[SPEAKER_03]: Hey everyone, this is Leon from Prologue Projects.

[SPEAKER_03]: On this episode of 5-4, Peter, Reannon, and Michael are talking about known Vibazcaz Perdomo, or recent case about federal immigration officers use of race to detain people suspected of being undocumented.

[SPEAKER_03]: This past summer, the Trump administration directed ICE to ramp up deportations.

[SPEAKER_03]: leading agents in Los Angeles to tame people based on a variety of seemingly unconstitutional factors.

[SPEAKER_03]: Five people who've been detained by ICE sued the government, alleging violations of their civil rights.

[SPEAKER_03]: In yet another shadow-tocket decision issued without a majority opinion, the Supreme Court decided with a Trump administration.

[SPEAKER_00]: The Supreme Court has now given the green light for law enforcement to profile and detain and jelinos based on their race.

[SPEAKER_03]: This is 5-4, a podcast about how much of the Supreme Court sucks.

[SPEAKER_06]: Welcome to five to four where we dissect and analyze as a cream court cases that have written off our civil liberties like Donald Trump writing off a poem to Jeffrey Epstein.

[SPEAKER_06]: I had to force that one folks so that we could talk about the little poem that Donald Trump wrote to Jeffrey Epstein with the horrific doodle.

[SPEAKER_06]: I'm here with Michael.

[SPEAKER_06]: Hey everybody.

[SPEAKER_06]: and rean it.

[SPEAKER_06]: Hello.

[SPEAKER_06]: It's very funny that Donald Trump in his like sort of public presence right now is just like an angry dipshit, but secretly like he loves show tunes and he writes little poems to his pedophile friends, you know.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, he writes creepy little gross poems.

[SPEAKER_02]: He loves art.

[SPEAKER_02]: That's true.

[SPEAKER_02]: Real Renaissance man.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_04]: Unfortunately, the poem is about their shared love of pedophilia, so that is a problem.

[SPEAKER_06]: All good art challenges you.

[SPEAKER_06]: You know what I mean?

[SPEAKER_06]: And that's what he's doing.

[SPEAKER_06]: He's challenging you.

[SPEAKER_06]: Oh God, it's only so many jokes I can make about this before we have to start just heavily cutting.

[SPEAKER_01]: Right.

[SPEAKER_06]: We don't want to get into it too much, but it is our opinion that Donald Trump is a lifelong pedophile.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.

[SPEAKER_06]: And we think the evidence is really strong.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_04]: Okay.

[SPEAKER_04]: I go so far to say it's a fact.

[SPEAKER_04]: It's a fact that I believe to be true.

[SPEAKER_06]: You could say it's our opinion that it's a fact.

[SPEAKER_06]: That's correct.

[SPEAKER_05]: It's right.

[SPEAKER_06]: Today's case, Nome V.

Vasquez Perdomo.

[SPEAKER_06]: This is a case from just a few days ago about you're going to get flamed for saying it like that.

[SPEAKER_06]: I felt it bad.

[SPEAKER_06]: I felt it come out bad as I said.

[SPEAKER_06]: I couldn't decide whether I was doing cares or ques and it just fucked up my whole rhythm.

[SPEAKER_06]: So, this case is from just a few days ago about Trump's anti-immigrant crackdown in Los Angeles, as you probably know, Trump deployed federal troops to Southern California, early this summer.

[SPEAKER_06]: as you also probably know because we covered it in a recent premium episode, the federal troops appeared to be detaining people based entirely on their ethnicity and factors like whether they were near a home depot in a parent violation of various constitutional rights.

[SPEAKER_06]: So some folks sued and a federal court enjoyed the federal government from detaining people for discriminatory or arbitrary reasons.

[SPEAKER_06]: By the Supreme Court, [SPEAKER_06]: and a move that we've now seen many times intervened to lift that order, allowing the administration to continue discriminating in immigration raids.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, listeners, we did an episode early August.

[SPEAKER_02]: I believe it came out about the summer in Los Angeles.

[SPEAKER_02]: What that had been like, the militarization of immigration enforcement, the immigration raids that had taken place, [SPEAKER_02]: in Los Angeles and the lawsuit that had been filed by the ACLU and others and what that kind of told us about what had happened in Los Angeles this summer.

[SPEAKER_02]: So we talked in that episode about this case getting filed because ICE is [SPEAKER_02]: was doing super racist.

[SPEAKER_02]: You would think completely illegal and unconstitutional stuff.

[SPEAKER_02]: By admittedly, they set it themselves stopping people who were Hispanic or Latino or perceived to be, perceived to be Hispanic or Latino, stopping people who were speaking Spanish.

[SPEAKER_02]: And stopping people who were congregating around these locations that ice was asserting were suspicious locations where undocumented immigrants hang out a lot at.

[SPEAKER_02]: Like, for example, the Home Depot, or like parking lots where day laborers congregate while they're waiting for jobs, or construction sites, or car washes.

[SPEAKER_02]: The men who filed this lawsuit, some of them are undocumented, some of them are U.S.

[SPEAKER_02]: citizens, had all experienced violent aggressive detentions, some of them were jailed in the federal building basement in Los Angeles.

[SPEAKER_02]: And all of them had very similar stories.

[SPEAKER_02]: We remember this.

[SPEAKER_02]: The Ice Agents Federal Agents often without badges, without identifying themselves, coming up, roughing up people, pushing them, hitting them, and then even for U.S.

[SPEAKER_02]: citizens sometimes, detaining these folks, driving them around, taking them to different locations, and taking all of this time, even when people had produced their IDs, proof of their citizenship, [SPEAKER_02]: taking them around and not releasing them for long periods.

[SPEAKER_02]: So, you can imagine, obviously, the constitutional violations that are inherent in these ice activities.

[SPEAKER_02]: This went to the district court for the central district of California, and that judge, Judge Ouse, Mensa, Frimpong, [SPEAKER_02]: issued an injunction issued a stay said the federal government cannot continue to conduct ice raids like this in the Los Angeles area while this case is pending.

[SPEAKER_02]: Of course, the Trump administration, the government, appeals that injunction appeals that stay and this is where we're at at the Supreme Court only on the issue of this stay.

[SPEAKER_06]: Right.

[SPEAKER_06]: So let's talk about the law a little bit.

[SPEAKER_06]: What's at issue here primarily is the fourth amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: Basically saying if the government wants to seize your person or search you or both, they need to meet a certain threshold.

