“Clarence Thomas’ Sügar Daddy.”
2023-04-11 01:11:08
Pod Save America is a no-bullshit conversation about politics hosted by former Obama aides Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, Dan Pfeiffer, and Tommy Vietor. It cuts through the noise to break down the week’s news and helps people figure out what matters and how they can help. They’re regularly joined by journalists, activists, politicians, entertainers, and world leaders. You can watch on YouTube or listen to new episodes every Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. Ad-Free Pod Save America episodes available NOW through Friends of the Pod subscription. Head to crooked.com/friends to join today! For a transcript of an episode of Pod Save America, please email [email protected] (edited)
Welcome to plot Save America. I'm Jon Favreau, I'm Jon Lovett, I'm Tommy Vitor. On today's show, the Biden administration fights to keep abortion medication legal.
Clarence Thomas sugar daddy with a thing for Nazi memorabilia. Strict Scrutiny's Leah Lippman joins to break down the latest legal news. And Tennessee Democrats fight back after Republicans vote to expel two Black state representatives. Then we take on the kookiest new culture wars in a quick round of one line with Cocaine bear. But first, before we start, it's Webby Award season.
It's here, Oh, it is, it is. I've got my dress all picked out.
Crooked has quite a few nominations we got, yeah, our own, Love It or Leave it in the Best live podcast recording category. Who am I up against?
Does it say there? I don't have.
That information, I'm better than them. Vote for, love it or leave it. World's corrupt.
Best partnership or Collaboration? Category? Best Collab Our pod Save America episode featuring Barack Obama. That was a very good one, okay?
This is a plug for all of us in the featured guest category, which is really more about him than us. So I don't care if we win. Notice Pod Save America does not get nominated for things that Barack Obama wasn't in.
Right?
We probably had the lowest word count in that episode of any industry. Let's send a message I want it for pod, Save the world, I want it for Love it or Leave it.
I want it for Pod Save America. Did you see Al Franken was shit talking us? Oh yeah, that's when I decided I wanted to win. He was like, vote against Pod Save America and Barack Obama.
Not the first time he's got in trouble for reaching.
What, that's a funny joke that was good, okay, he would appreciate that.
We have more Keep It in Television and Film Podcast category, My offline episode with Contra points in the Tech category and The Wilderness season three in News and Politics. Look at you.
Triple dipping wilderness over pod Save America in news and politics? Yeah, well.
You know what, that's what the people wanted. Public voting is set to close in less than two weeks. So we're calling on all friends of the pod to head over to. And it's not a typo here, it's WBBy..co slash vote.
I know that doesn't sound like Webby, but it's WBby.
Co slash vote.
They really made that easy for you. Just Google vote in the Webby's, vote in the Webby's or you.
Could Google vote in the Webby's? Or you could ask chat GPT? Probably so somebody else bought.
Web.by.
Co Yeah, they weren't going to pay for it anyway. Yikes.
I get it anyway.
Vote before April 20th. That's the last one I got on that Url. Squatters are a scourge, all right?
Let's get to the news. An extreme right wing, Trump appointed judge in Amarillo, Texas, has put in jeopardy access to medication that's responsible for over half of all abortions in the United States. Judge Matthew Kazmarek's ruling invalidates the FDA's approval 23 years ago of Miffy Pristone, which would restrict the pill all across the country. Even in states where abortion remains legal, it could also invite legal challenges to other F.D.A. approved drugs and vaccines for purely political reasons, but almost immediately after Kazmarek's ruling.
Washington State ruled in a separate case that the F.D.A. must maintain access to Miffy Pristone in the states where Democratic attorneys general brought the lawsuit. President Biden has promised to fight the Texas ruling, and the Department of Justice has already filed an appeal. Tommy, What happens next and what are the implications if the Texas ruling is upheld? So, as you noted,
The Biden administration is appealing this decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Notoriously liberal, left leaning, or the opposite, a bunch of squishes, extremely conservative. So the DOJ has asked for a response to that appeal by Thursday at noon. At which point they will either be working with the Fifth Circuit or DOJ will go directly to the Supreme Court to appeal. So if the Texas ruling stands, it means that this random judge in the middle of nowhere. Texas has told the F.D.A. that a drug they approved 23 years ago is no longer approved.
It's no longer deemed, apparently, and doctors may no longer be able to prescribe it. So this would be the biggest attack on abortion rights in the country since Dobbs. A totally unprecedented intervention by the courts into the approval of medication, and it could have countless ramifications for other drugs in the.
Future Yeah, it's a mess, it's pretty terrible. And it's not the first time that right wing groups have gone forum shopping to judge Kazmarek, who's the one single federal judge in Amarillo, Texas.
And that they will pull that judge and that he will issue a extremely right wing opinion, which is what they did here. You mentioned the implications for other drugs beyond abortion medication. There's 250 drug and biotech company executives sent a letter today very alarmed by this, because they basically said. If courts can overturn drug approvals without regard for science or evidence, any medicine is at risk for the same outcome. So you can all imagine, like anti-vaxxers.
Or this one, yeah, you have any drug with any kind of ideological dispute attached to it. Covid vaccines, HPV vaccines, PrEp drugs for gay people to prevent getting HIV, just any drug that has been controversial. You can go forum shopping, find the worst person the federalist society could think of to introduce to Donald Trump and get bananas rolling like this. And I know you're.
But yeah, it is inevitable this will end up at the Supreme Court, one way or the other, no matter how the fifth Circuit rules. It will be appealed by either party. So we will get a real test of whether. The Dobbs decision, which the Supreme Court majority argued, was to leave this up to the states and let democracy take its course, will now be applied when medication abortion could be restricted across all 50 states. I also just can't stop.
Thinking about back when the Republican mantra was that they didn't want to appoint activist judges, they just wanted to call balls and strikes. And then you have this judge telling the F.DA that he is the one who's going to dictate whether or not a medication is safe and effective.
And not the Food and Drug Administration, which determined 20 years ago that it was incredibly safe. And has since been proven to be safer than aspirin or Viagra, reaching back 23 years to undo.
An approval, right? I mean, they can, they can touch that, that's that is like, that is reexamining any decision the federal government has made through the through, through an agency. I mean, yes, obviously there's huge implications for the F.DA. But this is also a broader attack on just the ability of our government to function. The ability of Congress to create an agency, to give that agency power, to have that agency, using the powers that's vested into it as a democratic organization to solve a problem. At any time, any federal judge can come in and decide that. They're going to undo that at the behest of some right-wing groups that claim that they've been harmed.
And Congress gave the F.D.A. the authority to determine what drugs are safe and effective back in 1938.
They do a bunch of tests, they do animal studies, they do human studies. It takes years, millions of dollars, to determine the drug is safe or not safe.
And this guy came in and was like, Look, I just did my own research. I've been on YouTube for like two days and I decided that this thing is not safe.
Yeah, and and someone also pointed out that it also jeopardizes what kind of drugs and medications drug companies would even consider bringing to market. Because if they have to think about what a judge somewhere in politics might do, it might shape which drugs they actually.
Test and bring to market in the first place drugs that take a long time to develop, that are expensive to produce. That they have to be able to count on the ability to kind of sell over a long period of time, yeah.
Horrible, so. Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, from Oregon and AOC both said over the weekend that Biden should just ignore the Texas ruling, which is an option. The administration has basically sort of sidestepped the question. HHS Secretary this weekend, basically wouldn't take it off the table. Then the administration today said, No, we're not going to do that right now, we're not going to ignore the ruling.
