Timcast IRL - Tim Pool - SCOTUS Rules For Trump, INJUNCTIONS Blocked, Birthright Citizenship MAY END | Timcast IRL

00:02:20.000 In 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.

00:02:33.000 These universal injunctions were blocking every single thing he was trying to do.

00:02:38.000 These district court judges were just saying, like, nah, Trump can't do this, Trump can't do this.

00:02:42.000 Now, here's the funny thing.

00:02:43.000 This is where it gets wild. 0.99

00:02:44.000 Katanji 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. 0.98

00:02:57.000 And it was kind of surprising to see them insult her as such in their opinions. 0.98

00:03:02.000 So like they were really needling her.

00:03:05.000 So that's the big story.

00:03:07.000 There's also a major victory for parents that want to opt their kids out of LGBTQ studies. 0.76

00:03:11.000 We'll talk about that.

00:03:13.000 And it's the big news.

00:03:14.000 We'll get into a little bit more about this.

00:03:16.000 Trump says he may strike Iran again.

00:03:18.000 Israel may do it. 0.92

00:03:19.000 We don't know.

00:03:21.000 Before we get started, my friends, we got big news.

00:03:23.000 The Culture War Live will be Saturday, July 26th, August 2nd, and August 9th.

00:03:31.000 These are at the DC Comedy Loft, Washington, D.C. Get your tickets now.

00:03:36.000 Link in the description below.

00:03:37.000 Or just go to DC, excuse me, DCcomedyLoft.com, and you'll see us in the events page.

00:03:43.000 Now, we've not formalized next month's event, which is July 26th.

00:03:47.000 We're still waiting for some confirmations.

00:03:49.000 But August 2nd, we have Michael Malice and Angry Cops hosted by me and Alex Stein.

00:03:54.000 And it is the great cop debate.

00:03:56.000 Cops, good, bad, what's it going to be?

00:03:59.000 And of course, Michael Malis, anarchist.

00:04:01.000 Angry cops, a literal cop, but they're both absolutely hilarious.

00:04:06.000 So this is probably going to be the funniest and most fun event we do.

00:04:10.000 Granted, I don't want to settle short our other two events, but make sure you pick up your tickets at the DC Comedy Loft website.

00:04:16.000 They're going for about 30 bucks, I think.

00:04:18.000 We do have preferred seating.

00:04:20.000 They're slightly more expensive.

00:04:21.000 And for members at Timcast.com, members of our Discord, there are 30 free dedicated first-come, first-serve tickets.

00:04:28.000 You can get them at Timcast.com.

00:04:30.000 And those are probably going to be gone in two seconds, to be completely honest, but those are for our members.

00:04:34.000 And don't forget, check out CastBrew.com because ladies and gentlemen, Josie's 1776 signature brew is live. 0.61

00:04:42.000 We're calling this flavor American Cream.

00:04:45.000 It is a creamy flavor.

00:04:47.000 It's basically Boston Cream, but we call it American Cream.

00:04:50.000 And this is Josie, the Redheaded Libertarians Signature Blend, available now at castbrew.com.

00:04:56.000 So smash that like button, share the show with literally everyone you know.

00:05:01.000 Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is Will Chamberlain.

00:05:04.000 Great to be back, as always.

00:05:06.000 I'm senior counsel of the Article III Project fighting to confirm Trump's nominees now, I guess, to the bench.

00:05:12.000 And I'm also just recently now the new vice president of the Edmund Burke Foundation, rather, which runs the National Conservatism Conferences.

00:05:20.000 And it's always good to be with you guys.

00:05:22.000 And we planned this, that we knew SCOTUS was going to issue these major legal rulings.

00:05:26.000 And 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.

00:05:33.000 I 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?

00:05:39.000 Nope, just perfect timing.

00:05:41.000 So you should claim that you did.

00:05:43.000 They talked about prosecutorial immunity and abolishing it last night.

00:05:46.000 So I'm glad you're here because you came into my mind last night while I was watching the show.

00:05:49.000 And I'm Ian Crossland.

00:05:51.000 Happy to be back for my great journey.

00:05:53.000 Tell me about yours, Phil.

00:05:54.000 My name is Phil LeBonke.

00:05:55.000 I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band, all the urbanes.

00:05:57.000 I'm an anti-communist and a counter-revolutionary.

00:05:59.000 Let's get into it.

00:05:59.000 Here's a story from NBC News.

00:06:02.000 Supreme Court curbs injunctions that blocked Trump's birthright citizenship plan.

00:06:07.000 President Trump called the ruling a monumental decision in remarks after the court split along ideological lines on his plan to end automatic birthright citizenship.

00:06:17.000 So 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.

00:06:34.000 And the Supreme Court said, yeah, these universal injunctions are bunk.

00:06:39.000 So those that are not familiar, every single time Trump does something, there's these lower court judges.

00:06:44.000 What are there, 677?

00:06:46.000 So, that's not right.

00:06:48.000 So, basically, you had this scenario.

00:06:50.000 They had oral arguments on this, and it was actually pretty fast.

00:06:52.000 Did you listen to the oral arguments when this was going down?

00:06:54.000 I think so.

00:06:55.000 Or I mean, I at least was familiar with what was happening.

00:06:58.000 Trump, 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.

00:07:14.000 We filed an appeal and the appellate court said, stay the injunction.

00:07:20.000 But right after they did, a different district court judge put an injunction.

00:07:25.000 So you have 677 judges.

00:07:27.000 Democrats can literally have 677 attempts to stop the actions of the executive branch, which is insane.

00:07:35.000 So 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?

00:07:45.000 No, I mean, not every injunction is a nationwide injunction binding non-parties.

00:07:49.000 This is what I mean, right?

00:07:51.000 The nationwide injunctions they levied against Trump that are still currently in effect, are they effectively like frozen or not working?

00:07:57.000 I 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.

00:08:05.000 They're going to update them and say, well, given the current, the latest Supreme Court ruling, this is no longer a lawful injunction.

00:08:12.000 You need to tailor it down to the name parties in the case.

00:08:15.000 Just to clarify, let loose the hounds.

00:08:16.000 Yes.

00:08:16.000 So, yeah, no, this isn't, I mean, it's an incredible ruling for the Trump administration.

00:08:21.000 It's, you know, really, it brings the law fair and really constrains the ability of all the leftists to go after Trump.

00:08:28.000 And it also, it means we're going to see a kind of a revival of the class action device as a way of doing aggregate litigation.

00:08:35.000 And I mean, I did class action litigation when I actually practiced law.

00:08:38.000 And it's a lot harder to certify a class.

00:08:40.000 Like you don't just get the judge to be like, you, the administration can't enforce this law anymore against anybody.

00:08:45.000 If you want.

00:08:46.000 That's what they were doing.

00:08:47.000 That's exactly what they were doing.

00:08:48.000 And it's what Judge Justice Jackson was really insistent that they ought be able to do.

00:08:52.000 Yeah.

00:08:53.000 But 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.

00:09:02.000 They're an adequate representative.

00:09:04.000 And 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.

00:09:19.000 And so you can't get this run racing.

00:09:22.000 Just to clarify, if a class does sue and wins, someone else who may have been party to that class can't sue?

00:09:31.000 Well, I mean, the idea is that the class, a class doesn't sue, right?

00:09:35.000 An individual sues on behalf of a class.

00:09:37.000 Right.

00:09:38.000 Okay.

00:09:39.000 And those other class members aren't there.

00:09:41.000 They're unnamed class members.

00:09:42.000 They aren't represented.

00:09:44.000 To due process requires that, you know, if you're going to bind them, that you have to be justified in doing so.

00:09:49.000 And 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.

00:09:56.000 I got one for a sports drink once.

00:09:58.000 There you go.

00:09:58.000 Right.

00:09:59.000 Like a good example.

00:09:59.000 They sent me a check for like $17.

00:10:01.000 Right.

00:10:02.000 That's a product of a class action lawsuit.

00:10:04.000 You weren't there.

00:10:04.000 You didn't have your lawyer there, you know, fighting for your $17 claim.

00:10:08.000 That's not what happened.

00:10:09.000 Wouldn't have been economical.

00:10:11.000 I think it was sent to me without me asking.

00:10:13.000 Right.

00:10:13.000 Yeah.

00:10:13.000 I don't think I cashed it.

00:10:14.000 Yeah.

00:10:14.000 I mean, and I'm sure many people in the audience have.

00:10:16.000 I mean, almost everybody has gotten some sort of class action notice for something.

00:10:21.000 But 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.

00:10:30.000 They basically have to demonstrate that due process allows it.

00:10:33.000 So 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.

00:10:40.000 And 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.

00:10:51.000 Yeah, that doesn't work.

00:10:53.000 Not unless he certifies a class first.

00:10:55.000 But so this was before.

00:10:56.000 Yeah.

00:10:57.000 And 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.

00:11:05.000 It is these two specific male individuals.

00:11:08.000 And so they put a universal injunction on Trump's policy, and then they keep putting men in women's prison.

00:11:13.000 Or another example would be the Trump saying trans people that are exhibiting symptoms will be discharged.

00:11:21.000 I think it was a medical discharge, or I'm not sure if it was other than honorable or something.

00:11:25.000 And Trump's executive order was, if you are diagnosed with gender dysphoria but not exhibiting symptoms, you're fine.

00:11:34.000 You can stay in the military.

00:11:35.000 But 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. 1.00

00:11:42.000 Like 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.

00:12:02.000 And 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.

00:12:13.000 There you go.

00:12:14.000 Yeah, 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.

00:12:26.000 But 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?

00:12:38.000 And 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.

00:12:53.000 Have there ever been a class action suit involving like an actual protected class?

00:12:58.000 Like a race?

00:12:59.000 There's racial discrimination in class actions.

00:13:02.000 You 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.

00:13:12.000 That would be a good example.

00:13:13.000 Like 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.

00:13:21.000 We're all injured in the exact same way.

00:13:23.000 We're just not allowed to enroll in the school because of this discrimination.

00:13:27.000 You should certify us as a class and grant an injunction, forcing them to admit all black Americans. 1.00

00:13:32.000 So 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.

00:13:39.000 You can't ever do it.

00:13:41.000 You see more class actions now arising?

00:13:43.000 And I think there will be a class action in the birthright.

00:13:45.000 I mean, as we've said, there's already been some class actions filed.

00:13:48.000 My 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?

00:13:56.000 It's parents who are illegal aliens not able to grant citizenship to their children here.

00:14:01.000 And that's basically the, you know, resolve it for one, you resolve it for everybody in the same way.

00:14:05.000 I 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?

00:14:17.000 I mean, that's an interesting point, too, right?

00:14:19.000 Because I think the way that they want to certify this class is going to include people not yet born.

00:14:24.000 Exactly.

00:14:24.000 And so if they can be legitimate plaintiffs, it's already the argument.

00:14:28.000 The 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.

00:14:37.000 But hold on there, gosh darn minute.

00:14:40.000 You're arguing for the rights of an unborn. 0.92

00:14:43.000 Well, then we got to ask about all the other rights.

00:14:45.000 So the Republicans.

00:14:47.000 The 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.

00:15:05.000 I'm sorry, it will be illegal.

00:15:06.000 Well, 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?

00:15:21.000 They'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.

00:15:33.000 Right?

00:15:33.000 Yeah.

00:15:34.000 But it also.

00:15:34.000 I think I actually read what the lawsuit did, and I think it's both born and unborn, right?

00:15:39.000 Right.

00:15:39.000 I think it is unborn.

00:15:40.000 In which case, instantly, the Trump administration need only argue, ask the question, okay, can you kill the unborn? 0.99

00:15:49.000 Yes. 0.71

00:15:49.000 Okay, well, then what rights have you at all? 0.71

00:15:52.000 Yeah.

00:15:52.000 No, 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.

00:16:00.000 And 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.

00:16:09.000 Let's pull this up.

00:16:10.000 We have this from the Sun, New York Sun.

00:16:12.000 ACLU files class action to bypass Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship.

00:16:17.000 They say, oh, actually, they say nothing.

00:16:18.000 I'm going to pass this.

00:16:20.000 Because it's paywall.

00:16:21.000 It's paywall.

00:16:23.000 Groups opposed to Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship are attempting to find new avenues to block it.

00:16:28.000 So 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?

00:16:48.000 I think, yeah, it's the same thing I said just a few seconds ago.

00:16:52.000 You can't.

00:16:54.000 You can't be consistent at all.

00:16:55.000 Yeah.

00:16:56.000 Totally agree.

00:16:57.000 My 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.

00:17:06.000 If the mother's illegally here, then the baby's illegally here. 0.72

00:17:08.000 So, you know, are you saying the mother wants to have an abortion?

00:17:10.000 She has to commit suicide? 1.00

00:17:12.000 No, I hope they didn't. 0.99

00:17:13.000 All right.

00:17:14.000 Well, let's read it.

00:17:15.000 They say exploiting a possible loophole in a Supreme Court decision.

00:17:18.000 I love how they wrote that.

00:17:19.000 What a loophole.

00:17:19.000 That limits sweeping universities.

00:17:21.000 This is insane.

00:17:22.000 Exploiting a loophole against Trump's executive orders.

00:17:25.000 The 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.

00:17:33.000 The lawsuit charges that the Trump administration is flouting the Constitution, congressional intent, and long-standing Supreme Court precedent, and requests an emergency restraining order.

00:17:41.000 The case is filed in the U.S. District Court, New Hampshire, on behalf of a proposed class of babies, subject to the executive order.

00:17:49.000 Every court to have looked at the cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional.

00:17:54.000 The 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.

00:18:06.000 So here's what's interesting.

00:18:09.000 I wonder, do you know if the actual filing is publicly available?

00:18:13.000 Let me see if I can get it.

00:18:14.000 I think it is.

00:18:14.000 I assume the ACLU put it out there.

00:18:16.000 Because I'm wondering what their class is going to be.

00:18:20.000 Because what if Trump just says, what's that?

00:18:22.000 Your class in this class action are going to be babies potentially subject to the termination of birthright citizenship.

00:18:28.000 Okay, I'm going to revoke citizenship from 12-year-olds, toddlers. 1.00

00:18:34.000 What is the qualification to be for class?

00:18:36.000 And can Trump simply say, okay, I'll concede that one, or while we're fighting that one, I'll target two and up.

00:18:42.000 Yeah, it's tough to specify a class when you're dealing with every single person that's possibly here as an illegal immigrant.

00:18:52.000 You can't just say, oh, well, I got it.

00:18:54.000 Good.

00:18:54.000 I'll send you this.

00:18:55.000 Everyone of an age.

00:18:57.000 Like every single human of a certain age.

00:19:00.000 Yeah, I mean, it's tough to base it by just age like that.

00:19:04.000 You 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.

00:19:20.000 Or their birthright citizenship is in question or it's not because of the conditions of their birth.

00:19:30.000 Yeah.

00:19:31.000 All right.

00:19:31.000 Let's pull this up.

00:19:32.000 Let's see what we got going on over on page nine.

00:19:35.000 Where are we at?

00:19:36.000 So here we go.

00:19:38.000 And this is where it specifies the class.

00:19:40.000 With the proposed class.

00:19:42.000 Proposed class.

00:19:44.000 Let's see.

00:19:45.000 The class representative plaintiffs.

00:19:46.000 Which section is me, 42.

00:19:47.000 Yeah.

00:19:48.000 Seeks to represent the following proposed class.

00:19:50.000 All 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.

00:20:16.000 Is that a little broad?

00:20:18.000 I mean, I think it makes that it reflects the arguments being made by the executive order, right?

00:20:24.000 Basically, 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.

00:20:32.000 And 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.

00:20:48.000 No, No, no, no.

00:20:48.000 Let me see.

00:20:49.000 It says all current and future persons who were born on or after.

00:20:55.000 That's an interesting question there.

00:20:57.000 What about somebody who would have been born on, say, February 21st?

00:21:05.000 I mean, as to them, it would be moon.

00:21:06.000 So as of the argument right now, what if there is so here's a here's an issue I have with this.

00:21:12.000 There are currently future persons that would be part of this class who may just be aborted.

00:21:19.000 Well, even if they are aborted, that doesn't change the ability of this to potentially grant relief, right?

00:21:29.000 It would just be moodas to them because they're not.

00:21:33.000 You're not in a position to claim or not claim.

