Loading summary
Transcript146 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign.
- [00:10]
B
Welcome back to Sisters in Law with Joyce Vance, Kimberly Atkins Storr and me, Jill wine banks. Barb McQuaid will be back next week. We miss her now, but she will be back next week. In today's show, we are covering some really important topics. We're going to be talking about the national reparation fund for white nationalists. We are also going to talk about, well, it's the slush fund, whatever you want to call it, but that's what it is. Let's face it. ActBlue is another topic. And they're in court and in Congress. And let's talk about that, because they are the largest fundraising arm for the Democratic Party. And then let's not forget that Trump wants to erase history. He wants his impeachment to be nullified, voided, et cetera. And that's really important, too. But before we get to those serious topics, I want to ask my sisters in law. I just came back from a trip to Cleveland, a surprising city where I was able to go behind the scenes at the zoo and at the Cleveland Clinic and at the Cleveland Museum of Art, but also at the Rock and Roll hall of Fame. And I know you. Oh, gosh, it was so much fun. We even walked through the construction of their new addition, which is amazing. But it made me think about all the fabulous rock and roll people in my life. Mine started before yours, so I have my favorites. But I wanted to know who your favorites are. Have you been to the museum? And if not, I highly recommend you go. So, Kim, tell me yours.
- [01:49]
A
My favorite rock and roll artist.
- [01:51]
B
Yes.
- [01:53]
A
Oh, my goodness. That is really, really hard for me to say. And I've not been to the hall of Fame. I really want to go the next time I'm in Cleveland. I'm definitely putting that on my to do list. But one of my favorite exhibits here in D.C. at the Smithsonian Museum for African American History and Culture is the the exhibit for Chuck Berry. I think that it's just so great. And he was such an inspiration for so many other artists that came after him that when I think about that truly traditional rock and roll sound and what the hall of Fame is meant to honor is people who have inspired music beyond just what the music that they presented. And I think that Chuck Berry is really, really the epitome of that. So that's the sound that pops into my head. You know, Lucille just pops into my head.
- [02:50]
B
And that's my generation. And he is obviously well featured in the museum. And Joyce, do you have a fave?
- [03:00]
C
Well, first I want to echo what Kim says. The first time I went through the Black History Museum, I just stopped in. The music part of it. I mean, it had everything. It had the music of my childhood. It had the music of my college years. It was like such a. Such a fabulous exhibit. And it pains me to know that this administration seems to be committed to damaging it. So not to always go back to Trump and be a Debbie Downer, but that really fills me with sadness.
- [03:28]
A
But still go. Like, it's still okay to go. They have Chuck Berry's car, like this big, like cherry red. I think it's a Cadillac convertible.
- [03:37]
C
Yeah, it's a convertible for sure.
- [03:39]
A
Incredible. It's so good.
- [03:42]
C
It's such a well done exhibit. Museum curators are American heroes. We don't give them enough attention. And, you know, Jill, I was in Cleveland on my book tour, and I did make time to go to the Rock and Roll Museum because my best friend loves prints. And I was. I just really wanted to make sure I got her a Prince T shirt. So I had some fun. She got a T shirt. It was really great. But, you know, it's hard to say who my favorite is. I have a long checkered past. In high school, I used to. I shouldn't say this out loud. I used to cut school and go to the beach and then go down to Malibu to see who was playing in the little clubs with some of my girlfriends. So, you know, I'm bad that way. But I'll tell you right now, for me, it is Bruce Springsteen, the Boss. I just saw him in Washington, D.C. i love his music. I think that that's, you know, I need to go back and count for sure. It's either the sixth or the seventh time that I've seen him, but never in a. With a message like that. And his music is just still fabulous, as is his voice and all of the musicians he plays with. I'm a huge fan of Nils Lofgren, the guitarist, and just everything about it was perfect. We could do a whole episode about music I have known and loved. Oh, that doesn't sound good.
- [05:04]
B
He looks great.
- [05:04]
A
He looks incredible.
- [05:06]
C
He really does. I mean, he's hot. Can we just say that out loud? Barb is not here, so I feel like I can get away with saying that.
- [05:13]
B
Oh, Barb. I should put a warning in that. You have to turn off this episode.
- [05:18]
C
I probably just ruined RPG rating. I'm sorry.
- [05:21]
A
I don't think she opposes hotness. I think she just opposes swearing and toilets. But I think hotness is okay.
- [05:28]
B
There's a longer list than that, Kim. You know that. Anyway, my fave was and still is Elvis and I've, I've been to his Graceland and I love the exhibit from from the museum here. It was wonderful. And one of the people who was touring us was also involved in the when you talk about DC Museums, the Spy Museum and creating that, which I think is another museum that people must visit, but this was really great.
- [05:57]
C
Underrated museum. I'm sorry, I'm going to detain us on chat for the whole episode, but I love the Spy Museum.
- [06:04]
B
Okay, we're going to have to continue this particular discussion because there's so much more to discuss.
- [06:10]
A
Foreign.
- [06:18]
B
When people hear that Mint Mobile plans are only $15 per month, a lot of people wonder what's the catch? Well, after getting started with them, we can tell you directly there isn't one. There are no gimmicks and no gotchas. Just unlimited talk, text and data with fast, reliable coverage of the nation's largest 5G network and an award winning care team. So when you think about it, Mint Mobile is the true catch.
- [06:49]
C
With Mint, you get a clear signal and no pressure on time or data limits, which the kids are definitely going to be happy about. And it can feel great to see bigger numbers in everyone's bank account after the bills are paid. Mint Mobile tries to take what's wrong with wireless and make it right with Premium Wireless. For $15 a month you can even bring your current phone and your number. Choose from 3, 6 or 12 month plans and say goodbye to a monthly bill.
- [07:19]
B
Ditch overpriced wireless With Mint Mobile, it's so easy. Sign up online and get three months of premium wireless service for 15 bucks a month. The website is incredibly simple to navigate and you can get down to business in no time. Get your kids and other family members using it too. Like you, they have more important things to spend their money on.
- [07:42]
A
To get your new wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month, go to mintmobile.com sisters that's mintmobile.com sisters cut your wireless bill to 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com sisters that's it. There's no catch and the link is in our show notes. $45 upfront payment required equivalent to $15 per month. New customers on first three month plan only speed slower above 40 gigabytes on an unlimited plan. Additional taxes, fees and restrictions apply. C Mint Mobile for details. Well, the time has come again for us to to discuss what my friend Elliot Mistahl calls the Reparations Fund for White Nationalists, also known as the Weaponization Fund, that Donald Trump and his Justice Department have tried to set up and ostensibly have walked back. But they may claim it's off. But the litigation around it goes on. In fact, just this week, there was a court ruling on it by those attempting to permanently shut it down legally. So, Joyce, tell us what a judge ruled this week.
