1 00:00:22,840 --> 00:00:26,520 Speaker 1: Welcome back to Drilled. I'm Amy Westerbeld. Today we are 2 00:00:26,680 --> 00:00:31,560 Speaker 1: interrupting our False Solutions series to bring you an episode 3 00:00:31,640 --> 00:00:36,040 Speaker 1: of our sister podcast, Damages, which is focused on climate litigation. 4 00:00:36,800 --> 00:00:38,920 Speaker 1: That's because I don't know if you've heard, but there's 5 00:00:38,960 --> 00:00:41,920 Speaker 1: some big stuff that's been happening at the Supreme Court 6 00:00:42,000 --> 00:00:46,199 Speaker 1: the last few weeks. A lot of it impacts climate 7 00:00:46,960 --> 00:00:50,479 Speaker 1: and I wanted to talk to someone who might make 8 00:00:50,600 --> 00:00:53,600 Speaker 1: us all feel a little bit better about there still 9 00:00:53,640 --> 00:00:58,360 Speaker 1: being some legal options for a climate accountability. That person 10 00:00:58,560 --> 00:01:02,959 Speaker 1: is Aaron Regenberg, your Climate policy Council for Public Citizen. 11 00:01:03,120 --> 00:01:06,480 Speaker 1: Public Citizen has recently been talking about the idea of 12 00:01:06,600 --> 00:01:12,000 Speaker 1: filing criminal charges against oil companies related to climate change. 13 00:01:12,560 --> 00:01:23,720 Speaker 1: One of those charges is homicide. That's right, homicide. I 14 00:01:23,760 --> 00:01:27,160 Speaker 1: asked Regenberg to walk me through they're thinking on that 15 00:01:27,280 --> 00:01:31,679 Speaker 1: charge and other criminal charges, how using criminal law might 16 00:01:31,800 --> 00:01:34,920 Speaker 1: help with the giant brick wall facing us at the 17 00:01:34,959 --> 00:01:38,520 Speaker 1: Supreme Court, and what some of the most recent Supreme 18 00:01:38,560 --> 00:01:42,360 Speaker 1: Court rulings mean for climate accountability. That conversation is coming 19 00:01:42,440 --> 00:01:54,040 Speaker 1: up after this quick break. 20 00:01:56,560 --> 00:02:00,600 Speaker 2: So I want to talk about the homicide stuff and 21 00:02:00,800 --> 00:02:04,480 Speaker 2: just have you tell me when you started looking at 22 00:02:04,880 --> 00:02:08,519 Speaker 2: the viability of could this actually be a homicide charge 23 00:02:08,520 --> 00:02:12,800 Speaker 2: against these companies? And what started you off thinking in 24 00:02:12,800 --> 00:02:13,360 Speaker 2: that direction. 25 00:02:13,639 --> 00:02:17,239 Speaker 3: The work that Public Citizen Organization is doing on this 26 00:02:17,680 --> 00:02:21,320 Speaker 3: really comes from a place of just knowing that we're 27 00:02:21,360 --> 00:02:23,919 Speaker 3: in five alarm fire mode, right, We're in, you know, 28 00:02:24,040 --> 00:02:25,960 Speaker 3: throw everything at the law mode. We need to be 29 00:02:27,080 --> 00:02:31,720 Speaker 3: exploring every possible solution, every possible tool that we have 30 00:02:31,880 --> 00:02:35,400 Speaker 3: for protecting folks from climate harms, for holding the actors 31 00:02:35,440 --> 00:02:40,880 Speaker 3: responsible for this crisis accountable. And there's this whole big 32 00:02:41,080 --> 00:02:44,320 Speaker 3: part of the law, a really important, powerful part the 33 00:02:44,360 --> 00:02:47,760 Speaker 3: criminal law that I think has not really been brought 34 00:02:47,800 --> 00:02:50,920 Speaker 3: to bear on this crisis. Again, we're getting to a 35 00:02:50,960 --> 00:02:55,200 Speaker 3: point where the harms are really clear, right, the injuries, 36 00:02:55,440 --> 00:02:59,160 Speaker 3: the deaths that we're seeing, it's getting harder and harder 37 00:02:59,280 --> 00:03:04,760 Speaker 3: to ignore or and when you have people dying and 38 00:03:04,840 --> 00:03:11,680 Speaker 3: you have particular individuals, particular corporate actors who have recklessly 39 00:03:11,760 --> 00:03:15,280 Speaker 3: acted in ways that have caused or contributed to those harms, 40 00:03:16,120 --> 00:03:18,760 Speaker 3: you know, we have a word for that, and homicide. 41 00:03:18,800 --> 00:03:20,960 Speaker 3: We're looking to be clear, actually at a number of 42 00:03:21,000 --> 00:03:24,600 Speaker 3: possible criminal offenses that we think these companies, Big oil 43 00:03:24,639 --> 00:03:28,360 Speaker 3: could potentially be be charged with, though homicide is the 44 00:03:28,360 --> 00:03:31,920 Speaker 3: most high profile and just I think important and severe 45 00:03:31,960 --> 00:03:36,440 Speaker 3: given the stakes, and I think that this work becomes 46 00:03:36,480 --> 00:03:40,800 Speaker 3: even more important considering the larger context. I guess we'll 47 00:03:40,800 --> 00:03:44,200 Speaker 3: probably talk about the Supreme Court term later later on 48 00:03:44,240 --> 00:03:46,880 Speaker 3: in this conversation. But you know, a lot of our 49 00:03:46,920 --> 00:03:51,920 Speaker 3: tools are getting are getting taken away or whittled away. 50 00:03:51,960 --> 00:03:54,920 Speaker 3: And I think we all know that the criminal law 51 00:03:55,160 --> 00:03:58,720 Speaker 3: in this country has for a long time, maybe always 52 00:03:58,720 --> 00:04:06,320 Speaker 3: been disproportionately targeted against poor people, people of color. But ostensibly, 53 00:04:06,440 --> 00:04:11,280 Speaker 3: what it's supposed to be about protecting us from harm, 54 00:04:11,320 --> 00:04:16,080 Speaker 3: right keeping us safe from dangerous actors that would do 55 00:04:16,200 --> 00:04:19,920 Speaker 3: harm in our communities. And so the question we've been 56 00:04:19,960 --> 00:04:23,840 Speaker 3: asking is what if we use this system to actually 57 00:04:24,120 --> 00:04:28,680 Speaker 3: protect us from harm, to actually protect us from the 58 00:04:28,760 --> 00:04:32,680 Speaker 3: corporate actors that right now are doing damage at an 59 00:04:32,680 --> 00:04:34,560 Speaker 3: almost unimaginable scale. 