October 20, 2025 • 41 mins
The Lincoln Project’s Rick Wilson examines Trump’s increasingly unpopular agenda. The New York Times’ Adam Liptak details originalism in the Supreme Court and how it affects the firing of government employees.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
today's best minds, and new polling from YouGov econ miss
shows a slow but steady decline in mail support for
the president over the past three months, slipping to forty
two percent approval fifty three percent disapproval. It's down eleven points.
(00:24):
We have such a great show for you today. The
Lincoln Project's own Rick Wilson joins us to discuss Trump's
increasingly unpopular agenda. Then we'll talk to The New York
Times his own Adam Liptik that originalism and the Supreme
Court and all the stuff they're doing to reshape our government.
(00:44):
But first the news.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Smile the tariffs. As we know, mister Trump loves to
pretend it's other countries paying for them, but really they're
going to cost companies one point two trillion this year
and that will mostly hit the consumers and have them
pay for it.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Tariffs are going to cost one point two trillillion dollars
this year. They're going to be paid by consumers. That's right,
Mexico not building the wall nor paying for the tariffs.
So here's the study published on Thursday, SMP Global found
that companies are now expected to pay one point two
trillion dollars more than twenty twenty five expenses. You know why,
(01:20):
because Donald Trump put a tax on the consumers with tariffs.
Here's what happened. What we told you would happen, Now
it's happened. I am not surprised by this even a
little bit. It is what we knew was going to happen.
Tariffs and trade barriers act as taxes. That's right, Tariffs
are taxes. There are corporate taxes paid by the consumer.
(01:44):
Donald Trump has done this to us, by the way,
his deminimous rule has made everything even more expensive. That
means that things valued at less than eight hundred dollars,
which usually would not be taxed, are now being tariff
to the hell out of them. So you want to
buy a two hundred dollars vacuum cleaner, that's now a
two hundred and fifty dollars vacuum cleaner, a two hundred
(02:05):
and thirty dollars vacuum cleaner. Everything from cooking oil to dish.
So the Yale Budget Lab estimate in August that Trump's
latest tariffs will cost US households about twenty four one
hundred dollars this year.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Yeah, it's real good stuff there. It's really going to
go great going into the holiday season for employment and
growth in our country Somali. Trump is wetting the bed
over Thomas Massey. He says he's got to go from Congress. Yeah,
you know, why is it the sky Epstein that Trump
was best friends with.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
I think that sounds like I said, yeah, no, listen,
this is incredible stuff we have. Basically, Thomas Massey wants
the Epstein files released. Donald Trump has some worries about
the Epstein files, as one does when your name is
in that file. I don't think the Epstein files are
going away. And this week Virginia Dufrain's posthumous memoir will
(03:00):
be published, and I think it's going to mean I mean,
it already means that Prince Andrew he is no longer
the Duke of York.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
Right, He's just like a snowmall, except except sex predator.
Speaker 1 (03:12):
Yeah, so look, Epstein's not going away. If Donald Trump
could get rid of Thomas Massey, Ebstein still wouldn't be
going away. Let's see how this goes. By the way,
I think that Trump should continue attacking him. I don't
think Thomas Massey understands government. I think he's a grandstander,
says Donald Trump, the man who understands government really really well.
(03:34):
He's known for his understandment of government. He's a high
government understander.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
That sounds about right to me, government understander.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
So a US federal judge has ordered Ice to wear
body cameras in Chicago. I'm always shocked at when you
see this footage, which ones you see wearing the body
cameras and which ones you don't like. In New York,
I feel like every time I see the footage, I
see the body cameras on them.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
Yeah. So there's a reason that cops started wearing barso
cameras because courts couldn't trust what they were saying. Now
it looks like Ice might have to get into the
body camera game. Two. I wonder if Peter Thiel makes
body cameras.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
It seems like pell and teers type of business.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
But you know the reason they're doing this is because
Ice is killing people. I mean, here's what happens. This
is a country that has laws until Donald Trump stops
having them, and so the body cameras are here we go.
So they have Les Lisel's shotguns, ammunitions launchers, pepperballs, tear
gas which they use pretty much indiscriminately. Well, now they're
(04:37):
going to have to take videos of it. The irony
here is that Ice loves to videotape themselves. Christy No
basically exists for YouTube. So good luck boys.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
Yeah, I have a feeling that's not going to go
well for them. It's considering they're beating congressional candidates with
the tons and throwing them on a regular basis.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
Yes, speak for yourself. I think it's going to go great.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
So my Jim Justice reportedly one of the laziest senators
we've ever had. He doesn't want to show up to
work for yourself.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
She flies to work sometimes on his jet. That is energy,
my man, that is energy. And also he is very.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Old, I know. And I have to tell you, like
you know, it's like a funny thing. Is like we've
often talked about prop dogs and politics over the years,
and I love that baby dog does it for me.
So like I hate to see that Mamana has a
tax scene against him because he ate paid his taxes.
Because there's no fucking laws in this country anymore.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
I think this probably predates Trump. My guess is yeah, yeah,
Justice and his wife Kathy have a total bounds of
more than eight million dollars in unpaid assessments, money that
he spends on his private jet travel. I don't know
what to say. First of all, he's supposedly a billionaire
many times over, so he should just pay his fucking taxes.
(05:56):
And also he should try to, perhaps apps get a
apartment in the district of Columbia where he works. That's
just but though maybe the government will be shut down
forever and he won't need to. But it's good to know.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
Let's hope not. My wife really needs a paycheck soon.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
I don't know. He's a reliable ally for President Trump,
so maybe President Trump will give him a preemptive pardon.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
We'll see, what's part of your tax payments.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
Let's pardon your tax payments after all Trump has done
Morse Rick Wilson is the founder of the Lincoln Partisan
and the host of the Enemy's List.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
Rick Wilson Molly John Fast, how are you, my friend?
Speaker 1 (06:40):
I want to read your statistic.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
Okay, I'm here for your.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
It's always fun when i'd come in with things I
want to read. Adding to our new data are estimated
turnout for the No King's Day protest yesterday has risen
to five point five million, with an upper bound of
eight point seven million, taking at the largest single day
political pro test in US history. This excludes the first
(07:04):
Earth Day.
Speaker 4 (07:05):
I've been to two No Kings protests in my little
town of Tallahassee, Florida. The first one had about five
thousand people, and this one was much much, much larger
in a town with three hundred thousand people, which is significant,
and it was it was replicating across the country. And
it's interesting because in every single one of these places
you saw yesterday, everybody just absolutely just like they're doing
(07:26):
in Portland now and in Chicago, they absolutely refused to
play to the bullshit Maga narrative. They absolutely refused. They're like, Okay,
we're gonna have fun, we're gonna bring American flags, we're
gonna be cheerful and singing and happy, and then we're
not gonna let them play the game of.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
The Communists are trying to take over with the pro
humus you blah blah blah. They just wouldn't do it.
Speaker 4 (07:45):
It struck me yesterday when I was walking through all
these people, this was a younger crowd than the first
No Kings rally, a lot more young people.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
That's actually really important.
Speaker 4 (07:55):
Yeah, And it struck me that the the edginess and
the huge of this one was much more front and
center than the first one. And the first one people
seemed very scared.
Speaker 3 (08:06):
This one.
Speaker 4 (08:06):
They seemed there was also like an edge of like haha,
fuck you. Like I was walking up and I see
you know, the the the you know, derriguar inflatable frogs,
and I saw a baby shark and it turned out
a friend of mine who I had no clue about
her politics, was in baby shark.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
Oh really, I had no clue about her politics at all,
And I was like, wait, what is that?
Speaker 2 (08:30):
You what?
Speaker 4 (08:31):
I think It was a bad day for them, and
they had to resort to Donald Trump posting really crap
AI slop memes of him pooping on people.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
Yesterday was a high stakes day. If oh, yeah, there
had been no turnouts, we would have been in a
lot of trouble. Right, If there hadn't been millions of people,
it would have meant talk us through that.
Speaker 4 (08:52):
I think I think if yesterday had been a flop,
if yesterday had been a had been had been a wheeze,
we would have the Maga media and Maga influencer space
would be absolutely running rings around everybody today, jumping up
in victory sing Donald Trump is the most beloved president ever.
But instead you have Bright Bart leading with a story
(09:14):
about Trump posting the poop video, and you have Fox
talking about, oh, the Democrats shutdown all day today. So
I think it's telling that they that they did not
get what the Republicans did not get what they were
hoping for out of this weekend, which was violence, anti Americans, images, arrests,
et cetera. From my understanding, the only arra and I
(09:36):
was actually looking in this rabbit hole earlier, the only
arrest I could find was of a MAGA guy who
showed up at a rally I think it was in Buffalo,
don't quote me on that, with a gun. But he
was a Maga guy because he'd been told that Hamas
was there.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
Yeah, well, because we the boy host press secretary said
that all Democrats were Hamas.
Speaker 4 (09:56):
Yeah, Hamas pro terrorist, all violent radical lectice the usual
gibber jabber out of her pie hole.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
So you know, Molly, I got I gonna say this.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
I think Carolyn Lovitt, you know, it is one thing
for me to make your mom joke on Twitter, but
at some point even the magas are like, is the
White House reduced to being like a D grade trolling shop?
Speaker 1 (10:19):
And that's what jade Van says.
