August 28, 2024 • 48 mins
This has been one wild Supreme Court season! We started this year talking about a couple of cases they were lookin' at and now we have the results. We gon cover: Chevron Deference, Presidential Immunity, the abortion pill, and bump stocks for semi-automatic guns.
Follow Hood Politics:
https://www.instagram.com/hoodpoliticspod/
Follow Prop:
https://www.instagram.com/prophiphop/
https://www.tiktok.com/@prophiphop
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
All media. Hey, look, sometimes people say stuff with their
whole chess. Sometimes people say stuff with two thirds of
they chess. When you know part of you is captain.
You know, there's a piece of you that's like I hold,
I actually don't really agree with what I'm saying, but
I ain't no punk. But we're gonna go with whatever
(00:23):
we gotta go with. Now when you are not just
a person but an institution. Most of the time an
institution is saying things with two thirds of they chess.
But as soon as they said it, you gotta be like, look,
I said what I said, and when you said what
you said, it is what it is, I feel so old.
I said, I said what I said, it is what
(00:46):
it is. I said it with my whole chest. Well
three poorths of by chess. All right, I gotta talk
to you about the follow up of I can't call
it this Supreme Court said what it said hood politics, y'all.
(01:28):
All right, First, it's like this bull look is like
this BULLUK is like this Okay, this week is like this.
You can't tell him super nasally because I mean, at
this point it could be anything and my voice is
pretty uh shot. So this is why there's no new
(01:54):
episode this week, as in the sense that it should
have been about the d n C. I just don't
feel good. I'm sorry, y'all, but this is why you
do backup episodes while you try to like, you know,
have episodes evergreen stuff inside, you know, the holster just
in case. So please forgive my voice and my nasally.
(02:19):
So the run DNC has completed itself, and the RNC,
so the Boom incorporated RNC is also done. So the
party's over for everybody. I'll spare you a full breakdown
of the DNC because the Cool Zone team did that
already on It can happen here feed, But just think
(02:41):
about it as copious amounts of joy and pop culture
juxtaposed with the reality of body parts of toddlers sprawled
over the area of Gaza that was completed by the
sale of America's weapons, and people were really trying to
do a song and dance to square that circle. On
(03:03):
top of that, Michelle Obama's greatness and very very very
angry right wing people, give or take a few disguised
pillow guys, and Matt Walsh's which was probably one of
the funniest things I've ever seen and shout out my homeboy,
DJ Moski. He was there, DJ, and for Stevie Wonder
(03:24):
we did an EP together called Terror Form the People.
Please go listen to that. So, like I tried to
tell y'all that Moskie was that dude. So now it's
time for them to start talking about their actual policies,
which I will soon be a very dope episode I'm
planning about, you know, either the bully or the finessor
(03:49):
which is their two approaches to economics. You already guess
who is who. So right now they're about to start
hitting the campaign trail, and I you are not going
to get the details that you actually desire from these
campaign trails. You are gonna get very hyperboles and lofty
(04:09):
ideas and concepts with how they gonna do that. Being
left very wanting, just know that you gotta read it.
Just it is what it is. Across the world. Uh yeah,
Hesbelah is clapping and clapping back. Seems like they're trying
(04:33):
to chill a little bit because I guess everybody understands
that an open war just ain't good for everybody, A
regional war just ain't good for everybody, It seems as
though they're like, all right, man, we better chill in
the meantime, all the ceasefire talk is incredibly cap because
Hamas ain't even pay attention. Hamas was there. They ain't
(04:55):
even pay attention though, in the peace talks in Egypt,
because they were like, we've already agreed, you laid out terms,
and we were like, yeah, let's do it. I don't
know what y'all looking at us. For Israel is the
one that's like, I do not abide by these statements,
(05:17):
which is their right, you know, let's not. I mean,
if they want to keep shooting, they're gonna keep shooting.
I think they have the right to do that. Should
they do it? Oh come on, fam, Do I agree
with that choice? Oh come on, fam, yetta slow that role.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
RFK threw his hat in for the Trumpster word up, which.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
If I were an RFK fan, I'd be a little
frustrated because I would be like, I thought you was
the anti establishment dude. You was gonna sign up with
the establishment for in return a job that sound very
establishment to me if it were me, I'd also be
(06:07):
really sweating if I was jd Vance, because Niggy, you
finna get you about to get. This is Drew bletsoel
and and Tom Brady right now, big dog, you fitter,
get Drew, you fitter, get Tom Brady though, so good
luck anyway. I guess it's like that. Okay. So this
(06:51):
year I did a bunch of episodes on not only
how the Supreme Court works, but the things that they
were looking at, and today we are going to follow
up on those thing. What did they actually decide? I
talk to y'all about Chevron deference, I talk to y'all
about the immunity case against Donald Trump, and then I
(07:13):
talked to y'all or I didn't talk to y'all about abortion,
but the abortion pill. Like, I think that those are
the three things that I definitely want to bring to
y'all and follow up on now as a refresher, the
Supreme Court, they role is to be well actually and
what is so They're oftentimes not interested in the particulars
(07:38):
of the individual case that's being brought in front of them.
It's what does a decision in this case imply and
how will it affect the rest of them? How well
does this call play with the Constitution with precedences before? Now,
If I say yes to this, then that means now
(07:59):
if we say knowed this, then that means, now, is
there any other way we could look at this way?
Hold up now now okay, now hold on, let me
think about this. Now, what if we done so? So
they and then they're gonna ask the lawyer questions. It's
like okay, now now now, no, no, think about this.
Now you saying woop woop, but what if this, that
(08:20):
and the third happened? And you're supposed to say, well,
if this, that and the third happened, and I still
think I still stand on the fact that you know,
if if if y'all decide like this, then if that
go down, then chaos and suits, right, and they say okay, word,
and now now what do y'all think? They think, well,
you got to decide like this because if what he's
saying go down, then chaos and suits And they say okay, now,
(08:42):
now why do you say so? And then they gonna say, now,
have we ever talked about this before? Like is there
any cases where we didn't have to deal with this before?
Like and if we didn't have to deal with this, well,
what did we say last time? Now A lot of
times we ain't They don't mean them nine judges, they
mean the courts. What if we decided before about this,
Is there any what's called precedents? Like what did you
(09:04):
what did we say last time you brought this? And
they say, Yo, you ain't never brought this. There's never
been like this. Oh, it ain't never been like this.
Then okay, it's serious. Didn't that mean that we need
to really, we need to really think about this. And
then they go and they put their heads together, and
then they make a ruling and they say, Okay, this
is what we're saying now. As an aside, I like
(09:25):
the rest of you almost forgot Joe Biden was still
actually president and still had work to do. And one
of the things he was talking about as an overhaul
of the Supreme Court because we're gonna keep getting these
perceived sort of deadlocks. And it's just at this point,
I think I did an episode on this too. At
this point, it's just it's a weapon, you know, and
(09:48):
they're playing a role that you know, I don't think
anybody in the early days would have considered it to be.
Like I said before in one of them episod so
earlier that all the Constitution says about the Supreme Court
is that we should have one. It don't say how
(10:09):
many judges. None of that's actually in the law. And
so the nine just kind of became a thing, you know,
because judges became such ideologues and vectors of a political stance,
which again it's the design is not supposed to be that.
(10:31):
That's why we that's why we don't vote on them.
They're supposed to be elected because they're supposed to stand
above the fray, but they clearly don't. But one thing
I will say about this court is just like I
told y'all a long time ago, y'all don't write my
check or Mari name my chicken. I'm not really worried
about I'm not I'm mine in my bad. I'm not
(10:53):
worried about what y'all think, you know. So they oftentimes
can play two types of roles like they could be
you know, like I said before, the mascot where for
a particular worldview and you could wrap your flag around it,
you know. But at the same time, they could also
sometimes infuriorate that same team by voting the other way
(11:17):
on something else because they like again, y'all don't marry
name my chicken. I might agree with you on these things,
but look fool, y'all can't fire me. And that's something
that Joe is looking at, Like, first of all, is
nine really like do we have to stay with nine?
Does it have to keep breaking along these ideal or
(11:41):
these ideas? Yeah, these idealistic lines, and do y'all get
to stay there for life? Like is that really? Like
the only way to get off the Supreme Court is
to die or resign, Like is that really? Do do
we think they should have term limits? Like what y'all think?
You know? So that's what Joe is presenting right now.
(12:06):
And it's crazy because like so much is happening, like
foods don't care. Like it's like that would have been
in a universe where gravity works. That would have been
top to bottom, wall to wall, you know, hourly coverage.
