July 12, 2024 • 37 mins
What if the only way to protect democracy is to restore checks and balances by expanding the Supreme Court? On this episode of the Keystone Recording podcast, we confront the political chaos shaking our nation to its core. We dissect everything from Supreme Court rulings on presidential immunity to President Biden’s controversial performance, spotlighting the collective anxiety and lack of clear strategies among Democrats aiming to oust Donald Trump. Drawing bold historical parallels to FDR’s New Deal era, we contemplate the idea of court packing as a potentially necessary measure to counteract the Trump and MAGA movement victories.
If you’ve been doomscrolling and pondering why everything feels like it’s teetering on the edge, you’re not alone. There’s one simple solution: President Biden needs to pack the Supreme Court NOW.
Expect a no-holds-barred look at why Democrats are experts at paralysis by analysis, while Republicans are busy winning with every loophole they can exploit. We’ll revisit FDR’s court-packing attempt and why it’s more relevant now than ever. Plus, hear a clip from FDR himself to remind us that even the greats knew when to shake things up.
We need to stop protecting an "institution" that no longer exists. It’s time to stop worrying about the editorial pages and Twitter trolls, and start fighting like our democracy depends on it—because it does.
We scrutinize the fierce political climate surrounding Trump and his loyal supporters, whose allegiance is rooted in cultural conflicts and a blatant disregard for facts. We delve into the Democratic response, considering the audacious strategy of expanding the Supreme Court to reignite voter enthusiasm and redefine the election narrative. Could recent Supreme Court decisions provide President Biden and Senate Majority Leader Schumer the leverage to appoint new justices? We explore the ethical controversies and constitutional crises this might provoke.
Join us for this cathartic episode where we demand bold action, mock the endless hand-wringing, and get real about what it’s going to take to beat Trump and save democracy. Pack the Supreme Court, President Biden. The time is NOW. Tune in for
Learn more about the Keystone Reckoning Project at www.keystonereckoning.com
Show your support for progressive values with True Blue Gear! Get 20% off bold, pro-democracy apparel—whether you’re rallying for voting rights, climate justice, or reproductive freedom. Use code KEYSTONE at truebluegear.com to gear up, stand out, and make a statement in 2024.
Check out our previous episodes and subscribe to the podcast at https://keystonereckoning.buzzsprout.com/.
Follow the Keystone Reckoning Project on social media:
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
YouTube
LinkedIn
Questions? Comments? Ideas for a future episode? Email us at info@keystonereckoning.com
Support us by donating to The Keystone Reckoning Project political action committee, and also check out our partner True Blue Gear for some sweet progressive t-shirts
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.
I'm Jesse White.
This is the Keystone Reckoningpodcast for Friday, july 12th
2024.
And if you're anything like me,you've spent the past couple of
weeks doom, scrolling andworrying and thinking and
analyzing and overanalyzingwhere we are, what we do next
(00:23):
and how do we do it.
And, of course, I'm talkingabout everything from the
Supreme Court rulings onpresidential immunity to
President Biden's performance inthe debate and everything that
has since followed in terms ofarguments about whether he
should remain the Democraticnominee.
I am not going to wade into thatdebate because, quite frankly,
(00:47):
there's already enough noise outthere.
I don't know what I can add toit, and it's one of the few
times that I've been able tolook at a political landscape
and come away without anyclarity, which, for me, might be
the scariest part of all ofthis.
You know, those of us thatreally follow things closely and
(01:09):
consider ourselves to be wellinformed and well read can
usually look at what's happeningand come away with a general
idea of the lay of the land.
That's not really happening now, at least for me, and we're
seeing a lot of well-intentionedpeople that have a common goal
of defeating Donald Trump,having a serious disagreement
(01:33):
about how to go about that, andthere are lots of takes that you
can have on all sides.
I don't think anybody's totallyright.
I don't think anybody's totallywrong.
I don't think anybody's totallywrong.
(02:06):
So it leaves us in this placewhere, as Democrats, we do what
we do best, which is live in ourown fears and basically suffer
from paralysis by analysis.
And again, there's a lot, thereare a lot more forces at work
here, and you know there it's avery easy rabbit hole to go down
.
I'm not going to go down thatrabbit hole today.
The best way I can sum this allup is a line from where I tend
to always go for deep answers toexistential questions, which
would, of course, be the SouthPark movie from 1999.
You are really now Okay, funnytime is over.
Let's get down to brass tackshere.
Instead of talking about theprocess of where we are and the
(02:30):
problems that we're facing as wehead into the final four months
of the campaign, I thoughtinstead I could kind of look
forward a little bit, and to me,as long as we focus on the
(03:06):
process of the election and thequestion of something happen,
particularly on the left aswe're watching really victory
after victory for Trump and theMAGA crowd, and these aren't
small victories.
Aren't small victories.
You know, we're looking at thisand saying, oh my God.
We're looking at Project 2025.
(03:27):
We're looking at the SCOTUSruling, we're looking at all of
these things.
You know, judge Eileen Cannonin one of these in the criminal
case everything is just kind ofallowing Trump to not only avoid
any culpability oraccountability for what he's
done, but it's setting the stagefor a truly terrifying, truly
terrifying country.
(03:48):
If he should win, okay.
So to me, the question is yes,if the Democrats win, we are in
a position to again block someof that and we have a real
chance to, you know, and atleast Donald Trump, trumpism
isn't going away we could atleast end Donald Trump
(04:09):
politically.
If we win, but with theconventional wisdom and the
polling and everything, reallyputting that into question and
forcing everybody to press thepanic button more than anything,
setting the conventional wisdom, which is maybe the most
dangerous thing, and justeroding the enthusiasm gap on
(04:32):
the left down to almost nothing,where people, instead of going
out forcefully to turn out thevote and everything that entails
, it's going to be almostapologetic and that's going to
be a huge problem, especiallyfor Democrats, because so much
of what we do in terms ofwinning elections is based on
our ground game, door to door,relational canvassing, those
(04:56):
sorts of things that have alwaysbeen effective.
But if we have our people onthe ground gun shy about going
out and really advocating loudlyor being kind of apologetic,
that's going to be a hugeproblem and that's something
you're also going to have down.
Ballot candidates and you'reseeing it right now, you know,
(05:16):
basically trying to keep theirpowder dry coming out,
distancing themselves in a waywe've really never seen before
from a sitting president.
It's one thing to not want tohave them in your district or
stand by them, but we're comingout.
We're seeing brazen yes, youshould step aside, okay.
So all of that brings us towhat do we do?
(05:36):
What can we do now?
And to me, the solution isstraightforward and the big
frustration is I know it's notgoing to happen, but this, to me
, is what we could do to changethe narrative of and, more
importantly, quite frankly, takethe steps necessary to actually
(05:59):
protect democracy and protectour country.
And it's really simple we packthe Supreme Court.
That's what we do, that is thesolution and in a lot of ways
the SCOTUS ruling onpresidential immunity is to me,
the tipping point that, not onlyfrom a legal point of view but
(06:20):
from a political point of view,directs us squarely to that
conclusion.
So let's walk this back for aminute.
Let's walk this all the wayback.
Let's walk this back 100 yearsalmost to FDR my personal hero
politically, who tried to, inthe wake of New Deal legislation
(06:41):
being struck down by aconservative Supreme Court after
his first reelection, decidesthat he is going to try to
expand the Supreme Court.
He proposes legislation toCongress that it was a little
convoluted, but basically itsaid that if a justice didn't
didn't retire after age 70, thepresident would have the would
have the power to then appointsomebody to expand the court and
(07:05):
there were things aboutseniority.