Speaker 3 (10:22):
Oh God, yeah.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
The reason jad Evans came out to defend the Young
Nazi Youth League eg the YRS this weekend.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
So basically the Young Republican chat. This was a big
piece in Politico. They said things like I love Hitler,
can't wait to.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
Put so and so in the gas chamber, right, all that, And.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
I think one of the things that I'm struck by
with Jada Vance is he will defend any bad behavior
on the rights because.
Speaker 4 (10:44):
He's running for president in twenty twenty eight and he
follows the Steve Bannon rule there are no enemies to
my right flank, So he is willing to defend Nazis. Molly,
I gotta tell you, the Republican Party I was a
part of for a long time had many, many, many,
many flaws. But any person in the party who was like,
I love Hitler, Brown people are monkeys all that crap.
(11:07):
They would have been fired, they would have been cast out.
These people. And by the way, folks, for those of
you listening, if you think that's the only racist group,
chat among the yrs, I haven't reach brand. This is
what they are now, the screeching. Don't call us Nazis,
all right, Well, stop saying Nazi shit and believing Nazi
(11:27):
things and thinking about Nazi outcomes for your political enemies.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
See you have these no King's day, you have millions
of people, then you have this poor poll and you
have Trump not polling well in all sorts of underwater
on the economy and migration. That does Trump not see
these polls? Do people not show them to him?
Speaker 4 (11:49):
Tony Fabrizio, who has been his polster now for a
long time, Tony the pollster.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
Is not a stupid guy. He's not a stupid guy.
Speaker 5 (11:56):
He is.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
He's also known to be a pretty good pollster.
Speaker 4 (11:59):
Rights from getting too. He is incredible and qualified poles.
He's not generating numbers that are just made up fantasy numbers.
He's not mutant res Musen right right right, who just
literally make up like how many we please the king?
But I will say this, he's also not going to
bring Donald bad news, because that's a quick way in
Trump World to get sent out into the ether, to
(12:21):
get fired, to get dismissed, to get ignored. They know
how bad Trump's numbers are, but like so much of
what goes on in Trump World. Now, the reason Trump
says my approval rating is ninety seven percent is because
they will now go out and say, well, mister President,
our numbers have some issues here and there, but we
found this poll from Red Eagle, Palin Polling or whatever
(12:43):
that says you're so popular, and he will seize on
the inaccurate bait and ignore the unpalatable truth. So yeah,
but his polling is continued to slip, continue to drop,
continue to get into into worse and worse and worse areas.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Let's talk about what happens now. We have Trump World
bombing little ships in the Caribbean, patriating survivors, because why
explain to what's happening here in American international diplomacy? Killing
it right is the hash.
Speaker 3 (13:18):
Just well with the emphasis on the killing part.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
With emphasis killing.
Speaker 4 (13:22):
So so what they've done is declared a undeclared war
on Venezuela. Now, folks, why because the Donald Trump is
in the Epstein files. I kid you not, Donald Trump
is in the Epstein files.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
And that's what I will give you another.
Speaker 4 (13:40):
Well, there's another art, there's another reason they're doing this.
There is a philosophical construct among the modern authoritarians where
the world should below Russia should own Europe, China should
own Asia, and America should own American north and South.
And that is sort of the the tripart height vision
(14:00):
of the world that a lot of these maga populace
really love.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
Maduro is sitting.
Speaker 4 (14:06):
On a gigantic amount of oil and natural gas off
the coast of Venezuela. It is essentially Saudi Arabia with jungles. Now, look, Maduro.
There are no Maduro fans or defenders in America. Nobody
wakes up and goes man that Maduro is a great guy.
But what Trump has done is under the disguise of saying, oh, well,
(14:27):
these are drug smuggling boats, which we have never seen
evidence of. By the way, this government has never produced
a single shred of information or evidence or documents that
say that these drug boats are drug boats. Their entire
amount of evidence is trust me bro. So a lot
of them seem to be fishing boats. We are not
using the traditional targeting and intelligence process to identify these boats.
(14:50):
We are not using standard intelligence vetting processes to identify
these boats. And that is why the four star general
who runs Southern Command, which is that's the area of
operation that Venezuela.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
Falls under, just resigned.
Speaker 4 (15:03):
Yeah, he said, I can't do this. We're not this
is not We're not being behaving legally or ethically. Is
if you know how to read military code language. He
was basically saying, I'm not going to be a part
of a goddamn war crime. And that's what we're doing.
We're probably shooting up a bunch of fishermen. A lot
of these boats are are of a design that is
not meant to cross almost one thousand miles of ocean
(15:24):
between Venezuela and Florida.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
They're fishing boats.
Speaker 4 (15:28):
But Stephen Miller and p Heseth and Donald Trump have
decided this is a great distraction. We're going to have
a triumph when we depose Maduro and we install a
pro Maga, pro Western government in Caracas. I will tell
you that, you know, I don't.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
We've done really well.
Speaker 4 (15:47):
My Spanish isn't great, but I don't think we're going
to be greeted as liberators speak.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
Of problems in the world and ethical lapses. Donald Trump
has freed the political an are known as George Santos.
Speaker 4 (16:04):
George Santos will soon be named as the Viceroy of
the newly conquered American colony of Venezuela.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
Yeah, which we call Miami South.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
What are we doing here? Man?
Speaker 3 (16:15):
Listen? Santos is a great.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
He's not the restitution now, by the way, because he
decided he didn't want it.
Speaker 3 (16:21):
He's commuted.
Speaker 4 (16:23):
Mago wants to hear and needs to hear one message.
We're immune from consequence, We're immune from accountability. We can
commit any crime we want and Trump will pardon us,
get out of jail free. In a lot of ways.
And somebody said this to media, and I thought it
was really smart in a lot of ways. George Santos
(16:43):
being freed was a lot was a message to a
lot of these ice agents on the street. Interesting, you
can commit crimes, He's going to take care of you.
You can commit crime as long as you stay loyal,
he'll take care of you.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
Or there's something else.
Speaker 4 (16:56):
I don't know what Santos would have on Trump. God
got God, God.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
Knows, or somebody's doing someone a favor.
Speaker 4 (17:04):
Right, or it's Roger Stone like cashing a shit. I
don't know, but look in terms of like the least
sympathetic figures, and Trump has pardoned seven I think it's
seven now ex Republican members of Congress who.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
All were in jail or going to jail for criming.
Speaker 4 (17:20):
Yes, not political questions, not like were they supporting jan
Sis like stealing money or taking bribes. And that message
is to say to people on Trump's side, we don't
play by their rules.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
We don't have to be accountable.
Speaker 4 (17:37):
You know, you can cash in, you can abuse your power,
do what you want to do, go buck wild.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
We're here for you.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
I feel like the Santo thing bites him in the
ass because he's a guy who will not shut up.
He's everywhere. You have all of these maga Republicans who
voted so him out of Congress. Now they have to say.
Speaker 4 (17:59):
The New York delegation, the New York delegation, including a
lot of very reliable Trump allies like Mike Lawler and
at least the Phonic We're like, no, bro, this ain't it.
Speaker 3 (18:10):
This ain't the right.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
Way, and Stephanic is running for governor in her like
Trump adjacent but a little trumpy, but not that trumpy,
but sort of trumpy.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
I call it just the tip trump Ism, but nice.
Speaker 1 (18:22):
I'm glad you could get. You can always get the
sort of most offensive way to you know, I appreciate it.
But sure the lack of gentility, yes, continue.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
Yes, but at least I'm not sending out videos of
people pooping on of their people like Trump did.
Speaker 1 (18:40):
That's right. See, do you think.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
His staff is trolling him?
Speaker 1 (18:43):
Do you think that's the comp you want? No, I'm
just kidding. I want you to get back to Stefanic
because I want to talk about the New Jersey governor's
race for a minute. So two twenty twenty five races
happening in sixteen days. One is this Virginia race for
where Spamburger is probably gonna win against win Sears.
Speaker 5 (19:08):
Sears.
Speaker 3 (19:09):
Wins Seers sounds like a cowboy name and she.
Speaker 1 (19:13):
But when she talks, she just sounds like a lunatic.
Speaker 4 (19:16):
She sounds like somebody who's wandering the streets talking about
how that somebody put a chip in her head.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
Yeah, No, Winsome Sears wins seers.
Speaker 3 (19:25):
You know, it's like you hear it tell you, like,
are the voices in the room rate with you right now?
Speaker 1 (19:29):
So I think Spamberger's got that locked up.
Speaker 3 (19:32):
Look, I won't say locked up.
Speaker 4 (19:33):
They had a little speed bump with this a G guy,
which the Republicans tried to convert on, but I don't
think it's gonna I don't think it's gonna change it.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
So the AG sent a text to someone in twenty
twenty two, right that was like we should That was terrible,
basically saying like you should kill a candidate because that's
the only way they'll learn. Terrible, Also indefensible, indefensible and moronic.
(20:02):
And also like when you read the text, it's worse
because his way of explaining it is stupid too, Like
it's all stupid and that. But they run on different tickets,
like you know, don't vote for em okay.
Speaker 4 (20:15):
Yep, which and I think she's navigated that. Spanberger has
navigated that pretty well. But that rate look in Virginia,
I know from our polling in Virginia that has not
really changed. The Spanberger equation. Sears is in the classic
trap Trump's not on the ballot. The negative outcomes of
Trump is in Virginia from DOJE and projects twenty twenty
(20:37):
five cuts and everything else are on the ballot, and
it's hard for Sears to say I'm going to bring
back a great economic revival to Virginia when Donald Trump
has taking one hundred and twenty thousand jobs out of Virginia.