[SPEAKER_06]: They need to actually have a reason of some sort, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: They are also a bunch of other [SPEAKER_06]: the 14th Amendment, equal protection, which is not explicitly referenced in this decision, and yet pervades it in my view.

[SPEAKER_06]: So this is on the shadow doc, it's something we've seen before, and there is no written majority opinion.

[SPEAKER_06]: All of the conservatives are in the majority, but there's no majority opinion.

[SPEAKER_06]: Brett Kavanaugh writes a concurrence, which no other justice joins, so he's sort of writing on his own behalf.

[SPEAKER_06]: We've said recently that it seems like the conservatives are avoiding, providing written opinions whenever they can, presumably because it's [SPEAKER_06]: just too embarrassing to have to explain yourself when you're just transparently doing whatever Donald Trump needs from you.

[SPEAKER_06]: And maybe this is a good example of what we mean because Kevin ought tries to write an opinion defending the ruling and it's deeply humiliating.

[SPEAKER_02]: It's on its terms wild.

[SPEAKER_06]: It's a shameful opinion.

[SPEAKER_06]: It is incredibly funny that he even tried.

[SPEAKER_06]: the optics of it the optics we know all six of you are in the majority why would you write a standalone concurrence it's so bad that means that he wrote it presumably thinking sometimes going to join this and this will be the majority opinion perhaps right and all of the conservatives were like no [SPEAKER_04]: it's so bad to like it's it's embarrassing like this is one of those things where you're like you know he has no friends on the court because if he did one of them would be like well let's maybe turn this language down yeah right they might they would work with him to develop an argument that maybe they could join [SPEAKER_04]: Right, exactly.

[SPEAKER_04]: Instead, they're like, then go make a fucking ass of himself, whatever.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, whatever.

[SPEAKER_02]: And let's be clear, like, all the conservatives agree with what Brett Cavanaugh is saying.

[SPEAKER_02]: Right.

[SPEAKER_02]: Like, they, they absolutely agree.

[SPEAKER_02]: They would sign onto it if it weren't so sort of like shockingly racist, which we'll get into in just a little bit.

[SPEAKER_02]: It's like the other five conservatives on the court, at least to recognize like, [SPEAKER_02]: and we don't have to do legal explanation for this, like let's not, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: Let's not put our name on something that's going to look terrible.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, we don't have to, so why would we, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: There is this hilarious part of this, which is like, [SPEAKER_02]: Brett Kavanaugh is the loser of the court socially.

[SPEAKER_02]: I just think this is funny.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yes.

[SPEAKER_02]: I think this is funny to think about.

[SPEAKER_02]: I think that it's obvious in a lot of ways if you like watch the court the way that we do and this is such a good example.

[SPEAKER_02]: Like Brett Kavanaugh does not fit in the other conservatives think he's a loser and think he's annoying.

[SPEAKER_02]: Like an annoying kid brother.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, we were talking about this before the episode, and I think the types of guys they are are so different.

[SPEAKER_04]: And I have very clear pictures of them because I went to a conservative college that heavily features both types of guys.

[SPEAKER_04]: Absolutely.

[SPEAKER_04]: Dartmouth had the Dartmouth review, which is a conservative paper that gave us [SPEAKER_04]: fucking dinesh disus, and in culture, or Laura Ingraham, or one of them, or both.

[SPEAKER_04]: That's Ingraham.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_04]: these fucking conservative nerds who wear bow ties and think like the sickest burn ever drop on someone is quoting them and putting the little a little bracket said after like this mother fucker god god didn't have good subject verb agreement and then cabinet was also very present in the fraternity system at Dartmouth [SPEAKER_04]: like to funnel beers and drug women or otherwise sexually harassed them.

[SPEAKER_04]: And these were not overlapping social circles.

[SPEAKER_04]: And these were not people who liked one another at all.

[SPEAKER_04]: And maybe when he was younger, Kavanaugh was one of the cool guys, but now he's in a social sphere where he's fucking marginalized, where they're like, what a dumbass.

[SPEAKER_04]: Why don't we stuck with this stupid piece of [SPEAKER_04]: It's incredible.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, and you can see the dynamics, the more time he spends on the court, like what I told you guys was that now you can see his dobs concurrence in almost a different light where, you know, he wrote a concurrence in dobs that we talked about at the time where that was sort of just like now [SPEAKER_06]: abortion is up to the states and just like doing this really weird like law 101 sort of thing Yeah, I'm neutral on abortion and yeah At the time we're like why did he write this was it like for the media or whatever and that was sort of my theory like maybe this is just [SPEAKER_06]: for the media to pick up on and lost students who maybe aren't so versed in the law or something and it provides them with little talking points.

[SPEAKER_06]: But now I feel like my theory is that he was like, how about this guys?

[SPEAKER_06]: And then John Roberts, similar to an older brother giving the younger brother a controller that's not plugged in.

[SPEAKER_06]: Which sort of like, oh, that would make a really good [SPEAKER_06]: Why don't you go over there and write that?

[SPEAKER_02]: We'll go ahead and file that as a concurrence, sure.

[SPEAKER_02]: Why don't you go to your office and write that?

[SPEAKER_04]: That sounds so important.

[SPEAKER_04]: Don't leave it to your clerics.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, you write that yourself.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, you take time.

[SPEAKER_04]: You take time by yourself.

[SPEAKER_06]: All right, let's talk about the content here, the substance.

[SPEAKER_06]: One of the first questions here, the first issues is whether the folks [SPEAKER_06]: Kavanaugh says that they don't, and he cites an OG five to four cases from like 2020, Los Angeles V.

Lyons.

[SPEAKER_06]: The basic premise in Lyons was that a man was brutalized by police who was put in a dangerous chokehold.

[SPEAKER_06]: He tried to get a courten junction preventing them from using the chokehold that they put him in because it's so dangerous.

[SPEAKER_06]: The court said, well, you don't have standing because even though we know LAPD uses this chokehold, you can't prove that they'll use it on you specifically in the future.

[SPEAKER_06]: Right.

[SPEAKER_06]: So, Kavanaugh makes that same argument.

[SPEAKER_06]: He says, look, even if all of the stuff that ICE is doing is illegal, the plaintiffs can't show that it will be done to them again, and therefore no injunction.

[SPEAKER_06]: which I mean, lions was a stupid ass case, but here it makes even less sense because like horrible.

[SPEAKER_06]: The court is holding that ice can profile people based on their ethnicity and where they work basically, right, which we'll get to in a second.

[SPEAKER_06]: And these people fit that profile, the plaintiffs fit that profile.

