Speaker 1: Native Lampid is a production of iHeart Radio and partnership
Speaker 1: with Reason Choice Media. Welcome home, y'all. This is episode
Speaker 1: one hundred and nine of Native Lampid, where we give
Speaker 1: you our breakdown of all things.
Speaker 2: Politics and culture.
Speaker 1: We are your hosts, Angela Rye, Tiffany Cross, Andrew Gillim
Speaker 1: and Bacari Sellers. What's going on y'all will get into today?
Speaker 3: Well, I want to get into the same thing I
Speaker 3: get into every weekends, so you know, I want to
Speaker 3: hear from the viewers, and we have a lot of questions.
Speaker 3: So that's my thing for this week. What y'all got.
Speaker 4: It's been a big week.
Speaker 5: Sorry, no, no, no no.
Speaker 4: I didn't want to interrupt, but I was a feeling
Speaker 4: well in the middle of the night and took some
Speaker 4: medicine and I took the drowsy version. So if I
Speaker 4: seem a little slower today, I just want you to
Speaker 4: bear with me. I felt like that disclosed you was necessary.
Speaker 1: Well I'm glad because I was hoping you weren't drinking
Speaker 1: on the clock, So I'm glad to know it's Benadrill
Speaker 1: instead or mused X or whatever else they got. Andrew,
Speaker 1: we hope you feel better. I know you don't, but
Speaker 1: that's why I was so concerned, because I thought somebody
Speaker 1: had put something, you know, in your in your in
Speaker 1: your hot tea, gave you a hot toddy instead. You
Speaker 1: didn't even ask for. Well, here's the thing. It has
Speaker 1: not been a big day for Andrew. It's actually a
Speaker 1: slow day, not by design, but it is a It's
Speaker 1: been a big week for women. So I want to
Speaker 1: talk about too, in particular, shout out to Asia Wilson,
Speaker 1: who is the Time Athlete of the Year.
Speaker 2: Hopefully we talk about that just a little bit.
Speaker 1: And also Jasmine Crockett is finally announced that she's going
Speaker 1: to run for uh senden seed in Texas, going against
Speaker 1: incumbent John Corner, So I definitely want to talk about
Speaker 1: that with us.
Speaker 2: Y'all think you God damn did y'all not?
Speaker 3: Like I'm waiting to hear from Bacari and the camera
Speaker 3: like this frozen again.
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Talking what do you want to talk about?
Speaker 5: We're gonna talk about the WI FI in Columbia, South Carolina.
Speaker 5: How about we talked about that? Apparently it is the
Speaker 5: issue is the issue de jure of the day. I
Speaker 5: don't know I mean, there's there's so much, there's so
Speaker 5: much to talk about. I actually appreciated uh Angel's topic
Speaker 5: about Asia Wilson coming from South Carolina. So I'm a
Speaker 5: chiment on that with y'all because I think that she
Speaker 5: deserves a lot of props for the weight that she
Speaker 5: carries for black women, the w NBA, and a lot
Speaker 5: of many a lot of others.
Speaker 4: Beca, didn't you also suggest we talk a little bit
Speaker 4: about the consequences of of elections and elections out this
Speaker 4: is the Detroit story.
Speaker 2: I thought he was saving that for next week.
Speaker 6: A g.
Speaker 5: Well head you got.
Speaker 1: I cannot handle this delayed ass pace today. Okay, so
Speaker 1: here's the next thing. Y'all blame my add but I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna say this. The other thing that is very exciting.
Speaker 1: This is something where even Andrew in his slow state
Speaker 1: is going.
Speaker 2: To get excited about. I just know it. Ellie missed out.
Speaker 1: Our resident Supreme Court Exford is also joining us today.
Speaker 1: We have so much to talk about with the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: They cutting up y'all. You ared of citizens United, They
Speaker 1: trying to make it even worse. They're also going to
Speaker 1: consider birthright citizenship. We're gonna get into all of that
Speaker 1: and more with Ellie today. We're gonna get right into
Speaker 1: the show.
Speaker 5: Let's go, y'all, how about this new one. They have
Speaker 5: their new star, Crockett.
Speaker 4: How about her? She's a new star of the Democrat Party,
Speaker 4: Jasmine Crockett. They're in big trouble, but you have this
Speaker 4: woman Crockett. She's a very low IQ person.
Speaker 5: I watched her speak to the other day. She's definitely
Speaker 5: a low IQ person.
Speaker 4: Crockett. Oh man, oh man.
Speaker 5: She's a very low IQ person.
Speaker 4: Somebody said the other day she's one of the leaders
Speaker 4: of the party. I think you gotta be kidding.
Speaker 5: Now, they're going to rely on Crockett's gonna bring the bed.
Speaker 1: So everyone, as we know, Jasmine Crockett announced her run
Speaker 1: for the United States Senate. This week, Colin Aureed, who
Speaker 1: is a former member of the House of Representatives, announced
Speaker 1: that he will run for what is now her seat,
Speaker 1: and he's dropping out of the Senate race. I want
Speaker 1: to know what you all think about the announcement video
Speaker 1: in what you think about Jazzin's run for the United
Speaker 1: States Senate.
Speaker 4: I think first I would just acknowledge up front that
Speaker 4: the hit pieces that will undermine her math, that will
Speaker 4: undermine her politics. To try to drive this to a
Speaker 4: radical left versus moderate versus you know, centric centrist, you
Speaker 4: know democrat. That stuff is going to happen. We should
Speaker 4: just gear it up for it. And it's not unusual
Speaker 4: that that's where people start, because what they have to
Speaker 4: do is penetrate, pierce, and then destroy your viability. Her
Speaker 4: opponents will want to make her look unviable, and unfortunately
Speaker 4: a lot of that you know, sort of bag mention
Speaker 4: is gonna come the Democratic side. They'll be on shows
Speaker 4: today and throughout. Given all the reasons why this is
Speaker 4: a full hearted run, but I want to applaud her.
Speaker 4: I think it is a brave and courageous run, and
Speaker 4: I think she can do as well, if not better,
Speaker 4: hopefully much better than some of the more recent candidates
Speaker 4: who got close, either going after a cruise or corning.
Speaker 5: You know. I got to echo Andrew sentiment here here,
Speaker 5: just because I don't think people get enough credit or
Speaker 5: give enough credit for individuals who give themselves to run
Speaker 5: for office, particularly statewide in the South. I like to
Speaker 5: say that you know, in twenty fourteen, you know, you
Speaker 5: help chip away at that glass. You have people like
Speaker 5: Andrew Gillim and Stacy Abrams who helped chip away at
Speaker 5: that glass after some of us are in. And you know,
Speaker 5: I just think that it takes so much courage because
Speaker 5: you you know, what I tell folks is that you
Speaker 5: have you met anybody halfway pregnant it and that's what
Speaker 5: it is with you, and that that that not that
Speaker 5: you have in your stomach because you don't know where
Speaker 5: the barbs the next day are going, that anxiety, that angst.
Speaker 5: So I'm very, very proud of Jasmine Crockett for running.
Speaker 5: If we want to have a conversation about her viability
Speaker 5: to win, that's another conversation, because I think that she's
Speaker 5: running uphill with a couple of mules on her back,
Speaker 5: a couple of bouters pulling her back in the other direction.
Speaker 5: And I think it's going to be very difficult for
Speaker 5: Jasmine Crockett to be the next United States Senator from
Speaker 5: the great state of Texas if anybody can do what
Speaker 5: she can. But I just don't know if anybody wearing
Speaker 5: a D on their lapel can win Texas right now
Speaker 5: through no fault of her own. But we can get
Speaker 5: to that. I wanted to start it off though by
Speaker 5: lauding the fact that she's actually jumping out there and running,
Speaker 5: because that in itself as a testament to her strength.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, we should let the viewers know that.
Speaker 3: Of course, she'll have to go through the primary. The
Speaker 3: Democratic primary was hill Face Congressman tallerco. I believe it's
Speaker 3: how you say his name, a congressman from Austin, And
Speaker 3: I think what you're getting at, Bacari is we have
Speaker 3: been promised for so long that Texas is going to
Speaker 3: turn purple and it has not yet happened. I mean,
Speaker 3: we saw this effort with Betel O'Rourke, who came really close,
Speaker 3: and it was a lot of excitement around his campaign,
Speaker 3: and I think there are a lot of competing interest
Speaker 3: in Texas, right you know. There, our brother Rollad Martin
Speaker 3: would want us to point out that Texas has numerically
Speaker 3: the highest number of eligible black voters in the state,
Speaker 3: and I don't know if that's going to be enough
Speaker 3: to carry her across the line. I think one of
Speaker 3: the challenges those mules that you were talking about that
Speaker 3: she's carrying is the population that leans towards whiteness. So
Speaker 3: even though there's this huge Latino population. Within the Latino community,
Speaker 3: there are a lot of white presenting, white thinking Latinos
Speaker 3: who ascribe to a very conservative ideology and landscape, so
Speaker 3: it will be interesting. I definitely applaud her for jumping
Speaker 3: in the race, will certainly be watching it and covering
Speaker 3: it extensively. I'm looking forward to fair, clear, clean, concise
Speaker 3: coverage of the race with proper context. I would love
Speaker 3: to see another black woman in the Senate representing the
Speaker 3: interests of the folks in the longhorned state, but I
Speaker 3: do think it is fair to acknowledge that it's an
Speaker 3: uphill battle. I also think this is going to be
Speaker 3: one of the Senate races that will morph into a
Speaker 3: national race. We've seen Donald Trump laser focus on black women,
Speaker 3: particularly effective black women, and so I hope that people
Speaker 3: can get behind her because I also think Angela that
Speaker 3: there are a lot of times when we're saying, well,
Speaker 3: she can't win, and you know, well, you know it's
Speaker 3: a good effort, but we're gonna see like sometimes let's
Speaker 3: just get in there and say, hey, we plan to win.
Speaker 3: You know, when you're on that spade table and your
Speaker 3: partner looking at you like, well, no, I always say,
Speaker 3: play to win. Play to win. Assume that you want
Speaker 3: to win as soon the universe is tilted in your favor.
Speaker 3: So I think we have to give that energy to her.
Speaker 3: But but what are your thoughts? Because I know she's
Speaker 3: a friend of the show, and you've worked on campaigns
Speaker 3: before and certainly navigated Capitol Hill.
Speaker 1: What do you think about her chances? Well, I'm going
Speaker 1: to tell you what I think. Right after this fire
Speaker 1: alarm goes off at the hotel that I'm in. But
Speaker 1: I also got to stop smoking.
Speaker 2: So again, it's a fire alarm test.
Speaker 1: You goofball. That's what you do at hotels, not what
Speaker 1: I do in hotels. Now, what I would just say quickly,
Speaker 1: hopefully y'all can't hear this. I really want to hear
Speaker 1: from the guys, in particular because there are her there.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of folks who are saying, like,
Speaker 1: why would you even try to run statewide in the
Speaker 1: South and so, Bakari, you ran for a lieutenant governor,
Speaker 1: was the Democratic nominee in South Carolina in twenty fourteen.
Speaker 1: What would you implore jazzmin to do different? And Andrew
Speaker 1: from your gubernatorial run in twenty eighteen, what would you
Speaker 1: implore Jazmin to do differently, and what would you implore
Speaker 1: the voters to do differently? Because I think that's the major.
Speaker 5: Keeler for me, one of the things that has made
Speaker 5: me raise an eyebrow. As one of Congressman Crockett's first
Speaker 5: interviews on National TV and her rollout when she was
Speaker 5: talking about whether or not she had to go after
Speaker 5: Trump voters or other voters, and her response was, I
Speaker 5: don't necessarily need them, right, And I ascribed to the
Speaker 5: notion that elections are more about addition and multiplication than
Speaker 5: they are subtraction and division. And I think that she's
Speaker 5: talented enough that by not limiting her electorate, she can grow.
