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 Ella m Hoff has fired back
Speaker 1: on JD Vance's accusations about Kamala being a child less
Speaker 1: cat lady. We have such a great show for you today.
Speaker 1: Sky Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, stops by to talk
Speaker 1: Project twenty twenty five. Then we'll talk to North Carolina
Speaker 1: State Supreme Court Justice Alison Riggs about her critical race
Speaker 1: in a potential swing state. But first, we have the
Speaker 1: hosts of the weekend Saturdays and Sundays at eight am
Speaker 1: on MSNBC, Simone Sanders and Michael Steele. As well. MSNBC
Speaker 1: will host MSNBC Live Democracy twenty twenty four, an inaugural
Speaker 1: audience focused event featuring more than a dozen of the
Speaker 1: most well known MSNBC hosts and more. The day long
Speaker 1: event will take place on Saturday, September seventh at bam
Speaker 1: Brooklyn Academy of Music. Tickets are on sale at msnbc
Speaker 1: dot com. Backslash Democracy twenty twenty four. Welcome to Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: Michael Steele and Simone Sanders Townson.
Speaker 2: Yy Hey, hey, hey, hey, let's go on, Molly.
Speaker 1: I'm excited to have you both because I really like
Speaker 1: both of you and think you're both hilarious. More importantly
Speaker 1: and very very smart. But she has been the candidate
Speaker 1: for four days.
Speaker 3: It's crazy. But you know, man, Michael thought about this.
Speaker 3: I think that this is a legitimate honeymoon period. And
Speaker 3: if this is the honeymoon period, Hai, right away, there
Speaker 3: is going to be a turn that happens.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, this has been a remarkable four days.
Speaker 3: And frankly, it is a testament to it wouldn't have
Speaker 3: gone like this and the vice by and the president
Speaker 3: not have had the good governing relationship, the good working relationship,
Speaker 3: the actual friendship, because Joe Biden could have thought, I'm
Speaker 3: getting out of this race and he ain't said nothing else,
Speaker 3: but he said, I'm getting out of this race.
Speaker 4: And also it's her.
Speaker 3: And she has been one of the most loyal defenders
Speaker 3: to the president throughout this entire process and also just
Speaker 3: continuing to prosecute the case against Trump while everything was
Speaker 3: unfolding over the last month. So this seamless transition, if
Speaker 3: you will, is a testament to a lot of work
Speaker 3: that happened up until this point.
Speaker 2: It's also a testament to overcoming what I consider to
Speaker 2: be incredibly politically stupid play by Democrats who allowed this
Speaker 2: to even get to the point that it did. The
Speaker 2: reality for a lot of folks was the writing here,
Speaker 2: Molly in large measure has been.
Speaker 5: On the wall for a while.
Speaker 2: And the fact that, and again it goes to something
Speaker 2: that I don't even think Democrats really appreciate about the
Speaker 2: man they had in front of them in Joe Biden,
Speaker 2: is that he, to the most point fixed this. And
Speaker 2: because as she just said, it could have been a
Speaker 2: lot more difficult, in fact worse if he just said, Hey,
Speaker 2: I'm not going anywhere period. I am the current president
Speaker 2: and I will remain such until January twentieth next year.
Speaker 2: If I'm not re elected or b I'm standing down,
Speaker 2: y'all have fun.
Speaker 5: See you on the other side. And he didn't.
Speaker 2: And the fact that he didn't speaks volumes about how
Speaker 2: he cares about the outcome and recognizes the historic moment,
Speaker 2: not in terms of elevating someone like the vice president,
Speaker 2: but the historic moment for the country as we're about
Speaker 2: to move into our two hundred and fiftieth year in
Speaker 2: a couple of years, to know that we could be
Speaker 2: at that hour in authoritarian state, that we could have
Speaker 2: sitting in the White House, someone with unfettered power given
Speaker 2: to him by an unchained Supreme Court. And I think
Speaker 2: that a lot of folks lose sight of the found
Speaker 2: importance that I think history is going to reflect Joe
Speaker 2: Biden is to this moment and the role that he's
Speaker 2: played to keeping the ship of state steady. So simone's
Speaker 2: real important political point. This honeymoon is great, and all
Speaker 2: the stars are in the eyes and the love is
Speaker 2: in the air and everybody's holding.
Speaker 5: The hands, And that's not how this is going to finish. Necessarily.
Speaker 2: You're going to have a lot of hard work ahead
Speaker 2: of you because the folks on my side are prepared,
Speaker 2: as we've already seen, to play not just the misogyny card,
Speaker 2: but the race card. And it's going to be a
Speaker 2: very very challenging race that it's going to be less
Speaker 2: about issues and more about Trump doing the maga thing
Speaker 2: with the poison that they want to spread.
Speaker 1: Yeah, for sure, But I'm wondering when we talk about
Speaker 1: what Biden has done here with the Vice president, which
Speaker 1: I think is really meaningful and important, is that the
Speaker 1: people I've talked to in the campaign, because people in
Speaker 1: the White House don't want to violate Hatch all say
Speaker 1: that the message from Biden was if you love me,
Speaker 1: make her president.
Speaker 4: And I am not surprised.
Speaker 3: Let's just back up and remember, you know, Joe Biden,
Speaker 3: I remember doing the whole running made search, if you will,
Speaker 3: doing twenty twenty because I worked on the Biden campaign
Speaker 3: then I was the advisor to the then candidate Biden,
Speaker 3: and there are all these people pontificating and speculating about
Speaker 3: what he was going to do, who he was going
Speaker 3: to pick. He himself made the commitment that he was
Speaker 3: going to select a woman as his running mate, but
Speaker 3: which woman was the question. And when he settled on
Speaker 3: then Senator Harris now Vice President Harris, one of the
Speaker 3: things he said after the fact was the most important
Speaker 3: thing to me is someone that.
Speaker 4: Is ready on day one.
Speaker 3: And Joe Biden has never wavered from that. And on
Speaker 3: top of that, they have a good relationship and they
Speaker 3: like each other. When he called into the Wilmington champaign
Speaker 3: headquarters meeting, I guess it was earlier this week, and
Speaker 3: then the Vice President was speaking and she's like, we
Speaker 3: just love the bide we love Joe and Jill, and
Speaker 3: he's like, well, I love you too, kid, I'm watching you.
Speaker 3: First of all, someone let people know the president is
Speaker 3: still on the line. But that's quitnes with Joe Biden. Okay,
Speaker 3: just jumping in and saying I love you, kid. Like
Speaker 3: Joe Biden really loves her. He loves his country, but
Speaker 3: he loves her. And I think he appreciates just the
Speaker 3: kind of vice president that he has been to her,
Speaker 3: to him because he knows the job. He himself did
Speaker 3: it for Barack Obama for eight years. Joe Biden is
Speaker 3: a good person. And because he's a good person, He's
Speaker 3: a smart politician, but a good person that values people
Speaker 3: in relationship. Of course, he made the case he could
Speaker 3: just say, oh, it's her and then not do any
Speaker 3: work on her behalf, but he is going to him.
Speaker 3: He himself said do the work because he really wants
Speaker 3: it to be her. And Donald Trumps was on the
Speaker 3: other side of this. Okay, Authoritarianism is real. Dictator on
Speaker 3: day one is real. This is not a game.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I think that's a very very important part of all
Speaker 2: of this for Joe Biden is understanding not just the
Speaker 2: historic moment of having someone like Kama ready on day one,
Speaker 2: but also understanding the importance to the country of having
Speaker 2: someone like her ready on day one, and why the
Speaker 2: threat coming from the other side is real and important.
