Loading summary
Transcript35 lines
- [00:02]
Isaac Saul
You might need MIDI if you ever hairsprayed your bangs into a waterfall, layered slouch socks, tied a scrunchie to the bottom corner of your T shirt, or
- [00:11]
Advertisement Voice
tried to go for a run with a CD player.
- [00:15]
Isaac Saul
If this took you down memory lane, you might need MIDI. Perimenopause can start 10 years before you actually go through menopause, so for some women, that can be as early as 35. Nobody ever told you that? Well, nobody told us either. That's why we built midi. If you're experiencing symptoms like night sweats, weight gain, or just generally don't feel like yourself anymore, you may be in perimenopause. But here's some good with the right care, these symptoms are treatable. Book a virtual visit with a menopause specialist at MIDI. Visit joinmidi.com to schedule with an expert who gets it specialist led care Virtual visits Insurance eligible midlife needs MIDI results may vary. Medications prescribed only if clinically appropriate, based on a consultation with a clinician. Insurance coverage varies. Check with your plan for coverage.
- [01:00]
Advertisement Voice
He's dribbling the ball with everything on the line he's driving down the pitch. He's facing price hikes and cuts past him Carrier contracts tries to block him. Oh, he leaves him in the dust. He's at the edge of the box. He cuts past the nonstop group chat trash talk he clears on goal. He shoots Go unlimited data for $25 a month forever.
- [01:19]
Visit your local Boost Mobile store today to get unlimited data with a price that never change. Boost mobile after 30gb, customers may experience lower speeds. Customers will pay $25 a month as long as they remain active on the Boost $25 Unlimited plan.
- [01:31]
Today we'll attempt a feat once thought impossible, overcoming high interest credit card debt. It requires merely one thing a SOFI personal loan. With it, you could save big on interest charges by consolidating into one low fixed rate monthly payment. Defy high interest debt with a SOFI personal loan. Visit sofi.com stunt to learn more. Loans originated by Sofi Bank NA member FDIC terms and conditions apply. NMLS 696891.
- [02:07]
Isaac Saul
From Executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle.
- [02:21]
Audrey Moorhead
Good morning, good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, a place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of our take. This is Associate Editor Audrey Moorhead, and I am here to round out our week of SCOTUS coverage with a look at two major decisions on executive power. But before we get into the issue of the day. I do have a more lighthearted note. As our subtext SMS subscribers know I've been in my home state of Tennessee for the past two weeks to visit family and to attend a college friend's wedding. It was a great opportunity to catch up with people, as most weddings are, but this one was particularly special because I watched guests with wildly different political views eat, drink and be merry together, forming surprising friendships and even lightheartedly teasing each other on politics without things getting ugly. The night was a great reminder of the way that our humanity unites us even when politics divides us, and I like to think that we accomplished something similar here at Tangle. Anyway, thanks for allowing me that little foray into some mushy, gushy stuff. Aside from our main topic, we have a look back at the vote for independence that happened 250 years ago today, as well as the stories we didn't cover this week. Speaking of this weekend is the 250th anniversary of the United States declaring its independence, and this month marks seven years since we launched Tangle. To celebrate, Executive Editor Isaac Saul will share a special episode tomorrow on the history of press freedom and why we must continue to embrace the spirit of a free press in the years ahead. So keep an eye out for that special July 4th edition. And finally, do you want to hear more original opinion pieces from the Tangle staff? Do you want to hear exclusive interviews with leading voices in politics? Ad free podcasts, access to our newsletter, comments section, full Sunday editions including roundups, recipes, reader essays, our favorite stuff on the Internet, and more. To celebrate America's 250th anniversary, we are offering a 25% discount on our yearly podcast membership, bringing the price to less than $4 a month. On top of unlocking all those great features, you also support independent journalism. It takes literally 30 seconds to sign up and 90% of our revenue comes from members, so you'd be helping us out a ton. You can join the Tangle Club at a link in the description. I'll pass it off now to John for our quick hits and then I'll be back for today's take.
