S2 E37 | As the Court Turns: Decision Interrupted


S2 E37 As the Court Turns: Decision Interrupted

Discussion topics in this episode:

  • We put the spotlight on a recent 5-4 decision on an emergency stay request from the Supreme Court, coming down on the side of allowing a new anti-abortion law in Texas to take effect, at the will of the state, and completely deferred getting involved until such time as an actual case is presented to the court, of which there are several already on route. Adding insult to injury, this was merely a procedural decision, and as such, it is equal parts callous and irreverent of all the U.S. citizens in Texas who were about to lose their civil rights.
  • Hopefully, the Department of Justice will do what it can to protect those who choose to continue to exercise their right to an abortion, as it is a protected right of all U.S. citizens under federal law.
  • Strange as it is, states rights is the method of experimenting with 50 flavors of the republic, making inroads on civil liberties in the face of mask mandates and legalization of recreational drugs and also the resurgence of patriarchy, the last gasp of a by-gone-era.
  • Roe v. Wade  (1973) grew it’s roots in Texas, so there is no irony that they are the state to usher in a new cutting-edge aimed at the severance of women’s rights from the law.
  • This episode is probably more of an explainer on a soapbox than our typical episode, with little in the wake of solutions other than wait and see how to act. It feels like we’re suspended in time watching to understand how bad the car crash is going to get in live-action slow motion. Gutt-wrenching seems an appropriate description.
  • Calls to Action:
    • If you have off-cycle elections coming, pay attention, and make sure you vote. In many states, you can be purged from the voter roll for missing only one election. Don’t get rolled, keep voting to stay registered!
    • Contact your congressional representatives and voice your support for the following critical legislation to all citizens of the United States. If you want your vote to count and our tax dollars going to the things that matter, then you want to support this legislation:
    • Peacefully protesting is the release valve for citizens to band together in a show of force and solidarity around a common cause. Seek out local marches and rallies to show support for women’s civil rights as full citizens.
    • If you are in Texas, perhaps make plans to seek assistance outside of state lines. If you have family living in Texas who is seeking the freedoms offered by women in your state of residence, then you have a duty to help if you can.


  • Michael V. Piscitelli
  • Raymond Wong Jr.

More info

  • Interesting article on how the most supreme court in the land has reversed its own decisions over the years. More specifically, the Supreme Court has overturned more than 200 of its own decisions. Here’s what it could mean for Roe v. Wade, an article by AJ Willingham at CNN. MVP got lazy allowing this analysis through. It’s not wrong, just maybe a little light and airy.
  • We have transcripts now! Located at the end of each podcast episode’s page on our site. Check it out, but know this: It’s all AI. It’s not us. So thank you in advance for forgiving any and all errors.

Special thanks to

  • Our ongoing supporters, thank you!
  • Our sponsor CitizenDoGood.com .
  • Intro music sampled from “Okay Class” by Ozzy Jock under creative commons license through freemusicarchive.org.
  • Other music provided royalty-free through Fesliyan Studios Inc.


The following transcript was taken using AI technology. We cannot vouch for its accuracy. Read at your own risk. These are time-stamped from the day we recorded and unfortunately not name stamped.

Citizens Prerogative Podcast Closed Caption Transcript
S2 E37 As the Court Turns Decision Interrupted

