Loading summary
Transcript117 lines
- [00:10]
Jill Wine Banks
Welcome back to Sisters in law with Barb McQuaid, Joyce Vance, and me, Jill Wine Banks. Kim will be back next week and of course, we miss her right now, but we're looking forward to her return. The new resistance mini tote is is ready for pre order and I should say that resistence because it is the sisters resisting. And if you go to politicon.com merch you can get yours now. They have been on backorder, but they're ready for you now. Let's get on with the show because today we have a lot of good topics and one that's sort of positive. The first, not so much was an argument at the Supreme Court about the establishment clause and whether St. Isidore Catholic Charter School could be a a public school in Oklahoma. We're gonna talk about a lot that's rotten at the Department of Justice. And also ending on a more positive note, a Texas federal judge appointed by Trump who ruled against Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act. Before we get onto those topics, though, I wanted to ask you all about how you have celebrated special occasions, whether it's anniversaries or birthdays and whether your parents, when you were children did special things to make those occasions really stand out. You know, I've been working on a children's book and so it caused me to be thinking about my childhood. And my parents did so much on birthdays, they would decorate our apartment with crepe that they. Crepe paper. Does that even something that still exists? Is there crepe paper in it?
- [01:49]
Joyce Vance
Still exists. My mom used to do that too, though.
- [01:53]
Jill Wine Banks
She would twist it and pin it up to the ceiling with, I guess, Scotch tape and put garlands of that and then put blown up balloons that she would somehow get staticky so they would float and stick to the ceiling. And then I once had a birthday cake that had a doll in the center of it that I could keep afterwards. Did you have that?
- [02:15]
Joyce Vance
I have the same. My mom had this Wilton cake decorating cookbook and she spent like a whole day making the cake. And it was a thing of wonder and beautiful. Even as a little kid, like, I knew I was a lucky girl.
- [02:28]
Jill Wine Banks
Wow. It was so special. And one year they hired a clown to come and entertain. So birthdays were really special then. And I try to carry on that now with my friends and my husband to do either a surprise party or to just do something really weird and special. What about you guys?
- [02:44]
Barb McQuaid
Well, I'm feeling a little left out. I did not have crepe paper or balloons on the ceiling as a child? No, my friend didn't come for me.
- [02:50]
Joyce Vance
For your birthday this year?
- [02:51]
Jill Wine Banks
Yeah.
- [02:51]
Barb McQuaid
No, there's nothing to feel sorry for. Oh, I had a wonderful childhood of wonderful parents and a wonderful. In fact I think I have a birthday that's near Christmas. And so you know, as a result there is a risk of having one's birthday overlooked. And not only did my family not overlook my birthday, many will say they overcompensated. And so I had wonderful birthdays and I'm very, very fortunate.
- [03:18]
Jill Wine Banks
What about your anniversary, Barb? Your wedding anniversary? Do you do something special for that?
- [03:22]
Barb McQuaid
You know, it depends. I mean some years life has been crazy with schedules and kids and other things, but other years we've some really special trips. Remember for our first wedding anniversary my husband surprised me. He said we were going to drive home to visit his parents in western New York because they wanted to take us out to dinner at this very stodgy place. And I dutifully packed up to go and brought my stuff and instead he secretly drove us to Toronto where we had a wonderful evening and we saw a show, a musical and had some dinner and stayed at a fabulous hotel and had a great week. So that was great. Not of course to the in laws, not because I didn't have to be with you, but because I got to be have this very special celebration.
- [04:09]
Joyce Vance
You know it's funny, I grew up in a family that celebrated everything. We even celebrated holidays from other religions, Holi, which is, you know, part of the Indian tradition that the holiday that is based on colors was always really big in our house and birthdays were a huge to do. I was reminded my youngest cousin had on her substack this weekend. She made the strawberry angel food cake that my grandmother made for every birthday we had growing up. And it's a wonderful cake. I'm going to actually make one this weekend. But my husband's family wasn't like that, not big on celebrations. But my mother in law was a really good sport. And one year for our oldest kid's birthday there was a local pet shop here, Ed's Pet Shop. And they would bring a bunch of animals to a kids party that the kids could touch. And one of them was this incredibly long. I mean like we're talking 8 foot long yellow boa constrictor. And my mother in law was legendarily afraid of snakes. And she nonetheless let Ed and his son Seth wrap this and I mean we're talking big diameter and she wrapped that snake around her neck and put her grandson, tucked him under her arm with the snake around both of them. It was our Christmas card picture that year. That just epitomizes to me, right, a commitment to making holidays special because our oldest son has never forgotten that moment with his granny.
- [05:37]
Jill Wine Banks
I would do a lot of crazy things, but I have to say I don't think I would do that one.
- [05:43]
Joyce Vance
That she was amazing, that woman.
- [05:46]
Jill Wine Banks
Wow.
- [05:56]
Joyce Vance
This episode of Sisters in Law is brought to you by Wild Grain. If you're not already familiar with Wild Grain, it's the first baked from frozen subscription box for artisanal breads, pastries and pastas. Wild Grains boxes are fully customizable to your tastes and dietary restrictions. And there's some exciting news. In addition to their classic variety box, they recently launched a new gluten free box and a 100% vegan plant based box. Best of all, Wild Grain takes the hassle out of baking since all the items bake from frozen in 25 minutes or or less. They smell great. There's no mess and no cleanup.
- [06:37]
Jill Wine Banks
Yeah, it sounds hard to believe, doesn't it, Joyce? But it's true. And I love not just how fast wild grain goes from the box yard table, but I love the taste. And I love how my husband and I enjoy all their breads, their pastas and their pastries. And so do my guests, who are always impressed and often end up subscribing for wild grain delivery themselves because they loved it so much. It's perfect for delicious meals or snacks now or when it finally warms up for outdoor parties. It's great to watch the colors and flavor come alive when you put the sourdough rolls in the oven. The aroma is amazing. And have you tried the new rhubarb strawberry turnovers? They are so good.
- [07:24]
Joyce Vance
I need those right now.
- [07:26]
Jill Wine Banks
You do. They are just a little size, so it's enough to have just a couple bites and be really, really. I never have to call anyone to the table anymore because as soon as they smell the bread, they are running to the table and everything is delicious. Super high quality and easy to make. I can guarantee. In addition to that pastry I was just talking about, they have raspberry lemon biscuits and new chocolate croissants. As great as their croissants are, oh my God, the chocolate croissants are unbelievable. It's a big hit. It's one of our faves now. And their French butter is really terrific, which is an extra thing you can order. And Tonnarelli is my favorite pasta from them.
- [08:12]
Barb McQuaid
Oh, man, that butter is so good. I'm not a big butter eater. Love that. But that French butter, I don't know what it's like. It's salted or something.
- [08:19]
Jill Wine Banks
It's great.
- [08:19]
Joyce Vance
Are there herbs in it? I can't figure out what makes it so good, but it's amazing.
