← The Majority Report with Sam Seder
The Majority Report with Sam Seder
2471 - Ominous SCOTUS Ruling Bails Out Trump Deportations w/ Mark Joseph Stern
01:24:02
Slate Senior Writer Mark Joseph Stern joins to break down the latest news out of the Supreme Court and the upcoming SCOTUS docket. Sam and Emma on the latest developments in Trump's manufactured economic crisis before speaking to Mark Joseph Stern,...
Loading summary
Transcript167 lines
- [00:00]
Sam Cedar
Hey. Today's episode is brought to you by sunsetlakesebade.com use the code left is best. Get 20% off. What do you get 20% off on? Well, these Focus gummies which I've been munching on. And over the weekend I tried out the, the, the new vape they got that works pretty well. And of course I had some. Every now and then I'll enjoy a pre roll or keef or other flower. But they've got fudge with Saba day, they've got coffee with Saba day, they've got all sorts of gummies, some with Ted says, some without the hi.
- [00:42]
Emma Vigeland
You.
- [00:42]
Sam Cedar
Know the number after eight. Whatever. The point being the Sunset Lake Sabade.com all of their products are third party tested. Tremendous amount of integrity, not only in their farming processes. They use regenerative farming and they use integrated pest management and they do not use pesticides. Not only is their product have a tremendous amount of integrity, all third party tested. So you know exactly what elements are in there. And they're different products but they also as a company have a tremendous amount of integrity. A $20 minimum wage, but mostly employee owned. You know, it's seasonal. And they also have donated tens of thousands of dollars to things like strike relief, Planned Parenthood, carceral reform, refugee resettlement. They've donated to pantries, food pantries up in Vermont. They've engaged in mutual aid just all around. Great company. I love them. Left his best. 20% off. Check it out. Sunset Lake sebade.com you'll be happy you did. And now it's time for the show.
- [01:53]
Mark Joseph Stern
The Majority Report with Sam Cedar.
- [01:58]
Sam Cedar
It is Tuesday, April 8, 2025. My name is Sam Cedar. 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. Instead of gummy. On the program today, Mark Joseph Stern, the judicial writer from Slate and co host of a podcast whose name I don't know off the top of my head. Also joining us also on the program today, Supreme Court ominously weighs in on Trump's deportation power. China signals it thinks it will win a trade war and they're probably right. U.S. trade negotiator, in fact is testifying before the Senate Finance Committee as we speak. Seven Republicans sign on with Dems to curb Trump's tariff authority. Doge continues to decompose the Social Security Administration amid reports it's deployed AI to spy on federal workers. Oh, and Incidentally, congratulations to SpaceX no relation. I mean total relation. For its 6 billion dollar contract. It was awarded by the space Force because of merit.
- [03:32]
Unknown Speaker
It's an efficient contract.
- [03:35]
Sam Cedar
Israel kills 58 Palestinians in the past 24 hours. Meanwhile in the West Bank, I should say that's in Gaza. In the West Bank, Israel kills a 14 year old American citizen for allegedly throwing a rock at a car. Former DOJ pardons a lawyer visited by us excuse me. Former DOJ pardon's lawyer visited by the US Marshals to intimidate her before her congressional testimony. 24 dead in a once in a thousand year rainstorm in parts of the Midwest. Include tornadoes, etc. All this and more on today's Majority Report.
- [04:28]
Unknown Speaker
It is News Day Tuesday.
- [04:31]
Sam Cedar
Newsday Tuesday. Yes, I am back. Forgive my absence yesterday, ladies and gentlemen. Uh, Pat, we'll get to.
- [04:37]
Unknown Speaker
Hello, I'm here. A disembodied voice, but I'm here. People can wonder what is the color of my sweater? No longer.
- [04:44]
Sam Cedar
It's. There it is. We've done matching blue today. Uh, I am back. Had a little, had a little back issue yesterday. Never had that problem before. But I'm back. I'm sore today, but I'm fine.
- [04:59]
Unknown Speaker
Powered by Advil and Sunset Lake.
- [05:02]
Sam Cedar
There's been a lot of gummies have been helpful. Obviously a lot in the news these days.
- [05:09]
Unknown Speaker
Yep.
- [05:10]
Sam Cedar
The stock market seems to be, I don't know, going up and down a little bit. We don't know, mostly down. I mean largely the stock market not indicative of the real economy. It is indicative of whether largely wealthy people are making or losing money. And because of the way that our system works, they tend to have be able to put outside pressure and greater pressure than just, you know, normal people who are going to lose their jobs because of this. Spoke to Matt Bruinig yesterday on tariffs. I mean really the story and we spoke to David Dane about this on Friday. The bottom line is if you want to do an industrial policy and that is encouraged, it's quite effective to the extent that Biden was able to do some of it.
- [06:13]
Unknown Speaker
Although Trump's trying to kneecap it and fire all of the probationary employees at the office that was tasked with implementing the CHIPS Act.
- [06:20]
Sam Cedar
So makes it a lot more difficult to implement. But the bottom line is tariffs have conserve a function but you need some form of plan and tariffs are one element of that industrial policy plan. We want to build a, you know, we need to have as a national security reason. We need to be able to build semiconductors, whatever it is. We need to be able to buy A build EV batteries, whatever it is. And you can say we're going to slap tariffs on increasing tariffs on batteries that are manufactured other places so that we can build those batteries here. In the meantime, we're going to give subsidies to companies that come in and build batteries. And I'm just making this up as just a random thing that we might want, although we probably do. We're also going to provide training and we're going to do an analysis of what's the best three places in the country to help grill build these industries because there is extra labor who may have expertise coming from a different thing was manufactured in that area, etcetera, Etc, etcetera. Maybe this is a good place to build it because of some byproducts from the manufacturing, whatever it is. But not only is there not an industrial policy by this administration, they don't even seem to have a plan on their own terms. Like no one seems to. Like the only people who seem to be going out and talking and there's we're going to have maybe some clips from what's going on in the Senate Finance Committee from the top trade person in the administration. But you have Scott Bessant who is the orbescent, who is the treasury secretary. He's on one page. Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary seems to be in a completely different book, never mind on a separate page. Then you've got Peter Navarro who seems to be wander wandering out there. And it turns out this guy's expertise that he built most of his trade book on, he was quoting from a. An economist who turns out to be him but with an acronym like he.
- [08:51]
Unknown Speaker
It was Ron Vera or something. But it's an. It's an. It's his. The name of his last name mixed up now. I'm forgetting the name.
- [09:00]
Sam Cedar
Yes, his name is Navarro and he made a. He made. Yes, he made Ron Vara, Ron Vera and he cited him over and over again.
- [09:11]
Unknown Speaker
Right. And someone immed about this with like anagrams of Matt and my names yesterday and I did. We didn't get the joke but sorry about that. That was a funny joke that we didn't get it at the time. I saw that Rachel Maddow segment last night. It's insane.
- [09:24]
Sam Cedar
Do you understand that like if you were to write a book and just cover all of just what we've just said in any type of like, you know, as a comedy, like you know, like a magic Christian version. I don't know if you ever read that Matt, you should actually maybe check that Out. If you were ever to write this in a book, people would just be like, this is so, you know, so over the top. It's like, it's like dad est, but here we are. And here is Scott Bessant. This is clip number. Yeah, this is from the Tucker Carlson Show. And this is where he, he has a plan. This actually fits a lot better than we thought. They're firing all of these people from federal positions who if they happen to have a 401k, some of them might, or some type of like some, some of them may have some money put away. Unlikely too many. I guess about 40% of the public has something like this where you have like an IRA or a 401k. Guess what they don't want to do now? Retire. Because they just realized like, oh no. But we need those people to quit. And you'll find out why.
