Speaker 1: All media. Hey, look, sometimes people say stuff with their
Speaker 1: whole chess. Sometimes people say stuff with two thirds of
Speaker 1: they chess. When you know part of you is captain.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a piece of you that's like I hold,
Speaker 1: I actually don't really agree with what I'm saying, but
Speaker 1: I ain't no punk. But we're gonna go with whatever
Speaker 1: we gotta go with. Now when you are not just
Speaker 1: a person but an institution. Most of the time an
Speaker 1: institution is saying things with two thirds of they chess.
Speaker 1: But as soon as they said it, you gotta be like, look,
Speaker 1: I said what I said, and when you said what
Speaker 1: you said, it is what it is, I feel so old.
Speaker 1: I said, I said what I said, it is what
Speaker 1: it is. I said it with my whole chest. Well
Speaker 1: three poorths of by chess. All right, I gotta talk
Speaker 1: to you about the follow up of I can't call
Speaker 1: it this Supreme Court said what it said hood politics, y'all.
Speaker 1: All right, First, it's like this bull look is like
Speaker 1: this BULLUK is like this Okay, this week is like this.
Speaker 1: You can't tell him super nasally because I mean, at
Speaker 1: this point it could be anything and my voice is
Speaker 1: pretty uh shot. So this is why there's no new
Speaker 1: episode this week, as in the sense that it should
Speaker 1: have been about the d n C. I just don't
Speaker 1: feel good. I'm sorry, y'all, but this is why you
Speaker 1: do backup episodes while you try to like, you know,
Speaker 1: have episodes evergreen stuff inside, you know, the holster just
Speaker 1: in case. So please forgive my voice and my nasally.
Speaker 1: So the run DNC has completed itself, and the RNC,
Speaker 1: so the Boom incorporated RNC is also done. So the
Speaker 1: party's over for everybody. I'll spare you a full breakdown
Speaker 1: of the DNC because the Cool Zone team did that
Speaker 1: already on It can happen here feed, But just think
Speaker 1: about it as copious amounts of joy and pop culture
Speaker 1: juxtaposed with the reality of body parts of toddlers sprawled
Speaker 1: over the area of Gaza that was completed by the
Speaker 1: sale of America's weapons, and people were really trying to
Speaker 1: do a song and dance to square that circle. On
Speaker 1: top of that, Michelle Obama's greatness and very very very
Speaker 1: angry right wing people, give or take a few disguised
Speaker 1: pillow guys, and Matt Walsh's which was probably one of
Speaker 1: the funniest things I've ever seen and shout out my homeboy,
Speaker 1: DJ Moski. He was there, DJ, and for Stevie Wonder
Speaker 1: we did an EP together called Terror Form the People.
Speaker 1: Please go listen to that. So, like I tried to
Speaker 1: tell y'all that Moskie was that dude. So now it's
Speaker 1: time for them to start talking about their actual policies,
Speaker 1: which I will soon be a very dope episode I'm
Speaker 1: planning about, you know, either the bully or the finessor
Speaker 1: which is their two approaches to economics. You already guess
Speaker 1: who is who. So right now they're about to start
Speaker 1: hitting the campaign trail, and I you are not going
Speaker 1: to get the details that you actually desire from these
Speaker 1: campaign trails. You are gonna get very hyperboles and lofty
Speaker 1: ideas and concepts with how they gonna do that. Being
Speaker 1: left very wanting, just know that you gotta read it.
Speaker 1: Just it is what it is. Across the world. Uh yeah,
Speaker 1: Hesbelah is clapping and clapping back. Seems like they're trying
Speaker 1: to chill a little bit because I guess everybody understands
Speaker 1: that an open war just ain't good for everybody, A
Speaker 1: regional war just ain't good for everybody, It seems as
Speaker 1: though they're like, all right, man, we better chill in
Speaker 1: the meantime, all the ceasefire talk is incredibly cap because
Speaker 1: Hamas ain't even pay attention. Hamas was there. They ain't
Speaker 1: even pay attention though, in the peace talks in Egypt,
Speaker 1: because they were like, we've already agreed, you laid out terms,
Speaker 1: and we were like, yeah, let's do it. I don't
Speaker 1: know what y'all looking at us. For Israel is the
Speaker 1: one that's like, I do not abide by these statements,
Speaker 1: which is their right, you know, let's not. I mean,
Speaker 1: if they want to keep shooting, they're gonna keep shooting.
Speaker 1: I think they have the right to do that. Should
Speaker 1: they do it? Oh come on, fam, Do I agree
Speaker 1: with that choice? Oh come on, fam, yetta slow that role.
Speaker 2: RFK threw his hat in for the Trumpster word up, which.
Speaker 1: If I were an RFK fan, I'd be a little
Speaker 1: frustrated because I would be like, I thought you was
Speaker 1: the anti establishment dude. You was gonna sign up with
Speaker 1: the establishment for in return a job that sound very
Speaker 1: establishment to me if it were me, I'd also be
Speaker 1: really sweating if I was jd Vance, because Niggy, you
Speaker 1: finna get you about to get. This is Drew bletsoel
Speaker 1: and and Tom Brady right now, big dog, you fitter,
Speaker 1: get Drew, you fitter, get Tom Brady though, so good
Speaker 1: luck anyway. I guess it's like that. Okay. So this
Speaker 1: year I did a bunch of episodes on not only
Speaker 1: how the Supreme Court works, but the things that they
Speaker 1: were looking at, and today we are going to follow
Speaker 1: up on those thing. What did they actually decide? I
Speaker 1: talk to y'all about Chevron deference, I talk to y'all
Speaker 1: about the immunity case against Donald Trump, and then I
Speaker 1: talked to y'all or I didn't talk to y'all about abortion,
Speaker 1: but the abortion pill. Like, I think that those are
Speaker 1: the three things that I definitely want to bring to
Speaker 1: y'all and follow up on now as a refresher, the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, they role is to be well actually and
Speaker 1: what is so They're oftentimes not interested in the particulars
Speaker 1: of the individual case that's being brought in front of them.
