Speaker 1: Hi, Brian, Hi, Katie. Well, it's been an extraordinary week
Speaker 1: in America. Good day. It is now official, by a
Speaker 1: to vote margin. The Senate has just confirmed Breck Cavanaugh.
Speaker 1: Breck Cavanaugh was sworn in as Supreme Court justice. Has
Speaker 1: a new Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh will hear his first
Speaker 1: arguments this morning. The confirmation of Bret Kavanaugh to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court capped off an emotional process that's left scars
Speaker 1: and anchor on both sides of the debate. The already
Speaker 1: deep divide in this country seems to have not only deepened,
Speaker 1: but calcified. The testimony of Dr Christine Blassi Ford unleashed
Speaker 1: a torrent of revelations by women across the country of
Speaker 1: sexual assaults long kept secret. The rage and raw emotion
Speaker 1: exhibited by Judge Kavanaugh seemed to be a vessel for
Speaker 1: those who feel the me too movement has been transformed
Speaker 1: into a political heat seeking missile. Collateral damage be damned.
Speaker 1: And by the time it was over, Americans were at
Speaker 1: each other's throats, both sides vowing to express their fury
Speaker 1: at the voting booth. So what just happened? Well, today
Speaker 1: we're going to try to figure that out, We're gonna
Speaker 1: try to understand what unfolded and why and what impact
Speaker 1: this is likely to have on the court and the country.
Speaker 1: We'll hear from two people who can help us better
Speaker 1: understand this moment in American politics and culture. Lawrence Tribe
Speaker 1: teaches constitutional law at Harvard Law School. He's one of
Speaker 1: the most influential and revered liberal legal scholars in the country.
Speaker 1: And if you're a big fan of this podcast, you
Speaker 1: might remember Rebecca tray Stir. We had her on way
Speaker 1: back in those prehistoric innocent days the summer of and
Speaker 1: we're very happy to have Rebecca back with us today
Speaker 1: because she's out with a brand new book called Good
Speaker 1: and Mad, The Revolutionary Power of Women's Anger, talk about
Speaker 1: timely was oppression title. Anyway, hopefully they can both help
Speaker 1: us make sense of this moment and the Rancor's times
Speaker 1: were living in and what this could all mean in
Speaker 1: our daily lives. So first, here's Rebecca tray Stir. Rebecca,
Speaker 1: welcome back, Thank you. It's always a pleasure to be here.
Speaker 1: So first we want to talk about Judge now Justice
Speaker 1: Brett Havanaugh, and before we even get into the confirmation
Speaker 1: hearings and what unfolded. What one word would you use
Speaker 1: to describe how you felt after this was all over wrecked?
Speaker 1: That's a terrible I felt absolutely wrecked. It has really
Speaker 1: been a traumatic, um enraging, terrifying period from my point
Speaker 1: of view the past few weeks. Can you elaborate on
Speaker 1: on why. Yeah, because the stakes were so high first
Speaker 1: of all, so a lot of When I described the
Speaker 1: horror of what's just happened, I'm not talking just about
Speaker 1: what's just happened over the past few weeks of testimony
Speaker 1: and the coverage of it. I'm also talking about the repercussion.
Speaker 1: He's now going to be a member of the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: He has a lifetime appointment. Um, you know, he's a
Speaker 1: it's a partisan appointment, and to a court that has
Speaker 1: within its power the ability to reverse the progress made
Speaker 1: by previous generations of mass social movements that have worked
Speaker 1: to enact change and increase equality. What that means is
Speaker 1: not just the potential reversal of Row, which is what
Speaker 1: a lot of people have talked about. It means further
Speaker 1: gutting of affirmative action, of the Voting Rights Act, of
Speaker 1: the ability to collectively bargain and organize the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: has an enormous ability to suppress um the liberty and
Speaker 1: freedom of the kinds of masses of people who are
Speaker 1: now angry about power abuses. There there are all kinds
Speaker 1: of mechanisms that are going to change. What a lot
Speaker 1: of people saw when they looked at these hearings was
Speaker 1: a repeat eat or reducts of the Clarence Thomas Anita
Speaker 1: Hill hearings twenty seven years ago. Do you think we've
Speaker 1: learned anything since then? Well, it's funny in some ways.
Speaker 1: We saw the handling of the hearings by the Judiciary Committee,
Speaker 1: and I didn't think it was possible to handle the
Speaker 1: testimony of a woman who was coming forth with allegations
Speaker 1: about a nominee to the Supreme Court any worse than
Speaker 1: the Senate Judiciary Committee handled them in. And somehowen Republican
Speaker 1: led Senate Judiciary Committee managed to do worse. Why do
Speaker 1: you think it was worse? Christine blasi Ford testified that
Speaker 1: there was a witness in Mark Judge. He was never
Speaker 1: even called. We don't know enough about what the eventual
Speaker 1: FBI investigation entailed, but it's certainly left very few people
Speaker 1: who were not Republicans convinced that it had been a
Speaker 1: thorough investigation. Dr Blasi Ford herself wasn't questioned by the FBI. UM,
Speaker 1: we know that there were people who offered to talk
Speaker 1: to the FBI who the FBI did not reach out to.
Speaker 1: Is it worse? The open disdain for Anita Hill was
Speaker 1: so profound, and it was coming in some ways from
Speaker 1: the members of the Republican Party sitting on the Judiciary Committee.
Speaker 1: But she was not defended by those on the Democratic side,
Speaker 1: And in fact, Joe Biden didn't call the women who
Speaker 1: were willing to corroborate her story back. So that is similar,
Speaker 1: But there was more time, there was more investigation. Um,
Speaker 1: there were I think twenty two witnesses called in in
Speaker 1: the Anita Hill hearings. There was none of that here.
Speaker 1: It was just they designed it to be. She said,
Speaker 1: he said, without even calling on the voice. I mean,
Speaker 1: in these kinds of cases, very often, one of the
Speaker 1: reasons that harassment and assault cases are hard to bring,
Speaker 1: and one of the reasons that women often don't tell
Speaker 1: stories is because they know it comes down to he said,
Speaker 1: she said, and the women's voices very rarely trusted. This
Speaker 1: was a case where the woman telling the story claimed
Speaker 1: there was another person in the room and that person
Speaker 1: wasn't called, So you know, in that regard it was worse.
Speaker 1: I think there are some differences. After the Anita Hill
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas Herring's public opinion polls showed that the majority
Speaker 1: of Americans believed Clarence Thomas, and now the polls show
Speaker 1: that a majority believe Christine Blasi for right, and so
Speaker 1: through one lens, that reflects a kind of progress that
Speaker 1: I do think twenty seven years of activism and engagement
Speaker 1: on these issues mean that we are taking the stories
Speaker 1: of women more seriously, and so there is some indication
Speaker 1: that maybe we were taking Christine Blasi Ford's story more seriously.