Because this, if, if this do go down like this
(12:28):
is it's kind of a big deal. We've had nine
justices I mean for like many many decades, like you know,
so this might be big. But either way, that's happening
like currently and as part of the function of how
(12:50):
Supreme Court works. But yeah, so the Supreme Court makes
the judgment and then writes their opinion as to like this,
how we came to this conclue. And then there's a
paper where somebody write that's called the dissent, which basically
mean like, listen, I'm going on record, I'm gonna let them. Yeah, Okay, yes,
the decision is made because the majority of us agreed
(13:13):
that that's the way we're gonna go. But I'm gonna
go on record to say that three of us not
vibing with this, four of us disagree. This is why
we disagree. Okay, So it's in the record, but it's
not the law, which is an interesting, interesting practice. I
think there's this phenomenon that happens when you exist in
(13:34):
a fandom that you don't really realize how little of
the news and the current events that happen inside of
your fandom actually makes it outside of that sphere that
people ain't really thinking about the stuff that y'all thinking about. So,
(13:56):
like I say that, even as somebody that does a
politics podcast, like I am what you would call terminally online,
not in a sense that like I'm addicted per se,
because I have no problem turning my phone or television
or any it is off, but I stay connected or
tapped in because I just like, I just know what's
(14:16):
going on, you know what I mean. So because of that,
there are things that I might be really at all,
you know, up in arms about and be like, dude,
I can't believe this is going down. My wife looking
at me like, nigga, what you know? Listen, y'all comic
book heads. You know y'all got your own memes, right,
I happen to just be interested in everything. So, for example,
(14:37):
with Robert Downey Junior about to be doctor Doom, you know,
that's a Venn diagram of things I'm interested in. That's
m F. Doom, that's Marvel, and that's pop culture and
what that means. But you can but the but the
beautiful meme that went with that is the image of
him in The Tropic thund Right is that the name
(15:01):
of that movie, when he was playing a black guy,
and he was like, I know what I use I'm
the dude playing the dude disguised. There's another dude that's
basically what he's about to do in this. I understand
that reference. But that's because I'm in that bubble. Other
people might look at you and being like I don't
understand why y'all was yelling so loud when at Comic Con,
which you may not have known happened that it was
(15:24):
revealed that he was gonna play doctor Doom. You may
even when I said, MF Doom, you may I have
any idea what I'm talking about, But then I would
have to say, rest in peace to the chrome edom.
You feel me, so you just but I get it.
So I say all that to say, when the Supreme
Court writes these descent essays, you got to be in
(15:50):
the sphere to know that that even exists. The rest
of the world just knows just the law that passed
or actually, and there's even a bigger circle that don't
even know that that passed. Like I had to tell
you what Chevron defference was, but that's cause I'm tapped in.
You wouldn't know what the hell that was unless somebody
told you. You feel me. So that's keep that in
(16:11):
mind as we continue to talk about this. It's a
practice that I find happens in my house all the time.
Now here's the thing, thog. At the end of the day,
my kid's gonna listen to whichever parents say yes. That's
like at the end of the day. That's what they're
gonna listen to. Now. Despite that, the actual reality is
(16:33):
Mama in charge. Like no matter how much listen, listen,
patriarchy abounds, I get it. Misogyny a bounds, but I'm
just gonna keep it all the way real with y'all.
Whatever Mama say, at least in my house. Go like
I've said, I've answered no three times to the children.
(16:54):
My wife walks in, looks at me, and she goes, oh,
see why not, and they're like perfect and then they
go I'm like what uh huh or the other way around.
She like, I'm like, yeah, it's cool. And then she
say no, they can't do that. They gotta do this,
this and this, And I'm like, oh, well, Mama said no,
and that's just it. Like she still but I'll be
(17:16):
going on record. I'm a go on record saying I'm
not down for this. Okay, don't nobody care unless the
thing go wrong? And would the thing go wrong? I
could be like, now, listen, I went on record saying
I wasn't down for this, and still nobody care. It
don't matter, Oh lord, it don't matter whether I would
(17:38):
all record or not. As to whether I'm down with
what we do it or not. So even with this
Supreme Court with them saying, listen, four of us disagree
with this, I don't. I don't know why we do this,
but at least they saying on record, I done told
y'all I wasn't with this. I think we should have
went the other way. Okay, So let's get to the
(18:00):
cases now. The first one was the Chevron Deference case.
To refresh your memory, there was a situation with some
fishermen in Maine who, in order to maintain their license
to follow the regulations they need to follow, had to
have a dude come on and on their boat and
make sure that there was following all directions. Now, there
(18:21):
was this new law that this regulatory body had passed
that said you got to pay these people a certain amount,
And these fishermen were like, don't ain't hr job to
pay them? Like that's their job? Like why would I
have to? Why do I have to pay them? That's ridiculous.
So it came to the court, to the Supreme Court,
and the Supreme Court ain't really even worried about whether
(18:42):
you got to pay this fee or not. They're like,
does this regulatory body have any power, right, So then
they refer to this doctrine called Chevron deference. And what
that's saying is when there's a law that's ambiguous, when
there's something that like is the Congress past that said, yo,
you guys got to do this, uh, and it needs
(19:04):
to be at whatever.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
So people like the USDA, the FDA, you know, and
just these different departments, the EPA, they're the experts in
the field that we're talking about, right, So when the
court gets to something and something gets to them, the
remember the the Supreme.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
Court, these judges are experts in the law. They're not
experts in earthquakes and fishing and in science. They're not
they're not experts in that. So what they said was
in the concept of the doctrine of Chevron deference, what
they're saying is like, the courts will defer to these
regulatory bodies on things that they don't understand. So it's like, well,
(19:50):
I don't know how many fish you need to fish
out of the ocean before you fish it dry, Like
I don't know that, Like I would have to be
asking them anyway. So when it comes to laws that
like are ambiguous, that we can't just look at the
precedents and be like, well, fam, I don't know, like
we're gonna look to the well, they're the ones that
studied that stuff. So like I mean, it's whatever they say,
like we're down. You know what I'm saying. Now, If
(20:11):
they say something that I could say that that's clearly illegal,
that's a lost situation. But what y'all need to do,
like I defer to them. We've been going by that
since the eighties because why would you let a for
profit corporation regulate themselves? Because crazy stuff happened? Like, yo, y'all,
don't y'all remember why the EPA exists. You know the
joke and the Simpsons about the fish with the three eyes.
(20:33):
This it's because like nuclear waste and just waste products
just dropped in the water, like our water was poisoned.
Somebody had to be like, y'all, y'all just can't be
poison in the water. You remember acid rain? Like, are
y'all old enough to remember acid rain? Like the rain
used to be a cidic because the water was That's
(20:55):
why the EPA exists. Y'all remember the ozone layer? You
don't who kids?
Speaker 2 (21:00):
You had to worry about a hole in the O
zone and we was all, uv race, that's not a thing. Now,
why nigga the EPA, like, that's why, that's why nobody
talking about the O zone layer.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
So this it's some people that study stuff that can
look at a corporation and say, I can't trust y'all
to regulate yourself because you just gonna do whatever you're
gonna do to make your money. So what the Supreme
Court decided was now we done with that. So they
ended Chevron difference. And what that means is now, when
(21:35):
there is some sort of problem happening in a particular
industry that is normally regulated by some sort of regulatory
body like the EPA, like the USDA, like things like that,
when there's something that goes wrong, rather than them looking
at that department, they're saying, no, we'll, we'll, we'll figure
this out ourselves. Now, the argument for that is to
(21:57):
say that, like, look, man, like, just like you said,
we a for profit institution. If we won't do the
thing right, we ain't gonna make no money. So why
would we. I don't need nobody else, Like they're putting
these unnecessary pressures on us you know that just that
are just being swayed basically by whoever in office, Like
y'all don't even like y'all are y'all can be bought
(22:19):
like y'all can you know, y'all y'all be bought by
you know, lobbyists, just like the same way you accusing
us being bought by lobbyists or just driven by right,
y'all be driven by private too. And besides that, the
next president gonna come in and he gonna change all
the things anyway, So like you making it hard, like
we're suffering, everybody suffering because it is. On the other hand,
(22:40):
which is where I land is. Do you remember any
time in your life when something has been recalled like
I remember when there was mad cow disease and all
the beef was recalled from the shelves. You know who
did that, the USDA, and essentially it's a court was like,
(23:01):
you don't have to listen to the USTA. Now y'all
decide whatever y'all want to decide. So essentially we could
all die because there's nobody that's gonna tell you, don't
the beef industry that this is poisonous. We just gonna
trust that the beef industry gonna do the right thing
is what is basically what we're gonna say is what
(23:22):
the Supreme Court has decided that, like, we just gonna
trust these people. So when your cars start breaking down,
there ain't no regulatory body to tell you that, Like, hey,
you're not allowed to sell cars with only half a
seat belt, but it's cheap, but the only have half
a seat belt. Ain't nobody to stop us either. So
when your kids start flying through the windows, I hate
(23:43):
to say it like that, that's real morbid. But what
I'm trying to say is why your cars are safe.
The way that they're safe is because there's a regulatory body.
But if we ain't got to listen to the regulatory body,
it's gonna be on you to make sure these industries
do the right things. So Sefron deference shot down. Got
(24:03):
shot down because it's over zealous. Play hard to get
females get jealous. Okay, smarty, go to a party. My
child always says, I turned every sentence into a rap song,
and she's correct, all right, next community case. So the
(25:02):
question about the immunity is this is like what can
a president do in service to the country? Versus service
to himself or herself hopefully herself very soon. What is
covered by the office of being the executive, being the
(25:23):
commander in chief? Like, what is covered by that so
that you could feel free enough to do the jobs
you got to do, Because sometimes there's some things that
might be questionable. But if you afraid you can get
prosecuted when you've done, it's like, I can't. I can't really,
I can't really work like that if I'm afraid that,
like my political opponents may just have a blatant disagreement
(25:45):
with me, but use that as a way to prosecute me.
