« The Weeds

The craziest Obamacare lawsuit yet


Sarah, Ezra, and Matt talk about Obamacare (again!), waning democratic legitimacy, and why retaking the SAT drives class and racial gaps in college enrollment. References and further reading: Josh Blackman’s piece on the ACA lawsuit Amicus brief from the pro- and anti-ACA law professors Katie Keith’s article on oral arguments John Harris’s piece on the ruthlessness of the Republican Party David Farris's book on fighting dirty Jennifer Victor's pinned tweet on the meaning of democracy A white paper on how retaking the SAT affects college admissions 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Yo Bismarck has brought me a mph d, and this is Andrew Manga Nellie. We will introduce you to our pod cast way form the new sedition to the Vocs media Paca Network, so I've spent over ten years reviewing tech products and consumer electronics for millions of people. On the empty, Beastie Youtube Channel and now on the way form podcast Andrew and I use that experience to dig even deeper into latest tech for smartphones too. I max to electric cars. So if you're gadget lover or attack head or if you just want to figure out whether the latest gadget is worth your harder in cash, give us a lesson sacred fine way, form the empty beefy pie cast on your favorite Pakistan Friday, see over their millions of students in America. Do not have access to the technology, they need to succeed in the digital world forever. In innovative learning has helped over a million kids, get free tech, education and the Two million more by twenty twenty one learn weren't very
as an innovative learning, dot com, slash vocs, that's Verizon, innovative learning, dot com, Slash lux everywhere paper! I because they care by the environment, just copy down a cop choice, show her jobs, hello. What comes another episode of the weeds on the box media I've network Matthew places it was served cliff I'm an dab. We got. We got some good stuff with the white paper. We can talk about a big issue: illegitimacy crests, yes, but first we haven't type but before.
Character, the what they are. Actually that's like a weird time. That's actually true for the weeds yeah. I know it's been gone for whilst stairs wonder. I wonder what happened the made us not talk about it, this much well who's to say really. Who knows one integrated. So let's get on with this. That is of interest to me, and you know lightly related to the break. Havin story in that involves the Supreme Court, but also Sarah, our friend Michel from Wisconsin. Yes, he's got a plan to repeal the affordable care. as can you explain what it s a man with a plan? It's hard for me to even explain it with a straight face. I looks way: that's ok, so Texas, verses United States is the latest court challenge to the what care act as keen followers of the ACA communication drama sure we have If those in our listener ship on the weeds will now, this has just been like an onslaught of law, suits and and
sort of law suits that start with I from the place will. That seems like crazy court challenge three years later, that the Supreme Court and like the Asia is teetering on repeal. So this lawsuit this verses United States that has brought by twenty conservative attorneys general and it the Multi Party argument, so the first part of the argument is that you have no that's crazy. Ok, ok, he's got is it is a most important argument that starts of arguing that individual mandate as illegal traffic of a city. the individual mandate Ok, ok, ok, look, let's talk it through and then we can so there was an individual may there wasn't individual man who is a lawsuit. They said that was unconstitutional because you can't regulate inactivity. Yes, that John Roberts John Rob said because it is a tax that is, it is saved by the fact that, as attacks Congress has the authority to leave the attacks on people that do not purchase health insurance. The
the dual mandate is saved there. So what happened to the attacks? So what happened to that tax is in the tax reform bill of December twenty seventeen that tax was lowered zero, and this is crucial because we often said at the time had been repealed and it didn't. I've been repealed, because Congress would need a sixty vote majority in order to repeal it. They did is the time as well as essentially the same. Zero dollar tax, no tax, its essentially the same as repeal so right now we have an individual mandate that stands, but as a zero dollar penalty so essentially has been neutered along. You know enterprising group of conservative attorneys generals who say well no The mandate is now unconstitutional because there's nothing to save it. It's not attacks, any more doesn't have any the defining features of attacks. This argument, you knew, I would say, a lot of people having spent a lot of time on it because it feels we move to a lot of legal scholars like so wide declared on institutional. Like we note, that's fine, a seventeen consequence.
Except these attorney general argue it has. A lot of the hunters are as clicker, so these journeys general argue that the individual man- and this will feel very familiar to people who followed the first case at the individual mandate- is not several ball from the rest of the law that if the individual mandate falls- and they argue a very, very extreme version of this- that the entire arrested a life all of them. We're not just talking about like the insurance of arms or talking about requirements that, Medicare do payment reform, and these new, like calorie labels on menus literally the entire law, falls because one part of it is found and constitutional. It Clear the part of the tuna right as they are asking them to find that is unconstitutional to levy a zero dollar tax. Yes, so that Instead of not charging you, the government has to continue not charging. But that all this unrelated should be thrown out. So let me walk. there's that position the trumpet.
Duration has taken. I mean like in this context: it's more model, but it's still a pretty extreme position that They argue that the entire law does not fall, but some key things related to the individual mandate should fall if the court's find the mandate, You shall they argue that the ban on pre existing conditions that should fall because it is so intertwined with the individual mandate as well. The community rating feature, which is the part that requires ensures to charge everybody the same price So this is a weird sit, the Asian and you know it's troubling We share the administration as entities and we're not going to defend this law that we actually agree in part with the people, bring the challenge to our federal law that certain parts of the affordable, correct to fall, so this has led to a situation where you actually have a number of democratic. Journeys general stepping into defend the affordable care actions. The federal government essentially said they are not willing to make that argument.
