The Texan Podcast - Weekly Roundup - June 7, 2024

Episode Date: June 7, 2024

Show off your Lone Star spirit with a free "Remember the Alamo" hat with an annual subscription to The Texan: https://thetexan.news/subscribe/ The Texan’s Weekly Roundup brings you the latest news in Texas politics, breaking down the top stories of the week with our team of reporters who give you the facts so you can form your own opinion. Enjoy what you hear? Be sure to subscribe and leave a review! Got questions for the reporting team? Email [e-mail] — they just might be answered on a future podcast.This week on The Texan’s “Weekly Roundup,” the team discusses the most interesting upcoming primary runoff elections, including:Here's a Review of the 2024 Primaries and RunoffsBiden Executive Order to Block Illegal Border Crossers from Claiming AsylumAbbott, Texas DPS Release Most Wanted Criminal Illegal Immigrants ListComplaint Filed Against Four Texas House Republicans Alleging Violations of GOP Caucus BylawsMajority of New House GOP Caucus Issues Letter Opposing Democratic Chairs in Blow to Phelan SpeakershipTravis County DA Jose Garza Set to Announce Action on Daniel Perry PardonState Bar Accused of ‘Lawfare’ Against Texas Attorney General Over Challenge to 2020 ElectionUT Austin Professors Sue Department of Education Over Title IX Rule ChangesTexas Stock Exchange to Compete With NYSE, Backed by BlackRock and CitadelU.S. Army, Department of Defense Open New Mesquite Plant to Produce Artillery Shells

Hiding amongst the reef and stuff in the Gulf of Mexico and this suppressor looking tube thing has holes in it and it does something that allows you to be able to shoot the gun underwater and so they swim along and they find these lionfish that are just hanging out because they're like venomous and they're not scared anything and the lionfish is just like you know what's up and the divers like Glock that's what's up that's what my future hobby is going to be well howdy folks it's mckenzie here with brad cameron and matt the three boys are all in person matt welcome back to austin howdy pleased to be here i hear you brought pastries and i'm not there

to enjoy them first of of all, so that is a bummer, but I appreciate you bringing them for everybody else. Wow, you're very thoughtful for everybody else, I guess. There you go. I'm recording from a very dark location, soundproof location in Dublin and Brad being the kind thoughtful considerate soul that he is decided that as we start recording he would send me a representation of what he thinks I look like in this relatively well-lit room and Brad would you like to expound on that? It doesn't look relatively well lit at all. That's why it reminded me of Emperor Palpatine. Mackenzie.

Bradley. Matthew. Have you picked up any Gaelic while you're there? No, but I'm trying really hard to understand it. It doesn't make that much sense to me and the alphabet's different. So I'm having some difficulty. Could you like try maybe give us an example of something that you've worked on? It would sound like gibberish, which is what it sounds like to me. And I would rather not disrespect their language

with them right outside my door. So, you know, I'm going to skip it for now. But Matt, I appreciate that. Next podcast, I'm going to expect at least one Gaelic word. I'll work on it. It'll help build our audience in Ireland, our international relation presence. I will say I love telling people I'm from Texas. Like their eyes light up when you tell them you're from Texas here because they know it. They're excited about it. Like there's a lore and culture associated with Texas that I don't know. So far we've gotten really fun, kind responses when people say we're from Texas, which has been fun. And then they ask Dallas, Austin, like they know cities in Texas,

which is really impressive. So we're having fun. They don't live under a rock. Okay. But when I would have been abroad, when I lived in other states, they didn't know any major cities from where I was from. So I think Texas has just, which it makes sense. It just has an outsized influence in so many ways.

So it's, it's cool, Brad. Let me have my moment. Okay. I'll try not to poo-poo your moment. Yeah. Well, you've already done that by sending me a picture of Emperor Palpatine and referring to me as him. But Brad, I wish I didn't have to go to you for the first story, but I have to. So we're going to have to get along for the next four minutes. Good luck with that. Okay, I'll try. Now that the primary and the runoff are in the rearview mirror, we can assess the fallout. What are your top takeaways? So first of all, you know, Greg Abbott was undoubtedly the biggest factor in the electoral overhaul of the Texas House. There will be as many as 32 new House

members. Some of those Democrats, most of those Republicans next session, and a good chunk of those were a direct result of Abbott's crusade over school choice. Of the 21 Republicans who voted for the amendment that stripped education savings accounts from an omnibus last year, only seven are returning. Five of the 21 did not seek re-election, and of those seven returning, three were not targeted by Abbott. Dave Carney, Abbott's chief strategist, said of his takeaway from the election, quote, don't mess with Greg Abbott's priorities. So, you know, Abbott put in six million dollars, more actually, probably more than that. I think he put in some of his own money,

but the six million, of course, from Jeff Yass that was itemized specifically for this. Abbott just far and away had the most money. And then he had money from, like, Club for Growth, AFC Victory Fund, following him into these races. And, you know, typically incumbents outspend challengers by a wide margin. Well, in a lot of these races, it was the reverse because, especially in these school choice focus races Abbott Club and AFC and a few others were all behind the challenger just pumping in millions and millions of dollars and so Abbott corralled that group of outside, you know, spenders and just pumped the Texas media market, mailboxes, all kinds of different mediums with just an unreal amount of money. And that swung a ton. You know, another takeaway I had was Paxton in the runoff kind of flipped the script a bit.