It was a little convoluted.
It wasn't simply we're going tohave more justices on the
Supreme Court.
It didn't work for a couple of,one of the main reasons being
that he kind of sprung it onCongress, at least in the House.
The House Judiciary Chairdidn't even know anything about
it until the legislation cameout.
(07:25):
The been repeated.
It was not as wildly unpopularas some people may make it out
(07:50):
to be.
And they point then to the nextmidterms where Democrats got
pummeled and they try to saywell, that was largely due to
FDR's efforts to pack theSupreme Court.
I would argue and a lot ofpeople a lot smarter than me on
this topic would argue that itwas almost the inverse.
(08:12):
It was a lot of the New Deallegislation being struck down by
the courts which meant we nevergot to see some of those
benefits.
The American people never gotto see the benefits, then
decided well, fdr didn't deliveron his promises, therefore
we're going to go with somebodyelse.
And so it was actually thefailure of the legislative
(08:35):
agenda which could have beenhelped by the Supreme Court.
Expanding is what led to thelosses in the following midterms
, and a lot of Democrats haveused that, as held that up, as
the example as to why weshouldn't do this, why we
shouldn't try to expand thecourt.
But the lesson and this is abroader lesson and a lot of
people are very frustrated anddisenchanted with Democrats in
(09:01):
general is we make a lot ofgrandiose promises about what
we're going to do and then weget into office and then we find
ways to not get it done.
We create roadblocks and holdourselves to, quite frankly, a
different standard.
And to me, my standard hasalways been this Nobody cares
about process, they care aboutresults.
And the line I've always drawnis don't break the law right.
(09:26):
As long as you don't break thelaw, you can exploit loopholes,
you can work the system, you cando what you need to do in order
to get the thing done.
And for all of the faults ofDonald Trump and the current
Republican Party and God knowsthey are more than any of us can
count is that when they wantedto get something done, they
found a way to get it done right.
(09:48):
The tax cuts early on inTrump's term.
Any number of you know.
The judicial appointments areinfamous right Even before Trump
came into office Ms McConnellblocking Merrick Garland from
being even considered forconfirmation, blocking Merrick
Garland from being evenconsidered for confirmation
Unprecedented and we all howledat the moon.
(10:08):
Amy Coney Barrett beingappointed and rushed through the
process in direct contradictionto the reasoning that was given
as to why Garland could not beconsidered Right.
They did all the things theyhave.
They have taken every possible,every possible shortcut,
loophole.
Maybe, you know you would argue, maybe unethical approach, but
(10:30):
they get it done and then theyreap the rewards.
And if these, the currentSupreme Court ruling and the
actions of you know, we go backto, obviously, roe and then the
Trump immunity case and anynumber of cases in between, the
Chevron case that ripple effectfrom those justices being
(10:52):
appointed has really been thething that has eroded the checks
and balance system that we sodesperately need upon for almost
250 years.
So, you know, to me the outcomeoutweighs the process, and you
can look at certain things thatthe Democrats have done since
coming into office, studentloans being maybe the most
(11:14):
obvious in terms of you know,they've tried process.
They've tried process and theykeep getting stymied.
You know, if Donald Trumpdecided when he was president,
if he decided, that he wanted toeliminate student loan debt,
guess what it would have beendone.
He would have found a way toget it done.
I'm sorry, that's just realityand you can, you know, wring
(11:35):
your hands and shake your headover that all you want, but they
got it done and the people whosupported him would have
realized he got it done and theywouldn't have given a damn
about how he did it.
And that, to me, is the biggestdistinction and the biggest
chasm that we have to navigateis that we worry far too much
(11:58):
about process and not nearlyenough about results, and this
is a time, especially nowresults matter.
The result is the thing, and Ifeel like we have really lost
the plot and forgotten theassignment here, which is to get
things done, and we areconsistently bringing a pea
shooter to a nuclear war.
(12:19):
We're not playing the same gameand, to be honest, it's not a
game.
That's not even a good analogy.
We are not living in the samereality as they are, and what
that means is this idea ofdemocratic norms and the way
things have always been.
That's gone.
Maybe it comes back, maybe itdoesn't.
My thought is that, now that theblueprint for Trumpism has been
(12:41):
laid out, even after Trump'sgone, there's always going to be
the next Trump, you know, andobviously you see these guys all
jockeying and posturing for it.
It's.
You know, it's a formula thatcan work, unfortunately, and the
reason it works is because we,as Democrats, do not do enough
(13:02):
to utilize power when we have itto get the results.
We need to stymie it to try torestore those balances and norms
and those fleeting momentswhere we do have the power, you
know, where there's rareinstances where we've had the
presidency, the House and theSenate we've allowed things like
the filibuster to preventanything from happening, where
(13:22):
we all know the filibuster is afictional construct, it's not
law, it's a rule and it'sclearly designed to benefit
Republicans because of thelarger number of senators due to
the larger number of states inthe Senate.
We all know it's BS, so why arewe allowing that to be a norm
(13:45):
Just because the other side saysso?
And the institutionalists?
And this is where I'm goingwith this this concept of
institutionalism needs to beattacked and questioned.
It has been on the left inrecent years, not nearly enough.
There's still way too muchcatering to special interests
(14:07):
and maintaining the status quoand all the things that, if you
pay attention, you see happening.
I'm not going to get into allof them right now, but it's that
idea that you know Democratstalk a big game and then don't
take the action necessary toback it up, which in some ways
is even more offensive becauseat least the Republicans aren't
pretending Right, which in someways is even more offensive
because at least the republicansaren't pretending right.
(14:27):
So the idea is, how do we?
You know, if we actually gotsome things done.
Not only would it change thenarrative, but it would also fix
the problem in some ways.
So let's get back to packingthe court and what I want to do.
I've done some homework on thisand I have quote a clip that
I'm going to play.
It's about 45 seconds long, butit's worth a listen.
It's FDR in his ninth firesidechat and him talking
(14:52):
specifically about the need toexpand the Supreme Court and why
it matters.
I want you to listen to it andthink about how much it
resonates now, nearly 100 yearslater, even more so than it did
back then.
So take a listen.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
During the last half century, the balance of power
between the three great branchesof the federal government has
been tipped out of balance bythe courts, in direct
contradiction of the highpurposes of the framers of the
Constitution.
It is my purpose to restorethat balance, that, in a world
(15:37):
in which democracy is underattack, I seek to make American
democracy succeed.
You and I will do our part.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
Okay, first of all, can we just acknowledge that I
just love the way FDR speaks,his tone, his cadence, that kind
of confidence that he exudes.
I mean, you know, the guy'sjust an order.
Like we've never really seenhis ability to talk to people.
It's just amazing.
I can listen to this stuff allday.
But let's get back to the point.
(16:11):
Ok, so expanding the SupremeCourt and why President Biden
should do it now and I want tobe clear the huge frustration is
is that he has said from thebeginning because Joe Biden is,
if nothing else, aninstitutionalist, right, I mean,
he is like the definition of aninsider, an institution man
(16:32):
having served in the Senate and,you know, wanting to maintain
the status quo and all thatstuff so this was always going
to be a hard sell for him andactually, right before the 2020
election, he said he had nointerest in packing the court.
Ok, this is not then.
This is now, and the changes towhat we have seen in our
country just in these last threeyears have been so and we can
(16:53):
all see where it's heading thatI don't know if there's ever
been a time and this is nothyperbole, this is not hyperbole
.
I don't think there's ever beena time that I can recall in
American history, with theexception of the Civil War,
where dramatic action has beenneeded to protect the framework
(17:16):
of our nation.