oral arguments in a Texas District court on September fifth where the conservative attorney general. They essentially asked for an immediate injunction and one It is they suggested, which would be a pretty bananas outcome. Is that the district judge there, If he's not willing to stop the law on all the states, they should stop the law on the states bringing the law suits in those twenty states. Obamacare should stop existing That injunction is issued, you can actually be of the Supreme Court might have to get involved pretty quickly. This law suit. So that's kind of this hope of it, and I would say so, just a kind of a given over to contacts to this. Obviously you know the affordable care act has been constantly challenged. Well, it's been this onslaught of legal. and, as we can talk, It marks have been reading aloud and talk to a number of people who earn vault in the law suit, who support the lawsuit. Eighty to smaller universe of conservatives in the previous lawsuits have had, I think, those pretty
out of all that, there is no amicus brief filed by a kind of the regular names and these battles, Jonathan Adler, Nick Bagley, Abbe Clock The assessment and Kevin Wall Shoe if you're again followed This drama you know, are typically on different sides of the Swiss. You were interested Jonathan Adler in area, so men generally opponents of the affordable care act under the other one of the architects of the last Supreme Court challenge: Gingrich's Burwell, Nick Baggily, Abbe, Gluck tubes, where's the affordable care act. I liked that's a brief. Basically on behalf of the health care legal, but this fear is that the incident missed university and I think that's interesting about that. Because they don't take a position on the constitutional you, the mandate. Is it we're not going to talk about that? But all of them Greece on the server billowy, you know what they say is in their brief. Is that undercut current Supreme Court doctrine? A court must offer its best guess. I'm a Congress have wanted for the rest of the statute of a single provision is rendered unenforceable, but this guessing when does not come into play where, as here congresses,
is essentially a made. The provision in question left the rest of the statute standing. So this is the context, but then again know, I would say, with affordable, correct relations and with the changing judiciary that you know we're going to talk about more later in this episode. Yes, it feels like a longshot challenge, but maybe it Is it necessarily something we can write off? As just you know, a crazy town, oh, you can never write anything off. Let me say a couple of things here, so only several built the argument as well. I don't you can sever what the conservative legal community does from what the conserve legal community says. It believes court should do if you ve been listening to the recent arguing about the Supreme Court on the right. One of the arguments has continuously been. The recent court battles have gotten so hot. The reason all this has become such a mess is because of all this legislating from the batch. This constant legislating from
bench. Jesse's, unelected judges, legislating from the bench and hear what twenty attorney general republican attorney general want to do, and what the trumpet ministration is backing them up at least partially on doing is staying to the court Congress. Did this thing it did a very clear thing decided not to repeal Ababa care. It decided to take the mandate down to zero without touching anything else in the bill. and we would like you to look at that and then decide the Congress actually believes in, and if you read the arguments for this brief for the conservatives, I view this what they say. The countries actually believes that, if you take out the individual mandate entirely, the whole bill has to fall. that would be legislating from the bench in such insane extravagant Jesus Way, there's heart, even what to say about it. I just want to make one distinction here, The original version of this case came about what the basic argument was about: oh constitutionality. The idea was that if the individual mandate does not come,
Additionally, individual man, it is an essential part of bomb care. If it had not been there, Congress would never passed it and so the whole thing us to fall. I thought that was a dumb argued to what their Bessie Alden restrict. Fourthly, the laws not constitutional and that their either there was an intent in Congress that, if part of it, Our constitutional they made what is under the holding of the Congress, start over that made again not a tonne since, but a lot more sense than Congress, has made a specific scalpel like incision in the bill, what that really shows now is it the thing is now that's going to be Institutional and despair having no real difference in affect we're going to buy picking out the individual mandate. I supposed to bring it to zero we're going to take down the whole bill, because that's what Congress would have really wanted us to do or needed us to do. It's crazy and it just me like, in addition to being something we have to take seriously want. It shows that we don't really have to take seriously beside you conserves dont want the Supreme Court to legislate from the bench. This is what legislation from the bench looks like,
It's also. For one thing right like it's true, This is legislating from the bench, but also every whirling that every conserved who judge has made throughout all of american history is lives like from the bed. At a certain point, I think the game of like a hot. It turns out there not really at hearing in these principles like as a little right because, in this case, like here's a real logic, I think to the attorney general's view that, like congressional Republicans, actually do to completely eliminate the affordable care act right which, staying here- is not so much that they are asking the courts to do something that Congress doesn't want to do. But that they are asking courts to do something that Congress fanatically desires did right. There is not
Congress shut congressional about things that you got importing his joy to speak on behalf of Congress Institution, which is a problem, and I mean the Republicans running Congress fervently want they desperately want to deregulate. The health earn sinister. They really profoundly want to bring back a universe in which insurance companies are not subject to these community rating and guaranteed issue policies that keep voting four bills that will do that they keep putting judges on the bench will rule this way, their allies in the movement, the attorney general are bringing this lawsuit like. This is what they want to do, but its unpopular so they're out there now with ads everywhere, claiming that they support this just like during the vote, debate right, like one of Paul Mayans initial, like top ten amazing facts about aka, was like it protects people pay existing and then it didn't write and like that is the hypocrisy that man
is he right, like guess, like everybody plays dumb games about legislating from the bench but like there is policy disagreement about health care in the United States, in which Republicans won't own up to what their policy view is, and that's the appeal of this traditional method because, like their multiple attorneys general who have signed onto this lawsuit, who are now claiming that leg, they secretly support legislation that would address this and, like they do don't. So there is actually a bill that supposedly addresses this. That really doesn't address that, so way. You could see this playing out. Its Congress could say: You know that wasn't our intention and we will pass legislation to make it like Super Crystal clear what the intention the two thousand, seventeen Congress is that we don't see that the rest of the law needs to fall, but that's not
what's happening, so what happened? Is there's a group of ten Republicans led by Tom, tell us of North Carolina? who introduced a bill called ensuring coverage for patients with pre existing conditions, act that is described in a press release as legislation that would guarantee Americans have equal healthcare coverage, regardless of their health status or pre existing conditions. Unfortunately, that has not actually what the bell does. The bill does say that, yes, insurance companies have to offer health insurance coverage to all people, how However, it does not say that that health insurance has to cover. there are existing condition, so that's like If I am a cancer patient, you know. no signa, whoever they have to offer me health insurance, but they can see no we're not going to cover your cancer treatment, but we will sell you, health, insurance, Sarah Cliff or no because I'm a woman in my thirties we have-
I offer you health insurance, but we may not cover like pregnancy as a benefit cell guaranteed issue, but with like no regulations on what is issued. Guess neat, so that's Ike Vinos speak to match point in a way that and it is, we think- is everyone all the Publican senators know that covering the existing conditions is really really popular, but it also raises premiums makes things works. several people who want skimpy here plans you end up with these bills that Please do not do the things They say they are doing, and you do in a way making it easier for a challenge like this to go forward, because Congress really does have the ability to kind of like cut this. Often, is: if they want to buy you, don't see them doing that and inside you easy them putting out legislation that isn't really going to protect people with pre existing conditions. If a lawsuit like this, you know were decided against the affordable CARE Act this gets, I think, a big issue. So we ve been talking here a little bit about this difference. Cooling