Speaker 5: So that's one thing. The other thing is she has
Speaker 5: to create an entirely new electric That's something Barack Obama
Speaker 5: did when he ran in two thousand and eight to
Speaker 5: kind of shock the world. And creating that new elector
Speaker 5: it means that you have an entire new base of voters,
Speaker 5: which I believe she's going to do extremely well. She's
Speaker 5: going to raise the money. I think that Texas has
Speaker 5: long been Food's goal for Democrats, and we waste a
Speaker 5: lot of money in Texas on different races that can
Speaker 5: go to other seats where you can possibly fare better.
Speaker 5: But I do think that that she's going to add
Speaker 5: a new energy, and I regardless of whether or not
Speaker 5: I think she can win, I think she will be
Speaker 5: a winner win this race is over. And I also
Speaker 5: think something about Jasmine Crockett running in this race that
Speaker 5: people aren't necessarily giving her credit for. Right now, She's
Speaker 5: going to drag along a lot of other Democrats in Texas.
Speaker 5: She there is going to be a wave in Texas
Speaker 5: because Jasmine Crockett is running. I don't think she'll get
Speaker 5: beat like a drum per se, but I just find
Speaker 5: it to be extremely difficult. But I do think that
Speaker 5: her race still can be a success with other things
Speaker 5: I think. I mean, I got over forty percent of
Speaker 5: the vote in South Carolina, which is a whole hell
Speaker 5: of a lot for Democrats now who don't break you know,
Speaker 5: over thirty five And I know Andrew was one megachurch
Speaker 5: away from being governor of Florida. What it was it
Speaker 5: thirty five thousand voters, So I mean, I do know,
Speaker 5: and Stacey Abrams came close the first time, so it's
Speaker 5: not this isn't out of the realm if possible. But
Speaker 5: when we talk about these type of races, we have
Speaker 5: to understand the magnitude the difficulty and get her the
Speaker 5: benefit of knowing that she still can be a success
Speaker 5: because so many people are going to She's going to
Speaker 5: drag along with them with her.
Speaker 4: If she's able to raise the amount of money that
Speaker 4: would be typical for a contested a general election. Right
Speaker 4: if they believe if Cornyon wins on the Republican side,
Speaker 4: and Democrats are really serious about competing and therefore they
Speaker 4: resource her race, I don't see her doing any worse
Speaker 4: than the latest Democrat who has gotten the closest I think,
Speaker 4: so I'll perform the Democratic typical performance. She gets the
Speaker 4: resources that are equal because I think her natural instincts
Speaker 4: are going to the places that she knows she needs
Speaker 4: to be. She will need to camp out between the
Speaker 4: largest Black centers in the state and the largest Latino areas,
Speaker 4: and progressive whites tend to find you they're determined a
Speaker 4: lot of times in that way. But those two groups
Speaker 4: trying to demystify where she needs to with the Latino
Speaker 4: community around what she does and doesn't know, believes or
Speaker 4: doesn't believe what the values they share in common, and
Speaker 4: then motivating black folks because what I know about us
Speaker 4: is we're extremely sophisticated voters and we do not throw
Speaker 4: our votes away. In that sophistication has largely come from
Speaker 4: the fact that we've always had to do the math
Speaker 4: and the figuring out the psychology of how everybody else
Speaker 4: is going to vote, how everybody else is going to perform,
Speaker 4: before we then can decide whether or not we're putting
Speaker 4: our vote behind a losing cause to make a statement
Speaker 4: or negotiating space to share power.
Speaker 3: Just I kinda follow up because I was really interested
Speaker 3: in hearing your thoughts on Angela's question about what do
Speaker 3: voters need to do differently, particularly given that they're going
Speaker 3: to be flooded with it's an uphill battle and you know,
Speaker 3: things that are going on. And also just want to
Speaker 3: let the listeners know that there's quite the primary on
Speaker 3: the other side as well. The incumbent is Senator John Cornyn,
Speaker 3: a Trump acolyte. He's being primary by the Attorney General
Speaker 3: there Ken Paxton, another Trump acolyte, and joining the race
Speaker 3: is also Congressman Wesley Hunt. And these are all Trump
Speaker 3: sick of fans, so I'm not sure that she'll be
Speaker 3: competing for the same voters that they are. But I'm
Speaker 3: curious from you and Bacari, what do voters need to
Speaker 3: do differently?
Speaker 5: So, I mean, I think a lot of this is
Speaker 5: a little bit premature because I think the way you,
Speaker 5: the way you run this race, the way voters think
Speaker 5: about it is going to be vastly different. If it's
Speaker 5: Kim Paxton, who has the ethical baggage of it's probably
Speaker 5: worse than Donald Trump. Right, that's a that is an
Speaker 5: easier race. None of them are easy, but that's an
Speaker 5: easier race for Jasmin Crockett. I think Cornyn is a
Speaker 5: typical type of r beside his name, and he's been
Speaker 5: in politics there for a very long period of time
Speaker 5: and people are used to pressing the button statewide. And
Speaker 5: then the other one is Wesley Hunt, who doesn't stand
Speaker 5: a chance in hell. So I think that we're going
Speaker 5: to learn a lot about Jasmine Crockett, We're going to
Speaker 5: learn a lot about this about the electorate through this
Speaker 5: Democratic primary because Tara Leko is very formidable. You know,
Speaker 5: he is a messenger that a lot of people have
Speaker 5: gravitated towards. He's the type of person who goes out
Speaker 5: and speaks to different groups. And one of the things
Speaker 5: that Jasmine Crockett has and I think we take for
Speaker 5: granted because we live in this media bubble, but this
Speaker 5: is an opportunity for her. Like on the Internet, Jasmine
Speaker 5: Crockett probably has one hundred percent name ID, but throughout Texas,
Speaker 5: her name I D probably doesn't crack one third right.
Speaker 5: And that is the type of growth and a runway
Speaker 5: that I think that she can. I mean, because me
Speaker 5: and Angela were talking about this the other day. People
Speaker 5: don't even know and Tiffany, we talked about it several times.
Speaker 5: People don't even know her resume. I mean, they don't
Speaker 5: know how brilliant she is. They don't know that she
Speaker 5: went to law school. They don't know where she went
Speaker 5: to law school. You know, they don't know how she
Speaker 5: had to be this much better than everybody else to
Speaker 5: get to where she is. So she literally has an
Speaker 5: opportunity to introduce herself to voters, Tiffany, to kind of
Speaker 5: get to your question, and she has to take advantage
Speaker 5: of that moment, an opportunity to introduce herself to those voters.
Speaker 5: And also it's not voters have to train themselves. And
Speaker 5: we're still learning how to do that because very few
Speaker 5: voters have ever had the opportunity to press a button
Speaker 5: for a black person in that seat, let alone a
Speaker 5: black woman. And so you have to go through this
Speaker 5: process of actually training the electorate too, giving them kind
Speaker 5: of a permission skip to go and do that.
Speaker 1: You know, part of what I think is so important.
Speaker 1: And well, actually, Andrew, maybe you were going to answer
Speaker 1: the voter question too, but I think that this is
Speaker 1: an important piece to add here. And I think both
Speaker 1: of you all have done this. When candidates are running,
Speaker 1: you also hear them talking about the campaign and they say,
Speaker 1: we're going to win in our campaign, right, it's a
Speaker 1: collective wi and it's a collective hour because it isn't
Speaker 1: just the candidate who is needed to pull off a victory.
Speaker 1: It is the responsibility of the voters. The amount of
Speaker 1: reliance that you take that you have to have and
Speaker 1: people some that you only shook hands with, if at all,
Speaker 1: is humbling. And so I would love Andrew for you
Speaker 1: to talk about that we that hour and you know
Speaker 1: how that we in our has to change in this
Speaker 1: moment in time. There are some things that are shifting
Speaker 1: for example, for the first time in three decades, I
Speaker 1: believe a Democrat one my mayoral race in Miami. So
Speaker 1: the tide is changing. Has it changed enough? And what
Speaker 1: is needed for the voters Andrew to continue that tithe change?
Speaker 4: Well, no, there's not been a permantive change. I think
Speaker 4: there's a realignment every cycle, at least of late so
Speaker 4: far as Obama race, where he was getting upwards of
Speaker 4: sixty seven percent of Miami Dade County. When you know,
Speaker 4: I come around and we're hovering at forty and fifty percent.
Speaker 4: So you had these precipitous fall and then now it's
Speaker 4: every four cycles, maybe every two cycles, every two years.
Speaker 4: Rather for every cycle there's a there is a swing
Speaker 4: back from one to the other and another swing, and
Speaker 4: in some cases the you know, the the swing is
Speaker 4: more extreme than we would have ever thought. I think
Speaker 4: what voters have to do, and I you know, I
Speaker 4: actually I was real honest with people when I was
Speaker 4: running in Florida that this system can't change just because
Speaker 4: you send one person there, one man, they're one governor there,
Speaker 4: and that if you send me there and you're not
Speaker 4: back up, then you're sending me alone and you're stranding me,
Speaker 4: and so we can't get the kind of change that
Speaker 4: we want to see in this state if we all
Speaker 4: aren't in this game. That means coming up and visiting
Speaker 4: legislators and talking to your city councils and wrestling resolutions
Speaker 4: out of them in support of our legislative reforms. But
Speaker 4: it required us all to do something, and I wanted
Speaker 4: to be honest about it, because we delude our voters
Speaker 4: into thinking that one man changes one thing through one
Speaker 4: cycle and voila. And then that thing doesn't happen, and
Speaker 4: everybody's like, but you told us that you was going
Speaker 4: to do and it doesn't happen, and then that cycle
Speaker 4: continues to repeat itself, and it turns people off of politics,
Speaker 4: and we spend a whole generation's time trying to recruit
Speaker 4: them back.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and to this point, if you asked earlier about
Speaker 1: like just my work, I would just say simple. The
Speaker 1: most important thing for voters right now is to do
Speaker 1: as Reverend Jackson said often, which is to keep hope alive.
Speaker 1: I think that we often lose sight of the way
Speaker 1: that things change. It is one vote at a time,
Speaker 1: and I think, in particular in this environment, it's hard
Speaker 1: to stay encouraged. It's hard to know that the power
Speaker 1: is in your hands. It's hard to remember that democracy
Speaker 1: in and of itself people power, right, It is us
Speaker 1: realizing that power. And so that's the first thing that
Speaker 1: I would say to encourage, you know, Jasmine in this
Speaker 1: particular journey, which is to know like you signed up
Speaker 1: to do this because you know you're a formidable fighter.
Speaker 2: You work hard.
Speaker 1: There are people that she knows very well who have
Speaker 1: run statewide, some of them who have won black women.
Speaker 1: She should talk to them, Tis James, she should talk
Speaker 1: to Kamala Harris is not a blue state by any stretch,
Speaker 1: but there are some really key lessons that she can
Speaker 1: learn because no matter what, we know that racism is
Speaker 1: a nonpartisan problem. So she also is up against whatever
Speaker 1: happens in that primary. Folks who are already seen, they don't
Speaker 1: know that they're gonna get in, they're gonna endorse or
Speaker 1: get involved in all of that. So I think it's
Speaker 1: important for her to hold on to that hope in
Speaker 1: this moment as well. And that's something that's got to
Speaker 1: be shared by the voters.
Speaker 3: The balloon Angela, I hope you reiterate all of that.
Speaker 2: Men who don't vote.
Speaker 1: So I won't be popping the balloon. But the people
Speaker 1: have spoken. They cannot wait for you to go to.
Speaker 2: Oh no, it's going too far.
Speaker 1: Where's r hr R falling complete?
Speaker 5: You are the executive producer who okay, okay, they fired already.
