3678 - Unprecedent Democratic Incumbent Losses; How the Right Still Plans to Kill Birthright Citizenship w/ Elie Mystal

You are listening to a free version of the Majority Report. Support this show at join the Majority Report.com and get an extra hour of content daily. The Majority Report with Sam Cedar. It is Wednesday, July 1st, 2006. My name is Sam Cedar. This is the five-time award-winning Majority Report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, USA. On the program today, Ellie Mistal, calmist and justice correspondent at the Nation magazine to discuss the recent absurd Supreme Court rulings.

also on the program today DSA gets another member of their caucus in the U.S. Congress Milat Kiros defeats 15-term incumbent by what

war again with Iran as U.S. oil reserves hit a 40-year low. House rejects Lebanon War Powers Resolution, also votes to disclose House sexual misconduct settlements, and then the House goes on early recess as Mike Johnson loses hold of his caucus. Oh. Tell us some. Polling shows Dems in striking distance of taking the Senate. Tom Keene returns to the House revealing he had inpatient treatment for depression.

All this and more on today's majority report. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. People are already asking, like, is I'm going to be there today? Is she out? I can't believe this is a thing now. I had a lovely night in and enjoy. the win from my apartment. This was probably, I mean, since this actually happened in June.

Yeah. June 2026, probably the best June of your entire life. Honestly, honestly, honestly. And I got married last June.

No, no, it's the second best June. June 2025 and 26. are the two best june so you can just leave it at that i mean yes exactly june is a banner month for me uh starting as of last year so we'll see what next june comes uh brings me oh boy okay well um and uh thank you brian for laughing at that uh at the Mike Johnson uh losing control of his caucus

started laughing and I'm like, I'm saving this for everybody. Thanks for joining us. Obviously, a great night last night in terms of the DSA. They've added another member of Congress. If you include Brad Lander, who refers to himself as a Democratic socialist, not necessarily a member of DSA. I think we're up to eight now. the House and counting, there are more candidates out there.

We'll have time to discuss sort of a lot of this. Michael Bennett loses his race, which is also indicative of this era. I don't know that the guy one is going to be, you know, measurably better in Colorado in terms of their governorship, but the point being that there is real anger at Democrats who have been seen as too comfortable in their incumbency and not doing enough to both fight Trump, but also to address the underlying reasons why a Trump in this Republican Party is possible today. Here is Milat Kuros

at her election victory party recalling really her I guess her origin story in politics this is a clip number one and as Matt pulls it up it's the wrong link okay so yeah

Mela Kiros was She's about to talk about her origin story. But she walks the walk when it comes to standing up for Palestine. Like anybody who had knowledge of Israel's apartheid and the ethno state, she and Darylisa Avila Chavalli did as well, knew on October 8th that Israel was going to unleash hell on Gaza. And she spoke honestly about Zionism and Israel's genocide and was fired in retaliation.

for it and that launched her into politics. So here she is at her victory party talking about how she got involved. I want to tell you something about why this campaign matters because it matters for what comes next. When I wrote a letter defending students' rights to protest the genocide in Gaza, my law firm told me, take it down or you're fired. I didn't flinch. I didn't flinch because I stood by every word and I always will.

But I know that will not be the only moment where those in power will tell me to change my tune, to not rock the boat. That seems to happen a lot in Congress. But here in Denver, we stand by our values. and we stand with our community.

We are days away from embarking on the 250th anniversary of the founding of this country. I've been thinking a lot about what that means. The promise is made, the promise is unfulfilled, that this country belongs to everyone who loves it and what it stands for, not just the people born here, not just the people who look a certain way, but everyone who believes that democracy is worth defending and that every person is deserving of dignity.

candidates and congresspeople who are oriented in this way in terms of their politics. But the over and over again, the message seems to be that one's position on the genocide in Gaza is a, almost like a gateway or like a gatekeeper. I don't think that people necessarily vote based upon it, but it becomes a sort of like just a, a bellwether. And here, Abdul El-Sayed is on, Abdul El-Sayed is on the takeout with Major Garrett. I'm not sure what that is. It's a CBS Digital. CBS Digital. That's where they let him on so they can.

And he, and I think. he expresses this well that is simply a way of establishing, I'm a serious person who's not going to lie and tell you that it's not raining out when it's clearly raining out. This is a moral Roar Shock test. If you can't identify the systematic murder of tens of thousands of kids as a genocide, and then you want to say that you're a fighter for human rights and dignity, that's just hypocrisy. So I just think that if you can't call the most heinous violation of human rights what it is,

it's hard for me to believe that you're going to go and fight the Trump administration or fight the pharma CEOs or fight the health insurance CEOs who are making my life unlivable. This is a moral Rocheque test. And just on Colorado for a second, that's a great answer by Abdul El-Sayed that races in August. We had Melod on multiple times just because I was such. a believer in the strength of her candidacy. I think she's really talented. I haven't had such conviction about a candidate in quite a while. Like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jamal Bowman comes to mind, but, you know, or Zohran Mamdani. But she's called for offensive and defensive weapons that embargo to Israel.

In her medium post or and in her subsequent comments, she's talked about the October 7th attacks as the inevitable consequence of apartheid, which is important. to have that perspective. Diana DeGette was kind of relying on her seniority, and she's been fairly absentee, but she's not even like the worst Democrat. I didn't realize that she'd voted against the Iraq War, which many Democrats did not at the time.

But it doesn't, like, there's no urgency in her leadership as well, and she still was accepting spending from big tech packs and Israel PACs on her behalf. And so, So Keros ran a really strong campaign. She got out early. And I think she's going to be one of the best and most eloquent fighters for a better future for us all in Congress. But what also happened, too, you mentioned the Bennett race and how he lost pretty handily to Attorney General Phil Weiser, in part because it seems like he was kind of acting like the race was handed to him.

