Advisory Opinions - The Federalist Society in Peril

Episode Date: April 4, 2024

Sarah and David dive into two op-eds challenging the Federalist Society and the call for lawyers to uphold the tradition of liberty under law. The Agenda: —Mayfield v. Butler, retaliation, and political targeting —Risks and challenges facing the Federalist Society —Did Trump-era advances in jurisprudence come at a deep civic cost? —The Thomas’ article on the judicial filibuster —Will Peter Navarro’s attempts to evade jail time succeed? (Spoiler: No) —Sarah and David answer work-life balance questions Show Notes: —Villareal v. City of Laredo —Gonzalez v. Trevino —Justice Breyer's bookshelf —Advisory Opinions podcast on Federal Judges visiting Israel Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You ready? I was born ready. Welcome to Advisory Opinions. I'm Sarah Isger with special guest David French. And we're going to do a lot on this pod, a lot of Q&A, a lot of potpourri. And David, we're going to start with the most important question, the one I've gotten twice already this week. Why are you special guest David French? Well, if you know the history, the lore of Advisory Opinions. We began the show with me as the main host of the show. And then when I moved to the New York Times, you became the main host of the show. And I became not the main host of the show. So it's really kind of simple.

So the joke is that you're not the co-host, which you basically are. But you are, in fact, only here at my pleasure. You serve at the pleasure of the host. Yes, exactly. Exactly. So that's the joke. And that's why we say it all the time. All right. Next up, a little bit of law catch up here.

Interesting Fifth Circuit opinion that in and of itself we probably wouldn't talk about, but because it comes on the heels of that Supreme Court argument on First Amendment retaliation arrests, worth a couple minutes of our time, it was a dissental, meaning the Fifth Circuit decided not to take the case on Bonk, but there were quite a few judges on the Fifth Circuit who wanted to take it on Bonk. David, thoughts quite a few judges on the Fifth Circuit who wanted to take it on Bonk. David, thoughts, feelings? Yeah, this is an interesting case because it's related to a couple of other cases. And this came to us, and it's not a brand new case. It's an older case. It's from last August that we missed, but became suddenly more relevant because of the conversation that we had about the Gonzalez case.

Now, this is the case, if you guys remember, where a person was a older person who decided to run for public office later in life, got crossways with sort of the powers that be, slipped a petition that she was working on into some of her binders, left with it, and then later got charged criminally for slipping a petition or a document that she'd been working on into her own stuff. And then she filed a retaliation claim. She filed a First Amendment retaliation claim saying she was arrested because of her political opposition, not really because she had taken an official document from its official place, that this was all political retaliation. And the issue and the question that we talked about was, well, if there's probable cause, under what circumstance can it be retaliation?

What kind of comparators do you have to have? Do you have to show that a bunch of other people slipped documents in and were not prosecuted? How would you even begin to do that? So we got another case from a friend of the pod. And the friend of the pod sent us this case. And it notes the similarities between a couple other cases that we've talked about, the Gonzalez case that we talked about. And there was a case involving Priscilla Villarreal that we talked about. This was the Facebook, quote, journalist who was prosecuted for some of what she had put on social media.

And this case is grim. It goes all the way back. And Sarah, I remember this incident. And I do not remember. Me too. Did not remember. Yeah, I didn't remember the grim, very grim denouement of it, but I remember this incident and I do not remember, did not remember. Yeah, I didn't remember the grim, very grim denouement of it, but I remember this incident and it involved some, a Tea Party

challenge to Senator Thad Cochran in Mississippi. And this was back in 2014. And some people who are real political nerds may remember that there was a moment in which Senator Cochran was being accused of an affair. And some of the activists for his primary challenger, he was a Tea Party primary challenger, obtained a picture of Cochran's wife from a nursing home, from an assisted living facility, and created a very short-lived YouTube video that contrasted the woman that Cochran was allegedly having an affair with with the picture of Cochran's wife to demonstrate the contrast

and to make Cochran look horrible, terrible. The video was taken down very quickly after it went up. And then later, there was an individual who was charged for facilitating this plot or this process. The person did not take the picture of Cochran's wife, but he did tell the people who took the picture where she was. And so he got prosecuted. And there was a ton of evidence that this prosecution was very, very, very politically targeted. He was arrested, jailed, lost his business or lost his leading client. And about a month after all this all played out, the month after the primary ended and Cochran won by about a point, this person killed themselves. And it was just horrible, just horrible. And but once again, this question came up in the case of, wait, what if there's probable cause, but there's

also evidence of political targeting? Well, how do you even begin to prove the comparator? Because remember, sort of the argument was, well, probable cause is enough to defend against the retaliation claim, unless you've got evidence that this is not something that ordinarily would be prosecuted, or there are people who had committed similar offenses not prosecuted, but this person was prosecuted for political targeting. And there's just, it's a extremely heavy lift to, in essence, prove something that didn't happen, to sort of prove that there were other events similar that were not prosecuted, because how would you begin to go about doing that? And how is that then the standard you have to uphold when there is other evidence, such as testimony from public officials that indicate the targeting?

And it really is an interesting trilogy of cases here, Sarah, this this case, the Villarreal case, this case is Mayfield versus Snow, the Villareal case and the Gonzalez case. And what's interesting is, you know, all three of these are sort of taking on powerful entrenched interests and facing criminal charges in consequence. And I just thought it was a fascinating third example of this similar phenomenon that we're seeing. And it'll be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court and remember the Supreme Court argument over this First Amendment retaliation case also came from the Fifth Circuit, whether it will provide sufficient guidance to prevent these cases from continuing to stew, if you will. Because you never know, right? Sometimes they set out a nine point balancing test

or whatever, and you actually kind of don't give a lot of guidance to the lower courts. I think that's where we are on qualified immunity, for instance, where that's why the Supreme Court needs to take it again, because it really depends on what panel you get at the lower courts to decide whether the person has qualified immunity or not. And that's really unhelp what panel you get at the lower courts to decide whether the person has qualified immunity or not. And that's really unhelpful if you're a district

judge, for instance. Right. Yeah, it really is. It really is. And, you know, I think the, you know, Judge Ho wrote a dissental. We've talked about a number of his First Amendment cases in the past. And, you know, one thing that he points out is that, and he writes this paragraph, and I think it's a very powerful paragraph. So I'm concerned about the state of freedom of speech in our circuit. I'm heartened that a diverse amicus coalition

of respected public interest groups have asked us to hold officials accountable in cases like these. These organizations no doubt disagree with one another on virtually every major issue under the sun, yet they've joined forces to support the basic right of every American to criticize the government. I think it's interesting you pointed out this amicus issue

because one thing that I am seeing right now, Sarah, this is a sort of a positive to the negative. The positive that I'm seeing is I am seeing a lot of organizations right, left, middle, who are sort of outside of, they're not, sometimes they might even be culture war combatants in the sense that they meet each other and they fight each other in court on other issues, but they're believers in the system. So you have people who fight each other viciously, viciously, not maybe that's the wrong word, fight each other passionately, vigorously, passionately.