60 00:04:35,400 --> 00:04:39,240 Speaker 2: Could you actually run through the list of potential criminal 61 00:04:39,240 --> 00:04:41,000 Speaker 2: offenses that you're looking at. 62 00:04:41,160 --> 00:04:43,400 Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely so. As far as the sort of range 63 00:04:43,400 --> 00:04:46,640 Speaker 3: of criminal offenses that we're looking at that we're in 64 00:04:46,640 --> 00:04:51,320 Speaker 3: conversations with prosecutors of various source about. There's offenses like 65 00:04:51,680 --> 00:04:54,800 Speaker 3: reckless endangerment, so most states have some sort of reckless 66 00:04:54,839 --> 00:04:57,960 Speaker 3: endangerment statute that says, if you engage in reckless conduct 67 00:04:57,960 --> 00:05:04,440 Speaker 3: that creates a substantial unjustifiable risk of injuring or killing someone, 68 00:05:04,760 --> 00:05:09,400 Speaker 3: then you have committed that crime. Similarly, some states, five 69 00:05:09,480 --> 00:05:12,799 Speaker 3: or six states actually have it's kind of perfectly suited 70 00:05:12,960 --> 00:05:15,159 Speaker 3: to what we're seeing. Have make it a crime to 71 00:05:15,279 --> 00:05:18,479 Speaker 3: cause or risk catastrophe, which is it it's sort of 72 00:05:18,480 --> 00:05:21,279 Speaker 3: similar but at a larger scale to reckless endangerment, and 73 00:05:21,360 --> 00:05:24,760 Speaker 3: it's kind of hard to imagine a more apt description 74 00:05:24,880 --> 00:05:29,760 Speaker 3: of what Big Oil has done than caused risk. There's 75 00:05:30,000 --> 00:05:34,200 Speaker 3: you know, there's conspiracy and racketeering, which can be a 76 00:05:34,240 --> 00:05:39,800 Speaker 3: component of a lot of different prosecutions. There's there's obviously fraud, 77 00:05:39,880 --> 00:05:42,280 Speaker 3: and there could be civil fraud, but there's also criminal 78 00:05:42,279 --> 00:05:46,600 Speaker 3: fraud in many states based on what they said versus 79 00:05:46,600 --> 00:05:50,599 Speaker 3: what they knew. There's some some anti trust statutes have 80 00:05:50,800 --> 00:05:55,520 Speaker 3: criminal components, and we think, you know, anti competitive practice 81 00:05:55,560 --> 00:05:59,920 Speaker 3: is a pretty good way of describing engaging in massive 82 00:06:00,080 --> 00:06:03,159 Speaker 3: fraud and cover up specifically in order to keep the 83 00:06:03,240 --> 00:06:07,560 Speaker 3: technical competitors ie renewable energy sources out of the market. 84 00:06:08,080 --> 00:06:10,080 Speaker 3: So that just kind of gives you an idea, there 85 00:06:10,160 --> 00:06:12,720 Speaker 3: is a range. But having said that, I do think 86 00:06:12,800 --> 00:06:17,680 Speaker 3: that that homicide really does get at at a lot 87 00:06:17,880 --> 00:06:22,960 Speaker 3: of the moral corruption of what big oil has done. 88 00:06:23,560 --> 00:06:25,760 Speaker 3: And you think about the kind of incidents and the 89 00:06:25,839 --> 00:06:29,000 Speaker 3: kind of people that we do charge with homicide in 90 00:06:29,000 --> 00:06:31,280 Speaker 3: this country. My wife's a public defender, so I hear 91 00:06:31,320 --> 00:06:34,120 Speaker 3: stories every day. She had did a client earlier this 92 00:06:34,240 --> 00:06:40,360 Speaker 3: year who was driving in her car totally soberly with 93 00:06:40,720 --> 00:06:45,640 Speaker 3: her fiance and got in a crash and she was 94 00:06:45,680 --> 00:06:48,320 Speaker 3: badly injured. Her fiance was killed, so her life's like 95 00:06:48,360 --> 00:06:52,520 Speaker 3: already ruined, and and then the local DA slaps her 96 00:06:52,560 --> 00:06:56,159 Speaker 3: with a reckless homicide charge. It was a horrible case, 97 00:06:56,360 --> 00:06:59,680 Speaker 3: and my wife won, but it was like a year 98 00:06:59,680 --> 00:07:03,200 Speaker 3: and a half half of this woman's life additionally ruined. 99 00:07:03,520 --> 00:07:05,920 Speaker 3: The point is like, we charge a lot of folks 100 00:07:06,040 --> 00:07:11,840 Speaker 3: with homicide for conduct that is orders of magnitude less 101 00:07:12,640 --> 00:07:18,440 Speaker 3: culpable and less harmful and disastrous than what Big Oil 102 00:07:18,480 --> 00:07:22,600 Speaker 3: has knowingly done. And we're now seeing the body count 103 00:07:22,720 --> 00:07:26,200 Speaker 3: going up in real time every day from climate disasters, 104 00:07:26,240 --> 00:07:28,880 Speaker 3: whether it's hurricanes, whether it's the kind of extreme heat 105 00:07:28,880 --> 00:07:31,720 Speaker 3: waves that so many of us are currently sweating under 106 00:07:32,040 --> 00:07:35,280 Speaker 3: whether it's wildfires. You know, we could go on. We 107 00:07:35,640 --> 00:07:38,480 Speaker 3: just put out a report looking at just as one example, 108 00:07:38,880 --> 00:07:43,200 Speaker 3: Maricopa County its experienced last year with the July heat wave, 109 00:07:43,800 --> 00:07:49,720 Speaker 3: and there were over well over four hundred heat deaths 110 00:07:49,760 --> 00:07:53,040 Speaker 3: in that county in July, which is more than the 111 00:07:53,120 --> 00:07:56,520 Speaker 3: number of overall murders that the city experience. Is right, 112 00:07:56,560 --> 00:08:00,800 Speaker 3: if someone were pressing a killer heat button, I think 113 00:08:01,080 --> 00:08:03,720 Speaker 3: law enforcement would be all over trying to stop them. 114 00:08:04,120 --> 00:08:08,280 Speaker 3: That That's not how we've thought about these killer heat waves. 115 00:08:08,680 --> 00:08:11,240 Speaker 3: We think of them as these natural disasters, but we 116 00:08:11,440 --> 00:08:14,800 Speaker 3: know right that they're not. In many cases, we have 117 00:08:14,920 --> 00:08:17,520 Speaker 3: studies saying that they would have been virtually impossible but 118 00:08:17,760 --> 00:08:20,240 Speaker 3: for human cause climate change, and we know who is 119 00:08:20,280 --> 00:08:21,880 Speaker 3: behind human caused climate change. 120 00:08:21,920 --> 00:08:24,720 Speaker 2: If a homicide charge were to be brought, it would 121 00:08:24,800 --> 00:08:28,160 Speaker 2: have to be brought against particular individuals, not against a 122 00:08:28,200 --> 00:08:29,000 Speaker 2: corporate entity. 123 00:08:29,160 --> 00:08:34,200 Speaker 3: Is that true individuals and corporations can be charged criminally, 124 00:08:34,760 --> 00:08:38,320 Speaker 3: and indeed there's a there's a long history of corporations 125 00:08:38,360 --> 00:08:42,760 Speaker 3: being charged with offenses like homicide. BP pled guilty to 126 00:08:43,160 --> 00:08:49,679 Speaker 3: manslaughter for the deep Water Horizon Right disaster. One more 127 00:08:49,720 --> 00:08:52,280 Speaker 3: recent example that we think is really interesting. Pg Ande 128 00:08:52,360 --> 00:08:57,959 Speaker 3: Utility in California was convicted of negligent homicide for the 129 00:08:58,760 --> 00:09:04,640 Speaker 3: Paradise fire years ago in California, and I think that's 130 00:09:04,640 --> 00:09:06,240 Speaker 3: a really interesting example because. 