The Majority Report with Sam Seder - 3524 - NYC Primaries, Trump's Not So Ceased-Cease Fire, w/ Leah Litman

Episode Date: June 24, 2025

It’s Tuesday News Day, not there’s a lot news to discuss these days. We open with the NYC Mayoral Democratic Primaries and discuss Zohran Mamdani and Brad Lander’s appearance on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert and the strange direction taken by the host. Then we bring on the great Leah Litman to discuss her new book, LAWLESS and the Supreme Court in general. Check out her podcast with Kate Shaw Strict Scrutiny In the Fun Half we check in with Charlie Kirk and Tim Pool as they tie themselves into knots trying to keep their tongue on Trump’s boot. Speaking of Trump, he drops an F Bomb (plug the kids ears) on the White House Lawn over Iran and Israel not listening to him. And as promised there is some actual  fun had as we watch a car wash owner in Torrance, CA gives ICE the business. All that and more, folks. Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase! Check out today's sponsors: NUTRAFOL: Get $10 off your first month’s subscription + free shipping at Nutrafol.com when you use promo code TMR10  ZOCDOC: Go to Zocdoc.com/MAJORITY and download the Zocdoc app to sign-up for FREE and book a top-rated doctor.  SUNSET LAKE: Use the code LEFTISBEST to save 20% at SunsetLakeCBD.com  on all their farm fresh CBD products for people and pets. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech Check out Matt’s show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder’s YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon’s show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza’s music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder – https://majorityreportradio.com/  

You are listening to a free version of the Majority Report with Sam Cedar. To support this show and get another 15 minutes of daily program, go to Majority.fm. Please. The Majority Report with Sam Cedar. It is Tuesday, June 24th, 2025. My name is Sam Cedar. This is the five-time award-winning majority report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, USA.

On the program today, Leah Littman, author of Lawless, how the Supreme Court runs on conservative grievance, fringe theories, and bad vibes. Also on the program, Donald Trump. Trump declares Iran-Israel ceasefire, but apparently forgot to tell them. Also on the program, Israel continues to bomb Iran. Also, kills 25 Palestinians waiting on aid in Gaza as the death toll exceeds at least 56,000 people. Supreme Court allows deportations to countries to which deportees have no connection and no opportunity to challenge. Senate Republicans watch as the parliamentarian strips down Trump's Medicaid cuts bill, but the Medicaid cuts are still there, bigger than they were in the House. Emil Bovey, Don Trump's judicial nominee, repeatedly suggested violating court orders while working at the Department of Justice.

Doctor and Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, caveat Emptor, regrets his RFK vote as he calls for postponing RFK's Vaccine Advisory Panel, joke of a panel. The Fed signals it won't move on interest rates until Trump's tariff non-policy is resolved. Remember, in two weeks,

we're supposed to have 60 deals done on tariffs. Federal judge blocks Trump's blocking international students from attending Harvard. NATO meets at the Hague. Trump to do

teeny tiny short days while he's there and lastly it is primary day ladies and gentlemen in New York City other places too around the state

maybe in unlikely in other states why would you do this at this time but the race is neck and neck

Zoran Mamdani Andrew really arguably maybe could belong in prison Cuomo we shall see we'll have more on that

later all that and more on today's majority report welcome ladies and gentlemen Emma is out today apparently taking a long

longer than a one-day honeymoon. A bit indulgent. All right. I mean, I didn't do that. Not like there's a war on or anything. I took two days. I went later. Now, with that said, things didn't necessarily work out for my marriage.

Yes, I got a haircut. I appreciate the nice words that we're getting on the IM. I think they saw you fussing with it. No one mentioned anything in the office. though. All right, let's get right to this. Let's put up this graphic. Today is primary day. The statistics that we're starting to see that we know from the voting at this point is pretty astonishing. 25% of the people who have early voted in this mayor,

election have not voted in a Democratic primary since 2012. Now, there's a couple of different ways to read this. I suspect that doesn't mean that you have a bunch of people who checked out in 2012, and this is the first time I suspect it's a lot, it's an indication of how young the electorate is. Something like 50% of the people who voted so far are under the age of, of what was the number? Is that in this?

Put this statistic up. Early voters by age, you will see that 50% maybe more. 25 to 34 year olds have cast the most early ballots. Now,

It's 47% under 44. Okay. That's amazing. Under the age of 44. The other, let me just do some quick math here. 12 years ago, those 25-year-olds would be 12. 12 years ago, those 34-year-olds would be 22. Don't I know it?

Probably did not vote in the primaries. I mean, this is what we're seeing is new. voters coming in to vote in this primary. Never mind new voters, early voting, new voters coming in to vote in this primary.

That is not good for Andrew Cuomo. But it is good for humanity broadly. I mean, that may be a little bit expensive, but remember the big deal that was made about Eric Adams. Now, To be clear, there is also a primary election this year.

So this is not going to be a cakewalk for Zoran Mamdani if he wins the primary. The general you mean? There's going to be a general election this year. That is going to be heavily contested. That said, there is an opportunity for New Yorkers to do something very, very important. in at least having this guy win the Democratic primary. Mamdani and Brad Lander, who were early cross endorsers relative to this race, showed up last night on the Colbert Report.

And I have a feeling that regardless which one of these two wins, and Lander, I think, by all accounts, has no real opportunity to win at all. um i think he would probably uh concede that at this point in no you don't do that publicly but the polling is such that mondani mom dani has the only real chance to beat quamo uh but of course in rank choice voting you can vote lander first mom dony second um and that's why they cross endorse or you can do vice versa uh just do not put quomo on that ballot they went on colbert last night, and it was really interesting where this conversation went and how quickly it went there. I'll give you my thoughts on it in a second. Why do you think this particular race has become

a countrywide story? I think in some ways, because it's a referendum on where our party goes. What we're talking about is a race that has now seen the most funded super PAC in New York City's municipal history, a race that is, you know, one that billionaires and corporations want to buy. Pause for one second. I just want to put a fine point on that. $25 million worth of PAC money. $25 million worth of PAC money in the Democratic primary.