- [08:23]
Barb McQuaid
I could sit here with a spoon and just eat it like ice cream, I think. We had a houseful for Easter and we made a feast, a feast for Easter. And we heated up a couple of loaves of the sourdough bread and the cookies, the chocolate chip cookies and the snickerdoodle cookies. Oh, man, did our house smell good. And every last bit of all of that was eaten. And it was so easy. Folks, listen to this. You heat it from frozen, so you literally take it out of your freezer, you put it in the oven, and it tastes delicious. So if you are ready to bring all your favorite carbs right to your doorstep, be sure to check out Wild Grain so you can begin building your own box of artisanal breads, pastas and pastries. For a limited time, Wild Grain is offering our listeners $30 off the first box, plus free croissants in every box when you go to wildgrain.comsisters to start your subscription. You heard me. Free croissants in every box and $30 off your first box when you go to wildgrain.com sisters. That's wildgrain.com sisters. Or you can use promo code Sisters at checkout. Look for the link in our show notes.
- [09:38]
Joyce Vance
You know, every time we do this ad, I end up hungry for the rest of the podcast.
- [09:52]
Jill Wine Banks
Oklahoma was big in the news this week. A botched federal raid and then a first Amendment SCOTUS argument where for over two hours, the court and multiple parties debated whether the St. Isidore Catholic virtual online charter school can be funded by the state as a public school. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that under state law and federal law, a public school must be nonsectarian, certainly a concept we all grew up with, and that charter schools are public schools. And they denied St. Isidore a spot in Oklahoma's public school system. If SCOTUS rules the other way, this would allow overtly religious schools, Catholic, Jewish, madrasas, Mormon all to be fully funded by the taxpayers and could impact charters in not just Oklahoma, but in 47 states. So there's a lot at stake. So, Joyce, tell us what Saint Isidore and the board cause they had separate arguments argued and were any persuasive to you?
- [10:56]
Joyce Vance
Yeah. So this is really a fascinating case. I mean, this is sort of the world we live in, right, where some people's religious rights seem to trump other people's First Amendment rights. And here we are. The case starts when Oklahoma's charter school board approved an application by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa to establish St. Of Seville. It's a virtual Catholic charter school. So there's a lot going on, right? It's virtual. It's a charter school. And charter schools are, in essence, public schools under state law, although the law governing them says they have to avoid religion, quote, in their programs, admissions policies, and other operations. But somehow or another, despite that, Saint Isidore, the board's contract with them provides that the school can freely exercise its religious beliefs. So I think the best explanation we got in this just fascinating oral argument for the position that was being staked out actually comes from the justices when they're asking questions. And this was Justice Kavanaugh's comment during oral argument. He says, all the religious school is saying is, don't exclude us on account of our religion. All we're saying is, don't exclude us because we're a religious school. Look, it's not very persuasive in Oklahoma. It's actually, in some instances, kids get assigned to these charter schools. They're not private schools. They're part of the public system, and kids can be assigned to them. And that's a lurking problem here. I think Justice Sotomayor explained it really well. She said, really, what you're saying is the free exercise clause trumps the essence of the establishment clause, and those rights are butting heads. And traditionally, the courts have resolved them to avoid establishing any religion. That's what's at stake, this case and what Saint Isidore and the board are arguing for. And that's obviously, I think, why I think these arguments aren't persuasive. I fear that they will succeed. I know we'll talk about that, Jill. But the basic argument here is it's okay, we're just religious. You can't put us aside because of that. And historically, in this country, the answer would be, yeah, yeah, we can. You know, you can do whatever you want to do on your own nickel, but not as a public institution.
- [13:20]
Jill Wine Banks
Although, I will add, they did argue that no one has to attend the school. And I'm not sure because I know what the rules are in Illinois. But if you can be assigned to the school, that would be forcing you to go there. If you were free to choose a different school. And this is just an additional option because it's online. It seems to me it might not be that you're forced to attend, which doesn't counter the arguments that the state made. The state attorney general sued after the state board granted the charter and argued the opposite, that it would violate the First Amendment. And so, Barb, talk about what his arguments were. And how does the First Amendment balance free expression of religion and the prohibition on government establishment of religion.
- [14:07]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, I think this is a really important point and the one that Joyce was driving at. So it isn't that any individual student is being forced to attend, because, as you say, this is an online charter school. And, you know, kids can certainly go to other schools and they have choices, but it is about using public funds, so taxpayer money to fund this private school. That is where the establishment clause violation comes into play. And so imagine a world where all kinds of schools, as Joyce just said, religious schools, are taking state money to set up schools. And like, what is that going to do to the public schools and the funds set aside for public schools? It is why we do not allow the state to establish an official religion. It also gives sort of the imprimatur of state approval to certain kinds of religions over others. And so here we've got this Catholic school. You know, we're not seeing a Muslim school, we're not seeing a Jewish school being set up by the state of Oklahoma. Now, I suppose if they had equal opportunities for all religions, that might be a different story. But to date, this is an absolute violation of that concept of a separation of church and state. And I'm very concerned that that comment by Justice Gorsuch about they just don't wanna be discriminated against. I mean, have you read the First Amendment? It prohibits the state from establishing any religion. And so consistently, the court has said that means you can't fund these religious causes, religious schools, religious institutions. If people want to do that privately on their own, they're free to do that. That's the free exercise clause. You can go, you know, practice your own religion on your own time if you want to. But what you can't do is take state money and now spend it on religious institutions.
- [15:59]
Joyce Vance
And, you know, did you catch the part of the argument where Justice Alito was talking about anti Catholic discrimination?
- [16:05]
Barb McQuaid
Which is terrible.
- [16:07]
Joyce Vance
It's a terrible part of our nation's history, right?
- [16:10]
Jill Wine Banks
Oh, my gosh.
- [16:10]
Joyce Vance
But it is long ago, and we have fortunately, largely moved beyond it. But he sort of wanted to dredge that up and seem to ignore more modern issues with other religions. I thought it was a fascinatingly tone deaf argument.
- [16:25]
Jill Wine Banks
It also seemed to me that whatever that argument was, and I agree with you about it's long ago and not the issue, this is the first. But if it's approved, then under the very reasoning that they might approve it by, they would have to approve funding Jewish schools, Mormon schools, agnostic schools, atheist schools. You would not be able to discriminate schools.
- [16:49]
Barb McQuaid
Right.
- [16:50]
Joyce Vance
Druid schools. I mean, they won't. They'll find reasons not to.
- [16:53]
Barb McQuaid
But theoretically, the history and tradition of the United States tries to fund Jewish schools.
- [16:58]
Joyce Vance
They always find a reason. I mean, this is the most results oriented court we have ever lived through. A constant annoyance when they argue cases.
- [17:07]
Jill Wine Banks
Well, yeah, let's get to that issue. I want both of you to participate with me in a conversation about a couple things. One is reporting of this argument has consistently pretty much said, oh, it seems like SCOTUS is ready to say yes. And, and so that raises the question of how did they get to that conclusion? I mean, listening to the arguments and listening to the questions the justices asked, do you think that there's a way of predicting from that what the justices are going to actually do? And then we can move on to like, what's the proper outcome? What do you think it's going to be? What do you think it should be? But let's start with the predictive thing because I think that's interesting. I'm not sure how predictive the questions were. When I listened, I was like, well, it certainly seems like at least. And by the way, we should note that Amy Coney Barrett did not participate in this case, possibly because she had defended or represented Saint Isidore when she was a law professor. But so that's going to be an eight person decision. And if it's tied, that means that the lower court decision stands. That is the Oklahoma Supreme Court decision stands. And it's really at this point therefore critical how justice works.