Speaker 5: I do want to clarify one thing real quick, though,
Speaker 5: because I think I said that the voters you got
Speaker 5: to train the voters, and I'm not sure people know
Speaker 5: what that means. And I think people take for granted
Speaker 5: the work that uh Stacey Abrams did in George before
Speaker 5: she ran. She went to a sub precinct level, meaning
Speaker 5: that it's not just the precinct where you vote, but
Speaker 5: she actually went into those communities and met with those
Speaker 5: community leaders and had individuals go through and meet with
Speaker 5: those community leaders to make sure that the next election,
Speaker 5: the school board election, those individuals were trained to go
Speaker 5: to the polls to make sure that those city council races,
Speaker 5: those individuals were trained to go to the polls. Andrew
Speaker 5: knows his state of Florida better than I, but I
Speaker 5: would guess that there was a lot of remnants of
Speaker 5: you know, Obama for America and the infrastructure that shit
Speaker 5: ain't cheap either, you're talking about tens of millions of
Speaker 5: dollars that are spent on infrastructure over a period of time.
Speaker 5: And so that's when we talk about it being uphill.
Speaker 5: This isn't an indictment of Jasmine Crockett. This is more
Speaker 5: so an indictment of democratic infrastructure being prepared to catapulta
Speaker 5: candidacy like Jasmine Crockets and putting her into place where
Speaker 5: you have a puncher's chance to have success. And so
Speaker 5: I just wanted to be extremely clear that that those
Speaker 5: things have to be in place if you're not in
Speaker 5: a blue state like Massachusetts or New York. And then
Speaker 5: I wanted to pose a question to y'all because Angela
Speaker 5: got me kind of fired up about it. But what
Speaker 5: y'all think about a King Jeffrey saying he won't going
Speaker 5: to endorse or stay out the race?
Speaker 1: Wait a minute, where play that clip? Where is that at?
Speaker 5: Oh? Okay, I'll drop it in the I will drop
Speaker 5: it in the chat. Let me, let me, let me
Speaker 5: do my best. Let me do my best, Nicholas, and
Speaker 5: y'all gonna hear me tat of tatter on the back of.
Speaker 1: That's and get it because I want to make sure
Speaker 1: we got to we got to fact actuals and factuals,
Speaker 1: because if he said that there's something that, yeah, we should.
Speaker 2: Definitely discuss that.
Speaker 1: So while Bakari is pulling that, we can just run
Speaker 1: that thing back. But in the meantime, we were talking
Speaker 1: about people power. So I want us to know that
Speaker 1: this show is a we also it's not just the
Speaker 1: four of us city here, it also includes our NLP
Speaker 1: fam that you are, the viewers.
Speaker 2: So at this point we're gonna run a viewer question.
Speaker 7: Let's go I Native Land Pod, Hi, Angela, Andrew and Tiffany,
Speaker 7: and welcome Baccari. My question is, can we have a
Speaker 7: mini pod in regards to legacy News media News, who
Speaker 7: controls them and how they've become complicit in what Trump
Speaker 7: is doing. As of now, you are not going to
Speaker 7: hear anybody saying anything that's going to come against what's
Speaker 7: going on. They're very.
Speaker 8: Tame.
Speaker 7: I did a little bit of research and I saw
Speaker 7: that you know who owns MSNBC, CNN, NBC. But could
Speaker 7: you guys go deeper dive into it, especially you put it,
Speaker 7: you know, on a bigger platform, because I think people
Speaker 7: really need.
Speaker 6: To know.
Speaker 7: Who owns and why the news isn't speaking up like
Speaker 7: they should be.
Speaker 4: That's really good. Yeah, that's that's a uh. This Netflix
Speaker 4: Paramount Warner Brothers situation is brought into focus for a
Speaker 4: lot of people, especially with the threats from the President
Speaker 4: about making changes at CNN and the guarantees that they
Speaker 4: say are being made being shuttled between Jerry Kushner, who
Speaker 4: is on one side of the two deals with regard
Speaker 4: to the to the to the takeover at Warner Brothers,
Speaker 4: and the number of interconnected, interwoven billionaire millionaire class in
Speaker 4: this country who are running our government in a shadowy way,
Speaker 4: you know, guiding you know the direction in which the
Speaker 4: administration takes on certain issues, you know, impacting all of this,
Speaker 4: and much of it is happening behind the veil, not
Speaker 4: in public. These are private calls and shuttles that are
Speaker 4: being made between Donald Trump and it closest folks to
Speaker 4: build this cabal and the Congress that would be ashamed
Speaker 4: of not, as the Court says, jealously protecting it's its
Speaker 4: responsibilities to hold this president accountable.
Speaker 3: As not everybody knows the Netflix, Warner Brothers things that
Speaker 3: do you want to break it down?
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's so so for folks who haven't heard this
Speaker 4: last week, Uh, it was heavy in the news the
Speaker 4: fact that Netflix the nation's largest I think they've got
Speaker 4: the largest customer base as it relates to these uh
Speaker 4: streaming apps. Yeah, streaming platforms had made a I think
Speaker 4: it was a seventy six billion dollar bid to take
Speaker 4: over Warner Brothers. And it's seventy two billion and it's
Speaker 4: over one hundred year catalog of entertainment, big shows to
Speaker 4: you know, series because what they found in this streaming
Speaker 4: space is at over half the folks who are streaming
Speaker 4: are streaming old shows, not new things on television. They're
Speaker 4: going back to things that they grew up on potentially
Speaker 4: in streaming those, which I thought was very fascinating, and
Speaker 4: then I thought about my own habits and I sometimes
Speaker 4: found myself doing that either way sort of. The Actors Guild,
Speaker 4: the arts community writ large are against this because they
Speaker 4: believe it's going to one concentrate really power on all
Speaker 4: sides of a negotiation to do just one of these
Speaker 4: companies fewer games in town, which tends to one layoff
Speaker 4: employees and drive up the costs. So for those of
Speaker 4: us who get subscriptions, you may be consolidating them, but
Speaker 4: in the total you end up paying, you end up
Speaker 4: paying more. So it sounds like a deal, but isn't
Speaker 4: a deal at all. But the consolidation of media part
Speaker 4: we really all have to be paying attention to, because
Speaker 4: there's already too many closure relationships to take actions to
Speaker 4: then make that Cabald even smaller and thereby stronger I
Speaker 4: think Bear's consequences as well.
Speaker 3: So just so folks know, there was quite a bidding war.
Speaker 3: So it was one of brothers technically Warner Brothers Discovery,
Speaker 3: but then when they merge with this is happening, the
Speaker 3: consolidation of a lot of these companies, what is happening.
Speaker 3: David Zaslov was over Discovery. David Zaslov is, according to
Speaker 3: the reporting, is rumored to lean right and be more
Speaker 3: of a conservative. And so as this bidding war was happening,
Speaker 3: there were a lot of eyes paying attention to see
Speaker 3: who was going to buy this company, because as you
Speaker 3: all know, Warner Brothers include CNN, HBO, and when you
Speaker 3: think about the really big franchises that people watch Game
Speaker 3: of Thrones, think about all your favorite shows on HBO.
Speaker 3: The streaming giant will then have access to that. And
Speaker 3: so after this, after Netflix has acquired Warner Brothers, a
Speaker 3: lot of people held their breast. What does this mean
Speaker 3: for CNN? So in this deal they did not they
Speaker 3: will not acquire CNN. CNN will now be a part
Speaker 3: of its own group that I believe. You guys correct
Speaker 3: me if I'm wrong, but I believe that will still
Speaker 3: remain under the control of Zaslov. But yet, to your point, Andrew,
Speaker 3: what this means for entertainers, what this means for writers, directors?
Speaker 3: All these things remains to be seen. As we've seen,
Speaker 3: streaming has completely changed the field. But certainly when it
Speaker 3: comes to our news outlets and who they feed into.
Speaker 3: Comcast owns, MSNBC, CNN, like I said, will remain under
Speaker 3: Warner Brothers. Fox, when you think about how incestuous that
Speaker 3: is so Fox, Wall Street Journal, HarperCollins, all of these
Speaker 3: things feed up, funnel up into the same conservative outlets.
Speaker 3: So this is I think the caller for the question.
Speaker 3: This is something that I would love to do a
Speaker 3: mini pod on.
Speaker 5: We're gonna dig deep into some stuff that is pretty
Speaker 5: interesting in the courts with the Courts with our guest
Speaker 5: Elie Mistel on the other side of the break, let
Speaker 5: us pay some bills.
Speaker 1: Well, I wanted to if we can pivot back to
Speaker 1: Jasmine Crockett. We were talking just a moment ago about Hakim.
Speaker 1: Jeffries said in a recent press conference, Nick, can we
Speaker 1: roll that clip?
Speaker 8: Well, I think I'm obviously focused on the House, not
Speaker 8: the Senate, and we're only three seats short of taking
Speaker 8: back the majority, and we are going to take the
Speaker 8: majority back in the next Congress. The Republicans have been
Speaker 8: a disaster. They're totally on the run. They failed the
Speaker 8: American people. The cost of living is out of control.
Speaker 8: Democrats are the only group of people in this town
Speaker 8: and across the country actually interested in dealing with the
Speaker 8: affordability crisis. That's where our focus continue to be.
Speaker 5: I think that the clip didn't necessarily encapsulate the question,
Speaker 5: But the question was asked, are you going to support?
Speaker 5: I mean, are you going to endorse Jasmine Crockett? And
Speaker 5: that was his response. His response was, I'm focused on
Speaker 5: the I'm focused on the House, which of course is
Speaker 5: his job. With three seats away. He pivoted and moved on.
Speaker 5: I just think that in this in this world where
Speaker 5: information moves fast, disinformation misinformation moves fast. He did say
Speaker 5: that she was strong and formidable in those type of things.
Speaker 5: I just wanted to know your thoughts on it, because
Speaker 5: I know that he has been drawing a lot of
Speaker 5: heat from all sides, particularly those of us who support him,
Speaker 5: are questioning some decisions, and I don't I don't, you know,
Speaker 5: I think Nancy Pelosi handles things differently. I don't. I
Speaker 5: don't know. I just think that she handled things with
Speaker 5: a kind of, you know, a testicular fortitude that isn't
Speaker 5: necessarily displayed often or all the time by by Kim Jeffrey.
Speaker 5: So that was my that I'm not saying I'm critical it.
Speaker 5: I just wanted to hear your thoughts on the non endorsement.
Speaker 5: She's cool, though, you know.
Speaker 1: I'm just I'm not going in too deep here, but
Speaker 1: I will just say this. I think that context also matters.
Speaker 1: I hate when people clip our stuff without context, so
Speaker 1: let me just give context.
Speaker 2: People might get mad, but it is what it is.
Speaker 1: This was a press conference in the House, the typical
Speaker 1: weekly press conference they have, and the press conference was
Speaker 1: about the Republicans refusing to support I really think Andrew's
Speaker 1: fall asleep.
Speaker 2: This was about Uh, the.
Speaker 5: I just watching it.
Speaker 4: It's really hard because you're you're want to be like
Speaker 4: really intensive in your hearing, but then your body is.
Speaker 2: Like, oh my god, Andrew, go get some water. Put
Speaker 2: some water in your face.
Speaker 5: Chet about to about to do Andrew some coffee and
Speaker 5: some coked.
Speaker 2: Get like Coca co Jesus, y'all pray for our brother.
Speaker 1: Anyway, The frustration here is that this was about their
Speaker 1: many failed attempts to get Republicans to side with voters
Speaker 1: and everyday Americans on healthcare subsidies and extending the healthcare subsidies.
Speaker 1: They have until the end of the year before people's
Speaker 1: subsidies skyrocket. And so he's asked about the announcement, and
Speaker 1: that's not the purpose of this particular press conference. It's
Speaker 1: policy based, not necessarily political unless he's talking about and
Speaker 1: he's been disciplined about it.
Speaker 2: Do I like the response?
