Speaker 1: Remember what podcast is this for? Uh, Moira, that's a
Speaker 1: perfect way to open this episode because it's it could
Speaker 1: happen here, the podcast about things falling apart um and
Speaker 1: putting them back together. Sometimes not often enough because I'm
Speaker 1: a hack and a fraud. Um. But um, this is
Speaker 1: Robert Evans and my guest today is Moira Meltzer Cohen. Moira,
Speaker 1: you are my lawyer and you are my editor. You
Speaker 1: edited after the Revolution book in stores now, so you're
Speaker 1: you're you're many many things to me, um, and today
Speaker 1: you're gonna help me understand the Supreme Court. Well that's
Speaker 1: a let me be a little more specific about why
Speaker 1: we're chatting today on for the internet sake. Um. The
Speaker 1: Supreme Court last week issued a ruling, and there may
Speaker 1: have been another ruling by the time you hear this,
Speaker 1: but this specific ruling was about a case that had
Speaker 1: to do with what's called a bivens action. Um. If
Speaker 1: you have seen people talking about this Supreme Court ruling online,
Speaker 1: it has probably been with them sharing an image of
Speaker 1: the United States that shows the hundred mile zone where
Speaker 1: border patrol is able to operate, um, and being like now,
Speaker 1: because of this ruling, border patrol can come into your
Speaker 1: house with impunity and do whatever they want to you. Um.
Speaker 1: There's been a lot of like stuff said about this ruling,
Speaker 1: and as is often the case when people are get
Speaker 1: really up in arms about the niche aspects of a
Speaker 1: court ruling, they're not entirely correct about what the ruling does. Um.
Speaker 1: The hundred mile zone is absolutely a real thing, and
Speaker 1: the Feds can do all sorts of funked up shipped
Speaker 1: to you in your house. But that is, UM, let's
Speaker 1: talk about this, yeah, UM sure, So I think the
Speaker 1: first place to start is people are always asking me
Speaker 1: when can the Feds kick in my door? My girlfriend
Speaker 1: always says when it's closed? But I say is whenever
Speaker 1: they want to, uh what might change from case to cases,
Speaker 1: they rationalize it in court later. Um. And so this
Speaker 1: is this is really a case that further reinforces the
Speaker 1: fact that for many, many years, UM, federal agents, in
Speaker 1: particular border control have been able, have had a lot
Speaker 1: of power to conduct searches if they rationalize those search
Speaker 1: is with respect to immigration or in this case the
Speaker 1: even more hype term national security. So um, this is
Speaker 1: not new. The federal statute outlining the powers and duties
Speaker 1: of border officers was past I think in ninety two,
Speaker 1: and I believe always said that border agents can conduct
Speaker 1: searches within quote a reasonable distance of the border. I
Speaker 1: think case law has determined that that reasonable distance is
Speaker 1: a hundred miles. We're not really looking at anything particularly
Speaker 1: new here. Um. So that one of the things about
Speaker 1: this hundred miles, as people keep saying, oh, the Fourth
Speaker 1: Amendment doesn't exist within a hundred miles of the border, Um,
Speaker 1: it does. This is not considered to be be a violation
Speaker 1: with the Fourth Amendment because a search within a reasonable
Speaker 1: distance of the border is considered a reasonable search. Right.
Speaker 1: The Fourth Amendment protects you from usable searching, and this
Speaker 1: is statutorily considered a reasonable search. Right. So I feel
Speaker 1: like a lot of the media around this particular case
Speaker 1: is kind of an exercise and extreme point missing. It's
Speaker 1: both an overreaction to some things that are outrageous but
Speaker 1: are in no way new. Yeah. Um, everyone's sharing these maps,
Speaker 1: like you said, um, And again it's one of those
Speaker 1: things where it's like we're not saying there's not a
Speaker 1: lot of that this is not a problem that there
Speaker 1: are problems with the there's that the hundred mile zone
Speaker 1: isn't a problem the border patrol. There's not a lot
Speaker 1: of messed up stuff that they do. It's it's the
Speaker 1: idea that like this ruling came out and suddenly there's
Speaker 1: no more Fourth Amendment, right like, which is how some
Speaker 1: people have interpreted it. Because the Internet is a machine
Speaker 1: that devours context, that's right, social media, I should say, yeah, sure.
