B (5:05)

And you know, Joyce, you mentioned the no Fly List and one of the first things I thought of when they said they're creating a database of what they call domestic terrorists was you're gonna end up on a no Fly list. And if you're returning from overseas and have to go through customs, I'm worried and I don't wanna raise the alarm bells too much, but we can't trust the government. And so when they say they're doing this database, it is concerning beyond belief.

A (5:35)

Well, and can I just add to that, Jill? Cause I think this is such an important point. There was a woman posting on social media, and look, I don't know her. I don't know if this was truthful or coincidence or what it was, but she indicated she had been involved in some form of protest activity, and then she lost her global reentry status, like, days later. For those of you who don't know what global reentry is, you can go to tsa, pay them a bunch of money, and then you get status that lets you circumvent the long lines going through customs on the way back into the country because you've been vetted in advance, and you just show them your little card and you sail on through. And she said her status was revoked. You know, many people have TSA pre that permits them to avoid long lines in airports. And whether or not we'll see retaliation against people for protesting by losing that status, which, of course, it's discretionary with the government to provide that. But the thing that I would say to our listeners is, if you believe that steps have been taken to retaliate against you for protest, please reach out to your local ACLU or to other lawyers so that those. Those groups will be able to accumulate statistics if we do start to see this. I. I don't want to raise fears just the same way Jill says. I don't want to get over my skis on this, but I do think it's a good moment for us to all be aware of potential risks.

B (6:57)

Joyce, we have an actual written question from Pear Jess at Bluesky Social. And he or she, I guess Pear is probably he. How do we fight this illusion of normalcy that so many Americans are living under before we wake up one morning to find ourselves in an absolute autocracy? Perfect question for you, Joyce, given your book.

A (7:22)

Yeah, I mean, I sort of wrote a book about this called Giving Up Is a Manual for Keeping a Democracy. And so I feel duty bound to say that one of the best things that we can do is read books, essays from people who help us understand the present moment. Cause I'll just tell you, just for me, I think it's. This illusion of normalcy is so pervasive. I remember in the first few months of the Trump administration, I had this moment. I was sitting outside, the weather was beautiful. I was having wine with girlfriends, and everything around us was so normal. Right? People were walking their dogs, and nobody was acting like we were living through a constitutional crisis. And yet we were it was the early moments where it became clear, clear that the administration had no, no interest in being a rule of law administration. And I was deeply frightened and everybody around me was like, you are such a drama queen. And I think that that's something that we have to fight against. You know, one of the lessons that I take to heart is the lesson of civil rights movement and of the foot soldiers in the movement who said that what you had to do was never worry alone, that when something devastating was happening, you needed to surround yourself with people who understood, who had the vision and the foresight to see what you saw so that you couldn't be gaslit into believing that you were, you know, a crazy, neurotic person. And something that I do frequently when I feel this way and that I would just suggest is my dear friend Ruth Ben Guyot, who's the author of a wonderful book called Strongmen. She's a historian at nyu. She studies Mussolini and other dictators. I like to read Ruth's words because she's so clear about seeing the threat, identifying the threat, talking about how the moment we're living in compares to other moments in history, like the Hitler era in Germany, where people just ignored the threat because it was too painful to confront it. And folks, we just cannot do that any longer. This is the moment to reclaim a phrase that Trump likes to throw in our faces. This is a moment to stay woke about. What's going on?

C (9:50)

I didn't even realize I was wasting $415 a month until I downloaded Rocket Money. I thought I had my finances under control until the app laid out all my spending and categorized it for me. Takeout shopping and unused subscriptions were quietly draining my account, and as a result, my savings took a backseat. But Rocket Money doesn't just tell you what you're wasting money on, it takes action to save you money. First, the app looks at your income and monthly expenses and calculates how much you can safely spend each day to stay under budget. Rocket Money also finds and cancels unwanted subscriptions for you and even negotiates better rates on your bills so you have more money in your pocket. On average, Rocket Money members can save up to $740 a year when using all the app's premium features. Users love the app with over 186,000 five star ratings. It's time to simplify your finances and take control of your Money. Go to RocketMoney.com Cancel to get started, that's RocketMoney.com Cancel RocketMoney.com Cancel.

A (11:00)

Hey Jill there's an audio question for you, too. I love these audio questions. I hope you guys will all send them in for us next week.

B (11:07)

Week. As a local law enforcement officer with county jurisdiction, I was just wondering what.

A (11:16)

Legally the federal government could mandate as far as if ICE was to come.

B (11:21)

To the city where I work, could they require our assistance or cooperation in their street sweeps?

A (11:31)

Just kind of concerned about that.

B (11:34)

Well, I especially like this question from Dakota because she actually also invites us to go with her. She is a law enforcement agent, as she has said. She invites us to join her in Durham, North Carolina, on a ride. And so I'm very excited about that. And the answer to this is really pretty interesting. And Illinois has actually taken steps in this direction. States are increasingly implementing sanctuary policies. Illinois has done that with its Trust Act. Washington and Colorado have done things. They're restricting local law enforcement from aiding U.S. immigration and Customs Enforcement efforts and prohibiting voluntary detention agreements, which mean that they will release anybody in detention directly to ice, limiting information sharing. My mayor, Daniel Biss, has limited what Evanston can provide. Restricting ICE access to local jails. These are things that can help. And so the answer is, in part, get your county or your state to start restricting detention agreements, limiting information sharing, protecting sensitive locations like, for example, schools, hospitals, churches, courthouses. A lot of states have said you cannot arrest anyone inside a courthouse. They have a right to be here to vindicate their rights. Cutting funding, but also just restricting police ICE coordination. These are things that can be done. And in terms of whether people can get damages, it depends on whether there's negligence and excessive force, whether legal action is necessary or will be productive, and whether the facts will justify it. But yes, there's a lot that can be done through state and city action, and I urge you all to get your states and cities to take on those cases.

