Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 28, 2025 - Timcast IRL - Tim Pool

02:06:05

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

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	In a massive victory for President Trump, the Supreme Court has ruled these universal injunctions, they're out of there, which effectively clears the path for his blocking of birthright citizenship, which is going to be massive.
	These universal injunctions were blocking every single thing he was trying to do.
	These district court judges were just saying, like, nah, Trump can't do this, Trump can't do this.
	Now, here's the funny thing.
	This is where it gets wild.
	Katanji Brown Jackson, her dissent on this was so shockingly stupid that basically all the other justices were like, she has literally no idea what the law is or how law functions.
	And it was kind of surprising to see them insult her as such in their opinions.
	So like they were really needling her.
	So that's the big story.
	There's also a major victory for parents that want to opt their kids out of LGBTQ studies.
	We'll talk about that.
	And it's the big news.
	We'll get into a little bit more about this.
	Trump says he may strike Iran again.
	Israel may do it.
	We don't know.
	Before we get started, my friends, we got big news.
	The Culture War Live will be Saturday, July 26th, August 2nd, and August 9th.
	These are at the DC Comedy Loft, Washington, D.C. Get your tickets now.
	Link in the description below.
	Or just go to DC, excuse me, DCcomedyLoft.com, and you'll see us in the events page.
	Now, we've not formalized next month's event, which is July 26th.
	We're still waiting for some confirmations.
	But August 2nd, we have Michael Malice and Angry Cops hosted by me and Alex Stein.
	And it is the great cop debate.
	Cops, good, bad, what's it going to be?
	And of course, Michael Malis, anarchist.
	Angry cops, a literal cop, but they're both absolutely hilarious.
	So this is probably going to be the funniest and most fun event we do.
	Granted, I don't want to settle short our other two events, but make sure you pick up your tickets at the DC Comedy Loft website.
	They're going for about 30 bucks, I think.
	We do have preferred seating.
	They're slightly more expensive.
	And for members at Timcast.com, members of our Discord, there are 30 free dedicated first-come, first-serve tickets.
	You can get them at Timcast.com.
	And those are probably going to be gone in two seconds, to be completely honest, but those are for our members.
	And don't forget, check out CastBrew.com because ladies and gentlemen, Josie's 1776 signature brew is live.
	We're calling this flavor American Cream.
	It is a creamy flavor.
	It's basically Boston Cream, but we call it American Cream.
	And this is Josie, the Redheaded Libertarians Signature Blend, available now at castbrew.com.
	So smash that like button, share the show with literally everyone you know.
	Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is Will Chamberlain.
	Great to be back, as always.
	I'm senior counsel of the Article III Project fighting to confirm Trump's nominees now, I guess, to the bench.
	And I'm also just recently now the new vice president of the Edmund Burke Foundation, rather, which runs the National Conservatism Conferences.
	And it's always good to be with you guys.
	And we planned this, that we knew SCOTUS was going to issue these major legal rulings.
	And so we got long ways out, we were like, we're going to have Will Chamberlain on this day when SCOTUS says, actually, it's just luck.
	I walk up to Will and I was like, did Lisa plan for you to be here because we knew SCOTUS was going to be having these huge rulings?
	Nope, just perfect timing.
	So you should claim that you did.
	They talked about prosecutorial immunity and abolishing it last night.
	So I'm glad you're here because you came into my mind last night while I was watching the show.
	And I'm Ian Crossland.
	Happy to be back for my great journey.
	Tell me about yours, Phil.
	My name is Phil LeBonke.
	I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band, all the urbanes.
	I'm an anti-communist and a counter-revolutionary.
	Let's get into it.
	Here's a story from NBC News.
	Supreme Court curbs injunctions that blocked Trump's birthright citizenship plan.
	President Trump called the ruling a monumental decision in remarks after the court split along ideological lines on his plan to end automatic birthright citizenship.
	So the way this is being framed, and I think it's, depending on how you want to write it, the Trump administration decided to appeal this on the grounds that universal injunctions are unconstitutional and shouldn't be allowed, not whether or not he's allowed to block birthright citizenship.
	And the Supreme Court said, yeah, these universal injunctions are bunk.
	So those that are not familiar, every single time Trump does something, there's these lower court judges.
	What are there, 677?
	So, that's not right.
	So, basically, you had this scenario.
	They had oral arguments on this, and it was actually pretty fast.
	Did you listen to the oral arguments when this was going down?
	I think so.
	Or I mean, I at least was familiar with what was happening.
	Trump, the solicitor general, I believe, is arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, said the problem with universal injunctions, one of them, is that he's like, we enacted an executive order and a district court judge put an injunction on it.
	We filed an appeal and the appellate court said, stay the injunction.
	But right after they did, a different district court judge put an injunction.
	So you have 677 judges.
	Democrats can literally have 677 attempts to stop the actions of the executive branch, which is insane.
	So my question for you, Will, is does this mean let loose the hounds that basically all of all these injunctions against everything Trump was going to do are voided For now?
	No, I mean, not every injunction is a nationwide injunction binding non-parties.
	This is what I mean, right?
	The nationwide injunctions they levied against Trump that are still currently in effect, are they effectively like frozen or not working?
	I think basically all of them are going to, there's going to be a motion for reconsideration filed by the DOJ in any case where there's a nationwide injunction.
	They're going to update them and say, well, given the current, the latest Supreme Court ruling, this is no longer a lawful injunction.
	You need to tailor it down to the name parties in the case.
	Just to clarify, let loose the hounds.
	Yes.
	So, yeah, no, this isn't, I mean, it's an incredible ruling for the Trump administration.
	It's, you know, really, it brings the law fair and really constrains the ability of all the leftists to go after Trump.
	And it also, it means we're going to see a kind of a revival of the class action device as a way of doing aggregate litigation.
	And I mean, I did class action litigation when I actually practiced law.
	And it's a lot harder to certify a class.
	Like you don't just get the judge to be like, you, the administration can't enforce this law anymore against anybody.
	If you want.
	That's what they were doing.
	That's exactly what they were doing.
	And it's what Judge Justice Jackson was really insistent that they ought be able to do.
	Yeah.
	But when you have to certify a class, you have to have a representative plaintiff whose claims are common to all the other class members, typical.
	They're an adequate representative.
	And there's all these procedural protections so that, you know, because you're binding non-parties, and it's really good for the admin because if they ever win and a class gets certified and they win, all the other people who might want to bring suit, they're precluded from doing so.
	And so you can't get this run racing.
	Just to clarify, if a class does sue and wins, someone else who may have been party to that class can't sue?
	Well, I mean, the idea is that the class, a class doesn't sue, right?
	An individual sues on behalf of a class.
	Right.
	Okay.
	And those other class members aren't there.
	They're unnamed class members.
	They aren't represented.
	To due process requires that, you know, if you're going to bind them, that you have to be justified in doing so.
	And so it's, you know, whenever you think about, think about those coupons you get in the mail for a class action settlement where it's like, you know, you bought olive oil and it was mislabeled or something.
	I got one for a sports drink once.
	There you go.
	Right.
	Like a good example.
	They sent me a check for like $17.
	Right.
	That's a product of a class action lawsuit.
	You weren't there.
	You didn't have your lawyer there, you know, fighting for your $17 claim.
	That's not what happened.
	Wouldn't have been economical.
	I think it was sent to me without me asking.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	I don't think I cashed it.
	Yeah.
	I mean, and I'm sure many people in the audience have.
	I mean, almost everybody has gotten some sort of class action notice for something.
	But the idea is that in order to do that, there's a whole process plaintiff's lawyers have to go through to certify the class to get the right to represent all these people who aren't in court.
	They basically have to demonstrate that due process allows it.
	So basically what happens is Trump says something like, from now on, if you're a man, you can't go in a woman's prison.
	And then two trans people file a suit and a lower court, district court judge just says, from now on, all men everywhere are allowed to go into a men's prison.
	Yeah, that doesn't work.
	Not unless he certifies a class first.
	But so this was before.
	Yeah.
	And so what ends up happening is you get this argument that, wait, wait, wait, wait, but all men everywhere did not sue and are not part of the same group.
	It is these two specific male individuals.
	And so they put a universal injunction on Trump's policy, and then they keep putting men in women's prison.
	Or another example would be the Trump saying trans people that are exhibiting symptoms will be discharged.
	I think it was a medical discharge, or I'm not sure if it was other than honorable or something.
	And Trump's executive order was, if you are diagnosed with gender dysphoria but not exhibiting symptoms, you're fine.
	You can stay in the military.
	But if you are exhibiting symptoms, meaning you're trying to dress like the opposite sex or you're undergoing surgery or medical treatment, you're out.
	Like three people sued, and then a judge said, literally anyone suffering from any, literally anyone for any reason must be allowed to enlist in the judge's ruling saying, all means all, which was the most psychotic thing I've ever heard.
	And the joke that emerged on X was that a bipolar paraplegic now must be allowed to enlist in, you know, in, for infant con, I'm sorry, for combat infantry.
	There you go.
	Yeah, so that's a situation where it would be tricky to certify a class because on the one hand, you could say that the question they have in common is whether the administration can do this at all, whether the administration can put any place any kind of rule.
	But then on the other hand, if you come to the conclusion that the administration has some leeway here, then the question is, how does any one individual whose symptom, is any one individual symptoms identical to anybody else's?
	And then that creates a question of whether it's difficult to hold everybody together in a class, because to hold everybody in a class, generally people have to be injured in the same way and suffering the same damages and have the same, and don't have individualized facts that make them different from everybody else.
	Have there ever been a class action suit involving like an actual protected class?
	Like a race?
	There's racial discrimination in class actions.
	You can certify a class of, I mean, a good example of this would be, I think, you know, there were class actions in the 50s when, say, a school was saying no black students.
	That would be a good example.
	Like then all the student, all the African-American students could say, or somebody, an African-American plaintiff could say, I want to represent a class of all African-American students.
	We're all injured in the exact same way.
	We're just not allowed to enroll in the school because of this discrimination.
	You should certify us as a class and grant an injunction, forcing them to admit all black Americans.
	So you foresee if the Supreme Court says, yeah, you can't just, one judge can't just say no, and it's illegal everywhere, Trump.
	You can't ever do it.
	You see more class actions now arising?
	And I think there will be a class action in the birthright.
	I mean, as we've said, there's already been some class actions filed.
	My guess is that a class action will get certified in the birthright citizenship case because this is a circumstance where the injury is, if you, in fact, is the same, right?
	It's parents who are illegal aliens not able to grant citizenship to their children here.
	And that's basically the, you know, resolve it for one, you resolve it for everybody in the same way.
	I think the Republicans have a tremendous opportunity here on the birthright citizenship question in that they can set this argument up so that any way you cut it, either you end birthright citizenship Or you end abortion?
	I mean, that's an interesting point, too, right?
	Because I think the way that they want to certify this class is going to include people not yet born.
	Exactly.
	And so if they can be legitimate plaintiffs, it's already the argument.
	The ACO has already made the argument, citing a woman whose father is not a citizen and who is unborn and concerns over whether citizenship will be granted.
	But hold on there, gosh darn minute.
	You're arguing for the rights of an unborn.
	Well, then we got to ask about all the other rights.
	So the Republicans.
	The Republicans could theoretically, or I should say the Trump administration could theoretically set an argument up where Democrats either have to argue logic in such a way that if they win, then abortion will be legal.
	I'm sorry, it will be illegal.
	Well, I think the logic follows because it's hard to say that if an unborn person has standing and can be, you know, essentially a member of a class, then why couldn't an unborn person have the protection of the 14th Amendment?
	They'd have to make it the like, it'll be interesting to see how the Democrats argue this or the liberals, that they're going to say, members of our class are those who have just been born.
	Right?
	Yeah.
	But it also.
	I think I actually read what the lawsuit did, and I think it's both born and unborn, right?
	Right.
	I think it is unborn.
	In which case, instantly, the Trump administration need only argue, ask the question, okay, can you kill the unborn?
	Yes.
	Okay, well, then what rights have you at all?
	Yeah.
	No, I mean, if I were in their shoes, I'd still contest it to try and make it so that it actually, you know, creates a leads to an opinion based on a contested argument.
	And if you get a holding, you know, if they decide to hold that, yes, unborn members, unborn humans can be members of a class, then it's going to be very challenging to keep abortion legal.
	Let's pull this up.
	We have this from the Sun, New York Sun.
	ACLU files class action to bypass Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship.
	They say, oh, actually, they say nothing.
	I'm going to pass this.
	Because it's paywall.
	It's paywall.
	Groups opposed to Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship are attempting to find new avenues to block it.
	So as we were just discussing in the previous segment, basically, they've made an argument for the unborn here, which sets them up in a really interesting position in that many conservatives are already saying, how can you argue for the rights of the unborn while simultaneously arguing that they can be killed whenever the mother decides?
	I think, yeah, it's the same thing I said just a few seconds ago.
	You can't.
	You can't be consistent at all.
	Yeah.
	Totally agree.
	My personal take on this, which is not no one asked, but it's that I think the baby should be treated as the mother until the baby is born of the mother and then no longer attached to the mother.
	If the mother's illegally here, then the baby's illegally here.
	So, you know, are you saying the mother wants to have an abortion?
	She has to commit suicide?
	No, I hope they didn't.
	All right.
	Well, let's read it.
	They say exploiting a possible loophole in a Supreme Court decision.
	I love how they wrote that.
	What a loophole.
	That limits sweeping universities.
	This is insane.
	Exploiting a loophole against Trump's executive orders.
	The American Civil Liberties Union, oh, they're saying the ACLU is doing it, are now filing a class action against the president's plan to restrict birthright citizenship.
	The lawsuit charges that the Trump administration is flouting the Constitution, congressional intent, and long-standing Supreme Court precedent, and requests an emergency restraining order.
	The case is filed in the U.S. District Court, New Hampshire, on behalf of a proposed class of babies, subject to the executive order.
	Every court to have looked at the cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional.
	The deputy director of the ACLU's immigrant rights project, Cody Wofsey, says in a press release, the Supreme Court's decision did not remotely suggest otherwise, and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child.
