Sadie Dingfelder (8:34)

Thank you for having me.

Mike Pesca (8:36)

Are you intimately familiar and if so, bedeviled by the lanternfly?

Sadie Dingfelder (8:42)

I saw a single lanternfly on my rooftop last year, but that was the only one I've seen in real life. And it looked like he was. I really. You know, we've been told to smush them if you're not on the eastern seaboard or the mid Atlantic. You may not even have heard of these things. Right.

Mike Pesca (9:00)

Okay. Did not know.

Sadie Dingfelder (9:01)

But people. People in New York and Philadelphia and other related places have. We've been obsessed with them since at least 2020, I think.

Mike Pesca (9:11)

Yeah. I remember when they first infested did lycorum the delic a toola when the infestation occurred. And I didn't know that they were bad. I thought they were kind of flashy and pretty and so we're supposed to like ladybugs, but hate lanternflies. They seemed, by their markings, sort of a very mobile airborne ladybug. But they're not. They're dangerous. What do you know of that?

Sadie Dingfelder (9:36)

Well, okay. Yeah, they're very beautiful bugs. They have this when their wings are closed, they look. Have a kind of gunmetal gray with polka dots. And then when they open, you can see this beautiful bright red inner wing with. With black polka dots.

Mike Pesca (9:50)

Yes. It's glorious.

Sadie Dingfelder (9:52)

It looks like it was designed by Kate Spade. It's a beautiful bug. But what happened was we started getting all these messages from the media and the government saying that we need to smush them on site. And there was a huge stomp campaign, especially in Philadelphia where someone made an app. Celebrities were like, posting videos of themselves, like, smushing these guys, like, en masse. People were. Were killing them in ways that were not very smart. Like they were setting fire to trees.

Mike Pesca (10:26)

Yeah. Like baby slash bathwater territory. The threatening. So stupid that the idiom threatened to be. It's like burning down the trees for the lanternfly. Yeah.

Sadie Dingfelder (10:38)

Yeah. I mean, that definitely happened at least twice where someone set fire to their trees.

Mike Pesca (10:44)

Yeah.

Sadie Dingfelder (10:44)

And yeah. So people. People really answered the call of civic duty and we rose up against the lanternflies. And the reason to do this, according to the people, the experts at the time, was because of a few reasons. I would say most people who were stomping lanternflies would say they were doing it to save our environment, because these bugs came over from China and they are not part of our native ecosystem. And we were told that they had no natural predators. And that they would destroy our hardwood forests. And actually, there was this really intense screaming sort of study that came out in, I want to say, 2020 that said that Pennsylvania would be losing 5. Like, they stood to lose $500 million from Lantern. So we were stomping lantern flies to save the environment and to save jobs in Pennsylvania and in New York, too.

Mike Pesca (11:45)

So, yeah, and I remember this was about the time of the great TikTok, paranoia, Huawei and so many things. China were causing us great distress. And you can't just stomp TikTok as much as we would like to in the Supreme Court, even though they overruled it, everyone turned a blind eye. So maybe lantern flies were. Were addressing that niche in our national psyche that is not from an entomological point of view. That is just I think what was maybe going on from a mass psychosis point of view. But please continue.

Sadie Dingfelder (12:18)

No, I totally agree. And actually, you know, the lanternfly mania seems to have really taken off alongside Covid. And so it seems to me like these little guys are sort of our little scapegoats and give us, like, a kind of a hit of agency against problems that we can't smush.

Mike Pesca (12:37)

Yes. And if you were to smush a goat, you would get social opprobrium. But yet with a fly, it wasn't just that we were. That was said to be an effective abatement technique. It was very satisfying. All the guts that would come out. Right.

Sadie Dingfelder (12:50)

Yeah. Many people enjoyed making a big, gross mess.

Mike Pesca (12:56)

So did they really say, was this the sort of thing where the authorities were putting out their, you know, woodland projections in the Keystone state and so forth? And were they actually saying, now the way to stop them? We've studied this. It's going to be with humans in their feet. Or were they saying something like, these things are bad and there's no harm in stomping one or two? How. How much did the expert adhere to the idea that this was the actual abatement plan?