The only silver lining I can tell you about that is the guys who spend these billionaires money, they spend it for themselves. They get a 10 to 15% Vig on every ad they place. And so they're going for the most expensive way of expending that money as opposed to putting people knocking on doors. Mom, Donnie had something like knocked on something like 1.5 million doors in New York City. It's insane. It's an insane amount of people power.

But I just go back a little bit. seen the most funded super PAC in New York City's municipal history, a race that is, you know, one that billionaires and corporations want to buy. And this is a tale that we're seeing across this country, where it's a battle of organized money versus organized people. And ultimately, it's a question for our own party of how do we move forward? Do we move forward with the same politicians of the past, the same policies of the past that delivered us this present? Or do we move forward with a new generation of leadership? that is actually looking to serve the people. Despite this being a New York City race, foreign affairs have become part of it, partly because this is such a multicultural city. And so I'll ask the same question to both of you. I'll start with you, Mr. Lander.

Does the state of Israel have the right to exist? Pause it. How deep into the interview is this? this is four minutes the first few minutes were them talking about cross and dorsing each other and then the minute and a half we just saw I want you to think about New York City and all of the issues that would face a potential mayor and I can assure you

that impacting policy regarding Israel is so low on the list. And even if you did that setup, New York City is an international city, it also happens to be the home of the largest amount of billionaires, largest amount of millionaires. It may tie into what Mom Donnie was saying about money and politics. But put that aside, it is also, I would imagine, has the most amount of immigrant population in the country

and diversity of immigrants as the past five or six months has been about immigrants and immigration and ICE and court cases I the only thing I can think is

because Colbert's politics are usually better than this and so the only thing I can think about is that it's quite possible and certainly in a show like this that the candidates come on

and say, ask us about Israel. Because if I'm going on this show, I am going on the late show. I think I called the Colbert Report. I'm going on the late show because I want to talk to old people who

are like me. And I mean this specifically. Like, my age, late 50s, 60s, 70s. That's, you know, that's who watches these shows. And I want to make them feel comfortable with Mamdani, because Andrew Cuomo has been putting out on these same airwaves over and over again. Not a friend of Israel, not a friend of Israel. And so that's what I think is going on here, as creepy as it is. But let's hear their answers. I'm a beta.

breath, are we going to launch an invasion of Israel? I support the vision of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Mr. Mamdani, same question. Does the state of Israel have the right to exist? Yes, like all nations, I believe it has a right to exist and a responsibility also to uphold international law. Okay, well, let's talk about the elephant in the room, is that there are many people in New York, even people who would support your candidacy otherwise, who don't want to support you because of the Jewish community's fear of the Jewish community's fear of, of the true and rising anti-Semitism, not only around the world, but in this country and

shamefully in New York, which is the largest Jewish population of any city other than Tel Aviv in the whole world. And they are worried. They're very upset by some of the things that you've said in the past, and they are afraid that your mayorship would actually lead to increased antisemitism, that they believe that that would be more dangerous for them. What do you say to those New Yorkers who are afraid that you wouldn't be their mayor, that you wouldn't protect them. You know, I know where that fear is coming from. It's a fear that is based upon the horrific attacks we've seen in Washington, D.C., in Boulder, Colorado. It's a fear... All the way from Jews will not replace us to today. And it's a fear that I hear also from New Yorkers

themselves. You know, just a few days after the horrific war crime of October 7th, a friend of told me about how he went to his synagogue for Shabbat services, and he heard the door open behind him, and a tremor went up his spine as he turned around not knowing who was there and what they meant for him. I spoke to a Jewish man in Williamsburg just months ago who told me that the door he left unlocked for decades is now one that he locks. And ultimately, this is because we're seeing a crisis of anti-Semitism. And that's why at the heart of my proposal for a Department of Community Safety is a commitment to increase funding for anti-hate crime programming by 800%. Because to your point, anti-Semitism is not simply something that we should talk

about. It's something that we have to tackle. We have to make clear there's no room for it in this city, in this country, in this world. And no justification for violence of any kind? No, there is no room for violence in this city, in this country, in this world. And what I found also, for many New Yorkers, is an ability to navigate disagreement. You know, I remember the words of Mayor Koch, who said, if you agree with me on nine out of 12 issues, vote for me. Twelve out of twelve, see a psychiatrist. And I had an older Jewish woman come up to me at Banai Jesher in a synagogue many months ago after a Democratic Club forum. And she whispered in my ear, I disagree with you on one issue. I'm pretty sure you know which one it is. And I agree with

you on the others, and I'm going to be ranking you on my ballot. And I say this because I know there are many New Yorkers with whom I have a disagreement about the Israeli government's policies. And also, there are many who understand that that's a disagreement still rooted in shared humanity. Because the conclusions I've come to, they are the conclusions of Israeli historians like Amos Goldberg. They are echoing the words of an Israeli prime minister, Ehud al-Mayer, who said, just recently, what we are doing in Gaza is a war of devastation. It is cruel, it is indiscriminate, it is limitless, it is criminal killing of civilians. these are the conclusions I've come Stephen, can I? Sure, please.

And by the way, pause for one second. Now, I will say, like, you know, this is pretty masterful stuff because he is not backing down from his positions and he is basically just explaining how he's trying to provide a permission structure

for older Jews who remember Ed Koch, incidentally. he's not talking to anybody under my age by bringing up Ed Koch he is literally just talking to a specific cohort let's just play another make because I want to hear a lander here but I'm surprised that this was brought up in this and can only imagine that this was invited by the candidates may not have been and if not like

I mean people just listen Listening to that question, when we cut it off, thought, like, dude, you got to let it run out because he's obviously doing a joke. Before you answer, I want to say, if we're not able to fill, fit everything in this interview on the broadcast, we will put the whole thing up online unedited. Okay, go ahead. So, look, I'm a proud Jewish New Yorker raising two Jewish kids here is the joy of my life. I'm the highest ranking Jewish elected official in New York City government. I'm nervous about rising anti-Semitism. And also, I believe. in the humanity and the human rights of Palestinians. And I know that it is possible. I support that vision of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state,

but I hate what the Netanyahu government is doing in Gaza. And I've been saying that a long time. And look, no mayor is going to be responsible for what happens in the Middle East, but there is something quite remarkable about a Jewish New Yorker and a Muslim New Yorker coming together to say, here's how we protect all New Yorker,

All New Yorkers, Jews, Jewish New Yorkers and Muslim New Yorkers are not going to be divided from each other. We build a city where you have affordable housing and good schools and safe neighborhoods for everyone. Well, Mr. Mamdani, how do you, I'm just curious, how do you think, you'd be the first Muslim mayor of New York, how do you think you could build a bridge of understanding between the significant Muslim population here in the city and the significant Jewish population here in the study. How do you think you could lower tension? I think by foregrounding that humanity. And in many ways, that's the most New York City thing we can do.