Why do you think that is Lovett?
So the most important thing that the administration can do is pursue the absolute best strategy. To force the Supreme Court to overturn this ruling, either on the substance or on procedure. And to put to the Supreme Court the challenge of saying the courts are creating chaos in this country. We are the reasonable people coming to you to help us stop the chaos that you have created. At a time when all of the political coverage, all of the substantive news coverage, is about the amount of harm and just mayhem that the Dobbs ruling has created. At a time when they are under scrutiny for corruption and failing to recuse and failing to disclose. So the idea is to create as much pressure on the Supreme Court as possible to not uphold this ruling. And to me, that would argue for not signaling to the Supreme Court that they're going to do something like disregard a. Now, I appreciate the idea of leaving it on the table. Because if, for whatever reason, we live in a world in which the Supreme Court doesn't take it, or somehow this ruling is upheld. I think, you know, the moral calculus, the political calculus, changes. But they're trying to do this through the courts, to force the courts to be the ones to either uphold or not uphold this ruling.
I would also say that the just using the word ignoring I think is is is problematic here.
Playbook This morning was like. This may be a political misstep for Democrats to do this because it changes the debate from one about abortion to one about democracy and the rule of law. And ignoring a court order, but I don't know that it's really ignoring a ruling, because ignoring a ruling for all the reasons you point out, I think would be bad. But you know, there's a great piece in Slate where a bunch of legal art. Experts argue that the judge's power here is limited because Congress has already passed a law that explicitly lays out the process for the F.D.A. withdrawing a drug. And at worst, they say, the judge could make them restart that approval process. But also the Supreme Court has decided unanimously in the late 80s, that the Supreme Court basically has already said that the F.D.A. has broad enforcement discretion in enforcing the law.
So it wouldn't be ignoring the ruling, would be the F.DA saying. We have certain enforcement priorities. We only have so many resources and we're just not going to enforce, so this is where.
I think it all gets into the kind of chaos that we live in now, in the sort of post. Oswald. And again, there's a question I want to talk to Leah about. But this is where it's sort of like, Okay, we are. We are obviously not ignoring the ruling, but we have limited enforcement resources. You know, this is not about a dispensary in Boulder where some freewheeling owner is like, Fuck it, I'll take cash because it's marijuana is legally murky. These are multinational corporations with massive legal departments. Walgreens has already shown that they were unwilling step into these chaotic waters.
That led to a huge fight with Gavin Newsom about their ability to sell drugs that might be banned in states like Texas. So, like all of the how this all plays out, we really don't know. But even if the administration in some way says, okay, we are not ignoring this order, but we're not enforcing the same way. It's not clear that that redounds to drug companies continuing to distribute it or or pharmacies continuing to carry it. We just have no idea and I think people need certainty. And ignoring this ruling would not prevent states from prosecuting people potentially, or imposing their own restrictions. Or a future Republican could just reverse this decision and then prosecute people who sell the pill.
Doctors might be freaked out to dispense it regardless, so I think you need to get to an outcome that provides.
Some certainty to everyone involved here, and I certainly think to that point. It certainly doesn't make any sense for the administration to do this now before the appeals process has played out. Because the ideal outcome, obviously would be the Supreme Court overturning the ruling. Because then it avoids the problems that Tommy was just talking about. Where Republican controlled states impose their own restrictions, future Republican presidents reverse the decisions. Like that, all goes out the window.
If we want an appeal, if we lose at the Supreme Court, then perhaps the administration can say, okay, the F.D.A. has discretional authority here and it's going to do.
Its own thing. And the other point that I think a lot of the abortion advocates have made is, first of all, it's not an effect. But even if it goes into effect, uh, it's Miffy and me. So those are two different drugs they're usually given together, but medication of abortion will still be available because they're all. This is only about one of the two drugs that can be used. So it's a sort of a more complicated situation for the administration.
And I know you're going to talk to Leah about what?
The Supreme Court may or may not do. Um, we can talk about the politics here. Conservatives just lost control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a race where abortion access was a central issue. And they're responsible for a ruling that may restrict abortion medication in every state. And this is making some Republicans and even anti-choice activists a bit nervous about the politics and coulter of all.
People tweeted Please stop pushing strict limits on abortion, or there will be no Republicans left. John Schwepp, a right-wing think tank guy who wants a full abortion ban, is now telling Republicans. To quote Suck it up and get behind Lindsey Graham's 15 week ban as a compromise. Because, quote, We're getting killed by Indy voters. That's a plausible or effective political solution for Republicans, and and what does that tell Democrats about the politics of the issue? TOMMY Um, I don't think it's plausible.
Because the extreme right religious base wants an outright ban on abortion. And they're not going to stop until they get it, so they can say they can. All, you know, get on Twitter and tell each other to chill out or at least be cool, but it's not going to work. The reason they're all saying this, though, is they know the politics of this are terrible for them. Um, Reuters tested UH, support for courts overturning access to Miffy. And it is wildly unpopular. 70 of the country opposes it.
Another poll looked at whether medication abortion should remain legal in the U. S. And Americans said yes by a 65 to 21 margin, with 49 of Republicans agreeing. They support letting people get these drugs in the mail by 72. The Dobbs decision itself was they might be able to rally around a 15 week ban. There are some old polling, pre-Dobbs ruling polling that suggested the 15 week ban is more popular. But, uh, I think the dynamics have shifted in a big way since Dobbs. And regardless, the religious conservatives do not want a 15 week ban.
They're going to fight for what they're fighting for in Florida right now. Which is a six week ban, which basically means before you even know you're pregnant, you are no longer allowed.
Yet one one way in which the dynamic has shifted in this debate is. We are now living in a country that has 15 week abortion brands. And they are not an abstraction, and they are extreme, and they cause incredibly harrowing and horrible consequences for people giving birth. There are just multiple stories out of Florida about basically being tortured by the state because of abortion bans that go into effect at 15 weeks. So, you know, they can try to describe 15. A 15 week ban as not being extreme, and it is less extreme than the six week ban and some of the other more extreme bans that have been already put on the books. But a 15 week ban in practice will ultimately be deeply unpopular. And will be an albatross around their neck, like any other ban that they're putting in place.
Yeah, these, these the post story.
Talks about these two women in Florida who were friends, who had life threatening complications in their pregnancies. After 15 weeks and were basically told to stay home and wait because it was after 15 weeks. And the and the healthcare providers didn't want to give them care because of a 15 week ban. And, you know, to Tommy's point, Florida is a great example of how 15 week ban is no compromise in these people's minds. It is a stepping stone to then get to a six week ban, which is what Florida is already doing. And you know, there was an article right after Wisconsin that Republicans in just about every state were barreling ahead with as many abortion restrictions as they can. And then you have places like South Carolina, where a couple of Republican legislators introduced legislation that would have the death penalty for women who get abortions.
Right, so, like it is, you're right. There may be a few political strategists in the Republican Party who were thinking that it's bad. But actual Republican legislators who have power, they are not listening to the results of these elections. They're they're barreling at the base of the party. It's a bunch of right-wing Celts.
Yeah, so we mentioned that the fight over abortion medication will likely end up at the Supreme Court, which was in the news last week thanks to its most scandal plagued. Right-winger ProPublica broke the bombshell story that Justice Clarence Thomas and his right-wing activist wife Ginny have been riding around on private jets and luxury yachts. Free of charge. Thanks to a billionaire Republican donor who reportedly hates fascism so much that he's decorated his home with Nazi, that's how I show that I hate fascism.