- [18:32]
Barb McQuaid
Which ruled against the school.
- [18:33]
Jill Wine Banks
Right? Yes, they ruled that they could not get funding, which seems to me the right outcome. But anyway, so let's talk about what the predictions are based on hearing the Justice's questions.
- [18:47]
Joyce Vance
Well, I try to never count on the Chief justice to do the right thing in a close case. Right. I mean, I've gotten burned too many times hoping that the Chief justice cares about the legacy of the court that bears his name. Here's looking at you. United States versus Trump and immunity from criminal prosecution for the President you know, this is a case that shouldn't be tough to decide. This is an easy case. There might be more difficult, more nuanced cases in this area. I don't think this needs to be one of them unless the Chief justice wants to take it on. And because, as you point out, Jill, at best, the result in this case is 4 4, which means that the Oklahoma Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the First Amendment and against the establishment of religion would stand. I'm not sure anybody goes out on a limb here. The more interesting question to me is what happens when they take the next case where Justice Barrett is not recused and there is the potential for a 5, 4, or even a 6, 3 majority. I don't think this issue dies with this case, regardless of what the outcome is.
- [20:00]
Barb McQuaid
Garb, I'll answer your question maybe a little bit differently. I think that you talked about the headlines versus the reality. I find one thing. Headlines today very rarely represent the story. And one thing that's really important, I'm sure most of our listeners know this. The author of the article does not write the headlines. Some copy editor writes the headlines. And headlines are designed to be sensational, I think, because they want to attract clicks. And very often the headline bears very little resemblance to the article itself. So sometimes the headlines are like court signals adopting religious schools or something like that were the headlines. And I also thought the articles were a little bit doomsday scenario, like, oh, well, you know how this is going, because they've got the four votes. So therefore, that's the end of public schools as we know it. This was gonna be transformational. I agree that if the decision goes that way, it will be transformational of the way we think about and fund our public schools. But I'm not sure Justice Roberts is gonna go there. And I know, Joyce, shame on me for thinking the best of Justice Roberts, I suppose, but I don't know that he is in the bag for Trump. He is certainly extremely conservative on certain views. He certainly has an expansive view of executive power. Were he to have his druthers, maybe this is what he would view. But I thought he asked some hard questions, and I thought he was a little harder to detect. And so I think it's going to come down to him, you know, based on what we heard from the others, the questions, like we quoted Justice Gorsuch, who clearly is along the lines of saying this is discriminating against religion. We also heard from Justice Kagan, who asked some pointed questions about, you know, that you just pointed out about we're going to have to go down this road where every religion gets this, this break and are we really talking about public schools anymore? So I think we know how, where she comes out, but I think Roberts might be, might surprise us. And as you said, if he decides with the three liberal justices, then the rule stands as it is and the school loses. So I think there's a very realistic possibility that we end up there. How should it come out? I think I've made it clear that I think the establishment clause makes it clear that the court should not be in the business of funding religious schools. But you know, I've been wrong before about how the court comes out.
- [22:29]
Joyce Vance
So you're hoping that we get Affordable Care Act John Roberts, not Loper Bright John Roberts or Trump versus United States Roberts, which I think is a fair point. You know, I always love to be optimistic. I wish I was more optimistic on this one. Where is Kim when I need her? She should be out on the ledge with me here.
- [22:48]
Jill Wine Banks
Well, I'm gonna pull you back in because I agree with Barb and, and in listening to the argument which we'll put in our show notes, it's over two hours, but it's really, for me, it was a fascinating dialogue between all the different parties and it's worth listening to. I think that Roberts was very restrained and it's clear the three liberal justices are going to vote against this. I would say from listening. And it's not clear what Roberts is going to do and he is in this case, the decisive of vote. It will either be 4, 4 or it'll be 5, 3. So it depends on him. And I just thought from his questions that he sees the risk of this and where this could go. And listen, as someone who won't even say in the Pledge of Allegiance what was added after I had already learned the pledge, because it was when I was in grade school, middle school probably that they added under God. I just don't think there's any place in our world for the government to be sponsoring a belief in God or a particular religion. And I'm not saying that they shouldn't fund this particular school. I'm saying they should never fund a school that teaches religion or a belief in God or a particular God. As a matter of truth. That's just not a place for it to happen. So I don't think it should get federal funding. I should think it should exist, but it should be funded outside of the government.
- [24:34]
Joyce Vance
Now that the sun is coming out, it's the perfect Time to make sure we're on top of our self care routines with the help of Flamingo. Their shaving hair removal and body care products were designed with you in mind so they focus on what's truly high quality. Simple grooming solutions that allow you to sit back, relax and enjoy a day out in the summer sun. Flamingo's line of essential body and hair care tools bring an eye catching and innovative design to your bathroom counter. And their high performance and affordable prices make Flamingo a must for any shower experience. Apparently the shaving cream really does. You know, I have not been able to use mine because Bob stole the shaving cream. I told him it was for women and he didn't care.
- [25:16]
Barb McQuaid
Tmi, you know, I'm not gonna talk about my shower routine or anything in it, but I will instead talk about the stylish colors in which the handle is available. I always, you know, pretend that I'm gonna think about all the different colors, but of course, in the end I choose blue because blue is beautiful. But there are many other great options. It's a weighted handle so it gives the razor perfect balance so that it handles smoothly. Plus, when you need new blades, you can pay as little as $2 per refill. That's half of what the other big brands charge. And they make sure that there is no pink tax by charging more to women than they would charge to men.
- [26:02]
Jill Wine Banks
I love that aspect because every time I go to the cleaners I am really angered by the price differences. But millions of women trust Flamingo to provide a premium body hair and care experience, including all of us. They have so much to offer. In addition to razors, they have amazingly effective body wax and hair removal creams. Pre and post shave essentials to keep your skin sleek and hydrated and much more so keep smooth and refreshed with Flamingo hair removal products made with your body in mind. Get started with an exclusive offer for our listeners. Only 25% off your first order@shopflamingo.com sisters. And when you use Code Sisters, you'll get that discount. That's shopflamingo.com sisters code sisters. And of course, as always, the link is in our show notes.
- [27:07]
Joyce Vance
Well, this was a big week at DOJ with a lot going on. But it was not a particularly good week. There were disturbing developments that continue to underline just how off the rails this Justice Department is. Front and center for me were the whispers and reports that the Civil Rights Division is being forced to abandon its historic mission of protecting people's rights. And it's becoming a shop for investigating the sort of things that I would not view as civil rights violations in many cases, using antisemitism as an excuse to engage in going after, for instance, students exercising their First Amendment rights. So it has been a tough week, I think, for people who love the Justice Department. And we'll start right there. Jill, can you explain what people mean when they talk about the demise of the Civil Rights Division? What going on and why does it matter? I mean, that headline is being bandied about, but what's the content behind it?
