Ep. 254: Supreme Court Takes Up Homelessness

[00:00:00] If you're a California conservative, a libertarian, a moderate Democrat, believe in common sense,

[00:00:11] or just the same person, this is the political podcast for you. It's the California Underground

[00:00:17] Podcast. What's going on everybody? Thanks for tuning into another episode of the California

[00:00:30] Underground Podcast. We are back. We took a week off. I'm your host Phil and as always

[00:00:35] with me my trusty co-host, the best and fastest researcher in the West, Camille.

[00:00:39] We took a week off. Don't freak out everybody. I started a new job last week. Wife also started

[00:00:46] a new job. Schedules were hectic and we were just like, you know what? Let's just take

[00:00:51] a break this week. So don't worry, we're going to be back on schedule. Everything's

[00:00:55] going to be fine. We'll be back to our weekly Thursday night, six o'clock YouTube and

[00:01:01] rumble as always. We're starting to line up candidates. People are starting to line

[00:01:05] up for the summer. A busy election, you're coming up. So probably not many chances for

[00:01:10] breaks coming up. But Camille, how are you doing? Welcome back after a week off.

[00:01:14] I know. I'm confused. Where am I? How do I speak? Where do I look? I don't know.

[00:01:19] No, I'm good. How are you?

[00:01:20] I'm good. I know it's funny because we're so used to doing this weekly that just

[00:01:27] taking one week off feels like it just feels like we took like a month off and I don't

[00:01:34] know how other podcasters who take like four months off between podcasts actually do it

[00:01:39] and remember how to podcast after that. I mean, that's too much time. So but anyway,

[00:01:45] couple announcements before we get started. First off, we got new merch. Got a

[00:01:50] couple new shirts, one designed by Camille, one designed by myself. One is called

[00:01:55] Local Elections Matter, which I just show the people so that they can get an

[00:01:59] idea. Show the people. Just show the people. Describe it. Describe it for

[00:02:04] the audio listeners. That's right, because audio is on amazing to go. Check it out.

[00:02:11] So they have to go check it out. You can find all of this if you go to

[00:02:16] californiaunderground.live if you can go there and click on store and that's

[00:02:20] where you'll find it. Why can't I'll hear it is there we go. This is hot off

[00:02:25] the presses like we did the applause sound effect. Yep.

[00:02:30] Applause sound effect. So this is Local Elections Matter. If you notice, yes, we

[00:02:35] did use the logo or the style of Black Lives Matter, but we think Local

[00:02:41] Elections Matter. So that's why we put it in the style. There's also another

[00:02:46] new one. This one was designed by Camille. Hold on. Hold on. You are not

[00:02:52] selling it here, Phil. Okay. You got to talk about what options are

[00:02:58] available, what sizes are available or are there different colors? Is it is it

[00:03:01] just the one? It only comes in black because that's the only way the logo

[00:03:06] makes sense is if it's in black. It looks so it's one of those shirts that

[00:03:12] it tricks your eye because you look at and go, wait a second, I've seen that

[00:03:14] logo before. Where did I see it? Oh, it's Black Lives Matter. But no, it's

[00:03:18] actually Local Elections Matter. We have it in a comfort tee for men and

[00:03:22] for women. And we also have a unisex classic pullover hoodie. The

[00:03:26] comfort tee is going for $23.99. So it's the women's tee and the pullover. I

[00:03:31] have one of the pullovers, the elites, H.U. That's one of my favorites.

[00:03:36] Actually really comfortable. And these comfort tees are actually really

[00:03:40] comfortable as well. My wife actually ordered one of the men's comfort

[00:03:45] tees and just she now wears it and it's really comfortable. So she loves

[00:03:50] it. Now moving on to yours that you designed. And I swear we do have a

[00:03:56] podcast topic tonight. We're not just going over the story. I like this one.

[00:04:01] California is worth fighting for. I really like the script. It's a nice

[00:04:05] color. I like the lettering. I like that grabs your eye with the

[00:04:09] California and says it's worth fighting for. I also realized that

[00:04:13] California also is kind of like shaped like the state. It's kind of

[00:04:16] like that curvature of the state. I don't know if you meant to do

[00:04:20] that intentionally.

[00:04:20] I did not mean to do that.

[00:04:24] That one also comes in comfort tee for men, women and it comes in a

[00:04:27] unisex premium pullover hoodie. So with that out of the way, go check it

[00:04:32] out. California Underground dot live. That's our whole you can go see

[00:04:36] our website. We have our Instagram feed. Everything's up there.

[00:04:40] Everything kind of just funnels all the stuff we do funnels into

[00:04:43] that website. Next big announcement is we will be back

[00:04:48] podcasting live. We're going to be doing a three hour live stream at

[00:04:52] the California GOP convention coming up on the 18th Saturday 18th

[00:04:56] up in San Francisco. Yes, we're flying all the way to San Francisco

[00:05:00] to do a live stream. Three hours like we did last time were

[00:05:05] lining up candidates also candidates like to just stop by.

[00:05:08] So we'll be streaming that one all over the place will be

[00:05:11] streaming on Instagram live. I guess Twitter, YouTube, rumble

[00:05:15] all these places. So yeah, that's basically it and if you're

[00:05:20] going to convention make sure you stop by will be in the

[00:05:22] exhibitors table and you can swing by and say hi and meet us

[00:05:26] in person. If you're a candidate or current politician

[00:05:29] stop by contact us. Yes, we want to talk to you. Yes,

[00:05:33] absolutely. If you want to email us as the email is

[00:05:36] California Underground at proton mail.com. Okay, enough of

[00:05:40] the business out of the way. This is what happens when you

[00:05:42] take a week off. I don't know if your church does

[00:05:45] announcements. There's like all the upcoming things and it's

[00:05:48] like, okay, now we're going to take an offer. So far as does

[00:05:52] the announcements like, well, ours doesn't announce this

[00:05:55] before mass starts. It's actually pretty funny. We have two

[00:05:58] different priests who run mass depends on the priest. And

[00:06:02] again, after this is over, I swear there's actually was

[00:06:05] something we're gonna talk about tonight. We're not just

[00:06:07] sitting here rambling. There's two different priests

[00:06:10] ones really like chill and laid back. He's just like whatever

[00:06:13] and one is very, very strict. And he will like tell the readers

[00:06:17] like, okay, 857 I want you to do announcements. I don't care if

[00:06:22] the band hasn't done their pre mass song like 857 is when we

[00:06:27] do announcements if the band is late, I don't care go over

[00:06:29] them. So it's always funny that like announcements to

[00:06:33] him or you got to get the announcements done before mass

[00:06:36] he doesn't want to be late. He doesn't want to be two

[00:06:38] minutes late to start mass. And that's what's happening now

[00:06:41] is where you have all these announcements and we're already

[00:06:44] 10 minutes into the episode. All the fans have already

[00:06:46] dropped off. Now I need to know if you guys do like, do you

[00:06:49] take a tithe? Oh, yeah, we do offerings. But at what point

[00:06:54] that's that's later though, that's before we have communion.

[00:06:57] Okay. Okay, so in my church, we would like do announcements

[00:07:02] and then that first it would pray. And then we would take

[00:07:05] an offering. And so this is where I would be like, give us

[00:07:07] all your money. Right? Yeah, add an after the announcements,

[00:07:11] it's give us all your money, not in our church. It's here's

[00:07:14] the announcements. Now we're going to start just like we're

[00:07:17] going to do with this podcast. Alright, so tonight's episode is

[00:07:21] actually pretty jam packed. Camille and I both did a lot of

[00:07:26] research on this and we're going to do our best to like

[00:07:28] get through this, explain it the best way we can. The title

[00:07:33] of it is that the Supreme Court takes up homelessness. And

[00:07:35] what does that mean? Last week, there was a case that went up

[00:07:41] to the Supreme Court. And let me back up. When you go to the

[00:07:46] Supreme Court, you file these things called briefs with your

[00:07:49] arguments, we're going to read a little bit of the petitioners

[00:07:52] brief, meaning the people who are arguing to overturn a case.

[00:07:56] And they go in, they have oral arguments in front of these

[00:07:59] nine justices and the nine justices. It's kind of a it's

[00:08:05] really interesting to watch if you're like a legal nerd, because

[00:08:08] the lawyer shows up. This is how it happens at all appellate level

[00:08:11] course. The lawyer shows up, they have all their points, they

[00:08:15] have all their arguments, a lot of its memorized because what

[00:08:18] will happen is you'll launch into your argument. And you'll

[00:08:21] you'll give your oral argument and the justices can

[00:08:24] start peppering you with questions, whatever they

[00:08:26] want for as long as they want. So literally, you can

[00:08:31] just be up there being interrogated by nine Supreme

[00:08:33] Court justices. And you're talking about nine Supreme

[00:08:35] Court justices, these people went to the best schools,

[00:08:38] obviously they made it to the top of their field. Pretty

[00:08:41] harrowing. I wouldn't want to go argue in front of the Supreme

[00:08:44] Court as interesting as that sounds. I'd probably be too

[00:08:47] afraid to do that. So they heard oral arguments on this

[00:08:50] case. It's called grants past versus Johnson. And it

[00:08:58] involves campments encampments of homeless people.

[00:09:03] So have you ever walked around your local city and said,

[00:09:09] wow, look at all the encampments in that public park. Why do we

[00:09:13] let homeless people get away with campaign in public places? I

[00:09:17] want to take my kids to the park to play baseball or go enjoy a

[00:09:21] lunch outside or I don't know that go to the playground or

[00:09:24] something like that. Have you ever looked at that and gone?

[00:09:28] Why do they get away with this?

[00:09:31] No, that's a question.

[00:09:33] Not in your city. Your city is different.

[00:09:36] There's other local cities for sure that have

[00:09:40] plenty of cities, I'm sure if you walk around you go, well, why

[00:09:43] are there homeless encampments all over the place? And why can't

[00:09:47] they do anything about it?

[00:09:48] I would like to see them there but I am very proud of how my

[00:09:51] city has handled this. Yeah,

[00:09:53] You have the benefit of living in Orange County where like,

[00:09:56] well, we have that issue in Orange County. We do.

[00:10:00] Yeah, I mean, all counties have it, but I just feel like

[00:10:02] Orange County handles a lot of California issues way better

[00:10:05] than like other counties. San Diego might be second best in

[00:10:08] terms of coastal counties, but LA is the worst.

[00:10:12] My entire city council is all Republicans. So there you go.

[00:10:16] I don't know if that plays into this at all, but just thought

[00:10:19] I'd throw that out there.