Speaker 1: No, No, I don't like the response, but I do
Speaker 1: appreciate the fact that the that the context matters. I
Speaker 1: think that it sucks because Jasmine has gone so hard
Speaker 1: for Hakim hard, and I think that he owes her
Speaker 1: not just a bit of gratitude, but also loyalty.
Speaker 2: In that same way.
Speaker 1: So I hope that he comes back around and makes
Speaker 1: that clear when the timing is right, maybe get.
Speaker 2: Enough conference.
Speaker 4: That we get enough rope that every other candidate who's
Speaker 4: white and male gets Whenever they enter a race, everyone
Speaker 4: doesn't rush to They can't raise the money, and oh
Speaker 4: are they going to be viable amongst the black constituency,
Speaker 4: which is going to be the base vote that will
Speaker 4: depend on an election day? You know, none of that
Speaker 4: level of scrutiny. But the moment you put a transcending candidate,
Speaker 4: you know in there something that's not the norm, then
Speaker 4: it's everything's all speculative. Now this is a gamble, and
Speaker 4: so much is at stake, And do we really want
Speaker 4: to split our resources between this race and a Senate race?
Speaker 4: Why don't we just throw all of our money into
Speaker 4: one of those? I mean, just the games that are played.
Speaker 4: There's no real fealty to sessing out what's the best. Necessarily,
Speaker 4: there's this there's this negotiation we do amongst ourselves, negotiating
Speaker 4: away from ourselves. It's it's crazy Republicans don't negotiate against themselves.
Speaker 4: They go all in.
Speaker 5: To andrew point. They push to Andrew's point that the
Speaker 5: context that I also think matters, is I compared to
Speaker 5: the Nancy Pelosi but like she is one of his
Speaker 5: caucus members, and yeah, and he ain't. Terre Leko ain't.
Speaker 5: I mean, it's not like there is a decision to
Speaker 5: be made or to be had. And I know Nancy
Speaker 5: and I may be wrong, Angela, you actually are way
Speaker 5: more keen than in depth. But I do believe that
Speaker 5: there was times when Nancy Pelosi had caucus members run
Speaker 5: for something else and when they announced, she was I'm
Speaker 5: right there with them, you know, I'm missing I love him.
Speaker 5: She might not even like them that much, but she
Speaker 5: was always ten toes down for her caucus members. And
Speaker 5: I just think that people remember that because it's not
Speaker 5: that distant and are questioning it now. That's my only point.
Speaker 2: I guess.
Speaker 1: I mean, you could say that, but Hakeim is not
Speaker 1: the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. He's the chair
Speaker 1: of or he is the or the Democratic leader of
Speaker 1: the House. So technically Talla, Rico, Tyreko, Tyrek and nem
Speaker 1: is in his caucus. It's the Democratic Caucus.
Speaker 2: Democratic.
Speaker 5: He's not a member of the House, oh lord, He's
Speaker 5: a member of the tech No he's a member of
Speaker 5: the Teche.
Speaker 1: Prom but generally speaking, but generally speaking, to be fair,
Speaker 1: democratic leadership normally does stay out of things in their
Speaker 1: primary stage. I am with you to be fair that
Speaker 1: I think he should have said something about Jasmine. I
Speaker 1: said that Jasmine was a writer for him. I said
Speaker 1: that Jasmine has had his back. Now here's the place
Speaker 1: where I'm a different with you on Nancy Pelosi. I've
Speaker 1: watched Nancy Pelosi pit members against each other, and we're
Speaker 1: talking about her, how she's such a writer. She wasn't
Speaker 1: a writer for Kamala Harris. She was calling for an
Speaker 1: open premier, open convention, sorry, not an open primary, open convention.
Speaker 2: Since we messing up today.
Speaker 1: Charge that to andrews Cole means getting its way all
Speaker 1: the way to Jacksonville where I'm at. Now, Okay, that said,
Speaker 1: I did want to tell you all really quickly. We
Speaker 1: know our good friend Terrence Woodbury is working with Jasmine
Speaker 1: on this campaign, and I asked him to send us
Speaker 1: a response into this article from notice UH which talks
Speaker 1: about the NRSC, which is the Republican Senatorial Committee having
Speaker 1: an astro turf recruitment process, which would have encouraged Jasmin
Speaker 1: Crockett to run. They said that they started to include
Speaker 1: her name in polling to see if she would bite.
Speaker 1: And they try trying to exclaim credit for this, that
Speaker 1: they wanted the least viable candidate in this race against
Speaker 1: John cornn Er, whoever wins the Republican primary, and they're
Speaker 1: trying to say that they they're the reasons why, the
Speaker 1: reason why she decided to run. So Terrence Woodbury's response,
Speaker 1: I think is worth noting. He says, Republicans recruiting Crockett
Speaker 1: because she is less electable is as silly as Dems
Speaker 1: recruiting Trump or Republicans recruiting Obama because they are less electable,
Speaker 1: because they both have something in common with Jasmin Crockett.
Speaker 1: One the ability to expand the elector with frustrated voters
Speaker 1: that otherwise think all politicians are the same. Two the
Speaker 1: ability to gain and keep media attention long enough to
Speaker 1: make the case to those frustrated voters that are ignoring
Speaker 1: other politicians. Any generic Democrat Democrat can get to forty
Speaker 1: five percent in Texas, Jasmine is the only one that
Speaker 1: can break through to the eight million Texas voters that
Speaker 1: have tuned other politicians out and if she can get
Speaker 1: just ten percent of them to believe in her enough
Speaker 1: to vote, she is the next Senator from Texas. I
Speaker 1: thought that was a great point from Terrence. I love
Speaker 1: the way that he broke it down in numbers only
Speaker 1: like Upholster would. Terrence would very of course from hit strategies.
Speaker 1: And of course at this point we're gonna pivot to
Speaker 1: somebody else that is an expert among us, and that
Speaker 1: is to our good friend Ellie Missole, a Supreme Court expert,
Speaker 1: the person we always turn to when it's way too
Speaker 1: much going down with the Supreme Court. There is a
Speaker 1: lot happening, three cases in particular we want to talk
Speaker 1: to Ellie about. So let's bring Ellie Mistyle to the show.
Speaker 6: Hi, guys, thanks for having me.
Speaker 2: It's crazy.
Speaker 4: I thought the big deserved acknowledgement.
Speaker 5: That's Delhi, Thank you.
Speaker 6: I don't want to let the Democratic Minority leader slide
Speaker 6: on his non endorsement of Crockett and basically to right
Speaker 6: or or basically the last three weeks of Hakem Jeffries experience,
Speaker 6: because what that has told me, beyond a shadow of
Speaker 6: a doubt, is that Hakeem Jefferies does not want to
Speaker 6: be the leader of the opposition party to fascism and
Speaker 6: authoritarianism in this country. What he wants to be is
Speaker 6: the leader of the Democratic Party. And the analogy that
Speaker 6: I would use here is like, right now we're on
Speaker 6: a bus. Right Trump is driving the bus, Mike Johnson
Speaker 6: is driving the bus. Hakeem Jeffries is like, hey, I'm
Speaker 6: three votes away from driving the bus. I really want
Speaker 6: to drive this bus. That is my that is my focus. Angela.
Speaker 6: You said he is very disciplined. Absolutely, I'll give them
Speaker 6: credit for that. The man knows. The man is disciplined,
Speaker 6: and what he thinks he's doing, and what he wants
Speaker 6: to do is drive the bus. He doesn't want to
Speaker 6: blow up the bus. He doesn't want to get off
Speaker 6: the bus. He doesn't want to get us off the bus.
Speaker 6: He wants to drive the bus. And he's promising us, Oh,
Speaker 6: when I'm driving the bus will go to better places.
Speaker 6: We need to blow up the bus and takeem. Jeffries
Speaker 6: is not that guy. That's that's not shade, that is fact.
Speaker 6: He is not the guy who wants to be the
Speaker 6: leader of the opposition to fascism in this country. Cheron
Speaker 6: doesn't want it Durwan doesn't want it, the Newsom doesn't
Speaker 6: want it, Shapiro doesn't want it. We don't have democrats
Speaker 6: right now who want to oppose fascism we want we
Speaker 6: have democrats who want to wait for their turn to
Speaker 6: be in charge of the wheels of power. They don't
Speaker 6: want to use a Game of Thrones analogy. They're just
Speaker 6: waiting for their turn on the wheel. They don't want
Speaker 6: to break it. And at some point a leader needs
Speaker 6: to emerge who is going to tell us how to
Speaker 6: break the wheel of fascism, how to break the wheel
Speaker 6: of the oligarts, because that is what the country is
Speaker 6: crying out for right there. There are not people out there,
Speaker 6: are not people out here who just want to replace
Speaker 6: the figureheads at the top and find one that's a
Speaker 6: little bit more. And that's why Crockett has, you know,
Speaker 6: a lot of support right now. That's why Mundami won
Speaker 6: in New York. The people who are willing to tell
Speaker 6: us how to break the wheel are gonna be our
Speaker 6: leaders of the future. And and and Jeffries is not
Speaker 6: that guy, which is not saying that I'm not gonna look,
Speaker 6: I'm gonna spend the next year of my life until
Speaker 6: we get to the twenty twenty six mid terms, telling
Speaker 6: everybody within earshot about how Hockeing Jeffries must be the
Speaker 6: next Speaker of the House, how the Democrats need to
Speaker 6: take control of the House, how that has to happen,
Speaker 6: and that we have to support Democrats and we I'm
Speaker 6: gonna do all the things, right. I'm not not gonna vote.
Speaker 6: I'm not I'm not stephen A. Smith, right, like I'm rational, right,
Speaker 6: and and so I understand what needs to happen politically,
Speaker 6: but in terms of what this country needs to defeat
Speaker 6: the authoritarians and the fascists and the biggots and the
Speaker 6: racists and the misogynists that are running roughshod over our
Speaker 6: country on over our rights. Hakim Jeffries is not the
Speaker 6: leader of the opposition movement, and we need one.
Speaker 2: Well at our reach.
Speaker 5: Resident Collie, Let's take take up an offering.
Speaker 1: Yes, the doors of the church might might now be open,
Speaker 1: but now they're going to be open to the Supreme Court. So, ellie,
Speaker 1: all hill is breaking loose in every branch of the government,
Speaker 1: So please take us over to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: I don't know where you even want to begin.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you want to start in campaign
Speaker 1: finance or if you want to go somewhere else, but
Speaker 1: let's get it.
Speaker 6: Yeah, so look at thirty thousand feet. Every time I
Speaker 6: come on your show, every time I call on every show,
Speaker 6: I try to tell Democrats, liberals, progressives, black people, Latino people,
Speaker 6: anybody who will listen to me, that if you do
Speaker 6: not control the Supreme Court, you do not control anything.
Speaker 6: There is no liberal agenda, there is no democratic agenda,
Speaker 6: there is no progressive agenda. There is no black agenda
Speaker 6: that can survive. Generational control of the Supreme Court by
Speaker 6: six conservatives, Republican fascists in ropes, nothing happens, you don't
Speaker 6: get anything. And the Supreme Court this year, since they
Speaker 6: got back to work, actually even before they officially got
Speaker 6: back to work, this year has has proven my point.
Speaker 6: All they have done is rubber snamp the MAGA, administer
Speaker 6: the MAGA policies. And it starts. It started in September
Speaker 6: on the shadow docket when the Supreme Court in Brett
Speaker 6: Kavanaugh reconstitutionalize racial profiling. Like I'm not sure that everybody
Speaker 6: fully grasps this, but like racial profiling is back and constitutional,
Speaker 6: and Brett Kavanagh says it is just common sense, and
Speaker 6: that is what And so Ice is now explicitly by
Speaker 6: the Supreme Court allowed to racially profile people as they
Speaker 6: arrest and detained in their ridiculous search for illegal immigrants. Right, Like,
Speaker 6: that's just back on the table that was September. The
Speaker 6: Supreme Court has agreed finally, and I'm not surprised to
Speaker 6: hear the birthright citizenship case on the merits and so
Speaker 6: I think that's the logical place to start, because birthright
Speaker 6: citizenship is a fundamental right in this country, right, a
Speaker 6: right given to us after the Civil War by the
Speaker 6: Fourteenth Amendment. Right that says that you are a citizen
Speaker 6: of where you are born, not where your parents are born.
