In a major victory for President Trump, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Obama administration's ban on birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. Will Chamberlain joins host Alex Blumberg to talk about this and much more. Plus, the Culture War Live event at The DC Comedy Loft featuring Michael Malis and Angry Cops.
00:02:20.000In a massive victory for President Trump, the Supreme Court has ruled these universal injunctions, they're out of there, which effectively clears the path for his blocking of birthright citizenship, which is going to be massive.
00:02:33.000These universal injunctions were blocking every single thing he was trying to do.
00:02:38.000These district court judges were just saying, like, nah, Trump can't do this, Trump can't do this.
00:02:44.000Katanji Brown Jackson, her dissent on this was so shockingly stupid that basically all the other justices were like, she has literally no idea what the law is or how law functions.
00:02:57.000And it was kind of surprising to see them insult her as such in their opinions.
00:03:02.000So like they were really needling her.
00:05:06.000I'm senior counsel of the Article III Project fighting to confirm Trump's nominees now, I guess, to the bench.
00:05:12.000And I'm also just recently now the new vice president of the Edmund Burke Foundation, rather, which runs the National Conservatism Conferences.
00:05:20.000And it's always good to be with you guys.
00:05:22.000And we planned this, that we knew SCOTUS was going to issue these major legal rulings.
00:05:26.000And so we got long ways out, we were like, we're going to have Will Chamberlain on this day when SCOTUS says, actually, it's just luck.
00:05:33.000I walk up to Will and I was like, did Lisa plan for you to be here because we knew SCOTUS was going to be having these huge rulings?
00:06:02.000Supreme Court curbs injunctions that blocked Trump's birthright citizenship plan.
00:06:07.000President Trump called the ruling a monumental decision in remarks after the court split along ideological lines on his plan to end automatic birthright citizenship.
00:06:17.000So the way this is being framed, and I think it's, depending on how you want to write it, the Trump administration decided to appeal this on the grounds that universal injunctions are unconstitutional and shouldn't be allowed, not whether or not he's allowed to block birthright citizenship.
00:06:34.000And the Supreme Court said, yeah, these universal injunctions are bunk.
00:06:39.000So those that are not familiar, every single time Trump does something, there's these lower court judges.
00:06:55.000Or I mean, I at least was familiar with what was happening.
00:06:58.000Trump, the solicitor general, I believe, is arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, said the problem with universal injunctions, one of them, is that he's like, we enacted an executive order and a district court judge put an injunction on it.
00:07:14.000We filed an appeal and the appellate court said, stay the injunction.
00:07:20.000But right after they did, a different district court judge put an injunction.
00:07:27.000Democrats can literally have 677 attempts to stop the actions of the executive branch, which is insane.
00:07:35.000So my question for you, Will, is does this mean let loose the hounds that basically all of all these injunctions against everything Trump was going to do are voided For now?
00:07:45.000No, I mean, not every injunction is a nationwide injunction binding non-parties.
00:07:51.000The nationwide injunctions they levied against Trump that are still currently in effect, are they effectively like frozen or not working?
00:07:57.000I think basically all of them are going to, there's going to be a motion for reconsideration filed by the DOJ in any case where there's a nationwide injunction.
00:08:05.000They're going to update them and say, well, given the current, the latest Supreme Court ruling, this is no longer a lawful injunction.
00:08:12.000You need to tailor it down to the name parties in the case.
00:08:15.000Just to clarify, let loose the hounds.
00:08:53.000But when you have to certify a class, you have to have a representative plaintiff whose claims are common to all the other class members, typical.
00:09:04.000And there's all these procedural protections so that, you know, because you're binding non-parties, and it's really good for the admin because if they ever win and a class gets certified and they win, all the other people who might want to bring suit, they're precluded from doing so.
00:09:44.000To due process requires that, you know, if you're going to bind them, that you have to be justified in doing so.
00:09:49.000And so it's, you know, whenever you think about, think about those coupons you get in the mail for a class action settlement where it's like, you know, you bought olive oil and it was mislabeled or something.
00:10:14.000I mean, and I'm sure many people in the audience have.
00:10:16.000I mean, almost everybody has gotten some sort of class action notice for something.
00:10:21.000But the idea is that in order to do that, there's a whole process plaintiff's lawyers have to go through to certify the class to get the right to represent all these people who aren't in court.
00:10:30.000They basically have to demonstrate that due process allows it.
00:10:33.000So basically what happens is Trump says something like, from now on, if you're a man, you can't go in a woman's prison.
00:10:40.000And then two trans people file a suit and a lower court, district court judge just says, from now on, all men everywhere are allowed to go into a men's prison.
00:10:57.000And so what ends up happening is you get this argument that, wait, wait, wait, wait, but all men everywhere did not sue and are not part of the same group.
00:11:05.000It is these two specific male individuals.
00:11:08.000And so they put a universal injunction on Trump's policy, and then they keep putting men in women's prison.
00:11:13.000Or another example would be the Trump saying trans people that are exhibiting symptoms will be discharged.
00:11:21.000I think it was a medical discharge, or I'm not sure if it was other than honorable or something.
00:11:25.000And Trump's executive order was, if you are diagnosed with gender dysphoria but not exhibiting symptoms, you're fine.
00:11:35.000But if you are exhibiting symptoms, meaning you're trying to dress like the opposite sex or you're undergoing surgery or medical treatment, you're out.
00:11:42.000Like three people sued, and then a judge said, literally anyone suffering from any, literally anyone for any reason must be allowed to enlist in the judge's ruling saying, all means all, which was the most psychotic thing I've ever heard.
00:12:02.000And the joke that emerged on X was that a bipolar paraplegic now must be allowed to enlist in, you know, in, for infant con, I'm sorry, for combat infantry.
00:12:14.000Yeah, so that's a situation where it would be tricky to certify a class because on the one hand, you could say that the question they have in common is whether the administration can do this at all, whether the administration can put any place any kind of rule.
00:12:26.000But then on the other hand, if you come to the conclusion that the administration has some leeway here, then the question is, how does any one individual whose symptom, is any one individual symptoms identical to anybody else's?
00:12:38.000And then that creates a question of whether it's difficult to hold everybody together in a class, because to hold everybody in a class, generally people have to be injured in the same way and suffering the same damages and have the same, and don't have individualized facts that make them different from everybody else.
00:12:53.000Have there ever been a class action suit involving like an actual protected class?
00:12:59.000There's racial discrimination in class actions.
00:13:02.000You can certify a class of, I mean, a good example of this would be, I think, you know, there were class actions in the 50s when, say, a school was saying no black students.
00:13:13.000Like then all the student, all the African-American students could say, or somebody, an African-American plaintiff could say, I want to represent a class of all African-American students.
00:13:21.000We're all injured in the exact same way.
