Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: where we discuss the top political headlines with some of
Speaker 1: today's best minds and a House ethics panel that's investigating
Speaker 1: claims of sex and drugs involving Matt Gates are eyeing
Speaker 1: new allegations. We have such a great show for you today.
Speaker 1: Will Rollin stops by to talk to us about his
Speaker 1: run in California's Palm Springs area, where my dad lives,
Speaker 1: and he's going to beat Ken Calvert or we hope.
Speaker 1: So then we'll talk to the Breton Centers Michael Waldman
Speaker 1: about the continued corruption of our Supreme Court. But first
Speaker 1: we have the host of the time of Monsters, the
Speaker 1: Nation's get here. Welcome back, too, Fast Politics, your friend
Speaker 1: and mine, geet here.
Speaker 2: Good to be back.
Speaker 1: We're so happy to have you. We're in this strange
Speaker 1: moment in American life where every thing feels just completely
Speaker 1: crazy and strange. One of the things that there's a
Speaker 1: lot of anxiety about for people like me who like
Speaker 1: American democracy and realize that only one party still believes
Speaker 1: in it is that Biden is having trouble keeping the left.
Speaker 1: As you and I both know, there was a quote
Speaker 1: which said in fact that it's very hard to win
Speaker 1: as a Democrat if you don't have the left. And
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty, the left and the middle really did
Speaker 1: make a sort of peace and we're able to really
Speaker 1: run together and defeat Trump and trump Ism. How can
Speaker 1: Joe Biden win back the left or can he?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I think he can actually. I mean this might
Speaker 2: surprise people, but when heard before Gaza from people on
Speaker 2: the left was, you know, like Joe Biden was not
Speaker 2: my pick. He wasn't my guy, and there's a lot
Speaker 2: more he could be doing. But he's actually turned out
Speaker 2: to be, you know, the most progressive American politician on
Speaker 2: domestic issues since at least in the Johnson I think
Speaker 2: that's right, and I think that there was a lot
Speaker 2: of good wells and which is still can be tapped,
Speaker 2: especially on like the labor front.
Speaker 1: Yes, he's been amazing on labor. You've never seen an
Speaker 1: American president like that.
Speaker 2: That's right, But also continued action on the student debt front,
Speaker 2: the prescription drugs. I mean, I think that he does
Speaker 2: actually have stuff to run on, and I think the
Speaker 2: problem is foreign policy has kind of blindsided him in
Speaker 2: a way that I mean Leaving aside the issue of
Speaker 2: where one stands on this, the fact is that if
Speaker 2: that's the foreign policy is what's being talked about, the
Speaker 2: other things aren't talked about. So the more time that
Speaker 2: like foreign policy takes up the headlines, the less there
Speaker 2: is for everything. And I would add, like climate, I mean,
Speaker 2: like which is becoming like you know, we're seeing what
Speaker 2: the heat waves, just like you know, like a crucial,
Speaker 2: crucial issue. That's one where there's an immense difference between
Speaker 2: Biden and Trump. Not just like you know, like one
Speaker 2: supports X, one supports why, but Trump's policies are actually
Speaker 2: like climate change bring it on. Because if you just say,
Speaker 2: as Trump does you know climate change is a hoax
Speaker 2: made by China, and also that we should be getting
Speaker 2: you know, we should have the oil, it's a as
Speaker 2: Trump is opposed to actual or climate change, I would
Speaker 2: say is actual poses are to make climate change much
Speaker 2: worse than it's otherwise going to be under like you know,
Speaker 2: like there's so much Biden could run on whether he
Speaker 2: can like get the message across, I'm not so sure.
Speaker 2: And I think the question people then have to ask themselves,
Speaker 2: this is the problem the message or is it the messenger,
Speaker 2: and I think the White House that's were reported is
Speaker 2: very frustrated that the you know, like economic stuff that
Speaker 2: they've done, the genuinely good economic news, you know, like
Speaker 2: the sustained job growth that we've seen, you know, is
Speaker 2: really without precedent.
Speaker 1: The economy is ten times better than any one thought
Speaker 1: it would be.
Speaker 2: That's right, That's right, yeah, yeah, and much better than
Speaker 2: other nations that you know, like every nation suffered through
Speaker 2: COVID and has you know, been struggling with you know,
Speaker 2: supply chain issues which led to inflation. America is doing okay.
Speaker 2: The question in though, is like can Biden get the
Speaker 2: message across? Yeah, transmit that message. The next thing that
Speaker 2: comes up to me is it shouldn't just be on Biden.
Speaker 2: I'm really a supporter of what I call it sort
Speaker 2: of teammate strategy, which is that you really bring out early,
Speaker 2: like all the surrogates that you usually keep out for
Speaker 2: you know, to the last few weeks, get out Elizabeth Warren,
Speaker 2: Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, and just put like all the
Speaker 2: people out there who can reach the audience that needs
Speaker 2: to be reached. I think that that would give you
Speaker 2: a lot of leverage that could actually change things on
Speaker 2: some dimensions.
Speaker 1: One of the things that I'm hoping we could talk
Speaker 1: about for a minute, because I think it is really
Speaker 1: a strange phenomenon, is it seems to me that Biden
Speaker 1: is able to push this economic populism without making people
Speaker 1: freaked out the way that Elizabeth Warren freaks people out.
Speaker 1: Do you think that's true? And why is that?
Speaker 2: One obediate answer is sort of like sexism. So it's
Speaker 2: a very sort of subtle kind of sexism where like,
Speaker 2: you know, it's like do you want the woman to
Speaker 2: be the boss? You know, like the one's actually making
Speaker 2: effective changes. The other one is like Biden kind of
Speaker 2: did run on this idea that you know, like I'm
Speaker 2: not going to be the president who's in your face,
Speaker 2: I'm not going to be on Twitter all the time.
Speaker 2: And he sort of kept that, And but the downside
Speaker 2: of that.
Speaker 1: Is nobody knows who he is.
Speaker 2: He knows who he is. You know. A comparable thing
Speaker 2: might be like the sort of Mexican situation where like Avlo,
Speaker 2: you know a lot of people breat critics of him,
Speaker 2: but you know, he did push you a lot of
Speaker 2: you know, economic populism. Here's a pension and minimum wage
Speaker 2: that really like improved a lot of people. But also
Speaker 2: he was on TV every single day every day. You know,
Speaker 2: he was like, you know, like Trump during the pandemic,
Speaker 2: but like through the whole presidency, Avlo was like talking
Speaker 2: about the stuff he his cover was doing poor people,
Speaker 2: and that became like kind of regular TV watching. I
Speaker 2: think for a variety of reasons, like Biden, his instincts
Speaker 2: were not to kind of take all the credit that
Speaker 2: he could have taken in some ways. You know, the
Speaker 2: strategy was always like to work out these kind of
Speaker 2: like bipartisan deals and get the Republicans that you can.