10:26:52 in times like these being a citizen is a big job. Thank you for joining us to celebrate the virtues of self rule and debate the state of our republic.
10:27:01 Welcome to the citizens prerogative podcast. This is the voice for your nerdy host Michael Jessica Telly and we are blessed with a co host whose passion for our republic precedes him everywhere he goes, Ramin one Jr.
10:27:13 Thank you. I’ve come here to judge today.
10:27:18 This is episode number 37, we are in season two. And we’re going to title this episode with maybe a mini series.
10:27:30 As the court turns.
10:27:34 This episode is named decision interrupted.
10:27:37 We’re going to spend some time talking about recent events at the Supreme Court in relation to some laws that Texas is trying to put on its books, or actually has successfully put on its books, it’ll be interesting to see if they stay there.
10:27:51 It is important that we talked about this we thing, you know we’re not a, a real time news organization per se but what we have noticed is within the media there is a lot of buzz going on, they’re getting everyone very excited about what SCOTUS is done,
10:28:07 but I think the real story here is more about what SCOTUS has not done. And I don’t think they’re really talking about it, they’re just talking about the outrage and I agree there is outrage in this law is disgusting, in my opinion, however, the court
10:28:22 has not officially upheld anything in my opinion but Michael you you had some great analysis for us. Thank you.
10:28:32 Yeah, no, no decision has been made at this point but it’s a huge signal flair.
10:28:38 And I understand I think we understand why different groups would be up in arms around this, especially for the interim period so the defense from the bench.
10:28:50 Excuse me by Kagan, and sort of my are, as well as others.
10:28:56 Really paint the picture of why the signal flare is concerning, and I mean from my own perspective, it concerns me because it just smells like religious idolatry.
10:29:14 You know, being put into our laws.
10:29:17 And so that’s just, that’s an aside, that’s an affront to the Constitution because you know our laws are supposed to be free from religion, as well as, you know, any individual if they so choose to join or religion or to be free of religion should be
10:29:31 personal choice.
10:29:33 choice. And there should be nothing in the laws that are driving or reflecting a preference to any particular religion in this land, so
10:29:42 it’ll be interesting to see but I mean just the stick, take a step back.
10:29:47 You need we all need to be very critical of any sensationalism around this because it is just a signal flare. I mean, it was an emergency request to put a stay to put a hold on the implementation of that law in Texas.
10:30:01 While lawsuits, which are already filed are on their way through appeals and whatnot to get to the Supreme Court, so that they will at some point in the future, make a decision on one of those cases.
10:30:16 So if you could just, I mean if we can clarify that point so so what most people are used to and even I you know Mike what I’m more used to is when a case works its way through the system, it gets to the Supreme Court and there is a massive official ruling,
10:30:30 and I think people are getting confused. The the media makes it sound like the same thing has happened but this is not business as usual, this is somebody just kind of overstepping the system and going directly to the court like an escalation if you will,
10:30:42 I Karen court request.
10:30:48 Yeah, that’s exactly right and and it makes sense, because the way the law, you know, is to be implemented and executed in the interim period between now and the time that those cases the actual cases come up before the court there.
10:31:05 I’m, I can only imagine there will be documented scenarios of actual harm to women in Texas, either because they aren’t able to get services that they were able to get prior to that law passing, or as a result of the law and vigilante justice, coming
10:31:27 to bear on individuals, so that the law.
10:31:32 The law has a few striking things that are incredibly scary in them. And anybody drawing a likeness to, what’s the show, Margaret Atwood’s show. Are you saying the.
10:31:47 The Handmaid’s Tale Handmaid’s Tale yeah I totally understand that you’re a pony and draw to that because of the way the law is designed to pit citizens against one another.
10:31:58 In order to enforce it, which is, is atrocious. It’s atrocious and it’s not it’s not the type of law that you typically would see in a more democratic style Republic, maybe more more of a communist regime.
10:32:13 So it’s really interesting to see conservatives upholding communist style, law enforcement.
10:32:22 It’s just baffling for for a number of reasons and. And so it’s going to be very very fascinating to see how the court decides the cases when they come to bear.
