All Episodes

June 17, 2024 37 mins

Mia and James go through a flurry of Supreme Court news ranging from history's worst legal arguments in the Mifepristone case to a reversal of the bump stock ban.

See for privacy information.

Mark as Played

Episode Transcript

Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Also media.

Speaker 2 (00:07):
Welcome to Dick and A from here, a podcast that's
occasionally hijacked by the Supreme Court because a bunch of
fun of lucky dipshit's Rulesaul, I'm your host, me along
with these James.

Speaker 3 (00:18):
Hi man, I'm excited to be hijacked. Is it like
a pirate situations like Samuel Alita like it will be
a one leg and a patch coming in hijacked.

Speaker 2 (00:26):
They are not cool to way fair, I've made a
mistake here because the Supreme Court justices are not cool
enough to take up a piracy that that is, that
is a grand and noble tradition dating back millennia.

Speaker 3 (00:37):
Yeah, we've been we've been compulsory and what's it colled
civil asset forfeited by the Supreme.

Speaker 2 (00:42):
Yeah, that's bad. So originally this is going to be
an episode about how messed up Clarence Thomas and Samuel
Leito's wives are, because, oh my god, are they a
bunch of right wing fanatics. We haven't really covered it
on this show. But then this episode got hijacked by
a bunch of other Supreme Court news. So we're gonna

talk a bit about Samuel Alito's wife. Will Will put
off Clarence Thomas's quean on wife for another day. Uh
but yeah, so so this is gonna be a sort
of random episode of the sixteen million pieces of Supreme
cour We're not even geting gatch to them all. There's
Supreme Court news that like we can't even cover, there's
too much of it. But yeah, let's start with a

MEPhI pristone case. So okay, I think people we've talked
about mepha pristone before on the show, and you know,
there's been a widely sort of dreaded case where a
group called the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine been trying to
see the FDA.

Speaker 3 (01:40):
Yeah, the amount of these fucking pretend medical organizations. I'm sorry,
I'm deready the episode. It's like the American College of
Pediatrics is another one.

Speaker 2 (01:49):
Like a wait till you find out who these people
actually are because it's amazing. And two, I think you
haven't seen any of these legal arguments right now. Oh,
I'm hoping that we get to Bohemian Grove. That's the
only thing I've followed from a Supreme Court. Amazingly, Supremia
the Bohemian Grove did not make the cut amazingly.

Speaker 3 (02:07):
Damn Okay, I'm ready for some high ta shit. I'm
so excited. You are about to see some shit. You
are about to see what I genuinely believe to be
the worst legal arguments ever made in a court of law.
And like I say this having watched like probably four
I listen to probably forty hours of Alex Jones trial

depositions from different trials, and I genuinely believe these to
be the worst legal arguments anyone has ever made. So
all right, I'm I'm going to quote from an article
on the Nation here, no Elias. So this is this
is about who the Alliance for Hypocratic Medicine is. Alliance
for Hippocratic Medicine is a mismash of anti abortion doctors, nurses,

and dentists, Yes, dentists, amazing, though none of them have
ever pursued describe the pill claim that they are being
they have been harmed by its existence. The theories of
standing Weight range from comical to inept, to offensive to contemptible.

They include arguments such as doctors who do not perform
abortions are harmed when they have to work in the
emergency room, where alleged complications from the abortion pill arise
and by the way, we should mention this, by the way,
so part part of this whole thing is that there's
been the right has been trying to like make up
this fake argument that this abortion well, okay, mesti person
can be used for a number of things, but they've

been trying to make up arguments that like there's like
scary side effects with fake studies, and like even the
right wing court was like, this is bullshit. So so
again they're saying that again, having a doctor who has
to do work in a place where there's fake side
effects that aren't happening, they're saying this is this is
an injury. The second one, obstetricians who do not perform

abortions are harmed because they feel complicit in the abortions
that take place, even if they are not a part
of the procedures.

Speaker 2 (04:02):
What the fuck. Literally one of the justices was like,
what do you mean a complicit? Are you handing them
a bottle of water or something like I'm going the
abortion clinic. That's what I do. I'm on the hydration team.
Fucking planned hairenthood. Three medical staff are hard via complicity

also and four and this is the best one. This one.

Speaker 4 (04:32):
I random people who do not perform abortions nonetheless suffer
from quote unquote aesthetic injury of being deprived as seeing
pregnant people jiggle around was sore bad.