And Phil Weiser pointed out that outside billionaires. were spending on his behalf and made that the hallmark of his campaign. So corporate donors and outside big billionaire donors, it can be if it's highlighted an albatross around the next of a lot of these more establishment figures. And one more point on this, because John Hickenlooper and Loper got a scare from Julie Gonzalez, who really didn't have many national endorsements,

didn't have a lot of cash on hand, got a slow start, but she still gave him a real scare. And within like six or seven points, Yes. And just like, I think also people in Colorado are disgusted by Jared Polis and how he pardoned Tina Peters and capitulated to the Trump administration. But on that race, I was listening to Steve Kornacki last night as the results came in. And I like Steve Kornacki for what he does. He's really, really smart. But he kept saying the same thing over and over again, that the DSA style candidate, this just goes to show that a DSA style candidate can't, hasn't, there's no appetite for that statewide. And this was a. test for that. I mean, honestly, this is the wrong. This is the inverse of what you should be interpreting this as. Julie Gonzalez ended up leaving DSA right before she decided to enter into this race. She didn't have the name recognition to compete with John Hickenlooper, but there, you see there was an energy wanting something different. Why isn't the lesson for some of these pundits that

DSA organizing is actually an advantage? That if she had DSA and that group behind her, that perhaps that would have been given her the opportunity to overcome some of her lack of name recognition. And that, yeah, maybe DSA, they're filling a vacuum, right? But center-left pundits are acting like DSA just stumbled into it. And there's truth that there's a vacuum. But they're discounting DSA canvassing. A DSA-style candidate is not the same as a DSA candidate. A DSA candidate comes with infrastructure, comes with canvassing, comes with organizing,

comes with also a tag that gets people on the national level like, like, you know, our show or Hassan or others to pay attention to you because you know that they have that organizing infrastructure already in place as opposed to just like dropping a somebody who's to the left of another candidate in the race and being like, all right, let's see. Well, it's also the organizing structure is also how we become more aware of them. Yes. I mean, that's it.

But this is a very important point that I think, is often alighted, is that it's not a brand. The relevance of this is not a brand. It is an indication of the organizing structure. This is always the difference when we talk about this, where the way the establishment Democrats are doing this is they'll dump a ton of money in, and they will do media, and that can be effective, depending on how big of a territory it is.

But the bottom line is that, in general, progressive candidates who are running a serious campaign are doing a lot more groundwork than their opponents, and it's much more fueled by volunteers. This is, you know, broad brush. And the DSA is like one step above that because there's already a structure. There are already people who know how to do this. There are already people who've gone through other campaigns. And they have a connection outside of the state to expertise that can lend. So, for instance, I mean, Hassan is just a very good illustration of this.

He's also, you know, unique in the sense that he has a lot of, ability to move people for an individual. He's a huge factor. He's going from place to place in a way that you don't, you know, the Democrats as a the D-Triple-C has that same sort of like mechanism, but they're not used to going up against anybody who has that sort of mechanism. And that's what we're seeing here. Democratic establishment is weak.

and for the first time in a long time, there is another entity doesn't have the power outside of what they can do in terms of organizing doesn't necessarily have the money but does have the structure. And so that's what's going on here.

And so when you see a guy like Bennett lose, there is definitely a sentiment in the air. When you see a guy like John Hickenlooper almost get knocked off, there is definitely a sentiment. in the air. But the bottom line, this is not a branding thing. When we talk about the DSA in particular, it is not simply a brand. It is that the implication is you're going to have a multi-level structured institution behind you that is going to get voters up.

Exactly right. In a moment, we're going to be talking to Ellie Mistal, columnist, justice correspondent, the nation, talk about the recent superiors. Court rulings. Over the course of the past year or two, there's been plenty of times where I have not eaten particularly well. I haven't necessarily exercised. Well, I have been flowing over time, particularly last year, was rather difficult, obviously, around when my mom died and the cats died and saw I had troubles.

But the good news is. is that all during that time, I was still getting my key nutrients. You can get the peace of mind knowing you can still hit key nutrient goals with a daily multivitamin from Ritual. I love Ritual. I've told the story many times about how I used to have a problem with my vitamin D. I would go to the doctor. You'd say take more vitamin D.

I'd go buy a multivitamin. I'd take it for a month and then I'd forget. Ritual will send it to you on a regular basis. What's even better about that is ritual is easy on your stomach. So when you see your vitamins, you can take your vitamins. Instead of saying like, oh, I can't take them now. I haven't eaten anything and then you forget. Also, all of rituals of vitamins are traceable.

So you know where your vitamins are coming from, which means that you can know that there's no bad stuff in there. Ritual is essential for men is science-backed multivitamin. They have 10 key nutrients, including omega-3 DHA, which I also am super-exam. excited about because it's good for your heart and your brain. And vitamin D3, to support normal muscle and immune function. Like I say, designed to be gentle on the stomach, a minty essence in every bottle. Wow. Mm-hmm.

Instead of striving for perfect health, aim for supporting foundational health. Save 25% on your first month at ritual.com slash majority. That's ritual.com slash majority. 25% off your first month. We'll put that in the podcast and YouTube description. when we come back, Ellie Mistal, columnist justice correspondent at the nation to discuss a couple of those recent Supreme Court rulings.

We are back, Sam Cedar, Emma Vigland, on the majority report, it is always a pleasure to welcome back to the program. Ellie Mistal, columnist, justice correspondent at the Nation magazine in what is his, like, it's like Christmas, as if, but if all you got was like various different versions of coal. Yeah. I wish it was just... The nightmare before Christmas. I wish it was just coal. I wish it was just coal, right?

Cole is still useful in some ways, right? Like, I'm just getting punched in the face every day. And so is America. So, yay. All right. Well, let's start, I don't know. What? You want to start with the worst one?

