Trump’s Relentless, ‘Utterly Incoherent’ Battles

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Opinions

Episode: All the President’s Wars — at Home and Abroad

Host: Michelle Cottle
Guests: David French, Jamelle Bouie
Release Date: April 4, 2026

---

Overview

This episode of "The Opinions" dives into President Trump's ongoing war in Iran—its perceived aims, strategies, and the recent address to the American public. The panel critiques the administration’s fundamental approach to conflict, both internationally and domestically, specifically touching on strategic coherence, public support, and the administration’s worldview. The second half pivots to the home front, focusing on Trump’s attendance at Supreme Court oral arguments over birthright citizenship, a historic act intended to sway the judiciary on his controversial re-interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The discussion exposes not just current events, but also the deeper mindsets driving contemporary American politics.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. President Trump's Iran War Address

Timestamps: 01:04–08:34

• Jamel Bouie’s Immediate Reaction (02:04):

  • Found Trump’s speech “not successful at all… pretty low on the success” and “low energy,” almost like he “was sedated.”
  • Trump’s case for an imminent threat from Iran was “especially unpersuasive.”
  • Neither of the administration’s stated objectives—stopping Iran’s nuclear program or regime change—have been accomplished.
  • Possible U.S. strategic defeat: “Iran may walk away… with control over the Straits of Hormuz.”
  • Memorable quote:

    “Ending the conflict with the Straits firmly in the, in the control of Iran is an outright defeat for the US.” (02:45 - Bouie)

• David French’s Reflection (03:51):

  • Compares the speech to “a live reading of his Truth Social posts.”
  • Criticizes lack of concrete details or coherence: “utterly incoherent, which is what this entire effort has been.”
  • Warns of serious consequences if Iran is left in control of the Straits, enriching the regime.
  • Points to the administration’s “original sin” of not offering a coherent plan or seeking congressional approval:

    “Democracies who go to war without public support do not fight those wars well, effectively, et cetera.” (06:27 - French)

• Michelle Cottle’s Observations (07:01):

  • Sees the speech as a distraction from “bigger points,” with focus on military achievements while dodging the definition of victory.

2. Lacking Strategy: Tactics vs. Grand Objectives

Timestamps: 08:34–13:30

• Bouie on Tactical Thinking (08:34):

  • Argues the administration mistakes tactics for strategy, focusing on “blowing stuff up” without advancing real strategic goals.
  • Quote:

    “They might look for some even more dramatic way to blow stuff up. And then they can say, oh, well, we've done so much destruction that we can say that the war is over.” (10:33 - Bouie)

• French on MAGA Worldview (11:22):

  • Explores MAGA’s fundamental belief: “the underlying mistake of previous administrations is we were just never tough enough.”
  • Applying brute force as a catch-all solution has “the exact opposite effect,” often alienating others and proving ineffective on the global stage.

3. Misreading Opponents & Agency

Timestamps: 13:30–16:46

• Bouie on Underestimating Opposition (14:08):

  • The administration’s inability to see others as possessing agency gives opponents an advantage. Reference to Democrats’ strategic resistance during the DHS shutdown.
  • “I've never really seen anything like it in American politics. Just an administration, a set of people who have no real ability to just conceptualize what their political opponents or their foreign enemies might want to do of their own accord.” (15:46 - Bouie)

• French on MAGA Arrogance (16:04):

  • MAGA adherents view predecessors as “just corrupt, woke, too empathetic, idiotic, et cetera, and they are the ones who've just figured out the world."
  • Memorable phrase: “That arrogance is overwhelming in this MAGA mindset.” (16:21 - French)

4. Where Does the Playbook Lead?

Timestamps: 16:46–19:44

• Bouie’s Prediction (17:10):

  • Anticipates Trump will “just say, yeah, we won, and end it.”
  • If chaos persists, Trump’s response will be “not my problem anymore.”

• French on Market Manipulation (17:28):

  • Discusses two-track dynamic: the military pursues tactical goals, while the administration manipulates public statements to move markets.
  • Observes Trump’s behavior: “The one force that we know operates as a check on Trump is the Dow.”
  • Predicts an abrupt victory declaration, leaving global allies to deal with the fallout and Iran empowered.