- [10:48]
Scott Bessant
So what we are doing, on one side the President is reordering trade. On the other side we are shedding excess labor in the federal government and bringing down federal borrowings. And then on the other side that will give us the labor that we need for the new manufacturing. And we're going to re lever the private sector. So the private sector in essence has been in recession during the Biden years. And this is an opportunity to right size the federal government and unleash the private sector again because it's been hemmed down by excessive regulation and it's been crowded out by the government.
- [11:35]
Sam Cedar
Okay, this is, I mean this is so baby brained. First off, we're shedding excess federal workers. Put up and we're cutting federal spending. Put up that thing from the Brookings Institute. Do we have that? This is, this just gives you a real time notion, not really, not up to the hour, but almost up to the day as to how much federal spending we have saved here. And there's a graph. Where is it? It was there. No, where's that graph?
- [12:16]
Unknown Speaker
Scroll up.
- [12:16]
Sam Cedar
It's up at the top. Just.
- [12:21]
Unknown Speaker
Please wait. It's loading.
- [12:22]
Sam Cedar
Okay. Yeah, it's loading. I don't know why it's taking so long, but the fact of the matter is, is that federal spending has not gone down at all. We can show that in a minute. You can go to the Brookings Institute and look for, I can't remember what the title of it is.
- [12:38]
Unknown Speaker
Tracking federal expenditures in real Time.
- [12:41]
Sam Cedar
And we have not saved any money whatsoever from all of this. It's been a complete crap show. Just by cutting what we've caught at the IRS, we're probably going to have $500 billion less of tax receipts according to the IRS. So the idea that we're saving all this money, also the idea that the government crowds out the private market is also just absurd. It's conceivable that people with government jobs help maintain the value of labor. If that's what they mean by firing all these people in government, we're actually making labor cheaper for people in the private sector. But all of this is just completely baby brained because I got news for you. If in the best case of scenario, if a couple of factories were developed to deal with the products that we're no longer going to be able to afford from the rest of the world, and again, like even all our imports, it's like 12%. The real problem is, is that it's the inputs for things that like we can't produce here and we have produced in China and it comes here and then we make a final product.
- [14:01]
Unknown Speaker
Right. Like they're doing it in reverse as you're saying. Like if you wanted to do a multi year long domestic manufacturing policy where you were to create these facilities, heavy state investment and then impose certain tariffs, that would make sense. But they're putting the cart before the horse and then there's no horse. In fact, they're trying to kill the horse. The CHIPS act, which potentially given what they are trying to say like that they could have built on that theoretically, but that's not obviously what they're interested in. I also love the idea that these fired HHS staffers are walking to go like work building semiconductors.
- [14:37]
Sam Cedar
Exactly.
- [14:38]
Unknown Speaker
What are we talking about?
- [14:39]
Sam Cedar
No, it's absolute, it's absolute garbage.
- [14:41]
Unknown Speaker
But it is labor discipline. They're upset about the fact that unemployment has been at such a low percentage, even though there's a lot of underemployment, people are still making starvation wages and have to work three jobs. But like they're upset that there's not more unemployment which gives them more leverage.
- [14:56]
Sam Cedar
Over their workforce 100%. But again, the idea that someone you fired in February who works at the EPA is going to be working in a factory by September is just absurd. It's just absurd. It's absurd. It's insane. But here is Bessant again now running into a problem where instead of like, you know, Tucker Carlson whose job it is is to increase his clicks, here is Larry Kudlow who again, all he cares about at the end of the day is tax cuts and stock market going up. He's probably also, you know, happy. He's no longer working in the Trump administration, just from a personal health standpoint because the pressure seemed to really get to him last time. But here he is with Scott Bessant, basically reading Bessant the, the riot act.
- [15:44]
Mark Joseph Stern
I don't know if you heard Art Laffer in the prior interview, but Art doesn't believe that the trade deficit should be a metric. I don't really either. I mean, Mr. Secretary, if you get your tax cuts and I guess you're well on the way, you get your deregulation, these are all huge pro growth items. Okay? We will grow. We, the United States will grow faster than Japan. We will grow faster than almost anybody. Therefore, almost by definition, by growing faster than the rest of the world, we're always going to have a trade deficit. So I don't know why you'd want to use the trade deficit in a calculation from, for a reciprocal charge. I understand your point about non tariff barriers. I get that. That's why I would have chosen a handful of countries, I don't know, maybe 10 or a dozen countries and really carefully pinpointed it. But to apply this to the whole world on the basis of trade deficits, is that really the best in your judgment? You've been around a long time, you've looked at these, you've done analysis. Is that really where we should be at?
- [16:47]
Scott Bessant
Well, look, Larry, the trade.
- [16:49]
Sam Cedar
Let me just say one thing. When we have a trade deficit, part of it could be because their market's not open to our products, but a big part of it's going to be their market's not as big as ours, may not even be worth it at the end of the day for our manufacturers to focus on this. But there, again, there could be, we want to increase our, you know, car battery business or whatever it is, you target specific places. But they're not doing that. They're doing it on everything. And a trade deficit is also a function of our being the world's currency. Because our currency is, is the one where up until at least today, if you want to own a stable currency because yours may not be that stable or you want to do business with other countries, you get the American dollar. That keeps the American dollar strong. When the American dollar is strong, that means we are more likely to have a trade deficit. Yeah, that's just the bottom line.
- [18:04]
Unknown Speaker
We also have a trade deficit with China in many ways because like our free trade deals, we outsource our manufacturing and our labor to areas of the world where it's cheaper. So like, yeah, we import more than China buys from us. This is just like a visual of this, but you can see like, yeah, there's a trade deficit, but that's because the United States benefits from it. And now they're pissed that China has a lot of central planning and doesn't need the United States imports and other countries don't need our meat. That's underregulated compared to other areas of the world, which is also what Navarro and others are. Are upset about. But like, no China and even. And some other countries that have been affected by, say, like, U.S. sanctions, they found ways to manufacture some of these goods or develop other trade relationships. All this does is, is incentivize other countries that were normally in our orbit and buying from us to go to China, who's a more stable partner.
- [19:09]
Sam Cedar
And let's be clear that China exports to us about 12% of their exports. They'll deal with it. Yeah, I have a feeling better that we're going to deal with it, at least in the short run. But. All right, continue here, really where we should be at.
- [19:34]
Scott Bessant
Well, look, Larry, the trade deficit, as you and Art know, is the result of three things. The it's a result of the terms of trade, it's a result of our budget deficit, and it's the result of the level of the dollar. And you know, we want a strong dollar. We are getting our budget deficit under control, which I actually think will help with the trade deficit. And then the third part was it.
- [20:00]
Sam Cedar
The way that the getting the budget deficit under control, as he says, which of course has nothing to do with trade policy. It will only, well, has nothing to do with their trade war. If you get the budget deficit down, there is an argument it will weaken the dollar because when we borrow money to fund to deal with our deficit, we're borrowing at least some of that from foreign countries. That strengthens the dollar, but it. That will impact the trade deficit. But their actions to deal with the trade deficit are probably going to hurt our budget deficit because we're going to have a recession, we're going to lose workers before we start having this magic renaissance of manufacturing that they think is going to happen. And we're going to have less receipts, tax receipts. So it's the opposite. But he's like switching the causation to address something he can't address at all, which is why we did this.
- [21:07]
Unknown Speaker
He's not even addressing really what Kudlow said there. He's just like, listing the elements that go into making trade policy. He's filibustering because all of all of these guys. Besant is my now pick to be the first departure. He's leaking the Politico it seems like clearly because he represents Wall. Him and Kudlow are very similar people. They just care if lines going up and everyone's getting rich. And it may be some people bought the dip. We'll get to some of those theories later and maybe had longs and other investments where that insulated from them. But that could be the infighting in the Trump administration now between people whose financial position benefits from the economy crashing and people whose financial position doesn't.