Congress and the congressional majority, unlike Republicans Congress right there all kinds of ways to think about what do you mean? when you say like what Congress intended to do like Congress now Congress five years ago, like the Congress of the future, the majority like a super a proof majority and it becomes a big problem? One of the things that I think people miss about congressional gridlock. Is it because the group, the old image. Commission gridlock is often the majority party. It's not that nothing happens, but that the the zone in which things are happening, gets moved around, and this happens so a good example here is actually the is dreamers back during the big, What kind of congresses of two does? Ninety thousand ten Democrats in Congress almost passed a bill protecting members, I believe, if I'm not miss membrane, it failed. Fifty nine to forty one in the Senate says I or one vote away from having a filibuster, prove majority and because they didn't get but because also majority wanted it to happen when Brok,
I'm a when it did it as an executive authority. He had democratic support. It's not like, like, if Congress had been overwhelmingly opposed, it could have passed a bill making that illegal changing the press, in some capabilities on immigration, whatever it might have been, you saw them. On energy to the clean power regulations that the administration dead, Democrats, income this was a majority that wanted to see a capital, but they were unable to get it done, and then they want Obama to do that and then one Republican still have the boats to stop him, and so here too like what's happening, is it You will say, like there's a republican majority in Congress that does not have the votes actually because of the way converse works to actually repeal Obama or to do the kind of incisions or reforms with a truly want to do as it out. you're seeing this sort of Weird Cross branch effort, a cooperation where, like at the state level, these attorney general bringing suit thee, members of Congress. I kill us are trying to like offer like a little bit of succour to it, Donald Trump,
and the executive branch. His justice department is come with this, we are treated like halfway agreeing and asking the court to do what neither Donald Trump nor Republicans in Congress can do, and so you just end up in this very strange place where because your points that have been- I guess avi say everything- is legislating from the bench. But one of the problems with the legislature, not legislating in a way anybody find satisfying or in a way that is clear. Is you often have these straight in majorities that whole lot of power across the rest of the government try to use it in and weird ways when I give talks about governments are trying to tell people that, like one of the about gridlock? Is it when you're gridlock people take weird city streets places right use, really weird bad routes to get around gridlock and that's what happens in government to gridlock? Isn't nothing happening? It's not true. Paralysis is often things happening in the second third or fourth best way
we're trying to get to the outcome. They want using branches of government or forms of authority that don't let them cleanly get the outcome. They want. The instead require this insane sophistry. with the courts or executive agencies taking on powers that they really shouldn't be. I just want to emphasise, though, that in this particular case is safe, we and aspect of it is it Republicans are pretending to not want the outcome that they want right leg When Democrats tried to pass the dream act and failed, they then, after that, we're like damn. I wish had passed that dream act, because I really want to know that's dreamers, as someone Obama did and executive action have. The dreamers Democrats will act, that's good because we help those dreamers, which is what we want to do, and the specifics of the protecting pre existing conditions,
it's not just that like well, Republicans, fell short because it filibuster rules and said now, they're going through the side streets, they keep saying every step of the way that they want to preserve the protections. People with pre existing thing here on the big levels they want or appeal Obamacare alike. As I understand the republican theory on this, if they could actually till the whole thing, they believe that would give them the political, energy and momentum to replace it with what they really what am I wear my remit? It wouldn't do pieces in conditions, but I don't like what they say they want to do. Is repeal Obama Caravaggio right, I exactly, but when you say to them, if someone says let's repeal Obamacare and then I say I don't agree with repealing Obamacare settle hurt people with pre existing conditions they then say is no. No. No. We have a plan to protect people preexisting additions, but they don't like Donald. come at rallies, echoes in says he as applying to protect me boys exit conditions. He does not know what is so silent about that. In this case, I grieve at that's true,
I draw the line from there is a huge potential source for public misunderstanding right like if you look at the Dreamer Saga- and you came away with that with the view that Barack Obama is trying to help these dreamers and Republicans are trying to have harsh immigration enforcement. Like that's correct, if you'd like to listen to our people, saying right, like an healthcare thou. The whole thing republicans are doing what we just had a huge high profile fight about the Supreme Court Unlike never in that moment, did a single voice. but can senator suggest that part of what they're trying to do with these judicial nominations is deregulate the health insurance industry, but like they are right, like is the thing that you could watch cable news all day. every day you can be listening to every Donald Trump Speech, and you would have no idea that, like he's working to deregulate the health insurance industry but like he is- and I think that's like the most important thing that people have to know about this, yet I think that is a
fair point of kind of where things are anything like that. It's more the reaction from Congress that makes that point to me. The even more than legislation is creating a bill that has, in its name you know, protecting with freeze to conditions that does not in fact, Protect people. Preexisting addition did, I would say I do. I do here probably not rhetoric around deregulating the insurance industry. There's too much government bureaucracy. I don't think it is drawn out yet living there soon, whatever unbreadlike they're not say they are not. He never say one of our firm beliefs here. There should be no protection for people, preexisting conditions, really is. It's like the fixed point around with all of their healthcare actions revolve. Is that like, if you're sick, you should be fact. Unlike that's what people need to know,
So there is one other thing I want to hit on this particular lawsuit that I found very clarifying. There's a great blogger at health affairs. Katy Keith is also I'm teachers at Georgetown, and I think the thing she wrote the kind of that crystallise the lawsuit that might be helpful for you I'll, be here as well, Is that the parties she writes seem to agree on. The case turns on legislative intent, but disagree on whose legislative intent, whether it's the Congress Doc, today's yea and twenty ten or the Congress that zero out the individual mandate penalty in twenty seventeen- and I think that's it- you're really helpful frame for thinking about this particular law. that you have the plaintiff saying the thing that matters is the intent of the people who wrote this law suits and he'd have one of things they actually bring up. A lot is the government's argued since in the original individual mandate, legislation where you actually had the Obama administration, arguing that this doesn't work without the individual mandate, basically direct
the court to say you know, if you take down the mandate, you should take guaranteed issue in community rating provisions with that Josh black men is one of the kind of man a bit of bloggers, he's been arguing in favour of the law suit. He say: scene some of the brief that Pirelli, though for Mercosur General, with submitting and twenty ten were key fighting hunger. Since findings, that quote the guaranteed issuing Khamenei rating provisions are in I welcome the minimum coverage provisions, concert guess expressly bounded the minimum coverage provision is essential to creating effective health insurance markets its evident than Congress, would not have intended guaranteed issue in community rating reforms to stand of the minimum covered provision that twice ascribe to the central were held unconstitutional. That's Kennedy argument you have from the group bring this law suit. The argument which we kind of made already here is that this entails it's kind of irrelevant. What happened at twenty seventeen that work, the court's really need to look at is actually the tax bill that passed in December.
