Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
Happy birthday to us. 250 years. And you know who the MVP is of this all star team? The third branch of our government, the judiciary. And I will explain, I will explain why it is a hoorah for us. Even though things are so fraught, things are so hard. Why 250 is an extraordinary achievement looking at the rest of the world. But wait a minute, we're the young ones, aren't we? Depends how you look. And the judiciary, it seems so screwed up. It seems so fraught. It seems like there's so much litigation and lawfare. Don't confuse politicians perverting the system with the durability of the system. And I will make the case to you that 250 is very impressive in ways that you do not hear discussed. And that judiciary, it's even hard to say. But you better learn, because it's a mouthful. Because it's the best thing we have going to maintain and get to 251. I'm Chris Cuomo. Welcome to the Chris Cuomo Project. Here's why I'm so excited. Because I am a critical thinker. That's why I have the T shirt on. Not just because I sell it, because I crowdsource the money anyway and give it away as you know and should be a part of. Why? Because I'm branding our independence. That's what we're celebrating. No, we're celebrating more than that. Why? Because independence isn't enough. It's what we did with it that far surpassed what the UK was and is. And the UK is not alone. Why? Because nobody is doing what we're doing. Nobody has as much power bestowed to people and self governance as flawed as it is, as fucked as it is as. As we do. No way. No one does. No one is even trying to do it the way we're doing it. No one has the challenges that we have here. The blessing and curse of our diversity, of our lack of common bond and type. Yet we're doing it. And we've done it for 250 years in a way very few else can even contemplate. Wait, what are you talking about? This is the new world. What about Europe? All right, let's take a look at it. We're 250 years, right? Representative constitutional democracy. Who else has had that for 250 years? Well, I don't know. Not the United Kingdom. Why not? Because they got a fucking monarchy, that's why. Still there, still sucking off the tit. Ah, yeah, but it's just titular. It's like our it's like our what? We don't have anything like it. We were formed in opposition to it. That's why I get pissed off when you guys are so into being the Anglophiles. Oh, Harry and William. And what's wrong with Kate? Who gives a shit what's wrong with her? A lot of people get cancer. I hope she's well. No more than I do anybody else. Why? Because I don't give a rat's ass about monarchy. It is anathema to power, to the people. And they still have it there. So they lose. And even if they didn't still have it, they have been developing their democracy. They're a parliamentary system. They have a House of Lords. There still is a kind of a big privileged situation going on there. And they're now struggling with their diversity, especially with Islamism in their midst and how to combat it and what to do about it. The whole Brexit exit. They got problems. They don't know how to play with others. They got real problems there. They cannot match our 250. No way. Not with that punk ass king sitting over there. No way. Sorry. And yes, when he came over here, he impressed us. Why? Low bar, man. Look at who we're dealing with in terms of our leaders. And yet we endure. That's why 250 is cool, man. Other countries? France? No way. Not even close. Between the monarchy and what they were dealing with, with the French Revolution, which by the way, happened after hours. Okay? Not to mention that whole Napoleon cat and what he was going through, trying to make it basically himself an authoritarian ruler. And he succeeded for a while until he fucked up going into Russia when he did and how he did. So they lose. They can't top us either. Canada? No way. Why? They were under the crown. And they still have that influence of that other country. Yes, they're separate and independent now, but they can't match our 250 other white countries. Australia, New Zealand. No, not even close. Not even close. Half of us, okay. Germany. Oh, come on, the Nazis. Right. And they've been doing it since then. They're social democrats, though a little different than our system. Don't really have a problem with it. I think we're going to move toward it. By the way, I do now. Are they doing as well as we? No. Do they have as much income and wealth as we do? No, but they're much smaller. But they're also limiting it in a way that we don't. But we may be moving in that direction. Do I like the limitations it's easy for me to say no, but it's also easy for me to be open to the possibility that it may be better for the many. Maybe depends on what you value and how you value it. Is my ability to become a centimillionaire more of a social value, an expectation, a need, a feature, than your ability to. To have enough money for any emergency? What matters more to that society? The answer in Germany is the second. The answer in America is the first. The fastest growing part of our socioeconomic scale are billionaires. Did you know that? Well, why is that? Because that's what the system is designed to privilege and preference. Are we okay with that? I don't know. Tell me. After the midterms, Japan, barely 75 years. They were a bunch of totallerian, totalitarian scumbags that attacked us, right? India was 75 years. Huge caste system issues, huge class issues there. And remember a little bit of my little sideline on everything you guys are talking about with Israel, you know, the, the haters. Well, why did we create it? Why'd we create Pakistan? 