Pod Save America - “Clarence Thomas’ Sügar Daddy.”

Episode Date: April 11, 2023

The Biden Administration fights to keep abortion medication legal. Justice Clarence Thomas has a secret billionaire sugar daddy with a thing for Nazi memorabilia. Strict Scrutiny’s Leah Litman joins to break down the latest legal news. And Tennessee Democrats fight back after Republicans vote to expel two black state lawmakers. Then the guys take on the kookiest new culture wars with a round of One Line with Cocaine Bear. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast.

Welcome to Plaid Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. On today's show, the Biden administration fights to keep abortion medication legal. Clarence Thomas has a secret billionaire sugar daddy with a thing for Nazi memorabilia. Strict Scrutiny's Leah Lippman joins to break down the latest legal news. And Tennessee Democrats fight back after Republicans vote to expel two black state representatives. Then we take on the kookiest new culture wars in a quick round of one line with Cocaine Bear. But first, before we start, it's Webby Award season. It's here. Oh,

it is. It is. I've got my dress all picked out. Crooked has quite a few nominations. That we got. Yeah. Our own Love It or Leave It in the best live podcast recording category. Who am I up against? Does it say there? I don't have that information. I'm better than them. Vote for Love It or Leave It. World Corrupt, live podcast recording category. Who am I up against? Does it say there? I don't have that information. I'm better than them. Vote for Love It or Leave It. World Corrupt, Best Partnership or Collaboration category. Best collab.

Our Pod Save America episode featuring Barack Obama. I didn't think that was a very good one. Okay. This is a plug for all of us. In the Featured Guest category. Which is really more

about him than us. So I don't care if we win that one. It is. Yeah. Notice Pod Save America does not get nominated for things that barack obama wasn't in right right that we probably had the lowest word count in that episode of any industry let's send a message i want it for pod save the world i want it for love it or leave it i want it for positive

america did you see al franken was shit talking us oh yeah that's when i decided i wanted to win he was like vote against pod Pod Save America and Barack Obama. Not the first time he's gotten in trouble for reaching. What? That's a funny joke. That was good. He would appreciate that. Anyway, we have more.

Keep It in television and film podcast category. My Offline Episode with ContraPoints in the tech category. And The Wilderness Season 3 in News and Politics. Look at you triple dipping. How'd they get? Wilderness over Pod Save America in News and Politics? Yeah. Well, you know what?

That's what the people wanted. Public voting is set to close in less than two weeks. So we're calling on all friends of the pod to head over to, and it's not a typo here. It's wbby.co slash vote i know that doesn't sound like webby but it's wbby.co slash vote they really made that vote in the webbies vote in the web or you could google vote in the webbies or you could ask chat gpt probably so somebody else bought webby.co yeah they weren't going to pay for it anyway i get anyway vote before april 20th that's the last url squatters are all right a scourge let get to the news. An extreme right-wing Trump-appointed judge in Amarillo, Texas, has put in jeopardy access to medication that's responsible for over half of all abortions in the United States.

Judge Matthew Kazmarek's ruling invalidates the FDA's approval 23 years ago of mifepristone, which would restrict the pill all across the country, even in states where abortion remains legal. It could also invite legal challenges to other FDA-approved drugs and vaccines for purely political reasons. But almost immediately after Kaczmarek's ruling, Obama appointed Judge Thomas Rice of Washington state, ruled in a separate case that the FDA must maintain access to Miffy-Pristone in the states where Democratic attorneys general brought the lawsuit. President Biden has promised to fight the Texas ruling and the Department of Justice has already filed an appeal. Tommy, what happens next and what are the implications if the Texas ruling is upheld? So as you noted, the Biden

administration is appealing this decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, notoriously liberal, left-leaning, or the opposite. A bunch of squishes. Extremely conservative. So the DOJ has asked for a response to that appeal by Thursday at noon, at which point they will either be working with the Fifth Circuit or DOJ will go directly to the Supreme Court to appeal. So if the Texas ruling stands, it means that this random judge in the middle of nowhere, Texas has told the FDA that a drug they approved 23 years ago is no longer approved. It's no longer deemed safe, accordingly, apparently, and doctors may no longer be able to prescribe it. So this would be the biggest attack on abortion

rights in the country since Dobbs, a totally unprecedented intervention by the courts into the approval of medication. And it could have countless ramifications for other drugs in the future. Yeah, it's it's it's pretty terrible. And it's not the first time that right wing groups have gone forum shopping to Judge Kazmarek, who's the one single federal judge in Amarillo, Texas, and they know they can go there and that they will pull that judge and that he will issue a extremely right-wing opinion, which is what they did here. You mentioned the implications for other drugs beyond abortion medication. 250 drug and biotech company executives sent a letter today, very alarmed by this because they basically said, if courts can overturn drug approvals without regard for science or evidence, any medicine is at risk for the same outcome. So you can all imagine like anti-vaxxers finding an extreme right wing judge or this one. Yeah, you have you have any drug with any kind of ideological dispute attached to it. Any drug with any kind of ideological dispute attached to it, COVID vaccines, HPV vaccines,

PrEP drugs for gay people to prevent getting HIV, just any drug that has been controversial, you can go forum shopping, find the worst person the Federalist Society could think of to introduce to Donald Trump and get a bananas rolling like this. And I know you're going to talk to Leah more about this in the interview. But yeah, it is inevitable this will end up at the Supreme Court one way or the other, no matter how the Fifth Circuit rules, it will be appealed by either party. So we will get a real test of whether the Dobbs decision, which the Supreme Court majority argued was to leave this up to the states and let democracy take its course

will now be applied when medication abortion could be restricted across all 50 states. I also just can't stop thinking about back when the Republican mantra was that they didn't want to appoint activist judges. They just wanted to call balls and strikes. And then you have this judge telling the FDA that he is the one who's going to dictate whether or not a medication is safe and effective and not the food and drug administration, which determined 20 years ago that it was incredibly safe and has since been proven to be safer than aspirin or Viagra. Reaching back 23 years to undo an approval.

Right. I mean, they can they can touch. That's that is like that is reexamining any decision the federal government has made through the through through an agency. I mean, yes, obviously, there's huge implications for the FDA. But this is also a broader attack on just the ability of our government to function, the ability of Congress to create an agency, to give that agency power, to have that agency using the powers that's vested into it as a democratic organization to solve a problem. At any time, any federal judge can come in and decide that they're going to undo that at the behest of some right-wing groups that claim that they've been harmed. And Congress gave the FDA the authority to determine what drugs are safe and effective.

Back in 1938, they do a bunch of tests. They do animal studies. They do human studies. It takes years, millions of dollars to determine the drug is safe or not safe. And this guy came in and was like, look, I just did my own research. I've been on YouTube for like two days and I decided that this thing is not safe. Yeah. And someone also pointed out that it also jeopardizes what kind of drugs and medications drug companies would even consider bringing to market. Because if they have to think about what a judge somewhere in politics might do, it might shape which drugs they actually test and bring to market in the first place.

Drugs that take a long time to develop that are expensive to produce, that they have to be able to count on the ability to kind of sell over a long period of time. Yeah. You can't just like, yeah. It's horrible. So Democratic Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon and AOC both said over the weekend that Biden should just ignore the Texas ruling, which is an option. The administration has basically sort of sidestepped the question.

