Loading summary
Transcript121 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign.
- [00:14]
B
Welcome back to Sisters in Law with Kimberly Atkinstore, Joyce Vance, Jill Winebanks, and me, Barb McQuaid. I want to mention that hoodies and T shirts, flowers for the resistance, are available to order for the holidays. Our deadline, our overseers tell us, is Monday, December 15th. That's how many days, Kim?
- [00:37]
A
Two days? Yeah.
- [00:39]
B
I had to have her say it like that. Two days. If you want to order Sisters in Law hoodies, T shirts, or other merchandise, you've got until Monday, December 15th. Two days to make sure they arrive in time. You can find all that stuff@thepoliticon.com merch store. And you can find the link in our show notes. Today in our show, we'll be discussing the third. Yes, third failure of the Department of Justice to obtain an indictment against Letitia James, a judge's order prohibiting the Trump administration from federalizing more National Guard troops in California, and this week's capital punishment case that was argued at the Supreme Court. But before that, sisters, I gotta tell you, it's been a heavy week. We've had a terrible scandal at the University of Michigan involving our football team. We've had, you know, all of the Trump nonsense that goes on nonstop. And I'm trying to find a moment in my day, in my week to reflect on things that bring beauty, kindness, awe, you know, things that make me just recognize the beauty in life, whether it's, you know, human kindness or nature or whatever it is. You got anything to pick me up? Joyce, what about you?
- [02:00]
C
You know, I hear you, Barb. It's easy to get down in the dumps, and it's so important to do things that drag yourself out. So let me tell y' all what I've been enjoying. I asked Bob for a wildlife camera for Christmas, and he went ahead and set it up for me a little bit early. And so we now have this family text loop that shows us whatever gets captured every day. And far and away, the knockout is something that's long been rumored to exist in our neighborhood but that we've never seen before. A bobcat, which suddenly showed up on camera last week, much to everybody's shock and amazement. And it's just, you know, it's those little things. Like, I don't know if everybody else is as animal crazy as we are in our house. I mean, we are people who love chickens and wild turkeys, but the bobcat was just spectacular and beautiful, and I just wanted to pet it and feed it.
- [03:01]
B
Careful now. Those things are in the wild. That's very cool.
- [03:04]
C
Those little Murder Paws. Yeah.
- [03:06]
B
That's very cool, Joyce. Are you sure it wasn't generated by AI that Bob didn't just doctor it up there for you? Did it have, like, Trump's face but as a baby? Cause sometimes those are AI.
- [03:18]
C
I only wish that Bob Vance was that adventurous.
- [03:23]
B
Well, that's a good one. How about you, Kim? Have you observed any beauty or kindness in your week?
- [03:27]
A
Yeah, so one thing that I found very beautiful, and that has really been uplifting. Normally this time of year, I'm kind of bummed out because it gets dark so early, and I especially don't like walking Snickers after it's dark. But now I really love walking Snickers after dark because we have been going down different streets in our neighborhood and looking at all of the holiday lights, which are cool. My neighbors are creative. You know, there's everything from like, full on, you know, illuminated reindeer to Snoopy to just, like, more traditional but really intricate lights put on houses. It's a very, very festive thing. So instead of trying to, you know, get Snickers out by dust so there's still a little bit of light, I wait till it's fully dark because it just looks so pretty. I love holiday lights. I love how everything looks festive this time of year. So I've been finding much beauty in that.
- [04:22]
B
It is a lot of beauty. Do you have the Clark W. Griswald house in your neighborhood with like.
- [04:27]
A
Yeah, well, kind of, yeah. It's really over the top, but it's like, wow. I. I hope those are led. Otherwise that's gonna be a big light. Bill.
- [04:38]
B
We have one of those, too. It's still entertaining. I drive people by there. Fun to. Fun to see their reaction. How about you, Jill?
- [04:44]
A
Any.
- [04:45]
B
Any beauty or kindness that you've observed this week?
- [04:47]
C
I have.
- [04:49]
D
We've had the most amazing sunsets here. I don't know what is causing it, but people are posting on the neighborhood website photos they're taking mostly at the lakefront, which isn't far from here, and the sky is this beautiful pinkish, orangey color. It's really, really been beautiful, and that does brighten my day a lot. But I would have to say the most beautiful thing is that, you know, you all know Brisbi was having some difficulty and wasn't able to walk downstairs, and he now has made a miraculous recovery. He's walking down the stairs and he's just doing so great. And that's. There's nothing more beautiful than his being better. And so I'm delighted and Happy beyond belief.
- [05:37]
C
Oh, that's great.
- [05:39]
B
Do you think he was just faking for attention, John?
- [05:43]
D
Well, let me tell you, he got a lot of attention. We had an acupuncturist coming to the house who gave him. I'm not kidding, because we couldn't. I mean, he couldn't get into the car anymore. Cause he couldn't do it. So she came to the house and gave him acupuncture and an infrared therapy and Chinese herbs and, you know, you know, Dr. Vandover, you made him better. He's doing great. So thank you.
- [06:09]
C
I'm now Googling pet acupuncture near me because Bella's getting up in years.
- [06:14]
D
It works, Joyce.
- [06:15]
C
It does.
- [06:17]
D
I'll ask her for a recommendation. If she knows anybody in your neighborhood.
- [06:22]
C
That would be great.
- [06:23]
B
Well, I, too, have seen some beauty this week. I mean, there's the beauty of nature. I've been cross country skiing at sort of at the dusk hour. And that's when you see deer moving around. And they're so beautiful. You know, the way they just sort of leap and they're so graceful. So I love watching that. But, you know, the other thing that has been really rewarding in an odd sort of way is someone I'm very close to is staying at an assisted living facility these days. And I have to say, I've observed so much human kindness there from members of the staff and the aides and the nurses, but also fellow patients who take good care of each other. It's actually been a really beautiful thing to see this community in action. So there's beauty all around us, dear listeners, if we just take time to look for it.
- [07:24]
C
As we move into our cold weather routines, it's the perfect time to add more color to our lives. For some of us, that's bringing out artistic quilts, putting up festive decorations, or customizing our looks with a seasonal vibe with Thrive Cosmetics. After all, little rituals that celebrate the holidays feel good. And that includes updating your makeup look.
- [07:46]
A
Whether you're going with a simple I just need to get out of the house and run some errands kind of routine, or you're going full festive winter glam. Thrive Cosmetics is your go to for completing any 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.
- [08:11]
D
I love everything Thrive makes. Their mascara, lip balm, eyebrow tint, and their brilliant eye brighteners, their waterproof eyeshadow. Highlighter sticks made to brighten and open your eyes, giving you a radiant eye look over the holidays. Thrive's foolproof formula makes it extremely easy to apply and blend any of the 32. Yeah, 32 shades. You can use as little or as much as you'd like to create your own look. Just apply it to the inner corners of your eye to appear rested when you're not and effortless looking. Sometimes I use a darker color in the crease between my eye brow and my eyelid, and sometimes I use a eyeshadow over the whole thing to just give me some color so that I don't look so winter washed out. It gives you a daytime glow. You can also try applying a metallic shadow over all of your eyelid and blending it with your fingertips for an easy smoky eye that pops.
