Speaker 1: All media.
Speaker 2: When you're bilingual, there are certain things that just don't
Speaker 2: translate in a lot of ways. English just doesn't have
Speaker 2: the words that communicate fully the idea. I know that
Speaker 2: there's a there's a word in German that essentially means
Speaker 2: like a punchable face, like you guys know people that
Speaker 2: just have a face that like this face needs to
Speaker 2: be punched. I know in Spanish there's a one word
Speaker 2: for it. You know, your first day of school clothes,
Speaker 2: like you know, you use a kid You was like, yo,
Speaker 2: this is the dopest outfit I got is my first
Speaker 2: day of school.
Speaker 1: There's a word for it.
Speaker 2: There's a particular word for your first day of school clothes.
Speaker 2: And English just doesn't have stuff like that, unless you
Speaker 2: talk about black people English. We be having in phrases
Speaker 2: that communicate exactly not only what the word says or means,
Speaker 2: but what it feels like. And some of them words
Speaker 2: ain't even words like mm hm, y'all know exactly what
Speaker 2: that means, or.
Speaker 1: Like we masters of it.
Speaker 2: But every once in a while, there's too many options
Speaker 2: in your grab bag to actually communicate what you're trying
Speaker 2: to communicate. And this is one of those moments. I
Speaker 2: think there are. We've talked about it before. There are moments.
Speaker 2: There are so many ways to say Black people say
Speaker 2: like myn you own business, and that we do in
Speaker 2: ways to say that we mind our own business. There
Speaker 2: are so many ways to say we think what you're
Speaker 2: doing is stupid. You better than me, You got a chief.
Speaker 2: Oh man, if you like it, I love it. These
Speaker 2: are always to say what you're doing is dumb. They
Speaker 2: communicate not only what we mean by that, but how
Speaker 2: we feel about it when we say one of those things.
Speaker 2: As a matter of fact, this morning, I got up
Speaker 2: and I had to hit the group text. I had
Speaker 2: to ask the homies, what's the blackest way to say
Speaker 2: I don't know that you don't know, so you honestly
Speaker 2: do not know something. Because a lot of times there's
Speaker 2: ways to say that that's sarcastic, but when you generally
Speaker 2: honestly don't know one, I'm just like, man, I don't
Speaker 2: even know. Your guess is as good as mine, nigga,
Speaker 2: you know what I'm saying. One of them is just
Speaker 2: where you just rub your chest. You just be like, uh,
Speaker 2: that's what Moskie said.
Speaker 1: L Cray was like, I don't even know with an M.
Speaker 2: But I think we all agree the blackest way and
Speaker 2: actually the most accurate way to not only say what
Speaker 2: we need but communicate how we feel about it is shit.
Speaker 1: I can't call it.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about Chevron deference hood politics, y'all. Okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay,
Speaker 2: welcome to another addition to the politics. It's raining out here.
Speaker 2: I got the incense burning. I'm so far ahead of y'all,
Speaker 2: like as to when this episode's coming out, I mean,
Speaker 2: this episode probably not gonna come out for a month
Speaker 2: from when I'm recording it. So this might be old
Speaker 2: news for a lot of y'all. But Rondi Santis is
Speaker 2: deed out, you feel me. He sat on the bench realized,
Speaker 2: like they ain't gonna work. You can't work. You can
Speaker 2: never be a JV version of somebody else. That's just
Speaker 2: that's just the rule. You can't be a JV version,
Speaker 2: there's no You cannot be a Kirkland brand of something else,
Speaker 2: you know, and which is no dis to Kirkland brands
Speaker 2: because as a side note, if you've ever had Kirkland
Speaker 2: brand alcohol in spirits, they're actually name brand things, just
Speaker 2: white labeled. You know what white labeled is, right, so
Speaker 2: you go get they get the recipe. Like the Kirkland
Speaker 2: brand whiskey is actually it's makers mark.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: They just had them make a mash and sold them
Speaker 2: the recipe and that's it. So like, don't don't don't
Speaker 2: feel bad about getting Kirkland whiskey because it's actually high
Speaker 2: end whiskey.
Speaker 1: Anyway, what was I talking about? Rondy Santa's gone.
Speaker 2: You can't be a Kirkland brand anything, can't be the
Speaker 2: JV version of somebody else.
Speaker 1: You gotta be the varsity you, which is like words
Speaker 1: to live by. Amen.
Speaker 2: My mom used to say, be who you is because
Speaker 2: who you ain't ain't who he is. She says she
Speaker 2: got that from somebody, My mom from you know, Southeast DC,
Speaker 2: you know, back when it was Chocolate City.
Speaker 1: So she got it from one of them old men
Speaker 1: over there. But either way, be who you is because
Speaker 1: who you ain't ain't who he is. Ron D.
Speaker 2: Santis is out. He wasn't who he is. He trying
Speaker 2: to be somebody doing Trump impression the whole time. And
Speaker 2: y'all remember how you try to launch his campaign on
Speaker 2: Twitter spaces kept crashing. He was over before it started. Anyway,
Speaker 2: this is probably old news for y'all. I may have
Speaker 2: to even replace this section with something else that's a
Speaker 2: little mold up to date because time be moving real fast. Well,
Speaker 2: time moves at the speak, time always moves. I'm rambling,
Speaker 2: But we got to talk about this Fisherman's case and
Speaker 2: Chevron deference, and this is a more of a Supreme
Speaker 2: Court issue, and you got to understand how the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court work. So we're going to put our learning hats on,
Speaker 2: and I'm considering doing like a little Homy politics, which
Speaker 2: is like hood politics, but you know, shorter and clean
Speaker 2: that you could use in the classroom and pot the kids.