1948, 1952 for Pakistan. Why? It's just India. It's just Indians. It's just the Muslim ones they were fighting. Now you get a whole new country. And what was there before? What about all those nomadic clans? What happened to them? Some got pushed out into the other stands. All fake. All fake countries. All fake countries. Nomadic people, they moved around, they got put into silos. Why don't you tell me? Doesn't piss you off the way it did with Israel, right? Yeah, but Israel's different. Israel's different because it's the only non Arabs, Even though they're 40% brown in that country. You don't give them credit for that either. But they're getting attacked by everybody else. The stands, they go back and forth a little bit, but they don't have this kind of difference of type. Yeah, that's why the Jews shouldn't have been put there. The Jews were always there. Do the research. Do I like the state of play? No, I hate it. I don't like their occupation to the south. I don't like what's happening in Lebanon. I don't like how it's happening. I don't like the degree, I don't like the duration. I don't think BB Netanyahu is the right leader for peace. I don't, I don't like any of those things. I don't believe it. Doesn't make me anti the existence of the country. It doesn't make me anti their ability to defend themselves and to exist as a people any more than any other sovereign. I would never say that about any sovereign, you understand? If I'm not saying that about Russia, why would I be saying it about Israel? I also think that Russia, what they're prosecuting their case in Ukraine is wrong, illegal, and they're doing it the wrong way. Do I think it's a genocide? No. No more than I do what I think is happening with Israel to others. But I think it's too much for too long. Absolutely. But you can't have a nuanced position like that these days, can you? So that gets me back to why 250 is so special. Because in a world where everything is tear it down, tear it down, tear it down cyclically, we have endured. Very impressive. So you just can't pick a car for Russia is communists. It's not even close call. China, Communists, not even a close call. So 250 starts to look real big, real impressive to me. Okay. Broadly defined countries like the UK and Switzerland have older traditions, but not as established, not as powered by the people. Again, monarchy out, done. Okay. As soon as there's monarchy done, out. So we're doing very well. We're doing very, very well. You could actually call us the oldest democracy in the world. Think about that, America. Can we keep it going? Now that takes us to why I am making the case to you that the judiciary is the mvp. Why? Well, let's look at it. Not just now, but always the executive. Very fraught, Very fraught. Why? Well, it's so subject to the moment. And it's so hard for things to endure. Right? Because you're in and out four years, eight years. Usually eight. But. But four or eight years, Congress. Well, Congress has collapsed on itself. Congress doesn't know who it is. Congress really has the identity problem. That's why the parties have their identity problem. Because we're really dealing with shoehorn polarization, which is where the fringes of a binary system wind up being the closest right, but also the most energetic and the most destructive. So that's where we are. You had MAGA on the right that devoured the Republican Party, and now you have the same thing happening on the left that will devour the Democrats. What it is, how it is, I don't know. We'll see. But the judiciary is not susceptible to those things. You populate it with people who are largely political appointees, but they do a better job than Congress in sticking to something more than party. Are they perfect. Fuck. No Supreme Court is largely an echo of the politics that put them in place. It happens so often that we know the names of the justices in the situations where they broke from their alleged fealty. Right. So it's definitely imperfect. You're dealing with human beings. It's going to be. But compared to Congress and the executive, I don't even think it's a close call. And if you look at the most recent cases, I think it makes my point for me. Now, are you going to be completely satisfied with the cases? No. But that's not how the law works. That's not how standards work. That's not how it should work. And I think that it can't just satisfy you the way politics can. I'm going to destroy the system and switch it to something totally different. That's not what our courts do. I know it's frustrating. I certainly understand why it doesn't meet the politics of the moment, especially of populism. But maybe that's why its durability is so important to us. Maybe that's why. Maybe that's why it matters that President Trump is incensed when a federal judge doesn't do what he thinks they should do because he put them in power. I love that he's pissed off about that. I love that he thinks the Supreme Court owes him a loyalty. I love it because it exposes exactly what we have to guard against. He is telling you what you never want to be the case. It's close enough to be in the case as it is. I think. Now, I could argue this both ways, and I will, but ever since Robert Bork came out and was honest about his politics and got dinged, there's been kind of an unspoken agreement, which is neither side really presses the other's choices on their politics. They start to, and then they back off. Why? Because they want to get their own end. And they know it's a charade. It's a charade. Why? Because your politics matter, and they will inform your rulings, but not as much as they do. When you're in Congress, there is a suggestion of something bigger than your own beliefs. We see it. We see it in the rulings. We see it in the most important ones. We see it in the ones that just came down. Okay, I'll take you through the four most important Supreme Court rulings that just came down that have major implications. The good news is that Trump is pissed. And the good news is that the left is also pissed. And both of them blame the judges. But in both cases, they are the problem, not the rulings. These four cases I argue to you, I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, where the right decisions, and more often than not, the Court makes the right decisions. I'll