- [09:13]
B
It always sounds painful to me, Jill, but looks good on you, though. Well, what we love is 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 Thrive, you're doing more than enhancing your glow. You're helping others shine, too. With more than $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. So don't wait to complete your winter 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.
- [10:23]
D
Well, you heard Barbara say that the third failure came this week in indicting Letitia James. And so not only is the third time not the charm, but I'm wondering if DOJ is humiliated and tired of losing. They've had a very busy week, and I'm going to start with their list of failures. Actually, I'm going to have to start and finish with their list of failures because in my view, there have been no wins. They have been losing, losing, losing. Barb, let's talk about that third rejection of the indictment of New York Attorney General Letitia James. It should be humiliating, but I'm not sure they are because I don't know if they have a sense of shame even. Are they going to try again? Where else could they try? What else can they try? Or is it time for them to just give up?
- [11:15]
B
Yeah, you know we saw this week, yet again, a third time, a federal grand jury rejecting a proposed indictment for Letitia James. Really incredible. They went to the grand jury in Alexandria this time. The last time they went and got rejected, it was in Richmond. So it appears, just from what we know, that they just thought, well, let's just shop it somewhere else and see what happens. And it's not flying, you know, And I think one of the reasons it's not flying isn't that, you know, people aren't. Aren't willing to go after a sitting attorney general. I think it's because what we've seen of the evidence is just that it's baseless. You know, the whole idea is that she somehow lied with the intent to defraud. Remember, you have to prove that the lie was made at the time to get a better rate by claiming she was going to retain control over it when instead she put it on the rental market. But we now know the facts are that she does retain control over it, that she rents it to a niece and her family, but she still retains control over it. And other documents say that that is permissible for short term rentals. And so there's just no basis for this thing. And so it's shocking to me, frankly, that they've gone back again and again. I don't know at what point they'll give up, because, you know, Trump, he doesn't care about evidence. He just wants his pound of flesh. But I think what at least some of these leaders at the Justice Department are discovering is the system is designed to weed out baseless cases. You have to have evidence. And I think the other message it should send is that when grand juries returned indictments against Trump for retaining documents at Mar a Lago and for interfering with the election, it wasn't just, let's go after our enemy and engage in lawfare. They presented evidence to the grand jury. Grand jurors insist on evidence. It's a low bar to establish probable cause, but it's not nothing. And you've got to show that there is probable cause on each and every element of an offense. It's clearly not there for Letitia James, and they really ought to just go away and stop embarrassing themselves.
- [13:30]
D
Yeah, it's incredible to me because of course, the first indictment was dismissed because of the unlawful service of the U.S. attorney. And then they go to another jurisdiction within Virginia and the grand jury goes like, there's no case here, we're not going to indict. And then they try again back in the same place they started. And again, the grand jury goes, nah, this is not a legitimate case. And so, all right, let's move to the second failure this week, Joyce. There was a ruling that DOJ cannot use evidence that they were relying on against Comey, whose indictment was also dismissed. Explain why they barred the evidence and why they can't use it, and is.
- [14:16]
B
It going to be appealed?
- [14:18]
D
And what do you predict the outcome of that will be? Or is this finally the end of them proceeding against James Comey?
- [14:26]
C
Well, I think Barb's comment is the winner for today. Right. This is about distressing people and putting them through the wringer, not about doing justice. So, look, on December 6, 2025, the court enters an injunction against the use of some key evidence that the government was relying on in the Comey prosecution. A court in an entirely different area, because this is property that belonged to Daniel Richmond, who's Jim Comey's friend, and it was based on his electronic devices that they were obtaining a lot of the evidence that they used to indict Jim Comey the first time. The government explains what the court's order does to the government like this, because they have now moved to go ahead and do away with this injunction. And they write in their pleading, the court's grant of Richmond's request for preliminary relief has effectively enjoined the government from investigating and potentially prosecuting Comey. And my reaction is, yeah, that's what happens when you screw up. And the government screwed up here. Look, if the injunction holds, it's essentially impossible to reindict a case that would be tough for a grand jury, even if the Richmond evidence was there. Because our listeners will recall, this is the situation where Comey is being prosecuted for a false statement. And the false statement is, yeah, whatever I said five years ago, I stand by. Which is, of course, literally true. He still stands by his prior testimony. But here's the core of the government's argument, their argument, and they say this themselves in their pleading. It would be unreasonable for the court to grant Richmond the prospective relief he requests. That is a permanent injunction prohibiting the government from making any further use of the relevant materials. Because granting that relief would have the effect of permitting a civil litigant to attack an intending federal prosecution. And this is like, literally the worst argument that even this Justice Department has ever made, because making mistakes with evidence has consequences, and people whose Fourth Amendment rights are violated have the ability to go into court here. It's a little bit unusual because Rich is bringing a civil case years later because the criminal investigation into him has ended. He was actually never charged. But nonetheless, the principle is just the same. He's saying government, if you're trying to use evidence in an unconstitutional or illegal way, you can't do that. And courts tell both the federal and the state government no all the time when they violate the Fourth Amendment in criminal cases. I mean, this is, this is sort of, I don't want to say F A, F O. This is just having consequences for misconduct.
- [17:17]
D
So these two examples should be enough to make the Department of Justice slink away in humiliation. But there's more. And Kim, I want you to talk about the resignation of Alina Habba as the US Attorney for New Jersey after a court ruled that she was not lawfully serving in that role. She is of course not the only U.S. attorney who's been ruled to not be lawfully appointed. She's one of four because they exceeded the 120 day limit that you are allowed without being confirmed by the Senate. So of course Halligan we've already mentioned and the U.S. attorney in the Central District of California and in Nevada were also ruled to be not serving properly. So why did Haba resign and why hasn't for example, Halligan, she's still holding on and Pam Bondi's still supporting her. What's going on?
- [18:14]
A
So the reason, as you stated, that Alina Habba had to go is because she had no choice. She's been blue slipped in the Senate, which means that her nomination to be U.S. attorney has been blocked by the two members of the Senate from New Jersey. So she's got no path. By contrast, and inexplicably, Lindsey Hallig, Lincoln's nomination is still moving forward. In fact, Ms. Now reported this week that Trump is trying, maneuvering behind the scenes to get her to try to get her confirmed quickly. They've already submitted her questionnaires. I, I mean I, I, if you can't, if you ask me to explain.
- [18:55]
D
That, I can't like who, how are.
- [18:58]
C
They going to get blue slips back for Lindsey Halligan with Democratic senators in Virginia?
- [19:04]
A
Again, it's inexplicable, but that's what's happening. That's that I can only explain their different postures at the moment. And that's it.
- [19:12]
C
I mean, maybe Trump is so annoyed that the Senate wouldn't break the blue slip for him when he asked earlier that he's going to go ahead and try to force it over Lindsey Halligan. But oy, bad facts make bad law, you know, in this case.
- [19:24]
D
And bad candidates, bad candidates makes A.