Speaker 1: It's what does a decision in this case imply and
Speaker 1: how will it affect the rest of them? How well
Speaker 1: does this call play with the Constitution with precedences before? Now,
Speaker 1: If I say yes to this, then that means now
Speaker 1: if we say knowed this, then that means, now, is
Speaker 1: there any other way we could look at this way?
Speaker 1: Hold up now now okay, now hold on, let me
Speaker 1: think about this. Now, what if we done so? So
Speaker 1: they and then they're gonna ask the lawyer questions. It's
Speaker 1: like okay, now now now, no, no, think about this.
Speaker 1: Now you saying woop woop, but what if this, that
Speaker 1: and the third happened? And you're supposed to say, well,
Speaker 1: if this, that and the third happened, and I still
Speaker 1: think I still stand on the fact that you know,
Speaker 1: if if if y'all decide like this, then if that
Speaker 1: go down, then chaos and suits, right, and they say okay, word,
Speaker 1: and now now what do y'all think? They think, well,
Speaker 1: you got to decide like this because if what he's
Speaker 1: saying go down, then chaos and suits And they say okay, now,
Speaker 1: now why do you say so? And then they gonna say, now,
Speaker 1: have we ever talked about this before? Like is there
Speaker 1: any cases where we didn't have to deal with this before?
Speaker 1: Like and if we didn't have to deal with this, well,
Speaker 1: what did we say last time? Now A lot of
Speaker 1: times we ain't They don't mean them nine judges, they
Speaker 1: mean the courts. What if we decided before about this,
Speaker 1: Is there any what's called precedents? Like what did you
Speaker 1: what did we say last time you brought this? And
Speaker 1: they say, Yo, you ain't never brought this. There's never
Speaker 1: been like this. Oh, it ain't never been like this.
Speaker 1: Then okay, it's serious. Didn't that mean that we need
Speaker 1: to really, we need to really think about this. And
Speaker 1: then they go and they put their heads together, and
Speaker 1: then they make a ruling and they say, Okay, this
Speaker 1: is what we're saying now. As an aside, I like
Speaker 1: the rest of you almost forgot Joe Biden was still
Speaker 1: actually president and still had work to do. And one
Speaker 1: of the things he was talking about as an overhaul
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court because we're gonna keep getting these
Speaker 1: perceived sort of deadlocks. And it's just at this point,
Speaker 1: I think I did an episode on this too. At
Speaker 1: this point, it's just it's a weapon, you know, and
Speaker 1: they're playing a role that you know, I don't think
Speaker 1: anybody in the early days would have considered it to be.
Speaker 1: Like I said before in one of them episod so
Speaker 1: earlier that all the Constitution says about the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: is that we should have one. It don't say how
Speaker 1: many judges. None of that's actually in the law. And
Speaker 1: so the nine just kind of became a thing, you know,
Speaker 1: because judges became such ideologues and vectors of a political stance,
Speaker 1: which again it's the design is not supposed to be that.
Speaker 1: That's why we that's why we don't vote on them.
Speaker 1: They're supposed to be elected because they're supposed to stand
Speaker 1: above the fray, but they clearly don't. But one thing
Speaker 1: I will say about this court is just like I
Speaker 1: told y'all a long time ago, y'all don't write my
Speaker 1: check or Mari name my chicken. I'm not really worried
Speaker 1: about I'm not I'm mine in my bad. I'm not
Speaker 1: worried about what y'all think, you know. So they oftentimes
Speaker 1: can play two types of roles like they could be
Speaker 1: you know, like I said before, the mascot where for
Speaker 1: a particular worldview and you could wrap your flag around it,
Speaker 1: you know. But at the same time, they could also
Speaker 1: sometimes infuriorate that same team by voting the other way
Speaker 1: on something else because they like again, y'all don't marry
Speaker 1: name my chicken. I might agree with you on these things,
Speaker 1: but look fool, y'all can't fire me. And that's something
Speaker 1: that Joe is looking at, Like, first of all, is
Speaker 1: nine really like do we have to stay with nine?
Speaker 1: Does it have to keep breaking along these ideal or
Speaker 1: these ideas? Yeah, these idealistic lines, and do y'all get
Speaker 1: to stay there for life? Like is that really? Like
Speaker 1: the only way to get off the Supreme Court is
Speaker 1: to die or resign, Like is that really? Do do
Speaker 1: we think they should have term limits? Like what y'all think?
Speaker 1: You know? So that's what Joe is presenting right now.
Speaker 1: And it's crazy because like so much is happening, like
Speaker 1: foods don't care. Like it's like that would have been
Speaker 1: in a universe where gravity works. That would have been
Speaker 1: top to bottom, wall to wall, you know, hourly coverage.