[00:10:20] So it probably has something to do with it. So this case

[00:10:26] grants pass versus Johnson was heard at the Supreme Court

[00:10:30] last week. They had oral arguments. So what that means

[00:10:34] is the attorneys for both sides went, they've made arguments

[00:10:37] and we'll get to like the background of this case in a

[00:10:42] little bit. I want to tell you like where this all came

[00:10:44] from back in 2018, there was a case called Martin v City

[00:10:48] of Boise. And in that case, don't ask me how this

[00:10:54] happened. I assume nonprofits or some sort of advocacy

[00:10:58] group. The city of Boise had anti camping ordinances on the

[00:11:05] books, so you couldn't camp at public spaces, police would

[00:11:07] come and find you and if you didn't leave, they keep

[00:11:10] finding you and maybe put you in jail. So home, a couple of

[00:11:15] homeless people somehow sued the city of Boise. And I

[00:11:19] imagine it's again, it's probably a nonprofit or

[00:11:20] someone who did all this because it went all the way up

[00:11:23] to the Ninth Circuit, Ninth Circuit Court. And they sued

[00:11:28] saying that you can't criminalize us for being homeless

[00:11:32] because we have nowhere to go and because there's no

[00:11:35] shelters available to us. That was basically the

[00:11:40] argument. You can't criminalize us for being

[00:11:42] homeless. There's nowhere for us to go. What do you

[00:11:44] want us to do? And they argued this was a unique

[00:11:48] argument, which is probably what the Supreme Court is

[00:11:50] going to decide is that by criminalizing and punishing

[00:11:54] those who are homeless and camping out in public or

[00:11:57] sleeping out in public, it violates the Eighth Amendment.

[00:12:03] Pop quiz, what's the Eighth Amendment about?

[00:12:04] See, now you're just trying to make me look stupid.

[00:12:08] The Eighth Amendment is about cruel and unusual

[00:12:11] punishment. Okay. So their argument was basically

[00:12:16] it's cruel and unusual punishment to criminalize

[00:12:19] us and find us and possibly put us in jail because

[00:12:22] we're homeless and there's nowhere to go. Now, people

[00:12:25] probably are like, well, wait a second, homeless

[00:12:27] people, there's always this talk about shelters,

[00:12:29] there's places for them to go. In this case, Martin

[00:12:32] V Boise, this is the original case back in 2018,

[00:12:35] they talked about certain shelters that they had.

[00:12:38] They didn't include all the shelters, but we're

[00:12:39] not going to get into that. There were three

[00:12:44] private nonprofit religious affiliated

[00:12:48] shelters that were available and they went on

[00:12:51] about like, okay, this is what you have to do. Here's

[00:12:54] the curfew, here are the rules, you have to be sober.

[00:12:57] One of them was like, you can stay there for 17

[00:13:00] days, but after 17 days, you have to enroll in

[00:13:03] what they call their discipleship program, which

[00:13:05] is a faith-based program that you have to

[00:13:08] attend for 30 days and then you get to stay

[00:13:10] longer. And then there was like this whole

[00:13:13] system about the city of Boise and the police

[00:13:16] were able to figure out like where their

[00:13:18] shelters beds available, was there space for them

[00:13:20] to go? So that way if there was no shelter beds,

[00:13:25] the police could decide not to enforce this

[00:13:29] camping ban and not issue citations.

[00:13:32] So that's basically the lay of land of this

[00:13:35] original case.

[00:13:37] And that case went to Supreme Court?

[00:13:40] No, this case only went to the Ninth Circuit.

[00:13:43] So let's back up why that has a big impact here

[00:13:49] on California.

[00:13:52] So federal courts are broken up into circuits.

[00:13:58] So there's districts and there's circuits.

[00:14:02] Like for example, I'm in the Southern District

[00:14:04] of California. That's my federal district.

[00:14:06] There's state courts and there's federal courts.

[00:14:09] When you start a case, you end up in a

[00:14:10] district court. That's the first what they

[00:14:12] call the court of first jurisdiction.

[00:14:16] You show up there, you do your case.

[00:14:18] If you don't like it, you can appeal it to a

[00:14:21] appellate court and in federal court, it's a

[00:14:23] circuit court. There are 13, I believe,

[00:14:26] 13 circuits in the United States.

[00:14:29] Fun fact, they are called circuits because

[00:14:32] back in the day when there was like 13

[00:14:33] colonies and they didn't have a lot of

[00:14:35] federal judges, literally like federal

[00:14:37] judges would travel like around these

[00:14:40] different states and decide cases like one

[00:14:42] by one. So they called them like, okay,

[00:14:45] you have this circuit and this is your

[00:14:47] circuit. So the Ninth Circuit encompasses

[00:14:51] all of the West Coast and Kansas.

[00:14:54] Don't ask me why it has anything to do

[00:14:56] with Kansas. Just this.

[00:14:59] So it's all the West Coast, Oregon,

[00:15:00] Washington, California, New Mexico, I think

[00:15:03] and Hawaii. This case goes up to the

[00:15:08] Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

[00:15:10] It doesn't go to the Supreme Court.

[00:15:11] So ends at the Ninth Circuit Court of

[00:15:12] Appeals. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

[00:15:17] hands down this ruling that says

[00:15:20] you are violating the Eighth Amendment

[00:15:23] for cruel and unusual punishment by

[00:15:26] fining and threatening to jail homeless

[00:15:29] people with these camping bands.

[00:15:31] So that's basically their argument.

[00:15:34] There's a lot of other things for a

[00:15:36] little bit more context.

[00:15:38] They relied their ruling on this older

[00:15:40] case, Robinson v. California.

[00:15:43] And this is going to be important going

[00:15:45] into the oral arguments that we're

[00:15:46] going to listen to.

[00:15:50] Robinson v. California was where

[00:15:55] they sued a man by the name of

[00:15:58] Robinson was addicted to narcotics.

[00:16:02] So he had an addiction problem.

[00:16:04] Back then it was a crime to be

[00:16:07] addicted to narcotics.

[00:16:09] Just having the addiction was a crime.

[00:16:12] Not having it on you, not doing it or

[00:16:14] anything like that.

[00:16:16] 1962.

[00:16:19] OK. So for all you history buffs,

[00:16:22] you know that California was.

[00:16:24] I think it was deep red back in 1962.

[00:16:27] Right. I think so.

[00:16:28] It was red up until like Reagan in

[00:16:30] the 70s.

[00:16:34] Wasn't Nixon Nixon was back then to

[00:16:36] he was involved in California

[00:16:37] politics.

[00:16:39] You should know you.

[00:16:40] He was in the Nixon Library or something.

[00:16:44] The library.

[00:16:44] So I don't know about Nixon.

[00:16:46] You should be a Nixon scholar.

[00:16:47] I'm surprised you just don't go

[00:16:48] visit and admire all the Nixon stuff.

[00:16:51] So yeah, so they relied on this case

[00:16:53] Robinson v. California, which made it

[00:16:55] a crime to be addicted.

[00:16:58] Just addicted, not controlling,

[00:17:01] not possessing anything like that.

[00:17:03] So they came down and said, no,

[00:17:05] you can't do that because this is

[00:17:08] an involuntary condition.

[00:17:10] Like being addicted is a disease

[00:17:12] that people suffer with and they

[00:17:14] struggle with.

[00:17:15] It's involuntary.

[00:17:17] Like you can't change that.

[00:17:18] So we can't criminalize stuff that

[00:17:20] you have really no control over.

[00:17:22] I mean, you know, that'd be like

[00:17:24] criminalizing someone for having

[00:17:25] Tourette's like you can't criminalize

[00:17:26] someone for having Tourette's.

[00:17:28] It's something they have to deal with.

[00:17:30] It's involuntary.

[00:17:31] So the Ninth Circuit in this original

[00:17:33] case said you can't criminalize

[00:17:36] the homeless because it's

[00:17:38] involuntary condition and that's

[00:17:40] their status.

[00:17:41] Any questions thus far before

[00:17:43] I keep rambling on now makes perfect

[00:17:45] sense, then I'm doing a pretty good

[00:17:47] job then.

[00:17:47] I've asked questions along the way.

[00:17:49] That's that's where we are.

[00:17:52] That was handed down 2018.

[00:17:55] So again, this didn't go to the

[00:17:56] Supreme Court went to the Ninth

[00:17:57] Circuit.

[00:17:59] And when the Ninth Circuit

[00:18:01] decided it, that was the law

[00:18:04] of those states.

[00:18:06] So all those states I mentioned

[00:18:07] California, Washington, Oregon

[00:18:08] and Kansas and Hawaii.

[00:18:11] They have to abide.

[00:18:13] I'm sorry. Yes.

[00:18:15] I didn't like that.

[00:18:16] That's so if if that case had

[00:18:17] happened in California, it would

[00:18:18] still affect all those states

[00:18:20] simply because it was the Ninth

[00:18:21] Circuit Court ruling.

[00:18:23] Yes. Like it.

[00:18:24] OK, I didn't know that.

[00:18:27] So yeah, so that's an important

[00:18:28] point because this

[00:18:31] case does not apply to like

[00:18:34] Texas or Florida or New York

[00:18:35] because they're different circuits.

[00:18:38] So they don't have to listen to it.

[00:18:41] It's kind of like so when there's

[00:18:43] like second amendment cases that

[00:18:45] come out of the Southern District

[00:18:46] and Judge Benita's rules on them.

[00:18:49] That doesn't just affect California.

[00:18:51] It has binding effect

[00:18:52] on all these different states,

[00:18:54] including like Hawaii, Washington,

[00:18:55] Oregon and Kansas

[00:18:58] and I think New Mexico.

[00:19:00] OK.

[00:19:01] So that's why

[00:19:05] that's where we're at right now.

[00:19:06] So since 2018, politicians

[00:19:09] have said they can't do anything

[00:19:11] about homeless when people complain

[00:19:13] about homelessness and say, I'm

[00:19:15] tired of looking at it.

[00:19:16] I don't want it in campments.

[00:19:17] Like we go to the park.

[00:19:18] It's there everywhere.

[00:19:20] A lot of politicians kind of like

[00:19:21] even Gavin Newsom.

[00:19:23] And when we well, we can't do

[00:19:24] anything because of the Boise

[00:19:25] ruling. We can't do anything

[00:19:27] because the Ninth Circuit

[00:19:28] came out with this Boise

[00:19:29] ruling.

[00:19:30] So that was their excuse for all

[00:19:32] these years. Fast forward.

