April 28, 2021 • 19 mins
The recall election to remove California Gov. Gavin Newsom is on! Proponents of the recall have submitted enough signatures to put the recall on the ballot. No date has been set yet, but the vote may come by November. Now we have to see how many people will jump into the race to replace and how does the state change over the course of the next few months. Taryn Luna, reporter at the LA Times, joins us for how the recall circus back in California.
Next, on Monday we heard that the Supreme Court will be hearing a major Second Amendment case that could impact gun laws for years to come. They will be hearing a case out of New York in the next term that has to do a law restricting the ability to carry concealed handguns in public. Ian Milhiser, senior correspondent at Vox, joins us for what to know about this case and how the conservative majority in the court may impact the decision.
Finally, we know that women and especially mothers of school-aged children have had a tough time when it comes to staying in the workforce. Now, we have some numbers, Nearly 1.5 million mothers are still missing from the workforce compared to last year at the beginning of the pandemic. Two big factors driving those numbers, are access to child care and the demands of the home and virtual schooling for kids. Katie Riley, reporter at the WSJ, joins us for more.
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
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):
It's Wednesday, April. I'm Oscar Ramirez in Los Angeles and
this is the Daily Dive. The recall election to remove
California Governor Gavin Newsom is on. Opponents of the recall
have submitted enough signatures to put the recall on the ballot.
No date has been set yet, but the vote may
(00:20):
come by November. Now we have to see how many
people will jump into the race to replace and how
does the state change over the course of the next
few months. Taran Luna, reporter at the l A Times,
joins us for how the recall circus is back in California. Next.
On Monday, we heard that the Supreme Court will be
hearing a major Second Amendment case that could impact gun
(00:40):
laws for years to come. They will be hearing a
case out of New York in the next term that
has to do with the law restricting the ability to
carry concealed handguns in public. Ian Millheiser, senior correspondent at Box,
joins us for what to know about this case and
how the conservative majority in the court may impact the decision. Finally,
we know that women and especially mothers of school aged children,
(01:02):
have had a tough time when it comes to stay
in the workforce. Now we have some numbers. Nearly one
point five million mothers are still missing from the workforce
compared to last year at the beginning of the pandemic.
Two big factors driving that or access to childcare and
the demands of the home and virtual schooling for kids.
Katie Riley, reporter the Wall Street Journal, joins us for
(01:23):
more It's news without denying. Let's dive in the fact
that he has completely mismanaged this entire situation. There's many
states that have um handled the crisis in a much
different manner. They didn't have to shut down the fifth
largest economy in the world. They didn't have to destroy
people's lives. Joining us now was Aryan Luna, reporter at
(01:44):
the l A Times, covering Governor Gavin Newsom. Thanks for
joining us, Taren, thanks for having you on. The recall
seems to be full go now. There's still some wiggle room.
I guess some people who have signed on can still
take back their signature as if they want. But for
the most part, the recall effort has been successful already,
it's going to be on the ballot. We're thinking sometime
(02:07):
in November. That time is still unclear, but it seems
that proponents of the effort have gotten all the signatures
they need and and we'll be headed for this recall vote.
So Taren, tell us a little bit about what we're
seeing and reactions from the governor if any. So far.
Yesterday we saw that that we learned from the Secretary
of State that the proponents had met and exceeded the
(02:28):
minimum threshold to qualify. So, as you mentioned, there could
be some wiggle room there in terms of some kind
of court intervention or a maths number of people saying
that they signed unknowingly or that their signature shouldn't be valid.
That would require over a hundred thousand people do that,
and that would just be it seems unfeasible at this point.
(02:48):
So for all intensive purposes, we should expect a recall
election by the end of the year. Muton seemed like
he was prepared for that announcement. Yesterday he put out
a statement talking about how it threatens our values is
Californians talking about fighting the COVID nineteen pandemic, helping families,
protecting the environment, and that there's just too much at
(03:10):
stake at this point to vote against him and to
support one of these other's candidates. I know a lot
of this recall effort was fueled by dissatisfaction of voters
with how the governor was handling this. Obviously, we know
what happened at the French Laundry, just the big flood
for the governor, all that stuff. There's some other things obviously, homelessness, taxes,
all of this figures into this overall recall effort. But
(03:34):
public polling shows that really a lot of people don't
really want this to happen. Is that correct? So some
of the recent polling we saw over the last month
showed that the highest fifty six percent of people did
not support the recall. And we're actually opposed to it.
