Babe, What Do You Know About?
Babe, What Do You Know About?
Supreme Court Rulings
Hold your breath as we transition to the shocking news of an attempted assassination on Donald Trump. We recount the chaotic moments of discovering the incident and the gamut of emotions we experienced. Amidst the seriousness, we find ourselves laughing at our initial reactions and the way we broke the news to our friends. Our reflections on the broader implications for the country offer both a sobering and relieving perspective on the situation.
We then turn our attention to a series of significant Supreme Court rulings, dissecting cases like Snyder v. United States, the overturning of the Chevron doctrine, and the controversial Garland vs. Cargill decision on bump stocks. Our discussion is packed with insights into how these rulings reshape federal bribery laws, judicial power dynamics, and gun regulations. We wrap up with a deep dive into the complexities of presidential immunity and homelessness laws, highlighting the potential erosion of checks and balances in the justice system. Join us for a thought-provoking journey through some of the most pressing legal debates of our time.
Connect with us at @babewhatpodcast for updates, interactions, and polls.
If you want to help financially support the show, keep our mics on, and help us to continue creating high quality content, you can become a supporter of our show here and contribute as little or as much as you'd like.
Please remember to rate, subscribe, and review!
Welcome to Babe. What Do you Know About the podcast with your favorite husband and wife, duo Sam?
Tayla:and Tayla. Each week we dive deep into a new subject, blending fun and seriousness to push boundaries and buttons. Get ready to expand your knowledge, challenge your perspectives and have a blast something I hate about the show is how much I love it, because it's sad it's just like a constant sadness throughout, throughout, the whole thing and yet it's so beautiful, I don't know I I have to say that I've heard one of the most comforting sentiments about death I've ever heard in my life from that show.
Sam:Yeah, what was it?
Tayla:Okay, so for context, we're talking about the show 1883, which is a prequel of some kind. Mm-hmm, what prequel to of some kind.
Sam:What prequel to? So it is a prequel to yellowstone 1883. Prequel to yellowstone, a show set in modern, in current day, montana but, it's got like a whole lot of old school, pioneer, early settlers, western vibes to it okay, and this is a prequel to that.
Tayla:So in it someone, a character of many, has someone who dies that's close to them and another character kind of just shares this sentiment because this person is feeling like suicidal and very depressed and devastated by the death and the other character just shares that his belief is that when you love someone and they love you back, that you each exchange like a piece of your soul and that when that person that you love dies, a piece of you dies with them, because and that's why it hurts so badly but also that a piece of them lives in you, but also that a piece of them lives in you. And he kind of shares this idea that by living on and by kind of accomplishing things and seeing the world and stuff, that they get to kind of live through you a little bit too.
Sam:So yeah, I love it.
Tayla:I mean poetry. No, it's so beautiful. So I'm glad we haven't finished it. But I'm glad you're making me read. I haven't watched any of the other.
Sam:I haven't watched the actual show, just just this prequel. But yeah, honestly, this is probably 1883 is probably my favorite out of all the stuff in this, you know, made by these producers in this, in this universe yeah it's kind of self-contained too so if you don't end up watching yellowstone.
Tayla:It's great still still good. Well, I'm enjoying it. It's been kind of a wild couple of weeks. Hashtag attempted assassination of Trump.
Sam:That was insane. Why don't you tell the story about how we found out? Because that was pretty funny.
Tayla:It was funny, even though the topic was not, and this happened we're recording on a Tuesday, this happened on Saturday. Yeah, we had some friends over where we've spent the whole day chatting, catching up, uh, discussing interesting things, and Sam had asked one of our friends a bit about what she's hoping to do with her business and a bunch of stuff like that. And I get this text from my brother, dean, to our family group that said Trump was shot. That's all he said. And I was like okay.
Tayla:So I kind of quietly to myself start googling and at the time, because he had sent Dean, my brother found out like right away as it happened, and so at the time I couldn't find anything from any news, major news sources, and what I could find only said that like someone had shot at him, that not that he had been like injured in any way, and so I kind of like sit on it because I'm like I'm not seeing anything and it felt like the wrong time to really interrupt the discussion that was happening at the time.
Tayla:And then eventually I found that like oh, he actually did, he got shot in the ear, and so things start to pump. Then about 15 minutes later I find him like I'm sorry I have to interrupt like Trump was just shot at, like he almost was killed and the shock and the, the googling that happened. It was just kind of funny, I don't. I don't know how I kept it to myself for that amount of time. It really did feel like a very bad time to interrupt, so I just wanted to make sure. I didn't know if anyone else would find it as interesting and as as big of a deal as I did. But yeah, what do you think?
Tayla:about the timing of it about the whole thing, just like how things unfold for you yeah, yeah, I mean we're.
Sam:It was obviously like a. We're having normal in-depth conversations and then all of a sudden, Tayla's like sorry to interrupt, but I just got, I just just saw a text that trump there was a, an attempted assassination on on donald trump and we're like what? Like just stopped, we all stopped, got on our phones and just started all like freaking out yeah getting as much information as as we can and sharing it, you know, with the group. But yeah, it was yeah, and also just a lot of anxiety, because you're just like you, you know.
Tayla:What does this mean?