Speaker 2: But if you're doing that, you don't want to like,
Speaker 2: you know, spike the football right in a partisan way
Speaker 2: that could undermind future negotiations. And then so you're kind
Speaker 2: of like a little bit stuck in a trap. But
Speaker 2: I mean I think that also politicians have pre existing
Speaker 2: audiences and people who trust them, And right now where
Speaker 2: Biden is suffering is the people who had supported Bernie
Speaker 2: and Elizabeth Warren and also people who supported like Barack Obama.
Speaker 1: I think he rented those voters and didn't own them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, he's never owned them. But I mean, I think,
Speaker 2: to me, that's why I think this sort of teammate
Speaker 2: strategy of just like bringing out all the big guns.
Speaker 2: You see that, Al and I think both like Bernie
Speaker 2: and Elizabeth Warner becoming much more vocal. You know, you're
Speaker 2: going off with Biden. I'm not one of those people
Speaker 2: that says, let's bring out the smokefield rooms, because I
Speaker 2: gotta tell you there's no smoke field rooms. There's no
Speaker 2: mechanism we're replacing.
Speaker 1: Biden did smokefield rooms. Me and I know that he's
Speaker 1: very smart, the person whose idea this was, but it's
Speaker 1: such a stupid idea. Americans are so filled with anxiety about,
Speaker 1: you know, some guy pulling the strings that the idea
Speaker 1: that then you would have some guys pull the strings
Speaker 1: on that is so insane.
Speaker 2: Of course, they would imediately have no legitimacy, would be
Speaker 2: like usually unpopular with quart a backlash. It's just this,
Speaker 2: you know, like we're going with Biden.
Speaker 1: And it would delight Trump by the way.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I think the question is to make it
Speaker 2: about party rather than just individuals. And this is the
Speaker 2: big difference for twenty twenty. The Democratic Party is more
Speaker 2: popular than Biden. And what sesus in poling with Like
Speaker 2: this is like Ohio where like you know, like Biden
Speaker 2: was ever gonna win Ohio, but he's actually deeper in
Speaker 2: the whole that he was last time. But you know,
Speaker 2: shared Brown is actually looking pretty good in Ohio. And
Speaker 2: then we see this like all across the country. We
Speaker 2: see this some special elections where like even in like
Speaker 2: very red places where there were guys like I still lose,
Speaker 2: like they're losing by far less than they had been previously.
Speaker 2: And so there is a sense in which the party
Speaker 2: is in better shape than the president. And if that's
Speaker 2: the case, then I think you run with the party.
Speaker 2: You really highlight all the party leaders and have them
Speaker 2: be the voice to you know, reach the audiences that
Speaker 2: Biden can't reach, and to be able to speak to
Speaker 2: people who trust them, like people who might trust Elizabeth
Speaker 2: Warren but don't trust Biden. People might trust Bernie Sanders
Speaker 2: but don't trust Biden. I think EOC is becoming much
Speaker 2: more prominent, and I actually think that seems like that's
Speaker 2: a party decision to like, you know, bar ground her
Speaker 2: because she can reach those voters that Biden, I'm sorry
Speaker 2: to say, like he needs those voters. I think Biden
Speaker 2: is other doing other good stuff, Like I thought on
Speaker 2: the immigration front, like you know, extending the City of
Speaker 2: Dacap protections very popular and very necessary.
Speaker 1: And the spouse stuff is good too.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, exactly, yeah, yeah, so the Senate death stuff
Speaker 2: continues to be good. Right now. It seems like a
Speaker 2: lot of this is like mess I'm okay with like
Speaker 2: emphasizing Trump as a convicted fellow, and I actually supported that,
Speaker 2: as you know, like that yeahs over independence. But there
Speaker 2: is a kind of economic message that we made which
Speaker 2: I don't think people have really addressed. And I think
Speaker 2: this is where the public would be on side with Biden,
Speaker 2: which is like, you know, if Trump gets in, his
Speaker 2: tax cuts are up for renewal in twenty twenty five,
Speaker 2: so what over the next president is working with Congress,
Speaker 2: They're going to decide the fate of those tax cuts.
Speaker 2: We're talking about brillions of dollars here, like overwhelmingly skewed
Speaker 2: towards rich people, and those tax cuts weren't popular with
Speaker 2: the public. I think the idea of extending them even
Speaker 2: further so that they you know, started putting things like
Speaker 2: Medicare and social Security in Jeopardy that would be very unpopular,
Speaker 2: and so I think, yeah, I think, you know, like
Speaker 2: prescription drugs, you could hammer on that. You know, there's
Speaker 2: a lot of messaging stuff. I think on the inflation
Speaker 2: side of it. The stuff that Elizabeth Warren keeps talking
Speaker 2: about is emphasizing the corporate gouging, you know, like these
Speaker 2: kind of profiteering that some company he took advantage of
Speaker 2: as a result of the pandemic and as a result
Speaker 2: of supply chain difficulties and the Biden White House, you know,
Speaker 2: like they've been going back and forth on this. They
Speaker 2: did talk about it for a while, then they became silent.
Speaker 2: They're talking about it again now, and I think that
Speaker 2: all the polling shows this is very popular, and this
Speaker 2: is actually a way of addressing the inflation issue in
Speaker 2: a way that the Democrats can win and separate them
Speaker 2: out from the Republicans. Because maybe Trump will like opportunistically
Speaker 2: say heal also go after corporate gouging. But I think
Speaker 2: you can play to his own record.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's no world in which Trump is going after
Speaker 1: corporate gouging. That's like a complete joke.
Speaker 2: Of course, that's his mold model for any buddy. So
Speaker 2: you know, the Biden White House. I think they have
Speaker 2: a good issue there and I think they're talking about
Speaker 2: it again now, But I don't know if like they
Speaker 2: have the credibility that Elizabeth Warren os. So I honestly
Speaker 2: think like, you know, like having Warren out there and saying,
Speaker 2: you know, like my good friend Joe Bidens is like,
Speaker 2: you know with me on this, and then you know
Speaker 2: the way House kind of agree with that. But I
Speaker 2: mean like there's a lot of stuff like that that
Speaker 2: they can really emphasize, you know, have her home, point
Speaker 2: out the differences, I point out the way like not
Speaker 2: just that Biden has done good stuff on the economy,
Speaker 2: because a lot of people are still purtying. I mean,
Speaker 2: the whole pandemic was very traumatizing, but actually say like
Speaker 2: Biden's actually gonna fight for you on this front and
Speaker 2: that these are the actual villains who are responsible for
Speaker 2: the inflation to some degree, Like this sort of message
Speaker 2: goes against Joe Biden's instincts, which are sort of conflicted verse,
Speaker 2: which aren't in favor of like kind of you know,
Speaker 2: making corporate American escapeboat. But if he can't do it,
Speaker 2: I think there are other people in the party that
Speaker 2: can make that message.