[SPEAKER_06]: They're going to continue being visibly Hispanic.

[SPEAKER_06]: But Kavanaugh is still saying that they can't prove that it will happen to them again.

[SPEAKER_06]: Like you're literally okaying a government policy of this happening to them over and over again.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, if you're Hispanic presenting and you work at home depot, yeah, you, it's actually very possible if not plausible or likely that you will get profile again, because they're going back to fucking home depot.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_02]: What Brett Kavanaugh says about the standing question is what matters is the reality of the threat of repeated injury he emphasizes reality, like saying, [SPEAKER_02]: don't just a ledge, don't just imagine that maybe this will happen to you again in the future, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: But think about the people in this very case.

[SPEAKER_02]: We talked about it in the summer of LA episode.

[SPEAKER_02]: People in this very case were apprehended, taken in a federal vehicle, driven around, dropped back off at their workplace where they had been picked up.

[SPEAKER_02]: and another wave of a raid happened at the same location.

[SPEAKER_02]: This happened to plaintiffs in this case.

[SPEAKER_02]: You're not imagining that the threat might still exist as to people in Los Angeles or as to you personally.

[SPEAKER_02]: And then think, you know, this is what Peter and Michael, you're both referring to about the scale of it, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: Stopps of this kind, meaning racist stops.

[SPEAKER_02]: They are imminent.

[SPEAKER_02]: If you say race and speaking Spanish are like legitimate grounds of a stop and you just said that this administration is like I'm not has this like whole inference through out that like this administration is stepping up and doing [SPEAKER_02]: immigration enforcement, not like the last administration.

[SPEAKER_02]: So Brett Kavanaugh is saying this is happening at like this huge scale because the problem of illegal immigration he says is so huge right?

[SPEAKER_02]: And he's saying all of these arbitrary unfair factors can be used.

[SPEAKER_02]: The threat of the stops are absolutely imminent.

[SPEAKER_02]: Like this is ridiculous to be like, oh well you can't you haven't shown enough evidence that actually this is going to keep happening.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: Right.

[SPEAKER_06]: I mean, like we said in the Lions episode, it's stupid that you should have to show this, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: Like we know that they have this policy.

[SPEAKER_06]: It's before the Supreme Court of the United States.

[SPEAKER_06]: Well, you stop digging around and just address the fucking question, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: Right.

[SPEAKER_06]: So now we get to the heart of it.

[SPEAKER_06]: The subject of racial discrimination.

[SPEAKER_06]: ice and other agencies, apparently listening to Steven Miller's commands, has been targeting people who look ethnically, Hispanic, Latino, who have weaker English and or who are physically proximate to places that they think illegal immigrants stereotypically hang around, like home depot, car washes and mechanics, car mechanics, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: This all seems like a pretty cut and dry [SPEAKER_06]: Many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English.

[SPEAKER_06]: Therefore, race and language can be a relevant factor.

[SPEAKER_06]: He says this is, quote, common sense.

[SPEAKER_06]: Of course.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: By the way, that's what racist always say after something racist, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: It was common sense.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, you just don't walk into the majority black neighborhoods.

[SPEAKER_04]: It's dangerous.

[SPEAKER_04]: That's common sense.

[SPEAKER_04]: Everybody knows that.

[SPEAKER_04]: Common sense.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, he's really pushing the fear mongering about illegal immigration.

[SPEAKER_02]: So-called illegal immigration.

[SPEAKER_02]: He starts this, this absolutely silicon current by saying that like illegal immigration in this country is happening at extraordinary numbers.

[SPEAKER_02]: He says that in the L.A.

[SPEAKER_02]: region alone there are two million illegal immigrants.

[SPEAKER_02]: These are of course his words out of about 20 million people who live in the Los Angeles region.

[SPEAKER_02]: He says this is 10% 10% of people in L.A.

[SPEAKER_02]: are here undocumented.

[SPEAKER_02]: He says 15 million immigrants are undocumented in the United States and he's got to get the job in about the Biden administration.

[SPEAKER_02]: He says, quote, many millions of those illegal immigrants illegally entered or illegally overstayed just in the last few years.

[SPEAKER_04]: Whoa.

[SPEAKER_04]: Right?

[SPEAKER_04]: You might be wondering, dear listener, what is he site to for that 2 million 10% numbers?

[SPEAKER_04]: And the answer is nothing.

[SPEAKER_02]: Mary.

[SPEAKER_04]: There's no footnote.

[SPEAKER_04]: There's no site.

[SPEAKER_04]: There's nothing.

[SPEAKER_04]: He just says it.

[SPEAKER_04]: He just says it.

[SPEAKER_06]: Common sense, baby.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_02]: I looked it up and I found let me cite.

[SPEAKER_02]: I actually have the report open.

[SPEAKER_02]: I looked it up and like who knows the geographic region that he's defining as the Los Angeles area.

[SPEAKER_02]: But the USC equity research institute estimated that something like 900,000 people are undocumented in the greater Los Angeles area.

[SPEAKER_02]: This is less than half of what he cited.

[SPEAKER_02]: So yeah, no citation can't check him.

[SPEAKER_06]: Now, Kavanaugh is making this argument that it's okay to discriminate here because illegal immigrants are, in fact, disproportionately of Hispanic descent.

[SPEAKER_06]: But the point of discrimination law is that that does not matter.

[SPEAKER_05]: Yes.

[SPEAKER_06]: The law protects your individual right.

[SPEAKER_06]: to be treated fairly, not to be discriminated against.

[SPEAKER_06]: You don't sacrifice your liberty because people of your demographic group are committing crimes, even if that's true.

[SPEAKER_06]: I always use the example of like, imagine a fictional and incredibly treacherous race, and it is a conservative pipe dream about an evil race, or they are genetically predisposed to crime.

[SPEAKER_06]: That's called them Persia.

[SPEAKER_06]: We'll call them Southern Slots.

[SPEAKER_06]: And this race is to a man prone to crime, they all commit crimes with one exception.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, a genetic defect has rendered one man immune to the criminal predisposition of his demographic.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yes.

[SPEAKER_06]: Discrimination law should protect that man in my view, this is the point you cannot actually have functional anti discrimination law if that man is not protected right this is the whole point like discrimination does not become legal when the stereotypes are true or something are like the more true the stereotypes are the more legal it becomes and I'm not even saying they are true in this case that's why I'm using the hypothetical southern slav [SPEAKER_02]: This is what individual liberty means.

[SPEAKER_02]: This is a legal system that ensures individual liberty.

