Jurisdiction Stripping (feat. Elie Mystal)

Summary

The Daily Beans – May 13, 2026: “Jurisdiction Stripping” (Feat. Elie Mystal)

---

Episode Overview

This episode of The Daily Beans (hosted by Dana Goldberg, with Allison Gill joining for the main interview) centers on “Court Reform Week,” with a particular focus on the Supreme Court’s power, recent right-wing judicial activism, and possible reforms – especially jurisdiction stripping. Special guest Elie Mystal (justice correspondent at The Nation and author of “Allow Me to Retort” and the new book “Bad Law”) brings sharp, historically rooted insights, critical snark, and passionate advocacy for substantive reform.

Beyond the in-depth court discussion, the episode delivers hot news items on Jeffery Epstein’s survivors’ congressional testimony, the Trump DOJ’s targeting of journalists, recent legal actions against gender-affirming care, the FCC’s investigation of Disney/ABC, and updates on partisan gerrymandering.

---

Key Topics and Discussions

1. The Supreme Court’s Power and the Voting Rights Act: Historic and Current Assaults

• Reconstruction Amendments’ Weakness

  • Elie emphasizes that constitutional amendments must be enforced by legislation:
    “An amendment has no meaning if it's not backed up with the law to support it… [like] the Volstead Act enforcing Prohibition.” (20:58)
  • The 14th Amendment led to the Civil Rights Act, but the 15th (“no race discrimination in voting”) was left unenforced, leading to over a century of disenfranchisement.

• Why the VRA Is Indispensable—and Why Conservatives Hate It

  • The 1965 Voting Rights Act is, per Elie, “the single most important piece of legislation in American history” (23:45) because it finally enfranchised Black Americans and functionally created U.S. democracy as we know it.
  • John Roberts’ crusade against the VRA is discussed:
    “John Roberts' entire legal career starts as a lawyer in the Reagan White House arguing against the... expansion of the Voting Rights Act in 1982.” (26:19)

• Shelby County and Beyond: The Roberts Doctrine of Denial

  • Shelby County v. Holder gutted federal preclearance.
  • The latest Supreme Court decisions restrict the VRA to only explicit, “watermarked” intentional discrimination, making it functionally useless:
    “Intentional discrimination is the person who draws the map writing on top... ‘I hate Negroes.’... racists are dumb, but they're not that dumb.” (27:20)

---

Notable Quotes

• On the Impact of the VRA:
  “Before 1965, we are functionally an apartheid state... Only after the Voting Rights Act did we have something approaching a representative democracy.” – Elie Mystal (23:45)

• The “Black Hole Theory of Politics”:
  “Racism isn’t reductive – it’s the only way you can explain what [the Roberts Court] is doing. Racism is the black hole: you can’t see it, but it explains all the orbits.” – Elie Mystal (29:39)

---

2. Supreme Court Inconsistencies and Overt Politicization

• Inconsistent Application of Law (“Purcell Principle”):

  • SCOTUS uses timing as a pretext:
    “It's always too late to restore Black voting rights, but never too late to take them away.” (32:25)

• The Court’s Raw Power

  • “The Supreme Court is the most powerful branch because it can veto the other two… Five people can nuke any law.” (34:00)
  • No progressive agenda survives unless conservatives lose their supermajority.

---

3. Court Reform Proposals and the Ease of Expansion

• Term Limits vs. Court Expansion

  • Term limits require a constitutional amendment and/or removal process; expansion does not.
  • The Constitution mandates “a” Supreme Court, but leaves specifics to Congress.
    “We’ve changed the number of justices multiple times... That is the way it’s been historically done.” (36:16–38:37)
  • "If you want reform, you expand the court; new justices show up to work Monday. John Roberts isn't Jean Claude Van Damme – he can't stop them." (39:22)

• On Potential Legal Showdowns

  • If the court tried to block new justices: “There’s no standing. You just do it – send your nine guys, and what is Roberts going to do, lock the door?” (39:22)

---

Notable Quotes

• “Expanding the number of justices does not [require an amendment]. It is actually easier to expand the court than remove any of them.” – Elie Mystal (36:16)
• “There is nothing in the Constitution that says the president or Congress has to listen to [the Court] at that point because they would be acting tyrannically.” (39:51)

---

4. Jurisdiction Stripping – What It Is and Its Dangers

• Definition:

  • Congress can, by law, declare that the Supreme Court has no authority to review specific types of legislation—thereby stripping the “jurisdiction” of the court for those cases.
  • “Congress can write the law... and be the final say on the interpretation of the Constitution in this case.” (43:31)

• Limits and Risks:

  • Jurisdiction stripping could trigger a constitutional crisis: red and blue states might follow conflicting authorities.
  • “What you’d have very quickly is a situation where red states follow the Supreme Court ruling, blue states follow the congressional law… That’s how civil wars start.” (43:43–45:56)
  • The power "swings both ways"—a future right-wing Congress could use it for anti-democratic ends.

---

Highlights from the “Hot Notes” News Segment (04:03–18:53)

Major Headlines and Dana’s Commentary

• Epstein Scandal:

  • Survivors testify at a field hearing.
  • DOJ “failed” to redact some victims’ names, causing further trauma.
  • Democrats press for investigation of the prosecution’s failures.

• Trump DOJ and Press Freedom:

  • Justice Department, under Trump, aggressively investigates journalists after leaks over the Iran war.
  • Trump labeled news coverage with sticky notes reading “treason.”

• FCC and Disney/ABC:

  • Democratic FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez accuses the Republican Chair of weaponizing the FCC to censor unsympathetic media.

• Attack on Trans Youth Healthcare:

  • NYU Langone subpoenaed by a Texas federal prosecutor for info on gender-affirming care for minors—a “potential showdown” over state and federal authority and patient privacy.

• Trump’s Frivolous Lawsuit:

  • The 11th Circuit unanimously denies en banc rehearing of Trump’s conspiracy suit against Hillary Clinton et al., upholding $1M in sanctions for frivolous claims. “No judge even requested a vote to retry—there was zero appetite for Trump’s bullshit.”

---

Good News (47:46–End)

User submissions:

• Update on letters for mothers detained at Dilley ICE center—over 3,000 received
• Personal stories and shoutouts (distance cycling, guide dogs for the visually-impaired, Women’s Audio Mission)
• Listener law review article proposing rotating appellate judges through SCOTUS
• Pet and child photos, corrections, feel-good tales

---

Notable Quotes (with Timestamps)

• On the VRA:
  “Before 1965, we are functionally an apartheid state… After 1965, we have something approaching a representative democracy.” – Elie Mystal (23:45)

• On the Roberts Court and Racism:
  “I can't make your decisions make sense without your racism, Neil. I can't make it all line up without your racism. But once I add the racism, everything falls into place.” – Elie Mystal (29:39)

• On Court Expansion:
  “John Roberts can do a lot of things, but he ain’t Jean Claude Van Damme. I don’t think he can throw hands. Send your nine guys, and what is Roberts going to do, lock the door?” – Elie Mystal (39:22)

• On Jurisdiction Stripping and Power:
  “This is how civil wars start… when New York and New Jersey say the law is one way, and Texas and Florida say another.” – Elie Mystal (43:43)

• On Judicial Review as Invention:
  “The idea that the Supreme Court by itself can determine what is and isn’t constitutional is a power the Supreme Court gave to itself in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison.” – Elie Mystal (41:25)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [04:03] Hot notes/news headlines (Epstein, Trump DOJ, FCC, trans health records, Trump’s lawsuit)
• [19:39] Court Reform Week intro and guest welcome (Allison Gill)
• [20:01–32:25] History and impact of the Voting Rights Act; Roberts’ attacks
• [32:25–34:00] SCOTUS’s inconsistencies in voting/civil rights
• [34:00–41:07] Court reform: Supreme Court’s raw power, term limits vs expansion, historical changes
• [41:07–46:13] Jurisdiction stripping: definition, practicalities, potential for crisis
• [46:30] Where to follow Elie Mystal
• [47:46] Good news/user submissions section

---

Tone & Language

• Irreverent, unapologetically progressive, with biting humor and exasperation over right-wing judicial activism.
• Ellie's style: razor-sharp, historically referenced, and brutally honest (“racists are dumb, but not that dumb…”).
• Dana and Allison leverage sarcastic asides and casual profanity to highlight outrage or absurdity.

