0:00

Hi, I'm Riley Fessler. I'm

0:03

a podcast producer here at the DSR Network, which

0:06

means that my job is to make sure that

0:08

we have great content and great guests across all

0:10

of our shows. Our programming

0:12

is supported by our members, and for

0:14

that, we are truly grateful. I

0:16

hope that you'll consider becoming a member to support the work

0:19

that we do. Members

0:21

receive an ad-free listening experience, bonus

0:23

content for nearly all of our shows, early

0:26

access to episodes, enhanced

0:28

show notes, and access to

0:30

our exclusive DSR Slack and Discord

0:32

communities. Membership is just $7

0:34

per month, or $70 per year. To

0:38

become a member,

0:40

please visit thedsrnetwork.com/buy.

0:44

That's thedsrnetwork.com/buy.

0:47

Thank you very much for your support. This

0:54

is Words Matter with Norm

0:57

Ornstein. We've got the

0:59

votes, and screw the rest of you.

1:02

And Dr. Kavita Patel. These

1:04

might be some of the smaller moments, you know,

1:06

with all the bombshells. Didn't catch people's eyes. Welcome

1:22

to a special combo

1:24

episode of our members

1:26

only and what's

1:28

accessible to anybody who wants

1:30

to listen podcast called

1:32

Words Matter from the DSR Network. This

1:34

is a special edition

1:37

because Norm Ornstein and I are

1:39

discussing some of the very important

1:41

arguments that were made on

1:43

Tuesday, March 26th during

1:46

the Supreme Court hearing of

1:48

the plaintiffs' Hippocratic Alliance, the United

1:50

States v. or actually I've got it

1:53

the wrong way, I think, Norm, right?

1:55

Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v.

1:57

the United States. the

2:00

correct order of plaintiff and defendant. And

2:03

it's such a special episode that we wanted to just

2:05

make sure, one, everyone could listen to it. And

2:07

two, we're going to try not to do

2:10

what's probably easy to find on your favorite

2:12

social media platform. But we want to try

2:14

to highlight some of the issues, as Norm

2:16

and I discussed them, around

2:19

topics that might not necessarily

2:22

come to the front of your Twitter

2:24

threads. And so Norm, I think, first

2:26

off, impressions that you had

2:29

from listening to the justices and

2:32

just the back and forth between the plaintiffs

2:34

and defendants and the source general, as well

2:37

as all three women, by the way, we

2:39

should point out, that

2:41

were representing the United

2:43

States Food and Drug Administration, the federal government's

2:46

point of view. And

2:48

then two, Danko, which is

2:50

the manufacturer of Niferprex and

2:52

Niferprestone till. And number three,

2:56

the lawyer who was representing the

2:58

Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, in

3:00

this case, the plaintiffs, seven physicians

3:02

who cite standing

3:04

because of potential harm made

3:07

by the FDA's decision to approve

3:09

this and expand access to Niferprestone.

3:11

But all three women, so very

3:13

notable. Norm, your thoughts? Well, first,

3:16

Kavita, when I saw the name

3:18

of the plaintiff, I thought it must be

3:20

a typographical error, because it should be the

3:23

Society for Hippocratic Medicine. But

3:29

I thought the

3:31

Solicitor General was

3:33

brilliant. She had

3:36

such utter command, first

3:38

of all, of the

3:40

facts, including citing out

3:42

of memory footnotes and

3:44

passages. The

3:47

lawyer for Danko was fantastic, as

3:49

well. It's hard for

3:51

me to give any credit to the lawyer

3:53

on the other side, because she happens to

3:55

be married to Josh Hawley, who

3:58

is one of the best lawyers of

4:00

the worst of the worst in

4:04

the Senate right now. But

4:07

I really was first struck by

4:09

the fact that the stars across

4:11

the board, including the justices in

4:14

this oral argument, were

4:16

women, all of them. And

4:20

it took me back to

4:22

an earlier era. Sandra Day

4:24

O'Connor finished second in her

4:26

class at Stanford Law School

4:29

and was only offered jobs

4:31

as a secretary. My

4:34

wife's class, they came

4:36

in in 1970 into Yale Law School, had 28 women out of

4:38

170 plus enrollees.