Speaker 6: And the Supreme Court and the Conservatives want to take
Speaker 6: that away and return us to truly an antebellum, a
Speaker 6: pre Civil War state of affairs. And I say that
Speaker 6: because you have to understand why birthright citizenship is here
Speaker 6: in the first place, right, Like, yes, it was here
Speaker 6: to provide citizenship to newly freed Africans after the Civil War. Yes, great,
Speaker 6: but what was it really changed? What the Fourteenth Amendment
Speaker 6: did was create an entirely new concept in this country
Speaker 6: called the American citizen. See before the Fourteenth Amendment, in
Speaker 6: the pre Civil War War days, citizenship did not flowed
Speaker 6: down from the federal government. It flowed up from the states.
Speaker 6: So whether you were a citizen of the United States America,
Speaker 6: there was no such thing. You were a citizen of Georgia,
Speaker 6: you were a citizen of Missouri, you were a citizen
Speaker 6: of New York. That's how they did it, and that's
Speaker 6: why we had a war, because obviously Missouri was like,
Speaker 6: black people can't be citizens, and Illinois was like, actually,
Speaker 6: black people can't be citizens, and you can't have a
Speaker 6: country with those. You can't have a country where your
Speaker 6: citizenship changes depending on which side of the railroad track
Speaker 6: you live on. That's unworkable and led to the bloodiest
Speaker 6: war in American history. The Fourteenth Amendment solved all that
Speaker 6: by saying, all right, we're not going to have every
Speaker 6: state doing what they want. One standard of citizenship, a
Speaker 6: federal standard citizenship, an American standard of citizenship. Right, So
Speaker 6: that's number one why it's here. The second reason why
Speaker 6: it's here, and you'll see Republicans always talk, well, you know,
Speaker 6: Western Europe doesn't do birthright citizenship no, they don't because
Speaker 6: they're colonialists. Having citizenship be based on where your parents
Speaker 6: are from, specifically where your father is from, is a
Speaker 6: colonial idea because it allowed the French and the British
Speaker 6: and the Dutch and whatever to go all over the
Speaker 6: world rape and pillage other people's countries and when they
Speaker 6: produced offspring and other places of the world. Oh no, no, no,
Speaker 6: you weren't a citizen of Vietnam. No no, no, you
Speaker 6: were still French. No no, no, you're not a citizen of Ghana.
Speaker 6: You're still English. Like that is why they did it
Speaker 6: that way. When you get to the New World, which
Speaker 6: is a country of immigrants, having citizenship tied to where
Speaker 6: your parents are from was unworkable because then you're all
Speaker 6: English citizens, then you're all Dutch citizens, then you're all right.
Speaker 6: So the New World adopted an idea that your citizenship
Speaker 6: was tied to your both birth and that existed for
Speaker 6: white people before the Civil War, right like when people
Speaker 6: are saying saying, oh, it's how Western Europe does it,
Speaker 6: why don't we do that? White folks before the Civil War,
Speaker 6: their citizenship was based on the state that they were
Speaker 6: born in, not the state where their parents were born
Speaker 6: in right, you didn't have William Pennah, I'm not a
Speaker 6: citizen of Pennsylvania. I'm actually a citizen of jolly old England. No,
Speaker 6: that's not how white people rolled, right. So the idea
Speaker 6: that your citizenship is tied to your parents is a
Speaker 6: colonial idea. The New World rejected that. And not just America, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela,
Speaker 6: and Brazil, El Saltley the name a country in the
Speaker 6: New World, almost all of them have birthright citizenship as
Speaker 6: opposed to Old World citizenship. And that leasing to my
Speaker 6: third and final point. I'm talking to you about the law,
Speaker 6: about why the fourteenth Amendment is written the way it is.
Speaker 6: But there's also a level of disgusting moral apocrisy when
Speaker 6: a nation of colonizers, usurpers, and thieves purports to say
Speaker 6: that a person born in these lands is not a
Speaker 6: citizen of these lands, and actually it's based on where
Speaker 6: their parents are born. Right. We stole this country from
Speaker 6: people who wait for it. We're born here, we're born here.
Speaker 6: We stole this country from people who were born here.
Speaker 6: And now we're gonna where the Republicans want to say,
Speaker 6: even if you're born here, you don't get to be
Speaker 6: a citizen in this nation that we've created on stolen land.
Speaker 6: There is a disgusting layer of moral hypocrisy underlying the
Speaker 6: entire project to end birthright citizenship. Of course, you didn't
Speaker 6: bring me on to tell you why birthright citizenship of supportant.
Speaker 6: You brought me on to explain why the Supreme Court
Speaker 6: is about to take it away, and on that particular question.
Speaker 1: But Ellie, Ellie, this is important context, and I want you,
Speaker 1: if you can, in this next portion of your response,
Speaker 1: to talk about why folks who may be at home,
Speaker 1: folks who look like us, you know, parents are born
Speaker 1: here here for multiple generations, we're stolen from, you know,
Speaker 1: our original land.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: But there are some of us, some folks who look
Speaker 1: like us, who are like, well, this isn't going to
Speaker 1: apply to us, because this is really about the immigrants
Speaker 1: that we're mad at for taking our opportunities and they
Speaker 1: got our jobs and this and that. So they're thinking
Speaker 1: that this birthright citizenship case, if they've heard about it,
Speaker 1: is going to target children of immigrants, not necessarily us.
Speaker 2: Can you talk about why.
Speaker 5: That is also inherently really really good question, Angela, particularly
Speaker 5: about the politics around a really good question.
Speaker 6: Yeah. So for people who think that this is only
Speaker 6: going to affect Latino or legal immigrants, I would ask you, guys,
Speaker 6: this proven prove that you prove that your parents were
Speaker 6: citizens in the United States. When they ask you, how
Speaker 6: are you going to do that? Right? They don't always
Speaker 6: keep great req on where we were stolen from and
Speaker 6: where we came from, not all of us. I happened
Speaker 6: to be able to trace at least a part of
Speaker 6: my lineage all the way back to a plantation that
Speaker 6: was freed when Sherman came marching through the South. Most
Speaker 6: black people aren't that lucky. Most black people don't have
Speaker 6: that kind of record keeping in their family tree. So
Speaker 6: when the ice agent, when the government agent comes into
Speaker 6: the maternity ward and says, well, I don't think that
Speaker 6: you are that your baby is a citizenship is a
Speaker 6: citizen because I can't prove that you're a citizen, because
Speaker 6: I can't prove that your citizenship is not also derived
Speaker 6: from birthright citizenship. How are you going to prove that
Speaker 6: it's not? How are you going to prove that you
Speaker 6: actually were brought over here on the second ship of
Speaker 6: Dutch settlers that had fourteen slaves to build the wall
Speaker 6: on Wall Street, Manhattan. How are you going to prove
Speaker 6: that you go back that far? I know that there
Speaker 6: are atos people out here just like this is great
Speaker 6: for us. Prove it, prove it. And because you, the
Speaker 6: black person will be asked to prove it, while John
Speaker 6: Hinton Meister, the third with that German ass name, is
Speaker 6: never gonna be asked to prove that they are citizenship
Speaker 6: by dentt of their fathers. There's also an issue about
Speaker 6: when they if they try to change this, citizenship will
Speaker 6: be directed through who the father or the mother? Right,
Speaker 6: because they're all anchor babies or shit all that. So
Speaker 6: how how do you do what if you have one
Speaker 6: parent who is a citizen and one who wasn't. Is
Speaker 6: that gonnaccount? And which parent? And do you have records
Speaker 6: of that parent?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 6: Maybe your mother was an illegal immigrant who came here,
Speaker 6: but your father was you know, not only your father.
Speaker 6: You can't even find him to pay child support, much
Speaker 6: less find him to produce his birth certificate.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 6: So again, if you think that this is only gonna
Speaker 6: affect the obvious Latino illegal immigrants, prove it. How are
Speaker 6: you going to prove that you were allowed to be here,
Speaker 6: because that is a That is the second question that
Speaker 6: these people will ask you when they try to send
Speaker 6: you back to wherever the hell they think that you're
Speaker 6: supposed to be from.
Speaker 4: Nobody knows.
Speaker 2: I want to just really quickly.
Speaker 1: Andrew is not feeling well, So Andrew's gonna gonna go
Speaker 1: for the rest of the day. I know he's gonna
Speaker 1: go get some rest, so we're gonna let him go
Speaker 1: so you can sleep, sleep off this mucinex or whatever
Speaker 1: he took to get better. But Ellie, because Andrew's leaving,
Speaker 1: I got a quick follow up. That question is you
Speaker 1: guys that don't know that I've been dealing with medical
Speaker 1: stuff with my mom, so I had to find her
Speaker 1: birth certificate recently.
Speaker 2: And this is crazy.
Speaker 1: Like to Ellie's point, think about these technicalities, which we've
Speaker 1: also seen like with voting records too. On my mom's
Speaker 1: original birth certificate, they re ordered her name and her
Speaker 1: first name, so she had to get an updated birth
Speaker 1: certificate with her name as it is originally ordered. But
Speaker 1: who's to say that these folks won't say no, you
Speaker 1: know that doesn't count. This is not so now even
Speaker 1: maybe her citizenship is challenged our elders.
Speaker 2: My grandmother when she passed was one hundred and five.
Speaker 1: When you talk about one hundred years ago, our records
Speaker 1: in the South weren't tight.
Speaker 2: So our names are wrong, birth years are wrong.
Speaker 1: My dad's mom, y'all, she has three different Social Security
Speaker 1: guards with three different from three different birth years. She's
Speaker 1: now passed. But if we start really peeling the layer
Speaker 1: of this onion back, this is treacherous for black folks
Speaker 1: in this country who have been here for most situations.
Speaker 2: I will yield hied.
Speaker 6: Citizenship should not be tied to clerical stuff, right, Like
Speaker 6: we shouldn't be relying on the white racist matron at
Speaker 6: the maternity Ward and Selma, Alabama in nineteen oh for
Speaker 6: to figure out whether or not your grandkid is a
Speaker 6: citizen of the country that they were born in. That's
Speaker 6: just not a And again I go back to the
Speaker 6: pre Civil War or situation. It's not a workable solution,
Speaker 6: right because what happens if the Supreme Court takes away
Speaker 6: birthright citizenship is that will probably devolve back into separate states. Right,
Speaker 6: so they'll say, Okay, you're not a citizen in the
Speaker 6: United States. So if you're a legal immigrant and immediately,
Speaker 6: Kathy Hokel Gafa Newsom, they'll pass a law saying, well,
Speaker 6: you're a citizen of California regard if you're born in California.
Speaker 6: Like that. That is the next thing that that's the
Speaker 6: liberal response to all of this, and that brings us
Speaker 6: right back to where we were in eighteen fifty seven
Speaker 6: in the dread Scott decision, where you're going to have
Speaker 6: a class of people who are citizens in one state
Speaker 6: but aren't citizens in another state. You'll have a class
Speaker 6: of people who are who are citizens in California but
Speaker 6: then lose their citizenship when they travel to Texas, who
Speaker 6: lose their ability, their record, their record, the providence of
Speaker 6: their records when they travel across state lines. And again,
Speaker 6: we have literally tried it this way before and it
Speaker 6: led to war. So I don't understand always people's apathy
Speaker 6: towards this particular issue, and I do think that part
Speaker 6: of it is racialized. They think it's only going to
Speaker 6: hurt a certain class of people and not all classes
Speaker 6: of people that white folks want to hurt, and that
Speaker 6: is just not true. But because of its unworkability, that's
Speaker 6: why I say I'm not sure that Trump wins this one.
