With a series of landmark rulings from the Supreme Court, some which were precedent breaking, almost all in support of the current conservative agenda, is the Supreme Court Broken?
Are nine unelected justices, three of which were hand picked by probably the most controversial president in American history dictating the direction of a government that is supposed to be a Republic of the people?
That’s what we’ll be discussing on today’s episode of Insights Into Tomorrow
Show Notes
[INTRO THEME]
[INTRODUCTIONS] (3-5 minutes)
Show introduction:
Insights Into Tomorrow Episode 21: “Is the Supreme Court Broken?”
Host introductions
My co-host (Sam Whalen) [SUMMARY] With a series of landmark rulings from the Supreme Court, some which were precedent breaking, almost all in support of the current conservative agenda, is the Supreme Court Broken?
Are nine unelected justices, three of which were hand picked by probably the most controversial president in American history dictating the direction of a government that is supposed to be a Republic of the people?
That’s what we’ll be discussing on today’s episode of Insights Into Tomorrow
But first I’d like to invite our listening and viewing audience to subscribe to the podcast. Show Plugs
Subscriptions:
Apple Podcasts
Spotify
Google Podcasts
Stitcher
iHeart Radio
Tunein
Amazon
Pandora Contact Info
Email us at:
Comments@insightsintothings.com
Twitter:
@insights_things
Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/InsightsIntoThingsPodcast/
Instagram:
@insightsintothings
Links to all these on the web
Web:https://www.insightsintothings.com [TRANSITION] [SEGMENT 1 – Introduction (10-15 minutes)] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/06/07/us/major-supreme-court-cases-2023.html
https://bit.ly/3KjtOVt
The recent Supreme Court term concluded with a series of 6-to-3 decisions divided along partisan lines, with the court’s six Republican appointees in the majority.
Those rulings, on affirmative action, student loans and gay rights, were reminiscent of the transformative conservative decisions issued last June on abortion, guns, religion and climate change. Is the Supreme Court in crisis, and if so, how can it be fixed?
Complaints about the Supreme Court have cropped up throughout American history, but they have taken on a renewed urgency since President Biden’s inauguration.
In the past, some of these criticisms have come from the left, as when President Franklin D. Roosevelt threatened to “pack the courts” to protect New Deal legislation.
Others emerged from the right, like the anger aimed at the “activist bench” that decided Roe v. Wade in 1973.
More recently, Democrats, stung by the Republican Senate majority’s refusal to hold hearings on President Barack Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland in 2016 and its replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Amy Coney Barrett just weeks before the 2020 presidential election, have reinvigorated calls for reform. Is there a problem with the nation’s highest court?
The appointment process has become more politicized than ever, leading to dogmatic justices and a Court whose legitimacy among the public could be in danger.
In the past it had not been the case that the public could look at these nine people and see them projecting the ideological preferences of the political party that brought them to the bench
After Brown v. Board of Education, a case could be made that something changed in the American psyche.
The idea that the Court had “final interpretive authority” had been solidified in the public mind and “the perceived power of the Supreme Court in popular political culture vastly expanded.”
This “shifted the debate to how to interpret the Constitution,” which created an even bigger incentive for presidents to vet and select judicial candidates who would faithfully execute their agenda.
Thus leaders began to choose nominees who were young enough to influence decision-making for decades after that president had left office.
One effect we have today are judicial amendments to the Constitution with no ready means to overturn them
Short of congress actually cooperating to add new amendments to the constitution that the justices would have to consider of course Let’s take a quick break
When we come back we’ll take a look at some of the more impactful decisions made in the most recent term of the court [SEGMENT 2: Discussion point one (10-15 minutes) Supreme Court guts affirmative action, effectively ending race-conscious admissions
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/29/1181138066/affirmative-action-supreme-court-decision
https://bit.ly/3KlygTD In a historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday effectively ended race-conscious admission programs at colleges and universities across the country.
In a decision divided along ideological lines, the six-justice conservative supermajority invalidated admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina.
The decision reverses decades of precedent upheld over the years by narrow Supreme Court majorities that included Republican-appointed justices.
It ends the ability of colleges and universities — public and private — to do what most say they still need to do: consider race as one of many factors in deciding which of the qualified applicants is to be admitted. Majority opinion
“Many universities have for too long…concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin, Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.” As he has done before, Justice Thomas, the second black justice appointed to the court, reiterated his long-held view that affirmative action imposes a stigma on minorities.
“While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I hold our enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles that … all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law.” Roberts, for his part, pointed to the court’s 2003 decision reaffirming the constitutionality of affirmative action programs, noting that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the court at the time, had suggested that there would have to be an end at some future point.
That time has now come, Roberts said. Opposing view
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent stated
“The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society,”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court’s first Black female justice, also chimed in, saying:
“With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.” What’s the broader impact
This recent decision is likely to cause ripples throughout the country, and not just in higher education, but in selective primary and secondary schools
Ultimately, effects will be felt in every aspect of the nation’s economic, educational, and social life
From the Rooney rule that requires a minority applicant be considered in all NFL coach hiring decisions
To employment and promotion decisions, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs in schools and workplaces, and much more. Discussion [SEGMENT 3: Discussion Point Two(10-15 minutes) Rejection of Student Loan Forgiveness Plan
https://apnews.com/article/student-loan-forgiveness-supreme-court-653c2e9c085863bdbf81f125f87669fa
https://bit.ly/47a14YO The Supreme Court effectively killed President Joe Biden’s $400 billion plan to cancel or reduce federal student loan debts for millions of Americans.
The 6-3 decision, with conservative justices in the majority, said the Biden administration overstepped its authority with the plan, and it left borrowers on the hook for repayments that are expected to resume in the fall. The court held that the administration needed Congress’ endorsement before undertaking so costly a program.
The majority rejected arguments that a bipartisan 2003 law dealing with national emergencies, known as the HEROES Act, gave Biden the power he claimed. The president said he would work toward a new path for student debt relief, using the Higher Education Act, which he called “the best path that remains to provide as many borrowers as possible with debt relief.”
He also moved to create an “on ramp” that would help ease the risk of default for students who fail to make payments when the current pause ends. Biden blamed Republican officials for causing the dispute that led to Friday’s ruling.
They “had no problem with billions in pandemic-related loans to businesses. … And those loans were forgiven,” Biden said. “But when it came to providing relief to millions of hard-working Americans, they did everything in their power to stop it.” Loan repayments will resume in October, although interest will begin accruing in September, the Education Department has announced.
Payments have been on hold since the start of the coronavirus pandemic more than three years ago. The forgiveness program would have canceled $10,000 in student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 or households with less than $250,000 in income.
Twenty-six million people had applied for relief and 43 million would have been eligible, the administration said.
The cost was estimated at $400 billion over 30 years. Discussion [SEGMENT 4: Discussion point three (10-15 minutes) Religion, Free Speech and Gay Rights
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/06/30/us/gay-rights-free-speech-supreme-court#supreme-court-same-sex-marriage
https://bit.ly/3rP3zzF The 6-3 decision, which turned on the court’s interpretation of the First Amendment, appeared to suggest that the rights of L.G.B.T.Q. people are on more vulnerable legal footing, particularly when they are at odds with claims of religious freedom.
The ruling was the court’s latest in favor of religious people and groups, notably conservative Christians.
The Supreme Court sided on Friday with a web designer in Colorado who said she had a First Amendment right to refuse to design wedding websites for same-sex couples despite a state law that forbids discrimination against gay people. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the majority in a 6-3 vote, said that the First Amendment protected the designer, Lorie Smith, from being compelled to express views she opposed.
“A hundred years ago, Ms. Smith might have furnished her services using pen and paper,” he wrote. “Those services are no less protected speech today because they are conveyed with a ‘voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.’” The case, though framed as a clash between free speech and gay rights, was the latest in a series of decisions in favor of religious people and groups, notably conservative Christians.
At the same time, the ruling limited the ability of governments to enforce anti-discrimination laws. The justices split along ideological lines, and the two sides appeared to talk past each other.
The majority saw the decision as a victory that safeguarded the First Amendment right of artists to express themselves.
The liberal justices viewed it as something else entirely — a dispute that threatened societal protections for gay rights and rolled back some recent progress.
This also comes at a time when transgender people are facing increased discrimination at the local and national level, with the American Civil Liberties Union stating that there are currently 492 bills in the works around the country that would directly harm transgender individuals.
https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights
https://bit.ly/3YkF3Tm In an impassioned dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the outcome signaled a return to a time when people of color and other minority groups faced open discrimination.
It was the second time this week that the justice summarized her dissent from the bench, a rare move that signals deep disagreement.
Appearing dismayed, Justice Sotomayor spoke for more than 20 minutes.
“This case cannot be understood outside of the context in which it arises.
In that context, the outcome is even more distressing,”
“The L.G.B.T. rights movement has made historic strides, and I am proud of the role this court recently played in that history.
Today, however, we are taking steps backward.” A Colorado law forbids discrimination against gay people by businesses open to the public as well as statements announcing such discrimination.
Ms. Smith, who has said that her Christian faith requires her to turn away same-sex couples seeking website design services, has not yet begun her wedding business.
Nor has she posted a proposed statement on her current website about her policy and beliefs for fear, she has said, of running afoul of the law.
