Advisory Opinions - Are PysOps Free Speech?

Episode Date: January 7, 2025

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss the anticipated TikTok oral argument taking place this Friday. Are we in content-neutral law land or are we veering off into strict-scrutiny world? And yes, there will be an emergency episode following the argument. The Agenda: —TikTok's pro-China algorithm —Mitch says no to TikTok —Donald Trump, FARA, and the First Amendment —Justice Roberts' Year-End Report —Sixth Circuit strikes down net neutrality —Goodbye, Fani —It's impropriety —Morgan Wallen can keep his name —David nerds out Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch’s offerings—including Sarah’s Collision newsletter, weekly livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Get groceries delivered across the GTA from real Canadian Superstore with PC Express. Shop online for super prices and super savings. Try it today and get up to $75 in PC Optimum Points. Visit superstore.ca to get started. TD Direct Investing offers live support, so whether you're a newbie or a seasoned pro, you can make your investing steps count. And if you're like me and think a TFSA stands for Total Fund Savings Adventure,

maybe reach out to TD Direct Investing. Ready? I was born ready. Welcome to 2025. It is our first episode of advisory opinions for the new year. David French, how are you feeling? You know, Sarah, I'm glad to be back. This was the first two weeks I've had without work in a long, I mean, this was the first vacation period

in more than two years. So, and then to make it the last two weeks of the year, I didn't know what to do with myself. So I went ahead and just filled some of the time with stomach flu. Good for you, David. We also have our first live advisory opinions coming up for the year. On January 13th, we will be at Catholic University Law School

and George Washington University's Law School. So check out those if you want to come see a live advisory opinions and you're in the DMV, if you will. And that's really confusing for people who don't live in the DMV. It does not refer to the Department of Motor Vehicles. It is DC, Maryland and Virginia. We call it the DMV.

So David, we have lots to catch up on. I want to focus on some of the TikTok briefing that's coming. Then I want to talk about Chief Justice Roberts' year in review, which had lots of people chitter-chattering, and the net neutrality opinion from DC Circuit, and lots of housekeeping and whatnot. For Wednesday's episode, I'm thinking it's an anti-episode.

Anti-slap, anti-masking, anti-indoctrination. All laws that are out there either being discussed or have passed. So look forward to that. And we will have an emergency podcast this week because the expedited TikTok oral arguments are scheduled for Friday. We will release an episode after those arguments finish. So just for those of you who start sending crazy Twitter messages to us, remember, the arguments have to finish. Then we have to record an episode. Then we release it.

So as soon as the arguments finish, don't ping me and ask where the episode is. I'm doing it. That's what I'm doing. Okay. So David, some TikTok updates. We have now the briefs from all the parties, including now even the reply brief from TikTok. So it's all in. The justices and the law clerks are pouring through it.

Maybe just some notes on oral arguments are in order at this point. Generally speaking, the justices actually don't talk to each other before oral arguments. The first time they really hear each other's thoughts are at the oral arguments themselves. Now, the clerks can talk to each other, but they're not supposed to represent necessarily their justices' feelings, just their own feelings. So they're all trying to get information from

one another potentially. There's bench memos that get circulated, though I'm not sure in this case with an expedited oral argument, even internally to the chambers. I'm guessing they're sort of doing this paperless, if you will, where they're just talking to their justice about it. But that's all to say, it's a busy week for a Supreme Court clerk here in this first week of the year.

So there was also an updated study about TikTok from the NCRI. Here's what they found. More than 80% of the content generated in an Instagram search on the Uyghurs was negative toward China. On TikTok, 11%. A search for Tiananmen on YouTube,

meanwhile generated content that was 65% negative for the Chinese government compared to 20% on TikTok. Wow, funny that. Yeah, funny that. for the Chinese government compared to 20% on TikTok. Wow, funny that. Yeah, funny that. It doesn't mean that the other 89% on the Uyghurs was positive towards China. They also are including neutral posts here, et cetera.

But still 80% was negative if you looked on Instagram and 11% on TikTok. But David, this is sort of interesting because if that's what we're talking about, then this isn't a content neutral law, right? If that's why you wanna ban TikTok, then you're in strict scrutiny land and the government has to have a compelling interest

that is narrowly tailored to reach that goal. I mean, we'll talk about that part more on Friday, I think, and whether we think they could meet strict scrutiny, what the justices are thinking about strict scrutiny. But if you're talking about content, that's the world you're in. And in TikTok's reply brief, I mean, I think you guys know where I stand on this, right?

We've talked about it enough. I did find pieces of TikTok's reply brief persuasive. I'll read you a few portions of them, David, and then get your response. Sure. Then we'll move on to the amici many people are excited about. The remaining threshold issue is whether stricter intermediate scrutiny applies. Plainly, the former. The act applies only to applications providing user-generated or user-shared content.

Exempts a content-defined class of applications and singles out one content platform for uniquely harsh treatment. The government, moreover, concedes Congress did all of that based on concerns about the platforms. Content. Foreign Agents Registration Act registered lobbyists have the right to serve as mouthpieces whose speech is controlled by foreign principles. History and precedent show that while Congress may require disclosure of that relationship, it may not ban dissemination of foreign viewpoints or propaganda by them or other Americans, including those who feel compelled by financial or other circumstances, to do so. To be clear, Congress has plenty of power to remedy foreign control of Americans. Congress

could pass speech-neutral laws regulating foreign agents and investments in the US or protecting victims of foreign coercion. Such laws would apply even if speech were involved. In sum, this court should hold that the acts TikTok specific provision is unconstitutional at minimum. A temporary injunction is warranted to provide the breathing space needed to carefully consider this significant question.

So David, to summarize that, this isn't content neutral. It picks on TikTok specifically, which is how you know it's not content neutral. Congress would have other ways to do this and they didn't do those things. Also, if you don't agree with that, you should just delay this and let Trump come into office because we think we might have some other things

we could do once we have a different president. Thoughts? Yeah, no, I agree with you that that is persuasive. And when we go into the amici, because we think we might have some other things we could do once we have a different president. Thoughts? Yeah. No, I agree with you that that is persuasive. And when we go into the amici, you'll find that some folks who are absolute friends of AO are on the other side of this. Free speech friends of AO are on the other side of this case because there are absolutely

content concerns that the case raises. I think that is absolutely correct, but I don't think it's accurately capturing what are the content concerns really here, okay? So the content concerns here, and then we'll get to the non-content element. The content concerns here are less, what is currently on TikTok?

