Tangle - The Supreme Court's gun control ruling.

Starting point is 00:00:00 Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca.

Starting point is 00:01:00 From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, the place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we're going to be talking about the United States v. Rahimi, a Supreme Court case where the court just upheld a federal law banning anyone subject to a restraining order for domestic violence from possessing firearms. So the Supreme Court basically said that states can impose those laws. We're going to talk about exactly what happened, break down some of the arguments and all that good stuff. Before we do, though, a quick heads up. We actually have a

Starting point is 00:01:53 correction. In an answer to a reader question on Thursday, we referred to a disagreement between the Supreme Court's liberal and conservative justices on originalism and textualism, saying that textualism was a philosophy practiced by the court's liberal justices. In fact, both textualism and originalism are conservative philosophies. They're very similar to each other. We credit this just to having our brains on autocomplete when reading through that portion of the answer, but somehow the entire staff made the same mistake. We regret and are more than a little embarrassed by the error. This is our 109th correction in Tangle's 255-week history and our first correction since June 18th. We track these corrections and place them at the top of our podcast in an effort to maximize transparency with our listeners. All right, with that out of

Starting point is 00:02:41 the way, I only have one other quick note before I pass it to John, which is that we published this piece on Friday in the newsletter for members only about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the potential impact he's going to have on the 2024 race. If you have not read that piece, I encourage you to go become a Tangle member to unlock the piece in full. You can do that by going to readtangle.com forward slash membership. Your membership also supports the podcast here, so it's much appreciated. All right. With that, I'm going to pass it to John, and I'll be back for my take. Thanks, Isaac, and welcome, everybody.

Starting point is 00:03:20 Hope you all had a great weekend. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that will review whether states can prohibit medical procedures and gender transition treatments for minors. Number two, Russian authorities said six people died and over a hundred were wounded as a result of Ukrainian drone and missile attacks on Sunday, while Russia continued its attacks in Kharkiv, where one person died over the weekend. Number three, four people were killed and nine others were injured when a gunman opened fire at an Arkansas grocery store. Number four, the U.S.

Starting point is 00:03:51 and China resumed semi-official nuclear arms talks for the first time in five years. And number five, tens of thousands of protesters gathered in downtown Tel Aviv over the weekend to call on Israeli government leadership to resign and Hamas to return 120 hostages. It was the largest protest since the beginning of the war. The Supreme Court upheld a law Friday meant to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. The 8-1 ruling written by Chief Justice Robert sided with the federal government. The question at the center of the case was whether it is unconstitutional to prevent domestic violence offenders who have current restraining orders against them from owning firearms. Since the founding, our nation's firearm laws have included provisions preventing

Starting point is 00:04:45 individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing guns. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. Justice Clarence Thomas alone dissenting, writing, today's decision puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more. This statute actually ends up disarming a bunch of law-abiding or otherwise good people that you might not expect when you first look at it. On Friday, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law barring anyone subject to a restraining order for domestic violence from possessing firearms. The ruling reversed a judgment by the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the law

Starting point is 00:05:21 violated the Second Amendment's guarantee of a right to keep and bear arms. The 8-1 ruling was the court's first major decision on Second Amendment issues since New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruin in 2022, which established a right to carry guns outside the home and require gun control laws to be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. That decision prompted several challenges to limits on gun possession, including Rahimi. The plaintiff, Zaki Rahimi, brought the challenge after he was sentenced to more than six years in prison for possessing a gun against the terms of a 2019 protective order for domestic violence. Months later, Rahimi was charged with assault with a deadly weapon for threatening a second woman with a gun and opened fire in public on

Starting point is 00:06:05 five separate occasions. After he was identified as a suspect in those incidents, police obtained a search warrant for his home and found a rifle and a pistol. He pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing the guns after a judge rejected his initial Second Amendment challenge to the law. The Fifth Circuit Court rejected his appeal in 2022, but reversed course in 2023 following the Supreme Court's Bruin decision, leading to the appeal to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, attempted to clarify elements of the Bruin ruling that had produced competing interpretations by lower courts in the two years since the decision. Gun control laws, he said, do not need an exact historical analog to be constitutional. Instead, the appropriate analysis involves considering whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition.

