The HHS Massacre

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:00 Clip: You must never, ever give up or give in. You must keep the faith and keep your eyes on the prize. That is your calling. That is you mission. That is moral obligation. That is mandate. Get out there and do it. Get in the way. Change happens because people care. The people have the power to make this life free and beautiful. To make this live a wonderful adventure.

0:00:38 Clip: I still believe with all my heart, America can be a place where no child is left hungry, no community is left behind, and no one gets told they don't belong. Country is always worth it.

0:00:57 Thomas: Hello, and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 1145. I'm Thomas Smith, and it's Wild Card Wednesday. Let me spin the wheel. Oh, looks like Lydia. How's it going?

0:01:08 Lydia: Pretty good. I don't know if I'm the wildest wild card, but I'm gonna bring some, I was gonna say fun. It's not gonna be fun, folks, but

0:01:17 Thomas: Wild card is just in deciding who's here, so you don't have to be wild. No, like when a wild card's like, oh, that's equal to a two of clubs, it's like the two of lot of weight off your shoulders. Yeah. Not a fun topic today, but of course, always a fun co-host with Lydia. What are we gonna be talking about?

0:01:43 Lydia: We are going to be talking about some breaking news, actually. On the last couple episodes of Where There's Woke, we talked about the interview that some some carefully selected folks from Doge, went and did with Bret Baier on Fox News.

0:01:57 Thomas: Go check that out everyone. Where There's Woke, we did a two -part on that interview. It's nuts, it's nuts and harmful and bad and terrible and those people should feel bad and they don't.

0:02:07 Lydia: And one of the main claims that they said, you know, towards the end that we talked about was the insistence that people are not being fired, that that's not happening. The vast majority of folks are are leaving has been through voluntary means and they focus on, quote, being generous, being caring, being compassionate and treating everyone with dignity and respect.

0:02:28 Thomas: That's why the chainsaw he had on stage was a dignity chainsaw. It's one of those.

0:02:32 Lydia: So I obviously dug into the specific claim about the layoffs. And then I woke up to one of the most horrible termination approaches I've read about in this administration, something that was not generous, caring, compassionate or treating people with dignity and respect.

0:02:46 Thomas: To put it lightly, I'm sure.

0:02:48 Lydia: I'm a little riled up right now. That's what we're going to be talking about today.

0:02:51 Thomas: Of course, later on, we'll check in with Heather for T3BE. We got to get the answer to last week's bar question and the new question. Much fun always. And Lydia will be back for those shout outs. Let's see. Anything else folks need to know? We released a lot of really good Serious Inquiries Only. It's the usual end of month flood.

0:03:03 Lydia: Will.

0:03:11 Thomas: Go check out that. But right now, let's listen to opening arguments. And if you'd like to skip the ad part of that, definitely go to patreon.com/law. Pledge as little as a dollar. You never have to hear those damn ads again. Never. It's over.

0:03:23 Lydia: Yes, I That's a promise.

0:03:26 Thomas: Can take that to the bank. Right. Thanks so much to our patrons. And after this break, we'll the very delicate, compassionate chainsaw approach they're taking. Episode is brought to you by Trade Coffee. I don't know about you, but coffee is the most important thing in my life, probably. As such, it's important to get it right. First if you want to find the best beans, if I recommend Trade Coffee? Is the number one U .S. specialty coffee marketplace, bringing you fresh coffee from over 50 of the country's top roasters. Experts have taste tested thousands of coffees. Imagine how jittery they are over there to curate over 450 amazing roasts. You know what your favorite might be. Maybe you have no idea. Well, take their quiz. Is. A minute, they'll match you with your perfect coffee. If that first bag isn't quite right, problem. Trade will replace it for free until they nail it. With me, they nailed it right away. Got some delicious beans from the Lake Tahoe area. Give Trade Coffee a try. Right now, Trade is exclusively offering our listeners 40 % off your first order at drinktrade .com slash OA. That's drinktrate, T -R -A -D -E, dot com slash OA for 40 % Off Your First Order. Drinktrade dot com slashoa.

0:04:40 Lydia: A little bit of context setting, last Thursday, RFK Jr., the Secretary of Health and Human Services, said that they would be cutting 10,000 full-time employees.

0:04:52 Thomas: That sounds like a lot, but maybe they have like a million, so it's fine.

0:04:53 Lydia: Is. Yeah, I think the estimate is about 82 ,000 employees. Not a million. About 10 ,000 employees had already left voluntarily.

0:05:00 Thomas: No. Okay, that's not a million. Oh,

0:05:05 Lydia: So that gets you to 72 ,000. Yeah. And then another 5 ,200 probationary workers were terminated last month. They're currently on paid administrative leave pending court decisions. But this would be an additional 10 ,00 full time employees. As part of this termination strategy, they would also be closing five out of the 10 regional HHS offices. Is a big deal.

0:05:08 Thomas: That's a lot. Wow. Know you've told me a million times, but just bullet points. What does HHS do again? Maybe that's why I can't remember.

0:05:31 Lydia: Billion things. So the CDC, yeah, the Center for Diseases and Control is under there. The National Institute of Health is under their the programs to provide like SNAP benefits and things like that. That's all housed in Health and Human Services. There's a of different. Within Health and Human Services and within each of those agencies, they're really extensive. So like we had talked about on that Where There's Woke episode, we kind of dug into the institutes and centers that are part of the National Institute of Health and how complicated that is. That's one piece of Health & Human Services. One tiny piece. Is like really interested in consolidating the entire agency and from perspective, making it more efficient by streamlining. So there's one communications office for all of Health and Human Services that reports directly to his office to speak on behalf of every single department within Health and is vast and cover a lot of programs and services that are really, really important to a lot people. Lot of like research surrounding like, you know, COVID -19 pandemic, like all of that stuff happened in Health and Human Services. So at 516 a .m. this morning, Eastern Time. Notices, so reduction in force notices, were issued to employee emails. Because of the recent return to office requirement that the Trump administration put forward, many employees did not have the ability to access whether or not they were terminated while they were off site. What that meant was you had hundreds of people lining up outside of their work buildings waiting to see if their badges would work or not. You were lucky to have a work phone, you could see in advance if you had been riffed. A lot of people don't. They don't have access to that information unless they're in the office now. The badges were deactivated, they were escorted to their office space to remove their things. Then they left the building. Reports from federal employees, I was following the Reddit pretty closely this morning for like Fed News and Fed discussion. Were reports that it took hours hours to get in the building. That folks who were let go were coming out crying. Was such a mess. Supervisors weren't sure who was being eliminated from their teams. This was all news to them. Announcement that RFK made last Thursday was kind of like the first anyone had heard about it. Entire divisions, entire divisions were eliminated. So at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a former employee shared with CNN that the entire Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights was let go. That's the office that would be supporting any employees that have. Claims about being discriminated against at work. Notice for eliminating that entire division, essentially, it was suggested that had a complaint about being let go, they could contact the former director of the office. But she had passed away four months ago. They were giving folks a contact for someone that a lot of them had worked with. It was gone. So there was no one for them to reach out to. And as just a really callous move, the entire staff of the low income home energy assistance program was terminated. And they're in charge of issuing $4 billion to help Americans with their heating and cooling bills a year. Now the entire

0:08:39 Lydia: There's no one to administrate the program. The FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, another huge, huge department underneath Health and Human Services Agency, one employee received a RIF notice that had performance ratings that were marked incorrectly. They said they couldn't tell if it was deliberate deliberate or an honest mistake. But those performance ratings matter because if it reflects a poor performance, that gives the government justification to reduce your severance pay. Jonathan Cohn with the bulwark on Blue Sky, he. Skeeted, I guess, have spent the day calling, emailing, and texting contacts in and around HHS. Quite difficult to capture the breadth and depth of the damage done today, or to convey how long -lasting it could be.