Like that is much less of a thing. Now you'll see stuff online about how Chinese TikTok is like all math and science, and American TikTok is like all dancing and celebrity beef. And you're thinking, you know, well the Chinese TikTok is enriching their brains, American TikTok is rotting our brains, it's all part of a Chinese op, whatever.

You'll see commentary like that online, but that's not really what this case is about. To talk about what is the national security implication of foreign-owned information services, let's just take a hypothetical. Let's imagine that there is a crisis in Taiwan and a mobilization order is given to the US Pacific fleet on the West Coast and in Hawaii. And sailors are being told to report to naval bases, report to their ships to prepare to mobilize, prepare to leave for the Pacific. And then all of a sudden, TikTok is swarmed with messages saying,

you're getting a fake mobilization order. Sailors, it is a fake order. This is a Chinese Psyop, this is a scam. They're trying to sow confusion. Do not report to your ships, you'll flood the, you can imagine even if it got sorted out in 12 hours, 24 hours, 36 hours, sometimes these things really, really, time really can really, really matter. And so that's the kind of thing you're talking about, where you have a foreign

entity that has direct informational control that it could exercise in a time of crisis. And you might, and by the time it exercises it, it's too late. Like it's too late. Yeah, Congress can come in and do something after that point, it's just too late. And then the other element here is we can't forget that there's a non-content part of this case that is very, very, very important. And that is the ability to vacuum up an enormous amount of data from every user, including, for example, location data, preferences,

all kinds of things that can be used sort of at scale or in targeted manners to harm Americans and to harm American interests. And so that obviously what you read Sarah was not aimed at the data collection element here. That was there's other elements, but those are my thoughts. Their data collection element section of the brief, to summarize was this. Yeah, yeah, we get the data collection, but there's no evidence that this would have passed if it had only been rooted in data collection. And so, and you can't sever it or sever the reasons,

so don't worry about the data collection part. See, that's rough. That's hard. I would say their whole argument is hard, but yes. That's hard. But I get it, whole argument is hard, but yes. That's hard. But I get it, like in other parts, like if you have a, you know, imagine it in the world of an equal protection claim, there's some non-race-based reason while you pass the law, like they pass the law for two reasons.

One is non-race-based and one is totally race-based. Right. That, that's sort of what they're arguing here is like, look, yes, there was a non-constitutionally suspect reason potentially, but there was one. And you don't know why people voted for it because they said, here are the two reasons. Right, right. And I certainly get that argument.

But it demonstrates the weakness of the location data collection element of this year. If Congress could go back strip out any reference to content and act the same law and data collection Alone and tick-tock would be struggling in court But I do think it's interesting Sarah that, that part that you're reading was about the level of scrutiny, they're arguing first-strike scrutiny. That is the level of scrutiny the DC Circuit applied. And that was very interesting to me about the opinion

is they actually then went with the level of scrutiny that TikTok is asking the court to go with and said it meets it. It meets strict scrutiny.. It meets strict scrutiny. This law meets strict scrutiny. And so, and again, the composition of the panel here was really very interesting. I mean, this was a cross-partisan panel.

And so, you know, during the break you put into Slack a really interesting piece and reason, and gosh, I forget who it was by, but it was talking about if you look at sort of the arc here of the Supreme Court, you've got a, where the Supreme Court has been saying, Congress do your job, Congress do your job, Congress do your job, Congress passes a bipartisan piece of legislation, then you have a DC Circuit opinion that is really running the gamut of sort of the top tier of your appellate court judges.

And then it lands at the Supreme Court. Is the Supreme Court going to say, nah, don't do your job like that, Congress? Now, of course, that's its progress. Congress, do your job is not an unconditional declaration. Right. But in the broader context here, Right. But in the broader context here, I don't know, Sarah, many of the Meekie were quite well done and quite persuasive, but none of them quite got there for me to say that the court's going to strike down this law. I'm also, ah, I'm mixed on whether they're even going to hold it to strict scrutiny. I think they might, and I think they might say it overcomes it, a la the DC circuit. But I just, I sit there with City of Austin

versus Reagan National Advertising of Austin. Do you remember that case from 2022? This was about the digital billboards. Right. And there was a zoning restriction that basically said, you could only have a digital billboard if it was for the company on the premises. Then you can't sell your your space on that billboard if it's a

digital billboard to someone else. And the question was, was that content neutral? Because obviously, you have to look at the content on the billboard. You know, if you're in front of Chewies, let's say, and it's a digital billboard, you have to look and say, is that a digital billboard for Chewies? If so, okay. Is it a digital billboard for Lupe? Not okay. Why Chewies would allow Lupe to advertise?

I don't know, but you get my point. Buc-ee's is maybe a better example. I'm sure many of y'all will enjoy that. And what the Supreme Court held, it was 6-3, and they said that it was content neutral and like don't be so precious with when it's content based, like just because it has the word content in it doesn't make it actually about the content. This was a zoning regulation, y'all. Now that had in the majority Sotomayor,

Roberts, Breyer, Kagan, Kavanaugh, which is interesting, and in dissent Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Barrett. Alito was a concurring dissenting in part. That's why it's listed as 6-3. It's an interesting lineup from that case. But boy, when we even talk about whether Congress's law is content-based, I don't know. The whole thing, every part of this I think is up for grabs actually in Friday's argument. Yeah. This idea that this law is content-based would have a lot more strength if the law were aimed at the current content on the platform. I know, it feels like a digital billboard to me. Right.

Like, yes, it's because it has content, the platform has content, no question. Yeah, absolutely. But it's actually about who owns the platform like who owns the digital billboard. So I see a lot of similarities and I haven't seen a lot of people citing that case yet. So I somehow I'm missing something if I'm the only one who thinks that's interesting.

I do want to talk a little bit about the amici. So this one was about whether the court should take the case in the first place, but Mitch McConnell weighed in and I don't feel like that one got enough attention. So I wanted to read a piece of Mitch McConnell's brief because it will, I think, lead us into the next brief. Any such injunction, which of course is what TikTok is asking for in the alternative, if you will, right? Delay this whole thing.

It's what Trump is going to be asking for. Any such injunction will move the divestiture date beyond that prescribed by law and into a new presidential administration. TikTok clearly hopes that the next administration will be more sympathetic to its plight than the incumbent administration. In other words, delay is the point. Senator McConnell urges this court to deny TikTok's emergency application. Their First Amendment arguments are meritless and unsound. While the forced divestiture may cause them irreparable harm, any delay caused by an injunction would be contrary to the public interest.