Right. But they believe in the system. They believe in the system. And then we have culture war and partisan combat that is essentially outside of or attacking the system. And that really is, in many ways, a big element of our political divide right now. And these organizations who no doubt disagree

with one another in virtually every major issue under the sun, I would bet if you looked at them, you would see these are believers in the system who disagree. And that's becoming a big fault line in our nation right now. All right, next up, David, there was a piece run on the

Dispatch website by Greg Nunziata, who is the executive director of the Rule of Law Institute. The headline was, the conservative legal movement got everything it wanted. It could lose it all. And it follows on the heels of another op-ed by three of the board members of the Rule of Law Institute, George Conway, Michael Luttig, and Barbara Comstock. The Trump threat is growing. Lawyers must rise to meet this moment. That came out back in November. The idea for the Rule of Law Institute seems to be to challenge the Federalist Society and make the case that the Federalist Society is ill-equipped to support the rule of law during and after the Trump era. It's a long op-ed. We'll obviously link to it. Greg is a friend. I've known him forever. He was Marco Rubio's chief counsel at

one point. Anyone in the conservative legal movement will have been in and around Greg during the years, and there's just no one kinder. But I think I do have some disagreements with this op-ed, David, and I was curious if you wanted to take it on first. Yeah. So I agree on a very top line issue and that I think that on the very top line, there is an element. Well, there's two top line issues that I have agreement with. One, there is we are experiencing the consequences in some ways of an ends justifies the means approach to judicial nominations, in particular in the pro-life movement.

We are experiencing some negative consequences of that. And we can dive into that more. And then the other thing that I would say is I do agree with the comment at the very end that the conservative movement could lose it all. I think I might disagree how it will or how it might with Greg, but I do think that there is an ends justifies

the means element, especially in the pro-life world that is beginning to cost the pro-life movement. And I also think that the conservative legal movement is potentially at a crossroads. And I think that it could, in fact, be fundamentally transformed in a way that would transform conservative jurisprudence ultimately over time in a profoundly negative way. So we could dive into that. But I'm actually before we dive into that, I'm actually curious, Sarah, what your general disagreement was with it, because I had some top line agreement, but I had some disagreement as to the why or how, if that makes sense. Interesting.

So let me actually start with the New York Times piece by the board members, because I thought that was so counterproductive, frankly. Right? Because you're arguing that you want to start this new conservative legal society to take the baton in some ways from the Federalist Society. You're saying the Federalist Society was good when it started. It's lost its way. Come join us, right? That's the baseline argument. And in doing so, well, I'll just read you a piece of it. The Federalist Society, long the standard bearer for the conservative legal movement,

has failed to respond in this period of crisis. That is why we need an organization of conservative lawyers committed to the foundational constitutional principles we once all agreed upon. The primacy of American democracy, the sanctity of the Constitution and the rule of law, the independence of the courts, the inviolability of elections, and mutual support among those tasked with the solemn responsibility of enforcing the laws of the United States. This new organization must step up, speak out and defend these ideals. But then it goes on to say the Federalist Society has conspicuously declined to speak out against the constitutional and other legal excesses of Mr. Trump and his administration.

When we are thankful that there were lawyers in the Trump administration who opted to resign or be fired rather than advance his flagrantly unconstitutional schemes, they should be lauded. But these exceptions were notably few and far between. OK, so let me break that down a little. First of all, the Federalist Society declining to speak out against the excesses of Trump, like the Federalist Society does not take a position. And in fact, arguably, if it did take a position, it would be violating its tax status. The Federalist Society is a debating organization. And for those, you know, rolling their eyes who are sort of coming to this podcast on the left,

I know you think that you've seen examples of the Federalist Society take positions on political topics, but now go try to find it. They certainly don't endorse candidates, don't talk about candidates. The Federalist Society National Convention panel topics will make you fall asleep reading them, let alone attending them, I might add, sometimes, unless you are the nerdiest of legal nerds. So I thought that was a weird attack. And then the exceptions of Trump lawyers who were notably few and far between, who resigned or were fired

rather than advance his flagrantly unconstitutional schemes. Well, I agree that the number who resigned or were fired were relatively low, but let me flip this on you. Name a lawyer who worked in the executive branch who tried to advance unconstitutional schemes. I think that's pretty hard to find, actually. Yeah. I mean, you're at Jeff Clark. That's right. Absolutely. There's one. Now name a second. That's the thing is and dot, dot, dot. And you said within the executive branch of John Eastman,

who is definitely prominent in the Federalist Society, but he was not a member of the executive branch. But here's the thing. Flip it around again and ask how many Federalist Society lawyers refuse to participate, for example, refuse to go in the administration in the first place, refuse to go in the first place. And then when they were sitting on the bench, stopped the nonsense. Yep.

Yeah. So I think it's weird to attack members of the Federalist Society who either worked in the administration and were part of the dozens of lawyers who were saying no January 6th and way before then. Again, there's one who did not.

I fully acknowledge that one, but that's the few and far between. Then you have the Federalist Society judges who universally ruled against Donald Trump. And so to say that then the organization is corrupted somehow, I'm like, well, wait. Like, as you've pointed out many times, David, in the post- 2020 election nonsense, it was the Federalist Society judges who arguably saved the republic because they had the credibility to say no. So the case kind of falls apart there. Now, David, here's where I'm going to agree with you. I think the Federalist Society could, quote, lose it all, but in a way that is

incredibly commonplace. The Federalist Society is exactly my age. It was started in 1982. And the people running it are still the founders from that original group. Anytime an organization is facing its first transition, it is at serious risk. So that is one way in which I think the Federalist Society is in danger. It has never transitioned from its founders and it is going to need to soon. So that's one. Number two is there's another risk for organizations

when they get what they were looking for. You know, sort of a post-Cold War America, there were a lot of organizations that had been built around the Cold War. Okay, the Cold War is over. The fight over whether originalism is a valid interpretive method is over. Now what? What is your purpose? And I think that part of what they're complaining about, the grifter aspect, is what happens to organizations that no longer have a mission in the same way that they did. And so grifters come in when the organization has a certain amount of capture. So you want to

