Tomorrow - 122: Full Court Press with Pema Levy

Episode Date: June 29, 2018

Uh, things are real bad. Josh and Ryan are a bit at their wit's end this week, making 122 not a particularly happy-go-lucky episode of Tomorrow. Also, Josh has thoughts about his Blackberry. So at least there's that. Thankfully, we've got Pema Levy, a reporter from Mother Jones, to help us sort through the torrent of confusing news from the US Supreme Court. Is any of that news good? No, no it is not. But it's massively important. Unlike Josh's Blackberry. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey and welcome to tomorrow, I'm your host Josh Wittipolsky. Today in the podcast we discuss a lot of extremely depressing shit and mostly in the political arena so you're just gonna have to deal with it. Well we're back on a week that is. That won't die. That won't die. That's definitely one of the worst. In recent memory, Ryan, you're here with me, of course, and in the end times, we're together. They're here with the mic Myers of Weeks.

It really is. You think you got them, but they're pops back up, stabbing you in the fucking chest. And you're like, where's my activity? I just want to go home. Yeah, you just, you're like, I got a shit. Get me the activity, get my, pop them, pull the Lincoln town car around.

And there's all this shit, no activity. Did anybody understand that the Jamie Lee Curtis reference that Jamie Lee Curtis did the activity of commercials? I hope I don't have to overspind this. That's a poop yogurt. Yeah, that's a yogurt that helps you shit. And anyhow, okay, speaking of shit, this week is bad, going from bad to worse.

I mean, I'll say this we record on a Thursday. I'm just going to bring it up. I mean, we're we're sitting here and there's news coming in right now, which will be old news to you when you hear this tomorrow, but that there is a shooting. Maybe maybe casualties, we don't know how many casualties multiple, not really sure. We're sure in no reporting.

No reporting at this point. Add a newsroom in, hold on, I wanna make sure I get a napaless. And napaless. And I'll tell you what I know now by looking at multiple people shot at Maryland newspaper says CNN. At the NYPD is deploying officers to every news outlet in New York at the, uh,

at the, uh, uh, Capitol Gazette in, uh, in Maryland. And, uh, you know, uh, apparently someone's in custody, the belief to be the shooter, uh, uh, long and short is like, you know, this, this, people shooting up newsrooms is the stuff you hear about. You know, it's Charlie Hebdo. It's, and it's funny because like, I mean, we are, you know, we are living in like an age of, I don't know who the shooter is.

I don't know anything about the shooter. I'll be, you know, it could be anybody. We'll find out. This will be very dated tomorrow when we all know. But you like to look, you know, I think that there's a kind of new age of, of, of fear in this country in from places that I don't think we had fear about. We have not had fear about for a long time. I mean, I think like, you know, you look at the, the protests and Charlottesville,

you know, a woman run over and killed by a fucking white supremacist, you know, a woman run over and killed by a fucking white supremacist Nazi fuck. Milo Yenopoulos this week told a reporter that he can't wait until people start shooting journalists. The Southern poverty law center has a story about, I mean, a lot of people have story about it, but they wrote about it. Obviously, they track hate groups and hate crimes. And, and you know, Trump has had on numerous occasions that the media is the enemy of the people, which is the same shit that Hitler said, which is exactly what Hitler said. And this week, this week,

which has been a week where where there have been multiple Supreme Court rulings, extremely conservative, right leaning Supreme Court rulings that the tackle unions, the tackle pro-life initiatives, the travel ban, all of which have been ruled in the, you know, ruled for in the favor of conservatism and conservative ideals. You know, we're in a, we're in a fucked up moment right now. You know, I tweeted this story earlier, the CBS news story, they're, you know, CBS was

doing an interview with this ice whistleblower. And while they were shooting the interview, some government agents showed up at his house to question him. And I tweeted like, this is some Nazi shit. And I'm getting increasingly, for a long time, since Trump got elected, his platform was white supremacy and racism. I mean, it's through and through. Like we've been told to everybody's been told to everybody on the left.

Anybody who says this is like, don't compare him to Hitler. Don't talk about Nazis. You're blowing out of proportion. You're blunt. And it's like, it's like, listen, I think this is actually how it fucking starts. Like I don't, I'm not sure anymore that like this idea that everything is going to go back to normal.

And we've got laws to protect us that any of those things are true at this point. I have seen no evidence that there is anybody who's coming to fucking protect us at this point. The only thing that I think could happen is that we overturn a lot of these seats that are held by Republicans in Congress and we attempt to get some control back of the government, which is now completely in the hands of right wing, hard line right wing, religious right wing, fucking Christian crusaders.

And like, it's fucking scary. Like, I'm literally like, I think it's insane. And like, we need to start talking about like, how much this is like the things that happen in the lead up to what became like the things that happen in the lead up to what became the naziism we all know and hate. And I'll say one other thing is that I started listening to a book last night by Eric Larson, which is a nonfiction book called In the Garden of Beasts, which is about what

life was like in Berlin and Germany in the years, in the decade leading up to, less than a decade leading up to, the Naziism that we all understand who have been happening. And it's a lot like this. It's a lot like a lot of people going, something's wrong. This doesn't feel right and nobody being able to do anything about it and just a fucking slow decline into complete madness. And like, look, America's a big country.

A lot of people here are very different than Germany. I'm more likely that we split into two fucking for-moring civil war factions on the Look, America's a big country. A lot of people here are very different than Germany. More likely that we split into two fucking boring civil war factions on the coasts and the middle in the bottom while fighting with each other. Like bits. It I mean, I don't, I don't, I foresee a future in which Trump tries to delay the election and the states flip out. And we just splinter like I, I, I don't think that's wacko.

Stuff to say. I mean, this sounds like it sounds like I listen, I hear Like, I don't think that's wacko stuff to say. I mean, this sounds like, it sounds like, I listen, I hear myself. I don't think it's wacko. And I'm like, oh wow, I sound like I'm panicking. You know, and I'm not, I don't feel panicked, but I feel deeply concerned and I feel like all of this stuff is like, you know,

I all of this stuff feels like smoke, right? There's a, there's a fucking fire. Like, something is different now. Like, this is very strange to me. Like, you know, let's hope, I mean, let's hope this changes. Let's hope there's a flip, a blue wave, whatever the fuck you wanna call it. But it definitely doesn't feel like,

like the controls are where they used to be and it doesn't feel like the controls are where they used to be and it doesn't feel like we have any recourse on this stuff. And I gotta say, like, newsrooms being shut up, to me probably is now, I think we should probably start to think about that as being the kind of common event that a school shooting is in this country. I think we are just being accepting more and more

like insanity and madness from fringe actors and those fringe actors are just being accepting more and more insanity and madness from fringe actors. And those fringe actors are increasingly being like emboldened and pushed towards the center of like American conversation. And that it's like a really dangerous fucking place to be. John tried to have a talk with me last night about going back into therapy just because the anxiety of this administration and what it's under my family has really affected me. And the crux that I came down to was, but I feel like this is entirely reasonable.

And I feel like if I go to therapy, I'll do more discussing of this, which I do enough of. And to me, it felt like, at the point at which you think I'm being unreasonable, or that this stuff shouldn't upset me to this degree or something, let me know. But something upsetting me that should upset me like, I know what the source is and it's

in the White House. And like my job and my career and my dreams and aspirations revolve around saying things that he wouldn't like. And like to see that this result, something like this happened to journalists for saying things that his supporters don't want to hear for using facts instead of repeating the nonsense like conspiracy-reddit theories that they want to have validated. I mean, and I don't mean to make this

I'm some kind of martyr or I'm centered in this or anyone cares what I have to say. But I don't want to live in a country where I have to pull punches or like I feel threatened when I get on stage with a bunch of other gay comics or like I don't, to me, I haven't felt this level of like real physical fear for myself or even just like anxiety since I like came out of the closet in a small town in like the early 2000s and they're,

you know, you received the blowback that you received and like, and to not to be back in that place where I don't feel control, like, I don't think that that's an unreal is like me talking about like what what what what America's going to look like 10 years on the line and it being things that it's like I can't believe I'm saying this, you know, this is all theoretical silly hunger game stuff and we were all like it was never we were never going to get here. Well, while it feels surreal, but I also like objectively we need to start thinking about it as if this is what's happening because if we don't we're going to regret pretending that election was going to fix this or pretending that like, well, I'll just don't need to plan parenthood and a Roe v Wade won't get overturned. Like we need to stop.