- [19:28]
C
Tough, tough case for that.
- [19:29]
A
Sure. I mean, I mean, she. They had to get US Prosecutors from other states to come and, like, prosecute her cases. It's so bad, not just because she.
- [19:39]
D
Was in Cabinet, but because everyone in the office said nobody else would do it. This doesn't kind of.
- [19:44]
A
If she's heading off, is that kind of sounds like incompetence to me.
- [19:48]
D
Absolutely. And it is an attempt to evade the need for Senate confirmation, and that would gut the. The sort of basic foundations of our separation of powers. So. All right, well, let's move on to more. The Department of Justice, Barb, has nixed disparate impact liability under Title vii. They've scrapped all the investigations that were ongoing and any cases that were pending. It's a horrid decision, in my view, a loss for civil rights in America. Talk about whether there is any legal basis for the decision or. Or is it just a policy decision where they're saying our priorities are we don't care about anything to do with diversity, equity, inclusion. We're not going to use any resources for those kind of cases.
- [20:42]
B
This, to me, Jill, is an incredibly significant case and one that could very well fly below the radar for people who don't pay close attention to civil rights cases. The Civil Rights act of 1964 gave, you know, life to the 14th Amendment, which had been passed 100 years earlier to provide public access to all aspects of American life. And one of the things that became difficult to prove is intentional discrimination. So in the 1970s, in a Supreme Court case called Griggs, the Supreme Court upheld this concept of disparate impact. And that is, it doesn't matter if you intended to discriminate. It isn't about good try. It's about did discrimination occur? Because what we're looking at is the rights of the people that were denied, not on whether anybody was a bad actor. And this is this whole concept of systemic racism. Look, nobody's calling you a racist. Nobody's saying you intended to discriminate against people. But this idea of disparate impact has been used in housing, in employment, in police misconduct cases with pattern and practice. And so the way it works is DOJ collects data, and they may say things like, this bank has been denying loan applications for all of the black residents in this community. And what they might say is, well, it's not based on race. It's just that that zip code turns out to be kind of a poor credit risk. And so we're just refusing to lend to anybody in that zip code. Well, it turns out everybody in that zip code is black because it's a black neighborhood. What the disparate impact analysis requires them to do is you got to look one by one. Now, if somebody is a poor risk for credit, we get it, and you don't have to make a loan to that person. But you can't just blanketly deny people on the basis of zip code. Even though you don't intend to discriminate on race, it is having this disparate impact on people who are black and living in this neighborhood are not able to get a loan they would otherwise qualify for. So I think this really goes to the heart of the debate about discrimination in our current society, this idea that everything should be colorblind and that we should ignore disparate impact. We should ignore the fact that people do find themselves discriminated against, and it's because white people don't want to feel bad that you say that there's discrimination. The whole point of systemic racism and systemic discrimination is to say, look, it's not you. We don't want you to feel bad. You're doing just fine. The problem is that the policy you've chosen, for whatever reason, has some flawed analysis that is landing harder on certain groups than others. And we would like you to look at it in an individualized way so that you don't have this disparate impact on minorities. And this has been, I think, something that the MAGA movement and Trump have been after for a long time, this idea that we should be colorblind and that we let the chips fall where they may, and if you can't prove intentional discrimination, then there is no discrimination. And that this is a policy choice, even though the Supreme Court has upheld this disparate impact analysis since 1971, and upheld it as recently as 2015 in an opinion authored by Justice Kennedy when he was still on the court. But what a drastic change we've seen in the past 10 years to see this go away.
- [24:12]
D
It is a significant loss in the enforcement of civil rights in America and really terrible. Joyce, as a result of this decision, I foresee that we are going to lose a lot of cases that would have otherwise been brought. Can you talk about that? And do you know of any specific ones that have been dropped, or were you ever involved in one that would have not proceeded if this policy had been in place when you were the U.S. attorney?
- [24:40]
C
You know, this is. This is such a difficult and disturbing issue. This is not a decision in the sense that we usually talk about decisions made by courts. This is, of course, a policy decision made inside of the Civil Rights division, which is supposed to be protecting American civil rights. But what we're really seeing with decisions like this is an attempt by this administration to dismantle a lot of the core tools that have been used to protect Americans from discrimination. And disparate impact analysis. Barb gave some examples, but it's used really across the board. Employment, housing, medical care. It's such a fundamental, ingrained sort of analysis. And I can remember in my first year out of law school, which is many moons ago, back in 1986, my law firm in Washington did a lot of pro bono work, and we used disparate impact analysis for exact. In exactly the way Barb is describing, not to vilify people and say that they were horrible, racist, or that they were very sexist, but in order to prove to a court that people who were experiencing their policies were entitled to relief from them. And so, you know, there's so much that we're going to have to mourn the loss of as a result of this policy change. But let me tell you, in Birmingham, one of the most important, one of the landmark civil rights cases down here in the more modern era, this is back in the 1990s, was housing discrimination, where black couples who were going out trying to rent apartments were encountering a lot of resistance. And some of these big institutional landlords were saying, well, we're not discriminating. We're just looking at these factors on our application. And so what the Justice Department ended up doing was sending out test shoppers. They would send out similarly situated black couples and white couples, and they would go all around to different apartments and apply for them using exactly the same data. Income, kids, you know, all of that stuff. And they found enormous disparate impact for black people attempting to rent homes. And so there was a landmark. It was. It was not even a lawsuit. There was a settlement, which required some of these folks to engage not just in changing their policies, but also in establishing a housing group in Birmingham that worked as an advocate for people who were struggling to find housing, that worked with businesses and with the real estate agencies, and has done and continues to do some really remarkable work. So the loss of our ability to use this kind of disparate impact analysis, it's bad for cases, but it's bad for communities that have problems that they need help fixing. And that, unfortunately, is the legacy of how this civil rights division is being run under this administration.
- [27:39]
D
And, Kim, there's still yet another bad thing that Happened with justice. Sort of the poster example of cruelty and the lack of legality in Trump's immigration roundup is that Kilmar Abrego Garcia was just ordered released from immigration custody after being detained for nearly four months, according to the judge, quote, without lawful authority. And after repeated threats to deport him to a variety of countries, some of which I know, Donald Trump doesn't even know what continent they're on, for sure. And so the question is, why was he ordered released now and where was he released from and what are the restrictions on him? And lastly, I want to throw in, what about the pending criminal case against him in Kentucky?