be a judge, you join the Federalist Society. Like that's the grifter part. Whereas before, if you want to be a judge, maybe the last place you should join is the Federalist Society. Yeah. You know, when you were going through law school, David, joining the Federalist Society was by no means the fast track to, you know, bigger, better office. No. And there was, we were a small group, Sarah. Now you go to Harvard, Federalist Society is a big group. Yeah. Yeah, so I think that's another danger

for the Federalist Society. It needs to have a mission. And I think there are plenty of, just like in post-Cold War America, God knows the threats to the United States were not over, but you needed to reorient yourself to those threats. And some organizations were able to do that and some were not over, but you needed to reorient yourself to those threats. And some organizations were able to do that and some were not. So I think those are real threats to the federal society. But this organization being organized around Donald Trump, I think is probably a mistake,

right? The Trump era will end. The conservative legal movement needs to continue. And to the extent, look, that the Federalist Society stops being a conservative legal movement, fair enough. But I think it's more at risk from those other things than it is from Donald Trump.

Now, back to Greg Nunziata's op-ed. He talks about the risk from the Adrian Vermeules, right? There are signs that the illiberalism of the Trump era has begun to infect how some legal conservatives think about their core commitments to the role of the courts. Partisans promised that Trump in a second term would nominate judges more loyal to the president while Trump-friendly post-liberal thinkers develop theories like common good constitutionalism in which conservative judges would abandon originalism in favor of promoting certain ends. I am in wild agreement that that's a huge threat

to the conservative legal movement. I think I just disagree about why. That's not Donald Trump. Donald Trump is a symptom of that. And again, to me, that's more like the post-Cold War problem. People are looking for what the mission is next. And the Adrian Vermeule folks, the common good constitutionalism folks are like, oh, great. We got our foot in the door with originalism. Now, instead of process,

let's just do the outcomes we want. And I mean, we've talked about common good constitutionalism so much, but I just find it amazing that everyone thinks the second they have a little bit of power, they will never lose power again in a government that is controlled by elections. Like what? So like you want to hand this power to the judiciary to be these non-platonic, sorry, nine platonic guardians at one first street who just divine what the common good of the populace is. Okay, but that's pretty much where you were in the Warren court.

How did you like them apples? So again, and Trump is a symptom of that feeling like the other side is such a threat that we must hand power, all power to our side with no checks because that's the only way we will defeat them with no thought of what comes four years later. Again, all the Trump folks patting themselves on the back for how much they've gotten accomplished during the Trump administration. And six months into the Biden administration, it was all gone because they didn't do it legislatively. They did

it through executive orders. That's not to say I don't see Trump as a threat. I do. I see him even as a threat to founding another conservative legal organization. Fine. I mean, it's not written in the stars that there's one conservative legal organization and it has monopolistic power in law schools. Fine. Form another legal organization. But my issue with that, my issue about the future is is much more of this. Right now, MAGA has basically decided that the judges that Trump

nominated were the wrong judges, that he shouldn't have nominated them. They've gone the way of Mattis. They've gone the way of, you know, other Trump appointees that MAGA has now really turned on. And, you know, you could see this in some of the way DeSantis talked, that DeSantis was sort of this in some of the way DeSantis talked, that DeSantis was sort of, he was very bad at campaigning. For a while, he was very good at sniffing out where ideologically the right was moving. And you heard these complaints against Barrett and Kavanaugh and to a degree Gorsuch. I've heard repeated complaints about Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. People on MAGA World much seem to prefer the Bush appointees, Alito and Thomas. And so there's this anger at a lot of the Federalist Society judges where there used to be pride.

There used to be pride. See, the Trump movement gave us these judges. And I would say to anyone who would listen, the thing about the Trump administration that I appreciated was there were lots of really good judges. And we were saying, trust us, there's a lot of really good judges. And when 2020 happened, we were like, see, this is what we were saying. These are people of integrity. These are people who have real moral courage, and they did the right thing. My concern is going forward, what happens if the ethos of the GOP, as you said, whether it's Vermeule-ism, which is kind of a much more religiously infused legal philosophy

of the common good, or it's Trump-ism, which is just simply Trump gets what he wants. What I worry about for the future is a new GOP that essentially leaves the Federalist Society with, you go to the Federalist Society, but you're not, it's not giving you an advantage and it might even hurt you if you are going to seek a judicial nomination or you have ambitions for a judicial nomination in the future. And that's what worries me over the, about the conservative legal movement over the long term is what if all the incentives shift? What if the party is so completely taken by populism or common good conservatism, which I don't think will be very popular at scale, but it uses populism as a vehicle to get what it wants? What if the top-down incentives change so dramatically that the Federalist

Society finds itself, unlike in the Trump administration where it was pushing on an open door, it finds itself on an island, that the left doesn't like it, populist MAGA doesn't like it, and if neither the left nor populist MAGA don't like it, then you being in the Federalist Society does not give you any advantage at all in either side of the political spectrum. And that puts a movement, trust us, that puts people under pressure. And that is the thing that I worry about

when it says we could lose it all, that the transformation of the party will be so thorough that the FedSoc, as conceived, won't be a fit in any way, shape or form. And then what happens after that? An excellent point. Reminds me of the T.S. Eliot quote that I think, in some ways, is the basis for how all pluralistic societies are able to exist and coexist. If we take the widest and wisest view of a cause, there is no such thing as a lost cause

because there is no such thing as a gained cause. We fight for the lost causes because we know that our defeat and dismay may be the preface to our successor's victory. Though that victory itself will be temporary, we fight rather to keep something alive than in the expectation that anything will triumph. If one side thought that it was done, I don't know that pluralism would work.