Sam:The early yeah, the early moments of trying to kind of contextualize the whole thing and realizing just what that means for the country in terms of, like, what a bad place we're in, where a presidential candidate had an assassination attempt, and then why and who? By by, and you know, it's just a lot of anxiety and then also just being like, well, I'm glad it wasn't worse yeah, I'm glad he's okay.
Tayla:As someone who's absolutely zero percent a trump fan, I'm very, very glad that he wasn't killed. I just don't feel like that would be good for anyone for any reason. So it does suck. It's scary. You literally can't get closer Like you can't. You literally can't have a closer call than getting knocked in the ear. Yeah, one inch. You know what I mean.
Sam:Yeah, I got to send you this video, but it basically it uses some like 3d video technology based on 2d, you know, images, whatever and kind of shows his head positioning and the pathway of the bullet and and in real time shows his head moving from the top down and 3d movements and it's literally like the pathway of the bullet is going through, you know, like the one quarter of his head. It for most, like for like for quite some time and then all of a sudden you know he does this head tilt turn and that's when one you see one trajectory of the bullet and then you see another trajectory of a bullet and then you see the third trajectory of bullets and it's all like the first one nicks his ear and and like just by his cheek, and then the other two go further away, but just that head movement splits again before.
Sam:That's it.
Tayla:That's the, that's the difference so I'm sure we'll talk more about this as, as you know, there's an investigation into the kind of how the secret service did and a whole bunch of stuff into like how and why this happened, etc. So I'm sure we'll be addressing it at some point. But big, freaking deal and glad it wasn't worse, but also really freaking disappointed that it happened at all. So this is going to be an interesting one. We've been kind of teasing it for a couple weeks, um, as far as just like it's been a big season for supreme court rulings and we're just going to try break down some of the ones that we found most interesting or impactful and probably give a bit of a I don't know thoughts on it and stuff like that. So where do you want to begin?
Sam:Babe, what do you know about? Oh yeah, oh yeah.
Tayla:So every summer and I didn't prepare this at all. I'm just going to summarize oh my gosh, I'm off brand Every summer and I didn't prepare this at all, so I'm just going to summarize oh my gosh, I'm off brand Every summer.
Tayla:Well, every year, the Supreme Court. They select a number of cases to hear and review and to make rulings on, and every summer they release the decisions that they make, along with opinions written by the justices ruling for and the justices ruling against, opinions from both. Sometimes you'll even have concurring opinions where justices reach the same conclusions but for different reasons, and they want to speak to that as well. And so over this last summer, over this mostly May and June, we've been receiving the decisions for the most recent hearings that took place at the beginning of the year, and it's been a big, freaking deal. So, babe, what do you know about the 2024 Supreme Court rulings? Thank you for that.
Sam:A little bit. I mean, we were keeping up to date with him and we're anticipating these rulings and so yeah, there's some big ones, so we've been watching for him. And there was a couple of shocking ones that came out of, like left field.
Tayla:We just didn't like do they really rule that way? That's kind of how I felt a few times.
Sam:Yeah, so for me the biggest one was actually the Chevron ruling, which was kind of shocking and surprising for me that I feel that changes law and lawmaking in general. Like that's that's a massive one. And then obviously there was for me like a an crap moment for the immunity the immunity one.
Sam:I mean it wasn't as bad as I was, you know like as you feared, as I feared, as it was a more like a mixed bag kind of ruling and opinion on it but it still basically gave more power to the executive, more power to the presidency, and so that was more concerning, especially considering what happened with trump kind of pushing the boundaries of what you can and cannot do as a president, so like I don't care who's the president, uh it, for me that is more concerning, um, and then also because of the Chevron, how the Chevron ruling happened. It also, in one sense, also increased the powers of the courts, and so you're like this was almost like a power grab for the courts and the president.
Tayla:Yeah, it feels a little like can they do that for themselves, which we'll explain. We'll get into that.
Sam:Yeah, which is kind of funny, and along with that, previously they had done that they just basically allowed themselves to receive tips.
Tayla:Oh my gosh, we didn't even yeah.
Tayla:Okay, maybe let's start there because that was like a toe dip. It's not that complicated of a case but it is ridiculous of a ruling. Go ahead, no, no, you go Okay. Okay, so this is the Snyder v United States case and essentially the issue was with. It was concerning the legality of paying government officials gratuities, as you said, tips, under the federal bribery law when officials' actions or commitments were made without a quid pro quo agreement. Okay, so the questions presented were whether section 666 criminalizes gratuities, which are payments in recognition of actions that the official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreements to take these actions. So essentially they're um. The question is well, it's not bribery if they've already done or committed to do something, and I'm just like thanking them to do that right.
Tayla:And the outcome was in a 6-3 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the united state court of appeals for the seventh circuit, which held that it prohibited the bribes to the state officials, but they ruled that it does not make it illegal for those officials to accept gratuities for past actions. And that was, of course, a ruling along. What are they? How do they put it? Ideological lines? So Kagan Sotomayor and shoot what's her name Brown Jackson, kachanji, brown Jackson.