- [28:34]
A
So recall that Kilmer Abrego Garcia was first illegally deported because he had an order protecting him from being deported to El Salvador, where his family is from. He came to the United States because his brother is a citizen, and he came here and received an order of. To protect him from being deported back there because his life was in danger. He was mistakenly, by an admission by the DoJ, an admission by a lawyer who got fired for admitting that he was mistakenly deported to the seacot facility that we've talked about a lot. And then the president and the president of El Salvador pretended like, oh, there's nothing we could do and we can't get him back. Well, somehow they got him back, only to charge him with criminal charges because, you know, they couldn't just let him go back to his Maryland home. He was released pending those criminal charges. And, oh, lo and behold, he was detained again by immigration authorities, where he has been held for four months. It's ridiculous. It's dehumanizing. It's really disgusting. So finally, Judge Paula Zinnis said in an order, there's something called habeas corpus in this country that means you cannot detain someone indefinitely without presenting charges against them and telling them why they're being detained and giving them a chance to. To defend themselves. And the government has not done this. There has been no deportation order in the time that he's being held. And Judge Zinna said, enough. You have to release him, at least until there can be a hearing conducted on his motion for a temporary restraining order, which he filed in order from being deported. Again, it's a big legal mess. But at the end of the day, he's being made an example of this in this man who was living with his wife, with his children in Maryland, minding his own business. He has been being made an example of by this administration who believes both that it's a politically winning message to keep harping on immigrants as if every single one of them, just by nature of them breathing air is a danger to this country. It's horrible. It's racist. And also, I believe that the president is a true believer in this. I think this is something that he's doing in his heart, not just to help the Republican Party. Either way, it's really gross. And I really, really hope that this is the beginning of still a long path ahead, which includes that criminal charge, but the beginning of a path toward justice for him. So I hope none of my loved ones are listening to this, because I'm totally getting some of them aura frames for Christmas. And because it's a really great gift. And honestly, I have to tell you, if you're like me, and sometimes it's hard to think of what to get someone for Christmas. I love giving gifts, but sometimes it can be tough coming up with one. And you don't want to be the person who just, you know, gives a gift card and, you know, that might feel a little lame. I highly, highly recommend aura frames because think about it. It's the gift that allows you to share and look back on the great times you've had with whoever you're giving the gifts to and, you know, to think about what memories are to come. Luckily, it's the perfect gift, and it allows you or the recipient to relive those times together. It's really cool. You can either preload it with some photographs or let them pick them. I always send mine with at least one picture of Snickers, because why wouldn't I?
- [32:16]
D
Absolutely. Why wouldn't you?
- [32:17]
B
Default mode.
- [32:20]
D
You saw me, Kim.
- [32:21]
B
It's funny, Kim. I bought my aura frame, and from the manufacturer, it came with a picture of Snickers.
- [32:29]
A
She's doing her job.
- [32:33]
D
I'm sold. Kim. Thank you very much. And whether you get one for your home or for a beloved friend or family member, one of the most exciting things about the gift is picking out the photos that go in it. Since it's a digital picture frame, you can load in as many memories as you want. Better yet, it's super easy to set up. Just download the Aura app and connect to WI Fi. And from there, you can put in an unlimited number of photos or videos. Plus, you can change what it displays at any time. For me, it's the adventures that Michael and I have shared together. And of course, Kim, I know you know that I have pictures of Brisbi, multiple pictures of him. Deciding which ones we want is only a difficult problem because there are so many good ones and we want to add to our frame quickly. You can do it. It brings back our favorite memories. You should have that in your home and I know you're gonna wanna give it as a gift.
- [33:35]
B
Yeah, you know this is a great gift and I have given it to my father in law, to my mother and what's great about it is you can preload the photos on there in case you have loved ones who are not terribly adept with electronics and digital devices. Though I will tell you it's really easy. There's an app, you click your photos and voila, there they are. But it's fun to preload it because then you can give it to them and when they turn it on, the lights up with beautiful photos. When we all get together during the holidays, looking back at photos and videos from good times in the past is one of our family's favorite traditions. And Aura Frames makes it so easy, especially if you have kids. It makes a great gift to keep you connected. You can even personalize it by adding a message for the recipient before it arrives. It comes packed in a premium gift box at no extra cost so you can save time on wrapping and have more time to enjoy the holidays.
- [34:32]
C
You can't wrap togetherness, but you can frame it for a limited time. Save on the perfect gift by visiting auraframes.com to get $35 off Aura's best selling Carver mat frames named number one by Wirecutter who I rely on every time I go shopping. Use Promo Code Sisters at checkout. That's a U R A frames.com promo code sisters. This deal is exclusive to listeners and frames sell out fast, so order yours now to get it in time for the holidays. Support the show by mentioning us at checkout. Terms and conditions apply. The link is in our show notes. When I was thinking about the upcoming holidays, there were a lot of people to do some shopping for. Luckily this year it didn't take long. I I decided to give some of my friends the gift of glow with OCA Malibu's Andaria Algae Body Butter. But I made sure to get some for myself too. Actually, I got a lot for myself. It's in my bathroom. It's also on my desk because I like to use it on my hands. It's one of my favorites in winter because every time you apply it, you get a skincare experience that summons the best of a warm, beachy California summer. Even in the middle of a dreary Alabama winter.
- [35:55]
A
Not only is it rich and ultra nourishing, but after you put it on, you'll be enjoying how it leaves your skin feeling soft and smooth for days. Amazingly, it delivers up to 72 hours of hydration thanks to its unique ingredients featuring andaria, seaweed, shea butter and ceramides. And I have to say the the air has been so dry since it's gotten cold, I literally have been living in the lotions and the body butters. It's a powerful combo that's clinically shown to visibly improve texture and firmness after four weeks of use. It's revolutionized my routine and I feel so vibrant after using it any time of day. It's the perfect antidote to the dry crepey skin that comes with December winds or baking under the heater or being under a blanket which where you can usually find me, you know.
- [36:49]
D
This is one of the few products that my husband actually liked the fragrance of so much that he wanted to try it. He does not use any creams. He now is obsessed with this. He loves Osea Malibu and I personally can't get over how it manages to be as ultra rich and creamy but still absorb very quickly into your skin. Plus it has the same beloved all natural fragrance of their Andari algae body oil. As soon as you apply it, you're surrounded by the aroma of uplifting grapefruit, lime and cypress combined with the sweet notes of mango mandarin. If you want a tip from the pros, you can layer it over osea's hyaluronic body serum to maximize your skin care results. I get so many compliments and it leaves my skin with such a smooth texture. It feels really good to apply. And every time I do, I'm transported to the coast even if I'm stuck in Chicago's winter.
- [37:52]
B
Well, I agree with you Jill. I think that body butter is delicious. It smells so good. It's like something I want to put on ice cream. But osea's mission is pretty great too. Everything is vegan, cruelty free and comes in sustainable packaging. They even signed the Compact for Global Production of Safe Health and Beauty Products and we're proud to be part of it. So don't wait. Experience body care from OSEA that actually delivers visible results. Right now we have a special discount just for our listeners. Get 10% off your first order sitewide with code sisters10@ocamalibu.com that's o s e a malibu.com code sisters10 the link is in our show notes.
- [38:44]
C
Well, we're back to the National Guard. Actually the deployment issues have been out of the news recently, but earlier this week, and frankly, it struck me as being a little bit out of the blue. Judge Breyer, this is the judge in the Northern District of California, a federal district judge, brother to Justice Breyer. If that name sounds familiar, mom and daddy apparently didn't raise any stupid babies in that household. But Judge Breyer issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the government from federalizing additional troops. Jill, was this as out of the blue as it seemed? I mean, when you looked a little bit more closely, maybe there was reasoning for it. Can you talk about the reason that he ruled now and help us understand the very complicated procedural posture of this case?