00:21:36.000 But there's a challenge here I see in that when we look at the Three-Fifths Compromise, let's go back to Civil War, right?

00:21:45.000 The Southern Democrats were basically saying slaves should get a vote.

00:21:48.000 And the North said, what?

00:21:50.000 These people have no volition unto themselves.

00:21:52.000 They're slaves.

00:21:53.000 They can't vote.

00:21:54.000 And so they compromised.

00:21:55.000 They said, we'll tell you what.

00:21:56.000 It's not even that they said slaves should vote.

00:21:57.000 It's that we should get more representation in Congress based on non-voting slaves. 0.83

00:22:02.000 I thought they wanted them to vote.

00:22:03.000 No, no, no, no.

00:22:04.000 That's not the three of us.

00:22:05.000 Three of this compromise is we should get total, we should get credit for our slave population in terms of congressional apportionment. 0.81

00:22:11.000 Yes.

00:22:11.000 So I say corrected.

00:22:14.000 My 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.

00:22:30.000 Well, then they have personal rights.

00:22:33.000 Why should the government grant anything to this class if, say it wasn't a class, say it was just like a single woman. 1.00

00:22:40.000 Let's say 10 women. 1.00

00:22:42.000 They 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. 0.93

00:22:50.000 And the court then says, agreed.

00:22:52.000 Then they go, okay, now we're going to go abort them all and they won't exist to receive relief.

00:22:58.000 There's a problem here.

00:23:00.000 The idea that you can kill who you are representing, I think, presents a problem in law.

00:23:06.000 But this seems to only affect people that are already all born.

00:23:09.000 It says future persons after February 2025.

00:23:12.000 All current and future persons.

00:23:13.000 No, it includes the unborn.

00:23:15.000 Who are born?

00:23:16.000 It includes not just unborn, but literally non-existent.

00:23:19.000 Oh, right.

00:23:19.000 It includes people who don't even exist.

00:23:22.000 It includes people who are not yet conceived.

00:23:25.000 Yes, correct.

00:23:25.000 Mentally and physically.

00:23:27.000 So let's say a woman right now is one week pregnant.

00:23:33.000 You know, let's say she's six weeks. 0.98

00:23:34.000 She just found out.

00:23:36.000 She can, that, that life in her is represented before the United States government for relief.

00:23:44.000 And then as soon as the relief is granted to that person.

00:23:47.000 Yeah.

00:23:48.000 Wait, wait, hold on, hold on.

00:23:49.000 Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

00:23:50.000 Will, can non-persons seek relief before a court?

00:23:53.000 Can they have standing on anything?

00:23:54.000 No.

00:23:55.000 Well, then what the is going on?

00:23:57.000 It's the word person, but it's also.

00:23:59.000 I think that actually is the real argument here.

00:24:01.000 I 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... 1.00

00:24:13.000 A dog is not a person.

00:24:14.000 Dog can't be a member of a person.

00:24:15.000 And a baby gets personhood upon birth, as far as like capital P legal personhood.

00:24:21.000 Yeah.

00:24:21.000 And that's part of the reason why it's okay to abort a baby.

00:24:23.000 A dog can't sue the...

00:24:34.000 Can you file from its owner?

00:24:35.000 That's not a fact.

00:24:36.000 Could you file a class action suit on behalf of all pit bulls?

00:24:38.000 No, you couldn't.

00:24:40.000 You couldn't.

00:24:40.000 Well, so why do they use the lowercase P and the word person here?

00:24:43.000 Because there's the uppercase P, which I see in legal documents indicating this is the legal definition of the word person.

00:24:48.000 And then you see the lowercase P just generally talking about people.

00:24:52.000 Well, is that, I mean, generally when something is in uppercase, it's like it's a defined term within that brief, right?

00:25:01.000 Like, so class representative plaintiffs would have a meaning for the person of the brief.

00:25:04.000 And propose class, you'll see that in caps.

00:25:06.000 So when they later say propose caps, class, rather, they're referring back to the same thing.

00:25:10.000 This 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.

00:25:32.000 Yeah, I've never seen that before.

00:25:34.000 And 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.

00:25:44.000 The 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.

00:25:58.000 Yeah.

00:25:58.000 And Trump could then go after, they'd have to sue every time Trump tried to challenge birthright citizenship.

00:26:05.000 Maybe, but eventually it would get to the Supreme Court, probably.

00:26:07.000 I mean, and if the Supreme Court ruled, then it would, you know.

00:26:11.000 Depending on the question asked of the Supreme Court.

00:26:13.000 Right, right, right.

00:26:13.000 I don't know.

00:26:14.000 It'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.

00:26:21.000 This is what I'm saying.

00:26:23.000 The 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.

00:26:33.000 That's all we wanted to say.

00:26:33.000 Thank you and have a nice day.

00:26:35.000 And that means the unborn are legal persons.

00:26:37.000 I 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?

00:26:44.000 Like they have their own rules of.

00:26:46.000 I'm kidding.

00:26:46.000 I'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.

00:26:58.000 Well, it's more like the Planned Parenthood people would call up the ACLU furiously and be surprised they're not.

00:27:02.000 I'm not surprised they're not already on the phone with them.

00:27:05.000 Sending emails furiously.

00:27:07.000 But 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.

00:27:21.000 No, that's still the same argument, whether they said future persons or not.

00:27:24.000 But 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.

00:27:39.000 If 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.

00:27:55.000 And if future persons is such a class, you cannot kill them.

00:27:59.000 Oh, 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.

00:28:11.000 I mean, can you imagine that rabbit hole?

00:28:13.000 We can't allow that.

00:28:14.000 A guy walks up and says, we actually had planned to conceive a baby in a week.

00:28:19.000 So a future person was killed.

00:28:21.000 You 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.

00:28:40.000 So I think that this is probably going to be something that'll, that'll at least coincide with those kind of issues, you know?

00:28:49.000 Right.

00:28:50.000 I'm enjoying the sheer absurdity of where we are. 0.80

00:28:53.000 Well, it's already ridiculous.

00:28:54.000 I'm just saying, like, they lost. 0.87

00:28:56.000 Okay, like, this is it.

00:28:57.000 They've either lost birthright citizenship or they've lost abortion.

00:29:02.000 I don't know what exactly Trump did, what the administration did that they're trying to push back against.

00:29:07.000 They 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.

00:29:17.000 Retroactively?

00:29:18.000 No, no.

00:29:19.000 So if your parents are illegal, right?

00:29:21.000 And then you're born here.

00:29:22.000 So people call that anchor baby.

00:29:24.000 You're born here.

00:29:25.000 Those people are considered citizens because they're born inside the United States.

00:29:29.000 The 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.

00:29:40.000 That's the key clause in the 14th Amendment that prevents basically anchor babies, right? 0.98

00:29:45.000 The whole point of the 14th Amendment was to make sure that slaves and children of slaves were considered citizens.

00:29:51.000 It 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.

00:29:59.000 So would this retroactively take away citizenship from kids that have already been born, or is this just any kids after?

00:30:05.000 I think it's perspective.

00:30:07.000 I think it's only operative on people born after the date of the executive order.

00:30:13.000 February 20th.

00:30:14.000 Yeah.

00:30:15.000 That's why the class is only including people born after February 20th.

00:30:19.000 So it's basically got two, there's two circumstances in which you will not be a citizen.

00:30:24.000 When 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.

00:30:30.000 When 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.

00:30:41.000 So it states that these provisions are only effective for people born 30 days or more after the date of the order.

00:30:47.000 It would have only applied to children born beginning February 19th.

00:30:51.000 So he signed that right when he got into office on the January 20th.

00:30:55.000 It was one of the first executive orders he signed.

00:30:58.000 And he's right.

00:30:59.000 I think so.

00:31:00.000 I think it makes a lot of sense, man.

00:31:02.000 Like, someone come here, visit, and have a kid.

00:31:04.000 That kid's not a U.S. citizen.

00:31:06.000 You don't just get to come walk across the border.

00:31:08.000 This is very normal across the world.

00:31:10.000 Like, there's birthright citizenship.

00:31:12.000 We're kind of an anomaly.

00:31:13.000 Like, this is, you know, this is the rule for citizenship in most countries.

00:31:18.000 So 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.

00:31:32.000 But typically countries confer citizenship upon you when you're born because your parents are citizens or you are qualified or something.

00:31:40.000 And then what you end up getting is these liberal organizations in the U.S. say, see, they have birthright citizenship.

00:31:45.000 And 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.

00:31:52.000 Yeah.

00:31:52.000 I mean, to be honest with you, I don't know.

00:31:55.000 I don't have a sense of how the court is actually going to come down on the, you know, the anchor baby essentially argument.

00:32:02.000 I 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,

00:32:22.000 you 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.

00:32:36.000 That was never intended.

00:32:38.000 That was not the intent at all.

00:32:39.000 Yeah, 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.

00:32:52.000 Like that, that's insane.

00:32:53.000 They're de facto not citizens to the country.

00:32:56.000 If 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. 0.84

00:33:02.000 But if she doesn't have documentation, how's she going to argue that the baby was even born here?

00:33:06.000 My 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.

00:33:15.000 If 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. 0.60

00:33:31.000 Right 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? 0.75

00:33:46.000 Was it called?

00:33:46.000 The PRA.

00:33:47.000 People's Republican Army.

00:33:48.000 Yeah, the PRA or whatever.

00:33:50.000 This kid is indoctrinated.

00:33:51.000 He is Captain Communist China. 0.79

00:33:54.000 And then at 20 years old, they say, You're an American citizen because you were born there, albeit you were there for only one day.

00:34:01.000 We're going to send you back to America. 1.00

00:34:02.000 Run for president.

00:34:03.000 To run for president.

00:34:05.000 And he comes here and he doesn't speak any English.

00:34:07.000 15 years of study and training in the United States, regularly reporting back to the CCP.

00:34:13.000 He says, I can now run for president.

00:34:15.000 And the CCP says, we have unlimited resources to fund your campaign.

00:34:19.000 Yeah, it's a loophole.

00:34:20.000 Airplanes didn't exist when they wrote the law.

00:34:23.000 If they had, they definitely would have thought about that aspect of the danger of immigration.

00:34:28.000 Yeah, no, no, no.

00:34:28.000 I mean, and the thing, everything up to like the whole plot of the person becoming president.

00:34:33.000 I mean, anchor babies happen.

00:34:34.000 That happens.

00:34:35.000 That's a thing.

00:34:36.000 It's a real phenomenon.

00:34:37.000 Hey, we should make a short film where this happens.

00:34:40.000 It's like the Manchurian community.

00:34:41.000 Yes, exactly.

00:34:42.000 The real Manchurian campaign.

00:34:44.000 And it'll be, you know, this guy, he comes here at 20.

00:34:47.000 He's a U.S. citizen, but he's never set foot here.

00:34:49.000 He was trained by an enemy nation.

00:34:52.000 And then he starts adopting all of these.

00:34:55.000 He trains his accent.

00:34:57.000 He adopts a bunch of left-wing policies.

00:34:59.000 And then he runs.

00:35:00.000 And then when he wins, he starts eroding the national security of the country, giving away secrets to China. 0.97

00:35:06.000 And then China attacks and blows up a bunch of industrial control systems, totally disabling the United States and their ability to wage war.

00:35:14.000 Can you do a Chinese accent?

00:35:16.000 You should play the lead.

00:35:17.000 No, no, no, no.

00:35:17.000 He's not allowed.

00:35:18.000 Oh, he's not allowed?

00:35:19.000 Why?

00:35:19.000 He's not allowed.

00:35:19.000 Because he's a white man.

00:35:20.000 Oh, wow.

00:35:21.000 That's part of the funniness of it.

00:35:23.000 Only I'm allowed.

00:35:24.000 Yeah, Tim has to be the lead.

00:35:25.000 Because I'm Korean.

00:35:26.000 He's got to be a Chinese guy.

00:35:27.000 I'm Korean.

00:35:28.000 That'll play.

00:35:29.000 And then I'll be the angry white guy.

00:35:32.000 The question that I have, though, is, you know, my daughter is only 12.5% Asian.

00:35:37.000 You know, I think she should be allowed to do an Asian accent. 1.00

00:35:40.000 Oh, she will.

00:35:41.000 It'll be a good one, too.

00:35:43.000 You'll be shocked.

00:35:44.000 Is she going to follow you around?

00:35:46.000 Asian octoroon?

00:35:47.000 Is that how that works?

00:35:49.000 Yeah.

00:35:50.000 No, it's there's a word for it.

00:35:53.000 I don't know what it is.

00:35:53.000 This is coming.

00:35:54.000 There's Hoppas.

00:35:55.000 That's your half.

00:35:56.000 Hoppa is quarter.

00:35:57.000 And then, I don't know, Octapa.

00:35:59.000 Octapa.

00:36:00.000 That's good.

00:36:01.000 I feel like this anchor baby thing is coming to a head big time right now.

00:36:05.000 This is something that we really need to deal with at the Supreme Court level, I think.

00:36:08.000 Is it, I mean, is there, other than a Supreme Court decision, is there a...

00:36:11.000 Well, there's already Supreme Court precedents that said it was true.

00:36:16.000 That decision doesn't hold that.

00:36:17.000 It 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.

00:36:24.000 So it's an undecided question.

00:36:25.000 Because they don't follow the jurisdiction.

00:36:27.000 Sorry.

00:36:27.000 I think no one should get citizenship.

00:36:30.000 If you're a...

00:36:31.000 No, no one.

00:36:32.000 No one.

00:36:33.000 I disagree with that.

00:36:34.000 Everyone's got to go.

00:36:36.000 Start over.

00:36:36.000 We got to start over.

00:36:37.000 No, no, no, no.

00:36:38.000 You don't disagree, Will.

00:36:39.000 Service guarantees citizenship.

00:36:42.000 No, no, service doesn't guarantee citizenship.

00:36:45.000 My little three and a half-year-old is a citizen.

00:36:47.000 She doesn't serve anybody. 1.00

00:36:48.000 She's a service.

00:36:48.000 She throws a ball one foot and then says.

00:36:50.000 Well, she's a civilian, but she becomes a citizen once she, what is it, two years of service to the community?

00:36:57.000 Two years.

00:36:58.000 Yeah, it's Starship Troopers.

00:36:59.000 Starship Troopers, yeah, I was about to say.

00:37:01.000 So the idea was that civilians have all legal rights, but they can't vote.

00:37:06.000 And then once you provide at least two years of service, you become a full-fledged citizen.

00:37:09.000 I am all about restricting the franchise.

00:37:12.000 I am too.

00:37:13.000 We were talking about this.

00:37:13.000 We're talking about last night.

00:37:15.000 You agreed.

00:37:16.000 Yes, you're right.

00:37:18.000 We were talking about this last night.

00:37:19.000 You 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. 0.87

00:37:27.000 What about people that buy their way into citizenship?

00:37:30.000 So maybe it's service, but you're like, community service.

00:37:32.000 You just need to dig holes.

00:37:34.000 Well, 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?

00:37:39.000 Service can be anything.

00:37:40.000 That was the important point.

00:37:42.000 What if I use technology to make my service super easy?

00:37:44.000 That's fantastic.

00:37:45.000 Thank you.

00:37:46.000 Don't I game the system to become services?

00:37:47.000 No, it takes two years.

00:37:49.000 Two years of me letting my machine do all my work for me.

00:37:51.000 Yeah, 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.

00:37:59.000 That's more expensive than just you digging with a shovel.

00:38:02.000 That is like buying citizenship.

00:38:04.000 No, it isn't.

00:38:05.000 If I can use technology to get my citizenship easier.

00:38:07.000 Trump is literally 5 million.

00:38:10.000 You don't understand.

00:38:11.000 Golden green cards are something running your machine requires more energy than you as an individual using a shovel.

00:38:18.000 But oh, well, I'm just saying some people, maybe they got to dig holes for their citizenship.

00:38:22.000 They don't have a shovel.

00:38:23.000 They have to use their hands.

00:38:24.000 This is a crazy example.

00:38:25.000 I have a shovel because I could afford one.

00:38:28.000 I'm kind of buying my way into an easier space.

00:38:31.000 You're convoluting it.

00:38:32.000 You'd go and apply and they'd say, we need people to dig holes.

00:38:35.000 Here's a shovel.

00:38:37.000 Government supply.

00:38:38.000 But then what if I'm like, well, I actually have an electro shovel in my shed?