---

Final Takeaways

• The Supreme Court, as currently composed, is blocking progress on all major social justice fronts, and real change requires reform—especially expanding the Court, which is constitutionally and historically justified.
• Jurisdiction stripping is a theoretically powerful but highly fraught option with potential for deep constitutional crisis.
• The Roberts Court’s evisceration of the Voting Rights Act is not just “about politics” but rooted in a long, ongoing, and explicit project to limit Black and minority power, and undermine democracy itself.
• Collective action—winning Congress and the White House, pushing for legislative and judicial reforms—is both necessary and urgent.

---

For all who haven’t listened, this episode delivers a detailed exploration of America’s judicial crisis and the bold, if controversial, avenues that might address it—with wit, historical grounding, and unflinching clarity.

Transcript

[Amanda Sturgel]

It's no surprise that newsmakers try to manipulate the audience. They want you to believe that they are the one holding the line, and they'll use any trick they can to get you there.

[Dana Goldberg]

But don't let them fool you.

[Amanda Sturgel]

Get Unspun. I'm Amanda Sturgel. I've been a reporter, and today I teach future reporters to cut the spin and think critically about what newsmakers say. My podcast, Unspun, shows you how to know when you're being manipulated by the news, learn to spot the tricks, and how to make up your own mind about what's true. So if you're tired of being fooled by the news, subscribe to Unspun today. Unspun. Because you deserve the truth.

[Allison Gill]

MSW Media.

[Ellie Mistahl]

Jelly beans. Jelly beans.

[Dana Goldberg]

Jelly beans. Daily Beans. Hello and welcome to the Daily beans for Wednesday, May 13, 2026. Today, the Department of Homeland Security is closing Alligator Alcatraz, citing costs. Trump's complaints about leaks regarding the Iran war has prompted aggressive investigations into journalists by the Justice Department. A federal grand jury has subpoenaed New York University's hospital system for the healthcare records of transgender minors. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee have released a report showing how Epstein's sweetheart deal allowed him to expand his sex trafficking operation. The lone Democratic FCC commissioner tells Disney that the agency is out to censor them over disfavored speech. And the 11th Circuit has denied Trump's request to rehear en banc his frivolous lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and 40 others that resulted in $1 million in sanctions for Trump and Alina Haba. Alison's out today. I'm your host, Dana Goldberg. Hey, everybody. Alison had a train issue. Planes, trains and automobiles. So she's out today, and I've got her covered because that's what we do for each other. So it is. It's court reform week on the beans. Now, yesterday we had a congressman that was Olshewski talking about his resolution for a constitutional amendment to add term limits to the Supreme Court. And today, Alison is going to be talking to the author of Bad Law. And allow me to retort, that's Ellie Mistahl and his plan to expand the court through legislation and why it may be easier than term limits with senior status. And everyone, it is official. Two days ago, we told you Trump was thinking about firing FDA chair Marty. Is it Macary? I think it's Macary. And today he's gone. That didn't take long at all. Now, surely to be replaced by someone absolutely fucking awful. So we're going to keep you posted on that because whenever he fires someone, he finds the next best thing, which is usually a horrible person. Also, the Missouri Supreme Court has upheld the new Republican map, giving them an additional seat. Man, this is frustrating. While we're trying to follow the rules, they're just pushing these maps through. The push for South Carolina, by the way, that one actually failed in the state Senate. Republicans actually are questioning the map. Republicans question the map. And arguments in the NAACP lawsuit against Tennessee redistricting. Those are going to be held on May 21st. Now we're going down to Florida. Florida intends to shut down the Everglades concentration camp that we know they call Alligator. Alcatraz officials told vendors there that Tuesday afternoon that the detainees would be moved from the facility in June and that the center would be dismantled over the next few weeks. Now, the facility is costing Florida hundreds of millions of dollars to operate. And the private vendors, they just can't afford this cost anymore. So it's shuttering its doors, which is wonderful. That thing is not set up to house people anyway and not in any humane way because that's not why it was even developed. All right, those are a little bit of the quick hits. So let's get to the big news. Let's hit the hot notes.

[Allison Gill]

Hot notes.

[Dana Goldberg]