Starting point is 00:06:54 In Rahimi's case, Roberts pointed to early English and American laws empowering courts to set bonds for people who were believed to be a threat or punish people who threatened others with guns as justification for the ruling while remaining consistent with Bruin. Six justices wrote separate concurrences challenging the scope of Roberts' opinion. Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Katonji Brown Jackson. Sonia Sotomayor and Jackson, two of the court's liberal justices, criticized the Bruin decision in their opinions, with Jackson writing that the constitutional test set by the ruling is

Starting point is 00:07:29 proving difficult for lower courts to apply through no fault of their own. Barrett and Gorsuch, two conservative justices, had differing arguments about how Bruin should be interpreted. Barrett said Bruin requires a wider lens that looks for a principle in early laws to support gun regulations, while Gorsuch said that specific historical analogs should be required, but that Roberts had properly identified them in his majority opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas provided the lone dissenting voice, objecting to the idea that someone could lose their Second Amendment rights without having been convicted of a crime.

Starting point is 00:08:03 Rahimi was initially subject to a protective order, not convicted of a crime. The court and government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen's Second Amendment right based on a possible interpersonal violence, Thomas wrote. He argued that the government should prosecute anyone it thinks has committed an act that should bar them from owning guns. Today, we'll explore arguments from the right and the left about the court's ruling in Rahimi, and then Isaac's take. We'll be right back after this quick commercial break. In an era of global crises and polarization, journalism must bridge divides now more than ever. Semaphore, the world's first news platform

Starting point is 00:08:52 tailored to this reality, offers unparalleled transparency and diverse perspectives. Their flagship newsletter, a trusted source for CEOs and industry leaders, distills key global narratives into a sleek, insightful, and comprehensive format. Thank you. You can sign up for free by going to Semaphore.com. That's S-E-M-A-F-O-R dot com. Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it

Starting point is 00:09:50 feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca. First up, let's start with a little bit of agreement. Both sides broadly agree with the outcome of the case, though they view its

Starting point is 00:10:41 implications differently. Most commentators also note that the number of concurrences in Rahimi suggest the court still needs to further clarify the precedent established in Bruin. All right, let's move on to what the right is saying. The right is mixed on the ruling, suggesting the court did little to resolve the underlying issues in the case. Some say the decision shouldn't be seen as a blow to the Second Amendment. Others support Roberts' guidance on how to assess the constitutionality of gun laws. In National Review, Dan McLaughlin said the ruling dodges questions about due process of law. The underlying facts in Rahimi were extreme. Mzaki Rahimi, a drug dealer, fired his gun in public five times at five different people in the span of five weeks, McLaughlin wrote.

Starting point is 00:11:25 But what's legally relevant isn't the facts that came out later in the prosecution of Rahimi, but what sort of judicial process was used to impose the order of protection in the first place, because that's the basis upon which his gun rights were restricted. The ruling brushed aside, at least for now, serious questions about whether the protective order system provides adequate due process of law. There's a fair dispute here. This was a close case. I'm inclined to think the majority was right that the founders saw dangerousness as the touchstone of the limits on the right to bear arms and that the founding era precedent of the surety laws is close enough to show that a civil process

Starting point is 00:12:00 for finding dangerousness can be used to restrict the right to bear arms, although as Gorsuch observed, that leaves open not only due process questions but also the duration of those orders. In the Daily Signal, Amy Swearer argued that the decision doesn't constitute a defeat for the Second Amendment. There is plenty of reason for Second Amendment advocates to see Rahimi as more of a draw than a loss, although certain aspects of how the Supreme Court majority came to this conclusion will likely be intentionally or recklessly misused by the same lower courts that have misused Heller, McDonald, and Bruin to uphold gun control laws consistently in much less complicated cases, Swearer wrote. The majority explicitly left open future challenges to the

Starting point is 00:12:45 second and more concerning basis for disarmament. In addition, there is significant room to challenge restraining orders or other types of similar disarmament measures, such as red flag laws. Nothing in the Rahimi case suggests that the Supreme Court is interested in rolling back core assertions made in prior Second Amendment cases. Quite the opposite. The majority reiterated, among other things, that regulations such as surety laws are not a historical analog for broad prohibitions affecting ordinary nonviolent citizens, and that the Second Amendment reach isn't limited to guns existing at the time of the founding, Swearer said. These are all good indications that, even if the Supreme Court is skittish about striking down laws aimed at disarming clearly violent people such as Rahimi, it remains committed to vindicating the rights of

Starting point is 00:13:29 ordinary law-abiding citizens. In the New York Times, David French wrote, Clarence Thomas and John Roberts are at a fork in the road. If the Fifth Circuit's ruling had stood, lawmakers seeking to justify virtually any gun regulation would have to be prepared to find colonial or early American analogies for their proposed restriction or watch it fail in court. This would have meant that lawmakers facing modern gun violence problems involving modern weapons would have been constrained into essentially colonial and founding era legal solutions, French said. In essence, that is the exact reverse argument that some gun control proponents make, that the Second Amendment protects only possession of colonial-era weapons. Under the Thomas test, the Second Amendment would only permit colonial-era restrictions.

