♪ ♪
[CHEERING AND APPLAUSE]
>> JOHN: WELCOME TO LAST WEEK
TONIGHT.
I'M JOHN OLIVER.
THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.
IT'S 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'S STILL WORTH
TEACHING IN SCHOOLS.
AND AROUND THE COUNTRY,
REPUBLICANS SCRAMBLED TO
REDISTRICT IN THE WAKE OF THE
SUPREME COURT'S VOTING RIGHTS
ACT RULING.
IN TENNESSEE, THEY CONVENED A
SPECIAL SESSION TO CARVE UP THE
STATE'S ONLY MAJORITY-BLACK
DISTRICT.
THEY CANNOT DRAW DISTRICTS BASED
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
PREDOMINATELY AFRICAN AMERICAN?
>> SENATOR STEVENS RESPOND.
>> THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER.
I AM NOT.
[LAUGHTER]
>> 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.
>> JOHN: NO, NO, NO!
DON'T LET HIM MOVE ON TO THE
NEXT QUESTION, UNLESS THE NEXT
QUESTION IS, "TO THE SPONSOR:
AND WHO DO YOU THINK ELVIS STOLE
HIS MUSIC FROM, EXACTLY?"
AND WHILE THERE'LL BE MUCH MORE
TO SAY ABOUT THIS GOING FORWARD,
WE'RE GOING TO TURN TO OUR
ONGOING WAR WITH IRAN.
TRUMP'S 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 IRAN --
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'RE SUPPOSED TO BE GIVING
THEM NIGHTMARES ABOUT GYM CLASS,
NOT NUCLEAR WAR!
LAST WEEK MARKED 60 DAYS SINCE
"OPERATION EPIC FURY" BEGAN --
AND THAT'S 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'S ARGUED
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:
THESE GUYS ARE FACING -- THEY
ARE FACING REAL CATASTROPHIC
DESTRUCTION TO THEIR ECONOMY.
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.
>> JOHN: YEAH, MARCO RUBIO
DECLARED EPIC FURY WAS OVER,
BEFORE SENDING A MESSAGE TO
IRAN'S LEADERSHIP IN THE
WEIRDEST POSSIBLE WAY.
BECAUSE IF THERE'S ONE GROUP OF
PEOPLE WHO'LL IDENTIFY WITH
LYRICS FROM A '90S ICE CUBE
SONG, IT'S DEFINITELY
FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAMIC CLERICS.
THEY LOVE DECADES-OLD HIP HOP
REFERENCES.
BEFORE HIS ASSASSINATION,
AYATOLLAH KHAMENEI WOULD
FAMOUSLY WALK THE STREETS OF
TEHRAN WEARING HIS FAVORITE "RUN
DMC" SHIRT.
SO THE ADMINISTRATION SEEMED TO
BE ANNOUNCING THE END OF THIS
CONFLICT.
BUT THE 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 BE OPEN TO ALL,
INCLUDING IRAN.
IF THEY DON'T AGREE, THE BOMBING
STARTS."
WHICH ISN'T GREAT.
AND WHILE IT'S NOT THE MOST
IMPORTANT PART, "ASSUMING IRAN
AGREES TO GIVE WHAT HAS BEEN
AGREED TO" IS AN INSANE PHRASE.
I USUALLY CAN'T STAND A-I, BUT
IN TRUMP'S CASE, IT MIGHT NOT
HURT IF HE OCCASIONALLY ASKED
CHAT GPT, "CAN YOU REPHRASE THIS
SO IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE AN
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 STRAIT OF HORMUZ
UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF PROJECT
FREEDOM.
TO BE CLEAR, THIS OPERATION IS
SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM
OPERATION EPIC FURY.
>> JOHN: YEAH, WE'RE NOW
INVOLVED WITH "PROJECT FREEDOM",
TOO!
WHICH IS LEGALLY DISTINCT FROM
OPERATION EPIC FURY.
Y'KNOW, MUCH LIKE THIS HALLOWEEN
COSTUME CALLED "KIDS CHOCOLATE
FACTORY WORKER COSTUME" IS
LEGALLY DISTINCT FROM ANY
ASSOCIATION WITH 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 US MILITARY
ESSENTIALLY GUIDE COMMERCIAL
SHIPS THROUGH BY -- AMONG OTHER
THINGS -- LOCATING MINES AND
PASSING ALONG THAT INFORMATION
TO THE SHIPS.