This transcends everydaypolitics.
This is the thing that if wedon't do this, the framework
collapses forever and again.
Look at Project 2025.
Look at what these people aregetting ready to do.
This is no joke.
This is no joke.
They have put it out therebrazenly, letting people know
what they are planning on doing,and you know Trump is trying to
(17:38):
distance himself from it.
And I do believe that, as we,you know, we need to keep making
sure people see what that isall about.
And it's definitely.
If you look at Google searchtrends and things like that,
people are starting to payattention and while it is an
effective campaign issue,trump's out there saying he
distances himself from it.
(17:59):
We all know that's not true, butthe Trumpers, they don't care,
right?
So that's the other thing.
You know they don't care.
We talk about playing andliving in two different
realities.
Democrats are talking about,you know, replacing our nominee
after a bad debate performanceand again, we're not going to go
back into that, but the pointis that was an inflection point
(18:20):
that set off, you know everyalarm you could possibly imagine
.
Set off, you know every alarmyou could possibly imagine.
And there were a lot ofquestions that have been raised
and rightfully so about.
Well, look at the things Trumpsays, look at the you know, look
at the way he carries himself,look at his cognitive.
But here's the thing His votersdo not care.
They don't care, doesn't matter.
(18:41):
I mean, he said himself hecould shoot someone on Fifth
Avenue and nobody would doanything.
And unfortunately, that isproving to be true in more ways
than we could possibly have everimagined when he said it.
But his voters are locked in.
There's no way of getting them.
They are absolutely convincedof the.
(19:01):
As much as we fear what's goingto happen, they are convinced
of the inverse.
They don't care about thenumbers, they don't care about
the facts, they don't care, youknow, they don't care about any
reality.
They care about what they feel.
And Trump has been able to tapinto those fears.
And you know we don't need togo into what that's all about.
(19:22):
We all know it has to do withrace and culture and this fear
of being minimalized, and youknow the idea of woke ism and
all those sorts of things.
Right, for whatever reason,they are on board the Trump
train and they're not coming off.
And, as a result of that, theyhave now been conditioned to
believe that Joe Biden is theworst president we've ever had
(19:44):
and he is a dictator and he isgoing to be the downfall.
And he wants, you know, hewants to do all these things
that are actually the thingsthat Trump is saying he wants to
do and is going to do, you know.
But the cognitive dissonancethere is so severe you're never
going to be able to convincethem of otherwise.
And you know, I do believe thatthis election is going to come
down to a very small number ofvoters in a very small number of
(20:05):
states.
Right, it really is going to bethat small of a tipping point.
But if you want to bring theenthusiasm back, if you want to
show people that we are actuallygetting things done, and if you
want to make, you want toredefine what this election is
about over the next four months,expand the court.
(20:27):
That will get everybody'sattention.
That's not nothing.
So how would it work?
The?
The main stumbling block isthat the size of the Supreme
Court has been determined byCongress.
Right, there's legislation thatsays this is what it's supposed
to be, and obviously you knowthere are bills sitting in the
(20:50):
courts right now or in Congressright now.
They're never again.
Because of the institutionalroadblocks that are in place,
plus the fact that Republicanscontrol the House, those bills
are never going to see the lightof day, right?
So let's just throw that rightout the window.
Even if it got out of the houseby some miracle, it would it
would never make it out of theSenate because of the filibuster
and because institutionalismand blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
(21:11):
, right, the typical reasons whycrap never gets done.
And as little as two weeks ago,we would have said well, the
president doesn't have the powerto unilaterally make that move,
right?
But guess what?
The Supreme Court just freakinghanded it to him.
They gave him the greatest giftof all and they said that he is
(21:33):
immune from official acts.
Well, I don't know, ifsomeone's robbing my house and
the robber hands me a weapon,I'm probably going to want to
use it on them to protect myself.
Really, there only need to betwo people on board with this
plan President Biden and SenateMajority Leader Schumer, because
(21:54):
they would have to be confirmed, right?
If he named appointees, theywould then have to be confirmed
by the Senate.
You're not going to get aroundthat.
That's pretty baked into theConstitution.
But as long as Schumer agreesto hold hearings and a vote,
then they show up.
These new justices show up withtheir little pack lunch and
(22:14):
they're like hi, we're here tojudge.
What happens then?
Does the Supreme Court?
What do they do?
Lock the doors and not let youin.
Yeah, it's a constitutionalcrisis, I get it, but it's the
constitutional crisis you want.
Pick that fight.
Pick that fight, especially ata time when the court is so
(22:35):
corrupt, with, you know,clarence Thomas and all, and you
know, and you know all thethings that are going on
ethically.
Pick that fight.
You want that fight Because,think about it, how would that
play out?
He announces that he's going toappoint additional justices.
Appoint four more, whatever.
Four sounds like a good number.
Obviously, you still want to bean odd number of justices.
I've also heard you couldappoint 12 to be representative
(22:59):
of every judicial circuitfederally in the country.
You could do that too.
But whatever the number doesn'tmatter.
But if you're you know, if youwant to appoint more, you come
out and you say I'm appointingthese four people and Chuck
Schumer says we're scheduling aconfirmation hearing and a week
later we're going to have a vote.
Well, obviously the Republicans, and you know whoever else, are
(23:23):
going to immediately try tofile a lawsuit and ask for
immediate action to block it.
They can't block it on theSenate floor.
Right, this is.
You know, schumer would justhave to push it through.
But he could do it, and I don'tcare what sort of strong arm
tactics, I don't care if he hasto blackmail Joe Manchin, you
know, or Kristen Sinema orwhoever, I don't care what he
has to do.
Get it done.
The Republicans Mitch McConnellwould get it done.
(23:51):
The republicans mitch mcconnellwould get it done.
Okay, so you have theconfirmation hearings and the
confirmation hearings.
By the way, I would make it verysimple.
I would have exactly twoquestions that I would ask every
, every every nominee.
Question.
Number one is what is yourposition on the limits of
presidential power and immunity?
The second one would bequestions on a right to choose
(24:13):
Again.
Be brazen, don't get cute,don't try to make this something
that it isn't.
Just come right out and saywhat the hell you're doing,
because these are issues, theunderlying issues, the results
are things that areoverwhelmingly popular.
Right.
Ask about checks and balances,what they feel the role of the
(24:33):
Supreme Court should be.
I go back to FDR.
There's a part of that clip Ididn't play, but one of the
justifications that he gave asto why he wanted to pack the
court was that the justices hadtaken on the role of a pseudo
legislature that they had.
Instead of ruling on theconstitutionality of laws, they
were in effect making the laws.
They were usurping the powersgiven not just to Congress but
(24:57):
also to the president, and thatwasn't their job.
That was never their job.
And that goes back to, you know, the first rulings determining
the doctrine of judicial reviewand all these things I mean.
So it's kind of a it goes backto the founding of our country.
We had this debate 250 yearsago.
We'd kind of settled on asystem that worked and then all
(25:22):
of a sudden now we have a systemwhere it just hasn't worked and
it has totally gone the otherway.
So you ask some very basic,fundamental questions that lay
bare exactly what you're doing,because you know the idea is
very simple I am appointingSupreme Court justices who will
then go in and hopefully restorethe checks and balances that
(25:44):
have gone out of whack.
Hopefully restore the checksand balances that have gone out
of whack.
That you would say.
These justices, if appointed,would also push through a
stricter code of conduct for theSupreme Court, right?