---

5. Supreme Court: Birthright Citizenship Showdown

Timestamps: 19:44–31:34

• Trump at the High Court (20:16):

  • Bouie: Trump’s attendance was pure intimidation; “presidents don’t do this.”
  • Background: Trump’s first-day executive order tried to narrow the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship; this case challenges the legitimacy.
  • The constitutional history is clear: birth on U.S. soil confers citizenship unless in special, longstanding exceptions.

• Why is the Court Involved? (23:03):

  • French: “We're here because Donald Trump put us here.” Explains the necessity of Supreme Court resolution when the president aggressively asserts power.
  • Highlights a new jurisprudential clash between traditional originalists and “common good constitutionalism,” the latter attempting to reshape the Constitution to political preferences.
  • French’s forecast:

    “I would be stunned if this was anything other than 7, 2, and it may be 9 0.” (26:14 - French)

• Does Intimidation Work? (26:26):

  • Bouie: No evidence the justices will be swayed; Trump’s psychology is to “intimidate and threaten” rather than negotiate.
  • Bouie and French both critique the holding up of white supremacist legal arguments by the government as appalling.
  • Bouie:

    “The government was actually citing the views of white supremacist opponents of the 14th Amendment in order to make its case.” (31:02)

• Barrett Stands Firm (29:00):

  • Amy Coney Barrett’s, “Well, that's just not in the text,” stands out as a rebuke to the administration’s arguments.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Bouie: “It felt like he was protesting too much, you know.” (03:44)
• French: “If this conflict ends with Iran in control of the Strait of Hormuz… then I would say Iran has probably emerged from this conflict with a greater level of deterrence than the United States has.” (04:44)
• Bouie: “All of their thinking happens exclusively at the level of tactics… not so much what are our broad goals.” (08:59)
• French: “You see this phrase on MAGA where it says, you can just do things… means you can just exercise power and you can change the world.” (11:48)
• Bouie: “I've never really seen anything like it in American politics. Just an administration… who do not appear to think that other people actually exist.” (15:46)
• French: “This act of intimidation, to the extent that it matters at all, it's not going to play well for him.” (29:26)
• Bouie: “The government was actually citing the views of white supremacist opponents of the 14th Amendment…” (31:02)

---

Recommendations

Timestamps: 31:49–37:01

• David French:
  Reading – “De Gaulle” by Julian Jackson. Praises de Gaulle’s vision for French independence and the contemporary relevance of his defense policy.
• Jamelle Bouie:
  Watching – Recommends rewatching “The Wire,” considers it the “single greatest television show of all time.”
• Michelle Cottle:
  Doing – Suggests forming a “Go out and do X” club, akin to a book club but oriented around trying new outings—music, theater, museums—to break routine and build community.

---

Conclusion

This episode underscores how President Trump’s approach to governance, both in war and in the judiciary, is defined by improvisation, disregard for institutional process, and an inability to perceive opponents’ strategies or agency. The panelists puncture myths of toughness as a universal solution and illuminate the dangers of neglecting long-term strategy for short-term tactical wins. On the domestic front, the administration’s push to redefine constitutional bedrock is dismissed as legally and philosophically untenable. Ultimately, the episode offers both incisive critiques and a window into the urgent stakes of contemporary American political debate.

Transcript

[A]

This podcast is supported by Made in Cookware.

[B]

As a chef and a restaurant owner, I'm as meticulous about my cookware as I am about my ingredients. That's why I love Made in Cookware. Each pan they make isn't just designed to perform. It's crafted to last. As a mom, I love that I can trust Made In. It's made from the world's finest materials, so I can feel good about what I'm feeding my family. I'm chef Brooke Williamson, and I use Made in Cookware.

[A]

For full details, visit madeencookware.com that's M A D E I N cookware.com this is the Opinions, a show that brings you a mix of voices from New York Times Opinion. You've heard the news. Here's what to make of it.

[B]

I'm Michelle Cottle. I cover national politics for New York Times Opinion. And this week, I am back with my fellow Southerners and political parsers, Col David French and Jamelle Bouie. Guys, how's it going?

[C]

Hey, Michelle.

[D]

Doing all right?

[B]

Okay. That's what I like to hear. Jamelle. We are now in month two of President Trump's war in Iran. And so this week, we're gonna take a look at his speech to the American people on the conflict and what direction things seem to be going. And then turning back to the home front, I want us to talk about the court battles over birthright citizenship and. And the judicial branch's attempts at dealing with this president. So lots to cover. Let's get to it. As always, we are recording Thursday morning. Who the heck knows where this is gonna be by the time you hear us? But Trump arranged a primetime opportunity to reach out to the American people and convince us of the necessity and value of the war in Iran. After watching the speech Wednesday, how successful would you say he was? Jamel, you go first.