[00:19:35] We now have a similar case, almost

[00:19:37] like a carbon copy.

[00:19:39] In fact, the petitioners say it's

[00:19:41] actually a carbon copy of this old

[00:19:42] case.

[00:19:43] Same thing. Grants pass small

[00:19:45] Oregon town camping, boarding

[00:19:47] in Spain.

[00:19:49] Homeless person Sue says you can't

[00:19:51] do that.

[00:19:52] Goes all the way up.

[00:19:54] This time it actually makes it to

[00:19:55] the Supreme Court.

[00:19:56] That's where we're at now.

[00:19:58] And that's what the Supreme Court

[00:19:59] heard oral arguments about.

[00:20:01] Now, if I can get really wonky,

[00:20:05] I actually printed off.

[00:20:07] This is the brief for

[00:20:10] the petitioners.

[00:20:11] Because I was interested.

[00:20:14] This is what I do. I love this

[00:20:15] stuff. I nerd out on it because

[00:20:16] I'm like, this is so interesting.

[00:20:20] I actually printed this off and

[00:20:22] went through and highlighted it.

[00:20:23] So for any of you who don't

[00:20:24] think we show up well prepared

[00:20:26] for podcasts and we don't have

[00:20:27] anything to do with better to do

[00:20:28] with our energy.

[00:20:30] Jokes on you.

[00:20:31] I read this whole thing just for

[00:20:33] your entertainment and to boil it

[00:20:35] down for all the pages.

[00:20:37] We can't see how many pages it is.

[00:20:39] So not that I want the exact

[00:20:40] count, but is it 20 pages, 50

[00:20:41] pages, 250?

[00:20:45] Just the

[00:20:47] just the actual petition itself

[00:20:50] is around 60 pages.

[00:20:52] So, you know, but the nice

[00:20:54] thing about these petitions is

[00:20:56] the margins are really small so you

[00:20:58] can read them really quickly.

[00:21:00] So it's 60 pages, but for some reason

[00:21:02] it goes by really quickly.

[00:21:04] So this is by the petitioners and

[00:21:05] the petitioners in this case

[00:21:07] are trying to get this original

[00:21:09] case overturned

[00:21:11] by the Supreme Court.

[00:21:12] Basically they're asking the Supreme

[00:21:14] Court to say that prior

[00:21:16] ruling by the Ninth Circuit

[00:21:18] is wrong. You should overturn it.

[00:21:19] And if they do overturn it,

[00:21:22] the result will be now

[00:21:24] all these governments can start

[00:21:25] enforcing camping

[00:21:27] bans.

[00:21:29] I mean, it doesn't mean they will,

[00:21:30] but they could.

[00:21:32] So I'm going to read a couple

[00:21:34] excerpts. We're going to listen to

[00:21:35] oral argument and then we'll kind of

[00:21:36] break down a little bit more.

[00:21:38] Then we're going to talk about where

[00:21:39] the heck twenty four billion dollars

[00:21:41] went because

[00:21:43] it obviously didn't go into camping

[00:21:44] bans.

[00:21:46] Let's see.

[00:21:48] The Eighth Amendment carried forward

[00:21:50] language from the English Declaration

[00:21:51] of Rights whose drafters recoil

[00:21:53] that methods of torture and

[00:21:54] execution that were all too

[00:21:56] familiar to an enemies of James

[00:21:58] II but at port even

[00:22:00] to 17th century sensibilities.

[00:22:02] The framers shared their English

[00:22:03] forebearers concerns about barbarous

[00:22:05] punishments such as quartering

[00:22:07] public dissection

[00:22:09] dissection and burning alive.

[00:22:12] So also this is one reason

[00:22:14] I love reading these is because I'm

[00:22:16] such a history nerd that I love

[00:22:17] reading like where

[00:22:20] the Eighth Amendment came from

[00:22:22] and side note. OK,

[00:22:24] I want to I want to just say this.

[00:22:26] For all the want

[00:22:28] to be legal scholars on like

[00:22:29] Instagram and social media

[00:22:31] who are like the second amendment

[00:22:33] doesn't mean that like they just

[00:22:35] wrote it out of thin air.

[00:22:36] No more on. They didn't write it

[00:22:38] out of thin air.

[00:22:39] Usually there's a precedent.

[00:22:40] It came from somewhere.

[00:22:42] Usually actually a lot of the

[00:22:44] amendments we have today

[00:22:46] were amendments that were already

[00:22:47] part of state charters and state

[00:22:49] constitutions.

[00:22:50] They go back way before the Bill

[00:22:52] of Rights was even ratified.

[00:22:53] There's a history.

[00:22:54] There's a reason why these

[00:22:55] amendments showed up into our

[00:22:57] Constitution.

[00:22:58] They didn't just pop out of

[00:22:59] nowhere.

[00:23:00] So that's my little rant.

[00:23:03] Do some history research anyway.

[00:23:07] So their whole argument is

[00:23:08] basically that the Eighth

[00:23:09] Amendment is for cruel

[00:23:11] and unusual and this doesn't

[00:23:12] fall into it.

[00:23:14] They talk about robincy in

[00:23:15] California. They say they're

[00:23:16] the court held to the Eighth

[00:23:17] Amendment forbids criminalizing

[00:23:19] the mere status of being a

[00:23:20] drug addict while making

[00:23:21] clear that does not bar

[00:23:22] punishments for the acts of

[00:23:24] possessing or using drugs.

[00:23:26] Given that public streets and

[00:23:27] parks have more

[00:23:29] morally been held in trust

[00:23:31] for the use of the public

[00:23:32] governments have the power and

[00:23:34] indeed the obligation

[00:23:36] to regulate the use of public

[00:23:37] property for the health, safety

[00:23:39] enjoyment and general

[00:23:40] welfare of the entire

[00:23:41] citizenry.

[00:23:42] I think I agree with that.

[00:23:43] I think if you're a

[00:23:45] government and you say

[00:23:47] we're in charge of all this

[00:23:48] public area and

[00:23:50] you as a public citizen are

[00:23:51] paying taxes to

[00:23:53] fund these parks, to clean

[00:23:55] these parks and all that.

[00:23:57] Do you think the government

[00:23:57] has an obligation to

[00:23:59] regulate and make sure that

[00:24:00] park is open to everyone?

[00:24:02] Absolutely.

[00:24:03] I mean, safety for everyone.

[00:24:06] I mean, safety is an issue

[00:24:08] health and wellness.

[00:24:09] I mean.

[00:24:11] Hazardous materials.

[00:24:12] I mean, we're talking about

[00:24:13] like if this is a public area

[00:24:15] that people want to go to,

[00:24:16] they want to take their kids

[00:24:16] there, they want to take

[00:24:17] their dogs there.

[00:24:19] Like the government's not

[00:24:20] upholding their end of the bargain.

[00:24:23] If you're paying for public spaces

[00:24:26] and the public can't access them.

[00:24:28] So let's see.

[00:24:30] Goes on to say the 8th Amendment

[00:24:31] does not address whether

[00:24:33] and when involuntary conduct

[00:24:34] related to status can be punished.

[00:24:37] The inability to draw principled

[00:24:38] adminisable lines has led to

[00:24:40] sweeping injunctions, barring

[00:24:41] enforcement of basic laws

[00:24:43] protecting public health and

[00:24:44] safety as well

[00:24:45] as an ever present threat of

[00:24:46] litigation whenever a

[00:24:48] municipality tries to address

[00:24:49] the threat of encampments.

[00:24:51] All right, I'm going to skip ahead

[00:24:52] to the summary argument.

[00:24:54] I'm not going to read the whole

[00:24:55] thing.

[00:24:56] I read it just because, like I said,

[00:24:58] I'm a nerd and I love this stuff.

[00:25:01] OK, summary of their argument.

[00:25:06] At the framing ordinary or one

[00:25:08] at the framing ordinary speakers

[00:25:10] of English understood a prohibition

[00:25:11] on cruel and unusual punishments

[00:25:13] to target the inflection imposed

[00:25:15] in vengeance of a crime, not the

[00:25:17] crime itself.

[00:25:19] Number two, the punishments

[00:25:21] at issue here are not cruel and

[00:25:23] unusual. Those punishments are

[00:25:24] neither cruel nor unusual in any

[00:25:26] ordinary sense of those words for

[00:25:28] centuries, fines and imprisonment

[00:25:29] have been the default methods of

[00:25:31] punishing criminal offenses.

[00:25:33] So again, they go into

[00:25:35] the whole definition of like

[00:25:36] cruel is obviously like

[00:25:38] you torture someone bodily

[00:25:40] pain,

[00:25:41] you know, traumatizing pain.

[00:25:44] That's like cruel or public

[00:25:47] quartering is cruel.

[00:25:49] You know, what did they say?

[00:25:50] Like public dissection, cruel.

[00:25:53] What they did to Mel Gibson and

[00:25:54] Braveheart, cruel.

[00:25:56] Unusual would be something that's

[00:25:58] like not

[00:26:00] in use. Like it's not

[00:26:01] like it's just not usual for us

[00:26:03] to do for punishments.

[00:26:05] But fines in jail have been

[00:26:06] around forever.

[00:26:08] This court's decisions do not

[00:26:09] support the Ninth Circuit's

[00:26:10] interpretation of the Eighth Amendment

[00:26:11] in Robinson. The court held that

[00:26:12] any punishment for the status of

[00:26:14] narcotic addiction was cruel

[00:26:16] and unusual.

[00:26:18] Next point, this court should

[00:26:20] not extend Robinson.

[00:26:22] Extending that misguided

[00:26:23] analytical approach to

[00:26:24] constitutionalize an Eighth

[00:26:25] Amendment in voluntariness

[00:26:26] defense would circumvent the

[00:26:28] constraints of other doctrines

[00:26:29] such as due process.

[00:26:31] Now.

[00:26:33] I'm going to propose this

[00:26:33] hypothetical to you.

[00:26:35] And don't worry, it's not

[00:26:36] going to be like some big

[00:26:38] legalese.

[00:26:39] If you can say.

[00:26:42] No, I'm not.

[00:26:44] I if you can say

[00:26:47] or you can't criminalize me

[00:26:49] because it's involuntary.

[00:26:52] Do you see if that could lead

[00:26:54] to a slippery slope

[00:26:56] in terms of crime and punishment?

[00:27:00] Absolutely. So for example,

[00:27:02] would you say like if

[00:27:05] a pedophile

[00:27:07] is convicted of having

[00:27:10] child porn or doing something

[00:27:11] horrible

[00:27:12] and he goes in there and says,

[00:27:14] well, I can't help it.