Tayla:They dissented. I will read a really quick little paragraph by Justice Jackson, who dissented with Sotomayor and Kagan, and she said, quote state and local tribal governments have an important role to play in combating public corruption and of course their regulations should reflect the values of the community they serve. I wholeheartedly agree with the majority's suggestion that because employees of those governments are our neighbors, friends and hometown heroes, federal law ought not to read to subject them to prosecution when grateful members of the community show their thanks. But nothing about the facts of this case implicates any of that kind of conduct.
Tayla:The text of 666 clearly covers the kind of corrupt, albeit perhaps non-quid pro quo, payments Snyder solicited after steering the city contracts to dealership. Because reading section 666 to prohibit gratuities, just as it always has, poses no genuine threat to common gift-giving but does honor Congress's intent to punish rewards corruptly accepted by government officials in ways that are functionally indistinguishable from taking a bribe. I respectfully dissent. So she's kind of saying like that the majority opinion tried to downplay essentially what they did by being like it should be okay to just like interact as a human, as if you're an official, and for people like, bring by brownies or something as a thank you for your service, and she's like, yeah, I mean that's, but this isn't the issue at hand, and because this is barely distinguishable from taking a bribe, I'm gonna dissent.
Sam:So well, yeah, so, so, for example, and and this is, and I'm sure a bunch of you that are listening to this can relate to this so I worked in accounting, you know, for the last five or so years and we did a lot of people's books and we did also advisory on the cfo level and we were very wary about receiving gifts or deals or like discounts and things like that.
Sam:It was like you know where's the lawn, where it's suddenly now the services we providing, you know, can seem like we're taking like additional cool free gifts and bribes under the table to maybe create documentation and stuff like that for them to have criminal numbers for their taxes or something so, so, like it was, it was very much like oh, cool, you know. They say you know a company send us like you know, hey, here's a bottle of wine, cool, or something like that, or, but how far can it go beyond that? And you're like I don't know if, like you know what's the monetary value, is this, like now, seen as something that is that could change your opinion or be seen, as you know, intent to do something nefarious?
Sam:so, and and we're just accountants right when you're dealing with like so when you're dealing with like freaking, you know, government contracts and and in in cases with the supreme court, where they're making rulings and they're receiving, you know what's adding up to be millions of dollars in gifts, turns into well, hey, hold on, this is not just popping by for brownies, this is, oh I received, like vacations and assets and like you know, like boats and RVs, and like it starts turning into like stuff that would be seen as like this is you.
Sam:You've paid me off, kind of a thing yeah and they're just now saying, you know what, let's get rid of this ruling, so, or we ruling in favor of this corrupt mayor, which now changes everything. This because they're the supreme court. This is not, like you know, some lower courts making a decision on one thing that you know narrowly focuses a situation. It's like they're the Supreme Court. This is not like some lower courts making a decision on one thing that narrowly focuses a situation. It's like they're changing the standard practice of being able to identify corrupt gift-giving.
Tayla:Yeah, it's just like as simple as kind of a wink and a nod. So that's a huge problem, right, and especially in light of a couple of justices that are in trouble because they haven't disclosed massive gifts and things like this that are inappropriate. It's just kind of like okay, so you've been found for doing the wrong thing and now you're going to go ahead and change things so that it's like, totally fine, not good, that's that's my opinion Very uncool. Yeah, what can you say? You know, but then let's talk about where do I want to go next? Do you want to talk about the big case, the Chevron case, or do you want to kind of do a smaller one before we get into that?
Sam:Let's jump straight into Chevron want, because that for me is like meat and potatoes straight away like yeah but we gave some context. Why chevron's even worse?
Tayla:because of this right whole like power grab okay, do you want me to do? You want me to kind of summarize it?
Sam:I can give it a crack. So basically there was ruling I think it was in the 70s, is that right 70s? Yeah, the Chevron deference, and it essentially gave power to or allowed federal agencies to kind of fill in the gray area and for courts to take the federal agency's decisions on that gray area in in a law to be able to, to be able to make a ruling on, and essentially they've removed the chevron doctrine now to say it's the courts now must decide those things.
Sam:So not experts not not the, not the experts. So essentially what it does is it removes federal power so power away from Congress and also applies more onus on Congress to legislate in very specific detail on things that the reason why it was left open to these gray areas is that there's so much gray area for how something could-.
Tayla:You cannot possibly legislate for every single detail and instance of something yeah.
Sam:So it allowed congress. So here's the, here's the positives it allowed congress to pass laws a little bit quicker and also to find more common ground, because they said, hey, yes, here's the principle of the law that we want to happen and we're gonna allow the, the epa or whoever else where we don't specifically know yes and no and can and cannot do for us to then for them to tell us hey, by the way, if carbon levels get to x, y and z based on these factors, then that is now, you know, breaking the, the, the law on this thing that we passed, and you can't do that. So now, without the EPA, that gray area for the EPA to cover, congress has to literally go into all the details, because what's going to happen if they leave those gray areas? Then someone breaking the law, or there's no specific things said about a specific action, it's going to go to the courts and then for the courts to then decide on those things at that time.
Tayla:Yeah. So let me give a couple of highlights from the ruling and the dissent, also along ideological lines, this one as well. So the ruling on June 28th was as you said. They overturned the Chevron doctrine and Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority, said that the principal violated the APA and he wrote, quote courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority as the APA requires, as the APA requires. But courts need not, and under the APA may not, defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because the statute is ambiguous. Close quote so he's pretty much saying like you're not beholden to what the experts say just because we've been deferring to them when something's ambiguous.
