#SistersInLaw Episode 217: "25 Cent Word" Summary

Release Date: January 4, 2025

In Episode 217 of Politicon's #SistersInLaw, hosts Joyce Vance, Jill Wine-Banks, Barb McQuaid, and Kimberly Atkins Stohr delve deep into pressing political and legal issues of early 2025. This comprehensive discussion covers the tragic terrorist attack in New Orleans, Chief Justice John Roberts's controversial year-end judiciary report, and the implications of the 14th Amendment on Donald Trump's potential return to office. The episode concludes with a dynamic Q&A segment addressing listener inquiries on topics ranging from presidential pardons to legal protections for civil servants.

1. New Orleans Terrorist Attack: Legal and Security Implications

The episode opens with a somber discussion on the terrorist attack on Bourbon Street in New Orleans, which resulted in the death of the perpetrator after a shootout with police. The hosts dissect the legal ramifications and the ongoing efforts of law enforcement to prevent such incidents.

Kimberly Atkinstore ([07:39]) highlights the nature of the attack:

"The subject acted as a lone wolf and was motivated by a conversion to ISIS ideology. It feels very much like the classic online radicalization that we've seen over and over again."

Jill Wine-Banks ([08:33]) emphasizes the need for comprehensive measures:

"We have to look at really what caused this conversion... How much of this came from knowledge gained from military service and what does this say about the mental health of soldiers?"

Barb McQuaid ([10:31]) adds insight from anti-terrorism work:

"You cannot thank law enforcement enough for the job that they do."

The discussion underscores the importance of addressing online radicalization, mental health support for veterans, and enhancing intelligence and law enforcement collaboration to thwart future threats.

2. Chief Justice John Roberts’s Year-End Judicial Report

A significant portion of the episode critiques Chief Justice John Roberts’s annual report, which addresses threats to the judiciary's independence, including violence, intimidation, and disinformation.

Kimberly Atkinstore ([37:18]) voices skepticism:

"I think this is a terribly tone-deaf report... The Chief Justice needs to hear some of what's going on elsewhere in America."

Joyce Vance ([38:29]) elaborates on the shortcomings:

"The report feels like Festivus... It sounds like grievances from the Chief Justice and probably the people in his ear... He misses addressing the ethical and transparency issues plaguing the Court."

Jill Wine-Banks ([43:45]) concurs, pointing out specific failures:

"We have justices like Sam Alito who either don't recuse themselves in cases they should or do so without explanation... This undermines the legitimacy of the Court."

The hosts argue that while the report correctly identifies external threats, it neglects internal issues such as ethical breaches and lack of transparency, thereby failing to restore public confidence in the judiciary.

3. The 14th Amendment and Donald Trump's Eligibility for Office

A heated debate ensues around Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and its potential to bar Donald Trump from holding office.

Jill Wine-Banks ([56:19]) explains the Amendment’s relevance:

"Section 1 of the 14th Amendment provides due process and equal protection of the laws. Section 3 has garnered attention recently regarding Trump's eligibility to take office."

Kimberly Atkinstore ([57:45]) clarifies Supreme Court decisions:

"The Supreme Court decided that Section 3 does not apply to disqualifying Trump from the primary ballot in Colorado, as primaries are governed by political parties."

Barb McQuaid ([59:01]) provides a pragmatic perspective:

"This Supreme Court is not going to bar Donald Trump from taking office on 14th Amendment grounds. The real solution lies in Congress acting decisively, particularly through impeachment and conviction."

Joyce Vance ([62:34]) discusses the need for enabling statutes:

"Congress needs to pass an enabling statute to clearly implement Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and the Emoluments Clause to ensure enforceability."

The conversation highlights the legal complexities surrounding the 14th Amendment and emphasizes the necessity for Congress to establish clear legislative frameworks to address potential constitutional violations by presidential candidates.

4. Countering Violent Extremism and the Role of the FBI

The hosts explore strategies for countering violent extremism (CVE) and the critical role of the FBI in national security.