We need to stop having like the whole Obama's whole like the the the bend of his or the curve of history is toward justice or whatever. Like we need to stop assuming that everything will work out because we think it makes sense. Like we have to bend it towards justice. Like we. Yeah. I mean, this is by the way concurrently with this. concurrently with this, there's a story. There is a actual Department of Homeland Security blog post of official whatever press release. The headline of it is, we must secure the border and build the wall to make America safe again. Now, anybody, I don't know how much anybody listening to this knows, but we must secure is the beginning of this 14 word. And by the way, this headline is 14 words long.

We must secure. I'm going to read the quote because it's a white supremacist, essentially like a neo-nazi sort of mantra, which about the security of white people. It's called the people who referred to it as 14 words. We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children. And this has become a kind of a rallying cry and a kind of coded sort of a dog whistle. I mean, this fucking DHS thing is a dog whistle for, I mean, it is literally a fucking neo-Nazi sentiment on the official government website that nods to a white supremacist

neo-Nazi motto without any, there's zero fucking question that that is what they're doing. that that is what they're doing. You know, I mean, it is super fucked up. This is super fucked up. And the idea that this would be published on again. I mean, so all of this, by the way, this is one little thing, but all of this taken into, like, if you put it into focus, like we're in a really bad place in America. I want to leave.

We're in a really bad place and it's fucked up. And I don't really have anything good or fun to say about anything else at this moment because I think that like, you know, this week has been a motherfucker and it's Thursday. It's Thursday and we've got a fucking shooting at, you know, a newspaper. We don't know how many people are dead.

And we've got the DHS releasing white supremacist fucking propaganda literally on their fucking government run website. And by the way, most of America didn't fucking vote these people into office. Most of America doesn't want these people in office. The vast majority of Americans don't agree with these people. That's, I really believe that. And so, you're like, it's not just that the government is fucking out of control, based along, you know, just sort of general partisan governmental lines.

Like, oh, the Democrats don't have any power. It's like the people, the American people don't have any power. The people, all of the more than half of America, and by the way, there were a lot of people who didn't go out to vote at all that would not have voted for Trump. More than half of the voters in America are completely fucking meaningless. I would also say a good portion of the people that did vote for him. This isn't what they intended. And I would, I understand we, I can have full contempt for them. I can be furious with people in my family that voted for him and I am.

But I do not think that this is what my father intended when he voted for Donald Trump. He thought like, Pillar Clinton seems like a bitch. He didn't have a ton of information. This guy was talking a little more in New Yorkie and that was that. And I don't think this is like what he envisioned.

So I was gonna come in here after everything that happened last night with me and just like talking with John and like the level of anxiety I've been at and all the Supreme Court decisions. I was gonna come in here and say like, you know what? I've been coming apart at the seams, but we got I'm pulling it together. We got to pull it together. Like I don't want to sit here and talk about like the end of the world Like we have to we can't live like this. We have to live like in a way that is productive. And I do think that. And I do think like, listen, are there shrinking number of ways we're going to get out of this? Is it going to be quick? No. But I do think that like this stuff breaks through and eventually people like my dad or Trump voters that I don't think

intended for any of this to happen. There has to be a reckoning at some point of for the Republican party. And I don't know what the outcome is, but I feel like we, I mean, even you saw the glimmer of hope earlier this week when Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez was elected, who is an openly as Democratic Socialist, was elected in Queens to Congress, or wasn't elected to won the primary and will likely be elected. And that was a glimmer of hope.

And to me, if you create, if we can create some kind of like unifying other movement to counteract like the fucking complete Nazi insanity that's happening, we have like a shot of pulling something together. Do I think like they're gonna go quietly? No, but like, yeah, there's a shot. I was gonna, I wanted to come in here and be hopeful and say there's a shot. And honestly, the thing about hope is that, I think this is like a Catholic thing. A thing about hope that I do believe that it's a practice.

And like you, this is the times when you have to like try to pick the thing you're gonna work on and have about hope that I do believe that it's a practice. And like you, this is the times when you have to like try to pick the thing you're gonna work on and have the hope that it will have some results. And this is when you're being challenged to not like getting to complete meltdown mode. Because it's not helpful. I mean, listen, I mean, yeah, it's, it's, it's, there's not a lot to grab on to when it comes to hope at the moment,

you know, and I do, I think one of the things that grinds you down about this stuff, and I, and I, listen to Died Dead, I want to sit here and talk about this, no, but like right now, I don't want to really talk about anything else. What grinds you down about this shit is, is, is you keep hoping for something, right? To some glimmer of like respite, some glimmer of, okay, it actually can be better. It actually can change. We wanna lay it a punch, just a punch. Yeah, I mean, I'll take, forget about a punch.

I just want a, I just want a little bit of like, let's find some way to restrain. Like I don't have to hit them. I wanna restrain them, you know, at this point, like push, just push them back. I mean, it was like when the travel ban, like that, stop. That's right. Okay.

All right. So somebody is stopping something. Right. But if you know that the highest court in the land, if you know the high, if you realize, if you start to believe and see that the highest court in the land, which is what's going to happen, will become completely, within, within the control of a one party in this country, which it absolutely will be. There's no question. It is not, this is not, this is not a nonpartisan thing. This

is a partisan thing. There is a way that people vote on the Supreme Court now that definitely falls along specific lines. And, and there's a reason why there are, um, think tanks and organizations that are designed in this country to find conservative justices and push them towards the Supreme Court, they've made it a practice in their party to find politically ideologically like-minded people and lift them up as hard and fast as possible into the highest court positions in the land. Because at the end of the day, laws are the things that are supposed to check what can be done with power and if they control the end of the day, laws are the things that are supposed to check what can be done with power. And if they control the people making the laws

and judging the laws, as well as the people who put the laws forward, yeah. Listen, we get into a bad place. We did Stonewall once, we abolished slavery once, we beat the Nazis once, like every generation has had something like this and it does give me hope to think that like yeah okay so it wasn't going

to be all game-arriage victory parades. It was it. Yeah but I think that we can do something. But I think the problem there is is progress is supposed to feel I get that we got I get that we have to feel I get that we have setbacks I get that there are things that go this way and go that way and it's like you know but we are talking about things that you think like, well, okay, we put that dumb issue to bed. Like gay marriage is a good example of one of those things where you're like, okay, Nope. And by the way, I think after the fact, I think most Americans even once you were like, I don't want these gay people getting married. We're kind of like, you know what? I see I think that's your perspective. I do think that there and RuPaul talks about this law, and RuPaul says a lot of questionable

things. But one of the things that I do agree with is that these things swing back and forth, and that you can even see in decades, like the 80s were really bad for gay people. The 90s were a little bit better. The 2000s were really bad. The 2010s are a little better. And they're not a clear pattern, but like, gayess in the 60s had real moments of there was like a chance that like free love, like there was some kind of discussion was happening.

Stonewall was breaking through, things were breaking down a little bit, were things great? No, but like progress is made and then like, you know, AIDS crisis comes and basically that's gone and you start over. And I do think that like, I mean, it's been the same thing with civil rights for minorities. It's been one of those things that it's not, listen, it's never gotten where we've eroded things as quickly as we have right now, but it does give me hope to think that like the Stonewall riot happened once like I will throw a rock again. Yeah, but you can't throw a rock at tank man.