0:09:22 Thomas: I mean, just I pulled up some images like indignity and the just the inhumanity of showing up at your job and having to wait in a fucking line to find out if you can get in the building and if you still have a job because. The worst people in the world now being in charge of these very important programs. I don't care if you were conservative who actually thought you need budget cuts. This is no way to treat people like it's just not. Often said in the first term that cruelty is the point. I don't know in this instance if that's true. Like, I don'T know who's handling this because I don't actually believe that RFK Jr. dumb as he is. As harmful as he is, I don't know that he would like particularly want to do this or if or if this it's just because of this is this administration, like the cruelty is the point and you do need to make a spectacle or is it pure incompetence? I don't know. What do you think?

0:10:16 Lydia: Think it could be a mix of both, but I do want to emphasize that there are plenty of reports coming out that Elon Musk, you know, heading Doge, even though he says he doesn't head Doge and the government he does. He doesn't have Doge but he heads Doge gets along really, really well with Russ Vogt, who we've talked about on this show as well. Head of OMB.

0:10:31 Thomas: I would believe the cruelty as a point for that guy. Quote, The cruelty is The point.

0:10:34 Lydia: Explicitly said, we you want to traumatize them like federal employees.

0:10:40 Thomas: Well, well done.

0:10:41 Lydia: And clear those are the people who are making these decisions. And the secretaries over the various agencies and departments, they to sign paper. Like, are not really making a decision. Yeah. No, this is all coming. I mean, this like that unitary executive theory, right?

0:10:57 Thomas: Right.

0:10:57 Lydia: Like, so this

0:10:57 Thomas: But I mean, like OMB doesn't that's not what they do. Right. I mean. Doesn't matter anymore. Like.

0:11:02 Lydia: Is something where, well, because all the budget stuff they're saying is going to go through OMB and then it's only going to be approved.

0:11:08 Thomas: But they do a proposed budget that like that's this is I mean I.

0:11:13 Lydia: That's how it should work. We'll see.

0:11:15 Thomas: Yeah. But it's like it's so we're so far just emphasizing like how far off of anything rational we are. This does not resemble anything like like there was even a quote unquote right way to do this thing. Like you have control of Congress. Do things the normal way. Like even if you're going to do that, which you shouldn't at go through procedures so that people can. A tiny amount of dignity and But like, again, that is the point. The point is nothing's important to these people. Nothing the government does is important to those people. Civil servants who are just doing their jobs and money to feed their families who don't make a lot of money.

0:11:23 Lydia: Agreed. Yeah. Nope.

0:11:55 Thomas: This is not a highest paying work. I mean, you usually get decent benefits. It's not like it's a bad job, but they're not rich. They're not wealthy. Be the target of anyone's ire, really. This is how you treat them. Like, it's just despicable.

0:12:08 Lydia: Yeah absolutely. Want to hear how, to RFK, how they decided to pursue the organizational restructuring is what they'll refer to it as. He Nation last week with...

0:12:21 Thomas: Joy.

0:12:22 Lydia: With gavel gavel listeners favorite Brian Friedman's client, Chris Cuomo.

0:12:27 Lydia: So Chris Cuoma has a show on News Nation these days. And yeah, RFK came on and they discuss the organizational structure at HHS and how they pursued figuring out what needed to change.

0:12:39 Clip: So you have to bear the burden of some of the doge rhetoric and recoil. So when people hear cuts now, they worry about delivery of services because there's an open question as to whether or not at least Elon Musk cares about any of the people who get served by these agencies. So, when it comes to your agency, Bobby, which as you said is a sprawling one, how do you give confidence to all of the individuals and parents and families that need the services that you provide and they hear there are going to be cuts. Not going to cut services. We're going to provide services, but more efficiently. We have the thanks to Elon. And by the way, what Elon did with our agency is going to help our agency. So I'm very grateful to him for me. He came in for the first time with a real org chart for the agency. The agency org chart when I arrived was incomprehensible. There was no chain of command. There were people operating in all these different silos and fiefdoms. And they were so territorial and so self-serving that they were selling patient information to each other. So I tried to get the CMS patient information, which belongs to the American people and belongs to HHS. And the sub-agencies said we have to buy it from them. And it doesn't make any sense. There are sub-agencies that refuse to give us patient data. This is depersonalized data. And we need to make American healthy again. What we're trying to do, what Elon is doing, is he's using AI to improve health, to improve efficiency, to approve delivery. And he had a bunch of geniuses come over to the department, create an org chart that worked, and consolidate. Many divisions that are doing the exact same thing. We need to consolidate them and give them a sense of mission. You invite

0:13:35 Thomas: For the first time, yeah. For Yeah.

0:14:38 Clip: Them to participate in making our country healthier again. And I think that's why we're getting, you know, a very, very strong enthusiastic reaction. From people within the agency. Of course, it's hard to lose workers. We're going from 82 ,000 workers to 62 ,000. That's tough on everybody. But I think in the long run, we're going to have much greater morale in a demoralized agency. Hey, demoralised agency.

0:15:01 Thomas: Is it tough on you? A demoralized agency? Hold on. What?

0:15:03 Lydia: All

0:15:12 Clip: And think, in the longer run, We're gonna have much more morale in demoralising agency.

0:15:18 Thomas: Okay, does it...

0:15:19 Lydia: Misspoke. Yeah, that what have been?

0:15:21 Thomas: Is he saying like now it's demoralised?

0:15:24 Lydia: Maybe.

0:15:24 Thomas: I don't even... That's not like how the... Yeah, that's not how the emphasis was. Does he mean decentralized? No, it's not.

0:15:25 Lydia: Previously demoralized. That was strange. There's no way because

0:15:32 Thomas: It's more centralized, yeah. A demoralized... And does he mean like moralizing? Means that? What the f... Okay.

0:15:33 Lydia: They want to centralize it. Don't know. Yeah, the AI piece really stuck out to me that they are, you know, just feeding data into AI and saying chat GPT or Gmork or whatever, create an org chart for me. Like, OK, Gmok.

0:15:50 Thomas: I really am curious what that means. What did you say? Grok?

0:15:56 Lydia: Oh, it's nonsense either way. I couldn't remember what it was called.

0:16:02 Thomas: Lydia is not a fan of sci -fi, everyone.

0:16:04 Lydia: Is that it's named after it's.

0:16:06 Thomas: Well, grok is to like, to grok something. It's also made it to the common lexicon.

0:16:09 Lydia: I thought he just made up a word. Oh, that's why I said Gmork.

0:16:16 Thomas: All right. Well she doesn't grok it everybody, but no, really, I would, man, I see reality of what that means. Like, I genuinely think that means I plugged in the org chart to chat GPT and just had it be like, make me a new org chart.

0:16:31 Lydia: Some efficiencies.

0:16:32 Thomas: Yeah, and assholes are probably like, oh, he's got all the data in the system.

0:16:32 Lydia: You must cut X thousand jobs. Yeah,

0:16:37 Thomas: It's probably, nah, it's probably something stupid.

0:16:40 Lydia: Yeah. I don't want to have RFK's interview be what we're left with here because I want to focus on the people.