Speaker 2: Would Joe Biden like at this point to be seven
Speaker 2: years eight years younger, Yeah, would you know things be
Speaker 2: different if age had not caught up with him even
Speaker 2: at eighty one. Absolutely. We know a lot of folks
Speaker 2: in their eighties who are are very much you know,
Speaker 2: still yeah, still doing their thing exactly. But that's a
Speaker 2: very hard realization to come to in politics. We've all seen,
Speaker 2: and I know Simone has worked with as I have
Speaker 2: over the years, the politician who just doesn't know when
Speaker 2: the light has gone out and they're the only one
Speaker 2: standing on the stage because everyone's left the room, right,
Speaker 2: They're still reliving a period that's long gone. And the
Speaker 2: hardest thing for Joe was coming to that truth, I think,
Speaker 2: and part of that process over the last four weeks,
Speaker 2: what I was saying to some of the Democrats that
Speaker 2: I know was, if you know anything about this man,
Speaker 2: give him the space to do this on his terms,
Speaker 2: because the more you try to browbeat him out the
Speaker 2: door that irish in him stands up, it becomes harder
Speaker 2: for him to let go. And I think they finally
Speaker 2: caught that at the end and let him figure out
Speaker 2: how he wanted to have this conversation with the country.
Speaker 2: And I think what we witnessed in his address to
Speaker 2: the nation from the Old Office was Joe Biden's recognition
Speaker 2: on his terms and having that conversation with the country
Speaker 2: on his terms.
Speaker 5: And so I appreciate the man for that.
Speaker 2: You know, he, for me affirmed all the reasons why
Speaker 2: I did what I did in twenty twenty by not
Speaker 2: only saying I was voting for Joe Biden, but publicly
Speaker 2: endorsing him as the former chairman of the Republican National
Speaker 2: Committee and as a Republican in this still to this day.
Speaker 5: Saying I've voted for Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: So in that Oval Office speech, policy, you know, differences aside,
Speaker 2: all of that aside, he affirmed for me why I took.
Speaker 5: That leap of faith in him. And I hope the
Speaker 5: country saw that and heard that in that speech, why
Speaker 5: they took that.
Speaker 2: He honored that leap of faith that they took, you know,
Speaker 2: with him in twenty twenty.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Joe Biden demonstrated he's the many that cann be trusted.
Speaker 3: People have been talking about the president as though he
Speaker 3: is getting on a plane and flying away to his
Speaker 3: beach house and never commits the man is bill president
Speaker 3: until January twenty and twenty twenty five. He is just
Speaker 3: no longer a candidate. And in his Oval Office address
Speaker 3: when I also heard him say it, I am still
Speaker 3: here and I still have work to do. And frankly,
Speaker 3: there are additional commitments and promises that Joe Biden made
Speaker 3: the American people that he has not yet made good on.
Speaker 3: We should all hold him accountable on that because he
Speaker 3: does still have again January twenty twenty five, until everything
Speaker 3: is said and done. So I just, you know, I
Speaker 3: just please people trying to bear Joe Biden a lot
Speaker 3: of people.
Speaker 4: I'm here.
Speaker 3: I'm here, and I'll read the poll reports because you know,
Speaker 3: I'm a nerd, and.
Speaker 4: You know, he used to be my job to be like, oh,
Speaker 4: what they put the poll report? Did they get that
Speaker 4: in there?
Speaker 3: They missed in the color so and reading the poor
Speaker 3: reports yesterday from the day of the Oval Office address
Speaker 3: from the folks who were traveling with the Vice president,
Speaker 3: there was much made about Oh, she didn't stop to
Speaker 3: speak on the tarmac. She didn't answer this out of
Speaker 3: question the day of the oble office address that was
Speaker 3: about Joe Biden, and so she shouldn't have been answering
Speaker 3: questions and to check with the press on the tarmac.
Speaker 3: But she knows that because again he has been in
Speaker 3: there with Joe Biden for almost four years doing this work.
Speaker 1: One of the things I've been really impressed with too,
Speaker 1: is that to be the person who takes over, there's
Speaker 1: sometimes there's a sense that that person was angling for it,
Speaker 1: and you got none of that. You got none of that.
Speaker 1: You saw that she was his staunchest ally and supporter
Speaker 1: and so loyal to him, which I think is something
Speaker 1: that voters will appreciate because we all have had elderly
Speaker 1: parents and.
Speaker 4: We trust black women, I like to say.
Speaker 3: But also, let's just you know, right wing conservative media
Speaker 3: has made this out to be that something is wrong
Speaker 3: with Joe Biden, that the president is actually thick and
Speaker 3: he's having a health care crisis and there's been a
Speaker 3: cover up. And that is also why I think his
Speaker 3: allal office address was important because it was him direct
Speaker 3: to camera in prime time that all of the networks
Speaker 3: took it so that people can see him for themselves,
Speaker 3: and the right wing conservative media atta change. I won't
Speaker 3: even say conservative because it is it's straight up right wing, okay,
Speaker 3: and it's jam and it ain't even conservative anymore. It
Speaker 3: hadn't been a sustained attack on both the president and
Speaker 3: the vice president since before they even took office, and
Speaker 3: so when the honeymoon period subsided a little bit for demic,
Speaker 3: they don't need to they don't need to pop up
Speaker 3: and pay attention. I don't think the people have been
Speaker 3: working for the vice president and the vice president herself
Speaker 3: are new to this phenomenon, because it's been something she's
Speaker 3: been confronting for a while.
Speaker 4: But to be very very clear.
Speaker 3: I mean I've already I've been reading articles and I've
Speaker 3: been listening to some analytical reporters who've been talking about
Speaker 3: what they perceive as the vice president's policy and what
Speaker 3: they perceive is how she has operated over the last
Speaker 3: four years. And I was kind of like, Oh, somebody
Speaker 3: need to frame these people up planning, because they all
Speaker 3: got it right.
Speaker 1: Are you guys surprised at how much the right has
Speaker 1: been able to work the refs in the mainstream media
Speaker 1: and how they've been able to sort of set the conversation.
Speaker 1: And I'm thinking even back to that debate, where so
Speaker 1: many of the convers so many of the questions had
Speaker 1: a right wing framing that I don't even know that
Speaker 1: the reporters, that the journalists even knew that they were
Speaker 1: taking the right wing framing.
Speaker 5: I'm not surprised by it.
Speaker 2: I think there has been for quite some time now,
Speaker 2: and I just wish the media is just honest about it.
Speaker 5: To be honest.
Speaker 2: You know New York Times that there's a symbiosis between
Speaker 2: them and Donald Trump, that they feed off of each other.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump, little reported but definitely noted by me and
Speaker 2: others when he finally left Washington and twenty twenty one noted,
Speaker 2: You're going to miss me because you need me as
Speaker 2: much as I need you.
Speaker 5: And that was a very honest assessment.
Speaker 2: Between Trump and the fake news that he loved so much,
Speaker 2: the fake news that he fed and gave access to
Speaker 2: and lulled them into thinking that they had some type
Speaker 2: of special connection and arrangement that nobody else did. And
Speaker 2: we've seen books written as a consequence of that relationship,
Speaker 2: and I think it has in many respects sort of
Speaker 2: lered some of the reporting that we've not just some,
Speaker 2: but an important part of the report that we've seen.
Speaker 2: To your point, Molly, about how these things are framed,
Speaker 2: the fact that after that debate, Yes, everybody saw what
Speaker 2: we saw her when we heard god awful debate by
Speaker 2: Joe Biden, got it.
Speaker 5: But did you know that there was someone else on
Speaker 5: the stage too, and yet that was not covered that
Speaker 5: the fact that the former president was standing there a
Speaker 5: line from the very first moment he opened his mouth
Speaker 5: and reaffirming and layering up again narratives that we all
Speaker 5: know were debunked and were not true. The election was
Speaker 5: not stolen.