This is a standard litigation play at the end of one administration, with a petitioner hoping that the next administration will provide a stay of execution. This court should no more countenance it coming from foreign adversaries than it does from hardened criminals. But what do you really think, Mitch? I know. Okay, so then that brings us to Donald Trump's amicus brief. Oh my gosh.

Lots has been written about this. John Sauer, the incoming Solicitor General, was the counsel of record on this brief. I have no inside information on any of this except to say it sure felt like one person wrote the top of the brief and a lawyer wrote the rest of the brief because most of the op-eds and the tweets and everything else have all been taking quotes from that top part.

And the top part, I'm not just basing this on like, people thought it was nuts or whatever. I'm actually basing it on the writing itself. Lots of top part, I'm not just basing this on like, people thought it was nuts or whatever. I'm actually basing it on the writing itself. Lots of adjectives, lots of adverbs. Those are all things that are beaten out of lawyers in legal writing. And when you get to the actual argument section of the brief, they disappear and it's all written like a brief that you would have seen from anyone. It's not well argued because I don't think they have a good argument, but it is well written in that sense.

You know what I mean, David? But that top part is neither in law world at least. Yeah, can we read a little bit of that, Sarah? Absolutely, of course. We'll read some of the sections that probably you've heard before. Here's the punchline though of what they're asking for. As the act was signed on April 24, 2024, the statutory deadline for divestment falls on

the day before President Trump's inauguration. Raising concerns at the act effectively forestalls the incoming administration's ability to address the question. At very least, this timing raises yet another significant question under Article 2, a concern reinforced by the first two overlapping concerns, which are about Congress encroaching on Article 2 by weighing in on any national security issue. That that I just read to you, David, comes from the argument section of the brief. And I think you will notice the difference in writing when David reads the summary part of the brief. And I think you will notice the difference in writing when David reads the summary part of the brief. In light of these interests,

including most importantly, his overarching responsibility for the United States national security and foreign policy, President Trump opposes banning TikTok in the United States at this juncture and seeks the ability to resolve the issues at hands through political means once he takes office. On September 4th, 2024, President Trump posted on Truth Social,

for all those that want to save TikTok in America, vote Trump. Furthermore, President Trump alone possesses the consummate deal-making expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the government, concerns which the president Trump has acknowledged. Indeed, President Trump's first term was highlighted by a series of policy triumphs achieved through historic deals. And he has a great prospect of success in this latest national security and foreign policy

endeavor. How about the, moreover, President Trump is one of the most powerful, prolific, and influential users of social media in history. Consistent with his commanding presence in this area, President Trump currently has 14.7 million followers on TikTok, with whom he actively communicates, allowing him to evaluate TikTok's importance as a unique medium for freedom of expression, including political speech. Further, President Trump is the founder of another resoundingly successful social media platform, Truth Social. This gives him an in-depth perspective on the extraordinary government power attempted

to be exercised in this case, the power of the federal government to effectively shut down a social media platform favored by tens of millions of Americans. President Trump is keenly aware of the historic dangers presented. Yeah. You know, this is... It's weird. Basically, you know, you don't even want to call it unitary executive. No, no. In fact, do not, like, I think I am generally a unitary executive person, but it has its limits

and all of that sort of like libertarians and the fire station. But don't give unitary executive believers a bad name. This is not a unitary executive. This is dual presidency. It's in fact the opposite of unitary executive. Oh, this is, yeah, well, this is more like just monarchy. But he hasn't even taken office. He's not the president. So you've got two problems here. One,

he's not the president. He's not going to be the president. This law was set to take place, having nothing to do with him. And the logical conclusion of this is the second you win a presidential election, you now have say over America's foreign policy. You get a veto. Right? You get a preterm veto of legislation you don't like. You have to delay it until I take office. No.

No. And then like I could even see that extending to like nominees like well if both nominees agree That they don't want this piece of legislation to take effect Like the logical Outcroppings of this are bonkers town. Okay second from that. Let's say he were in office and again I want to make so clear It's not only that he's not an office the whole thing is set to go down before he takes off Yes

The law was passed when he was a citizen. The law takes effect 270 days after it was passed, January 19th, when he is a citizen, not president. He is nothing. So it's all done. Being president-elect doesn't give him special standing here. That's right, okay.

So that's part one. Part two, let's say he were President Biden, like he were serving his second term in office. His argument here is that Congress passed a law dealing with national security, but actually I'm in charge of national security. Therefore, it is unconstitutional. And that's where when I say like the argument section of the brief is well written, but poorly argued because I don't think there are good arguments. What?

No, the president does not act alone in national security of all things national security. In fact, if anything, he's been acting too much alone. I mean, any president, not Trump by any means. And this like concept of a unitary executive government, I think, is what you're trying to get at, David, that we just like Congress is sort of there to provide advice, but no laws. And this is a bit of a tangent, so apologies. But I was rereading Chief Justice Rehnquist's book about Andrew Johnson's impeachment.

And he talks about how basically senators had two different views of the impeachment power. The ones who won, the ones who voted not to convict Andrew Johnson of impeachment, thought that the impeachment power was something quasi-legal. And the Charles Sumners of the world, radical Republicans, staunch abolitionists—remember, the guy takes up beating on the floor for his views on this—he was like, no, no, no, this is something more parliamentary. If we have lost confidence in him, the dude's out. And by way of background, for those who don't remember, Andrew Johnson subbed in on the Lincoln ticket. He takes out Hannibal Hamlin. Andrew Johnson's a Democrat.

So when Lincoln is assassinated, even though Republicans won the election, you now have a Democrat president, the Republican Senate. It's like, wait a second, what? And it's like, well, maybe you should have thought of that before you agreed to this ticket, but whatever. That's like what the vice president's job is,

is to take over the presidency. I don't know what you guys thought you were doing, but Sumner's view of the impeachment power loses because it's not a parliamentary system. We do not simply remove presidents when both houses of Congress are run by the other party, even two-thirds of the other party in the Senate, to say like, well, we don't like his policies

and we speak on behalf of the American people, so we're removing him. Trump wants like a reverse version of that. It's like a parliamentary system, but where the prime minister can dismiss his, the advice of his advisors, I suppose, or something. Well, it's like, it's not unitary executive. It's like solitary executive. Solitary, that's the right term.