What what actions are covered and what actions are not right?
So you use that question when it comes to whether
or Donald Trump is immune for his part in the
(26:05):
January sixth insurrection. That's the question. What role did he play?
Did he commit high crimes and misdemeanors? Was it treason?
And were the acts that he did his role in
that were they in service to the country or service
to himself? If they were official acts as a president,
at what point can I you be criminally liable to
(26:27):
those So I'm just trying to give you refresher. We
did a whole episode on that, which you could go
back to, which is actually a very important question. So
when it came to the trial, right, that started off
in a lower court as to like can I bring
criminal charges against Trump for trying to overthrow a legally
performed election? Like you hired you know, fake electors, You
(26:49):
did all these different things, like what are those how
much of those things are covered by your immunity? Now
Trump is saying I get all immunity. That was his argument,
like I'm immune for everything, like we talk talking about
I was a president president's immunity. And the defense to that,
or the argument of that is like, sir, that would
make you a monarch. We don't have those here, Sir,
(27:11):
that would make you a dictator. We don't have those here.
Our stance in America is no one is above the law.
We don't execute our political opponents. That's not who we are.
So when given the example of you know, so what
if you were going to use sealed Team six to
go kill a political opponent, his defense attorney was like, well,
(27:36):
I mean if I did that, I'd get impeached. Like, well,
that's not there's nothing question I'm asking I'm asking you
should you be criminally liable. He's like, well, if I
got a peached, of course I should be criminally liable. Okay, well,
let me ask you about impeachment. And if you go
back to impeachment, their argument is, well, if I'm not
criminally liable, then you can't impeach me. So they're using
it backwards and forwards, like so it's not a criminal
(27:59):
act unless I get impeached. But I can't get impeached
unless it's a criminal act. So therefore, basically I get
to do what I want. Is essentially the argument they're
trying to make. So the Supreme Court had to be like, okay, now,
hold on now, like that's actually I don't really care
about Trump per se. At least that's what they're saying,
I don't really care about Trump per se. We need
to think about, like, what do we really think about this,
like what is in fact immune and not? And their
(28:23):
decision was, oh, lord, any official act, official acts as
the executive officer, as the president, any official act is
covered in immunity. And even if you have evidence that
shows that this person is doing something criminal, you are
not allowed to bring that to court. Were his actions
(28:47):
on January sixth, covered under immunity. Was that an official act?
Did he truly believe that this election was stolen? Therefore
he was going to right or wrong this was an
official act? Or was he just trying to protect or yeah,
he's just trying to protect his own power and stay
in office even though he knew good and well that
(29:08):
he lost. Well, he's arguing it's an official act. And
now since he was functioning as an executive, all of
the conversations he had with the district attorneys, with the
person in charge of election in Georgia, with all of
these things that are clear evidence that he was trying
(29:29):
to overturn this election, Well they're all covered now. You
can't bring them into court because of what the Supreme
Court just decided. Now, I cracked a joke about this
the shooter, which I don't understand, Like, I'm just trying
to make a point about this case that let's just
pretend like the shooter that shot at Trump was hired
by Joe Biden. It wasn't, obviously, but if it was,
(29:51):
you can't really bring no criminal case against Joe Biden
because according to the Supreme Court, that would have been
an official act as president, and it had been covered
by immunity. Thank you so much, Supreme Court. Just say
it with your whole chest. And I'm not even allowed
to bring evidence that clearly shows well, guys, good job.
(30:12):
I told you I would get that man props if
he's able to dodge these cases. This man is, he's
batten pretty good and some things are just breaking his way.
And this is one of them situations where I'm just
like a homie. I don't know this man Ben's reality.
So yeah, so yeah, yeah, yeah, so yep, yep. They
agreed immunity, which means that any of the other cases
(30:35):
we was worried about the E. G. And Carroll, which
the judge said, no, no, no, no, he raped her
like this is there's no doubt that he raped this woman.
He's been found guilty. I accarently, I just can't right now.
I'm not allowed to bring any sentencing. But he's he
(30:57):
did it. But this now said as well, we can't
really talk about the Georgia fake electors. Now we can't
really talk about that because I don't know what's covered,
Like I can't. You just told me, Supreme Court, I
can't bring no evidence. And this is where the Supreme
Court did what Jason does in his own house. I'm
gonna go on record saying we're three judges, Kadunjie Brown,
(31:20):
thank you sister. So the mayor they they was like, uh,
this is some bullshit, Like I just I don't understand,
Like for this weed dissent, for the sake of the
dog one country, we wholeheartedly went our whole chest. We
(31:42):
say what we said. Descent to this mug seal teen
six Immune demand like you want to throw your prison,
you want to throw your political opponents in jail? You Immune?
It's all good. And I'm not even allowed to bring
evident did y'all hear me right now? Like this this
THEU Preme Course said what they say, you can't even
bring evidence. Even if there is evidence, you're not allowed
(32:03):
to bring it into court. Boy, I tell And finally,
the abortion medication. So essentially this is the case you
could call Like, I'm gonna get more specific on this one.
The FDA versus the Alliance for Hippocratic Medics. Right, here's
what they're considering. Whether the Food and Drug Administration the
FDA act lawfully when it extended access to the abortion
(32:25):
medication myth of pristone in two thousand and six and
twenty twenty one, and whether the doctors have legal standing
to challenge the FDA over this drug. So when Roe v.
Wade feil, it opened the door to a lot of
different things to where it's like, okay, now the anti
abortion movement started feeling hell of froggy and was like,
(32:46):
I bet you we could, I bet you we could
really push this line. That's what they started. They started
pushing the line. Okay, on once the main damn fell,
we could start pushing the line. So these like six
week abortion bands, twelve week abortion bands. Then they came
after the abortion pill missed the pristone right, so like
this was their chance. Again, Remember the courts get into
the weeds. They're saying, it's not so much do we
(33:07):
believe in myph for pristone. What we're saying is does
the Food and Drug Administration have the right to even
expand the access? Like why are y'all talking about it again?
You got to go back to the Chevron difference thing
to where the courts are like, well, since we're not
going to defer to these regulatory bodies, we're gonna have
to figure this out ourselves. So first of all, it's
like there's two parts happening here. It's first of all,
(33:29):
it's like, does the FDA even have a right to
do this? And then now do the doctors even have
a right to challenge this? Like, so both I don't
understand if either one of y'all can be in my
court right, And what lies in the balance is whether
we're allowed to get our hands on some mepha pristone,
which is probably hands down the safest way do it. Now,
(33:51):
what is memphi pristone if you don't know this already, So,
myphi pristone is a two part drug combination that's used
in medical abortions. Right, So it's approved by the FBA.
So it's the abortion pill. Right. So it's approved in
two thousand by the FDA. And then in twenty sixteen,
the FDA changed some of the guidelines to make it
easier to get access to the pill. And one of
(34:12):
those changes was like you're only requiring one person, one
in person medical visit and allowing a non physician healthcare
provider to prescribe the medicine. And a lot of this
had to do with what was happening for COVID, like this,
this really helped because we couldn't go to the doctor, right,
So you could do a non physician healthcare provider, right,
(34:36):
or do a non in person one. So they prescribed
via telehealth appointments and sent them by the mail. Right.
The FDA challengers are arguing that MITH for pristone is unsafe.
So the people that are challenging the FBA, they're saying that, like, man,
hold up, you can't just have like a non physician
just mail you a pill without even meeting them, like,
(34:57):
and y'all ain't had a right to change the law anyway.
Following me, I'm reading from the US News and Report
website because I want to make sure I say this correctly. Okay,
the justice is held that the group of anti abortion doctors, right,
these are the doctors that brought this case, lacked legal
(35:17):
standing to challenge the regulation of MIF for priston. So
what however they feel about abortion or not, is not
the point. What they're saying is you don't have the
right to challenge it. We first understand that y'all just
don't like abortion, period, So that doesn't matter. You don't
have the right to bring a case. So quote under
(35:38):
Article three of the Constitution, A plaintiff's desire to make
a drug less available for others does not establish standing
to sue. Wrote get this, Justice Brent Kavanaugh, Nor do
the plaintiffs other standings and theories to suffice. Now listen
to this. What he's saying is like, you gotta remember
he wanted the ones that help overturn our road Wade.
(36:00):
He's saying, listen, dude, he's part of the ones that
wanted to end Chevron defferent. So the stuff gets super complicated.
The whole of the Supreme Court was like, look, bro,
you don't get how we feel about MEPhI pristone or
not is not what we're talking about. Now. They're not foolish.
