← Timcast IRL
Timcast IRL
SCOTUS Rules For Trump, INJUNCTIONS Blocked, Birthright Citizenship MAY END w/ Will Chamberlain
02:03:57
Tim, Phil, & Ian are joined by Will Chamberlain to discuss SCOTUS ruling that universal injunctions are unconstitutional, the ACLU filing a class action suit to stop Trump's changes to birthright citizenship, & Ketanji Brown Jackson roasted...
Loading summary
Transcript987 lines
- [00:07]
Tim Pool
In a massive victory for President Trump, the Supreme Court has ruled these universal injunctions, they're out of there, which effectively clears the path for his blocking of birthright citizenship, which is gonna be massive. These universal injunctions were blocking every single thing he does he was trying to do. These district court judges were just saying, like, nah, Trump can't do this. Trump can't do this. Now here's the funny thing. This is where it gets wild. Katanji Brown Jackson. Her dissent on this was so shockingly stupid that basically all the other justices were like, she has literally no idea what the law is or how law functions. And it was, it was kind of surprising to see them insult her as such in their opinions. So, like, they, they, they were really needling her. So that's the big story. There's also a major victory for parents that want to opt their kids out of LGBTQ studies. We'll talk about that. And it's the big news. We'll get into a little bit more about this. Trump says he may strike Iran again. Israel may do it. We don't know. Before we get started, my friends, we got big news. The Culture War Live will be Saturday, July 26, August 2 and August 9. These are at the DC Comedy Loft, Washington, D.C. get your tickets now. Link in the description below or just go to DC excuse me, dccomedyloft.com and you'll see us in the events page. Now, we've not formalized next month's event, which is July 26th. We're still waiting on some, waiting for some confirmations. But August 2nd, we have Michael Malice and Angry Cops, hosted by me and Alex Stein. And it is the great cop debate. Cops Good, Bad, what's, what's it going to Be? And of course, Michael Malice, Anarchist Angry Cops, a literal cop, but they're both absolutely hilarious. So this is probably going to be the funniest and most fun event we do. Granted, I don't want to sell short our other two events, but make sure you pick up your tickets at the DC Comedy Loft website. They're going for about 30 bucks, I think. We do have preferred seating. They're slightly more expensive. And for members, @timcast.com members of our Discord, there are 30 free, dedicated, first come first serve tickets. You can get them@timcast.com and those are probably going to be gone in two seconds, to be completely honest. But those are for our members. And don't Forget, check out cast brew.com because, ladies and gentlemen, Josie's 1776 signature brew is live. This is. We're calling this flavor American Cream. It is a creamy flavor. It's basically Boston cream, but we call it American Cream. And this is Josie, the Redheaded Libertarians signature blend, available now@casper.com so smash that like, button. Share the show with literally everyone you know. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is Will Chamberlain.
- [02:51]
Will Chamberlain
Great to be back as always. I'm senior counsel of the Article 3 project, fighting to confirm Trump's nominees now, I guess, to the bench. And I'm also just recently now the new vice president of the Edmund Burke Foundation Rather, which runs the National Conservatism Conferences. And it's always good to be with you guys.
- [03:09]
Tim Pool
And we planned this, that we knew SCOTUS was gonna issue these major legal rulings. And so we long ways out, we were like, we're not Will Chamberlain on this day. When SCOTUS says, actually, it's just luck.
- [03:19]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah.
- [03:20]
Tim Pool
You know, I walked up to Will and I was like, did. Did Lisa plan for you to be here? Because we knew SCOTUS was going to be having these huge rulings. Nope, just. Just perfect timing.
- [03:28]
Will Chamberlain
Lisa, you should claim that you did.
- [03:30]
Ian Crossland
They talked about prosecutorial immunity and abolishing it last night. So I'm glad you're here because you came into my mind last night while I was watching the show. And I'm Ian Crossland, happy to be back for my great journey. Tell me about yours, Phil.
- [03:41]
Phil Labonte
My name is Phil labonte. I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band all that Remains of An Anti Communist and a Counter Revolutionary. Let's get into it.
- [03:46]
Tim Pool
Here's a story from NBC News. Supreme Court curbs injunctions that blocked Trump's birthright citizenship plan. President Trump called the ruling a monumental decision in remarks after the court split along ideological lines on his plan to end automatic birthright citizenship. So the way this is being framed, and I think it's depending on how you want to write it, the Trump administration decided to go appeal this on the grounds that universal injunctions are unconstitutional and shouldn't be allowed, not whether or not he's allowed to block birthright citizenship. And the Supreme Court said, yeah, these universal injunctions are bunk. So for those that are not familiar, every single time Trump does something, there's these lower court judges. What are there, 677.
- [04:33]
Will Chamberlain
So that's a lot, right?
- [04:35]
Tim Pool
So basically you had this scenario. They had oral arguments on this, and it was actually pretty fast. Did you listen to the oral arguments when this was going down?
- [04:41]
Will Chamberlain
I think so. Or I mean, I at least was familiar with what was happening.
- [04:45]
Tim Pool
Trump, the Solicitor General, I believe, is arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, said the problem with universal injunctions, one of them is that he's like, we enacted an executive order and a district court judge put an injunction on it. We filed an appeal and the appellate court said, stay the injunction. But right after they did, a different district court judge put an injunction. So you have 677 judges. Democrats can literally have 677 attempts to stop the actions of the executive branch, which is insane. So my question for you, Will, is, does this mean, let loose the hounds, that basically all of all these injunctions against everything Trump was on to do are voided for now?
- [05:32]
Will Chamberlain
No. I mean, not every injunction is a nationwide injunction binding non parties.
- [05:36]
Tim Pool
This is what I mean. Right. The nationwide injunctions they levied against Trump that are still currently in effect, are they effectively, like, frozen or not working?
- [05:44]
Will Chamberlain
I think basically all of them are going to, there's going to be a motion for reconsideration filed by the doj. In any case where there's a nationwide injunction, they're going to update them and say, well, given the current, the latest Supreme Court ruling, this is no longer a lawful injunction. You need to tailor it down to the named parties in the case.
- [06:02]
Tim Pool
Just to clarify. Let loose the hounds.
- [06:03]
Will Chamberlain
Yes. So, yeah, no, this isn't, I mean, it's an incredible ruling for the Trump administration. It's, you know, really, it brings the lawfare and really constrains the ability of all the leftists to go after Trump. And it also, it means we're going to see a kind of a revival of what's the class action device as a way of doing aggregate litigation. And I mean, I did class action litigation when I actually practiced law, and it's a lot harder to certify a class like you. You can't, you don't just get the judge to be like you. The administration can't enforce this law anymore against anybody if you want.
- [06:33]
Tim Pool
They were doing.
- [06:34]
Will Chamberlain
That's exactly what they were doing. And it's what Judge Justice Jackson was really insistent that they ought be able to do. Yeah, but when they have, when you have to certify a class, you have to have a, a representative plaintiff who is, whose claims are common to all the other class members. Typical. They're an adequate representative. And there's all these procedural protections so that, you know, non if, because you're binding non parties. And it's really good for the admin because if they Ever win in a class gets certified and they win. All the other people who might want to bring suit, they're precluded from doing so. And so you can't get this run racing.
- [07:08]
Tim Pool
Wait, just to clarify, if a class does sue and wins, someone else who may have been party to that class can't sue or.
- [07:18]
Will Chamberlain
Well, I mean, the idea is that the class. A class doesn't sue. Right. An individual sues on behalf of a class.
- [07:24]
Tim Pool
Right.
- [07:25]
Will Chamberlain
Okay. And those, the other class members aren't there. They're. They're unnamed class members. They aren't represented to. Due process requires that, you know, if you're going to bind them, that you have to be justified in doing so. And so it's, you know, whenever you think about, think about those coupons you get in the mail for a class action settlement where it's like, you know, you bought olive oil and it was mislabeled or something.
- [07:43]
Tim Pool
I got one for a sports drink once.
- [07:45]
Will Chamberlain
There you go. Right.
- [07:46]
Tim Pool
Like, they sent me a check for like 17 bucks.
- [07:48]
Will Chamberlain
Right. That's like, that's a, that's, that's a product of a class action lawsuit. You weren't there. You didn't have your lawyer there, you know, fighting for your $17 claim. That's not what happened. Wouldn't have been economical.
- [07:58]
Tim Pool
I think it was sent to me without me asking.
- [08:00]
Will Chamberlain
Right?
- [08:00]
Tim Pool
Yeah, I don't think I cashed it.
- [08:01]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah. I mean, and, and I'm sure many people in the audience have. I mean, almost everybody has gotten some sort of class action notice for something. But the idea is that in order to do that, there's a whole process plaintiff's lawyers have to go through to certify the class to get the right to represent all these people who aren't in court. They basically have to demonstrate that due process allows it.
- [08:20]
Tim Pool
So basically what happens is Trump says something like, from now on, if you're a man, you can't go in a woman's prison. And then two trans people file a suit, and a lower court, district court judge just says, from now on, all men everywhere are allowed to go into a men's prison.
- [08:38]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, that doesn't work. Not unless he certifies a class first.
- [08:42]
Tim Pool
But. So this was before.
- [08:43]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah.
- [08:44]
Tim Pool
And so what ends up happening is you get this argument that, Wait, wait, wait. But all men everywhere did not sue and are not part of this same group. It is these two specific male individuals. And so they put a universal injunction on Trump's policy, and then they keep putting men in women's Prison or another example would be the Trump saying trans people that are exhibiting symptoms are, Will be discharged. I think it was medical discharge or I'm not sure if it was a. Other than honorable or something. And Trump's executive order, executive order was if you are diagnosed with gender dysphoria but not exhibiting symptoms, you're fine, you can stay in the military. But if you are exhibiting symptoms, meaning you're trying to dress like the opposite sex, or you're undergoing surgery, medical treatment, you're out. Like three people sued. And then a judge said literally anyone suffering from any, for literally anyone for any reason must be allowed to enlist in the, in the, in the judges ruling saying all means all, which was the most psychotic thing I've ever heard. And the joke that emerged on, on X was that a bipolar paraplegic now must be allowed to enlist in, you know, in. For infant. I'm sorry, not for combat infantry. There you go.
- [10:01]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah. So that's a, that's a situation where it would be tricky to certify a class because on the one hand you could say that the question they have in common is whether the administration can do this at all, whether the administration can put in store any play in place, any kind of rule. But then on the other hand, if it, if you come to the conclusion that the administration had some leeway here, then the question is how does any one individual who's. Is anyone individual symptoms identical to anybody else's. And then that, that creates a question of whether it's difficult to hold everybody together in a class. Because to hold everybody in a class, generally people have to be injured in the same way and suffering the same damages and have the same, and don't have individualized facts that make them different from everybody else.
- [10:40]
Ian Crossland
Have there ever been a class action suit involving like an actual protected class, like a race?
- [10:46]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, there's, there's racial discrimination. Class actions you can certify. This summer, Instacart is bringing back your favorites from 1999 with prices from 1999. That means 90s prices on juice pouches that ought to be respected.
- [11:02]
Ian Crossland
90S prices on boxed Mac and cheese.
- [11:04]
Will Chamberlain
And 90s prices on ham, cheese and cracker lunches. Enjoy all those throwbacks and more at.
- [11:11]
Tim Pool
Throwback prices only through Instacart.
- [11:13]
Ian Crossland
$4.72.
- [11:15]
Will Chamberlain
Maximum discount per $10 of eligible items. Limit three offers per order.
- [11:20]
Ian Crossland
Expiration September 5 while supplies last.
- [11:24]
Will Chamberlain
Discount based on CPI comparison by a class of. I mean, a good example of this would be, I think, you know, there were class actions in the 50s, when, say, you know, a school was saying no black students, that would be a good example. Like, then all the student, all the African American students could say, or somebody, an African American plaintiff could say, I want to represent a class of all African American students. We're all injured in the exact same way. We're just not allowed to enroll in the school because of this discrimination. You should certify us as a class and grant an injunction forcing them to admit all black Americans.
- [11:56]
Ian Crossland
So you foresee if the. It was. The Supreme Court says, yeah, you can't just one judge can't just say no. And it's illegal everywhere. Trump, you can't ever do you just, you see more class actions now arising.
- [12:07]
Will Chamberlain
And I think there will be a class action in the birth. I mean, as we've said, there's already been some class actions filed. My guess is that a class action will get certified in the birthright citizenship case, because this is a circumstance where the injury is if you, in fact, is the same. Right. It's parents who are legal aliens not able to grant citizenship to their children here. And that's basically the, you know, solve it for one, you resolve it for everybody.
- [12:28]
Tim Pool
In the same way, I think the Republicans have a tremendous opportunity here on the birthright citizenship question in that they can set this argument up so that any way you cut it, either you end birthright citizenship or you end abortion.
- [12:41]
Will Chamberlain
I mean, that's an interesting point too. Right. Because I think the way that they want to certify this class is going to include people not yet born.
- [12:47]
Tim Pool
Exactly.
- [12:48]
Will Chamberlain
And so if they can be legitimate.
- [12:49]
Tim Pool
Plaintiffs, it's already, it's already the abortion. The ACO has already made the argument citing a woman who is, whose father is not a citizen and who is unborn and concerns over whether citizenship will be granted. But hold on there, gosh darn minute. You're arguing for the rights of an unborn. Well, then we gotta ask about all the other rights. So the Republicans, the Republicans could theoretically, or I should say the Trump administration could theoretically set an argument up where Democrats either have to argue logic in such a way that if they win, then abortion will be legal. I'm sorry, will be illegal.
- [13:30]
Will Chamberlain
Well, I think it is. I think the logic follows because if, I mean, it's hard to say that if an unborn person has standing and can be, you know, essentially a member of a class, then why couldn't an unborn person have the protection of the 14th amendment?
- [13:45]
Tim Pool
They'd have to make it the like. It'll Be interesting to see how the Democrats argue this or the liberals that they're gonna say members of our class are those who have just been born. Right?
- [13:57]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah. But it also, I think I actually read what the lawsuit did, and I think it's both born and unborn.
- [14:02]
Tim Pool
Right, Right. I think it is unborn. In which case, instantly, the Trump administration need only argue. Ask the question, okay, can you kill the unborn? Yes. Okay, well, then what rights have you at all?
- [14:15]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, no, I mean, if I were in their shoes, I'd still contest it to try and make it so that it actually, you know, creates a. Leads to an opinion based on a contested argument. And if you get a holding, you know, if they decide to hold that, yes, unborn members, unborn humans can be members of a class, then that's very challenging to keep abortion legal.
- [14:32]
Tim Pool
Let's pull this up. We have this from the Sun, New York Sun. ACLU files class action to bypass Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship. They say nope, Actually, they say nothing because it's paywall, it's paywall. Groups opposed to Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship are attempting to find new avenues to block it. So, as we were just. We're discussing in the previous segment, basically they've made an argument for the unborn here, which sets them up in a really interesting position in that many conservatives are already saying, how can you argue for the rights of the unborn while simultaneously arguing that they can be killed whenever. Whenever the mother decides.
- [15:11]
Will Chamberlain
I think the same thing I said just a few seconds ago. You can't. It's a.
- [15:17]
Phil Labonte
You can, you can and be consistent at all.
- [15:19]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, you know, totally agree.
- [15:20]
Ian Crossland
Well, my personal take on this, which is not no one asked, but it's that I think the baby should be treated as the mother until the baby is born of the mother and then no longer attached to the mother. If the mother is illegally here, then the baby's illegally here.
- [15:32]
Phil Labonte
So, Ian, are you saying the mother wants to have an abortion? She has to commit suicide?
- [15:35]
Tim Pool
No.
- [15:36]
Ian Crossland
I hope they didn't.
- [15:37]
Tim Pool
All right, let's read. They say exploiting a possible loophole in a Supreme Court decision. I love how they wrote that.
- [15:42]
Will Chamberlain
A loophole that limits sweeping.
- [15:45]
Tim Pool
This is insane. Exploiting a loophole against Trump's negative orders. The American Civil Liberties Union. Oh, they're saying that ACLU is doing it. Are now filing a class action against the president's plan to restrict birthright citizenship. The lawsuit charges the Trump administration is flouting the Constitution, congressional intent, and long standing Supreme Court precedent and request an emergency restraining order. The case is filed in the US District Court in New Hampshire on behalf of a proposed class of babies subject to the executive order. Every court to have looked at the cruel order agrees that is unconstitutional. The deputy director of the ACLU Immigrant Rights Project, Cody Wofcy, says in a press release the Supreme Court's decision did not remotely suggest otherwise and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child. So here's what, here's what's interesting. I wonder, do you know if the actual filing is publicly available? Let me see if I can find.
- [16:37]
Will Chamberlain
I think it is. I assume the ACLU put it out.
- [16:39]
Tim Pool
There, because I'm wondering. PDF, I'm wondering what their class is going to be, because what if Trump just says, what's that? Your class in this class action are going to be babies potentially subject to the termination of birth or citizenship. Okay, I'm going to revoke citizenship from 12 year olds, toddlers. What is the qualification gonna be for class? And can Trump simply say, okay, I'll concede that one, or while we're fighting that one, I'll target two and up?
- [17:06]
Phil Labonte
Yeah, it's tough to specify a class when you're dealing with every single person that's possibly here as an illegal immigrant. You can't just say, oh, well, I got it. Good.
- [17:18]
Will Chamberlain
I'll send you this.
- [17:19]
Ian Crossland
Everyone of an age, like every single human of a certain age.
- [17:23]
Phil Labonte
Yeah, I mean, you, it's, it's tough to, to, to base it by just age like that. You know, you can't say, oh, everyone that is a citizen or everyone that's, that's, you know, under X age as a class. But then once they're over that age, they're not when the context is immigration, because either, you know, they're either illegal immigrants or they're not. You know, they're, or they're, you know, their birthright. Citizenship is in question or it's not because of their, their, the conditions, their birth. Y know.
- [17:53]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah.
- [17:54]
Tim Pool
All right, let's pull this up. Let's see what we got going on over on page nine. Where are we at? So here we go. And these, this is where it specifies.