So she sued to challenge it, saying it violated her rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. Discussion [OUTRO AND CREDITS] Show Plugs
Subscriptions:
Apple Podcasts
Spotify
Google Podcasts
Stitcher
iHeart Radio
Tunein
Amazon
Pandora Contact Info
Email us at:
Comments@insightsintothings.com
Twitter:
@insights_things
Twitch (Twitch Prime/Amazon Prime)
http://www.twitch.tv/insightsintothings
Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/InsightsIntoThingsPodcast/
Instagram:
@insightsintothings
Links to all these on the web
Web:https://www.insightsintothings.com
Transcription
00:00:03:18 – 00:01:01:22
Michelle
Insightful podcasts by informative host insights into Things, a podcast network. Welcome to Insights into Tomorrow, where we take a deeper look into how the issues of today will impact the world of tomorrow. From politics and world news to media and technology, we discuss how today’s headlines are becoming tomorrow’s reality. 00:01:01:24 – 00:01:12:27
Joseph
Welcome to Insights into Tomorrow. Episode 21 Is the Supreme Court broken? I’m your host, Joseph Whalen, and my co-host, Sam Whalen. 00:01:13:05 – 00:01:14:12
Sam
Everybody, how’s it going? 00:01:14:15 – 00:01:15:12
Joseph
You know, on the day Sam. 00:01:15:16 – 00:01:20:12
Sam
Doing okay and I’m excited we’re getting back in the flow. This is what, like our third episode in a couple months? 00:01:20:12 – 00:01:21:19
Joseph
Something like that? Yeah. 00:01:21:21 – 00:01:22:23
Sam
Back on the rule. 00:01:22:25 – 00:01:50:21
Joseph
Yeah, Well, at least now when we do plugs on our other shows, I don’t have Madison saying, Well, the Your Point monthly podcast. You guys don’t do monthly anymore without at least now we’re getting back into the flow. Exactly. So today we’re going to be talking about whether or not the Supreme Court is broken with a series of landmark rulings from the Supreme Court, some of which were precedent breaking almost all in support of the current conservative agenda. 00:01:50:21 – 00:02:21:29
Joseph
Is the Supreme Court broken? Are nine unelected justices, three of which were handpicked by probably the most controversial president in American history, dictating the direction of a government that is supposed to be a republic of the people. Well, that’s what we’re going to be discussing today on this episode of Insights into Tomorrow. But before we do that, I would like to take a moment to invite our listening and viewing audience to subscribe to the podcast. 00:02:22:01 – 00:02:43:27
Joseph
You can find audio versions of this podcast listed as insight insights into tomorrow. You can find video versions and audio versions of all the network’s podcasts listed as Insights into Things, and we’re available on Pandora, iHeartRadio, Stitcher, Spotify. Any place you can get a podcast these days. 00:02:43:28 – 00:02:47:12
Sam
Rest in Peace. Stitcher. Third. They’re shutting down all. 00:02:47:14 – 00:02:51:12
Joseph
That and I got to take those off. Listen. Yeah. Wow. They’ve been around a long time too. 00:02:51:13 – 00:02:56:18
Sam
I used to use Stitcher and then they changed their interface and it was terrible. And then I stopped using Stitcher and I think a lot of other people do. 00:02:56:19 – 00:03:18:28
Joseph
Well, apparently a lot of you did, too. You can also email us or reach out to us. Our email is comments and insights into things that come. We are on Twitter at insights underscore things or you can get links to all those and more on our official website at WW w dot insights into things dot com. Are we ready? 00:03:18:28 – 00:03:19:06
Joseph
Let’s get. 00:03:19:06 – 00:03:19:16
Sam
Into it. 00:03:19:17 – 00:03:26:04
Joseph
Here we go. 00:03:26:06 – 00:03:58:17
Joseph
So our first topic comes from New York Times and they tell us that the recent Supreme Court term concluded with a series of 6 to 3 decisions divided along partizan lines with the court’s six Republican appointees in the majority. Those rulings on affirmative action, student loans and gay rights were reminiscent of the transformative conservative decisions issued last June on abortion, guns, religion and climate change. 00:03:58:19 – 00:04:24:24
Joseph
Is the Supreme Court in crisis? And if so, how can it be fixed? Complaints by the Supreme Court have cropped up throughout American history, but they’ve taken on renewed urgency since President Biden’s inauguration. In the past, some of these criticisms have come from the left, such as when Franklin Roosevelt threatened to, quote, hack the courts to protect New Deal legislation. 00:04:24:26 – 00:05:00:06
Joseph
Others emerged from the right, like anger aimed at the activist bench that decided Roe versus Wade in 1973. But more recently, Democrats stung by the Republican Senate majority’s refusal to hold hearings on President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, in 2016 and its replacement of Ruth Gaiter. Biden’s Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Amy Coney Barrett just weeks before the 2020 presidential election have reinvigorated calls for reform. 00:05:00:09 – 00:05:23:13
Sam
So is there a problem? Is there a problem with the nation’s highest court? The appointment process has become more politicized than ever. Like most things in this country leading to dogmatic justices and a court whose legitimacy among the public could be in danger. In the past, it had not been the case that the public could look at these nine people and see them projecting the ideological preferences of the political party that brought them to the bench. 00:05:23:15 – 00:05:50:29
Sam
After Brown versus Board of Education, a case could be made that something changed in the American psyche. The idea that the court had, quote, final interpretive authority had been solidified in the public mind and the perceived power of the Supreme Court in popular political culture vastly expanded. This shifted the debate to how the how to interpret the Constitution, which created an even bigger incentive for presidents to vet and select judicial candidates who would faithfully execute their agenda. 00:05:51:01 – 00:06:13:18
Sam
So because of that, leaders began to choose nominees who were young enough to make and to influence decision making for decades after that president had left office. So you’re seeing, you know, appoint a judge. But even after they’ve left the office, we’re still seeing the ramifications of that appointment years after the fact. One effect we have today are judicial amendments to the Constitution, which with no ready means to overturn them. 00:06:13:20 – 00:06:32:23
Sam
And, of course, short of Congress actually cooperating to add new amendments to the Constitution that the justices would have to consider, of course. So, you know, we’re looking at what all this means, right? These judges have a ton of power. And, you know, with this 63 Republican majority, how is that affecting a lot of these decisions? 00:06:32:25 – 00:07:13:10
Joseph
Yeah. And without going into a civics lesson here, the purpose of a three part government with an executive, a judicial and a legislative legislative branch was to have separation of power. Mm hmm. And at no point in time when that form of government was created was the intent to have Congress actually writing laws. So the problem that we run into now is that because Congress can literally interpret what the Constitution says, they can tell you now what those laws are. 00:07:13:10 – 00:07:41:02
Joseph
So even if a law says one thing, the Supreme Court can come in and rule against how it’s actually written. And I’ll give you an example. One of the things that you hear a lot about in the news is your Second Amendment right to bear arms. Well, one of the things that a lot of people who talk about this subject failed to mention is that in the Constitution, it says it’s the right to bear arms, is tied directly to militia. 00:07:41:03 – 00:08:08:26
Joseph
Mm hmm. And the Supreme Court simply interpreted that as to not be the case anymore. And they they decided that everyone should be able to bear arms, whether you’re with a militia. Now, if you look at the history of militias, militias, local militias, whichever one remembers the Minutemen and all that stuff that were the militia, they were evolved through legislative processes into what is today the modern National Guard. 00:08:08:29 – 00:08:28:14
Joseph
So when we say militia today, that equivalent is National Guard. Now, you can make a case that says only the National Guard who are citizen soldiers should have the right to bear arms. And it would make sense. But the court didn’t interpret it that way. And court says everyone should have the ability to bear arms. 00:08:28:15 – 00:08:29:17
Sam
Right. 00:08:29:20 – 00:08:55:23
Joseph
We’re seeing this now. And one of the things that we’re seeing now is that the decisions that are being made are being made along partizan lines. And the entire concept of the Supreme Court is that they’re supposed to be impartial, they’re appointed, they’re not elected, and they can be appointed by either party of which parties themselves technically are unconstitutional. 00:08:55:23 – 00:09:14:24
Joseph
Since there’s no concept of political parties in the Constitution that you can make an argument for right there. But the problem that we’re running into now is you’ve got people that are on the court that are not necessarily making impartial decisions from what people are saying. What are your thoughts on that? 00:09:14:27 – 00:09:28:03
Sam
Yeah, I mean, it’s been you know, it’s been kind of tough to watch, honestly, you know, especially when you think about how you would like things to work in a were not necessarily a straight up democracy or a republic or a democratic republic. Right. 00:09:28:06 – 00:09:30:28
Joseph
The Republic of Federal Republic. Yeah. 00:09:31:00 – 00:09:55:21
Sam
But in a certain extent, you would want the will of the people to be reflected by the people that are leading us. And I don’t really think that’s the case necessarily, especially when we are going to look at a lot of these rulings today. A lot of people don’t agree with these rulings, but there really is nothing we can do about it because they’re the Supreme Court and they hold all the power when it comes to these things, and especially when you’ve got the conservative majority, obviously, a conservative agenda is going to be more pushed, you know, on the other side of things. 00:09:55:21 – 00:09:58:18
Sam
And, you know, there’s just no getting around that. 00:09:58:20 – 00:10:21:06
Joseph
Well, on the one point the article makes is that the only thing that Congress can do to take back the power that the people elected into them would be to come up with amendments to the Constitution. So the Supreme Court would then have to consider these amendments. Of course, they could rule any way they wanted on those amendments. 00:10:21:09 – 00:10:42:26
Joseph