HHS secretary this weekend basically wouldn't take it off the table. Then the administration today said, no, we're not going to do that right now. We're not going to ignore the ruling. the administration today said, no, we're not going to do that right now. We're not going to ignore the ruling. Why do you think that is, Lovett? So the most important thing that the administration can do is pursue the absolute best strategy to force the Supreme Court to overturn this ruling, either on the substance or on procedure, and to put to the Supreme Court the challenge of saying the courts are creating chaos in this country. We are the reasonable people coming to you to help us stop the chaos that you have created at a time when all of the political coverage, all of the substantive news coverage is about

the amount of harm and just mayhem that the Dobbs ruling has created at a time when they are under scrutiny for corruption and failing to recuse and failing to disclose. So the idea is to create as much pressure on the Supreme Court as possible to not uphold this ruling. And to me, that would argue for not signaling to the Supreme Court that they're going to do something like disregard a court's order. Now, I appreciate the idea of leaving it on the table, because if for whatever reason we live in a world in which the Supreme Court doesn't take it or somehow this ruling is upheld, I think, you know, the moral calculus, the political calculus changes, but they're trying to do this through the courts to force the courts to be the ones to either uphold or not uphold this ruling.

I would also say that just using the word ignoring, I think, is problematic here. Because Playbook this morning was like, this may be a political misstep for Democrats to do this because it changes the debate from one about abortion to one about democracy and the rule of law and ignoring a court order. But I don't know that it's really ignoring a ruling, because ignoring a ruling, for all the reasons you pointed out, I think would be bad. But there's a great piece in Slate where a bunch of legal experts argue that the judge's power here is limited because Congress has already passed a law that explicitly lays out the process for the FDA withdrawing a drug. And at worst, they say,

the judge could make them restart that approval process. But also, the Supreme Court has decided unanimously in the late 80s that the Supreme Court basically has already said that the FDA has broad enforcement discretion in enforcing the law. So it wouldn't be ignoring the ruling. It would be the FDA saying, we have certain enforcement priorities. We only have so many resources, and we're just not going to enforce them. So this is where I think it all gets into the kind of chaos that we live in now in the sort of post-docs world. And again, there's a question I want to talk to Leah about, but this is where it's sort of like, okay, we are obviously not ignoring the ruling, but we have limited enforcement resources. This is not about a dispensary in Boulder where some freewheeling

owner is like, fuck it, I'll take cash because it's marijuana is legally murky. These are multinational corporations with massive legal departments. Walgreens has already shown that they were unwilling to sort of step into these chaotic waters that led to a huge fight with Gavin Newsom about their ability to sell drugs that might be banned in states like Texas. So like all of how this all plays out, we really don't know. But even if the administration in some way says, OK, we are not ignoring this order, but we're not enforcing the same way. It's not clear that that redounds to drug companies continuing to distribute it or or pharmacies continuing to carry it. We just have no idea. And I think people need certainty in ignoring this ruling would not prevent states from prosecuting people potentially

or imposing their own restrictions. Or a future Republican could just reverse this decision and then prosecute people who sell the pill. Doctors might be freaked out to dispense it regardless. So I think you need to get to an outcome that provides some certainty to everyone involved here. And I certainly think to that point, it certainly doesn't make any sense for the administration to do this now before the appeals process has played out, because the ideal outcome obviously would be the Supreme Court overturning the ruling, because then it avoids the problems that Tommy was just talking about where Republican controlled states impose their own restrictions. controlled states impose their own restrictions, future Republican presidents reverse the decisions like that all goes out the window if we want an appeal. If we lose at the Supreme Court,

then perhaps the administration can say, OK, the FDA has discretional authority here and it's going to do its own thing. And the other point that I think a lot of the abortion advocates have made is, first of all, right now, this ruling is not in effect. But even if it goes into effect, it's Miffy and Miso. Those are two different drugs. They're usually given together. A medication of abortion will still be available because this is only about one of the two drugs that can be used. So it's a sort of a more complicated situation for the administration. do. We can talk about the politics here. Conservatives just lost control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a race where abortion access was a central issue. They're now responsible for a ruling that may restrict abortion medication in every state. And this is making some Republicans and even anti-choice activists a bit nervous about the politics. Ann Coulter, of all people, tweeted, please stop pushing strict limits on abortion or there will be no Republicans left. John Schwepp, a right wing think tank guy who wants a full abortion ban,

is now telling Republicans to, quote, suck it up and get behind Lindsey Graham's 15 week ban as a compromise because, quote, we're getting killed by indie voters. Do you guys think that's a plausible or effective political solution for Republicans? And what does that tell Democrats about the politics of the issue, Tommy? I don't think it's plausible because the extreme right religious base wants an outright ban on abortion, and they're not going to stop until they get it. So they can say they can all, you know, get on Twitter and tell each other to chill out or at least be cool, but it's not going to work. The reason they're all saying this, though, is they know the politics of this are terrible for them. Reuters tested support for courts overturning access to Miffy, and it is wildly unpopular. 70% of the country opposes it. Another poll looked at whether medication abortion should remain legal in the US,

and Americans said yes by a 65 to 21 margin with 49% of Republicans agreeing. They support letting people get these drugs in the mail by 72%. The Dobbs decision itself was extremely unpopular. So they might be able to rally around a 15 week ban. There's some old polling pre Dobbs ruling polling that suggested 15-week ban is more popular. But I think the dynamics have shifted in a big way since Dobbs. And regardless, the religious conservatives do not want a 15-week ban. They're going to fight for what they're fighting for in Florida right now, which is a six-week ban, which basically means before you even know you're pregnant,

you are no longer allowed to get an abortion. Yeah. One way in which the dynamic has shifted in this debate is we are now living in a country that has 15-week abortion brands, and they are not an abstraction, and they are extreme, and they cause incredibly harrowing and horrible consequences for people giving birth. There are just multiple stories out of Florida about basically being tortured by the state because of abortion bans that go into effect at 15 weeks. So, you know, they can try to describe a 15-week ban as not being extreme, and it is less extreme than the six-week ban and some of the other more extreme bans that have been already put on the books. But a 15-week ban in practice will ultimately be deeply unpopular and will be an albatross around their neck like any other ban that they're putting in place. Yeah, the Post story talks about these two women

in Florida who were friends who had life-threatening complications in their pregnancies after 15 weeks and were basically told to stay home and wait because it was after 15 weeks and the healthcare providers didn't want to give them care because of a 15 week ban and you know to tommy's point florida is a great example of how 15 week ban is no compromise in these people's minds it is a stepping stone to then get to a six week ban which is what florida is already doing and you know there was an article right after wisconsin that republicans in just about every state were barreling ahead with as many abortion

restrictions as they can. And then you have places like South Carolina where a couple of Republican legislators introduced legislation that would have the death penalty for women who get abortions. Right. So like it is you're right. There may be a few political strategists in the Republican Party who are thinking that it's bad, but actual Republican legislators who have power, they are not listening to the results of these elections. They're barreling ahead. In the base of the party, it's a bunch of right-wing zealots. Yeah. So we mentioned that the fight over abortion medication will likely end up at the Supreme Court, which was in the news last week, thanks to its most scandal-plagued right-winger.