Speaker 2: You were charged and convicted because you committed crimes, not
Speaker 2: because of anything the Biden Justice Department. Did your dance
Speaker 2: with the law begained before there was a Biden administration.
Speaker 2: In fact, a lot of it occurred under your own
Speaker 2: Justice department. Those points weren't pushed back. Even if Joe
Speaker 2: Biden didn't have the capacity in those moments to fact
Speaker 2: check Donald Trump, you would have thought that the moderators would,
Speaker 2: or at least narratively after the fact, that that would
Speaker 2: be part of the storyline. So yeah, there's some real
Speaker 2: issues in my view that still linger and exist here
Speaker 2: with the way Trump is covered. And it wasn't until honestly,
Speaker 2: just a browbeating by the public after the debate that
Speaker 2: you know, you had out some institutional newspapers and online
Speaker 2: services actually start reporting on the other half of that debate.
Speaker 2: It's an ongoing concern and you know it's going to
Speaker 2: be important to sort of watch it. But because I
Speaker 2: think the media is in love as much with Donald
Speaker 2: Trump as he is with them.
Speaker 1: Bold statement, but I think very true. Can you talk
Speaker 1: to us just for a minute, Simone and then Michael
Speaker 1: about what it looks like coming out of that convention.
Speaker 1: Did the Republicans just completely squad under a four days
Speaker 1: a mainstream media. It strains me that they have, and
Speaker 1: it delights me.
Speaker 4: Well, well did they?
Speaker 3: I mean, let's just be honest, Okay, going into that
Speaker 3: convention after a you know, a very real assassination attempt
Speaker 3: against the former president on in life, they were riding
Speaker 3: high with the media narrative. Everyone was being very judicious
Speaker 3: and deferential. I feel like, and I do mean when
Speaker 3: I say everyone, I'm panning with broad strug brush on purpose.
Speaker 3: Most people except not the weekend, honey, But weren't we
Speaker 3: weren't even on TV that Sunday.
Speaker 4: So you deal with that what you will and love
Speaker 4: what is it that convention? Everybody's talking about this.
Speaker 3: He told Donald Trump was gonna have nothing to back
Speaker 3: up that there was going to be a new tone.
Speaker 4: Nothing.
Speaker 3: He selects JD. Vans and they're like, yes, the tone
Speaker 3: is changing again. Where are the facts and the evidence?
Speaker 3: Where are the receipt you know, as I harken back
Speaker 3: to the real haz wide of Salt Lake City, you know,
Speaker 3: timeline receipt and where the evidence? Honey, There was no
Speaker 3: evidence that's for any of this myth. It was just
Speaker 3: you know what people in Donald Trump's or what we're saying.
Speaker 3: He wouldn't even talk to any actual reporter. It's not
Speaker 3: like he made himself available, right, But all of a
Speaker 3: sudden he calling up the Washington Examiner and his favorite,
Speaker 3: you know, right wing outlet. So I would just think
Speaker 3: that they did benefit from the median narrative. Everyone played
Speaker 3: all their things, you know, Eric Trump was making the rounds,
Speaker 3: do any softball interviews.
Speaker 4: It was insane.
Speaker 3: And then Thursday night came and Donald Trump got up
Speaker 3: on that stage. And for fifteen minutes told us a
Speaker 3: story recounted his version that he said he would never
Speaker 3: tell again, but I have since heard it multiple times
Speaker 3: about the assassination attempt. And then boom turned to George
Speaker 3: trunk Rally the switch flip, and everybody was like, oh my,
Speaker 3: oh my goodness, oh my goodness, this did Donald tarm
Speaker 3: he ate ames when y'all don't figure it out.
Speaker 4: Michael Thoughts simone nailed it.
Speaker 2: I always marveled that it goes back to the point
Speaker 2: I was just making. You had folks in the media
Speaker 2: pushing this bs that Donald Trump was going to change.
Speaker 2: Oh after the assassination. You know, he looked so serene
Speaker 2: sitting there in the hall, and it looks you know,
Speaker 2: I'm like, would you guys stop smoking whatever they're selling
Speaker 2: you please? Do you know who you're talking about? You're
Speaker 2: being punked. This is all part of the reality TV
Speaker 2: programming that he has done from the very beginning. There
Speaker 2: is nothing about Donald Trump that has changed. And in fact,
Speaker 2: on our airs, and I think it was during Katie
Speaker 2: Tur's hour, there was someone who had a conversation with
Speaker 2: Donald Trump that Sunday after the shooting, and they asked
Speaker 2: him what's different about Trump? And and and he went
Speaker 2: only said, well, I asked Trump, you know that this
Speaker 2: changed the way you look at things? You know, did
Speaker 2: you have that moment where you realize your you know,
Speaker 2: your life flashes before your eyes? And it basically said,
Speaker 2: Trump was like, no, why would there be any other
Speaker 2: answer from a narcissist, Why would there be any other
Speaker 2: answer from a megalomaniac. Why would you expect him to
Speaker 2: be introspective?
Speaker 5: They're not. That's it's just not.
Speaker 2: A tool that they have in their box and their
Speaker 2: you know, makeup of who they are, because no, I mean,
Speaker 2: this is who I am, So I expect to survive
Speaker 2: these things, this whole thing about you know, showing images
Speaker 2: of Donald trumple in his needs, the sort of AI
Speaker 2: generated images of Donald Trump on his knees saying a prayer.
Speaker 5: This is the man who held the Bible upside down
Speaker 5: for God's sake.
Speaker 3: Come on, it'stop that well hold selling his own Bible
Speaker 3: and will though, what'sn't that it.
Speaker 2: Made his own Bible, so you know, tells you what
Speaker 2: he thinks about God.
Speaker 4: All right, I love you both.
Speaker 1: I really appreciate you both. I think this is so important.
Speaker 1: Also everyone should watch the weekend because you guys are amazing,
Speaker 1: So thank you, thank you.
Speaker 4: Yes, thank you.
Speaker 3: We appreciate when you come on watch the weekend, and
Speaker 3: they should buy our ticket. Yeah, not to the weekend, yes,
Speaker 3: right now, that's free for today, for today, for now, okay,
Speaker 3: but we are all getting together on September seventh for
Speaker 3: an MSNBC live event all about democracy Unpacking twenty twenty
Speaker 3: four obviously has gotten crazy. Who knows what is going
Speaker 3: to be by September seven, but Michael and I will
Speaker 3: be there, Alisia will be there. All your favorites from MSNBC, Lawrence, Rachel, Joy,
Speaker 3: Focking here, everybody, everybody, Alex, everybody will be there. So
Speaker 3: I'll get your tickets on Summer seventh in Parson in
Speaker 3: New York. I think it's in Brooklyn actually, so join us.
Speaker 1: Thanks you, guys, thank you, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 5: Molly.
Speaker 1: Are you concerned about Project twenty twenty five and how
Speaker 1: awful Trump's second term could be? Well, so are we,
Speaker 1: which is why we teamed with iHeart to make a
Speaker 1: limited series with the experts on what a disaster Project
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five would be for America's future. Right now.
Speaker 1: The first four episodes, with the final episode coming next week,
Speaker 1: are available by looking up Molly John Fast Project twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five on YouTube. If you are thinking you are
Speaker 1: more of a podcast person and not a YouTuber, you
Speaker 1: can hit play when you get to the video, put
Speaker 1: the phone on lockscreen and it will play back. New
Speaker 1: episodes are dropping in the next week as well. We
Speaker 1: need to educate America on what Trump's second term would
Speaker 1: do to this country. Please watch and help us spread
Speaker 1: the word. Sky Perriman is the president of Democracy Forward.
Speaker 1: Welcome too, Fast Politics.
Speaker 4: Sky Well. It's good to be here.
