Higher Learning with Van Lathan and Rachel Lindsay - Overturning Roe v. Wade and Dave Chappelle’s Attack

Episode Date: May 6, 2022

Van Lathan and Rachel Lindsay welcome law professor Caroline Mala Corbin to discuss the Supreme Court leak and the potential future of abortion rights (13:31) before comparing Dave Chappelle’s assault to the Will Smith-Chris Rock incident (39:19). Plus, Drake hops in a wife’s DM’s (47:43) and Animal Games is back (1:00:54). Hosts: Van Lathan and Rachel Lindsay Guest: Caroline Mala Corbin Producers: Trudy Joseph and Donnie Beacham DM ‘Animal Games’ questions to @donbeachjr on Twitter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Yo, yo, yo, thought warriors. What is up? Howe learning is on is Ivan Lakin, Jr. And it's me, Rachel and Lindsay. Rachel, nobody owns me. Okay. Nobody owns me, Rachel. I didn't think they did.

People try to own you. People try to own you. What kind of mood are we set in? Look. Well, listen, I really feel that with what's happening in this country. I really do. you know, you do work with people and you work with people and you're doing stuff and, you know, you're doing your best to feel obligations, but sometimes, I'm not talking about, you know,

podcast stuff, but sometimes people feel like they own you. You don't own me. We're working together. Let them know. You don't own me. Don't tell her how you... I'm not just one of your mini toys. You don't own me.

Don't say I can't go with a... Other boys. Dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun. So who's so? And don't tell me what to wear. No, this is not what to wear. You're making it sexist. Don't tell me what to do.

Don't tell me what to say. Oh, I thought it was what to, what to wear. Who says that you don't own me? Leslie Gore. What year, let's see, what year did you don't own me came, come out? 16. women been going through this for a fucking long time. She was Leslie Gore.

Leslie Gore is rebelling in 1963. That is so apt to what we have to discuss today. 1963, Leslie Gore is telling somebody, you know, and haven't got the picture yet. They haven't got the picture yet, Rachel. We might as well dispense with the pleasantries and get right into it. it seems as if because of a leaked document that everybody in their mama has seen now

the Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights okay you guys normally we give you 30 minutes of bullshiting it's not it's not a bullshitting matter it's not a laughing matter we got to get right into it there have been large protests that have broken out across the country political was reported this on Monday they published a draft of the ruling that was written by alito It says decisions in Roe versus Wade, Planned Parenthood versus Case, he must be overturned.

And now here's a situation with that. We're going to have Caroline Corbyn, our constitutional law scholar on lady to dissect this, but Rachel, I'm clearing out. I don't know if people know this, but you are, in fact, a lady. And my feelings in this matter are far less important than your feelings on this matter.

So I would like to give you the opportunity to discuss how you feel. You know, this is a tough one because when it happened, I was, I actually got the text message from our own Juliet Litman. And I thought it was a joke. And I was walking into the movie theater to go see the Top Gun premiere. So I was excited, ready to see with all, if the hype, if this movie lived up to hype, which it does, by the way.

And I get this message and I start reading this political article and realize that, and at that point, the draft opinion had not been confirmed. No one had confirmed whether or not that this actually came from inside the court. And I immediately had chills. And honestly, every time I read a headline about it, every time I watch an article about it, I am literally, chilled to the bone because I was born in 1985 and as long as I've been born, women have a choice. And I eventually want children. And at the moment, if this draft opinion is the actual opinion of the court, I will raise children, hopefully girls, I'm assuming, who won't have a choice, who won't have a certain freedom over their bodies. It's just, you know, we joke about this being

the handmaids tell time. We joke about, you know, like we're going backwards. But this ruling actually makes that a reality. And I guess what's so even more upsetting about it is the people that are making this decision are people who aren't even going to be affected by it. They're either men or they have the wealth and the income that if they are put in a situation where they have to make a decision or someone close to them has to make a decision for an abortion. They have the means to make that happen and move to a state where they can actually get this done. This affects so many other people, people of color, obviously women. And I just can't imagine living in a world where this is actually going to be the law of the land. And it doesn't make sense to me.

I don't know. I could get emotional over it because it's a scary place. to be in because we just don't know what else this is going to lead to. And when you think about why this decision was made in the first place, when you go back to 1973 and you figure out why a Supreme Court voted seven to two to give women choice and freedom over their bodies, you have to look at the decisions that why this came about. Yes, it was decided based on a right of privacy, but when they broke down why that this needed to happen, that women needed to have freedom over deciding what they wanted to do with their bodies, they considered several different things.

They considered that there could be medical harm to the mother, to the offspring. They considered that this could lead the woman to live a distressful life and the child as well. They talked about the psychological harm that could be involved. They talked about the mental health and the physical health that could be taxing on the mother due to child care or other situations. They talked about the concern of a child being born that's not wanted. They talked about the problem of bringing up a child where the mother couldn't provide for them. They went through all these different things. They talked about the stigma that women have to face of being an unwed mother, which is why they may not want to move forward.

in regards to having the child. Basically, there are a number of different factors that could come about as to why a woman could decide that she did not want to move forward with her pregnancy, and that is her right to decide. With this decision, they are taking all of that away and are basically reminding women that they are not on the same level as men in this society.

And I think that is what is so detrimental. We are once again reminded of the patriarchy. That's it. Very well said. So to me, and I echo all your sentiments, but I also think that there's something else that's happening. And, of course, this right here is an outright declaration of war. There's no longer a political divide in America. There's no longer a political schism in America.

We're no longer – it's not just that we're – we can't agree on anything. It's not just that we don't know how to have difficult conversations anymore. We're at political war. Absolutely. I expect everyone to act accordingly. Now, when I think about it, it shouldn't have taken this for us to understand this. An attack on voting rights should have woken us up to this.

attacks on speech, the banning of books, all of those things. We're talking about, so I want you to think about the society now that's being shaped here in America that exists now if this decision does come to fruition. All of those things should have let us know that we are at political war, obviously, but now there is no doubt about the fact that we are, that rights that we believe to be fundamental to our existence in America. When I say our, I mean peace, freedom, and equality loving people to our existence in America are under attack.