First up from the Guardian, Democrats tore into the government's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein abuse scandal on Tuesday, revealing new details of the scale of his international sex trafficking ring. And they're warning Donald Trump not to grant a presidential pardon to Galene Maxwell, several survivors of Epstein's abuse. They also gave tearful testimony at a congressional field hearing that was held in Florida. And and just other experiences as teenagers in the orbit of Epstein. Some spoke about being retraumatized after they were outed by the Justice Department's just utter failure to redact their names from the so called Epstein files. Democratic members of the U.S. house Oversight Committee said that they held Tuesday's event in Palm beach, where the president lives and where EPST had a residence because it was basically the scene of the crime. And I quote, we're here because so much of this investigation brings us back to this location. That's California Democrat Robert Garcia and he is the ranking member of the Oversight Committee. That's what he told at a press conference after the hearing. And there's another quote, we know that the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and Gaylene Maxwell, the horrible things that happened to so many women and girls, totaling 1200, 1200, it could have been stopped and halted. Garcia began the hearing by unveiling a new report called quote, the price of non prosecution that he said revealed how Epstein was able to build a substantial and lucrative international sex trafficking ring following that infamous sweetheart deal with the Florida prosecutors in 2008 after dodging serious charges and serving only 13 months in prison for solicitation of prostitution conviction. He said Epstein and his associates, they gamed the US Immigration system to obtain visas to traffic women into the country from overseas. He says our report uses evidence obtained by our investigation, including and most importantly bank records that show how prosecutor Alex Acosta sweetheart deal let Epstein build a global network using enablers to bring in women who he could then exploit and abuse. One survivor, Danny Bensky, testified how she was groomed and recruited into Epstein circle and how victims were encouraged to recruit friends of their own. She said, I had two recruiters. One was a late teen and the other was only 15 years old just trying to escape from her own abuse. Multiple others, they were recruited from Trump's Mar A Lago club. Allegedly during the many years of friendship between the now president and Epstein. One survivor who happens to be a model and identified herself as Rosa said that she was re traumatized by, by finding her name unredacted hundreds of times in the documents that the Justice Department had released. She said, my name was exposed to the world. New reporters from across the globe were contacting me. I cannot live without looking over my shoulder. I can only imagine the long term impact this mistake in quotes will have on my life. Democrats said they looked forward to the testimony of Pam Bondi, as we know that Trump's former attorney general at a House oversight hearing on May 29. Looking into the government's handling of the files and the wider scandal. Now, I don't know if that one's going to be under oath. They're still trying to figure out if it's going to be recorded, how it's going to be done, what they're going to release to the general public. And I, I have no doubt that she's going to stonewall this investigation in this hearing. I just, I don't think she's going to be honest about anything. I don't think she'll answer anything. So we'll keep you up to date as, as the story continues to unfold. Next up from the Wall Street Journal, President Trump privately complained to acting Attorney General Todd Blanch about media leaks in the wake of the Iran war last month. And that's according to that are familiar with this matter, prompting an aggressive push at the Justice Department to pursue those investigations. Blanche vowed to secure subpoenas specifically targeting the records of reporters who have worked on sensitive national security stories. This is from one official. In one meeting, Trump passed a stack of news articles that he and other senior officials thought threatened national security to blanch with a sticky note on it that said treason. Another administration officials had said that senior Justice Department officials have met with counterparts from the Pentagon to discuss the investigations. And that's according to officials familiar with all of these meetings. Now, in particular, Trump has focused his ire on articles that provided details on how he arrived at his decision to even launch this bullshit war and what his advisors had told him as he deliberated. Launched 10 weeks ago. 10 weeks ago, this conflict is now stuck in a really fucked up ceasefire like cycle that's not getting fixed. And this is a quote in all circumst is the Department of Justice follows the facts and applies the law to identify those committing crimes against the United States. That was a department spokeswoman. A White House official referred a request for comment to the Justice Department. Of course, we have not heard back on that. So they're just going after people that are actually telling the truth because this war, and it is a war, an illegal war, has been botched so badly and they don't have an off ramp now. They're going to distract and go after people that are actually reporting that it's such bullshit. Okay, this next one is also from the Journal. Federal Communications Commissioner Anna Gomez told Josh d', Amaro, and Josh is the chief executive at Disney, that the network's parent company, that ABC has been a victim of a, and I quote, sustained coordinated campaign of censorship and control by the Trump administration. The FCC under Republican Chairman Brendan Carr has been weaponized to pressure a free and independent press and all media into submission. This is from Gomez. So Gomez wrote in a letter that sent to Diamaro on Monday and viewed by the Wall Street Journal. The lone Democrat Commissioner Gomez has been an outspoken critic of many of Carr's actions, which she has alleged are aimed at pressuring broadcasters for political purposes. The letter to Diamaro comes in the wake of several investigations into Disney and ABC initiated by cars fcc, including whether the talk show the View should continue to be granted certain exemptions as a news program. Well, Gomez told d' Amaro that these investigations and incidents, along with an FCC decision to reinstate a complaint at ABC's moderating of a 2024 debate. Jesus. Between then candidate Donald Trump and opponent Kamala Harris are, and I quote, not a series of coincidental regulatory actions. So this is a good thing. I'm glad people are fighting back. We'll see what happens with this. This one's from the Times. This is. This is actually fucking pisses me off, everyone. A major New York City hospital system said it had received a grand jury subpoena from a federal prosecutor in Texas. In Texas, demanding information about adolescents who received gender related medical care during the past six years. NYU Langone disclosed that it received the subpoena last week and was asked, and I quote, to provide information pertaining to patients under the age of 18 who received gender affirming care between 2020 and 2026. The subpoena also requested the names of NYU Langone medical staff members who provided the treatments between 2020 and 2026. The subpoena sets up a potential showdown between the Justice Department and one of Manhattan's leading medical institutions. The hospital said that it was weighing what to do next. In a notice on the website, NYU Langone says that it was one of several institutions to receive grand jury on May 7 from the U.S. attorney's office in the Northern District of Texas. The location may prove significant. A federal judge in that district moved quickly to enforce an administrative subpoena that the Justice Department had issued in recent weeks to Rhode Island's hospital about an investigation into the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy. Now, a New York law requires NYU Langone to first notify the state attorney general before complying with the subpoena. The law also requires that that hospital to try to notify affected patients. The executive director of the Christopher Street Project, and that's a political action committee, a nonprofit that was started in response to Trump's transgender policies, expressed hope that the hospital and the Attorney General's office would fight the subpoena. In the past, the Office of New York's Attorney General has encouraged NYU Langone to continue providing transition treatments to adolescents even in the face of threats from the federal government. The Attorney General's office has said that denying such treatment to trans youth could violate anti discrimination laws. And I quote, we won't allow anti trans extremists to come into New York and steal our patient data and use it to investigate and criminalize trans kids and providers and their parents. That's from Tyler Hack. And that is the executive director of the Christopher Street Project. So this is going to be happening a lot. Everyone, we'll keep you updated as these stories come in. This one is actually from Raw Story. This next one. The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has declined to rehear President Trump's lawsuit against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, and dozens of other defendants. Trump filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court of the Southern District of Florida, alleging that the defendants conspired to falsely claim his campaign had colluded with Russia during the 2016 election. Every invested fucking gation has said that Russia interfered with our election. This isn't just people saying, oh, we think it happened. There was proof. The district court initially dismissed the lawsuit, by the way. Now, afterward, Trump and his then attorney, Alina Haba, they were hit with a million dollars in sanctions for filing frivolous claims and pleadings. Well, in November 2025, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the sanctions and I quote, many of Trump's Ann Haba's legal arguments were indeed frivolous. This is from Chief Judge William Pryor Jr. Wrote in a unanimous panel on Tuesday. The panel of judges said they were also refusing to rehear the case, which is wonderful. Here's the quote. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. No judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc, the court's ruling said. And the petition for panel rehearing is also denied. So Trump's this is done. The en banc denial is significant because it means that no active judge on the full 11th Circuit even requested a vote, none of them to rehear it, suggesting there was no appetite on the court to revisit the outcome. And listen, we get our wins where we can because there's so many other courts that are just doing a bullshit job in this country. So we're still going to bring you the good news stories when we have them. All right, everyone, those were the hot notes. The good, the bad, and the ugly. And of course, we're going to have our good news. But before that, we've got that interview with Alison Gill and Ellie Mystal. So we'll be right back after these messages. We'll be right back. I ended up trying Honey Love because I was frustrated with the shapewear and bras that felt like I had to compromise no matter what. Either they were supportive and uncomfortable or comfortable and not very useful. Honeylove was better than I expected because it felt wearable right away. The support is there, the fit feels smooth, and it does not spend the day slipping around. It has become one of those brands I would actually recommend to a friend because it fits real life. So now you'll understand why we want to thank Honey Love for sponsoring our show. Use our exclusive Link to save 20% off [e-mail] DailyBeans what HoneyLove does well is make the practical stuff feel much less dull. The Cloud Embrace bra is a great example of that. It's a modern wireless T shirt bra with lightly padded foam cups which gives you a smooth everyday look without the usual underwire situation. And it matters that honeylove is a female founded brand because their product feels like they were actually designed around how people live and move. The shapewear stands out for the same reason it was made to move with you instead of rolling down the second you sit or walk or try to enjoy your night. And the targeted compression. It works so well because it enhances your shape without making you feel squeezed, flattened or restricted. Treat yourself to the most advanced bras and shapewear on the market. Use our exclusive Link to save 20% off Honey [e-mail] DailyBeans that's HoneyLove.com DailyBeans after you check out, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Experience the new standard in comfort and support with Honey Love. Wildgreen is the first baked from frozen subscription box for sourdough breads, artisanal pastries, fresh pasta and it makes having high quality basics at home much easier. They use simple ingredients and a slow fermentation process that can be easier on your stomach and richer in nutrients and antioxidants than most store bought options. Everything bakes in 25 minutes or less with no thawing and the boxes are fully customizable with variety gluten free which I love. Vegan and new protein options. This episode of the Daily Beans is brought to you by Wild Grain. Check this deal out Right now Wild Grain is offering you $30 off your first box plus free croissants in every box when you go to wildgrain.comdailybeans to start your subscription or you can use promo code DailyBeans at checkout. Two wild grain products I keep coming back to are the Sourdough loaf and the Croissants. I'm not always going grain free now. The Sourdough tastes great with bakery quality and the croissants they are flaky and buttery. Honestly really impressive for how easy they are to make. That convenience is a huge part of the appeal for me, especially because I travel so much. Wild grain also fits well with my health goals because the ingredients are simple and the slow fermentation process it feels like a much better match for how I want to eat. Imagine having fresh bakery quality bread, pastries and pasta at home without any trips to the store. And don't just take my word for it. They have over 40,000 five star reviews and have been voted the best food subscription box by USA Today for three years in a row. For a limited time, Wild Grain is offering our listeners $30 off your first box plus free croissants for life when you go to wildgreen.com dailybeans to start your subscription today. That's $30 off your first box and free croissants for life when you visit wild brain.com dailybeans or you can use promo code Daily Beans at checkout.