- [18:03]
Will Chamberlain
The class with the proposed class.
- [18:05]
Tim Pool
Proposed class. Let's see. The class. Representative plaintiffs, which, which section be 42.
- [18:11]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah.
- [18:12]
Tim Pool
Seeks represent the following proposed class. All current and future persons who are born on or after February 2025, where the person's mother was unlawfully present in the US and the person's father was not a US citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth or the person's mother's presence in the US Was lawful but temporary and the person's father was not a US Citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth as well as the parents, including expectant parents of those persons. Is that a little broad?
- [18:42]
Will Chamberlain
I mean I think it makes that it, it reflects the arguments being made by the executive order. Right. Basically the, the executive order says if you're, if you're not the child of a citizen or a legal permanent resident, then you're not, then you don't get citizenship. And so this, this class I think is, is properly worded in the sense that it's just covering everybody born after the date the executive order was issued who is not the child who is born in the territory of the United States but not the child of a citizen or legal purpose.
- [19:11]
Tim Pool
No, no, no. Let me see. It says all current and future persons who were born on or after. That's an interesting question there. What about somebody who would have been born in on say February 21st?
- [19:27]
Will Chamberlain
Well, mean, then it's, I mean as to them, it would be moon.
- [19:29]
Tim Pool
So, so as of the argument right now, what if there is. So here, here's, here's an issue I have with this. There are currently future persons that would be part of this class who may just be aborted.
- [19:43]
Will Chamberlain
Well, even if they are aborted, that doesn't change the ability of this to potentially grant relief. Right. It would just be mudas to them because they're not.
- [19:55]
Tim Pool
Well, so they wouldn't, they're not in.
- [19:56]
Will Chamberlain
A position to claim or not claim.
- [19:58]
Tim Pool
So there's, there's, there's, but there's a challenge here, I see in that when we look at the three fifths compromise, let's go back to Civil war, right? The Southern, the South, the Southern Democrats were basically saying slaves should get a vote. And the north said what? These people have no volition unto themselves. They're slaves, they can't vote. And so they compromised. They said we'll tell you what, it's.
- [20:19]
Will Chamberlain
Not even that they said slaves should vote. It's that we should get more representation in Congress based on non voting slaves.
- [20:24]
Tim Pool
Yeah, I thought they wanted them to vote.
- [20:26]
Will Chamberlain
No, no, no, no. That's not the three, three of his compromises we should get total, we should get credit for our slave population in.
- [20:32]
Tim Pool
Terms towards correctional apportionment. Yes, so I stand corrected. My argument still however is that if you were to make an argument to the government that we should be granted something based on this class of persons who by the way, we can kill whenever we want. It's kind of like. Hold on there a minute.
- [20:54]
Phil Labonte
Well then they don't have personal rights.
- [20:55]
Tim Pool
Why would I, why, why should the government grant anything to this class if say, say, say it wasn't, say it was just like a single woman, let's say 10 women, they go before the judge and they're all pregnant. And they say we demand the rights of our babies be protected. And we are filing on their behalf because they can't represent themselves. And the court then says agreed. Then they go, okay, now we're going to go abort them all and they won't exist to receive relief. This, there's a problem here. The idea that you can kill who you are representing I think presents a problem in law.
- [21:29]
Ian Crossland
But this seems to only affect people that are already all born.
- [21:33]
Tim Pool
It says Future persons after February 2025.
- [21:36]
Ian Crossland
All current and future.
- [21:37]
Will Chamberlain
No, it includes the unborn who are born. It includes not just unborn, but literally non existent.
- [21:42]
Tim Pool
Oh right.
- [21:43]
Will Chamberlain
It includes like people who don't even.
- [21:44]
Tim Pool
It includes. It includes people who are not yet conceived.
- [21:48]
Will Chamberlain
Yes, correct.
- [21:49]
Tim Pool
Mentally and physically. So let's say a woman right now is one week pregnant. You know, let's say she's six weeks. She just found out she can. That, that, that life in her is represented before the United States government for relief. And then as soon as the relief is granted to that person. Yeah, Wait, hold on, hold on. Will can non persons seek relief before a court? Can they have standing on anything?
- [22:18]
Will Chamberlain
No.
- [22:18]
Tim Pool
Well then what the is going on?
- [22:20]
Ian Crossland
It's the word person, but it's also.
- [22:22]
Will Chamberlain
It'S actually, I think that actually is the real argument here. I think that, I think the real argument is that this class now you know, I didn't really think about this hard, but I think this class has to fail because I don't think non persons can be. I don't think non person can.
- [22:33]
Tim Pool
A dog.
- [22:34]
Will Chamberlain
Standing dog. Yeah.
- [22:36]
Tim Pool
A dog is not a person, can't be.
- [22:37]
Will Chamberlain
Dog can't be a member of a class.
- [22:39]
Ian Crossland
And a baby gets personhood upon birth. As far as like capital P currently legal. Personhood. Yeah.
- [22:44]
Phil Labonte
That's part of the reason why it's.
- [22:46]
Tim Pool
Okay to abort a baby.
- [22:47]
Will Chamberlain
A dog can't sue the. There are criminal laws against animal cruelty, but a dog cannot sue for like a tort. Right. For being assaulted. Can you get money damages you file from his owner. That's not a Thing.
- [22:59]
Ian Crossland
Could you file a class action suit on behalf of all pit bulls?
- [23:02]
Will Chamberlain
No, you know. Oh, you couldn't?
- [23:03]
Ian Crossland
Well, so, so why they use the lowercase p and the word person here? Because it's. There's the uppercase p, which I see in legal documents indicating this is the legal definition of the word person. And then you see the lowercase P just generally talking about people.
- [23:16]
Will Chamberlain
Well, is that. I mean, I don't know. Generally when something is in uppercase, it's like it's a defined term within that brief. Right. Like, so class representative plaintiffs would have a meaning for the person and proposed class. You'll see that in caps. So when they later say proposed caps, class, rather, they're referring back to the same thing.
- [23:34]
Tim Pool
This is pretty funny that they literally said future persons, because as, as you've stated already, this is somewhat like there's this. There's a guy and he's got his gametes and their gametes they've not yet met, but there is a future person at some point who has legal standing despite not even being conceived of.
- [23:55]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, I've never seen that before. And I think, I think that, you know, I didn't used to think that because I thought, oh, well, everybody's injury is kind of the same. But if they're suing on behalf of the children and not the parents. So parents are the. Exist.
- [24:06]
Tim Pool
You know, the only legal issue, I suppose they could state with this class action, that is, if the court rules in favor of the class minus potential people, it would only be grandfathering those in now.
- [24:21]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah.
- [24:22]
Tim Pool
And Trump could then go after. They'd have to sue every time Trump tried to challenge birthright citizenship.
- [24:28]
Will Chamberlain
Maybe, but eventually it would get to the Supreme Court, probably. I mean, and if the Supreme Court ruled, then it would, you know, depending.
- [24:34]
Tim Pool
On the question asked of the Supreme Court.
- [24:36]
Will Chamberlain
Right, right. I don't know. It's. It's tricky, but it does actually mean that it's very, very tricky for a district court judge to grant full, you know, grant really class wide relief here.
- [24:44]
Tim Pool
That's what this is what I'm saying. The Trump admin. Can, can, can. What if they come out and they go to the court and say, we concede future persons. Future persons are a class that exists. That's all we wanted to say. Thank you and have a nice day. And that means the unborn are legal persons.
- [25:00]
Will Chamberlain
Well, I mean, I'm not sure that works because it's not one of those. It's not one of those things that might be conceded in the sense that the judges just might not allow it. Right. Like they have, they have their own rules.
- [25:09]
Tim Pool
I'm kidding. I'm saying if the Trump admin came out publicly and said, we agree that future persons have legal standing, aclu, your move. And they'd be like, yeah, they're not.
- [25:21]
Will Chamberlain
Well, it's more like the plan, the Planned Parenthood people would call up the ACLU floors furiously and be.
- [25:25]
Phil Labonte
I'm surprised they're not. I'm not already on the phone with them, sending emails, furious.
- [25:30]
Tim Pool
But, but even if future persons was meant to apply to only those future persons, you know, they could have just.
- [25:39]
Ian Crossland
Said a potential children.
- [25:40]
Tim Pool
They could have just said all who were born on February 20th or after. I, I get. No, that's still the same, the same argument whether they said future persons or not. But what they're basically saying is even if their argument was just there is a baby, just it at three months who we want as part of this class. They're arguing that they have legal rights to be represented. For if that's the case right now, every pro life group should try and represent the exact same class of people and say, we believe that all current and future persons are, should have their lives protected under the law as any other person's. And if future persons is such a class, you cannot kill them.
- [26:22]
Ian Crossland
Oh, could you imagine if they were like, if people started saying future persons are a class and then a woman who wants to get pregnant gets attacked or murdered, they'll be like, it was a double murder. Murder for the potential possible kid she might have had. I mean, can you imagine that? That, that rabbit hole. We can't allow that.
- [26:37]
Tim Pool
A guy walks up and says, we actually had planned to conceive a baby in a week, so a future person was killed.
- [26:44]
Phil Labonte
You know, from this point, like, there's already incongruity with the personhood of unborn babies when it comes to, you know, if you murder the mother and you can be charged with double murder, but it's not a, an actual life until it's born, or it doesn't have any rights until it's born or the mother can kill it until it's born. So I think that this is, this is probably going to be something that'll, that'll at least coincide with those kind of issues, you know?
- [27:13]
Ian Crossland
Right.
- [27:13]
Tim Pool
I'm enjoying the sheer absurdity of, of where we are.
- [27:16]
Phil Labonte
Well, it's already ridiculous.
- [27:18]
Tim Pool
I'm just saying, like, they lost, okay? Like, this is it. They, they've either lost birthright citizenship or they've lost Abortion is this.
- [27:25]
Ian Crossland
I don't know what exactly Trump did, what the administration did that they're trying to push back against.
- [27:30]
Phil Labonte
Did they said that people that are. That. That are born here to immigrant parents or illegal immigrant parents, they're not American citizens if they're born in the US if their parents are not.
- [27:40]
Ian Crossland
Are here illegally retroactively.
- [27:42]
Phil Labonte
No.
- [27:42]
Ian Crossland
No.
- [27:42]
Phil Labonte
So if your. Your parents are illegal. Right. And then you're born here. So people call that anchor baby. You're born here. Those people are considered citizens because they're born inside the United States. The argument the Trump administration is making is that those parents, because they're not illegal, that are. Because they are illegal, the child is not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That's the key clause in the 14th Amendment that prevents basically anchor babies.
- [28:08]
Ian Crossland
Right.
- [28:08]
Phil Labonte
The whole point of the 14th Amendment was to make sure that slaves and children of slaves were considered citizens. It was never intended to make sure that anyone that could get to the shores of the United States and have a baby meant that that child would a citizen.
- [28:22]
Ian Crossland
So would. Would this retroactively take away citizenship from kids that have already been born, or is this just any kids?
- [28:28]
Will Chamberlain
I think, I think it's perspective.
- [28:29]
Phil Labonte
Yeah.
- [28:30]
Will Chamberlain
I think it's. I think it's the. It's only operative on. On people born. People born after the date of the executive order.
- [28:36]
Ian Crossland
February 20th.
- [28:37]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah. 25. That's why the class is only including people born after February 20th.
- [28:42]
Tim Pool
So it's basically got two. There's two circumstances in which you will not be a citizen.
- [28:47]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah.
- [28:48]
Tim Pool
When the mother was unlawfully present in the US and the father was neither a US Citizen nor lawful permanent resident when the person was born when the mother was in the US In a temporary status, just student visa, work visa, tourist visa under the visa Waiver program. And the father was neither a US Citizen nor lawful permanent resident when the person was born. So it states that these provisions are only effective for people born 30 days or more after the date of the order. It would have only applied to children born beginning February 19th.
- [29:15]
Ian Crossland
So he signed that right when he got into office on the January 20th.
- [29:18]
Phil Labonte
Yeah. It was one of the first executive orders he signed. It was like.
- [29:22]
Tim Pool
And he's right.
- [29:22]
Ian Crossland
I think, I think so. I think it makes a lot of sense, man. Like someone come here, visit and have a kid, that kid's not a US Citizen. You don't just get to come walk across the border.
- [29:32]
Will Chamberlain
It's very normal across the world. Like there's birthright citizenship. We are kind of an anomaly. Like this Is, you know, this is the rule for citizenship in most countries.
- [29:40]
Tim Pool
They other most. So I think it's around like 40% of countries of the world have what liberals will call birthright citizenship in an effort to defend, but they actually have restrictions. Like you can't just show up and have a kid and you're a citizen. But typically countries confer citizenship upon you when you're born because your parents are citizens or you are qualified or something. And then what you end up getting is these liberal organizations in the US say, see, they have birthright citizenship. And you're like, yeah, except for all these things that exclude people who are just there as tourists or there illegally, things like that.
- [30:15]
Phil Labonte
Yeah. To be honest with you, I don't know. I don't have a sense of how the court is actually going to come down on the, you know, the anchor baby essentially argument. I genuinely hope that it is. There's something that clears this up. Because if you go by original intent, which not saying that the SCOTUS is going to go by original intent or that the whole SCOTUS goes by original intent, but if you go by original intent, like I said earlier, the idea that you could just come here and have a child on the shore, you know, when you just arrived and that child becomes a citizen and that means that you, you and your spouse and then under current law your entire extended family get preferential treatment when it comes to immigration. That was never intended. That was not the intent at all.
- [31:02]
Ian Crossland
Yeah. If a mom, if like a woman in 1812 landed on a boat on the western coast of California with a baby or then gave birth to a baby and like walked into town with it and she spoke Spanish. No one's gonna treat those people like citizens like that. That's insane. They're de facto not citizens to the country if they don't speak the language and they're foreign and it doesn't matter where the kid was born, even though maybe legally she could argue for it. But if she doesn't have documentation, how's she gonna argue that the baby was even born here?
- [31:28]
Tim Pool
Like my, my favorite circumstance that I'd love to hear the Supreme Court answer is if it is true. I bet this will come up when they actually argue birthright citizenship. If it is true that anyone born here for any reason at any point is a citizen, what's to stop a Chinese woman, proud member of the Communist party, coming to the United States on a three month tourist visa just about, you know, six months pregnant, right before she leaves, she gives birth and the baby is granted US citizenship, but a day later flies back to Beijing where the child is raised as a super soldier in the Chinese Communist Army's people. People. Was it the PRC or, sorry, what is it called? The pr.
- [32:10]
Phil Labonte
People's Republican Army.
- [32:11]
Tim Pool
Yeah, the PRA or whatever. This kid is indoctrinated. He is Captain Communist China. And then at 20 years old, they say, you're an American citizen because you were born there, albeit you were there for only one day. We're going to send you back to America.
- [32:26]
Ian Crossland
Run for President.
- [32:26]
Tim Pool
To run for president. And he comes here and he doesn't speak any English. 15 years of study and training in the United States, regularly reporting back to the ccp. He says, I can now run for President. And the CCP says we have unlimited resources to fund your campaign.
- [32:42]
Ian Crossland
Yeah, it's a loophole. Airplanes didn't exist when they wrote the law. If they had, they definitely would have thought about that aspect of the danger of immigration.
- [32:51]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, no, no, no. I mean, and the thing, everything up to like the whole plot of the person becoming president, I mean, anchor babies happen. That's a movie. That's a thing. It's a real, it's a real phenomenon.
- [33:00]
Tim Pool
Hey, we should make a short film where this happens.
- [33:03]
Will Chamberlain
It's like the Manchurian.
- [33:05]
Tim Pool
Yes, exactly.
- [33:06]
Will Chamberlain
The real lawful Manchurian camp.
- [33:08]
Tim Pool
And it'll be, it'll be, you know, this guy, he comes here at 20, he's a US citizen, but he's never set foot here. He was trained by an enemy, you know, nation. And then he starts adopting all of these, like, he trains his accent, he adopts a bunch of left wing policies and then he runs. And then when he wins, he starts eroding the national security of the country, giving away secrets to China. And then China attacks and blows up a bunch of industrial control systems, totally disabling the United States and their ability to wage war.
- [33:38]
Phil Labonte
Can you do a Chinese accent? You should, you should play the lead.
- [33:40]
Tim Pool
No, no, no, he's not allowed.
- [33:41]
Phil Labonte
Oh, he's not allowed.
- [33:42]
Tim Pool
Why? Because he's a white man. Oh, wow.
- [33:44]
Phil Labonte
That's part of the funniness of it.
- [33:46]
Tim Pool
Only I'm allowed. Yeah, Tim has to be the lead because I'm Korean.
- [33:49]
Ian Crossland
He's got to be the Chinese guy.
- [33:50]
Tim Pool
I'm Korean.
- [33:51]
Ian Crossland
That'll, that'll play. And then I'll be the angry white guy.
- [33:55]
Tim Pool
The question that I have though is, you know, my daughter is only 12.5% Asian. You know, I think she should be allowed to do an Asian accent.
- [34:03]
Ian Crossland
Oh, she will be.
- [34:05]
Will Chamberlain
A good one, too.
- [34:06]
Ian Crossland
You'll be shocked.
- [34:07]
Phil Labonte
She's going to follow you around.
- [34:09]
Will Chamberlain
Octoroon. Is that how that works?
- [34:13]
Tim Pool
Yeah, no, it's. There's a word for it. I don't know what it is.
- [34:17]
Ian Crossland
This is coming.
- [34:18]
Tim Pool
There's hoppers. That's your half. Hopper is quarter and then, I don't know, octopus.
- [34:23]
Will Chamberlain
That's good.
- [34:24]
Ian Crossland
This is, I feel like this, this, this anchor baby thing is coming to a head big time right now. This is something that we really need to deal with at the Supreme Court level, I think. Is it. I mean, is there other than a Supreme Court decision, is there a.
- [34:34]
Tim Pool
Well, there's already Supreme Court precedents that said it was true that if.