You can't throw a rock at a fucking bomb. Sure, but I mean, you know, and I'm at a metaphorical rock. No, I get it, but I mean, we're maybe talking about real rocks in some point in the near future. I mean, I would just say that I'm not trying to, I'm not trying to ran on your hope here, okay? I'm just saying that like what a fucking bad we, I mean listen, I'm booking my flight to the UK

at like we've the decisions were pulling the trigger at some point. But I do think that there is like, there is hope and there is like a. That the fight isn't necessarily like we, you know, we don't have to go down at this point. Or where right? No, I mean, we can't look at this point. I mean, we've said this. I think we said this all the time. We said every week on this podcast.

And I'm sure people are fatigued from listening to it if they're listening at all. You know, voting is right now is the only tool that we have. I think left in our arsenal, we cannot count on, we cannot count on anything but representation and to restore some representation of another, of the other side of this, of this debate, you know, like I think that is,

and if you don't think that every fucking vote matters at this point, what is going to get through to you? No, right. I mean, right, that's the thing. What I have to hope is in what I really want to, what I'm really imprained and, and, and don't just, like scared to find out about, but hopeful, the place where I am most hopeful is that

if you are, if you just turned 18, if you are 60 years old, whatever your age range that you are eligible to vote and you're not looking into the country and going, now I just have your Republican and you're like, things are going great. I get it. There is a large contingency, contingent, rather, of Republicans in America

who are going to go like, this is great. We love what Trump's doing. That's fine. But I think there are a lot of other people and I believe in my heart. I actually believe a lot more people who are going to look at it and go, this isn't fine. I don't want this to continue.

Even if I don't care that much, I just don't want days of the days of this country to feel the way they feel and for people in this country to feel the way they feel. So I have to believe that come this November and come November 2020, that there will be something that is triggered in people that lets us get to a better place politically.

Will Jerry Mandering allow for that to work? I mean, it's gotta be, there has to be overwhelming. I don't think this can't be, this can't be buy a hair. Can't be like, oh, it's a fit you know 51 50 win 50.5 to you know 49.5 or whatever it needs to be conclusive needs to be these need to be conclusive, which is why I'm hoping that people come out in droves But the thing that's honestly at this point

I just I would like to see people in this administration be put in jail for human rights abuses. Like, I just have to happen. We have to make a statement to the rest of the world that this is fucking crazy. But you can't do it unless you've got power. And right now, the people, the people who would do, who would actually, you know, start to change some of this stuff don't have power. And so my fear there is that the Democrats seem so fucking directionless and so, so caught up in their infighting and so caught up in their inability, particularly with establishment Democrats, to see that something that there is a more, there is a stronger approach that is needed here. I mean, listen, the whole they go low and we go high shit. I'm sorry, like, I just don't, I love it. That is for a more civilized time. It's for people who give a shit about you. Yeah. Who will not put their fucking boot on your neck. These people will put

their boot on your neck. And not only will they, they want to, they don't care. They need power. And that's all they care about. And so like, we cannot give them any quarter. And like, so what I think the thing is, and we did a story this week, the headline of the story is fuck civility that Alex Nichols wrote and the and the and it was around this debate. Of course, people forget on Monday the debate was that Sarah Huckabee Sanders had been asked to leave a restaurant and Maxine Waters had said, make these people uncomfortable wherever they go by essentially doing many protests around them, which people have done this week, by the way, to Jeff Sessions and to and to other people in the, in the, in the Trump administration.

But like the point of that was like, we cannot, you cannot be John Kerry during the Swift boat shit anymore. Okay. John Kerry, a fucking Vietnam veteran was running against a guy who hadn't served a fucking day in his life, had not spent any time anywhere fighting for his country. John Kerry is a guy who, look, he's imperfect, dude, but he definitely went and fought in fucking Vietnam for his country. And the Republican, the Republican's hatched an attack against him. There was, he's lying about his service.

He's lying about this thing that happened. And instead of John Kerry going, hey, what the fuck? Shut the fuck up. I served my country and you're nothing. You didn't do shit for your country. He said, I'm not gonna take the bait. You don't need to take the bait, but you need to come back fucking swinging.

And the Democrats, I'll tell you, like the establishment Democrats fucking Chuck Schumer, these people, Bill Clinton, saying he agrees with the way Sarah Sanders handled this thing. The fucking Chuck Schumer chastising people in his own party. That's not the way you come back swinging. Fucking and honestly, honestly, just the fucking statements from the Dem establishment after Alexandra Cortez's election. Like that was, I, the whole like, this isn't indicative of anything. But blah, blah, blah, blah. Like the whole, like this isn't indicative of anything,

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The idea that there's just a complete blindness that things are different, or that any, we have to take any sort of different tact that like, the idea that like Sarah Huckabee Sanders is a government official, so we all need to treat her with respect. Like where are you coming from?

Are you awake? Wake up. The idea that, the idea that, okay, and it's like, listen, I am not like a hard line, fucking hard left. Like, I mean, by the way, I'm, I believe in fucking the hard left shit more than anybody, but like, I'm not like, oh, like, fuck you Hillary for running.

I'm not Bernie or bless, but I do agree with socialism. Right, that's what we mean. I agree. I'm not Bernie or bless. But I do agree with socialism. Right. I'm the same page as you. I, and I think that like, you know, like my opinion on a personally Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer is like, you could be helpful or you can be hurtful. And it's a, it depends on how you fucking position yourself here. And they have positions.

Sometimes you don't say anything. They position themselves as hurtful to the overall. Like here's the thing that matters. Would actually matters that you guys come to the fucking table together and figure this shit out because you don't suddenly you're not going to just remove every establishment Democrat. And you're not also going to have every much more like far left hardcore, entrant, be able to win.

But the combination of the Duke could be really fucking powerful. Yeah. And like, all I want is for those guys to do, how many should the two is Elizabeth Warren? Do what the fuck your Republicans do, okay? Mitch McConnell is a, is a fucking regular ass conservative, but he'll do whatever the fuck the party tells him to do if it means they can win, which is why he is, you know,

I'm not saying Mitch McConnell's a good guy, but most of these fucking, you know, these fucking gray hair. I had the ear to the floor for his own face. Most of these fucking gray hair motherfuckers and the Republican party are basic, regular ass conservative politicians. They just want to hold their fucking seat and get paid by their lobbyists and just do whatever they're fucking their hometown. Pots of ribbons and whatever. Yeah, you know, but

Trump and they didn't like Trump. They don't fucking like Trump, but they were like, Oh, shit, all these people like Trump and Trump could help us win. And they're like, whatever you want, Mr. Trump, like people in the fucking Democratic party need to be a little bit more like, Hey, what's the fucking ground swell here? Where's the energy? Where is the fucking energy? And let's grab onto that shit and fucking prop it up and promote it as hard as possible because what they mean now more than ever is not 60 year old fucking suburban's. Listen, those people didn't want Obama. It took Obama doing a real grassroots campaign. I mean, they were not on do or want everybody because I don't think the people who are who are who are looking. But Obama

wasn't even far left. They didn't want him, but your typical white suburban Democrat voter is not going to be like, no, this is this person's too radical for me. Yeah. And switch to Republican. That's not the direction they're going to go in. They're going to be like, well, I don't agree with some of the stuff he says, but I'm a Democrat. That's what Republicans do.