Speaker 1: So I want to talk to you about all the
Speaker 1: sort of legal stuff that you guys are working on
Speaker 1: or whatever you can talk about. First, tell us about
Speaker 1: your organization.
Speaker 4: Great well. Democracy Forward is an organization. We work across
Speaker 4: the country. We're an organization of lawyers, and we also
Speaker 4: have policy folks and communicators because sometimes lawyers have to
Speaker 4: have people help them communicate. As we know, and we
Speaker 4: we were started in the wake of the twenty sixteen
Speaker 4: election when it became clear that we were in an
Speaker 4: unfortunate new era of American life where the fight for
Speaker 4: democracy was not just about whether we were going to
Speaker 4: be able to push forward and tour to more inclusive society,
Speaker 4: but was actually whether we were going to be able
Speaker 4: to hang on to some of the hard fought gains
Speaker 4: given what we saw in the first months of the
Speaker 4: last Trump administration. And so our team got together. We
Speaker 4: went many of us for lawyers in corporate practice or
Speaker 4: in senior government roles, and we came together to bring
Speaker 4: cases on behalf of people and communities throughout the country
Speaker 4: that were being harmed by unlawful and harmful policies in
Speaker 4: the Trump era. We've evolved our mission. We do a
Speaker 4: lot more than that now. What we learned was that
Speaker 4: the maga extreme trump Ism that we saw in the
Speaker 4: last administration wasn't really just about one person, but it
Speaker 4: was also about a highly coordinated, highly funded network of
Speaker 4: extreme legal organizations that for many years and even decades,
Speaker 4: have been working to seek to move our country backwards,
Speaker 4: to take away their right to abortion, to take to
Speaker 4: make it harder for people to vote, to make it
Speaker 4: harder for people to thrive. And so over the past
Speaker 4: few years we've been expanding our work in order to
Speaker 4: counter that extremism and to really represent in courts and
Speaker 4: in communities throughout the country. What we know the vast
Speaker 4: majority of people in this country want, which is a
Speaker 4: society where all of us can be included and where
Speaker 4: we can all thrive.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of steps that keeps me up at night,
Speaker 1: But the newest thing that keeps me up in a
Speaker 1: night in American democracy is the ways in which the
Speaker 1: right is trying to make it harder for people to
Speaker 1: vote in this election cycle and the weird legal challenges
Speaker 1: they're making about certifying elections. Can you talk to us
Speaker 1: about that and is there anything that can be done?
Speaker 4: Look, I mean, this is when you're a part of
Speaker 4: an extreme movement that doesn't represent the majority of people,
Speaker 4: and certainly doesn't represent the vast majority of people, which
Speaker 4: is what the far right in America is. It's a
Speaker 4: very small sort of percentage of the population. You have
Speaker 4: to do things to move your agenda forward, which is
Speaker 4: why they resort to anti democratic behaviors, to election denihalism,
Speaker 4: to intimidation, to seeking to deprive people from hope. We
Speaker 4: know that these efforts are unlawful. The Supreme Court has
Speaker 4: said that with respect and rejected some of the basis
Speaker 4: legal theories. Courts across the country are constantly ruling in
Speaker 4: favor of voting rights, although there have been major setbacks
Speaker 4: because of that same far right legal movement. And so
Speaker 4: I think that we want to just encourage folks to vote,
Speaker 4: but also to have a plan. And then we know
Speaker 4: that there are so many lawyers and advocates that will
Speaker 4: bring in order to protect our democracy. So like we
Speaker 4: work on like all kinds of issues, we don't typically
Speaker 4: do direct voting stuff.
Speaker 1: Tell us about some of the stuff you guys do.
Speaker 4: One of the things that's incredibly concerning is that we
Speaker 4: see extremism that maybe people a few years ago thought
Speaker 4: was research for one person or a particular moment in time.
Speaker 4: We're seeing that see in communities across the country. Our
Speaker 4: team is on the front lines in places like Arkansas
Speaker 4: having to sue and by the way, we have won
Speaker 4: so far to keep librarians from being penalized with criminal
Speaker 4: penalties as a result of laws, very extreme laws that
Speaker 4: have been passed that Governor of Sarah Huckabee Sanders has signed.
Speaker 4: We are in court in Alabama having to challenge censorship efforts.
Speaker 4: We've had to go to court in Ohio to try
Speaker 4: to keep the public education system from being taken over
Speaker 4: by the governor's office against sort of elected the elected
Speaker 4: state Board of Education. And so I think like one
Speaker 4: of the things that is important for people to understand
Speaker 4: in this moment is that the fight for democracy is
Speaker 4: certainly about the right to vote and the fight for voting,
Speaker 4: but it is about so much more than that. I
Speaker 4: think Dobbs showed that to people. I mean, we are
Speaker 4: in communities across the country seeking having to represent doctors
Speaker 4: who just want to provide emergency abortion care to their
Speaker 4: patients and are being prevented from doing that because of
Speaker 4: far right ags and because of this coalition of far
Speaker 4: right organizations, the same ones that are behind Project twenty
Speaker 4: twenty five, which is getting good attention thanks to you
Speaker 4: and many others, but they're behind so many efforts. And
Speaker 4: so I really think this is a moment and what
Speaker 4: we see in our work where people have to decide
Speaker 4: what they are going to do in this moment for
Speaker 4: our country and for our democracy. And there is work
Speaker 4: we all need to do to just reject extremism as
Speaker 4: it appears in our everyday lives.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about what that extremism looks like. In
Speaker 1: the court. So I did a big thing. I talked
Speaker 1: to Dave Atgers about his book being banned and in
Speaker 1: South Dakota. What was interesting about that story was it
Speaker 1: was this sort of astro turf protest, right like, the
Speaker 1: people of South Dakota don't want these books removed. It's
Speaker 1: this website, it's this group that is a sort of
Speaker 1: offshoot of Moms for Liberty. So legally, what are you
Speaker 1: seeing that's like that?
Speaker 4: Well, look, we've seen that actually even in the pandemic.
Speaker 4: Let me just start with that, because it's the censorship
Speaker 4: efforts that you're seeing across the country, this extremism. We
Speaker 4: thought even in the pandemic, with communities where there were
Speaker 4: all of a sudden uprisings over people needing, you know,
Speaker 4: over children wearing masks in school, are making schools safe
Speaker 4: against COVID nineteen, And what we started finding we represented
Speaker 4: pediatricians in a lot of these cases, and what we
Speaker 4: started finding was that these were not sort of organic
Speaker 4: movements that were happening across the country. They were, as
Speaker 4: you just said, these seated movements where special intrist organizations
Speaker 4: would burrow in a community and seek to polarize people.
Speaker 4: We see that right now with city ordinances in states
Speaker 4: like Texas and New Mexico and Ohio and Nebraska, where
Speaker 4: lawyers and kind of right wing legal and other political
Speaker 4: figures like Jonathan Mitchell. He's the lawyer that was behind
Speaker 4: SB eight, the aiding and a betting law on abortion
Speaker 4: in Texas. He he represented, you know, he was at
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court this last term. And you know, what
Speaker 4: we see is like all of a sudden, communities are
Speaker 4: starting to consider city ordinances that are incredibly streamed that
Speaker 4: ban abortion or even ban people from helping their neighbors.
Speaker 4: And we started looking at though we requested public records,
Speaker 4: what we saw was a paper trail in all of
Speaker 4: these communities with these common actors, right, people that are
Speaker 4: not from the community, that come into these towns and
Speaker 4: try to polarize people in order to push an agenda.