Because for so many of us who've grown up in this city, difference is something that we celebrate. It's something that we know is actually a part of the fabric of this place that we call home. And, you know, many years ago, I was the campaign manager of a Jewish candidate for state Senate, and I took him to a mosque in Bay Ridge. And after he gave his speech, Friday Prayers, an older Palestinian man came over to him, and he looked at him and he said, Cousins. And I think that there is this possibility of building a shared life in our city,

because ultimately that is the story of New York City. It's a shared life of people from across the world. And it's one that we know, even in the language of the hostage families themselves, everyone for everyone. We are tied together as one. We have to take a quick break. I mean, that's impressive stuff. That's really impressive stuff. um and we're going to see this i mean look the bottom line is what i also find interesting some of the stuff that quomo has been doing or not doing reads to me like he's already sort of thinking i'm going to have to run in the general as not a democrat and this

appearance also has that feel of momdani sort of like understanding if i win this primary I'm going to have to deal with this in the general so I might as well do it now because I think he understands he can't get if he can't sell this in the primary he's definitely not going to be able to sell it in the general and as time goes on

he's going to have he's going to be even better at this I mean I don't know how much room there is frankly to get that much better but it's really really impressive and good on lander and then also blake and mary some of the other candidates for going against quomo and uh you know this is how this should look all right in a moment we're going to be talking to lea litman she's the author of lawless how supreme court runs on conservative grievance french theories and bad vibes and uh be talking the supreme court in general uh we still have a couple of opinions expected from the supreme court uh and we got well not an opinion

this morning, but another shadow docket ruling. We'll talk to her about that as well. When was the last time you needed to go to a doctor but pushed it off? Like... Like right now? I just caught up on a bunch of like my appointments last Thursday, but I'm too busy. I don't need help.

I don't want to deal with... I don't want to chat. know what doctor to go to. I don't know if they've checked my insurance. Okay, everybody's been there. Booking a doctor appointment can feel daunting. But thanks to Zoc Doc, there is no reason to delay. They make it super easy to do. They help you find a doctor, book a doctor, one that's right for you, and also, like, make the insurance process, which is always a huge hassle, at least make it transparent, so you know what you're getting into. Zoc Doc is a free app and website where you can search and compare high-quality in-network

doctors and click to instantly book an appointment. Talking about booking in-network appointments with more than 100,000 doctors across every specialty. Mental health, dental health, primary care, urgent care. It doesn't matter. All of it. I mean I think most of it

the vast majority of it I don't want to say all but I would imagine almost that I've never found anything not you can filter for doctors who take your insurance you can filter for doctors that are located nearby that are a good fit for any medical need

you may have highly rated by verified patients then once you find the right doctor you can see their actual appointment openings so there's none of this like do you have anything after 3 p.m., unless it's a Thursday, in which case I can do starting at 10 a.m., unless, of course,

I have to go across town, in which case it's 11, and then they go back and forth. No, you can see their appointment openings. You choose a time slot that works for you. You click it, and then instantly you have booked a visit. Appointments made through Zoc Doc also happened fast, typically within 24 to 72 hours of booking. You can even score same-day appointments. uh you've used uh zoc doc before and i know emma has the yeah pick into time is the i mean that's the key uh feature of it for me just oh yeah 315 on a friday makes it so easy and it's also just so much easier to know like i've got all the insurance stuff i know it up front uh emma has also had great experience with zoc doc i had my doctor before there was an internet so

but I'd like to thank Zoc Doc for sponsoring today's episode I did actually was out of town once and found a dentist through Zock Dock Dock Did they used to advertise with us a long time ago? I'm pretty sure

I think so Stop putting off those doctor's appointments and go to Zocdoc.com slash majority Find it instantly book a top-rated doctor today That's Zoc doc Z-C-D-C dot com slash majority

Zocdoc.com slash Majority. Also on the program to know, I should know. Also, I don't know if you've ever heard of Neutrophol. I have. I've been using it for

like three or four years now. I thought I was getting a little thinning. I didn't want to take drugs. but i wanted to have uh... thicker hair and to keep my hair as i you know uh... sundown which is happening actually uh... like this afternoon is like i mean this morning

uh... you may have heard of neutral falls hair growth supplements and wondered do they actually work it is a fair question many hair supplements over promise and under liver but neuter fall is different as the number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand it's trusted by over one one point five million people it is clinically tested to deliver real results in just three to six months thinning hair of course is different if you're a man or if you're a woman so a one size fits all approach to hair growth doesn't cut it neutral fall has multiple formulas for men and women that

are tailored to fit different life stages postpartum menopause lifestyle factors such as a plant based lifestyle so you can get adjust what you need plus users of NutraFal men reported no impact to sexual performance. While many supplements rely on ingredient studies, Nutrafol test the entire, the final formulations. So they don't just look like, oh, some people get some results with this vitamin and that, no. The final formulations are tested. They use advanced measurement tools like hair counts and pull tests

to track real improvements in hair growth, quality, shedding, and texture. It's not just backed by studies. Their research is published in peer-reviewed journalists and journals, rather, and vetted by doctors, ensuring scientific rigor and reliable results. Building hair growth routine is easy. You order online. You don't need a prescription. Enjoy free shipping, automated deliveries, and up to 20% savings with a Nutrafall subscription. Plus, get free naturopathic doctor consults and a Headspace Meditation membership. start your hair growth journey with NutraFall for a limited time. NutraFall is offering our listeners 10 bucks off your first month subscription and free shipping.