ProPublica broke the bombshell story that Justice Clarence Thomas and his right-wing activist wife, Ginny, have been riding around on private jets and luxury yachts free of charge, thanks to a billionaire Republican donor who reportedly hates fascism so much that he's decorated his home with Nazi memorabilia. That's how I show that I hate fascism. Me too. any of the trips in his annual financial reports, even though the Ethics in Government Act requires Supreme Court justices to report all gifts worth more than $415,

including transportation on private jets and super yachts. What did you guys think of the story? And what, if anything, can be done about this? I just want to say, look, Crow's weird memorabilia, that's not the biggest issue here. Oh, my God. And if we focus, that's not the biggest issue here. Oh, my God. And if we focus on that and not the ethical concerns, we're just stalling. There it is.

We're not getting it. You can tell. He's still in the joke voice. To the things in that. He's still in the joke voice. This is the best story I've ever read. Everyone should give five bucks to ProPublica. Joke wise.

I'm Paul Potka on the kettle black. That's good. I'm not doing this. Thank you. Thank you. Come on. come to our side well just give me some time it's fun over here

now or never yeah now or never so we should just talk about how much like Clarence Thomas has been accepting free trips

the one in 2019 is estimated to have cost it a half a million dollars he's been taking these trips for 20 years 20 years they pointed this out on strict and I really like that he's like I've been friends with harlan crowe for 25 years you've been on the

supreme court for 30 you met after you met after that's a benefactor that's corrupt and they and they try to pretend that they don't talk business they're just buds who just hang out and have a good time there's a literal fucking painting a portrait of crow with clarence thomas leonard leo the head of the federalist society and two other right-wing lawyers one of whom was the general counsel at omb for trump a portrait of them hanging out look you think they're not talking about like issues before the supreme court but even if they're not talking politics even if they were look this is fantastic reporting it's stunning especially with all those details and all the details they got incredible but it's very shirts it's very simple and clear-cut i don't care if they were there they

were talking about it says in the in the law that you got to disclose gifts and the personal exemption is for like lodging and right family and stuff like that it's not for private jets that's it cut Cut and dry. It's a clear ethical violation. But like when people like this, when the Supreme Court, when a justice Supreme Court tries to lie to your face and say, are we never talk business?

I mean, it's just incredible. It's so insulting to the intelligence of everyone involved and all the little right wing, you know, what do you call them? Love it. Ideological Zambonis. We're going to clean it up after this.

The Jonah Goldbergs of the world and others. Well, the thing that like Nazi memorabilia aside, which is a tough thing to put aside because some of it's sharp, but like this guy, Harlan Crow, this is a side point. He is one of these classic right-wing zealotous billionaire nepo babies this is what the coke

brothers have done this is what trump is like there's something that happens to these little boys with their super rich super successful dads who inherit these big fortunes and then just like they gotta seem like up by your bootstraps he's such a uh connor guy this he's like the everything you read about he's collecting these fucking honor seems nice he seems like seems like a... He's just collecting these sort of intellectuals around him, trying to use his wealth to give himself meaning and purpose by buying influence with all these people. No one ever talks about how Scrooge was a wealth creator. Yeah. I can see Harlan Crowe saying that. I can see Harlan Crowe saying that at their

Adirondack retreat. The other thing that's amazing about this is in 2004, the Los Angeles Times reported on Clarence Thomas taking expensive gifts in private trips from this guy, Crowe, including a $19,000 Bible and a $15,000 bust of Lincoln. So what did Clarence Thomas do? He just stopped disclosing them. Yeah, see, that to me is like the real...

He just gave up on... That's the smoking gun. He just stopped caring. The smoking memorabilia. No, the smoking gun is like the real... He just gave up. That's the smoking gun. He just stopped caring. The smoking memorabilia. The smoking gun is Hitler's gun. I mean, there's a long tradition here from Justice Scalia of going on all expense paid vacations with political benefactors and connected people and not giving a shit if anyone knows about it. Yeah, exactly. benefactors and connected people and not giving a shit if anyone knows about it.

Yeah, exactly. The other part of this, too, that I think is just so galling is you really get the sense that, like, these are the right smart people. They get together. They should be left to do whatever they like. You know, Clarence Thomas and a bunch of these conservative judges, the more power they've accrued, the more they've kind of skirted ethical rules, but also come to have incredibly narrow views about the influence of money in politics, when they need to recuse themselves from certain cases. They've kind of created a whole kind of philosophical structure about how, like, we're just meant to be ruled by these people. They're rich and smarter than us and better than us.

They deserve to just be free to gather and talk about their cases and their issues and their philosophies at the bohemian the all-male bohemian grove the creepiest fucking gathering uh this is the the sort of leo strauss school of politics um he there's so many good parts of this i would like someone please explain to me why his replica of hagrid's hut from harry potter like that's the lamest thing ever to have a, you're at a Rondak mansion, but this is my favorite part. So, uh,

there's this long history of Clarence Thomas pretending to be a common man. Uh, and ProPublica sets this thing up so brilliantly. So here's the quote from Clarence Thomas. I don't have any problem with going to Europe, but I prefer the United States and I prefer seeing the regular parts of the United States. Thomas said in a recent interview for a documentary about his life, which Crow helped finance.

Yeah, Crow financed it. Absolutely brilliant. He said, I prefer the RV parks. I prefer the Walmart parking lots to the beaches and things like that. You are so full of shit. Yeah. Did you stop there before you got on the jet to Indonesia? I also just like the idea, like I prefer the Walmart parking lot to the beaches.

It sounds like chat GPT spit that out. No one prefers Walmart parking lot to a beach. You might like shopping at Walmart, but you definitely don't like being in the parking lot. But also like, who wants to be in the parking lot of anywhere? It is just telling. The parking lot at the beach. The beach. What is the beach he's picturing in his mind? Right.

Because we have public beaches, you know, for now, I suppose. You ever been to a public beach anyway what's going to happen it's the walmart parking lot of vacation zones what can happen to him i'm going to give you the answer here uh nothing no well the senate's gonna hold a hearing oh good oh yeah oh yeah hey you two stop take down the cynical meter no the senate's gonna hold a hearing on an ethical standards of the supreme court i hope diane feinstein staff tweets something really mean about this dick durbin called on robert's open investigation into his conduct some others probably wrote letters you got derbed uh one other memorable part of this there's a description of crow's home and um some person who like got a tour of the house and was disturbed by it i think talked to like the washingtonian or something back in the day the paintings would go something done by george w bush next to a norman rockwell

next to one by hitler they're all just like laid out murderers row right there no but look they're gonna hold an ethics hearing uh they also said they're going to potentially introduce ethics reform legislation which won't pass and uh the hearing won't really do anything and uh some folks said well maybe we can impeach him but they can't because the house republicans won't really do anything. And some folks said, well, maybe we can impeach him. But they can't because the House Republicans won't impeach him, obviously. And then there was an argument that, like, perhaps, you know, AOC said he should be impeached. Perhaps by if you could force a vote on impeachment in the House, you could at least get the Republicans on record, which is, like, great. But the way to change this is to continue winning Senate seats, winning Senate seats everywhere.

the way to change this is to continue winning Senate seats, winning Senate seats everywhere and stop complaining about conservative Democrats winning Senate seats because we have a lot to win to make sure that we can replace one of these guys with a Supreme Court justice who is not Clarence Thomas or Brett Kavanaugh or Neil Gorsuch or any of these. I know I took a detour to take a shot at Dianne Feinstein, but I do on a serious note right now. Look, there's been a lot of reporting about Dianne Feinstein no longer being fit to serve in the Senate representing the biggest state in this country. She's currently out for shingles. That is sad. That is obviously not her fault. But because she is not in the Judiciary Committee, Durbin has said that it has made it basically impossible to move a lot of these lower court nominees to the Senate for a vote, which means that Dianne Feinstein, who should not be in the