The most dangerous one? The most offensive one. Let's start with the one that people are calling a win, right? Okay, yes. This is the birthright citizenship case, and I suspect you have a slightly more jaundiced take on this. Yeah, look, I am happy that the constitutional provision in the 14th Amendment that guarantees birthright citizenship that has been with us for over 150 years, I'm glad that that is still operable. However, it is operable by a five to four vote. I know that the headline says the vote was six to three,

but on the constitutional question of whether or not there is a constitutional protection for birthright citizenship, that vote was five to four. And the Republicans laid out in their dissents the exact roadmap to overcoming the birthright citizenship case. And according to them, doesn't require an amendment. So then you've got JD Vance, last night on Fox News, literally telling people, hey guys, we're only one vote away from getting rid of birthright citizenship on the Supreme Court. And he's right. Meanwhile, I got Democrats out here and be like, woohoo, we won, suck it Donald. And I'm like, did you not read the whole case? Did you not see what

they're trying to do here? This is not, this is not an enduring victory. This is a temporary setback for the crusade against birthright citizenship. And it's a, not going to stop with this case. They're going to come again and again and again until they actually get this overturned. All right. So walk us through. Like, is it a case of like they're going to come again and again and again? Is it John Roberts may get, have a heart attack and be replaced? Or is it that they are scaffolding right now their argument on how to reinterpret the 14th Amendment in a way that it's, I mean, I'm sorry, like, this couldn't be more explicit, but they are scaffolding a way in which they're going to interpret it in a different way. Can you walk us through what that scaffolding is? Yeah, it's definitely the scaffolding. They're not just waiting for John Roberts to die, although a lot of them would be happy if he died. They're not just waiting for that.

The legal turn of phrase here that they're using is this question of domiciled. They're saying that the birthrights, Citizenship protections of the 14th Amendment only apply to people who are properly domiciled in the United States of America. They are then arguing that people who are undocumented are not properly domiciled in the United States of America because they have no legal right to be here, according to them. And they're arguing that people who are on temporary status, like a work visa, are not properly domiciled in the United States of America because they're domiciled, else. Now, Sam and Emma, that argument makes no freaking sense. You are domiciled where you live and work. And in my article for the nation, I made the analogy of, imagine your family is from Michigan,

your people are from Michigan, but you've moved to Ohio now, right? You live in Ohio, you work in Ohio, but you're still root for the Wolverines because, you know, you're from Michigan. Does that now mean that you're not properly domiciled in? Ohio? Does that mean that you're not allowed to vote in elections in Ohio? Of course not. Imagine you are a renter. Okay, you're a renter. That means you're only there temporarily. You might move someday and next. You're always one rent board away from needing to find, does that mean you're not properly domiciled where you are renting? Of course not. It's stupid and ridiculous. But this is the scaffolding. So, and that, how do, so how does that now turn

into getting rid of an entire constitutional amendment. Well, you can imagine federal legislation that defines the word domicile very narrowly, very circumspect. Perhaps legislation, you're only properly domiciled if you own real property, right, in the state where you live. If they pass that kind of legislation, then conservatives have laid out the entire argument for how a lack of being properly domiciled, according now to the federal government under this new legislation,

means that we can't apply the 14th Amendment to these people. That's how they get there without actually having to pass a new constitutional amendment. Well, here's my question. And I know there's no rational answers to these other than, but where does this whole domicile thing come from? Like I get how they can like, we're going to change the definition of a word that's in there and that's the way we're going to do it. But where's domiciled? Like what?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States. Subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Like, what, who cares about whether you domiciled or not? Well, Sam, what happened was that Clarence Thomas pulled out his Ouija board. And look, I give him credit. he's got this Ouija board that allows him to commune with the people who were initially wrote the 14th Amendment. I don't have it. So I don't know what they, I'm not Ms. Cleo, so I don't know what they said.

But Clarence, he knows what they thought. And Clarence says what they really thought was this issue of domiciled. They go to, I'm literally, they go to personal letters that these people wrote to each other. they go to public they go to speeches that these people made not that they wrote down and put into the text of their amendment but they go to personal speeches that they made

and they say aha this shows that they only really cared about people who were properly domiciled that's how they think and it sounds like I'm making a joke or hyperbole but this is literally the point of originalism

there are a certain set of people conservative Republicans who claim that they and they alone know how the founders were really faking. And because they know this, they're allowed to completely change the laws and the text of what these people actually wrote down. That is actually there are. But it's important to point out, though, that in John Roberts's majority opinion, he points out that birthright citizenship comes from England and from that tradition, right? And then, of course, you have Dred Scott in 1857, and then the 14th Amendment is passed in 1868. And that was an attempt to write those wrongs and essentially say that black people are granted citizenship here in this country. And because birthright citizenship in the United States didn't deal with enslavement.

So the question is, if you're looking at the original text of it and the original context, were the slaves that gave birth to, the slaves that would have been covered under the 14th Amendment. Were they properly domiciled when they were enslaved and shipped over here? Like that's, I mean, it's a similar construction. Somebody, somebody, it's just really quick, somebody in a sub-legal status, essentially, with way fewer protections than citizens, other citizens, is being targeted by the state and saying that you don't really get to be here.

Emma, and I'm not making this up. It's going to sound like I'm making it up. I am not making this up. Clarence Thomas's actual argument here is that the slaves were properly domiciled in the United States because they had no intention to leave that once they were brought over here, this is what they say,

this is what they're actually saying, is because when they brought over here, that broke their allegiance, that's another word that they like to throw around there, where do you have allegiances, They broke their allegiance to their home countries in Africa. And since they had no longer allegiance to their home countries in Africa, the enslaved Americans were properly domiciled in the United States of America.