Me too. Thomas failed to disclose any of the trips in his annual financial reports, even though the Ethics and Government Act requires Supreme Court justices to report. All gifts worth more than $415, including transportation on private jets and super yachts. What'd you guys think of the story? And, uh, and what, if anything, can be?
Done about this, I just want to say, like, look, Crow's weird memorabilia. That's not the biggest. And if we focus on that and not the ethical concerns, we're just there it is, we're not getting. I can tell he's still in the joke voice.
This is the best story I've ever read. Everyone should give five bucks to ProPublica. I'm Paul Pot calling the kettle black. I'm not doing it, thank you.
Thank you, come on, come to our side. Well, just give me some fun over here, now or never.
So we should just talk about how much. Like Clarence, Thomas has been accepting free trips, the one in 2019 is estimated to have cost it a half a million dollars. You've been taking these trips for 20 years, 20 years. They pointed this out on Strict and I really liked that. He's like, I've been friends with Harlan Crow for 25 years.
You've been on the Supreme Court for 30.
You met after, you met after, that's a benefactor that's corrupt, and they and they try to pretend business.
They're just buds who just hang out and have a good time. There was a literal fucking painting, a portrait of Crow with Clarence Thomas. Leonard Leo, the head of the Federalist Society, and two other right-wing lawyers, one of whom was the general counsel at OMB for Trump. A portrait of them hanging out. Look, you think they're not talking about like issues before the.
Supreme Court. But even if they're not talking politics, even if they were. Look, this is fantastic reporting, it's incredible, especially with all those details and how all the deals, it's very simple and clear cut. I think if they were there, they were talking about. It says in the law that you got to disclose gifts and the personal exemption is for like, lodging and family and stuff like that. It's not for private jets.
That's it.
It's a clear ethical violation. But like when people like this, when? When the Supreme Court, when a justice, Supreme Court, tries to lie to your face and say, are we never talk business? I mean, it's just incredible. It's so insulting to the intelligence of everyone involved in all the little right-wing. You know, what do you call them? Love it? Ideological zambonis.
We're going to clean it up after this. The Jonah Goldbergs of the World and others. Well, the thing that like Nazi memorabilia aside, which is a tough thing to put aside because some of it's sharp. But like this guy Harlan Crow, this is a side point. He is one of these classic right-wing, zealotous billionaire Nepo babies. This is what the Koch brothers have done. This is what Trump is like.
There's something that happens to these little boys with their super rich, super successful dads who inherit these big fortunes. And then, just like they got to seem like, up by your bootstraps. He's such a a Connor guy, this, he's like the everything you read about, he's collecting these fucking, he seems like a like. He's just like collecting these sort of intellectuals around him. Trying to use his wealth to give himself meaning and purpose by buying influence with all these people.
No one ever talks about how scrooge McScrooge was a was a was a wealth creator.
Yeah, I can see Harlan Crow saying that, I can see Harlan Crow saying that at their Adirondack retreat. The thing that's amazing about this is. In 2004, The Los Angeles Times reported on Clarence Thomas taking expensive gifts in private trips from this Guy Crow, including a $19,000 bible and a $15,000 bust of Lincoln. So what did Clarence Thomas do?
He just stopped disclosing.
Them, Yeah, that see, that's that to me, is like the real he just gave up, that's the smoking.
Gun the smoking memorabilia No, the smoking gun is Hitler's gun.
I mean, like, you know, this sort of. There's a long tradition here from Justice Scalia of of going on all expense paid vacations with political benefactors and connected people. And not giving a shit if anyone knows about it, yeah, exactly. The other part of this, too, that I think is just so galling, is. You really get the sense that, like these are the right smart people that get together, they should be left to do whatever they like.
You know, Clarence Thomas and a bunch of these conservative judges, the more power they've accrued, the more they've they've more. They've kind of skirted ethical rules. But also come to have incredibly narrow views about the influence of money in politics. When they need to recuse themselves from certain cases. They've kind of created a whole kind of philosophical structure about how, like, we're just meant to be ruled by these people, they're just meant to. They're. They're rich and smarter than us, and better than us. We don't they? They deserve to just be free to gather and talk about their cases and their issues and their philosophies at the Bohemian Grove.
At the Bohemian, the all male Bohemian grove, the creepiest fucking gathering. This is the the sort of Leo Strauss school of politics. He. There's so many good parts of this. I would like someone please explain to me why. His replica of Hagrid's Hut from Harry Potter? Like, that's the lamest thing ever to have a your Adirondack mansion, but this is my favorite part. So there's this long history of Clarence Thomas pretending to be a common man, and ProPublica sets this thing up so brilliantly.
So here's the quote from Clarence Thomas. I don't have any problem with going to Europe, but I prefer the United States, and I prefer seeing the regular parts of the United States, Thomas said in a recent interview for a documentary about his life, which Crow helped finance, that's absolutely brilliant, he said. I prefer the RV parks.
I prefer the Walmart parking lots of the beaches and things like that. You are so full of shit. Yeah, did you stop there before you got on the jet to Indonesia? I also just like the idea like I prefer the Walmart parking lot to the beaches.
It sounds like chat GPt, spit that out. No one prefers Walmart parking lot to a beach you.
Know who wants to be in the parking lot of anywhere? It is just telling the parking lot.
At the beach, the beaches. what is the beach? He's picturing in his mind, right? Cause we have public beaches, you know, for now, I suppose you ever been to a public beach anyway. What's going to happen to the Walmart parking lot of vacations? What can happen to them?
I'm going to give you the answer here. Uh, nothing. Well, the Senate's going to hold a hearing. Oh good, oh yeah.
Hey, you can stop, take, take down the cynical meter, No. The Senate's going to hold a hearing on ethical standards of the Supreme Court. I hope Dianne Feinstein staff tweets something really mean about this. Dick Durbin called on Roberts to open an investigation into his conduct. Some others probably wrote letters.
You got durbed, uh. One other memorable part of this. There was a description of of Crow's home. And, um, some person who, like, got a tour of the house and was disturbed by it. I think talked to, like the Washingtonian or something. Back in the day, the paintings would go. Something done by George W. Bush next to a Norman Rockwell, next to one by laid out Murderers Row right there. But look, they're going to, they're going to hold an ethics.
Hearing, Uh. They also said they were going to potentially introduce ethics reform legislation, which won't pass, and, uh, the hearing won't really do anything. And, uh, some folks said, Well, maybe we can impeach him, but they can't because the House Republicans won't repeat them, obviously. And then there was an argument that, like, perhaps, you know, AOC said he should be impeached.
Perhaps by if you could force a vote on impeachment in the House, you could at least get Republicans on record, which is like, great. But, um, yeah. The way to change this is to, uh, continue winning Senate seats, uh, winning Senate seats everywhere, and, uh, and stop complaining about conservative Democrats winning Senate seats. Because we have a lot to win. To make sure that we can replace one of these guys with a Supreme Court justice who is not Clarence, Thomas or Brett.
Kavanaugh or Neil Gorsuch, or any of these. I know I took a detour to take a shot at Dianne Feinstein, but I do, on a serious note, right now. Look, there's been a lot of reporting about Dianne Feinstein no longer being fit to serve in the Senate. Representing the biggest. Uh, she's currently out for shingles, that is sad. That is obviously not her fault, but because she is not in the Judiciary committee. Uh. Durbin has said that it has made it basically impossible to move a lot of these lower court Uh nominees, uh, to the Senate, uh, for a vote, uh. Which means that Dianne Feinstein, who should not be in the Senate, is now preventing us from being able to confirm judges.