And there's no rational way to really do that. All right. This is a wake-up call to everyone that's involved that it is absolutely time to go to the mattresses. I'm not going to blame anyone for this except for the body that's making this decision, which are members of the United States Supreme Court. We're talking about Amy Coney-Barrantz-Thomas, Alito, and the like, right? We're talking about those people. I'm not blaming anyone other than them.

But I'm telling you that now you know it's 3.30. You've gotten off of the bus. You didn't know if the person that's been talking shit about you all day long at school, actually wanted to fight. You showed up because you don't want to bitch out, but you don't know if they actually wanted to fight. They just hit you. You know they want to fight now.

So now your decision is whether or not to fight and whether or not to do everything that you can do to make sure that you can go to school tomorrow safely and that you don't just get punched every single day. Or you tuck your tail. this right here is something that a lot of people thought that they didn't have the balls to do that they didn't have the balls in this way to come at this right this type of issue that the court didn't have the balls to do it I think a lot of people thought really that

yeah I think a lot of people didn't think that this would happen I did the moment that Amy Coney Bear was put on the court. Well, I think a lot of people thought that this was a bridge too far. Like, for example, I give an example with that. The Supreme Court backed. The Supreme Court didn't fall for President Trump's electioneering bullshit, right? Too obvious. What makes that more obvious than what you mean?

You mean that he won? Yeah, it's the same thing. I just don't think that there was a way that they could actually rule in his favor when it came to that. What they're ruling on right now, I mean, look, we're arguing semantics now, but to me, this is as egregious as more. Like to, to me, this is as egregious as that. This is one of the ugliest days and not just American history, but one of the ugliest days in the history of the free world. It's crazy. Of course, they've turned it into something else.

Now it's a full on mission impossible movie to find out who leaked it. Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. Like I'm right now saying that whatever has to be done to make this climate as uncomfortable as possible for the people that oppose the rights of women to have sovereignty to their body, I'm with it. I just, it's, it's, it's disgusting. And it is not at all. It is not at all. They're not, they're not fucking playing with us.

They're not playing. They're, remember Friday with Big Worm, Tell Smokey. And Friday, Big Worm, Smokey's like, man, he's just playing. He ain't going to do nothing. What is Craig Tell Smokey? He said, you walk around here all day playing. You playing.

He ain't playing about his money. When he said he'll, he'll, shoot you, he'll shoot you. When the right is saying that they will shoot you, they will shoot you. Will you shoot back? And that's, yeah. All right. Now, now that we've emoted, we have to talk about the facts, which means we have to bring in a constitutional law professor. Caroline Corbyn, you know her, we love her. She's going to let us know how we got here, how they even have the boss who do what they did. And if there is any recourse that President Biden has to kick them back in their nuts,

we'll talk to her right now. Did you know about one in three people with plaques psoriasis may also develop psoriotic arthritis, which causes joint pain, stiffness, and swelling? Does this sound like you? Listen to what it sounds like to be a million miles away. Trimphaya, Guseucumababab, taken. by injection is a prescription medicine for adults with moderate to severe

plaques psoriasis, who may benefit from taking injections or pills or phototherapy, and for adults with active psoriotic arthritis. Serious allergic reactions and increased risk of infections and liver problems may occur. Before a treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. Tell your doctor

if you have an infection, flu-like symptoms, or if you need a vaccine. Imagine being a million miles away. Explore what's possible. your doctor about trimfaya. Tap this ad to learn more about trimfaya, including important safety information.

The playoffs are here, and you can predict the action all the way to the finals with Fandul Predicts. Predict the spread, total points, and even the game winner. Sign up and get a $25 bonus. Offered by Fandul prediction markets LLC, a registered futures commission merchant.

18 plus. Bonus is non-withdrawable and expires seven days after receipt. Trading derivatives involve significant risk and may not be suitable for all investors. manage your activity with our consumer protection tool. Restrictions apply. See terms at fanduil.com slash predict slash bonus dash offer dash terms. Okay, so there is frenzy about in America and that frenzy has to do with the fact that

Supreme Court is set to make a very disgusting decision. I got to be on this with you. I'm trying to be straight up and down as a reporter, but I'm not a reporter. I'm a podcaster, so this whole thing is about our opinions. Is that not right? Not right, Rach. We are not constitutional law professors. However, we do know one.

Caroline Corvin is back to help us make sense of what's going on in the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court. I'm not even going to do any setup. I want you to tell me from where you're sitting, your big distinguished, law brain. What is happening right now in this moment in American history? Okay. So the first thing to be clear about is that this is not the court's final ruling. This is just a draft opinion. It could change. Right now, they seem to have a majority for it, but who knows? Maybe they won't at the end, even if they do, the holding might be slightly different. So I just want to start with that precaution.

Having said that, we are so, no, the word I was going to use wasn't the right one. We're in a lot of trouble. No, say it. Caroline, you got to say it. We know it. We're all thinking it. Just go ahead. Say it, please.

We are so fucked. It's so true. It's not funny. It's true. Right. I mean, the bottom line is the court says without mincing its words in any way that it is overruling in its entirety Roe v. Wade and all the cases that followed it. In other words, it is saying that the Constitution of the United States does not protect the right to an avoid. abortion. And so what this means is it's not that abortion becomes illegal immediately in the whole country. What it means is each state gets to decide for itself whether it wants to make abortion available or illegal. Unfortunately, over half the states are super keen to make abortion illegal as soon as possible. So that's the bottom line. Women or other people who may become pregnant will no longer be able to control their body. They will no longer be able to decide when they want to have a family or if they want to become pregnant.

All that basic power over themselves, over their bodies, over their lives will vanish. because we now have a conservative Supreme Court. It's truly, it's just, it's gut-wrenching, you know, when this, when this was like, and I remember when we had you on here last, we kind of talked about, we talked about that this was going to be argued in December. And, you know, we normally expect the ruling to happen in the summer, but now, you know, this draft has been leaked. My question is, and I really want to.

to get into the fears that people have, and honestly, rightly so, if this draft opinion is the actual opinion that's published. So I know that there's a disclaimer in there where they discuss that this only applies to abortions, I mean, to abortions, but it's kind of like a throwaway. How likely that if this is the actual opinion, could the logic that's used in this opinion be applied and then put other rights in jeopardy. Okay. So the first thing I want to say is, correct.