But the problem you’re running through now is that the political environment is so contested, the there’s no way you’re going to get both Republicans and Democrats to agree enough to get any kind of amendment passed. And to be honest with you, with the politicians we have today. I think the last thing this country needs is, is people starting to write amendments to the Constitution. 00:10:42:28 – 00:10:43:09
Joseph
Yeah, it’s a. 00:10:43:09 – 00:10:43:20
Sam
Slippery. 00:10:43:20 – 00:10:50:02
Joseph
Slope. So how do we get that power back in the hands of the people? 00:10:50:04 – 00:11:10:07
Sam
Oh, you’re asking me? I have no idea. I, I mean, I legitimately have no idea, because, like, we talked about the, you know, these folks aren’t elected or appointed, so I guess it would be voting for the, you know, the political candidates that you think would appoint the judges you want. But even then, there’s no guarantee that’s going to happen. 00:11:10:09 – 00:11:21:13
Sam
I don’t know if there is a legal way to do like contested. I don’t think there is right at the Supreme Court. I mean, you always go to that higher power. The highest power for law is the Supreme Court. So maybe at the state. 00:11:21:13 – 00:11:52:14
Joseph
Level, theoretically, the only thing that really could be done would be what the Republicans were concerned the Biden administration was going to do, and that is pack the courts. So there’s nothing constitutionally that says the court is limited to nine justices. We’ve had more in the past so the president could call for the expansion of the Supreme Court, add, say, three additional people to the Supreme Court, appoint three Democrats. 00:11:52:15 – 00:12:13:07
Joseph
You’d have six in six, six and six at that point in time and try to bring some balance back, though that’s feasible and that’s something that’s well within his power. But the the the punishment, the attacks that he would get for packing the court like that from the Republicans, he’ll be impeached within a week once he even mentions that. 00:12:13:13 – 00:12:17:01
Sam
But wouldn’t you want it to be balanced? Is that not like when you want enough? 00:12:17:01 – 00:12:19:20
Joseph
I would as a citizen, I would vote against. 00:12:19:20 – 00:12:20:09
Sam
If you was. 00:12:20:10 – 00:12:42:05
Joseph
As a Republican, you don’t when you have the power. Yeah, because, you know, I mean, if you look at history, whenever government power has been balanced where the executive is one party and the legislature is another party, nothing gets done, nothing gets done. And really, that’s the that’s really the the best scenario that we have at this point in time is gridlock. 00:12:42:07 – 00:12:47:20
Joseph
Because if if neither side can get anything done, they can’t screw things up any more than they already have. 00:12:47:22 – 00:12:51:09
Sam
Or further assert their own agenda and get more power for themselves. 00:12:51:17 – 00:13:35:03
Joseph
That’s it. And the problem that you have right now is that when you can appoint members to the Supreme Court, that will carry out your agenda and not be impartial, that’s that’s that is packing. The Court really. And they did exactly that under Trump where they would not they rushed through the last appointment after Ginsburg died. Yep. And had she held out and I don’t mean to make light of this, but had she held out because I think she was in a state of coma at the time and they had just kept her on life support, they couldn’t have filled that seat until after the election and you would have had a more balanced. 00:13:35:03 – 00:14:22:17
Joseph
Well, it still would have been imbalanced, but you would have had a more balanced court at that time. Now, I think the problem we have is the process by which justices are appointed is now ripe with corruption, and it has become a political process. And I think that the integrity of the Supreme Court has deteriorated to the point that you’ve got Supreme Court justices now that are under investigation for corruption themselves, where you’ve got Thomas, Clarence Thomas, Clarence Thomas, who’s under investigation for taking undeclared presents or undeclared gifts, basically bribes, Right. 00:14:22:19 – 00:14:42:15
Joseph
From a very prominent, very well known Republican supporter that he was supposed to declare and didn’t. And when you’ve got that kind of suspicion on your Supreme Court, it’s really hard to take them seriously as being a Supreme Court at that point. 00:14:42:19 – 00:15:00:09
Sam
Because ideally, at the end of the day, we all know politicians are corrupt. Right. I mean, everybody knows that. Like but ideally, you would want the last line of defense to be the Supreme Court, to be impartial, to be the like the one thing you can count on to to kind of right the ship. But that is not the case anymore. 00:15:00:09 – 00:15:02:02
Sam
And maybe it hasn’t been for a while. 00:15:02:05 – 00:15:24:02
Joseph
No, you’re absolutely right. And I think that’s the problem we’re at. That’s a situation we’re in now where they were always a sanity check. They were always the ones that came in impartially, Not always. I mean, there was partiality in there for years, but they were the the element of government that would come in that were the babysitters that would, you know, push the two sides upon and say, all right, let’s look at this. 00:15:24:02 – 00:15:33:03
Joseph
Let’s look at what’s what’s legally precedent. Let’s look at what’s best for the country and let’s do the right thing. And you’re just not getting that referee from them now. 00:15:33:04 – 00:15:34:21
Sam
Now. 00:15:34:24 – 00:16:19:27
Joseph
So I think we’re going to take our first break. And when we come back, we’re going to take a look at some of the more impactful decisions from the most recent term of the court. We’ll be right back. For over seven years, the second Sith Empire has been the premiere community guild in the online game star Wars, the Old Republic with hundreds of friendly and helpful active members, a weekly schedule of nightly events, annual guild meet greets and an active community, both on the Web and on Discord. 00:16:19:29 – 00:16:55:19
Joseph
The second season of Empire is more than your typical gaming group. We’re family. Join us on the Star Forge server for nightly events such as Operations, Flashpoints, World Boss Funds, Star Wars, Trivia Guild, Lottery and much more. Visit us on the web today at WW W the second surf and empire dot com. 00:16:55:22 – 00:17:27:00
Sam
Welcome back everyone insights into tomorrow. Today we were discussing the Supreme Court and some of their recent decisions. So the first thing we’re going to cover is the ruling on affirmative action. The Supreme Court effectively gutted affirmative action, ending race conscious admissions in a historic decision. The US Supreme Court recently, like we just said, ended race conscious admission programs in colleges and universities across the country and a decision divided along ideological lines. 00:17:27:02 – 00:17:59:08
Sam
The six conservative justices supermajority and scored maybe not in practice, but at the court invalidated admission programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The decision reverses decades of precedent upheld over the years by narrow Supreme Court majorities that included Republican appointed justices. It also ends the ability of colleges and universities, public and private, to do what most say they still need to do, and that’s consider race as one of the many factors in deciding which of the qualified applicants is to be admitted. 00:17:59:11 – 00:18:19:08
Sam
So that’s the first thing we’re covering. And this is a pretty big deal, especially for those that are affected by it. And it was really that public and private thing that I really latched on to, that it’s everywhere. You know, you think of the big schools like it mentions Harvard and North Carolina, but this is going to affect a lot more than just them. 00:18:19:10 – 00:18:52:02
Joseph
Yeah. And there’s you know, with all things there’s two sides to every story here. And really what we’re looking at here is the you’ve got one side that basically says that you can’t buy by bringing race in and giving preferential treatment to one race over another is discrimination. So you can’t do that when the point of doing that was because discrimination existed already. 00:18:52:03 – 00:19:20:18
Joseph
Right. And you were getting preferential treatment to one race over another. So they legislatively forced you to, if not change that practice, then to at least adhere to certain percentages, certain quotas that you had to have. And the problem that you run into here is that you’re saying, okay, let’s do away with discrimination administration. Well, in a perfect world that works, you can do that. 00:19:20:22 – 00:19:33:29
Joseph
But we don’t live in a perfect world because when you do away with administrative discrimination, you still have endemic societal, societal discriminate discrimination that’s going to take over in that place. 00:19:33:29 – 00:19:55:12
Sam
And that’s kind of the thing that when people argue that they argue the first point that you said of, oh, well, it’s discriminatory to have affirmative action, but then people forget that, like racism exists. Like, that’s why it had to be like forced in the first place is because if we make it laissez faire, it doesn’t work, it’s not equal, and it needs to be mandated to make it. 00:19:55:15 – 00:20:02:21
Sam
Well, I guess it wouldn’t. It’s not equal, you know what I mean? To give those people the opportunity that they otherwise probably would not be afforded and now will not be afforded. 00:20:02:26 – 00:20:36:28
Joseph
Well, and I think that was what the original point of of this legislation was. It was to force you to make it even. But in trying to get to that point, you simply instituted a different form of discrimination. So you’re treating the symptom, not the problem. The problem really is the discrimination. And until you can until a human being can evolve to the point that they don’t discriminate, you’re not going to you’re not going to have that happy balance. 00:20:36:28 – 00:21:04:13
Joseph
And that’s kind of what the majority of of of argued the the 63 majority conservative majority in the court argue, quote, Many universities have for too long concluded wrongly that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges best it skills built or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice. 00:21:04:14 – 00:21:34:09
Joseph
Now I take exception to that one to begin with there, because our Constitution declares that all men are created equal. And when it was written, they knew all men weren’t created equal, because also in the Constitution, 3/5 every African-American who was in the country was kind of is 3/5 of a person. So the hypocrisy in the Constitution itself tells me that we don’t have a constitutional history that says this is in dollar. 00:21:34:15 – 00:22:18:03
Joseph