[00:27:16] I'm a pedophile.

[00:27:17] That's my condition.

[00:27:18] It's an involuntary act

[00:27:22] based on the Ninth Circuit.

[00:27:23] That to them seems like

[00:27:25] that's protection against

[00:27:26] conviction.

[00:27:27] Would you agree?

[00:27:28] We're headed there.

[00:27:30] And so we're headed there,

[00:27:32] but it's wrong.

[00:27:33] Right. So I think that's

[00:27:35] that's a good point that the

[00:27:36] petitioners made.

[00:27:39] That they said, you know, if

[00:27:40] we allow this Ninth Circuit

[00:27:43] standard of involuntariness

[00:27:46] to stand,

[00:27:49] then who's to say

[00:27:51] where that goes?

[00:27:52] I mean, we can literally just have

[00:27:53] people saying, well,

[00:27:54] you know, you can't convict me.

[00:27:56] It's an involuntary response

[00:27:57] to what I do.

[00:28:00] And that could lead

[00:28:01] to a lot of problems.

[00:28:03] So

[00:28:04] I'm going to take a break from

[00:28:06] talking because I think I've

[00:28:07] talked enough and

[00:28:08] I need to get a sip of water

[00:28:11] because I just rambled on and

[00:28:12] babbled enough. Do you have any

[00:28:13] questions before we hop into the

[00:28:15] actual oral arguments?

[00:28:17] I actually do have a question.

[00:28:19] Maybe you said this and I missed

[00:28:20] it. And so I apologize.

[00:28:23] But what brought about

[00:28:26] this new recent case,

[00:28:28] the grants pass?

[00:28:29] What who

[00:28:31] who what events brought that on?

[00:28:35] Same exact facts,

[00:28:36] grants pass

[00:28:39] instituted an anti-camping ban

[00:28:41] in public spaces, which

[00:28:44] again targeted homeless people.

[00:28:48] And so

[00:28:49] that's why it's like a carbon

[00:28:50] copy of Martin V Boise is

[00:28:53] it's the same exact thing

[00:28:54] they're being fined and

[00:28:57] and threatened with punishment.

[00:28:59] So then they sued

[00:29:01] and now they're in the Supreme

[00:29:02] Court.

[00:29:03] So

[00:29:05] OK, so this one is

[00:29:07] did say that. Sorry.

[00:29:08] That's fine.

[00:29:10] It's a lot and I tried to boil it

[00:29:12] down because I wasn't going to sit

[00:29:14] here and read the whole petitioners

[00:29:15] brief or the summary

[00:29:17] argument or all that stuff.

[00:29:19] Because people would tune out and

[00:29:21] be like, please come back from

[00:29:23] your break.

[00:29:25] You mentioned

[00:29:26] the original case Boise

[00:29:29] 2018.

[00:29:30] You know, that has now affected

[00:29:32] these other states.

[00:29:33] So like I mentioned

[00:29:35] when you were like in your city,

[00:29:36] the park and I'm like, no, it doesn't

[00:29:37] happen in my city.

[00:29:38] And it doesn't

[00:29:40] like, I don't know, somehow

[00:29:41] homeless people, if they come here,

[00:29:43] they tend to not be here for more

[00:29:44] than a few hours.

[00:29:46] I don't know what happens.

[00:29:49] So the what

[00:29:51] what then does that mean?

[00:29:52] If my city is legally not allowed

[00:29:54] to say you can't camp here,

[00:29:56] then what were they legally allowed

[00:29:58] to do that somehow moved the

[00:29:59] homeless people on from the city

[00:30:01] to wherever they went?

[00:30:03] Like,

[00:30:04] I get that we have a major homeless

[00:30:06] crisis. We talk about it all the time

[00:30:09] and we're going to get more into it.

[00:30:10] But how is it then legally

[00:30:13] my city can be like,

[00:30:15] no, we're not doing this.

[00:30:18] That's a good question because

[00:30:20] the issue is, is that

[00:30:22] this decision by

[00:30:24] and again, for those who don't think

[00:30:26] I put effort into research

[00:30:28] and this is the decision

[00:30:31] this is another one.

[00:30:33] But this is the actual decision from

[00:30:34] Martin V Boise from the Ninth Circuit

[00:30:36] that I read.

[00:30:38] Is your wife like you're going

[00:30:40] and she's like, she's like, oh, no,

[00:30:43] he's printing off Supreme Court

[00:30:44] decisions now.

[00:30:46] Now, so the problem

[00:30:49] with Martin V Boise that the

[00:30:50] petitioners bring up is there's no.

[00:30:53] Line that there's not a clear

[00:30:55] standard of like what they're.

[00:30:58] What they can and cannot do legally.

[00:31:01] And basically the Ninth Circuit

[00:31:03] just left it up like, well, you can't ban

[00:31:05] them if there's not enough beds

[00:31:08] and there's not a shelters.

[00:31:10] That's cruel and unusual.

[00:31:11] Like they just left it at that, but

[00:31:12] they didn't really give like a strong.

[00:31:16] They didn't give like a strong

[00:31:17] bright line test of like what's

[00:31:19] constitutional and what's not

[00:31:20] constitutional, which is another

[00:31:21] thing they bring up with the Supreme

[00:31:22] Court is right now the Ninth

[00:31:24] Circuit has kind of left us in

[00:31:25] disarray of like, well, we don't

[00:31:27] know what we can do and we don't

[00:31:28] know what we can't do.

[00:31:29] For example, down here in San Diego.

[00:31:33] With everything, yeah,

[00:31:35] they just kind of left it up and

[00:31:37] not just the Supreme Court.

[00:31:39] I'm talking about government in

[00:31:40] general. It's like they just throw

[00:31:41] something out like with the fast

[00:31:43] food minimum wage hike.

[00:31:44] And so many companies were like,

[00:31:46] well, does that apply to me?

[00:31:47] And it's like, it's not written

[00:31:48] in there. Nobody knows.

[00:31:49] Figure it out.

[00:31:50] Taxes figure it out.

[00:31:52] We'll punish you if you're

[00:31:53] wrong, but figure it out.

[00:31:55] Well, and to your point about

[00:31:57] how some cities get away from

[00:31:58] some cities get away with having

[00:32:01] bans and some cities don't.

[00:32:03] I know San Diego has recently

[00:32:06] implemented a camping ban

[00:32:08] and it's been pretty effective

[00:32:10] and they haven't been sued.

[00:32:12] I haven't looked into specifically

[00:32:13] why San Diego can get away

[00:32:15] with it.

[00:32:17] But, you know, a lot of these

[00:32:19] cities have city attorneys and

[00:32:21] they go to their city attorney

[00:32:22] and say, hey, we want to draft

[00:32:23] an ordinance to stop camping

[00:32:25] in public places.

[00:32:27] How do we do that in line

[00:32:29] with this Martin V.

[00:32:30] Boise case?

[00:32:32] And a lot of them probably

[00:32:33] already know, like, OK, if we

[00:32:34] drafted this way and we give them

[00:32:36] this exception and this that and

[00:32:37] the other thing, like, you know,

[00:32:38] that's what you pay lawyers a

[00:32:40] ton of money for us to figure

[00:32:41] that stuff out.

[00:32:43] So they probably have their city

[00:32:45] attorneys draft up these

[00:32:47] camping bans and then maybe

[00:32:48] they share them with other cities.

[00:32:50] But regardless, it's

[00:32:52] it's still not bright

[00:32:54] line enough and like cities

[00:32:56] are not

[00:32:57] really going full force

[00:33:00] into these camping bans because

[00:33:01] they're just not sure.

[00:33:04] So that's where we're at is that

[00:33:05] the Ninth Circuit just kind of said,

[00:33:07] no, this is cruel and unusual

[00:33:08] punishment violates the Eighth

[00:33:09] Amendment because you don't give

[00:33:11] people enough beds.

[00:33:12] So what are they supposed to do?

[00:33:15] And that's where we're at.

[00:33:18] Who should we start with?

[00:33:19] I'll let you pick.

[00:33:20] You Amy Coney Barrett

[00:33:21] or Justice Sotomayor.

[00:33:23] Sotomayor, let's just be a

[00:33:24] little controversial.

[00:33:25] OK, start with Justice Sotomayor.

[00:33:30] The liberal justices in this case

[00:33:34] went a little overboard

[00:33:36] in terms of their hypotheticals.

[00:33:38] I don't think they were completely honest.

[00:33:41] Kagan's fine.

[00:33:43] But Sotomayor.

[00:33:45] Kind of think I think she went a little overboard.

[00:33:47] So this is just a clip

[00:33:50] from oral arguments.

[00:33:50] Like I said, they have these oral

[00:33:52] arguments that goes on for hours.

[00:33:53] So you start a question about the scope

[00:33:55] of your ordinance.

[00:33:56] So it's just as Kagan was pointing out

[00:33:58] this this criminalizes sleeping

[00:34:00] with a blanket at a minimum, right?

[00:34:03] Yeah, correct.

[00:34:04] But I understand that after this

[00:34:06] decision and maybe after Martin

[00:34:08] before that, there was some question

[00:34:10] about whether it also criminalized

[00:34:13] having fires, campfires, tents.

[00:34:16] Can you talk a little bit about that

[00:34:17] and what the scope of it is?

[00:34:18] Does the Constitution then make it

[00:34:20] impossible for a city to limit

[00:34:23] the use of fires and encampments,

[00:34:25] tents, those kinds of temporary shelters?

[00:34:27] It really does because the rationale

[00:34:29] of Martin, the argument that it's

[00:34:31] a biological necessity to sleep outside.

[00:34:34] The respondents argue a blanket is

[00:34:36] necessary in Oregon.

[00:34:38] Some might argue a tent and a fire

[00:34:39] is necessary in North Dakota.

[00:34:41] The Eighth Amendment really doesn't give

[00:34:42] us any answers to what cities

[00:34:44] can and can't prohibit.

[00:34:46] It's really administratively impossible

[00:34:48] for cities on the ground.

[00:34:50] As well as for courts to administer.

[00:34:51] So we're sorry.

[00:34:53] This we have nothing to do with fires

[00:34:55] or tents that was exempted under

[00:34:58] the district courts in Johnson,

[00:35:00] Sotomayor, circuit courts,

[00:35:01] and require that.

[00:35:03] We're talking only about sleeping

[00:35:06] with a blanket.

[00:35:07] Well, I will.

[00:35:08] So let's narrow it to what it is.

[00:35:12] I agree there might be other cases

[00:35:14] in the Ninth Circuit that are not

[00:35:18] rational.