Speaker 1: Because this, if, if this do go down like this
Speaker 1: is it's kind of a big deal. We've had nine
Speaker 1: justices I mean for like many many decades, like you know,
Speaker 1: so this might be big. But either way, that's happening
Speaker 1: like currently and as part of the function of how
Speaker 1: Supreme Court works. But yeah, so the Supreme Court makes
Speaker 1: the judgment and then writes their opinion as to like this,
Speaker 1: how we came to this conclue. And then there's a
Speaker 1: paper where somebody write that's called the dissent, which basically
Speaker 1: mean like, listen, I'm going on record, I'm gonna let them. Yeah, Okay, yes,
Speaker 1: the decision is made because the majority of us agreed
Speaker 1: that that's the way we're gonna go. But I'm gonna
Speaker 1: go on record to say that three of us not
Speaker 1: vibing with this, four of us disagree. This is why
Speaker 1: we disagree. Okay, So it's in the record, but it's
Speaker 1: not the law, which is an interesting, interesting practice. I
Speaker 1: think there's this phenomenon that happens when you exist in
Speaker 1: a fandom that you don't really realize how little of
Speaker 1: the news and the current events that happen inside of
Speaker 1: your fandom actually makes it outside of that sphere that
Speaker 1: people ain't really thinking about the stuff that y'all thinking about. So,
Speaker 1: like I say that, even as somebody that does a
Speaker 1: politics podcast, like I am what you would call terminally online,
Speaker 1: not in a sense that like I'm addicted per se,
Speaker 1: because I have no problem turning my phone or television
Speaker 1: or any it is off, but I stay connected or
Speaker 1: tapped in because I just like, I just know what's
Speaker 1: going on, you know what I mean. So because of that,
Speaker 1: there are things that I might be really at all,
Speaker 1: you know, up in arms about and be like, dude,
Speaker 1: I can't believe this is going down. My wife looking
Speaker 1: at me like, nigga, what you know? Listen, y'all comic
Speaker 1: book heads. You know y'all got your own memes, right,
Speaker 1: I happen to just be interested in everything. So, for example,
Speaker 1: with Robert Downey Junior about to be doctor Doom, you know,
Speaker 1: that's a Venn diagram of things I'm interested in. That's
Speaker 1: m F. Doom, that's Marvel, and that's pop culture and
Speaker 1: what that means. But you can but the but the
Speaker 1: beautiful meme that went with that is the image of
Speaker 1: him in The Tropic thund Right is that the name
Speaker 1: of that movie, when he was playing a black guy,
Speaker 1: and he was like, I know what I use I'm
Speaker 1: the dude playing the dude disguised. There's another dude that's
Speaker 1: basically what he's about to do in this. I understand
Speaker 1: that reference. But that's because I'm in that bubble. Other
Speaker 1: people might look at you and being like I don't
Speaker 1: understand why y'all was yelling so loud when at Comic Con,
Speaker 1: which you may not have known happened that it was
Speaker 1: revealed that he was gonna play doctor Doom. You may
Speaker 1: even when I said, MF Doom, you may I have
Speaker 1: any idea what I'm talking about, But then I would
Speaker 1: have to say, rest in peace to the chrome edom.
Speaker 1: You feel me, so you just but I get it.
Speaker 1: So I say all that to say, when the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court writes these descent essays, you got to be in
Speaker 1: the sphere to know that that even exists. The rest
Speaker 1: of the world just knows just the law that passed
Speaker 1: or actually, and there's even a bigger circle that don't
Speaker 1: even know that that passed. Like I had to tell
Speaker 1: you what Chevron defference was, but that's cause I'm tapped in.
Speaker 1: You wouldn't know what the hell that was unless somebody
Speaker 1: told you. You feel me. So that's keep that in
Speaker 1: mind as we continue to talk about this. It's a
Speaker 1: practice that I find happens in my house all the time.
Speaker 1: Now here's the thing, thog. At the end of the day,
Speaker 1: my kid's gonna listen to whichever parents say yes. That's
Speaker 1: like at the end of the day. That's what they're
Speaker 1: gonna listen to. Now. Despite that, the actual reality is
Speaker 1: Mama in charge. Like no matter how much listen, listen,
Speaker 1: patriarchy abounds, I get it. Misogyny a bounds, but I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna keep it all the way real with y'all.
Speaker 1: Whatever Mama say, at least in my house. Go like
Speaker 1: I've said, I've answered no three times to the children.
Speaker 1: My wife walks in, looks at me, and she goes, oh,
Speaker 1: see why not, and they're like perfect and then they
Speaker 1: go I'm like what uh huh or the other way around.
Speaker 1: She like, I'm like, yeah, it's cool. And then she
Speaker 1: say no, they can't do that. They gotta do this,
Speaker 1: this and this, And I'm like, oh, well, Mama said no,
Speaker 1: and that's just it. Like she still but I'll be
Speaker 1: going on record. I'm a go on record saying I'm
Speaker 1: not down for this. Okay, don't nobody care unless the
Speaker 1: thing go wrong? And would the thing go wrong? I
Speaker 1: could be like, now, listen, I went on record saying
Speaker 1: I wasn't down for this, and still nobody care. It
Speaker 1: don't matter, Oh lord, it don't matter whether I would
Speaker 1: all record or not. As to whether I'm down with
Speaker 1: what we do it or not. So even with this
Speaker 1: Supreme Court with them saying, listen, four of us disagree
Speaker 1: with this, I don't. I don't know why we do this,
Speaker 1: but at least they saying on record, I done told
Speaker 1: y'all I wasn't with this. I think we should have
Speaker 1: went the other way. Okay, So let's get to the
Speaker 1: cases now. The first one was the Chevron Deference case.
Speaker 1: To refresh your memory, there was a situation with some
Speaker 1: fishermen in Maine who, in order to maintain their license
Speaker 1: to follow the regulations they need to follow, had to
Speaker 1: have a dude come on and on their boat and
Speaker 1: make sure that there was following all directions. Now, there
Speaker 1: was this new law that this regulatory body had passed
Speaker 1: that said you got to pay these people a certain amount,
Speaker 1: And these fishermen were like, don't ain't hr job to
Speaker 1: pay them? Like that's their job? Like why would I
Speaker 1: have to? Why do I have to pay them? That's ridiculous.
Speaker 1: So it came to the court, to the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: and the Supreme Court ain't really even worried about whether
Speaker 1: you got to pay this fee or not. They're like,
Speaker 1: does this regulatory body have any power, right, So then
Speaker 1: they refer to this doctrine called Chevron deference. And what
Speaker 1: that's saying is when there's a law that's ambiguous, when
Speaker 1: there's something that like is the Congress past that said, yo,
Speaker 1: you guys got to do this, uh, and it needs
Speaker 1: to be at whatever.
Speaker 2: So people like the USDA, the FDA, you know, and
Speaker 2: just these different departments, the EPA, they're the experts in
Speaker 2: the field that we're talking about, right, So when the
Speaker 2: court gets to something and something gets to them, the
Speaker 2: remember the the Supreme.
