Loading summary
Transcript32 lines
- [00:00]
John Law
Why choose a Sleep Number Smart bed?
- [00:02]
Isaac Saul
Can I make my sight softer?
- [00:03]
John Law
Can I make my site firmer? Can we sleep cooler?
- [00:07]
Lindsay Knuth
Sleep Number does that cools up to.
- [00:09]
John Law
Eight times faster and lets you choose your ideal comfort on either side your Sleep Number setting Enjoy personalized comfort for better sleep night after night. It's our Black Friday sale, recharged this season with a bundle of cozy, soothing comfort. Now only $17.99 for our C2 mattress and base plus free premium delivery price is higher in Alaska and Hawaii. Check it out at a Sleep number store or sleepnumber.com today. Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows home so you don't have to don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin or what that.
- [00:39]
Lindsay Knuth
Clunking sound from your dryer is.
- [00:41]
John Law
With thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro, you just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app.
- [00:49]
Lindsay Knuth
Download today.
- [00:51]
John Law
Hi, this is Joe from Vanta.
- [00:53]
Lindsay Knuth
In today's digital world, compliance regulations are changing constantly and earning customer trust has never mattered more. Vanta helps companies get compliant fast and stay secure with the most advanced AI automation and continuous monitoring out there.
- [01:06]
John Law
So whether you're a startup going for.
- [01:07]
Lindsay Knuth
Your first SoC2 or ISO 27001 or a growing enterprise managing vendor risk, Vanta makes it quick, easy and scalable. And I'm not just saying that because I work here. Get started@vanta.com.
- [01:25]
Isaac Saul
From executive producer Isaac Saul.
- [01:28]
John Law
This is Tang.
- [01:40]
Lindsay Knuth
Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening and welcome to the Dangle 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 Saul, and on today's episode we're going to be talking about the passport case surrounding sex identifiers and some trans issues that was before the Supreme Court last week. It was actually a request from the Trump administration that the Supreme Court granted to pause a lower court ruling on the shadow docket in Trump v. Or we are going to talk about exactly what happened and then share some views from the left and the right. And then today Lindsay Knuth, our associate editor, is actually making her debut on the pod. I think I think it's her debut or it's definitely her first take. She's written and I think Audrey is gonna have a dissent as well. So it's an exciting day and my voice a little bit in the background. Before we jump in a quick heads up that tomorrow we're doing a massive reader listener mailbag. So every few months our stack of reader and listener questions get so big that we have to do a mailbag to address them all. Tomorrow is one of those days. We have been poring over emails and submissions for a few weeks and building out a big reader mailbag edition to address your inquiries and criticisms. We're going to be releasing that edition as a newsletter and a podcast tomorrow, so keep your ears out for that. As always, the Friday stuff typically members only, so if you want to listen to the full mailbag you'll need to become a member. And a quick reminder that a membership to the podcast or the newsletter or our bundle. It gets you ad free podcasts and members only content on the podcast. So it's really, really, really worth it in my opinion. And if you're interested in that, you can go to readtangle.com membership and become a subscriber. All right, with that, I'm gonna send it over to John for today's main story. Lindsay will be here for my take and I'll be back for your questions answered.
- [03:48]
John Law
Thanks Isaac and welcome everybody. Here are your quick hit first up, President Donald Trump signed a funding bill passed by Congress to end the government shutdown after 43 days. The House voted 222 to 209 to pass the bill on Wednesday evening, with six Democrats voting to approve it. Number two, House Democrats released several emails that appear to show sex offender Jeffrey Epstein describing Donald Trump spending hours at Epstein's house with a woman later revealed as one of Epstein's victims. Later on Wednesday, House Republicans released a trove of 20,000 emails, including some that showed Epstein writing disparagingly about Trump. President Trump called the suggestion that he was involved in Epstein's crimes a hoax. Number three, Ukraine's energy and justice ministers resigned after the country's Anti Corruption bureau reported that they may be implicated in a $100 million kickback scheme involving the state nuclear operator. Four, Treasury Secretary Scott Besant suggested the Trump administration plans to reduce tariffs on coffee, bananas and other foods not grown in United States to address rising costs for consumers. And number five, President Trump sent a letter to Israeli President Isaac Herzog asking him to pardon Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on corruption charges, writing that the prime minister's attention cannot be unnecessarily diverted by a trial amid efforts to maintain peace in the Middle East.