A little closer he was under were in favor of
it um So that all speaks well for Newsom. Prior
(03:57):
to this recall effort, qualifying we he saw five or
six different efforts to recall the governor. It really wasn't
until the pandemic kicked in and we saw some of
his policies around shutting down businesses and staying home really
take effect, and you got some pushback on that, and
then there was a court case where the proponents petition
(04:18):
for more time to collect signatures because of the pandemic
and inciting the pandemic as an impetus to collecting signature.
So when that was approved, they got more time to
do it, and that was really a big moment in
terms of the ability of this effort to qualify. It
seems like it could still be an uphill battle, and
as I mentioned, the pandemic really took center stage with
everybody on this and what's going to happen by the
(04:40):
time this vote actually happens November. By the end of
the year, whenever it is, most kids will be back
in school. It seems like more people will be vaccinated.
Right now, California has the lowest case rate in the country,
So things are getting better and it's going to be
tough to really keep up this momentum against him on
that front right now. And then the other part of
(05:00):
it is, you know a lot of people call it
the circus right all of these candidates are going to
be coming out of nowhere to try to replace him.
Who else will try to do this right? And I
think those two things you touched on there are huge
factors for Newsom. So the first is that the conventional
wisdom is the longer the pandemic has kind of been
in the rear view mirror by the time we have
(05:21):
this election, that all votes that are for Newsom. Right, So,
as you mentioned, if kids are back in school, if
we're largely leading some sort of a normal life again,
voters are going to be less upset about their current
state and their current existence, and they might not want
to take that out on their governor. Right, they might
not be as frustrated, So that is good for him.
And then the other factor for all this is unless
(05:45):
another challenger, viable challenger comes in with the ability to
pull not only Democratic voters to their side, but also
independence to their side, it becomes a lot easier for Newsom.
And so far we're looking at the former mayor of
San Diego, Faulkner, who's come in. He's a Republican. Caitlyn
Jenner's coming in, she's also a Republican. There's talk about
(06:08):
other candidates and other Democrats maybe being interested. Antonio Viergosa
as one that there's a lot of talk about Tom Steyer,
a lot to talk about him as well. But unless
you really see a Democrat come in with a lot
of appeal or a moderate independent voter, or a Republican
with enough cachet to bring independence in Democrats to their side.
(06:29):
It's all looking positive for him at this point. Again,
there's a ton of time between now and November, right,
so we don't know what could happen. We could have
another French laundry situation or something like that that would
not be good for him. So there's there's a lot
of time for things to happen, and that's important to write.
The top contenders as it stands right now are all Republicans,
So what will happen if a Democrat does get in there?
(06:52):
And this all has shades of two thousand three when
it happened with Great Davis and they recalled him. That's
when we got the governator. That's when Arnold Swash and
a jan And came in and there hasn't been a
Republican governor since then. So there's a lot of stuff
to kind of analyze and go through. And the amount
of money that's going to be put into this thing,
it's gonna be huge. I think one of the key
things to watch, like you mentioned, is just who these
(07:14):
other contenders are and who comes in because let's say
we have some additional wave of the pandemic. Even at
that point, even if voters are frustrated and they look
down about and they see use them as a Democrat
and no other real Democrats that they know on the
other side, are they going to vote for Republican in California.
It's kind of hard to expect, right unless you see
(07:34):
a Schwarzenegger as candidate like you mentioned. Aryan Luna, reporter
at the l A Times covering Governor Gavin Newsom, Thank
you very much for joining US. Star phony arguments suggesting
that these are Second Amendment rights at stake from what
we're talking about. But no amendment, no amendment to the Constitute,
(08:00):
is absolutely joining us now. Is Ian Millheiser, senior correspondent
at Vox. Thanks for joining US, Ian, It's good to
be here. Thanks so much. The Supreme Court on Monday
announced that they will be hearing a gun rights case
on whether New Yorkers can carry concealed handguns while in public.