Starting point is 00:14:14 The court's majority opinion clarified their approach to text, history, and tradition in a way that freed lower courts from the straitjacket of finding precise historical analogies. Such reliance on a specific, narrow, past legislative approach isn't required by originalism. It is, itself, a policy of choice, French wrote. The difference between Roberts and Thomas is clear. Roberts looks to past practice to establish a principle. Thomas looks to past practice as essentially establishing precedent. Roberts gets it right. When we consider new policies in the present, the acts of the past are instructive but not binding. Modern American lawmakers are not limited by the colonial imagination. All right, that's it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying.

Starting point is 00:15:09 The left supports the decision but criticizes the court for past rulings that compelled them to hear this case. Some say the decision lays the groundwork for future rulings to expand gun access. Others say the conservative justices showed they have a limit to their support for gun rights. In The Guardian, Moira Donegan wrote, The court is fighting legal monsters of their making. That a circuit court would have restored gun rights to men who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders reflects just how extreme the federal judiciary's gun jurisprudence has become, and, as in their abortion jurisprudence, how casual and careless many federal judges

Starting point is 00:15:44 are with women's lives, Donegan said. And, as in their abortion jurisprudence, how casual and careless many federal judges are with women's lives, Donegan said. But the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Rahimi also reveals the logical inconsistencies in the foundation of so-called originalist legal interpretation, the unworkability of the court's insistence on historical precedent for every government regulation, and the growing divisions among the conservative justices about just what history and tradition should mean. That so many of the justices who voted for Thomas's interpretation of Bruin just two years ago voted against that same interpretation today

Starting point is 00:16:14 just goes to show how hollow an approach originalism really is. It is a doctrine that can expand or contract based on the justices' political preferences in whichever case happens to be before them, Donegan wrote. They have so much control over the law and so much indifference to precedent and consistency in how they wield it that they can call upon virtually any interpretive scheme they choose, label it originalism, and claim to have exercised a principal interpretive strategy. In The Nation, Elie Mestal suggested the court got the ruling right, but for completely bonkers reasons. If you actually read Opinions, Concurrences, and Dissents,

Starting point is 00:16:52 what you see is a group of conservatives desperately trying to square their extremist reading of the Second Amendment and their violent rulings of the past, with the objective reality that domestic abusers should not be allowed to own firearms to menace their victims, Mistel said. Robert's historical analogies are tortured and wacky, but this is what Roberts does. When he likes law but realizes that upholding it goes against his ideological priors, he just makes stuff up. He did this with Obamacare, converting it into a tax to avoid giving the government its obvious power to regulate health care under the Commerce Clause, and he's doing it again here. The court's other conservatives all wrote their own concurrences, each with a crack at explaining why Bruin is still a super awesome ruling, even as they departed from

Starting point is 00:17:35 it in this case. But the upshot from these concurrences is that they're still free to apply Bruin in the next gun case, Mistal wrote. And that next gun case has actually already happened. The court's decision in Garland v. Cargill reaffirmed the violent contention that, since bump stocks were not banned in the long-ago past, they cannot be banned now. Taking Rahimi and Cargill together reveals a court that has not backed off its extremist interpretation of the Second Amendment. In MSNBC, Jessica Levin said, the decision shows limits on guns are difficult but not impossible. Eight justices sent an important message. The Second Amendment's right to bear arms is not entirely unlimited. There are

Starting point is 00:18:17 situations where the government can restrict gun possession. This may come as a surprise to many who have watched the conservative-dominated court bolster gun rights over the years but in reality it is an attempt to keep the lower courts in check after a series of vague and harmful rulings levin wrote how one might ask is there even any question as to whether someone like rahimi could be barred from possessing guns even temporarily the answer is that over the last 16 years, the court made two big conclusions about the Second Amendment that have created a high, high constitutional bar for imposing gun control measures. The opinion from Chief Justice Roberts represents an important clarification of the new standards the court has created over the last 16 years, Levin said. It is, in effect,

Starting point is 00:19:01 a relatively narrow shift, focused as it is on whether people like Rahimi, who threw their girlfriends against dashboards and fired shots at restaurant workers who declined credit cards, can temporarily lose their right to possess guns under the court's recent decisions. It remains difficult for governments to limit gun ownership and possession, but Friday's decision affirms that difficult is not the same as impossible. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take. All right, that is it for the left and the right are saying, which brings us to