[00:35:21] And I don't mean to throw aspersions

[00:35:24] at those holdings, but some of them

[00:35:28] are not permitting time, place,

[00:35:32] restrictions.

[00:35:35] Let's go beyond that.

[00:35:36] Let's go here.

[00:35:38] Here you're not precluded from

[00:35:41] prohibiting fires.

[00:35:42] You're not precluded from

[00:35:43] prohibiting tents.

[00:35:46] What's at issue is are you

[00:35:47] prohibited from keep having

[00:35:49] someone wear a blanket?

[00:35:51] Anywhere in the city, your

[00:35:53] intent was to remove stated by

[00:35:56] your major intent is to remove

[00:35:58] every homeless person and give them

[00:36:01] no public space to sit down

[00:36:05] with a blanket or lay down

[00:36:06] with a blanket and fall asleep.

[00:36:08] That's not the intent of the line.

[00:36:10] I would like to address that point

[00:36:11] because the other side.

[00:36:12] Why don't you answer the basic

[00:36:13] question?

[00:36:15] So it's not about fires.

[00:36:16] It's not about tents.

[00:36:19] It's about not being a time and

[00:36:22] place restriction about

[00:36:24] eliminating all choices.

[00:36:28] So we think that it is harmful

[00:36:30] for people to be living in public

[00:36:32] spaces on streets and in parks,

[00:36:34] whatever betting materials when

[00:36:36] humans are living in those

[00:36:38] conditions. We think that that's

[00:36:40] not compassionate and that's

[00:36:42] not. But neither is neither is

[00:36:44] providing them with nothing to

[00:36:47] alleviate that situation.

[00:36:49] This is a difficult policy

[00:36:50] question, Justice Sotomayor.

[00:36:52] It is where do we put them if

[00:36:53] every city, every village, every

[00:36:56] town lacks compassion and passes

[00:37:01] a law identical to this?

[00:37:04] Where are they supposed to

[00:37:04] sleep? Are they supposed to

[00:37:06] kill themselves not sleeping?

[00:37:09] So this is a necessity defense,

[00:37:11] as I mentioned under Oregon law

[00:37:13] is available states are able to

[00:37:15] address these concerns.

[00:37:17] This is a complicated policy

[00:37:20] question. We believe that the

[00:37:22] eighth amendment analysis to go

[00:37:23] back to it, focus on the low

[00:37:25] level.

[00:37:25] So complicated about letting

[00:37:27] someone somewhere sleep with

[00:37:31] a blanket in the outside if

[00:37:33] they have nowhere to sleep.

[00:37:34] The laws against defecation,

[00:37:37] the laws against keeping things

[00:37:41] unsanitary around yourself.

[00:37:43] Those have all been upheld.

[00:37:45] The only thing this injunction

[00:37:47] does is say you can't stop

[00:37:51] someone from sleeping in a

[00:37:52] public place without.

[00:37:56] OK, so that was Sotomayor

[00:38:00] saying are you supposed to

[00:38:04] just kill yourself if you're

[00:38:05] a homeless person based on what

[00:38:07] the it's it's a

[00:38:11] add I had absurdium argument

[00:38:14] meaning she took it to the absurd

[00:38:16] logical conclusion that if

[00:38:19] between sleeping on a park bench

[00:38:21] with a blanket and your next

[00:38:22] step is if you don't have that

[00:38:23] option, you should kill yourself.

[00:38:26] I mean, that's quite a leap for

[00:38:27] Supreme Court justice to make.

[00:38:28] But again, like I said, the

[00:38:29] liberal justice is on this case.

[00:38:31] Got a little little nutty over

[00:38:33] this case.

[00:38:33] It's actually watching back in

[00:38:35] that small amount of

[00:38:37] just a little crazy.

[00:38:38] I mean,

[00:38:40] when don't we have loitering laws?

[00:38:44] Like there's there's already that

[00:38:46] in place. So they're rigging that

[00:38:48] law. But then

[00:38:50] just because you don't have a

[00:38:51] blanket doesn't mean you don't

[00:38:52] have a warm jacket or warm pants

[00:38:54] or socks.

[00:38:55] Then also, we have spoken

[00:38:58] on this so many times, it goes

[00:38:59] back to allowing someone

[00:39:01] to sleep out in the open

[00:39:04] anywhere isn't compassionate anyway.

[00:39:07] And no fun fact, that's not so

[00:39:09] fun at all about my city.

[00:39:12] I forget what year it was.

[00:39:13] I want to say 2008 around

[00:39:16] there. Nobody hold me to that.

[00:39:19] We had a guy

[00:39:22] or we found out later

[00:39:24] of this. This was a man.

[00:39:26] We like I said, we don't really

[00:39:28] have a homeless population, but

[00:39:29] we did have a few people.

[00:39:32] They were getting murdered in

[00:39:33] Yoruba Linda.

[00:39:35] And like they would be sleeping,

[00:39:37] let's say in a hallway

[00:39:40] like a stairwell at the library.

[00:39:42] Somebody was murdered there.

[00:39:44] So this was like some sick vigil

[00:39:45] anti guy like who was killing

[00:39:47] homeless people.

[00:39:49] I think he I want to say he

[00:39:50] killed like three or five people

[00:39:52] total before he was caught.

[00:39:55] Ex-military PTSD is

[00:39:57] like lots of issues there.

[00:39:59] And that led him to believe

[00:40:01] that he needed to kill any

[00:40:03] homeless people in Yoruba Linda.

[00:40:04] He ended up killing himself in

[00:40:06] prison.

[00:40:07] But I'm not saying that

[00:40:09] every city has like some sick

[00:40:12] vigil anti like this, but yet

[00:40:13] they do exist.

[00:40:15] These homeless people that were

[00:40:17] just trying to sleep in a

[00:40:18] stairwell and just sleep

[00:40:20] were murdered.

[00:40:22] That is not safe.

[00:40:24] It's not that it's not

[00:40:24] compassionate. That is not

[00:40:25] safe. That is not good

[00:40:27] for the city. And like my

[00:40:29] city has like that's one of

[00:40:31] the most major things that's

[00:40:32] ever happened in Yoruba Linda.

[00:40:33] It's like, oh, there was that

[00:40:34] homeless killing spree.

[00:40:36] And we otherwise don't

[00:40:38] have a whole lot of crime,

[00:40:40] petty theft, whatever.

[00:40:41] But otherwise we're like a very

[00:40:43] safe city.

[00:40:44] And that was when it happened,

[00:40:45] it was like, oh my gosh, what's

[00:40:46] going on? This is madness.

[00:40:49] Yeah. But anyway, there are

[00:40:51] people like that.

[00:40:52] They're sick people.

[00:40:55] Yeah. And that's I think what

[00:40:57] the petitioner was pointing out or

[00:40:59] the attorney for the petitioners

[00:41:01] was arguing that

[00:41:04] it's cruel to let people just

[00:41:05] sleep outside.

[00:41:07] Like it's cruel to just

[00:41:09] unless we figure out a better

[00:41:10] solution,

[00:41:13] it's cruel to just accept that

[00:41:14] then sleeping outside.

[00:41:16] It's dangerous to them.

[00:41:17] And we want to

[00:41:20] I think most people we

[00:41:22] want as a society to

[00:41:24] help.

[00:41:25] But we also, you know,

[00:41:27] we put a lot of tax dollars

[00:41:29] into and if we get to

[00:41:31] it, I don't know if we'll actually

[00:41:32] get to it tonight because I think

[00:41:33] we got a lot more to talk about.

[00:41:36] We might save that for another

[00:41:37] episode why we spend $24 billion

[00:41:39] on homelessness and we haven't

[00:41:41] solved it all yet.

[00:41:42] But we spent a lot of money on

[00:41:43] homelessness in California

[00:41:46] and there should be tons

[00:41:47] of shelters. It should be

[00:41:48] plenty of beds. There should be

[00:41:49] plenty of programs for a lot of

[00:41:51] homeless people to go to.

[00:41:53] And I think

[00:41:55] people want to help but they

[00:41:56] also kind of want to say like,

[00:41:58] look, we've paid a lot in

[00:41:59] taxes.

[00:42:00] We're all trying to chip in here to

[00:42:01] help donating to local

[00:42:04] shelters as well. A lot of

[00:42:05] religious shelters like down here

[00:42:06] and we have Father Joe's down

[00:42:08] here in San Diego, which is

[00:42:09] probably the biggest and most

[00:42:10] popular.

[00:42:11] But we also want to give you

[00:42:12] like that nudge of like,

[00:42:14] don't don't sleep in the park.

[00:42:16] There's plenty of shelters like

[00:42:17] we want you to go to these

[00:42:18] shelters and so you're safe

[00:42:20] and take care of yourself.

[00:42:22] And I think that's interesting

[00:42:23] that like Sotomayor just

[00:42:24] leaves that out that she just

[00:42:26] kind of says, well, there's

[00:42:27] no other option for them.

[00:42:28] They have to go and sleep on

[00:42:29] a park bench.

[00:42:32] In most cities, that's not always

[00:42:33] the case. And there's you know, I

[00:42:35] don't remember the numbers off the

[00:42:36] top of my head.

[00:42:38] But I think here in like San

[00:42:39] Diego, like the beds are

[00:42:41] never full.

[00:42:43] Like I've heard from people who

[00:42:44] work at these, you know, they

[00:42:46] volunteer and stuff like that.

[00:42:47] They say the shelters are

[00:42:48] never at 100 percent capacity.

[00:42:51] So there are always beds

[00:42:53] available. And I know San

[00:42:54] Diego has put a ton of money

[00:42:56] into housing,

[00:42:58] alpha projects and Father Joe's

[00:43:00] and all that stuff. There's tons

[00:43:01] and tons of shelter beds.

[00:43:03] And there's tons of spaces

[00:43:05] where people can go to be

[00:43:07] whether it's like temporary

[00:43:08] shelter or something like that.

[00:43:10] So that she kind of leaves that

[00:43:11] out of it to prove her point

[00:43:14] of like, well, they have nowhere

[00:43:15] else to go. So I guess they

[00:43:16] should just kill themselves.

[00:43:17] It's like, no.

[00:43:20] Like if we're if we're

[00:43:22] putting a lot of time and

[00:43:24] effort and tax dollars into

[00:43:26] shelters.

[00:43:28] And they're also not choosing to

[00:43:29] go to shelters.

[00:43:31] I don't know what you want us to

[00:43:32] do because they can't just take

[00:43:34] over public public spaces.

