July 7, 2026 • 12 mins
Anastasia Boden (Pacific Legal Foundation) joins Jack Armstrong to talk about some of the big Supreme Court decisions that were handed down last week.
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Three rulings came down while we were off last week
that I'm interested in from the Supreme Court, and then
they high tail.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
It out of there and they go do whatever they do.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Is they I don't know if they fish or I
don't know what Supreme Court justice is doing their off
time before they come back in October. But three rulings
came down that I'm particularly interested in. The trains ruling,
got a Fourth Amendment case, it's got to do with
your cell phones and stuff like that. And then the
birthright citizenship which Trump was really into. Anyway, we welcome
back to the show, Anastasia Boden, Senior Attorney, Equality and
(00:34):
Opportunity for the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
How are you today, Anaesthesia?
Speaker 3 (00:38):
Oh, doing great? Talking about my favorite thing with one
of my favorite people.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
Well, I believe it's one of your favorite things. I
don't believe I'm one of your favorite people. What are
these you most excited about?
Speaker 3 (00:51):
You know, it's funny. They were all big, they're so
in the news everyone. They were all supposed to be blockbusters,
and everybody tells you that if they don't get their way,
it's going to be the end of the world. And
then the term is over and now everybody's forgotten about
all three anyway. But I mean we can start with
the trans athletes one.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Okay, So first of all, oftentimes the headline of what
happened is incredibly misleading as to what was actually decided.
And I haven't looked into these because I was on vacation.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
But so what did they rule around trans athletes?
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Particularly the issue, as we all know, is boys competing
in girls' sports.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
In high school.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
Yeah, that's exactly right. This is one of those cases
where the headlines are misleading because this case doesn't address
whether states must separate trans athletes from women's sports. It
just says that states can separate if they want to,
and twenty seven states have chosen to do so. They've
said that women's sports belong to women, and the majority,
(01:46):
actually all nine justices, all nine justices, said that separating
transgender athletes does not violate Title nine. Aid.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
I didn't realize there was a nine to nothing on
that on.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
That issue, it was I know. The only place where
there was some descent was on the equal protection clause.
Three justices thought that maybe if trans athletes have mitigated
in quotes, mitigated their advantage by taking hormone therapy and whatnot.
Then they should be able to challenge that ban and
(02:20):
say that they get to compete too with women. But
the majority held, no, it doesn't matter if you've taken
hormone therapy. It's good enough if the state decides that
men and women are different.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
It's amazing that only twenty seven states have banned this.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
Yeah, but I think we might find movement on that soon.
I mean, we had even Newsome, you know, saying in
California that he was siding with this issue. So you know,
I think this is becoming more of a mainstream idea.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
God, I would think so.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
All right, So what did they finally decide on birthright citizenship?
If if I fly in from China and have a
baby here or they automatically a citizen.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
Basically, yes, birthright citizenship is almost universal save for a
few exceptions. That is, enemy occupiers you're not entitled to
birthright citizenship and diplomats basically, but everybody else gets birthright citizenship.
It was a six to three decision where we even
had some of the so called conservative justices join here
(03:18):
and say, hey, the text has written really broadly. If
you don't like it. We can get a constitutional amendment
for that. But this is the way, this is the
status quo, this is the way it's been for, you know,
over one hundred years, one hundred and fifty years, and
we're going to maintain that broad birthright citizenship.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
So even though the original intent and I don't know
if that makes you an originalist, if you care about that,
but even though the original intent was to make sure
that slaves were considered citizens, doesn't matter the way it's
written in the Constitution. It could include Chinese birth tourists
or people who snuck across the border for five minutes
or whatever.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
That's right. And this was a fight between the majority
and the descent. Justice Thomas in particular, said, hey, look
at the way this was written. This was written in
the wake of the Civil War, to apply specifically to
recently freed slaves and their progeny. But the majority said, maybe,
maybe that was the intent, But the text itself applies
very broadly and establishes a broad principle of birthright citizenship.