00:38:41.000 I don't need your shovel.

00:38:42.000 I'm going to do it five times faster and I don't even have to swing.

00:38:44.000 With an excavator?

00:38:45.000 Yeah, I'm going to use my excavator.

00:38:46.000 Okay.

00:38:47.000 Then they're going to say, wow, you're going to pay for and fuel and maintain an excavator for the community?

00:38:53.000 Yeah, because it's my dad's money.

00:38:55.000 Wonderful.

00:38:56.000 Then now get your excavator and we thank you for doing 10 times the labor of everybody else.

00:39:01.000 And now I'm a citizen and I can vote.

00:39:03.000 After two years, yes.

00:39:04.000 And then I can, I don't know.

00:39:06.000 Don't you understand about you're arguing to do more work than the average person?

00:39:09.000 Well, I'm arguing that people that have a lot of money can get their two years of work done much easier.

00:39:14.000 It's not the, it's not peaceworking.

00:39:16.000 It's the amount of time that you have to be involved in civil service.

00:39:21.000 Yeah, you don't understand.

00:39:22.000 You 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.

00:39:35.000 Or I would pay a guy to do the work for me.

00:39:37.000 That's not how it works.

00:39:38.000 Okay, maybe then we're talking.

00:39:39.000 Because the military service, you can't get a machine to do that for you.

00:39:42.000 You go there, you serve, you're there with the other guys.

00:39:45.000 That's not correct.

00:39:46.000 In military service.

00:39:47.000 Elon Musk can be commissioned by the U.S. government so that his machines can be used by the U.S. government.

00:39:53.000 This is literally what the military industrial complex is.

00:39:55.000 We've had privateers since the days of yore when they'd go to a guy who owned battleship and they'd say, here's a letter of mark.

00:40:01.000 Here's money. 0.61

00:40:01.000 Go blow them up. 0.61

00:40:03.000 Look, we don't need to make it this complicated. 0.98

00:40:04.000 We can just disenfranchise Democrats.

00:40:06.000 Like, I don't.

00:40:08.000 You're coming up with this whole rubric.

00:40:10.000 I just, you know, you voted for the Democratic Party.

00:40:12.000 It's like, that's sufficient reason to vote.

00:40:16.000 I like the service citizenship.

00:40:18.000 Sorry, were you going to say something funny?

00:40:19.000 Yeah, I was going to say, you vote Democrat one time and you can never vote again.

00:40:22.000 Right.

00:40:23.000 You're allowed to vote Democrat once.

00:40:27.000 You better make it worth your while.

00:40:28.000 Better be the best Democrat ever.

00:40:30.000 I like the idea of encouraging people to become civilly aware and active to vote.

00:40:33.000 And 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.

00:40:41.000 And I don't know what service actually means.

00:40:45.000 So we got to be, because if I can game it, you got to watch out because they will.

00:40:49.000 What if will?

00:40:50.000 What if will?

00:40:51.000 What if everybody gets to vote, but you get mercilessly beaten by five people after you do?

00:40:59.000 So you really have to want to vote.

00:41:01.000 I think our country would go communist.

00:41:03.000 I think you'd get the really motivated people.

00:41:06.000 I mean, like, if normies would stop voting, I think people that feel no pain.

00:41:12.000 If violence is on the table, then all the rules change then.

00:41:17.000 But I'm just saying, like, who would actually be willing to take a beating to vote? 0.95

00:41:20.000 And it would be like the most ideological, committed, crazy people. 0.84

00:41:23.000 Yeah, but not commies. 0.99

00:41:24.000 It'd be barbarians. 0.98

00:41:27.000 You think a frail, 100-pound, soaking, wet, gaunt commie is going to be able to withstand a beating? 0.87

00:41:33.000 I mean, they just might not realize they'll need to.

00:41:36.000 Or like, they might, they might think they're up to it.

00:41:38.000 I 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.

00:41:46.000 What it sounds like.

00:41:46.000 It's fairly rational confidence, though.

00:41:48.000 It sounds like you're proposing an America where only people that are in the UFC are allowed to vote.

00:41:56.000 Have you seen the UFC?

00:41:57.000 Yeah, I know.

00:41:58.000 What kind of American do you think is like?

00:41:59.000 They're going to elect Genghis Khan.

00:42:01.000 Those dudes that are bouncing on swords on their corn stuff. 0.90

00:42:04.000 They should just short-circuit it and just make the results of the UFC heavyweight championship the results of the presidential election.

00:42:10.000 Or he gets to pick, you know?

00:42:11.000 Maybe he doesn't actually get to do the running of the country or whatever, but he gets to say, that's the guy that I want.

00:42:17.000 Yeah.

00:42:18.000 All right.

00:42:19.000 Now we're cooking.

00:42:20.000 I mean, there's not a lot of people that are interested in taking beating.

00:42:25.000 Hold on.

00:42:25.000 I actually like this.

00:42:27.000 Anyone can vote, but you have to sign up for the selective service, which is optional.

00:42:31.000 You know what that would be?

00:42:32.000 That's actually, you know, that's a good description of how Israel really actually runs its country.

00:42:36.000 You know what would happen?

00:42:38.000 Republicans would win every election forever with that simple policy.

00:42:42.000 The reason is Democrats win through ignorance.

00:42:45.000 They go to someone and say, did you vote?

00:42:46.000 And they go, I don't know.

00:42:48.000 And then they're like, come on, you should vote. 0.97

00:42:49.000 But what would happen if the Democrats had to go to somebody who was ignorant and they say, do you want to vote? 0.96

00:42:53.000 They'd be like, why should I vote? 0.98

00:42:55.000 We got to stop Trump.

00:42:56.000 They'd be like, okay, I'll vote.

00:42:57.000 Just sign up for the draft.

00:42:59.000 They'd be like, no, I don't care about whatever it is you're selling that much.

00:43:03.000 Republicans would be like, don't deal.

00:43:05.000 There you go.

00:43:06.000 And I'm not saying there is a draft.

00:43:07.000 I'm not saying you have to serve.

00:43:08.000 I'm saying selective service, which already exists.

00:43:11.000 Men and women, it'll be optional. 0.99

00:43:13.000 Once you sign up, they hand you your voter card.

00:43:16.000 And if you don't want to sign up, that's absolutely fine.

00:43:18.000 Just you can't vote in any election.

00:43:20.000 Is that literally what they do in Israel?

00:43:22.000 Not 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.

00:43:29.000 They're not citizens.

00:43:30.000 They don't have any obligation to serve in the military.

00:43:32.000 But that's also the interesting phenomenon is Israeli Arabs who have the right to vote, but are not draft eligible.

00:43:39.000 Oh, wow.

00:43:40.000 And so they don't.

00:43:42.000 It's almost like women in America. 1.00

00:43:45.000 They have a right to vote, but they're not draft eligible.

00:43:47.000 Yeah.

00:43:47.000 But they, I mean, I don't, I mean, I think, I don't know what the deal is with Israeli Arabs serving.

00:43:51.000 Almost no Israeli Arabs serve in the military.

00:43:53.000 There are Israeli Drews and Israeli Christians. 0.98

00:43:57.000 I think we should.

00:43:58.000 I don't think there are any Israeli Arabs.

00:44:00.000 I think women shouldn't be allowed to vote until they can be drafted. 1.00

00:44:05.000 I paused for dramatic effect.

00:44:07.000 Look, man, I am open to any number of creative ideas to reduce the number of people in franchise.

00:44:16.000 Do you think the draft is going to be passe?

00:44:18.000 I think that, you know, especially in the modern world, I look at this as real Iran thing, and I think air power is kind of overwhelming. 0.90

00:44:25.000 Oh, dude, robot dogs.

00:44:27.000 We were talking about this when the strikes were happening.

00:44:29.000 We don't need people.

00:44:31.000 Seriously, the U.S. can drop 10,000 robot dogs with full auto rifles mounted on their backs, and they will own everything around 40.

00:44:41.000 Look at just the way the drones are operating in the Ukraine war, right?

00:44:46.000 You'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.

00:44:59.000 You don't need to do that anymore.

00:45:00.000 Honestly, 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.

00:45:09.000 Yeah, 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.

00:45:19.000 And I thought about it for a second and it's like, what happens if you have total air superiority and total intelligence dominance?

00:45:25.000 Well, you can do what Israel was doing, which is like you can just drone strike every leader of the country. 0.72

00:45:31.000 Yeah. 0.51

00:45:31.000 And keep drone striking them until you get someone you like. 0.51

00:45:34.000 Exactly.

00:45:34.000 That's what happened with Hezbollah, right?

00:45:35.000 They got Nizrallah. 1.00

00:45:36.000 They got the guy who became the new leader of Hezbollah got drone striked.

00:45:39.000 I think the third guy who became the new leader of Hezbollah got drone striked.

00:45:43.000 And finally, the fourth guy signs a humiliating ceasefire.

00:45:45.000 I 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?

00:45:53.000 Look, there's like – And like you said, the fourth guy is going to be like, ah, no, I'm changing everything.

00:46:11.000 What regime would you like us to have?

00:46:13.000 Exactly.

00:46:14.000 I did some quick math based on the size of the robot dogs.

00:46:19.000 Available surface area for solar panels.

00:46:23.000 It's estimated that it'll take 48 hours of sunlight in order to charge it back up to full.

00:46:28.000 Now that's trying to block out the sun, so control those.

00:46:31.000 Hey, hold on.

00:46:32.000 That's 48 hours of sunlight.

00:46:33.000 So that means over nighttime, we're talking potentially five full days where a robot dog is inoperable, but it could reactivate in emergencies.

00:46:42.000 This 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.

00:46:57.000 I 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.

00:47:04.000 If there are two machine gun-armed robot dogs guarding the other five at any given moment, no one's touching them.

00:47:11.000 That's the point of the math I just did.

00:47:13.000 If you have to leave.

00:47:14.000 If 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.

00:47:24.000 Now, you're likely going to want maybe 30, depending on how many, how large the area is.

00:47:30.000 Let's say it's one building.

00:47:31.000 You might need 30 of them to fully secure it.

00:47:33.000 That 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.

00:47:47.000 Rounds?

00:47:48.000 Yeah.

00:47:49.000 Ammo?

00:47:50.000 I imagine they could probably carry significantly more than that.

00:47:53.000 You think?

00:47:53.000 Belt-fed, you could put a hundred round belt-fed machine gun on them.

00:48:00.000 Absolutely.

00:48:00.000 But how do they carry?

00:48:01.000 I mean, you know, they're not that big.

00:48:05.000 Well, they make different sizes.

00:48:07.000 Drums.

00:48:07.000 Well, it could be a drum, but I'm thinking just like an ammo box that's fed right into the belt-fed machine gun.

00:48:13.000 The problem, honestly, the biggest problem.

00:48:17.000 You usually have between, depending on the caliber, between 50 and 100.

00:48:22.000 Usually it's like 100-round drum or 100-round belt.

00:48:25.000 Are you guys familiar?

00:48:26.000 That's what I was thinking.

00:48:26.000 Are you familiar with the new electronic warfare tech against drones, the anti-drone stuff that can be- Oh, that weird big gun they got?

00:48:33.000 It's not even a big gun.

00:48:34.000 It's literally, I just sent you a video.

00:48:35.000 It's Andrew's new pulse artist.

00:48:37.000 Literally, you press a button.

00:48:38.000 Maybe Andrew's got guns.

00:48:39.000 No, no, no, no, no.

00:48:40.000 There are cops, and they have this big plastic-looking thing that looks all weird, and they point it, and it pull that up.

00:48:45.000 Yeah, what's wrong with you?

00:48:47.000 I 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.

00:48:52.000 You want to pulse in every direction.

00:48:54.000 Obviously.

00:48:55.000 What are you talking about?

00:48:55.000 You're welcome.

00:48:56.000 A drone swarm.

00:48:57.000 You're welcome for this free advertising.

00:48:59.000 You, sir.

00:48:59.000 And this is on top of China.

00:49:01.000 They just launched a mosquito drone.

00:49:03.000 This is relatively new.

00:49:04.000 I think it's relatively new.

00:49:05.000 About two centimeters long.

00:49:06.000 It's a surveillance drone.

00:49:07.000 All right, what do we got here?

00:49:10.000 Oh, yeah, we watched this before.

00:49:11.000 Oh, you did?

00:49:11.000 Yeah, we'll play it now.

00:49:13.000 Luckies.

00:49:14.000 Yeah, yep.

00:49:18.000 This is sick.

00:49:20.000 I was just thinking about your robot dogs, and I was like, this is the answer to the robot dogs.

00:49:24.000 We'll put Faraday shields on.

00:49:27.000 How do you control?

00:49:29.000 No, they're autonomous.

00:49:34.000 They said this is not CGI.

00:49:36.000 Yeah.

00:49:36.000 This is an actual physical demonstration.

00:49:40.000 What do you do?

00:49:41.000 Just watch.

00:49:44.000 Oh, what are you doing?

00:49:45.000 You see that?

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

00:50:12.000 right back.

00:50:31.000 We'll be right back.

00:50:40.000 Yeah. 0.69

00:50:40.000 So sick. 0.69

00:50:42.000 So, I've been dreaming about this.

00:50:43.000 Clarify, yeah.

00:50:46.000 They said that the blue pulse they added was the graphic, the CGI, but the drones actually falling are what is an actual demonstration.

00:50:56.000 I 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.

00:51:01.000 You got to kill the mosquitoes.

00:51:02.000 We're going to have to do drone sweeps pretty frequently in the future where we go through, like clean the area with this stuff.

00:51:09.000 Because they're going to be so small, we don't even see them sometimes.

00:51:12.000 There's a great book, a great novel called The Diamond Age.

00:51:15.000 Are you guys familiar with that?

00:51:16.000 Neil Stevenson?

00:51:16.000 I haven't read it.

00:51:17.000 Oh, you'd love it.

00:51:18.000 Here, we got another one for you.

00:51:19.000 Check this out.

00:51:20.000 Yeah, tell me about the Diamond Age after this.

00:51:21.000 Check this out.

00:51:25.000 Futuristic anti-drone weapon developed by Drone Shield to counter unauthorized drone activity effectively.

00:51:32.000 Weighing 15 pounds, it is optimized for two-hand operation and offers long-range defeat capabilities.

00:51:39.000 This gun emits jamming frequencies that disrupt a drone's video streaming at distances of up to 1,094 yards.

00:51:48.000 It possesses the ability to send the targeted drone back to its original starting point or force it to land immediately.

00:51:55.000 Oh.

00:51:56.000 Its design incorporates high-performance directional antennas within a sturdy rifle-style frame, ensuring durability while maintaining a lightweight profile.

00:52:06.000 There's better technology than this.

00:52:08.000 Yeah, put it on a headset so you can have a gun in your hand while you're in a hurry.

00:52:11.000 You can just fry them.

00:52:12.000 But getting it, getting it and then being able to use it is awesome or breaking it apart.

00:52:17.000 Diamond.

00:52:18.000 Okay, Diamond Age.

00:52:18.000 What were you going to say about the Diamond Age?

00:52:19.000 Oh, yeah.

00:52:20.000 Something to do with it.

00:52:21.000 It's a novel by Neil Stevenson that I think anybody interested in drones should read.

00:52:24.000 It'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.

00:52:37.000 And 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.

00:52:46.000 And so it seems pretty prescient 30 years later with drone warfare going on.

00:52:51.000 Who's the author?

00:52:51.000 Neil Stevenson?

00:52:53.000 Wonderful science fiction author.

00:52:55.000 Interesting description.

00:52:56.000 Decades into our future, a stone's throw from the ancient city of Shanghai, a brilliant nanotechnologist named John.

00:53:03.000 Oh, this is a different.

00:53:04.000 Okay, so the previews that you get from Google are a little weird.

00:53:08.000 You guys would love Neil Stevenson.

00:53:11.000 You'd love his novels.

00:53:12.000 He's got a Cryptonomicon, which is about cryptography and World War II.

00:53:20.000 He'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.

00:53:32.000 Yeah, because there's like a high-tech primer that you give to a young, that is adaptive, kind of anticipating AI, actually.

00:53:40.000 All right.

00:53:41.000 So, yeah, no, Sneal Stevens.

00:53:42.000 If you have never read Neil Stevenson, I highly recommend him.

