2255 - Mamdani Wins! Good Riddance Cuomo! The Skrmetti Ruling w/ David Weigel and Chase Strangio

Summary

The Majority Report with Sam Seder - Episode 2255 Summary

Title: Mamdani Wins! Good Riddance Cuomo! The Skrmetti Ruling w/ David Weigel and Chase Strangio
Host: Sam Seder
Guests: Dave Weigel (National Political Affairs Correspondent, Semaphore), Chase Strangio (Co-Director, ACLU LGBTQ HIV Rights Project & Plaintiff's Attorney, U.S. vs. Scormetti)
Release Date: June 25, 2025

---

1. Zoran Mamdani's Landslide Victory in the NYC Democratic Mayoral Primary

Overview of the Election Results

The episode opens with Sam Seder announcing a significant political shift in New York City politics: Zoran Mamdani has decisively defeated incumbent Andrew Cuomo in the first round of the Democratic mayoral primary. Seder highlights the unexpectedly large margin of victory and emphasizes the remarkable turnout, noting a [05:33] increase of over 20% in voter participation compared to the previous primary.

Key Factors Behind Mamdani's Success

Sam Seder and Emma Vigland discuss the overwhelming support Mamdani received, despite initial expectations that he might only tie with Cuomo. Seder remarks, "He won despite his platform," acknowledging skepticism but recognizing the strength of Mamdani's campaign efforts [05:33].

Dave Weigel joins the discussion to provide an in-depth analysis. He explains that while Cuomo was considered the front-runner, his low popularity and high negatives—such as legal issues and public dissatisfaction—created an opening for Mamdani. Weigel points out that most polls underestimated Mamdani's potential, with only one poll by Public Policy Polling accurately reflecting the intense competition [25:03].

Campaign Strategies and Voting Dynamics

Weigel elaborates on Mamdani's effective use of social media and grassroots mobilization, citing that over [05:35] 50,000 volunteers knocked on more than a million doors across NYC. This significant outreach effort was coupled with public matching funds, which allowed Mamdani to coordinate volunteers effectively and maximize voter engagement.

Emphasizing the role of endorsements, Weigel notes that prominent figures like Brad Lander and other progressive leaders rallied behind Mamdani, facilitating a broader coalition that included both progressives and traditional liberals [35:04]. He highlights Mamdani's ability to communicate directly and handle challenging topics, such as his nuanced stance on Israel, which appealed to a diverse voter base [35:08].

Implications for New York City and the Democratic Party

The conversation transitions to the national implications of Mamdani's victory. Weigel suggests that Democrats will need to reevaluate their strategies, especially considering potential challenges in endorsing Cuomo and navigating the uneasy support within the party [37:19]. He anticipates that Mamdani's tempered approach—focusing on policy rather than positioning himself as a future national leader—will influence how Democratic candidates manage internal party dynamics moving forward [38:19].

2. Legal Perspective: United States v. Scormetti and Its Impact on Transgender Healthcare

Overview of the Case

Chase Strangio joins the program to discuss the landmark case United States vs. Skremetti, where the ACLU, alongside Lambda Legal and the Biden administration, challenged Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming healthcare for minors. Filed in March 2023, the lawsuit contends that Tennessee's law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by discriminating against transgender youth [46:43].

Supreme Court's Ruling and Legal Reasoning

Strangio explains that the Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs, determining that the Tennessee law does not constitute sex-based discrimination, thereby denying the application of heightened scrutiny [48:59]. This decision diverges from established precedent, such as United States v. Virginia, which mandates heightened scrutiny for all gender-based classifications [52:28].

Critiquing the majority opinion, Strangio argues that the Court misinterpreted the law's intent and impact, effectively allowing broader discrimination against transgender individuals by sidestepping the requirement to apply heightened scrutiny [54:17]. He highlights that this ruling sets a troubling precedent, indicating the Court's willingness to limit constitutional protections for marginalized communities [55:04].

Implications for Transgender Healthcare and Future Legislation

The episode delves into the broader implications of the ruling. Strangio warns that this decision emboldens states to impose further restrictions on gender-affirming care, not just for minors but potentially extending to adults as well. He cites recent moves by states like Oklahoma and Florida to restrict such treatments for adults, indicating a trend towards escalating bans [58:41].

Discussing legislative efforts, Strangio mentions the ongoing budget bills in Congress that aim to nationalize these bans, particularly targeting Medicaid funding for gender-affirming care. He expresses concern over the legal challenges these measures will face, especially considering the restrictive interpretation of the 14th Amendment by the current Supreme Court [61:10].

Personal and Community Impact

Strangio poignantly describes the real-world impact on families, sharing the struggles of those who have had to relocate to access necessary medical care for their transgender children due to state-imposed bans. He underscores the emotional and psychological toll on both the youth and their families, emphasizing the urgent need for robust legal defenses [55:40].

---

Notable Quotes

• Sam Seder [05:35]: "He won despite his platform."

• Dave Weigel [25:03]: "Mamdani's consolidating support when people said, yeah, I'm going to vote for him."

• Chase Strangio [48:25]: "The majority had to distort both logic and precedent to reach the conclusion that this law, which on its face mentions sex 18 times, was not sex-based discrimination."

• Chase Strangio [58:41]: "We can anticipate the escalation of care bans to reach care for adults."

---

Conclusion

Episode 2255 of The Majority Report with Sam Seder delivers a comprehensive analysis of two pivotal events: Zoran Mamdani's unexpected triumph in the NYC Democratic mayoral primary and the Supreme Court's ruling in United States vs. Skremetti. Through insightful discussions with political correspondent Dave Weigel and ACLU attorney Chase Strangio, the episode explores the ramifications of these developments on local politics and national policies affecting transgender healthcare. The episode underscores a shifting political landscape within the Democratic Party and highlights ongoing challenges faced by transgender individuals in accessing essential medical care.