And as sad as it is, to sort of see someone who's had an incredibly storied and long and important career and has done a lot of good for this state. I think what people around Dianne Feinstein are doing. allowing, you know, being part of this farce of having a lack of a senator in such an important job is really wrong. And uh, Dianne Feinstein should no longer be in the Senate. She has, she's a resign, and more people should be calling on her to resign. Congress could also just pass some sort of ethics rule for the courts, right?
I mean, members of Congress can't take a gift worth more than 50 bucks and they couldn't take a trip like this Indonesian vacation. Without pre-approval from the ethics committee, certainly, we could pass some sort of law putting in place a little more stringent, uh, ethics. I think you'd have to count the number of House Republicans who have been to that Adirondack retreat. Yeah, I bet it's, I bet it's more than five.
One, uh, I think, a fifth circuit judge.
Was sworn in there. Does that help? I think the whole thing is gross and and and clearly, uh, reeks of corruption. I also think that if Clarence Thomas went nowhere but the Walmart parking lot, he would still be issuing all the horrible, horrendous rulings that we have seen.
Because he can put one little sentence into a ruling that changes an entire body of law under an area for a special interest. I and I would, and I don't think we should put it past it. I think you'd do it anyway, but I'd know, but I wouldn't know to do it.
He's also ruling on campaign finance, he's making decisions about, about recusal, he's making, uh, so he, he has the the he's dissenting and crazy ethics cases against justices, other judges, and I think all these things tie together. It is it really is part of a worldview that, uh, that these right wing judges know better. And that they are there to rule over us. And that their ethic, their ethical, their ethical questions are not for us to ask that they, that they can do as they please and rule as they please and tell us how to live.
And I do think that genuinely connects it philosophically. Uh, how he views his right to just take these lavish trips and take this money as if he's unassailable. While telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies, I do think that.
I'm I'm all for the most stringent ethic reform possible for the Supreme Court. But, uh, I think we got to get them out of there. I think we've got to get careful what you're implying there.
Well, yeah, keep the Senate, I have a I have an ethical reform. It's a pitchfork and a veil of.
Hate and I'm lighting on fire. There's something uncomfortable, you know what? Keeping the Senate means, get Joe Manchin in there, who's voting for all the right judges.
Get John Tester in there, who might piss you off on some of his issues. Get them all in there. Who doesn't like Tester? He's got a good personality. I like that kind of stuff.
He does against the assault weapons ban. That's not. I don't like that, I don't like that about him. We don't like that at all. But I'm hoping he gets, but. But yet I'm hoping he gets back to the Senate because he's voting.
Right on judges so complicated place, Bob Casey had a really cringy Taylor Swift tweet and I'm.
Still going to give him money and probably okay. He had a much cringier position on abortion way back when and has evolved, which is wonderful. So good for Bob Casey and you have a cringy tweet.
That's fine, he's a great guy, we can work on that. I don't really regret my swerve. To remind Retire, get a couple of swerves.
We went to sort of a psychological couch I was going to go.
Somewhere else, which is like, Yeah, you can complain about Diane Feinstein, I agree with.
Your rant but also the blue slip thing is stupid, Oh my god, the blue slip thing. Basically, there's an old rule in the Senate where basically a home state senator, Republican or Democrat can basically say, Hey, I don't approve. I don't want you to nominate this person.
I don't like them, I know them, they're from my community, they're they, they seem okay, but they're shitty. Please don't nominate them.
And so the idea is basically for for judicial, for for for digital seats in a state. Those centers have some say over it. It's supposed to be non-ideological and non-partisan, but obviously, as the as, the war for the court has become a war of attrition and completely partisan. Uh, blue slips have been used to just basically stop judges that.
Republicans don't like, I don't know how that affects, uh, how Feinstein's contributing to that problem. She's not. It's separate from that. Okay, well, you said it in the same Senate.
Democrats being limp? Yeah, yeah, we're just separately, there's the blue slip problem.
There's a dying Feinstein problem. There's the fact that we need all of our senators there in.
Voting problems going to be a little bit less, uh, serious now that Fetterman's back.
Well, no, but it's still stuck with the judiciary, We're still stuck with the judiciary because she's in the judiciary, because it's tied in the judiciary. And there's, I think, a broader problem. That's fair is that Congress has done some to better police themselves and put better ethical standards on themselves. But not all the things they need to do, uh?
Or if they would just do a little more, like stock trading, for example, we should should be smarter on that. Wait, what's that point about? Just they should be better?
About what we're talking about judicial nomination, we should create better ethical.
Standards for every part of the U.S. government, including Fed officials, Congress judges, everybody. I totally agree with that, I also who doesn't agree with that? I think John doesn't agree with you. I just don't think it's going to do as much as we hope.
Listen, I hear that.
Judge Kazmarek wasn't, uh, you know, it wasn't, uh, the anti-abortion activists paying him money that made him do this. He's a fucking zealot. people are zealots without being corrupt.
None of these recommendations are zero sum. No, I know, I know, but I'm just, yeah, just.
Creating a straw man to push back on this. I want, uh, 18 year terms for Supreme Court.
Justices, let's fight for that, let's do that that I like a lot, let's do real.
Let's do actual reforms that will get the power out of these people's hands.
Let's add seven more, too, let's just let's just let's just let's just put.
The Supreme Court Yeah, you want a couple more? Yeah, yeah.
Like, four more, four more.
All right, a quick update on what's happening in Tennessee. The legislature's Republican super majority voted to expel State Representative Justin Pearson and his colleague, State Representative Justin Jones, for the crime of speaking on the House floor without being recognized. During a gun control protest, representative Gloria Johnson, who was white, also participated in the protest, but survived the expulsion attempt by a single vote. The Nashville City Council has unanimously voted to return Jones as interim representative until he can run in a special election to reclaim his seat.
The Memphis, the Shelby County City Council, is expected to do the same. Uh, for Justin Pearson, um, as early as Wednesday, um, until he can run in a special election to reclaim his seat. But the shitty Republican super majority remains as it does in many other red and purple states. Which has a lot of people asking, what can we do about that?
What do you guys think? Well, one thing that happened is I do think that these Republicans got a lot more attention that they, that they than they expected. Uh, I do not. I think they expected to have this level of uh of, um, rebuke. From all the way, from from the White House to basically every elected Democratic official across the country. Um, it's great that these two guys are getting their seats back and, uh, vote of America. We raised, uh, what, like a hundred grand to to to to help the Tennessee Dems.
You want to get the latest?
Stats Well, so what happened is, um, we originally at Vote of America, asked to raise money for the two Justins and for their special election. That they'll probably both, uh, run for you guys immediately. Uh, donated a ton of money, which is great. But because they're just two state representative seats, they probably had more money than they needed with all the other.
And then we noticed a tweet thread from Ben Wickler, who's the Democratic Party chair in Wisconsin. And he had just gotten off the phone with, Uh, the uh, head of the Tennessee Democratic Party, who said that, you know, basically? Democrats have received more than a third of the vote in statewide elections in, UH, in Tennessee recently. Um, but they only have 24 of 99 House seats and six of 33 Senate seats. If they win a gerrymandering case that is currently before the courts, uh, on April 17th, Democrats could win, they could flip at least 12 seats and break the super majority.
And also, turn out, in Tennessee, last election last year was the lowest in the country. So, um, now we have raised over, I believe, $150,000, uh, for the Tennessee Democratic Party. So that if that case goes the right way, there's a lot of seats that could actually flip and we could break that super majority. And I think that is something to think about all across the country.
