DOJ Wants Every Federal Judge in Minnesota Recused (Good Luck With That)

Transcript

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

0:00:00 Clip: Thank you.

0:00:03 Matt: It's bad enough that you're going to be deported to your home country, but you find out you're not going back to Guatemala, you're going to Eswatini, other side of the world. Historians in the the future future to refer to the second Trump term as the era of superintelligence. I think that'll be very funny. Country has has never never been stupider. In

0:00:34 Thomas: And welcome to opening arguments this is episode 1301 I'm Thomas that over there's real life attorney Matt Cameron how you doing hmm

0:00:41 Matt: Another day in the era of super intelligence thomas that's the era did you hear that's era we're living in announced it's official you're

0:00:49 Thomas: Like you gotta you gotta pick your things I saw that and I was like yeah I don' t I'm just not touching oh

0:00:57 Matt: Gonna have to learn more about it it's today's footnote but I just have been thinking about it all day

0:00:57 Thomas: He's renaming ai si for no how how do you just rename it's not a what okay whatever we'll get to it could

0:01:03 Matt: But it means something very different as we'll talk about but also like order is inaugurating

0:01:12 Thomas: He just be like we're renaming computers conspluters would be like no like I don't do I have to do that I don' t understand by what authority oh no

0:01:23 Matt: We'll find out. The entire federal government has to. But officially, this order is inaugurating the era of superintelligence. So just so you know, I'll talk about what I think about all that, but I just think that's a very funny thing to call 2026, especially in light of our clip from Wednesday's show that we're still enjoying.

0:01:26 Thomas: Yeah that's true I guess they they can't oh oh my god I'm still laughing about that I showed like three more people that clip I try you know I it's a good sign of how funny that was and of course I hope you saw vr and it was like the first thing we did so early in the show if you want to go check it out if

0:01:54 Matt: You've probably heard by now about Eric Schmidt versus Jack Smith. That's what we're talking about, of course, everybody.

0:01:58 Thomas: Was a sign of how good that was is one of the few things I decided to show my brother because he just like Like he's just he's he's, you know, firmly on the left and everything, which doesn't want to deal with politics day to day is too much going on. Totally understand it. Still vows the right way. You know, nothing wrong with that for people who have too much in their lives. I usually bring up much like political stuff with him. But this was one where I'm like, you have to see this. You need to see how dumb this is. Like, it's so good.

0:02:21 Matt: Everybody just has to see it. Yeah. Just

0:02:23 Thomas: God, it'S so good! Yeah just like the confidence of having all of that built out on a thing and then just like taking it down right away ah kick it over it but uh no we've got we got much more to talk about what are we doing today

0:02:24 Matt: As comedy. It's amazing. I mean, it's just the beats. So good. So much, so much going on today. So is Fascism Response Friday. That's what we're doing today. We've got quite a lot of fascism and we've got some wins. We've Got Some Losses. Want to talk about the complaint that was just filed hours ago as we're recording this against every federal judge in Minnesota.

0:02:51 Matt: We'll see how that goes. It's quite a complaint.

0:02:50 Thomas: That's talk about an uphill battle geez it's hard enough to win a lawsuit let alone like I'm taking down the judge let alone every judge in a state all right you

0:03:04 Matt: Every active judge. Yeah, it is really, it's really something. We will go through this complaint a little bit, but it is a real example of just the way DOJ is handling everything right now. And also really, I think it shows their real frustration with the judiciary right now because they are being stopped from doing so many things, whether or not they follow it. Then we have to look at a big loss this week from the Supreme Court, which has stayed the First Circuit in stopping third country removals. And this is one of the most important immigration policies of this term. Talked a bit about it. It's in the DVD lawsuit. And so appropriately, we're seeing this movie again. This is like the third or fourth time we've watched this DVD.

0:03:20 Thomas: Know the judge thing has trump just tried renaming injunctions to like yes trump can do it you know like just every uh we're not new announcement every injunction is now named yes never mind trump can't do it just see if that works yeah

0:03:44 Matt: That's right. Yeah. Trump rules. Just the Trump rules, yeah. That's right, yeah, it's not unexpected of the Supreme Court, but it is the second time this thing has been in front of them. And we'll talk a little bit about the legal issues. It is kind of a mess. We got to talk for a minute about the issue of press access to the White House. There have now been multiple lawsuits about this, but there's a big one, of course, from CNN, MS, I guess it's called MS Now now, but, major news outlets that are now being barred from the Whitehouse. Obviously, that's going so far the way you would think it would going with the D.C. Circuit, but interesting legal issues there.

0:04:15 Thomas: It's ms now my new rule no one rename anything I'm sorry I'm done too much I don't I don' t care it's not changing how I'm watching it no one's changing their behavior based on that. It's. Don't need it.

0:04:19 Matt: Stop. Please stop. Yeah, don't have the super intelligence. I'm sorry.

0:04:26 Thomas: I know.

0:04:26 Matt: Can't do it.

0:04:27 Thomas: I don't know. Maybe. Shit. Are we just old crap? We might just be old, but I'm tired of it. We don't need.

0:04:31 Matt: And we like the words that we have already, and they're fine. No more words.

0:04:35 Thomas: Yeah. Hey, if you want to change your name or if you're changing your gender identity, totally different thing. You're a valuable interesting entity a corporation don't care I don't care enough about it just call it one thing and then we're done

0:04:40 Matt: We can roll. Yeah. Well, that is our footnote as we are going to be talking. We'll close this out talking about the superintelligence order and the incredible timing of this and just the many hilarious things that come around this. But this is, of course, very much along the lines of the Gulf of America.

0:05:00 Thomas: Yeah the in the media thing you know it's like the the I had to post on facebook about it I can't quite get the words but I'm just so sick of I've noticed the real tone shift and again it's because I mainly consume the podcast but I noticed the huge tone shift when the media all of a sudden gets to report on itself and it's like oh my this is a unprecedented violation of the crackdown the media and there's so much that more like into it there's so much more like all of a sudden they're going to stand up for the constitution and I just I'm is that for everything else and also you could have solved this 10 years ago literally 10 years more you could have just said oh this is just a guy lying we're not going to cover that uh brought this up on a show I forget at which sorry but there was a column that I actually remember from 10 years ago that was like send the interns um it was somebody writing about how you trump's just gonna lie news channels I get that you have to like go cover what he's saying or whatever send the interns like just don't don't make a big production

0:05:37 Matt: Get some practice.