Sadie Dingfelder (13:27)

There was definitely a range. But back in. When they first. When this started ramping up in 2020 and 2021, you did have experts saying that this was an important tool in the arsenal against the lanternflies. Like human stomping alone. They said, wouldn't kill them and wouldn't.

Mike Pesca (13:44)

But if we could get our cats involved. They have four legs.

Sadie Dingfelder (13:48)

Right, right, that. But. But people were saying it would make a significant difference. But today, if you add, the experts have really dialed that back. And they were saying, well, actually, we were just trying to raise lanternfly awareness and report.

Mike Pesca (14:03)

Can I just. Let's just, Let me just pause this. And maybe we should do an. Is that bullshit on raising awareness? But I think raising awareness is the last vestige of the ineffective. Right? I think that when you can't do anything but you talk about something and then the natural rebuttal is we just shut up about this. You can always come back with, actually, I'm just trying to raise awareness. So me annoying you was the end game all along? I've seen this about everything from iron poor blood to breast cancer. And if we're not aware of breast cancer by now, what are we doing? And if we are aware, what are we doing? You know what I'm saying? I hate raising awareness.

Sadie Dingfelder (14:45)

I totally agree with lanternflies. It does have a little bit of a practical edge because it turns out these little guys are called flies, but they're actually, they don't fly. They're called plant hoppers. And they can't really disperse themselves. They depend on human vectors. So the idea was if we knew that they, if we were paying attention and trying to smush them, then we wouldn't transport them to other states that haven't been affected yet.

Mike Pesca (15:10)

Oh, I thought that you were going to go to. If we had just every time we saw a lantern fly turn tail and run the other way, then that would actually hurt the populations more than putting their feet, than putting our foot down and offering them, you know, a boot or ankle or some other portion of our anatomy by which to transport themselves.

Sadie Dingfelder (15:31)

Yeah, I can see it going either way, definitely.

Mike Pesca (15:33)

Yeah.

Sadie Dingfelder (15:34)

And I can't.

Mike Pesca (15:35)

But they don't fly. I mean, they spread their wings. What are they doing?

Sadie Dingfelder (15:38)

They don't go very, they can't get very far. They, they, they fly in like, little short bursts and. Yeah, they don't, they really don't disperse on their own. And in fact, when you look at the dispersal patterns, they follow highways. So they're hitching rides on trucks, usually probably in the egg form. But there's been research on how well adult lanternflies and nymphs can cling to an SUV to that is going 62 miles per hour.

Mike Pesca (16:07)

This is why we're putting the Tesla trucks on fire. I mean, this is a lantern fly abatement initiative. This is what I, it's what I've been pleading to the judge every weekend.

Sadie Dingfelder (16:20)

So. So how would you. If you were trying to figure out whether it was plausible to, to put a dent in the lantern fly population by smushing them, what would you want?

Mike Pesca (16:30)

I would Try to design an AB study where in one town I had a don't smush their LAN lanternfly message and in the other town I had bounties. And then I do a population survey before and after.

Sadie Dingfelder (16:44)

That would be good. Yeah. No one's done these lanternfly population survey, unfortunately. So we don't have a real world count census which makes it hard to calculate, you know, how many lanternflies each of us would have to smush.

Mike Pesca (16:59)

Yeah.

Sadie Dingfelder (17:00)

So. But. But I did find a mathematician who estimated how many lanternflies we have.

Mike Pesca (17:05)

Yeah. Yeah. From. From when they first got on our radar in 2020. Was it to now? Well, it doesn't seem like people talk about them less. Therefore I guess the awareness campaign has somewhere. Go ahead.

Sadie Dingfelder (17:16)

Yeah. So we actually. They were first reported in 2014, but we think the infestation began in 2011 on some decorative stone that was shipped to Pennsylvania. And what they found was that. So these guys roughly quintuple every year. The. The number is 5.47. So if we started with 2 in 2011, we now have 43 billion.

Mike Pesca (17:46)

And well that's. That's absent a big star.

Sadie Dingfelder (17:50)

That is actually. That is the. That is. That is generally just how they. That is. Yeah. That's their reproduction rate I think in China. So it might not be accurate. But.