Super majorities that come from gerrymanders one elections which are obviously tough because of the gerrymander, though not impossible. You know, we almost won the special election in a state Senate seat in Wisconsin the same day as the Supreme Court race. Um, that was extremely gerrymandered, but still, the Democrat came within a thousand votes. So it's possible, and the other way is suing in court, like they're doing in Tennessee, to break the gerrymander. But that only works if you don't have an extreme right-wing court, which is why judicial elections are so important.
And in 2024, we'll have a Supreme Court, uh, elections in Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina and Ohio, where there are some really important seats up. And um, it's really important to sort of give to Democratic state parties and to focus on these.
Judicial elections? Absolutely, yeah. I mean, I think what the Republicans did here is outrageous and disgusting and despicable. But they also helped create two incredibly influential national figures. Now, uh, and you see reps and focus a lot of attention on what it's like serving in a super gerrymandered state. And let's say legislature like the folks in Tennessee are doing.
So it's a great time to, uh, give a little money to the Tennessee Democratic Party or any other activists doing great work in the state. Yeah, think about it, please do. Harlan Crow, wandering around his his statues of fallen tyrants.
What happens to these people? There? His father unloaded boxcars, built a real estate empire. He inherits it, given everything in his life. And he's like, I'm going to fund the club for growth. So you people pull yourself up by your bootstraps. I'm a good person.
According to the Conservatives on the Twitter, I think it's.
Just tax cuts, right? All right, when we come back, when we come back, we'll have strict scrutinies. LEAH LIPMAN Uh, talk to John Lovett about all of these legal development.
And we're back. A Trump goon out of Texas issues a ruling that would stay the FDA's approval of Miffy-Pristone. The Biden administration releases a plan to prohibit outright bans on trans athletes, but would allow schools in limited cases, to block trans athletes from competing in sports. And Clarence Thomas returns from a spa day in the Adirondacks to find he's in the hot seat. To help us understand all of this, she co-hosts Crooked's award-winning legal podcast, Strict Scrutiny.
LEah LIPman, Welcome back to the pod, thanks for having me all right. We have a lot to get through, so let's start with this ruling out of Texas.
I want to split this in half, if you don't mind. There are the ways in which this ruling is substantively bonkers, and then there's the ways in which it's procedurally bonkers. I just want to start, Uh, would you mind walking us through what this judge ruled and what the legal rationale is for staying in F.D.A. approval? That went into effect the year Erin Brockovich was released in theaters.
So the judge had to clear a bunch of threshold procedural issues before actually determining whether the F.D.A. was right or wrong to approve the use of Miffy-Pristone. So those threshold procedural issues were all kind of crazy. I don't know if you want me to talk about those, I'm happy to. Um, one of them rests on the theory that, um, the judge uncovered a blog run by a group called Abortion Changes You.
And he divined from their survey of anonymous blog posts that secretly women are injured by Miffy-Pristone. This is unbeknownst to the F.D.A. or any of the 5 million women who have taken Miffy-Pristone over the last two decades. But that went into the threshold, procedural issues, and then on the substance, the judge basically concluded two different things. One is, he said. This 1873 statute, the Comstock Act that was passed during the Victorian era, actually prohibited the distribution of medication. Abortion through the mail. And therefore the F.D.A. couldn't approve the use of Miffy-Pristone.
Why these two things are related is unclear. And then, second, the judge concluded that the F.DA was wrong to approve the use of Miffy-Pristone because there wasn't adequate evidence to do so. Among other things, he faulted the F.DA for in 2000 failing to consider the evidence from this blog post in 2021, I think that's kind of the short story. Wow.
That's um.
It's more bonkers than I realized. Uh, I'm sort of just letting that, letting that that sink in a little bit. So, uh uh, let's actually talk about the the the procedural issues, for for for a bit. The procedural questions may be a big part of it. So who who brings a lawsuit, uh uh, against, uh uh, a drug that's been on the market for 23 years? And and how could they claim to to be kind?
Of injured by it. So it's a group of doctors who oppose the use of abortion. they have never themselves prescribed medication abortion. They incorporated in Amarillo, Texas, last summer. The only judge in the Amarillo division of the Northern District of Texas is Judge Kasmiric. Who, as it turns out, is just completely bonkers and is willing to give these plaintiffs anything they want. But this group of doctors claimed there was some risk that they would someday have to treat a patient that experienced complications from medication. Abortion, even though that has never happened once in the last 23 years.
And even though they themselves medication abortion, so this entire theory rests on the notion that somehow somewhere, some person is going to be prescribed medication abortion by some other doctor. And then these people are somehow going to find their way to these doctors who are part of this organization, and these doctors don't want to have to treat them. That's their main theory for why they've.
Been injured and just in your experience, have you seen how flimsy is that? On the list of flimsiest arguments for why someone has the right to claim they belong in the court in the first?
Place. It's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. And honestly, if any person who listened to strict scrutiny even thought that was a plausible argument, I would feel as though my.
At our jobs. So you can compare it to a case like the Supreme Court's decision in Clapper versus Amnesty International in that case, the Supreme Court said. The plaintiffs in the case, W.H.O. were a group of lawyers, including people who represented, U.M. family members, a person detained at Guantanamo Bay, the court said. You plaintiffs haven't established that. It's sufficiently likely that the federal government was going to listen in on your communications as part of a national security apparatus. So I guess, I think, if it's not sufficiently likely that the federal government is going to use new national security tools. To listen in on conversations of family members of people detained at Guantanamo Bay. I think it's certainly unlikely that this random group of doctors is going to be called upon to treat patients who are prescribed a medication. That is safer than penicillin in Viagra. One one question I had, just in that I hadn't.
This is a stay, right? This is not he. He didn't overturn it completely, he didn't, he didn't throw out the approval, he said. It's stayed now. Obviously this is super strange because this has been in effect for 23 years, but ordinarily a stay is something that's done almost in an emergency, right?
Because, like, we have to get some more information before we make a decision. In the logic, in this wild, fun house mirror world of logic. What is the goal of this future moment, where the drug will be re-approved according to the logic of this opinion?
No, according to the logic of this opinion, the F.D.A. can basically never re-approve the drug until Congress changes the relevant federal statutes. Now, the reason why I think he issued the stay is because it's not clear whether he could actually order the F.D.A. Through something like an injunction to begin the process of reversing their own approval of Mifepristone. So what, he?
A stay to essentially like place on hold indefinitely and remove any effect from the F.DA's original approval of Mifepristone, and that's what a stay does, and I think that's why.
He did it. So let's talk about what happens next first. This is one of two dueling rulings. There was a another ruling that came out at roughly the same time out of Washington. Uh, that was brought by Democratic attorneys general to basically say, Hey, Mifepristone has to stay available. Uh, how did? What happens now that there are these competing rulings?
So the federal government? The Biden administration has filed a motion in the District Court of Washington. Asking that court to provide some additional clarity about what its injunction means, where it applies and how it relates to the order in the Texas case, so one thing is just asking the courts to provide them with additional guidance. Second is, the administration is already asking the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to put on hold the Texas order. Staying the approval of Mifepristone, and the Fifth Circuit has ordered the plaintiffs in the case to respond and the federal government. The Biden administration has asked that court, the fifth Circuit, to rule on the matter by Thursday, which would be before the district court's stay of his own stay, um, expires.
So that's kind of what's happening initially.