Starting point is 00:19:40 my take. So as usual with Supreme Court cases, I think it's pretty helpful to analyze this case in two different dimensions. First, the logic of the ruling, and then its practical outcome. I often find myself split on these questions, where the outcome is something I want, but there are elements of the ruling I'm skeptical of, or vice versa. In this case, I'm happy about the outcome and completely satisfied with the logic the court took to get there. My analysis of the outcome is simple. People like Zachary Rahimi shouldn't be able to own a firearm. Rahimi was abusive toward his girlfriend, fired his gun at a bystander who witnessed his abuse, and regularly brandished and fired his gun in public as a means to threaten

Starting point is 00:20:21 people. In the protective order issued against Rahimi, a judge also prohibited him from owning a gun. That seems totally sensible to me. As with any right, there are restrictions and limits on the right to bear arms, and we employ the judgment of lawyers, courts, and judges all across the country to impose those limits. If the state can't keep people like Rahimi from legally owning a firearm, even for brief periods of time, people like Rahimi from legally owning a firearm, even for brief periods of time, it's hard to imagine any permissible limits on the Second Amendment at all. So, a good outcome. The legal argument is slightly less black and white, but to me, no less satisfying. Clarence Thomas' dissent made the best argument you can make from a weak position that the court had erred in its 8-1 ruling, saying that the only mechanism states can use to disarm someone is to convict the person of a violent crime. The real question, Thomas said,

Starting point is 00:21:10 is whether the government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order, even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime. It cannot. On this point, I fundamentally disagree. In fact, I think protective orders that temporarily disarm someone are a great use case for such orders, and I think they are constitutionally sound. Court proceedings take time, trials regularly require months or years to conclude, and obviously dangerous and unhinged people like Rahimi regularly commit violence in those intervals. We already jail people for awaiting hearings very regularly, which is a much more expansive restriction on personal rights than firearm prohibitions. That's one of the reasons we

Starting point is 00:21:50 have judges, to make difficult decisions to temporarily restrict someone's rights to ensure the rights and safety of others. I'm totally comfortable with states passing laws that allow a judge to disarm someone in extreme cases, cases like Rahimi's, where doing so will protect the safety of those around them. Of course, just because the argument is sensible doesn't mean it's absolutely constitutional. To get there, the majority needed to find some kind of historical analog to meet the legal test set out in Bruin, that the government has to determine a regulation is consistent with the historical understanding of the Second Amendment. Roberts seemed to do that easily, identifying historical examples of English and U.S. laws that forced people who were

Starting point is 00:22:29 a threat to post bond and other laws punishing people who threatened others with guns. If threatening someone with a gun has historically been enough reason for legal punishment, it would seem to me that physical abuse, threats, or other dangerous behavior provide ample justification to restrict someone's ability to possess a firearm. As Roberts put it, the two examples confirm what common sense suggests. When an individual poses a clear threat of violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed. The most interesting aspect of this ruling to me is how it will impact gun control going forward. Rahimi makes substantial changes to Bruin, or at least substantially limits it. Laws that are relevantly similar to historical

Starting point is 00:23:10 regulations on gun control can now withstand constitutional muster, rather than needing to be well-established in representative analogs, which is how the Fifth Circuit interpreted Bruin previously. Roberts also instructed courts to consider applying faithfully the balance struck by the founding generation to modern circumstances and made it clear that these historical examples do not need to be quote-unquote twins to modern laws, explaining that if that were the case, the Second Amendment would only protect muskets and sabers. It's clear that even among the conservative justices, there is meaningful disagreement, which might come out in future Second Amendment cases.

Starting point is 00:23:46 While Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all seem to have agreed with the outcome here, they differed in how they got there, diverging so much on questions of originalism broadly and how the legal theory should apply to regulations like this, that they each pen their own concurrences. As the Manhattan Institute's Ilya Shapiro put it, concurrences. As the Manhattan Institute's Ilya Shapiro put it, this ruling shows that originalism is a rigorous intellectual enterprise, not some post-hoc rationalization for conservative outcomes as its bad faith critics allege. In the short term, though, this ruling clarifies the reach of Bruin and will have its biggest impact on federal and state laws that prohibit convicted felons from having guns. Hundreds of challenges to those laws are happening

Starting point is 00:24:25 across the country, but this ruling is going to give lower courts good reason to uphold the laws as is. It should also add more support for the constitutionality of red flag laws and other attempts to restrict gun ownership among violent offenders or domestic abusers. The court's decision in Rahimi illustrated some division among the conservative justices on originalism and Second Amendment cases, but after the chaos and confusion Bruin invited, it mostly clarified the upper limits of how far the Second Amendment extends. For that, the law should both be clearer and more accurately reflect the will of the people. We'll be right back after this quick break. world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+.