Speaker 4: And so, I mean, we do see that. You see
Speaker 4: it in the censorship space, We certainly see it in
Speaker 4: the abortion space. We know we've seen it in the
Speaker 4: voting space. And I think that one of the things
Speaker 4: that's significant about this is when we look at our
Speaker 4: overall democracy. You and I talked about this, you know,
Speaker 4: I think when we saw each other, but in twenty
Speaker 4: twenty one, the United States was added to the list
Speaker 4: of global backsliding democracies. And I just want to say that,
Speaker 4: and hopefully, you know, lots of people don't realize that,
Speaker 4: but in twenty twenty one, after January sixth, the United
Speaker 4: States was put on a list of global backsliding democracies.
Speaker 4: And what we know about democracies that are in backslide
Speaker 4: are that there are these efforts to polarize people. People
Speaker 4: are not actually as polarized as you know, we are
Speaker 4: led to believe, but there are you know, far right
Speaker 4: efforts in this country and these political efforts to make.
Speaker 1: Them seem more polarized exactly.
Speaker 4: And the question is why would you do that, Well,
Speaker 4: if you represent a vision and a view for the
Speaker 4: country that only a small minority of people believe in,
Speaker 4: because you're against everybody that makes up the country. You know,
Speaker 4: you don't like immigrants, you don't like people of color,
Speaker 4: you don't like women, you don't like librarians, you don't
Speaker 4: like teachers, you think the media is out to get you,
Speaker 4: I mean whatever, you know, vilification of the American identity
Speaker 4: in many ways, that these are the extreme actors in body.
Speaker 4: You have to convince people that they're polarized because how
Speaker 4: are you going to try to get more power than
Speaker 4: you really should have? And so that's what that's what
Speaker 4: we're seeing it. It's really concerning. I followed your work
Speaker 4: and conversations with folks about it, and what we want
Speaker 4: people to do is to understand that, like in this moment,
Speaker 4: we all have a voice, and that's what we do
Speaker 4: every day as we represent people in courts and in community.
Speaker 4: It's making sure that people are making their voices heard,
Speaker 4: that they you know, this extremism is not what it
Speaker 4: means to be an American and it's not in line
Speaker 4: with the vast majority of what the American people believe, right.
Speaker 1: I Mean, that's the thing that is so strinking, is
Speaker 1: none of this is what people want, right. The majority
Speaker 1: doesn't want to not be able to vote. They don't
Speaker 1: want to not be able to get books in the library,
Speaker 1: and they don't want to not be able to have healthcare.
Speaker 1: Tell me about some of the sort of weirder legal
Speaker 1: challenges that we are, Like, I mean, I'm sure that
Speaker 1: the things you're seeing the most of our abortion and
Speaker 1: but just give me some of the sort of weirder stuff.
Speaker 4: Well, there's been a really significant and pretty cataclysmic trend,
Speaker 4: and some of it reached the Supreme Court this term
Speaker 4: where we have a lot of these far right legal
Speaker 4: organizations or more right leaning legal actors really seeking to
Speaker 4: undermine the way our government can deliver for people. So
Speaker 4: in this last term, as one example, the Supreme Court,
Speaker 4: at the invitation of the right wing legal movement, issued
Speaker 4: a number of decisions that undermine the way the federal
Speaker 4: government can do basic things. Why keep our air and
Speaker 4: water while you stay right?
Speaker 1: There are like two enormous decisions I think that the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court made this semester. They both came on July first,
Speaker 1: because why wouldn't they. One was the Chevron doctor and
Speaker 1: can you talk about that? And then the other one
Speaker 1: is that you know, the president can do whatever he
Speaker 1: wants and crimes are not crimes if the president doesn't
Speaker 1: but talk to us about Chevron.
Speaker 4: Well, I really want to talk about to both of
Speaker 4: those same times.
Speaker 5: So let me.
Speaker 4: I'll start with what you're calling the Chevron decision, and
Speaker 4: that is what it is for your listeners who haven't
Speaker 4: been keeping as up with things, although I know most
Speaker 4: of your listeners do. Chevron deferences is about the gas station,
Speaker 4: but that was years ago. But this legal principle that
Speaker 4: lawyers talk about, which is that when Congress passes a law,
Speaker 4: so Congress passes the law, they use pretty broad language.
Speaker 4: Sometimes their language isn't that clear. Sometimes that's intentional, other
Speaker 4: times it's just Augress is not an expert in everything
Speaker 4: that it's legislating, and it's trying its best. But when
Speaker 4: they use language that's not particularly clear, that's the ambiguous.
Speaker 4: When the federal agencies, so federal agencies are in our
Speaker 4: executive branch and in our system of government, right like
Speaker 4: Congress passes the law and in the executive branch, these
Speaker 4: federal agencies that are at the heads are appointed by
Speaker 4: the president, have to go implement those laws and execute
Speaker 4: those laws. Those agencies traditionally had been afforded a level
Speaker 4: of deference from a case Chevron versus EPA, which is
Speaker 4: why it's called Chevron deference, and had been afforded a
Speaker 4: level of deference in the way they interpret various statements
Speaker 4: or words that Congress have said in legislation. We are
Speaker 4: about particular subject matter. So one example, you know, the
Speaker 4: Clean Water Act has had a number of sort of
Speaker 4: broad sweeping pronouncements but experts on how you have clean
Speaker 4: water and clean air have to interpret that in order
Speaker 4: to make sure that we have all the programs that
Speaker 4: can make sure that our error and water quality is
Speaker 4: adequate and safe for the American people.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 4: And so that's been a doctrine for more than for
Speaker 4: forty years, and even before that, courts were, you know,
Speaker 4: generally applying those principles. So it goes back even before that.
Speaker 4: And there has been an effort by the conservative legal
Speaker 4: movement and the far right legal movement to underline that
Speaker 4: doctrine in recent years. It's interesting because this was actually
Speaker 4: a doctrine that Justice and Right and other conservatives used
Speaker 4: to like.
Speaker 1: They liked it because they had Republican administrators and liberal judges, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, they liked it because it was going in
Speaker 1: their favor.
Speaker 4: Correct. And what we've learned actually is that the application
Speaker 4: of Chevron deference has actually for many years helped depoliticize
Speaker 4: or there was evidence filed with the Court breast Off
Speaker 4: with the Court that studied cases said that in cases
Speaker 4: where liberal judges would look at more conservative policies or
Speaker 4: where conservative judges would look at more liberal policies under
Speaker 4: Chevron deference, often the courts would uphold the policies unless
Speaker 4: they were unlawful and out of line. And by the way,
Speaker 4: anybody thinks that like Chevron deference was giving agencies way
Speaker 4: too much authority, it's just not at of what I
Speaker 4: pursued agency my whole career and have won even when
Speaker 4: Chevron Deference was at play. So if an agency does
Speaker 4: something that is arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful, it can't do that.
Speaker 4: So sort of the nuts and bolts of it is
Speaker 4: this charm the Supreme Court overturned that doctrine and what
Speaker 4: it has done essentially replaced seeking to replace the expertise
Speaker 4: of our civil servants and folks that are at these agents,
Speaker 4: these implementing policies across the board in highly regulated areas
Speaker 4: with just the whins of whatever a district court judge
Speaker 4: might do. So let's think about something like mifapristo right
Speaker 4: edication abortion, where you have extremists that file the suit
Speaker 4: with a judge that they wanted to file a suit
Speaker 4: in front of and Amarillo, Texas. There are different principles
Speaker 4: at play in that case, but you can imagine a
Speaker 4: scenario where this happens in an agency challenge, and because
Speaker 4: Chevron deference has been overturned, it becomes easier for sort
Speaker 4: of extremist organizations to get judges to interpret the law
Speaker 4: in ways that is more ideological, and so that's a
Speaker 4: real concern. And so there are massive implications a democracy forward.
Speaker 4: We represented two hundred and fifty thousand small businesses in
Speaker 4: these cases talking to and explain to the court and
Speaker 4: briefs about how this is actually bad for business. Not
Speaker 4: having predictability in your regulatory system is actually not a
Speaker 4: good thing for most business.