00:53:44.000 His novels are really, really interesting.

00:53:46.000 I 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.

00:53:54.000 Is that possible?

00:53:54.000 You can't shield it, you're saying?

00:53:56.000 You might be able to, because, well, the question is, can the drone fly wrapped in a Faraday cage, depending on the size of the holes?

00:54:06.000 And I'm not entirely sure.

00:54:09.000 So think about the diameter required to block a microwave with a Faraday cage.

00:54:16.000 I'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.

00:54:25.000 So I don't know that you can create proper airflow if you've shielded the whole drone in a Faraday cage.

00:54:31.000 If you make the holes too big, the microwave wavelengths pass through easily.

00:54:35.000 So that's the issue.

00:54:37.000 Can you really make a shield?

00:54:40.000 Theoretically, 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.

00:54:52.000 That's the challenge.

00:54:52.000 Unless they're autonomous.

00:54:54.000 Oh, God.

00:54:55.000 Yeah, they'd have to be autonomous.

00:54:57.000 They'd have to be pre-programmed to their target.

00:55:01.000 We don't need prop.

00:55:02.000 We need jet.

00:55:03.000 So 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.

00:55:17.000 Nothing's going to get through, and it's going to fly with internal jets instead of propellers.

00:55:23.000 Jets.

00:55:25.000 Tell me that.

00:55:26.000 Explain that to me.

00:55:27.000 The jets.

00:55:27.000 How does that work?

00:55:28.000 How would they not be affected by the shield?

00:55:31.000 You can encase a jet.

00:55:33.000 Like a jet engine?

00:55:34.000 Right.

00:55:35.000 So what we've seen already with dudes that fly, they have little jet engines on their hands, those little tiny engines.

00:55:40.000 You could easily make drones that fly using jets instead of propellers.

00:55:43.000 Propellers require a lot more space for up and down.

00:55:46.000 You need the air to be able to exhaust in a larger space, harder to shield.

00:55:50.000 And 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.

00:55:57.000 No, we don't have those, at least as far as we can tell.

00:56:00.000 No, I'm not saying we have them.

00:56:01.000 I'm just saying if you want to bypass propellers.

00:56:05.000 Ian, if you had ion propulsion drones.

00:56:09.000 They would function in low orbit.

00:56:11.000 That would be for the low orbital.

00:56:12.000 The world has...

00:56:19.000 You might be.

00:56:21.000 You would be the mystery that everyone seeks to solve of the vehicles that can cause planes to explode and disappear.

00:56:26.000 You could really let your authoritarian freak flag fly.

00:56:29.000 What I want to do is go.

00:56:31.000 You always thought of Ian as a secret budding authority.

00:56:33.000 You just want me to be one.

00:56:35.000 It's in there.

00:56:36.000 I'm trying to get through to Jeff Bezos, so get me in touch when you see him.

00:56:40.000 We've got to build drones to transport materials. 0.98

00:56:44.000 Basically, if we can transport materials across the globe, that's a big step towards world peace.

00:56:47.000 And if we can get these drones to use propellers to get up into low orbit, and then the ion thrusters kick in and keep them there.

00:56:53.000 Propellers to low orbit?

00:56:54.000 You know, propellers need air.

00:56:55.000 Well, they move so fast.

00:56:57.000 So 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.

00:57:06.000 Stick with me for a second here.

00:57:07.000 What if you just used a rocket?

00:57:09.000 You know.

00:57:10.000 You need liquid fuel.

00:57:11.000 Well, you don't need liquid fuel.

00:57:12.000 No, no, no, you need solid.

00:57:13.000 Yeah.

00:57:13.000 Rockets need solid fuel.

00:57:14.000 Fuel.

00:57:15.000 You need solid fuel.

00:57:17.000 Which is heavy.

00:57:18.000 Which is heavy.

00:57:19.000 But maybe it doesn't have to be.

00:57:20.000 Maybe it could be hydrogen.

00:57:21.000 Maybe it's lighter than the air around it.

00:57:23.000 I don't know.

00:57:24.000 So hydrogen is liquefied, so it's heavy.

00:57:29.000 You do know how orbit works, right?

00:57:31.000 Like the reason why it's so hard to achieve.

00:57:34.000 You don't just go up to get orbit.

00:57:37.000 You have to go out and across and travel faster directionally than you're falling.

00:57:44.000 Yeah.

00:57:44.000 Slingshot them up.

00:57:45.000 Use the propeller to kind of push it.

00:57:47.000 if you need propellers.

00:57:48.000 You don't really need propellers.

00:57:48.000 You slingshot in the air and then all you need is just Ion to push it back down.

00:57:52.000 You need substantially less thrust, but then you could.

00:57:54.000 But you got to make sure that it doesn't crash.

00:57:55.000 So if you want to bring it back down, like if you want to get up and then back down, slingshot, then you need glider.

00:58:01.000 Do you know what the super low energy is?

00:58:03.000 I plan?

00:58:04.000 What's that?

00:58:04.000 Do you know what the escape velocity is?

00:58:07.000 25,000 miles an hour.

00:58:09.000 25,020 miles an hour.

00:58:10.000 So if you are moving 25,000 miles, 25,500 miles an hour, you can escape Earth's gravity.

00:58:16.000 For what, it's at one newton of mass or something?

00:58:19.000 No, that's the speed that however much mass it is, that mass has to be traveling at 25,020 miles an hour.

00:58:27.000 So that's why, you know, man, if you want a planet with no atmosphere, how do you you need to have your own oxygen thruster?

00:58:38.000 You need internal thrust.

00:58:40.000 Yeah, because on Earth, we fly by, we push air down at enough force to lift us up.

00:58:47.000 Well, for propellers, yeah.

00:58:48.000 Right.

00:58:49.000 Or jets.

00:58:50.000 But for outer space where there's no atmosphere, you're just in a vacuum.

00:58:55.000 You need internal thrust.

00:58:57.000 Yeah, you need rockets.

00:58:58.000 You can't.

00:58:59.000 You couldn't do it with propellers because the propellers push on air.

00:59:01.000 Exactly.

00:59:02.000 Right.

00:59:02.000 You can use ion thrusters, but they're very slow in space.

00:59:06.000 And they're also not real.

00:59:07.000 Ion thrusters exist.

00:59:08.000 They are real.

00:59:09.000 They're real.

00:59:10.000 You can't use ion thrusters because they don't exist.

00:59:12.000 Yeah, they're not real.

00:59:13.000 You're saying no ion thrusters exist?

00:59:15.000 I don't think that's true.

00:59:17.000 That's not an ion thruster.

00:59:19.000 Ian, you're thinking of a twin-ion engine-type spacecraft?

00:59:24.000 Is that what you're thinking?

00:59:25.000 Oh, wait.

00:59:25.000 Is this real?

00:59:26.000 Okay, never mind.

00:59:26.000 This is sort of a thing.

00:59:27.000 Okay, sorry.

00:59:28.000 I was too arrogant. 0.98

00:59:29.000 We were all dumb and Ian was smart, though. 0.97

00:59:31.000 Ian, yeah, my whole life, dude. 0.98

00:59:33.000 That's been my whole life, too.

00:59:35.000 Yeah, they use them in space.

00:59:36.000 Should we get back to politics?

00:59:38.000 Absolutely.

00:59:38.000 But the value of these is.

00:59:41.000 Yeah, I don't know how good my contributions are on, like, you know.

00:59:43.000 No, no, this one's good.

00:59:44.000 This one's a good.

00:59:45.000 Okay, we got the story from Hugh Nevada.

00:59:47.000 This is awesome.

00:59:47.000 Libby Emmons writes: Katanji Brown Jackson's DEI is showing in her dissent against nationwide injunctions.

00:59:55.000 She writes: Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court on Friday opposing the concept of nationwide injunctions.

01:00:01.000 Those decisions that a judge makes in one case in one state that then apply to countless standing and potential cases across the United States.

01:00:08.000 Justice Katanji Brown Jackson offered a dissent, but in so doing, quote, is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent.

01:00:17.000 You know, Margaret versus Madison, right?

01:00:19.000 The very first case that established the notion of judicial review.

01:00:22.000 That 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.

01:00:33.000 Wow.

01:00:34.000 Right.

01:00:34.000 Like 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.

01:00:49.000 That's what that means.

01:00:51.000 So here's Amy Cody Barrett from the top rope. 1.00

01:00:54.000 She basically says, KBJ here, you're so stupid your opinion isn't worth addressing or wasting ink on refuting. 0.98

01:01:00.000 She 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. 0.99

01:01:09.000 We observe only this.

01:01:11.000 Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary.

01:01:16.000 Yeah. 1.00

01:01:17.000 In other words, she very politely said, girl, you dumb. 1.00

01:01:22.000 How did you pass the bar? 1.00

01:01:24.000 Insane.

01:01:24.000 The bar's easy.

01:01:25.000 That's, I mean, how did she pass?

01:01:27.000 Clearly.

01:01:27.000 Sorry to fail the bar.

01:01:29.000 I got to give this shout out to Jack Pisobic, who posted, this dissent is completely unreal.

01:01:36.000 Let me read it for you.

01:01:38.000 It says, it's supposed to, it's a joke.

01:01:42.000 This 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.

01:01:54.000 A question, how would your honor feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning?

01:01:58.000 That is wholly devoid of legal relevance and constitutes an egregious affront to the dignity of this court.

01:02:04.000 Such 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.

01:02:18.000 In fact, I had already stated that I had eaten a full breakfast.

01:02:21.000 I would hold that such questions do nothing to serve our democracy.

01:02:24.000 And 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.

01:02:38.000 Now, hold on, hold on.

01:02:38.000 Jack Pisobic said this dissent is completely unreal.

01:02:42.000 Truth.

01:02:43.000 That's the truth.

01:02:44.000 And he got fact-checked by lead stories that said his meme mocking Gatanji Brown Jackson was fake news.

01:02:53.000 He literally said it was.

01:02:53.000 He said it was literally unreal.

01:02:55.000 He said it was unreal.

01:02:55.000 Unreal.

01:02:56.000 Amazing.

01:02:57.000 What was her actual dissent?

01:02:58.000 Is it concise enough?

01:03:00.000 No, how about this?

01:03:01.000 No, it's not.

01:03:01.000 She said, the Trump administration is both power-hungry and lawless.

01:03:06.000 The 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.

01:03:14.000 Instead, the majority, the power-hungry actors are the district courts.

01:03:18.000 District 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.

01:03:29.000 She 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.

01:03:40.000 And then it was Amy Coney Barrett that was like, this is just plum nuts.

01:03:42.000 And you're saying she was referencing the 220-year?

01:03:45.000 Yeah.

01:03:45.000 I mean, this paragraph right there is...

01:03:49.000 It is as insulting as insults could get for a Supreme Court.

01:03:52.000 They never do this.

01:03:53.000 And the key thing to understand, this isn't just just spirit.

01:03:56.000 Six justices signed this.

01:03:59.000 Right.

01:03:59.000 And this doesn't happen.

01:04:01.000 I mean, if you actually read it.

01:04:02.000 Odds with the Constitution.

01:04:04.000 Well, 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.

01:04:14.000 Like there's there's a point in her dissent where she's like, you know, using weight for it.

01:04:19.000 I don't know if you saw this.

01:04:20.000 Oh, no, full stop.

01:04:21.000 Yeah, full, full stop.

01:04:22.000 She actually wrote full stop.

01:04:23.000 Yeah.

01:04:24.000 Like she wrote a blog for a feminist zine. 0.99

01:04:26.000 It's nuts.

01:04:27.000 And I mean, let's find the entirely unprofessional.

01:04:29.000 While 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.

01:04:37.000 According 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.

01:04:53.000 30,000 more words.

01:04:54.000 She's not a precise legal thinker.

01:04:56.000 It's really that simple.

01:04:57.000 I mean, you start with, I pulled up her dissent, and the first paragraph is this.

01:05:02.000 I write separately to emphasize a key conceptual point.

01:05:05.000 The 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.

01:05:13.000 Unbelievable.

01:05:14.000 That's just wrong.

01:05:16.000 Yes.

01:05:16.000 Wrong, right?

01:05:17.000 Yes.

01:05:18.000 Like the whole, the way that the judicial power works is it only extends to cases and controversies.

01:05:24.000 This is a repudiation of the entire body of law, of the law of standing in the Supreme Court.

01:05:31.000 And it's the first paragraph of her dissent.

01:05:33.000 Where do I find the dissent?

01:05:34.000 We're going to pull it up.

01:05:35.000 I sent it to you over X. Oh, okay, okay.

01:05:37.000 But you have to scroll down.

01:05:38.000 I don't know what page this is exactly, but it's the last.

01:05:41.000 You have to scroll all the way down to the bottom because it's the last opinion and it's at the beginning of it.

01:05:46.000 Look, I mean, it shouldn't be a shock.

01:05:48.000 She refused to, or she says that she cannot identify what a woman is when she had her hearing.

01:05:54.000 She specifically said, I'm not a biologist.

01:05:57.000 She said, I can't identify what a woman is. 1.00

01:05:59.000 She's ideologically possessed. 0.99

01:06:00.000 It has her opinions, nothing to do with any of the actual, you know, the what's it called?

01:06:10.000 So this is her first paragraph, or which paragraph is it?

01:06:13.000 It's literally the first, it's the very first paragraph, the dissent.

01:06:16.000 I agree with every word of Justice Sotomiera's dissent.

01:06:19.000 I write separately to emphasize a key conceptual point.

01:06:21.000 The 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.

01:06:31.000 You'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.

01:06:40.000 I see.

01:06:40.000 So if the executive violates the Constitution, then they will be charged and it will come to the court.

01:06:46.000 The court itself doesn't jump in and stop them.

01:06:49.000 The person looking for constitutional violations to remedy.

01:06:53.000 The presumption she's making is that we know before the court case happened that Trump violated the Constitution.

01:07:01.000 Right.

01:07:01.000 But it's up to the legal system to decide that, and then the judge has to make an impartial decision.

01:07:06.000 And grant relief to the parties in question, not to the rulers.

01:07:11.000 But yes, but I would phrase it, not to dictate edict, not to declare that law is as we decide it for the nation.

01:07:21.000 Laws are decided by the legislative, enforced by the executive, interpreted by the judges.

01:07:28.000 What she's writing is that, no, no, before even hearing the case, we know and we can determine for the nation how they must operate.

01:07:41.000 I want to hear the rest of it.

01:07:42.000 I know it's probably long-winded.

01:07:44.000 We can read it.

01:07:45.000 She could check.

01:07:47.000 It's, what is it, 21 pages?

01:07:49.000 We don't have to read the whole thing, but we can continue reading this first.

01:07:53.000 Here's the, listen to this.

01:07:54.000 Stated simply, what it means to have a system of government that is bounded by law is that everyone is constrained by law, no exceptions.

01:08:00.000 And for that to actually happen, courts must have the power to order everyone, including the executive, to follow the law full stop.

01:08:07.000 Unreal.

01:08:08.000 Except that violates the law of the Constitution and passed by Congress constraining the jurisdiction of the court.

01:08:17.000 What is the legal definition of full stop?

01:08:19.000 I'm not familiar with this one.

01:08:23.000 It's like writing period and then putting a period.

01:08:25.000 It's not a technical.

01:08:25.000 It's not in the dictionary near like mensrea.

01:08:28.000 Full stop.

01:08:30.000 It's like old, not phonograph.

01:08:33.000 Yeah, it's feminist. 1.00

01:08:34.000 It's like the Supreme Court type version of like telegraph.

01:08:38.000 It was like telegraph text.

01:08:39.000 I can only imagine what these discussions were like in conference where Justice Jackson's putting this out there.

01:08:44.000 Most of the justices are like, what are you talking about?

01:08:47.000 Like, have you read any of our standing opinions?

01:08:49.000 Will.

01:08:50.000 Have you ever had a conversation with Ian?

01:08:55.000 Fill me in on something.

01:08:56.000 What's the judge?

01:08:58.000 I wouldn't say that about you, Ian.

01:09:00.000 Well, maybe it's my first thing for bringing the ire because I'm just thinking about like, can she be fired? 0.99

01:09:05.000 Can she be voted out? 0.99

01:09:07.000 She can be impeached. 1.00

01:09:08.000 Literally, judges can be impeached for what exactly?