So if that happens, then the order would be put on hold until either the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court, uh, rules on it. Let's just talk about what happens if it does go into effect. First, there's this debate about whether the Biden administration can just ignore it. But just even if you put that aside, what actually happens? I mean, this is unprecedented in a lot of ways. A drug that's just been approved for 23 years is suddenly unapproved.
What does it even mean to say, uh, we're going to not enforce or enforce this, isn't it? In part, up to the companies themselves to determine whether or not they're going to follow the law?
So it is partially up to the companies. That is, the companies will have to make their own assessment about whether they feel sufficiently comfortable, or whether they feel they would be exposed to too much legal risk. To continue manufacturing, distributing and providing the drug, and once this drug becomes unauthorized, I think the problem is then. Medication abortion providers, distributors, doctors who prescribe it are potentially more exposed to liability under state laws that restrict abortion, including medication abortion. Because in the absence of Mifepristone being an approved drug by the federal government, there's not much stopping states from attempting to enforce their own criminal abortion bans against providers of medication abortion. And you add to that, nothing is going to stop some future Ted Cruz, Ron DESantis. Donald Trump administration from pursuing federal penalties against the distributors and manufacturers of medication abortion, even if the Biden administration.
To do so, so, whether or not the Biden administration says, okay, we're going to enforce it fully, or we're not going to enforce it. The chaos around this is such that it that that basically it puts. It makes it much harder for for Mifepristone to be available.
Exactly all of that chaos and legal uncertainty is just a huge deterrent to doctors, to patients, and anyone else who, you know, thinks it's important to access Mifepristone.
So this will lead to the Supreme Court. You had a great conversation on Strict, trying to avoid predicting, but trying to break down a little bit about what might happen in the Supreme Court. Can you talk a little bit about how the conservative majority views the substance and how amenable they are to a ban like this? And then a little bit about the sort of coming back to the procedural nonsense that might put them in a position to overturn this ruling.
So I think on the substance, the conservative super majority might be partially sympathetic of what the district Court did. I don't know if all of the super majority is on board with the idea that this 1873 statute actually prohibits the distribution of medication. Abortion, you know, no matter its usage, including if it's legal, you know, in certain states, I don't know if they're actually behind that, I think. What's less clear is how they would feel about all of the threshold procedural matters that the district court had to find in favor of the plaintiffs before actually reaching the underlying substance about whether the FDA's approval of Mifepristone was legal, you know, it's not just the fact that these plaintiffs claim to injury is somewhat ludicrous.
It's also that they had to prove that their challenge to this drug was timely. And I don't know how a 23 year delay in challenging the approval of a drug can possibly be timely. And the district court had no sensible explanation for why it was remotely plausible that the.
Plaintiffs could bring this challenge now. Yeah, I felt this listening to you discuss it, and I hear it now, which is you're sort of calmly breaking down. What could or could not happen in a world where in any sensible, well-functioning, legitimate court, you wouldn't have to worry? This would be thrown out as a fucking joke. And the fact that you don't know for sure that this will be thrown out for the joke that it is is kind of a terrifying reminder of this of of of just how far this court has gone, right?
Regardless of whether or.
Not, they step in on procedural grounds. No, I think that that's exactly right. The fact that there is even an outside chance that you could get five votes for what the district court did here is utterly terrifying. And the fact that it partially depends, you know, what side of the bed Brett Kavanaugh woke up on? And whether he thinks, you know, the Democrats have been too mean to him or any of his colleagues, is also terrifying. But also more badly, even if the Supreme Court steps in and corrects this one ruling. That's not going to stop the judicial attacks on access to abortion and the fact that anti-abortion groups can just walk in to judge Casmeric's courtroom and get basically whatever they want. And create a ton of uncertainty and chaos in the short term and medium term as people struggle, you know, to figure out. Is the U.S. Supreme Court actually going to put a stop to this latest attack on access to abortion?
And and if they didn't, obviously, it wouldn't stop with abortion. We'd be talking about HIV medication, we'd be talking about a vaccines, whether it's for HPV or Covid, and we'd talk about administrative rules that go beyond the F.DA. Right, like this would throw. This would give right-wing judges across the country incredible power over the administrative state.
Absolutely, I mean, in addition to the medications you listed, you know, it's also possible that people will challenge approval of contraception, you know, for certain uses. And if these federal courts can just review anything that administrative agencies do, that rests on core scientific technical expertise. I mean, nothing is stopping Judge Casmeric from announcing that our national climate policy is now going to be a bunch of space lasers. Like, there's just nothing, there's.
No logical stopping point to this, moving on to another topic. So, the Biden administration put out a proposed rule that would bar schools from enforcing outright bans on trans athletes in school sports. Saying it's a violation of civil rights law under Title Nine. Now, that's really important. More than a dozen states have passed bans and more on the way.
At the same time, the proposal permits schools to create specific criteria to promote fairness and competition that could be used to remove trans athletes from sports. But those rules couldn't be aimed exclusively at trans students. I spent an hour just figuring out how to say that, to understand what they're actually proposing. There was a lot of, uh, confusion and anger on social media about this. A lot of people worrying that the Biden administration is basically, uh, compromising at the expense of trans students who deserve the right to play sports.
Uh, what did you make of this, of this ruling? Overall, I think it's right to be a little wary and uncertain about how this regulation is going to play out. That being said, I do think the initial reaction was overly negative and didn't exactly account for what this proposed regulation would do. What the regulation said is any sex-based discrimination, which includes excluding individuals on the basis of their gender identity. Schools have to demonstrate that any sex-based discrimination furthers an important governmental objective and is substantially related to that important governmental objective. And that it minimizes any harm to transgender students.
That's a standard that courts use to assess sex discrimination claims under the Constitution. So, in theory, that's a very demanding standard that schools would have to satisfy before they can exclude students on the basis of their gender identity. Now, the rule went on to say that, you know. Among other important governmental objectives are preventing injuries and preserving fair competition. But it's not clear how different that is from the 2016, Dear Colleague, letter that the Obama administration sent out and again applied seriously and according to its terms, it would absolutely wipe away all of these overbroad rules that just categorically exclude transgender student athletes, and that are based on just hurtful stereotypes and fear of transgender.
Individuals So can you talk a little bit about the legal strategy here and what the Biden administration is trying to do? Because, you know, we have a bunch of these bans moving through the through the courts. The Supreme Court actually just stepped in to prevent a ban that would have one trans girl from playing sports. In West Virginia, for example, is there a legal strategy that undergirds the decision to outright?
To say outright bans are clearly a civil rights violation, but there are these tough thresholds to meet if you want to have more targeted rules around.
Trans participation? Yeah, I think the legal standard is basically to apply and incorporate existing law. So the legal standard that I just recited is the legal standard that courts, including the U.S Supreme Court, used to assess sex discrimination claims under the constitution. So what I think the Biden administration is doing here is just saying, look, Title IX forbids sex discrimination. And we're not asking courts to do anything more than just apply the standard legal test. You apply in any sex discrimination case or challenge to cases or challenges that involve transgender students.
So I think that they are trying to rely on established law as much as they can. And avoid a perception that they are creating a rule that is specific or unique to cases involving discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Yeah, it was very.
Confusing. And on the one hand, I saw it and I said, Oh, is this just going to allow schools that might have a more right-wing administration to just put in place a local ban that otherwise would have existed at the state level? But then, at the same time, the writing and the proposal being somewhat vague, creates a fear on the part of administrations that they're going to get sued, like school administrations, right? This could result in a lawsuit if they fail to protect trans athletes of access to sports. And I didn't know how to square those two things.