Tayla:So the dissent, which was again Kagan, sotomayor and Brown-Jackson, which Kagan wrote the dissent, they wrote a dissenting opinion that said that courts should defer to agency expertise to clarify ambiguities in statutes.
Tayla:Quote Congress knows that it does not, in fact cannot, write perfectly complete regulatory statutes. It knows that those statutes will inevitably contain ambiguities that some other actor will have to resolve and gaps that some other actor will have to fill, and it would not hugely prefer that actor to be the responsible agency or they would hugely prefer that actor to be a responsible agency, not a court. Close quote so, essentially, what's going to happen now is more federal rules, as you said, will be challenged in the courts, and judges are going to have greater discretion to invalidate decisions by these agencies. The court decision didn't leave room, though, to invalidate previous cases that were decided under chevron, so that's a kind of an interesting, unusual thing that they did, but kind of walk us through why, like a hypothetical scenario in which this, uh, why it's such a big deal, why this would be dangerous in your opinion so let's think of something new and scary.
Sam:How about ai? Let's do it let's just say that the we want to pass some laws on what language learning models can and cannot use in terms of other people's data. You know so, and they're saying, hey, we want to pass Congress wants to pass a law that says, hey, we want to protect people's data Like there's photos on Facebook and their writings on their blog and whatever and say, hey, these language learning models can't just use your content and then regurgitate it back out. That's something that's controversial right now. Right?
Sam:Yeah, it is being debated, or artwork, et cetera, and Congress says, hey, that's your content and they need your specific permission that it's now going into this language learning model to be able to use it, and they write a law that says something about that. Now, congress is not going to know all the specificities. Am I saying that right Specifications?
Tayla:Sure.
Sam:About what goes into those technical things, but they can create.
Tayla:Yeah, they're not engineers. Yeah, they're not.
Sam:They understand, like the whole general idea is hey, we want to protect people's rights. Hey, there's parcel law that protects people's rights. However they create, you can create, they can create an agency that then says, hey, we've, we've now hired experts to be able to be experts in this place and we're going to say, hey, you experts, you're going to be able to help us know at what point or how to find out if they've broken this law. You know, use this content. So, you guys, in when in writing law, we're going to give you power to the to determine whether it's been broken or not based on your expertise, because we know what we don't want we don't want people's stuff to be stolen, and we don't know yep the nuances of, of how to to do that.
Sam:Now they're saying and again, this is a really weird hypothetical but now they're saying, hey, you need to write into law all those specifications and if it's not in there, then it's going to be challenged in a court of law and then that judge is going to then decide if a law has been broken or not, based on if, how and if your content was used by some chat, GPT or another AI product. And it sounds silly, because how would that judge know anything about anything?
Tayla:That's not there. They're not experts in it.
Tayla:And then that's the scary thing, I mean, even just with lawmakers, right, it puts, I think, an undue burden to know this stuff on both lawmakers and and on judges, because I mean so my, I did an internship with a non-profit in, or an NGO rather, in Belgium and our job was to research and provide that research and and those findings to lawmakers on human rights issues.
Tayla:Because the problem when you have people who are not educated in issues that they're making laws about, is that all the right intentions in the world could be there, but you could actually be making a decision that does the opposite of what you wanted because you don't know. So, for example, you're like we're going to make this illegal when actually it could lead to more human trafficking, something like that, and so it's unfair to expect those lawmakers to know that stuff and that's why they have to like offload that to experts so that, I mean, it's what it is their lawmakers job is. It's their job to protect human rights and to to perform the will of the people that they represent. So it's a problem for a lot of reasons, but it also does really provide a lot of space for, I think, ideological decisions rather than decisions that are quote-unquote like objectively best for humanity or best for whatever right.
Sam:Yeah. So in my opinion and I feel like most people actually have this opinion which is this moving of power away from Congress is basically taking power away from people, because our closest relation to our representatives or our control is through Congress. So, basically, if we want things to be a certain way, we get to vote people into power. We vote for our Senator, we vote for our, our, our governor, et cetera. Blah, blah, blah. Those people represent us in Congress. The judges don't. They're not even close to there. There are a few steps removed from being able to represent our, our wants, our needs and like what we would want. So every step away from congress I feel like we take is a step away from what the people want, and so for me, that's a bad thing, that that means that there's more power being consolidated away from the mass. You know the people like hey, this is how we want to be governed. To people that say, hey, this is how you should be governed yeah, agreed, agreed.
Tayla:It's just you just think about what could happen, right like just the space that they provided for error, for just like I don't even understand it.
Sam:Yeah, I mean all I know that it is a step in trying to have the the more power in that branch of the government. And it also makes me suspicious, because this is kind of almost like a third or fourth step from what mitch mcconnell has been working on for the last I don't know a a couple of decades, which is he's they've been like actively for the last couple of decades pushing for and in as quick a way as possible to get as many conservative judges and justices in place, like that's been like a very strong thing that they've been focusing on and at the same time they've been working on and at the same time they've been working on redistricting, so being able to gerrymander things to keep control of, you know, those smaller areas to keep.