They're like, I'm a fucking Republican. You know, so don't worry about those people. Worry about the people that you don't have, which is a lot of mother fuckers. You know, and it's like, make it so your party can win these elections, not by a fucking nose, but by an entire fucking body, you know? And so I think that, I think that like what we need, and this is the place where I get really concerned is that I feel the establishment Democrats. I'm not saying that the hard left that is now the insurgent, the insurgent part

of the party is not like is, is perfect. I mean, I don't even think they're fully prepared and everybody's like Bernie would have won. Bernie wouldn't have won or he would have had just as hard a time. I mean, maybe not justice. Harc is a white man, but Bernie has his own challenges. Okay. There is no slam dunk. What? I'll tell you what would have had just as hard a time. I mean, maybe not justice. Our case is a white man, but Bernie has his own challenges. Okay. There's no slam dunk. What I'll tell you what would have been a slam dunk. Hillary and Bernie, which is what they fucking should have done. I can't, I can't believe what they fucking should have done, which, which I'm sorry. Bernie because they didn't like each other. Bernie, I'm sorry, Bernie should have put, he wasn't very nice.

Bernie should have put his fucking hat in his hands and said, all right, I'm not going to fight with you in this. Hillary should have said, you fucking did some amazing shit and we need that in this party. I think Bernie had a huge ego and Hillary had contempt for it. Look, they both have egos. Nobody runs for president unless they're a statistical fucking maniac. But the point is, the point is, that's what the party needs is for Hillary and Bernie to join forces. Yeah.

Basically, like, I'm sorry that I'm not, I know the chapel guys don't want to hear this and the fucking Wankette people don't want to join forces. Basically, like, I'm sorry that I'm not, now I know the chaplet guys don't wanna hear this and the fucking Wankette people don't wanna hear this. But what you actually need is for all these motherfuckers who basically do want the same thing. Look, Hillary sets some bad shit. She's done some bad shit. You don't like it, I get it. She's done some good shit too.

She's not a good shit. We're not in the fucking zone to talk about shit from 1992, like we are in the North Sea territory. But even more so, right? Then that, it's like, forget about, you don't like Hillary, I get it, I get it. The motherfuckers empower our way worse than Hillary. And you don't wanna believe that?

That's fine, you're stupid if you don't believe that. You're actually a dumb person if you don't, if you think there is an equivalent between what Donald Trump is doing and what Hillary would do in power, you are an actually stupid person. And there's nothing else to say. I'm sorry, but I'm not saying Bernie would have been a bad president.

I'm not saying Hillary would have been the best president. I'm just saying consider the fucking alternative for a second. Get together, work your shit out. And this isn't about renegotiating 2016. It's about get it together now. Come to the table as a unified front and beat the shit out of the right wing party in this country because they are taking us to a dark place. That's it. That's it. That's all I'm asking. Now I'm done ranting. Yeah. Justice League worker shit out because apocalypse is coming. Forget about the justice league. It's like Iron

Man and Captain America. Yeah, guys, guys, could you figure it out? I mean, is there a panel of all the like Captain America is like a libertarian or something and Iron Man is a fucking, he's a conservative. I don't know what they are. I don't know. What is, who's, which one is what? Captain America is more libertarian in Iron Man's more a little authoritarian. Whatever.

It's like, but you know what they got to come together to defeat Thanos. He's got his fucking, he's got his fucking gem collection I don't want to I'm not comparing I'm not comparing but here actually it's funny to think about You're not clear Trump to Thanos cuz I hate to do it But when Thanos I haven't seen the movie yet But what I understand is when Thanos gets all the infinity rings I'm gonna stone sorry the infinity stone He puts them and put them in his infinity gun lit, which is what it's called right cuz fucking comics are insane

We stupid he can then destroy the world, right? We just what? That's like Trump getting all three branches of the fucking government, man. Wake up, she bolt. God, okay, I've been screaming for like half an hour now. I need to definitely, we need to end this segment. Okay, listen, here's the deal.

Let's end on one another thing in there. From screen, since screaming, I actually feel a lot better. This has been like scream therapy. I actually feel like, you know what? We're gonna pull this this off guys. Let's just get the chappos and the in the wonkets together and just I would actually want chappos. I want together a couple of them together. I want chappo and wonkette people to fuck. How do we make it? Yeah, I want them on this podcast to have to have to have to play spin the bottle. Oh my God. Seven minutes and seven minutes and

have it. It sounds like a lot of seven minutes intolerance of one another. That's all I'm asking for. Okay, guys. You're actually, you're actually mostly on the same page. Give give each other the same respect. Mitch McConnell gives real life Nazis. Yeah. No, no, no, Mitch McConnell is like, he's like, well, I'm a good old Southern Democrat or a Southern Republican. But, but I guess you guys are all right. well, I'm a good old Southern Democrat or a Southern Republican, but but I guess you guys are all right. No, I don't know if you just talk like that. You got some cool hair, Richard Spencer.

Yeah, whatever. He's like, whatever. I know. He's like, some kind of turtle boy. This is not a good. You're not, but you're the, you're the, you're the, you know, where the fuck is Mitch McConnell from? I don't even remember who knows the, oh, I know he's from a rich, he's from a laboratory

that exploded. That was trying to synthesize pure evil. They're like, yeah, they're like know it's from a radio. He's from a laboratory that exploded. That was trying to synthesize pure evil. They're like, yeah, they're like, and they made a turtle. Anyhow. So here's the deal. He's from Al Bama, of course. Bama, one of the worst places for civil rights in the world, one of the worst places for you.

Is it like, I was gonna say, like, isn't it? That's very bad. From like a public services and income inequality perspective part of the worst places for you. I was gonna say, isn't it? That's very bad. From like a public services and income inequality perspective part of the developing world. I don't know, I don't know, but listen. I mean, the US is now officially number 10 on the most dangerous places for women to live. There you go.

There you go, motherfucker. I love am a, have a nice day. Number one wouldn't be. Get it together. It would be a surprise to me. All right, I have one final question for you. Yeah, yeah, don't do it. You're gonna do it, aren't you?

You're gonna use the blackberry key to the blackberry. And in other news, yeah, I got sent the new blackberry. I can't even look at you. I wrote it about it. Fuck off. Listen, y'all see what it didn't do is fix this country. It wasn't a keyboard but short cut. I was like, I was like, I'm not gonna write a review of this thing actually. And then I was like, oh, I could do like cards but short cut. I was like, I was like,

I'm not gonna write a review of this thing actually. And then I was like, oh, I could do like cards on it. Oh, it was like, yeah. I did like cards. I was like, what do I say about a battery of home, but it's long. Yeah. I read it.

I read every card. It should take about 30 seconds, I hope. 45 seconds max. You said this is okay. Whatever. I can't be so great. Here's what I found is actually in these trying times is that what is really good

for me is to tinker with something. And so I spent like a week tinkering like. So the computer the other day. Yeah exactly. He was the update. I was just talking to me about this. When I saw it, my keyboard, the last keyboard that I built, I was like, this was like unadulterated focus.

Like I just didn't think about anything else. And I think like what was good about the getting the blackberry was like, uh, I'm going to fuck with this phone and like not, like when I feel stressed out, I'm just gonna pick up the phone and fuck with it, which is like, it actually is pretty good. The phone is, don't buy it, you don't need it, it's whatever, I mean, unless you want a blackberry.

I get a little fidgety. So I originally, what I actually wanted to do when I got it was like, let's do a photo, essay of me and I would like wear like an 80s business man outfit and shave my beard into a goatee and be like an 80s or early 90s business man. Really 90s. And there'd be like pictures of me like hailing a cab with like a raincoat over my arm and like pictures of me

checking like a gold watch and like, whatever got American airlines ticket, whatever business, whatever business men do, you know, it would be like, my like I was like a high powered business person, but then, you know, we didn't have time for that. So, you're going through a Rolladax? Yeah, yeah, yeah, going through a Rolladax, you know, like a paid, put paging, you know,

my assistant, you know, like a Wyndon. You know, yeah, exactly. Anyhow, but I didn't do that. So, yeah, I don't know, it's like, it's a phone, you know, has a keyboard, you don't need a keyboard. You only get a good phone, get the pick, so get it't do that. So yeah, I don't know. It's like, it's a phone. You know, it has a keyboard. You don't need the keyboard. You only get a good phone, get the pixel,

get whatever Google is making. The pixel, the pixel two, they're great phones. Yeah. When you're a pixel user, do you love it? Yes. Okay, there you go. Great fucking camera. I did, by the way, I did a portrait shot of Elias,

Rothblad, RCOO, whatever. Which I didn't tell him I would use and frankly, didn't know I was going to use. But it was such a stark comparison I had to. And, uh, man, that camera is dope on the pixel. I also took all of the pictures that I took of the blackberry with the pixel that are in the piece. So, little fuck you to everybody.