[Brian Caram]

I'm Brian Caram and I've spent decades covering politics. Now I'm taking you behind the scenes one interview at a time.

[Brian Caram (voiceover)]

Join us as each week Brian confronts the issues that matter, posing the questions you wish you could ask. No filter, no agenda, just the truth.

[Brian Caram]

We're not here for sound bites. We're here for substance. Join me, Brian Caram every week as we cut through the noise and get straight to it. This is Just Ask the Question for Curiosity will lead us to the facts.

[Brian Caram (voiceover)]

Subscribe now on your favorite podcast platform and remember, when you want answers, all you have to do is just ask the question.

[Allison Gill]

Hey everybody, it's Court Reform Week and it's going to be Court Reform Week for every week for the rest of my life. But it's Court Reform Week here on the Daily Beans. Joining us today is justice correspondent for the Nation magazine, author of Allow Me to Retort. We've had him on the show before and he's got a new book out called Bad Law. Please welcome neutral good paladin Ellie Mistahl. Hello my friend.

[Ellie Mistahl]

How are you? Alison?

[Allison Gill]

I am feeling a little powerless and kind of shitty about what's going down this week. But you know, things are bad. Aside from the fascism, everything's okay. I should just get a shirt that says that.

[Ellie Mistahl]

But right aside from that, the play was great, Mrs. Lincoln. Like, exactly.

[Allison Gill]

I won't talk about court reform, but let's start with the vra because many, many years ago when we had you on and we did our little book club limited series on Allow Me to Retort, you and I discussed the loopholes left in the Reconstruction Amendments that were big enough to park a truck in that would lead to, and did lead to a century plus of backsliding into white supremacy. We saw John Roberts and the Virginia Supreme Court take full Advantage of that this week. So can I just get your top line thoughts? Because you were the first person who popped into my head when all this started going down this week.

[Ellie Mistahl]

Oh, well, thank you. I like when people think about me when everything goes to shit.

[Dana Goldberg]

Yeah.

[Ellie Mistahl]

So let's start with the 15th amendment, right? Let's start with the 14th and 15th amendment. The reconstruction Amendments. They're great. They're super important, and they didn't mean a damn thing in real time. Right? And that's because for an amendment to have force and effect, for an amendment to change the law, you need to actually have a law that enforces the amendments. Right? Like, I always like people to think about Prohibition, right? The 18th Amendment, okay? We outlaw liquor, man. Ain't nobody go to jail because of the Prohibition Amendment. People went to jail because of the Volstead Act. It was the Volstead act that enforced the 18th Amendment. And it was that that way of enforcing the 18th amendment is what caused all of the problems with Prohibition. I'm not saying Prohibition was a good idea. I'm saying that the way that they enforce Prohibition through the Volstead act was the thing that we think about when we think of Prohibition. So that is all to say an amendment has no meaning if it's not backed up with the law to support it. Now, for the 14th Amendment, they got a Civil Rights act out by 1868. Bang. Right? It was literally. They argued that they needed to pass the 14th Amendment so that they needed to ratify the 14th Amendment so that the 1868 Civil Rights act could be legal. It wasn't gonna be legal without the 14th amendment, right? The 15th amendment, they didn't do shit. They didn't pass shit. They didn't legislate anything. They just let that lie. Oh, you can't discriminate against people on account of race and voting. What does that mean? What does discriminate mean? What does on account of race mean? There was no legislation to explain that. And so obviously, the former Confederacy, the South, did everything they could to get around the 15th Amendment by saying, no, no, we're not discriminating about race. We're discriminating about all these other things that we are allowed to do because there's no law restricting us. And that didn't just happen in the South. It happened in a lot of places in the north too. So that's why I say, and I've said this before, the Voting Rights act of 1965 is the single most important piece of legislation in American history, because before 1965, we are functionally an apartheid state. We are functionally a country where people who are living here are forced to live apart literal segregation from the white population and are not allowed to participate in democratic self government. After 1965 we have something approaching an imperfect and still racist and still white supremacist. But we have something approaching a representative democracy. The Voting Rights act did that. I ran the numbers after the Supreme Court killed it a couple weeks ago. There were four black congresspeople in Congress in 1964. Fast forward after the Voting Rights act in 1968 and that number has more than doubled to nine, right? Nine's not a great number. It's more than double what we had representation wise from before the Voting Rights Act. It more than doubles in just two congressional cycles. Now we have 67 black people in Congress and 56 Latinos in Congress. Right? So you can see the sea change there. Same thing happens with women, by the way, because the Voting Rights act also enforced women's rights to votes. I always say the 19th Amendment meant nothing for black women until the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. So you look before the 1965 Voting Rights act there are 13 women in Congress. Today there are 157. The Voting Rights act did that. And that is why white male cishetero Republicans hate it. They've hated it since its inception. They've tried very hard to get rid of it. John Roberts entire legal career starts as a lawyer in the Reagan White House arguing against the Reagan expansion of the Voting Rights act in 1982. I mean think about this folks. The Voting Rights act is so popular and so universal and think and thought of as such a pillar of American democracy that Ronald fricking Reagan was like yeah, no, we gotta vote for that. We gotta make that happen. Ronald Reagan. And in that office where Ronald Reagan is like yes, we have to support black people voting. John Roberts is the guy that's like no we don't. No we don't. We should not. And he's made it his entire crusade to get rid of this pillar of American democracy. And he finally succeeded a couple of weeks ago. He finally succeeded in Louisiana versus Calais where they destroyed what was. Roberts already has taken big shots at the Voting Rights act in Shelby county. Beholder in 2013 getting rid of section five, which was the section that forced southern states to have their new congressional maps and new voting regulations approved pre clearance by the federal government. He guts that that in 2013. I like to say you can draw a straight line between John Roberts gutting The Voting Rights act in 2013 and Donald Trump winning the presidency in 2016. That is why that happened. If there had been a robust defense of the Voting Rights Act, I don't think Trump wins that election in 2016. And now, like a mobster with the double tap, Roberts comes back around last week or two weeks ago and finishes the job and kills, functionally kills, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. And the way that he does it is important, right? Because what the court is saying in Calais is essentially that the Voting Rights act only affects. Only speaks to intentional discrimination. Intentional discrimination against black people's rights to vote, Right? Well, what is intentional discrimination? According to Roberts and Alito and Gorsuch and all the rest of them, intentional discrimination is pretty much the person who draws the map writing on top of the map in a watermark. I hate Negroes. So I drew this map.