Speaker 2 (04:49):
This is this is a direct call from the thing.
I'm not making this theory up. This is what Fifth
Circuit Judge James Hoe wrote, what upholding the ban on mephipristone. Okay,
what the fuck like? What this is like that they're
being deprived of It's this it's like a kink thing.
They can't see pregnant people. No, No, it's it's apparent.
Apparently the theory is that being able to see pregnant

people is like good and healthy for you or something,
and if you don't do it, And there's there's another one.
There's another one that that wasn't in this article, but
that wasn't some other things. Is that I one of
their other cases is that doctors enjoy working with unborn
patients and that this is this is an injury to them.

Speaker 3 (05:30):
Yeah, I think you may want to examine your fucking
social skills, but your.

Speaker 2 (05:35):
Fucking dentists are being like, I can't work on the
teeth of pregnant people.

Speaker 3 (05:39):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I've been deprived from doing fetus orthodontics,
and uh, therefore I will take it to the Supreme Court.
What a wild fucking case, one incredible system that this
made it to the Supreme Court.

Speaker 2 (05:53):
Okay, the absolute funniest part about this, the like right
wing dipshit lawyer for the Alliance for Hipocratic Medicine is
Josh's wife.

Speaker 3 (06:03):
I did just hallie like like popular front salute to
the January sixth people.

Speaker 5 (06:07):
Yeah that little yeah, yeah.

Speaker 3 (06:09):
I will not use an adjective that we cannot broadcast.

Speaker 2 (06:13):
Okay, and so sort of, I mean, not that surprise.
So people who are following the trial, I think expected this,
well they expected probably like a sevent too or an
eight to one, but this was a nine to Oh no, wait,
this is bullshit, Like I think, I think, you know,
So there's been a lot of like good coverage about
the sort of legal aspects here, and I guess we

should we should before we go for that, we should mention.
So what this ruling does, like effectively is that Okay,
so there's not going to be a national ban of
MEPhI pristone. However, Comma the States that have outlawed MEPhI pristone,
it's that doesn't change anything there. So there are still
a lot of people who cannot access this drug, who
cannot access their life saving medical care because they're ruled

by a bunch of fucking right wing bigots and like
Christian extremists, et cetera, et cetera. But this, this case
has established something extremely important, which is that there is
actually a legal limit to the amount of bullshit you
can do, even if you are a right wing lawyer

who like the court agrees with Like Josh Halley's wife
used to be a clerk for Justice John Roberts. So
she was like, she's like embedded, embedded in this whole
right wing egoism. She's one of the big sort.

Speaker 3 (07:32):
Of right yeah yeah, yeah, grooming her for success.

Speaker 2 (07:36):
But these people, finally, for like the first time ever,
made made a set of legal arguments so bullshit. Even
the Supreme Court was like, what the fuck? And I think,
I think, okay, so this is this is where we're
going into sort of MIA's kind of like bullshit theory here.
But the reason this was thrown out was that, Okay,

so this is this is the part that is like
obviously real, so in a American law, I mean, I
think this is true of most legal systems. I don't
know any that don't function like this. But in order so,
in the US, it is very easy to sue someone.
You can sue someone over twenty dollars. It's in the constitution.
It fucking rules. It's very funny. We are extremely ligious country.
But you need what you need something called standing to

sue in order to do this. There's some kind of
complicated parts of this that you know, evolve around jurisdiction
and what courts blah blah blah blah. But the important
thing is that someone has to have done an injury
to you. And this is the part when this entire
case fell apart because they could not find a single
person but has suffered an actual injury from memoirs time.

Speaker 3 (08:43):
Yes, outstanding, just incredible stuff, like yeah, yeah, well, I
mean that's because they could sue on behalf of unborn people.

Speaker 2 (08:52):
Mia it didn't work. Well, I mean to fir this
this one technically wasn't This one was on behalf of
like of the dentists in dent dis and shit. But okay,
I think I think that there's been an important legal
standing here because so you know, we we have covered
on this show the case three H three Creator versus Elenis,

which is the one where the Supreme Court ruled that
is legal to discriminate against queer people on religious grounds
as long as your business is quote unquote creative and
it's like a speech act. That that's the one where
it's a cake one.

