Loading summary
Transcript143 lines
- [00:00]
Barb McQuaid
Foreign.
- [00:13]
Joyce Vance
Welcome back to Sisters in Law with Kimberly Atkins store, Barb McQuaid and me, Joyce Vance. Jill will be back soon. So, y', all, you have been buying so many of the brand new Sisters resistance hoodies that were available in our merch shop. There are that we have had to reorder them. You can order them right now and you might want to go ahead and get them, especially in advance of this next protest that's coming up. You can pre order and as soon as they come back into stock, we'll send them your way to go ahead and order the brand new resistance hoodie and our bags, hats and everything else in the merch shop, go to politicon.com merch so this week, not a lot of fun and giggles out there. It is a serious week. It's a heavy week. We're here to break it down for you. And we'll start out by talking about Trump's use of the criminal justice system to achieve revenge on his perceived enemies, something that has become more a feature than a bug of this administration. We'll talk about the latest on Trump's efforts to deploy troops to different states. National Guard troops, again, something that's fairly unprecedented. And we'll talk about Louisiana v. Calais, the gerrymandering case that the Supreme Court will hear for the second time next week. So lots to come before we get there, y'. All. Did you see that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded today? Did you know that it didn't go to Donald Trump? Did you know that?
- [01:45]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
I did see that.
- [01:46]
Barb McQuaid
And, you know, I, I also read that it's based on conduct occurring in 2024. He wasn't even president in 2024. You know, he's been lobbying for it and he had no, like, ability whatsoever to get it.
- [01:57]
Joyce Vance
Details, details. Those rules do not apply to the king. But so if you got the call at 2 in the morning, when a lot of these people seem to get the call, I guess that's Swedish time. If you got the call and were told that you were getting a Nobel, what would you be getting it for, Barb?
- [02:17]
Barb McQuaid
Oh, you mean not just the Nobel Peace Prize, but science and lawsuits?
- [02:20]
Joyce Vance
Any Nobel Prize. I mean, they give them for a lot of different things, right?
- [02:23]
Barb McQuaid
They do probably none of those, you know, really academic ones. It would have to be the Peace Prize, I suppose. Maybe if I could bring the fans of Michigan and Ohio State together to unite against their rivalry, maybe I would get a Nobel Peace Prize for that, I suppose.
- [02:42]
Joyce Vance
But no hope for Bama, right? No, no hope There.
- [02:45]
Barb McQuaid
No, no. We could never possibly have peace with Alabama fans.
- [02:52]
Joyce Vance
We can always hope. Kim, what's your nobellin?
- [02:55]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Well, I think it is in. If they have a diplomacy category, it would be that because I and my stepchildren, well, this didn't happen in 2024. It was a couple of years before. But we're reaping the benefits now. I and my stepchildren very much wanted a dog and my husband was a lot less in that, in that camp, shall I say. But not only do we have Snickers, but he is Snickers favorite person and I think I did a little bit of work to ensure that that happen.
- [03:33]
Barb McQuaid
So did you hang a pork chop around Greg's neck?
- [03:36]
Joyce Vance
Is that what happened?
- [03:37]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
I would do it well, you know, I managed to find a dog who likes giving hugs and you know, who likes to do active things, which is, you know, goes right to Greg's heart. My last dog, Boogie, who I loved to death, was the laziest dog on earth. But Snickers likes to go hiking and do fun things and Greg likes to do that too. So I think I just found a really, really good dog for us.
- [04:02]
Joyce Vance
Well, Kim, I think we're going to have to be the co award winners for animal related diplomacy because I was going to say I thought that's what mine would be for the award for spectacularly integrating dogs and cats and chickens. My youngest son sent me a video of our backyard where the German shepherds had our big black Maine coon cat, Tofu tomped over on his back. And the dogs are sort of like licking him and Tofu is obviously enjoying himself. He sort of swim scratching his back on the cement and they're just chickens walking around. At one point, a chicken walks over the cat and I thought, you know, in my backyard it's, it's world peace. In the Vance household.
- [04:45]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
I really don't know how you manage that menagerie. Like it really is something that deserves an award.
- [04:51]
Joyce Vance
Luck. Seriously. I don't think it's anything I've done. They just all have sweet temperaments.
- [04:58]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Foreign.
- [05:06]
Joyce Vance
You know, something that happens as you get older and maybe if you've had a couple of babies is that your hair starts to thin out a little bit and it, it sheds more easily. This is yet another reason that I love the OS01 peptide in One Skin's OSO1 hair. Their products are really fabulous. And this one is a scalp serum power by their patented OSO1 peptide. It works by targeting the cells in your hair follicles. That contribute to shedding, thinning, and slower hair growth. And it's great. Kim, you had talked about it early on, and I started using it religiously every day. It really does work. Oso1 hair can actually reactivate the hair growth cycle and promote thicker, fuller, denser hair.
- [05:52]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yeah, I really can attest to it. Thinning hair was really one of my first perimenopausal symptoms. Like, I re. I noticed that before I realized, actually, in perimenopause. And it was right at my temples, and especially now that I stopped dyeing my hair. And I'm letting the grays grow. The gray hairs are lighter, so you could literally see my scalp in certain places when I styled my hair. But I have to say, after using one skin OS01 hair, I have definitely noticed an increase. I have newer growth. I can see the new little curls coming in. And, you know, this is validated by science, and the numbers are amazing.
- [06:33]
Barb McQuaid
Science.
- [06:33]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Six months in, most people who use One Skin's OS1 hair saw a 43% increase in hair thickness and a 40% increase in hair density. In addition to seeing an overall reduction in hair shedding an increase volume and fullness. The proof is in the shower drain. It's not nearly as full as it usually would be from me. People are really seeing the difference.
- [07:00]
Joyce Vance
So.
- [07:00]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
So am I. And one of our producers has long hair, but he hit his later 30s, and he now swears by using this and wanted us to let you know that it is for everyone.
- [07:15]
Joyce Vance
Yeah, I mean, men as well as women. It really is great. And, you know, something that I worried about using it was, well, maybe it's gonna gum up my hair and make it look greasy or dirty, and I'll have to wash my hair more. And it actually doesn't. It filters down into your skin and leaves your hair absolutely fin. Look, I just can't get enough of one skin products. Whether I'm basking in the Alabama sun or out in the cold, I use OneSkin's OSO One Face topical supplement to fight back against dryness. The supplement makes your skin look fresh and leaves it ready for anything the elements throw at you. And the sunscreen feels great while it's protecting you. I really love that. Oneskin's regimen works fast, and the formulas feel amazing when you're applying them. You know, Everybody who uses OSO1 ends up being a huge fan of all of the Oneskin products.
- [08:08]
Barb McQuaid
Born from over 10 years of longevity research, OneSkin's OsO1 peptide is proven to target the Cells that cause the visible signs of aging. So your scalp and your hair stay healthy now, and as you age, go to Oneskin Co Hair and use code sisters for 15% off your first order. Again, that's Oneskin Co Hair and use code sisters for 15% off your first order. Then, after you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. The link is in the show notes.
- [08:52]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Well, we're starting this week off with Trump's favorite weapon. The Department of Justice this week began with former FBI Director James Comey being arraigned and wrapped with New York attorney Letitia James under indictment. This is not normal, but, you know, it is the new normal for this administration. It's a dangerous weaponization of the very agency that's supposed to effectively effectuate justice, not retribution. And it should worry every American because it's a broken guardrail that puts all of us at risk. So, Barb, let's start with the indictment of New York Attorney General Letitia James on Thursday. What do you make of the indictment itself and of who did and did not sign off on it? Could you imagine being a prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia right now?