- [05:18]
Isaac Saul
Breaking news tonight, the Supreme Court out with this ruling on the Trump administration and passports. They're now saying that the Trump administration can force people to ID themselves on passports based on their sex at birth, meaning male or female would be the only options. Critics tonight call that a major blow to transgender rights. The court writing in the order that displaying passport holders sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth. In both cases, they write, the government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.
- [05:50]
John Law
On Thursday, November 6, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration's request to temporarily pause a lower court ruling to allow transgender and non binary Americans to self select their sex when applying for a passport. The decision was issued through the court's emergency docket and was unsigned, though Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented and was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. For context. On January 20, President Trump issued an executive order declaring that the United States government would only recognize two sexes, male and female, and that these sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality. The order required the State Department to require that government issued identification documents, including passports, visas and global entry cards, accurately reflect the holder's sex. In previous decades, the State Department allowed passport applicants to select a sex opposite from the one assigned at birth, and the Biden administration added the option X for those identifying as non binary or intersex. A group of transgender and non binary individuals challenged Trump's executive order, alleging that it violated their right to equal treatment under the Constitution, their right to international travel and informational privacy, and federal law for administrative agencies. In April, Judge Julia E. Kobick ruled that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their challenge and ordered the administration to issue passports that reflected their gender identity. Last Thursday's Supreme Court decision stays Kobic's ruling and allows the Trump administration to proceed with its policy. Displaying passport holders sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth. In both cases, the government is merely attesting to an historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment. In her dissent, Justice Jackson said that the court was wrong to issue an emergency stay while the case proceeds through the courts. The government seeks to enforce a questionably legal new policy immediately, but it offers no evidence that it will suffer any harm if it is temporarily enjoined from doing so, while the plaintiffs will be subject to imminent concrete injury if the policy goes into effect, she wrote. Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the plaintiffs, criticized the court's decision. This is a heartbreaking setback for the freedom of all people to be themselves and fuel on the fire. The Trump administration is stoking against transgender people and their constitutional rights, aclu attorney John Davidson said. Attorney General Pam Bondi welcomed the ruling. Writing on X today's state allows the government to require citizens to list their biological sex on their passport. In other words, there are two sexes, and our attorneys will continue to fight for that simple truth. Today, we'll share views from the right and the left on the court's decision. Then Associate Editor Lindsay Knuth will give her take.
- [08:36]
Isaac Saul
Foreign.
- [08:41]
Lindsay Knuth
We'Ll be right back after this quick break. If you're like me, instead of learning to skateboard, you wish you were learning to write code. Instead of scraping through college, you wish you bought Bitcoin at less than a cent or secured a few Nvidia shares before they boomed. We might beat the FOMO generation, but don't miss out on protecting your future. For around the same price per month as one of your streaming services, you can break our generational cycle and secure your and your family's future by finding life insurance@SelectQuote.com if you're new to life insurance or it's your first time hearing about the idea, you're not alone. I found Selectquote and for over 40 years, SelectQuote has helped more than 2 million Americans understand their options and get the coverage they need. Over $700 billion in coverage and counting. The good news is life insurance is never cheaper than it is today. Get the right life insurance for you for less and save more than 50%@SelectQuote.com tangle save more than 50% on term life insurance@SelectQuote.com tangle today to get started, that's SelectQuote.com tangle cold mornings holiday Plans this is when I want my wardrobe to just be simple stuff that looks sharp, feels good and things I'll actually wear. For me, that's quince. And the bonus quince pieces make great gifts too. This season's lineup is simple but smart and Easy with quints. $50 Mongolian cashmere sweaters that feel like an everyday luxury. I bought one of these. It's incredible. Honestly. Sometimes doing these host red ads can be a little bit of a drag, but this is one of the brands that I am really proud to support. Support Quince material is just top of the line, so if you want to give and get timeless holiday staples that last this season with Quince, go to quince.comtangle for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns that's now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.comtangle free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.comtangle.