When you go to NutraFol.com, enter the promo code T-M-R-10. That's the letters, T-M-R-R-T, and the number 10. Find out why NutraFall is the best-selling hair growth supplement brand. NutraF-F-O-L-L-com, promo code T-Mr10. That's Nutifol.com. promo code TMR 10. All right, quick break, and when we come back, we'll be talking to Leah Lippman, author of Lawless, how the Supreme Court runs on conservative grievance, fringe theories, and bad vibes.

We're going to be able to be. I mean, the Yeah, and uh, Yeah. And uh, Yeah.

And Yeah. And I'm I'm And We are back, Sam Cedar on the Major Report, Emma Viglin, out on her honeymoon. It's a pleasure to welcome back to the program, Leah Lippman.

She is the author of Lawless, how the Supreme Court runs on conservative grievance, French theories and bad vibes and you do a podcast with Kate Shaw the name escapes me what is the strict scrutiny is the podcast I enjoy that quite a bit

it is one of the legal podcast I listen to to get my fix of never having become a lawyer despite all the greatest wishes of my family all right so with that said I want to talk

about your book in general and then we can sort of apply it to what we're seeing on a daily basis um your vision of the supreme court is one which is we are looking at legislators of some sort but really are doing so based on a particular almost like psychological deficiency uh it feels like I mean, first, let's talk about how grievance seems to have, like, really taken over the court. And let's go back, too, even to, like, I feel like Scalia was the unofficial chief justice of that grievance. Yes, so I think that that's totally right. The book is about how the Republican justices are fashioning the law and sometimes just declaring the law to be the political talking points and feelings. of the Republican political elites.

And the big feeling, or at least one of the big feelings, is this idea of conservative grievance, the notion that the core constituencies of the Republican Party, social conservatives, religious conservatives, plutocrats, super rich, they are the victims today of a variety of discrimination,

maybe because society doesn't share their views, anytime the law doesn't go their way. And so they're taking this idea that Republicans, conservatives are an oppressed minority and using that to justify all of these outlandish rules that essentially give Republicans more and more political power, social control, and entitle them to do whatever it is they want. When did, like, when did you, when did this first begin?

I mean, I know that in like, uh, uh, it was it 2012, that year you were, uh, clerking for Anthony Kennedy, who I also find to be a very interesting figure and his sort of journey over those years. But when do you think this became the case? I mean, I think there's always been a quality about the Supreme Court, at least it's been my sense that there's a lot of reverse engineering. It really just becomes, you know, it's really just a question of like what the threshold is for what parameters you need to stay in in reverse engineering things. But it seemed to really drop out at one point for the right. Yeah.

So I think that that's right. The Supreme Court has always been political, ideological. But what's accelerated over the last few decades is how partisan they are and also how sloppy and just feeling like they don't even have to conceal these partisan talking points into the semblance of plausible legal arguments. As to when that happened, I agree with you that Anton and Scalia was really showing seeds of this, particularly later in his career. In the chapter on LGBT equality, for example, I write about how Justice Scalia's dissents in the cases invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act, or the case invalidating state laws that criminalize

consensual sexual intimacy between persons of the same sex, those dissents really previewed, how the Republican justices would eventually form majorities around this idea that the Constitution protects their prejudices and actually gives them the right to engage in discrimination at the same time that it doesn't protect the LGBT community against discrimination. So I think there are several key moments in the Supreme Court's history. I mean, Bush versus Gore is obviously this key moment where the court jumps the shark. I was going to ask you about that because that does seem to me to be the crossing of the rubicon

and I distinctly remember that Newsweek had a story back when Newsweek was a substantial publication

that in that was actually going to run I think on September 11th or 12th of 2001 that there was a big fight that broke out over the summer when they met with some Russian judges who were ostensibly coming to see how they could, and it broke out over Bush v. Gore, and give me your sense of, like, it was at the moment where at least the Scalia guy was like, we can get away with

this? I mean, I think so. That was a moment where the Republican just ordered a state to halt its recount, risk disenfranchising minority voters, ordering the state to certify the Republican candidate as the victor on the basis of this legal theory that they announced, well, this is only good for this case. And then three Republican appointees write separately just to announce, well, here's this other potential theory that basically allows us to roll back voting rights protections that state courts or state executives attempt to protect. So yes, I think that was a real moment where the Republican justices, if the public was ever going to draw a line and say, this is something you justices can't do, you would think that it would be effectively deciding

the result of a presidential election on the basis of a cockamamie theory, disenfranchising citizens. Alas, you know, that line was not drawn. And so what happens after that? Well, they feel okay dismantling the Voting Rights Act, campaign finance regulation, announcing the partisan gerrymandering, can't be remedying in federal court, overruling Roe and basically facing no consequence for doing so. And the list goes on and on. And so I just think the problem is really sure. snowballed since then. Yeah, I mean, what accounts for that, I mean, just in terms of Scalia, like, do you think that he was just sort of sundowning?

Because, you know, Scalia was the type of guy that, like, you know, not to single anybody out, but my father would say, but he's so brilliant. And there was this real sort of like, you know, I mean, he may have been, you know, particulators, and I don't know if he was a brilliant jurist, you know, in the 90s, but certainly by the time you get to, like, the late aughts, he's just parroting Rush Limbaugh. Yeah. So, you know, I think this is always a tough conversation because I think if you look at his decisions, I point to his 1996 decision in Romer v. Evans, where the Supreme Court invalidated a state constitutional amendment that prohibited municipalities in Colorado from protecting the LGBT

community from discrimination. Justice Scalia writes this angry homophobic dissent about how the court has signed on to, he calls it, like, the homosexual agenda, right? This is also Lawrence v. Texas in the early 2000s. So I think that this is someone who had his moments, but was clear, you know, that, like, he was always kind of on the side of the social conservatives, religious conservatives who were insisting that the Constitution just protects, you know, traditional understandings of sex, sexuality, and marriage. And he didn't really feel the need to justify that beyond just pronouncing it. He, uh, he sort of echoed that in, was it the 2013, um, a rollback of the Voting Rights Act, where he said, we're giving special,

privilege to black people in their voting or something. He called it a racial entitlement. The voting. Yeah, that's cute. Right. No. Was that one of the ones, when you look at the milestones that are hit, is that one on this trajectory? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, the Republican justices on the Supreme Court invalidated a key part of the Voting Rights Act that had been renewed on a bipartisan basis, you know, on a unanimous vote in the Senate. right so like republicans and electoral politics felt like there is no basis for us not to renew the voting rights act and justice Scalia somehow turned that into a constitutional problem with

the voting rights act he said you know they're going to lose votes they're going to lose votes if they vote against the act but if a politician were afraid that they were afraid and that's why that's how democracy works exactly right the idea that democracy victimizes them what it doesn't entitle them to do whatever they want, right? Like, that is just very upside down. That's, I mean, that, that, I, just as we were talking about, I remember that part of it. And it is insane.