- [09:45]
Barb McQuaid
No, I really can't. This is really like Jim Comey deja vu. It is so similar to the circumstances that we saw with his indictment. It's a different crime, of course. She's charged with mortgage fraud and making a false statement to a financial institution to obtain a loan to buy a second home in Virginia. They allege that she made false statements to obtain better terms of the loan. We haven't seen the evidence, so we can't really assess. Although I will say proving fraud is a pretty steep uphill battle. You have to prove that the person intended to defraud the lender at the moment, they sign the documents. And so that can be difficult to do. But I think the real story here is that the circumstances of this. You asked who signed it. Once again, Lindsey Halligan. And only Lindsey Halligan. Joyce, I don't know about you, but when I served as U.S. attorney in the almost eight years I was there, I signed exactly zero indictments because we had line prosecutors. Yeah. Who work the case, who are in the weeds, who know the details.
- [10:48]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
They're.
- [10:48]
Barb McQuaid
Your name is on it. But they're the ones who sign it because they're the ones who are going into the grand jury room. And so I don't know if Lindsay Halligan was alone in the grand jury room. Again. Remember, she's an insurance Lawyer who's been on the job for now, like a week and a half.
- [11:03]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yeah. The reporting is that she was. She was. She was by herself.
- [11:06]
Joyce Vance
Yeah.
- [11:06]
Barb McQuaid
I mean, because nobody else wants to do this. Nobody else. You know, I'm speculating here, but ethical obligations, losing your law license, violating the policies of the Department of Justice to bring a case when you don't believe you have sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction. And remember, just because you can obtain an indictment based on probable cause isn't enough under ethical rules. You have to also believe that you've got enough evidence to obtain a sustained. A conviction at trial. That means proof beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 out of 12 jurors. And so, you know, we know that Eric Siebert, The Trump's appointed U.S. attorney, resigned over this. The head of the Norfolk branch office said she wouldn't sign off on this. And so it leaves it to just Lindsey Halligan alone. Trump's handpicked, you know, political appointee here.
- [12:01]
Joyce Vance
I think appointee is so nice. I was gonna jump in and say hack.
- [12:05]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, I guess you're right. But she. She was. You know, he's allowed appointments. There's. We can talk about the validity of her appointment here, but she seems like somebody whose only qualification is her willingness to do his bidding.
- [12:18]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yeah. And. And just in terms of the harm that is alleged here, if, even if all the facts as alleged are true, we are talking a savings to Letitia James of about 50 bucks a month in mortgage payments. That amounts to something like 19,000 over five years or 16,000 over five. Somebody get a calculator and do that. But. And the bank had no objection. Like, it's not as if the bank is saying, hey, we were misled. No, the. The bank is fine. Letitia James is fine. The only people who are not fine is Donald Trump in this. So I think that that's really interesting.
- [13:01]
Joyce Vance
Yeah, I mean, can I just jump in and do my Jill Wine Banks imitation for one second? Yes, please. In a former life, I was for a while the Justice Department co chair of the Mortgage Fraud Subcommittee of President Obama's Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. So I've seen a little bit of mortgage fraud. And one thing I learned from working with our friends at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and some of the other hud, some of the other involved agencies is this will come as a shock to everyone who's ever gotten a mortgage. Some of this documentation and the rules around it actually is not clear. Some of it is very vague. I saw someone describe it as squishy last night on the Internet. And so to Barb's point about proving knowledge and to the point that you're making, Kim, I think it is, I'm not going to say impossible. I think unless they have Letitia James, best friend and confidant, who is going to testify that James told her that she was 100% intent on engaging in mortgage fraud. And unless they that evidence with these documents, I mean, when you've got four sets of documents around a transaction, they're not going to ever line up perfectly. They are never going to prove intent here.
- [14:14]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
And this is really important because I have seen some reporting, including an editorial by a news organization that I once really respected, trying to equate what General James did here with what Trump was alleged to do in her suit against Trump and the Trump Organization for their widespread fraud practices. Is and no, there is no equip, not even on any the wildest scale is there an equivalence here. You know, this is not everybody doing lawfare. So turnabout is fair. No, this is the weaponization of the doj. But, Joyce, you know, this week we learned that Trump literally said what he meant to be the quiet part out loud, that Truth Social point where he declared his political enemies, quote, guilty as hell and directed Pam Bondi to do something about it, AKA prosecute them. Well, according to a Wall Street Journal report, that was a mistake. He meant for that to be a dm. But Joyce, talk about that and just how outrageous it is for a president to act this way and what that also means for other people in his crosshairs, like Congresswoman LaMonica McIver or Senator Adam Schiff or John Bolton and more.
- [15:35]
Joyce Vance
Yeah, you know, this Wall Street Journal reporting was great. I had even quipped in my newsletter, Civil Discourse, the night that that supposed post on Truth Social became public, that it sounded a lot more like a text message than it sounded like a social media post. For one thing, it started out, Pam, like he was telling his attorney general what to do. And then it was like, Pam, indict, you know, Jim and Tish and Adam, because I hate them. So go ahead and indict already. And if you won't do it, here's Lindsay. She really likes you. So, I mean, it was, you know, I'm obviously paraphrasing it, but it was some really, really crazy stuff. So, look, this is obviously inconsistent with our view of how a president, as opposed to a dictator, should conduct himself. But it also has real world consequences for defendants. It gives every defendant potential defenses that they would not otherwise have like jury prejudice. And for people that were named in the Truth Social Post, two of them are now indicted. Comey and James the third, Senator Adam Schiff is under investigation in the District of Maryland. And I think if I was him, I would be sleeping with my toothbrush packed. And this sort of presidential targeting may well push arguments about vindictive prosecution across the finish line. You know, arguments that as we have told y' all in past episodes are almost never winners. But I, I think that we could see some of these cases get dismissed outright. And that's just case dismissed, game over, government loses, can't be refiled because of double jeopardy because Donald Trump is a petty, vindictive tyrant in this regard.
- [17:19]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Well, Barb, how about that? I too have been counting all the ways that these charges can backfire legally. I mean, from the post that we just talked about being evidence of selected prosecution and tampering with a jury poll, to the curious case of U.S. attorney Hanigan's appointment, which even Ed Whelan, who we've talked about on this show, who is one of the most right wing architects of legal commentator and activists that we know he was the one behind the idea of during the Kavanaugh hearings, if you recall the idea that no, you don't have to say that, that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was not assaulted. You just have to say perhaps she just misremembered who assaulted her and that ended up winning the day. That ended up being what Congress people hung their hat on. That's Ed when he is saying that he doesn't think that Anakin was legitimately appointed here. So talk about that, Barb, like all the landmines that these prosecutions have that can blow up on the doj.
- [18:29]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, so I'll talk about that one first because I think this is a, a very strong argument and I think that if both Letitia James's lawyers and Jim Comey's lawyers make these arguments, each of them make this argument. I, I think there is a very high likelihood that they can get their indictments dismissed. And this is, remember the same sort of rationale that Aileen Cannon used to dismiss the indictment against Donald Trump in the Mar A Lago case, that the special counsel was invalidly appointed. Therefore any indictment that he produced was also invalid. And I think the same argument could play out against Lindsey Halligan. As most of us know, U.S. attorneys, like other federal appointees, are appointed by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. That's an important check to make sure that the President doesn't just install, as Joyce so eloquently put it, hacks that people have experience that there are not, you know, concerning issues in their past and in their history, that they've got the requisite expertise. But there are some emergency provisions to allow a president to fill a vacancy when they can't go through that formal nomination and confirmation process just so that we can keep the trains running in the meantime.
- [19:44]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
And.