Speaker 1: So So this case is is called Egbert v. Bull,
Speaker 1: which I just think it's a marvelous case name. And
Speaker 1: these are all incredible. The original Bivens case is Bivens
Speaker 1: versus six unknown named agents, which I also elect a
Speaker 1: lot six unknown narcotics agents. Yeah, I mean there's a
Speaker 1: lot of sort of wonderful case names. Um my favorite,
Speaker 1: of course is alien B Predator. Um. Yeah, you see
Speaker 1: what I did there, I did, I did. I just
Speaker 1: showed Garrison aliens last weekend, so I was, oh, for
Speaker 1: the first time, Yes, marvelous. Uh So, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I think what's happening here is that even among people
Speaker 1: who kind of have a sense of history or an analysis,
Speaker 1: there's maybe this lingering belief that the legal system is
Speaker 1: supposed to protect us, or that maybe at some time
Speaker 1: it did protect us, and it just like persists like
Speaker 1: a vestigial tale of of like hope, Yeah, but I
Speaker 1: kind of love this case. I could read this case
Speaker 1: and um, at least as Clarence Thomas describes him. The
Speaker 1: plaintiff in this case whose bool is basically the viewpoint
Speaker 1: character from a Steely Dan song like he like appears
Speaker 1: to have sort of spring fully for him from the
Speaker 1: head of Donald Fagan, and he drove off with his
Speaker 1: vanity plate that says smuggler. Honestly, I'm sure you're gonna
Speaker 1: tell me it was something problematic, but sounds like a
Speaker 1: cool dude to me. He spent years playing both sides
Speaker 1: of this game. He would get paid by people to
Speaker 1: smuggle them across the Canadian border, and he'd make them,
Speaker 1: he'd like extort money from them. He'd make them buy
Speaker 1: a room at his hotel, even if they weren't going
Speaker 1: to stay at his hotel, and then he'd charge them
Speaker 1: money for every hour that he spent driving to pick
Speaker 1: them up and take them across to Canada. And then
Speaker 1: he would turn around and get paid by the Feds
Speaker 1: to snitch on the people who had just paid him
Speaker 1: to smuggle them across the border. Chez Yeah all right,
Speaker 1: Now I don't think this guy is cool. Yeah, So
Speaker 1: he basically ends up getting in an altercation with a
Speaker 1: federal agent and he's back to being cool, okay. And
Speaker 1: then when he makes an administrative complaint to the agency,
Speaker 1: the agent six the i R S on him. This is,
Speaker 1: I mean, all right, not good behavior, right right. But now,
Speaker 1: after years of doing dirty work for the Feds, Buol
Speaker 1: is outraged because he never thought tigers would eat his face.
Speaker 1: So he suites the agent under Bivens, which is a
Speaker 1: case that sort of a little bit maybe some times
Speaker 1: gives individuals a very narrowly tenuous, circumscribed opportunity to sue
Speaker 1: federal agents for certain civil rights violations. And um, it's
Speaker 1: not a very strong right and it has been getting
Speaker 1: ever more eviscerated since um. And really, what Bivens does
Speaker 1: is it gives you, uh, you know, in the very
Speaker 1: unlikely event that you win a Bivins claim, it gives
Speaker 1: you money damages. It doesn't give you better a law.
Speaker 1: It doesn't give you better police practices, it doesn't make
Speaker 1: you safer. It's not nothing, but it's not like it's
Speaker 1: it's money. Excusally, what the law can give you right. So,
Speaker 1: unless you're harboring the delusion that there is a sort
Speaker 1: of direct connection between being allowed to try, usually unsuccessfully,
Speaker 1: to recover money from the real government and the self
Speaker 1: control or good behavior of federal agents, Bivins is not
Speaker 1: actually a particularly useful mechanism for pursuing anything that resembles
Speaker 1: like a well developed vision of justice. Right, It's not nothing.