They know what this means. This means that now you're
saying that women can get their hands on methipristone. I
(36:23):
say women because I mean it's an abortion pill. Now,
So anyway, what they're saying is how we feel about
this or not is besides the point. You're just anti
abortion doctors, And just because you don't like the thing
don't mean you could suit him. You don't have a case.
Supreme Court. So interesting to me, dog, because like they
(36:43):
be all over the place like they not willing to
be anybody's mascot. And I think that that's so interesting
to me because like, on this end, this is clearly
a win for the progressive world. That's like, oh, so
you're not taking away all rights you're keeping. He's like, well,
and the Supreme Court is going like, well, I don't know.
I'm just saying they don't have a right to just
(37:04):
because they mad about it. They don't have a right
to bring a case. So yeah, that's one for us.
They're like, I don't the Supreme courl like as one
for whoever you want wrong. I don't know. And then
on the other side, you're like, okay, that makes perfect sense.
But at the same time, you're gonna tell me that,
like the president could be immune for anything as long
as it's an official act, as long as he do
it on the clock. You mean to tell me, as
long as I do my dirt while I'm on the clock,
(37:27):
it's good. I mean, that's that's what they're saying. It's
a bizarre world we live in, but that's the world
we in right now. I give you a bonus one.
It's the bump Stock band, yo, and this bonus joint
gonna make you dizzy. So again, here's the question they
questioning is whether a bump stock device fits the federal
(37:48):
definition of a machine gun, therefore making it a band device.
So it's one of them weird questions like what makes
a gun a gun? It's it seems so bonkers, right,
because you have to decide which gun is which and
what is more deadly than others. Now, obviously a little
deuce deuce is just like a pain inflictor unless you
(38:08):
shoot it close enough to somebody. A machine gun, I mean,
that's made to kill, right, So you but you have to,
like you gotta draw a line. Right. This is exactly
what I talked about in the several Seats episode about defining,
you know, things by a particular line. It's the Olympic
situation right with the boxer. I'm gonna refresh you because
(38:31):
I think it's super important to keep talking about this
thing one because ain't got nothing to do with trans people.
This has to do with when law in our concepts
conflict with the fluidity of actual nature and reality. The
(38:54):
Olympics is going through this. That ended that boxing match
because she was like, this person hit me in the face.
Harder I ever been hit in my life. And then
the Olympics was like, what's because she's biologically a man,
And everybody thought, Okay, this is people sneak, this is
men sneaking into women's sports. That is not at all
what happened. Listen explaining to you very simply, I said
(39:17):
this already, but I'm gonna say it again. You know
some dudes have man boobs. You know some women have mustaches.
It's because we both both males and females carry both
testosterone and estrogen. Some women born natural biological women have
internal testicles. I don't know if you notice. It's just
(39:37):
because of how biology works, and those internal testicles that
never came out, because they're just they're these random organs
inside of them that they're producing testosterone. Some women and
some men just have. Everybody's level of testosterone and estrogen
is different. Some women just produce higher than normal, normal
big old air quotes and normal level of testosterone. They're
(39:59):
women and they just produce. You can't help that. But
according to the Olympics, their attitude is in the spirit
of fair play. To They're saying, like, we're trying to
protect women's sports, like this seems like an unfair examined advantage,
that this lady just makes more testosterones, that you're just
gonna be stronger. That's not fair. So when they say so,
(40:20):
when they say that, they're saying, well, we have to
draw a line somewhere that if you have this much
level of testosterone in your body, according to our rules,
you're kind of a dude. Where they're saying you're a
dude in the sense that you can't participate in women's sports.
Probably are a woman. You can't produce it, but you
can't because you're your level of testosterone is too high.
(40:40):
That's not fair. On the other hand, she ain't make
it like that. That's just they they body, What do
you want them to do? What do you want me
to do? My body makes what it makes. Well, you
know what they want them to do is take some
drugs to drop their testosterone. That's what they want them
to do. If you're gonna quale, if you're gonna compete,
you got lower your testosterone, which to me said bonkers.
(41:01):
But it's because there is you got to draw a
line somewhere, or do you But sometimes because it's such
a weird idea, the line becomes absurd. So the question
about a bump stock is that is it a machine gun?
So now you go back to the mass shooting in
twenty seventeen in Las Vegas. The gunmen used bump stocks, right,
(41:23):
and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco the ATF ruled that
rifles equipped with bump stocks are machine guns. This was
a Trump law, like, this was one of his things.
He pushed for this that like yo, bump stocks like,
which is why sometimes like partisan talking points are absurd
because it's like, I mean, that's yeah, like he turned
(41:46):
it into a machine gun. I don't that's what he did, right,
which have been basically banned since nineteen eighty six. What
do I mean by a machine gun? It means any
weapon like that shoots and can readily shoot again. Basically,
you pull the trigger and it keep shooting. So that's
an automatic reload. So more than one shot without reloading
(42:09):
or anything like that or pulling trigger again, you just
squeeze it. That's a machine gun. What a bump stock
does is basically you add a device that takes something
that is semi automatic and turn it into automatic, so
that a single pull of the trigger could disperse hundreds
and hundreds of bullets per minute. Like, that's that's what
(42:33):
bump stock means. You just turning a semi automatic into
an automatic. So what the Supreme Court decided it was
a six to three decision, which was like pretty obvious
split along ideological lines. They said that the Trump administration
did not follow federal law when it banned bump stocks. So,
according to Clarence Thomas, he said that the ATF exceeded
(42:56):
their authority when it classified rifle with bump stocks as
machine gun. We hold semi automatic rifles equipped with a
bump stock is not a machine gun because it cannot
fire more than one shot by a single function of
the trigger. So he's saying, well, no, it can't do
it without this thing, so it's not a thing. It's
(43:17):
since it can't do it without the attachment, it's not automatic.
Speaker 2 (43:20):
It's not a machine gun. You have to add the thing,
but it still only works when you have the thing
on it. Therefore it's not a machine gun.
Speaker 1 (43:31):
And this, my friend, is why I think the Chevron
defference thing is wrong, because my nigga, Claren, what you
know about guns? The people that study guns all the
time is telling you that fam that's a I mean,
it's a machine gun. Now, this is what we mean
by the laws being ambiguous. When you make laws, they're
(43:54):
supposed to be able to try to make them vague
enough so that they can expand across in years. Because
you can't tell the future. I don't know what's going
to happen in the future. This is why Chevron deference,
one of the reasons it existed, is like, well, dang,
I don't I mean, what do we know. Clarence Tomalin says,
I'm not listening in the yard. Do you out of line?
(44:15):
You ain't got the right to say that. And what
I think is that's a semi automatic. It's not an automatic,
and you don't get the right to change. Now, maybe
they have the rights. Now, what Clarence Thomas does understand
is whether that organization has the right to change the
law or not. But what you know about guns. But
it's like, well it is now, and he's like, no,
(44:39):
it's a semi automatic with a bump stock. They're two
different things. And then Soda Mayor wrote The Descent. She
was like, listen, man, when I see a bird that
walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks
like a duck. I'll call it a duck. A bumpstock
equipped semi automatic fires rifles automatically more than one shot
without a man, and you will reload to a single
(45:01):
function of the trigger because I like, Congress call it
a machine gun, because nigga, you just turned it into one.
I respectfully dissent it was this I like I sometimes
I like the Supreme Court is bizarre to me. If
I were to ever be a reporter, like a full
(45:24):
fledged like in the Weeds report, I'd want to report
on the Supreme Court because this is like how that's
I mean, that's why you buy bump stocks. You buy
a bump stock to turn a semi into a full.
So therefore your gun is now a full And he's like, well, no,
it's a semi converted with a full converter, but it's
(45:46):
still semi. And the ATF doesn't get to say that
that is now officially a fully again Chevron deference because
they like won't believe experts anyway, won't think y'all got
the right to do that anyway, So y'all don't get
to say you let us say it's a weird world.
We live in either way, Supreme Court set it with
(46:07):
a whole chess or at least two thirds of it.
We'll see how this shapes our world. Because oh man,
presidents are immune, automatics aren't automatic. You can still get
mit the prisstone. And apparently when the bacon got swine flu,
(46:28):
there ain't nobody we could tell Hood politics. All right, now,
don't you hit stop on this pod. You better listen
to these credits. I need you to finish this thing
(46:49):
so I can get the download numbers. Okay, so don't
stop it yet, but listen. This was recorded in East
Lost Boyle Heights by your boy Propaganda. Tap in with
me at prop hip hop dot com. If you're in
the coldbrew coffee we got Terraform Coldbrew. You can go
there dot com and use promo code Hood get twenty
(47:11):
percent off get yourself some coffee. This was mixed, edited
and mastered by your boy Matt Alsowski killing the beat softly.
Check out his website Matdowsowski dot com. I'm a speller
for you because I know m A T T O
S O W s ki dot com Matthowsowski dot com.
(47:33):
He got more music and stuff like that on there.
So gonna check out the heat. Politics is a member
of cool Zone Media, Executive produced by Sophie Lichterman, part
of the iHeartMedia podcast network. Your theme music and scoring
is also by the one and Overly Mattowsowski. Still killing
the beat softly, so listen. Don't let nobody lie to you.