It's the whole promise that there is no lost cause because there is no one cause. And all organizations would be wise to remember that no matter which, you know, side of the seesaw they're on right now. Let me ask you a question, Sarah. So when you look at the conservative legal landscape, my impression is that the Vermilion common good conservatism, that true sort of integralist common good conservatism began to lose steam the moment that Dobbs was decided. For sure, because it was built on boss stock. Like that gave it a lot of fuel was the Gorsuch ruling about gender identity and sexual orientation being included in Title VII sex discrimination protections. Title VII sex discrimination protections. That's Josh Hawley taking the floor of the Senate to claim that, you know, we weren't fighting for very much if this is what we were fighting for

in the Federalist Society and the originalism cause. And Dobbs then was like, oh, it's a little hard to say, like, all is lost. Right. Right. Exactly. It just all of the air went out of the conservative legal movement has failed balloon. And it was that was where a lot of the kind of common good constitutionalists were getting their energy. They were getting their energy by anticipating that Dobbs would not reverse row. It was the air leaving a balloon in many ways because you just couldn't mount a credible argument that the conservative legal movement had failed when it had just delivered the greatest victory in the history of the conservative legal movement. And so all of that air went out of that balloon or much of that air went out of that balloon. And it really does feel like common good constitutionalism is just sort of folding back into MAGA writ large. It's not, it isn't nearly the independent intellectual force that it was before Dobbs. And this is

something that I kept telling people, my friends on the left who were saying, this is going to be a crisis of legitimacy if they overturn Roe. And I said, oh, you don't know how much of a crisis of legitimacy it will be if they don't overturn row. You have no idea of the ripple effects on the right if these justices don't overturn row. This is not a situation where one ruling was status quo, peaceful, stable, everything's normal, doesn't change. And the other ruling is chaos. No, no, there was not an option. There was not an option that was just status quo stability. In that case, that that was not an option. And I'm not for a moment saying that the justices were aware of all this pressure and reacted accordingly. No, the Dobbs decision was entirely consistent with the judicial philosophies they've exhibited their whole careers,

right? So this is, there was nothing new, no new legal reasoning in the Dobbs decision. It was the application of traditional conservative jurisprudence or originalist jurisprudence. But my friends on the left, I don't think they really had an idea about the stakes of the case on the right. And that failure to understand that they still and so many of my friends on the left still don't understand the extent to which this quote unquote hated Federalist Society has been securing democracy for them throughout the Trump era. And, you know, you just raise it and people get livid, they get angry. But no, it's absolutely the truth. I mean, and the proof in the pudding is we do not have a President Donald Trump right now.

That right there, that's because the cases came to them and they said no. And everyone takes that for granted. And the attack on the Federalist Society was always, oh, they disgu disguise their outcome-oriented jurisprudence behind their originalism. Yet here you had, and I've brought up his name before, Judge Pryor was on the short list for Donald Trump.

He was on the short list for Supreme Court. He had a direct, arguably, had an interest in Trump winning. And yet he writes an opinion in the election contest, slamming the door shut on Trump fraud claims in the Southeast. And, you know, when you point that out, people just pay no attention to it. And it gives me crazy, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, Sarah, because that's what integrity looks like. And we'll take a quick break to hear from our sponsor today, Aura. Ready to win Mother's Day and cement your reputation as the best gift giver in the family? Give the moms in your life an Aura digital picture frame preloaded with

decades of family photos. She'll love looking back on your childhood memories and seeing what you're up to today. Even better, with unlimited storage and an easy to use app, you can keep updating mom's frame with new photos. So it's the gift that keeps storage and an easy to use app, you can keep updating mom's frame with new photos. So it's the gift that keeps on giving. And to be clear, every mom in my life has this frame. Every mom I've ever heard of has this frame. This is my go to gift. My parents love it. I upload photos all the time. I'm just like bored watching TV at the end of the night. I'll hop on the app and put up the photos from the day. It's really easy. Right now, Aura has a great deal for Mother's Day.

Listeners can save on the perfect gift by visiting auraframes.com to get $30 off, plus free shipping on their best-selling frame. That's A-U-R-A frames.com. Use code ADVISORY at checkout to save. Terms and conditions apply. Next up, David, another op-ed from the dispatch that I wanted us to talk about. This one is about filibuster reform. It's by Tom Koenig and Tom

Harvey, both 3Ls at Harvard Law School, who flagged this for us. And as you know, we've talked on AO a lot about how we think that ending the judicial filibuster, which Harry Reid did back in 2013, when Democrats felt like they weren't getting their lower court judges in quickly enough. And then Mitch McConnell did in 2018 for the Supreme Court nominees, because there was going to be a filibuster of Neil Gorsuch. And we talked about how we think that has been really bad for the judiciary, that it has moved both the types of people who want to become judges, change their behavior from law school on up, change the confirmation hearings, change who gets nominated in the first place, and maybe even change the behavior of judges on the bench when

if you are a district judge who wants to become a circuit judge, you know that you're never going to need a vote from someone from the other team. And in fact, your threat comes from someone flanking you on your own team. And it, like Congress, may move the judiciary more to the extremes on each side, which I think will be really bad for the institution. Okay, these guys are talking about the legislative filibuster that is very much still there and arguing that it should also be gone. And at first I was like, oh, man, I'm going to hate this. But you know what? I think their arguments are worth discussing. And I think their proposal is actually kind of interesting.

So, yeah, here's a few of their arguments. First, partisan interests aside, Republicans should also worry that congressional gridlock, to which the filibuster contributes significantly, strains the other branches of government with misdirected political pressure. In the face of congressional paralysis, presidents have aggressively interpreted existing statutory authority, especially where politics makes inaction untenable. The Supreme Court finds itself at the center of political controversy when it strikes down presidential overreach. That dynamic results from congressional inaction. So, David, this is actually exactly what we think. But targeting the filibuster is one of the causes for congressional inaction that leads to the Supreme Court being pulled into these political fights instead of just congressional inaction, executive overreach. They're like, yeah, but why congressional inaction? Right. I think there's lots of reasons for congressional inaction. But surely, yes, having the filibuster slows things down,

if not causes the gridlock. And I take that argument, of course, very seriously because, yep, I think that's what congressional gridlock leads to. They continue, moreover, if Republicans don't reform the filibuster to allow more legislation to make it to the president's desk, frustration on the part of congressional Democrats and their base will continue to mount. Soon enough, Democrats might choose to eliminate the filibuster not to pass legislation, but to transform the Supreme Court by packing the court or imposing term limits. Note that the Democrats' foremost defenders of the filibuster, Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, are leaving the Senate. A continued lack of reform could lay the groundwork for full repeal and repeal with a far

more destabilizing purpose. Okay, was this written only for me potentially? Like, is this just an op-ed that they put in the dispatch? Because these are arguments that I'm really likely to be persuaded by. Okay. But even if those arguments are all really good, and then they go on to talk about sort of the lack of historical pedigree. Yes, it's been around since 1806. However, it wasn't really used the way that it's being used now. And they have a little chart with cloture motions filed, and they have a little chart with cloture motions filed, and it's not a good chart. It looks real bad. But I'm still not in favor of fast, easy legislation,

so that's why I'm in favor of the filibuster, to put it in the most succinct terms. But they're not in favor of getting rid of the filibuster by itself. And this is great. That's exactly what we're after when we propose that if a bill can't obtain a filibuster-proof supermajority, the filibuster should be reformed so that the bill can still pass through the Senate

if it obtains a simple majority twice over the course of two successive Congresses with an election in between. Cornyn's original proposal for filibuster reform for judicial nominees back in 2003 shared similar impulses. He proposed gradually lowering the threshold for confirming a nominee as the debate on that nominee progressed.