- [28:09]
Jill Wine Banks
There is unfortunately, real content behind it. When they talk about the demise. There's part of the reference is that people are leaving in droves. It's being gutted. There are less than half the lawyers left that there were before. And the reason is that they're leaving because the Trump administration, that is Attorney General Bondi, has made it clear that they are going to weaponize justice against political enemies and they aren't going to keep on doing the mission of various agencies, including the Civil Rights Division, which was once the lauded and wonderful division that protected civil rights in America. But, but the head of that division now is a Trump MAGA supporter who was one of the election deniers and has put in place that we're going to drop voting rights cases. And, you know, some of this is normal. I just want to say that when there's a change in administration, sometimes cases that are pending before courts are withdrawn, but but not usually on the kind of basis and in the volume that's happening now. But they've dropped voting rights cases. They've backed away from pay discrimination lawsuits. They've terminated environmental justice cases. They don't care about police misconduct and consent decrees. There's just a lot going on that is in the normal, ordinary course of the Civil Rights Division. And so now we're in the hundreds of lawyers leaving that not dozens, but hundreds. And the head of the division is saying, good, they should be gone. If they aren't willing to carry out the priorities of this administration, we don't want them anyway. This raises a bigger question, which is the advice of people who are in the government. If you leave, you're going to be replaced by magus, people who will be loyal and do whatever they're told to do. And so if you can stay, you should stay. On the other hand, when you are not allowed to do what you think is your job, then maybe you do have to publicly protest by leaving and making public why you're leaving and the horrible things that you're being asked to do. It's not just that you're not being allowed to continue cases you had, but you're instead going on to bring cases against students. And, and I think that they're in a tough position and that I don't blame these lawyers for leaving. I really don't.
- [30:53]
Joyce Vance
Yeah, I mean, it's such a tough position, you know, Barbs and my boss, Eric Holder, and this is not original to Eric, I think it precedes him, but he used to refer to the Civil Rights Division as the crown jewel of the Justice Department because so much good work goes on there. Just extending the fundamental promises that the Constitution makes to an increasing number of people. And so many of the Civil Rights Division employees, they've been assigned actually to units where they're doing very mundane, routine tasks. And we're talking about experienced folks, the kind of folks, for instance, in the Special Projects Unit who do prison reform cases where so many of our nation's prisons violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. And those cases are being gutted. Housing, fair housing cases are being gutted. It's really appalling. And it's difficult with the fire hose of stories we see from this administration to stay on top of everything. But what's going on inside of the Civil Rights Division seems to me to be very important because of the long lasting impact it's going to have. Unfortunately, that's not the only story that came out of the Justice Department. And Barb, you flagged one for all of us last week. That I think is all also going to have legs. This is Pam Bondi's new guidance to prosecutors that makes it easier for them when investigating leaks to the news media to subpoena records to get testimony from journalists. Core First Amendment kind of stuff. You know, historically it's been a very hands off policy when it comes to journalists. And attorneys general have been criticized for anything that remotely smacks of invading the First Amendment. What's going on here?
- [32:41]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, we saw Pam Bondi rescind a prior memo that was issued in the last administration that prohibited prosecutors from using compulsory legal process. That means subpoenas, grand jury subpoenas, search warrants, court orders to get phone records against reporters on the theory that it interferes with the news gathering process and could have a chilling effect on the free press, which is certainly of course guaranteed by our First Amendment. And so the rescission of that causes me some concern. You know, I think certainly members of the press don't have any special rights or immunities from being compelled to testify. But the policy had always said, you know, if they're being investigated for committing some crime, of course you can look into it. It even had an exception for national security kinds of cases. But the idea was that in a leak investigation, you should, and you may investigate sources of a leak. So, for example, if you've got somebody who's working at the FBI or the CIA or wherever it is, Department of Defense, who has leaked something that gets out into the press, certainly may investigate those individuals and prosecute them. The law permits the prosecution of reporters, but it has always been treated with a lot of caution. You know, going back to the Pentagon Papers case, some of our listeners may be familiar with that case, pretty famous case where the New York Times and then the Washington Post printed something called, nicknamed the Pentagon Papers, which was a classified report from the Department of Defense that revealed that the US had been involved in Vietnam as early as the 50s and had lied publicly like four presidents had lied about our involvement in that. And the court ruled in favor of those newspapers, saying that the Justice Department could not issue a prior restraint to stop them from reporting. Now, that's a little different from saying you can't use compulsory process to investigate them. There's no law that says you can't do that. But the policy. Policy is a reflection of the important role the press plays in society, because not only say, if I'm investigating, a reporter from the New York Times wrote about a leak, and what I really want to find out is who his source was. So I put that reporter in the grand jury, and I say, tell me who your source was, or I use a search warrant to get his phone, and I look up their signal chats that would not only expose this leak source, you know, whoever it was they're talking to, but all the other sources that that reporter might be talking to. If I'm looking at all the signal chats, and the worry is that it will have a chilling effect on reporters and on sources who might otherwise reach out and talk to reporters. So I worry that this is a prelude to a very aggressive use of the Justice Department to go after reporters who write things that are unfavorable to this administration.
- [35:48]
Joyce Vance
You know, I like the way you frame it, because I think people might say, well, so what? You know, if it's a reporter talking to a source, prosecutors are entitled to. No, but this notion of broad exposure and chilling the First Amendment, which in some ways is what this administration is all about, which is. Is what pops this into focus for me. So that's main justice. You know, there are 94 US Attorney's offices nationwide. Fun fact, there are only 93 US Attorneys because Guam and the Mariana Islands share a US Attorney. So if that comes up while you're watching Jeopardy. Now, you'll know the answer. But those offices are also outposts of the Justice Department. And Ed Martin is Trump's nominee to be the U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia. He continues to engage in behavior that can only be described as erratic and biased. It's conduct that would have caused any U.S. attorney, let alone the U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia, their job. In any prior administration, they would have been asked to submit their resignation. I am 105% certain if they engaged in the sort of stuff that. That Martin did. Engaging in public prayer on Twitter. I mean, it sounds crazy, right? But every morning, just about, he gets up and promotes his specific religion of choice on Twitter, which is really a problem because he has to decide cases that involve Muslims and Jews and Hindus and people of other faiths. And you don't engage in that kind of conduct because it really diminishes public confidence in the fairness and the objectivity of the Justice Department. But beyond that, there is his commentary in specific cases. Why don't we start, Jill, by talking about what he's done in regard to a few specific cases in the past week?
- [37:41]
Jill Wine Banks
Okay, so he's. The only part of your description I would quibble with is you said his behavior is erratic, and actually, I think it's pretty consistent. He's been consistently awful, consistently doing the wrong thing. I mean, aside from this prayer. Remember, he wrote to Georgetown, said, we will not hire any of your students as long as you continue to have your policies. To which the president of Georgetown wrote a brilliant letter back. But the latest allegations against him are that he spoke out in very blatant terms about particular indictments. He said just. I'm gonna read specifically his language. The allegations in this case are not only disturbing, they are also every parent's nightmare. The number of victims allegedly exploited by these defendants and the depths of depravity are staggering. Justice demands that our response be swift in order to ensure public safety, hold the wrongdoers accountable, and bring the victim some sense of closure so they can heal. That is not permitted. It isn't uncommon for the U.S. attorney to announce a particularly important indictment and to say, today we have indicted so and so on these charges. Basically reading from the indictment, but not commenting on the guilt, which is what this is. It's saying, these people are guilty. And they need to be held accountable. We don't prejudge. In America, everybody is presumed innocent until a jury has listened to the evidence and reached a verdict. This is prejudicial in ways that really hinder the administration of justice. And I'm hoping that the combination of things, if not just this alone, will cause the Senate to pause and decide that they will not confirm him for the permanent position of U.S. attorney.