So you know that is a state where the externalities
of Trump are hurting. I think it's also to go
back to New Jersey for a second. I think Chittarelli
(20:59):
now has to with Trump canceling a gigantic infrastructure project
that would have directly benefited New Jersey, and it was
responsible for a lot of high paying jobs in New
Jersey and Trump just killed it because President Russell Vaught
decided he was going to kill it.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
This is one of the interesting things about the shutdown.
You talk to reporters who talked to this White House
and they'll say, these guys are thrilled with the shutdown.
This is what they'll say. They feel they're winning the shutdown,
they feel emboldened, they feel powerful, And I say, to
these people, shut the fuck up. I don't want to
hear how they're spending you. Number One and also this
(21:40):
shutdown is now becoming about russ vaught canceling programs that
were already in you know, some of them are being built.
Speaker 4 (21:51):
Some of these things are already done or already i
mean the contracts are done there way welt built. Yeah,
and none of it, none of it when you get down.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
To it, Molly has the.
Speaker 4 (22:06):
The uplift of like, we're cutting corruption, we're cutting fraud
wasted because none of that's about this. Trump is deliberately saying,
I'm going out to cut democratic programs. I'm going to
cut the things you like.
Speaker 1 (22:21):
I'm going to bring it punish. I'm going to use
the federal government to punish states that didn't vote for me.
Speaker 4 (22:27):
He's now and especially on on now that we're in
the now that we're in Mike Johnson's new phase of bsing,
why this why the shutdown is here. No, we would
come back anytime as long as the Democrats agree to
endorse everything we want above and beyond just the budget.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
So you have these pocket recisions, were going to do
this anyway, signed off on a budget, and then the
Trump administration werecinded five billion dollars in foreign aid because
of vibes and even you have Republicans saying like why
would they trust?
Speaker 3 (22:57):
Right?
Speaker 4 (22:57):
The Republicans are hearing from their own pulse. Okay, not
from the White House, not from you know, smoke up
your ass, Rasmussen Poles or Trafowger Poles.
Speaker 3 (23:07):
They're hearing from their own polsters.
Speaker 4 (23:09):
You're taking the blame. You're the ones who won't come back.
You're taking the blame. I don't think that the House
candidates have a lot longer to run before the pressure
on them politically reaches the point where one or two
of them go to Mike Johnson. And if one or
two of them go to Mike john say Boss, you're
killing me, it will start a cascade. They understand that
(23:31):
America the broad question across the country. We have now
had ten surveys since the shutdown among likely voters where
they blame the Republicans by somewhere between six and eighteen points.
This is bad, bad, bad for the Republicans. And no
matter how magga they are on paper, no candidate in
(23:51):
the end is going to burn himself down over a shutdown.
That is going to brand them as somebody who was
willing to burn hit their own constituents it's not going
to do it.
Speaker 3 (24:02):
In the end.
Speaker 1 (24:02):
You see Trump trying a redistrict that keeps going. There
is a world where they hit themselves in the head
with us.
Speaker 4 (24:11):
There is a world where the collapses in various national
real estate markets, the terrible jobs outlook, the terrible economic picture,
the continued damage of the tariffs, the shutdown. They've become
the party causing the problem. They become the people causing
the problem. And I think that's a bad place for
them to be in the fall of the year before
(24:33):
a big, consequential election where the picture is not going
to get any prettier.
Speaker 1 (24:36):
Rick Wilson Bolly Junk Fast Adam Leptik covers the Supreme
Court for the New York Times and writes sidebar, a
column on legal developments. Welcome to Fast Politics, Adam.
Speaker 5 (24:50):
It's good to be here.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
So you are one of the very smart people who
write about the Supreme Court who I try to always read.
You write about other stuff too. I mean I do
write about courts, more generally.
Speaker 5 (25:02):
I write about the law. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
Yeah, this is a very interesting and a little bit
probably disturbing time to be writing that law. But you
wrote this piece that absolutely captured my imagination about originalism.
So give us a sort of why originalism matters, who
this guy is, who's sort of one of the fathers
of originalism, and sort of why this is so important.
Speaker 6 (25:26):
So, originalism is a theory of how to interpret the
Constitution that conservatives generally like. And it says the task
of the judge is to unearth discover the original meaning
of the constitutional text when it was drafted and ratified,
and that is said to constrain judges. It doesn't allow
them to make up rights like conservatives state that the
(25:48):
Warrant Court did in the sixties. And it generally yields
conservative results, generally, not always. And the Supreme Court's conservative
majority generally claims that originalism is their touchdown, the guide,
and when you look at it, it's not clear that
they're always being faithful to their own interpretive methodology. This guy, yes, So,
(26:09):
Caleb Nelson is one of a handful of really respected
originalist scholars. A straight shooter teaches at the University of Virginia.
Clerk for Clarence Thomas has been cited an extraordinary number
of times at the Supreme Court. A single citation for
a scholar is a great honor. He's been cited maybe
(26:30):
more than a dozen times, and by every single one
of the six members of the current Conservative supermajority. And
the Court will soon answer a question that it's been
ramping up over the years to answer. And it's particularly
a salient now under Trump, who keeps firing the heads
of supposedly independent agencies. And that question is does the
(26:51):
president have an unfettered right to remove people in the
executive branch even when Congress says no, you have to
have a good reason. And the Court's going to hear
arguments about this in December, and just as that argument
is coming up, Caleb Nelson weighs in and says, you
know what, I'm an originalist and I don't see the
originalist argument for this. The Constitution says something about how
(27:14):
officials are appointed, you know, President Jesus Senate confirms it
says nothing about removal. In so many words, removal was
never discussed at the Constitutional Convention.
Speaker 5 (27:24):
There's mixed evidence from the.
Speaker 6 (27:26):
Early years of Congress, and there's no good originalist reason
to think that Congress, which is granted the constitutional authority
to shape and manage the executive branch along many dimensions
can't do this.
Speaker 5 (27:41):
Also, and another.
Speaker 6 (27:43):
Originalist scholar, William Bode, on social media, called this paper
a bombshell, and when I happened to run into him
not long ago, he.
Speaker 5 (27:50):
Said to me, Caleb Nelson is never wrong.
Speaker 6 (27:54):
And while I don't think this is going to change
where the court is heading because it's been a long trajectory,
it's certainly to complicate the case.
Speaker 1 (28:01):
So what I want you to explain is is this
a real schism or not.
Speaker 6 (28:05):
There's an academic side to this, and I think some
academics really do follow the evidence where it leads, and
this will influence the scholarly debate. Does it, you know,
kind of dynamite the judicial project? I don't think so.
I think there's a good argument to be made that
originalism is often a kind of thig leaf. It's available
to you if it helps you reach the result you
(28:26):
want to reach. It's a surprisingly malleable interpretive methodology because
depending on what level of generality you approach the question at,
you can get liberal or conservative results out of it.
So I think it more illuminates that this supposedly neutral
and constraining methodology is in fact nothing of the sort.
And you see that in these cases on executive power,
(28:48):
where the court doesn't really look to the historical materials,
it looks to what it's a conception of what the
president should be able to do or not. That was
really most evident last year in the City granting Trump immunity.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
I always thought of a Roberts Court. It's really not
the Roberts go anymore, really, but that the Roberts Court
was always cared a lot about appearances, or at least
wanted to make things look a certain way. It seems
as if the last two cycles that has not been
as important.
Speaker 6 (29:19):
We're so polarized that it's hard to see straight and
it's hard for a court, even one that wants to
appear measured and incremental and governed by law and institutionalist,
to satisfy every constituency These days, from the perspective of
the left, the Court has really given Trump the green
(29:40):
light to do all kinds of really aggressive things to
the government and not stood in his way at all. So,
if the Chief Justices goal is to preserve the authority, integrity,
legitimacy of the Court, he has some real challenges.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
Right, that's true. But the voting rights case on Wednesday,
the oral arguments.
Speaker 5 (30:01):
Which is a good example of where we are right.
Speaker 1 (30:03):
Yeah, talk us through that.
Speaker 6 (30:05):
So in nineteen sixty five, the civil rights movement achieved
one of its landmark victories with the enactment of the
Voting Rights Act, for which people literally bled and died,
and it was meant to protect minority, particularly black voting rights,
and particularly in the South, whereas you know, the lawless
Southern officials had stopped black people from voting pretty completely.
(30:29):
The Supreme Court, in the Roberts era has gutted one
main component of the Voting Rights Act, it's Section five,
which requires federal approval of voting changes and jurisdictions with
the history of discrimination.
Speaker 5 (30:44):
But it left standing another.
Speaker 6 (30:45):
Part of the law, which allows after the fact lawsuits,
Section two. And in an argument this week, it sure
seemed like the Court was either going to outright strike
down Section two as unconstitutional or at least severely limited.
And it's thinking is somewhat like it's thinking in the
Affronative Action case from Harvard and UNC. The originalists on
(31:07):
the Court claimed that the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment,
which was adopted to protect black people, actually adopted a
colorblind view of the Constitution, so that a congressionally enacted
statute like the Voting Rights Act, which takes a counter
of rays and tries to help historically disadvantaged people, runs
a fell of the Constitution. And if it were to
(31:29):
take that step, that would be a major blow to
this landmark legislation, and it would have a practical effect
also of helping Republicans in the midterms.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
I mean, were you surprised by those oral arguments?