That's his argument. Clarence Thomas then goes further to say that the 14th Amendment should and only should apply to black people, not anybody else, not Latinos, not Native Americans, not Mexicans, not Costa Rican, only applies to black people. Ketanji Brown Jackson called them out directly on that because she said that Clarence Thomas is always talking about a colorblind constitution, but all of a sudden, now the 14th Amendment can only apply to black folks. That's a little bit of hypocrisy there. But these are the arguments that they're making. Emma, you're right that John Roberts didn't go for those arguments. Thank God. I mean, John Roberts was like, that's too far for me. And it looks like Amy Coney Barrett was with

them, although Amy Coney Barrett didn't write separately, so we don't fully know what she thinks, but she joined John Roberts's opinion in full. So, yes, that argument right now does not have five votes to support it. But, you know, I'm old enough to remember there was a time where getting rid of abortion rights didn't have five votes to support it. I remember a time when the voting, getting rid of the Voting Rights Act didn't have five votes to support it. Things change on this court. And as JD Vance, again, JD Vance, the vice president said on television last night, he thinks the Republicans are just one vote away from tearing this whole thing down. Here's also what strikes me that also, you know, it all feels like we're just sort of like

repeating like they're crazy. But there's no mention of parents whatsoever in this. This is all about the specific, it is all about the, it's not like, you know, it is like, if you had a test too, baby, and we had the technology to, um, I create a baby, uh, without a womb, a human womb, like, and it was in the United States, they'd be born here, right? I mean, or like, I mean, like, there's no, there's no. reference to the parents, the adults associated, it doesn't matter where they're from. Like, that's the thing is that this person, this baby, presumably has not properly domiciled anywhere, right? Like, they don't have any intention of going anywhere either because they don't,

they're not thinking about that. This is a good point, Sam, because what people sometimes gloss over when talking about this issue is what the. conservatives and the Republicans are really trying to do is take rights away from children who had no say in the legal documentation of their parents, who had no say in the temporary visa. They're just kids. They're kids in most cases who know no other country other than this one. And you're telling children, actually, even though you've grown up here, you've assimilated here, you don't know anywhere else, You're not really American because of something that we don't like that your parents did, in some cases years, decades before you were even born.

That is the heart of their argument. And Thomas and Samuel Alito basically say sucks to suck. Even Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh try to have some little acknowledgement that, boy, what we're doing is pretty crappy to kids anyway. But Thomas Samuel Alito were just straight up like kick him out. King him out, that's not our problem. What if a woman is in the United States and she's traveling here and she gives birth and then dies in giving birth? Right. Then that kid would be stateless according to the Republicans, right?

Right. I mean, the kid has no, has no, like what happens? We ship the kid back to France where the mom's from or something? They don't have an answer for that. And Sam, like the important thing here is that they don't care. Right. They don't care what happens to that child. They don't care what happens to the children of undocumented immigrants. They don't care. And that callousness is so baked into all of their opinions that I think it's really important that you're pulling it out here.

Because it is something that we miss a lot when talking about what their regime would actually look like. I mean, they sent over 100 people, I think, that they sent deported back to Venezuela, were just killed in that earthquake. Look, these are people who don't think that children should have a right to toothbrushes. I mean, these are callous people who happen to be running the country. And there's a larger kind of meta-conversation about what we need to do about that. I mean, it's the, you know, look, still the best article ever written about the Trump administration, is Adam swears, the cruelty is the point, right?

Like the actual cruelty is and always has been the motivating factor from that. And that is just being replicated on the Supreme Court right now. Let's talk about Mullen v. Doe since we're in the immigration space. Yes. This is the Supreme Court ruled, this was last week that on a vote to six to three, surprise. that the Trump administration can essentially revoke temporary protected status, regardless of circumstance, regardless of why it was issued, regardless of whether circumstances changed in those, like,

they just willy-nilly can revoke this. So, yeah, so, Sam, I don't know if you know this, but I am of Haitian ancestry. My father is from Haiti, so I know quite a lot about the conditions currently in the country. and I can't go back. Right. Are you kidding me? That place is scary just at the moment. Haiti does not have a government right now.

It is run to the extent that it's run by series of rival gangs. Haiti is so dangerous right now that the Haitian national soccer team, which just amazingly competed in the World Cup, could not play its soccer games in Haiti. FIFA literally wouldn't sanction soccer games in Haiti because they couldn't guarantee the safety of the players or the fans. That is how dangerous this country still is right now. And Trump revoked protected status for Haitians. And basically so we can send them all back today.

We can start immediate mass deportations of Haitians who in some cases have lived in America for 15 years. Now, I understand that the word temporary means temporary. I'm not having an issue with the dictionary right now. But the point of temporary prospective status is that it's supposed to be taken away once conditions in the home country have stabilized. And that ain't Haiti right now. Moreover, there is no law. And this is, for some of my Republican people, this is a really hard concept for them to grasp. So I'm going to say it slowly.

There is no law. that is legal if the motivation for that law is racism. None. I don't care. There's no law that should be legal and constitutional if the motivation for that law or that change or that policy or that regulation is straight up racism. Samuel Alito and the TPS decision that we're talking about, he says there's no evidence that racism motivated Trump's decision to revoke TPS status to Haitians. Are you kidding me? Have you listened to that man once? Remember, this is Haitians we're talking about. So these are the people that Trump has said are eating dogs and cats. These are people that Trump said are filthy and shiftless. These are people that Trump has said come from an shithole country. These are people that Trump has said.

That's what Trump has said. And San Samuel Alito was like, nope, don't see no racism here. Can't even imagine. How can anybody even call? all Donald Trump racist over this decision. It's unconscionable. But again, this is an issue where liberals think having the better of the argument matters in front of the Supreme Court. Here we have literally a laundry list, Elena K. Samuel Alito wouldn't even reprint what Trump said while saying that Trump wasn't racist. Elena Kagan in dissent did. but this is the problem.

Even when you have all the facts and all the law on your side, it just doesn't matter. It doesn't matter in front of the Supreme Court. Well, I will say it's going to matter, hopefully, at a time where we have some type of Supreme Court reform and people have to revisit these cases. But let me ask you this. So he says there's no evidence of racism. But is there any evidence?