- [39:41]
Joyce Vance
You know, I would even say that he has violated very specific dictates that govern what prosecutors may or may not say when a case is charged. I mean, just clear violations of the rules. So, Barb, can you talk about what he's done and your sense of whether it's wrong or not?
- [40:02]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. So it's a long list. First is the ethical rules about conflicts of interest. You may recall that he represented some of the January 6th attackers and then as interim US attorney moved to dismiss their cases. So when you're a lawyer, you can't be on both sides of the V. That's a pretty basic conflict of interest rule. And I know there have been ethics complaints about him for that. So that's one. But with regard to some of these communications, there are a couple of things that are wrong with it. So the one that Jill just mentioned about talking about, you know, how awful this defendant is, there are federal regulations that provide guidance for prosecutors policy about what you can and cannot say. And typically prosecutors are required to speak within what's called the four corners of the charging document. So if you have an indictment or a complaint and it has specific facts in it, you may recite that. You may recite, you know, the indictment alleges that honor about X date the defendant did X, Y and Z. Or this defendant is charged in a wire fraud scheme. Allegedly this happened. Of course, all defendants are presumed innocent. And we look forward to proving our case in court. There are also something referred to as the principles of federal prosecution, which says that prosecutors may never base a charging decision or a case initiation decision on partisan politics. You must look to facts and law. There are a number of factors that may be considered, including priorities, a substantial federal interest, the likely outcome, the impact on the safety of a community. But you may never consider partisan politics. And all of those things, I think, have been completely disregarded by Ed Martin in some of the things that we're talking about here. And just look at his social media posts. You know, I haven't looked at it lately, but for a long time while he was interim U.S. attorney was using the title Eagle Ed Martin and That I think is a relic from the time when he was a leader in the Phyllis Schlafly Eagle organization. Yes. So, again, demonstrating this affiliation with a political organization, I think is just so far afield choice. I mean, imagine if you and I had social media accounts with these kinds of things. I mean, we used it to post an indictment. Today we indicted this case, or today a judge sentenced defendant so and so to X years in hopes of advancing that deterrence role of federal prosecution, not to use it to stoke the culture wars in society.
- [42:47]
Jill Wine Banks
I just want everyone to know, because, Barb, you mentioned the Eagle Forum and Phyllis Schafly, and that was very much a reason why the Equal Rights Amendment had so much trouble getting ratified in the beginning. It's important to understand what the Eagle Forum stood for and how conservative it is and what a power it was. And so showing your affiliation with that, as you said, is just the wrong thing for a U.S. attorney to do.
- [43:18]
Joyce Vance
Yeah, I mean, 100% right. It would be as if I had said, hey, I'm 100% lefty liberal Democrat, and had tweeted that every morning while I was a U.S. attorney. So, look, y'all, in a normal world, the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Justice Department, which is the office that takes care of misbehavior by prosecutors who engage in misconduct, they would be investigating these folks and issuing some sort of disciplinary action. But that's not happening. They're not even investigating. This is on Pam Bondi's watch. We're 100 days in. I know she hasn't been around for all hundred, but close enough. What kind of grade are we giving Bondi at the end of Trump's first 100 days? How's she doing, Barbara?
- [44:06]
Barb McQuaid
Well, if you view her through the lens I saw in an article today as running a law firm for Donald Trump, you know, she gets high marks, but in terms of the way I assess the appropriate role of the Attorney General, which is supporting and defending the Constitution on behalf of the people of the United States, you know, the bottom of the barrel. She gets an F. It's been an embarrassment. You know, her first. Well, she signed like 14 executive or 14 memos when she first came in. One of the memos that came shortly after that was her decision to eliminate paper straws from the Department of Justice, and only plastic straws would be used heretofore. You know, it's like. Or hereafter, it's like, it's more important to own the libs than to do my job. And that's really, you know, I spent.
- [45:07]
Joyce Vance
Many a happy afternoon in that cafeteria at Main justice chewing on my paper straw when I had finished my drink.
- [45:13]
Barb McQuaid
I mean, but, you know, forming this weaponization task force, I'm still very worried about that. I don't think we've seen that come to full fruition yet. But advancing the false narrative that the last administration engaged in weaponization and therefore needs to be held accountable in some way, I really worry about that. Reporting recently that there was an effort by DOJ to criminally prosecute protesters at Columbia University, and only because the judges wouldn't sign their search warrants because they found no probable cause. You know, I just worry about, you know, hopefully we've got good career prosecutors within the Justice Department who will stand tall, and we will have judges who push back when there are efforts to do things that are truly lawless. But you can really make someone's life miserable just by investigating them. And I'm really worried about what happens to our Justice Department and the enduring damage that she could do to it.
- [46:10]
Jill Wine Banks
So f. So I agree with Barbara completely. She is an A in being a Trump loyalist, and that's all that matters to Donald Trump. She is absolutely pursuing every single thing he does in terms of the proper role of a U.S. attorney. The attorney General. Sorry. Of the Attorney General, I would say she is an F minus. It's a total failure.
- [46:38]
Joyce Vance
Jill, don't hold back, girl.
- [46:41]
Jill Wine Banks
Well, it's true. I mean, she has done everything in her power to carry out his weaponization of the Department of Justice. Whether it is when she says, I want you to go after Miles Taylor and Chris Krebs. Okay, sir, I'll do that. When it is her saying things like, you know, he has saved 75% of Americans from horror, which is something she said. Or when she goes after the Tesla protesters, which is a clear right, First Amendment right of assembly and speech, and she's prosecuting them, those are things that are just unheard of. So it totally bothers me that that would be something that, as I say, that's a total failure for her to support the Constitution. And I think that we need to worry about what she's doing and how she's doing it.
- [47:38]
Joyce Vance
You know, the attorney General is supposed to be the people's lawyer, not the president's lawyer. And if that's your criteria, I agree with y'all. Pam Bondi is flunking at this job. One of the best parts of Mother's Day is reflecting on the amazing memories you've made with your family and Getting excited about how many more there are to come. Mother's Day is coming up pretty quick, so we want to make sure our listeners are getting their moms something nice. Kids, I hope you're listening. I'm a mom too. One of the things we wanted to mention is aura frames. They make unique and stylish digital picture frames that make displaying and sharing your favorite memories easy and fun. Something moms really love to do. I adore my aura frame.