Speaker 2: And this might be one of those ones that I
Speaker 2: need to do that for. I got it from the
Speaker 2: show called Ologies, which is just this science show, super
Speaker 2: dope about people who are study any sort of ology.
Speaker 2: She has one she has a series called Smologies where
Speaker 2: she does shorter versions for kids, where it's the same
Speaker 2: stuff that you could play with your children. Me and
Speaker 2: my eight year old been burning through them. So I'm like,
Speaker 2: I need to do this for hood politics called love
Speaker 2: Homy politics.
Speaker 1: You feel me? Okay?
Speaker 2: So Chevron deference, the fact that it might end. Why
Speaker 2: is it called Chevron, Why is it so important? And
Speaker 2: what does this mean for the future, and why is
Speaker 2: this even called she I can't call it.
Speaker 1: Let's get to it comfort, all right. We've done a
Speaker 1: bunch of episodes on Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: We talked about like them getting involved in stuff, them
Speaker 2: not wanting to get involved in stuff.
Speaker 1: The concept of what.
Speaker 2: The judicial branch was supposed to be a little bit
Speaker 2: of a rewind about that. Like the hope in its
Speaker 2: design and concept was to have the judicial branch as
Speaker 2: far away from the democratic process as possible, because you
Speaker 2: don't want them to be You want them to be
Speaker 2: as objective as possible, Like you are interpreting the law.
Speaker 2: And if you got to worry about being elected into
Speaker 2: your position, like in the democratic way, then your allegiance
Speaker 2: is not to the law. Like think about this. Your
Speaker 2: allegiance is not to the law. It's to the people
Speaker 2: that elected you. Which is why politicians act the way
Speaker 2: they act. Why they flip flop, why they you know,
Speaker 2: which isn't it's not that peer but like in concept,
Speaker 2: I mean they flip flop because money, obviously you know
Speaker 2: what I'm saying, and power, money power. Respect is the
Speaker 2: key it alive. The idea is you're supposed to do.
Speaker 2: You're supposed to be, in concept, servants to the people
Speaker 2: that elected you. The judicial brands is supposed to be
Speaker 2: servants to the Constitution. So that distinction in design is important.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: That's why judges ain't voted on. They're selected by elected officials.
Speaker 2: They're supposed to not have to worry about running for reelection, right,
Speaker 2: because that was going to sway the way that they
Speaker 2: make the choices that they make. And then all the
Speaker 2: way up to the Supreme Court, which is we did
Speaker 2: this whole thing. You remember the y'all don't sign my
Speaker 2: check or Marionnate my Chicken episodes where it's like, I'm
Speaker 2: not even concerned about what anybody think about what I do.
Speaker 2: And that's why, like a lot of times, Supreme Court
Speaker 2: justice is like you never you never really know only
Speaker 2: time they historically, the only time they talk was when
Speaker 2: you would hear their their reasoning for their choosing, for
Speaker 2: the for the way that they fell on a particular issue,
Speaker 2: and then the dissent. But you don't know these people
Speaker 2: until later, you feel me until they're done. And that's
Speaker 2: why they stay in that position until they die or
Speaker 2: until they step down themselves. It's because you supposed to
Speaker 2: be Why why it's like what I do is not
Speaker 2: your concern, is none of your business.
Speaker 1: I'm not even worried about you.
Speaker 2: Is because by design, of course this isn't in practice
Speaker 2: like we all know, but by design it's supposed to
Speaker 2: be far enough away from the voters. I don't care
Speaker 2: what you think, nigga. Is what the law say. This
Speaker 2: what we believe the law say. Okay, how you feel
Speaker 2: about it, I don't care what's going on. But of course,
Speaker 2: as we know, in practice, the Supreme Court is used
Speaker 2: as battering rams for part in politics, which is the
Speaker 2: world we live in now, a conservative court or a
Speaker 2: liberal court, right, and then those issues get to be
Speaker 2: the things that when you run for office you get
Speaker 2: to say, all the problem I.
Speaker 1: Already got these activist judges.
Speaker 2: You know, so for most of my life, that's what
Speaker 2: the Republicans were saying. What the conservative world was saying
Speaker 2: was like, the judges are activists now, and they're forcing
Speaker 2: their removing traditional family values from us. Right, They're not
Speaker 2: upholding the Constitution, They're forcing their liberal agendas on us
Speaker 2: by putting activist judges who are supposed to just be
Speaker 2: interpreting the Constitution. Well, my ma ma had the tables
Speaker 2: of turn at i e.
Speaker 1: Roe v. Wade being overturned, i e.
Speaker 2: The fact that it's the six y three leaning conservative
Speaker 2: Supreme Court. Now, what the Supreme Court is supposed to do,
Speaker 2: like we said, is interpret things. But there are sometimes
Speaker 2: that they like, shit, I mean I don't know. I
Speaker 2: mean it's up to the Congress. Right, Congress writes the laws.
Speaker 1: We don't.
Speaker 2: We just we're just trying to say whether the law
Speaker 2: makes sense or not or if what you're doing applies
Speaker 2: to that.
Speaker 1: But shit, I ain't. I mean, I don't know. You
Speaker 1: got to ask them.
Speaker 2: You are read when we talked about the Internet one
Speaker 2: a few episodes back. We talked to a few episodes
Speaker 2: back a while ago that they was kind of decide
Speaker 2: a case about a case.
Speaker 1: Against Google where there was like, I don't know, nigga,
Speaker 1: ask Congress.
Speaker 2: Right, like it's Google liable for their algorithm that might
Speaker 2: work to radicalize somebody to commit some sort of terrorist act.
Speaker 1: And the Congress was.