01:09:10.000 I think we should investigate her citizenship into naturalism deport. 0.99

01:09:13.000 I 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.

01:09:25.000 It's not good.

01:09:26.000 People should realize this is a real threat because this theory of judicial supremacy, this is the law in Israel.

01:09:33.000 That's something I don't think most people understand.

01:09:34.000 But that's actually...

01:09:38.000 She's pro-Israel.

01:09:39.000 She's pro-Israel.

01:09:41.000 So basically pro-Israel. 0.53

01:09:42.000 Yeah.

01:09:43.000 Everyone hear that?

01:09:44.000 She's pro-Israel.

01:09:44.000 You'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.

01:09:59.000 How's that defined?

01:10:00.000 However the court defines it.

01:10:02.000 So they're the most powerful entity in the country?

01:10:04.000 Under their current law?

01:10:05.000 Yes.

01:10:06.000 I heard that there was issues between Netanyahu and the courts where he was trying to, what, disempower the courts? 0.86

01:10:09.000 And there was sort of a lady's crazy. 0.98

01:10:12.000 Yeah.

01:10:12.000 He says, in a constitutional republic such as ours, a federal court has the power to order the executive to follow the law, and it must.

01:10:19.000 It is axiomatic.

01:10:21.000 The Constitution of the United States and the statutes of the people's representatives have enacted govern in our system of government.

01:10:27.000 She's literally saying we have power over the executive branch to do as we interpret outside of the parties before us.

01:10:40.000 She's literally like.

01:10:44.000 It's wild, but it's simply put, she is saying, if we bang the gavel and order the nation to do it, it is so.

01:10:53.000 She's literally just saying the Supreme Court dictates and you must.

01:10:58.000 Right.

01:10:58.000 The Supreme Court is supreme to the Supreme.

01:11:01.000 It's no longer a co-equal branches.

01:11:03.000 The branches are no longer co-equal.

01:11:05.000 How long?

01:11:05.000 Supreme Court, executive branch, and legislative branch.

01:11:07.000 How long do you think it's going to be until she puts out a dissent or whatever with hand-clapping emojis?

01:11:15.000 Oh, wait, there's one right here.

01:11:16.000 No, I'm kidding.

01:11:17.000 But it's actually, you know, this is a terrible decision.

01:11:20.000 It's not good that we have somebody on the court that clearly has this little understanding of American constitutional law.

01:11:25.000 Like, she has no business being in the court.

01:11:27.000 But 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.

01:11:37.000 Right.

01:11:37.000 No.

01:11:38.000 Did she ever?

01:11:38.000 She's insulted them.

01:11:39.000 Right. 0.99

01:11:40.000 She's insulted them and she's done so in a way that's really silly. 0.91

01:11:42.000 Like it's a very bad insult.

01:11:45.000 Well, I'm going to tell you why I love this because one of the issues, let's go back to Texas v.

01:11:52.000 Pennsylvania, 2020.

01:11:55.000 You remember that one?

01:11:55.000 Let me pull it up.

01:11:56.000 I'll probably remember it.

01:11:57.000 That 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.

01:12:06.000 And the Supreme Court was like, oh, we don't want to get involved in that.

01:12:10.000 Clarence Thomas and Alito were like, we need to answer this question.

01:12:14.000 They are suing.

01:12:15.000 It is incumbent upon us, the Supreme Court.

01:12:17.000 They refused.

01:12:18.000 So what I love here is the Supreme Court, what I want to see happen is them actually issue rulings like this.

01:12:30.000 When Katanji Brown Jackson tries to overstep, it's actually, let me put it this way.

01:12:36.000 It's not that she can't persuade them.

01:12:38.000 It's that she will persuade them in the other direction.

01:12:40.000 She will dissuade.

01:12:42.000 She's the opposite of Kagan.

01:12:43.000 Like, Kagan has historically been able To pull Roberts and Kavanaugh, not Kavanaugh, but like Barrett now.

01:12:49.000 Oh, yeah.

01:12:50.000 She used to be able to pull like Kennedy, I think. 0.97

01:12:52.000 And it was always because she was able to reason together with them under their premises. 1.00

01:12:58.000 Like this opinion from Jackson and the way that six justices were willing to basically call her an idiot. 1.00

01:13:04.000 Like you don't understand constitutional. 0.98

01:13:05.000 So 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?

01:13:11.000 And that's what I was thinking.

01:13:13.000 Right.

01:13:14.000 Yeah.

01:13:14.000 I mean, they might still come to the conclusion that they agree with Jackson on the outcome, but they don't think of her.

01:13:20.000 They don't take her seriously as a legal reasoner.

01:13:22.000 Yeah.

01:13:22.000 And that's not good for a liberal justice in the dissent in the middle.

01:13:26.000 No, 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.

01:13:37.000 The conservative justices are all very, very smart.

01:13:39.000 That's something I'll say about every single one of them.

01:13:41.000 They're all brilliant. 0.96

01:13:42.000 It is kind of dumb that it's like, did England do it? 0.95

01:13:46.000 They didn't, then we can't. 0.85

01:13:47.000 It's like, well, because that's the law, right?

01:13:51.000 I know, I know, but it's.

01:13:52.000 Because that's what the Judiciary Act says.

01:13:53.000 And it's what like the...

01:14:03.000 Like, you know, we imported it in the colonies and it continued into the, you know, and if like.

01:14:08.000 Yeah, Barrett writes, the universal injunction was conspicuously non-existent for most of our nation's history.

01:14:13.000 Its absence from 18th and 19th century equity practice settles the question of judicial authority.

01:14:17.000 Wasn't the first one in like 1964 or something like that?

01:14:20.000 Yeah.

01:14:21.000 I 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.

01:14:34.000 Like 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.

01:14:48.000 That's just not fair.

01:14:50.000 So, and it's more.

01:14:52.000 Oh, yeah, there are the principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our case on equity.

01:15:01.000 Justice Jackson, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever.

01:15:08.000 That might be meaner than the other thing we said, because this is something, you know, startling.

01:15:14.000 I was saying this backstage, but if a lawyer or a judge calls your argument novel or innovative, they're insulting you.

01:15:22.000 Yes.

01:15:23.000 That's an insult.

01:15:24.000 That means that you're coming up with something that's not grounded in the law.

01:15:27.000 You're just coming up with your own thing, which is exactly what they're saying.

01:15:30.000 Innovation is great in technology.

01:15:31.000 It's not so great in law.

01:15:32.000 It's not so great in the law.

01:15:33.000 Justice Jackson's position is difficult to pin down.

01:15:36.000 I like how they're saying different things.

01:15:38.000 It's untethered to reality.

01:15:40.000 We're not even sure exactly what she's arguing, but to the extent we can make sense of it, it's a...

01:15:46.000 Rhetoric aside, Justice Jackson's position is difficult to pin down.

01:15:50.000 She might be arguing that universal injunctions are appropriate, even required, whenever the defendant is part of the executive branch.

01:15:56.000 If so, her position goes far beyond the mainstream defense of universal injunctions.

01:16:01.000 As best we can tell, though, her argument is more extreme still, because its logic does not depend on the entry of a universal injunction.

01:16:10.000 Justice Jackson appears to believe that the reasoning behind any court order demands, quote, universal adherence, at least where the executive is concerned.

01:16:19.000 In 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.

01:16:29.000 Wow.

01:16:30.000 In 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.

01:16:41.000 No, no, no, it's not even that.

01:16:44.000 Justice Jackson is saying, if any district court says to the White House, so shall it be.

01:16:50.000 And not the judgment, right?

01:16:52.000 Not 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?

01:17:01.000 Because district courts don't make precedent.

01:17:03.000 So anything appearing in a district court opinion is said, so shall that be as well.

01:17:07.000 Just for fun, real quick.

01:17:08.000 Sorry, just real quick.

01:17:10.000 This whole section is literally just a it's it's it's several pages of Justice Jackson is retarded. 0.90

01:17:17.000 Yeah, yes. 0.98

01:17:18.000 Absolutely.

01:17:18.000 Yes.

01:17:19.000 Just for fun, I'm curious as to like, how are the ways that you could imagine things going bad if Justice Jackson were correct?

01:17:29.000 If Justice Jackson were correct, we would no longer have a meaningful democracy.

01:17:35.000 Supreme Court would be the governing authority of the country.

01:17:39.000 Actually, the entire judicial branch would be the governing authority of the country.

01:17:42.000 Every single executive decision would be subject to immediate review regardless of anybody who was even injured.

01:17:48.000 So this goes, again, this is basically we get the Israeli system.

01:17:52.000 Well, but there's, you know, you're just, there's the sovereign court and everybody below it.

01:17:56.000 But let's just take it beyond the, let's not make it light.

01:18:01.000 Let's say there would be no executive branch.

01:18:05.000 It would, it would still be it, but it would be a bit more formative.

01:18:08.000 So, you know, the here's an example of what something that could happen.

01:18:14.000 President Trump moves some troops around and is preparing for war, and there's some news reports.

01:18:19.000 On 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.

01:18:27.000 Yes.

01:18:28.000 Or let's get that.

01:18:30.000 You're being reasonable, Will.

01:18:31.000 Yeah.

01:18:32.000 At 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.

01:18:47.000 Everything else is performative.

01:18:49.000 The judges wouldn't wait for the executive to mount troops.

01:18:53.000 The judges would order the president.

01:18:55.000 They 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.

01:19:11.000 And then at the local level, there is no legislative, a state legislator or city council only judges.

01:19:18.000 So then, when a law is to be passed, the judges will decide whether it is or is not.

01:19:23.000 Yeah, this is we got judge, jury, and executioner.

01:19:26.000 That's the phrase, and that's how it functions in reality.

01:19:28.000 And 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.

01:19:40.000 That's how it functions.

01:19:41.000 The judge is not the jury.

01:19:43.000 The judge doesn't get to decide.

01:19:45.000 The judge doesn't get to execute, doesn't make the execution decisions for the president.

01:19:49.000 It just is the judge.

01:19:50.000 It'd be a much worse system of government, a much less agile system of government.

01:19:53.000 It's a dictatorship.

01:19:54.000 Yeah.

01:19:55.000 Well, sort of collective, I mean, a judicial supremacy, a juristocracy.

01:20:00.000 I think you'd call it communism.

01:20:01.000 I don't know that juristocracy.

01:20:03.000 It wouldn't necessarily be communism, but it's just a juristocracy.

01:20:07.000 Well, you'd be ruled by a party.

01:20:10.000 The judges are appointed.

01:20:11.000 Elections would be fake.

01:20:13.000 Basically, what she's saying is, if the judiciary shall speak it, it shall be.

01:20:18.000 Meaning, right now, what would happen?

01:20:21.000 Well, we can argue right now, they would start taking power, changing laws.

01:20:27.000 The 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.

01:20:45.000 Let's say someone says, we've had a string of cybercrime.

01:20:49.000 It's a new kind of crime.

01:20:50.000 We're not familiar with it.

01:20:51.000 We don't know what it falls under.

01:20:52.000 We need a law to make it illegal.

01:20:53.000 That's not what would work in the judiciary.

01:20:55.000 The judge would just say, anyone who does it, 10 years.

01:20:59.000 So as it is spoken, so shall it be done.

01:21:01.000 There's no voting.

01:21:01.000 There's no legislative branch.

01:21:03.000 And the executive must do what they're told to do.

01:21:06.000 So you said six people were like, hey, Brown Jackson, you're off the court here.

01:21:11.000 And then two people agreed with her?

01:21:13.000 Is that right?

01:21:13.000 Three people?

01:21:14.000 No, she didn't even get any of the other liberals to sign onto this opinion.

01:21:18.000 The other liberals, like, that was the point where they said the principal dissent goes onto well-trotted ground with the Judiciary Act.

01:21:25.000 And then they're like, but Justice Jackson's dissent is totally novel and untethered, right?

01:21:30.000 That was the reason they were saying that because I think Justice Sotomayor had a dissent joined by Justice Jackson's Justice.

01:21:35.000 I love this footnote.

01:21:36.000 Think about what this position means.

01:21:38.000 If 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?

01:21:47.000 Perhaps Justice Jackson would instinctively say yes.

01:21:50.000 It'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?

01:21:59.000 Among its many problems, Justice Jackson's view is at odds with our system of divided judicial authority.

01:22:05.000 They'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.

01:22:17.000 Right, right.

01:22:19.000 Right.

01:22:19.000 Under current law, like if you, you know, there's multiple judges here in West Virginia.

01:22:23.000 If 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.

01:22:31.000 Other judges are not bound by that reasoning.

01:22:33.000 They can reason differently on the very same. 1.00

01:22:34.000 She's like, oh my, like the degree of stupidity. 1.00

01:22:38.000 So 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? 1.00

01:22:48.000 And then we go, whoa, does this mean everyone in the country?

01:22:51.000 No, 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.

01:23:01.000 And she's arguing.

01:23:02.000 How did none of her clerks get this?

01:23:04.000 She's the other thing. 1.00

01:23:05.000 She must have hired some absolute idiots as her clerks. 1.00

01:23:08.000 She wouldn't have just been like, whoa, well, you can't do this. 1.00

01:23:10.000 This is insane.

01:23:11.000 Well, let's think about what this means.

01:23:12.000 Her argument would be that in Alaska, a lower court district says the NFA is unconstitutional.

01:23:19.000 Everybody can have guns.

01:23:21.000 Then in Maryland, a lower court says the NFA is constitutional and we're going to go on to ban all guns.

01:23:27.000 Simultaneously, under her argument, the United States will ban and unban all guns in the exact same time.

01:23:32.000 Yeah, which district judge is the executive supposed to ban?

01:23:34.000 And is it just any, the district judge that gets to it first doesn't just bind the executive.

01:23:38.000 They bind the entire country?

01:23:39.000 It's reverse chronological.

01:23:40.000 That's how we work.

01:23:43.000 First and last.

01:23:45.000 It works.

01:23:46.000 Wait, wait, there's more than that.

01:23:48.000 Counterspell.

01:23:49.000 There's more.

01:23:50.000 They write, in other words, it is unnecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the judiciary.

01:23:56.000 What matters is how the judiciary may constrain the executive.

01:23:59.000 Just as Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition, everyone from the president on down is bound by the law.

01:24:06.000 Can you imagine?

01:24:07.000 I love that one.

01:24:08.000 Do you imagine that she is embarrassed right now?

01:24:11.000 Like 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.

01:24:25.000 And having no support from anyone else.

01:24:26.000 None.

01:24:27.000 Nobody.

01:24:27.000 Yeah, none of the, I mean, you would think that like Elena Kagan would have looked at her and been like, Katanji.

01:24:32.000 Yeah, don't you have any friends?

01:24:34.000 You can't write this.

01:24:35.000 Don't you have any friends on the court that could be like, yo, you can't write this.

01:24:38.000 This is a bad idea. 0.74

01:24:40.000 Take this opinion and put it in your trash folder. 0.77

01:24:43.000 Yeah. 0.90

01:24:43.000 Now, furthermore, the people that are defending her, they're almost all defending her, saying that, oh, the people that are attacking her are racist. 0.90

01:24:51.000 But check this out.

01:24:52.000 Correct 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.

01:24:59.000 Well, 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.

01:25:10.000 And so it's doing law, right?

01:25:13.000 Like there's, there's, I often make this distinction, like there's, there's doing law and then there's not doing law.

01:25:19.000 Jackson's not doing law.

01:25:21.000 She'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.

01:25:29.000 That's not, as, as the majority says, it's not what this dissent is doing.

01:25:32.000 It's not right.

01:25:32.000 But it's crazy how, look, like she's just literally saying, our branch of government determines what the executive branch gets to do.

01:25:42.000 Yeah.

01:25:44.000 Busted.

01:25:44.000 It's Crazy.

01:25:46.000 So she issues the dissent.

01:25:48.000 Then everyone else is like, actually, here's our opinions on the dissent.

01:25:51.000 Is it normal for then her to come back and be like, well, here's my opinion on your opinion?

01:25:54.000 Or is at that point they just stay silent?

01:25:56.000 They discuss, they send opinions back and forth to each other.

01:25:59.000 There's like, this is the product of months of work and back and forth responses.

01:26:03.000 That's why the majority opinion is responding to dissent and vice versa.

01:26:06.000 That's why it's so shocking that this actually made it to that this sees the light.