Mike Pesca (18:07)

Yeah. And the Chinese government also disincentivizes the birthing of female. But go ahead. That's a whole.

Sadie Dingfelder (18:14)

But most people agree that that's probably a lower estimate. 43 billion. Then if we divide that by the population of the 18 states where it is today, that is. That comes out to 290 lanternflies per person. We have to squish this summer to get rid of all of them. However, you don't have to get rid of all of them. To get them on the decline. You only have to kill about 35% of the bugs. But unfortunately you have to do it at every life stage. And they lay their eggs about most of their eggs. Like 95% of them are more than 20ft up. So we're gonna. You're gonna. We're all gonna need to go to like rural Pennsylvania and bring ladders. And we're each responsible for about three acres.

Mike Pesca (19:04)

Can we just go back to the decorative stone? Do we know what this stone was used for? Was it a statue? Is there a statue somewhere? That is the statue to lanternflies in America. Was it a patio out out back in New Hope, Pennsylvania? Do we know? Was it the rocky statue? We need to find out.

Sadie Dingfelder (19:24)

Yeah, I've Been thinking about calling this landscaping place and asking them, but I'm pretty sure it was just like flat paving stones, like nothing fancy, just some pretty, you know, granite or something.

Mike Pesca (19:37)

Yeah, I wish we could blame the rocky statue on it.

Sadie Dingfelder (19:40)

It's probably nothing flashy.

Mike Pesca (19:42)

So the one thing I know you've cited the statistics of repopulation and the difficulty, especially since so many of the eggs are, are above stomp level. But there is no statistic, there is no assessment. I mean this is getting down to the nitty gritty of our. Is that bullshit claim.

Sadie Dingfelder (19:58)

Yeah.

Mike Pesca (19:59)

Has the stomping and the killing and the stigmatization of the lantern fly, the raising of awareness, if not alarm, has this done anything? Has the massive campaign to eradicate the lantern fly via a system of squishing, stomping, but stopping short of tree burning, has that had any impact at all?

Sadie Dingfelder (20:23)

So it's very hard to get an expert to say this. And I've read a bunch of articles where other reporters have basically been trying to do this. And I got my mathematician on the phone and he basically said it's very unlikely. Like very, very unlikely was the best that I could get out of him. He wouldn't say there's no chance. There is a possibility that humans have made a difference here, but it seems very unlikely. But there's good news, which is that part of the reason why we are not a factor here is because natural, they have integrated into our ecosystem and are now experiencing natural boom and burst cycles like all of our insects do. Animals are eating them.

Mike Pesca (21:07)

This was my question. And whenever they say they have no natural predator. Yeah, okay, but they're members of the animal kingdom. They must taste like, let's put it this way, 75 years ago, Bok choy was not known to the American palate. And then to take a visitor from China, it was introduced. There was a lot of sturm and drang about it. Someone burnt down a tree, I'm sure in a bok choy eradication effort. But then bok choy began to be eaten. They began to be consumed by North Americans.

Sadie Dingfelder (21:40)

Were.

Mike Pesca (21:41)

Why couldn't that happen with a species that has no known natural predators to begin with?

Sadie Dingfelder (21:46)

Yeah, that seems to be actually what happened with birds especially learning that these guys are tasty and, and also don't fly.

Mike Pesca (21:55)

Well, they're hoppers and are really easy to see.

Sadie Dingfelder (21:58)

Yeah, yeah. So lots of different animals have been spotted eating these guys. And maybe the biggest, their biggest problem though is some, we have some mole like funguses that, that infect them. So. So it turns out that they have plenty of natural predators in North America. And even. But even more interesting to me, they never posed any danger to our hardwood forest or our fruit trees or anything.

Mike Pesca (22:30)

That was all I did. I backed into it. Is that bullshit?

Sadie Dingfelder (22:33)

Yeah, sorry, tell me.

Mike Pesca (22:34)

Yeah, it was supposed to be lanternfly eradication. Is that bullshit? But lanternflies are dangerous. Is that bullshit? What's the answer to that?