- [19:44]
Barb McQuaid
And there are two ways. One is called an interim U. S. Attorney that is appointed by the attorney general for up to 120 days at the expiration of the 120 days. Then the court gets to appoint a successor if there has been no U.S. attorney appointed through that normal process of nomination and confirmation. In the Eastern District of Virginia, Eric Siebert was appointed as the interim. His 120 days expired, and then the court appointed him again as the continuing U.S. attorney until President Trump put in place someone that was nominated and confirmed. Well, he fires Eric Siebert and he puts in Lindsey Halligan. You don't get a redo on the 120 days. And Ed Whelan says so. And there's also a memo written by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel which does these sort of advisory opinions that says you don't get to restart the clock on the 120 days. You are stuck. You're done with your one person. And the author of that memo was none other than a very young Samuel Alito, now of course, on the US Supreme Court. So that's one path. There is one other path for appointing what's called an Acting U.S. attorney. Again, intended to be until you can permanently replace the person. This one has some more checks in who the person is. The person must either have been serving in a senior level position within the agency for at least 90 days prior to the appointment. Lindsey Halligan was not. Or they must have been presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed to some other position which Lindsay Halligan had not. So there's three paths to being a U.S. attorney here other than the Senate confirmation. And she is O for three on all of them. So it appears to me that her appointment is invalid. And I think that a motion to point that out could also nullify the indictment. And then we've heard arguments about selective prosecution, which means I am motivated not by a legitimate law enforcement purpose, but by some prohibited factor like your race, your religion or your politics. And one of the required factors for selective prosecution is to show that other people who were similarly situated but lacked this same characteristic were not charged for the same crime. I think with Jim Comey, it's going to be difficult because it's hard to find people who lied to Congress and then were not charged. But I think in the case of Letitia James, it might be easy because there has been reporting that a number of members of Trump's own cabinet had made some of these same kinds of either mistakes or, you know, on their face, appear to be false claims. There's been reporting that the Treasury Secretary, the Labor Secretary, the Transportation Secretary, the EPA administrator, and even the parents of Bill Pulte, the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, who is the one who's made all these referrals, also claimed homestead tax exemptions on two properties, which is reserved for one's primary residence. So I think that she might have some basis for selective prosecution. Vindictive prosecution strikes me as a little more difficult here. That is something where you say, you file these charges against me for exercising a legal right. Most often we see this when somebody maybe was successful on their appeal, and then the case comes back and the government adds on additional charges and, oh, yeah, well, I'll show you for I'm going to retaliate against you for exercising some legal right that you had, like the right to appeal or the right to challenge, you know, some government action. It's a little trickier here because I don't know what the right that they were exercising was, I guess maybe just to do their jobs under the law. So that might be a little more of a stretch, but I think that there are at least several landmines that await the government in the case ahead against both Comey and James.
- [23:53]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yeah, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say I can probably find examples of people who were similarly situated, including some of our Cabinet members who.
- [24:01]
Joyce Vance
Pam Bondi, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. May.
- [24:05]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Have lied to Congress in some. Both their confirmation hearings as well as some oversight hearings. The Secretary of Homeland Security comes to mind. Joyce, I wanna bring this back home to how far adrift the DOJ has gone here. I mean, looking at both Comey's and James's ind. Could you imagine this when you were heading a USA's office? I mean, that just seems so wild to think that you have somebody who, solo, is basically, by all observations, by all evidence, including the President's own words, carrying out his own vendetta, as opposed to letting the facts and the law guide them to their prosecutions and to make independent prosecutorial decisions?
- [24:51]
Joyce Vance
Yeah. You know, for one thing, when there was a big public corruption case in my office, Everybody in the unit wanted to be the lead attorney on it. You know, if I had, like, said, I'm gonna go into the grand jury and indict this, people would have been like, no, you know, it's my case. It's my turn to have a big one. You don't bring, especially public corruption cases that the whole office isn't behind. You go into indictment review with that, that little indictment, and everybody has a go at it until it's as tight and as tough as it can be, and anyone and everyone in the office would be proud and happy to sign their name to it. So, you know, look, this is just not how U.S. attorney's offices work. I mean, here Halligan has to go into the grand jury both times alone because no one wants to work the case. And by the way, my hat is off to prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia's office. I certainly don't know this. I'm just speculating when I say that they agreed to all stand together and no one would go in with her, because that meant that if she wanted to punish people who wouldn't participate, she would have to fire the entire office, which, of course she could. You know, that would have meant cleaning out Alexandria, Richmond, Norfolk. And that wasn't going to happen. I think. You know, Kim, one of the most interesting comparisons, if you look at this indictment is, is comparing it to Trump's two federal indictments. I think that's sort of revelatory about how unusual it is, because if you'll remember, those two indictments were speaking indictments. They told a story. They had lots of detail. They were chock full of evidence about what the government was planning to present. And here we don't get any of that. In fact, in the second count, the false statements count, it just says, and she made multiple false statements. They never even get around to saying what the false statements were. So I really want to underscore, you know, in a way, we're sort of making light of it. It's a little bit like dancing on a grave. It's not normal. It's not how the Justice Department works. It's not how justice is delivered in this country. It's not how presidents act. It's not how democracies work. We are perilously close to a moment where we slip into autocracy. And I want to be careful when I say that, because I think we are still a functioning democracy with courts that work most of the time and with Congress that is capable, even when it is not willing. And that has a viable opposition party, and we will have elections next year. But I think that we are in a moment that calls for all of us to be vigilant to make sure that we don't slip over the edge.
- [27:33]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yeah, I would agree with that. Although I'm worried about elections. And we'll talk a little bit more about that.
- [27:38]
Joyce Vance
Yeah, we have a topic for that.
- [27:40]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yeah, we do. And, Barb, I want to give you a chance to weigh in on just how not normal or new normal, I guess the DOJ is broadly. But also, you know, this isn't just about weaponization of people against people Trump doesn't like. I worry even more so about the protection of people who Trump likes, who may be committing crimes, but who aren't going to be held accountable for it. I mean, where's, where's that $50,000 in the kava bag? We don't even know where that money is. You know, what about the January 6th rioters who I suspect have not only been pardoned, but may soon find their way with jobs either in ICE or elsewhere in the administration?
- [28:26]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, one of them's already working at the Justice Department in Eagle, Ed Martin's weaponization working group. I think one of the things that is such a profound change that is so dangerous to the criminal justice system is when Donald Trump went into the great hall at the Justice Department. This is a place that has had a history of great speeches about the importance of integrity and justice and the rule of law, and he absolutely just defaced that place. You know, he said, I am the nation's chief law enforcement officer, not the attorney general. And, you know, since the Watergate scandal, where President Nixon tried to interfere in the investigation into the break in at the Democratic headquarters by telling the FBI to stand down because the CIA was looking into the matter, we have erected a number of norms to keep the president out of the business of the Department of Justice. There has been all kinds of norms and policies erected to protect independence of the Justice Department. Among them are barring communications between the White House and DOJ so that a president isn't influencing charging decisions based on politics, principles of federal prosecution that prohibit prosecutions to be considered on partisan political bases, and a policy to neither confirmed nor deny even the existence of an investigation to avoid tainting the reputation of someone who is investigated. We have seen Trump blow holes through all of those norms. And as you say, he can use it as a weapon to go after his opponents, and he can also use it as a shield to protect from prosecution, people who are in his good graces or who curry his favor. I mean, think back to what we saw unfold with Eric Adams, where they said, you know, we'll dismiss this case against you as long as you are on board with Trump's immigration agenda. All of those things are deeply disturbing. And, you know, I think what the president will say is, I can do this because I am the chief executive and we have a unitary executive. And DOJ is all part of me. But I'm mindful of a book I've read called How Democracies Die by two Harvard political scientists. And one of the things they talk about is the importance of forbearance in a democracy. That is, power should not be exercised just because someone can exercise power. There has to be respect for other institutions and, you know, respect for Congress, respect for courts, respect for universities and the free press and all these other democratic institutions, because if you use the full force of your power against them, you will destroy civil society. And what we're seeing with Donald Trump is he doesn't care. It's about maximal power, not about preserving democratic norms.