Speaker 1: But we also have to remember she is a white,
Speaker 1: married woman by many measures, um within a government in
Speaker 1: a power structure that is fundamentally a white patriarchy, the
Speaker 1: kind of woman who Americans are more likely to believe.
Speaker 1: Anita Hill wrote at the time after her hearing that
Speaker 1: one of the reasons that she was incomprehensible to the
Speaker 1: Senate Judiciary Committee she was black and she was unmarried,
Speaker 1: and they couldn't square these things with her credentials as
Speaker 1: an ivy educated lawyer and a peer of a Supreme
Speaker 1: Court nominee. So we I think we have to take
Speaker 1: into account, um, some of the racial realities around the
Speaker 1: differences between Christine Blassie Ford and Anita Hill. Though I
Speaker 1: would also argue that it is true, um, that we
Speaker 1: do listen to women's stories differently at this juncture than
Speaker 1: perhaps we did. I was struck by Anita Hill's piece
Speaker 1: in the New York Times after Dr Ford came forward
Speaker 1: bemoaning the fact that there still was not a process
Speaker 1: in place. There isn't a protocol that would make it
Speaker 1: a clear path to how you handle these kinds of
Speaker 1: complaints or issues. Yeah, I I obviously I think that
Speaker 1: that's that's a very fair assessment. I would also say
Speaker 1: that the way that we react to women's stories makes
Speaker 1: it very difficult for there to be a clear protocol.
Speaker 1: You can see the risks involved. I read today that
Speaker 1: Christine Blasi Ford still can't move back into our own
Speaker 1: home because of the incessant death threats, and of course
Speaker 1: that happened to Anita Hill too, terrible death threats and
Speaker 1: rape threats for years afterward, which is a very depressing
Speaker 1: thing and very upsetting to hear Let's talk about the
Speaker 1: hearings themselves. Your new book is about women and anger,
Speaker 1: and I know you were struck by the anger express
Speaker 1: by not only Brett having off, but Lindsey Graham. Let's
Speaker 1: take a listen. This confirmation process has become a national disgrace.
Speaker 1: The Constitution gives the Senate an important role in the
Speaker 1: confirmation process. But you have replaced advice and consent with
Speaker 1: search and destroy. If you wanted an FBI investigation, you
Speaker 1: could have come to us. What you want to do
Speaker 1: is destroy this guy's life, hold this seat open, and
Speaker 1: hope you win. You've said that, not me. Meanwhile, Christine
Speaker 1: blasi Ford really, for the most part, maintained her composure.
Speaker 1: She obviously was nervous and I think a little bit
Speaker 1: weepy at times. Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter,
Speaker 1: the the uproarious laughter between the two and they're having
Speaker 1: fun at my expense. What were your impressions watching the
Speaker 1: two genders react. Well, I don't think that Christine blasi
Speaker 1: Ford could have used anger on her own behalf, although
Speaker 1: in my view she had a lot she could have
Speaker 1: reasonably been angry about, from the assault itself to the
Speaker 1: impact it made on her life, to the kind of
Speaker 1: impact that having been brought into the public eye made
Speaker 1: on her life and her family's life. Um, there was
Speaker 1: plenty that she could have raised her voice about. But
Speaker 1: we can't even begin to imagine a woman in her
Speaker 1: position going in and raging or yelling or speaking in
Speaker 1: loud tones about what had happen, and to her, it
Speaker 1: would be immediately discrediting. People would say she came off
Speaker 1: as crazy, or she was trying to play the victim,
Speaker 1: or she sounded like a lunatic. I mean it just
Speaker 1: I don't think we can fathom it really. Meanwhile, Brett Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: who is a powerful white man, was able to use
Speaker 1: anger as a rhetorical tool to boost his case. And
Speaker 1: that's the That is the thing. Women are told all
Speaker 1: the time that if they speak in anger, it's not
Speaker 1: just that it's not cute, it's that it will undermine
Speaker 1: their position, it will damage their ability to be taken seriously.
Speaker 1: But for men, anger can be read as fundamentally diagnostic.
Speaker 1: It tells us what's really wrong because they're feeling it
Speaker 1: so deeply that they raised their voice about it in
Speaker 1: a kind of sign of strength and commitment. And it
Speaker 1: worked for Brett Kavanaugh, I think by many measures. Uh,
Speaker 1: You've seen a lot of coverage that has said it
Speaker 1: was his willingness to get angry and Lindsay Graham's willingness
Speaker 1: to get angry, which I think many people agree was
Speaker 1: probably an audition for Donald Trump, who likes to see
Speaker 1: the angry bluster of powerful men um in the face
Speaker 1: of challenge from people who are not powerful white men. Now,
Speaker 1: the women who did speak in anger, and who I
Speaker 1: think did so to powerful effect were the protesters, including Anna,
Speaker 1: Maria Archila, and Maria Gallagher who confronted Jeff Flake in
Speaker 1: the elevator, And that was an incredibly powerful moment of
Speaker 1: of watching and hearing women raise their voices and point
Speaker 1: their fingers and insist that this powerful man look them
Speaker 1: in their eyes. Well, tell me, when I'm talking to you,
Speaker 1: you're telling me that miaself doesn't matter, what happened to
Speaker 1: me doesn't matter. You're gonna let people look do these
Speaker 1: things into power. I found it interesting that Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: and President Trump both described these groups of protesters as mobs.
Speaker 1: What was your reaction to that? That is the way
Speaker 1: whenever UM a power structure is challenged by the less
Speaker 1: powerful entity. That challenge is um framed by the more
Speaker 1: powerful entity that has and challenged as disruptive, dangerous mob.