Jill Wine-Banks ([21:28]) underscores the FBI’s indispensability:

"The FBI has the expertise in bomb disposal, intelligence gathering, and coordinated response that local agencies cannot replicate."

Barb McQuaid ([24:03]) reinforces the FBI’s specialized capabilities:

"The FBI is extraordinarily good at what it does... Their constant training and expertise are vital in defending against terrorism."

Joyce Vance ([25:41]) criticizes proposed political shifts:

"Cash Patel's push to eliminate the FBI's non-political status threatens its ability to function effectively as an intelligence and law enforcement agency."

The discussion advocates for maintaining the FBI’s autonomous status and ensuring that counter-terrorism efforts remain depoliticized to effectively safeguard national security.

5. Supreme Court’s Response to Disinformation and Judicial Integrity

Joyce Vance ([47:07]) examines Chief Justice Roberts’s stance on disinformation:

"Foreign disinformation is a genuine threat, but Chief Justice Roberts is deflecting legitimate criticism about the Court's ethical failings."

Barb McQuaid ([50:06]) comments on the dual impact of disinformation:

"While foreign actors aim to undermine our institutions, domestic figures like Donald Trump exploit disinformation to further their agendas, exacerbating institutional distrust."

Joyce Vance ([50:43]) advises Chief Justice Roberts:

"He needs to step out of the ivory tower and engage with the public to understand and address the Court’s credibility issues."

The hosts argue that while foreign disinformation poses significant risks, internal issues within the Supreme Court, particularly regarding ethics and transparency, are equally critical and demand immediate attention to preserve judicial integrity.

6. Listener Q&A Segment

The episode transitions to a Q&A segment, addressing listeners' questions on various legal topics.

Question 1: Blocking Trump’s Pardon of January 6th Insurrectionists

Barb McQuaid ([69:54]) responds:

"The president has broad pardon powers under the Constitution. While pardoning January 6th defendants is legally permissible, it undermines civic responsibility and may embolden extremist groups."

Question 2: Interest Rates for Damages and Court Fines

Jill Wine-Banks ([73:08]) explains:

"Federal statutes set interest rates based on the weekly average 1-year constant maturity treasury yield. For example, in Florida, I secured a judgment with a 10% annual interest rate."

Question 3: Legal Challenges to Mass Firing of Civil Servants

Jill Wine-Banks ([74:19]) addresses concerns:

"Civil servants are protected by laws requiring due process and cause for termination. However, political appointees like the head of the Office of Personnel Management could exploit loopholes, leading to potential legal battles."

The hosts emphasize the importance of legal safeguards for civil servants and the necessity of legislative action to prevent unlawful terminations.

7. Concluding Remarks

Kimberly Atkinstore ([76:45]) wraps up the episode:

"Thank you for listening to Sisters in Law. Follow us on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen, and give us a five-star review to help others find our show."

Barb McQuaid ([76:54]) and Joyce Vance ([76:56]) share light-hearted exchanges before the episode concludes, maintaining the engaging and personable atmosphere of the show.

Key Takeaways:

• The New Orleans terrorist attack highlights ongoing challenges in countering online radicalization and supporting mental health for veterans.
• Chief Justice John Roberts’s judiciary report is criticized for neglecting internal ethical issues, undermining public trust in the Supreme Court.
• Section 3 of the 14th Amendment presents complex legal questions regarding Donald Trump's eligibility for office, necessitating clear legislative action.
• The FBI remains crucial in national security with specialized capabilities that local agencies cannot match, and its autonomy must be preserved.
• Disinformation from both foreign and domestic sources threatens institutional integrity, necessitating robust countermeasures.
• Legal protections for civil servants are vital, yet political maneuvering poses risks to their job security.

This episode of #SistersInLaw offers a thorough examination of critical political and legal issues, providing listeners with informed perspectives and actionable insights to navigate the complexities of governance and law in 2025.