I'm the only one here, yes. You know, it's pretty bad when the Wall Street Journal Ed Board comes out and gnaw dogs it. He wants the Supreme Court to treat him as if he's already president. The drafters of the Constitution debated whether one or more chief executives was the best form of government. They settled on one at a time, which has worked out well enough for 235 years, but entered Donald Trump, who now wants the Supreme Court to treat him like a second president with Joe Biden

so he can save TikTok. Pretty interesting seeing that from the Wall Street Journal. And then this from Jack Goldsmith, I thought was an interesting point. Solicitor General-to-be John Sauer, in his first filing after nomination, publicly kisses the ring and diminishes his credibility before the court, even before assuming office.

The first of many self-defeating actions that will plague Trump 2.0. DOJ. I'm a little more torn on that one, David, but there are some points worth mentioning around this. One, yes, the Solicitor General's office has generally been thought of to represent, of course, the executive branch, not the president as his personal lawyer. This is where we are going to get into some unitary executive, because at times, of course, the Solicitor General's office is representing the federal government or just the executive branch or just the White House. And I think you could see some conflicts of an administrative agency's regulation from a previous administration coming up for litigation.

Normally the Solicitor General's Office would defend that action. Will they in the upcoming administration? Should they in any given administration? That's a unitary executive conversation. Okay, that was one. Two, I think there's an interesting question whether John Sauer now can no longer work on any TikTok-related

matters when he joins the Department of Justice because he filed this brief. Normally, if you filed a brief as a private attorney on any matter, you cannot work on it when you get to DOJ. So the only exception here would be that he's working on it almost in his capacity as a proto-federal employee for the president-elect. But I don't think so. I think he's a private attorney. He filed a brief in a matter. That's the ballgame. Now, in theory, this whole thing will be resolved before he takes office, so maybe it won't matter.

But weird choice to have him sign it in my view. I think I would have kept my powder dry and wanted to make sure just in case this thing does continue that I could work on the case at DOJ as well. It is a weird choice. It's a choice that sort of communicates, I think I'm already president. He's already Solicitor General.

So it's almost like we have a shadow president right now and the shadow president has written a brief with the shadow Solicitor General's help. And yeah, I'm with you. It's very strange, but I'm not sure I completely agree with Jack on sort of how this, what this does to Sauer's credibility to the Supreme Court, in part because this isn't the Supreme Court's first rodeo in Dealing with the Trump world and so it's I think it's possible that they'll look at some of these folks with a degree of sympathy And say you're doing your best. Thank you for filing half a brief And understand the other half is basically for Twitter. But yeah, I don't know.

I it's, it's a, it's an interesting choice to put your name to a brief. That at least part of it would not be terribly out of place in reading an ode to like Kim Young-un or Kim's consummate deal making expertise. And and yeah, just, and glorious policy successes. It's wild. To whatever staffer who I don't think is a lawyer wrote that top part. I mean, on the one hand, you got what you wanted, a lot of media attention to the brief and Donald Trump in the headlines, which I think was largely the point. But you have pushed the Supreme Court farther from you, both now in this case and also when he's president.

And remember, Donald Trump was the... had the least successful presidential administration at the Supreme Court of any president in modern history, going back to when they started counting this for FDR. FDR did much better at the Supreme Court. FDR did much better at the Supreme Court. Joe Biden did much better at the Supreme Court. Barack Obama, in fact, Donald Trump was the first president ever

to be more likely to lose at the Supreme Court than to win. He was at 40%. Every other president has been above 50% at the Supreme Court. Wow. So to file this, I feel like you're just setting the relationship off in a bad, bad place. And you kind of give the Supreme Court a layup of signaling its independence. In other words, there's just a lot of concern

from an awful lot of people coming into the court, this next court term and the next Trump administration of how independent is the court going to be from Donald Trump. I think you and I have long made the case that like look at the scoreboard. As we have said, the Supreme Court has ruled time and time and time again against Donald Trump. He ruled, they ruled against Donald Trump more than they ruled against any other presidential

administration. So that, that should answer your question about potential independence but it's also there could be a real signaling effect at the beginning of a term you know that hey we're not a pushover here we're a branch of government as well from the director of the greatest Showman comes the most original musical ever. I want to prove I can make it. Prove to who? Everyone.

So, the story starts. Better Man, now playing in select theaters. Well, we're about to segue into Judicial Independence, but quick note from a listener who was spot on on this one. We talked about the Supreme Court is hearing expedited argument on January 10th, and then that gives them, in theory, time to issue an order at least before January 19th when the law goes into effect. And you and I discussed whether they could issue that order without an opinion, because generally these opinions that are done on very short timelines maybe don't do so well.

opinions that are done on very short timelines, maybe don't do so well. This was a point made by Justice White and Justice Gorsuch that the April arguments result in the least persuasive opinions. Well, the nine-day turnaround certainly can't do any favors. In Ex Parte Kirin, the Nazi saboteur case, David, the Supreme Court issued its decision on July 31, 1942, but did not release a full opinion until October 29, 1942. We've talked about that case plenty, but basically eight saboteurs land in their German uniforms, bury their uniforms to immediately go turn themselves into the FBI or try to. The FBI doesn't believe them. They have to convince the FBI, no, no, really, we're Nazis. The other six are soon thereafter captured and put to death after the Supreme Court gives

the go ahead for military tribunals. So that is the last time that I found and that this intrepid listener found where they had the discrepancy between the order and the opinion. I don't think we'll have that this time. I think we're going to have the order and opinion both before the 19th, but still. No, it's going to be fascinating. And you know, I do think this is one of the first of what you might call new Cold War cases, because the old Cold War had a number of cases that came up involving immigration, free speech, etc. War powers that really were where the decision making was cast in the awareness of this great

geopolitical contest with an extraordinarily powerful foreign enemy. And how do you prepare a nation to potentially confront such an overwhelming, at the time seemed almost overwhelmingly powerful foreign enemy, at the same time that you're preserving all of America's liberties and freedoms that make us distinct from the foe that we are facing off against. And I think we're going to be finding ourselves kind of getting back into that legal mindset and that legal view. Cause I, as I was reading some of the amici, what was striking to me was I felt

like time and again, the amici on TikTok side didn't properly understand, I think this national security context, they, it was almost as if it was a peacetime briefing and cold War time reality. To me, that was the interesting kind of split and analysis. All right. Moving on to a little from our chief justice at the end of the year here. It was time for the 2024 year-end report