[SPEAKER_04]: That's what the individual and individual liberty means.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yes, it means that it hears to you as an individual, regardless of your demographics, that there are certain things the government cannot do to you, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: They cannot search you unreasonably.

[SPEAKER_04]: like that is what the fourth amendment says and it doesn't matter where you live, it doesn't matter what you look like, it has to be reasonable.

[SPEAKER_04]: And usually that means it has to require a warrant or probable cause.

[SPEAKER_04]: That's what an individual liberty is.

[SPEAKER_04]: And similarly, that's what to process is about.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yes, this is the point of due process.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yes, to make sure that every individual is being [SPEAKER_06]: I'll also add that Kavanaugh is doing a classic racist guy trick and once you see this trick in one place, you will see it everywhere.

[SPEAKER_06]: He is saying undocumented immigrants, illegal immigrants, are disproportionately Hispanic.

[SPEAKER_05]: Mm-hmm.

[SPEAKER_06]: But our Hispanic people disproportionately illegal immigrants that is the actual question you should be asking and I'm not saying that the answer to that question matters I'm saying that he's asking the easier question to avoid having to ask the harder one which is right [SPEAKER_06]: is the median person that fits this description actually likely to be an undocumented immigrant.

[SPEAKER_04]: Right.

[SPEAKER_04]: Right.

[SPEAKER_04]: What's the risk of false positives of your racial profiling?

[SPEAKER_04]: In this county, something like over 40 approaching 50% of residents, [SPEAKER_04]: are Hispanic, so even if his bullshit 10% statistic was correct, which it's not, you're still going to have a huge number of false positives because guess what people fucking go to home depot and people work at home depot, who live here legally.

[SPEAKER_04]: They go to 7-11, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: And half of them are fucking Hispanic, 4-10 of them are Hispanic.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, this goes back to the imminence as well.

[SPEAKER_02]: Like the potential harm is not just to undocumented people or people, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: Like completely immigration crimes.

[SPEAKER_02]: The plaintiffs here are citizens.

[SPEAKER_02]: They were detained under these unfair standards that ice is using to detain people.

[SPEAKER_02]: And it continues to be imminent if Brett Kavanaugh on the conservatives are saying this is fine.

[SPEAKER_02]: Right.

[SPEAKER_02]: To millions of people in Los Angeles.

[SPEAKER_02]: And of course, across the country.

[SPEAKER_06]: Now, this case is about the fourth amendment primarily, but like I mentioned, the equal protection clause, which directly prohibits discrimination, sort of is just in your mind throughout it, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: I'm gonna read [SPEAKER_06]: A little quote from a Supreme Court case, where they said the quote core purpose of the equal protection clause, quote, is doing away with all governmentally imposed discrimination based on race.

[SPEAKER_06]: Do you know what that is from?

[SPEAKER_02]: What case, Peter?

[SPEAKER_06]: What's that from?

[SPEAKER_06]: That's from students for fair admissions, the Harvard, the fucking affirmative action case.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.

[SPEAKER_02]: the case that did away with affirmative action?

[SPEAKER_02]: Yes.

[SPEAKER_06]: Right.

[SPEAKER_06]: Right.

[SPEAKER_06]: When we're talking about affirmative action, can schools consider race in admissions?

[SPEAKER_06]: No, the core purpose of the equal protection clause is doing away with all governmentally imposed discrimination based on race.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_04]: What happened?

[SPEAKER_04]: I have it on good authority from John Roberts himself that the way to stop discriminating on race is to stop discriminating on race.

[SPEAKER_04]: powerful.

[SPEAKER_04]: He wrote that in what was that?

[SPEAKER_04]: That was parents involved.

[SPEAKER_06]: That was parents involved.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, parents involved 2007 [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, I think the affirmative action case, and just broadly with the conservative vision is of what the Constitution protects against in terms of racism, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: This very formal, any classification that's based on race is unconstitutional, and this is what they weaponize, of course, in order to do things like dismantling affirmative action or dismantling any sort of policy or practice that is trying [SPEAKER_02]: to rectify past racial injustice or to try to make things more racially fair.

[SPEAKER_02]: Of course, you know, their big argument on affirmative action, the conservatives, is absolutist, formalist argument about racial classifications.

[SPEAKER_02]: that they, you know, must be done away with in whatever form is really important in the affirmative action context because what universities argued for years is we're not using race in affirmative action.

[SPEAKER_02]: We're not using it as like some deciding factor.

[SPEAKER_02]: It's not even going to tip the skills.

[SPEAKER_02]: It's not going to make the difference because it's used as a factor of a factor, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: Like it's it's not even a priority or or [SPEAKER_02]: a main consideration when we're looking at admissions.

[SPEAKER_02]: And the Supreme Court says no, absolutely not any fucking classification is unconstitutional, you freaks.

[SPEAKER_06]: Race cannot weigh anything in your analysis.

[SPEAKER_02]: Right here, Brett Kavanaugh, [SPEAKER_02]: and the conservatives, right, are completely ignoring that there is explicit racial classification being used by federal agents to stop and detain people.

[SPEAKER_02]: And the way Brett Kavanaugh brushes this off, [SPEAKER_02]: is by saying, well, all of federal officer, all an officer has to have to do an investigatory stop to detain somebody is reasonable suspicion.

[SPEAKER_02]: And reasonable suspicion is specific, articulable facts that a law enforcement agent can articulate to describe why they had some amount of suspicion of criminal activity.

[SPEAKER_02]: And reasonable suspicion is assessed is evaluated in totality of the circumstances.

[SPEAKER_02]: Brett Kavanaugh is saying this to hand wave that race is a factor being used here right he's saying well it can be one factor of seven it can be a factor it can be a factor here which by the way his citation for that is like a case from 1975 it's like a throwaway line from some garbage ass case from 1975 of course [SPEAKER_06]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: The real holding of that case is that race cannot be the sole factor.

[SPEAKER_06]: And here, he's like, well, it could be one of these holistic factors, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: But these plaintiffs don't actually have the other factors, right?

[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: Like if.

[SPEAKER_06]: Several of these plaintiffs are American born, which means they're not speaking like broken English or something like that.

[SPEAKER_06]: They're just Hispanic and like maybe working in a job that these people think is like suspicious or whatever.

[SPEAKER_06]: So like I guess two factors, but like it's really close to one factor.

[SPEAKER_04]: Some of the plaintiffs were just getting coffee before work.

[SPEAKER_04]: And I guess they were getting coffee somewhere near where day laborers maybe wait for work or something.

[SPEAKER_06]: Right.