The end, particularly because up until that moment, maybe before that, the only thing that we heard through the 90s, in particular, into the early odds was judicial activism, judicial activism, judicial activism, which was purportedly where judges go and make up the law and supersede the legislature. And that was, that was beyond, that's not just judicial activism. That is like mind reading and telekinesis and, I mean, it was insane. Yeah.

And, you know, you add to that that the Chief Justice's majority opinion, manufactures this constitutional problem with the Voting Rights Act, the supposed difficulty that arises when Congress imposes a rule on some states but not others. That rule didn't exist. It's nowhere in the Constitution's text. The Reconstruction Congress obviously treated the former Confederate states very differently than it treated, you know, the states that had fought for the union. And in order to cite a case that suggested such a principle existed, the chief justice had to insert a misleading ellipsist in a prior opinion that literally made the case say the exact opposite of what it had said. So the extent of their lawlessness and entitlement on matters of democracy and

voting rights is really something to behold. I want to get into some of the other sort of fringe theories that they've developed as a way of sort of like getting to where they want to get to. But maybe like temporarily it's a good in terms of the timeline of this, the development of these theories, talk about your, or if you feel comfortable talking about Anthony Kennedy, because, I mean, the thing that I remember the most about Kennedy was his whole gerrymandering sort of journey, where he had said that at one point, if we had had a clinical way of determining or a methodical way of determining whether something is, or mathematical way of determining whether something is actually overly gerrymandered, then maybe I would, then the court

would have to address it. That subsequently did end up happening and he didn't vote that way, but also he said that in Citizens United, It won't be a problem with people spending money because disclosure will, in fact, inhibit people from doing this. And then subsequent to that, we find out, like, oh, well, it doesn't matter if there's disclosure six months after the election, the election's over. What was your sense with that guy? Was that just sort of like a game? Or was what was happening with? I mean, those are very big, sort of core democratic, small D issues there.

Yeah, I mean, like, he also joined the majority opinion in Shelby County, dismantling the key part of the Voting Rights Act. So I know people look back on Justice Kennedy and think of him as, like, this moderate institutionalist center of the Supreme Court. And it's true, he was like the median swing justice in the sense that he sometimes voted with the Democratic appointees on big issues like LGBT. equality and sometimes with the Republican appointees on other issues like campaign finance and voting rights. I think the reality is, however, he was a hardcore conservative and Republican.

He just had, you know, one or two matters where on issues of LGBT equality, he understood, you know, the humanity and dignity of that community. And there were also a handful of cases where he was moved for, I think, institutional reasons to be convinced that he couldn't overrule a prior decision like Roe or couldn't overrule prior decisions upholding affirmative action because that would make the court look too political. But again, his instincts were always pointing him toward the kind of hardline Republican position because he was appointed by a Republican and was a Republican. That dynamic that you talk about where he had a institutional, he had field teachers to the institution of the Supreme Court, that to me

seems to be the sort of like the the that's where the rubber meets the road and it has shifted and and I want to you to talk about these fringe sort of doctrines that they have developed because for lawyers it seems to me that notion of protecting the institution of the law and many of them grow up like

perceiving it as like a there are members of a clergy protecting institutions of the law and the notion of precedent and following, you know, stare decisis is all something that like, they have the latitude to move, but it's almost just like tradition and some type of like peer pressure on some level is what keeps them in line. And that sort of fell us away. and I wonder what your theory is to why. I mean, was it a function of like the Federalist Society

developing its own sort of like guardrails and creating a different sort of like water that they're swimming in? Or what was it? I think it's a combination of two things. I do think that part of the story is the development of the Federalist Society and this alternative ecosystem

that would validate them, validate the justices for doing the things that the conservative legal movement wanted them to do so they were no longer just looking at that. media, which is reflective of public opinion. Now they had this entire universe that was just telling them, you will be patted on the back for doing Republican things and you will be criticized if you depart. But you add to that the decline of our institutions. And I think that that also made the Supreme Court feel more removed from public opinion and therefore more able to

depart from it. Given Senate malapportionment, for example, it's now so much easier for a majority of senators not to represent a majority of the country. It's easier for the president because of the electoral college to win the presidency when he doesn't win the popular vote. And I think that those institutions becoming more susceptible to capture by minorities also make the Supreme Court feel less pressure to respond to public opinion. Because realistically, the pushback against a Supreme Court, meaningful pushback, would come from Congress. And if Congress as an institution is now more responsive and more accountable to increasingly narrow segments of the country, then the Supreme Court will feel that they can be too as well.

Do you think that the Democrats failed to recognize the way that the Supreme Court, and liberals broadly speaking, the way that the Supreme Court was changing and the sort of the development of the Federalist Society? And still, it seems to me, they still, I mean, I know Diane Feinstein probably was not had her full wits about her, but you know, when she wanted to hug Lindsey Graham, like this was a great hearing. I mean, all those things, it's haunting.