give you a controversial one. In the eyes of the law, Dobbs was the right decision. Why? Roe created a legal rationale that did not exist. And if you do not create it constitutionally or legislatively, it should not exist, which is this penumbra of rights, this idea of a right to privacy, which I believe they all. I don't believe they argued was implicit. Constitution's not really about implicit. It's about explicit. And legislation is where you fill in the hole between implicit and explicit. And that wasn't done with Roe. The Congress should have codified Roe v. Wade, but they were never going to. Why? Because it's such a useful device to divide us, so helpful to the parties. Dobbs was therefore the right decision. Well, then why didn't the liberal justice. Because it's political. Because they feel it's political. They don't want to say it. But they were all female. Now they're all female on the left, and it's political. Now, do I like their political position? Yes, I do. I believe that reproductive rights are a thing, and I think that they are obviously invested in women and they should be, and that taking it from them was taking a right from women. And that's the first time I've seen that done, except for Prohibition. And I think it was wrong, but legally, I think it was the right decision. Wait, what are you talking about? Is it right or it's wrong? They're two very different things. And I get that nuance is confusing and unsatisfying. That's why you need the judiciary, because giving it back to the states on the law without codifying Roe v. Wade was the right move. Without making that federal law beyond the Supreme Court as a statute, jurisprudentially under the law, that decision was vulnerable to exactly what happened. And I hate it for women. I do. I think it's the wrong decision for America. But we put ourselves in a position where the law necessitated that verdict. And I don't like it, but I think we should change it. And I think the way you change it is through legislation. Because I do believe they had a right taken. Well, if you think it's a right, then how could they have taken it? Because it's not an explicitly stated right in the Constitution or in any legislation. I think it should be, but it isn't Wait a minute. You can't articulate a right like that. Yes, you can. And this idea that it all comes from God, I don't buy. This is a secular society. We define the rights as men and women. No, they come from God. Oh, my God. I can't believe you're saying there aren't human rights. They're human rights. They're natural rights. They don't have to be come from God. Because then if I'm an atheist, what does that mean? I have no rights? No, it means that you have them anyway because there is a God and you're stupid. It's not how it works. It's not how it should work. Support for the Chris Cuomo project comes from soul. Let me tell you, booze doesn't work for me. And I keep relearning that lesson. But when I want to go out and have my adult experience, I want that brain vacation. I'm telling you, the THC hemp derived gummies, that's what works best for me. Little bit of a munchies issue, but I'll take it. I'll take it and I'll tell you why. Sol's out of office THC gummies, all right? And their sparkling beverages. That's even bigger, by the way. Why? Hits the same way. Probably a little sooner with the beverage then than with the gummy, but you can have a drink with everybody else and that kind of social dynamic of, oh, no, none for me. And then you feel like you're chilling the experience or whatever, whatever it is, if you get past that. And they have different strengths and it's all organic and the dosing seems to be accurate, which is a huge plus in the gummy space. That's why I'm advertising Sol to you. They are a wellness brand that makes delicious hemp derived CBD and THC products designed to make feeling good simple. Sol's new mood gummies have precise dosing, clean ingredients, and formulations designed for predictable effects. So you can choose how you want to feel while staying in control. Okay, Now, I agree with all of that. That has been my experience. I have never had a bad experience. Okay. I did have two gummies that had melted together once, and I took them both. That was a more intense experience than I was expecting. But it was not a psychotic experience like you hear about with marijuana gummies all the time. Was nothing like that. It was just longer than I thought it was. And I didn't remember things quite as well. But that was a double dose of what I was expecting. To take. And there are different strengths. I only take the weakest strength or whatever the, the most basic strength because chemically it works for me. Okay. Make today a good day. Get yourself some soul gummies. Right now, Seoul is offering my audience 30% off your entire order. That is awesome. Go to GetSoul.com and use the code Cuomo GetSoul.com promo code Cuomo for 30% off. This is a great deal. So these cases will make the case that. 250. The MVP of our 250th birthday of our team making it to 250. Winning the longest running democracy trophy is the judiciary. Trump v. Slaughter. Okay, how could you start with that one? It said that he can fire people. Of course he can fire people. Of course the executive can fire people who lead agencies. They're under him. Now the Fed is a little different. Why? Because it needs to be independent. It's actually a very weird entity. You should google the Fed. Why? Because it actually. It's not run by the American government per se. It's run by the banks. It's run by its shareholders and the shareholders are the banks. Did you know that? Check it out. So in that case, the conservative majority emphasized the Constitution's vesting of executive power in the President and the unitary executive theory that the the President must be able to control executive branch officials. Critics argued it weakened agency independence. But agencies were not meant to really be independent. Even the FBI has a director who is appointed