[Allison Gill]

It's like their bribery ruling, right? Like, you have to have a note that's saying, I'm bribing you for this, right. In order for it to be bribery,

[Ellie Mistahl]

that you're doing it for racism. Because what the court says is that you can't infer the racism from the impact of the map, right? So if the map just happens to be racist to black people, who can say that that was racist? Maybe you were just trying to hurt Democrats. Maybe you were just trying to hurt people who go to church on Sundays. Who can say? But only if you say, I drew this map because I hate black folks. That's the only way that the Voting Rights act is allowed to operate. And obviously, I mean, racists are dumb, but they're not that dumb, right? They rarely admit. I mean, not every racist is Hulk Hogan with a can of spray paint, right? Like, they rarely admit to doing what they're doing. And that's why this decision goes to the very. Essentially makes the Voting Rights act non functional. Because if you can't infer the racist intent, then guess what? You're never gonna be able to prove it, because they're never gonna admit to it.

[Allison Gill]

Well, and I think we've gotten probably one of the best examples in history of why we need the Voting Rights act in the first place with what the Supreme Court's done over the past week. And we can start with, I mean, Alabama is, again, I'm not surprised by anything that the Supreme Court does. But this was a map that the Supreme Court said they had to use until 2030, but they wanted to, under what happened in Calais, draw a brand new map. But the thing is, is that Back in December in Texas, when they added their five seats and the Democrats sued, the Supreme Court said, sorry, Democrats, we can't go back to the old map. It's too late. The primaries are just around the corner. It's too late. But in Alabama they said, sure, go ahead, even though voting had already begun. And so obviously I'm not looking for any kind of consistency or with this Supreme Court, but I mean, how is it not first of all political when John Roberts said, well, court's not political, please stop calling us political, but how can you say it's not racist when you see what happens in Alabama or in Memphis, where they left white Democratic strongholds alone, but carved Memphis up, which is 63% black? I don't understand. I mean, I can't make it make sense. Not that anything that this court has done recently makes sense, but it makes

[Ellie Mistahl]

perfect sense if you understand that this court is racist, right? I mean, like that a lot of times when I accuse the court of racism or when I accuse Trump official of racism or whatever, liberals, specifically intellectual, like high functioning intellectual liberals, act like the charge of racism is reductive. Oh, it's never that simple. It's actually not just racism, it's also egg crisis. It's not just, it's also this, it's also that, right? They act like racism is reductive, is too reductive of an answer for their kind of ivory tower beliefs. I don't think racism is a reductive answer. I think racism is very complicated. I think it's very complicated to, to think about how you end up being a person who writes racist laws or approves racist decisions. Like there's a lot going on in your tiny small asshole brain to get there. Right? However, this is a situation where you can't explain what they're doing without the racism, Right? It's kind of the, It's a thing that I got from John Marshall and Talking Points memo like, like five or years ago or whatever. It's the black hole. He calls it the black hole theory of politics. If you think about a black hole, we can't see it. It's a black hole light. Doesn't this get. We can't see a black hole, but we know it's there because of the gravitational effects it has on everything else, right? You can't explain the orbits of all of these interstellar, these stellar bodies without a black hole being there somewhere in the middle that you can't see. That's what racism is like for the Supreme Court. You can't actually explain their opinions. You can't explain why they do what they do without racism being at the beating core of it. All right? So even though they don't admit it, even though they say, oh, I don't have a racist bone in my body, John, I can't make your decisions make sense without your racism, Neil. I can't make it all line up without your racism. But once I add the racism, everything falls into place. Once I add the fact that you just hate black folks, every other decision you make makes a ton of sense. So that's how you explain it. Alison, the reason why it is just for your listeners, the principle that we are both talking about the Supreme Court calls the Purcell Principle. The idea that you can't make changes to this time, manner, place, structure of an election, too close to the election. And we've seen repeatedly where the Court has said it is too close to an election to restore black voting rights, but apparently it's never too late to take them away.

[Dana Goldberg]

Right.

[Ellie Mistahl]

And you can't explain that without understanding their resistance and antipathy towards black people exercising political power in what they think is a white country.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. And, you know, a lot of folks, myself included, are like, all right, we gotta win back the Congress, we gotta win back the Senate, we gotta kill the filibuster, we gotta pass laws, we gotta codify Roe, we gotta pass the John Lewis Voting Rights act, we gotta pass HR1, we the People Act. But my first thought, thanks to reading your book, is everything just like third base and Abbott and Costello, who's on first? Everything goes to the Supreme Court at some point and they will gut the shit out of it. And so we can't have nice things until we get court reform. And reading everything that you've written in, in multiple areas of your books and in the magazine and stuff like that. There's been, you know, the first thing that you and I talked about was term limit senior status. Because you're like, look, you get a robe and a paycheck. It doesn't necessarily. The Constitution doesn't guarantee you a vote for the rest of your life, just a robe and a paycheck. And that can be done through legislation, but also expanding the Supreme Court. Some people have said, get 13 seats in there, one for each circuit. Right. You've suggested more. We'll talk about that. I had yesterday, Olsheski, on Representative Olshesky, who has wanted to also introduce a constitutional amendment for term limits. Because without the senior status thing, you can't have term limits, which is was what you had come up with before. So talk about where you are with court reform and why it's 100% necessary if we ever want nice things again.

[Ellie Mistahl]

Yeah, let's start with the why the Supreme Court is the most powerful branch of government.

[Dana Goldberg]

Government.

[Ellie Mistahl]

And I know it's not supposed to be. It's supposed to be a co. Equal branch of government, Right. We're supposed to have checks and balances or whatever, but the reason why the Supreme Court is the most powerful branch of government is because the Supreme Court is the only branch that can veto the other two. Right. You can have a law passed through the House, passed through the Senate, signed by the president, and five people on the Supreme Court are saying, no, I don't like that law. And just, it's gone. It's just, it's. You don't have the law anymore. Like, what the is that? And what that is is power, Raw political power. The Supreme Court is the most powerful branch of government. And so if you allow the most powerful branch of government to be controlled by five or six reactionary conservatives for the rest of your life, you get nothing. You get nothing. You have no, you have no democratic agenda, you have no progressive agenda, you have no black agenda, you have no Latino agenda. You have no environmental agenda. You have no gun regulation agenda. You have nothing. Because any piece of legislation you pass, these six people can say, no, I don't like it, Goodbye. And they do it regularly. That is not me pontificating, that is not me articulating. That is me telling you what they are. They've actually done in your lifetime in front of your faces. Right. Oh, you like campaign finance perform? Too bad the Supreme Court doesn't like it. And so you can't have it. Oh, you like gun regulations? Too bad the Supreme Court doesn't like it, so you can't have it.

[Allison Gill]

Bribery, statutes, immunity. I mean, Anderson, it goes on and

[Ellie Mistahl]

on and on, Right? So you get nothing if you don't control the Supreme Court. How do you control the Supreme Court when they have a conservative supermajority ensconced with lifetime power? You expand the court, you add justices to the court. Not only is it the only way, it is the constitutionally preferred way. As we were talking about, term limits most likely require a constitutional amendment.

[Allison Gill]

Right.