Senate, is now preventing us from being able to confirm judges. And as sad as it is to sort of see someone who's had an incredibly storied and long and important career and has done a lot of good for this state, I think what the people around Dianne Feinstein are doing, allowing, you know, being part of this farce of having a lack of a senator in such an important job is really wrong. And Dianne Feinstein should no longer be in the Senate. She has to resign and more people should be calling on her to resign. Congress could also just pass some sort of ethics rule for the courts, right? I mean, members of Congress can't take a gift worth more than 50 bucks. And they couldn't

take a trip like this Indonesian vacation without pre-approval from the ethics committee. Certainly, we could pass some sort of law putting in place a little more stringent ethics. I think you'd have to go count the number of House Republicans who have been to that Adirondack retreat. I bet it's more than five. I think a Fifth Circuit judge was sworn in there. Does that help? I think the whole thing is gross and and and clearly uh reeks of corruption i also think that if clarence thomas went nowhere but the walmart parking lot he would still be uh issuing all the horrible horrendous rulings that we have seen from him over the last yeah but that's that's that gives him the pass because he can put one little sentence into a ruling that changes an entire body of law under an area for a special interest and i would and i

don't think we should put it past him. I think he'd do it anyway. But I know, but I don't know to do it. He's a extreme right wing. Yes, but he also is ruling. He's also businesses. He's also ruling on campaign finance. He's making decisions about recusal. He's dissenting in crazy ethics cases against justices, other judges.

And I think all of it, though, I think the way these things tie together, it really is part of a worldview that these right-wing judges know better and that they are there to rule over us. And their ethical questions are not for us to ask, that they can do as they please and rule as they please and tell us how to live. And I do think that genuinely connects philosophically how he views his right to just take these lavish trips and take this money as if he's unassailable while telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies. I do think that they're connected.

I'm all for the most stringent ethic reform possible for the Supreme Court. But I think we've got to get them out of there. I think we've got to get no justice. Be careful of what you're implying there. Well, yeah, it's just keep the Senate. I have an ethical reform. It's a pitchfork and a bale of hay that I'm lighting on fire. gotta get no justice careful what you're implying there well yeah it's just keep the senate i have a i have an ethical reform it's a pitchfork you know what i'm lighting on fire hey here's something uncomfortable you know what keeping the senate means get joe manchin in there who's voting for

all the right judges get john tester in there who might piss you off on some of his uh issues get them all in there who doesn't like tester he's got a good personality i like that stuff he does against an assault weapons ban that's not yeah that sucks i don't like that absolutely i don't like that about him no we don't like that at all but i'm hoping he get but but yet i'm hoping he gets back to the senate because he's voting right on judges so the world is a complicated place bob casey had a really cringy taylor swift tweet and i'm still gonna give him money and probably okay he had a much cringier position on abortion way back when and has evolved which is wonderful so good for bob casey and you have a cringy tweet that's fine he's a great guy you can work on that i don't really

regret my swerve to remind everybody that diane feinstein should retire get a couple swerves we went to sort of the psychological couch i was gonna go i was gonna go somewhere else which is like yeah you can complain about diane feinstein i agree with your rant but also the blue slip thing is stupid the dude oh my god the fuck so the blue slip thing basically there. Oh my God. The blue slip thing. Basically there's an old rule in the Senate where basically a home state Senator Republican or Democrat can basically say, Hey, I don't approve. I don't want you to nominate this person. I don't like them. I know them. They're from my community. They're, they, they seem okay, but they're shitty. Please don't nominate them. And so the idea is basically for, for judicial, for, for, for judicial seats

in a state, those senators have some say over it it's supposed to be non-ideological and non-partisan but obviously as the as the war for the courts has become a war of attrition uh and completely partisan uh blue slips have been used to just basically stop judges that republicans don't like i don't know how that affects uh how feinstein's contributing to that problem she's not it's separate from that okay i was gonna say you said it in the same that's just senate democrats being limp yeah yeah we're just separately there's the blue slip problem there's a diane feinstein problem there's the fact that we need all of our senators there in voting the feinstein problem is going to be a little bit less uh serious now

that federman's back well no but it's still stuck with the judiciary we're still stuck with the judiciary because she's in the because she's because it's because it's tied in the judiciary and there's i think a broader problem that's fair is that congress has done some to better police themselves and put better ethical standards on themselves but not all the things they need to do uh and they could create political pressure or if they would just do a little more like stock trading for example we should should be smarter on that wait what's that point about just they should be better about what we're point about? Just they should be better. About what? We're talking about judicial nominations? We should create better ethical standards for every part of the U.S. government, including Fed officials, Congress, judges, everybody.

I totally agree with that. Who doesn't agree with that? Judges, I guess. I think John doesn't agree with you. I just don't think it's going to do as much as we hope. Listen. I hear that. I hear that.

I just don't think it's going to do as much as we hope. Listen. I hear that. I hear that. Judge Kazmarek wasn't, you know, it wasn't the anti-abortion activists paying him money that made him do this. He's a fucking zealot. Well, I think so. People are zealots without being corrupt.

None of these recommendations are zero sum. No, I know. I know. But I'm just, yeah. You're just creating a straw man to push back on this. I want 18 year terms for Supreme Court justices. Let's fight for that. Let's do that.

That I like a lot. That's a good idea. Let's do actual reforms that will get the power out of these people's hands let's add seven more too let's just let's just let's just let's just put let's put two new wings on the side of that fucking table of the supreme court yeah you want a couple more yeah yeah like four more four more all right a quick update on what's happening in tennessee the legislature's republican supermajority voted to expel State Representative Justin Pearson and his colleague, State Representative Justin Jones, for the crime of speaking on the House floor without being recognized during a gun control protest. Representative Gloria Johnson, who is white, also participated in the protest, but survived

the expulsion attempt by a single vote. The Nashville City Council has unanimously voted to return Jones as interim representative until he can run in a special election to reclaim his seat. The Memphis, the Shelby County City Council is expected to do the same for Justin Pearson as early as Wednesday until he can run in a special election to reclaim his seat. But the shitty Republican supermajority remains as it does in many other red and purple states, which has a lot of people asking, what can we do about that? What do you guys think? Well, one thing that happened is I do think that these Republicans got a lot more attention than they expected. I do not think they expected to have this level of of rebuke from all the way from from the White House to basically every elected Democratic official across the

country. It's great that these two guys are getting their seats back. And Votes Save America, we raised what, like 100 grand to help the Tennessee Dems. You want to get the latest stats? No, no. Get the latest stats. Well, so what happened is we originally at Votes Save America asked to raise money for the two Justins and for their special election that they'll No, no. You have the latest stats? organizations donating as well. And then we noticed a tweet thread from Ben Wickler, who's the Democratic Party chair in Wisconsin. And he had just gotten off the phone with the head of the Tennessee Democratic Party, who said that, you know, basically, Democrats have received more than a third of the vote in statewide elections in Tennessee recently. But they only have 24 of 99 House seats and six of 33 Senate seats.