[D]

I would say not successful at all. I would say pretty low on the success. Reaching. That's a terrible sentence,

[B]

but fits right with the topic. I'm sorry.

[C]

It is. It's very evocative.

[D]

Yeah. I watched the address, and I'll say the first thing I was struck by is how low energy he sounded the entire time. Just sort of.

[B]

Thank you. It's like he was sedated.

[D]

Yeah. Almost like struggling to get through the words. He obviously made lots of claims that were just not true. Sort of. His attempt to make the case that there is a imminent threat from Iran was especially unpersuasive. But the big thing is that the stated objectives Such that they were when this began was to, you know, stop the Iranian nuclear program and do a kind of, you know, Venezuela style regime change. Neither of those things have happened, right? Those objectives have not been accomplished. And worse, Iran may walk away with this with control, like undisputed control over the Straits of Hormuz, which is just a major strategic defeat for the United States. And nothing the President said got around those facts. It was all just an attempt to make those things sound like they represent a win, Right? Oh, well, the rest of the world, Europe can take care of the Straits. No, no, dude, that's, that's a problem you created. Ending the conflict with the Straits firmly in the, in the control of Iran is an outright defeat for the US And I was just struck by how this was like, it felt like he was protesting too much, you know.

[B]

Yeah. David, what about you?

[C]

You know, I felt like it's just a live reading of his Truth Social posts. I mean, there was nothing there other than what we've seen in various screeds on Truth Social for weeks and including this is about to wrap up, including we're winning, including, well, the strait is going to open and there was nothing concrete. Maybe it's about to wrap up, maybe it's not. It's just utterly incoherent, which is what this entire effort has been from the beginning. And one way to sort of think through, okay, who is quote, unquote, winning this war is to think at the end of it, which side is going to say, we don't want to do that Again, that's one of the, that's sort of how you think through deterrence. And I will guarantee you this. If this conflict ends with Iran in control of the Strait of Hormuz and with Iran knowing that at any given time it can achieve geostrategic objectives that it wants by closing the Strait of Hormuz and that there is not the will to open the Strait of Hormuz, then I would say that Iran has probably emerged from this conflict with a greater level of deterrence than the United States has. In part because even though we are absolutely demolishing all of the targets that we're trying to hit, we are seriously degrading Iran's military capacity. No question about it. We're also dealing with a regime that really, truly doesn't care about its losses in the same way that, say, a Western military does, in the same way that we would. I mean, this is a regime that in the Iran Iraq war sent teenagers running across minefields to clear the Minefields. They do not care about the suffering of their people if they can achieve certain effects. And so if they can, at the end of this conflict, achieve the effect of essentially dividing America from its allies, that's happening. If they can achieve the effect of controlling the Strait of Hormuz, that's happening. If they can achieve even worse. Even worse, guys, a sort of tolling effect where in exchange for vast sums of money, they will let some people through and not others, then, you know, we may have just created a system that helps enrich this regime, like literally enrich it, so that even if their factories are demolished, if their missile stocks are depleted, they can go buy more missiles. They can go use the windfall from controlling the Strait of Hormuz to buy more weapons and to reconstitute the force. And I hate to keep harping on this, but it just really matters. The original sin here of not articulating a coherent plan, not going to Congress, not rallying the American people. Democracies who go into war without public support do not fight those wars. Well, effectively, et cetera. And that's what he did, is he just yanked all of us in, and it is costing us every day.

[B]

Well, the one thing that struck me, I think, most of all as I watched this, besides the fact, as Jamel pointed out, he looked like he was about to doze off, was this was just a series of distractions so that he could get people to look at the things that he wanted them to think were fantastic while skipping some of the bigger points. So he came back again and again to the destruction, the degrading of Iran's military capabilities. He started off by going through the Venezuela escapade, as though that has any bearing on this situation. And what we're looking at now. It's clear that his strategy with the speech was. Was, I'm just gonna throw all these facts at you that I want you to think mean, we've achieved our goal. Mission accomplished, everybody. I think we all enjoy a good mission accomplished speech without addressing things like, what is victory? You know, Iran still has its nuclear stockpiles. It was not reassuring at all for me. And so I wanted you, Jamal, to talk about, how can he claim victory if he is indeed planning to wind this down while the regime is still intact and unlikely to stop being a threat. What is Trump going to claim as a real victory that is going to look remotely like what's actually happening in the real world?