[Ellie Mistahl]

Expanding the number of justices does not. That is simple legislation. It is actually easier to expand the number of justices on their court than it is to remove any of them, because you have to go through the entire constitutional process of impeachment to remove any of them. And that, as we know, requires 66 votes in the Senate to get rid of just one of them, whereas you can add them by a simple piece of legislation. So it's harder to remove them, and it's much harder to make them leave when they get too old, because the Constitution doesn't like that either. But what the Constitution is silent about is expanding the core. The Constitution says in Article 3 that there shall be a Supreme Court. Great. Good job. And Congress shall decide. All the courts will decide what that court looks like. Right. So that we have a Supreme Court is constitutionally mandated, but that we have this Supreme Court with these powers, with these number of people, that's all decided by Congress. And my final point to this is that we've changed the number of people in the Supreme Court a bunch of times. A bunch of times. You know, pop quiz. How many justices that we start out with at the Founding? Was it nine? No, wrong. It was six. Right. We started with six. Adams took it down to five. Jefferson put it back at six. Then Jefferson, on his way out the door, put it at seven. Then Andrew Jackson comes in and says, I hate that national banks. I hate Indians and the National Bank. And he puts in two more justices that also hated Indians and the National Bank. So that's how we got to nine. The first time Abraham Lincoln shows up and the nine justice Supreme Court is like, I don't think you should have as much power over this war, Mr. Lincoln. And Mr. Lincoln goes, go jump in a fricking list. He adds a 10th justice. So we were at 10 during the civil War. Then Lincoln gets shot. Andrew Johnson takes over. People hate Andrew Johnson, so they don't want to give him that 10th justice. So Congress pulls it back down to nine. And that was the 1869 Judiciary Act. And we have been at nine since then. But that's. I just went through seven ish changes in the number of Supreme Court Justices. That's happened in our history. That is the way it's been historically done. And that's why court expansion right now is the one, the only, and the constitutionally appropriate answer for a Supreme Court that has gotten too far ahead of its keys.

[Allison Gill]

And what does it look like? Like, let's say we get the House, we get the Senate, let's say we manage to kill the filibuster, and let's say we pass legislation, get a Democrat in the White House in 29, he signs it to add however many Supreme Court justices, and then they're sued and it goes to the Supreme Court. What do you just get them in there real quick? Like, what is it?

[Ellie Mistahl]

Do you pull them out like, there is no lawsuit there? Like, there's no standing for a lawsuit there. There's no argument that Congress can't change the number of justices whenever it wants.

[Dana Goldberg]

No, I know, I know.

[Allison Gill]

There's no argument. There's no argument for immunity for the president either.

[Ellie Mistahl]

But, like, all right, but this is the kind of situation where, like, the court said, no, we don't want more justices on the Supreme Court. And you're like, well, my guys are showing up to work on Monday.

[Allison Gill]

You just do it.

[Ellie Mistahl]

Fight them if you can. Like, you know, with that. Like, literally, I've made this argument before, but, like, John Roberts can do a lot of things, but he ain't John Claude Van Damme. I don't think John Roberts can throw hands. Right. And so honestly, you send your nine guys and what is John Roberts going to do? Lock the door?

[Allison Gill]

Right. Send the marshals.

[Ellie Mistahl]

It's a straight up, like, here are our new justices. They show up to work on Monday. Deal with it, John.

[Allison Gill]

Right.

[Ellie Mistahl]

Is how you deal with that lawsuit. Even if they try to say it's unconstitutional, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the president or Congress has to listen to them at that point because they are the ones that are acting at that point tyrannically.

[Allison Gill]

And the Justice Department controls the marshals and the President has the National Guard.

[Ellie Mistahl]

And you go back a long way with this. I was always like, Barack Obama should just send Merrick Garland to work. Just send his ass to work. Like, what are they again? What are they going to do? I don't think John Roberts can fight. So, yes, in a Supreme Court expansion, see, with term limits, you do have to remove the Supreme Court to agree because you have to make them leave.

[Allison Gill]

Right, Right.

[Ellie Mistahl]

And so if you want to have an 18 year term, here are the two, three justices that if you did 18 year term limits, here are the three justices that have served more than 18 years. John Roberts, Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas.

[Dana Goldberg]

Yeah.

[Allison Gill]

And in 2029, you can add Kagan and Sotomayor.

[Dana Goldberg]

Sotomayor, yeah.

[Ellie Mistahl]

So how do you make them leave if they don't want to leave? I mean, there are ways, but they're not adding people.

[Allison Gill]

They're just.

[Ellie Mistahl]

Those ways are not good looks. Right. But adding people, they just show up to work on Monday.

[Allison Gill]

No, I love it. Before I let you go real quick, I think we got another minute here. Some folks have also floated jurisdiction stripping, and I'm wondering what that means, like, if you wanted to pass a Voting Rights act without changing the balance of the court, you could strip these nine of their jurisdiction to do anything on Voting Rights Act. But that would take another act of Congress and a president to sign it.

[Ellie Mistahl]

Yeah, it would definitely take another act of Congress. And I'm a late adopter to jurisdiction stripping. So I've been on term limits, senior status and court expansion for almost a decade now. I'm late to the party on jurisdiction stripping. I have been convinced by Harvard law professor Nick Bowie that this is the way to go. Let's put it like this. The word unconstitutional does not appear in the US Constitution. It's shocking to a lot of people. That word does not exist in the Constitution. The idea that the Supreme Court by itself can determine what is and is not constitutional is a power the Supreme Court gave to itself in 1803 in the case called Marbury v. Madison. It wasn't from the founding, it wasn't in the Federalist Papers. That is something the Supreme Court invented,

[Allison Gill]

by the way, the case that Trump cited that said in his immunity thing that there's the reason the court can't do what he wants it to do.

[Ellie Mistahl]

Exactly, exactly. Right. So that's weird. It's a power that the Supreme Court gave to itself. And the other thing that I have learned, and I now point out to people, is that our court is weird in terms of having this power. Most other high courts in most other countries do not have the power to veto an act of the legislative bodies and the prime minister, that's just not a thing they do. I always like to say the British don't know the names of the people on their high court because they don't have to. Because the people on their high court do not get to make these high charged, high powered political decisions. Our Supreme Court is incredibly overpowered on the world stage. Right. So this all leads to jurisdiction stripping and that it's a legally jargony word, but it's a pretty simple idea. Idea, it's that Congress can write the law and then in the law say that our interpretation of the Constitution is thus, and we are the final say on the interpretation of the Constitution. In this case.

[Allison Gill]

It's not justiciable.

[Ellie Mistahl]

And so the Supreme Court has no right to judge the constitutional interpretation here because we, Congress, we the representatives of the people, have decided that this is constitutional.

[Dana Goldberg]

Constitutional.

[Ellie Mistahl]

And then the Supreme Court arguably can't rule on it. Now, the reason why I'm late to the jurisdiction stripping party is that I know what Happens next. This is a situation where Robert says, interesting. No, it's still unconstitutional. Right. And what you then have is Congress saying, this is the law and this is constitutional, and you have the Supreme Court saying, that's not the law, it's unconstitutional. Well, then, depending on the law, what do people do with that information? Right. What do state governments do with that information? What do the police do with that information? And what you'd have, I think, very quickly, is a situation where red states follow the Supreme Court ruling and blue states followed the congressional law. And, you know, I just kind of explained how civil wars start, like, kind of accidentally, sort of, kind of almost explain how you get an actual hot war when you have New York and New Jersey saying the law is one way and Texas and Florida saying the law is another way. Like, okay, if the President and Congress say this is the law, and Texas and Florida aren't following the law because they have a Supreme Court opinion that they say is controlling, how do you make Texas and Florida follow the law? Do you send in armed people to make Texas and Florida. Right. So you see what I'm saying. You see how it can spin to pretty ugly places pretty quickly, however. So that's why I was resistant or reluctant to adopt jurisdiction stripping as a real reform idea. But I've come around. I've come, like, I think we are. I think the moment that we are in requires more aggressive responses. And that is one of the most aggressive responses that one can think of. And of course, it won't work the other way. And so you can absolutely imagine Congress, this Congress and this president signing a law saying, okay, now no Latinos are citizens ever. Like, just never.