- [21:49]
Like you said, it's a full time thing. It's basically saying Wikipedia defines a tariff as. Because he needs to get 400 words.
- [21:55]
Sam Cedar
All right, let's just finish them out.
- [21:59]
Scott Bessant
Or we are getting our budget deficit under control which I actually think will help with the trade deficit. And then the third part is the tariff or the trade barriers which we're seeing. So I am confident that we will again as I said, the four factors will be tariffs, non tariff trade barriers, the currency manipulation and the whether it's wage or industrial subsidies. And I think we're going to have very, very productive negotiations with negotiations Again, as you said on tariffs incidentally, he.
- [22:44]
Sam Cedar
Just started this sort of like this diarrhea of the mouth by saying I'm confident that and never brought it home and says negotiations.
- [22:54]
Unknown Speaker
He's telling on himself because yesterday he had said publicly that they had started negotiations with Japan at the same time that an op ed was published in the Financial Times by Peter Navarro, who's the lunatic running this thing saying that there are no negotiations to be had.
- [23:13]
Sam Cedar
They are going. I mean what's absolutely clear is this administration is going in 14 different directions. There is no plan for this. And the only question is will Donald Trump decide that the pain from his billionaire buddies is sufficient for him to reverse himself? And if not, then you know, I think just about the rest of us.
- [23:35]
Unknown Speaker
Are effed going into a recession. Yeah.
- [23:39]
Sam Cedar
Couple words from our sponsors and then we will get to Mark Joseph Stern who's going to talk to us about two very just an even a late breaking ruling by the Supreme Court today's sponsor. One of them delete me. The lead me makes it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. I feel like a week does not go by where I do not get an email from somebody, insurance company, whatever it is, your data is leaked. Here's a free, you know, thing to to block somebody from stealing your identity. One of the things that's really important when they, when they steal your identity, it's that they can get a lot of information from these data broker sites. It's very helpful for them when they want to send you like, phishing things, you know, hello, Sam Cedar. Oh, well, they know my name. It must be legit. They know my email, it must be legit. They get that from broker sites that anybody can go and buy. Then they combine that with stuff that they've stolen and you're in trouble. Well, Deleteme does all the hard work of wiping you and your family's personal information from data broker websites. Delete Me knows your privacy is worth protecting you. Sign up and provide Deleteme with exactly what information you want deleted. Their experts take it from there. For me personally, I've been using this service for eight years now. More. And it was primarily because I don't want my information out there because of the type of work I do. And there's people out there who, you know, sometimes become inappropriately interested in your personal life. Personal life. And so Delete Me has been very, very effective. What they'll do is they'll send you on a monthly basis an email that basically says where they've deleted your stuff, what they where, etc. Etc. They continuously do this because these brokerage sites repopulate themselves and this takes it down. You can take control of your data. Keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your delete me plan by texting the word majority to 64,000. That's the only way to get 20% off you. Text majority to 64,000. That'S majority to 64000. Message and data rates may apply. We'll put that info in the podcast and YouTube descriptions also. I think parents know this, but in general, I would imagine people do. There's always something that you have in the back of your mind that you think like, you should be doing. I know that when my kids were born, my first kid, for about a year and a half, two years. This is way before the service began and it's probably why it took me so long. All I could think about was, I need to get a will. I need to get a will. It's not like I had that much assets. But you want a will because it just makes it easier. Stuff doesn't go through probate, etc. Etc. In the same fashion. Creating a will or a trust for that matter, very daunting. Or at least it used to be. But if you want to take this task off your already busy hands, you can do so with trust and will. You can get 10% off right now@trustandwill.com majority. Again, this is a really important thing to do. In fact, everybody should have one regardless. But again, the idea of like finding an estates lawyer and doing all this, it's intimidating. Well, you can keep your family prepared and protected by managing your will or trust online. Each will or trust is state specific. It's legally valid and customized to your needs, your care wishes, your nomination guardians, your final arrangements, the power of attorney, all of it. Ensure your family and loved ones avoid lengthy, expensive legal proceedings or the state deciding what happens to your assets. Their simple step by step process guides you from start to finish, one question at a time. You could save loved ones time and stress by having all your documents in one place. With bank level encryption. They have live customer support. It's available through the phone, chat or email. So if you have any questions they can walk you through it. It has an overall rating of excellent and thousands of five star reviews on trustpilot. It's used by hundreds of thousands of families and counting. Yours should be next. Stand up and protect what matters to you most in minutes with trust and will go to trustandwill.com majority get 10% off plus free shipping. That's 10% off and free shipping@trustandwill.com majority. All right, quick break. When we come back, Mark Joseph Stern, Slate senior writer covering the Supreme Court, also co host of the podcast Amicus.
- [29:06]
Unknown Speaker
It's.
- [29:52]
Sam Cedar
We are back, Sam Cedar on the Majority Report. Pleasure to welcome back to the program Mark Joseph Stern, Slate senior writer who of course covers the Supreme Court and his co host of the podcast Amicus or Amicus?
- [30:08]
Unknown Speaker
Amicus.
- [30:09]
Sam Cedar
You pick. Your choice.
- [30:11]
Emma Vigeland
My official title is co pilots and we say amicus in our corner of the world. But you are allowed to say amicus and be wrong.
- [30:19]
Sam Cedar
Does it say is it co pilot or co pilot? All right, doesn't matter. Moments ago we just heard that the Supreme Court stayed a an order to rehire some segment of the federal workers. I don't know if you've had a chance to look at that. We might as well start there and just work back because the past 24 hours there's been a lot of activity on that begin to give us a sense of where the Supreme Court's gonna fall on stuff that really I think it's sort of shocking Even for them. Or maybe it isn't. But. But, but, but. So let's start with that first ruling. It just happened.
- [31:06]
Emma Vigeland
Yeah. So the Supreme Court blocked a lower court order that had required the federal government, as you said, to rehire about 16,000 employees who were probationary, which just means basically that they had been hired within the last year or they had been promoted to their position within the last year. When Trump came in, notoriously, his Office of Personnel Management, which is basically the federal HR Bureau, ordered these agencies to just indiscriminately fire almost all of their probationary workers. The Office of Personnel Management has no power to do that, which is why the federal judge here blocked the mass terminations. But the Supreme Court just stepped in and froze his order entirely based on standing, not the merits. And I understand why. So the plaintiffs here were a group of organizations, like nonprofits, that claimed that they worked with the government and that by firing all these probationary workers, the government would be unable to meet the needs of these third party organizations. And the Supreme Court basically said by what seems to be a 72 vote, that those organizations did not have standing to file this lawsuit. So we have to go back to the drawing board. It's a really big blow to these employees. I will note some of them are covered by a separate injunction by a federal judge in Maryland, but it is nonetheless certainly a setback in this case.
- [32:31]
Sam Cedar
Is this the only case that's been brought on behalf of these probationary employees?
- [32:37]
Emma Vigeland
No. And so the complicating factor here is that the employees themselves and their unions have also sued. But there has been a conflict in the. Is that in Rhode island, that is in Maryland and in California, and I'm not sure if there's one in Rhode Island. Sorry. But the issue here is that there are these federal panels, like the Merit Systems Protection Board, that are supposed to be responsible for resolving unfair and unlawful terminations of federal employees and union members. And so thus far, the federal courts have told the actual employees that have sued, you can't come to us. You have to go to these federal boards. That's why the judge here found that these third party organizations had standing and said, but the issue is that Trump has illegally fired members of these boards that are supposed to resolve these disputes, depriving them of a quorum and preventing them from actually ordering the rehiring of unlawfully terminated employees. So Trump has sort of put these. These plaintiffs in a catch 22. They're told in federal court, you can't sue because you have to go to these boards. But then they go to the boards and they're told, we can't do anything because Trump illegally fired us all, and we don't have a quorum.