4:45

Now it's a majority, but you think

4:47

about what we lost. The

4:50

brilliance, of course it's not just the law,

4:52

but in earlier times it wasn't

4:55

as bad as the Taliban or

4:58

other countries like Saudi Arabia,

5:00

excluding all of that incredible

5:03

talent from helping to grow the country and

5:05

the economy. But

5:08

we lost an awful lot over decades

5:10

and centuries. The second

5:13

point is that Sam

5:16

Alito remains somebody

5:18

who I hold in the Senate.

5:22

I've been waiting for this. Okay, yes. You

5:24

know, not only is he corrupt, but

5:28

talk about somebody who comes to

5:30

a case with

5:33

his own preconceived conclusions

5:35

and his ideology and

5:38

then struggles to find a way to cloak

5:41

it in faux originalism

5:44

to justify the conclusion he's already come

5:46

to. This is the exact

5:48

opposite of what you want in a jurist,

5:50

whether it's the Supreme Court or any other

5:53

court. And he was schooled

5:55

today by the brilliant Katanji

5:57

Brown Jackson, among others. point,

6:00

and then I will leave it up to you, is I've

6:03

read the sigh of relief through this

6:05

hearing because a

6:07

good part of it was not about

6:10

the substance, but about the standing of

6:12

these plaintiffs, arguing not

6:14

that they'd suffered an injury, not

6:17

that they were on the verge of

6:19

suffering an injury, but that

6:21

it was all theoretical. And

6:24

I think there are at

6:26

least five and maybe seven

6:28

justices who will argue

6:31

in the end that they did

6:33

not have standing. And that's

6:35

for two reasons. One, I

6:37

think a lot of these justices

6:39

recognize full well the mess

6:41

that they've gotten them into with the Dobbs

6:44

decision, and that if they

6:46

keep doubling down on that, it will

6:48

take a court that is already reeling

6:50

from a lack of legitimacy and disapproval

6:53

by Americans, but

6:55

make it that much worse. And

6:58

the second is, there's no

7:00

doubt to me that down the road, five

7:03

justices or six are

7:05

going to move to undercut the

7:07

administrative state, do away

7:10

with Chevron and other doctrines that enable

7:12

agencies basically to act on behalf of

7:14

the public. The last

7:16

one they want to take on as

7:18

the lead in that is the FDA.

7:22

So I think they're going to punt

7:24

on this one. And frankly, I'm fine

7:26

with that, given the alternatives. So

7:29

just in your estimation, and let me

7:31

maybe it would be helpful since, you

7:34

know, Norm, I don't think we'll

7:37

blame people who are working and

7:39

have like real jobs to kind

7:41

of not necessarily pay attention to

7:43

these topics constantly. So let me let

7:45

me offer like what I would say is

7:47

my there's some beautiful threads you

7:49

tweeted about this, but I'm going to offer kind

7:51

of in the moment, a little bit of why

7:53

we think this is going to be maybe

7:56

I don't know, seven to maybe six

7:58

three, but still in favor. of

8:00

the administration kind of in favor of like

8:03

the FDA holding kind of the standard

8:05

around the FDA. But what I thought

8:07

was interesting is that several kind

8:10

of points that I'm going to give credit

8:12

to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who

8:14

might, people might be sleeping on

8:16

and thinking she's just going to be kind of

8:18

off, you know, with Alito and others. But

8:21

there's a kind of a narrative that started where

8:25

when Holly, the lawyer for the

8:28

plaintiffs, for the Alliance, where

8:30

Barrett asked Holly how a doctor could

8:32

know that a woman seeking, that was

8:34

in the emergency room seeking kind of

8:37

a DNC had a viable embryo or

8:39

fetus. Couldn't it have

8:41

been a miscarriage? Could it have been

8:43

something else? Or how could that, the

8:45

conscience clause exemption not apply or what

8:47

would be the situation where it's such

8:49

a dire emergency and kind of all

8:52

these things had to come to bear.

8:54

Kagan also again, incredible

8:57

justice follows and says again, and

8:59

she kind of beats this point several times, by

9:01

the way. But in

9:03

this one particular narrative, Kagan kind of says the

9:05

two doctors of the seven

9:07

who are objecting because they were complicit

9:09

in abortions for having to have performed

9:11

a DNC after a woman used misopristone,

9:13

which is what two of the doctors

9:15

claim. And

9:17

Holly couldn't provide really any reason

9:20

why those two doctors with

9:22

their objections should then create

9:24

complete kind of national disruption.