131 00:09:06,480 --> 00:09:09,000 Speaker 2: It's so interesting, Wow, what. 132 00:09:09,320 --> 00:09:13,520 Speaker 3: They were found. The culpal behavior there that was found 133 00:09:13,520 --> 00:09:17,520 Speaker 3: to have caused those deaths was their negligent upkeep of 134 00:09:17,520 --> 00:09:21,480 Speaker 3: of equipment that ended up causing the spark that led 135 00:09:21,520 --> 00:09:24,720 Speaker 3: to that fire. But you take one step back and 136 00:09:25,840 --> 00:09:28,080 Speaker 3: the normal time, right, I think that fire was in 137 00:09:28,360 --> 00:09:31,640 Speaker 3: was in October November. Normal normally there would have been rain, 138 00:09:32,559 --> 00:09:35,720 Speaker 3: you know, many times over the previous months. That spark 139 00:09:35,800 --> 00:09:39,120 Speaker 3: would have not led to a raging inferno that killed 140 00:09:39,120 --> 00:09:42,200 Speaker 3: dozens and dozens of people. The reason that that fire 141 00:09:42,880 --> 00:09:47,000 Speaker 3: happened was what Exxon and Chevron and BP and Shell 142 00:09:47,080 --> 00:09:50,720 Speaker 3: have done, right, And so again it's you know, you 143 00:09:50,760 --> 00:09:53,560 Speaker 3: take one step back and you think about who's really 144 00:09:53,600 --> 00:09:56,559 Speaker 3: responsible for those deaths. So anyway, you asked about individual 145 00:09:56,640 --> 00:09:59,920 Speaker 3: versus corporation, so you can you could pursue both. Most 146 00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:02,880 Speaker 3: most of our focus is really looking at the corporate 147 00:10:03,040 --> 00:10:07,760 Speaker 3: entities both because there are some legal reasons why we 148 00:10:07,800 --> 00:10:11,400 Speaker 3: think that that that could be a stronger case and 149 00:10:11,640 --> 00:10:14,560 Speaker 3: because as far as remedies go, I think, you know, 150 00:10:16,160 --> 00:10:19,360 Speaker 3: the project is less about you know, throwing people in 151 00:10:19,440 --> 00:10:21,079 Speaker 3: jail and more about how do we get to the 152 00:10:21,160 --> 00:10:23,760 Speaker 3: root issue of the problem, and so the kinds of 153 00:10:23,840 --> 00:10:26,240 Speaker 3: solutions that could come out of this that could actually 154 00:10:27,000 --> 00:10:30,600 Speaker 3: that could actually shift those those root causes. One good 155 00:10:30,640 --> 00:10:34,240 Speaker 3: example of that kind of remedy the DOJ's criminal settlement 156 00:10:34,280 --> 00:10:37,440 Speaker 3: with Perdue Pharma for its role in the opioid crisis. 157 00:10:37,520 --> 00:10:43,080 Speaker 3: Included includes a plan to restructure Purdue as a public 158 00:10:43,080 --> 00:10:46,719 Speaker 3: benefit corporation that is, you know, explicitly focused in its 159 00:10:46,720 --> 00:10:49,760 Speaker 3: corporate charter on repairing the harm it did, you know, 160 00:10:50,000 --> 00:10:55,040 Speaker 3: investing in public health solutions to to the opioid crisis. 161 00:10:55,559 --> 00:10:58,880 Speaker 3: And so you know that that's one that's one vision 162 00:10:58,960 --> 00:11:01,200 Speaker 3: for you know, you have a strong enough case and 163 00:11:01,240 --> 00:11:04,880 Speaker 3: you could potentially get to a solution where we're rewriting 164 00:11:04,920 --> 00:11:07,439 Speaker 3: a charter to say this company needs to focus on 165 00:11:08,360 --> 00:11:11,600 Speaker 3: the clean energy transition. Though there's lots of other remedies 166 00:11:11,640 --> 00:11:15,200 Speaker 3: that you could envision that could come either from a 167 00:11:15,200 --> 00:11:17,800 Speaker 3: criminal settlement because the companies like, we don't want to 168 00:11:17,840 --> 00:11:20,720 Speaker 3: go through this, or you know, they do go through it, 169 00:11:20,760 --> 00:11:22,680 Speaker 3: and there's a conviction and then there's a court order. 170 00:11:23,920 --> 00:11:26,760 Speaker 2: Right. Actually, I wanted to ask you about the opioid 171 00:11:26,800 --> 00:11:29,520 Speaker 2: stuff because I know people are kind of constantly saying, 172 00:11:29,559 --> 00:11:32,400 Speaker 2: why aren't the climate cases like the okaoid cases, And 173 00:11:32,800 --> 00:11:35,079 Speaker 2: I know that a lot of those cases leaned on 174 00:11:35,320 --> 00:11:39,120 Speaker 2: municipal code and this idea that the ok Good epidemic 175 00:11:39,280 --> 00:11:44,000 Speaker 2: was increasing costs for cities, which is certainly the case 176 00:11:44,080 --> 00:11:47,319 Speaker 2: with the climate situation. And I know that some of 177 00:11:47,360 --> 00:11:50,600 Speaker 2: the liability cases are getting it that. Could you walk 178 00:11:50,640 --> 00:11:54,520 Speaker 2: me through how these charges would be different? 179 00:11:55,000 --> 00:11:57,920 Speaker 3: Yeah, So I really interesting and important to think about 180 00:11:58,040 --> 00:12:02,720 Speaker 3: the difference between you know, the civil suits and civil 181 00:12:02,800 --> 00:12:05,240 Speaker 3: law in general and criminal law and these these criminal 182 00:12:05,320 --> 00:12:08,840 Speaker 3: charges that we've been proposing. And the first thing to 183 00:12:08,840 --> 00:12:12,240 Speaker 3: say is, in no way anything that we're saying to 184 00:12:12,280 --> 00:12:14,320 Speaker 3: say that, you know, we should be talking about criminal 185 00:12:14,400 --> 00:12:17,079 Speaker 3: instead of civil. The climate accountability suits, I think are 186 00:12:17,800 --> 00:12:20,640 Speaker 3: the most important thing happening right now in climate litigation, 187 00:12:21,160 --> 00:12:23,439 Speaker 3: and they're actually, you know, several of them are actually 188 00:12:23,520 --> 00:12:27,800 Speaker 3: getting past the jurisdictional phage phase into discovery, like they're 189 00:12:27,800 --> 00:12:31,160 Speaker 3: starting to bear real fruit, and that is unbelievably exciting. 190 00:12:31,400 --> 00:12:33,160 Speaker 3: So that's, you know, we're just saying we need to 191 00:12:33,200 --> 00:12:37,040 Speaker 3: be looking at everything. And there are advantages to to 192 00:12:37,240 --> 00:12:42,640 Speaker 3: criminal law. There's advantages to the speed. I mean criminal 193 00:12:42,840 --> 00:12:47,160 Speaker 3: criminal cases move a lot faster. There's advantages to discovery. 