Speaker 1: Court, these judges are experts in the law. They're not
Speaker 1: experts in earthquakes and fishing and in science. They're not
Speaker 1: they're not experts in that. So what they said was
Speaker 1: in the concept of the doctrine of Chevron deference, what
Speaker 1: they're saying is like, the courts will defer to these
Speaker 1: regulatory bodies on things that they don't understand. So it's like, well,
Speaker 1: I don't know how many fish you need to fish
Speaker 1: out of the ocean before you fish it dry, Like
Speaker 1: I don't know that, Like I would have to be
Speaker 1: asking them anyway. So when it comes to laws that
Speaker 1: like are ambiguous, that we can't just look at the
Speaker 1: precedents and be like, well, fam, I don't know, like
Speaker 1: we're gonna look to the well, they're the ones that
Speaker 1: studied that stuff. So like I mean, it's whatever they say,
Speaker 1: like we're down. You know what I'm saying. Now, If
Speaker 1: they say something that I could say that that's clearly illegal,
Speaker 1: that's a lost situation. But what y'all need to do,
Speaker 1: like I defer to them. We've been going by that
Speaker 1: since the eighties because why would you let a for
Speaker 1: profit corporation regulate themselves? Because crazy stuff happened? Like, yo, y'all,
Speaker 1: don't y'all remember why the EPA exists. You know the
Speaker 1: joke and the Simpsons about the fish with the three eyes.
Speaker 1: This it's because like nuclear waste and just waste products
Speaker 1: just dropped in the water, like our water was poisoned.
Speaker 1: Somebody had to be like, y'all, y'all just can't be
Speaker 1: poison in the water. You remember acid rain? Like, are
Speaker 1: y'all old enough to remember acid rain? Like the rain
Speaker 1: used to be a cidic because the water was That's
Speaker 1: why the EPA exists. Y'all remember the ozone layer? You
Speaker 1: don't who kids?
Speaker 2: You had to worry about a hole in the O
Speaker 2: zone and we was all, uv race, that's not a thing. Now,
Speaker 2: why nigga the EPA, like, that's why, that's why nobody
Speaker 2: talking about the O zone layer.
Speaker 1: So this it's some people that study stuff that can
Speaker 1: look at a corporation and say, I can't trust y'all
Speaker 1: to regulate yourself because you just gonna do whatever you're
Speaker 1: gonna do to make your money. So what the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court decided was now we done with that. So they
Speaker 1: ended Chevron difference. And what that means is now, when
Speaker 1: there is some sort of problem happening in a particular
Speaker 1: industry that is normally regulated by some sort of regulatory
Speaker 1: body like the EPA, like the USDA, like things like that,
Speaker 1: when there's something that goes wrong, rather than them looking
Speaker 1: at that department, they're saying, no, we'll, we'll, we'll figure
Speaker 1: this out ourselves. Now, the argument for that is to
Speaker 1: say that, like, look, man, like, just like you said,
Speaker 1: we a for profit institution. If we won't do the
Speaker 1: thing right, we ain't gonna make no money. So why
Speaker 1: would we. I don't need nobody else, Like they're putting
Speaker 1: these unnecessary pressures on us you know that just that
Speaker 1: are just being swayed basically by whoever in office, Like
Speaker 1: y'all don't even like y'all are y'all can be bought
Speaker 1: like y'all can you know, y'all y'all be bought by
Speaker 1: you know, lobbyists, just like the same way you accusing
Speaker 1: us being bought by lobbyists or just driven by right,
Speaker 1: y'all be driven by private too. And besides that, the
Speaker 1: next president gonna come in and he gonna change all
Speaker 1: the things anyway, So like you making it hard, like
Speaker 1: we're suffering, everybody suffering because it is. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: which is where I land is. Do you remember any
Speaker 1: time in your life when something has been recalled like
Speaker 1: I remember when there was mad cow disease and all
Speaker 1: the beef was recalled from the shelves. You know who
Speaker 1: did that, the USDA, and essentially it's a court was like,
Speaker 1: you don't have to listen to the USTA. Now y'all
Speaker 1: decide whatever y'all want to decide. So essentially we could
Speaker 1: all die because there's nobody that's gonna tell you, don't
Speaker 1: the beef industry that this is poisonous. We just gonna
Speaker 1: trust that the beef industry gonna do the right thing
Speaker 1: is what is basically what we're gonna say is what
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has decided that, like, we just gonna
Speaker 1: trust these people. So when your cars start breaking down,
Speaker 1: there ain't no regulatory body to tell you that, Like, hey,
Speaker 1: you're not allowed to sell cars with only half a
Speaker 1: seat belt, but it's cheap, but the only have half
Speaker 1: a seat belt. Ain't nobody to stop us either. So
Speaker 1: when your kids start flying through the windows, I hate
Speaker 1: to say it like that, that's real morbid. But what
Speaker 1: I'm trying to say is why your cars are safe.
Speaker 1: The way that they're safe is because there's a regulatory body.
Speaker 1: But if we ain't got to listen to the regulatory body,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be on you to make sure these industries
Speaker 1: do the right things. So Sefron deference shot down. Got
Speaker 1: shot down because it's over zealous. Play hard to get
Speaker 1: females get jealous. Okay, smarty, go to a party. My
Speaker 1: child always says, I turned every sentence into a rap song,
Speaker 1: and she's correct, all right, next community case. So the
Speaker 1: question about the immunity is this is like what can
Speaker 1: a president do in service to the country? Versus service
Speaker 1: to himself or herself hopefully herself very soon. What is
Speaker 1: covered by the office of being the executive, being the
Speaker 1: commander in chief? Like, what is covered by that so
Speaker 1: that you could feel free enough to do the jobs
Speaker 1: you got to do, Because sometimes there's some things that
Speaker 1: might be questionable. But if you afraid you can get
Speaker 1: prosecuted when you've done, it's like, I can't. I can't really,
Speaker 1: I can't really work like that if I'm afraid that,
Speaker 1: like my political opponents may just have a blatant disagreement
Speaker 1: with me, but use that as a way to prosecute me.