Speaker 1: I don't I don't want to dismiss the utility of Bivins,
Speaker 1: but it's you know, it's not like it's not a
Speaker 1: strong right, it's not a reliable right, you know, to sue. Um,
Speaker 1: it's not very effective. One of my beloved colleagues, uh
Speaker 1: described it. He said, Bibbins is such a bad doctrine
Speaker 1: that it's taking other doctrines down with it. Right. It's
Speaker 1: just it's, um, it's just such a weak case at
Speaker 1: this point that it trying to trying to use it
Speaker 1: and trying invoke it can actually end up just being counterproductive,
Speaker 1: as it is in this case. Right. Yeah, we have
Speaker 1: a very unsympathetic plaintiff and we have a really weak doctrine.
Speaker 1: So he sues under Bivens. It goes up and down
Speaker 1: the cords, It winds up in the Supreme Court, which
Speaker 1: issues a sort of a bunch of sort of fragmented opinions,
Speaker 1: but ultimately all the justices mostly agree this is not
Speaker 1: a super controversial um question, at least within the context
Speaker 1: of the court itself. Yeah. So the first thing is
Speaker 1: they all say, you don't there's no right to sue
Speaker 1: for money damages under the theory of First Amendment retaliation, meaning,
Speaker 1: um wool had sued the agent for basically for punishing
Speaker 1: him for making a complaint. He's saying, I exercise my
Speaker 1: First Amenment right to make a complaint to the agency
Speaker 1: you work for, and then you punished me by sicking
Speaker 1: the I R S on me. Right, I see why
Speaker 1: that's questionable in the actual like legal documentation. Yeah, so, um,
Speaker 1: you know, the justice to say no, that that's not
Speaker 1: a right that exists. And then they have some different
Speaker 1: thoughts on whether or not you can sue for excessive force. Um.
Speaker 1: But ultimately, the big decision that is made here isn't
Speaker 1: about the border. It's not about the relative impunity of
Speaker 1: border patrol, which has long operated with relative impunity, just
Speaker 1: like the rest of the federal government. Yes, I remember
Speaker 1: that impunity when they were firing tear gas at us. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, Uh, they decide you can't sue them. Um,
Speaker 1: which if you, if you ever could have sued them,
Speaker 1: I guess in a successful or effective way, And if
Speaker 1: suing them had ever had a meaningful impact on their behavior,
Speaker 1: I guess its opinion would be a real loss. But
Speaker 1: all this opinion really does, as far as I can tell,
Speaker 1: and I've spoken with my colleagues and we all agreed
Speaker 1: that the sort of uproar or this particular case is
Speaker 1: a little baffling because all it really does is further
Speaker 1: remove what was already a really inaccessible and pretty weak remedy.
Speaker 1: And yeah, well you know, and then everyone lost their
Speaker 1: minds and started sharing the a c L s a
Speaker 1: c L used map of the what a hundred miles
Speaker 1: of border looks like and getting really mad on Twitter.
Speaker 1: Yeah and again the hundred mile borders own. I think
Speaker 1: it's fair to say that like, that's a problem. I
Speaker 1: don't like that's that's a bad way for things to work.
