Speaker 1: Also media, Welcome to it could happen here, a podcast
Speaker 1: coming to you from a country ruled by nine unelected
Speaker 1: dipshits and hideous costumes. You can at a whim destroy
Speaker 1: your life. I'm your host. Be along with me. As
Speaker 1: Jim stout him, I'm excited to hear about the Supreme
Speaker 1: Council or whatever they called. It's like the Jedi Council. God,
Speaker 1: it's it's a problematic comparison in a lot of ways,
Speaker 1: but like, the thing I immediately think of is the
Speaker 1: extent is like like Iran, Like I don't like you
Speaker 1: do not like right, But Iran gets so much shit
Speaker 1: for having the Surer Council, right, which is like this
Speaker 1: council that's like above their parliament, above their president, and
Speaker 1: it can make a bunch of decisions as a bunch
Speaker 1: of power. It's like, we also have a Surer Council,
Speaker 1: except instead of protecting the Islamic Revolution, it's designed to
Speaker 1: protect like the ideology of a bunch of right wingers
Speaker 1: from Harvard. And it's like, well this is great for sure,
Speaker 1: Like yes, yeah, we we have a group of elected,
Speaker 1: half dead people whose entire thing is to protect like
Speaker 1: capital and specifically the theft of land from indigenous people.
Speaker 2: Is that the thing that that they love to do.
Speaker 1: And again to defend a round here, like we did
Speaker 1: this first, Like this is like that one. We'll get
Speaker 1: ever clipped out and used in other context. That's great.
Speaker 2: We kind of pioted this right, like we were. We
Speaker 2: were trying to trying to like take the give monarchism
Speaker 2: a soft landing, you know, so we we had some
Speaker 2: other unelected half dead people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and this has the results of this have been
Speaker 1: disastrous and are widely regarded by everyone as a disaster.
Speaker 1: So we're gonna be talking about a few cases that
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is going to do, and also we're going
Speaker 1: to be talking about the Streme Court and how it
Speaker 1: relates to sort of liberal what I guess I would
Speaker 1: call sort of liberal NGO, a sort of progressive NGO
Speaker 1: political and legal strategy because as all of that stuff
Speaker 1: needs to be thrown out the window immediately and it
Speaker 1: hasn't been. Yeah, So all right, let's just start with
Speaker 1: Texas Bill four, a very basically just like a turbo
Speaker 1: fascism bill that lets Texas police racially profile someone and go,
Speaker 1: I think this person's here legally and immediately arrest them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, crucially, it's it's I think right, like yeah, so
Speaker 2: it's like again, we are giving the Texas police, like
Speaker 2: the heroes who ran away from Uvaldi, We are giving
Speaker 2: them the power to go this person isn't white.
Speaker 1: I think they're here legally, I can arrest them. And
Speaker 1: then if they do, arrest some one who's undocumented. There's
Speaker 1: the basically the way it works. It so it's it's
Speaker 1: it's it sets up a series of like criminal penalties
Speaker 1: like prison time. I think if if you repeat offender,
Speaker 1: you get a felony. But mostly what it does is
Speaker 1: it less a judge immediately just support them. Now, yeah,
Speaker 1: this is, to use a tech term, obviously insanely illegal,
Speaker 1: like constitutionally like it is. The Constitution is very clear
Speaker 1: that that immigration is is, you know, constitutionally the purview
Speaker 1: of the federal government. It's very funny reading like Scotus
Speaker 1: Blog because people have to sort of pretend that like
Speaker 1: people are making real legal arguments here. Yeah, it's like
Speaker 1: when when Donald Trump is ever like we're we're looking
Speaker 1: at Donald Trump's policies next week spoiler alert. But like
Speaker 1: I've been writing about his proposed immigration policies and you
Speaker 1: have to be like, no, this shit's just fucking it's
Speaker 1: not legal. It's just not like, yeah, some crackpot old
Speaker 1: dude who thinks the fringe is on the flag mean
Speaker 1: that you're under arbraltry law, that he's got a fucking argument,
Speaker 1: but he's wrong, Like this is ready to illegal shit. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and so so this bill was supposed to go into effect.