	So here's what's interesting.
	I wonder, do you know if the actual filing is publicly available?
	Let me see if I can get it.
	I think it is.
	I assume the ACLU put it out there.
	Because I'm wondering what their class is going to be.
	Because what if Trump just says, what's that?
	Your class in this class action are going to be babies potentially subject to the termination of birthright citizenship.
	Okay, I'm going to revoke citizenship from 12-year-olds, toddlers.
	What is the qualification to be for class?
	And can Trump simply say, okay, I'll concede that one, or while we're fighting that one, I'll target two and up.
	Yeah, it's tough to specify a class when you're dealing with every single person that's possibly here as an illegal immigrant.
	You can't just say, oh, well, I got it.
	Good.
	I'll send you this.
	Everyone of an age.
	Like every single human of a certain age.
	Yeah, I mean, it's tough to base it by just age like that.
	You can't say, oh, everyone that is a citizen or everyone that's under X age is a class, but then once they're over that age, they're not when the context is immigration because they're either illegal immigrants or they're not.
	Or their birthright citizenship is in question or it's not because of the conditions of their birth.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	Let's pull this up.
	Let's see what we got going on over on page nine.
	Where are we at?
	So here we go.
	And this is where it specifies the class.
	With the proposed class.
	Proposed class.
	Let's see.
	The class representative plaintiffs.
	Which section is me, 42.
	Yeah.
	Seeks to represent the following proposed class.
	All current and future persons who are born on or after February 2025, where the person's mother was unlawfully present in the U.S. and the person's father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or the person's mother's presence in the U.S. was lawful but temporary, and the person's father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, as well as the parents, including expectant parents of those persons.
	Is that a little broad?
	I mean, I think it makes that it reflects the arguments being made by the executive order, right?
	Basically, the executive order says if you're not the child of a citizen or a legal permanent resident, then you're not, then you don't get citizenship.
	And so this class, I think, is properly worded in the sense that it's just covering everybody born after the date the executive order was issued who is not the child, who is born in the territory of the United States, but not the child of a citizen or legal permanent resident.
	No, No, no, no.
	Let me see.
	It says all current and future persons who were born on or after.
	That's an interesting question there.
	What about somebody who would have been born on, say, February 21st?
	I mean, as to them, it would be moon.
	So as of the argument right now, what if there is so here's a here's an issue I have with this.
	There are currently future persons that would be part of this class who may just be aborted.
	Well, even if they are aborted, that doesn't change the ability of this to potentially grant relief, right?
	It would just be moodas to them because they're not.
	You're not in a position to claim or not claim.
	But there's a challenge here I see in that when we look at the Three-Fifths Compromise, let's go back to Civil War, right?
	The Southern Democrats were basically saying slaves should get a vote.
	And the North said, what?
	These people have no volition unto themselves.
	They're slaves.
	They can't vote.
	And so they compromised.
	They said, we'll tell you what.
	It's not even that they said slaves should vote.
	It's that we should get more representation in Congress based on non-voting slaves.
	I thought they wanted them to vote.
	No, no, no, no.
	That's not the three of us.
	Three of this compromise is we should get total, we should get credit for our slave population in terms of congressional apportionment.
	Yes.
	So I say corrected.
	My argument still, however, is that if you were to make an argument to the government that we should be granted something based on this class of persons, who, by the way, we can kill whenever we want, it's kind of like, hold on there a minute.
	Well, then they have personal rights.
	Why should the government grant anything to this class if, say it wasn't a class, say it was just like a single woman.
	Let's say 10 women.
	They go before the judge and they're all pregnant and they say, we demand the rights of our babies be protected and we are filing on their behalf because they can't represent themselves.
	And the court then says, agreed.
	Then they go, okay, now we're going to go abort them all and they won't exist to receive relief.
	There's a problem here.
	The idea that you can kill who you are representing, I think, presents a problem in law.
	But this seems to only affect people that are already all born.
	It says future persons after February 2025.
	All current and future persons.
	No, it includes the unborn.
	Who are born?
	It includes not just unborn, but literally non-existent.
	Oh, right.
	It includes people who don't even exist.
	It includes people who are not yet conceived.
	Yes, correct.
	Mentally and physically.
	So let's say a woman right now is one week pregnant.
	You know, let's say she's six weeks.
	She just found out.
	She can, that, that life in her is represented before the United States government for relief.
	And then as soon as the relief is granted to that person.
	Yeah.
	Wait, wait, hold on, hold on.
	Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
	Will, can non-persons seek relief before a court?
	Can they have standing on anything?
	No.
	Well, then what the is going on?
	It's the word person, but it's also.
	I think that actually is the real argument here.
	I think the real argument is that this class, you know, I didn't really think about this hard, but I think this class has to fail because I don't think non-persons can be...
	A dog is not a person.
	Dog can't be a member of a person.
	And a baby gets personhood upon birth, as far as like capital P legal personhood.
	Yeah.
	And that's part of the reason why it's okay to abort a baby.
	A dog can't sue the...
	Can you file from its owner?
	That's not a fact.
	Could you file a class action suit on behalf of all pit bulls?
	No, you couldn't.
	You couldn't.
	Well, so why do they use the lowercase P and the word person here?
	Because there's the uppercase P, which I see in legal documents indicating this is the legal definition of the word person.
	And then you see the lowercase P just generally talking about people.
	Well, is that, I mean, generally when something is in uppercase, it's like it's a defined term within that brief, right?
	Like, so class representative plaintiffs would have a meaning for the person of the brief.
	And propose class, you'll see that in caps.
	So when they later say propose caps, class, rather, they're referring back to the same thing.
	This is pretty funny that they literally said future persons because as you've stated already, this is somewhat like there's this, there's a guy and he's got his gametes and their gametes, they've not yet met, but there's a future person at some point who has legal standing despite not even being conceived of.
	Yeah, I've never seen that before.
	And I think that, you know, I didn't used to think that because I thought, oh, well, everybody's injury is kind of the same, but if they're assuming on behalf of the children and not the parents, the parents are the existing, you know.
	The only legal issue I suppose they could state with this class action then is if the court rules in favor of the class minus potential people, it would only be grandfathering those in now.
	Yeah.
	And Trump could then go after, they'd have to sue every time Trump tried to challenge birthright citizenship.
	Maybe, but eventually it would get to the Supreme Court, probably.
	I mean, and if the Supreme Court ruled, then it would, you know.
	Depending on the question asked of the Supreme Court.
	Right, right, right.
	I don't know.
	It's tricky, but it does actually mean that it's very, very tricky for a district court judge to grant full, you know, grant class-wide relief here.
	This is what I'm saying.
	The Trump admin can, what if they come out and they go to the court and say, we concede future persons, future persons are a class that exists.
	That's all we wanted to say.
	Thank you and have a nice day.
	And that means the unborn are legal persons.
	I mean, I'm not sure that works because it's not one of those things that might be concedable in the sense that the judges just might not allow it, right?
	Like they have their own rules of.
	I'm kidding.
	I'm saying if the Trump admin came out publicly and said, we agree that future persons have legal standing, ACLU, your move, and they'd be like, they're not.
	Well, it's more like the Planned Parenthood people would call up the ACLU furiously and be surprised they're not.
	I'm not surprised they're not already on the phone with them.
	Sending emails furiously.
	But even if future persons was meant to apply to only those future persons, they could have just said, they could have just said all who were born on February 20th or after.
	No, that's still the same argument, whether they said future persons or not.
	But what they're basically saying is, even if their argument was just, there is a baby just at three months who we want as part of this class, they're arguing that they have legal rights to be represented for.
	If that's the case, right now, every pro-life group should try and represent the exact same class of people and say, we believe that all current and future persons should have their lives protected under the law as any other persons.
	And if future persons is such a class, you cannot kill them.
	Oh, could you imagine if they were like, if people started saying future persons are a class and then a woman who wants to get pregnant gets attacked or murdered, they'll be like, it was a double murder for the potential possible kid she might have had.
	I mean, can you imagine that rabbit hole?
	We can't allow that.
	A guy walks up and says, we actually had planned to conceive a baby in a week.
	So a future person was killed.
	You know, from this point, like, there's already incongruity with the personhood of unborn babies when it comes to, you know, if you murder the mother and you can be charged with double murder, but it's not an actual life until it's born, or it doesn't have any rights until it's born, or the mother can kill it until it's born.
	So I think that this is probably going to be something that'll, that'll at least coincide with those kind of issues, you know?
	Right.
	I'm enjoying the sheer absurdity of where we are.
	Well, it's already ridiculous.
	I'm just saying, like, they lost.
	Okay, like, this is it.
	They've either lost birthright citizenship or they've lost abortion.
	I don't know what exactly Trump did, what the administration did that they're trying to push back against.
	They said that people that are born here to immigrant parents or illegal immigrant parents, they're not American citizens if they're born in the U.S., if their parents are here illegally.
	Retroactively?
	No, no.
	So if your parents are illegal, right?
	And then you're born here.
	So people call that anchor baby.
	You're born here.
	Those people are considered citizens because they're born inside the United States.
	The argument the Trump administration is making is that those parents, because they're not illegal, or because they are illegal, the child is not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
	That's the key clause in the 14th Amendment that prevents basically anchor babies, right?
	The whole point of the 14th Amendment was to make sure that slaves and children of slaves were considered citizens.
	It was never intended to make sure that anyone that could get to the shores of the United States and have a baby meant that that child would be a citizen.
	So would this retroactively take away citizenship from kids that have already been born, or is this just any kids after?
	I think it's perspective.
	I think it's only operative on people born after the date of the executive order.
	February 20th.
	Yeah.
	That's why the class is only including people born after February 20th.
	So it's basically got two, there's two circumstances in which you will not be a citizen.
	When the mother was unlawfully present in the U.S. and the father was neither a U.S. citizen nor lawful permanent resident when the person was born.
	When the mother was in the U.S. in a temporary status, just student visa, work visa, tourist visa under the visa waiver program, and the father was neither a U.S. citizen nor lawful permanent resident when the person was born.
	So it states that these provisions are only effective for people born 30 days or more after the date of the order.
	It would have only applied to children born beginning February 19th.
	So he signed that right when he got into office on the January 20th.
	It was one of the first executive orders he signed.
	And he's right.
	I think so.
	I think it makes a lot of sense, man.
	Like, someone come here, visit, and have a kid.
	That kid's not a U.S. citizen.
	You don't just get to come walk across the border.
	This is very normal across the world.
	Like, there's birthright citizenship.
	We're kind of an anomaly.
	Like, this is, you know, this is the rule for citizenship in most countries.
	So I think it's around like 40% of countries of the world have what liberals will call birthright citizenship in an effort to defend, but they actually have restrictions like you can't just show up and have a kid and you're a citizen.
	But typically countries confer citizenship upon you when you're born because your parents are citizens or you are qualified or something.
	And then what you end up getting is these liberal organizations in the U.S. say, see, they have birthright citizenship.
	And you're like, yeah, except for all these things that exclude people who are just there as tourists or they're illegally, things like that.
	Yeah.
	I mean, to be honest with you, I don't know.
	I don't have a sense of how the court is actually going to come down on the, you know, the anchor baby essentially argument.
	I genuinely hope that it is, there's something that clears this up because if you go by original intent, which not saying that the SCOTUS is going to go by original intent or that the whole SCOTUS goes by original intent, but if you go by original intent, like I said earlier, the idea that you could just come here and have a child on the shore,
	you know, when you just arrived and that child becomes a citizen, and that means that you and your spouse and then under current law, your entire extended family get preferential treatment when it comes to immigration.
	That was never intended.
	That was not the intent at all.
	Yeah, if a mom, if like a woman in 1812 landed on a boat on the western coast of California with a baby or then gave birth to a baby and like walked into town with it and she spoke Spanish, no one's going to treat those people like citizens.
	Like that, that's insane.
	They're de facto not citizens to the country.
	If they don't speak the language and they're foreign and it doesn't matter where the kid was born, even though maybe legally she could argue for it.
	But if she doesn't have documentation, how's she going to argue that the baby was even born here?
	My favorite circumstance that I'd love to hear the Supreme Court answer is, if it is true, I bet this will come up when they actually argue birthright citizenship.
	If it is true that anyone born here for any reason, at any point, is a citizen, what's to stop a Chinese woman, proud member of the Communist Party, coming to the United States on a three-month tourist visa, just about six months pregnant.
	Right before she leaves, she gives birth and the baby is granted U.S. citizenship, but a day later flies back to Beijing, where the child is raised as a super soldier in the Chinese Communist Army's People Republic, Was it the PRC or sorry?
	Was it called?
	The PRA.
	People's Republican Army.
	Yeah, the PRA or whatever.
	This kid is indoctrinated.
	He is Captain Communist China.
	And then at 20 years old, they say, You're an American citizen because you were born there, albeit you were there for only one day.
	We're going to send you back to America.
	Run for president.
	To run for president.
	And he comes here and he doesn't speak any English.
	15 years of study and training in the United States, regularly reporting back to the CCP.
	He says, I can now run for president.
	And the CCP says, we have unlimited resources to fund your campaign.
	Yeah, it's a loophole.
	Airplanes didn't exist when they wrote the law.
	If they had, they definitely would have thought about that aspect of the danger of immigration.
	Yeah, no, no, no.
	I mean, and the thing, everything up to like the whole plot of the person becoming president.
	I mean, anchor babies happen.
	That happens.
	That's a thing.
	It's a real phenomenon.
	Hey, we should make a short film where this happens.
	It's like the Manchurian community.
	Yes, exactly.
	The real Manchurian campaign.
	And it'll be, you know, this guy, he comes here at 20.
	He's a U.S. citizen, but he's never set foot here.
	He was trained by an enemy nation.
	And then he starts adopting all of these.
	He trains his accent.
	He adopts a bunch of left-wing policies.
	And then he runs.
	And then when he wins, he starts eroding the national security of the country, giving away secrets to China.
	And then China attacks and blows up a bunch of industrial control systems, totally disabling the United States and their ability to wage war.
	Can you do a Chinese accent?
	You should play the lead.
	No, no, no, no.
	He's not allowed.