[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: So like it's hard to imagine that when the Supreme Court in 1975 said, you can't use race as like your action is like the basis for your suspicion.

[SPEAKER_06]: Right.

[SPEAKER_06]: What they actually meant was like, well, if it's race plus being 20 feet away from a day laborer, [SPEAKER_02]: I do want to unpack the reasonable suspicion standard a little bit and the way that Brett Kavanaugh talks about it because he's trying to like bludgeon you with logic like you said Peter he's saying like well of course race and ethnicity [SPEAKER_02]: that's just logical that that is relevant to a suspicion that somebody might be undocumented, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: But reasonable suspicion as a standard is either meaningful, it either means something, or it's meaningless.

[SPEAKER_02]: And like it's like, what is the purpose of reasonable suspicion?

[SPEAKER_02]: It forces law enforcement to have to articulate facts, to have to have [SPEAKER_02]: some amount of facts that give rise to suspicion.

[SPEAKER_02]: And what is the use of the word reasonable here?

[SPEAKER_02]: Using somebody's race is legally unreasonable.

[SPEAKER_02]: This is like imbued.

[SPEAKER_02]: This pervades like you said Peter.

[SPEAKER_02]: The entire opinion, it pervades the entire constitution.

[SPEAKER_02]: It actually pervades the entire history of the United States.

[SPEAKER_02]: using somebody's race as determinative of criminality is not legally reasonable.

[SPEAKER_02]: That is why we have multiple amendments in the constitution, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: And so he thinks he's being clever by trying to make it seem like so obvious.

[SPEAKER_02]: Like of course, you could use race in reasonable suspicion, but it's incomplete, complete denial of like [SPEAKER_02]: this really, really foundational constitutional concept that we have and that is imbued throughout the amendments, whether it's the fourth amendment or anywhere else, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: Imagine gun ownership, individual gun ownership, and somebody said, well, we can use race as one factor to let somebody buy a gun.

[SPEAKER_04]: school shootings are predominantly done by by white teenage maids.

[SPEAKER_02]: Right.

[SPEAKER_04]: So we should probably just not let white men go nuts.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: I mean, you know, domestic violence by men.

[SPEAKER_06]: I mean, violent crime in general is something that it here is basically to young men, specifically more than any other group or demographic.

[SPEAKER_06]: Right.

[SPEAKER_06]: And you just can't imagine a world where the [SPEAKER_06]: I mean, they won't even let you get like a slight disadvantage going into college.

[SPEAKER_04]: There was an if, I think it was Hobbs on if books could kill on your other podcast Peter, one of the early episodes said that there was like, uh, [SPEAKER_04]: The thought experiment that was like, you know, like the most effective crime policy you could do would just be to imprison boys when they turned like 14 and let them out when they turn like 28 or whatever.

[SPEAKER_04]: And that would be really effective for controlling crime.

[SPEAKER_04]: It's still not a good policy or one you could do, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: And it's one that the Constitution protects against.

[SPEAKER_04]: You would think, right, right.

[SPEAKER_04]: And any event, I do want to [SPEAKER_04]: I want to say explicitly though that like they're not being hypocrites, they just believe in a racial caste system, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: They're just Confederates, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: I think on the podcast before I've called them Neo Confederates, but I think at this point we can just call them their Confederates.

[SPEAKER_04]: They're fucking these motherfuckers love Robert E.

Lee.

[SPEAKER_04]: These motherfuckers want a segregated society.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, so it's not hypocritical at all.

[SPEAKER_06]: All right, let's move on in this argument.

[SPEAKER_06]: The next portion, Kavanaugh is weighing the burden imposed on people who are detained and interrogated by federal agents, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: This is wild, this is wild, this is wild, this is wild, this is wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a wild, this is a [SPEAKER_06]: Oh my god.

[SPEAKER_06]: That is not an especially weighty legal interest.

[SPEAKER_02]: This is wrong, you guys.

[SPEAKER_02]: Everything about this is wrong.

[SPEAKER_02]: If you are a lost student listening.

[SPEAKER_06]: This makes no sense.

[SPEAKER_06]: If being suspected of violating the law, four fits your fourth amendment rights, then there are no fourth amendment rights.

[SPEAKER_06]: Right.

[SPEAKER_06]: constitutional rights apply whether or not you violated the law that is a huge part of the point it's like a really big part of the point right it's not like if they're a criminal then they don't have any interest in like the fourth amendment though it protects everybody there's a car about from looking for people who commit crimes it doesn't matter if you're a murderer you still have fourth amendment rights you don't get to be like well the police didn't need a warrant because this guy [SPEAKER_06]: You don't get to say that.

[SPEAKER_06]: That's not how a fucking works.

[SPEAKER_06]: Right.

[SPEAKER_06]: He pairs this with what's from a recent Amy Coney Barrett holding where she said When you're doing this injunction analysis, you're trying to figure out which party is irreparably hard and she said [SPEAKER_06]: when you halt to a government policy, the government is always irreparably hard, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: This was in the birthright citizenship.

[SPEAKER_06]: Kevin Oscite's that and you have this sort of like duality, like the Yin and Yang of like the first of all, the government is always harmed when you stop them from doing what they want.

[SPEAKER_06]: Second of all, someone who's committing a crime allegedly is never harmed.

[SPEAKER_02]: doesn't have constitutional rights, right, right, right, right, right, right.

[SPEAKER_06]: There's no harm.

[SPEAKER_06]: Make any fucking sense.

[SPEAKER_06]: It's incoherent.

[SPEAKER_06]: It's it's antithetical to the entire concept of rights.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yes, it is.

[SPEAKER_04]: The move he's pulling here is so fucking dishonest because the analysis is not what are the interests of people committing crimes, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: He even says it like two sentences earlier.

[SPEAKER_04]: He says you have to balance the harms to the regulated and negatively affected parties.

[SPEAKER_04]: which is not just people here without documentation.

[SPEAKER_04]: It's the plaintiffs in this case who are American fucking citizens.

[SPEAKER_04]: It's lawful of permanent residents.

[SPEAKER_06]: Well, he addresses them separately.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: Although that doesn't actually make sense because the agents don't know original dance, whether someone's undocumented, but whatever.

[SPEAKER_06]: So he addresses them separately.

[SPEAKER_06]: He says as for stops of those individuals who are legally in the country, [SPEAKER_06]: The questioning and those circumstances is typically brief and those individuals may promptly go free after making clear to the immigration officers that they are U.S.

[SPEAKER_06]: citizens or otherwise legally in the United States.