BUT AFTER JUST A DAY -- AND ONLY
TWO SHIPS MAKING IT THROUGH OUT
OF THE OVER 1,600 WHO WERE
WAITING -- TRUMP SUDDENLY
REVERSED COURSE, LEADING TO THE
EXCELLENT HEADLINE: "TRUMP
ANNOUNCES PAUSE ON PROJECT
FREEDOM."
WHICH IS, IF NOTHING ELSE, 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 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 U.S. WARSHIPS,"
INCLUDING "MINE-CARRYING
DOLPHINS."
AND AT THIS POINT, I'M JUST
GOING TO PAUSE.
BECAUSE THAT CLAIM PROMPTED US
TO DO A BIT OF A DEEP DIVE, PUN
VERY MUCH INTENDED, AND
APPARENTLY, MILITARY DOLPHINS
ARE AN ACTUAL THING.
IN FACT, SINCE 1959, THE U.S.
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 DOLPHINS WOULD BE THE
STANDOUT THERE.
TURTLES TOO SLOW, SHARKS TOO
STUPID, RAYS TOO DIFFICULT TO
TAKE SERIOUSLY ONCE YOU SEE
THEIR MOUTHS.
LOOK AT THIS IDIOT.
THAT ISN'T A WARRIOR.
THAT'S NATURE'S MOST SLIPPERY
DWEEB.
DOLPHINS ARE APPARENTLY USED BY
THE MILITARY BECAUSE THEY
NATURALLY POSSESS THE MOST
SOPHISTICATED SONAR KNOWN TO
SCIENCE, WITH TECHNOLOGY BEING
NO MATCH FOR THEM.
AND IT TURNS OUT, THEY'RE GOOD
AT A LOT OF THINGS.
>> WE TRAIN NAVY ANIMALS TO DO
SIMPLE THINGS UNDER
EXTRAORDINARY CICUMSTANCES.
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.
>> JOHN: YEAH, DOLPHINS ARE
NATURAL HUNTERS, BUT DON'T
NATURALLY HUNT FOR EXPLOSIVES.
TYPICALLY THEY HUNT FOR MACKEREL
OR SQUID OR A SCIENTIST WHO'LL
JERK THEM OFF.
I DON'T HAVE TIME TO GET INTO IT
RIGHT NOW, JUST GOOGLE IT
YOURSELVES.
BUT ACCORDING TO ONE EXPERT --
ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW WHAT?
I'LL JUST TELL YOU QUICKLY.
IN THE 1960S, THIS WOMAN,
MARGARET LOVATT, TRIED TO TEACH
A DOLPHIN TO SPEAK ENGLISH, AND
THOUGHT THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT
WAS TO LIVE WITH A DOLPHIN 24
HOURS A DAY, BUT HER LESSONS
KEPT GETTING DERAILED BY THE
DOLPHIN'S SEXUAL URGES, AND HER
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, WE'VE PUT
THEM TO WORK.
WE BROUGHT A TEAM OF FIVE
DOLPHINS TO VIETNAM "TO GUARD AN
AMMUNITION PIER", BECAUSE THAT
WAR DIDN'T HAVE "ENOUGH" GOING
ON.
IN THE RUNUP TO THE FIRST GULF
WAR, A TEAM OF SIX DOLPHINS
"PATROLLED THE HARBOR IN BAHRAIN
AND ESCORTED KUWAITI OIL TANKERS
THROUGH DANGEROUS WATERS."
AND DURING THE IRAQ WAR, A TEAM
OF DOLPHINS "HELPED DISARM MORE
THAN 100 ANTI-SHIP MINES AND
UNDERWATER BOOBY TRAPS" PLANTED
BY SADDAM'S FORCES.
MEANING, DOLPHINS HAVE
OBJECTIVELY DONE MORE FRONT LINE
MILITARY SERVICE THAN ANYONE
WITH THE LAST NAME TRUMP.
NOW, THE U.S. NAVY'S
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 RUMORS TO
THE CONTRARY ARISE FROM MEDIA
SPECULATION, THANKS IN PART TO A
POPULAR MOVIE IN 1973 WHICH
REINFORCED THOSE IDEAS.