10:32:32 Now, if this decision to ignore or, you know, put not put a stay in place from the emergency request.
10:32:40 I mean if that’s reading tea leaves is still what’s to come.
10:32:44 then people have a right to be concerned.
10:32:47 But right now yeah that case has yet to be decided. So let’s be clear this battle is still up ahead.
10:32:55 And that signal flare tells us a little bit about how the majority may decide, it doesn’t guarantee us.
10:33:06 Because you know what the core, ultimately, more important than its own ideology is its long term.
10:33:14 Our belief in it. right, they have to maintain confidence in the court.
10:33:18 They know that they lose power if they lose legitimacy. So in my mind, to me, is decisions kind of up in the air, so they, especially when they come out and do a hard signal flare like this.
10:33:29 So that’s going to give the base their base. Now, I’m going to talk about this in political terms which is sad, but it’s essentially how it is and it may not be republican democratic lines, but there’s ideological lines that these are clearly on one side
10:33:44 or the other.
10:33:46 And so what we’re going to see is maybe this was just read me for their base, but they aren’t going to upset the apple cart when, when the decision comes on those cases, there may be something in those cases that allows them to split the hair split the
10:34:01 difference, like, maybe, you know, maybe they only go halfway into removing or repealing civil rights for citizens in the United States.
10:34:14 Are they going to do a half measure are they going to do a whole measure or no measure at all because maybe, maybe they see in the law, even the most conservative view.
10:34:23 It’s not good for legitimacy of the core right to this side against itself.
10:34:32 I wonder also, if now I mean all that makes complete sense to me thank you for giving that thorough analysis because I think a lot of individuals need to take a look at their primary news outlets take a look at your resources and see how they’ve treated
10:34:47 the current scenario if they gave you a sense of finality on this if they gave you a sense of decision has been made, and they’ve wasted a lot of your time with it.
10:34:58 That’s unfortunate. It is an important issue. It deserves to be discussed, but did they treat it like settled business to get your emotions going, and that’s we’re trying to get away from is media that is emotion based, and purely kick click bait, if
10:35:29 you will, but I am just really interested in the fact that, you know, we, what I think is so I’m going back to operations Michael, we, we would even train in the industry we would train consumer behaviors, through our decision in policy so I, I’m wondering
10:35:31 if the court, you know everyone’s read into it but what if the courts, just like we are not going to let everyone just come with these emergency requests right.
10:35:39 No, no, no, let’s just shut them down, not listen to them, ignore them. And and of course, unfortunately, the right is going to treat it like a win because they treat everything like a win, even if they lost.
10:35:54 So, you know, they’re just, they’re just pumping it up right so in fact was this actually a non event.
10:36:02 I see what I do see as a like an artifact of that decision in of itself is the core is upholding states rights.
10:36:16 The core is saying, we are not in a position because we have yet to have a case to be heard, to act on this. So don’t ask us to get involved absence of the case, We’re not going to do it.
10:36:32 Texas Legislature legally pass that law, the governor of texas signed it into law. Those are all constitutional events the state is allowed to pass some laws, whether or not those laws are punitive to American citizens that live in Texas, will be determined.
10:36:51 When a case is brought to the court, and that’s what I believe the court is really just said clearly with, with this decision.
10:36:59 Don’t bother us until you give us a case.
10:37:02 And that is the majority right that’s the majority opinion I mean, half of the court didn’t agree, they would have put a stay in place.
10:37:10 And let me just talk about why. Right.
10:37:14 I’m not trying to talk down the emergency request I think it was legitimate.
10:37:20 Especially when you read the descent.
10:37:21 Because as citizens of the United States, we should be protected by the laws of the federal government, no matter what state. We happen to reside and.
10:37:35 And this law in Texas, effectively removes entirely rights from individual citizens in Texas, citizens of the United States rights that they have under federal law.
10:37:51 So that was really a key in my mind a very key component of the descent, and would have been a good argument for why a state should have been put in place, because the law disenfranchises citizens.