Speaker 1: You can see that in the language that people used
Speaker 1: around me too, where the women telling the stories of
Speaker 1: sexual harassment were described as part of a witch hunt
Speaker 1: or part of mob justice, and where the men, some
Speaker 1: of whom lost their jobs powerful jobs after accusations that
Speaker 1: they had harassed or assaulted people, were described as having
Speaker 1: had their lives ruined. In many cases, people talked about
Speaker 1: them as if they had been killed or murdered, that
Speaker 1: they had ceased to exist. The kind of disruption that
Speaker 1: happens when power moves in the opposite way that it
Speaker 1: usually does, when the less powerful make a challenge to
Speaker 1: the powerful, that gets rendered as troublesome, disruptive, worrisome. Whereas
Speaker 1: when the power moves the way it's supposed to move
Speaker 1: um with any kind of violence or aggression coming from
Speaker 1: the more powerful to less powerful, often we don't even
Speaker 1: notice that it's not disruption. You know, the angry mobs
Speaker 1: were the protesters, not the angry group of Republicans who
Speaker 1: are having fits. A few jury in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Speaker 1: They were just as mad and cruel Donald Trump's mocking
Speaker 1: of Dr Christine blasi Ford cruel and vitriolic and loud
Speaker 1: and screaming in their anger on behalf of Brett Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: And yet they're not the angry mobs, even though they're
Speaker 1: expressing anger that's just as intense. One thing that really
Speaker 1: struck me over the weekend was Senator Susan Collins, obviously
Speaker 1: a woman the deciding vote here, defended Brett Kavanaugh's anger
Speaker 1: on one of the Sunday shows. She said she was
Speaker 1: glad that Kavanaugh apologized to Amy Klobuchar, but beyond that,
Speaker 1: she said, you know, if you're wrongfully accused of something
Speaker 1: like this, I can understand why you'd be angry. What
Speaker 1: was your reaction to that? Well, this is what I
Speaker 1: was saying before about white men's powerful. White men's anger
Speaker 1: is often a tool that they can use to make themselves,
Speaker 1: in their case, more appealing and attractive and moving to
Speaker 1: those who might be willing to support them, and Susan
Speaker 1: Collins is one of those people. Susan Collins very clearly
Speaker 1: wanted to support Brett Kavanaugh, and she found in his
Speaker 1: anger a communicative strategy that worked to affirm her positive
Speaker 1: feelings about him, and that's what she's giving voice to.
Speaker 1: Anger really does have an ability to work for powerful
Speaker 1: white men in a way that it doesn't from many
Speaker 1: other kinds of people. Do you have any kind of
Speaker 1: sympathy for what Kavanaugh's family has been through or Kavanaugh himself?
Speaker 1: And do you have any doubt at all that he
Speaker 1: sexually assaulted Dr? Ford? No, I don't. I believe Christine
Speaker 1: Blassi Ford. Um, that doesn't mean that I don't have
Speaker 1: sympathy for human beings, and certainly for a family. One
Speaker 1: of the realities about the ubiquity of power abuse, you know,
Speaker 1: gendered and racial, is that the people who have power
Speaker 1: have lots of people who are dependent on them. And Um,
Speaker 1: do I have sympathy for Kavanaugh's family, Sure, But like
Speaker 1: the fact that our attention is drawn to that as
Speaker 1: the ard party, rather than not only the family of
Speaker 1: Dr Christine Blassie Ford who can't live in their own home,
Speaker 1: rather than the families of the hundreds or thousands of
Speaker 1: people who were there protesting telling their own stories of
Speaker 1: having been assaulted or harassed or aggressed upon, whose families
Speaker 1: also live with the kind of suffering that they've gone through,
Speaker 1: not only via harassment, but then having their voices silenced, ignored,
Speaker 1: and dismissed as a mob of loudmouths. I feel sympathy
Speaker 1: for those families too. The Me Too movement is one
Speaker 1: year old, right, and we've seen powerful man after powerful
Speaker 1: man fall from grace. It seems to me that there
Speaker 1: has been increasing sort of discomfort with this, not just
Speaker 1: from powerful men or men in general, but I think
Speaker 1: from other people who feel that perhaps it's being weaponized
Speaker 1: and that, uh, it's overused, this kind of claim. And
Speaker 1: then when you have an allegation that's thirty six years old,
Speaker 1: no matter how credible, people are wondering, gosh, has it
Speaker 1: gone too far? So I would argue this seems to
Speaker 1: be a specific backlash against this reckoning we've witnessed over
Speaker 1: the last year. Well, I think that the rhetoric used
Speaker 1: about it, and this the arguments that you're citing that's
Speaker 1: been in the culture for a while. I mean that
Speaker 1: was that was Donald Trump was elected to the presidency
Speaker 1: after having admitted on tape to grabbing women against their will.
Speaker 1: I don't think that this Yes, there's a backlash, but
Speaker 1: I also want to. I'm curious about whether it would
Speaker 1: be popularly decided had we voted on Brett Kavanaugh. I mean,
Speaker 1: polls that I've seen show that the majority of Americans
Speaker 1: believed Christine Blasi Ford and that he had extraordinarily low
Speaker 1: approval ratings that only dropped during his confirmation hearings. Yes,
Speaker 1: the intensity of his defense amongst his right wing defenders
Speaker 1: grew in in defensive response, and that's surely part of
Speaker 1: that backlash mentality. But it was a fundamentally minority power
Speaker 1: that installed him. But I think for some people who
Speaker 1: are you know, just read my Instagram feed and you'll
Speaker 1: see what I mean my Instagram comments. But but I
Speaker 1: feel like I feel like it it reached a zenith
Speaker 1: though with this, with with these Kavanaugh hearings, that somehow
Speaker 1: people were like, enough is enough? You know, these crazy
Speaker 1: women making these claims, and now you go back to
Speaker 1: what a kid did at seventeen years old and saying,
Speaker 1: what's going to happen to our sons and brothers? So
Speaker 1: I feel I feel like, I don't know, for me
Speaker 1: as an observer, and of course you're much more entrenched
Speaker 1: in this than I am. Rebecca, this feels to me
Speaker 1: like the moment, the backlash was heard loud and clear
Speaker 1: across the country. But what does it mean that more
Speaker 1: people believed her? Is that indicative of a mass backlash
Speaker 1: or is that the rhetoric of back clash being weaponized
Speaker 1: by a right wing that wanted to install their justice. Well,
Speaker 1: that's fair enough, I mean, yeah, I can see that too.
Speaker 1: And maybe mass isn't the right word, but allowed and
Speaker 1: exploitive reaction to this movement, well on a faction of
Speaker 1: the country that doesn't represent a majority, But that's pretty big,
Speaker 1: just deciding, you know, I'm fed up and we're not
Speaker 1: gonna We're not gonna take this anymore in a sense.