SPECIFICALLY, THEY'RE TALKING
ABOUT THIS MOVIE:
>> UNWITTINGLY, HE HAD TRAINED A
DOLPHIN TO KILL THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES."
>> CAN YOU FIND BEA?
>> [DOLPHIN NOISES]
>> THE THING ON BEA'S BACK WILL
HURT MAN.
>> [DOLPHIN NOISES]
>> FA, STOP BEA NOW.
>> [DOLPHIN NOISES]
>> GEORGE C SCOTT IN A MIKE
NICHOLS FILM.
"THE DAY OF THE DOLPHIN."
>> JOHN: YES, YES, YES, 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'S 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
CAUSED BY 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 DID 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 MADE THE MOVIE "AS A
FAVOR TO ROMAN POLANSKI."
JUST IN CASE YOU THOUGHT THE
MOVIE COULDN'T GET ANY WEIRDER.
NOW, AT THIS POINT, YOU MIGHT
UNDERSTANDABLY BE WONDERING:
"WAIT, IF DOLPHINS DON'T CARRY
MINES TO ENEMY SHIPS, THEN WHY'S
THE U-S GOVERNMENT BEING ASKED
ABOUT IRANIAN KAMIKAZE
DOLPHINS?"
GOOD QUESTION.
WELL, THE U-S 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
THESE 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 STRAIT OF
HORMUZ.
WHICH IS A BIT RUDE.
BUT EVEN IF TRUE, IRAN MAY'VE
GOTTEN NEW DOLPHINS FROM RUSSIA
SINCE THEN, GIVEN IT'S
REPORTEDLY REVIVED ITS KILLER
DOLPHIN PROGRAM.
OH, AND ONE MORE THING: A FEW
YEARS AGO, HAMAS APPARENTLY
CLAIMED ISRAEL HAD A DOLPHIN
WEAPONS PROGRAM TOO -- LEADING
TO THE HEADLINE IN THE JERUSALEM
POST: "KILLER ZIONIST DOLPHINS?
HAMAS CLAIMS THEY EXIST."
AND THAT HEADLINE'S A MINEFIELD
EVEN THE BEST TRAINED MILITARY
DOLPHIN COULDN'T NAVIGATE.
ANYWAY.
I THINK WE'VE ALL HEARD MORE
ABOUT BOMB DOLPHINS THIS WEEK
THAN WE THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO
ON MONDAY.
WHICH BRINGS US BACK TO THE IRAN
WAR.
BECAUSE WHO KNOWS WHAT'S COMING
NEXT?
WE'RE TAPING THIS ON SATURDAY,
AS THE U.S. -- RESPONSE BUT NOW
BOTH SIDES HAVE RESUMED
ATTACKING EACH OTHER.
AND TRUMP'S EVEN FLOATED THE
IDEA OF RESUMING PROJECT FREEDOM
IF NO DEAL IS REACHED, THOUGH IN
HIS "SCREAMING NEXT TO A
HELICOPTER" TIME ON FRIDAY, HE
ADDED A TWIST:
>> WE MAY GO BACK TO PROJECT
FREEDOM IF THINGS DON'T HAPPEN —
BUT IT'LL BE PROJECT FREEDOM
PLUS, MEANING PROJECT FREEDOM
PLUS OTHER THINGS.
>> JOHN: LOOK -- I THINK IT'S
PRETTY CLEAR, THIS GUY'S GOT
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
BECAUSE "PROJECT FREEDOM PLUS"
IS THE MOST RIDICULOUS SERIES OF
WORDS I'VE SEEN THIS WEEK, AND
I'LL REMIND YOU: TONIGHT, YOU'VE
REPEATEDLY HEARD THE PHRASE,
"UNWITTINGLY, HE HAD TRAINED A
DOLPHIN TO KILL THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES."
AND NOW, THIS.
[CHEERING AND APPLAUSE]
>> Announcer: AND NOW PEOPLE
ON TV ARE NOT EXCITED ABOUT
"STAR WARS" DAY.
>> MAY THE 4TH BE WITH YOU.
>> TODAY IS MAY THE 4TH.