- [09:02]
C
Well, first, can we just have an Ellie Mistahl appreciation moment? Because he really does have a way of going to the heart of matters.
- [09:11]
A
He does.
- [09:11]
C
No one has topped his characterization of this fund. Look, this is so crazy, Kim, and I'm glad you asked about this case, because there are three cases going on. There's the one in Florida where Trump sued Trump versus irs. There's, there's the one in Virginia that we'll get to involving Judge Brincoma's decision on Friday. But you're asking about the case in front of Judge Richard Leon. And Judge Leon actually declined to issue an injunction after the government said that the slush fund was dead. His conclusion, his legal conclusion, was that the request was effectively moot because DOJ had represented to the court that it was no longer moving forward with the fund. But a. Call me a skeptic, I'm not hot on believing that sort of commentary, especially when Trump is out on the Sunday shows saying that he thinks it's a good idea. So to be fair, Judge Leon expressed skepticism and he warned the government lawyers not to revive the program after telling the court it was abandoned. During the hearing, he said, don't play possum with this court. I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I like it a lot.
- [10:21]
A
Play with me, don't play with me.
- [10:24]
C
He left open the possibility that he might consider a later request for a preliminary injunction. Actually think it was a very cagey ruling. He sort of put the government up to prove itself.
- [10:36]
A
Yeah, I appreciate you saying that, because my first thought when I saw that, it's like, well, you know, the DOJ has represented that they are not going to move forward with this. And what the president has said doesn't really contradict that. I'm like, wait a minute, wait a minute. What? Like, he literally, when asked about it, the first thing he says is, well, it's a great idea. And then he goes on and says, I don't know if it's going to happen. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Blah, blah, blah. You know, that kind of Trump esque kind of dismissal. And at first, when I read this ruling, I thought Is this like a Susan Collins, he's learned his lesson kind of deal? Because when. When can what. What Donald Trump says ever be used as evidence of anything? Like, we. We've seen this person acting for decades now, and that's never been the case. So. But I guess I should take away a little bit of assurance from his don't play with me caveat.
- [11:29]
C
I'm optimistic that this is a judge who's been on the bench for so many years that he has little tolerance for people who abuse the court's patience. I think we're okay on this one, Kim.
- [11:40]
A
Okay. All right, well, that makes me feel better. And Jill, as Joyce mentioned, there was an earlier ruling out of Virginia that had temporarily stopped the administration from moving forward with plans for it. This latest one was an attempt to just, like, put the full kibosh on it. So, technically, there is a court order preventing them from moving forward. What does that do? And actually, Judge Leon said something about it that I thought was interesting that we were texting about earlier.
- [12:11]
B
Yeah. So, yes, it is very interesting because, of course, we're talking about miles away, just across the river in Alexandria, Virginia. Judge Brinkmark said, yeah, I'll give you your temporary injunction because I don't basically believe the government. And so I don't think it's moot. I think this is a live action and I'm going to stop it. So originally, she issued an order until today. It's Friday. We're recording today on Friday. But she did that so that she would give the parties enough time for. For the government to sign a sworn statement that it was not going to bring this back, because, like us, she was skeptical that you could trust any statement by the government. Oh, gosh, I wish we could go back to the time of regularity and the belief in the regularity of government actions. Anyway, so she had a hearing this morning, and good news, she granted an extension until forever. Basically, she said, I mean, it's. It's.
- [13:18]
C
That is exactly what it is, right? It's an extension until you file under notice, which right might as well be forever.
- [13:25]
B
It's. It's forever in my view. And so in knowing that she had already done this, Judge Leon did not ignore it. He just said, well, I don't think she actually had the authority to issue what I consider to be an administrative stay. So I scratched my head and went, oh, what is she talking about? This is a temporary injunction. It's a preliminary. What? I don't get it. Obviously, district courts do keep the status quo until they can decide. And she did until Friday, when you come to court and tell me, and then I'll make a permanent decision, which she now has done. And so I didn't get it. And I did, as Kim mentioned, I texted like, what am I missing here? How could he possibly suggest that the court doesn't have power to issue what he calls an administrative stay? And so, Kim, you had an explanation for me that I'm just. I'm still not sure. I think it was just he. I don't know exactly what. But tell us what you thought.
- [14:26]
A
Yeah, I don't. Again, I don't know. But. So, just by way of background, a little legal lesson. There's a difference between an administrative stay and a temporary restraining order. A temporary restraining order is a temporary measure, and there is a fate. Fairly high. There's a fairly high bar that needs to be squared. Basically, you have to say that irreparable harm will be caused to one of the parties if you do not stop this action from taking place while the litigation goes on. And there has to be a balance of interests as to whether you allow it to take place while the litigation goes on or you halt it in its place. It's a pretty exacting standard in. In actuality, whereas an administrative stay is when there is a challenge to a government action and a court can just say, you know what, we're going to pause this until we work out some other legal issue. It's a lower bar. And I think. I think what this judge was saying was he was skeptical, looking over his shoulder at the work of this other judge, that the temporary restraining order standard had been met and that there was a possibility that maybe things can change on appeal. Now, to me, that was just like, oh, great, now just invite an appeal on this matter, and this is gonna go on forever. But I think he was cast in a little side eye at a judge, at a ruling by a judge in another district, which I thought was interesting. I don't know, Joyce, what did you get from that?
- [15:57]
C
I think you have as good of a read on it as anybody that I've heard so far. I mean, you never know, right? Judges are human beings, too. Sometimes it's personal. They've both been on the bench fore ever. Judge Brinkama became a magistrate judge the same year that I became bard in the Eastern District of Virginia. So she has been there since 1985. But I don't. I. I mean, I. I don't say that because I've ever heard something. It may just be this one ruling. That he objects to Kim. But I think it's sort of interesting. I mean, I guess technically we could end up with a split in the circuit. So depending on how this proceeds. Right. Because we're looking at.
- [16:38]
A
Because that's two different circuits, the 4th
- [16:41]
C
and also the 11th.
- [16:42]
B
Right.
- [16:42]
C
The 11th has yet to weigh in. That would be a fast vehicle for getting it to the Supreme Court. Could Judge Leon be provoking the split? One never knows.
- [16:54]
A
Oh, my goodness. All right.
- [16:56]
B
It's so interesting. It's.
- [16:57]
A
We're going to marinate on that while I ask y' all a couple other questions that I have about this, namely, is that in the meantime. So, yes, this. This fund is halted. Todd Blanche has said it's not going to move forward. Trump says whatever is on his mind at the moment. This court has been known for defying court orders. In fact, there was at one point. I don't know what the tally is right now, but at one point, the Washington Post had tallied that they had violated or ignored a third of the lower court orders that are issued against it. So can they just keep preparing this behind the scenes and saying, hey, we think that circuit split might be coming and it'll go to the scotus, so let's have it ready to go when that happens. What do you guys think?