Speaker 1: Well, all of this is bad for business. This is
Speaker 1: all like short term sugar rush tax cuts, but it's
Speaker 1: ultimately going to undermine American markets, American credibility, you know,
Speaker 1: et cetera, one hundred.
Speaker 4: Percent in these cases. And so we think that the
Speaker 4: implications should be are going to be quite large. Just
Speaker 4: in the last three weeks since the Court decided the
Speaker 4: Lope or Right case, which is the case where they
Speaker 4: overturn Chevron defference, our team has been tracking every case,
Speaker 4: all the litigation across the country where parties are referencing
Speaker 4: that decision, and there's already more than forty cases where
Speaker 4: people are trying to use that decision to undermine let's say,
Speaker 4: like title line civil rights protections or worker protections or
Speaker 4: environmental protections. And so we definitely think it's a quite
Speaker 4: devastating decision. But the really interesting thing about what happened
Speaker 4: this term, Mollie, is if you think about this decision,
Speaker 4: this overturning of Chevron deference, right, the invitation of the
Speaker 4: conservative legal movement, the notion that the executive branch has
Speaker 4: so much power and federal agencies have too much power,
Speaker 4: and so we have to curtail their power by replacing
Speaker 4: their power with individual judges. Wait a second, what the
Speaker 4: executive branch has too much power? What happened in the
Speaker 4: immunity decision?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: Exactly? Not like that?
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 4: So it's like the Supreme Court wants to curtail executive
Speaker 4: power and presidential power when the executive is implementing laws
Speaker 4: on behalf of people and doing things to help the
Speaker 4: government deliver for people, whether that's in the healthcare context
Speaker 4: or the labor contact, or the environmental context. And yet
Speaker 4: when you have a former president that has committed a
Speaker 4: number of crimes, including those related to his responsibilities as presidents,
Speaker 4: they're willing to sort of impose a new legal structure
Speaker 4: that is akin to making a president a king. So
Speaker 4: it's really quite remarkable when we think about the these
Speaker 4: two cases colliding in the same term and really looking
Speaker 4: at sort of what the court has done and who
Speaker 4: it benefits and who it hurts.
Speaker 1: It feels like this is a little bit like Raheemi
Speaker 1: with the gun case, Like they make these broad, broad
Speaker 1: decisions that are ideologically not necessarily coherent, and then they
Speaker 1: can't for example, like Bruin, which was this case that
Speaker 1: basically said New York State couldn't regulate its own guns,
Speaker 1: which you know, again, this is like a group that
Speaker 1: pretends to love states rights, but the Texas can regulate abortion, right.
Speaker 1: And then you go on to Raheini, which was this
Speaker 1: seasoned blockbuster can people who do domestic violence have guns?
Speaker 1: And they're like, whoa, I mean, they put themselves in
Speaker 1: these positions right exactly.
Speaker 4: And it's the same or Eason on the abortion cases
Speaker 4: that like it's an election year, so they sort of
Speaker 4: tampered their decisions in some way that all of these cases,
Speaker 4: whether it's medication abortion or emergency abortion care come back
Speaker 4: to the court.
Speaker 1: Right, and if they can get their guy in there,
Speaker 1: they're going to do crazy stuff. Thank you, Thank you, Sky.
Speaker 1: I hope you'll come back.
Speaker 4: Well, thank you, Mollie. I'd want to come back anytime.
Speaker 1: Justice Alison Riggs is running for reelection in the North
Speaker 1: Carolina Supreme Court. Welcome to fast politics, Justice.
Speaker 4: Riggs, thank you for having me.
Speaker 1: Tell us what you do and why it is wildly important.
Speaker 6: I am the newest justice on the North Carolina Supreme Court.
Speaker 6: I am running to keep my seat and running to
Speaker 6: flip the court, to change control of the court to
Speaker 6: people who share our values, who have a commitment to
Speaker 6: the Constitution, to reproductive freedom, who understand that democracy doesn't
Speaker 6: defend itself in a post Roe v. Wade world, and
Speaker 6: with many of the recent decisions we've seen from the
Speaker 6: US Supreme Court, state supreme courts really are the battlefront
Speaker 6: for so many any of the issues that we care about,
Speaker 6: then we need to put up a fight to protect
Speaker 6: our rights at the state level.
Speaker 1: North Carolina is a state that I greedily feel could
Speaker 1: be a swing state. Also is a state where there
Speaker 1: are no various Republican forces trying to cheat when they
Speaker 1: can't win. So explain to us what the sort of
Speaker 1: state legislature looks like and what, you know, the sort
Speaker 1: of stuff you've had to kind of push back against.
Speaker 6: Yeah, So, I mean we're a complicated state. A Democratic
Speaker 6: presidential candidate hasn't won North Carolina since President Obama and
Speaker 6: then Senator Obama one in.
Speaker 4: Two thousand and eight.
Speaker 6: But we have regularly elected democratic governors and Democratic attorneys general.
Speaker 6: We have had Democratic majorities on our state Supreme Court.
Speaker 6: So North Carolinians are vote splitters. They are folks who
Speaker 6: care a lot about the specific candidates and ultimately what
Speaker 6: has sort of historically happened in North Carolina, and we
Speaker 6: weren't the only state that this happened in. In the
Speaker 6: twenty ten elections, really critical elections years that end in zero,
Speaker 6: because that's when we take our federal census and state
Speaker 6: legislatures and congressional districts. State legislative districts and congressional districts
Speaker 6: always get drawn right after a federal census. Participation in
Speaker 6: the twenty ten election here in North Carolina was sort
Speaker 6: of off the mark, and Republicans took control of the legislature.
Speaker 6: I was a voting rights attorney at the time, so
Speaker 6: I litigated when they took control of the legislature. In
Speaker 6: twenty ten, they redrew political districts to elect members of
Speaker 6: Congress and members of the state legislature that favored Republicans
Speaker 6: and cemented in one election results in a way that
Speaker 6: was really resistant to change the changing will of voters.
Speaker 6: So we have seen a real durable jerrymander in North Carolina.
Speaker 6: And you know what that means is is that voters
Speaker 6: have a hard time having their voices heard and rebuking
Speaker 6: or holding accountable politicians who don't respect the will of
Speaker 6: the voters. So you know, when I was a voting
Speaker 6: rights attorney before I joined the bench, we saw a
Speaker 6: gerrymander of congressional districts that was so durable that it
Speaker 6: would have taken a way of election greater than what
Speaker 6: we saw a post Watergate to even out the playing field.
Speaker 6: And for your reference, I wasn't alive then, neither was I.
Speaker 4: Neither was Jesse.
Speaker 1: Luckily for us, this is one of the few things
Speaker 1: that's older than we are.
Speaker 6: Yes, So in all of our lifetimes that kind of
Speaker 6: election has not happened, right, So very very troubling, anti democratic,
Speaker 6: and you see that show up in the policies regarding
Speaker 6: public schools, gun safety. You know, it's so critical that
Speaker 6: we have when we elect by districts, that we use
Speaker 6: districts not that favor one party or the other right,
Speaker 6: but that represent right and let voters hold people accountable.
Speaker 6: Like that's at the end of the day, that's it, voters.
Speaker 6: If you have a functioning democracy, voters can vote you
Speaker 6: out if you are, you know, hurting their schools or
Speaker 6: making their kids more unsafe, or making their communities more unsafe.
Speaker 6: And so things that are resistant to that kind of
Speaker 6: accountability are troubling to me. I'm running on the Supreme Court.