9:28

Then you had Katanji Brown Jackson, Justice Jackson,

9:30

who kind of went on

9:32

to say like, look, DNC's are rarely used.

9:35

There are additional things that are done. Like

9:37

it's not always like a DNC. So she

9:39

wanted numbers and data. Holly kind of sidestep

9:41

that. And then you get

9:43

Clarence Thomas who basically invites Holly to say,

9:45

well, what about the Comstock Act objecting to

9:47

kind of mailing quote, lewd materials that

9:50

are the words used in

9:52

the form of misopristone. Let's be clear,

9:54

an FDA approved abortion drug. So Thomas

9:57

kind of going back to that Comstock

9:59

Act. and then Kagan constantly kind

10:01

of bringing up the very valid point

10:04

about traceability. You have to show in

10:06

order to claim that the FDA kind

10:08

of overstepped, you have to show that

10:10

the injury is traceable to

10:12

this 2016 and 2021 decision

10:15

where the FDA allowed for

10:18

pharmacies to provide these medications with

10:20

their doctor's prescription and then eventually moving

10:22

to telehealth because of the pandemic. Holly

10:25

basically said, I don't need to show

10:27

this direct traceability. We just need to

10:29

show increased harm. We think

10:32

traceability is satisfied by the FDA's own

10:34

words. So I think that this

10:36

is like, and then when she asked to kind

10:38

of Kagan again, what is the harm? What is

10:40

that additional harm? Holly goes

10:42

on to cite studies that have

10:44

been retracted, norm, never peer reviewed,

10:47

and have actually by the publication,

10:49

SAGE publications, been publicized

10:52

and kind of apologies put

10:54

out for these publications not meeting

10:56

standards. And in some cases, the

10:58

studies she's citing are like random

11:01

physician blogs, like just random blog

11:03

posts about how there were these like

11:05

increased ER visits, et cetera. So

11:07

nothing specific, nothing peer

11:09

reviewed, nothing citable. And the reason I

11:12

think that thread of kind of here,

11:14

here, here, here is important. And I

11:16

started with Komi Barrett is because it's

11:18

very clear, like the justices are like, you

11:21

need to show us this link for standing. And then

11:24

you have this random like gas, like

11:26

this kind of bomb of Alito and

11:28

Thomas throwing in Comstock, which I

11:31

had to look up again, because I forgot it's like from

11:33

what, dorm 18, 1890, something like that. And

11:37

never ever been enforced. Never been enforced.

11:39

And again, it was applied not for what

11:42

we're talking about here, but around like

11:44

pornography. Anyway, just you can maybe talk about Comstock

11:46

and what it was meant to be used for, I guess,

11:48

when it passed in the 19th century, I

11:51

can't believe I'm saying that. But how,

11:53

how let's, let's actually connect this for

11:56

listeners, something that I haven't seen any

11:58

commentary today, John. Let's. connect this

12:00

for listeners to the election. Because here's my thought,

12:02

Norman, I want to hear your thoughts. I

12:05

think that if Trump wins, all he has to

12:07

do is put in an FDA commissioner that can

12:09

easily kind of come in and put in back

12:12

incredibly restrictive measures. You can keep

12:14

a drug approved that you can put

12:16

in back incredibly restrictive measures.

12:18

You can paper this to

12:21

essentially make any Supreme court ruling moot

12:23

and accomplish almost the same effect. Right. And my,

12:25

I mean, Norm, I don't see anybody drawing that

12:28

argument and distinction. To me, everything

12:30

that happened today, it felt like one step

12:32

forward. We put Donald Trump in place and

12:34

he put some lunat, you know, lunatunes

12:36

show, which is what will happen in

12:38

charge of the FDA. Guess what happens?

12:40

Not just to mr. Hearthstone. He'll put

12:42

every key. It'll be a he, he'll

12:45

put every drug that deals with choice and

12:47

reproductive freedom under some severe

12:49

REMS kind of risk.

