Loading summary
Transcript28 lines
- [00:04]
A
Welcome to this episode of Sisters sidebar, our sister podcast to Sisters in Law. And it's Kimberly Atkins Storr and me, Jill Wine Banks today. And I want to welcome you to Sisters sidebar to keep up with us. If you have a question for us, please email us@sistersinlawoliticon.com or tag us on social media using Sisters in Law. But don't just type your questions. We love hearing your voice asking the question. And you can submit a voice question and then we will play it on air. You'll hear your own voice asking the question. So do that. Email us a voice memo using any of the notes applications and we might play your question on the next episode. Let's get started.
- [00:55]
B
So our first question is for you, Jill, and it comes from Kate.
- [01:00]
A
Hello, sisters in law, and thank you all for all you do. This is Kate, an American in Canada with a question for Jill Wine Banks. There's reporting that secretary of war crimes Hegseth fired the secretary of the Navy. And I'm unclear how that could be true. Wouldn't it have to be that the president would fire the secretary of the Navy or what am I missing? Thank you very much for straightening that out. I appreciate you and all the sisters. Thank you for that question, Kate. As a former Pentagon employee, I was really interested in this and thought about it. But it's true that the secretary of the Navy is appointed by the president and is confirmed by the Senate, but the secretary serves under the direction of the secretary of defense, and it's still called secretary of defense officially. So the secretary of defense does have the power to remove that person. There is a chain of command, and there's a lot of laws that apply. But the simple answer is, unfortunately, yes, Secretary Hegseth can get rid of the secretary of defense who stood up and did the right thing, probably, and that's why he got fired. So it's a delegated authority from the president to the SecDef and. And that's why he did what he did and will get away with it. And the next question is for you, Kim. This question comes from Yosef in New York City, New York. And Yosef asks, if this Supreme Court were present in 1965, do you think they would have found the Voting Rights act went against the 14th amendment? If not, did SCOTUS rule the way they did now? Because things have changed by 2026.
- [02:49]
B
This is a really good question, Yousef. It's difficult to say, but I think if I were to go out on a limb, I would say if the Roberts court were in place back in 1965, rather than the Warren court, which was in place, that the Voting Rights act history might be very different. Keep in mind, yosef, that the Voting Rights act was challenged for its constitutionality right out of the gate, right after it was passed. There was a Supreme court case in 1966, just barely a year after it was enacted, challenging its constitutionality. But that case involved a challenge that it violated the rights of states, that it violated states rights by setting up these rules of voting. And the Warren Court held, 8 to 1, no, the 15th Amendment, which protects the right for everyone to vote regardless of race. They said that that held that, that Congress was empowered to pass the 15th amendment. So the 15th amendment is one of the Reconstruction era acts that we talk a lot about, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. And those are the acts that the amendments that are the basis of the Civil rights acts laws that we saw passed in the 1960s, including the crucial Voting Rights Act. And it was really important that the Supreme Court right away held that no, this act is protected. This is what this, the framers of the Reconstruction era meant when they passed these amendments in order to ensure that black Americans and all Americans could participate in the rights and privileges of American citizenry just like everybody else. The Roberts court seems to take a very different view. The Roberts court has what has been described as this colorblind constitutionalism where they see these amendments as saying you can't consider race at all, ever, for any reason. Now, of course, how can you have something like the Voting Rights act, which is meant to provide, you know, a right of action to combat racial discrimination. If you ignore race, it's impossible. And that's exactly how we got the Calais opinion, which basically rendered the Voting Rights Act a dead letter. So this Supreme Court majority has a very different view very than the Warren court did back when they really expanded civil rights in very, very important ways in the 1960s. So yeah, I think you're onto something. And I would say that it would be very different.
- [05:29]
A
It would be different. And I just was gonna say part of the question was, did things change by 2026? And the only thing that changed was the composition of the court. The facts didn't change. There's still racial needs to be cured. And as a product of the 60s, living through the passage of the civil Rights acts and the Voting Rights Act, I can say for sure we need it now as much as ever, maybe more so.