Speaker 1: But but I want to talk about the subject of
Speaker 1: your book, which is obviously connected to this conversation, women's anger. So, Rebecca,
Speaker 1: a lot of the anger that you describe in your
Speaker 1: book is directed at white men, but some of it
Speaker 1: is directed at women themselves, specifically white women, you know,
Speaker 1: many of whom supported Trump supported Kavanaugh. How do you
Speaker 1: explain that, Well, inequity takes all kinds of forms in
Speaker 1: this country. The country was built on all kinds of
Speaker 1: forms of in equity. So there's racial inequity, gender inequity,
Speaker 1: class inequality. So within coalitions that may exist um as
Speaker 1: mass social movements, whether you're talking about the civil rights
Speaker 1: movement or the women's movement, there are divergent opinions. There
Speaker 1: is inequality, and women are angry at each other. Within
Speaker 1: the movement, allies are angry at allies. This has always
Speaker 1: been true. How do you explain white women's supporting Trump,
Speaker 1: supporting Kavanaugh and turning their backs on these other women
Speaker 1: who have been victims of sexual assault and who tell
Speaker 1: these unbelievably herroin emotionally difficult stories. It's hard for me
Speaker 1: to understand how they can just turn their back on
Speaker 1: these other women. Well, there's a long history of white
Speaker 1: women supporting the white men to whom they are most
Speaker 1: closely connected by marriage, by social circles within their families,
Speaker 1: um against critique or challenge. White women in this country
Speaker 1: have um always voted Republican as long as as long
Speaker 1: as they've been keeping track, except for two elections in
Speaker 1: two and ninety six, And it's one of the things
Speaker 1: that has created dissonance and um resentments within a women's
Speaker 1: movement because there are all kinds of incentives offered to
Speaker 1: white women who are willing to support white men and
Speaker 1: their continued power, but that does set them at odds
Speaker 1: with other women, some of whom are trying to challenge
Speaker 1: the power of those white men, and it works to
Speaker 1: divide women against each other. It's it's a very difficult
Speaker 1: dynamic within a women's movement, and it's and race and um.
Speaker 1: Racial inequality has been used to sort of cut off
Speaker 1: a percentage of white women who are more invested in
Speaker 1: supporting the continued power of white men than they are
Speaker 1: in finding affiliation with other women. Where does the Me
Speaker 1: Too movement go from here? Do you think this is
Speaker 1: a setback or do you think it will galvanize the
Speaker 1: participants of this movement? Well, you know, I have been,
Speaker 1: actually for somebody who writes a lot about me Too,
Speaker 1: I've been notoriously bad at predicting what's going to happen next.
Speaker 1: It surprised me right from the start. I assumed that
Speaker 1: the story about Harvey Weinstein would pass over within a
Speaker 1: week or two, and instead it kept going, more stories
Speaker 1: being told, and then I thought, oh my god, it's
Speaker 1: been a month, and then it's been two months, and
Speaker 1: then three months, and then four months, which was really
Speaker 1: that peak in the fall of seventeen, and I couldn't believe,
Speaker 1: as a person who studies women's anger, that it was
Speaker 1: sustaining itself for four months. And it showed me the
Speaker 1: intensity and the passion that was there and the desperation
Speaker 1: to get these stories out. And then I sort of thought, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: now it's receded. But then there were other iterations. There
Speaker 1: was the revelation about Eric schneiderman Um just recently prior
Speaker 1: to Kavanaugh. There were the stories about less Moon vest
Speaker 1: which were just absolutely devastating, and the revelation that this
Speaker 1: very powerful man is alleged to have committed kind of
Speaker 1: Weinstein level assaults um throughout his career. Now, the question
Speaker 1: whether what has just happened around Kavanaugh will be further
Speaker 1: energizing or whether it will be deadening. I could see
Speaker 1: it going either way. My My best guess is that
Speaker 1: it will be ultimately energizing, that it will motivate that
Speaker 1: women are angry, and while they may feel briefly defeated,
Speaker 1: that their anger will propel them into continuing to be
Speaker 1: determined to make to make these realities clear. I'm not
Speaker 1: going to ask you to predict how this will play
Speaker 1: out in the mid terms. But it is interesting that,
Speaker 1: you know, the Republicans seem to be convinced that this
Speaker 1: is really energized their base in a way that nothing
Speaker 1: else has over the last couple of years. And the
Speaker 1: Democrats are also convinced that this is going to energize
Speaker 1: their base. I mean, how do you assess that? And
Speaker 1: who do you think is going to prevail in this
Speaker 1: sort of fight. I think there are two different factors
Speaker 1: that complicate both of those claims. I think Republicans are
Speaker 1: probably right that it is energized their base, but the
Speaker 1: issue is that the Republican base is in fact smaller
Speaker 1: than a Democratic base, and so it may have increased
Speaker 1: intensity amongst the Trump base. But that Trump base, first
Speaker 1: of all, was always smaller statistically than the Democratic base.
Speaker 1: Remember he did not win the popular vote. So it
Speaker 1: may well have increased the intensity and excitement amongst the
Speaker 1: Trump base, But the question is isn't big enough? And
Speaker 1: in that regard, I would say energy favors the Democrats.
Speaker 1: But here's what doesn't favor the Democrats the way the
Speaker 1: system is designed, and that's from jerrymandering and voter suppression efforts,
Speaker 1: which have already been successful in many states. UM to
Speaker 1: the basic ways that you know that that we apportioned
Speaker 1: political power. I mean, one thing that's really notable, and
Speaker 1: several people have have made mention of it, is that
Speaker 1: the senators who voted against Kavanaugh represent millions of more
Speaker 1: Americans because of the way the Senate is designed than
Speaker 1: the senators who voted for him. And the fact is
Speaker 1: that there could be more democratic enthusiasm, more UM activism,
Speaker 1: more people out there casting votes, and it still might
Speaker 1: not be able to overcome the deficits of gerrymandering and
Speaker 1: voter suppression UM that Republicans have put in place. Even
Speaker 1: setting that aside, you know, if if in every Trump
Speaker 1: state they elected to Republican senators, the Trump States would
Speaker 1: mean sixty Republican senators, right exactly. Well, that's what I
Speaker 1: mean by the design of the Senate. You know, I'm
Speaker 1: not a predictor, especially not after UM, but I think
Speaker 1: you see a Democratic party changing and growing. Whether that
Speaker 1: means success in a few weeks in the mid terms,
Speaker 1: I can't tell you. But you see a Republican party
Speaker 1: that I think is shrinking slightly, but their grip on
Speaker 1: power is growing. Your party affiliation is crystal clear. I
Speaker 1: never my journalism. I'm an opinion journalist that nobody ever
Speaker 1: wonders about my party affiliation. Before we go, I just
Speaker 1: want to ask one final, sort of broader question. Do
Speaker 1: you think the treatment of Christine blasi Ford will have
Speaker 1: a chilling effect on sexual assault victims and in terms
Speaker 1: of their willingness to come forward? Because I was so
Speaker 1: moved and actually somewhat surprised at the number of stories
Speaker 1: that surfaced from people like Terry Hatcher and Connie Chung,
Speaker 1: all these well known people, and of course people who
Speaker 1: are not well known. It made me realize how pervasive
Speaker 1: this problem is. So what do you think the impact
Speaker 1: will be on survivors coming forward or victims telling their stories? Well,
Speaker 1: I think that there are some people who react to
Speaker 1: a story like this by saying, damn it. I'm going
Speaker 1: to make it clear that this happened to me too,
Speaker 1: by sort of being angry about the treatment, and that
Speaker 1: anger um provoking them to tell their story almost in solidarity,
Speaker 1: to say you might not have believed her, but it
Speaker 1: happen to me as well, And this is a real thing,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to insist on it. And I think
Speaker 1: that's one possible psychological reaction. But the other, as you
Speaker 1: point to, she was treated truly horribly. Her life is upended.