If they win a gerrymandering case that is currently before the courts on April 17th, Democrats could win. They could flip at least 12 seats and break the supermajority. And also turnout in Tennessee last election last year was the lowest in the country. year was the lowest in the country. So now we have raised over, I believe, $150,000 for the Tennessee Democratic Party so that if that case goes the right way, there's a lot of seats that could actually flip and we could break that supermajority. And I think that is something to think about all across the country. There's basically two ways to break supermajorities that come from gerrymanders. One, elections, which are obviously tough because of the gerrymander, though not impossible. You know, we almost won the special election in a state Senate seat in

Wisconsin the same day as the Supreme Court race that was extremely gerrymandered. But still, the Democrat came within a thousand votes. So it's possible. And the other way is suing in court like they're doing in Tennessee to break the gerrymander. But that only works if you don't have an extreme right wing court, which is why judicial elections are so important. And in 2024, we'll have Supreme Court elections in Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina and Ohio, where there are some really important seats up. And it's really important to sort of give to Democratic state parties and to focus on these judicial elections. Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, I think what the Republicans did here is outrageous and disgusting and despicable, but they also helped create two incredibly influential national figures

now in these state reps and focus a lot of attention on what it's like serving in a super gerrymandered state and let state legislature like the folks in Tennessee are doing. So it's a great time to give a little money to the Tennessee Democratic Party or any other activists doing great work in the state. Yeah. Think about it. Please do. Harlan Crowe wandering around his statues of fallen tyrants. What happens to these people? His father unloaded boxcars, built a real estate empire. He inherits it, given everything in his life. And he's like, I'm going to fund the club for growth. so you people pull yourself up by your bootstraps i'm a good person according to the conservatives on the twitter i think it's just tax cuts right all right when we when we come back when we come back we'll have strict scrutiny's leah litman uh talk to john lovett about

all of these legal developments And we're back. A Trump goon out of Texas issues a ruling that would stay the FDA's approval of Mifepristone. The Biden administration releases a plan to prohibit outright bans on trans athletes, but would allow schools in limited cases to block trans athletes from competing in sports. And Clarence Thomas returns from a spa day in the Adirondacks to find he's in the hot seat. To help us understand all of this, she co-hosts Crooked's award-winning legal podcast, Strict Scrutiny. Leah Littman, welcome back to the pod. Thanks for having me. All right, we have a lot to get through. So let's start with this ruling out of Texas.

I want to split this in half, if you don't mind. There are the ways in which this ruling is substantively bonkers, and then there's the ways in which it's procedurally bonkers. I just want to start. Would you mind walking us through what this judge ruled and what the legal rationale is for staying in FDA approval that went into effect the year Aaron Brockovich was released in theaters? So the judge had to clear a bunch of threshold procedural issues before actually determining whether the FDA was right or wrong to approve the use of mifepristone. So those threshold procedural issues were all

kind of crazy. I don't know if you want me to talk about those. I'm happy to. One of them rests on the theory that the judge uncovered a blog run by a group called Abortion Changes You, and he divined from their survey of anonymous blog posts that secretly women are injured by Mifepristone. This is unbeknownst to the FDA or any of the 5 million women who have taken Mifepristone over the last two decades. But that went into the threshold procedural issues. And then on the substance, the judge basically concluded two different things. One is he said this 1873 statute, the Comstock Act, that was passed during the Victorian era, actually prohibited the distribution of medication abortion

through the mail. And therefore, the FDA couldn't approve the use of mifepristone. Why these two things are related is unclear. And then second, the judge concluded that the FDA was wrong to approve the use of mifepristone because there wasn't adequate evidence to do so. Among other things, he faulted the FDA for, in 2000, failing to consider the evidence from this blog post in 2021. I think that's kind of the short story. Wow. It's more bonkers than I realized. I'm sort of just letting that sink in a little bit. So let's actually talk about the procedural issues for a minute, because I want to get to what the Supreme Court may or may not do, but the procedural questions may be a big part of it. So who brings

a lawsuit against a drug that's been on the market for 23 years? And how could they claim to be kind of injured by it? So it's a group of doctors who oppose the use of abortion. They have never themselves prescribed medication abortion. They incorporated in Amarillo, Texas last summer, maybe because the only judge in the Amarillo division of the Northern District of Texas is Judge Kazmirik, who, as it turns out, is just completely bonkers and is willing to give these plaintiffs anything they want. But this group of doctors claimed there was some risk that they would someday have to treat a patient that experienced complications from medication

abortion, even though that has never happened once in the last 23 years, and even though they themselves never prescribed medication abortion. So this entire theory rests on the notion that somehow, somewhere, some person is going to be prescribed medication abortion by some other doctor. And then these people are somehow going to find their way to these doctors who are part of this organization. And these doctors don't want to have to treat them. That's their main theory for why they've been injured. experience. Have you seen, how flimsy is that on the list of flimsiest arguments for why someone has the right to claim they belong in the court in the first place? It's one of the dumbest things

I've ever read. And honestly, if any person who listened to strict scrutiny even thought that was a plausible argument, I would feel as though my co-hosts and I have all failed at our jobs. So you can compare it to a case like the Supreme Court's decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International. In that case, the Supreme Court said the plaintiffs in the case, who were a group of lawyers, including people who represented family members, a person detained at Guantanamo Bay, the court said, you plaintiffs haven't established that it's sufficiently likely that the federal government was going to listen in on your communications as part of a new national security apparatus. So I guess I think if it's not sufficiently likely that the federal government

is going to use new national security tools to listen in on conversations of family members of people detained at Guantanamo Bay, I think it's certainly unlikely that this random group of doctors is going to be called upon to treat patients who are prescribed a medication that is safer than penicillin in Viagra. One question I had just that I hadn't – this is a stay, right? This is not – he didn't overturn it completely. He didn't throw out the approval. He said it's stay. Now, obviously, this is super strange because this has been in effect for 23 years.

But ordinarily, a stay is something that's done almost in an emergency, right? Because, like, we have to get some more information before we make a decision. almost in an emergency, right? Because we have to get some more information before we make a decision. In the logic, in this wild funhouse mirror world of logic, what is the goal of this stay? Is there some future moment where the drug will be re-approved according to the logic of this opinion? No, according to the logic of this opinion, the FDA can basically never re-approve the drug until Congress changes the relevant federal statutes. Now, the FDA can basically never re-approve the drug until Congress changes the relevant federal statutes. Now, the reason why I think he issued the stay is because it's not clear whether he could actually order the FDA through something like an injunction to begin the process of

reversing their own approval of mifepristone. So what he did is use the remedy, a stay, to essentially like place on hold indefinitely and remove any effect from the FDA's original approval of mifepristone. And that's what a stay does. And I think that's why he did it. So let's talk about what happens next. First, this is one of two dueling rulings. There was another ruling that came out at roughly the same time out of Washington that was brought by Democratic attorneys general to basically say, hey, Mifid Perstone has to stay available. How did what happens now that there are these competing rulings? government, the Biden administration has filed a motion in the District Court of Washington asking that court to provide some additional clarity about what its injunction means, where it applies, and how it relates to the order in the Texas case. So one thing is they're just asking the courts to provide them with additional guidance. Second is the administration is already asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to put on hold the Texas order staying the approval of Mifepristone. And the Fifth Circuit has ordered the plaintiffs in the case

to respond. And the federal government, the Biden administration, has asked that court, the Fifth Circuit, to rule on the matter by Thursday, which would be before the district court's stay of his own stay expires. So that's kind of what's happening initially. So if that happens, then the order would be put on hold until either the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court rules on it. Let's just talk about what happens if it does go into effect. First, there's this debate about whether the Biden administration can just ignore it. But just even if you put that aside, what actually happens? I mean, this is unprecedented in a lot of ways. A drug that's just been approved for 23 years is suddenly unapproved.