The opinion does specifically say this applies to abortion and abortion alone. But even if it just applies to abortion, it's an abomination. So I think we all are on the same page. But before we look at what else is down the line, that in itself is an enormous step backwards for this country. I mean, I just want to emphasize that usually when the Supreme Court makes a major reversal in the law, when it overrules precedent that has been around for decades, it's usually to expand protection for vulnerable groups. So when it overruled around versus Board of Education, it was ending the second-class citizenship of black Americans.

when it decided Obergrafel, which recognized same-sex marriage, it ended the second-class citizenship of gay Americans. In this case, it is overruling precedent to make half the population second-class citizens. Okay, I'm sorry, I just needed to vent a little. Now I will actually answer your question, which is, I think, a very valid fear. because despite its holding that it was only going to change fundamental rights vis-a-vis abortion, the reasoning it used is not going to be cabined to abortion. So I'm going to do a little background law.

You know, I can't help interjecting a little constitutional law as I do my explanation, but I'll be very brief. So the Constitution protects individual rights. It protects both enumerated rights. Those are rights that are specifically listed in the Constitution, like the First Amendment Right to Speech, and it protects unenumerated rights. Those are rights that are not specifically listed in the text. But the major question is, which fundamental rights does it protect? And what the court did is the test they use to decide which rights are going to be considered fundamental and therefore protected by the Constitution.

The test they use is very, very stingy. So according to the court, the United States Constitution does not protect a right unless it is, and this is the, the legal term deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions. And so the question it asked in this case was, is abortion, is the right to abortion deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition? It did a very questionable review of history and said no. That's not the only way you can decide whether a right is fundamental or not. You might start with history, but also consider more contemporary norms, given that our history is incredibly racist and sexist and homophobic, you might wonder why they insist on grounding our rights only in those that were recognized in history.

So that's the first problem. And the second, even if you use that test, the way you articulate the right may make a big difference. So here they articulated the right really narrowly, the right to abortion. If they had asked and said, is their right to bodily autonomy? Is that right deeply rooted in our nation's history or tradition? Or is the right to make major decisions about your family? Is that right deeply rooted in our nation's history tradition? They might have gotten in a different answer. But because the test that they use, first looks only to history and second, frames rights really narrowly. There is a real risk that will lose others.

So take same-sex marriage, right? Is the right to same-sex marriage deeply rooted in our history and tradition? No. Is the right even to contraception deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition? Well, if you do the kind of history the Supreme Court does, the answer is no. No. No. No.

Okay. So Roe is the early 70s, right? It's 72 or 73? 72. Okay. 73. So. Casey 792.

Okay. Okay. So I guess the question for a lot of people is, and obviously these things are subject to interpretation, but what was the basis on which the court ruled in the original case that abortion was the right of a woman. So let's go back for a second. Let's look at what has changed in the span of 50 years that has made this new set of judges decide that this is not a right that a woman should have.

Okay. So again, to be clear about what has changed, it's not been a change in the facts. It's not been a change in the law. It's not because a law was unworkable, which are the usual reasons why a court might reverse something. the change is who's sitting in the in the in the in the so you're asked what is the basis for a right to abortion it's some of the things that i mentioned the right to bodily autonomy the right to make medical decisions the right to decide whether or not to procreate the right to determine the size

of your family those are privacy rights in addition um there's also the question of equality we have an equal protection clause now it didn't grounded it's explicitly in the right to equality, but it's certainly acknowledged that there's no way that women can be equal citizens in this country if they don't have the right to control their reproduction. So all of these were things that were mentioned in the previous cases that found that abortion was a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution. Sorry. I'm so caught up in what she's saying.

Go ahead. Do you want to follow up to? I'm going to ask you to do something. Yeah, I'm going to ask you to do something really putrid right here. Okay? Are you ready for this? And the reason why I'm going to do this is because there are a lot of people who are angry. And I believe that this is the first salvo in a major, major fracturing, a real one in America.

People don't people, the cold war of the left and the right, the cold war of the, the, Free states and the slave states. This to me is the first shot in a war that's about to go hot. I mean politically hot to where people actually get to a point to where they don't want to share their communities with certain types of people. So I'm going to ask you to do something now, having said that, that might be impossible for you. I'm going to ask you to argue the other side. Oh, absolutely. Okay.

Life begins at conception And therefore abortion is a murder And so the Constitution does not protect the right to murder somebody else That's the other side. That's implicit. Okay. Why? That's what underlies this. Now again, the actual legal argument was the only fundamental right that exists or rights that are deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition. And if you survey history, you can see that at the founding of the country, women did not have a

constitutional right to abortion. They did not have a constitutional right to abortion when the 14th Amendment was passed. And therefore, that is not something that the Constitution protects. But really what is driving this decision is what I said, is the believe that abortion is murder and the Constitution should not protect that. Okay. So being that that's the case, we've discussed that it's wrong. From a legal standpoint, just based upon your knowledge of the Constitution, just once again, why is this, in your opinion, unconstitutional?

Well, again, at the very least, if the court is going to reverse long-stitching, precedent. It has to have a principled reason. And according to its own rules, the reasons why you can reverse precedent like this is either there's been a change in the facts, that there has been a change in the law that makes the president no longer really controlling, or the rules have been unworkable. They're just impossible to apply. And none of those things hold true. There have been no change in the facts that would suddenly make abortion no longer right. There's been no change in the law because every decision since Roe that has faced the question has reaffirmed that abortion was protected by the Constitution. And as for workability,

that actual issue before the court was a law that said abortion was banned at 15 weeks. And the controlling law was you cannot ban abortion before viability, which is closer to 24 weeks. I've got to tell you, as far as constitutional laws go, the law that the rule that you can't ban abortion before viability is about as clear. as you will ever get in terms of constitutional doctrine. So it clearly was not a case that the doctrine was unworkable to decide this case. So what I'm trying to say is that all the general bases for overruling a decision, or none of the bases for overruling this decision was present here. And the only other way you would do it is if you believe that the decision was fundamentally wrong

the day it was decided. And generally, as I said, in those situations, they're overruling because the law is restricting the rights of a particular group of people. So is there, let's just say, I mean, the way things are going, this is something that is going to be the law come summer. We'll most likely get this decision to come down. Let's just speak, I guess, in, in terms of terms of that. Is there something that, is there some sort of executive power or legislative power that can prevent this type of law from, from becoming the law of the country? Is there something that President Biden can do? Is there something, you know, the Women's Health Protection Act? Is that something that could help, you know, prevent this from moving forward?