- [04:41]
John Law
Thanks Audrey and welcome everybody. Hey everybody, here are your quick hits for today. First up, the Trump administration announced it will not renew the U S Mexico Canada Trade Agreement, saying it will instead seek to renegotiate key pillars of the deal. Number two, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the US economy added 57,000 jobs in June, lower than economists expectations. The unemployment rate decreased slightly to 4.2%. Number three, former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan sued the Justice Department and Trump administration officials, requesting a court order to preserve records of ongoing federal investigations into him. 4 Ukraine struck a major Russian oil refinery for the second time in a week, as well as a Russian plant that produces missile components. And five immigration officials reportedly made approximately 10,000 arrests in the past five days amid an increase in enforcement activity.
- [05:46]
Isaac Saul
The Trump administration wants the Supreme Court
- [05:48]
Advertisement Voice
to overturn a 90 year old decision
- [05:50]
Isaac Saul
limiting when presidents can fire board members of independent federal agencies. Lawyers are defending President Trump's decision to fire Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter without cause. Breaking news at the Supreme Court with the court issuing several major decisions, the justice is ruling that President Trump does not have the authority to fire Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook. It comes months after the president attempted to remove Cook from the Fed's Board of Governors after he accused her of mortgage fraud, a claim she denies.
- [06:22]
John Law
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued two decisions on the president's power to remove leaders of federal agencies. In the first case, Trump vs Slaughter, the court voted 63 to strike down a federal law that limited the president's power to fire Federal Trade Commission members. And in the second, Trump v. Cook, the court voted 54 that Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook can remain in her role while her legal challenge to President Trump's attempt to fire her plays out for context. In March 2025, President Trump fired FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, stating her continued presence would be inconsistent with my administration's priorities. Slaughter, one of two Democratic commissioners on the bipartisan Consumer Protection Board at the time, was nominated by Trump in 2018 and renominated by President Joe Biden in 20. Slaughter challenged her firing, citing a law that states commissioners can only be removed for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. A district court ruled in her favor and ordered her reinstated. A panel of the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals declined to block the reinstatement. In September, the Supreme Court allowed Trump to remove Slaughter while considering the case. The majority's decision struck down the statute that Slaughter cited, overruling the court's previous finding in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 1935 that upheld the law. Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those whom the president would prefer to work with, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work, chief Justice John Roberts wrote, the court's three Democratic appointed justices dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the case should have begun and ended with Humphrey's executor, adding Today, the majority places accountability to the president above all else. In August of 2025, Trump ordered the removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, who was originally appointed by Biden in 2022 to serve on the Federal Reserve's seven person board of Governors. Trump stated that he was firing Cook for cause due to alleged mortgage fraud. Cook denied wrongdoing and challenged her firing in court. In September, US District Judge Gia Cobb found that while the Federal Reserve act contains the for cause provision, it only covers a governor's behavior in office. Judge Cobb issued an order allowing Cook to remain in office while litigation continued, and a panel of the D.C. circuit upheld the order. The Trump administration then asked the Supreme Court to intervene and the justices heard oral arguments in January. The majority decision, penned by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, read Congress limits the President's power to remove governors for good reason to preserve the independence of the Federal Reserve and to continue the long tradition of monetary policy exercised independent of executive influence. Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett dissented alone, and Justice Samuel Alito's dissent was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Barrett argued that the majority was erroneously carving out a special exception for the Federal Reserve. The Court's holding is in serious tension with Trump v. Slaughter, which we also decided today, she wrote. Today we'll get into what the left and the right are saying about these two agency rulings and then Associate Editor Audrey Moorhead will give her take
- [09:34]
Advertisement Voice
foreign.
- [09:42]
We'll be right back after this quick break. Hey everyone, quick thought before we get started. If you listen to Tangle, it's probably because you're trying to escape the media echo chamber. But even when you read broadly, it's hard to see which stories are being emphasized and which ones are being ignored. This episode is brought to you by Ground News. Ground News is not a publisher. It's an app and website that gathers reporting on every news story from across the political spectrum and shows you each outlet's bias rating, factuality rating and who owns it. It's more than just an aggregator. It gives you context on every perspective in one place so that you can make up your own mind. For example, a recent story about a bipartisan border deal collapsing was covered by 50 plus outlets. One left leaning headline read GOP sinks border deal under Trump Pressure was while a right leaning one said Democrats block Stronger Border enforcement. Same event, very different framing. Ground News lets you compare that instantly and even flags blind spots, stories disproportionately covered by one side. If you want unlimited access to these features, subscribe to the vantage plan for 40% off@groundnews.com tn that's groundnews.com tn promo code tn again, groundnews.com tn tn code tn for 40% off if you care about seeing the full picture, I think you'll really value this tool.