A (13:36)

Jill, there's a question for you from Coal Mine Phoenix Blue Sky Social, and this is a great question. They ask what other tools could Congress use besides inherent contempt or impeachment to curb executive power?

B (13:51)

That is a great question because it's one that we all should be asking. What has happened to Congress? The answer is they could use their own power to legislate. They could use their own power to enforce their constitutional rights. So, for example, when Donald Trump refuses to spend money they have appropriated or uses money that they didn't appropriate or declares war without any congressional input, those are their powers and they should demand that they keep their own powers. They aren't doing that. They have let him take and accrete to his own executive power, the powers that rightly belong to Congress. And as long as they sit there and do nothing and let him do it, he's going to keep getting away with it. They could also refuse to, to confirm the Senate. This is could refuse to confirm some of his most unqualified appointments. That is their right. That is their power, and they aren't using it. And I for one, I mean, the Democrats are in a minority, so they can't do it on their own. It is going to take Republicans willing to stand up. And lately we have finally seen people saying this is too much. And I am against certain things, people that you wouldn't have necessarily expected to be weighing in against things that Donald Trump was doing. But that's, I think, the most powerful thing that Congress could do.

A (15:24)

You know, it seems to me that many folks who are Republicans, we're even seeing this now in Congress, understand that having a president who accumulates so much power in his own hands, that that's not healthy for democracy, that the Founding Fathers meant for there to be a balance of power between the three branches of and that Donald Trump has stood that on his head. And so I think this is the moment to have conversations with your friends who are not interested in politics or your friends who are independents or even Republicans about voting this fall in ways that restore that balance of power. We need a Congress that will set guardrails, that does believe in using its oversight powers because we know, you know, these congressional oversight hearings, which sometimes look a little bit hooky and like they're making sound bites, but they have real meaning. The January 6th, the House Select Committee on January 6th did work that changed the way we viewed January 6th. And Donald Trump, even though he was still reelected, many people became more concerned following that. So having Congress set up as a balance to the overreach of executive power really matters a lot.

B (16:38)

I just have to add to that because I go back to when oversight hearings actually resulted in action, when there was bipartisanship, and that as a result of it, laws were passed, norms were created, people were punished. And I don't see that anymore. And it's really too bad. I mean, if you go back to Watergate, the Ervin Senate hearings were joined in by Democrats and Republicans asking questions and taking action based on it. I dream about returning to that era.

A (17:13)

Well, Jill, there's another question for you. This one comes from Adam in Lexington, Massachusetts. Adam wants to know, speaking of Watergate, since the post Watergate norms and policies about separation between the White House and DOJ can be ignored by an administration that doesn't want that separation. Is it time for a big structural change to make the DOJ actually separate? Would this require just a law to be passed or a constitutional amendment?

B (17:43)

Such a great question. And there have been proposals to create a separately elected attorney general, just as there are in states. In my state, I worked for the attorney general who is separately elected from the governor. And it really does ease the problems of if there's something going on in the governor's administration that the attorney general can investigate freely and fairly. They may be from the same party. It doesn't necessarily mean they're not, but they have independent constituencies. And so that has been proposed. Would it require a separate constitutional amendment? I'm not really sure because obviously in the Constitution there's an executive branch and it has for our whole history included a Department of Justice. But I've seen other cabinet offices in my lifetime, you know, recreated or decreased. Well, now we're seeing many dissolved. Even though they aren't technically dissolved. Their names have been changed or their funding has been eliminated or the staffs have been fired. So yes, I think there is a need to legislate the norms and policies about separation. After Watergate, rules were sort of accepted that the attorney general or any of his top people cannot just talk to White House counsel, as was happening during Watergate where information about the investigation was being directly funneled to John Dean. And it was so obvious that that needed to change. And so it was. But those rules aren't being followed anymore. So I think legislation of certain things could happen even if the department weren't separated with a independently elected attorney general. Thank you for listening to Sisters. Sidebar Our new addition to Sisters in Law Today you had me, Jill Wine Banks and Joyce Vance answering your questions and we'll do it every week. At least two of us will answer your questions. So please keep sending in your great questions for next week's show and if you send in a voice memo, we will try to play your question live during our next episode. We love hearing your voice, so please send us voice memos. Follow Sisters Sidebar and Sisters in Law wherever you listen and please give us a five star review to help others find our show. That's how they'll find it. Don't forget to pick up Sisters in Law Merch and other goodies@politicon.com and see you every week on Wednesdays and Saturdays for new episodes of Sisters in Law and Sisters. Sidebar.

A (20:44)

There is there is an opinion where Frank Johnson the great civil rights hero judge. It's a drug sniffing dog case. And he just drops this random footnote and he's like, well, I feel like nebuchadnezzar and bodger could have done it just as good. Neb is his. His dog. And bodger was my father in law's dog. And it's just this random footnote in an 11th Circuit case.