During the primary head-to-head against Abbott in these House and Senate and one Senate race, Abbott was light years ahead record-wise. It was like 17-2 and 6, and then Paxton was like 2-15 and something it was very lopsided record wise well head-to-head against Abbott in six races in the runoff Paxton won four of them he won AJ Lauderback in HD30 Carissa Richardson in HD61 Andy Hopperper in 64, and David Lowe in 91. So overall, Paxton did not have the kind of money behind him that Abbott did. And as far as I'm aware, he didn't put any of his own money into any of these races. But in certain races, especially after a lot of them had been taken off the table from the primary because results had been had in these runoffs, he can focus a lot more on certain races. And I

think he definitely played a role, and the impeachment played a role in some of these. However, he didn't get his biggest prize, which was knocking off Dade Phelan. Phelan survived by 366 votes, though in the wake of this, 15 incumbents lost. And Paxton really wanted to take out as many incumbent House Republicans as he possibly couldoff and into such a competitive race, money that would have gone to defending House incumbents did not go that way. Instead, it was kept in HG21. So that's another factor to consider here. A couple other observations. In the last 12 months, there have been many political obituaries written for people like Paxton himself, for Phelan, Defend Texas Liberty, which is now

Texans United for a Conservative Majority, after a couple rebrands. At some point or another, everyone, each of those three were assumed to be dead politically, and none of them are. And so it's a lot harder to decimate one's political foes than either side would like to admit. And the pendulum always swings. And in this case, it is going to swing back at some point, and it will eventually do that. Tyler Norris, a political consultant, Republican consultant here in Texas, summed it up as, I will never cease to be amazed at the factions in Texas politics' ability to grievously wound but never kill each other. So I thought that was pretty funny.

That was the most on-point quote of the runoff. Yep, yep. And then my last observation of this is the knives are still out. Everyone still wants to get one over on each other. And it's going to be, next session, a word I can't say on this podcast, but I said on Twitter, you know, after a crazy political year that caused such a unique election cycle, we're going to have another crazy political year.

And there's just no sign of that stopping. Absolutely. And I would encourage folks to go look at your tweet because also you've referenced it in your newsletter, you've've referenced it on the podcast it's worth going and checking out lots of engagement i think i even talked about this last week on the pod so i'm going to go off from this now but brad what would you say to people who talk about paxton's financial influence or uh reticence to jump into the races financially specifically in relation to impeachment right i mean he's incurred a lot of legal costs throughout this. How has that affected his ability to engage himself in the primaries?

Well, he just flat out doesn't have as much money as Greg Abbott. You know, Abbott has tens of millions. I think the semiannual had him up near or above $30 million. And obviously he spent a good chunk of that on these primaries, but nobody can fundraise like Greg Abbott Paxton last I saw and if I remember correctly in his semi-annual he had like three million dollars cash on hand something like that and yet a lot of it is going to pay for his legal costs associated with impeachment and other things, the other court cases that are either now resolved but weren't at the time or are still ongoing, like the whistleblower lawsuits.

So that definitely cut into his ability to financially give. But he was on the road quite a bit and stumping for his endorsed candidates, you know, that counts for something. How much? Not nearly as much as the millions Greg Abbott pumped in, but it's something. Absolutely. I think it's worth mentioning. Thanks for answering that. Cameron, we're going to come to you here. Cameron, how are you? How's Austin treating you? Are you keeping everybody in line at the office? I think so. I didn't know I was supposed to. Cameron, I trust you to keep people in line. That's just the trust I have in you.

So I'm in charge of the office. I'm in charge of the office now? Yes. Yes, Cameron's in charge. Okay, you guys heard it here. Time to rule with an iron fist. Actually, Cameron in charge does scare me a little bit, but for the sake of this podcast, you are not in charge. The power will go to his head fast. It will go faster to yours, I feel like.

No, but things are good yeah yeah we everyone's staying in line yeah it's good good i like to hear that i placated them with pastries yeah that did help i think although cameron doesn't partake in such devilry. You know, I do my best to resist the temptation, but they did look very, very good. So maybe. They look beautiful, Matt. Well done. Good taste. Good taste. Well, Cameron, let's come to you. Biden recently issued an executive order related to the border. Tell us what happened. Yeah, so there was rumors swirling over the weekend, going into Monday, that an executive order was going to come out from the Biden administration. And on Tuesday, finally saw it drop. And in the announcement, Biden's EO said that he looks to, quote, bar migrants who cross our southern border unlawfully

from receiving asylum and that was really the focus of the executive order in an attempt to curtail the ever-increasing waves of illegal immigrants crossing the border many of those as we've seen from reports they are claiming claiming asylum, but like I just mentioned, it seems as though much of that is they're coming across for economic reasons, let's say. And so what was interesting is there was lots of analysis being done right after the executive order was issued, one coming from America First Legal. They were quite frank in their analysis. They said, quote, it's a disaster. They go on to say, quote, it makes things worse and will eventually damage our ability

to secure the border. They highlighted one of the aspects of the EO that sets a threshold for illegal immigration that is triggered when there are 2,500 or more daily encounters over a seven day period. AFL then equated that to roughly quote 76,041 encounters each month or over 900,000 people per year. We see Ted Cruz, John Cornyn, they also pushed back against the EO. Cornyn called it a shell game, saying Joe Biden's not serious about securing the border. Cruz also, through a spokesperson, put out a statement where he said, quote, Joe Biden and Colin Allred can posture on the border

all they want, but Texans know the truth. Cruz is in a battle for the Senate in the upcoming election with Colin Allred, who's a congress member. He also issued a statement where he said, and while I have been critical of this administration's approach to the border, if it's implemented correctly, this executive order could bring long overdue relief to our border communities. So a bit more receptive to that executive order than many of the Republican or Republican connected groups. Also, President Donald Trump, before the executive order even came out, he was putting out posts on Truth Social about it, talking about the millions of people who have poured into our country. That's from this Truth Social post. So lots of pushback to the executive order. And again, the border continues to be an issue. We'll get into another story later in the podcast about what Governor Greg Abbott is going to attempt to do with identifying some of the criminal illegal immigrants, but we'll get into that later.