on the federal judiciary. We have not always reported on the chief's year-end report because it's often pretty boring. This one also was largely boring unless you read between the lines, but reading between the lines, it was not at all boring and there were plenty of people commenting on it. So first off, David, I have to read you this one section that I

know nobody else cares about, but you know that I did, which is about John Jay. So he's talking about the Federalist Papers and he says, you might have expected the man who soon would become the first Chief Justice of the United States, John Jay, to have authored the portions of the Federalist Papers devoted to the Judicial Branch. But as I explained in my 2019 Year-end Report, Jay spent the winter of 1788 recovering from a severe head injury sustained while trying to protect a group of medical students from an angry mob who thought, erroneously, that the students were stealing cadavers from graves to practice surgery. As Jay

rested to heal the two large holes in his forehead, the task of championing judicial independence fell to Alexander Hamilton. David, every time I've ever seen the explanation for why, even though it was supposed to be Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, that, you know, Hamilton wrote a gazillion of them. In fact, it's in Hamilton, the musical, right? Right. John Jay wrote five, Hamilton or Madison wrote 20, and Alexander Hamilton wrote 70, whatever it is.

Yeah. You always read Jay was sick. He wasn't sick. He was attacked. He was hurt. In the mob, the grave robbing mob riot of 1788. It's super fascinating, David. I went and then did this like deep dive on that riot. There were many such riots between the founding and the Civil

War because medical students had no way of getting bodies to do dissections on, so yeah, they would go and rob graves. The way that this riot started though is also interesting. A medical student is doing his dissection and there's a bunch of like teenage, you know, young boys, whatever gawking at the window and he's sick of them watching him. Maybe they're taunting him. I don't know.

So he- Well don't do it in front of the window. I know, but whatever. Okay, anyway, sorry, didn't mean to interrupt. It's Columbia med school. If anyone's looking for like a place that this is happening. So the medical student raises the hand of the cadaver and says something to the boy like, your mom says hi.

Okay. Them's Doolin words, Sarah. Yeah, it's sort of like an original yo mama joke. And in the context, it sort of feels like it's only that, like it's a yo mama joke. But of the, you know, 10 or so boys, they're gawking, one of them's mom had just died. So he goes home to his dad crying and is like, he said my mama, like he was dissecting my mom in front of me.

And the dad then goes to the grave and unburies where his wife was buried, and his wife's not there. So we don't know whether in fact, like we don't know whether that was her, whether the medical student could have possibly known it was her, whether that like, he could have known that was her son

and it was like meant to be the real taunt, or it was just a really unfortunate coincidental taunt. But the dad then gets all these dudes and they go attack the medical school. They're able to get everyone out, the professors and everything. Some of the medical students are hiding in chimneys at that point, but everything's okay and they think it's all going to be fine. The next day, 5,000 people come to raise the building basically. That's when they call up John Jay and they're like, can you come talk everyone down? John Jay does his duty as a patriot, as an American, as a New Yorker. And remember one of

the articles of the confederation? So like, we don't have a lot of other options at this point. So John Jay standing before the crowd, and he's like, hey, this is all going to be fine. Don't worry about it. And guy from the crowd throws a rock at his head and fractures his skull. Postscript on this whole thing, after John Jay is knocked unconscious and dragged off scene, up comes one of the generals, Beauchamp from the revolution.

Is that his name? It's definitely a French name. Anyway, he comes up and tries to quiet the crowd. And they throw a brick at him, but it doesn't hit his head. And so he turns to the head of the militia and says something to the effect like, you know, in exasperation, like, you should just give the order to fire on these people.

But the militia guys here fire on these people and they think it's an order from a general. Oh my. So they do. And they kill 20 people. And that's an order from a general. Oh my. So they do. And they kill 20 people. And that's how the first riot ended. And that's why John Jay didn't write the Federalist Papers. And it's why we end up having laws about donating bodies

and all sorts of other things that end up, you know, preventing this from being an issue today of robbing graves. And Jeremy Bentham was the first man to donate his body to science after he died. That, Sarah, is a digression that delivered. Wow. Wow. I did not know it was culminating in like a massacre

worse than the Boston massacre. I mean, whoa. Yeah, and very Boston massacre-esque, right? That's the same excuse. Is it someone maybe talks about firing and then they misunderstand and they fire. Right. Yeah, pretty similar.

Anyway, that's not what John Roberts here in report is about. It is about judicial independence. So here's the money section. I feel compelled to address four areas of illegitimate activity that in my view do threaten the independence of judges on which the rule of law depends. One, violence. Two, intimidation. Three, disinformation. And four, threats to defy lawfully entered judgments. I think the violence speaks for itself, David, though he notes the US Marshals Service says hostile threats and communications against judges have more than tripled in the last decade.

I think there's a bit of chicken and egg problem there. I think as the judicial branch has become more and more important, it was some inevitability to this in the same way that as presidents became more important, violence against US presidents also became more common, sadly. I don't know that you can solve that by, you know, shaking your fist and yelling judicial independence. I don't think it's caused by some easily remediable feature, aside from the judicial branch receding back into it,

sort of third branch role. Well, and also every area of government that I've been able to see has had a dramatic increase in threats. So, Congress, dramatic increase of threats against Congress. When school boards were at the center of the storm, big increase in threats. Election workers, big increase in threats. You're seeing it in the journalistic world, there's a big increase in threats.

I mean, it's just, if you are public facing or have a public role right now in American politics, especially on anything that comes within miles of the culture war, compared to 10 years ago, it's a dramatically worse environment. And he talks about two judges that have been killed recently. He does not mention the assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh's life.

I think that one stands out, though, or should stand out because it was about the substance of his vote. Yeah. And that's dangerous, obviously. OK. Number two, intimidation. This one's kind of interesting, I think,

because it gets to a point that is so at the heart of the judiciary, which is it is meant to be a counter-majoritarian institution. If everyone likes what the court is saying, the court is, by definition, I would say, not doing its job because it means it's going along with the majority, but it's a counter-majoritarian institution. We don't need the courts if the majority, if the political majority, can already handle all of this. Right? Like, why would we need courts? We would just vote on it, and the majority would be right, and we'd move on with our lives. The only reason you need courts is because the majority is wrong.