194 00:12:47,200 --> 00:12:51,280 Speaker 3: The state has some advantages there that a private plaintiff 195 00:12:51,280 --> 00:12:55,440 Speaker 3: does not. And there's advantages to the actual law. Again, 196 00:12:55,480 --> 00:12:59,200 Speaker 3: you think about how civil law has developed. It is 197 00:13:00,280 --> 00:13:03,120 Speaker 3: big corporations who are usually the defendants, right, and so 198 00:13:03,200 --> 00:13:06,840 Speaker 3: they are have been for decades, all the power and 199 00:13:06,920 --> 00:13:10,200 Speaker 3: best you know, big law lawyers in the world to 200 00:13:10,320 --> 00:13:14,760 Speaker 3: make it as hard as possible to hold civil defendants accountable, 201 00:13:14,800 --> 00:13:16,640 Speaker 3: as many sort of off rands, as many ways for 202 00:13:16,720 --> 00:13:19,480 Speaker 3: judges to throw out cases before you actually get to trial. 203 00:13:20,080 --> 00:13:22,520 Speaker 3: On the criminal side, you think about who's developed the law, right, 204 00:13:22,559 --> 00:13:27,679 Speaker 3: it's overwhelmingly poor people. People who I mean, again, my 205 00:13:27,720 --> 00:13:31,160 Speaker 3: wife's public defender some great representation, but it's not people 206 00:13:31,200 --> 00:13:35,200 Speaker 3: who have had the capacity to do that same kind 207 00:13:35,200 --> 00:13:38,320 Speaker 3: of work. And so in a lot of ways, I mean, 208 00:13:38,360 --> 00:13:40,959 Speaker 3: there's more deference to the judge in a criminal trial. 209 00:13:41,040 --> 00:13:44,600 Speaker 3: Generally it's harder to throw something out before you actually 210 00:13:44,640 --> 00:13:46,719 Speaker 3: get to trial. And I think we saw on the 211 00:13:47,240 --> 00:13:51,280 Speaker 3: Trump trial there can be something really powerful about putting 212 00:13:51,320 --> 00:13:56,240 Speaker 3: these questions in front of a group of twelve regular 213 00:13:56,280 --> 00:14:01,079 Speaker 3: people who are tasked with making a a common sense 214 00:14:01,120 --> 00:14:03,360 Speaker 3: decision based on what they think is fair and just 215 00:14:03,640 --> 00:14:07,400 Speaker 3: about you know, is is it right to hold this 216 00:14:07,679 --> 00:14:10,640 Speaker 3: person or actor responsible for this harm. There's a lot 217 00:14:10,640 --> 00:14:13,200 Speaker 3: of systems that protect the rich and powerful incorporations in 218 00:14:13,200 --> 00:14:15,880 Speaker 3: this country from accountability for the horrible things they do. 219 00:14:16,400 --> 00:14:18,880 Speaker 3: And there's a lot of ways in which that process 220 00:14:19,000 --> 00:14:21,160 Speaker 3: that I just described cuts through a lot of those 221 00:14:21,280 --> 00:14:22,320 Speaker 3: a lot of those systems. 222 00:14:22,600 --> 00:14:24,840 Speaker 2: What would you have to prove? What evidence would you 223 00:14:24,880 --> 00:14:25,840 Speaker 2: have to bring to the table. 224 00:14:26,440 --> 00:14:30,880 Speaker 3: We just partnered with a former DOJ prosecutor. Her name 225 00:14:30,920 --> 00:14:34,000 Speaker 3: is Cindi Cho. She's spent her career doing these kinds 226 00:14:34,040 --> 00:14:39,200 Speaker 3: of complex prosecutions, and we partnered with her to do 227 00:14:39,440 --> 00:14:42,640 Speaker 3: what's called a prost memo or a prosecution memo. It's 228 00:14:42,640 --> 00:14:45,680 Speaker 3: basically the exercise a prosecutor does when they're deciding is 229 00:14:45,720 --> 00:14:48,680 Speaker 3: there enough evidence here to actually pursue a case? Looking 230 00:14:48,760 --> 00:14:51,920 Speaker 3: at a particular climate crisis and the evidence round it 231 00:14:51,960 --> 00:14:54,680 Speaker 3: and trying to decide, you know, analyze is there is 232 00:14:54,720 --> 00:14:59,200 Speaker 3: there a there there? And by the way, the conclusion 233 00:14:59,280 --> 00:15:01,840 Speaker 3: and it wasn't just us again, it was this long 234 00:15:01,880 --> 00:15:05,480 Speaker 3: time DOJ prosecutor was that, Yeah, there is enough here 235 00:15:05,680 --> 00:15:08,880 Speaker 3: so to prove a homicide charge. Basically, the two elements 236 00:15:08,880 --> 00:15:14,320 Speaker 3: in a reckless homicide. In some states it's called man manslaughter, 237 00:15:14,360 --> 00:15:18,720 Speaker 3: sometimes it's called second degree murder is one that the 238 00:15:18,880 --> 00:15:23,840 Speaker 3: defendant caused a death, so that's the causation piece. And 239 00:15:23,960 --> 00:15:28,800 Speaker 3: two that they had the appropriate culpable mental state in 240 00:15:29,120 --> 00:15:32,040 Speaker 3: their causing of the death. And so that's what sort 241 00:15:32,040 --> 00:15:34,800 Speaker 3: of grades the level of homicide charge. So from the 242 00:15:34,800 --> 00:15:38,040 Speaker 3: lowest negligent homicide, so you act neligently that caused death, 243 00:15:38,320 --> 00:15:41,040 Speaker 3: the highest is you know, first degree murder, and that's 244 00:15:41,040 --> 00:15:44,240 Speaker 3: where you acted with you know intent. So we're not 245 00:15:44,360 --> 00:15:46,480 Speaker 3: arguing that right Exxon was not doing what it did 246 00:15:46,720 --> 00:15:50,040 Speaker 3: in order to kill the dozens of people that have 247 00:15:50,120 --> 00:15:52,720 Speaker 3: died in this recent round of he waives. But as 248 00:15:52,760 --> 00:15:56,480 Speaker 3: far as reckless endangerment, acting recklessly, that's that's acting with 249 00:15:56,480 --> 00:16:00,120 Speaker 3: with knowledge risk but doing it anyway, or for for 250 00:16:00,160 --> 00:16:02,720 Speaker 3: a lot of different second degree murder charges, you need 251 00:16:02,760 --> 00:16:06,280 Speaker 3: to show that they acted with extreme indifference to human life. 252 00:16:07,680 --> 00:16:09,200 Speaker 3: Those are what we're really looking at. 253 00:16:09,280 --> 00:16:13,320 Speaker 2: And so God, I'm just imagining them mounting an insanity defense. 254 00:16:13,480 --> 00:16:16,520 Speaker 3: So we did in this pros memo. We put out 255 00:16:16,520 --> 00:16:19,400 Speaker 3: prosecution memo, we did go through the different defenses that 256 00:16:19,400 --> 00:16:23,280 Speaker 3: they're likely to raise and sort of you know, analyze 257 00:16:23,320 --> 00:16:26,640 Speaker 3: the strength of them real quickly on those two elements. 