- [11:04]
Isaac Saul
Mitty knows that just when you thought you had your body all figured out. Bam. Perimenopause Suddenly your hormones are raging like it's puberty. Round two. You're waking up at 3am and dealing with mood swings that have mood swings. Your ears are itchy, your jeans don't fit, you need an industrial sized fan to cool down, and you've suddenly forgotten the word for microwave. Most women in perimenopause don't know that they are even though it can last for 10 years, they also don't realize that most of their symptoms are treatable. That's why we built MIDI Health. MIDI is a company built by women who've been through it. Our menopause experts actually listen and treat the real symptoms you're feeling your symptoms aren't just common, they're treatable. Schedule a visit with a menopause specialist at MITI. Visit joinmidi.com Specialist LED Care Virtual visits Insurance eligible midlife needs MIDI results may vary. Medications prescribed only if clinically appropriate, based on a consultation with a clinician. Insurance coverage varies. Check with your plan for coverage.
- [12:12]
John Law
All right, first up, let's start with what the left is saying. The left opposes the Slaughter decision, and many say its rationale is inconsistent with its decision in Cook. Some suggest the court actually did little to protect Fed officials. Others argue the majority erred in overturning Humphrey's executor. In the American Prospect, David Dayne called Slaughter and Cook impossible to reconcile. Much of what you need to know about who rules America can be found in two Supreme Court opinions released today. They reinforce how the law as interpreted by this court is malleable, depending on whom it's applied to, dayan wrote. If you work in the executive branch, you can now be fired by the President for whatever reason or no reason at all, even if the law creating the agency said you needed a reason. This new standard overturns 91 years of precedent and is now the law in every case, except if the agency you work for is the Federal Reserve. None of these independent agencies will ever operate the same way again. If presidents can fire any member of the executive branch at will, why would anyone from the opposite party willing to criticize executive branch decisions be allowed to stay in the government. Dahonest, you can make at least a colorable argument that a president should be allowed to have control over their subordinates. But when you add in the carve out for the Federal Reserve, it quickly becomes totally ridiculous. There is no way to hold the two rulings together at once. In Ms. Now, Ray Brescia suggested the court essentially authorized future harassment of Federal Reserve officials. The court has handed the administration yet another tool for applying pressure on the Fed members, the punishment of procedure, brescia wrote. The court did not look at the language of the two statutes at issue in Cook and Slaughter. Instead, it turned to the history of federal banking entities like the existence of the first and Second Banks of the United States in the early days of the Republic, to claim that monetary policy has been treated differently from other functions of the government over the years. While the court's majority opinion in Cook's case did technically reject the Trump administration's efforts to terminate her from her position, it laid out a clear path for the administration to do so in the future, Brescia said. It must provide her notice of the ground or grounds upon which she is being terminated, and she must be given an opportunity to challenge those allegations. Once a final decision is made by the executive branch, she can go to court to challenge that determination. But there is nothing stopping the administration from commencing such a process on any basis it wants or no basis at all. In the Atlantic, George Thomas wrote, an originalist court overturns an originalist decision. Humphreys executor offered a better understanding of the separation of powers, one consistent with constitutional history, originalist understandings and earlier court precedent than what Roberts offers in Slaughter, thomas said. In Humphreys, the court saw the distinction between an administrative function, something the executive branch stewards, and true executive power in the constitutional sense. By contrast, Roberts opinion in Slaughter collapses this distinction. For Roberts to faithfully execute the law, the president must have the power to remove officers of independent commissions. The Roberts court is solidifying a formalistic version of the separation of powers that narrows congressional power