Tayla:In a way that's not representative of. Yeah exactly. So I feel like there is a very strong conservative movement to control the, the legislative branch yeah, regardless of whether that's representative of the will of the people or not, yeah, so yeah, it's a huge problem and it's very concerning, and so many other things are going to have to be written, decided. We're just going to have to test. People are going to be testing the waters of this ruling for a while yet, just kind of amer. Anything else about that before we go on.
Sam:No, but it seems like even most, most again, this is I'm. I'm not a legal expert and I'm probably going to be made fun of by legal experts, but from the legal experts I follow online and legal experts I've been trying to get the opinions of whether they're conservative or liberal. Most of them are kind of surprised by this ruling, like it was like oh, you can do that, really Okay well here we go.
Tayla:Okay, so we have, I think, three other cases I want to talk about. One has to do with bump stocks, one has to do with houselessness and one has to do with the Trump immunity case. So I think we end with Trump. Do one has to do with houselessness and one has to do with the trump immunity case. So I think we end with trump. Do you want to go with bump stocks first or houselessness? You don't care, okay, let's do. Let's do bump stocks, okay.
Tayla:So this case is called garland versus cargill. Essentially, the issue was that there was a an issue with a rule that banned bump stocks by classifying them as machine guns, and the Supreme Court held that bump stocks do not meet the definition of a machine gun and that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority in issuing the rule to ban bump stocks. So the questions that they kind of discussed was is a bump stock device a machine gun as classified by this section, because it is designed and intended to convert a rifle into a machine gun? That was kind of the question. So this was again along ideological lines. The the court ruled 6-3 that the atf did exceed its statutory authority to classify bump stocks as machine guns and kind of why it matters is that this decision limited the ATF's statutory authority to classify bump stocks as machine guns, and they end a federal ban on bump stocks. Thoughts on this one.
Sam:For me it's a little bit more confused. Like I have mixed feelings about it. There there's a lot of states rights that come comes into this, because it was basically the a challenge of the the atf rights. So basically there, I guess so one of the arguments for this is that the the atf doesn't have the authority to to ban bump stocks like across the whole country and that it should be a state's rights issue. So yeah, I've got mixed feelings about it. Like me, personally, I agree that a bump stock does convert a gun into a machine gun and that's the only point.
Tayla:It's its only point.
Sam:Yes, exactly, and that it should be. It should be banned. So it's kind of it's like, hey, I've got the thing that converts sodium into a bomb and you're like, but it's not the whole bomb, it just is the thing that converts the sodium into a bomb. It's making something into something much worse. Yeah, we should ban it. That's what makes sense to me. But should it be a state's right issue versus a federal issue? That's where I have a gray area of mixed feelings about it.
Tayla:Yeah, I don't. I don't. It depends on like and this is the just the interesting part about being a supreme court justice is like what you, what you prioritize or base your ruling on, and these are all very smart people. So they're they're they're very smart and usually have like solid logical reasoning, and so the the people who ruled that it is not a machine gun and shouldn't be classified as a machine gun, they pretty much stuck to. I mean, this is the justice alito file a concurrent opinion, and in it, he says the horrible shooting spree in las vegas in 2017 did not change the statutory text or its meaning.
Tayla:The event demonstrated that a semi-automatic rifle with a bump stock can have the same lethal effect as a machine gun and thus strengthen its case for amending it. But an event that highlights the need to amend a law does not itself change the law's meaning, so it makes sense. But also like, when you think about this realistically and like, like, how does this actually affect people and what was the point of banning machine guns? And does this not provide the same point? And should you then not, you know, go ahead with that? That's kind of where justices Sotomayor, kagan and Jackson went.
Tayla:So Sotomayor did this and dissenting opinion, and this is what she said. She said this is not a hard case, and this is what she said. She said this is not a hard case. All of the textual evidence points to the same interpretation a bump stock equipped semi-automatic rifle is a machine gun because with a single pull of the trigger a shooter can fire continuous shots without any human input beyond maintaining forward pressure. And so she kind of criticizes them where she's like. Yes, but like by all definitions, like it's the same. And so she just said the majority's reading flies in the face of the court's standard tools for statutory interpretation and, by costing aside the ordinary meaning both at the time of its enactment and today, it eviscerates congress's regulation of machine guns and enables gun users and manufacturers to circumvent federal law yeah which is true it does.
Tayla:It absolutely provides this way to be like yeah, we're not equipping unqualified and unregulated people with machine guns, but we are yeah, basically a leader said he, he throws us back to congress to change the law like hey, I can't interpret this.
Sam:The way that you want me to write a new law. That's pretty much was his. Like, hey, I can't interpret this the way that you want me to write a new law.
Tayla:That's pretty much what's his yeah, and I don't even disagree with it, but I'm also kind of like or you could do what the other justices did and be like this is needed and this is a way to do that kind of thing I don't know, yeah, any other thoughts on that.
Sam:I just, we've talked a lot about kind of yeah, I mean, I still think american gun laws are bonkers, but in terms of their interpretation of the law and and their opinion on this and stuff, I mean again, it's a great area. Yes, I, with what's presented in front of them, I don't necessarily disagree with him saying, or elito going, hey, throw this back to congress. Or I think it was thomas saying, hey, this is not an atf's jurisdiction. It writes to you know, not make it, it's more like a state's rights issue.