- [05:58]
B
Thank you for that point, Jill, because that's really important. Just the frequency the swiftness that we are seeing states now try to gerrymander their maps ahead of this November's election tells you how much this is still needed. Right. That really nothing has changed other than the makeup of this court, as you said, and the fact that, you know, states so far had been, had been following the law, that the Voting Rights act had actually been working all this time, and the minute that it's gone, you see a flurry of activity just to undermine it. So I hear you. I hear you. So our next question comes from Janet in New Jersey, who asks. My question is prompted by Todd Blanche's attempt to swap the United States as a defendant in Jean Carroll slander case. Yeah. Is there a chance that this is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to reconsider its immunity decision, Jill?
- [06:58]
A
I wish, but I don't actually think so, because the issue here, really what he's trying to do, is to kill the case. Because if the Department of Justice is the defendant, if Donald Trump as a person is not the defendant, you can't sue the government in that way. And so the case would be dismissed. It's not just that he'd get free lawyering. He would get the case dismissed, which is, of course, what he really wants. So this isn't challenging immunity. This is a civil defamation case. It is not a criminal case. It doesn't go to the immunity that the court granted. And again, I want to point out that it's not absolute immunity for everything. It's only if it's a core function specified in the Constitution, like the right to, you know, send troops and things like that. So I'm sorry, but it doesn't work.
- [08:03]
B
Even as it warms up, I still like to curl up in a warm, comfy bed. So having the perfect mattress for sleep is a must. After all, great sleep is critical to success, and there's nothing better for sleep than a Helix mattress. I first heard about them when they asked to sponsor our show, but we here at Sisters in Law are very selective when it comes to our beds. We wanted to try them out, and now, as you may have heard, Joyce can't stop talking about how she aced the quiz that Helix uses to tailor your mattress to your sleeping style. She matched with the Helix Midnight mattress and has joined us in getting the best sleep of her life and for all, every member of her family. I wonder if the dog, too, has a Helix mattress. I wouldn't doubt it. Tossing and turning is a thing of the past. Now our families are getting them, too, and they love finding their ultimate fit.
- [08:59]
A
And you know anyone will ace that test. It's really easy and effective and accurate. So she's not the only one. A recent study showed 82% of people saw an increase in their deep sleep cycle when using a Helix and they are the most awarded mattress brand by reviewers like Forbes and Wired. They have over 20 different models and you'll love how they combine memory foam and individually wrapped steel coils for the optimal blend of softness and support. They have enhanced cooling features to keep you from getting too warm now that the weather is heating up even here in Chicago.
- [09:39]
B
You know, Helix has been a part of my sister's sleep habits for over two years and making the switch is such an upgrade. Since then we've heard so many stories of people seeing amazing improvements in the quality of their sleep and their wearable devices thanks to their Helix mattresses. Add that to free US shipping with seamless delivery that comes direct to your door, a quick and easy setup and a no fuss trial policy and Helix is an easy choice.
- [10:07]
A
With Helix you can rest easy with their seamless returns and exchanges they're happy with. Helix Guaranty offers a risk free customer first experience with 120 night sleep trial and a limited lifetime warranty to ensure you're completely satisfied with your new mattress for years to come. Don't wait. Snuggle up on an incredible mattress this spring and beyond. Take advantage of their Best of Web Memorial Day sale and go to helixsleep.com for 27% off site wide exclusively for listeners of our show. That's helixsleep.com sisters for 27% off sitewide exclusively for our listeners. One last time. That's helixsleep.com sisters and the link is also in our show notes.
- [11:09]
B
It's springtime, Jill, and you know that means it's the time to refresh your lawn and garden for the summer growing season. And that means it's time for the pocket hose. But not just any pocket hose, Jill. The world's number one expanding garden hose and their brand new product, the Pocket Hose Ballistic. We all grew up with that terrible green heavy rubber hose that would get knotted and kinked and you know the spigot wouldn't work right. And then all of a sudden you'd have no water and then you not hook it. Then it'd be a blast. It was a mess, Jill. It was a mess. They're so old fashioned. But now you get the super easy option that doesn't tangle. It's lightweight, it's easy to use. The pocket Hose, the number one expandable hose in the world.
- [12:04]
A
You know, last week when we talked about this, it was too cold in Chicago to use. This week it warmed up enough that I've actually been able to use the hose, and I am blown away. The pocket hose is super light. It is easy to manage and it's easy to store. Just turn the water on and it grows. It just goes from this little teeny shrunken thing to a full size hose. And I love it. It's wonderful. It shrinks back to pocket size as soon as you turn the water off. It's seriously like something out of science fiction. The pocket hose ballistic is even reinforced with a liquid crystal polymer used in bulletproof vests, making the anti burst sleeve practically indestructible. That same polymer fiber is actually five times stronger than steel.