Speaker 6 (31:42):
I guess a little bit the kind of signal that
they were up to something because they had heard arguments
about in this very case last term, and instead of
deciding it, they set it down to consider larger issues.
And whenever the Court does that, it did that in
Citizens United. It turned a little case into a big case.
How you have the sense that they're turning it into
a big case. But the receptivity of the conservative justices
(32:04):
to some of the broader arguments and did surprise me
a big.
Speaker 1 (32:08):
Us in that case, the only people who would be
able to save it would be Amy, Coney and Roberts Well.
Speaker 6 (32:16):
That's you identified the middle of the court. Sometimes Brett
Kavanaugh is also in the middle of the court. But
he was very He has this idea that he was
pressing at the argument that the Voting Rights Act might
have been well and good for a while, but it's
reached its sell by date.
Speaker 1 (32:31):
Yeah, there's no more racism.
Speaker 6 (32:33):
Right, And it's not clear that statutes have a sell
by date.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
It's not clear that America has ended racism right.
Speaker 6 (32:41):
And Section two requires courts to look at contemporary circumstances,
So you have to prove that minority voters are being
disadvantaged to win your case anyway. So I'm not sure
that makes a ton of sense. That also has an
echo with the affirmative action case, where in two thousand
and two Justice Senrede O'Connor, you didn't expect we'd need
affirmative action in twenty five years, and the Court got
(33:04):
rid of it a couple of years early.
Speaker 1 (33:06):
So many of the things that we see them decide
seem like they are very politically advantageous for the right.
Do you think that the justices think that that's what's happening.
Speaker 6 (33:17):
So I'm prepared to believe that the justices, all the
justices are operating in good faith, and if you gave
them ali detector test, they believe that they were applying
legal principles to achieve legal results. But they were picked
for these jobs because people knew how they think, and
they were picked for these jobs by sophisticated politicians the
president of the Senate, in order to achieve certain goals.
(33:38):
And they have quite consistently voted as their appointing presidents
might like. So this question of you know, are they
acting in bad faith is maybe not the most important question.
Speaker 5 (33:50):
The question is what are the votes and what are
the results?
Speaker 1 (33:53):
Yeah, that's a good point. It seems as if the
only person who is as add to the court who
has been at all surprising has been Justice Spared.
Speaker 5 (34:05):
Yeah. Justice Bart is an interesting figure.
Speaker 6 (34:07):
She does seem to have both common sense and intellectual rigor,
but it's easy to overstate how much she has transgressed,
how much she has stepped away from the usual conservative
line in all the big cases, all the big cases abortion,
affirmative action, guns, immunity. Whenever she might have had an
opportunity to truly surprise, she did not and went along
(34:30):
with the majority. In less important cases, she has been
the justice most likely to vote with the liberals.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
This is true, right, But that's a good point. And
what she says in oral arguments is irrelevant if she
then votes with the majority.
Speaker 6 (34:46):
Yeah, agreed, and I mean I respect her she an
oral argument. She is a very rigorous thinker, and unlike
some justices who seem inclined to make speeches rather than
and try to elicit information from the advocates, she's authentically
trying to get to the bottom of things.
Speaker 1 (35:05):
Do you think that the Supreme Court? Since you've covered
the courts for such a long time through different incarnations, I.
Speaker 5 (35:14):
Covered the Court for seventeen years.
Speaker 6 (35:15):
I'm actually stepping away from the daily beat coverage, but
I have some history.
Speaker 2 (35:19):
With the court.
Speaker 1 (35:20):
Seventeen years a long time. Do you think the court
is radically different than it was seventeen years ago.
Speaker 5 (35:26):
Yeah, and for one reason and one reason only.
Speaker 6 (35:28):
The Court for the first ten years that I covered
it had Justice Kennedy on it, and he was at
the middle of the court. Some people call him the
swing justice. He was the fulcrum on which the court
operated and he would mostly lean right, but in important
cases on abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, and especially
gay rights, he would lean left. And that five fourness
(35:51):
of the court is very different. It's a very different
flavor than the six' to three court cases these days
kind of seemed pre cooked the moment they grant the.
Case you know what's going to happen when justice can
he was on the, court it did feel a little
bit more like a court in which people had a
fair shot winning their.
Speaker 1 (36:06):
Case when you think about THE lgbtq rights, stuff the
conversion therapy, case all of the sort of cases around trans.
Rights they have a bunch of those. Cases what is
your sense of this courts like this is a court
that overturned. Raw do you think that's where this precedent setting.
Speaker 6 (36:29):
Ends i'll draw distinction first of, all between gay rights
and trans. Rights ten years, ago In Oberga, fell The
court established the constitution right the same sex. MARRIAGE i
don't think there's a serious threat to. That there are
all kinds of ways in which religious groups can chip
away at that, right dissent from it not, acknowledged and so,
on but the basic right probably is. Sound and then
(36:50):
only five years, ago in an opinion By Joseph, gorsage
The court found that both gay and transgender workers are
protected from employment discrimination by a. STATUTE i think that's
the high water mark for gay and trans. WRITES i
think they're going to move it in the other. Direction In,
june as you, know in a case Called, scrimti they
said That tennessee and other states could forbid gender transition.
(37:12):
Care they just heard this case on conversion therapy that's
going to go against the trends. Side they're going to
hear a case on trans athletes that's going to go
against the trans. Side so this was a court which
seemed to be moving in one, direction and as with
the political climate and to some extent the social, climate
it's taken a different.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
Direction.
Speaker 1 (37:33):
Yeah so. Interesting does ultimately The Supreme court abandon legal
academia as these two groups sort of go further and
further away from each.
Speaker 6 (37:43):
Other it's too complicated to make that kind of sweeping,
statement AND i don't think academics have ever been all that.
INFLUENTIAL i heard a judge on The Second, Circuit Robert,
sack once say that law review articles are like street
lamps when you're, drunk used more for support than. Illumination that,
is you, know you cite a lot of your article
(38:04):
that agrees with you for window, dressing not because it's
persuaded you to take a different position than the one
you came in.
Speaker 1 (38:10):
With has a conservative legal movement been a huge? Success?
Speaker 5 (38:14):
Oh, yeah there's a bit of a pendulum to. This
the warrant court was quite. Liberal we've now swung a
completely different.
Speaker 6 (38:20):
Direction but the conservative legal movement was a concerted, effort you,
know from The reagan years to establish in law schools
which were and are quite, liberal a kind of counter
group and well funded and very, strategic and you, know
running conservative law clerks into conservative chambers and then finding
them good jobs and putting them on the bench and
(38:41):
coming up with easy to understand theories like. Originalism they've
really outflanked the left in power on The Supreme court
and in the lower.
Speaker 1 (38:51):
Courts thank, You, adam.
Speaker 5 (38:52):
Great to be. Here thanks for having.
Speaker 3 (38:54):
Me, No, rick Will Molly John?
Speaker 1 (39:01):
Fast are you tough enough for the? Army tough enough
for the police? Force?
Speaker 4 (39:06):
No if the answer is, no why not join The
department Of Homeland securities.
Speaker 1 (39:10):
On Some, oklazon welcome to ice.
Speaker 3 (39:12):
Baby those two women.
Speaker 4 (39:15):
Still got, it still got, It they still got it
twenty years, in they still got that ringing the bell
of Weirdo.
Speaker 1 (39:21):
Republicans what is your moment of?
Speaker 4 (39:24):
Fuckery you know my moment of fuckery is In, well
most of our nation's government workers aren't getting. Paid Christy
nome And corleywandowski have been given.
Speaker 1 (39:33):
Too New you spell it with AN e because that's
how she thought it was. Spelled.
Speaker 4 (39:37):
Apparently, yes they've been given two new private jets to.
Use The coastguard had to buy, them but they are
exclusively for the use Of Christy nome and her.
Speaker 3 (39:45):
Courtesan do you know much they? Cost it was one
hundred and fifty million for, both one.
Speaker 1 (39:49):
Hundred and seventy two million for.
Speaker 3 (39:52):
Both and by the, way, folks jack not to go
into the weeds on these. Jets but they.
Speaker 5 (39:56):
FANCY i saw.
Speaker 2 (39:59):
Pictures these are nice private.
Speaker 1 (40:01):
Jets, yeah a Golf stream five fifty million to replace
an aging one because she doesn't have a good. One
and then, aw so ooh it's so. Fancy look at
the white.
Speaker 2 (40:13):
Leather, oh, yeah there it.
Speaker 4 (40:15):
Is by the, way, folks a Golf stream, five even
an older, one even a twenty year old Golf stream,
five is an exceedingly nice.
Speaker 1 (40:21):
Aircraft well speak for, yourself.
Speaker 4 (40:23):
Baby these people are telling you That christinome and her Consort,
corlewandowski and their film crew that travels with her at all,
times her makeup and hair crew that travels with her
at all.
Speaker 3 (40:34):
Times they need a private jet that's. New they can't
use a jet that's five years. Old my, god that's
a that's a. Travesty it reminds me of these people
that are, LIKE i don't fly.
Speaker 4 (40:43):
Scheduled, yeah well Apparently christinem doesn't fly, scheduled nor does
she fly anything that.
Speaker 3 (40:48):
Isn't still doesn't have that new private.
Speaker 4 (40:50):
Jet Smell Rick, wilson, tumbrels, Pitchforks they're.