Speaker 2: Like sheit, I don't know, Like, uh, is it our
Speaker 2: place to decide that? Like what's an algorithm, you know
Speaker 2: what I'm saying. There was like, look, ask your mother,
Speaker 2: you know what I'm saying. You asked the Congress like
Speaker 2: that's is this our place to describe decide this? Basically
Speaker 2: because the laws around the internet were ambiguous, and when
Speaker 2: they's when the laws need clarity, that's usually when you
Speaker 2: go to the courts. But the courts are like, I mean,
Speaker 2: I don't we need to ask. We need to defer
Speaker 2: to experts, which is where you get the term deference, Right,
Speaker 2: I am deferring to something else. And Chevron deference is
Speaker 2: based on a case which we will talk about right now.
Speaker 2: So let's set it up. So in Maine right now,
Speaker 2: this is the case they're looking at. Well, I don't know, Well,
Speaker 2: it's probably not decided by now, even though, you know,
Speaker 2: because courts move pretty slow these days, so they probably
Speaker 2: still The news is probably done talking about this, but
Speaker 2: let's talk about it now. What seems is, though this
Speaker 2: would be just a regular ass local why does anyone
Speaker 2: else care?
Speaker 1: Kind of case has to do with these fishermen.
Speaker 2: Now, Fishing, just like hunting, is regulated so that you
Speaker 2: don't overhunt and you don't overfish. That type of regulation
Speaker 2: for anybody that's in that field. Most people, now, I know,
Speaker 2: some like Montana head ass dudes hunt ducks, hunt bucks,
Speaker 2: like I mean, the reddest of necks who like you know,
Speaker 2: think veganism is sinful, like just just in that sense.
Speaker 2: But they got sense enough to know that overhunting is
Speaker 2: a problem.
Speaker 1: That they're like, you buy the tags.
Speaker 2: Right, You only get a certain amount of tags if
Speaker 2: you're catching fish. There are some fishing spots that are
Speaker 2: catching release because if you overfish then they're all gone
Speaker 2: and they're in their way. They're like, no, this is conservation. Why,
Speaker 2: Like you can't you can't kill all the dear nigga
Speaker 2: like cause.
Speaker 1: Then they all gone cuzz Like that's absurd.
Speaker 2: They understand logically that yes, there are some types of
Speaker 2: regulation now. Now, don't let the most extreme wing of
Speaker 2: the right wing conservative Republican Party fool you that people
Speaker 2: think they just want to shoot it all up. Most
Speaker 2: folks who live outside, like that Ney version of outside,
Speaker 2: understand that, I.
Speaker 1: Mean, you kind of need some kind of need some admin.
Speaker 2: You feel me like you do, because the ain't gonna
Speaker 2: be no more fish right now. If you're a commercial fisher,
Speaker 2: like over there in the Atlantic and stuff.
Speaker 1: It's the same thing.
Speaker 2: They like, nigga, you can't you fish the ocean dry,
Speaker 2: like we out of a job.
Speaker 1: Cud like that don't make no damn sense.
Speaker 2: They understand things like that people would consider liberal issues
Speaker 2: like food chain. You feel me within it and the
Speaker 2: fact that like you got it, like it's a delicate
Speaker 2: They get it.
Speaker 1: It's a delicate balance in the ocean.
Speaker 2: You can't kill all the tuna, nigga, Like, if you
Speaker 2: take all the tuna, you feel me then, or if
Speaker 2: you take all the tuna's food, if you fish out
Speaker 2: everything the tuna eat, nigga, didn't the tuna gonna die or.
Speaker 1: They gonna leave.
Speaker 2: They get it, Like there is a place for regulation.
Speaker 2: Everybody understands that, even in that world. So for decades,
Speaker 2: nobody has had in that world any real problem with
Speaker 2: being Like every year fed send a suit down to
Speaker 2: come out and go fish with us, to make sure
Speaker 2: that we're not overfishing, that we're meeting our quotas, and
Speaker 2: we're doing this in a humane way. We're not dropping
Speaker 2: too much pollution into the water. They get it, because
Speaker 2: if you pollute the water, nigga, we're out of a job.
Speaker 1: Like this just it's that logical.
Speaker 2: So most of them really got no problem with the
Speaker 2: regulation what happened recently though, And of course, you know
Speaker 2: you gotta pay for these tags, like that's part of
Speaker 2: and you understand that's cost of business. There's a certain
Speaker 2: fee you have to pay, which everybody understands.
Speaker 1: That makes sense.
Speaker 2: You just build that into your catch and you just
Speaker 2: hope that your catch is that good. But it jet's
Speaker 2: the cost of businesiness. Like everybody understands that in whatever
Speaker 2: field you are, there are certain things that just they're
Speaker 2: just it's just the cost, like it is what it is.
Speaker 2: You know, this isn't We're not a hunter gatherer society
Speaker 2: no more like you feel me like, this is a
Speaker 2: commercial supply chain, late stage capitalism.
Speaker 1: There's fees.
Speaker 2: But something changed in twenty twenty. And what happened in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty was not only are you paying for your tags,
Speaker 2: now you have to pay a fee to have the
Speaker 2: guy on your boat, the guy that comes and make
Speaker 2: sure that you're following the directions. So if you're a fisherman,
Speaker 2: you're like, yo, let me get this straight. I'm required
Speaker 2: to have this guy on my boat. I'm required to
Speaker 2: pay a fee for the quotas, and now I have
Speaker 2: to pay your employee, you making me have them come
Speaker 2: out on my boat. And now I gotta payd a
Speaker 2: salary for the day. Like what do y'all pay for?