00:13:23.000We're just not allowed to enroll in the school because of this discrimination.
00:13:27.000You should certify us as a class and grant an injunction, forcing them to admit all black Americans.
00:13:32.000So you foresee if the Supreme Court says, yeah, you can't just, one judge can't just say no, and it's illegal everywhere, Trump.
00:13:41.000You see more class actions now arising?
00:13:43.000And I think there will be a class action in the birthright.
00:13:45.000I mean, as we've said, there's already been some class actions filed.
00:13:48.000My guess is that a class action will get certified in the birthright citizenship case because this is a circumstance where the injury is, if you, in fact, is the same, right?
00:13:56.000It's parents who are illegal aliens not able to grant citizenship to their children here.
00:14:01.000And that's basically the, you know, resolve it for one, you resolve it for everybody in the same way.
00:14:05.000I think the Republicans have a tremendous opportunity here on the birthright citizenship question in that they can set this argument up so that any way you cut it, either you end birthright citizenship Or you end abortion?
00:14:17.000I mean, that's an interesting point, too, right?
00:14:19.000Because I think the way that they want to certify this class is going to include people not yet born.
00:14:24.000And so if they can be legitimate plaintiffs, it's already the argument.
00:14:28.000The ACO has already made the argument, citing a woman whose father is not a citizen and who is unborn and concerns over whether citizenship will be granted.
00:14:47.000The Republicans could theoretically, or I should say the Trump administration could theoretically set an argument up where Democrats either have to argue logic in such a way that if they win, then abortion will be legal.
00:15:06.000Well, I think the logic follows because it's hard to say that if an unborn person has standing and can be, you know, essentially a member of a class, then why couldn't an unborn person have the protection of the 14th Amendment?
00:15:21.000They'd have to make it the like, it'll be interesting to see how the Democrats argue this or the liberals, that they're going to say, members of our class are those who have just been born.
00:15:52.000No, I mean, if I were in their shoes, I'd still contest it to try and make it so that it actually, you know, creates a leads to an opinion based on a contested argument.
00:16:00.000And if you get a holding, you know, if they decide to hold that, yes, unborn members, unborn humans can be members of a class, then it's going to be very challenging to keep abortion legal.
00:16:23.000Groups opposed to Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship are attempting to find new avenues to block it.
00:16:28.000So as we were just discussing in the previous segment, basically, they've made an argument for the unborn here, which sets them up in a really interesting position in that many conservatives are already saying, how can you argue for the rights of the unborn while simultaneously arguing that they can be killed whenever the mother decides?
00:16:48.000I think, yeah, it's the same thing I said just a few seconds ago.
00:16:57.000My personal take on this, which is not no one asked, but it's that I think the baby should be treated as the mother until the baby is born of the mother and then no longer attached to the mother.
00:17:06.000If the mother's illegally here, then the baby's illegally here.
00:17:08.000So, you know, are you saying the mother wants to have an abortion?
00:17:22.000Exploiting a loophole against Trump's executive orders.
00:17:25.000The American Civil Liberties Union, oh, they're saying the ACLU is doing it, are now filing a class action against the president's plan to restrict birthright citizenship.
00:17:33.000The lawsuit charges that the Trump administration is flouting the Constitution, congressional intent, and long-standing Supreme Court precedent, and requests an emergency restraining order.
00:17:41.000The case is filed in the U.S. District Court, New Hampshire, on behalf of a proposed class of babies, subject to the executive order.
00:17:49.000Every court to have looked at the cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional.
00:17:54.000The deputy director of the ACLU's immigrant rights project, Cody Wofsey, says in a press release, the Supreme Court's decision did not remotely suggest otherwise, and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child.
00:18:57.000Like every single human of a certain age.
00:19:00.000Yeah, I mean, it's tough to base it by just age like that.
00:19:04.000You can't say, oh, everyone that is a citizen or everyone that's under X age is a class, but then once they're over that age, they're not when the context is immigration because they're either illegal immigrants or they're not.
00:19:20.000Or their birthright citizenship is in question or it's not because of the conditions of their birth.
00:19:48.000Seeks to represent the following proposed class.
00:19:50.000All current and future persons who are born on or after February 2025, where the person's mother was unlawfully present in the U.S. and the person's father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or the person's mother's presence in the U.S. was lawful but temporary, and the person's father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, as well as the parents, including expectant parents of those persons.
00:20:18.000I mean, I think it makes that it reflects the arguments being made by the executive order, right?
00:20:24.000Basically, the executive order says if you're not the child of a citizen or a legal permanent resident, then you're not, then you don't get citizenship.
00:20:32.000And so this class, I think, is properly worded in the sense that it's just covering everybody born after the date the executive order was issued who is not the child, who is born in the territory of the United States, but not the child of a citizen or legal permanent resident.
00:22:14.000My argument still, however, is that if you were to make an argument to the government that we should be granted something based on this class of persons, who, by the way, we can kill whenever we want, it's kind of like, hold on there a minute.
00:22:42.000They go before the judge and they're all pregnant and they say, we demand the rights of our babies be protected and we are filing on their behalf because they can't represent themselves.
00:23:59.000I think that actually is the real argument here.
00:24:01.000I think the real argument is that this class, you know, I didn't really think about this hard, but I think this class has to fail because I don't think non-persons can be...
00:24:40.000Well, so why do they use the lowercase P and the word person here?
00:24:43.000Because there's the uppercase P, which I see in legal documents indicating this is the legal definition of the word person.
00:24:48.000And then you see the lowercase P just generally talking about people.
00:24:52.000Well, is that, I mean, generally when something is in uppercase, it's like it's a defined term within that brief, right?
00:25:01.000Like, so class representative plaintiffs would have a meaning for the person of the brief.
00:25:04.000And propose class, you'll see that in caps.
00:25:06.000So when they later say propose caps, class, rather, they're referring back to the same thing.
00:25:10.000This is pretty funny that they literally said future persons because as you've stated already, this is somewhat like there's this, there's a guy and he's got his gametes and their gametes, they've not yet met, but there's a future person at some point who has legal standing despite not even being conceived of.
00:25:34.000And I think that, you know, I didn't used to think that because I thought, oh, well, everybody's injury is kind of the same, but if they're assuming on behalf of the children and not the parents, the parents are the existing, you know.
00:25:44.000The only legal issue I suppose they could state with this class action then is if the court rules in favor of the class minus potential people, it would only be grandfathering those in now.
00:26:14.000It's tricky, but it does actually mean that it's very, very tricky for a district court judge to grant full, you know, grant class-wide relief here.
00:26:23.000The Trump admin can, what if they come out and they go to the court and say, we concede future persons, future persons are a class that exists.
00:26:35.000And that means the unborn are legal persons.