[SPEAKER_06]: Wrong.

[SPEAKER_06]: Now, let me regal you with the story.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.

[SPEAKER_06]: From this actual case.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.

[SPEAKER_06]: One of the plaintiffs, in this case, is a U.S.

[SPEAKER_06]: citizen born in LA.

[SPEAKER_06]: Ice shows up at his workplace, asks if he's a citizen.

[SPEAKER_06]: He says, yes, multiple times.

[SPEAKER_06]: They asked what hospital he was born in, and when he could not recall, they racked a rifle, slammed him against a fence and twisted his arm behind his back.

[SPEAKER_06]: They finally get his ID.

[SPEAKER_06]: at which point they let him go, but they confiscate the ID.

[SPEAKER_04]: Right, it's a good ID, and never give it back.

[SPEAKER_06]: Another citizen in this lawsuit who runs a car wash showed ice agents his ID, they still arrested him and brought him to a warehouse for questioning.

[SPEAKER_06]: These are examples from the case, yeah, which Kevin Agnour is completely in favor of just making up a scenario where everything goes [SPEAKER_02]: Right.

[SPEAKER_02]: And making up a standard that doesn't exist in the law, the question about whether reasonable suspicion and an investigatory stop and detaining a person, whether or not it's brief, has nothing to do actually with whether or not it's constitutional, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: It doesn't matter how brief the detention is.

[SPEAKER_02]: And investigative stop is a detention of the person that is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

[SPEAKER_02]: It must be reasonable.

[SPEAKER_02]: This is what the [SPEAKER_02]: In the state of Texas, there are pretty strong rules, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: The state of Texas, there are pretty strong rules agreed upon by courts across the state that a police officer cannot just say, hey, stop.

[SPEAKER_02]: I'm making you stop without reasonable suspicion.

[SPEAKER_02]: It doesn't matter how long it is.

[SPEAKER_02]: It's lying on multiple levels by Brett Kavanaugh.

[SPEAKER_04]: There is a reason why even brief investigatory stops asking for identification are features of authoritarian regimes and strongly disfavored if not outright prohibited in American law.

[SPEAKER_04]: Right, this isn't a come out of fucking nowhere, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: Like, Cavittles literally saying, what's the big deal if you're citizen?

[SPEAKER_04]: You just give them your ID.

[SPEAKER_06]: What's the big deal if you're innocent?

[SPEAKER_06]: We should be able to search your house.

[SPEAKER_06]: It's the same shit.

[SPEAKER_06]: Right.

[SPEAKER_04]: It's fucking crazy.

[SPEAKER_04]: The paper's please regime is fine.

[SPEAKER_04]: That's what he's arguing.

[SPEAKER_04]: He's arguing that if they had the manpower for it, they could because the imposition on every day [SPEAKER_04]: they could just post someone at every fucking corner in every city in this country and demand identification from anyone they felt like at any point for any reason.

[SPEAKER_04]: That's the logical extension of his reasoning here.

[SPEAKER_04]: It's fucking insane.

[SPEAKER_04]: It's totally nuts and it's totally wrong.

[SPEAKER_02]: I think this goes back to like the racist logic thing that you were talking about, Michael, like he's bludgeoning us with like a sort of like a sort of like sassy logic of like, yeah, of course, and just kind of like hand waving, like just accept it, just accept what I'm saying kind of thing.

[SPEAKER_02]: But this is like a mask off of [SPEAKER_02]: the racist logic of the United States, I think, in maybe like the most clear way we've seen at the Supreme Court in a while, like almost as explicit it can get, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: It's only reasonable [SPEAKER_02]: You know, it's reasonable for these agents to take these things into account when deciding in their fucking roving patrols who to stop and who to who to arrest and who to detain.

[SPEAKER_02]: It's only reasonable, like so obvious in the way that he wants it to be, that you would use race like this.

[SPEAKER_02]: if you live in a white supremacist, exclusionary society, in which like your membership in the in-group and in which the decisions about who is to be kept safe and who's in the outgroup and who's suspicious and who's perceived as dangerous and who's a threat to the in-group that that all [SPEAKER_02]: make sense when race actually is a primary factor in making those decisions, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: And that is what Brett Kavanaugh is most logical about here and fucking stupid enough to write.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, this is what he can't avoid.

[SPEAKER_06]: Under his logic, a completely law abiding Hispanic citizen, [SPEAKER_06]: or someone who's perhaps just swardier than average, who works a certain type of job has lesser constitutional rights than a white person in the same situation, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.

[SPEAKER_06]: That is the inescapable conclusion, the direct output of his logic.

[SPEAKER_06]: It doesn't matter what else he says.

[SPEAKER_06]: That is a fact of this decision.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, he talks a lot about [SPEAKER_04]: You know, the majority of undocumented migrants, which he calls illegal, of course, illegal, alien throughout the opinion are Hispanic.

[SPEAKER_04]: But what happens when Trump decides to say that it's the policy that they're cracking down on, I don't know.

[SPEAKER_04]: The Haitian migrants who were eating the dogs in the cats, they're going to be predominantly black.

[SPEAKER_04]: What happens then?

[SPEAKER_04]: You might not know this, but there are black people in Latin America.

[SPEAKER_04]: There are a lot of them.

[SPEAKER_04]: What about that?

[SPEAKER_04]: Are we not going to go after them?

[SPEAKER_04]: You know, Trump is already...

[SPEAKER_04]: floated the idea of Asian undocumented immigrants be coming a target for deportation, which is also a massive population, the Asian population in a lot of states, especially California.

[SPEAKER_04]: There's absolutely no reason why this has to stop with Latino presenting people.

[SPEAKER_04]: Like, [SPEAKER_04]: No.

[SPEAKER_02]: Oh, certainly not.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_04]: There's no like practical reason.

[SPEAKER_04]: There's no logical reason.

[SPEAKER_04]: And there's certainly no indication from the Supreme Court that they have any interest in stopping this being expanded to other racial and ethnic categories.

[SPEAKER_04]: So like.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_04]: It is what it is.

[SPEAKER_04]: It's the silent except for this fucking one dumbass writing his little ten-page shit opinion, the silent blessing of a racial caste system.

[SPEAKER_06]: It's what it is.

[SPEAKER_06]: The last thing we should mention is that at one point Kavanaugh talks about the alleged use of excessive force by police, which is technically a separate legal issue.

[SPEAKER_06]: And what he says is, quote, to the extent excessive force has been used, the fourth amendment prohibits such action, and remedies should be available in federal court.