More border stories on the podcast. Caller E, shocked. Cameron, thank you. Brad, we're coming to you. Four members of the Texas House face investigation for violating House GOP caucus bylaws. That's a mouthful. What are the details? State Representatives Brian Harrison, Nate Schatzlein, Tony Tenderholt, and Steve Toth are under investigation for campaigning against one or more of their colleagues. They openly campaigned against Speaker Dade Phelan, among other incumbents. The bylaws read, quote, a member of the caucus shall not financially support an opponent of another member in any campaign or election between the complaint and questioned Caucus Chair Tom Oliverson's ability to oversee the process since he is currently running for Speaker.

Rogers said, quote, I, along with several other caucus members, requested enforcement of the House GOP caucus bylaws. These were voted on and approved by members. After news broke about this, Representative Toth said that a vote was scheduled for Thursday. This happened on Wednesday, but that is not true, at least at the time that he said it. I don't know if we'll have a vote by the time this podcast goes out. But Oliver Sin, his caucus chair, said that's not true.

The report had not even been finalized yet. So it is up in the air at the moment, but it caused quite a stir on Wednesday. Yeah, absolutely. So what's the precedent and the punishment for an action like this? So, first of all, the members are clearly in violation of this provision. I mean, it's black and white. Just as three members were, including Toth, in 2022, last cycle, for which they were censured by the caucus. And I believe they were issued a fairly small fine, but it didn't go any further than that. The question here is how much punishment

should be levied, if any. You know, it's punishable by a fine, a suspension, or expulsion from the caucus, and that's something that these four members have talked about almost exclusively is the expulsion part. You know, should that happen, I don't foresee that happening. It would require a two-thirds vote from the caucus, but should that happen that would reduce the thresholds for getting the caucus speaker endorsement and that that's the implication here for that but really this is probably just going to play out with you know a fine I would assume but knows? So to levy a censure, it takes a two-thirds vote from the caucus. And the vote, whenever it occurs, I believe is by secret ballot. But, you know, again, who knows what's going to be, what's we'll talk about this and then in the later

segments on a different part of the caucus bylaws but everyone is basically ignoring this or at least many people are so it's it's really just a guideline it seems but yeah yeah. So. Absolutely. So what did the four facing this punishment have to say about the move? They said in a joint comment, we only regret that we have, but one caucus membership to lose for our country. Honestly, killer scene. Really pulling out the Shakespearean drama there. But yeah, I think this thing will probably be resolved pretty quickly, and there will be a lot of smoke and very little fire. But, you know, they're clearly in violation of this thing,

and they weren't shying away from it during the campaign. They were making a very big scene about opposing Dean Phelan and others. So just a question of what the general body of the caucus, how far they want to go take the punishment, really, I think. Absolutely. Bravo. Thank you. Cameron, coming to you, the governor has released a list of the top criminal illegal immigrants. Give me the details. Yeah, so this was done in conjunction with the Texas Department of Public Safety, that's DPS, and it's a top 10 list of the most wanted criminal illegal immigrants. And in a press release, Governor Greg Abbott said, quote, when President Joe Biden took office, he dismantled every effective border policy his predecessor put into place. As a result, we have seen record high levels of illegal

immigration, including dangerous criminals and terrorists who are a threat to the public safety of our state and our nation. He goes on to say a few other things, but we've seen congressional conversations about the issues of illegal immigration and some of the crimes committed, highlighted with the death of Lincoln Riley. We've written about that as well. So there is an issue here that criminals are coming across the border and continuing to commit crimes. What was interesting is on this top 10 list, it shows what crimes they have committed and are charged with. And eight of the 10 criminal illegal immigrants on that list are charged with sexual assault, many of which were directed towards children. So these are not good people here. And what was

interesting that I dug into here, the House Committee on Homeland Security actually released a fact sheet on the growing crisis of illegal immigration on the southern border and it details the almost 180 000 encounters by u.s customs and border protection so far this year and more than 7.8 million encounters at the southern border since biden took office and i'll mention one more thing before we move on the known got. So we have a number for encounters, but there's also a number for those who get away from customs and border protection. And former chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, Raul Ortiz, said during a committee testimony in March 2023 that the total number of gotaways could be undercounted by as much as 20%. So like I just said, 7.8 million encounters at the southern border since Biden took office, and the number of gotaways could be undercounted as much as 20%. So we really don't know the true number of the illegal immigrants in the country.