- [34:37]
Will Chamberlain
No, that's. That's wonky, Mark. That that decision doesn't hold that. It holds that children of legal permanent residents, ah. Get citizenship. But there's never been a holding on birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens.
- [34:47]
Ian Crossland
So it's a question because they don't follow the jurisdiction. Sorry.
- [34:51]
Tim Pool
I think no one should get citizenship. No one. If you're.
- [34:54]
Will Chamberlain
I disagree.
- [34:55]
Tim Pool
No, no one.
- [34:55]
Will Chamberlain
No one I disagree with.
- [34:57]
Tim Pool
Everyone's got to go start over.
- [35:00]
Ian Crossland
We got to start over.
- [35:00]
Tim Pool
No, no, no, no. You don't disagree? Well, service guarantees citizenship.
- [35:06]
Will Chamberlain
No, no, service doesn't guarantee citizenship. My little 3 1/2 year old is a citizen. She hasn't, she doesn't serve anybody. She's a, she throws a ball, one.
- [35:13]
Tim Pool
Foot and then I'm talking about. She's a civilian. But she becomes a citizen once she. Was it two years of service to the community.
- [35:21]
Phil Labonte
Two years.
- [35:21]
Tim Pool
Yeah, it's Starship Troopers.
- [35:23]
Will Chamberlain
Starship Troopers, Yeah. I was about to say.
- [35:24]
Tim Pool
So the idea was that civilians have all legal rights and, but they can't vote. And then once you provide at least two years of service, you become a full fledged citizen.
- [35:33]
Will Chamberlain
I am all about restricting the franchise, so.
- [35:35]
Phil Labonte
I am too. We were talking my language last night.
- [35:39]
Tim Pool
You agreed.
- [35:39]
Will Chamberlain
Yes, you're right.
- [35:41]
Phil Labonte
We were talking about this last night.
- [35:43]
Will Chamberlain
You know, like, you see what happens in New York and you're like, there's, there's nothing wrong in New York that disenfranchising the residents wouldn't solve.
- [35:50]
Ian Crossland
What about, what about people that buy their way into citizenship? So it's. Maybe it's service, but you're like community service. You just need to dig holes. Well, like, what if I have a machine that can do it really fast because I had money to buy that machine and now I get citizenship really quick.
- [36:02]
Tim Pool
Service can be anything. That's that was the important.
- [36:05]
Will Chamberlain
What, What?
- [36:05]
Ian Crossland
Do I use technology to make my service super easy.
- [36:08]
Tim Pool
That's fantastic.
- [36:09]
Will Chamberlain
Thank you.
- [36:09]
Ian Crossland
And I game the system to be.
- [36:10]
Tim Pool
No, it's two years.
- [36:12]
Ian Crossland
Yeah, but so if two years of me letting my machine do all my work for me.
- [36:15]
Tim Pool
Yes. So you own a business and you have staff that maintain that machine and you are paying for the maintenance of it. Providing that service to the community for two years. That's more expensive than just you.
- [36:25]
Ian Crossland
Digging with a shovel is like buying citizenship.
- [36:27]
Tim Pool
No, it isn't.
- [36:28]
Ian Crossland
If I, if I can use technology to, to get my citizenship easier Trump.
- [36:31]
Phil Labonte
Is literally $5 million.
- [36:33]
Tim Pool
You don't understand green cards. Running your requires more energy than you as an individual using a shovel.
- [36:41]
Ian Crossland
But. Oh, well, I'm just saying some people, maybe they gotta dig holes for their citizenship. They don't have a shovel. They have to use their hands. This is a crazy example. I have a shovel because I could afford one. I'm kind of buying my way into an easier path of citizenship.
- [36:54]
Tim Pool
You're convoluting it. You'd go and apply and they'd say, we need people to dig holes. Here's a shovel.
- [37:00]
Ian Crossland
Government supply. But then what if I'm like, well, I actually have an electro shovel in my shed. I don't need your shovel. I'm gonna do it five times faster. And I don't even have to sweat with an excav. Yeah. I'm going to use my excavator.
- [37:10]
Tim Pool
Okay. Then they're going to say, wow, you are going to pay for and fuel and maintain an excavator for the community.
- [37:17]
Ian Crossland
Yeah, because it's my dad's money.
- [37:18]
Tim Pool
Wonderful. Then now get your excavator. And we thank you for doing 10 times the labor of everybody else.
- [37:25]
Ian Crossland
And now I'm a citizen and I.
- [37:26]
Tim Pool
Can vote after two years. Yes.
- [37:27]
Ian Crossland
And then I can. I don't know.
- [37:29]
Tim Pool
What don't you understand about. You're arguing to do more work than the average person.
- [37:32]
Ian Crossland
Well, I'm arguing that the people that have a lot of money can get their two years of work done. What? Much easier.
- [37:37]
Phil Labonte
It's not the. It's not.
- [37:38]
Tim Pool
No, you're not.
- [37:39]
Phil Labonte
He's working. It's the amount of time that you have to be involved in civil service.
- [37:44]
Tim Pool
You don't understand. You would be operating the excavator, maintaining the machinery, paying for its maintenance, fueling it, and you would have to do 10 times the work for the community than the average person with a shovel.
- [37:58]
Ian Crossland
Where I would pay a guy to do the work for me and I.
- [38:00]
Tim Pool
Know often how it works.
- [38:01]
Ian Crossland
Okay, maybe then we're talking because the military service, you can't get a machine to do that for you. You go there, you serve, you're there with the other guys.
- [38:09]
Tim Pool
That's not correct. In military service, Elon Musk can be commissioned by the US government so that his machines can be used by the US government. This is literally what the military industrial complex is. We've had privateers since the days of yore when they'd go to a guy who owned Battleship and they'd say, here's a letter of Mark, here's money, go blow them up.
- [38:26]
Will Chamberlain
Look, we don't need to make it this complicated. We can just disenfranchise Democrats. Like, I don't coming up this whole rubric, I just, you know, you voted for the Democratic Party. It's like that's, that's sufficient reason.
- [38:38]
Ian Crossland
Yeah, I like the service. Citizenship. Sorry, were you going to say something funny?
- [38:42]
Tim Pool
Yeah, I was going to say vote. You vote Democrat one time and you can never vote again.
- [38:45]
Will Chamberlain
Right.
- [38:46]
Ian Crossland
I like.
- [38:47]
Tim Pool
You're allowed to vote Democrat once.
- [38:50]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, you better make it worth your while. Better be the best Democrat ever.
- [38:53]
Ian Crossland
I like the idea of encouraging people to become civilly aware and active to vote. And I also kind of like the idea of forcing people to become civilly aware to vote. But I don't like making people take tests to acknowledge that they understand to vote. And I don't know what service actually means. So we got to be. Because if I can game it, you got to watch out. Because they will if they can.
- [39:13]
Tim Pool
What if will. What if everybody gets to vote but you get mercilessly beaten by five people after you do, so you really have to wanna vote.
- [39:24]
Will Chamberlain
I think our country would go communist. I think like you'd get the really motivated people. I mean like if normies would stop voting. I think barbarian, psycho.
- [39:34]
Ian Crossland
I think barbarians, people that feel no pain.
- [39:35]
Phil Labonte
If violence is on the table, then every, like all the rules change then.
- [39:40]
Will Chamberlain
But, but I'm just saying, like, who would actually be willing to take a beating to vote? And not like the most ideological, committed, crazy people.
- [39:46]
Tim Pool
Yeah, but not commies. It'd be barbarians. You, you like, you think a frail, 100 pound, soaking wet gaunt commie is going to be able to withstand a beating?
- [39:57]
Will Chamberlain
I mean, they might, just might not realize they'll need to. Or like they might, they might think they're up to it. I mean, think, think about all those Proud Boys videos where you have like this gaunt 100 guy going up against, like, a guy who clearly lives getting not clocked out. Like what? It sounds really rational confidence thing.
- [40:11]
Phil Labonte
It sounds like you're proposing an America where only people that are in the UFC are allowed to vote.
- [40:19]
Tim Pool
Have you seen the ufc?
- [40:20]
Phil Labonte
Yeah, I know, but what kind of.
- [40:22]
Ian Crossland
America do you think is, like, they're.
- [40:23]
Phil Labonte
Going to elect Genghis Khan?
- [40:24]
Ian Crossland
Those dudes that are balancing on swords on their. On their core and stuff.
- [40:28]
Will Chamberlain
You could just short circuit it and just make the results of, like, the UFC heavyweight championship, the results of the presidential election.
- [40:33]
Phil Labonte
Or he gets to pick, you know.
- [40:34]
Will Chamberlain
Right.
- [40:35]
Phil Labonte
Yeah. Maybe he doesn't actually get to do the running of the country or whatever, but he gets to say, that's the guy that I want.
- [40:40]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah.
- [40:42]
Tim Pool
All right, now we're cooking.
- [40:43]
Phil Labonte
I mean, there's not a lot of people that are interested in taking I.
- [40:47]
Tim Pool
Beating people on. I actually like this. Anyone can vote, but you have to sign up for the selective service, which is optional. You know what? You know what?
- [40:55]
Will Chamberlain
That was actually. You know, that's a good description of how Israel really actually runs its country.
- [40:59]
Tim Pool
You know what would happen? Republicans would win every election forever with that simple policy. The reason is Democrats win through ignorance. They go to someone and say, did you vote? And they go, I don't know. And then they're like, come on, you should vote. But what would happen if the Democrats had to go to somebody who was ignorant and they say, do you want to vote? They'd be like, why should I vote? We got to stop Trump. They'd be like, okay, I'll vote. Just sign up for the draft. They'd be like, no, I don't care about whatever is. You're selling that much. Republicans would be like, done deal.
- [41:28]
Will Chamberlain
There you go.
- [41:29]
Tim Pool
And I'm not saying there is a draft. I'm not saying you have to serve. I'm saying selective service, which already exists, men and women, it'll be optional. Once you sign up, they hand you your voter card. And if you don't want to sign up, that's absolutely fine. Just you can't vote in any election.
- [41:44]
Ian Crossland
Is that literally what they do in Israel?
- [41:45]
Will Chamberlain
Not quite, but it's sort of the underlying part of the rationale for why, like, people in the west bank, for example, don't get to vote in Israeli elections. They're not citizens. They don't have any obligation to serve in the military. But that's also the interesting phenomenon is Israeli Arabs who have the right to vote but are not draft eligible.
- [42:03]
Tim Pool
Oh, wow.
- [42:03]
Will Chamberlain
So. And so they don't it's almost like.
- [42:06]
Tim Pool
Women in America, they have a right to vote, but they're not draft eligible.
- [42:10]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, but they. I mean, I don't. I mean, I think. I don't know what the deal is with Israeli Arabs serving. Almost no Israeli Arabs serve in the military. There's. There are Israeli Druze and Israeli Christians.
- [42:21]
Tim Pool
I think we should.
- [42:22]
Will Chamberlain
There are any Israeli Arabs.
- [42:24]
Tim Pool
I think women shouldn't be allowed to vote until they can be drafted. I paused for dramatic effect.
- [42:31]
Phil Labonte
Look, man, I am open to any number of creative ideas to reduce the number of people enfranchised.
- [42:39]
Will Chamberlain
I feel like the draft is going to be passe. I think that, you know, especially in the modern world, it's. I look at this Israel, Iran thing, and I think air power is kind of overwhelming.
- [42:49]
Tim Pool
Oh, dude, robot dogs. We were talking about this when the strikes were happening. We don't need people, literally. Seriously, the US can drop 10,000 robot dogs with full auto rifles mounted on their backs and they will own everything around Ford.
- [43:04]
Phil Labonte
Even, like, look at the. Just the way the drones are operating in. In the, in the Ukraine war. Right. We talk. You've talked about how you have to have a person to stand on a street corner to enforce the law, or you have to have humans in an area of operation to, you know, to. To occupy territory. You don't need to do that anymore. Honestly. Drones make it so drone. Drone pilots and drones can make it so that way you actually don't need infantry the way that you used to.
- [43:32]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, well, I want to. Iran is a really interesting case because I think people were like, oh, obviously this, this regime change can't possibly happen here because there are no boots on the ground or there's no, like, military. And I thought about it for a second, and it's like, what happens if you have total air superiority and total intelligence dominance? Well, you can do what Israel was doing, which is like, you can just drone strike every leader of the country.
- [43:54]
Phil Labonte
Yeah. And keep drone striking them until you get someone you like.
- [43:57]
Will Chamberlain
Exactly. That's what happened with Hezbollah, right? They got Nasrallah, they got. The guy who became the new leader of Hezbollah got drone striked. I think the third guy who became the new leader of Hezbollah got drone strike, and finally the fourth guy signs a humiliating ceasefire. Yeah, I think that sort of. Eventually the guy who gets thrust into the hot seat unwillingly, immediately calls up the Israelis and is like, what do you want? Look, there's like.
- [44:18]
Phil Labonte
And if that's the. If that's the standard. If that's how combat is conducted or international diplomacy or war is conducted, you're going to need like maybe three guys deep. And like you said, the fourth guy's going to be like, no, I'm changing everything.
- [44:35]
Will Chamberlain
What regime would you like us to have?
- [44:37]
Tim Pool
I did some quick math. Based on the size of the robot dogs available surface area for solar panels, it's estimated that it'll take 48 hours of sunlight in order to charge it back up to full.
- [44:52]
Ian Crossland
Now that's that way they're trying to block out the sun. So control those things.
- [44:54]
Tim Pool
Hold on. That's 48 hours of sunlight. So that means over nighttime we're talking potentially five full days. Where a robot dog is, is inoperable, but it could reactivate in emergencies. This means that in order to have a full rotation, you're going to want to have at least seven robot dogs. One for emergencies where you'll, that will leave you with one active robot dog at any given time in a certain area while the rest are down charging in sunlight.
- [45:21]
Ian Crossland
I would, I would want to get them out of there when they're offline because I think they'll get stolen if you leave them sitting around.
- [45:27]
Tim Pool
If there are two machine gun, machine gun armed robot dogs guarding the other five at any given moment, no one's touching them. That's the point of the math I just did.
- [45:36]
Ian Crossland
If you, if you have to leave.
- [45:38]
Tim Pool
You have a full rotation where we airdrop robot dogs. The bare minimum would be about seven for one area that require for, for one, for one post. Now you're likely going to want maybe 30 depending on how many, how large the area is. Let's say it's one building. You might need 30 of them is fully secure. It. That means you're going to need 210 robot dogs to have a fully autonomous. Not to mention they run out of bullets. But they could probably carry, I don't know, robot dogs could probably carry between 60 and 90 rounds, I'd imagine.
- [46:10]
Phil Labonte
Rounds, yeah. Ammo, Yeah. I imagine they could probably carry significantly more than that. You think belt fed, you could put 100, you could put a hundred, 100 round belt fed machine gun on them. Absolutely.
- [46:23]
Tim Pool
But how do they care? I mean, you know, they're not that big.
- [46:26]
Phil Labonte
You put. Oh, they, they, well, they make different sizes. Well, it could be a drum, but I'm thinking, I'm thinking just like a, an ammo box that's, you know, fed right into the, the belt fed machine gun.
- [46:36]
Tim Pool
The problem, how many rounds are in your standard ammo box?
- [46:40]
Phil Labonte
You usually have between depending on the caliber, it's between 50, 100. Usually it's like 100, 100 round drum or 100 round belt.
- [46:48]
Will Chamberlain
Are you guys familiar?
- [46:49]
Tim Pool
That's what I was thinking.
- [46:50]
Will Chamberlain
Are you familiar with like the new electronic warfare tech against drones? The anti drone stuff that can.
- [46:55]
Tim Pool
Oh, that weird big gun they got.
- [46:57]
Will Chamberlain
It's not even a big gun. It's literally. I just sent you a video. It's Andrew's new pulsar. Literally you press a button and draws got.
- [47:02]
Tim Pool
No, no, no. They're a cop. So they have this big plastic looking thing that looks all weird and they point it and it will pull that up if.
- [47:09]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, I sent you the video. Over. Over X.
- [47:12]
Ian Crossland
Finally. I'm not as interested in the ones that you have to point because they're going to come from every direction. You want to pulse in every direction, obviously.
- [47:18]
Phil Labonte
What are you talking about?
- [47:19]
Will Chamberlain
You're welcome. A drone. You're welcome for this. Free advertising.
- [47:22]
Ian Crossland
Thank you, sir. And this is on top of China. They just launched a mosquito drone. This is relatively new. I think it's relatively new. About 2cm long. It's a surveillance drone.
- [47:31]
Tim Pool
All right, what do we got here? Oh, yeah, we watched this before.
- [47:34]
Will Chamberlain
Oh, you did? Yeah.
- [47:35]
Tim Pool
We'll play it now.
- [47:36]
Phil Labonte
Palmer. Lucky.
- [47:37]
Tim Pool
Yeah. Yep.
- [47:41]
Will Chamberlain
This is sick. I was just thinking about your robot dogs and I was like, this is the answer to the robot dogs.
- [47:47]
Tim Pool
We'll put Faraday shields on.
- [47:51]
Will Chamberlain
Then how do you control.
- [47:52]
Tim Pool
Ooh, another autonomous. They said this is not cgi.
- [47:59]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah.
- [48:00]
Tim Pool
This is an actual physical demonstration.
- [48:02]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah.
- [48:04]
Tim Pool
What do you do? Just watch?
- [48:07]
Phil Labonte
Look.
- [48:08]
Tim Pool
Oh, what are you doing? You see that.
- [48:26]
Ian Crossland
Sam?
- [49:03]
Tim Pool
Yeah.
- [49:04]
Will Chamberlain
So sick.
- [49:05]
Ian Crossland
So I've been dreaming about this.
- [49:07]
Tim Pool
Clarifying.
- [49:07]
Phil Labonte
Yeah.
- [49:10]
Tim Pool
They said that the, the blue pulse they added was the graphic, the cgi. But the drones actually falling are what is an actual demonstration.