(47:54):
If you understand urban living, you understand politics. These people
is not smarter than you. We'll see next week.
Speaker 2 (48:21):
M
All media. Hey, look, sometimes people say stuff with their
whole chess. Sometimes people say stuff with two thirds of
they chess. When you know part of you is captain.
You know, there's a piece of you that's like I hold,
I actually don't really agree with what I'm saying, but
I ain't no punk. But we're gonna go with whatever
(00:23):
we gotta go with. Now when you are not just
a person but an institution. Most of the time an
institution is saying things with two thirds of they chess.
But as soon as they said it, you gotta be like, look,
I said what I said, and when you said what
you said, it is what it is, I feel so old.
I said, I said what I said, it is what
(00:46):
it is. I said it with my whole chest. Well
three poorths of by chess. All right, I gotta talk
to you about the follow up of I can't call
it this Supreme Court said what it said hood politics, y'all.
(01:28):
All right, First, it's like this bull look is like
this BULLUK is like this Okay, this week is like this.
You can't tell him super nasally because I mean, at
this point it could be anything and my voice is
pretty uh shot. So this is why there's no new
(01:54):
episode this week, as in the sense that it should
have been about the d n C. I just don't
feel good. I'm sorry, y'all, but this is why you
do backup episodes while you try to like, you know,
have episodes evergreen stuff inside, you know, the holster just
in case. So please forgive my voice and my nasally.
(02:19):
So the run DNC has completed itself, and the RNC,
so the Boom incorporated RNC is also done. So the
party's over for everybody. I'll spare you a full breakdown
of the DNC because the Cool Zone team did that
already on It can happen here feed, But just think
(02:41):
about it as copious amounts of joy and pop culture
juxtaposed with the reality of body parts of toddlers sprawled
over the area of Gaza that was completed by the
sale of America's weapons, and people were really trying to
do a song and dance to square that circle. On
(03:03):
top of that, Michelle Obama's greatness and very very very
angry right wing people, give or take a few disguised
pillow guys, and Matt Walsh's which was probably one of
the funniest things I've ever seen and shout out my homeboy,
DJ Moski. He was there, DJ, and for Stevie Wonder
(03:24):
we did an EP together called Terror Form the People.
Please go listen to that. So, like I tried to
tell y'all that Moskie was that dude. So now it's
time for them to start talking about their actual policies,
which I will soon be a very dope episode I'm
planning about, you know, either the bully or the finessor
(03:49):
which is their two approaches to economics. You already guess
who is who. So right now they're about to start
hitting the campaign trail, and I you are not going
to get the details that you actually desire from these
campaign trails. You are gonna get very hyperboles and lofty
(04:09):
ideas and concepts with how they gonna do that. Being
left very wanting, just know that you gotta read it.
Just it is what it is. Across the world. Uh yeah,
Hesbelah is clapping and clapping back. Seems like they're trying
(04:33):
to chill a little bit because I guess everybody understands
that an open war just ain't good for everybody, A
regional war just ain't good for everybody, It seems as
though they're like, all right, man, we better chill in
the meantime, all the ceasefire talk is incredibly cap because
Hamas ain't even pay attention. Hamas was there. They ain't
(04:55):
even pay attention though, in the peace talks in Egypt,
because they were like, we've already agreed, you laid out terms,
and we were like, yeah, let's do it. I don't
know what y'all looking at us. For Israel is the
one that's like, I do not abide by these statements,
(05:17):
which is their right, you know, let's not. I mean,
if they want to keep shooting, they're gonna keep shooting.
I think they have the right to do that. Should
they do it? Oh come on, fam, Do I agree
with that choice? Oh come on, fam, yetta slow that role.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
RFK threw his hat in for the Trumpster word up, which.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
If I were an RFK fan, I'd be a little
frustrated because I would be like, I thought you was
the anti establishment dude. You was gonna sign up with
the establishment for in return a job that sound very
establishment to me if it were me, I'd also be
(06:07):
really sweating if I was jd Vance, because Niggy, you
finna get you about to get. This is Drew bletsoel
and and Tom Brady right now, big dog, you fitter,
get Drew, you fitter, get Tom Brady though, so good
luck anyway. I guess it's like that. Okay. So this
(06:51):
year I did a bunch of episodes on not only
how the Supreme Court works, but the things that they
were looking at, and today we are going to follow
up on those thing. What did they actually decide? I
talk to y'all about Chevron deference, I talk to y'all
about the immunity case against Donald Trump, and then I
(07:13):
talked to y'all or I didn't talk to y'all about abortion,
but the abortion pill. Like, I think that those are
the three things that I definitely want to bring to
y'all and follow up on now as a refresher, the
Supreme Court, they role is to be well actually and
what is so They're oftentimes not interested in the particulars
(07:38):
of the individual case that's being brought in front of them.
It's what does a decision in this case imply and
how will it affect the rest of them? How well
does this call play with the Constitution with precedences before? Now,
If I say yes to this, then that means now
(07:59):
if we say knowed this, then that means, now, is
there any other way we could look at this way?
Hold up now now okay, now hold on, let me
think about this. Now, what if we done so? So
they and then they're gonna ask the lawyer questions. It's
like okay, now now now, no, no, think about this.
Now you saying woop woop, but what if this, that
(08:20):
and the third happened? And you're supposed to say, well,
if this, that and the third happened, and I still
think I still stand on the fact that you know,
if if if y'all decide like this, then if that
go down, then chaos and suits, right, and they say okay, word,
and now now what do y'all think? They think, well,
you got to decide like this because if what he's
saying go down, then chaos and suits And they say okay, now,
(08:42):
now why do you say so? And then they gonna say, now,
have we ever talked about this before? Like is there
any cases where we didn't have to deal with this before?
Like and if we didn't have to deal with this, well,
what did we say last time? Now A lot of
times we ain't They don't mean them nine judges, they
mean the courts. What if we decided before about this,
Is there any what's called precedents? Like what did you
(09:04):
what did we say last time you brought this? And
they say, Yo, you ain't never brought this. There's never
been like this. Oh, it ain't never been like this.
Then okay, it's serious. Didn't that mean that we need
to really, we need to really think about this. And
then they go and they put their heads together, and
then they make a ruling and they say, Okay, this
is what we're saying now. As an aside, I like
(09:25):
the rest of you almost forgot Joe Biden was still
actually president and still had work to do. And one
of the things he was talking about as an overhaul
of the Supreme Court because we're gonna keep getting these
perceived sort of deadlocks. And it's just at this point,
I think I did an episode on this too. At
this point, it's just it's a weapon, you know, and
(09:48):
they're playing a role that you know, I don't think
anybody in the early days would have considered it to be.
Like I said before in one of them episod so
earlier that all the Constitution says about the Supreme Court
is that we should have one. It don't say how
(10:09):
many judges. None of that's actually in the law. And
so the nine just kind of became a thing, you know,
because judges became such ideologues and vectors of a political stance,
which again it's the design is not supposed to be that.
(10:31):
That's why we that's why we don't vote on them.
They're supposed to be elected because they're supposed to stand
above the fray, but they clearly don't. But one thing
I will say about this court is just like I
told y'all a long time ago, y'all don't write my
check or Mari name my chicken. I'm not really worried
about I'm not I'm mine in my bad. I'm not
(10:53):
worried about what y'all think, you know. So they oftentimes
can play two types of roles like they could be
you know, like I said before, the mascot where for
a particular worldview and you could wrap your flag around it,
you know. But at the same time, they could also
sometimes infuriorate that same team by voting the other way
(11:17):
on something else because they like again, y'all don't marry
name my chicken. I might agree with you on these things,
but look fool, y'all can't fire me. And that's something
that Joe is looking at, Like, first of all, is
nine really like do we have to stay with nine?
Does it have to keep breaking along these ideal or
(11:41):
these ideas? Yeah, these idealistic lines, and do y'all get
to stay there for life? Like is that really? Like
the only way to get off the Supreme Court is
to die or resign, Like is that really? Do do
we think they should have term limits? Like what y'all think?
You know? So that's what Joe is presenting right now.
(12:06):
And it's crazy because like so much is happening, like
foods don't care. Like it's like that would have been
in a universe where gravity works. That would have been
top to bottom, wall to wall, you know, hourly coverage.