Because like you say, I mean, I will add one more anecdote about Haiti. how dangerous it is there. One of the top security officials in Haiti who was literally chief of staff to the Miner of Defense was kidnapped with his family. That's how dangerous it is.

That was two weeks ago or something. But all that aside, and we've talked on this program many, many times about U.S. culpability with Haiti and also just sort of like on top of the earthquakes and whatnot, the inability to develop a civil society, both because of the coups for the United States and payments to France for 150 years, you know, of 35 percent of your GDP to pay off the fact that, like, I'm sorry, we're no longer your slaves. all that aside, where's the affirmative evidence? Like, presumably TPS has requirements.

There needs to be a natural disaster or civil unrest that makes it impossible for us for you to go back to your country safely. Where's the affirmative evidence that the state's, the assessment that was made when people were led into the country, i.e., your country's dangerous, we're going to give you temporary protected status by the U.S. government. Where's the evidence that those circumstances have changed? Is there no obligation for Trump to provide that or just simply an absence of, an absence of, you know, explicit racism that he can't find?

There was an obligation for Trump to provide it until this case, until last week. The key legal argument wasn't even that Trump was unconstitutionally racist when revoking the status. The key legal argument was that he didn't conduct the official investigation as required under the law granting TPS that Trump never did the investigation and never found the facts out in terms of whether or not Haiti was safe to go back to. What the Supreme Court said 6.3, what the Republican said is that doesn't have to. That basically anything the White House says is something that the Supreme Court has to just take on faith, and they can't question whether or not did a real investigation.

They literally... So think about it this way. On one side of their mouth, they told us that whatever Trump says has... We have to assume that it's true. And on the other side of the mouth, they said you can't ever listen to what Trump says. That those are the two dragons of the TPS case.

When Trump says that he conducted an investigation, you have to take him out his word. When Trump is racist, you have to ignore it. Well, all right, so let me ask you this. Does this mean in the future that, you know, President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is going to be able to say, we're giving everybody to temporary protected status because trust me, I did all the investigations and it's done. Or for that matter, like, hey, we're shutting down every coal plant there is because we did a test and we found according to, like, if there's no requirement for him to fulfill the obligations of the state,

statute that created temporary protected status because this isn't just an executive fiat thing. This is a, this is written by Congress. Are there any obligations of a president at any time to meet the requirements of the statute? Well, yes and no. On the one hand, yes, that means that president Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, if that should ever happen, can grant TPS to whoever she wants, right? Do you think there's going to be a president Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Because if it's not a president of what I perceive happening is the next Democratic president being like, well, I don't want to be called soft on immigration, so I'm not going to like. No, I get that. Yes. I'm just, I'm talking about the implications of the ruling. But the other issue here, and this really gets

into another case, the slaughter case, the destruction of the administrative case situation, is that there is a lot of presidential power that the court is giving to Trump. that arguably the next Democratic president will also hold. But the court is keeping something else in reserve. And that is the ability to overrule the uses of that power. Right. So they're kind of- Is that the major questions doctrine?

Exactly, exactly, right? So they're kind of saying that Trump has all this power at his disposal. But every time that Trump tries to use it, we still have the final say on whether or not the use of that. that power is appropriate or not. With Trump, they generally say, yes, his use of power is appropriate, but I promise you, when there's a president, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, when there's a Democratic president, all of a sudden, the Supreme Court will say the use of that power that we gave the president is inappropriate

under major questions, under non-delegation, under any number of things. I mean, this is like the fundamental difference between a judiciary and like, you know, a rabbi in the Stettel, who you go to and you go like, I got a donkey, and we're having an argument of my brother-in-law and whose donkey is this? And the rabbi goes, you know what, it's yours. And that's basically it. There's no, they have basically blown out all of the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, he's this is okay for you to do or not. And we have a thing called the special questions doctrine. I mean, like, honestly, it's like a joke.

The historical example I like is Charlemagne, actually, right? Because if you think about, like, Charlemagne gets crowned king of all Europe and Holy Roman Emperor. Who put the crown on his head? The Pope. Who put the crown on Charlemagne's head? The Pope. And during that period, it is the Pope that claims the authority

to say who is king and who is not, which kind of makes the Pope the king, right, kind of makes the Pope the most important person, not the king. And that's what the Supreme Court is doing. They are giving Trump kingly powers for sure, but they are the ones that are putting the ground on. We've got the authority, not the legislature. Exactly. So let's talk about slaughter. I mean, you've touched on this, but it's basically it's an extension of that.

Yeah. Trump can fire anybody you want. who works for the federal government, anybody who wants an independent executive agency, there is no ability, according to the Supreme Court, for Congress to make an independent federal agency

with its leadership protected from being fired at the whim, at the will of the presidents, except for the Fed. Except for the federal reserve. That's the one thing that's special. And if you want to understand that hypocrisy, all you got to do is follow the money, right?

If you think about the institutions that the court says Trump now fall solely under Trump's thumb, what are they? The Federal Trade Commission, which helps consumers complain about unfair business practice. The Securities and Exchange Commission, which stops bankers from insider training, the OSHA, the EPA, anything that helps consumers and the people rise up and protect themselves from corporate interests, the Supreme Court says, actually, those aren't. independent agencies, they're just whatever the president wants to do. The Fed, on the other hand, protects their stock portfolios, protects their investment funds. And so the Fed, and only the Fed, is special. And again, that is not me reading tea leaves. That is not me doing hyperbole. If you read Brett Kavanaugh's concurrence in the case, he straight up says that the reason the Fed's independence is important is because the Fed has been successful, because the Fed protects

the U.S. and global economy. That's not a legal reason. The fact that the thing is doing, what you want it to do, is not a legal reason for the thing to be protected, but it is the reason that Brett Kavanaugh cites for why the Fed should be protected and the FTC should not, and the SEC should not and the FECC should not. So you just follow the money. It's astonishing. It's astonishing because all of it, you could make a case for the efficacy of so many federal agencies that they literally just said don't have the deference to make these