Speaker 1: The border patrol, as we talked about in our two
Speaker 1: part are on the border patrol, has a lot of
Speaker 1: massive issues with it. But um, I feel like kind
Speaker 1: of what's happening here is some of this is like
Speaker 1: a little bit of collective PTSD because of the shock
Speaker 1: of the imminent kind of demise of Row. And so
Speaker 1: I think maybe there's this kind of expectation that every
Speaker 1: ruling issued by the Supreme Court because Funckett is going
Speaker 1: to be UM this kind of like earth shattering like
Speaker 1: end of a fundamental right. And in this case it's
Speaker 1: really just like, no, this is more or less like
Speaker 1: this is not a massive ce change. Yeah. I like
Speaker 1: to say about this kind of thing. It's appalling, but
Speaker 1: it's not surprising. I do want to note, just for
Speaker 1: your listeners, this case does not in any way touch
Speaker 1: our right to sue state level police UM, because there
Speaker 1: is federal legislation called sec that gives us permission to
Speaker 1: sue the police and UM. For some strange reason, the
Speaker 1: federal government has not passed similar legislation allowing us to
Speaker 1: sue them. That's really surprising. I wonder why. I so
Speaker 1: in any case, one of the things the Court says
Speaker 1: in the Bool opinion is that if the Feds wanted
Speaker 1: to be constrained by the citizen re Congress would have
Speaker 1: given us the right to constrain them. So so I
Speaker 1: think this particular case that people have been going out
Speaker 1: about is a great sort of example of the way that, um,
Speaker 1: the sort of the zeitgeist moves inexplicably to make much
Speaker 1: of things that are maybe not all that much and
Speaker 1: while also kind of failing to notice things that are
Speaker 1: really significant. And so I'd like to sort of highlight
Speaker 1: some of those things. Um. I think there actually are
Speaker 1: real reasons to breathe and prepare and gather our courage, um,
Speaker 1: based on what the Supreme Court has done this term. Uh,
Speaker 1: And I love to talk to you about some of
Speaker 1: those things. So I do think there are real reasons
Speaker 1: like that degree and prepare and some months always without
Speaker 1: getting too in the weed, UM, I guess I want
Speaker 1: to talk both about the shadows DoPT it? Which shadow
Speaker 1: doopt it is A is a kind of a more
Speaker 1: recently point term UM. What it means. What it's referring
Speaker 1: to are the hats that are often heard, well, they're
Speaker 1: not heard. They're did by the Supreme Court on the
Speaker 1: basis of the record below, often without oral argument, and
Speaker 1: they're often issued as holding decisions without written opinions, so
Speaker 1: they're often not justified or rationalized or you know, the
Speaker 1: reasoning for the decisions that are made is often not
Speaker 1: made transparent to the public. Okay. Yeah. Times these are
Speaker 1: cases that are sort of highly procedural or there not
Speaker 1: super complicated questions, or there's questions of law where there's
Speaker 1: maybe a circuit what um, and they just need to
Speaker 1: resolve you know what might otherwise be repugnant views of
Speaker 1: the law. Yea. And the Shudo docet has resently include
Speaker 1: a jet penaltycation. Yeah, be decided something of such grades
Speaker 1: imports with decision that are not explained by an opinion
Speaker 1: where the justice is not makes clear the reasoning. Um.
Speaker 1: This is I mean, in my opinion, mh problematic um.
Speaker 1: And it's you know, to the amount of power that
Speaker 1: can be exercised by the superin court. To me, I
Speaker 1: think requires a really intense degree of transparency. If you're
Speaker 1: I think that like the amount of transparency that is
Speaker 1: it's incumbent upon you to have is sort of inversely
Speaker 1: proportionate to the amount of power you exercise. Yeah, that
Speaker 1: makes sense, um. And so the Supreme Court has just
Speaker 1: i mean literally life with death power here and so
Speaker 1: for them to be making decisions on the shadow dott
Speaker 1: about death penalty cases and death penalty juristic. Um is
Speaker 1: just wild. Um, It's troubling, it's frightening. You know, I
Speaker 1: think I can't remember if I talked to you before
Speaker 1: about how about the injuries? Yeah, maybe the show about it,
Speaker 1: but I certainly talked to you about it. We might
Speaker 1: need to do it. It's probably a good idea at
Speaker 1: some point to do a show about it. But yeah, Um,
Speaker 1: one of the things that makes banjuries so anomalous is
Speaker 1: that they aren't public, right, and that to me, like
Speaker 1: this is a mathema. Well not to me, it is
Speaker 1: in terms of the sort of um received wisdom about
Speaker 1: the American legal system. To have secret proceedings is a
Speaker 1: mathema who you underlying principles of due process which you know,
Speaker 1: which involves uh, well noticed and adherent. But really there's
Speaker 1: um a commitment to uplistic right in the American maget
Speaker 1: system that is undermined and trampled upon by federal ransus.