	Oh, he's not allowed?
	Why?
	He's not allowed.
	Because he's a white man.
	Oh, wow.
	That's part of the funniness of it.
	Only I'm allowed.
	Yeah, Tim has to be the lead.
	Because I'm Korean.
	He's got to be a Chinese guy.
	I'm Korean.
	That'll play.
	And then I'll be the angry white guy.
	The question that I have, though, is, you know, my daughter is only 12.5% Asian.
	You know, I think she should be allowed to do an Asian accent.
	Oh, she will.
	It'll be a good one, too.
	You'll be shocked.
	Is she going to follow you around?
	Asian octoroon?
	Is that how that works?
	Yeah.
	No, it's there's a word for it.
	I don't know what it is.
	This is coming.
	There's Hoppas.
	That's your half.
	Hoppa is quarter.
	And then, I don't know, Octapa.
	Octapa.
	That's good.
	I feel like this anchor baby thing is coming to a head big time right now.
	This is something that we really need to deal with at the Supreme Court level, I think.
	Is it, I mean, is there, other than a Supreme Court decision, is there a...
	Well, there's already Supreme Court precedents that said it was true.
	That decision doesn't hold that.
	It holds that children of legal permanent residence get citizenship, but there's never been a holding on birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens.
	So it's an undecided question.
	Because they don't follow the jurisdiction.
	Sorry.
	I think no one should get citizenship.
	If you're a...
	No, no one.
	No one.
	I disagree with that.
	Everyone's got to go.
	Start over.
	We got to start over.
	No, no, no, no.
	You don't disagree, Will.
	Service guarantees citizenship.
	No, no, service doesn't guarantee citizenship.
	My little three and a half-year-old is a citizen.
	She doesn't serve anybody.
	She's a service.
	She throws a ball one foot and then says.
	Well, she's a civilian, but she becomes a citizen once she, what is it, two years of service to the community?
	Two years.
	Yeah, it's Starship Troopers.
	Starship Troopers, yeah, I was about to say.
	So the idea was that civilians have all legal rights, but they can't vote.
	And then once you provide at least two years of service, you become a full-fledged citizen.
	I am all about restricting the franchise.
	I am too.
	We were talking about this.
	We're talking about last night.
	You agreed.
	Yes, you're right.
	We were talking about this last night.
	You know, like, you see what happens in New York and you're like, there's nothing wrong with New York that disenfranchising the residents wouldn't solve.
	What about people that buy their way into citizenship?
	So maybe it's service, but you're like, community service.
	You just need to dig holes.
	Well, like, what if I have a machine that can do it really fast because I had money to buy that machine and now I get citizenship really quick?
	Service can be anything.
	That was the important point.
	What if I use technology to make my service super easy?
	That's fantastic.
	Thank you.
	Don't I game the system to become services?
	No, it takes two years.
	Two years of me letting my machine do all my work for me.
	Yeah, so you own a business and you have staff that maintain that machine and you are paying for the maintenance of it, providing that service to the community for two years.
	That's more expensive than just you digging with a shovel.
	That is like buying citizenship.
	No, it isn't.
	If I can use technology to get my citizenship easier.
	Trump is literally 5 million.
	You don't understand.
	Golden green cards are something running your machine requires more energy than you as an individual using a shovel.
	But oh, well, I'm just saying some people, maybe they got to dig holes for their citizenship.
	They don't have a shovel.
	They have to use their hands.
	This is a crazy example.
	I have a shovel because I could afford one.
	I'm kind of buying my way into an easier space.
	You're convoluting it.
	You'd go and apply and they'd say, we need people to dig holes.
	Here's a shovel.
	Government supply.
	But then what if I'm like, well, I actually have an electro shovel in my shed?
	I don't need your shovel.
	I'm going to do it five times faster and I don't even have to swing.
	With an excavator?
	Yeah, I'm going to use my excavator.
	Okay.
	Then they're going to say, wow, you're going to pay for and fuel and maintain an excavator for the community?
	Yeah, because it's my dad's money.
	Wonderful.
	Then now get your excavator and we thank you for doing 10 times the labor of everybody else.
	And now I'm a citizen and I can vote.
	After two years, yes.
	And then I can, I don't know.
	Don't you understand about you're arguing to do more work than the average person?
	Well, I'm arguing that people that have a lot of money can get their two years of work done much easier.
	It's not the, it's not peaceworking.
	It's the amount of time that you have to be involved in civil service.
	Yeah, you don't understand.
	You would be operating the excavator, maintaining the machinery, paying for its maintenance, fueling it, and you would have to do 10 times the work for the community than the average person with a shovel.
	Or I would pay a guy to do the work for me.
	That's not how it works.
	Okay, maybe then we're talking.
	Because the military service, you can't get a machine to do that for you.
	You go there, you serve, you're there with the other guys.
	That's not correct.
	In military service.
	Elon Musk can be commissioned by the U.S. government so that his machines can be used by the U.S. government.
	This is literally what the military industrial complex is.
	We've had privateers since the days of yore when they'd go to a guy who owned battleship and they'd say, here's a letter of mark.
	Here's money.
	Go blow them up.
	Look, we don't need to make it this complicated.
	We can just disenfranchise Democrats.
	Like, I don't.
	You're coming up with this whole rubric.
	I just, you know, you voted for the Democratic Party.
	It's like, that's sufficient reason to vote.
	I like the service citizenship.
	Sorry, were you going to say something funny?
	Yeah, I was going to say, you vote Democrat one time and you can never vote again.
	Right.
	You're allowed to vote Democrat once.
	You better make it worth your while.
	Better be the best Democrat ever.
	I like the idea of encouraging people to become civilly aware and active to vote.
	And I also kind of like the idea of forcing people to become civilly aware to vote, but I don't like making people take tests to acknowledge that they understand to vote.
	And I don't know what service actually means.
	So we got to be, because if I can game it, you got to watch out because they will.
	What if will?
	What if will?
	What if everybody gets to vote, but you get mercilessly beaten by five people after you do?
	So you really have to want to vote.
	I think our country would go communist.
	I think you'd get the really motivated people.
	I mean, like, if normies would stop voting, I think people that feel no pain.
	If violence is on the table, then all the rules change then.
	But I'm just saying, like, who would actually be willing to take a beating to vote?
	And it would be like the most ideological, committed, crazy people.
	Yeah, but not commies.
	It'd be barbarians.
	You think a frail, 100-pound, soaking, wet, gaunt commie is going to be able to withstand a beating?
	I mean, they just might not realize they'll need to.
	Or like, they might, they might think they're up to it.
	I mean, think about all those Prowboys videos where you have like this gaunt 100-pound guy going up against like a guy who clearly lives and getting knocked, clocked out.
	What it sounds like.
	It's fairly rational confidence, though.
	It sounds like you're proposing an America where only people that are in the UFC are allowed to vote.
	Have you seen the UFC?
	Yeah, I know.
	What kind of American do you think is like?
	They're going to elect Genghis Khan.
	Those dudes that are bouncing on swords on their corn stuff.
	They should just short-circuit it and just make the results of the UFC heavyweight championship the results of the presidential election.
	Or he gets to pick, you know?
	Maybe he doesn't actually get to do the running of the country or whatever, but he gets to say, that's the guy that I want.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	Now we're cooking.
	I mean, there's not a lot of people that are interested in taking beating.
	Hold on.
	I actually like this.
	Anyone can vote, but you have to sign up for the selective service, which is optional.
	You know what that would be?
	That's actually, you know, that's a good description of how Israel really actually runs its country.
	You know what would happen?
	Republicans would win every election forever with that simple policy.
	The reason is Democrats win through ignorance.
	They go to someone and say, did you vote?
	And they go, I don't know.
	And then they're like, come on, you should vote.
	But what would happen if the Democrats had to go to somebody who was ignorant and they say, do you want to vote?
	They'd be like, why should I vote?
	We got to stop Trump.
	They'd be like, okay, I'll vote.
	Just sign up for the draft.
	They'd be like, no, I don't care about whatever it is you're selling that much.
	Republicans would be like, don't deal.
	There you go.
	And I'm not saying there is a draft.
	I'm not saying you have to serve.
	I'm saying selective service, which already exists.
	Men and women, it'll be optional.
	Once you sign up, they hand you your voter card.
	And if you don't want to sign up, that's absolutely fine.
	Just you can't vote in any election.
	Is that literally what they do in Israel?
	Not quite, but it's sort of the underlying part of the rationale for why people in the West Bank, for example, don't get to vote in Israeli elections.
	They're not citizens.
	They don't have any obligation to serve in the military.
	But that's also the interesting phenomenon is Israeli Arabs who have the right to vote, but are not draft eligible.
	Oh, wow.
	And so they don't.
	It's almost like women in America.
	They have a right to vote, but they're not draft eligible.
	Yeah.
	But they, I mean, I don't, I mean, I think, I don't know what the deal is with Israeli Arabs serving.
	Almost no Israeli Arabs serve in the military.
	There are Israeli Drews and Israeli Christians.
	I think we should.
	I don't think there are any Israeli Arabs.
	I think women shouldn't be allowed to vote until they can be drafted.
	I paused for dramatic effect.
	Look, man, I am open to any number of creative ideas to reduce the number of people in franchise.
	Do you think the draft is going to be passe?
	I think that, you know, especially in the modern world, I look at this as real Iran thing, and I think air power is kind of overwhelming.
	Oh, dude, robot dogs.
	We were talking about this when the strikes were happening.
	We don't need people.
	Seriously, the U.S. can drop 10,000 robot dogs with full auto rifles mounted on their backs, and they will own everything around 40.
	Look at just the way the drones are operating in the Ukraine war, right?
	You've talked about how you have to have a person to stand on a street corner to enforce the law, or you have to have humans in an area of operation to occupy territory.
	You don't need to do that anymore.
	Honestly, drones make it so drone, drone pilots and drones can make it so that way you actually don't need infantry the way that you used to.
	Yeah, well, I want to, Iran is a really interesting case because I think people were like, oh, obviously this regime change can't possibly happen here because there are no boots on the ground or there's no like a military.
	And I thought about it for a second and it's like, what happens if you have total air superiority and total intelligence dominance?
	Well, you can do what Israel was doing, which is like you can just drone strike every leader of the country.
	Yeah.
	And keep drone striking them until you get someone you like.
	Exactly.
	That's what happened with Hezbollah, right?
	They got Nizrallah.
	They got the guy who became the new leader of Hezbollah got drone striked.
	I think the third guy who became the new leader of Hezbollah got drone striked.
	And finally, the fourth guy signs a humiliating ceasefire.
	I think that's sort of eventually the guy who gets thrust into the hot seat unwillingly is like immediately calls up the Israelis and is like, what do you want?
	Look, there's like – And like you said, the fourth guy is going to be like, ah, no, I'm changing everything.
	What regime would you like us to have?
	Exactly.
	I did some quick math based on the size of the robot dogs.
	Available surface area for solar panels.
	It's estimated that it'll take 48 hours of sunlight in order to charge it back up to full.
	Now that's trying to block out the sun, so control those.
	Hey, hold on.
	That's 48 hours of sunlight.
	So that means over nighttime, we're talking potentially five full days where a robot dog is inoperable, but it could reactivate in emergencies.
	This means that in order to have a full rotation, you're going to want to have at least seven robot dogs, one for emergencies, where that will leave you with one active robot dog at any given time in a certain area, while the rest are down charging in sunlight.
	I would want to get them out of there when they're offline because I think they'll get stolen if you leave them sitting around.
	If there are two machine gun-armed robot dogs guarding the other five at any given moment, no one's touching them.
	That's the point of the math I just did.
	If you have to leave.
	If you have a full rotation where we airdrop robot dogs, the bare minimum would be about seven for one area that requires for for one for one post.
	Now, you're likely going to want maybe 30, depending on how many, how large the area is.
	Let's say it's one building.
	You might need 30 of them to fully secure it.
	That means you're going to need 210 robot dogs to have a fully autonomous, not to mention they run out of bullets, but they could probably carry, I don't know, robot dogs could probably carry between 60 and 90 rounds, I'd imagine.
	Rounds?
	Yeah.
	Ammo?
	I imagine they could probably carry significantly more than that.
	You think?
	Belt-fed, you could put a hundred round belt-fed machine gun on them.
	Absolutely.
	But how do they carry?
	I mean, you know, they're not that big.
	Well, they make different sizes.
	Drums.
	Well, it could be a drum, but I'm thinking just like an ammo box that's fed right into the belt-fed machine gun.
	The problem, honestly, the biggest problem.
	You usually have between, depending on the caliber, between 50 and 100.
	Usually it's like 100-round drum or 100-round belt.
	Are you guys familiar?
	That's what I was thinking.
	Are you familiar with the new electronic warfare tech against drones, the anti-drone stuff that can be- Oh, that weird big gun they got?
	It's not even a big gun.
	It's literally, I just sent you a video.
	It's Andrew's new pulse artist.
	Literally, you press a button.
	Maybe Andrew's got guns.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	There are cops, and they have this big plastic-looking thing that looks all weird, and they point it, and it pull that up.
	Yeah, what's wrong with you?
	I sent you the video over X. Finally, I'm not as interested in the ones that you have to point because they're going to come from every direction.
	You want to pulse in every direction.
	Obviously.
	What are you talking about?
	You're welcome.
	A drone swarm.
	You're welcome for this free advertising.
	You, sir.
	And this is on top of China.
	They just launched a mosquito drone.
	This is relatively new.
	I think it's relatively new.
	About two centimeters long.
	It's a surveillance drone.
	All right, what do we got here?
	Oh, yeah, we watched this before.
	Oh, you did?
	Yeah, we'll play it now.
	Luckies.
	Yeah, yep.
	This is sick.
	I was just thinking about your robot dogs, and I was like, this is the answer to the robot dogs.
	We'll put Faraday shields on.
	How do you control?
	No, they're autonomous.
	They said this is not CGI.
	Yeah.
	This is an actual physical demonstration.
	What do you do?
	Just watch.
	Oh, what are you doing?
	You see that?