258 00:16:26,760 --> 00:16:29,920 Speaker 3: So on the mental state, I'm acting either recklessly or 259 00:16:29,960 --> 00:16:33,760 Speaker 3: with extreme difference to human life. Often in a criminal prosecution, 260 00:16:33,840 --> 00:16:36,040 Speaker 3: that's the hardest thing to prove, because it's hard to 261 00:16:36,080 --> 00:16:39,960 Speaker 3: start in someone's head. In this situation, that's actually I 262 00:16:40,040 --> 00:16:44,240 Speaker 3: think very doable. Right, We have just mountains of evidence 263 00:16:44,760 --> 00:16:49,240 Speaker 3: in these companies' internal memos that exactly, I mean, you've 264 00:16:49,280 --> 00:16:53,400 Speaker 3: reported on this to such wonderful efficacy. They knew exactly 265 00:16:53,400 --> 00:16:55,800 Speaker 3: what they were doing. They were predicting, you know, to 266 00:16:55,880 --> 00:17:00,680 Speaker 3: the decimal point of temperature increase. They were talking about disasters, 267 00:17:00,680 --> 00:17:03,920 Speaker 3: they're talking about sea level rise, they're talking about extreme heat. 268 00:17:04,080 --> 00:17:06,280 Speaker 3: I was just looking at a report from nineteen ninety 269 00:17:06,280 --> 00:17:11,600 Speaker 3: six that Exon had really describing exactly in detail the 270 00:17:11,720 --> 00:17:16,240 Speaker 3: kind of excess deaths from whether from heat extremes that 271 00:17:16,280 --> 00:17:19,360 Speaker 3: we're seeing right now. So anyway to show that they 272 00:17:19,960 --> 00:17:22,160 Speaker 3: knew that there was a risk at the very least 273 00:17:22,200 --> 00:17:27,760 Speaker 3: and that they went ahead anyway. We think that's very doable. More, 274 00:17:28,480 --> 00:17:31,120 Speaker 3: just to be frank difficult piece of this is the causation. 275 00:17:31,359 --> 00:17:34,399 Speaker 3: So to show causation in a case like this, you 276 00:17:34,480 --> 00:17:36,400 Speaker 3: really need to prove it, and you need to prove 277 00:17:36,440 --> 00:17:39,840 Speaker 3: it beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the higher standard 278 00:17:39,840 --> 00:17:43,359 Speaker 3: for criminal prosecution. At three different stages. Right, So you 279 00:17:43,400 --> 00:17:47,520 Speaker 3: need to show one that this particular event, this particular 280 00:17:47,560 --> 00:17:51,159 Speaker 3: extreme weather event, whether it's an extreme heat wave or 281 00:17:51,160 --> 00:17:55,920 Speaker 3: something else, caused this particular death. And we think that's 282 00:17:55,920 --> 00:17:58,520 Speaker 3: pretty doable. There's a lot of public departments of health, 283 00:17:58,760 --> 00:18:01,520 Speaker 3: boards of medical examiners. They will report this was a 284 00:18:01,560 --> 00:18:04,240 Speaker 3: death due to extreme heat. Then you need to prove 285 00:18:04,320 --> 00:18:10,720 Speaker 3: that this extreme weather event was caused by climate change. 286 00:18:11,000 --> 00:18:14,840 Speaker 3: And again that's that's the area where the rapidly developing 287 00:18:14,920 --> 00:18:18,880 Speaker 3: climate attribution science is so so important. Climate scientists can 288 00:18:18,920 --> 00:18:25,000 Speaker 3: now say that this disaster was made x times more likely, 289 00:18:25,119 --> 00:18:27,439 Speaker 3: was made x times more powerful, or would have been 290 00:18:27,520 --> 00:18:31,719 Speaker 3: virtually impossible but for climate change. And I think it's 291 00:18:31,760 --> 00:18:34,840 Speaker 3: particularly interesting in the context of again, I'm just I'm 292 00:18:34,880 --> 00:18:36,640 Speaker 3: really hot right now, I'm sweating, so thinking a lot 293 00:18:36,640 --> 00:18:39,840 Speaker 3: about extreme heat. But you know, in an extreme heat wave, 294 00:18:39,880 --> 00:18:44,760 Speaker 3: we the human body has clear thresholds right below which 295 00:18:45,119 --> 00:18:48,080 Speaker 3: you can survive and above which you get You get 296 00:18:48,119 --> 00:18:51,080 Speaker 3: one or two degrees above that threshold and you die. 297 00:18:51,760 --> 00:18:55,359 Speaker 3: And so so to show that the that climate change 298 00:18:55,640 --> 00:19:00,840 Speaker 3: even caused this particular margin that went above that threshold, 299 00:19:01,040 --> 00:19:04,399 Speaker 3: that shows that caused the death. So yeah, that's the 300 00:19:04,400 --> 00:19:08,520 Speaker 3: second stage. And then the third stage, probably the biggest, 301 00:19:08,760 --> 00:19:13,560 Speaker 3: is showing that these particular companies, and again we're looking 302 00:19:13,560 --> 00:19:17,680 Speaker 3: at some of the at the biggest investor owned oil 303 00:19:17,720 --> 00:19:23,000 Speaker 3: and gas companies, the big names ex On, Chevron, VP, Shell, Conicophillips, 304 00:19:23,000 --> 00:19:27,960 Speaker 3: et cetera, that they cause climate change. And that's one 305 00:19:27,960 --> 00:19:32,280 Speaker 3: important thing to note. In most states and most jurisdictions, 306 00:19:32,880 --> 00:19:37,159 Speaker 3: causation does not require you to have been the sole cause, 307 00:19:37,440 --> 00:19:41,040 Speaker 3: or even in many cases the primary cause. You need 308 00:19:41,080 --> 00:19:44,639 Speaker 3: to have been a substantial factor in contributing to that death. 309 00:19:45,119 --> 00:19:47,920 Speaker 3: And so we think, again there's plenty of evidence that 310 00:19:48,240 --> 00:19:52,480 Speaker 3: a group of particular big oil companies has been a 311 00:19:52,520 --> 00:19:57,680 Speaker 3: substantial factor in causing climate change, both through the actual 312 00:19:57,720 --> 00:20:00,760 Speaker 3: physics of the emissions. Right, we have source utian research 313 00:20:00,840 --> 00:20:04,439 Speaker 3: that can say this company is responsible for generating this 314 00:20:04,520 --> 00:20:09,000 Speaker 3: percentage of all of human caused greenhouse gas emissions, you know, 315 00:20:09,080 --> 00:20:13,880 Speaker 3: since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and then also 316 00:20:14,080 --> 00:20:18,440 Speaker 3: through their climate disinformation and deceit, And we think there's 317 00:20:18,480 --> 00:20:24,000 Speaker 3: a causative argument there that what these companies did specifically 318 00:20:24,040 --> 00:20:28,160 Speaker 3: in order to delay or block climate action has meant 319 00:20:28,160 --> 00:20:31,600 Speaker 3: that climate change is worse, is farther along than it 320 00:20:31,640 --> 00:20:34,040 Speaker 3: otherwise would have been. So you add those two together, 321 00:20:34,080 --> 00:20:36,280 Speaker 3: and we think there's a pretty strong argument that these 322 00:20:36,320 --> 00:20:40,720 Speaker 3: companies cause substantially contributed to climate