When you seventeen and there it seems very clear that they made this surgical incision to take out the invite your mandate while leaving the room to this intact, and you do arguing that this is a bit moot. What happened and twenty time or looking at is the intention of the twenty seventeen Congress. What I think is so odd about that argument is: is awake of stacks different situations on top of each other, to create an outcome? No one ever intended sounds like you have a car. Is it intended to pass, affordable, correct and did and then there's a conservative law suit. To call me Rachel mandate unconstitutional the Obama, administration, among other things. It argues in the course of trying to make the maximum possible case they can to protect the individual mandate under the commerce clause, says: listen it essential to other things in the bill, and thus it is viable and our common cause powers. We are regulating industry, commerce, that's what still does with insurance like be the individual mandates. Part of that, like all, needs,
be there together and are kind of raising the stakes on Supreme Court. John Rob it's because he wants to throw Republicans a bone agrees with the Republican take on the commerce clause, because a thing attacks and says it: it's all fine. As its attacks. And so then you have this new Congress come in. They could have repealed Obamacare outright big. It have done that with more or less with fifty one votes or slow pill, a lot of it and they don't and then they zero out the individual mandate, and so now the idea is that, instead of the true intent of the bill, behaving the intent during its last alteration, it's the intent expressed in the losing argument in the first court case Is that an argument made in response to and of course nobody believes that it would have been the Democrats in Congress who pass that bill? No anywhere at any level. Miss including Josh, believes that it would have been very intent that, if, individual mandate was rendered involved by the Supreme Court. The European
the thing, and we know how we know that, because after the Supreme Court, when this was all going on. There are all these people talking about how to preserve the plan and how to preserve the bill and interests of the whole thing. As such, this to me as a working to talk about the question of diligence rising cordon and it's happening there it the next segment, but this to me feels like part of the problem that the arguments being made or in such an unbelievable, catastrophic bad faith that we end up those I know we have to take the serious because it might happen bright route. We take it easy because his power behind it but take it just a glaring out. The pure logic of this is almost filling. Are listeners heads with nonsense? Yeah I read in a spook. Why do they want I think, just once more interesting. Is that like this, what Republicans but great like they could say ride like you could easily have? I waved this off right like a couple.
Hot shot, conservative, legal scholars. I came up with this idea and, like people at you know, like conservative donor, h, Q Could it be like now guys? I don't do this right, I think that what you said did my signature like down the line to the courts to the other It is attorney general who wanted to run for higher office, and then you would have a fringe lawsuit right that, like three state attorneys general sign onto but like we don't have that like instead, clearly up at conservative, H, Q, they heard this and they were like. Let's do it, and that's why you have twenty two attorney general right. Unlike that's. What's that events occur under I didn't twenty in two solicitor, I dont alone there are you anyway? This is a means stream Republican Party cause in a way that is almost front than King versus Burwell, which kind of like a valid came up like a little bit to the side of the matter.
stream, where this land is coming up like really with the indoor, like you have to The candidates- you don't Canada, West Virginia candidate in Missouri, who are signed on his attorney general's for their states like. I think, that's a good point that this is not like in the dental named sign any a more extreme claim than even the trumpet ministrations right to like the everything goes view a land. Even beyond that our asking the court for everything to go immediately went in there. Twenty states ex leave it for California willing and our twenty states ended. I would be such a dog catches, the car situation. I am graduate, if, like in those twenty states, that's like the court did this tomorrow. Rape, the mid term and in those twenties ace, millions of people lost health care instantly have. So why would you want but big? But that's what I think is another important take what here, because he-
gives you a sense here, we're taking account of the tongue about particular nominees and what they think. But it's like. What does the conservative establishment want the judiciary to do right, unlike what they are asking for here? is to take the absolute most sweeping kind of vision of the right like clearly not because some narrow concern about the metaphysics of a zero dollar tax, but because, like this really want to use the judiciary branch to start making economic policy headway? right like there have been. I ever an article that this has been like these little nips in pokes dating back to the ninety is about trying to live nibble away a congresses ability to make economic policy but like this, would be a really big deal and whether John Roberts we'll go for it or not like who's to say, but like the concern,
We have institutions that are betting. The district court judges in circuit court judges of tomorrow and deciding by Cavanaugh did they want, like their signed on to not just like this lawsuit, but to this strategy that, like in the future economic policy, ideas that are not popular enough to go through Congress, they're gonna do through the courts, and you know we should. We should watch out, for that and I think that kind of thinking that forward a little, but do you think about other legislation like one of the big things in healthcare like Democrats want to do is Medicare for all liked. What is I don't even know what the realm of legislative challenges America for all bill could face. Could like this on two particular today. This was not, unlike in the size of in that this is a Galaxy brand name of of jazz, who knows what challenges my come up and like kind of curious, like how Democrats might take that into
Don't they look at a more conservative court as they think about? Is it even worth pursuing legislation like knowing that it face is longer odds at the court's than it would have like you. Not seen any other health care programme face, thought on slide of judicial challenges at the affordable care ACT has which You can argue, even though none of them have exploited the birth control, one sort of succeed Supreme Court, but none of them have taken it upon itself. Take on a tall. Man was millions bogeyman. Why? Yes? Yes, I take that statement back then. Yes, you have you have millions of people who don't of health insurance because of one decision any Though the law stands. I think it's certainly contributed to the polarization and you do sense of this law, as you do not fully permanent the fact that constantly under legal challenge, I think that matters in that
could shape how legislation is made in Congress going forward. Let's take a break and talk about the legitimacy of the court. This episode is brought to you by fender. Football is back in the best bet you can make is downloading the fan dual sports book app. It doesn't matter, if new to gambling or an old pro fan, dual has something for everyone and, as an official, sports, betting partner of the NFL. You know you're, better, safe, there's, also never been a better time to use. Fan do because right now, you'll get up to one thousand dollars back. If your first bet doesn't win, you can even turn small wager into a big payday with the same game parlay that just sign up with a promo code. Spotify to place. Your first bet risk free on fan, dual sports book download Vanderpool. Today, twenty When plus and present in Pennsylvania, first online, real money wager only refund She does not withdrawal site credit that expires in fourteen days. Restrictions apply see terms at sports booked outfit
it will not come. Gambling problem call one eight hundred gambler. people often ask me of prosecuting the mob, is like the movies well There is violence, he cracks disguise over their head and pop. Just like a melon. There are heads, so wasn't just permission to take a nap permission to take out his own field. But after taking down over one hundred mobsters, I can tell you this is the real thing is much more interesting. I'm Ellie holding former mild prosecutor and host of the new podcast up against a mom up against the mob. The bail on the world's most secretive criminal organization, La Cosa, Nostra we'll talk to profit Peters, former mobsters, an undercover agents and and Hollywood. All these stories are true new episodes dry,