Even Obama in pointing Garland and then not when, when's he going to get an interview, not just keep, like it was so much fealty to the institution that it would have been like untoward to send up another night. nomination. Yes. So I completely agree the Democrats failed to see what was happening before their

eyes. You know, as the Republican Party was becoming increasingly radicalized, as the conservative legal movement was becoming increasingly weaponized, they just deny that that was happening and continued to have this image of the Supreme Court and the Republican Party in their heads that just reflected a bygone era. I do think that the problem persists to this day. And it is, you know, constantly coming back to haunt us, that the Democrats, you know, again, didn't see that Republicans were indeed going to do the thing they promised to do overrule Roe versus Wade and therefore did not enact a federal law that protected abortion rights throughout the entire country. You know, they failed to adopt other federal legislation that could have safeguarded

other rights that are not in jeopardy as well. Let's talk about a couple of those fringe theories. I guess the biggest one, it seems to me, well, the two that seem to play the most, One would be the unitary executive theory, and we should note, this is a theory that's been around for 50 years now, almost like transported through time by Dick Cheney, who was chief of staff for, I think of the Nixon administration, or was he chief, I think he was, and helped develop this. And then the other one is the major questions doctrine, which is just sort of like a, it's like a get out of free, get out of jail, free card. It's like a wild card that you can just throw down at any time. Yeah, it's like a Trump card that they get to pull against Democratic administrations that say you don't actually get to do things that are authorized by law.

If we Republican justices and the Republican Party think they're a big deal, it is as Justice Kagan called it like a get out of law, get out of text free card that allows the courts to say statutes don't actually mean what they say. You know, the unitary executive theory is just one of the more consequential fringe theories that has just become this insurgent idea that has cannibalized, you know, the Republican views on presidential power and so much of the law. You know, it was really pushed by the Reagan administration, you know, after you say, kind of flirted with by the Nixon administration, it maintains that presidents have all of the executive power and therefore have to be able to control everyone in the executive branch

and that they possess some unclear set of additional unspecified powers. You know, that is the idea that the Trump administration is probably relying on to justify the strikes against Iran. That is the legal theory that they have invoked to justify why they can summarily expel people to El Salvador. That is the legal theory they have invoked to allow Donald Trump to fire people like heads of the national labor relations board in violations of federal law. And it is this grossly ideological theory that threatens to upset so much of our constitutional system because it, in effect, places the president above the law in many different areas. It was channeled by the immunity decision, the catastrophic immunity decision. So yes, that's another one of their fringe theories that,

unfortunately, now seems to have a majority support. I want to talk about what cases you think are going to be really important that we're going to hear about. I would have, like, it could be literally any day now. Yes. But let's talk about the one that was decided again in the shadow docket. It is, just briefly remind people what the shadow docket is, how the use of it has changed, and how it changes. What's fascinating about the shadow docket is, if you had a graph, you could see it. use would be up here from 2016 or so to 2020. Then it's down here and then it's back up here

again in 2024. It's an amazing coincidence. Totally coincidental. So the shadow docket refers to the set of orders, opinions, and decisions that the Supreme Court issues without full briefing and without oral argument. You know, there are legitimate things that the Supreme Court does on the shadow docket, like deciding, for example, whether the Solicitor General of the United States gets to participate in oral argument. But what has changed over the last 10 years is increasingly the federal government, in particular when the federal government is led by Donald Trump, asked the Supreme Court for stays, pauses of lower court decisions that rule against the Trump administration. The number of emergency requests on the shadow docket has just, you know,

multiplied manyfold where, you know, between the Bush and Obama administrations, you know, there were something like eight requests by the federal government over a period of like 16 years. You know, now the Trump administration has made like 40-something requests of the court, not even within the first year of the administration. And the Supreme Court has granted a lot of those requests. So they just, without explanation sometimes, without any advance warning, issue a decision that puts on hold a lower court decision. and allows the Trump administration

to implement a policy that a lower court has declared illegal. The ostensibly, the shadow docket was to essentially prevent some type of irreconcilable harm if this was not stopped, right? And it's quite clear from these things that, like, there's no

there's no irreconcilable harm if people that you want to deport are not deported today as opposed to in four weeks or six weeks or whatever. I mean, you know, you could argue like, we can't deal

with keeping them in a detention center or whatever it is, but that just seems spurious. But I wonder how like this rise in the use of the shadow docket. I know that Trump is not getting along with

Leonard Leo anymore or supposedly not. But Leonard Leo has been the fixer for the Supreme Court for decades now. He introduced when Clarence Thomas was going around telling everybody, I don't think I can stay on the court because I don't have enough money. Leonard Leo introduces him to a billionaire. I can't remember his name now, but his best... Harlan Crow. His best friend

who, I mean, it's great. You meet people when you're on the Supreme Court and they take care of you. But I've got to imagine that the idea of, let's try the shadow docket. This will work. Didn't sort of just organically grow. It feels like this must have been a strategy or a tactic that was developed on sort of both ends of whatever street is between the White House and the Supreme Court. Yeah, it is something where if the Supreme Court actually wanted the Trump administration to knock it off, right, and not be inundated why all of these requests, they would just deny them, right? But they are instead creating this incentive for the Trump administration to continually run off to the Supreme Court because they keep granting a lot of these requests.

And indeed, they are granting requests in cases where lower courts found that the Trump administration had not complied, failed to comply with lower courts. court orders. And those are the same orders that the Supreme Court is essentially wiping away and telling the Trump administration, yeah, you don't have to comply with those. No big deal. That's what just happened in this third party deportee case. My understanding of the case is, is that U.S. immigration law says that if you're going to deport a potential deportee to a third country, not the U.S. and not their country of origin, they have an opportunity to have a judge or, you know, have the list of countries presented to them,

and they can go to a judge and say, I can't get sent to that country because of my background or whatever it is that could be dangerous for me. They went through that process, and there were some countries they couldn't go to, the judge found. And then the Trump administration just added some other countries and didn't give them that due process. Is that basically what the case is about?