determinations and yet they give unlimited. I'm restating what you said, but they give unlimited authority to the Fed and unlimited independence. You don't, you and I can make an argument that these other agencies are. effective, but you know, who can't Elon Musk, you know, who can't Peter Thiel, you know, who can't Jeff Bezos. And when the bill, it's, it's the agencies that piss off the billionaires that the Supreme Court says aren't effective or don't deserve independence, but the ones that protect the billionaires, those do deserve independence. It really just comes down to John Roberts not wanting Donald Trump to be in charge of the global economy. He wants Donald Trump

to be in charge of putting the wood to people that John Roberts doesn't like, but he doesn't want, you know, John Roberts is not a dumb man. He doesn't want Donald Trump in charge of his mutual fund. And so that's why the Fed gets protected. I got one more case to talk to you about. But, I mean, when you talk to your, like, your buddies from law school, people you went to law school with or maybe you're in touch with a couple of professors and you've gone to some conferences and you know some other. Like, it's the entire legal profession. Like, have they given up the ghost here on this?

Like, literally, we're talking about two rulings that are almost explicitly like just, I mean, it's just fiat, right? I mean, it's, there's no, it doesn't even seem to be like the, the, the loosest of pretense that we're following some type of legal reasoning. You know, Brett Kavanaugh's doctrine could have been like, it's the I'm cool. the doctrine. And that's the way I decide. Do I think this is cool or not cool? And that's the way I do it. And you still have liberals in the press treating it as if they are

coming up with some real formula here. And they're probably banking on the fact that there's no media pushback in accurately calling or not enough media pushback and accurately calling them out for this, right? I'm asking you because we both have fathers who are lawyers.

I talk to my father about this and he's like, this ruling was bad. I'm like dad, I've been telling you this for 20 years. This is the way they rule. Well, I don't know. You know, they're very smart. You know, they were, you know, he was a, they're very smart men. You know, that type of stuff.

And it's just like it's, it's like, it's like a religion. It's a little. It's like a religion. What I, what I get from a lot of people, it's, it's an, it's a lack of imagination, right? It's an inability to see that your life's work means nothing. that you're, right, that everything you know and everything you've learned means nothing. And that is a difficult thing for most people to kind of come to grips with, right? Like if you, if you see something that you cherished, if you see something that was important to you,

if you see something that you've spent your life building and defending, and you see it all go to crap, your initial reaction is not always, oh my God, everything's gone to crap. It's like, no, no, no, there's still values. here. There must still be value here because if there's not still value here, then what have I been doing in my life? Right? And so that's just a difficult thing for people to

overcome and understand, right? It's, I always think of like, you know, there was some guy as late as like 2015 still out there in Times Square selling beepers. Right? Because he invested everything he had

into beeper sales and he couldn't get, couldn't except that beepers were just, you know, there's still some people who got stock in Radio Shack, right? Like, they just can't, like, and that's the same thing. It's people who still have stock and purchase with the Supreme Court institutionalists can't get over the fact that it is what it has become. And that is just that, that, but I will say this, that's a problem that will eventually die out. I don't think people, young people coming up.

are coming up with the kind of respect and deference to the Supreme Court as even as late as my generation was given. I always say that I was at a fulcrum because my first year in law school literally was the Bush v. Gordiardier. So I went through the entirety of law school knowing that these people are paper tigers, knowing that these people are hypocrites, knowing that these people are just politicians in robes. So, you know, I went to law school during Bush v. Gore 9-11, right? So, like, it really shaped how I viewed the entire legal profession. I was not program with the difference for these people as people who were older than me. And I think people younger than me, seeing what these people have wrought, I don't think there's, there's going to be any kind of deference coming up from the millennials coming up from Gen Z for what the court is. I do think that there are a lot of conservative millennials and Gen. people who like what the court is doing. They like taking away rights from women and gay people and black people and will support the court for its outcomes. But I don't think there are a lot of young people who still believe falsely that the court

is an impartial arbiter above the political frame. All right. One more question about this before we get to that last case. And I remember distinctly, about the, I became obsessed by it, about the 2000 election and how the legal profession was sort of shocked that the Supreme Court had taken that case. But that aside, is it, and do you believe this? And does there need to be sort of like the proper narrative created so that people can accept where the court is now? Is it like beepers in that we're not going to, we're not

going back to Beeper technology, is it that metaphor? And people can't let go with the fact that like, oh, they made a, you know, they invested all this in this technology and it's completely obsolete. Or is it that like history, like we see even with the country, there are times you go backwards. There are times you go really sideways. The civilization has some very bad periods of it. And then hopefully it sort of, you know, comes back to a better state. There are certain illusions that have to get removed. It's always been like a little bit of reverse engineering for the Supreme Court justices in terms of getting to their outcomes. But we're talking about a matter of degree.

Is it a healthier narrative to say we're in a 20-year period of like, you know, like when the court and the post-requist? construction era and, you know, after FDR said, like, I'm going to, you're all going to lose your job, essentially, more or less. And then it corrected for a 50 year period. The question, I think, is whether or not people, where people are on the scale of restore the Supreme Court to reform the Supreme Court, right? Whether or not people want to build the court, like the people who understand that the court is broken right now. Do you want to fix the court or do you want to fundamentally change the court? And I am hard on the spectrum of fundamentally change the court.

We cannot go back. Going back is also bad, right? We want to go forward only twirling, twirling, twirling, and forward. Like that's that is the way. And that to me really hits on this issue of jurisdiction stripping. this idea that the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court alone is the final arbiter of what is and is not constitutional is nowhere in the Constitution. Nowhere does it say that in the Constitution. The word unconstitutional doesn't appear in the Constitution.

And this idea that the Supreme Court can literally veto acts of Congress signed by the president is a historical and ridiculous. when grafted against the world stage. This isn't how they do it in Canada. This isn't how they do it in Japan. This isn't how they do it in Germany. You don't have the high court of Germany saying, Angela Merkel, your law is wrong. That's not how it works almost anywhere else.