Transcript

[Sam Seder]

You are listening to a free version of the Majority Report. Support this [e-mail] and get an extra hour of content daily. It is Wednesday, June 25, 2025. My name is Sam Seder. This is the five time award winning Majority Report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, usa. On the program today, Dave Weigel, national correspondent for Semaphore on the Mamdani earthquake in New York City. Then Chase Strangio, co director of the ACLU LBGTQ HIV Rights Project and plaintiff's attorney, U.S. vs. Skremetti, also on the program. If I had mentioned it earlier. Zoran Mamdani defeats Andrew Cuomo in the first round of New York City's Democratic mayoral primary primary. Meanwhile, U.S. intel and U.S. bombing. U.S. intel states that U.S. bombing of Iran didn't destroy its nuclear sites. And meanwhile Trump lashes out at US intel calling them scum for revealing the bombing run was botched. Thom Tillis sees Republican Medicaid cut bill as a suicide pact. Big balls deflated, Resigns from Doge RFK's vaccine panel may be stillborn. Trump prepping to break the 1974 anti rescission law. NATO members agree on more militarization in Europe. What could go wrong? Congress told of email Bovi's plan to ignore the courts and the subsequent DOJ cover up. Lastly, a federal judge blocks Trump's administration from eliminating union bargaining for hundreds of thousands of federal workers. All this and more on today's Majority Report. Welcome ladies and gentlemen. This goes out to everybody who 50,000 volunteers volunteering for Zoran Mamdani. The 500,000 or so close that voted for Mamdani in the on the, on the first ballot. Brad Lander aoc, I mean shout out.

[Emma Vigland]

To Cynthia Nixon and Zephyr Teach out.

[Sam Seder]

Too for their Cynthia Nixon Zephyr teachout Jamal Bowman. God did that. I believe that too. God want to thank God. The folks over at the wfp. Just a huge huge victory.

[Emma Vigland]

The DSA folks that have been putting in so much work. I found an old tweet. The first time Zoran was ever sort of mentioned in my circles was a DSA member. Let me get the name here. Daniel Scargo Pro on Twitter asking Michael to plug a phone bank on TMBs for a bunch of DSA candidates, including Zoran Mamdani for assemblyman.

[Sam Seder]

Just incredibly exciting. Literally three times stopped on the way to work. One just involved a high five, the other a mother who walking her child in a stroller. And she was like, just. The idea of getting universal daycare is huge. I mean, despite the fact that we're told that he won despite his platform. He won despite his platform. I mean, this is. We will get into the negative reactions, but it is absolutely fascinating to watch the full spectrum of people who are terrified or upset or disillusioned or by Mamdani's win and understand, like, his win was incredibly decisive.

[Emma Vigland]

I would have never hoped for such a victory.

[Sam Seder]

Nobody. I mean, I think we were fairly optimistic over the past couple of days, but Emma's magical thinking is infectious. But the optimism was, like, by the. By the eighth round, we think he has a chance. Not that he would so decisively win. Remember, $25 million. A former president, former head of the Congressional Black Caucus, former mayor, billionaire mayor.

[Emma Vigland]

The financial times had 35 million.

[Sam Seder]

I would have no doubt that it was more than, you know, the supposed 25. The New York Times, I mean, the forces arrayed against Mamdani. It's. I. I don't have the imagination to come up with more forces. Like, I. Like, I don't know what else it would be. You know, the Pope got involved. Yeah, the former, but, I mean, the late Pope. It's. I mean, it's unclear. Like, honestly, like, I don't. George W. Bush, like, I'm trying to think of, like, some New York figure, I suppose, Giuliani. But Giuliani probably did come out against Montana. It's just that we don't. We don't really know Ed K. Like, I don't. The Brooklyn Democratic Party endorsed Cuomo, and that's where Mamdani had his biggest win. It's just very, very difficult to come up with a more stark sense of how opposed he was than how opposed he was. He won in three of the biggest. The biggest boroughs, at least in terms of voting. But Brooklyn and Manhattan and Queensland and Queens was really the one that was, I think, most surprising for people.

[Emma Vigland]

And a decent showing in Staten island, too.

[Sam Seder]

Decent showing in Staten island, but the numbers in Staten island, the Bronx, were much less in terms of voting. The. There was about 200,000 more votes cast in this primary than in 2021. It felt like there was a lot more, but even still, that's over 20% increase. And the youth vote. And the first time voters, that is really, in many respects, the big story. But you will hear over and over again, he had a good Instagram game. He was good on social media. They had 50,000 volunteers. They knocked on, well, significantly over a Million doors in New York City and that type of mobilization. I mean, we were talking about this and it's sort of like been the theme for the past six years in the wake of, well, maybe even, you know, eight years in the wake of Sanders 2016 campaign. And then as it was sort of instrumentalized in AOC 2018 campaign. They've got the money, we've got the people. But I will also say matching funds, public matching funds is also very important because you can have the people, you could have 50,000 volunteers, but you still need paid coordinators to coordinate them. And that matching funds was huge. But this is. And you know, you're going to hear storylines like it was despite his platform. And, well, if Andrew Cuomo hadn't been such a sex pest and if he hadn't been so hated and corrupt and that, that. I think that's probably true. But had Andrew Cuomo last name not been Cuomo, he wouldn't have, he would have gotten any votes. Lander would have beat him. And you don't see former governors run for mayor unless they're just like, looking to try and run for president. I mean, so there's a reason why. And I think, like, you know, again, Brad Lander was, was instrumental in this in many respects. The cross endorsement, the, the, the notion of solidarity, the understanding. Like, I think Lander realized, you know, a month or two out that there was just no hope for him to win. But his policies and his disposition and his politics far more aligned with Mamdani's than with Cuomo's. And just, you know, I think has a genuine love of the city. But Mamdani was the one who could defeat Cuomo, not Lander.

[Emma Vigland]

Be Cuomo in Manhattan.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah. But so just an amazing night. Incredibly exciting. Here is we, we will reference. We know. I don't know if we're going to play Andrew Cuomo's loser speech because, you know, they they framed it so tightly that you can't tell. Like, like it was like he was in a closet.

[Emma Vigland]

All the people that endorsed him to lose to Zoran didn't want to line up behind him.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah, I don't know where Bill Clinton was at the, at the party. Here is Zoran Mamdani Tuesday night, and it wasn't that late, probably around 11, 11:30, when he gave his victory speech. Thank you. My friends, tonight we made history. In the words of Nelson Mandela, it always seems impossible until it is done. My friends, we have done it. I will be your Democratic nominee for the mayor of New York City. An Hour ago, I spoke with Andrew Cuomo about the need to bring this city, about the need to bring this city together, as he called me, to concede the race. I appreciate Mamdani's like a class in that moment, without a doubt. I mean, the amount of smears leveled towards Mamdani and the thing that's been really impressive about him and I think really resonated with people is he addressed all of these things head on. In an era when anti Semitism has been so weaponized to deport people, to disappear people, to arrest people, to kick people out of college, to shut them down, to get them kicked off of Twitch, to, you know, allowing for the funding of a genocide, the bombing of multiple nations. He addressed it head on. It's very impressive. Now, I appreciate Mamdani's class there. He's the winner. I also very much appreciate this from Brad Lander, Andrew Cuomo. Andrew Cuomo is in the past. He is not the present or future of New York City. Good fucking riddance.