- [39:31]
D
Sure. But first, in full disclosure, I have to say that Judge Breyer is a former Watergate colleague of mine and is a friend who I admire and enjoy, and I think everyone's going to enjoy the first lines of his opinion in this case. So I want to read it because then you'll see why he's not only smart, but he's funny. He says, the founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances. Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one. And he goes on from there about why this is so horrible that they are trying to do what they are doing in using the National Guard as a national police force and to understand why a case that actually started in.
- [40:23]
A
June.
- [40:25]
D
And was supposed to be a TRO for a limited number of days, as all TROs are, is back in the news again and why there's more activity on it. So you wrote a fabulous substack on this, and if anybody wants the true in depth details, they should go look at that. And we will, of course, put it in our show notes so that everybody can see it. But just let me give sort of a timeline of why all of a sudden we're hearing this again in June. There were some protests June 6, and the next day, Trump issued a memorandum that said, you know, I'm going to use the National Guard. And Newsom, who's the governor of California, immediately filed suit on the 8th. On the 12th, Judge Breyer issued a TRO saying, yeah, for 60 days you cannot deploy National Guard. While we consider the merits of this, as to whether you have the power to do it. And then the en banc circuit for his court said, no, we're going to leave the pause in place and there's going to be a really what I would call low standard of how we're going to evaluate whether this is proper. And we're going to say if there's Even a colorable assessment of facts and law within a range of honest judgment that could justify the statement that the federal government cannot protect the federal law without this extra help, then we're going to let it stay. So that was again, we're still in June. Then in August, Trump filed another order trying to federalize the Guard again. And then it gets to support September. And California asked for a preliminary injunction. And at that point, Judge Breyer looked at it and said, you know, it's already on appeal from the first thing, and so I'm not sure if I have jurisdiction. So he let nothing happen. He didn't take it on. And that was, as I said, that was September. Now we are here, we are in December, and all of a sudden we're getting an opinion from him. And it's confusing, I know, to. Even if you go through this carefully, is this on the first deployment order or is it on the second? And basically in the interim, the court said, yeah, you know, you do have jurisdiction, Judge Breyer, because the second one isn't part of what we were considering. And so he then took up that case and issued this order saying, you can't get out of here. You can't use and create a national police force using the National Guard.
- [43:15]
C
You know, this is really the best skill that I learned in law school and as a prosecutor, it's the ability to put stuff onto a timeline. Because none of this really makes sense. And still you see it on the timeline and you're able to understand, oh, you know, he is. And this whole idea of injunctions. Right. And Barb, I want to talk with you about that. But these injunctions, which are just early preliminary motions. Judge Breyer isn't resolving the substantive issues in this case. That's. That could take quite a period of time. This is just about what happens while that litigation is underway. And so, Barb, can we talk a little bit about the substance of the judge's ruling? Jill has touched on it, but what is he actually deciding here?
- [44:00]
B
Yeah, so this was a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiffs, the state of California, Governor Newsom. And what they're arguing is that there's, you know, brand new harms now occurring because the National Guard members are violating the Posse Comitatus Act. That is the law that says the military may not engage in ordinary law enforcement activities. And so if they want to do, you know, federal support activities like sandbag for wildfires, those are the kinds of things they can do. But what they can't do is do police stops and seizures and collect evidence. That is law enforcement activity. And so the court did what it does when there is a motion for preliminary injunction, and that is look through four factors. Is there a substantial likelihood of success on the merits by the plaintiffs? He looks at the interests of each of the two parties and the likelihood of irreparable harm. And looking at all of those factors found in favor of the plaintiffs, because, after all, if there is any harm to be done here, it's going to be to the communities or the individuals who are arrested or questioned or stopped or detained by these officers who have no legal right to do that. And so this is, as we said, a preliminary injunction. So a preliminary injunction is, as its name suggests, it's preliminary. Typically, there will then be a trial that follows so that a court can have more fact finding, actually look at evidence. This is usually done on briefs and in fairly short order. So Judge Breyer did issue a stay on his decision to give the Trump administration an opportunity to appeal, and the deadline he gave them was Monday, December 15th. How many days is that from now, Kim?
- [45:51]
A
Two days.
- [45:52]
B
Two days. But in fact, they've already appealed, so the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will.
- [45:57]
A
Have to sort it out.
- [46:00]
C
So, you know, I, I think sometimes we skip over and use these legal terms that we've used time and time again, and Barb does a nice job of, of laying this out in her answer. But there are different kinds of injunctions, which are just when a party goes to the court and says, hey, can you please get this other party to stop doing that while this litigation is underway. So sometimes they're just these very early temporary restraining orders that sort of just last long enough for the court to figure out what's going on. Or there can be preliminary injunctions that can last longer, even up to and including trial. And then often you'll see courts that will issue permanent injunctions, which will mean the party that's being complained about, they can't do it forever. You know, their time to do that is over and done with. For instance, just to go back to our earlier topic, right, you might see a permanent injunction to prevent a party from using a practice that had a disparate impact on black people or women or a group like that. And so this can get very confusing. But it's incredibly important, this case, both for the reason that Jill points out the language that Judge Breyer uses, which, although, I mean, it's a good lead, right. In some ways, it's very amusing hearing him talk about the government just wants a blank Check. But the underlying topic is deadly serious. In so many ways, this is about Donald Trump trying to profoundly change the way American society conducts itself. And so, Kim, you know, it seems to me like sometimes these cases get stuck in that procedural quagmire of injunctions. Trump does something crazy. He claims he needs National Guardsmen to help him protect ICE offices when there are no longer violent protests going on. And the state here, California, tries to get a temporary or a preliminary injunction to keep him from doing that. And then it takes the courts a while to get to the substance of the matter. But can we just try to cut to the chase and talk about the stakes here? I mean, why does Donald Trump want to keep the state National Guard troops under federal control when, as Justice Breyer says in his opinion, there's no longer anything going on? Right. Like early on when Trump federalized the Guard, there was maybe a little bit of brief protest going on, but that is no longer happening.