00:26:37.000I mean, I'm not sure that works because it's not one of those things that might be concedable in the sense that the judges just might not allow it, right?
00:26:46.000I'm saying if the Trump admin came out publicly and said, we agree that future persons have legal standing, ACLU, your move, and they'd be like, they're not.
00:26:58.000Well, it's more like the Planned Parenthood people would call up the ACLU furiously and be surprised they're not.
00:27:02.000I'm not surprised they're not already on the phone with them.
00:27:07.000But even if future persons was meant to apply to only those future persons, they could have just said, they could have just said all who were born on February 20th or after.
00:27:21.000No, that's still the same argument, whether they said future persons or not.
00:27:24.000But what they're basically saying is, even if their argument was just, there is a baby just at three months who we want as part of this class, they're arguing that they have legal rights to be represented for.
00:27:39.000If that's the case, right now, every pro-life group should try and represent the exact same class of people and say, we believe that all current and future persons should have their lives protected under the law as any other persons.
00:27:55.000And if future persons is such a class, you cannot kill them.
00:27:59.000Oh, could you imagine if they were like, if people started saying future persons are a class and then a woman who wants to get pregnant gets attacked or murdered, they'll be like, it was a double murder for the potential possible kid she might have had.
00:28:11.000I mean, can you imagine that rabbit hole?
00:28:21.000You know, from this point, like, there's already incongruity with the personhood of unborn babies when it comes to, you know, if you murder the mother and you can be charged with double murder, but it's not an actual life until it's born, or it doesn't have any rights until it's born, or the mother can kill it until it's born.
00:28:40.000So I think that this is probably going to be something that'll, that'll at least coincide with those kind of issues, you know?
00:28:57.000They've either lost birthright citizenship or they've lost abortion.
00:29:02.000I don't know what exactly Trump did, what the administration did that they're trying to push back against.
00:29:07.000They said that people that are born here to immigrant parents or illegal immigrant parents, they're not American citizens if they're born in the U.S., if their parents are here illegally.
00:29:25.000Those people are considered citizens because they're born inside the United States.
00:29:29.000The argument the Trump administration is making is that those parents, because they're not illegal, or because they are illegal, the child is not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
00:29:40.000That's the key clause in the 14th Amendment that prevents basically anchor babies, right?
00:29:45.000The whole point of the 14th Amendment was to make sure that slaves and children of slaves were considered citizens.
00:29:51.000It was never intended to make sure that anyone that could get to the shores of the United States and have a baby meant that that child would be a citizen.
00:29:59.000So would this retroactively take away citizenship from kids that have already been born, or is this just any kids after?
00:30:15.000That's why the class is only including people born after February 20th.
00:30:19.000So it's basically got two, there's two circumstances in which you will not be a citizen.
00:30:24.000When the mother was unlawfully present in the U.S. and the father was neither a U.S. citizen nor lawful permanent resident when the person was born.
00:30:30.000When the mother was in the U.S. in a temporary status, just student visa, work visa, tourist visa under the visa waiver program, and the father was neither a U.S. citizen nor lawful permanent resident when the person was born.
00:30:41.000So it states that these provisions are only effective for people born 30 days or more after the date of the order.
00:30:47.000It would have only applied to children born beginning February 19th.
00:30:51.000So he signed that right when he got into office on the January 20th.
00:30:55.000It was one of the first executive orders he signed.
00:31:13.000Like, this is, you know, this is the rule for citizenship in most countries.
00:31:18.000So I think it's around like 40% of countries of the world have what liberals will call birthright citizenship in an effort to defend, but they actually have restrictions like you can't just show up and have a kid and you're a citizen.
00:31:32.000But typically countries confer citizenship upon you when you're born because your parents are citizens or you are qualified or something.
00:31:40.000And then what you end up getting is these liberal organizations in the U.S. say, see, they have birthright citizenship.
00:31:45.000And you're like, yeah, except for all these things that exclude people who are just there as tourists or they're illegally, things like that.
00:31:52.000I mean, to be honest with you, I don't know.
00:31:55.000I don't have a sense of how the court is actually going to come down on the, you know, the anchor baby essentially argument.
00:32:02.000I genuinely hope that it is, there's something that clears this up because if you go by original intent, which not saying that the SCOTUS is going to go by original intent or that the whole SCOTUS goes by original intent, but if you go by original intent, like I said earlier, the idea that you could just come here and have a child on the shore,
00:32:22.000you know, when you just arrived and that child becomes a citizen, and that means that you and your spouse and then under current law, your entire extended family get preferential treatment when it comes to immigration.
00:32:39.000Yeah, if a mom, if like a woman in 1812 landed on a boat on the western coast of California with a baby or then gave birth to a baby and like walked into town with it and she spoke Spanish, no one's going to treat those people like citizens.
00:32:53.000They're de facto not citizens to the country.
00:32:56.000If they don't speak the language and they're foreign and it doesn't matter where the kid was born, even though maybe legally she could argue for it.
00:33:02.000But if she doesn't have documentation, how's she going to argue that the baby was even born here?
00:33:06.000My favorite circumstance that I'd love to hear the Supreme Court answer is, if it is true, I bet this will come up when they actually argue birthright citizenship.
00:33:15.000If it is true that anyone born here for any reason, at any point, is a citizen, what's to stop a Chinese woman, proud member of the Communist Party, coming to the United States on a three-month tourist visa, just about six months pregnant.
00:33:31.000Right before she leaves, she gives birth and the baby is granted U.S. citizenship, but a day later flies back to Beijing, where the child is raised as a super soldier in the Chinese Communist Army's People Republic, Was it the PRC or sorry?
00:35:00.000And then when he wins, he starts eroding the national security of the country, giving away secrets to China.
00:35:06.000And then China attacks and blows up a bunch of industrial control systems, totally disabling the United States and their ability to wage war.
00:36:17.000It holds that children of legal permanent residence get citizenship, but there's never been a holding on birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens.
00:37:18.000We were talking about this last night.
00:37:19.000You know, like, you see what happens in New York and you're like, there's nothing wrong with New York that disenfranchising the residents wouldn't solve.
00:37:27.000What about people that buy their way into citizenship?
00:37:30.000So maybe it's service, but you're like, community service.
00:37:34.000Well, like, what if I have a machine that can do it really fast because I had money to buy that machine and now I get citizenship really quick?
00:37:49.000Two years of me letting my machine do all my work for me.
00:37:51.000Yeah, so you own a business and you have staff that maintain that machine and you are paying for the maintenance of it, providing that service to the community for two years.
00:37:59.000That's more expensive than just you digging with a shovel.
00:39:22.000You would be operating the excavator, maintaining the machinery, paying for its maintenance, fueling it, and you would have to do 10 times the work for the community than the average person with a shovel.