So it would not just have anoutward effect to preserve
democracy and restore some ofthose checks and balances, but
it would also clean houseinternally to make it a much
(26:09):
more accountable court, becauseright now there may not be a
body on the planet with morepower and less accountability
than the United States SupremeCourt, right.
So you're trying to restorethat status quo.
So what happens then?
The legal challenges areimmediate, right.
What happens is it willinvariably I don't even know if
(26:30):
it could happen fast enough,quite frankly, to get to the
Supreme Court, but it's going toend up restore the framers, and
now you can go back to that.
You know the, the, theconstitutionalist argument,
right.
The.
You know for all of these,these guys like Clarence Thomas
(26:54):
and Samuel Alito, that you knowthat claim to be strict,
constructionalist, except whenit doesn't fit what they're
trying to accomplish, use theirown logic against them and say
no, this is what the framersintended.
I'm trying to restore thenation we were supposed to have
Right.
And what happens next?
The Supreme Court then comesback and says oh wait, there are
(27:15):
limits on your power, you can'tdo that.
Huh, I'll be damned.
So now we have an opinion fromthat court saying that, unlike
in Trump, where there werevirtually no limits, well, now
there are.
And that opens the door or insome ways closes the door on
what we could be seeing.
Get it, get where this is going.
(27:36):
It's the only way to force themto have to be accountable to
the consequences of what theyhave done.
You're literally dragging itand dropping it right back on
their doorstep, because they'reeither going to acknowledge that
he has the power to do it, inwhich case problem solved, or
they're going to say, oh wait,you don't, which then opens the
door back up to wait where arethe limits of presidential power
(27:59):
?
And even if Biden loses theelection, you've now at least
set some sort of a frameworkright.
That's where this needs to goand, yes, it's bold, it's
different, but that's what thecountry wants right now.
And it's what we need and thisis why we're all freaking out is
because we are not equipped.
(28:20):
We lack the intestinalfortitude to do what is
necessary, and by we I mean theparty and the you know, the call
them the elites, the leadership, whatever.
And part of it is that you know, they're institutionalists
because they're part of theinstitution and they want to
remain part of the institution.
And you know, I even saw thatas a member of the state
(28:41):
legislature protect theinstitution.
Those were things that weresaid behind closed doors.
Now, that was being done todefend things like you know,
maintaining per diems, you know,and little perks.
They took it seriously.
So you can imagine, with thestakes being exponentially
higher, how much more seriousthey're taking it.
And so this takes us back toBiden.
Is I pulled the remarks that hegave on July 1st after the
(29:07):
Supreme Court's immunity ruling,after the Supreme Court's
immunity ruling, and he startswith all the right things and no
one is above the law, blah,blah, blah.
Okay, all the things that youwould want to say, but there's
one line that jumped at me.
Okay, it says at first, he saysthe only limits will be
self-imposed by the presidentalone.
Okay, but that's not the point.
He talks about Roe v Wade.
(29:27):
He talks about January 6th.
He talks about Roe v Wade, hetalks about January 6th.
He talks about all this stuffand what he says.
I know I will respect thelimits of the presidential power
, as I have for three and a halfyears, but now any president,
including Donald Trump, will befree to ignore the law.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
Do you?
Speaker 1 (29:43):
get the contradiction there.
I will respect the limits ofthe presidential power.
Ok, but the limits ofpresidential power have changed.
They're not what they werethree and a half years ago.
They're not what they were twoweeks ago.
The office of the presidencyhas been granted new power by
the Supreme Court.
Using that power is now part ofthe norm.
(30:05):
Right?
You know the speed limit inthis country, you know, used to
be 30 miles an hour becausethat's as fast as cars could go.
Well, now it's 70 miles an hour.
So should you continue to drive30 miles an hour just out of
respect for what used to be?
No, the boundaries have beenhit.
The damn gas pedal branch does,when they have actually given
(30:29):
you more authority, and then say, well, I'm not going to use it
because I don't think that'sright, especially when you know
the next guy is going to misuseit in ways that will demolish
our nation.
Like.
We know what's coming.
They're not keeping it a secret, they're not hiding it, they're
telling us.
It is in plain sight.
They have put out a 900 pagedocument telling us what they're
(30:52):
going to do, and it ishorrifically terrifying.
So, yes, win the damn election.
Of course that should be ourgoal.
But have this fight.
Have the fight and win it.
Don't just give us lip service.
Have the fight.
It's a fight that would definethis election.
Have the fight.
(31:13):
It's a fight that would definethis election.
It would draw the contrast ofwhat we're trying to do and what
the consequences of failurewould look like.
It allows us to pivot to whatTrump would want to do.
Because what is Trump going todo then?
What is he going to say?
Of course he's going tocriticize it and, yes, you know
there is going to be pushback,there is going to be outcry and
(31:33):
oh see, he is a dictator, blah,blah, blah blah.
But you know what?
They're never voting for youanyway.
So who the hell cares what theythink?
They already think that JoeBiden's a pedophile.
He's a, you know, a dictator.
He's this, he's that.
You know, if we allow ourselvesto live in the fears of what
our opponents may think or sayabout us on Twitter, right,
(31:54):
which is just a cesspool ofright wing bots at this point,
or we care about what theeditorial pages of the
newspapers say that have, in thelast couple of weeks, have
demonstrated a lack of regardfor what they know to be true.
You know the lack of factchecking that went on at that
debate, allowing that to justhappen in real time.
You know the calls for Biden tostep down, but not for Trump.
(32:19):
After all of this, this insanedouble standard that we've
allowed ourselves to be held to.
Quite frankly and yeah, I getit Trump has normalized a lot of
this behavior and that is.
You know, that was, but thatwas always a part of the plan,
right, do so many crazy thingsand say so many crazy things
that you almost don't even knowwhere to look.
(32:40):
And afterwards you're soexhausted and it just becomes
the norm and they get away withit, taste of their own medicine.
And now that the law hasallowed you, they're daring him
to do it.
They're daring him to do itbecause they know that he won't.
(33:01):
And why are Democratic votersdisillusioned and frustrated and
exhausted and really losingconfidence and enthusiasm?
Is because we know they won'tdo it either.
Because they haven't yet.
There are so many things theycould have done after after
January 6th.
You know things.
Like you know, statehood for DCand Puerto Rico would have
fundamentally changed the waythe Senate works Massive change.
(33:23):
Public is in favor of it.
Couldn't do it because of blah,blah, blah, blah, blah, right,
everything we want to see doneand is now possible.
You know, abortion, same thing.
Issue an executive order.
You know he did.
The president did issue anorder about.
You know life affirming carethat you know, basically, that
emergency physicians have toadminister abortion as life
(33:47):
affirming care, and you knowwhen the life of the mother is
in danger, which is good, butthat's not enough.
Like we take these baby steps,these half measures, because
what, oh my goodness, what willpeople think?
You know what they'll think.
They'll think, wow, theyactually got something done.
Why do people are, why arepeople willing to follow Trump
off a cliff, no matter what hedoes?
It's because he'll get thingsdone.
(34:07):
First term, he got him theirjudges, he got him their tax
cuts.
He got it done.
So they were willing tooverlook so many other things.
We don't get it done nearlyenough.
Big, bold action is what'srequired right now, not just
politically, but if we're trulyserious about saving our
democracy and preserving thechecks and balances and the
(34:28):
political system as it stands,to protect ourselves from a true
autocracy that we know iscoming under Donald Trump.
Nothing should be off the table, nothing.
Be bold, get something done.
That will energize theelectorate, and the people on
the other side are going to hateyou anyway, to which I say F
(34:49):
them Quite frankly, I don't care.
