Loading summary
Transcript66 lines
- [00:02]
Acast Announcer
ACAST powers the World's Best Podcasts Here's a show that we recommend.
- [00:11]
Jameela Jamil
What if you laughed all through your commute? Or if you heard the funniest story while at the gym? Well, now you can. I'm Jameela Jamil and guests on my new podcast Wrong Turns share their most mortifying and hilarious disaster stories. I'm talking people like Mae Martin, Bob the Drag Queen, Catherine Ryan, Jake Johnson, Margaret Cho, Simon Pegg, Penn Badgle, and so many more. So listen wherever you get your podcast. Wrong Terms where dignity Goes to die
- [00:41]
Acast Announcer
ACAST helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcasts everywhere acast.com acast powers the world's best podcasts. Here's a show that we recommend
- [00:58]
Jameela Jamil
this
- [00:58]
Podcast Host (The Dream)
season on the Dream.
- [01:01]
Podcast Host (Podcast with Knox and Jamie)
Supplies are being provided by nurses who run out in the middle of the night and purchase diapers, but the hospital is still charging as if they still have these items.
- [01:10]
Podcast Host (The Dream)
We are digging into every topic we've ever wanted to cover on this show. It's a spinning plate analogy.
- [01:16]
Isaac Saul
The second that you stop spinning those plates, that crashes. So you can never stop working.
- [01:22]
Podcast Host (The Dream)
The Dream Season 4 comes at you weekly. Starting Monday, January 20,
- [01:29]
Acast Announcer
Acast helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast.com.
- [01:43]
Isaac Saul
From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle.
- [01:57]
Good morning, good afternoon, good afternoon, and good evening and welcome to the Tango Podcast, a place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host Isaac Sell, and on today's episode we're going to be talking about the SCOTUS birthright citizenship case. That's right, we had oral arguments yesterday over birthright citizenship before the Supreme Court. We're going to break down exactly what happened, share some views from the left and the right. And then my take it is Thursday, April 2nd. I'm here in the studio in Philadelphia and excited to be with you guys. Before we jump in, a quick promo for our SMS texting service, which we kind of had in full force this week. We were offering some instant analysis and feedback to some of the Supreme Court cases that were happening. We were keeping in touch with people over spring break when the newsletter and the podcast were off. We have an SMS Service. There's like 15,000 people on it or something like that. It's pretty fun. I think we're going to keep doing it. We text out original analysis polls to help decide what the topics are for the next day's newsletter or podcast. Behind the scenes stuff. And it's all right to your phone. If you'd be interested in that kind of thing, you can text tangle to 850-338-9163. That's tangle to 850-338- 9163. Or you can just click the link in today's episode description with that. I'm going to send it over to John for today's main topic and I'll be back for my take.
- [03:34]
John Law
Thanks Isaac and welcome everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, President Donald Trump delivered a national address Wednesday evening, calling the US Military's operation in Iran a success and saying it was very close to fulfilling its objectives. He suggested the war will continue for up to three weeks. Separately, President Trump said in an interview that he is strongly considering pulling the United States out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, expressing displeasure with member states refusal to support the US Military in Iran. Number two, Republican House and Senate leaders announced a plan to end the Department of Homeland Security shutdown by passing funding that excludes Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, later funding the agencies through the budget reconciliation process. They did not specify a timeline for a vote on the Appropriations bill. Number three, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration launched Artemis 2, a roughly 10 day lunar flyby mission from the Kennedy Space center in Florida. The four astronauts on board will travel the farthest any human has been from Earth if the mission goes according to plan. 4. The United States lifted sanctions on Venezuela's Acting President Delcey Rodriguez, enabling her to work more freely with American companies and investors. At number five, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reportedly declared a recent China linked cyber intrusion into an agency's surveillance system as a major incident, suggesting that hackers compromised sensitive data in the hack. The major incident determination denotes a significant risk to US national security.
- [05:15]
Isaac Saul
Back here now, the Supreme Court hearing arguments over the constitutionality of President Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. President Trump there in the chamber, face to face with the justices, most of them with sharp questions about his rationale.