- [33:52]
Sam Cedar
And so are they bringing actions against the Trump administration to reinstate the. The people on these federal boards? So go to the federal boards.
- [34:00]
Emma Vigeland
And yes, and just yesterday, the D.C. circuit reinstated two individuals on these federal boards. But that is this big, looming question that's facing the Supreme Court about whether independent agencies can exist. And the Supreme Court is going to have to decide whether or not these individuals can actually be put back in place. And I think there's a good chance the Supreme Court will say no and say that Trump has unilateral constitutional authority to fire anybody he wants from independent agencies under some magical provision of Article 2 that the Federalist Society discovered 20 years ago.
- [34:34]
Sam Cedar
So then these workers theoretically go back to the courts and say the remedy that was available to us before no longer exists. And so now you've got to hear the case, because these agencies don't functionally exist, and therefore, there's no conflict.
- [34:51]
Emma Vigeland
You got it? That is the next step. That is a step the plaintiffs are already preparing, and that is a step that the judge in this case that we're talking about has already basically previewed. He has said from the bench, I think that it is a sham to claim that these employees can go to these boards when the boards have been paralyzed. And I am preparing to issue a ruling on the matter soon. So this case is far from.
- [35:14]
Sam Cedar
I imagine that judge is now going to be moving even that much quicker. Right. Because these probationary employees. And again, reminder, when you talk about efficiency and, you know, for government firing all the people who've been just recently found to be so good that they're going to be promoted and firing them basis on the fact that they've been promoted, because now they're in the new job and they're so called probationary suggests, like, you're not looking for the most efficient thing, obviously.
- [35:50]
Emma Vigeland
Yeah. And that's putting it pretty generously. Judge Alsop, who is the judge in this case, he has been pissed off at the government for weeks now because the government falsely told him that opm, this HR department, wasn't directing these firings. And it was a lie. It was just like a brazen lie. He called it a sham and said it was a fraud. And he tried to make the Trump official who submitted this perjured testimony actually appear in court and testify on the stand, and he refused to do so. So this case is a huge. And the judge is kind of like out for blood. And I think it's very possible that he will issue another decision that protects these employees again soon. Of course, then that rockets back up to the Supreme Court and we just have a version of this conversation for the next four years.
- [36:35]
Sam Cedar
What I don't understand too is, I mean, I understand the standing question, the Supreme Court, but it also feels like in the past when you've gotten like emergency orders from the Supreme Court, the primary issue, it seems to me, has always been how much of if we allow something to standard or not stand, how prejudicial is it and how sort of reversible is it? And this will get to the issue, I think the next thing that we're going to talk about. But it seems to me like these probationary employees, all the employees that basically that have been fired by Dogeco, some have been reinstated, some not. But like, you can't live in this. Like people can't live in this. I don't know if I have a job today versus tomorrow versus tomorrow, the next day versus the next day. You can't live there. Irreparable harm happens, it seems to me.
- [37:36]
Emma Vigeland
Yes, indeed. And irreparable harm is one of the factors that the Supreme Court is supposed to consider when it issues these decisions on the shadow docket. Right. It's actually not supposed to be nitpicking the merits or standing or anything else. One of the big questions is who is going to be harmed if we don't intervene. And as you just noted, I think it's questionable that the government would be harmed if these probationary employees simply stay on the job for a few more weeks or a few more months. And it would indeed grievously harm them to be unlawfully fired by an HR department that has no legal authority to fire them. I mean, just to be clear, like there is a federal statute that lays out how agencies can undertake a so called reduction enforce. There are federal statutes that lay out who can be, who can be reduced, who can be terminated, who can be laid off and how. And the, the administration didn't follow those laws like at all. They didn't even pretend to follow them. So this is an illegal mass purge. And one would hope that the Supreme Court would see that the victims of an illegal mass purge face more irreparable harm than the government that is forced to actually comply with the law. But that is not the Supreme Court that we have.
- [38:44]
Sam Cedar
Okay. And I think we see a similar perspective when it comes to the Next case. This one was, I guess, decided. Is that the word that we would use? This was a decision that last night. This is a 5:4 vote on the question of the president's use of the Alien Enemies act to send 300 people, which we now know like, 75% of, at a minimum, no criminal, probably more and probably more. But, like, definitively, we now know at least 75% of them have no criminal record deport. But even if they did, frankly, without due process. So, like, walk us through what case arrived there, what was happening, because this is the case that Justice Boasberg was dealing with throughout the entire process, it seems like.
- [39:49]
Emma Vigeland
That's right. So on March 14, Trump invoked this law from 1798 called the Alien Enemies Act. That is a law that by its own terms can only be used in wartime during a conflict with a foreign nation that applies to invading soldiers of that foreign nation. We are not at war with Venezuela. And this Venezuelan gang that was targeted, Trend Aragua. It is certainly not the Venezuelan government, but Trump nonetheless declared, we're at war with a Venezuelan gang called Trend Aragua. These members of the gang, alleged members, are foreign soldiers invading our territory. And Trump purported to claim the authority to summarily deport them without due process. So on March 15, before he even published this proclamation, he hustled these migrants onto planes and then sent them to this mega prison in El Salvador, accusing them all of being terrorists. And as we've discussed, they are not terrorists. They are not even criminals. They, many of them were here lawfully or seeking asylum and waiting for their cases to be adjudicated, and yet the Trump administration deported them to this prison in El Salvador. The judge you mentioned, Judge Boasberg, he issued a temporary restraining order in the middle of all this on March 15, saying, you have to turn around the planes. This is an illegal act. The Trump administration refused, defied his order. And we have spent the last few weeks dealing with both the merits of this case and the fact that the Trump administration will likely be held in contempt of court. And Judge Boasberg is now on the brink of doing that. But the Supreme Court has just thrown in this curveball by. And you can. We can talk about it essentially reversing everything that Boseberg has done so far and saying that this case has to be dissolved.
- [41:37]
Unknown Speaker
Did Boasberg address the invocation of the Alien Enemies act on wartime grounds? And did the Supreme Court address that?
- [41:47]
Emma Vigeland
So. So Boasberg issued his temporary restraining order on the grounds that the government likely cannot invoke the alien Enemies act in this way, that the government is not at war with a gang in Venezuela, that that gang is not, in fact, a foreign nation. You know, all of this really obvious stuff. He also held that individuals who are targeted under the Alien Enemies act have a right to contest their classification, basically due process rights, and that the government didn't provide that here. And so Boasberg issued this temporary restraining order, and it was a class wide order, so it was like a class action suit. And he said none of these individuals targeted under the Alien Enemies act may be deported to El Salvador because this invocation is likely illegal and they've been denied due process. That is the temporary restraining order that the Supreme Court dissolved on Monday night. But in doing so, the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the case. It did not address the Alien Enemies Act. It did not address the questionable, at best, invocation of this wartime law. All it said was that the plaintiffs filed in the wrong way, in the wrong court and sort of just obliterated all of the proceedings that had gone on so far protecting these migrants.
- [43:03]
Sam Cedar
Okay, so just to be clear about that, the last part, because Boasberg does two things. One is he makes an assessment as to whether the ability for the President to, to invoke this is legitimate.
- [43:21]
Emma Vigeland
Yes.
- [43:22]
Sam Cedar
Whether there was any people that he had deported or not, he, you know, it still could have been a question for him to, to address exactly under what circumstances. And then secondarily, even if it was legitimate invocation of the enemy's aliens act without invading force, and the way it was executed in the case of these migrants was also illicit, even if you could invoke that. And so the Supreme Court doesn't address either one of those things.