every Wednesday starting September, eighth, listen and follow up. Hence the mob on Apple podcast, Spotify or your favorite podcast app. So that conversation, I think, is a good backdrop to two. What's been happening, the aftermath Abrek Cabinets confirmation, which is it Bert, carbon out was nominated by the President. That states he was confirmed by Publican majority, in the U S, Senate, it's a total, like the mobile, normal confirmation process and yet in the aftermath has been real sense of it having an illegitimate see to it, there's been discussion on the democratic side about court packing in the future. Returning to that as an idea about the possibility of impeaching Kavanaugh at some point has been a very intense focus on disproportionate representation in the U S Senate, noting that the senator
who voted to confirm cabinet, represent forty four percent of the country. The senators who voted to reject him represent fifty six percent of the country, and I think this is really import. I think this is something we're gonna be seeing a lot more. What's going on in the background here is that, like things are happening against a backdrop of small deed, Emma Craddock illegitimacy, since two thousand forty percent of presidential elections, but one The loser. The popular vote, Republicans control the you a Senate this by winning fewer votes and the Democrats, and that was true and in twenty six times, while its Understood House Democrats will need beat Republicans by you, Much is seven or eight percentage points in the popular vote. To just take back the chamber Democrats could wind, like the house, vote by play for five percentage points and have him in minority and how she really could end up twenty eighteen election with a President Senate and the house, all of which have fewer votes in each of which the majority got fewer votes in minority on the day break.
In a joint Supreme Court, four of the nine justices will be nominated by president who lost a popular vote. initial run for office. That court will then rule on the constitutionality. Gerrymandering of what idea laws of union dues, camping finance Obama CARE, though, In all these cases, it will shape, who holds and your point about medical care for all who can effectively wheeled political power in the future, and so what? What Think you're, seeing here, is a situation in which we, the U S, system of government, is a compromise between states on pretty between big and small its, and that is now mapped onto differences between the republican, undemocratic coalitions in which Republicans are spread out in rural areas and small states, and I'm Democrats from requested in urban centres and big states end so you're having this sort of building problem, where this issue is becoming less and less small democratic. That isn't it. we were listened, derives alot of its legitimacy from and so
on the one hand, like that's benefiting Republicans at me, using that benefit to further enhance thrown electoral power through things they put. Our ideas, on the other hand, is creating a situation where Democrats don't buy into the process by which decisions are happening, and I miss him smoke or real stress in the system that, if it keeps getting worse right? It's not hard to imagine a world where four or five presidential. Actions and row or one by the loser. The popular vote. Where Democrat Swedish don't have a chance in the house, any more I don't really know if things keep going the way they look to be going, a cow how long this is a stable, equal Ibrahim for so let me ask you a question. I ve been thinking about this allied. Where do you feel the Democrats head from here, because it seems I give you a public- and this is a great outcome where you are wielding a lot of power with less vote. But, unlike I, I think I see that internal debate in there's a good John Harris article, politico kind of about lake?
think big, almost eight as fighting dirty did, even if not for tuna need to do that are like we're doing so. This gets to appease. I'm writing in thinking a lot about. So Burgundy brought up the words fighting dirty there's a book by a political scientist named David Ferris called it's time to fight dirty, it's time for Democrats to fight already and basically what he reckoned in that, but there's a lot of stuff go or not enough, but he is basically arguing, as Democrats are now on a rigged and a red game and any change rules. So they should make DC estate fishermen what are we a state? They should put down. Eighteen, your Thomson Supreme Court. He actually recommends breaking Calphurnia into seven six states, I think his so that a lot more dynamic Eric senators Ino be completely reshapes a house there, all things you can do actually sub constitutionally, with the exception of the Supreme Court terms, you could do with majorities, which Democrat still will have at some point in the future, and he basically says look it's time for them to fight dirty and and reconstruct the system to their benefit and wonder things. I've been beginning to think about this as he like ill
Missy, bind because a lot of the ideas, and there are not what I would call fighting dirty there. What I click the trying to more of a democracy like porter. We could, of course, have representation in Congress and innocent, so should DC like these things are not you dont need to justify them, They are not some kind of weird biting dirty. The health system should work the reason they dont work. That way like I would call it is like fighting dirty, but right now, the way the system looks to Democrats is increasing the illegitimate that John Harris Peace talks about, like Democrats need to be more ruthless. This fair peace like all kinds of tweets, foreseeing and com, we're being written, but because of that, because the frame of what's happening is around partisan advantage, anything they do so if they did any of these different things. It would be seen not as trying to make this. And better reflect how America has evolved over time, it would be seen as fighting dirty, so that in itself would become illegitimate to the other side and he a situation where the current will every miss illegitimate. But if Democrats
tomorrow and like broke helpful and three and added bees, he importer Rico and so got it like an IMF, unstoppable Senate majority like that would be seen as illegitimate. If they did all kinds of things you could imagine would be seen as a legitimate, and so I know we all. This is not a good answer here, except for a system that is like going to increasingly break apart the plug scientists, Jennifer Victor. As a pin tweet. She says democracy is not about who votes is about everybody, deciding that the rules of who votes are just among paraphrasing here, but right now the current rules are unjust and that's believe very strongly by the left, any alterations for those rules left me. Would be seen as unjust by the right and, like that's, not a good place for political system to be I want to certainly endorse fighting dirty thing that, because I think it illegal We are right to its Democrats, are mad, so a sentence that a lot of Democrats want to agree with is it's time to start. Fighting dirty
and under the banner had slogan have smuggled in a lot of things that, like just aren't, fighting dirty in particular, like adding new states selectively to entrench partisan advantage is like not only, not fighting dirty like it's entirely within the traditions of the United. DC imported goods on selective. That's what I mean like like and if anything, it's the opposite right. It's like the reason DC isn't state, yes is conservatory, it's actually not Republicans. It's like old time southern segregation as Democrats were fighting dirty right. So it's like that's just fine. fairness. I think that the real question for Democrats right it to Athens, as is shouldn't they put a higher priority on political system,
we're fucked swayed it's hard to sometimes talk about this, because this is really good. Why not both meme that exists from an old add? So if you ever try to suggest that people need to have a discussion about priorities on Twitter, you in ever Get that mean in your mentions, but the reality. I not look amendments the reality is that, like governing majority, is need to decide what order they want to tackle problems. Swayed and in two thousand and two dozen TAN Democrats had a lot of political power in Washington, but not infinite political power and like what they chose to do was past couple quick bills. The George W Bush had vetoed, which, like that seem smart right cause. They they knew they had. The votes have been written. to tackle this fiscal stimulus problem and then to move on to a really achingly, slow health care to be right.