So just some interesting numbers there. Interesting release from Governor Greg Abbott in terms of this list. We'll see if this will incentivize law enforcement to track down these individuals. But we'll stay updated if anything develops. Yeah, certainly something we're keeping an eye on. Cameron, thank you. Bradley, much to my chagrin coming back to you. In a hit to Phelan's chances to remain as speaker, a majority of the likely GOP caucus signed a joint letter. I think we say likely in that we still have November to get through. What did this letter say? It read, quote, in a collective effort to respond to Republican voters

and reform the Texas House, we will only vote for a candidate for speaker pursuant to the platform and the caucus bylaws who will only appoint Republicans as committee chairs. The other part of this, obviously Dem chairs is a part of that. other part is not voting for the caucus endorsed member speaker candidate on the floor this joint statement was signed by 46 Republican House members and likely members some nominees who have not yet won office but are likely to or at least have a shot at winning in November. Steve Kennard signed it. He's got a difficult election in HG70. There's no guarantee he wins that, so maybe the number is like 45, but regardless, that's how many signed it. It also includes each of the 21 contract with Texas signees.

And on top of that, 25 who had not signed that. So that's the majority of the caucus. And the reason that is a hit to Phelan is with the majority, it's very difficult to – well, it's impossible not to get – it's impossible to get the caucus nomination unless things change. You know, like Phelan has remained committed so far to appointing Democratic chairs at some level. And he said he's not backing down from that. Should he back down from that? Maybe this can change. I don't know.

But a lot up in the air on that. But this was a pretty big signal. And from what I understand, been worked on for a while as like a, not an alternative to contract with Texas, or well, an alternative to contract with Texas, but not like, you know, something significantly different, although it is much more tailored. It's these two items.

So that was a pretty big development last week. It's a numbers game for sure. What are the details of the caucus selection process? Yeah, and you mentioned the numbers game, but really, ultimately, the number that matters is 76 on the House floor. So we can talk about all this caucus stuff. The caucus nomination really only matters insofar as members stick to that commitment on the floor. And we've seen, obviously, that not happen before. But anyway, so the vote on the speaker-endorsed candidate, the endorsed speaker-candidate, will occur in early December after we know who exactly is going to be in office in the Texas House.

And to win the nomination in the first two rounds of voting, a two-thirds vote is needed to be won. At the current level of 86 Republicans in the House, that number of votes needed is 58. After those first two rounds, a three-fifths vote must be won, and they'll have, you know, one fewer candidates on the ballot for the next round. And it's secret ballot, I believe. So that's kind of the process there. Members are, like I said, are then all supposed to go vote for the endorsed candidate on the House floor, something a few members have violated each of the last two sessions in voting against Phelan on the floor. Obviously, last session, Tony Tenderholt made a run against Phelan. He got three votes.

That was himself, Brian Slayton, who's been expelled since then, and Nate Schatzlein. So this caucus rule only matters insofar as people actually follow it. And I think I would kind of be surprised if there isn't a significant contingent of members, whatever that is, that do not follow that rule for whatever reason however things shake out this provision was established as a way to hit back at then speaker joe strauss or the conditions that placed him in power it was passed in 2017 i believe when strauss was on his way out at the moment at the time he had said he wasn't running for re-election, or at least he soon would not be running for re-election. So, you know, overall, with how frequently members are violating these

caucus rules, as we talked about with the previous one, one has to wonder if it's even worth having them. But, you know, there's a lot of hot air being spewed about these caucus rules and just seemingly little willingness to follow them. So as of now, there are two candidates for speaker other than Phelan. That's Representative Tom Oliverson, now chair of the GOP caucus, and then Shelby Slauson. But they're more expected to come later on. So I guess we'll see overall.

Lots to still figure out and potentially more candidates to jump in as well. I'd be surprised if that did not happen in the next few months, especially as we near the legislative session. So, Bradley, thanks for your coverage of that. Cameron, coming back to you, Jose Garza is going to challenge the Abbott pardon of Daniel Perry. Tell us about it. Yeah. So after we saw Governor Greg Abbott pardon U.S. Army Sergeant Daniel Perry in May for the murder of Garrett Foster. Now, Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza is going to take action against that order. He said in an announcement that he will be filing a writ of memorandum. A writ of mandamus.

Mandamus. Why don't you explain to the people, Matt, what a writ of mandamus is. Say that again. A writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus is a petition to a court asking the court to instruct a government actor to properly perform a duty within their lawful realm. So say, like, an official within the government is doing something illegal, et cetera, et cetera, you can file a writ of mandamus to ask the court to force that official to correct their action or take whatever particular action that they're supposed to do. And this is going to be filed with the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals. Correct. And

that Criminal Court of Appeals is entirely Republican, that's correct? Correct. Well, nine elected statewide Republicans that are elected to staggered six-year terms. So maybe just a gesture from Garza, if you're going to do an analysis, doesn't seem as though it's going to work out in his favor. Probably not. Yes. But he's making an attempt here. What was interesting, though, is there was a letter from New York Attorney General Latita James and 13 other attorneys generals that stated, quote, though Mr. Perry has been pardoned in Texas, the law does not shield him from federal prosecution for killing Mr. Perry has been pardoned in Texas. The law does not shield him from federal prosecution for killing Mr. Foster

to prevent him from exercising his constitutional right to peaceful protest. So we're getting something here with Garza. We're also seeing things in other states. There are attorney generals posturing against this pardon. Something we'll probably have to keep our eye on, see if anything comes to fruition with that posturing. But as of right now, this is the latest update. If anything else comes out over the coming weeks, we'll make sure to update our readers on it. For sure. Cameron will be on it, people. Cameron will be on

it. Well, thanks for that coverage. And Matt, being that you just gave us some great legal jargon definition, let's move on to you. A story about legality. How about that? Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking for the state Supreme Court to intervene on an attempt by the State Bar of Texas to sanction both Attorney General Paxton and his first assistant, Brent Webster, over the challenge to the 2020 presidential election. Man, that's a lot. Give us the details. It for sure is. So there is still widespread fallout occurring across the country over the results of the 2020 presidential election. More specifically, the legal challenges to the election results. This fallout's coming in the form of pushback against those who challenge the election results