Speaker 5 (09:25):

Speaker 2 (09:26):
Uh no, this is a wedding website one. It's society
this this is this is the more recent one that
was like some woman was like I was forced to
make a wedding website for a gay person. Now, okay,
so what we talked about in that case is that importantly,
this never happened. This woman was never forced to make
a website for a gay person, right, like that that
never happened. But you know, the court, the court still

upheld that and like let them, you know, like like
let them basically institute a bunch of like insane you know,
like potentially like states can institute a bunch of like
insane laws. Now about this, But okay, so what we
have in in the wedding website case is you have
a real person who a fake injury happened to and
that apparently is good enough for standing for if you're

a right wing like activist for the Supreme Court. You
can have a real person that an injury did not
happen to you, but they can imagine an injury that
could have happened to them, and that's good enough. Now
there's an important legal president of being set here, which
is that, Okay, again, nothing has to actually have happened
to you. You can make up what happened to you, but
you have to have a an actual person who would

injury could have happened to and b you can have
a fake injury, but if the injury was real, it
would have to be a real injury. Like so you
can march up to the Supreme Court with a person
who said I was thrown into a volcano because of Woke,
and obviously they weren't. They weren't thrown into a volcano.
But you know, you could have Woke outlawed because they

said they were thrown into a volcano because of Woke,
but you can't do Apparently, the actual line is you
have no person right is you are a group of
people who are suing who have said that because of
Woke someone somewhere, like hypothetically it might become impossible to
flap your wings and fly, and that's apparently no, no, no,

that's not true though, because the the sarlac pit could
conceivably you you could build a sarlac pit, right right, Okay, Yeah,
it's like if you're you're the fake injury you're imagining,
if it were real, like would have to be a
real injury. What you can't do is have is not
have a person and then also have the injury you're

talking about not be a real injury, even even even
if it did happen, which is what's happening in this case.
So that's the line that has been drawn in the
sand for conservatives is like you absolute clowns, Like we
are going to let you break every single law, but
the thing you're pretending happened, if it actually did happen,
has to has to be a real injury. So this

is this the light of the sad that's been drawn
by a huge democracy. Yeah, I mean also, like I mean,
obviously there's some sort of poison pill stuff in this
that's kind of more legally complicated that we're not going
to really get into.

Speaker 1 (12:12):

Speaker 2 (12:12):
There's some stuff in here that because this is a
Kavanall ruling, right, So there's some stuff in here that
like is kind of is basically Kavinall being like, Okay,
if you want to do this again, but like bring
a real case, like here's how you might be able
to do it.

Speaker 5 (12:25):
Yeah, where he like coaches him through. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (12:28):
I mean there's like a little bit of that. And
there's some stuff here basically trying to make it harder
for civil rights groups to like do cases where like
they have one of their people pose as a like
someone trying to buy a house or whatever. So those
are some stuff there's ruling is still fucking over some
people's civil rights like less less you think the Supreme
Court did something good, but we have now established the
Alliance for Hipocratic Medicine standard of fake injury. Uh, do

you know what else? Do you know what else will
give you fake injuries but not real injuries?

Speaker 3 (12:58):
Can we say to directly that that's I mean, what
if we get like black rifle coffee, right, that could
do an injury to your to your gut?

Speaker 2 (13:06):
I guess I guess we can't say that we Okay,
do you know what else? We cannot make any promises about.

Speaker 3 (13:11):
Would debut the products and services to support this show.

Speaker 2 (13:14):
It is and we are back. So speaking of products
and services, there was also a very bad Supreme Court
ruling in a case about the National Labor Relations Board
and Starbucks. So I don't know if we I don't

think we specifically covered this case. We've covered a lot
of cases on this show of people being fired in
retaliation for STARC. We covered a different case of a
worker being fired in retaliation for Yugan organizing from Starbucks.
But great stuff. Yeah, But so this specific case, the
NLRB National Labor Relations Board, if your opponent like breaks

labor law or for example, firing firing soone in retaliation
for union organizing is in fact our violation of labor law.
If this happens, you can file something called an unfair
labor practice. Eventually you go before the National Labor Relations
Board and they make a decision. But one of the
things that the NLRB can do because this process takes
in an extremely large amount of time, and if this

process goes into like the regular courts, it is going
to take years and years and years, and during that
time you're still going to be fired. So you know,
one of the things that the NLRB can do is
issue and ask a judge to issue an injunction to
force to like basically, the judge can tell Starbucks like, no,
fuck you, you are like until this court case is resolved,

you have to rehire this person. And so basically what happened.
Starbucks sued over this. They got to the Supreme Court,
and the question that basically came to, like, what standard
of evidence does the NLRB have to have that this
worker's rights are being violated before they can isition an injunction?
The Supreme Court said, it has to be like a
really high stand, which is bullshit. This this was an

eight one decision. Uh so it's not. That's the thing.
So okay, this this this is important here. This is
being reported as an eight one decision. It's actually not
because Katia Brown Jackson filed a concurring opinion with slightly
like slightly better logic but also still bad logic about this.
So effectively, this was a nine to oh agreement with