Speaker 1: There's a whole series of very convoluted court battles over it,
Speaker 1: and this real court was just like, yeah, this can
Speaker 1: go into effect, and this until basically until the case
Speaker 1: goes on, and then it is eventually didn't go into
Speaker 1: effect because another another federal court was like, obviously this
Speaker 1: is insane. We can't let this go into effect. What
Speaker 1: the fuck are you guys talking about? And like this
Speaker 1: this bill, the legal justification for this is batshit. It's
Speaker 1: so okay. They're trying to invoke the state war Clause,
Speaker 1: which is this is this really like old timey law. Okay.
Speaker 1: So the thing the thing about like the seventeen hundreds,
Speaker 1: in the eighteen hundreds is that it takes a significant
Speaker 1: amount of time to get people from I don't know,
Speaker 1: you're you're drawing your like border militia from Kentucky and
Speaker 1: you're you're moving it to Texas, right, That takes a
Speaker 1: lot of time. And so basically it was like, okay,
Speaker 1: so if you're Texas and you're getting attacked by someone,
Speaker 1: you're supposed to be able to use your own troops
Speaker 1: to defend it. You're supposed to be able to like
Speaker 1: sort of semi autonomously run your own defense policy, right,
Speaker 1: And that was supposed to be a thing to let
Speaker 1: to allow states to like you know, use their militia
Speaker 1: to do stuff before like federal troops got there. Abbott
Speaker 1: is arguing that people crossing the border from Mexico is
Speaker 1: an invasion and that this allows him to like legally
Speaker 1: allows him to start doing this stuff. And this is like,
Speaker 1: it's it's funny because you can even see that the
Speaker 1: Biden administration people being like, you've got to be fucking
Speaker 1: kidding me, because like obviously, like I mean, it's not
Speaker 1: like Biden doesn't want to murder people coming over the border.
Speaker 1: But you know, Biden's people are like, well, okay, like, no,
Speaker 1: obviously this is not a war, right, I mean just
Speaker 1: a no in fact, the war we're talking about.
Speaker 2: No, Yeah, I mean that that was kind of always
Speaker 2: the obvious endpoint with this of invasion military males rhetoric,
Speaker 2: right was like okay.
Speaker 1: Well we better shoot them all like that. That was
Speaker 1: clearly what they were shooting for. Yeah, and it's it's
Speaker 1: really it's gotten really, it's gotten really really great and
Speaker 1: it's got you know again, it's it's literally getting to
Speaker 1: this point where they're trying to argue that there is
Speaker 1: a physical war going on and you read these articles
Speaker 1: about it, and the press will be like, well, they're
Speaker 1: saying this because like people are crossing the border and
Speaker 1: like there's cartels. It's like, what the fuck are you
Speaker 1: talking about? This has nothing, like, this is nothing. This
Speaker 1: is literally nonsense. Like it is. They are pointing at
Speaker 1: the sky and going the sky is orange, and the
Speaker 1: press is going, well, if you like, if you stare
Speaker 1: directly into the sun and then blink, it looks like
Speaker 1: maybe the sky is a little bit or just like,
Speaker 1: what the fuck are you people doing? It's it's it's
Speaker 1: genuay at least, it's some of the worst shatalistic about
Speaker 1: practice I've ever seen. You see this like every single
Speaker 1: time trying to do this sort of like ah, balance,
Speaker 1: it's like, no, there's no actual sort of balance here.