Get it done and you will win.
The people will respect you forit.
Learn the right lesson from FDR100 years ago, because the
stakes are as high, if nothigher.
Take the big swing.
Do what's right, and then wewon't have to wonder whether or
not Joe Biden should be ournominee.
We'll know that he should bebecause he did the things that
(35:12):
were hard but necessary.
But you and I both know that'snot going to happen and, as a
result, here we sit, doomscrolling, worrying, infighting,
or to quote Saddam Hussein fromthe South Park movie.
Thank you for letting me vent.
This has been cathartic.
If you'd like to support whatwe're doing, which is
(35:32):
politically we're supportingother candidates for office up
and down the ballot through ourpolitical action committee, you
can go to KeystoneReckoningcom,make a contribution via ActBlue
a one-time or recurring.
That money will go directly tocampaigns and candidates that
are fighting the hard fight anddoing what is necessary and bold
(35:53):
through messaging and otherefforts to make sure that we can
have a voice and have an impact.
So please consider doing that.
Again.
Thank you very much, and let'skeep doing this.
Fighting at this point is theonly option, and until we figure
out which direction we're goingto go, the fight's going to be
uglier and uglier, but thatdoesn't mean we can give up.
(36:14):
It means we have to dig in.
That's what I'm going to do,and that's what I hope you do
too.
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.
I'm Jesse White.
This is the Keystone Reckoningpodcast for Friday, july 12th
2024.
And if you're anything like me,you've spent the past couple of
weeks doom, scrolling andworrying and thinking and
analyzing and overanalyzingwhere we are, what we do next
(00:23):
and how do we do it.
And, of course, I'm talkingabout everything from the
Supreme Court rulings onpresidential immunity to
President Biden's performance inthe debate and everything that
has since followed in terms ofarguments about whether he
should remain the Democraticnominee.
I am not going to wade into thatdebate because, quite frankly,
(00:47):
there's already enough noise outthere.
I don't know what I can add toit, and it's one of the few
times that I've been able tolook at a political landscape
and come away without anyclarity, which, for me, might be
the scariest part of all ofthis.
You know, those of us thatreally follow things closely and
(01:09):
consider ourselves to be wellinformed and well read can
usually look at what's happeningand come away with a general
idea of the lay of the land.
That's not really happening now, at least for me, and we're
seeing a lot of well-intentionedpeople that have a common goal
of defeating Donald Trump,having a serious disagreement
(01:33):
about how to go about that, andthere are lots of takes that you
can have on all sides.
I don't think anybody's totallyright.
I don't think anybody's totallywrong.
I don't think anybody's totallywrong.
(02:06):
So it leaves us in this placewhere, as Democrats, we do what
we do best, which is live in ourown fears and basically suffer
from paralysis by analysis.
And again, there's a lot, thereare a lot more forces at work
here, and you know there it's avery easy rabbit hole to go down
.
I'm not going to go down thatrabbit hole today.
The best way I can sum this allup is a line from where I tend
to always go for deep answers toexistential questions, which
would, of course, be the SouthPark movie from 1999.
You are really now Okay, funnytime is over.
Let's get down to brass tackshere.
Instead of talking about theprocess of where we are and the
(02:30):
problems that we're facing as wehead into the final four months
of the campaign, I thoughtinstead I could kind of look
forward a little bit, and to me,as long as we focus on the
(03:06):
process of the election and thequestion of something happen,
particularly on the left aswe're watching really victory
after victory for Trump and theMAGA crowd, and these aren't
small victories.
Aren't small victories.
You know, we're looking at thisand saying, oh my God.
We're looking at Project 2025.
(03:27):
We're looking at the SCOTUSruling, we're looking at all of
these things.
You know, judge Eileen Cannonin one of these in the criminal
case everything is just kind ofallowing Trump to not only avoid
any culpability oraccountability for what he's
done, but it's setting the stagefor a truly terrifying, truly
terrifying country.
(03:48):
If he should win, okay.
So to me, the question is yes,if the Democrats win, we are in
a position to again block someof that and we have a real
chance to, you know, and atleast Donald Trump, trumpism
isn't going away we could atleast end Donald Trump
(04:09):
politically.
If we win, but with theconventional wisdom and the
polling and everything, reallyputting that into question and
forcing everybody to press thepanic button more than anything,
setting the conventional wisdom, which is maybe the most
dangerous thing, and justeroding the enthusiasm gap on
(04:32):
the left down to almost nothing,where people, instead of going
out forcefully to turn out thevote and everything that entails
, it's going to be almostapologetic and that's going to
be a huge problem, especiallyfor Democrats, because so much
of what we do in terms ofwinning elections is based on
our ground game, door to door,relational canvassing, those
(04:56):
sorts of things that have alwaysbeen effective.
But if we have our people onthe ground gun shy about going
out and really advocating loudlyor being kind of apologetic,
that's going to be a hugeproblem and that's something
you're also going to have down.
Ballot candidates and you'reseeing it right now, you know,
(05:16):
basically trying to keep theirpowder dry coming out,
distancing themselves in a waywe've really never seen before
from a sitting president.
It's one thing to not want tohave them in your district or
stand by them, but we're comingout.
We're seeing brazen yes, youshould step aside, okay.
So all of that brings us towhat do we do?
(05:36):
What can we do now?
And to me, the solution isstraightforward and the big
frustration is I know it's notgoing to happen, but this, to me
, is what we could do to changethe narrative of and, more
importantly, quite frankly, takethe steps necessary to actually
(05:59):
protect democracy and protectour country.
And it's really simple we packthe Supreme Court.
That's what we do, that is thesolution and in a lot of ways
the SCOTUS ruling onpresidential immunity is to me,
the tipping point that, not onlyfrom a legal point of view but
(06:20):
from a political point of view,directs us squarely to that
conclusion.
So let's walk this back for aminute.
Let's walk this all the wayback.
Let's walk this back 100 yearsalmost to FDR my personal hero
politically, who tried to, inthe wake of New Deal legislation
(06:41):
being struck down by aconservative Supreme Court after
his first reelection, decidesthat he is going to try to
expand the Supreme Court.
He proposes legislation toCongress that it was a little
convoluted, but basically itsaid that if a justice didn't
didn't retire after age 70, thepresident would have the would
have the power to then appointsomebody to expand the court and
(07:05):
there were things aboutseniority.
It was a little convoluted.
It wasn't simply we're going tohave more justices on the
Supreme Court.
It didn't work for a couple of,one of the main reasons being
that he kind of sprung it onCongress, at least in the House.
The House Judiciary Chairdidn't even know anything about
it until the legislation cameout.
(07:25):
The been repeated.
It was not as wildly unpopularas some people may make it out
(07:50):
to be.
And they point then to the nextmidterms where Democrats got
pummeled and they try to saywell, that was largely due to
FDR's efforts to pack theSupreme Court.
I would argue and a lot ofpeople a lot smarter than me on
this topic would argue that itwas almost the inverse.
(08:12):
It was a lot of the New Deallegislation being struck down by
the courts which meant we nevergot to see some of those
benefits.
The American people never gotto see the benefits, then
decided well, fdr didn't deliveron his promises, therefore
we're going to go with somebodyelse.
And so it was actually thefailure of the legislative
(08:35):
agenda which could have beenhelped by the Supreme Court.
Expanding is what led to thelosses in the following midterms
, and a lot of Democrats haveused that, as held that up, as
the example as to why weshouldn't do this, why we
shouldn't try to expand thecourt.