Right. So he talks about the story of US District Judge Julius Wadey's wearing. As a judge in South Carolina from 1942 to 1952, that's going to be important, that is pre Brown v Board of Education, that is in the Plessy v Ferguson, you know, still is good law era. Judge Waring issued numerous rulings opening voting and educational opportunities for black Americans in South Carolina, David. Local residents outraged by these decisions burned across in the judge's yard, fired gunshots at his home, and hurled a large lump of concrete through his front window.

Elected officials called for his impeachment. Some on the left, who are legal commentators, said that Chief Justice Roberts was misappropriating civil rights history for his own purpose. No, this in fact is the judiciary. This is what it means to be counter-majoritarian and they should think hard about whether you're on the side of the angels if you're the one doing the cross burning,

if you're the one calling for impeachment when you don't like a decision. Are you in the majority? Well, then it's the court's job to stand up to the majority. And I think there's been many examples of very brave courts and judges doing the unpopular thing, having the unpopular decision, and history has proven them right. It doesn't mean the court's always been right when they're against the majority. It doesn't mean the court's always been right, period. But it is a counter-majoritarian institution. We wouldn't need it if we could just take a vote on everything.

Right, exactly. It's counter-majoritarian if the critique of the court is, the court reached a decision I don't like and therefore the court is illegitimate. Well, that's a you problem, bud. That's a you problem because the legitimacy of the court is not dependent upon your agreement with the results. It's not dependent upon your agreement with the reasoning. And now, if you had evidence of bribery, if you had evidence of corruption in that regard, yeah, by all means, let's hear about it,

let's talk about it. But if the conclusion is, well, the precedent I like was reversed and replaced by precedent I don't like, even on issues of real importance, which by the way, that's what the Supreme Court is supposed to do is decide issues of real importance, then all of these attacks on legitimacy, they are actually dangerous. This isn't hard at this point. We know what happens when big, big public accounts focus their fury and use terms like illegitimate, use terms like corrupt, use terms like that.

We know what happens. Now, it doesn't mean that they're directly responsible for the threats that follow, for the acts of potential acts of violence that follow, but nobody should be naive at this point. And by participating in that kind of hyperbolic rhetoric, you really are putting a target on the backs of public officials, including judges.

And so I think Justice Roberts is just right here. All right. His next point was on disinformation. Like, yeah, don't lie about what the opinion said. I don't know what you're gonna do about that. My advice on that, by the way, David, has been that the court should do embargoed readings of opinions for Supreme Court reporters

before they release them on the website. What this would look like is basically when you go into the courtroom that day, you would get an hour or whatever with the opinion for those credentialed reporters. They would have time to read it. They would not be able to tweet about it, text anyone. No electronic device is allowed. They could take notes and that's it.

They don't get time with the justices to talk about it. Nothing. You're just sitting in a room alone with the opinion and nothing else but a pen and a piece of paper. Then those reporters are allowed to leave the room at the same time that the opinion is posted on the website. Why do I think this makes a difference? Because it actually allows people who then know what they're talking about to be on TV allows people who then know what they're talking about to be on TV and be the ones writing their articles or being on Twitter. Instead, when everyone gets it at the same time,

it's just a race for who can say the first thing. Well, that first thing's likely to be wrong or it's likely to be incendiary or it's not going to have the nuance of the opinion. So I don't know why the Supreme Court doesn't arm the people who want to get the story right with the ability to get the story right before the people who don't care to get the story right. Yeah, that's an interesting idea. I think that's got a lot of potential because, you know, we have seen real live mistakes play out. I mean, there was an initial sort of

ripple of a missed call on the Obamacare decision. Right. That kind of rippled through the public before it's like, oh, wait, no, wait, it was actually upheld. It was upheld under the taxing power. And it feels like there's just plenty where there's a race to say like, court holds Trump's immune. And it's like, well, that's not quite what they said. And if you're sitting on air, I mean, obviously I was watching a slash on ABC during that, and they're going back and forth frantically

just trying to pull out sentences so they can get on air and say what the decision was. They didn't read it, obviously. They got on air, I think, within four minutes of the decision coming out to say what the decision was. And then you have commentators talking about it. They haven't read it either, so it was all pretty dumb. And then you're going on and then you have commentators talking about it. They haven't read it either.

So it was all pretty dumb. And then you're going on Twitter and you have people who claim to have somehow read it in four minutes, telling you like how outrageous the decision is or how right the decision is. No one had read the decision Chief Justice Roberts. At least arm, let some people have the ability to read it before it's just this race to find one sentence to report on. Yeah. Okay, next up, threats to defy lawfully entered judgments. This one's my favorite, David.

This is my new hobby horse heading into 2025. Threats from the other two branches to ignore the Supreme Court when they don't like its opinions. This goes to my counter majoritarian argument. If the court's always counter majoritarian and the other two branches are more politically accountable to ignore the Supreme Court when they don't like its opinions. This goes to my counter-majoritarian argument. If the court's always counter-majoritarian and the other two branches are more politically accountable and more majoritarian, why do they accept what the Supreme Court says?

They don't have to. And in fact, at many times they have it. Brown v. Board of Education being a great example where for 10 years nothing happened after Brown v. Board of Education being a great example where for 10 years, nothing happened after Brown be Board of Education. The Supreme Court said it was unlawful to have racially segregated schools and everyone said, hmm, interesting and went about their lives until basically the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. So here's, just like he didn't mention the Kavanaugh assassination attempt, he also does not mention, he just says, within the past few years, however, elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings.

These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected. Now obviously, President Biden, after the student loan decision, said, I'm going to paraphrase here, but like, but look, we did it anyway. Now that was taken as him ignoring a Supreme Court decision. That Supreme Court decision was about their ability to forgive student loan debt under the Heroes Act. They're now arguing they're forgiving student loan debt under the actual Education Department Act.

So they're not technically ignoring the Supreme Court's decision, but that line was really irresponsible all the same because he says, the Supreme Court struck us down, but we did it anyway, makes it sound like anyway, meaning we ignored it. But let me read you some statements from Vice President-elect JD Vance.