Speaker 1: And that there is a similar thing happening here with
Speaker 1: the shadow docket. We know at least what the cases are,
Speaker 1: we know what the opinions are, what the holdings end
Speaker 1: up being. Um. But to have these kinds of cases
Speaker 1: being decided without oral argument. To have these cases being
Speaker 1: decided um without written opinion is troubling. So that's a
Speaker 1: move toward an exercise of power that I need characterI
Speaker 1: is a politation and that I find days concerning UM.
Speaker 1: One of the things that we're seeing, and I think
Speaker 1: it's sort of not unrelated to that, is that they're
Speaker 1: they seem to be dispensing what the docten is very decisive,
Speaker 1: which is precedent, right that the idea that previously decided
Speaker 1: cases are binding, and you know, if you overturn one,
Speaker 1: you really have should be very clear that that's what
Speaker 1: you're doing, and you have to explain why. And we
Speaker 1: see that with the leak road graphs where they they
Speaker 1: have you know, if indeed they issue it sure because
Speaker 1: and this is like an originalism thing, right, Like you
Speaker 1: can throw out precedent if you're saying all that matters
Speaker 1: is this interpretation you're saying that's based on the original
Speaker 1: intent of like some dead dudes. Is that more or
Speaker 1: less an accurate way to say it? Or you can
Speaker 1: overturn president um, you know, over turned president we would
Speaker 1: have that's I think the just outcome or whatever is UM. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but I think there's many reasons that you can overturn
Speaker 1: precedent UM, but they seem to be doing it for subsilentio. Right.
Speaker 1: They're not. They're not always. The leak road rap did
Speaker 1: where a pretty clear and kind of parents about it.
Speaker 1: But I think there are some other things that are
Speaker 1: going on. UM. There was a sixth Amendment case where
Speaker 1: UM they just just start up, didn't mention all of
Speaker 1: the countervailing presidents. Yeah, you know they there's some stuff happening.
Speaker 1: There is UM a case in Texas there was a
Speaker 1: fishermendent case work the courts, the Supreme Court sent it
Speaker 1: back down to UM, either the distance or the Court
Speaker 1: of Appeals, I don't I don't remember UM or even
Speaker 1: the district or the circuit UH, and said, look at
Speaker 1: the side is on death row did absolutely with the
Speaker 1: ineffective assistance of council. Where is the a prejudice? And
Speaker 1: the Texas Court just ignored them. Yeah, and that's one
Speaker 1: of those ones that people freaked out about. That was like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think folks should be very unsettled by this, right.
Speaker 1: And then the court was like, m they didn't. The court,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court just didn't. They just let them get
Speaker 1: away with it. Um. And so there's just sort of
Speaker 1: weird um cushion full happening not only between this court
Speaker 1: interpreting the last court opinions and deciding basically not to
Speaker 1: enforce them, but but there's an interesting power struggle where
Speaker 1: this opinion court seems to be strategically feeding power to
Speaker 1: certain uh, certain lower courts in a way that unusual. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, so you know they're not they're not being transparent,
Speaker 1: they are not following precedence, they are not um enforcing
Speaker 1: the hierarchy of the courts, which it does sound like
Speaker 1: an odd thing I can put need to complain about, um.
Speaker 1: But one of one of the things that we want
Speaker 1: to know is that, you know, one of the ways
Speaker 1: that we can anticipate what the law is or make
Speaker 1: reliable legal arguments is that the law has to be consistent,
Speaker 1: you know, the law and the lower course that's to
Speaker 1: be consistent with what the Supreme Court has said. And
Speaker 1: if we can no longer rely on that, um, it's
Speaker 1: um you know, chaotic, potentially really bad, but really better
Speaker 1: Our clients, apparently, particularly clients who are facing the death penalty,
Speaker 1: which is a particular concerns UM. This court does seem
Speaker 1: pretty intent. I'm knocking over the entire existent amendment UM.