- [49:19]
Ian Crossland
I think just like we go through our houses and we have to clean our houses once in a while and every once in a while you. A mosquito infestation. You got to kill the mosquitoes. We're going to have to do drone sweeps pretty frequently in the future where we go through, like clean the area with this stuff. And just because they're going to be so small, we don't even see them sometimes.
- [49:35]
Will Chamberlain
And there's a great book, a great novel called the Diamond Age. Are you any of you guys familiar with that? Neil Stevenson.
- [49:40]
Phil Labonte
I haven't read it now.
- [49:40]
Will Chamberlain
Oh, you'd love it.
- [49:41]
Tim Pool
Here, we got it. We got another one for you. Check this out.
- [49:43]
Ian Crossland
Yeah, tell me about the Diamond Age after this out.
- [49:48]
Tim Pool
Futuristic Anti drone weapon developed by Drone Shield to counter unauthorized drone activity. Effectively weighing 15 pounds, it is optimized for two hand operation and offers long range defeat capabilities. This gun emits jamming frequencies that disrupt a drone's video streaming at distances of up to 1,094 yards. It possesses the ability to send the targeted drone back to its original starting point or force it to land immediately. Its design incorporates high performance directional antennas within a sturdy rifle style frame, ensuring durability while maintaining a lightweight profile. There's, there's better technology than this. Yeah.
- [50:31]
Ian Crossland
Put it on a headset so you can have a gun in your hand.
- [50:33]
Will Chamberlain
While you're, you can, you can, you.
- [50:34]
Tim Pool
Can just fry them.
- [50:35]
Ian Crossland
But getting it, getting it and then being able to use it is awesome. Or breaking it apart.
- [50:39]
Tim Pool
Energy rebuilding it.
- [50:41]
Ian Crossland
Diamond. Okay, time and age. What are you going to say about the diamond age?
- [50:43]
Will Chamberlain
Oh yeah, something to do with this. It's a novel by Neal Stephenson that I think anybody interested in drones should read. It's a 1995 novel. But he, he foresaw a future, you know, reasonably near future world, like maybe 100 years in advance or something where everybody basically drones are this really, really important thing like super, super small microscopic drones. And so to protect from like people attacking you and just poisoning everybody with like tiny mosquito sized drones, you have your own anti drone swarms. And so it seems pretty prescient 30 years later with drone warfare going on.
- [51:14]
Phil Labonte
Who's the, who's the author?
- [51:15]
Will Chamberlain
Neal Stephenson.
- [51:16]
Phil Labonte
Huh.
- [51:16]
Will Chamberlain
Wonderful science fiction author.
- [51:17]
Phil Labonte
Interesting, interesting description. Decades into our future, a stone's throw from the ancient city of Shanghai, a brilliant nanotechnologist named John. This is a different. Okay, so the, the previews that you get from Google are a little weird.
- [51:32]
Will Chamberlain
You guys would love Neal Stephenson. Like he's, he's, you'd love his novels. Like he's got a crypto, Cryptonomicon, which is about cryptography in World War II. He had, he's like got a really cool action gun, but high tech novel called Ream D. Yeah.
- [51:51]
Phil Labonte
The Diamond Age or A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer is the actual title.
- [51:55]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, because there's like a, there's like a high tech primer that you give to a young, that adaptive kind of anticipating. I actually. All right, so yeah, no, Neal Stephens, if you have never read Neal Stephenson, I highly recommend him. His novels are really, really interesting.
- [52:09]
Ian Crossland
I think these pulse weapons, these EMP denial weapons are going to be, the drones eventually are going to get built in EMP shields where they don't get blown out.
- [52:17]
Phil Labonte
Is that possible?
- [52:18]
Ian Crossland
You can't shield it.
- [52:18]
Tim Pool
You're saying you might be able to because. Well, the question is, can the drone fly wrapped in a Faraday cage? Depending on the size of the holes, and I'm not entirely sure. So think about the, the diameter required for, to block a microwave with a Faraday.
- [52:39]
Ian Crossland
Say it out loud. But the shape of the shield will let air in to fly. And then you could have a.
- [52:45]
Tim Pool
The point is, the holes are really small for microwaves, so I don't know that you can create proper airflow if you've shielded the whole drone in a Faraday cage. If you make the holes too big, the microwave wavelengths pass through easily. So that's the issue. Can you really make a shield? Theoretically, you could create a reflective shield with no holes. That stops the, the EMF from getting to certain areas, but that will restrict your own communication with it. That's the challenge. Unless they're autonomous.
- [53:19]
Phil Labonte
Yeah, they'd have to be autonomous. They'd have to be pre programmed to their jet, their target.
- [53:24]
Tim Pool
We don't need, we don't need prop, we need jet. So when we start building larger drones that fly using jets, so you have a, so you can have an entire Faraday shield with intake on top and jets on the bottom. Nothing's going to get through. And it's going to fly with, with, with internal jets instead of propellers.
- [53:46]
Ian Crossland
Jets. I'm not. How do you tell me that? Explain that to me. The jets, how does that work? How would they not be affected by the shield?
- [53:53]
Tim Pool
Or how you can, you can encase.
- [53:55]
Ian Crossland
A jet like a jet engine.
- [53:58]
Tim Pool
Right? So what we've seen already with dudes that fly, they have little jet engines on their hands. Those little tiny engines. You could easily make drones that fly using jets instead of propellers. Propellers require a lot more space for up and down. You need the air to be able to exhaust in a larger, a larger space, harder to shield.
- [54:13]
Ian Crossland
And if they're vacuumed out and they're lighter than the air around them, or they have buoyancy, you could use ion thrusters and jets to get them all through.
- [54:21]
Tim Pool
No, we don't have those. At least as far as we can tell.
- [54:23]
Ian Crossland
No, not say we have them. I'm just saying if you want to.
- [54:26]
Tim Pool
Bypass propellers, Ian, if you had ion propulsion drones, they would function in low orbit.
- [54:34]
Ian Crossland
That would be for the low orbit the world has.
- [54:36]
Tim Pool
I'm gonna say, Ian, if you right now had ion propulsion drones, you would be like a warlord.
- [54:42]
Phil Labonte
You might be you, you, you'd be.
- [54:44]
Tim Pool
You, you would be the mystery that everyone seeks to solve of the vehicles that can cause planes to explode and disappear.
- [54:50]
Phil Labonte
You could really let your authoritarian freak flag fly.
- [54:53]
Ian Crossland
What I want to do is go take over.
- [54:54]
Will Chamberlain
Thought of Ian is the secret budding authority.
- [54:56]
Ian Crossland
Well, you just want me to be one.
- [54:59]
Phil Labonte
It's in there.
- [54:59]
Ian Crossland
I'm trying to get through to Jeff Bezos, so get me in touch when you see him. We gotta build drones to transport materials. You know, basically, if we can transport materials across the globe, that's a big step towards world peace. And if we can get these drones to use propellers to get up into low orbit and then the ion thrusters kick in and keep them there.
- [55:16]
Phil Labonte
Propellers to low orbit. You know, propellers need air.
- [55:18]
Ian Crossland
Well, they move so fast. So you get the propeller to shoot them up into the sky and using the momentum into the low orbit, you get the ion thruster to keep them from going too far. And then you guide them and then bring them back down and their propellers kick back on.
- [55:29]
Will Chamberlain
Stick with me for a second here. What if you just used a rocket?
- [55:32]
Phil Labonte
You know, you need liquid fuel.
- [55:34]
Ian Crossland
Well, you don't need liquid.
- [55:36]
Phil Labonte
Solid.
- [55:36]
Tim Pool
Yeah, rockets use solid fuel.
- [55:38]
Ian Crossland
Fuel. You need solid fuel.
- [55:39]
Tim Pool
Jeezy.
- [55:40]
Ian Crossland
Which is heavy. Which is heavy. But maybe it doesn't have to be. Maybe it could be hydrogen. Maybe it's lighter than the air around it. I don't know.
- [55:48]
Tim Pool
So hydrogen slingshot liquified.
- [55:50]
Phil Labonte
So it's heavy.
- [55:52]
Tim Pool
Do you. You do know how orbit works, right? Like the reason why it's so hard to achieve. You don't just go up to get orbit.
- [56:00]
Ian Crossland
Yeah.
- [56:00]
Tim Pool
You have to go out and across and travel faster directionally than you're falling.
- [56:07]
Ian Crossland
Yeah, Slingshot them up. Use the propeller to kind of push it.
- [56:10]
Tim Pool
If you need propellers, you don't really slingshot into there. And then all you need is just.
- [56:14]
Ian Crossland
Thrust it back ion to push it back down.
- [56:15]
Tim Pool
You need substantially less thrust.
- [56:16]
Ian Crossland
But then you could make sure that it doesn't crash. So if you want to bring it back down, like if you want to get up and then back down, slingshot and then, you know, glider.
- [56:24]
Tim Pool
Do you know what the super low energy is?
- [56:27]
Ian Crossland
What's that?
- [56:28]
Phil Labonte
Do you know what the. The escape velocity is? 25000 miles an hour. 25,000 20 miles an hour. So if you are moving 25000 miles, 25,500 miles an hour, you can escape Earth's gravity for What?
- [56:40]
Ian Crossland
It's at 1 Newton of Mass or something?
- [56:42]
Phil Labonte
No, that's the speed that. Whatever, whatever. However much mass it is. That mass has to be traveling at 25, 000, 20 miles an hour.
- [56:50]
Ian Crossland
Okay.
- [56:51]
Phil Labonte
So that's why.
- [56:52]
Tim Pool
You know, man, how. If you were on a. If you want to play with no atmosphere, how do you. You. You. You need.
- [56:59]
Phil Labonte
You need to have your own oxygen.
- [57:01]
Tim Pool
You need internal thrust. Yeah, because. Because on Earth, we fly by. We. We push air down at enough force to lift us up over propellers.
- [57:12]
Phil Labonte
Yeah, Right.
- [57:12]
Tim Pool
Or j. Outer space where there's no atmosphere. You're just in a vacuum. You need internal thrust.
- [57:20]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, you need. You need rockets. You can't. You couldn't do it with propellers because the propellers push on air.
- [57:25]
Tim Pool
Exactly right.
- [57:25]
Ian Crossland
You can use ion thrusters, but they're very slow in space, and they're also not really.
- [57:30]
Will Chamberlain
Ion thrusters exist.
- [57:31]
Ian Crossland
They are real.
- [57:32]
Will Chamberlain
Oh, they don't. You can't use ion thrusters because they don't exist.
- [57:35]
Phil Labonte
Yeah, they're not real.
- [57:36]
Ian Crossland
Wait a minute. You're saying no ion thrusters exist? I don't think that's true.
- [57:40]
Tim Pool
Drive.
- [57:41]
Ian Crossland
That's not an ion thruster.
- [57:42]
Tim Pool
No.
- [57:43]
Phil Labonte
Ian, you're thinking of a twin ion engine type spacecraft. Is that what you're thinking?
- [57:48]
Will Chamberlain
Oh, wait. Is this real? Okay, never mind. This is real thing. Okay. Sorry. I was too arrogant.
- [57:52]
Tim Pool
We were all dumb. And Ian was smart, though.
- [57:56]
Ian Crossland
My whole life, dude. That's been my whole life, too. Yeah, they use them in space.
- [58:00]
Tim Pool
Should we get back to politics?
- [58:01]
Ian Crossland
Absolutely. But the value of these is fun.
- [58:04]
Phil Labonte
It's Friday.
- [58:04]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah. I don't know how good my contributions are on, like, you know.
- [58:07]
Tim Pool
No, no, this one's good. This one's good. Okay, we got the story from Human Events.
- [58:10]
Phil Labonte
Oh, this is awesome.
- [58:11]
Tim Pool
Libby Emmons writes, Katanji Brown Jackson's DEI is showing in her dissent against nationwide injunctions. She writes. Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court on Friday opposing the concept of nationwide injunctions. Those decisions that a judge makes in one case in one state that then apply to countless standing and potential cases across the United States. Justice Katanji Brown Jackson offered a dissent, but in so doing, quote, is at odds with more than two centuries worth of precedent.
- [58:40]
Will Chamberlain
You know Margaret versus Madison, right? The very first case that established the notion of judicial review. That was a case in which Chief Justice Marshall said that what Thomas Jefferson did was unlawful, but the court did not have the jurisdiction to force him to change his action.
- [58:57]
Tim Pool
Wow.
- [58:57]
Will Chamberlain
Right? Like the concept that the judicial branch cannot remedy. Every example of executive branch lawlessness has been in the Constitution since the notion of judicial review was enshrined. In our law. So that's what that means. So here's.
- [59:14]
Tim Pool
Here's Amy Coney Barrett for the. From the top rope. She basically says, kbj here. You're so stupid. Your opinion isn't worth addressing or wasting ink on refuting. She says, we will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this. Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary.
- [59:40]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah.
- [59:41]
Tim Pool
In other words, she very politely said, girl, you dumb.
- [59:45]
Phil Labonte
How did you pass the bar?
- [59:47]
Will Chamberlain
Insane bar is easy.
- [59:49]
Phil Labonte
Well, I mean, how did she pass? Clearly.
- [59:51]
Will Chamberlain
Sorry to everybody who's failed the bar.
- [59:52]
Tim Pool
You should have passed. I got to give this shout out to Jack Posobic, who posted. This dissent is completely unreal. Let me read it for you.
- [60:01]
Ian Crossland
Okay.
- [60:01]
Tim Pool
It says it's supposed. The argument. It's a joke. This is. This is the joke dissent from Jackson, who writes. I dissent with unyielding indignation from the majority's acquiescence to the petitioner's counsel's outrageous inquiry into my morning repast during oral arguments. A question. How would your honor feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning? That is wholly devoid of legal relevance and constitutes an egregious affront to the dignity of this court. Such an impertinent question, lacking any nexus to the multitudinous constitutional issues before us, threatens to erode the independence of this tribunal by subjecting justices to trivial interrogatories better suited to a morning talk show than a court of law. In fact, I had already stated that I had eaten a full breakfast. I would hold that such questions do nothing to serve our democracy. And I admonish all litigants to refrain from such. From such increase on pain of sanctions, preserving the sanctity of this court's proceedings from the specter of any breakfast related.
- [60:58]
Will Chamberlain
Legal reasoning than was present.
- [61:01]
Tim Pool
Now, hold on, hold on. Jack Bosobic said this dissent is completely unreal.
- [61:06]
Ian Crossland
Truth.
- [61:06]
Tim Pool
That's. That's the truth. And he got. He got fact checked by lead stories that said his meme mocking Katanji Brown Jackson was fake news.
- [61:16]
Will Chamberlain
He literally said it was. He said it was literally unreal.
- [61:18]
Phil Labonte
It was unreal.
- [61:19]
Will Chamberlain
Unreal.
- [61:20]
Tim Pool
Amazing.
- [61:20]
Ian Crossland
What was her actual dissent? Is it concise?
- [61:23]
Tim Pool
How about this? No, it's not. She said Trump. The Trump administration is both power hungry and lawless. The majority sees a power grab, but not by a presumably lawless executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain Text of the Constitution. Instead, the majority, the power hungry actors are the district courts. District courts, however, been acting with impunity under the Trump administration both in this term and his first by relentlessly blocking administrative prerogatives across the country based on the perceived merits of just one case. She basically says that Trump is power hungry and lawless and believes that gives her the authority and the district courts to have power over the, over the executive branch, which is just plum nuts.
- [62:02]
Ian Crossland
And then, and then it was Amy Coney Barrett that was like, this is just plum nuts. And you're saying she was referencing the 220 year.
- [62:08]
Tim Pool
Yeah, I mean, this is a, this paragraph right there is brutal. It is as insulting as insults could get for a Supreme Court.
- [62:16]
Will Chamberlain
They never do this. And the key thing to understand this isn't just spirit. Six justices signed this. Right. And this doesn't happen. I mean, if you actually read Odds with the Constitution. Right. Like. Well, justice, the reason they're being this sharp with her, which is normally, normally the court tries to be at least collegial in public. The reason they're being this sharp with her is because her dissent is obnoxious. Like, there's, there's a point in her dissent where she's like, you know, using weight for it. I don't know if you saw this.
- [62:43]
Tim Pool
Oh, no, full stop.
- [62:44]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, full, full stop.
- [62:45]
Tim Pool
She actually wrote full stop.
- [62:47]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah.
- [62:47]
Tim Pool
Like she wrote a blog for a feminist zine. It's nuts.
- [62:51]
Will Chamberlain
And I mean, let's find the entirely.
- [62:52]
Phil Labonte
Unprofessional while you're looking. Just so you guys know, Justice Kajenti Brown Jackson has spoken more words during oral argument than any other Supreme Court justice in the 2223 term. According to an analysis by Adam Feldman, she spoke a total of 36,500 words, which is 12,000 more than the next most talkative Justice, Elena KAGAN. And almost 2. 30,000 more words than the justice with the few, the fewest words, Clarice Thomas. 30,000 more words.
- [63:18]
Will Chamberlain
She's not a precise legal thinker. It's really that simple. I mean, you start with. I pulled up her dissent and the first paragraph is this. I write separately to emphasize a key conceptual point. The Court's decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.
- [63:36]
Phil Labonte
Unbelievable.
- [63:37]
Will Chamberlain
That's just wrong. Yes, Wrong. Right. Yes. Like the whole. The way that the judicial power works is it only extends to cases and controversies. This is a repudiation of the entire body of law, of the law of standing in the Supreme Court. And it's the first paragraph of her dissent.
- [63:56]
Tim Pool
Where do I find the dissent?
- [63:57]
Will Chamberlain
We're going to pull it out. So I pulled it. I sent it to you over X.
- [64:00]
Ian Crossland
Okay, okay.
- [64:01]
Will Chamberlain
But you have to scroll down. I don't know what page this is exactly, but it's the last. You have to scroll all the way down to the bottom because it's the last opinion. Opinion and it's at the beginning of it.