Our Supreme Court is overpowered when compared to other functional democracies. And if we ever want to be a functional democracy again, we have to take power away from... USA number one, buddy. Well, we'll see if Bosnia-Herzegovina has anything to say about that today. But if we ever want to be a functional democracy, again, we have to take power away from nine unelected, unaccountable politicians and robes and give that power back to the elected branches.

That's just the only way truly forward, truly. out of this situation that we find ourselves. All right. Let's look at that last case. That was West Virginia versus B.P.G. And Little v. Hecox, essentially a case determining whether states may bar transgender athletes from playing in sports in the gender that they are. or identify with, and this is a question of whether they can do so without violating Title IX or, I guess, the 14th Amendment. Yeah, so, Sam, I have come to understand that advocating for the human rights and legal equality of transgender people is a controversial position.

I understand that my views on this are difficult for some people to understand. And to those people, I say, kiss the entirety of my black ass. The idea that bigotry should be legalized anywhere in any form should be an anathema to decent Americans, right? And so when you look at this trans case, understand it is not just about or really about trans sports, which for some people just their panties get to, oh my God, a bigger girl might be a smaller girl. Like, yeah, duh, that's what happens. Sam, I can remember I was 14 years old playing varsity football practice and I got hit by a 19 year old behemoth who had been held back a year. I got hit so hard. I still have PSTD.

I can feel this guy like carving out my chest cavity. Did I get to say, hey ref, hey ref, check that man's hormones. No, I didn't because it's sports. I had to get myself up. Well, I had to go to the doctor and then get myself out. And then take the ball again because that's sports. So this is not about just whether or not people have the right to participate in sports. This is about whether or not people have the right to access their constitutional rights as provided to them under the 14th Amendment.

And what the Supreme Court said 6.3, the Title IX issue was 9-0, which is ridiculous on so many different levels. But the more crucial issue was whether or not trans women could even argue for equal protection under the 14th Amendment. And the court said 6-3, no. Folks, that is bigotry. That reduces transgender people to say, second class status to a status to a group of people who do not have access to the same

constitutional protections as you and I do simply because they're trans. That cannot be allowed. That is not okay. I do not give a damn about what you happen to personally believe about the trans issue. I don't care

if trans people make you uncomfortable. I don't care if you want to wrap yourself in your JK rolling books and pretend that none of this is ever happening. You cannot have legalized bigotry in this country and somehow think that that

is fine. It's not fine. But the Title IX piece is important also to, and a righteous rant, Ellie, the Title IX piece is really important to focus on because so many of these arguments from the conservative, both political and legal

apparatuses, focus on trans girls in particular, or trans girls in particular and girls sports in particular because they are acting as if trans people, trans girls are in some way a threat to these sweet little girls. And you see how girls and women are used all the time throughout history as props for bigotry. And you could see this particularly in the Jim Crow South to justify lynchings. But also about, you know, protecting our women from these scary immigrant groups. You see that as well. You know, what does this mean for trans?

boys because this is a way potentially to erode their rights as well, even though it's pretending like it's narrowly dealing with this question, which by the way elevates this, it says it, or they claim it violates Title IX, but they don't even deal with the fact that these sports in these schools are there as a part of an educational experience and they are violating the rights of those trans kids to participate in that shared experience. That's just a side comment that I have. No, Emma, you're right, but like this is why I was making the equal protection argument, because these decisions, these bans, these prohibitions, don't apply to trans boys. The states that have banned transgender sports, they ban transgender women from participating in women's sports,

but they don't ban transgender boys from participating in boys sports. These laws, they have literal mechanisms to check the gender of, of an athlete who looks to be too strong for the competition if they're in women's sports, but they don't have the same law to check the gender of the athlete, if they look to be a little too strong or maybe too weak in boy sports. So it is a point-and-click equal protection problem that the court just ignores. And the other, so that's one thing. And then the other thing, Emma, is that that's why I kind of go back to my own high school football.

experience. There is people are not worried about a boy, a smaller boy, a weaker boy, getting absolutely train wrecked on a field of competition.

Nobody gives a damn. Nobody gives a damn if that kid who's you know, five foot nothing, a hundred and nothing, if Rudy goes out there and gets his ass kicked, nobody cares. But if somebody's precious little girl goes out and gets her ass kicked.

By a stronger girl, it's like a national emergency. And to me, that is fundamentally sexist. That is fundamentally paternalistic. And again, it's fundamentally big in it. Just getting back on that first half of what you said there, I just want to clarify this for people. The fact that the ban only applies to trans women. and regardless of how the court,

and the court was actually, I don't know who wrote this opinion. I can't remember if it was Samuel Alito or somebody basically referred to them trans girls as boys. Thomas, Thomas literally, he did a two-page concurrence that had absolutely no law in it.

It was just he wanted to write separately to like crap on trans people. It was one of the more disgusting things that I've seen. And I've read Clarence Thomas for 29 years. And, regardless of whether he refers to them as trans girls or boys, the fact that it's different, however he perceives them,

either as boys or as trans girls, they're getting a different treatment because of their gender, regardless of what that gender he thinks it is, they're getting a different treatment than whoever is the opposite gender in his mind. And that in and of itself should trigger, the 14th Amendment. And Title IX for that matter, right? I can't emphasize this enough, Sam.

According to the West Virginia ban, they can force a girl, any girl, a trans girl, a cis girl, to drop her pants to be examined for her gender. That is a thing that the Supreme Court said was okay to do to women, but not to boys. because West Virginia has no law requiring boys to drop trow and submit themselves to a genital examination to determine their sex at birth.

That's definitionally sex discrimination. If I understand words correctly, yes. But this is, but this is the bigotry. And I just want to emphasize, like, do you hear how insane this is? like again, whatever you think about trans people and their rights and whether or not, we are living in an insane world where to protect women's sports, we're saying girls have to drop their pants to be examined, but not boys. Like what, to quote Taylor Tillman, what are we doing, man?