Speaker 1: What what actions are covered and what actions are not right?
Speaker 1: So you use that question when it comes to whether
Speaker 1: or Donald Trump is immune for his part in the
Speaker 1: January sixth insurrection. That's the question. What role did he play?
Speaker 1: Did he commit high crimes and misdemeanors? Was it treason?
Speaker 1: And were the acts that he did his role in
Speaker 1: that were they in service to the country or service
Speaker 1: to himself? If they were official acts as a president,
Speaker 1: at what point can I you be criminally liable to
Speaker 1: those So I'm just trying to give you refresher. We
Speaker 1: did a whole episode on that, which you could go
Speaker 1: back to, which is actually a very important question. So
Speaker 1: when it came to the trial, right, that started off
Speaker 1: in a lower court as to like can I bring
Speaker 1: criminal charges against Trump for trying to overthrow a legally
Speaker 1: performed election? Like you hired you know, fake electors, You
Speaker 1: did all these different things, like what are those how
Speaker 1: much of those things are covered by your immunity? Now
Speaker 1: Trump is saying I get all immunity. That was his argument,
Speaker 1: like I'm immune for everything, like we talk talking about
Speaker 1: I was a president president's immunity. And the defense to that,
Speaker 1: or the argument of that is like, sir, that would
Speaker 1: make you a monarch. We don't have those here, Sir,
Speaker 1: that would make you a dictator. We don't have those here.
Speaker 1: Our stance in America is no one is above the law.
Speaker 1: We don't execute our political opponents. That's not who we are.
Speaker 1: So when given the example of you know, so what
Speaker 1: if you were going to use sealed Team six to
Speaker 1: go kill a political opponent, his defense attorney was like, well,
Speaker 1: I mean if I did that, I'd get impeached. Like, well,
Speaker 1: that's not there's nothing question I'm asking I'm asking you
Speaker 1: should you be criminally liable. He's like, well, if I
Speaker 1: got a peached, of course I should be criminally liable. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: let me ask you about impeachment. And if you go
Speaker 1: back to impeachment, their argument is, well, if I'm not
Speaker 1: criminally liable, then you can't impeach me. So they're using
Speaker 1: it backwards and forwards, like so it's not a criminal
Speaker 1: act unless I get impeached. But I can't get impeached
Speaker 1: unless it's a criminal act. So therefore, basically I get
Speaker 1: to do what I want. Is essentially the argument they're
Speaker 1: trying to make. So the Supreme Court had to be like, okay, now,
Speaker 1: hold on now, like that's actually I don't really care
Speaker 1: about Trump per se. At least that's what they're saying,
Speaker 1: I don't really care about Trump per se. We need
Speaker 1: to think about, like, what do we really think about this,
Speaker 1: like what is in fact immune and not? And their
Speaker 1: decision was, oh, lord, any official act, official acts as
Speaker 1: the executive officer, as the president, any official act is
Speaker 1: covered in immunity. And even if you have evidence that
Speaker 1: shows that this person is doing something criminal, you are
Speaker 1: not allowed to bring that to court. Were his actions
Speaker 1: on January sixth, covered under immunity. Was that an official act?
Speaker 1: Did he truly believe that this election was stolen? Therefore
Speaker 1: he was going to right or wrong this was an
Speaker 1: official act? Or was he just trying to protect or yeah,
Speaker 1: he's just trying to protect his own power and stay
Speaker 1: in office even though he knew good and well that
Speaker 1: he lost. Well, he's arguing it's an official act. And
Speaker 1: now since he was functioning as an executive, all of
Speaker 1: the conversations he had with the district attorneys, with the
Speaker 1: person in charge of election in Georgia, with all of
Speaker 1: these things that are clear evidence that he was trying
Speaker 1: to overturn this election, Well they're all covered now. You
Speaker 1: can't bring them into court because of what the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court just decided. Now, I cracked a joke about this
Speaker 1: the shooter, which I don't understand, Like, I'm just trying
Speaker 1: to make a point about this case that let's just
Speaker 1: pretend like the shooter that shot at Trump was hired
Speaker 1: by Joe Biden. It wasn't, obviously, but if it was,
Speaker 1: you can't really bring no criminal case against Joe Biden
Speaker 1: because according to the Supreme Court, that would have been
Speaker 1: an official act as president, and it had been covered
Speaker 1: by immunity. Thank you so much, Supreme Court. Just say
Speaker 1: it with your whole chest. And I'm not even allowed
Speaker 1: to bring evidence that clearly shows well, guys, good job.
Speaker 1: I told you I would get that man props if
Speaker 1: he's able to dodge these cases. This man is, he's
Speaker 1: batten pretty good and some things are just breaking his way.
Speaker 1: And this is one of them situations where I'm just
Speaker 1: like a homie. I don't know this man Ben's reality.
Speaker 1: So yeah, so yeah, yeah, yeah, so yep, yep. They
Speaker 1: agreed immunity, which means that any of the other cases
Speaker 1: we was worried about the E. G. And Carroll, which
Speaker 1: the judge said, no, no, no, no, he raped her
Speaker 1: like this is there's no doubt that he raped this woman.
Speaker 1: He's been found guilty. I accarently, I just can't right now.