00:39:35.000Or I would pay a guy to do the work for me.
00:40:30.000I like the idea of encouraging people to become civilly aware and active to vote.
00:40:33.000And I also kind of like the idea of forcing people to become civilly aware to vote, but I don't like making people take tests to acknowledge that they understand to vote.
00:40:41.000And I don't know what service actually means.
00:40:45.000So we got to be, because if I can game it, you got to watch out because they will.
00:41:27.000You think a frail, 100-pound, soaking, wet, gaunt commie is going to be able to withstand a beating?
00:41:33.000I mean, they just might not realize they'll need to.
00:41:36.000Or like, they might, they might think they're up to it.
00:41:38.000I mean, think about all those Prowboys videos where you have like this gaunt 100-pound guy going up against like a guy who clearly lives and getting knocked, clocked out.
00:43:20.000Is that literally what they do in Israel?
00:43:22.000Not quite, but it's sort of the underlying part of the rationale for why people in the West Bank, for example, don't get to vote in Israeli elections.
00:44:31.000Seriously, the U.S. can drop 10,000 robot dogs with full auto rifles mounted on their backs, and they will own everything around 40.
00:44:41.000Look at just the way the drones are operating in the Ukraine war, right?
00:44:46.000You've talked about how you have to have a person to stand on a street corner to enforce the law, or you have to have humans in an area of operation to occupy territory.
00:45:00.000Honestly, drones make it so drone, drone pilots and drones can make it so that way you actually don't need infantry the way that you used to.
00:45:09.000Yeah, well, I want to, Iran is a really interesting case because I think people were like, oh, obviously this regime change can't possibly happen here because there are no boots on the ground or there's no like a military.
00:45:19.000And I thought about it for a second and it's like, what happens if you have total air superiority and total intelligence dominance?
00:45:25.000Well, you can do what Israel was doing, which is like you can just drone strike every leader of the country.
00:45:36.000They got the guy who became the new leader of Hezbollah got drone striked.
00:45:39.000I think the third guy who became the new leader of Hezbollah got drone striked.
00:45:43.000And finally, the fourth guy signs a humiliating ceasefire.
00:45:45.000I think that's sort of eventually the guy who gets thrust into the hot seat unwillingly is like immediately calls up the Israelis and is like, what do you want?
00:45:53.000Look, there's like – And like you said, the fourth guy is going to be like, ah, no, I'm changing everything.
00:46:11.000What regime would you like us to have?
00:46:33.000So that means over nighttime, we're talking potentially five full days where a robot dog is inoperable, but it could reactivate in emergencies.
00:46:42.000This means that in order to have a full rotation, you're going to want to have at least seven robot dogs, one for emergencies, where that will leave you with one active robot dog at any given time in a certain area, while the rest are down charging in sunlight.
00:46:57.000I would want to get them out of there when they're offline because I think they'll get stolen if you leave them sitting around.
00:47:04.000If there are two machine gun-armed robot dogs guarding the other five at any given moment, no one's touching them.
00:47:11.000That's the point of the math I just did.
00:47:14.000If you have a full rotation where we airdrop robot dogs, the bare minimum would be about seven for one area that requires for for one for one post.
00:47:24.000Now, you're likely going to want maybe 30, depending on how many, how large the area is.
00:47:31.000You might need 30 of them to fully secure it.
00:47:33.000That means you're going to need 210 robot dogs to have a fully autonomous, not to mention they run out of bullets, but they could probably carry, I don't know, robot dogs could probably carry between 60 and 90 rounds, I'd imagine.
00:48:47.000I sent you the video over X. Finally, I'm not as interested in the ones that you have to point because they're going to come from every direction.
00:49:47.000*Sounds of the wind* *Sounds of the wind* *Sounds of the wind* *Sounds of the wind* *Sounds of the wind* *Sounds of the wind* *Sounds of the wind* We'll be
00:50:46.000They said that the blue pulse they added was the graphic, the CGI, but the drones actually falling are what is an actual demonstration.
00:50:56.000I think just like we go through our houses and we have to clean our houses once in a while, and every once in a while you get a mosquito infestation.
00:51:56.000Its design incorporates high-performance directional antennas within a sturdy rifle-style frame, ensuring durability while maintaining a lightweight profile.
00:52:21.000It's a novel by Neil Stevenson that I think anybody interested in drones should read.
00:52:24.000It's a 1995 novel, but he foresaw a future, you know, reasonably near-future world, like maybe 100 years in advance or something, where everybody, basically, drones are this really, really important thing, like super small microscopic drones.
00:52:37.000And so to protect from like people attacking you and just poisoning everybody with like tiny mosquito-sized drones, you have your own anti-drone swarms.
00:52:46.000And so it seems pretty prescient 30 years later with drone warfare going on.
00:53:12.000He's got a Cryptonomicon, which is about cryptography and World War II.
00:53:20.000He's got a really cool action gun but high-tech novel called Ream D. The Diamond Age or A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer is the actual title of it.
00:53:32.000Yeah, because there's like a high-tech primer that you give to a young, that is adaptive, kind of anticipating AI, actually.
00:53:42.000If you have never read Neil Stevenson, I highly recommend him.
00:53:44.000His novels are really, really interesting.
00:53:46.000I think these pulse weapons, these EMP denial weapons are going to be, the drones eventually are going to get built in EMP shields where they get blown out.
00:54:09.000So think about the diameter required to block a microwave with a Faraday cage.
00:54:16.000I'm going to say it out loud, but the shape of the shield will let air in to fly, and then you couldn't have a point is the holes are really small for microwaves.
00:54:25.000So I don't know that you can create proper airflow if you've shielded the whole drone in a Faraday cage.
00:54:31.000If you make the holes too big, the microwave wavelengths pass through easily.
00:54:40.000Theoretically, you could create a reflective shield with no holes that stops the EMF from getting to certain areas, but that will restrict your own communication with it.
00:55:03.000So when we start building larger drones that fly using jets, so you can have an entire Faraday shield with intake on top and jets on the bottom.
00:55:17.000Nothing's going to get through, and it's going to fly with internal jets instead of propellers.
00:55:35.000So what we've seen already with dudes that fly, they have little jet engines on their hands, those little tiny engines.
00:55:40.000You could easily make drones that fly using jets instead of propellers.
00:55:43.000Propellers require a lot more space for up and down.
00:55:46.000You need the air to be able to exhaust in a larger space, harder to shield.
00:55:50.000And if they're vacuumed out and they're lighter than the air around them or they have buoyancy, you could use ion thrusters and jets to get them off the jets.
00:55:57.000No, we don't have those, at least as far as we can tell.
00:56:57.000So you get the propeller to shoot them up into the sky and using the momentum into the low orbit, you get the ion thruster to keep them from going too far and then guide them and then bring them back down and the propellers kick back on.