0:06:00 Thomas: Out of it yeah send and not in an insulting way just like it shouldn't be like their big names it should be just be like in the lower parts of the coverage like all right here's what this asshole said whatever you know not and and they they could have solved it. They could have, they could have solved a lot by just doing that 10 years ago.

0:06:05 Matt: Cut their teeth sure know actually I I dated a surgeon years ago who taught me the expression uh peek and shriek ever hear this one that's what this is uh that's that's really when you've got somebody who's going to die on the table that's coming to the er and you just let the interns kind of open them up and you know it's it's morbid but that's That's what This is is like you what are you gonna do uh gonna say what he's gonna Say we can report on that that's I totally agree send the interns and

0:06:29 Thomas: That's, that's awful. All surgeons psychopaths or is that just, okay. Just checking. Yeah.

0:06:41 Matt: Yeah I mean I think immigration lawyers have dark humor but there is nothing like er doctor humor I mean that is that is another thing yes um you know it's the only way you can get through I appreciate it I know but

0:06:48 Thomas: And EMT as well. Boy. Anyway. Sure. Yeah, not, not bashing him, but I don't get it.

0:06:55 Matt: Yeah and again I appreciate the work but offense whatsoever to this person just people think dating an immigration lawyer is intense, but there are other levels, it turns out. Yeah, it is. It really is. Right. Well, let's get to it. We've got a lot.

0:07:03 Thomas: And it is. Well, got a fun show. Hey, a couple of notes. It's as you're hearing this, uh it's just become the first of the month. You'll know, the gavel gavel show is on the chunk system. And so there's a chunk of gavel, gavel that you're going to want to hear.

0:07:20 Matt: We're chunking?

0:07:20 Thomas: Yeah, we're chunking. Matt's there for some good chunks, including a to our favorite best written character of all time ah it's

0:07:28 Matt: Encore. Fantastic. Mecklenburg from the litigation the Chicago Six, the Broadview case. And she's coming in, standing up for herself, and we evaluate the merits of her claims and what's going on with that case recently.

0:07:41 Thomas: The best and also lydia and I are digging into uh this is a huge story so it's gonna obviously potentially take take a of episodes and a lot of analysis but we're going to dig into the Cornell case that is just blowing up and we're just going to kind of start with the non -law parts and get like what's alleged and the statements and the because there's a lot there's not a lot a ton that before you even get to the law and Matt's busy so we're we try to cover as much before the law as we can and then of course we will also cover the law with Matt or and or any other brilliant attorneys we can get get our hands on but um start of that is going to be out on gavel gavel as check out gavel gabble as always along with uh you know the other pods all right we'll take a break and then we'll get to a real action -packed episode here so matt uh the doj versus all every judge in the state of minnesota what

0:08:07 Matt: This is a tough one. Yes. So Minnesota obviously has been a hotbed for immigration. I was there in January and got

0:08:38 Thomas: A weird sentence so the canadians coming over you know what I mean like just geographically you'd be like what's where who's coming from there

0:08:45 Matt: I mean, they have a lot of activism going on there and a very strong left. And, we went through the direct action Minnesota dam indictment for all that renting U -Hauls and communicating and introducing people to each other they were doing up there. There. Is a complaint. And if you want to open it up, this is really something. It was just filed. I just caught wind of this before we started recording and I started reading it and I couldn't stop reading it. It's really something this this is not the right way to do any of this. You won't be surprised. What they're asking for is not something that the judge they're askin can grant. Is very much, you so that we'll talk about it. But I do want to talk about because I want to recognize the work of Patrick J. Schlitz, who spoke to the New York Times in a very unusual interview we'll link to, and everybody should read. DOJ is going to point out, very unusual for a sitting judge to be interview like this, but it's also a really strong sign of what is going on. And to the DOG's consternation, they also had a bunch of anonymous judges. And now I think it was all seven active judges. I checked there's seven active and 10 senior justices, judges on the Minnesota district court, federal court. Out this complaint. Want to actually let everybody know what it is that DOJ is so upset about the statements that he made, because I think these should be repeated far and wide. I think everybody should know what he said. So if you get onto the second page now, obviously just to point what they're doing here uh filing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. 351 and and so that is sort of the general you know file a complaint against a judge hotline um 1 -800

0:10:07 Matt: Judge complaint I don't know

0:10:08 Thomas: What's the wait did I click the right thing what's this blue like pen bleed

0:10:12 Matt: Yeah so that's like the cover sheet yeah they they smudge some ink on it they're in a hurry I think

0:10:16 Thomas: Did did remy get a hold of this like my kid my kid puts marker on everything

0:10:22 Matt: You can see that there's a big bold stanley woodward signature that's his uh signature on the second page that looks like it's smudged and

0:10:28 Thomas: That's yeah okay I see that probably dripped oh it's the inverse of that yeah okay oh so that page must go on that yeah I got it that's delightful detail

0:10:30 Matt: You can see that yep yep because they had it yep mystery solved easy enough yeah first of all if you really want to do what they're doing here which is they want the judges to recuse themselves so that the point of this complaint is they're going to say these judges can't sit on immigration cases anymore because they're they're just not impartial they've been talking to the new york times and a bunch of other stuff we don't like but if you want a judge to recUSE then you have to move under 28 U.S.C. 455 they don't want to do that, because that's too much work, they'd have to do it for all the judges, and then they'd get to appeal it, and they'd actually have to go through the courts, which they don't want to do. They're trying to shortcut this by filing this complaint under the complaint process, but they're asking for something just off the bat that can't be done. Are writing to the Chief Just of the Eighth Circuit, which oversees, obviously, the district court, yeah, basically.

0:11:15 Thomas: Isn't worth the Crayola marker that's all over it, is what you're saying.

0:11:20 Matt: Never heard of anything like this, because it's a complaint alleging misconduct by Schlitz, Judge Tannheim, who also spoke on the record, and then anonymous district judges at the U.S. District Court. So basically just like whoever else talked to the press. Very mad about this September 17th, 2026 New York Times article. And would like to read out because I want to honor what Judge Schlitz did here. I also want to point out the statements themselves because they've helpfully collected all of the statements on page two. Too. If you'd like to read those out for us, you'll see why they're so mad about them.

0:11:51 Thomas: Trump administration has a, quote, disregard for court orders.

0:11:54 Matt: Check.

0:11:57 Thomas: Right off the bat, that's like complaining about a judge saying, do what I say. But that's their job.

0:12:02 Matt: That's like, well, it's like complaining about the weather in 2026.

0:12:03 Thomas: Follow my orders.