Starbucks with like slightly differing like reasons for concurring. Right,
So yeah, and this is you know, as as I
told James yesterday, this is in fact, definitive proof that
cop that workers are not cops and cops are not workers,
because if this, if this were a decision about cops,
it would be nine zero in the other direction. Yeah,
so this is very bad. It's already like almost impossibly

difficult to get the National Labor Relations Bore to intervene
to like stop the shift from happening. It can happen,
it's just a really really long process, and they all
most never file any of these injections in the first place.
I'm gonna read a quote from the APA that I
disagree with. The NLRB requested fewer than twenty injunctions last year,

but they serve as a powerful deterrent against firing workers
trying to unionize, said Sharon Block, a professor at Harvard
Law School and a former member of the NLRB. With
a stricter standard in place to win the reinstatement of
fired workers, more companies may feel empowered to crack down
on unionization efforts. Miss Block said, now all offense to

miss Block. I think the fact that you were on
the fucking NLRB and you weren't out there trying to
fucking organize unions makes you in fact, not a particularly
good person to ask about how effective the NLRB's efforts
have actually been here, because I like the number of
people I know personally unrelated to any of the work
that I do, who have been fired in retaliation for

union organizing is extremely high. And yeah, like, obviously this
is gonna make it. You know, this is gonna make
companies more like like more willing to do it. But
it's not like the completely half fassed efforts that the
NLRB was making before. We're actually like really seriously deterring
companies from firing you, right like.

Speaker 3 (17:11):
We have other It's not like there are no other
tools at the disposed of organized labor to respond to
a retaliatree something like this, Right.

Speaker 2 (17:20):
Yeah, the best way to get your boss not retaliated
against you is to be well organized enough that if
they fucking try this, you breathe that you bring your
shot to a stop. And I have seen that work, right, Like,
it is possible to get people reinstated. It's it's hard,
but you know, you probably have a better shot of
like doing it by being well organized than you do
with the fucking NLRB ever getting to your case. So

you know, I like, and you know, I don't want
to be completely doom and gloom about this because it's like,
you know, like you can still definitely organize unions, right, Like,
this hasn't made it impossible to like do any of
this stuff. It's just that the legal apparatus has weighted
towards the boss. And the counteract to legal apparatus being
weighted towards the boss is you and how well organized

you are. So we're going to go from that to
what this episode was originally supposed to be about, which
is Supreme Court Wives. Yeah, and again, we were gonna
do war of this, but we're making reality TV show
about it instead. Yeah, it's it's nuts. Okay. So the
current big story basically is that Samuel Alito's wife can't
stop flying deranged right wing flags.

Speaker 5 (18:30):
Do you love a flag person?

Speaker 2 (18:32):
Yeah? So okay, Samuel Alito like, okay. So the story
that has been run within the media, and again it's
not clear how true any of this is Samuel Alito,
So we're going to talk about a bunch of deranged
right wing flags that've been flying outside the house of
Alito property. Samuel Alito claims that this is his wife
and he has nothing to do with it. Now do

we the public trust the word of a Supreme Court justice?
And I think the answer, I'm I'm not going to
give you the answer for you, but I'm I'm gonna
lay that out in front of you. So all right.
So the first one of these was she flew an
upside down US flag, which I had always remembered as
being an anti war thing. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (19:13):
I think the Chuds had tried to take it back, like, yeah,
very sad. Yeah, they're doing it because of course Joe
Biden is destroying the constitutional republic and so they're signaling
for help from other Chuds.

Speaker 5 (19:27):

Speaker 2 (19:28):
Originally it was a like January sixth, the US lesson
has been stolen thing, right?

Speaker 3 (19:33):

Speaker 2 (19:34):

Speaker 3 (19:34):
I still someone flying the thin blue line flag upside
down the other day. Unclear if they had to fuck
the police flag as well. So, like I guess, once
I saw that the situation was clarified, but I was like,
is this so is a cop in danger?