- [10:58]
John Law
All right, first up, let's start with what the right is saying. Many on the right see the outcome as an extension of the court's prior rulings on the rights of transgender individuals. Some say the passport order is pragmatic, not discriminatory. Others argue it is improper for the court to weigh in on the intent behind these policies. On his website, Jonathan Turley wrote about the major opinion on transgender identity and the Trump passport policy. While a brief, unsigned opinion issued on the interim docket, it represents a major ruling on the constitutional protections afforded to transgender individuals, turley said. I previously discussed the Supreme Court's upholding of a Texas ban on transgender medical treatments for adolescents. One of the most notable aspects of this decision was the concurrence of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, rejecting the claim that transgender status qualifies as a group entitled to heightened scrutiny under the Constitution. While that was a concurrence with only Justice Thomas, I wrote at the time that the concurrence likely speaks to the view of three or four other members on the court. It now appears that it clearly did represent the majority's view, turley wrote. The opinion substantially reinforced Barrett's earlier position. While the government had the advantage of a case in an area where considerable deference is given to executive decision making, the underlying equal protection holding is a major setback for advocates seeking to establish transgender status as protected in the same way as race or religion in Red State. Brad Essex called the ruling a necessary return to reality. Passports have included sex markers since the mid-1970s, a convention rooted in the binary reality of human biology. Early changes required medical documentation, a nod to genuine medical transitions. But under President Biden in 2021, that threshold vanished, ushering in an era where anyone could opt for an X marker without evidence, essex said. That isn't discrimination, it's consistency. The government's interest in clear, uniform identification for international travel, where borders demand certainty, not ambiguity, outweighs the demands of a vocal minority. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent warns of an immediate infliction of injury, citing transgender travelers, fears of harassment at airports, tales of strip searches and accusations of fraud that, while harrowing, stem from mismatched documents, not the documents themselves, essex wrote. These stories are designed to tug at the heart, but they evade the core issue. Passports are not therapy sessions. They are tools for secure passage, and blurring biological distinctions invites chaos from heightened security risks to diplomatic tangles abroad. In Reason, Josh Blackmon explored the many merits analysis within the ruling. The court wrote, respondents have failed to establish that the government's choice to display biological sex lacks any purpose other than a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group. The omission of internal quotation marks here is significant. That quotation came from Justice Brennan's opinion in Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, a decision that Justice Kennedy cited in Roemer, Lawrence and Windsor. That one passage was the fountainhead of so many flawed precedents, Blackmun said, I faulted Justice Barrett for citing this aspect of Trump v. Hawaii in her scurmetti concurrence, and I will fault the per curiam court for citing Trump versus Hawaii in the passport case. This mode of constitutional adjudication should be jettisoned. Political majorities can disadvantage politically unpopular groups unless there is a constitutional prohibition. California Democrats can gerrymander Republicans out of power, and Louisiana Republicans can gerrymander Democrats out of power, or at least they should be able to, blackmun wrote. Courts should not perform what McCreery county referred to as judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter's heart of hearts. Judges are textualists, not mentalists. Alright, that is it for what the right is saying. Which brings us to what the left is saying. The left strongly criticizes the decision, with many arguing it was not appropriate for the court's emergency docket. Some say the ruling will create immediate risks for trans people. Others say the government's stated rationale for the policy is nonsensical. The ruling provides an unusually accessible example of two of the problematic moves a majority of the justices keep making with respect to Trump related emergency applications and no others. The assertion, without any deep analytical support, that the lower court ruling at issue is inflicting irreparable harm on the executive branch and the refusal to seriously consider whether that harm is more than outweighed by the harm it would cause to put the blocked policy back into effect, vladek said. Beyond being the 24th consecutive grant of emergency relief to the Trump administration, the cryptic ruling in Orr is a reminder of just how bankrupt the court's proffered justifications are in these cases. In a case like this one, where the plaintiff's central substantive claims both come from the equal protection principles required by the Fifth Amendment's due process Clause, it is thus doubly inappropriate to treat a district court injunction as necessarily inflicting irreparable harm on the executive branch. Vladigrut One could believe that the government is harmed and still think that the harms in the other direction are sufficiently serious to justify leaving the district court's injunction in place. But for the Supreme Court and emergency applications from the Trump administration, the rules are just different. In Aaron in the Morning, Erin Reid criticized the shadow docket ruling. The ruling leaves transgender people who obtained updated passports under the prior policy in limbo and all transgender travelers facing profound uncertainty as the administration now weighs further actions against their documents under a