But the lesson and this is abroader lesson and a lot of
people are very frustrated anddisenchanted with Democrats in
(09:01):
general is we make a lot ofgrandiose promises about what
we're going to do and then weget into office and then we find
ways to not get it done.
We create roadblocks and holdourselves to, quite frankly, a
different standard.
And to me, my standard hasalways been this Nobody cares
about process, they care aboutresults.
And the line I've always drawnis don't break the law right.
(09:26):
As long as you don't break thelaw, you can exploit loopholes,
you can work the system, you cando what you need to do in order
to get the thing done.
And for all of the faults ofDonald Trump and the current
Republican Party and God knowsthey are more than any of us can
count is that when they wantedto get something done, they
found a way to get it done right.
(09:48):
The tax cuts early on inTrump's term.
Any number of you know.
The judicial appointments areinfamous right Even before Trump
came into office Ms McConnellblocking Merrick Garland from
being even considered forconfirmation, blocking Merrick
Garland from being evenconsidered for confirmation
Unprecedented and we all howledat the moon.
(10:08):
Amy Coney Barrett beingappointed and rushed through the
process in direct contradictionto the reasoning that was given
as to why Garland could not beconsidered Right.
They did all the things theyhave.
They have taken every possible,every possible shortcut,
loophole.
Maybe, you know you would argue, maybe unethical approach, but
(10:30):
they get it done and then theyreap the rewards.
And if these, the currentSupreme Court ruling and the
actions of you know, we go backto, obviously, roe and then the
Trump immunity case and anynumber of cases in between, the
Chevron case that ripple effectfrom those justices being
(10:52):
appointed has really been thething that has eroded the checks
and balance system that we sodesperately need upon for almost
250 years.
So, you know, to me the outcomeoutweighs the process, and you
can look at certain things thatthe Democrats have done since
coming into office, studentloans being maybe the most
(11:14):
obvious in terms of you know,they've tried process.
They've tried process and theykeep getting stymied.
You know, if Donald Trumpdecided when he was president,
if he decided, that he wanted toeliminate student loan debt,
guess what it would have beendone.
He would have found a way toget it done.
I'm sorry, that's just realityand you can, you know, wring
(11:35):
your hands and shake your headover that all you want, but they
got it done and the people whosupported him would have
realized he got it done and theywouldn't have given a damn
about how he did it.
And that, to me, is the biggestdistinction and the biggest
chasm that we have to navigateis that we worry far too much
(11:58):
about process and not nearlyenough about results, and this
is a time, especially nowresults matter.
The result is the thing, and Ifeel like we have really lost
the plot and forgotten theassignment here, which is to get
things done, and we areconsistently bringing a pea
shooter to a nuclear war.
(12:19):
We're not playing the same gameand, to be honest, it's not a
game.
That's not even a good analogy.
We are not living in the samereality as they are, and what
that means is this idea ofdemocratic norms and the way
things have always been.
That's gone.
Maybe it comes back, maybe itdoesn't.
My thought is that, now that theblueprint for Trumpism has been
(12:41):
laid out, even after Trump'sgone, there's always going to be
the next Trump, you know, andobviously you see these guys all
jockeying and posturing for it.
It's.
You know, it's a formula thatcan work, unfortunately, and the
reason it works is because we,as Democrats, do not do enough
(13:02):
to utilize power when we have itto get the results.
We need to stymie it to try torestore those balances and norms
and those fleeting momentswhere we do have the power, you
know, where there's rareinstances where we've had the
presidency, the House and theSenate we've allowed things like
the filibuster to preventanything from happening, where
(13:22):
we all know the filibuster is afictional construct, it's not
law, it's a rule and it'sclearly designed to benefit
Republicans because of thelarger number of senators due to
the larger number of states inthe Senate.
We all know it's BS, so why arewe allowing that to be a norm
(13:45):
Just because the other side saysso?
And the institutionalists?
And this is where I'm goingwith this this concept of
institutionalism needs to beattacked and questioned.
It has been on the left inrecent years, not nearly enough.
There's still way too muchcatering to special interests
(14:07):
and maintaining the status quoand all the things that, if you
pay attention, you see happening.
I'm not going to get into allof them right now, but it's that
idea that you know Democratstalk a big game and then don't
take the action necessary toback it up, which in some ways
is even more offensive becauseat least the Republicans aren't
pretending Right, which in someways is even more offensive
because at least the republicansaren't pretending right.
(14:27):
So the idea is, how do we?
You know, if we actually gotsome things done.
Not only would it change thenarrative, but it would also fix
the problem in some ways.
So let's get back to packingthe court and what I want to do.
I've done some homework on thisand I have quote a clip that
I'm going to play.
It's about 45 seconds long, butit's worth a listen.
It's FDR in his ninth firesidechat and him talking
(14:52):
specifically about the need toexpand the Supreme Court and why
it matters.
I want you to listen to it andthink about how much it
resonates now, nearly 100 yearslater, even more so than it did
back then.
So take a listen.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
During the last half century, the balance of power
between the three great branchesof the federal government has
been tipped out of balance bythe courts, in direct
contradiction of the highpurposes of the framers of the
Constitution.
It is my purpose to restorethat balance, that, in a world
(15:37):
in which democracy is underattack, I seek to make American
democracy succeed.
You and I will do our part.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
Okay, first of all, can we just acknowledge that I
just love the way FDR speaks,his tone, his cadence, that kind
of confidence that he exudes.
I mean, you know, the guy'sjust an order.
Like we've never really seenhis ability to talk to people.
It's just amazing.
I can listen to this stuff allday.
But let's get back to the point.
(16:11):
Ok, so expanding the SupremeCourt and why President Biden
should do it now and I want tobe clear the huge frustration is
is that he has said from thebeginning because Joe Biden is,
if nothing else, aninstitutionalist, right, I mean,
he is like the definition of aninsider, an institution man
(16:32):
having served in the Senate and,you know, wanting to maintain
the status quo and all thatstuff so this was always going
to be a hard sell for him andactually, right before the 2020
election, he said he had nointerest in packing the court.
Ok, this is not then.
This is now, and the changes towhat we have seen in our
country just in these last threeyears have been so and we can
(16:53):
all see where it's heading thatI don't know if there's ever
been a time and this is nothyperbole, this is not hyperbole
.
I don't think there's ever beena time that I can recall in
American history, with theexception of the Civil War,
where dramatic action has beenneeded to protect the framework
(17:16):
of our nation.
This transcends everydaypolitics.
This is the thing that if wedon't do this, the framework
collapses forever and again.
Look at Project 2025.
Look at what these people aregetting ready to do.
This is no joke.
This is no joke.
They have put it out therebrazenly, letting people know
what they are planning on doing,and you know Trump is trying to
(17:38):
distance himself from it.
And I do believe that, as we,you know, we need to keep making
sure people see what that isall about.
And it's definitely.
If you look at Google searchtrends and things like that,
people are starting to payattention and while it is an
effective campaign issue,trump's out there saying he
distances himself from it.
(17:59):
We all know that's not true, butthe Trumpers, they don't care,
right?
So that's the other thing.
You know they don't care.
We talk about playing andliving in two different
realities.
Democrats are talking about,you know, replacing our nominee
after a bad debate performanceand again, we're not going to go
back into that, but the pointis that was an inflection point
(18:20):
that set off, you know everyalarm you could possibly imagine
.
Set off, you know every alarmyou could possibly imagine.
And there were a lot ofquestions that have been raised
and rightfully so about.
Well, look at the things Trumpsays, look at the you know, look
at the way he carries himself,look at his cognitive.
But here's the thing His votersdo not care.
They don't care, doesn't matter.