- [05:29]
John Law
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a case challenging President Donald Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship. While a majority of justices seem skeptical of the Trump administration's argument that the order should be upheld, state several conservative justices appeared similarly unconvinced by the plaintiff's case. President Trump attended the arguments, a first for a sitting president, though he left before they concluded for context. On the first day of his second term, Trump signed an order saying that a child born in the US Will not get citizenship if their father is not a citizen or permanent resident and their mother is either in the country illegally or only there temporarily. The order was immediately challenged on the grounds that it violated the 14th Amendment. District judges in several states blocked the order, and appeals courts declined the government's requests to lift or narrow the injunctions. The Trump administration appealed the injunctions to the supreme court, which ruled six to three in June of 2025 that the lower courts exceeded their authority. In December 2025, the court agreed to consider a challenge to the merits of the order. The 14th Amendment citizenship clause reads all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state where reside. The Trump administration contends, among other points, that the Executive Order restores the original meaning of the amendment, which they claim was enacted to give citizenship to formerly enslaved people and their children, but should not apply to children whose parents are in the country illegally. The plaintiffs argue that the citizenship clause clearly confers citizenship to anyone born in the United States, noting that the drafters of the 14th Amendment did not specify any exceptions to the clause's language. A large portion of the oral argument centered on United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed the principle of birthright citizenship for almost everyone born on American soil, regardless of their parents status. Arguing for the Trump administration, U.S. solicitor General John D. Sauer suggested that a child's parents had to be legal residents to confer citizenship. Justice Neil Gorsuch, among others, questioned this argument, noting that the US did not have select immigration laws when the 14th Amendment was ratified. Cecilia Wang, who represented the challengers, argued the residence question in Wong Kim Ark was not relevant to the current case. Chief Justice John Roberts asked why the question of domicile a person's intended permanent home country should be ignored when it appeared 20 different times in the ruling, but Wang noted that the majority said six times that domicile is irrelevant under common law. Today we'll break down oral arguments in the case with views from the left and the right, and then Isaac's take.
- [08:20]
Isaac Saul
We'll be right back after this quick break.
- [08:26]
Jack Myers
Leadership used to mean having all the answers, but today's best leaders embody a more human approach.
- [08:31]
John Law
I'm Jack Myers.
- [08:32]
Jack Myers
And I'm Tim Spengler.
- [08:33]
John Law
Tim and I have spent our careers inside media, marketing and culture and we
- [08:38]
Jack Myers
partnered with the ACAST Creator Network to start Lead Human to answer one simple question. What does it really look like to lead in this AI dominated world?
- [08:47]
Isaac Saul
The biggest tip for being a creator?
- [08:49]
Russell Hey
It's a job.
- [08:50]
Nikayla Matthews Akome
What I learned from Michael Jackson. Here's a man who understands precision.
- [08:55]
Isaac Saul
It's about answering the questions that are hard, not about answering a bunch of teed up questions that are fake.
- [09:00]
Jack Myers
What we're looking for are real stories and practical advice that you can use with your teams right away.
- [09:06]
John Law
Subscribe to Lead Human with Jack Myers and Tim Spengler wherever you get your podcasts.
- [09:11]
Russell Hey
Hey listeners, meet Russell Hey. Russell just launched a fitness app and he needed to get the word out to busy professionals looking to stay fit.
- [09:19]
So I turned to acast. I used their Smart Recommendations feature to easily find shows that talk about health and fitness. Booking sponsorships through their platform was a breeze. And just like that, my app was in their ears during their morning run.
- [09:32]
Sounds like a smart move.
- [09:33]
John Law
Russell.
- [09:34]
Russell Hey
How's business looking now?
- [09:35]
Sweat is pouring and so are the installs.
- [09:37]
Spread the word about your business with podcast ads on Acast. Start today at go.acast.com advertise.