Speaker 2: But then what is my tas paying for? So I
Speaker 2: gotta pay your employee. That's your employee. You're like this, okay,
Speaker 2: So there's the registration fee, and then I gotta it
Speaker 2: would be like okay, if to get my driver's license,
Speaker 2: I gotta pay a certain fee. I get it, but
Speaker 2: then I gotta pay the person that's doing the I
Speaker 2: gotta go to the DMV and pay the person's salary
Speaker 2: for the person that's doing that. So the guy that's
Speaker 2: in my car with me for the drivers, I gotta
Speaker 2: pay that guy too. That don't make no damn sense.
Speaker 2: Why do I got to pay that person's salary? What? Then?
Speaker 2: Who does this person work for? I thought they work
Speaker 2: for the government agency. If I'm paying them, then that
Speaker 2: mean they work for me. But but there's no other
Speaker 2: option because now I can't do my job unless I
Speaker 2: pay this person.
Speaker 1: So if you're a fisherman, you like this way.
Speaker 2: Hold up, First of all, when did this rule become
Speaker 2: a rule, like you get to just change the rules
Speaker 2: number one and number two.
Speaker 1: What you charging me is outrageous.
Speaker 2: You ask the fishermen, they like it kind of breaks
Speaker 2: down to about like five g's because you have to
Speaker 2: do it over the course of because people got to
Speaker 2: be there over the course of like four five a's.
Speaker 2: And if that's the case, depending on how many fish
Speaker 2: we catch, this food that's just sitting here with a
Speaker 2: clipboard taking notes is gonna make more than the people
Speaker 2: actually doing if you're gonna make more than my employees,
Speaker 2: because I only get paid with what I catch. So
Speaker 2: if I go out today and we won't catch nothing,
Speaker 2: all of my fishermen understand that, like, oh, we just
Speaker 2: didn't make nothing today because I'm not holding no money
Speaker 2: from you.
Speaker 1: Nigga is no fish, so I couldn't pay you.
Speaker 2: But I still gotta pay this person regulating no matter what,
Speaker 2: no matter what we catch, I gotta pay them. Now.
Speaker 2: Me as an artist, I can relate to that because
Speaker 2: when you go out on tour, my money is based
Speaker 2: on ticket sales and sponsors and stuff like that's what
Speaker 2: I make. But that's not my DJ's job. That's not
Speaker 2: the drummer in the band's job. The band gets a
Speaker 2: day rate, So whether we sell tickets or not, I
Speaker 2: still got to pay the DJ.
Speaker 1: It's not his job, a not her job. It's my job.
Speaker 2: It's my job to generate the funds, and that is
Speaker 2: part of a contract. Now I'm okay with that because
Speaker 2: I employ them. But if Live Nation was like but
Speaker 2: there's also a dude that has to come that works
Speaker 2: for Live Nation and be on tour with you, and
Speaker 2: you got to pay them five hundred dollars a day
Speaker 2: whether you make tickets or now, I'm like, fam, why
Speaker 2: like you saw, the building was only we only sold
Speaker 2: half the tickets, and so now I have and now
Speaker 2: I can't pay my drummer because I have to pay you.
Speaker 1: That's absurd, fam.
Speaker 2: You already own all the venues, and you own the
Speaker 2: ticket selling app. You taking a percentage of the tickets,
Speaker 2: You take a percentage of the door, you own the building,
Speaker 2: you own the promoter, and now I gotta.
Speaker 1: Pay your regulatory dude. You trip it.
Speaker 2: And as far as fishermen concerned, they like this sound
Speaker 2: the illegal. You can't just change the rules on us,
Speaker 2: like that's crazy, So they took them to court. Now
Speaker 2: the question is why would you care? Le's talk about
Speaker 2: that net or we're back now. Why should you care
Speaker 2: at all about what happens with fishermen in Maine and
Speaker 2: who got to pay for the people that come and
Speaker 2: make sure that they don't overfish the ocean? Well you
Speaker 2: could say you care in the sense that, like, I mean,
Speaker 2: the ocean's on Earth, and I don't want to live
Speaker 2: on the planet where ain't no more fish in the ocean.
Speaker 2: That would be all right, but neither do the fishermen.
Speaker 2: Why do you care who pays for what? Maybe your
Speaker 2: fish are gonna cost more. Maybe that's why you care.
Speaker 2: And is that the case that's being argued at the
Speaker 2: dog On Supreme Court?
Speaker 1: How to hell just make it all the way to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court?
Speaker 2: Well, why it made it to the Supreme Court is
Speaker 2: a question of who gets to decide what it's not
Speaker 2: necessarily about the fish you have a You know, if
Speaker 2: you haven't been in a relationship, especially a romantic one,
Speaker 2: you start I remember one time and me and refer
Speaker 2: to her by her prefix, doctor Ama was arguing over
Speaker 2: the way that the chords under our desk was organized.
Speaker 2: I don't like exposed chords, and she kept unplugging shit
Speaker 2: and moving it around, and I was like, Nigga, will
Speaker 2: you stop moving the chords? And she was like, what
Speaker 2: the fuck are you talking about? And I was like, ultimately,
Speaker 2: it was like it wasn't it's not about the chords.
Speaker 2: It's not about the courts at all. It's about I
Speaker 2: feel like she being controlling. You want everything your way,
Speaker 2: you know. She felt like I was being petty. So
Speaker 2: we wasn't even arguing about the courts. That's kind of
Speaker 2: the situation like this, it's about the fish, but it ain't.
Speaker 1: About the fish.