Speaker 1: I'm not allowed to bring any sentencing. But he's he
Speaker 1: did it. But this now said as well, we can't
Speaker 1: really talk about the Georgia fake electors. Now we can't
Speaker 1: really talk about that because I don't know what's covered,
Speaker 1: Like I can't. You just told me, Supreme Court, I
Speaker 1: can't bring no evidence. And this is where the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court did what Jason does in his own house. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna go on record saying we're three judges, Kadunjie Brown,
Speaker 1: thank you sister. So the mayor they they was like, uh,
Speaker 1: this is some bullshit, Like I just I don't understand,
Speaker 1: Like for this weed dissent, for the sake of the
Speaker 1: dog one country, we wholeheartedly went our whole chest. We
Speaker 1: say what we said. Descent to this mug seal teen
Speaker 1: six Immune demand like you want to throw your prison,
Speaker 1: you want to throw your political opponents in jail? You Immune?
Speaker 1: It's all good. And I'm not even allowed to bring
Speaker 1: evident did y'all hear me right now? Like this this
Speaker 1: THEU Preme Course said what they say, you can't even
Speaker 1: bring evidence. Even if there is evidence, you're not allowed
Speaker 1: to bring it into court. Boy, I tell And finally,
Speaker 1: the abortion medication. So essentially this is the case you
Speaker 1: could call Like, I'm gonna get more specific on this one.
Speaker 1: The FDA versus the Alliance for Hippocratic Medics. Right, here's
Speaker 1: what they're considering. Whether the Food and Drug Administration the
Speaker 1: FDA act lawfully when it extended access to the abortion
Speaker 1: medication myth of pristone in two thousand and six and
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one, and whether the doctors have legal standing
Speaker 1: to challenge the FDA over this drug. So when Roe v.
Speaker 1: Wade feil, it opened the door to a lot of
Speaker 1: different things to where it's like, okay, now the anti
Speaker 1: abortion movement started feeling hell of froggy and was like,
Speaker 1: I bet you we could, I bet you we could
Speaker 1: really push this line. That's what they started. They started
Speaker 1: pushing the line. Okay, on once the main damn fell,
Speaker 1: we could start pushing the line. So these like six
Speaker 1: week abortion bands, twelve week abortion bands. Then they came
Speaker 1: after the abortion pill missed the pristone right, so like
Speaker 1: this was their chance. Again, Remember the courts get into
Speaker 1: the weeds. They're saying, it's not so much do we
Speaker 1: believe in myph for pristone. What we're saying is does
Speaker 1: the Food and Drug Administration have the right to even
Speaker 1: expand the access? Like why are y'all talking about it again?
Speaker 1: You got to go back to the Chevron difference thing
Speaker 1: to where the courts are like, well, since we're not
Speaker 1: going to defer to these regulatory bodies, we're gonna have
Speaker 1: to figure this out ourselves. So first of all, it's
Speaker 1: like there's two parts happening here. It's first of all,
Speaker 1: it's like, does the FDA even have a right to
Speaker 1: do this? And then now do the doctors even have
Speaker 1: a right to challenge this? Like, so both I don't
Speaker 1: understand if either one of y'all can be in my
Speaker 1: court right, And what lies in the balance is whether
Speaker 1: we're allowed to get our hands on some mepha pristone,
Speaker 1: which is probably hands down the safest way do it. Now,
Speaker 1: what is memphi pristone if you don't know this already, So,
Speaker 1: myphi pristone is a two part drug combination that's used
Speaker 1: in medical abortions. Right, So it's approved by the FBA.
Speaker 1: So it's the abortion pill. Right. So it's approved in
Speaker 1: two thousand by the FDA. And then in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: the FDA changed some of the guidelines to make it
Speaker 1: easier to get access to the pill. And one of
Speaker 1: those changes was like you're only requiring one person, one
Speaker 1: in person medical visit and allowing a non physician healthcare
Speaker 1: provider to prescribe the medicine. And a lot of this
Speaker 1: had to do with what was happening for COVID, like this,
Speaker 1: this really helped because we couldn't go to the doctor, right,
Speaker 1: So you could do a non physician healthcare provider, right,
Speaker 1: or do a non in person one. So they prescribed
Speaker 1: via telehealth appointments and sent them by the mail. Right.
Speaker 1: The FDA challengers are arguing that MITH for pristone is unsafe.
Speaker 1: So the people that are challenging the FBA, they're saying that, like, man,
Speaker 1: hold up, you can't just have like a non physician
Speaker 1: just mail you a pill without even meeting them, like,
Speaker 1: and y'all ain't had a right to change the law anyway.
Speaker 1: Following me, I'm reading from the US News and Report
Speaker 1: website because I want to make sure I say this correctly. Okay,
Speaker 1: the justice is held that the group of anti abortion doctors, right,
Speaker 1: these are the doctors that brought this case, lacked legal
Speaker 1: standing to challenge the regulation of MIF for priston. So
Speaker 1: what however they feel about abortion or not, is not
Speaker 1: the point. What they're saying is you don't have the
Speaker 1: right to challenge it. We first understand that y'all just
Speaker 1: don't like abortion, period, So that doesn't matter. You don't
Speaker 1: have the right to bring a case. So quote under
Speaker 1: Article three of the Constitution, A plaintiff's desire to make
Speaker 1: a drug less available for others does not establish standing
Speaker 1: to sue. Wrote get this, Justice Brent Kavanaugh, Nor do
Speaker 1: the plaintiffs other standings and theories to suffice. Now listen
Speaker 1: to this. What he's saying is like, you gotta remember
Speaker 1: he wanted the ones that help overturn our road Wade.
Speaker 1: He's saying, listen, dude, he's part of the ones that
Speaker 1: wanted to end Chevron defferent. So the stuff gets super complicated.
Speaker 1: The whole of the Supreme Court was like, look, bro,
Speaker 1: you don't get how we feel about MEPhI pristone or
Speaker 1: not is not what we're talking about. Now. They're not foolish.
Speaker 1: They know what this means. This means that now you're
Speaker 1: saying that women can get their hands on methipristone. I
Speaker 1: say women because I mean it's an abortion pill. Now,
Speaker 1: So anyway, what they're saying is how we feel about
Speaker 1: this or not is besides the point. You're just anti
Speaker 1: abortion doctors, And just because you don't like the thing
Speaker 1: don't mean you could suit him. You don't have a case.