Speaker 1: Right now, now, agreed, How does Biden break through this
Speaker 1: sort of media bubble? You know, if you get your
Speaker 1: news from newspapers, use Fort Biden, And if you get
Speaker 1: your news from many other venues, you support Trump. So
Speaker 1: how does Biden break through that media bubble?
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is like such a big problem that it's
Speaker 2: somebody you kind of need a time machine because you know,
Speaker 2: like if I were could go back ten years and
Speaker 2: tell like, you know, Democratic billionaires to be investing in anything,
Speaker 2: it would be like, you know, all these kind of
Speaker 2: like fake websites for local news that the Republicans have
Speaker 2: set up, Like if they could have done the same
Speaker 2: thing now. But having said that, I mean they are
Speaker 2: all that. Podcasting is one example. There are things that
Speaker 2: kind of reach people that don't pay attention to newspapers,
Speaker 2: you know, like Obama went on like WTFF that Mark
Speaker 2: bren podcasts and that sort of stuff, and went on
Speaker 2: sports podcasts. I think like if both Biden and the
Speaker 2: Democrats that kind of had a media strategy that's focused
Speaker 2: on these kind of alternative venues, that might be it.
Speaker 2: And especially like non political stop like I think you
Speaker 2: go on a sports show or an entertainment show. Then
Speaker 2: people who habitually tune out politics, you can possibly reach them.
Speaker 2: But again I want to underscore, I think this has
Speaker 2: to be a Democratic party scene, not a I didn't
Speaker 2: think do it in some ways. I mean, like the
Speaker 2: Obama people, you know, really use that strategy in twenty twelve,
Speaker 2: that even afterwards in terms of trying to push you
Speaker 2: some of Obama's agenda. So I mean I think that
Speaker 2: they're the ones worth listening to on this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's a really good point. Get here,
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 2: Oh always great to be out.
Speaker 1: Spring us here, and I bet you are trying to
Speaker 1: look fashionable, So why not pick up some fashionable all
Speaker 1: new Fast Politics merchandise. We just opened a news store
Speaker 1: with all new designs just for you. Get t shirts, hoodies, hats,
Speaker 1: and top bags. To grab some head to fastpolitics dot com.
Speaker 1: Will Rollins is a candidate for Congress in the forty
Speaker 1: first district of California. Welcome back to Fast Politics, hopefully
Speaker 1: soon to be Congressman Will Roland.
Speaker 3: Thanks Mollie, great to be back.
Speaker 1: We have a lot of congress people on this podcast
Speaker 1: and a lot of people running for Congress on this podcast.
Speaker 1: But you are a member of my family because you represent,
Speaker 1: or you will hopefully represent, the district that my father
Speaker 1: lives in.
Speaker 4: Yes, the Coachella Valley, hom Spring, Mom, Desert, Rancho, Mirage, Lakinta,
Speaker 4: Indian Wells. So we got some great cities to represent
Speaker 4: in the House.
Speaker 1: Tell us who you represented by and explained to us
Speaker 1: what this looks like.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so this is a brand new district in southern
Speaker 4: California that was created in redistricting. And Ken Calvert, who's
Speaker 4: my opponent, had represented a traditionally deep red part of
Speaker 4: the Inland Empire, and in redistricting he lost very Republican
Speaker 4: cities Marietta, where my cousins still live, a northern Temecula,
Speaker 4: and he picked up the Coachella Valley, which is a
Speaker 4: much more heavily Democratic area in registration. And so after
Speaker 4: twenty twenty two, the district went from a Trump plus
Speaker 4: seven to a Democratic majority electorate in November of that year,
Speaker 4: and it's kind of seesawed back and forth between rs
Speaker 4: and d's with just a few thousand votes either direction
Speaker 4: and about ninety thousand independents. So it's become one of
Speaker 4: the most competitive house races in the country and a
Speaker 4: critical pickup opportunity for Democrats in twenty four.
Speaker 1: I want to point out that Ken Calver sucks, but
Speaker 1: tell us why. I'm known for my subtlety.
Speaker 4: He's been in Congress since nineteen ninety two, so I
Speaker 4: was eight years old when he was first elected, and
Speaker 4: in that time his net worth has gone up by
Speaker 4: twenty million dollars if you look at his financial disclosures,
Speaker 4: and part of the way that he's made his money
Speaker 4: has been through real estate and using earmarks to benefit
Speaker 4: his own investments. And I'll just give one example of that,
Speaker 4: which interestingly, Fox News did a seven minute documentary talking
Speaker 4: about his use of earmarks for personal gain. And he
Speaker 4: buys up vacant parcel of land earmarks transportation projects nearby,
Speaker 4: turns around flips the property for enormous profit. So it's
Speaker 4: a version of insider trading that basically involves real estate.
Speaker 4: And I've found that a lot of folks in the district,
Speaker 4: you know, cross party lines, don't like their tax dollars
Speaker 4: being used to line the pockets of their own member
Speaker 4: of Congress. So that's been one of the many reasons
Speaker 4: why I think we're going to flip the seat in
Speaker 4: the fall. But he's also had, you know, a horrible
Speaker 4: record on democracy, on choice, on LGBTQ rights, and really
Speaker 4: just delivering for working families. I mean the guy, you know,
Speaker 4: those of us in blue states. He actually increased our
Speaker 4: taxes with that twenty seventeen bill that made it harder
Speaker 4: for us to deduct state and local income taxes, made
Speaker 4: it harder for us to deduct our mortgage interest at
Speaker 4: a time when the rates are at all time highs.
Speaker 4: And so I've really tried to focus on what he's
Speaker 4: done to hurt the pocket books of constituents, whether it's
Speaker 4: you know, voting against capping the cost of insulin at
Speaker 4: thirty five dollars a month, voting against capping the out
Speaker 4: of pocket prescription drug costs at twenty five hundred dollars
Speaker 4: a year for senior, all of these really bread and
Speaker 4: butter issues that are driving a lot of voters in
Speaker 4: the Inland Empire who are faced with rising costs and
Speaker 4: seeing their own member of Congress get twenty million bucks
Speaker 4: since he was first elected.
Speaker 3: And I always ask.
Speaker 4: People when I'm in rooms, I'm like, how many people
Speaker 4: here have seen their net worth go out by twenty
Speaker 4: million dollars since nineteen ninety two. You know, shockingly, no
Speaker 4: hands go up in the room. And we've got a
Speaker 4: member of Congress who's really been using his position to
Speaker 4: enrich himself, which I think is one of the biggest
Speaker 4: motivators for people in our district.
Speaker 1: I'm really shocked that he hasn't made more money. I
Speaker 1: mean it's been a many years. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: like if you're doing something that sketchy like anyway. But
Speaker 1: he's probably not that smart. So let's talk about how
Speaker 1: it's been. You've run before. This is the second time
Speaker 1: you've run. You came very close to the first time.