Yeah, so I think the.
Administration is trying to balance between different goals, and it knows, I think it is litigating in the backdrop of hostile federal courts. And that's why I think it is doing its best to again incorporate existing law and avoid a perception that it is adopting a one-size-fits-all approach while simultaneously ruling out school districts or individual schools from adopting a one-size-fits-all approach that just excludes transgender students. And so the rule demands that any exclusive policy be calibrated to a specific sport, specific age, specific context. And so these categorical bans aren't permitted, and even more particularized ones have to satisfy the theoretically demanding standard for constitutional sex discrimination.
One last question on this So, if you're honest, this is a rule that would say, if you're a public, if you're a school that accepts any federal funding. And you can't have an outright ban. But that school is in a state that just passed a ban, this is just bound for the courts, what?
Happens, yeah, so it will be bound for the courts, because, my guess is these states will say, is not a permissible interpretation of Title IX. And that's what happened, in part with a challenge to the 2016 Dear Colleague letter. That dear Colleague letter that protected transgender students never actually went into effect. Because plaintiffs obtained an injunction from another district court in Texas, this one from Judge O'Connor.
And my guess is you will see similar litigation challenging this rule once it becomes final. All right, let's finally.
At long last, let's talk about Clarence Thomas and his wild ride. ProPublica has a fascinating investigative report on Justice Thomas. Many luxury vacations, private jet flights and yacht excursions with a wealthy conservative Nepo-Babian benefactor named Harlan Crow, Thomas had not disclosed any of these trips or extravagances. There's been a lot of discussion about Crow having Nazi memorabilia.
Let's just say, we don't like that, I don't like it, I don't.
Like it, but he's just commemorating the genocide and war crimes, or so I hear.
I want to focus with you just on one piece of this, which is the corruption.
One trend we've seen in recent years is as conservatives have kind of garnered greater control over the courts. They've felt quite comfortable spreading their sort of ethical legs on the ottoman of our country. I'm sorry.
I'm so sorry, they're just manspreading all over. The ethics is what you're telling me.
They're ethically manspreading, that's what they're doing.
Thomas has been hostile to rules around ethics, around recusal, around disclosure. Can you just talk a little bit about what this story shows us about? What light this shed on some of the decisions and statements Thomas has been making in the past few years about ethics?
Decision-wise, it's impossible not to think of some of the court's major decisions on political corruption. Justice Thomas was among the justices who said that a local state judge didn't have to recuse himself from a case involving a litigant who had basically personally financed the judge's campaign. To get the judge to rule on that case, Thomas is like, I don't see a problem here. This is just what close, personal friends do. No big deal. Does the Constitution prohibit having friends?
No, there are also cases where Justice Thomas, alongside other justices, has concluded that federal public corruption statutes don't prohibit giving public officials gifts in exchange for the public official, setting up meetings or making calls, or holding events on that donor's behalf. I think it's fair to say he has a pretty capacious understanding about what the Constitution permits by way of ethics and political corruption. It also seems as if he has been acting on that understanding.
Do you believe that? What he?
Now, Thomas has claimed I didn't have to disclose because the rules weren't clear that you needed to. I was on vacation with friends, I didn't have to tell you about that. I just took transportation with my friend and it was a private jet flight, but the rules didn't say I had to disclose it.
Now that the rules say, I have to disclose it, but I've been following the rules all along. What do you make of that argument?
I don't find it particularly persuasive because the rules that he's saying he's going to comply with now, they actually haven't changed. The only thing that's changed is. The administrative office of the U.S. Courts offered specific guidance about what those rules have always required. The operative rules haven't changed. They allowed justices, in some instances, to receive hospitality from friends. But hospitality is things like staying at someone's home, being flown around the country on a private jet, that's not hospitality.
That's why the rules, the administrative office of the U.S. courts, say you have to disclose that. I don't know, I've never taken a personal jet. Maybe that's what rich people call hospitality, but I don't think normal, ordinary people say that seems pretty hospitable to me.
Olivia.
What do you think? We think it's hospitable? Well, hospitable is different than hospitality, that's true, that's true.
Just saying, I bet he had a great time, I bet he had a nice time on.
This flight, so did the Hagrid Hut. That doesn't make it legal. I don't understand that. The.
HAGRID HuT People are just saying this, that's like, what? He's also a weird Harry Potter guy.
Well, Harlan Crowe is apparently a weird Harry Potter guy, given that his resort has a life-size replica of Hagrid's Hut from Harry Potter.
Listen, I just want you to know something.
And I know I'll get in trouble for saying this. I was never on the Harry Potter bandwagon, I just simply wasn't. I don't like the idea of sorting children by personality traits at a young age. I think the signs were there.
That's all I'm saying. I think the signs were there.
Does it help that the children had some say in where they were sorted?
Then don't they get a hat on their head and then the hat? Well, yeah, but you can talk to the hat, okay, cool. So it's nice that these children get permanently sorted, they have some chance to say it. This is like people get mad when kids get put into.. ..
They get it tracked on math when they're in third grade. This kid, you're sorted, evil, go to the basement.
Well, I look forward to you developing a sorting hat collection in your basement to commemorate this atrocity.
LEah Whitman, thank you so much and thank you for helping all of us understand what is going on. Other than the Gwyneth Paltrow ruling, we live in a time in which the legal system is sometimes letting us down and thank you for taking us through it.
I wish you well.
All right, before we go, we've got the bear head back, which means it's time for another round of one line with cocaine bear. This is a Culture war edition.
Where's the roar?
I'll put it in the roar, I'll leave this in, too.
Good roar, Elijah.
Good roar, thank you, love it, you go first.
Okay, it has landed on. Princess Peach is too woke. There's an interesting dissensus on the right. Because, on the one hand, someone to claim that the Super Mario movie is an anti-woke success. Because it's going to be one of the biggest movies of all time. But at the same time, there are some who have noticed that the minds behind this adaptation have decided that your princess is in another castle is not enough of a character for the Princess.
And so she's a hero in this film.
Who's going to consume this content? Well, young kids, right? It's a cartoon. Adults, unless you're a loser, you're probably not going to want to watch that, right? Young women see stuff like this, and it just brainwashes them to be a feminist, to be a badass feminist.
And it's not realistic. Women are not as strong as men. Please make her a helpless princess again. Okay, that's a lot more fitting for Princess Peach.
Now we should just be clear that it's an anti-woke success, because the film survived a boycott from John Leguizamo.
John Leguizamo basically said that he was boycotting the movie because Mario and Luigi were played by White.
And Charlie Kirk seized on that and decided it was an anti-woke film now.
It was a victory against wokeness because-.
I'll tell you why it's-.
Because it was a popular, because it was a big, big weekend.
I'll tell you why it was anti-woke, because I almost fell asleep.
Because the movie doesn't have a great story. And listen, I want to make a point here, which is this is the only point I want to make about.-.
And Super Mario Bros. famously has a very complicated, interesting story.
The point is, here's my problem. All right, there's two movies out that you could see right now, one is Dungeons Dragons and it fucking rules. And you know what? It was amazing going to see Dungeons Dragons because you go see a big budget kind of potential franchise movie. And you know, you're going to have some very funny jokes because they're going to do great comedy.
Writers come in and make it funny, but you don't know if there's going to be a beginning, a middle and an end that makes sense. An Act one, an Act two, an Act three that takes you back kind of completes the story that began in Act one, you know, your classic movie.
You never know if it's going to be just a complete calamity. In the third act, like fuck, we ran out of time and we're shooting no script, whatever, Dungeons Dragons, excellent.