	Sounds of the wind Sounds of the wind Sounds of the wind Sounds of the wind Sounds of the wind Sounds of the wind Sounds of the wind We'll be
	right back.
	We'll be right back.
	Yeah.
	So sick.
	So, I've been dreaming about this.
	Clarify, yeah.
	They said that the blue pulse they added was the graphic, the CGI, but the drones actually falling are what is an actual demonstration.
	I think just like we go through our houses and we have to clean our houses once in a while, and every once in a while you get a mosquito infestation.
	You got to kill the mosquitoes.
	We're going to have to do drone sweeps pretty frequently in the future where we go through, like clean the area with this stuff.
	Because they're going to be so small, we don't even see them sometimes.
	There's a great book, a great novel called The Diamond Age.
	Are you guys familiar with that?
	Neil Stevenson?
	I haven't read it.
	Oh, you'd love it.
	Here, we got another one for you.
	Check this out.
	Yeah, tell me about the Diamond Age after this.
	Check this out.
	Futuristic anti-drone weapon developed by Drone Shield to counter unauthorized drone activity effectively.
	Weighing 15 pounds, it is optimized for two-hand operation and offers long-range defeat capabilities.
	This gun emits jamming frequencies that disrupt a drone's video streaming at distances of up to 1,094 yards.
	It possesses the ability to send the targeted drone back to its original starting point or force it to land immediately.
	Oh.
	Its design incorporates high-performance directional antennas within a sturdy rifle-style frame, ensuring durability while maintaining a lightweight profile.
	There's better technology than this.
	Yeah, put it on a headset so you can have a gun in your hand while you're in a hurry.
	You can just fry them.
	But getting it, getting it and then being able to use it is awesome or breaking it apart.
	Diamond.
	Okay, Diamond Age.
	What were you going to say about the Diamond Age?
	Oh, yeah.
	Something to do with it.
	It's a novel by Neil Stevenson that I think anybody interested in drones should read.
	It's a 1995 novel, but he foresaw a future, you know, reasonably near-future world, like maybe 100 years in advance or something, where everybody, basically, drones are this really, really important thing, like super small microscopic drones.
	And so to protect from like people attacking you and just poisoning everybody with like tiny mosquito-sized drones, you have your own anti-drone swarms.
	And so it seems pretty prescient 30 years later with drone warfare going on.
	Who's the author?
	Neil Stevenson?
	Wonderful science fiction author.
	Interesting description.
	Decades into our future, a stone's throw from the ancient city of Shanghai, a brilliant nanotechnologist named John.
	Oh, this is a different.
	Okay, so the previews that you get from Google are a little weird.
	You guys would love Neil Stevenson.
	You'd love his novels.
	He's got a Cryptonomicon, which is about cryptography and World War II.
	He's got a really cool action gun but high-tech novel called Ream D. The Diamond Age or A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer is the actual title of it.
	Yeah, because there's like a high-tech primer that you give to a young, that is adaptive, kind of anticipating AI, actually.
	All right.
	So, yeah, no, Sneal Stevens.
	If you have never read Neil Stevenson, I highly recommend him.
	His novels are really, really interesting.
	I think these pulse weapons, these EMP denial weapons are going to be, the drones eventually are going to get built in EMP shields where they get blown out.
	Is that possible?
	You can't shield it, you're saying?
	You might be able to, because, well, the question is, can the drone fly wrapped in a Faraday cage, depending on the size of the holes?
	And I'm not entirely sure.
	So think about the diameter required to block a microwave with a Faraday cage.
	I'm going to say it out loud, but the shape of the shield will let air in to fly, and then you couldn't have a point is the holes are really small for microwaves.
	So I don't know that you can create proper airflow if you've shielded the whole drone in a Faraday cage.
	If you make the holes too big, the microwave wavelengths pass through easily.
	So that's the issue.
	Can you really make a shield?
	Theoretically, you could create a reflective shield with no holes that stops the EMF from getting to certain areas, but that will restrict your own communication with it.
	That's the challenge.
	Unless they're autonomous.
	Oh, God.
	Yeah, they'd have to be autonomous.
	They'd have to be pre-programmed to their target.
	We don't need prop.
	We need jet.
	So when we start building larger drones that fly using jets, so you can have an entire Faraday shield with intake on top and jets on the bottom.
	Nothing's going to get through, and it's going to fly with internal jets instead of propellers.
	Jets.
	Tell me that.
	Explain that to me.
	The jets.
	How does that work?
	How would they not be affected by the shield?
	You can encase a jet.
	Like a jet engine?
	Right.
	So what we've seen already with dudes that fly, they have little jet engines on their hands, those little tiny engines.
	You could easily make drones that fly using jets instead of propellers.
	Propellers require a lot more space for up and down.
	You need the air to be able to exhaust in a larger space, harder to shield.
	And if they're vacuumed out and they're lighter than the air around them or they have buoyancy, you could use ion thrusters and jets to get them off the jets.
	No, we don't have those, at least as far as we can tell.
	No, I'm not saying we have them.
	I'm just saying if you want to bypass propellers.
	Ian, if you had ion propulsion drones.
	They would function in low orbit.
	That would be for the low orbital.
	The world has...
	You might be.
	You would be the mystery that everyone seeks to solve of the vehicles that can cause planes to explode and disappear.
	You could really let your authoritarian freak flag fly.
	What I want to do is go.
	You always thought of Ian as a secret budding authority.
	You just want me to be one.
	It's in there.
	I'm trying to get through to Jeff Bezos, so get me in touch when you see him.
	We've got to build drones to transport materials.
	Basically, if we can transport materials across the globe, that's a big step towards world peace.
	And if we can get these drones to use propellers to get up into low orbit, and then the ion thrusters kick in and keep them there.
	Propellers to low orbit?
	You know, propellers need air.
	Well, they move so fast.
	So you get the propeller to shoot them up into the sky and using the momentum into the low orbit, you get the ion thruster to keep them from going too far and then guide them and then bring them back down and the propellers kick back on.
	Stick with me for a second here.
	What if you just used a rocket?
	You know.
	You need liquid fuel.
	Well, you don't need liquid fuel.
	No, no, no, you need solid.
	Yeah.
	Rockets need solid fuel.
	Fuel.
	You need solid fuel.
	Which is heavy.
	Which is heavy.
	But maybe it doesn't have to be.
	Maybe it could be hydrogen.
	Maybe it's lighter than the air around it.
	I don't know.
	So hydrogen is liquefied, so it's heavy.
	You do know how orbit works, right?
	Like the reason why it's so hard to achieve.
	You don't just go up to get orbit.
	You have to go out and across and travel faster directionally than you're falling.
	Yeah.
	Slingshot them up.
	Use the propeller to kind of push it.
	if you need propellers.
	You don't really need propellers.
	You slingshot in the air and then all you need is just Ion to push it back down.
	You need substantially less thrust, but then you could.
	But you got to make sure that it doesn't crash.
	So if you want to bring it back down, like if you want to get up and then back down, slingshot, then you need glider.
	Do you know what the super low energy is?
	I plan?
	What's that?
	Do you know what the escape velocity is?
	25,000 miles an hour.
	25,020 miles an hour.
	So if you are moving 25,000 miles, 25,500 miles an hour, you can escape Earth's gravity.
	For what, it's at one newton of mass or something?
	No, that's the speed that however much mass it is, that mass has to be traveling at 25,020 miles an hour.
	So that's why, you know, man, if you want a planet with no atmosphere, how do you you need to have your own oxygen thruster?
	You need internal thrust.
	Yeah, because on Earth, we fly by, we push air down at enough force to lift us up.
	Well, for propellers, yeah.
	Right.
	Or jets.
	But for outer space where there's no atmosphere, you're just in a vacuum.
	You need internal thrust.
	Yeah, you need rockets.
	You can't.
	You couldn't do it with propellers because the propellers push on air.
	Exactly.
	Right.
	You can use ion thrusters, but they're very slow in space.
	And they're also not real.
	Ion thrusters exist.
	They are real.
	They're real.
	You can't use ion thrusters because they don't exist.
	Yeah, they're not real.
	You're saying no ion thrusters exist?
	I don't think that's true.
	That's not an ion thruster.
	Ian, you're thinking of a twin-ion engine-type spacecraft?
	Is that what you're thinking?
	Oh, wait.
	Is this real?
	Okay, never mind.
	This is sort of a thing.
	Okay, sorry.
	I was too arrogant.
	We were all dumb and Ian was smart, though.
	Ian, yeah, my whole life, dude.
	That's been my whole life, too.
	Yeah, they use them in space.
	Should we get back to politics?
	Absolutely.
	But the value of these is.
	Yeah, I don't know how good my contributions are on, like, you know.
	No, no, this one's good.
	This one's a good.
	Okay, we got the story from Hugh Nevada.
	This is awesome.
	Libby Emmons writes: Katanji Brown Jackson's DEI is showing in her dissent against nationwide injunctions.
	She writes: Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court on Friday opposing the concept of nationwide injunctions.
	Those decisions that a judge makes in one case in one state that then apply to countless standing and potential cases across the United States.
	Justice Katanji Brown Jackson offered a dissent, but in so doing, quote, is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent.
	You know, Margaret versus Madison, right?
	The very first case that established the notion of judicial review.
	That was a case in which Chief Justice Marshall said that what Thomas Jefferson did was unlawful, but the court did not have the jurisdiction to force him to change his action.
	Wow.
	Right.
	Like the concept that the judicial branch cannot remedy every example of executive branch lawlessness has been in the Constitution since the notion of judicial review was enshrined in our law.
	That's what that means.
	So here's Amy Cody Barrett from the top rope.
	She basically says, KBJ here, you're so stupid your opinion isn't worth addressing or wasting ink on refuting.
	She says, we will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.
	We observe only this.
	Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary.
	Yeah.
	In other words, she very politely said, girl, you dumb.
	How did you pass the bar?
	Insane.
	The bar's easy.
	That's, I mean, how did she pass?
	Clearly.
	Sorry to fail the bar.
	I got to give this shout out to Jack Pisobic, who posted, this dissent is completely unreal.
	Let me read it for you.
	It says, it's supposed to, it's a joke.
	This is the joke dissent from Jackson, who writes, I dissent with unyielding indignation from the majority's acquiescence to the petitioner's counsel's outrageous inquiry into my morning repast during oral arguments.
	A question, how would your honor feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning?
	That is wholly devoid of legal relevance and constitutes an egregious affront to the dignity of this court.
	Such an impertinent question, lacking any nexus to the multitudinous constitutional issues before us, threatens to erode the independence of this tribunal by subjecting justices to trivial interrogatories better suited to a morning talk show than a court of law.
	In fact, I had already stated that I had eaten a full breakfast.
	I would hold that such questions do nothing to serve our democracy.
	And I admonish all litigants to refrain from such inquiries on pain of sanctions, preserving the sanctity of this court's proceedings, from the specter of any breakfast-related frivolity.
	Now, hold on, hold on.
	Jack Pisobic said this dissent is completely unreal.
	Truth.
	That's the truth.
	And he got fact-checked by lead stories that said his meme mocking Gatanji Brown Jackson was fake news.
	He literally said it was.
	He said it was literally unreal.
	He said it was unreal.
	Unreal.
	Amazing.
	What was her actual dissent?
	Is it concise enough?
	No, how about this?
	No, it's not.
	She said, the Trump administration is both power-hungry and lawless.
	The majority sees a power grab, but not by a presumably lawless executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution.
	Instead, the majority, the power-hungry actors are the district courts.
	District courts, however, have been acting with impunity under the Trump administration both in this term and his first by relentlessly blocking administrative prerogatives across the country based on the perceived merits of just one case.
	She basically says that Trump is power-hungry and lawless and believes that gives her the authority and the district courts to have power over the executive branch, which is just plum nuts.
	And then it was Amy Coney Barrett that was like, this is just plum nuts.
	And you're saying she was referencing the 220-year?
	Yeah.
	I mean, this paragraph right there is...
	It is as insulting as insults could get for a Supreme Court.
	They never do this.
	And the key thing to understand, this isn't just just spirit.
	Six justices signed this.
	Right.
	And this doesn't happen.
	I mean, if you actually read it.
	Odds with the Constitution.
	Well, justice, the reason they're being the sharp with her, which is normally the court tries to be at least collegial in public, the reason they're being the sharp with her is because her dissent is obnoxious.
	Like there's there's a point in her dissent where she's like, you know, using weight for it.
	I don't know if you saw this.
	Oh, no, full stop.
	Yeah, full, full stop.
	She actually wrote full stop.
	Yeah.
	Like she wrote a blog for a feminist zine.
	It's nuts.
	And I mean, let's find the entirely unprofessional.
	While you're looking, just so you guys know, Justice Kajenti Brown Jackson has spoken more words during oral argument than any other Supreme Court justice in the 22, 23 term.
	According to an analysis by Adam Feldman, she spoke a total of 36,500 words, which is 12,000 more than the next most talkative justice, Elena Kagan, and almost 30,000 more words than the justice with the fewest words, Claris Thomas.
	30,000 more words.
	She's not a precise legal thinker.
	It's really that simple.
	I mean, you start with, I pulled up her dissent, and the first paragraph is this.
	I write separately to emphasize a key conceptual point.
	The court's decision to permit the executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.
	Unbelievable.
	That's just wrong.
	Yes.
	Wrong, right?
	Yes.
	Like the whole, the way that the judicial power works is it only extends to cases and controversies.
	This is a repudiation of the entire body of law, of the law of standing in the Supreme Court.
	And it's the first paragraph of her dissent.
	Where do I find the dissent?
	We're going to pull it up.
	I sent it to you over X. Oh, okay, okay.
	But you have to scroll down.
	I don't know what page this is exactly, but it's the last.
	You have to scroll all the way down to the bottom because it's the last opinion and it's at the beginning of it.
	Look, I mean, it shouldn't be a shock.
	She refused to, or she says that she cannot identify what a woman is when she had her hearing.
	She specifically said, I'm not a biologist.
	She said, I can't identify what a woman is.
	She's ideologically possessed.
	It has her opinions, nothing to do with any of the actual, you know, the what's it called?
	So this is her first paragraph, or which paragraph is it?