Speaker 1: Talk to us about that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So I had a very different career before I
Speaker 4: ran for Congress in twenty two. I worked in federal
Speaker 4: law enforcement. I was a federal prosecutor in Southern California,
Speaker 4: and I especially in counter terrorism and counterintelligence, and I
Speaker 4: loved the job. Honestly didn't think that I would leave
Speaker 4: that job for a very long time. But after January sixth,
Speaker 4: there were about two dozen people who flew back to
Speaker 4: Southern California after attacking the capital, and part of our
Speaker 4: job was to help our colleagues in Washington, round these
Speaker 4: spokes up, get them arraigned, help the FBI with search
Speaker 4: warrants after the capital attack, and get them back to
Speaker 4: DC where they could face trial. And while we were
Speaker 4: doing that, Ken Calbert was voting to decertify the election,
Speaker 4: voting against the Committee to investigate, and then final straw
Speaker 4: for me called for dropping charges against these people. And so,
Speaker 4: I mean, the truth about the first time I ran
Speaker 4: is that I was just pissed off. I felt like
Speaker 4: it was righteous. It was a Trump plus seven seat.
Speaker 4: Everybody told me it was unwinnable. I didn't really care.
Speaker 4: Famous last words to my partner, I was like, I promise,
Speaker 4: I'll only do this once. Here we are now, because
Speaker 4: I literally found out that I lost the election while
Speaker 4: I was on the floor of the House of Representatives
Speaker 4: a new member training in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Two, because it was so close, right.
Speaker 4: And they were still counting ballots, and we expected that
Speaker 4: the ballots would break our way because the registrar had
Speaker 4: said that the remaining were mail in, but unfortunately for us,
Speaker 4: that included mail in ballots that people had completed at
Speaker 4: home and then physically dropped off at a drop bot.
Speaker 4: And so it ended up swinging towards Republicans at the end.
Speaker 4: But ultimately, at the end of the day, i'ming that
Speaker 4: close with only six months after my primary and looking
Speaker 4: at some of the underlying data in this district, you know,
Speaker 4: figuring out that we ended up being the only challenger
Speaker 4: in the state of California to win. Independent voters had
Speaker 4: a really good performance compared to the Biden number in
Speaker 4: this district. Neither Biden nor Trump broke fifty percent in
Speaker 4: this district, and we lost less than one percent off
Speaker 4: Biden's vote share, which I think is a very good
Speaker 4: sign when you have a low turnout conservative electorate in California,
Speaker 4: where we had almost an eight point gap between registered
Speaker 4: Republicans sixty one percent of whom voted in twenty two
Speaker 4: and only fifty three percent roughly of registered Democrats. And
Speaker 4: so in a presidential year, when you can get that
Speaker 4: close in a midterm and you come back and do
Speaker 4: it again, build up your name ID, you have a
Speaker 4: much better shot. And I'm really excited this time because
Speaker 4: our name ID has been going up and even with
Speaker 4: just fifty to sixty percent name IDA in the district,
Speaker 4: now we already have a one point lead in the
Speaker 4: polls Calvert Scott, you know, eighty to ninety percent. Name
Speaker 4: idea which tells me we have room to grow even
Speaker 4: from that narrow lead that we currently have.
Speaker 1: Sounds like what are you running on?
Speaker 4: Economic populism is a big part of this campaign and
Speaker 4: anti corruption reform because of the unique nature of the matchup.
Speaker 4: I talk a lot about my experience working alongside Republicans
Speaker 4: and Democrats in law enforcement. You know, my first job
Speaker 4: out of college was for a Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Speaker 4: even though I've been a lifelong Democrat. And it's really
Speaker 4: a theme of public service versus self enrichment And who
Speaker 4: do you want to be your voice in Washington, d C.
Speaker 4: Do you want somebody who's going to enrich himself to
Speaker 4: the team of twenty million since he got elected. Do
Speaker 4: you want somebody who's been ranked one of the most
Speaker 4: corrupt members of Congress? Do you want somebody who's Republican
Speaker 4: colleagues tried to keep them off the Appropriations Committee because
Speaker 4: they were worried about his ethics? I mean, or do
Speaker 4: you want somebody who's going to vote to ban all members.
Speaker 3: Of Congress from trading stock?
Speaker 4: Do you want somebody who's going to vote to impose
Speaker 4: a lifetime lobbying by former members of Congress to vote
Speaker 4: to overturn Citizens United so that we get dark money
Speaker 4: and the power of special interests in corporations out of politics,
Speaker 4: because there's no way that you're going to pay less
Speaker 4: for your gas, your groceries, your rent if you have
Speaker 4: a member of Congress who is only worried about his
Speaker 4: real estate portfolio. And I talk a lot about that
Speaker 4: because people in the Iland Empire are seeing huge increases
Speaker 4: in their rents. I mean, studio apartments in Corona are
Speaker 4: going for two thousand bucks a month now, and our
Speaker 4: member is one of the largest real estate owners in
Speaker 4: the district. And I think there's just this contrast between
Speaker 4: working families and you know, the support we've gotten from
Speaker 4: so many incredible labor unions who are really earning a
Speaker 4: living because of the power of collective bargaining. I mean,
Speaker 4: being able to earn six figures in a county where
Speaker 4: the median income is seventy thousand dollars per household because
Speaker 4: some of these folks are going out and working on
Speaker 4: the ninety one seventy one exchange in Corona, for example.
Speaker 1: Can you explain what that is.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so this was a project in the Inland Empire.
Speaker 4: The ninety one and seventy one are notoriously congested freeways
Speaker 4: in our district, and there's an exchange that is trying
Speaker 4: to kind of alleviate some of the traffic in that
Speaker 4: area that has been funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill.
Speaker 4: At least part of the funding has come from that
Speaker 4: bipartisan legislation that Calvert voted against. And there's about three
Speaker 4: hundred million in infrastructure funding overall coming to Riverside County
Speaker 4: over the objection of Ken Calvert.
Speaker 3: That was again an bill that he voted against.
Speaker 4: And so it's pretty incredible to go to these job
Speaker 4: training facilities that these unions have and I just went
Speaker 4: to the sheet metal Workers job training facility last week
Speaker 4: and seeing the faces of these apprentices light up when
Speaker 4: they're talking about the careers and the path that they
Speaker 4: have ahead of them.
Speaker 3: And you don't need a college degree for this.
Speaker 4: My grandfather was a welder, never even finished high school,
Speaker 4: ended up starting a small business that still operates to
Speaker 4: this day. And I think that kind of opportunity and
Speaker 4: living the American dream and seeing the ability to earn
Speaker 4: a living and have a retirement is something that everybody
Speaker 4: can relate to, no matter what party you belong to.
Speaker 4: You just have to have or of Congress who cares
Speaker 4: about actually delivering that for Riverside County. And so that's
Speaker 4: some of them. I think the most important things that
Speaker 4: we've been campaigning on in this district.