- [09:56]
John Law
All right, first, let's start with some agreement. Commentators on the left and the right think the Supreme Court will strike down the order, though perspectives vary on how they'll do so. And now for what the left is saying. The left expects the order to be struck down, noting conservative justices pushback on the administration's arguments. Some say the ruling could be another major Supreme Court loss for Trump. Others stress the relevance of court precedent. In Vox, Ian Millhiser wrote, even this Supreme Court seems unwilling to end birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment's subject to the jurisdiction rule primarily excludes the children of foreign ambassadors and similar foreign officials from U.S. citizenship because the families of diplomats often enjoy diplomatic immunity from U.S. law. Millhiser said Trump's attempt to expand this subject to the jurisdiction exception to include children of undocumented immigrants and people here on a temporary basis received a cold reception from nearly all of the justices. Similarly, after Sauer claimed that we live in a new world where pregnant foreign nationals allegedly enter the US to ensure that their child will be a US Citizen, Chief Justice John Roberts responded that it's a new world. It's the same Constitution. Justice Amy Coney Barrett offered a clever hypothetical exposing a contradiction in Sauer's legal argument. Millhiser wrote, Barrett asked about an enslaved person who was brought to the United States against their will, who always viewed themselves as a captive, and who never intended to remain in the US Under Sauer's domicile rule. She pointed out, this person could not be a citizen, even though Sauer CONCEDES that the 14th Amendment does give citizenship to freed slaves in the American prospect Robert Kutner explored Trump's losing streak in court. Chief Justice John Roberts observed to Solicitor General D. John Sauer that all of his attempts to extrapolate from rare situations where birthright citizenship did not apply were far fetched. Kutner said Justice Brett Kavanaugh reminded Sauer that Congress in 1940 and 1952 passed federal statutes codifying the language of the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause. Congress passed those laws, kavanaugh said, well aware of the interpretation and dating to the 1898 Supreme Court ruling that birthright citizenship applied to virtually everyone born on US Soil, Trump was in the front row of the gallery, the first sitting president to attend a Supreme Court argument. The justices did not acknowledge his presence, Kutner wrote. If the idea was that his personal attendance would somehow intimidate the justices, it didn't work. With each succeeding decision, most recently in its 63 ruling overturning Trump's use of emergency tariffs, a supposed emergency that Roberts ridiculed in his opinion, this court grows bolder and more explicit in its restraint of Trump. In the New York Times, Stephen I. Vladik said Trump will lose the birthright citizenship case, but in a way he already won. This has always been an open shut case under almost any approach to constitutional and statutory interpretation. What may get lost in the discussion of such an outcome is the uniquely twisted procedural path that this case took to the Supreme Court, one that along the way made it much harder for lower federal courts to block lawless executive action, vladeck wrote. Initially, the issue the justices took up was whether the three federal district courts that had blocked its implementation had exceeded their authority by having their rulings apply on a nationwide basis. In a 6:3 decision handed down in June, the Supreme Court's Republican appointees all said yes. In the nine months since the Supreme Court's ruling constraining nationwide injunctions, we've seen how difficult it has been to challenge everything from immigration detention to the conduct of federal agents in and around Minneapolis to the administration's summary cancellations of federal programs and grants authorized by Congress, vladec said. We must not lose sight of the opportunities the court won't have to rein in the administration when it overreaches and the court's own responsibility for creating such an increasingly dangerous reality. Alright, that is it for what the left is saying. Which brings us to what the right is saying. Many on the right support the Trump administration's arguments, but expect the court to strike the order down. Some say the conservative justices poked meaningful holes in the government's interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Others argue the court risks its legitimacy if it rules against Trump. In Fox News, Greg Jarrett described the court's posture as wary. Sauer was an impressive advocate with a masterful command of the law and history. However, he faced a level of skepticism from a majority of the court, which suggests that in the end, Trump's executive order may be struck down, jarrett wrote. Granted, divining an outcome based solely on oral arguments can be equivalent to reading tea leaves. The dynamic could change behind closed doors and upon further deliberations, but it cannot be overlooked that even conservative justices at the hearing posed penetrating questions that seemed to manifest their doubt. Sauer quoted Senator Lyman Trumbull, a moving force behind the 14th Amendment, who specifically stated that the citizenship clause does not encompass individuals still subject to any foreign power or owing allegiance