[D]

Oh, I have no idea. I mean, I can't speculate about this. I have no idea what the president will claim as a real victory, because it gets to, I think, one of the fundamental issues, not just with this war, but with this administration. And it's somewhat connected to David's point about not attempting to get authorization or have a debate. And that is both David and I have been using this term strategic. I'm not sure that anyone in the White House understands what strategic thinking is. I think that all of their thinking happens exclusively at the level of tactics. So exclusively at the level of what is the specific thing we can do to an opponent to try to attain a very narrow objective, not so much what are our broad goals that will establish a new status quo going forward. And so, like, that's. You fight wars to attain specific strategic goals. And if you do not attain those goals, then it does not matter how much stuff you blew up, you know, how many battles you won, how much valor you displayed. None of that matters. You can still lose. And I do not think that they understand that in the least, or at least they are not expressing any understanding of that publicly. When I watch Hagseth in particular, I don't think he understands that. Here's the problem. Because of this understanding that blowing stuff up and killing people is the objective of war, not the things you have to do to attain your larger strategic goal. It seems to me that whatever victory they're going to declare is going to be after just blowing stuff up. They might look for some even more dramatic way to blow stuff up. And then they can say, oh, well, we've done so much destruction that we can say that the war is over. And that, to me, is the only conceivable exit ramp for them, given their own mindset. And I'll conclude this by just noting the reason I say this doesn't just extend to the war is because you see this, this way of thinking all over their actions. And with regard to domestic politics, that's especially true with the use of ice and customs and border protection. They seem to think that if you can just sort of, like, hit people hard enough that they'll stop. And they don't seem to get that. A, the people you're hitting have their own designs, their own things you're trying to accomplish. But B, you have to have some larger goal, some larger aim beyond just hitting really hard. If you don't have that, then someone who can take a punch will just keep taking the punch.

[B]

All right, I want to come back to this issue of agency, but, David, what. What do you want to jump in with?

[C]

I just really want to underscore what Jamel said, because I don't think people appreciate how much it is core to the ethos and worldview of maga that on problem after problem after problem that we faced as Americans, the actual underlying mistake of previous administrations is we were just never tough enough, that we just didn't fight the war with the gloves off enough, or we haven't been punitive enough, or we haven't tried to bully people enough. And so you see this again and again. And there's this phrase you see on MAGA where it says you can just do things. And what they mean by that is you can just exercise power and you can change the world. And one of the reasons why they look at the Venezuela situation, they keep going back to that, is that's probably their most successful version of it, is that Venezuelan intervention. But you go again and again and you see the same pattern. It's just we have to pummel people harder. And that works with Republican members of Congress, for example, but it doesn't tend to work with other sovereign nations. Other sovereign nations don't like to be pummeled. And so what they'll do is they'll find a way to stop or prevent the pummeling. And it's not always the way you want. So, for example, if you're trying to torment Canada, well, you can't go crying if Canada says, well, you know, we're going to forge a closer economic relationship with China and Europe than the US because we have self preservation interests. No, they keep thinking if we pummel, then we'll achieve the results that we want. When sometimes pummeling has the exact opposite effect. What it typically does is alienate people at scale. It's not as if nobody thought of, well, why not use force? I mean, that's the oldest story in the book. I mean, that's Putin to the core. Again, sometimes that is appropriate. Sometimes. But as a universal way of dealing with the world, it is extraordinarily dangerous and counterproductive.

[B]

Well, Jamel, you actually wrote a column last week that was focused on Trump's complete inability to recognize that other people have agency and if you are applying force, are sometimes likely to push back against moves that they oppose. And, you know, not just with the war, but, you know, with Doge slashing at the federal government, the administration's treatment of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the president's crazy gerrymandering scheme, ICE agents rampaging through American cities. What opportunity does this blind spot with this president provide opponents?