(04:18):
And so that's what rules.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
I don't want to drag you into political conversations that
might get you in trouble, but it is interesting that
several of the big cases that Trump really wanted to
go a certain way didn't go his way. Despite mainstream
media portraying the Supreme Court as some sort of maga
rubber stamp that answers to Trump, they went against him
(04:42):
on a whole bunch of stuff he cared about.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
That's absolutely right. I mean, he won some, but he
lost a lot, and he lost the big ones. He
lost the tariff case, which he had he had run
his campaign on tariffs and birthright citizenship. Those were cornerstones
of his election, and so you know, he lost the
really big ones. And it does lot of damage to
the people who say that these justices march in lockstep
with the president who nominated them. And in fact, Justice
(05:06):
Barrett is getting dragged through the mud right now for
not voting with Trump, even though she's not the only one.
Chief Justice has deviated from him as well. And I
think that's really a shame, because when these justices vote
according to what they believe is the right outcome, that
bolsters the Supreme Court. And it's really these attacks on
(05:27):
the justices that are doing the most damaged.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
Well. It hasn't been true throughout both of Trump's terms.
I mean, if you look at it statistically, it has
not been a clear six' three the justices that he appointed.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Always going to them and not even close to.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
That, yeah that's, right they're saying this. Term it's more
of a three three three. Divide the three liberal justices
really do vote almost entirely in. Lockstep and then you're
getting a little bit of divide Between, Kavanaugh, gorsich And
thomas on the one, hand and then The Chief, justice
and my brain is blinking The Chief JUSTICE A gorsic
(06:04):
AND acb on the.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
Other do you look at ANY i like those end
of the year roundups where they go through like how
many cases were decided by this number and that number
and everything like. THAT i find that really. Interesting And Ms,
jackson who does the most talking and is the newest,
person she was on the wrong side by far the most.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
Yes and she's been writing separately to write really strident descends,
sometimes you, know kind of nasty, descents but she's been
on the losing side. MOST i love those statistics, too
because it's actually shocking how many cases are unanimous or near.
Unanimous you only hear about the divisive, ones but in,
reality the court is pretty.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
United if you were on the so you get nine
really smart legal minds, there and if you're on the
losing side by far more than anybody else year after,
year wouldn't you at some point you think watched your
decision making you you.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
Would think you would think or you would at least
temper down the descents and, not you, know accuse the
majority of being you, know unprincipled or or what have,
you at least admit that that maybe have some humility.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
About no, kidding, yeah no.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
Kidding so on this one about the geo, Fencing so
you got this case that arose from a twenty nineteen
bank robbery In virginia where the police used a geofence.
Warrant that, is they drew a virtual geographical fence around
an area where a crime was committed and then Asked
google to turn over the names of everyone's phone who
(07:42):
is inside a certain. AREA i find that troubling that
that ever, Happened but that fits into this particular. Case,
chatterree is that how you say it versus The United?
States what did they determine on?
Speaker 3 (07:53):
This they say that that requires a? Warrant come, on
that is almost a Quintessential Fourth amendment that really invades people's,
privacy and it's not good enough to say, that you,
know we contract with cell phone companies and so now
we give our data over to them and can have
no expectation of privacy in our. Data we still enjoy
(08:15):
some expectation of privacy, here and if the court is
going to sweep so, broadly it needs a. Warrant.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
YEAH i like that.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
ONE i heard it portrayed as the way they ruled
didn't help us that, Much but if it had gone
the other, way it would have been horrifying in terms
of the government's ability to start reaching into our.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
Phones, yeah that's exactly. RIGHT i, mean think about this
third party, doctrine this rule where if you contract with
a third party or in any way give away any
data to a third, party then all of a sudden
it becomes free Of Fourth amendment protections and the government
can seize it. WHENEVER i mean that applies to everything
in The internet. Age everything we do is somehow watched by,
(08:55):
somebody and it would make it would mean that the
government could could look up everything we, do from techs
To google searches to where we are on our cell.