Speaker 1: And then I think yesterday or the day before, they
Speaker 1: issued a really important immigration case on the class actions
Speaker 1: that were brought UM by around behalf of people who
Speaker 1: were detained in immigration detention for like months and months
Speaker 1: and months without hearing, without bond hearing. And essentially what
Speaker 1: the court held was UM that lower courts join'e have
Speaker 1: any authority to UM. Lower coach do so many authorities
Speaker 1: to UM demand that the federal government do or not
Speaker 1: do certain things because they're they're playing as as the
Speaker 1: Immigration Naturalization Act does not give them that authority UM.
Speaker 1: And so it's there. There's a lot. I think the
Speaker 1: big trend here is there's a lot of protecting the
Speaker 1: federal government from any kind of accountability UM accountability that's
Speaker 1: being imposed by lower federal court who are so concerned
Speaker 1: with states rights they have a way of showing it.
Speaker 1: I don't know what else to say about it, because
Speaker 1: it is one of those things where when we talk about,
Speaker 1: or when I talk about like frustration at people kind
Speaker 1: of sharing information about stuff the court is doing, or
Speaker 1: about changes to how our rights are being interpreted by
Speaker 1: courts that are incorrect. It's not because like there's not
Speaker 1: a problem. It's because it's really important to be aware
Speaker 1: of like the it's really important to like see the
Speaker 1: problem accurately, um, and to see it like it's this
Speaker 1: it's this broad assault. Like like you said, the fact
Speaker 1: that the fact that you have this kind of high
Speaker 1: level attack on the Fifth Amendment is really frightening because
Speaker 1: that's one of like theoretically our primary protections. Yeah, there's
Speaker 1: also think it's going to be a mirandic case. Okay,
Speaker 1: oh boy, I'm not looking forward to that. A little
Speaker 1: bit anxious about that. Um. Yeah, I don't know. I
Speaker 1: mean I think that the general thing, so you know,
Speaker 1: I think the thing that I would like to highlight
Speaker 1: your paying attention to what writes just the Freme Court
Speaker 1: is trampling on. It's obviously pretty important, but it's pretty
Speaker 1: likely to be kind of more of the same, particularly
Speaker 1: for quality targeted groups of people. I like the law
Speaker 1: is in certain respects fictional, right, like the lies an
Speaker 1: abstract concept. Sure, absolutely, yes, it's material impact. It's not
Speaker 1: like I don't want to get all post modern here.
Speaker 1: It's not like a lot of fictional things have have
Speaker 1: real impacts, Um, exactly, Like, Uh, it has real impact obviously,
Speaker 1: But I think that the impact of the import ruling,
Speaker 1: you know, it's very serious, it's very important. Um, but
Speaker 1: it's also sort of immediately transformed the world. I think
Speaker 1: it just sort of changes what kinds of solutions we
Speaker 1: look to, right, And like, I'm not particularly inclined to
Speaker 1: look to the court to protect me or anyone, um,
Speaker 1: and not particularly I don't trust the law or courts
Speaker 1: enough to really want them to be the arbiters of
Speaker 1: things like free speege or Yeah, absolutely not. I mean,
Speaker 1: obviously I want very ecounful but um, you know, my
Speaker 1: hope is that we can take carib ease whether or
Speaker 1: not to make the course irrelevant, will realize doide type dream?