to anybody else, jarrett said. However, the justices seemed unmoved by the notion that citizenship should not apply to the children of people who broke the law coming here and have no permission to be in the U.S. in National Review, Dan McLaughlin wrote no big surprises at the birthright citizenship argument. Oral argument has a way of narrowing disputes. On the one hand, Sauer conceded that he is not asking the court to overturn Wong Kim Ark, which significantly limits the swing for the Fence's appeal of his argument for those who think that the case was wrongly reasoned from the start, McLaughlin said. On the other hand, while Kavanaugh and a few other justices asked questions about the statutory argument, there seemed to be little appetite for using that as an excuse to avoid the constitutional questions. The move that Sauer makes to turn lawful domicile into the test for who is subject to US Jurisdiction by saying that illegal aliens lack the legal capacity to form legal residence. Here is a modern engraftment onto the 1866-68 debates, which discuss nothing of the sort, McLaughlin wrote. In fact, as Justice Barrett noted, if we move from domicile to a theory focused on legal competence to form an allegiance, we should get into some of the logic followed by those of the antebellum defenders of Dred Scott, who argued that slaves had no legal capacity to be citizens. The odds of there being five votes for the administration's entire position without even overturning Wong Kim Ark appear pretty distant in the Federalists. Brecken F. Thiess said the court upholds birthright citizenship at its own peril. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of this view, allowing any foreigner circumstantially or intentionally born on US Soil to be automatically adopted into the Union as a citizen, it will mean the end of actual American citizens taking the high court seriously, thies wrote. As Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out, the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to black people and freed slaves after the Civil War. Making the point further, Thomas asked how much of the debates around the 14th Amendment had anything to do with immigration. Sauer's introduction of the issue on birth tourism led to a potentially telling exchange with Chief Justice John Roberts, where Roberts asked about birth tourism's prominence. Thieves said Roberts has consistently postured himself as the Chief justice most intent on preserving the institution of the Supreme Court. That is what makes his line of questioning both confusing and concerning, because it suggests he believes the proper constitutional interpretation of the 14th Amendment would continue to allow these birthright farms to send foreigners to the United States so their babies can receive rubber stamp citizenship. Alright, let's head over to Isaac for his take.
- [17:41]
Isaac Saul
All right. That is it for the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. It's a new world, but it's the same Constitution. When Chief Justice John Roberts delivered that line, the Court's decision became obvious. The Trump administration will likely lose the case at least 7 to 2, with both justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas in the minority. I'm actually not sure where Alito will land, so it could be 8 to 1. It could even be 90 if they focus exclusively on whether an executive order can override the 14th amendment. Though most court watchers believe Alito is going to be in the minority and vote to end birthright citizenship. Fundamentally, I never thought the Trump administration had a shot here. The 14th Amendment's language is direct all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and and of the states wherein they reside. All persons is pretty clear cut and the one qualifier subject to US Jurisdiction had a very direct purpose that was well understood at the time and has been well understood since. It was designed to provide citizenship to slaves, but to exclude children of foreign diplomats or children of enemy soldiers from becoming U.S. citizens simply by being born here. It was also meant as a carve out for Native American tribes who did not pay taxes and did not want to live under US Law. To this day, ambassadors and their families can live on US Soil but have diplomatic immunity and no allegiance to their home country and their children do not become citizens if they are born here. The Indian Citizenship act of 1924 later resolved the question about Native Americans, granting them full status as American citizens and full protection of the law. Lastly, we're not at war with an invading country. So the question of enemy soldiers having children here is moot. Credit to Solicitor General John D. Sauer, who had the nearly impossible task of arguing Trump's case but came prepared with some arguments that clearly engaged the court. His arguments are stronger than many critics allow, and history is replete with anomalies about the 14th Amendment that demand further inquiry. Sauer pulled quotes from late 19th century politicians who defined subject to US jurisdiction as having some kind of allegiance to the United States. He also attempted to argue that 130 years of legal understanding of United States v. Wong Kim arc, the 1898 Supreme Court case where the Court affirmed the citizenship of a child born to Chinese immigrants, was wrong, all while he refrained from asking the Court to overturn that ruling. Rather than offering citizenship for anyone born here to noncitizens, with exceptions for enemy soldiers and foreign diplomats, Sauer argued that the case's description of domiciled meant that someone in the country illegally had to be permanent residence with full allegiance to the United States for their children to be granted citizenship. Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that even Wang's parents did not have full allegiance to the United States. But Saar never actually defined and wasn't asked to define how he would measure or gauge allegiance under such a test. Still, he seemed to argue that the circumstances of Wong's life were the only circumstances the Court greenlit, and precedent didn't apply to every person born on US Soil. Putting aside the fact that no court or legislative body has ever interpreted the 14th Amendment or the ruling this way, Justice Amy Coney Barrett engaged Sauer on his terms. She asked him about a person brought to America as a slave who viewed themselves as a captive and never intended to stay there. She asked him about a person brought to America as a slave who viewed themselves as a captive and never intended to stay here. Under Sauer's framework, this person's child could not be a citizen, Even though the 14th amendment was specifically designed to give such a person citizenship. Sauer struggled to navigate the hypothetical. Traditionally speaking, subject to the jurisdiction thereof has been understood to mean bound by US Laws. Sauer's interpretation suggests that children of immigrants are not subject to US Jurisdiction and therefore not bound by our laws. As Vox's Ian Millhiser pointed out, under what the left is saying, that would mean the federal government could not deport them even if they were in this country illegally, nor could they arrest them if they committed a crime. The idea makes no sense. When Trump issued this executive order, Reagan appointed Judge with more than 40 years on the bench, immediately struck it down, saying he couldn't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one. The justices at times seemed similarly gobsmacked, though far more measured. Justice Brett Kavanaugh spent his time questioning Cecilia Wang, the ACL lawyer representing the challengers, by effectively asking her how she might want the court to strike the order down. Justice Elena Kagan criticized Sauer's argument as drawing on obscure, out of context quotes, while Chief Justice John Roberts said his reading was quirky. And Justice Neil Gorsuch gently suggested Sauer may not want to rely on Wong Kim Ark, the very case that has for 130 years affirmed US citizenship for anyone born on US soil. Of course, I think the Trump administration is right that Congress and the states were not exclusively, specifically, or even political partially considering the question of illegal immigration or birth tourism when they ratified the 14th amendment. Illegal immigration didn't exist then, as we had actual open borders. The law didn't account for someone crossing the border, claiming asylum, giving birth to a child, and having that child become an American citizen. Nor did statutes anticipate navigating multimillion dollar birth tourism companies. It wouldn't be the worst thing for the Court to consider how to carve out some of those specific, more nefarious means of gaining citizenship. And yet that sounds much more like a job for Congress than anyone else. These unintended consequences are true of all manner of rights and amendments. When Congress ratified the Second Amendment, they anticipated local governments maintaining well regulated militias, not individuals building up entire armories in their basements. To anyone who wants to argue against it, the refrain is you have to pass an amendment. The same counterpoint applies here. The 1868 Congress wasn't attempting to greenlight birth tourism or mass migration, but they didn't pass the 14th amendment to limit it either. Both ideas are equally absurd. So we're left with the actual text of the amendment, which is that anyone born here is a US Citizen with very limited and narrow exceptions. That's the rule of law, and if we don't like it, we can elect people to change it. It's a new world, but it's the same Constitution. While Sauer and Trump do clearly seem destined for a loss here, the Court did briefly consider what might happen if they won. The open questions this produced made the practicality of radically altering the understood meaning of the 14th Amendment so fraught as to be nearly impossible. When a woman gives birth, would she have to immediately provide proof of citizenship? And who would be responsible for confirming it. If someone didn't have that documentation, would we start trying to measure their intent to domicile or allegiance to the United States? How would allegiance be defined? And also, what if a presidential administration said it wanted to apply this standard retroactively? Would we then start revoking citizenship? On the advisory opinions podcast, Sarah Isker had a funny exchange with her co host David French, where she wondered aloud if her own citizenship would hold up. She wasn't sure her Irish immigrant ancestors ever got actual citizenship before having children. Much about this, from the early executive order to Sauer's reinterpretation of long held views to the practical implications, seems so far fetched as as to produce a foregone conclusion. It won't end the immigration debate, but it should put to bed any questions about what the 14th Amendment actually means. We'll be right back after this quick break.