0:12:05 Matt: I mean, like, it'S really like, right.

0:12:06 Thomas: Like if you want to complain about it, I'm sure there's judges worthy of complaints and it'd be like racist stuff or like, you But like, hey, you should listen to court orders. That's that's our job, man. I.

0:12:16 Matt: Can you believe you told the New York Times that?

0:12:17 Thomas: Yeah.

0:12:18 Matt: It's incredible.

0:12:18 Thomas: If a judge was like, don't listen to Court orders, I'd be Like, you Know, then then this purported, quote, disregard had clogged his courthouse to a near standstill, still contributing to rising tensions in the protest -filled city of Minneapolis and ultimately putting the constitutional order at risk. Yep.

0:12:21 Matt: That's news. Yeah.. Yep. They They are forcing people to bring habeas claims, obviously, even to seek release and custody. But of course, they're also doing mass detention. So the courts were completely swamped, totally clogged up. You know, the courts are having the hardest time keeping up with everything, obviously. That's just a comment on how much work he has to do.

0:12:52 Thomas: This one's great. Judge Schlitz's impression was that most, if not all, of the purported noncompliance was due to incompetence. I don't know if I would give him that credit, but the judge probably probably know better. Not due to conscious defiance of orders, but the lack of resources led to a result that should have been anticipated and that threatened the foundations of the legal system well I guess there was that one lawyer that was like just fire me I don't or whatever just put me in so

0:13:17 Matt: I haven't slept in three days.

0:13:18 Thomas: That's yeah that'S a good case for that judge

0:13:20 Matt: Also, I Can Tell You, just as somebody who has been filing out habeas claims, that might be accurate, but I think it's also just because they're swamped too. Too. Like, they can't keep up with all these cases. So there are a lot of places where things are slipping through. That's also happening. But definitely, we know that there have been plenty of defiance of court orders. Like that is happening. So

0:13:36 Thomas: Schlitz would apologetically explain why he needed to check his phones constantly to friends because if he did not the cost could be somebody waking up in new mexico the next day when they shouldn't have oh wow and

0:13:48 Matt: How it's been going is if you don't get a habeas order within hours, then you know, they're out of the state and you can't help.

0:13:53 Thomas: And the judges anyone who has a conscience is like okay literally this This is like that joke that I think is accurate that like should just be taking people to the hospital all the time or whatever. Like if there's an actual Superman, like the thing that Superman should be doing to save his many lives is not going to be like punching the bad guys with the Tommy guns or whatever the hell. You like that. Like if a judge realizes like, oh, crap, if I don't answer a phone call, that's someone's life, you that's so much pressure for anyone to under long term. Term. Government agencies act as partners to judges in tackling challenges to the system, but they weren't this time. Uh, judge, yeah.

0:14:27 Matt: Understatement.

0:14:27 Thomas: Judge Schlitz had said this just never happens allowed to himself referring to purportedly violated orders and other unusual behavior by the justice Department.

0:14:36 Matt: What would he know?

0:14:37 Thomas: Yeah. How long has this guy been on the job?

0:14:40 Matt: Just a senior justice appointed by George W. Bush. No big deal.

0:14:43 Thomas: Yeah. Judge Schiltz. Sorry, I was saying the wrong thing. Schiltze.

0:14:47 Matt: Oh, Schultz. Yeah, you're right. I was reading that. I think I just saw the beer right away. I'm very tired.

0:14:51 Thomas: Schilts hoped the portrait of how the bench had handled the crisis would help Americans better understand how the United States system of government depends on the rule of law. Yeah, it's probably probably good.

0:15:02 Matt: Literally, yes.

0:15:03 Thomas: And finally, the Trump administration's actions have, quote, created a grave threat to the rule rule of law, without which you either anarchy or you have authoritarianism. You have Russia or you Have China or you've North Korea is what this judge said.

0:15:14 Matt: So that's political commentary. That might be a little much for a judge. But I mean, it's true. We all know that. That's like, if we don't have the judges at this point, then we do a Russia.

0:15:23 Thomas: And to be fair, the judge is saying without the rule of Law, you Have that so I feel I feel like it's okay for a judge to be a homer about the rule Of Law. It's kind of like kind of their thing. Yeah.

0:15:30 Matt: That's kind of his deal. Yeah, his literal job. So those are the things that DOJ has worked up about. And somebody took the time to put all this in writing so they can complain. As you can see, there's page after page. Now, what's funny about this, too, is that if you scroll down through the complaint, they're also complaining. They're doing the one thing you're really not supposed to do in a judicial complaint, and they're complaining about the judge's decisions. You're not supposedto do that, right? That's what appeals are for. You'renot supposed to say, I think all these decisions were bad. They're trying to create a portrait of these people not being fair to them in the immigration cases. Question becomes did they violate canon 3a6 that's what we're talking about here the federal code of judicial ethics which I will just read it says uh bars the judge from public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court and we do have a few of these cases that are still going up through the circuits there's one in front of the supreme court um dc circuit has found in the past there's a case called Microsoft and U.S.A. Microsoft that you can't use the defense that I'm just trying to educate the public about this case. You can't do it. You can'T talk about it.

0:16:26 Thomas: Interesting.

0:16:26 Matt: Stuff is pending. Now, they're asking for, as we'll talk about in a minute, doesn't exist. But that Microsoft case is a little different because he was actually, he said some things he shouldn't have during the pendency of the case in front of him. Went a lot further than anything that he said here.

0:16:38 Thomas: Is this judge talking about a case or just like this in general?

0:16:42 Matt: No, no. He's just talking about DHS and their behavior and also DHA and how they're handling things. Also the fact that it appears that Schlitz is now a senior judge, which puts him in a different status. So there's the active judge status where you're on the rotation. There's senior judge status where they can call you back, and obviously they've had to do that a lot. Then at that point, he's not in active status if that's really where we're at here. Order that they're trying to get him to recuse from any matters involving DHS is pretty much meaningless list because can actually a lot of control over which cases he takes anyway so go to the end to see what they're actually asking for because this just goes on and on I did think it was very funny at the top of page six is a very funny quote from trump v casa which is the original birthright citizenship injunction case oh

0:16:44 Thomas: Top schultz and judge tunheim mayor indisputably engaging in unethical and partisan commentary concerning matters that are still indiscutably pending indisputably and in a sentence there but and their commentary is especially offensive because it implicitly quote decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary oh yeah

0:17:46 Matt: I think this is very funny. I just think it's a funny use of that quote. And then also the next one too, the next quote that they pull out from National Park Service, the ballroom case.