court that has signaled it is willing to greenlight those efforts, reid said. In prior rulings, judges noted obvious harms forcing transgender people to travel with documents that outs them, exposes them to violence and imprisonment in countries hostile to their existence. Judges also noted the daily risks at home outing and interactions using their passport as identification, harassment, denial of services in this new shadow docket ruling, the conservative court has determined with virtually no analysis, that the policy did not stem from animus towards transgender people and was not arbitrary and capricious in violation of the apa, reid wrote. With the court signaling that transgender people may receive no meaningful equal protection scrutiny, states may have wide latitude to pass discriminatory laws with little fear of judicial intervention. In Bloomberg, Stephen L. Carter said the court failed the logic test on transgender passports. We're not talking about which pronouns to use or which young athletes should be permitted to compete in women's sports. Issues, despite the fury they evoke, can be matters on which reasonable minds may differ. We're talking instead about decisions made by mature adults, carter wrote. If we take the government at its word that the requirement to use the gender on the birth certificate is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment, then the policy is inside out. Knowing what's on the traveler's birth certificate yields little information that helps identify the traveler today. Consider an analogy. If upon marriage, a traveler's surname changes, the passport not only can but should reflect the change, the reason is to aid in identification. It would be silly to require, when all the traveler's other identity documents contain the new surname, that the passport retained the surname given at birth. That would make the document less accurate, not more, carter said. The larger point is that the rules allowing transgender individuals to choose the sex marker most consistent with their identity helped rather than hindered the purpose for which the passport exists to identify the bearer. Alright, let's head over to Lindsey for her take.
- [18:44]
Isaac Saul
This is Associate Editor Lindsay Knuth, and this is my take. Since President Trump issued the executive order at the center of this case on Inauguration Day, I've been keeping an eye out for the supreme court to weigh in on a legal challenge. Sure enough, in a four paragraph decision last week, the court's majority summarily discarded a 56 page ruling from a federal court barring the implementation of this passport policy, a second federal court order, and three decades of existing practice. I won't feign surprise at the direction of the outcome, but I was frankly appalled by the majority's curt treatment of the case. The court framed its emergency ruling as a cut and dry win for the government without any regard to the harms the policy would impose on an extremely vulnerable group of citizens. Notably, this case came to the court through its increasingly utilized shadow docket after a class action lawsuit brought by a group of transgender citizens garnered an injunction from a US District judge in Massachusetts. Since it was considering granting an injunction for a policy that might be unlawful, the court needed to be extra cautious and apply a rigorous set of first, the likelihood of success on the merits, second, the likelihood of irreparable harm absent an injunction third, the balancing of harms to each party and fourth, the public interest. When the government appealed the stay to the Supreme Court, the justices had to apply that same balance of equities test again to reverse the judge's order, they had to determine that the government faced irreparable and more harm in not being able to immediately implement this policy than the people who claimed their constitutional rights were affected by the new required sex at birth designation. In other words, the court had a very high bar to clear, and honestly, I don't think it came close. What immediate harm to the government could the temporary prevention of this policy cause if people who have already changed the sex on their passports are entitled to keep them until their expirations, which is as long as a decade away. The majority's explanation was brief, asserting that the government will experience, quote, a form of irreparable injury due to foreign affairs implications. The court determined these implications were severe enough to supersede US Citizens Equal Protection Clause concerns, so I want to give as much credence to that explanation as possible. However, it's difficult to do so when the majority and the commentary supporting it has offered no evidence that a mismatch between a person's assigned sex at birth an identifier on their passport could pose a security threat. On the other hand, the harm in removing the ability to change one's listed sex is much more immediate. And I think District Court Judge Julia Kobick was right to block Trump's policy as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. US Citizens are guaranteed the right to equal protection under laws. And this policy, as Judge Kobik notes, violates that guarantee by expressing a, quote, irrational prejudice toward transgender and non binary Americans. These small groups make up around 1% of the US population, and they're directly targeted under a policy that deems their identities inchoate and corrosive. Also, by requiring those groups to travel with documents that don't list their preferred sex, Kobik found the policy directly implicates their right to freedom of travel. Some plaintiffs in the case were accused of presenting fake identification, while others say they were sexually assaulted. Unlike age or height or national origin, if a person's listed gender or sex on their government documents doesn't match their gender identity, studies have shown they're at greater risk for psychological distress. That distress is understandable when you hear the stories a policy like this produces. First person reports and surveys