[00:43:38] So that was it

[00:43:40] was kind of a radical argument.

[00:43:42] And I'm kind of surprised

[00:43:44] that thinking got her to the

[00:43:46] Supreme Court, to be honest.

[00:43:47] Like if AOC said that, we had

[00:43:49] all just be like retweeting

[00:43:50] and saying all these things

[00:43:52] about how crazy and just

[00:43:54] AOC needs to go when she has

[00:43:55] no logic and just this girl

[00:43:56] even think, you know, we'd be

[00:43:58] like slinging that all over the

[00:44:00] place. But yeah, this is like

[00:44:01] this is a Supreme Court judge

[00:44:03] who makes a statement like that.

[00:44:04] And you're like, really?

[00:44:06] Really? Yeah.

[00:44:07] Regardless of the findings on

[00:44:10] like, you know, there's liberal

[00:44:11] justices and there's conservative

[00:44:13] justices.

[00:44:14] Again, they're not political beings.

[00:44:16] They lean certain ways based on

[00:44:19] their interpretation of the law.

[00:44:21] Whether you are like on the left

[00:44:22] and you hate Clarence Thomas or

[00:44:24] you're on the right and you hate

[00:44:25] Sotomayor, Kintanji Brown Jackson.

[00:44:28] Bottom line is all of these people

[00:44:30] are extremely qualified.

[00:44:32] Like they are the top of their field.

[00:44:34] They went to the top law schools

[00:44:36] like they are bright people.

[00:44:39] Right.

[00:44:40] At any law firm, they would be

[00:44:42] named partner.

[00:44:43] They would be like they would be

[00:44:45] the top of their field wherever they

[00:44:46] are.

[00:44:47] So yeah, you're right.

[00:44:48] Like if to hear a Supreme Court

[00:44:50] justice jump to that ridiculous

[00:44:51] conclusion

[00:44:53] sounds like a sound bite you'd

[00:44:55] hear from like AOC or like anybody

[00:44:57] on the squad, but not

[00:44:59] not someone who knows how to

[00:45:00] rationalize and look at this from

[00:45:02] a purely judicial point of view.

[00:45:04] Not not like I want to score a

[00:45:06] sound boy by kind of politician.

[00:45:08] So.

[00:45:11] Should we move on to Amy Coney Barrett?

[00:45:14] Yes.

[00:45:16] OK.

[00:45:17] Let's see.

[00:45:19] Pull up this one.

[00:45:25] Follow up on that.

[00:45:26] So you're saying there are services

[00:45:27] available.

[00:45:30] So ultimately off the street,

[00:45:32] is that is that what you're saying?

[00:45:34] I think part of the premise of all

[00:45:35] this right is that there are not

[00:45:36] enough beds for

[00:45:38] homeless people to occupy.

[00:45:40] And so there will be a mismatch

[00:45:41] and they're going to be some

[00:45:42] people who can't be cared for.

[00:45:45] Are you saying that if your laws

[00:45:47] enforce, there is a way for

[00:45:48] everyone to be cared for?

[00:45:50] No, I'm saying that's a policy

[00:45:51] question that is quite difficult.

[00:45:53] But these laws are an important

[00:45:54] part of the puzzle.

[00:45:55] They're not the only solution.

[00:45:57] And we don't we don't believe

[00:45:59] that they are, but we think they're

[00:46:00] an important tool.

[00:46:01] And without them, we've seen what's

[00:46:03] happened on our streets.

[00:46:04] We've seen that people are dying

[00:46:06] in encampments.

[00:46:07] We've seen that cities are

[00:46:09] are being forced to see to all of

[00:46:10] their public spaces.

[00:46:12] So that ultimate question is for

[00:46:13] the legislature and policymakers

[00:46:15] to.

[00:46:17] What rights the right mix of

[00:46:18] policies is. But the wrong

[00:46:20] answer is to do with the Ninth

[00:46:21] Circuit did here and to

[00:46:22] constitute. Let me let me just

[00:46:23] interrupt you there.

[00:46:24] You're right, it's a very, very

[00:46:25] difficult policy question.

[00:46:26] And I asked you before about

[00:46:29] whether this was just about

[00:46:30] blankets or whether it went into

[00:46:31] having fires or urinating

[00:46:34] and defecating outdoors and that

[00:46:36] sort of thing. And Justice Sotomayor

[00:46:37] pointed out that this

[00:46:38] particular injunction did carve

[00:46:40] out those things and was just

[00:46:41] talking about sleep.

[00:46:43] But, you know, other cases

[00:46:45] have been litigated in the

[00:46:45] Ninth Circuit that have gone

[00:46:47] beyond that.

[00:46:48] And because the line is

[00:46:49] things that are involuntary,

[00:46:51] that are human needs, it can

[00:46:53] extend, it's difficult to draw the

[00:46:54] line. And whatever we decide

[00:46:56] here about this case is about

[00:46:57] the line. So can you describe

[00:46:59] for me some of the things

[00:47:01] that are difficult to figure

[00:47:02] out about the line?

[00:47:03] There's sleeping

[00:47:05] with blankets.

[00:47:07] Public urination and defecation,

[00:47:09] that is a serious problem.

[00:47:11] Those are parts of

[00:47:13] biological necessities of being

[00:47:15] human. A court in Sacramento

[00:47:17] addressed that and the Ninth

[00:47:18] Circuit's opinions debated

[00:47:20] whether its rule would

[00:47:21] actually reach those things.

[00:47:23] I think any rule that we are

[00:47:24] wondering about and debating

[00:47:26] whether it would go that far,

[00:47:27] I think that is a sign that it is

[00:47:29] not a workable rule.

[00:47:31] The slippery slope here is very

[00:47:32] real. It's not just for camping

[00:47:34] and conduct that might be a

[00:47:35] biological necessity, putting

[00:47:37] aside tents and fires and cold

[00:47:39] climates, what other things

[00:47:40] would be allowed.

[00:47:42] All of the things that a human

[00:47:43] needs to survive, for

[00:47:45] example, potentially come

[00:47:47] into focus under

[00:47:48] the Ninth Circuit's rule, but

[00:47:50] also in other areas.

[00:47:51] Someone could say that my drug

[00:47:53] use or possession is the other

[00:47:54] side of the coin because I'm an

[00:47:56] addict or because

[00:47:58] a person who

[00:48:00] violates other laws could say

[00:48:02] that I had a compulsion to do

[00:48:04] those things that I couldn't

[00:48:05] control. And the plurality

[00:48:06] opinion in Powell addressed

[00:48:08] that very thing and why it's

[00:48:10] so important to draw the line

[00:48:12] there. And when conduct is

[00:48:13] involved and once the court

[00:48:15] gets into deciding

[00:48:17] which conduct may be excused

[00:48:19] under the Eighth Amendment, it

[00:48:20] is so far afield of what the

[00:48:22] Eighth Amendment was ever

[00:48:23] understood to address.

[00:48:24] OK, speaking of status and

[00:48:26] conduct, you've argued that

[00:48:28] Robinson was wrong and we

[00:48:29] don't need to overrule it. And I

[00:48:31] agree. I don't think we

[00:48:32] should overrule Robinson.

[00:48:34] You've also been kind of

[00:48:35] resisting this status.

[00:48:37] You've been resisting

[00:48:39] characterizing anything other

[00:48:40] than the drug addiction that

[00:48:41] was at issue in Robinson as

[00:48:42] status. So what if the law

[00:48:44] said it is

[00:48:47] unlawful and punishable by

[00:48:49] 30 days in prison to have

[00:48:50] the status of homelessness?

[00:48:52] Just go with me. Just assume

[00:48:54] that the law defines

[00:48:55] homelessness as a status and

[00:48:57] it is a status.

[00:48:58] Would Robinson say that that

[00:49:00] law is unconstitutional under

[00:49:02] the Eighth Amendment? Would you

[00:49:03] concede that? And you're

[00:49:05] saying that that is a status?

[00:49:07] Yes, the law defines it as a

[00:49:08] status and it's a status.

[00:49:10] Well, yes. And I think it

[00:49:11] looks a lot like Robinson

[00:49:12] under that hypothetical. But

[00:49:13] of course we disagree that it

[00:49:15] is. I understand you

[00:49:16] disagree. But you are

[00:49:17] accepting that that Robinson

[00:49:18] draws a distinction between

[00:49:20] status and conduct and you're

[00:49:21] just fighting about the

[00:49:22] definition of a status.

[00:49:24] It draws the line where a law

[00:49:27] has no actus rea. So I think

[00:49:29] that's the easiest line.

[00:49:30] I don't defend the line

[00:49:32] under the Eighth Amendment

[00:49:33] because I don't think

[00:49:34] actually that the court, I

[00:49:35] know the court didn't rely on

[00:49:36] any Eighth Amendment

[00:49:37] principles or the hypothetical

[00:49:38] I just gave you had no

[00:49:39] actus rea is either the

[00:49:41] status of homelessness.

[00:49:43] I mean it could be four

[00:49:44] o'clock in the afternoon

[00:49:46] and the person is just

[00:49:47] standing outside the bus stop.

[00:49:48] Do you agree that if the law

[00:49:50] prohibited that made that a

[00:49:52] crime that under Robinson

[00:49:54] whether Robinson was right

[00:49:55] or wrong that under Robinson

[00:49:56] that would be a violation

[00:49:57] of the Eighth Amendment?

[00:49:58] Well, I I I think the better

[00:50:00] framework is due process.

[00:50:01] I understand that under

[00:50:03] Robinson. Do you agree

[00:50:05] that that would be wrong?

[00:50:07] Yes. OK. Thank you.

[00:50:10] OK, so any thoughts

[00:50:12] on that one?

[00:50:14] Can you explain that one?

[00:50:16] OK, so that's sort of.

[00:50:18] Yeah, so that one got a little

[00:50:20] bit wonky.

[00:50:22] Basically what she's grilling

[00:50:24] her about is what we talked

[00:50:25] about, which is

[00:50:27] Robinson v. California

[00:50:30] made it unconstitutional

[00:50:32] to criminalize status

[00:50:34] like you're an addict.

[00:50:35] That's your status.

[00:50:36] You can't change being an addict.

[00:50:38] So the Amy Coney Barrett

[00:50:41] was saying, would you want us

[00:50:42] to overturn Robinson?

[00:50:43] She says no, I think

[00:50:44] Robinson was correct.

[00:50:45] I think it was misapplied

[00:50:47] by the Ninth Circuit in this

[00:50:49] instance when it comes to

[00:50:50] homeless encampments.