This could be one of the most consequential rulings related
(08:20):
to the Second Amendment in over a decade, and everybody
is all up in arms about this right now, trying
to guess really which way the Court will go on
something like this, and uh, you know, concerns over what
it could do to other gun laws in the United States,
especially right now at this time when Democrats the White
House are trying to pass some type of gun reform
(08:41):
legislation as well. So Ian tell us a little bit
about the case that the Supreme Court said they're going
to be hearing. This is a big, big case. I mean,
this is the biggest guns case probably to hit the
Supreme Court since two thousand eight, and potentially be the
second biggest guns case in the Court's history. So to
lay out some of that history real quick before I
(09:02):
get into this specific case. The Second Amendment, as many
of your listeners probably know, starts with the phrase a
well regulated militia. It says, a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state, the right
of the people to keep in bear arms should not
be infringed. And the way that the Supreme Court interpreted
that Amendment literally up until two thousand and eight is
(09:23):
they really took that first passage about a well regulated
malicious seriously. They said the purpose of this Amendment is
to protect people's ability to join militias, it's not really
about the individual right to bear arms. And then in
two thousand and eight, the Supreme Court handed down this
case called d C v. Heller, and Heller was the
first time in American history that the Supreme Court said, no,
(09:45):
this is about an individual right to bear arms, and
it's specifically about the right of individuals to sell. But
Heller was riddled with caveats. It said that dangerous and
unusual weapons can still be banned. It said that there
could be bands on the use on felons and people
with mental illnesses carrying firearms, and so there could be
(10:08):
bands on guns and what it called sensitive places and
so like. It said there's an individual right to bear arms,
but it didn't tell you that much about what the
scope of the Second Amendment was, and it did say
that there were some pretty testy limits on it. Flash
forward to now, and the Supreme Court is just much much,
(10:28):
much more conservatives. The lower courts have figured out a framework,
but fairly moderate framework to deal with Heller's that strikes
down walls like you try to ban guns in the home,
those sorts of walls will struck down. But it actually
tends to uphold most state gun walls, and there has
been a dissenting faction amongst the lower court judges that
(10:52):
want to move guns on the interpretation of the Second
Amendment much further to the right. Remember that dissenting faction
was Brett Cabin. Another member of that descending faction was
Amy Coney Perritt. And so what is likely to happen
here is that a lot of the caveat from the
Heller decision are going to probably going to be wiped out,
(11:14):
and you could potentially have more than a decade of
lower court decision saying that most gun malls will be
upheld also struck down, and we could have a whole
new world where there's much more access to fire are
So what are we seeing in the New York case specifically,
it seems something similar to what we have here in
California where I'm at. And this is all having to
(11:34):
do with obtaining your license to have a concealed firearm
basically a handgun. Basically you have to prove that you
actually needed, as you mentioned earlier, kind of the thing.
Let's say you're a store, a liquor store owner, or
something you needed for protection. That might be a case
for it. Or you have a known stalker, you might
need that for protection, but just blanket everybody can't have
(11:55):
a concealed carry gun and these types of permits. So
that's kind of where this New York is lying up.
The specific phrase that the law uses is proper cause.
You have to show that you have proper cause in
order to obtain a concealed carry permit in New York.
And that's the permit that allows you to bring a
gun outside the home for a variety of purposes. And
(12:16):
so there's lots of ways you can show proper cause.
I mean, like you said, if you're a shop owner,
you can sometimes obtain a gun to protect you in
your shop, although generally that will be a limited permit
saying that you have to keep the gun in the shop.
A lot of guns are issued to bank messengers, people
who like bring money back and forth between banks, and
there's like obvious reasons why those people who want to
(12:37):
carry a gun to protect themselves when they're doing their job,
when they're not doing their job, it's often a limited
you permit. It's very hard in New York to get
an unlimited concealed carry permit. I mean, if someone has
a stalker. They probably could, because you never know when
the stalker stalker is going to show up. But you
have to show that you have a very particular your need,
(13:00):
and that need has to go beyond the concerns of
the general public. You can't con gain I could feel
carry permit in New York simply by saying, well, I
fear that someday I might be a victim of violence.
I'd like to have a gun when I do. That's
not enough. And so essentially what the planets are asking
for in this case is they are claiming that they
(13:21):
have a constitutional right to just be able to say, well,
I think I might someday want a gun, and that
should be enough. Ian Milhiser, Senior, corresponding at Box, thank
you very much for joining us. All right, thank you.
(13:43):
There was a big drop in workforce participation because lots
of people got laid off and lots of people got
furloughed and dropped out of the workforce afterwards. But since
you know, last year, fathers and also women who don't
have kids have sort of recovered much faster than mother ring.