[D]

Do you Think if you are opposed to the administration, you can just be aggressive towards them because they just don't expect it. Right. The DHS shutdown to me is a perfect example of this. It's very clear that both the White House and the Republican allies in Congress, like, well, enough chaos at airports will just force Democrats to bend. And they didn't, which is just sort of a victory for the Democratic strategy here. The White House in particular didn't expect this and didn't know how to respond when Democrats were like, no, we're not going to back down. And that inability to deal with what to me are very obvious moves to make. If you are on the other side, that's an opportunity. Just like make these moves because you have a pretty decent chance of encountering an opponent that has not thought one lick about what you might do just of your own accord, because they don't imagine that you can do anything of your own accord. It's very strange. I've never really seen anything like it in American politics. Just an administration, a set of people who have no real ability to just conceptualize what their political opponents or their foreign enemies might want to do of their own accord. It's like they really do not believe that other people have independent action. Then all action is simply a reaction to them. And as per David, this might just be a function of the fact that everyone's there so used to sort of like stunting on Republicans that like Mike Johnson doesn't seem like he does anything independently of the President. So yeah, sure, I get it if that's, if that's how you, your mental model for everyone. But it's, it's. I don't know, I, if I sound sort of baffled because it's because I am. Because as much as I can sort of like describe this analytically, I cannot get in the headspace of someone who just like does not, or a group of people who, who do not appear to think that other people actually exist.

[C]

I, I can't emphasize enough how much they think of the everyone else that came before them as a collection of idiots like that. You know, when, when J.D. vance basically says, well, those were stupid presidents or those were dumb presidents or whatever he said, talking about previous interventions. There really is a sense in MAGA that everyone who came before is just corrupt, woke, too empathetic, idiotic, et cetera, and they are the ones who've just figured out the world. And that arrogance is overwhelming in this magna mindset, just overwhelming everyone else. Complete idiots. We finally are the adults in charge

[B]

yeah, because when I look at this administration, I think telegraphing total competence. Yeah. Right. Okay, well, what happens next before we move on from this? Like, either you guys want to venture a thought, I'm not asking you to predict the future, but do you know Trump is a man of patterns. Do you have a sense of where this playbook, as limited as it is, might take us next?

[D]

My hunch is that he'll just, at some point, some arbitrary point, just say, yeah, we won, and end it there.

[B]

You'll get that Mission Accomplished banner back out.

[D]

Right. And if everything isn't complete and abject chaos, I think Trump's view is, well, not my problem anymore.

[B]

Europe can handle it, David.

[C]

Yeah, it's so hard to know, because I feel like two things are happening at once here. One is that there is an actual strategy, to some extent, that is being pursued by the military. I mean, I think the military absolutely has a series of tactical objectives that it is achieving regarding degrading the missile systems, degrading the Iranian forces. No question that these various tactical missions are being accomplished. But I can't help but wonder if what we've got are sort of two tracks at once here. There's a sort of military track that they're pursuing, and then publicly they're pursuing a market manipulation track. Because if you notice, again and again, he will tease the end of the war. He will tease it, and you'll see the markets kind of rally. And so I feel like the one force that we know operates as a check on Trump is the Dow.

[B]

He really likes his stock market numbers.

[C]

Yes. When the Dow starts to plunge, Trump reacts. And so we've seen this again and again, and he engages in this sort of very blatant market manipulation. And that's one thing that makes it so hard to discern what he's actually trying to accomplish. When is he doing his market manipulation versus when is he actually talking about what American goals or objectives are? I don't know, but I tend to agree with Jamel that essentially what will happen is that he will declare victory at a point in the unspecified future and then essentially leave the rest of the world to work out how to cross the Strait of Hormuz. In other words, you know, if you want to transmit oil and gas now, you're going to have to pay Iran or you're going to have to work out your own deal with Iran. And so you're going to essentially leave Iran and control the strait, or at least enough ability to influence the strait that people feel like they got to deal with Iran to get through safely. And in that circumstance, it's very unclear to me if we've actually accomplished a strategic objective or if in a weird and perverse way, we've strengthened the Iranian regime, at least over the short to medium term. But I'm with Jamel. I think we'll see. In the absence of a military miracle, I see a declaration of victory and a lot of chaos unwinding this war.

[B]

Okay, well, that's certainly something to look forward to, I guess. All right, so let's pivot to the courts now. On Wednesday, Trump became the first sitting president to actually attend oral arguments in person at the Supreme Court. The case is Trump versus Barbara on the question of birthright citizenship. Jamel, you want to give us a quick overview of this case and why it's a big deal that Trump decided to show up?