	It's literally the first, it's the very first paragraph, the dissent.
	I agree with every word of Justice Sotomiera's dissent.
	I write separately to emphasize a key conceptual point.
	The court's decision to permit the executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued, and not yet sued, is an existential threat to the rule of law.
	You're saying that the court is decision-that is judicial supremacy, because what that's saying is not the point of standing is to cabin the power of the court to cases and controversy.
	I see.
	So if the executive violates the Constitution, then they will be charged and it will come to the court.
	The court itself doesn't jump in and stop them.
	The person looking for constitutional violations to remedy.
	The presumption she's making is that we know before the court case happened that Trump violated the Constitution.
	Right.
	But it's up to the legal system to decide that, and then the judge has to make an impartial decision.
	And grant relief to the parties in question, not to the rulers.
	But yes, but I would phrase it, not to dictate edict, not to declare that law is as we decide it for the nation.
	Laws are decided by the legislative, enforced by the executive, interpreted by the judges.
	What she's writing is that, no, no, before even hearing the case, we know and we can determine for the nation how they must operate.
	I want to hear the rest of it.
	I know it's probably long-winded.
	We can read it.
	She could check.
	It's, what is it, 21 pages?
	We don't have to read the whole thing, but we can continue reading this first.
	Here's the, listen to this.
	Stated simply, what it means to have a system of government that is bounded by law is that everyone is constrained by law, no exceptions.
	And for that to actually happen, courts must have the power to order everyone, including the executive, to follow the law full stop.
	Unreal.
	Except that violates the law of the Constitution and passed by Congress constraining the jurisdiction of the court.
	What is the legal definition of full stop?
	I'm not familiar with this one.
	It's like writing period and then putting a period.
	It's not a technical.
	It's not in the dictionary near like mensrea.
	Full stop.
	It's like old, not phonograph.
	Yeah, it's feminist.
	It's like the Supreme Court type version of like telegraph.
	It was like telegraph text.
	I can only imagine what these discussions were like in conference where Justice Jackson's putting this out there.
	Most of the justices are like, what are you talking about?
	Like, have you read any of our standing opinions?
	Will.
	Have you ever had a conversation with Ian?
	Fill me in on something.
	What's the judge?
	I wouldn't say that about you, Ian.
	Well, maybe it's my first thing for bringing the ire because I'm just thinking about like, can she be fired?
	Can she be voted out?
	She can be impeached.
	Literally, judges can be impeached for what exactly?
	I think we should investigate her citizenship into naturalism deport.
	I mean, if you can literally impeach a judge for going haywire, 50, I was telling you guys before the show, 50 years of this woman, and I don't even know her, but 50 years of this kind of piss poor dissent is bad.
	It's not good.
	People should realize this is a real threat because this theory of judicial supremacy, this is the law in Israel.
	That's something I don't think most people understand.
	But that's actually...
	She's pro-Israel.
	She's pro-Israel.
	So basically pro-Israel.
	Yeah.
	Everyone hear that?
	She's pro-Israel.
	You're saying in Israel, the courts can, what, arrest the president for- They can reverse any governmental decision if they deem that decision to be unreasonable.
	How's that defined?
	However the court defines it.
	So they're the most powerful entity in the country?
	Under their current law?
	Yes.
	I heard that there was issues between Netanyahu and the courts where he was trying to, what, disempower the courts?
	And there was sort of a lady's crazy.
	Yeah.
	He says, in a constitutional republic such as ours, a federal court has the power to order the executive to follow the law, and it must.
	It is axiomatic.
	The Constitution of the United States and the statutes of the people's representatives have enacted govern in our system of government.
	She's literally saying we have power over the executive branch to do as we interpret outside of the parties before us.
	She's literally like.
	It's wild, but it's simply put, she is saying, if we bang the gavel and order the nation to do it, it is so.
	She's literally just saying the Supreme Court dictates and you must.
	Right.
	The Supreme Court is supreme to the Supreme.
	It's no longer a co-equal branches.
	The branches are no longer co-equal.
	How long?
	Supreme Court, executive branch, and legislative branch.
	How long do you think it's going to be until she puts out a dissent or whatever with hand-clapping emojis?
	Oh, wait, there's one right here.
	No, I'm kidding.
	But it's actually, you know, this is a terrible decision.
	It's not good that we have somebody on the court that clearly has this little understanding of American constitutional law.
	Like, she has no business being in the court.
	But the good thing, I guess, from a conservative perspective is she no longer has any ability to persuade any of the remaining justices of the court to join her on any opinion.
	Right.
	No.
	Did she ever?
	She's insulted them.
	Right.
	She's insulted them and she's done so in a way that's really silly.
	Like it's a very bad insult.
	Well, I'm going to tell you why I love this because one of the issues, let's go back to Texas v.
	Pennsylvania, 2020.
	You remember that one?
	Let me pull it up.
	I'll probably remember it.
	That was when Texas sued, citing original jurisdiction, saying Pennsylvania was in violation of the Constitution by altering the terms of their election outside of the state legislature.
	And the Supreme Court was like, oh, we don't want to get involved in that.
	Clarence Thomas and Alito were like, we need to answer this question.
	They are suing.
	It is incumbent upon us, the Supreme Court.
	They refused.
	So what I love here is the Supreme Court, what I want to see happen is them actually issue rulings like this.
	When Katanji Brown Jackson tries to overstep, it's actually, let me put it this way.
	It's not that she can't persuade them.
	It's that she will persuade them in the other direction.
	She will dissuade.
	She's the opposite of Kagan.
	Like, Kagan has historically been able To pull Roberts and Kavanaugh, not Kavanaugh, but like Barrett now.
	Oh, yeah.
	She used to be able to pull like Kennedy, I think.
	And it was always because she was able to reason together with them under their premises.
	Like this opinion from Jackson and the way that six justices were willing to basically call her an idiot.
	Like you don't understand constitutional.
	So it's going to be like, yo, people are going to be like, hey, what is, or the SCOTUS justices are going to be like, what is Jackson saying?
	And that's what I was thinking.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	I mean, they might still come to the conclusion that they agree with Jackson on the outcome, but they don't think of her.
	They don't take her seriously as a legal reasoner.
	Yeah.
	And that's not good for a liberal justice in the dissent in the middle.
	No, especially considering the makeup of the court now with six justices that are generally, you know, generally have good legal reasoning and are not ideologically possessed the same way.
	The conservative justices are all very, very smart.
	That's something I'll say about every single one of them.
	They're all brilliant.
	It is kind of dumb that it's like, did England do it?
	They didn't, then we can't.
	It's like, well, because that's the law, right?
	I know, I know, but it's.
	Because that's what the Judiciary Act says.
	And it's what like the...
	Like, you know, we imported it in the colonies and it continued into the, you know, and if like.
	Yeah, Barrett writes, the universal injunction was conspicuously non-existent for most of our nation's history.
	Its absence from 18th and 19th century equity practice settles the question of judicial authority.
	Wasn't the first one in like 1964 or something like that?
	Yeah.
	I mean, and, you know, basically the respondents in this case basically were trying to say, well, there's this example of an aggregate piece of litigation and the opinion is like, yeah, which became the modern class action, which is the point.
	Like by ducking out of the class action, you create this circumstance where every plaintiff gets like, you know, even, you know, basically the government has to win every single time and can only, but they lose once and they lose, period.
	That's just not fair.
	So, and it's more.
	Oh, yeah, there are the principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our case on equity.
	Justice Jackson, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever.
	That might be meaner than the other thing we said, because this is something, you know, startling.
	I was saying this backstage, but if a lawyer or a judge calls your argument novel or innovative, they're insulting you.
	Yes.
	That's an insult.
	That means that you're coming up with something that's not grounded in the law.
	You're just coming up with your own thing, which is exactly what they're saying.
	Innovation is great in technology.
	It's not so great in law.
	It's not so great in the law.
	Justice Jackson's position is difficult to pin down.
	I like how they're saying different things.
	It's untethered to reality.
	We're not even sure exactly what she's arguing, but to the extent we can make sense of it, it's a...
	Rhetoric aside, Justice Jackson's position is difficult to pin down.
	She might be arguing that universal injunctions are appropriate, even required, whenever the defendant is part of the executive branch.
	If so, her position goes far beyond the mainstream defense of universal injunctions.
	As best we can tell, though, her argument is more extreme still, because its logic does not depend on the entry of a universal injunction.
	Justice Jackson appears to believe that the reasoning behind any court order demands, quote, universal adherence, at least where the executive is concerned.
	In her law-declaring vision of the judicial function, a district court's opinion is not just persuasive, but has the legal force of a judgment.
	Wow.
	In other words, they are writing rather eloquently exactly what we were saying before, that Justice Jackson is basically saying, if the Supreme Court says, so shall it be.
	No, no, no, it's not even that.
	Justice Jackson is saying, if any district court says to the White House, so shall it be.
	And not the judgment, right?
	Not the actual saying, this person won, you are ordered to do X, Y, or Z. It is anything appearing in a district court opinion, which is not precedential, right?
	Because district courts don't make precedent.
	So anything appearing in a district court opinion is said, so shall that be as well.
	Just for fun, real quick.
	Sorry, just real quick.
	This whole section is literally just a it's it's it's several pages of Justice Jackson is retarded.
	Yeah, yes.
	Absolutely.
	Yes.
	Just for fun, I'm curious as to like, how are the ways that you could imagine things going bad if Justice Jackson were correct?
	If Justice Jackson were correct, we would no longer have a meaningful democracy.
	Supreme Court would be the governing authority of the country.
	Actually, the entire judicial branch would be the governing authority of the country.
	Every single executive decision would be subject to immediate review regardless of anybody who was even injured.
	So this goes, again, this is basically we get the Israeli system.
	Well, but there's, you know, you're just, there's the sovereign court and everybody below it.
	But let's just take it beyond the, let's not make it light.
	Let's say there would be no executive branch.
	It would, it would still be it, but it would be a bit more formative.
	So, you know, the here's an example of what something that could happen.
	President Trump moves some troops around and is preparing for war, and there's some news reports.
	On their own initiative, the Supreme Court issues an order saying the president must stop and return those troops here until we can review the potential military action.
	Yes.
	Or let's get that.
	You're being reasonable, Will.
	Yeah.
	At the utmost, what she's saying could be, upon any instance, for any reason, the Supreme Court can determine literally anything in this country, meaning your government would functionally be a judiciary with nothing else.
	Everything else is performative.
	The judges wouldn't wait for the executive to mount troops.
	The judges would order the president.
	They would say, upon fact in review of foreign affairs, we are hereby issuing an order that the president begin to amass troops on the eastern border of Ukraine, or you know, the eastern border of Poland to mount an offensive into Ukraine and defense, and then the president must do it.
	And then at the local level, there is no legislative, a state legislator or city council only judges.
	So then, when a law is to be passed, the judges will decide whether it is or is not.
	Yeah, this is we got judge, jury, and executioner.
	That's the phrase, and that's how it functions in reality.
	And then in the government, we have the judicial branch, the jury branch, which is the legislative branch, and then the executioner, the executive branch, which carries out whatever, the decision.
	That's how it functions.
	The judge is not the jury.
	The judge doesn't get to decide.
	The judge doesn't get to execute, doesn't make the execution decisions for the president.
	It just is the judge.
	It'd be a much worse system of government, a much less agile system of government.
	It's a dictatorship.
	Yeah.
	Well, sort of collective, I mean, a judicial supremacy, a juristocracy.
	I think you'd call it communism.
	I don't know that juristocracy.
	It wouldn't necessarily be communism, but it's just a juristocracy.
	Well, you'd be ruled by a party.
	The judges are appointed.
	Elections would be fake.
	Basically, what she's saying is, if the judiciary shall speak it, it shall be.
	Meaning, right now, what would happen?
	Well, we can argue right now, they would start taking power, changing laws.
	The theoretical full function of her argument is it is a nation where if people in a city are having an issue with, say, sewage problem, instead of there being a meeting where the people come to decide, the judges will convene and tell you what you must do about this problem.
	Let's say someone says, we've had a string of cybercrime.
	It's a new kind of crime.
	We're not familiar with it.
	We don't know what it falls under.
	We need a law to make it illegal.
	That's not what would work in the judiciary.
	The judge would just say, anyone who does it, 10 years.
	So as it is spoken, so shall it be done.
	There's no voting.
	There's no legislative branch.
	And the executive must do what they're told to do.
	So you said six people were like, hey, Brown Jackson, you're off the court here.
	And then two people agreed with her?
	Is that right?
	Three people?
	No, she didn't even get any of the other liberals to sign onto this opinion.
	The other liberals, like, that was the point where they said the principal dissent goes onto well-trotted ground with the Judiciary Act.
	And then they're like, but Justice Jackson's dissent is totally novel and untethered, right?
	That was the reason they were saying that because I think Justice Sotomayor had a dissent joined by Justice Jackson's Justice.
	I love this footnote.
	Think about what this position means.
	If a judge in the District of Alaska holds that a criminal statute is unconstitutional, can the United States prosecute a defendant under that statute in the District of Maryland?
	Perhaps Justice Jackson would instinctively say yes.
	It's hard to imagine anyone saying no, but why on Justice Jackson's logic does it not violate the rule of law for the executive to initiate a prosecution elsewhere?
	Among its many problems, Justice Jackson's view is at odds with our system of divided judicial authority.
	They're going to say it is also in considerable tension with the reality that district court opinions lack precedential force, even vis-a-vis other judges in the same judicial district.
	Right, right.
	Right.
	Under current law, like if you, you know, there's multiple judges here in West Virginia.
	If one judge reasons something, a district judge just reasons something, comes to a reasoning, uses reasoning to come to a conclusion and issues a judgment.
	Other judges are not bound by that reasoning.
	They can reason differently on the very same.
	She's like, oh my, like the degree of stupidity.
	So we have circuits and we've gone over this many times where it's like, did you hear that Arizona, the whatever circuit just ruled that you can have this kind of gun?
	And then we go, whoa, does this mean everyone in the country?
	No, it was only in that circuit and it would have to go up to the higher courts if it's going to go into wider wider wider effect of the nation.