- [12:55]
B
Wow. And with over 100 patents worldwide, it's a total game changer. It's made to last an upgraded UV coating that ensures it looks new year after year. And it was re engineered with thicker washers that resist leaks. It's easily the best yard and garden upgrade we've ever made. No matter how much I've needed to water, it moves with me and saves so much time. We used it in, well, I used it in getting all the pollen off the porches because, you know, my allergies were going nuts and it really blasted through it. Best of all, when you're done, it's out of sight, out of mind. And now the porches are looking good and I can't wait to use them on the new plants we've put out in the yard.
- [13:44]
A
I love it. And the nozzle is even more amazing than the hose. You can make your yard a hobby instead of a chore. And now for a limited time, when you purchase a new pocket hose ballistic, you'll get a free 360 degree rotating pocket pivot and a free thumb drive nozzle. That nozzle is totally amazing. It has a lot of different settings and they all really, really work. Just text law to 64,000 again, that's law to 64,640. For your two free gifts with purchase, text law to 64,000. Message and data rates may apply. And and the link is in our show notes. Our next question is for you, Kim. The question for you, Kim, comes from Stacy in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Hi, sisters in law. My name is Stacy. I live in Minneapolis. My city suffered many abuses during Operation Metro surge. My question relates to the Posse Comitats act and the deployment of JAG officers to the Minnesota U.S. attorney Office to prosecute civilian cases with no military connection. How is this not a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act? And more importantly, is this just a tactic by the Trump administration to blur the line between civilian and military?
- [15:17]
B
Oh, wow. Thank you, Stacey. And yes, this is a great question from what has been happening right there in your hometown. I too have been wondering how the Posse Comitanists act would come into play when it comes to these JAG military attorneys being used to prosecute some of these cases. And it sounds like that the judges down there are figuring it out in real time. In particular, US Magistrate Shannon Elkins has been very busy. And I think the answer to your question is it depends. According to Judge Elkins. So about a week ago, she ruled in a case that challenged a prosecution of someone who was charged with assaulting a Customs and Border Patrol agent, lodged a posse combitatis objection. And in that case, she said that the Posse Comitatis act did not was not violated through the use of a JAG attorney in prosecuting that case. But just as we record this, on Friday she issued another ruling holding that the Posse Comitatis act was was violated when a JAG military attorney prosecuted a case that did not involve a federal officer. She said in that the Department of Defense regulations recognized that having military lawyers prosecute civilians in cases that lack a military nexus would be ill advised. It says, but these regulations do not authorize this court to strike the appearance of an attorney that the DOJ has appointed. So she didn't rule that the attorney was improperly appointed, but that there are limits to what these attorneys can actually prosecute. And what it says to me is that this is such an unusual thing, as we've seen with many things from this current administration. We've never had this done before. And so literally judges are on the ground trying to figure this out as best as they can. Now, keep in keep in mind that Judge Elkins is a US Magistrate, so these opinions can and will likely be challenged, they'll be appealed, and then we will have to figure out through that appellate process what the when the dust clears what the ultimate rules of Posse Comitatis on the ground are. But this is just the early days of it. But yeah, it's a really great question and it's literally something that the judicial system is trying to still figure out.
- [17:56]
A
So I have to add to that, Kim, because I recently wrote an op ed about this issue with a group of former JAG officers and Pentagon officials. And ill advised, as you said, is an understatement it's such a bad idea. And of course, what it means is that JAG officers are not performing the duties that they are actually assigned, essential duties. They are being diverted to things that they should not be doing. So it is a really bad idea. I'm glad that she has at least expanded her ruling to say in certain cases it's a violation of posse comitatus. And I'll post the op ed as part of the show notes here.