What does it even mean to say we're going to not enforce or enforce this? Isn't it in part up to the companies themselves to determine whether or not they're going to follow the law? So it is partially up to the companies. That is, the companies will have to make their own assessment about whether they feel sufficiently comfortable or whether they feel they would be exposed to too much legal risk to continue manufacturing, distributing, and providing the drug. And once this drug becomes unauthorized, I think the problem is then medication, abortion providers, distributors, doctors who prescribe it are potentially more exposed to liability under state laws that restrict abortion, including medication abortion. being an approved drug by the federal government, there's not much stopping states from attempting to enforce their own criminal abortion bans against providers of medication abortion.

And you add to that, nothing is going to stop some future Ted Cruz, Ron DeSantis, Donald Trump administration from pursuing federal penalties against the distributors and manufacturers of medication abortion, even if the Biden administration is unwilling to do so. So whether or not the Biden administration says, OK, we're going to enforce it fully or we're not going to enforce it, the chaos around this is such that basically it makes it much harder for Mifepristone to be available. Exactly.

All of that chaos and legal uncertainty is just a huge deterrent to doctors, to patients, and anyone else who thinks it's important to access Mifepristone. what might happen in the Supreme Court. Can you talk a little bit about how the conservative majority views the substance and how amenable they are to a ban like this? And then a little bit about the sort of coming back to the procedural nonsense that might put them in a position to overturn this ruling. So I think on the substance, the conservative supermajority might be partially sympathetic to some of what the district court did. I don't know if all of the supermajority is on board with the idea that this 1873 statute actually prohibits the distribution of medication abortion, you know, no matter its usage, including if it's legal, you know, in certain states. I don't know if they're

actually behind that. I think what's less clear is how they would feel about all of the threshold procedural matters that the district court had to find in favor of the plaintiffs before actually reaching the underlying substance about whether the FDA's approval of mifepristone was legal. It's not just the fact that these plaintiffs claim to injury is somewhat ludicrous. It's also that they had to prove that their challenge to this drug was timely. And I don't know how a 23-year delay in challenging the approval of a drug can possibly be timely. And the district court had no sensible explanation for why it was remotely plausible that the plaintiffs could bring this challenge now. Yeah. I felt this listening to you discuss it, and I hear it now, which is you're sort of calmly breaking down what could or could not happen in a world where in any sensible, well-functioning, legitimate court, you wouldn't have to worry. This would be thrown out as a fucking joke.

And the fact that you don't know for sure that this will be thrown out for the joke that it is, is kind of a terrifying reminder of just how far this court has gone, right? Regardless of whether or not they step in on procedural grounds. No, I think that that's exactly right. The fact that there is even an outside chance that you could get five votes for what the district court did here is utterly terrifying. And the fact that it partially depends, you know, what side of the bed Brett Kavanaugh woke up on and whether he thinks, you know, the Democrats have been too mean to him or any of his colleagues is also terrifying. But also more broadly, even if the

Supreme Court steps in and corrects this one ruling, that's not going to stop the judicial attacks on access to abortion. And the fact that anti-abortion groups can just walk in to Judge Kaczmarek's courtroom and get basically whatever they want and create a ton of uncertainty and chaos in the short term and medium term as people struggle to figure out, is the U.S. Supreme Court actually going to put a stop to this latest attack on access to abortion? And if they didn't, obviously it wouldn't stop with abortion. We'd be talking about HIV medication. We'd be talking about vaccines, whether it's for HPV or COVID.

And we'd talk about administrative rules that go beyond the FDA, right? Like this would throw this would give right wing judges across the country incredible power over the administrative state. Absolutely. I mean, in addition to the medications you listed, you know, it's also possible that people will challenge approval of contraception, you know, for certain uses. And if these federal courts can just review anything that administrative agencies do that rests on core scientific technical expertise, I mean, nothing is stopping Judge Kaczmirek from announcing that our national climate policy is now going to be a bunch of space lasers. There's just nothing,

there's no logical stopping point to this. Moving on to another topic. So the Biden administration put out a proposed rule that would bar schools from enforcing outright bans on trans athletes in school sports, saying it's a violation of civil rights law under Title IX. Now that's really important. More than a dozen states have passed bans and more are on the way. At the same time, the proposal permits schools

to create specific criteria to promote fairness and competition that could be used to remove trans athletes from sports, but those rules couldn't be aimed exclusively at trans students. I spent an hour just figuring out how to say that to understand what they're actually proposing. There was a lot of confusion and anger on social media about this. A lot of people worrying that the Biden administration is basically compromising at the expense of trans students who deserve the right to play sports. What did you make of this of this ruling overall? I think it's right to be a little wary and uncertain about how this regulation is going to play out. That being said, I do think the initial reaction

was overly negative and didn't exactly account for what this proposed regulation would do. What the regulation said is any sex-based discrimination, which includes excluding individuals on the basis of their gender identity, schools have to demonstrate that any sex-based discrimination furthers an important governmental objective and is substantially related to that important governmental objective and that it minimizes any harm to transgender students. That's a standard that courts use to assess sex discrimination claims under the Constitution. So in theory, that's a very demanding standard that schools would have to satisfy before they can exclude students on the basis of their gender identity.

Now, the rule went on to say that, you know, among other important governmental objectives are preventing injuries and preserving fair competition. But it's not clear how different that is from the 2016 Dear Colleague letter that the Obama administration sent out and, again, applied seriously. And according to its terms, it would absolutely wipe away all of these overbroad rules that just categorically exclude transgender student athletes and that are based on just hurtful stereotypes and fear of transgender individuals. So can you talk a little bit about the legal strategy here and

what the Biden administration is trying to do? Because, you know, we have a bunch of these bans moving through the courts. The Supreme Court actually just stepped in to prevent a ban that would have excluded one trans girl from playing sports in West Virginia, for example. Is there a legal strategy that undergirds the decision to say outright bans are clearly a civil rights violation, but there are these tough thresholds to meet if you want to have more targeted rules around trans participation? Yeah, I think the legal standard is basically to apply and incorporate existing law. So the legal standard that I just recited is the legal standard that

courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, use to assess sex discrimination claims under the Constitution. So what I think the Biden administration is doing here is just saying, look, Title IX forbids sex discrimination, and we're not asking courts to do anything more than just apply the standard legal test you apply in any sex discrimination case or challenge to cases or challenges that involve transgender students. So I think that they are trying to rely on established law as much as they can and avoid a perception that they are creating a rule that is specific or unique to cases involving discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Yeah, it was very confusing.