Speaker 6: I obviously bring to bear my wealth of experience in
Speaker 6: voting rights and a career spent defending the Constitution. But
Speaker 6: I'm also trying to run a campaign where people understand
Speaker 6: what state Supreme Court justices do and they understand their
Speaker 6: power to hold us accountable, because there's I've heard a
Speaker 6: lot of frustration with folks who don't like what's happening
Speaker 6: at the US Supreme Court in Washington, d c. Right
Speaker 6: and feel very defeated that there's nothing that they can
Speaker 6: do about it, that that court is how it is
Speaker 6: until people either die or choose to retire right, there's
Speaker 6: here in North Carolina. If you don't like what your
Speaker 6: state Supreme Court is doing, if you are bothered that
Speaker 6: the state Supreme Court is taking away rights rather than
Speaker 6: protecting rights, you can vote us out right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I think that's a really, really, really good point,
Speaker 1: and really important is that this is a question of accountability.
Speaker 1: So explain to us, please, what's happening in North Carolina
Speaker 1: now and what that looks like, and what are you
Speaker 1: seeing on the ground, and do you see a base
Speaker 1: that's energized, like, just talk to us about that.
Speaker 6: I assure you, this is an exciting time to be
Speaker 6: living in North Carolina and doing political work. Last year
Speaker 6: we elected the youngest state party chair of the Democratic
Speaker 6: Party ever, a young woman named Anderson Clayton, who was
Speaker 6: at the time twenty five years old, and he brought
Speaker 6: to bear the vimen vigor that we needed. We needed
Speaker 6: to believe that this was a fight we could win.
Speaker 6: We needed to all get get better about talking about
Speaker 6: the North Carolina that's worth fighting for. It's not necessarily
Speaker 6: the North Carolina that we've seen predominantly for the last
Speaker 6: fourteen years, but there is a North Carolina that is
Speaker 6: a progressive beacon in the South. That is a state
Speaker 6: where women who need reproductive health care can come if
Speaker 6: they need to. That's a North Carolina worth fighting for.
Speaker 6: A North Carolina that values its rural voters in the
Speaker 6: Mountain just as much as it's farmers and industrial workers
Speaker 6: in the black belt in eastern North Carolina. Those voices
Speaker 6: matter just as much as the folks in major metropolitan
Speaker 6: areas like Raleigh and Charlotte. So we have, I think
Speaker 6: a nude vision of what we are fighting for. We've
Speaker 6: got an incredible slate of statewide candidates running, a lot
Speaker 6: of great women, the first black woman to ever serve
Speaker 6: on this Council of State, I'm the youngest woman to
Speaker 6: ever serve on the North Carolina Supreme Court. And after
Speaker 6: the news that we are likely to have Vice President
Speaker 6: Kamala Harris at the top of the ticket, there was
Speaker 6: energy before that. It is through the roof now and
Speaker 6: we are willing to knock on every single door to
Speaker 6: be that dream swing state. But we actually think that's
Speaker 6: us Like, we are a state that's changing rapidly, that
Speaker 6: is politically important nationally, and we recognize that with that
Speaker 6: comes the need that we need to do a lot
Speaker 6: of on the groundwork, and.
Speaker 4: North Carolinians are ready to do it.
Speaker 1: What I think is so interesting about your state is,
Speaker 1: you know, you have the research triangle, you have academia,
Speaker 1: you have a lot of different parts to the state.
Speaker 1: Can you sort of talk to me about how the
Speaker 1: vice president could win your state?
Speaker 6: Yeah, So, you know, I got involved in politics for
Speaker 6: the first time at the end of twenty twenty two
Speaker 6: when I was appointed first to the Court of Appeals.
Speaker 4: It was before I was even appointed to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 6: And typical politics advice was, well, there are eleven we
Speaker 6: have one hundred counties in North Carolina. The advice, a
Speaker 6: lot of the advice I heard, was well, if you're
Speaker 6: going to run statewide as a Democrat, there's really only
Speaker 6: eleven counties that matter. And so these are where Greensboro
Speaker 6: and Raleigh and Charlotte are, and so that leaves out
Speaker 6: eighty nine in heavily black eastern North Carolina, in a
Speaker 6: lot of the places in central North Carolina where the
Speaker 6: textile industries have really collapsed. In western North Carolina. I mean,
Speaker 6: I am I grew up in West Virginia. I am
Speaker 6: the daughter of Appalachia, and I know what jd. Vance
Speaker 6: is selling.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 6: It isn't the hillbilly experience hillbilly's and I embrace that
Speaker 6: term for myself and I know my western North Carolinian
Speaker 6: friends do as well. We help each other. What the
Speaker 6: Vice President can offer is I think folks in North
Speaker 6: Carolina that have been left out, that are feeling unseen.
Speaker 6: I mean, I think she's been to the state seven
Speaker 6: times already, Like so she's already doing it this year.
Speaker 6: I mean this year, before all everything got shook up,
Speaker 6: she's been doing it being North Carolinians to feel really empowered, engaged,
Speaker 6: I think just need to feel seen like we matter,
Speaker 6: that these You're not worthless if you live in a
Speaker 6: red county but share our values. We want to fight
Speaker 6: for your vote and represent you. No.
Speaker 1: And I think that what I'm struck by is if
Speaker 1: you're not going to primarily black county, is that's because
Speaker 1: that vote is disenfranchised, right, I mean that they're having
Speaker 1: a trouble getting to vote. And I mean if you
Speaker 1: look at the South, there are majority minority states that
Speaker 1: are represented by a horrible Republican white you know, I'm
Speaker 1: thinking of Mississippi as a great example. You know, the
Speaker 1: Senator there was photographed in a Confederate uniform, and that's
Speaker 1: a majority minority state. So there is a question of
Speaker 1: disenfranchisement that needs to be dealt with.
Speaker 4: Right Yeah.
Speaker 6: I've been involved in cases litigating under the Voting Rights
Speaker 6: Act for my entire career. We lost a key part
Speaker 6: of the fact Section five of that Act in twenty
Speaker 6: thirteen when the US Supreme Court issued its ruling in
Speaker 6: Shelby County Beholder. And since twenty thirteen, it's sort of
Speaker 6: been more recently in the last couple of years that
Speaker 6: the political science data has confirmed that absence the protections
Speaker 6: of Section five, voting discrimination laws that create burdens, particularly
Speaker 6: on voters of color, to participate in the political process
Speaker 6: have increased and voter turnout rates have decreased. So there
Speaker 6: continues to be a making the rules of who participates
Speaker 6: in elections political rather than open and inclusive. It has
Speaker 6: a discriminatory and disenfranchising effect. We've seen it across the
Speaker 6: South since twenty thirteen. And an additional angle to understand
Speaker 6: is that when voting becomes harder, when folks sort of
Speaker 6: get out of the habit because it's become more and
Speaker 6: more challenging and more and more burdensome. I think there's
Speaker 6: an apathy that comes along with it that's like, okay, well,
Speaker 6: turnout in these sort of more rural counties maybe you
Speaker 6: know in Texas it's LATINX counties. In eastern North Carolina
Speaker 6: it's predominantly black counties, Like the turnout is down, and
Speaker 6: so the typical political incentives are like, well, there's no
Speaker 6: point in going there because there's just not that many
Speaker 6: people that are going to vote, and so it just
Speaker 6: feeds into the harm creating by disenfranchisement. If we if
Speaker 6: we look at that data and say, turnout isn't the
Speaker 6: ultimate question, because we have to ask ourselves, you know,
Speaker 6: what's been standing in the way of people participating, And
Speaker 6: we have to keep showing up as statewide candidates, as
Speaker 6: national candidates telling voters that your voice does matter, we
Speaker 6: do want to hear from you. We're going to work
Speaker 6: for your vote and show you that we care and
Speaker 6: we're listening and we're here to serve you. And I
Speaker 6: think that ends up giving people the oaths they need,
Speaker 6: the technical term, the only thing to fight back against legislatures,
Speaker 6: particularly in the South, that are not passing voting laws
Speaker 6: in their best interest and so like, this isn't necessarily
Speaker 6: like my day job. Now, this is what I did
Speaker 6: for fifteen years before joining the bench, and so I
Speaker 6: understand it. And so that's the background I'm bringing to
Speaker 6: this campaign is understanding that folks in North Carolina have
Speaker 6: sperienced setbacks when it comes to expanding our democracy and
Speaker 6: making it easier and more inclusive to vote and to
Speaker 6: having every voice matter equally.
