unexpected smartphone feature, especially for a smartphone maker from China. It's called mesh talk and as a name, hints. It lets you connect to other phones around you there's no need for wifi bluetooth, or cell service to get the job done networks, over distances of up to three kilometers, or one point eight six miles. Now, this nifty, new technology could help you communicate with others in all sorts of instances, where regular service is available now for those wondering mesh talk isn't a new concept as chat apps exists that delivered the same type of Chad experience. There are even devices that. You talk and text on any smartphone without WI fi, or cell connection. However, Apple's app will be built right into its Android devices, which means you'll have access to mesh communication. Right. Out of the box in includes text voice messages, and regular phone calls at times. We encounter extreme situations where there is no network coverage at all, for example, when you just drive at an airport in a foreign country or when you take an off road trip or tend to concert football, match or exhibition apple said in a press release via venture beat this tech offers a solution to such scenarios in which other network. Connections are unavailable or frankly bogged down. So finally, we have an answer. Now, now, you guys, I think after hearing that statement you could probably understand a little bit more, why this kind of seems cool. Mesh talk could be useful during natural disasters or to connect people living in remote places. Sure. But you might also want to use this particular type of tech when while say impressive regime turns off access to the internet during episodes of public. Unrest, or where government tries to forcefully shut down in corrupted app. That's used by demonstrators. So jazz unfortunately, what happened in Hong Kong. That's why surprising to see why a Chinese smartphone maker unveil this particular type of chat apple might not be in the best interest of the Chinese government. That said it's unclear how secure mesh talk app is compared to end to end encrypted services that require internet access, or how well it protects the user's privacy, but remains to be seen, but outside of that, pretty pretty impressive. All right. Moving on to our last article of today. Yes, we have more gadget news. I didn't find any gaming news. I just covered the game. We knew I talked about twitch in, in YouTube. No, while twitch. That was gaming. Right. What if you wanna gave me news or more, specifically a certain type of game you want to be informed on sure to let me know down in comment section down below? Or if you're listening to the podcast on Twitter, we are at tech news. Gadget I'd love to be able to keep an eye on a game that you guys want to hear more about, and I'll keep an eye on it for you so that you don't have to some good. So a flying insect light robot flits closer to independent flight. And we got a photo onscreen of it just over six years ago when researchers at Harvard announced that they had made tiny flying robots. They immediately began talking about the prospect of their tiny creations operating a ton Asli in complicated environments now. That seemed wildly optimistic given that the robots flew by trailing a set of copper wires at broad power and control instructions and robots guided by computer that monitored their positions using camera. Now, since then, the team has continued working on refining those tiny machines giving them an hands landing capabilities in today, the team is announcing the first demonstration of self, powered flight a flight, very short and isn't self control, but the tiny craft manages to carry both power supply circuitry and its own power source. Now, there are two approaches to miniaturizing something which you can think of as top down and bottom up now from the top down side companies are striking components in cutting way to allow ever smaller versions of quad, copter Jones of flying, which some are available that way as little as ten grams. But this type of harbor faces some hard physical limits that are going to limit how much could shrink batteries, for example, end up with more of their mass going to packaging in support hard. Wear rather than charge storage, and then friction begins to play a dominant role in a performance of the standard rotating mortars. Now, the alternative is bottom up start with something similar to the flying insect. Like robots figure out how to expand the capabilities, not surprisingly since they built the insect like robots Harvard team has chosen a bottom up, approach now the original design had PC all electric Motors that could rapidly flap to wings, providing the robot with powered flight power with the high voltage in rapid oscillations was supplied externally. The same was true with flight control information a camera tractor robot while in flight that computer figured out, what adjustments were needed sent a corresponding adjustments directly to the wings. Now, the goal of this work is get rid of some of that external hardware shrinking it down. So it can be placed on board. The robot itself knee won't need these wires cables or computers outside hung on what the do now for this new work. Researchers focused on the power source that keeps the robot airborne. So it's auto cogos more in depth. Into looking at it. It's called the robo be it has an X wing design and here, it is onscreen, including power electronics now. Yeah, it is pretty impressive. Well, how does it work included? Video shows that a does fly. But only extremely briefly typical flights are for less than half a second requires three sons worth of incoming light authors. Term this sustained, which seems like it stretching the definition of the word robot. Mostly handles control. Simply by not flying long enough to have to deal with it. But there's some significant room for improvement which the bottom up approach monologues at well definitely definitely looks. Interesting, interesting. I'm I'm like this is. Masters video. But that's all that we're gonna see for now. So if you guys are interested link to this will be in the show notes. And with that, that wraps up this episode of delays, intact news Inc through twenty guys, new episodes, every weekday which means we'll have enough so tomorrow and Friday lace in tech news can be found on every major platform, including apple Spotify, Google YouTube Stitcher overcast, end more enough. United this up sewed let's nobody quickey net like buttoned down below and by leaving a comment, also double check that you are subscribed so that you don't miss the next episode. I'm your host pale. American, remember for in tech gadgets in gaming news? Visit techniques. Gadget dot net pretty much keeping us guys. I'll see you on the flip side.

YouTube Twitter Apple tricking apple WI Hulu Frank Noor Amazon Google US founder sledgehammer games Atalay Zula Justice John Paul Stevens