[D]

I'm going to answer that in reverse. It's a big deal that Trump decided to show up just because his presidents don't do this. It's clear that he was there to intimidate the justices. I don't think it worked, but I'm sure that was his thinking. The case itself stems back to the president's day one executive order attempting to redefine the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, which this is like a rough paraphrase, holds that all persons born and naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction therein are citizens of the United States and of the states as well. I try to redefine this to mean that undocumented immigrants and like some visa holders were excluded from birthright citizenship. And the reason this was a big deal is because there is the collected weight of almost like 160 years of history and jurisprudence and historical scholarship that says that the citizenship clause is basically as broad as it sounds, that unless you belong to a very narrow set of long recognized exceptions, which is that you are the child of diplomats, you were born on territory controlled by a foreign enemy, or that until the 1920s you belong to certain native tribes which had a different relationship to the US and that they were on territory not controlled by the US Unless you are in those categories, then you are a citizen by birth in the United States. That's what people thought they were doing when they wrote the thing. That's what the Supreme Court in 1898 decided when it held in favor of Wong Kim Ark, a Chinese American born in the United States. And that's basically been what it is. And so part of what I think for many legal scholars, both nerve wracking about this case and crazy making about this case is that there's not really, there's no, there's not a real dispute about what the citizenship clause means. You can certainly do a thing where you engage in what I would describe as a language game where you say, well, if I move the words around like this and if I find obscure sources here, I can construct perhaps a logically coherent alternative meaning. But like, if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle, right? Like, okay, you can do that. But what we know it means is this.

[B]

So, David, as Chamele brought up the 14th Amendment, then the question of who is an American was basically chewed over pretty definitively by the High Court back in the 1800s. Right. So why are we back here now at all? Why is this something for the court to have to get involved with?

[C]

We're here because Donald Trump put us here. So Donald Trump promulgates an executive order. That executive order will go into effect unless challenged. When it's challenged, it starts to go up the court system. And you're not going to get a final definitive ruling on that until you get one from the Supreme Court. And if the Supreme Court just denies review of the lower courts, that is an answer, but it's an answer that's often comes a lot slower. It's a lot more fragmented, there's a lot more uncertainty. But when a president asserts his power this aggressively, in many ways, you really do need that Supreme Court, that final Supreme Court ruling that definitively declares it inbounds or out of bounds. So I think there's a logical reason why the court would take this just to settle this once and for all. And I would say the oral argument to me was fascinating from this legal nerd perspective, because the current court are all pre maga conservatives, people who spent their entire careers in sort of like that Reagan, Bush world of classical liberalism. Limited government. Originalism was the touchstone of sort of pre maga conservative jurisprudence. MAGA jurisprudence is not that. It is not originalism. And so you had this really interesting exchange between Justice Roberts and John Sauer, the Solicitor General. But of course, we're in a new world now, as just Alito pointed out, to where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who's a U.S. citizen. Well, it's a new world. It's the same Constitution. In other words, the new world didn't change the text of this amendment. And so if you want to revise citizenship in response to a new world, there's a way to do it. It's through an amendment process. It's not just by reinterpreting the 14th Amendment to defy the plain text of the amendment. And so, you know, in MAGA world, a lot of this new constitutional thinking is called common good constitutionalism. In other words, we envision our version of the common good, and then we interpret the Constitution in essence, to back up that vision of the common good, which is completely the opposite of an originalist frame, which it says, to the extent there's any ambiguity, you go back to the original public meaning. In other words, there's a fixed meaning to the language of the Constitution. Common good constitutionalism contradicts that. And so what we saw was this clash of philosophies. And, you know, it was interesting. There was a moment where the ACLU lawyer who did a very good job arguing the position, said, we have to go with the original public meaning, and the Trump administration is arguing some version of living constitutionalism to try to conform the Constitution to their preferences. And the ACLU attorney, she was right where the justices were and John Sauer was not. So I'm not thinking this is going to be a terribly close case. I mean, with all the caveats, you can't 100% predict all of that. I would be stunned if this was anything other than 7, 2, and it may be 9 0.

[B]

Well, I was interested in why he would show up. To me, this bullying behavior, which is clearly an attempt to kind of intimidate everyone involved, I can't see that this would play very well with the high Court. The last thing the court wants is for people to think that they, in some way can be bullied, you know, moved by that kind of showing out from the president. Am I wrong on this? Is there some practical kind of effect of him showing up?

