Episode 221: No Such Thing As Honor Anymore

Hosts: Jill Wine-Banks & Barb McQuaid
Release Date: February 1, 2025
Podcast: #SistersInLaw by Politicon

Introduction: An Uneven Line-Up

In this episode of #SistersInLaw, hosts Jill Wine-Banks and Barb McQuaid step into the spotlight solo, as co-hosts Joyce Vance and Kimberly Atkins Stohr are absent. They set the stage by discussing the week’s pressing political issues, including government firings, confirmation hearings, and the chaos stemming from recent executive orders.

Renaming American Icons: A Symbolic Gesture

Early in the episode, the hosts engage in a lighthearted yet poignant conversation about renaming American landmarks—a response to President Trump's recent renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America and Mount Denali to Mount McKinley.

Barb McQuaid [02:06]:
"I would hope these name changes would only be temporary... I might call it the Statue of Un Libert and the Women’s Equal Inequality National Museum."

Jill Wine-Banks [02:06]:
"I definitely want to rename that [Trump-named building] because I find it an offense to see it on the Chicago River."

They emphasize the importance of symbols in representing national values and identities, reflecting broader concerns about political influence on public spaces.

Federal Government Firings: A Threat to the Rule of Law

The discussion shifts to the controversial firings of Inspectors General across federal agencies, excluding the Department of Justice's Inspector General. Jill raises concerns about the legality and implications of these actions.

Jill Wine-Banks [08:36]:
"Despite the law and its clear violation by this action, inspectors general from almost all federal agencies were fired... It might have been a test of the power of the president." ([08:36])

Barb McQuaid [09:51]:
"Inspectors General are watchdogs of government... This blanket firing is disturbing because there’s nothing to suggest any of these inspectors general did anything wrong." ([09:51])

They delve into the unitary executive theory, questioning whether the President can unilaterally dismiss nonpartisan officials without legislative oversight. Barb references the landmark Youngstown Steel case to illustrate the complexities of executive power.

Barb McQuaid [11:57]:
"The Supreme Court blocked Truman’s attempt to take over the steel mills... It gave interesting language about the power sharing between the President and Congress." ([11:57])

Confirmation Hearings: Scrutinizing Trump’s Nominees

Jill and Barb critique the confirmation hearings of President Trump’s nominees, specifically focusing on Cash Patel, Tulsi Gabbard, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

On Cash Patel:

Jill Wine-Banks [33:39]:
"He is an election denier... He has a lot of accusations of acting beyond his remit... He wants to turn the FBI headquarters into a deep state museum." ([35:34])

Barb McQuaid [35:34]:
"He lacks appropriate experience... He is unlikely to be independent from the president." ([35:34])

On Tulsi Gabbard:

Jill Wine-Banks [43:41]:
"She defended Assad and Snowden... She has no experience in the intelligence field and lacks judgment." ([43:41])

Barb McQuaid [46:47]:
"She served as a medic and an MP, not in intelligence... Her lack of experience poses significant risks." ([46:47])

On Robert F. Kennedy Jr.:

Jill Wine-Banks [51:18]:
"He confused Medicare and Medicaid... His anti-vax stance and financial conflicts are disqualifying." ([51:18])

Barb McQuaid [53:07]:
"Confusing Medicare and Medicaid is like not knowing two plus two. It disqualifies him from overseeing healthcare programs." ([53:07])

They argue that these nominees lack the necessary qualifications and exhibit bias, undermining the integrity of federal institutions.

Executive Orders and Federal Chaos

A significant portion of the episode examines a recent executive order that instructed a temporary pause on all federal grant funding, leading to widespread disruption.

Barb McQuaid [58:37]:
"This was one of the craziest and most disturbing executive orders... Absolute widespread chaos." ([58:37])

Jill Wine-Banks [59:52]:
"These executive orders were straight out of Project 2025... Medical research was stopped." ([59:52])

The order's swift rescission the following day highlights the administration's mismanagement and the ensuing legal battles over presidential powers. The hosts express concern over the potential for such actions to erode constitutional checks and balances.

Listener Questions: Navigating Legal Complexities

In the Q&A segment, the hosts address critical questions from listeners about SCOTUS immunity rulings and the role of impeachment in holding a president accountable.

Question by Kathleen: "What would it take to get rid of the SCOTUS immunity decision? Can they void it?"

Jill Wine-Banks [65:43]:
"They can overrule it, but it would require a new case that provides different facts to challenge the existing precedent." ([65:43])

Barb McQuaid [67:18]:
"There’s a possibility to narrow the ruling in future cases by clarifying the limits of executive power." ([67:18])

Question by Donna: "Is there a time limit or constraint to executive orders? If so, what is it? What happens if the time limit runs out?"

Jill Wine-Banks [71:49]:
"There is no official time limit. Executive orders remain in effect until they are rescinded by a subsequent administration." ([71:49])

They emphasize the importance of public engagement and legislative action to counteract overreaching executive orders, highlighting the need for vigilance in protecting democratic institutions.

Conclusion: The Erosion of Honor and Call to Action

The episode wraps up with a somber reflection on the diminishing sense of honor within political actions, drawing connections between personal integrity and institutional integrity.

Barb McQuaid [71:30]:
"Trump has made everything political. There's no such thing as honor anymore." ([71:30])

Jill Wine-Banks [72:37]:
"Vote wisely in 2028 so that we can have a president who rescinds executive orders that are not in the best interest of democracy." ([72:37])

The hosts urge listeners to remain informed, hold elected officials accountable, and actively participate in the democratic process to safeguard the nation’s foundational principles.

Key Takeaways:

• Presidential Overreach: The episode critically examines the recent firings of Inspectors General and the problematic nature of executive orders, emphasizing the threat to nonpartisan oversight and the rule of law.

• Nominee Scrutiny: Hosts express deep concerns over the qualifications and biases of Trump’s nominees for key federal positions, questioning their ability to maintain institutional integrity.

• Legal Battles Ahead: Discussions highlight the ongoing and future legal challenges surrounding executive power and the potential for Supreme Court rulings to either constrain or expand presidential authority.

• Public Engagement: A recurring theme is the pivotal role of public sentiment and legislative action in countering executive overreach and ensuring accountability.

• Democratic Vigilance: The hosts conclude with a call to action for listeners to stay engaged, informed, and proactive in defending democratic institutions and values.

Notable Quotes:

• Jill Wine-Banks [08:36]:
  "Despite the law and its clear violation by this action, inspectors general from almost all federal agencies were fired."

• Barb McQuaid [09:51]:
  "Inspectors General are watchdogs of government... This blanket firing is disturbing because there’s nothing to suggest any of these inspectors general did anything wrong."

• Jill Wine-Banks [35:34]:
  "He lacks appropriate experience... He is unlikely to be independent from the president."

• Barb McQuaid [53:07]:
  "Confusing Medicare and Medicaid is like not knowing two plus two. It disqualifies him from overseeing healthcare programs."

• Jill Wine-Banks [72:37]:
  "Vote wisely in 2028 so that we can have a president who rescinds executive orders that are not in the best interest of democracy."

This episode of #SistersInLaw provides a critical analysis of the current political landscape, urging listeners to recognize and resist threats to democratic norms and institutional integrity.