[Emma Vigland]

I mean, that's the left progressive synergy.

[Sam Seder]

That we all need 100%. And again, like, you know, Lander was, I think, very instrumental. I think, you know, I think their appearance on Colbert or Late show, whatever it's called, regardless of how that came about, and that question was levied by Colbert, and I still sort of. Maybe it's just sort of wishful thinking and projection, but I still sort of get the sense that that was not a spontaneous question from Colbert, that that was in some way preplanned. But regardless, the idea of Landers, the highest ranking Jewish official in New York City, sitting next to Mamdani, having endorsed him, talking about the idea of a Jew and a Muslim campaigning together and bringing people together really created a permission structure for, I think, a lot of people who would otherwise be hesitant to vote for Mondani, but are sucked into.

[Emma Vigland]

The Cuomo sort of endorsement complex.

[Sam Seder]

Indeed. We will talk more about that later, although in just a moment, we're going to be talking to Dave Weigel about this race and the implications. First, couple words from our sponsors. I've been a user of Delete Me for, I don't know, 8, 9, 10 years. What delete Me does is it makes it easy and quick and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. Delete Me does all the hard work of wiping you and your family's personal information from data broker websites. There is a whole host of reasons why you want to do this to Maintain your privacy to keep yourself in this type of political climate from being doxed. But also increasingly, scammers fishers are using this information in conjunction with other information they can buy to target you and scam you, con you like. I've read stories about them getting names and emails from data brokers that they go and buy because all these data brokers have your information and you can just go in there and buy it and then sending like QR codes on fake packages. QR codes like, you know, check this QR code for a $5 coupon or something like that. And then phishing scams. I want to thank Delete Me for sponsoring today's episode. And I want to thank Delete Me for protecting both my personal privacy and the privacy of my business. Obviously, with an online presence like I have very important to me, you can take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount for you. Get 20% off your delete me plan by texting majority to 64,000. The only way to get 20% off is to text the word majority to the number 64,000. That's majority to 64000. Message and data rates may apply. Delete Me will send you a monthly basis a digest of what information is removed and from where. It's super easy. You should check it out, honestly. Also, people know that I have been working on trying to get rid of all the plastic crap in my house. Also, you live in New York City. You don't have that much room in your apartment for a huge 40 gallon jug of detergent or dishwashing liquid or any of that stuff. Americans throw 25% more trash from Thanksgiving to New Year's they have an estimated 5 billion plastic hand soap and cleaning bottles are thrown away each year. Most of those formulas like 90% water. So why do we need to put it in a huge plastic jug and then lug it home from the supermarket? Blueland is on a mission to eliminate single use plastic by reinventing cleaning essentials to be better for you and the planet. They've got the same powerful clean you're used to, but the idea is simple. They offer refillable cleaning products with a beautiful cohesive design that looks great on your counter. Blue, yellow, pink bottles. You keep reusing so you know which is which. The blue is the for the windows. The pink is for the bathroom. The yellow is for, you know, the all around cleaner. They send you little tablets. Refill start at about $2 25 bucks. I mean, $22 and 25 cents. You put the, you fill it up with water, you drop in a tablet shake and you've got your cleaning supplies. But I also use their dishwashing tablets. I use their laundry tablets, their hand soap. The stuff is great. It takes up far less space. They send you little canisters in which to contain them. Blue Land trusted in over a million homes. Like I say, mine as well. Blue Land has a special offer for our listeners right now. Get 15% off your first order by going to blueland.com/majority. You don't want to miss this. Blueland.com/majority, 15% off. That's blueland.com majority. Get 15% off. We'll put all the information on the products for today in the podcast and YouTube descriptions. Quick break. Dave Weigel from Semaphore IT.

[Chase Strangio]

Sam.

[Sam Seder]

We are back. Sam Cedar on the Majority Report. Emma Vigland out today, although she's on her honeymoon. But guess what? She's going to interrupt because she is very happy. Joining us, returning to the program, Dave Weigel, national political affairs correspondent for Semaphore. Did I get that right?

[Dave Weigel]

Yeah, that's right. I'm not a big titles guy as long as people pronounce my name correctly, which is way harder, which you do.

[Sam Seder]

Okay. So, Mr. Dave Weigel, ladies and gentlemen. So, Dave, I mean, we were just talking just briefly beforehand about how it is much harder at least for some of the press to surprise the press in the wake of the distant wake of AOC's victory, that when you see like a Democratic primary and a progressive challenger, a lot of people, you know, get in there to do interviews. So these don't come out of the blue at the same time. That's got to be true for the person they're running against. And what makes this win by Mandani so shocking is the size of it. Tell us about those expectations.

[Dave Weigel]

Yeah, when I was in the city, I left before the election, but I was there, covered all the candidates. Cuomo was the hardest to cover, which is part of the story. He didn't really do a lot of campaigning. People were optimistic. But the hope was that Mamdani would end. If you were Madani campaign, you would end election night, maybe tied with Cuomo, maybe Cuomo's up one, maybe you're up one. And it can't really be settled until the ranked choice count. And I feel like I can't, I can't in live broadcast explain ranked choice again, but I feel like everyone gets it now, actually they're pretty good Mamdani videos explaining it where he uses different sorts of foods. But anyway, that was the expectation was okay, he has a path to victory. But no one was saying Cuomo will concede on election night that he can't win the primary. And what if you look at the polling, it wasn't all wrong in this. It was all wrong in the same way. There was one poll by Public Policy Polling that was pretty good, but the rest had Cuomo locked in at around 35,6.7%. And then it had Mamdani behind him with a scattering of votes for these other candidates, a lot of whom said rank. Rank me somewhere on your. On your Zoron ballot or rank Zoron somewhere on your ballot for me. Right. If you're Brad Lander, this is the main character in that whole thing. I'm, you know, I'm co endorsing Zoran if you're voting for me. Ranks or on second. So their vote collapsed. Lander is the least of all. But Adrian, people who were polling at 8% suddenly got in at 3 or 4.