Speaker 1 (40:54):
Coming that's it for this episode Of Fast. Poly tune
in Every, Monday, Wednesday thursday And saturday to hear the
best minds and politics make sense of all this. Chaos
if you enjoy this, podcast please send it to a
friend and keep the conversation. Going thanks for. Listening
Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
today's best minds, and new polling from YouGov econ miss
shows a slow but steady decline in mail support for
the president over the past three months, slipping to forty
two percent approval fifty three percent disapproval. It's down eleven points.
(00:24):
We have such a great show for you today. The
Lincoln Project's own Rick Wilson joins us to discuss Trump's
increasingly unpopular agenda. Then we'll talk to The New York
Times his own Adam Liptik that originalism and the Supreme
Court and all the stuff they're doing to reshape our government.
(00:44):
But first the news.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Smile the tariffs. As we know, mister Trump loves to
pretend it's other countries paying for them, but really they're
going to cost companies one point two trillion this year
and that will mostly hit the consumers and have them
pay for it.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Tariffs are going to cost one point two trillillion dollars
this year. They're going to be paid by consumers. That's right,
Mexico not building the wall nor paying for the tariffs.
So here's the study published on Thursday, SMP Global found
that companies are now expected to pay one point two
trillion dollars more than twenty twenty five expenses. You know why,
(01:20):
because Donald Trump put a tax on the consumers with tariffs.
Here's what happened. What we told you would happen, Now
it's happened. I am not surprised by this even a
little bit. It is what we knew was going to happen.
Tariffs and trade barriers act as taxes. That's right, Tariffs
are taxes. There are corporate taxes paid by the consumer.
(01:44):
Donald Trump has done this to us, by the way,
his deminimous rule has made everything even more expensive. That
means that things valued at less than eight hundred dollars,
which usually would not be taxed, are now being tariff
to the hell out of them. So you want to
buy a two hundred dollars vacuum cleaner, that's now a
two hundred and fifty dollars vacuum cleaner, a two hundred
(02:05):
and thirty dollars vacuum cleaner. Everything from cooking oil to dish.
So the Yale Budget Lab estimate in August that Trump's
latest tariffs will cost US households about twenty four one
hundred dollars this year.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Yeah, it's real good stuff there. It's really going to
go great going into the holiday season for employment and
growth in our country Somali. Trump is wetting the bed
over Thomas Massey. He says he's got to go from Congress. Yeah,
you know, why is it the sky Epstein that Trump
was best friends with.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
I think that sounds like I said, yeah, no, listen,
this is incredible stuff we have. Basically, Thomas Massey wants
the Epstein files released. Donald Trump has some worries about
the Epstein files, as one does when your name is
in that file. I don't think the Epstein files are
going away. And this week Virginia Dufrain's posthumous memoir will
(03:00):
be published, and I think it's going to mean I mean,
it already means that Prince Andrew he is no longer
the Duke of York.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
Right, He's just like a snowmall, except except sex predator.
Speaker 1 (03:12):
Yeah, so look, Epstein's not going away. If Donald Trump
could get rid of Thomas Massey, Ebstein still wouldn't be
going away. Let's see how this goes. By the way,
I think that Trump should continue attacking him. I don't
think Thomas Massey understands government. I think he's a grandstander,
says Donald Trump, the man who understands government really really well.
(03:34):
He's known for his understandment of government. He's a high
government understander.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
That sounds about right to me, government understander.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
So a US federal judge has ordered Ice to wear
body cameras in Chicago. I'm always shocked at when you
see this footage, which ones you see wearing the body
cameras and which ones you don't like. In New York,
I feel like every time I see the footage, I
see the body cameras on them.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
Yeah. So there's a reason that cops started wearing barso
cameras because courts couldn't trust what they were saying. Now
it looks like Ice might have to get into the
body camera game. Two. I wonder if Peter Thiel makes
body cameras.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
It seems like pell and teers type of business.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
But you know the reason they're doing this is because
Ice is killing people. I mean, here's what happens. This
is a country that has laws until Donald Trump stops
having them, and so the body cameras are here we go.
So they have Les Lisel's shotguns, ammunitions launchers, pepperballs, tear
gas which they use pretty much indiscriminately. Well, now they're
(04:37):
going to have to take videos of it. The irony
here is that Ice loves to videotape themselves. Christy No
basically exists for YouTube. So good luck boys.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
Yeah, I have a feeling that's not going to go
well for them. It's considering they're beating congressional candidates with
the tons and throwing them on a regular basis.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
Yes, speak for yourself. I think it's going to go great.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
So my Jim Justice reportedly one of the laziest senators
we've ever had. He doesn't want to show up to
work for yourself.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
She flies to work sometimes on his jet. That is energy,
my man, that is energy. And also he is very.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Old, I know. And I have to tell you, like
you know, it's like a funny thing. Is like we've
often talked about prop dogs and politics over the years,
and I love that baby dog does it for me.
So like I hate to see that Mamana has a
tax scene against him because he ate paid his taxes.
Because there's no fucking laws in this country anymore.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
I think this probably predates Trump. My guess is yeah, yeah,
Justice and his wife Kathy have a total bounds of
more than eight million dollars in unpaid assessments, money that
he spends on his private jet travel. I don't know
what to say. First of all, he's supposedly a billionaire
many times over, so he should just pay his fucking taxes.
(05:56):
And also he should try to, perhaps apps get a
apartment in the district of Columbia where he works. That's
just but though maybe the government will be shut down
forever and he won't need to. But it's good to know.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
Let's hope not. My wife really needs a paycheck soon.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
I don't know. He's a reliable ally for President Trump,
so maybe President Trump will give him a preemptive pardon.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
We'll see, what's part of your tax payments.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
Let's pardon your tax payments after all Trump has done
Morse Rick Wilson is the founder of the Lincoln Partisan
and the host of the Enemy's List.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
Rick Wilson Molly John Fast, how are you, my friend?
Speaker 1 (06:40):
I want to read your statistic.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
Okay, I'm here for your.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
It's always fun when i'd come in with things I
want to read. Adding to our new data are estimated
turnout for the No King's Day protest yesterday has risen
to five point five million, with an upper bound of
eight point seven million, taking at the largest single day
political pro test in US history. This excludes the first
(07:04):
Earth Day.
Speaker 4 (07:05):
I've been to two No Kings protests in my little
town of Tallahassee, Florida. The first one had about five
thousand people, and this one was much much, much larger
in a town with three hundred thousand people, which is significant,
and it was it was replicating across the country. And
it's interesting because in every single one of these places
you saw yesterday, everybody just absolutely just like they're doing
(07:26):
in Portland now and in Chicago, they absolutely refused to
play to the bullshit Maga narrative. They absolutely refused. They're like, Okay,
we're gonna have fun, we're gonna bring American flags, we're
gonna be cheerful and singing and happy, and then we're
not gonna let them play the game of.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
The Communists are trying to take over with the pro
humus you blah blah blah. They just wouldn't do it.
Speaker 4 (07:45):
It struck me yesterday when I was walking through all
these people, this was a younger crowd than the first
No Kings rally, a lot more young people.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
That's actually really important.
Speaker 4 (07:55):
Yeah, And it struck me that the the edginess and
the huge of this one was much more front and
center than the first one. And the first one people
seemed very scared.
Speaker 3 (08:06):
This one.
Speaker 4 (08:06):
They seemed there was also like an edge of like haha,
fuck you. Like I was walking up and I see
you know, the the the you know, derriguar inflatable frogs,
and I saw a baby shark and it turned out
a friend of mine who I had no clue about
her politics, was in baby shark.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
Oh really, I had no clue about her politics at all,
And I was like, wait, what is that?
Speaker 2 (08:30):
You what?
Speaker 4 (08:31):
I think It was a bad day for them, and
they had to resort to Donald Trump posting really crap
AI slop memes of him pooping on people.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
Yesterday was a high stakes day. If oh, yeah, there
had been no turnouts, we would have been in a
lot of trouble. Right, If there hadn't been millions of people,
it would have meant talk us through that.
Speaker 4 (08:52):
I think I think if yesterday had been a flop,
if yesterday had been a had been had been a wheeze,
we would have the Maga media and Maga influencer space
would be absolutely running rings around everybody today, jumping up
in victory sing Donald Trump is the most beloved president ever.
But instead you have Bright Bart leading with a story
(09:14):
about Trump posting the poop video, and you have Fox
talking about, oh, the Democrats shutdown all day today. So
I think it's telling that they that they did not
get what the Republicans did not get what they were
hoping for out of this weekend, which was violence, anti Americans, images, arrests,
et cetera. From my understanding, the only arra and I
(09:36):
was actually looking in this rabbit hole earlier, the only
arrest I could find was of a MAGA guy who
showed up at a rally I think it was in Buffalo,
don't quote me on that, with a gun. But he
was a Maga guy because he'd been told that Hamas
was there.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
Yeah, well, because we the boy host press secretary said
that all Democrats were Hamas.
Speaker 4 (09:56):
Yeah, Hamas pro terrorist, all violent radical lectice the usual
gibber jabber out of her pie hole.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
So you know, Molly, I got I gonna say this.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
I think Carolyn Lovitt, you know, it is one thing
for me to make your mom joke on Twitter, but
at some point even the magas are like, is the
White House reduced to being like a D grade trolling shop?
Speaker 1 (10:19):
And that's what jade Van says.
Speaker 3 (10:22):
Oh God, yeah.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
The reason jad Evans came out to defend the Young
Nazi Youth League eg the YRS this weekend.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
So basically the Young Republican chat. This was a big
piece in Politico. They said things like I love Hitler,
can't wait to.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
Put so and so in the gas chamber, right, all that, And.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
I think one of the things that I'm struck by
with Jada Vance is he will defend any bad behavior
on the rights because.