Now is Katie Riley, reporter at the Wall Street Journal.
Thanks for joining us, Katie, now, Coblem, thanks for having me.
(14:06):
I wanted to talk about some census figures that we got.
This is concerning women in the workforce, more specifically mothers
in the workforce. We had already been hearing stories throughout
the pandemic about how women are dropping out of the
workforce more disproportionately than men and it's harder for them
to get back into the workforce. So now we have
some numbers to it, and we're seeing that. You know,
(14:29):
in March of one, we had almost one point five
million fewer moms of school age children that were actively
working than in February of twenty of last year. So Katie,
please tell us a little bit more about what we're
seeing in these numbers. So I think you have the
broad strokes there right. They are currently about one point
five million fewer moms of kids who are of school
(14:52):
age so five to seventeen, who are in the workforce
now than there were in well in March, than there
were in February, which was you know, right before the
pandemic shut everything down. That's the last full month before
the pandemic started. Really, I'm in the US. Everyone at
the start of the pandemic, whether or not they were
a parent, or men and women both as well, Like
(15:15):
there was a big drop in workforce participation because lots
of people got laid off and lots of people got
furloughed and dropped out of the workforce afterwards. But since
you know, last year, fathers and also women who don't
have kids have sort of recovered much faster than mother's
That was the big picture that we wanted to dig into.
And some of the top reasons obviously health concerns, the
(15:37):
lack of attractive jobs can pose a problem. But some
of the main things that we're seeing is access to
childcare and then you know the demands of keeping the
home up and also virtual schooling for kids. Disproportionately, as
I mentioned, when kids had to go do remote learning,
it was mostly mothers that were staying home to take
care of their kids making sure they're doing the classes
(15:59):
all that more then the father. So that was one
of the main things that has kept a lot of
them out of the workforce, made them drop out of
the workforce, and has kept them from going back. This
is one of the most interesting trends I think we
saw in the data when we dug in so in
a normal year, women's participation in the workforce, but specifically
mother's participation drops during the summer months. So women are
(16:24):
working full time during the year, and then when their
kids are off from school, they often drop off the workforce.
But this year what we saw was actually the opposite.
So when the kids who were virtually schooling I guess
from March till the end of the school year stopped schooling,
the women's and mother's workforce participation actually went up during
(16:45):
the summer, and then it went back down when kids
got back into school. So that is something that we
don't usually see. It seems like the school year this
year has actually had the opposite effect, which suggests that
kids being at home in virtual schooling had has had
a big impact on mother's participation in the workforce. Some
of the other numbers that came out throughout all of
(17:07):
this is uh women reported that they were responsible for
most are all of the household labor during the pandemic,
said they shared the responsibilities equally with their partner. Now,
they asked the same question to men and they came
up with some different number. Sixteen percent said that they
were fully responsible for the household stuff. You know, maybe
those are stay at home dead. But then seventy two
(17:29):
percent said that they shared equally the responsibilities, which in
my head kind of you know, makes me think, you know,
men think they're sharing that time equally, but most likely
probably not. So that was another thing too, is you know,
not just the kids, but keeping up the house was
an important thing that women had to take care of
more than the men. So I think one of the
(17:49):
things that we should keep in mind we're talking about
this data is that a lot of this, like the
inequity and who takes care of kids and who does housework,
seems particularly extreme this year. This is something that we
see all the time in data, and you know, it's
not particularly new. So if you look at the amount
of time that both women and men spend taking care
(18:09):
of kids each week, for example, this isn't something that
we mentioned in the article, but women in actually spent
twice as much time taking care of household children as
men overall, but employed women for women who are part
of the workforce actually also took care of children for
twice the amount of time that men who are not
(18:30):
who were unemployed or not employed did so. Even women
who are working full time or working are taking care
of kids more than men who are not working. So
so yeah, I mean, I mean, these are the numbers
that we're seeing right now. And as I mentioned, we've
kind of been seeing this trajectory happened throughout the pandemic.
We knew what was going to happen, and now is
(18:50):
the next part, you know, getting these mothers and women
back into the workforce. The caregiving aspect of this is
very important. And then even women of in communities of
color are affected differently as well. A lot of them
are in the leisure and hospitality industries which just got
wrecked throughout this whole pandemic. So it's a long road.