[Dana Goldberg]

You can never. Right.

[Ellie Mistahl]

And the Supreme Court saying that's unconstitutional, and the Republicans saying jurisdiction strips like, it is a. I don't want to say it's a Pandora's box, but it is certainly a door that swings both ways.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. Always have to put the shoe on the other foot sometimes when you.

[Ellie Mistahl]

Right.

[Allison Gill]

When you think about these things. All right, my friend, I really appreciate you coming on today, and I could talk to you for at least another hour, but we, you know, we've got other things to do this. This fine afternoon, but I want you to tell everybody where they can find and follow you. Get your information, and make sure they catch up on all their readings about all these possibilities for court reform.

[Ellie Mistahl]

So I'm NYC on blue sky because I'm no longer really on the apartheid side just for mental health reasons. I also write every week for the Nation and I have a newsletter, a weekly newsletter in the nation as well, that you can check out where I talk about this kind of stuff and whatever video game I'm playing.

[Allison Gill]

Amazing. Thank you so much, my neutral, good paladin friend.

[Ellie Mistahl]

Thank you so much for having me.

[Allison Gill]

Else, I really appreciate you coming on, so thank you very much, everybody. Stick around. We'll be right back with the good news.

[Brian Caram]

I'm Brian Caram, and I've spent decades covering politics. Now I'm taking you behind the scenes, one interview at a time.

[Brian Caram (voiceover)]

Join us as each week Brian confronts the issues that matter, posing the questions you wish you could ask. No filter, no agenda, just the truth.

[Brian Caram]

We're not here for sound bites. We're here for substance. Join me, me, Brian Caram, every week as we cut through the noise and get straight to it. This is just ask the question for curiosity will lead us to the facts.

[Brian Caram (voiceover)]

Subscribe now on your favorite podcast platform and remember, when you want answers, all you have to do is just ask the question.

[Dana Goldberg]

All right, everyone, welcome back. It's time for the good news.

[Allison Gill]

Who likes good news?

[Ellie Mistahl]

Everyone? Then good news, everyone.

[Dana Goldberg]

Good news. Okay, this is the good news. And as you know, just if you have any good news, we need it. Confessions, Corrections, Misheard lyrics, woobies, shout outs to yourself people you love. Any of that stuff shit kids say. Just. Just request for vibes, anything that you need. You can send your good news to DailyBeansPod.com good. And just submit stuff. Make sure you attach your pod pet tariff. You know, it's a picture of. Of your kids, of animals, the baby otters, anything that would make Allison and I happy. That can be your pod pit tax. We'll take it. All right, let's start with some good trouble. This is an update on delivering Mother's Day to the moms of dilly from childrensrights.org and I quote, we received over 3,000 letters, pictures and messages of love for the mothers detained at Dilley at Texas ICE Detention Center. 3000. Your cards and messages will be published on May 13th and shared with the mothers at Dilly. Thank you for being part of the movement that refuses to look away from the suffering of children and the families and refuses to let them be forgotten. Now related in this from the submitter, Ms. Rachel shared the steps that you can take to help close Dilley Detention center and end the family detention. Number one, you can sign the [e-mail] and by the way, that petition now has over 290,000 signatures. We're going to have a link to it in the show notes. Number two call your reps and senators in the post Ms. Rachel shared script that you can actually follow. Number three every representatives are supportive publicly thank and tag them on social media. We've got an ad. Number four if they are unsupportive or non committal tag them and shame them. Ms. Rachel did not suggest that by the way. But we here at the Daily Beans are and there's going to be a link to Ms. Rachel's Instagram post in the show notes. All of this is available. This is 3,000. Just incredible. Incredible. All right, next submission. Good news is from Maggie Pronoun she and her hello ladies of the Lagoon. My submission is actually several good news items all rolled into one a sister shout out, a double nonprofit shout out self shout out and a built in pod pet tariff. First the sister shout out. Four years ago, when I took up distance cycling at age 53, my big sister Eliza became my loudest, most unwavering cheerleader. We live 1800 miles apart. I'm in San Francisco, she's in San Antonio. Yet she's shown up for me through every riding event with calls and text. She even flew to Santa Monica to meet me at the finish line at the 2013 AIDS Life Cycle, a 545 mile, seven day ride from San Francisco to LA. And by the way, Maggie, I've done that ride. Good for you. It is not easy. Not easy. Well done. All the while, Liza was quietly navigating her own enormous challenge. She had Stargardt disease. I hope I'm saying that right. Stargardt disease, a rare genetic eye disorder that has now affected her central vision so severely that she's legally blind. But instead of letting her diagnosis stop her, she's taken action. In 2021, she adopted a puppy and trained her as the service dog she knew she'd eventually need. Mia now holds the AKC Canine Good Citizen certification. She is the goodest girl. Given all this, it should come as no surprise that Eliza enthusiastically accepted my invitation last year to join me for a 72 mile, 3,890 foot elevation ride around Lake Tahoe this June 7th.

[Ellie Mistahl]

Wow.

[Dana Goldberg]