Speaker 2 (19:48):
Like what happ Yeah? So? And by the way, the
other thing I want to point out about this is
that there are like a bund there are a bunch
of journalists who knew about this like in twenty twenty
one and then just sat on it and didn't talk
about it until like this, the fuck is wrong with you? Yeah,
and this is this is this is this is why
I refuse, I like, I largely refuse to call myself
a journalist because these people are fucking hacks and frauds

who just sit on the stupid thing for their fucking
book releases.

Speaker 3 (20:12):
Yeah, I mean, those people don't know to be called jeneralates. Right,
it's pathetic. Like your job as a journalist is to
hold power to account and if you're not doing that
because you want to sell more books or yes, grift university.

Speaker 2 (20:26):
And again, this would have been fucking useful to know
in that actual like in the in the because because
in the immediate aftermath of January sixth, there was an
actual sort of a desire to do something about it.
And maybe if if you know, people had fucking known
that the wife of a Supreme Court justice was fucking
flying this shitty ass flag. Again probably actually a Supreme
Court justice like was flying this shitty ass the election

was stolen flagged, So that's part one of the flag news.
Now apparently partially what's going on is she's been getting
into a bunch of fights with her neighbors, who fucking
hate her because she's an asshole and she's.

Speaker 3 (21:02):
I wonder why, yes, absolutely, if you live within eyesight
of her house, I will ship you one big a
do crime flag.

Speaker 2 (21:12):
They they apparently have been doing that ship and trolling control,
which is fucking heroes, heroes. Get how how mad this
made her? Later, But one of the other flags that
she's been flying is a flag I had forgotten about,
which is the do you know the appeal to Heaven flag? Oh?

Speaker 3 (21:30):
Yeah, no, yes, unfortunately I do me because I drive
around East County, San Diego.

Speaker 2 (21:35):

Speaker 3 (21:37):
Yeah, a little tree flag for those who are not familiar,
little pine tree on a white background.

Speaker 2 (21:42):
Yeah. So okay, So this flag has been taken up
by so it's it's been spread around basically writing was
kind of more generally now, but it was it was
originally sort of reaped. This is a revolutionary war flag
that nobody has flown in like two hundred years, but
it's been taking back up by the new Epostolic Reformation,
which is like these guys, oh boy, oh boy. Okay,

So they're a jur like a deranged Christian nationalist like
organization of churches that is combined the most deranged principles
of the most deranged Christian sect, which is to say, Pentecostalism,
Charismatic Christianity, and like a very specific kind of insane dominionism,
and they have combined all of them together to form
like the super ideology that's like it's it's it's the

fucking like it's it's, it's it's the it's the dragon
ball z fusion of like literally the worst parts of
every insane right wing Christian ideology. And so they they
have come out with the belief that like they have
been basically chosen by God to like seize control of
the US and into a theocracy.

Speaker 3 (22:45):
Okay, they're like the power ranges of of Christian childs.

Speaker 2 (22:49):
Yeah. Yeah, Like it's like Marjorie Taylor Green's involved with
like larrd. Leo is one of the big Federalist Society
guys like also was flying this flag. And the Federal
Society has funneled a bunch of money to like a
bunch of like right wing legal cases and stuff. So
this is this is very good.

Speaker 3 (23:07):
So you used to see it a lot in the
Pacific Northwest among that kind of white separatist Christian Yeah,
like inward on their plate, carriers a lot and stuff.
That's kind of what I associate it with.

Speaker 2 (23:18):
Yeah, so this is this has been like like last year,
this was flying over Samuel Alito's beach house. So great
things out think here fuck me. Yeah. So there's there's
also a third piece of of missus Alito flag news,
which is that so she got project veritosed by a
liberal documentary filmmaker. They like did a sting operation like

when it bought a ticket to what if her dinners
are pretended to be a conservative and filmed her. And
I'm gonna read this quote from from Rolling Stowe. That's
that's about like what she said. You know what I want?
Miss Alito says, I want a Sacred Heart of Jesus
flag because I have to look across a lagoon at
the Pride flag for the next month. Right, referencing her husband,
miss Alito said, he's like, oh, please, don't put up

the flag. I said, I won't do it because I'm
deferring to you. But when you are free of this nonsense,
I'm putting it up. And I'm gonna send them a
message every day, maybe every week, I'll be changing the flags.
They'll be all kinds. I made a flag in my head.
This is how I satisfy myself. I made a flag.
It's white and yellow and orange flames around it, and
in the middle is the word of begonia in Italian

means shame virgona v e r g o g na
virgona shame, shame, shame on you, she adds. So she's
so mad about gay people that she is making up
flags in her head.