(18:41):
I mean, he said himself hecould shoot someone on Fifth
Avenue and nobody would doanything.
And unfortunately, that isproving to be true in more ways
than we could possibly have everimagined when he said it.
But his voters are locked in.
There's no way of getting them.
They are absolutely convincedof the.
(19:01):
As much as we fear what's goingto happen, they are convinced
of the inverse.
They don't care about thenumbers, they don't care about
the facts, they don't care, youknow, they don't care about any
reality.
They care about what they feel.
And Trump has been able to tapinto those fears.
And you know we don't need togo into what that's all about.
(19:22):
We all know it has to do withrace and culture and this fear
of being minimalized, and youknow the idea of woke ism and
all those sorts of things.
Right, for whatever reason,they are on board the Trump
train and they're not coming off.
And, as a result of that, theyhave now been conditioned to
believe that Joe Biden is theworst president we've ever had
(19:44):
and he is a dictator and he isgoing to be the downfall.
And he wants, you know, hewants to do all these things
that are actually the thingsthat Trump is saying he wants to
do and is going to do, you know.
But the cognitive dissonancethere is so severe you're never
going to be able to convincethem of otherwise.
And you know, I do believe thatthis election is going to come
down to a very small number ofvoters in a very small number of
(20:05):
states.
Right, it really is going to bethat small of a tipping point.
But if you want to bring theenthusiasm back, if you want to
show people that we are actuallygetting things done, and if you
want to make, you want toredefine what this election is
about over the next four months,expand the court.
(20:27):
That will get everybody'sattention.
That's not nothing.
So how would it work?
The?
The main stumbling block isthat the size of the Supreme
Court has been determined byCongress.
Right, there's legislation thatsays this is what it's supposed
to be, and obviously you knowthere are bills sitting in the
(20:50):
courts right now or in Congressright now.
They're never again.
Because of the institutionalroadblocks that are in place,
plus the fact that Republicanscontrol the House, those bills
are never going to see the lightof day, right?
So let's just throw that rightout the window.
Even if it got out of the houseby some miracle, it would it
would never make it out of theSenate because of the filibuster
and because institutionalismand blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
(21:11):
, right, the typical reasons whycrap never gets done.
And as little as two weeks ago,we would have said well, the
president doesn't have the powerto unilaterally make that move,
right?
But guess what?
The Supreme Court just freakinghanded it to him.
They gave him the greatest giftof all and they said that he is
(21:33):
immune from official acts.
Well, I don't know, ifsomeone's robbing my house and
the robber hands me a weapon,I'm probably going to want to
use it on them to protect myself.
Really, there only need to betwo people on board with this
plan President Biden and SenateMajority Leader Schumer, because
(21:54):
they would have to be confirmed, right?
If he named appointees, theywould then have to be confirmed
by the Senate.
You're not going to get aroundthat.
That's pretty baked into theConstitution.
But as long as Schumer agreesto hold hearings and a vote,
then they show up.
These new justices show up withtheir little pack lunch and
(22:14):
they're like hi, we're here tojudge.
What happens then?
Does the Supreme Court?
What do they do?
Lock the doors and not let youin.
Yeah, it's a constitutionalcrisis, I get it, but it's the
constitutional crisis you want.
Pick that fight.
Pick that fight, especially ata time when the court is so
(22:35):
corrupt, with, you know,clarence Thomas and all, and you
know, and you know all thethings that are going on
ethically.
Pick that fight.
You want that fight Because,think about it, how would that
play out?
He announces that he's going toappoint additional justices.
Appoint four more, whatever.
Four sounds like a good number.
Obviously, you still want to bean odd number of justices.
I've also heard you couldappoint 12 to be representative
(22:59):
of every judicial circuitfederally in the country.
You could do that too.
But whatever the number doesn'tmatter.
But if you're you know, if youwant to appoint more, you come
out and you say I'm appointingthese four people and Chuck
Schumer says we're scheduling aconfirmation hearing and a week
later we're going to have a vote.
Well, obviously the Republicans, and you know whoever else, are
(23:23):
going to immediately try tofile a lawsuit and ask for
immediate action to block it.
They can't block it on theSenate floor.
Right, this is.
You know, schumer would justhave to push it through.
But he could do it, and I don'tcare what sort of strong arm
tactics, I don't care if he hasto blackmail Joe Manchin, you
know, or Kristen Sinema orwhoever, I don't care what he
has to do.
Get it done.
The Republicans Mitch McConnellwould get it done.
(23:51):
The republicans mitch mcconnellwould get it done.
Okay, so you have theconfirmation hearings and the
confirmation hearings.
By the way, I would make it verysimple.
I would have exactly twoquestions that I would ask every
, every every nominee.
Question.
Number one is what is yourposition on the limits of
presidential power and immunity?
The second one would bequestions on a right to choose
(24:13):
Again.
Be brazen, don't get cute,don't try to make this something
that it isn't.
Just come right out and saywhat the hell you're doing,
because these are issues, theunderlying issues, the results
are things that areoverwhelmingly popular.
Right.
Ask about checks and balances,what they feel the role of the
(24:33):
Supreme Court should be.
I go back to FDR.
There's a part of that clip Ididn't play, but one of the
justifications that he gave asto why he wanted to pack the
court was that the justices hadtaken on the role of a pseudo
legislature that they had.
Instead of ruling on theconstitutionality of laws, they
were in effect making the laws.
They were usurping the powersgiven not just to Congress but
(24:57):
also to the president, and thatwasn't their job.
That was never their job.
And that goes back to, you know, the first rulings determining
the doctrine of judicial reviewand all these things I mean.
So it's kind of a it goes backto the founding of our country.
We had this debate 250 yearsago.
We'd kind of settled on asystem that worked and then all
(25:22):
of a sudden now we have a systemwhere it just hasn't worked and
it has totally gone the otherway.
So you ask some very basic,fundamental questions that lay
bare exactly what you're doing,because you know the idea is
very simple I am appointingSupreme Court justices who will
then go in and hopefully restorethe checks and balances that
(25:44):
have gone out of whack.
Hopefully restore the checksand balances that have gone out
of whack.
That you would say.
These justices, if appointed,would also push through a
stricter code of conduct for theSupreme Court, right?
So it would not just have anoutward effect to preserve
democracy and restore some ofthose checks and balances, but
it would also clean houseinternally to make it a much
(26:09):
more accountable court, becauseright now there may not be a
body on the planet with morepower and less accountability
than the United States SupremeCourt, right.
So you're trying to restorethat status quo.
So what happens then?
The legal challenges areimmediate, right.
What happens is it willinvariably I don't even know if
(26:30):
it could happen fast enough,quite frankly, to get to the
Supreme Court, but it's going toend up restore the framers, and
now you can go back to that.
You know the, the, theconstitutionalist argument,
right.
The.
You know for all of these,these guys like Clarence Thomas
(26:54):
and Samuel Alito, that you knowthat claim to be strict,
constructionalist, except whenit doesn't fit what they're
trying to accomplish, use theirown logic against them and say
no, this is what the framersintended.
I'm trying to restore thenation we were supposed to have
Right.
And what happens next?
The Supreme Court then comesback and says oh wait, there are
(27:15):
limits on your power, you can'tdo that.
Huh, I'll be damned.
So now we have an opinion fromthat court saying that, unlike
in Trump, where there werevirtually no limits, well, now
there are.
And that opens the door or insome ways closes the door on
what we could be seeing.
Get it, get where this is going.
(27:36):
It's the only way to force themto have to be accountable to
the consequences of what theyhave done.