ARE YOU A "STAR WARS" PERSON?
>> NO.
>> I'VE NEVER SEEN "STAR WARS".
>> IT'S A CLASSIC.
>> BABY YODA.
>> WHILE THAT'S ENOUGH ABOUT
"STAR WARS".
>> THIS ANNUAL DAY IS VERY
IMPORTANT TO MY OLDER BROTHERS
AND SOME OF THE OTHER
"STAR WARS" FANS.
SOME PEOPLE CALL THEM NERDS BUT
THEY CALL THEMSELVES FANS.
>> I WILL BE HONEST WITH YOU
GUYS.
MY STEPDAD USED TO MAKE US WATCH
"STAR WARS" AS PUNISHMENT.
IF WE GOT IN TROUBLE, IT WAS NOT
MY THING.
IF HE GOT IN TROUBLE --
>> HE LIKED IT.
>> HE WAS OBSESSED.
>> I'M JUST GOING TO STAY RIGHT
HERE, HELLO, NICE TO MEET YOU.
>> I NEVER GOT INTO IT.
>> YOU NEVER WATCHED A CIVIL
"STAR WARS"?
>> NO I DIDN'T.
>> IT'S TRENDING AGAIN TODAY.
>> MAY THE 4TH BE WITH YOU.
>> THERE YOU GO, DEVYN.
THERE YOU GO.
>> JOHN: MOVING ON.
OUR MAIN STORY TONIGHT CONCERNS
THE SUPREME COURT.
IT'S BEEN IN THE NEWS A LOT
LATELY, 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",
AND YOU'LL NEVER GUESS WHO THEY
RULED IN FAVOR OF.
BUT I ACTUALLY WANT TO TALK
ABOUT A PATTERN YOU MAY'VE
NOTICED RECENTLY.
BASICALLY, TRUMP COMES OUT WITH
A NEW EXECUTIVE ORDER OR ACTION,
A BUNCH OF LEGAL SCHOLARS 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 TO STOP," THEN
THIS HAPPENS:
>> IT 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 MASS LAYOFFS.
>> JOHN: RIGHT.
THE COURT'S BEEN REPEATEDLY
JUMPING IN TO ONGOING CASES TO
SAY: "YOU KNOW WHAT?
WHILE THIS WORKS ITS WAY THROUGH
THE COURTS, TRUMP SHOULD GET TO
DO THE THING HE WANTS TO DO
ANYWAY.
IT'S BASICALLY A FOOTBALL
REFEREE SAYING, "PENDING A FINAL
RULING ON THE LEGALITY OF THE
QUARTERBACK HAVING A GUN, I'M
JUST GONNA STAND BACK AND SEE
WHERE HE'S GOING WITH THIS."
AND THAT'S 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, OFTEN 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 TO
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 APPLY IT TO
SIMILAR CASES GOING FORWARD.
>> JOHN: YEAH, THAT'S VERY
BASICALLY IT.
ALTHOUGH, ONE SMALL THING THERE:
SAYING, "WHEN YOU THINK OF A
SUPREME COURT CASE, YOU'RE
THINKING OF THE MERITS 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
ELLE WOODS ARGUE A CASE IN FRONT
OF IT.
COME ON - THE BEST PART OF THE
FIRST MOVIE'S 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 FRONT OF THE HIGHEST COURT
IN THE LAND?
THAT'S MADNESS.
ANYWAY.
THAT'S ALWAYS WHAT I'M THINKING
OF WHEN I THINK OF A SUPREME
COURT CASE -- THE ONE I'M
EVENTUALLY 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'S IN A HURRY,
AND THEY THINK THE SUPREME
COURT'S GOING TO BE EXTRA
FRIENDLY TO THEM FOR SOME
REASON, THEN THE SHADOW DOCKET
OFFERS A MUCH SPEEDIER WAY TO
GET YOUR CASE THERE.
BASICALLY, ANY LITIGANT IN A
FEDERAL CASE 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.
AND THAT TERM, "IRREPARABLE
HARM" IS IMPORTANT, BECAUSE IT
SETS A VERY HIGH BAR.
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 HE'S
-- THE PERSON'S LAWYERS ARE
SAYING, "LISTEN, THIS -- 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 PROBLEM, RIGHT?"