In other words, the higher threshold at the outset would help ensure that there's an adequate debate and deliberation before a final decision is made. But in the end, the majority would govern. It's the American way. Explicitly baking in a cooling off period, like an intervening election cycle, prior to a definitive simple majority vote

does the same trick. Yes, it does, the Toms. So David, I want to get your read on this because it is a little like the 27th Amendment, right? This is the amendment about raising congressional pay. And it says that basically, yeah, Congress can raise it, but it won't take effect until the next election. You're allowing the political process to have a say in the legislative process for certain things, congressional pay raises, and maybe legislation. I don't know, David.

I kind of like it a lot. I'm gonna say, you know, it's funny, Sarah, I David. I kind of like it a lot. I'm going to say, you know, it's funny, Sarah. I kind of I kind of love it. I got to admit, I've and it's interesting how much it connects with what we've argued, because you and Jonah and I did a team conservative constitutional reform project with the National Constitution Center a couple of years ago. And we had a filibuster reform proposal. And the reason why we had a filibuster reform proposal, and the reason why this filibuster reform proposal is so interesting is, let's remember what was the intention for the Senate. The intention for the Senate was to be sort of a more deliberative body. So this was gonna be a body that was, that you had the six-year terms.

It was the body for the statesmen, so to speak. This was a deliberative body. And the goal was to make this, and the thing that the Senate prides itself is on the greatest deliberative body and the greatest deliberative body in the world, which nowadays, not so sure, but the issue is deliberation.

And what the Toms do is they attach, they say, look, the principle of government in the United States has never been super majority. The Madisonian democracy is a majority rule democracy. But majority rule with deliberation is the goal. Well, the filibuster as written and as applied makes America a super majority ruled country. In other words, unless the parliamentarian,

the senator parliamentarian says, this isn't subject to a filibuster, which gives the parliamentarian a lot of power, you have to have super majority rule. That's not the Madisonian democratic vision for the United States. It's more deliberation than super majority. And I love how this builds in. It's still majority rule, and it requires more deliberation. And I think it's kind of genius, actually. I like it better than our proposal, which our proposal was it can overcome a filibuster if it has the support of the majority

of senators and 10% of each party's caucus, which would put, for example, in the current Senate, it would be a 55 seat or a 55 votes would overcome the filibuster. But I actually like this better, Sarah. It's more deliberation and it's still majority rule. It's I kind of like it so much more. Yeah, I like it so much more than our proposal. Proving that law students are not entirely worthless. You know, not only are law school law students not entirely

worthless, but 3L year, there's always a lot of proposals that to get rid of the third year of law school because 3Ls are basically sitting around doing jack all. But look, look at what they're doing. They're coming up with great ideas with their third year of doing nothing. So to the Toms, thank you. A great piece. I'm so glad you published it with the dispatch. My advice to you is that y'all should kind of take this on the road, actually. And, you know, maybe, maybe the Toms and I will talk offline. But I just think more people need to hear about this. Because it's a neat idea, and one that is cleaner, and I think could get everyone on board for exactly all the reasons you said it captures the purpose of the filibuster without the gridlock.

Right, right. It really captures and it really does connect, I think, with the founders vision of the Senate, which was not to make legislation super majority. Otherwise, they'd have written that into the Constitution, because remember, the filibuster is not in the Constitution. It's a prudential rule that has been adopted by Senate leadership, but it is in the Senate, but it is not in the Constitution. And yeah, good job, Toms.

Sorry, we keep calling you the Toms, but frankly, that's going to catch on. That is going to catch on. All right. Next up, we got a question about a weird submission to the Supreme Court. All right, David. So here's the question. Can you and David please explain how Navarro can appeal Chief Justice Roberts ruling on his prison sentence to Justice Gorsuch? Does he just get to go to each justice in turn until somebody says yes?

So this results from, if you remember, Peter Navarro was convicted of contempt of Congress and he was sentenced to prison. He filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court coming from the D.C. Circuit. Chief Justice Roberts is the circuit justice who got that petition and he denied it. Then there was this little filing at the Supreme Court. Dear Mr. Harris, who is the clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States, pursuant to Rule 22.4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, we respectfully request that our application for an order staying the execution of the district court's order requiring Dr. Navarro to submit to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, be renewed with the Honorable Associate Justice Gorsuch. So wait, is this dude right? And for that, we turn to Rule 22.4

of the U.S. Supreme Court, applications to individual justices. And look, number four, a justice denying an application will note the denial thereon. Thereafter, unless action thereon, and sorry for all the thereons and thereafters, don't worry, you don't need to follow them. Thereafter, unless action thereon is restricted by law to the circuit justice or is untimely, the party making an application may renew it to any justice subject to the provisions of this rule. Except when the denial is without prejudice, a renewed application is not favored. Renewed application is made by a letter to the clerk designating the justice to whom the application

is to be directed and accompanied by 10 copies of the original application and proof of service as required by Rule 29. So David, yes, you are allowed to do that. And will it work? No, it will not. A that Justice Gorsuch is the least institutionalist justice on this Supreme Court. You know, I've talked about my X axis and Y axis and the 333. Justices Thomas and Alito are in that less institutional little gang, but they're also pulled over into that 333 because of how conservative they are.

So I actually think Justice Gorsuch is the least institutionalist, which is exactly who you'd want to send this least favored application to, because the sort of lack of favor is an institutional interest, right? You don't want people justice shopping just because they don't like their circuit justice and got denied. However, like, no, no, like, it's not gonna work. But it's, it's fun, nevertheless. And I'm interested the fact that they also thought that Justice Gorsuch was the least institutional of the group. I don't for a second think that Justice Gorsuch has somehow been interested in Peter Navarro or more sympathetic to Navarro's cause. I don't think his like the way where he is on my two dimensional chart helps them at all, except for the institutional stuff, which is just not going to be nearly enough.