in court, and in Texas that pushback has taken the shape in an attempt to go after the top officials in the Texas Attorney General's office and take their licenses to practice law. This is being done by the State Bar of Texas, which regulates the practice of law, which is wanting to sanction Paxton and First Assistant Brent Webster over their filing of the Texas v. Pennsylvania lawsuit before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2020. They say Paxton and Webster made material misrepresentations in that case, including the allegations that illegal votes were cast in the election that would have a determinative effect on the outcome, that certain voting machines switched votes, and that certain states, namely Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, illegally changed their election processes during COVID. On background, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit, saying Texas lacked standing to bring the case and that the issue was moot at the time that it had finally been brought.

Two justices, however, Justice Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissented, saying they believed the court had no choice but to accept a case brought within its original jurisdiction, that is, lawsuits that are filed between each state. Most people are aware that SCOTUS is the final court of appeals in a lot of things, but the Constitution makes it the original court to hear certain disputes, including lawsuits between states. At no point, however, did the court itself sanction the Attorney General over been fighting this attempt by the State Bar to intervene in the matter at the trial court and at the appellate levels for some time already. In fact, Webster had initially prevailed at the trial court stage in getting the sanction attempts dismissed with the judge writing that the Bar's attempt to intervene violated the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. The state bar appealed that to an intermediate appeals court,

which revived the sanction attempt. Now, the Attorney General is appealing to the Texas Supreme Court, arguing that both Paxton and Webster enjoy sovereign immunity as government officials acting in their official capacities. Sovereign immunity means they either can't be sued or they can't be held liable for actions that they took in their official capacity. That the sanction attempt violates the separation of powers. Theoretically, that if they intervene in what the AG can and can't file a lawsuit over, then that's essentially usurping the authority of the

Attorney General to represent the state and file suits. So that's where the whole separation of powers thing comes in. And it would essentially give the state bar power over the AG if this whole case was allowed to go forward. This state bar is trying to get around the sovereign immunity by going after Paxton and Webster in their individual capacities as opposed to them being state officials. Last year, as a matter of fact, top Republican lawmakers were actually raising concerns regarding how the state bar is using, or according to them, abusing its power to regulate the practice of law, which echoes

the Attorney General's Office's criticism of the agency for engaging in, quote, lawfare, end quote, against conservative attorneys. During the general session last year, Senator Brian Hughes filed legislation to prohibit the bar from burdening an attorney's law license for engaging in constitutionally protected speech, specifically speech relating to a sincerely held religious belief, a political ideology, a societal view, expressive conduct, and the freedom of association. The bill passed the Texas Senate, but died in the Texas House late in the general session. So in the meantime, we'll wait to see if the Texas Supreme Court takes up the case, and if so, what their opinion on the state bar sanction attempts are. Interesting. I think this is as good a time as any to plug the docket, Matt's newsletter.

If you love Matt's legal knowledge and analysis, which is I do, go to thetexan.news, subscribe right now. It will give you access to all of our newsletters, our proprietary newsletters written by our team. Matt's is the docket that goes out every Monday. It's awesome. People need to go subscribe

to make sure they get in that goes out every Monday. It's awesome. People need to go subscribe to make sure they get in their inboxes every Monday. And specifically, I think it's fun because each week Matt chooses a case that he highlights and goes into detail about the precedent or the complexities, whatever it might be. It's really interesting and really fun. So Matt, thanks for breaking that down for us and go subscribe at the texan.news. Cameron, we're coming to you. Two UT Austin professors are challenging the new Title IX rule changes. Tell us about it. Yeah, this has caused a bit of a stir online and in the media space for some of the things that are mentioned in the lawsuit. So I wanted to dive into it and take a look and see what is actually being said. So the two UT Austin professors, Daniel Bonvac and John Hatfield, they joined in a lawsuit that is requesting

the court to delay and ultimately invalidate the new Title IX regulations claiming they are unlawful, exceed statutory authority, and are arbitrary and capricious. The state also seeks a judgment declaring that Texas can continue to receive Title IX funding without adhering to these new requirements along with injunctive relief preventing their enforcement against Texas. The lawsuit touches on these definitional changes. As we reported on a few weeks ago, Title IX instituted this final rule that incorporated things such as sex stereotypes, gender identity, sort of putting a progressive lens on the view of biological sex, which in this lawsuit directly quote Texas relying on contemporary meaning of sex when Title IX was enacted adopted laws policies and procedures and significantly invested in an entire infrastructure to implement its education system the final rule upends these important

reliance interests and usurps Texas's sovereignty by adding gender identity and sexual orientation. Additionally, the lawsuit states that, quote, have failed and bone bag do not intend to accommodate students' absences from class to obtain abortions, including illegal abortions and purely elective abortions that are not medically required. So this is what sort of caused this stir online was the mention of not accommodating absences due to students wanting to obtain abortions. So continue quoting from the lawsuit here, nor will plaintiffs Hatfield and Boneback hire a teaching assistant who has violated the abortion laws of Texas or

the federal law prohibitions on the shipment or receiving of abortion pills and abortion-related paraphernalia. There was a declaration from both Bombeck and Hatfield that was included in the lawsuit where in both of their declaration statements, they clarify that, quote, they will certainly accommodate students who are seeking medically necessary abortions in response to a pregnancy that threatens the student's life or health. But I will not accommodate a purely elective abortion that serves only to kill an unborn child that was conceived through an act of voluntary and consensual sexual intercourse. So I think that part of the context, as we have seen in the discussions of this lawsuit, was left out. So including that, mentioning it here, I think provides a more well-rounded analysis of what is actually being stated in this lawsuit.