Speaker 1: She'll never live the same life that she did before.
Speaker 1: This has been true for Anita Hill as well. And
Speaker 1: with nothing to you know, he's he's on the court.
Speaker 1: He's going to be making laws about women's bodies and
Speaker 1: voting rights deep into our future. And I think that
Speaker 1: there are a whole host of other people for whom
Speaker 1: that is certainly chilling. Who wants to go through that,
Speaker 1: Who wants to expose so much and expose yourself and
Speaker 1: your family to risk and to pain for nothing. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is a country where women came forward and told
Speaker 1: their stories about having been groped by Donald Trump, and
Speaker 1: he got elected president the next month. This is not
Speaker 1: the only example of this, but then it's worth thinking
Speaker 1: about the fact that that did happen. In the fall
Speaker 1: of you had more than a dozen women come forward
Speaker 1: with their names and tell stories about Donald Trump as
Speaker 1: as a sexual predator, and watched him win the presidency anyway,
Speaker 1: and within a year you had a movement of thousands
Speaker 1: of other women coming forward with their stories. So I
Speaker 1: guess that recent history would suggest that it might not
Speaker 1: deaden or or dampen the urge to come forward with
Speaker 1: with stories. Well, we live in very interesting fraud times
Speaker 1: to say the least. Rebecca trast is always We love
Speaker 1: having you on the podcast and love hearing your perspective.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Katie. It's really good to be here.
Speaker 1: Time for us to take a quick break. Now, when
Speaker 1: we come back, we'll talk with the legal scholar, Lawrence Tribe,
Speaker 1: about where the Supreme Court will go from here. That's
Speaker 1: right after this. Now let's get back to the show.
Speaker 1: Let's turn out to Lawrence Tribe, a Harvard law professor
Speaker 1: and an expert on constitutional law. We started off by
Speaker 1: asking him why he was opposed to Bret havanas confirmation
Speaker 1: even before Christine Blaussi Ford's allegations came to light. Well,
Speaker 1: I actually knew him, liked him, and respected him. But
Speaker 1: I believed that his views of executive power were so
Speaker 1: broad that it was dangerous for the republic, and that
Speaker 1: his views of individual rights were so narrow that it
Speaker 1: was dangerous for all of us, especially women but really everybody,
Speaker 1: And so reluctantly I was opposed. Can you explain when
Speaker 1: you talk about his views towards executive power for the
Speaker 1: non legal eagles in our audience. Well, unlike many of
Speaker 1: the others on the shortlist that the Federalist Society and
Speaker 1: the Heritage Foundation presented to President Trump, Judge Kavanaugh was
Speaker 1: on record as expressing serious doubts about whether a sitting
Speaker 1: president could properly be indicted, even if he had committed
Speaker 1: a crime, could be forced to testify pursuant to a
Speaker 1: grand jury subpoena. The others on the list really hued
Speaker 1: to the right wing agenda on issues like abortion rights
Speaker 1: and affirmative action and gay rights. But the one thing
Speaker 1: that stuck out with respect to Judge Kavanaugh, who was
Speaker 1: added to the list by President Trump in a kind
Speaker 1: of second round, was that he alone was on record
Speaker 1: as suggesting that presidents should be subject two shields from
Speaker 1: legal accountability that put them above the rest of us,
Speaker 1: and that troubled me a great deal. I know we're
Speaker 1: not mind readers here, but do you think that that
Speaker 1: was one of the things that made Trump select Kavanaugh? Well,
Speaker 1: I certainly don't pretend to read anyone's mind, especially Donald Trump's,
Speaker 1: but I find it hard to imagine that there was
Speaker 1: anything else that made him stand out in a way
Speaker 1: that was so distinctive, because, in fact, McConnell had warned
Speaker 1: Donald Trump that Brett Kavanaugh had a longer and more
Speaker 1: difficult paper trail than anybody else on the shortlist. McConnell
Speaker 1: recommended that he not be the choice, but Trump went
Speaker 1: ahead anyway, And the only thing I can imagine as
Speaker 1: his reason was that this was a nominee who was
Speaker 1: likely to protect Trump from the mounting legal problems that
Speaker 1: he confronted with the Mueller investigation and all of the
Speaker 1: indictments that it had already brought down. Do you worry
Speaker 1: in general about how partisan this whole process has become
Speaker 1: Democrats instinctively opposing Republican nominees and of course vice versa.
Speaker 1: I mean, it wasn't so long ago and the Clinton
Speaker 1: administration that Ginsburg and Briar were supported by huge bipartisan
Speaker 1: majorities in the Senate. What happened? Yeah, For people who
Speaker 1: haven't paid so much attention since then, how did this
Speaker 1: all change? Well? It really has been very partisan for
Speaker 1: a very long time since even before Robert bourke in.
Speaker 1: And there have been short periods during which there was
Speaker 1: not much point in opposing a relatively moderate nominee UM,
Speaker 1: and in fact, despite her prominence in the women's rights movement,
Speaker 1: Ruth Ginsburg was really moderate compared to flamethrowing far left candidates.
Speaker 1: She was somebody who had expressed the view that Roe v.