It's gonna be a long road back for women, mothers
(19:13):
in particular. Uh, and we'll see how they do get
back there, so we'll keep monitoring all of that. Katie
Riley Report at the Wall Street Journal. Thank you very
much for joining us my problem. Thank you. That's it
for today. Join us on social media at Daily Dive
(19:34):
Pod on both Twitter and Instagram. Leave us a comment,
give us a rating, and tell us the stories that
you're interested in. Follow us on I Heart Radio, or
subscribe wherever you get your podcast. This episode of the
Daily Dive was produced by Victor Wright and engineered by
Tommy Sargantino. I'm Oscar Ramirez and this was her Daily Dive.
It's Wednesday, April. I'm Oscar Ramirez in Los Angeles and
this is the Daily Dive. The recall election to remove
California Governor Gavin Newsom is on. Opponents of the recall
have submitted enough signatures to put the recall on the ballot.
No date has been set yet, but the vote may
(00:20):
come by November. Now we have to see how many
people will jump into the race to replace and how
does the state change over the course of the next
few months. Taran Luna, reporter at the l A Times,
joins us for how the recall circus is back in California. Next.
On Monday, we heard that the Supreme Court will be
hearing a major Second Amendment case that could impact gun
(00:40):
laws for years to come. They will be hearing a
case out of New York in the next term that
has to do with the law restricting the ability to
carry concealed handguns in public. Ian Millheiser, senior correspondent at Box,
joins us for what to know about this case and
how the conservative majority in the court may impact the decision. Finally,
we know that women and especially mothers of school aged children,
(01:02):
have had a tough time when it comes to stay
in the workforce. Now we have some numbers. Nearly one
point five million mothers are still missing from the workforce
compared to last year at the beginning of the pandemic.
Two big factors driving that or access to childcare and
the demands of the home and virtual schooling for kids.
Katie Riley, reporter the Wall Street Journal, joins us for
(01:23):
more It's news without denying. Let's dive in the fact
that he has completely mismanaged this entire situation. There's many
states that have um handled the crisis in a much
different manner. They didn't have to shut down the fifth
largest economy in the world. They didn't have to destroy
people's lives. Joining us now was Aryan Luna, reporter at
(01:44):
the l A Times, covering Governor Gavin Newsom. Thanks for
joining us, Taren, thanks for having you on. The recall
seems to be full go now. There's still some wiggle room.
I guess some people who have signed on can still
take back their signature as if they want. But for
the most part, the recall effort has been successful already,
it's going to be on the ballot. We're thinking sometime
(02:07):
in November. That time is still unclear, but it seems
that proponents of the effort have gotten all the signatures
they need and and we'll be headed for this recall vote.
So Taren, tell us a little bit about what we're
seeing and reactions from the governor if any. So far.
Yesterday we saw that that we learned from the Secretary
of State that the proponents had met and exceeded the
(02:28):
minimum threshold to qualify. So, as you mentioned, there could
be some wiggle room there in terms of some kind
of court intervention or a maths number of people saying
that they signed unknowingly or that their signature shouldn't be valid.
That would require over a hundred thousand people do that,
and that would just be it seems unfeasible at this point.
(02:48):
So for all intensive purposes, we should expect a recall
election by the end of the year. Muton seemed like
he was prepared for that announcement. Yesterday he put out
a statement talking about how it threatens our values is
Californians talking about fighting the COVID nineteen pandemic, helping families,
protecting the environment, and that there's just too much at
(03:10):
stake at this point to vote against him and to
support one of these other's candidates. I know a lot
of this recall effort was fueled by dissatisfaction of voters
with how the governor was handling this. Obviously, we know
what happened at the French Laundry, just the big flood
for the governor, all that stuff. There's some other things obviously, homelessness, taxes,
all of this figures into this overall recall effort. But
(03:34):
public polling shows that really a lot of people don't
really want this to happen. Is that correct? So some
of the recent polling we saw over the last month
showed that the highest fifty six percent of people did
not support the recall. And we're actually opposed to it.
A little closer he was under were in favor of
it um So that all speaks well for Newsom. Prior
(03:57):
to this recall effort, qualifying we he saw five or
six different efforts to recall the governor. It really wasn't
until the pandemic kicked in and we saw some of
his policies around shutting down businesses and staying home really
take effect, and you got some pushback on that, and
then there was a court case where the proponents petition
(04:18):
for more time to collect signatures because of the pandemic
and inciting the pandemic as an impetus to collecting signature.