Okay. So yes and no. So the no is the Supreme Court, the judiciary, is that branch of the government that has the final say and what the Constitution means. So if the Supreme Court of the United States says that the Constitution of the United States does not protect abortion, then the Constitution of the United States does not protect abortion. And the only way to change that is by amending the Constitution. Or changing the composition of the court so that they overrule this decision. However, it does not mean that the federal government cannot do anything because the federal government, Congress, has authority to pass laws if it falls into one of its powers. And it has previously passed laws to regulate abortion.

So Congress passed a law banning what it called partial birth abortion. So there is, right, so Congress does have authority to regulate with regard to abortion. So Congress can pass laws to protect it across the nation. But this would be a statute, not the Constitution. but it would still be statutory protection, which is amazing. I mean, for example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prevents discrimination in the work pool. It's a statute, but it provides protection. So there is something that Congress can do, and one of those things is what you mentioned,

is to actually codify the legality of abortion. But that then you need to votes for something like that, right? Yes. Sure. you do. And you don't have them. You don't. Okay.

Okay. Last question for me is, what about this idea of packing the court of Joe Biden? Because it's been done before, I guess FDR did it, or presidents of old have packed the court and the number has been reduced back down to nine. forget about the political ramifications of that, which is, which is the reason I don't think it's going to happen. What are the, what's the constitutional barriers to him to President Biden packing the court? Okay. How realistic is that? Like, what does that entail?

So I think what you are suggesting is that, as I said, there are two ways you can change the, what the, what the, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution. One is it to mend the Constitution, and one is to get a different collection of judges who then rule again. So one proposal is to just increase the number of justices and have Biden pick the majority of them. And then that court will say, this decision was a grievous and a terrible deviation from our long understanding that people have the fundamental right to bodily autonomy and making medical decisions. controlling their families and women's equality, et cetera, et cetera. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifies the number of people on the Supreme Court. So the Constitution says there must be a Supreme Court, but it doesn't say how many people must be on that court.

So there is nothing in the Constitution to preclude expanding the number of justices. So why won't you do it? I'm sorry, Rachel. Again, there's the political answer and then there's the, right? If we can't even pass, you know, trial, if we can't even have Congress increased, you know, the, you know, the basic, you know, the basic protections. for poor children. I'm not sure how we can. The other more policy concern is

once you go down this road, what's good for the goose might be good for the gander. So if we do it, if the next president is Republican, then you might have ever expanding courts. Having said that, given how political the court is now, I'm not sure how much, I'm not sure how much more politically could really get.

So I think that concern might be overstated. Although I will say, yeah, I'll just, it's possible. So the answer is, can you do it? And the answer is yes, there's nothing in the Constitution that precludes expanding the size of the court. In your opinion, in reading this draft and seeing the montage, of the conservative judges that are currently on the bench, what they said in their Senate confirmation hearings, and then you see the decisions that are the way that they're leaning towards things

based on this draft opinion. Do you think this makes the Supreme Court look weak? Do you think that it makes it look like they've lost their credibility? Yes. I mean, again, we expect the court to make decisions, based on principles. And really, this court seems to be making decisions based on politics. And that is most assuredly going to undermine the legitimacy of court.

How could it not? How could it not? Well, every time we talk to you, it's, I'm going to send you a nice fruit plate. Because every time we talk to you, it's, I'm going to send you a nice fruit plate. to you, there's some fuckery about. Okay. So I'm going to make sure it's coming down there in Miami. I'm going to send you a nice

fruit plate. Do you like, what kind of fruit place do you like? You like the fruit plate that's just the fruit or you like it with the little fruit dip that they have as well. Which one do you like? I'll leave it to you. Okay, I'm going to send you a nice fruit plate. You go out to Biscayne Bay, you chill

and you enjoy yourself. Because every time we have you on, it's very, very, very, very, very, very bad stuff happening. But you help us understand it. And we're grateful for you. Yes. And we'll hope to be calling on you again.

But, you know, when something better happens, that is Caroline Corbyn. We are talking about the fact that we're careening down the road to oblivion, but I'll stop being so. So absolutely negative. Thank you so much for joining us today on higher learning. We appreciate the insight, as always. Thank you. This episode is brought to you by.

Spectrum business, fast, reliable internet means everything for your business. And even this podcast, that's why I trust Spectrum business to keep companies of all sizes connected with internet, advanced Wi-Fi, phone, TV, mobile services, plus 24-7 U.S.-based support. Millions of business owners already trust Spectrum business. So visit Spectrum.com slash business to learn more. Restrictions apply. Services not available in all areas.

This episode is brought to you by WeatherTech. Everyone knows winter is the MVP and making a mess. You don't need WeatherTech floor liners in the summer unless you hit the beach or go camping. Then you'd want a cargo liner or a road trip goes sideways, ketchup goes rogue, ice cream drips. Yeah, you'd be pretty happy about those WeatherTech seat protectors. So just to be clear as the mud, you're inevitably going to step into the summer. You don't need WeatherTech unless you plan on doing summer. Visit weathertech.com today.

After talking to Caroline, are you more? pissed off or scared or less. I feel exactly the same. I mean, you know, I don't know. I don't know. I just, I feel the same. Like the moment that the draft opinion came out, now that it's been confirmed that it did come from the court,

it's just like it is the beginning of the end. That's how I felt. Yeah. It's so troubling. Because it's almost too, well, I guess we kind of talked about that. But yeah, it's just like, well, now I'm just like waiting. What will the court do next? If you don't think that at this point, states are going to flood the court system

with cases that can hopefully get sent to the Supreme Court to overturn other decisions and other people's protected rights, you're fooling yourself. It's exactly what's about to happen. I want to get Tamika Hamilton on. What's she going to say? See what her husband thinks about this. What's she going to say? I want to get her on.