0:17:53 Thomas: Quote courts may not exceed the bounds of their their lawful authority, simply because they may think another branch has exceeded its own.

0:18:01 Matt: Remember, they're asking for something that Congress specifically doesn't allow the judge to do under the provision they're asked for. So you're overstepping Congress, I guess, the imperial executive to complain about the imperial judiciary.

0:18:12 Thomas: And those quotes are about allegedly like a court overruling something, right? They're not about a judge just being like, hey, follow the rule of law.

0:18:17 Matt: Yeah well know know he's saying uh that they've ordered uh released when their detentions are statutorily authorized and they're complaining about the habeas stuff so again they're doing of the things you're primarily not supposed to do in a complaint and just complaining about their outcomes of the cases they just don't you know again that's you're just those much they're supposed to toss those immediately if you try to file a complaint about you just don'T like the way the case came down that's just not the purpose of a complaint

0:18:41 Thomas: Yeah, I'm just saying they're alleging, they're matching the commentary is especially offensive because it implicitly does these things and the things they're referencing is not at all commentary. It's like actual rulings okay

0:18:51 Matt: It's actually work that they did yeah uh so check out the conclusion here what they actually want.

0:18:57 Thomas: Got another signature with a different pen maybe learned his lesson was like oh that one's running a little bit but uh yeah conclusion d frequently has cases pending in the district of minnesota including immigration cases before judge schiltz and judge tunheim these judges should be ordered to recuse from any matters involving dhs because the public reasonably questions their impartiality in cases involving immigration moreover

0:19:22 Matt: A whole category, a whole category of cases. You're just going to, and again, the person they're writing to doesn't have the power to do this. The statute they're citing doesn't allow them to do this. Is a ridiculous ask.

0:19:33 Thomas: Moreover the eighth circuit should initiate an investigation by the judicial council into the improper conduct by judges in the district of minnesota who covet publicity in quotes I guess that must be a some from a regulation or something rather than adhering to the rule of law by adjudicating cases or controversies. Pursuant to Rules 11A4 and 11F of the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Judicial Disability Proceedings, a special committee should be appointed to investigate this misconduct.

0:20:03 Matt: Sure, Stan. All right, let's do that.

0:20:05 Thomas: Sure, Stan.

0:20:06 Matt: Stanley Woodward. Had to do that, it's an easy one.

0:20:10 Thomas: Stan. Nice.

0:20:12 Matt: We go, this is DOJ just finally getting fed up with judges in Minnesota following the law and thrown out this Hail Mary for the public so that I guess Fox News has something to yell about. I wanted to make sure that we did Judge Schultz the service here of reading out the words that he is getting in trouble for, that they think are problems because everything he said is a fact, as far as I'm concerned. I don't see anything in here that's going too far or is not factual. So I can't see this working too well from the Eighth Circuit. Is a new strategy to try to file and disqualify the entire federal judiciary. Oh, at the same time, by the way, the day before they filed this complaint, they filed a far -reaching indictment against 10 different people they say illegally voted across the course of, I think it was three different elections. They're obviously vigorously pursuing immigration -related criminal stuff, and then at the same time trying to get every active judge in Minnesota tossed from these cases. And I guess they'll bring in people from Nebraska or something. I don't know what the plan is here, but also don't mention the senior justices because they mentioned that the anonymous judges and it's kind of funny by definition they want to punish anonymous judges when they don't know who they are um just whoever those people are uh lock them up but whole thing is thrown together as you can see uh the

0:21:14 Matt: Ink was not even dry yeah

0:21:14 Thomas: What's the point? Like, it's not. Yeah, the ink was literally not even trying. What's the, what's, is this just dumb bullshit or is this going to do something?

0:21:23 Matt: The thing they're asking for can't be done so that my conclusion this is that this is dumb bullshit but I also wanted to point out I will be happy to point out that DOJ is going on these radical judges, is bringing down the hammer the way they should. I want to make sure that we point out that everything these judges said was totally fair and reasonable and that the fact that they went to the New York Times, it is so unprecedented and perhaps maybe is a violation of judicial canon and maybe Schlitz has to pay the price for that in one way or another. But factthat they broke the glass on that should tell us all something and we should hear what they are telling us.

0:21:50 Thomas: Right, well let's take a break and then we'll move on to our next story. Right so matt what evil is the Supreme Court doing these days with the uh deportations to third countries are

0:22:02 Matt: Know it'S it'S about a minute since we had a bad supreme court decision like actually bad I mean that we noticed I'm sure there have been a few but

0:22:07 Thomas: They they on vacation or something thing?

0:22:09 Matt: Pretty much, I mean, Supreme Court season has been over for a while. So now they're just looking at shadow docket stuff, which of course this is. This is the second time that this case has been on the shadow dockets. So let me just recap very quickly. There's a lot of history to this and the legal stuff is incredibly complicated. It's very much in my wheelhouse and I'm gonna do my best to break it down and why it matters. But the most important thing you need to know here is that the Department of Homeland Security is trying very hard to deport some some people with deportation orders to countries that not only are they not from, but in some cases, countries that most people have never heard of. Example, have you heard of the nation of Eswatani?

0:22:42 Thomas: No.

0:22:43 Matt: Hadn't either because it used to be called Swaziland until like 2018.

0:22:46 Thomas: I've kind of heard of that. Yeah.

0:22:48 Matt: It's the one that's inside South Africa. It's like, when you see it on the map, you'll remember because it's pretty unique that it's inside another country the way it is. Renamed in 2018. It'S actually the only remaining absolute monarchy in Africa. So an interesting fact about that. There's been some stories about people who have been deported to Eswatini. I have no idea where they are because who even, like what continent is it on, right? Who knows?