- [48:24]
A
And I can tell you just to your point about how this is a quagmire that I have not seen any protesting happening in D.C. for example. And a judge had a few weeks back, ordered the administration to remove the national guard from D.C. well, then the administration appealed and that was overturned. Right. That the, another judge, an appellate court, reversed that preliminary order, too. And now Trump, after the shooting of two National Guardsmen, which was awful, horrible, tragic, use that as an excuse to send 500 more National Guardsmen to Washington, D.C. and to get to your question is because he wants a federalized police force. That's what he campaigned on. He targeted Democratic run cities and told them ahead of time, we are going to send in the troops to your cities. He was backed by supporters like Tom Cotton, who you remember a couple years ago how Tom Cotton wrote a whole op ed in the New York Times saying that troops need to be sent into American cities. It is, is tyrannical. It is racist because for the most part, he has been targeting cities not only run by Democrats, but run by black Democrats. And these, these, you know, it certainly those are the people that feel most at risk by these people being there. But it's also important to realize, look, I am not, I am not faulting individual members of the National Guard. They signed up to serve their country. They are trying. That's why they are here and in these other cities, because they are following their orders as per their duties. I actually feel terrible for those who are spending time away from their families during the holidays doing this kind of nonsense. But the truth is they do. They are not trained to be police officers. Law enforcement and military have extremely different jobs. And I also fear for them if they are in some sort of patrolling law enforcement capacity. They don't have the training about how to de escalate a situation. They don't have the training about how community policing works. They don't have a deep understanding about the neighborhoods that they're in because they're sent from other places, often all over the country. The guardsmen who were slain here in D.C. were from West Virginia. You know, I don't know how much time, if any, they had ever spent in Washington, D.C. d.C. They are being put in danger and they are being put in a position that they weren't meant to do. They weren't. This is not their mission. Okay, so it's all just so nonsensical. It is all so illegal. And that's never what the. That's the whole purpose of Posse Comitat. Well, not the whole purpose. We've talked about that in the past. But that is why Posse Comitatus is so important now is because we want people who are in the military to be focused on their mission and be following lawful, lawful orders as they were trained. We want law enforcement officers to know their communities, know how to police and do their jobs. Now, if you want more cops and hire more, but don't do this, don't have Trump in charge of his own domestic military force. And that is exactly what Judge Breyer was getting at.
- [51:50]
C
Yeah, I mean, I think that's absolutely right. The language he uses in, in his opinion, and I think as Jill started, this is a. It's a good opinion. It's not all that long. It's important to read. And on the point that you're making, Kim, he says the court also notes that it is contrary to the public interest to have militarized actors unfamiliar with local history and context roaming the streets. Rather, the public has a significant interest in having only well trained law enforcement officers deployed in their communities and avoiding unnecessary shows of military force in their neighborhood. So he says that because he's considering Barb's four factors and he's looking at public interest in balancing the equities. And he just says what the administration is trying to do here is not good for communities. When you look at it on balance, and you know, whether that ruling survives or not will now be up to the 9th Circuit and ultimately to the Supreme Court. But hopefully, y' all know, now have the information and the tools, the timeline, the information about injunctions and the understanding of the stakes that will help you understand this case as it moves forward.
- [53:11]
D
I was not shocked to learn that most of us are eating a credit card's worth of plastic every week. And I wasn't shocked because I follow environmental news. But not everybody knows that. And it's not on purpose that we're doing it, but it's still gross. This plastic gets into the places people and pets we all care about through traditional cleaning products. Don't give yourself one more thing to stress about during the holidays. Start enjoying your meals and your home cleaning without plastic. That's why we're so happy we made the switch to Blueland across all our cleaning products, especially during the holidays. After all, that's when most of us spend more time cooking, hosting and cozying up indoors.
- [53:57]
C
Blueland products meet the highest standards of clean they're effective yet gentle on people and the planet. In fact, Blueland was named an EPA Safer Choice Partner of the Year when EPA did that. From cleaning sprays and toilet bowl cleaner to dishwasher and laundry detergent tablets, Blueland's formulas are 100% microplastic free, made with certified clean ingredients free from chlorine, bleach and harsh chemicals. In short, they're safe to use around. My family and I do, we've switched over to Blueland for all of our products. I've even convinced my daughter that this is the right way to go. And it's so easy to get Blueland refills. I like to use the automatic recycling so it shows up in my mailbox whenever I need it. But every once in a while I run out and I've had no trouble running into the store and picking up refills there. You'll love not having to choose between the safe option and what actually gets your home clean. And best of all, Blueland is safe to use around your pets too. Dogs, cats and chickens.
- [55:03]
B
Blueland is on a mission to make it easy for everyone to make sustainable choices. Like us, they believe that hardworking clean products can be the norm, not the exception, so that you can do better for your family and the planet. At the same time, it feels great knowing that we're incorporating sustainable practices into essential everyday activities. We're always amazed at how well their dishwasher tablets work. They're proven to perform no matter how intense the baked on or burnt on stains get. You won't even need a rinse aid. I know that with all the holiday chefing coming up, there's nothing I'd rather have. Helping us get the dishes done now.
- [55:41]
A
Is the Perfect time to stock up because Blueland has a special offer for listeners right now. Get 15% off your first order by going to blueland.com sisters. You won't wanna miss this again. Blueland.com sisters for 15% off. That's blueland.com sisters to get 15% off. The link is in our show. Notes. Supreme Court precedent has long held that people who have intellectual disabilities cannot be sentenced to disability, the death penalty in criminal cases. But there's a question about how the government determines if someone is intellectually disabled. And that was the question that the justices of the Supreme Court seemed to really grapple with on Wednesday in oral arguments in a case considering whether a man convicted of murder but is of borderline intelligence can be executed. Joyce, this case is out of Alabama, so I'll start with you. Tell us about what the Supreme Court has said since that seminal case of Atkins v. Virginia. No relation. That sort of set that standard that people with intellectual disabilities can't be executed. How do we determine if someone has such a disability? Do they just simply take an IQ test?
- [57:10]
C
You know, have you ever noticed that all the bad cases come from Alabama? I mean, it gets a little bit old and weary.
- [57:18]
B
Hey, at least it's not Florida, man.
- [57:21]
A
True, true.
- [57:23]
C
Well, look, here's how this works. Since Atkins vs. Virginia, the Supreme Court has said that states can't use rigid IQ cutoffs, like they couldn't say 70 is the cutoff for intellectual disability claims. They have to account for IQ test margins of error, like plus or minus five points, and they have to consider other evidence like adaptive deficits. There's a case called hall vs. Florida. Speaking of Florida, man from 2014 and one three years later, Moore vs. Texas. And they reject states that were using bright line rules and emphasizing holistic, medically informed assessments. So essentially here the court has said you can look at raw data and raw scores, but there has to be some individualized assessment of these people's situation.
- [58:12]
A
All right. So with that in mind, Jill, tell us about Joseph Clifton Smith, who's the defendant in this case and what the lower courts determined. And do you agree with that outcome?
- [58:25]
D
So I think it's really interesting in this case, I'm thinking because of everything that's going on is not getting the attention it deserves. He was someone who has spent more than half his life in prison. He's now 55. But he went to prison for the first time when he was a teen. He's appealing because the lower courts said he couldn't be executed based on an Overall, look at him. And now the state is saying, no, no, he passed an IQ test. He had between 70 and over 70, so therefore he's eligible. As a child, he was physically abused by his father and stepfather. He struggled in school. He dropped out when he was. He failed seventh grade and eighth grade. So he dropped out after finishing basically sixth grade. He had been assigned to a special class for students with. With intellectual disabilities. And it's a really sad circumstance here. He did murder somebody, and nobody is challenging the facts of the crime itself. He also took the boots and tools of the person he had killed and pawned the tools. So he. That's who he is.
- [59:44]
A
And.