Speaker 4 (10:44):
He's running for president in twenty twenty eight and he
follows the Steve Bannon rule there are no enemies to
my right flank, So he is willing to defend Nazis. Molly,
I gotta tell you, the Republican Party I was a
part of for a long time had many, many, many,
many flaws. But any person in the party who was like,
I love Hitler, Brown people are monkeys all that crap.
(11:07):
They would have been fired, they would have been cast out.
These people. And by the way, folks, for those of
you listening, if you think that's the only racist group,
chat among the yrs, I haven't reach brand. This is
what they are now, the screeching. Don't call us Nazis,
all right, Well, stop saying Nazi shit and believing Nazi
(11:27):
things and thinking about Nazi outcomes for your political enemies.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
See you have these no King's day, you have millions
of people, then you have this poor poll and you
have Trump not polling well in all sorts of underwater
on the economy and migration. That does Trump not see
these polls? Do people not show them to him?
Speaker 4 (11:49):
Tony Fabrizio, who has been his polster now for a
long time, Tony the pollster.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
Is not a stupid guy. He's not a stupid guy.
Speaker 5 (11:56):
He is.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
He's also known to be a pretty good pollster.
Speaker 4 (11:59):
Rights from getting too. He is incredible and qualified poles.
He's not generating numbers that are just made up fantasy numbers.
He's not mutant res Musen right right right, who just
literally make up like how many we please the king?
But I will say this, he's also not going to
bring Donald bad news, because that's a quick way in
Trump World to get sent out into the ether, to
(12:21):
get fired, to get dismissed, to get ignored. They know
how bad Trump's numbers are, but like so much of
what goes on in Trump World. Now, the reason Trump
says my approval rating is ninety seven percent is because
they will now go out and say, well, mister President,
our numbers have some issues here and there, but we
found this poll from Red Eagle, Palin Polling or whatever
(12:43):
that says you're so popular, and he will seize on
the inaccurate bait and ignore the unpalatable truth. So yeah,
but his polling is continued to slip, continue to drop,
continue to get into into worse and worse and worse areas.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Let's talk about what happens now. We have Trump World
bombing little ships in the Caribbean, patriating survivors, because why
explain to what's happening here in American international diplomacy? Killing
it right is the hash.
Speaker 3 (13:18):
Just well with the emphasis on the killing part.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
With emphasis killing.
Speaker 4 (13:22):
So so what they've done is declared a undeclared war
on Venezuela. Now, folks, why because the Donald Trump is
in the Epstein files. I kid you not, Donald Trump
is in the Epstein files.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
And that's what I will give you another.
Speaker 4 (13:40):
Well, there's another art, there's another reason they're doing this.
There is a philosophical construct among the modern authoritarians where
the world should below Russia should own Europe, China should
own Asia, and America should own American north and South.
And that is sort of the the tripart height vision
(14:00):
of the world that a lot of these maga populace
really love.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
Maduro is sitting.
Speaker 4 (14:06):
On a gigantic amount of oil and natural gas off
the coast of Venezuela. It is essentially Saudi Arabia with jungles. Now, look, Maduro.
There are no Maduro fans or defenders in America. Nobody
wakes up and goes man that Maduro is a great guy.
But what Trump has done is under the disguise of saying, oh, well,
(14:27):
these are drug smuggling boats, which we have never seen
evidence of. By the way, this government has never produced
a single shred of information or evidence or documents that
say that these drug boats are drug boats. Their entire
amount of evidence is trust me bro. So a lot
of them seem to be fishing boats. We are not
using the traditional targeting and intelligence process to identify these boats.
(14:50):
We are not using standard intelligence vetting processes to identify
these boats. And that is why the four star general
who runs Southern Command, which is that's the area of
operation that Venezuela.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
Falls under, just resigned.
Speaker 4 (15:03):
Yeah, he said, I can't do this. We're not this
is not We're not being behaving legally or ethically. Is
if you know how to read military code language. He
was basically saying, I'm not going to be a part
of a goddamn war crime. And that's what we're doing.
We're probably shooting up a bunch of fishermen. A lot
of these boats are are of a design that is
not meant to cross almost one thousand miles of ocean
(15:24):
between Venezuela and Florida.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
They're fishing boats.
Speaker 4 (15:28):
But Stephen Miller and p Heseth and Donald Trump have
decided this is a great distraction. We're going to have
a triumph when we depose Maduro and we install a
pro Maga, pro Western government in Caracas. I will tell
you that, you know, I don't.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
We've done really well.
Speaker 4 (15:47):
My Spanish isn't great, but I don't think we're going
to be greeted as liberators speak.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
Of problems in the world and ethical lapses. Donald Trump
has freed the political an are known as George Santos.
Speaker 4 (16:04):
George Santos will soon be named as the Viceroy of
the newly conquered American colony of Venezuela.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
Yeah, which we call Miami South.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
What are we doing here? Man?
Speaker 3 (16:15):
Listen? Santos is a great.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
He's not the restitution now, by the way, because he
decided he didn't want it.
Speaker 3 (16:21):
He's commuted.
Speaker 4 (16:23):
Mago wants to hear and needs to hear one message.
We're immune from consequence, We're immune from accountability. We can
commit any crime we want and Trump will pardon us,
get out of jail free. In a lot of ways.
And somebody said this to media, and I thought it
was really smart in a lot of ways. George Santos
(16:43):
being freed was a lot was a message to a
lot of these ice agents on the street. Interesting, you
can commit crimes, He's going to take care of you.
You can commit crime as long as you stay loyal,
he'll take care of you.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
Or there's something else.
Speaker 4 (16:56):
I don't know what Santos would have on Trump. God
got God, God.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
Knows, or somebody's doing someone a favor.
Speaker 4 (17:04):
Right, or it's Roger Stone like cashing a shit. I
don't know, but look in terms of like the least
sympathetic figures, and Trump has pardoned seven I think it's
seven now ex Republican members of Congress who.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
All were in jail or going to jail for criming.
Speaker 4 (17:20):
Yes, not political questions, not like were they supporting jan
Sis like stealing money or taking bribes. And that message
is to say to people on Trump's side, we don't
play by their rules.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
We don't have to be accountable.
Speaker 4 (17:37):
You know, you can cash in, you can abuse your power,
do what you want to do, go buck wild.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
We're here for you.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
I feel like the Santo thing bites him in the
ass because he's a guy who will not shut up.
He's everywhere. You have all of these maga Republicans who
voted so him out of Congress. Now they have to say.
Speaker 4 (17:59):
The New York delegation, the New York delegation, including a
lot of very reliable Trump allies like Mike Lawler and
at least the Phonic We're like, no, bro, this ain't it.
Speaker 3 (18:10):
This ain't the right.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
Way, and Stephanic is running for governor in her like
Trump adjacent but a little trumpy, but not that trumpy,
but sort of trumpy.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
I call it just the tip trump Ism, but nice.
Speaker 1 (18:22):
I'm glad you could get. You can always get the
sort of most offensive way to you know, I appreciate it.
But sure the lack of gentility, yes, continue.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
Yes, but at least I'm not sending out videos of
people pooping on of their people like Trump did.
Speaker 1 (18:40):
That's right. See, do you think.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
His staff is trolling him?
Speaker 1 (18:43):
Do you think that's the comp you want? No, I'm
just kidding. I want you to get back to Stefanic
because I want to talk about the New Jersey governor's
race for a minute. So two twenty twenty five races
happening in sixteen days. One is this Virginia race for
where Spamburger is probably gonna win against win Sears.
Speaker 5 (19:08):
Sears.
Speaker 3 (19:09):
Wins Seers sounds like a cowboy name and she.
Speaker 1 (19:13):
But when she talks, she just sounds like a lunatic.
Speaker 4 (19:16):
She sounds like somebody who's wandering the streets talking about
how that somebody put a chip in her head.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
Yeah, No, Winsome Sears wins seers.
Speaker 3 (19:25):
You know, it's like you hear it tell you, like,
are the voices in the room rate with you right now?
Speaker 1 (19:29):
So I think Spamberger's got that locked up.
Speaker 3 (19:32):
Look, I won't say locked up.
Speaker 4 (19:33):
They had a little speed bump with this a G guy,
which the Republicans tried to convert on, but I don't
think it's gonna I don't think it's gonna change it.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
So the AG sent a text to someone in twenty
twenty two, right that was like we should That was terrible,
basically saying like you should kill a candidate because that's
the only way they'll learn. Terrible, Also indefensible, indefensible and moronic.
(20:02):
And also like when you read the text, it's worse
because his way of explaining it is stupid too, Like
it's all stupid and that. But they run on different tickets,
like you know, don't vote for em okay.
Speaker 4 (20:15):
Yep, which and I think she's navigated that. Spanberger has
navigated that pretty well. But that rate look in Virginia,
I know from our polling in Virginia that has not
really changed. The Spanberger equation. Sears is in the classic
trap Trump's not on the ballot. The negative outcomes of
Trump is in Virginia from DOJE and projects twenty twenty
(20:37):
five cuts and everything else are on the ballot, and
it's hard for Sears to say I'm going to bring
back a great economic revival to Virginia when Donald Trump
has taking one hundred and twenty thousand jobs out of Virginia.