>> JOHN: RIGHT.
ONCE SOMEONE'S EXECUTED, IT IS
GENERALLY TOO LATE TO DO
ANYTHING ABOUT IT, 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 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 FAVOR 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 FIRST TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION.
AND HERE'S JUST EIGHT MONTHS
INTO HIS SECOND TERM.
IT'S BEING USED IN RECORD
NUMBERS.
>> JOHN: YEAH.
TRUMP KEEPS CLAIMING HE NEEDS AN
EMERGENCY RULING, AND THE COURT
KEEPS AGREEING WITH HIM.
THAT CHART'S 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 WALLS OF THE WHITE HOUSE, TO
USE OF THE PHRASE "WHEN IT
HAPPENS."
AND THIS STRATEGY IS PAYING OFF,
AS IN THE LAST YEAR ALONE, THE
COURT'S ISSUED DECISIONS VIA THE
SHADOW DOCKET THAT 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'S EMPOWERED SOME OF
TRUMP'S WORST POLICIES, TO THE
POINT IT'S NOW BECOME HIS GO-TO
METHOD TO GET HIS WAY.
ONE FORMER SOLICITOR GENERAL HAS
EVEN SAID OF THE DOCKET THAT
IT'S "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'S SAID SHE
PREFERS "EMERGENCY DOCKET", AND
BRETT KAVANAUGH REPORTEDLY
PUSHED FOR CALLING IT THE
"INTERIM DOCKET."
SAMUEL ALITO ACTUALLY GAVE A
WHOLE LECTURE TO NOTRE DAME LAW
STUDENTS ABOUT HOW MISUNDERSTOOD
THE DOCKET IS.
AND FUN FACT: HIS LECTURE WASN'T
SUPPOSED TO BE RECORDED, BUT WE
GOT THE AUDIO OF IT.
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 SAID, WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE
TRYING TO DO?
WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO HIDE IN
THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT?
LET THE SUNSHINE IN, AND THAT'S
EXACTLY WHAT I'M GOING TO TRY TO
DO THIS AFTERNOON.
>> JOHN: OKAY, SET ASIDE THE BAD
FAITH CLAIM OF SAYING "LET THE
SUN SHINE IN" DURING A LECTURE
AT AN EXCLUSIVE LAW SCHOOL THAT
YOU'VE EXPLICITLY ASKED NOT TO
BE RECORDED.
ALITO ARGUED THAT DAY THERE'S
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH
DECIDING CASES ON THE SHADOW
DOCKET, 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 THINK IT SHOULD'VE BEEN
GRANTED.
IF THEY WANT TO CRITICIZE 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.
>> JOHN: OKAY, SAMUEL.
BUT YOU CAN NOT LIKE A DECISION
AND ALSO NOT LIKE HOW IT CAME
ABOUT.
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 THE 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'S NOT UNREASONABLE TO
HAVE COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE SHADOW
DOCKET'S PROCESS, GIVEN THE
DAMAGE SOME OF THESE RULINGS
HAVE DONE.
BECAUSE IN MANY CASES, IT'S SURE
SEEMED LIKE THE COURT'S
INTERVENTION CAUSED A LOT MORE
"IRREPARABLE HARM" TO PEOPLE
THAN TRUMP WOULD'VE 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 EXPLAINS.
>> IT'S GOING TO BE DEVASTATING,
SHOULD THAT OCCUR.
I WILL LOSE THIS 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 HEALTHCARE, THE BENEFITS
ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, THE
ON-POST HOUSING THAT WE HAVE.
JUST -- WE'LL LOSE EVERYTHING AT
THAT POINT.
>> JOHN: YEAH.
AND WHEN ONE PARTY IN A CASE
STANDS TO "LOSE EVERYTHING"
WHILE THE OTHER WILL JUST "HAVE
THE EXACT SAME MILITARY HE DID
YESTERDAY" IT SEEMS CLEAR WHICH
PARTY WOULD NEED "EMERGENCY
RELIEF" BEFORE THE CASE WAS
DECIDED ON ITS MERITS.
BUT TO BE FAIR, I'M NOT A
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE...
I JUST OCCASIONALLY TRY TO 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 ON THE MERITS, AND
THEN YOU'RE CONSIDERING OTHER
FACTORS TOO.