- [17:42]
C
Boy, that's so reminiscent of the argument that Alabama made in the gerrymandering cases. Like, well, we think we might win on appeal, so we gonna keep the bad maps. At least in that context, the Supreme Court wasn't impressed until.
- [17:57]
A
Oops.
- [17:57]
C
Suddenly post Calais. It was so not to reopen that Calais. Can of worms and all of those wounds. You know, this is a Supreme Court, and this. This probably will ultimately come down to the Supreme Court telling the White House no. If anybody is going to. It'll come down to whether there are five votes for sanity and democracy on the court.
- [18:18]
B
I have a little different view, which is that I would worry about that because they have done it and they will keep doing it, and they've been getting away with it, but I think they have an alternative path forward and that they're going to just open the justice settlement fund and let people. It's a sort of a retail approach where everybody's going to have to come in and make their complaint and get ruled on, rather than the easy way of saying, Donald Trump can give you this money.
- [18:48]
A
Well, say more about that, Jill, because I'm not sure people know that there is already in existence a separate kind of fund. It doesn't have as much money as was proposed to be put into this white nationalist reparations fund. But there's already a fund that exists to pay back people who have been wronged by the government.
- [19:06]
B
Right. And that's a legitimate fund that's set up when someone legitimately sues. Not a la Donald Trump, saying that he was injured by this release of his tax information by a contractor. But, you know, you sue and you win or you settle legitimately, and in exchange for the settlement, you get paid some amount of money, and it comes out of this preexisting fund. So people who claim that they have been weaponized could sue. Now, if it was legitimately settled, it would go to the court in which the case was filed, and it would have to be approved by a judge who would have to say, there is a legitimate claim. This is not a spurious, fraudulent, made up issue. And then you could get paid out of that. It's a little more cumbersome because there's a lot of technical stuff that a plaintiff would have to go through to do it, as opposed to what they were setting up with this horrible fund that would have allowed people to come in and say, I was a 1-6-invader and I was injured by having to be convicted and going to jail, so I deserve money. And then this special group that is appointed by Trump basically would say, okay, yeah, you get money. And that would take care of that person. So it would be more complex. But because there is that alternative, and they can figure out some way to make it easy by providing lawyers for these people who will be making claims or whatever they have in mind, I don't think they have to violate a court order that they'll find a way around it to get the same thing accomplished. They wanted this to look like the money was coming from Donald Trump. Donald Trump could have taken the money in settling, but he didn't. He's giving it to you. Oh, how generous of him. This comes in a different way, but he'll make it clear that it's a result of his generosity.
- [21:03]
C
You know, I love Jill's take, and I wonder if they might not do both. Why not pursue both simultaneously? You don't have to back down. You still get to pay off your January 6th cronies. It's a grip plan a Trump could love.
- [21:17]
A
Ugh. All right, so my final question to y' all is, yes, we know that Todd Blanche has said that it's. It's over. Its Knicks. It's not happening. He's also vying officially now. He's been nominated to become the next Attorney General. And so he clearly wants to please Trump. Do you think that that factors into whether we'll see this happen at all?
- [21:37]
C
You know, Todd, Blanche is going to be really desperate to fight the confirmation battle. Right. And I think we'll see him do anything that the President wants to get there. He really wants to be Attorney general. He's already compromised principle. There's no reason not to go for the gold, I guess, except that some
- [21:57]
A
Republicans in Congress don't like the weaponization fund. Like, it's, it's sort of. He's. He's in a vice. Right. Like, he's being pulled in both directions.
- [22:06]
C
I mean, if he loses the nomination, the gig is up, I guess, you know, Blanche. So this is pretty interesting. People who know Blanche from the Southern District of New York, they make the point that this is not somebody who ever tried a marquee case. You know, a lot of the big deal Southern District of New York lawyers tried a mob case or tried a trafficking case, but that's not Blanche. What Blanche was known for was his people skills. He was super good with people. Everybody liked him. And that. I've heard people attribute his success with Trump to that. Maybe he thinks that he can thread that needle and keep Trump happy and at the same time satisfy senators that he won't be as bad as it looks like he's going to be. I mean, maybe that's where this is headed.
- [22:52]
B
I think you're right, Kim. It is a very tricky path for him because it is unpopular. But I think his loyalty to Trump and his desire to be the Attorney General is going to keep him going. And he knows, he's seen it, where Trump will turn on anybody who doesn't keep fulfilling his wildest dreams. So in the same way he got rid of Bondi, he would drop him in a second. So I think it will be something that they will try.
- [23:28]
C
Well, can I just put one more marker down? Something we're not talking about today, but Bill Pulte. There's a replacement for Bill Pulte's tenure as the shortest term ever. Acting DNI. Right. And Trump is bringing in his U.S. attorney from the Southern District of New York to get some experience as the DNI boy that has got to really, really prime him to be the next Attorney General when Blanche flames out. So I'm, I'm wondering if that's not what's afoot there.
- [24:02]
A
I. I think you're spot on, Joyce, because he has no intelligence experience. He was formally, he Formally worked as a lawyer? Well, no, he worked as a lawyer, a corporate lawyer. He was SEC head for a little bit. Right. And then he went to the Southern District of New York.
- [24:20]
C
One thing that I'll say is that as the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, there are a handful of districts across the country. SDNY is one where there's enough of a national security profile that he's getting exposure. I don't say that to contradict you, because I think you're right.
- [24:37]
A
My point was he's better than him. He seems to be a vehicle to something else. As opposed to him working his way through the intelligence community to get this prime intelligence job. This feels like he has him. Trump is looking for a place to stick him for a minute.
- [24:53]
C
He just needs to prove himself at the midterms claim fraud if Republicans lose, and he's on his way.
- [24:59]
A
Yeah, yeah.
- [25:00]
B
I would say his experience, even acknowledging what Joyce is saying is not meet the standard that is set by the statute. He's supposed to have extensive intelligence experience. He certainly does not. He does not have the understanding of how the interagencies work together. And while he may be better than Pulte, he's not qualified.
- [25:26]
C
You know who does have that experience, though? And this is a job that this person has never had. Jill Winebanks. And I'm a big fan of seeing Jill take on the one job she hasn't had yet.
- [25:39]
B
I do do intelligence in the arm, me. It's true. Okay, I'm ready. Oh, no, I'm not. What am I talking about?
- [25:58]
A
The Internet is still the wild, wild West, y', all, and it's full of stalkers, scammers, and hackers. You know, you should protect yourself. But how? It's easier than you think. Here's what to do. Go to www.joindeleteme.comsisters and enter code sisters to get 20% off. Delete me.
- [26:19]
C
DeleteMe removes your personal information that's being sold online, which is why you really need to get to it. In the age of AI, we're all especially vulnerable to scammers using our personal data that's floating around on the Internet, and they use it against you. Have you ever Googled yourself and found your home address, phone number, or the name of a family member? It's unsettling, and there's a lot worse out there. The good news is Delete me can help.