0:16:48 Thomas: RFK is not a person. I fully agree. Fucking subhuman

0:16:50 Lydia: He's not. He's taken over by a brain worm.

0:16:52 Thomas: Garbage.

0:16:52 Lydia: Yeah, yeah. He is a brain worms vessel. I want to focus on the people that are impacted.

0:16:57 Thomas: I think the brain worm would do a better job. I'm going to call you out right now. I think The Brain Worm would do better job." The brain worm will be like, whoa, whoa. You can't cut that many people. Come on, man. I have a brain worm. I not a monster. Even brain worms need healthcare. We need to work together. You know, you can't just cut 25 % of a workforce in this undignified manner and think everything's going to work out. What body am I in? What brain did I take? Can I get out of here? Does anyone have a better brain I could take over?

0:17:27 Lydia: Hear from some of the folks that are actually impacted by this. San Francisco Regional Health and Human Services Office is one of the five regional centers that is being shut down, essentially. There was an interview with an employee that has been there for over 40 years of service in the federal government that was riffed this morning. Had been at this specific regional office since 2001. And the interviewer asks him, you know, to share what they do at this office so we can kind of understand the breadth of what we're losing potentially.

0:17:58 Clip: Pelosi, she says this obviously is important to thousands of people in San Francisco and Northern California and across the country. Can you tell us what this office does to the American public? Sure. The Administration for Children and Families specifically gives grants to the Head Start program. Uh they help runaway and homeless youth programs there's the office of child support enforcement just a lot of stuff dealing with kind of the social services side of health and human services we're the human services side do you know how many employees are being let go in that email did it say it did not say they didn't give us numbers it was very too I mean it was you know I'm sure it's fill in the blank with your name But at the same time, I don't know for sure. I know that in Washington DC at the headquarters, people were lined up around the block to get into their building to see if they were even allowed in. Some of them were turned away and I saw an article this morning that said some just left crying. Hearing

0:19:00 Thomas: You wonder if we've been doing a disservice on the left by saying this country has no social safety net. True but also then you look at all this and you're like shit, maybe we weren't doing enough to talk about what the government was doing because there's no incentive. There's almost no incentive for anyone to do that. No incentives for the right because they don't care. Or if they talk about it, they talk how wasteful it is and they have a totally skewed version of it that's not reality. On the left, we very much can't say, oh, like this part of government, this does a good thing, everyone. This is great. Because then it's like, well, why doesn't do more? We don't have health care. You know, it's just like all those bad incentives. Interesting to be like, well, this country has no social safety net. And then you look at just like, oh, wait, we're cutting all this stuff. And you learn new things every day that we used to do for some people. This has been a message I've long had, not particularly with this, but with everything that like we have had a failure of imagination of how bad things can get. We always think, well, things are so bad that it can't get worse. And we. Think humans have this very binary way of thinking, too. It's either good or it's bad. You know, oftentimes it's just like cognitively easier to deal with that. And then if something's in the bad column, it's all kind of the same. And that really loses the details that loses like, OK, there's Trump. Obviously, that's horrible. There's Trump minus 25 percent of HHS worse, a lot worse in ways that we're just not good at keeping that in mind. We're not good At like understanding how bad it can get. And certainly the voting public we know is just misinformed, ill -informed. Even some of The voters, many of the voters who thought they're informed. And I'll count myself among this. I don't know the extent to which. All these programs are functioning and what they do and every individual that they're helping, you know, Head Start, like you're there's all kinds of stuff that was mentioned

0:20:47 Thomas: Where it's.

0:20:47 Lydia: Runaway and homeless children.

0:20:48 Thomas: Know, and for me, it's like, in general, I support government because I support helping the most people. And so it's, like, I don't need to mess with the details too much. But But if you're going to come in here and be someone who thinks you need to demolish everything and get rid of it, you sure as hell better know what it is. You better know it is that you're doing. And I mean that as a voter, too. If you were a voter who wanted this, you better know, what it was you were voting for. And people don't. They don't!

0:21:13 Lydia: Want to hear from another HHS worker at that San Francisco regional office who has there for for quite some time. She was let go after 25 years of service. Think this interview is really striking. So I want

0:21:27 Clip: Are walking out. Kind people like Julie Fong. Thank you for spending your morning with us under such just horrible times. What's your take on all this. We heard Michael say something like it was in an email. It was in an email we received. We heard with the rest of the country through a press release last Thursday that HHS would be doing reductions in force. And then this morning we started receiving texts from colleagues in other time zones saying that they had received a reduction in force notice. And we all got to the office today to emails informing us that we were being let go. I've been with the agency 25 years. Most of my colleagues have been with agency five years or more. Many have been agency decades. And these folks are folks who work on health and human service programs. So we are committed to serving the taxpayer. That's what we've done for all of these years. We're committed to the most vulnerable children and families in our communities, public health. And we have all been really strong service. I know you're thinking about yourself, and rightfully so, but we were speaking earlier, you did not go into this being rich, that you talked about the community being served, and you started to choke up. I'm sure you're all thinking about the communities that we serve, that we partner with. We work with some fantastic state governments and tribal governments, and I know they won't continue the work, but it's going to be challenging. So, As far as the notice, no human being ever came over to you. It was as plastic,

0:23:13 Clip: I guess, lack of a better term. They just sent out an email and said, today's your day. We all received impersonal emails on April Fool's Day, and it was not an April Fool joke. That occurred to me. Did you initially go, this is April Fool? Oh, no. No, it was abundantly clear. It feels intentionally cruel and malicious, to be honest, which is in line with some of the other things we've experienced recently. And when you all found out, when everybody got together, this might be, for many of you, the last time you see each other. It won't be the last we see each because, again, we're really connected. These folks, we will remain connected, I believe. We just had a meeting where we all were able to join together and connect and and talk we have amazing leadership in our regional administrator and he's been incredibly supportive and provided wonderful leadership and we'll continue to we're all meeting our teams are meeting right now and connecting and ensuring that that we stay connected we care about you what do you what are your plans it's too early to tell I would imagine almost like asking an athlete right after a game what he plans to do it is just too early but Any thoughts down the road on how you plan to land on your feet?

0:24:36 Clip: I'm gonna tell everyone out there, there's a group of dedicated human service professionals with decades of experience in this building who are gonna need employment, including me. And my name is Julie Fong, and you can get the rest of the names, I'm sure, from Pete Weldy, who's the regional administrator here. And these folks are dedicated. We did not work in this field to make a bunch of money. We worked in this to serve the taxpayer. So if you have a human service job, I've got 65 really great human service professionals to partner with you. Just in my area. Hopefully some future employers looking at you and say, I want her to join as well. Thank you so much. I'm sure you have more packing to do. Thank

0:25:27 Lydia: To hear for me when I was watching that earlier. Echoing some of the things that you shared earlier. It's like people just wanting to help other people, not making a lot of money to do it and just a mission they're committed to and then let go in a very cruel, disrespectful, unkind manner. Have one more clip to share, and that is out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, some workers from a CDC office out there and their experience.