- [64:09]
Phil Labonte
Look, I mean, it shouldn't be a shock. She refused to. To or she says that she cannot identify what a woman is. When, when she had her hearing, she specifically said, I'm not a biologist. She said, I can't identify what a woman is. She's ideologically possessed. It has nothing. Her opinions. Nothing to do with, with any of the actual, you know, the, the. What's it called? The. So this is being presented to the Court.
- [64:35]
Tim Pool
Her first paragraph or which paragraph is it?
- [64:37]
Will Chamberlain
It's literally the first. It's the very first paragraph. The dissent.
- [64:40]
Tim Pool
I agree with every word of Justice Sotomayor's dissent. I write separately to emphasize a key conceptual point. The Court's decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued and not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.
- [64:54]
Ian Crossland
But you're saying that the Court is.
- [64:56]
Will Chamberlain
That is judicial supremacy. Because what that's saying is not the point of standing is to cabin the power of the Court to cases and controversy.
- [65:03]
Tim Pool
I see.
- [65:04]
Ian Crossland
So if the, if the Executive violates the Constitution, then they will be charged and it will come to the Court. The Court itself doesn't jump in and stop. Is what you're saying.
- [65:12]
Will Chamberlain
The Court is around looking for constitutional.
- [65:14]
Tim Pool
Violations to remedy the presumption she's making is, is that we know before the court case happened that Trump violated the Constitution.
- [65:24]
Ian Crossland
Right. But it's up to the legal system to decide that. And then the judge has to make.
- [65:28]
Tim Pool
An impartial decision and, and grant relief to the parties in question. Not to the, the rules.
- [65:33]
Will Chamberlain
Not to non parties. Not.
- [65:34]
Tim Pool
But, but, yes, but I would phrase it not to dictate edict not to. To declare that law is, as we decided, for the nation. The laws are decided by. By the legislate legislative enforced by the Executive, interpreted by the judges. What she's writing is that, that. No, no. Before even hearing the case, we know and we can determine for the nation how they must operate.
- [66:04]
Ian Crossland
I want us, I want to hear the rest of it. I know it's probably long winded. I'll read it. She could check.
- [66:10]
Tim Pool
It's. What is it, 20, 21 pages.
- [66:12]
Will Chamberlain
We don't have to read the whole thing, but we can continue reading like this.
- [66:15]
Tim Pool
First, where's the. Here's the. Listen to this. Stated simply, what it means to have a system of government that is bounded by law is that everyone is constrained by law, no exceptions. And for that to actually happen, courts must have the power to order everyone, including the executive, to follow the law. Full stop.
- [66:30]
Phil Labonte
Unreal.
- [66:32]
Will Chamberlain
Except that real, that is by that violates the law of the Constitution and passed by Congress constraining the jurisdiction of the court.
- [66:40]
Tim Pool
What is the legal definition of full stop? I'm not familiar with this one.
- [66:44]
Will Chamberlain
In like not a technically.
- [66:46]
Ian Crossland
It's like writing period and then putting a period.
- [66:48]
Will Chamberlain
It's not a technical.
- [66:49]
Tim Pool
It's not in the dictionary. Near like mens rea.
- [66:52]
Will Chamberlain
Full stop. Right.
- [66:53]
Ian Crossland
It's like old phone, not phonograph.
- [66:56]
Tim Pool
Yeah.
- [66:57]
Phil Labonte
It's a feminist Supreme Court type of version of like.
- [66:59]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah. This is when they telegraph.
- [67:01]
Ian Crossland
It was like telegraph text.
- [67:03]
Will Chamberlain
I can only imagine what these discussions were like in conference where Justice Jackson's putting this out there. The justices are like, what are you talking about? Like, have you read any of our standing opinions?
- [67:12]
Tim Pool
Well, like, have you ever had a conversation with Ian.
- [67:19]
Ian Crossland
Fill me in on something. What's the ouch?
- [67:21]
Will Chamberlain
I wouldn't say that about you, Ian.
- [67:23]
Ian Crossland
Well, maybe for bringing the ire, because I'm just thinking about like, can, can she be fired? Can they. Can she be voted out?
- [67:30]
Phil Labonte
Impeached.
- [67:30]
Ian Crossland
She can be impeached. Literally, judges can be impeached. For what? Exactly.
- [67:33]
Tim Pool
I think we should investigate her citizenship.
- [67:35]
Ian Crossland
And I mean if you can literally impeach a judge for going haywire. 50. I was telling you guys before the show, 50 years of this woman and I don't even know her. But 50 years of this kind of piss poor dissent is bad, is not good.
- [67:50]
Will Chamberlain
People should realize this is a real threat because this theory of, of judicial supremacy, this is the law in Israel. That's something I don't think most people understand. But like that's actually.
- [67:59]
Tim Pool
So you're saying that Ketanji Brown Jackson is pro Israel.
- [68:02]
Will Chamberlain
She's pro Israel.
- [68:02]
Tim Pool
She's pro Israel. So basically pro Israel.
- [68:06]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah.
- [68:06]
Tim Pool
Everyone hear that? She's pro Israel.
- [68:09]
Ian Crossland
You're saying in Israel the courts can what, arrest the president for.
- [68:13]
Will Chamberlain
Courts can issue advisory opinions. They can reverse any governmental decision if they deem that decision to be unreasonable.
- [68:22]
Ian Crossland
How's that defined?
- [68:24]
Will Chamberlain
However the court defines It.
- [68:25]
Ian Crossland
So they're the most powerful entity in.
- [68:27]
Will Chamberlain
The country, the court, under their current law. Yes.
- [68:29]
Ian Crossland
I heard that there was issues between Netanyahu and the courts where he was trying to what, disempower the courts.
- [68:33]
Will Chamberlain
And there was this lady debate.
- [68:35]
Tim Pool
This lady's crazy.
- [68:36]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah.
- [68:36]
Tim Pool
In a constitutional republic of jazz, a federal court has the power to order the executive to follow the law. And it must, it is axiomatic. The Constitution of the United States and the statutes of the people's representatives have enacted. Govern in our system of government. She's, she's literally saying we have power over the executive branch to do as we interpret outside, unconstrained, outside of the parties before us. She's literally like, it's, it's, it's, it's wild, but it's. Simply put, she is saying if we bang the gavel and order the nation to do it. It is so she, she's, she's literally just saying the Supreme Court dictates and you must.
- [69:21]
Will Chamberlain
Right. The Supreme Court is supreme to. The supreme is. It's no longer a co. Equal branches.
- [69:26]
Tim Pool
It is.
- [69:27]
Will Chamberlain
The branches are no longer co. Equal. How long Supreme Court, executive branch and legislative branch.
- [69:31]
Phil Labonte
How long do you think it's going to be until the, until she puts out a, a dissent or whatever with hand clapping emojis in it?
- [69:37]
Will Chamberlain
This is something.
- [69:38]
Tim Pool
Oh, wait, there's one right here. No, I'm kidding.
- [69:40]
Will Chamberlain
But it's, it's actually, you know, this is a terrible decision. It's not good that we have somebody on the court that is clearly has this little understanding of American constitutional law. Like she has no business being on the court. But the good thing, I guess from a conservative perspective is she no longer has any ability to persuade any of the remaining justice of the court to join her on any opinion. Right.
- [70:01]
Tim Pool
Did she ever.
- [70:02]
Phil Labonte
She's insulted them.
- [70:03]
Will Chamberlain
Right? She's insulted them and she's done so in a way that's really silly. Like it's a very bad insult.
- [70:08]
Tim Pool
Well, I'm gonna tell you why I love this, because one of the issues. Let's go back to Texas v. Pennsylvania, 2020. Do you remember that one?
- [70:19]
Will Chamberlain
Let me pull it up.
- [70:20]
Tim Pool
I'll probably. That was when Texas sued, citing original jurisdiction, saying Pennsylvania was in violation of the Constitution by altering the terms of their election outside of the state legislature.
- [70:29]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, yeah.
- [70:30]
Tim Pool
And the Supreme Court was like, oh, we don't wanna get involved in that. Clarence Thomas and Alito were like, we need to answer this question. They are suing. It is incumbent upon us the Supreme Court, they refused. So what, what, what I see, what I, what I love here is the Supreme Court. What I wanna see happen is them actually issue rulings like this. When Katanji Brown, Jackson tries to overstep. It's actually, let me put it this way, it's not that she can't persuade them, it's that she will persuade them in the other direction. She will dissuade.
- [71:05]
Will Chamberlain
Yes. She's the opposite of Kagan. Like Kagan has historically been able to pull Roberts and Kavanaugh. Not Kavanaugh, but like Barrett now. Oh yeah, she used to be able to pull like Kennedy, I think, and it was always because she was able to reason together with them under their premises. Like, like this opinion from Jackson and the way that six justices were willing to basically call her an idiot.
- [71:27]
Phil Labonte
Yeah.
- [71:27]
Will Chamberlain
Like you don't understand constitutional.
- [71:29]
Phil Labonte
So it's going to be like, yo, people are going to be like, hey, what is. Or the SCOTUS justices are going to be like, what is Jackson saying? And that's what I was thinking.
- [71:36]
Will Chamberlain
Right. Yeah. I mean that might still come to the conclusion that they agree with Jackson on the outcome, but they're, they're. No, they don't think of her. They don't take her seriously as a legal reasoner. Yeah.
- [71:45]
Phil Labonte
Yeah.
- [71:46]
Will Chamberlain
And that's, that's not good for a liberal justice in the dissent in the middle.
- [71:49]
Tim Pool
No.
- [71:49]
Phil Labonte
Especially considering the, the makeup of the court now with six justices that are generally, you know, generally have, have good legal reasoning and are not ideologically possessed.
- [72:01]
Will Chamberlain
The same conservative justices are all very, very smart. That's something I'll say about every single one of them. They're all brilliant.
- [72:05]
Tim Pool
It is, it is kind of dumb that it's like, did England do it? They didn't. Then we can't. It's like, well, well, she writes right here.
- [72:13]
Will Chamberlain
Because that's the law. Right.
- [72:14]
Tim Pool
I know, I know, but it's because.
- [72:15]
Will Chamberlain
That'S what the Judiciary act says. And it's what, like the Because. And the reason is because that's there can. I mean, the tradition of equity and a lot of, you know, our law comes from England. Right. Like, you know, we imported it in the colonies and it, it continued into the, you know, and if like.
- [72:32]
Tim Pool
Yeah. Barrett writes, the universal injunction was conspicuously non existent for most of our nation's history, its absence from 18th and 19th century equity practice settles the question of judicial authority.
- [72:41]
Phil Labonte
Wasn't the first one in like 1964 or something like that?
- [72:44]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah. I mean, and you know, the. Basically the Respondents in this case basically were trying to say, well, there's this example of an aggregate piece of litigation. And the Barrett opinion is like. Yeah. Which became the modern class action. Which is the point. Like, by ducking out of the class action, you create this circumstance where every plaintiff gets, like, you know, even, you know, basically, the government has to win every single time and can only. But they lose once and they lose, period. That's just not fair. So.
- [73:14]
Tim Pool
And there's more.
- [73:16]
Will Chamberlain
Oh, yeah, there. There is more.
- [73:17]
Tim Pool
The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary act of 1789 and our case on equity. Justice Jackson, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine.
- [73:31]
Will Chamberlain
Whatsoever that might be meaner than the other thing we said, because this is something, you know, startling whenever I was saying this backstage. But if a. If some. If a lawyer or a judge calls your argument novel or innovative, they're insulting you.
- [73:45]
Phil Labonte
Yes.
- [73:47]
Will Chamberlain
That's an insult. Yeah. That means that, like, you're coming up with something that's not grounded in the law. You're just coming up with your own thing, which is exactly what they're saying.
- [73:53]
Phil Labonte
Innovation's great in technology. It's not so great.
- [73:55]
Will Chamberlain
Not so great in the law.
- [73:56]
Phil Labonte
Yeah.
- [73:57]
Ian Crossland
Justice Jackson's position is difficult to pin down. I like how they're saying different ways. It's untethered to reality.
- [74:04]
Will Chamberlain
I'm not even sure exactly what she's arguing, but to the extent we can make sense of it, it's.
- [74:08]
Tim Pool
Here's. Here's. Here's the next. The next line. Rhetoric aside, Justice Jackson's position is difficult to pin down. She might be arguing that universal injunctions are appropriate, even required, whenever the defendant is part of the executive branch. If so, her position goes far beyond the mainstream defense of universal injunctions. As best we can tell, though, her argument is more extreme still, because its logic does. Does not depend on the entry of a universal injunction. Justice Jackson appears to believe that the reasoning behind any court order demands, quote, universal adherence, at least where the executive is concerned. In her law declaring vision of the judicial function, a district court's opinion is not just persuasive, but has the legal force of a judgment. Wow. In other words, they are writing rather eloquently exactly what I. What we were saying before that Justice Jackson is basically saying, if the Supreme Court says, so shall it be.
- [75:04]
Will Chamberlain
No, no, it's not even that. She's. Justice. Justice Jackson is saying, if any district court says to the White House, so shall it be, and Not. Not the judgment. Right. Not the actual saying, this person won. You are ordered to do X, Y or Z. It is anything appearing in a district court opinion which is not precedential. Right. Because district courts don't make precedent. So anything appearing in a district court opinion is said, so shall that be as well.
- [75:30]
Phil Labonte
Just for this one.
- [75:31]
Tim Pool
Real quick.
- [75:32]
Phil Labonte
Sorry.
- [75:32]
Tim Pool
Just real quick. This whole section is literally just a. It's several pages of. Justice Jackson is retarded. Yeah.
- [75:41]
Phil Labonte
Yes, absolutely.
- [75:42]
Will Chamberlain
Yes.
- [75:42]
Phil Labonte
Just for fun, I'm. I'm curious as to. Like, how are the ways that you could imagine things going bad if Justice Jackson were correct?
- [75:53]
Will Chamberlain
If Justice Jackson were correct, how would these no longer have a meaningful democracy? Yeah. Supreme Court would be the governing authority of the country. District, every. The district. The. Actually, the entire judicial branch would be the governing authority of the country. Every single executive decision would be subject to immediate review, regardless of anybody was even injured. So this goes again, this is the. Basically, we get the Israeli system. Well, but. But there's, you know, you're just. There's the sovereign court and everybody below it.
- [76:20]
Tim Pool
But let's just take it beyond the. Let's not make it light. Let's say there would be no executive branch. It would.
- [76:29]
Will Chamberlain
It would be. It. But it would perform.
- [76:31]
Tim Pool
It'd be performative.
- [76:32]
Will Chamberlain
So, you know, the. Here's an example of what something that could happen. President Trump moves some troops around and is preparing for war. And there's some news reports. On their own initiative, the Supreme Court issues an order saying the president must stop and return those troops here until we can review the potential military action.
- [76:51]
Tim Pool
Yes. Or let's get that. You're being reasonable, Will. Yeah, at the utmost. What she's saying could be upon any instance, for any reason, the Supreme Court can determine literally anything in this country. Meaning your government would functionally be a judiciary with nothing else. Everything else is performative. The judges wouldn't wait for the executive to mount troops. The judges would order the president. They would say upon fact, in review of foreign affairs, we are hereby issuing an order that the president begin to amass troops on the eastern border of Ukraine or, you know, the eastern border of Poland to mount an offensive into Ukraine and defense. And then the president must do it. And then at the local level, there is no legislative, state legislator or city council, only judges. So then when, when a law is to be passed, the judges will decide whether it is or is not.
- [77:46]
Ian Crossland
Yeah, this is. We got judge, jury, and executioner. That's the phrase, and that's how it functions in reality. And Then in the government we have the judicial branch, the jury branch, which is the legislative branch, and then the executioner, the executive branch, which carries out whatever the decision. That's how it functions. The judge is not the jury. The judge doesn't get to decide, the judge doesn't get to execute, doesn't make the execution decisions for the president. It just is the judge.
- [78:13]
Will Chamberlain
It'd be a much worse system of government, a much less agile system of government.
- [78:17]
Tim Pool
It's a dictatorship.
- [78:18]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, well, sort of collective being. A judicial, judicial supremacy, a juristocracy.
- [78:23]
Tim Pool
I think, I think, I think you'd call it communism.
- [78:25]
Will Chamberlain
I don't know that. I mean it wouldn't necessarily be communism, but it's, it's, it's just a juristocracy.
- [78:30]
Tim Pool
Well, you, you, you'd be ruled by a, by a, by a party. The judges are appointed. Elections would be fake. Basically, what she's saying is relevant. If the judiciary shall speak it, it shall be meaning right now. What would happen? Well, we can argue right now they would start taking power, changing laws. The theoretical full function of her argument is it is a nation where if people in a city are having an issue with, say, sewage problem, instead of there being a meeting where the people come to decide, the judges will convene and tell you what you must do about this problem. Let's say someone says, we've had a string of cyber crime. It's a new kind of crime we're not familiar with. We don't know what it falls under. We need a law to make it illegal. That's not what work in the judicial judiciary. The judge would just say, anyone who does it, 10 years, it is so as it is spoken, so shall it be done. There's no voting, there's no legislative branch, and the executive must do what they're told to do.
- [79:28]
Ian Crossland
Did so you said six people were like, hey, Brown Jackson, you're off the, you're off the court here. And then two people agreed with her. Is that right? Three.
- [79:37]
Will Chamberlain
No, they know she's, she didn't even get any of the other liberals to sign onto this opinion. The other liberals, like that was, that was the point where they said the principal dissent, you know, goes onto, well, trotted ground, the Judiciary Act. And then they're like, but Justice Jackson's dissent is totally novel and untethered. Right? That was, that was the reason they were saying that, because I think Justice Sotomayor had a dissent joined by Justice Jackson.
- [79:58]
Tim Pool
Justice, I love this footnote. Think about what this position means. If a Judge in the District of Alaska holds that a criminal statute is unconstitutional. Can the United States prosecute a defendant under that statute in the District of Maryland? Perhaps Justice Jackson would instinctively say yes. It is hard to imagine anyone saying no. But why, on Justice Jackson's logic, does it not violate the rule of law for the executive to initiate a prosecution elsewhere? Among its many problems, Justice Jackson's view is at odds with our system of divided judicial authority. They're going to say it is also in considerable tension with the reality that district court opinions lack precedential, precedential force, even vis a vis other judges in the same judicial district.