- [26:48]
A
DeleteMe does all the hard work to wipe your personal information from data broker websites, and you can get an individual plan for a little over $8 per month. Even if you're not a public figure in the Internet age, all of us are potential targets for malicious actors, blackmailers, and worse. Especially have kids in your family. Delete Me is a must once we get started with them. The peace of mind has been such relief. I trust them to protect me, my sisters and my loved ones. And I know they can help you and your family feel safe too.
- [27:22]
B
So take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your delete me plan when you go to www.joindeleteme.com sisters. That's a mouthful. And use Promo Code Sisters at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to www.joindeleteme.com sisters and enter code sisters at checkout. That's www.joindeleteme dot com sisters code sisters. The link is also in our show notes.
- [28:14]
A
There's nothing more important than our health, which means monitoring what's in our environment and what gets into our bodies. So after learning about microplastics and so many household items, we're mindful about what we bring into our homes, including the cleaning products we use every day. Most of them aren't good for us, our pets or the environment. That's why we wanted to tell you about Blueland.
- [28:38]
B
Blueland makes dish, laundry and other household cleaning products designed to reduce single use plastic and all of their cleaning tablets are 100% plastic free and microplastic free. They're independently tested to perform alongside major brands and the formulas are made without dyes, parabens or harsh chemicals. I love not having to choose between the safe option and what actually gets my house clean. And you will do the same. Like us, Blueland believes 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.
- [29:21]
C
You know, it feels great knowing that when I use Blueland, I'm incorporating sustainable practices into my everyday activities and and I'm always amazed by how well the products work. Their laundry tablets have proven time and time again that they can lift the toughest stains, grass, food, you know, whatever the dogs have managed to bring in, which is sometimes not pretty around here, but I really do love this stuff. Not only is the microplastic free formula made with plant and mineral based cleaning ingredients, it's hypoallergenic and it's safe for sensitive skin, which I have. So that's a big deal to me. And it is so convenient. You just drop a pre measured mess free tablet into your machine and you wash as usual. No bulky plastic jug. They even have a line of tablets for your dishwasher. I'm a big fan of that one too. And also for your toilets.
- [30:14]
A
Best of all, Blueland is a certified B Corp and Leaping Bunny Cruelty Free certified. Their formulas are EPA Safer Choice certified. And many products have also earned Cradle to Cradle's Gold Material Health Certificate. That's good, Stu. Put that all together and it's easy to see why their products are trusted in over 1 million homes, including ours. I use ours every day. Make the switch today. Get 15% off your first order by going to blueland.com sisters. That's 15% off your first order@blueland.com sisters. The link is in our show notes.
- [31:02]
B
There's a lawsuit and a congressional hearing going on that in the chaos of all the news this week and last week and the week before and the week before isn't getting the attention I think it deserves. And I want to talk about it because it involves the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Ken Paxton. Well, he filed it as Texas versus but it really was in his own particular interest against ActBlue, which is the largest fundraising bundler for the Democratic Party for small donations. And it's been very effective in supporting Democratic candidates. So now there's a lawsuit and there is also a congressional hearing going on. And I want to start first with the lawsuit. As I said, Ken Paxton filed it on April 20th of this year and then it was right after. I don't think this is a coincidence. His opponent in the race for the Senate, James Talarico, had just raised a huge sum of money on ActBlue. And that timing may be telling. The case was filed in Texas District Court. And I want you to talk about this. Joyce, what does the Paxton petition allege?
- [32:23]
C
Yeah, you know, there's been a lot of attention being paid to ActBlue because they're very good at what they do, which is helping Democrats raise money. They're sort of the equivalent of the Republicans win Read platform. So this allegation focuses on the notion that the platform misled the public about allowing contributions via gift cards and prepaid debit cards. And I think most significantly, there's a claim that using these forms of payment was a way to allow foreign folks, not US Citizens, to make donations, which is of course not legal in a federal election. So this in essence formed the whisper campaign that Paxton was running, that Talarico who, you know, they lodged all sorts of incendiary political attacks against and personal attacks insinuating that he wasn't masculine enough and all sorts of other silly things. They also wanted to say, you know, he can't get red blooded Americans to fund him. He's going to those foreigners. And so that, I think, is what this was about.
- [33:35]
B
And do you think that there is anything to the timing of the filing? Am I just being overly suspicious?
- [33:42]
C
No, I mean, I think you're dead on the money.
- [33:45]
B
Look, look.
- [33:45]
C
Paxton sues ActBlue in April of 2026. Sort of at the height of the campaign. Right. Just as Talarico is engaging in major fundraising on ActBlue, he gets this huge boost. That's allegedly when Paxton intensifies his investigation. And so when the judge, Richard Stearns rules on June 11, he agrees that the timing is retaliatory. And he writes that the lawsuit was actually filed in retaliation for ActBlue's efforts to raise money for Talarico. That was the basis for his issuance of, of the injunction that blocked Paxton's case from moving forward.
- [34:29]
A
Yeah, that was quite an interesting ruling. Right? It was a ruling by U.S. district Judge Richard Stearns. It was 15 pages, which when it comes to court rulings, that's short and sweet. Like, it seemed like it was like open and close. This not about actually rooting out any sort of fraud. This is retaliation. And the, the point that I really like that he made, that's important, is that Paxton has a history of this. He likes to use his office in order to effectuate politically motivated litigation. And this is the latest example of this. He, he wrote, he said, quote, the truth is plain and captured in Paxton's own declarations. The lawsuit was filed in retaliation for and in an attempt to suppress akblu's effort to fund Talarico's campaign. So, yeah, he saw right through this, which I thought was pretty spot on.
- [35:26]
B
He also noted that basically fundraising for political causes is protected under the Constitution.
- [35:33]
A
Yes. By the First Amendment. That's a good point. Yes. This is basically. I mean, the courts, including the Supreme Court, have underscored the fact that the First Amendment protects political donations. Like, maybe underscored it a little too much in my view, but they've underscored that they can't turn around and attack somebody else's donations. That's a clear violation of the Constitution as well as retaliation.
- [35:56]
B
Thanks. So, and Joyce, as I mentioned, there's also a congressional hearing going on which, you know, it's one of Those you scratch your head. What are they doing and why? But they brought in the CEO of actflu, Regina Wallace Jones, and she was called to testify this week on Tuesday. And what was their alleged basis for calling in to testify and what were their allegations and how did it go?
- [36:25]
C
I mean, look, the whole thing was rankly political, right? There wasn't really that much pretense because if they were really concerned about this, they would also be looking at the Republicans win red platform and they're just not doing that. So this was allegations again of foreign campaign donations. That same sort of theme. You know, it just does not pass the smell test. It's one sided. It's focused heavily on Act Blue now that it has been so very effective. And you know, I, I don't know if you want to get into this, Jill, but her, her tactic when she testified she took the Fifth Amendment, she, she invoked her rights repeatedly during her testimony.