>> JOHN: YEAH, IT'S JUST A "FOR
NOW" DECISION, 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'VE BEEN TAKEN AWAY FROM
HER IN THE FIRST PLACE.
BUT THAT'S JUST THE BEGINNING OF
THE PROBLEMS HERE.
BECAUSE JUSTICES ARE ALSO
FREQUENTLY MAKING SWEEPING
DECISIONS WITHOUT FULLY
UNDERSTANDING A WHOLE CASE.
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 "NOEM VS.
VASQUEZ PERDOMO".
IT INVOLVED IMMIGRATION RAIDS IN
LA, WHERE FEDERAL OFFICIALS
CONCEDED THEY WERE USING RACE
AND ETHNICITY AS A FACTOR IN
DECIDING WHO TO STOP.
WHICH IS, AND 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 THEY COULD PROCEED.
AND IN A RARE MOVE, BRETT
KAVANAUGH ACTUALLY WROTE A BRIEF
EXPLANATION OF WHY HE'D REACHED
THAT CONCLUSION, SAYING
IMMIGRATION 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'S BULLSHIT FOR A BUNCH
OF REASONS.
FIRST, THE NOTION THAT ANY
INTERACTION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
IS "TYPICALLY BRIEF" IS
SOMETHING ONLY A WHITE GUY NAMED
BRETT WOULD CONFIDENTLY ASSERT.
BUT ALSO, THAT'S NOT EVEN WHAT
THE DETAILS OF THE CASE HE WAS
RULING ON SHOWED.
AS JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR POINTED OUT
IN HER DISSENT, TWO PLAINTIFFS
IN THE CASE HAD ACTUALLY TRIED
TO EXPLAIN THAT THEY WERE U.S.
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 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?
>> AND IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE I WAS
BORN.
I BELONG HERE.
I AM US CITIZEN.
>> AND THIS UBER DRIVER.
>> I CAN HEAR YOU DON'T HAVE THE
SAME ACCENT AS ME.
THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING YOU.
>> WHAT?
OH, SO YOU'RE GOING BY ACCENTS
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.
>> JOHN: YEAH, I BET YOU'RE NOT.
AND LOOK: I'M NOT SAYING THEY
SHOULD'VE DONE IT, BUT IT'D AT
LEAST BE A CHANGE OF PACE IF THE
FEDS IN MINNEAPOLIS HAD DONE
SOME THROWBACK ANTI-EUROPEAN
RACISM, TOO.
Y'KNOW -- SIGNS IN DINER WINDOWS
SAYING THINGS LIKE "NO SPAGHETTI
EATERS," AND WATER FOUNTAINS
READING "SWEDES ONLY".
JUST TO BALANCE THINGS OUT.
BUT THE FACT YOU CAN NOW BE
TARGETED FOR JUST SPEAKING WITH
AN ACCENT HAS GIVEN RISE TO SOME
TRULY STRIKING EXCHANGES:
>> WE'RE US MILITARY.
>> YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED!
I DON'T CARE!
>> WHAT COUNTRY ARE YOU FROM?
>> YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED!
>> WHAT COUNTRY ARE YOU FROM?
>> I'M FROM THIS COUNTRY!
>> YOU KNOW WHAT SIR, NOW
TALKING TO YOU, SEEING --
HEARING THAT YOU HAVE AN ACCENT,
I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT
YOU ARE NOT BORN OF THIS
COUNTRY.
>> SO, YOU'RE JUST
[INAUDIBLE]
>> DO YOU HAVE DOCUMENTATION?
>> I DO HAVE MY DOCUMENTATION.
>> CAN YOU PRESENT IT TO ME,
PLEASE?
>> WHY ARE YOU ASKING ME FOR MY
PAPERWORK?
>> BECAUSE OF YOUR ACCENT.
>> YOU HAVE AN ACCENT TOO!
>> WHERE WERE YOU BORN, SIR?
>> WHERE WERE YOU BORN AT?
>> PUT YOUR HANDS BEHIND YOUR
BACK.
>> JOHN: THAT'S MADNESS.
NO ONE SHOULD EVER BE ARRESTED
FOR SPEAKING IN AN ACCENT,
UNLESS OF COURSE, THAT PERSON IS
CHET HANKS.