12:52

Um, it's the REMS

12:54

protocol, which is called risk evaluation mitigation strategy,

12:56

which is what's in place for mr. Hearthstone

12:58

in about seven or eight other

13:00

drugs and, and he'll put, he'll

13:03

put that in place. Am I wrong? What

13:05

am I missing? I mean, you're absolutely

13:07

right. Uh, and that, uh,

13:09

underscores the stakes of this, uh,

13:11

election again. I have

13:14

to say watching Holly, uh,

13:16

do all of that made me

13:19

think, well, she probably is the

13:21

ideal partner for her husband, Josh

13:23

Holly, because they both have a

13:25

level of mendacity that is off

13:27

the charts. Um, and

13:29

you know, the other thing that struck me

13:32

is that, uh, the rigorous studies

13:34

about mecca for stone and the,

13:36

uh, getting it by mail show

13:39

that adverse effects are something like 0.3%. Not

13:43

even 1%. My guess

13:45

is that a whole lot of other

13:48

drugs that you and

13:50

I and others get through the

13:52

mail from our pharmacy benefits managers

13:54

have significantly higher rates of adverse

13:57

effects and all you have to

13:59

do. is listen to

14:01

any of the TV commercials about

14:04

these popular drugs, which explain the

14:06

adverse effects. You're not explaining them

14:08

because they only affect 0.3%. So,

14:14

you know, this thing is

14:16

absurd. Fortunately,

14:20

I think Barrett,

14:22

who is showing to me signs

14:24

that she, more than any of

14:26

the other conservative justices, including

14:30

the Chief Justice, is growing

14:32

more and more sensitive to the

14:34

damage to the integrity of the

14:37

court that comes from

14:39

these radical decisions and

14:41

is trying to find a way

14:44

to create a different balance. I

14:46

hope I'm right about that because

14:48

on the whole, she aligns with

14:50

the rest of the radical justices.

14:52

But I'm hoping that increasingly, we're

14:55

gonna see the two worst,

14:57

Thomas and Alito, end up

15:00

on the wrong side of

15:02

many seven-two decisions, further

15:04

discrediting them as if we needed any further

15:06

evidence. I also was impressed with Gorsuch. I

15:08

mean, he didn't speak much, but I don't

15:11

know if you agree, Norm,

15:13

but I thought that Gorsuch and Comey,

15:15

which we kind of knew about Gorsuch,

15:17

right? Like we didn't, and

15:20

by, oh, now I'm thinking in real time. Where

15:22

was Kavanaugh? Was he not, what happened to Kavanaugh?

15:24

I didn't hear a word from Kavanaugh. Was

15:26

he there? He must've been there, right? To

15:29

be sure, I was

15:31

mostly listening on cable news where they went

15:33

in and out and parked. No, I listened

15:35

to the whole thing. Because I

15:37

had to cover it, like, well, one, I was

15:40

interested in, too. I had the time. I listened

15:42

to the entire thing. I

15:44

don't remember Kavanaugh speaking. No,

15:46

I didn't see Kavanaugh at all. I will

15:48

say with regard to Gorsuch, one

15:50

of the real strong principles

15:53

of the more conservative justices

15:56

has been to use standing

15:58

to greatly... limit the

16:01

access to the Supreme

16:03

Court of a whole

16:05

host of cases. Now, for the most part,

16:07

those have been cases that

16:09

benefit corporations and rich

16:11

people, but I

16:14

think Gorsuch, at least in this case, is

16:16

being a little bit more true to

16:19

the principle that you have to show

16:21

real direct harm to

16:24

have standing. So

16:27

I'll take that for now as

16:30

a way out of this. But the

16:32

other thing we ought to mention, Kavita, is, okay,

16:35

we have this case in front of the court.