by the President and he's supposed to have a 10 year term, but that's supposed to. He doesn't have to. You see what I'm saying? So this is not offensive to me. Okay. Why? Because this is the way it was envisioned. Now do I like the way this President uses his executive authority? Absolutely not. But when the. But wait a minute, I'm getting it wrong. Because the. The court ruled that the President has the power to remove leaders of certain independent agencies like the Fed. 6, 3. Which means all of the liberal justices were against it. Okay, but I think it's still the right decision. Why? Because when it came to the head of the Fed, the reading of the statute made the judges say, well, but when it comes to Ms. Poole, you can't just arbitrarily get rid of her. You have to have some due process. Not necessarily of going to a court, but of stating the reasons. And they should be a public airing of that so that people can see and judge your decision to get rid of them. I thought that was a good accommodation. I Think that gets the balance right? The head of the Fed is a little different and the legislation says it. That empowers the Fed and the President should follow that. So he can't get rid of pool the way he wants to, but he can get rid of other ones and other heads of agencies. I think that was the right accommodation, splitting the baby. Sometimes that's the wrong metaphor. Sometimes it's more of a. Everybody leaves here a little bit upset. But that was the right ruling. I agree that that is the case with Trump v. Slaughter. I don't think it slaughtered anything. I think it was the right apportionment of power to the President as anticipated in the executive and his control over that branch. I think it was the right decision. But then why is it 6:3? Because these liberal judges want to hem in this President as much as possible. Why? Because he's fucking dangerous, that's why. But that doesn't mean that it's the right decision. Yeah, but it's just political because if it were six liberal judges, they'd decide the other way. I think that's the problem with the court. I think it's. I'm telling you, it's imperfect. I'm just saying it's way better than Congress and the Executive. Why? If it were Congress, you wouldn't even get anything done on it. At least they made a ruling. Sure, they dragged that shit out, but at least they did it. At least they took the case. Congress isn't taking the case. They've taken up the case of health care. They won't even pass the subsidies. We all see what's wrong with immigration. How come they won't work on the rules? Because the problem works better than the solution. The court has been better than that idea. That's why I give it to him. Trump v. Barbara. This is birthright citizenship. Okay, this was again, 6:3. I gotta tell you, I was surprised by this and I'll tell you why. No, no, no, not surprised by this. Birthright citizenship is a no brainer. Is it frustrating? Yeah. Why? Why do you get to come here illegally have a baby and the baby's a citizen? That doesn't seem right. Seems wrong. Seems like you're taking advantage of the system. It seems like fruit of the poisonous tree, right? That you did the wrong thing and you're getting a benefit out of it. So then why would I think birthright citizenship is okay? Because it's in the US Constitution as spelled out in the 14th Amendment and elsewhere. That's why. Amend the Constitution, change the law. Or it is the law. That's why. And the judiciary was right to see it as that. I get that. Politically, it's an argument that could go either way. The majority here relied on the constitutional text, historical understanding, and precedent protecting citizenship. Now, precedent is also a very important thing. So Congress is not tied to precedent. They change shit all the time whenever they want. So do presidents. A president comes in, nullifies everything the president did before by executive order. Why? Because there's a new mandate, there's new politics. It's harder in the law, and it should be. Precedent should matter. Now, I do argue to you that the phrase that we hear all the time, stare decisis, the thing is decided. Is that true? Ish. Ish. It is true. Ish. No, it's either true or it isn't. No, it's usually true, but it's not always true. Why? Well, let's take a little sidestep for a second about why you need to be a critical thinker. Is 1 plus 1 2? Is 1 plus 1 2? Brendan producer is 1 plus 12 all the time. If you have a load of laundry and you take a second load of laundry and dump it on top of the first load of laundry, how many loads of laundry do you have? Wow. So then one plus one is not two. Context, context, context. Okay, now is that a game? Is it a trick? No, it's called logic. Context, Context matters. And when you forget context, when you forget nuance, things can get simple, but also simple and stupid, okay? You gotta do what's hard. And that's what's happening here, okay? It's in the text. And precedent is what? They had a case that you'll have to look it up or I'd have to look it up for you. Where this exact thing happened when we were like, interning, interning the Japanese and pissed that all the Chinese were being brought in here to dig all our infrastructure and make all our infrastructure and exactly. This case came and the Supreme Court then and now said the same thing. Well, look, it's right in the plain reading of the Constitution. I may not like it, but I can't fudge it. So either you amend the Constitution, which is really fucking hard on purpose. Why? Because if you're going to mess with the best, then you better really want it so much that you get a super majority in each house of Congress and a majority of the legislatures in three quarters of the states. That's a high bar. It's why you've only done it 27 times and a couple of them were for Gacy. They were about booze, putting it in and then putting it right back a decade later. It's like the fastest they could ever get it done. Undoing that shit. So birthright citizenship. I get why