[Sam Seder]

All.

[Dave Weigel]

All that vote went to Mamdani. And there was. There was a lot happening here from neighborhood to neighborhood. Some of this was just Cuomo was the least popular candidate in the race. He was the front runner, but he had the highest negatives. And Mamdani consolidating support when people said, yeah, I'm going to vote for him. And then also for one of the other not Cuomo's. I'm not going to rank Cuomo my ballot. One that made it very clear that Cuomo couldn't continue to that created this surge for Mom Donnie, where he's now. He's ending up with more votes than anyone's won in Democratic primary as a winner since I think 1989 before he was born when David Dinkins was running against Ed Koch. And that is not what they Even the most optimistic Mamdani supporters DSA did not think that would happen. This is every. They were blowing out turnout and they're in all these neighborhoods and other real New Yorkers can end there. And I can but neighborhoods where they said if we can draw even in this area or maybe Cuomo is going to win that because that's a terrible place for progressives. We never win. There just was winning or drawing even in all kinds of places that they did not think they would compete in.

[Sam Seder]

Well, isn't that the story? I mean, like the polls, it seems to me, were off because they had just no way of modeling what the turnout was going to be. Although to be fair, PPP actually did get it pretty, pretty correct, at least somewhat. But the those down ballot, I don't know how else to say them, the ones who got the other candidates who got in the lower single. Single digits. Seems to me that what happened there was that internally they may have hit their vote totals that they had anticipated. It's just that there was a 20 to 25% greater electorate than they had imagined would be.

[Dave Weigel]

Yeah, and Cuomo got this wrong too, because he expected. I compared this in one of the pieces I wrote before the election to Jeb Bush's campaign 10 years ago. Thought Donald Trump is great for us because this is gonna be tough race. We're Jeb Bush. Not everyone loves the Bush family anymore. But obviously Trump is so unacceptable. If we get one on one with Trump, we'll beat him. And a lot of people thought that and that was wrong. Mamdani just had broader appeal than corporate. Cuomo's campaign thought it would. That's what I was getting into with the vote count. And the campaigning really did matter. And I was there. Not the peak of the Israel discourse, but right after, where Mamdani refused to say, for example, that he supported this of Israel as a Jewish state as opposed to a democratic state to everybody. You know, Bibi Netanyahu gets to be Prime Minister, but they're gonna have to change some laws. Not that he's gonna do that. He defended saying if Netanyahu came to America, he would arrest him and give him to the International Criminal Court. He defended, not defended. I want to get it right because a lot of people who don't like him are just calling him an anti Semite, which is not true. But Mamdani was, when he asked to condemn globalize the Intifada, saying, well, intifada means resistance. I'm not going to all these things. A lot of Cuomo people and a lot of Democrats said, well, that's going to be disqualifying. Right? And they just weren't disqualifying because him running as a progressive who was going to raise taxes on the rich to make transportation free, childcare free, at least to try that stuff that was very popular. And that actually knitted together both progressives and a lot of, let's say normal liberals, not the progressives aren't normal, you know what I mean? Just people who were like Elizabeth Warren, tote bag people, Biden voters, who said, and Mamdani told me this, like they look at Trump and say, how come he. How Come he gets to run and promise things he can't deliver and excite the working class and we don't. Why don't we promise big things and get people excited? Even if you try it and you only get half of it, why not try? And he was the one candidate doing that for most of the race. Everyone else was coming up with something that you could get it vetted by center for Responsible Federal Budget or it wouldn't worry people. You wouldn't get a quote in the third paragraph in New York Times story from Partnership for New York saying this wouldn't work. Him just going in saying, no, I'm progressive, things should cost less, we should attack the rich, was so simple, not simplistic, but simple, that it built a bigger coalition. And a lot of people who maybe even 20 years ago might have cared more about what his position on Israel was, that wasn't their issue. Mamdani won. People who clearly disagree with him on that and just said, yeah, I'm not electing Secretary of State, I'm electing a mayor.

[Sam Seder]

Do you have any sources around the whole Late Show Stephen Colbert thing? There's some controversy about that, about that question. And I have my own little pet theory about it, but, you know, just having some predisposition to who, you know, Stephen Colbert is. But do you have any sense from the campaign, I don't know if you've had any sources you've talked to anybody about that because that was handled very, very well. And it seems to me that that was the most opportune thing for Mamdani to be sitting next to Brad Lander, the highest ranking Jewish elected official in New York City. I mean, there's a permission structure there, right?

[Dave Weigel]

No, there is. And I was hesitating, how much of the entire history of this should we get into in this segment? But I say 20 years ago because there was a time, especially during, like the second Intifada, where not supporting Israel to the hilt for a lot of people meant not supporting a country that could be destroyed. And for a lot of people who only know Israel since then, Netanyahu being Prime minister for all but a couple years since 2009, you're looking at Israel dominating of the airspace and destroying Iran military capacity. You are looking at colleges, I should say this Trump administration getting colleges to deport people because they criticize Israel. I'm not trying to get into every single voter psychology, but it's just, it's just a very different landscape. And yes, there are a lot of progressive Jewish people who say, well, I would love, yes, Israel should exist. I am a Zionist, although that word becomes harder for some people to say. But as a Zionist, I don't support 100% of this. That's become a very comfortable position for a lot of progressive Jewish voters and a lot of people like Lander. And I saw that. I spent a little bit of time covering Lander as he campaigned, and that was the kind of vote he was getting. A lot of those voters who were, they're not about the demand the end of Israel, they just said, is there. Maybe we can back up a little. Maybe we can put some pressure on Netanyahu. It was more complicated than saying, you are not saying the right things about Israel. You're making Jewish people feel unsafe. You. It just didn't play out the way that people thought it might making that attack and the way Mamdani handled it. I mentioned this before, but the way that he dealt with the question of does Israel have a right to exist as a Jewish state? He was so nimble in saying he believes it should be a Democratic state, that he doesn't believe in any state being a religious state. You can get into an argument that often happens, well, what about Saudi Arabia? What about this country that has a state religion? But people hadn't seen a Democrat try that. They usually get away from the question because it's an uncomfortable question. His willingness to say, this is what I think. It's not what Netanyahu thinks. I disagree with him, but vote for me on some other issue. It was just very effective. And I'm really not even trying to make an endorsement of what is the one true, correct position on this. Just him as a communicator was able to say, yeah, there's going to be any mayor. You're going to have some stuff that, that you hate me for, and it will not affect your life. Most of the time, even. I remember I interviewed one of the candidates for comptroller who didn't win. Mamdani supports bds, which a lot of states have made illegal. And the cancer comptroller is saying, yeah, we're not going to defund cities investments in Israeli companies. Like, he's not going to get all this done. It became more of a symbol of Mamdani was really fearless and could go into any interview, he could defend himself. And that kept growing as a contrast with Cuomo, who was very prickly and did not do interviews, not many didn't show up to most of the forums, showed up to two televised debates and was trying to kind of beast out all the negativity in his record, his lawsuits, etc. The Israel issue became not for everybody, but again, for a lot of people, just evidence. Oh, this guy can go into the lines and he's not afraid of anything.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah.