- [25:36]
Acast Announcer
ACAST Powers the World's Best Podcasts Here's a show that we recommend.
- [25:44]
Jamie (Podcast with Knox and Jamie)
Do you like being educated on things that entertain but don't matter? Well, then you need to be listening to the Podcast with Knox and Jamie Every Wednesday we put together an episode dedicated to delightful idiocy to give your brain a break from all the serious and important stuff.
- [25:56]
Podcast Host (Podcast with Knox and Jamie)
Whether we're deep diving a classic movie, dissecting the true meanings behind the newest slang, or dunking on our own listeners for their bad takes or cringy stories, we always approach our topics with humor and just a little bit of side eye. And we end every episode with recommendations on all the best new movies, books, TV shows or music.
- [26:12]
Jamie (Podcast with Knox and Jamie)
To find out more, just search up the Podcast with Knox and Jamie. Wherever you listen to podcasts and prepare to make Wednesday your new favorite day
- [26:18]
Nikayla Matthews Akome
of the week,
- [26:23]
Acast Announcer
ACAST helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast.com
- [26:32]
Isaac Saul
oh no, my coffee.
- [26:34]
Bronnie here new brawny 3 ply is now more absorbent.
- [26:40]
Wow, got a clean shirt.
- [26:41]
Acast Announcer
Do you wear plaid?
- [26:44]
Isaac Saul
Some of the strongest. All right, that is it for my take. Which brings us to your questions answered. This one is from Debnath in Oakland, California. Debnath said, I was wondering if there is some concrete data out there that helps us compare the effect of deployment of National Guard troops in our cities on crime reduction now that the troops are being withdrawn. It'll help check if things become safer before versus, during and possibly verse after. Okay, so tough one. First of all, yes, we have some preliminary data for several of these cities. And as a reminder, President Trump deployed the National Guard to address crime in five cities in 2025. Washington, D.C. portland, Oregon, Memphis, Tennessee, Chicago, Illinois and New Orleans, Louisiana. The administration also deployed troops to Los Angeles in June, but their deployment was in direct response to violent protests in the city, not to address crime, and the Guard was ordered withdrawn in July. The withdrawal in Los Angeles was completed in January, and guardsmen in Portland and Chicago were limited to protecting DHS facilities and quickly withdrawn. So for the purposes of your question, I think we should only consider D.C. memphis and New Orleans in this analysis before we provide any before or after statistics on these cities. I have three points of caution. First, we don't have enough information to say that any changes in crime rates here are caused by deployments. Any number of factors could be driving these numbers one way or the other. Second, these figures only represent a small span of time. Troops have not been in these cities for very long, so the effect of their presence may be muted. And the National Guard is prohibited from arresting citizens, so they can only assist other agents, further dulling their potential effect. Third, it should definitely be noted that crime rates were already trending down in many of these cities before deployment, so we should not try to analyze these numbers in isolation for context. From 2023 to 2025, homicides declined by 54% in DC, 47% in Memphis and 54% in New Orleans. With that said, here is the most up to date data in Washington, D.C. since August. Year to date data through April 2 shows 12 murders compared to 34 during the same period last year, a 65% decrease. The city also had a 21 day homicide free streak in January, the longest in nearly 30 years. Separately, assault with the dangerous weapon crimes are up 32%. Next up is Memphis in January 2026. Part one crimes, that's serious offenses were down 48% compared to January 2025. That's 3,709 incidents down to 1,908. Finally, New Orleans as of March 27, 2026, murders were down 29% compared to the same point in 2025. So that's the data. I mean, honestly, great data here. In most big cities right now, crime is down everywhere, but tying it to the National Guard deployments is pretty hard. All right, that's it for my take and your questions answered. I'm gonna send it back to John for the rest of the pod and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace.