So when that was approved, they got more time to
do it, and that was really a big moment in
terms of the ability of this effort to qualify. It
seems like it could still be an uphill battle, and
as I mentioned, the pandemic really took center stage with
everybody on this and what's going to happen by the
(04:40):
time this vote actually happens November. By the end of
the year, whenever it is, most kids will be back
in school. It seems like more people will be vaccinated.
Right now, California has the lowest case rate in the country,
So things are getting better and it's going to be
tough to really keep up this momentum against him on
that front right now. And then the other part of
(05:00):
it is, you know a lot of people call it
the circus right all of these candidates are going to
be coming out of nowhere to try to replace him.
Who else will try to do this right? And I
think those two things you touched on there are huge
factors for Newsom. So the first is that the conventional
wisdom is the longer the pandemic has kind of been
in the rear view mirror by the time we have
(05:21):
this election, that all votes that are for Newsom. Right, So,
as you mentioned, if kids are back in school, if
we're largely leading some sort of a normal life again,
voters are going to be less upset about their current
state and their current existence, and they might not want
to take that out on their governor. Right, they might
not be as frustrated, So that is good for him.
And then the other factor for all this is unless
(05:45):
another challenger, viable challenger comes in with the ability to
pull not only Democratic voters to their side, but also
independence to their side, it becomes a lot easier for Newsom.
And so far we're looking at the former mayor of
San Diego, Faulkner, who's come in. He's a Republican. Caitlyn
Jenner's coming in, she's also a Republican. There's talk about
(06:08):
other candidates and other Democrats maybe being interested. Antonio Viergosa
as one that there's a lot of talk about Tom Steyer,
a lot to talk about him as well. But unless
you really see a Democrat come in with a lot
of appeal or a moderate independent voter, or a Republican
with enough cachet to bring independence in Democrats to their side.
(06:29):
It's all looking positive for him at this point. Again,
there's a ton of time between now and November, right,
so we don't know what could happen. We could have
another French laundry situation or something like that that would
not be good for him. So there's there's a lot
of time for things to happen, and that's important to write.
The top contenders as it stands right now are all Republicans,
So what will happen if a Democrat does get in there?
(06:52):
And this all has shades of two thousand three when
it happened with Great Davis and they recalled him. That's
when we got the governator. That's when Arnold Swash and
a jan And came in and there hasn't been a
Republican governor since then. So there's a lot of stuff
to kind of analyze and go through. And the amount
of money that's going to be put into this thing,
it's gonna be huge. I think one of the key
things to watch, like you mentioned, is just who these
(07:14):
other contenders are and who comes in because let's say
we have some additional wave of the pandemic. Even at
that point, even if voters are frustrated and they look
down about and they see use them as a Democrat
and no other real Democrats that they know on the
other side, are they going to vote for Republican in California.
It's kind of hard to expect, right unless you see
(07:34):
a Schwarzenegger as candidate like you mentioned. Aryan Luna, reporter
at the l A Times covering Governor Gavin Newsom, Thank
you very much for joining US. Star phony arguments suggesting
that these are Second Amendment rights at stake from what
we're talking about. But no amendment, no amendment to the Constitute,
(08:00):
is absolutely joining us now. Is Ian Millheiser, senior correspondent
at Vox. Thanks for joining US, Ian, It's good to
be here. Thanks so much. The Supreme Court on Monday
announced that they will be hearing a gun rights case
on whether New Yorkers can carry concealed handguns while in public.