And on the one hand, I saw it and I said, oh, is this just going to allow schools that might have a more right-wing administration to just put in place a local ban that otherwise would have existed at the state level? But then at the same time, the writing in the proposal being somewhat vague creates a fear on the part of administrations that they're going to get sued, like school administrations, right? This could result in a lawsuit if they fail to protect trans athletes of access to sports. And I didn't know how to square those two things. Yeah. So I think the administration is trying to balance between different goals. And it knows, I think it is litigating in the backdrop of hostile federal courts. And it knows, I think, it is litigating in the backdrop of

hostile federal courts. And that's why I think it is doing its best to, again, incorporate existing law and avoid a perception that it is adopting a one-size-fits-all approach while simultaneously ruling out school districts or individual schools from adopting a one-size-fits-all approach that just excludes transgender students. And so the rule demands that any exclusive policy be calibrated to a specific sport, specific age, specific context. And so these categorical bans aren't permitted. And even more particularized ones have to satisfy the theoretically demanding standard for constitutional sex discrimination. One last question on this. So if you're in a, this is a rule that would say if you're a public, if you're a school that accepts any federal funding

and you can't have an outright ban, but that school's in a state that just passed a ban, this is just bound for the courts. What happens? Yeah, so it will be bound for the courts because my guess is these states will say that this regulation is not a permissible interpretation of Title IX. And that's what happened in part with the challenge to the 2016 Dear Colleague letter. That Dear Colleague letter that protected transgender students never actually went into effect because plaintiffs obtained an injunction from another district court in Texas, this one from Judge O'Connor. And my guess is you will see similar litigation challenging this rule once it becomes final. All right, let's finally, at long last, let's talk about Clarence Thomas and his wild ride. ProPublica has a fascinating investigative report on Justice Thomas' many luxury vacations, private jet flights and yacht excursions with a wealthy conservative Nepo baby and benefactor named Harlan Crow. Thomas had not

disclosed any of these trips or extravagances. There's been a lot of discussion about Crow having Nazi memorabilia. Let's just say we don't like that. I don't like it. I don't like Nazi memorabilia. But I want to know the corruptionia. But I want commemorating the genocide and war crimes are so I hear. I want to focus with you just on one piece of this because, you know, which is the corruption. One trend we've seen in recent years is as conservatives have kind of garnered greater control over the courts. They've they felt quite comfortable spreading their sort of ethical legs on the Ottoman of our country. I'm sorry. They're just manspreading all over the ethics is what you're telling me?

That's what they're doing. Thomas has been hostile to rules around ethics, around recusal, around disclosure. Can you just talk a little bit about what this story shows us about what light this shed on some of the decisions and statements Thomas has been making in the past few years about ethics? Well, so decision wise, it's impossible not to think of some of the court's major decisions on political corruption. Justice Thomas was among the justices who said that a local state judge didn't have to recuse himself from a case involving a litigant who had basically personally financed the judge's campaign to get the judge to rule on that case. Thomas is like, I don't see a problem here, right? Like, this is just what close personal friends do. No big deal. And does the Constitution prohibit having friends? No. There are also cases where Justice Thomas, alongside other justices,

has concluded that federal public corruption statutes don't prohibit giving public officials gifts in exchange for the public official setting up meetings or making calls or holding events on that donor's behalf. So I think it's fair to say he has a pretty capacious understanding about what the Constitution permits by way of ethics and political corruption. And it also seems as if he has been acting on that understanding. Do you believe that what he – now, Thomas has claimed, I didn't have to disclose because the rules weren't clear that you needed to you. I was on vacation with friends. I didn't have to tell you about that. And I just took transportation with my friend and it was a private jet flight. But the rules didn't say I had to disclose it. And now that the rules say I have

to disclose it, I'm happy to tell you about it. But I've been following the rules all along. What do you what do you make of that argument? I don't find it particularly persuasive because the rules that he's saying he's going to comply with now, they actually haven't changed. The only thing that's changed is the administrative office of the U.S. courts offered specific guidance about what those rules have always required. The operative rules haven't changed. They allowed justices in some instances to receive hospitality from friends. But hospitality is things like staying at someone's home, right? Like being flown around the country on a private jet. That's not hospitality. And that's why the rules, the administrative office of the the u.s courts say you have to disclose that i mean i don't know i've never taken a personal jet maybe that's what rich people call hospitality but i don't think normal ordinary people say that seems pretty hospitable to me olivia what do you think yeah we think it's hospitable well i mean private jet flight than hospitality that's true that's true just saying you know, I bet he had a great time. I bet it felt, I bet it, you know,

I mean, so did the Hagrid hut. That doesn't make it legal. I don't understand that. The Hagrid hut, people are just saying this. Like, that's like, what? He's also a weird Harry Potter guy? Well, Harlan Crowe is apparently a weird Harry Potter guy, given that his resort has a life-size replica of Hagrid's Hut from Harry Potter.

Listen, I just want you to know something, and I know I'll get in trouble for saying this. I was never on the Harry Potter bandwagon. I just simply wasn't. I don't like the idea of sorting children by personality traits at a young age. I think the signs were there. That's all I'm saying. I think the signs were there. Does it help that the children had some say

in where they were sorted? Don't they get a hat on their head and then the hat you can magically tell them where they... Well, yeah, but you can talk to the hat. Okay, cool. So it's nice that these children get permanently sorted.

They have some chance to say it. This is like, people get mad when kids get put into, you know, they get tracked on math when they're in third grade. This kid, you're sorted evil. Go to the basement.

Well, I look forward to you developing a sorting hat collection in your basement to commemorate this atrocity. Leah Lippman, thank you so much. And thank you for helping all of us understand what is going on.

And other than the Gwyneth Paltrow ruling, we live in a time in which the legal system is sometimes letting us down. And thank you for taking us through it. I wish you well. All right, before we go, we've got the bear head back, which means it's time for another round

of One Line with Cocaine Bear. This is a culture war edition. Where's the roar? Where's the roar, Andy? I'll put it in the roar. I'll leave this in, too. Good roar, Elijah. Good roar.

Thank you. Love it. You go first. Okay. it has landed on princess peach is too woke um there's an interesting dissensus uh on the right because on the one hand someone to claim that the super mario movie is an anti-woke success because it's going to be one of the biggest movies of all time but at the same time there are some who have noticed that uh that uh the the minds behind this adaptation have decided that your princess is in another castle is not enough of a character for the

princess. And so she's she's a hero in this film. Who's going to consume this content? Well, young kids, right? It's a cartoon. Adults, unless you're a loser, you're probably not going to want to watch that, right? Young women see stuff like this and it just brainwashes them to be a feminist, to be a badass feminist. And it's not not realistic women are not as strong as men please make her a helpless princess again okay that's a lot more fitting for princess peach now we should just be clear that it's an anti-woke success because the film survived a boycott from john Leguizamo. John Leguizamo basically said that he was boycotting the movie because Mario and Luigi

are played by white men. And Charlie Kirk seized on that and decided it was an anti-woke film now. It was a victory against wokeness. I'll tell you why it's anti-woke. Because it was a big opening weekend for Super Mario Kart. I'll tell you why it was anti- was a popular because it was a big big weekend big opening weekend they want to claim it I'll tell you why it was anti-woke

because I almost fell asleep because the movie doesn't have a great story and listen I want to make a point here which is this is the only point I want to make about

and Super Mario Brothers famously has a a very complicated interesting story the point is here's my problem alright there's

there's two movies out that you could see right now. One is Dungeons & Dragons, and it fucking rules. And you know what? It was amazing going to see Dungeons & Dragons because you go see a big budget kind of potential franchise movie, and you know you're going to have some very funny jokes because they're going to do great comedy writers come in and make it funny,

but you don't know if there's going to be a beginning, a middle, and an end that makes sense. An act one, an act two, an act three that takes you back, kind of completes the story that began in Act 1. You know, your classic movie. You never know if there's going to be just a complete calamity in the third act. Like, fuck, we ran out of time and we're shooting. No script. Whatever.