10:38:06 So there is a, an issue with that disenfranchisement and it’s interesting too because I appreciate you bringing up states rights because you’re you’re absolutely right, it was a it was a law created through the duly elected process.
10:38:21 It is, it is the states right to to legislate, and it is up to the federal government to deal with that grievance I think a lot of us forget that that we reside in the States, but we are citizens of the federal system they, we reserve our benefits you
10:38:36 know it’s not the state of Arizona, that lets me travel to other countries, it’s my rights under the federal system, not the state system and and people seem to forget that they’re different government.
10:38:48 They’re different structures we are technically sovereign independent state governments that are part of an overarching system and I think that’s a good thing to point out that this is really a it is a states rights matter more so but people are getting
10:39:02 caught up in the mix.
10:39:05 Right.
10:39:07 And I think before we move on to the, I think the next topic around this, which just flooded out of my little brain.
10:39:18 The.
10:39:19 We got to talk about who’s really at fault here, because it is not the courts responsibility to close the gap.
10:39:26 We have a at sleep legislature, who is who is left us. So really Michael it’s not the court, who’s affected the citizens. It’s not the core it’s it’s, to me, it’s it’s the legislature it’s the wing it’s there, it’s their sisters, and the third wing of
10:39:44 the government and brothers, let me just say it today in the in the third way.
10:39:57 I think as we continue to review, you know, this decision.
10:40:03 And I’m going to continue to watch it very closely because, again I emotionally was triggered by it which disappoints me because I tried to focus on independent media, and even they were being a little bit focused on it in the wrong ways.
10:40:16 Yeah, I had to read into it in detail to get my bearings on it and I’m like wait a minute okay there’s no case.
10:40:23 This is has yet to be, I get the signal flare got to put the signal fire in context on, but this is far from over very far from over.
10:40:33 So with that, Why don’t we take quick break here word from our sponsor, and then we’ll pick up.
10:40:41 Here’s a message from our sponsor citizen do good, fulfilling a dream, we’re all possess an intrinsic love for self rule that is reciprocated with free speech and equal justice under the law.
10:40:53 Susan do good values law promise of all of the amendments to the Constitution along with the original core documents, taken together they form a framework and an operating manual for the Republic, that provides us the means to change with the times.
10:41:08 The time is now to deeply re examine our current implementation of governance for the dawning of a new day. We are a proud sponsor of the citizens prerogative podcast major partner and spreading the good word about civic the love and the power of change
10:41:20 At citizen do good we want to empower all citizens to participate in their republican or reconstructive way with that goal in mind we need your help to stay on mission and grow this community.
10:41:33 Please rate the podcast with five stars on iTunes through the app on the web or on your device. If you don’t feel you can give us five stars let us know why on our sponsors Facebook page citizen do good.
10:41:45 Also make sure you join our newsletter, it says and do good, calm, you’ll get updates every couple of months on our antics not just the podcast.
10:41:52 While you’re there, check out the shop which has emerged specialty merchant, and provides a way to make a one time contribution, help us pay for production and hosting, please feel free to share any suggestions you have directly through the Contact Us
10:42:05 page. Thanks for your support.
10:42:11 So, coming back to one of the last couple bullets we had for going through this topic here.
10:42:19 Like the cause and the real fix.
10:42:22 You’re hinting at this right before the break I think the reason why we’re even in this situation where people’s rights are flippantly here today are gone tomorrow based on the whim of a core that has a life appointment and has not elected is a very precarious,
10:42:42 it’s very strange.
10:42:44 And it is a lack of leadership through our legislative bodies. Unfortunately, we just have not mastered the strength to create good laws.
10:43:00 The idea whole woman’s right to choose the destiny of her own physical body is up to five people to make the decision, ultimately, and the only reason why they even have that right today is because of an original decision by those five on elected, people
10:43:19 that sit there for lifetime appointments.
10:43:22 This is not how to operate.
10:43:28 Democracy democratically.
10:43:29 It’s barely, I would say barely a way to operate our republic. I mean the way we’ve defined it through the constitution and everything else it’s just, it’s, it’s also civil rights.