Sadie Dingfelder (22:41)

Yeah, lanternflies are not dangerous to probably anyone's ecosystem unless you're like an island. Unless you're an. No, man is the only animal. So in order to complete their life cycle, they have to actually feed on Tree of Heaven, which is an invasive species in America. That.

Mike Pesca (23:00)

It's also my favorite Clapton song.

Sadie Dingfelder (23:02)

Just really.

Mike Pesca (23:03)

Oh, my God.

Sadie Dingfelder (23:06)

Yeah. So they need this invasive tree to feed on. So they're mostly killing this invasive tree. And in fact, there was a study where scientists put these poor little saplings of all these different sorts of native American hardwoods and also grape varieties and trap them in like a dome with like, with hundreds of lanternflies. And all of the trees were fine. I mean, they would get damaged, but they bounced back. And it was a worst case scenario where they had these lanternflies feeding on them like continuously for four years. And the trees were fine except for the Tree of Heaven.

Mike Pesca (23:46)

You know, you feel bad for the Tree of Heaven, but baked into the name is pretty much its fate. You know, what's gonna happen to it?

Sadie Dingfelder (23:52)

At least it's going somewhere good.

Mike Pesca (23:55)

Right? Exactly.

Sadie Dingfelder (23:56)

So but that said, though, all of that said that in terms of economic damage, these guys do hit wineries and they maybe cause about 10% losses of their grapes.

Mike Pesca (24:10)

Okay.

Sadie Dingfelder (24:10)

And let. But you can get rid of them really easily by throwing a net over everything because they're really big.

Mike Pesca (24:16)

Yeah. And also, if there's anyone who is adept at the stomping motion, it is the grape growers, the vineyards, the vintners, etc.

Sadie Dingfelder (24:26)

Right. And so what we're going to see in terms of lanternfly insanity come in the coming years, I think, is as they sort of make their march westward and they're hop.

Mike Pesca (24:37)

They're hop west.

Sadie Dingfelder (24:38)

They're hop. They're actually, they're hitchhiking west.

Mike Pesca (24:41)

That's right. As they take advantage of the Eisenhower intrastate transportation system. Yes.

Sadie Dingfelder (24:48)

Yeah. And they're going to hit California for sure. No matter how much we stomp. And when they do, it's going to affect wineries. But wineries with all this advance notice can kill all the Trees of Heaven and Be pretty well protected.

Mike Pesca (25:02)

Yeah. They'll be taking the even numbered highways, which are the east west highways, not the classic north, south, odd number highways. Let's not get into spur roads just now, Sadie, but let's do this. Let's answer our question and our bonus question. Bonus question first.

Sadie Dingfelder (25:16)

Okay.

Mike Pesca (25:17)

Lanternflies really dangerous. Is that bullshit?

Sadie Dingfelder (25:19)

They are not harmful to our ecosystem system.

Mike Pesca (25:22)

Stomping lantern flies is a way to eradicate this. We just found out not so dangerous species. Is that bullshit?

Sadie Dingfelder (25:29)

Yes, at this point, certainly.

Mike Pesca (25:31)

And my favorite thing that I found out in this episode is that the Eradicate tours the Mold the Birds did so without an awareness raising program backing them up. You could be sure.

Sadie Dingfelder (25:43)

We don't know that. We don't know there's not a robin awareness campaign.

Mike Pesca (25:47)

Yeah. Maybe the lantern flies themselves with their, I don't know if you'd call it plumage their baggage. Raised enough awareness among robins and starlings and hawks. But yes, it wasn't because, you know, some PR firm wanted to get some PSA money. That's good.

Sadie Dingfelder (26:04)

I'm glad.

Mike Pesca (26:05)

When awareness isn't raised or when the raising of awareness we can demonstrate leads to nothing.

Sadie Dingfelder (26:10)

Yeah.

Mike Pesca (26:11)

You know what we need to do to get people to realize that raising awareness doesn't work. You know what we need to do, right?

Sadie Dingfelder (26:18)

What?

Mike Pesca (26:18)

Well, we need to. You know what we need to raise, don't you?

Sadie Dingfelder (26:21)

Awareness of awareness.

Mike Pesca (26:23)

Yes. Awareness of the inefficacy of raising of awareness campaigns.