you can argue that. It sounds fucked up. I totally get it as a political issue. I would rather argue against it than for it. I would. Why? Because you're going to beat me over the head with the fact that people can come here illegally and then have a baby. And the baby's the citizen, the same as my kid. So two drug dealing coyotes come across the border, sell some people fentanyl, kill them, fuck, get pregnant, have a baby in my ER on my dime, and their kid is the same as mine. Wow, is that a rough political argument to make. But it's in the Constitution. Change what's in the Constitution through amendment. Otherwise the judiciary got it right, okay? The court found that the executive order conflicted with the amendment's long standing interpretation. That's the truth. Trump may have had the right political position if you polled a majority of the country that doesn't care about the Constitution. But we have to care about the Constitution. I told you it was going to come out this way. Birthright citizenship is a no brainer. If you don't like it, change the Constitution, okay? Only in Congress, only in the executive do you get people who don't like the law so they ignore it. The judiciary can't do that. That's why you have Marbury vs Madison, a seminal case from the Supreme Court from back in the 1700s that said what? Hey, man, we don't do judicial review. We review the law. We don't review the politics. That's a political question. You take it up. Beautiful. Beautiful. It's exactly what our system is designed to do. Congress does it too infrequently. They're too scared, they're too tied to party and not enough to the people. The judiciary does it best. Or I'll make it easier for you. They do it least shitty. Let's make a word least shittily. That's my point. Support for the Chris Cuomo project comes from quints. Now here's what's cool about quints. They give you quality garments at an affordable price. They look and hold up like big tag, big label garments. Okay? But one, I dig the vibe. Two, I dig the price point, okay? Especially with that durability. All right? They have 100% European linen pants, okay? They have nice shirts. They're button downs or they're just Breathable T shirts. And they start at like $34. I mean, that is amazing for a quality garment. And they are quality. The tees are soft enough to stay in all day and they wash well and they hold well. Now, contrary to popular opinion, I do not like my clothes painted on, okay? I wear large or extra large in everything. Okay? And this is a perfect example which I will show you right now. This is a quince T shirt, okay? It is an xl. Okay? So that's what I'm going to wear. That's what I'm taking off from one. And now I'm going to put on the quince. All right? So you will see this is the experience of what they look like. It's not like faked or whatever, you know, or clipped in the back or anything like this. This is it. This is the shirt. This is an xl. Okay? So here it is. Now, is it painted on? No. I mean, you know, you can see I got a little action going on there even with this torn rotator cuff. But I think it's. It's a pretty good fit. I like it. Especially if I want to work out in it. I like it a little bit where I can move, you know what I mean? It's not like it's painted on. It's a smedium. That kind of vibe. And it is a good feel wash as well. I've washed this one three times already. I always wash everything I get as soon as I get it. And I've worn it since then. Working out pretty decent sweat wicking ability also. So what is the quince piece that has changed how I feel about things? This. Why? Because the price point is so much more effective for the quality of this garment. This is a quality garment, but I didn't pay 100 bucks for it. You know, that's $50 for a T shirt. Shit, that's Macklemore. Make your summer wardrobe easier. Go to quints.com cuomo and you'll get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada as well. Quince Q U I N C E. Quince is a fruit. Quince.com Cuomo free shipping. 365 days return. How do you lose? If you don't like it, you can send it back. How do you lose? Quince.com Cuomo West Virginia v. BPJ and Little v. Hickox. The court upheld state laws restricting transgender girls and women from participating in female school sports. Why? Equal protection for trans people. I agree. Trans people deserve equal protection. But what about non trans people? What if you want to impose a standard that is unequal for them because you have a teenage girl who is much bigger and stronger because she didn't start out as a girl? Now what? The majority reasoned. And again, six, three. So the lefties disagree, but that's because it's a political question. Also, you want to empower the trans more than the people who are afraid of that empowerment. That is a political question. So you deal with it through legislation. But as a legal question. The majority reason states may use biological sex classifications in athletics because of differences in competitive sports and because legislatures have authority in this area. Dissents argued the ruling allowed unequal treatment. And both things are true. The ruling does allow unequal treatment because it was found that equal protection does not extend to the ability to empower a minority to have an advantage over a majority and that sex is a thing. Now, if you change that, if you had a federal law that there is no such thing as sexual, then maybe they would find differently. Maybe they would have to. Okay, now what's my problem with this case? Really, nothing is a matter of law as a matter of politics. I think we're just blowing trans way out of proportion. How many trans kids are playing sports and making a difference that way? So few. There's so many things that matter so much more to me politically. And I do feel that we're bullying a minority. That is the last thing they need is more bullying. Trans are already so up against it now. The court also struck down limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates. This