PHONES i, mean it's really. Disturbing so that was a.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Win you're right where we.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Go we talked to our, politics our, finances our, taxes
our love. RELATIONSHIPS i mean everything isn't our. Phones that's exactly.
Speaker 3 (09:15):
Right but that was a big, win a really good,
case and it's part of you, know that's another interesting
one where you get you get some agreement between both
the liberal justices and the conservative.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Justices thank god for that. One at the end of the.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
Season any big surprises to, you.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
You, know not.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
REALLY i think for somebody who watches the court, closely
we always knew birthright citizenship was going to be an
uphill battle for the. Government we knew three justices, right
we're gonna we're going to rule Against trump on birthright.
Citizenship so so the challengers only needed two. More that's
not a very high bar. There so that one kind
(09:55):
of went how we thought it was going to.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Go you, know the.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
Tariffs case that it was a close one that could
have gone either. Way and again that was another case
where both sides said the sky was going to fall
if if they. Lost but guess What trump. Lost you,
know the government has to pay back the. MONEY i
think they're still doing. Fine everybody's. Fine the economy seems
to be doing. BETTER i know a lot of small
businesses who are who are really thriving because they no
(10:20):
longer have to pay those really punishing. Tariffs so it
seems like for the. BETTER i don't think it was
all that, surprising but you, know we'll see what happens next.
Term they say that quiet loud terms are followed by
quiet terms and vice, Versa so maybe next year we'll
get some really really explosive.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Cases is there anything we expect to come down next?
Speaker 3 (10:39):
Year i'm hoping one of my own cases gets.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Great, okay what's your what's your favorite one that you
would love to have make it to The Supreme.
Speaker 3 (10:46):
Court, well it actually involves A california law of, course
where if you are a medical professional and you teach
a continuing education, course so you, know to get to
keep your, license your medical, license you have to take
so many hours of continuing medical. Education, now if you're
a teacher of one of those courses which are totally, private,
right these are just private individuals, doctor, surgeons, whatever physical
(11:08):
therapists who teach these cases or these, Courses california, said
if you teach that, course no matter what you are talking,
about you have to include a section on implicit. Bias
that is the, yes, yes the idea that you, know
there are health disparities based on, race and they come
from everybody's unconscious. Bias it's it's totally offensive and. Divisive
(11:31):
and our, client you, know she actually fled From. Iran
she she fled tyranny for freedom of speech and, freedom
and she doesn't believe in implicit. Bias she doesn't think
that's the main driver of health, disparities and she doesn't
want to be forced to talk about. It, right it's,
not it's. Not it's very shoddy, science by the, way
and she has A First moendment right to talk about
whatever she wants to talk. About and by the, way
(11:52):
what she wants to talk about is ocular. Surgery it
has nothing to do with implicit. Bias you do not
need to talk about implicit bias in those. Courses so
we're challenging that on the first, moment AND i think
we ought to get to The Supreme court and.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
Win that's.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
AWESOME i hope you. Do and now we'd love to
talk about. It A Staja, boden you are so good at.
This we really appreciate your.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
Time thanks for having.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Me, unfortunately we might talk again until Next. October OH
i hope.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
Not, yeah, well we'll come up with a reason to
uh to uh to talk to you before. Then we'll
make up a.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
Reason all, right three agrees to The Supreme. Court there you,
Go there you.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
Go. Fantastic Anna Staja. Boden she is with The Pacific Legal.
Foundation you just heard one of the cases she's going
to be working. On what AM i supposed to say
about the?
Speaker 2 (12:33):
Podcast? Anton what do you want me to?
Speaker 1 (12:35):
Say?
Speaker 2 (12:36):
Oh she has a podcast that's right In.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
Descent she's a host of the very popular In descent.