01:26:10.000 I mean, it really is impressive how, I mean, you don't normally see stuff like this.

01:26:15.000 You don't normally see opinions this way.

01:26:16.000 Do 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.

01:26:28.000 And she goes, like, don't do it.

01:26:32.000 Oh, I mean, I think the conservative justices were like, whatever you want to do, you want to put this opinion, go right ahead.

01:26:39.000 I would pay a hundred bucks to be like sitting in the room watching Clarence Thomas read that.

01:26:43.000 Just watching the expressions. 1.00

01:26:45.000 Just Elena Kagan sitting alone being like, how am I ever going to get anything done with these morons? 1.00

01:26:54.000 Wait, wait, wait, hold on, hold on. 1.00

01:26:55.000 I think I just figured it out.

01:26:58.000 Several years ago, when they were nominating Katanji Brown Jackson, she secretly meets with Trump and he's like, everyone's going to hate you.

01:27:08.000 You will be the hero that we need. 0.99

01:27:10.000 And she's like, I'll be as dumb as I can. 1.00

01:27:13.000 Make the liberals look stupid. 1.00

01:27:14.000 Katanji, you are my black sheep. 1.00

01:27:18.000 You're sacrificing legacy, your good name. 1.00

01:27:20.000 And she goes, yes, but I will make Democrats look really dumb for a long time.

01:27:25.000 And then right now, as he's saying this, only Trump knows what Katanji Brown Jackson has actually sacrificed to her. 0.86

01:27:31.000 She's the secret weapon to destroy the legitimacy of liberal jurisprudence. 1.00

01:27:36.000 With her reputation being dragged as it is, and internally in the court, obviously, and externally with shows like this making fun of her. 0.94

01:27:45.000 What's her road to redemption right now?

01:27:48.000 Just actually issue some good rulings for a while and get the other judges to let Kagan ghostwrite everything.

01:27:56.000 Just be like, defer for a while.

01:27:58.000 I am excited for what Freedom Tunes makes out of this.

01:28:01.000 Don't let us down.

01:28:02.000 Black Sheep.

01:28:03.000 It's like the movie.

01:28:04.000 It's all about that.

01:28:05.000 If there's another Democrat president, I wouldn't be surprised if there's some serious push to have her kind of step down. 1.00

01:28:11.000 I mean, it's not good for the liberal.

01:28:15.000 We got Amy Cody Barrett back.

01:28:17.000 Yeah.

01:28:17.000 No, she was drifting.

01:28:18.000 Yeah, she, you know, I think she, you know, who knows exactly what it was, but these are, she came out right here.

01:28:24.000 I don't know.

01:28:25.000 Maybe she got like, we were stinging them for a while.

01:28:28.000 I 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.

01:28:43.000 So 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.

01:28:52.000 I am so excited.

01:28:54.000 I am so grateful in retrospect that this woman was confirmed.

01:28:59.000 Yeah.

01:29:00.000 If you had to choose somebody to be confirmed, yeah.

01:29:02.000 Thanks, James.

01:29:03.000 Right.

01:29:03.000 If we, you know, we're looking at they're going to get a liberal justice on the court.

01:29:07.000 Who's it going to be? 0.98

01:29:08.000 The dumbest one imaginable is the best case scenario. 0.99

01:29:11.000 Not only is she bad at what she does, but she delegitimizes, what do you say, liberal jurisprudence? 1.00

01:29:16.000 Liberal jurisprudence.

01:29:17.000 She honestly really, I mean, it's like when the liberals on the court, you've got Sodom IR, who's not particularly intelligent. 0.94

01:29:25.000 Not that she's, I'm not saying she's dumb, but she's not like, she's not somebody smart. 0.87

01:29:29.000 And then they're Supreme Court smart. 0.94

01:29:30.000 And that's a 20 IQ point gap at least.

01:29:33.000 And, you know.

01:29:34.000 Her clerks.

01:29:36.000 Well, yeah, I am.

01:29:37.000 I mean, if I were clerking, I mean, I've worked in chambers before, right?

01:29:41.000 And it's like, if you tell, you give the judge your honest opinion and because you're trying to help them.

01:29:46.000 I mean, you'll fall in line if they tell you to write it.

01:29:48.000 But I mean, if I'm sitting there as a clerk and I know standing law, I took con law.

01:29:54.000 I just got out of law school a few years ago.

01:29:55.000 I'm like, Justice Jackson, you can't do this stuff.

01:29:59.000 But think about who she hired.

01:30:00.000 Yeah.

01:30:01.000 She hired people who themselves hired her. 0.86

01:30:02.000 So what is it called?

01:30:03.000 Is it the Peter principal?

01:30:05.000 I've heard of that.

01:30:06.000 What's the one where...

01:30:09.000 Is that?

01:30:09.000 Yes, yes.

01:30:10.000 So 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. 0.98

01:30:18.000 That's actually a good point because she's just not – Well, this ought to help.

01:30:23.000 Well, I mean, didn't Joe Biden say that he was going to nominate a black woman for justice?

01:30:27.000 This is 100%.

01:30:29.000 She was entirely hired.

01:30:31.000 She is a DEI justice. 0.92

01:30:33.000 She is there because she is a black woman. 0.75

01:30:36.000 It's funny. 0.99

01:30:36.000 I said that's so gross. 0.99

01:30:37.000 Not that there was a black person as a judge. 0.99

01:30:39.000 It's that to get hired based on the skin color is grotesque. 0.99

01:30:43.000 That is sick. 0.97

01:30:45.000 It's racist. 0.99

01:30:45.000 It is severely racist. 0.99

01:30:47.000 They really, and they screwed themselves out of justice.

01:30:50.000 I mean, there's a guy named Sri Srinivasan, who's like the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit, which is usually, that's actually where.

01:30:58.000 He's a liberal guy?

01:30:58.000 He's a liberal guy.

01:30:59.000 He was solicitor general under Obama.

01:31:01.000 Oh, wow.

01:31:02.000 And then a D.C. circuit judge, and everybody had him a shortlist.

01:31:05.000 He would have been the first Asian American on the Supreme Court.

01:31:07.000 Wow.

01:31:08.000 And Obama had, they got a lot of victories.

01:31:12.000 Yeah.

01:31:12.000 And 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.

01:31:22.000 And 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. 1.00

01:31:31.000 Dude, Joe Biden's not brilliant enough to think of those things.

01:31:34.000 I do love the spectrum.

01:31:35.000 It's like on a scale of Katanji Brown Jackson to Clarence Thomas, how smart are you?

01:31:40.000 Yeah.

01:31:40.000 Like Clarence Thomas talks very, very little, and he's the smartest guy on the court.

01:31:45.000 And she talks the most and she's dumb as a box of rocks. 1.00

01:31:47.000 Yeah. 0.99

01:31:47.000 That's how I think Jeff Bezos says at board meetings, you know, the leader should speak last. 0.99

01:31:51.000 That's his take on it anyway.

01:31:53.000 Says, you know, listen listen.

01:31:54.000 You can't express yourself concisely.

01:31:56.000 I just want to know, how do we get eight more Clarence Thomases?

01:31:59.000 Alito's good, too.

01:32:01.000 So we do have, you know, something to promote my organization and what we do.

01:32:07.000 Emil Bovey is going up for the third circuit.

01:32:10.000 He's an absolute badass.

01:32:11.000 He was President Trump's lawyer, and then he Was acting deputy attorney general.

01:32:16.000 And now I think he's currently assistant, acting assistant attorney general.

01:32:21.000 But he's going for the third circuit.

01:32:23.000 He was absolutely badass.

01:32:24.000 I 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?

01:32:34.000 And he said, it's not my place to comment on President Trump's pardons in the same way.

01:32:37.000 It wouldn't be my place to comment on President Biden pardoning drug traffickers and death row inmates.

01:32:44.000 And all Durbin did was just kind of shrink at the end of that.

01:32:48.000 You mentioned that if a Democrat was in the presidential seat, I think you were mentioning saying the president, that maybe they would resign.

01:32:54.000 Katanja Brown Zachary Jackson might.

01:32:56.000 They might push her to because she's just push her to. 1.00

01:32:57.000 How does that work?

01:32:59.000 You know, you try and bully her into giving up her seat. 0.98

01:33:01.000 Like 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.

01:33:07.000 I just, I don't think they probably can because she's, again, it's the DEI problem, right?

01:33:11.000 Like 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?

01:33:17.000 Well, she didn't get the position based on merit.

01:33:19.000 She's not going anywhere for at least three years.

01:33:21.000 And if a Republican wins after Donald Trump, she will not go anywhere for those four years.

01:33:28.000 Donald Trump is going to likely to appoint one more justice during this time.

01:33:34.000 I bet that one of Thomas are both.

01:33:37.000 One, maybe.

01:33:39.000 Yeah, I mean, they're both getting up there, and they don't want to be replaced by Democrats.

01:33:42.000 Look, you don't want to do what Ruth Bader Ginsburg did.

01:33:45.000 Exactly.

01:33:46.000 And I trust Clarence Thomas to have a great successor.

01:33:50.000 Hopefully.

01:33:51.000 Yeah.

01:33:51.000 Assuming, I mean, like, I trust Clarence Thomas to know who would be the right successor.

01:33:55.000 And then he suggests that.

01:33:58.000 I hope.

01:33:58.000 Well, actually, how would that work?

01:34:00.000 Will they go to Trump and say, this is the guy you want?

01:34:02.000 I mean, it'll be up to Trump.

01:34:03.000 He has a team, and he takes outside advice as well.

01:34:06.000 But it'll be up to me.

01:34:06.000 I mean, Cody Barrick was like a C plus.

01:34:09.000 Yeah.

01:34:10.000 I mean, I think there's a reason that the Federalist Society folks aren't as involved with advice on judicial nominations this come around.

01:34:18.000 What has Kavanaugh been?

01:34:19.000 A C plus as well, right?

01:34:20.000 Kavanaugh's been pretty good.

01:34:21.000 I'd give Kavanaugh like a B plus, A minus.

01:34:22.000 B plus.

01:34:23.000 Same with a Kanan.

01:34:23.000 A minus.

01:34:24.000 I don't know, on guns, Brett Kavanaugh is kind of annoying.

01:34:28.000 He's actually pretty.

01:34:29.000 I mean, he had a great Second Amendment to sentence when he was on the D.C. circuit.

01:34:32.000 I mean, it's that cert decision that's kind of annoying.

01:34:34.000 What's that?

01:34:39.000 There'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.

01:34:59.000 But he also said that I'll oversimplify it.

01:35:03.000 It is okay for states to make difficult permitting processes for going on gun.

01:35:09.000 He said you have to issue the permit, but.

01:35:14.000 And he didn't say it like this, but he basically said they can make it extremely difficult, nigh impossible.

01:35:20.000 That's weird.

01:35:20.000 Yeah.

01:35:21.000 Is that really what he said?

01:35:22.000 That doesn't strike.

01:35:22.000 I 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.

01:35:32.000 And he was like, you can't may issue.

01:35:34.000 You must issue.

01:35:36.000 So the ruling was good in that states like New York could no longer deny it.

01:35:40.000 But 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.

01:35:50.000 Did he do that in a concurrence?

01:35:51.000 I don't think, because he didn't write Bruin, did he?

01:35:53.000 And I think that was like the last major.

01:35:55.000 This was a few years ago.

01:35:56.000 I can't remember.

01:35:57.000 I remember that we had a bunch of stories on it because we were pissed.

01:36:01.000 Like, the problem is that it's great that we won the shall issue rule, but in New Jersey, they lie to you when you try to get a gun.

01:36:11.000 And so they shouldn't be allowed to create a permitting process that requires you to jump back and forth.

01:36:17.000 It took me months when I was in Jersey to get a permit.

01:36:20.000 Months.

01:36:20.000 Because they kept lying to me.

01:36:22.000 The police lied to me.

01:36:24.000 I would call the government, and they would always give me something different.

01:36:28.000 And I guess technically the shall issue argument is you're allowed, like you can't do that.

01:36:36.000 But 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.

01:36:44.000 And the only way to get a concealed carry is if you're rich or famous in New Jersey.

01:36:50.000 Well, that can't be the law.

01:36:52.000 Not anymore.

01:36:52.000 That's right.

01:36:53.000 That's shallow.

01:36:53.000 She defeats that.

01:36:54.000 So it was a good ruling, but it was like...

01:37:01.000 I 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.

01:37:15.000 And I'm like, that's an infringement.

01:37:17.000 The method by which these blue states stop us from owning guns is by making it extremely difficult to get, just like the NFA did.

01:37:24.000 Yeah.

01:37:25.000 And I think that I would liken that to, you know, your right to a speedy trial.

01:37:29.000 Obviously, it's a different venue, but your rights are your rights and you have a right to a speedy access to your rights.

01:37:35.000 But to be fair, I shouldn't throw Kevin out with the bathwater simply because of one or a couple rules.

01:37:41.000 And especially because of a concurring opinion.

01:37:43.000 It's not binding.

01:37:44.000 He's observing what current law allows.

01:37:47.000 All I know is every single time there's an issue of logic, Alito and Thomas get it right.

01:37:51.000 Yeah, Alito and Thomas are the best.

01:37:53.000 There's no question.

01:37:53.000 They're the two A's.

01:37:54.000 Are they the oldest dudes?

01:37:55.000 I should probably know.

01:37:56.000 Are they the oldest dudes?

01:37:57.000 Yes.

01:37:57.000 Alito is older?

01:37:59.000 Oh, well.

01:38:00.000 I think.

01:38:01.000 I know who's older.

01:38:02.000 I know they're all.

01:38:04.000 It'd be great to get these judges on the episodes.

01:38:07.000 I know they're busy.

01:38:08.000 Yeah, they're not going to do that.

01:38:09.000 Maybe after they retire.

01:38:10.000 Possibly.

01:38:11.000 Alito's 75.

01:38:12.000 There's a whole thing about nothing.

01:38:16.000 Born in April 50.

01:38:18.000 Yep.

01:38:18.000 Thomas, Alito.

01:38:20.000 So Thomas, 77.

01:38:21.000 Alito, 74.

01:38:23.000 Sonumiar, 71.

01:38:24.000 Kagan, 65.

01:38:26.000 Gorsik, 57.

01:38:27.000 Kavanaugh.

01:38:28.000 Kevana, 60.

01:38:29.000 Wow.

01:38:29.000 Amy Coney Bear is 53, and Katanji Brown is 54.

01:38:33.000 Whoa.

01:38:34.000 So, yeah, you know what?

01:38:35.000 Alito and Thomas should retire.

01:38:39.000 Unfortunately.

01:38:40.000 Unfortunately, but they got to choose their successors.

01:38:42.000 I don't know how we do it, but they're the best. 0.69

01:38:45.000 Yeah, it sucks, but you can't. 0.99

01:38:48.000 they have balls. 0.99

01:38:49.000 I can't stand how many times they deny cert or whatever, and it's like the two that are saying, Let's answer the question for this nation. 0.98

01:38:56.000 It's Alito and Thomas.

01:38:57.000 Yeah, yeah, their nervous systems are working just fine.

01:39:01.000 Their nervous systems are working just fine, clearly.

01:39:04.000 Yeah, there's a couple 2A cases that were just denied cert about magazine bans and what they call assault rifle bands.

01:39:12.000 Those should not have, they should, I think it was Gorsuch that said that they're going to, they want to hear them in the next Kavanaugh.

01:39:19.000 It was Kavanaugh.

01:39:20.000 Okay, fair enough.

01:39:21.000 Who 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.

01:39:32.000 Magazine bans are clearly unconstitutional.

01:39:35.000 So I want them to hear this stuff.

01:39:39.000 I'm sick of even look, the Constitution says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

01:39:47.000 And all we ever actually get is SCOTUS arguing to the extent by which How much the government can actually infringe.

01:39:56.000 Yeah, yeah, yeah.

01:39:57.000 And so they're saying, like, well, clearly nobody should have a nuclear weapon.

01:40:00.000 That's not the argument.

01:40:01.000 We have a constitution.

01:40:03.000 Change the Second Amendment if you think it should be the case. 0.82

01:40:06.000 And 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.

01:40:14.000 But what I don't like is this nation and the Constitution has always just been whatever we decide it is.

01:40:21.000 And that means we don't actually have a written constitution.

01:40:25.000 When they ratified the Constitution, there were still blasphemy laws in the books.