Speaker 1: I am very obsessed with the idea of stopping trading.
Speaker 1: Members of Congress not trade stocks. There is some bipartisan
Speaker 1: support to it. Do you think there's a world in
Speaker 1: which you could actually do that, you could actually get
Speaker 1: that done?
Speaker 4: I do, And I think about the example of Abigail
Speaker 4: Spamberger and Matt Gates, who I think have co sponsored
Speaker 4: a bill to do this, And I think if you
Speaker 4: can see people like that, who are about as different
Speaker 4: as they come, you know, unite on that kind of
Speaker 4: a ban, it tells you how popular it is for
Speaker 4: one thing across party line. And we've seen this in
Speaker 4: our districts. I mean ninety percent of people in both
Speaker 4: parties ninety percent plus ninety percent of independence. And I
Speaker 4: actually think Democrats this cycle have an opportunity to champion
Speaker 4: that kind of good government reform to channel the populist
Speaker 4: rage that we've all seen directed at Congress with all
Speaker 4: time low approval ratings into productive change. I mean, Congress
Speaker 4: needs to show the American people that it cares about
Speaker 4: policing itself, that it cares about turnover in that body,
Speaker 4: that it cares about passing the torch to a new
Speaker 4: generation too. I think a lot of people have seen,
Speaker 4: you know, people like Calvert go for three decades, which
Speaker 4: is a big part of the reason I've been talking
Speaker 4: about term limits this cycle that are also popular across
Speaker 4: you know, ninety percent of party lines, and I know
Speaker 4: there's Look, there's good arguments on both sides of this issue.
Speaker 4: At the end of the day, I think the public's
Speaker 4: confidence in the institution needs to be restored with a
Speaker 4: massive change, and I think that we as Democrats are
Speaker 4: in a unique position to campaign on that kind of
Speaker 4: populist for reform because unfortunately, right now the other side
Speaker 4: will never never support any of these kinds of good
Speaker 4: government reforms, But the public are craving it, and so
Speaker 4: I think that's why it's been successful for us.
Speaker 1: Certainly true, when you talk to people in your district,
Speaker 1: what do they tell you? What are there besides the
Speaker 1: real estate being expensive, which again partially the FED is
Speaker 1: to blame for people not being able to buy houses,
Speaker 1: but also California is notoriously expensive for the estate wise.
Speaker 1: What else do you see that you're listening to people
Speaker 1: say that you think could help the Biden administration, could
Speaker 1: help the Biden campaign, or could help Democrats win Just in.
Speaker 4: General, I think we need to lean in on the
Speaker 4: issues where Republicans think that they have the high ground,
Speaker 4: you know, and that includes things like immigration and crime.
Speaker 4: And so when people talk to me about they say
Speaker 4: that they're worried about the border, or they're worried about
Speaker 4: prime in California. I talk a lot about my bio
Speaker 4: and I make sure that people know the contrast between
Speaker 4: you know, somebody who worked in federal law enforcement and
Speaker 4: prosecuted members of m S thirteen, the Cinelo Cartel, Fedanyl traffickers,
Speaker 4: and Calvert, who has said that the FBI has been
Speaker 4: infiltrated by rot who has voted defund federal law enforcement.
Speaker 3: I mean that was one.
Speaker 4: Of the votes, the last votes when McCarthy was Speaker,
Speaker 4: that Continuing Resolution, you know, voted to cut funding from
Speaker 4: border patrol. And you know, the guys got signs all
Speaker 4: over our district that say secure the border, and I say,
Speaker 4: the guys had thirty two years to secure the border
Speaker 4: and he hasn't gotten it done. And his allies just
Speaker 4: killed the toughest bipartisan border security bill in a generation
Speaker 4: because they just want to use it as a campaign issue.
Speaker 4: And we have to keep repeating that message and talk
Speaker 4: about what we want to do to secure the border.
Speaker 4: You know, modern technology, drones, thermal imaging, more boots on
Speaker 4: the ground. And by the way, the Border Patrol Union
Speaker 4: supported that bill that Calvert refused to support, and so
Speaker 4: I think we as Democrats have to lean in on
Speaker 4: that issue and know how hypocritical and cynical some of
Speaker 4: these members of Congress are in the GOP caucus and
Speaker 4: certainly at the top of the ticket, the same is
Speaker 4: absolutely true because Trump told Congress to kill the bill
Speaker 4: so that he could use it as a campaign issue.
Speaker 4: And I think that all of us as Democrats, collectively,
Speaker 4: from the top of the ticket on down, cannot surrender.
Speaker 4: On immigration, crime, economy, these are the issues where Republicans think, oh,
Speaker 4: you know, we're just inherently trusted to deal with this,
Speaker 4: and they're horrible on each one.
Speaker 3: Of those issues, and we have there.
Speaker 4: We really just have to keep hammering our own messaging
Speaker 4: on it. We want a secure border, We want to
Speaker 4: bring folks here who can help with the labor shortage
Speaker 4: but are here legally, right. We want to provide a
Speaker 4: path to citizenship for DOCA recipients, but all of that
Speaker 4: needs to be couched in the framing of border security.
Speaker 4: And also talking about Brian, I mean, these guys are
Speaker 4: now campaigning proudly for a convicted felon, but setting aside Trump, right,
Speaker 4: I mean, just think about their criminal justice policies and
Speaker 4: how unsafe they make all of us. I mean, I
Speaker 4: give the example of gun violence. After 'v allde Calvert
Speaker 4: votes against background checks for weapons. We've had two Riverside
Speaker 4: County sheriff's deputies killed in the past few years by
Speaker 4: felons who never should have gotten their hands on firearms.
Speaker 4: So these guys have no idea how to keep you
Speaker 4: or your kids safe at school, and we as Democrats
Speaker 4: have to be talking about public safety more and what
Speaker 4: we want to do to get guns out of the
Speaker 4: hands of people who are a threat to our community.
Speaker 4: With a basic federal red flag law, for example, that
Speaker 4: just says, if you threaten to shoot up a school
Speaker 4: with an AR fifteen, the cops can go with a
Speaker 4: court order and take away AR fifth team before you
Speaker 4: commit the mass shooting. I mean, even NRA members in
Speaker 4: my district I've talked to have said, yeah, that makes
Speaker 4: sense to me. And if you're if you're getting some
Speaker 4: agreement from even the line members regular you know, members
Speaker 4: of the NRA in Riverside County, it tells you how
Speaker 4: out of step Ken Calvert is with the general public.