Because this, if, if this do go down like this
(12:28):
is it's kind of a big deal. We've had nine
justices I mean for like many many decades, like you know,
so this might be big. But either way, that's happening
like currently and as part of the function of how
(12:50):
Supreme Court works. But yeah, so the Supreme Court makes
the judgment and then writes their opinion as to like this,
how we came to this conclue. And then there's a
paper where somebody write that's called the dissent, which basically
mean like, listen, I'm going on record, I'm gonna let them. Yeah, Okay, yes,
the decision is made because the majority of us agreed
(13:13):
that that's the way we're gonna go. But I'm gonna
go on record to say that three of us not
vibing with this, four of us disagree. This is why
we disagree. Okay, So it's in the record, but it's
not the law, which is an interesting, interesting practice. I
think there's this phenomenon that happens when you exist in
(13:34):
a fandom that you don't really realize how little of
the news and the current events that happen inside of
your fandom actually makes it outside of that sphere that
people ain't really thinking about the stuff that y'all thinking about. So,
(13:56):
like I say that, even as somebody that does a
politics podcast, like I am what you would call terminally online,
not in a sense that like I'm addicted per se,
because I have no problem turning my phone or television
or any it is off, but I stay connected or
tapped in because I just like, I just know what's
(14:16):
going on, you know what I mean. So because of that,
there are things that I might be really at all,
you know, up in arms about and be like, dude,
I can't believe this is going down. My wife looking
at me like, nigga, what you know? Listen, y'all comic
book heads. You know y'all got your own memes, right,
I happen to just be interested in everything. So, for example,
(14:37):
with Robert Downey Junior about to be doctor Doom, you know,
that's a Venn diagram of things I'm interested in. That's
m F. Doom, that's Marvel, and that's pop culture and
what that means. But you can but the but the
beautiful meme that went with that is the image of
him in The Tropic thund Right is that the name
(15:01):
of that movie, when he was playing a black guy,
and he was like, I know what I use I'm
the dude playing the dude disguised. There's another dude that's
basically what he's about to do in this. I understand
that reference. But that's because I'm in that bubble. Other
people might look at you and being like I don't
understand why y'all was yelling so loud when at Comic Con,
which you may not have known happened that it was
(15:24):
revealed that he was gonna play doctor Doom. You may
even when I said, MF Doom, you may I have
any idea what I'm talking about, But then I would
have to say, rest in peace to the chrome edom.
You feel me, so you just but I get it.
So I say all that to say, when the Supreme
Court writes these descent essays, you got to be in
(15:50):
the sphere to know that that even exists. The rest
of the world just knows just the law that passed
or actually, and there's even a bigger circle that don't
even know that that passed. Like I had to tell
you what Chevron defference was, but that's cause I'm tapped in.
You wouldn't know what the hell that was unless somebody
told you. You feel me. So that's keep that in
(16:11):
mind as we continue to talk about this. It's a
practice that I find happens in my house all the time.
Now here's the thing, thog. At the end of the day,
my kid's gonna listen to whichever parents say yes. That's
like at the end of the day. That's what they're
gonna listen to. Now. Despite that, the actual reality is
(16:33):
Mama in charge. Like no matter how much listen, listen,
patriarchy abounds, I get it. Misogyny a bounds, but I'm
just gonna keep it all the way real with y'all.
Whatever Mama say, at least in my house. Go like
I've said, I've answered no three times to the children.
(16:54):
My wife walks in, looks at me, and she goes, oh,
see why not, and they're like perfect and then they
go I'm like what uh huh or the other way around.
She like, I'm like, yeah, it's cool. And then she
say no, they can't do that. They gotta do this,
this and this, And I'm like, oh, well, Mama said no,
and that's just it. Like she still but I'll be
(17:16):
going on record. I'm a go on record saying I'm
not down for this. Okay, don't nobody care unless the
thing go wrong? And would the thing go wrong? I
could be like, now, listen, I went on record saying
I wasn't down for this, and still nobody care. It
don't matter, Oh lord, it don't matter whether I would
(17:38):
all record or not. As to whether I'm down with
what we do it or not. So even with this
Supreme Court with them saying, listen, four of us disagree
with this, I don't. I don't know why we do this,
but at least they saying on record, I done told
y'all I wasn't with this. I think we should have
went the other way. Okay, So let's get to the
(18:00):
cases now. The first one was the Chevron Deference case.
To refresh your memory, there was a situation with some
fishermen in Maine who, in order to maintain their license
to follow the regulations they need to follow, had to
have a dude come on and on their boat and
make sure that there was following all directions. Now, there
(18:21):
was this new law that this regulatory body had passed
that said you got to pay these people a certain amount,
And these fishermen were like, don't ain't hr job to
pay them? Like that's their job? Like why would I
have to? Why do I have to pay them? That's ridiculous.
So it came to the court, to the Supreme Court,
and the Supreme Court ain't really even worried about whether
(18:42):
you got to pay this fee or not. They're like,
does this regulatory body have any power, right, So then
they refer to this doctrine called Chevron deference. And what
that's saying is when there's a law that's ambiguous, when
there's something that like is the Congress past that said, yo,
you guys got to do this, uh, and it needs
(19:04):
to be at whatever.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
So people like the USDA, the FDA, you know, and
just these different departments, the EPA, they're the experts in
the field that we're talking about, right, So when the
court gets to something and something gets to them, the
remember the the Supreme.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
Court, these judges are experts in the law. They're not
experts in earthquakes and fishing and in science. They're not
they're not experts in that. So what they said was
in the concept of the doctrine of Chevron deference, what
they're saying is like, the courts will defer to these
regulatory bodies on things that they don't understand. So it's like, well,
(19:50):
I don't know how many fish you need to fish
out of the ocean before you fish it dry, Like
I don't know that, Like I would have to be
asking them anyway. So when it comes to laws that
like are ambiguous, that we can't just look at the
precedents and be like, well, fam, I don't know, like
we're gonna look to the well, they're the ones that
studied that stuff. So like I mean, it's whatever they say,
like we're down. You know what I'm saying. Now, If
(20:11):
they say something that I could say that that's clearly illegal,
that's a lost situation. But what y'all need to do,
like I defer to them. We've been going by that
since the eighties because why would you let a for
profit corporation regulate themselves? Because crazy stuff happened? Like, yo, y'all,
don't y'all remember why the EPA exists. You know the
joke and the Simpsons about the fish with the three eyes.
(20:33):
This it's because like nuclear waste and just waste products
just dropped in the water, like our water was poisoned.
Somebody had to be like, y'all, y'all just can't be
poison in the water. You remember acid rain? Like, are
y'all old enough to remember acid rain? Like the rain
used to be a cidic because the water was That's
(20:55):
why the EPA exists. Y'all remember the ozone layer? You
don't who kids?
Speaker 2 (21:00):
You had to worry about a hole in the O
zone and we was all, uv race, that's not a thing. Now,
why nigga the EPA, like, that's why, that's why nobody
talking about the O zone layer.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
So this it's some people that study stuff that can
look at a corporation and say, I can't trust y'all
to regulate yourself because you just gonna do whatever you're
gonna do to make your money. So what the Supreme
Court decided was now we done with that. So they
ended Chevron difference. And what that means is now, when
(21:35):
there is some sort of problem happening in a particular
industry that is normally regulated by some sort of regulatory
body like the EPA, like the USDA, like things like that,
when there's something that goes wrong, rather than them looking
at that department, they're saying, no, we'll, we'll, we'll figure
this out ourselves. Now, the argument for that is to
(21:57):
say that, like, look, man, like, just like you said,
we a for profit institution. If we won't do the
thing right, we ain't gonna make no money. So why
would we. I don't need nobody else, Like they're putting
these unnecessary pressures on us you know that just that
are just being swayed basically by whoever in office, Like
y'all don't even like y'all are y'all can be bought
(22:19):
like y'all can you know, y'all y'all be bought by
you know, lobbyists, just like the same way you accusing
us being bought by lobbyists or just driven by right,
y'all be driven by private too. And besides that, the
next president gonna come in and he gonna change all
the things anyway, So like you making it hard, like
we're suffering, everybody suffering because it is. On the other hand,
(22:40):
which is where I land is. Do you remember any
time in your life when something has been recalled like
I remember when there was mad cow disease and all
the beef was recalled from the shelves. You know who
did that, the USDA, and essentially it's a court was like,
(23:01):
you don't have to listen to the USTA. Now y'all
decide whatever y'all want to decide. So essentially we could
all die because there's nobody that's gonna tell you, don't
the beef industry that this is poisonous. We just gonna
trust that the beef industry gonna do the right thing
is what is basically what we're gonna say is what
(23:22):
the Supreme Court has decided that, like, we just gonna
trust these people. So when your cars start breaking down,
there ain't no regulatory body to tell you that, Like, hey,
you're not allowed to sell cars with only half a
seat belt, but it's cheap, but the only have half
a seat belt. Ain't nobody to stop us either. So
when your kids start flying through the windows, I hate
(23:43):
to say it like that, that's real morbid. But what
I'm trying to say is why your cars are safe.
The way that they're safe is because there's a regulatory body.
But if we ain't got to listen to the regulatory body,
it's gonna be on you to make sure these industries
do the right things. So Sefron deference shot down. Got
(24:03):
shot down because it's over zealous. Play hard to get
females get jealous. Okay, smarty, go to a party. My
child always says, I turned every sentence into a rap song,
and she's correct, all right, next community case. So the
(25:02):
question about the immunity is this is like what can
a president do in service to the country? Versus service
to himself or herself hopefully herself very soon. What is
covered by the office of being the executive, being the
(25:23):
commander in chief? Like, what is covered by that so
that you could feel free enough to do the jobs
you got to do, Because sometimes there's some things that
might be questionable. But if you afraid you can get
prosecuted when you've done, it's like, I can't. I can't really,
I can't really work like that if I'm afraid that,
like my political opponents may just have a blatant disagreement
(25:45):
with me, but use that as a way to prosecute me.