So you know that is a state where the externalities
of Trump are hurting. I think it's also to go
back to New Jersey for a second. I think Chittarelli
(20:59):
now has to with Trump canceling a gigantic infrastructure project
that would have directly benefited New Jersey, and it was
responsible for a lot of high paying jobs in New
Jersey and Trump just killed it because President Russell Vaught
decided he was going to kill it.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
This is one of the interesting things about the shutdown.
You talk to reporters who talked to this White House
and they'll say, these guys are thrilled with the shutdown.
This is what they'll say. They feel they're winning the shutdown,
they feel emboldened, they feel powerful, And I say, to
these people, shut the fuck up. I don't want to
hear how they're spending you. Number One and also this
(21:40):
shutdown is now becoming about russ vaught canceling programs that
were already in you know, some of them are being built.
Speaker 4 (21:51):
Some of these things are already done or already i
mean the contracts are done there way welt built. Yeah,
and none of it, none of it when you get down.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
To it, Molly has the.
Speaker 4 (22:06):
The uplift of like, we're cutting corruption, we're cutting fraud
wasted because none of that's about this. Trump is deliberately saying,
I'm going out to cut democratic programs. I'm going to
cut the things you like.
Speaker 1 (22:21):
I'm going to bring it punish. I'm going to use
the federal government to punish states that didn't vote for me.
Speaker 4 (22:27):
He's now and especially on on now that we're in
the now that we're in Mike Johnson's new phase of bsing,
why this why the shutdown is here. No, we would
come back anytime as long as the Democrats agree to
endorse everything we want above and beyond just the budget.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
So you have these pocket recisions, were going to do
this anyway, signed off on a budget, and then the
Trump administration werecinded five billion dollars in foreign aid because
of vibes and even you have Republicans saying like why
would they trust?
Speaker 3 (22:57):
Right?
Speaker 4 (22:57):
The Republicans are hearing from their own pulse. Okay, not
from the White House, not from you know, smoke up
your ass, Rasmussen Poles or Trafowger Poles.
Speaker 3 (23:07):
They're hearing from their own polsters.
Speaker 4 (23:09):
You're taking the blame. You're the ones who won't come back.
You're taking the blame. I don't think that the House
candidates have a lot longer to run before the pressure
on them politically reaches the point where one or two
of them go to Mike Johnson. And if one or
two of them go to Mike john say Boss, you're
killing me, it will start a cascade. They understand that
(23:31):
America the broad question across the country. We have now
had ten surveys since the shutdown among likely voters where
they blame the Republicans by somewhere between six and eighteen points.
This is bad, bad, bad for the Republicans. And no
matter how magga they are on paper, no candidate in
(23:51):
the end is going to burn himself down over a shutdown.
That is going to brand them as somebody who was
willing to burn hit their own constituents it's not going
to do it.
Speaker 3 (24:02):
In the end.
Speaker 1 (24:02):
You see Trump trying a redistrict that keeps going. There
is a world where they hit themselves in the head
with us.
Speaker 4 (24:11):
There is a world where the collapses in various national
real estate markets, the terrible jobs outlook, the terrible economic picture,
the continued damage of the tariffs, the shutdown. They've become
the party causing the problem. They become the people causing
the problem. And I think that's a bad place for
them to be in the fall of the year before
(24:33):
a big, consequential election where the picture is not going
to get any prettier.
Speaker 1 (24:36):
Rick Wilson Bolly Junk Fast Adam Leptik covers the Supreme
Court for the New York Times and writes sidebar, a
column on legal developments. Welcome to Fast Politics, Adam.
Speaker 5 (24:50):
It's good to be here.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
So you are one of the very smart people who
write about the Supreme Court who I try to always read.
You write about other stuff too. I mean I do
write about courts, more generally.
Speaker 5 (25:02):
I write about the law. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
Yeah, this is a very interesting and a little bit
probably disturbing time to be writing that law. But you
wrote this piece that absolutely captured my imagination about originalism.
So give us a sort of why originalism matters, who
this guy is, who's sort of one of the fathers
of originalism, and sort of why this is so important.
Speaker 6 (25:26):
So, originalism is a theory of how to interpret the
Constitution that conservatives generally like. And it says the task
of the judge is to unearth discover the original meaning
of the constitutional text when it was drafted and ratified,
and that is said to constrain judges. It doesn't allow
them to make up rights like conservatives state that the
(25:48):
Warrant Court did in the sixties. And it generally yields
conservative results, generally, not always. And the Supreme Court's conservative
majority generally claims that originalism is their touchdown, the guide,
and when you look at it, it's not clear that
they're always being faithful to their own interpretive methodology. This guy, yes, So,
(26:09):
Caleb Nelson is one of a handful of really respected
originalist scholars. A straight shooter teaches at the University of Virginia.
Clerk for Clarence Thomas has been cited an extraordinary number
of times at the Supreme Court. A single citation for
a scholar is a great honor. He's been cited maybe
(26:30):
more than a dozen times, and by every single one
of the six members of the current Conservative supermajority. And
the Court will soon answer a question that it's been
ramping up over the years to answer. And it's particularly
a salient now under Trump, who keeps firing the heads
of supposedly independent agencies. And that question is does the
(26:51):
president have an unfettered right to remove people in the
executive branch even when Congress says no, you have to
have a good reason. And the Court's going to hear
arguments about this in December, and just as that argument
is coming up, Caleb Nelson weighs in and says, you
know what, I'm an originalist and I don't see the
originalist argument for this. The Constitution says something about how
(27:14):
officials are appointed, you know, President Jesus Senate confirms it
says nothing about removal. In so many words, removal was
never discussed at the Constitutional Convention.
Speaker 5 (27:24):
There's mixed evidence from the.
Speaker 6 (27:26):
Early years of Congress, and there's no good originalist reason
to think that Congress, which is granted the constitutional authority
to shape and manage the executive branch along many dimensions
can't do this.
Speaker 5 (27:41):
Also, and another.
Speaker 6 (27:43):
Originalist scholar, William Bode, on social media, called this paper
a bombshell, and when I happened to run into him
not long ago, he.
Speaker 5 (27:50):
Said to me, Caleb Nelson is never wrong.
Speaker 6 (27:54):
And while I don't think this is going to change
where the court is heading because it's been a long trajectory,
it's certainly to complicate the case.
Speaker 1 (28:01):
So what I want you to explain is is this
a real schism or not.
Speaker 6 (28:05):
There's an academic side to this, and I think some
academics really do follow the evidence where it leads, and
this will influence the scholarly debate. Does it, you know,
kind of dynamite the judicial project? I don't think so.
I think there's a good argument to be made that
originalism is often a kind of thig leaf. It's available
to you if it helps you reach the result you
(28:26):
want to reach. It's a surprisingly malleable interpretive methodology because
depending on what level of generality you approach the question at,
you can get liberal or conservative results out of it.
So I think it more illuminates that this supposedly neutral
and constraining methodology is in fact nothing of the sort.
And you see that in these cases on executive power,
(28:48):
where the court doesn't really look to the historical materials,
it looks to what it's a conception of what the
president should be able to do or not. That was
really most evident last year in the City granting Trump immunity.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
I always thought of a Roberts Court. It's really not
the Roberts go anymore, really, but that the Roberts Court
was always cared a lot about appearances, or at least
wanted to make things look a certain way. It seems
as if the last two cycles that has not been
as important.
Speaker 6 (29:19):
We're so polarized that it's hard to see straight and
it's hard for a court, even one that wants to
appear measured and incremental and governed by law and institutionalist,
to satisfy every constituency These days, from the perspective of
the left, the Court has really given Trump the green
(29:40):
light to do all kinds of really aggressive things to
the government and not stood in his way at all. So,
if the Chief Justices goal is to preserve the authority, integrity,
legitimacy of the Court, he has some real challenges.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
Right, that's true. But the voting rights case on Wednesday,
the oral arguments.
Speaker 5 (30:01):
Which is a good example of where we are right.
Speaker 1 (30:03):
Yeah, talk us through that.
Speaker 6 (30:05):
So in nineteen sixty five, the civil rights movement achieved
one of its landmark victories with the enactment of the
Voting Rights Act, for which people literally bled and died,
and it was meant to protect minority, particularly black voting rights,
and particularly in the South, whereas you know, the lawless
Southern officials had stopped black people from voting pretty completely.
(30:29):
The Supreme Court, in the Roberts era has gutted one
main component of the Voting Rights Act, it's Section five,
which requires federal approval of voting changes and jurisdictions with
the history of discrimination.
Speaker 5 (30:44):
But it left standing another.
Speaker 6 (30:45):
Part of the law, which allows after the fact lawsuits,
Section two. And in an argument this week, it sure
seemed like the Court was either going to outright strike
down Section two as unconstitutional or at least severely limited.
And it's thinking is somewhat like it's thinking in the
Affronative Action case from Harvard and UNC. The originalists on
(31:07):
the Court claimed that the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment,
which was adopted to protect black people, actually adopted a
colorblind view of the Constitution, so that a congressionally enacted
statute like the Voting Rights Act, which takes a counter
of rays and tries to help historically disadvantaged people, runs
a fell of the Constitution. And if it were to
(31:29):
take that step, that would be a major blow to
this landmark legislation, and it would have a practical effect
also of helping Republicans in the midterms.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
I mean, were you surprised by those oral arguments?
Speaker 6 (31:42):
I guess a little bit the kind of signal that
they were up to something because they had heard arguments
about in this very case last term, and instead of
deciding it, they set it down to consider larger issues.