Sadie Dingfelder (26:27)

You know what's interesting, Avi? This is so off topic and I'm sure you'll cut it. But a while I, like, I was so annoyed by all the awareness raising marathons.

Mike Pesca (26:35)

Yes.

Sadie Dingfelder (26:36)

I really wanted to write a story that's like these things are doing nothing.

Mike Pesca (26:39)

Yeah.

Sadie Dingfelder (26:40)

But it turns out that even though they don't raise any money for whatever it is they're trying to raise money for in that moment, because the cost of running the marathon is so much. What they do is they make people more likely to be lifelong donors. And so they make people identify because you've worked on the campaign and you've run the race and you have the T shirt, you're going to be like a lifelong contributor.

Mike Pesca (27:03)

That's true. So it's not. So the Race for the Cure is a lifelong race. Really.

Sadie Dingfelder (27:09)

Yeah. And you are just gnarling up traffic, if you could.

Mike Pesca (27:12)

Yeah. Turns out the marathon's not a marathon, but a sprint or, you know, comparatively to everything, everything else that's going on with the awareness. I don't, you know, we could cut it. On the other hand, it's gold. It's pure gold. As Sadie Dingfelder always brings us. The gold, the spotted red, the plumage, the baggage. Sadie Dingfelder comes on from time to time and she regales us with tales and adjudications as to the question, is that bullshit? And if you want to go to the old Pesca profundity substack, you could find Sadie Dingfelder's writings, all the lanternfly ephemera that she has discussed in this podcast, collected on the page and squished for your enjoyment. That's Mike Pesca, that substack dotcom. And if you are an in depth written word learner, I commend you to Do I know you a face blind report Journey into the science of sight, memory and imagination. Sadie Dingfelder, thank you so much.

Sadie Dingfelder (28:14)

Thank you.

Mike Pesca (28:24)

At True Classic, the mission goes beyond fit and fabric. It's about helping guys. Guys like me, maybe guys like you or a guy like, you know, show their confidence, show their purpose, their stride. Right now, I'm wearing a True Classic T shirt. This thing looks great. I have a black one. I got like an off gray one. I wear them all the time. I don't really even have to think so much about anything other than they're gonna look good. They're gonna go with almost everything I wear. They're casual yet classy enough to get the job done. They make me feel good about myself, feel amazing, and the price is fantastic. True Classic, of course, has remarkable fit, remarkable fabric. They also have a lot of intention behind everything they do. It was built. The brand was built to make an impact. So it's helping a guy like me show up better in my daily life. And with you on the show, they also get back to underserved communities. They make people laugh. Maybe not me today in this ad read, but, you know, potentially the ads don't take themselves too seriously, though. This is a serious. I really have to show off how classic this True Classic shirt is. I want you to feel the difference the moment you throw one on. No bunching, no stiff fabric, just. What's the word for it? True Classic. Built for comfort, built to last, built to give back. You grab them at Target, at Costco, or head to trueclassic.com the gist, which helps us the most when you peruse their wares. Trueclassic.com the gist and get hooked up today. And now the spiel. Last month, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case over birthright citizenship. The decision did not directly rule on the practice itself, but on the method that lower courts had used to issue nationwide stays on Donald Trump's injunction against birthright citizenship. Yeah, I'm with you. There are like triple negatives going on there. A stay, an injunction disallowing. So here's what the Supreme Court said. There is a practice, really was a practice known as nationwide injunctions, and now they're out. When a lower court in Arkansas makes a ruling, it no longer automatically affects a person. In Vermont, the court held it was a 6:3 decision. It was written by Amy Coni Barrett. It had blistering dissents by Sonia Sotomayor and Katanji Brown Jackson. Now let's check in on at the time how momentous the ruling was said to be. New York Times headline Supreme Court Limits Judges abilities to Issue Nationwide Injunctions. A win for Trump. The decision could reshape the way US Citizenship is granted, even temporarily. True Fair LA Times similar coverage, plus an op ed by a top law professor titled A stunning and Tragic Supreme Court decision. And if you want a taste of Partizan Media and who doesn't like a little bit of the vinegar on the tongue is provided by the Strict Scrutiny podcast. They delivered the usual apocalyptic fervor in the form of courtroom Cassandra, Leah Lippman.