I dive into more aspects of things that are covered. If you want to check it out, it's on the texan.news. And that gives me another great opportunity to plug Cameron's newsletter for DACTED. If you want all the deets on different issues, hot topics of the day, Cameron goes deep. It's awesome. I love reading it every week. I learn something every week. So make sure to go to The Texan and subscribe right now to get access to Redacted.

Cameron, thank you. Bradley, coming to you next. There was a big financial announcement this week in Texas. Tell me about it. A new stock exchange to be headquartered in Dallas will launch next year aimed at competing with the New York City exchanges, whose rules and regulations some companies have found onerous. TXSE Group is founded and operated by James Lee, who says the company has already raised $120 million for the project, the largest backers of which are BlackRock and Citadel Securities,

two incredibly large financial companies. Lee said, TXSE will ultimately create more competition around quote activity, liquidity, and transparency, resulting in more consistent and reliable markets that benefit investors, global users, and liquidity providers alike. He added Texas and other states in the Southeast Quadrant have become economic powerhouses. Combined with the demand we are seeing from investors and corporations for expanded alternatives to trade and list equities,

this is an opportune time to build a major national stock exchange in Texas. That is just an absolute word salad. But what it means practically is that a lot of these companies have found requirements associated with trading on New York City's two exchanges, NYSE and NASDAQ, to be too much to deal with. It's something they don't want to touch if they don't have to. Obviously, it's an uphill climb for them to really compete with these two kinds of existing exchanges. Others have tried before, but things like diversity requirements on boards, that's something that has ruffled feathers. And generally, TXSE is trying to be CEO-friendly rather than stakeholder-friendly that we've seen these, like NASDAQ and NYSE become.

That kind of dovetails itself with the ESG fight, environmental social governance movement, and just general fight over capital, how it's directed, to whom it's directed, under what circumstances it is directed. The political fight doesn't go over my head, but all these technical investment financial lingos do. But when it comes down to it, it's a tussle over where the money goes and trying to force behavioral changes among companies in order to get that capital. Well, we're seeing Texas attract a lot of companies. Over the past decade, we've just seen an influx of new businesses, large companies like Elon Musk and SpaceX. They left their incorporation in Delaware to come to Texas. So whatever Texas is doing to be business friendly, it's working. We've seen just the entire Sunbelt region increase their manufacturing capacity. And so I think it's interesting that they're going to attempt to rival the New York Stock Exchange. I'll have to see what comes out of it, but, you know, it's an interesting proposition, at least.

I saw the best tweet about it. Which was? Well, you know how we call the New York Stock Exchange Wall Street? Yeah. Well, they suggested on Twitter that we should call the Texas Stock Exchange, Y'all Street. That's pretty good. That is pretty good. You know, another aspect of this that I go into the story on, you can read that if this interests you, but, you know, BlackRock being involved, this seems to me to be another effort

to calm some concerns or counter-criticisms that have been levied against BlackRock about participating or even spearheading this ESG stuff. We saw them have a kumbaya session, essentially, with Lieutenant Governor Patrick, who had previously been very critical of them in trying to draw investment into the state for natural gas power plants in ERCOT. And now they're trying this. They're part of this. They won't admit it, but this is definitely at least partially a PR thing. Now, I think they also legitimately see an opportunity to make money.

They wouldn't put a huge chunk of money into it if they didn't. But that is always, of course, existing. And BlackRock is the punching bag on the ESG issue for Republicans. And not without merit. You know, they've been definitely been involved in this.

Larry Fink, their CEO, has talked at length about net zero commitments, social issue sides of things. But, you know, they are at root a company, and they don't want bad PR. So this is part of that, in addition to them seeing an opportunity to make some money. Well, maybe this is sort of, you know, Larry Fink and BlackRock, they got caught up in the ESG stuff, DEI issues. Maybe they're trying to roll that back, you know, and this is sort of their way of building bridges, essentially. Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, Texas Stock Exchange, maybe they're trying to take a step back and be like, OK, yeah, definitely.

We're we're going to focus again on the bottom line. Yeah, absolutely. Is is that. And so, you know, it's a good thing. You got to let people they make mistakes trying to amend those mistakes. So we'll see if they follow through on it, though. OK, great. Cameron, we're moving on to you here. A new ammunition manufacturing facility is opening in Mesquite. Tell us about it.

Yeah, so the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Army have announced a new artillery manufacturing facility has opened in Mesquite. The Universal Artillery Projectile Lines facility will, quote, increase the Army's ability to produce 155 millimeter munitions according to a DoD press release facility will be operated by General Dynamics and the Secretary of Army Christine Wormuth said

the Army has a goal to produce 100,000 155 millimeter shells per month by the end of next year. And this funding for the facility stems from a 2022 and 2023 congressional supplementary funding for the DoD, including a package of contracts worth more than $575 million. We had previously reported on the developments of this facility in early 2023. The Mesquite City Council approved the construction of the manufacturing facility for General Dynamics and Tactical Systems. The approval of the new $60 million industrial campus was first introduced in 2021 and it planned to produce 20,000 units per month for the Department of Defense. So why is this happening right now? Well, we've seen continued foreign aid packages passed. Most recently, President Joe Biden signed a $95 billion foreign aid package, of which $60.8

billion is earmarked for Ukraine aid. During the opening ceremony of the Mesquite facility, there was remarks on the developing technologies of warfare and the expansion of military action between Ukraine and Russia. So the Mesquite 155 millimeter shells being shown to be used for this Ukraine federal aid funding. What is also important for our listeners to understand here is in the past week, U.S. officials provided information about the ongoing U.S. involvement in the Russian-Ukraine conflict. The Associated Press reported that Biden has allowed Ukraine to use American weapons to strike inside Russia. We've seen since that report there has been attacks by Ukraine to inside Russia.