0:25:54 Clip: Roughly 200 CDC employees in the Pittsburgh region have been laid off. Those workers tell me they were shocked to get the letter this morning and that the work they do here is important and necessary. The work that's done here is to keep everybody safe. This morning, Pittsburgh's Action News 4 received a tip from a viewer that CDC employees at this facility in Pleasant Hills were being laid off After some digging, we confirmed with workers on site that they received this letter from the department of health and human services saying there will be a reduction in force employees tell us roughly 200 workers will be laid off with non -union workers last day being today employees like linda chaska who's the vice president of the union stunned to learn about the layoffs our hope was that it was not going to be a risk and a loss of jobs but that it was going to be a relocation. Finding out this morning that that was not the case and it was actually a termination of our employees was a bit of a shock to everybody. Employees explained they work on a mining program that does research, safety of underground miners, and mine disasters. Additionally, they also work on respirators. Even if you think the government work that's done here doesn't touch you, it probably does. If you've painted at your house, you've probably used a NIOSH -approved respirator. If had surgery, the medical workers and the hospital facility used NIOSH research you know to keep you safe and to keep themselves safe. Many questions still remain as to what is next but these workers want you to know that the work they do can only be done right here in the Pittsburgh region. The respirator approval program and the facilities that are in Pittsburgh are only in Pittsburgh and for the Pittsburgh Mining Research Division we have two experimental mines on site. Those mines aren't available anywhere else. And at this point, union workers' last day is expected to be in June. For

0:27:47 Thomas: Like mid -existential crisis, I didn't even know what to say. In this mode for a while, but maybe of doing I know we're in a very specific... about it. The divide is more between political junkies and people who don't pay attention. And obviously us and the people listening to the show and any of my shows really are going to be in that political junkies more in that camp, you know.

0:27:49 Lydia: Know. I know, um, -hmm.

0:28:11 Thomas: We've not really known what to do about that. I guess I guess it just like stuff like this, it just makes it makes everything feel so hollow. Politics shouldn't be entertainment anymore, you maybe that's – I know. I'm just in a raw form right now. But like I know how people do it. I mean a time ago I felt this way because the situation is so life and death. It's like – and I get that in order to get info across, you got to be entertaining in this day and age and you got find a way to like be heard. And that's where we're part of that too. Like it's wants just dry. Info, data, whatever. And there's this constant drive for novel information. And it's just like it just makes it all feel so stupid right now. Like the last thing I want right now is to see some dunk on social media about like, doesn't doesn't feel like we reach a point where it's like more serious than that. You know, like know. I don' t know what point I'm making other than I this mattered more to people and I wish that was this taken seriously. I d' n't think that even by our side a lot of this is taken as seriously as it should be and I don t know the answer to that is and n't know what to say other than these are real things and real people and real jobs and we are quickly on our way to some Ayn Rand bullshit where people die from corporations not giving a shit about your safety and nothing is done about it. Were already in once again, back to my granularity thing, we were all ready in a bad way there. We were all already in the in a situation where if corporations killed some people or ruined water or whatever, even if the government did whatever, that it took way too long and was way too hard to get any accountability. And but you realize like, oh, wait, but there's still so much further to go.

0:29:55 Thomas: A whole lot of lead to be put in the water. They're not going to run out. There's a lot of chemicals to be putting stuff that makes something cheaper. Yeah, that you all of a sudden they can do it. All of the sudden it kills a bunch of babies or it makes their lives worse. And it's harder to even know about it because of the people's jobs. It is to like work these regulations and build reports and data about it. Mean, it's just it's this is not a game. And Can't we just say enough at a certain point?

0:29:55 Lydia: In the air. Yeah Yeah want to close with, I know if this is necessarily a ray of hope, but we are seeing fighting already with regard to health and human services cuts, not on the employee side, though I imagine there's going to be something there. The same day, today, this morning, the states and Washington, D .C. Health and Human Services and RFK specifically because the agency took back $12 had been allocated to health departments across the country under the position that it was allocated for COVID -19 and the COVID - 19 pandemic is over. So these states say they were initially allocated during the pandemic, but were never intended only for COVID 19 response.

0:31:00 Lydia: Letitia James says, quote, slashing this funding now will reverse our progress on the opioid crisis, throw our mental health systems into chaos and leave hospitals struggling to care for patients. Dr. Joseph Cantor, CEO of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. They're not a party in the lawsuit, but he commented on it. Said, quote, with congressional and executive branch support, these funds were being used to modernize data systems, bolster laboratory capacity, improve electronic case reporting of time -sensitive infectious disease outbreaks, improve H5N1 and measles testing, and enhance biomedical terrorism preparedness, to name just a few examples. We worry the abrupt loss of these activities will impair states and... territories in their ability to respond to current and future threats. That lawsuit is, as I said, filed today. I'm requesting a a and link the in the show notes for everybody to take a look at. And obviously that there will be some movement on that specifically. So more to come there. I would not call the way that any of this is being approached as being generous, being caring, being compassionate, and treating everyone with dignity respect, like Doge tried to claim in their propaganda on Fox News. Some folks have been calling the charm offensive because they are not popular. Yeah, these are real people's lives that are being impacted.

0:32:17 Thomas: But maybe your annual tax bill will go down by like 80, 90 dollars. Know, maybe, maybe not actually. Cause like what they'll probably do is fund tax cuts for the rich but and maybe they'll hand us a token tax cut for, for the everybody else, you it'll probably be 50 bucks, you whatever it is is worth it. We could do the same tax cut for us, but then just increase the tax on the wealthy by an inconsequential amount that one would, they won't notice.

0:32:40 Lydia: Pennies. They won't even notice. Yeah Pennies

0:32:42 Thomas: Just do that. We could just get a bunch of progressive people in the government if we did everybody and voted. I is. Everybody spread the word. There's nobody else but us. We're the people that do it. Else is going to do the job.

0:32:50 Lydia: Just us. Take inspiration from Senator Cory Booker, who has been standing up for 23 hours now, I think, is what we're at deliver in a speech about this administration and the constitutional crisis that we're experiencing and the havoc that Elon Musk and Trump are essentially putting on everybody in America and the programs that are impacted, the services that are going to be impacted, and retaining the floor for coming in close to Strom Thurmond's record, which is 24 hours and I think a few minutes. He's getting close to taking over that record. Yeah.

0:33:29 Thomas: Something. Yeah. It's a fight. Show us a fight I know that the fact check it's like, oh, it won't do anything or something. OK, I'm tired. We don't need we don't It's good that he's trying to fight. It is good that is making a statement. On him. It up. Democrats should do more like that.

0:33:38 Lydia: Yeah, I don't care. Yeah Yeah.

0:33:50 Thomas: We want you to fight in any way that you can, Schumer. Anyway, all right. Well, I am going to take a break for a while. I'm going to pause for a good long while.

0:33:50 Lydia: Mm hmm. Yep.

0:34:00 Thomas: We'll be back with Heather. What's her bar exam question? Get this awfulness out of our out systems and go on to cheerier topics. But thanks for covering that. And what I said. And I hope that people just keep this in mind. We need to remember all this and we need to have this ready come election time, you know, and now just all the time. Yeah.

0:34:18 Lydia: And Yep, and now I mean today, Wisconsin, right?

0:34:21 Thomas: All the time. Yeah.

0:34:22 Lydia: Get out the boat. Yeah.

0:34:23 Thomas: Right. Pause for a much needed break. Show's brought to you by Incogni. Incognis is a service that helps protect your personal data from data brokers who collect, aggregate, and sell it. That is likely to become an even bigger problem, given the fact, that the federal government is likely not going to be doing, you know, like an amazing job at regulating all that, they weren't already to begin with. So so many issues from increased spam to loss of control over your personal information and also identity theft. Which Incogni can help fix this. Here's Here's how they do it. Contact data brokers on your behalf to request the removal of your personal data. Handle any objections from those data brokers, and they continuously monitor and ensure your data stays off the market with repeated removal requests. Spam is just out of control and I can't stand it. It's one of the main reasons I use Incogniz. And súper easy to just kind of set it up and forgive it. Don't your personal data back with Incogni. Use to incogni dot com. That's I -N -C -O -G -N. I dot com slash opening and get 60 percent off an annual plan. More time, that's incognit .com slash opening. And use that code opening to get 60 60 % off an annual plan.