- [80:40]
Will Chamberlain
Right. Right under nuts. Right under current law. Like, if you, you know, there's multiple judges here in West Virginia, if one judge reasons something, a district judge just reasons something, comes to a reasoning, uses reasoning to come to a conclusion, and issues a judgment. Other judges are not bound by that reasoning. They can reason differently. On the very same.
- [80:58]
Tim Pool
She's, oh, my. Like the degree of stupidity. So we have circuits and we, we've gone over this many times where it's like, did you hear that Arizona, the, the, the whatever circuit just ruled that you can have this kind of gun? And then we go, whoa, does this mean everyone in the country. No, it was only in that circuit. And it would have to go up to the higher courts if it's going to go into a wider, wider effect of the nation.
- [81:25]
Will Chamberlain
She's arguing, how did none of her clerks get this? Like, here's the other thing. She must have hired some absolute idiots as her clerks that wouldn't have just like, been like, whoa, you can't do this. This is insane.
- [81:34]
Tim Pool
Let's think about what this means. Her argument would be that in Alaska, a lower court district says the NFA is unconstitutional, everybody can have guns. Then in Maryland, a lower court says the NFA is constitutional, and we're going to go on to ban all guns simultaneously. Under her argument, the United States will ban and unban all guns. The exact same.
- [81:55]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah. Which, which district judge is the executive supposed to be on? And is it just any. The district judge that gets to it first doesn't just bind the executive, they bind the entire country.
- [82:02]
Tim Pool
It's reverse chronological. That's how we.
- [82:04]
Ian Crossland
It's a stack.
- [82:05]
Tim Pool
It's a stack.
- [82:06]
Will Chamberlain
It doesn't work first and last.
- [82:08]
Tim Pool
None of it works anyway. There's more.
- [82:10]
Phil Labonte
There's a magic of the gathering counterspell.
- [82:12]
Tim Pool
There's, there's more, there's more, there's more. They write. In other words, it is unnecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the judiciary. What matters is how the judiciary may constrain the executive. Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition. Everyone from the president on down is bound by the laws. For judges, too.
- [82:31]
Ian Crossland
I love that one.
- [82:31]
Tim Pool
Do you.
- [82:32]
Phil Labonte
Do you imagine that she is embarrassed right now, like, knowing how the world is, like, how the. The United States and essentially all the political world in the US Is looking at her and to have been so excoriated so thoroughly by the. By her.
- [82:47]
Tim Pool
Her co justices and having no support from anyone else.
- [82:50]
Phil Labonte
None. Nobody.
- [82:51]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, no, none of the. I mean, you would think, like, Elena Kagan would have looked at her and been like, katanji.
- [82:56]
Phil Labonte
Yeah. Don't you have any friends?
- [82:57]
Will Chamberlain
You can't write this.
- [82:58]
Phil Labonte
Don't you have any friends on the.
- [82:59]
Will Chamberlain
Court that could be like, yo, you can't write this.
- [83:01]
Tim Pool
This is.
- [83:02]
Phil Labonte
Is a bad idea.
- [83:03]
Will Chamberlain
You take this opinion and put it in your trash.
- [83:06]
Phil Labonte
Yeah. Now, furthermore, the people that are defending her, they're almost all defending her, saying that, oh, the people that are attacking her are racist.
- [83:14]
Tim Pool
But check this out. Correct me, I'm wrong. So I didn't read the whole thing, but it looks like the actual dissent is on the basis of birthright citizenship, not the injunctions.
- [83:23]
Will Chamberlain
Well, I think the argument. I think the dissent is making is that they're sort of making this argument that the birthright citizenship case is so clean that there's no probability of prevailing on the merits. And so it's actually, it actually, it's doing law. Right. Like, there's. There's. I often make this distinction, like, there's. There's doing law and then there's not doing law. Jackson's not doing law. She's just. She's just literally inventing some stuff out of thin air, going and spitting in the face of hundreds of years of unbelievably basic constitutional precedent. That's not as. As the majority says. It's not what this dissent is doing. It's not. Right.
- [83:56]
Tim Pool
But it's crazy how, like, she's just literally saying, our branch of government determines what the executive branch gets to do.
- [84:06]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, busted.
- [84:08]
Tim Pool
It's crazy.
- [84:09]
Ian Crossland
So, so they. She issues the dissent, then everyone else is like, actually, here's our opinions on the dissent. Is it normal for then her to come back and be like, well, here's my opinion on your opinion. Or is it that point they just.
- [84:19]
Will Chamberlain
Stay silent, they discuss, they send. They send opinions back and forth to each other? There's like, this is the point. Product of months of work and back and forth, you know, responses. That's why the. The majority opinion is responding to dissent and vice versa.
- [84:30]
Phil Labonte
That's why it's so shocking that this actually made it to. This sees the light.
- [84:34]
Will Chamberlain
I mean, it really is impressive how. I mean, you don't normally see stuff like this. You don't normally see opinions. This.
- [84:40]
Tim Pool
I just. Do you think she was. I just imagine, like, the. The eight other justices are sitting at the thing at the desk, looking at Katanji Brown Jackson, whose eyes are kind of like half closed, and they're like, katanji, don't press send. And she goes, yeah, like, don't do it.
- [84:55]
Will Chamberlain
Right. Oh, I mean, I think the conservative justices were like, whatever you want to do. Yeah, fine. You want to write, you want to put this opinion, go right ahead.
- [85:02]
Phil Labonte
I would pay 100 bucks to be like, sitting in the room watching Clarence Thomas read that. Just watching the expressions on his face.
- [85:08]
Will Chamberlain
Just Elena Kagan sitting alone, being like, how am I ever going to get anything done with these morons callings? Because.
- [85:17]
Phil Labonte
Yeah, because.
- [85:17]
Tim Pool
Wait, wait, hold on, hold on. I think I just figured it out. Several years ago when they were trying. When they were nominating Katanji Brown Jackson, she secretly meets with Trump and he's like, everyone's gonna hate you. You will be the hero that we need. And she's like, I'll be as dumb as I can. Make the liberals look stupid.
- [85:38]
Ian Crossland
You are my black sheep.
- [85:41]
Tim Pool
You're sacrificing legacy, your good name. And she goes, yes, but I will make Democrats look really dumb for a long time. And then right. Right now, as he's saying this, only Trump knows what Katanji Brown Jackson is actually sacrificing.
- [85:55]
Will Chamberlain
She's the secret weapon to destroy the legitimacy of liberal jurisprudence.
- [85:58]
Ian Crossland
With her. With her reputation sort of being dragged as it is, and internally in the court, obviously, and externally, with shows like this, making fun of her, what's her road to redemption right now? Like, just actually issue some good rulings for a while and get the other judges there is.
- [86:15]
Will Chamberlain
Let Kagan ghostwrite everything.
- [86:17]
Tim Pool
I am.
- [86:19]
Will Chamberlain
I am just be like, defer for a while.
- [86:21]
Tim Pool
And I am excited for what Freedom Tunes makes out of this.
- [86:25]
Phil Labonte
Don't let us down.
- [86:25]
Ian Crossland
Black sheep. Famous, like the movie. It's all about that.
- [86:28]
Will Chamberlain
If they. If there's another Democrat president, I wouldn't be surprised if there's some serious push to have her kind of step down. Like, just. I mean, it's not good for the. For the liberal.
- [86:38]
Tim Pool
We got. We got Amy Coney Barrett back. Yeah, you Know, she was drifting.
- [86:42]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, she. I, you know, she. I think she, you know, who knows exactly what it was, but she. These are. She came out right here. I don't know, maybe she got like. We were stinging them for a while. I mean, they, they really, they were playing a lot of games. The shadow docket where they were, you know, not giving cert to obvious, like, Second Amendment cases and then dropping everything at a moment's notice to, like, handle an illegal, you know, an illegal Alien Enemies act case down in Texas. So I think, I think, I think they took a little bit of a beating from organizations like the one I'm a part of and decided that maybe they needed to be a little more.
- [87:15]
Tim Pool
I am, I am so excited. I am so grateful, in retrospect, that this woman was, Was confirmed.
- [87:22]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah. If you had to choose somebody to be confirmed. Yeah.
- [87:25]
Phil Labonte
Thanks, Joe.
- [87:26]
Tim Pool
Right. If we, you know, we're looking at. They're going to get a liberal justice on the court, who is it going to be? The dumbest one imaginable is the best case scenario. Not only is she bad at what she does, but she delegitimizes. What do you say? Liberal jurisprudence.
- [87:39]
Will Chamberlain
Liberal jurisprudence.
- [87:40]
Phil Labonte
She honestly, really. I mean, it's like when the liberals on the court. You got Sotomayor, who's not particularly intelligent. Not that she's. I'm not saying she's dumb, but she's not like, she's not some.
- [87:51]
Will Chamberlain
There's, like, reason smart and then there's Supreme Court smart.
- [87:54]
Phil Labonte
Yeah.
- [87:54]
Will Chamberlain
And that's a 20 IQ point gap, at least. And you know her clerks well. Yeah, I am. I mean, if I were clerking, I mean, I've worked in chambers before. Right. And it's like if you, you give the judge your honest opinion and because you're trying to help them, I mean, you'll, you'll fall in line if they tell you to write it. Yeah, but I mean, if I'm sitting there as a clerk and I know standing law, I took con law. I just got out of law school a few years ago. I'm like, Justice Jackson, you can't say this stuff.
- [88:22]
Tim Pool
But think about who she hired.
- [88:24]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah. She, she hired people who themselves put in the.
- [88:25]
Tim Pool
So what is it called? Is it the Peter Principle?
- [88:28]
Ian Crossland
Well, I've heard of that.
- [88:29]
Tim Pool
What's, what's the.
- [88:30]
Will Chamberlain
What's the one where A's, B's, higher C's. Is that.
- [88:32]
Tim Pool
Yes, yes. So when you get, when you get a Katanji Brown Jackson, and she's a W, you know, she hires An X. Yeah.
- [88:39]
Will Chamberlain
She's probably extraordinarily insecure on that court. That's actually a good point, because she's just not. She. I mean, it was obvious from her.
- [88:45]
Phil Labonte
Well, this ought to help.
- [88:47]
Tim Pool
Well, I mean, didn't Joe Biden say that he was going to nominate a black woman for justice?
- [88:51]
Phil Labonte
This is 100%. She was entirely hired. She is a DEI justice. She is there because she is a black woman.
- [88:59]
Ian Crossland
It's funny. I said that's so gross. Not that there was a black person as a judge. It's that to get hired based on the skin color is grotesque. That is sick.
- [89:08]
Tim Pool
It's racist.
- [89:09]
Ian Crossland
It is severely racist.
- [89:10]
Will Chamberlain
They really. And they. They screwed themselves out of justice. I mean, there was. There's a guy named Sri Srinivasan who's like the Chief Judge of the D.C. circuit, which is usually. That's where actually. Where.
- [89:21]
Tim Pool
He's a liberal guy.
- [89:22]
Will Chamberlain
He's a liberal guy. He was Solicitor General under Obama.
- [89:24]
Ian Crossland
Oh, wow.
- [89:25]
Will Chamberlain
And then a D.C. circuit judge, and everybody had him. A short list. He would have been the first Asian American on the Supreme Court. Wow.
- [89:31]
Tim Pool
And Obama had. They got a lot of victories.
- [89:35]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah. And I mean, I think SRI could have been. I think SRI might. Could have been an option over Sotomayor, but certainly SRI could have been an option over Katanji Brown Jackson. And SRI would be this nightmare for us because he doesn't. He's not on our team. But he's also brilliant and, like, would be able to sway a Roberts and a Barrett, you know. Thank you.
- [89:54]
Tim Pool
Wait, wait, wait.
- [89:55]
Phil Labonte
Joe Biden's not brilliant enough to think of those things.
- [89:58]
Tim Pool
The spectrum, it's like, on a scale of Katanji Brown Jackson to Clarence Thomas, how smart are you? Yeah, Like, Clarence Thomas talks very, very little, and he's the smartest guy on the court, and she talks the most, and she's dumb as a box of rocks.
- [90:10]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah.
- [90:11]
Ian Crossland
That's how I think. Jeff Bezos says at board meetings, you know, the leader should speak last. That's his take on it, anyway. Says, you know, listen, listen.
- [90:17]
Will Chamberlain
Can't express herself concisely.
- [90:19]
Tim Pool
I just want to know, how do we get eight more Clarence Thomases? Alito's good, too.
- [90:25]
Will Chamberlain
So we do have something to promote my organization. And what we do. Emil Bovey is going up for the Third Circuit. He's an absolute badass. He was President Trump's lawyer, and then he was acting deputy Attorney General, and now I think he's currently assistant acting assistant Attorney General, but he's going for the Third Circuit. He was absolutely badass. I don't know if you guys covered his confirmation hearing, but he had this incredible line where Dick Durbin asked him, it's like, what do you think of President Trump's pardons on January 6th? And he said, it's not my place to comment on President Trump's pardons. In the same way it wouldn't be my place to comment on President Biden pardoning drug traffickers and death death row inmates. Like, and hold Durbin did was just kind of shrink the end of that.
- [91:11]
Ian Crossland
You mentioned that if a Democrat was in the presidential seat, I think you were mentioning saying the president that maybe they would resign. Katanji Brown, Zach Jackson might push her to.
- [91:20]
Will Chamberlain
Because she's. Just push her to.
- [91:21]
Ian Crossland
How does that work?
- [91:22]
Will Chamberlain
You know, you, you try and bully her into giving up her seat.
- [91:25]
Ian Crossland
Like as, as the. Sorry to interrupt. But as the president, you would go through and be like, look, we would.
- [91:28]
Phil Labonte
That's not happening in the next three years.
- [91:30]
Will Chamberlain
I just, I don't think they probably can because she's, again, it's the DEI problem. Right. Like, she got the position because, you know, like, are you're literally going to say she can't have the position because she didn't have merit? Well, she didn't get the position based on merit.
- [91:42]
Phil Labonte
She is not going anywhere for at least three years. And if a Republican wins after Donald Trump, she will. Will not go anywhere for those. He will not give that Donald Trump. Donald Trump is going to likely to appoint one more justice during this time.
- [91:57]
Will Chamberlain
I would bet that one of Thomas or both.
- [91:59]
Phil Labonte
Yeah, like one maybe Thomas Torledo.
- [92:02]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah. I mean, they're both getting up there and they don't want to be replaced by Democrats.
- [92:05]
Tim Pool
Right.
- [92:06]
Phil Labonte
Look, you don't want to do what Ruth Bader Ginsburg did.
- [92:08]
Tim Pool
Exactly. You know, and I, I am, I, I trust Clarence Thomas to have a great successor, hopefully.
- [92:14]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah.
- [92:15]
Tim Pool
Assuming. I mean, like, I trust Clarence Thomas to know who would be the right successful.
- [92:18]
Ian Crossland
And then he suggests. And then they make a decision, I hope.
- [92:22]
Tim Pool
Well, actually, how would that work? Will they go to Trump and say this is the guy you want?
- [92:26]
Will Chamberlain
I mean, it'll be up to Trump. He has a team and he takes outside advice as well, so. But it'll be.
- [92:30]
Tim Pool
Cody Barrett was like a C plus.
- [92:33]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah. I mean, I think there's a reason that, you know, the Federalist Society folks aren't as involved with advice on judicial nominations this time around.
- [92:41]
Tim Pool
What has Kavanaugh been a C plus as well? Right.
- [92:43]
Will Chamberlain
Cabin has been pretty Good. I'd give Kavanaugh like a B plus.
- [92:45]
Tim Pool
B plus, A minus. I don't know. On guns, Brett Kavanaugh is kind of annoying.
- [92:51]
Will Chamberlain
He's actually pretty. I mean, he had a great second amendment to sent. Was he on the. When he was on the D.C. circuit? I mean, it's that. It's that cert decision that's kind of annoying.
- [92:58]
Ian Crossland
But what's that?
- [93:00]
Will Chamberlain
The. There's a Heller case when he was. When Kavanaugh was on the D.C. circuit. Heller 2. He, you know, the. The D.C. circuit tried to interpret what the Supreme Court did narrowly, and he wrote a very, very strong opinion that kind of foreshadowed what the Supreme Court would eventually do in Bruin, which was basically say that, you know, you can't just ban, like concealed carry.
- [93:22]
Tim Pool
But he's. He also said that I'll oversimplify, is okay for states to make difficult permitting processes for going a gun. He said you have to issue the permit. But. And he didn't say it like this, but he basically said they can make it extremely difficult. Nigh impossible.
- [93:43]
Ian Crossland
That's weird.
- [93:44]
Tim Pool
Yeah.
- [93:44]
Will Chamberlain
Is that really what he said? That doesn't strike.
- [93:46]
Tim Pool
I mean, I'm. I'm. I'm being a little mean, but he. Like. So. So the issue was that New York has extremely circuitous systems in place to make it hard to get a gun. And he was like, you can't. You can't. May issue, you must issue. So the ruling was good in that states like New York could no longer deny it. But he effectively said New York is still, of course, allowed, as is anyone, to create their own permitting process, which New York, of course, made it particularly difficult to actually get through that in a concurrence.
- [94:15]
Will Chamberlain
I don't. Because he didn't write Bruin, did he? And I think that was like the last major.
- [94:18]
Tim Pool
This was. This was a few years ago. I can't remember. I remember that we had a bunch of stories on it because we were pissed. Like. Like, the problem is that it's great that we won the shall issue rule, but in New Jersey, they lie to you when you try to get a gun. And so they shouldn't be allowed to create a permitting process that requires you to jump back and forth. It took me months when I was in Jersey to get a permit. Months. Because they kept lying to me. The police lied to me. I would call the government and they would always give me something different. And I guess technically the shell issue argument is you're allowed. Like, you can't do that. But the permitting process of Jersey itself took a long time. Fingerprints getting a special license, making it extremely difficult for the average person to do. And the only way to get a concealed carry is if you're rich or famous in New Jersey.