0:23:07 Matt: Like that's not a country that most people have heard of. It's that crazy. You should know is the reason, and we talked about this way back last June when this was really hot and Judge Murphy here in Massachusetts was doing the right thing on this and the First Circuit has upheld what he did so far after extensive findings, as always, the Supreme Court is disregarding extensive district court findings. That's kind of the thing now. Murphy found that this is really bad because the way they justify it is that they're saying, these are some of the people with the worst criminal convictions, because by definition, um, you're not eligible for withholding of removal, which is the sort of backup option for asylum, uh, it's very likely because you have a conviction, um、 for a pretty severe aggravated felony and they call particularly serious crime. Going to be pretty much the stuff you'd imagine. Although though there's also minor drug dealing can be in there, but it's generally going to be pretty unsympathetic crimes, which is part of why they're really focused on these people, because they want to go with the worst of the worst narrative that Trump has been going with for a long time. Also much more likely that people with convictions for things like child sex abuse are not going to welcome back by their countries, because they do have to arrange for them to be received. So it could very well be, if you're Cape Verde or whatever, you don't want to have to deal with this person, and you'll just pretend you never knew them. Like they can do that if they not issue a travel document so countries where they just can't deport people back to where they're from this has been a real problem with cambodia and vietnam political reasons they just wouldn't take their people back they didn't think they should have to after our history with them and I think that's fair um solution is allowed by statute but it was hardly ever used there is a provision um uh U.S.C. 1231b um e also that that hasn't been used that much but it basically goes down a long list of like if you can't deport somebody to their country of you know citizenship then maybe you can deport to the country of nationality sometimes people of different nationalities country of lost residence basically whoever will take them and then all the way down the list it says basically any other country that will take and so the trump administration has been making deals because because that's what they do. That was something like seven and a half million for, I think it was Equatorial Guinea, one of those countries. What they'll do is when these people are flown back with these final removal orders and these serious things, they'll just keep them in jail for no reason. They'll just hold onto them in this country they've never been to where they don't speak the language. It's bad enough that you're going to be deported to your home country, but you find out just before you're about to be deported, then it turns out you're not going back to Guatemala, you're going to Esfahani, money on the other side of the world. Is something where there hasn't been a lot of due process because you already have a final order, and order is to one country, but they're saying basically if we can't carry that out, we can send you on to a different country. This is a really confusing mess of different statutes that are conflicting on this because obviously the Supreme Court upheld this back in June, upheld the idea that you have to have some kind of notice provided to people before you do this. You can't just tell them when they're on on the plane, which is what they did when they deported a bunch of people to South Sudan last year. You might remember there was a situation where ICE officers had to hang out in shipping containers with people in South Sudan in a place where it was too dangerous for them to go outside. Can't just tell somebody on the plain, oh yeah, if you want to challenge this, here's a piece of paper. You're on your way to South Sudan. You have to give them at least some kind of notice. The Supreme Court, I think, found 24 hours notice and basic stuff, the right to file a habeas claim at least to have it reviewed. But what you really should be able able to do is if you have a removal order, you should be able to reopen that removal order get back in front of an immigration judge and say, hey, I'm going to be sent to South

0:23:06 Thomas: Yeah,

0:26:12 Matt: Sudan. And I think I'm gonna be tortured there, because it looks like they're treating people very badly when they get there.

0:26:17 Thomas: This This is like, just, you shouldn't be allowed to kidnap people, right? I mean, it's kind of like that.

0:26:20 Matt: Yeah, yeah. And also, when an immigration Judge has ordered somebody deported to one country, you shouldn't be able send them seven, eight time zones away. Like, that's not really like the whole thing is is awful. And, have purposely been pushing this point because so many of these people do have convictions that most people would find to be reprehensible for a lot of different things. But it doesn't matter. Are the people that if you can treat the worst, then you can start doing it to everybody else, and that's what they want. Because ultimately, they could do this to people with other kinds of removal orders for other reasons. Not an argument that these are particularly bad people. I don't recognize that as a reason to violate their rights. Absolute backstop, baseline, end -of -the -road thing, when cannot deport somebody under any circumstances involuntarily to a country where there are substantial grounds that they would face torture, it's called refoulement, when it's going to their own country, but also when you're potentially sending them to somewhere else. Is very hard to make that argument when you've never been to that country, you don't know anybody there, but you still have a right to make it. Question becomes how how many rights do these people get? Like what should really happen? And There's also the fact that a in case called Al -Aman a a couple of years ago. Actually, this is going on four years ago, it seems like it's recent, but it's actually 2022. Supreme Court found very inconveniently that there's no such thing as class certification for people in immigration custody in most cases, which is very bad, right? So that means that you have to challenge individually each even if you've got 600 people who are facing the same unjust treatment or same unjust detention. In Trump v. Casa last year, the birthright citizenship case, they found there's no such thing as a universal injunction against a government action. But there was a footnote that I did notice at the time, because again, footnote 10 in CASA, that said that we're not sure how this applies to agency actions as opposed to regulations or executive orders like the one in the birthright citizenship case. So if it's just agency guidance, which is what this is about how we treat these things, because the Administrative Procedures Act was kind of thing. Does actually include just straight up agency actions not just regulations the way most people think about it so ultimately what happened after a lot of back and forth is that back in february um I think of casa they had to sort of change this up and judge murphy in massachusetts gave his final judgment and put in declarations that these people had been wrongly treated and he vacated as a vacature as we call it the guidance that allowed them to do this so basically he

0:28:30 Matt: Said you can't follow this policy that you have created for yourself that's not an injunction So that's very important, because arguably would not have allowed an injunction. So it's basically just saying, I'm canceling this whole thing. First Circuit went I listened to some of the oral arguments, very well argued by Trina Realmito of National Project, just a very long time advocate for this stuff. Honestly, the government didn't do badly in this one either, but it was very complicated. I don't want to get too much more into the legal parts of it. But essentially, we've got these questions about how much notice, about what it means to be heard, about, because the statutes are really conflicting on this. They're very confusing. Even if you have due process, what does it even mean in this situation? The Supreme Court, of course, with the usual dissenters, three dissenters that we we would expect, has granted the stay of First Circuit's decision, and they're allowing now third country removals to proceed again. And this could potentially be very bad for a while, because they're going to have the arguments, obviously, it'll go on the usual calendar. I'm sure they'll see no need to rush this one. So we won't have a decision probably until next summer. And in the meantime, they're gonna get to deport a lot of people. Was arguing that there's something like 1,324 people that they're trying to deport right now. And major irreparable harm they were claiming is they had to cancel all the flights they were very upset about having to cancel flights so

0:28:30 Thomas: You there? Oh, the harm yeah

0:29:42 Matt: The harm um not of course the people that are going to have to go live in shipping containers in South Sudan who are from Guatemala but

0:29:47 Thomas: That's a view that we just need to make extinct from the court um one way or the other the idea that the irreparable harm it should almost never be the government not not getting to do something they want to do that's stupid even that were something you'd consider it'd be like oh because the government is doing something to save these other people over here or to like or to benefit these other People over here not just their policy and they wanna like it's it's ridiculous yeah

0:29:51 Matt: I know yeah right yeah we all hate having having to cancel a flight, man, but that's not really enough.