Speaker 3 (24:38):
Yes, and she's gonna fly to own them homophobic vexillology.
That's it's a new level of fucking like having your
brain broken by gay people existing.

Speaker 2 (24:49):
It's nuts.

Speaker 3 (24:50):
Do you know what hangs over my head like a
flag that says shame?

Speaker 2 (24:54):
Is Is it? The price of services? Are what this podcast?

Speaker 5 (24:57):
The obligation to pivot to adverts? Yes?

Speaker 2 (25:10):
Okay, So there is one last part of this story
that hasn't been getting any coverage at all that I'm
very alarmed about because and maybe it's the thing I
should have I should have led with. Okay, I'm gonna
read you this, and I am going to ask you
for a conceivable, possible alternative explanation that is not, that
is not. Samuel Leo's wife is openly saying she is

a Nazi. Quote when Windsor, Windsor is the name of
the filmmaker who did the like sting. When Windsor tells
Miss Alito she's being persecuted and depicted as a convenient
stand in for anybody who's religious, the Justice's wife gets
quieter and her tone turns more serious. Look at me,
look at me. I'm German. I'm from Germany. My heritage

is German. You come after me. I'm gonna give it
back to you. And there will be a way. It
doesn't have to be now, but there will be a way.
They know. Don't worry about it. God, you read the Bible.
Psalm twenty seven is my Psalm mine, Psalm twenty seven.
The Lord is by God and by Rock of whom
shall I be afraid nobody? Now?

Speaker 5 (26:13):

Speaker 3 (26:15):
Yeah, a lot of real emphasis on being German.

Speaker 2 (26:18):
What what possible? Genuinely, I defy anyone to come up
with a possible explanation of what the sentence. Look at me,
look at me. I'm German. I'm from Germany, my heritage
is German. You come after me. I'm gonna give it
back to you what possible. She is just straight up saying,
I am a German Nazi. And this is something that

the entitles fucking media has access to, and no one
is leading with a story that says samuel A Leedo's
wife says that she's a Nazi. I'm going insane. I
fuck it, we're where we're I've actually bang my microphone.
We're fucking leading this episode with the title Samuel Aleito's
wife admits she's a Nazi and other Supreme Court news
because fuck them, Someone's gotta do this.

Speaker 6 (27:02):
This is insane, this is nuts. What the fuck this is?
This is a bizarre thing to say, like to so much.
She knew to this person with a journalists no.

Speaker 2 (27:12):
No, no, no, she thought that they were a conservative activist.
So so what's happening here, I think is like like
basically like kind of in private, like like in conservative circle,
she's trying to say old people that like no, like
I'm a fucking Nazi, like I'm down with you, fucking right.

Speaker 5 (27:26):
Yeah. Yeah. It's sort of they're not saying the thing
but saying to sing.

Speaker 2 (27:30):
Yeah, like like it's it's like it's it's not even
dog whisting. It's just very openly talented selectives of people, like, hey,
this is where I stand. So that is not good.
And again this guy is one of the one of
the unelected people who can at any moment moment strip
any right from you for effectively any reason. So that's great, Yeah, great, wonderful.

Speaker 3 (27:52):
I'm still yeah, mind boggled at this, Like yeah, I
mean even if yeah, we're German, what are you gonna do,
Like you have a two for two l rate in Yeah, you're.

Speaker 2 (28:03):
Gonna lose a third sore get yours?

Speaker 3 (28:07):
You again, get get divided in half? Have you given
to Russia?

Speaker 5 (28:10):
Like what.

Speaker 2 (28:12):
It is like we we have not done much coverage
of how insane Germany has gotten right now, but like
there are like there are entire mobs of like people
in dance clubs chanting Germany is for Germans, like the
like there their Nazi party is like about the take control.

Speaker 3 (28:29):
Disband a number of like police and special forces units.
Oh yeah the Nazis. Yeah yeah, well it's not this
is all Nazis. Like you, you can be a Nazi
in the German police force. They don't care that much.

Speaker 2 (28:39):
But it's because they were specific They keep on specifically
getting caught either with killless of politicians or with the
planned to overthrow the government. Yeah yeah, so like you know,
so so we we like this. This, this is this
is my Like Germany is the one country on earth
that would be improved by an American occupation and then
being split into like thirty five, like every single country
in the world gets their one square mile of Germany
to rule over that. This would significantly improve Germany as

a country.