- [44:03]
Emma Vigeland
So it sort of addresses the second thing. What the Supreme Court does, as I said, is dissolve the restraining order. And it says that these plaintiffs, rather than filing as a class in federal court in D.C. challenging this entire program, they have to file what are known as habeas petitions one by one in the federal district where they're being held. So for those who are still United States, that is in southern Texas, which is a district packed with Trump judges. And of course, it's within the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is a super trumpy circuit. So the Supreme Court shifted all of this litigation from class wide litigation in a friendly court to individual narrower litigation in a much Trumpier series of courts. But this is key. It had this sort of consolation prize, I guess you could call it, where it did sort of affirm Judge Boasberg by saying aliens have a due process right, they are not to be denied due process under this law or any other law. And so the majority went, went out of its way to say the government has to afford these aliens notice and a hearing to contest their classification and deportation before it flies them out of the country. Now we should ask whether that will have any real meaning or effect given the way that the court has trapped them in these very narrow habeas proceedings. But at a bare minimum, the court affirmed that the Trump administration can't simply say they're terrorists, they have no due process whatsoever.
- [45:33]
Sam Cedar
Can we just talk before we get to the, to the other aspect? The idea of denying the ability of these people to participate in a class when all of the language is literally about them in a class being mass deported. This is not like, you know, this is, these are specific instances like you are, and correct me if I'm wrong, but in invoking the Alien and Enemies Act. Right, because this isn't about deportations in general. This is about deportations under an act where you essentially say we're at war with a country, you have to specify the country. Right. I mean you can't theoretically deport non Venezuelans if, if it's we're at war with Venezuelans or people who aren't associated with like the supposed enemy. You're establishing the class, you're establishing that they're all subject by being members of this class to this type of treatment. Like this is about as, and we should say that as opposed to in civil procedures like a multi district legislation or a mass tort, they are all subject to the exact same punishment or harm, as it were, and they're denying a client. I mean this is sort of like the classic way that the Supreme Court will bar entry into the courts and make it harder for individuals to pursue their rights.
- [47:06]
Emma Vigeland
Yes, a couple of things first, I mean the plaintiffs might still try to file some kind of class wide habeas action. The problem is that the Supreme Court has never actually approved of any kind of class wide habeas action and these district courts in Texas will not be the first to do so. So it's, it's, it's almost guaranteed that as you said, this group of people who are identified and targeted as a class are nonetheless going to be forced to litigate this by themselves. Like 300 different petitions as Justice Sotomayor all toiling away. You know, they're going to need a translator, they're going to need lawyers. They have been, I fear, set up for failure. But beyond that, you know, habeas is, I don't want to get too much into the Latin or the Magna Carta or whatever, but habeas is literally a lawsuit against the custodian or the warden of the prison where you are being held saying that you have a legal right to be let out. It does not make any sense for these migrants because they are not, not asking to be let out of ICE custody. They are not asking to be let out of the detention center in Texas. They are saying the exact opposite. They want to stay in the detention center in Texas. They do not want to be sent to a different prison in El Salvador. And this is why I think Barrett dissented, by the way. She dissented with the other three women. She did not join a lot of Justice Sotomayor's opinion, but she joined the part about habeas not being the right sort of procedure here. And I think that's because, you know, when she was at University of Notre Dame Law School, she was a professor of legal procedure. You know, her specialty was civil procedure, which involves class action. She knew, she knows this stuff like, like the back of her hand. And she surely recognizes that the idea that this class of people cannot file this class wide action in D.C. and that they have to file these individual habeas petitions, it's just wrong on the law. And for the Supreme Court to be making up new law on the shadow docket that is substantively errone was, was a bridge she would not cross.
- [49:06]
Sam Cedar
So let's move on to the second issue. How much did they address? The fact that the Alien Enemies act has been invoked three times, if I remember correctly. 1812, the War of 1812. World War. Let's see if people can see the consistent element in this World War I and World War II. What? And I guess there's some question as to like, what constitutes a war, what constitutes an invading force. But it feels like anybody with half a brain would realize that we're not being invaded by Venezuela. I don't even know if you could find a percentage of what amount of our crime is committed by Venezuelans. But I imagine it's not that high to constitute an invasion in an occupying force. But. And these people were not that. But we've already determined that as individuals they're due, I guess, some due process. But what about the invocation? Did they address that at all?
- [50:14]
Emma Vigeland
Nope, nope, they did not address the likely unlawful invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. The majority opinion was four paragraphs. The majority opinion barely said anything at all. It said Something. Something wrong about habeas. It said something cursory about due process, and then it basically said, screw you, Judge Boasberg, we're throwing you under the bus. I mean, there was very little explanation here. And I think that is deeply unfortunate, because if the court was going to address the merits, you'd kind of want them to get into, wait a minute. Why is this law that was last used to punish Nazi saboteurs invading the United States during World War II suddenly being repurposed as a deportation law? And I just, like, want to be clear about something. Like, there are a bunch of federal statutes that allow the administration to legally deport people. The administration has been legally deporting Venezuelan migrants during the pendency of this litigation. It can do this the right way. You know, the right way. It is not doing it because it wants to assert this power under the Alien Enemies Act. And this is something that Justice Sotomayor pointed out that I do think is worth lifting up at this point. Like, if the government's argument is correct, that under this statute, it can abduct a person off the street, accuse them of being a foreign terrorist or enemy combatant, and then send them to a foreign prison with no due process. It doesn't stop with migrants. Right. The government could do that to American citizens as well. American citizens would have did it with legal migrants.
- [51:45]
Sam Cedar
Yes, that we found out subsequently.
- [51:47]
Emma Vigeland
I mean, already done it with legal migrants. They can do it with citizens.
- [51:51]
Unknown Speaker
And Trump just said it on the plane on Air Force One. We played that yesterday where he said that this is something he wants to look into. Can you flesh that out a little bit more, Mark? The, like, differences in terms of the authorities at issue here with the Alien Enemies act and traditional modes of deportation.
- [52:09]
Emma Vigeland
Yeah, I mean, we have these deportation laws that are pretty generous to the government, that give the government the ability to deport many, many, many migrants who are here in this country, some without authorization, some who have temporary authorization, some who are seeking asylum, but the Trump administration will almost certainly deny their asylum claims, and it is not difficult for the government to deport those people under these civil statutes. And again, it has been doing so, but it just didn't feel that it was happening quickly enough. I don't know if you remember earlier, like, in March, there were some of these articles saying Trump officials upset at slow pace of deportation. The White House wanted to make a splash. They wanted to create the impression that it was doing these summary deportations. And I think that is why it decided to draw upon the Alien Enemies Act. But that, of course, does not make it legal just because it was politically expedient.
- [53:02]
Sam Cedar
Can these, can any one of these individuals return to Boseberg's court and say, hey, okay, I'm due my habeas corpus? Well, obviously they're gone, but maybe somebody can bring, you know, or one who was shipped out or whomever has standing. Can they bring it? If had the court not addressed the actual invocation enough in this ruling that they could actually, the Boasberg could do a redo on just like, how severable are his injunctions, I guess.
- [53:41]
Emma Vigeland
Okay, so I think here's the problem. The court said, simple solution. You file where you're being detained. The problem is that hundreds of people are already being detained at the C cop Mega prison in El Salvador. There is no federal district court in El Salvador where they can file their habeas petitions. They are out of the country. According to the Trump administration and the Justice Department, those people have no legal recourse whatsoever. According to the Justice Department, once a migrant has been deported to another country, it is that person is in the control of a foreign sovereign. They have zero constitutional rights. Their due process has been extinguished, and they have no freedom to file a habeas petition anywhere. They're just done. They have been disappeared to a black site, and the government has no ability or responsibility to bring them back. Now, I think that has got to be wrong. There is a petition before the Supreme Court raising this question. In the case that you mentioned, the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was protected against deportation and wrongfully sent to El Salvador. He is awaiting adjudication from the Supreme Court. It could come at any moment. But there are, of course, others there, his, you know, perhaps his cellmates in seacot who have the exact same, same problem. Some of those individuals might now try to file before Judge Boasberg saying, hey, we don't know where we should file these petitions because we don't have a federal district. We're in El Salvador. So we're going to go with you because that's where the federal government is located. I don't know if that'll work, but I think that's a likely next step.