Yeah. As he has done before, Justice Thomas, the second black justice appointed to the court, reiterated his long held view that affirmative action imposes a stigma on minorities. Not this I think he has a point with. I don’t think the way he puts it here is has a point as his quote. While I’m painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I hold our enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles, that all men are created equal, all equal citizens, and all must be treated treated equally before the law. 00:22:18:04 – 00:22:36:16
Joseph
Now, I think he’s smart enough to know that that’s not how the world is right now. That’s the fact that he makes a statement like this is naive and it’s it’s insulting, really, because it makes it puts. 00:22:36:16 – 00:22:55:12
Sam
The ball in our court of like, hey, man, we got rid of it. You guys got to be better, right? It’s like, no, you are. The Supreme Court exists to do that. It is your job and more support than like every citizen to uphold these values and to to, you know, fight for this kind of equality that you’re talking about here. 00:22:55:12 – 00:23:02:09
Sam
But you’re not doing that. You’re doing the opposite of that. And then you’re basically washing your hands of it and saying, well, hey, we live in a society, you know what I mean? 00:23:02:10 – 00:23:36:12
Joseph
Like right now, too, Thomas, is point. I can understand the rationale that by holding African-Americans to a lower standard, that you’re imposing a stigma on them and really, if it was me, I would be insulted. So so really what we’re talking about here is if you have two people who are one white, one black, they both apply for school. 00:23:36:14 – 00:24:06:29
Joseph
You have to take under normal circumstances, you would take the person who is the most qualified and they would be that qualification would be equally measured. But instead, what we’re talking about here is somebody who may need a 3.53. average if they were Caucasian to get in. An African-American may only need a 3.25. And Thomas’s point is, by holding them to that lower standard, you’re basically telling them that they’re not good enough. 00:24:06:29 – 00:24:33:05
Joseph
So there’s a there’s a logic to it. But the way that he uses that logic is so distorted and so tone deaf to the spirit of this legislation. Because what’s happening is in reality, you’re saying in reality is saying if the Caucasian has a 3.5 and the African-American has a 3.5, we’re going to let the Caucasian guy in because he’s not black. 00:24:33:08 – 00:25:01:16
Joseph
And that’s what reality is. Yeah. And Thomas fails to address that with with his stigma argument. So Chief Justice Roberts goes on and for his part, pointed out the court’s 23 decision reaffirming the constitutionality of affirmative action programs, noting that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the court at the time, had suggested that there would have to be an end at some point in the future. 00:25:01:18 – 00:25:07:24
Joseph
And Roberts declares that time is now. And I think the problem is it has it human beings. 00:25:07:24 – 00:25:08:29
Sam
It’s only gotten worse. 00:25:09:01 – 00:25:50:01
Joseph
Not even human beings. Americans have not gotten to the point that they are mature enough to to assume, to understand that all men are created equal. You with the amount of legislation that’s happening today that is discriminatory, that is holding African-Americans down, that’s holding Asian-Americans down, that the hatred that is an up swelling of of people’s medical force in this country today is a clear indicator that not only are we not ready, we’re not moving in the right direction, we’re sliding backwards from where we need to be. 00:25:50:05 – 00:26:05:01
Sam
Yeah, And I think that’s going to be something we say a lot on this episode. It feels like we’re regressing. Yeah. And I think it’s it is absurd to assume that the time is now. When now is when we need to do an affirmative action. If anything, we might need to go the other way with it to make it more affirmative. 00:26:05:01 – 00:26:30:23
Sam
Right. Because things are seem to be only getting worse. And that’s going to be a common theme here. We also have the opposing view, and this is from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She said that the court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society that justice could. 00:26:30:26 – 00:26:31:24
Joseph
Sanjeev Gupta. 00:26:31:29 – 00:26:53:07
Sam
Cattani, Brown Jackson, the court’s first black female justice, also chimed in, saying with Let them eat cake obliviousness. Today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces colorblindness for all by legal philosophy. When you’re quoting Supreme Court Justice, they’re much smarter than I am. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life, which is exactly what we just talked about. 00:26:53:10 – 00:27:03:28
Sam
Just because you say it’s that idea of like a post-racial America, right? Like we Well, we elected Obama. Racism is over. It’s like, no, it’s not right. And that is clearly being reflected here as well. 00:27:03:28 – 00:27:34:09
Joseph
Yeah. No. And I and the problem that we run into here is that what the majority are arguing here is they’re arguing the point of a fiction that in a perfect world we shouldn’t need this legislation. And the right in a perfect world, we should the world we live in is far from perfect. Yeah. And this happened to be a stopgap measure to make things better. 00:27:34:11 – 00:27:56:05
Joseph
Nothing else has happened in this world to make that situation better. If if anything, that situation has gotten worse. So by taking away some of the safeties that you had in place to try to provide legal protections for people, you’re doing your part. You’re you’re being part of the problem, not part of the solution. At that point. Yeah. 00:27:56:07 – 00:28:03:18
Sam
Like why did they do this just to have a ruling? What was the motivation behind it? I don’t even like. 00:28:03:19 – 00:28:08:07
Joseph
Well, the motivation is what can serve what motivates conservatives to want to do things like this? 00:28:08:08 – 00:28:10:21
Sam
Yeah, I guess just further the agenda, right, right there. 00:28:10:21 – 00:28:26:14
Joseph
They’re pushing an agenda which they shouldn’t be pushing an agenda They should be looking at each and every case on a standalone basis and making educated, objective decisions. They should not be influenced by party politics. And that’s exactly what’s happening. 00:28:26:21 – 00:28:39:23
Sam
Yeah. I wonder if it would be if we’d have as harsh criticism if it was the other side. Right. But I also think the what liberal agenda, the Democratic agenda is not as aggressive as the conservative agenda and not as. 00:28:39:26 – 00:28:42:16
Joseph
Which by its definition doesn’t make sense. 00:28:42:17 – 00:28:42:27
Sam
Right. 00:28:43:05 – 00:28:46:06
Joseph
That your conservatives are they’re more aggressive. 00:28:46:08 – 00:28:49:25
Sam
And that they you’re supposed to not like big government. Right. 00:28:49:26 – 00:28:50:14
Joseph
Exactly. 00:28:50:14 – 00:28:53:04
Sam
And this is the opposite of that. This is the biggest government. 00:28:53:04 – 00:29:06:10
Joseph
Well, you could argue you could argue that this is a limitation of government because it’s government making impositions over the schools. And they’re saying, well, government shouldn’t do that anymore. The schools need to regulate themselves. 00:29:06:12 – 00:29:13:07
Sam
I just I’m more also meant the six three majority basically being able to do whatever it wants without being like stopped. 00:29:13:14 – 00:29:15:06
Joseph
Yeah, no, I agree. I agree. But I. 00:29:15:06 – 00:29:15:22
Sam
Think I see what you. 00:29:15:22 – 00:29:39:12
Joseph
Mean. The motivation that they have at this point in time is, you know, we’re a progressive Supreme Court now. We’re going to we’re going to do things right. The way that we see it, we’re going to make the changes that should have been made years ago, and they’re going to undo what’s being undone. And the there’s a couple of problems with that one. 00:29:39:14 – 00:29:55:05
Joseph
You’re undoing existing precedents. So by every time you undo a precedent like they did in the last session, when they overruled Roe versus Wade, every time you overrule a Supreme Court precedent, you deal legitimize the Supreme Court. 00:29:55:05 – 00:29:55:23
Sam
Now. 00:29:55:25 – 00:29:58:02
Joseph
The whole point of the Supreme Court. 00:29:58:02 – 00:29:58:20
Sam
It’s the word. 00:29:58:20 – 00:30:00:11
Joseph
It’s is it’s supreme, Right? 00:30:00:12 – 00:30:01:13
Sam
Right. Right. 00:30:01:15 – 00:30:08:21
Joseph
So when the Supreme Court can override the Supreme Court, then what the Supreme Court today, who’s overriding that says can be overridden? 00:30:08:21 – 00:30:09:26
Sam
Who watches the watchmen? 00:30:09:26 – 00:30:33:19
Joseph
You know? Right. So they’re delegitimizing the Supreme Court. So that’s probably one of the biggest problems that you run into. The other problem is the things that haven’t been ruled on that really are important stuff that need to be ruled on are being pushed to the side so that they can use this this agenda that they have to rewrite the rules that have already been written. 00:30:33:21 – 00:30:39:06
Joseph
So you’re hurting the country, you know, be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem. 00:30:39:06 – 00:31:02:00
Sam
And, you know, you talk about that correcting itself. So the Supreme Court overriding itself. It’s like it really does. I didn’t even think about that until just now. It really does have a very harmful effect because that that basically could eliminate precedent in general, because absolutely, if they rule on now and then in ten years, there’s different judges and they just are like, no, that’s not good to get rid of that. 00:31:02:00 – 00:31:13:28
Sam
It’s like, well, what was even the point of doing it in the first place? It’s like it’s all temporary until, you know, you have a majority. The other way that comes in and is over, like just does everything the other way. It, it, it does really de-legitimize the whole process. 00:31:13:28 – 00:31:39:27
Joseph
And that’s what we’ve seen with political parties as well. One political party will come in and they’ll be in power for four years, six years, eight years, whatever, you know, they control and legislative and executive, and they’ll push their agenda and the other side of freedom tooth and nail. Then they’ll switch powers and the balance changes. And then the other guys are fighting and nothing gets done, nothing substantial gets done. 00:31:39:27 – 00:32:03:18
Joseph
We don’t get universal health care, we don’t get tax reform. We don’t get any of the things that the country needs because they spend all the time fighting that we expect that from our politicians. We don’t expect that from our Supreme Court. We deserve better from our Supreme Court because these are appointed positions. They don’t have to campaign, they don’t have to get elected. 00:32:03:18 – 00:32:32:07