have reported harassment, assault, or denial of services when a person's identification did not match their gender expression. I'm not transgender or non binary, but I've found that a little empathy and compassion can go a long way when trying to imagine what it might be like to have a government document that discords with the gender you present to the world. Legal scholar Vikram David Amar sees the majority's argument as centering on government speech. Here, the information on a passport against which private individuals, in this case transgender and non binary people, are compelling their own messages. But just like individual speech, government expression has limits. Imagine, Amar says, if government forms and passports capture race in a binary white, non white way, lumping all non whites together and characterizing them as different from whites. In Loving v. Virginia, 1967, the court unanimously found that this exact collapse was a central violation of the Equal Protection Clause even if it was equally applied while or doesn't cover a racial classification or trigger strict scrutiny. I think Loving's framework offers context for why the new passport requirements, even if, quote, equally applied, factual government classifications, can cause harm to the more vulnerable group. Before going on to find the policy violated the Equal Protection Clause twice, Judge Kobik noted that the Supreme Court has invalidated on rational basis review government actions that burdened, quote, historically disadvantaged or unpopular groups when the government justification for its actions seemed thin, unsupported, or impermissible apart from harm to individuals. It seems like requiring sex assigned at birth versus presented or identified sex is simply a bad policy for a document whose utility rests on aiding airport workers and Border Patrol agents in actually identifying people. As the New York Times M. Gessen rightly points out, if a person identifies as a woman and appears to be a woman to the agents and has her sex under the policy. The passport wouldn't even say sex at birth listed as M. Wouldn't that foment confusion and inefficiency? After all, your biological sex distinguishes you from roughly half the population, while markers like height, weight, eye color, and date of birth are more identifiable. A counterargument could be that these markers are also subject to change, but these characteristics have a key difference. No class of citizens are vulnerable to the types of harms described above from, say, a mismatch between their natural and current hair color. It is true that the restrictions on sex self identification on government documents have meaningfully loosened in the past few decades. In 2010, President Obama revoked the Bush era requirement for medical proof of reassignment surgery and President Biden added the X classification for sex in 2021. I think the fluidity of these rules is actually indicative of just how unhelpful sex is as an identifier in the first place. Dividing Americans into male or female hardly narrows down the person a TSA agent might be looking at. And an admittedly radical sounding proposition here is that we don't need sex on passports at all, especially not in an era of biometric identifiers or when someone's ID has their hair color, eye color, height, national origin, and other far more specific and helpful demarcations. Of course, I don't expect this administration to abandon sex identifiers on passports, and I understand why some people are reticent to make selecting one sex on their government ID as easy as checking a box. Yet the harms in adding friction to the process vastly outweigh the risks in making it seamless, both as a policy solution and in a legal sense. I'm left thinking that the court's decision is not about foreign affairs implications at all, but about what President Trump said in the text of his executive order the gender ideology that transgender and non binary people express, posing a quote, corrosive and socially coercive threat to the entire American system. That is the framework that underlies the government's argument. And when the court fails to expound on the litmus test they've set for themselves and their decisions, I'm not convinced they aren't simply tipping the balance of harms to favor the executive branch. For now, the class action suit remains alive in Massachusetts, where the lower courts seem poised to side with the plaintiffs and find the policy unlawful. If they do, the government will likely appeal the case again to the Supreme Court, who could accept or decline to hear the appeal. But with the decision it has just handed down, the court's majority has pretty clearly signaled it has made up its mind already. At this point, the prospect of them striking down Trump's policy on the merits seems dim. Now I'm going to pass it off to a dissent by my fellow associate editor, Audrey Moorhead. This is Associate Editor Audrey Moorhead with a staff dissent. While I think Lindsay is addressing the real thorniness of this issue, I disagree with her assessment that the Supreme Court's order does not meet the standard of harm to the government necessary to stay the injunction. In recent cases like casa, the court has held that impeding the enforcement of the law constitutes irreparable harm to the government. The court's opinion in this case shows that it thinks this executive order will be found lawful, meaning that impeding its enforcement is an irreparable harm. I further disagree with Lindsay that requiring a person's sex identification on their passport to match their biological sex causes harm worthy of special treatment under the law. While I sympathize with transgender individuals whose identities are discordant with their biological sex, that distinction still provides vital legal protections for natal women. I think a compromise position in which biological, sex and gender identity are listed on passports is the best policy to protect both sex based and identity based interests. Though, like Lindsey, I don't imagine the current administration is interested in such a compromise.