Speaker 1: But on the other hand, this doesn't matter because the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court was just like, yeah, this can go into effect, right,
Speaker 1: And like the other thing you'll see, like I guess
Speaker 1: this is more in the Trump era, right, was like
Speaker 1: you'd see someone Trump would do a thing and everyone
Speaker 1: rather than just being like if this one's fucking illegal, everyone,
Speaker 1: can we just wrap this up? Seth Aberton would write
Speaker 1: seventy five thousand tweets about how like it was going
Speaker 1: to result, and people began to have this belief that
Speaker 1: like the fucking Supreme Court was made up of like
Speaker 1: magical rainbow unicorns who were gonna sweep in and save
Speaker 1: us all from fascism, Like these are the same people
Speaker 1: who are hanging out with the guys who had the
Speaker 1: like fascist statues and yeah, taking massive kickbags. Like it's
Speaker 1: just I know it, none of this legality stuff. I guess, No,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: It's a problem, yeah, And like I think this is
Speaker 2: something that you were hint to get earlier, but like
Speaker 2: it shouldn't factor in our organizing, Like I see so
Speaker 2: many people pin so much hope on ex court case
Speaker 2: or why court case, like, institutions created by people who
Speaker 2: owned other human beings are not going to fucking save us.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you know, there's something that the right has actually,
Speaker 1: i think understood it very well, partially in the way
Speaker 1: that they've they've been able to sort of institutionally capture
Speaker 1: huge portions of the court system, and because they understand
Speaker 1: that the law is fucking meaningless and you know, it's
Speaker 1: it's you can and you can just tell the cops
Speaker 1: to do whatever the fuck you want. One of the
Speaker 1: strategies they've been using has, like if specifically, to get
Speaker 1: this bill through, is by just having judges issue like
Speaker 1: temporary injunctions and other injunctions to like allow them to
Speaker 1: go into effect, but then you know, with the intention
Speaker 1: of just never letting them expire. Right, So what you're
Speaker 1: getting basically is just judges implementing policy by FIA by
Speaker 1: continuously going, oh, well, this can go, this can go
Speaker 1: because we're giving like a where we're you know, we're
Speaker 1: on like our thirty eighth one month injunction and you know,
Speaker 1: and this is the thing that like the Biden administration's
Speaker 1: plan to deal with this is to be like, well,
Speaker 1: you shouldn't be able to do that, but like, how
Speaker 1: are you going to stop them? Right? The court system
Speaker 1: is set up in such a way that these people
Speaker 1: are just feudal lords. They're almost completely autonomous. The only
Speaker 1: people who can over rule them are the people above them.
Speaker 1: But the problem there too, and this is like the
Speaker 1: Republicans have been using very effectively, is that it takes
Speaker 1: time for a court above it to, you know, just
Speaker 1: to overrule the like insane thing the court below them
Speaker 1: is doing. And if the cort below them is just
Speaker 1: constantly churning out just nonsense over and over again, then
Speaker 1: they can just do whatever the fuck they want. Because
Speaker 1: even if the court above them actually did want to
Speaker 1: do something about this, which in a very rare cases
Speaker 1: sometimes happens, they literally can't because they've just been you know,
Speaker 1: because they're just sort of swamped by all of this
Speaker 1: just absolute bullshit that's being thrown out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if you take a case which just to not
Speaker 2: make this like a partisan thing, if you take a
Speaker 2: case in which, like the Supreme Court might line up
Speaker 2: with the I guess a lot of Republican positions was
Speaker 2: a position that many people listening to this podcast might take.
Speaker 2: For instance, California's gun laws. Right, California passes so many
Speaker 2: fucking gun laws so often that the time that it
Speaker 2: takes for even if they are like contravening something like
Speaker 2: the Brewin decision, right or the spirit of the Brewing decision,
Speaker 2: it takes so long for them to pass all the
Speaker 2: way up and maybe eventually go to Supreme Court, maybe
Speaker 2: not right, that that in effect California can do things
Speaker 2: which seem like the Supreme Court would say they were unconstitutional.
Speaker 2: It doesn't really matter because they can still do them right.
Speaker 2: And with the go go to the Night Circuit in California,
Speaker 2: you can make decisions that affirm those in and like
Speaker 2: it doesn't matter, It doesn't matter what's constitutional or more importantly,
Speaker 2: like what's just.
Speaker 1: If you look if you're looking for the justices for
Speaker 1: justice who are looking in the wrong place. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2: And when it comes to border stuff, I guess before
Speaker 2: that me is talking about like that kills people, you know,
Speaker 2: like like and some of the most desperate people on earth.
Speaker 2: Like I've been to the border in Texas. You know
Speaker 2: you're not swimming across that river because you think you
Speaker 2: might get a PlayStation five when you get to the
Speaker 2: other side, Like it's fucking dangerous, and the journey.
Speaker 1: To get there.
Speaker 2: People who tend to come across the land border to
Speaker 2: Texas or of want to, like migros, ain't fucking stupid.
Speaker 2: They have access to all the same news and information
Speaker 2: that you do. They have smartphones that might be a
Speaker 2: little bit older, but they can still read shit, and
Speaker 2: that they know that the ninth Circuit is kinder, so
Speaker 2: that if they have the money, they will come to California.
Speaker 2: For some people end up in California without very much money.