- [48:30]
Barb McQuaid
I know what you mean, Joyce. Aura frames are the best. I have one in my house. I've given them as gifts to family members and my father in law is so delighted with his that he takes it with him when he travels because he doesn't want to be without it. And he loves, you know, we've loaded hundreds of pictures on there of him, mostly with the grandkids and he just, you know, it just, it's so delightful to see them. So most gifts get a big fuss when they're opened and are never looked at again. But that is not the case when you give someone an aura frame, like getting one for your mom for Mother's Day, for example. With an aura frame, you're creating an amazing way to stay connected to the important people in your life and remember great times you've shared. With my children off to college and beyond, an aura frame has been a perfect way to enjoy the memories we shared when they were growing up. Plus you can always add more photos because there's always more good times to share. In fact, what I do is I go back on your phone. You can search by lots of different things. I search by month and so I make a little album like from the month of April I guess I got. Dang, I gotta do May now. But I'll find pictures from our kids as youngsters from the month of May and I'll load them up and then so I change them out every month and it's so much fun. I can see my husband will stop and just start cracking about some picture he finds of one of her kids doing something silly when they were five years old from, you know, many, many Mays ago.
- [49:59]
Joyce Vance
You know, it really is great. Our youngest is getting ready to graduate from college and he's a little bit mouthy as 22 year old young men have the habit of being. And it's so much fun to go back and see the really cute pictures of him as a stroller baby or at Disney World with makeup all over his face. It sort of reminds you of those good times and also reassures you that there are more good times to come. Aura Frames was named the best digital photo frame by Wirecutter. I always go to Wirecutter for recommendations, so that means a lot to me. And they were featured in 495 gift guides last year for a reason. The reason is they're really great. Next time you need to call your mom, you can also send her a new picture of you from the trip you're telling her all about right from your phone. No matter what role someone has in your life, everyone loves an Aura Frame. Don't let your favorite shared moments get forgotten every time the photos in the frame catch your eye. It's a warm and wonderful moment.
- [50:59]
Jill Wine Banks
And you know, the best part is that it comes with unlimited storage. All you need is the free Aura app and a WI FI connection and then you can upload as many photos and videos as you want. And right now Aura has a great deal for Mother's Day. For a limited time, listeners can save on the perfect gift by visiting auraframes.com youm can get a $35 off plus free shipping on their best selling Carver Mat frame. That's a U R A frames.com use the promo code Sisters for that discount and also show your support for the show by mentioning us at checkout. Terms and conditions apply. The link is in the Show Notes.
- [51:50]
Barb McQuaid
This week a judge ruled against the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members. Regardless of your view of immigration enforcement, whether you favor aggressive enforcement or you disfavor aggressive enforcement, I see this moment as a great victory for the rule of law. Jill, can you first just give us a little background on the Alien Enemies act to remind our listener what that statute is and is not. And by the way, I've been obsessed with the idea that it's really called the Alien Enemy act, singular, because that's what the statute says and that's how the Supreme Court has used it, and that's how legal scholar Steve Laudock uses it, who I think is very smart on these issues. Nonetheless, again and again we see judges and the media using it. So I guess I need to cave in and admit that we're going to use in popular culture the Alien Enemies Act. So can you just explain to us what that statute is and is not.
- [52:48]
Jill Wine Banks
Sure it's actually the aea, so then you avoid having to decide what it is. Exactly. I have fallen into calling it the Alien Enemies act, even though you're right that it should be enemy and it should be in Time of war. What it is, is a law that was passed in the 1790s. Okay, everybody, get your mind back to that. And it was intended to be used in time of declared war or a kind of invasion. And it allowed the president unfettered ability to round up people who were citizens of the invading nation, of the nation at which we were at war. And it has been used three times in the past, all in what anyone would decide and conclude was an actual war. The War of 1812, the First World War, and the Second World War. It has not been.
- [53:48]
Barb McQuaid
The word war is a little bit of a clue in there, right?
- [53:51]
Jill Wine Banks
A little bit of a war is.
- [53:52]
Barb McQuaid
Doing some work there.
- [53:53]
Jill Wine Banks
Yes, some work. And it's certainly not peacetime. We are clearly in peacetime right now, and I know we'll get into more about what exactly the courts have said about this, so I don't want to go too far, but just to say that the aea. There you go. Is a law that allows an absence of due process. And so, of course, in the years of planning that this administration did through Project 2025, even though he says he had nothing to do with it, it's a total lie. And that's the truth. They have seized on this as a way that they could deport people. And in this case, you know, for example, Venezuelans who are members of a gang without any due process. So we don't know that they're even Venezuelans, let alone that they are members of a gang. And without due process, without a hearing for them to say, wait a minute, I'm. I am not Venezuelan, or I am Venezuelan, but I fled because of risk to my life from gangs. I'm not a member of a gang. We are in very bad trouble. And there are other ways to deport people that do give due process, where you get a hearing and a conclusion. So we're not against. I mean, no one that I know is against deporting criminals. No one is against deporting people who are violating our laws in any way. But we want to know that they have before we randomly deport people who have come here and are seeking asylum or, for example, are at their citizenship interview. They've gotten that far along here. And now they're picked up by ICE agents using this act. So that's what the act is and why it shouldn't be used here.
- [55:46]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. Great analysis of the aea. I like to say it's not about the substance. Right. It's about the process. And so often we keep hearing about, but they're such bad guys. Like that's irrelevant. The devil himself gets due process.
- [56:01]
Jill Wine Banks
Right.
- [56:02]
Barb McQuaid
And you can't speak to.
- [56:03]
Jill Wine Banks
Was that a religious reference?
- [56:08]
Barb McQuaid
I don't know. I didn't attend religious school. And Joyce, can you remind us of the history of this case? Like this is the case that was first filed in Washington D.C. in front of Judge James Boasberg.
- [56:20]
Jill Wine Banks
Right.
- [56:20]
Barb McQuaid
And then taken to the Supreme Court. Remind us of what? Of that history and how we ended up here in Texas.
- [56:26]
Joyce Vance
You know, it's so funny. It feels like for days and days all we talked about was this case and now it feels like it was ancient history because so much has happened. Right. This is the case that the ACLU filed in the District of Columbia challenging the use of the Alien Enemies act act. And they sought a temporary restraining order. And you will recall these dramatic circumstances. There were planes up in the air and they went to the judge overnight and he, you know, told the government, if you've got planes up in the air, turn them around and bring them back. And of course they didn't. Marco Rubio retweeted, you know, the, the President of El Salvador, Bukele's oopsie tweet. And there's been suggestion that the government flagrantly ignored the court's order. That's sort of still on the table, but on a different track. Right now the case goes up to the Supreme Court and they make a technical legal ruling. They say you can only raise these claims, ACLU under a legal theory called habeas, which is sort of a device for bringing people who are in custody in front of a court. And they say, and you can only bring those cases in the federal districts where those people are being held. So that's how we've ended up with federal habeas cases all over the country. Southern and Northern district of Texas. There's one in Colorado, there's one in the Southern District of New York. I'm probably missing one or two. But this is how we end up in Texas with judges in the. A judge in the Southern District of Texas, a Trump appointee deciding this issue for the first time.
- [58:01]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, thanks. That was a very succinct summary because a lot has happened. And of course Judge Boseberg back in D.C. is still looking into whether the government lawyers acted in contempt of his order by refusing to comply with it. But nonetheless, you know, you lose. You got to go to Texas, you got to do habeas. Good luck with your class action. And here we are, a Trump appointed judge in Texas who rules on this. So, Joe, what did this judge in Texas decide about the alien enemies, the aea?