01:40:28.000 They were in force for 100-plus years.

01:40:29.000 So now what we have is...

01:40:33.000 Of course.

01:40:34.000 And what I love is we've been winning on the gun issue forever.

01:40:37.000 Not forever, but in the past several decades, gun rights have been expanding tremendously.

01:40:41.000 And that's a good thing.

01:40:42.000 I'm just like, let's stop pretending anyone is actually following what the Constitution is supposed to be doing.

01:40:48.000 They're simply arguing the extent to which they're willing to accept things.

01:40:52.000 Like the justices say, can you have nukes?

01:40:56.000 Nah.

01:40:57.000 Well, hold on.

01:40:57.000 It says the right to keep in bare arms.

01:40:58.000 It doesn't define what those arms are.

01:41:01.000 And if your argument is nukes are clearly beyond the scope of what they meant, then the liberals were right the whole time.

01:41:07.000 And 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.

01:41:15.000 I reject that premise.

01:41:16.000 And if you have a problem with nuclear weapons, which I do, I don't think people should have them.

01:41:20.000 Still, the Constitution says the right-to-keeping barbs should not be infringed.

01:41:23.000 So maybe two-thirds of the states can get together and actually say, we're going to say nobody can have nuclear weapons.

01:41:29.000 And I think most people would be okay with it.

01:41:30.000 Or like chemical weapons, but I think those are just illegal.

01:41:32.000 chemical weapons?

01:41:42.000 No, because this is actually interesting.

01:41:44.000 At 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.

01:41:52.000 And 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.

01:42:05.000 And 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.

01:42:17.000 So I don't like it.

01:42:19.000 I think that if you commit a felony, the judge should say as part of the sentencing, 10 years in prison and 15 years, no bearing arms.

01:42:30.000 But getting a life sentence to take away your rights, I think is cruel and unusual.

01:42:36.000 But I think it's fair that we would have to argue.

01:42:39.000 Yeah, I don't agree with you.

01:42:41.000 So if a dude smuggles in a rare piece of art.

01:42:47.000 I'd say I mean, I think the current rule is like violent felonies.

01:42:51.000 I'm pretty sure it's just felons.

01:42:52.000 Just felons.

01:42:53.000 Wasn'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?

01:43:03.000 I mean, it's, I think, in the way in the Second Amendment jurisprudence and in other places too.

01:43:07.000 I'm pretty sure this is a case of the Supreme Court.

01:43:09.000 We'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.

01:43:16.000 And 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.

01:43:25.000 And it's like, okay, that's a little egregious.

01:43:28.000 You know, at a certain point, you should get your rights back.

01:43:30.000 Maybe there's got to be a mechanism by which we rectify that.

01:43:33.000 I'm a honor.

01:43:34.000 I think so.

01:43:35.000 Rahimi 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.

01:43:47.000 However, 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.

01:43:54.000 So yes, Rohimi is that's under Rohimi.

01:43:56.000 The felony gun ban is not restricted to violent felonies, any felony.

01:44:01.000 Okay.

01:44:02.000 What about? 0.93

01:44:03.000 Which is ridiculous. 0.97

01:44:04.000 Oh, and the low. 0.94

01:44:05.000 Oh, it's interesting.

01:44:05.000 The 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.

01:44:13.000 I don't think even violent felonies should be permanently disarmed.

01:44:17.000 So put it this way.

01:44:19.000 Do you think that any violent crime warrants life in prison?

01:44:22.000 No.

01:44:23.000 Of course.

01:44:24.000 So violent crimes should have a set of years by which you can have a gun.

01:44:28.000 And 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.

01:44:35.000 Instead, they say, we're giving you a life sentence to never be able to keep in bear arms again.

01:44:41.000 I think that's egregious.

01:44:42.000 No, I think that's perfect.

01:44:43.000 A life sentence for a lesser.

01:44:46.000 For the loss of the right to bear arms.

01:44:48.000 I mean, I don't consider that.

01:44:49.000 It's a right.

01:44:51.000 Yeah, but they're stripping you of a right for life.

01:44:53.000 I think there should be a scale to that.

01:44:55.000 I mean, well, in the same way that you vote, you lose your right to vote too.

01:44:59.000 No, you shouldn't.

01:45:00.000 I 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.

01:45:11.000 And they're like, that's it.

01:45:12.000 You go to prison.

01:45:13.000 And you're like, I'm not a violent guy.

01:45:15.000 It was a bar fight. 1.00

01:45:16.000 It was stupid. 1.00

01:45:17.000 A fight broke out. 1.00

01:45:18.000 I shouldn't have done it.

01:45:19.000 And you get, you know, five to 10 years or whatever.

01:45:21.000 He gets out and they're like, you could also never vote. 0.74

01:45:23.000 And you can, there's a clear difference between that guy and like a serial rapist murderer who's killed 20 people.

01:45:29.000 We will say, not only that person never gets out, they might get the death penalty.

01:45:32.000 I mean, obviously, I think there's a context difference.

01:45:36.000 But yeah, I mean, I don't know.

01:45:37.000 I 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.

01:45:49.000 They 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.

01:45:55.000 You 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.

01:46:03.000 And you go, Drett.

01:46:04.000 And then you go walk 50 miles south, say your name is Rick Bigsby, and you can own a gun again.

01:46:11.000 I mean, sure, you know, de facto, but like du jure still matters.

01:46:14.000 Like what the actual law was still matters in terms of understanding.

01:46:18.000 It matters in terms of understanding what when people read the Second Amendment, what did they understand it to mean at the time?

01:46:25.000 My 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.

01:46:38.000 And they had no way of tracking that.

01:46:39.000 And no one was going to go check, shave your beard, shave your head, and you're a different person.

01:46:44.000 And how did they know?

01:46:45.000 I think that was what Huckleberry Finn was about, wasn't it?

01:46:49.000 Mark Twain faked it.

01:46:51.000 We got to go to chats.

01:46:51.000 Sorry.

01:46:52.000 Sorry to interrupt.

01:46:52.000 But we're going to go to your chats.

01:46:53.000 Smash the like button.

01:46:54.000 Share the show with everyone you know.

01:46:56.000 It was Tom Sawyer that faked his death.

01:46:57.000 I probably didn't share the show.

01:46:58.000 This show's awesome.

01:47:00.000 We're going to read your chats.

01:47:01.000 Sorry, Shane Wilder.

01:47:02.000 He 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.

01:47:13.000 Good.

01:47:13.000 I dig it.

01:47:14.000 Whoa.

01:47:14.000 Good.

01:47:16.000 Let's go.

01:47:17.000 CB says we should increase representation from 535 to 3,000 in the House.

01:47:21.000 Isn't it 400?

01:47:22.000 No, it's no issue.

01:47:22.000 400, right?

01:47:23.000 4,500.

01:47:25.000 435.

01:47:26.000 I'm a strong believer that making the Congress bigger will just make it more and more impersonal and impossible to manage.

01:47:36.000 And 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.

01:47:46.000 What 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.

01:48:00.000 And what's the point of Congress?

01:48:01.000 They'll get called if the power goes out to go do the job for us, but we don't need them.

01:48:05.000 That's what we have a governor for. 1.00

01:48:06.000 No.

01:48:06.000 It's a bad idea.

01:48:07.000 Why?

01:48:08.000 Because not like we shouldn't expect every single person in the country to be informed on not merely saying every relevant policy.

01:48:18.000 And you're saying that we will be governed by the unemployed.

01:48:22.000 Well, getting governed by one guy that gets bribed by Halliburton's.

01:48:26.000 There's certainly problems with that, but I'd rather that than being governed by the unemployed.

01:48:29.000 That's a good question.

01:48:29.000 No, no, no.

01:48:30.000 Because 700,000 people vote together.

01:48:33.000 They only count for one of the 465 votes.

01:48:35.000 Already the problem we have, unemployed people are more likely to vote in any circumstance.

01:48:40.000 At least we have some filters.

01:48:42.000 Yeah, there's no government like that in the world.

01:48:45.000 I mean, that's pure direct democracy in a country of 300 million on literature.

01:48:49.000 And it's not merely who we vote for.

01:48:51.000 It's voting on every relevant statute that nobody's, I mean, you think the problem of legislators not reading statute is bad now, right?

01:48:59.000 It's just, I mean, I think that's a terrible idea.

01:49:01.000 Here we go.

01:49:02.000 We got Xantho says, hate to be the blackpill on this, but this isn't going to end birthright citizenship.

01:49:06.000 And the Big Beautiful bill is also getting the few good things in it removed by a non-elected official.

01:49:10.000 Ooh.

01:49:11.000 No more blackpillings.

01:49:13.000 How is that possible, the parliamentarian?

01:49:15.000 Because the parliamentarian.

01:49:17.000 Because it's Senate rules, right?

01:49:18.000 Normally, 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.

01:49:25.000 And so some of the things in the House bill are just not getting through.

01:49:27.000 Okay, so the Republican Senate should just nuke the rules and release. 0.99

01:49:31.000 That's what Harry Reid did that ended up with.

01:49:33.000 But 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.

01:49:40.000 Like that's agreed, agreed.

01:49:43.000 I want short-barreled rifles and suppressors.

01:49:47.000 Yeah, I need to.

01:49:49.000 I will say this.

01:49:50.000 I think Thomas Massey's arguments and Rand Paul's arguments against the Big Beautiful Bill are horribly bad.

01:49:55.000 Like among the just not persuasive at all.

01:49:58.000 Well, I think they're persuasive.

01:49:59.000 No.

01:50:00.000 I just think that I would argue this.

01:50:05.000 They're not persuasive.

01:50:06.000 You're right.

01:50:06.000 I agree with you.

01:50:07.000 I would say they're good points to be made, but it doesn't matter.

01:50:10.000 You should vote for the bill anyway.

01:50:11.000 Right.

01:50:12.000 You should vote for the bill anyway.

01:50:13.000 I don't know.

01:50:13.000 I'd like to.

01:50:13.000 Hold on, hold on.

01:50:14.000 Rand Paul agreed.

01:50:15.000 Yeah.

01:50:15.000 Is he going to vote for the bill?

01:50:17.000 So I interviewed him.

01:50:18.000 He said, if I am the deciding vote, I am a yes.

01:50:20.000 Thomas Massey said, nope, not going to happen.

01:50:23.000 So I respect Thomas Massey greatly.

01:50:26.000 I think he's wrong on this, and I think he's wrong on a lot of things, but he's a good dude.

01:50:29.000 Rand Paul, I respect, saying I will.

01:50:32.000 He was actually funny.

01:50:33.000 He 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.

01:50:39.000 Yeah, he already knows.

01:50:41.000 I mean, but I just remember the first term, and we were fighting tooth and nail to get funding for the border wall.

01:50:47.000 Remember the national emergency debate?

01:50:48.000 We were trying to get money reallocated.

01:50:50.000 And 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.

01:51:01.000 I got one for you.

01:51:02.000 Yesterday, 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.

01:51:19.000 Seditious conspiracy.

01:51:21.000 Which states, if any two people conspire, among other things, to delay law enforcement, it is a seditious conspiracy.

01:51:28.000 I 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.

01:51:35.000 I'm just saying, if we don't.

01:51:38.000 So illegal immigrants are not part of the American community. 0.93

01:51:43.000 They are spitting in our face and stealing From us.

01:51:45.000 And the American people have voted and been polled.

01:51:48.000 And the ultimate poll is the vote.

01:51:49.000 Donald Trump, deport these people who have violated our rules.

01:51:53.000 This is not okay.

01:51:55.000 Zoran Mamdani says in his campaign, he will, he says, protect on city-owned property and city-leased property, protect people from deportation.

01:52:06.000 That's more than just saying, I'll stand back and refuse to cooperate.

01:52:11.000 Yeah, like if he gets in the way of federal law enforcement, that's a crime.

01:52:15.000 He should be indicted for the crime.

01:52:16.000 I think there have already been some indictments, haven't there?

01:52:19.000 Or there's been talk of indictments.

01:52:20.000 Well, McIvor for punching a cop, but when they charge Trump's lawyers with RICO.

01:52:25.000 Oh, yeah.

01:52:26.000 No, none of the, I mean, I have no clue.

01:52:28.000 When are the Republicans going to actually Brad Lander fought ICE agents and he got no charges?

01:52:33.000 Oh, yeah, no, he should have been indicted.

01:52:34.000 Yep.

01:52:35.000 That needs to happen.

01:52:36.000 Well, you know, as strong as Trump's administration has been, I guess you can only move so far.

01:52:41.000 God, I don't know.

01:52:42.000 I wouldn't be surprised if things come out.

01:52:44.000 People often, in general, I don't get blackpilled about the lack of indictments because litigation takes time, indictments take time.

01:52:51.000 That's true.

01:52:52.000 All right, let's go.

01:52:54.000 Effets says KBJ is now the Jim Kramer of the Supreme Court.

01:52:58.000 Oh, that's mean.

01:52:59.000 That's brutal.

01:53:00.000 That's harder.

01:53:01.000 That's harder than anything anybody bears.

01:53:03.000 It's true.

01:53:05.000 Rofflo says, Scalia Descents was a great read when I was getting my paralegal degree.

01:53:09.000 Full stop.

01:53:10.000 Can you imagine KBJ's equivalent?

01:53:12.000 I need a helmet and floaties to read that.

01:53:16.000 Scalia Descents is a great book for anybody who wants to read it.

01:53:18.000 I recommend it.

01:53:21.000 All right.

01:53:21.000 I heard that the conspiracy theory is that he was murdered.

01:53:25.000 Yeah, I heard that one.

01:53:26.000 Possible, but I don't know.

01:53:29.000 Awesome, but not in the sense that it's like a good thing.

01:53:31.000 Just it inspires awe in my brain.

01:53:33.000 What?

01:53:33.000 Why?

01:53:34.000 What's the anyway?

01:53:35.000 How did he die?

01:53:36.000 He was like an episode.

01:53:37.000 I mean, he just died in his bed on a vacation.

01:53:40.000 Yeah.

01:53:41.000 And then like conspiracy, there's a conspiracy that he was killed.

01:53:44.000 So who was in?

01:53:46.000 Who was in at the time?

01:53:47.000 Was it Obama?

01:53:48.000 Yeah, it was like at the end of Obama's second term.

01:53:50.000 They wanted to get a liberal and they nominated Merrick Garland to replace him.

01:53:54.000 And then the Republicans refused to fight.

01:53:55.000 And then the Republicans refused to fill the seat, and then that seat became Kavanaugh.

01:53:58.000 It was Kavanaugh?

01:53:59.000 I thought it was Gorsuch.

01:54:00.000 No?

01:54:00.000 No, it was Kavanaugh first.

01:54:01.000 It was Kavanaugh?

01:54:02.000 I'm pretty sure.

01:54:03.000 I think.

01:54:04.000 No, you're right.

01:54:05.000 It was Gorsuch.

01:54:05.000 Gorsuch was the first.

01:54:06.000 That's right.

01:54:06.000 Yeah, because he was the guy who stole, like, get Garland's pissed at.

01:54:10.000 Yeah.

01:54:11.000 And Garland went.

01:54:12.000 Yeah, and then Kennedy retired, and Kennedy was replaced by Kavanaugh.

01:54:15.000 And then Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, and then she was replaced by Amy Cuddy. 0.92

01:54:20.000 She didn't want to leave.

01:54:21.000 Yeah, she made a pretty big mistake.

01:54:23.000 Can you believe it?

01:54:24.000 If she didn't leave, we might not have gotten the overturning of Roe v. 1.00

01:54:27.000 Wade.

01:54:27.000 Maybe not.

01:54:28.000 Yeah.

01:54:29.000 That's wild.

01:54:30.000 Let's grab some more.

01:54:32.000 Scuba Education video says, why doesn't anybody ever bring up that selective service registration is required for men, even for illegal aliens?

01:54:38.000 When one does not register, they've broken federal law.

01:54:41.000 Indeed.

01:54:42.000 Ooh, we should indict them.

01:54:44.000 Because I don't know if you followed that.

01:54:45.000 That's what they're doing in LA now, right?

01:54:47.000 Because LA is a sanctuary state.

01:54:49.000 They don't honor ICE detainers.

01:54:51.000 But what the LA U.S. attorneys start doing is filing criminal indictments related to illegal presence.

01:54:57.000 And while they're not, they have to comply with criminal warrants.