In which both they decided. Healthcare was a key priority, but also like virtually every member. Like would not just delegate this to somebody else right. It was like we're all gonna fight about this health care for a year and like that for better or worse, is like what they chose to do right. Could have made an audit Voter registration bell they could have addressed Diesel state. Did this. I got a lot of things that could have been done, but like that's what they wanted to do, and a huge share of the people who I see wanting Democrats decorum, quote, fight dirty, which I think just means pay more attention to. or form. A topic also want Democrats to create some kind of single payer healthcare system in it is very unlikely to me, like the wisdom of this meme aside that aid,
hypothetical democratic governing majority is going to simultaneously rework the entire healthcare system, but like also spit out like a dozen different political reform Bills- and it seems to me that, like the message of this is again like not to fight dirty, but that political reform is really really significant right in that part of what we're seeing with his ac lawsuits, and things like that is like having an off kilter political system makes it impossible to entrench policy gay, Did you want to make whereas like if you change representation in the Senate? If you pass legislation that will cut down gerrymandering in the house, if you tackle camping finance reform is an issue, and these are the things like you will create a climate. In which progressive ideas can bloom any ship, even democratic forces, Republicans right because, like I fully believe
if that, if no reforms are adopted, like Democrats, will adapt to the slanted political system it just like they will adapt by under waiting the interests of African Americans, Latinos Residence, a big cities, etc, etc, cetera, unlike that is just also a bad outcome. Conversely, link if Democrats adopt a good political reforms, it sound like they will rule forever and Republicans will never win again. Is that they will need to adjust their positions to be more reflective of the majority right now, because they can win with forty six percent. They like aim for forty eight percent. If they needed fifty like you know, we would just have a better country. They think your point about priority setting like as a good explanation for why you do see. Democrats tackling a lot of these reforms are like the idea, like fighting dirty attic states like the creating a single pair system, I like that as such, like political salience, that is a benefit Europe delivering very directly to people like it is.
Creating, whereas like Deasey statehood like I live in, You see, I would love to have representation, but like for my, like friends, where up in Seattle really give out in California the dizzy. statehood isn't it. My third feels it got money laundering for your constituents price by definition. Guess it is something you're doing for lake in open, literally none of us in DC, or could you doing it for someone who people who aren't constituents in the Senate Now, where is a lot of the things that demo certain doing are expanding the size and scope of government and almost a of these other changes we're talking about that would allow them to expand the size and scope of government in the future are just more boring in a way that they are not like, though, the structural reforms that are less salient than saying well, we're gonna give everybody healthcare yeah, and it's one of these things.
I think they'd be boring, well, some of them until the moment that I got proposed, not the DC put on, although one, although I really do think predictive Hurricane Maria Puerto Rico, statehood would be something it would make sense to people that there were these pole, showing that, like about half of Americans, had no idea put, it weakens, were american citizens. We just like, like obviously there's a problem there and like when you look at about the Hurricane Berea, was managed. Despite what Donald Trump says, there are big, cruelly bringing it more fully into the union. Would I think, help but I really want to push on this thing about funding to accept it gets to like a broader problem. I think we have so lost any language of, but what values are political system is supposed to express and be built on vague, but I will not talk about it anymore, so meets, but were too about here like up and down the line is democracy right that they should not be in October college. Its dumb like it should be easier, not harder for people to vote. You should have
People live in DC in Puerto Rico, have representation in the bodies that govern them. I mean like on and on and on line, and almost every one of these things being proposed just more democracy printed in places where the alchemist monsieur, are being undermined and probably not undermined in ways. The like founding fathers intend, like the electoral colleges, meant to stop a person like Donald Trump, not let them in there. The thing is completely attenuated from what it was meant to build, but, like dated, eight seems to me that we have no theory. Of what our system is supposed to do or be like or be built upon, except for the way it works right now like our tire furious status quo bias and we sort of sometimes frame that in veneration from the founders, except like we directly elect you are than it is in like nobody's, but not that many people are talking about going back to his own. Our treaty DES today that his solution to the Senate was to repeal the seventy metals vague as to some people are, but I think something it's interesting is
there used to be a lot of constitutional amendments. Our constitution is uniquely difficult to amend among advanced democracies, but there were constitutional amendments. It happened a lot in eighteen and nineteen and even to some degree, the early twentieth, centuries I'm and then stopped and lost fifty years just stopped, we have become really unwilling to touch our constitution. We have become reverent of it in a way the people closer to it were not, and so this is weird thing happening where like simultaneous headed, I dont think have any kind of real discussion going on about what our political system is supposed to be like, except for within its debate about partisan power and control and we also don't have any like ongoing conversation or even process for how one would reform it, because we just decided to give up on ever touching the constitution again like that's a good like the country does need to do It's because it always has and always has adapted its political system. That's why they're, all these amendments in the constitution, they do that we stop
in theory, up like what we want our system to reflect, and also like any five. conversation about how to make it reflect that that such a bad thing for America, like it's, not gonna, be good. If we have a clearly static and dynamic, non adaptable political system going forward, and it's gonna be worth of the reason we have. It is indeed like you can never touch anything because it might help one side to the other. Appointed Ferris makes him his book that that I, that I think, is very good point That is, I think, in the seventies that we seven yachting Seventys when we brought the voting age down from twenty one. Eighteen, because we are sending kids to die in Vietnam at eighteen, but they couldn't vote on whether or not the war was just and makes a point of view No way that what happened today, because you would look at twenty one year old disabled are going about the democratic and so like, no Republicans in Congress or republican states. Whatever permit that and he's right, I think about how that would go today, but also like that's terrible, and so