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. So interesting to me, dog, because like they
Speaker 1: be all over the place like they not willing to
Speaker 1: be anybody's mascot. And I think that that's so interesting
Speaker 1: to me because like, on this end, this is clearly
Speaker 1: a win for the progressive world. That's like, oh, so
Speaker 1: you're not taking away all rights you're keeping. He's like, well,
Speaker 1: and the Supreme Court is going like, well, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying they don't have a right to just
Speaker 1: because they mad about it. They don't have a right
Speaker 1: to bring a case. So yeah, that's one for us.
Speaker 1: They're like, I don't the Supreme courl like as one
Speaker 1: for whoever you want wrong. I don't know. And then
Speaker 1: on the other side, you're like, okay, that makes perfect sense.
Speaker 1: But at the same time, you're gonna tell me that,
Speaker 1: like the president could be immune for anything as long
Speaker 1: as it's an official act, as long as he do
Speaker 1: it on the clock. You mean to tell me, as
Speaker 1: long as I do my dirt while I'm on the clock,
Speaker 1: it's good. I mean, that's that's what they're saying. It's
Speaker 1: a bizarre world we live in, but that's the world
Speaker 1: we in right now. I give you a bonus one.
Speaker 1: It's the bump Stock band, yo, and this bonus joint
Speaker 1: gonna make you dizzy. So again, here's the question they
Speaker 1: questioning is whether a bump stock device fits the federal
Speaker 1: definition of a machine gun, therefore making it a band device.
Speaker 1: So it's one of them weird questions like what makes
Speaker 1: a gun a gun? It's it seems so bonkers, right,
Speaker 1: because you have to decide which gun is which and
Speaker 1: what is more deadly than others. Now, obviously a little
Speaker 1: deuce deuce is just like a pain inflictor unless you
Speaker 1: shoot it close enough to somebody. A machine gun, I mean,
Speaker 1: that's made to kill, right, So you but you have to,
Speaker 1: like you gotta draw a line. Right. This is exactly
Speaker 1: what I talked about in the several Seats episode about defining,
Speaker 1: you know, things by a particular line. It's the Olympic
Speaker 1: situation right with the boxer. I'm gonna refresh you because
Speaker 1: I think it's super important to keep talking about this
Speaker 1: thing one because ain't got nothing to do with trans people.
Speaker 1: This has to do with when law in our concepts
Speaker 1: conflict with the fluidity of actual nature and reality. The
Speaker 1: Olympics is going through this. That ended that boxing match
Speaker 1: because she was like, this person hit me in the face.
Speaker 1: Harder I ever been hit in my life. And then
Speaker 1: the Olympics was like, what's because she's biologically a man,
Speaker 1: And everybody thought, Okay, this is people sneak, this is
Speaker 1: men sneaking into women's sports. That is not at all
Speaker 1: what happened. Listen explaining to you very simply, I said
Speaker 1: this already, but I'm gonna say it again. You know
Speaker 1: some dudes have man boobs. You know some women have mustaches.
Speaker 1: It's because we both both males and females carry both
Speaker 1: testosterone and estrogen. Some women born natural biological women have
Speaker 1: internal testicles. I don't know if you notice. It's just
Speaker 1: because of how biology works, and those internal testicles that
Speaker 1: never came out, because they're just they're these random organs
Speaker 1: inside of them that they're producing testosterone. Some women and
Speaker 1: some men just have. Everybody's level of testosterone and estrogen
Speaker 1: is different. Some women just produce higher than normal, normal
Speaker 1: big old air quotes and normal level of testosterone. They're
Speaker 1: women and they just produce. You can't help that. But
Speaker 1: according to the Olympics, their attitude is in the spirit
Speaker 1: of fair play. To They're saying, like, we're trying to
Speaker 1: protect women's sports, like this seems like an unfair examined advantage,
Speaker 1: that this lady just makes more testosterones, that you're just
Speaker 1: gonna be stronger. That's not fair. So when they say so,
Speaker 1: when they say that, they're saying, well, we have to
Speaker 1: draw a line somewhere that if you have this much
Speaker 1: level of testosterone in your body, according to our rules,
Speaker 1: you're kind of a dude. Where they're saying you're a
Speaker 1: dude in the sense that you can't participate in women's sports.
Speaker 1: Probably are a woman. You can't produce it, but you
Speaker 1: can't because you're your level of testosterone is too high.
Speaker 1: That's not fair. On the other hand, she ain't make
Speaker 1: it like that. That's just they they body, What do
Speaker 1: you want them to do? What do you want me
Speaker 1: to do? My body makes what it makes. Well, you
Speaker 1: know what they want them to do is take some
Speaker 1: drugs to drop their testosterone. That's what they want them
Speaker 1: to do. If you're gonna quale, if you're gonna compete,
Speaker 1: you got lower your testosterone, which to me said bonkers.
Speaker 1: But it's because there is you got to draw a
Speaker 1: line somewhere, or do you But sometimes because it's such
Speaker 1: a weird idea, the line becomes absurd. So the question
Speaker 1: about a bump stock is that is it a machine gun?
Speaker 1: So now you go back to the mass shooting in
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen in Las Vegas. The gunmen used bump stocks, right,
Speaker 1: and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco the ATF ruled that
Speaker 1: rifles equipped with bump stocks are machine guns. This was
Speaker 1: a Trump law, like, this was one of his things.