What what actions are covered and what actions are not right?
So you use that question when it comes to whether
or Donald Trump is immune for his part in the
(26:05):
January sixth insurrection. That's the question. What role did he play?
Did he commit high crimes and misdemeanors? Was it treason?
And were the acts that he did his role in
that were they in service to the country or service
to himself? If they were official acts as a president,
at what point can I you be criminally liable to
(26:27):
those So I'm just trying to give you refresher. We
did a whole episode on that, which you could go
back to, which is actually a very important question. So
when it came to the trial, right, that started off
in a lower court as to like can I bring
criminal charges against Trump for trying to overthrow a legally
performed election? Like you hired you know, fake electors, You
(26:49):
did all these different things, like what are those how
much of those things are covered by your immunity? Now
Trump is saying I get all immunity. That was his argument,
like I'm immune for everything, like we talk talking about
I was a president president's immunity. And the defense to that,
or the argument of that is like, sir, that would
make you a monarch. We don't have those here, Sir,
(27:11):
that would make you a dictator. We don't have those here.
Our stance in America is no one is above the law.
We don't execute our political opponents. That's not who we are.
So when given the example of you know, so what
if you were going to use sealed Team six to
go kill a political opponent, his defense attorney was like, well,
(27:36):
I mean if I did that, I'd get impeached. Like, well,
that's not there's nothing question I'm asking I'm asking you
should you be criminally liable. He's like, well, if I
got a peached, of course I should be criminally liable. Okay, well,
let me ask you about impeachment. And if you go
back to impeachment, their argument is, well, if I'm not
criminally liable, then you can't impeach me. So they're using
it backwards and forwards, like so it's not a criminal
(27:59):
act unless I get impeached. But I can't get impeached
unless it's a criminal act. So therefore, basically I get
to do what I want. Is essentially the argument they're
trying to make. So the Supreme Court had to be like, okay, now,
hold on now, like that's actually I don't really care
about Trump per se. At least that's what they're saying,
I don't really care about Trump per se. We need
to think about, like, what do we really think about this,
like what is in fact immune and not? And their
(28:23):
decision was, oh, lord, any official act, official acts as
the executive officer, as the president, any official act is
covered in immunity. And even if you have evidence that
shows that this person is doing something criminal, you are
not allowed to bring that to court. Were his actions
(28:47):
on January sixth, covered under immunity. Was that an official act?
Did he truly believe that this election was stolen? Therefore
he was going to right or wrong this was an
official act? Or was he just trying to protect or yeah,
he's just trying to protect his own power and stay
in office even though he knew good and well that
(29:08):
he lost. Well, he's arguing it's an official act. And
now since he was functioning as an executive, all of
the conversations he had with the district attorneys, with the
person in charge of election in Georgia, with all of
these things that are clear evidence that he was trying
(29:29):
to overturn this election, Well they're all covered now. You
can't bring them into court because of what the Supreme
Court just decided. Now, I cracked a joke about this
the shooter, which I don't understand, Like, I'm just trying
to make a point about this case that let's just
pretend like the shooter that shot at Trump was hired
by Joe Biden. It wasn't, obviously, but if it was,
(29:51):
you can't really bring no criminal case against Joe Biden
because according to the Supreme Court, that would have been
an official act as president, and it had been covered
by immunity. Thank you so much, Supreme Court. Just say
it with your whole chest. And I'm not even allowed
to bring evidence that clearly shows well, guys, good job.
(30:12):
I told you I would get that man props if
he's able to dodge these cases. This man is, he's
batten pretty good and some things are just breaking his way.
And this is one of them situations where I'm just
like a homie. I don't know this man Ben's reality.
So yeah, so yeah, yeah, yeah, so yep, yep. They
agreed immunity, which means that any of the other cases
(30:35):
we was worried about the E. G. And Carroll, which
the judge said, no, no, no, no, he raped her
like this is there's no doubt that he raped this woman.
He's been found guilty. I accarently, I just can't right now.
I'm not allowed to bring any sentencing. But he's he
(30:57):
did it. But this now said as well, we can't
really talk about the Georgia fake electors. Now we can't
really talk about that because I don't know what's covered,
Like I can't. You just told me, Supreme Court, I
can't bring no evidence. And this is where the Supreme
Court did what Jason does in his own house. I'm
gonna go on record saying we're three judges, Kadunjie Brown,
(31:20):
thank you sister. So the mayor they they was like, uh,
this is some bullshit, Like I just I don't understand,
Like for this weed dissent, for the sake of the
dog one country, we wholeheartedly went our whole chest. We
(31:42):
say what we said. Descent to this mug seal teen
six Immune demand like you want to throw your prison,
you want to throw your political opponents in jail? You Immune?
It's all good. And I'm not even allowed to bring
evident did y'all hear me right now? Like this this
THEU Preme Course said what they say, you can't even
bring evidence. Even if there is evidence, you're not allowed
(32:03):
to bring it into court. Boy, I tell And finally,
the abortion medication. So essentially this is the case you
could call Like, I'm gonna get more specific on this one.
The FDA versus the Alliance for Hippocratic Medics. Right, here's
what they're considering. Whether the Food and Drug Administration the
FDA act lawfully when it extended access to the abortion
(32:25):
medication myth of pristone in two thousand and six and
twenty twenty one, and whether the doctors have legal standing
to challenge the FDA over this drug. So when Roe v.
Wade feil, it opened the door to a lot of
different things to where it's like, okay, now the anti
abortion movement started feeling hell of froggy and was like,
(32:46):
I bet you we could, I bet you we could
really push this line. That's what they started. They started
pushing the line. Okay, on once the main damn fell,
we could start pushing the line. So these like six
week abortion bands, twelve week abortion bands. Then they came
after the abortion pill missed the pristone right, so like
this was their chance. Again, Remember the courts get into
the weeds. They're saying, it's not so much do we
(33:07):
believe in myph for pristone. What we're saying is does
the Food and Drug Administration have the right to even
expand the access? Like why are y'all talking about it again?
You got to go back to the Chevron difference thing
to where the courts are like, well, since we're not
going to defer to these regulatory bodies, we're gonna have
to figure this out ourselves. So first of all, it's
like there's two parts happening here. It's first of all,
(33:29):
it's like, does the FDA even have a right to
do this? And then now do the doctors even have
a right to challenge this? Like, so both I don't
understand if either one of y'all can be in my
court right, And what lies in the balance is whether
we're allowed to get our hands on some mepha pristone,
which is probably hands down the safest way do it. Now,
(33:51):
what is memphi pristone if you don't know this already, So,
myphi pristone is a two part drug combination that's used
in medical abortions. Right, So it's approved by the FBA.
So it's the abortion pill. Right. So it's approved in
two thousand by the FDA. And then in twenty sixteen,
the FDA changed some of the guidelines to make it
easier to get access to the pill. And one of
(34:12):
those changes was like you're only requiring one person, one
in person medical visit and allowing a non physician healthcare
provider to prescribe the medicine. And a lot of this
had to do with what was happening for COVID, like this,
this really helped because we couldn't go to the doctor, right,
So you could do a non physician healthcare provider, right,
(34:36):
or do a non in person one. So they prescribed
via telehealth appointments and sent them by the mail. Right.
The FDA challengers are arguing that MITH for pristone is unsafe.
So the people that are challenging the FBA, they're saying that, like, man,
hold up, you can't just have like a non physician
just mail you a pill without even meeting them, like,
(34:57):
and y'all ain't had a right to change the law anyway.
Following me, I'm reading from the US News and Report
website because I want to make sure I say this correctly. Okay,
the justice is held that the group of anti abortion doctors, right,
these are the doctors that brought this case, lacked legal
(35:17):
standing to challenge the regulation of MIF for priston. So
what however they feel about abortion or not, is not
the point. What they're saying is you don't have the
right to challenge it. We first understand that y'all just
don't like abortion, period, So that doesn't matter. You don't
have the right to bring a case. So quote under
(35:38):
Article three of the Constitution, A plaintiff's desire to make
a drug less available for others does not establish standing
to sue. Wrote get this, Justice Brent Kavanaugh, Nor do
the plaintiffs other standings and theories to suffice. Now listen
to this. What he's saying is like, you gotta remember
he wanted the ones that help overturn our road Wade.
(36:00):
He's saying, listen, dude, he's part of the ones that
wanted to end Chevron defferent. So the stuff gets super complicated.
The whole of the Supreme Court was like, look, bro,
you don't get how we feel about MEPhI pristone or
not is not what we're talking about. Now. They're not foolish.
They know what this means. This means that now you're
saying that women can get their hands on methipristone. I
(36:23):
say women because I mean it's an abortion pill. Now,
So anyway, what they're saying is how we feel about
this or not is besides the point. You're just anti
abortion doctors, And just because you don't like the thing
don't mean you could suit him. You don't have a case.