Leah Litman (31:36)

And I'm Leah Litman and fuck. So today's emergency episode is going to focus on the decision we got in the birthright citizenship case about whether lower courts get to enforce the Constitution or whether instead Trump gets to violate the Constitution and federal laws unchecked, at least in some places.

Mike Pesca (31:52)

As a little treat, Littman, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, went on to apply her legal jurisprudence in the direction of Justice Barrett.

Leah Litman (32:02)

Hot school summer Hot school mom summer.

Sadie Dingfelder (32:04)

Hot school mom summer.

Leah Litman (32:05)

I don't know. I don't know. It's. It's something. But right this kind of season of Amy the cipher is officially done, so don't start by summer would be another thing that I would throw up and.

Mike Pesca (32:16)

Tagged her analysis of Barrett's decision with.

Leah Litman (32:19)

This partially stay granted only to the extent that so PS Hurry up, lower courts. It's on you like fuck off, girl.

Mike Pesca (32:28)

That injunction is still on appeal. I too thought the ruling opened the door to some potential chaos. An uneven application of the law, an impractical situation. A child born in one state that's under the Donald Trump federal injunction wouldn't have citizenship. Maybe that child is now in a kindergarten class with another kid born in the exact same circumstance in the neighboring state. But that kid does have citizenship. Weird. Odd. Not that workable. But how the ruling played out has been less than catastrophic in the eyes of immigration rights advocates, to quote a recent Reuters piece. And this goes back even beyond the immigration issue. President Donald Trump called the U.S. supreme Court's June 27 decision limiting the ability of federal judges to use nationwide injunctions a monumental victory. But his legal win may be less definitive than it first appeared. The ruling contained exceptions allowing federal judges to continue to issue sweeping rulings blocking key parts of the Republican president's agenda. In the short time since the ruling, lower court judges have already blocked Trump's asylum ban at the US Mexico border, prevented his administration from ending temporary deportation protections for Haitian immigrants, and forced the government to restore health websites deemed to run afoul of Trump's efforts to squash gender ideology. The Reuters piece goes on to say one of the biggest tests of the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling and Trump v. Casa, that's the original decision that Amy Coney Barrett wrote will come on Thursday when a federal judge in New Hampshire will consider whether to prevent Trump's executive order from taking effect. So how did that biggest test go? Scripps News, Ava Joy Burnett had this report.

Ava Joy Burnett (34:14)

This judge in New Hampshire, he has agreed to certify what is known as a class of people. It's a big group of people who could be shielded from any particular damage if this executive order is implemented. He's blocked the administration from enforcing this executive order until this case moves its way through the court system, through the federal court system. So this is a really big win for all of those advocacy groups and mothers and really parents who have babies or born in the United States.

Mike Pesca (34:47)

So that was a win in the language of win. To echo the New York Times original headline. The language was of win even in this development was described even the day CASA came out by some legal journalists, the ones who spend their time describing the ruling rather than decrying the character of the justices who made it. This was Jan Crawford of CBS calling.

Leah Litman (35:11)

It a win not only for President Trump but for all presidents. These nationwide injunctions, they're a relatively new phenomenon over the last decade or so. Even President Biden, who by the way faced dozens of them from conservative judges blocking his policies nationwide, had also urged the court to rein them in.

Mike Pesca (35:30)