Sam:So yeah so because of the way the law is written right, right.
Tayla:So I I do respect and understand like both approaches. It just was kind of like disheartening to be like, wow, we finally made any kind of headway with trying to contain the the impact of gun violence in this country, and it was just kind of like well, no, not enough you know, yeah, I again, I, I, I, yeah, I, I don't.
Sam:I don't understand americans gun laws, because I guess I'm, I didn guess I don't have that in my DNA and logically it just doesn't add up to me. But here we are.
Tayla:Yeah, and I mean the reason the law is so it needs amending is because probably this half-assed attempt was as good as they could get as far as Congress being able to work together to do something. So it's just kind of like, well, I don't think we're going to get any better than that. That's the unfortunate reality. Hopefully that's not true, but I think historically it is. So let's talk about a houseless ruling. So this is referred to as the City of Grants Pass Oregon versus Johnson.
Tayla:So essentially the issue at hand was whether laws regulating or preventing camping on public property violates the eighth amendment of cruel and unusual punishment. So there was a court of appeals that ruled that enforcing laws regulating camping on public property, they held that it did violate cruel and unusual punishments, because you're essentially telling these people in the city that, hey, you can't afford a home, we don't have space for you in our facilities, our homeless facilities, but also you can't be anywhere else. And so the appeals court ruled that like, yeah, that is cruel and unusual punishment. Because like, what are you? You know, you know how? What other option are you really providing for these people? But the supreme court reversed that ruling and in a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines. They held that regulating camping on public property did not violate the eighth amendment. So the question was well, I think I already kind of summarized that pretty well. But thoughts on this.
Sam:Homelessness is super complicated yeah, can I plead the fifth, can I?
Sam:I mean you can, but that'd be lame yeah, why this ends up at the supreme court in the first place boggles my mind. I just, I just don't know how it see. I understand why the supreme court is, you know, ruling the way it does, because it's under the the cruel and unusual punishment portion of it. I don't know if it necessarily constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, but I mean it is messed up like as in. It is like well, what do you want us to do? You know what? What is the actual solution?
Tayla:well, I think yeah, so I agree, but I disagree in that I do think you are actually punishing homelessness, because it wasn't just that they couldn't sleep on public property, because where else are they going to sleep, but they were punished for it with jail time or fines for people who are already homeless. So it just kind of feels like. For me it does feel like a cruel and unusual punishment. It's it's kind of just like in what way will this improve the problem at all? And how is this not a violation of someone's human rights to just like exist somewhere? You know what I mean. Like what should they do? That's what I think.
Sam:Yeah.
Tayla:So the the majority opinion kind of essentially were.
Sam:They kind of take the same MO, which is to say that this is like extending the clause beyond original meaning and text, which isn't necessarily wrong so when I think of cruel and unusual and from what I remember from you know, high school history class cruel, unusual, cruel and unusual kind of referred to, like, I think, guantanamo Bay kind of punishments which is like pulling fingernails and torturous kind of stuff as a punishment for you know like hey or how? About this example Like you steal something, you get your hand chopped off Right right.
Sam:That's cruel and unusual punishment, things along those lines and so it feels very physical. Yeah, this feels yeah, so this whole missing feels like a stretch of that yeah, and that makes sense.
Tayla:And I think that just like comes down to this, the question that like, there's a lot of room for interpretation of like what cruel and unusual punishment like is referring to? Because in my mind, um, rather than like, maybe the extremity of a punishment, especially when it comes to physical side, like, I think more of like well, a cruel punishment is an unjust punishment. That's what makes it cruel, and so this would kind of classify to me as cruel punishment, because you're being punished in an unjust way for something that is often out of your control and that there's no alternative for you. Like there's just no place for you to be or to exist. You're kind of punished for existing without the means to take care of yourself or any place to go.
Tayla:But it's complicated, and that's homelessness is complicated, and I think that's why the court was super disinterested in trying to kind of use this to problem solve. But it's kind of like this feels like very against American values to like at least protect, you know, the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of like the most vulnerable. And that's what Sotomayor puts in her dissent. She's just like, hopefully one day the court will do its job, is what she says and to and and protect the right to exist for the most vulnerable among us, and I just I agree with that sentiment, but I also like don't disagree with you that like it's I don't think it's super clear like the right decision in this case, especially with, like this specific little town that's really struggling with the impact of homelessness.
Tayla:On like their wellbeing and ability to thrive, which is what the specific case was on. So I don't know. It's rough.
Sam:Yeah, it is rough, I agree with you. My heart goes out to them. But legally I'm with the majority on the Supreme Court.
Tayla:Well, thanks for engaging with me on this discussion, even though you didn't want to, so I appreciate it. So let's do the big one. Let's do the Trump immunity case. This is Trump versus, I think, just the United States. Let me double check yes, trump versus the United States. So the question at hand in this case was whether the president enjoys presidential immunity, including immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. So there were two main questions, which is first that first one, and then the second one was whether the impeachment process for a president would then make a further criminal case a double jeopardy situation where they're being tried, tried twice for two things. For me, it's super clear that this is not the case, because an impeachment proceeding by a congress is not a criminal trial, and there is no punishment for being in uh for being successfully impeached, besides like losing your job. That's not the same thing, and so I don't think that constitutes double jeopardy. I don't know if you feel differently no, no, I agree okay.