Podcast so if you like her act and how would you,
not you should check that. Out we've got more on
the way right, Here State eddie
Three rulings came down while we were off last week
that I'm interested in from the Supreme Court, and then
they high tail.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
It out of there and they go do whatever they do.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Is they I don't know if they fish or I
don't know what Supreme Court justice is doing their off
time before they come back in October. But three rulings
came down that I'm particularly interested in. The trains ruling,
got a Fourth Amendment case, it's got to do with
your cell phones and stuff like that. And then the
birthright citizenship which Trump was really into. Anyway, we welcome
back to the show, Anastasia Boden, Senior Attorney, Equality and
(00:34):
Opportunity for the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
How are you today, Anaesthesia?
Speaker 3 (00:38):
Oh, doing great? Talking about my favorite thing with one
of my favorite people.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
Well, I believe it's one of your favorite things. I
don't believe I'm one of your favorite people. What are
these you most excited about?
Speaker 3 (00:51):
You know, it's funny. They were all big, they're so
in the news everyone. They were all supposed to be blockbusters,
and everybody tells you that if they don't get their way,
it's going to be the end of the world. And
then the term is over and now everybody's forgotten about
all three anyway. But I mean we can start with
the trans athletes one.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Okay, So first of all, oftentimes the headline of what
happened is incredibly misleading as to what was actually decided.
And I haven't looked into these because I was on vacation.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
But so what did they rule around trans athletes?
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Particularly the issue, as we all know, is boys competing
in girls' sports.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
In high school.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
Yeah, that's exactly right. This is one of those cases
where the headlines are misleading because this case doesn't address
whether states must separate trans athletes from women's sports. It
just says that states can separate if they want to,
and twenty seven states have chosen to do so. They've
said that women's sports belong to women, and the majority,
(01:46):
actually all nine justices, all nine justices, said that separating
transgender athletes does not violate Title nine. Aid.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
I didn't realize there was a nine to nothing on
that on.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
That issue, it was I know. The only place where
there was some descent was on the equal protection clause.
Three justices thought that maybe if trans athletes have mitigated
in quotes, mitigated their advantage by taking hormone therapy and whatnot.
Then they should be able to challenge that ban and
(02:20):
say that they get to compete too with women. But
the majority held, no, it doesn't matter if you've taken
hormone therapy. It's good enough if the state decides that
men and women are different.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
It's amazing that only twenty seven states have banned this.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
Yeah, but I think we might find movement on that soon.
I mean, we had even Newsome, you know, saying in
California that he was siding with this issue. So you know,
I think this is becoming more of a mainstream idea.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
God, I would think so.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
All right, So what did they finally decide on birthright citizenship?
If if I fly in from China and have a
baby here or they automatically a citizen.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
Basically, yes, birthright citizenship is almost universal save for a
few exceptions. That is, enemy occupiers you're not entitled to
birthright citizenship and diplomats basically, but everybody else gets birthright citizenship.
It was a six to three decision where we even
had some of the so called conservative justices join here
(03:18):
and say, hey, the text has written really broadly. If
you don't like it. We can get a constitutional amendment
for that. But this is the way, this is the
status quo, this is the way it's been for, you know,
over one hundred years, one hundred and fifty years, and
we're going to maintain that broad birthright citizenship.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
So even though the original intent and I don't know
if that makes you an originalist, if you care about that,
but even though the original intent was to make sure
that slaves were considered citizens, doesn't matter the way it's
written in the Constitution. It could include Chinese birth tourists
or people who snuck across the border for five minutes
or whatever.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
That's right. And this was a fight between the majority
and the descent. Justice Thomas in particular, said, hey, look
at the way this was written. This was written in
the wake of the Civil War, to apply specifically to
recently freed slaves and their progeny. But the majority said, maybe,
maybe that was the intent, But the text itself applies
very broadly and establishes a broad principle of birthright citizenship.
(04:18):
And so that's what rules.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
I don't want to drag you into political conversations that
might get you in trouble, but it is interesting that
several of the big cases that Trump really wanted to
go a certain way didn't go his way. Despite mainstream
media portraying the Supreme Court as some sort of maga
rubber stamp that answers to Trump, they went against him
(04:42):
on a whole bunch of stuff he cared about.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
That's absolutely right. I mean, he won some, but he
lost a lot, and he lost the big ones. He
lost the tariff case, which he had he had run
his campaign on tariffs and birthright citizenship. Those were cornerstones
of his election, and so you know, he lost the
really big ones. And it does lot of damage to
the people who say that these justices march in lockstep
with the president who nominated them. And in fact, Justice
(05:06):
Barrett is getting dragged through the mud right now for
not voting with Trump, even though she's not the only one.
Chief Justice has deviated from him as well. And I
think that's really a shame, because when these justices vote
according to what they believe is the right outcome, that
bolsters the Supreme Court. And it's really these attacks on
(05:27):
the justices that are doing the most damaged.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
Well. It hasn't been true throughout both of Trump's terms.
I mean, if you look at it statistically, it has
not been a clear six' three the justices that he appointed.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Always going to them and not even close to.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
That, yeah that's, right they're saying this. Term it's more
of a three three three. Divide the three liberal justices
really do vote almost entirely in. Lockstep and then you're
getting a little bit of divide Between, Kavanaugh, gorsich And
thomas on the one, hand and then The Chief, justice
and my brain is blinking The Chief JUSTICE A gorsic
(06:04):
AND acb on the.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
Other do you look at ANY i like those end
of the year roundups where they go through like how
many cases were decided by this number and that number
and everything like. THAT i find that really. Interesting And Ms,
jackson who does the most talking and is the newest,
person she was on the wrong side by far the most.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
Yes and she's been writing separately to write really strident descends,
sometimes you, know kind of nasty, descents but she's been
on the losing side. MOST i love those statistics, too
because it's actually shocking how many cases are unanimous or near.
Unanimous you only hear about the divisive, ones but in,
reality the court is pretty.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
United if you were on the so you get nine
really smart legal minds, there and if you're on the
losing side by far more than anybody else year after,
year wouldn't you at some point you think watched your
decision making you you.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
Would think you would think or you would at least
temper down the descents and, not you, know accuse the
majority of being you, know unprincipled or or what have,
you at least admit that that maybe have some humility.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
About no, kidding, yeah no.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
Kidding so on this one about the geo, Fencing so
you got this case that arose from a twenty nineteen
bank robbery In virginia where the police used a geofence.
Warrant that, is they drew a virtual geographical fence around
an area where a crime was committed and then Asked
google to turn over the names of everyone's phone who
(07:42):
is inside a certain. AREA i find that troubling that
that ever, Happened but that fits into this particular. Case,
chatterree is that how you say it versus The United?
States what did they determine on?
Speaker 3 (07:53):
This they say that that requires a? Warrant come, on
that is almost a Quintessential Fourth amendment that really invades people's,
privacy and it's not good enough to say, that you,
know we contract with cell phone companies and so now
we give our data over to them and can have
no expectation of privacy in our. Data we still enjoy
(08:15):
some expectation of privacy, here and if the court is
going to sweep so, broadly it needs a. Warrant.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
YEAH i like that.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
ONE i heard it portrayed as the way they ruled
didn't help us that, Much but if it had gone
the other, way it would have been horrifying in terms
of the government's ability to start reaching into our.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
Phones, yeah that's exactly. RIGHT i, mean think about this
third party, doctrine this rule where if you contract with
a third party or in any way give away any
data to a third, party then all of a sudden
it becomes free Of Fourth amendment protections and the government
can seize it. WHENEVER i mean that applies to everything
in The internet. Age everything we do is somehow watched by,
(08:55):
somebody and it would make it would mean that the
government could could look up everything we, do from techs
To google searches to where we are on our cell.