This could be one of the most consequential rulings related
(08:20):
to the Second Amendment in over a decade, and everybody
is all up in arms about this right now, trying
to guess really which way the Court will go on
something like this, and uh, you know, concerns over what
it could do to other gun laws in the United States,
especially right now at this time when Democrats the White
House are trying to pass some type of gun reform
(08:41):
legislation as well. So Ian tell us a little bit
about the case that the Supreme Court said they're going
to be hearing. This is a big, big case. I mean,
this is the biggest guns case probably to hit the
Supreme Court since two thousand eight, and potentially be the
second biggest guns case in the Court's history. So to
lay out some of that history real quick before I
(09:02):
get into this specific case. The Second Amendment, as many
of your listeners probably know, starts with the phrase a
well regulated militia. It says, a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state, the right
of the people to keep in bear arms should not
be infringed. And the way that the Supreme Court interpreted
that Amendment literally up until two thousand and eight is
(09:23):
they really took that first passage about a well regulated
malicious seriously. They said the purpose of this Amendment is
to protect people's ability to join militias, it's not really
about the individual right to bear arms. And then in
two thousand and eight, the Supreme Court handed down this
case called d C v. Heller, and Heller was the
first time in American history that the Supreme Court said, no,
(09:45):
this is about an individual right to bear arms, and
it's specifically about the right of individuals to sell. But
Heller was riddled with caveats. It said that dangerous and
unusual weapons can still be banned. It said that there
could be bands on the use on felons and people
with mental illnesses carrying firearms, and so there could be
(10:08):
bands on guns and what it called sensitive places and
so like. It said there's an individual right to bear arms,
but it didn't tell you that much about what the
scope of the Second Amendment was, and it did say
that there were some pretty testy limits on it. Flash
forward to now, and the Supreme Court is just much much,
(10:28):
much more conservatives. The lower courts have figured out a framework,
but fairly moderate framework to deal with Heller's that strikes
down walls like you try to ban guns in the home,
those sorts of walls will struck down. But it actually
tends to uphold most state gun walls, and there has
been a dissenting faction amongst the lower court judges that
(10:52):
want to move guns on the interpretation of the Second
Amendment much further to the right. Remember that dissenting faction
was Brett Cabin. Another member of that descending faction was
Amy Coney Perritt. And so what is likely to happen
here is that a lot of the caveat from the
Heller decision are going to probably going to be wiped out,
(11:14):
and you could potentially have more than a decade of
lower court decision saying that most gun malls will be
upheld also struck down, and we could have a whole
new world where there's much more access to fire are
So what are we seeing in the New York case specifically,
it seems something similar to what we have here in
California where I'm at. And this is all having to
(11:34):
do with obtaining your license to have a concealed firearm
basically a handgun. Basically you have to prove that you
actually needed, as you mentioned earlier, kind of the thing.
Let's say you're a store, a liquor store owner, or
something you needed for protection. That might be a case
for it. Or you have a known stalker, you might
need that for protection, but just blanket everybody can't have
(11:55):
a concealed carry gun and these types of permits. So
that's kind of where this New York is lying up.
The specific phrase that the law uses is proper cause.
You have to show that you have proper cause in
order to obtain a concealed carry permit in New York.
And that's the permit that allows you to bring a
gun outside the home for a variety of purposes. And
(12:16):
so there's lots of ways you can show proper cause.
I mean, like you said, if you're a shop owner,
you can sometimes obtain a gun to protect you in
your shop, although generally that will be a limited permit
saying that you have to keep the gun in the shop.
A lot of guns are issued to bank messengers, people
who like bring money back and forth between banks, and
there's like obvious reasons why those people who want to
(12:37):
carry a gun to protect themselves when they're doing their job,
when they're not doing their job, it's often a limited
you permit. It's very hard in New York to get
an unlimited concealed carry permit. I mean, if someone has
a stalker. They probably could, because you never know when
the stalker stalker is going to show up. But you
have to show that you have a very particular your need,
(13:00):
and that need has to go beyond the concerns of
the general public. You can't con gain I could feel
carry permit in New York simply by saying, well, I
fear that someday I might be a victim of violence.
I'd like to have a gun when I do. That's
not enough. And so essentially what the planets are asking
for in this case is they are claiming that they
(13:21):
have a constitutional right to just be able to say, well,
I think I might someday want a gun, and that
should be enough. Ian Milhiser, Senior, corresponding at Box, thank
you very much for joining us. All right, thank you.
(13:43):
There was a big drop in workforce participation because lots
of people got laid off and lots of people got
furloughed and dropped out of the workforce afterwards. But since
you know, last year, fathers and also women who don't
have kids have sort of recovered much faster than mother ring.
Now is Katie Riley, reporter at the Wall Street Journal.
Thanks for joining us, Katie, now, Coblem, thanks for having me.
(14:06):
I wanted to talk about some census figures that we got.