- [37:12]
B
Yes, I do want to get into that and I want. She wrote an op ed in the Washington Post just before to explain her calling up the Fifth. And so I'd like both of you to talk about, you know, people sort of get suspicious when you invoke the Fifth. Oh, you must be hiding something. And she was trying to explain in her own voice why this was necessary and why this was retaliation and wasn't a legitimate thing. So let me start with you, Kim. What do you think?
- [37:43]
A
Well, I, so first of all, just the fact that you invoked your constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment does not mean that you were guilty. That's something that Donald Trump has said in the past. You know, it's like, oh, people who invoke the Fifth is because they have something high. It's because they're criminals. It's because this and that. Not leaving aside the fact that he and others have invoked the Fifth in litigation in the past, it's your constitutional right for a reason. And the fact that Act Blue is currently in the middle of litigation and knowing that the, the DOJ is likely looking into them as well, I thought that it was probably prudent. They don't want to say anything that can be twisted or used in a different way. And so that is, that's the take that I took from it. I, I see this as a group that's under attack and trying to protect themselves. Themselves.
- [38:34]
C
I mean, this is something that we're seeing happen increasingly under this administration. And I have to say it fills me with sadness. The Fifth Amendment is there for a reason. It's to protect people who are in fact guilty from being forced to incriminate themselves. But now what we're seeing, it's not just in this setting, it's in others, is people who believe that the government is about to come after them unfairly. They are invoking the Fifth to avoid that. And I know where you're driving, Jill. I mean, in some ways, invoking the Fifth does imply that you're invoking it because you're guilty. But I react so badly to the idea that it's DOJ that's forcing these people to do that for self protection. For instance, the Southern Poverty Law center lawsuit is a great example. Like what happens Southern Poverty Law center gets indicted and all of a sudden a lot of platforms stop, stop processing donations to them because they're afraid that they're going to be prosecuted for doing that. So it's just this whole culture of fear and intimidation around our politics, around our voting and our rights that this administration is pushing.
- [39:47]
B
So I want to ask both of you, because the Republican Committee has alleged that ActBlue had previously misled Congress about how they were raising funds and what their procedures were and that the platform had weakened its fraud protections. And there's a lot of evidence to the contrary. And I would like to have both of you talk about what do you think are the most important things that say there's no evidence of this? The facts are quite the contrary. Kim, you want to start?
- [40:23]
A
Yeah. So two things can be true at the same time. One is that ActBlue has procedures in place and always has that have been designed to flag and attempt to root out foreign contributions or other violations of campaign finance law being done through their site, being done through their platform in one instance. And this is from a law firm that was hired by actbluke to look at their own policy. The law firm found that in some limited instances, their internal procedures were not always followed. And they did this in a way to sort of alert them to it so that they can correct this problem. Well, so when Act Blue represented to Congress, hey, we have these procedures in place in order to prevent what you're talking about from happening. It's not true. Your allegations are false. Which is true. Congress then turned around and said, oh, well, look at this New York Times report that says that you didn't follow your own procedure in this case. Now you've lied, you've misrepresented to Congress. You've lied to Congress about your procedure. So then they were alleging that they were committing fraud. Two things can be true. A company can make a mistake and need to tighten up their procedures. And they also are diligent in trying to protect against it. That does not equal fraud. So it's, it's a little complex, but it's still in this case. I don't think that should over fact overshadow the fact that this is a politically motivated operation meant to target one of the most successful platforms for Democrats in terms of fundraising.
- [42:04]
C
You know, Kim's explanation is a sophisticated one, and it's a good one. Not every mistake that a company makes is a violation of the criminal law. And that's really the point that the committee is making here. I would love to see whether Winred could stand up to the same kind of scrutiny.
- [42:23]
B
Exactly. And it's also true that when you testify that you have these procedures in place. That is true. And if you made a mistake and your lawyers find out about it, that you didn't follow those procedures, it's still true that you had them in place. You didn't say that you were perfect in following them. So that's not perjury and it's not fraud. So this goes back to what you said, Kim. This is a political retaliation, and it's trying to get. Get the Democratic fundraising arm to suffer.
- [43:02]
C
Everyone wants to curl up in a comfy bed. So having the perfect mattress for your sleep habits, it's a must. Great sleep is critical to success, and there's nothing better for sleep than a Helix mattress. I first heard about Helix when they asked to sponsor our show, but, you know, we're selective here on Sisters in Law. We wanted to try the mattresses out, so I took the quiz to tailor my mattress to my sleeping style and got matched with the Helix Midnight mattress. And I must have aced that quiz because I've been getting the best sleep of my life ever since it arrived. Tossing and turning is a thing of the past, even sleeping with dogs. And we sleep with two big ones now. My whole family has Helix mattresses, and they are really loved. We have all found our ultimate fit.
- [43:51]
B
Joyce isn't the only one. Helix is 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. There are even enhanced cooling features to keep you from getting too warm during the summer night nights.
- [44:15]
A
I'm amazed that Helix has been a part of my sister's sleep habits for over two years. Making the switch is such an upgrade. Since then, we've heard so many stories from other people seeing amazing improvements in the quality of their sleep on their wearable devices thanks to Helix Mattresses. Add that to free US Shipping and 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.
- [44:42]
C
With Helix, you can rest easy with their seamless returns and exchanges. Their Happy with Helix guarantee offers a risk free customer first experience with a 120 night sleep trial and a limited lifetime warranty to ensure you're completely satisfied with your new mattress for years to come. So don't wait. Snuggle up on an incredible mattress this summer and beyond. Take advantage of the 4th of July sale and go to helixsleep.com sisters for 20% off site wide, 25% off Luxe mattresses and 30% off Elite mattresses. That's helixsleep.com sisters for twenty percent off site wide, 25% off luxe mattresses and 30% off elite mattresses. Make sure you enter our show name after checkout so they know we sent you. That's helixsleep.com sisters. The link is in our show notes. Well, y', all, I, I have such a surprise for you. For our final topic today, you won't believe this, but Donald Trump would like to pretend that his two impeachments never happened. I know. You're surprised.
- [46:08]
B
Shocked.
- [46:10]
C
All right. Well, here we go, Kim. The Wall Street Journal broke this story last night. They had reporting that, you know, hardly shocking, but it is audacious even for Donald Trump because the reporting centers on his desire to get Congress to cancel his impeachment. I mean, you're the reporter here. What did you suss out about the facts? And can you help us understand the reporting?