PHONES i, mean it's really. Disturbing so that was a.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Win you're right where we.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Go we talked to our, politics our, finances our, taxes
our love. RELATIONSHIPS i mean everything isn't our. Phones that's exactly.
Speaker 3 (09:15):
Right but that was a big, win a really good,
case and it's part of you, know that's another interesting
one where you get you get some agreement between both
the liberal justices and the conservative.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Justices thank god for that. One at the end of the.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
Season any big surprises to, you.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
You, know not.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
REALLY i think for somebody who watches the court, closely
we always knew birthright citizenship was going to be an
uphill battle for the. Government we knew three justices, right
we're gonna we're going to rule Against trump on birthright.
Citizenship so so the challengers only needed two. More that's
not a very high bar. There so that one kind
(09:55):
of went how we thought it was going to.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Go you, know the.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
Tariffs case that it was a close one that could
have gone either. Way and again that was another case
where both sides said the sky was going to fall
if if they. Lost but guess What trump. Lost you,
know the government has to pay back the. MONEY i
think they're still doing. Fine everybody's. Fine the economy seems
to be doing. BETTER i know a lot of small
businesses who are who are really thriving because they no
(10:20):
longer have to pay those really punishing. Tariffs so it
seems like for the. BETTER i don't think it was
all that, surprising but you, know we'll see what happens next.
Term they say that quiet loud terms are followed by
quiet terms and vice, Versa so maybe next year we'll
get some really really explosive.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Cases is there anything we expect to come down next?
Speaker 3 (10:39):
Year i'm hoping one of my own cases gets.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Great, okay what's your what's your favorite one that you
would love to have make it to The Supreme.
Speaker 3 (10:46):
Court, well it actually involves A california law of, course
where if you are a medical professional and you teach
a continuing education, course so you, know to get to
keep your, license your medical, license you have to take
so many hours of continuing medical. Education, now if you're
a teacher of one of those courses which are totally, private,
right these are just private individuals, doctor, surgeons, whatever physical
(11:08):
therapists who teach these cases or these, Courses california, said
if you teach that, course no matter what you are talking,
about you have to include a section on implicit. Bias
that is the, yes, yes the idea that you, know
there are health disparities based on, race and they come
from everybody's unconscious. Bias it's it's totally offensive and. Divisive
(11:31):
and our, client you, know she actually fled From. Iran
she she fled tyranny for freedom of speech and, freedom
and she doesn't believe in implicit. Bias she doesn't think
that's the main driver of health, disparities and she doesn't
want to be forced to talk about. It, right it's,
not it's. Not it's very shoddy, science by the, way
and she has A First moendment right to talk about
whatever she wants to talk. About and by the, way
(11:52):
what she wants to talk about is ocular. Surgery it
has nothing to do with implicit. Bias you do not
need to talk about implicit bias in those. Courses so
we're challenging that on the first, moment AND i think
we ought to get to The Supreme court and.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
Win that's.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
AWESOME i hope you. Do and now we'd love to
talk about. It A Staja, boden you are so good at.
This we really appreciate your.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
Time thanks for having.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Me, unfortunately we might talk again until Next. October OH
i hope.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
Not, yeah, well we'll come up with a reason to
uh to uh to talk to you before. Then we'll
make up a.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
Reason all, right three agrees to The Supreme. Court there you,
Go there you.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
Go. Fantastic Anna Staja. Boden she is with The Pacific Legal.
Foundation you just heard one of the cases she's going
to be working. On what AM i supposed to say
about the?
Speaker 2 (12:33):
Podcast? Anton what do you want me to?
Speaker 1 (12:35):
Say?
Speaker 2 (12:36):
Oh she has a podcast that's right In.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
Descent she's a host of the very popular In descent.
Podcast so if you like her act and how would you,
not you should check that. Out we've got more on
the way right, Here State eddie
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
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