while expanding presidential power. Its logic points to the idea that all administration functions are an inherent part of the executive power and must be brought under the control of the precedent, thomas wrote. Yet even Roberts cannot swallow the direction of his reasoning. That is why he exempted the Federal Reserve Board from the implications of his decision. Roberts notes that monetary policy at the core of the national bank's mission and is not subject to plenary presidential control. True, but this is just as true of the regulation of commerce or trade. So why doesn't this logic apply to the Federal Trade Commission? Alright, that is it for what the left is saying. Which brings us to what the right is saying. The right supports the decisions, particularly the overturning of Humphrey's executor. Some say Slaughter will allow presidents to more efficiently pursue their agenda. Others suggest the tension between Slaughter and Cook is difficult to reconcile. In City Journal, Ilya Shapiro said Humphrey's executor has been slaughtered. The Supreme Court today restored an old fashioned constitutional idea. If a principal federal officer exercises executive power, the president must be able to remove him, shapiro said. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Humphrey's framework, in short, has not withstood the test of time. Then came the sentence that will launch a thousand administrative law articles. If anything more is left of Humphreys, we overrule it. The New Deal compromise that invented quasi legislative agencies has finally met Article 2 of the US Constitution. This ruling isn't a gift to Donald Trump or his successors. It's a restoration of constitutional accountability. Congress can create executive branch agencies and specify what they may do, but it cannot create a fourth branch of government and then pretend its officers are independent of the only person the Constitution makes responsible for executing federal law, shapiro said. Taken together, Slaughter and Cook draw the right constitutional map. The FTC and similar agencies sit within the executive branch and must answer to the president. The Federal Reserve remains a narrow historical exception, the Washington Post editorial board wrote about Lisa Cook's close Supreme Court. Roberts explained that the Fed would effectively come under the president's thumb if the firing stood as any perceived or alleged misstep, past or present, could provide a ready pretext for a governor's removal, the board said. If the Federal Reserve act of 1913's for cause provision is going to have teeth, Fed governors need to be insulated from arbitrary firing. The justices sidestepped what threshold the president needs to meet. That means Trump could still prevail in his efforts to remove Cook. But the administration will need to at least devise a process that looks more legitimate than federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte's search and destroy mission against Democrats. There's definitely a tension between Cook and Slaughter. The Fed, after all, acts more like a regulator than the country's early central banks, such as by imposing fines on financial institutions. But the best way to lessen the tension isn't to extinguish the Fed's independence, the board said. The better solution is is for Congress to reform the Fed so It focuses on its core monetary mission. Some of its regulatory functions could be eliminated or transferred to the Treasury Department. In the Washington Examiner, Jay Powers praised the Court for ending the myth of independent agencies. Humphrey's executor was always a historical anomaly. It emerged from FDR's war with the Supreme Court over New Deal agencies. The theory was that some agencies were quasi legislative, quasi judicial in nature and therefore somehow outside normal executive authority. Powers said the logic was always strained. The FTC administers roughly 80 statutes covering nearly every facet of the economy. It makes rules, it enforces law, it adjudicates disputes. That is executive work. Congress can still require bipartisan composition. It can still structure agencies with staggered terms and Senate confirmation. What it cannot do is exempt those officers from removal when the President concludes they're working against his administration's policies. There's a difference between a President who governs and a President who presides over a bureaucracy he cannot direct, powers wrote. The electorate voted for a candidate with specific views on how these agencies should operate. Monday's ruling means those views can actually be implemented. All right, let's head over to Audrey for her take.