- [58:38]
Jill Wine Banks
So before I answer that exact question, I want to say that, you know, the Supreme Court sending it out and saying you have to file individual habeas actions where you are incarcerated, not here in Washington, really has been a, I think a burden on due process for the people who are being detained. So I think that's a problem. But this judge, to maybe the surprise, because I'm sure one of the reasons for sending it out was, well, the places where they're being held, it's going to be much harder and individual habeas is much harder than a class action. But here you have a judge who I'm positive about his result, although there's a lot there that supports or does not support the broadest definition that I would like. His final conclusion is that the President can't use the AEA by simply issuing a proclamation that these are enemy aliens. And there I think aliens is the proper word and that he said it exceeded the scope of the statute, contrary to its plain ordinary meaning the language. And going back to how the conservatives interpret statutes, he concluded that as a matter of law, the executive branch can't use AEA to detain the named petitioners and the certified class. So now we have a class of Venezuelans who are in the Southern District of Texas who are subject to his ruling that they can't be held as enemy aliens under the aea because the President said so.
- [60:27]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. And I think there's also some very good analysis about, and you're right, it is narrow. And the judge says I don't have to decide this, so I won't. I don't decide that, so I won't. Which is what judges are supposed to do, decide the case on the narrowest grounds possible. But did say under the Alien Enemies act, you have to be at war and we're not at war. Right. That it's says war, invasion, incursion, predatory incursion. None of those things are going on here and only Congress can declare a war. So you know what? If we're at war, you get a lot of deference, Mr. President, but we're not at war.
- [60:57]
Joyce Vance
So.
- [60:57]
Jill Wine Banks
But he also went out of his way to say, you know, I can tell you what the words of it mean, but I can't look at whether the facts actually support that or not. And I'm worried about that language in there. You know, I can't say whether when the government says we're at war that I can look at whether we are or not. So it was a little mushy there for me. That was what bothered me in the opinion. And again, we should post the opinion in our show notes and let people read it and see what they think.
- [61:30]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, I think this is a good opinion. I think it is strong on the AEA and certainly strong on the President's exceeding his authority here. But, Joyce, I wanna ask you about the procedural posture of this case because it came up as a motion for preliminary injunct, but the judge decided it as summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. Can you just explain what is summary judgment and what that means for the case going forward?
- [61:56]
Joyce Vance
Yeah. So this is a great sort of Law School 101 concept for us to take up. You know, sometimes cases go to trial and juries resolve disputed factual issues and decide the case. But very frequently before the trial, one party, sometimes both of them, will file a motion for summary judgment saying there are no disputed issues of fact in this case. The facts are all on our side. And they have to argue that and back it up. Right. Because a judge is going to decide this motion. And the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that courts shall, that's, that's the word that's used in quotes. Shall grant summary judgment if a party asking for it shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. And that's what happened here. The judge references, as Barb explained, the plain language of the statute, the history of its usage, and says, there's no factual issue left here. The parties agree on the factual stuff that a jury would have to decide. There is no work here for a jury to do. And so he issues his opinion. And of course, the government will now appeal to the fifth Circuit saying, oh, no, no, there shouldn't have been summary judgment. There was a factual dispute. Presumably then it'll go on to the Supreme Court. But this is sort of a standard thing that happens frequently, and courts will often weigh in on whether they believe there are legitimate factual disputes for the courts, or rather for a jury to decide, or whether that's been foreclosed.
- [63:33]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. Well, thanks. That really is like first day of law school civil procedure. It is.
- [63:37]
Joyce Vance
Right.
- [63:37]
Barb McQuaid
Summary judgment.
- [63:38]
Joyce Vance
It's fun to go back. Back.
- [63:40]
Barb McQuaid
Well, I just want to ask you, maybe big picture this, you know, so often we're talking about things that feel so negative to me. This is, you know, maybe a bright spot. This is a Trump appointed judge in Texas. The plaintiffs, you know, initially filed their case in Washington, the Supreme Court said, nah, you got to go to Texas, which I think some saw as a victory of sorts for the administration. Certainly Stephen Miller claimed it as victory for the administration on the theory that Texas would be a friendlier forum for the Trump administration. And yet, you know, we get this summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. Do you have any thoughts about what this decision might tell us about the role of the judiciary in this moment?
- [64:25]
Jill Wine Banks
Yeah, I think you've got it right, that this is the judicial system doing what it's supposed to do, which is to fairly decide what the law is and how the facts apply to the law and to fairly evaluate the facts. And it was definitely a surprise because there is this part where it's not just this will be a Texas decision, but there'll be one in Louisiana, there'll be one in Florida, wherever the people rounded up are being held, and those detention centers are all in places that are more favorable to the government's position than they were in Washington, D.C. so this is a bright spot where a Trump judge in a very conservative area, southern Texas, said, no, you're wrong. You can't do this. We're going to go by what the law is. And so I think it is hopeful and I think we have to keep counting on it. But we also have to recognize that we shouldn't rely entirely on the courts to defend our democracy. We need to be involved, too.
- [65:36]
Joyce Vance
Could not agree with that more. And, you know, if what you care about is the ultimate outcome of the substantive issue, the government's ability to deport people, well, this judge is probably still gonna break your heart, right? He made the explicit point, I think, Jill, you sort of were referencing this, that the government can't use the Alien Enemies act, but it has other immigration authorities, like Section 8 orders that it could use perhaps to deport some of the named plaintiffs in this case. That's one bucket. You know, we may not like the substantive outcome. If, however, you like, like the three of us are worried about the fate of the rule of law in this country, this opinion is important because this is a Trump appointed judge who said, look, the rule of law matters. This is the way I would interpret the law in any other case. I would start with the plain language of the statute.
- [66:28]
Barb McQuaid
Shoot.
- [66:29]
Joyce Vance
That's what I'm going to do here. And bingo, the Trump administration, the president who appointed me, he loses this case. And, and I think that's what so many of us are hoping for, is not to win every case, but to have a restoration of a principled approach to judging. We need the judiciary to hold the line. That's the line we need them to hold, and we need them to do it desperately. I hope the Supreme Court was paying attention and that they took note.
- [66:57]
Barb McQuaid
Note, yeah. That really, I think, is what matters most. Because remember when Judge Boasberg made the same ruling on the tro, the temporary restraining order, on the same type of analysis, he was denounced as some leftist radical. Remember, this is Brett Kavanaugh's college roommate, right? Justice James Boasberg, leftist radical. And people were calling for his impeachment. And so I think it's really important that we see a judge from the other side of the political spectrum who says no. That's right. This law is about when we're at war, due process matters. So I think seeing consistent legal rulings from judges appointed by presidents of both parties helps to confirm public support for the rule of law. So I thought this decision was a great victory for the rule of law this week.
- [67:53]
Jill Wine Banks
Did you know Fast Growing Trees is the biggest online nursery in the US with thousands of different plants and over 2 million happy customers. They have all the plants your yard needs, whether it's fruit trees, privacy trees, flowering trees, shrubs, anything you want, they have. For me, Hosta and green velvet boxwood are my faves. But whatever plants you're interested in, Fast Growing Trees has you covered. Find the perfect fit for your climate and space and sun conditions. That's why I'm into the hosta and green velvet boxwood, because I don't have a lot of sun. Fast Growing Trees makes it easy to get your dream yard order online and get your plants delivered directly to your door in just a few days without ever leaving home.