Speaker 2: They're coming up to the courts saying, how come this
Speaker 2: agency gets to just change the rules. Is there something
Speaker 2: you can do as the courts to say this can't
Speaker 2: be legal, Like you can't just or you can't just
Speaker 2: change the rules like that, then what are we supposed
Speaker 2: to do? Like there's like I'm stuck, Like it's like
Speaker 2: gas prices and nothing you can do. You gotta just
Speaker 2: I mean gas is what it is you have to
Speaker 2: pay or is either that or don't drive. So there's
Speaker 2: like there's got to be something we could do, Like
Speaker 2: it's I mean, damn, you're the freaking courts man. Do
Speaker 2: something which brings us to this idea of who do
Speaker 2: you defer to as the experts? Because if you're the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court, are you an expert in fish conservation? Are
Speaker 2: you an expert in AI? Are you an expert in
Speaker 2: the Internet? Are you an expert in gas? Are you
Speaker 2: an expert in city zoning? No, you're an expert in
Speaker 2: the constitution. You're an expert in the law. So you
Speaker 2: asking me to make judgment calls on stuff, I really
Speaker 2: that's not.
Speaker 1: Even my field. Shit, I can't call it.
Speaker 2: Nigga, I don't know how many fishes should you catch
Speaker 2: a day?
Speaker 1: Nigga, I don't know how many fish in the ocean? Right,
Speaker 1: I don't know?
Speaker 2: Which brings us to a case that's called Chevron deference.
Speaker 2: It's this decision, which is a case that was in
Speaker 2: nineteen eighty four that was Chevron versus the Natural Resources
Speaker 2: Defense Council. Why this was so important was this The
Speaker 2: specifics of the case are the things that are going
Speaker 2: to get lost in history.
Speaker 1: It's just how it was decided.
Speaker 2: Essentially, the Natural Resources Defense Council was basically like Chevron's
Speaker 2: breaking the earth. You don't saying, like nigga, you're destroying
Speaker 2: us Chevron's like, well, who the fuck are you? Like,
Speaker 2: why do you get to say that? As a matter
Speaker 2: of fact, the laws you're trying to catch us on
Speaker 2: are pretty ambiguous, like they not really clear. It's kind
Speaker 2: of up for interpretation. So as far as we concern,
Speaker 2: we ain't done nothing wrong. You just you just adding
Speaker 2: stuff that's not even what the law say. So somebody
Speaker 2: needs to interpret this law. And why do you get
Speaker 2: to be the people that interpret it. It's not clear
Speaker 2: you regulating me to death, like I can't make no
Speaker 2: damn money, Like that's what, Like what the hell? There's
Speaker 2: gotta be some sort of law that says that you
Speaker 2: can't just be you can't just cripple my business. And
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court was like, well, fam, I mean, what
Speaker 2: the hell do we know about this. We're not experts
Speaker 2: on every field everywhere, So since we're not experts, it
Speaker 2: kind of feels like maybe we shouldn't make this call.
Speaker 1: So we're gonna listen to the case.
Speaker 2: But as far as like the actual regulations, like I'm
Speaker 2: gonna defer to the experts, So we defer to the agency,
Speaker 2: the Natural Resource Agency, because I mean that state field study,
Speaker 2: Like what do we know all we was gonna do
Speaker 2: is ask them, because they the experts. Why would you
Speaker 2: even want me to as a judge. You're asking me
Speaker 2: like I'm a shark being judged on how well I
Speaker 2: climb a tree, nigga, Like I don't know, Like what
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't know. So we are going to
Speaker 2: listen to the merits of the case. But when it
Speaker 2: comes to the specifics, I'm just gonna defer to the agency.
Speaker 1: Because that's their field.
Speaker 2: That was Chevron deference, and that's that's been essentially since
Speaker 2: nineteen eighty four, it's been forty years, Like that's been
Speaker 2: essential standard when it comes to things like the EPA
Speaker 2: and any other regulatory bodies that the Supreme Court is like,
Speaker 2: DoD like, we can't be an expert on everything, dude,
Speaker 2: Like how are we How are we supposed to know?
Speaker 2: Like I don't, I don't know, Like shit, I can't
Speaker 2: call it. So on the face, it seems pretty logical, right,
Speaker 2: Like I would not want a case that like gets
Speaker 2: into the specifics. And I think all of us saw
Speaker 2: this when we when if you were watching all the
Speaker 2: Google trials and when old Zuckerberg and everybody was the
Speaker 2: only thing you remember the dude that was like the
Speaker 2: Congress dude, that was.
Speaker 1: Like, what are you gonna do about fenced us? What
Speaker 1: the hell? You don't know what you're talking about? Like
Speaker 1: if we were talking about the Internet stuff, you don't
Speaker 1: know what.
Speaker 2: You're talking about. What I'm gonna do it fenced us? Like,
Speaker 2: do you know what a fence?
Speaker 1: THEA is? No, your granddaughter told you what that is.
Speaker 2: Fam you still got a Yahoo account like you don't
Speaker 2: like or you can't even get into your email account,
Speaker 2: like like.
Speaker 1: Why should I?
Speaker 2: You are not equipped to make laws and the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court is not equipped to interpret those laws about shit
Speaker 2: they don't know about.
Speaker 1: You just know law shit. You don't know this shit.
Speaker 2: So when Congress makes a law, now this is this
Speaker 2: is this is where it's like like put your learning
Speaker 2: caps on. When Congress makes a law, and again they
Speaker 2: need to be by design like this. When Congress makes
Speaker 2: a law, the law needs to be ambiguous enough to
Speaker 2: make room for the future, to make room for things
Speaker 2: that you can't necessarily predict, right, So we can't like
Speaker 2: I don't I don't know the future, so I can't
Speaker 2: I have to make this law up for interpretation for
Speaker 2: when the future comes, there might be things that we
Speaker 2: can't possibly foresee coming. So I'm trying to make a
Speaker 2: law that's open to interpretation enough it'll be able to
Speaker 2: last a little longer. Right, Like say, for example, we're
Speaker 2: making a law about movies and about like when movies
Speaker 2: leave the theaters, and the Supreme Court talked about like
Speaker 2: DVDs and VHS tapes. This isn't a law, but like,
Speaker 2: let's just say, like the Supreme Court made a law
Speaker 2: about VHS tapes.