Speaker 6: This is one of the only cases up where I
Speaker 6: can't immediately say, oh, Trump has six votes, right, he might,
Speaker 6: and oral arguments haven't happened, and I will listen to
Speaker 6: those closely and have much better sense after these people
Speaker 6: start talking. But on spec I can't fully I can't
Speaker 6: necessarily count to six votes count to five votes for
Speaker 6: Trump on this issue. I'm not saying that he won't win.
Speaker 6: I'm just saying that of the cases, you know, there's
Speaker 6: a class of cases that I know he's gonna win,
Speaker 6: and this is not one of them. I don't know
Speaker 6: that he's gonna win this one because blowing up the
Speaker 6: fourteenth Amendment, remember by executive fiat, Like he's trying to
Speaker 6: change the text and the meaning of the fourteenth Amendment,
Speaker 6: not through legislation, not through a constitutional amendment, just through
Speaker 6: some like podunked executive order. It's a lot for the
Speaker 6: Supreme Court to say Trump can change the Constitution by
Speaker 6: executive order. They might, they might say it, but they also,
Speaker 6: like literally they just might not that might. This might
Speaker 6: be actually the bridge too far. And there's also the
Speaker 6: political balance here that I'm sure McCary thinks about a lot.
Speaker 6: You if you're if you make Trump lose here, you're
Speaker 6: gonna have a whole series of center right stories from
Speaker 6: mainstream media, from the New York Times in the Washington Post,
Speaker 6: from all those guys saying, ah, as we can clearly
Speaker 6: see the Supreme Court is legitimate and reasonable. Right, the
Speaker 6: Supreme Court is taking a lot of heat right now
Speaker 6: and having this one decision, which is completely coogle for
Speaker 6: cocabus bonkers away from Trump will will trigger a bunch
Speaker 6: of mainstream and right wing media being like, ah this, ah, yes,
Speaker 6: the Supreme Court totally reasonable, toyal, legitimate, so we should
Speaker 6: so now we can clearly see that all the other
Speaker 6: things that they've done, like taking away voting rights, jerrymandering,
Speaker 6: anti trans stuff, all of that is fine because clearly
Speaker 6: they're just following the law. They're not beholden to Trump. So, like,
Speaker 6: you also have political value for the Supreme Court and
Speaker 6: standing up to Trump on this issue, which is so
Speaker 6: is so beyond the pale of normal constitutional law. That's
Speaker 6: another reason why I think he could lose this, and
Speaker 6: then I'll have to come on all the shows explaining
Speaker 6: why the Supreme Court still sucks even though you had
Speaker 6: this one good.
Speaker 5: Decision isn't this the politics of John rob though more
Speaker 5: so than anything else. I mean, what we've seen is
Speaker 5: there that John Roberts will. You know, we've had some
Speaker 5: surprises from Amy Cony Barrett as well. But John Roberts
Speaker 5: oftentimes will take the side with the liberal justices or
Speaker 5: pull somebody with him to preserve the quote unquote integrity,
Speaker 5: or if he sees the court slipping away in the
Speaker 5: pages of history, he attempts to salvage his court.
Speaker 6: I mean you said often. I don't know that it's
Speaker 6: often anymore.
Speaker 5: Not often, but at every every blue moon or so.
Speaker 6: Every now and again, Roberts will will join levels. And
Speaker 6: really I have a little bit more faith on a
Speaker 6: llegit tempt at rapist Kavanaugh than Barrett because Caveall is
Speaker 6: also more susceptible to the political wins one, you know,
Speaker 6: to armchair psycle analyze Kavanaugh. He desperately wants to be liked.
Speaker 6: He desperately wants to be treated in the press like
Speaker 6: Roberts is treated in the press. Now he will never
Speaker 6: be because he's an alleged tempt at rapist and also
Speaker 6: a freaking idiot. But he wants what Roberts has and
Speaker 6: so sometimes Kavanaugh can be pulled on these political strings,
Speaker 6: I think even more so than than Barrett can can,
Speaker 6: who to the extent that she's ever moderated, it comes
Speaker 6: from a very doctrinal position, as supposed to Kavanaugh, who's
Speaker 6: just trying to get a good press hit. And then Roberts,
Speaker 6: I think for Cari, you're right that he will occasionally
Speaker 6: at least pretend to care about the legitimacy and stature
Speaker 6: of the Supreme Court. So all of that can again,
Speaker 6: I can listen to oral arguments and in an hour,
Speaker 6: I can tell you, wait, no, I was wrong. But
Speaker 6: as I stand now, before they've heard arguments on the case,
Speaker 6: I don't know that he has five votes for this.
Speaker 6: I know he's got to I know he's got Thomas,
Speaker 6: and I know he's got Alida, but I don't know
Speaker 6: that he's got Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh. And then Gorsich
Speaker 6: can get really Gorsich can get really textual on these issues.
Speaker 6: And there's also with Gorsish you also have to remember,
Speaker 6: you know, I sometimes jokingly call him the last Justice
Speaker 6: of the Mohicans, Neil Gorsich, those Native Americans. He is,
Speaker 6: he is Dale Day Lewis, he is out there. Any
Speaker 6: decision involving Native Americans is something where where Gorcious can
Speaker 6: be relied upon to vote with the liberals. It's it's
Speaker 6: the one good thing in his portfolio. And you can
Speaker 6: make an argument that taking away birthright citizenship also significantly
Speaker 6: negatively impacts Native Americans, and if you hit that argument right,
Speaker 6: you'll get Gorsic too. So again, I could be I
Speaker 6: don't want to I hate. I never want to sound naive.
Speaker 6: I know exactly what this court is capable of. They're
Speaker 6: capable of giving Trump the win on birthright citizenship. I
Speaker 6: just don't know that they will.
Speaker 3: Elliott.
Speaker 5: I gotta go ahead, Go ahead, Tiffany, because I was
Speaker 5: gonna ry something up to you, Tiffany and Angela. But
Speaker 5: go ahead, Tiffany. I want to hear you perspective jump in.
Speaker 2: I don't.
Speaker 3: I don't want to take us away from where you
Speaker 3: were going. So remember where we were, because I'd love
Speaker 3: to hear your question. But I just wanted to ask you.
Speaker 2: Ellie.
Speaker 3: You know, the Scotus is off limits to cameras, so
Speaker 3: we never hear what's being said. And I've asked this
Speaker 3: question before, but I've never posed this question to you.
Speaker 3: Is it helpful to us that we don't get to
Speaker 3: see what's being said during SCOTUS hearings or is it
Speaker 3: more harmful, Like would it become kabuki theater if there
Speaker 3: were cameras there? Would people you know, be like you said,
Speaker 3: Kavanaugh wants the next press hit. Or would it provide
Speaker 3: more transparency for the American people even though we can
Speaker 3: see the opinions and read the transcripts, there might be
Speaker 3: a little bit of a difference. So just curious your thoughts.
Speaker 6: Yeah, So before I answer that question, I'll kind of
Speaker 6: attack the premise a little bit. My views shouldn't matter
Speaker 6: on whether or not there should be cameras in the courtroom,
Speaker 6: because courts are public hearings in the public has a
Speaker 6: right to see their leadership in action. And it actually
Speaker 6: doesn't matter whether or not it's good or bad for lag,
Speaker 6: Like you have a right, you should have a right
Speaker 6: to see it and not sing it is unnecessarily secretive
Speaker 6: of the courts. Secret courts are bad, are big b
Speaker 6: bad for democracy, and so the courts should be the
Speaker 6: court proceeding should be televised, just because whether or not
Speaker 6: that would be a good thing for the court itself.
Speaker 6: Right now, I do think that if you had cameras
Speaker 6: in the courtroom, there would be more grand standing from
Speaker 6: the lawyers. I think there would be more grand standing
Speaker 6: from the justices. I don't particularly think that's I don't
Speaker 6: think that's particularly good.
Speaker 5: Lawyers don't lawyers don't grandstand. I ain't never seen nothing
Speaker 5: like that before.
Speaker 6: I right, you know, that's a thing that would happen.
Speaker 6: But the other thing that would happen if there are
Speaker 6: cameras in the courtroom is that you would have more
Speaker 6: of this on TV. I was talking with a TV
Speaker 6: producer that I will not name, but a very important
Speaker 6: TV person, and they were saying how hard it is
Speaker 6: to cover the courts on the TV news, on cable
Speaker 6: news because you don't have video, because you can't just
Speaker 6: play a clip of the Yes, you can play the audio,
Speaker 6: but you can't play the video. And TV's a video medium,
Speaker 6: and so by not having cameras, it prevents a lot
Speaker 6: of otherwise what would happen television coverage of these unelected
Speaker 6: rulers of our country. So I think whatever the bad
Speaker 6: grandstanding issues are overcome by the need for more transparency
Speaker 6: and for people to be able to see and learn
Speaker 6: what their actual rulers are doing. So I'm one hundred
Speaker 6: percent in favor of cameras in the courtroom, even though
Speaker 6: I think it would probably be bad in terms of
Speaker 6: like the quality of arguments. I don't think those concerns
Speaker 6: are are misplaced. I just think they're completely overtopped by
Speaker 6: both the democratic necessity of being able to see your
Speaker 6: leaders in action and the ability to cover those cases
Speaker 6: on television.
Speaker 5: But you just all yesterday. I think the cannon or
Speaker 5: the US Code of Judges Code of Conduct for Judges
Speaker 5: says that I say yesterday, Tiffany, dammit, I'm sorry you
Speaker 5: just saw this week.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 5: And it's from the US conduct US Code of Conduct
Speaker 5: for Judges or their cannons that they should refrain from
Speaker 5: political activity. But I believe he's in the third Circuit
Speaker 5: quarter third Circuit Court of Appeals. Yeah, I don't. I'm
Speaker 5: a I'm a I'm gonna fuck his name all up.
Speaker 5: But Judge Emil bouve bove both, it's really it's really
Speaker 5: pronounced like it's spelled both. Okay, he showed up at
Speaker 5: Trump's rally last night like it wasn't nothing.
Speaker 6: Yep.
Speaker 5: I've never seen a judge on a federal Court of
Speaker 5: Appeals show up at a political rally where it evolved
Speaker 5: in this partisan rhetoric like it was nothing. But I think,
Speaker 5: Elly correct me if I'm wrong. But we don't have
Speaker 5: any recourse as part of this democracy for a judge
Speaker 5: who just simply flaunts the United States Code of for judge.
Speaker 6: Republicans do not DGAF. They do not care about any
Speaker 6: ethical strictures. And it's why I keep saying, my first bill,
Speaker 6: if you know you elect me a dictator for a day,
Speaker 6: my first bill is expanding the Supreme Court. My second
Speaker 6: bill is ethics reform for the Supreme Court. We need
Speaker 6: ethics reforms for the entire federal judiciary so that Bakari,
Speaker 6: we have a recourse when these judges are openly corrupt. Right.
Speaker 6: I call it the Clarence Thomas Anti Corruption Bill, right,
Speaker 6: or the Harland Crow Anti Corruption Bill. But you need
Speaker 6: something where an independent body can hold these judges accountable
Speaker 6: when they clearly flout what should be ethics ruled. We
Speaker 6: don't have any ethics rules, so I almost can't even
Speaker 6: say they're can't clearly flout what doesn't exist. But you know,
Speaker 6: when they clearly flout the simple, the mere idea that
Speaker 6: they should be nonpartisan, impartial arbiters of the law. They
Speaker 6: don't even pretend to be that anymore, and they never
Speaker 6: will until there's an ethics bill. Now, legal scholars will
Speaker 6: say that there's a separation of powers problem because the
Speaker 6: Court has defined powers and they're punished by another branch
Speaker 6: of government. Then that the offends. That makes Thomas Jefferson
Speaker 6: cry or something. I don't really care, but if you
Speaker 6: want it to go down that roll road, I always
Speaker 6: point out that the Supreme Court's budget is controlled by Congress,
Speaker 6: and so again dictator for a day, I cut their
Speaker 6: budget until they agree to third party ethics oversight, right,
Speaker 6: like that is a congressional power. The Constitution says there
Speaker 6: should be a Supreme Court. Doesn't say where they should meet.