was a big one. Why? Because the money, the legal money because of Citizens United is killing our democracy. Money as speech without limitation is absolutely delivering democracy to the few. Absolutely. And again, six, three. And I'm with the dissent on this, but is it the wrong ruling? The majority treated the restrictions as violating First Amendment protections for political speech and association. The dissent argued the limits helped prevent corruption and excessive donor influence. Now, politically, I agree that you need limits on spending. Citizens United as a case makes it very hard to do that. I think they have to find a legislative fix to invalidate Citizens United because I agree that we need limits on the money in politics. But how is it different? And I'll give you an answer. The answer is it's not different. What if I put limits on speech in politics? There's certain things you just shouldn't be able to say in politics. Now, you don't like that idea, right? If money is speech, then the same rule applies. If money is speech. Then you don't get to prescribe how much I say or what I say if it's speech. And Citizens United found that money is speech. I hate that ruling. But I think under the law as it stands, it wasn't the wrong ruling. I hate it, though. See what I'm saying? That's, to me, a preferable standard to the legislative one or the executive one. Now, does the court sometimes get it wrong? Sure. Plus EV Ferguson, separate but equal. The Dred Scott case in, you know, validating the idea that all men are now created equal. Those were terrible rulings, but they were done by people. And it's imperfect. And SCOTUS can fuck up. The judiciary can fuck up. They can do bad things just like human beings everywhere else. They do it less, in my opinion, than either branch of government. I don't even think it's a close call. Now, part of that is convenience, right? Because legislation is much more often the fulmination of the moment. A president and a president's leanings and actions are absolutely often manifestations of the moment. The judiciary has to do more. The judiciary has more restraints on it. It's harder for the judiciary, and it should be. And even though they're imperfect and even though they get it wrong, I think it's not even a close call. Now, there is another case. I'll add a case. Okay. Let me make sure I get it right. The case about mail in deadlines. This was a really important case, and I'll tell you why. The short answer is, because Trump sucks. And he wants to ruin the institution of our elections. He wants to make you not trust them. He wants you to believe that they don't count, just in case he loses. This guy doesn't even like elections. When he wins, he still says they're rigged. Why? Because I believe he's got a malignancy in him. I believe he has a darkness in him. Well, but wait a minute. You say that he does things sometimes that are good policies, and you say things that he says things that are right, too. Yeah, because I'm fair. Yeah, but why would you be fair to a guy that you think has a malignancy in him? Because that's my job and because you elected him, that's why. Well, you helped him get elected because you didn't vote for Kamala Harris. I didn't vote for Kamala Harris. She won my state anyway, so what difference does it make? Yeah, but you empowered him by covering him. That's my job. So you wanted me to censor him. No, you Gave him too much attention. That's your choice. That's your choice. Viewers didn't tune out. So what's the standard? See what I'm saying? Nuance. Nuance. The mail in ballot deadline case was Watson v. Republican National Committee. I should have included this. It was one of the major rulings. But I just, I picked the other ones because I think that they touched on more explosive social issues. But this one is the right ruling. Also why election day matters. Okay? It matters. Everything is supposed to happen on election day, right? Wrong. Wrong. For a long time, okay, states get to decide their elections. And for a long time, they have been put in measures to increase participation, like mail in balloting, and they have increased participation dramatically. And we're still at 60% of registered voters voting. I mean, we need more. That's why I believe in motor voter. That's why I believe in a lot of voting changes. But they don't like it on the right. Why this boogeyman of fraud that they never really find at any scale? It's interesting, right? We have all this waste, fraud and abuse that they keep finding in every program that they look at, just like everybody else who's ever looked for waste, fraud and abuse. But they don't find it in voting. And yet they want the most extreme restrictions there. What does that tell you? Tells you that something else is afoot. So this Trump wants to get rid of mail in balloting. At a minimum, he wants the SAVE act, which says, hey, it's got to come in by election day election. A SAVE act, first of all, doesn't remedy this problem that he's talking about. And I think it creates other ones. But here's what the court found which is the right thing. If a state makes an allowance that if it's postmarked by election day, but because of bad mail service or because of whatever, it doesn't come until X days after election day. How many days? Well, it's up to the state's discretion that that is constitutional. The case involved a Mississippi law allowing election officials to count mail ballots that were postmarked on or before election day and arrived up to five business days after election day. Now, put aside the absurdity that this is a problem, because how is something that's postmarked on election day going to get there on election day? How? Obviously you're expecting an extension, right? The RNC argued that federal law requires all ballots to be received by election election day. 5, 4. Very close. Very close. Could have easily gone the other way. Now to our rule that justices go against the party that picked them so often that when they