Tayla:So then then the main question really is like should a president enjoy absolute, blanket immunity when they're the president? A lot of people would argue that it's complicated, but I feel like we probably feel similarly, that it kind of isn't yeah.
Sam:So simple opinion yes, the president should not have immunity and be treated, you know, like just because he's the president, doesn't matter what he say or does, makes him immune to to the law. And I I don't think that's exactly what this supreme court is saying. From what I understand it's, it's breaking it down into three things, and I'll just kind of quote Justice Roberts here. So basically, there's official acts that rely on core constitutional powers, for which immunity must be absolute. Second layer of this is official actions within the outer perimeter of official responsibility that require at least presumed immunity. And then, third, unofficial acts while in office, from which the president has no immunity.
Tayla:And they do explicitly say in their opinion that not everything the president does is official. So they're kind of like cutting off his argument. They're like, see, they said that any official act and since I was the president, everything I did was official.
Sam:Yeah. So like, at what point is this the candidate trump doing something you know at the end of his presidency but you know, running for re-election? Or is this, you know, president trump, you know having a conversation with his vice president? So, like one of the the very specific examples given in this, is trump speaking to his vice president well the attorney general yes, in january, in the january 6th incident incident where he was trying to persuade his vice president to do do certain actions.
Sam:Now they they're arguing that's because it was conversations with his vice president. That means it's an official act whereas they're both currently yeah, whereas they're so, whereas there's an argument to be said that that was more actually the actions of a candidate trying to, you know, overturn the electoral process, you know. So, oh, and they've they've kind of like.
Tayla:They've kind of been like well. Well, this is our ruling. Essentially, the ruling is a president enjoys immunity for official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts, and you guys are going to have to try and determine what's officially an act and what isn't an act, and we assume that this is going to be brought right up to us in a case-specific manner. Yeah, but well, yeah.
Sam:So I don't like the ruling because it it did give the, the presidents, um a lot more leeway to get away with things for a lot longer.
Sam:Um, because it's going to have trump you mean, well, sure, trump, but also any president moving forward yeah if this doesn't change um and could just be completely irrelevant by the time it gets to, you know, any sort of ruling you know, so I I think the thing that we can that that I agree, agree with is the very first part, the official acts part, which is anything that is um housed under the constitutional powers. A president has immunity, think about, you know, he has to order murder sometimes, that like that's a, that is a criminally, that's, that's bad, that's a criminal thing. But, however, as a president, you sometimes have to do that, to do things like that, to protect the country in your mind that covers like obama's decision to assassinate osama bin Laden.
Sam:Exactly that kind of thing.
Tayla:Yeah, I don't disagree with you and I do. I do think that Trump's lawyers logic on this is that, like, if you provide space for someone a president like, I do think that would kind of make a president like kind of be frozen when it comes to making important decisions, but at the same time, I don't think it's the right I don't know what the right when it comes to making important decisions, but at the same time, I don't think it's the right. I don't know what the right ruling is but I also think it's wrong to be like yeah, as long as it's official, like they're doing it officially as a president, it's okay, because all you got to do is then be like I'll just make sure that when I order a hit on my opponent, that it says officially an act for me as a president, I find some justification for that, sure, but so there's there's two layers to this.
Sam:There's the official acts on core constitutional powers, so which I feel like has already existed and been presumptively to have existed, as as immunity. But this is the part where I don't agree with the second layer, which is the official acts within the outer perimeter of official responsibility, so the stuff that's not in the Constitution.
Tayla:The gray stuff?
Sam:yeah, it's not in the Constitution under core constitutional powers, but it is under supposed to presume immunity for those actions. So the courts not just like us as a public, but the courts presume immunity in those duties, not the core constitutional powers. And that for me is the power grab. And that for me is the scary thing, because they're already saying anything that he is doing as an official act under his current duties and responsibilities, which can expand.
Tayla:And is somewhat subjective too, Like a certain president might feel like this is my job and a certain one might be like no, this is my job, you know.
Sam:Yeah. So and there is saying you can't use those things inside a courtroom if it was done as an official act.
Tayla:Yeah, they prevent like evidence from me and again, like I do understand why, because it's so complicated, where it's just like the, the president should be entitled to like the same level of confidentiality when it comes to their own attorneys and things like that that anyone else gets. But at the same time, like how are we, how is anyone possibly to gather evidence in the event that something wrong does happen? So I did want to read a couple of the, the things that the majority and the dissent wrote about this, just because I feel like it gives some really good insights into like their thinking. So in a concurring you already spoke about some things that thomas wrote in a concurring opinion justice thomas said and this is where he kind of shows his hand as far as like his concerns, which is he says few things would threaten our constitutional order more than criminally prosecuting a former president for his official acts. Fortunately, the Constitution does not permit us to chart such a dangerous course. As the court forcefully explains, the framers deemed an energetic executive essential to the security of liberty and our system of separated powers accordingly insulates the president from prosecution for his official act. So that's kind of like that. I do want to read Sotomayor's response to specifically that point, and she says, quote the majority's single-minded fixation on the president's need for boldness and dispatch ignores the countervailing need for accountability and restraint.