Speaker 6: Doesn't say that they get to have a fancy court house.
Speaker 6: They can meet out on the lawn. They can hold
Speaker 6: their hearings out on the lawn, on the Washington Mall
Speaker 6: for all the Constitution cares. Right, doesn't say they get
Speaker 6: fancy clerks. Doesn't say they get security. That's something that
Speaker 6: Congress has provided these people. They are armed security forces,
Speaker 6: so they do not face the gun violence that they
Speaker 6: have inflected upon the rest of the nation. I would
Speaker 6: take it back. I would take it back. I would
Speaker 6: I would let Harlan Crowe to provide their security for
Speaker 6: all I care. But if you're gonna get money from
Speaker 6: the federal government, goddamn a, your gunna follow some ethics rules.
Speaker 6: That is the hard ball I would play. And then
Speaker 6: Nick Dick Durbin emails my magazine yells at me for
Speaker 6: being too radical.
Speaker 3: Well, we appreciate it. I have a question, not well
Speaker 3: for you, Ellie, but I also want to hear from
Speaker 3: Angela and Baccari on this, because I'm outnumbered by these
Speaker 3: three lawyers. And so Bacary just brought up a really
Speaker 3: interesting point, a really poignant point about this judge, a
Speaker 3: federal judge on the Court of Appeals at a Trump rally.
Speaker 3: You're talking about how the structure you know, these are
Speaker 3: just words in the Constitution. I keep saying this, I
Speaker 3: don't have the knowledge of the Supreme Court that you do,
Speaker 3: or the law that all you eyes do. I keep saying,
Speaker 3: the courts will not hold. We keep talking about these
Speaker 3: infrastructures as though they're going to be around in five years,
Speaker 3: ten years fifteen years before we came on, Ellie and
Speaker 3: I were talking about our love for and or the
Speaker 3: series and or that that reads that I watch it
Speaker 3: like a documentary. Do you guys think the courts are
Speaker 3: going to sustain ten years from now? Are we going
Speaker 3: to be talking about the Supreme Court and Congress controlling
Speaker 3: their budget? Do you think this infrastructure we're trying to
Speaker 3: navigate is indestructible given that we've already seen the norms
Speaker 3: of it erode. We're seeing it every single day erode.
Speaker 3: So how important is this the Supreme Court going to be?
Speaker 3: When Donald Trump is like, Oh, I don't like what
Speaker 3: you said, so poof the Supreme Court doesn't matter. I
Speaker 3: don't like these rules you're putting in place, so poof
Speaker 3: Congress doesn't matter. I'm just curious child's thoughts.
Speaker 5: Everybody I think. I think that. I think that the
Speaker 5: Supreme Court God's democracy and God society, not the other
Speaker 5: way around. I think the courts God society, and society
Speaker 5: doesn't dig take what happens to the courts. And the
Speaker 5: only reason I believe that is because I've deduced the
Speaker 5: three most consequential political events in my lifetime actually are
Speaker 5: centered around the courts. I mean, the three most consequential
Speaker 5: political events I've had since nineteen eighty four, since I
Speaker 5: was born, was replacing Thirdgod Marshal with Clarence Thomas, Conservative
Speaker 5: pressure on the right to remove Harriet Myers and replace
Speaker 5: her with Justice Alito, and the election of Donald Trump
Speaker 5: over Hillary Clinton and him being able to put three
Speaker 5: justices on the Supreme Court. So in my forty one
Speaker 5: years of living, I believe that the court the courts
Speaker 5: have dictated societies machinations, not the other way around. So yeah,
Speaker 5: I don't think the courts will be at the whim
Speaker 5: of society. I think it's the other way around.
Speaker 1: And yeah, I want to say first that I think
Speaker 1: it's really important that we understand and the court's role here.
Speaker 1: Agreeing would be to an extent, but I think that
Speaker 1: they are the reason for the demise, whether we're talking
Speaker 1: about extending presidential immunity to criminal cases or we're talking
Speaker 1: about these other two cases that we haven't gotten to yet.
Speaker 1: But in particular, and this is kind of where I
Speaker 1: want to transition Elie to next is we've talked about
Speaker 1: the long standing impact now of Citizens United. You know,
Speaker 1: the case with FEC or no McCutchen McCutchen versus the
Speaker 1: FEC where campaign contributions were no longer capped for individuals.
Speaker 1: So this is democracy is now a numbers game, and
Speaker 1: if you don't have money to play the game, then
Speaker 1: you're out. And so what they're getting ready to do
Speaker 1: in this case where JD Vance frankly should no longer
Speaker 1: have standing with this in a in a n S
Speaker 1: r C case against the the FEC. Also, I think
Speaker 1: is an important note because I think it expands Citizen
Speaker 1: United and its intent and McCutcheon to a very very
Speaker 1: dangerous place where it is purely pay to play, and
Speaker 1: it sounds like they're gonna win on the merits on
Speaker 1: this case. So Ellie, I want to hear you on this,
Speaker 1: and I'd love to hear if there's time on the
Speaker 1: FDC as well.
Speaker 3: But before you weigh in, Ellie, can I just say
Speaker 3: because if I don't follow this stuff, I'm so confused.
Speaker 3: So I just want to in R s C, I
Speaker 3: just want to be clear you're saying National Republic Senate campaign,
Speaker 3: that's what you're talking about.
Speaker 2: Yes, Yes, go ahead.
Speaker 6: So for the thirty thousand foot question, people need to
Speaker 6: remember courts are extremely useful, useful to fascists. Right, courts
Speaker 6: have always been in the fascist corner because courts are
Speaker 6: what legitimizes the fascist regime. Right, the fascist does something
Speaker 6: that's illegal and the courts say, actually, it's not illegal,
Speaker 6: and then everybody's like, oh, well it's not illegal, We're fine.
Speaker 6: Like the fascists throughout history have always used the courts
Speaker 6: to their own ends. That's why taking over the courts
Speaker 6: is always like step one in any fashion authoritarian takeover.
Speaker 6: Which is why I've been screaming about court expansion for
Speaker 6: the past ten years, because it is the courts or
Speaker 6: a leading indicator of fascism, not a lagging indicator of fascism.
Speaker 6: So that's to Tiffany's thirty thousand foot question, and we're
Speaker 6: seeing it on Angela's on the ground question about campaign
Speaker 6: finance reform. What the Court is essentially doing, big picture wise,
Speaker 6: is making corruption legal, right, Like, that's how we have
Speaker 6: to think about it. They're making corruption in our political
Speaker 6: system legal. Two years ago, Brett Kavanaugh issued an opinion
Speaker 6: where he basically said that you couldn't charge people for
Speaker 6: corruption for taking legal bribes if they took the illegal
Speaker 6: bribe after they had already performed the service that they
Speaker 6: were bribed to do. At that point, it's just a gratuity.
Speaker 6: That is me quoting capital. It's a gratuity for job
Speaker 6: well done. If you pay a politician after they've taken
Speaker 6: the vote that you wanted them to take, no mention
Speaker 6: of that you promised to pay them that money only
Speaker 6: if they voted the way that you want it. Right.
Speaker 6: That is, there was a case with Bob McDonald and Virginia.
Speaker 6: Like the Supreme Court is trying to make corruption in
Speaker 6: our political system legal, and that is really at the
Speaker 6: heart of this NRS, this Republican National Committee case. What
Speaker 6: they're trying to do is remove the cap on spending.
Speaker 6: Right so, like, right now you have a limited amount
Speaker 6: of money that you can give to political candidates. They're
Speaker 6: trying to take that away. I'm just trying to say,
Speaker 6: is if you're a rich if you're a billionaire, if
Speaker 6: you're Elon Musk, you can pay these guys as much
Speaker 6: as you want. Right So, again, it's allowing more corruption
Speaker 6: to be in the system, and that the Supreme Court
Speaker 6: is very interested in doing. Why because they're a leading
Speaker 6: indicator of fascism because they're a leading indicator of oligarchy, Like,
Speaker 6: this is how you make the oligarchs and the fascist
Speaker 6: legal by allowing them to spend as much money as
Speaker 6: they want to influence and quite frankly buy political candidates
Speaker 6: and political campaigns. And that's absolutely what they're doing and
Speaker 6: what we're saying right now, and it's bad. It's it's
Speaker 6: very bad.
Speaker 5: We it didn't sound it didn't sound good. It ain't
Speaker 5: sound good. I can tell you that much, right.
Speaker 2: And again, this is.
Speaker 6: That really bothers me about this case is that obviously
Speaker 6: the legal jargon for why they're saying that they can
Speaker 6: remove the limits is that they're saying corporations are people right,
Speaker 6: that corporations have free speech right. Money is speech, corporations
Speaker 6: have a personhood's free speech right to to spend as
Speaker 6: much speech as they want to if you will. And that, again,
Speaker 6: on the hypocrisy level, rocks into their birthright citizenship thing. Right,
Speaker 6: So they're basically protecting the personhood of corporations but not
Speaker 6: protecting the personhood of actual fucking people, Like that's what
Speaker 6: they're that's what they're doing. And again, the hypocrisy is
Speaker 6: rife and and disgusting.
Speaker 5: Well, I need to argue in front of Supreme Court
Speaker 5: one day. That's one of my dreams because one of
Speaker 5: my goals is to not get rid of, but limit
Speaker 5: qualified immunity. I know you have your dreams. I have.
Speaker 5: That's that's one of my judicial dreams because.
Speaker 6: It's if you ever get the opportunity, can I ask
Speaker 6: you just to blow these people up? Because so many
Speaker 6: of the people who argue in front of the Supreme Court,
Speaker 6: and obviously there are lawyers, they're trying to win their case,
Speaker 6: and so they're really solicitous and nice and and play
Speaker 6: along with the justices. And I just want one person
Speaker 6: to show up at court and just call these people
Speaker 6: out on their hypocritical bull craft, because that never happens,
Speaker 6: and that's what I want to see. That's why my
Speaker 6: dream is to be nominated for a Circuit Court appointment.
Speaker 6: I don't want the actual job. I think I would
Speaker 6: actually be probably a bad judge because I'm pretty freaking biased.
Speaker 5: I don't know, man.
Speaker 6: I think the confirmation hearing, the confirmation hearing where I
Speaker 6: get to sit in front of the center judicial community
Speaker 6: and do not care if they vote for me.
Speaker 2: Oh perview, that would.
Speaker 5: Be I want to see you and you buddy from
Speaker 5: h You and buddy from Louisiana. Right, I would, just
Speaker 5: I would. What's his name, John Kennedy, John Kennedy.
Speaker 3: I was like my Louisiana Republican centator from Wisiam.
Speaker 5: Yeah, we're blaking on name today. I argued in front
Speaker 5: of the South Carolina State Supreme Court one time. Our
Speaker 5: domestic violence laws specifically stated one man, one woman, and
Speaker 5: so gay couples did not get domestic violence protection, meaning
Speaker 5: that the charges didn't escalate, you didn't get an order protection,
Speaker 5: all those things. Uh. And so I actually won that
Speaker 5: case in front of the South Carolina Supreme Court when
Speaker 5: I had a young lady who was the victim of
Speaker 5: domestic violence here. So now South Carolina loss cover same
Speaker 5: sex couples. Very proud of that, Eli, but it's not
Speaker 5: the big dogs, but it was big enough for me.