I like the idea of Justice Gorsuch as the YOLO justice. He is the YOLO justice for sure. But YOLO justice does not help Peter Navarro at all in this case. All right, David, we got other questions. Justice Breyer was doing an interview over his computer camera and one could see the bookshelves behind him where all of the books were turned the other way. Like you couldn't see the spines of the books. You were seeing the pages of the book. So it was all just white pages that you were looking at. And basically, we were asked if he was a serial killer and what was wrong with Justice Breyer. And if we knew this, you know, I've never seen anyone do this before,

but David, you have. Yeah, so apparently this was an interior design thing for a while, because when we moved into our new house, in 2018, when we moved to the house where we are now, when we were initially setting up some of the shelves, Nancy turned it to where the pages were outward. And I was like, what is that? And then I began to

see it in other places around me. And so I think it was actually fashionable for a while, maybe still is in some quarters, but I don't know, it kind of looks look kind of cool, a little different. But how would you rank the different ways that people can order their books? And I'll throw out some, you know, by author name, by title, sort of in subject groupings, color coordinated by spine color, or this one? Where are you ranking them all? Sarah, you asking me that question raises that question in my mind for the first time in my entire life. Okay, don't ask David this question. I'm gonna shock listeners because I think if you listen to this podcast,

you get a pretty good sense for me, my personality, and you can probably make an educated guess about how I organize my books, but you would be so wrong. Nobody is gonna guess that I have organized my books sort of by color. Oh, that's funny. Which I think is for most people, the most horrific way to organize the books. But

here's what I've done. I've organized my books by subject. And then within the subjects, organize them by color. And because I think maybe because of my synesthesia, it allows me to know where every book in my house is. Like, I can find every book. So yeah, I don't think anyone would guess that I organize by color because I agree it is generally a horrific way to organize books because then people are just doing it by color and they don't have any clue what books are there. Right. But that's not totally my system.

And so I excuse myself for that. As far as Justice Breyer, though, here's what I'm going to say. If he does not answer this question between now and May 23rd when I am interviewing him in San Francisco, I will ask the question. I will be that brave journalist.

You have to. I don't think there's any doubt about it. And because I can't see him, it's not like he's just sitting out there tweeting stuff. You know, so I doubt he's going to have much opportunity to address this publicly, much less having someone demand an answer from a former SCOTUS justice on his book arrangement.

But we want you on that wall, Sarah. We need you on that wall. Thank you. Next up, we got a question after our Judge Eileen Cannon pod with David Latt. It was a long comment question, but it was so well done.

And I just want to read this one piece of it. These were from two non-lawyers, both very ambitious, very work-oriented, who are expecting their first child. And we're sort of maybe a little bit horrified by the Judge Cannon post. And I will note, David, did you go read the comments? All the comments on that podcast?

I read them all, but not, I haven't read all of them as of now. I read them all about a day or two after. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the level of horror expressed by the non-lawyers for an 80 to a hundred hour work week. And then all the lawyers coming in and being like, yeah, no, that's right. And then the non-lawyers being like, we would never allow that form of torture for any other industry. And the lawyers being like, yeah would never allow that form of torture for any other industry. And the lawyers being like, yeah, I know. It was very much a tale of two cities going on in the comment section. But I'm not going to address too much on the 80 to 100 hour work week. You know, obviously, I don't

think it's sustainable over long periods of time. No. But I will tell you from personal experience, it's very sustainable for two years, pieces of time. You know, for the listeners, I've never had a job for longer than two years, this podcast being the exception to the rule. And basically, it's usually 18 months to two years of a job, followed by six months of unemployment. And I consider myself like an anaconda, right?

Like you sort of eat these big meals and the big meals are sleep, friendship, normal life. And then you starve yourself, literally in some cases, in my case, and figuratively during the course of that next two-year job. David, here's the question. I know that Sarah, both Davids,

and the dispatch value family. And I do not think that they were advocating prioritizing work over everything else. However, I believe that an ambitious 20-something might misinterpret their advice as to achieve, achieve, achieve, and put off other things in life. To address this potential misunderstanding,

I had an idea. Would David and Sarah be willing to share their experience on balancing work, family, and their other commitments in their lives? I have very mixed feelings about this question, David. I think you've done a wonderful job. And I think you're going to give the more traditional answer. So I want you to go first. But I actually think that my non-traditional answer that's not going to make them happy is also important. So David, give their traditional answer. I don't know if this is a traditional answer or not.

So I would say, one, you have to have unity with your spouse. So in other words, you're not inflicting your schedule on your spouse. You and your spouse are of one mind on your schedule. You're both committed to what you're doing. And so I think that that is an absolute foundational necessity. Because if you don't have that, if you are doing your work over the objection of a spouse,

then resentment builds. There's just no question about it. Even if your spouse is a saint, resentment resentment builds. There's just no question about it. Even if your spouse is a saint, resentment will build. So absolute unity with your spouse, I think, is very, very important. So a shared sense of what you're both supposed to do, a sort of a shared sense of what you both do in life, I think is a very, very important prerequisite. Then the second thing that I would say is there is a difference between a defined intense commitment and an indefinite intense commitment. So what we were talking about with Judge Cannon was a defined intense commitment. There is this incredibly important trial. It's a

trial of national importance, and it might be one of the most important trials in American history. It's not going to go on forever. Sometimes you just have to do it. You know, when I deployed to Iraq, except when I was home on leave for a very brief time, I missed everything. I missed birthdays. I missed soccer games. I missed basketball games. I missed volleyball games.

I missed everything with my kids, everything. But it was the right thing for me to do in that moment was to serve my country. Because if we said to every dad, no, you don't have to serve your country, that's only single guys, right? That's only single guys. Well, then that's untenable. That's just, the military cannot work like that.