- [46:32]
A
Yes. So essentially there is an idea being floated that Congress could pass a resolution that essentially could expunge for reaching for a better word. I mean, I don't know, this has not been done before. So we have to come up with new ways to explain this because never before has an impeachment been attempted to be erased off the books. But it would essentially expunge the fact that these two impeachment trials ever took place. Keep in mind, Donald Trump was not convicted on either one. He suffered absolutely no consequences except, you know, maybe injury to his pride. It is actually the nation that suffered the consequences of those acquittals. But he wants to rewrite history and pretend that it didn't happen through an act of Congress. So a couple things that I thought was interesting in this, this, in this report is that such a measure, if it's considered, wouldn't happen until after the midterms. So if y' all ever needed incentive to get out and vote, maybe that's a little bit more, and that they're still not even sure that there is sufficient support, even among Republicans to get this over the line. But the fact that this is even being sought is, as you said, Joyce, quite a thing.
- [47:53]
C
Can I ask you a question in your capacity as a journalist? Here's my question. Let's say Trump succeeded. Would that change, Would any major newspaper alter the first line of his obituary? You know, they pre. Write obituaries for famous people. And that first line, I'm sure, says the first president ever to be twice impeached. So let's just say he pulls that off. Are the newspapers gonna change that line?
- [48:20]
B
Line?
- [48:21]
C
I mean, is, is he going to rewrite history?
- [48:24]
A
Well, first of all, when, when it, the time comes for Donald Trump's obituary, there's so much to get in that I'm not even sure the impeachments would be in the first line anymore anyway. Like the president who incited an insurrection, the president who had, you know, cage fighting on the front, on the White House law. What do you even begin with? I, I pity that obit writer because the, the task before him is so. But no, journalists will not suddenly start saying that the impeachments didn't take place. They will not go back and correct their past coverage of these impeachments. It will only matter in Trump's mind. It reminds me of how he accepted the gift of somebody else's Nobel Prize, as if that meant something. Right, but it means something to him, clearly. Or that he created this new whatever Institute of Peace in order to say he has it and it doesn't do anything. I mean, this is one of. He's the epitome of a personal, you know, a personal pride project that is only important to him.
- [49:29]
B
You know, Joyce, Kim may be right about that, but I do worry about him rewriting history. And it's not just this. It's in museums where he's obliterating the references to his impeachment and a lot of other things that he doesn't like. And kids are being trained now in ways that don't coincide with reality or facts. And so that worries me a lot.
- [49:54]
C
Well, that's the pragmatics of the matter. But, Jill, can we talk about the legalities? I mean, will it actually work? Is this something that he could theoretically get away with?
- [50:05]
B
Well, could Congress pass something? Yeah, they could, but it has no consequence because the Constitution does not allow anything to do with a impeachment. You can't even pardon an impeachment. The next president cannot pardon him from that. That's specifically set out in Article 2, Section 2. So, no, there's no provision for voiding an impeachment or for pardoning an impeachment. So actually, I just don't think that there's anything going. And he was, in fact, impeached. He wasn't convicted. But the Constitution says impeachment is basically forever. If you're impeached, you're impeached. That's it.
- [50:48]
C
So I think that's sort of the tone that the Wall Street Journal's reporting took. Look, he can try this, but it ain't going to have any impact. And, you know, the tone almost seemed to be, it's just Trump, we shouldn't take it seriously. It's unlikely to succeed. It's really just an advisory vote. And I actually really dislike that tone because I think when Trump does something like this, we should pay attention. So am I out on the ledge on my own on this one? Kim, what did you make of the tone in the recording?
- [51:20]
A
No, I think that that's exactly right. I mean, is this at a time that we are at war, at a time when, you know, democracy is being smashed to bits, at a time of all of this, is this. If you had to rank all the things, is this at the very top? No, but it's an important idea about something that I have been writing about. I went back and checked my. It's since I became a columnist at the Boston Globe. I believe one of the first columns that I wrote was a warning about Trump's. The things that he does that go unnoticed, but that evidence his authoritarian nature. This was back in the first place.
- [52:03]
B
Turn.
- [52:04]
A
Wow, right. That. The fact that he wanted a military parade, the fact that he praised strong men like Erdogan and Kim Jong Un, the fact that he, you know, he's exhibiting things that we should have all back in 2020 or 2021, when I wrote about 2020, when I wrote about this, that people should take really seriously. And this is more evidence of that. So in that sense, Joyce, I'm with you. I think we should take everything that he does and seriously, even if, as Steve Bannon said, he is flooding the zone with poop to use a, you know, in case Barb is listening, even if it's something coming every day. That's crazy. We. We have to Remember the seriousness of each and every bit. So I'm with you, Jill.
- [52:56]
C
Do you want to join us out on the ledge or do you have a different take?
- [53:00]
B
No, I'm on the ledge on this one, I'm sorry to say, but I'm sort of on the ledge almost all the time now, because every day there's something that justifies being on the ledge. I worry about the military and the war that's going on. I am hopeful that today's news that there is, which is announced by Pakistan, so it's more believable than if it came from Trump. Sad to say that there may be a end to the war in Iran. I hope that's true. But it's not going to make me feel any more comfortable that he won't do something similar immediately.
- [53:41]
C
I mean, I will say, just so we're not too dark and dreary, I have noticed really, for the last few weeks that Trump's hold seems to be loosening. He's lost a couple of Republican votes, people he primaried in the Senate who won't be around, like Cassidy and Cornyn, you know, so there are those hopeful signs. There are federal district judges who are doing their darndest to keep him in his place. But I do think this tendency to disturb history, to rewrite history, is upsetting it. And Kim, I think it's so interesting that you caught it, that you pegged it early in the first term when he was showing authoritarian tendencies and people were dismissing it as, oh, oh, it's just Trump, which was what I read into the tone here. I guess I have one last question for y' all that we would be remiss if we didn't address here. And that's the vitality of impeachment as a remedy, right? We're told by the Supreme Court you can't prosecute a president for official acts. But that's okay, guys, because you can use impeachment, the political remedy. You know, does it still exist? Does the fact that Trump thinks it's so meaningless, that he's trying to erase his two impeachments suggest that impeachment, Impeachment will never work again?
- [55:00]
B
I think that it may mean in the political environment we live in, with the silos of information and the control that Donald Trump now has over people who are elected to the Senate and the House, that right now impeachment is not a viable possibility? If the Democrats take the House in the midterms, you could see another impeachment. But you're not going to get A conviction. And so it's sort of, why waste the time doing an impeachment right now? It's not going to be a useful tool. I hope going on into the future we will see impeachment work. I mean, this goes back during Watergate when we were told we couldn't indict the President because impeachment was the right solution. Or you could go back to what happened in the first impeachment where, well, no, we shouldn't impeach because the criminal courts are the right way to handle this. Except then the Supreme Court said, oh, no, no more. So we're between a rock and a hard place as to whether the criminal system is the right way to proceed or impeachment is the right way and whether anything is possible given the strength of the evidence that we had against Donald Trump. Trump.