And whenever the Court does that, it did that in
Citizens United. It turned a little case into a big case.
How you have the sense that they're turning it into
a big case. But the receptivity of the conservative justices
(32:04):
to some of the broader arguments and did surprise me
a big.
Speaker 1 (32:08):
Us in that case, the only people who would be
able to save it would be Amy, Coney and Roberts Well.
Speaker 6 (32:16):
That's you identified the middle of the court. Sometimes Brett
Kavanaugh is also in the middle of the court. But
he was very He has this idea that he was
pressing at the argument that the Voting Rights Act might
have been well and good for a while, but it's
reached its sell by date.
Speaker 1 (32:31):
Yeah, there's no more racism.
Speaker 6 (32:33):
Right, And it's not clear that statutes have a sell
by date.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
It's not clear that America has ended racism right.
Speaker 6 (32:41):
And Section two requires courts to look at contemporary circumstances,
So you have to prove that minority voters are being
disadvantaged to win your case anyway. So I'm not sure
that makes a ton of sense. That also has an
echo with the affirmative action case, where in two thousand
and two Justice Senrede O'Connor, you didn't expect we'd need
affirmative action in twenty five years, and the Court got
(33:04):
rid of it a couple of years early.
Speaker 1 (33:06):
So many of the things that we see them decide
seem like they are very politically advantageous for the right.
Do you think that the justices think that that's what's happening.
Speaker 6 (33:17):
So I'm prepared to believe that the justices, all the
justices are operating in good faith, and if you gave
them ali detector test, they believe that they were applying
legal principles to achieve legal results. But they were picked
for these jobs because people knew how they think, and
they were picked for these jobs by sophisticated politicians the
president of the Senate, in order to achieve certain goals.
(33:38):
And they have quite consistently voted as their appointing presidents
might like. So this question of you know, are they
acting in bad faith is maybe not the most important question.
Speaker 5 (33:50):
The question is what are the votes and what are
the results?
Speaker 1 (33:53):
Yeah, that's a good point. It seems as if the
only person who is as add to the court who
has been at all surprising has been Justice Spared.
Speaker 5 (34:05):
Yeah. Justice Bart is an interesting figure.
Speaker 6 (34:07):
She does seem to have both common sense and intellectual rigor,
but it's easy to overstate how much she has transgressed,
how much she has stepped away from the usual conservative
line in all the big cases, all the big cases abortion,
affirmative action, guns, immunity. Whenever she might have had an
opportunity to truly surprise, she did not and went along
(34:30):
with the majority. In less important cases, she has been
the justice most likely to vote with the liberals.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
This is true, right, But that's a good point. And
what she says in oral arguments is irrelevant if she
then votes with the majority.
Speaker 6 (34:46):
Yeah, agreed, and I mean I respect her she an
oral argument. She is a very rigorous thinker, and unlike
some justices who seem inclined to make speeches rather than
and try to elicit information from the advocates, she's authentically
trying to get to the bottom of things.
Speaker 1 (35:05):
Do you think that the Supreme Court? Since you've covered
the courts for such a long time through different incarnations, I.
Speaker 5 (35:14):
Covered the Court for seventeen years.
Speaker 6 (35:15):
I'm actually stepping away from the daily beat coverage, but
I have some history.
Speaker 2 (35:19):
With the court.
Speaker 1 (35:20):
Seventeen years a long time. Do you think the court
is radically different than it was seventeen years ago.
Speaker 5 (35:26):
Yeah, and for one reason and one reason only.
Speaker 6 (35:28):
The Court for the first ten years that I covered
it had Justice Kennedy on it, and he was at
the middle of the court. Some people call him the
swing justice. He was the fulcrum on which the court
operated and he would mostly lean right, but in important
cases on abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, and especially
gay rights, he would lean left. And that five fourness
(35:51):
of the court is very different. It's a very different
flavor than the six' to three court cases these days
kind of seemed pre cooked the moment they grant the.
Case you know what's going to happen when justice can
he was on the, court it did feel a little
bit more like a court in which people had a
fair shot winning their.
Speaker 1 (36:06):
Case when you think about THE lgbtq rights, stuff the
conversion therapy, case all of the sort of cases around trans.
Rights they have a bunch of those. Cases what is
your sense of this courts like this is a court
that overturned. Raw do you think that's where this precedent setting.
Speaker 6 (36:29):
Ends i'll draw distinction first of, all between gay rights
and trans. Rights ten years, ago In Oberga, fell The
court established the constitution right the same sex. MARRIAGE i
don't think there's a serious threat to. That there are
all kinds of ways in which religious groups can chip
away at that, right dissent from it not, acknowledged and so,
on but the basic right probably is. Sound and then
(36:50):
only five years, ago in an opinion By Joseph, gorsage
The court found that both gay and transgender workers are
protected from employment discrimination by a. STATUTE i think that's
the high water mark for gay and trans. WRITES i
think they're going to move it in the other. Direction In,
june as you, know in a case Called, scrimti they
said That tennessee and other states could forbid gender transition.
(37:12):
Care they just heard this case on conversion therapy that's
going to go against the trends. Side they're going to
hear a case on trans athletes that's going to go
against the trans. Side so this was a court which
seemed to be moving in one, direction and as with
the political climate and to some extent the social, climate
it's taken a different.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
Direction.
Speaker 1 (37:33):
Yeah so. Interesting does ultimately The Supreme court abandon legal
academia as these two groups sort of go further and
further away from each.
Speaker 6 (37:43):
Other it's too complicated to make that kind of sweeping,
statement AND i don't think academics have ever been all that.
INFLUENTIAL i heard a judge on The Second, Circuit Robert,
sack once say that law review articles are like street
lamps when you're, drunk used more for support than. Illumination that,
is you, know you cite a lot of your article
(38:04):
that agrees with you for window, dressing not because it's
persuaded you to take a different position than the one
you came in.
Speaker 1 (38:10):
With has a conservative legal movement been a huge? Success?
Speaker 5 (38:14):
Oh, yeah there's a bit of a pendulum to. This
the warrant court was quite. Liberal we've now swung a
completely different.
Speaker 6 (38:20):
Direction but the conservative legal movement was a concerted, effort you,
know from The reagan years to establish in law schools
which were and are quite, liberal a kind of counter
group and well funded and very, strategic and you, know
running conservative law clerks into conservative chambers and then finding
them good jobs and putting them on the bench and
(38:41):
coming up with easy to understand theories like. Originalism they've
really outflanked the left in power on The Supreme court
and in the lower.
Speaker 1 (38:51):
Courts thank, You, adam.
Speaker 5 (38:52):
Great to be. Here thanks for having.
Speaker 3 (38:54):
Me, No, rick Will Molly John?
Speaker 1 (39:01):
Fast are you tough enough for the? Army tough enough
for the police? Force?
Speaker 4 (39:06):
No if the answer is, no why not join The
department Of Homeland securities.
Speaker 1 (39:10):
On Some, oklazon welcome to ice.
Speaker 3 (39:12):
Baby those two women.
Speaker 4 (39:15):
Still got, it still got, It they still got it
twenty years, in they still got that ringing the bell
of Weirdo.
Speaker 1 (39:21):
Republicans what is your moment of?
Speaker 4 (39:24):
Fuckery you know my moment of fuckery is In, well
most of our nation's government workers aren't getting. Paid Christy
nome And corleywandowski have been given.
Speaker 1 (39:33):
Too New you spell it with AN e because that's
how she thought it was. Spelled.
Speaker 4 (39:37):
Apparently, yes they've been given two new private jets to.
Use The coastguard had to buy, them but they are
exclusively for the use Of Christy nome and her.
Speaker 3 (39:45):
Courtesan do you know much they? Cost it was one
hundred and fifty million for, both one.
Speaker 1 (39:49):
Hundred and seventy two million for.
Speaker 3 (39:52):
Both and by the, way, folks jack not to go
into the weeds on these. Jets but they.
Speaker 5 (39:56):
FANCY i saw.
Speaker 2 (39:59):
Pictures these are nice private.
Speaker 1 (40:01):
Jets, yeah a Golf stream five fifty million to replace
an aging one because she doesn't have a good. One
and then, aw so ooh it's so. Fancy look at
the white.
Speaker 2 (40:13):
Leather, oh, yeah there it.
Speaker 4 (40:15):
Is by the, way, folks a Golf stream, five even
an older, one even a twenty year old Golf stream,
five is an exceedingly nice.
Speaker 1 (40:21):
Aircraft well speak for, yourself.
Speaker 4 (40:23):
Baby these people are telling you That christinome and her Consort,
corlewandowski and their film crew that travels with her at all,
times her makeup and hair crew that travels with her
at all.
Speaker 3 (40:34):
Times they need a private jet that's. New they can't
use a jet that's five years. Old my, god that's
a that's a. Travesty it reminds me of these people
that are, LIKE i don't fly.
Speaker 4 (40:43):
Scheduled, yeah well Apparently christinem doesn't fly, scheduled nor does
she fly anything that.
Speaker 3 (40:48):
Isn't still doesn't have that new private.
Speaker 4 (40:50):
Jet Smell Rick, wilson, tumbrels, Pitchforks they're.
Speaker 1 (40:54):
Coming that's it for this episode Of Fast. Poly tune
in Every, Monday, Wednesday thursday And saturday to hear the
best minds and politics make sense of all this. Chaos
if you enjoy this, podcast please send it to a
friend and keep the conversation. Going thanks for. Listening
Host
Molly Jong-Fast
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.