- [30:02]
John Law
Hey folks, we're trying out some new section offerings and this week we're doing a section called the Road Not Taken. Which offers a peek behind the curtains at Tangle's editorial process, highlighting one story from the week that we almost covered as a main topic and an explanation for why we ultimately chose another. This week, the Tangle team considered covering the Supreme Court's decision on conversion talk therapy in Chiles v. Salazar. The court sided eight to one with a Colorado counselor's challenge to a law barring therapy intended to change a person's sexual orientation or gender expression, finding that the law regulates speech based on viewpoint and that lower courts did not apply sufficient scrutiny during review. We ultimately decided the importance of the recent oral arguments on mail in ballots and birthright citizenship superseded covering the child's decision, since we had covered oral arguments in the case in October. As our staff expected then, the Supreme Court ultimately didn't reject the Colorado law on the merits. It sent the case back to the lower courts. You can check out our original coverage of Chiles with a link in today's episode description and last but not least, our have a nice day story. On March 21, Coloradans Emma Stasko and Logan Bonn found themselves stranded on a remote beach in the Hawaiian island of Oahu during a severe flood. The pair had planned to leave the beach earlier in the day, but lost the keys to their rental car and weren't able to find help before the storm began. They turned to one of the oldest tricks in the book writing SOS in the sand. A helicopter crew assessing the damage from the storm saw the message and mobilized rescue crews, which quickly reached Stasko and Bonn and brought them to safety. SF Gate has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. Alright everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, Please go to readtangle.com where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundled membership that gets you a discount on both. Issac, Ari and Camille will be here with the suspension of the Rules podcast tomorrow and I will be back next week. For the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have an absolutely fantastic weekend, y'. All. Peace.
- [32:10]
Isaac Saul
Our Executive Editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our Executive producer is John Wall. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman with Senior Editor Will Kaback and Associate Editors Audrey Moorhead, Lindsey Knuth and Bailey Saul. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website@retangle.com.
- [32:50]
Acast Announcer
ACAST powers the world's best Podcasts Here's a show that we recommend.
- [32:58]
Nikayla Matthews Akome
If you've ever dreamed of quitting your job to take your side hustle full time, listen up. This is Nikayla Matthews Akome, host of side Hustle Pro, a podcast that helps you build and grow from passion project to profitable business. Every week you'll hear from guests just like you who wanted to start a business on the side. And if you can't run a side hustle, you can't run a business. They share real tips and so I
- [33:19]
Podcast Host (Podcast with Knox and Jamie)
started connecting with all these people on LinkedIn and I saw target supplier diversity was having office hours.
- [33:24]
Nikayla Matthews Akome
Real advice.
- [33:25]
Podcast Host (The Dream)
Procrastination is the easiest form of resistance
- [33:29]
Nikayla Matthews Akome
and the actual strategies they use to turn their side hustle into their main hustle. Getting back in touch with your tangible cash and sitting down and learning to give your money a job like it changes something. Check outside Hustle Pro every week on your favorite podcast app and YouTube.
- [33:48]
Acast Announcer
Acast helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast.com
- [33:57]
Isaac Saul
oh no, my coffee.
- [33:59]
Bronnie here new brawny 3 ply is now more absorbent. Wow.
- [34:05]
Podcast Host (The Dream)
Got a clean shirt.
- [34:06]
Acast Announcer
Do you wear plaid?
- [34:09]
Isaac Saul
Some of the strongest
- [34:13]
Acast Announcer
ACAST powers the world's best podcasts. Here's a show that we recommend.
- [34:21]
Podcast Host (The Dream)
Chicago 2011. A cop is murdered. Police and prosecutors swear they have the trigger man. He swears he didn't do it. How far will each side go to prove they're right?
- [34:34]
Isaac Saul
Like it's just one bombshell after another. You know, you're like, what? What?
- [34:39]
Podcast Host (The Dream)
The story of a PlayStation, a brain eating amoeba and the relentless pursuit of justice. Off duty. Out now listen wherever you get your podcasts.
- [34:53]
Acast Announcer
Acast helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcast everywhere. Acas.com.