10:43:42 I mean, if you look at civil rights in general, that’s the crux of all things there’s plenty of legislation that can go through, you know, the purse strings the power of the purse strings that Congress has.
10:43:53 They can push all that legislation through with just a mere majority vote.
10:43:57 But in anything that has to do with rights, civil rights and civil liberties. All those get put through the filibuster process so you need 6160 votes to actually do any legislation and.
10:44:12 And it’s interesting because when you look at all the civil rights legislation that’s been passed over the history of this country.
10:44:19 The fight against it has been so strong through the courts that what’s clearly documented in writing isn’t what we have an implementation anymore.
10:44:30 So it’s a really fascinating cultural war dug in by ideology racism history. You know the history of this country where some people had rights to own other people, versus where we are today, where people no longer have the rights to own one another.
10:44:50 We’ve come a long way but we’ve had to really gerrymander our way to this point.
10:44:56 And that’s why it’s, it’s strange and it’s difficult and it’s problematic we really shouldn’t be relying on the courts to make these types of very weighty decisions, you know and and courts have been known to flip flop over the years, they don’t always
10:45:13 end up on the right side of history. Man, they’re on the wrong side of history for a time until they’re on the right side and then the rack on the wrong side and I mean I won’t go into it now but I always talk a little bit about the Warren Court back
10:45:25 in the day, because that was one of the few times in our history, where the supreme court with the same head justice changed its mind in his lifetime, the Warren Court.
10:45:39 I can’t recall the details of what that was about, but I’m sure it was civil rights related and how majority of our civil rights in this country come through the Commerce Clause in the Constitution, which is pretty ridiculous.
10:45:53 I mean, equal treatment, like to be served. You know, in business, or, you know, having to not pay an additional tax when you want to cross state lines you buy your train ticket or something you know there’s there was all kinds of discriminatory practices
10:46:09 in private companies where states have laws that were not punitive and so eventually all those had to come to the federal government, because the federal government regulates interstate commerce.
10:46:21 So, it’s a bit of a stretch, again, because of a failure of our ability to legislate properly for civil rights for citizens.
10:46:31 Let me pause.
10:46:33 What I struggle with is that you’ve got the legislature, you’ve got the you’ve got all politicians frankly anyone that’s pushing for the any of the law making or administrative wing, and they’ll blame SCOTUS they’ll blame the courts for what’s happening
10:46:51 and they and that’s the thing I remember that during the Bush administration, the activists justice and all of this activists courts, but what was missing from that whole story is the only reason they had to act is because nobody would, in the legislature
10:47:08 right, somebody has to make a decision, you would not legislate you would not close the gap and protect your citizens and the courts were forced to rule, they cannot just say they’re the Supreme Court they can’t say, Oh, whoops the Daisy.
10:47:24 We can’t they can’t hand it back. I mean, they need to, I suppose they could right Mike they can always send it back and say it’s a matter for the legislature right instead of ruling.
10:47:34 They have some power there are ability to send it back but I just don’t think that gets us anywhere in society. Hmm.
10:47:44 No and the technicality is they always fall on or the constitutionality of things. And the problem there is that ignores the fact that constitutionality and of itself isn’t a trip, interpretation.
10:47:56 It’s an interpretation that the judges do based on the law.
10:48:00 And now we have like five original list versus for people who are willing to take the words and apply them to reality today, original list. Let me just take a step back so the majority five people who weighed in on this recent court case I would throw
10:48:16 them all into the original category, even though they may not identify themselves that way.
10:48:22 But basically that’s someone who just looks at the words the letters on the page right and and if they’re going to consider context around the words on the page, they consider it in the time that it was written.
10:48:33 What was the intent of the individuals, of the time when it was written to add context to read in any context, right.
10:48:44 And that’s a very slippery slope because the other side of the fence can do the same thing the people who are going to read the text, and rather than trying to interpret it exactly how it was intended to mean the time it was written, read it and look