- [19:52]
Audrey Moorhead
Thanks, John. This is Associate Editor Audrey Moorhead. Back with my take. Slaughter and Cook is possibly the most fascinating set of decisions I've seen in my relatively brief time as a court watcher. It's rare for the same justice to write two majority opinions in two very similar cases and come to two different conclusions joined by two different majorities, but that's exactly what Chief Justice Roberts did here. Slaughter is the further reaching case, granting the President the power to fire employees from any federal agency, even those established by Congress as independent, except as Cook holds the Federal Reserve. Reading the opinions in Slaughter, I found Roberts originalist understanding of the Constitution and subsequent reasoning for overturning the Humphreys executor precedent more convincing than Justice Sotomayor's dissent arguing for maintaining that precedent. But like many court watchers, I ultimately struggle to reconcile Slaughter with Coke and I find myself wondering whether the correct legal reasoning may lead to a bad outcome. Many of the Supreme Court's Republican appointed Justices are self described originalists, meaning they prioritize the original intent of the Constitution and federal law where it doesn't conflict with the Constitution. The legal theory has outsized sway on this Court, but it comes with trade offs, and one of the Court's originalists once offered a fascinating and complicated analysis of this approach. In 2017, when she was still a professor at Notre Dame Law School, Justice Amy Coney Barrett published an essay called Originalism and Stare Decisis. Grappling with the question of how originalist Justices ought to handle long standing precedent, she acknowledged that originalism can conflict with the precedent that forms the basis for a constitutional order. She points to the New Deal era expansions and changes in federal power, such as those in the now defunct decision Humphrey's Executor, as an example of precedent that is in tension with an originalist understanding of the Constitution but is so entrenched in modern governmental functions that rolling back those changes could prove deeply destabilizing. Interestingly, Barrett concedes that originalist Justices can sometimes choose not to follow their principles to their absolute ends when they know doing so would risk overturning load bearing precedent. Instead, she argues that the important thing is that their jurisprudence draws consistent lines in applying originalist readings or deferring to precedent. This Article has much to bear on Slaughter, which overturned the 90 year old precedent set by Humphrey's executor by declaring that the President can fire federal officials, even those purported to belong to independent agencies where Congress initially attached four cause firing provisions. Barrett's article put into words my misgivings about Slaughter, a case where sheer adherence to principle, which I usually admire, could potentially have cascading negative effects. I'd say Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh agree with me, given that they ruled to preserve precedent in Coke, but here I fear that their inconsistency only creates confusion. I find the majority's reasoning in Slaughter, laid out by Chief Justice John Roberts, fairly airtight as a constitutional matter. Roberts is an attentive student of history, and his retelling of the first 150 years of the debate over executive power before Humphrey's executor was thorough and convincing. Then he asserts that the Supreme Court had long ago retreated from applying Humphrey's executor to other agencies and even undermined its premises at every turn. In fact, Roberts argues, Humphreys is so difficult to apply that various lower courts have differed on its requirements, meaning that it doesn't even create the stability that long standing precedent often affords. I'm aligned with all of these points, but Roberts argument begins to slip when he discusses Congress's reliance upon Humphreys. The Chief justice claims that Congress has relied upon this precedent to expand its own power and that that expansion of power is hardly one of the legitimate reliance interests that that our precedents contemplate. Fair enough, but he fails to fully grapple with Justice Sonia Sotomayor's counter that, quote, ordinary Americans and regulated firms alike have organized their affairs, understanding that some government decisions will depend not on political favoritism or partisan advantage, or at least not only on those considerations, but on expertise, adherence to law, judgment, and the public good. Sotomayor is right that much of the country trusts these agencies more because they believe them to be nonpartisan and unaffected by the shifting tides of politics. Even if you think it shouldn't be so, or if you think that the nonpartisan nature of these agencies is a sham, you're still fighting against years of an established public understanding. Roberts maintains that the American people's interest in their constitutional guarantees is more important than their trust in nonpartisan agencies. But his high minded appeal rings hollow. Whatever Roberts believes about the Constitution, and whether I agree with him or not, functionally overturning the precedent of independent federal agencies seriously undermines the average American's understanding of the way the government works or ought to work. This fundamental tension of the Court's decision in Slaughter is illustrated by the Court's opinion in Coke, where Roberts, again writing for the majority, hardly seems to grapple at all with why the Fed might be exempt from the rules he lays out in Slaughter. Indeed, that's the very argument that Justice Barrett makes in her Cook dissent that the Court is inconsistent in its application of principle. Barrett was convinced by Roberts reasoning that the time had come to overturn Humphrey's erroneous precedent. But if that's the case, why stop one agency short? Justice Kavanaugh's Cook concurrence attempts to establish that the Fed should be treated completely separately under historical precedent. But it's not a consistently originalist argument. I'd say instead that Roberts and Kavanaugh are aware that pure originalism toward the Fed would invite the governmental chaos that Barrett once acknowledged as a major risk. Roberts and Kavanaugh come off as if they're caught between two worlds. The three Democratic appointed Justices wanted to uphold Humphreys because of the precedent on their side. Justice Barrett decided that the application of principle was worth the risk of upending order, as did presumably Justices Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas. But Roberts and Kavanaugh want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to see a return to the pre Humphreys principle. But they're worried about the negative consequences of an overwhelming change. In the end, I think it fosters confused legal reasoning that will hurt rather than help the Court in future cases. With that said, I'm cautiously optimistic that the partisan concerns about the effect of overturning Humphrey's executor are relatively overblown. Yes, this grants Trump more power over the federal government, but it also grants future presidents the same power. And I think on the whole that that could be a moderating force. After all, presidents ousting prior appointees isn't anything new. President Biden spent the first part of 2021 cleaning house of various Trump appointees, in some cases breaking presidential precedent around agency appointees to do so. Even if I'm less afraid of the long term impacts of partisan staffing of these agencies, I'm still broadly worried about what this decision will do in the immediate future. The Roberts court may have gotten the constitutional question right in Slaughter, but I'm left wondering if there might have been some other way to restore the constitutional order without such a seismic shift and established precedent. If there's anything I've learned from Trump's second presidency, it's that a move fast break things approach can have disastrous and unintended consequences. That's it for today's take, so I'll pass it off to senior editor Will Kbach for a staff dissent. Thanks for listening.