[D]

No. I mean, I think you're right to say that the conservative members are not going to change their tune because Trump is there. That would just validate one of the criticisms of the conservative majority on the court. I think it's better to look at just Trump's psychology. Trump doesn't actually know how to negotiate. He doesn't know how to bargain. All he knows how to do is intimidate and threaten and, and maybe cajole on occasion. And so I think he's just thinking, if I go there and look, you know, stone face, this will intimidate them into. Into agreeing with me. Maybe it's targeted at sour, you know, maybe this will make sour, you know, think twice about messing up, which, you know, too late but that's. That's where I think Trump was. I just want to add real quickly on David's sort of explanation of common good constitutionalism or what have you, because I myself, actually not much of a living constitutionalist. I'm not really an originalist either. I think that there are multiple legitimate ways of interpreting constitutional texts, but that they all are all kind of bound by the text. So, for example, if you want to say that I'm borrowing from Frederick Douglass here, that the ethos of the Constitution is liberty, and so you have to interpret the Constitution's provisions according to that ethos, you have to make that case still based on what the Constitution says. You have to look for things that kind of imply or specifically say, this is about liberty enhancing common good. Constitutionalism doesn't even do that. It really is just sort of like, I would prefer to live in a theocracy, and so we're going to interpret the Constitution in ways that would allow that to happen. I would prefer to live in a white ethnostate. So we're going to interpret the Constitution in ways that would make that permissible. I'd say it's even beyond living constitutional institutionalism in its sort of like, willingness to just say the text ought to mean whatever I want it to mean.

[B]

Okay, okay. Well, that's very on brand for this president, but I'm not sure that I think the court's gonna be particularly convinced.

[D]

No, in terms of the Court, I mean, it was striking. Amy Coney Barrett at one point says, well, that's just not in the text.

[C]

Yeah, yeah.

[D]

She's just like, well, that's just not. They're talking about.

[B]

I think what she has been kind of awesome in standing. Like, whether you agree with her interpretations or her judicial philosophy or not, she has not been cowed by this administration. I have. I mean, she's. She's got herself proud.

[C]

You know, it's interesting. I feel like there is such a unique form of invertebrate I.e. the Republican member of Congress, that I feel like they almost deserve, like, their own genus and species. It's like Republicanus memberis, you know, is this unique invertebrate. And Trump keeps seeing what worked with this unique species of invertebrates and then trying to import it on everybody else. Good luck. Good luck with these justices. And. And I'm not somebody who agrees with all of their decisions. I will shout it from the mountaintops that the immunity decision was gravely flawed, but I don't think that was yielding to Trump. I think that was an Inappropriate. Yielding to their vision of what the presidency is supposed to be, that which is a different thing. And so this act of intimidation, to the extent that it matters at all, it's not going to play well for him. And it's interesting. This is just a little fun. Side note, the ACLU has gotten pretty good at walking into the Supreme Court and speaking originalism to the originalist justices. So if you are walking into that court and you can speak originalism fluently, regardless of which ideological side that you're on, you've got a good case to make to this court. And it was very clear to me, it was very clear throughout the argument, that the challengers to the EO were absolutely in line with the judicial philosophy of a majority of the court. And the administration was way, way out of line with the philosophy of the majority of the court.

[D]

Not only out of line with the philosophy of the court, but. But this hasn't come up too much. The government was actually citing the views of white supremacist opponents of the 14th Amendment in order to make its case. And so in a real sense, what the government would have you believe was that the people who did not want birthright citizenship to exist in the 1860s, 70s and 80s, and who were actively trying to exclude people from the country had a better understanding of what that clause mend than the people who wrote it.

[B]

Oh, Lord. Okay, so this administration continues to dazzle with its very special legal approach. Okay, we're gonna switch to something less dark and it's recommendation time. David, please do something non apocalyptic.

[C]

Well, you know, I'm still working my way through Blue Lights, by the way. Michelle, just magnificent.

[B]

Magnificent. Yes, you're welcome.