- [95:14]
Will Chamberlain
Well, that can't be the law.
- [95:15]
Tim Pool
Not anymore.
- [95:16]
Will Chamberlain
That's shall issue defeats that.
- [95:18]
Tim Pool
So it was a good ruling. But it was like, yeah, Thomas represents. Right. I don't know if it was. He wrote an agreement or whatever. But I remember there was an issue where everybody was like, Kavanaugh basically ruled that they can have their permitting processes even if they're cumbersome. And I'm like, that's an infringement. The method by which these blue states stop us from owning guns is by making it extremely difficult to get. Just like the NFA did.
- [95:47]
Ian Crossland
Yeah. And I think that I would liken that to, you know, or you're right to a speedy trial. Obviously it's a different venue, but your rights are your rights and you have a right to a speedy access to your rights.
- [95:59]
Tim Pool
But, but to be fair, I shouldn't, I shouldn't throw Kevin out with the bathwater simply because of one or a.
- [96:03]
Will Chamberlain
Couple rules and especially because of a concurring opinion. That's not the bind. That's. It's not binding. All I know is current law allows.
- [96:10]
Tim Pool
All I know is every single time there's an issue of logic, Alito and Thomas get it right.
- [96:15]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah. Alito and Thomas are the best. There's no question. They're the two A's. Are they the.
- [96:19]
Ian Crossland
I should probably know. Are they the old dudes?
- [96:20]
Will Chamberlain
Yes.
- [96:21]
Tim Pool
Alito is older.
- [96:22]
Will Chamberlain
Oh, I think, I think I thought, I know who's older. I know they're all Thomas.
- [96:27]
Ian Crossland
It'd be great to get these judges on, on the episodes. I know they're busy.
- [96:31]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah. They don't. They're not going to do that.
- [96:32]
Ian Crossland
Maybe after they retire.
- [96:34]
Phil Labonte
Alito 75.
- [96:36]
Will Chamberlain
The whole. There's a whole thing about not.
- [96:37]
Tim Pool
I thought he was late.
- [96:38]
Will Chamberlain
6. Public commentary as a judge, you're supposed to.
- [96:40]
Phil Labonte
Born April 1950.
- [96:41]
Tim Pool
Yep. Thomas Alito. So, so Thomas 77. Alito 74. So, so 71. Kagan 65. Gorsic 57. Kevin US. Kevin A 60. Wow. Amy Coney Barrett's 53 and Katanji Brown is 54.
- [96:57]
Will Chamberlain
Wow.
- [96:58]
Tim Pool
So, yeah. You know what? Alito and Thomas should, should retire.
- [97:02]
Phil Labonte
Yeah.
- [97:02]
Tim Pool
Only unfortunately. But they, they gotta choose their successors. I don't know. I don't know how we do it, but they're the best.
- [97:08]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, it's. It sucks. But you can't.
- [97:10]
Tim Pool
I mean they have balls. What I, I can't stand how many times there's. They. They deny cert or whatever. And it's like the two that are saying, let's answer the question for this nation. It's Alito and Thomas.
- [97:21]
Phil Labonte
Yeah, yeah.
- [97:22]
Ian Crossland
Their nervous systems are working just fine.
- [97:24]
Phil Labonte
Their nervous systems are working just fine. Clearly. Yeah. There's a couple, two a cases that were just denied cert about magazine bands. And. And they call what they call assault rifle bands. Those should not have. They should. I think it was Gorsuch that said that they're going to. They want to hear them in the next. Okay, fair enough. Who said that they want to hear him in the next. The next session. Which. So it would be nice to, to have them do this because assault weapon bands are just bands on semi automatic rifles. Magazine bans are clearly unconstitutional. So I want them to hear this stuff.
- [98:01]
Tim Pool
But when I'm, I'm sick of even. Look, the Constitution says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And all we ever actually get is SCOTUS arguing to the extent by which.
- [98:17]
Phil Labonte
How much the government can actually infringe.
- [98:19]
Tim Pool
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so they're saying like, well, clearly nobody should have a nuclear weapon. That's not the argument. We have a Constitution change the second Amendment if you think it should be the case. And maybe after some crackpot builds a small nuclear bomb in his backyard, the states might come to ratify an amendment that says, yeah, no nuclear weapons. But what I don't like is this nation and the Constitution has always just been whatever we decide it is. And that means we don't actually have a written Constitution. When, when they, when they ratified the Constitution, there were still blasphemy laws in the books. They were in Force for 100 plus years.
- [98:53]
Will Chamberlain
So now what we have is welcome to legal realism.
- [98:57]
Tim Pool
Of course. And what I, what I love is we've been winning on the gun issue forever. Not forever, but in the past several decades gun rights have been expanding tremendously. And that's a good thing. I'm just like, let's stop pretending anyone is actually following what the Constitution is supposed to be doing. They're simply arguing the extent to which they're willing to accept things. Like the justices say, can you have nukes? Nah. Well, hold on. It says the right to keep in bear arms. It doesn't define what those arms are. And if your argument is nukes are clearly beyond the scope of what they meant, then the liberals were right. The Whole time. And that means that machine guns, full auto, 50 BMG, all of that can equally be argued as to being beyond the scope of the second Amendment. I reject that premise. And if you have a problem with nuclear weapons, which I do, I don't think people should have them. Still, the Constitution says the right to keeping bars are not being infringed. So maybe two thirds of the states can get together and actually say, we're going to say nobody can have nuclear weapons. And I think most people would be okay with it or like chemical weapons.
- [99:55]
Ian Crossland
But I think those are just illegal chemical weapons. Can you have a.
- [99:57]
Will Chamberlain
So under your theory, do. Could our laws banning felons from owning guns permissible?
- [100:05]
Tim Pool
No. Because this is actually interesting at first. A few years ago I said. I said it is wrong that after you get out of prison as a felon, you still can't have a gun if you have a second Amendment. And instantly one of our tremendous super chatters said, tim, your rights under the Constitution can be curtailed through due process, meaning you may have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. But if you commit a crime, we can take those rights away from you. And if the determination under the law through legislation, is that we can take away your due process right to own a gun upon conviction of a crime, that actually fits with the standard we have in this nation. So I don't like it. I think that if you commit a felony, they should. The judge should say as part of the sentencing, 10 years in prison and 15 years no bearing arms. But getting a life sentence to take away your rights, I think is. Is cruel, unusual. But I think it's fair that we would have to argue.
- [101:02]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, I don't agree with you.
- [101:04]
Tim Pool
So if a dude, If a dude smuggles in like a rare piece of art.
- [101:10]
Will Chamberlain
Well, I'd say, I mean, I think the current rule is like violent felonies. And it.
- [101:14]
Tim Pool
I'm pretty sure it's not. I'm pretty sure it's just felons. Just felonies.
- [101:17]
Will Chamberlain
Wasn't there a Supreme Court case on this that basically looked at whether nonviolent felonies is violent?
- [101:22]
Tim Pool
A classification of is violent felony codified in law as violent felony.
- [101:27]
Will Chamberlain
I mean, I think in the way in the second Amendment jurisprudence and in other places too, I'm pretty sure this is a case of Supreme Court.
- [101:33]
Tim Pool
We've had a bunch of people chat saying things like, they committed fraud when they were 19 and now they can never own a gun again. And it's like, you know, we've had people Chat. Say, when I was 20, I stole a car and, you know, you know, and now I'm 43 with a family, and I'm not allowed to own a gun. And it's like, okay, that's a little egregious. You know, at a certain point, you should get your rights back. Maybe there's gotta be a mechanism by which we rectify that. I'm on board.
- [101:58]
Ian Crossland
I think so.
- [101:58]
Phil Labonte
Rahimi was the. Was. In the United States versus Rahimi, the Supreme Court clarified that the standard for assessing the constitutionality of firearms regulations, emphasizing that modern restrictions must aligned with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. However, the court also indicated that individuals who pose a credible threat to public safety, such as those under domestic violence restraining orders, may be subject to a gun ban.
- [102:17]
Will Chamberlain
So, yes, Rahimi, that's under Rahimi.
- [102:20]
Tim Pool
The felony gun ban is not restricted to violent felonies. Any felony.
- [102:25]
Will Chamberlain
Okay, what about.
- [102:26]
Tim Pool
Which is. Which is ridiculous?
- [102:27]
Will Chamberlain
Like, oh, and the low. Oh. It's interesting. The Supreme Court hasn't ruled yet, but it says that lower courts are split on the question of whether or not nonviolent. It's allowed to. To permanently disarm nonviolent felons.
- [102:36]
Tim Pool
I don't think even violent felonies should be permanently disarmed. So put it this way. Do you think that any violent crime warrants life in prison?
- [102:46]
Will Chamberlain
No.
- [102:46]
Tim Pool
Of course. So violent crimes should have a set of years by which you can have a gun. And so let's say you commit an aggravated robbery, and we say you're gonna get five years for that, after which you can't own a gun for an additional five years. Instead, they say, we're giving you a life sentence to never be able to keep in bear arms again. I think that's. I think that's egregious. No, I think that's a life sentence for a lesser.
- [103:09]
Will Chamberlain
For the loss of the right to bear arms. I mean, I don't consider that to write.
- [103:14]
Tim Pool
Yeah, but they're stripping of a right for life. I think there should be a scale to that.
- [103:18]
Will Chamberlain
I mean, well, in the same way that 25 years, you lose your right to vote too.
- [103:22]
Tim Pool
No, you shouldn't. I think you. I think it should be like the idea that we would sentence someone to a life of a stripping of their rights on, say, like, let's say you get a violent felony in that. You got in a bar fight, punched a guy in the head, he fell back and died. And they're like, that's it. You go to prison. And you're like, I'm not a violent guy. It was a bar fight. It was stupid. A fight broke out. I shouldn't have done it. And you get five to 10 years, whatever. He gets out. And they're like, you could also never vote. And you can. There's a clear difference between that guy and like a serial rapist murderer who's killed 20 people, who we will say not only that person never gets out, they might get the death penalty.
- [103:56]
Will Chamberlain
I mean, obviously, I think there's a. There's a context difference. But. Yeah, I mean, I don't know. I just. I view it as. I mean, first off, as, you know, Rahimi, if I remember Himi correctly, it was like, yeah, the sort of laws that restrict the rights of violent criminals to own guns have been with us since the founding. They were around when the second amendment was enacted, and everybody understood them to be constitutional then, like, even in the presence of the Second Amendment.
- [104:18]
Tim Pool
So, you know, it's really funny about 1789 is that you're living in New York or whatever, and you get convicted and they say you can't own a gun anymore. And you go, drat. And then you go walk 50 miles south, say your name is Rick Bigsby and you can own a gun again.
- [104:34]
Will Chamberlain
I mean, sure, de facto, but de jure still matters. What the actual law was still matters in terms of understanding. It matters in terms of understanding. When people read the second Amendment, what did they understand it to mean at the time?
- [104:48]
Tim Pool
My point is just back in the day when they said you couldn't vote, you could literally, you know, go on a few days trip to another area, change your name completely, and just rewrite your life. And they had no way of tracking that. And no one was going to go check. Shave your beard, shave your head, and you're a different person. And how did they know?
- [105:09]
Ian Crossland
I think that was what. Yeah, I mean, Huckleberry Finn was about, wasn't it? Mark Twain.
- [105:14]
Tim Pool
We gotta go to. We gotta go to chats. Sorry. Sorry to interrupt, but we're. Go to your chat. Smash the like button. Share the show with everyone.
- [105:19]
Ian Crossland
You know it was Tom Sawyer that faked his death. I bought and share the show. This show's awesome.
- [105:23]
Tim Pool
We're going to read your chats. Are Shane Hwilder. He says Texas SB25 or the Make Texas Healthy Again bill just passed, which requires daily exercise in schools and warning labels be placed on any food with additives that are banned in other countries.
- [105:36]
Will Chamberlain
Good.
- [105:37]
Tim Pool
I dig it. Whoa.
- [105:38]
Will Chamberlain
Good.
- [105:40]
Tim Pool
Let's go. CB says we should increase representation from 535 to 3,000 in the House. Isn't it 4?
- [105:45]
Will Chamberlain
No, no, we should.
- [105:47]
Tim Pool
Or 50 or 435.
- [105:49]
Will Chamberlain
I'm a strong believer that making the part like the Congress bigger will just make it more and more impersonal and impossible to manage and will ultimately again, it will just increase the amount of. Ultimately increase the amount of power that leadership has because there's so many people that organizing a rebellion against leadership will just be impossible.
- [106:09]
Ian Crossland
What do you think about like a direct representational democracy where we, you know, One guy represents 700,000 people, but instead of that guy saying yes or no to a bill, the 700,000 people in the district vote yes or no and then you take the majority of those 700,000 and that's the vote that goes through.
- [106:23]
Tim Pool
Then what's the point of Congress?
- [106:25]
Ian Crossland
They'll get called if the power goes out to go do the job for us. But we don't need them.
- [106:28]
Will Chamberlain
That's what you have a governor for. No. Yeah, it's a bad idea.
- [106:30]
Ian Crossland
Why?
- [106:31]
Will Chamberlain
Why? Because not like we shouldn't expect every single person in the country to be informed on. Not mere. Because you're basically saying them, but they're every relevant policy.
- [106:41]
Tim Pool
And you're saying that we will be governed by the unemployed.
- [106:46]
Ian Crossland
Well, getting governed by one guy that.
- [106:48]
Tim Pool
Gets bribed by Halliburton's, there's certainly problems with that, but I'd rather that than being governed by the unemployed. That's a huge. I don't know.
- [106:53]
Ian Crossland
Because 700,000 people vote together, they only count for one of the 455 votes.
- [106:58]
Tim Pool
This is already the problem we have. Unemployed people are more likely to vote in any circumstance. At least we have some filters.
- [107:06]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, there's no government like that in the world. I mean that's pure direct democracy in a country of 300 million. On literary. And it's not merely who we vote for, it's voting on every relevant statute that nobody's. I mean, you thought. You think the problem of legislators not reading statute is bad now, Right? It's just. I mean, I think that's a terrible idea.
- [107:25]
Tim Pool
Here we go. We got Xantho says, hate to be the black pill on this, but this isn't going to end birthright citizenship. And the big beautiful bill is also getting the few good things in it removed by a non elected official.
- [107:34]
Will Chamberlain
Boo. No more black billings.
- [107:36]
Tim Pool
How is that possible? The parliamentarian.
- [107:38]
Phil Labonte
Because the parliament.
- [107:40]
Will Chamberlain
Because it's Senate rules, right? There's normally to get past the filibuster. There's a very limited things that are allowed to get past the filibuster and go through the Senate 50 votes. And so some of the things in the House bill are just not getting okay.
- [107:51]
Tim Pool
So the Republican Senate should just nuke the rules.
- [107:54]
Phil Labonte
And that's what Harry Reid did that ended up with okay.
- [107:57]
Will Chamberlain
But it's not, I mean, scorched earth. The big reason that the big beautiful bill is good is because it's massively increasing funding for immigration enforcement. Like that's.
- [108:04]
Tim Pool
Agreed, agreed.
- [108:05]
Will Chamberlain
You know, and I think I want.
- [108:08]
Tim Pool
Short barreled rifles and suppressors, you know?
- [108:11]
Phil Labonte
Yeah.
- [108:11]
Will Chamberlain
I mean, I will say this. I think Thomas Massie's arguments and Rand Paul's arguments against the big beautiful bill are horribly bad. Like among the. Just not persuasive at all.
- [108:21]
Tim Pool
Well, I think they're persuasive. No, I just think that I would argue this. They're not persuasive. You're right. I agree with you. I would say they're good points to be made, but it doesn't matter. You should vote for the bill anyway.
- [108:35]
Will Chamberlain
Right. You should vote for the bill anyway. I don't know.
- [108:36]
Ian Crossland
I'd like to.
- [108:37]
Tim Pool
Hold on, hold on. Rand Paul agreed.
- [108:39]
Will Chamberlain
Is he going to vote for the bill?
- [108:40]
Tim Pool
So I interviewed him. He said, if I am the deciding vote, I am a yes. Thomas Massie said, nope, not going to happen. So I respect Thomas Massie greatly. I think he's wrong on this and I think he's wrong on a lot of things, but he's a good dude. Rand Paul, I respect saying I will. He was actually funny. He said, the President's gonna call me and he's gonna be yelling at me for about an hour or two and then I'm gonna agree to vote for it. So, yeah, he already knows.
- [109:04]
Will Chamberlain
I mean, but I just, I just remember the first term and we were fighting tooth and nail to get funding for the border wall. Remember the national emergency debate? We were trying to get money reallocated. And this bill, which everybody is just like takes for granted, funds it all like 10x what we need. Which is good because it means that, you know, we won't have to go back and ask for more money in the event that things take longer than we think.
- [109:25]
Tim Pool
I got it for you. Yesterday we were. I was having this debate with the Libertarian guy and I said that we should. If Zoran Mamdani attempts to in any way obstruct federal law enforcement on immigration, the DOJ should bring seditious conspiracy charges against him and his cohorts.
- [109:42]
Will Chamberlain
Seditious conspiracy, which.
- [109:44]
Tim Pool
Which states if any two people conspire, among other things, to delay law enforcement, it is a seditious conspiracy.
- [109:51]
Will Chamberlain
I don't. I mean, seditious conspiracy might be too aggressive, but certainly there. There are laws about you're not allowed to obstruct ICE agents in the performance of their duties.
- [109:58]
Tim Pool
I'm just saying if we don't. So illegal immigrants are not part of the American community. They are spitting in our face and stealing from us. And the American people have voted and been polled, and the ultimate poll is the vote Donald Trump deport these people who have violated our rules. This is not okay. Zoran Mamdani says in his campaign he will, he says, protect on city owned property and city lease property, protect people from deportation. That's more than just saying, I'll stand back and refuse to cooperate.