We could not have a functioning military. And so I think of it as get unity with your spouse. There is a difference between defined commitment for a serious commitment for a defined period of time versus an indefinite commitment of giant amounts of work. And then, you know, the last thing is, I think when it comes especially to kids, I am a big believer in bringing in kids

sooner rather than later into sort of who you are as a family and why you are as a family. Like, why do you do things? Why is it that dad's going to be gone for a year? Why is it? Why do you do this? And so I think those three things, seeing that unity, describing purpose to your children, emphasizing, I have real qualms about indefinite commitments to brutality, but defined commitments to very difficult things. I think those things together, actually, Sarah, in my experience, it actually is, in my experience, something that binds a family together. And there are circumstances and ways in which by doing that, you're actually a positive example for your children because you're not raising kids to say, hey, guys, we are sacrificing so

that you can have it easy. No, you're raising kids to be people with a purpose as well. Not people of leisure, not people of comfort, but people who possess a purpose. And I think that one of the ways you raise children to be people who possess a purpose is to demonstrate that you're a person with a purpose as well. And sometimes that purpose can be really hard. It can be really taxing. It can be incredibly challenging. taxing. It can be incredibly challenging. But I think that taking that approach, unity, purpose, and then recognizing human limitations between defined commitments versus indefinite commitments. I think when you do all of those things together, it's not just that you can survive,

you can thrive. And that's been, by God's grace, my family's experience. We have thrived as a family. And my relationship with my wife, Nancy, has thrived as a result of our shared purpose. And by the way, sometimes I have had to pick up massive load at the house and to do things because Nancy's career was really taking off. And she had opportunities to go house and to do things because Nancy's career was really taking off. And she had opportunities to go places and to do things that I felt were right, that we both felt were right for her to do and important for her to do. And then I'm picking up, man, because it's a shared purpose. It's a shared enterprise. So I don't know if that's the traditional answer, but that's our answer. Yes and no. It's a great answer. I didn't mean traditional like boring or that like everyone gives that answer. I just thought that you would give like a nice answer and you did.

Oh, well, thank you. I'm going to give the less nice answer. All right. By which I mean like less comforting, less doable. Because here's my answer. You can't do it all. And you can't do it all at once. And there's no way to do it well. And so instead, you have to make decisions. And especially as a woman, right? Your decisions are going to look something like this. Do you have the kids early and give up the ability to do the ambitious career thing for that amount of time. And hope that you

have enough sort of grappling hooks in the side of the wall, enough relationships that you can come back 15 years later, like in a real way. It's risky. But I think for those who I've seen succeed at it, oh, man, it looks great. It's definitely the way that I would do it if I thought I could have done it that way. But a few things have to be true. One, you have to have those grappling hooks, you have to have already had the relationships, you know, all the educational pedigree or whatever, all of that stuff already like in your knapsack. And you have to have met the person you want to spend the rest of your life with and have the ability to have children at that young age. The other option is more what I did,

right? It's do all the super ambitious career stuff and then do the kids at the end. Okay, that has a lot of problems with it. One, I've talked about this. I had to do IVF for both of my kids. Do I know that I could have had kids the old fashioned fun way if I hadn't waited? No, maybe I needed IVF anyway, but probably not. So this was certainly a more expensive, a stabbier way to do it. But because I sort of had all of these experiences and all this career stuff in the

80 to 100 hour weeks already done 20 years of it, I feel like I can have the more flexible job now when my kids are young. But on the flip side, like when my kids are off to college, it's not like then I get to come roaring back for my big career. Like, my 80 to 100 hour days are for the most part over, which, and this is where I think we're going to divide some people like I miss. I liked that part of my career. I like this too. That's what I mean by chapters. Everything is kind of comes at a time and with a difference. And I think it's okay to miss the other chapter and to love this chapter. And who knows what the next chapter is? The only other thing I'll say is I know a lot of parents who try not to let their kids see them working and really want to reassure their kids like,

oh, mommy would rather be with you, but mommy has to go do this. I do not say that to my kids. I mean, let's be clear. Case is seven months old. I don't say anything to him. But I tell Nate that I'm going to work all the time and that mommy likes work and that I'll see him in a few minutes. And he's kind of into it too. He respects my work time. He doesn't cry when I need to leave anymore. Now, I'm really hesitant to give that as parenting advice because I think kids are so unique. Nate was probably just born this way in a lot of ways and it's less having to do with my parenting. But I really like that advice that I got from someone else. Because if you act like it's this horrible thing that's happening to you, like, what do you think your kid is seeing from all of that? To your point, David, I'm not doing

this as a sacrifice for my children to then loaf about. I'm doing this as an example for my children of how to lead a purpose driven life and a, you know, duty driven life. Yes. And, you know, there's this interesting, I listened to this phenomenal podcast, my colleague at the Times, Ezra Klein, about why people have fewer children. And it's this really interesting thing going on, where there's a combination of, there is a lot of what people call workism. In other words, that people take enormous amount of meaning and purpose out of their work. But there's also this thing where parenting itself has changed in a way that is hyper time intensive with children. Yes.

In a way that previous generations did not experience, expect, just completely different. So my parents, I had a wonderful childhood, Sarah. Like I had a wonderful childhood, Sarah, like I had a wonderful childhood. But my parents at the time would have been considered doting now would be considered laissez faire by the standards of sort of upper middle class American parenting. Now, my parents of me being raised in the 70s and early in the 80s, that would have been a laissez faire method of parenting. I had the run of the neighborhood. I had the run of the place like I did what I wanted to do.

And, you know, you came in and you checked in at dinner and then out you went, you know, and, and now there's this extremely intensive. And then also there was not a sense that being a good parent meant being at every last thing that ever happens. And so what we've done now at the same time to parents, and this is, I think think is is just causing people so much angst and misery is on the one hand, we have as a society said, really, we're defining you in many ways by your work and your job. And also what being a good parent means is being at everything and doing everything and being sort of the helicopter slash snowplow parent. Those two concepts are not terribly reconcilable. And in the podcast, and I know that Tim Carney has written a book and he's been talking to Jonah and others at the Dispatch about it, also about the same topic of why are people

having fewer kids. And part of this comes back to this notion that says there is a model of parenting that is more intensive than it used to be and a model of work that is more intensive than it used to be. Those two things can't go together. And so, you know, one of the things that we tried to do when we were parents is we tried as much as possible

to kind of replicate the good versions of the independence and freedom that we my parents gave me without the bad version of sort of that you know absolute kind of latchkey um lifestyle that a lot of people lived i was latchkey for a very short period of time but there was some people who spent their whole childhood as latchkey kids back in that day. And so I, and the last thing is, none of this is easy. And there's no one, no one's going to be able to tell you, here's the formula to make it work, which is why I circled back to the unity point at the beginning. I was fortunate to meet my wife when I was relatively young, especially by the standards of today.

And so for me, the vast majority of my career was with a spouse. And that's why I circle on that unity point. Then there's a lot of folks who don't meet their spouse when they're particularly young. And that's a whole different kind of calculus. But that unity point, I think, is very, very important because otherwise the conflict between the demands of your career, the demands of child rearing, combined with defeated expectations

with the person most important in your life, it's just, it's undoable. Okay, so David, overall, I just think that when we're talking about, I can't give advice to all people about all situations. But if we're talking about lawyers, and we're talking about those 80 to 100 hour weeks, and no, it's not like your whole career.