16:37

We know that when they brought it up in

16:39

the Fifth Circuit, that the radical

16:42

judges there jumped all

16:44

over it to try and achieve

16:47

their goal. But we also know

16:49

that Project 2025 run

16:51

out of heritage with

16:53

the direct involvement of the Trump campaign

16:56

sees a path where

16:58

you start with abortion. It'll move to

17:01

a national abortion ban. It

17:03

will include doing just as you say,

17:06

making sure that Meffa-Pristone is not

17:08

available except under onerous

17:11

conditions, and then move on

17:13

from there to a war against contraception,

17:16

a war against gay marriage, a

17:18

continued war, which will move

17:21

to recriminalize gay sex and

17:24

create a world in which

17:26

the Handmaid's Act will

17:28

look more like paradise, the

17:31

Handmaid's Tale, excuse me. So we

17:34

have to look at this case, and if it ends up

17:36

the way we're hoping it does, breathe

17:38

a small sigh of relief, but remember

17:40

just as you said, all

17:43

of that could disappear if Trump wins

17:45

another term. Yeah, it

17:47

could. And it just makes it even

17:49

more important, I think, just for me,

17:51

it was a really direct line, like while

17:53

I would like to say that today, there was a

17:55

moment today where I felt more, I'm like, oh, thank

17:57

goodness. Right. Like, okay, fine. Put Alito and Thomas. to

18:00

the side, like I said, this could be, you know,

18:02

however this decision comes down, but put

18:04

them to the side. What a great time. But

18:06

I was like, wait a minute. No, this is bad.

18:08

This is still bad. And I can't help

18:11

but to think that like, now that it's

18:13

been pretty clear, like how they might

18:15

lose and on what basis standing, for

18:17

example, that they'll just find a way

18:19

to create standing, right? I mean, it

18:21

reminds me a little bit of like

18:23

during COVID, all the courts that were

18:26

forcing doctors to prescribe hydroxychloroquine inside of

18:28

hospitals, and we had no basis

18:30

for doing it. It wasn't even

18:32

like there was no science binded. It

18:34

was medication used for parasites and horses,

18:37

and people, but not for COVID.

18:40

And we have courts forcing people to

18:42

do things like that. So you think

18:44

about the potential unintended consequences, and they're pretty

18:47

dramatic in this case. Absolutely.

18:50

And, you know, I was reading the other

18:52

day a story about a couple that

18:55

took aquarium cleaner and

18:57

ingested it because it had

19:00

as one of its ingredients,

19:02

hydroxychloroquine, and both died. You

19:04

know, consequences of

19:06

this misinformation and

19:08

disinformation were drastic,

19:11

and not just because

19:13

people didn't get vaccinated or tried

19:15

to rely on treatments that were

19:18

absurd, or actually

19:20

denied to people who needed

19:22

drugs, lupus victims and others,

19:24

the drugs that they needed because people

19:27

scooped them up believing

19:30

that nonsense. You

19:33

know, it's a very

19:35

difficult time. And when I look

19:38

at Alito and Thomas, and I

19:40

look at many

19:42

occasions in which Kavanaugh and

19:45

Roberts have

19:48

joined them, and the

19:52

Gorsuch often as well, it

19:55

takes you to Alice in Wonderland, verdict

19:58

first trial to follow. And

20:00

we have to be very

20:03

aware of, sensitive to, and

20:05

concerned about situations where

20:07

it's clear they bring their ideological biases

20:09

right to the bench and

20:11

then post facto

20:14

come up with rationales. And

20:16

this is something that former

20:19

Justice Steve Breyer in

20:21

his really good interview

20:24

with Kristen Welker

20:26

on Meet the Press. And

20:28

with the book that he's written brings

20:31

out that, you know, his

20:33

pain that they were misusing this

20:36

doctrine for

20:38

their own purposes. Yeah,

20:41

I'm glad you brought up Kristen Welker's interview

20:43

because maybe that takes us into something that

20:45

comes up as a little bit of the

20:47

breaking news while we're recording this, but I

20:49

think it'd be worth getting your take on

20:51

it. And believe me or not, like this

20:53

is actually somewhat related to the Supreme Court

20:56

hearing today because it talks about the

20:59

NBC News hiring and what looks

21:01

like subsequent firing within, you know,

21:03

days of the announcement that

21:06

Ronna McDaniel is a paid

21:08

NBC, MSNBC correspondent. Then

21:10

on Sunday, Meet the Press, there was

21:12

a pretty dramatic intro to Kristen Welker's,

21:15

that same interview of Stephen

21:17

Breyer's that aired that same hour. She

21:19

also had a live on-air interview with

21:22

Ronna McDaniel, but had booked

21:24

that interview prior to learning that she

21:26

was going to be a paid contributor

21:28

for NBC, the employer for Meet the

21:30

Press and for Kristen Welker. And

21:33

that generated so much backlash, so much

21:35

so that at the end of the

21:37

hour when Chuck Todd, who was on

21:39

their kind of roundup panel, basically said

21:41

the network owed Kristen Welker an apology.