- [110:34]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, like, if he. If he gets in the way of federal law enforcement, that's. That's a crime. I should be indicted for the crime. I think there was already. There have already been some indictments, haven't there? Or there's been talk of indictment.
- [110:43]
Tim Pool
Well, McIver for punching a cop. But when they charged Trump's lawyers with rico.
- [110:49]
Will Chamberlain
Oh, yeah. No, none of the. I mean, I have no.
- [110:51]
Tim Pool
When are the Republicans going to. Actually, Brad Lander fought ICE agents and he got no charges.
- [110:56]
Will Chamberlain
Oh, yeah. No, he should have been indicted.
- [110:57]
Tim Pool
Yep.
- [110:58]
Will Chamberlain
We need. That needs to happen.
- [110:59]
Tim Pool
Well, you know, as strong as Trump administration has been, I guess you can only move so far.
- [111:04]
Will Chamberlain
God, I don't know. Sometimes I wouldn't be surprised if things come out I people often, in general, I don't get blackpilled about the lack of indictments because litigation takes time. Indictments take time. So, you know, that's true.
- [111:15]
Tim Pool
It's true. All right, let's go. Effort says KBJ is now the Jim Kramer of the Supreme Court. Oh, that's mean.
- [111:23]
Will Chamberlain
That's brutal.
- [111:23]
Tim Pool
That's harder.
- [111:24]
Will Chamberlain
That's harder than anything.
- [111:26]
Tim Pool
It's true. Rafalo says Scalia Descents was a great read. When I was getting my paralegal degree, full stop. Can you imagine KBJ's equivalent? I need a helmet and floaties to read that.
- [111:39]
Will Chamberlain
Scalia Descent is a great book for anybody who wants to read it. I recommend it.
- [111:44]
Tim Pool
All right. I heard that the conspiracy theories that he was murdered.
- [111:48]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, I heard that one. Possible, but. I don't know.
- [111:53]
Ian Crossland
Awesome. But not in the sense that it's like a good thing. Just. It inspires awe in my brain. What? Why what's the. Anyway, do you want.
- [111:59]
Tim Pool
How did he die?
- [111:59]
Will Chamberlain
He was like, in a. I mean, he. He just died in his bed on a vacation.
- [112:03]
Tim Pool
Yeah. And then like, conspiracy. There's a conspiracy that he was killed. So who was in it? Was it. Was it at the time. Was it Obama?
- [112:11]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, it was like, at the end of Obama's second term, they wanted to get a liberal and they nominated Merrick Garland to replace him.
- [112:17]
Tim Pool
And then the Republicans.
- [112:18]
Will Chamberlain
The Republicans refused to fill the seat. And then that seat became Kavanaugh.
- [112:21]
Tim Pool
Yeah, it was Kavanaugh. I thought it was Gorsuch.
- [112:24]
Will Chamberlain
No, no, it was Kavanaugh first. Kavanaugh, I'm pretty sure. I think. No, you're right. It was. Gorsuch was the first. That's right.
- [112:30]
Tim Pool
Yeah. Because he was. He was the guy who stole, like, get. Garland's pissed at. Yeah, Garland went.
- [112:36]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah. Kennedy retired and Kennedy was replaced by Kavanaugh. And then Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, and then she was replaced by Amy Cuddy.
- [112:43]
Tim Pool
She didn't want to leave.
- [112:45]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, she made a pretty big mistake.
- [112:46]
Tim Pool
Can you. Can you believe if she didn't leave, we might not have gotten the overturning of Roe v. Wade?
- [112:51]
Will Chamberlain
Maybe not.
- [112:52]
Tim Pool
Yeah, that's wild. Let's grab some more scuba. Education video says. Why doesn't anybody ever bring up that selective service registration is required for men, even for illegal aliens when one does not register. They've broken federal law. Indeed.
- [113:05]
Will Chamberlain
Oh, we should indict them because I don't know if you followed that. That's what they're doing in LA now, right? Because LA is a sanctuary state. They're not. They don't honor ICE detainers. But what the LA US Attorney started doing is filing criminal indictments related to illegal presence. And while they're not, they have to comply with with criminal warrants. So that's a way to get around the sanctuary city thing. So more crimes that you can charge illegal aliens with are good in terms of stop. You know, defeating sanctuary jurisdictions.
- [113:35]
Tim Pool
Whoa. This is crazy. What? Jay's index says. Look, Tim, five years. It's more. But my membership was canceled by YouTube and I have to renew three months into it.
- [113:46]
Will Chamberlain
What?
- [113:46]
Tim Pool
It says 60 months. 60 months. Bravo, brother. Wow. I really do appreciate it, man. Raymond G. Stanley Jr. Says Haram Fi say Iron Ironheart is not watchable. Disagree. I don't think it's good. I don't think it's bad. I think it's just plain watchable.
- [114:03]
Ian Crossland
What is it?
- [114:04]
Tim Pool
The new Disney show is filmed years ago and it's it's, it's written really poorly, but as somebody who watches superhero shows, I'm actually, I'm interested to see where the story goes. It's not bad. To where I turn it off. Like, what is it? I never watched Echo and I never watched Secret Invasion because I just turned it on and went, what is this? I just stopped.
- [114:29]
Ian Crossland
The other Disney, they're Marvel.
- [114:31]
Tim Pool
Marvel Cinematic Universe TV shows, Ironheart, they kept the pacing quick enough. She's. Riri Williams is a young black girl from Chicago. She's a genius. She goes to mit, she's a scumbag gangbanger, and she starts stealing technology from MIT and selling it on the black market. So they expel her. So she steals a prototype Iron man suit she's building. They deactivate it mid flight. She crashes, takes the scraps, joins a gang, rebuilds the suit, and then they go around stealing and murdering people.
- [115:01]
Ian Crossland
So she's a villain.
- [115:03]
Tim Pool
She's absolutely a villain.
- [115:05]
Ian Crossland
They're making hero. They're making stories about villains now as the main characters.
- [115:08]
Tim Pool
I mean, ask Ryan Coogler, who's that man? He's the director. He's like bare mine. So basically in. In Black Panther 2, she's recruited as a. As a good guy to help. But so the story is she. She develops a vibranium detector, which nobody thought was possible because she's a genius. So the Namor and his people, whatever they're called, want to kill her because they're like, her detector is going to find us because we have vibranium. And so then they bring her to Wakanda to protect her or whatever. But then in Ironheart, she's just selling MIT technology on the black market because she wants money because, you know, she needs it.
- [115:49]
Ian Crossland
Does it take place before Wakanda? Is this like her origin story? Okay.
- [115:52]
Tim Pool
After. And then she steals the suit and it's. It's locked with. With MIT proprietary operating system. So they deactivate her control and she crashes. And then she programs her own AI and then she's like, I need money. So a criminal gang comes and recruits her. And it. Here's, here's the funniest thing about it. Here's how the criminal gang steals money. Will, you're gonna love this. Okay? The criminal gang has these circuitous plans. They've got two people who fight. They got a hacker who can shut down the security systems. So there's this woman, and she's this wealthy magnate who created a tunnel system where cars can move through Chicago much more quickly by going down and then zipping through the city. And so they're like, here's the plan. You go in, fight the security guard, shut it down. Then hacker goes in, freezes the system. Then RIRI goes in and puts the virus in. Or like that will give the access. So take out the security guards. RIRI goes in, implants a virus to the USB hacker, then takes over the system. The car freezes, and the. And the bad guy, the hood, will then d. Invisible himself in the car and force her to sign a contract paying them six figure salaries. I knew the lawyer would love that. I went, what?
- [117:05]
Will Chamberlain
That's the payoff.
- [117:06]
Phil Labonte
Force him to sign the contract.
- [117:08]
Tim Pool
And then. And then I was like, when you.
- [117:10]
Will Chamberlain
Then you sign the contract, she's like, I'm not paying. You're like, I'm gonna sue you. And then you go to court. And the woman's like, I was coerced. I didn't sign this contract.
- [117:20]
Tim Pool
Or better than that, she signed the documents. And she says, I'll need the direct deposit information. Which he doesn't give her. If he does, she leaves and goes, here's the guy who just robbed me.
- [117:32]
Ian Crossland
Did you say the Megatron riri R.
- [117:35]
Tim Pool
E R E R I R R I.
- [117:36]
Ian Crossland
Okay. Because riri is a slur for, you know, people that are retarded.
- [117:42]
Tim Pool
Yes, yes.
- [117:43]
Ian Crossland
Say that slur from, like my childhood.
- [117:44]
Tim Pool
Not to be.
- [117:45]
Phil Labonte
No.
- [117:47]
Tim Pool
So the only. There is a possibility they can recover this. Three episodes have come out. The next recommend. They could recover this. The contract could be made to make sense if the contract is actually a deal with Mephisto Demon in the Marvel universe. However, because these ultra wealthy people didn't address the absurdity of signing a contract, it doesn't really work. It would. It would have actually been pretty good writing. If he goes, he breaks into this rich guy's house, and then they're like, what do you want, money? And he goes, I want you to sign this contract. And the guy goes, is that a joke? He's like, you can never enforce anything like this. What do you think you're doing? He goes, then if you don't care, sign it. And the guy goes, I sign this, you'll leave. Fine, signs it. And then the ink burns.
- [118:27]
Ian Crossland
That's awesome.
- [118:28]
Tim Pool
And then Mephisto. So basically, the bad guy has sold his soul to a demon. We don't know if it's Mephisto. And he's got. He can turn invisible. And when he shoots his bullets, they go wherever he wants them to, so it's watchable. I'M having fun. It's just stupid, childish writing that makes no sense. If I was like, I hope that's the story. They're not doing it very well if it is. But I hope that's it, because like, how the sign a contract. Ah, Mephisto is a demon. He doesn't care whether you are coerced or not. You agreed to sign it. And then basically these wealthy people are like, I'm not going to pay you a dime. And he goes, I never wanted the money. And then Mephisto appears and says, you signed a deal with me. And then he basically, you know, does demon stuff. But I don't know. I think it's watchable. It's just. It's just kind of like the writing like that is like dumb, you know? And then she double crosses him because she thinks he's gonna double cross her. And she's just a villain. She's just a real villain.
- [119:23]
Ian Crossland
Punisher was about as. As evil as you can get as a good guy. And I don't think he was evil.
- [119:27]
Tim Pool
He's not evil.
- [119:27]
Ian Crossland
He was just victim dictive. He wasn't really.
- [119:30]
Tim Pool
He's. Who plays him?
- [119:33]
Ian Crossland
He was evil, but he was a good guy. But he was evil. He was a killer. I don't know if he's evil blooded mercenary.
- [119:39]
Tim Pool
He's not good.
- [119:40]
Ian Crossland
Yeah, he's not.
- [119:41]
Will Chamberlain
He's evil.
- [119:41]
Tim Pool
We call him an anti hero for a reason. He doesn't hurt innocent people, but he does really, really hurt people.
- [119:48]
Ian Crossland
He likes to watch people suffer.
- [119:50]
Phil Labonte
No, he just likes it when they die.
- [119:53]
Tim Pool
Yeah, he just like. At least the modern versions we've seen over the past couple decades, he just. There's no torture. He's just like, bad guy, bang, you're dead.
- [120:02]
Ian Crossland
He doesn't just. He doesn't want to punish them. It's. I think it's the punishment that he enjoys, isn't it?
- [120:06]
Tim Pool
All right, I should. We'll grab. We'll grab. We'll grab one more here. What do we got here? Trey Bay says, dude, I want to invite you to Camp David. And I have tried to reach out individually with no response. What say you, David? Sure. Who has an initial retreat, right.
- [120:23]
Will Chamberlain
That civilians don't get to go to?
- [120:25]
Tim Pool
Yeah, I was. Yeah. So I was. I'm like, who has the authority to do that?
- [120:29]
Will Chamberlain
President?
- [120:30]
Tim Pool
Are you. Is this just trump trump bodily watching.
- [120:34]
Will Chamberlain
The whole time a way to invite you that didn't use.
- [120:35]
Tim Pool
And he's typing real slow with one finger, like, is Trump the real Hydra?
- [120:39]
Phil Labonte
Look, man, I wonder who that guy is. I started coming down, doing the show here by sending a super chat. Maybe Donald Trump is sending super chats as well.
- [120:47]
Tim Pool
To be fair, you'd been on the show several times. That's true.
- [120:50]
Phil Labonte
I mean, well, you've, you've interviewed Trump, so maybe.
- [120:52]
Will Chamberlain
Okay, well, you, Trump and y' all probably the most consequential people of our time.
- [120:56]
Tim Pool
I don't really interview Netanyahu.
- [120:58]
Will Chamberlain
Oh, you had a discussion.
- [120:59]
Tim Pool
It was actually, it was actually kind of like people arguing with him. And it was, it was funny. Like I've told the story. He basically was like, if Iran gets a nuke, they're going to nuke you next. And then I'm not going to say who. But they went, no, they're not. And it was to his face. And everybody chuckled and started laughing like, no. There were a couple, nobody agreed. Even the pro Israel people there who were very much like, we want you to stop Iran. I would say two thirds of the people there were like, no, stop. Yeah, nobody wanted to entertain it. But wait, wait, wait.
- [121:30]
Ian Crossland
Comes, foreign minister comes and tries to scare people, especially people powerful in the media here. They don't really buy it.
- [121:34]
Tim Pool
Trey Bay, DM Ian.
- [121:38]
Ian Crossland
Trey Bay, DM Ian. What does that mean?
- [121:41]
Tim Pool
Trey Bay is the guy.
- [121:42]
Phil Labonte
Yeah.
- [121:43]
Tim Pool
Who wants to DM me. He wants to invite me to Camp David.
- [121:46]
Ian Crossland
Oh, yeah.
- [121:47]
Tim Pool
I said reach out to Ian.
- [121:48]
Ian Crossland
Yeah, yeah. Send me a message on Twitter, on X, on X, on X and I'll follow up from there. Trey Bay.
- [121:53]
Tim Pool
Pedantic.
- [121:54]
Ian Crossland
Thanks, dog.
- [121:55]
Tim Pool
And yeah, that's the easiest way to do it. It's really hard for me to have contact with people like my phone. I don't, I don't really have a phone anymore. I've got, there's a bunch of phones that are used for the company and when they ring, I don't answer them.
- [122:07]
Ian Crossland
Weird phenomenon, too. If I respond to people, I usually get a follow up message, a third message. Like they'll say, hi, you're so great. I'll be like, if I say thank you, they come back again with more. They like, they feel like now we're friends. And then I don't respond. I feel real bad. Like I leave them hanging. So sometimes I just, I just don't respond. But I got your. Got your screen name. Treb A33.
- [122:25]
Tim Pool
All right, everybody, smash the like button. Share the show with everyone. You know, thanks for hanging out on this Friday night. I know it's a summer Friday night and everybody's out partying, but you guys are hanging out with Us. And it means the world to me and to everybody here. So follow me on Accent Instagram. Timcast will. Do you want to shout anything out?
- [122:40]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah. Follow me. Ilchamberlain. Follow what the Article 3 project does at a3paction.org and the National Conservatism Conference is September 2to4 in Washington D.C. we'll have a bazillion incredible speakers. Last year we had Stephen Miller, Tom Homan, Josh Hawley. Number of those. Steve Bannon will be speaking this year. He wasn't able to last year because he was in jail. This year he's not. And he'll be. He's a headliner. Josh Hawley will be there and probably a lot more people. More announcements coming up.
- [123:06]
Ian Crossland
I'd like to see you debate Thomas Massie at some point, if you're into it. If you guys ever hang out together, wants to.
- [123:12]
Will Chamberlain
I'll debate him.
- [123:13]
Ian Crossland
It doesn't have to be a debate either, but just we talk about.
- [123:14]
Will Chamberlain
Yeah, I mean, we can talk about this stuff. I just, you know, I've been pretty hard on Massey. So if he's willing to. I'm willing to.
- [123:19]
Ian Crossland
Super cool. Hey, thanks for coming. And I'm at Ian Crossland. Follow me at Ian Crossland. Check out the Culture War this morning. If you didn't see with Ashton Forbes, myself, Tim Pool and Dr. Yu and he, man, we. I think we revolutionized the scientific community. It was pretty.
- [123:33]
Tim Pool
We discovered everything.
- [123:34]
Ian Crossland
It was. It was wonderful.
- [123:35]
Tim Pool
Wonderful. That was fun. It was fun. It was weird stuff.
- [123:38]
Ian Crossland
It was bizarrely awesome.
- [123:39]
Tim Pool
Huge.
- [123:39]
Ian Crossland
Super cool. So check it out at the Culture War. I think it's on rumble and on YouTube. Phil Labonte.
- [123:44]
Phil Labonte
What's up, man? I am Phil. That remains on Twix. I'm Phil. That remains official on Instagram. The band is all that remains. Our new record is called Antifragile. You can check it out on YouTube, Apple Music, Amazon Music, Spotify, Pandora and Deezer. Don't forget, the left lane is for crime.
- [123:57]
Tim Pool
We got clips up throughout the weekend. Thanks Franging out and we'll be back. Tim cast IRL on Monday. But don't forget, one week from now. What day is it?
- [124:07]
Ian Crossland
Friday.
- [124:08]
Tim Pool
No. How dare you.
- [124:09]
Ian Crossland
Friday the 13th. I'm just making stuff up. One week from now. Today.
- [124:17]
Tim Pool
27Th.
- [124:18]
Ian Crossland
The 27th of the month coming at you.
- [124:20]
Tim Pool
What is one week from today?
- [124:22]
Phil Labonte
In fourth.
- [124:23]
Tim Pool
Yeah, it's.
- [124:24]
Phil Labonte
It's the birth of America.
- [124:25]
Ian Crossland
I just did the math.
- [124:27]
Tim Pool
Everybody, thanks for hanging out. We'll see you all next week. Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now, and it's great. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Libsyn Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements, or run a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows. To reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libsyn ads, go to Libsynads.com that's L I B S Y N ads.com today.