'Project 2025 wish list stuff': Supreme Court decisions show the consequences of elections

Six hours after the debate wrapped up, we got another reminder that elections have serious consequences. Today, the Supreme Court's conservative majority overturned a 40 year old decision that helped federal agencies make rules, rules that protect clean air and water. They keep food safe and they keep lead out of our toys. The court also undermined a key tool that prosecutors have been using in the January 6th cases, meaning that charges for some rioters could actually go away. Monday is the court's last day, and the justices still have to decide whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for his attempt to overturn the last election. But look at what this court has already done to impact Americans in their everyday lives. And just remember who is responsible for the conservative super majority, Donald J Trump, who could have more chances to appoint far right justices if he wins in November. Our nightcap is still with us. Charles, you know, I'm turning to you first. This decision on federal agencies, it's known as the Chevron decision. What does it mean for the average American? Why should we care? Stephanie, this is a very important decision that had stood for basically 40 plus years that allowed for the courts to take the interpretation from federal agencies where the law was ambiguous. So, for example, when you're talking about things like fishing and hunting and other regulations that may have seemed ambiguous under the law, they allowed the people who deal with these most, the federal agencies that were responsible for understanding these areas, most to interpret what the law should mean in this case. When they have now overruled Chevron, what they've done is they've taken that power away from these federal agencies that deal with these issues every day, and they have siphoned this power and given it to the judiciary. This is a very, very big deal because not only with Chevron long standing, what we're seeing here, Stephanie, is a complete overhaul of how the judiciary is supposed to operate with respect to its power and what's enumerated to it. This Supreme Court has been on an unprecedent level of a power grab, and they continue to remind Americans that given the current structure, there's nothing that you can do about it. So when you talk about elections and their consequences, this is a prime example because for as long as these decisions are made or can be made by the supermajority, they're going to continue to do so in such a way that not only gives power to the Supreme Court, but to the entire judiciary as well. And that's what we saw here, Tim. Conservatives often rail against activist judges. But if judges suddenly have all this power over regulations, won't there be a whole lot of activist judges in our future? Yes, I think that they retired that talking point stuff back with like caring about the debt and, you know, tort reform. Remember when Republicans, we used to care about tort reform and now, like every law is like, OK, if a woman wants to get an abortion, someone can sue her, you know, to stop her from getting an abortion. That's what the Texas bounty law is. So, you know, they've retired all their principles on this front. It will lead to more activist judges. And I think there's going to be a lot of unintended consequences from this that that, you know, that maybe hopefully in the same way that Dobbs has like a cruise to Democrats benefits once they see just the down, down side of this. One more thing, just going back to the stakes of this and the discussion of the court, why I'm so animated about beating Donald Trump this time. Progressive listeners should think about this. If Donald Trump gets back in, he might he could get two more of Supreme Court appointees. So a bare majority of Supreme Court justices for like 4 decades would be Donald Trump appointees. That should alarm folks. And I think that that also speaks to the stakes and, and making sure that the Democrats are putting the most aggressive campaign forward they can. Molly, does this court have sort of any respect for precedent after this decision? And if not, what should people be genuinely worried about next? Contraception, gay marriage, restriction on medical abortion? Well, what was interesting was earlier in the term, they kicked the can on a bunch of issues that they could have made more radical rulings. You know, they the meth of Pristo and they kicked it out on standing, you know, certain cases that they could have said crazy stuff about. They were like, we'll just wait until after the election. Not quite that, but there certainly was a feeling that things, you know, moved around. There will be more of this, right? This is Heritage Foundation Project 2025 wish list stuff, right? Strip the administrative state. Make it so the EPA can't do EPA stuff. Make it so the Department of Education can't do education stuff. Make it so that, you know, this is this is the sort of dream of the Harlan Crow types. And you know, there's a reason Thomas and Alito are smiling. It's because they are remaking this country in this Heritage Foundation image. Sarah, there are so many high profile cases this term. Do you think everyday Americans are paying attention to how the Supreme Court is changing things? I don't think so. And I think it's because it's very, it feels very complicated. Even this this fisheries discussion, I was trying to understand and I couldn't really get my head around it. But it's, it's, it's, it's about, I think what Tim was saying is about how 2016 really changed things in a way that it wasn't just Trump being elected. It was the fact that he got to remake this court. And it just feels like, I think it was Roseanne where, you know, you find out the father had been dead for years. It feels like the country died sort of in 2016. And I heard Biden say last night, oh, you know, he's going to he's going to make sure that Roe V. Wade gets back in. And it's like, you're president now, you can't, you can't do that now. You don't have the power to do that now. And I think that's why people are so frustrated. And I remember when Roe V. Roe V. Wade was overturned and I cried and a lot of people cried. And it was just, I feel like I've been fighting that happening for 20 years. And then it finally happened. And and people just kind of lost a lot of hope when that happened. Charles, let's talk about this ruling on January 6th. Defendants, what does it mean? So what they did in this case, Stephanie, was try and take a really weird and Byzantine route to essentially narrow the definition of what it is to have an official proceeding. At the core of this case was the question of whether what was taking place, the certification of votes counted as an official proceeding for the purposes of obstruction. And obstruction is one of the things that many January Sixers have been charged with, including the president. And the key with that charge is basically an official proceeding. So what the Supreme Court decided was, well, as the law is written, the official proceeding that was taking place with respect to the certification of Bozo on January 6th isn't what was meant by the actual law. Now this this does get kicked back down and allows the Department of Justice to take a different route to charge people with obstruction under this new interpretation of the law. But it also delays a number with those prosecutions and jumbles up those people who have already been convicted of obstruction because of the previous interpretation. Obviously, we know that Donald Trump has also been charged with obstruction at some point. And what we know because of this is that it's going to require a recalibration for prosecutors to think about how do they go about proving it, given this narrow interpretation of the law that the Supreme Court has set for.