Joseph
They’re not chosen by the people. They’re handpicked. They’re cherry picked by the president. And it’s for life. And they need to be held. They’re not even held to the same standards, the same moral and ethical standards that lower courts are held to. There’s no ethical board that oversees the Supreme Court. You would think instead of being the exception to the rule, the Supreme Court should be the precedent, the example. 00:32:32:10 – 00:33:01:07
Joseph
They should be the ones that are under the most scrutiny. Their taxes should be looked at on a regular basis. They’re they’re their gifts that they receive, their rulings that they everything should be looked at, their political affiliations, the friends that they take their vacation trips with. All of that stuff should be going over with a fine tooth comb on a constant basis because of the position they’re in and the power that they possess. 00:33:01:08 – 00:33:26:23
Joseph
Yeah, it’s dangerous that it’s not. And it’s dangerous that these people can possess more power than the elected officials in this country. That’s really where the problem is. And it has a broader impact. You know, this recent decision is likely to cause ripples throughout the country and not just in higher education, but in selective primary and secondary schools. 00:33:26:25 – 00:33:54:19
Joseph
Ultimately, effects will be felt in every aspect of the nation’s economic, educational and social life. From the Rooney Rule that requires a minority applicant to be considered in all NFL coaching, hiring decisions to employment and promotion decisions, the diversity, equity and inclusion programs in schools and workplaces, and much more. The Supreme Court literally just said discrimination is legal. 00:33:54:21 – 00:34:02:26
Joseph
Yeah, that’s what this decision says. And that is exceedingly dangerous for this country. 00:34:02:27 – 00:34:19:22
Sam
And I really think it is naive to because you’re like, how do you how are you able to exist, especially as a Supreme Court justice or you’ve been dealing with law your entire life. Surely you’d be able to see that things people are not treated equally. Right. These things, you know, if you let things run themselves, they will not run. 00:34:19:22 – 00:34:40:12
Sam
Well, look like it’s not going to just fix itself. It’s not going to be equal if you let people do it. Because like we talked about at the top of this break, that was affirmative action was put in the first place because it wasn’t equal. So it’s like, do you think that’s going to magically fix itself, especially now when, you know, hate crimes are on the rise and discrimination is worse than it has been in a very long time? 00:34:40:15 – 00:34:45:21
Sam
And, you know, but then again, maybe, you know, maybe that’s all part of the plan. 00:34:45:23 – 00:35:09:01
Joseph
And I’ll be the first one to say, you know, I watched the Senate the the hearings when when Clarence Thomas was up for Supreme Court nominations and the questions that he was asked and how racially biased the people that were question thing him from the other side were, and that was Democrats questioning him at the time. It was brutal. 00:35:09:03 – 00:35:32:20
Joseph
And that was a small fraction of what he’s had to put up with his whole life, because he’s a man who has set precedent his entire life with his career being African American, doing the things he did. You would think going through that and then making the statements that he said on this ruling, they were coming from two completely different people. 00:35:32:21 – 00:35:35:20
Sam
Yeah. Like, how do you get even how do you even believe that when he says it right. 00:35:35:27 – 00:35:43:00
Joseph
It’s astonishing what what he’s saying now and what he’s been through in his life. Yeah. 00:35:43:02 – 00:35:46:09
Sam
So that was point number one. Yeah, We’ve got two more to do. 00:35:46:09 – 00:36:08:29
Joseph
That was that was rough. We’re going to take another quick break. And when we come back, we’re going to talk about something that might be a little closer to you, and that is the student loan forgiveness plan being rejected. We’ll be right back. 00:36:09:01 – 00:36:41:00
Michelle
Insights into entertainment, a podcast series taking a deeper look into entertainment and media. Our husband and wife team of pop culture fanatics are exploring all things from music and movies to television and fandom. We’ll look at the interesting and obscure entertainment news of the week. We’ll talk about theme park and pop culture news. We’ll give you the latest and greatest on pop culture conventions. 00:36:41:03 – 00:37:11:03
Michelle
We’ll give you a deep dive into Disney, Star Wars and much more. Check out our video episodes at YouTube.com. Backslash Insights into things are audio. Episodes at podcast are insights into entertainment dot com. Or check us out on the web at insights into things icon. 00:37:11:05 – 00:37:46:25
Sam
Welcome back everyone to INSIGHT into tomorrow. We are continuing our discussion on the Supreme Court’s recent rulings. So in this segment, we’re going to talk about the rejection of the student loan forgiveness plan. The Supreme Court effectively killed President Joe Biden’s $400 billion plan to cancel or reduce federal student loan debts for millions of Americans. The six three decision we heard that number a lot with conservative justices in the majority said the Biden administration overstepped its authority with the plan and it let borrowers on the hook or left borrowers on the hook for repayments are expected to resume in the fall. 00:37:46:27 – 00:38:02:24
Sam
The court held that the administration needed Congress’s endorsement before undertaking so-called slow program. The majority rejected arguments that a bipartisan 2003 law dealing with national emergencies known as the Heroes Act gave Biden the power he claimed. 00:38:02:26 – 00:38:27:23
Joseph
The president said he would work toward a new path for student debt relief using the Higher Education Act, which he called, quote, the best path that remains to provide as many borrowers as possible with debt relief. He also moved to create a quote on ramp that would help ease the risk of default for students who fail to make payments when the current pause ends. 00:38:27:26 – 00:38:52:24
Joseph
Biden blamed Republican officials again. It’s always the other guy’s fault. Biden blamed Republicans officials for causing the dispute that led to Friday’s ruling, saying, quote, They had no problem with billions in pandemic relief loans to businesses. And those loans were forgiven. But when it came to providing relief for millions of hardworking Americans, they did everything in their power to stop it. 00:38:52:26 – 00:38:55:22
Sam
That’s actually a pretty good quote from Biden. Yeah, we don’t get a lot of those. 00:38:55:23 – 00:38:58:29
Joseph
I’m sure it was written and somebody else wrote it. 00:38:59:02 – 00:39:26:00
Sam
Loan repayments for June and October can’t wait for that. Although interest will begin in September. The interest is where they get you, by the way. The Education Department has announced payments have been on hold since the start of the coronavirus pandemic more than three years ago. Oh my God. Where does the time go? The forgiveness program would have canceled $10,000 in student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 or household with less than $250,000 in income. 00:39:26:03 – 00:39:46:16
Sam
26 million people had applied for relief, including me, and 43 million would have been eligible. Maybe me, the administrator said. The cost was estimated at $400 billion over 30 years. Yeah, this is a heartbreaker. What’s really hoping this will go through? Obviously I’m biased. I Have student loan debt and this this $10,000 would have been a decent chunk of my loans. 00:39:46:22 – 00:40:04:13
Sam
That would have really helped me out. Now I understand. I don’t. I mean, I hear the argument, right? People are saying, well, you know, do you have to work to pay off your loans? But if you go watch and I remember what episode it was, what the episode where we talked about student debt, we talk about the cost of college has gone up astronomically. 00:40:04:15 – 00:40:34:04
Sam
So it’s not as simple as just saying, oh, you have to work harder, All right. Like, and this usually comes from the older, older people or older generation of, you know, telling people my age, well, you just have to work hard. You have to you have to you know, you need to stop buying your avocado toast so you can afford to buy a house one day when it’s really not that simple, especially when interest, like I mentioned, the interest is where they’re going to get you, because as the interest compounds and compounds compounding itself, you know, I’ve heard so many stories of people that have been paying loans for like 30 years and they still 00:40:34:05 – 00:40:36:21
Sam
owe more than when they started because of the interest. 00:40:36:23 – 00:41:03:26
Joseph
Yeah. And I think, again, this is another one of those situations where the proposed solution is treating the symptoms, not the problem. I totally agree that $10,000 off your loan would be really nice, but the problem isn’t how much you borrowed. The problem is how student loans are structured. And in the episode that we are talking about student loan, the the the fact that it’s predatory. 00:41:04:00 – 00:41:28:16
Joseph
Number one, where these these banks are coming after students knowing what the cost of college is and and the potential for getting paid back over time. The banks are willing to wait for it, especially when they know they’re going to take your debt and they’re going to sell it to other companies and make money that way. And then these companies that sell it then get investors to invest in it. 00:41:28:18 – 00:41:51:17
Joseph
And the last thing these investors want you to do is pay your loan off. What they want you to do is keep paying your interest because that’s how they get their money. The problem isn’t necessarily students that borrow money. They go to college. Part of the problem definitely is the cost of college, which has gone up unjustifiably. The other problem is these aren’t traditional loans. 00:41:51:19 – 00:42:07:15
Joseph
These are credit cards, basically. If you went out and you bought a house, say you bought a house, we’ll just use around them or you bought a house for $100,000 and you get 10% interest, which is like credit card interest on a house, by the way. What? We’re just doing it. The economics. 00:42:07:15 – 00:42:08:25
Sam
Are hard. 00:42:08:28 – 00:42:28:12
Joseph
So at the end of 30 years, you would have paid $10,000 in interest on that house, or your house would have cost you $110,000. That’s it. The amount of interest you’re going to pay on that house is calculated the day that you get your loan. And it’s a fixed amount, the amortize it over the course of the loan. 00:42:28:15 – 00:42:50:15