Speaker 1: Wade came too quickly and that the Court should have
Speaker 1: moved more slowly. And Stephen Bryer was hardly a left
Speaker 1: wing candidate. And those were times when opposition by the
Speaker 1: GOP would have really been quite feutial. We had a
Speaker 1: filibuster rule that would have required sixty votes. It was
Speaker 1: not a time like this one in which the country
Speaker 1: is so totally and profoundly divided, and in which McConnell
Speaker 1: had already established a fifty vote rule so that anything
Speaker 1: more than a majority would prevail. By the way, I
Speaker 1: think there's an important thing for people to note that
Speaker 1: Harry Reid often gets blamed for this. He lowered the
Speaker 1: threshold from sixty votes to fifty for lower court judges,
Speaker 1: Appeals court judges, and district court judges. But it was
Speaker 1: McConnell who changed the rule so that Supreme Court justices
Speaker 1: could not be filibustered. That's right, and when you are
Speaker 1: dealing with a group of nine hundred or more lower
Speaker 1: court judges to say that a mere majority should be
Speaker 1: enough is not all that dramatic, although they called it
Speaker 1: the nuclear option. The really dramatic move was the one
Speaker 1: that was made for the first time by Majority leader McConnell,
Speaker 1: who basically said that from now on, a mere majority
Speaker 1: will suffice to confirm someone to the United States Supreme
Speaker 1: Court for lifetime power over all of us. While we're
Speaker 1: on the topic, larrea of Mitch McConnell, I mean, how
Speaker 1: could he and the Republicans just decide they were not
Speaker 1: going to even meet with Merrick Garland, which I think
Speaker 1: really led to this extraordinary polarization we're witnessing. Now, How
Speaker 1: can they do that? Well, the fact is that he
Speaker 1: could do it because he did it. He could do
Speaker 1: it because he had the power, But there was no
Speaker 1: reasonable argument for it. He claimed that there was some
Speaker 1: kind of precedent for holding a seat vacant for four
Speaker 1: hundred days on the ground that it was in the
Speaker 1: last year of a president's term. Well, you can be
Speaker 1: sure that if some terrible tragedy befalls one of the
Speaker 1: older just in the last year of Donald Trump's term,
Speaker 1: that mix. McConnell is not going to say, well, we
Speaker 1: have to wait until the election of In fact, he
Speaker 1: already said that. He said that over the weekend that
Speaker 1: he modified the McConnell rule so that it's only if
Speaker 1: the Senate is of an opposing party as the president
Speaker 1: that they would do nothing. If it's the same party,
Speaker 1: they move forward. Right, And if you believe that there
Speaker 1: is more than one bridge, I could sell you cheap.
Speaker 1: The fact is that there is no rule. There's simply power,
Speaker 1: naked power, and the idea that power should prevail over
Speaker 1: any exercise of human reason is an idea that can
Speaker 1: get us into profound trouble. I mean, whether you are
Speaker 1: on the left or on the right, you really have
Speaker 1: a stake in a functioning government, of functioning three branch
Speaker 1: government with checks and balances, and with the reasoned argument.
Speaker 1: There's a kind of inherent disadvantage for Democrats, who somehow
Speaker 1: often subject to great criticism, feel constrained by the idea
Speaker 1: that what we've got to have some principle here, we
Speaker 1: have to have an argument. Well, the fact is, if
Speaker 1: the other side doesn't think it needs an argument, then
Speaker 1: feeling constrained by reason puts you at an inherent disadvantage,
Speaker 1: and that's what liberals and progressives have faced. I think
Speaker 1: it's a big mistake to treat the problem of profound
Speaker 1: division as one in which both sides are to blame.
Speaker 1: No one is perfect, that's true. But if what you're
Speaker 1: saying is everybody is equally to blame, that's just that's
Speaker 1: just not true at all. Larry, let me read you
Speaker 1: something you recently tweeted at the White House swearing, and
Speaker 1: Trump obscenely made the occasion a purely partisan one with
Speaker 1: his ludicrous claim that Justice Kavanaugh had been quote proven
Speaker 1: innocent end quote, and his misogynistic apology for the Senate's
Speaker 1: even having listened to Dr Blasi Ford, can you tell
Speaker 1: us how you really feel? Well? That is certainly how
Speaker 1: I feel. It was a frankly nauseating thing to watch.
Speaker 1: I felt really sorry for the two closest friends I
Speaker 1: have on the court, Stephen Bryer and Elena Kagan, because
Speaker 1: in order to help the institution, they obviously felt they
Speaker 1: had to be part of this absolute, you know, charade,
Speaker 1: in which they had to sit there and and be polite,
Speaker 1: while President Trump made it into a completely partisan show.
Speaker 1: He called out and praised all of the Republican members
Speaker 1: of the Judiciary Committee and had nothing but contempt for
Speaker 1: the others. He said that he was apologizing on behalf
Speaker 1: of the nation to poor Brett Kavanaugh, and really perpetuated
Speaker 1: his view which at first he had been persuaded to suppress,
Speaker 1: that Dr Blasie Ford was somehow part of a hoax.
Speaker 1: That's nonsense. Anybody who listened with a halfway open mind
Speaker 1: to the testimony would know that she was telling the truth,
Speaker 1: and the truth for Brett Kavanaugh would be I was
Speaker 1: part of a bunch of frat guys who got blotted drunk.
Speaker 1: I don't know what the hell I did that day,
Speaker 1: and it didn't matter to me. That would have been
Speaker 1: the truth. But I'm sure he was persuaded by Trump
Speaker 1: and McConnell that that would lead them to pull his nomination.
Speaker 1: He had to live big time, and I think it's
Speaker 1: a shame that he did. As a law school professor,
Speaker 1: it's I'd love you to address this whole notion of
Speaker 1: innocent until proven guilty, because that has been used time
Speaker 1: and time again by supporters of Brett Cavanaugh and detractors
Speaker 1: of Dr. Ford. Why is that not an appropriate way
Speaker 1: of looking at this, Well, to begin with, I can
Speaker 1: say that it's not consistent with what Trump himself said
Speaker 1: the other night, when he said, you've been proved innocent. Well,
Speaker 1: that's not part of our system. If it really were
Speaker 1: true that any reasonable doubt would have been enough to
Speaker 1: put him on the court, then the most we have
Speaker 1: is not that he was proved innocent, but that he
Speaker 1: wasn't absolutely proven guilty. But in fact, we're not talking
Speaker 1: about imprisoning somebody or depriving him of liberty or putting
Speaker 1: him to death. We're simply talking about who should exercise
Speaker 1: enormous power over our lives for really thirty five or
Speaker 1: forty years. If there's serious reason to believe that the
Speaker 1: person was really an attempted rapist and that he was
Speaker 1: lying to get onto the court, we don't say that
Speaker 1: because we're not sure he's a liar, we should simply
Speaker 1: give up and put him in that position of power.
Speaker 1: People don't have a right and entitlement to exercise the
Speaker 1: judicial power over others. That's not the same as the
Speaker 1: right We all have to be able to enjoy liberty
Speaker 1: unless we are proven guilty. So the whole paradigm of
Speaker 1: a presumption of innocence is misplaced. That has nothing to
Speaker 1: do with what we're talking about. As some have said,
Speaker 1: it's more like a job interview, except it's like, will
Speaker 1: you hire this person to be not just a babysitter
Speaker 1: for your kids, but a babysitter for your kids and
Speaker 1: grands kids for life, someone who exercises power over everything
Speaker 1: you care about? And if there's good reason to think
Speaker 1: that that person is too partisan or two disrespectful of women,
Speaker 1: you don't say, well, but we're not sure that he's
Speaker 1: a terrible guy, and therefore he's entitled to exercise that power.