She's a walking, like, campaign for whatever the conservatives are spitting out these days. Like, how much you want to bet she's going to say exactly what Caroline said when you asked her to argue the other side. But I just want to have a conversation. I feel like we need to have a conversation with a conservative about this. We did. I don't know. We could have it with her, but last time we didn't really have a conversation. She really, you know, thought warriors were obsessed.

She really wasn't saying anything. their thought warriors get mad at the drop of a hat. It's not about what the thought words. At this point, I want to- But she really didn't say anything. I'm not saying that she did, Rachel.

What I'm saying is that at this particular point, I need to be able to make sense of this. I can't. And so I don't know what we need to do. Bring her on or bring Camille on. Camel, I don't know if Camel's on this. Camel's a libertarian, though.

He's not going to be on this. Either he's going to say, either he's going to say, you should be able to do whatever you want with your body, where he's going to say it's up to the States. He's a libertarian. That's different. Like, you know, so I don't know.

I don't know. Dave Chappelle attacked on stage by armed man while he was performing at the Hollywood Bowl. He was performing at the Hollywood Ball. Netflix is a joke. Okay? And a guy ran up on stage. Okay. And the dude, his name is Isaiah Lee.

He's 23. He tried to attack Dave Chappelle. He had a replica gun with a knife inside of it. I believe full on that this man had the intention to stab Dave Chappelle. We've all seen the video now. The video, he tried to tackle Dave. Dave broke the tackle. Dave now has a, his break tackles rating on Madden has gone up.

He has a 93 break tackles in Madden. He broke the tackle. And then they beat the shit out this dude. Beat his motherfucking ass. His arm looked like a fucking jinga. You know what I mean? Yeah. and then Chris Rock came up on stage after that and said this.

Little on the nose. Little on the nose. Grade that joke from one to ten. It was predictable. Yeah. It was a low-hanging fruit. A little on the nose. I chuckle.

I chuckle. You know why? Because he hasn't been that outspoken about it. So I was like, oh, okay, he went there. Right. Dave spoke afterwards. This is what Dave said. Oh, now everybody comes out.

for the curtain cold. Shout out to Jamie Fox, by the way. Jamie. Jamie, Jamie, make some noise from Fox. Whenever you're in trouble, Jamie Fox would show up in the sheriff's hat.

Turn it like a nigger. I thought that was part of the show. I don't know what the fuck is. All right. That's, it's too much. So, it's not,

it's not going anywhere. So Lee is being held on $30,000 bond. it's been reported just recently that they're saying that this doesn't meet the threshold of felony assault. I'm not sure why. He had a weapon. So it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

Question to you, Rach. Is this in any way tangential to the Will Smith situation? There are people out there that are saying Will Smith has opened up a Pandora's box and that comedians are now fair game while they're on stage and this is why this Isaiah Lee guy who's been talking shit about Dave Chappelle

for a couple of years now he had a song out where he talked about him um has Will Smith made yeah has Will Smith made it unsafe for comedians no you can't just say look at the Will Smith incident

and say oh because of this happened now all comedians you know are subject are going to be subjected or it's highly likely that someone is going to attack them in the same manner that Will Smith did with Chris Rock or the way this guy, Isaiah Lee did to Dave Chappelle. I think that comedians have been kind of on the shopping block for a while in regards to cancel culture in regards to, you know, some comedians saying refusing to actually do stand

up anymore in certain venues because of the way audiences or social media is responding to their content. A lot of comedians feel like they don't have the freedoms that they used to have in regards to what they can say and the certain jokes that they make, they're being scrutinized in a way that they've never been looked at before. So I think that comedians have been, you know, it's not likely, I mean, I wouldn't assume this would happen, but I think that people have been attacking comedians, whether it be verbally or now physically, for a while now. But you can't look at the Will Smith and say, oh, now he's leading the charge and everybody feels like the door is open where, you know, if they have an issue with the comedian, they can bumrush the stage.

That, you can't blame this on Will. You can't at all. You want to, don't you? No. Not at all. Like, not even a little bit. I don't think it says anything to do, Will Smith. Not at all.

It's just the way the internet is right now, obviously this is all fucked up. Right. And he deserved to get his ass beat exactly the way he gets his ass beat. He got his ass beat. This is all fucked up. My thing is this comes out and everybody has a take, right? First, the take is it's Will Smith's fault. Secondly, the take is, well, Dave Chappelle's been acting like an asshole on stage for so long that we don't care that this happened to him.

The first thing that happened to me is I got scared. A guy with a knife try to attack Dave Chappelle. What if he fucking stabs Dave Chappelle in the femoral artery and Dave bleeds out on stage and they, What if he's killed? What if a fucking guy runs on stage at Hollywood Bowl and kills Dave Chappelle? We don't fucking need that. It's just, I don't know, man. This is scary times.

It's like, it's just fucking nuts. It is. Sorry, sorry. No, it's fine. Oh, no, it is. But it's also interesting how different the response would be if the worst happened. And he was attacked and, you know, like lost his life in that moment. Right now, people.

are, you know, saying, oh, Dave Chappelle, he said all these things and has hurt so many communities. You know, he's upset people. If he had died, it would have been a totally different response from people. But what people need to look at is that could have happened. This man was armed with a weapon and tried to attack Dave Chappelle. That's never okay. I found it interesting, you know, there have been reactions from several, you know, people with the mic and comedians. And Howard Stern was actually talking about how it's a double standard. at the way that people are responding to what happened with Chappelle versus the way that they're responding to what happened with Will Smith.