Speaker 4: So, you know, we have to have that baseline understanding.
Speaker 1: I think that's really important. So what are the things
Speaker 1: in the North Carolina Senate that are coming up for
Speaker 1: you that are why.
Speaker 4: You should be re elected?
Speaker 1: You're appointed, but re elected.
Speaker 6: Right, right, So the North Carolina Supreme Court right now
Speaker 6: we have partisan judicial seats and races because the Republican
Speaker 6: legislature decided to make them part of of course, so
Speaker 6: we have five Republicans and two Democrats on our state
Speaker 6: Supreme Court. The state Supreme Court now is a place
Speaker 6: with increasingly more power under the state constitution because the
Speaker 6: Federal Supreme Court has sort of quote unquote sent reproductive
Speaker 6: justices back to the states. Right Sending them back to
Speaker 6: the seats means that we're going to see down the road.
Speaker 6: What we've seen in Arizona and Alabama and Florida and Texas.
Speaker 6: A review of laws that criminalize miscarriage treatment, a review
Speaker 6: of laws that are six week abortion bans, review of
Speaker 6: laws about whether life begins at conception, such that women
Speaker 6: in the middle of IDF treatments might have their treatments
Speaker 6: halted and their ability to start their families into because
Speaker 6: of activist judges. And so this is the fight of
Speaker 6: a lifetime. It's not just reproductive freedom. It's about taking
Speaker 6: back our court before the next round of regular redistricting,
Speaker 6: putting on the bench people who will enforce the constitution,
Speaker 6: who believe in a democracy where people can vote out
Speaker 6: politicians who don't serve their interests. We make decisions about
Speaker 6: our environment. When Democrats controlled the Supreme Court, they issued
Speaker 6: rulings that said homeowners' associations couldn't entirely ban soul panels.
Speaker 6: And when big energy spilled toxins in our rivers and lakes,
Speaker 6: they couldn't pass the cost of cleanup entirely off on
Speaker 6: the consumers. You know, these are the issues that there
Speaker 6: isn't a topic. I mean, we don't deal with immigration law,
Speaker 6: we don't deal with bankruptcy. But other than that, there's
Speaker 6: very little that doesn't land on the desk of North
Speaker 6: Carolina Supreme Court justices. And the question now is can
Speaker 6: North Carolinian voters recognize and take a hold of the
Speaker 6: power that they have to make sure that all branches
Speaker 6: of government, including the judiciary, work for the people, not
Speaker 6: against them.
Speaker 1: Can you explain to us what's happening with your governor
Speaker 1: because you had a normal Democratic governor he's term limited
Speaker 1: out Roy Cooper, and now you have a governor's race
Speaker 1: and it's pretty wild, So can you talk to us
Speaker 1: about that.
Speaker 6: Our Attorney General, Josh Stein is a Democrat running to
Speaker 6: become governor. He is running against the Republican Lieutenant Governor
Speaker 6: Mark Robinson, who says the most hateful, most inflammatory things.
Speaker 6: And I think you know that race is it's stark
Speaker 6: in terms of seeing you know a man like Josh
Speaker 6: Stein who's been a public servant his entire life and
Speaker 6: who cares about North Carolinians and he's thoughtful compared to
Speaker 6: someone who talks about women not being fit to lead.
Speaker 6: And the only reason you might need abortion care is
Speaker 6: if you couldn't keep your skirt down right, Like things he.
Speaker 1: Just he also doesn't think women should vote or the
Speaker 1: nineteenth Amendment.
Speaker 6: He would like to go back to a time before
Speaker 6: that that was the good old days.
Speaker 4: There's a lot of problems with that.
Speaker 6: But but what your listeners could understand though that would
Speaker 6: it would help us, is to spread the word that
Speaker 6: extremism is on our ballot here in North Carolina, from
Speaker 6: the top of the ticket all the way down. It's
Speaker 6: not just the governor's race. It's very important, but it's
Speaker 6: not just so we have the you know, the presidential
Speaker 6: race where extremism is a peak on the Republican ticket.
Speaker 6: But we have folks like Michelle Morrow running for public
Speaker 6: instruction superintendent who never sent our kids to public school
Speaker 6: and talks about public schools as being in doctrination centers.
Speaker 6: We have my opponent who's running for the Supreme Court,
Speaker 6: who signed on to an opinion since withdrawn that said
Speaker 6: life begins at conception. That's the same extreme legal position
Speaker 6: that the Alabama Supreme Court that caused IVF and fertility
Speaker 6: treatment centers to shut down and women who were in
Speaker 6: mid treatment couldn't finish, and women lost access to the
Speaker 6: healthcare they needed to build their families. Safely and in peace.
Speaker 6: So it is up and down the ballot we are facing,
Speaker 6: you know, a real Everyone always says this is the
Speaker 6: most important election of your life cycle.
Speaker 1: Like, I get it, one really is.
Speaker 4: But that song is pretty existential.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's really really important and a good point.
Speaker 1: So thank you so much, Justice Riggs. Tell us what
Speaker 1: people can do to support you.
Speaker 6: So I would really love for folks to visit my website.
Speaker 6: It is www dot rigs for our Courts dot com.
Speaker 4: It's for as f O R.
Speaker 6: I'm on Instagram, Facebook, x TikTok with donation links. You
Speaker 6: can look me up on at blue you know, follow
Speaker 6: me on social media.
Speaker 4: Make a contribution.
Speaker 6: Five ten dollars is game changing in a state support race.
Speaker 6: Let me tell you, those grassroots donors are going to
Speaker 6: help me get out the word about what I stand
Speaker 6: for and the fact that women in North Carolina I have,
Speaker 6: the women and their allies have the chance to take
Speaker 6: back control of our bodies. Yeah, thank you, thank you, thank.
Speaker 4: You so much. Great to join you there a moment,
Speaker 4: Jesse Caannon Young Fast.
Speaker 2: I have to say there's not many people who are
Speaker 2: more online than you and I, but man jd Vance.
Speaker 1: Well, so here's the thing. While Trump is trying to
Speaker 1: deny that he has anything to do with Project twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, jd Vance, his vice presidential pick, wrote the
Speaker 1: introduction to the Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts book If
Speaker 1: that is not If that is not a coincidence, I
Speaker 1: don't know what is. Would also add the jd Vance
Speaker 1: wrote the introduction to a book by a notorious far
Speaker 1: right bad.
Speaker 5: Actor, Pizzagates spreader Jack Pisopiek, and.
Speaker 1: The book is called Unhumans The Secret History of the
Speaker 1: Communist Revolution and How to Crush Them So Unhumans like,
Speaker 1: the idea is that people on the left are not human, which,
Speaker 1: as you know, to humanizing language is one of these
Speaker 1: scary signs of autocracy. And for that Jdmance, probably the
Speaker 1: first time, but certainly not the last time, is our
Speaker 1: moment of fuckery. That's it for this episode of Fast Politics.
Speaker 1: Tune in every Monday, Wednesday and Friday to hear the
Speaker 1: best minds in politics makes sense of all this chaos.
Speaker 1: If you enjoyed what you've heard, please send it to
Speaker 1: a friend and keep the conversation going. And again, thanks
Speaker 1: for listening.