On a tandem. I'll be captain up front, she'll be the stoker in the back, and we are absolutely going to crush it. We are dedicating our ride to two organizations close to our hearts, and these are the organization Shout Outs Guide Dogs for Texas, a San Antonio nonprofit that pairs people with visual impairments with expertly trained guide dogs, completely free of charge. We'll have a Link to that in the show notes. Two Women's Audio Mission, a San Francisco and LA nonprofit advancing women and gender expansive people in the music, production and audio engineering. Less than 5% of the sound and media creators are women or gender expansive. WAM is changing that and we'll have a link to that in our show notes. Now the quick self shout out to tell our story and invite people to follow and support our ride. I built a website site. We're going to have a link to that in the show notes. This is awesome. Finally, Podpet Tariff. Our Tahoe Tandemania site features several adorable photos of heroic guide dogs. But of course I'm partial to the one of Mia, who will be cheering her mom and aunt on from her home in San Antonio next month. Eliza and I are elite cyclists. We're two sisters, ages 56 and 61, riding a tandem bike for each other and for causes that make the world a better place. Thank you for all you do that. This whole this submission is really freaking awesome. Good luck on this tandem ride. That's a hell of an elevation gain. I'm just really impressed. And look at that doggo. Oh, so sweet. Thank you, thank you, thank you. All right, next up is from anonymous pronoun C and him. I wrote a law review article proposing that sitting federal appellate judges rotate into the Supreme Court for fixed two to four year terms before returning to their home circuits, arguing this would reduce strategic retirements, depoliticize confirmation battles and strengthen democratic accountability, all while requiring a constitutional amendment. I'd love this to be considered instead of court packing or term limits, both of which can be abused by another lawless president. It's a really great idea. We're going to have a link to this idea in the show Notes. Podpet Tariff Our little dog jellyfish. Can you guess the breed? He's a. I think he's a poodle. What? Like a what? What is that? I. I'm needing Allison right now. A poodle. I can't even think of the word. I. I'm. What? Schnauzer? I'm. I'm not actually sure. Let's see what we have there. We've got a. A. A Mal. Oh, it's a Maltese. And a Bichon Frise. 75% Maltese, 25% Bichon Frise. Very, very cute. Very cute. Thank you so much for that suggestion. I like it. I like it. This is from Janine. No pronouns given. I love your interview with Rep. Johnny O. Just one minor correction concerning the process to add an Amendment to the US Constitution it takes 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment, not 3/5 as he claimed. Thank you for all you do every day to keep us informed and motivated. All right, next up is from Dusty Pronoun. She and her hello queens of the beans. Please don't worry so much about meeting your hero. Gene Smart. At a tender age of 27, 1975, I got to meet my absolute hero. I had my first real paying job as coordinator of the new women's center at Marshall. We had a grand opening ceremony and our guest of honor was Gloria Steinem. It was my job to introduce her. Talk about nervous. She is warm, lovely person and she asked me to autograph a poem that the dean of students had put in our first newsletter. The rest of that day is a blur, but I will always remember her generosity and support. I hope your meeting goes as well as mine did. My pot pet tariff is a photo of my son and daughter in law's two deaf dogs after rescuing Gizmo, the brown one. They took Lazar. They are shelter mutts with one breed predominant. The predominant breed is definitely Pitti. Oh my God, this is so cute. They're adorable. Thank you for this. All right, next up is from Lee pronouns she and her. Hello gorgeous goddesses of the legume. The sacred Black Hills site. Pesle is pronounced Pishla. Thank you very much. Peshla. Peshla. Thank you very much for this. No, I think it's pishla. That's probably a hard E, you guys, I'm so sorry. Whenever I get a correction like this and then I go through all of those things, some of you are probably like, which one is it? I think it's pishla. You're an essential and welcome light in these dark times. Thank you for all you do and encourage others to do as well. Well attached, if it did it correctly, is my NK3 poster and my grand nephew gleefully driving a big truck and demonstrating Donald's emotional age. The sign says peace. Not peace, not peace. Potus. So P, E, A C piece of is what it got there. Piece of, not peace. Potus, which I love. Oh, the baby. This is such a cute picture. My God. Thank you, thank you, thank you. All right, this is from Kent. Pronouns he and him. Good day. Lovely beans Queens. I just wanted to give a shout out to the hysterical comedian Cliff Cash. Yes, we love our Cliff. I saw his Detroit show on Sunday and he was fantastic. Very much anti maga and funny as fuck. So Dana, when can we expect a Detroit show? Latest Pick of the world's largest lap dog. Olaf attached. Love you both and all the good work, work you do. By the way, we're going to put a little link in the show notes to Cliff Cash's dates so you can follow Cliff because he is really hysterical and just a great guy. All right, next up is from Abby. Holy for holies. Dana did Dallas and I got to watch. Dana, your story about your mom sending you to a preschool for the differently abled made me run and look up the school I attended called Serendipity Day School and It's still there 50 years later. There was no public kindergarten back then. Here's a snippet from their website and I quote, Serendipity was founded in 1975 as a pathway to integrate special needs children into a mainstream setting. Molly's desire stemmed from the love that she had for her niece Sarah, who was born with hydrocephaly. Hydrocephaly and spina bifida. The name Serendipity was chosen because it reflects the wonderful happenings with children and because it sounds somewhat like Sarah. Sarah. I did not know this. Sarah attended Serendipity Day School and is now a successful and productive member of society in the local workforce. We continue this desire by having special needs children integrated into our classrooms while receiving services from a variety of outside organizations. For my podpet tax, here's a photo of me around 1973 or 74 in our home in Albuquerque. My dad was the photographer. He was into slide film back then, so I have very few, few prints. I think I was cute. You were adorable, Abby. I remember meeting you at my show. Thank you for introducing yourself. And that is where. Oh, there's also a picture of Abby and I in this, which is wonderful. So you'll see it in the pictures if you're a patron. That's where I went. It was Serendipity Day School and I love that you went there as well. It was just such a funny story when my mom was telling it. They have to come to one of my comedy shows to know the joke. It's not going to transfer for over the good news right now. So thank you. Thank you, thank you, Abby. Next up is from Anna Pronoun. She and her I beans Queens. I got to see Dana in Dallas and I sat with her college friend from Austin, Shelley. It was so nice to be with a room full of progressives in Texas and Dana killed it. Also, Dana, the gender neutral word for nieces and nephews is nibbling. Thanks for coming to Texas Now, Anna, I just want to say this. I asked my non binary family member what they want to be called and they actually prefer if I don't call them my nephew, that I call them my nephew, which is the mix between nephew and niece. They hate the word nibbling. They don't ever want me to use it. So I know that that is sort of the gender neutral world that people are using, but that's why I didn't use it in my show, particularly because they hate the word word. They don't think that it represents them. So thank you for that though and for the people out there that would like to know a gender neutral word that people do use. Nibbling has become widely acceptable. Now, the pod pet tax. Attached are two rescue pups. Gunnison is the black one. Oh, Gunnison. And Gus, the white one is a blank. Thanks for all you do. I think Gus is a white lab, but also maybe like, like Pyrenees mix in their lab. Pyrenees. I think that Gunnison is Shepherd mix. Maybe shepherd lab mix. There's a long bar. Let's see what this says. Gunnison is an Australian kelpie, Australian shepherd and German Shepherd. Okay, I got one of those. Gus. The white one is Great Pyrenees and Lab. I got a what the mutt? Correct. On my own. Great Pyrenees and white lab.

[Ellie Mistahl]

Look at me.

[Dana Goldberg]

All right, everyone, thank you for hanging in with me today, especially with some of the flubs on words and names and all of those things. You get used to it with me. But I'm just grateful that we have this audience that we have. I'm grateful for all the people that came to my Dallas show and I'm so glad you enjoyed yourself. I'm still waiting on the tape and then I'll put some clips up and I'll even include some clips in my Patreon that I won't put on social media. So if you're not part of my Patreon and you want to join the dissenters, you can do that at my website, which is danagoldberg.com hit patreon. There's a bunch of levels. So those sorts of clips will start at the $5 month level. You can go all the way up to hit a home run with Dana Goldberg. But any, any, any Patreon members are appreciated. The free membership. You usually get my monthly newsletter and some updates within the Patreon website. But the five dollar level, that's where you get a little more behind the scenes. So I'd love to have you with the rest of the dissenters. And that's it. That's all I've got. Allison's gonna be back with me tomorrow. By the time you hear this, we have already had our event at the El Race in Los Angeles, so I'm sure we're going to debrief it with you and tell you all exactly how it went. Until then, take care of yourselves, take care of each other, take care of the planet, take care of your mental health, and take care of your family. AG will be back with me tomorrow. I've been DG and them's the Beans.

[Allison Gill]

The Daily Beans is written and executive produced by Allison Gill with additional research and reporting by Dana Goldberg. Sound design and editing is by Desiree McFarlane with art and web design by Joel Reeder with Moxie Design Studios. Music for the Daily Beans is written and performed by they Might Be John and the show is a proud member of the MSW Media Network, a collection of creator owned podcasts dedicated to news, politics and justice. For more information Please visit msw media.com msw Media history is messy. It's weird, wild and anything but boring. Rainy Day Rabbit Holes is a history podcast about unhinged stories that that make you stop and ask, wait, is this real life? From crazy disasters and tasty scandals to enlightening and surprising heartwarming tales, we explore the moments where people behave badly and sometimes beautifully. We've got naughty politicians, cultural chaos and a deep love for the Pacific Northwest, including Bigfoot. It's thoughtful, irreverent, occasionally serious, and always entertaining. Let's fall down the Rabbit hole. MSW Media.