- [18:40]
B
Great, Great. So the next question is from Susan, who asks, could Jim Comey's legal counsel simply quote the Miriam Webster Dictionary definition of 86 to the judge to put an end to this ridiculous indictment? Joe, what do I so love this
- [18:57]
A
question because it's something that as a lawyer, I never even thought of. And so I went to the dictionary and I looked it up and I'm going to just read the definition. It says that 86 is a verb and that there are variants of 86, 86 ing 86s. And it synonyms of 86 are, let's see, to refuse to serve a customer. So you could say beer here, barkeep, and the bar keep can then answer, you're 86th cut you. You're cutting you off. You can use it to say to eject or ban a customer. You can use it to say informally, to remove an item from a menu, which is probably its origination. Was you 86 an item when you run out in a restaurant, and that's how small restaurants call it. So it is to reject or discontinue. And you go through the whole list and yes, you really could discard, ditch, dump, unload, lose, or set aside. Those are synonyms. It isn't to kill or destroy. So I think you're onto something. And I hope that Jim Comey or his lawyers are listening to us now and that they include this reference.
- [20:20]
B
You know, that is a really good question because in litigation there are times that I absolutely cited the dictionary for the plain meaning of something. And it's important because the whole idea is that he was advocating for some action. Well, if that's not the common understanding that people have of what that phrase means, that's pertinent to the case. So I think signing the dictionary is exactly how to do it.
- [20:42]
A
And I think we have time maybe for one more question. And it's for you, Kim, from Erica, who wants to know with Brittany in the news again, who initiates the process for a conservatorship and how does that work?
- [20:56]
B
Oh, yeah. So first of all, I have to say, as a huge Britney Spears fan, I wish her nothing but the best and I hope that she and the people around her ensure her wellness overall. So I wanna start with that. But, yeah, conservatorship is a really interesting legal process. So there are a lot of people who can institute the process of seeking a conservatorship for someone who cannot make decisions concerning their own affairs, whether it's medical affairs, financial affairs, things of that sort, due to some sort of incapacitation. And it could be family members, like a parent or a spouse. It can also be a caregiver. It could also be done by order of the court. And so a lot of different people, or even by somebody who is a doctor or a mental health person who is treating that person who says, listen, I don't think that they are in a position to take good care of themselves. And what would happen is they would petition a court, it's usually a probate court, to institute a declaration of conservatorship that would last for a particular period of time. And that is what happened with Britney Spears. Now, in my opinion, that is something that is sometimes obviously necessary. But I, I have questions. When it lasted as long as Britney Spears did, it lasted for years and years and years that she was under conservatorship under her father. It. Another thing that concerns me is that she was also performing and, and she had a. She was performing in Las Vegas for a long residency and doing all these other things. That raises questions for me. It's like, okay, if you are well enough to make money and, and, you know, possibility possibly supporting not just yourself, but your family, including the person who holds the conservatorship, that would raise some questions for me. Again, not involved in this case and not knowing this case about what the true motives were. And I would hope that the probate judge in that case would be keeping a close eye of it. But it is something that is necessary from time to time. And the rules, since it is done by probate judges, the rules can vary from state to state. But it is an important maybe, maybe the sisters, when we all get back together at some point soon, over the summer, we can sort of do a primer on what that takes again, because it's a really fascinating area of law. Thank you for listening to Sister sidebar with Jo Wine Banks and me, Kimberly Atkinstore. Keep sending in those really great questions because we do love answering them. You can send a Voice memo to sistersinlawolitikon.com don't forget to. To listen to Sister Sidebar and Sisters in Law wherever you listen to your pod. And please give us a five star review because it helps other people get the word. And please show some love for this week's sponsors, Helix and Pocket Hose. The links are in the show notes and they really allow us to bring this show to you so we would love it if you support them. Don't forget to pick up some Sisters in law merch@politicon.com and see you every Wednesday and Saturday with Sisters in Law and Sister Sidebar. And Helix is an easy choice.
- [24:39]
A
Sorry guys, my airplane mode no longer works. The phone rings despite it.
- [24:45]
B
Anyway, it's not. Don't put it in airplane mode. Turn your silence.
- [24:49]
A
I just turned the silencer on. But airplane mode used to stop it. I don't know why, but not if
- [24:54]
B
you're on Wi Fi it won't really. Oh yeah, okay.
- [24:57]
A
Anyway, end of nonsense.
- [25:01]
B
At vrbo, we understand that even the best of plans sometimes need a little support, so we plan for the plot twists. Every booking is automatically backed by our VRBO Care Guarantee, giving you confidence from the very start. Whenever you need help, it's ready before your stay, through the moments in between, and after your trip. Because a great trip starts with peace of mind and maybe a good playlist. But we've got the peace of mind part covered.