Speaker 4: And why, you know, we got to own these issues
Speaker 4: where ninety percent of the public is with us and
Speaker 4: we just have to keep talking about them to make
Speaker 4: sure our messaging sinks in.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. Thank you so much, Will Rollins. I wish
Speaker 1: you all the best. Michael Waldman is President and CEO
Speaker 1: of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to Fast Politics, Michael, Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1: So it's Supreme Court season. Do you live and breathe
Speaker 1: the court and the law. But I, as a hobbyist,
Speaker 1: get a big break from how they're fucking up our
Speaker 1: country and then in and I am reminded of what
Speaker 1: lunatics they are don't we still have like twenty seven
Speaker 1: cases to go.
Speaker 5: One of the lessons here is this sort of like
Speaker 5: school teacher lesson, don't save your work for the last minute.
Speaker 5: It suggests that there's still a lot of brawling going
Speaker 5: on behind the scenes.
Speaker 1: Oh does it say more about that.
Speaker 5: The cases they have taken are extraordinarily controversial, extraordinarily political.
Speaker 5: One assumes that at least on some of them, the dissenters,
Speaker 5: you know, most often that's going to be Sodo Mayor
Speaker 5: and Kagan and Jackson are trying to get their licks in,
Speaker 5: so we'll see. But this idea that we sit around
Speaker 5: every June waiting for these government officials, because that's what
Speaker 5: they are. You know, they're not wizards, even though they
Speaker 5: wear robes, they're not religious figures. They're just government officials
Speaker 5: with a lifetime job. Waiting for them to tell us
Speaker 5: what country we live in is not how other countries
Speaker 5: do it. It's not also how our country has done
Speaker 5: it for a lot of its time. And it's a
Speaker 5: it's kind of nutty in my view.
Speaker 1: It's completely nutty. And I'm hoping you could talk for
Speaker 1: a minute about what I've been struck by. Is like
Speaker 1: they said, Robert said, like, we're done with abortion after
Speaker 1: they overturned Row right after Dobbs. And in fact what
Speaker 1: happened was they now have two cases in the docket.
Speaker 1: One is this methapristone abortion pill, which was kicked off
Speaker 1: on standing. But the fact that the Fifth Circuit even
Speaker 1: got excited by it, though the Fifth Circuit is very
Speaker 1: right wing, was crazy, right, Like, that's not a victory
Speaker 1: for liberals that they weren't going to just take away
Speaker 1: a drug because people in Texas wanted them to. And
Speaker 1: then this Imdala case. Can you talk about those sort
Speaker 1: of implications of both of them.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think the MEPhI prisone case is really significant.
Speaker 5: It's not just the Fifth Circuit, which is the most
Speaker 5: reactionary federal court in the whole country. This sort of
Speaker 5: root and toot in Texas federal appeals, right, that even
Speaker 5: this Supreme Court these days seems to enjoy, you know,
Speaker 5: swatting down. It's that there was this one judge in Amarillo, Texas,
Speaker 5: Judge Kasmeric who's a big anti abortion activist, right, who
Speaker 5: used to.
Speaker 1: Be a real activist, right, I mean he was never
Speaker 1: he was like a real anti choice activist.
Speaker 5: Well, his sister very helpfully told journalists that his mission
Speaker 5: was to end abushed in the United States. But you know,
Speaker 5: the rules in Texas and only in Texas, are that
Speaker 5: you basically can pick your judge. And so people go
Speaker 5: to Amarillo and they form a group in Amarillo to
Speaker 5: bring a case. And this was the issue with standing
Speaker 5: was not just that they basically took a right wing
Speaker 5: tweet and tried to get it made into a Supreme
Speaker 5: Court ruling, but that they made up the plaintiff so
Speaker 5: they could go to this one courtroom in this one
Speaker 5: town in Texas to get this one judge to make
Speaker 5: this ruling that mephipristone, which is the way the majority
Speaker 5: of abortion care is done in this country, that the
Speaker 5: Food and Drug Administration had messed up the way it
Speaker 5: did its approvals two decades ago. It was absolutely a
Speaker 5: ridiculous argument. And among other things, the gazillion dollar pharmaceutical
Speaker 5: industry was a guest.
Speaker 1: Right, I mean that you could see how they might
Speaker 1: have problems with it.
Speaker 5: I was not surprised that the court ruled the way
Speaker 5: they did, and it was nine to nothing. As you said,
Speaker 5: on standing, first of all, and this goes to the problem,
Speaker 5: right now with the Supreme Court, I would have been
Speaker 5: absolutely astonished if they'd done anything other than rule to
Speaker 5: keep methipristone on the market. And the reason is if
Speaker 5: they had ruled otherwise, Democrats would have won three hundred
Speaker 5: House seats. And if you want a predictive lens right now,
Speaker 5: look at the Supreme Court on how it's making rulings.
Speaker 5: Understanding what is in the electoral interests of the Republican
Speaker 5: Party is probably the best way to make predictions. You
Speaker 5: would do pretty well on that. But they also winked
Speaker 5: on this and said, there's this law from the nineteen hundred,
Speaker 5: the eighteen hundred, I mean the Comstock, which was this
Speaker 5: kind of banning smut in the males and contraception and.
Speaker 1: The rifles to keep women from becoming lasidious.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and that they could use that meaning come back
Speaker 5: to us after the election. It was a little bit
Speaker 5: of a hint.
Speaker 1: And we heard it in the oral arguments too. I
Speaker 1: mean they both Alido and tom As mentioned Comstock, not
Speaker 1: by name but by number.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 5: And this idea that, oh, you know, we're just letting
Speaker 5: the people decide, We're letting the states decide. They're kind
Speaker 5: of noticing that every time the people get a chance
Speaker 5: to decide this, they decide for reproductive freedom. So you know,
Speaker 5: at least for a Thomas and Alito, they're letting their
Speaker 5: free flag fly here a bit. The truth is, there
Speaker 5: was a settled consensus on abortion rights in the United
Speaker 5: States for many years. It was not necessarily what the
Speaker 5: most ardent pro choice activists wanted. It was certainly not
Speaker 5: what the anti abortion activists wanted, but it was reflected
Speaker 5: in the case called Casey, which allowed for some restrictions
Speaker 5: but basically broadly you know, reproductive rights and throwing it
Speaker 5: open to the system has led to chaos, confusion, women
Speaker 5: being forced to flee their states, but also lots and
Speaker 5: lots more lawsuits and so you know. The other big
Speaker 5: case that they haven't ruled on yet has to do
Speaker 5: with whether emergency rooms have to provide stabilizing care to patients.
Speaker 5: This is also one of these things where doctors already
Speaker 5: have all kinds of conscience clauses and other things. This
Speaker 5: one will also very possibly be decided not on the
Speaker 5: kind of guts of it, but on questions of whether
Speaker 5: federal law preempts or not. But they're going to just
Speaker 5: having to hear more and more of these cases over time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's such an interesting point because the broad strokes
Speaker 1: in which the Supreme Court is interested in remaking the
Speaker 1: country are pretty profound and alarming. I want you to
Speaker 1: sort of talk us through kind of where we are
Speaker 1: and what could happen and what the sort of thinking
Speaker 1: is to save American democracy.