- [55:28]
Sam Cedar
Well, what about why couldn't any Venezuelan do this? Because if you are in the United States, presumably the. The invoke the invoking of that act and the reference to Venezuelans means that it's really. You are under the auspices of. I mean, right. I mean, like, what's to prevent them from finding any other Venezuelan who has Legal protected status. They have proof that that can happen to them and, and not bring injunctive relief against them being subject to the Alien Enemies Act.
- [56:09]
Emma Vigeland
Well, I think, as our discussion of that, that illegal purge case showed, the Supreme Court loves to weaponize standing doctrine to avoid issues it doesn't want to address. And I think that if just any Venezuelan migrant came forward and said, I'm afraid of being targeted under the Alien Enemies act, the courts would probably say, you don't have standing. You have to wait until you're actually targeted. Which is a horrible catch 22, because then once they're also feels like you're.
- [56:36]
Sam Cedar
Being targeted, if you're Venezuelan, then you are subject to more scrutiny, period, it seems like.
- [56:42]
Emma Vigeland
But I am speaking not for myself. No, I captured courts.
- [56:46]
Unknown Speaker
I mean, can you. Is there any precedent that backs this up? Is like, and I'm curious, like in the Bush era, this complete erosion of habeas corpus rights as it related to folks who were grabbed by the administration during the war on terrorists. Like, it just occurs to me that they're basically saying they don't have standing, probably because they're not American citizens, and they also don't have habeas corpus rights. What rights do these people have?
- [57:13]
Emma Vigeland
Right. Which is a terrifying argument. Right. Because again, you know, as Judge Patricia Millet said, when this case with the D.C. circuit, there is nothing in the government's reasoning here that would stop them from abducting her or you or me or anyone and sending us to El Salvador and saying we don't have any more rights. Rights. So, I mean, the Bush administration tried this with Guantanamo, but of course, the Supreme Court, a very, very different Supreme Court, held that Guantanamo detainees had habeas corpus rights because they were under the control of the US Government. That decision is why we are here today. The Trump administration learned from the Guantanamo example and said, well, we have a solution. Rather than sending people to a naval base that we control in another country, let's just send people to a prison that we don't control in another country and then argue that once we've deposited somebody in that prison, they're outside American jurisdiction, they're outside our control, they're outside the jurisdiction of a federal court, and there's nothing anybody can do. I think that is wrong. There is a premise in the law, a concept known as constructive custody, that says that even if somebody is not in the control of the government, if they have been placed in custody at the behest of the government, then the US Government still has to answer to their complaints. And so here what Abrego Garcia is arguing, for instance, this guy who was wrongfully sent to El Salvador, he's saying, look, the US Government is paying the Salvadoran government to keep them here. The US Government has a financial and legal agreement to keep these individuals in sicot. So clearly they are under the constructive custody of the US Government and can be sent back. But, you know, I mean, John Roberts was picked to be chief justice because he opposed the rights of Guantanamo inmates. Like Brett Kavanaugh made his name as a lower court judge turning away Guantanamo detainees appeals like it's a very different Supreme Court. And I think it's kind of hard to count to five to get there.
- [59:11]
Sam Cedar
Let's move on to cases that haven't been much in the news because of all the horrible things that have been in the news for a moment. Curve versus Planned Parenthood. On its face, it looks like a, an abortion or an anti abortion case, like a religious freedom case, I guess. But it's highly problematic beyond that, too. Give us the details on this case.
- [59:43]
Emma Vigeland
So South Carolina and many other states are defunding Planned Parenthood clinics because they perform abortions. They are denying them Medicaid dollars. They're telling Medicaid patients, you can't get services at Planned Parenthood. The problem, of course, is that patients cannot get abortions with Medicaid. Right? There's a federal law that prohibits it. So all these states are doing is preventing patients from getting the entire range of other care, like STI screenings and cancer screenings that are provided by Planned Parenthood. The issue there, aside from the fact that it's immoral and abhorrent, is that the Medicaid statute that Congress passed says that patients have a free choice of provider, that they get to choose a qualified provider, and that if they are denied a free choice of provider, they should be able to vindicate their rights in court. The Supreme Court will decide whether or not that's true. The Supreme Court in this Kerr case will decide whether a patient who is cut off from their care because the state has a political vendetta can go to federal court and say, my rights have been violated. If the Supreme Court says that, that that's not allowed, it will give red states vastly more discretion to start defunding medical providers that they have an ideological or political grudge against. And I think it would really tear the Medicaid statute into Swiss cheese because it would suddenly give states this vast new authority to deny Medicaid reimbursements to any doctor they don't like, even though Congress made it very clear that that was not what they were allowed to.
- [61:18]
Sam Cedar
Do, I would also go further that and I just want to make this clear so that people understand Medicaid does not pay for abortions at Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is not necessarily even in some of these states providing abortions. They are just providing health care.
- [61:37]
Unknown Speaker
It's illegal under the Hyde Amendment.
- [61:38]
Sam Cedar
And but I mean some of these states, abortion is outlawed. They are not performing abortions there. They are just providing. So not only could states do this by, by saying we're going to make, we're not going to allow Medicaid to pay for services at Planned Parenthood, they could also say like, hey, these doctors were top donors to Democrats. Yes, you cannot, you can. Or my, one of my biggest donors is, you know, meta stop and Medicaid. The only place that will we allow Medicaid to basically pay because we've out. We've said you can't. The other is meta stop. Like, I mean the amount of corruption that can happen here seems to be extraordinary.
- [62:25]
Emma Vigeland
Like this was starting to happen under the original Medicaid statute and Congress came back and revisited it and gave patients this right to choose their provider so that it wouldn't happen. And yet here we are with the Supreme Court deciding whether or not Congress did that. And I think it could, I mean, I'm cautiously optimistic the court will come out the right way. But it, because it's so expensive, it's so obvious, yet it could be 5, 4. Because Brett Kavanaugh was actually saying, well, there are magic words that Congress needs to use. They need to use this specific language saying they have a right. And they didn't say they have a right. They said they have a choice. They said they have a privilege. Where's the magic word? I mean this is the problem with putting an intellectual mediocrity like Brett on the Supreme Court. Like this should be so painfully obvious, but he is pretending like it isn't.
- [63:11]
Sam Cedar
I mean, is that about intellect or is that just simply about, I mean the, the lack of intellect could provide for the lack of shame. But at the end of the day, whether he's smart or not, he knows what he's doing. Right? I mean they're, they're assaulting Medicaid. And whether he can come up with a clever justification for it or non one is really sort of like secondary. That's just a question of shame. And he knows when he gets to the country club, they're not going to care anyways.
- [63:37]
Emma Vigeland
Yes, that Is fair enough. Shamelessness is a superpower of the conservative justices across the board.
- [63:42]
Sam Cedar
When, when are we going to hear a ruling on that? I mean, this, this has big implications for Medicaid. Right? Because this is also a way in which you can boot a lot of people off of Medicaid, functionally speaking. Because, because if you only allow health care to take place in certain outlets, you can make it much harder for somebody to go for an appointment if they live three hours outside of like the nearest provider.