- [31:28]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
So I'm going to sneak in an additional, an extra listener question here if, if you guys don't mind, one that I've gotten in a couple of forms over the last week or so, and that is, could an U.S. attorney like Halligan be disbarred for presenting false evidence or politically motivated prosecution? What do you guys think?
- [31:55]
Joyce Vance
You know, I think it's premature to say right now. I certainly don't like what she's done. I don't admire it. I think that this case will head towards a point where one of the defendants in these cases will ask and succeed in getting the judge to take a look at the transcript of what went on inside of the grand jury. And that could be very interesting. For instance, prosecutors do, you know, defendants don't have a right to go into the grand jury. They don't cross examine witnesses. But prosecutors do have to present exculpatory evidence, evidence that tends to show that their client is not guilty. And so I think the problem that you have when you're cosplaying a prosecutor when you aren't one, is that there are a lot of ethical pitfalls along the way for the unwary. And it could be that if a transcript is revealed and if some of the speculation that's been bandied about is true, she could find herself, like so many other lawyers who have affiliated themselves with Donald Trump, subject to these proceedings. You know, Rudy Giuliani disbarred. Right. And he's just one among the many.
- [33:02]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yeah, I think that's a good point, because I know in a lot of, a lot of times when people ask if Supreme Court justices could be disbarred, and I say, sure, but that will have nothing to do with their jobs. There's nothing in the Constitution that requires them to even be an attorney, let alone license in the state. And the same is true for attorney General. But when you're a prosecutor, that's different. You've got to be able to go in court. And in these cases, especially if you're the only one in the office willing to go into court, you do actually have to be licensed to practice. So it's a different place. But I agree with you. I think we shall see on that issue.
- [33:46]
Joyce Vance
Fall style is all about layering, and there's no better base layer than high quality, comfortable shapewear. Whether it's a big fancy event or just getting cozy in a sweater and boots, the comfort and style of honeylove shapewear sets the standard. That's why we're really excited to tell you that today's episode is brought to you by HoneyLove. They truly have redefined modern shapewear.
- [34:11]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
So I gotta be honest, when it comes to any sort of clothing, even when I know that it works well or is functional, it's gotta be pretty for me. Like, it's gotta look nice. And Honey Love really has some really lovely designs that I really, really love. And you'll also love Honey Love's targeted compression because it works with your body and not against it, giving you a sculpted support where you need it, but easing up where you definitely need more flexibility. Plus, the flexible boning hidden in the side seams means it actually stays where it's supposed to be and doesn't shift around, so you don't have to worry about it. Imagine how awesome it is when there's no rolling, no adjusting, no awkward tugging. Y' all know what I mean? And there's none here. It doesn't matter if you're working out or on the dance floor, honeylove has you covered.
- [35:01]
Joyce Vance
Their pieces are designed to be as beautiful as they are effective and bring an unmatched vibe. So whether you're wearing a fancy dress for a holiday party or just rocking your everyday favorites with extra confidence, honeylove has you covered. And here's the best part. For a limited time, you can save 20% off your entire order with our exclusive link@honeylove.com sisters. So support the show and elevate your fall wardrobe@honeylove.com Sisters Honey Love is the perfect pairing with exercise and outdoor activities and and especially as the weather gets colder, their clothing gets better and better. I really love how comfortable the leggings are. They've become my go to for everything from Pilates to running errands. And best of all, the targeted compression technology means you never feel suffocated. But you love the Honey Love inspired looks.
- [35:56]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
You say Pilates?
- [35:58]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, I love that.
- [35:59]
Joyce Vance
Pilates. That doesn't sound so Pilates.
- [36:02]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
I love Pilates.
- [36:03]
Joyce Vance
Sounds like a It is my favorite, favorite size old.
- [36:08]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Being a ballerina, it sounds like something I'd order a double shot of in the morning.
- [36:15]
Joyce Vance
I was thinking Pilates.
- [36:19]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Either way, it sounds delicious.
- [36:22]
Barb McQuaid
Well, treat yourself to the most comfortable shapewear on earth and save 20% off site wide@honeylove.com sisters again, use our exclusive link to get 20% off honeylove.com sisters after you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Experience the new standard in shapewear with Honey Love. The link is in our show Notes. Nothing like a little Honey love with your Pilates.
- [36:59]
Joyce Vance
As we move into our fall routines, it's the perfect time to add more color to our lives. For some of us, that's bringing out the decorative quilts, watching the leaves change, or customizing our looks with an autumn vibe with Thrive Cosmetics. After all, little rituals that mark the changing of the season feels good. And that includes updating your makeup look. Whether you're going with a simple just gotta get out the door routine or festive fall glam barb. That would be you. Thrive Cosmetics is your go to for completing any fall look. Every product is 100% vegan, cruelty free, and made with clean skin loving ingredients that work with your skin, not against it. And that means it's always our go to.
- [37:46]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yeah, it really is mine. I mean, y' all know I love Thrive and this time of year. Joyce, you're absolutely right. I've been using the golden and bronzy colors and the eye color stick, but of course I always top it off with the Vegan Tubing Liquid Lash Extensions Mascara. That's always been my favorite product. It comes in six shades that last all day without clumping or smudging or flaking. And there's a reason that it has over 40,000 five star reviews. Your lashes will look extra long due to how it wraps around each lash from root to tip and is super easy to remove and to apply like it's really great stuff. It slides right off in warm water without yanking it out or tugging on your natural lashes once you are done for the day. Plus its nourishing ingredient support longer, stronger and healthier looking lashes over time. As soon as I found out about it, I started using it. It's been years and it's the perfect way to make a big impression.
- [38:51]
Barb McQuaid
We love that. Cause is in the name for a reason. Thrive not only defines luxury beauty with clean skin, loving ingredients and uncompromising standards, but they give back too. Every time you use your favorite Thrive cosmetic product, you're doing more than enhancing your glow. You're helping others shine too. With over $150 million in product and cash donations to 600 plus giving partners, your purchase directly fuels real impact. Imagine making a difference in things like education, the fight against cancer, stopping domestic abuse, and more with every purchase. That's beauty with purpose. Don't wait to complete your fall look. Go to thrivecosmetics.com sisters for an exclusive offer of 20% off your first order. That's Thrive Cosmetics. C A U S E M E t I c s.com sisters the link is in our show Notes. Well, this week brought National Guard troops to even more American cities. First, President Trump used a federal statute to activate members of the Oregon National Guard to Portland. That Statute is Title 10, United States Code Section 124 06. It's the same statute the President used to activate National Guard troops in Los Angeles this summer. It is not the Insurrection act. And I think it's important to actually parse the statute. Joyce, can you tell us about that statute and what it says? It's too bad it doesn't have a catchy nickname. We have to say 10 USC 124 06. But what's, what's in that statute? Because that's the one that Trump's using.