Just what are we doing? And I have to add, like, if you need to actually check the genitals of boys as well, you still have a problem in that you're not protecting kids by having genital inspections so that their sports are legitimate. 100% yeah, just thank you for backing me up there. Yes, that would also be wrong. I'm not saying we should.

No, but I mean, I think like it just illustrates it like we need to have real legitimacy in all sports. So at the beginning of every game, really, you got to have an official from the, the opposing team, come over, check the genitals for the boys and the girls just to make sure they look right. Do it before the coin toss. Or you do it at the same time. You do it at the same time.

Right. Maybe you just have the captains come out and you inspect their genitals and that like electricity, it applies to everybody on the team. Right? I mean, this is, this is the world that we're literally the world. that the conservatives have us living in right now. This is the movement we need to start because that's, we need to get in front of those school boards and demand general inspection of everybody, not just the girls.

I'm a missal. Not sure how we got here. Well, I do know how we got here. They're going to clip that by the way. What's that? He's screaming general inspections, not just for the girls. So you got that for R.M. Browns. sound board. Well, yeah, who knows? There we go.

Sam, you're finally going to get that invite to the Epstein class after that. There we go, exactly. See you on the island, everybody. Congratulations, buddy. Thank you. Thank you. Ellie Mistell, columnist Justice Correspondent, the Nation magazine. Always a pleasure. Thank you so much. We will link, of course, to your pieces on these and more. Thanks again, Ellie. Thank you so much for your time for having me. Thanks, Ellie.

All right, folks. On's beans, IAM's, look at my penis. I have a feeling I just got set up for another arm brown. I think you did. I think you did. Yeah.

Do you guys read those before you? Sometimes no. Always no. Read ahead. Almost always no. In case, unless it's like. It was four words. Yeah.

Yeah. I don't do that. I'm not afraid. Yet. Pro censorship, Matt, over here. Yeah, exactly. Sorry, Dad.

I mean, are standards the same thing as censorship? Yes. I guess. This is Elon Musk's America. Someone's going to get the majority IM files and blow this whole thing apart. Folks, it's your support that makes the show possible. You can become a member of join the Majority Report.com.

When you do, you know, I get the free show. free of commercials, but you also get the fun half. You can I am the show. You can set us up so that we get clips that make us look odd or whatever it is. Also, don't forget, AMquicky, amquicky.com. Three days a week, you get email in your inbox from two great writers with all the day's news from a progressive perspective.amquicky.com. Check out our merch shop. Follow us on on all of the socials, give us a like on YouTube. Give us your subscription on Twitch. There's all sorts of different ways you can say,

I enjoy the show. I want it to continue. I want it to survive and thrive. And also, of course, justcoffee.coop, fair trade coffee, hot chocolate. Use the coupon code majority. You get 10% off. You can get the majority report,

majority report blend. I'm sorry, I got distracted because I just saw an I am that said, I need to tell RICO ad about Ken Paxton's penis inspections yesterday. Matt, what's happening in the Matt Leckian Media universe? Yeah, New Life Reckoning. Yesterday, we talked about the promise to America from centrists and how they want to make sure everyone knows that they love America and growth and want to balance a budget, which is really exciting to hear.

So check out that. And we also talked with Juan David Rojas about Colombia's return to the right wing after a brief leadership and left. So many of those promise to America, Democrats were a part of the 22 that voted just yesterday against Rashida Tlaib's resolution to restrict the U.S. from helping Israel ethnically cleansed Lebanon. Oh, yeah, no, I really like the posture they take of, you guys are making it hard for us to win elections. And meanwhile, they're the people who want us to continue supporting Israel, who is making it harder to win elections.

Oh, also, I should tell you that if you were a member, you would be able to stick around and watch the fun half. Tim Heideker will be here. Is that how you say his name? Is it Tim, what is it? You messed the bit up by pronouncing it correctly immediately. I know, I did. Damn it. All right.

Nothing to work with. I know it. See you in the fun half rethink your defense of that, you fucking idiots. We're just going to get rid of you. All right. But dude. Dude. Dude. Dude.

Dude. Uh, you want to smoke this joint? Yes. Do you feel like you are a dinosaur? It's good shit. Exactly. I'm happy now. It's a win, win, win. Uh, hell yeah. Now listen to me.

Two, three, four, five times. Eight, four, seven. 906.501.447. 2.38. 56. 27. 1.5.5. 8s. 3.9 billion. Wow. He's the ultimate math. Don't you see? Why don't you get a real job instead of steering vitriol and hatred you left wing limbaugh?

Everybody's taking their dumb juice today. Come on, Sammy. Dance, dance, dance. Ooh.

Rand Paul. I had my first. first post-coital scene with a woman. I'm hoping to add more moves to my repertoire. All I have is the dip and the swirl. Fine, we can double-diff. Yes, this is a perfect moment. No. Wait, what?

You make under a million dollars a year. You're scum. You're nothing. Excuse me? Fuck you. You fucking liberal elite. I think you belong in jail. Thank you for saying that, Sam. You're a horrible, despicable person. All right, going to take a quick break. I'll take a moment to talk to some

of the libertarians out there. Take whatever vehicle you want to drive to the library. What you're talking about is jibber jabs. Classic. I'm feeling more chill already. Donald Trump can kiss all of our asses. Hey, Sam. Hey, Andy. You guys ready to do some evil?

Hitler was such an idiot. You think I might be a Nazi? Agree. No. Death to America. Do Yes Wow

Wow That's weird No way Unbelievable This guy's got a really good hook Throw our hands Wow But Sam I gotta get off

No worries Let's let's I want to just flesh this out a little bit I mean look It's a free speech issue If you don't like me Hey, hey, hey, hey, shut up. Thank you for calling into the majority report.

Sam will be with you shortly.