Super Mario barely makes sense.
But can you talk about what was the woke factor in Dungeons Dragons?
Did it succumb to wokeness?
I honestly, I think it's a little bit of both.
But I really like Dungeons Dragons. we need Dungeons Dragons to succeed, so they make movies that make sense. Super Mario doesn't make any sense in that sense. It is an anti-woken success.
I was going to ask about that, what's going on with Mario? You're not the first to do that. There's a lot of Marios around there, I grew up with Super Mario brothers.
Listen, on Long Island, we say, Mario, that's not the most offensive part about growing up on Long Island, but also not the least. You know, what else succumbed to reality? My congressman is currently....
All right, well, you pick something out of the fucking hat, then am I up?
You're up, you're up, Tom.
Anti-woke, anti-woke. Princess Peach. It should be more realistic, she should rule over a kingdom of talking mushrooms.
Ridiculous, that was right-wing commentator Anna Perez, by the way, I had never heard of her before.
I don't know that she's heard of her, hopefully now, never after. Okay, I got NPR's pro-trans dinosaurs and pushes tentacle porn, okay? So, this comes from a segment by, of course, Tucker Carlson, where he is talking about Elon Musk's decision to label NPR as government-funded media. That is a ludicrous decision.
Less than 1 of NPR's funding comes from the U.S. government. It kicked up a big fight on Twitter with, Of course.
For the very first time, as he acts on them in a capricious way, it's really amazing. It's wild. He's like Jimmy Carter with a tennis court. It's like your company's falling apart.
You're relabeling NPR's Twitter handle, so here's a clip. Well, so it's tentacle porn? Okay, yeah, I mean, technically it is tentacle porn, which is its own sub-genre. And we're not going to pollute your mind by telling you any more about it than that, but what it really is is narcissism.
Transceratops Transesaurus rex. A lot of people say, if the topic of NPR comes up in conversation, yeah, I'm all for national public radio and I'm happy to work an extra day a year to pay for it. But I'm not a trans dinosaur, I'm not.
So what's in it? For me, as a non-trans dinosaur, that seems a little niche. What Tucker's done there is. He went and found some NPR stories, book reviews. people are talking about books they've read.
One of them involves some sort of tentacle something, or other one's, I think, a kid's book for dinosaurs. And decided to hold that up as the example of why NPR is bad. If we were to take the same approach as Tucker Carlson, we might say that his show is constantly pushing the concept of testicle tanning. Because it was something that he discussed in his End of Men Specials, if that was somehow representative of all of his work, but it is obviously not.
I just want to say I unfortunately watched the Tucker Carlson segment that led to this and I thought I was going to assign myself. For like, a two-minute video clip, he did 15 minutes about NPR at the top of his show. I have not thought that.
I mean, it's really just these people sitting in their homes, just frothing at the mouth at segment after segment. I hate NPR, I hate baseball now, I hate Nike, I hate them all.
I hate them all, I hate everything, even the dinosaur thing, even the way he explained it.
It was literally like a segment of a story talking about how there's groups of queer people who like dinosaurs. There's like, you go online, and there's a community of queer people who are really into dinosaurs.
You're talking to a member.
That was it. There's nothing else there. Suddenly he's talking about trans dinosaurs, it's wild, that's what he gets from that.
It's transceratops, I think that was one of them.
That was, yeah, that was one of them all, right, I'm up.
I think it's cool, I think that's a cool dinosaur.
Okay.
This is switching genders, is a power move. Oh, this is here we go, here's Don Jr.
They're just going around impregnating all the female prisoners, like, what the fuck, that's actually a power move. Hey, if they got me for treason, I'd probably be like, I'd consider it probably a lot more fun.
Why does he sound like that?
So that's Don Jr. on his podcast, saying that if he were convicted of treason, he would consider switching genders and going to a woman's prison, which would probably be a lot more fun. Yeah, trans people and the greatest move ever.
Trans people famously treated well in prisons.
And he would impregnate all the female prisoners.
Yeah, they'd have some say in the matter. I think he'd very quickly asked to be transferred. I don't think this would go as well for him.
Or everyone would.
The only way to have Don Jr. in prison is that he's a case for solitary.
Yeah.
He was on some podcast with some guy, it's called the Full Send Podcast. I never heard of it and I looked it up and had like 8 million, you know, subscribers on YouTube.
That was this, that was the podcast he was on.
These guys were all with him and his father at some UFC. This whole other sort of ecosystem of hyper-masculine nonsense is out there. It's ultimate fighting this show that Don Jr. has somehow gotten swept into.
We have to break the UFC to insurrection pipeline. It's going to be a tough one. It's pretty direct.
Does it make any of us feel bad that we have the same profession as Don Jr now?
Yeah, but also Barack Obama.
And Michelle Obama runs the gamut. Ambrose Brinkstein I mean, it's cool, it's a cool group.
Okay, that makes me feel better.
I don't think so.
We'll see vote.
And don't forget to vote for us at the Webby's Please, please.
And remember the website, it's Google Webby's.
Pick another? I just should we pick another? Yeah, sure, okay, let's go.
We have time.
We have time, there's no limit.
That's why it's a good part of being a podcast host.
Boycott, Yeah, there's nothing to stop us boycott. Bud Light.
Hell yeah, hell yeah.
So we can all talk about this, but the gist of it is that God. First of all, it is amazing how much of the right wing, every part of this conversation is about the right wing obsession with trans people. So basically, Bud Light did, like. One promoted Instagram post with Dylan Mulvaney, a trans person who is huge on TikTok, who has drawn an incredible amount of ire from the right.
The New York Post has written at least a dozen articles about this one fucking Instagram post. Anyway. This was because of Bud Light, which led Kid Rock to get some sort of a gun, machine gun. yeah, machine gun, some sort of a gun.
I'm not going to.
I don't know what Ar-15, I'm not sure and shoot....
Ar-15.
Shoot a bunch of bud lights with his gun to send a message.
These people.
These gun people are really, it's a one note with the move here, they're just they're shooting things they don't like.
People, guns.
What do you want them to do with the gun? Paint a picture, it does one thing.
Joe Manchin shot up a picture of the climate bill.
Wow, he's come a long way. Did you guys hear it? Shot that thing right into law? Do you hear Biden's response to this?
Oh, no.
That's why he wanted to do another.
That is why he wanted it. Yeah, hey kid rock, it's Joe Biden. Don't be such a ba-wa-da-ba-da-bang-da-dang-diggy-diggy-whiny-little-bitch-ass and just drink your fucking beer.
Oh, that was good, I thought that was good, it was pretty succinct.
That was good, thank you. He said that in his right after he talked about he's going to run for president again in 2021, or he plans to.
I might run, maybe he plans to, but I'm not going to tell you if I am.
That was a good quote. Shooting bud lights.
All right, well, that's all the time we have. Thank you to A.I. Joe Biden, thank you to Leah Lippman, and we'll talk to you later.
Pod Save America is a Cricut media production. The executive producer is Michael Martinez. Our senior producer is Andy Gardner-Bernstein. Our producers are Haley Mews and Olivia Martinez. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick.
Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis sound engineered the show. Thanks to Hallie Kiefer, Ari Schwartz, Sandy Gerrard, Andy Tapp and Justine Howe for production support. And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Phoebe Bradford, Milo Kim and Emilio Montu. Our episodes are uploaded as videos at YouTube.com slash PodsaveAmerica.
v1.0.0.260408-1-a910ba6_os