Speaker 1: He pushed for this that like yo, bump stocks like,
Speaker 1: which is why sometimes like partisan talking points are absurd
Speaker 1: because it's like, I mean, that's yeah, like he turned
Speaker 1: it into a machine gun. I don't that's what he did, right,
Speaker 1: which have been basically banned since nineteen eighty six. What
Speaker 1: do I mean by a machine gun? It means any
Speaker 1: weapon like that shoots and can readily shoot again. Basically,
Speaker 1: you pull the trigger and it keep shooting. So that's
Speaker 1: an automatic reload. So more than one shot without reloading
Speaker 1: or anything like that or pulling trigger again, you just
Speaker 1: squeeze it. That's a machine gun. What a bump stock
Speaker 1: does is basically you add a device that takes something
Speaker 1: that is semi automatic and turn it into automatic, so
Speaker 1: that a single pull of the trigger could disperse hundreds
Speaker 1: and hundreds of bullets per minute. Like, that's that's what
Speaker 1: bump stock means. You just turning a semi automatic into
Speaker 1: an automatic. So what the Supreme Court decided it was
Speaker 1: a six to three decision, which was like pretty obvious
Speaker 1: split along ideological lines. They said that the Trump administration
Speaker 1: did not follow federal law when it banned bump stocks. So,
Speaker 1: according to Clarence Thomas, he said that the ATF exceeded
Speaker 1: their authority when it classified rifle with bump stocks as
Speaker 1: machine gun. We hold semi automatic rifles equipped with a
Speaker 1: bump stock is not a machine gun because it cannot
Speaker 1: fire more than one shot by a single function of
Speaker 1: the trigger. So he's saying, well, no, it can't do
Speaker 1: it without this thing, so it's not a thing. It's
Speaker 1: since it can't do it without the attachment, it's not automatic.
Speaker 2: It's not a machine gun. You have to add the thing,
Speaker 2: but it still only works when you have the thing
Speaker 2: on it. Therefore it's not a machine gun.
Speaker 1: And this, my friend, is why I think the Chevron
Speaker 1: defference thing is wrong, because my nigga, Claren, what you
Speaker 1: know about guns? The people that study guns all the
Speaker 1: time is telling you that fam that's a I mean,
Speaker 1: it's a machine gun. Now, this is what we mean
Speaker 1: by the laws being ambiguous. When you make laws, they're
Speaker 1: supposed to be able to try to make them vague
Speaker 1: enough so that they can expand across in years. Because
Speaker 1: you can't tell the future. I don't know what's going
Speaker 1: to happen in the future. This is why Chevron deference,
Speaker 1: one of the reasons it existed, is like, well, dang,
Speaker 1: I don't I mean, what do we know. Clarence Tomalin says,
Speaker 1: I'm not listening in the yard. Do you out of line?
Speaker 1: You ain't got the right to say that. And what
Speaker 1: I think is that's a semi automatic. It's not an automatic,
Speaker 1: and you don't get the right to change. Now, maybe
Speaker 1: they have the rights. Now, what Clarence Thomas does understand
Speaker 1: is whether that organization has the right to change the
Speaker 1: law or not. But what you know about guns. But
Speaker 1: it's like, well it is now, and he's like, no,
Speaker 1: it's a semi automatic with a bump stock. They're two
Speaker 1: different things. And then Soda Mayor wrote The Descent. She
Speaker 1: was like, listen, man, when I see a bird that
Speaker 1: walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks
Speaker 1: like a duck. I'll call it a duck. A bumpstock
Speaker 1: equipped semi automatic fires rifles automatically more than one shot
Speaker 1: without a man, and you will reload to a single
Speaker 1: function of the trigger because I like, Congress call it
Speaker 1: a machine gun, because nigga, you just turned it into one.
Speaker 1: I respectfully dissent it was this I like I sometimes
Speaker 1: I like the Supreme Court is bizarre to me. If
Speaker 1: I were to ever be a reporter, like a full
Speaker 1: fledged like in the Weeds report, I'd want to report
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court because this is like how that's
Speaker 1: I mean, that's why you buy bump stocks. You buy
Speaker 1: a bump stock to turn a semi into a full.
Speaker 1: So therefore your gun is now a full And he's like, well, no,
Speaker 1: it's a semi converted with a full converter, but it's
Speaker 1: still semi. And the ATF doesn't get to say that
Speaker 1: that is now officially a fully again Chevron deference because
Speaker 1: they like won't believe experts anyway, won't think y'all got
Speaker 1: the right to do that anyway, So y'all don't get
Speaker 1: to say you let us say it's a weird world.
Speaker 1: We live in either way, Supreme Court set it with
Speaker 1: a whole chess or at least two thirds of it.
Speaker 1: We'll see how this shapes our world. Because oh man,
Speaker 1: presidents are immune, automatics aren't automatic. You can still get
Speaker 1: mit the prisstone. And apparently when the bacon got swine flu,
Speaker 1: there ain't nobody we could tell Hood politics. All right, now,
Speaker 1: don't you hit stop on this pod. You better listen
Speaker 1: to these credits. I need you to finish this thing
Speaker 1: so I can get the download numbers. Okay, so don't
Speaker 1: stop it yet, but listen. This was recorded in East
Speaker 1: Lost Boyle Heights by your boy Propaganda. Tap in with
Speaker 1: me at prop hip hop dot com. If you're in
Speaker 1: the coldbrew coffee we got Terraform Coldbrew. You can go
Speaker 1: there dot com and use promo code Hood get twenty
Speaker 1: percent off get yourself some coffee. This was mixed, edited
Speaker 1: and mastered by your boy Matt Alsowski killing the beat softly.
Speaker 1: Check out his website Matdowsowski dot com. I'm a speller
Speaker 1: for you because I know m A T T O
Speaker 1: S O W s ki dot com Matthowsowski dot com.
Speaker 1: He got more music and stuff like that on there.
Speaker 1: So gonna check out the heat. Politics is a member
Speaker 1: of cool Zone Media, Executive produced by Sophie Lichterman, part
Speaker 1: of the iHeartMedia podcast network. Your theme music and scoring
Speaker 1: is also by the one and Overly Mattowsowski. Still killing
Speaker 1: the beat softly, so listen. Don't let nobody lie to you.
Speaker 1: If you understand urban living, you understand politics. These people
Speaker 1: is not smarter than you. We'll see next week.
Speaker 2: M