- [40:35]
Joyce Vance
So the fact that it doesn't have a catchy nickname actually tells you a lot about it. As you say, Barb, this is not the Insurrection Act. This is usually the, the enabling statute that presidents use to summon the troops when they're going to invoke the Insurrection Act. So it's sort of a procedural step. 12406 sets out three preconditions, one of which has to exist before the President can ambulate the Guard. And so the first one is the country is invaded by a foreign power or at risk of being invaded. Obviously not the case here. There is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the Government of the United States, no matter what Donald Trump says. Not the case here. And then there's the third one, the one that he's used more regularly, which says the President is unable, with regular forces, to execute the laws of the United States. So here, for instance, Trump has been going under that one in Oregon and in Illinois, claiming that ICE can't protect its own offices. I mean, I don't know if any of y' all have ever been to an ICE office. I have been rather frequently in my life. And the idea that it takes 40 National Guardsmen or 200 National Guardsmen to protect one of these offices is just really crazy. I'm waiting for somebody to make that point in court. But, you know, the point to this statute is that if one of those conditions is met, then the President can federalize National Guard troops from any state in any numbers that he thinks are necessary, and he can use them to help him execute the laws that he otherwise can't.
- [42:13]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. So we know in the Los Angeles case, Judge Charles Breyer held a trial on this and ultimately found that the president's use of this statute was inappropriate. We'll get to the appeal of that in a minute. But, Kim, I want to talk with you about what happened in Oregon. The state of Oregon and the city of Portland filed a legal challenge to Trump's use of this statute to activate the National Guard in Oregon. And then there was a very unusual series of district court proceedings in that case. First, there's one, like, on Saturday and another one on Sunday. Can you tell us what happened there?
- [42:50]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yeah, it's all happened over the course of a weekend, which. First, a district court judge, Judge Karen Immergut, issued a ruling on Saturday that temporarily blocked the deployment of the Oregon National Guard in the city of Portland by saying essentially that the state was likely to prevail on its challenge based on the criteria that Joyce just laid out, that there was by no means any sort of protest at play in Portland, where the protesters were numbered in the dozens, not the hundreds or the thousands outside of.
- [43:35]
Barb McQuaid
And did you see these pictures? They're wearing, like, chicken suits and all kinds of silly things. It's like a handful of people, right?
- [43:42]
Joyce Vance
I mean, I love Portland.
- [43:43]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
This is not an insurrection by any stretch of the imagination or lawlessness that local and federally stationed police law enforcement cannot handle.
- [43:56]
Joyce Vance
It was a Contra dance. It was a Contra dance in the streets.
- [44:00]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
It was just so Judge Immergut said, sorry, no. Well, then the Trump administration was like, all right, well, we'll just send the California National Guard that was in LA over to Portland. And she said, not so fast, and had to issue an additional preliminary injunction, saying, no, no, there is no more reason to send the California. And the Trump administration is like, whoa. But your order only said Oregon. It's like, okay, don't be slick, because you're not. I can issue another order. And I just did. You can't send California in either. I mean, it was.
- [44:39]
Joyce Vance
Was.
- [44:40]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
It was the wildest weekend of orders and of an attempt by the administration to think they can cleverly undercut the first order by just sending National Guards from a different state. Come on. Yeah.
- [44:53]
Barb McQuaid
It reminded me of when they said, oh, well, we. That was just an oral order, so we didn't think that counted since it wasn't in writing. I. Oh, my God, are you kidding me? That was insane. Like, I really have to come back and say, no. When I said there was no basis for National Guard, I meant National Guard from any. All 50 states. Like, do I just have to say that out loud?
- [45:12]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
All 50 states? D.C. any place else you could try to wrangle them? No.
- [45:17]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. And, you know, Judge Immergut is no bleeding heart liberal. She was a U.S. attorney during the Bush administration. She was appointed to the bench by Donald Trump, you know, solid, solid prosecutor and jurist. And so she has struck that down. But then, as I mentioned, Joyce, on Thursday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard an appeal, an argument on the order that Judge Immergut issued, and they kind of seemed prepared to overturn her. I don't know. What was your read here?
- [45:52]
Joyce Vance
Yeah, so I think the central part of Judge Immergut's ruling is where she draws a line in the sand and says the administration is arguing that once Donald Trump declares that there's a qualifying emergency under the statute, no one can look over his shoulder and disagree. Courts can't review his decision. And she said, look, that's not the case. And in essence, she found that there was a reality test, sort of a smell test, where she could look at the evidence in front of her and she was capable of looking at it and saying the administration is overstating what the evidence suggests. There's no rebellion. There's no situation on the ground that state and local law enforcement can't handle. And as a judge, I am able to look over the President's shoulder and not second guess, but judicially review his determination to make sure it comports with the facts and it isn't just made up. And so that really ends up being a central part of this oral argument. Too. You know, the panel ends up challenging Judge Immergut's conclusion that the protests were limited in scale and that there was no need for a military response. And so you never know. Oral argument is not the opinion. You have to wait and see it in writing. But it looks like they may actually agree with her that there is, you know, great deference is owed to a president. She says that, and that's clearly correct. But I think that they may agree that there's a limited ability to review, and they may just disagree with her, as crazy as it is to anyone who's seen the images coming out of Portland. So, you know, Judge Emerget said she could use evidence of what was going on on the ground, the slide dancing and the characters, to refute Trump's assertion that troops were needed. But my take in oral argument was that two of the panel judges did not agree with her. Judge Nelson and Judge Bade both appeared to suggest that the president state of the protests was enough to justify what the Trump administration wanted to do. That's just sort of crazy sauce, to be honest, and it's very concerning. This case will definitely go to the Supreme Court. I think it will go this term. There's a case on a parallel track out of Illinois, especially if those two cases are decided differently. That's then a split in the circuits that would, you know, to be honest, we would probably hear on the shadow docket first, which is so easy when you think about it.
- [48:26]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Well, Joyce, you know what the most overturned circuit by the Supreme Court is? Well, you know, that would be the ninth.
- [48:33]
Joyce Vance
It was the ninth until Donald Trump reformed it during his first administration. The ninth used to be a crazy liberal circuit. Like in my circuit, the 11th Circuit, something that we used to love to do was have out of town lawyers come in and they would cite the ninth Circuit, and you would just look at a panel of 11th Circuit judges during oral argument, and you say, judge, that's a case from the. From the ninth Circuit. And the judge would wisely shake his or her head as, as though to say anything else. But, you know, that's different now. It's become a very conservative circuit, and I will be interested to see if that changes. I think that's a great observation. That is like Kim doing Inside Baseball appellate law.
- [49:12]
Barb McQuaid
I just want to know, Joyce, if in all your years in arguing before appellate courts, you ever responded to an opposing argument by saying, that's just crazy sauce, you know, because that's like a showstopper. That's like, drop your life.
- [49:26]
Joyce Vance
I don't think I ever said that. I will say the guy who's the appellate chief in my old office now, he's one of the funniest people that I have ever known in my whole life. Deeply conservative. I'm sorry for giving you up, Michael. Very, very religious. Somehow at one point during oral argument, found himself saying to the judge's, well, you know, if ever I were to smoke marijuana, sort of to illustrate an argument. And then just because he's the most wonderful human being and best advocate I've ever heard, he turned it into a joke. Got the entire panel laughing with him, he says, at him, but they were laughing with him. And he ended up winning a case that we really weren't due to win. I think humor is a wonderful thing sometimes good advocacy.
- [50:10]
Barb McQuaid
I agree with you that this is destined for the Supreme Court. And I also believe that this Supreme Court has a very favorable view of the unitary executive theory.
- [50:20]
Joyce Vance
Right.
- [50:21]
Barb McQuaid
That maximal deference to presidential power. But they are also textualists. And Joyce, you began by describing the text of this statute, this statute in need of a clever name. 10 USC section 12406. And what it says is, whenever the President is unable to, with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States, it. What it does not say, unlike some other statutes, it doesn't say the President finds that he is unable.
- [50:50]
Joyce Vance
So like the Insurrection Act. Right, which is very different. Yeah, yeah.