00:59:47.000Libby Emmons writes: Katanji Brown Jackson's DEI is showing in her dissent against nationwide injunctions.
00:59:55.000She writes: Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court on Friday opposing the concept of nationwide injunctions.
01:00:01.000Those decisions that a judge makes in one case in one state that then apply to countless standing and potential cases across the United States.
01:00:08.000Justice Katanji Brown Jackson offered a dissent, but in so doing, quote, is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent.
01:00:17.000You know, Margaret versus Madison, right?
01:00:19.000The very first case that established the notion of judicial review.
01:00:22.000That was a case in which Chief Justice Marshall said that what Thomas Jefferson did was unlawful, but the court did not have the jurisdiction to force him to change his action.
01:00:34.000Like the concept that the judicial branch cannot remedy every example of executive branch lawlessness has been in the Constitution since the notion of judicial review was enshrined in our law.
01:00:51.000So here's Amy Cody Barrett from the top rope.
01:00:54.000She basically says, KBJ here, you're so stupid your opinion isn't worth addressing or wasting ink on refuting.
01:01:00.000She says, we will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.
01:01:38.000It says, it's supposed to, it's a joke.
01:01:42.000This is the joke dissent from Jackson, who writes, I dissent with unyielding indignation from the majority's acquiescence to the petitioner's counsel's outrageous inquiry into my morning repast during oral arguments.
01:01:54.000A question, how would your honor feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning?
01:01:58.000That is wholly devoid of legal relevance and constitutes an egregious affront to the dignity of this court.
01:02:04.000Such an impertinent question, lacking any nexus to the multitudinous constitutional issues before us, threatens to erode the independence of this tribunal by subjecting justices to trivial interrogatories better suited to a morning talk show than a court of law.
01:02:18.000In fact, I had already stated that I had eaten a full breakfast.
01:02:21.000I would hold that such questions do nothing to serve our democracy.
01:02:24.000And I admonish all litigants to refrain from such inquiries on pain of sanctions, preserving the sanctity of this court's proceedings, from the specter of any breakfast-related frivolity.
01:03:01.000She said, the Trump administration is both power-hungry and lawless.
01:03:06.000The majority sees a power grab, but not by a presumably lawless executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution.
01:03:14.000Instead, the majority, the power-hungry actors are the district courts.
01:03:18.000District courts, however, have been acting with impunity under the Trump administration both in this term and his first by relentlessly blocking administrative prerogatives across the country based on the perceived merits of just one case.
01:03:29.000She basically says that Trump is power-hungry and lawless and believes that gives her the authority and the district courts to have power over the executive branch, which is just plum nuts.
01:03:40.000And then it was Amy Coney Barrett that was like, this is just plum nuts.
01:03:42.000And you're saying she was referencing the 220-year?
01:04:04.000Well, justice, the reason they're being the sharp with her, which is normally the court tries to be at least collegial in public, the reason they're being the sharp with her is because her dissent is obnoxious.
01:04:14.000Like there's there's a point in her dissent where she's like, you know, using weight for it.
01:04:27.000And I mean, let's find the entirely unprofessional.
01:04:29.000While you're looking, just so you guys know, Justice Kajenti Brown Jackson has spoken more words during oral argument than any other Supreme Court justice in the 22, 23 term.
01:04:37.000According to an analysis by Adam Feldman, she spoke a total of 36,500 words, which is 12,000 more than the next most talkative justice, Elena Kagan, and almost 30,000 more words than the justice with the fewest words, Claris Thomas.
01:04:57.000I mean, you start with, I pulled up her dissent, and the first paragraph is this.
01:05:02.000I write separately to emphasize a key conceptual point.
01:05:05.000The court's decision to permit the executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.
01:06:00.000It has her opinions, nothing to do with any of the actual, you know, the what's it called?
01:06:10.000So this is her first paragraph, or which paragraph is it?
01:06:13.000It's literally the first, it's the very first paragraph, the dissent.
01:06:16.000I agree with every word of Justice Sotomiera's dissent.
01:06:19.000I write separately to emphasize a key conceptual point.
01:06:21.000The court's decision to permit the executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued, and not yet sued, is an existential threat to the rule of law.
01:06:31.000You're saying that the court is decision-that is judicial supremacy, because what that's saying is not the point of standing is to cabin the power of the court to cases and controversy.
01:09:08.000Literally, judges can be impeached for what exactly?
01:09:10.000I think we should investigate her citizenship into naturalism deport.
01:09:13.000I mean, if you can literally impeach a judge for going haywire, 50, I was telling you guys before the show, 50 years of this woman, and I don't even know her, but 50 years of this kind of piss poor dissent is bad.
01:09:44.000You're saying in Israel, the courts can, what, arrest the president for- They can reverse any governmental decision if they deem that decision to be unreasonable.
01:11:17.000But it's actually, you know, this is a terrible decision.
01:11:20.000It's not good that we have somebody on the court that clearly has this little understanding of American constitutional law.
01:11:25.000Like, she has no business being in the court.
01:11:27.000But the good thing, I guess, from a conservative perspective is she no longer has any ability to persuade any of the remaining justices of the court to join her on any opinion.
01:11:57.000That was when Texas sued, citing original jurisdiction, saying Pennsylvania was in violation of the Constitution by altering the terms of their election outside of the state legislature.
01:12:06.000And the Supreme Court was like, oh, we don't want to get involved in that.
01:12:10.000Clarence Thomas and Alito were like, we need to answer this question.
01:12:50.000She used to be able to pull like Kennedy, I think.
01:12:52.000And it was always because she was able to reason together with them under their premises.
01:12:58.000Like this opinion from Jackson and the way that six justices were willing to basically call her an idiot.
01:13:04.000Like you don't understand constitutional.
01:13:05.000So it's going to be like, yo, people are going to be like, hey, what is, or the SCOTUS justices are going to be like, what is Jackson saying?
01:13:22.000And that's not good for a liberal justice in the dissent in the middle.
01:13:26.000No, especially considering the makeup of the court now with six justices that are generally, you know, generally have good legal reasoning and are not ideologically possessed the same way.
01:13:37.000The conservative justices are all very, very smart.
01:13:39.000That's something I'll say about every single one of them.
01:14:21.000I mean, and, you know, basically the respondents in this case basically were trying to say, well, there's this example of an aggregate piece of litigation and the opinion is like, yeah, which became the modern class action, which is the point.
01:14:34.000Like by ducking out of the class action, you create this circumstance where every plaintiff gets like, you know, even, you know, basically the government has to win every single time and can only, but they lose once and they lose, period.
01:14:52.000Oh, yeah, there are the principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our case on equity.
01:15:01.000Justice Jackson, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever.