do, you know their names. And that's why you know the name Amy Coney Barrett on this one. Why? Because she wrote the majority opinion and joined Roberts and the liberals. Roberts is known as a little bit of a swing. I don't really think that's fair to him. I just think that he's less politically minded than Alito and Clarence Thomas, who was just seen leaving Speaker Mike Johnson's office and wouldn't explain why he was there. Now, by the way, it's not illegal for him to be there, but it would be nice to know why, wouldn't it? Five, four. Very tight. The federal election day law sets the deadline for voters to make their choice, not necessarily the deadline official, the deadline for election election officials to physically receive every mailed ballot. And this is a distinction where the difference matters. States have traditionally had authority over election administration. Congress had not clearly prohibited these receipt grace periods. The dissenters, led by Alito, who's just a straight up righty conservative and his wife is like a fringe righty political operative, argued that allowing ballots to arrive after election day effectively extends the election beyond the federally designated date and could create uncertainty about when results are final. So here's the question that beat Alito. Well, then what happens if there's a weather delay and you can't count all the ballots on election day, which happens in almost every state, not because of weather, but in almost every state there's some kind of occasion where something has to be counted beyond 12 o' clock midnight of election day. So how is that any of that? Okay, it wouldn't be if Alito had his way. But it is okay, because Alito's way is the wrong way. Why? Because he is a political conservative and he wants to hem in voting. Why? These people want fewer people voting. Okay? That's what they want. That's what the SAVE act is about. It's not about stopping illegal voting. You can't stop identify the problem for me. You have a handful of cases. You have a handful of cases. And here is the problem with the argument of but you have a driver's license, you have a license to go into this place. You have a license to go into that place. Where do you need a license to exercise a right? The only place that I can think of which has been ruled as an absolute necessity is if you want a weapon. If you want a weapon, you're going to have to show somebody an id. Now, are there loopholes? Yeah, I guess you could argue the gun show sales are a loophole and then private to private transaction. Now, there are some states that will put a restriction on you that you got to get the ID of the person that you sell to, but that's the only thing I can think of. And it passed a standard of absolute necessity. Now, do you think that the need to know who gets a weapon is as material in our society as the need to prevent voter fraud that has happened by ensuring that the person there has an ID, and by the way, not a fake ID and not the wrong person, which happens with IDs everywhere else? No, in my opinion. Why? Because the franchise to vote is really important to me. It's more important than the right to keep and bear arms. I think voting is more important to the democracy and to my personal freedom than the ability to own a weapon in this day and age. I do. But that's just a personal opinion. But you've never found fraud at scale. You don't have a single election that you can say was determined by fraud and you know, in any major way that hasn't been caught and corrected. And yet you want to put in a restriction that will almost absolutely mean less people vote. And you don't want the burden to be on the government to give them the id. Now, the states that do this, like Virginia, the burden is on the state to get you the id. They pay for it, they make it happen. And until they make it happen for you, you get to vote without it. That's the only way that I would find the SAVE act acceptable on this issue. And the court, while not arguing the SAVE act, is extending this principle, how that the states get to say what it is. And it doesn't end on election day because you want it to, because you want fewer people to vote. And the idea that it helps curb fraud. There is no fraud that needs curbing at scale. So this was the right decision. And I think even if you don't like the decision, you can understand why it came out that way in a way that you cannot with Congress very often. Look, I mean, look at this one that they're trying to do now. People who rape kids should get the death penalty. That sounds kind of good, doesn't it? Right. Well, why don't all rapists get the death penalty? Well, right. What's worse than rape? I guess rape of a child, but still. Still pretty bad, right? So why don't we kill rapists? Certainly I'd want to kill somebody if they raped one of my loved ones. Right in Fact, I might. I might kill you if you raped my daughter. If I can get you, I might kill you. Why? I'd be at an absolute low. I'd be enraged. I'd be a less, a lesser form of myself, of my best self. Is that what we want the instruction of society to be? The answer is no. That's why rapists don't get killed. Because we are conscious from a moral perspective of the sanctity of life. And that really in a Judeo Christian society we have this idea that only God gets to determine who lives and dies. Now I don't believe that. And I don't even believe that we believe it. Right? Because why? Because you guys make it so easy to defend yourself in so many of these same states where you say you're all churched up, that I don't think you really believe that you take away the duty to retreat for self defense. But you're saying only God gets to decide who lives and dies. Then why aren't you making it the law that you got to do everything you possibly can to get the fuck away from a situation where you may hurt someone, let alone kill them? I see an inconsistency on a moral level. Now we don't do it because killing is no joke and you should only