If I was giving Trump one piece of advice, this is back in 2021, by the way, so before he's a candidate or anything. If I was giving Trump one piece of advice, fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people. And when the courts, because you will get taken to court,

and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, the chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it. Plenty of evidence Andrew Jackson never actually said that, or rather there's no evidence that he ever did say it. And Andrew Jackson didn't ignore the Supreme Court. Mr. Wooster went home, which is what the Supreme Court said. Now, did Andrew Jackson take up the spirit of the Supreme Court's decision and the rights of Indian tribes? No,

and it led to the Trail of tears. It was bad. But he did not ignore a Supreme Court decision as this is clearly about a specific Supreme Court decision that you would ignore. He's asked about it though. Since then, the, this is George Stephanopoulos, the constitution also says the president must abide by legitimate Supreme Court rulings, doesn't it? By the way, I don't know where Stephanopoulos got that from, but okay. Vance, the constitution says that the Supreme Court can make rulings, but if the Supreme Court, and look, I hope that they would not do this,

but if the Supreme Court said the president of the United States can't fire a general, that would be an illegitimate ruling. And the president has to have article two prerogative under the constitution to actually run the military as he sees fit. So this is a fun one, David, because it's pretty much exactly what Andrew Johnson got impeached for.

Right. So it's a bit of an open question to the extent of whether, for instance, Congress could make a law saying that the president can't remove a military general. This actually was litigated post Andrew Johnson as the Removal from Office Act state on the books. It was eventually repealed. We don't need to get into all of that history right now. But the reverse is what's more interesting to me, David, this idea that the president has an independent duty to assess the constitutionality. So if the Supreme Court says the Alien and Sedition Acts are constitutional, does the president then enforce them even if he believes they're unconstitutional?

That's an interesting question. If, however, the Supreme Court says the Alien and Sedition Acts are not constitutional, I don't know any constitutional scholar that then thinks that the president or Congress, for that matter, has an independent constitutional ability to say, yeah, but I think they are. Yeah, right. That's where you're usurping the article three, the role of the federal courts in article three. That's the necessary implication of the role of federal courts in article three, as discussed

in Marbury versus Madison. No, I'm with you. The question is, I'm much, it is a very interesting question to say if the court says this law is constitutional and you think it's not, do you enforce the law that you think is not constitutional if the court has said that it is, is a different kind of question. And it's very interesting. There are some, the take care clause, it looks like there is going to be, that's the kind of thing for which I think the court would essentially just punt to the political branches. David, this is not directly on point, but in Heckler v. Cheney in 1985,

the Supreme Court did hold that a federal agency's decision to not take an enforcement action is presumptively unreviewable by the courts under the Administrative Procedures Act. So, you know, Congress can create unreviewable decisions. Right. Yep. Okay.

So that was the Chief Justice's year in review. Everyone on the left, like, lost their marbles over it, was super critical about how tone deaf it was and how he refuses to actually criticize his own members of the court. That's not his job, he's not gonna do that. These are nine people stuck together for life. He's not gonna defend them, he's not going to attack them.

Like I don't understand why people can't take what the court puts out at face value and discuss the merits of that and criticize or support that. It's like the whole point of what he's talking about. Yeah, you know, there is such a hostility towards the court. And look, I don't agree with all the court's rulings as we have discussed. I mean, I don't agree with all the court rulings as we have discussed i mean i don't think.

You and i have ever agreed with every ruling even if the car in the consequential cases. I but there's a giant difference between disagreeing with the ruling and believing a court it is illegitimate. And the volcanic reaction and here's an interesting thing sir. In some ways the reaction to jobs was less. The volcanic reaction, and here's an interesting thing, Sarah. In some ways, the reaction to Dobbs was less dramatic than a lot of people predicted. And in some ways, it was every bit as dramatic. Where was it less dramatic? I think it was actually less dramatic sort of on the corporate establishment center left.

So sort of like your corporate liberalism, etc. Because there was a lot of, I remember being on a clubhouse conference call with pro-life activists, this is well before Dobbs, and they were talking about, well, if Roe is overturned, there will be debanking, there will be corporations won't hire pro-life employee, like all of this sort of apocalyptic stuff of about how all of the engines of the mainstream liberal, mainstream liberalism would just exclude pro-lifers from public life. Well, none of that happened. Absolutely none of that happened.

And in fact, you know, the democratic process has been working ever since Dobbs, not in ways that I necessarily love as a pro-life person, but the democratic process has been working since Dobbs, not in ways that I necessarily love as a pro-life person, but the democratic process has been working since Dobbs. So in that sense, it actually dropped into American life in a way that American democracy has been able to handle quite easily and well. But on the more extreme left, my goodness.

It was a delegitimizing action, entirely delegitimizing. The Supreme Court has no moral authority remaining, et cetera, et cetera. So, you know, I posted this over the holidays. The longer this moment goes on, the more I think that the American political realignment that we're experiencing is far right and far left are just so much more alike each other and center right and center left are just so much more like each other. And that is slowly sort of becoming clear to people over time. All right, David, let's talk about the Six Circuits net neutrality decision quickly. For those who need a refresher on what net neutrality is. I'll read from the

decision. The emergence of the internet brought an update to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Significant for our purposes, it's its specification of two new services that the FCC may regulate, Information Service and Telecommunications Service. In short, an information service manipulates data while a telecommunication service does not. The core of the dispute here is whether broadband's internet service providers offer the former or the latter, which is important because the act instructs that a telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier to the extent that it is engaged in providing

telecommunication services. And it is through this designation that the FCC has inconsistently pushed its net neutrality policies. If, however, broadband internet service providers offer an information service, they are not subject to common carrier regulations. The term information services is defined as the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunication. A provider that offers information services may not be classified as a common carrier.

Okay, so David, at the end of the Obama administration, the FCC said the broadband service providers couldn't basically favor any other websites, content, etc. Then the Trump administration resented it. Then the Biden administration put it back in. And under Chevron, that was all fine because they were both reasonable readings, whether it was an information service or a telecommunication service. And so it kept flipping back and forth.

And that's a terrible way to run a railroad, right? Especially if you have to run a business or decide what to invest in in the future and you have no idea whether you'll be a common carrier four years from now. But you are today, but you won't be tomorrow. And you have to change your entire business model over that. Okay. So now Chevron is gone thanks to Loperbrite, which means that we are all going to simply pick the best reading of a statute

and agencies will be held to that best reading over time. Back to the sixth circuit. The question is whether these broadband service providers are merely a conduit for data transmission, a so-called dumb pipe, and thus offer consumers a telecommunication service, or whether instead broadband internet service providers offer consumers the capability to acquire, store, and utilize data and thus offer consumers an information service. In our view, the latter is the best reading of the Act. And then it goes through this order issued during the Biden administration, undoes the order issued during the first

Trump administration, which undid the order issued during the Obama administration, which undid orders issued during the Bush and Clinton administrations. So no more net neutrality regulations, according to the Sixth Circuit, David. I think there's a decent chance the Supreme Court will take this up because it is a post-Loper-Bright, post-Chevron question. The net neutrality stuff has been bouncing around back and forth for 20 plus years now, basically since the internet was created and this law was changed in 1996. Do you think there's a best reading of the law? Yeah, I think there's the best reading of the law.