Speaker 5 (29:05):
I love that.

Speaker 2 (29:05):
Yeah, it turned it into the model un Yeah. So
from our plan to make Germany an international occupied territory
at Atcott to Germany, here we go. Yeah, all right,
we need to talk about there's even more Justice Thomas bullshit.
I thought there was only gonna be one Justice Thomas story,
and then a second Justice Thomas story broke as I

was writing the script. So okay, So the Senate Judiciary
Committee finally sort of got off its ass and decided
to look at Justice Thomas's obvious bribe money from Harlan
Crowe and a bunch of other mega donors, and they
found Lo and behold, Thomas took three more undisclosed private
jet flights marlenro Again. These people are just like obviously

taking bribe money. No, Congress won't do anything. Dick Durman
will issue a strongly worded statement, who he's the head
of the Senate Judiciary Committee, will offer a strongly worded
statement do nothing. So, yeah, if anything is going to
be done to the Streame Court, it's going to be
done by you, not by the fucking Congress that you
dominantly elect. Uh, because they just don't give a shit.

We also learned, so do you remember were you on
the Clarence Thomas episodes.

Speaker 5 (30:17):
I know, I didn't think I was.

Speaker 2 (30:18):
Oh no, yeah, that might have been a me and
garre one. Yeah. So one of the things that we
learned was that Harlan Crow had paid an unbelievable amount,
like like hundreds of thousands of dollars to send Thomas's grandnephew,
who he was like quote unquote raising like a son,
send him to like expensive private schools. So normal. Yeah,
So so we learned to We learned today or like

like maybe two days ago, that Thomas so okay, so
that this kid that like he had like raised as
a son, they just like completely so someone like some
some media people like caught up with his son who's
now in jail pending charges. Yeah, and his his his,
He's not going to be fucking bailed out by Justice Thomas,
who apparently like lost interest in him when he reached

high school and just shipped him off to a boarding school.
And then we always at boarding school, he got he
got expelled for failing a drug test and they just
like send him back to his mom and cut him off.
And he's talked to him like once or twice in
the last fourteen years. So that's great, real piece of shit.

Speaker 3 (31:17):
I mean, yeah, what having Clarence Thomas as a as
a as a patental figure in your life. That's to
a motherfucker I can't imagine.

Speaker 2 (31:24):
So yeah, like I I truely, I truly feel bad
for this guy. Uh yeah, yeah, fuck Clarence Thomas. Finally
to round up the Supreme Court news literally the more
like the board, like in the morning, the script was
like done right, and then again I wake up and
there's breaking news. Supreme Court has struck down Federal Bureau

of Tobacco and Firearms thing banning bump stocks. So I'm
gonna ask you to talk about bump stocks because I
I think I know what they are but I'm not
a gun person, so.

Speaker 3 (31:54):
Yeah, I'm happy to happy to be the token sis
white guy to talk about guns here. So the ATF
under Donald Trump. For a long time, the ATF it
explicitly said that bump stocks were not machine guns. After
the Las Vegas shooting in which one was used the
bump stock with then rules of machine guns, they kind
of pivoted.

Speaker 5 (32:11):

Speaker 3 (32:13):
What it bump stock is for those who are not familiar,
It's a device that kind of uses the recoil of
the weapon to kind of re fire. So basically it
allows you to fire much more quickly right. But crucially,
the trigger is going forward and back, unlike a machine
gun where you hold the trigger to the rear right

and the gun continues to fire. It's sort of you
can look up. I think it's probably much easier if
you can see it. But it's kind of a device
that connects the stock and then the pistol grip of
the weapon, and then it bounces back and forward, and
in doing so moves the finger back and forward. You
can also bump fire a gun without one, which is
as I just don't want to describe how to do that,

but if you you probably know already there are videos
on YouTube like like, it's not not a thing that's illegal,
I don't think, but neither of these are particularly effective.
It's kind of a range toy thing, like it's it's
a way to quickly turn money into noise. I don't
think that. Like they were massive craze, like a lot
of these gun things right there, there are like five

big accounts on YouTube, which set the fact that whatever
they're craze, Like gun people are very much like like
like preteens, you know, you know when you're in school
and suddenly everyone's got a fucking yoyo and if you
don't have a yo yo, you're a complete greeb and
then fuck your yo yo. It's Pokemon cards. Yeah, that
that's a lot of the firearms industry. So like these

were a big craze and then they kind of weren't.
And specifically when when the Donald Trump ATF banned them, right,
a lot of people were like, oh, you don't need
them any way to find that they're they're useless, Like
they definitely allow you to fire fire quicker, and you
can have the gun in your in your shoulder, which
you can't do when you're regularly bump firing.