A little bit of commentary there. Anya, all right, we gotta look. We have a guest who is gonna give us some, look, we're in a very depressed day right now. We're very sad, but we have Pamelaemalevi who's joining us from Mother Jones, who's going to give us some insight and help us understand what is happening with the Supreme Court right now, which is obviously part of this huge nightmare that we're living in.

But before we get to that, we haven't asked for you a favor. You can do the show since we do no one else favors. If you enjoy the show, please go to theoutline.com slash tomorrow's survey. It's just a short survey so we can figure out who the audience is so we can monetize and hopefully keep bringing your shows. So that's the outline.com slash tomorrow's survey. Wow, this is gonna be a good episode for you guys to tee off of.

My guess is a lot of the comments will be like, stop fucking yelling about politics. More PlayStation. Last gorsuch. Yeah, seriously, anyhow. But yes, please do that. The outline.com slash tomorrow survey. And, and, you know, we're gonna, we're gonna get some info on you guys. I'm doing it right now actually, because I haven't seen it yet. This is good. Oh yeah, this is fucking awesome. So take a minute to go do that,

and then we'll be back in one minute. I like that on number four, which is what describes your education. I have to list it less than high school, which is very cool. Anyhow, yes, we're gonna take a break. We'll be back with Pemalevi from Mother Jones. So stick around. What happens if you play monopoly with real money?

You've got to pay the pipe. Okay, I'll pay the pipe. There are no real watches in this completely reinvented game of an object. What does space sound like? What happens when you overwork yourself? Do you believe that work-related stress has increased? It reflects the fact of how little value we place on the well-being of human beings. The Outline World Dispatch

Every Monday through Thursday, we bring you a new story on the theme of power, culture, or the future. And picked from theoutline.com. Find us an Apple podcast, Google Play, Spotify, your Amazon Alexa Flash briefing, or wherever you download your podcasts. Also, you can say, okay, Google, play me the news, and we're right there. Oh my God, yeah. Make your mornings a little weirder. Okay, our guest today is Pema Levy. She is a politician reporter at Mother Jones and is undoubtedly extremely busy this week,

given the fact that all hell is breaking loose. Pema, thank you for being here. Thanks for having me. So, we, I mean, I think we have to and are going to talk a lot about what is happening in the courts right now, the Supreme Court, obviously, particularly. And I'm hoping you can shed some light on, I don't know if I have confusion, but I certainly have concerns. But this week was interesting because we had kind of rapid fire. I think now our fourth Supreme Court decision that just came down today.

Is that right on Jerry Mandarin? Was that today or was that yesterday? There was an additional sort of last minute orders. The courts term actually ended on Wednesday, but then they sort of did a little bit of bookkeeping today. And so there was one final gerrymandering decision that did come down here. Right. And so this week, so this week we've had, there was a ruling on this sort of abortion clinic question, which, you know, was it was, and feel free to, I'll maybe explain it the wrong way, but my understanding is that in California, you essentially had to, if you were not a license

sort of abortion clinic or sorry, Planned Parenthood or something like that, if you were actually not some kind of accredited or licensed clinically, you had to, you had to tell people, or you had to tell them that you had a license. And this ruling was about essentially now like you don't have to produce or provide any clarification about whether or not you are a licensed clinic. Is that am I getting that right? Yeah, so the context here is that there are clinics, you could say all over the country that are what are called crisis pregnancy centers. And it kind of sounds like they're the kind of place you would go if you were pregnant and you thought you might want an abortion or you might want some counseling. But what these crisis pregnancy centers are actually there for is to convince women not to get abortions. So women will often go there seeking help

finding an abortion and instead basically receive religious counseling telling them not to get an abortion and not actually giving them accurate medical information. So what California was trying to do when they passed this law that the court just overturned was try to make sure that women who ended up in these crisis pregnancy centers were actually getting information

if they wanted to pursue the option of abortion. And so what the court said was that this violates the first amendment rights of these centers and then the people there that they don't actually have to give women the information they need, should they want to pursue an abortion at a different actual clinic.

Right, so essentially pro-life institutions are kind of running these clinics that are, feels like, oh, okay, I'm pregnant, I don't know what to do, and I need to go talk to, you know, go to a clinic, you go in, and instead of saying, okay, here are your options, you know, one is abortion, one is adoption of all of law. They're like, don't do it, please, here's some religious folks to talk to you about or whatever. They're like conversion therapy. Yeah, they're pregnant women. Right. So now so that's so that's now the Supreme Court is ruled that it's it's a unconstitutional To tell people that you are not that type of clinic, right? So that was one ruling right then there was The of course the travel ban ruling, which the Supreme Court has up,

has now upheld Trump's third attempt at a travel ban, which I think a lot of people know is the Muslim ban. Can you give a little bit of color around that, a little context around that? Just for people who, I don't know, who would be listening or who lives in the world right now that isn't aware of this, but just a little bit of like the encapsulation of what that means. of this, but just a little bit of like the encapsulation of what that means. Totally, yeah, I can. So basically what it means is that, let's see, first, there are about 150 million people, almost all of the Muslims who are affected by the travel ban, and they will continue to be affected by it. And also, there's no, you know, there are,, I think seven countries right now that are included on this list, but there's no reason it can't be more or less in the future. So, I say

150 million now could be more or less at any time in the future. Basically, this was a case about two different things. One of them was about presidential power. How much power does the president have when it comes to immigration and national security to just stop different people from different countries from entering? And then there was a second piece of it, which was about the constitution, in which basically said, because of the president's comments about Muslims, about calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the country, you know, tweeting anti-Islamic propaganda. Do those things color what he has done in this travel ban, and does that therefore violate the

First Amendment rights of Muslims? And what the court said is, one, the President does have the authority to do this, and two, we're not really going to consider his comments or take on this And two, we're not really going to consider his comments or take on this question of whether or not people's First Amendment rights have been violated. And so with this one, I mean, there's a lot to unpack there, but in terms of presidential power, what this means is that given whatever reason the president might have, I mean, there's no test as far as I can tell, and maybe you'll tell me otherwise, there's no like bar that has to be met. But if tomorrow Trump wakes up and he says, well, all people from Israel should be banned

from coming into the country. All people from Germany should be banned from coming into the country, because I'm worried that they might be terrorists. Is that now like he can just do that? There's just nothing, there's no way to stop that from just going right into into action. We're pretty close to that. The court basically said, you need to give us some sort of national security reason, right? So someone, you know, you can tweet out from now on, everyone from Israel is banned, but then get one of your national security advisors, advisors to write a memo,

say that there's a reason, you know, put some window dressing on it so that it looks legitimate. But as long as you've got that window dressing, you can go ahead and do whatever you want. And actually, the fact that you mentioned Israel is interesting because that actually came up during oral arguments. Elena Kagan, just as Kagan said, you know, what if you have a really anti-Semitic president who's saying all these horrible things about Jews and then tries to ban folks from Israel, but they have some official national security reason. And the lawyer for the government said, yeah, that's okay.