- [56:18]
A
Well, okay, I think I agree with you when it comes to Trump, Jill, but there's absolutely no political will for impeachment. Impeachment is a political tool and there's no political will. I don't think we are stuck in that. What this should be is a lesson to the American people, to the electorate, that we need to choose our commanders in chief carefully because you need political will in order to take them out if they start doing illegal stuff, if they start doing unconstitutional stuff. So choose, use your leaders carefully. The norms are gone that a leader will self monitor themselves. So you need to vet them before you put them in this office because you cannot rely on members of Congress to come in and step up. And keep in mind the last, the impeachment of Bill Clinton, which I believe was largely politically focused. You know, did he lie under oath? Yes.
- [57:13]
C
Yes.
- [57:13]
A
But this was a politically motivated impeachment in that he was acquitted before like no president had been, has ever been convicted in impeachment. Andrew Johnson, which probably that also too was politically motivated. But he, you know, he was doing the most, he wasn't convicted. This has never been a solution that's worked. Let's just be honest. Let's, let's just keep it real. So what we need to do is pick our leaders careful, hold them accountable. You have to pick people who deserve this spot, not just somebody who you vote for because you don't like that black lady or you, you know, you, you're, you're suspicious of the lip. No, that's not what we do in this world. You may like some of the things he's saying, but if you think he's a criminal, don't vote for him. We need to take Accountability ourselves, take responsibility ourselves and stop putting ourselves in this position. Right?
- [58:05]
C
Hmm. Well said.
- [58:15]
A
You know, there's nothing I hate more than being ashy. Like, I mean it. Like there's nothing.
- [58:20]
C
Like ashy is so bad, it's awful.
- [58:23]
A
I want my skin to be smooth. And I also don't like, you know, when the skin feels dry and it just, it just makes me itch just thinking about it. But at the same time, I also don't like feeling greasy after I put on certain moisturizing products and it feels like it's, you know, an extra layer on my skin either. That's no good either. And that's why I am so, so glad we discovered Osea's Andaria algae seaweed infused body oil. I am being absolutely honest with you. I use it every single day, even before I step out of the shower. I use it because it leaves your skin feeling amazing. And for those of you about my age, you know, y' all know my friend Perry very, very well, your skin can get very itchy and uncomfortable. And I'm telling you, since using this, all that itchy, uncomfortable skin issue is gone. Plus, its delightful, award winning formula has been clinically shown to instantly visibly improve elasticity and deeply moisturize for a silky smooth, full body glow. I can't say enough about oc. See you.
- [59:32]
B
You know, Kim, I didn't need to know about the clinically shown results because you can see it on your own skin.
- [59:38]
A
You really can.
- [59:39]
B
Yeah, for sure. And if you have a man in your life. My husband loves it. I can't believe how much. Seriously, he's never used any of my products.
- [59:50]
C
I cannot believe you let him use it. Man, I am way too cagey to let.
- [59:55]
A
He loves it when you use it.
- [60:00]
B
That's even better. Why? That's tmi. Tmi. No, he's actually using it. He likes it. He did it without my permission. Anyway. Andaria seaweed is the not so secret ingredient in Osea's best selling Andaria algae body oil. It's the sea's secret to firmer, more youthful looking skin. Osea is clean, clinically tested skin care from the sea. So you can see, see and feel. Got that little pun there. So you can see and feel the difference from just one use. I love the citrusy scent. It feels like you've escaped to a seaside orchard. Even when you're baking on the pavement of a bustling city. It's so much better than any other body oil we've ever tried. And the hydration makes the weather so much more bearable.
- [60:49]
C
It's probably because seaweed is at the core of every OSEA formula. I put it on every day before I leave the house and the glow lasts all day. And look, I'm not gonna lie, I actually ran out of the Andaria Algae body soap in my shower earlier this week and I just about had a temper tantrum. There aren't a lot of products that I'm that passionate about, but I love this one. I was super grateful I had another bottle of it in my cabinet because this is one of those things. I'm really addicted to it. And I love the story behind these products too. It was founded in Malibu in 1996. Osea is a mother daughter founded skincare brand harnessing the power of seaweed and the healing wisdom of the ocean. It just does not get any better than this.
- [61:37]
B
That is so true and it's not surprising. Osea Andaria Algae Body Oil is an Allure award winning best selling color. It's clinically shown to instantly improve the look of skin elasticity and deeply moisturize. It also prevents visible signs of aging and gives a healthy looking glow to your skin. Osea's award winning Andaria Algae Body Oil is for skin that deserves more than lotion. Although their lotions and their serums are really good too. And right now we have a special discount just for you. Get 10% off your first order sitewide with code sisters10@ocamalibu.com that's code sisters10s e a malibu.com the link is also in our show Notes. If you have a question for us, please email sisters in lawpoliticon.com or you can tag us on any of our social medias at SistersInLaw. And if we don't get to your question during the show today, watch our feeds during the week because we often answer additional questions on those platforms. And we will also try to answer any question that we don't answer today during Sister's sidebar, which comes out every Wednesday. And today we have a series of great questions. I'm going to start with you Joyce. Is it true that our current president would have gone to prison if he had not been reelected?
- [63:20]
C
Well, this is a great question. I should note that it comes from Karen. I assume that this is a good Karen. Not the, not the Karen that has become, you know, the popular whipping boy these days, but Karen. Thank you for the question. You know, my answer to you, your question is not necessarily it might not have happened that Donald Trump would have ever gone to prison but what would have happened had he not been reelected is that the two criminal prosecutions against him would have proceeded through court. He would have filed a lot of motions trying to get them dismissed before they went to trial. There would have been, for instance, more litigation over immunity. He might have argued vindictive and selective prosecution. He had filed those motions in Florida. Florida judges would have made their decisions. There might have been appeals up and down. Maybe the cases would have been dismissed. But I suspect that there would have been some counts that would have gone forward to trial, and then it would have been up to a jury to decide whether or not Donald Trump was guilty. They would have heard the evidence. The judge would have advised them on the law, but the decision would have been theirs and theirs alone. A jury of his peers. And that's what Donald Trump avoided by being reelected.
- [64:39]
A
So he was convicted, though. Like, let's keep.
- [64:42]
C
Well, in New York, he was convicted. He was convicted in New York. But we're talking about the federal cases here, right?
- [64:48]
A
Yes. But that being said, he was convicted in New York, and I do believe that his status as a previous president kept him out of jail. I mean.