change, that climate change, 323 00:20:41,240 --> 00:20:44,600 Speaker 3: you know, caused substantially contributed to this weather event, and 324 00:20:44,600 --> 00:20:47,800 Speaker 3: then that this weather event caused And we think that 325 00:20:47,880 --> 00:20:53,359 Speaker 3: the victims of these disasters and their families deserve justice 326 00:20:54,080 --> 00:20:56,760 Speaker 3: just as much as as the victims of any street 327 00:20:56,840 --> 00:21:00,200 Speaker 3: level crime. We spend a lot of time talking about 328 00:21:00,359 --> 00:21:03,400 Speaker 3: justice for people who've been wronged, but we don't think 329 00:21:03,440 --> 00:21:06,199 Speaker 3: about all the people being harmed from climate in the 330 00:21:06,240 --> 00:21:09,160 Speaker 3: same way. And I think we start doing that. 331 00:21:09,880 --> 00:21:12,480 Speaker 2: You touched on this a minute ago, and I want 332 00:21:12,480 --> 00:21:15,520 Speaker 2: to ask you more about it. How does this help 333 00:21:15,640 --> 00:21:20,600 Speaker 2: with this giant brick wall that we're facing with the 334 00:21:20,640 --> 00:21:22,200 Speaker 2: Supreme Court right now? 335 00:21:22,480 --> 00:21:26,159 Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, really, you know, dark times in the 336 00:21:26,240 --> 00:21:31,920 Speaker 3: law the TLDR of this last term and lots of 337 00:21:32,000 --> 00:21:35,760 Speaker 3: terms before, but certainly what we just saw in the 338 00:21:35,840 --> 00:21:40,160 Speaker 3: last month is that it's it's been made a lot 339 00:21:40,200 --> 00:21:45,240 Speaker 3: harder for the federal government to pursue the kind of 340 00:21:45,320 --> 00:21:51,240 Speaker 3: regulatory actions that we need to solve climate and so 341 00:21:51,359 --> 00:21:53,720 Speaker 3: for us, that means it is even more important that 342 00:21:53,760 --> 00:21:59,200 Speaker 3: we are exploring other tools, exploring other areas of the 343 00:21:59,320 --> 00:22:02,040 Speaker 3: law that could have a big impact on this. And again, 344 00:22:02,480 --> 00:22:04,760 Speaker 3: criminal law is it's sort of half the law of 345 00:22:04,840 --> 00:22:06,800 Speaker 3: this country and it hasn't really been brought to bear. 346 00:22:07,200 --> 00:22:13,160 Speaker 3: Another important piece we think about the value of these 347 00:22:13,240 --> 00:22:17,639 Speaker 3: kinds of prosecutions that they could bring is it is 348 00:22:17,680 --> 00:22:22,520 Speaker 3: a lot harder, I think, for the federal courts to 349 00:22:22,760 --> 00:22:28,639 Speaker 3: step in when you're talking about a core police power 350 00:22:28,680 --> 00:22:31,520 Speaker 3: of a state. We've been looking, we haven't been able 351 00:22:31,560 --> 00:22:34,840 Speaker 3: to find a single case where a criminal law of 352 00:22:34,920 --> 00:22:41,280 Speaker 3: general application, that let alone homicide prosecution was preempted by 353 00:22:41,320 --> 00:22:43,840 Speaker 3: the federal courts. Right because again, that is a core 354 00:22:44,240 --> 00:22:47,159 Speaker 3: power of states and localities that they have control of 355 00:22:48,840 --> 00:22:53,000 Speaker 3: criminal law. And it's not to say that the Supreme 356 00:22:53,000 --> 00:22:55,800 Speaker 3: Court has made clear that they don't give a shit 357 00:22:56,320 --> 00:22:59,439 Speaker 3: about what the law actually is. And so it's not 358 00:22:59,480 --> 00:23:02,919 Speaker 3: to say that would not be able to make up 359 00:23:03,000 --> 00:23:05,000 Speaker 3: new law from whole cloth in order to try to 360 00:23:05,040 --> 00:23:08,480 Speaker 3: stop something like this, but certainly it's a lot harder, right, 361 00:23:08,720 --> 00:23:10,520 Speaker 3: they would have to make it up from whole cloth. 362 00:23:10,680 --> 00:23:14,840 Speaker 3: This is a core state and local jurisdiction thing, and 363 00:23:14,960 --> 00:23:18,239 Speaker 3: there's no precedent for the federal courts coming in and 364 00:23:18,280 --> 00:23:21,600 Speaker 3: taking it and squashing it. So yeah, to the degree, 365 00:23:22,160 --> 00:23:24,720 Speaker 3: to the degree we can use the courts on climate, 366 00:23:25,280 --> 00:23:28,080 Speaker 3: we think this is one of the ways to ensure 367 00:23:28,160 --> 00:23:32,840 Speaker 3: that states and localities actually can have a voice, because again, 368 00:23:32,960 --> 00:23:36,720 Speaker 3: there's nothing more core to a to a local da 369 00:23:36,840 --> 00:23:40,920 Speaker 3: than being able to prosecute homicides that occurred in their jurisdiction. 370 00:23:42,080 --> 00:23:48,040 Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, shifting gears. I want to ask your thoughts 371 00:23:48,160 --> 00:23:52,080 Speaker 2: on Supreme Court stuff as well. So, God, where to begin? 372 00:23:52,280 --> 00:23:54,520 Speaker 2: Can I have you give me like your sort of 373 00:23:54,920 --> 00:24:01,639 Speaker 2: quick and simple explanation of the impact of chucking Chevron deference. 374 00:24:03,240 --> 00:24:07,679 Speaker 3: Yeah, it's not good. I mean it's the quick and 375 00:24:07,760 --> 00:24:10,760 Speaker 3: dirty of the Chevron decision is that it is another 376 00:24:10,840 --> 00:24:15,280 Speaker 3: massive judicial power grab. It is taking an immense amount 377 00:24:15,359 --> 00:24:21,000 Speaker 3: of power out of the hands of actual experts in 378 00:24:21,200 --> 00:24:25,280 Speaker 3: administrative agencies, people who have been doing whatever work, whether 379 00:24:25,320 --> 00:24:29,359 Speaker 3: it's on environment, whether it's on health and medicine, whether 380 00:24:29,400 --> 00:24:32,159 Speaker 3: it's on economics, you know, whatever it is. We've got 381 00:24:32,160 --> 00:24:33,960 Speaker 3: a lot of smart people in government. They've been doing 382 00:24:33,960 --> 00:24:36,800 Speaker 3: this with their whole careers. We are saying they don't 383 00:24:36,800 --> 00:24:39,920 Speaker 3: get to decide anything, even if Congress has very clearly 384 00:24:40,000 --> 00:24:44,240 Speaker 3: said you get to decide this, And we're putting that 385 00:24:44,359 --> 00:24:48,520 Speaker 3: power in the hands of frankly, some of the worst 386 00:24:48,720 --> 00:24:52,439 Speaker 3: and dumbest people in the world. And I'm talking about 387 00:24:52,480 --> 00:24:57,840 Speaker 3: like twenty five year old law school grad like fedsock twerps. 