- [50:54]
Barb McQuaid
And so it says that he is. And that suggests to me that a judge may second guess and say, no, the judge is able. The President is able to do it here. It's not deferring to a presidential finding. It is deferring to the reality of the situation. Whether the President is or is not able to, you know, imagine. You know, they love to use hypotheticals where you sort of stretch the facts. Imagine they come to, I don't know, what's that place? The Villages in Florida. And everybody is just playing golf and wearing their little red caps and not doing anything. And the President says, I find that we are unable to use regular forces here to execute the laws of the United States. And there's just zero evidence. There's no protest, there's nothing going on. Couldn't a judge there say, it's ridiculous? The President is able to execute the laws of the United States. There's zero protest. And so I think that this is where unitary executive meets textualism. And what could be a really interesting, interesting test.
- [51:53]
Joyce Vance
Yeah. Well, good luck convincing Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas and, you know, Neil Gorsuch that there's anything other than results oriented judging in this area. I mean, I have have about given up hope for the three. I hope that there are a couple of other votes for sense and democracy. Yeah.
- [52:11]
Barb McQuaid
Let me just wrap up with you, Kim. One last thing. Your thoughts about we're seeing this again in Chicago. Trump activating the National Guard there, that too was met with a legal challenge. Can you tell us about that one and where you think that one's headed?
- [52:24]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yeah. So similarly that that deployment has been put on hold temporarily for 14 days at least by a US district judge in Illinois, Perry. But to get to your point, Barb, she made a point in her ruling in noting that she pointed to the, quote, growing body of evidence, end quote, that seemed to suggest that the Department of Homeland Security was putting forth a set of unreliable facts to support the notion that the National Guard was necessary to go into Chicago to quell anything that looks like a rebellion or the inability of law enforcement to do their job. So I think she was honing in on this precise textual point that you brought up that I think could bring it, really help clarify it. If, as Joyce said, there is a split between the decision in the. What is that? The 6th Circuit that Illinois is in?
- [53:25]
Barb McQuaid
7Th.
- [53:25]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
7Th Circuit that Illinois is in versus the 11th, the 9th Circuit, where Portland is. So I think that that was a smart way to decide this and smart rationale because Judge Perry clearly seems to hone in on exactly what you were saying, Barb.
- [53:45]
Joyce Vance
Yeah.
- [53:45]
Barb McQuaid
And I think at some point the cumulative effect of really there's a situation in all these cities where the President is simultaneously, he's the unluckiest president in the history of the world.
- [53:58]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
No.
- [53:58]
Barb McQuaid
1.
- [53:58]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
He's got insurrections going everywhere. And yet, you know, when he did not call in the National Guard on January 6, 2021.
- [54:08]
Barb McQuaid
Ah, that was nothing. Well, we here at Sisters In Law love cats, even if some of us don't own any. Which is why we let all of our cat owning friends and family know about Smalls. After all, the cat food most people rely on has questionable ingredients. That's why we're so glad this podcast is sponsored by Smalls. Especially because for a limited time, you can get 60% off your first order plus free shipping when you head to smalls.com sisters.
- [54:49]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Smalls Cat food has protein packed recipes made with preservative free ingredients that you'd find in your fridge, all delivered right to your door. That's why cats.com named Smalls their best overall cat food. Best of all, starting With Smalls is easy. Just share info about your cat's diet, health and food preferences. Then Smalls puts together a personalized sampler for your cat. Stop picking between random brands at the store that you're not really sure about. Smalls has the right food to satisfy any cat's cravings. And it's obvious right away when you see how much they like it compared to that old, tired, burnt out kibble.
- [55:32]
Joyce Vance
Yeah, I can just see my cats waiting at the front door saying, no more burnt out kibble.
- [55:36]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Mom.
- [55:36]
Joyce Vance
We want custom curated artisanal cat food. I mean, they're already spoiled enough, but.
- [55:42]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
They'Re like, garcon, I need a menu. What else? I need to talk to the manager.
- [55:47]
Joyce Vance
I swear to God, my daughter's cat looked at me today and asked, mom, why no lobster salad for lunch? It's bad around here. I gotta get more Smalls. You know, we had it, they loved it so much they ate it all and we've run out. I need to restock. But look, don't just listen to us. Smalls customer Elizabeth C expressed how her cat was always so so with her usual food, but is very enthusiastic about Smalls. Her breath is much better. And let's just say that the litter stays fresher too. It even has a great story. Smalls was started back in 2017 by a couple of guys home cooking cat food in small batches for their friends. Sounds a lot like my house. A few short years later, they've served millions of meals to cats across the usa. And here's the best part. Smalls works with the Humane World for Animals, donating over a million dollars worth of food through them to help cats. You can even donate at checkout. Whether you donate $5 for flea and tick medications or or $7 for vaccines.
- [56:51]
Barb McQuaid
Smalls has other cat favorites too, like amazing treats and snacks for a full feline feast. You can even try it risk free. So what are you waiting for? Give your cat the food they deserve for a limited time because you are a Sisters in law listener. Get 60% off your first order plus free shipping when you head to smalls.com sisters one last time. That's 60% off your first order plus Free shipping when you head to smalls dot com sisters. The link is in our show notes.
- [57:33]
Joyce Vance
Well, dear listeners, we wanted to give you a little bit of preparation for next Wednesday's oral argument before the United States Supreme Court in Louisiana versus Calais. It's the second time, but who's counting? This is this term's voting rights gerrymandering offering for the Supreme Court. And there is a little bit of unusual behavior going on in this case. So Kim, can you explain why this case has come back for the second time, what the backstory is, and is this as unusual as I think it is?
- [58:05]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Oh, it's pretty unusual. So this case originally came to the Supreme Court as a challenge to a redistricting plan that created two opportunity districts for Louisiana black voters. That's because there was a lawsuit brought by black voters that said that the fact that there are four congressional seats in the state, a third of voters in Louisiana are black, but yet there is only one of those four districts where there are enough black people to elect a candidate of their choice. And that is the standard under the Voting Rights Act. And they said, therefore, it violated the Voting Rights act by what we call packing. You pack a certain group of people into one district and that can be violative of the Voting Rights act if it has the effect of robbing them of their ability to choose candidates of their choice. So after another challenge in Alabama went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court actually ruled in favor of the challengers in that case case. Louisiana implemented a different voting map which created two opportunity districts in which black voters could be deemed to have enough political power. Doesn't mean they guarantee a a candidate of their choice, but just that they have the opportunity to elect it. Well then after that, a group of so called, they identified themselves as non African Americans brought suit against the state saying, no, well, this new map violates the Voting Rights act because you're considering race and considering race in creating a redistricting map is illegal under the Voting Rights Act. And you're thinking, wait, what? Isn't the Voting Rights act meant to keep people from being disenfranchised because of their race? Well, you would be right, but they're trying to put a new spin on it. And so the Supreme Court heard that case last term. We were waiting for a result, and instead of getting a decision the Supreme Court put forward, move this case into the next term to be re argued with a new question.
- [60:18]
Joyce Vance
Yeah. Okay. So not all that normal. Good to know. Keep that in mind. Wednesday morning, Barb Kim mentioned that there's a specific new issue that the court wants to hear about. Can you talk about the issue and what it portends for the case?
- [60:30]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, and I think it's not good. So the original question focused narrowly on on the map itself, whether the lower court was correct when it concluded that this second majority black district was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. So that was a pretty narrow question. This time they issued instructions to the parties to file briefs addressing this new question of whether the state's intentional creation of a second majority minority district district violates either the 14th Amendment, which is about equal protection, or the 15th Amendment, which prohibits people from denying or restricting voting rights based on race. I think the fact that it is much broader this time around gives them, I think, the, the, the likelihood that they're going to create some really serious, significant mischief for the rest of the country. I think this case is going to be not just about this narrow little map, but about whether whenever a state redistricts to create these majority minority districts to give voting power to minority groups, that that is a violation of the 14th or 15th amendment or both.