- [68:39]
Barb McQuaid
Well, you know, I have kind of a black thumb because I'm lazy and I tend not to do a whole lot of maintenance on plants. But I did just plant two lilac shrubs from Fast Growing Trees and they look great. They are healthy. So far, Knock on wood. I had to dig a couple big holes to put them in, and I've been watering them twice a week as oh, good girl. As indicated. And so far, they really do look like they're doing great. But luckily for me, Fast Growing Trees has an alive and thrive guarantee that ensures my plants arrive happy and healthy. And I get support from trained plant experts on call to help me to take care of them. They can also help me plan landscaping or even choose the right plant. So I'm gonna try with these two. I already said to my husband, hey, these are great. I Think I should order some more. I said, why don't we see how we do with these? We meaning, you know, will we kill them off or will they. But so far I'm really pleased with them. So I'm thinking about getting some more.
- [69:44]
Joyce Vance
You know, just this morning I took my 6 year old Meyer lemon tree outside. I usually bring it inside for part of the win. This year it just sort of looked really good next to our fireplace and I never bothered to take it back out. But it is gorgeous. I've started fertilizing it. I expect to have Meyer lemons all summer and into the fall. And that's what I love so much about my plants. From fast growing trees. I can look all around our yard and go, oh, you know, that's the lilac bush I got four years ago. Here's the lilac tree I just got this year. I guess it's lilac year for sisters in law. But the plants are fabulous. And Fast growing trees offer 6,000 plants to provide the perfect choice for you. Everything from indoor plants to fruit trees, full sized privacy trees and more. You follow their 14 point quality checklist and Fast growing trees helps you care for each plant individually. Like Barb said, it's everything from watering routines to maintaining the correct sunlight exposure. And it all becomes really easy with their help. Help. It means you'll be giving your plants the care they deserve the moment they ship to your home. And we were excited to learn. We've mentioned it before, it never gets old. You can grow a vanilla bean plant indoors. They also have coffee plants. So maybe there's vanilla coffee in your future. With fast growing trees, but with so many different plants, the choice is yours.
- [71:06]
Barb McQuaid
I have a question. Can you eat the lemons?
- [71:08]
Joyce Vance
Yeah, you know, I make lemon meringue pie, but I also really like squeezing them for juice too to go to mix in with other stuff. Citrus.
- [71:17]
Barb McQuaid
Wow. And one more question. If you're bringing it in, I know I worry about whether we could grow it in our climate. If you're bringing it in in the winter, can I have a lemon tree in my house and eat the lemons?
- [71:30]
Joyce Vance
So you can if you have a sunny exposure. I've never had fruit inside the house, but there's no reason you couldn't. We usually just leave it outside longer.
- [71:38]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. When I start ad living, when it comes to either gardening or cooking, it usually ends up badly. But maybe I'll try growing lemon trees indoors. Well, you can talk to a plant expert about your soil type, landscape design, how to take care of your plants and everything else you need. No green thumb required, thank goodness. So don't wait. This spring they have the best deals for your yard, with up to half off on select plants and other deals. Listeners to our show get 15% off their first purchase when using the code Sisters at checkout. Checkout. That's an additional 15% off@fastgrowingtrees.com using the code SISTERS at checkout. Again, that's fastgrowingtrees.com code SISTERS. Now's the perfect time to plant. Use Sisters to save today. This offer is valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions may apply. The link is in our show notes.
- [72:41]
Jill Wine Banks
Well, I hope you've all enjoyed being with us today. Now we're getting to the part of the show that we enjoy the most, which is answering your questions. We love the questions you send us. They make us think. And if you have a question for us, please email us@sistersinlawoliticon.com or tag us on social media using Sisters in Law. If we don't get to your questions during the show, keep an eye on our feeds throughout the week because we try to answer additional questions there. And today we have some really great questions. So our first question comes from Terry, and it's for you, Joyce. How far do you think the articles of impeachment will go from Congressman Sri Thanadar?
- [73:27]
Joyce Vance
Well, Terry, I'm sorry to say I think that they're headed nowhere, of course, because the votes don't exist in the House to vote for impeachment because Republicans continue to support Donald Trump. Shame on them in a normal world. You know, I always think about the stories Jill tells from Watergate about how what was different during Watergate was that there was still a functional Republican Party. And even though it took them a while, they did the right thing and they stood up. They went to Nixon. They forced him to behave within constitutional restrictions. That hasn't happened here. There's frankly no indication that we're close to that. And it would take a vote in the House to pass articles of impeachment and set up a trial in the Senate. We are not going to see that anytime soon.
- [74:16]
Jill Wine Banks
And our next question maybe has a better answer, more hopeful answer from Annie. Barb, I'm going to ask you Annie's question. What prevents Trump from adding more justices to scotus?
- [74:30]
Barb McQuaid
Oh, this is hopeful. The president can't do it. Sometimes presidents have advocated for that. You may remember FDR had a court packing program where he wanted to add justices to the Supreme Court in hopes that he could get some better responses to his New Deal proposals during the Great Depression, but he was not successful. And so President Trump cannot, under our Constitution, add justices to the Supreme Court. He can appoint them, but he can't add the number.
- [75:00]
Jill Wine Banks
And our last question comes from Parkin in South Carolina, and I'm going to answer her question or his question. I'm not sure. Parkin, I understand that individuals cannot sue a sitting president. So how come the president can sue others? Well, actually, of course, the president can be sued in civil court. The president can't be sued for his official conduct, but for personal conduct, the president can be sued. And in fact, when Bill Clinton was president, he was sued in civil court. And it went on the court in saying, yes, he can be sued, said we should take due deference to his role as president so that we schedule any hearings in a way that won't interfere with his responsibilities as president. But the Paula Jones case went ahead. There was a case earlier with Nixon and the court said, well, this is actually in his official responsibilities and so he can't be held civilly liable for this conduct. But other than the official conduct, personal acts are suable and even by a sitting president. So if there's any cases out there that need to be brought by private citizens, sitting presidents are not immune. Thank you for listening to Sisters in law with Barb McQuaid, Joyce Vance and me, Jill Wine Vanks. Kimberly will be back with us next week. Follow SistersInLaw wherever you listen and please give us a five star review because that's how we will get new listeners. That's how they will find our show. And please show some love to this week's sponsors, Wild grain, flamingo aura frames and fast growing trees. The links are in the show notes. Please support them because they make the podcast possible. See you next week with another episode. Sisters in Law.
- [77:00]
Joyce Vance
So, y'all, you'll never guess who I am having dinner with tonight. I'm so excited. Maya Wiley is flying into town for something. One of our original Sisters in Law. Right Pre podcast. And then Maya went off and ran. Yeah, she's coming down to Birmingham. I'm going to grab her after we finish taping and we're going to go out to dinner.
- [77:20]
Jill Wine Banks
Dinner. That's fantastic. I love it.
- [77:23]
Barb McQuaid
Well, tell her hello.
- [77:24]
Joyce Vance
I will. I'll give her a.
- [77:25]
Jill Wine Banks
We all miss her. We all wish she were with us.