- [64:12]
Emma Vigeland
Oh, yeah, you could say only, only Columbia Hospital gets this, gets this Medicaid reimbursement. So everybody who lives in Charleston and other parts of the state, you're just going to have to drive hours if you want your health care, which is a similar play that they do when shutting down abortion clinics. So it wouldn't be surprising we should expect a decision in June. This is a case where I think that the fear has always been, you know, it's about Medicaid, it's about Planned Parenthood. The conservative justices hate government spending and hate abortion. But a bunch of medical associations and hospital groups and like medical lobbyists have weighed in to try to explain to the more sort of chamber of Commerce oriented conservatives, like, like this is not the case you want to use to carry out your grudges against Planned Parenthood. Like, this is actually an extreme danger to the medical establishment. And I am hopeful that at least Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts will hear that. I'll also note that, like, South Carolina hired these anti abortion activists to argue the case for them. So I think it's pretty clear that this is not really about states rights. Like, this is about a relatively small group of extreme and corrupt ideologues trying to manipulate Medicaid for their own ends. And hopefully that will be clear enough to five justices, but it's not something I would put money on with this court.
- [65:34]
Sam Cedar
Well, it also scares me that they took it because usually they'll take a case that would, would, if they want to go after Medicaid, they would do one that. That was a little cleaner, it feels like. But maybe they're attracted to the.
- [65:46]
Emma Vigeland
There was a religious freedom. I mean, there was a split. There was a circuit court that had gone the other way, the fifth Circuit, of course. And so, you know, they usually feel they need to resolve a split. And I think that was their reason for stepping in.
- [66:01]
Sam Cedar
Since we're at it, let's just do this last one. The Voting Rights act, to the extent that it's like still functioning, this Supreme Court for the past now 1112 years, has been assaulting the Voting Rights act starting in 2013. I think it was right where. And this has been John Roberts, really. I mean, lifelong agenda. He did. He wanted to go after the Voting Rights act when he was a. An olc, I think it was, or maybe a civil Justice Department in the Justice Department under Ronald Reagan. This latest one is a combination of two cases. Louisiana v. Calais, or I don't know how we're pronouncing it from normal Louisiana, but what is that case?
- [66:56]
Emma Vigeland
Yeah, this is a puzzling case, because you may remember, like it was less than two years ago that the Supreme Court actually saved the Voting Rights Act. John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh decided to go with the three liberals and say, we're not going to execute what remains of the Voting Rights Act. We're going to allow it to stand. And I'm really not sure what the point of that was, because now in this. In this Louisiana case, it looks like they're both ready to go ahead and drop the guillotine. So this is a case about Louisiana's congressional districts. Louisiana, after the 2020 census, drew a congressional map that only had one majority Black district, even though there are many, many, many black people in the state. A federal court said, this is diluting the votes of racial minorities. You need to draw another district that at least plausibly gives black people representation. So the legislature did that. Actually, it complied. And then these white voters sued the state and said, this new district that you drew, it gives black people too much political power. And we think, as white people, that that is offensive. And so they filed a constitutional lawsuit arguing that it violated the Equal protection clause. And that's the case at the Supreme Court. And so the only question for the Supreme Court should be, were we correct to save the Voting Rights act two years ago? It's the same. Pretty much. The same justices are actually exactly the same justices. And if so, then, like, should we allow Louisiana to have complied with this court order saying draw two black districts, but instead, all six conservative justices lined up to bash the legislature for complying with the court order, telling it to draw the second majority black district and suggesting that it violates the Equal protection Clause because it gives black people too much power? That is the exact argument that the court rejected two years ago. It is a bizarre manipulation of equal protection precedent. I don't understand the point of the court going back on itself, but it does look like the court could use this case to essentially just execute the Voting Rights act and Say that when legislatures draw districts that are specifically designed to accommodate for black voting power and give black people representation, and that effort is, even if it's compelled under the Voting Rights act, that it violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment and has to be struck down.
- [69:14]
Sam Cedar
Do you think that there is a chart in Robert's office, maybe behind a picture of Hugo Black or something like that, that just basically outlines this is the way we're going to do it? I have a timeline so that it doesn't look too extreme. And that's what's going on here.
- [69:35]
Emma Vigeland
Yeah, I mean, he definitely has a plan in his head for how you dismantle precedent. Right. And you know that 2013 decision you mentioned, he teed that up a few years earlier. He loves to sort of plant these seeds and hide these landmines in his jurisprudence. I think here, maybe he consulted his chart or his star sign or whatever. I guess he's decided it's time for the Voting Rights act to go kaput. I mean, maybe I could be surprised. I was two years ago. There's a chance that somehow the Voting Rights act gets a stay of execution. But they all, all the conservatives sounded pissed off that black people have fair representation in Louisiana now and ready to strike down this map. So I. Maybe his star sign says that it's time for the Voting Rights act to be put to bed.
- [70:19]
Sam Cedar
Is there any other case that's happening across? I mean, we have, like, I don't know, 80, 90 cases that have been lodged against the Trump administration. Maybe it's more now, whether it's ranging from, like, the executive orders over voting or these. These firings. And, I mean, it's endless. Are there. Is there any case that you've been tracking that you think is, like, one of the most important ones that we don't really hear much about?
- [70:47]
Emma Vigeland
Well, we've stopped hearing about the birthright citizenship cases, but that is because they have now been pending at the court for a little while. The Supreme Court. So the Trump admin went to the Supreme Court and asked the court to radically narrow these injunctions against Trump's order stripping birthright citizenship from the children of undocumented immigrants and also the children of visa holders who are lawfully present in the United States. The court has not taken action yet. And someone's writing a dissent. I don't know who it is. I hope it's Sam Alito and not Sonia Sotomayor. But the court will very soon rule on that, and that will reignite, I think, the debate and the coverage around this issue. This is one of Trump's most anti constitutional policies and he issued it on day one. And I think it would be a good time for the Supreme Court to send a signal that there is a limit to the lawlessness. But after what happened last night, I'm not super optimistic.
- [71:39]
Sam Cedar
Oh, well, that makes me not super optimistic. Mark Joseph Stern, Slate senior writer covering the Supreme Court and co pilot. Yes, Amicus. Or amicus, depending on where you sit. Thanks so much for the time today. I really appreciate it.
- [71:57]
Emma Vigeland
Thanks, Sam. Thanks, Emma.
- [71:59]
Unknown Speaker
Thanks, Mark.
- [72:00]
Sam Cedar
All right, folks, gonna take a quick break, head into the fun half of the program wherein we will theoretically have fun. We may take some phone calls. 646-257-3920. We may not. We'll find out when we get there. Just a reminder, it's your support that makes this show possible. You can become a member@jointhemajorityreport.com oh, wait, you know what? There was one other thing. Oh, yeah, let's do this in the fun half. Let's. Where is this? Where's my sound sheet?
- [72:32]
Unknown Speaker
In the free half.
- [72:33]
Sam Cedar
In the free half.
- [72:34]
Unknown Speaker
Okay.
- [72:37]
Sam Cedar
Somebody sent me this. I'm going to be honest, I do not watch Matt Iglesias is Slow Boring podcast with any regularity. In fact, I got to be totally honest, I've never watched it. Fact, I didn't know it existed. I knew that he had a substack. And I don't know if this is a regular thing or what, but somebody sent me an email and said, check it. 18 minutes. On the Slow Boring podcast, they bring up the Majority report. And I was like, that's strange. And so, so here is Ezra Klein and he's on the Slow Boring podcast with Matt Iglesis and his co writer. Is it Derek Thompson? Eric Thompson.
- [73:29]
Unknown Speaker
Derek Thompson, yes.