[Dave Weigel]

The way he changed that was really powerful for the campaign.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah, I agree. And let's, let's just talk. I mean, the, I think we're going to get a sense in the next couple of days what Cuomo is going to do, because on one hand, this, this beating was significant enough. I think that just, you know, that it seriously, I think his calculation has to be. He's savvy enough to know, like he may not. He very well could get crushed in a general election, particularly the chair of the Brooklyn Democratic Party has already come out and endorsed Mamdani, which is huge. I suspect we're going to see some other Democratic county chairs or borough chairs do this as well, and it's going to put Democrats in the state in a very tough position. It's a big risk to take to, to, to back Cuomo now, but there's also going to be a huge amount of money that's going to want to try and convince him to run. But I actually think in this instance, Cuomo is not as ambitious. He doesn't want to go and be embarrassed and losing that general election again. So it's going to be interesting. But let's just for a moment, what are the implications nationally? Because after Eric Adams won the mayorality in 2022, he was being touted as a national candidate. It defined the question of crime for Democrats. It defined the question of immigration in many respects for Democrats. It was, it became this blueprint. Obviously, a lot of those same people are not going to, you know, are trying to make excuses about. Mandani's a unique candidate, this and that. You know, true, you need to have a very good candidate. That helps. But what are the implications are going to be going forward? And particularly also on the question of Israel, like, there's. He was very brave about it. But the point is, the context is very different than it was 10, 20 years ago.

[Dave Weigel]

Yeah. Democrats are going to give themselves some space on this, which maybe is a funny way to put it, but, you know, you've already, you saw today, and I was tracking for the follow up, I was writing, what, what are Democrats saying? How soon does Chuck Schumer endorse? Because on paper, you got a week before it's an official result, before the ranked choice vote confirms that he won. But they have praised the kind of campaign he's run, Democratic leaders, Democrats who are not in New York, not commenting very much unless they're excited by, like, Rashida Tlaib, Democrats in the suburbs who think that he will be unpopular have. Have come out and criticized him. Laura Gillen, who represents part of Long island and flipped a Republican seat back last year, she said, you know, she can't support him. But true district doesn't have any New York City in it. It's long. It's Long Island. So how willing will Mamdani be to let some Democrats say, yeah, this guy's terrible. I'm not. I'm not voting for him if they're not in the city. Pretty willing. In talking to him in the campaign, they just. They were very aware that, one, there'd be Israel attacks.

[Sam Seder]

That was there.

[Dave Weigel]

The end of the race, which they navigated. And two, that there'd be some Democrats who just don't support him. And how much are they? Because one thing everybody learned in this race. Did it matter that Bill Clinton endorsed Cuomo? Did it matter that Mike Bloomberg did? Do you need just every Democrat to criticize him? How many days of a week are you going to have a Democrats in disarray over mayoral candidate story? But he was very aware. One thing Mamdani said to me was, people forget this, but Eric Adams said that I'm going to be the voice of the Democratic Party. He won his race in 2021 and already started saying, I'm the new voice. I'm the new the Biden of New York, et cetera, et cetera. And he's not doing that. Mamdani is not saying, because I won this primary, I am the alpha predator of Democratic candidates, and everyone needs to listen to me. He's saying, yeah, I'm doing some stuff that worked for New York. I'm going to defend it. If you try to drag me into something way off topic, I will bring it back to affordability. So he's not gonna demand that. It's not like the Republican Party and Trump, where at this point, you criticize Trump and you lose a primary. They're gonna be a little more flexible with the Democrat. If you need to run away from me. It's frankly something Joe Biden used to do of say, you know, I'll campaign for you or against you, whatever helps. And with Mamdani, they do. I've just not gotten the impression talking the campaign, they're gonna snipe at people who tweet that he sucks. If it's all right if you wanna win your race somewhere else and say I suck, go ahead.

[Sam Seder]

And Lander, do you have a sense of Lander's. Because, you know, people are now saying like, you know, challenge Goldman. But my sense is he wants to work in New York City government. But what is your, what's your reporting in your sense of this?

[Dave Weigel]

Nothing confirmed, but yet Lander was out of this comptroller job because he ran and lost this race. So people kept mentioning him as potential deputy mayor for Madani. There's one thing, and Bill de Blasio, I talked to you today, but before the election too. One thing a lot of people in liberal politics New York say is, hey, Maidani knew that people would say, what's this 33 year old doing running for mayor? He spent a lot of time talking to people with municipal experience. He would or wouldn't vote for him. Just let's have a meeting, let's talk about what this job entails. How do you do this? How do you break this logjam? He knows Albany because he worked there. Lander knows New York because he's, he's, he's one, he's won all his races there. So that's. You heard more about Lander and I think that will be part. So Lander hasn't said, Lander's endorsed him obviously, and he's the Democratic nominee. But to what extent would it help, Mom Donnie to say, yeah, and as mayor, I'm going to, I'm going to have somebody next to me who understands exactly how to fight Trump. Look at this record. He's, he's beaten, he's beaten Trump on the $80 million, tried to take over the city. He knows how to run things efficiently because they dealt with. There was a New York Times story about his lack of experience. And yeah, he's 33. When he's done, if he wins two terms, he'll be younger than at the end of that than I am now. So that, that's, Luckily I'm not a New York voter and I can't hold that against him. But they were aware there'll be people who say, but can this guy run the city? Will he get run over by Trump? Will he get run over by the police unions, etc. Because that's more the problem. Governing is progressive. You can ask doubles about that too. You have your agenda. Do you get minimized in Albany? Do you have the police union literally turn their backs on you and stop working? How is he going to navigate that? I think Lander will be part of that strategy. But other people who are comfortable with Mamdani will be part of that strategy too. Just validators who say not I'm famous, vote for him because I'm famous who say, trust me, this guy is a phenom and he will do the job effectively. They know that's a problem and that honestly was more of a, that was more of a hurdle for them than the Israel issue. The Israel issue they let to get it all back into it. But they navigated that right. Once you said, am I ready for a 33 year old mayor who's never run anything this big before? That's the next question that Lander helps solve and figure an answer to.