And I think that in their decision this week, the Supreme Court agreed and they said, yeah, as long as you can come up with a reason that's not bias, you can go ahead and also express that bias. And we're going to approve your your band. Yeah, I mean, so unbelievable precedent. I mean, to me, this seems like completely like mind exploding from my perspective, like it feels like some a power the president alone should not hold. And I understand the idea that you'd get, oh, a national security advisor, whoever. But like, there wasn't no official,

like it must meet this bar, right? So it's like, it could essentially be a memo from, you know, Jeff Sessions saying, we think Israel might be a threat, right? I mean, it doesn't have to be, I mean, it could be anything. And everything that they've said during any runup to being elected is completely disregarded.

So you could spend the whole time saying, this is your reason, which is what happened. And then when you get in there, just, you know, well, what is it? I'm curious, what is the argument for disregarding his comments that has obviously been made publicly time and time again? And the argument is basically that we don't want to,

we don't want to try and learn what is in someone's soul, right? That's basically sometimes, well, let me back up. There's a couple of things. Basically, the Supreme Court doesn't really want to go into these comments and look at them. So as long as you can give them a reason not to, then they won't do it. So they've basically adopted a standard of, as long as you give us an official reason that isn't, I don't like Muslims or I don't like Jews or I don't like whatever group,

then we won't really delve into your comments. We'll just take your official reason at face value and we'll stay within the four corners of that document. And the reason we'll do that is because you have such sweeping powers under immigration and national security, which by the way I have been greatly bolstered by this argument. It was not at all clear that the president had the power to block people based on their nationality. In fact, there's a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which says that you cannot ban people

based on the country to which they're a citizen. And if you guys remember, that was the whole reason that Saliates was fired, you know, in the first week or so of the Trump administration, because she said, I can't enforce this order. I don't think it's legal. Right. And she was talking specifically about that provision of the law. So the Supreme Court had to interpret a provision of our immigration laws that say,

you can't ban people on the basis of nationality to essentially allow the president to do just that. So are those that odds in a way that makes this harder to enforce or does this really an erase the validity of that previous law or previous sort of position? It certainly weakens it. I think it definitely weakens it, right? It basically says, well, if you have a national security concern, if you believe that this group of people is going to be detrimental to the United States, then you can go ahead and ban them. So I think it'll be interesting to see subsequently what happens to that provision of our laws. I mean, this was something that was in there because we have a history of banning people from certain countries, right? We had the

Chinese Exclusion Act, for example. We have a history of doing this, and it was put there to not do it, and it does certainly feel like the Supreme Court has opened the door again to allowing, to allowing banning people based on the country that they come from. What is the recourse like with the Supreme Court gets it, um, sort of almost like outside of the law, objectively wrong. For example, like in the Kormatsu case, what is there any recourse for us to in the future, like deal with this factor? If the Supreme Court were on a completely different topic to overturn Roe v Wade, what is the recourse for like people in general who aren't lawyers and aren't bringing

cases? Like, is it just vote? Is that the answer? Yeah, I would think so. So there are a couple of things. When the Supreme Court makes law based on interpreting the Constitution, that's the law. And the only people that can undo that are the justices themselves in a subsequent ruling. But when the justices make a decision that is interpreting a statute, meaning they're interpreting something that Congress has done. They're basically trying to say, we think this is where Congress is going, and so, you know, that we're going to come down in this way or that way. And that's what they did in the travel ban case.

So when it comes to the travel ban, Congress could, this Congress certainly couldn't, but another Congress could say, you know what, we really didn't mean to give the president this much authority when it comes to immigration and national security. So we're gonna rein that in. So, you know, we're gonna basically change the law to overturn the travel ban decision. So that in theory that could happen to the other road.

So the ruling on the abortion clinics as a free speech issue is actually much more permanent than something like the travel ban potentially. Yeah, because that was a constitutional ruling. I mean, it's funny, the way that we do constitutional law in the United States. Nothing feels super permanent because everything will then be interpreted and sort of modified and evolved as litigation continues and as issues continue to come before the Supreme Court. We sort of have, you know, constitutional on this country is ever changing. But yes, there's a lot, you know, there's a lot more

you can do when the Supreme Court changes a statute or, you know, interprets a statute one way or another versus when they make a ruling based on what they think the Constitution says. Right. So, okay, so then there is, so I'll just get a quick let's be through this because I want to talk about the kind of the bigger topic here at hand. So, so there was also a ruling on whether or not unions could, whether or not there would be sort of mandatory union fees for workers. That was struck down or that has been taken off the table.

So now there are unions basically can't ask for, I mean, you can explain this better than I can probably, but unions can't ask for fees from workers. Can you explain that a little bit? Yeah, so this is affecting public sector unions. And it basically said that you can't, basically, you basically, it said, if you't disagree with what the politics of the union, you don't have to pay union dues.

And the effect of this is that public sector unions are not going to have as much money at all. They're going to have way less money. So on the one hand, Republicans have been targeting unions, public and private for a long time. So this is a big win on that level. But this is also one of those decisions that could cause a lot of chaos because, you know, the, the ability of unions to negotiate on behalf of workers, for example, you know, public school teachers, for example, really undergrins a lot of equanimity and contracts that are in effect right now. It sort of has created this sort of stable environment in government.

And so I think that this decision adds a lot of uncertainty to how unions are going to act, to how contracts are going to be negotiated. There could be a lot of upheaval at the look of the little. So then there's the gerrymandering ruling, which, which essentially, it basically does not roll back what is considered to be, sort of tampering with maps in order to disenfranchise and disadvantage minority voters, right? Is that the right summing up of that concept? Yeah, so if I could just quickly, there are sort of two kinds of gerrymandering of the court dealt with this term. One of them is racial gerrymandering, which is not, which is both illegal and unconstitutional.

You're not supposed to use race in a way that disadvantages minority voters in redistricting. The other one is partisan gerrymandering, right? So the question is, can you use people's political affiliation to draw maps that will then disadvantage one political party? On racial gerrymandering, there was a case out of Texas in which the court said basically they basically kind of let the state of Texas off the hook. Texas has a history in recent years of intentionally discriminating against minorities and yet the

court decided that they didn't see any discrimination there and they went ahead and let Texas maintain its current maps for the most part. The other cases were partisan jerrymandering and the court punted on those issues and basically said, yeah, go ahead and keep doing partisan jerrymandering for the time being, we're not going to rain you in. And of course, the element in the room here

is that Justice Kennedy announced his retirement. And Justice Kennedy was the element in the room here is that Justice Kennedy announced his retirement. And Justice Kennedy was the only conservative on the court that was likely to want to address the problem of partisan gerrymandering. And so I cannot say I'm hopeful in the future that the court will reign in that practice, which has become incredibly disruptive to democracy.

Right. OK, so, and then I think this is a good segue to the kind of icing on the cake or the cherry on the the whipped cream or whatever whatever kind of shit Sunday. We've been there. Yeah, that we've been enjoying this week, which is that that Kennedy's retiring, which means that Trump will have an opportunity and will absolutely take the opportunity to appoint a much more conservative, I assume, much more hard right leaning justice to the Supreme Court, thus essentially ensuring that any law that does not lean, no, that any law that pushes back against sort of conservative ideals or desires or any law that the Conservatives hope to push through to the Supreme Court is like a slam dunk for them.