BUT EVEN THEN, I THINK WE CAN
PROBABLY JUST LET HIM TALK IT
DOWN TO A LARGE FINE.
NOW, IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT
THANKS TO KAVANAUGH'S OPINION,
WHAT YOU JUST SAW IS 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 HE 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-COURT JUDGES
ON HOW TO ANALYZE SIMILAR CASES.
THAT'S A PRACTICE SAMUEL ALITO
HAS STRONGLY DEFENDED, SAYING
"WHEN WE ISSUE AN 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 WORK 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
PROCESSES ARE STILL BEING SHAPED
AND SORTED OUT.
>> JOHN: OKAY, FIRST AND LEAST
IMPORTANTLY, I'M FRANKLY FURIOUS
THAT I'M ONLY JUST LEARNING THAT
THE SUPREME COURT APPARENTLY HAS
A TURTLE THEME.
THAT'S NOW MY SECOND FAVORITE
FACT ABOUT TURTLES, JUST BELOW
"SOME TURTLES BREATHE THROUGH
THEIR BUTT."
YET MORE PROOF 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 DO
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 EXPLANATION, BECAUSE IT
"MAKES IT SEEM LIKE THEY DID
SHODDY WORK AND ARE BIASED
AGAINST TRUMP."
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 SHADOW 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 TREATING A 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."
AND IT'S 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'S "ALWAYS" BEEN.
KEEP YOUR BELT ON!
NO, NOT LIKE THAT, TIE IT AROUND
YOUR HEAD LIKE QUAILMAN!
FROM NICKELODEON'S DOUG!
IT'S NOT THAT COMPLICATED!"
YOU ARE NOT FREE TO DEFY ME!
ALL THIS CONFUSION IS
UNDERSTANDABLY FRUSTRATING TO
LOWER COURT JUDGES WHO'D BE MORE
THAN HAPPY TO DEFER TO THE
SUPREME COURT IF IT'D JUST TELL
THEM WHAT THE FUCK THEY'RE
DEFERRING TO.
HERE'S 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 COMES AND SAYS, WELL, WE
DIDN'T REALLY SAY THAT BECAUSE
WE DIDN'T GIVE ANY REASONING
BEHIND IT.
PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND IT.
AND TO 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.
>> JOHN: EXACTLY, JUDGES WOULD
BE HAPPY TO FOLLOW DIRECTIONS IF
THE COURT JUST GAVE THEM SOME.
IF YOU BOUGHT A URFENSLORP
BOOKCASE FROM IKEA AND THE
INSTRUCTIONS WERE JUST THE
LITTLE GUY SHRUGGING AND
POINTING AT A BOOKCASE, YOU'D BE
JUSTIFIABLY PISSED.
GET OFF YOUR ABSTRACT SWEDISH
ASS AND GIVE ME SOME DIRECTIONS,
THAT'S THE ONLY REASON YOU'RE
HERE.
BUT MAYBE WHAT'LL 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'S PRESIDENT AT
THE TIME.
FOR INSTANCE, THE BIDEN
ADMINISTRATION BROUGHT FAR FEWER
CASES TO THE SHADOW DOCKET, AND
WON JUST OVER HALF THE TIME, BUT
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION --
WHICH USES IT FAR, FAR MORE --
PREVAILS 84 PERCENT OF THE TIME.
AND LOOK: MAYBE THE JUSTICES
HAVE NUANCED REASONING FOR
VOTING HOW THEY DID, BUT IF THEY
DO, THEY'RE NOT SAYING SO.
AND THAT'S A BIG PROBLEM.
AND I KNOW, FOR TRUMP
SUPPORTERS, ALL OF THIS MAY BE
GRATIFYING IN THE SHORT TERM.
BUT AS THIS LAW PROFESSOR
EXPLAINS, OVER THE LONG TERM,
THIS APPROACH POSES 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
PAGES OF ANALYSIS FROM LOWER
COURT JUDGES AND PROVIDING NO
EXPLANATION OF ITS OWN, I THINK
IT'S 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
THEY DID.
>> JOHN: EXACTLY.
MY SON IS RIGHT.
QUICK SIDE NOTE: 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'S REALLY NO LIMIT TO WHAT
THEY CAN DO."
WHICH IS NOT GOOD.
SO, WHAT DO 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 RULING 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'S JUST THE BEGINNING.
SIGNIFICANT SUPREME COURT
REFORMS HAVE TO BE ON THE TABLE
NOW.
AND I KNOW 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 -— THAT'S SEIZING POWER
FROM CONGRESS.
AND MAYBE IT'S TIME FOR CONGRESS
TO START TAKING A LITTLE POWER
BACK.
AND I KNOW THE COURT ITSELF WILL
OBJECT TO THE IDEA IT'S A
POLITICAL BODY.
JUST THIS WEEK, CHIEF JUSTICE
JOHN ROBERTS WHINED THAT "PEOPLE
THINK WE'RE MAKING 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
PATRONIZING ABOUT JUSTICES
CHOOSING TO ISSUE UNEXPLAINED
RULINGS IN THE MIDDLE OF NIGHT,
ONLY POPPING THEIR HEADS OUT FOR
FAWNING INTERVIEWS WHEN THEY'VE
GOT A SHITTY BOOK TO SELL, AND
THEN SCOLDING US FOR NOT
UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S GOING ON
INSIDE THEIR GORGEOUS, PRISTINE
MINDS.
AND LOOK, AS WE'VE 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 SOME WILL SAY NO
SUBSTANTIVE COURT REFORM IS
LIKELY TO HAPPEN DURING THIS
ADMINISTRATION, WHICH IS
OBVIOUSLY TRUE.
BUT IT'S 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
-- AND 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 REFORM 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'VE 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 IT ALL
WORKED OUT.
THE POINT IS, WE HAVE TWO AND A
HALF YEARS BETWEEN NOW AND THE
NEXT ELECTION TO LAY THE
GROUNDWORK FOR CHANGE.
AND I'D ARGUE 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.
>> Announcer: AND NOW FOR
MOTHER'S DAY, JUST LEAVE MOM THE
FUCK ALONE.
>> IT IS MOTHER'S DAY WEEKEND, A
TIME WHERE WE TRY TO GIVE CREDIT
WHERE CREDIT IS DUE AND SO
LIBERATE OUR MOTHERS.
MOST PEOPLE GET THEIR MOTHERS
CARDS, MAYBE FLOWERS AND SOME
GOODIES, YOU CAN EVEN TAKE HER
FOR A SUNDAY MORNING.
>> ANOTHER GOOD ONE IS TO BE
LEFT ALONE!
>> THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION
WHAT WILL MOMS GET ON SUNDAY?
>> REST, RELAXATION.
BE LEFT ALONE.
AND WHAT WE APPRECIATE THE MOST
IS ALONE TIME.
>> I'M JUST SAYING.
>> PEACE AND QUIET.
>> MAYBE HE WILL GIVE ME SOME
PEACE AND QUIET, FINALLY.
>> OKAY.
WE WILL SEE.
>> YOU PROBABLY DON'T HAVE A
CLUE WHAT'S GOING ON AND THAT'S
A GOOD THING.
>> I HAVE A CLUE, I TOLD HIM
LEAVE ME ALONE, LET ME SLEEP IN
BED AND LET ME RELAX.
>> I WANT SLEEP IN PEACE AND
QUIET.
>> I SAY EVERY YEAR, MY HUSBAND
KNOWS TO LEAVE ME ALONE.
THAT'S ALL I WANT.
>> I'M DOWN TO DO A BREAKFAST OR
A LUNCH AND THEN LEAVE ME ALONE.
>> SHE WANTS A HOTEL ROOM AND TO
BE LEFT ALONE.
>> JUST LET MOM STAY IN BED AND
THAT MAY DO IT.
>> JUST SLIP A NOTE UNDER THE
DOOR.
>> I LIKE AND BANK CARDS OR
ANYTHING SENTIMENTAL BECAUSE IT
PUTS THOUGHT AND IT AND IT IS
SWEET.
AND LEAVE ME ALONE.
>> John: THAT IS OUR SHOW,
THINK IS SO MUCH FOR WATCHING,
SEE YOU NEXT WEEK, GOOD NIGHT!
[CHEERING AND APPLAUSE]
[SNORING]