21:43

And there was just a flurry of

21:45

both internal and very public and high

21:47

visible kind of proclamations even by all

21:49

the basically female anchors of MSNBC, including

21:52

Rachel Maddow, Nicole Wallace, Stephanie Rule, who

21:54

basically said like not on our network.

21:56

And now as we're recording this kind of

21:58

breaking news, norm that she's been

22:01

let go and that she's retained counsel,

22:03

not a shack. Um, I

22:05

bring this up because we're talking about the Supreme Court,

22:07

but we're talking about the political backlash. We're talking about

22:09

the coverage. You and I have talked about the media.

22:11

We need to do that media episode, but tell

22:13

me your thoughts on this. And I'm not sure

22:15

if you saw that news, but you know, what,

22:17

what a 48 hours it's been

22:20

starting with meet the press and ending

22:22

on the Supreme Court hearing with

22:24

this news after of her being let

22:26

go from NBC. So,

22:29

um, first I've been

22:31

plenty critical in the past of meet the

22:33

press, some of the guests

22:35

that they brought on with some of the

22:37

interviews, uh, that, uh,

22:40

Kristen Welker has done, but I also did that

22:43

in the past with Chuck Todd and

22:45

other moderators, I want

22:47

to give her props for the interview

22:49

that she did with Ronna McDaniel, you

22:52

know, she stopped using, uh,

22:54

Romney because Trump insisted on

22:56

that. I'm guessing that now

22:58

the Romney family is going to insist

23:00

that she not use that name, um,

23:04

but, uh, and

23:06

I'll give props to Chuck

23:08

Todd. What a massive self-inflicted

23:10

wound by a completely out

23:13

of touch leadership at NBC

23:15

news. And you know,

23:17

Ronna McDaniel is likely to walk away

23:19

with $300,000 that she did not earn.

23:24

Um, I actually thought it would be

23:26

better for NBC at this point to

23:28

basically keep her contract going, but

23:31

just not use her on any

23:33

shows so that she couldn't then

23:35

dance off and become a commentator

23:37

somewhere else. Uh,

23:39

and she will probably find some right

23:41

wing network, uh, to do so. It's

23:44

funny you say that. I actually said the same thing

23:46

to a colleague who works at NBC. I

23:48

said, why not? You're going to

23:50

have to pay her either way. You've got a

23:52

contract. Yeah. Why not just keep her and never

23:55

put her on TV because all contracts, including even

23:57

my own has like a carve. You can't go

23:59

on any. other network.

24:01

And you would imagine she's got that same exclusivity on

24:03

there too. And so I'm a

24:07

million thousand. I love that

24:09

idea of keeping her on. Not sure that... Although

24:12

I think there's something just deplorative about

24:14

keeping someone on a payroll and handing them

24:16

free money like that, which is I'm sure

24:19

where some of this comes from. There's

24:22

more to this than just the

24:24

insensitivity of hiring somebody. And

24:26

this pushback

24:29

from Frank Luntz and others, Greta

24:31

Van Susteren, they're trying to

24:34

silence conservative voices. No, they're

24:36

trying not to put on

24:39

and legitimize serial liars and

24:41

election deniers and insurrectionists. She

24:44

actively tried to alter the

24:46

election results in Michigan. So

24:49

it's a very different case. But then

24:51

you look at the reality that Kristen

24:53

Welker was blindsided by her own network,

24:56

that all of the other anchors and

25:00

others had no idea. But

25:02

also all of the

25:04

people who are on as paid contributors, my

25:06

guess is that very few of them make close to

25:08

$300,000 and they've laid off plenty

25:12

in the name of fiscal responsibility.

25:14

So the direct slap at so

25:16

many people, and there's one other

25:18

point we ought to make here,

25:20

which is that this is not

25:22

a new thing. And

25:24

there is some reality

25:27

to the struggle that

25:30

television networks and

25:32

newspapers with op-ed pages have,

25:35

where they want to represent all

25:38

of the different elements in the political

25:40

arena. But you go back to CNN

25:44

hiring Jeffrey Lord and Corey

25:46

Lewandowski and others, who they

25:48

then had to fire when

25:50

their scandals emerged and

25:52

other networks doing the same thing.