Speaker 5: Right for your service, Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead.
Speaker 1: Well sorry, I just if you could ellie in thirty seconds.
Speaker 1: This is another pain point for me in this slaughter case,
Speaker 1: of course, is where Donald Trump may get the ability
Speaker 1: to overrule what happens traditionally with the FTC. That's the
Speaker 1: Federal Trade Commission and I just remember a point where
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court unanimously decided that Barack Obama couldn't even
Speaker 1: make a recess appointment for the nation National Labor Relations Board.
Speaker 1: So if you could really quickly just go into this,
Speaker 1: because I think this is a case that Trump is
Speaker 1: likely to win.
Speaker 2: So if you could really quit this.
Speaker 6: Is a hugely important case. It's called Trump Freesolary. It
Speaker 6: basically deals not just with the FTC, but Trump's ability
Speaker 6: to fire everybody in the executive ranch. It's that unitary
Speaker 6: executive theory. All executive power is vested in the president,
Speaker 6: and so you can fire the head of any federal agency.
Speaker 6: He can fire any commissioner on an independent federal commission commission.
Speaker 6: He can fire any employee of the federal government if
Speaker 6: they just happen to be black, happen to be gained,
Speaker 6: doesn't like them. Because everything is everybody starves with the
Speaker 6: pleasure of the president. According to this made up unitary
Speaker 6: executive theory, it is the end of the administrative state,
Speaker 6: is the hollowing out of the state bureaucracy. And I
Speaker 6: know that when I say that defending the bureaucrats and
Speaker 6: the experts doesn't sound particularly sexy, But people need to
Speaker 6: understand that one of the some thrusts of constitutional liberal democracy,
Speaker 6: one of the reasons for the bourgeois revolts of the seventeenth, eighteenth,
Speaker 6: and nineteenth centuries was to take away the power of
Speaker 6: the absolute monarch to fire government ministers and functionaries at will.
Speaker 6: That was actually one of the huge points of contentions
Speaker 6: between constitutional democracy and absolute monarchy. That you shouldn't be
Speaker 6: able to fire federal officials just because they don't do
Speaker 6: what you say. You shouldn't be able to fill the
Speaker 6: federal bureaucracy with your cronies and friends as opposed to
Speaker 6: experts and people represented by the elective branches, right Like,
Speaker 6: That's actually part of what the revolutions are about. And
Speaker 6: so when the Supreme Court gives this power back to
Speaker 6: Trump to fire any federal official at his whim and will,
Speaker 6: what they're doing is truly giving him a monarchical power
Speaker 6: in the same way that Trump the United States gave
Speaker 6: him immunity from criminal protection, which is the power of
Speaker 6: a king. This also is the power of the king
Speaker 6: that they are regiving to Donald Trump, and it's part
Speaker 6: of a long term conservative legal project to destroy the
Speaker 6: administrative state to destroy the regulatory state, and they are
Speaker 6: absolutely winning and they're absolutely going to win this. And
Speaker 6: so in my article in the Nation, I wrote, like
Speaker 6: people might not think that they see the importance of
Speaker 6: the bureaucracy now, but y'all will You will when you
Speaker 6: can't get a vaccine because Trump has fired everybody who
Speaker 6: is able to provide you a vaccine. You will see
Speaker 6: it when there's uranium and mercury in your drinking water
Speaker 6: because Trump fired all the people at the EPA, because
Speaker 6: groundwater studies are too woke for the Trump administration. You
Speaker 6: will see. You will see it as AI turns into
Speaker 6: the terminator because it's completely unregulated by the federal government.
Speaker 6: All of these issues are actually issues of whether or
Speaker 6: not we're allowed to have a state bureaucracy run by
Speaker 6: experts or a state bureaucracy run by cronies. And the
Speaker 6: Supreme Court and Donald Trump have decided to go all
Speaker 6: in on the crony system, and that is going to
Speaker 6: have significant consequences for how we live every day in
Speaker 6: this country. And he's going to win sixty three, He's
Speaker 6: gonna win six three, and that's it.
Speaker 1: This case, of course, is argued this week, please make
Speaker 1: sure you all check out Ellie's peace on this court case.
Speaker 1: And with that we are going to jump into our
Speaker 1: cost to action.
Speaker 6: Who cares about truth? When the last.
Speaker 1: Morning saying it, Ellie, you are here, you lighten it up,
Speaker 1: no pun intended. But I also want to ask you
Speaker 1: if you have a call to action for our audience
Speaker 1: since you're still here with this oh.
Speaker 6: My god, packed the court. I mean, like I can't.
Speaker 6: I say it all the time, and I know it
Speaker 6: almost sounds like broken record, but like we even at
Speaker 6: this late date, even when all the Supreme Court is doing,
Speaker 6: we still do not have Democratic candidates running explicitly on
Speaker 6: a court reform package.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 6: We still do not have the Democrat who wants to
Speaker 6: be running for president in a couple of years saying
Speaker 6: that when they are president day one, they will expand
Speaker 6: the Supreme Court and roll back all of the horrible
Speaker 6: decisions that we're talking about. So pay attention to who
Speaker 6: is on the side of court reform and vote for
Speaker 6: those people and reject the people who think that the
Speaker 6: saying that politics as usual are when it comes to
Speaker 6: Supreme Court is what's going to get us through this.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Ellie. Tip what you got.
Speaker 3: I will just use this time quickly to say thank
Speaker 3: you to the National Council of Negro Women. Chavn Arleen
Speaker 3: Bradley honored Joy Reed, Melissa Harris Perry, and myself at
Speaker 3: their dinner this week. Please support the National Council of
Speaker 3: Negro Women. Learn about the legacy of doctor Dorothy Height
Speaker 3: and Mary McLeod Beffoon, who founded the organization. I've been
Speaker 3: a member since I was twenty one years old, and
Speaker 3: so I just want people to make sure that we
Speaker 3: carry the legacy of our people who may not be
Speaker 3: household names to some people, who may be household names
Speaker 3: to others, but carry the legacy of our civil rights
Speaker 3: leaders into the work that we're doing today. So thank
Speaker 3: you Shavon and the NCNW for honoring me and my
Speaker 3: sisters this past weekend and Karen Finney. They also honored
Speaker 3: Karen Finney as well, so congrats to her.
Speaker 2: Congrats Tip.
Speaker 5: It is much deserved, well deserved, well deserved. Yeah, no, y'all, don't.
Speaker 3: You know we're pretty unfiltered, right, That's okay.
Speaker 2: Truth is welcome here.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, I love it. Congratulations Tiffany, you deserve all
Speaker 5: those blessings and many many more. Truly. Indeed, I remember
Speaker 5: my mama used to get that mail from the uh
Speaker 5: what is it U N CW and that what I
Speaker 5: and that is that the acronym. Did I get it right? Yeah, y'all, Yeah,
Speaker 5: that's why I don't talking to Adam. But it's been
Speaker 5: around a long time, great women, and you all are
Speaker 5: part of that lineage. Mineus quick. It's only about three
Speaker 5: weeks or so, less than three weeks left in the year.
Speaker 5: Go get your physicals. Man, y'all gotta go get your
Speaker 5: yearly physicals. I get really depressed around this time because
Speaker 5: one of us are going to have somebody who drops
Speaker 5: dead who need not be dead, around this holiday season.
Speaker 5: Go get your yearly physicals. If you haven't, you still
Speaker 5: got time. If you got the ACA, Obamacare is free,
Speaker 5: even go to urgent care. I like to get the
Speaker 5: Cadillac because I'm a little bit of a hypochondriac. So
Speaker 5: I make them test me for everything, eatbola, eat cola,
Speaker 5: all the stuff. So I want you all to get
Speaker 5: get get your physicals, particularly black men, if you're over
Speaker 5: the age or whatever it is, let them let them
Speaker 5: get real intimate with you, touch you in all the
Speaker 5: places you don't necessarily want to be touched, but go
Speaker 5: get your physicals so we can live a little bit
Speaker 5: longer this holiday season.
Speaker 1: I actually, Bakari, I appreciate you going there for two reasons.
Speaker 1: One is a good friend of ours, Stephanie Brown James
Speaker 1: lost her best friend this week. The young woman is
Speaker 1: just forty four years old. Erica makes she rest in power.
Speaker 1: But it also reminded me of I have like reiki
Speaker 1: sessions weekly that are virtual, and in my reiki session
Speaker 1: from last week, Danielle told me that this was a
Speaker 1: season for me to really engage in clearing out any negativity,
Speaker 1: so any old wounds that I may have, any old baggage,
Speaker 1: any you know, points of bitterness, any places where I
Speaker 1: needed to release someone or ask for forgiveness, to really
Speaker 1: deepen into that. And I was re listening to that
Speaker 1: session on Monday of this week, and I just want
Speaker 1: y'all to know and hold me accountable to it. And
Speaker 1: I also invite you into the journey to do the same,
Speaker 1: to release any of.
Speaker 2: That baggage I got stuff.
Speaker 1: Y'all clearly know that I need to resolve with my brother,
Speaker 1: you know, I just I want to make sure that
Speaker 1: when I go into twenty twenty six, I'm leaving all
Speaker 1: of that behind. Whether there are places where I've offended
Speaker 1: or hurt people, I've seen comments from people said I
Speaker 1: was mean to them when I saw them, Please forgive me.
Speaker 1: I don't know what was going on, But more often
Speaker 1: than that, it's not me being the beat. It's just
Speaker 1: anxiety and I'll be spending and Tiff will be like,
Speaker 1: you gotta calm down, says, and she's right, and so
Speaker 1: to that, I want to be much more intentional about
Speaker 1: how you are encountering me and make sure that I
Speaker 1: clear the air. So for those of you who I
Speaker 1: don't have your phone numbers or emails, if I've done
Speaker 1: anything to offend you or cause you harm, please forgive me.
Speaker 1: Charge it to my head and out my heart, and
Speaker 1: I ask that you and you join me on this
Speaker 1: journey at the end of the year for us to
Speaker 1: clear out any of that negativity so we can go
Speaker 1: into this next year with much more positivity.
Speaker 5: Apology accepted, Apology accepted. Thank you for finally acknowledging that
Speaker 5: I'm glad we got took years, but I'm glad. I'm
Speaker 5: glad I finally took Ellie coming on the show to
Speaker 5: get the apology.
Speaker 1: I'm here so glad his WiFi is breaking up me in.
Speaker 6: Again.
Speaker 2: That's what happened. The Laura won't let him have the floor.
Speaker 2: Thank you Jesus with that, y'all. This show is a rap.
Speaker 1: Thank you again to our guests, our favorite Supreme Court expert, Elie, Vesta,
Speaker 1: tiff And Bakari and Andrew. Y'all pray that our good
Speaker 1: brother Andrew gets better with this od y has when
Speaker 1: you got that many kids that do bring the germs home,
Speaker 1: So pray for our nist and our nephews as well.
Speaker 1: We are Angela, Rie, Tiffany Cross, Andrew Gillim and Macari Sellers.
Speaker 2: Welcome home, y'all.
Speaker 1: There are three hundred and twenty seven days in token
Speaker 1: in termolation.
Speaker 9: Welcome home to the native landing on the podcast face
Speaker 9: that's a for greatness.
Speaker 6: Sixty minutes is so hit, not too long.
Speaker 9: For the grave shit, high level combo politics in a
Speaker 9: way that you could taste it then digest it. Politics
Speaker 9: touches you even if you don't touch it.
Speaker 6: So get invested.
Speaker 9: Across the t's and doctor I kill them, got them
Speaker 9: ass Sellers Staying on business or why you could have
Speaker 9: been anywhere, but you trust us. Native Lampard is a brand.
Speaker 6: That you can trust.
Speaker 1: Native Lampard is a production of iHeart Radio and partnership
Speaker 1: with reisent Choice Media. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
Speaker 2: Wherever you listen to your favorite shows.