- [27:45]
Lindsay Knuth
We'll be right back after this quick break.
- [27:51]
John Law
AI agents are everywhere, automating tasks and making decisions at machine speed. But agents make mistakes. Just one rogue agent can do big damage before you even notice. Rubrik Agent Cloud is the only platform that helps you monitor agents, set guardrails and rewind mistakes so you can unleash agents, not risk. Accelerate your AI transformation@rubrik.com that's R U R.
- [28:22]
Isaac Saul
Dear Career Ladder, you've had your moment. You're linear and one dimensional. Ambition doesn't just go up anymore.
- [28:31]
John Law
It zigs and zags and squiggles where CEOs, executives, founders. We're advising companies, launching side hustles, taking.
- [28:41]
Isaac Saul
Breaks, defining our next act ambition on our terms. The possibilities are endless. Chief Lead on. Join us@chief.com.
- [29:06]
Lindsay Knuth
All right, that is it for Lindsay's take and a staffed assent from Audrey Moorhead. Which brings us to your questions answered. This one is from Mike in New York. Mike said a friend said that under the new White House ballroom there will be a bunker for the President and staff and family, I assume for emergencies. Do you know if this is true? So actually yeah, there is already a bunker called the Presidential Emergency Operations center or peoc. But yes, according to CBS News, the recent demolition of the east wing for a planned White House ballroom does include a renovation of the bunker. The PEOC was originally constructed as a safety contingency for President Franklin Delano Roosevelt during World War II, but has been upgraded over the years to operate as an Emergency Command Operations Center. Not only does the PEOC contain telecommunications necessary to run the country and command the military during an emergency, but a vast network of tunnels also connects to many other secret and not so secret amenities, including a bowling alley. Both Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump have been taken to the bunker as a security precaution. Bush in the aftermath of 911 and Trump during protests against police violence following the death of George Floyd. For security reasons, we do not know the technical specifications of what existed in the PEOC before, nor do we know what the planned renovations will entail. But we can probably assume that the technology and amenities below the White House are will all be updated as part of this project. All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace.