No, that's completely right. The Trump administration just trying to shuttle people off to countries where people have never been, might not have even heard of. And when their order of removal didn't tell them, you might have to go to this other country. You know, the United States is a signatory to the Convention Against Torture, which Congress has implemented by legislation. And so if an individual faces a risk of torture, persecution, violence in another country under federal law. They have the legal rights, right, to challenge their removal on that basis and not be deported there. And so what the Trump administration is doing is denying people the ability to raise those challenges because they are just telling people,

you know, at 5 p.m. at night, oh, tomorrow morning, you're going to be shipped off to South Sudan. And then the next morning, they put them on a bus and put them on a plane. And indeed, send them off to the country without notifying them, you can challenge your removal to this country because, again, you were not previously informed that you might be deported there. And some of the places where the Trump administration has attempted to shuttle people off to include Libya, where people are at risk for being trafficked and sold into slavery if they are imprisoned in some of the places where they might have been held. So the shadow docket basically overturned, essentially, a federal judge in Boston, I think it was,

ruling. What are the implications of this beyond the specifics of this immigration, of this specific immigration scenario? I think we should read the Supreme Court's order as effectively emboldening and greenlining the administration's failure to comply with lower court orders, because they are not facing any penalty for doing so. Here at the lower court order, the government, you know, did not comply with it at least twice, you know, after the lower court had blocked the administration

from carrying out these third country removals without providing people with a notice and an opportunity, the federal government first took some people to Guantanamo Bay and then sent them to El Salvador and argued that they had not violated the court order because the court's order only applied to the Department of Homeland Security. And they put the people on planes by the Department of Defense, right? That is not a good legal argument. Subsequently, they deported people to South Sudan and argued they had complied with the court's order because they had provided them with 16 hours notice overnight, by the way, without informing them of their ability to challenge their impending removal to South Sudan. Again, they were not in

compliance. And the Supreme Court is just telling them, you're not going to face any penalty for giving lower courts the middle finger. What other cases? I mean, that's why it makes me think of the birthright citizenship case because in that case and correct me if I'm wrong the issue of birthright citizenship is a second to order in terms of the case

that the Supreme Court is hearing the real issue is whether a federal appeals court or circuit court can issue a nationwide injunction whether there's a subsidiary court to the United to the Supreme Court

can issue a nationwide ruling, essentially sort of barring the Trump administration from stripping the rights of people who have been born in this country from their citizenship. And that's the question. Yes. So the issue in the case is whether a lower court can issue what's called a nationwide injunction, basically block a policy that is illegal on a nationwide basis. And if the Supreme Court said they can't do so, or if they limit federal court's ability

to issue that order. I think that has the real potential to allow the Trump administration to implement wildly illegal orders, you know, in some Republican-leaning states that are unlikely to challenge some of the Trump administration's illegal conduct, particularly because the Trump administration is taking the astonishing view that if a private plaintiff successfully challenges one of their executive orders in Texas or in the Fifth Circuit, which oversees Texas, they, the federal government, are not obligated to apply that decision to other people. So what would that mean? If one U.S. citizen baby in Texas successfully sues to challenge the birthright citizenship executive order and obtains a decision that says, you indeed are a citizen because this birthright citizenship order is unlawful, the federal government is holding out the possibility of still refusing to recognize the citizenship of other babies in Texas who haven't sued

and didn't sue to challenge the order. I mean, that to me seems like almost definitionally the dissolution of law, right? I mean, if it's a per person basis, it's like you're in the stettel and you're just going to the rabbi and can you make it, can you decide which one of us owns this donkey? It is, there's no law anymore in that instance. It is just a person by person sort of like determination. No, that's what Justice Jackson referred to at oral argument in the birthright citizenship as a catch-me-if-you-can regime that effectively gives the executive branch the power to opt out of the law, right, and not enforce the Constitution and federal law in cases where they can get away with it. What other, and we don't know when that's going to be resolved, but it's going to be in the next two weeks, probably. Maybe in the next day.

That's when we expect. Traditionally, the Supreme Court issues opinions and argued cases by the end of June, although they have occasionally gone into July as of late. What other cases are you that are, where decisions are still extant, that you think will be the most important? There are a lot of big ones. There's a big case about the future of what remains of the Voting Rights Act and whether it is unconstitutional for states to try to ensure that voters of color have the opportunity to, the candidate of their choice in districts. There's a case about whether parents have the right to opt out

their children from instruction in public schools that include storybooks with LGBT characters. So those are probably three of the biggest cases that I'm watching for. We're going to be talking about the schematic case tomorrow with Chase Strangio.

Where are we on the Chevron doctrine? and the a non-delegation these these are our are our our principles that essentially allow for the uh for agencies to um follow the the spirit of the law as it were and execute the law in a way that really only experts could well where are we on that so the Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine last term, that doctrine had allowed agencies to interpret ambiguous, unclear words in the statutes they implement, like the EPA with the Clean Air Act. This term, the Supreme Court has on its docket, a case that invites the justices to revive the non-delegation

doctrine. That doctrine, which the Supreme Court only enforced in 1935, as the court was invalidating New Deal programs, says there are limits on the extent to which Congress can empower. other entities such as administrative agencies to write rules and regulations that govern what private citizens can do. Of course, rules and regulations are most of how health, safety, economic, you know, rules and regulations are written today. Agen are such an essential part of modern governance. You know, Justice Kagan wrote in a dissent that if the non-delegation doctrine is brought back, then most of government is unconstitutional. And so that is another one of the cases we are awaiting a decision on. Which case is that specific? That's the consumer's research

decision. It's about the Federal Communication Commission's Universal Service Fund, in which a group determines the amount that different common carriers have to pay in in order to fund broadband for rural areas, among other places. Okay. And so I guess, lastly, if we have this shared understanding that the Supreme Court is a political entity and that it must be addressed with politics, do you see any politicians out there who are Democrats who have an appreciation of this? I mean, Biden, to his credit, did a good job of making sure to fill all of the seats that were empty, as opposed to Obama, who left a lot of, like, you know, low-hanging fruit for Donald Trump to really dominate the judiciary.

Biden was very, in my opinion, very good in terms of making sure there were nominees and, frankly, having a wide range of nominees that were probably as diverse as any that we've seen. in several decades. But are there any politicians? But he was also very adamant in the way that he set up a commission to look at, like, any type of Supreme Court reform to absolutely deep six it, you know, it was dead on arrival.