You know, Will Smith, they basically said, he was saying, Will Smith was able to go back to his seat and enjoy the rest of the show, whereas this man was stomped in the back and everybody, like, agreed that that was okay to handle the situation that way. This is what Stern said. This is what Stern said. So he's outraged at the double standard that basically not saying Will Smith should have been stomp backstage, but that he should have been punished for

assaulting someone when you see how people or Hollywood responded differently when this no-name person tried to assault Dave Chappelle. Your thoughts. He's right. At the same time, I mean, he's right. Of course, it's a double standard, but he had a knife, man. You never also, the thing with Will is, look, obviously he's right. This nigga had a knife.

he's definitely he's definitely right it's been so funny though if the guy Isaac Lee would have gone back to everybody would have clap for Dave Chappelle would have been like ah

whatever and win and everybody would have not but of course and that was the thing with the Will Smith thing the thing was like and also there are some other things in there a lot of people

felt like Chris Rock took a shot at Will Smith's wife I don't know if Isaiah Lee Lee was definitely attacking Dave for some joke that he made if Isaiah Lee had if put you like this

if that was Bill Burr, who was Dave Chappelle, and Isaiah Lee was who he is, a black man, and Bill Burr had called him a nigger, then nobody would be having that. People would be saying, hey, the insult demanded a response. And that was the response, that was the reaction that they were making to Will Smith, so, real Smith more so that the insult demanded a response, which I disagree with. So it's not quite a one-to-one, but I can see how he could get that take off. What if he said something on stage that insulted this guy? Well, we know that the guy has been on Dave Chappelle for a while, so I don't know if he did or if he didn't.

But, you know, whatever. I'm wondering how you got up there. It's crazy. It's crazy. Have you been following the Drake? I'll steal your bitch saga? Only because you brought it to my attention. I don't see how you go.

I don't see how you miss this type of stuff. I'll be honest with you. I don't see how you missed this. I have been on it with the trans. When you say, did you see this? This went viral. I saw it. This?

I didn't see. How in the hell did you miss this? So what happens is? I've been in top gun mode for the last literally three days. Between that and Roe v. Wade, I don't have time for this bullshit. Listen, I'm going to be honest with you. The Roe v. Wade thing is annoying for sure. But this Drake shit, this is a real issue.

This is something that's really important to what. Go ahead. I'm saying the Roe vade thing is inconvenient. But Drake trying to smash. Drake trying to, yeah. It's more than that. Drake trying to smash some dude's wife This is what we really need to be talking about

It's funny that that's why I can't say it's So this is what happened Drake went to Instagram to defend T Morant T Moran is John Moran's dad And he's joy this time in the spotlight He sure is The Grizzlies are doing great T Moran is out there

Some people are saying he's the new Lovar Ball Can I ask a question before you get into this In regards to T Moran? Was he this on display last year? Well, he's always been this on display, but they haven't really been in the playoffs for people to see.

So, I mean, what are you watching Memphis on League Pass? And you're going to see John's dad sitting course item. You're not really going to care, right? But in this situation to where there's a first round series, it's him versus Minnesota and Timoran sitting next to the car. I think he towns his father. And it's like, now there's a bigger spotlight. Stars are made in the playoffs.

John Moran is becoming a superstar in the playoffs, but also Team Moran is becoming a superstar in the playoffs. And because society has an aversion to black fatherhood, and they hate it, they have been criticizing Tim Moran because as a black dad, you're not supposed to be too loving or too visible to your son. You're supposed to be in the background, never say shit, never tell the world that you told your son that he could be the best.

you're supposed to say not a fucking thing as being a black dad. All right. So he responded. He says, someone said that Tim Moran is approaching Lovar ball levels of annoyance.

This is what Drake said. Imagine your son makes it to the league and he's Jaya or Mello or Alonzo and all you do is be elated and competitive and over-supportive and it's a right of passage to that OG's talk shit, he said. He said, all you do is

All you can do is be elated and competitive and over-supportive, and it's a right of passage to that, the OG's talk shit. I don't know. I don't know what Drake is saying right there. He says, I know I'm going to be this way if my son is even in a Rubik's Cube competition. So the troll came back. Your son probably play with Ghost Riders. He wrote it, Drake.

Drake just said, I just followed your girl because she's probably miserable and needs some excitement in her life. turns out Drake actually did follow this woman and then he DMed her saying I'm here for you ma since then the husband has been milking this situation the husband and wife have been milking it they got t-shirts

they got hosting events they got all kinds of things this guy is actually getting famous because Drake threatened to fuck his wife. Let's be real. This is what Drake was threatening. So think about how famous you have to be. Monica Lewinsky

had oral sex with Bill Clinton and that made Monica Lewinsky famous, right? Mm-hmm. In this situation, Drake is so famous. All he has to do is threatened to fuck your wife. And now you're famous. That's nuts. Or, Or we just live in such a silly society

that we make somebody like that famous because we actually give that person attention and it's like, for what? That's how I look at it. Why do we, we are the ones who, not us, but like we are the ones who make somebody like that famous. That means we're paying attention. We're giving it attention, likes, follows, retweeting,

whatever it may be, buying their merch, attending their hosting events. That's to me what it speaks more volumes on, not just that Drake is that famous, that we are that silly as a society. Also, Drake has too much time on his hands right now. Let me ask you a question. Do you think Drake was wrong for this? I don't care. I'm indifferent.

You don't give a fun. I don't think Drake was wrong. It's funny to me. I think it's funny to me. Is it disrespectful? Sure, I guess. But the guy was disrespectful. You're talking about my.

him. Yeah. What's good for the goose is good for the gag. Yeah. Like, I mean, the guy started it. Drake responded to it. But, you know, it's just more of like, if this guy becomes famous for this, this is our fault. All right.

Did you see this JJ Reddick thing that happened on ESPN? How could I not? Now, see, I saw this. So JJ Redick is the, JJ Redick is the unexpected ally of the week, although it's not like that unexpected. Yeah, that's what I was going to say. He's not that unexpected. He's my unexpected out of the week, though. Okay.

Reaching. Chris Rousseau, whatever. It might be Alito. Chris Rousseau, the mad dog, had a lot of stuff to say about Dremont Green. Dremont Green was talking about

fans booing him as blood ran down his face after an elbow he took and I'm not going to play Dremont sound because we don't need to we all know that Dremont's very outspoken Chris Rousseau said on first take after the unspoken Dremont

spoke his opinion he said he's so hard to root for shut up and play shut up and play you know what Chris Rousseau the next time just put a nigger at the end of it said the next time just put a nigger at the end of it

shut up and play nigger just put a nigger just put a nigger at the end of it. What the fuck made Chris Rousseau think that Rachel, you never just look at people and be like, why would we take that? Who's gonna take that?