I agree with the Sixth Circuit here. And I thought, you know, rarely do you read a two sentence paragraph that more appropriately describes the problem with the Chevron world. It says, the DC Circuit heard substantial challenges to the 2015 and 2018 orders. It applied the now overruled Chevron doctrine in each case and upheld both wholly inconsistent regulations as permissible under the act. And I think if in our civics function of advisory opinions, we're

doing our job if we can get people to understand that one of the consequences of overruling Chevron is this entirely sensible notion that a law cannot mean A and not A at the same time. It is not Schrodinger's cat. Right, right. It is not A and not A at the same time. And so not Schrodinger's cat. Right, right. It is not A and not A at the same time. And so there is a reading of the statute. There is not many readings of the statute

that are completely inconsistent with each other. That is the part of this sort of pre-Chevron world that when I talk to folks, even pretty informed folks who have been sort of drinking from the Kool-Aid of, oh, we just need to defer to agency expertise. These are the experts, these are the experts, these are the experts. And I say, well, what if the experts

have reached completely opposing conclusions, depending on who is in office? And that's not deferring to experts, that's just deferring to politics. And so- The end of Chevron is not necessarily a conservative outcome. It's just that we're gonna have a single outcome for each law. Right. And it's not ignoring experts. It's just that experts can't change their minds every four

years when the statutory language doesn't change. I mean, this is not about eliminating experts. This is not about undoing the administrative state. This is, what does a law mean? That's what this is about. All right, now for some housekeeping. One, Fonny Willis, the Georgia Court of Appeals has disqualified her from continuing on the Trump case that would have to be on hold for four years anyway.

They'd also, though, refuse to dismiss the indictment against Donald Trump. This tweet from one of our favorite Georgia lawyers, Andrew Fleischman, really summed it up for me. Honestly, guys, in hindsight, I think it's probably unwise to hire your boyfriend to handle a case totally outside his expertise and then stretch out the pre-indictment stage for three years so you can pay his firm a million dollars. Yeah.

Yeah. Said it once, said it a million times, few people are as fortunate in their political or legal enemies as Donald Trump. Country music star Morgan Wallin's Broadway bar got a second chance on Tuesday night after Metro Council in Nashville voted to approve the sign above the entrance. David, we had talked about this. They didn't want him to have a sign with his

name on it outside his bar because they thought he had said stuff they didn't like. Nope! We told him, pursue litigation, man. You have the law on your side and he has prevailed. Congratulations to Morgan Wallin and his team. David, the First Amendment rides free today. It does. In Nashville, Tennessee, where as a home of singers and songwriters, the First Amendment should be protected, if not revered, Sarah. So I'm glad the city leaders have had a change of heart. It was interesting, right? They thought he said some stuff that was racist,

and he had thrown some chairs off another bar and had been arrested for that. And so like what, they were gonna have a rule that like if you've ever been indicted for a felony, you can't have your name on a button, No, no, no, no, no, we can and we're not condoning chair-throwing we're not condoning any of the you know underlying conduct, but That's you know, the First Amendment is the first one applies even when people have said and done unsavory things Okay next up, we did get an update

on that court ordered lunch between the two lawyers down in Alabama at Saw's Barbecue. The bill was $74. And the tip, David, you wanna guess the tip? $74. That's correct, David. No one can say the Judge Proctor is not a friend of the server.

By making that public, he guaranteed the tip would be large. But was there a daytime? Was there a daytime? I don't have that update yet. They haven't had their post lunch conference with the judge. So we'll have to see whether they come in holding hands and braiding each other's hair. Okay. Lastly, David, we got a question from a listener.

It's about Dungeons and Dragons. So this question obviously is only meant for you. Okay, I'm listening. I don't weigh in on such horribly nerdy topics. Help us settle an argument from last night. My son was trying to stop my husband from advancing farther into the Misty Mountains from Rohan on his way to Mordor.

He played a The Way Is Shut card, to which my husband attempted to deflect with a You Have No Power Here card. But my son insists that my husband has no right to play that card because his turn was effectively over. Here are the card's descriptions. The way is shut. My son played it to stop my husband.

Play it any time during another player's turn. That player immediately stops moving and ends their turn. You have no power here, card. The card the husband played to deflect. Play whenever another card would target you. Ignore the effects of that card. Oh, you have no power here triumphs over the way is shut. I think you would have no power here was supposed to triumph

over the way is shut, but I think textually, play at any time during another player's turn, that player immediately stops moving and ends their turn. Like they wrote it wrong. I agree that purpose would be your side, but textualism is on my side. But no, but go back to the textualism of, you have no power here.

Play whenever another card would target you. Okay. Ignore the effects of that card. Yes. That's interesting. It doesn't say the card doesn't operate. It says that actually the card does operate and you ignore the effects.

Ignore the effects of the card. David, you're right. The husband wins. It's pure textualism. The husband wins. Oh, I'm so sorry. And also this is clearly not Dungeons and Dragons. It's some sortualism. The husband wins. Oh, I'm so sorry. And also this is clearly not Dungeons and Dragons. It's some sort of Lord of the Rings thing, right?

This is a Lord of the Rings, yes. Okay, my bad. But it was, the email was about Dungeons and Dragons. I apologize. I think it was just that they are really into Dungeons and Dragons. So they thought that David would have the expertise to answer this.

I think he did, clearly. Yeah, so the husband is an English professor and he was arguing textualism, so yeah. Motion, I mean, the two-person court has reached a unanimous agreement. We don't ordinarily, ordinarily would not want to side against a young kid making their way in the gaming world. But the text is the text.

I actually don't think it's close here. Yeah. Yeah. All right. So reminder for next episode, we're gonna do our anti-podcast, anti-slap, anti-mask, anti-indoctrination. Then we'll have the emergency pod at the end of the week on the TikTok argument.

So we'll return to that. And on Monday, January 13th, we will be at Catholic and George Washington universities. So come on by for the area. Music