Joseph
And for the first 15 years, the majority of what you pay is going towards interest on that house. So the bank gets their money back. The bank is guaranteed to get their money back after 15 years. The majority of the money is principal on the loan to pay the loan off. By the time you get to the last five years in a loan, you’re paying almost nothing in interest because the interest has already paid back. 00:42:50:18 – 00:43:14:00
Joseph
But it’s a fixed amount. If they structured student loans the same way, rather than charging you compound interest like a credit card, this problem would go away tomorrow. You would take out a $100,000 loan from the bank for your student loans. You’d pay your 10% and the most you’d ever pay is $10,000 on that loan. Under that situation. 00:43:14:03 – 00:43:40:11
Joseph
And the problem of never ending payments doesn’t come into play. The problem of paying $100,000 more than the $100,000 that you pay you your charge for your education goes out the window. That’s what they should be concentrating on. They shouldn’t be concentrating on trying to give you $10,000 towards your loan. That’s not going to solve the problem, because the problem is you owe that money to somebody. 00:43:40:14 – 00:44:07:15
Joseph
So the government is going to give you forgiveness. Well, the government has to pay that somewhere. So where’s the government? The government is not a for profit organization. Right. They also, you know, limited they don’t have eliminated stand somewhere where they’re making money. The money comes from the taxpayer. Right. So their entire income is us. So if you’re not paying your loan, someone’s paying it. 00:44:07:21 – 00:44:30:06
Joseph
And it’s the rest of the American taxpayer. And that’s why it’s very difficult to convince somebody who doesn’t have student debt to pay for somebody who has student debt. What they should be doing is they should be changing the way the student loans are structured. They should be capping the interest payments on their. They should be capping how opportunistic these loans. 00:44:30:06 – 00:44:32:00
Sam
Are and how easy to get. 00:44:32:03 – 00:44:41:13
Joseph
Yes, if you did that, you could solve this problem until then, you’re just you’re shining a turd here trying to make something pretty. 00:44:41:15 – 00:44:55:21
Sam
Now, I will put on my tinfoil hat here. You mentioned that this really isn’t fixing anything, but for people like me that are important for a Democratic president that may be running for reelection soon, this would be a great reason to get a vote for him. Right, If you are. 00:44:55:28 – 00:45:23:03
Joseph
And that’s a good point. So he’s buying your vote. That’s really what this is. The problem is that the demographic that you are the number of participate young voters in that demographic are disproportionately smaller than the number of senior citizen voters, the ones who are going to be on the hook for paying that back. So that logic is valid, but the practice itself doesn’t work because the numbers don’t work out. 00:45:23:05 – 00:45:34:28
Joseph
Yeah, because if you can get more people your age to get out and vote, it would work. But we can’t. You know, the voting percentage of people in your demographic is like 15% or something like that. 00:45:34:28 – 00:45:36:12
Sam
Which guarantee is going to even lower. 00:45:36:14 – 00:45:47:09
Joseph
Right where the demo, the voting percentage of people 65 and older is like 70%. So that doesn’t that’s not going to work out in favor even if he is trying to buy your vote. 00:45:47:10 – 00:45:49:02
Sam
Yeah, you’re not buying enough of the vote. 00:45:49:07 – 00:45:49:27
Joseph
Right. 00:45:50:00 – 00:45:53:19
Sam
He should repay like he should make it like an elder care bill or something. 00:45:53:24 – 00:46:14:05
Joseph
Right. But if you if you fix the problem, I mean, you fixed how student loans were financed. It would work forever because it won’t cost the government anything at that point. You simply write legislation that says how you have to conduct your loans and you then enforce that legislation. And people who don’t abide by that legislation, you impose a fine on them. 00:46:14:07 – 00:46:18:04
Joseph
And the government has another source of income without paying for loans. 00:46:18:06 – 00:46:22:22
Sam
So why do we think there would stopping them from doing this restructuring? And it seems pretty simple. 00:46:22:27 – 00:46:31:15
Joseph
It is, but problem is, you have to get both parties to agree to it and they can’t agree to the color of the sky at this point. 00:46:31:15 – 00:46:35:25
Sam
Yeah, especially if even if they want to, because it’s from the other side, they’re not going. 00:46:35:25 – 00:46:48:12
Joseph
To do it. Exactly. You could. Joe Biden could propose legislation that would solve world peace and guarantee food on the table for every human being on the planet. And the Republicans would oppose it because the Democrat proposed to. 00:46:48:12 – 00:46:49:06
Sam
Call it woke too. 00:46:49:06 – 00:47:08:29
Joseph
Probably. Right. And like, that’s well, it’s not our responsibility to create where you’d get stupid arguments like that. Yeah. When it’s like, why can’t these idiots just do what’s right for the country and what’s right for the citizens? They can’t. Because if it makes the other guy look good, then in turn it makes them look bad, right? 00:47:09:01 – 00:47:13:20
Sam
When in reality it doesn’t. It’s, you know, we should all be in this together. We all live here. Right. 00:47:13:23 – 00:47:23:14
Joseph
But, I mean, you look at the parties now going into the primary, both parties are tearing at each other’s throat, telling you why you shouldn’t vote for the other guy of their own party. 00:47:23:14 – 00:47:41:10
Sam
Which is contributing to voter apathy, which is why people don’t want to vote. Exactly. I, I. Maybe we’ll make this another episode. Maybe. But like I was always of the mind that you should always vote no matter what. And I’m really being convinced, like, maybe not like I don’t know who we’re going to have in the presidential election coming up, but it’s going to be tough for me to, like, pick somebody right. 00:47:41:10 – 00:47:58:03
Sam
Like and I know you know, we go with the old lesser to evil arguments, but they’re both pretty bad or they both probably will be pretty bad. And I don’t know. Like I said, we could make another episode, but it’s the first time in my life since I’ve been able to vote, which is this is my fifth year because I’m 23, I guess 24 by then or five. 00:47:58:06 – 00:48:07:05
Sam
But yeah, it’s it’s really a struggle. It’s like difficult. And I understand that voting is important and that you should always vote. But on the other hand, it’s like I feel responsible for who I vote for. 00:48:07:07 – 00:48:30:12
Joseph
And well, and that’s the thing most voters go out there. So there’s a large chunk voter that votes along party lines because their parents did and they’ll never change. And they’re kind of locked in. There’s a certain percentage of those. And then there’s the kind of people who are easily swayed, the kind of people who hear one argument, don’t do any research and go do their thing. 00:48:30:12 – 00:48:55:16
Joseph
They’re the uninformed voter. Then there’s the informed voter, and they’re probably the smallest percentage out there. They’re the ones the politicians are terrified of because if you’re smart enough to go out and do your own research from multiple sources and draw your own conclusions, are you terrified? Politicians, they they want mind this lemmings out there that they can tell you who to vote for and you’ll just go do it. 00:48:55:18 – 00:49:12:29
Joseph
And if you vote along party lines, you’re the ideal candidate. They don’t have to say anything. They can go out there and kill people in the streets and you’ll still vote for them. Yeah, that’s what they hope for. And if you’re informed and the one thing that we try to do on all of our podcasts is to educate and inform people. 00:49:12:29 – 00:49:32:08
Joseph
Enlighten people. Don’t listen to what I’m telling you. Don’t listen to what we say on the show. Go do your own research now. If I’m wrong, come back and tell me that I’m wrong about something. I’m happy to hear that and I’m willing to have my point of view changed if it’s if it’s legitimate. But don’t just vote. 00:49:32:11 – 00:49:36:08
Joseph
You know, the politicians go out there, Oh, you have the vote. It’s important. Go vote. 00:49:36:08 – 00:49:37:02
Sam
It guilt, you know. 00:49:37:06 – 00:50:07:24
Joseph
Right. But oh, as a citizen, it’s your job. That’s the one duty that you have is the vote. But what they’re really saying is vote for me, right? Yeah. And voting is important because it’s the only way that our kind of government continues to exist. So I totally advocate people vote. But when you’re voting, if you’re voting in your local election or your school board or something like that, understand the choice that you make affects you. 00:50:07:26 – 00:50:40:12
Joseph
You may not think who’s in Congress affects you, but I guarantee you it does, because the amount of money you pay in taxes and the amount of money they take out of your pocket is something you can control by who you vote for. And if you vote somebody in this time and they don’t do what you want or you don’t think that by the end of their term you’re better off or you are worse off, vote the next guy in and then vote the next guy and keep doing that until you teach them that you’re in charge. 00:50:40:15 – 00:51:01:19
Joseph
The first thing the politician wants to do when they get into office is get reelected. That’s their number one priority. It’s not you, it’s not their constituents. It’s not the people that contributed to them. It’s to get reelected and they’re never going to vote. Term limits on themselves, the highest office in the land has term limits. Politicians, Congress, Senate. 00:51:01:19 – 00:51:34:00
Joseph
They’ll never do that. We have the power to do that. If you don’t let incumbents get reelected. You’re imposing term limits. And even if the guy gets in and you like them, vote them out and vote the next guy out and vote the next guy out. Don’t let them get entrenched. Don’t let them get in there. Don’t let them create a power base or start to influence things or anything that you’ve got people now and I’m going off topic obviously here, but it’s important to discuss. 00:51:34:03 – 00:52:02:21
Joseph
You had Mitch McConnell. Mitch McConnell gets up there the other day and a presser and something in his brain hits pause right in the middle of it. No, I’m not saying this to be mean or facetious or anything. It was very clear the man had some kind of health issue at that moment, but they walked them off the stage and brought him back a little bit later after they did whatever they had to do to fix the wiring there so he could finish what he was saying. 00:52:02:21 – 00:52:12:13
Joseph