We didn't. And that's what I love so much about it is that Stephen A. Smith, I don't know why I said his name like that. Stephen A. didn't have to get him right. Stephen A. Smith. Stephen A. Smith didn't have to get him right. I love that it was a white man talking to another white man. I didn't

want to see Stephen A. Smith have to have that battle because it's just such a ridiculous take in the way that JJ Reddick broke it down and I really made him look so stupid. So stupid. He says, shut up and play, will you please? America's tied of Dremont Green.

America. Right? His America. He's America. Because you, America's tired of Dremar Green. We all know he has a great skill set for that team. I understand how good he is. I can't root for him. J.J. get him. I give you a large segment of older fans who have followed the NBA for 60 years,

who are, this is not a political scenario or a race situation, who have followed Wilk and grew up as a Nick fan, who loved Clyde and loved Reed and love the Pearl. Yeah, but I disagree with you on that. I don't think, I'm not saying it's a race situation. I'm saying that the fans you're talking about, they talk about athletes that way, like you just talked about an athlete.

I think there's a lot. The people on Fox News talk about athletes that way. That's my issue. That's my issue. I don't actually care about the fans that watched Bob Coosie play or watched Wilk play. I don't care. I appreciate that they've been NBA fans that long, but I don't appreciate the undertone. Okay, so let me ask you a question.

And I really, I really want this to, I want everyone who might think the way Chris Russo Matt off is entitled to his opinion. but it's so hard sometimes to make the Chris Rousseau's of the world believe that we don't care. Like, why in my 42-year-old black-ass life would I give a fuck what somebody who watched the NBA, Bob Cousie, fucking 60, 70 years? Why would I care what they think? Why would I kill any one? Why would Draymond Green?

What the fuck is into? What do these people be going through? Why in the fuck would he think that that's an intelligent point to make that people are people that watch the NBA back when there were segregated water fountains that we should give a fuck what they think about this motherfucker saying whatever he wants to say? I'm glad he got his ass toe up. You got his ass whipped. You know what I think happened to him?

He was basically trying to say that there are certain people who don't like what Draymond Green brings to the table. And the moment he had to explain what that meant, it was already too late. Yeah. It was already too late. There was nothing he could do. When it came out of his mouth, who are those people? It's too late. You've already put your foot in your mouth.

You've revealed who you are at this point. That's why he had to say it's not political. It's not racist. Yes, it is. And you know it. And that's why you tried to make that disclaimer. It was too late for mad dog. And he left with his tail between his legs, too.

After dealing with JJ. He turned, he was a mad dog at first and then he left Bozeman. Don't do Bozeman like that. Don't do your son like that. Bozman just always needs a friend. He's like, friend, friend, friend. I miss my dog so much. But look, we got to, it's just such an interesting situation.

having to share a society with people that think they own that society. It's so hard. It's always been that way. Yeah, but you get to a certain age and then you start noticing it, right? That's very true. You'll be having a conversation with someone and you'll be like, oh, you think you're more important than me. Like, for real, though. Not like in a, you know how like you get to a point.

it's like you really get to a point you're like oh this person really feels this way this is a real thing I feel like that sometimes when I see things that I only saw on television

I get to New York and I'm looking at like the Empire State Building the first time I saw it and I was like oh my God this is real it's not just a thing that they invented for TV

I feel that way about like racism and shit sometimes I'm like you really racist like you don't give a fuck like you really think nuts. You remember my interview last year? That was that moment.

That was that moment. Oh. Oh, soupy, soupy. Oh. Who the hell are you? Oh, who though? Whoa. Oh, who though?

So there it is. Churn the Progresso. Turn the Progresso. I saw a new suit brand. I saw a new suit brand. It was called Well, well, yes. I think we've done to ask for it before. Where did you see this way?

Well, yes. I thought about soup kitchen when I saw well, yes. Are you leaving the bachelor? Well, yes. He's like butternut squash soup. Soup kitchen fucked up. Soup kitchen, Mike Russo, look, new segment alert, this might prove my ADHD.

The Soup Kitchen Award of the week. Like, Mike Russo is Chris Russo. Chris Russo is the Soup Kitchen Award. But just saying something privileged, this soup kitchen award winner. I like it. I like it. I like it. My unexpected ally of the week because you did yours with JJ is whoever leaked that draft

opinion because I know they were white. I know they were white. I know you were. Definitely. Did you know about one in three people with plaques psoriasis may also develop psoriotic arthritis. which causes joint pain, stiffness, and swelling? Does this sound like you? Listen to what it sounds like to be a million miles away.

Trimphaya, Gusealcumab, taken by injection, is a prescription medicine for adults with moderate to severe plaques psoriasis, who may benefit from taking injections or pills or phototherapy, and for adults with active psoriotic arthritis. Serious allergic reactions and increased risk of infections and liver problems may occur. Before treatment, your doctor should check. you for infections and tuberculosis. Tell your doctor if you have an infection, flu-like symptoms,

or if you need a vaccine. Imagine being a million miles away. Explore what's possible. Ask your doctor about trimfaya. Tap this ad to learn more about trimfaya, including important safety information. This podcast is brought to you by Carvana. Selling your car should feel like one less thing on your list. Not one more. With Carvana, it is. Just go to Carvana.com and to your license or Vin, and get a real offer down to the penny. No back and forth, no surprises, just an experience you can trust. Like your offer? Accept it.

Schedule pickup, and we'll come to you with a check in hand. Your car, your timeline, your terms. Visit Carvana.com to sell your car today. Carvana. Pick up fees may apply. All right, Donnie, it's time for... Addable, edible, edible games. Animal, edible, edible games.

Animal, Animal, Animal, Animal Game. Animal, Animal Game. That's the Animal Games theme song right here. Yes! Taking away, Donnie. All right. So the scoreboard as it currently stands, just so we are all aware,

Van and Trudy each have a point apiece. Rachel is yet to get on the board. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. I thought we start over each week. Oh, do we? I thought we were keeping track. No, we're keeping track of animal. For how long?