[Sam Seder]

Dave Weigel, political affairs correspondent nationally for Semaphore. Folks can sign up. We'll put a link to your newsletter. It is an invaluable resource. Your reporting is always top notch. Really appreciate you coming on.

[Dave Weigel]

No thanks. It's fun to talk about this. Races that surprise everybody are my favorite kind.

[Sam Seder]

This one was really just wonderful. We definitely needed it around these parts. Appreciate you coming on and we'll talk to you soon. All right, folks, we're going to take a quick break. When we come back, Chase Strangio, co director of the ACLU LGBTQ and HIV Rights Project and attorney in the U.S. v. Scormetti case. We'll be right back after.

[Emma Vigland]

Sam.

[Sam Seder]

It again it.

[Emma Vigland]

Sam IT.

[Sam Seder]

Live. We are back. Sam Cedar on the Majority Report. Emma Vigland out today, although we will be hearing from her, I believe later in the program. Returning to the program, Chase Strangio, co director of the ACLU LGBTQ HIV Rights Project in Plaintiff's Attorney in US V. Scormetti, where the aclu, and correct me if I'm wrong, joined with the United States. It was filed under the Biden administration in suing the attorney general, really the state of, of Tennessee over their ban on health care for trans children or really more broadly speaking, anyone with any type of gender dysphoria or a whole host of other issues, it seems to me. But characterize the case for us, Chase, and welcome to the program.

[Chase Strangio]

Well, thank you so much for having me. And you're right that this was a case that, that the ACLU and Lambda Legal filed against Tennessee on behalf of three adolescents and their parents and a Tennessee doctor who provides this medical care to both transgender and non transgender children. The United States under the Biden administration also joined the lawsuit. And we both argued that Tennessee's law violated the equal protection rights of transgender young people by allowing Treatments if those treatments were inconsistent. Sorry, if those treatments were consistent with an individual sex, but banning them when they're inconsistent with an individual sex. So we raised the argument that this was a law that discriminated based on sex and transgender status, as well as infringe the rights of parents to direct the medical care of their minor children. And we brought that case up through the courts at a time when adolescents in Tennessee were losing access to this medical care. Their parents, who had spent years trying to understand their children how to best treat them, had their judgment displaced by the government of Tennessee. We're scrambling to find medical care. And so In March of 2023, we filed a lawsuit against Tennessee, and that is ultimately what became the case of United States vs. Scormity at the United States Supreme Court.

[Sam Seder]

Now, the, the, the, the fundamental question. Well, there was a couple questions and it feels to me like from what I've read, that the, the Roberts Court, the 6, 3 divide, which I think people have come to sort of anticipate, really skirted the fundamental questions here in some ways.

[Dave Weigel]

Right.

[Sam Seder]

I mean, the question, the fundamental question is whether this is a case of sex discrimination as defined by court precedent. And so under what statutory framework is that? Does that become the question? And then let's delve into sort of the way the court sidestepped really, an assessment of that that was consistent with what prior court cases have been. Yeah.

[Chase Strangio]

So it was a question brought under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. constitution. And that amendment says that the states shall not treat any person differently, instead be subject to differential treatment. And our argument was, look, this is a law that treats people differently based on their sex. And that the reality is that if you are someone who's assigned male at birth, you can get testosterone treatment in order to undergo a typical male puberty, pure assigned female at birth, you cannot straightforward case of sex based discrimination. That's, you know, 50 years of precedent of this court have held that when governments discriminate based on sex, the government has to come forward with a sufficiently strong justification for that discrimination.

[Sam Seder]

And that's what we know as heightened scrutiny, correct?

[Chase Strangio]

That is what we know as heightened scrutiny. And the reason for heightened scrutiny is because there is, generally speaking, quite a bit of deference that courts show to the legislature. However, if the legislature gets into the business of treating people differently because of characteristics that have been the basis for discrimination in the past, we want the judiciary to come in with a more scrutinizing eye. And for 50 years, when there has been sex Discrimination by state governments or by the federal government. The court has applied heightened scrutiny. And here, in essence, as Justice Sotomayor says in dissent, the majority had to distort both logic and precedent to reach the conclusion that this law, which on its face mentions sex 18 times, was not sex based discrimination.

[Sam Seder]

I mean this, this law specifically says that its purpose is to encourage minors to appreciate their sex. It says it is to prevent people from becoming disdainful of their sex. And so like you say, you could have all of the treatment that is, that could be potentially prescribed as long as it is in furtherance of maintaining your gender with your sex. And I guess it was United States v. Virginia that, that, that basically said all gender based classifications warrant warrant heightened scrutiny. So that was. But they sidestepped even the question of scrutiny, didn't they? Like they could have, they could have limited their ruling to the question as to whether this deserves heightened scrutiny or not, which is just a different, a higher level of standard in which you need to have a state compelling reason by the state. And so theoretically they could have said this deserves higher level of scrutiny, send it back down to the courts. If the lower courts find as a finding, I guess, a fact that there's a reason for the government to have a higher set of scrutiny, I mean, there's a more compelling reason by the government to do this, then that's, that's the case. But they went further than they needed to, in other words.

[Chase Strangio]

Yeah, I mean, I think in one sense they did and in one sense they didn't. I agree that all they needed to do was answer this question of whether it was heightened scrutiny or not, and that their precedents clearly, in our view, mandate the finding, the determination that this was a sex based classification warranting heightened scrutiny, and then send it back down. The lower courts are in the business of making those determinations, weighing the evidence with the asserted justifications. Instead, the court answered the question. They just did it in a way that feels disingenuous and defies really any, any sort of, of logic. They said it's not a sex based classification and therefore heightened scrutiny doesn't apply. They did not say that for some other reason heightened scrutiny doesn't apply. They determined that this law, in their view, did not draw distinctions based on sex. And that to me is what's so nonsensical about the decision. I think it is more narrow than if they had said something along the lines of it is sex discrimination. But only in this context do we not apply heightened scrutiny. They left intact United States versus Virginia, they left intact the 50 years of precedent saying all sex classifications were in heightened scrutiny. They did so, however, by looking at this law and offering a nonsensical reading of it.