Would you say that that is correct? Yeah, I think I would modify that a little bit. I would say this. Justice Kennedy was a conservative. Let's just be clear about that. Yeah. But he had a soft spot for preserving laws that protected minorities against discrimination. And he was not

comfortable outlawing abortion. He did not want to overturn Roe vs. Wade. And so there are some areas in which Kennedy made his mark. One of them was on gay marriage, for example. One of them was on preserving abortion, the right to abortion, although he certainly was on preserving abortion, the right to abortion, although he certainly helps that right shrink in recent years. And the other one are laws that fight discrimination for minorities, talking about, I'm talking about in particular affirmative action, and one key law, which is the Fair Housing Act, he actually helped preserve the most important part of that law recently, which allows minorities to fight segregation, basically. Those are all things that he preserved on a five-four basis. And I do not believe that there are Republicans are going to pick someone who

wants to preserve those things. Right, like Gorsuch, it might say in their red, I think I am, who wants to preserve those things? Right. Like Gorsuch, uh, the, my saying that red, I think I am, um, would the, the, the, last appointee, the latest appointee, would, would most likely not, I mean, can we, can we, can we, I mean, I know we can't know what's in his mind and heart, but he seems to take a much harder line approach, uh, base, yeah, yeah, of his past sort of, um, uh, rulings, uh, prior to the, prior to the Supreme Court, because he's, he's kind of like, this is his, uh, I was glad of his past sort of rulings prior to the prior to the Supreme Court, because he's kind of like, this is his, I mean, this week has been, you know, his coming out in a way. Like there have been what one or two maybe before this that he's participated in, and I could be mistaken on that, but it feels like this was like the week that he really showed his stuff.

Yeah, I mean, just as Gorsuch is very conservative and there's nothing in his record note indicate that he would hesitate to, you know, for example, end affirmative action in higher education or maintain access to abortion or preserve gay rights. Yeah. So, I haven't seen that. Right, so how bad is this? Yeah, like how far are we, like, Okay, right. Yeah. So I haven't seen that.

Right. So how bad is this? Yeah. Like how far are we like team minus until like game air just gone over view eight is overturned and I book a plane ticket. Yeah. Yeah. Like, let's get like, I mean, I think because I'm, I immediately go into a

very, I go to a very dark place. Yeah, I go to Gilead fast. Yeah. I mean, and so can you tell us and I, and I recognize that, you know, you don't have the final word on this, but I feel like you're smarter about this than I am, give me some perspective. How bad is this for like, and I'm going to use the word progressivism, but I'm basically thinking of that in the clear, in the most like human rights. Yeah, like, like how, because when I think about major rulings of the courts that have been

positive gay marriages, of course, a perfect example, I just think, oh, like, you know, we're becoming a more progressive, more open-minded, more sort of like understanding country in many ways. That kind of ruling pushes us forward. What we see most from Trump, forget about the trade stuff for a second,

and the, you know, he's meeting with Kim Jong-un or whatever. What we see mostly from Trump, forget about the trade stuff for a second and the, you know, his meeting with Kim Jong-un or whatever. What we see mostly from Trump and here most of him Trump and when we see in his policies is a kind of discriminatory anti-human rights sort of stance and certainly an anti-immigrant anti-people of color, anti-disenfranchised people sort of stance. So how bad, how much worse does it get now and how bad is this for real?

Yeah, if you care about things like gay rights access to abortion, racial equality, I don't think it's very good. I think it's bad news. I think there's been a lot of talk, for example, of overturning the recent case, Obertsville, which legalists, same-sex marriage, and overturning the recent case, Obertsville, which legalists, same sex marriage, and overturning Roe v. Wade. I don't know if those decisions will be outright overturned or whether or not they will simply be so substantially weakened as to mean that those rights are not full rights anymore. Like the way the way they case.

Sure, I mean. That was really narrow, but we'll take a portion, for example, you know, they could overturn Roe v Wade or they could say, you know, due to advances in medicine, we now think that, you know, the fetus is more important than, you know, basically Roe White said there's a balance, right? They said there's the mother's decision to keep her or end her pregnancy. And then there's the interest in the state of preserving the fetus and wrote, put that line at viability, right?

So you have a right to an abortion until the fetus is viable, until it can live outside the womb. And then the state can decide. And that's the world we live in right now. They could say, let's move that line back from viability to a heartbeat. So that's say six weeks. A lot of women don't even know's say six weeks. A lot of women don't even know that pregnant six weeks. That's extremely early. That is like, I mean,

yeah. I mean, they could draw the line anywhere. They could say, you know, you don't have to have, you know, it's technically legal, but states don't have, there doesn't need to be a clinic in every state. They could say, they could do a lot of things that basically mean you have to fly to California or New York in order to get an abortion without outright overturning row, or you know what, a lot of people in the Supreme Court and a lot of conservatives have been waiting 40 years to overturn row, they might just go ahead and do it. You know, you can imagine the same thing on, on gay marriage and gay rights in other ways. People don't realize, but people who are not straight don't have as many rights. They can be fired for choosing to marry someone of the same sex, for example. And we were moving toward changing that.

There have been a few courts who have said, no, you can't actually fire people because of their sexual orientation. I see that movement stopping now. And they could totally modify access to marriage for same sex couples or say, sure, you can get married, but the state doesn't have to give you any benefits.

For example, the state doesn't have direct benefits and stuff like that. Right. And would you say that, well, I mean, I was going to ask, like, what are the driving factors? Obviously, with the pro-life movement, we know that religion is sort of the driving factor there. When it comes to gay marriage, I would assume again, there's I mean the pushback is is of a largely religious sort of type, you know Is this I mean is this are we gonna be doing this is this like is that Is that the focus will that be the focus do you think for these groups now like is they going to be a relent?

I mean, I was in for pro for the pro lifers. It is going to be an increase pressure to get Roe v Wade rolled back as far as possible. Gay marriage. Is that is that really going to be a topic they take up at this point? And does it seem like it's been that disruptive to they are people still pissed off about it? Like I don't I don't feel that or see it anywhere.

I definitely see pro life. Yeah, I think that these both will be back on the table. I mean, you know, when you sort of, you've sort of said the words like these groups or something, it doesn't, it takes one person to file a lawsuit somewhere and then it takes four justices on the Supreme Court to decide to take that case up. So, you know, it's not like someone out there saying, you do this and you do this and you do this. Obviously, there's a lot of strategy that goes into, you know, some groups have a lot of strategy, you know, on both sides of the aisle, you know, they seal you, we'll pick their cases and, you know, conservative groups will pick their cases and they're trying to change the

law by filing these cases, you know, but yeah, sure, there will be cases about, you know, adoption, about services for gay people. All of those things will bring the myriad opportunities to the court to roll back gay rights, same for abortion. And these cases are always percolating. And now that conservatives are going to have a very conservative Supreme Court, they'll just keep appealing these decisions all the way up.

Right, OK, So what happened? Like, what can be done? I mean, what do we do now? Like, for people who are freaking the fuck out, which is pretty much every person that I know and anybody who's even like slightly, and even centrist or like what's going on here, you know, I mean, like, what is, what happens now?

What can stop this? What can change this? What are people like, your opinion and and like? You know professionally personally like what are things that can happen now? to Alter what is a what it looks like to me a very dark future for for the country? It's hard when you ask a journalist for like activist advice here But I mean basically I would say that there's

Forget about the vice versa second and forget about that. Like what are the things that could happen that would change? Don't even give me your I don't need to act. But like there was a blue wave. Does that affect things? Yeah, what can be what can be change? What would need to be changed to change the state of this court and to move back towards some balance in the court? Yeah, I think that, yeah, I mean, basically, you know, there, there are three branches of government here. Right now, they're all controlled by Republicans or in the case of the court, Republican appointees. It's gonna be hard to change that with the Supreme Court in, in the near term, possibly for a generation. But the other branches of the government are elected every two or four or six years. So, you know, if you have a Congress that wants to make sure there's access to abortion,

you know, a conservative Supreme Court might endanger that on some level, but to be honest, it's tricky, right? I mean, even a Supreme Court, as an institution overall, tries not to veer too far from where the political will of the country is. I'm not saying it can't happen, the Supreme Court can do whatever it wants, but if the Supreme Court sees public opinion going in one direction or another,

they are not gonna try and sort of jump in the opposite direction for the most part. On some of like, I don't know. That's what's so tricky about this, if I'm being honest with you guys, because right now, support for Roe v. Wade and abortion rights are really in an all-time high, same for same-sex marriage.