25:55

Some of the absolutely cringe-worthy contributors,

25:58

paid contributors, on

26:00

op-ed pages like the Washington Post, Hugh

26:02

Hewitt being a good example, but I

26:05

can go on with more and the

26:07

times and others as well. And

26:11

it's tough, but you can

26:13

find legitimate conservatives.

26:16

I applauded the New York Times

26:18

when they hired David French, who

26:20

has proven to be an enormous

26:22

asset, a conservative, but who is

26:24

an honest figure out

26:26

there. You can find

26:28

people who represent Republican

26:30

viewpoints, conservative viewpoints, without

26:32

pandering to the worst

26:34

instincts, and NBC News just

26:37

soiled itself over and over again with this

26:39

one, and it's not going to be forgotten.

26:42

I think it's the one that's not going to be forgotten. And

26:44

also, I can tell you

26:46

that my guess, and I'm not no

26:49

firsthand knowledge, but nor am I guessing that all

26:51

of this is done because there's this pressure

26:53

to kind of appear. I

26:56

don't even know what to say. Balance for provide

26:58

diverse perspectives, something like that. Well,

27:00

there's a way to provide. I know

27:03

that this goes without saying, you and I

27:05

know some Trump officials who could provide some

27:07

very diverse perspectives who would actually be like

27:09

somewhat, you know, one I'd be more interested

27:12

in hearing from and could actually

27:14

be like productive in conversation, not

27:16

someone who actually has supported not

27:18

just election deniers and

27:20

Donald Trump, but gone out of their way

27:22

to not say anything about January 6 until

27:25

lo and behold, she was relieved of her

27:27

RNC duty. And she can make a convenient

27:29

comment such as, well, you know, when you're having

27:31

to act on behalf of like a larger group,

27:33

you take one for the team. But now I'm

27:35

my own person. Give me a break. I mean,

27:38

so I can't, I can't help just

27:40

following orders, just following or like, sorry,

27:42

not me, you know, not it. I mean,

27:44

it's just a well in

27:47

any case, it's, we'll see. I went to

27:49

when do we think that we might expect

27:51

a ruling norm that is going back to

27:53

the Supreme Court case? It'll

27:57

take a while. And yes, it'll take a

27:59

while in. part because it's

28:02

going to have to be very carefully

28:04

crafted to get that

28:06

super majority of justices. And

28:10

I would guess, as

28:12

somebody not on the inside, but

28:15

having seen a lot of these arguments go forward,

28:18

that they're going to try and base their

28:20

ruling entirely on the narrow issue of who

28:22

has standing. Not weigh

28:24

in on Ephr of

28:49

justice is all. Justice is, I loved that. I know

28:51

that was when she won like, you know, it's

28:53

like, I love this woman. She's amazing. By the

28:55

way, I was like, everybody has an opinion about

28:57

doctors, but I don't mind if it's Katanji Brown

29:00

Jack. That's okay. Who

29:03

is by the way, married to a physician

29:05

or husband is an orthopedic surgeon, I believe

29:07

at George Washington University. So, all

29:10

right, well, that's that's our wrap for our

29:12

combo episode. We hope that listeners learned

29:14

a little bit and got a

29:17

little bit more ficed to keep fighting

29:19

and making sure that we get some

29:21

folks out to vote because I hope

29:23

we painted a pretty clear picture. I

29:25

want to thank you, Norm, for joining

29:28

me. Thank everyone for listening. It would

29:30

be helpful if you could rate, review,

29:32

subscribe and share this podcast on your

29:34

favorite podcast player. And

29:36

if you like this and want to get

29:38

more of a conversation, return as a

29:40

member and you can get bonus segments

29:43

and certainly access to past bonus segments,

29:45

as well as future events that

29:47

are exclusive to members only. Words

29:50

Matter is a production of the DSR

29:52

Network. Our executive producer is Chris Cutmar

29:54

and our producer for our podcast is

29:56

Riley Fessler. Our next episode of Words

29:59

Matter will be in in and on

30:01

your podcast feeds around April

30:03

4th. See you then.