Speaker 1: Well, nigga, they're extinct.
Speaker 2: There's no laws about streaming because they couldn't fathom streaming.
Speaker 2: So you have to make something ambiguous enough that as
Speaker 2: technology moves on, as the future moves on, that they
Speaker 2: can those laws can be like still applicable.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: On the other hand, the people writing these laws, these congressmen,
Speaker 2: ain't exactly altruistic. They're not looking at the purity and
Speaker 2: being like, well, we want to make sure that we
Speaker 2: keep up. No, they're subject to lobbyists, they're subject to money,
Speaker 2: they subject to power, they subject to re election. So
Speaker 2: even them writing them laws like nigga, like you deferring
Speaker 2: to them as if as if they gonna be on
Speaker 2: the up and up about the shit. So it's there's
Speaker 2: there's a lot of ways this could go. This is
Speaker 2: why it's at the Supreme Court. You're not writing laws
Speaker 2: to keep the purity of it. You write laws so
Speaker 2: you get reelected.
Speaker 1: Nigga like this. This is a corrupt system, y'all.
Speaker 2: Well, it's the Supreme Court's job to interpret these laws
Speaker 2: that the Congress put together. The problem is when aw
Speaker 2: is ambiguous enough and is up for interpretation because it's
Speaker 2: not that clear. That's when it goes to the courts.
Speaker 2: This law isn't clear, Like we don't I don't know
Speaker 2: specifically what you. I don't know what to I don't
Speaker 2: know what to do, like my here's an example with
Speaker 2: my children, like our rule in our house, because I
Speaker 2: don't believe in power struggles with children. Like if I'm
Speaker 2: in a power struggle with my child, I've already lost,
Speaker 2: because I shouldn't be in a power struggle with somebody
Speaker 2: that don't pay no bills in my house. But also
Speaker 2: I shouldn't be power hungry. I'm not about that. But like,
Speaker 2: there are things that are very simple. There's no deserts.
Speaker 2: If you don't finish your vegetables, that's easy So if
Speaker 2: I cook a meal for you and I'll make you
Speaker 2: some asparagus, you get up, remove the asparagus from your plate,
Speaker 2: go get some carrots, and sit back down. I'm outraged
Speaker 2: the girl, What the hell is you doing? In case
Speaker 2: you don't know, I'm black, You eat what I give you? Like, No,
Speaker 2: I don't understand. What the hell is you doing? Well,
Speaker 2: the law was ambiguous. The law said vegetables. Carrots are vegetables.
Speaker 2: I prefer carrots over asparagus. She got a point. The
Speaker 2: law wasn't clear. I could not have foreseen that. She Now,
Speaker 2: I could have asked her which vegetable she preferred. But again,
Speaker 2: I'm black. Our children don't get choices.
Speaker 1: Just kidding. We need to change that. Yeah, I should
Speaker 1: have checked.
Speaker 2: But either way, the law was ambiguous enough to where
Speaker 2: now it's like, well, this is up for interpretation, and
Speaker 2: I'm interpreting carrots as a vegetable. She's right, So we
Speaker 2: defer to mom who wrote the law. When a law
Speaker 2: is that Congress makes is a little ambiguous or up
Speaker 2: for interpretation, and it goes to the courts because there's
Speaker 2: now a situation where like somebody needs to decide what
Speaker 2: it is and the highest court is the Supreme And
Speaker 2: what Chevron deference says is, look, dude, this law, like,
Speaker 2: you're right, it is up to interpretation. But I'm not
Speaker 2: an expert in this field, so I'm going to defer
Speaker 2: to the experts. So this case with the fishermen are
Speaker 2: is not necessarily about the fishermen. It's about who gets
Speaker 2: to say what it's Chevron deference really fair. Now, So
Speaker 2: how it works in practice is you stand before the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court. If you don't know how the Supreme Court works.
Speaker 2: It's not like a TV trial. The Supreme Court doesn't
Speaker 2: work like that, where it's not law in order where
Speaker 2: you get to be like objection sustained defendants and stuff
Speaker 2: like that. No, what it is is, especially in this situation,
Speaker 2: this is actually a perfect example about it. They're arguing
Speaker 2: the legality of the precedence or of the law that's
Speaker 2: being challenged. So you have one side court of this
Speaker 2: court room, the fishermen that are essentially like yo. They
Speaker 2: don't get to just change the rules on us, like
Speaker 2: why have you given them so much power? Which is
Speaker 2: the ultimate question. It's not even about the fish. It's
Speaker 2: about the fact that, like yo, you're the judge, you're
Speaker 2: the law, you're the courts. If you just say, well, damn,
Speaker 2: I'm just gonna defer to them about what it is,
Speaker 2: you just get like, they're not even elected officials. They're
Speaker 2: pencil pushers. They're not even selected officials. They just pencil pushers.
Speaker 2: As a matter of fact, when the administration changes, right
Speaker 2: every four years, they gonna have a whole new agenda,
Speaker 2: They're gonna have a whole new people that work there.
Speaker 2: So you defering to them, but them niggas gonna change
Speaker 2: their mind depending on who in office. So like, why
Speaker 2: would you do why would you just defer to them?
Speaker 2: They're not even who are Like? Who are they? Like?
Speaker 2: Why are you calling them experts? They just got a
Speaker 2: job because of who's president. Right now, that's the fishermen's argument, which, unfortunately,
Speaker 2: like everything else, breaks partisan. Right, this is the at
Speaker 2: this moment in our lifetime, the conservative position. They call
Speaker 2: it the administrative state. Like you know how right now
Speaker 2: the conservative world doesn't want regulations about anything, and they're
Speaker 2: using this as one of their battering rams. Right, So
Speaker 2: this is the conservative position. So you get dudes like
Speaker 2: Brett Kavanaugh, the on the Supreme Court, right now kind
Speaker 2: of saying the same thing where it's like, well, first
Speaker 2: of all, we haven't used chevron deference.