Speaker 5: I think that we're in period and this has happened
Speaker 5: a few times before in the country's history, not all
Speaker 5: that often, but a few times before, where the Court
Speaker 5: has been captured by a faction of a faction. It
Speaker 5: is now fully in the grip of the federalist society
Speaker 5: and of a very extreme conservative politically conservative set of views. Fully,
Speaker 5: and you know, it is an institution with vast power,
Speaker 5: and it turns out minimal accountability and thus really significant
Speaker 5: susceptibility to this kind of thing. My book is called
Speaker 5: the Supermajority because there's now six of these justices and
Speaker 5: they move more or less in lockstep. And in the
Speaker 5: first year that they had control, they overturned Roe v. Wade.
Speaker 5: They put all these other privacy rights at risk. They
Speaker 5: also issued the most extreme Second Amendment ruling by far
Speaker 5: in the country's history, in a case called Bruin, which
Speaker 5: said that you can, in effect that you cannot consider
Speaker 5: contemporary public safety concerns when deciding if a gun law
Speaker 5: is okay under the Second Amendment only quote history tradition,
Speaker 5: meaning what were the gun laws in seventeen ninety one.
Speaker 1: This opens the door to this insane textualism, which I
Speaker 1: would love you to talk about, but keep going.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 5: And the third thing they did in that first three
Speaker 5: days that they were ruling was begin an assault on
Speaker 5: the ability of the government to protect the environment, public safety,
Speaker 5: public health, that kind of thing. And that is something
Speaker 5: that is if you want to say, well, what's continued.
Speaker 5: You know, last year they overturned the use of race
Speaker 5: and college admissions. One of the things they're doing now,
Speaker 5: case after case after case, they're chipping away at the
Speaker 5: ability of regulatory agencies of the government to protect public
Speaker 5: health and safety and fair markets, and that stuff is like,
Speaker 5: you know, it's less vivid, it's more arcane. But a
Speaker 5: lot of these earlier cases were for the I always
Speaker 5: said was for the base. This is for the paying customers.
Speaker 5: This is what a lot of businesses and a lot
Speaker 5: of right wing legal advocates have wanted, which is to
Speaker 5: try to use for Thisupreme Court to try to use
Speaker 5: its power to curb the ability to act to protect
Speaker 5: the public. And that's going to continue for a long,
Speaker 5: long long time.
Speaker 1: So that's like Koch brothers fantasy stuff.
Speaker 5: It's what they pin on their dorm wall.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 5: The question is what can we do about it? The
Speaker 5: Court is acting in this political way, and there is
Speaker 5: a backlash. And in our country's history when the Supreme
Speaker 5: Court has been extreme or partisan or unduly activist, there
Speaker 5: is very often a very significant and very political backlash.
Speaker 5: And this is not really a backlash that's going to
Speaker 5: come in courtrooms or even in law review notes, but
Speaker 5: in the in the ballot box and on the streets.
Speaker 5: And the issue of the Supreme Court has to become
Speaker 5: and how to reform it and its corruption have to
Speaker 5: become central political issues. And that's how we can gain
Speaker 5: control of the situation.
Speaker 1: I think, so talk to us about what that looks like.
Speaker 1: First two two minutes on textualism, because I think I think
Speaker 1: our listeners need to understand that the way that the
Speaker 1: right is lying about these insane decisions they're making is
Speaker 1: that they're saying that they come from the text of
Speaker 1: the Constitution. Can you say more about that?
Speaker 5: Yeah, And it's the text of the Constitution, and it's
Speaker 5: the text of these laws too. So originalism is the
Speaker 5: idea that the only legitimate way to interpret the Constitution
Speaker 5: is to ask what it meant to the people who
Speaker 5: ratified it, meaning most of the time property owning white
Speaker 5: men from the seventeen hundreds, that we should be governed
Speaker 5: today by their social values. Textualism is kind of like
Speaker 5: a cousin of originalism. It's the same notion in a way.
Speaker 5: And it's the idea that when you look at a
Speaker 5: provision of the Constitution, but especially of a law that
Speaker 5: was passed by Congress, you don't ask, well, what's the
Speaker 5: idea here, what's the idea behind this law? Have things changed?
Speaker 5: How do we apply that idea? What did Congress mean
Speaker 5: when it did this thing? Textualism the way they do
Speaker 5: it is look at the word on the page, like
Speaker 5: cut it out with the scissors, and let's look at
Speaker 5: the word and get a bunch of dictionaries. Literally, they
Speaker 5: sit around quoting dictionaries and saying, well, this is what
Speaker 5: this word means. Well, no, this is what this word means.
Speaker 5: As though, of course we all carry around dictionaries all day,
Speaker 5: don't we. I mean, and certainly one of the things
Speaker 5: I like to point is there had not been any
Speaker 5: dictionaries at the time of the Constitutional Convention. Noah Webster
Speaker 5: didn't do the dictionary until several years later. So the
Speaker 5: idea that everyone's sitting around with dictionaries. But so, this
Speaker 5: bump stock gun case was not really a case about
Speaker 5: the Second Amendment. It was a pro gun case. But
Speaker 5: they didn't say, oh, the Second Amendment says you can't
Speaker 5: do this. Remember, this was what after this demonic person
Speaker 5: modified his semi automatic weapon to make it into a
Speaker 5: machine gun basically, and killed fifty six people at a
Speaker 5: music festival in Las Vegas and wounded I think hundreds
Speaker 5: more out the window of his hotel room, and the
Speaker 5: Trump administration, backed by believe it or not, the NRA,
Speaker 5: issued this ruling that said, oh, you know, that's like
Speaker 5: a machine gun, and machine guns have been illegal since
Speaker 5: the nineteen thirties. Congress passed the law responding to the threat.
Speaker 5: This is true of Bonnie and Clyde and John Dillinger.
Speaker 5: They've made machine guns illegal, but the text of the
Speaker 5: law didn't say you must not use a bump stock
Speaker 5: to turn your weapon into a machine gun.
Speaker 1: Perhaps because they didn't have bump stocks back then.
Speaker 5: Right, And it was obviously what Congress intended. They were
Speaker 5: not saying, we, you know, we really want you have
Speaker 5: a machine gun as long as you use the right dictionary.