01:15:08.000That might be meaner than the other thing we said, because this is something, you know, startling.
01:15:14.000I was saying this backstage, but if a lawyer or a judge calls your argument novel or innovative, they're insulting you.
01:15:40.000We're not even sure exactly what she's arguing, but to the extent we can make sense of it, it's a...
01:15:46.000Rhetoric aside, Justice Jackson's position is difficult to pin down.
01:15:50.000She might be arguing that universal injunctions are appropriate, even required, whenever the defendant is part of the executive branch.
01:15:56.000If so, her position goes far beyond the mainstream defense of universal injunctions.
01:16:01.000As best we can tell, though, her argument is more extreme still, because its logic does not depend on the entry of a universal injunction.
01:16:10.000Justice Jackson appears to believe that the reasoning behind any court order demands, quote, universal adherence, at least where the executive is concerned.
01:16:19.000In her law-declaring vision of the judicial function, a district court's opinion is not just persuasive, but has the legal force of a judgment.
01:16:30.000In other words, they are writing rather eloquently exactly what we were saying before, that Justice Jackson is basically saying, if the Supreme Court says, so shall it be.
01:16:52.000Not the actual saying, this person won, you are ordered to do X, Y, or Z. It is anything appearing in a district court opinion, which is not precedential, right?
01:17:01.000Because district courts don't make precedent.
01:17:03.000So anything appearing in a district court opinion is said, so shall that be as well.
01:17:19.000Just for fun, I'm curious as to like, how are the ways that you could imagine things going bad if Justice Jackson were correct?
01:17:29.000If Justice Jackson were correct, we would no longer have a meaningful democracy.
01:17:35.000Supreme Court would be the governing authority of the country.
01:17:39.000Actually, the entire judicial branch would be the governing authority of the country.
01:17:42.000Every single executive decision would be subject to immediate review regardless of anybody who was even injured.
01:17:48.000So this goes, again, this is basically we get the Israeli system.
01:17:52.000Well, but there's, you know, you're just, there's the sovereign court and everybody below it.
01:17:56.000But let's just take it beyond the, let's not make it light.
01:18:01.000Let's say there would be no executive branch.
01:18:05.000It would, it would still be it, but it would be a bit more formative.
01:18:08.000So, you know, the here's an example of what something that could happen.
01:18:14.000President Trump moves some troops around and is preparing for war, and there's some news reports.
01:18:19.000On their own initiative, the Supreme Court issues an order saying the president must stop and return those troops here until we can review the potential military action.
01:18:32.000At the utmost, what she's saying could be, upon any instance, for any reason, the Supreme Court can determine literally anything in this country, meaning your government would functionally be a judiciary with nothing else.
01:18:55.000They would say, upon fact in review of foreign affairs, we are hereby issuing an order that the president begin to amass troops on the eastern border of Ukraine, or you know, the eastern border of Poland to mount an offensive into Ukraine and defense, and then the president must do it.
01:19:11.000And then at the local level, there is no legislative, a state legislator or city council only judges.
01:19:18.000So then, when a law is to be passed, the judges will decide whether it is or is not.
01:19:23.000Yeah, this is we got judge, jury, and executioner.
01:19:26.000That's the phrase, and that's how it functions in reality.
01:19:28.000And then in the government, we have the judicial branch, the jury branch, which is the legislative branch, and then the executioner, the executive branch, which carries out whatever, the decision.
01:20:13.000Basically, what she's saying is, if the judiciary shall speak it, it shall be.
01:20:18.000Meaning, right now, what would happen?
01:20:21.000Well, we can argue right now, they would start taking power, changing laws.
01:20:27.000The theoretical full function of her argument is it is a nation where if people in a city are having an issue with, say, sewage problem, instead of there being a meeting where the people come to decide, the judges will convene and tell you what you must do about this problem.
01:20:45.000Let's say someone says, we've had a string of cybercrime.
01:21:38.000If a judge in the District of Alaska holds that a criminal statute is unconstitutional, can the United States prosecute a defendant under that statute in the District of Maryland?
01:21:47.000Perhaps Justice Jackson would instinctively say yes.
01:21:50.000It's hard to imagine anyone saying no, but why on Justice Jackson's logic does it not violate the rule of law for the executive to initiate a prosecution elsewhere?
01:21:59.000Among its many problems, Justice Jackson's view is at odds with our system of divided judicial authority.
01:22:05.000They're going to say it is also in considerable tension with the reality that district court opinions lack precedential force, even vis-a-vis other judges in the same judicial district.
01:22:19.000Under current law, like if you, you know, there's multiple judges here in West Virginia.
01:22:23.000If one judge reasons something, a district judge just reasons something, comes to a reasoning, uses reasoning to come to a conclusion and issues a judgment.
01:22:31.000Other judges are not bound by that reasoning.
01:22:33.000They can reason differently on the very same.
01:22:34.000She's like, oh my, like the degree of stupidity.
01:22:38.000So we have circuits and we've gone over this many times where it's like, did you hear that Arizona, the whatever circuit just ruled that you can have this kind of gun?
01:22:48.000And then we go, whoa, does this mean everyone in the country?
01:22:51.000No, it was only in that circuit and it would have to go up to the higher courts if it's going to go into wider wider wider effect of the nation.
01:24:08.000Do you imagine that she is embarrassed right now?
01:24:11.000Like knowing how the world is like, how the United States and essentially all the political world in the U.S. is looking at her and to have been excoriated so thoroughly by her co-justices.
01:24:25.000And having no support from anyone else.
01:24:43.000Now, furthermore, the people that are defending her, they're almost all defending her, saying that, oh, the people that are attacking her are racist.
01:24:52.000Correct me if I'm wrong because I didn't read the whole thing, but it looks like the actual dissent is on the basis of birthright citizenship, not the injunctions.
01:24:59.000Well, I think the argument I think the dissent is making is that they're sort of making this argument that the birthright citizenship case is so clean that there's no probability of prevailing on the merits.
01:25:21.000She's just, she's just literally inventing some stuff out of thin air, going and spitting in the face of hundreds of years of unbelievably basic constitutional precedent.
01:25:29.000That's not, as, as the majority says, it's not what this dissent is doing.
01:25:48.000Then everyone else is like, actually, here's our opinions on the dissent.
01:25:51.000Is it normal for then her to come back and be like, well, here's my opinion on your opinion?
01:25:54.000Or is at that point they just stay silent?
01:25:56.000They discuss, they send opinions back and forth to each other.
01:25:59.000There's like, this is the product of months of work and back and forth responses.
01:26:03.000That's why the majority opinion is responding to dissent and vice versa.
01:26:06.000That's why it's so shocking that this actually made it to that this sees the light.
01:26:10.000I mean, it really is impressive how, I mean, you don't normally see stuff like this.