Speaker 1: You rather say we're not sure, and therefore we better
Speaker 1: look for someone else. Why do you think Dr Ford's
Speaker 1: testimony didn't seem to matter to the outcome? I mean,
Speaker 1: I can argue that, with one or two notable exceptions,
Speaker 1: the vote was exact gale what it would have been
Speaker 1: had Dr Ford never come forward. Sad but true, sad
Speaker 1: but true. I mean, it seems to me that the
Speaker 1: result was essentially predetermined when, for example, Senator Flake was
Speaker 1: persuaded by Senator Coombs to call for an FBI investigation
Speaker 1: that he had to know would be more a cover
Speaker 1: up than a real investigation. I think it was simply
Speaker 1: to give cover to the whole situation. It was shameful.
Speaker 1: So Judge Kavanaugh is now Justice Kavanaugh, obviously, and you
Speaker 1: wrote an op ed in the New York Times about
Speaker 1: all the ways that he's going to need to recuse
Speaker 1: himself in your view, from cases before the court. Can
Speaker 1: you kind of walk us through your view about the
Speaker 1: major conflicts of interests he faces. Certainly, it seems to
Speaker 1: me that when someone wins confirmation after a kind of
Speaker 1: long and impassioned speech identifying essentially liberal groups and the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party and those who defend the Clintons and those
Speaker 1: who oppose Trump as having destroyed their lives, when anybody
Speaker 1: gets down to the court after that, it's hard to
Speaker 1: imagine that such a judge could be regarded as fair
Speaker 1: in dealing with any issue that involves those groups, and
Speaker 1: that certainly is going to involve issues with regard to abortion,
Speaker 1: issues with regard to gerrymandering, issues with regard to presidential
Speaker 1: power and presidential immunity. I don't expect Judge Kavanaugh to
Speaker 1: actually or now Justice Kavanaugh, actually bow out of all
Speaker 1: those controversies, but an ethical course of action would require
Speaker 1: him to do so. Respect for the Court's integrity and
Speaker 1: its credibility would require him to do so. But to
Speaker 1: get to specifics, it's rather complicated. Imagine, for example, that
Speaker 1: a lower court has held that the President of the
Speaker 1: United States cannot be forced to answer a subpoena from
Speaker 1: a grand jury. The U. S. Supreme Court could easily
Speaker 1: leave that decision in place and protect Trump, even if
Speaker 1: in order to do so, Kavanaugh would have to recouse himself.
Speaker 1: That is, there are times when recusal could kind of
Speaker 1: make the point that he thinks he's impartial but wants
Speaker 1: to respect those who find him biased. And yet the
Speaker 1: result of a four force split would be believe the
Speaker 1: decision of the lower court intact. So there are questions
Speaker 1: of tactics and strategy that are going to be pervasive
Speaker 1: throughout his service on the court. Larry, let me ask
Speaker 1: you about Justice Kavanaugh moving forward, not just on conflict
Speaker 1: of interest, but on that kind of intangible impact this
Speaker 1: kind of bruising confirm nation could have on a justice.
Speaker 1: It certainly harkens back to the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings
Speaker 1: twenty seven years ago. Let's listen to a clip from
Speaker 1: that and from my standpoint as a Black American, as
Speaker 1: far as I'm concerned, it is a high tech lynching
Speaker 1: for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think
Speaker 1: for themselves. Using Clarence Thomas as an example, will Justice Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: in your view, go more to the right or will
Speaker 1: his opinions be somehow colored by his experience? You know,
Speaker 1: I wish I had a crystal ball to answer that question.
Speaker 1: I think it's going to depend on all kinds of
Speaker 1: variables that are not yet determined. I think the Clarence
Speaker 1: Thomas situation was quite different. He did not during his
Speaker 1: testimony call out a kind of enemies list to people
Speaker 1: that he blamed for destroying his life. His general comments
Speaker 1: about a high tech lynching and about the unfairness of
Speaker 1: the process did not put him in a situation where
Speaker 1: he had a kind of presumption to overcome that there
Speaker 1: were groups whose cases he would not hear Impartially, Unfortunately
Speaker 1: for Justice Kavanagh, he is in that very situation. He
Speaker 1: might bend over backwards in order to rule in favor
Speaker 1: of groups that he called out as his enemies, in
Speaker 1: order to prove a point. He might worry that it
Speaker 1: looks like he's bending over backwards whenever he rules in
Speaker 1: favor of planned parenthood or the a c l U
Speaker 1: or the National Resources Defense Fund. I would hate to
Speaker 1: be in his situation of not knowing what positions will
Speaker 1: seem fair and be fair. But he's got all of
Speaker 1: that to grapple with in a way that no justice
Speaker 1: our history has ever done. What do you think are
Speaker 1: the major issues now that Kavanaugh has replaced Kennedy where
Speaker 1: the Court will move to the right. I mean, of course,
Speaker 1: everybody talks about abortion rights, but the consequences are far
Speaker 1: larger than just that. That's right. I think the issues
Speaker 1: on which the Court is bound to tilt further right
Speaker 1: with Kavanaugh than Kennedy include not just abortion, but all
Speaker 1: of the surrounding issues of sexual autonomy and freedom and
Speaker 1: personal liberty beyond those that are very narrowly and specifically
Speaker 1: enumerated in the Constitution, issues about contraception, sexual choice, same
Speaker 1: sex marriage, all of those questions, I think the Court
Speaker 1: will turn to the right. It will certainly turn to
Speaker 1: the right on religious exemptions from anti discrimination rules. It
Speaker 1: will turn to the right on affirmative action based on
Speaker 1: considerations like race. It will essentially eliminate, I think in
Speaker 1: a legitimate use of race by government in enhancing diversity
Speaker 1: or inclusion. It will also move to the right on
Speaker 1: presidential power and the immunity of a president from legal accountability.
Speaker 1: It's very likely to turn to the right on issues
Speaker 1: of campaign finance and the use of free speech to
Speaker 1: limit government regulation where information is part of the market,
Speaker 1: and where there's an attempt to reduce disparities in wealth
Speaker 1: and make wealth less determinant in political power. So on
Speaker 1: every important question, the Court has bound to tie further
Speaker 1: right under Kavanaugh. Do you think that Roe v. Wade
Speaker 1: will be overturned? I don't think that we will ever see,
Speaker 1: at least in the foreseeable future, a decision that uses
Speaker 1: those words Roe v. Wade is hereby overruled. But the
Speaker 1: Court wouldn't need ever to say that. In order to
Speaker 1: essentially hollow out and gut the rights of women to
Speaker 1: control their reproductive freedom. The Court could uphold every imaginable,
Speaker 1: politically achievable restriction on abortion without ever actually overruling Roe v.