Dungeons & Dragons, excellent. Super Mario, barely makes sense. But can you talk about what was the woke factor in Dungeons & Dragons? Was it a victory against wokeness or did it succumb to wokeness? I honestly, I think it's a little bit of both. But I really like Dungeons and Dragons.

We need Dungeons and Dragons to succeed so they make movies that make sense. Super Mario doesn't make any sense. In that sense, it is an anti-woke success. Mario.

Okay, I was going to ask about that. What's going on with Mario? You're not the first to do that. Long Island hell holes There's a lot of Marios around there

I grew up with Super Mario Brothers Listen, on Long Island We say Mario And that's not the most offensive part About growing up on Long Island But also not the least You know what else succumbed to reality? My congressman is

Alright, well you pick something Out of the fucking hat then. Am I up? You go. You're up, Tom. Anti-woke. Anti-woke Princess Peach. It should be more realistic. She should rule over a kingdom of talking mushrooms.

Ridiculous. That was right-wing commentator Anna Perez, by the way. I had never heard of her before, but we're now... I don't know that she's heard of her. Hopefully now, never after. Okay, I got NPR's pro pro trans dinosaurs and pushes tentacle porn. Okay. So this comes from a segment by, of course, Tucker Carlson, where he is talking about Elon Musk's decision to label NPR as government funded media. That is a ludicrous decision. Less than 1% of NPR's funding

comes from the U.S. government. It kicked up a big fight on Twitter with, of course, Elon Musk, who is thinking about all these issues for the very first time as he acts on them in a capricious way. It's really amazing. It's wild.

He's like Jimmy Carter with the tennis courts. It's like your company's falling apart. You're relabeling NPR's Twitter handle. So here's a clip. Well, so it's tentacle porn. Okay, Yeah. I mean, technically it is tentacle porn, which is its own subgenre. And we're not going to pollute your mind by telling you any more about it than that. But what it really is, is narcissism.

Transceratops. Transsaurus Rex. Now, a lot of people say if the topic of NPR comes up in conversation, I'm all for national public radio and I'm happy to work an extra day a year to pay for it. But I'm not a trans dinosaur. I'm not. So what's in it for me as a non-trans dinosaur? That seems a little niche. So what Tucker's done there is he went and found some NPR stories, book reviews. People are talking about books they've read. One of them involves some sort of tentacle something or other. One's, I think, a kid's book for dinosaurs

and decided to hold that up as the example of why NPR is bad. If we were to take the same approach as Tucker Carlson, we might say that his show is constantly pushing the concept of testicle tanning because it was something that he discussed in his End of Men special, as if that was somehow representative of all of his work. But it is obviously not.

I just want to say I unfortunately watched the Tucker Carlson segment that led to this, and I thought I was going to assign myself for like a two-minute video clip. He did 15 minutes about NPR at the top of his show. I have not thought that. I mean, it's really just these people sitting in their homes just frothing at the mouth. Segment after segment. I hate NPR. I hate baseball now.

I hate Nike. I hate them all. I hate them all. I hate everything. Even the dinosaur thing. Even the way he explained it. It was literally like a segment of a story talking about how there's groups of queer people who like dinosaurs there's like like like you go online and there's like a community of queer people who

are really into dinosaurs you're talking to a member that was it there's nothing else that suddenly he's talking about trans dino like it's wild that's what he gets from that it's trans serotops that's i think that was one of them. Yeah, that was one of them. All right, I'm up. I think it's cool. I think that's a cool dinosaur. Okay. This is switching genders is a power move. Oh, this is, here we go.

Here's Don Jr. They're just going around impregnating all the female prisoners. Like, ah. What the fuck? Power move. Hey, if they got me for treason, I'd probably be like, I'd consider it. Be like, it's probably a lot more more fun why does he sound like that so that's don jr on his podcast saying that he were if he were convicted of treason he would consider switching genders and going to a woman's prison which would probably be a lot more fun yeah and the greatest move ever trans people famously treated well in prison so it's a smart thought. And he would impregnate all the female prisoners.

Yeah. They'd have some say in the matter. That's good. I think he'd very quickly ask to be transferred. I don't think this would go as well for him as he thinks it would. Or everyone would. The only way to have Don Jr. in prison is he's a case for solitary. Yeah.

They're not. Yeah. He was on some podcast with some guy. It's called the Full Send Podcast. I never heard of it. And I looked it up and I'd like eight million subscribers on YouTube. That was this. That was the podcast.

Yeah. That's this is the one. And these guys were all with him and his father at some UFC. This whole other sort of like ecosystem of like hyper masculine nonsense is out there. It's ultimate fighting this show that Don Jr. has somehow gotten swept into. We have to break the UFC to insurrection pipeline. It's going to be a tough one. It's ultimate fighting. This show that Don Jr. has somehow gotten swept into. We have to break the UFC to insurrection pipeline. It's going to be a tough one. It's pretty direct.

Does it make any of us feel bad that we have the same profession as Don Jr. now? Yeah. But also Barack Obama. And Michelle Obama. Runs the gamut. Ambrose Brinkstein. I mean, it's a cool group. Okay, that makes me feel better. And are they up for Webbies? I don't think so. We'll see.

Vote. And don't forget to vote for us at the webbies. Please, please. And remember the website. It's Google Webbies. Pick another. Should we pick another? Yeah, sure.

Okay, let's go. We have time. We have time. There's no limit. That's why it's a good part of being a podcast host. Boycott. Yeah, there's nothing to stop us. Boycott Bud Light.

Hell yeah. Hell yeah. So we can all talk about this, but the gist of it is that, first of all, it is amazing how much of the right wing, every part of this conversation is about the right wing obsession with trans people. So basically, Bud Light did like one promoted Instagram post with Dylan Mulvaney, a trans person who is huge on TikTok, who has drawn an incredible amount of ire from the right. The New York Post has written at least a dozen articles about this one fucking Instagram post.

Anyway, this was because of Bud Light, which led Kid Rock to get some sort of a gun. Machine gun, yeah. Machine gun, some sort of a gun. I'm not gonna, I don't, you know. I don't Machine gun, some sort of a gun. I'm not gonna, you know. I don't know what it was, AR-15? I'm not sure. And shoot.

AR-15. Shoot a bunch of Bud Lights with his gun to send a message. These gun people are really, it's one note with the move here. They're shooting things they don't like. People, guns. What do you want them to do with the gun?

Paint a picture? It does one thing. Remember Joe Manchin shot a picture of the climate bill? Wow, he's come a long way. Did you guys hear? Shot that thing right into law. Did you hear Biden's response to this? Oh, no.

That's why he wanted to do another. That is why he wanted it. Hey, Kid Rock, it's Joe Biden. Don't be such a ba-wa-da-ba-da-bang-da--dang-diggy-diggy-whiny-little-bitch-ass and just drink your fucking beer. Oh, that was good. I thought that was good. It was pretty succinct.

That was good. He said that right after he talked about he's going to run for president again in 2021. Or he said he plans to. I might run, maybe. He plans to, but I'm not going to tell you if I am. That was a good quote. Shooting at Bud Light's. All right.

Well, that's all the time we have. Thank you to AI Joe Biden. Thank you to Leah Lippman. And we'll talk to you later. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. The executive producer is Michael Martinez. Our senior producer is Andy Gardner Bernstein. Our producers are Haley Muse and Olivia Martinez.

It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis sound engineered the show. Thank you.