- [61:51]
Joyce Vance
So, Kim, do you agree with Barb? I mean, you mentioned the Alabama case a minute ago. Do you think that there's any chance that the court might create a second majority minority district here? They've got the most unattractive group of plaintiffs I've ever seen in a voting rights case, right? This group of snarky white voters saying, but what about us? Is there any hope in this one, or is this the death KNELL For Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?
- [62:16]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
I am not holding out much hope, unfortunately. It's because initially, as you pointed out, there was the case in Alabama, which we did discuss at the time, and it seems so long ago, but, but it was with that case that was very similar, a challenge to the maps there that were found to have been illegally gerrymandered to pack black voters into a district. And it went before the Supreme Court. And I think most of us were concerned that the Supreme Court would use that opportunity to strike down Section two of the Voting Rights act or basically all but nullify it. And so Section 2 allowed private plaintiffs to bring suit to enforce the Voting Rights act when they claim that it violates the terms because it does things like pack black voters in a district or disperse them so widely that they can't also cannot elect a candidate of their choice. And that it has the effect. It's basically like a desperate impact claim that it has the effect of disenfranchising black voters. And that's important because the Voting Rights act no longer has an effective tool that allows the Justice Department to come in beforehand to prevent such maps from going into place or other voting laws going into place before it is pre cleared by the Justice Department that was knocked out back in 2013 by a different Supreme Court decision. So the fact that instead of nullifying Section 2, the Supreme Court actually applied it and found that Alabama violated. It was like, oh, wow, okay, we still have this tool that is really important in protecting voting rights. And so that is why Louisiana and all in several other states said, all right, we better, you know what, we need to go ahead and follow the Voting Rights Act. And that's what Louisiana was trying to do with the creation of the second black district. But now that we have this new challenge, instead of sort of coming in neutral the way Louisiana did the first time, they were basically saying, look, we're doomed if we don't and we're doomed if we do. Supreme Court fix it. Like we tried to apply, we tried to adhere to the Voting Rights Act. Now they're saying that it's unconstitutional. Now Louisiana is on the side of the non African Americans and are saying, no, we want to strike down this map. And so is the Justice Department. Everybody now is backing up and saying, no, this is unconstitutional. You can't do this. You can never consider race. Well, we have the Chief Justice, John Roberts, who in the Shelby county ruling and the affirmative action ruling and wherever he can, seems to have this idea that, well, the only way that you can stop discriminating against race is to stop discriminating against race and pretending like we live in a colorblind society and just knocking out civil rights rules left, right and sideways. And I think unfortunately this will be the latest. And it's devastating because if red states start taking a cue from this, they've already started in trying to gerrymander their way into basically into autocracy, like into really stripping people of their voting rights. This is a government that by definition is of the people and allowing gerrymanders that are based on their. We already get the ones that are based on partisan reasons, which as we've often said, has strong racial undertones underneath those. The Supreme Court has already said they can't touch that in another decision and to now basically say the Voting Rights act doesn't matter and we will see red states start gerrymandering like crazy. That can add just a double digit number of new House seats on the Republican side and just skew the electorate in a way that doesn't resemble or represent or reflect the electorate at all in the way that the House seats are supposed to. That will be devastating for democracy.
- [66:11]
Joyce Vance
Yeah. So fair fight. That's Stacey Abrams, pro voting organization in Georgia actually is out with new data today talking about just how many seats, seats this could cost Democrats. And I mean, we're not talking two or three. We're talking like 20, 30, maybe even more, which I think is super frightening. Look, just so everybody understands, and I hope y' all will. I mean, I get. People are busy, but if you have the opportunity next Wednesday, go to the Supreme Court's website and listen and depart all of this oral argument. This may be the most important case that the court hears all term. If you believe that voting matters. You know, Barb, there's a better path forward on gerrymandering. I know Michigan is one of a handful of states that's doing it better. Give us some hope to close out the show.
- [66:58]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, there is a great way to do this. You know, I think we have seen so many legislatures exercising their power just to try to create even more power within the states by doing all this gerrymandering. But in Michigan and other states, we have created a. A bipartisan independent redistricting commission. And it's formed by citizens. There are some people who identify as Democrats, some who identify as Republicans, and others who identify as independents. And they come together after the decennial census. They look at the data and they draw the lines and they've got, you know, some of the things that the court has said you should look at at. If you can preserve a county line, you should do that. They should be contiguous. They should have, you know, you should keep together groups of people. They should be of equal size. And as a result, we have, you know, districting in Michigan that is no longer got a thumb on the scale based on partisan politics, you know, favoring one party over another. And the first time these new maps were used, used a few years ago, resulted in the first election in Michigan in 40 years that delivered the House and the Senate and all of the major executive branch positions to Democrats. So.
- [68:21]
Joyce Vance
And then, and then it's sounds unconstitutional to me. At least I'm a Supreme court justice.
- [68:26]
Barb McQuaid
There you go. And then most recently, we saw Republicans take the state legislature, so. So it is based on the will.
- [68:34]
Joyce Vance
Of the people, as it should be.
- [68:47]
Barb McQuaid
When you love seafood, you deserve the best. At the grocery store. You never know where it came from or what it might have in it. That's why you need a provider you can trust. For us, that means wild Alaska, Alaskan. We always recommend them. And it's wonderful to know our friends, family and I are getting the best. And the taste is incredible, too.
- [69:06]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
I have to say, I am still living off the goodwill in my household for having made salmon fried rice with wild Alaskan salmon. It was so good. But it's also easy and pretty foolproof because the salmon is so high quality that, you know, normally I would be you weirded out about, you know, stir frying essentially seafood because it can get dry and all gross. It was delicious. And that's not hard to believe because everything from wild Alaskan is 100% wild caught and never farmed. This means there are no antibiotics, GMOs, or additives in their catch. Just clean, real fish that support healthy oceans and fish communities. So don't you settle for less? We won't anymore go with fish that are nutrient rich and full of flavor. With wild Alaskan, that's a given. Their fish is frozen right off the boat to lock in taste, texture and nutrients like omega 3s. And like us, you'll love that. Everything from wild Alaskan is sustainably sourced and wild caught from Alaska, with every order supporting sustainable harvesting practices. Plus, becoming a member means your deliveries are flexible and at your own pace. You'll get chef's tips from the pros, but you really won't need them because they're just so delicious that it's really hard to mess them up. It's an endless smorgasbord of truly feel good seafood. I love the Pacific halibut for a tasty treat that's low in fat, high in protein, and rich in omega 3s. And the halibut makes for really great fish tacos. That's what I did. But they have so many other amazing, amazing options that you can't go wrong.
- [70:53]
Joyce Vance
Okay, y', all, dinner is at Kim's house this week.
- [70:56]
Barb McQuaid
Sounds good to me.
- [70:58]
Joyce Vance
If you're not completely satisfied with your first box, Wild Alaskan company will give you a full refund. No questions asked, no risk, just high quality seafood. Not all fish are the same. Get seafood you can trust. Go to wildalaskan.com sisters for $35 off your first box. Box of premium wild caught seafood. That's wildalaskan.com sisters For $35 off your first order. So here's a big thanks to wild alaskan company for sponsoring this episode and our family dinners. The link is in our show notes. Well, now it's time for our favorite part of the show where we answer our listeners questions and listen if y' all hear any background. No. We are joined by Kim's dog, Snickers for this segment. Looking absolutely adorable, giving her mommy kisses. While we're answering, we had some really great questions this week and it's always a challenge to pick the three that we'll answer, but we appreciate your questions. I hope that if you have a question for us, you'll email them to us@sistersinlawolitikon.com or you can tag us on social media using the hashtag Sisters in Law. If we don't get to your question during the show, keep an eye on our feeds during the week where we try to answer as many of them as possible. But I know that y' all have a lot of questions right now, and I want to encourage you to keep sending them in. Kim, we'll start with you. We have a question from Richard. He says this is a great question. He says, can you please enlighten us about the meaning of plenary authority and how it plays into the Trump administration's overall scheme for an authoritarian government? And of course, I'm sure no one missed this, but this is sort of Stephen Miller's glitch earlier this week where he's asked a question, uses the word plenary and then shuts down. What's that all about? Kim?