- [30:53]
John Law
Thanks Isaac. Here's your under the Radar story for today, folks. On Wednesday, Representative Marie Glusenkamp Perez, the Democrat from Washington, introduced a motion to condemn Representative Jesus Chuy Garcia, the Democrat from Illinois, for his handling of his decision not to seek reelection in 2026. Garcia had filed to run for another term on October 27, but publicly announced that he had changed his mind on November 7. His chief of staff, Patty Garcia, filed her candidacy on November 3, shortly before the filing deadline, and will not face any challengers in the Democratic primary. The district is considered a safe Democratic seat. Perez suggested that Garcia had timed his decision to benefit his chief of staff and ensure she would secure the Democratic nomination, calling his actions beneath the dignity of the office and incompatible with the spirit of Constitution. A spokesperson for Garcia said he followed every rule and every filing requirement and decided not to seek re election due to his health and family obligations. The House must vote on Perez's motion within two days. The Washington examiner has this story and there's a link in today's episode Description alright, next up is our numbers section. The year U.S. passports began carrying sex identification markers was 1976. The year the State Department began allowing passport holders to select a marker opposite their sex assigned at birth with proper medical documentation was 1992. The year the State Department under President Joe Biden began allowing passport holders to select X sex markers on their passports instead of male or female was 2021. According to NBC News, the number of times the Supreme Court has granted an emergency request filed by the Trump administration on its interim docket or Shadow docket is 22. The number of those cases in which the court has ruled against the Trump administration is two. The number of those cases in which the court has yet to rule is three. According to law professor Steve Ladock, the number of applications for emergency relief from the Supreme Court filed by the Biden administration over four years was 19, and the combined number of applications for emergency relief from the Supreme Court filed by the George W. Bush and Obama administrations was eight. And last but not least, our have a nice day section High cholesterol and triglyceride levels are associated with increased risk of a heart attack or stroke, and these conditions affect roughly a quarter of the US Adult population. On Saturday, the Cleveland Clinic reported the results from Phase one of a first in human clinical trial which showed that a gene editing therapy lowered low density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride levels in individuals resistant to medication treatments. Fifteen patients participated in the trial and their LDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels were meaningfully reduced within two weeks of treatment and remained at low levels for at least 60 days. This treatment is still very early in development, but if future trials continue to demonstrate safety and efficacy, the therapy has the potential to change the way we treat lipid disorders, cardiologist Luke Laffin said. The Cleveland Clinic 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. Tomorrow's Friday edition will be a Reader Mailbag to address some of the biggest questions that we've been getting. We've been poring over emails and submissions for a few weeks and building out a bit Reader Mailbag Edition to address your inquiries and criticisms. Our Friday podcasts and newsletters are for members only, so to unlock the premium content you do need to become a member, which you can do by signing up on our website. Isaac, Ari and Camille will be here with the suspension of the Rules podcast and I will return on Monday. For Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have an absolutely fantastic weekend. Y' all Peace.
- [34:50]
Lindsay Knuth
Our Executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our Executive producer is John Lowell. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman with Senior Editor Will K. Back and Associate Editors Hunter Casperson, Audrey Moorhead, Bailey Saul, Lindsey Knuth and Kendall White. Music for the podcast was produced by Dyne75. To learn more about Tangle to sign up for a membership, please visit our website@retangle.com.
- [35:31]
Isaac Saul
Hey guys, let me let you in on a little secret. I've obviously turned staying into bed into an art form. It's my happy place. It's my shopping sanctuary. And honestly, it's the perfect place to hang out with all my favorite people. So join me and some of the most interesting people I know for shopping, some laughs, and maybe a few secrets. All from the comfort of my bed. The best part? You can watch from your bed. My show in bed with Paige Desorbo returns Monday, November 17th at 8:00pm Eastern Standard Time on Amazon Live. Just open Prime Video on your TV and search Amazon Live to cozy up. Because why get out of bed if you don't have to? If your eyes are the windows to your soul and your glasses are the windows to your eyes, then it's pretty important to find your perfect frames. That's why at Warby Parker, we've made shopping for eyewear as easy and fun as can be. Peruse endless styles in our stores, or use our app to virtually try on frames and get personalized recommendations. To find your next favorite pair of glasses, sunglasses or contact lenses. Or to locate your nearest Warby Parker store, head over to warbyparker.com that's warbyparker.com.
- [36:44]
John Law
Every year I tell myself I'm going to start holiday shopping early, and every year I wait until the last minute. But this time I actually nailed it. I sent Omaha Steaks gift boxes to my family and they were a hit. There's something about opening that box. Those beautifully cut, perfectly aged steaks, the juicy burgers, even the cozy comfort meals. My dad called me the next night to rave about his ribeyes. Said it was the best steak he's ever grilled. Honestly, I think Omaha Steaks might be my new go to gift. It's thoughtful, it's delicious, and it shows up right at your door, perfectly packed and ready to impress. Save big on gourmet gifts and more holiday favorites with omaha steaks. Visit OmahaSteaks.com for 50% off site wide during their Sizzle all the Way sale and for an extra $35 off use promo code Holiday at checkout. Terms apply. See site for details. That's omahasteaks.com code holiday.