0:30:17 Thomas: That's nothing I mean I get that it's somewhere in the calculus but like nowhere near like the actual human life that will be ruined ridiculous Ridiculous.

0:30:26 Matt: I also wanted to note that the prefers, and it's incredible that we'd even think about doing this otherwise, but that we should be making these agreements with these countries if we can get diplomatic assurance that they're not going to torture people. But we can still do it with people who won't assure us of that. That kind of opens things up for claims to be made that that maybe I'll be tortured because you can't even get like a promise from the ambassador that we don't torture people. I mean, that's, how hard could that be?

0:30:48 Thomas: Absolutely.

0:30:48 Matt: There's a lot going on in this case. Like I said, it's incredibly legally complex. I could do a whole hour on the law, but I'd need other few hours of sleep. Nobody wants an hour on this one anyway. But just an interesting mix of stuff going on with several clashing immigration statutes, open question about like much class certification you can actually do or how many people you can include, you know, rather than having individual claims, because the First Circuit had a slightly different precedent about that that clashes with Olaman -Gonzalez, the Supreme Court is just telling you about. The Supreme court has now asked for briefing on a number of questions that haven't been raised, including due process just generally, which hasn't really been something the First Circuit was reaching. And that opens the door to a whole other thing, and we can talk about another time. But this is going to be one to watch. It's going to one of the most important immigration cases in the coming term. It has enormous consequences for real people right now. I do want to assure people, because I've been seeing a lot of misinformation about this online, as often happens with these immigration things, this is not just anybody they pick up off the street that they can do this to. This is people whose countries will not take them back. And for the most part, most countries will take their citizens back. But there is a lot of fight to be had in cases like this where they don't want them back because of criminal records. That's kind of what the focus is. And again, I'm not justifying the treatment of people with criminal records this way. I'm just saying that is actually the category of people this comes down down to so I think it's important to specify that we a big loss but I got a couple of big wins um or

0:32:06 Matt: At least decent wins uh of our favorite stories the slush fund is back in the news this week you might have seen yep uh for good reasons yep this is the the 11th Circuit. Now, this is another shadow docket up for the 11st Circuit state pending appeal. To remind everybody, of course, this is one of our favorite stories, one of the most important things that has happened in the Trump administration, where a district court rightfully found that the Trump administration colluded with itself, the Trump v. IRS, that it was on both sides of the v, and award a $1.776 billion pot of people, a pot of money that will just go out to people that feel like they've been wronged by the government, obviously obviously not by Trump, but by the Biden administration, almost certainly. Really significant thing about this, besides the fact that obviously the judge saw through the whole thing, was that you had 35 former federal judges move to reopen once she dismissed it at the request of the parties, where she had no choice to dismiss it.

0:32:13 Thomas: Man. Right. Yeah.

0:32:55 Matt: And this puts us on a very interesting appellate posture, because as the court notes, neither party is before the court at this point. It's these federal judges, right? So it's just like somebody who walked in the door is like, hey, can we be heard on this? Actually not done, because what the district court did in this order was after dismissing the case, they sanction afterwards. It wasn't reopened. It was just an extra thing that's tacked on. And there's plenty of case law on this. Because I'm 1L and you are too, this is very funny. The two major precedents about whether you can impose sanctions after the fact, I just realized are called Cooter and Willie. I just think that's funny. Uh so you know we got to have some laughs here uh can impose sanctions after the fact obviously I you find out about something that was done wrong even though the case is gone. This is really — so they have authority obviously to review this there's no question about that um it's it's essentially an interlocutory appeal where the whole case isn't done because the last thing that the court did here was send it back to the district court to review and to get some evidence and of the reasons that the 11th circuit was so quick to come back on the stay is because there is no record below because obviously neither side in this case wanted to offer any testimony about how they came to the settlement. We We all know how they came to this settlement, right? They don't want to put that on the record. They have really tried to avoid that. We know it was collusion between the parties. We knew the Trump administration did this to get a payout to their friends. The 11th Circuit does too. And they've categorically rejected the stay. And, major thing that the order did below is to to refer one of the attorneys to the bar to bar another one from appearing pro hac vice from that court for a year. And then the thing they're really mad about is, and they're saying is a massive violation of their first amendment rights, they can't call it a settlement agreement, the slush fund, because it wasn't like, it wasn'T actually a settlement.

0:34:27 Thomas: I smell another renaming. All right. We've got it.

0:34:31 Matt: Yeah. I don't even know what we'd, we'd call that, but something else, I'm sure they'll come up with something. Thing. This situation, litigants don't really have First Amendment rights, as they point out. A court can strictly control your speech. And if the court tells you, I'm going to hold you in contempt if you go around telling people this was a settlement and that they can act on it, that's a violation of my order. That's definitely bad faith.

0:34:51 Thomas: Pretty sure the judge if you say uh instead of your honor if you say hey listen fuck face I'm pretty sure they could also probably like impose something penalty something right I mean you don't just get to say whatever you want sorry

0:35:04 Matt: You because obviously this is just the stay but there's you know three judges seem to agree easily very review the factual stuff for clear error and the findings about this is collusion and they obviously they say there's no reason not to think this wasn't collusion um didn't exactly agree that the president was on both sides of the case but it's just that because they didn't even contest the facts because they didn't offer any testimony about how they got to this thing they can't even show clear error because you have to have factual findings to do that so it's a great win obviously and it's fast fast it came back pretty quick because I don't think they have any patience for this, which I appreciate, it across the board affirms the district court and the right thing is happening here. Certainly the appellants can try to take this as the Supreme Court, but I can't see that going too far. Address the fact, I would have liked to have seen if the sanction actually stops the fund from ever doing anything. They don't really get into that and it's kind of unclear because, you know, she said you can't call it a settlement, and, you know, it doesn't exist, but it still was set up, and there's some strange stuff going on here in between. Whole thing is very strange, obviously. None of this has precedent, any of it, really, like in terms of the series of events that have happened and the scope of

0:36:03 Matt: The corruption here, so I just wanted to make sure we keep a watch on this case because it's, as I said, I think it's one of the most important things, but this is a great sign that the 11th Circuit is prepared to completely validate the district court on this one and go with, you what we already knew that this is fraudulent collusion, so that's an easy win

0:36:19 Thomas: Okay phew so it's not like he says back in the news I was I was afraid he was he's not making it happen again is he that we know of okay you

0:36:25 Matt: Not that we know of uh but you know watch every day because who knows um the other big uh win this week was for the press and that was what we were talking about with cnn etc big networks um so often happens in 2026, in superintelligence, this is a lawsuit to stop to get an injunction against something that was announced in a truth social post. So to start there, this policy.