	And she's arguing.
	How did none of her clerks get this?
	She's the other thing.
	She must have hired some absolute idiots as her clerks.
	She wouldn't have just been like, whoa, well, you can't do this.
	This is insane.
	Well, let's think about what this means.
	Her argument would be that in Alaska, a lower court district says the NFA is unconstitutional.
	Everybody can have guns.
	Then in Maryland, a lower court says the NFA is constitutional and we're going to go on to ban all guns.
	Simultaneously, under her argument, the United States will ban and unban all guns in the exact same time.
	Yeah, which district judge is the executive supposed to ban?
	And is it just any, the district judge that gets to it first doesn't just bind the executive.
	They bind the entire country?
	It's reverse chronological.
	That's how we work.
	First and last.
	It works.
	Wait, wait, there's more than that.
	Counterspell.
	There's more.
	They write, in other words, it is unnecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the judiciary.
	What matters is how the judiciary may constrain the executive.
	Just as Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition, everyone from the president on down is bound by the law.
	Can you imagine?
	I love that one.
	Do you imagine that she is embarrassed right now?
	Like knowing how the world is like, how the United States and essentially all the political world in the U.S. is looking at her and to have been excoriated so thoroughly by her co-justices.
	And having no support from anyone else.
	None.
	Nobody.
	Yeah, none of the, I mean, you would think that like Elena Kagan would have looked at her and been like, Katanji.
	Yeah, don't you have any friends?
	You can't write this.
	Don't you have any friends on the court that could be like, yo, you can't write this.
	This is a bad idea.
	Take this opinion and put it in your trash folder.
	Yeah.
	Now, furthermore, the people that are defending her, they're almost all defending her, saying that, oh, the people that are attacking her are racist.
	But check this out.
	Correct me if I'm wrong because I didn't read the whole thing, but it looks like the actual dissent is on the basis of birthright citizenship, not the injunctions.
	Well, I think the argument I think the dissent is making is that they're sort of making this argument that the birthright citizenship case is so clean that there's no probability of prevailing on the merits.
	And so it's doing law, right?
	Like there's, there's, I often make this distinction, like there's, there's doing law and then there's not doing law.
	Jackson's not doing law.
	She's just, she's just literally inventing some stuff out of thin air, going and spitting in the face of hundreds of years of unbelievably basic constitutional precedent.
	That's not, as, as the majority says, it's not what this dissent is doing.
	It's not right.
	But it's crazy how, look, like she's just literally saying, our branch of government determines what the executive branch gets to do.
	Yeah.
	Busted.
	It's Crazy.
	So she issues the dissent.
	Then everyone else is like, actually, here's our opinions on the dissent.
	Is it normal for then her to come back and be like, well, here's my opinion on your opinion?
	Or is at that point they just stay silent?
	They discuss, they send opinions back and forth to each other.
	There's like, this is the product of months of work and back and forth responses.
	That's why the majority opinion is responding to dissent and vice versa.
	That's why it's so shocking that this actually made it to that this sees the light.
	I mean, it really is impressive how, I mean, you don't normally see stuff like this.
	You don't normally see opinions this way.
	Do you think she would just imagine like the eight other justices are sitting at the desk looking at Katanji Brown Jackson, whose eyes are kind of like half closed, and they're like, Katanji, don't press send.
	And she goes, like, don't do it.
	Oh, I mean, I think the conservative justices were like, whatever you want to do, you want to put this opinion, go right ahead.
	I would pay a hundred bucks to be like sitting in the room watching Clarence Thomas read that.
	Just watching the expressions.
	Just Elena Kagan sitting alone being like, how am I ever going to get anything done with these morons?
	Wait, wait, wait, hold on, hold on.
	I think I just figured it out.
	Several years ago, when they were nominating Katanji Brown Jackson, she secretly meets with Trump and he's like, everyone's going to hate you.
	You will be the hero that we need.
	And she's like, I'll be as dumb as I can.
	Make the liberals look stupid.
	Katanji, you are my black sheep.
	You're sacrificing legacy, your good name.
	And she goes, yes, but I will make Democrats look really dumb for a long time.
	And then right now, as he's saying this, only Trump knows what Katanji Brown Jackson has actually sacrificed to her.
	She's the secret weapon to destroy the legitimacy of liberal jurisprudence.
	With her reputation being dragged as it is, and internally in the court, obviously, and externally with shows like this making fun of her.
	What's her road to redemption right now?
	Just actually issue some good rulings for a while and get the other judges to let Kagan ghostwrite everything.
	Just be like, defer for a while.
	I am excited for what Freedom Tunes makes out of this.
	Don't let us down.
	Black Sheep.
	It's like the movie.
	It's all about that.
	If there's another Democrat president, I wouldn't be surprised if there's some serious push to have her kind of step down.
	I mean, it's not good for the liberal.
	We got Amy Cody Barrett back.
	Yeah.
	No, she was drifting.
	Yeah, she, you know, I think she, you know, who knows exactly what it was, but these are, she came out right here.
	I don't know.
	Maybe she got like, we were stinging them for a while.
	I mean, they really, they were playing a lot of games, the Shadow Docket, where they were, you know, not giving cert to obvious Second Amendment cases and then dropping everything at a moment's notice to like handle an illegal, you know, an illegal Alien Enemies Act case down in Texas.
	So I think, I, I think they took a little bit of a beating from organizations like the one I'm a part of and decided that maybe they needed to be a little more.
	I am so excited.
	I am so grateful in retrospect that this woman was confirmed.
	Yeah.
	If you had to choose somebody to be confirmed, yeah.
	Thanks, James.
	Right.
	If we, you know, we're looking at they're going to get a liberal justice on the court.
	Who's it going to be?
	The dumbest one imaginable is the best case scenario.
	Not only is she bad at what she does, but she delegitimizes, what do you say, liberal jurisprudence?
	Liberal jurisprudence.
	She honestly really, I mean, it's like when the liberals on the court, you've got Sodom IR, who's not particularly intelligent.
	Not that she's, I'm not saying she's dumb, but she's not like, she's not somebody smart.
	And then they're Supreme Court smart.
	And that's a 20 IQ point gap at least.
	And, you know.
	Her clerks.
	Well, yeah, I am.
	I mean, if I were clerking, I mean, I've worked in chambers before, right?
	And it's like, if you tell, you give the judge your honest opinion and because you're trying to help them.
	I mean, you'll fall in line if they tell you to write it.
	But I mean, if I'm sitting there as a clerk and I know standing law, I took con law.
	I just got out of law school a few years ago.
	I'm like, Justice Jackson, you can't do this stuff.
	But think about who she hired.
	Yeah.
	She hired people who themselves hired her.
	So what is it called?
	Is it the Peter principal?
	I've heard of that.
	What's the one where...
	Is that?
	Yes, yes.
	So when you get a Ketanji Brown-Jackson and she's a W, you know, she hires an X. Yeah, she's probably extraordinarily insecure on that court.
	That's actually a good point because she's just not – Well, this ought to help.
	Well, I mean, didn't Joe Biden say that he was going to nominate a black woman for justice?
	This is 100%.
	She was entirely hired.
	She is a DEI justice.
	She is there because she is a black woman.
	It's funny.
	I said that's so gross.
	Not that there was a black person as a judge.
	It's that to get hired based on the skin color is grotesque.
	That is sick.
	It's racist.
	It is severely racist.
	They really, and they screwed themselves out of justice.
	I mean, there's a guy named Sri Srinivasan, who's like the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit, which is usually, that's actually where.
	He's a liberal guy?
	He's a liberal guy.
	He was solicitor general under Obama.
	Oh, wow.
	And then a D.C. circuit judge, and everybody had him a shortlist.
	He would have been the first Asian American on the Supreme Court.
	Wow.
	And Obama had, they got a lot of victories.
	Yeah.
	And I mean, I think Sree could have been, I think Sri might have, could have been an option over Sodomayar, but certainly Sree could have been an option over Katanji Brown Jackson.
	And Sri would be this nightmare for us because he's not on our team, but he's also brilliant and would be able to sway a Roberts and a Barrett.
	Dude, Joe Biden's not brilliant enough to think of those things.
	I do love the spectrum.
	It's like on a scale of Katanji Brown Jackson to Clarence Thomas, how smart are you?
	Yeah.
	Like Clarence Thomas talks very, very little, and he's the smartest guy on the court.
	And she talks the most and she's dumb as a box of rocks.
	Yeah.
	That's how I think Jeff Bezos says at board meetings, you know, the leader should speak last.
	That's his take on it anyway.
	Says, you know, listen listen.
	You can't express yourself concisely.
	I just want to know, how do we get eight more Clarence Thomases?
	Alito's good, too.
	So we do have, you know, something to promote my organization and what we do.
	Emil Bovey is going up for the third circuit.
	He's an absolute badass.
	He was President Trump's lawyer, and then he Was acting deputy attorney general.
	And now I think he's currently assistant, acting assistant attorney general.
	But he's going for the third circuit.
	He was absolutely badass.
	I don't know if you guys covered his confirmation hearing, but he had this incredible line where Dick Durbin asked him: it's like, what do you think of President Trump's pardons on January 6th?
	And he said, it's not my place to comment on President Trump's pardons in the same way.
	It wouldn't be my place to comment on President Biden pardoning drug traffickers and death row inmates.
	And all Durbin did was just kind of shrink at the end of that.
	You mentioned that if a Democrat was in the presidential seat, I think you were mentioning saying the president, that maybe they would resign.
	Katanja Brown Zachary Jackson might.
	They might push her to because she's just push her to.
	How does that work?
	You know, you try and bully her into giving up her seat.
	Like as the president, sorry to interrupt, but as the president, you would go through and be like, look, that's not happening in the next three years.
	I just, I don't think they probably can because she's, again, it's the DEI problem, right?
	Like she got the position because, you know, like, you're literally going to say she can't have the position because she didn't have merit?
	Well, she didn't get the position based on merit.
	She's not going anywhere for at least three years.
	And if a Republican wins after Donald Trump, she will not go anywhere for those four years.
	Donald Trump is going to likely to appoint one more justice during this time.
	I bet that one of Thomas are both.
	One, maybe.
	Yeah, I mean, they're both getting up there, and they don't want to be replaced by Democrats.
	Look, you don't want to do what Ruth Bader Ginsburg did.
	Exactly.
	And I trust Clarence Thomas to have a great successor.
	Hopefully.
	Yeah.
	Assuming, I mean, like, I trust Clarence Thomas to know who would be the right successor.
	And then he suggests that.
	I hope.
	Well, actually, how would that work?
	Will they go to Trump and say, this is the guy you want?
	I mean, it'll be up to Trump.
	He has a team, and he takes outside advice as well.
	But it'll be up to me.
	I mean, Cody Barrick was like a C plus.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I think there's a reason that the Federalist Society folks aren't as involved with advice on judicial nominations this come around.
	What has Kavanaugh been?
	A C plus as well, right?
	Kavanaugh's been pretty good.
	I'd give Kavanaugh like a B plus, A minus.
	B plus.
	Same with a Kanan.
	A minus.
	I don't know, on guns, Brett Kavanaugh is kind of annoying.
	He's actually pretty.
	I mean, he had a great Second Amendment to sentence when he was on the D.C. circuit.
	I mean, it's that cert decision that's kind of annoying.
	What's that?
	There's a Heller case when Kavanaugh was on the D.C. circuit, Heller II, the D.C. circuit tried to interpret what the Supreme Court did narrowly, and he wrote a very, very strong opinion that kind of foreshadowed what the Supreme Court would eventually do in Bruin, which was basically say that you can't just ban concealed carry.
	But he also said that I'll oversimplify it.
	It is okay for states to make difficult permitting processes for going on gun.
	He said you have to issue the permit, but.
	And he didn't say it like this, but he basically said they can make it extremely difficult, nigh impossible.
	That's weird.
	Yeah.
	Is that really what he said?
	That doesn't strike.
	I mean, I'm being a little mean, but so the issue was that New York has extremely circuitous systems in place to make it hard to get a gun.
	And he was like, you can't may issue.
	You must issue.
	So the ruling was good in that states like New York could no longer deny it.
	But he effectively said New York is still, of course, allowed, as is anyone, to create their own permitting process, which New York, of course, made it particularly difficult to actually get through.
	Did he do that in a concurrence?
	I don't think, because he didn't write Bruin, did he?
	And I think that was like the last major.
	This was a few years ago.
	I can't remember.
	I remember that we had a bunch of stories on it because we were pissed.
	Like, the problem is that it's great that we won the shall issue rule, but in New Jersey, they lie to you when you try to get a gun.
	And so they shouldn't be allowed to create a permitting process that requires you to jump back and forth.
	It took me months when I was in Jersey to get a permit.
	Months.
	Because they kept lying to me.
	The police lied to me.
	I would call the government, and they would always give me something different.
	And I guess technically the shall issue argument is you're allowed, like you can't do that.
	But the permitting process of Jersey itself took a long time, fingerprints, getting a special license, making it extremely difficult for the average person to do.
	And the only way to get a concealed carry is if you're rich or famous in New Jersey.
	Well, that can't be the law.
	Not anymore.
	That's right.
	That's shallow.
	She defeats that.
	So it was a good ruling, but it was like...
	I don't know if it was he wrote in agreement or whatever, but I remember there was an issue where everybody was like, Kavanaugh basically ruled that they can have their permitting processes even if they're cumbersome.
	And I'm like, that's an infringement.
	The method by which these blue states stop us from owning guns is by making it extremely difficult to get, just like the NFA did.
	Yeah.
	And I think that I would liken that to, you know, your right to a speedy trial.
	Obviously, it's a different venue, but your rights are your rights and you have a right to a speedy access to your rights.
	But to be fair, I shouldn't throw Kevin out with the bathwater simply because of one or a couple rules.
	And especially because of a concurring opinion.
	It's not binding.
	He's observing what current law allows.
	All I know is every single time there's an issue of logic, Alito and Thomas get it right.
	Yeah, Alito and Thomas are the best.
	There's no question.
	They're the two A's.
	Are they the oldest dudes?
	I should probably know.