[00:50:52] So she's the petitioner

[00:50:54] is arguing that it also has

[00:50:56] some sort of conduct

[00:50:58] involved.

[00:50:59] So.

[00:51:01] Actus Ray is being like

[00:51:03] a purposeful action

[00:51:05] on behalf of someone

[00:51:07] to do something.

[00:51:09] So instead of a status of like

[00:51:10] I am just always an addict

[00:51:13] where like it doesn't matter if

[00:51:14] I'm sleeping, I'm an addict.

[00:51:16] If I'm exercising, I'm an addict.

[00:51:18] If I'm eating dinner, I'm still

[00:51:19] an addict.

[00:51:19] That's just my status in life.

[00:51:21] I'm an addict.

[00:51:22] But if you're someone who

[00:51:23] chooses to go to a public

[00:51:25] park and set up a tent

[00:51:27] in a camp and do that,

[00:51:29] like she's saying

[00:51:31] that's where we should say,

[00:51:33] OK, that's now conduct.

[00:51:35] And we should be allowed to

[00:51:37] criminalize that or punish

[00:51:39] people and uphold these

[00:51:41] fines and these these temporary

[00:51:42] jail sentences because you've

[00:51:44] now taken an action

[00:51:47] by choosing to go

[00:51:49] and camp in these public areas.

[00:51:51] It's not your status.

[00:51:52] It's not your status of like

[00:51:53] you're just homeless and

[00:51:54] therefore just by being alive

[00:51:56] and homeless, we can criminalize

[00:51:57] you. It's that you've decided

[00:51:59] I instead of going to a

[00:52:00] shelter, I'm going to go camp

[00:52:03] in a park or on a park bench

[00:52:04] or something.

[00:52:05] So that's where they were kind

[00:52:06] of arguing like, where do you

[00:52:08] draw the line? Is it conduct

[00:52:10] or status? So

[00:52:13] did that sort of answer any of your

[00:52:14] questions?

[00:52:15] That does answer my question.

[00:52:16] Yes, thank you.

[00:52:17] Like

[00:52:19] I thought a little off track there.

[00:52:21] OK. And I kind of thought

[00:52:23] it was going when, you know,

[00:52:25] when they brought up the man

[00:52:26] just standing outside a bus stop.

[00:52:28] He's not doing anything wrong.

[00:52:29] He's not he's homeless, but he's

[00:52:31] not doing anything.

[00:52:33] What? Why do they keep pushing

[00:52:34] this fire thing?

[00:52:36] Like I can't imagine us just

[00:52:37] allowing all the like, oh, I

[00:52:39] get that it's cold, but like just

[00:52:40] light a fire. That won't cause any

[00:52:42] problems at all.

[00:52:44] I guess because there's well,

[00:52:46] that goes into like a different

[00:52:47] issue of like necessity of like

[00:52:49] well, to survive

[00:52:52] in Oregon in the

[00:52:54] winters, you need some sort of

[00:52:56] heat source. So if they start

[00:52:57] a fire and like a garbage can

[00:52:59] or something like that, that

[00:53:01] to them is a necessity.

[00:53:02] So your defense is like, I

[00:53:04] I need this to stay alive.

[00:53:06] I need this heat so they keep

[00:53:07] talking about it. But then I

[00:53:08] they also argue what fires are

[00:53:10] dangerous. Like you put fires in

[00:53:11] public places.

[00:53:13] What if we'd like the whole thing

[00:53:14] on fire?

[00:53:16] So I think that's the whole fire.

[00:53:18] Yeah, they keep bringing up the

[00:53:19] whole fire issue of like

[00:53:21] yeah, which yeah, there's been

[00:53:23] issues of, you know, homeless

[00:53:25] fires have, you know, they'll

[00:53:26] either squat in like a

[00:53:28] construction site or something

[00:53:29] like that and cause

[00:53:31] a huge fire.

[00:53:33] But did you pick up on her

[00:53:34] argument that we discussed that

[00:53:36] the petitioner said, which is

[00:53:39] if we go down this route

[00:53:41] of allowing status

[00:53:43] and saying you can't criminalize

[00:53:46] based on status

[00:53:49] or this involuntary

[00:53:51] conduct idea, what that

[00:53:53] opens up.

[00:53:54] And that's not the point of the

[00:53:55] eighth amendment.

[00:53:56] So right.

[00:53:59] Like that's where she's saying

[00:54:02] if you leave this unchecked,

[00:54:04] for example, now again,

[00:54:07] quick lesson about federal courts

[00:54:09] and all that, the Supreme Court

[00:54:11] has to make a decision on this

[00:54:12] one way or another.

[00:54:14] Right?

[00:54:15] They're going to have to say

[00:54:16] something. They're going to have

[00:54:17] to come out with a decision.

[00:54:19] That's why the Supreme Court

[00:54:20] doesn't take up every single case

[00:54:22] that comes their way.

[00:54:24] I think they get.

[00:54:26] I don't know how many cases

[00:54:28] petition to be heard in the

[00:54:29] Supreme Court. It's like tens

[00:54:30] of thousands every year.

[00:54:32] Only a handful get hurt every

[00:54:34] year. Maybe you like

[00:54:36] less than 100.

[00:54:37] It's not a lot.

[00:54:39] But they have to understand the

[00:54:41] weight of what they're taking up

[00:54:44] will now it's not the Ninth Circuit

[00:54:45] anymore.

[00:54:47] So whatever the Supreme Court

[00:54:48] decides will now apply across

[00:54:50] the whole country.

[00:54:51] Right? So it will become the

[00:54:53] law of the land once the Supreme

[00:54:54] Court decides it.

[00:54:56] So I think she's kind of leaning

[00:54:58] into that argument of like,

[00:54:59] well, if the Supreme

[00:55:01] Court says

[00:55:03] involuntary conduct can't

[00:55:06] be criminalized under the Eighth

[00:55:07] Amendment, which is a broad

[00:55:10] interpretation of what the Eighth

[00:55:11] Amendment was supposed to be.

[00:55:13] You're kind of opening the door

[00:55:15] to like for a lack of better term

[00:55:17] like chaos.

[00:55:18] Like you're now open the door

[00:55:20] like everybody in the world is

[00:55:21] going to cite to this case and

[00:55:22] go.

[00:55:24] I shouldn't be criminalized.

[00:55:25] I shouldn't be convicted because

[00:55:27] of involuntary conduct.

[00:55:28] That's my defense based on

[00:55:30] Grants Pass v. Johnson.

[00:55:32] I don't think the Supreme Court's

[00:55:34] going to go that way.

[00:55:35] I mean, you have six conservative

[00:55:36] again, six conservative justices.

[00:55:40] Five, some people say they think

[00:55:41] Roberts is kind of a swing.

[00:55:44] I don't think they're going to

[00:55:46] open it up that much.

[00:55:48] But we'll see. We'll see how they

[00:55:49] come down in terms of

[00:55:52] where they land on

[00:55:55] the status and conduct and

[00:55:56] involuntary conduct.

[00:55:58] I.

[00:56:00] I would believe we didn't even get

[00:56:01] to the articles that I actually

[00:56:02] brought up and circle.

[00:56:04] There's a lot of stuff that I.

[00:56:06] Well, and then what next month is

[00:56:08] when decisions should come out.

[00:56:09] So I feel like we could do a whole.

[00:56:12] We could do like a whole.

[00:56:13] Yeah, we do a whole follow up

[00:56:15] on on all of this.

[00:56:19] There was something else.

[00:56:20] Oh, this was another line.

[00:56:21] This is Kintanji Brown Jackson.

[00:56:24] First Justice Elena

[00:56:26] Kagan wondered since the city

[00:56:27] would somehow ban sleeping, could

[00:56:29] it not ban another biological

[00:56:30] necessity like breathing?

[00:56:33] While Justice Kintanji Brown Jackson

[00:56:35] wondered if a city quote decided

[00:56:37] it was going to execute homeless

[00:56:39] people and quote because they were

[00:56:41] homeless.

[00:56:43] So like I said, the liberal

[00:56:45] justice is when things got

[00:56:47] fun in there.

[00:56:48] Yeah, they went off on these

[00:56:50] hypotheticals.

[00:56:52] But yeah, so

[00:56:54] my personal belief

[00:56:57] if I were a betting man to say

[00:56:58] like what I think is going to

[00:56:59] happen.

[00:57:01] I think the majority is going to

[00:57:02] find that it's permissible

[00:57:06] for these camping

[00:57:07] these camping bands that it

[00:57:09] doesn't violate the Eighth

[00:57:10] Amendment. I think the

[00:57:12] petitioner

[00:57:14] was smart by

[00:57:16] when you read her brief or

[00:57:18] their brief, I don't know.

[00:57:19] I don't think she wrote the whole

[00:57:20] thing. She may have just argued

[00:57:21] it.

[00:57:22] When you read the brief and they

[00:57:24] lean heavily into the history

[00:57:26] and originalism

[00:57:28] of the Eighth Amendment.

[00:57:30] They're speaking directly to the

[00:57:32] majority of the court, which is

[00:57:34] Alito Thomas

[00:57:36] Amy Cooney Barrett, Justice

[00:57:38] Gorsuch.

[00:57:40] There's a fifth one. Why am I

[00:57:41] missing the fifth one?

[00:57:44] Why am I missing the fifth one?

[00:57:45] Alito.

[00:57:47] Thomas.

[00:57:48] Gorsuch Kavanaugh.

[00:57:50] Yeah, those are all they

[00:57:52] consider themselves originalists,

[00:57:54] meaning what was

[00:57:56] the intent of the founders

[00:57:59] when they wrote this and

[00:58:00] passed it.

[00:58:02] And she leaned into it heavily and

[00:58:03] said this was the intent.

[00:58:05] The intent was cruel and unusual.

[00:58:07] Cruel is defined as

[00:58:10] drawing and quartering.

[00:58:12] Horrible, disgusting stuff in

[00:58:14] public.

[00:58:16] And unusual is stuff that you

[00:58:17] wouldn't do like you wouldn't be

[00:58:19] like.

[00:58:20] Yeah, for today, your death

[00:58:22] sentences, we're going to drop you

[00:58:23] out of a helicopter.

[00:58:24] We've never done it before, but

[00:58:26] we're going to drop you out of a

[00:58:26] helicopter.

[00:58:27] No, it has to be like a usual

[00:58:30] form of punishment.

[00:58:32] So that's my bet. My bet is

[00:58:34] they are probably going to say

[00:58:36] Martin V. Boise went too far.