Speaker 2: We've seen that a lot with African migrants in Tichuina,
Speaker 2: But like a lot of the people going to Texas,
Speaker 2: it's because that's the land route walking north and they
Speaker 2: don't have the finances to go anywhere else. And those
Speaker 2: people are extremely like they're like there are any number
Speaker 2: of reasons why they have a legitimate right to asylum
Speaker 2: or just a right not to be fucking profiled, or
Speaker 2: like any other person of kind of living in Texas
Speaker 2: has a basic right note to be profiled, and demonizing
Speaker 2: those people is being used like a trojan horse just
Speaker 2: to do straight up racism law.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and then and meanwhile, like you know, you have
Speaker 1: fucking Clarence Thomas, who's sitting there, who has gotten more
Speaker 1: kickbacks than every single one who who's crossed the border
Speaker 1: of their total wealth combined, is just sitting there being like, nah,
Speaker 1: fuck you, it's legal to throw these people into the chainsaw,
Speaker 1: like it's fine. Yeah, exactly, Like, I don't really know
Speaker 1: how people maintain their faith in a system which holds
Speaker 1: this dude completely unaccountable for very obviously being bent like
Speaker 1: bent is in corrupt. I'm not using a homophobic slur. No,
Speaker 1: this is the way that's a homophobe. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: it's really a British English wild Yeah, I've never heard
Speaker 1: of either of those. I really.
Speaker 2: Okay, welcome to the podcast where I say British things
Speaker 2: and Ian bleeps some of them out.
Speaker 1: Do you know what else says British things that occasionally
Speaker 1: has some of them bleed it out. It's chump a
Speaker 1: casino presented by wankers, and we're back from whatever insane
Speaker 1: gat We should at some point do an episode about
Speaker 1: the gambling law changes. I'm sure that'll be fine with Yeah,
Speaker 1: go down. Well great, Oh boy, so we're there are
Speaker 1: some other so okay, so the Texas centup Bill four
Speaker 1: case is coming in sort of like mid late April,
Speaker 1: which is now this month, by the way, which is
Speaker 1: nuts great, it's not. There are a couple of other
Speaker 1: cases coming down the pipeline that we wanted to talk
Speaker 1: about because so obviously the Streame Court you know, has
Speaker 1: directly already done stuff with s before, but the lass
Speaker 1: there's still still in the processure to lawsuit. There's also
Speaker 1: a case about MEPhI prestone, which is in a border factor,
Speaker 1: which is, you know, one of the ways that if
Speaker 1: you are you're in a place where it is illegal
Speaker 1: for you to normally get a this is a way
Speaker 1: you can do it. So okay. The basis of this
Speaker 1: case is that in twenty sixteen twenty twenty one, the
Speaker 1: FDA did one of the few good things it's ever done,
Speaker 1: and there were some sort of changes to legal classifications
Speaker 1: around for pristone that allowed you to get it, not
Speaker 1: allowed you to get it without having to get it
Speaker 1: directly prescribed by a doctor, so you know, you could
Speaker 1: have the rest practitioners do it. And also it was
Speaker 1: a thing that didn't work like you can get it
Speaker 1: over the counter like it was. It was not a
Speaker 1: thing that suddenly that requires an enormous amount of sort
Speaker 1: of doctor bullshit, and it also used to require physical visits,
Speaker 1: so you'd have to go find a doctor in another
Speaker 1: state and get into priority to you. And so that
Speaker 1: all went away. You were able to get it through
Speaker 1: telemedicine and immediately basically after I get I guess probably
Speaker 1: the peak of the Republican counter revolution in the last
Speaker 1: four years, where they destroyed the national well, they destroyed
Speaker 1: the tatted remains of ROW. A bunch of like deranged
Speaker 1: right wing groups set about to get messapristone bands and
Speaker 1: so basically what they're trying to do is overturn. They're
Speaker 1: trying to get its approval by the FDA overturn, and
Speaker 1: also they approval for the generic version of it overturned, right,
Speaker 1: And this is the whole strategy here is very weird
Speaker 1: because okay, so this is a one of the things
Speaker 1: about the US and part of the reason all of
Speaker 1: this court stuff is so weird because of the structure
Speaker 1: of the sort of regional autonomy. Off the courts. You
Speaker 1: can basically just do court shopping. You can go find
Speaker 1: some like guy who's basically a feudal baron in Texas
Speaker 1: and be like, hey, you hate abortion, Like here write
Speaker 1: some piece of paper that says this is legal. Now.