Until we get to like animal games. This is animal games is an ongoing thing. Okay. It's okay. Until we get to 10 points. Let's just do it. We get to 10 points. We start up.

10 points. Okay. All right. The category this week is marine life. Marge and Deirdre. Donnie, you're having too much fun. Which of the. is not a cephalopod.

A, a squid. B, a cuddled fish. C, a jellyfish or D, an octopus. A cuddlefish is not a cephalopod. And guess what? Not only is a cold fish, not a cephalopod. As told in Avengers Age of Ultron by Ulysses Claw, a cuddlefish can change colors and do all

cons of crazy stuff. Lucy's claw was scared of a cuddled fish when he was a kid and he told that to Ironman. Boom, final answer. Damn, you are so confidently wrong. The right answer was jellyfish. I'm sorry, man.

You had a fact to follow it up with him. All right, my bad. Okay, so Rachel, your turn. This is coming from Monica. Are you frozen? She's froze. Okay. There you go. Can you hear me?

Yes. It froze. And I was like, yes, it, yes, it froze. Well, I was getting all into it. Come on and get your points. It's your turn. Okay. From Monica. Was he right? I was wrong. No, no, no, no. He was very wrong. Shut up. What was the answer? What was the answer? The answer was C, jellyfish.

I'm dead. You were on a rant. I was like, please let me be wrong. And he was. I may I miss the moment. Come on, Daddy. Give it to me. Okay. This is coming from Monica from the DMV. How many legs does a lobster have?

Your options are 10, 8, 6, or 12. Okay. I'm going to go with 10. Ooh. You are on the board, Rachel. One point for Rachel. I don't even eat lunches, so I don't know. I don't know.

Who? Who? Who? Yes. Let's go. All right, Trudy, are you ready? I am. Okay.

Megan Malloy asks, octopuses. She says, octopuses are smart creatures and are considered to have a similar level of intelligence as which animal. Oh. The options are crows, house cats. Pigs or humans. It's humans. Oh, no, no, no, no. It is definitely house dogs.

Oh, wait, what? You're lying. It's humans. You think octopus are as smart as humans? They were fucking take over the world, Trudy. See, this is why I'm yours with you. It was anything but humans. Look, so here's the thing.

Seriously. How confident I was on my. wrong answer. And then Trudy's answer, this is why we need animal games. Trudy fucking thinks that an octopus is as smart as a human being. Similar. Similar. Trudy, if they were human beings, we'd have

they'd be like Caesar. Trudy, Trudy. If they were as smart as people, Trudy, they built their own technology. They had music. Wait, what was the answer? What was the answer? House cats. House cats, which means they can learn to do tricks.

Oh, I mean, I guess. Make it Ursula real life. Trudy, that's a cartoon. All right, one more round. Let's go. Last round. Yeah, you're good. Okay, then Adam Deal asks if you can name four marine mammals.

And you've got 15 seconds starting now. Dolphin, whale, manatee, seal. All right. Good job. Boom! Animal, animal, animal games. Animal, animal games. Rachel, your turn two, baby. Okay, Rachel.

This is coming from Steve Defeo. What is the largest fish? The largest fish is a barracuda? Can I steal? No. Can we institute, Steve? because I know this one, I think. Oh, y'all both know it?

No, Joe, Trudy, go for it. You can say it, but you're not going to get any points. Don't ask me, right. Is it a mermaid? No. Is it a shark? Shark is half of the word, half of the, half of the, it's a whale shark. Oh, it's like that.

Oh, it's a whale shark. Both of y'all would have missed that. Yeah, definitely would have a point. Can we answer to half? No. No. Trudy, your last question on animal games. Okay, but speaking of sharks, coming from at yawning emoji, she wants to know, Trudy,

if you can name five types of sharks. I feel like we should be able to steal points. A hammerhead, a killer shark, is that a thing? A stand shark, a baby shark. Trudy, you're fucking fired. We're done Wap the dog We're done here

How many How many was that? Well, you've said five things, but She said five things, but She said a carpet shark First of all, you're Googling shit She said a baby shark. She said a baby shark.

She said a baby shark. That kind of counts. Donnie, don't know. Donnie, are you fucking kidding me? A baby shark. I will take baby sharks. But Donnie, you stood in name. What?

A baby shark is not a type of shark. No, it's not a type of shark. Yes, it is not. Look how big barracudas are. It's so close. Yeah, pretty big. So what is the animal? So I'm up.

It's 2.1-1. With answers like this week, the fact that I'm tied with Trudy is troubling. Trudy, I'll be honest with you. We should kick Trudy out of Animal Games for it. We should. No, no, no, no, no. That octopus one, the fact that you didn't say great white shark is beyond. Oh, see, it just wasn't coming to me.

All right. Donnie, run the song. We are going to do one mailback question. Pick one. Mailback time. Time to read your letters. And then we'll reply to them. Oh, it's mailback time.

write us with your queries and we'll chime in Okay so Coming from Saff Dala at IG They want to know if you were to adapt your book This is to both of you to a film script Who would you cast to play yourself? Oh, I mean, Rihanna

Interesting I want people to pay very close attention to this answer And store this in your memory banks Anthony Mackey As who? Somebody in the player proof crew As me Think about this

I want you guys to store this in your memory banks Anthony Mackey is me Maybe Danny Glover as my father Just make sure you hold on to that I'm not saying anything else Make sure you hold on to that All right Okay that's obvious

No it's not obvious You don't know what I'm talking about. Rachel, you know what's obvious. What's obvious, Rachel, is that you really had a chip on your shoulder in this episode. Well, rightfully so, but nothing against you. Maybe it is just looking at another man just makes me sick right now. Okay, look, another fantastic episode. You guys get serious about your world.

If you don't get serious about your world, your world will eat you alive. And that's all I got to say. I'm very upset. I am Van Lathen Jr. And I'm Rachel and Lindsay. Bye guys. You don't owe me. I'm not just one of your many toys.

You don't owe me.