Speaker 1: I don't know how long. Now. Remember this wasn't they
Speaker 1: song earlier?
Speaker 2: They used to be mad that the court's got to
Speaker 2: decide stuff, you know that, But they now that they
Speaker 2: up you know, they want the courts.
Speaker 1: To decide you feel me, But that's how politics works.
Speaker 2: On the other side, the people that are for like
Speaker 2: the state that's for chevron defference is like, bro, We've
Speaker 2: been doing this for forty years and it just makes sense.
Speaker 2: You can't POSSI be an expert on everything, Like, there's
Speaker 2: no way y'all know. This is their field. This is
Speaker 2: what they do. Like what do you know about what
Speaker 2: do you know about phishing? Like what do y'all know
Speaker 2: about this? You know about the law? You was in
Speaker 2: a library. You wasn't outside with us, You was in
Speaker 2: a library, So it only makes sense for you to
Speaker 2: one not break precedence.
Speaker 1: Then that's what I mean.
Speaker 2: Then now what y'all all about like not breaking precedence
Speaker 2: and then and the precedents, Like, dude, it makes sense.
Speaker 2: There's no way you could know about this. The law's
Speaker 2: ambiguous on purpose. Because none of us can predict the future,
Speaker 2: you should at least put some weight on people that
Speaker 2: actually study this stuff. Now we're not saying to let
Speaker 2: them make your decisions for you, but what we're saying
Speaker 2: is they know the shit better than you do, so
Speaker 2: just like use it. It's for your advantage, like this
Speaker 2: is their job, which is ultimately what the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: case is about. It's not even about the fishermen, it's
Speaker 2: about chevron deference. Who gets to decide what? And what
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court does isn't just listen to go uh
Speaker 2: huh uh No, they get to be annoying little children
Speaker 2: and what if you to death?
Speaker 1: What do I mean by that?
Speaker 2: They they their job is to listen to your argument
Speaker 2: and do their best to poke holes in it by
Speaker 2: just asking what if question?
Speaker 1: Like your children, do you know? What if what if this?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 1: Yeah, but what if? Yeah?
Speaker 2: But what if I tried to do this like kids
Speaker 2: do all the time. But what if I can't find
Speaker 2: a pencil? Well, what if I can't find the broom?
Speaker 2: Well what if we're out of comment? Well what if
Speaker 2: there's no soap in the bathroom? That's the job, because
Speaker 2: what they're trying to see is does your argument stand
Speaker 2: a stress test?
Speaker 1: That's what they're saying.
Speaker 2: Like, so, so when you say on the conservative side
Speaker 2: that like chevron deference is wrong, like you shouldn't be
Speaker 2: able to do this your a media example I brought
Speaker 2: it up before, is like what about like, say, for example, AI,
Speaker 2: what do we know?
Speaker 1: We could barely open our emails?
Speaker 2: You really want us to like why would we not
Speaker 2: refer to people work in that field we make? We
Speaker 2: have there's laws about the internet right now, but remember
Speaker 2: when we made the Internet, we didn't even know you
Speaker 2: could buy things online? Like, how are we supposed to
Speaker 2: know when we look at this this law? How is
Speaker 2: Congress supposed to know that's why they make the laws.
Speaker 2: How are we supposed to know? We can't predict the
Speaker 2: future electric cars? I don't make electric cars. I barely
Speaker 2: understand them. Why would we not check what experts about it?
Speaker 2: So you want me to decide on this Fisherman thing
Speaker 2: and think chevron difference isn't fair? But like, well, how
Speaker 2: are we supposed to judge things like AI?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: So you challenge it, right, And then on the other side,
Speaker 2: the defense side, that's like, yo, this is forty years precedence,
Speaker 2: Bret Cavanugh and was like, nigga, we haven't used this
Speaker 2: into fifteen years.
Speaker 1: We won't even use it. It's basically dead. You feel me.
Speaker 2: And like I said before, it's like, well, when the
Speaker 2: administration changes, like what are we supposed to do? To
Speaker 2: which people could respond like, well, fam, there's like eighty
Speaker 2: federal judges. It's like, you're you're creating chaos here, right,
Speaker 2: because if Maine says, okay, forty fish a day, but
Speaker 2: Florida says four hundred fish a day, like what it like? You?
Speaker 2: We need somebody to come in here and be like, no,
Speaker 2: this what it is, to which the Republican side was like, no,
Speaker 2: you making Chevron defference, making us defer to the agency
Speaker 2: is actually creating the chaos because the agency is going
Speaker 2: to change every four years, so it's their job to
Speaker 2: poke at your arguments. Who's right, shit, I can't call it.
Speaker 2: Who gets to decide and based on what foundation is
Speaker 2: the right thing to do? Now, this has humongous implication
Speaker 2: because remember, the courts traditionally never want to break precedents.
Speaker 2: They don't Nobody ever wants to be the first nigga
Speaker 2: to do something because of how the how fragile the
Speaker 2: law is. At one point, I'm gonna do this episode
Speaker 2: on like the thin vine year theory, but like how
Speaker 2: fragile all of this stuff is, and how when laws
Speaker 2: are on the books they become so foundational to other
Speaker 2: laws and precedents that we start doing like say, for example,
Speaker 2: if you playing Jenga, like if I pull this law
Speaker 2: from forty years ago.
Speaker 1: And it's like, yo, it's unconstitutional.