01:26:15.000You don't normally see opinions this way.
01:26:16.000Do you think she would just imagine like the eight other justices are sitting at the desk looking at Katanji Brown Jackson, whose eyes are kind of like half closed, and they're like, Katanji, don't press send.
01:26:58.000Several years ago, when they were nominating Katanji Brown Jackson, she secretly meets with Trump and he's like, everyone's going to hate you.
01:28:25.000Maybe she got like, we were stinging them for a while.
01:28:28.000I mean, they really, they were playing a lot of games, the Shadow Docket, where they were, you know, not giving cert to obvious Second Amendment cases and then dropping everything at a moment's notice to like handle an illegal, you know, an illegal Alien Enemies Act case down in Texas.
01:28:43.000So I think, I, I think they took a little bit of a beating from organizations like the one I'm a part of and decided that maybe they needed to be a little more.
01:30:10.000So when you get a Ketanji Brown-Jackson and she's a W, you know, she hires an X. Yeah, she's probably extraordinarily insecure on that court.
01:30:18.000That's actually a good point because she's just not – Well, this ought to help.
01:30:23.000Well, I mean, didn't Joe Biden say that he was going to nominate a black woman for justice?
01:31:12.000And I mean, I think Sree could have been, I think Sri might have, could have been an option over Sodomayar, but certainly Sree could have been an option over Katanji Brown Jackson.
01:31:22.000And Sri would be this nightmare for us because he's not on our team, but he's also brilliant and would be able to sway a Roberts and a Barrett.
01:31:31.000Dude, Joe Biden's not brilliant enough to think of those things.
01:32:24.000I don't know if you guys covered his confirmation hearing, but he had this incredible line where Dick Durbin asked him: it's like, what do you think of President Trump's pardons on January 6th?
01:32:34.000And he said, it's not my place to comment on President Trump's pardons in the same way.
01:32:37.000It wouldn't be my place to comment on President Biden pardoning drug traffickers and death row inmates.
01:32:44.000And all Durbin did was just kind of shrink at the end of that.
01:32:48.000You mentioned that if a Democrat was in the presidential seat, I think you were mentioning saying the president, that maybe they would resign.
01:32:59.000You know, you try and bully her into giving up her seat.
01:33:01.000Like as the president, sorry to interrupt, but as the president, you would go through and be like, look, that's not happening in the next three years.
01:33:07.000I just, I don't think they probably can because she's, again, it's the DEI problem, right?
01:33:11.000Like she got the position because, you know, like, you're literally going to say she can't have the position because she didn't have merit?
01:33:17.000Well, she didn't get the position based on merit.
01:33:19.000She's not going anywhere for at least three years.
01:33:21.000And if a Republican wins after Donald Trump, she will not go anywhere for those four years.
01:33:28.000Donald Trump is going to likely to appoint one more justice during this time.
01:34:10.000I mean, I think there's a reason that the Federalist Society folks aren't as involved with advice on judicial nominations this come around.
01:34:39.000There's a Heller case when Kavanaugh was on the D.C. circuit, Heller II, the D.C. circuit tried to interpret what the Supreme Court did narrowly, and he wrote a very, very strong opinion that kind of foreshadowed what the Supreme Court would eventually do in Bruin, which was basically say that you can't just ban concealed carry.
01:34:59.000But he also said that I'll oversimplify it.
01:35:03.000It is okay for states to make difficult permitting processes for going on gun.
01:35:09.000He said you have to issue the permit, but.
01:35:14.000And he didn't say it like this, but he basically said they can make it extremely difficult, nigh impossible.
01:35:22.000I mean, I'm being a little mean, but so the issue was that New York has extremely circuitous systems in place to make it hard to get a gun.
01:35:36.000So the ruling was good in that states like New York could no longer deny it.
01:35:40.000But he effectively said New York is still, of course, allowed, as is anyone, to create their own permitting process, which New York, of course, made it particularly difficult to actually get through.
01:36:24.000I would call the government, and they would always give me something different.
01:36:28.000And I guess technically the shall issue argument is you're allowed, like you can't do that.
01:36:36.000But the permitting process of Jersey itself took a long time, fingerprints, getting a special license, making it extremely difficult for the average person to do.
01:36:44.000And the only way to get a concealed carry is if you're rich or famous in New Jersey.
01:36:54.000So it was a good ruling, but it was like...
01:37:01.000I don't know if it was he wrote in agreement or whatever, but I remember there was an issue where everybody was like, Kavanaugh basically ruled that they can have their permitting processes even if they're cumbersome.
01:39:21.000Who said that they want to hear him in the next the next session, which so it would be nice to have them do this because assault weapon bans are just bans on semi-automatic rifles.
01:39:32.000Magazine bans are clearly unconstitutional.
01:40:03.000Change the Second Amendment if you think it should be the case.
01:40:06.000And maybe after some crackpot builds a small nuclear bomb in his backyard, the states might come to ratify an amendment that says, yeah, no nuclear weapons.
01:40:14.000But what I don't like is this nation and the Constitution has always just been whatever we decide it is.
01:40:21.000And that means we don't actually have a written constitution.
01:40:25.000When they ratified the Constitution, there were still blasphemy laws in the books.
01:40:28.000They were in force for 100-plus years.
01:40:57.000It says the right to keep in bare arms.
01:40:58.000It doesn't define what those arms are.
01:41:01.000And if your argument is nukes are clearly beyond the scope of what they meant, then the liberals were right the whole time.
01:41:07.000And that means that machine guns, full auto, 50 BMG, all of that can equally be argued as to being beyond the scope of the Second Amendment.
01:41:42.000No, because this is actually interesting.
01:41:44.000At first, a few years ago, I said it is wrong that after you get out of prison as a felon, you still can't have a gun if you have Second Amendment.
01:41:52.000And instantly, one of our tremendous super chatters said, Tim, your rights under the Constitution can be curtailed through due process, meaning you may have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but if you commit a crime, we can take those rights away from you.
01:42:05.000And if the determination under the law through legislation is that we can take away your due process right to own a gun upon conviction of a crime, that actually fits with the standard we have in this nation.
01:42:53.000Wasn't there a Supreme Court case on this that basically looked at whether non-violent a classification of is violent felony codified in law as violent felony?
01:43:03.000I mean, it's, I think, in the way in the Second Amendment jurisprudence and in other places too.
01:43:07.000I'm pretty sure this is a case of the Supreme Court.
01:43:09.000We've had a bunch of people chat saying things like they committed fraud when they were 19 and now they can never own a gun again.
01:43:16.000And it's like, you know, we've had people chat say, when I was 20, I stole a car and, you know, and now I'm 43 with a family and I'm not allowed to own a gun.
01:43:25.000And it's like, okay, that's a little egregious.