- [59:45]
D
And I personally, I have to say, I live in a state that does not have the death penalty. I do not approve of the death penalty. When I was the Solicitor General of Illinois, I told the Attorney General I would never argue a case against abortion or in favor of the death penalty. Those were my personal things that I wouldn't do. And so I certainly think that when we're looking at determining intellectual disability, that the previous opinions that say we have to look at everything, which would include how you have adapted and survived in society, and we would see clearly that this person, this Mr. Smith, is intellectually disabled and that it would be cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to execute him. So, yes, I agree with past opinions. I do not agree with Alabama in this case. I agree with Smith's lawyers.
- [60:43]
A
Yeah. And even in that lower court decision, Jill, the judge acknowledged that it's a close case.
- [60:50]
D
Yes.
- [60:50]
A
And just by its very nature, it's something that everyone involved in it really have to wrangle with. And you saw that playing out during arguments Wednesday with the U.S. supreme Court, where the position of Alabama was, look, he's Never scored below 70 on an IQ test. He's taken various ones, and there have been various scores, I think, between like 71 and 75 or something like that. But he is clearly disabled. And so the justices were like, well, what do you do? Like, we can. We can order. We can order, you know, this case, remand it down and require Alabama to consider more evidence. But, you know, that doesn't mean that they're going to accept it, that. That it's going to be, you know, make a difference, and how do we draw new lines here? You could see all of them across the board really struggling with that. And so, Barb, that brings me to the stakes here. In addition to the Eighth Amendment, which Jill mentioned, what are some of the other considerations and why should Our listeners care so much about this case.
- [61:57]
B
Well, I think that the way we treat the least of us is a reflection on society, and. And certainly somebody who commits a murder is somebody who needs to be held accountable. But whether that results in that person's death, I think requires a careful analysis of who we put to death. Do we want to put to death people who are so mentally disabled as to have difficulty functioning in society? The Eighth Amendment, as Jill mentioned, prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. In this case, the state of Alabama and the Trump administration have filed a brief in support of their argument. They say that the Eighth Amendment is only about punishment that adds terror, pain, or disgrace to a person. But that's not consistent to what we've done. We no longer apply the death penalty to children, for example, to people who are mentally incompetent, to people who are insane. And so intellectual disability seems to be something that is consistent with that kind of precedent. But then, of course, where do we draw the line? Alabama and the Trump administration say that we should show great deference for state sentences and presume them to be legally valid. And they also say that, you know, using these test scores is what's best. It's kind of like polling. The Solicitor General, John Sauer, said it's like polling. It's good to, you know, get a mix, and then, you know, look at the average, and then you can be pretty consistent. Rely on that. Boy, you know, the stakes here are not about polling. It's not about a political horse race. It's about a matter of life and death, somebody's life. And what they say is the, you know, the plaintiffs. I'm sorry, the. But I guess Mr. Smith says you shouldn't just look at these numbers. You should look at other factors, including expert testimony. And in response to that, the state of Alabama and the Trump administration say psychiatry is not an exact science.
- [64:04]
A
Oh, my God.
- [64:05]
B
We're really better off just with this, you know, mix of numbers. And then as long as you're, you know, consistently, he. He hit 78 one time. That's. That's pretty high. So, you know, good enough. And I think when you think about the stakes, this man's life could be ended. But it also is, you know, what kind of society we want to be and how we interpret that ban on cruel and unusual punishment. And so I think the stakes are high for all of us.
- [64:35]
A
You know, I've never been a prosecutor. Have you guys ever had to deal with a case that dealt with a defendant with a disability? And that changed either your charging decision or your sentencing recommendations.
- [64:47]
C
You know, so this is sort of inside baseball. But during the Obama administration, pretty much every new attorney general will issue a charging and sentencing memo of their own. And the traditional wisdom at DOJ doesn't really change very much. I mean, maybe that's the dirty little secret. No matter who's in charge, typically you're going to charge the most serious readily provable crime. But something that I appreciated very much about the guidance that we had during the Obama era was that the guidance was usually you will charge the most serious readily provable crime, but you should also consider individualized circumstances. And so we had a series of cases in my district involving people who were veterans. And in fact, we allowed PTSD and other personal issues that they faced to inform our analysis when it came to sentencing. And I think that that's the right thing to do it. You have to be very careful because uniformity is a virtue in criminal sentencing. And you want people who commit similar crimes to receive similar sentences. But also, and particularly when someone has been damaged as a result of serving their country, you do need a mechanism that allows you to take that into account.
- [66:02]
A
That's a good lesson in humanity. That should also come with criminal law. The holidays are coming up fast, which means it's time to get your gift shopping done before it's too late. And that's why we wanted to tell you about True Classic. Their team designed their clothing with a powerful mission, bringing premium comfortable clothing to the masses. With True Classic, you or the people in your life can look and feel great in clothes without a designer price tag. And people agree. Incredibly, They've sold over 25 million shirts to more than 5 million customers, including us. But don't just take our word for it. They've earned over 200,000 five star reviews. And I bet you or those you gift will join them.
- [67:00]
B
Yeah, the fabric is so comfortable, you won't have to worry about seeing your loved ones in shapeless baggy T shirts. Mine have their faded 10 year old favorites, of course, but it's time for an upgrade. And when you get them for yourself or as a gift, you're giving them more than a great addition to their wardrobe. You're giving them the perfect way to show up, feeling confident, pulled together and ready to take on the day. That's why we strongly recommend True Classic for holiday giving. Their clothes look amazing, feel even better, and now they're available for the whole family. So whether you're shopping for your partner, your dad, your brother, or yourself, you'll find fast favorites that will get worn again and again.
- [67:40]
C
True Classic fits where it should, feels incredible and won't break the bank. Every tee has a polished, tailored look on top of comfort and affordability. I've even gotten them for my sons. You know, they look really great. It's a cute T shirt, a nice fit on the guys, but I'm so delighted to find out that he and I can now have mother son T shirts. Sort of like the cute dresses I used to do with my daughter, only different because they've launched a woman's line. The tank tops are fantastic on active days, but their sweatset is my favorite. It's really comfortable and just perfect for winter cold, thanks to True Classic. It's so easy to dress up or down depending on the day, and we know you'll love them too.
- [68:24]
D
Skip the stress and the overpriced designer stuff. Give comfort, give confidence. Give True Classics. You can find them at Amazon, Target, Costco and Sam's Club or head to truclassic.com sisters to shop the perfect gifts for everyone on your list. The link is in our show Notes.
- [68:54]
B
Well, now comes the part of the show that is our favorite, the part where we answer your questions. If you have a question for us, please email us at sisters in politicon.com or tag us on social media using Sisters in Law. If we don't get to your question during the show, keep an eye on our feeds throughout the week and we'll answer as many of your questions as we can. So our first question comes to us From Randy in St. Paul, Minnesota, who asks, you mentioned that Alina Haba and Donald Trump were fined for their frivolous lawsuits. What happens to the fines imposed is the defendant and his or her attorney made whole for their expenses or fees? Jill, you want to take a stab at that one?