0:36:28 Thomas: Never know sorry that is like an official government yeah that's

0:36:52 Matt: Yep. That's how it works now. It's an executive order, practically.

0:36:54 Thomas: Like man that's saying oh there's there's something that was printed on this color paper instead of this other color paper like for this white house it's like what's the difference although I could see you in joining something for the font. I could, I could see that happening.

0:37:07 Matt: And don't threaten me with a good time. Yeah. So this complaint, though, I mean, obviously this was going to be enjoined because this is just, it's so clearly, as they say here, because it's the content of what they're doing. And he says directly that as the result of their constant reporting, quote unquote, and then in caps fake news exclamation point um they're going to be excluded and they're trying to say some sort of national security thing but they're not pointing to anything he literally just says it's really just cumulative stories over the last two years um it's just a ban on white reporting he considers to be quote one -sided and quote never good because it diminishes him and his accomplishments so this is about as straightforward as you can get of obviously the president's banning content from the white house because he just doesn't like the way they're covering him. They've no examples of any type of national security violation, the they're doing this very broad thing about how it's, negative reporting is bad for national security, which is exactly what fascists say. Like, that's exactly what you'd expect a fascist to say. It's amazing how they keep saying things

0:37:59 Thomas: Much always.

0:37:59 Matt: That fascists say. Yeah. This

0:38:02 Thomas: Almost like the way you do fascism is make the public scared of stuff. And so directly saying like, well, if that person over there is allowed to use, you know, their constitutional rights, that's going to endanger you all. So you should be scared and turn off your critical thinking all

0:38:18 Matt: National security. Yep. It's not a coincidence that Hitler had a word for the lying press, the Lugan Presse, and that Mussolini said that one of his first priorities in office was going to be to break the bones of El Mundo, which was a national paper at the time. I mean, this is how it works. This is a very solid filing, obviously very good lawyers for these news outlets. Kelly and the district court granted the TRO on 24th of September and found, obviously, this is now, there's a couple of different issues going on. There's the hard passes that allow them into the White House press briefing room. But there's also other areas of the White House that are smaller. Arrival is when the Chinese leader just came in, when President Xi was here. There's just like not very much room to stand, they're Saying that there's, not as much discrimination, like they can do that. Of the only precedents about this is actually from a very weird fight between, I didn't even know before I read this case called Karem, that Playboy had a White House correspondent, apparently, as of 2019. Must have been good coverage.

0:39:15 Matt: You're reading it for the articles, you're going to get that one. Got into a weird fight with Sebastian Gorka, one of the most entertaining people in the Trump administration of all time, in the Rose Garden.

0:39:22 Thomas: I laugh every time I hear the name yeah

0:39:25 Matt: Know, I just hear his voice. It's amazing. That case, the district court found that you need like real real explicit standards you can't just come out and suspend somebody's past because you don't like them obviously and you have to have a fair notice you have give them a chance um know this is just a straight up first amendment violation obviously like there's just no question about it yep

0:39:39 Thomas: And know this has been covered quite a bit we obviously we want to address it but not like the main topic or anything but from the coverage I've absorbed I want to get your thoughts on it this is yet another case where it's like if trump and co weren't lazy idiot pieces of crap they could do this a different way and have all the fascism they want probably come up with a stupid form or a whatever or a something you know some little yeah just something it looks like process and the court as usual will bend over backwards for you it's amazing how much the courts as a whole bend over downwards for trump but also are the only thing kind of holding him back isn't that a weird duality like it's I think both are true I think it's like it'S the refs works but also they're still the ref so they're still the only ones who can be like that's a foul you

0:40:04 Matt: Something that looks like process exactly yeah yeah and they're still really bad at the game so when it comes down to it so like they're just yeah

0:40:31 Thomas: That's true so you're trying to work the ref's but you don't know the rules hey that was an inbound touchdown safety you're like that'S not gonna work you can't

0:40:36 Matt: That'd be like me working their refs that was an ed there's

0:40:41 Thomas: It's like Matt trying to that's too many men in the key come on

0:40:48 Matt: Definitely a 24 point hockey conversion that's a thing right when you convert the puck I don't know 24 points please uh I will never learn about sports folks it's not gonna happen you

0:40:55 Thomas: Oh man ref is he allowed to tackle him like that it's it's tackle foot oh yeah okay so he can he can he can do that seems nuts he could tackle him that's Matt arguing with the refs as the coach he dropped

0:41:13 Matt: Know it no I I I'm telling you, just that part of my brain, it's too far.

0:41:16 Thomas: The ball but he picked it up right after that's not an incomplete pass he just just it was he dropped it for like one half a second come on yeah

0:41:23 Matt: Sounds correct. I don't know. It works for me. Of my favorite things about this case is that it cites Trump v. Cook, which is the, of course, when Trump was trying to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve, for the proposition that a truth social post is not notice. Like, it has actually already been determined by the Supreme Court that it doesn't constitute notice, and they keep doing it, even though the Supreme court has found this.

0:41:43 Thomas: Yeah sure but they're also doing it usually like after the fact and crap like they're right I mean a lot of times it's like they've already done something and then they true social like oh by the way kind of thing I don't know if that matters but if they had done a truth social ahead of time would that do you think that might actually work or is it still just like not the right place oh

0:42:03 Matt: No the holding there in that in trump v cook was that there's no avenue for a response that's the language I'm seeing here uh

0:42:07 Thomas: Okay so if you do a a poll yeah

0:42:10 Matt: Like nobody's on truth social we all know that if you post it on x there's still enough psychos on there that maybe you could say that you can get on x and respond but

0:42:13 Thomas: That's fair so you can't be like hey we're firing you lisa cook dm me if you have a problem with it also here's a poll only you get to vote on it do you think we should

0:42:26 Matt: Have 24 hours to quote tweet this with your response yeah basically yeah so no notice obvious retaliation under the first amendment just like everything you could think of so you know again I just wanted to close out you know since we started with the judicial complaints once again the courts doing their job this is not necessarily a gold star this is just how it's supposed to work so may lose on the smaller stuff but I think it's very likely that they'll get the grounds access and the hard passes that they want but I think that you know when you're talking about things like who gets to go on Air force one and the limited event space and you know who actually comes into the oval office obviously they can't let everybody in it would make the most sense logically that they let in the biggest networks but that's only if you want to be covered by the biggest network so uh there's a lot more room there for for more treatment obviously you can't just keep them out of the white house so uh that's a wrap so far we'll watch that one you

0:42:30 Thomas: Good work there you go all right let's take our last break and then I'm excited about this stupid footnote can't wait uh break in the night we'll get to it all right matt you you super intelligence uh okay

0:43:26 Matt: Got to see this to believe it I've just sent it to you out this order it's really something seeing it in big letters is just I laughed out loud

0:43:33 Thomas: The era of super intelligence

0:43:36 Matt: So funny I mean I just I'm thinking about all of the stuff the trump administration has done in the last two years let alone you other trump administration um know at a time when he's trying to find a way out of it an absolutely asinine stupid war of choice that we started for no reason right like super superintelligence. That's the only word for it. So here's what he's trying to do. This is very stupid, obviously. This has very much along the lines of the Department of War and the Gulf of America, where they're trying to get everybody to call it something it's not.