At the same time, you have a court that is more opposed to them than we will have a court that will be more opposed to those rights than the court has been in decades. And so I think on some level we're looking at a political experiment right now and how those two things interact if the court is in one area and then the public is in a very different area on these issues. But certainly, Congress can make laws about all of these things and they can

move the ball forward and the president can as well. So is there, in your opinion, should I be panicking, like how panic should I be? Like, and you can give me your personal opinion as well. I mean, I'm going to put it this way. Roe v Wade came down in 1973. So for, I'm bad at math, but for more than 40 years, the conservatives have been mobilizing around that case. They have been trying to get a conservative majority on the Supreme Court that will overturn

that case because they don't like it. And it's been a long haul and they've gotten a lot of political wins along the way. I mean, being mobilized around that issue has meant, you know, the election of presidents and congresses. I mean, it turns people out to vote. They might soon be that dog that caught the car, right? They might soon get what they want. And the question is whether or not this flips and and progressive spend 40 years trying to move the court back to a place where they can preserve access to abortion for all Americans. And there might be political victory that comes with that. There might not. It is possible. like we have after- It is possible.

It doesn't feel like it. If Republicans just wandered in the wilderness for 40 years, it might be a progressive's turn. But do you really think we have, do you really think after 40 years of abortion being a right that women had in this country that we go back? And it's like, oh, okay, well, we'll go fight it in the courts. I mean, doesn't it feel like there's, I mean,

and this is again, I mean, I'm just speculating, but to me, it feels like ripping a right away from women in this country overnight. You know, if it does happen, I understand they've been working on it for 40 years, but for 40 years, they fucking failed. So now it's like, oh, you can do it. That doesn't feel like it's gonna be a real quiet moment in American history.

Oh, I certainly don't think it will be quiet. And I think E-RES a good point. It's really hard to take rights away from people, right? So whether or not they'll completely overturn it or not, I don't know. But I don't think they've been actually failing until now. I think they've been just, they're staying with one abortion clinic and it's open two days a week, right? There are people all over this country that can't with one abortion clinic and it's open two days a week, right? There are people all over this country that can't get to a clinic because it's hundreds of miles away and it costs too much and then they have to come back 24 hours later to get counseling and then they have you know, I mean like there are a lot of babies born in this country every day

because the mother did not have the option of having an abortion. So they have been making a lot of progress just quietly. And I think that that progress would come much more visible, but it might be, like I said, just saying, well, now you can't get an abortion after six weeks. Right. Or, you know, now, you know, you can, it does, if you have to fly across the country to get it, that's not a burden. Right.

You know, they can do a lot of things. Yeah. I mean, I guess the question of what is what is tolerable and not tolerable for the the women of America? I mean, I think what you're, I mean, you're undoubtedly correct about the chipping away of it in these like kind of little slow boil. Yeah. But, but it is like the fundamental rights that exist, right? You know, and it's like, yeah, I mean, six weeks might be the trigger or might be something else, but it seems like there's a kind of, there's a point where you hit something that goes beyond what the expectation

of the chipping away is. Yeah. I know you have to catch a trade. But I do have one more question about this that going back to the travel ban and the power of the president, because I think this kind of gets, that ruling to me gets, opens up questions that I don't fully understand.

Like, where does, where does the power of the president end if the ruling is like, well, if you say, you know, we need to ban these countries and you have somebody write a memo or whatever and agree with it, that's like a national security advisor, let's say. Does this mean that now there's a precedent

for other types of laws where the president says, hey, I need to do this. People say, well, that's not constitutional and that he's got a memo from somebody and now there's a precedent. Is that the way this works? I mean, I know he's on stupid asking this question, but does it open the door for things like that to be much easier for the president? I think that's a really good question. I don't think you can say that based just on this ruling, just because you're always working with different statutes and the court can sort of, again, make up what it's doing on it as it goes along.

So it could sort of extend this principle further and it could not. But I do think you're right to ask about presidential authority because I will say that, you know, whoever is put on the Supreme Court next might be a deciding vote on issues like can the president pardon himself? Can the Mueller investigation continue? Does the president have to respond to a subpoena? There are a lot of questions that have to do with presidential power right now that are sort of swirling around Trump and this very unprecedented presidency that he's in the midst of with the

Mueller investigation and everything. And so I do think you're right to wonder what this court is going to do on presidential power. I just don't know the answer. Okay. And then this is my last question that I'll let you go because I never understand you get a catch of train. Do you believe that Gorsuch would, that he is not like, I mean, it's the question is, is he like a pro Trump person, like what you know of him is he pro

Trump in his dance or is he pro like a set of conservative ideals and a set of sort of, like, thinking around the constitution and law. And therefore, it's not a slam dunk, like no questions asked that he would vote in favor of, let's say, Trump being able to pardon themselves because that would be a whole different sort of legal debate that wouldn't be that when he's alignment and not and might not necessarily be or should not be or hopefully would not be like what does Trump want. Is that fair to say? Yeah, so I think I would put it this way, which is that there are a few issues on which Trump departs

from traditional Republicans. You can point to trade, for example, or the fact that he's co-zing up to Russia instead of being drawing a hard line on Russia. But when it comes to a Supreme Court justice and the law, Trump doesn't really challenge their sort of conservative ideology, right? Like Trump, you know, Trump is not making them choose, for example, between like free trade

and their base or something, you know, like some like like has happening right now to Republicans than Congress. So I don't actually think that you have to choose between like a conservative ideal and being pro-Trump if you're on the Supreme Court because when it comes to legal issues, you know, about basically, you know, if you're talking about like pro-business decisions, you know, anti-union decisions, if you're talking about the authority of the president when it comes to immigration or foreign policy, Trump is not creating a conundrum here for those folks. Right, I guess what I'm saying is that Trump's, something that rose as Supreme Court

that was like the president can pardon himself, no matter what, would be a major question about like how we are governed in this country and would not be in the realm of what is what like That Trump is essentially asking for something But the travel ban Trump essentially was asking for something, right? There is a there is a precedent here where he said I want this thing to happen the court said no That's not constitutional and so it went up to the Supreme Court

If he says I want to be like pardon myself and somebody says no, that's not constitutional The question is has to be ultimately I guess the question for me is does Gorsuch is he the kind of justice that would say I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I have not seen an indication that he would do something to preserve this president being in power if he really felt like it was the wrong thing on the law or wrong for the country. You know, I certainly think you cannot look at how many five four decisions we have that

come down between people appointed by Democrats and people appointed by Republicans and say that partisanship is not a factor on the Supreme Court. So I'm definitely not saying that. But I don't think that Gorsuch in particular, I have not seen him be so partisan that I think he would go out of his way to make sure that Trump is okay for something that he felt was like really bad law going forward. You know, the Justice have done that. They did it explicitly in Bush versus Gore, because they said, we're going to make Bush president, but please don't quote us on this in the future, basically.

So it's happened, but I don't necessarily, I won't put that on Gorsuch right now. All right, well listen, I'm going to allow, I will now allow you to go, because I don't want you to be late for your train. Thank you very much for this. I know it's like a bunch of sort of, I think I asked a bunch of dumb questions

because I'm just living in a total fear right now. And I feel like I don't understand any of this. Your answers have been extremely enlightening. So thank you very much. And you have to come back next time when there's a horrible Supreme Court situation and we can, we can commiserate about that as well. It would be my pleasure.

Thank you. Okay. Thanks so much. Well, that is our show for this week. We will be back next week with Mort tomorrow. And you know what I really do wish you and your family the very best, and I really hope for their sake and for yours that we can pull through this fucking nightmare and get on the other side. And be smoking weed and drinking mimosas and talking about shoes instead of smoking weed drinking mimosas and talking about death camps.