This is concerning women in the workforce, more specifically mothers
in the workforce. We had already been hearing stories throughout
the pandemic about how women are dropping out of the
workforce more disproportionately than men and it's harder for them
to get back into the workforce. So now we have
some numbers to it, and we're seeing that. You know,
(14:29):
in March of one, we had almost one point five
million fewer moms of school age children that were actively
working than in February of twenty of last year. So Katie,
please tell us a little bit more about what we're
seeing in these numbers. So I think you have the
broad strokes there right. They are currently about one point
five million fewer moms of kids who are of school
(14:52):
age so five to seventeen, who are in the workforce
now than there were in well in March, than there
were in February, which was you know, right before the
pandemic shut everything down. That's the last full month before
the pandemic started. Really, I'm in the US. Everyone at
the start of the pandemic, whether or not they were
a parent, or men and women both as well, Like
(15:15):
there was a big drop in workforce participation because lots
of people got laid off and lots of people got
furloughed and dropped out of the workforce afterwards. But since
you know, last year, fathers and also women who don't
have kids have sort of recovered much faster than mother's
That was the big picture that we wanted to dig into.
And some of the top reasons obviously health concerns, the
(15:37):
lack of attractive jobs can pose a problem. But some
of the main things that we're seeing is access to
childcare and then you know the demands of keeping the
home up and also virtual schooling for kids. Disproportionately, as
I mentioned, when kids had to go do remote learning,
it was mostly mothers that were staying home to take
care of their kids making sure they're doing the classes
(15:59):
all that more then the father. So that was one
of the main things that has kept a lot of
them out of the workforce, made them drop out of
the workforce, and has kept them from going back. This
is one of the most interesting trends I think we
saw in the data when we dug in so in
a normal year, women's participation in the workforce, but specifically
mother's participation drops during the summer months. So women are
(16:24):
working full time during the year, and then when their
kids are off from school, they often drop off the workforce.
But this year what we saw was actually the opposite.
So when the kids who were virtually schooling I guess
from March till the end of the school year stopped schooling,
the women's and mother's workforce participation actually went up during
(16:45):
the summer, and then it went back down when kids
got back into school. So that is something that we
don't usually see. It seems like the school year this
year has actually had the opposite effect, which suggests that
kids being at home in virtual schooling had has had
a big impact on mother's participation in the workforce. Some
of the other numbers that came out throughout all of
(17:07):
this is uh women reported that they were responsible for
most are all of the household labor during the pandemic,
said they shared the responsibilities equally with their partner. Now,
they asked the same question to men and they came
up with some different number. Sixteen percent said that they
were fully responsible for the household stuff. You know, maybe
those are stay at home dead. But then seventy two
(17:29):
percent said that they shared equally the responsibilities, which in
my head kind of you know, makes me think, you know,
men think they're sharing that time equally, but most likely
probably not. So that was another thing too, is you know,
not just the kids, but keeping up the house was
an important thing that women had to take care of
more than the men. So I think one of the
(17:49):
things that we should keep in mind we're talking about
this data is that a lot of this, like the
inequity and who takes care of kids and who does housework,
seems particularly extreme this year. This is something that we
see all the time in data, and you know, it's
not particularly new. So if you look at the amount
of time that both women and men spend taking care
(18:09):
of kids each week, for example, this isn't something that
we mentioned in the article, but women in actually spent
twice as much time taking care of household children as
men overall, but employed women for women who are part
of the workforce actually also took care of children for
twice the amount of time that men who are not
(18:30):
who were unemployed or not employed did so. Even women
who are working full time or working are taking care
of kids more than men who are not working. So
so yeah, I mean, I mean, these are the numbers
that we're seeing right now. And as I mentioned, we've
kind of been seeing this trajectory happened throughout the pandemic.
We knew what was going to happen, and now is
(18:50):
the next part, you know, getting these mothers and women
back into the workforce. The caregiving aspect of this is
very important. And then even women of in communities of
color are affected differently as well. A lot of them
are in the leisure and hospitality industries which just got
wrecked throughout this whole pandemic. So it's a long road.
It's gonna be a long road back for women, mothers
(19:13):
in particular. Uh, and we'll see how they do get
back there, so we'll keep monitoring all of that. Katie
Riley Report at the Wall Street Journal. Thank you very
much for joining us my problem. Thank you. That's it
for today. Join us on social media at Daily Dive
(19:34):
Pod on both Twitter and Instagram. Leave us a comment,
give us a rating, and tell us the stories that
you're interested in. Follow us on I Heart Radio, or
subscribe wherever you get your podcast. This episode of the
Daily Dive was produced by Victor Wright and engineered by
Tommy Sargantino. I'm Oscar Ramirez and this was her Daily Dive.
The Daily Dive News
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
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