Speaker 5 (33:56):
It, but they're not.

Speaker 3 (33:58):
It's not the same as a machine gun terms of
effectiveness in my opinion. So yeah, now you can buy
one again if you really want one in certain states.
I'm sure that there are state laws. I'm sure California
still bands in but well, you can't have a pistol
grip on your SAMI automatic rifle in California unless it's madlock.
But yeah, I don't think it's a big deal. Like

I'm looking right now, and of course, like you know
NBC and ship, it's like the end of the world
is nigh. Everyone now has a belt fed machine gun.
Not really, that's not that's not kind of what they do.
You can fire faster, but I don't think it's it's
going to make a meaningful change in the lethality of
fire arms and civilians have access to. Some couple use
it as an excuse to be to be a fucking

coward like they were a uvalde, right, But we can't
control that. I think it does signal like post Bruin, right,
which was a concealed carried decision, a willingness of the
court to go after the ATF.

Speaker 2 (34:54):
They didn't.

Speaker 3 (34:55):
There's a thing called I think it's called a Chevron
It's not a Chevron rule.

Speaker 5 (34:59):
Is a a Chevron oh doctrine?

Speaker 3 (35:02):
Chevron doctrine, right yeah, where like essentially they're telling lower
courts not to challenge legislatives or like opinion. So the
ATF is not itself a law making body, but it
can appine on what laws mean. But those can be
channeled in courts. They didn't touch the Chevron doctrine with
regards to the AIGHTF here, but I think we will

see other cases. Three D printed gun cases, for instance,
go up to Supreme Court and probably get a favorable
decision for gun rights' there's this Supreme Court and the
big ones, the ones that would make a meaningful difference,
at least to people in restricted states, would be assault
weapons bands that we have in California and magazine capacity

bands like we have in California. Right So, California, a
lot of other states limit you to ten rounds. California
you kind of have a pistol grape on a semi
automatic rifle and some other features. Unless the magazines locked
to the weapon, it requires disassembly to reload. So those
would make a meaningful difference to gun rights for people
in those states. This I think that big of a

deal personally, Like, look, look, fucking people are all over
the place with fully automatic blocks because they bought a
little three D printed switch on like either online or
I like, apparently people are buying them on the alley Express,
which is fucking unwise because it's coming into the country
and like a customer to look at that. Yeah, but
I've seen that in court cases. But yeah, this is

not that you know, like people are making auto se
as for AAR fifteens or court cases about that too.
I don't think this is that big of a deal,
but it maybe indicates that we will see other changes
in firearms legislation.

Speaker 2 (36:43):
Yeah, that makes sense. I think that's our wrap up
the Supreme Court news. I don't know, it's possible some
other bullshit drops at the end of today, but yeah,
this has been recorded on Friday, the whatever, the fourteenth.
So if there's if, if, if the Supreme Court has
done more bullshit, I'm sorry we didn't get to it,
but that that's all we got for Supreme for it today.

Speaker 5 (37:02):
Yeah, flags friends.

Speaker 2 (37:05):
Yeah by Fly Fly funnier flags.

Speaker 1 (37:08):
So it could happen here as a production of cool
Zone Media. For more podcasts on cool zone Media, visit
our website cool zonemedia dot com, or check us out
on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
to podcasts, you can find sources for It could happen here,
updated monthly at cool zonemedia dot com slash sources. Thanks

for listening.

It Could Happen Here News

Advertise With Us

Follow Us On


Robert Evans

Robert Evans

Show Links


Popular Podcasts

Who Killed JFK?

Who Killed JFK?

Who Killed JFK? For 60 years, we are still asking that question. In commemoration of the 60th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's tragic assassination, legendary filmmaker Rob Reiner teams up with award-winning journalist Soledad O’Brien to tell the history of America’s greatest murder mystery. They interview CIA officials, medical experts, Pulitzer-prize winning journalists, eyewitnesses and a former Secret Service agent who, in 2023, came forward with groundbreaking new evidence. They dig deep into the layers of the 60-year-old question ‘Who Killed JFK?’, how that question has shaped America, and why it matters that we’re still asking it today.

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.


© 2024 iHeartMedia, Inc.