Speaker 1: So there have been a series of sort of battles
Speaker 1: over different levels of courts, you know, like approving or
Speaker 1: disapproving some things. This is actually this is one of
Speaker 1: these cases that's actually so obviously it's the immediate consequence
Speaker 1: here is if the Supreme Court decides that you can
Speaker 1: ban this, it's going to get really, really fucking bad
Speaker 1: for a lot of people. But this is also a
Speaker 1: case stuff feeds into another trend that's been happening, which
Speaker 1: is the Republicans attempting to use the court system to
Speaker 1: just completely annihilate the federal bureaucracy. Because the other thing
Speaker 1: that's at stake here and this is you know, obviously
Speaker 1: the people's access to getting abortions is the most important
Speaker 1: part of it. The subsequent less important part of it
Speaker 1: is that right now there is a eight there are
Speaker 1: national standards for for prescriptions, right there's unified national like
Speaker 1: the FDA is unified national standards for sort of food
Speaker 1: safety and like, and if this gets knocked out, that's
Speaker 1: like gone, yeah, And so suddenly large massive parts, i mean,
Speaker 1: like courts having the ability to just sort of go
Speaker 1: in and nuke like FDA approvals for stuff, right, or
Speaker 1: states being able to like this is going to rip
Speaker 1: like tear, like tearing the fucking guts out of the
Speaker 1: entire American sort of like legal bureaucracy. It's it's coming apart, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's yeah.
Speaker 2: And the they're like the medical you know, your access
Speaker 2: to medicines that someone else doesn't want you to have.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is one of these cases that has you know,
Speaker 1: there's there's sort of two elements at work here, right,
Speaker 1: there's there there's there's there's the there's the immediate, like
Speaker 1: Republicans are trying to ban every single way you can
Speaker 1: possibly get an abortion to force people to have kids
Speaker 1: because this is you know, this is part of their
Speaker 1: sort of reactionary ideology. And then there's the other part
Speaker 1: of it, where there's been there's been a few other
Speaker 1: cases like this too. One of the one of the
Speaker 1: things that looks like that they're trying to do is
Speaker 1: get we're gonna I'm gonna do a full upside about
Speaker 1: this at some point when I can get a good
Speaker 1: labor lawyer to talk about it. But they're trying to
Speaker 1: overturn the National Labor Relations Act, which is the act
Speaker 1: that basically sets up the right to unionization and the
Speaker 1: whole the whole process of how how labor mediation works.
Speaker 1: And I mean then there there's other ones where I mean,
Speaker 1: like really substantively enormous parts of the American sort of
Speaker 1: the American state are just being torn apart in ways
Speaker 1: that are specifically designed to just allow corporations and these
Speaker 1: like fiefdom judges to have effectively unlimited political power.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know's it's a fucking bleak, Like it's
Speaker 2: I mean, it's also predictable, right, Like it's kind of
Speaker 2: the nature of the state, and it's the nature of
Speaker 2: these people to want to take away Like the state
Speaker 2: ultimately is not there to protect you, It's there to
Speaker 2: protect capital. And like it's a failure of our organizing
Speaker 2: when when we keep going back to the state and
Speaker 2: asking it to do something that fundamentally has no interest
Speaker 2: in doing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and this is really a substantive issue with you know,
Speaker 1: I remember this, this was the ACOU strategy under Trump.
Speaker 1: I've talked about this the show before. The issue U
Speaker 1: strategy under Trump was to go to the courts and
Speaker 1: win there. I mean, this is this has been the
Speaker 1: sort of what the political strategy getting back to sort
Speaker 1: of the civil rights era, and that's it's you can't
Speaker 1: do this anymore because it doesn't It doesn't even like
Speaker 1: whether or not you are correct, like like legally correct
Speaker 1: about a thing, right, which used to be what this
Speaker 1: was just sort of hinged on and whether you could
Speaker 1: convince justic this like this doesn't matter anymore, like they've
Speaker 1: you know, like if if you if you read the
Speaker 1: ruling on on like if you actually go through and
Speaker 1: read the ruling that overturned road View Wade right, like
Speaker 1: the league the legal logic in there is deranged. It's
Speaker 1: just like, yeah, we didn't have this X number of
Speaker 1: years ago, so fuck it, like you can't do this now.
Speaker 1: It's like this is this is nonsense, but it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter because the the the actual weight of the law
Speaker 1: is not is not you know, a sort of like
Speaker 1: series of debates about like logic or about the efficacy
Speaker 1: or the meaning of texts. It's just about who has
Speaker 1: the power to point guns at people? And the answer
Speaker 1: is you don't have that you, you, dear listener, do not
Speaker 1: have that power. Okay, do you know who else is
Speaker 1: going to destroy the American federal bureaucracy. Oh, yes, yes,
Speaker 1: I do. Mayeah. It's it's a product and services to
Speaker 1: support this podcast, and we are back for more hookers.