Speaker 1: But um, I guess this thing, you know, especially with
Speaker 1: roads and I was I was talking to Margaret, a
Speaker 1: mutual friend, about this. The thing that's going to change
Speaker 1: if we're always overturned. Uh, it's really going to be
Speaker 1: what delusions are available to us and how much courage
Speaker 1: will it take to pursue them and what are the
Speaker 1: potential consequencely, right, Yeah, what kind of resources it do
Speaker 1: we need? Um. I think in the space of these
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decisions, some of which are genuinely terrible, UM,
Speaker 1: and some of which are just reinforcing things that have
Speaker 1: longed been the two. Yeah, you know, our grief and
Speaker 1: our outraged and are bitter popes are not practiced, um,
Speaker 1: they are not necessarily useful, right and and even getting
Speaker 1: super in the leaves of you know, what does this
Speaker 1: opinion actually say. I mean, I think that's an interesting
Speaker 1: but it's and it's good to know and to at
Speaker 1: least have somebody around you know. Um. But instead of
Speaker 1: spending so much time focusing on the real knitpicky language
Speaker 1: was being used by the unelected god pay us of
Speaker 1: the United States. Yes, maybe we start thinking a little
Speaker 1: bit more about what are the material impacts that might
Speaker 1: have and what are ways, what are tools that maybe
Speaker 1: a legal tools or at least that are only legal tools, um,
Speaker 1: that might be useful in um picturing the things that
Speaker 1: we value. And I think that's both an important note
Speaker 1: and a good one to end on. Moira, UM, I
Speaker 1: will run one thing by you real quick. So I
Speaker 1: have a plan and I want to I want your
Speaker 1: advice in the constitutionality of this. I would like to
Speaker 1: acquire Fort Brag. So I'm thinking what I do is
Speaker 1: I go in a Third Amendment case right and say that, well,
Speaker 1: I mean, if look, you can't what if we just
Speaker 1: extended the Quartering Act right like in the you know,
Speaker 1: could we could we push it even further so that
Speaker 1: nobody can host soldiers? And then I'll those military bases
Speaker 1: are gonna be there's gonna be a fire sale. You
Speaker 1: can't keep soldiers on them, Government's not going to keep
Speaker 1: running them. And then I get to own Ford Bragg.
Speaker 1: How are we doing? Is that? Is that legal? It's
Speaker 1: the whole end people, that you own Fort Bragg, that
Speaker 1: is one of the end goals. I think you should
Speaker 1: probably context that racing, Okay, okay, because yeah, you're right,
Speaker 1: they're probably gonna outbid me anyway, Okay, But constitutionally, I'm
Speaker 1: on solid grounds with the third Right, that's bulletproof. You know.
Speaker 1: Like like many of the questions you asked me, the
Speaker 1: legal questions you ask me, I think the answers nobody knows.
Speaker 1: Nobody knows. Okay, I'm gonna I'm gonna do with the
Speaker 1: n R A did with the second but with the
Speaker 1: Third Amendment, it's going to take a couple of decades,
Speaker 1: but I feel I feel good about this course of action.
Speaker 1: Thank you for putting up with me. More you had
Speaker 1: some stuff you wanted to plug at the end of
Speaker 1: this episode, here you I would like to use the
Speaker 1: repro Legal Defense Fund of if when how because if
Speaker 1: we're going to talk about Row at all, the oh boy? Yeah,
Speaker 1: Well the fund fund, which can be found at retro
Speaker 1: Legal Defense Fund dot org. They have a donate stage.
Speaker 1: They're doing amazing work. I'm um, just incredibly impressed it down.
Speaker 1: They are also at recro Legal Defense Funds on Instagram
Speaker 1: and probably also on Twitter. Um, but I don't really
Speaker 1: understand Twitter, so I'm not going to swear to it.
Speaker 1: That's for the best. We'll check that out dot com
Speaker 1: retro legal Funds, So please donate to the Reproductive Legal
Speaker 1: Fund Twitter dot com repro legal Fund. By the time
Speaker 1: this episode drops, we may have the Row thing. So
Speaker 1: I know everybody's gearing up, but you know this is
Speaker 1: definitely uh, it's it's it's good to help out. We
Speaker 1: all need to be like Poland because we're not going
Speaker 1: to yank this back on course through just hoping that
Speaker 1: eventually Supreme Court gets better. Well, we're gonna wish really hard.
Speaker 1: It would be nice, It would be nice, but I
Speaker 1: think organizing is probably a more effective thing to do
Speaker 1: in the immediate term. Um, so yeah, I thank you Moira,
Speaker 1: and um that's the episode It Could Happen Here as
Speaker 1: a production of cool Zone Media. For more podcasts from
Speaker 1: cool Zone Media, visit our website cool zone media dot com,
Speaker 1: or check us out on the I Heart Radio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can
Speaker 1: find sources for It Could Happen Here, updated monthly at
Speaker 1: cool zone Media dot com slash sources. Thanks for listening.