	Are they the oldest dudes?
	Yes.
	Alito is older?
	Oh, well.
	I think.
	I know who's older.
	I know they're all.
	It'd be great to get these judges on the episodes.
	I know they're busy.
	Yeah, they're not going to do that.
	Maybe after they retire.
	Possibly.
	Alito's 75.
	There's a whole thing about nothing.
	Born in April 50.
	Yep.
	Thomas, Alito.
	So Thomas, 77.
	Alito, 74.
	Sonumiar, 71.
	Kagan, 65.
	Gorsik, 57.
	Kavanaugh.
	Kevana, 60.
	Wow.
	Amy Coney Bear is 53, and Katanji Brown is 54.
	Whoa.
	So, yeah, you know what?
	Alito and Thomas should retire.
	Unfortunately.
	Unfortunately, but they got to choose their successors.
	I don't know how we do it, but they're the best.
	Yeah, it sucks, but you can't.
	they have balls.
	I can't stand how many times they deny cert or whatever, and it's like the two that are saying, Let's answer the question for this nation.
	It's Alito and Thomas.
	Yeah, yeah, their nervous systems are working just fine.
	Their nervous systems are working just fine, clearly.
	Yeah, there's a couple 2A cases that were just denied cert about magazine bans and what they call assault rifle bands.
	Those should not have, they should, I think it was Gorsuch that said that they're going to, they want to hear them in the next Kavanaugh.
	It was Kavanaugh.
	Okay, fair enough.
	Who said that they want to hear him in the next the next session, which so it would be nice to have them do this because assault weapon bans are just bans on semi-automatic rifles.
	Magazine bans are clearly unconstitutional.
	So I want them to hear this stuff.
	I'm sick of even look, the Constitution says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
	And all we ever actually get is SCOTUS arguing to the extent by which How much the government can actually infringe.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	And so they're saying, like, well, clearly nobody should have a nuclear weapon.
	That's not the argument.
	We have a constitution.
	Change the Second Amendment if you think it should be the case.
	And maybe after some crackpot builds a small nuclear bomb in his backyard, the states might come to ratify an amendment that says, yeah, no nuclear weapons.
	But what I don't like is this nation and the Constitution has always just been whatever we decide it is.
	And that means we don't actually have a written constitution.
	When they ratified the Constitution, there were still blasphemy laws in the books.
	They were in force for 100-plus years.
	So now what we have is...
	Of course.
	And what I love is we've been winning on the gun issue forever.
	Not forever, but in the past several decades, gun rights have been expanding tremendously.
	And that's a good thing.
	I'm just like, let's stop pretending anyone is actually following what the Constitution is supposed to be doing.
	They're simply arguing the extent to which they're willing to accept things.
	Like the justices say, can you have nukes?
	Nah.
	Well, hold on.
	It says the right to keep in bare arms.
	It doesn't define what those arms are.
	And if your argument is nukes are clearly beyond the scope of what they meant, then the liberals were right the whole time.
	And that means that machine guns, full auto, 50 BMG, all of that can equally be argued as to being beyond the scope of the Second Amendment.
	I reject that premise.
	And if you have a problem with nuclear weapons, which I do, I don't think people should have them.
	Still, the Constitution says the right-to-keeping barbs should not be infringed.
	So maybe two-thirds of the states can get together and actually say, we're going to say nobody can have nuclear weapons.
	And I think most people would be okay with it.
	Or like chemical weapons, but I think those are just illegal.
	chemical weapons?
	No, because this is actually interesting.
	At first, a few years ago, I said it is wrong that after you get out of prison as a felon, you still can't have a gun if you have Second Amendment.
	And instantly, one of our tremendous super chatters said, Tim, your rights under the Constitution can be curtailed through due process, meaning you may have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but if you commit a crime, we can take those rights away from you.
	And if the determination under the law through legislation is that we can take away your due process right to own a gun upon conviction of a crime, that actually fits with the standard we have in this nation.
	So I don't like it.
	I think that if you commit a felony, the judge should say as part of the sentencing, 10 years in prison and 15 years, no bearing arms.
	But getting a life sentence to take away your rights, I think is cruel and unusual.
	But I think it's fair that we would have to argue.
	Yeah, I don't agree with you.
	So if a dude smuggles in a rare piece of art.
	I'd say I mean, I think the current rule is like violent felonies.
	I'm pretty sure it's just felons.
	Just felons.
	Wasn't there a Supreme Court case on this that basically looked at whether non-violent a classification of is violent felony codified in law as violent felony?
	I mean, it's, I think, in the way in the Second Amendment jurisprudence and in other places too.
	I'm pretty sure this is a case of the Supreme Court.
	We've had a bunch of people chat saying things like they committed fraud when they were 19 and now they can never own a gun again.
	And it's like, you know, we've had people chat say, when I was 20, I stole a car and, you know, and now I'm 43 with a family and I'm not allowed to own a gun.
	And it's like, okay, that's a little egregious.
	You know, at a certain point, you should get your rights back.
	Maybe there's got to be a mechanism by which we rectify that.
	I'm a honor.
	I think so.
	Rahimi was the in the United States versus Rahimi, the Supreme Court clarified that the standard for assessing the constitutionality of firearms regulations, emphasizing that modern restrictions must align with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
	However, the court also indicated that individuals who pose a credible threat to public safety, such as those under domestic violence restraining orders, may be subject to a gun ban.
	So yes, Rohimi is that's under Rohimi.
	The felony gun ban is not restricted to violent felonies, any felony.
	Okay.
	What about?
	Which is ridiculous.
	Oh, and the low.
	Oh, it's interesting.
	The Supreme Court hasn't ruled yet, but it says that lower courts are split on the question of whether or not nonviolent, it's allowed to permanently disarm nonviolent felons.
	I don't think even violent felonies should be permanently disarmed.
	So put it this way.
	Do you think that any violent crime warrants life in prison?
	No.
	Of course.
	So violent crimes should have a set of years by which you can have a gun.
	And so let's say you commit an aggravated robbery and we say you're going to get five years for that, after which you can't own a gun for an additional five years.
	Instead, they say, we're giving you a life sentence to never be able to keep in bear arms again.
	I think that's egregious.
	No, I think that's perfect.
	A life sentence for a lesser.
	For the loss of the right to bear arms.
	I mean, I don't consider that.
	It's a right.
	Yeah, but they're stripping you of a right for life.
	I think there should be a scale to that.
	I mean, well, in the same way that you vote, you lose your right to vote too.
	No, you shouldn't.
	I think it should be like the idea that we would sentence someone to a life of a stripping of their rights on, say, like, let's say you get a violent felony in that you got in a bar fight, punched a guy in the head, he fell back and died.
	And they're like, that's it.
	You go to prison.
	And you're like, I'm not a violent guy.
	It was a bar fight.
	It was stupid.
	A fight broke out.
	I shouldn't have done it.
	And you get, you know, five to 10 years or whatever.
	He gets out and they're like, you could also never vote.
	And you can, there's a clear difference between that guy and like a serial rapist murderer who's killed 20 people.
	We will say, not only that person never gets out, they might get the death penalty.
	I mean, obviously, I think there's a context difference.
	But yeah, I mean, I don't know.
	I just, I view it as, I mean, first off, as, you know, Brohini, if I remember Brohini correctly, it was like, yeah, the sort of laws that restrict the rights of violent criminals to own guns have been with us since the founding.
	They were around when the Second Amendment was enacted, and everybody understood them to be constitutional then, like even in the presence of the Second Amendment.
	You know what's really funny about 1789 is that, you know, you're living in New York or whatever and you get convicted and they say, you can't own a gun anymore.
	And you go, Drett.
	And then you go walk 50 miles south, say your name is Rick Bigsby, and you can own a gun again.
	I mean, sure, you know, de facto, but like du jure still matters.
	Like what the actual law was still matters in terms of understanding.
	It matters in terms of understanding what when people read the Second Amendment, what did they understand it to mean at the time?
	My point is just back in the day, when they said you couldn't vote, you could literally, you know, go on a few days trip to another area, change your name completely, and just rewrite your life.
	And they had no way of tracking that.
	And no one was going to go check, shave your beard, shave your head, and you're a different person.
	And how did they know?
	I think that was what Huckleberry Finn was about, wasn't it?
	Mark Twain faked it.
	We got to go to chats.
	Sorry.
	Sorry to interrupt.
	But we're going to go to your chats.
	Smash the like button.
	Share the show with everyone you know.
	It was Tom Sawyer that faked his death.
	I probably didn't share the show.
	This show's awesome.
	We're going to read your chats.
	Sorry, Shane Wilder.
	He says, Texas SB25 or the Make Texas Healthy Again bill just passed, which requires daily exercise in schools and warning labels to be placed on any food with additives that are banned in other countries.
	Good.
	I dig it.
	Whoa.
	Good.
	Let's go.
	CB says we should increase representation from 535 to 3,000 in the House.
	Isn't it 400?
	No, it's no issue.
	400, right?
	4,500.
	435.
	I'm a strong believer that making the Congress bigger will just make it more and more impersonal and impossible to manage.
	And will ultimately, again, it will just increase the amount of, ultimately increase the amount of power that leadership has because there's so many people that organizing a rebellion against leadership will just be impossible.
	What do you think about like a direct representational democracy where we, you know, one guy represents 700,000 people, but instead of that guy saying yes or no to a bill, the 700,000 people in the district vote yes or no, and then you take the majority of those 700,000, and that's the vote that goes through.
	And what's the point of Congress?
	They'll get called if the power goes out to go do the job for us, but we don't need them.
	That's what we have a governor for.
	No.
	It's a bad idea.
	Why?
	Because not like we shouldn't expect every single person in the country to be informed on not merely saying every relevant policy.
	And you're saying that we will be governed by the unemployed.
	Well, getting governed by one guy that gets bribed by Halliburton's.
	There's certainly problems with that, but I'd rather that than being governed by the unemployed.
	That's a good question.
	No, no, no.
	Because 700,000 people vote together.
	They only count for one of the 465 votes.
	Already the problem we have, unemployed people are more likely to vote in any circumstance.
	At least we have some filters.
	Yeah, there's no government like that in the world.
	I mean, that's pure direct democracy in a country of 300 million on literature.
	And it's not merely who we vote for.
	It's voting on every relevant statute that nobody's, I mean, you think the problem of legislators not reading statute is bad now, right?
	It's just, I mean, I think that's a terrible idea.
	Here we go.
	We got Xantho says, hate to be the blackpill on this, but this isn't going to end birthright citizenship.
	And the Big Beautiful bill is also getting the few good things in it removed by a non-elected official.
	Ooh.
	No more blackpillings.
	How is that possible, the parliamentarian?
	Because the parliamentarian.
	Because it's Senate rules, right?
	Normally, to get past the filibuster, there's a very limited things that are allowed to get past the filibuster and go through the Senate with 50 votes.
	And so some of the things in the House bill are just not getting through.
	Okay, so the Republican Senate should just nuke the rules and release.
	That's what Harry Reid did that ended up with.
	But it's not, I mean, the big reason that the Big Beautiful bill is good is because it's massively increasing funding for immigration enforcement.
	Like that's agreed, agreed.
	I want short-barreled rifles and suppressors.
	Yeah, I need to.
	I will say this.
	I think Thomas Massey's arguments and Rand Paul's arguments against the Big Beautiful Bill are horribly bad.
	Like among the just not persuasive at all.
	Well, I think they're persuasive.
	No.
	I just think that I would argue this.
	They're not persuasive.
	You're right.
	I agree with you.
	I would say they're good points to be made, but it doesn't matter.
	You should vote for the bill anyway.
	Right.
	You should vote for the bill anyway.
	I don't know.
	I'd like to.
	Hold on, hold on.
	Rand Paul agreed.
	Yeah.
	Is he going to vote for the bill?
	So I interviewed him.
	He said, if I am the deciding vote, I am a yes.
	Thomas Massey said, nope, not going to happen.
	So I respect Thomas Massey greatly.
	I think he's wrong on this, and I think he's wrong on a lot of things, but he's a good dude.
	Rand Paul, I respect, saying I will.
	He was actually funny.
	He said, the president's going to call me, and he's going to be yelling at me for about an hour or two, and then I'm going to agree to vote for it.
	Yeah, he already knows.
	I mean, but I just remember the first term, and we were fighting tooth and nail to get funding for the border wall.
	Remember the national emergency debate?
	We were trying to get money reallocated.
	And this bill, which everybody is just like takes for granted, funds it all like 10x what we need, which is good because it means that we won't have to go back and ask for more money in the event that things take longer than we think.
	I got one for you.
	Yesterday, I was having this debate with the libertarian guy, and I said that we should, if Zoran Mamdani attempts to in any way obstruct federal law enforcement on immigration, the DOJ should bring seditious conspiracy charges against him and his cohorts.
	Seditious conspiracy.
	Which states, if any two people conspire, among other things, to delay law enforcement, it is a seditious conspiracy.
	I mean, seditious conspiracy might be too aggressive, but certainly there are laws about you're not allowed to obstruct ICE agents in the performance of their duties.
	I'm just saying, if we don't.
	So illegal immigrants are not part of the American community.
	They are spitting in our face and stealing From us.
	And the American people have voted and been polled.
	And the ultimate poll is the vote.
	Donald Trump, deport these people who have violated our rules.
	This is not okay.
	Zoran Mamdani says in his campaign, he will, he says, protect on city-owned property and city-leased property, protect people from deportation.
	That's more than just saying, I'll stand back and refuse to cooperate.
	Yeah, like if he gets in the way of federal law enforcement, that's a crime.
	He should be indicted for the crime.
	I think there have already been some indictments, haven't there?
	Or there's been talk of indictments.
	Well, McIvor for punching a cop, but when they charge Trump's lawyers with RICO.
	Oh, yeah.
	No, none of the, I mean, I have no clue.
	When are the Republicans going to actually Brad Lander fought ICE agents and he got no charges?
	Oh, yeah, no, he should have been indicted.
	Yep.
	That needs to happen.
	Well, you know, as strong as Trump's administration has been, I guess you can only move so far.
	God, I don't know.