- [64:59]
C
Yeah, I mean, the state case is a separate thing. The judge chose not to send him to prison. The state case, I think that that is not inconsistent with other defendants convicted of similar crimes. But I think your point is a good one, because as you'll recall, at the sentencing, there was a certain amount of hesitancy on the part of the judge, and it could have been that this. Yeah, but, you know, the counts all get stacked, and it's really comparing the conduct to other cases. I mean, judges are big sticklers for uniformity in sentencing, and they really do try to sentence people who commit similar crimes to similar sentences. You know, as a prosecutor in the state case, I would have made the argument that this was someone who abused extraordinary access to power to commit the crimes, and that warranted different treatment from other cases. And who knows whether that would have worked or not. But I think in the federal case, had Donald Trump been convicted, maybe in the espionage case, the Mar A Lago case, he might have gotten a short sentence that he could have served in home confinement. But the January 6th charges, I think had he been convicted, those would have resulted in prison time.
- [66:17]
A
I would agree with you. I think that this gets back to my earlier point that maybe don't elect somebody who was convicted on 34 counts of fraud. Maybe don't elect that person.
- [66:28]
C
I thought you wore that as a badge of courage. Right. I was elected you know, I mean I was, I was he, sorry I said it wrong. You know, I was convicted. I mean he, he seemed to make so much hay out of that ultimately
- [66:41]
B
and we failed to make enough hay out of it because we were warned anyway. Okay, we do have another question comes from Joy and Can Kim. She wants to know the so called conservative justices on SCOTUS are not conservative. They are radical right wingers. Do you agree? And you're our Supreme Court expert, so you tell Joy what you think.
- [67:09]
A
Do I agree blanketly with your statement? No, I actually don't agree with that. I think that they are nine individuals. Now would I make that assessment about one, maybe two of them? Yes, but I base that not on their rulings necessarily, but in what they say outside of their rulings. I would invite any of you to watch interviews or speeches or anything else said outside the bench, off the bench by Justice Samuel Alito or by Justice Clarence Thomas. I think they make their political views quite clear. They don't mask them. Somebody who after ruling, writing the majority opinion in dos and then goes to Rome and makes some big chest beating speech about how religious rights, Christianity, rights in America are under attack. I mean you don't have, yes, you don't have to, I don't have to tell you what that says. But here's what I think is really happening. I am not sure for, for all four of the other conservatives on the court, if they are coming to court every day with their right wing views and imposing that into their jurisprudence. I think a number of other things could be happening here. I mean take, I will take Chief Justice John Roberts for example. This is the same justice that at some point was the deciding vote in the Obamacare case, the case upholding Obamacare, basically holding that like, look, look, if Congress, if the people elect members of Congress and members of Congress enact a statute, whether or not I agree with it, if there is a constitutional basis for upholding it, that's our job to do because we are not lawmakers. We don't make the law. We determine whether it's constitutional or not. And if there's a constitutional basis for keeping it in place, what are our system of checks and balances mandates is that the people who elected the members of Congress get what they want in this. And the solution is, well, if you want somebody to put in different policies, elect different people. That was Chief Justice John Roberts. Then Chief Justice John Roberts just three years ago in Milligan one said we're going to apply the Voting Rights act and you know What Alabama was an intentional racial gerrymander. This map that they're about to install now, now with the Supreme Court's blessing, that was an intentional racial gerrymander. So what happened to him? A number of things can happen. Justices can change jurisprudentially, which means that the way they view the Constitution or the statute, the way they interpret statutes, can change over time, and maybe by a factor of the fact that there's now six people on the right. John Roberts used to really value. Always said he valued trying to build a bigger consensus over getting the exact, you know, thing that you want. Sometimes you have to compromise and build a consensus because that's in the interest of justice. Maybe now that he's got six, he's really letting his freak flag fly. I don't know. Maybe these are things that he's always believed, but now he feels like he has enough justices around him to do. Perhaps he thinks that it's better to have six justices behind an opinion, and so he's willing to move to the right for that. I don't know. That's my point. I don't know. Amy Coney Bear has not been on the Court long enough, enough for me to really get a sense of her jurisprudential view. It took. For me, it took with Alito, for example. It took me six, seven years before I really was like, oh, okay, I got this dude's number. It. It takes some time to figure that out. Neil Gorsuch, he. He rules in weird ways that I think I sort of get where he goes on a lot of stuff. He's very conservative. But then on the other side. But that doesn't change. You know, even with him, he went from saying, hey, you know, in. In Title vii, if you discriminate on the base of sexual orientation, that's discrimination on the basis of sex, to ruling in the opposite way in subsequent rulings under other identical statutes. So people can change. They can change the way they approach the job. They can be convinced by their colleagues. So I can't say that everybody on the Court is coming in with their politics on their sleeves the same way that even the liberals. You call them the liberal justices. They're very different from one another jurisprudentially. I mean, we saw two. Two justices disagree over how much you consider legislative intent when you're ruling on a. They're all nine different people. I think you can change. So I don't know where that change is originating, but the Court is definitely changing. I think what's most important is that you keep an eye on the impact of these rulings, what they mean for the American people, what they mean for our democracy, as opposed to trying to figure out the politics of the individual justices. It's just my opinion.
- [72:00]
C
I am really looking forward to Kim's forthcoming biography of the Chief justice, John Roberts, letting his freak flag fly. It's a good one. Good one, sis.
- [72:15]
A
I'll get right on it.
- [72:18]
B
And there's one last question, and I'm going to take it. And it comes from, from Jennifer, who is in Milwaukee. And I want to say to my neighbor in Milwaukee that the question is a great one and it's very timely. The question is, what about the order to take Donald Trump's name off the Kennedy Center? And it's really timely because today the court said, no, you can't have a delay play. You have to take it off right away. Now, whether they will or won't, because the board had voted to bring an appeal of that order, we don't know. But I can't wait to see it happen. I think there's going to be a video of it that will be on a loop for all of us to watch over and over again. It certainly is an easy thing to remove it because it went up really fast, fast. And they don't have to destroy the letters. They can keep them in case they should win, which they should not win. And they won't win. But yeah, so that's a good question. And I hope we will all be witnessing the removal of Trump's addition to the Kennedy Center. Thank you for listening to Sisters in Law with Joyce Vance, Kimberly Atkins Storr, and me, Jill Wine Banks. If you if you enjoyed the podcast, please rate the show and send it to a friend. And be sure to follow SistersinLaw on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts so you never miss an episode. Join us every Saturday as we break down the biggest legal news of the week and analyze them for you. Then catch our companion show, Sisters side Bar, where we spend every Wednesday answering your questions. Shop for Sisters in law merch@politicon.com merch and follow us on Instagram at Sisters in Law Podcast and check out the special offers in this episode's notes from our sponsors, Mint Mobile, Delete Me, blueland, Helix, and Osea Malibu. See you next week with another episode of Sisters in Law.
- [74:38]
C
Kim, why does your chair say finish?
- [74:42]
B
Finish your chair?
- [74:44]
C
Is it just me your chair says finish on it?
- [74:47]
B
No, it's because that's what she's named herself finish in an hour.
- [74:51]
C
Oh, it looked like it was on your chair. It was so cute.