So could pretend like he was still okay. And that was just so they could keep power. That’s what they’re doing. They did the same thing that same day. Dianne Feinstein. 00:52:12:19 – 00:52:14:05
Sam
Was, that where they told her to just say. 00:52:14:07 – 00:52:19:02
Joseph
Just say yeah, because she was completely oblivious as to what was going on, because she was so far gone. 00:52:19:06 – 00:52:20:17
Sam
We see it with Biden all the time, too. 00:52:20:19 – 00:52:40:01
Joseph
Yeah. And, you know I’m a this isn’t a crack on old people or mental illness or anything like that. But there comes a point when you’re no longer effective at your job right. And when you get to that point, if I you know, I used to unload tractor trailers for a living and when I hurt my back, I couldn’t do that anymore. 00:52:40:01 – 00:52:54:26
Joseph
So I knew I had to change careers. I had to go do something else that that was not impactful to that. And I did. And I kept doing it. I wouldn’t be able to do my job and I get fired. You can’t allow people to stay in power who can’t do the job. 00:52:54:27 – 00:52:57:27
Sam
And unloading tractor trailers is much lower stakes than running the country. 00:52:57:28 – 00:52:59:09
Joseph
That’s true. That is. 00:52:59:09 – 00:53:13:15
Sam
True. And that’s the part that scares me. It’s like you have these that are may not and it’s okay. You know, when you when you when people get to a certain age, they you’re not you might not be all there. Absolutely. But you shouldn’t also still have the same amount of power you did when you were fully lucid. 00:53:13:18 – 00:53:42:13
Joseph
Right. You know, they talk about Reagan when he was in office where he started having onsets of Alzheimer’s. And do you really want someone who’s suffering from a disease like that to have his finger on the nuclear button? Yeah, but you have to do what is right. You have to have some moral sense of right and wrong to to put your foot down in these times, or at least have the the gumption and the and the class to step away and say, look, I can’t do anymore. 00:53:42:16 – 00:53:53:10
Joseph
I’m not up to it anymore. I can’t do it the way that it needs to be done. Let’s let a younger person come in and do this type stuff. We as the voter, have the power to do that. 00:53:53:12 – 00:53:55:00
Sam
The more you know. 00:53:55:03 – 00:54:18:28
Joseph
Anyway, that’s it for my soapbox for the reasons we’re going to run over time here. But that’s okay. We’re going to come back with our last segment here and talk about religion, free speech and gay rights. That should be a quick one. We’ll be right back. 00:54:19:00 – 00:54:39:24
Michelle
Insights into Teens, a podcast series exploring the issues and challenges of today’s youth. Talking to real teens about real teen problems. Explore issues from races to puberty, social anxiety to financial responsibility. 00:54:39:27 – 00:55:13:05
Michelle
Each week we talk about the topics concerning today’s youth. We look at how the issues affect teens. How to cope with these issues and how parents, friends and loved ones can help teens handle these challenges. Check out our video episodes on YouTube.com backslash insights into things. Catch our audio versions on podcast are insights into teens. XCOM or on the web at insights into things. 00:55:13:05 – 00:55:22:05
Michelle
XCOM. 00:55:22:07 – 00:55:30:00
Sam
Welcome back everyone, to Insights into Tomorrow. We are still covering the Supreme Court’s recent decisions. After a brief aside. 00:55:30:00 – 00:55:32:09
Joseph
Side sidebar in the politics. 00:55:32:12 – 00:55:52:27
Sam
But we’re back. And there’s our last point for today. Religion, free speech and gay rights. That’s a lot. But we’re going to do our best. The six three decision, which turned on the court’s interpretation of the First Amendment, appeared to suggest that the rights of LGBTQ people are on more vulnerable legal footing, particularly when they’re at odds with claims of religious freedom. 00:55:52:29 – 00:56:17:21
Sam
The ruling was the court’s latest in favor of religious people and groups, notably conservative Christians. The Supreme Court sided on Friday. A web designer or not? Well, not this Friday. Recently, the Supreme Court sided recently with a web designer in Colorado who said she had a First Amendment right to refuse to design wedding websites for same sex couples despite a state law that forbids discrimination against gay people. 00:56:17:23 – 00:56:20:25
Joseph
Justice Neil Gorsuch that Gorsuch. 00:56:20:25 – 00:56:21:07
Sam
I’ve no. 00:56:21:07 – 00:56:55:10
Joseph
Idea. I’ve not heard Neil Neil Justice Neil jealously. Cobden writing for the majority in a63 vote, said the First Amendment protected the designer Lorie Smith from being compelled to express views she opposed, quote, 100 years ago, Miss Smith might have furnished her services using pen and paper. Those services are no less protected speech today because they’re conveyed with a voice that resonates further than it could from any soapbox. 00:56:55:13 – 00:57:00:27
Sam
I read this. I was reading the show notes before the show. What? I don’t understand what that means. Like, is he saying. 00:57:00:29 – 00:57:09:22
Joseph
Basically, he’s saying that because it’s something that’s being done on the Internet and has a wider reach. It’s no different than if it was printed material. Okay. 00:57:09:22 – 00:57:10:27
Sam
I gotcha. 00:57:10:29 – 00:57:40:17
Joseph
The case, though, framed as a clash between free speech and gay rights, was the latest in a series of decisions in favor of religious people groups, notably conservative Christians. At the same time, the ruling limited the ability of governments to enforce anti-discrimination laws. The justices split, surprisingly, along ideological lines, and the two sides appeared to talk past each other, kind of like politicians tend to do. 00:57:40:19 – 00:58:19:04
Joseph
The majority saw the decision as a victory that safeguarded the First Amendment right of artists to express themselves. The liberal justices viewed it as something else entirely a dispute that threatened societal protections for gay rights and roll back some recent progress. This also comes at a time when transgender people are facing increased discrimination at the local and national level with the American Civil Liberties Union stating that there are currently 492 bills in the works around the country that would directly harm transgender individuals. 00:58:19:06 – 00:58:44:00
Sam
And this goes back to what we’re talking about with this backsliding that we’re feeling. Right? This is another example of that, using the Constitution as the weapon in an impassioned dissent, Justice. Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the outcome signal a return to a time when people of color and other minority groups faced open discrimination. It the second time this week that the justice summarized her dissent from the bench, a rare move that signals deep disagreement. 00:58:44:03 – 00:59:05:06
Sam
Appearing dismayed. Sotomayor Justice Sotomayor spoke for more than 20 minutes. Quote This case cannot be understood outside of the context in which it arises. In that context, the outcome is even more distressing. The LGBT rights movement has made historic strides, and I’m proud of the role this court recently played in that history. Today, however, we are taking steps backwards. 00:59:05:09 – 00:59:29:09
Sam
A Colorado law forbids discrimination against gay people by businesses open to the public, as well as statements announcing such discrimination. Miss Smith, the woman who owned the website who has said that her Christian faith requires her to turn away same sex couples seeking website design services. I’m sure that’s probably in the Bible. Jesus probably has a Squarespace page. 00:59:29:12 – 00:59:46:01
Sam
Seeking website design services has not yet begun her wedding business, nor has she posted a proposed statement on her current website about her policy and beliefs for fear, she has said of running afoul of the law. So she sued to challenge it, saying it violated her rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. 00:59:46:04 – 01:00:04:05
Joseph
So we jumped on my point. So, okay, first of all, there’s nothing in the Bible that is anti-gay, anti, LGBTQ, nothing like that. There are no teachings. 01:00:04:06 – 01:00:08:03
Sam
There’s not. I thought there was nothing. I’m not even joking. I thought I thought there was. 01:00:08:09 – 01:00:34:13
Joseph
Not a single mention. Yeah, there are stories about same sex. There are instances of it occurring in there. Nothing is ever preached against. In fact, if you go by the teachings of Jesus, Jesus says to love all men, to love all people. So there’s nothing in there. How the court could even use that as an excuse, number one. 01:00:34:15 – 01:00:49:29
Joseph
Number two, I guarantee you there’s nothing about websites in the Bible. Okay, Maybe the new King Charles Bible. There might be, but there’s nothing in the King James Bible or before that has anything to do with it. So that’s a. 01:00:49:29 – 01:00:55:20
Sam
Falsehood. And that makes sense why Justice Neil had that quote that he had. Because you have to frame it. So it’s legitimate. 01:00:55:22 – 01:00:56:24
Joseph
Right? Right. 01:00:56:26 – 01:00:58:18
Sam
And a bunch of baloney. 01:00:58:20 – 01:01:25:24
Joseph
So and the other problem that I have here is she’s not being forced to express opinions that are contrary to her beliefs. She’s being contracted to produce a website for someone else. If she didn’t like fur coats and she made a website for someone selling fur coats. Nobody would confuse her as being the person selling fur coats. Mm hmm. 01:01:25:26 – 01:01:52:24
Joseph
So using that as logic for why you can’t produce something for someone else is bogus. So there’s nothing there is a single argument in this case that has a Grimm, a leg to stand on, that it worked. But somehow this the conservative Supreme Court decided to latch onto this with as flimsy an argument as it was to set precedent again. 01:01:53:01 – 01:01:54:23
Sam
And to legalize discrimination. 01:01:54:26 – 01:02:07:10
Joseph
And that’s exactly what it is. That is how dangerous this Supreme Court is, and that is how broken this Supreme Court is, is that they took something that was so flimsy, it should not have gotten passed. 01:02:07:17 – 01:02:08:23
Sam
It took a Judge Judy case. 01:02:08:29 – 01:02:20:12
Joseph
It shouldn’t have gotten past tbe court. Okay. It was literally that week of an argument. And somehow the Supreme Court decided that was important enough to listen to. 01:02:20:14 – 01:02:23:16
Sam
And to create such, like strong precedent. 01:02:23:17 – 01:02:24:00
Joseph
Right. 01:02:24:04 – 01:02:26:08
Sam
Which makes you wonder that they could do with anything. Right? 01:02:26:09 – 01:02:48:09
Joseph