Speaker 2: You done messed up everything we've done built on top
Speaker 2: of it, Like the whole thing kind of topples. So
Speaker 2: people don't want to be the one to pull that
Speaker 2: lag out. You start messing with precedents, you like, everything
Speaker 2: we've done since then is now in jeopardy it So
Speaker 2: judges don't be wanting to do that yo.
Speaker 1: And we're seeing this in real time with the ending
Speaker 1: of Roe v. Wade.
Speaker 2: We're seeing it with the ending of affirmative action, the
Speaker 2: domino effect of you taking this, pulling this janga piece out. Now,
Speaker 2: it's like, uh, with affirmative action in schools, it's like,
Speaker 2: well then what the hell do well?
Speaker 1: Then, well, then how do we read your application? What
Speaker 1: can I say? I'm black? Well, I mean, it's a
Speaker 1: big part of my life.
Speaker 2: So then when I write my essays, my personal statement essays,
Speaker 2: and can I not mention them? And if I mentioned
Speaker 2: I'm black, because it's obviously a part of my story.
Speaker 1: This fool got a four point one. I got a
Speaker 1: three point eight.
Speaker 2: But I come from a low performing school in a
Speaker 2: red lined community because I am a person of color
Speaker 2: and have experienced racism and mass incarceration and all the
Speaker 2: things that come with being a part of a racist country.
Speaker 2: I'm but my grades look like this nigga's grades, right,
Speaker 2: But since they a little bit lower, you just when
Speaker 2: this nigga got like personal tutors and shit, and I
Speaker 2: could still keep up with him. Clearly, I'm working harder
Speaker 2: than this fool because I'm running into the wind and
Speaker 2: you're telling me you can't account for that. I'm a
Speaker 2: better student because I don't have I'm a better choice
Speaker 2: for your college because I'm performing just as him with
Speaker 2: one hand tie behind my back, with everything playing. Yess me,
Speaker 2: this nigga got everything he could possibly need. I don't
Speaker 2: have that, but you but I can't put that on application.
Speaker 2: You can't consider it. If you reading applications, you're like, well, obviously,
Speaker 2: but I'm not a Wait then what do I judgehim by?
Speaker 1: Are you post ignore that?
Speaker 2: Like? Well, like, okay, so if I can't mention race,
Speaker 2: but race is a like, So the implications.
Speaker 1: Are like, well then how do I Well, then what
Speaker 1: do I like? You're Roe v.
Speaker 2: Wade is kind of the same thing. Okay, Well it's
Speaker 2: not federal, then it's state. Well then at what point
Speaker 2: is it? Well then what are the exceptions? Well then
Speaker 2: you just pull this janga piece out, So it's super
Speaker 2: what if I cross state lines? What if I'm in
Speaker 2: danger of dying? You pulled the janga piece out. There's
Speaker 2: a problem here. But if I were to predict the future,
Speaker 2: I'm saying, if Chevron deference, if it's gonna stay, it's
Speaker 2: gonna be a zombie version. You know how I know
Speaker 2: because this court is activist. They're just activists, like republican
Speaker 2: like like conservative activists. The same thing that the Conservatives
Speaker 2: were arguing about and complain ain't in about when most
Speaker 2: of my life is the same thing they doing now.
Speaker 2: They were like, we don't like activist judges. No, you
Speaker 2: just ain't like activist judges. That was doing activism against
Speaker 2: your agendas. Now that y'all up, which was the plan
Speaker 2: the whole time. Obviously, now that y'all up, you can
Speaker 2: get the laws you want inactive, because nigga, you ain't
Speaker 2: no different, You just wanted to be up. So this
Speaker 2: case about this Fisherman, about Chevron defference and when I
Speaker 2: say Chevron, we like I said before, it's actually Chevron.
Speaker 2: It's really about who gets to call it, because sometimes when.
Speaker 1: You don't know you like shit, shit, I can't.
Speaker 2: I don't even know you gotta, I can't call it
Speaker 2: like I defer. Your guess is as good as mine. Nigga,
Speaker 2: you're the Supreme Court. You don't get to say you
Speaker 2: don't know you. You are the final say?
Speaker 1: Or are you?
Speaker 2: Or are you the final say? As to who gets
Speaker 2: the final say?
Speaker 1: Which one? Is it? Shit?
Speaker 2: I can't call politics, y'all? All right, now, don't you
Speaker 2: hit stop on this pod? You better listen to these credits.
Speaker 2: I need you to finish this thing so I can
Speaker 2: get the download numbers. Okay, so don't stop it yet,
Speaker 2: but listen. This was recorded in East Lost Boyle Heights
Speaker 2: by your Boy Propaganda tap in with me at prop
Speaker 2: hip hop dot com. If you're in the Coldbrew coffee.
Speaker 2: We got Terraform Coldbrew. You can go there dot com
Speaker 2: and use promo code hood get twenty percent off get
Speaker 2: yourself some coffee. This was mixed, edited, and mastered by
Speaker 2: your boy Matt Alsowski Killing the Beast Softly. Check out
Speaker 2: his website Mattowsofski dot com.
Speaker 1: I'm a spell it for you because I.
Speaker 2: Know m A T T O s O w s
Speaker 2: Ki dot com Matthowsowski dot com. He got more music
Speaker 2: and stuff like that on there, so gonna check out.
Speaker 2: The heat Politics is a member of cool Zone Media,
Speaker 2: Executive produced by Sophie Lichterman, part of the iHeartMedia podcast network.
Speaker 2: Your theme music and scoring is also by the one
Speaker 2: and nobly Mattawsowski. Still killing the beats softly, So listen,
Speaker 2: don't let nobody lie to you. If you understand urban living,
Speaker 2: you understand politics. These people is not smarter than you.
Speaker 2: We'll see y'all next week.