Speaker 1: So we want going to talk about one more case,
Speaker 1: which is grap Pass versus Johnson, which is a case
Speaker 1: to decide whether or not you can make it illegal
Speaker 1: to be homeless. Yeah, yeah, talking pointing guns at people.
Speaker 2: This one's about pointing guns at homeless people, which is great,
Speaker 2: great good. So this is one I've been following a
Speaker 2: little bit just because one thing that tok Kloya loves
Speaker 2: to do is criminalize poverty. And I happen to, unfortunately
Speaker 2: live in a city of which he is met in
Speaker 2: San Diego. We have seen, like it's all the things
Speaker 2: they told your Republicans would do our Democrat Mayorge doing.
Speaker 2: And what the Grants Pass versus a Johnson case is about.
Speaker 2: It's a city of Grant's Pass, which I guess is
Speaker 2: a place in Oregon, and it's whether they can criminalize
Speaker 2: sleeping on the street if there are no safe shelter
Speaker 2: beds available. So that the idea here being that like again,
Speaker 2: like this is one has to understand that I'm speaking
Speaker 2: from the logic of the state when I try and
Speaker 2: explain this, like that if there is a shelter bed
Speaker 2: to go to, they can compel you to go to
Speaker 2: it with threat of prosecution, right or criminalization. But if
Speaker 2: there is not a shelter bad to go to, then
Speaker 2: like you're not somehow your culpability changes, right, Like like
Speaker 2: you're you're not refusing to take shelter. There is no
Speaker 2: shelter for you to take. And so Grant's past is
Speaker 2: obviously trying to criminalize people even when they're a shelter
Speaker 2: beds available. Now, what's interesting about grants pass is that
Speaker 2: not the place to the court case. What's interesting about
Speaker 2: the court case is that you'll see these big liberal
Speaker 2: cities filing amicus briefs amaricus. It literally means it's from
Speaker 2: amicus curie a friend of the court, right, which they
Speaker 2: can do in favor of either side. San Diego, Los Angeles,
Speaker 2: other large democratic cities, I'm sure all filing briefs in
Speaker 2: favor of criminalizing living on the street even when there
Speaker 2: are not shelter beds available. Now, if we look at
Speaker 2: the San Diego context specifically, one of the questions which
Speaker 2: will come up in this case is what is a
Speaker 2: shafe shelter bed. So what San Diego likes to do
Speaker 2: currently is put people into tents in parking lots where
Speaker 2: they often flood because San Diego is not designed to
Speaker 2: deal with rain, and because our city has completely failed
Speaker 2: to clear out storm drains, resulting in people losing their
Speaker 2: homes in this winter, right, and so some of these
Speaker 2: parking lots flood where people have lived are forced to live.
Speaker 1: These tents are not like, they're not even good tents.
Speaker 1: Actually they managed to buy this is remarkable. Actually, if
Speaker 1: you were buying a tent there can you think of
Speaker 1: any well, there's no way for me to phrase this.
Speaker 1: They bought fucking tents with slurs on the side. I
Speaker 1: don't know how you managed to do.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's like the tents are quote Esquimo brand Jesus Christ. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's it's it's it's incredible stuff Like it's I see.
Speaker 2: There was no way to be like, what would you
Speaker 2: be concerned about when buying a tent because a slur
Speaker 2: on the side would not have come up.
Speaker 1: I would not think about that. Why why would you
Speaker 1: why would there be slur Like, why would there be
Speaker 1: slurs on the side of your tent. Yeah, yeah, why
Speaker 1: were you doing here? How could you given the purchasing
Speaker 1: power of the third largest city in California, somehow elects
Speaker 1: to purchase a tent, which is racist.
Speaker 2: Like, I don't know, but that's why I am not
Speaker 2: a member of the San Diego Democrat Party. So one
Speaker 2: of the things it will come up is what constitutes
Speaker 2: a safe shelter in practice, Again, this doesn't matter hugely
Speaker 2: other than it's a Supreme Court giving a nod to
Speaker 2: local governments to further criminalize being on housed, to drive
Speaker 2: unhouse people further from services, further from site.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: In San Diego's case, that means into canyons, into rivers, rivers,
Speaker 2: flood canyons get extremely hot in the summer. More than
Speaker 2: one person every single day already dies on our streets
Speaker 2: here in an extremely wealthy and prosperous area of the world.