Like the Supreme Court is receives hundreds and hundreds of cases a year to here. And they go through and they cherry pick the ones that they feel are the most important, the most impactful, and the ones that that are most influential on the Constitution. And they pick this steaming pile of crap as one of the ones that they wanted to talk about. 01:02:48:10 – 01:02:51:00
Sam
It’s pretty tough to not argue there’s an agenda when this is what they go with. 01:02:51:00 – 01:03:02:25
Joseph
Exactly. That’s why it was vitally important that we talk about this. Yeah. I’m embarrassed at our Supreme Court for even listening to arguments on this case. It’s that bad. 01:03:02:28 – 01:03:22:06
Sam
Right? And it’s like if you actually look at the case, it is just gay people trying to exist. And when you look at a lot of these anti LGBT laws or anti-trans laws, it is just people trying to live and maybe get married. And it’s like it’s always framed as if they have this like agenda, like they want to take over the country. 01:03:22:08 – 01:03:23:00
Sam
The LGBT. 01:03:23:00 – 01:03:25:06
Joseph
Indoctrination. Yeah, throw that in there. 01:03:25:06 – 01:03:35:16
Sam
It’s a bunch of baloney, man. Like is the people. These people are just trying to live and be treated fair and equally, but that’s just not allowed now. 01:03:35:16 – 01:03:43:09
Joseph
And the worst part is, is the state itself had already passed legislation that prevented this. Right. 01:03:43:12 – 01:03:44:24
Sam
So move. 01:03:44:26 – 01:04:12:25
Joseph
Now, the problem that I have another well, I have this several problems with it. The other problem I have here is this Constitution says any laws that the Constitution does not explicitly cover lot of states. Right now, there’s no anti-discrimination law in the Constitution. So therefore, if the state has a law that governs it, the state should take precedent. 01:04:12:27 – 01:04:18:23
Joseph
The Supreme Court should have had no jurisdiction over this case whatsoever because of that law that was on the books. 01:04:18:28 – 01:04:20:07
Sam
Should’ve been done right down there. 01:04:20:10 – 01:04:22:14
Joseph
So it should have never even gotten to the Supreme Court. 01:04:22:15 – 01:04:31:16
Sam
But when you can politicize anything and you can make an agenda out of it, because now it becomes an issue of the First Amendment, which isn’t that the one about free speech, freedom and free. 01:04:31:16 – 01:04:33:01
Joseph
Speech and freedom of religion. Yeah. 01:04:33:08 – 01:04:34:23
Sam
So but like, it’s. 01:04:34:25 – 01:04:43:07
Joseph
So how does her freedom of religion trump the other people’s free speech? By having a website, right? Someone needs to explain that. Do Yeah. 01:04:43:09 – 01:04:56:26
Sam
Yep. It’s pretty tough. No matter what side of the spectrum you’re on politically, it’s pretty tough to. Argue that there is not an agenda here, especially this. It’s going to be ended with this because this is like the like the like the stand out. 01:04:56:27 – 01:05:06:25
Joseph
It’s the smoking gun. Yeah. You know, not only is it an agenda, it’s a poorly thought out, poorly researched and poorly executed agenda. 01:05:06:25 – 01:05:08:17
Sam
And a hateful one. 01:05:08:20 – 01:05:33:16
Joseph
And it’s blatant, but it’s like you’re the expectation that Americans are stupid is written into this agenda because you’re not supposed to see this stuff. You’re not supposed to pay attention to it. Supreme Court rule. They’re supreme, so it should be okay, right? Only we’re overturning other Supreme Court. So it’s really not supreme. It’s kind of the. Okay, for now. 01:05:33:16 – 01:05:40:20
Joseph
Yeah. Just do as we say, though. That’s the hypocrisy that our country is dealing with today. 01:05:40:23 – 01:06:03:25
Sam
Yeah, and it goes back to that. You know, we talked about the feeling of regression and the feeling of of and and of legalized discrimination. And again, we mentioned this a lot, but if you’re an idealist and are were to white guys so. Right. You know it’s really not impacting us that much. I can’t imagine what it must be like being a transgender person or a member of the LGBTQ community or a minority or a woman like that. 01:06:03:26 – 01:06:13:15
Sam
There’s just so many people out there that are and I’m not laughing. I’m laughing because it is so horrible and I’m not laughing to make light of it, right? I’m laughing because it is just it’s really bad. 01:06:13:18 – 01:06:25:23
Joseph
And that’s like it’s literally so bad that you don’t need to be a member of the community to see how blatant this is and how wrong it is. That’s how bad it is at this point. 01:06:25:23 – 01:06:42:19
Sam
And it’s not even hidden and then. And then they have the the Republic Republican side of this. They tend to like put the blame on the other side of like, oh, well, they’re the ones that are trying to take all the power. They’re the ones that are actually trying to brainwash you when in reality that’s just not true. 01:06:42:21 – 01:06:59:15
Sam
Right. It could be in some way, but not nearly as much as the right is doing right. I just don’t know how you can see that and just act like, you know, if you’re if you believe in these far, far right conservative Christian ideas that like, you know, that you’re the minority in this like. 01:06:59:18 – 01:07:30:24
Joseph
So I’m going to get insulted here for a second because I just can’t make my point without being insulting. So the people that are doing this, the far right politicians and and radicals that are doing this, are so blatant and so callous and not well thought out that their argument requires stupidity to believe are doing that because the vast majority of people that support right wing politics are stupid. 01:07:30:27 – 01:07:44:03
Joseph
There are people who don’t want to think for themselves, don’t want to do their own research blindly, want to follow somebody who they think is the next coming of Jesus and generally are religious fanatics. 01:07:44:03 – 01:07:49:15
Sam
But they think that they are smart because they have backing like this, where they’re being legitimized. 01:07:49:18 – 01:07:54:14
Joseph
They think they’re smart because the people that know they’re stupid keep telling them they’re smart. 01:07:54:17 – 01:08:14:01
Sam
And they have all the answers. You have to. I, I hear this a lot with what I do for a living. Okay? They say, Oh, you can’t trust the Democrats. You can’t trust the liberals. They’re trying to brainwash you. But you can trust me. I have all the answers. And I’m like, You are no different than if they actually are brainwashing you on the left because you’re doing the exact same thing. 01:08:14:01 – 01:08:20:04
Sam
You’re you’re dealing minimizing everything else, but you’re saying you have to listen to me. I have all the answers. You can trust me, right? 01:08:20:04 – 01:08:30:07
Joseph
They can’t provide proof or evidence or a logical argument. So their way of arguing their point is to attack the legitimacy of the other guy. 01:08:30:07 – 01:08:31:13
Sam
And it’s working. 01:08:31:15 – 01:08:46:23
Joseph
It’s fake news. Don’t listen to it. It’s political sabotage. It’s a witch hunt. It’s all. It’s all the it’s. It’s never me. All right. You’ve got a president, a foreign president, United States with like 50 indictments against him right now. 01:08:46:23 – 01:08:48:24
Sam
And he said he’s going to run from jail. 01:08:48:26 – 01:08:52:06
Joseph
And it’s it’s not him. It’s everybody else. 01:08:52:14 – 01:08:53:15
Sam
And it works. 01:08:53:18 – 01:09:09:22
Joseph
But it doesn’t take a genius. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to look at this and say, you’re delusional. Yeah, it can’t be that. Yeah, but but the problem is their supporters don’t see logic. 01:09:09:25 – 01:09:24:15
Sam
And it’s it’s like, you know, we talked about earlier when we got on our little aside about voting. Right. The types of voters, the people that will vote on party lines and now you have that with this far right that they’re going to vote like, you know, when Trump said he could shoot somebody and get away with it, he was right. 01:09:24:16 – 01:09:24:24
Sam
Right. 01:09:24:29 – 01:09:31:18
Joseph
Like, exactly. He literally got up on national television and bragged about inappropriately groping a woman. 01:09:31:21 – 01:09:32:17
Sam
And then got elected. 01:09:32:23 – 01:09:38:01
Joseph
And got elected president. Don’t vote for him no matter what. 01:09:38:05 – 01:09:39:18
Sam
And then they’ll do it out of spite. 01:09:39:20 – 01:09:51:15
Joseph
He gets indicted for violating espionage laws and he gets $1,000,000 in donations. The next day he gets indicted that he didn’t vote for the other one. 01:09:51:15 – 01:09:54:05
Sam
I have no idea. He can do another episode on that. 01:09:54:08 – 01:09:57:10
Joseph
There’s so many indictments, it’s hard to keep score at this point. 01:09:57:13 – 01:09:58:06
Sam
Yeah. 01:09:58:08 – 01:10:01:14
Joseph
But every time he does something wrong, he gets more supporters. 01:10:01:14 – 01:10:07:13
Sam
And like, if they if he does go to prison for something, I think it will guarantee that he gets elected. Like it’s like the kingpin. 01:10:07:16 – 01:10:16:23
Joseph
Well, that fortunately there’s two indictments he’s on there that if he gets elected, if he gets convicted, he cannot hold public office. Oh, that’s what that’s for. 01:10:16:24 – 01:10:19:02
Sam
Then the Supreme Court will just say that, you know. 01:10:19:04 – 01:10:24:18
Joseph
The Supreme Court will reinterpret the Constitution, I’m sure. So anyway, that’s where we’re at. 01:10:24:20 – 01:10:25:15
Sam
That’s the show. 01:10:25:20 – 01:10:48:09
Joseph
Anyway. Yeah, I read all the and have to summarize. It’s literally that bad at that at this point. Before we do go, though, I want to take a moment to the right button here, which I just did, and invite you to subscribe to the podcast. If you don’t already do so, you can find audio versions of this podcast listed as insights into tomorrow. 01:10:48:11 – 01:11:12:26
Joseph
You can find video and audio versions of all of our network’s podcast listeners Insights and things We’re available on. Pandora Castro Pod being the bus for pretty much anywhere you can get a podcast, but not Stitcher soon. So is going to be Stitcher. I would also invite you to contact us, tell us how we’re doing, argue with us, tell us we’re wrong. 01:11:12:26 – 01:11:16:13
Joseph
That we don’t know that we’re about them. Take anything at this point in time. 01:11:16:13 – 01:11:20:09
Sam
The liberal check is in the mail. 01:11:20:11 – 01:11:46:21
Joseph
You can email us and comments and insights into things dot com. We’re on Twitter at insights underscore things you can find this on twitch at twitch that TV slash insights into things five days a week. If you have an Amazon Prime subscription, you get a free monthly twitch prime through that our way. We appreciate that bringing it links to all these and more on our website at WW that insights into things dot com that’s it and than in the books. 01:11:46:21 – 01:11:47:20
Sam
Stay safe everybody. 01:11:47:26 – 01:11:48:09
Joseph
By.