- [72:57]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yes. So I believe you are absolutely right. There was an appearance by Stephen Miller on cnn, and he was actually talking about the president's authority to deploy national guardsmen. Section 10 of the US code gave the president plenary power. And then, as you mentioned, Joyce, he seemed to stop talking. I think the CNN anchor thought there was a technical problem and they went to break and he came back and he sort of backed off of that. But that would be just a gobsmacking statement, but also a very erroneous one. Plenary power means complete power over a particular area without any limitations. As we've discussed, the president does not have plenary power over deploying the National Guard. There is a lot of deference, but it is, there are limitations. It has to be to repel an invasion, suppress an insurrection, or when normal forces are not sufficient, to control some sort of threat to federal property. And as judges have said, that is not the case. But what worries me about that approach and the fact that Stephen Miller said that in the first place is that it plays into this strong unitary executive theory on steroids position that I think some in the administration have, that the president has nearly unbounded power. And that would not be a democracy, ladies and gentlemen, that would be a dictatorship. And that is precisely what the Constitution prohibits. So the more that they speak about this out loud and the more willing that they are, and the more willing that the president, for example, is to call out, whether privately or publicly to Pam that she should weaponize the DOJ and All of these things are really painting a troubling picture, in my opinion, of what is happening inside and around the White House. And it is something that I think, think, Richard, you are smart to be asking questions about, and it's something that all Americans should be paying very close attention to.
- [75:04]
Joyce Vance
Yeah, it really is a great question, and I hope that y' all will continue to ask us questions. There's so much happening right now. We really are in the deluge stage of the Trump 2.0 administration. I hope that you'll help us focus on these sort of little moments that happen and then sometimes get. Get forgotten far too quickly. So a great question. We have another one from Juliet, and she asks, how can citizens legally stop the unconstitutional behavior if the other branches of government won't? You know, this is. It's a profound question. I mean, I think it's the question for the moment, and the answer is our right to vote, which we need to insist on vigorously and be vigilant about protecting. A big part of that is the courts, which have made inroads into the right to vote. But, you know, we still hold 50 state elections. States have a lot of control over how each election is run. Citizens in your state will, by the way, be in charge of your election. And you can volunteer, you can sign up to participate in that, you can be a poll watcher, but most importantly, you can get prepared to vote, because one of the biggest fights in 2026 will be this issue that the Trump administration has been pushing full force. They've tried it as an executive order. The courts have blocked it. They tried to get a measure through Congress. It stalled because Americans, people like you and me, to the point of your question, opposed it. And now there's a push in front of the eac, the Election Assistant Commission, to require Americans to prove that they're citizens in order to register to vote. Well, that's pretty crazy, because, of course, people who don't have reason or money to travel frequently don't have passports, especially as they get older. Students often don't carry proof of citizenship with them if they go out of state for school. And there are literally millions of Americans who, voting groups estimate, will be locked out of the process if Americans have to prove citizenship in order to register. So something that you can do is fight those measures, but also be pragmatic. And if you don't have proof of citizenship, if you don't have a passport but have the ability to get one, go ahead and do it now out of an abundance of caution, because at the end of the day, the way that we as citizens stop unconstitutional behavior from the other branches is by voting out the people who engage in that kind of behavior. That's why 2026 will be incredibly important. It will be an opportunity to reestablish guardrails. Our last question comes from Bob. Barb, this one is for you. This is yet another great question because it's part of our ongoing sort of Criminal Law 101, where sisters in law teach all of y' all criminal law, just like you're in law school. Barb, this is one straight off of a first year law school exam. The question is, what is an unindicted co conspirator?
- [78:05]
Barb McQuaid
Oh, that's great. You know, it's too bad Jill isn't here because she would tell you that Richard Nixon was an unindicted co conspirator. An unindicted co conspirator is a person who did conspire under the allegations of an indictment with the other members of the conspiracy, but for one reason or another is not going to be charged with a crime. Most often it's because that person is cooperating, but it could also be because that person is immune. So, for example, if you were going to list a president as a co conspirator in a case, you might call him an unindicted co conspirator.
- [78:40]
Joyce Vance
Murder.
- [78:40]
Barb McQuaid
Because the law recognizes that he is immune from prosecution under certain circumstances. If, for example, Kim and I agreed to rob a bank, we could be considered co conspirators to that bank robbery. But Kim, just tipping you off. If the prosecutors came to me and asked me if I wanted to ride me out and be a snitch, I would snitch all day. I would sing like a canary. And so in your indictment, you would say that you conspired with an unindicted co conspirator. My name would not be in there to protect my identity while the case proceeds. Ultimately, when I took the stand and said it was all her idea, you would know my identity as the unindicted co conspirator.
- [79:21]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Some sister in law you are.
- [79:23]
Joyce Vance
You know, it has been a long week because I know Barb would never snitch you out. Kim.
- [79:28]
Barb McQuaid
Oh, I'd sing all day. As a good friend of mine, my friend Stacy used to always say, don't do anything you don't want me to talk about because I can't do time. I will sing like a canary.
- [79:40]
Joyce Vance
Well, that's all we have time for today. Thanks for listening. To Sisters in Law with Kimberly Atkins Storr, Barb McQuaid and me, Joyce Vance. Follow Sisters in Law wherever you listen and please give us a five star review. It really helps others find the show. Show some love to this week's sponsors, Oneskin, Honeylove, Thrive Cosmetics, Smalls and Wild Alaskan. The links are in the show notes. You can tell from the ads how much we love these people. Please support them because they make the podcast possible. See you next week with another episode. Sisters in Law.
- [80:20]
Barb McQuaid
And who did Andy Dodd not sign off?
- [80:22]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Oh, sorry, that was a typo. And who did and did not who's and Dodd.
- [80:30]
Barb McQuaid
I even googled it. I even googled it. There's like a performer named Andy Dodd. Like what?
- [80:36]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Oh my God. That's the best typo I've ever done. Sorry.
- [80:38]
Joyce Vance
I love that. That's great. We have to remember if if ever anything goes wrong, Andy Dodd is responsible. Oh, that's going to be our new Andy. We cannot lose sight of this.
- [80:50]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, yeah. Andy Dodd did it. Oh, that's great.
- [80:55]
Commercial Announcer
Member week is back at Lowe's with big savings for Pros now through October 15th, Milo's Pro Rewards members get up to 40% off hundreds of items like paint, tools, building materials and more. Plus get free standard shipping. Shop these exclusive member only savings before they're gone. Not a rewards member. Join for free today. Free standard shipping not available in Alaska and Hawaii. Exclusions and more terms apply. Loyalty programs subject to terms and conditions. Details@lowe's.com Terms subject to change. Time is precious and so are our pets. So time with our pets is extra precious. That's why we started Dutch. Dutch provides 24. 7 access to licensed vets with unlimited virtual visits and follow ups for up to five pets. You can message a vet at any time and schedule a video visit the same day. Our vets can even prescribe medication for many ailments. And shipping is always free. With Dutch. You'll get more time with your pets and year round peace of mind when it comes to their vet care.