Speaker 2: This will make it worse because they will get that
Speaker 2: nod to continue criminalizing people rather than trying.
Speaker 1: To help them.
Speaker 2: In practice, what cities will do, including San Diego, is
Speaker 2: just hold back a few shelter beds to allow them
Speaker 2: to cite anyone. Right it practice, they're still going to
Speaker 2: cite people even if the demand for beds is much
Speaker 2: higher than the provision of beds. So like in that case,
Speaker 2: they will still continue to find it's not a workaround,
Speaker 2: but they think it is right that they can just
Speaker 2: criminalize being on housed in this fashion. But it it does,
Speaker 2: it represents like a nod from the top down right
Speaker 2: to go even harder after people who are too poor
Speaker 2: to make rent at a time when rent is less
Speaker 2: affordable than it has been in generations. And so like
Speaker 2: it's one to watch. It's one where like yet again
Speaker 2: you find like the Democrats, I guess, lining up on
Speaker 2: the right hand side of the issue, the right wing
Speaker 2: side of the issue, the state violence side of the issue. Right,
Speaker 2: and it will i'm sure, open up the door to
Speaker 2: more what they call camping bands, which is the euphemism
Speaker 2: again they are bands on being unhoused within city limits, right,
Speaker 2: And I think it's one to keep an eye on.
Speaker 2: But again, like I don't it's Clarence Thomas, the guy
Speaker 2: who goes to the billionaire's house with the racist statues
Speaker 2: and the Nazi statues, Like he's not the guy who's
Speaker 2: going to come in swinging for the person who has
Speaker 2: to sleep under the underpass because they can't make rent,
Speaker 2: you know, like.
Speaker 1: And like like if you if you think the fucking
Speaker 1: liberal justices are going to give a shit either, like,
Speaker 1: these are the these are the people whose fundamental political
Speaker 1: principles that the police have the right to. Like, Okay,
Speaker 1: there is a decision that I can't remember the fucking
Speaker 1: name of that was a it was it was, it was,
Speaker 1: it was. It should have been a very very basic
Speaker 1: you are guaranteed due process thing right under the Fourth
Speaker 1: Amendments and this, and in a nine o decision, the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court ruled that the the cops are allowed to
Speaker 1: violate people's due process because if they didn't do this,
Speaker 1: there couldn't be a functional police force in this country
Speaker 1: because this is how the police were doing all their
Speaker 1: fucking work. So if you think those people right, that
Speaker 1: was nine oh nine zero decision, that wasn't that was
Speaker 1: a fucking Ruth Bader Ginsburg special, Right, you mean those
Speaker 1: people are going to be like, oh, hey, damn, maybe
Speaker 1: maybe people who don't own property have rights like how no?
Speaker 2: Like yeah, like, look, when faced with a choice between
Speaker 2: like liberty and and and then the necessity of maintaining
Speaker 2: a state's capacity to do violence to anyone at any time.
Speaker 2: They chose the latter, right, And I guess, like, if
Speaker 2: I can get on my soapbox for a minute, like
Speaker 2: you need to stop expecting these people to come and
Speaker 2: save you, like specifically with reference to the fucking Grant
Speaker 2: Past case, Like the person who is going to stop
Speaker 2: your un house neighbor dying is you. It's not an NGO,
Speaker 2: it's not the city, it's not the county, it's not
Speaker 2: the feds. Those people fundamentally that they're the incentive is
Speaker 2: not for them to care. Like your incentives as a
Speaker 2: person who shares humanity with that person is to care
Speaker 2: and to do something. And like, yeah, I guess, like,
Speaker 2: don't wait, take the time you would have spent reading
Speaker 2: about a fucking Supreme Court case and make sandwiches and
Speaker 2: go hand them out, because that is the only way
Speaker 2: we solve this.
Speaker 1: And I think that's as good a place as I
Speaker 1: need to stop. Yeah, this is beeniking up here. It
Speaker 1: could happen here as a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 1: Podcasts from cool Zone Media, Visit our website cool zonemedia
Speaker 1: dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts you can
Speaker 1: find sources for It could happen here. Updated monthly at
Speaker 1: coolzonemedia dot com slash sources. Thanks for listening,