Speaker 1: Wade and triggering a gratuitous backlash. So you're saying, in essence,
Speaker 1: it would be overturned, but not in those words. I
Speaker 1: think that's exactly right. I think that the rights of
Speaker 1: women to control their own reproductive lives are very much
Speaker 1: on the line, not in terms of a decision that
Speaker 1: waves a red flag and says Row is overruled, but
Speaker 1: in terms of decisions upholding restrictions on women that make
Speaker 1: it impossible for all but the wealthiest women in the
Speaker 1: most liberal states to control their lives. And that doesn't
Speaker 1: mean only restrictions on abortion. People don't seem to realize
Speaker 1: that this is a two sided coin. The same government
Speaker 1: that has the power to tell a woman you must
Speaker 1: remain pregnant, you can't have an abortion, may also end
Speaker 1: up having the power to tell her we don't want
Speaker 1: you to have this baby, you have to have an abortion.
Speaker 1: That was one of the decisions that Justice Kevanaugh when
Speaker 1: he was a judge on the DC Circuit, effectively upheld
Speaker 1: when he said that women of limited intellectual capacity at
Speaker 1: birth can be required to have elective surgery, and the
Speaker 1: decision actually included abortion. So that this is not a
Speaker 1: anti abortion justice alone. It seems to be an anti
Speaker 1: choice justice, and it's a knife that people will learn
Speaker 1: in time can cut both ways. Wow, Well, that's pretty
Speaker 1: chilling Um one final question before we let you go. Um.
Speaker 1: One of the things that Judge Kavanaugh mentioned during his
Speaker 1: hearing was that he was really upset that he probably
Speaker 1: wouldn't be allowed to teach at Harvard Law School again.
Speaker 1: Do you think he should be allowed to teach at
Speaker 1: Harvard Law School in the future. Well, no, that isn't
Speaker 1: really an issue before is he decided himself not to
Speaker 1: teach at Harvard next spring, next winter. Um, And I
Speaker 1: have no idea what the future will hold. But if
Speaker 1: a year from now he decided he wanted to come back,
Speaker 1: would you have a problem with that? You know, I'd
Speaker 1: rather not across that bridge until I come to it.
Speaker 1: I don't believe we should be preventing anyone from teaching
Speaker 1: who is as good and interesting a teacher as he
Speaker 1: is just because we disagree with him. But in this case,
Speaker 1: it's not just disagreement. I mean, I can easily see
Speaker 1: students saying it's not a good example to have someone
Speaker 1: who seems to have committed perjury to become a justice
Speaker 1: to be on our faculty. It's not a good example
Speaker 1: to have someone who probably committed attempted rape teaching our students.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that myself, but I would certainly have
Speaker 1: a lot of sympathy for students who did say it,
Speaker 1: for people listening to this podcast, Larry and Closing, who
Speaker 1: believe in many of the things that now a five
Speaker 1: for majority on the Supreme Court, that that majority does
Speaker 1: not believe in. What would you advise the average American
Speaker 1: citizen to do, who possibly feels powerless at this juncture.
Speaker 1: I think citizens are only as powerless as they let
Speaker 1: themselves become. I would advise people to vote. I would
Speaker 1: advise people to urge others to vote. The number of
Speaker 1: people who are registered to vote and then don't vote
Speaker 1: is staggering in this country. Elections do have consequences. We
Speaker 1: have seen it in a dramatic way. If that means
Speaker 1: that people should take power back. If we have a
Speaker 1: majority of both the House and the Senate and eventually
Speaker 1: retake the White House, we will have power to do
Speaker 1: a great many things. We will have power to change
Speaker 1: a great many things by legislation carefully designed to be
Speaker 1: as invulnerable as possible, even to the decisions of a
Speaker 1: very conservative court. Some people are talking about changing the
Speaker 1: terms of justices so that they serve for only eighteen
Speaker 1: years on the court and then serve on the lower courts.
Speaker 1: I think that's worth examining. The question of whether we
Speaker 1: should have a larger court than just nine is worth examining.
Speaker 1: But I think the first thing to do is vote,
Speaker 1: and when we have political power, the options are unlimited.
Speaker 1: On that note, Larry Tribe, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: your time. It's great to talk up to you, and
Speaker 1: thanks for your expertise on all these topics. So that
Speaker 1: wraps it up for us today. Before we go, though,
Speaker 1: we want to introduce you all to our new producer,
Speaker 1: Emma more constern no relation to Rhoda, by the way.
Speaker 1: We're very excited to have her on board and we
Speaker 1: want to thank her for her work on this week's show. Also,
Speaker 1: it means it's time to say goodbye to Gianna Palmer,
Speaker 1: our outgoing producer of over two years, who's apparently onto
Speaker 1: bigger and better things, well or smaller worse things, which
Speaker 1: is what I choose to think anyway, Thanks as usual
Speaker 1: to our associate producer Nora Richie, our audio engineer Jared O'Connell,
Speaker 1: all the nice people who haven't left us. No I'm kidding,
Speaker 1: Julian Nicholson and Mark Holden and Invisible Studios helped with
Speaker 1: today's episode, as did Karin Smith at kpf A in Berkeley, California,
Speaker 1: and Jen Stanley in one of my favorite places, Brookline, Massachusetts.
Speaker 1: You're so good at the guilt thing, Brian. And where
Speaker 1: would I be without my assistant Beth de Mos Probably summer.
Speaker 1: I'm not supposed to be, that's for sure, So thank
Speaker 1: you Beth. And a big thank you to Julia Lewis,
Speaker 1: my social media right hand woman. Mark Phillips wrote our
Speaker 1: theme music. You can find me on Twitter under at
Speaker 1: Goldsmith B and you can find Katie on Instagram, Twitter,
Speaker 1: all over the social media platforms under what Else Katie
Speaker 1: Current pretty much Instagram Stories seven and as always, we
Speaker 1: want to hear from you all. You can send us
Speaker 1: an email or voice memo at comments at correct podcast
Speaker 1: dot com or leave us an old fashioned voicemail by
Speaker 1: calling nine to nine two to four, four six three seven.
Speaker 1: I love hearing from you as always, Thanks so much
Speaker 1: for listening, and we'll talk to you next week and
Speaker 1: Gianna will miss you. Thank you for everything. We love you, Gianna.
Speaker 1: Good luck