Starting point is 00:25:34 The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at FluCcellvax.ca. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your question's answer. This

Starting point is 00:26:19 one's from an anonymous reader in Rome, New York, who said, why do you insist on using the word cancel to describe the executive branch wiping out loans to student borrowers? You should describe it for what it really is, which is transferring debt to another group, the taxpayers. Okay, good question. And I've actually gotten this question or comment from a lot of people as we've covered President Biden's various actions to try and forgive student loans over the course of the past year. President Biden's various actions to try and forgive student loans over the course of the past year, and I've mostly just dismissed it as a semantic complaint, but I think there's enough real concern behind this idea that I wanted to address it. First, and right away, I do think this

Starting point is 00:26:56 is mostly semantic. The government is the loanholder for these debts, and the loanholder has the right to cancel balances of the loan. It really is that simple, and I use the terms cancel or forgive to describe these actions because they're simple and they're accurate. But I want to acknowledge some counterpoints here. The federal government is funded by tax dollars. When the budget it gets from taxpayers isn't enough to account for the amount it spends, it runs a deficit, and that money will eventually be covered by one of two ways, budget cuts or extra revenue through taxes. Either way, taxpayers pay the price. The government canceling debt is really just adding to its deficit, which is paid for either directly by the taxpayer or indirectly through the cuts to services that

Starting point is 00:27:39 taxpayers would have otherwise funded. That is a bit of an oversimplification, but it's largely accurate. From a reporting standpoint, though, describing the government forgiving a loan as transferring debt to the public is much more complicated. When a bank forgives a loan or cancels a debt, that balance coming off its books also has to get covered from some other source the institution tracks. But since the bank is the institution in that case, the bank just cancels the loan. It's the same thing with the government. It holds the loan, it cancels the debt. Hence our choice to use that word. That said, I certainly agree that everyone should understand that quote-unquote cancel doesn't simply mean the debt goes poof. The money has to come from somewhere.

Starting point is 00:28:20 All right, that is it for today's reader question. I'm going to pass it back to John for the rest of the pod, and I'll see energy power plants. The Advanced Act, which passed with just two senators voting no, is the most significant action Congress has taken to promote clean energy since Democrats pushed the Inflation Reduction Act through Congress two years ago. The bill will bring down costs for developers and streamline the permitting process by cutting fees and speeding up approval times. Congress hopes it will facilitate more development of new wave projects like small modular nuclear reactors. CNN has this story,

Starting point is 00:29:10 and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, next up is our numbers section. The approximate number of women in the United States who have been threatened with a gun by an intimate partner is 4.5 million, according to the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions. The approximate number of women in the U.S. who have been shot or shot at by an intimate partner is 1 million. The number of women fatally shot by an intimate partner in the U.S. in 2020 was 740, according to Everytown. in 2020 was 740, according to Everytown. The percentage of female domestic violence homicide victims in the U.S. who were killed with a gun is 66%. The percentage of Americans who support

Starting point is 00:29:52 banning those convicted of domestic violence from purchasing a gun is 82%, according to a 2023 poll from 19th News' SurveyMonkey. The percentage of Republicans who supported banning those convicted of domestic violence from purchasing a gun is 81%. The percentage of Democrats who supported banning those convicted of domestic violence from purchasing a gun is 91%. And the percentage of Americans who support stricter laws covering the sale of firearms is 56%, according to Gallup. All right, and last but not least, our have a nice day story. Water is a key element for sustaining life on any planet, making any discovery of water on a distant world exhilarating for any astronomer. Recently, a European space probe discovered thousands of gallons of frost within

Starting point is 00:30:40 the calderas of volcanoes on our closest orbiting neighbor, Mars. The team described the discovery as a significant first that could provide a major breakthrough in the search for life on other planets. A separate discovery in the same region showed evidence of lava tubes leading to new theories about the potential of the red planet once having been able to support life. World at Large has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that's it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to readtangle.com and sign up for a

Starting point is 00:31:20 membership. We'll be right back here tomorrow. For Isaac and the rest of the team, this is John Law signing off. Have a great day, y'all. Peace. Our podcast is written by me, Isaac Saul, and edited and engineered by John Law. The script is edited by our managing editor, Ari Weitzman, Will Kabak, Bailey Saul, and Sean Brady. The logo for our podcast was designed by Magdalena Bokova,

Starting point is 00:31:46 who is also our social media manager. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. And if you're looking for more from Tangle, please go to readtangle.com and check out our website. We'll see you next time.

Tangle - The Supreme Court's gun control ruling.

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.