It's not even 10 years of your career. It's really not. Even at the most prestigious, intense levels. But it is going to be chapters of your career. And it's not just the bottom. It also is going to happen for that trial. Or it's going to happen chapters of your career. And it's not just the bottom. It also is going to happen for that trial or it's going to happen when you make partner. It is a pie eating contest where the reward is more pie.

And I know that lots of people in the comment section were horrified by that. And it was sort of stunning to me because I hadn't really thought about how it looks from the outside. And maybe it is a little horrifying and maybe I should be more horrified. I will reflect on that.

Yeah. But it is what it is right now. And I think that a generation coming up who thinks that like they can work fewer hours and make more money is deluding themselves. Yeah, no, I agree with that. I mean, you know, this is an old complaint, by the way, in the legal profession.

This is not a new thing. And, you know, there's sort of this, by the way, in the legal profession. This is not a new thing. And, you know, there's sort of this quest for the Holy Grail and the Holy Grail is nine to five home every day for dinner with the finances that provide the lifestyle that I want and also the job that provides me with meaning because it's more than a money making job. I mean, this is what everyone's looking for. And it needs to be in the location that I want. Yeah, yeah.

But I will say this, that it is what's so fascinating about that chart, Sarah, is think about this is more time with kids are on that chart at the same time that more women are in the workplace. So more time with kids, more time in the workplace. So more time with kids, more time in the workplace simultaneously. And so it is no wonder that one of the things

that parents, men and women, reflect back to researchers is exhaustion. And so because what they're doing is they're burning the candle at both ends. They're burning it at the, there is more time with child rearing, not less, and there's more time at work, not less. And that is a situation that that's where you're getting a lot of this stuff where you see on social media. If you read social media,

you would think from social media that the salient characteristic of being a parent isn't love, the salient characteristic of being a parent isn't love, but exhaustion. Well, and can I also say that, like, when you're talking about those two things taking up more and more time, and they're including, I believe, in childcare and a lot of those housework as well, like the sort of cleaning after the kids and all of that stuff. What's getting lost is the time with the spouse alone. I'm a firm believer that date night does not do the trick. Like, my constant priority is my spouse, the kids come second to that. And my job comes third. Now that some days my job is going to come second, because the kids are fine. And the job needs something. But the spouse always comes first. Always. And that... I was a big fan when I worked for the Attorney General.

And I would ask him, what are your priorities? And he would start listing priorities. And I'm like, no, no. No, no. A priority is one thing. Because the priorities will come into conflict with each other. So you can't say my priorities are my marriage and my children. No. What is your priority? Mine is my marriage and then my spouse. And I think that that's hard. I think it's very interesting you raise that because what I have seen in this modern, very, very, very intensive parenting cycle is that sometimes marriages become a functionally, we're child care incorporated.

Yes. So what you become is sort of a partnership for child care, as opposed to a marriage in full. For that period of time, it's almost like you become child care incorporated. And then after you complete the job of Child Care Incorporated, where your marital life is basically dominated by things like, okay, I got to be in Huntsville and Saturday at four for the volleyball tournament, that means you're going to be in Tullahoma, Saturday at two for the soccer. And then we're going to you know, and you

you're, you're essentially just a corporation for the raising of children. And you see this a lot, again, especially in a lot of these upper middle class households with the super achievement ethic and everything. And then at the end of that time period, kids are off at school and husband and wife look at each other and say, who are you again? Yeah. And that's a problem.'s a challenge all right so that was a really long answer to your question and maybe not the answer that you wanted and for all of that i am sorry okay david next up we got uh a lot of comments on our last podcast about Israel. And I think in our mind, this was divided into two real questions. One, the legitimacy of Israel as a nation state. And two, whether Israel was violating the laws of armed conflict.

And a lot of comments that we didn't push back hard enough. We didn't provide the other side. We didn't provide the other side. We didn't steel man like we usually do. So David, you wanted to take on one of these questions. Yeah, I wanted to take on the law of armed conflict issue because to my purpose in discussing it was not to adjudicate Israel's actual strikes,

the actual strikes that occurred in Gaza. And the reason why I didn't want to adjudicate the actual strikes that have occurred in Gaza is because we cannot do it. We can't do it. There's a lot of people online who are adjudicating this and they're saying that Israel violated the laws of war here or there. They don't know, Sarah, they don't know. We have not adjudicated individual strikes. The fog of war is very dense. Even horrible things like the strike on the aid convoy, there's a difference between a terrible mistake and a war crime, okay? We've had our terrible mistakes.

Most recently, we had this awful strike after the suicide bombing in Afghanistan that killed so many American Marines. We had a retaliatory strike that just killed an innocent family. These things happen in war. It's horrible. It's terrible. There should be apologies. There should be compensation when that occurs. But you can't adjudicate individual strikes. But one thing you can do is explain processes. Explain processes. And those processes really matter. They're sort of the first thing you ask when

you're asking, how does a military conduct itself in war? You go to what are your tactics? What are your processes? And so to explain the process is to provide information. And I don't know what the steel manning contrary position is in that circumstance. Do you say, no, they don't actually do it? Because we don't know that at all. This is, from everything I know, they are doing the process. Do you say that process is insufficient? Well, how could you say that

when it's a stronger process than we use in the United States military? Can you say that the process doesn't always yield the outcomes that it is aimed towards of course of course and that will be adjudicated that will be investigated and there will come a time when we take a close look with the fog of war clearing as to what occurred and there will there should be judgment and accountability if it's appropriate but this was about processes this was not about adjudicating the battlefield,

which we cannot do right now. I can't emphasize that enough. We just can't do it. David, we have left on the table a few important things that we're gonna have to do for the next episode. One, we got 11 questions from a high school student who is in his high school government course and was emailing me because

he was super pumped that he got 100 on his midterm quiz. And I asked him to send me the hardest question. And David, I'm going to ask you the question for the next episode. But then he sent me 11 questions that he thinks we should answer for all our high school listeners. And by the way, we've been getting a lot more correspondence from high school listeners. So we're so happy that you guys are here. And I'm sure you really enjoyed the marriage advice. All right, David, here's my cliffhanger for this episode. If the Supreme Court denies a petition for a writ of certiorari, it means that there's gonna be four multiple choice answers. And we're gonna talk about it on the next pod. Good luck.

Sounds great.