0:44:01 Thomas: I but I what is this like I can at least understand the stupid fascism behind that this what is happening matt I'm sure you'll tell us sorry oh

0:44:08 Matt: No, I don't know either, really. I don' t know why this is, because it seems like tech people generally agree that superintelligents, SI, doesn't exist. Like, this is a level above AGI. Like this the machine machine god essentially yeah no we're not even AGI yet, right and understanding just from doing a little research on this is that everybody thinks this is stupid because super intelligence as he's defining here doesn't doesn't exist but what he's saying in section three is that purposes the of this order the one place in U.S. code in the law in U.S.C. 94013, the artificial intelligence is actually defined at some kind of promotion of AI Act that Congress passed recently. And they're just going to say that for the purposes of this order, every time you see artificial intelligence, we're going to replace that with super intelligence.

0:44:18 Thomas: Well agi doesn't even exist is it oh I didn't I guess I didn'T even know that was what that meant okay why

0:44:54 Matt: I know it's so stupid, I think part of it is just to be like our intelligence our ai is better than china's I think that's my best guess now that he's just met with the china delegation and the tech people all together

0:45:01 Thomas: You might as well call it like a a a triple a artificial intelligence so it shows up highest in the phone book like this like this is so stupid

0:45:13 Matt: Just add that extra a yeah it's really funny I mean it's just even stupider than the gulf of america thing because he does actually have some authority to rename the coastal waters like it's stupid and but he can't rename the whole gulf as we've talked about just the the 15 miles off or whatever but technically sure when there is a term defined in congressional statute I guess you can go ahead and say that the federal government the executive branch is going to call it something else um

0:45:39 Thomas: This doesn't make sense though this is like I'm decreeing that all sodas are called a coke and you're like well but what if it's a sprite no you know like well you could still have artificial intelligence that like even if you agreed with I even know what like whatever whatever the premise is behind this which I still don't understand even if you agreed that maybe some one of them or say it could be a super intelligence does that mean they all are what if I'm still using chat gpt2 do I have to call that a superintelligence idiot of

0:45:49 Matt: It's a go that's right right yeah really funny too it's it's one one of those press things where there's a giant helicopter behind it, but he's yelling about how, well, we all agree. It's, you know, nobody disagrees. This is, this is now super intelligence. Like, no, nobody agrees. Expression, actually, I thought it was interesting. I just looked for the etymology of it. And the expression super intelligence goes back to like 1822. Obviously they weren't thinking about this, but the concept of, you know, just something that's higher than human intelligence. I understand, even if you're talking about AGI, which doesn't exist right now, what we have is predictive models that look very smart and impress a lot of people and are a magic box for a lot of people Trump's age, but they're not actually super, super intelligent. They're barely even AI.

0:46:44 Thomas: Matter if they were matt that's why I don't even like what why would that be — what — why would you do this, I don't — it could, could be both artificial and super the two different things could

0:46:45 Matt: Know. Yeah, that'S very true. But for the purpose of this, there's no distinction and all artificial intelligence is super intelligence and it's very stupid. The steepest one of these yet. I mean, at least the department of war, you can be like, well, yeah. They do wars, especially right now. You the Gulf of America is such a waste, right?

0:47:13 Thomas: A court ever strike something down for just being like just fucking what just try again we're all gonna ignore this

0:47:23 Matt: it'S funny, but like you think about the amount of money it's it takes to implement something like this, to be sure that across the board, every federal agency is going to, right, right.

0:47:29 Thomas: You have to do it if you're a government worker you got to do all replace all the you know anywhere it is this

0:47:35 Matt: Know this is like in a, basically in, in, an instant order. And then the assistant to the president for science and technology is going consult with the heads of the other agencies to see to what extent the definition of super intelligence should modify, expand upon, or otherwise supersede the existing statutory definition of artificial intelligence. Existing definition of Artificial Intelligence is actually more than we already have. I mean, it's talking about something that can intelligently interact with both real and virtual environments, which I'm sure you've seen the robots that are constantly tripping over themselves. We're not there yet. These people are obsessed with the machine God, but you can't just say that we built it. We're not there yet.

0:48:05 Thomas: This levels of stupid I can't even I wrap my head around. I would take a super intelligence to understand what happened here.

0:48:12 Matt: Want historians in the future to refer to the second Trump term as the era of superintelligence. I think that'll be very funny. Do that. For the rest of history, I don't want to say I want this to be known as the area of super intelligence, but ironically, because country has never been stupider. In all of its history, have we ever been this publicly stupid I'm sure we've been collectively as stupid as we are right now in other times but this is just exhibiting levels of public stupidity um this really put a cap on it for me this week thanks

0:48:39 Thomas: Yeah, boy. What a, what a dumb thing. All right, Matt. Well, that was fun. What a good episode. And again, Hey, chunk system, check out gavel gavel and the other shows as well, where there's woke, of course, always great stuff over there. Thanks Matt for the breakdown. Thanks listeners. Most of all, and we'll see you on Monday.

0:48:54 Matt: For this super intelligent conversation all

0:48:59 Clip: This has been Opening Arguments, produced by Thomas and Lydia Smith, with editing help from Peter Baird. The intro is by Thomas Smith. This outro is by Matt Cameron. Support the show at patreon .com slash law. Contact us through Patreon or openarguments at gmail .com. Make sure to follow our blue sky at OpenArgs. But most of all, please share the show. Thanks for listening.

0:49:31 Matt: Cooter and Willie. I just think that's funny. Words that we have already, and more words. Uh 24 point hockey conversion that's a thing right when you convert the puck I

0:49:41 Thomas: All surgeons psychopaths or