I want to mention here that Senator J.D. Vance out of Ohio, he wrote on social media in response to the news of Bideniden allowing the use of u.s weapons by ukraine quote biden is sleepwalking into world war three so manufacturing facility being opened in mesquite the artillery shells being provided to ukraine biden allowing u.s made weaponry to strike Russia, Ukraine, then following through on that and those comments from J.D. Vance, just things for people to be aware of as this conflict continues to evolve. And certainly go read the rest of Cameron's story at the Texan.News. Cameron, thank you. Let's move on to our tweeter-y section here. Matthew, I know you're probably chomping at the TechSend.News. Cameron, thank you. Let's move on to our tweeter-y section here. Matthew, I know you're probably chomping at the bit here to talk about your tweeter-y.

I'd love to hear what you have to share with our listeners. Well, this morning was the fourth flight of the Starship Super Heavy. That is the big spacecraft built by Elon Musk that is capable of making life interplanetary. And from what I just read, I don't know how I overlooked this, but also to build a moon base. Oh, okay. I could go for a moon base. I'm down. Yeah. So, anywho, the first three Starship Super Heavies, which are, of course, the largest rocket ever built, blew up at various different stages.

But in order to, I guess, to clarify on a rocket like this, the intent of it is to have a reusable rocket. So he's going into areas of rocketry that's never been done before. So each one of these flights is basically to mine data, to find out how the thing performs at various stages, et cetera, et cetera. And then each time it gets further and further along. And today was historic because it did not go kablooey it it successfully went up the the first stage of it the booster detached went back down landed in the Gulf of Mexico safely the upper half of starship the actual

spaceship went and orbited the earth and then eventually did a safe landing in the Gulf of Mexico. Musk has said at best they were hoping for being able to collect data on the upper vehicle as it, you know, reentered the atmosphere on reentryentry you know and at least get further than the last time so it it apparently just absolutely exceeded their expectations and uh yeah yeah it's pretty cool that took off from down south texas i wanted to go watch the launch so bad but so this moon base yeah yeah let's get back to that would you live on a moon base if they offered it to you? Said, Matt, you know, we need your legal expertise to help draft the new moon constitution. But you need to be on the base to do that.

You need to go to the moon base to practice moon law. Yeah. Would you go live on the moon? I could do a tour of duty on the moon just a tour so six months eight months yeah something like that yeah i don't think i'd go to the moon permanently uh but i could definitely you know do a stint of service up there on the moon especially if they gave us like cool space suits and blasters and stuff do you have a favorite do you have a favorite space movie man good question that is a very good question you know what's coming to mind as i'm talking about moon bases and all that sort of stuff is not just you know dr evil with his moon base

but there was this uh really corny like 1960s sci-fi show called uh what was it it was uh ah i forget it but they had like the little uh flying saucers and they had like the strings attached to them uh uh and and and they like every episode they introduced like another you know cool toy sort of thing and it was just so corny and wonderful and they had this moon base on it and that's just what i keep thinking of i can't remember the name of that uh sci-fi show it's like it was like in the 60s or 70s maybe yeah but uh yeah so anywho the uh the flight was successful that's great uh so they are well on their way towards having an interplanetary... I don't know what Brad's going to do.

Something totally unrelated. Okay. Okay. A horrible meme that I was just sent. Oh boy. Okay, we'll have to see it afterwards. Horribly funny one. They actually list several purposes for Starship.

Delivering satellites in orbit, a moon base, and interplanetary travel. See, I'm interested in asteroid mining. Okay. Are we going to – what was the movie, Apollo 13 or something? 13. or 13 or something. 13! Yeah, where they trained, like, oil, like, oil workers to go up into space. Well, there was the one where, like, the asteroid was coming to Earth and they had to go up there and put, like,

a nuke on it and blow it up. Yeah, that was Apollo 13. That was Apollo 13? Wasn't it? No, no, Apollo 13 is the recreation of the actual Apollo 13. Which is the one that had the creepy space spiders that was not apollo 13 it was an apollo something wasn't it are you talking about

apollo 11 the uh the adam sandler thing that's on netflix it was not adam sandler no it's like a horror movie no this uh the netflix has the space movie oh starship troopers no oh starship troopers is amazing. Okay, yeah, that's my favorite one. That's your favorite? Yeah, for sure. No, it's a serious one. Starship Troopers is the spook.

Listeners, let us know in the comments. What is your favorite space movie? And why is it Starship Troopers? That is the best one. Do you guys? Dead or Galaxy Quest? Do you guys? That or Galaxy Quest? Galaxy Quest is pretty good. Do you want to know more?

Do you guys ever think about Apollo, Anton, Ono? No. Haven't since you just mentioned it. you know you know like american ice speed racers you know like doesn't pop up in my my mind that often so why their name is apollo how about apollo creed that one though no no there you go i will say apollo anton oh no no, I think about, I just love the Olympics. I think about it regularly. Didn't he also win Bantam at the Stars? Wait a second.