- [26:56]
Will Kbach
Hi, this is Senior editor Will Kbach. I had a dissent to today's take from Audrey, and here it is. I disagree with Audrey that the majority's legal reasoning in Slaughter was sound. I understand the right's concerns about insulating agencies that do executive office work from executive office accountability. But the law establishing the Federal Trade Commission already has four clause provisions added. Inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office offers a wide range of acceptable reasons to remove an independent agency leader. Chief Justice Roberts framed the decision as historically aligned with the Constitution's intent that the President be solely in charge of the executive branch. But I don't think the precedent established in Humphreys meaningfully strips that power. Again, the four clause provisions are very broad. What's more, we still accept other constraints on executive authority over independent agencies. For instance, only three of five FTC commissioners can be from the same party. Now, I agree with the dissenting justices that stare decisis should have won the day, and the majority's decision to eliminate long standing precedent in such blunt terms should. To quote Roberts, if anything more is left of Humphreys, we overrule. It resembles the kind of judicial activism that I'm opposed to. Regardless of which side it comes from, and on pure outcome, I'm concerned that this ruling will gradually make independent agencies more partisan and less meritocratic. All right, that's my dissent. Sending it back.
- [28:37]
John Law
Foreign.
- [28:40]
Advertisement Voice
We'll be right back after this quick break.
- [28:46]
He's dribbling the ball with everything on the line. He's driving down the pitch. He's facing price hikes and cuts past him. Carrier contracts, tries to block him. Oh, he leaves him in the dust. He's at the edge of the box. He cuts past the non stop group chat trash talk. He clears on goal. He shoots no unlimited data for 25amonth forever.
- [29:05]
Visit your local Boost Mobile store today to get unlimited data with a price that never changes. Boost mobile after 30gb customers may experience lower speeds. Customers will pay 25amonth as long as they remain active on the Boost 25 Unlimited plan.
- [29:18]
You're more than just one thing. You're the boss. Hey Google, what time is my meeting with Tim today? The athlete at class Rex, me the ringleader and we're good and always their mom. Everyone in the allnew Mazda CX5 more to move every side of you. Learn more@mazdausa.com Google is a trademark of Google LLC. Sequences shortened and simulated.