0:35:37 Clip: I just know, that you are gonna kick that bar's butt, out of here, you know, No.

0:35:43 Thomas: How you doing uh

0:35:44 Heather: Pretty good and I have not succumbed to any displays of fruit. I am happy and healthy and I'm doing really well. How are you?

0:35:53 Thomas: My assassination attempt wasn't fruitful, you're saying.

0:35:58 Heather: It was not.

0:35:59 Thomas: Came for fruit. It was a drive -by fruiting. Someone came for proof.

0:36:03 Heather: The way, I love that movie so much.

0:36:05 Thomas: Yeah. Well, remind us what nonsense we're discussing in this question this week.

0:36:10 Heather: Our friend Prue was shopping at grocery goods when a large display of fruit fell on her and she was injured. Then what she did, she filed a lawsuit in federal court against grocery goods for the negligent. Maintenance of the display, and then she sought damages from them. What happened was after the parties held their discovery conference, she filed a set of 27 interrogatories upon grocery goods, and the company objected. So we're trying to determine if grocery goods is under a duty to respond to all 27 interrogatories. Is it A, no, because Prue exceeded the limit of interrogatories allowed under the rules? B, no because only defendants may serve interrogatories? C, Yes, because the company agreed to answering all the interrogatories, or D, yes, because Prue has not exceeded the limit of interrogatories allowed under the rules. You correctly identified this as a civil procedure question, and you also correctly identified as being a question, not surprisingly, about interrogatories.

0:37:06 Thomas: On a roll.

0:37:06 Heather: You are. So for folks who might not know, are a type of discovery device. And if you don't know, discovery is the court mandated process for obtaining information from each other, as well as non -parties during a lawsuit. It's governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, which is really expansive. Spans a lot of information and a lot topics as it relates to discovery. Interrogatory specifically are asked in writing and answered under oath. As Thomas also correctly identified, there's a limit that's set out by the federal rules, but also the courts or the parties may agree to more if they would like to do that. But before I drop the ball and tell you what that number is, we'll go through some of the answer choices together.

0:37:46 Thomas: I think that was the right idiom, but that's okay. Drop, let the ball out of the bag. I think that's what you were trying to say.

0:37:52 Heather: I almost felt like drop the marbles. You eliminated, I think it was B, by saying that in your experience that both parties were serving interrogatories on each other.

0:38:07 Thomas: B being only defendants may serve interrogatories. That definitely was not my experience, but who knows?

0:38:13 Heather: You were correct, both parties may serve interrogatories so you're right to eliminate it because that's a wrong rule. So B is out. You were also thinking that C was a wrong answer as well, right? You were saying there weren't really any facts to support it, right, you are right to think that way, because there's no facts to it's just a factually incorrect answer.

0:38:17 Thomas: We go. All right. Yeah, that would be the trickiest trick answer or it's just completely wrong.

0:38:36 Heather: When folks are reading questions, it's easy to either read something too much into it or miss something, but There was no such fact in here. And that left you both A and D, whether that she exceeded the limit or whether she has not exceeded the Yes.

0:38:50 Thomas: Cool. All Right. Drum roll, all please gosh

0:38:52 Heather: Well, and you also identified something important, which was that it might be 25 interrogatories might be the limit. And actually, your instinct was correct. So in federal district court, the limit of interrogatories is 25. The federal, the federal rules of civil procedure.

0:39:06 Thomas: Dang it uh I wanted to go with my everyone's always go with your first instinct my first instinct was this is not too many that was my first instinct just to then I was like is it 25 though I was like think I it might be 25 but it just doesn't seem like that many to me I had a million I'm California rules I'm sure different than federal court yeah

0:39:25 Heather: And I think also the other reason is that under the rules in federal court, it also includes sub parts. So I think what might happen at least. I have not practiced in federal court, but my instinct would be to say. Also includes subparts. So if there was like a question within a question, it might complicate the response to an interrogatory. Instead of it being just like one question, yes or no, if you're asking more additional or complicated questions within it.

0:39:46 Thomas: Darn it this sucks I should ah I just it's not that many yeah

0:39:54 Heather: Well, what was crazy was that you went straight to 25 and I was like, oh my God, he said 25. Like you could have said any number and you said 25?

0:39:59 Thomas: But I but I couldn't I thought I couldn't remember if 25 was a different thing though like if 25 was like I mean that'd be a lot for depth I don't think you get that many depositions but if it was some sort of like document subpoena thing or something I don't know

0:40:10 Heather: And you were right about the depositions. The number for federal court is 10.

0:40:13 Thomas: 10 man I actually remembered all that and just still got it wrong wrong. I like to get it wrong in the most hilarious way possible, which is to somehow know all of this really tough information that a non-lawyer should not know from only my experience, but although not my experience, because again, that was in California court, totally different. I think because of the Blake Lively thing, I think I've absorbed it somewhere there, but not in a way that's like very intentional. So I'm like, these numbers are rattling around. I was not confident enough. And I just thought, I just was pretty sure that wasn't enough, but boy, I should have, you know, federal court, it's their sticklers. I should have realized that, yeah, maybe I should've gone with, see, sometimes you have to go with your second instinct, everyone. It's not only all the people who yell at me, first instinct, first instinct. Yeah. Okay. Well, you notice the times that my first instinct is right and I get it wrong. You notice those, you don't notice the time. Like this, where my first instant was, I thought this was plenty, the limit. And then the whole question, my brain was trying to tell me that it was 25 and I was just arguing with it. I was like, ah, but my first instinct though.

0:41:13 Thomas: Frustrating.

0:41:13 Heather: So yeah, that's how we get to A being our correct answer, that no PRU exceeded the limit of the interrogatories allowed under the rules.

0:41:19 Thomas: That takes me, well, okay. Think I can at least rest knowing that that has taken me to exactly 60.00%. And just for that number alone. So I'm 36 out of 60 is what I have. And we remember four of the questions didn't count because they were repeats. I did count the repeats that I got wrong. So those counted, um, cause I'm hardcore like that, but

0:41:38 Heather: I was going to say, that feels like a lot of self -flagellation.

0:41:41 Thomas: Yeah. Well, I mean, if I had a question before and I got it wrong, I feel like, that's like, not me. You know what I mean? Like, I felt like it was fair, uh, this is cause I'M, you know, I'm preparing for the real thing. I'm going to take the bar when I'm like 70, you Know, when I, after I've gone through enough of this, after there's only, there's like four people listening, you by then. And I'm Like, all right, I think I'm ready.

0:41:46 Heather: Yeah that's right. So

0:42:01 Thomas: I think I'll be ready. So yeah, 36 out of 60 for exactly 60%. Boy, I was doing a lot better back a few months ago or months and weeks ago, but that a tough one. Should have had it. Oh, well, get them next time. Well, let's see how everyone made fun of me and Googled this and instantly knew that I was wrong the whole time. Maybe there will be some nice, fun, funny answers or people guessing before. You know, there is a good honor system. I do like it. There's someone in last week's answer where they said, well, I'm not going to play because I saw someone else's answer. I'm pretty sure they're just right. But then they wanted to comment something. I was like, well played. Well played. You know.