[SPEAKER_06]: This is cute because the conservatives on the court have actually made it incredibly hard to sue federal officials for constitutional violations, and the last time it came to the court in Hernandez, V.

Mesa, Kavanaugh voted against holding federal officials accountable.

[SPEAKER_02]: Right.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_02]: They said that family cannot sue.

[SPEAKER_06]: Right.

[SPEAKER_04]: And that that was the CBP guy who just shot a kid.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, a border patrol guy just shot a child across the border.

[SPEAKER_06]: Right.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yep.

[SPEAKER_02]: Kill him.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_06]: And I guess Kevin was being honest because he says remedies should be available in federal court.

[SPEAKER_06]: He does not say that they are, right?

[SPEAKER_06]: He's like, remedy should be available.

[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, they're not.

[SPEAKER_01]: I agree.

[SPEAKER_01]: Remedy's at law, interesting.

[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_01]: Good, thank you more.

[SPEAKER_04]: So there is a dissent, authored by Sonya Soto-Mayor.

[SPEAKER_04]: which Kagan and Jackson joined, I didn't love this to stent if I'm going to be honest.

[SPEAKER_04]: It pulls punches, for example, at one point, she says, the government claims without citation that there are two million undocumented migrants in, you know, LA account.

[SPEAKER_04]: She doesn't mention that fucking cavernaw wrote that in his opinion, right then, like if you're going to talk about how that's a bullshit statistic or imply it's a bullshit statistic and knock someone for just stating it outright without citation.

[SPEAKER_04]: How do you not mention that fucking laugh and I did?

[SPEAKER_04]: Like right there.

[SPEAKER_02]: That's why you're saying it.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, it's also very like clinical, you know, which I think oftentimes can be a positive adjective like you're doing something very clinically.

[SPEAKER_04]: You're like sort of taking them apart clinically and I think that's sharp.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, I'm just doing.

[SPEAKER_04]: But I don't think this is an issue that calls for like a clinical [SPEAKER_04]: step-by-step deconstruction of the government's arguments and Kavanaugh's reasoning, like that's not what this case calls for in my opinion, which made me just wonder who our audience was for this and I've been thinking about it a lot and obviously we're recording this [SPEAKER_04]: Just 24 hours after this came out.

[SPEAKER_04]: So I haven't had like a ton of time to really shoe on it, but My best and most charitable guests at this is that her audience is district court judges and her thinking is There's no majority opinion here for them to follow and so I'm gonna lay out the reasons why they shouldn't follow this [SPEAKER_04]: and they can continue to put sand in the gears of things, and they can use a lot of the logic I offer here.

[SPEAKER_04]: And I don't know.

[SPEAKER_04]: I don't know how I feel about that.

[SPEAKER_04]: I don't want to say that is without value, but it feels like that's the approach we're going for than like maybe KBJ or Kagan should have written separate, descent, throw in some fucking fire, you know?

[SPEAKER_02]: This is kind of what I was thinking about the descent.

[SPEAKER_02]: I'm a little surprised, and I don't know.

[SPEAKER_02]: We read a lot of these y'all, like we read a lot of these, and so I think we pick up on subtle differences.

[SPEAKER_02]: A lot of my friends are sharing a quote from Soda Mayar's descent, which is really powerful.

[SPEAKER_02]: She says in this descent, we should not have to live in a country where the government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speak Spanish, and appears to work a low-age job.

[SPEAKER_02]: Rather than stand idly by, [SPEAKER_02]: lost I dissent like this is you know it's sort of like obviously like what the dissent is about I suppose this is a good like succinct articulation of that for sure I am shocked look when this dropped yesterday the three of us in the chat with just the three of us and the chat with other people Brett Cabinon's opinion was shocked yeah [SPEAKER_02]: This is shocking.

[SPEAKER_02]: It's disgusting on its face.

[SPEAKER_02]: It is in contravention of so much of being like foundational understandings of the Constitution and United States law, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: It's surprising to me that each of the three liberals did not dissent separately and join each others.

[SPEAKER_06]: Maybe it's because it's not a majority it's just Brett and they're like I get that that's the only thing I can think of I get that but what's to come What is this showing what's about to happen?

[SPEAKER_06]: I mean it like we said it's not the majority in a technical sense, but like it's sort of it's right right [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, Brett Kavanaugh says like a huge factor in making this decision is whether or not the government will prevail on this argument should this case be heard on the merits he's saying this is how we would rule Yeah, I mean, that's the analysis that you have to do to get to the conclusion that they got right.

[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, I mean, I just don't really get why I would like to see something out of Jackson Kagan would have been like [SPEAKER_06]: I agree with the racism part, but precedent.

[SPEAKER_06]: It would be a thing.

[SPEAKER_04]: Just painful.

[SPEAKER_02]: It'd be a young fest.

[SPEAKER_02]: It'd be a young fest, but I think it is wild enough.

[SPEAKER_02]: It's shocking enough.

[SPEAKER_02]: It's disgusting enough that it warrants each of the three of them doing their thing.

[SPEAKER_02]: Whatever that thing is, but like, do you have something to say about this?

[SPEAKER_02]: It's wild.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_04]: I think what's important to realize here is what the conservators are doing right now.

[SPEAKER_04]: And I don't just mean in this opinion, they essentially want the district courts and courts of appeals to be their backmen.

[SPEAKER_04]: and to do their dirty work for them.

[SPEAKER_04]: They want to bless, essentially, dread Scott, or plus EV Ferguson, but they don't want to write those opinions.

[SPEAKER_04]: They don't want their name on it.

[SPEAKER_04]: Totally.

[SPEAKER_04]: So they are issuing these fucking shadow-docket decisions where the only conclusion you can draw is that we now live in a racially segregated society with different rights for different groups, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: and then they expect, because this is how this Supreme Court often talks to district courts and I've discussed this, I think we've all discussed this on the podcast before, is like through informal signaling on the shadow talk about what they take, what they overturn, what they grant, et cetera, they expect the courts to get the picture and just start doing it, just start being like, okay, we live in this world now.

[SPEAKER_04]: And so far, the different courts have said, no, fuck you, make me, which is awesome.

[SPEAKER_04]: Good for them for the most part.

[SPEAKER_04]: And, but it's fucking cowardly.

[SPEAKER_04]: And if that's what's happening, then somebody should be saying that.

[SPEAKER_04]: Somebody should be writing an opinion being like, yes.

[SPEAKER_04]: The Supreme Court is allowing a Plessy-like regime go into effect and asking lower courts to do it for them because they're too much of a fucking pussy.