Wait a second. Remember, didn't we have a whole segment on this about how, about us getting crap for, you know, thinking about the Roman Empire? And you just think about Apollo and some random ice skater? Come on. Okay. The show I was thinking of was UFO

the TV series from 1970 to 1971 and it is absolutely wonderful. Highly recommend. Well,

okay. I'll have to check it out. We'll have to check it out. Retro sci-fi. Thank you. Gentlemen,

thank you. Retro sci-fi. Doesn't do much, thank you. Retro sci-fi. Doesn't do much better than that. Bradley, what you got? First, I want to say it was noticed that my newsletter was the only one you did not plug during this podcast. But moving on from that, there was a video that Cameron sent me. That's not true. I plugged your podcast informally,

I will admit. Right at the beginning when you talked about your tweet. My podcast? You mean my newsletter? Your viral tweet. You mentioned you also put it in your newsletter and then passed on by. Anyway, I would

recommend your newsletter. It's really entertaining every Friday morning you know it goes well with the with the weekly roundup so there you go well thanks Brad the video that Cameron sent me it was about a girl and her mom were feeding it they're on a safari and they're feeding animals from the back of a pickup truck and this giraffe swoops in and tries to get some food and ends up grabbing the girl's arm and, like, taking it. And it cuts off real quick, so I have no idea.

I'm sure she was okay. We're going to assume that. Cameron didn't tell me. But what it made me think of was, you know, our Lord and Savior Harambe. And this giraffe is now Jarombe taking hold of a child Jarombe giraffe

Harambe was protecting the child you can definitively say that how do we know that giraffe wasn't protecting that child we don't know that yet I but we do know that Harambe was... Anyway, I just wanted to use this as an excuse to talk about Harambe and remember his sacrifice for us. May he rest in peace.

And I was less than a mile away from Harambe when he was brutally murdered in cold blood. Really? Yeah. I lived... I was at the University of Cincinnati at the time. No kidding. And it was Cincinnati Zoo, which is less than a mile from where I was living. Yeah.

I have a real personal connection. I'm telling you what. Certainly had not, never seen the gorilla before at that point, but. Brad, do you have any original thoughts to offer on your tweeter-y? Wow. Ouch.

No, actually I don't. Yeah. Okay, cool. On that note, I'd like to encourage folks to subscribe to the Texting.News to get a look into Brad's original thoughts. Fourth reading goes out every Tuesday.

It's phenomenal, it's amazing, it's incredible, it's life changing. If you don't subscribe right now, what are you even doing? This is too little too late. You have earned my disrespect. What's new? Cameron, let's come to you here let's uh i'm particularly excited about yours saved it best for last walk me through what you got well i usually send you all the funny animal stories during the week but since you're not here i had to share it with brad share it with our listeners came across a headline teen survived shark bite off texas beach

quote i started punching it instantly i'm pulled in what's this all about so apparently this girl was swimming in just waist deep water when a shark bit her hand. And this is her talking here, saying, we're about maybe waist-deep and going with the waves. I was talking to my siblings, and then my sister-in-law said she saw something tan in the waves. She didn't quite understand what it was at the time, so she was trying to tell us that we need to go back in. A few minutes later, a shark attack.

It bit her hand. Quote, as I was turning, a shark grabbed a hold of my hand. I looked down. There was a shark attached to my hand, so I guess I just started punching it. That part is kind of blurry to me. She punched the five-foot shark several times before it let go of her hand and swam away. She said it was just instinct. It happened and that was my first reaction when I saw it. It felt like a dream because of how fast it happened. I didn't have time to process it until I made it back to the shore. She did have to go to the hospital, underwent surgery to repair four severed tendons in her hand. But she's expected to make a full recovery. So happy ending.

Attacked by a shark. Absolutely. Punches it in its shark face. Just as long as the shark looked worse, you know. Humans one, sharks zero. That's what I'm talking about. I just props to this teenager for having the wherewithal to start punching the shark in the face. Also, I think that's what you're supposed to do.

If a shark's coming at you, is punch him in the nose. Or if they're just coming at you gently, just kind of redirect it. Redirect them with their nose. I'm not a professional. Do not take my advice. But that is what I hear. Mack, would you ever go shark diving? Free diving or cage diving?

How about cage diving? Would you be lowered in a cage into the depths of the ocean to be surrounded by sharks? Is that something you'd do? I think I probably would. It's not near the top of my list of things I want to do. And I will say I've swam with manatees before who are harmless kind creatures and I was shocked I was so excited and I was shocked once I got in the water how out of sorts you feel with these giant giant animals just brushing up against you right next to you and this was kind of murky water so all of a sudden you're you know you're just swimming along and you knock

into one with your forehead. It's a very, it's very odd. So I, I don't think I have great underwater creature diving chops if manatees made me feel out of sorts. Um, but I, I don't know that I could pass it up if I had the opportunity to, but I'm not going to fly somewhere to seek it out. Well, folks, I, we've run out of time here and my computer spots die. So other than, um, you know, if you want to read my Twittery and hear about it, subscribe to the Texan and read about it in the editor's desk. Comes out tomorrow morning or Friday morning, the same morning this comes out. So go do that. You'll see all the delightful things. Gentlemen, thanks for bearing with me here you guys are awesome killer first remote podcast uh from abroad thank you for all the things um and folks thanks for bearing with us we'll catch you on next week's episode