388 00:24:58,320 --> 00:25:03,320 Speaker 3: You know, these are these are the law clerks, conservative 389 00:25:03,480 --> 00:25:07,439 Speaker 3: justices who write the actual opinions. I clerked for a judge. 390 00:25:07,720 --> 00:25:09,800 Speaker 3: These are the people who write the opinions. And these 391 00:25:09,800 --> 00:25:13,240 Speaker 3: are kids who like went right from college to law school, 392 00:25:13,560 --> 00:25:16,520 Speaker 3: did not do anything in law school to open their minds, right, 393 00:25:16,560 --> 00:25:19,560 Speaker 3: They spent the whole time in like conservative fed sock 394 00:25:19,720 --> 00:25:24,320 Speaker 3: circle jerk meetings, and then they're asked to like they're 395 00:25:24,359 --> 00:25:28,240 Speaker 3: given the power to make these immense decisions about the 396 00:25:28,359 --> 00:25:33,040 Speaker 3: environment and economics and health and and occupational safety and 397 00:25:33,680 --> 00:25:37,840 Speaker 3: everything else. Having zero expertise. I went to law school 398 00:25:37,840 --> 00:25:41,160 Speaker 3: with these people. They're not they're not smart, they're not good, 399 00:25:41,680 --> 00:25:45,879 Speaker 3: and they don't have that capacity to make to do 400 00:25:45,920 --> 00:25:49,119 Speaker 3: good analysis on any of these questions. So it's a 401 00:25:49,160 --> 00:25:52,760 Speaker 3: big problem. I will say. The optimist in me on 402 00:25:53,240 --> 00:25:58,600 Speaker 3: the on the throwing Chevron in the garbage is I 403 00:25:58,640 --> 00:26:02,520 Speaker 3: have some hope that it won't be as sort of 404 00:26:02,560 --> 00:26:10,480 Speaker 3: cataclysmic as I think some people predict. And it's not particular, 405 00:26:10,520 --> 00:26:13,320 Speaker 3: it's not super reassuring why that would be, but that 406 00:26:13,440 --> 00:26:15,840 Speaker 3: the reason why is that, like things are already so bad. 407 00:26:16,000 --> 00:26:19,639 Speaker 3: I mean, like the Supreme Court's Major Questions Doctrine I 408 00:26:19,640 --> 00:26:27,040 Speaker 3: think has already has already destroyed much of this of 409 00:26:27,080 --> 00:26:28,480 Speaker 3: the capacity of agencies. 410 00:26:28,520 --> 00:26:30,119 Speaker 4: I was going to ask you about that because it 411 00:26:30,160 --> 00:26:32,159 Speaker 4: did really seem to me like there was all this 412 00:26:32,359 --> 00:26:36,600 Speaker 4: uproar about Chevron deference, and while that was all going 413 00:26:36,640 --> 00:26:38,439 Speaker 4: on before the ruling, I was kind of like that, 414 00:26:39,000 --> 00:26:41,239 Speaker 4: I mean, it feels like they've already achieved a lot 415 00:26:41,280 --> 00:26:44,160 Speaker 4: of this with the Major Questions doctrine stuff, and they 416 00:26:44,160 --> 00:26:46,600 Speaker 4: extent to which they're leaning on it, But yeah, what 417 00:26:46,640 --> 00:26:48,560 Speaker 4: are the additional issues. 418 00:26:48,280 --> 00:26:51,800 Speaker 2: Beyond what Major Questions Doctrine was already doing that. 419 00:26:51,880 --> 00:26:56,720 Speaker 3: This accomplishes No, I think that's absolutely right. They have 420 00:26:56,800 --> 00:27:01,600 Speaker 3: already mostly accomplished this, And chef Ron, I think it 421 00:27:01,640 --> 00:27:05,560 Speaker 3: has been relied on less by agencies as we when 422 00:27:05,640 --> 00:27:08,720 Speaker 3: some we lose some, but we we often have already 423 00:27:08,800 --> 00:27:13,800 Speaker 3: lost cases those arguments I actually think, I actually think 424 00:27:14,080 --> 00:27:19,679 Speaker 3: more impactful, arguably in a really horrific way, is the 425 00:27:19,840 --> 00:27:24,000 Speaker 3: Statute of limitations. The other big, you know, agency action 426 00:27:24,520 --> 00:27:28,960 Speaker 3: case Corner Post that was decided the last day of 427 00:27:29,640 --> 00:27:34,000 Speaker 3: the term, and so the the opinion there was basically 428 00:27:34,040 --> 00:27:39,200 Speaker 3: throwing aside the statute of limitations for challenges to government action, 429 00:27:39,920 --> 00:27:42,679 Speaker 3: so that there's a six year statute of limitations on 430 00:27:43,000 --> 00:27:48,840 Speaker 3: challenging agency action. And what the Supreme Court interpreted is 431 00:27:48,880 --> 00:27:54,320 Speaker 3: that that that six years does not start when the 432 00:27:54,359 --> 00:27:58,959 Speaker 3: government action occurs. It starts whenever the injury happens. So 433 00:27:59,040 --> 00:28:02,359 Speaker 3: basically that throw open the door to challenging literally any 434 00:28:02,920 --> 00:28:08,160 Speaker 3: administrative action at all. So I think the potential for 435 00:28:08,240 --> 00:28:14,159 Speaker 3: being wildly destabilizing of every thing we have that protects 436 00:28:14,240 --> 00:28:17,040 Speaker 3: our health and our water and our hair from that 437 00:28:17,200 --> 00:28:21,760 Speaker 3: decision is arguably more concerning than Chevron. 438 00:28:22,560 --> 00:28:27,679 Speaker 2: That's interesting in terms of what can be done, and 439 00:28:27,720 --> 00:28:31,600 Speaker 2: how all of this dovetails with what's happening around electoral 440 00:28:31,640 --> 00:28:35,760 Speaker 2: politics right now too, because the Supreme Court and the 441 00:28:35,920 --> 00:28:39,320 Speaker 2: likelihood of justice is retiring and then being replaced by 442 00:28:39,480 --> 00:28:44,320 Speaker 2: very young, far right justice and all of that is 443 00:28:44,840 --> 00:28:47,240 Speaker 2: like the thing that I'm seeing talked about the most 444 00:28:47,360 --> 00:28:50,320 Speaker 2: is sort of like, oh, you know, you have to 445 00:28:50,400 --> 00:28:54,320 Speaker 2: vote for Biden no matter what because of the Supreme Court. 446 00:28:54,600 --> 00:28:57,840 Speaker 2: So yeah, I'm just I'm curious for your thoughts on 447 00:28:58,520 --> 00:29:00,920 Speaker 2: the packing the court stuff that people we'll talk about 448 00:29:01,000 --> 00:29:02,240 Speaker 2: when these rulings come out. 449 00:29:02,320 --> 00:29:03,440 Speaker 3: And then also. 450 00:29:04,720 --> 00:29:07,520 Speaker 2: All of this kind of feeds into what's happening with 451 00:29:07,560 --> 00:29:08,000 Speaker 2: the election. 452 00:29:08,280 --> 00:29:11,720 Speaker 3: Well, I think any Democrat who's not serious about court reform, 453 00:29:12,360 --> 00:29:22,080 Speaker 3: including court expansion, is a like either blind or I mean, 454 00:29:22,080 --> 00:29:24,600 Speaker 3: this is like, this is existential threat. And they just 455 00:29:24,720 --> 00:29:29,080 Speaker 3: ruled that Donald Trump can literally get away with murder. 