- [29:57]
John Law
Thanks Audrey on this day in history, 250 years ago, the Continental Congress declared independence from Great Britain. The provisional government meeting in Philadelphia, voted in favor of a resolution proposed by Delegate Richard Henry Lee. It read, these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved. John Adams, a Massachusetts delegate who would go on to become the second US president, initially believed that July 2 would be the date celebrated for generations to come, featuring pomp and parade with shoes, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other from this time forward, forevermore. Instead, Americans, including Adams himself, have typically celebrated the fourth the day Congress approved the final text of the Declaration of Independence. In this week's the Road Not Taken, our attention turned fully to the Supreme Court, and for good reason. The decisions released since last Thursday are some of the most consequential of this term. We considered covering a few non court New Jersey Representative Tom Keene's return to Congress and John Bolton's guilty plea, as well as the semi court related story of NPR mistakenly reporting Justice Samuel Alito's retirement. Ultimately, the six cases we covered between Monday and today all felt timely, and we didn't want to choose an alternate topic just for the sake of mixing it up. While six cases in four days is still a lot, we had to pass on several other major SCOTUS decisions handed down this week. The rulings on Hawaii's concealed carry restrictions, rolling back rules on coordinated campaign spending, and bans on transgender athletes in women's and girls sports were three that just missed the cut. And last but not least, our have a nice day story. Locals of Ealing, West London were at their wit's end with the consistent flooding around the Greenford tube station brought on by regular heavy rainstorms. One group of conservationists suggested a nature based Solution. Beavers In 2023, a family of five wild beavers moved into Ealing to tackle the flooding problem, officially commencing the Ealing Beaver Project. The animals built dams, natural reservoirs and canals and the residents have enjoyed their new neighbors. According to the project leader, Sean McCormick, by the Beaver's second winter at the site, the area went without flooding for the first time in a decade. CNN Climate has this story and you can check that out with the 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 retangle.com where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundled membership that gets you a discount on both. Some of you might have noticed that suspension of the rules didn't come out today, and that's for a good reason. We actually have a special guest coming on tomorrow. Sarah Isger, the host of Advisory Opinions and Editor of SCOTUS Blog, is going to be joining Isaac and Camille to talk about the latest decisions from the Supreme Court. Tune in tomorrow to our YouTube channel for the full episode. You can also check it out on Apple Music, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform. And for those of you who have not signed up for a membership yet, to celebrate America's 250th, we're offering a 25% discount on our yearly newsletter membership, bringing the price to less than $4 a month. On top of unlocking all these great features, you're also going to help support independent journalism. It takes 30 seconds and 90% of our revenue comes from members. So if you haven't signed up yet, it's a great time to do so. Get that discount and become a supporting member of the community. We'll be back in your ears next week folks. For Isaac Awdry and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have a fantastic, fun, fireworks filled fiesta with family and friends and an absolutely wonderful weekend y'.
- [33:44]
Will Kbach
All.
- [33:44]
John Law
Peace.
- [33:46]
Advertisement Voice
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 Ben Managing Editor Ari Weitzman with Senior Editor Will Kbach 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.
- [34:25]
He's dribbling the ball with everything on the line. He's driving down the pitch. He's facing price hikes and cuts past him. Carrier contracts tries to block him. Oh, he leaves him in the dust he's at the edge of the box he cuts past the non stop group chat trash talk he clears on goal he shoots no unlimited data for $25 a month forever.
- [34:43]
Visit your local Boost Mobile store today to get unlimited data with a price that never, never changes. Boost mobile after 30gb, customers may experience lower speeds. Customers will pay $25 a month as long as they remain active on the Boost $25 Unlimited plan when maintaining your
- [34:57]
daily wellness rituals is important to you, the change in routine during the summer can feel daunting. Cachava's new travel packs help you stick to your daily ritual even when you're on the go. Just one packet of Cachava's all in One Nutrition Shake provides complete nutrition with 25 grams of protein, 6.6grams of fiber, greens, adaptogens and much more. So you'll be fueled and ready for wherever life or your summer adventures take you. No fillers, no nonsense, just the good stuff your body craves. Plus, it actually tastes delicious. But you can try it for yourself because the variety pack includes all six delicious fan favorites Chocolate, Vanilla, chai, Matcha, Coconut, Acai and strawberry. So instead of worrying about sticking to your daily ritual, simplify it with kachava. Go to kachava.com and use code news for 15% off. That's K A C H-A-V A.com code news
- [35:58]
Will Kbach
acast powers the world's best Podcasts Here's a show that we recommend.
- [36:06]
Minouche Zamorodi
Go Touch Grass. You have probably heard this phrase, maybe you have even said it. But beneath the sort of light hearted nature of this meme is something very real and important. A growing sense that staying in touch with our humanity and being present in our bodies matters more than ever in today's digital world. My name is Minouche Zamorodi and I am taking over as host of TED Talks Daily this week to explore what technology is actually doing to your body and mind. Mind. In special interviews with scientists, doctors, parents, artists and more, we're going to dig into your physical and mental health on tech how we think about our bodies differently now, how we relate to new innovations that are amazing but also a little scary, and how we can live a healthier life in this high tech era. Tune in on TED Talks daily Wherever you listen to podcasts,
- [37:08]
Will Kbach
ACAST helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcasts everywhere.
- [37:13]
Advertisement Voice
Acast.com.