0:42:13 Heather: Close. Yeah Yeah.

0:42:40 Thomas: Right. Let's go over and see who wins this week. And we'll take a look at first Blue Sky where a couple of responses, mostly people talking about, duh, it's so easy, Thomas, just either know it or Google it. The limit's 25. yeah, no, if I could, if I could Google it, but here's a good one. Skeptical Monkey says, since the case was filed in federal district court, the limit is 25. Had in state court, The Limit could differ, for example, in California. It's 35. That's what they say anyway. That could be why Thomas thought the limit was higher. So the answer is A. And someone's saying like, oh, I think your experience misled you, which sure. But like, if if I didn't have that experience, I'd have nothing to go on. Like people kind of acting like, had I not had that experience, I would have just somehow known it was 25 by default. I wouldn't have had any idea that there was any limit on it. I might not even identified the limit problem.

0:42:56 Heather: You do the hard thing. You don't do the Googles during the questions. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

0:43:35 Thomas: No, it is is unfortunate that I did think it was higher, but, uh, you go. Uh, congrats to Skeptical Monkey on Blue Sky. Hey, check out Blue Sky Open Args. Hey! This just in! One Liz Skeen is now on Blue Sky, so that's super cool. Uh. The OA Blue Sky family grows, uh. Because, of course, Heather is also on Blue Sky, and, uh Liz Skean, find her, and yeah. We're growing that Blue Sky OA a present. So good times. Well, how did the folks on Reddit do?

0:44:04 Heather: Did pretty well. Going to give a shout out to W. Rose Kranz, who said, A, B doesn't make sense to me. C doesn't seem to be mentioned in the question. That leaves A and D in needing to arbitrarily guess whether it was above or below the limit. And from there, it comes down to the metagaming the question, I think it's more probable that the question would be getting at what happens when a limit is exceeded, rather than some question writer being assigned an index card to write a question and plausible answers about what happens, sorry, when the limit is exceeded. About puzzle construction can be derived from first principles, while apply the legal logic question correctly would require like knowing stuff or whatever.

0:44:40 Thomas: Do this as well, but it's not a hundred percent. So if your logic is like, oh, we wouldn't even be here. There wouldn't be a question if it was fine. I actually don't think that holds up. Like, cause like the bar does tend to do these where you think there's a problem and then And it just restates the law and it's fine. But I guess, yeah, the logic, but I worry that this is a like counting the wins and not counting the misses kind of thing. Because I don't know that that holds up. I think the test takers, as long as they're not the that California hired, they're pretty solid at this stuff. Like, they're usually pretty good at, like, making sure that isn't a rule that you can just answer a question by. But I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong.

0:45:18 Heather: I think this logic definitely holds up, especially with the California essay questions, because it's definitely when you're getting a California essay pro question, it's likely that if you see a number like this, because I got a similar essay question and I saw the number and immediately I thought, oh, they're trying to test me to see whether or not the limit was exceeded and sure enough it was.

0:45:34 Thomas: Well, they pick a number that's close. That's all it is. They're going to pick a numbers close. That doesn't tell you whether or not it's 25 or if it's 30. Like, if you're going from nothing, like it might prime, I don' know, you if you've come across the number a lot. But, yeah, they' re not going to pic a number like Cause then that boils down to like, if they're doing a number question, then it's, the question is always going to be, broke they, they the rule, which I don't think is true. They often are going to pick one. That's like, right, right in that zone where you're like, shit, like, like the 75 ,000 rule. I think we had one of those, right. Where it was like, oh my God, is it 75,001 dollars? They're going pick it in order to make it hard. They're not going to it in to make easy.

0:46:12 Heather: Yes, It's kind of diabolical.

0:46:17 Thomas: The good news is Prue is going to get those back to work on the British Baking Show, although I'm not sure if she's on it anymore. Did she leave, too? I can't remember. I haven't kept up.

0:46:25 Heather: I can't remember.

0:46:26 Thomas: I used to watch it a lot, but anyway. Okay, well, congrats to... What was the name again?

0:46:27 Heather: Same. Saying it's W. Rosecrans because I just assumed it was something about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, but I don't know if that's right.

0:46:35 Thomas: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern? Yeah, that's what I... That's what I thought, too. But then I was like, wait, I don't know how that works. Yeah, no, congrats. And now we've got to go to our biggest of winners.

0:46:46 Heather: Patreon.

0:46:47 Thomas: Let's go to Patreon and see how insulting they were. Let's see. Out to Fireball Old Fashions. Answer's A, Prue, who is a significant downgrade from Mary Berry. Oh, how dare you? How dare you Prue I think took a minute to appreciate but actually I think Prue is great and the problem with the show is the Paul Hollywood he's the problem with the show I think that he's okay except there's just this like it's so fascinating when you think about it if anyone ever wants to think from a gender critical you on British Bake Off because Paul Hollywood, he gets to have his Paul Hollywood handshake. Oh, what a big deal. He gave them the handshake, it's the biggest of big deals, oh my god, we're all flabbergasted, that's incredible. What's the best that Prue can do? Wow, Prue, PrUE can say like, this is amazing. She doesn't get to have a Prue handshake because like, that doesn't work for like, for women, you know, just because it's this man, this like, withholding male authority figure who, wow, he's so tough to please until he's, oh, wow, what a big deal. You you know, that's the problem. The problem is the Paul Hollywood handshake. It inevitably makes the other person who's a woman's opinion not feel like it matters as much because like there's not everything writing on that. But really Prue is great. And Paul, I think can be fine. It's just that, you Know, he shouldn't by default be more important. But But anyway, that aside, what was the question?

0:48:13 Heather: Also, can I just say that I love that takedown? Listen, from the feminist perspective, I'm a, listen, came to my feminism, just side note, late in life. And I just, I absolutely love that. So thank you.

0:48:22 Thomas: Too.

0:48:22 Heather: Sorry.

0:48:24 Thomas: I So, yeah. Answer is A, Peru is limited by 25 interrogatories federal rules. And then they said, I know this because I cheated and asked a lawyer friend because I would not have have known otherwise, so I love that, let

0:48:35 Heather: It cheating if it's not a real test?

0:48:38 Thomas: Cheating, because you the sanctity of the game, okay, Heather, this is important, this isn't like the real bar, this means something, you an interesting one, that maybe I'll get your quick take on, Alvin Bragg should indict Eric Adams says, I think Heather is intentionally torturing Thomas with these rules -based questions. No, I doubt even most lawyers who don't practice often in federal courts would know that the rules limit you to only 25 interrogatories. So Thomas's second chance law firm wins again with A. As an aside, here's what I'm curious about. Think what Thomas was actually describing were requests to admit, which yes or no answers to establish facts. Interrogatories tend to be more open, usually require a longer response. All employees responsible for stocking shelves, describe the store's policy for ensuring that shelving is stably maintained, et cetera. Now, that might be 100 % my mistake, and I hope I didn't mislead anyone because I think I combined those two things in my mind. I actually think I was talking about both. So yeah, what are requests to admit? Are those not technically interrogatories?