Tayla:The framers were not so single-minded in the Federalist Papers. After endeavoring to show that the executive design by the Constitution combines all the requisites to energy, alexander Hamilton asked a separate, equally important question Does it combine the requisites to safety in a republican sense, a due dependence on the people, a due responsibility? The answer then was yes, based in part upon the president's vulnerability to prosecution in the common course of law. The answer after today is no. Never in the history of our republic has the president had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former presidents will be cloaked in such immunity if the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain. The criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.
Sam:Warranted alarm bells, I think by uh soda meyer yeah, I've got a, so there's a the barrett yes I like her her thoughts on this, which was so she she obviously voted with the majority, but she she did have issue with that middle section, which the one that you have issue with, the one that I have issue with.
Sam:So she said the one that you have issue with, the one that I have issue with. So basically she's saying that that layer shouldn't be as strong as it should be. She says the Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which presidents can be held liable. So basically she's saying that because Roberts is saying, hey, that stuff is off limits, it's presumed, you know, like yeah, An assumption of yeah. Immunity and also they're saying that that stuff can't be shown or be used as evidence that it was.
Sam:For the jury to consider For the jury to consider when she's saying, okay, yes, you may not. That may be that specific act of talking to your vice president. That specific act of talking to your vice president may be immune. However, we want to contextualize, and I'm talking about January 6th in particular. Basically, Trump talking to his vice president. That should not be off limits to have a court. Know that he spoke to the vice president. And what should not be off limits to have a court know that he spoke to the vice president and what he spoke to him about. That's what Barrett is saying yeah, Like, maybe you can't use it as evidence, as in like this can't be the you're guilty but we can use it as evidence in that like for us to know.
Tayla:Yeah, I mean, that is, that is a good thought. I'll finish kind of my thoughts with justice katanji's additional dissenting opinion, which I found very interesting. She says justice sotomayor has thoroughly addressed the court's flawed reasoning and conclusion as a matter of history, tradition, law and logic. I agree with every word of her powerful dissent. The majority of my colleagues seems to have put their trust in our court's ability to prevent presidents from becoming kings through case-by-case application of the indeterminate standards by their new presidential accountability paradigm. I fear they are wrong but for all our power the court has now assumed are intolerable, unwarranted and plainly antithetical to bedrock constitutional norms. I dissent. So, even though she agreed, like, with everything, because usually you only have another dissent or whatever, if you have something additional or different to say, she just felt strongly enough about it to agree with everything and then, like, say a little bit more.
Tayla:So what do you think happens with a lot of these criminal cases that Trump is facing right now? Besides obviously huge delays.
Sam:So yeah, there's already been an attempt to throw out one of them the courts, the documents, the classified documents case the judge. But now that someone else is now trying to bring it back and have yeah, they'll appeal that, yeah, so it'll be appealed and then have that, you know judge, just blah, blah, blah. But that's already some consequences from that. But I feel like, I feel like what this this is fairly new is that there's going to be change in the Supreme Court, or at least an attempt to change the Supreme Court.
Tayla:True.
Sam:So just today, basically, Biden has announced that he's going to announce what Supreme Court reform he's going to be supporting. I feel like this is probably going to be his biggest talking point leading up to the election.
Tayla:I think you're right and I think it should be. I mean, it's, it's the right move for him, and I also know that aoc is introducing articles of impeachment, for she doesn't? She didn't say specifically which ones, yet I don't think. I'm guessing it's the justices, specifically in this opinion, that ruled in the assent. But yeah, I mean, I think reform is needed in the Supreme Court anyway, like even before this, like there's just some things about how the Supreme Court yeah, it is scary to think that it's a lifelong appointment.
Sam:I don't feel like that is wise, considering how much can happen, um, in a lifetime. Um, I I'm just I'll wait to see what the proposed changes will be. Um, yeah, I'm not super hopeful that whatever they'll be will pass or if whatever they'll be will be good. But I, I mean, we'll just wait and see.
Tayla:Yeah, I mean Congress is pretty deadlocked right now. So I agree that like maybe in a different election cycle, like something would happen. I don't know that it will, at least not before it's pertinent to this current election. So it will be interesting. But yeah, that's kind of our main cases that we wanted to discuss as far as, like, this season's opinion releases, any last parting thoughts on any last parting thoughts.
Sam:Um, oh, not with the supreme court, but maybe a little teaser for the whole assassination thing would be. Assassin had been tagged by the trump campaign as a mega fan, so he was in their system as a mega supporter and mega fan I actually did see today that neighbors, uh, of the what would you call him?
Tayla:attempted assassin.
Sam:Yeah, would be would be assassin.
Tayla:He hadGA stuff all over their lawn until a couple of weeks ago.
Sam:Yeah, so it does sound like some sort of internal ripping apart of ideology within there, or a symptom of Some disillusionment or something. A person that did a thing, and it doesn't matter what political affiliation you have. It's still an absolute insane thing to do.
Tayla:Yeah, just totally wrong. Well, that's it, folks. Not much to see here except so much. Thanks for listening to the Babe. What Do you Know About podcast?
Sam:Remember to rate, subscribe and review.