Yes. Do you see any politicians out there that have like a better understanding of like the moment we're in and what maybe we're going to need to do if there's an opportunity to do it? Yes, I think that there are, Absolutely some, particularly in the House. So Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,

you know, in the Senate, Senator Tina Smith, back in the House, Representative Jamie Raskin. I think those are people who have signaled they understand what is going on with the federal courts and understand that sort of structural democratic reforms that are necessary in order to protect our democracy from the United States Supreme Court. There's also actually a former a legal journalist who is running for a Republican seat in Congress held by Mike Lawler. This is Mike Sacks. And I think he also very much gets what's happening with the federal courts and the Supreme Court as well. Leah Littman, the book is lawless, how Supreme Court runs on conservative grievance, fringe

theories, and bad vibes. We'll put a link to that as well as your podcast at majority.fm and in the YouTube and podcast descriptions. Thanks so much for your time today. I really appreciate it. thanks so much for having me all right folks we're going to take quick break head into the fun half of the program uh wherein we will have fun um we have no updates on voting let's see a couple of pictures though do we have a couple of those photographs we'd show you um it is uh right now in New York City

I'm going to check on this it is a balmy let's see here I get 98 on my watch well I have 99 but of course I would imagine it depends on where you are

it's 97 in Manhattan that's in the Seaport area group pier 17 apparently and that's right by the water. So you get the cool breeze that cools it down to 97. It's like 108 in South Brooklyn. Is it really?

I saw one overhead, yeah. It's over 100 in a few places in the city. Here's a image, and where is this from? Do we know? This is Astoria. Oh, is the last day of early voting? Okay, sorry. I don't have, I don't know if we have any updated pictures in terms of lines and whatnot.

but look if you're going out there and you're waiting in line you know take some water stay hydrated obviously it's easier for young people to stand in line

we got you old people you can let us take care of this one for you I would hate to see anybody go out there just to prevent

Zoran Mamdan from winning the primary and getting heat stroke. I just... It's not worth it. It's just not. We have one image here, actually, which is kind of funny. This is from Chris Somerfelt of New York Daily News. This is a midtown where one of Andrew Cuomo's staffers

is holding a parking spot for him in front of a polling site he's soon expected to vote at. Cuomo is registered to vote a few blocks from here, but is still driving over. although it looks like he had issued a correction here let's see what does that say quomo actually walked up to the pole with his daughter but i guess they were just holding that spot for him for some other reason wait wait let's say scroll down because i want to see him walking there i mean mr mimdani is half of your age but do you trust in question his ability to leave uh i trust his experience level uh he's never had a real job He's been a two-term assemblyman who only passed three bills.

He's never really been interested in government at all. That's weird. He's interested in public relations. And he's very good on social media. He was quoted in the times when they basically said, my God, Cuomo's aged so much. It just feels like in the last five weeks. Grandpa.

good grandpa he's very good with the computers and uh he first of all quomo was uh almost mom donnie's age when he had his first um uh nepotism a job in uh in the clinton administration i think uh as at hud um bill clinton was 35 when he was elected the governor of Arkansas. I also seem to remember that Andrew, that Mario Cuomo, when Andrew turned 50, did not go to his birthday party. I know.

Sometimes. Was he visiting the grave of a grad student, a friend of his? That's the only excuse I've heard from the Federman thing. Oh, is that what that was? You know, I got to say, you know, as a parent, Sometimes you don't think that your kids turn out the way you want them.

I understand where Mario is coming from. That's all I'm saying. Not my kids. My kids came out perfect. All right. So go vote. Go vote. And listen, if you are in line right now, listening to the show,

I.M.S. if you're a member or call us and send us on Twitter at the majority.com on blue sky. Let's do it on blue sky. Let us know that you're on there. Maybe send it to me, actually, because I don't, I got to get into the blue sky.

Send it to me and give me your area. code will pull you out of line. So just at me on blue sky. All right. Just reminder, it's your support that makes this show possible. You can become a member at join the major report.com when you do, and only get the free

show free of commercials, you get the fun half. Also, just coffee.coffey.com. Fair trade coffee, hot chocolate. Use the coupon code. Majority, get 10% off. Great company. but wait a second he pulled away from his uh his polling site that was interesting all right we'll see you in the fun half wait first tonight left reckoning oh sorry sorry back left reckoning uh seven o'clock eastern time is scand der sadigi and uh derick davison talking

about iran uh check that out patreon dot com slash left reckoning three months from now six months from now nine months from now and i don't think it's going to be the same as it looks like in six months from now, and I don't know if it's necessarily going to be better six months from now than it is three months from now. But I think around 18 months out, we're going to look back and go like, wow. What? What is that going on? It's nuts. Wait a second. Hold on for, hold on for a second. Emma, welcome to the program. Hey, fun. Matt. What is up, everyone. Fun rap. No, Miqui.

You did it. Fun rap. Let's go Brandon. Let's go Brandon. Fun rap. Bradley, you want to say hello? Sorry to disappoint. Everyone, I'm just a random guy.

It's all the boys today. Fundamentally false. No, I'm sorry. Women's... Stop talking for a second. Let me finish. Where is this coming from, dude? But dude, you want to smoke this?

Seven and eight? Yes. Hi, this is it? Yes? Is this me? Is it me? It is you. Um, is it's me?

I think it is you. Who is you? No sound. Every single freaking day. What's on your mind? We can discuss free markets and we can discuss capitalism. I'm going to go to life. Libertarians.

They're so stupid, though. Common sense. says, of course. Gobbled E gook. We fucking nailed him. So what's 79 plus 21? Challenge men. I'm positively quivering.

I believe 96, I want to say. 857. 210. 35. 301. 1 half. 3-8s. 9-11 for instance.

$3,400, $1,900. $6.5,4, $3 trillion sold. It's a zero-sum game. Actually, you're making think less. But let me say this. Poop. You can call it satire. Sam goes at satire.

On top of it all, my favorite part about you is just like every day, all day, like everything you do. Without a doubt. Hey, buddy, we see you. All right, folks, folks, folks. It's just the week being weeded out, obviously. Yeah, sundowns out. I don't know. But you should know.

People just don't. like to entertain ideas anyway. I have a question. Who cares? Our chat is enabled, folks. I love it. I do love that. Look, got to jump.

I've got to be quick. I get a jump. I'm losing it, bro. 10 o'clock, we're already late, and the guy's being a dick. So, screw him. Sent to a gulaw? Outrage. Like, what is wrong with you?

Love you. Love you. Bye-bye.