Supreme Court. So interesting to me, dog, because like they
(36:43):
be all over the place like they not willing to
be anybody's mascot. And I think that that's so interesting
to me because like, on this end, this is clearly
a win for the progressive world. That's like, oh, so
you're not taking away all rights you're keeping. He's like, well,
and the Supreme Court is going like, well, I don't know.
I'm just saying they don't have a right to just
(37:04):
because they mad about it. They don't have a right
to bring a case. So yeah, that's one for us.
They're like, I don't the Supreme courl like as one
for whoever you want wrong. I don't know. And then
on the other side, you're like, okay, that makes perfect sense.
But at the same time, you're gonna tell me that,
like the president could be immune for anything as long
as it's an official act, as long as he do
it on the clock. You mean to tell me, as
long as I do my dirt while I'm on the clock,
(37:27):
it's good. I mean, that's that's what they're saying. It's
a bizarre world we live in, but that's the world
we in right now. I give you a bonus one.
It's the bump Stock band, yo, and this bonus joint
gonna make you dizzy. So again, here's the question they
questioning is whether a bump stock device fits the federal
(37:48):
definition of a machine gun, therefore making it a band device.
So it's one of them weird questions like what makes
a gun a gun? It's it seems so bonkers, right,
because you have to decide which gun is which and
what is more deadly than others. Now, obviously a little
deuce deuce is just like a pain inflictor unless you
(38:08):
shoot it close enough to somebody. A machine gun, I mean,
that's made to kill, right, So you but you have to,
like you gotta draw a line. Right. This is exactly
what I talked about in the several Seats episode about defining,
you know, things by a particular line. It's the Olympic
situation right with the boxer. I'm gonna refresh you because
(38:31):
I think it's super important to keep talking about this
thing one because ain't got nothing to do with trans people.
This has to do with when law in our concepts
conflict with the fluidity of actual nature and reality. The
(38:54):
Olympics is going through this. That ended that boxing match
because she was like, this person hit me in the face.
Harder I ever been hit in my life. And then
the Olympics was like, what's because she's biologically a man,
And everybody thought, Okay, this is people sneak, this is
men sneaking into women's sports. That is not at all
what happened. Listen explaining to you very simply, I said
(39:17):
this already, but I'm gonna say it again. You know
some dudes have man boobs. You know some women have mustaches.
It's because we both both males and females carry both
testosterone and estrogen. Some women born natural biological women have
internal testicles. I don't know if you notice. It's just
(39:37):
because of how biology works, and those internal testicles that
never came out, because they're just they're these random organs
inside of them that they're producing testosterone. Some women and
some men just have. Everybody's level of testosterone and estrogen
is different. Some women just produce higher than normal, normal
big old air quotes and normal level of testosterone. They're
(39:59):
women and they just produce. You can't help that. But
according to the Olympics, their attitude is in the spirit
of fair play. To They're saying, like, we're trying to
protect women's sports, like this seems like an unfair examined advantage,
that this lady just makes more testosterones, that you're just
gonna be stronger. That's not fair. So when they say so,
(40:20):
when they say that, they're saying, well, we have to
draw a line somewhere that if you have this much
level of testosterone in your body, according to our rules,
you're kind of a dude. Where they're saying you're a
dude in the sense that you can't participate in women's sports.
Probably are a woman. You can't produce it, but you
can't because you're your level of testosterone is too high.
(40:40):
That's not fair. On the other hand, she ain't make
it like that. That's just they they body, What do
you want them to do? What do you want me
to do? My body makes what it makes. Well, you
know what they want them to do is take some
drugs to drop their testosterone. That's what they want them
to do. If you're gonna quale, if you're gonna compete,
you got lower your testosterone, which to me said bonkers.
(41:01):
But it's because there is you got to draw a
line somewhere, or do you But sometimes because it's such
a weird idea, the line becomes absurd. So the question
about a bump stock is that is it a machine gun?
So now you go back to the mass shooting in
twenty seventeen in Las Vegas. The gunmen used bump stocks, right,
(41:23):
and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco the ATF ruled that
rifles equipped with bump stocks are machine guns. This was
a Trump law, like, this was one of his things.
He pushed for this that like yo, bump stocks like,
which is why sometimes like partisan talking points are absurd
because it's like, I mean, that's yeah, like he turned
(41:46):
it into a machine gun. I don't that's what he did, right,
which have been basically banned since nineteen eighty six. What
do I mean by a machine gun? It means any
weapon like that shoots and can readily shoot again. Basically,
you pull the trigger and it keep shooting. So that's
an automatic reload. So more than one shot without reloading
(42:09):
or anything like that or pulling trigger again, you just
squeeze it. That's a machine gun. What a bump stock
does is basically you add a device that takes something
that is semi automatic and turn it into automatic, so
that a single pull of the trigger could disperse hundreds
and hundreds of bullets per minute. Like, that's that's what
(42:33):
bump stock means. You just turning a semi automatic into
an automatic. So what the Supreme Court decided it was
a six to three decision, which was like pretty obvious
split along ideological lines. They said that the Trump administration
did not follow federal law when it banned bump stocks. So,
according to Clarence Thomas, he said that the ATF exceeded
(42:56):
their authority when it classified rifle with bump stocks as
machine gun. We hold semi automatic rifles equipped with a
bump stock is not a machine gun because it cannot
fire more than one shot by a single function of
the trigger. So he's saying, well, no, it can't do
it without this thing, so it's not a thing. It's
(43:17):
since it can't do it without the attachment, it's not automatic.
Speaker 2 (43:20):
It's not a machine gun. You have to add the thing,
but it still only works when you have the thing
on it. Therefore it's not a machine gun.
Speaker 1 (43:31):
And this, my friend, is why I think the Chevron
defference thing is wrong, because my nigga, Claren, what you
know about guns? The people that study guns all the
time is telling you that fam that's a I mean,
it's a machine gun. Now, this is what we mean
by the laws being ambiguous. When you make laws, they're
(43:54):
supposed to be able to try to make them vague
enough so that they can expand across in years. Because
you can't tell the future. I don't know what's going
to happen in the future. This is why Chevron deference,
one of the reasons it existed, is like, well, dang,
I don't I mean, what do we know. Clarence Tomalin says,
I'm not listening in the yard. Do you out of line?
(44:15):
You ain't got the right to say that. And what
I think is that's a semi automatic. It's not an automatic,
and you don't get the right to change. Now, maybe
they have the rights. Now, what Clarence Thomas does understand
is whether that organization has the right to change the
law or not. But what you know about guns. But
it's like, well it is now, and he's like, no,
(44:39):
it's a semi automatic with a bump stock. They're two
different things. And then Soda Mayor wrote The Descent. She
was like, listen, man, when I see a bird that
walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks
like a duck. I'll call it a duck. A bumpstock
equipped semi automatic fires rifles automatically more than one shot
without a man, and you will reload to a single
(45:01):
function of the trigger because I like, Congress call it
a machine gun, because nigga, you just turned it into one.
I respectfully dissent it was this I like I sometimes
I like the Supreme Court is bizarre to me. If
I were to ever be a reporter, like a full
(45:24):
fledged like in the Weeds report, I'd want to report
on the Supreme Court because this is like how that's
I mean, that's why you buy bump stocks. You buy
a bump stock to turn a semi into a full.
So therefore your gun is now a full And he's like, well, no,
it's a semi converted with a full converter, but it's
(45:46):
still semi. And the ATF doesn't get to say that
that is now officially a fully again Chevron deference because
they like won't believe experts anyway, won't think y'all got
the right to do that anyway, So y'all don't get
to say you let us say it's a weird world.
We live in either way, Supreme Court set it with
(46:07):
a whole chess or at least two thirds of it.
We'll see how this shapes our world. Because oh man,
presidents are immune, automatics aren't automatic. You can still get
mit the prisstone. And apparently when the bacon got swine flu,
(46:28):
there ain't nobody we could tell Hood politics. All right, now,
don't you hit stop on this pod. You better listen
to these credits. I need you to finish this thing
(46:49):
so I can get the download numbers. Okay, so don't
stop it yet, but listen. This was recorded in East
Lost Boyle Heights by your boy Propaganda. Tap in with
me at prop hip hop dot com. If you're in
the coldbrew coffee we got Terraform Coldbrew. You can go
there dot com and use promo code Hood get twenty
(47:11):
percent off get yourself some coffee. This was mixed, edited
and mastered by your boy Matt Alsowski killing the beat softly.
Check out his website Matdowsowski dot com. I'm a speller
for you because I know m A T T O
S O W s ki dot com Matthowsowski dot com.
(47:33):
He got more music and stuff like that on there.
So gonna check out the heat. Politics is a member
of cool Zone Media, Executive produced by Sophie Lichterman, part
of the iHeartMedia podcast network. Your theme music and scoring
is also by the one and Overly Mattowsowski. Still killing
the beat softly, so listen. Don't let nobody lie to you.
(47:54):
If you understand urban living, you understand politics. These people
is not smarter than you. We'll see next week.
Speaker 2 (48:21):
M
Host
Prop
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
Today’s Latest News In 4 Minutes. Updated Hourly.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.