It seems to me that we were in a pretty about spot here, yeah but MA it is one that specific here. that is a basic. It is Frederick. I mean I it interesting that, like so browser, you see an increasing abandonment of the ideals of democracy among elite conservatives. bright light into the centre like it's not considered a big deal anymore right so like Peter TEAL, is one influential mega donors behind the present United States he's also, the board of the most influential media and technology company in the world- and he an avowed opponent of political democracy right, unlike that seems like a big alarming deal to me, but
It is clearly not in any way alarming to the ceo of the most powerful media company in the world or to the President of the United States and like that is even more alarming. It suggests that a much wider circle of incredibly rich and powerful people think that we should have Creasy in America and go that I actually built about sucker bergs opinion. That's gonna, stop saying heat is, or is it, but I will say with Trump. I think it is in practice has upset why, right here, that we should have a democracy, big in a way that, like the thunder sort of like a democracy for people like that, Trot benignly of bribery Mean Donald Trump himself, trophies
two weirdo. You know we can centres. We live well Trump thanks Babar, but it's like I'm saying like. I think the really thought for conservatives in their salons and stuff like this is what they think. It's been incredible. Resurgence of, highbrow intellectuals espousing the brand classical liberal ray and like one of the big points of classical liberalism was it. You shouldn't, have political equality right, because conditions of political equality would lead to demand for economic, we distribution and that those should not be met right that you should have to some extent, representative institutions and the rule of law- and you know this mad, but I think it's very much reflected in this. Prudence of like throwing out healthcare extensions and in this idea of
You know we should have elections and they should be fair, but it should be very challenging to vote right, because you know it's like you're setting the bar for everything high in your trying to stop the unwashed rabble, unlike its probably good, to disproportionately disenfranchised people of color, because their identity, politics, it's bad right and not like you are preserving a classical liberal order. That requires a delicate balance because you want competitive elections, but look you don't really want popular accountability and like I think that bad idea it drives a lot of people travelling little nuts when I hear people saying like, but it would be unfair to not over represent small states but Emily Psych heartened. When I hear people making like bad arguments, the Senate isn't
democratic, because it means that, like on some level, they agree that the country should be a democracy, but, like I think, a lot of people, you know influential people on the right by dont think it should be and, like that's the trouble. Let's take a break it and then we're gonna go to our research paper. The cat is applied cast from New York magazine. but it's so much more than that. Its thirty minutes a week where we really wrestle with ourselves, we're talking societal expectations. Race sex career ambitions and our bodies. I just spend our time on Instagram, looking at health at any size, nutritionist, talks and unify. I you know I'm a factor on the internet. They just come to me baby. The algorithm we're here, Conversations you'd only have with your most trusted friend so Gabby. What were the most painful memories?
I'm just Nike air. Listen to the cut on Spotify Apple or your favorite pied cast up hey are you hungry, for I had taken her latest favoured Phil, I like doing Johnson, and I personally think he is the greatest action star of his time or a wild, and we take on a cold classic, because it he accuracy was so good a ruin all future political comedy or take so fanatical. It blows your mind all the way to the next stratosphere, Vendee souls character. Dominic tarento is a king angel man, then check out Galaxy brains, Punkahs we're movies tv and over thinking collide post. By me, Dave Shilling, add me Jonah re each. We gonna show we blow our own minds and yours with galactic level. Take on those. I gazed ts, movie or tv show of the moment in we run those things by our favorite romanians and expert pals whither. Let us up or shut us now, tuna and followed council brains. I have a pike s or your favorite pot catch them.
does it go and take too, as a t retaking in college and Roma gaps by Joshua, Goodwin Oda grounds. Jonathan Psmith, when I was in high school, I took the essay tee, then I took it again, I was hoping to get a better score. The second time I didn't so. I just submitted the first cork as that was, but obviously a lot of people who take it a second time you do mine, I'm getting a better score and it's no brainer cause like you only need to submit. One only took it once right, but for the first time in a fair to get into gifted programme should be assisted in eighth grade Molly capacity, the zone. I took the real lesson in eighth grade because I was cool What I am not as gifted it says, At any rate, it turns out that most people do not retake there is eighty is ended,
disproportionately russian minorities and low income students- don't we take their city, is, and what this this research shows basically, is that retaking helps you chances of getting into college people who don't retake wind up going to worse, was and that in particular, because poor people and minorities are less likely to do. We taking it, creates these disparities won. T per cent of the income gap in enrollment and for your institutions they say, could be closed by getting low income students to retake S. Eighty is at the same rate as high income students and ten percent of the racial gap, those big gap closing for like, almost no remedy, but you gotta get sitting like how like geared up people, get about cottage admissions procedure. and like how like incredibly fraught affirmative action law. Suits and so on and so forth are. It seems, like If you imagine a world of like perfect good faith like a really easy solution here, yeah
I think we talk about a lot of policy problems seem intractable, and this seems like one where you could have a small intervention with big pay off. I think one of the things that jumped out to me was about the fee waiver, that exist for the USA to you. So if you are low income, re, think a cosmetic, fifty or sixty dollars, Dick doesn t. But if you are low income you can get. We were one of the things these folks find in their data, is that forty two percent of students with family and come under thirty thousand dollars do not use a few waiver, even though they appear to be eligible for that field. and that seems like such a small place, where one could focus it have like out of its like publicizing. The visa waiver you know actually like evaluating people, are not like proactively charging everybody Bromley charging, the people who are of the income from a little crazy that this basically public function has been outside settles for profit, company. They now has this fee waivers system. Yes, but if like that seems like one space like where the half a nearly half of the people with
very low income are not even using the few waiver, which could be a huge obstacle to re taking like that seems like a place where worrisome change, that is also a couple interesting things on why we taken their city is very helpful. So the authors, your fine, that for students who initially scorn the lower half the city distribution retaking once boosts Superman wars, which I will define in a moment by about a hundred twenty points on the twenty four hundred point scale. If you like an old stir, like us on the weeds. You might remember the sat being sixteen hundred point, two, twenty four hundred just for the record and scoring students do not do as well. On the second time I mean they get a little bit of a boost, but its smaller than lower scoring students and so That one of the reasons for this is that seventy five percent of colleges saving we're only use a top score and others