456 00:29:29,720 --> 00:29:32,640 Speaker 2: Yeah. Actually I found that ruling to be so much 457 00:29:32,680 --> 00:29:35,760 Speaker 2: more shocking than the Chevron DeFord stuff, And I was like, 458 00:29:36,320 --> 00:29:38,400 Speaker 2: I feel like this is basically saying we're not a 459 00:29:38,440 --> 00:29:39,480 Speaker 2: democracy anymore. 460 00:29:39,560 --> 00:29:42,160 Speaker 3: I don't think you can overreact to it. It is 461 00:29:42,240 --> 00:29:48,840 Speaker 3: so profoundly terrifying. I mean, they literally they really say, 462 00:29:49,200 --> 00:29:51,720 Speaker 3: you know this a literal question, can you order Seal 463 00:29:52,040 --> 00:29:56,920 Speaker 3: Team six to assassinate arrival? And it is pretty clear 464 00:29:57,440 --> 00:30:01,800 Speaker 3: in that opinion that they are saying you can, especially. 465 00:30:01,520 --> 00:30:05,719 Speaker 2: Getting that in the context of him really ramping up 466 00:30:05,760 --> 00:30:12,239 Speaker 2: the rhetoric around revenge as part of his goal for 467 00:30:12,400 --> 00:30:15,240 Speaker 2: re election is I don't know, it's very concerning. 468 00:30:15,760 --> 00:30:18,800 Speaker 3: It's really scary. I think that you know, there are 469 00:30:18,880 --> 00:30:21,000 Speaker 3: leaders in the Democratic Party on this. I think overall 470 00:30:21,040 --> 00:30:24,080 Speaker 3: the Democratic Party has completely fallen on his ass on this, 471 00:30:24,520 --> 00:30:27,600 Speaker 3: whether it's it's Biden's refusal to engage in a real way, 472 00:30:27,600 --> 00:30:30,960 Speaker 3: whether it's Dick Durbin's refusal to act like he's the 473 00:30:31,040 --> 00:30:34,200 Speaker 3: chair of Senate Judiciary and has actual powers. I mean, 474 00:30:34,440 --> 00:30:40,520 Speaker 3: the whole idea of constitutional interpretation just being the role 475 00:30:40,520 --> 00:30:45,120 Speaker 3: of the judiciary is a new idea. Judicial supremacy is 476 00:30:45,480 --> 00:30:49,160 Speaker 3: a new thing, and we've seen the playbook for how 477 00:30:49,200 --> 00:30:52,080 Speaker 3: you deal with it. So FDR he comes in great 478 00:30:52,120 --> 00:30:54,840 Speaker 3: depression and he does his first round the first new deal. 479 00:30:54,840 --> 00:30:57,920 Speaker 3: It's called of programs, and there's a conservative Supreme Court 480 00:30:58,320 --> 00:31:01,520 Speaker 3: and they basically at them all down, they eviscerate them, 481 00:31:01,920 --> 00:31:06,800 Speaker 3: and FDR does not, like Biden has go out and say, well, 482 00:31:06,840 --> 00:31:09,280 Speaker 3: that's not the role for the president. You know, we 483 00:31:09,400 --> 00:31:13,680 Speaker 3: got to respect what they say. FDR. You know, cos 484 00:31:13,760 --> 00:31:17,680 Speaker 3: on a full on, you know, whistlestop tour, he says, 485 00:31:17,920 --> 00:31:20,000 Speaker 3: this is what we're fighting for, these things that will 486 00:31:20,000 --> 00:31:22,360 Speaker 3: help improve your lives, and these are the these are 487 00:31:22,360 --> 00:31:24,840 Speaker 3: the jackasses that are taking it away from you. It's 488 00:31:24,880 --> 00:31:28,680 Speaker 3: bullshit and proposes a number of different fixes. We we 489 00:31:28,680 --> 00:31:31,800 Speaker 3: we think about his quote unquote quote packing plan and 490 00:31:32,080 --> 00:31:35,640 Speaker 3: that it was not successful. We've we've totally drawn the 491 00:31:36,120 --> 00:31:39,760 Speaker 3: wrong historical lesson there. He did this all out front 492 00:31:39,960 --> 00:31:42,720 Speaker 3: against the Supreme Court, and though that particular the Court 493 00:31:42,760 --> 00:31:48,360 Speaker 3: expansion plan was not passed, the overall effect of that larger, 494 00:31:49,120 --> 00:31:54,360 Speaker 3: that larger offensive was that the Supreme Court backed off 495 00:31:54,400 --> 00:31:57,480 Speaker 3: and the Second New Deal set of programs was allowed 496 00:31:57,520 --> 00:32:00,720 Speaker 3: to continue in it. You know, our entire your first 497 00:32:00,720 --> 00:32:04,440 Speaker 3: state and system of government party has not done that. 498 00:32:04,520 --> 00:32:07,920 Speaker 3: You need to start you have needed to start doing 499 00:32:07,960 --> 00:32:11,160 Speaker 3: that decades ago. And it's really clear now. 500 00:32:12,320 --> 00:32:15,560 Speaker 2: Totally the Democratic Party or like you'll all hear, you know, 501 00:32:15,640 --> 00:32:19,880 Speaker 2: political strategist to be like, well, you know, sure that 502 00:32:19,960 --> 00:32:23,560 Speaker 2: worked in FDR's day, but the Supreme Court wouldn't respond 503 00:32:23,600 --> 00:32:25,920 Speaker 2: to that kind of pressure today. I mean, maybe, but 504 00:32:26,000 --> 00:32:29,280 Speaker 2: could we try. I don't understand the what seems to 505 00:32:29,320 --> 00:32:34,760 Speaker 2: be total lack of energy or interest in doing anything 506 00:32:34,800 --> 00:32:36,560 Speaker 2: at all about it. 507 00:32:36,560 --> 00:32:39,960 Speaker 3: It's in defense of yeah, and again this is it's everything. 508 00:32:40,080 --> 00:32:43,200 Speaker 3: The Supreme Court is threatening and has the ability to 509 00:32:43,280 --> 00:32:46,480 Speaker 3: further threaten every single thing we care about. They've already 510 00:32:46,480 --> 00:32:51,400 Speaker 3: obviously destroyed some of the most important rights that Americans have. Right, 511 00:32:51,640 --> 00:32:54,160 Speaker 3: I'm not serious about this. I don't know how you 512 00:32:54,160 --> 00:32:56,160 Speaker 3: can say you're serious about any of the use we 513 00:32:56,320 --> 00:32:59,800 Speaker 3: care right. The last thing I'd say is, again, it's 514 00:33:00,160 --> 00:33:05,200 Speaker 3: or reason for us to be looking for alternative, alternative 515 00:33:05,240 --> 00:33:09,080 Speaker 3: solutions for how the law can keep our communities safe 516 00:33:09,400 --> 00:33:14,840 Speaker 3: from climate harms and climate criminals. And we think that 517 00:33:14,880 --> 00:33:20,440 Speaker 3: the law is a way that localities and states can 518 00:33:20,480 --> 00:33:25,080 Speaker 3: take action on the area that they have the strongest 519 00:33:25,200 --> 00:33:29,000 Speaker 3: jurisdiction and right to say, this is our core powers.