- [73:31]
Sam Cedar
Derek Thompson. I'm 90% sure of the Atlantic. And they have written a book together called Abundance. In fact, we had Derek Thompson, who did we have on to from the Washington Monthly. Gosh, I can't remember his name now. We just had him on. It's. If it's over, like three hours, I don't remember. We just had Paul Glass. Paul, yeah, right. Paul. Paul Glasses on from the Washington Monthly. And he gave a very detailed description of his review of, of, of the Abundance book. And I think we've done a couple of clips, not so much on the book per se, because it seems like, you know, broadly speaking, the reviews that I respect from people I respect and have read for a long time have broadly said there are some things in this that are good ideas in terms of like, you know, small bore policy fixes that may, you know, add up to some positive things. There's others that aren't as well established. But the, the broader complaint that I have, you know, when we've done videos has been broadly about like sort of the politics associated around it and the. What are these policies purporting to provide for the Democrats, because it's largely an internal fight within the Democrats is to like, what personnel, what policies would a Democratic administration that hopefully follows Trump pursue? And we haven't spent a lot of time on it, but we did have, you know, somebody on to review the narrow aspects of the Bible book. But then, so I saw this.
- [75:37]
G
People claim it as. But there is something about the political conversation in the attentional economy we have that feels very zero sum. And so people treat in some ways a new topic, not as a set of policy questions to integrate and think through, but as a challenger to their control of the conversation. And that I think explains, even if not consciously, a lot more of the reaction for people who could look at this and say, oh, these are a great bunch of things to integrate into our set of goals, but don't want to do that. I have had it. Derek has been thinking about tweeting this, so I'm just going to say it.
- [76:13]
Emma Vigeland
I'm so boring. There have been like all these left.
- [76:16]
G
Wing podcasts are like, why would we go on left wing podcast? But we pitched the dig. We pitched Majority Report. I mean, I went on Doom Scroll. They are okay. I think this has been so they want to fight, not something they want to engage with.
- [76:31]
Sam Cedar
We, I don't know, like if we actually got pitched now I'll go back now. I will also say that I think we got an email from somebody. I'm not 100% sure about this in part because. And we've had some, some personnel changes. And also I think people also know that we are very, very slow when it comes to emails around these parts. So I will check it out. But I will say right now I would be happy to have Ezra Klein on. I mean, certainly he knows people who, you know, who have my email and so, you know, even my phone number. I mean, so, you know, but maybe it came through some of our email sites that are not, you know, it takes a long time for us to do that. So I will dig through that. But happy to have Ezra Klein on, particularly on that topic that he mentioned, which is this notion of like the attention within the, the sort of like political milieu of what the Democratic Party would be that it's sort of zero sum because I do think that is a very important that certainly to the extent that we have, you know, outside of having Paul glasses on, that's the way that we've engaged in it. So we're going to, we're going to find either those pitches that, that came in or we're going to, you know, we'll reach out. I know people who must still have Ezra's email and reach out and invite him on the program and we'll even say like you can use that same backdrop which will more but, but we'll, we'll have him on. So I just want to put that out there because I don't know if we have many people who follow the slow boring podcast, but I don't want people to say that we're not gonna, we wouldn't do that.
- [78:39]
Unknown Speaker
Oh, we would absolutely love to have him on. You know, I think like when I went on, on Pod Save America, he was a guest the previous week and I pod save we have difference in politics. But I wanted to go on there and engage with some people who are more liberals. You were just on PBD debating conservatives. Like there's no aversion to talking about, talking to folks who are left of center about this kind of thing or anybody for that matter.
- [79:06]
Sam Cedar
No, I'm, I'm happy to have that conversation. I mean certainly, you know, engaged in the book to the extent that I was interested. But, but if there's more interest, happy to, to address that. So in the meantime, you can support this program by becoming a member@jointhemajorityreport.com and when you do, you not only get the fun half half but you get the free half free of commercials. And then you build our capacity to answer emails and find emails in a timely fashion.
- [79:39]
Unknown Speaker
Right.
- [79:45]
Sam Cedar
So check it out. Join the majority report.com also don't forget just coffee, co op fair trade coffee, hot chocolate. Use the coupon code. Majority get 10% off. You can also get the majority report blend. Matt Left Reckoning.
- [80:04]
Unknown Speaker
I just want to say I am an attention economy monopolist and I'm happy to spread some of this attention around but you just have to decrease some regulations. But tonight on Left Reckoning, John Ben Menachem on talking about his abolition academic work and also being a Columbia student in the past year. It's a month since Mahmoud Khalil has been detained. So talking about that tonight. And also I show speed a Streamer is in China and I have downloaded an app onto my tablet to learn Chinese. Check that out tonight. Patreon.com left reckon.
- [80:39]
Sam Cedar
Okay, folks, see you in the fun half. Still, you are in for it. All right, folks, 646-257-3920. See you in the fun half.
- [80:58]
H
Are you ready?
- [81:05]
Sam Cedar
Who sent us this?
- [81:09]
I
Alpha males are back, back, back, back, back Boy is back and the alpha males are back, back Just as delicious.
- [81:17]
Sam Cedar
As you could imagine the alpha males.
- [81:19]
I
Are back, back, back, back, back, back and the alpha males are back, back.
- [81:25]
H
Back, back Just want to degrade the.
- [81:27]
I
White man Alpha males are back, back.
- [81:30]
Emma Vigeland
I take all of it to my.
- [81:32]
I
Throat Alpha males are back, back, back, back Snowflake says what? The alpha males are back.
- [81:40]
Emma Vigeland
You are a madman.
- [81:42]
I
And the alpha males are b.
- [81:45]
Emma Vigeland
Know.
- [81:46]
Sam Cedar
Sam Cedar.
- [81:46]
Emma Vigeland
What a. Wow. What a nightmare.
- [81:48]
Scott Bessant
Nightmare.
- [81:51]
Sam Cedar
Yeah, Or a couple of them. Just put them in rotation.
- [81:53]
H
DJ, dinner.
- [81:54]
Unknown Speaker
Well, the problem with those is they're like 45 seconds long, so I don't.
- [81:57]
Scott Bessant
Know if they're enough of a break.
- [81:59]
Emma Vigeland
That's nonsense.
- [82:01]
H
See, white people doing drugs that look worse than normal white people. And all white people look disgusting.
- [82:06]
I
And the alpha males psych them, them.
- [82:14]
Sam Cedar
Snowflake says, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what?
- [82:22]
H
Snowflake says, what a hell of a lot of banks.
- [82:28]
I
Hell of a lot of bank. A hell of a lot of bank.
- [82:32]
H
Okay, I'm making stupid money.
- [82:34]
I
Hell of a hell of a bank.
- [82:36]
Emma Vigeland
That's.
- [82:39]
H
A hell of a lot of banks.
- [82:44]
Sam Cedar
All lives matter.
- [82:47]
Unknown Speaker
Have you tried doing an impression on a college campus?
- [82:51]
H
I. I think that there's no reason why reasonable people across the divide can't all agree with this. Psych.
- [82:58]
I
And the alpha males are back, back, back and the Africans are black, black, black, black, black, African. And the alpha males are black, black, black, black, black, black. And the Africans are back, back, back, back.
- [83:16]
H
When you see Donald Trump out there, doesn't a little part of you think that America deserves to be taken over by jihadists? Keeping it 100. Can't knock the hustle. Come on. Them the bigger game plan. By the way, it's my birthday. My birthday. Happy birthday to me. J Boy, I have a thought experiment for you.
- [83:38]
I
And the alpha males are back, back. Africa are black, black. Alpha males are black black Africans are back, back.
- [83:47]
H
Come on, come on, come on. Someone needs to pay the price of blasphemy around here.
- [83:54]
Sam Cedar
I am a total pussy. Pussy, pussy, pussy, pussy, pussy, pussy, pussy, pussy, pussy.