[Sam Seder]

I see. And that would place, like, Amy Coney Barrett's dissent, or I should say, concurrent concurring opinion, where she actually would have said that this was. That this does not specifically. Does not trigger heightened scrutiny.

[Chase Strangio]

Yes. So there's three justices that would have gone even further. And Justice Barrett, in her concurrence, she agrees that it doesn't discriminate based on sex. And she sort of goes out of her way to say, even if it did discriminate based on transgender status, I don't think discrimination against transgender people as such warrants this type of scrutiny by the courts that we apply to discrimination based on race, based on sex, based on national origin, based on what was called legitimacy. And so she's going out of her way to signal that she's prepared to greenlight all sorts of discrimination against transgender people. The majority's opinion makes clear that it is only addressing this very narrow context.

[Sam Seder]

Let's talk about the implications of this specifically for young people in Tennessee and perhaps in other states across the country, maybe specifically, you know, maybe not even perhaps across the country, and then for transgender folk who are over the age of 18, because it seems like this also opens up the door for bans against any type of health care for transgender people.

[Chase Strangio]

Yeah, I mean, so I think what's so hard about this. What's been so hard about the last two years is that people like our clients in this. This case, the Williams family, have had to uproot their lives. They've now traveled to four different states to access health care for their teenage child. And the reason for that is because their government has come in and said that you cannot make this one and only one decision for your child with respect to medical care, because we think we know better. And they did not regulate the medical care. They did not start by studying the medical care. They just, from one day to another, completely banned it. And that's the same thing that has happened in half the states and in this country. And I think for parents, and I'm a parent, and I just want people to think about what it would feel like if your child was suffering and you didn't know what to do for many years, which is the case with all of these families. They're calling experts. They're doing research on the Internet. They're trying to figure out what to do, and they finally come up With a solution. They see their child start to come back. They start to thrive from this medical care which has been prescribed for this purpose in the United states for over 20 years. And because of changing political realities, because of a heightened scrutiny in the bad sense of this care, all of a sudden it's unavailable in their home state. All of a sudden, everything that they started to solve in their lives is at risk. And that's what's happening here. And the reality is the very same states that are banning this care are the states that during the pandemic said parents have a right to send their kids to school without a mask. Parents have a right to ensure that their children are not taught about racism in schools. Parents have a right to stop their kids from getting vaccinations. Now we have the same state saying, but you know what? Parents don't have a right to, to provide gender affirming medical care to their minor children. And it's devastating for these families. And they're scared, and their kids are scared, and their kids are internalizing all of this rhetoric that's coming from all levels of government, including the federal government, quite aggressively right now.

[Sam Seder]

What are the implications of this ruling for. For trans care writ large? I mean, obviously there are going to be states that are going to protect care for trans folk in those states that have passed, and I think it's 23, some form of restriction on gender affirming care for minors legally. Do the states have room now to do this for people who are over the age of 18?

[Chase Strangio]

Well, we're starting to see states do that even before this decision from the Supreme Court. And that's one of the reasons why we've been fighting so, so hard. You know, some of the states that ban this care, Oklahoma, Florida started, South Carolina started to ban public funding for this care for adults. So Medicare, Medicaid, state Medicaid, state employee benefits, all of a sudden losing that for adults. I think we can anticipate the escalation of care for escalation of bans and to reach care for adults. I don't think this decision necessarily greenlights that as a constitutional matter, but I do think it emboldens the actors who want to cut off health care for transgender people to. To do so. The court was clear that at least as to their holding that the law did not discriminate based on transgender status, that that was based on the fact that it was limited to minors. Now, I can't say for sure that the next case that comes up before them that deals with adults that they're going to rule differently. But there was at least some limiting language in there about the fact that it concerned care for minors. I also think that were the federal government to take this action, depending on how they would try to do so, there would be other arguments available, especially if we see President Trump seeking to do something via executive order that would violate the separation of powers in some way, whether the president might try to overstep into the role of Congress. There would be other legal avenues available to challenge that. So certainly this is not a decision that answers questions under distinct legal theories that might be implicated if the federal government were to act. And we know right now Congress in the budget bill, both the Senate and the House version have a ban that would be national in scope on Medicaid coverage for gender affirming medical care for people of all ages. Overwhelming majority of trans people rely on Medicaid because of discrimination in employment, in housing, in education and in health care. And so when you have a community that is disproportionately living in poverty because of discrimination disproportionately, therefore relying on Medicaid to have Congress come in and suggest that they're going to ban a form of medical care under the Medicaid program, that's going to have a serious impact on trans people. So we're obviously watching that as well.

[Sam Seder]

Is that, is that provision. I want to get back to just the federal ban in a second. But is that provision in Medicaid which is in the reconciliation bill, do you know if that has been subject to the Byrd rule scrutiny? In other words, it, on its face, it sounds to me like something that would, Trigwood would run afoul the Byrd rule, which says that not only does everything in a reconciliation bill have to impact the, the federal government's budget, but it has to be for the purpose of impacting the federal budget. And it sounds to me like it's very difficult to pick out one subset of medical care that Medicaid provides and say we're doing this for budgetary reasons. It's absurd.

[Chase Strangio]

Yeah, especially when it's, you know, thinking about hormones, they're disproportionately provided to non transgender people for other purposes. It's, it's the, it's being reviewed by the parliamentary in today so that, so that question we will, we will get the answer to imminently today or tomorrow. But, but, but likely today.

[Sam Seder]

And so the, the prospects of there being a federal ban are probably low, at least in terms of legislation because of the need in the Senate to have 60 votes to move that question forward from an executive order. Less so. But your sense is that there's a lot more legal grounds in which to contest that if it become, if it is a specific executive order, whether that in regards to Medicaid or some broader ban?