10:48:56 at it how it makes sense to be applied to people living life today with the technology we have today right with the reality on the ground today.
10:49:06 And so, either in either of those cases, though, it requires you to glean some understanding of what the spirit of the law was which is based on the intent.
10:49:20 And the intent of. Was it the intent of the individuals in their minds who wrote it, or was it the intent of the outcome of the law that they wrote.
10:49:31 And I know it sounds like I’m splitting hairs here.
10:49:35 But there’s a big difference. If a legislature in their mind, wrote a law, hoping it would remove people’s rights to control their bodies.
10:49:45 But when you read the text of the law.
10:49:54 And you think about the outcome, being civil rights or civil liberties. You can interpret it very differently if if you if you’re thinking about it as an outcome base and say, okay, the way this is written to me feels like it’s trying to end franchise,
10:50:06 an individual to have more agency over their own life.
10:50:14 And so, you know, at the end of the day it’s all interpretation that’s the only point and I want to make with that.
10:50:21 And it’s dangerous in that sense right and that’s why you got to legislate things clearly, you know, you got to make.
10:50:27 That’s what good law is write a good last one that can stand the test of time is a pretty clear in its intent, and its desired outcomes the spirit of it.
10:50:38 So would you say that the stacking the court argument is purely that of just, Just frankly causing, when really the legislature should be passing legislation and not adding more members to the core.
10:51:06 Hmm.
10:50:56 Yeah, I mean we were supposed to have.
10:51:00 We’re supposed to have judges appointed that really uphold the law, and are supposed to consider themselves as citizens of the Republic as well.
10:51:11 And the ramifications and the effects of these things for the population of the United States.
10:51:19 Right. No one citizen or group or category of citizens regardless of the parts you are born with attached to your body has any more or less rights over anybody else that that I think is something we should all be able to agree on, although I’m sure there
10:51:36 are women out there who still believe that they should be property, and that their bodies are the whims of others. You know that. I don’t think that that’s, that’s, that is for an individual to choose for themselves.
10:51:49 That is not for an individual that choose for others.
10:51:53 This is where I get really hung up on the idea, and I obviously you can you can tear me down left right, the other way but I will be critical of people who sit on the courts, who issue decisions that in my mind logically clearly are not congruent to who
10:52:16 they are as an individual.
10:52:19 And so to me, that is evidence of an ideology that’s come to bear on an individual that they uphold above their own rights and above their own agency in their own life, so many people give up their lives to insert name, whether it’s a god or a priest
10:52:39 or pastor or a witness, or a saint or, I don’t know, or a political candidate or a political candidate, and idealogue any any ideologues, anybody who gives themselves behold when we simply to ideas rather than to thinking critically.
10:52:58 That’s an affront to our system, our system is founded on critical thought and questioning things and changing our minds when it makes sense. You know, we have to be open to that.
10:53:10 And make no mistake about any religion, they’re all interpreted.
10:53:13 They’re all interpretations many flavors of interpretations of many things written or unwritten years ago.
10:53:20 So I have a really hard time when we start conflating law with idolatry from other people’s books, other people’s books, outside of, you know, our constitutions and other documents written that support that.
10:53:39 Not trying to beat around the bush I’m really just trying to call it out and all the flavors and ways that I see it, where you know critical thinking goes wrong people’s beliefs, sometimes get mixed in there.
10:53:54 And that’s, that’s some of the dangers what I saw in the signal flare
10:54:00 people, you know making decisions in violation of their own.
10:54:06 You know personal freedoms, but at the end of the day to, if I’m sitting on the court and I’m original list and I believe that the federal government has limited authority and states have expressed authorities in the constitution which is true, then,
10:54:21 you know, maybe I’m just going to lean on that and I’m going to avoid the social stigma of taking a stand too soon.
10:54:32 Is the court susceptible to or interested in public reaction when they do something like this and do we know, do they watch public reaction do they care is this is this a way for them to to stoke and see what the current public mood is when they when