[00:58:37] That wasn't the intent of the Eighth

[00:58:39] Amendment.

[00:58:40] Therefore, that's not your

[00:58:42] that's you can't argue under

[00:58:44] that. They'll throw out Martin V.

[00:58:45] Boise.

[00:58:47] And then we'll see how the

[00:58:48] rest of the Ninth Circuit and all

[00:58:49] these states react.

[00:58:51] Any final thoughts?

[00:58:52] No, I mean,

[00:58:54] we didn't even get to how the

[00:58:55] supplies to California.

[00:58:56] But I guess part two will

[00:58:58] eventually. Yeah.

[00:59:00] Just for those who are interested

[00:59:02] in like insider baseball,

[00:59:04] regularly, Camille and I will

[00:59:06] sit down and go, what topic are

[00:59:07] we going to discuss this week?

[00:59:10] And we sit there and go, do we

[00:59:11] have enough for an hour?

[00:59:12] 10 times out of 10, we end up

[00:59:14] having way too much stuff.

[00:59:17] We have if you could see our

[00:59:18] show notes, we have like a

[00:59:19] whole another half of the show

[00:59:20] that we were going to do.

[00:59:21] And we're just not going to get

[00:59:22] to it. So maybe that'll be

[00:59:23] another episode.

[00:59:24] We'll talk about my time

[00:59:26] searching this week.

[00:59:27] We'll just put those notes

[00:59:29] aside and save it for another

[00:59:30] episode. We'll talk about

[00:59:32] $24 billion from where it went.

[00:59:35] Maybe we can get Josh Hoover on

[00:59:37] to come on and talk about that.

[00:59:38] That would be really interesting.

[00:59:39] But anyway,

[00:59:40] so.

[00:59:42] That's my final thoughts.

[00:59:44] Keep an eye on it next month.

[00:59:46] They're going to hand out all

[00:59:47] these decisions.

[00:59:48] The Supreme Court, what they do is

[00:59:50] they hand out all these

[00:59:51] decisions and then they get the

[00:59:52] hell out of town.

[00:59:54] Once they're done with their

[00:59:55] decisions, their sessions over,

[00:59:57] they all scatter to their

[00:59:59] summer homes wherever they are

[01:00:00] in Antarctica.

[01:00:01] One bit.

[01:00:03] Like no, I mean, it was

[01:00:05] last year. Roe v Wade was

[01:00:06] overturned.

[01:00:07] So right?

[01:00:09] Was it the way it was over or

[01:00:10] two years ago?

[01:00:12] I thought I don't know.

[01:00:13] And I'll see all my mental

[01:00:14] capacity is gone. I thought

[01:00:15] it was 2022.

[01:00:16] But because I feel like there

[01:00:18] was like a whole thing.

[01:00:19] It's been a year and here's

[01:00:20] what's happened.

[01:00:22] So they don't want to.

[01:00:26] I'm pretty sure the decisions

[01:00:28] are already done.

[01:00:30] And the Supreme Court has

[01:00:31] already left.

[01:00:34] And like they obviously issue

[01:00:35] it on there that day.

[01:00:36] I don't know who in the office

[01:00:37] actually issues it.

[01:00:40] But there's actually like a

[01:00:41] tradition of like a page like

[01:00:43] runs into the Supreme Court

[01:00:45] and like gets the decision and

[01:00:46] then they like run back out

[01:00:48] so that the reporters can get

[01:00:49] it like.

[01:00:51] I don't know. Traditions are

[01:00:52] fun.

[01:00:53] Speaking of all that.

[01:00:55] Right. No one.

[01:00:57] I mean, I'm sure they didn't

[01:00:58] even investigate.

[01:00:59] But when the Roe v Wade

[01:01:00] decision was leaked early.

[01:01:03] And no one

[01:01:06] knew who leaked it.

[01:01:07] And that was obviously a big

[01:01:08] deal. And yet here we are

[01:01:10] nearly two years later.

[01:01:11] And that's just

[01:01:14] we don't even care.

[01:01:15] No one cares.

[01:01:16] OK.

[01:01:19] Yeah, never heard anything about

[01:01:21] that. That was.

[01:01:23] It was leaked and Justice

[01:01:25] Roberts said they're going to

[01:01:25] look into it and they never

[01:01:26] found out who leaked it.

[01:01:27] So.

[01:01:30] I'm glad it didn't change.

[01:01:31] That was one prediction.

[01:01:32] I think I got wrong was that

[01:01:34] it might change it.

[01:01:36] But it didn't.

[01:01:37] It ended up staying true

[01:01:39] and they stuck to their guns.

[01:01:40] So good for the Supreme

[01:01:42] Court not caving to public

[01:01:43] pressure.

[01:01:45] Final. Actually, this is a final

[01:01:47] thought for those who

[01:01:49] are kind of rapid want to wrap

[01:01:50] this into the whole national

[01:01:51] election of Trump v Biden.

[01:01:55] I think so to my your

[01:01:58] might be on her way out.

[01:02:01] She's she has a lot of health

[01:02:03] issues.

[01:02:04] OK.

[01:02:05] There's you know, this isn't

[01:02:07] this is actually a pretty young

[01:02:08] court, especially with the three

[01:02:11] that Trump put on during his

[01:02:12] term.

[01:02:14] I don't foresee any of them

[01:02:16] stepping down.

[01:02:17] Can Tungy Brown Jackson's brand

[01:02:18] new?

[01:02:20] Alito has been there a while.

[01:02:21] He's not going anywhere.

[01:02:22] But so do my or I think has

[01:02:23] health issues.

[01:02:26] Do I think she holds on for

[01:02:27] another four years if Trump

[01:02:28] gets elected?

[01:02:30] Probably.

[01:02:31] But.

[01:02:33] Who knows, you know, health

[01:02:35] issues can can wreak havoc

[01:02:37] on people and who knows one

[01:02:39] day you can wake up feeling

[01:02:40] fine and then one day

[01:02:42] you're like, Nope, can't do this

[01:02:43] anymore. So

[01:02:46] for those who to add even more

[01:02:48] gravitas to the most important

[01:02:49] election of our lifetime as they

[01:02:51] say about every presidential

[01:02:52] election is the most important

[01:02:53] election of our life.

[01:02:55] Every election is the most

[01:02:55] important reason of the

[01:02:57] bachelor ever.

[01:02:58] It's the most dramatic season

[01:03:00] of the bachelor ever. It's the

[01:03:00] most important election of our

[01:03:02] lifetime.

[01:03:03] It's the most highly

[01:03:04] anticipated Super Bowl of all

[01:03:05] time.

[01:03:07] But forget presidential

[01:03:10] elections.

[01:03:11] Local elections are what matter.

[01:03:12] And we urge you to go check out

[01:03:13] our shirt, California Underground

[01:03:14] Dot Live.

[01:03:15] All right. So with that said,

[01:03:18] that's our show for tonight.

[01:03:19] Thanks for tuning in.

[01:03:20] I hope you appreciated the wonky

[01:03:22] legal jargon that I discussed

[01:03:24] for an hour.

[01:03:27] Any anything else before we sign

[01:03:28] off for tonight? Come here.

[01:03:29] Yeah, just

[01:03:31] come visit us at convention.

[01:03:33] If you're a candidate, a

[01:03:34] politician and you are going to

[01:03:36] be there, contact us.

[01:03:37] We want to talk to you live

[01:03:39] there.

[01:03:40] Yeah.

[01:03:41] If you work for a politician or

[01:03:43] candidate, send them our way.

[01:03:45] Yeah, California Underground at

[01:03:47] protonmail.com.

[01:03:48] Let us know so that we can try

[01:03:50] and get you a spot because it

[01:03:51] fills up like we did it last

[01:03:54] time.

[01:03:55] And we literally just like set up

[01:03:57] and it was like one after

[01:03:59] another. Like people stop by.

[01:04:00] So if you're interested and

[01:04:02] you want to stop by and

[01:04:03] reserve a time, let us know

[01:04:04] California Underground at

[01:04:06] protonmail.com.

[01:04:07] Camille will be doing a meet

[01:04:09] and greet for all of her

[01:04:10] fonding fans.

[01:04:11] So you can like take pictures.

[01:04:12] We'll sign autographs.

[01:04:13] She'll sign the back of your

[01:04:15] California Underground merch

[01:04:17] and I'll just sit idly by

[01:04:19] and watch.

[01:04:20] But a lot of related Camille's

[01:04:22] looking for a different podcast

[01:04:24] to join.

[01:04:26] I know of one where you can

[01:04:28] take big breaks and like not

[01:04:30] do a podcast for like three or

[01:04:31] four months and come back.

[01:04:34] Three or four months is being

[01:04:35] generous. I think you mean

[01:04:36] like nine, ten, twelve.

[01:04:37] Three or four months is being

[01:04:39] try like, you know, if you want

[01:04:40] a podcast that comes out twice a

[01:04:42] year.

[01:04:43] In two weeks in a row,

[01:04:46] it's out. No, we're not.

[01:04:47] We're not doing this film.

[01:04:49] OK, on that note.

[01:04:52] Bring that aside.

[01:04:53] Inside jokes don't send

[01:04:55] a fake message is

[01:04:58] on that note.

[01:04:59] We're back. We're going to be

[01:05:00] back to our normal schedule.

[01:05:01] We just took last week

[01:05:03] off.

[01:05:04] Yeah. Back Thursday, 6 p.m.

[01:05:05] tune in YouTube rumble all that

[01:05:07] stuff. And you can always hear

[01:05:08] us on Spotify, Google,

[01:05:10] Apple, wherever you hear audio

[01:05:11] podcast.

[01:05:13] Make sure you like, share,

[01:05:13] subscribe, review all this stuff

[01:05:15] for the videos helps us with the

[01:05:17] algorithms, especially on YouTube.

[01:05:19] And as always, the best thing

[01:05:20] you can do to support this show

[01:05:22] outside of going and checking out

[01:05:23] our wonderful new merch is

[01:05:26] just share it with a friend,

[01:05:27] friend, family, co-worker,

[01:05:29] anybody you think might be

[01:05:29] really interested in this

[01:05:30] podcast and stuff that we talk

[01:05:32] about California politics.

[01:05:33] And with that, we'll see

[01:05:35] on the next one later.

[01:05:48] Thank you for listening to another

[01:05:50] episode of California Underground.

[01:05:51] If you like what you heard, remember

[01:05:53] to subscribe, like and review

[01:05:54] it and follow California

[01:05:56] Underground on social media for

[01:05:57] updates as to when new episodes

[01:05:59] are available.