[C]

But I'm reading a book called de Gaulle by Julian Jackson because in an interesting way, he is one of the most currently relevant figures of the 20th century, and in a way that we should kind of all be grateful for. And that is, de Gaulle had some priorities about France and for the independence and greatness of France, that included, you know, he's going to make a commitment that France is going to have an independent defense industry. France is going to have an independent nuclear deterrent. And with the fractures with NATO, which are increasing, increasing, it's fascinating to me how much de Gaulle's vision of France has actually created a secondary bulwark against Russian aggression. In other words, we have a completely independent European nuclear deterrent that does not rely on the United States of America. Thanks to de Gaulle, now much weaker than the U.S. the French military obviously can't replace whatever We've lost. But to the extent that NATO can retain stability and strength with us wavering, it's a lot because of de Gaulle and sort of his long term vision. And he's also just an endlessly fascinating. I mean, for a consequential world leader, he might have ticked off more of his peers and counterparts than any other living world leader. The guy.

[B]

Oh, that's a bold claim.

[C]

He was prickly. He was prickly. But it's a fascinating story. Just absolutely fascinating. Highly recommend.

[B]

Jamel.

[D]

I am rewatching, so a rare instance of me saying something. I'm watching. I am rewatching the Wire, which I have not done. I have not done for 15 years. And I just want to recommend. It's on HBO, unfortunately, on HBO, it is the remastered widescreen version. The film was shot in 4, 3, so more of a rectangular square format. And all of the cinematography and the blocking, like where the actors are in the scene is built around that frame. And so I have. I do have, like the old DVDs.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

And you'll notice that, like, in the 4:3, everything's much more stagey and theatrical, which I think really works. But then on the HBO widescreen, it's much more like cinematic. But it's just something that works for the show. But even still. Even still, this is truly a remarkable piece of American fiction. As I rewatch it, I'm like, oh, yeah, this is. This is a legitimate case to me that this is the single greatest television show of all time. It's so nuanced, it's so real and believable. It's so affecting and, yeah, I don't know. Rewatch the Wire, people. It really is as great as its reputation suggests.

[B]

I cannot argue with that. All right, so I'm gonna go in a different direction. I want to recommend that you grab a bunch of your friends and put together a kind go out and do X club. Not the drug. Let's be clear. You know this by what I mean by the club.

[D]

I mean, if you want to. I'm not gonna do that.

[B]

I mean, if that's your kink, whatever. Like a book club, except that it involves a particular kind of outing. So I drafted a bunch of my girlfriends to find live music shows that they wanna go see. And I said, okay, everybody, bring back a show that you wanna go to, and we'll see who can get time off and get the tickets and we'll arrange these group outings. There's no venue to obscure any kind of genre. No shaming in Fact, I have been impressed by how people are kind of going outside of their comfort zones and joining other people in their groups. And it just gives people an excuse to be on the lookout for things to do for musicians to go support, whether it's jazz, Broadway, whatever. And it gives you a built in group of people who are kind of expected to go along. And I have a friend who's done it with theater, you can do it with museums, you can do it with whatever. But I think as summer and spring are here and the weather's good, I'm all for getting out of the house and doing funky stuff. And almost all of our suggestions so far have gathered a really good group of attendees. Accept. Nobody's gonna go to Pitbull with me. I have a weakness. I've been twice. I'm like, I'm not ashamed of this. So if anybody out there, he's coming to D.C. area this summer, I'm pro Pitbull. That's it. All right, guys, with that, we're gonna land this plane. Thank you so much as always. A lot that we've solved this week. Let's do it again.

[C]

Thanks, Michelle.

[D]

Thank you, Michelle.

[A]

If you like this show, follow it on YouTube, Spotify or Apple. The opinions is produced by Derek Arthur, Vishaka Darba and Jillian Weinberger. It's edited by Kari Pitkin and Allison Bruzick. Mixing by Daniel Ramirez. Original music by Isaac Jones, sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carol Sabaro, Efim Shapiro and Amin Sahota. The fact check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary, Marge Locker and Michelle Harris. The head of operations is Shannon Busta. Audience support by Christina Samulewski. The director of opinion shows is Annie Rose Strasser. If you walk into a room and can't remember why, it could be nothing or something more. If you confuse a familiar recipe, it could be a slip up or it could be associated with amyloid plaque buildup in the brain. Amyloid is a protein that your body produces naturally. But a buildup in the brain could lead to memory and thinking. It issues. To see what may be behind your memory and thinking issues, talk to your doctor about getting a full assessment. It's never too early to start the conversation. Visit amyloid.com to learn more.