[Chase Strangio]

Yeah, absolutely. I think there are legal mechanisms to challenge executive agency action, especially executive orders, if they seek to ban medical care or even restrict medical care, depending on how they seek to go about doing that. In the aftermath of Scrameti, and we currently have a lawsuit challenging one piece of one of President Trump's executive orders that sought to coerce hospitals and other medical providers to stop providing gender affirming medical care to transgender people under the age of 19. And that case is ongoing and includes the argument that the president is exceeding his constitutional authority by threatening federal funding to state institutions in that manner. So that litigation will continue. Litigation against adult bans will continue. There are theories available. But of course, it is troubling when the Supreme Court acts in such a way that so obviously distorts the language of a statute. The purpose and precedent related to the Reconstruction Amendments. And this is a court we're about to continue litigation over another quintessential piece of the 14th Amendment, which is the birthright citizenship provision. And so if this court is so willing to move away from these critical constitutional protections, as they did in Dobbs, as they did here in Scremetti, as they are continuing to do, I think we have to ask ourselves what else is coming? And are we going to see these attacks as interconnected or are we going to continue to let these powers divide us?

[Sam Seder]

That's a great point. And I'm fairly confident these are going to keep coming. And that assault on those post Reconstruction amendments are going to, I think, just continue to build on themselves. Trace Trangio, co director of the ACLU LGBTQ and HIV Rights Project, one of the plaintiffs attorneys in the Scrametti case. Thank you so much for your time today. Really appreciate it.

[Chase Strangio]

Good to see you. And thanks so much.

[Sam Seder]

All right, folks, we're going to take a break and head into the fun half of the program. And we're going to have fun because we're going to celebrate the Mamadani victory. The I think the we will win.

[Dave Weigel]

We will win. We will win.

[Sam Seder]

I do want to incur, you know, I have some kind words say about Chuck Schumer, how responsive he has been to me. We will get to that. In the fun half. We'll hear from a wide array of people. Of course, you know, we're just probably months away. I mean, Mamdani is not the official mayor of New York. And you know, I don't know when that, when if the no go zone stuff applies after his inauguration or if it happens at election when we need to check on that. Sharia will start soon. I would imagine in New York will be only Halal for. You know, there's a lot of changes that are going to happen obviously in the city. We've been alerted by various right wingers to all the things that we can anticipate.

[Emma Vigland]

It's over now. Now they're going to be extra afraid of ever coming into it city that they only ever see through media.

[Sam Seder]

Exactly. Exactly. Some, some combination of Mad Max and I guess Saudi Arabia like something. Some like that combination New York City, but halal and Rice. Hopefully by this time next year. $8. So just a reminder, you can support this program by becoming a [e-mail] when you do, you not only get the free show free of commercials, but you get the fun half. You can IM us. Can we get a moment of silence? Richie Torrey's campaign for governor. He promised. Yeah. What kind of bull is this? Also just a reminder, just coffee, co op, fair trade coffee, hot chocolate. Use the coupon code. Majority get 10% off. Matt left reckoning.

[Emma Vigland]

Yeah. Escandar Sadegi and Derek Davidson on talking about Iran last night. And we went into the veto of the Tate of Dan Patrick, lieutenant governor of Texas's THC ban and Abbott doing that and driving Patrick sort of insane. It's very funny what's going down in Texas. I don't really understand how they allowed a lieutenant governor to amass so much power.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah. I don't understand how the Texas government works.

[Emma Vigland]

Very strange. It's very strange.

[Sam Seder]

I hope we see a civil war there. See you in the fun half. Three months from now, six months from now, nine months from now. And I don't think it's going to be the same as it looks like in six months from now. And I don't know if it's necessarily going to be better six months from now than it is three months from now, but I think around 18 months out, we're going to look back and go like, wow, what, what is that going on? It's nut. Wait a second. Hold on. Hold on for a second. Emma. Welcome to the program. Matt. What is up, everyone? No, McKee, you did it. Fun pack.

[Dave Weigel]

Let's go, Brandon. Let's go, Brandon. Fun.

[Sam Seder]

Pat Bradley, you want to say hello? Sorry to disappoint everyone. I'm just a random guy. It's all the boys today.

[Chase Strangio]

Fundamentally false. No.

[Sam Seder]

I'm sorry.

[Chase Strangio]

Women.

[Sam Seder]

Stop talking for a second. Let me finish.

[Chase Strangio]

Where is this coming from?

[Sam Seder]

Dude. But. Dude. You want to smoke this? 7A. Yes. All right.

[Dave Weigel]

You're safe.

[Sam Seder]

Yes. If this meant. Is it me? It is you.

[Dave Weigel]

It's me. Hello? It's me.

[Sam Seder]

I think it is you. Who is you. No sound. Every single freaking day. What's on your mind? We can discuss free markets. And we can discuss capitalism. I'm gonna go start.

[Dave Weigel]

Right.

[Sam Seder]

Libertarians. They're so stupid. Though common sense says. Of course. Gobbledygook. We nailed him. So what's 79 plus 21? Challenge met.

[Dave Weigel]

I'm positively quivering.

[Sam Seder]

I believe 96. I want to say. 8 5, 7, 2, 1 0. 85 5, 0. 11 half.

[Emma Vigland]

3, 8, 9, 11.

[Dave Weigel]

For instance.

[Sam Seder]

$3,400. $1,900. 5, 4. $3 trillion. Sold. It's a zero sum game. Actually. You're making me think less. But. But let me say this poop.

[Chase Strangio]

You call it satire.

[Sam Seder]

Sam goes satire on top of it all.

[Chase Strangio]

My favorite part about you is just like every day. All day. Like everything you do.

[Sam Seder]

Without a doubt. Hey, buddy. We see you.

[Dave Weigel]

All right.

[Sam Seder]

Folks. Folks. Folks.

[Chase Strangio]

It's just the week being weeded out.

[Sam Seder]

Obviously. Yeah. Sundown. Guns out. I. I don't know. But you should know. People just don't like to entertain ideas anymore. I have a question. Who cares?

[Emma Vigland]

Our chat is enabled.

[Sam Seder]

Folks. I love it. I do love that. Gotta jump. Gotta be quick. I gotta jump.

[Dave Weigel]

I'm losing it.

[Sam Seder]

Bro. Two o' clock. We're already late. And the guy's being a dick. So screw him. Sent to a gulag. Outrageous.

[Dave Weigel]

Like.

[Sam Seder]

What is wrong with you?

[Dave Weigel]

Love you.

[Chase Strangio]

Bye.

[Sam Seder]

Love you.

[Chase Strangio]

Bye.

[Sam Seder]

Bye.