do it in the most extreme circumstances. So we're only going to kill you if you kill somebody else. And even then it's become a very antiquated notion. Most democracies in the world do not have it. Israel has it. They're savages. No. It's because they face such a significant existential threat that there are certain crimes that they believe have to be punishable that way. And you can like it or not like it, but I, I understand it. Do I like it or not like it? My personal opinion is I don't think I have, I think the right answer, the most right answer, the most righteous answer, the most moral answer is no. No death penalty. You know better than what you oppose. But I don't care if, if America has it. Why? Because I'm not going to get it. And I think we're a really violent society and I think it's given us too much credit to say that we are at the moral position that I suggest. Not that I'm any better than the rest of you. I'm saying that we all kind of suck and we're violent and we like violence and we employ violence a lot more than most. And I think that we're not really good enough for the standard that I'm putting out there. So to the extent that it is our standard, we're getting lucky. Why don't you rape kids and then get killed for it? Why not? They want to make it a rule. So if they make it a rule, will it pass the 8th amendment? Cruel and unusual punishment? It's a really interesting question right now. I think that from a jurisprudential perspective, they're going to say as a matter of precedent, you do not. That the death penalty is not allowed for non lethal crimes. Is the death penalty constitutional for non murders? Let's see what ChatGPT tells me. Generally, no. The court has held that the death penalty is unconstitutional for crimes against individuals where the victim did not die. Most recently, 2008, the court extended the principle ruling that the death penalty can't be exposed for the rape of a child when the victim did not die should generally be reserved for crimes that result in death exceptions. The court has not definitively ruled that the death penalty is unconstitutional for certain offenses against the state. Ah, there is the loophole, the treason loophole. Okay, so what does the law tell us? Oh, well, you can get the death penalty for non lethal crimes, treason, espionage, terrorism related crimes in some circumstances, but usually you're gonna have to have killed people. Certain military offenses under military laws. Why they're treated differently historically? Cause they're considered offenses against the nation rather than just an individual. However, executions for these crimes are exceedingly rare. And the court has not recently decided whether capital punishment for all such offenses would satisfy the 8th amendment. For it was a little bit of a gray area. A little bit of a gray area. But if it's okay for treason, then why not for rape? It's an interesting political question, but the court would see it differently. And that's why I love the law. That's why my father, Mario Cuomo, may rest in peace, loved the law and saw himself as a lawyer, not a politician. Why? Politics is cheap, ugly and obvious. And the law is often something better than that. Is it perfect? Fuck no. Is justice blind? No. We have problems with the administration of justice. We have problems that echo the problems elsewhere in society. But I don't think they're as bad in the judiciary as they are in the legislative or in the executive. And that is why I say, as we celebrate 250 and we should celebrate not because of where we are, but because of where we're going, because of where we may be, I see an optimism about our country that I not see about my own life. What do you think of that I'll leave you with this. Here is my existential burden as I turn 56 years old this summer. My best days professionally are in all likelihood behind me. I've reached the heights, and they are some good heights, and I will not reach them again in all likelihood. So what is the nature of my ambition? What is the nature of my sense of purpose? Why am I doing this? Why do I do anything? Why am I still here? Why don't I kill myself? Like, you know, ridiculous, ridiculous absurdities spun off. This central idea of. In this existential question of why am I here? Oh, you're here for your kids, you're here for your family, you're here for your friends. They don't really need me. The kids are basically grown. My wife would find somebody better than me. My friends, you know, people lose friends all the time. Why am I here? It's tough, it's tricky. It's much easier for me to answer for this country. Why must America endure? Because it is the white plume. It is the beacon showing that the way is up, that you can go from the slime to the sublime, that there is a point of aspiration of a people and of an endeavor of the human experience to get to a better place, a more perfect union. It's a beautiful idea, and it's one that must endure. So bravo and brava to the Americans experience, to the great experiment, to the United States of America. 250 years and the MVP of our team is the judiciary. It's as flawed as the rest of us, but it acts a little bit better than the rest of us. And that is why it is our best hope of reining in this psycho president we have and making sure that a psycho doesn't come in to replace him with equally psychotic ideas. And that our Congress can have to hew to standards that are bigger than their own. Expedients of the moment. The judiciary could be maddening, frustrating, too slow, too balanced, too equivocal. But it's better than the rest. What do you think? You tell me. Thank you for subscribing and following. Thank you for being a critical thinker. Thank you for branding yourself as an independent, a free agent, that you're different. Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity and thank you for sharing in this dynamic with me. I appreciate you and I wish you well. The challenges are real. My brothers and sisters, let's get after it.