You may have picked up that she said it was a good ruling for all presidents. And the reason she made this claim is that Joe Biden himself, or at least his Justice Department, tried to bring the same issue to the court, asking for the same relief in the Biden administration's case, it was unease over Texas judges making rulings on abortion cases and then applying those injunctions to other states and jurisdictions. Biden, too, was against nationwide injunctions in certain cases, the cases that went against their preferred policy. In fact, there was a pretty robust legal discussion among very reasonable jurists who pointed out that this relatively recent phenomenon, nationwide injunctions issued by a single district court, was unfair, unworkable, and more open to politics than the law should allow. In 2024, when the bad lower courts were conservative and they were getting in the way of Biden's DOJ fighting for abortion rights, the Harvard Law Review weighed in with a very even handed analysis and they ultimately concluded, quote, drawing from the list of injunctions, this chapter notes the increasing risk of politicizing the nationwide injunction and delegitimizing the courts and as plaintiffs proceed to cherry pick judges to increase the likelihood of political outcomes or policy goals. Ultimately, in light of this danger, this chapter calls for reform to restructure the court system, to disincentivize forum shopping. The Supreme Court issued its own reform by decree only. When they did it, they were said to be politicizing things instead of depoliticizing things. But it is the developments in the real world because of the mechanism of the class action, that Trump's executive orders on birthright citizenship have been stayed, and we will see what the court ultimately decides. There are several members, Justice Kavanaugh among them, who seem to support the mechanism of the class action, though it must be said. Justice Alito does not. That's the legal side of it. But what about the epistemological or the how we know what to think side? My concern isn't primarily with nationwide injunctions or specifically birthright citizenship. It is about how we just earnest citizens, and not law professors, just people who want to read the newspaper and get a fair and good sense of what the true stakes of law and society are in order to navigate our information environment. So one day there is a ruling which much of the straight news portrays is fairly dire. And you could see why it was portrayed that way. It wasn't necessarily a mistake. There were implications that could be read as really changing things. But into that Ma Rush members of the academic elite, the people who we turn to to make sense of things, to use the occasion to curse out Supreme Court justices, and then two weeks later, much more quietly, the supposed victims, the people for whom the cursing was championing their cause, the victims turn out not to be victimized at all. The SCOTUS Ruling in CASA was front page news in all the newspapers. The ACLU class action success in New Hampshire that ran on page A14 of the new York Times and was stuffed, which means put inside, not on the front pages of the other newspapers I quoted. And by the way, thank God, who's off for the aclu. I decry the illogic of trying to do away with birthright citizenship. That's the one issue our major concerns doing what I do sense making, if you want to be grand about it, is to look at the process of constitutionality and democracy and the risk of impending autocracy, not just to look at this outcome or that outcome and play referee based on who won and who lost. On the We Can Do Hard Things podcast, the Harvard professor Erica Chenoweth cited this very case, casa, as an example why the United States is careening away from the status of democracy, of democratic country.

E (39:44)

You know, they just got this ruling last week from the Supreme Court that significantly, in my view, curtails the ability of district, you know, federal judges to hold the executive to account to the rule of law. So I think we are in that consolidation phase where the constraints are dropping week after week about what it is the President can do. So that's a very alarming degree of consensus among a certain ideological cohort in the US about just a very radical vision of what the chief executive of the US should be able to do, having not even been elected by a majority of the country.

Mike Pesca (40:23)

To recap the ruling, which was an idea favored by presidents of both parties, which was practically of negligible impact on the actual question of birthright citizenship, which undid a very recent practice, nationwide injunctions that, as you heard me quote, the Harvard Law Review, representing many reasonable people, was fretting over as politicizing the courts. That was the reason our country is said to be losing its status as a democracy. Professors assured us our country is teetering on the edge. Justices are sniping at each other. The commentariat is eating popcorn and selling tickets to the judicial dunk tank. I got to say, those who most loudly rang the bell of alarm turned out to be, I think it's fair to say, kind of alarmist. I have too much respect for the institutions I work in and am expert in. So not the courts call these institutions journalism, just call them podcasting. I have too much respect to go around and call other people within this realm bitches. Just imagine the criticism I would rightly get if I said this about a woman, unless the woman was, you know, responsible for bad judicial rulings like someone like Amy Coney Barrett then maybe could say. But as I've said before, and as I'll say again, and as I know it almost never lands. Look, fuck off. Don't fuck off. I'm not here to tell you what to do when it comes to the fucking of the off. I am here to please, beg, reign it in. And that's it for today's show. Corey War is the producer. He did a good job on that spiel. There were a lot of Gaza. Astrid Green runs our Social. Our production coordinator is Ashley Khan. Leo Baum is the intern. And there, as the chief justice of our Supreme Court, wearing the robe, banging the gavel lightly but lovingly, is Michelle Pesca and Pruitty Prudy Peru. Thanks for listening.

Sadie Dingfelder (42:31)

It.