You're literally dragging itand dropping it right back on
their doorstep, because they'reeither going to acknowledge that
he has the power to do it, inwhich case problem solved, or
they're going to say, oh wait,you don't, which then opens the
door back up to wait where arethe limits of presidential power
(27:59):
?
And even if Biden loses theelection, you've now at least
set some sort of a frameworkright.
That's where this needs to goand, yes, it's bold, it's
different, but that's what thecountry wants right now.
And it's what we need and thisis why we're all freaking out is
because we are not equipped.
(28:20):
We lack the intestinalfortitude to do what is
necessary, and by we I mean theparty and the you know, the call
them the elites, the leadership, whatever.
And part of it is that you know, they're institutionalists
because they're part of theinstitution and they want to
remain part of the institution.
And you know, I even saw thatas a member of the state
(28:41):
legislature protect theinstitution.
Those were things that weresaid behind closed doors.
Now, that was being done todefend things like you know,
maintaining per diems, you know,and little perks.
They took it seriously.
So you can imagine, with thestakes being exponentially
higher, how much more seriousthey're taking it.
And so this takes us back toBiden.
Is I pulled the remarks that hegave on July 1st after the
(29:07):
Supreme Court's immunity ruling,after the Supreme Court's
immunity ruling, and he startswith all the right things and no
one is above the law, blah,blah, blah.
Okay, all the things that youwould want to say, but there's
one line that jumped at me.
Okay, it says at first, he saysthe only limits will be
self-imposed by the presidentalone.
Okay, but that's not the point.
He talks about Roe v Wade.
(29:27):
He talks about January 6th.
He talks about Roe v Wade, hetalks about January 6th.
He talks about all this stuffand what he says.
I know I will respect thelimits of the presidential power
, as I have for three and a halfyears, but now any president,
including Donald Trump, will befree to ignore the law.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
Do you?
Speaker 1 (29:43):
get the contradiction there.
I will respect the limits ofthe presidential power.
Ok, but the limits ofpresidential power have changed.
They're not what they werethree and a half years ago.
They're not what they were twoweeks ago.
The office of the presidencyhas been granted new power by
the Supreme Court.
Using that power is now part ofthe norm.
(30:05):
Right?
You know the speed limit inthis country, you know, used to
be 30 miles an hour becausethat's as fast as cars could go.
Well, now it's 70 miles an hour.
So should you continue to drive30 miles an hour just out of
respect for what used to be?
No, the boundaries have beenhit.
The damn gas pedal branch does,when they have actually given
(30:29):
you more authority, and then say, well, I'm not going to use it
because I don't think that'sright, especially when you know
the next guy is going to misuseit in ways that will demolish
our nation.
Like.
We know what's coming.
They're not keeping it a secret, they're not hiding it, they're
telling us.
It is in plain sight.
They have put out a 900 pagedocument telling us what they're
(30:52):
going to do, and it ishorrifically terrifying.
So, yes, win the damn election.
Of course that should be ourgoal.
But have this fight.
Have the fight and win it.
Don't just give us lip service.
Have the fight.
It's a fight that would definethis election.
Have the fight.
(31:13):
It's a fight that would definethis election.
It would draw the contrast ofwhat we're trying to do and what
the consequences of failurewould look like.
It allows us to pivot to whatTrump would want to do.
Because what is Trump going todo then?
What is he going to say?
Of course he's going tocriticize it and, yes, you know
there is going to be pushback,there is going to be outcry and
(31:33):
oh see, he is a dictator, blah,blah, blah blah.
But you know what?
They're never voting for youanyway.
So who the hell cares what theythink?
They already think that JoeBiden's a pedophile.
He's a, you know, a dictator.
He's this, he's that.
You know, if we allow ourselvesto live in the fears of what
our opponents may think or sayabout us on Twitter, right,
(31:54):
which is just a cesspool ofright wing bots at this point,
or we care about what theeditorial pages of the
newspapers say that have, in thelast couple of weeks, have
demonstrated a lack of regardfor what they know to be true.
You know the lack of factchecking that went on at that
debate, allowing that to justhappen in real time.
You know the calls for Biden tostep down, but not for Trump.
(32:19):
After all of this, this insanedouble standard that we've
allowed ourselves to be held to.
Quite frankly and yeah, I getit Trump has normalized a lot of
this behavior and that is.
You know, that was, but thatwas always a part of the plan,
right, do so many crazy thingsand say so many crazy things
that you almost don't even knowwhere to look.
(32:40):
And afterwards you're soexhausted and it just becomes
the norm and they get away withit, taste of their own medicine.
And now that the law hasallowed you, they're daring him
to do it.
They're daring him to do itbecause they know that he won't.
(33:01):
And why are Democratic votersdisillusioned and frustrated and
exhausted and really losingconfidence and enthusiasm?
Is because we know they won'tdo it either.
Because they haven't yet.
There are so many things theycould have done after after
January 6th.
You know things.
Like you know, statehood for DCand Puerto Rico would have
fundamentally changed the waythe Senate works Massive change.
(33:23):
Public is in favor of it.
Couldn't do it because of blah,blah, blah, blah, blah, right,
everything we want to see doneand is now possible.
You know, abortion, same thing.
Issue an executive order.
You know he did.
The president did issue anorder about.
You know life affirming carethat you know, basically, that
emergency physicians have toadminister abortion as life
(33:47):
affirming care, and you knowwhen the life of the mother is
in danger, which is good, butthat's not enough.
Like we take these baby steps,these half measures, because
what, oh my goodness, what willpeople think?
You know what they'll think.
They'll think, wow, theyactually got something done.
Why do people are, why arepeople willing to follow Trump
off a cliff, no matter what hedoes?
It's because he'll get thingsdone.
(34:07):
First term, he got him theirjudges, he got him their tax
cuts.
He got it done.
So they were willing tooverlook so many other things.
We don't get it done nearlyenough.
Big, bold action is what'srequired right now, not just
politically, but if we're trulyserious about saving our
democracy and preserving thechecks and balances and the
(34:28):
political system as it stands,to protect ourselves from a true
autocracy that we know iscoming under Donald Trump.
Nothing should be off the table, nothing.
Be bold, get something done.
That will energize theelectorate, and the people on
the other side are going to hateyou anyway, to which I say F
(34:49):
them Quite frankly, I don't care.
Get it done and you will win.
The people will respect you forit.
Learn the right lesson from FDR100 years ago, because the
stakes are as high, if nothigher.
Take the big swing.
Do what's right, and then wewon't have to wonder whether or
not Joe Biden should be ournominee.
We'll know that he should bebecause he did the things that
(35:12):
were hard but necessary.
But you and I both know that'snot going to happen and, as a
result, here we sit, doomscrolling, worrying, infighting,
or to quote Saddam Hussein fromthe South Park movie.
Thank you for letting me vent.
This has been cathartic.
If you'd like to support whatwe're doing, which is
(35:32):
politically we're supportingother candidates for office up
and down the ballot through ourpolitical action committee, you
can go to KeystoneReckoningcom,make a contribution via ActBlue
a one-time or recurring.
That money will go directly tocampaigns and candidates that
are fighting the hard fight anddoing what is necessary and bold
(35:53):
through messaging and otherefforts to make sure that we can
have a voice and have an impact.
So please consider doing that.
Again.
Thank you very much, and let'skeep doing this.
Fighting at this point is theonly option, and until we figure
out which direction we're goingto go, the fight's going to be
uglier and uglier, but thatdoesn't mean we can give up.
(36:14):
It means we have to dig in.
That's what I'm going to do,and that's what I hope you do
too.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.