01:55:03.000 So that's a way to get around the sanctuary city thing.

01:55:05.000 So more crimes that you can charge illegal aliens with are good in terms of defeating sanctuary jurisdictions.

01:55:11.000 Whoa, this is crazy.

01:55:13.000 What?

01:55:14.000 Jay's index says, look, Tim, five years.

01:55:17.000 It's more, but my membership was canceled by YouTube and I have to renew three months into it.

01:55:22.000 What?

01:55:22.000 It says 60 months.

01:55:25.000 60 months.

01:55:26.000 Bravo, brother.

01:55:27.000 Wow.

01:55:27.000 I really do appreciate it, man.

01:55:29.000 Raymond G. Stanley Jr. says, Harumphi say Iron Heart is not watchable.

01:55:34.000 Disagree.

01:55:35.000 I don't think it's good.

01:55:36.000 I don't think it's bad.

01:55:37.000 I think it's just plain watchable.

01:55:39.000 What is it?

01:55:40.000 The new Disney show was filmed years ago, and it's written really poorly.

01:55:47.000 But as somebody who watches superhero shows, I'm actually, I'm interested to see where the story goes.

01:55:54.000 It's not bad to where I turn it off.

01:55:57.000 Like, what is it?

01:55:59.000 I never watched Echo, and I never watched Secret Invasion, because I just turned it on and went, what is this?

01:56:05.000 And I just stopped.

01:56:06.000 The other Disney?

01:56:08.000 Marvel Sony Mac Universe TV shows.

01:56:09.000 Ironheart, they kept it pacing quick enough.

01:56:14.000 Riri Williams is a young black girl from Chicago. 1.00

01:56:18.000 She's a genius.

01:56:18.000 She goes to MIT.

01:56:19.000 She's a scumbag, gangbanger. 1.00

01:56:22.000 And she starts stealing technology from MIT and selling it on the black market. 1.00

01:56:26.000 So they expel her.

01:56:27.000 So she steals a prototype Iron Man suit she's building.

01:56:29.000 They deactivate it mid-flight.

01:56:31.000 She crashes, takes the scraps, joins a gang, rebuilds the suit, and then they go around stealing and murdering people. 0.87

01:56:38.000 So she's a villain? 0.51

01:56:40.000 She's absolutely a villain. 0.99

01:56:42.000 They're making stories about villains now as the main characters?

01:56:45.000 I mean, ask Ryan Kugler.

01:56:46.000 Who's that?

01:56:47.000 He's the director.

01:56:48.000 He's like, bare behind it.

01:56:50.000 So basically, in Black Panther 2, she's recruited as a good guy to help.

01:56:57.000 So the story is she develops a vibranium detector, which nobody thought was possible because she's a genius.

01:57:03.000 So 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. 0.99

01:57:15.000 And so then they bring her to Wakanda to protect her or whatever.

01:57:18.000 But then in Ironheart, she's just selling MIT technology on the black market because she wants money because, you know, she needs it. 1.00

01:57:25.000 Does it take place before Wakanda?

01:57:27.000 Is this like her origin story?

01:57:28.000 Okay.

01:57:28.000 After.

01:57:29.000 And then she steals the suit and it's locked with MIT proprietary operating system.

01:57:35.000 So they deactivate her control and she crashes.

01:57:37.000 And then she programs her own AI.

01:57:39.000 And then she's like, I need money.

01:57:40.000 So a criminal gang comes and recruits her.

01:57:42.000 And here's the funniest thing about it.

01:57:46.000 Here's how the criminal gang steals money.

01:57:48.000 Will, you're going to love this.

01:57:49.000 Okay.

01:57:51.000 The criminal gang has these circuitous plans.

01:57:54.000 They've got two people who fight.

01:57:55.000 They got a hacker who can check on the security systems.

01:57:58.000 So 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.

01:58:07.000 And so they're like, here's the plan.

01:58:09.000 You go in, fight the security guard, sit down.

01:58:12.000 Then hacker goes in, freezes the system.

01:58:15.000 Then Riri goes in and puts the virus in, or like that will give the access.

01:58:20.000 So take out the security guards.

01:58:21.000 Riri 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.

01:58:39.000 I knew the lawyer would love that.

01:58:40.000 I went, what?

01:58:42.000 That's the payoff?

01:58:43.000 Force him to sign the contract.

01:58:45.000 And then I was like, then you sign the contract.

01:58:48.000 She's like, I'm not paying.

01:58:49.000 You're like, I'm going to sue you.

01:58:52.000 And then you go to court and the woman's like, I was coerced. 1.00

01:58:55.000 I didn't sign the contract.

01:58:57.000 Or better than that, she signed the documents and she says, I'll need the direct deposit information, which he doesn't give her.

01:59:04.000 If he does, she leaves and goes, here's the guy who just robbed me. 0.81

01:59:09.000 Did you say the mid-hat?

01:59:10.000 Adding re-re?

01:59:11.000 Yeah.

01:59:11.000 R-E-R-E?

01:59:12.000 R-I-R-I. 0.99

01:59:13.000 Okay, because re-re is a slur for, you know, people that are retarded. 0.99

01:59:18.000 Yes, yes. 0.72

01:59:19.000 It was a slur from like my childhood.

01:59:21.000 And to be honest, you know, re-re.

01:59:23.000 So the only, there is a possibility they can recover this.

01:59:26.000 Three episodes have come out.

01:59:27.000 The next are coming.

01:59:27.000 They could recover this.

01:59:29.000 The contract could be made to make sense if the contract is actually a deal with Mephisto, a demon in the Marvel universe.

01:59:39.000 However, because these ultra-wealthy people didn't address the absurdity of signing a contract, it doesn't really work.

01:59:45.000 It 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?

01:59:51.000 And he goes, I want you to sign this contract.

01:59:53.000 And the guy goes, is that a joke?

01:59:55.000 He's like, you can never enforce anything like this.

01:59:57.000 What do you think you're doing?

01:59:57.000 He goes, then if you don't care, sign it.

01:59:59.000 And the guy goes, I sign this.

02:00:00.000 You'll leave?

02:00:01.000 Fine.

02:00:01.000 Signs it.

02:00:02.000 And then the ink burns.

02:00:03.000 That's awesome.

02:00:04.000 And then Mephisto, so basically the bad guy has sold his soul to a demon.

02:00:09.000 We don't know if it's Mephisto.

02:00:10.000 And he's got, he can turn invisible.

02:00:13.000 And when he shoots his bullets, they go wherever he wants them to.

02:00:15.000 So it's watchable.

02:00:17.000 I'm having fun. 1.00

02:00:17.000 It's just stupid, childish writing. 1.00

02:00:19.000 It makes no sense. 1.00

02:00:22.000 I was like, I hope that's the story.

02:00:25.000 They're not doing it very well if it is, but I hope that's it.

02:00:28.000 Because like, how the, sign a contract.

02:00:30.000 Ah, Mephisto's a demon.

02:00:32.000 He doesn't care whether you were coerced or not.

02:00:34.000 You agreed to sign it.

02:00:35.000 And then basically these wealthy people are like, I'm not going to pay you a dime.

02:00:40.000 And he goes, I never wanted the money.

02:00:41.000 And then Mephisto appears and says, you signed a deal with me.

02:00:43.000 And then he basically, you know, does demon stuff.

02:00:46.000 But I don't know.

02:00:47.000 I think it's watchable. 0.98

02:00:49.000 It's just, it's just kind of like the writing like that is like dumb, you know? 0.92

02:00:54.000 And then she double crosses him because she thinks he's going to double cross her. 0.98

02:00:57.000 And she's just a villain. 0.98

02:00:58.000 She's just a real villain. 1.00

02:00:59.000 Punisher was about as evil as you can get as a good guy.

02:01:02.000 And I don't think he was evil.

02:01:03.000 He's not evil.

02:01:04.000 He was just vindictive.

02:01:05.000 He wasn't really rude to me.

02:01:08.000 Who plays a punishment?

02:01:09.000 Juki Burney was evil. 0.85

02:01:10.000 He was evil. 0.96

02:01:10.000 But he was a good guy. 0.96

02:01:11.000 But he was evil.

02:01:13.000 I don't know about that. 0.99

02:01:14.000 He was a killer.

02:01:14.000 I don't know if he's evil.

02:01:16.000 He's not good.

02:01:17.000 Yeah, he's not. 0.91

02:01:17.000 He's evil. 0.91

02:01:18.000 We call him an anti-hero for a reason.

02:01:21.000 He doesn't hurt innocent people, but he does really, really hurt people.

02:01:25.000 He likes to watch people suffer.

02:01:27.000 No.

02:01:28.000 He just likes it when they die.

02:01:29.000 Yeah.

02:01:30.000 He just, like, at least the modern versions we've seen over the past couple decades, he just, there's no torture.

02:01:37.000 He's just like, bad guy, bang, you're dead.

02:01:39.000 He doesn't just, he doesn't want to punish them.

02:01:40.000 I think it's the punishment that he enjoys, isn't it?

02:01:43.000 All right.

02:01:43.000 I should grab one more here.

02:01:47.000 What do we got here?

02:01:48.000 Trebe says, dude, I want to invite you to Camp David, and I have tried to reach out individually with no response.

02:01:55.000 What say you?

02:01:56.000 David?

02:01:57.000 Sure.

02:01:58.000 Presidential retreat.

02:01:59.000 Right.

02:01:59.000 That civilians don't get to go to?

02:02:01.000 Yeah, I was.

02:02:02.000 Yeah, I'm like, who has the authority to do that?

02:02:05.000 President.

02:02:06.000 Are you, is this Trump?

02:02:08.000 Trump probably.

02:02:10.000 He's just found a way to invite you that didn't use and he's typing real slow with one finger like is Trump the real Hydra look man.

02:02:16.000 I'm wondering who that guy is I started coming down doing the show here by sending a super chat.

02:02:21.000 Maybe Donald Trump is sending super chats as well.

02:02:24.000 To be fair, you've been on the show several times.

02:02:26.000 That's true.

02:02:27.000 I mean, well, you've you've interviewed Trump, so maybe.

02:02:29.000 Okay, you know what I'm saying?

02:02:29.000 I interviewed Trump and Netanyahu, probably the most consequential people of our time.

02:02:32.000 I don't really interview Netanyahu.

02:02:34.000 Oh, you had a discussion?

02:02:35.000 You had one.

02:02:36.000 It was actually kind of like people arguing with him, and it was funny.

02:02:40.000 Like, I've told the story, he basically was like, if Iran gets a nuke, they're going to nuke you next. 0.65

02:02:45.000 And then I'm not going to say who, but they went, no, they're not.

02:02:48.000 And it was to his face.

02:02:50.000 And everybody chuckled and started laughing.

02:02:52.000 Like, no, there were a couple, nobody agreed, even the pro-Israel people there who were very much like, we want you to stop Iran. 0.98

02:03:00.000 I would say two-thirds of the people there were like, no, stop.

02:03:04.000 Yeah.

02:03:04.000 Nobody wanted to entertain it.

02:03:05.000 But wait, wait, wait.

02:03:07.000 Foreign minister comes and tries to scare people, especially people powerful in the media here.

02:03:10.000 They don't really buy it.

02:03:11.000 Trebe, DM Ian.

02:03:14.000 Trebey, DM Ian?

02:03:16.000 What does that mean?

02:03:18.000 Trebay is the guy who wants to.

02:03:20.000 You want to DM me?

02:03:21.000 He wants to invite me to Camp David.

02:03:23.000 Oh, yeah.

02:03:23.000 I said, reach out to Ian.

02:03:25.000 Yeah, yeah.

02:03:25.000 Send me a message on Twitter.

02:03:26.000 On X. On X, on X, and I'll follow up from there.

02:03:29.000 Trey Bay.

02:03:30.000 Thanks, dog.

02:03:32.000 And yeah, that's the easiest way to do it.

02:03:35.000 It's really hard for me to have contact with people.

02:03:37.000 Like my phone, I don't really have a phone anymore.

02:03:40.000 There's a bunch of phones that are used for the company, and when they ring, I don't answer them.

02:03:44.000 Weird phenomenon, too, if I respond to people, I usually get a follow-up message, a third message.

02:03:48.000 Like they'll say, hi, you're so great.

02:03:50.000 I'll be like, if I say thank you, they come back again with more.

02:03:53.000 They feel like now we're friends.

02:03:54.000 And then I don't respond.

02:03:55.000 I feel real bad. 0.96

02:03:56.000 Like I leave them hanging.

02:03:57.000 So sometimes I just don't respond.

02:03:58.000 But I got your screen name, Trebe33.

02:04:01.000 All right, everybody, smash the like button.

02:04:03.000 Share the show with everyone, you know.

02:04:05.000 Thanks for hanging out in this Friday night.

02:04:07.000 I 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.

02:04:13.000 So follow me on Axe and Instagram at Timcast.

02:04:15.000 Will, do you want to shout anything out?

02:04:16.000 Yeah, follow me at Will Chamberlain.

02:04:19.000 Follow what the Article 3 Project does, A3PAction.org.

02:04:22.000 And the National Conservatism Conference is September 2-4 in Washington, D.C. We'll have a bazillion incredible speakers.

02:04:28.000 Last year we had Stephen Miller, Tom Homan, Josh Hawley, a number of those.

02:04:32.000 Steve Bannon will be speaking this year.

02:04:34.000 He wasn't able to last year because he was in jail.

02:04:36.000 This year he's not, and he's a headliner.

02:04:39.000 Josh Hawley will be there, and probably a lot more people with more announcements coming up.

02:04:43.000 I'd like to see you debate Thomas Massey at some point if you're into it.

02:04:47.000 If you guys ever hang out together too, I'll debate him.

02:04:49.000 It doesn't have to be a debate either, but just we talk about it.

02:04:51.000 Yeah, I mean, we can talk about this stuff.

02:04:52.000 I just, you know, I've been pretty hard on Massey, so if he's willing to, I'm willing to.

02:04:55.000 Super cool.

02:04:56.000 Hey, thanks for coming in.

02:04:56.000 Good to see you, bro.

02:04:57.000 And I'm at Ian Crossland.

02:04:58.000 Follow me at Ian Crossland.

02:05:00.000 Check out The Culture War this morning.

02:05:01.000 If you didn't see it, with Ashton Forbes, myself, Tim Poole, and Dr. Yu.

02:05:05.000 And he, man, we, I think we revolutionized the scientific community.

02:05:09.000 It was pretty cool.

02:05:10.000 We discovered everything.

02:05:11.000 It was wonderful, wonderful.

02:05:13.000 It was fun.

02:05:13.000 It was weird stuff.

02:05:14.000 It was bizarrely awesome.

02:05:15.000 Huge.

02:05:16.000 Super cool.

02:05:17.000 So check it out at The Culture War.

02:05:18.000 I think it's on Rumble and on YouTube.

02:05:20.000 Phil Labonte.

02:05:21.000 What's up, man?

02:05:22.000 I am Phil That Remains on Twix.

02:05:23.000 I'm Phil That Remains Official on Instagram.

02:05:25.000 The band is all that remains.

02:05:26.000 Our new record is called Anti-Fragile.

02:05:28.000 You can check it out on YouTube, Apple Music, Amazon Music, Spotify, Pandora, and Deezer.

02:05:32.000 Don't forget the left lane is for crime.

02:05:33.000 We got clips up throughout the weekend.

02:05:36.000 Thanks for hanging out, and we'll be back, Tim Castarel, on Monday.

02:05:39.000 But don't forget, one week from now, what day is it?

02:05:43.000 Friday.

02:05:44.000 No.

02:05:45.000 How dare you?

02:05:46.000 Friday the 13th.

02:05:48.000 I'm just making stuff up.

02:05:49.000 One week from now, today.

02:05:53.000 Today.

02:05:54.000 27th.

02:05:54.000 The 27th of the month.

02:05:56.000 Coming at you.

02:05:57.000 What is one week from today?

02:05:59.000 The fourth.

02:05:59.000 Yeah, it's the birth of America.

02:06:02.000 I just did the maths.

02:06:03.000 All right, everybody.

02:06:04.000 Thanks for hanging out.

Timcast IRL - Tim Pool - June 28, 2025

SCOTUS Rules For Trump, INJUNCTIONS Blocked, Birthright Citizenship MAY END | Timcast IRL

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript