Original subtitles

Thank you.

much for joining us. It has been a busy week. The Pope met with Marco Rubio amid

ongoing tension between the Trump administration and God.

A judge released this alleged Jeffrey Epstein suicide note showing penmanship

still worth teaching in schools.

And around the country, Republicans scrambled to redistrict in the wake of

Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act ruling. In Tennessee, they convened a

session to carve up the state's only majority black district. Now, under the

law, they still can't intentionally redraw districts to disempower people

on race, which led to this incredible exchange between one Democratic state

senator and the bill's sponsor, who was desperately trying to play dumb.

To the sponsor.

Are you aware that Memphis is predominantly African -American?

Senator Stevens to respond.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not.

Senator Lamar.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So to my sponsor, who went to law school at the University of Memphis and lived

there for three years, you're telling me you're not aware that Memphis is

predominantly African American. Am I correct?

Senator Lamar, he's answered that.

Next question, please.

No, no, no, no.

Don't let him move on to the next question, unless that is the next

to the sponsor. And who do you think Elvis stole his music from exactly?

And while there will obviously be much more to say about redistricting going

forward, we're going to turn to our ongoing war with Iran. Trump is still

claiming his actions prevented Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, even when the

audience for that message is not ideal.

So we would have had an Iran with a nuclear weapon, and maybe

we wouldn't all be here right now. I can tell you the Middle East would have

been gone, Israel would have been gone, and they would have trained their sights

on Europe first, and then us, because...

They're sick people.

What the fuck are you doing? You're surrounded by kids.

That event was part of Trump's push to restore the presidential fitness test in

schools. You are supposed to be giving them nightmares about gym class, not

nuclear war.

Last week marked 60 days since Operation Epic Fury began, and that is

meaningful. Given by law, within 60 days of informing Congress of the start of a

military conflict, the president must terminate any use of the U .S. armed

forces unless Congress has formally declared war or enacted a specific

authorization for the use of the military. Now, the administration has

they simply don't need to comply with that, and on Tuesday, Marco Rubio made

this big claim.

The Operation...

Epic fury is concluded.

We achieved the objectives of that operation.

I'm not going to, you know, we're not cheering for an additional situation to

occur. We would prefer the path of peace. But look, the message to Iran,

guys are facing, they are facing real catastrophic destruction to their

generational destruction to their economy, generational destruction to the

wealth of their country, imposed on themselves by the actions that they're

taking. They should check themselves before they wreck themselves in the

direction that they're going.

Marco Rubio declared epic fury was over before sending a message to Iran's

leadership in the weirdest possible way.

As if there's one group of people who identify with lyrics from a 90s Ice Cube

song, it is definitely fundamentalist Islamic clerics. They love decades -old

hip -hop references.

Before his assassination, Ayatollah Khamenei would famously walk the streets

Tehran wearing his favorite Run DMC shirt.

So the administration seems to be announcing the end of this conflict. But

very next day, Trump posted, assuming Iran agrees to give what has been agreed

to, which is perhaps a big assumption, the already legendary epic fury will be

at an end and the highly effective blockade will allow the Hormuz Strait to

open to all, including Iran. If they don't agree, the bombing starts, which

isn't great. And while it is not the most important part there, assuming Iran

agrees to give what has been agreed to is just an insane phrase.

I usually can't stand AI, but in Trump's case, it might not hurt if you

occasionally ask chat GBT, can you rephrase this so it doesn't sound like

earlier version of you wrote it?

And in the midst of trying to figure out whether we can refer to Operation Epic

Fury in the past or present tense, we were suddenly dealing with a whole new

operation this week.

President Trump has directed US Central Command to restart the free flow of

commerce through the street of Hormuz under the umbrella of Project Freedom.

To be clear, this operation is separate and distinct from Operation Epic Fury.

Yeah, we're now involved with Project Freedom 2, which is legally distinct

Operation Epic Fury. You know, much like this Halloween costume called Kid's

Chocolate Factory Worker Costume is legally distinct from any association

Oompa Loompas while looking very much like the same thing.

The aim of Project Freedom was to reopen the Strait of Hormuz by having the U

.S. military essentially guide commercial ships through, by, among

locating mines and passing along that information to the ships. But after just

day and a half, and only two ships making it through out of the roughly 1

which were waiting, Trump suddenly reversed course, leading to the

headline, Trump announces pause on Project Freedom, which is, if nothing

on the fucking nose.

But I actually want to focus on a small moment from Hegseth's press conference,

because he and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs were asked about some of the

weapons potentially at Iran's disposal, and one of them was pretty striking.

Are there still concerns about mines in the Strait? And can you kind of clarify

these reports of kamikaze dolphins that we've heard about?

Yeah, you heard right.

She just said kamikaze dolphins. That sounds...

Less like a real thing and more like something Alex Jones would mutter in his

sleep.

Or maybe the name of a bar trivia team full of aquarium adults.

But incredibly, the Wall Street Journal did report last week that Iranian

leaders were considering deploying previously unused weapons to attack US

warships, including mine -carrying dolphins.

And at this point, I'm just going to pause, because that claim prompted us to

a bit of a deep dive. Pun very much intended.

And apparently, military dolphins are an actual thing. In fact, since 1959, the

US Navy has trained dolphins and sea lions to help guard against threats

underwater. Early experiments reportedly tested more than a dozen. species,

including sharks, rays, and sea turtles, before the program settled on dolphins.

But I could have told you from the jump that dolphins would be the standout

there. Turtles too slow, sharks too stupid, rays too difficult to take

once you see their mouths. Look at this idiot.

That is not a warrior. That is nature's most slippery dweeb.

Dolphins are apparently used by the military because they naturally possess

most sophisticated sonar known to science, with technology being no match

them. And it turns out they're good at a lot of things.

We train Navy animals to do simple things under extraordinary

For them, detecting enemy divers and swimmers or UUVs or enemy mines, finding

the target is easy.

The animals are natural hunters. We just change what they're hunting for.

Yet dolphins are natural hunters, but don't naturally hunt for explosives.

Typically, they hunt for mackerel or squid, or a scientist will jerk them

don't have time to get into it right now. Just Google that yourselves.

But according to one expert, actually, you know what? I will just tell you

quickly. In the 1960s, this woman, Margaret Lovett, tried to teach a

speak English and thought the best way to do that was to live with the dolphin

24 hours a day. But her lessons kept getting derailed by the dolphin's sexual

urges, and the solution to that problem was to relieve those urges for him.

Long story short, the dolphin never learned to speak English and was sent to

live in an abandoned bank in Miami. And I'll be honest with you, if that dolphin

didn't learn to speak English, I'm not sure it can be done. But again, we don't

have time. The point is, there are military dolphins. And over the years,

put them to work. We've brought a team of five dolphins to Vietnam to guard an

ammunition pier because that war didn't have enough going on.

In the run -up to the first Gulf War, a team of six dolphins patrolled the

harbour in Bahrain and escorted Kuwaiti oil tankers through dangerous waters.

And during the Iraq War, a team of dolphins helped disarm more than 100

-ship mines and underwater booby traps planted by Saddam's forces. Meaning

dolphins have objectively done more frontline military service than anyone

the last name Trump.

Now, the USA is consistently maintained it only uses dolphins for defensive

purposes and not to attack the enemy.

pointing out that since dolphins cannot discern the difference between enemy and

friendly vessels, it would not be wise to give that kind of decision authority

to an animal. It's also claimed that rumours to the contrary arise from media

speculation, thanks in part to a popular movie in 1973 which reinforced those

ideas. And specifically, they are talking about this movie.

He had trained a dolphin to kill the President of the United States.

Can you find B?

Stop B. The thing on B's back will hurt man.

Stop B now.

George C. Scott in a Mike Nichols film, The Day of the Dolphin.

Yes, yes, yes.

Now, okay. For the record, unwittingly, he had trained a dolphin to kill the

President of the United States is, from the bottom of my heart, the funniest

sentence in history.

It is such a perfectly direct summary of the plot, they even put it on the

actual poster for this actual movie that was, again, directed by Mike Nichols.

You know, of The Graduate, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, and The Day of the

Dolphin.

A few fun facts. Mike Nichols apparently referred to this film as the fish movie

and had a hard time during its production as innumerable delays were

the dolphins who tended to make a game out of rearranging the underwater lights

once they had been set up because, of course they did, well done dolphins.

According to the screenwriter, on the last day of the shoot they apparently

three takes of the dolphins swimming off and after take three, they never came

back. Again, well done dolphins. And finally, Nichols repeatedly claimed he

that movie as a favour to Roman Polanski.

Just in case you thought that movie couldn't get any fucking weirder. Now,

this point, you might understandably be wondering, wait, if dolphins don't carry

mines to enemy ships, then why is the US government being asked about Iranian

kamikaze dolphins? Good question. Well...

The US Navy insists that we don't use dolphins to do that, but other countries

apparently have trained them to attack. The Soviet Union's Navy reportedly

developed its own marine mammal program, as part of which dolphins and other

aquatic mammals were trained by Russian experts to attack warships and enemy

frogmen. Now, after the dissolution of the USSR, the program fell into neglect

in the 1990s, and when funding for the project ceased, many were moved to a

private dolphinarium to perform for tourists in Ukraine.

Eventually, the tourist trade dried up, and sadly, their trainer was then forced

to sell those military -trained killer dolphins, leading to the immortal

headline, Iran buys kamikaze dolphins.

Now, admittedly, that was 26 years ago, and some reports have speculated that

those particular dolphins would now be too old for Iran to use in the straight

-up Hormuz, which is a bit rude, but even if that is true...

Iran may have gotten new dolphins from Russia since then, given it's reportedly

revived its killer dolphin program.

Oh, and one more thing here. A few years ago, Hamas apparently claimed Israel

had a dolphin weapons program too, leading to the real headline in the

Post, killer Zionist dolphins, Hamas claims they exist.

And that headline is a minefield even the best trained military dolphin could

not navigate safely.

Anyway, I think we've all heard a lot more about bomb dolphins this week than

thought we were going to on Monday. Which brings us back to the Iran war.

Because who knows what is coming next?

We're taping this on Saturday as the US awaits Iran's response to its proposal

to end the war. But it's definitely not a great sign that both sides have now

resumed attacking each other. And Trump's even floated the idea of

Project Freedom if no deal is reached. Though in his screaming next to a

helicopter time on Friday, he added a little twist.

Look.

I think it's pretty clear this guy has got absolutely nothing.

Because Project Freedom Plus is the most ridiculous series of words I have seen

this week, which is really saying something. Because I'll remind you that

tonight, you've repeatedly heard the phrase, unwittingly, he had trained a

dolphin to kill the President of the United States.

And now, this.

And now, people on TV are not excited about Star Wars Day.

May the 4th be with you. Yes, today is May the 4th. Are you a Star Wars person?

No. I've never seen Star Wars.

He's a classic. Baby Yoda, and he's a classic. Yeah, exactly.

Okay, all right. Well, that's enough about Star Wars.

But this annual day is very important, I know, to my older brothers and some of

the other Star Wars fans.

Some people call them nerds, but they call themselves fans.

You know, I'm going to be honest with you guys, okay?

My stepdad used to make us watch Star Wars as punishment.

If we got in trouble, it was not my thing. He probably liked it. He was

obsessed. He was looking for friends.

I'm just going to stay right here. Hello, Darth. Nice to meet you. I never

into it.

You never watched a single Star Wars?

Nope, never did.

We're happy to be doing some trending again today. May the force be with you.

Yes, there you go, Devin. And also with you. There you go.

Moving on.

My story tonight concerns the Supreme Court. It's been in the news a lot

especially thanks to last week's Voting Rights Act decision, if you haven't

heard. It was a 6 -3 decision in the case of white people versus everybody,

you'll never guess who they ruled in favour of.

But I actually want to talk about a pattern you may have noticed recently.

Basically, Trump comes out with a new executive order or action. A bunch of

legal experts say, I'm not sure he can do that.

Some courts weigh in and say, yeah, he definitely can't do that, and he needs

stop. And then this happens.

Looks like the Supreme Court is allowing President Trump to implement his ban on

transgender people serving in the military.

The U .S. Supreme Court is letting the Trump administration move forward with

freezing $4 billion in foreign aid. The justices ruling that the president can

indeed proceed with his plan to try to dismantle the education department with

vast layoffs.

Right, the court has been repeatedly jumping into ongoing cases and saying,

know what, while this works its way through the courts, Trump should get to

the thing that he wants to do anyway. It's basically a football referee

pending a final ruling on the legality of the quarterback having a gun, I'm

going to stand back and see where he's going with this.

And that is possible thanks to the rise of what's known as the shadow docket.

And to explain what it is, it's probably useful to remember how regular Supreme

Court cases are decided.

When you think of a Supreme Court case, you're thinking of a case on the merits

docket. A case starts in a district court, is appealed to a circuit court,

called an appeals court, and then it's petitioned to be heard by the Supreme

Court. From there, briefs are written, arguing each side, then oral arguments

where the justices can ask questions, and then they meet privately in person

discuss the case and vote on it.

They spend months writing long opinions and dissents, and then we know who won

and who lost and why.

And that detailed explanation helps these lower courts understand how to

it to similar cases going forward.

Yeah, that is very basically it. Although one small thing there, saying

think of the Supreme Court case, you're thinking of the merit docket, excuse me,

you don't know what I'm thinking of when I think of the Supreme Court,

especially as what I'm actually thinking about is how the sequel to Legally

Blonde, Legally Blonde 2, Red, White and Blonde, dropped the ball by not having

Elwood's arguer case in front of it. Come on, guys!

The best part of the first movie is the murder trial and the sequel has no trial

scenes. You set the movie in DC and don't let Elle show what she can do in

of the highest court in the land. That is madness. Anyway, that is what I'm

always thinking of when I think of a Supreme Court case. The one I'm

going to bring against the producers of Legally Blonde 2 for not putting Reese

in a position to succeed.

But admittedly, the second thing I'm thinking of is that process.

The regular, established path to the Supreme Court. District courts, circuit

courts, Supreme Court.

But if a litigant is in a hurry and they think the Supreme Court is going to be

extra friendly to them for some reason, then the shadow docket of the much

speedier way to get your case there. Basically, any litigant in a federal

can ask the Supreme Court to step in and provide a temporary ruling on what

should happen while their case works its way through the system, which can take

years, by the way.

Five votes among the nine justices are needed to grant a request for the court

to intervene, and that request must meet certain criteria, including that the

applicants would suffer, quote, irreparable harm if it's not granted.

term, irreparable harm, is really important because it sets a very high

which is why for years the docket's main use was in one particular type of case,

as this law professor explains.

If someone's going to be executed the next day, and the person's lawyers are

saying, listen, my client was convicted or put on death row for the wrong

reasons. He's innocent or there's some problems in the process. The Supreme

Court might say, okay, we're going to stay the execution order under this

emergency process because once this person's executed, we can't fix the

right? Right.

Once someone is executed, it is generally too late to do anything about

Besides maybe sending them a card from Hallmark's belated exoneration section.

But Trump's now using the shadow docket for a lot more than just death penalty

cases. Because if a lower court issues a ruling that he doesn't like, say

pausing an executive action until it's been fully litigated, he'll now run to

the Supreme Court and ask them to rule in his favour on the shadow docket. And

recently he's been doing that a lot.

This is every time the federal government had a case there, back to the

Trump administration.

And here's just eight months into his second term.

It's being used in record numbers.

Yeah, Trump keeps claiming he needs an emergency ruling and the court keeps

agreeing with him. That chart is pretty striking.

Though, to be fair, you could probably use it for any number of things in the

second Trump administration, from measles cases to gold shit nailed to the

of the White House.

to use the phrase, when it happens.

And this strategy is paying off.

As in the last year alone, the court issued decisions via the shadow docket

allowed this administration to cut hundreds of millions of dollars worth of

grants to universities, dismiss every transgender service member from the

military, cut a third of the Department of Education, fire hundreds of thousands

of federal employees, and refuse to spend $4 billion in congressionally

appointed foreign aid.

And look, there are clearly a lot of problems with the current Supreme Court.

Six of them, to be precise.

The five boys and this preschool teacher who still hits. But their work on the

shadow docket has empowered some of Trump's worst policies to the point it's

become his go -to method to get his way.

One former solicitor general has even said of the docket that it swallowed the

court, both in terms of workload and even practical importance.

So given all that, tonight, let's look at the shadow docket. What it is, why it

exists, and how it's being abused.

And let's start by acknowledging the term itself is a bit bitchy.

It was first coined by a law professor criticizing the practice, and some

justices do not care for it. Amy Coney Barrett said she prefers emergency

docket, and Brett Kavanaugh reportedly pushed for calling it the interim

Samuel Alito actually gave a whole lecture to Notre Dame law students about

misunderstood the docket is. And fun fact, his lecture wasn't supposed to be

recorded, but we got the audio of it, and here's a taste.

The term is memorable and suggestive.

Journalists and some political figures have found it useful.

It brings to mind something sneaky and dangerous. And I'm sure when ordinary

people who don't follow the work of the Supreme Court closely hear it, they're

disturbed. They say, what are these people trying to do? What are they

hide in the middle of the night? Let the sun shine in. That's exactly what I'm

going to try to do this afternoon.

Set aside the bad -faced claim of saying, let the sun shine in during a

at an exclusive law school that you've explicitly asked not to be recorded.

Alito argued that day that there's absolutely nothing wrong with deciding

on the shadow dock, and anyone who says different is just a sore loser.

The real complaint of these critics is that we should have granted relief when

they think it should have been denied, and we have denied relief when they

it should have been granted.

If they want to criticise us on those grounds, fine, let them make their case.

But attempting to disguise their real complaint with a lot of talk about a

secretive, sinister shadow docket is unworthy.

OK, Samuel, but you can not like a decision and also not like how it came

Things can suck for more than one reason.

You know, like when Jeopardy was looking for a new host and the producer in

charge of the decision said, guess what, we found him, it's me.

Congratulations to me on winning my contest. I look forward to working with

guy who I am.

People had a lot of concerns about that and this guy sucks at hosting Jeopardy

was only one of them.

And it is not unreasonable to have complaints about the shadow docket's

given the damage some of these rulings have done.

Because in many cases, it has sure seemed like the court's intervention

lot more irreparable harm to people than Trump would have suffered simply by

waiting for a regular ruling.

Take their decision to allow Trump to dismiss every trans member of the

military. That had immediate consequences, as this service member

It's going to be devastating should that occur.

I will lose the core component of my identity that's been with me my entire

life. I will lose the single source of income right now for my family, the

health care, the benefits associated with that, the on -post housing that we

have.

We'll lose everything at that point.

Yeah, and when one part of the case stands to lose everything, while the

will just... have the exact same military he did yesterday, it seems

party would need emergency relief before the case was decided on its merits. But

to be fair, I am not a Supreme Court justice, am I? I just occasionally try

bribe one on TV.

And while a shadow docket decision is technically temporary, while the case

makes its way through the system, once an administration has a ruling that lets

them do what they want, they have...

every incentive to drag their feet and delay a case's appeals, all of which

makes it incredibly frustrating when you hear Amy Coney Barrett blithely defend

the docket like this.

We're not resolving a case finally.

We're just saying it's a kind of a for now.

This is our best judgment about the merits, about the likelihood of success

the merits, and then you're considering other factors too.

Yeah, it's just a for now.

So that soldier losing her job really shouldn't complain. She's only losing it

for now.

All she has to do is not need money or housing until the court eventually gets

around to deciding whether or not it should have been taken away from her in

first place.

But that is just the beginning of the problem here, because justices are also

frequently making sweeping decisions without fully understanding a whole

Cases are decided on the shadow docket without oral argument, and sometimes

without the full picture of the evidence that lower court proceedings might

provide. Take the case of Nones v Vasquez Podomo. It involved immigration

in LA, where federal officials conceded they were using race and ethnicity as a

factor in deciding who to stop, which is, this is true, racial profiling.

A lower court told the government correctly to cut that shit out.

But the government then appealed via the shadow docket, and the Supreme Court

ruled that they could proceed. And in a rare move, Brett Kavanaugh actually

wrote a brief explanation of why he reached that conclusion, saying

stops were typically brief, and that individuals may promptly go free after

making clear to the immigration officers that they are U .S. citizens or

otherwise legally in the United States.

But that is bullshit for a bunch of reasons. First, the notion that any

interaction with law enforcement is typically brief is something only a

guy named Brett would confidently assert.

But also, that's not even what the details of the case he was ruling on

As Justice Sotomayor pointed out in her dissent, two plaintiffs in the case had

actually tried to explain that they were US citizens.

One was then pushed against a fence with his arms twisted behind his back, and

the other was taken away from his job to a warehouse for further questioning. So

Kavanaugh's opinion wasn't even based on the facts on the ground.

And whether that's because he was moving too fast to read up on the case, which

is kind, or simply didn't care, which feels way more true, it doesn't really

matter because the court had already ruled.

And that ruling is actually one of the key reasons why earlier this year,

federal agents in Minneapolis felt empowered to do shit like this.

American citizens are getting stopped and questioned.

including a woman walking down the street.

Ma 'am, where were you born?

It doesn't matter where I was born. I belong here. I am your citizen.

And this Uber driver.

I can hear you don't have the same accent as me. Oh, so you're going by

now? People have been stopped for simply appearing to be Somali or appearing to

be Latino or appearing to be foreign. And it's concerning because we also know

we're not getting these stories from...

Irish folks and Norwegian folks here.

Yeah, I bet you not.

And look, I'm not saying they should have done it, but it would have at least

been a change of pace if the feds in Minneapolis had done some throwback anti

-European racism too. You know, signs in diner windows saying things like no

spaghetti eaters and water fountains reading Swedes only, just to balance

out a bit.

But the fact you can now be targeted for just speaking with an accent has given

rise to some truly striking exchanges.

You're not allowed.

I don't care.

You're not allowed.

I'm from this country.

You know what, sir? Now, talking to you, hearing that you have an accent, I have

reason to believe that you are not born of this country. You just made an

accent. Do you have documentation?

I do have my documentation. And you present it to me. Why are you asking me

my paperwork?

Because of your accent.

You have an accent, too.

Where were you born to? Where were you born at?

That is madness.

No one should ever be arrested for speaking in an accent, unless, of

that person is Chet Hanks. But even then, I think we can probably just let

talk it down to a large fine.

Now, it's worth noting that thanks to Kavanaugh's opinion, what you just saw

now commonly referred to as a Kavanaugh stop.

Arguably the worst thing to bear Brett Kavanaugh's name, other than Brett

Kavanaugh himself.

But the thing is, we only know about Kavanaugh's... faulty reasoning, because

actually bothered to explain his logic. Something, again, on the shadow docket,

the court doesn't technically have to do.

Decisions can come down with no public discussion and no guidance to lower

judges on how to analyse similar cases.

That's a practice Samuel Alito has strongly defended, saying, when we issue

opinion, we are aware that every word that we write can have consequences,

sometimes enormous consequences, so we have to be careful about every single

thing that we say.

And on her book tour last year, Amy Coney Barrett made a similar case.

Well, the emergency orders present a challenge because they do require the

of the court to proceed far more quickly than it normally does.

You know, I pointed out in the book that there are turtles all over the court

because normally the court moves slowly, it changes slowly, justice moves slowly

at the court because we are very deliberate.

The emergency docket moves much more quickly, and it is a much more recent

phenomenon. The emergency docket is newer, and so I would say those

are still being shaped and sorted out.

Okay, first and least importantly, I am frankly furious that I'm only just

learning that the Supreme Court apparently has a turtle thing.

That is now my second favorite fact about turtles. Just below, some turtles

breathe through their butts. Yet more proof...

that God occasionally drank on the job. But if your argument is we're not really

built for emergency docket decisions, then maybe you shouldn't be choosing to

them all the fucking time.

And unexplained decisions can also be frustrating to lower court judges who

argue it can diminish their credibility when their rulings against the

administration get overturned on the shadow docket with little or no

because it makes it seem like they did shoddy work and are biased against

And that's not the only problem, because there's also the question of whether

shadow docket rulings set precedent.

Basically, are they, for now, temporary decisions about one case, or are they

meant to be guideposts in how judges are to interpret the law going forward?

Interestingly, just five years ago, Alito argued the former, saying that

docket decisions do not make precedent on the underlying issue.

But lately, other justices have argued the opposite. Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh

at one point issued a ruling reprimanding a lower court for not

shadow docket decision as precedent, saying lower court judges may sometimes

disagree with this court's decisions, but they are never free to defy them.

it is pretty shitty to admonish someone for not understanding rules that are not

only unclear, but seem to be constantly changing.

It's the judicial equivalent of getting yelled at in the TSA line. Hey, shoes

off. No, just the left shoe. It's right shoe on and left shoes off, like it has

always been.

Keep your belt on. No, not like that. Tied around your head like Quail Man.

Nickelodeon's dog.

It's not that complicated.

You are not free to defy me.

All this confusion.

It's understandably frustrating to lower court judges who would be more than

happy to defer to the Supreme Court if it would just tell them what the fuck

they're deferring to.

Here is one judge venting about that exact problem.

That's why we need an opinion from the Supreme Court because we don't need a

future Supreme Court that says, well, we didn't really say that because we

didn't give any reasoning behind it.

People need to understand and give confidence to an opinion.

We need to understand why you did it. We judges would just love to hear your

reasoning as to why you rule that way. Then we, it makes our job easier.

We will follow the law. We will follow the Supreme Court, but we'd like to know

what it is we are following.

Exactly.

Judges would be happy to follow directions if the court just gave them

you bought an earthen slurp bookcase from Ikea and the instructions were just

little guy shrugging and pointing at a bookcase, you'd be justifiably pissed.

Hey, get off your abstract Swedish ass and give me some directions. That's the

only reason that you are here.

But maybe what will hurt the Supreme Court the most in the long run is that

these decisions seem nakedly political.

Because it turns out the best predictor of how this court will rule in shadow

docket cases seems to be who is president at the time. For instance, the

administration brought far fewer cases to the shadow docket and one just over

half the time. But the Trump administration, which uses it far, far

prevails 84 % of the time. And look, maybe the justices have nuanced

for voting the way they did. But if they do, they're not saying so.

And that is a big problem.

And I know that for some Trump supporters, all of this may be

short term, but as this law professor explains, over the long term, this

approach poses real risks to the court's very legitimacy.

You know, 20 years ago, when all the court was doing through emergency

applications was last -minute stays of execution, I don't think there was a big

clamor for the justices to provide lengthy explanations.

But now that these orders are having these profound effects on the ground...

The fact that we see the court intervening, oftentimes undoing hundreds

of analysis from lower court judges and providing no explanation of its own, I

think is a real part of the problem.

And it deprives all of us, the lower courts, the relevant government decision

makers, the public, of any ability to assess why the justices ruled the way

did. Exactly. My son is right.

Quick side note on that.

Come home, Nathaniel, your mother is ill and for her sake our feud must cease.

But he is right.

As the legal director of the ACLU put it, if the justices can make significant

decisions without giving any reasons, then there is really no limits to what

they can do, which is not good.

So what can we do? Well, there are a bunch of fixes Congress could impose,

especially given it controls the Supreme Court's budget.

including simply requiring the court issues written explanations whenever

on the shadow docket, which really doesn't seem too much to ask.

And if that burden means that they won't be able to do as many shadow docket

cases as they currently are, all the better. But that is just the beginning.

Significant Supreme Court reforms have to be on the table now. And I know that

many balk at that, including members of Congress. But think of it like this.

When the Supreme Court... allows the president to act in ways contrary to

statutes, like, say, not spending congressionally appropriated funding,

seizing power from Congress.

And maybe it is time for Congress to start taking a little power back.

And I know the court itself will object to the idea that it's a political body.

Just this week, Chief Justice John Roberts whined that people think we're

policy decisions.

I think they view us as truly political actors, which I don't think is an

accurate understanding of what we do. But to be clear, this is a mess of the

court's own making.

Because there's something both frustrating and deeply patronising about

choosing to issue unexplained rulings in the middle of the night, only popping

their heads out for fawning interviews whenever they've got a shitty book to

sell, and then scolding us for not understanding what's going on inside

gorgeous, pristine minds.

And look, as we have discussed before, when they do write their reasoning down,

it often exposes the degree to which they can seem to reach for predetermined

conclusions before working backwards to fill in a legal rationale. But at least

they have to put the work in.

And I know that some will say no substantive court reform is likely to

during this administration, which is obviously true.

But it is still worth starting the conversation now.

Because there are lots of ideas for court reform, from adding justices to no

longer allowing the court to set its own docket. They always seem to get kicked

down the road for a later discussion.

You may remember Joe Biden came into office and handed the idea of court

off to a blue -ribbon commission.

And if you're thinking, oh yeah, what the fuck became of that?

He actually released a set of proposals in July of 2024.

You might have missed it, not only because it was around a month after he

imploded on the debate stage.

But also because it was the week after he withdrew from the race.

And nobody was going to be reading that report then.

The only thing people were reading that week were 500 different tweets about how

Kamala was brat.

It was a weird time, but you know, it all worked out.

The point is, we have two and a half years between now and the next election

lay the groundwork for change.

And I'd argue that it's worth doing.

Because this court has eroded people's confidence to the point it's now

considered a political arm instead of a necessary check on political power.

And if you ask me, that qualifies as, if I may borrow a phrase, actual

irreparable fucking harm.

And now, this.

And now, for Mother's Day, just leave mom the fuck alone.

As we mentioned this morning, it is Mother's Day weekend, a time where we

and give credit where credit is certainly due and celebrate our mothers.

people get their mom's cards, maybe some flowers, always a good one, and some

goodies. Maybe you can even take her to brunch Sunday morning. Another good one.

Another good one is to be left alone.

The answer to the question, what will moms get on Sunday?

Rest, relaxation.

We can only hope. Be left alone.

And being a mom, I'm telling you what we appreciate the most is alone time.

I'm just saying. Some peace and quiet. Yeah.

Maybe he'll give me some peace and quiet finally.

Okay, well, we'll see.

You probably don't have a clue what's going on, and that's a good thing. Oh, I

have a clue. I told him, leave me alone, let me sleep in bed, and relax.

I want sleep.

And peace and quiet. For me, I say it every year. My husband knows, just leave

me alone. That's all I want. I'm down to do like a breakfast or a lunch and then

leave me alone.

She wants a hotel room and to be left alone.

Yeah, just let mom stay in the bed and that might do it. That might be all you

need. Put the note under the door. I like handmade cards or anything

because it puts thought into it and it's sweet. You can keep them. And leave me

alone.

That's our show. Thanks so much for watching. We'll see you next week.

Goodnight!