- [69:36]
D
I do, and I was really happy that that question was asked because I think people don't really understand the consequences of frivolous lawsuits or what happens to the money. And in general, it is compensatory. You are ordered if you are found liable for having filed a frivolous lawsuit with no legal or factual basis, you have to reimburse the other party for their legal expenses and you have to reimburse the court for its waste of time. So you can be fined for the full amount of any lawyer's fees that the other party had to pay and the court makes an assessment of how much time was spent in the courtroom with this case and the case we were referring to where it was. Alina Haba and Donald Trump are fined almost $1 million. I mean, obviously that's a case that went on way too long and the legal fees were quite high. And so a large part of that was for legal fees. But some of it was we'll reimburse the court and it will go back into court funding. So that's what happens to the money. And it is a good way to prevent future bad behavior by lawyers. It's another reason why Alina Habba did not get confirmed and would never get confirmed. It's another reason why we should look askance at Donald Trump and his accusations against people. This was a case brought mostly against Hillary Clinton. And so I'm very happy with the outcome.
- [71:15]
B
All right, our next question comes to us from Greg, who asks, if Democrats win the midterms, do you think articles of impeachment will get filed against Trump, maybe led by Jack Smith's new law firm? Kim, what do you think about that?
- [71:31]
A
Well, first of all, I would say, honey, you could have just asked me at the dinner table. You didn't have to write in to.
- [71:36]
B
Have Is this your Greg?
- [71:38]
A
All right, I'm going to assume this is not my Greg. This is a different Greg. So, yeah, this is an interesting question. So first, I'll answer the second part of it with my legal analyst hat on, which is, would Jack Smith's new law firm lead an impeachment against Donald Trump? The answer is no. Impeachments are brought and led by members of the House of Representatives who put on a case and then the case is sent. It's tried before the Senate who votes whether or not to convict on the articles of impeachment. If you recall, last time it was people like Adam Schiff and Congressman Jamie Raskin who led the impeachments against Trump before, not private attorneys. So Jack Smith will have nothing to do with this. Now to the first part of your question. If Democrats win their midterms, will articles of impeachment get filed? I'm going to put on my political analyst hat to answer that. And I will say in my opinion, based on what the energy we have seen so far from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the answer is no. The answer is no. There is not going to be articles of impeachment unless Democrats win in the midterm, retake the House, and there is a leadership change. I do not expect that, even though there ought to be. I think also, I mean, let's talk about Pete Hegseth in there. If we talk about impeachment These are the things that should be happening. This is what the Constitution provided for. But so far there has been no appetite among leaders, Democratic leaders in the House to do that, which I think is a travesty.
- [73:15]
B
Hey, Congress, you up? Exactly, I want to say. All right, thank you, Kim. And our final question comes to us from Bill in Glendale, Arizona, who asks if the Supreme Court sides with Trump on birthright citizenship, does the ratification process have to be followed on the change to the 14th Amendment? If not, is this a new power for the Supreme Court? Joyce, what do you think?
- [73:42]
C
You know, this is a great question. I really like this because of course we know that there's this very deliberate process that the states have to go to if they want to vote to change the Constitution and amend it. But that doesn't apply in a situation like this where the Supreme Court is interpreting the law. And so one of the arguments that Republicans are making to justify ending birthright citizenship, and let me just say at the outset that I think this is a stupid argument. I don't think it flies. We've talked about it on the podcast. But they're making this claim that people who are in the country are not here and subject to the laws of the United States, which of course under the Constitution is a requirement for birthright citizenship, that your parents be subject to the laws of the United States. And that's meant to exclude, for instance, foreign diplomats, kids from getting automatic citizenship because their parents are actually immune and can't help be held responsible in criminal actions. But of course, as we know all too well from every time we open the Internet, people who are here without legal immigration status are very subject to the authority of the United States. So anyhow, that's my convoluted explanation for why this is a non starter of an argument. But if the Supreme Court were to adopt that really bad interpretation of the law, that would just be the court saying what the law is and that would not require any ratification in order to become effective.
- [75:12]
A
And can I just add, and I'll put a link to it in the show notes, I know a lot of people when the court granted cert, agreed to review this case, were really nervous about it because the Supreme Court tends not to take up cases that they just affirm. And it was Trump lost below. And you know, as I often say, we never know what this court's going to do. I wrote a column this week saying I honestly don't believe that the court is going to rule that Donald Trump can decide who has birthright citizenship. This is something that even conservatives that don't, conservative legal folks are not totally agree with you.
- [75:46]
C
It's a great column. We should include it in the show notes. The Supreme Court just wants to have one case where they can go, look, we're not in the tank for Donald Trump. We ruled against him on birthright citizenship.
- [75:57]
A
Exactly. Exactly. But I, I just, there is no way that they can upend all of, you know, talk about reliance issue. There's no way that they can re upend the very clear and unambiguous interpretation of the citizenship clause so that there's a lot to worry about right now. I would not put that in your basket of worries.
- [76:20]
C
Of course, girl, we both said the same thing before the presidential immunity case, the criminal court. But I think you're dead on the money here.
- [76:34]
B
Well, thank you for listening to Sisters in Law with Kimberly Atkins store, Joyce Vance, Jill Wine Banks and me, Barb McQuaid. Follow Sisters in Law wherever you listen and please give us a five star review. It really helps others find the show. Don't forget to get your Sisters In Law holiday goodies@politicon.com merch. Remember to order by December 15th. How many days is that, Kim? Two days to make sure they arrive on time. And please show some love to this week's sponsors, Thrive Cosmetics, Aura Frames, oca, Malibu Blue Land, and True Classic Teas. The links are in the show notes. Please support them because they make this podcast possible. See you next week with another episode. Sisters in Law.
- [77:22]
C
I have just discovered that you can get a menorah that's like a dinosaur with the candle holders going down. It's like, oh my gosh. One of my kids just sent the picture to me and it popped up and I'm entranced. It's a polyresin dinosaur menorah. You can get it in gold or you can get a green realistic dinosaur mind blown.
- [77:46]
B
Or does it come as a Chia Pete?
- [77:50]
A
I was not aware that there were any dinosaurs in Jerusalem.
- [77:57]
C
I mean, maybe this is like the evangelical version of Jewish history or something, but I'm going to send y' all a I'm. I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to inter interrupt or interfere. I'm just completely blown away by this show for that.
- [78:10]
B
The world does need to stop to recognize that I think that's worthwhile this holiday season.
- [78:16]
D
Reach for the one butter that never disappoints. Kerrygold. Made with milk from grass fed cows on Irish family farms, it's rich, creamy and perfect for baking. Whether browning butter for cookies or crafting the flakiest pie crust. Kerrygold's high butterfat content makes all the difference in flavor and texture. Holiday treats will taste extraordinary.
- [78:42]
A
Ah, DSW Earth. Place of the humble. Brag here. The shoes are so good, no one would ever know how little you paid if you didn't go telling everyone that is. And with never ending options for every style, mood and occasion, all at really great prices, they'll definitely give you something to brag about. So go ahead, stock up on fresh sneakers from your favorite brands, or try those boots you always secretly knew you could pull off. Find the shoes that get you at prices that get your budget at DSW stores or at dsw.com. let us surprise you.