five percent eighty percent defined the tops core. As your super score, which is so that the twenty four hundred point as it, he has three eight hundred point parts. They will take your highest score on each of those parts from across all of Europe. Trucks. Rex, if you like, try three times and you go area, strategic can have like your mouth ass, a mere verbal, unlike your s, ride hair differently, for instance, like the system is really rigged actually towards the people we taking it. So if you're, really, like a little will help. I also to sink wondered like the broad points about this is s it he's like a lot of tests are meant to create by quoting what meritocracy right it's a they can. Biased way of seeing how people compare cause schools or different upbringing. Data from the lcd Urban takes it in its the same, but of course it isn't right. Give test scrap you. Have you know your your cultured and places you're taken in an eighth grade? Can it be gifted programs you taking a multiple times, because I can't you know your pay I want you to and they got mad when you score was good enough, for you got mad when it wasn't good enough and like people around you take it
multiple times you understand that as a thing, you know we have if things like this in society, where we have something that is meant to create like an unbiased piece of evidence about how we all rank, but of course, just begins to flecked with more and more precision, but now in a way that like a little bit lesson in target of all the disparities that already exist in society. So yes, Begun for four people took the lcd multiple times and it seems like that is something we should be able to improve it. I keep looking this in thinking that, like, if you get that big of an effect of just taking it a couple times, it's like having the fact is of every other advantage going into like wealthier kids, you get more tests, crap and grow up in homes, Bob LAW, it's not me, I was going to suggest that we ban way take rather than encourage more people to other interesting. Vague is like that seems administratively more simple, I mean obviously less Luke everything that aims at way worse, because, like I like someone with a lot of resources, could really prep
It seems like a re increase disparities, but the repay gonna wanna go back to think us at the beginning. The retaking matters more for people re who score in the lower half right. Like it's a bigger boots, I did. I was gonna, go further and to say, ban the S team while they do not want to hear you, I do what I want. I want away and a little I dont disagree with what you said, but like it's worth, saying that the ESA T, as flawed as it is, probably injects meritocracy into this system relative to what it would be like if it was based entirely on how skilled your parents at high school guidance counts are at like padding resume a bite to eat, you know, and so would like the whole question around this is like. How can you do better? Right? Is people who have advantages? Unlifelike have alot of advantages in life. it seems to me that, like if you had no retail gang way, people would just
eight measures as it would have to at least just like slightly discount how much they care about small gaps. As you know, there's a random term, but, like you, set the bar so that its like luck, try to prepare for this one test like that's something that people can maybe do, rather than like try to prepare through different times, and take it again and again and again is just like rewards you for having, if nothing else, just like parents who are like really apt up about your college mission, how are they go back to messrs point that the people who are gaining the most are the people who you know started offer and lower income bracket to turn it off at the lower? no, I like your kind of denying them the chance to catch up by Maria and should take ten cities as they too
Jesus. I do like a month. We shall everyday right. I mean I could be like the way you put that right. We're becomes the norm that, like everyone like takes too, I think one of the things they point out is just like a matter of timing that if you look at the lower income, kids are more likely to take their authority in Eleven, when you know the really isn't even time to take a second time actually little different kids are starting taken here, which is you know that I gave my people, I think, by the point on this actually little different than words getting taken here, which is There is no system, the corrects for all the advantages and life like the eye person like the city, because that's where I got into college cause, I did very badly in school but, like I think that one of the lessons of papers like this, on where you see a pretty big. A hundred and twenty point increase just on retaking for people in the lower half of the of the bracket I could give us a reminder of like how contention all this is and how careful we should be in terms of the strength of the conclusion to be drawn, and I'm not saying that there
banning it, I'm not amount for banning it. Like I'm a thing, we stick it ten times. I don't think there's a perfect system here. I just think that when you get in data like is it does show you that this is tat we ve. Whether or not it's like an optimal system which probably not, but it's it's very contingent, even in the places where the supposed least contingent you're. The only thing about this is that, like it makes me think about every demonstrator. I've ever heard talk about how much they like trying to foster diversity in because this is a good thing that this gives me is that, like there actually not trying hard right like it is like a kind of obvious leg thing to ask yourself about like Is our standardize test like evaluation system massively biased am I it is I'm getting really kind of simplistic way right like
if you start taking the test and tenth grade and then just like take it over and that gives their own policy is to say like they will take the super score. Rightly NATO led to have that be the policy you can download and think that was the policy, but like I don't, super scores existed by other remember, I remember they took your highest score. Rigour, but I would, rather than just a pure, like admissions off his choice like how do you think about a person who has taken multiple as eighty tests and like they ve chosen? Sick poorly here, like is anything right leg. You should average. If you have multiple data points, Why there's nothing average about weeds centre? goodbye gassed, fantastic facebook group is a great place to go into discussion. Everyone should oppose their outstanding test. Scores c c was really smart there. now don t- I know I know about necessities Now- is resting on his way:
Fourteen time minus forty. Ninety there are ten sixty in aid Could never nice gift or on these twenty four hundred point, as it is both a terrible fifty hats, they changed at ok, so that, as thank our engineering producer, Griffin Tanner, I think of you for listening, and then we will be back to Morrow with yet another weeds, mid term special. The cat is applied cast from near, magazine, but it's so much more than that. Its thirty minutes a week where we really wrestle with ourselves we're talking societal expectations. race, sex career ambitions and our bodies. I just spent all time Instagram looking at health at any size nutritionist. Talks and unify. I you know
I'm a factor on the internet. They just come to me baby. The algorithm we're here, conversations you'd only have with your most trusted friend, so Gabby. What were the most painful memories? I'm just regular, listen to the cut on Spotify Apple or your favorite podcast. App
Transcript generated on 2021-09-11.