0:49:35 Heather: That's a good question. I'm not quite sure what are pretty specific. Are questions asked and answered under oath, and that's where the limit comes from. The request to admit might have specific meaning rule as it relates to state court. If And that's the case, that might be something that's a little bit different. But

0:49:55 Thomas: Is so interesting. Yeah, beyond the question a little bit, but just from the Googling, I'm seeing like RFAs. Federal rules have placed 25 questions per party limitations on the use of interrogatories, but there's no numerical limit in federal Rules of Civil Procedure on requests for admission. Interesting. In California, it actually mentions California in the Wikipedia. This is so funny. Requests for admissions are generally limited to the numerical limit of 35. However, a party in California wishes for additional requests for admission may make a declaration for additional discovery. Well, no wonder I'm even more confused because like the 35 thing in California, it sounds like it's actually the RFAs too. It. Well, now we got to correct the Wikipedia because now I am seeing another thing that says there is no limit in California. Funny how the Internet is ruined and you can't actually get facts on anything.

0:50:40 Heather: I hate that one also sometimes the rules in California change so it might just be that it might not be updated because they got updated recently like last year um I were going over some bar materials and he was like, I practice in this area and this rule in California hasn't been updated yet in the bar materials. And

0:50:57 Thomas: One will ever know. It's actually impossible to know. Don't know which is what and what limit there is on what. But I was blending the RFAs and the interrogatories. My mistake. Sounds like one thing we can all be sure on is that the interrogatory limit is 25. And got it wrong. So there's that. In California, knows? Who It that's what messed me up is I had so many of those RFAs mixed in there. I think the final shout out I'll give on Patreon is to Frodus, who says, I think it is correct because that's just too many rogs. Right. Well, there you have it. Question failed by yours truly. But second chance bar exam doing so well, doing great. Amazing. Can't wait to get licensed to practice with that second chance par exam. In effort to do so, I Think I'll have to have another question. So let's get question 65

0:51:48 Heather: All right. A licensed esthetician, owned a waxing center, hair-free, care-free in the city of Bayside, California. Employed only women and catered only to female customers. Had an ordinance that made it unlawful for any person to operate a female waxing if the employees were female. The estheticians sued in federal court, challenging the constitutionality of the Bayside ordinance. The city of Bayside moves to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that Emmy lacks standing, will the city win? No, because the ordinance prevents the employees from exercising their free speech rights under the First Amendment. No because the employees in Emmy have rights that are harmed by the ordinance.

0:52:17 Thomas: What

0:52:32 Heather: Employees can raise their First Amendment rights of association. D, yes, because the ordinance does not prohibit the operation of waxing centers per se, but only the right of female employees to service their female customers.

0:52:43 Thomas: Hell is happening here in bayside california okay hair employed only women and catered only to female customers so she's got her own waxing center so bayside passes an ordinance that made it unlawful for any person to operate a female waxing center for any person to operate if the employees were female what I the bar finds a way to make something make sense but I don'T this doesn't I don' t understand what this is what is that like we've got to put a stop to this female on feeling only men may wax women I don''t what or vice versa okay emmy the esthetician sued in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the Bayside ordinance. That's fair. If Bayside moves to dismiss on lawsuit on the basis that Emmy lacks standing. Okay. So, So has this right? You know, like, is this going to be kind of thing where I think from some of the answers you already previewed, it's like, do the employees have to sue? And Um, Emmy doesn't have standing, but given the fact that the ordinance says it's unlawful for any person to to operate a female waxing center if the employees are female. Off the cuff, I would find it hard to believe that if there's an ordinance that specifically targets you that you don't have standing. It doesn't say it's Unlawful For The Employees To Work There. It says it is unlawfull for any person to operate a female waxing center. Her. So I guess you can have a, you can have a quote female waxing center. If the employees are female, if just nobody operates it, like it's there as like who runs this place? Nobody, nobody's operating it. It's self it's fully self -operated. AI, AI does it. That's totally fine. What a weird question. I gotta say this one's, little this odd. If they're saying that Emmy Emmy lacks standing, will they win? I mean, really thinking no, I'd be hard hard -pressed to believe that they're going to win. But let's see. A, no, because the ordinance prevents the employees from exercising their free speech rights under the First Amendment. Employees? A could possibly be right, because it's Emmy who's suing, then the answer to why she doesn't lack standing is based on the employees? Don't think so. No because the employees in Emmy have rights that are harmed by the ordinance. Okay, I for B. B is plausible. Boy, don'T love that I'm pretty sure it's a no answer, and yet one of them is nothing, and the other one is like, yeah, okay, I think. I'm a little worried about that. C, yes, because only the employees can raise their First Amendment rights of association. I crazy? Because, again, Bayside had an ordinance that made it unlawful for any person to operate a female waxing center if the employees were female. It doesn't say, okay, one of them is women or if, Like, do they all, this is a, this the facts are sloppy. Like, I DON'T even get it. Unlawful for any person operating a female waxing center if the employees, mean, okay, look, cities or towns or whatever do pass stuff that sucks all the time, especially in this day and age. Badly worded laws that don't even make sense. So maybe, maybe I'll just go with it from that direction. Unlawfull, again, because it It's unlawful for any person to operate. Like, I don't even know. I mean, you could say that the employees are harmed, I suppose. But like, anything, I think Emmy has more standing than the employees because nothing. I guess until, like let's say Emmy fires a bunch of female employees, then those employees would have standing. But I guess they could sue on the idea that this will cause them to lose their jobs, but usually standing like some sort of active thing to have happened. Doesn't issue, you like advisory opinions kind of thing. Only the employees can raise their First Amendment rights of association. Why couldn't Emmy raise her First Amendment right of association? I don't even see why that would be true. Okay, D, yes, because the ordinance does not prohibit the operating of WAC centers per se, only the right of female employees to serve as female customers. Okay, so D is at least trying to be a serious answer. I think you could say, look, there's no harm. don'T know, man. I don' t even know that you can say that. I think this, this answer wants me to say, Hey, there's no harm to Emmy because she can just hire different employees, but it's, really the, employees who are harmed because they now don't to quote quote service service female customers. See how this isn't just a straightforward B answer. Answer. I really don't. So A, again, A doesn't make any sense because if we're talking about why Emmy lacks standing, and then the answer is she doesn't lack standing because of the employees, that doesn't work. Work. That's a super trick answer .I don't know. B, no, because the employees and Emmy have rights that are harmed by the ordinance. It still doesn't seem great because I don't even know why the employees are part of it. Suing. For that reason, I worry about B because like, it's often those like non -sequitur answers where it's like, yes, because, um, don'T, I DON'T even know why the employers are part, part of that answer because they're nowhere in the question that matters. They're only, really in the answers. Cause it says, it doesn't even say Say like Bayside moves to dismiss on the basis that like employees have standing instead of Emmy, which it wouldn't say that. But like, you know what I mean? Like their only thing bringing up the employees is answers. It's not really in the question. The question just says had an ordinance that made it unlawful for a person to operate a female waxing center if the employees were female. That's again, that's centered on operating like the law is literally targeting the operator. Operator um the idea that the employees are harmed and the and idea that they could have standing but I guess I'm just I'm hesitant on b because like often we have those answers where it's like no because and then the because is a little bit of a non sequitur and the employees and emmy is kind of weird like it should just be no because emmy has rights that's harmed by the ordinance does the employees need to be in there it doesn't make any sense um you sue on behalf of you and your employees maybe that's why like that could that could maybe make sense like if there's something that's gonna harm like let's say I operate a business and there's Something that's going to harm that business can And I'd be like, hey, I have standing because me and my employees, like under the umbrella of my company, the employees are also being hurt. Maybe that, I don't know. Right, final check. So A, no, because the ordinance prevents the employees from exercising their free speech rights under the First Amendment. don'T see how that could be the answer to the question, will the motion to dismiss on the basis that ME lacks standing win? See Like, How that could Be the answer. It's the thing I just said, but because A would be the logic that it's only about the employees, and that would be pretty hard to believe, honestly. Way. Okay, so I'm no on A. was no because the employees and Emmy have rights that are harmed by the ordinance. I think that's solidly the only good answer, even though it's a a little iffy. C, yes, because only the employees can raise their first amendment rights of association. Don't know why that would be. Like, why can't an employer... I you talk about associating and doing business with one another, there's no reason why only a right there and the employer doesn't, I don' t think. I don't really think it's C. D, yes because the ordinance does not prohibit the operation of waxing centers per se, but only the right of female employees to service female customers. I guess I'll go with D as my second chance, just in case I'm really not getting something that like D kind of, kind of seems like maybe it could be something. And so I'm between B and D and I'm just going to go with B because I, what in the world is happening here? I would say that this is a constitutional law question. Should probably say that at the beginning, but, uh, I think that one's pretty solid. So I'm between B and D, and I'm picking B, final answer. Right, if you'd like to play along, you know how to do it. Go to Blue Sky, follow OpenArgs. Go to reddit .com slash r slash OpenArg. And most importantly, become a patron on patreon .com slash support the show and get the best of the best of the Best with Honors. Shout outs. Right. Heather. Well, until next we meet.