Speaker 5: But that's basically what the court said, and it was
Speaker 5: yet another six to three ruling. It was just a
Speaker 5: pro gun ruling, right. And a lot of the time,
Speaker 5: now what Congress, what the Supreme Court is doing on
Speaker 5: these cases involving again environmental and other kinds of regulation,
Speaker 5: is they're taking the power away from the government agencies
Speaker 5: that sometimes have to act to protect the public without
Speaker 5: waiting around for Congress to pass a new law. And
Speaker 5: very often Congress has passed a law, and sometimes the
Speaker 5: laws are kind of broad, and they expect them to
Speaker 5: be implemented by the people who are the experts. And
Speaker 5: that's kind of what Congress wants, that's what our democratic
Speaker 5: system wants. These right wing judges are saying, oh, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 5: Congress must pass a law with great specifics about what
Speaker 5: it is they want to have happened, which of course
Speaker 5: means much of the time that right wing judges get
Speaker 5: to decide what agencies can and can't do. And are Congress,
Speaker 5: who we love so much, you know, they're not like
Speaker 5: the most functional legislative body in the world. Right now,
Speaker 5: who's kidding who about what they're going to be able
Speaker 5: to do?
Speaker 1: Right exactly? There are a lot more decisions. We're taping
Speaker 1: this on Tuesday. It'll come out of Wednesday, on Thursday
Speaker 1: and Friday. There are more decisions and more decisions and
Speaker 1: more decisions. One of the things that this Supreme Court
Speaker 1: has historically done is they have historically released the last
Speaker 1: controversial decisions earlier and saved the really big decisions for
Speaker 1: right when they go on vacation, so they don't have
Speaker 1: to deal with protests. How unusual is that? And is
Speaker 1: that what they're going to do with immunity? You don't
Speaker 1: have to predict, but it sure seems likely.
Speaker 5: It doesn't, so I think of it as like foaming
Speaker 5: the runway. So they did this, that's mephropristone ruling first.
Speaker 5: So the liberals will go, ah, they're really so fair minded,
Speaker 5: you know.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 5: Look, to my mind, there's some big rulings yet to come.
Speaker 5: They may trim back their crazy doctrine on the Second
Speaker 5: Amendment in a case called Rahimi.
Speaker 1: The oral arguments during Rahimi sounded like they might not
Speaker 1: go crazy. But again, sometimes these guys in the oral
Speaker 1: arguments sound saner than they actually are.
Speaker 5: Right, Yeah, Yogi Berra, the great baseball player said, never
Speaker 5: make predictions, especially about the future. But I think we
Speaker 5: can expect them to further curb the ability of government
Speaker 5: agencies to protect the environment and other things by overturning
Speaker 5: something called Chevron defference.
Speaker 1: Talk about Chevron deference because it's so important what it means.
Speaker 5: There's a long standing rule for decades, a practice that
Speaker 5: said that if a law passed by Congress is unclear,
Speaker 5: that the experts and the regulatory agencies can interpret it,
Speaker 5: and judges will defer to the way the experts and
Speaker 5: the agencies see what the language means, unless there's a
Speaker 5: good reason not to. And this would say no, no, no.
Speaker 5: Judges basically can make these decisions, and added to other
Speaker 5: things that the Supreme Court has done in recent years,
Speaker 5: it would again really significantly undermine the ability to act
Speaker 5: on everything from the next pandemic to climate change, to
Speaker 5: health and safety regulation and others. To me, the biggest
Speaker 5: thing the Supreme Court is going to be remembered for
Speaker 5: this year. You know what historians will look back, if
Speaker 5: there are historians, what they look back at this term
Speaker 5: as being about is the Donald Trump immunity case. And
Speaker 5: on that one, court has already done its damage in
Speaker 5: my view right.
Speaker 1: Because they've been giving him time to differ so he wins.
Speaker 5: Yes. In other words, it is a legally easy case. Yes,
Speaker 5: Donald Trump is not immune from prosecutions for trying to
Speaker 5: criminally overthrow the Constitution. Even if you think there is
Speaker 5: a distinction between official and unofficial act, it's not an
Speaker 5: official act to try to overthrow the Constitution. Even if
Speaker 5: you're sitting in the Oval office when you do it
Speaker 5: and conspiring with other government employees to do it, that
Speaker 5: doesn't make it an official act. Jack Smith, the Special Prosecutor,
Speaker 5: asked the Supreme Court to clear this up last year,
Speaker 5: and instead they hammed the haud. They made sure the
Speaker 5: lower courts took their sweet time, they heard the argument
Speaker 5: in the last hour of the last day that they
Speaker 5: heard arguments, and they made it clear they had all
Speaker 5: kinds of profound thoughts they were going to want to
Speaker 5: take their time to put on paper just as Gorsuch said,
Speaker 5: we must rule for the ages and when they could
Speaker 5: have ruled on the spot. We will likely hear some
Speaker 5: kind of an opinion that says, no, presidents are not
Speaker 5: immune from prosecution. Maybe in some instances they are, but
Speaker 5: presidents are not immune from prosecution. We will probably hear
Speaker 5: a beautiful rhetoric about you know, nobody is a ko
Speaker 5: president is a king, and nobody is above the law.
Speaker 5: But meanwhile they've given him what he craves, which is time.
Speaker 5: They've made sure that it is very very unlikely that
Speaker 5: the voters will know the information from the trial and
Speaker 5: whether he's guilty in a court of law before the election,
Speaker 5: and that was what he wanted. And people say, stop
Speaker 5: the steal, you know, start the stall. The stall to
Speaker 5: me is the most egregious political intervention by a Supreme
Speaker 5: Court that I can even think of. I mean, much worse,
Speaker 5: for example, to me than bush vik Or where there
Speaker 5: was kind of like a tie election that year. This
Speaker 5: is just bailing him out.
Speaker 1: Michael, thank you. I hope you will come back.
Speaker 5: I hope I can come back. And we need to
Speaker 5: make sure that this is an election issue that people
Speaker 5: talk about, term limits, that people talk about ethics that
Speaker 5: the Democrats Joe Biden started to finally talk about. This
Speaker 5: keeps at it, and not just in fundraisers, but on camera.
Speaker 1: No moment full Jesse Cannon.
Speaker 2: My Junk Fast. Those clips of Sinclair where they all
Speaker 2: say the same thing, bashing Biden, it never stops. What
Speaker 2: are you seeing here?
Speaker 1: So Sinclair, which is an organization owned by a conservative millionaire,
Speaker 1: perhaps billionaire he's hoping. Basically, they brought up all these
Speaker 1: affiliate stations, local news. You watch your news, your weather,
Speaker 1: and they sneak in a little bit of Fox, so
Speaker 1: you think you're getting the weather, but really you're getting
Speaker 1: a little bit of Rupert Murdoch. And we saw last week.
Speaker 1: You know they're pushing this message that Biden is somehow
Speaker 1: infirmed quite successfully as a way to try pretty hard
Speaker 1: to make Trump look better. But since Claire is going
Speaker 1: to try. So if you watch sin Claire, or you
Speaker 1: have a loved one who does, turn it off, that's
Speaker 1: it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday,
Speaker 1: Wednesday and Friday to hear the best minds in politics
Speaker 1: makes sense of all this chaos. If you enjoyed what
Speaker 1: you've heard, please send it to a friend and keep
Speaker 1: the conversation going. And again thanks for listening.