01:43:28.000You know, at a certain point, you should get your rights back.
01:43:30.000Maybe there's got to be a mechanism by which we rectify that.
01:43:35.000Rahimi was the in the United States versus Rahimi, the Supreme Court clarified that the standard for assessing the constitutionality of firearms regulations, emphasizing that modern restrictions must align with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
01:43:47.000However, the court also indicated that individuals who pose a credible threat to public safety, such as those under domestic violence restraining orders, may be subject to a gun ban.
01:43:54.000So yes, Rohimi is that's under Rohimi.
01:43:56.000The felony gun ban is not restricted to violent felonies, any felony.
01:44:05.000The Supreme Court hasn't ruled yet, but it says that lower courts are split on the question of whether or not nonviolent, it's allowed to permanently disarm nonviolent felons.
01:44:13.000I don't think even violent felonies should be permanently disarmed.
01:44:24.000So violent crimes should have a set of years by which you can have a gun.
01:44:28.000And so let's say you commit an aggravated robbery and we say you're going to get five years for that, after which you can't own a gun for an additional five years.
01:44:35.000Instead, they say, we're giving you a life sentence to never be able to keep in bear arms again.
01:45:00.000I think it should be like the idea that we would sentence someone to a life of a stripping of their rights on, say, like, let's say you get a violent felony in that you got in a bar fight, punched a guy in the head, he fell back and died.
01:45:37.000I just, I view it as, I mean, first off, as, you know, Brohini, if I remember Brohini correctly, it was like, yeah, the sort of laws that restrict the rights of violent criminals to own guns have been with us since the founding.
01:45:49.000They were around when the Second Amendment was enacted, and everybody understood them to be constitutional then, like even in the presence of the Second Amendment.
01:45:55.000You know what's really funny about 1789 is that, you know, you're living in New York or whatever and you get convicted and they say, you can't own a gun anymore.
01:46:04.000And then you go walk 50 miles south, say your name is Rick Bigsby, and you can own a gun again.
01:46:11.000I mean, sure, you know, de facto, but like du jure still matters.
01:46:14.000Like what the actual law was still matters in terms of understanding.
01:46:18.000It matters in terms of understanding what when people read the Second Amendment, what did they understand it to mean at the time?
01:46:25.000My point is just back in the day, when they said you couldn't vote, you could literally, you know, go on a few days trip to another area, change your name completely, and just rewrite your life.
01:47:02.000He says, Texas SB25 or the Make Texas Healthy Again bill just passed, which requires daily exercise in schools and warning labels to be placed on any food with additives that are banned in other countries.
01:47:26.000I'm a strong believer that making the Congress bigger will just make it more and more impersonal and impossible to manage.
01:47:36.000And will ultimately, again, it will just increase the amount of, ultimately increase the amount of power that leadership has because there's so many people that organizing a rebellion against leadership will just be impossible.
01:47:46.000What do you think about like a direct representational democracy where we, you know, one guy represents 700,000 people, but instead of that guy saying yes or no to a bill, the 700,000 people in the district vote yes or no, and then you take the majority of those 700,000, and that's the vote that goes through.
01:49:18.000Normally, to get past the filibuster, there's a very limited things that are allowed to get past the filibuster and go through the Senate with 50 votes.
01:49:25.000And so some of the things in the House bill are just not getting through.
01:49:27.000Okay, so the Republican Senate should just nuke the rules and release.
01:49:31.000That's what Harry Reid did that ended up with.
01:49:33.000But it's not, I mean, the big reason that the Big Beautiful bill is good is because it's massively increasing funding for immigration enforcement.
01:50:33.000He said, the president's going to call me, and he's going to be yelling at me for about an hour or two, and then I'm going to agree to vote for it.
01:50:41.000I mean, but I just remember the first term, and we were fighting tooth and nail to get funding for the border wall.
01:50:47.000Remember the national emergency debate?
01:50:48.000We were trying to get money reallocated.
01:50:50.000And this bill, which everybody is just like takes for granted, funds it all like 10x what we need, which is good because it means that we won't have to go back and ask for more money in the event that things take longer than we think.
01:51:02.000Yesterday, I was having this debate with the libertarian guy, and I said that we should, if Zoran Mamdani attempts to in any way obstruct federal law enforcement on immigration, the DOJ should bring seditious conspiracy charges against him and his cohorts.
01:51:21.000Which states, if any two people conspire, among other things, to delay law enforcement, it is a seditious conspiracy.
01:51:28.000I mean, seditious conspiracy might be too aggressive, but certainly there are laws about you're not allowed to obstruct ICE agents in the performance of their duties.
01:51:55.000Zoran Mamdani says in his campaign, he will, he says, protect on city-owned property and city-leased property, protect people from deportation.
01:52:06.000That's more than just saying, I'll stand back and refuse to cooperate.
01:52:11.000Yeah, like if he gets in the way of federal law enforcement, that's a crime.
01:54:32.000Scuba Education video says, why doesn't anybody ever bring up that selective service registration is required for men, even for illegal aliens?
01:54:38.000When one does not register, they've broken federal law.
01:56:50.000So basically, in Black Panther 2, she's recruited as a good guy to help.
01:56:57.000So the story is she develops a vibranium detector, which nobody thought was possible because she's a genius.
01:57:03.000So the Namor and his people, whatever they're called, want to kill her because they're like, her detector is going to find us because we have vibranium.
01:57:15.000And so then they bring her to Wakanda to protect her or whatever.
01:57:18.000But then in Ironheart, she's just selling MIT technology on the black market because she wants money because, you know, she needs it.
01:57:55.000They got a hacker who can check on the security systems.
01:57:58.000So there's this woman, and she's this wealthy magnate who created a tunnel system where cars can move through Chicago much more quickly by going down and zipping through the city.
01:58:21.000Riri goes in, implants a virus to the USB, hacker then takes over the system, the car freezes, and the bad guy, the hood, will then de-invisible himself in the car and force her to sign a contract paying them six-figure salaries.
01:59:29.000The contract could be made to make sense if the contract is actually a deal with Mephisto, a demon in the Marvel universe.
01:59:39.000However, because these ultra-wealthy people didn't address the absurdity of signing a contract, it doesn't really work.
01:59:45.000It would have actually been pretty good writing if he goes, he breaks into this rich guy's house and then they're like, what do you want, money?
01:59:51.000And he goes, I want you to sign this contract.
02:04:01.000All right, everybody, smash the like button.
02:04:03.000Share the show with everyone, you know.
02:04:05.000Thanks for hanging out in this Friday night.
02:04:07.000I know it's a summer Friday night and everybody's out partying, but you guys are hanging out with us and it means the world to me and to everybody here.
02:04:13.000So follow me on Axe and Instagram at Timcast.
02:04:15.000Will, do you want to shout anything out?