1:00:11 Heather: Right. Well, I'm looking forward to it. And hopefully that we will all be hair-free, care-free between now and next week.

1:00:17 Thomas: Gentleman never tells. No, I don't know. Show is brought to you by Notion. Here's the thing. AI, all know it's incredibly powerful. Has the Power of AI build right inside it and works across your entire workspace. Is amazing for Productivity. Notion combines your notes, your documents, and your projects into one space that's simple and beautifully designed. Can use the power of AI right inside Notion in to connect all that stuff so that you can work across your notes and across your documents without jumping between all those things separately. Fully Fully integrated Notion AI helps you work faster, write better, and think bigger, doing tasks that normally take you hours and just seconds. You have a hard time starting a project, which thing you can do is just have AI, .ai write a quick first draft for you. You just need that help to to get a jump start there there and AI unlike me doesn't suffer from executive dysfunction try Notion for free when you go to notion.com/opening. all lowercase letters, notion. Com slash opening to try the powerful, easy -to -use Notion AI today. And when você usa o nosso link, você também está apoiando o show. Dê uma olhada no notion.com/opening.

1:01:30 Clip: Thank you for being, say we started from the bottom, now we're here, girl.

1:01:40 Thomas: More thing left. To do before we go. And that's to thank the amazing patrons. At patreon .com slash law. Who make this show possible. Me once again is Lydia Smith. You may remember her from such beginnings of the show as this one. How's it going?

1:01:52 Lydia: I doing okay. I'm excited to talk about something a heck of a lot happier. Our amazing patrons.

1:01:56 Thomas: Yeah, recovered a little bit psychologically.

1:02:00 Lydia: Yeah, a little bit.

1:02:01 Thomas: Because I haven't. But I've

1:02:03 Lydia: Teeny bit teeny bit

1:02:04 Thomas: Tried. Yeah. So thank you, patrons. White, Elliot Taylor, Anthony Mills, and Rinnick. Patrons. And, And, of course, we've got to thank our Hall of Famers, our all -time greats. These are the amazing folks at patreon .com slash law who support at that $5 level and above for at least a month. This -tier humans here. Love these Hall of Famers so much that we, in fact, give them a shout out every week. And they can change their shout out name on Patreon if they'd like or they cannot. It's up to them. Have to say whatever they tell us to say. That's the deal we made. I'll start us off with those Hall of Famers. Thank you, too. Out of funny things to say, so it's time to film more gamers. Don't know what that is. Maybe it's about something else. Casey Kahn. Democracy cannot survive unregulated capitalism. Yeah, you could say that again. Alvin Bragg should indict Eric Adams. Agreed. Treadway, mother of Herodins. Cool. H. Mike Oxard. Cyanitis. Disappointed in the number of businesses capitulating to fascism. Ward, Fourth Circuit attorney reluctantly changing her font. Sex and gender are different things. Apprentice of Adventure, vehicular man's laughter letting you know that the E is no

1:03:13 Thomas: For edit preferences. Hey.

1:03:15 Lydia: Yeah we we met vehicular man's laughter's baby yeah

1:03:18 Thomas: Got a newborn. Yeah, him a break. I have no idea what he's talking about, but I'm sure he does. Still rooting for the Hamburgers to deliver more timely justice than the current system. Unfrozen caveman lawyer. Valis Tark. A negative phenomenon. Cavalry. Irregardless of anything, Ovechkin has only five goals from owning the record. Oh, I appreciate that. Got to fight for your right to ex parte. Jay Sank, dance like nobody's watching. Text like you've CC'd a reporter. Nice. Is by the juice of Sappho that thoughts require speed, lips acquire stains, and the stains become a warning. Look, I finally changed my name for real legally. Is planning wars?

1:03:23 Lydia: My gosh did right.

1:03:56 Thomas: Thomas Freeman. All

1:03:59 Lydia: Thank you to Cajun Killa. Fraudfishy hates everything. Chris Simpson. Love the extra episodes. Gun control works. See Australia. I love the Democrats. Specklessness is my fetish, baby. Only have one gun guy. They changed it.

1:04:13 Thomas: So this happens at the beginning of the month. Like, we do lose a few to the credit card renewals. But they might just change. Maybe, I mean, the middle of the sandwich seems to be gone. So, yeah, maybe they're like, well, my work here is done. I don't know. I mean I don'T really want people to scare off patrons, especially Hall of Famers. But I t know.

1:04:16 Lydia: I'll let it go. Yeah. Yeah, that. Yeah, yeah. Isn't a Patreon name and I'm not reading anything right now. I just personally think Legal Eagle is so handsome. Schultz. The The Cincinnati Kid. Bob Loblaw's Law Podcast. Philly Basement Bar is back open and isn't taking this shit lying down. Thomas Smith President American Honky Tonk Bar Association. Balticate. Philip Kaiser. Definitely several unsecured chat groups where they're planning atrocities but didn't accidentally include a reporter. Yes, that's 100 percent true and also likely to continue happening even still. They're just going to be more careful about it, probably. D 'oeuvres in the court before we report. Corinne Lan, a string of unpronounceable characters. Milo Meadsong is fighting petty tyrants. Malaika Chandler, Malcolm the Dragon the Precious Variant, Rhonda the Dork .com, Big Easy Blasphemy, Fred R. Grotheus, Chris Waltrip, Classic Lib Tard, and Mitchell.

1:05:23 Thomas: You so much, Hall of Famers. You're the best. Truly, bottom the bottom of our hearts, we thank you. Right. Well, thanks for joining for the shout outs as always. It's always a good time. Having a companion.

1:05:31 Lydia: Love it.

1:05:34 Thomas: And thanks for listening, everyone. See you and Matt for Rapid Response Friday. Who knows what fresh hell awaits?

1:05:41 Lydia: Right?

1:05:42 Clip: This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media, LLC, All Rights Reserved. It is produced and edited by Thomas Smith, who also provided the fabulous intro and outro music used with permission.

1:05:59 Thomas: This one's Roar. That's all I... I just love when they say that. Oh, it's Roare.