[SPEAKER_04]: I said, it's Peter's that last.

[SPEAKER_04]: to do with themselves.

[SPEAKER_04]: They're trying to make the district courts do it.

[SPEAKER_04]: Somebody should put that in a fucking opinion.

[SPEAKER_04]: I believe that, because that's what's happening.

[SPEAKER_04]: Even if the district court judges are sort of my audience, somebody should be talking to regular people.

[SPEAKER_04]: Somebody should be talking to a congressman.

[SPEAKER_04]: Somebody should be talking to the fucking media and explaining what's going on, because what's going on is horrific and shocking.

[SPEAKER_04]: Like I read this opinion yesterday [SPEAKER_04]: Was furious like pacing around by house angrily for like an hour and was like I need to do something to fucking calm down I'm like losing my shit like no line by line.

[SPEAKER_02]: This is wild.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, so it's not like As part of a larger effort sure this would be fine as the only thing the liberals put out on this I'm sorry come on.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, that's how I felt [SPEAKER_02]: Before we wrap, I want to make a point about, like, where a decision like this, or, you know, Brett Kavanaugh's opinion here, like, where does this come from?

[SPEAKER_02]: Like, we, all of us, society, is obviously reacting to, you know, extremism in government right now, this, like, far right ascendancy, authoritarianism, this kind of thing.

[SPEAKER_02]: But we make the point on this podcast a lot that, [SPEAKER_02]: that culminate in this decision, you can draw lines all the way back.

[SPEAKER_02]: I mean, we've talked like all the way back throughout United States history, but more specifically, you can draw the lines back to 2010 when the papers please law went into effect in Arizona.

[SPEAKER_02]: which is where law enforcement in Arizona conducting regular stops were mandated by law with the paper's please law to conduct immigration status checks.

[SPEAKER_02]: Ask for proof of citizenship or legal residency and that law was challenged and it went up to the Supreme Court and an Arizona of United States.

[SPEAKER_02]: The Supreme Court said that requiring immigration status checks during law enforcement [SPEAKER_02]: So outrageous is absolutely like warranted, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: Like more than warranted, confrontation with this kind of regime, with the imposition of this kind of world, with the imposition of these kinds of hierarchies, absolutely warranted.

[SPEAKER_02]: But I think it's just so important to like contextualize historically, and even specifically on these kinds of laws.

[SPEAKER_02]: Where this comes from and again, always always, always noting that it's a project, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: Brett Kavanaugh and this stupid concurrence don't come out of nothing.

[SPEAKER_02]: This is a project built brick by brick by brick over decades.

[SPEAKER_06]: Right, he could've never thought of this on his own.

[SPEAKER_06]: Right, right.

[SPEAKER_04]: You know, I do think that's really important to mention re because, you know, we've talked about on the podcast and it's true that these guys are marinating in right wing bullshit and it's pakeling their brains.

[SPEAKER_04]: And we've talked a lot on the podcast and it's true that a six three court is worse than a five four court and Brett Kavanaugh is to the right of Anthony Kennedy and Amy Coney Barrett is far to the right of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

[SPEAKER_04]: Before people were cooking their brains on Nazi Twitter, before people were cooking their brains on OANN and Newsmax, before all that shit.

[SPEAKER_04]: when it was a five or four court with Scalia and Kennedy.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, they were like, yeah, you can just demand ID from anyone who you suspect might be a migrant, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: Like that's.

[SPEAKER_02]: And Kennedy wrote that majority of the opinion.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, yeah, libertarian king, Anthony Kennedy.

[SPEAKER_04]: wrote that opinion.

[SPEAKER_04]: So I think what this illustrates is one of our core thesis.

[SPEAKER_04]: of this podcast, which is that this is, is and has always been a reaction to the new deal and a reaction to the civil rights movement and a reaction to the sexual revolution.

[SPEAKER_04]: And this is very much in line with a reaction to the civil rights movement.

[SPEAKER_04]: These are people who want a segregated society at least if not something worse.

[SPEAKER_06]: And we've been going for a long enough that I don't have a ton more to say, but [SPEAKER_06]: It's worth re-emphasizing that what's happening here over the course of this year at the court is the creation of a secondary body of law for immigrants, no equal protection, no due process.

[SPEAKER_06]: We've seen that here.

[SPEAKER_06]: We've seen it in like the sea coat situation, no fourth amendment, [SPEAKER_06]: And as always, under fascism, it's not that there are no constitutional protections.

[SPEAKER_06]: You get constitutional protections if you're a white guy applying the college.

[SPEAKER_06]: It's not that there are no constitutional protections, it's that there are categories of people who are carved out from those protections.

[SPEAKER_06]: There are categories of people who the constitution falls upon more loosely.

[SPEAKER_06]: All right, folks, next week we're gonna do a term preview.

[SPEAKER_06]: The term to come just today, they granted certain on tariffs.

[SPEAKER_06]: Let's fucking go girls.

[SPEAKER_06]: So excited.

[SPEAKER_06]: So excited.

[SPEAKER_06]: Whatever they do, I hope it's good for my stocks.

[SPEAKER_06]: You know?

[SPEAKER_06]: And I imagine all of our listeners, if you're the same way.

[SPEAKER_02]: Do y'all think I still don't have stocks?

[SPEAKER_06]: No, you don't have stocks.

[SPEAKER_06]: Back in episode two, Rianne and NASA such as she had stocks that was probably recorded in January 2020.

[SPEAKER_06]: We said no No, it's me.

[SPEAKER_05]: No, I don't know if I have stock You're doing the okay, yeah, no, no, you're pretty you're pretty [SPEAKER_06]: Follow us on social media at five core pods and subscribe to our patreon.com slash five four pod all spelled out for access to premium and ad free episodes special events our slack all sorts of shit we will see you next week.

[SPEAKER_04]: Bye everybody.

[SPEAKER_04]: Five to four is presented by Chrome Log Projects.

[SPEAKER_04]: This episode was produced by Dustin DeSoda.

[SPEAKER_04]: The on-nafoc provides editorial support.

[SPEAKER_04]: Our website was designed by Peter Murphy.

[SPEAKER_04]: Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks, Thatchips, and Wuy.

[SPEAKER_04]: And our theme song is by Spacer Relations.

[SPEAKER_04]: If you're not a Patreon member, you're not hearing every episode.

[SPEAKER_04]: To get exclusive Patreon only episodes, discounts on merch, access to our Slack community, and more join at patreon.com slash five full mark.