	I wouldn't be surprised if things come out.
	People often, in general, I don't get blackpilled about the lack of indictments because litigation takes time, indictments take time.
	That's true.
	That's true.
	All right, let's go.
	Effets says KBJ is now the Jim Kramer of the Supreme Court.
	Oh, that's mean.
	That's brutal.
	That's harder.
	That's harder than anything anybody bears.
	It's true.
	Rofflo says, Scalia Descents was a great read when I was getting my paralegal degree.
	Full stop.
	Can you imagine KBJ's equivalent?
	I need a helmet and floaties to read that.
	Scalia Descents is a great book for anybody who wants to read it.
	I recommend it.
	All right.
	I heard that the conspiracy theory is that he was murdered.
	Yeah, I heard that one.
	Possible, but I don't know.
	Awesome, but not in the sense that it's like a good thing.
	Just it inspires awe in my brain.
	What?
	Why?
	What's the anyway?
	How did he die?
	He was like an episode.
	I mean, he just died in his bed on a vacation.
	Yeah.
	And then like conspiracy, there's a conspiracy that he was killed.
	So who was in?
	Who was in at the time?
	Was it Obama?
	Yeah, it was like at the end of Obama's second term.
	They wanted to get a liberal and they nominated Merrick Garland to replace him.
	And then the Republicans refused to fight.
	And then the Republicans refused to fill the seat, and then that seat became Kavanaugh.
	It was Kavanaugh?
	I thought it was Gorsuch.
	No?
	No, it was Kavanaugh first.
	It was Kavanaugh?
	I'm pretty sure.
	I think.
	No, you're right.
	It was Gorsuch.
	Gorsuch was the first.
	That's right.
	Yeah, because he was the guy who stole, like, get Garland's pissed at.
	Yeah.
	And Garland went.
	Yeah, and then Kennedy retired, and Kennedy was replaced by Kavanaugh.
	And then Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, and then she was replaced by Amy Cuddy.
	She didn't want to leave.
	Yeah, she made a pretty big mistake.
	Can you believe it?
	If she didn't leave, we might not have gotten the overturning of Roe v.
	Wade.
	Maybe not.
	Yeah.
	That's wild.
	Let's grab some more.
	Scuba Education video says, why doesn't anybody ever bring up that selective service registration is required for men, even for illegal aliens?
	When one does not register, they've broken federal law.
	Indeed.
	Ooh, we should indict them.
	Because I don't know if you followed that.
	That's what they're doing in LA now, right?
	Because LA is a sanctuary state.
	They don't honor ICE detainers.
	But what the LA U.S. attorneys start doing is filing criminal indictments related to illegal presence.
	And while they're not, they have to comply with criminal warrants.
	So that's a way to get around the sanctuary city thing.
	So more crimes that you can charge illegal aliens with are good in terms of defeating sanctuary jurisdictions.
	Whoa, this is crazy.
	What?
	Jay's index says, look, Tim, five years.
	It's more, but my membership was canceled by YouTube and I have to renew three months into it.
	What?
	It says 60 months.
	60 months.
	Bravo, brother.
	Wow.
	I really do appreciate it, man.
	Raymond G. Stanley Jr. says, Harumphi say Iron Heart is not watchable.
	Disagree.
	I don't think it's good.
	I don't think it's bad.
	I think it's just plain watchable.
	What is it?
	The new Disney show was filmed years ago, and it's written really poorly.
	But as somebody who watches superhero shows, I'm actually, I'm interested to see where the story goes.
	It's not bad to where I turn it off.
	Like, what is it?
	I never watched Echo, and I never watched Secret Invasion, because I just turned it on and went, what is this?
	And I just stopped.
	The other Disney?
	Marvel Sony Mac Universe TV shows.
	Ironheart, they kept it pacing quick enough.
	Riri Williams is a young black girl from Chicago.
	She's a genius.
	She goes to MIT.
	She's a scumbag, gangbanger.
	And she starts stealing technology from MIT and selling it on the black market.
	So they expel her.
	So she steals a prototype Iron Man suit she's building.
	They deactivate it mid-flight.
	She crashes, takes the scraps, joins a gang, rebuilds the suit, and then they go around stealing and murdering people.
	So she's a villain?
	She's absolutely a villain.
	They're making stories about villains now as the main characters?
	I mean, ask Ryan Kugler.
	Who's that?
	He's the director.
	He's like, bare behind it.
	So basically, in Black Panther 2, she's recruited as a good guy to help.
	So the story is she develops a vibranium detector, which nobody thought was possible because she's a genius.
	So the Namor and his people, whatever they're called, want to kill her because they're like, her detector is going to find us because we have vibranium.
	And so then they bring her to Wakanda to protect her or whatever.
	But then in Ironheart, she's just selling MIT technology on the black market because she wants money because, you know, she needs it.
	Does it take place before Wakanda?
	Is this like her origin story?
	Okay.
	After.
	And then she steals the suit and it's locked with MIT proprietary operating system.
	So they deactivate her control and she crashes.
	And then she programs her own AI.
	And then she's like, I need money.
	So a criminal gang comes and recruits her.
	And here's the funniest thing about it.
	Here's how the criminal gang steals money.
	Will, you're going to love this.
	Okay.
	The criminal gang has these circuitous plans.
	They've got two people who fight.
	They got a hacker who can check on the security systems.
	So there's this woman, and she's this wealthy magnate who created a tunnel system where cars can move through Chicago much more quickly by going down and zipping through the city.
	And so they're like, here's the plan.
	You go in, fight the security guard, sit down.
	Then hacker goes in, freezes the system.
	Then Riri goes in and puts the virus in, or like that will give the access.
	So take out the security guards.
	Riri goes in, implants a virus to the USB, hacker then takes over the system, the car freezes, and the bad guy, the hood, will then de-invisible himself in the car and force her to sign a contract paying them six-figure salaries.
	I knew the lawyer would love that.
	I went, what?
	That's the payoff?
	Force him to sign the contract.
	And then I was like, then you sign the contract.
	She's like, I'm not paying.
	You're like, I'm going to sue you.
	And then you go to court and the woman's like, I was coerced.
	I didn't sign the contract.
	Or better than that, she signed the documents and she says, I'll need the direct deposit information, which he doesn't give her.
	If he does, she leaves and goes, here's the guy who just robbed me.
	Did you say the mid-hat?
	Adding re-re?
	Yeah.
	R-E-R-E?
	R-I-R-I.
	Okay, because re-re is a slur for, you know, people that are retarded.
	Yes, yes.
	It was a slur from like my childhood.
	And to be honest, you know, re-re.
	So the only, there is a possibility they can recover this.
	Three episodes have come out.
	The next are coming.
	They could recover this.
	The contract could be made to make sense if the contract is actually a deal with Mephisto, a demon in the Marvel universe.
	However, because these ultra-wealthy people didn't address the absurdity of signing a contract, it doesn't really work.
	It would have actually been pretty good writing if he goes, he breaks into this rich guy's house and then they're like, what do you want, money?
	And he goes, I want you to sign this contract.
	And the guy goes, is that a joke?
	He's like, you can never enforce anything like this.
	What do you think you're doing?
	He goes, then if you don't care, sign it.
	And the guy goes, I sign this.
	You'll leave?
	Fine.
	Signs it.
	And then the ink burns.
	That's awesome.
	And then Mephisto, so basically the bad guy has sold his soul to a demon.
	We don't know if it's Mephisto.
	And he's got, he can turn invisible.
	And when he shoots his bullets, they go wherever he wants them to.
	So it's watchable.
	I'm having fun.
	It's just stupid, childish writing.
	It makes no sense.
	I was like, I hope that's the story.
	They're not doing it very well if it is, but I hope that's it.
	Because like, how the, sign a contract.
	Ah, Mephisto's a demon.
	He doesn't care whether you were coerced or not.
	You agreed to sign it.
	And then basically these wealthy people are like, I'm not going to pay you a dime.
	And he goes, I never wanted the money.
	And then Mephisto appears and says, you signed a deal with me.
	And then he basically, you know, does demon stuff.
	But I don't know.
	I think it's watchable.
	It's just, it's just kind of like the writing like that is like dumb, you know?
	And then she double crosses him because she thinks he's going to double cross her.
	And she's just a villain.
	She's just a real villain.
	Punisher was about as evil as you can get as a good guy.
	And I don't think he was evil.
	He's not evil.
	He was just vindictive.
	He wasn't really rude to me.
	Who plays a punishment?
	Juki Burney was evil.
	He was evil.
	But he was a good guy.
	But he was evil.
	I don't know about that.
	He was a killer.
	I don't know if he's evil.
	He's not good.
	Yeah, he's not.
	He's evil.
	We call him an anti-hero for a reason.
	He doesn't hurt innocent people, but he does really, really hurt people.
	He likes to watch people suffer.
	No.
	He just likes it when they die.
	Yeah.
	He just, like, at least the modern versions we've seen over the past couple decades, he just, there's no torture.
	He's just like, bad guy, bang, you're dead.
	He doesn't just, he doesn't want to punish them.
	I think it's the punishment that he enjoys, isn't it?
	All right.
	I should grab one more here.
	What do we got here?
	Trebe says, dude, I want to invite you to Camp David, and I have tried to reach out individually with no response.
	What say you?
	David?
	Sure.
	Presidential retreat.
	Right.
	That civilians don't get to go to?
	Yeah, I was.
	Yeah, I'm like, who has the authority to do that?
	President.
	Are you, is this Trump?
	Trump probably.
	He's just found a way to invite you that didn't use and he's typing real slow with one finger like is Trump the real Hydra look man.
	I'm wondering who that guy is I started coming down doing the show here by sending a super chat.
	Maybe Donald Trump is sending super chats as well.
	To be fair, you've been on the show several times.
	That's true.
	I mean, well, you've you've interviewed Trump, so maybe.
	Okay, you know what I'm saying?
	I interviewed Trump and Netanyahu, probably the most consequential people of our time.
	I don't really interview Netanyahu.
	Oh, you had a discussion?
	You had one.
	It was actually kind of like people arguing with him, and it was funny.
	Like, I've told the story, he basically was like, if Iran gets a nuke, they're going to nuke you next.
	And then I'm not going to say who, but they went, no, they're not.
	And it was to his face.
	And everybody chuckled and started laughing.
	Like, no, there were a couple, nobody agreed, even the pro-Israel people there who were very much like, we want you to stop Iran.
	I would say two-thirds of the people there were like, no, stop.
	Yeah.
	Nobody wanted to entertain it.
	But wait, wait, wait.
	Foreign minister comes and tries to scare people, especially people powerful in the media here.
	They don't really buy it.
	Trebe, DM Ian.
	Trebey, DM Ian?
	What does that mean?
	Trebay is the guy who wants to.
	You want to DM me?
	He wants to invite me to Camp David.
	Oh, yeah.
	I said, reach out to Ian.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Send me a message on Twitter.
	On X. On X, on X, and I'll follow up from there.
	Trey Bay.
	Thanks, dog.
	And yeah, that's the easiest way to do it.
	It's really hard for me to have contact with people.
	Like my phone, I don't really have a phone anymore.
	There's a bunch of phones that are used for the company, and when they ring, I don't answer them.
	Weird phenomenon, too, if I respond to people, I usually get a follow-up message, a third message.
	Like they'll say, hi, you're so great.
	I'll be like, if I say thank you, they come back again with more.
	They feel like now we're friends.
	And then I don't respond.
	I feel real bad.
	Like I leave them hanging.
	So sometimes I just don't respond.
	But I got your screen name, Trebe33.
	All right, everybody, smash the like button.
	Share the show with everyone, you know.
	Thanks for hanging out in this Friday night.
	I know it's a summer Friday night and everybody's out partying, but you guys are hanging out with us and it means the world to me and to everybody here.
	So follow me on Axe and Instagram at Timcast.
	Will, do you want to shout anything out?
	Yeah, follow me at Will Chamberlain.
	Follow what the Article 3 Project does, A3PAction.org.
	And the National Conservatism Conference is September 2-4 in Washington, D.C. We'll have a bazillion incredible speakers.
	Last year we had Stephen Miller, Tom Homan, Josh Hawley, a number of those.
	Steve Bannon will be speaking this year.
	He wasn't able to last year because he was in jail.
	This year he's not, and he's a headliner.
	Josh Hawley will be there, and probably a lot more people with more announcements coming up.
	I'd like to see you debate Thomas Massey at some point if you're into it.
	If you guys ever hang out together too, I'll debate him.
	It doesn't have to be a debate either, but just we talk about it.
	Yeah, I mean, we can talk about this stuff.
	I just, you know, I've been pretty hard on Massey, so if he's willing to, I'm willing to.
	Super cool.
	Hey, thanks for coming in.
	Good to see you, bro.
	And I'm at Ian Crossland.
	Follow me at Ian Crossland.
	Check out The Culture War this morning.
	If you didn't see it, with Ashton Forbes, myself, Tim Poole, and Dr. Yu.
	And he, man, we, I think we revolutionized the scientific community.
	It was pretty cool.
	We discovered everything.
	It was wonderful, wonderful.
	It was fun.
	It was fun.
	It was weird stuff.
	It was bizarrely awesome.
	Huge.
	Super cool.
	So check it out at The Culture War.
	I think it's on Rumble and on YouTube.
	Phil Labonte.
	What's up, man?
	I am Phil That Remains on Twix.
	I'm Phil That Remains Official on Instagram.
	The band is all that remains.
	Our new record is called Anti-Fragile.
	You can check it out on YouTube, Apple Music, Amazon Music, Spotify, Pandora, and Deezer.
	Don't forget the left lane is for crime.
	We got clips up throughout the weekend.
	Thanks for hanging out, and we'll be back, Tim Castarel, on Monday.
	But don't forget, one week from now, what day is it?
	Friday.
	No.
	How dare you?
	Friday the 13th.
	I'm just making stuff up.
	One week from now, today.
	Today.
	27th.
	The 27th of the month.
	Coming at you.
	What is one week from today?
	The fourth.
	Yeah, it's the birth of America.
	I just did the maths.
	All right, everybody.
	Thanks for hanging out.

▲