10:54:53 they overall make a decision like this. No, I mean, I’m gonna say no, as how it feeds into the decision.
10:55:03 Do they as individuals. Contemplate that I’m sure they do.
10:55:07 But I think what’s more influential to how they make their decisions is their ideology and.
10:55:18 And those most close to them, most immediately around them that share those ideologies right so they don’t care about the far flung individuals in Texas.
10:55:30 They’re actually mostly concerned with their with their elite Cordray, you know immediately in their circle.
10:55:39 So you know all these individuals have come up through various ranks, having built various relationships and joining various organizations.
10:55:49 So, how they think about things and and their decisions are not always just their own. I don’t believe that’s possible. It’s not possible for any of us in society.
10:56:01 Right.
10:56:08 None of us are our own little isolated box we all are influenced by our environment, they are no different. But the nation is not their environment in my opinion.
10:56:12 I think they have a very select.
10:56:14 I don’t know what the number is and I don’t know who they are but they definitely have circles and those circles influence how they think and they will be considering them and how they make their decisions just as much as you know the highfalutin ideas
10:56:28 of the future of the Republic, if they’re all at all concerned about the legitimacy of the core, I’m sure they’re probably preemptively that’s probably the real preemptive discussion is, how do we not piss off people so far as to become packed.
10:56:47 Now I’m speaking as if the court is an entity. If I was the Supreme Court, and I’m a bunch of conservative justice that has a power that haven’t had in a long time.
10:56:56 I certainly don’t want to abuse it to the point that the legislature feels like it has to add additional judges to make it impartial again, or make it legitimate.
10:57:06 And that’s a that’s a real risk, the legitimacy of that core, and I think the, you know, the Supreme Court Justice is always the first and foremost individual that considers that.
10:57:18 Now this size of the court has she I know we’ve spoken about it before but can you clarify the size of the core and yeah so now we currently have nine we didn’t start out with nine.
10:57:29 I think there was an attempt to make it bigger, probably went to 12 or was going to go to 12 for a while, that was during 1940s.
10:57:39 Maybe 1930s, because there’s a bunch of depression era programs that the President was trying to get through and the courts were saying no that’s overreach that’s an overreach too big, too big federal government has no authority.
10:57:51 And he didn’t like it. So they’re going to try and add justices that would have been amenable to passing that presidents legislation.
10:58:01 Thankfully, that didn’t end up working out because that would have been a pretty big abuse of power.
10:58:07 You know it’s even questionable if we were to take that step today, you know you’re introducing questions until the legitimacy of the core if you just decide to expand it because you don’t agree with its decisions.
10:58:17 At some point we have to live with the rules as they were written, even if it means we have to lose a battle today to win the war tomorrow.
10:58:26 And that’s kind of the dance that’s going on right and that’s why we haven’t, I haven’t seen any legislation get proposed yet that’s going to expand the court from Congress.
10:58:36 But I would love to see HR one pass to see citizens united go down, and I would love to see gerrymandering go away and I would love to see us restore the Republic and stop spending so much money on these ridiculous campaigns, but that’s an aside, well
10:58:52 you know i i would also just like to push for them not to expand the core, because I don’t know how they’re going to avoid each other in those halls, there’s more of them they’ll just be real like everyone will be sneaking around corners in those robes
10:59:09 it’ll be really weird.
10:59:10 Love it. That’s a great way to end it out. Thank you for humans.
10:59:16 We have men your house. Thank you Mr. Raymond long Jr.
10:59:20 And thank you, Mr Pisco Italia it’s truly been a judgmental space of higher thoughts.
10:59:31 Um, it’s been something that’s for sure.
10:59:34 For more information on this and other episodes head over to citizen do get calm and click on podcast, while you’re there hit up our Contact Us page and leave a comment, we’d love to hear from the community.
10:59:45 Special thanks to you our listeners we saved the best for last. You were the best and you have been for years. Thank you for your support. We know it’s painful and we love you.








“Liberty Justice Forall” image by Serge Shop.


%d bloggers like this: