Supreme Agony

6/29/18 - After a week of upheaval in legal doctrine, the Supreme Court issued another shocking decision: Justice Anthony Kennedy is stepping down. Legal writer (and icon) Dahlia Lithwick explains why Kennedy has never been a centrist, reviews some of the landmark cases Kennedy decided, and previews the likely jurisprudence to come. (Hint: it’s about as scary as you think.) A small silver lining: progressive Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won her Congressional primary thanks to grassroots support. Plus, we're working on our protest signs and fundraising with friends.

Transcript below.

Listen on Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Overcast | Pocket Casts | Spotify.

---

---

CREDITS

Producer: Gina Delvac

Hosts: Aminatou Sow & Ann Friedman

Theme song: Call Your Girlfriend by Robyn

Composer: Carolyn Pennypacker Riggs

Visual Creative Director: Kenesha Sneed

Merch Director: Caroline Knowles

Editorial Assistant: Laura Bertocci

Ad sales: Midroll

LINKS

Dahlia Lithwick on the “fan fic” that Kennedy was a moderate

If all goes well in November, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be the youngest woman ever elected to Congress.

Flippable / Indivisible / Sister District / Run for Something / Swing Left

---

---

TRANSCRIPT: Supreme Agony

[Ads]

(0:55)

Aminatou: Welcome to Call Your Girlfriend.

Ann: A podcast for long-distance besties everywhere.

Aminatou: I'm Aminatou Sow.

Ann: And I'm Ann Friedman. On this week's agenda we process the horrors that is the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy and his mixed record plus we talk to Dahlia Lithwick about how we got here and what the future of the Supreme Court looks like. And as always we implore you to vote, donate, get out to the midterm elections.

[Theme Song]

(1:50)

Aminatou: Hey Ann Friedman! How's it going?

Ann: Ugh.

Aminatou: Yeah. That's fair. That's fair.

Ann: I feel like we should give some of the backstory about this week's episode which is that we were going to record something that was kind of lighter and more fun because we needed a break from the news and then we had a technical malfunction so we had to pause. And then during the pause Justice Kennedy retired so we're back.

Aminatou: Literally during the pause Justice Kennedy retired. And, you know, that's kind of set in motion this fight over the future of the Supreme Court and it's giving y'alls terrible president a chance to put another very conservative person on the court and really put a conservative stamp on the American legal system for generations really. [Laughs] I don't know why I'm laughing because I'm honestly depressed and dejected about this.

Ann: I'm someone who also has that impulse sometimes where I laugh when something horrible happens or I find myself grinning when there's bad news just because I don't know what it is. Like when my body doesn't compute an emotion or the depth of an emotion it just reaches into the grab bag and I'm like why am I laughing?

Aminatou: I know. I think sometimes the laugh is a weird spin on a cry, you know?

Ann: Yeah.

Aminatou: Where just all of it feels bad. Well, so anyway Justice Kennedy is only 81 years old which in justice years he owed us at least nine more years to be fair.

Ann: Right.

Aminatou: You know, he is a conservative but he's been a very critical swing vote for some of the super-polarized issues, namely gay rights, abortion, the death penalty. And in those issues he's voted with us on voting rights, on gun control measures . . .

Ann: On unions, on racial discrimination.

Aminatou: Right. Campaign spending by corporations he has been on the wrong side of history. But nonetheless this is very, very, very troubling.

(4:00)

Ann: Yeah. And I feel like it's sort of hard to talk about how devastating this decision was without also talking about a lot of the Supreme Court decisions that are coming down during this term, namely the fact that this court has upheld Trump's Muslim travel ban, the case is called Trump v. Hawaii, and basically the conservatives on the court were like "Yeah, sure, this started as a racially or religiously motivated law but they can justify it for national security reasons so we're cool with it." Basically it sets it up so this administration can do anything it wants that's on its face discriminatory as long as they find some kind of back-end justification that isn't we're horrible bigots. That is essentially what the majority, which Justice Kennedy joined, had to say about that.

Aminatou: [Sighs]

Ann: We will link to Sotomayor's dissent which actually quotes Trump's tweets in proving that actually no, this is totally motivated by discrimination and she actually said "The full record paints a harrowing picture." Which yes, thank you for grasping the magnitude of the situation. [Sighs]

Aminatou: I just . . . you know, this is one of those things where you're like yes, elections have consequences and this is a huge consequence of that. This president has the chance to appoint at least three Supreme Court justices and that would swing the court very, very, very, very much to the right.

Ann: Yeah. Maybe this is a good opportunity to kick it over to Dahlia Lithwick who is Slate's jurisprudence correspondent currently working on a book so was supposed to be taking some chill time but alas there is no chill time during this presidency.

(6:00)

Aminatou: I know. A legal icon.

Ann: Legal icon Dahlia Lithwick. I talked to her last night, the dark night of many of our souls, and I apologize in advance for my interview questions because they're basically just like "Dahlia, what do we do?" I'm just like crying and screaming on the phone. And she has some I don't want to say it's tough love because her job is reality. She has some tough realities for us all to absorb.

[Interview Starts]

Ann: Dahlia thank you so much for making the time to talk with us today.

Dahlia: Of course.

Ann: Okay, I don't really know . . . I was thinking about what a first question for you would be but is it appropriate to panic is what I'm feeling right now. I feel like I need to ask you as an expert.

Dahlia: I mean I think in my sober moments today I thought A) we knew he was going. We thought he was going last year. We kind of suspected he would -- I mean this was not a huge surprise. It was not like unexpected. And B) I think this is actually important. He did nothing to help the court's liberal wing this year. In other words if he had just handed down a really complicated parsing of the travel ban that gave real credit to the arguments on the side of the refugees and the migrants I would be the first person to be panicking. But I think it's pretty clear, and I think the data supports this, that in every single 5-4 case this year he voted with the court's conservatives. He just came off a two-day stretch where he voted in horrifying 5-4 splits to kneecap public sector unions, to uphold Donald Trump's unbelievably damaging travel ban, and to really I think profoundly harm women in California by doing away with a kind of truth in advertising law around crisis pregnancy centers. So in some ways it's less horrifying only because I think he really has made clear that to the extent that we ever thought of him as gettable or as someone on the fence or we like to pretend he's this swing voter who goes one way or the other that that was never statistically true. He was a very conservative justice who occasionally in important cases tacked less.

(8:35)

But I think this term he made it really clear that if he was going to pick a side it was not going to be on the side of progressive values. And so to that extent, you know, it's bad because there are a lot of doctrines that are now in trouble. But we are not losing a Sandra Day O'Connor. We are not losing a David Souter. We are losing somebody who almost unerringly voted with the conservative block and this term unerringly voted with the conservative block.

Ann: I hate to say that makes me feel better because it doesn't in the grand sense. So essentially this narrative that he was the fulcrum or whatever, some kind of spirit balancing voice on the court, was that just a pack of lies? Or has his role shifted considerably in recent years? Was it ever fair to characterize him that way?

Dahlia: I don't think so. I think I wrote about this a little bit just in the hours after he stepped down on Wednesday and I said there's a famous study that Richard Posner did a few years ago. He's a judge on the seventh circuit. He was a judge on the seventh circuit. He was at the University of Chicago. And he did this pretty I think persuasive study of every single jurist who has been appointed to the Supreme Court in the last 100 years, so since the FDR era.

(10:05)

One of the alarming things that he found is at the time -- this I think was published a few years ago before Justice Scalia died -- but he said four of the most conservative justices to be appointed in the last four years were sitting on the court, and Anthony Kennedy was ranked tenth. So he was the tenth most conservative person to be on the court since the New Deal. And I think it helps give some perspective to the extent to which this was a really, really conservative person who kind of took over that mantle of swing justice when Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down. She was I think authentically a swing justice. I mean I think she was somebody who was very much in play. You couldn't predict her votes. I think she was certainly appointed by Reagan but she tended to vote with the liberal wing on campaign finance and reproductive rights and issue after issue -- religious freedom. Time and time again she voted with the liberals.

Kennedy wasn't that. Kennedy, he was more of a tourist to the left. [Laughter] He overwhelmingly voted with the court on don't forget Citizens United, on Bush v. Gore, on Heller, the gun case, on Shelby County, the case that ended the Voting Rights Act for all intents and purposes. So this was not somebody who was a centrist. This was somebody who was very much a conservative Republican and on some very important -- and I don't want to downplay those issues including notably, you know, gay rights and gay marriage and [0:11:51] and in Lawrence v. Texas before that in preserving the core holding in Casey and then again in Whole Women's Health. In some really important criminal issues about cruel and unusual punishment, executing juveniles, affirmative action.

(12:10)

So there were places where he would swing away from that rock-ribbed Republican predictable vote and vote with the liberals. That will be a grievous loss. But I don't think it's fair to say that this is somebody who was in play. You know, you couldn't tell what he was going to do. He was pretty consistently Republican. And again as I said if that was ever in doubt that was certainly proven this term where in every 5-4 case he voted with the conservatives. He never tacked left. He just gave the president more or less a blank check to do whatever he wants to as long as it's deemed national security. You know, voted in a horrifying case to permanently damage I think the funding mechanism for public sector unions.

So I think to call him somebody who was at the center is to really misconceive what the center is. It's a better I think analysis to say is John Roberts now will become the center of the court and again he is one of the most conservative jurists we've seen in modern history. So it tells you more about what the center is than it tells you about Anthony Kennedy.

Ann: Okay, now I'm depressed again.

Dahlia: Sorry, sorry.

Ann: [Laughs] No, listen, you're not here to make me feel better. You're here to tell me what's happening. So given everything you've just said about the reality of the role that Justice Kennedy played is it sort of the best-case scenario to think okay, it's going to be someone no matter what who's extremely conservative but the best we can hope is they tack left in a few key ways? Or at least on one or two issues. Or how are you kind of thinking about the best-case scenario for who could fill that seat? Or what should we be hoping for?

(14:00)

Dahlia: Yeah. And sorry, I'm going to make you sad again. I'm not sure there's a best-case scenario. Donald Trump ran for election with a list of people that he promised -- the one thing he promised was they would every one of them overturn Roe. Now at one level that's just fanciful and silly. He doesn't have blood oaths from them. But he certainly promised that that would be his litmus test. Then he put forward a list and he as of November last year, November of 2017, we had a list of 25 people and apparently he is convinced -- and I have no reason to doubt him -- every single one of those people is gunning for Roe.

Now if you look at that list it's a really fascinating list. It's produced largely by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. This is not what I thought which is Trump being like "Hmm, should I go with Omarosa?" Or, you know, Judge Jeanine? Like he really farmed this out to competent interest groups who have been thinking about this for decades and there are people by the way on the list, I think the youngest person is 37.

Ann: Oh my god.

Dahlia: So you're going to see people who serve for life. But I think he is pretty confident and certainly the voters who put him into office are pretty confident that because he has pledged to pick someone from that list these are vetted by the Republican establishment. And I think the one other thing I might say is that there's been a war cry in the kind of conservative legal movement that goes basically no more Souters. Like we will never tolerate another David Souter. Don't forget David Souter, nominated by a Republican, gets on the court and leaves the court one of the most liberal members of the court. The same is true of John Paul Stevens. So there is a feeling I think among Republicans that they get worked. They put up people and they drift to the left.

(16:10)

And one of the reasons that Harriet Miers as you may remember, when George W. Bush wanted her to come on the court, it wasn't liberals who blocked her; it was movement conservatives who said "No, she might drift." And so there is, to the extent that there is a real litmus test for who gets vetted and who gets put up, it's people who aren't going to move. And Democrats rightly or wrongly don't have that kind of laser focus. If anybody is moderate as Elena Kagan, if anybody is moderate as Stephen Breyer comes on the court we will hobble them from ever being nominated. There just isn't that sense of toeing the line.

And so I think it's that sort of line when somebody shows you who they are, believe them. I think he showed you the list. He has promised that there are two or one rock-ribbed Republicans who are not going to drift to the left and I think that it's fanciful to think that John Roberts will drift to the left. And so I think it's probably very safe to say that we are going to see someone like Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. That's what's been promised and held out. I think that's what we are going to get put before us.

Ann: Okay, I'm absorbing that. [Laughs]

Dahlia: I know. I know.

Ann: I mean I know it but also to hear it laid out is like, you know, those are two different things. And also I think there's something going on with this news coming this week on the heels of so many as you rightly pointed out devastating decisions to those of us who care about justice and equality that made this feel different than maybe it would have on another week or at a different moment. I don't know if you felt that way.

(18:00)

Dahlia: No. I mean I think most of us were gasping for air after the travel ban decision came down then again the public sector unions decision. It really did feel as though, you know, that was and I think will be one of the most consequential decisions of our generation in terms of all but ending the force and power of public sector unions and arguably all unions in the future. These are staggering cases and they come in the wake of just a raft of really devastating decisions on voting rights. I mean I don't think we ever have had a term that is worse on voting, is worse on mandatory arbitration agreements. It's just nothing good has happened. And so I think you're quite right. I for one, when the term ended and it was only that we'd ended public sector unions and casually overturned a 40-year-old precedent to do so, I was like okay, well at least we can regroup and organize. And then a few hours later to have the news that the seat that was at least theoretically in some capacity capable of moving on occasion was going to be given to another Neil Gorsuch, no, it's gob-smacking and it's almost that feeling that you have just generally at this moment that things can't get harder. They can't get worse.

Remember only three days trying to just integrate what was happening at the border and thinking about these 2,000 children who might never be reunified. That was almost beyond one's capacity to take in. And then here we are just a few days later and it's . . . I mean we're looking at I think possibly decades of kind of Lochner style regulations that are going to make it impossible for anybody but plutocrats to survive in America. It is chilling. And you're right it's almost too hard to take in. I mean people can be absolutely forgiven for just giving up and getting a mani-pedi and finding some way to take this in and breathe. It's a lot.

(20:30)

Ann: Okay, for those of us who like to strategize over our mani-pedis or whatever it is that relaxes us I'm curious if, you know, this is just a multi-decade electoral politics game at this point wherein the courts are like that's just going to be how it is. We should all accept it. We should accept nothing but the kinds of decisions we've seen this term. That is what it is. We're now working on kind of our producer Gina Delvac likes to say geologic time instead of the current news cycle. Is that where your head is? Is that where my head should be?

Dahlia: I mean a couple of things. I think, you know, and this is where I'm going to sound grumpy but I'm going to say it, I think progressives completely and utterly failed in 2016 to message around the courts, to talk about the courts, to support Merrick Garland who by the way would not have voted with the conservatives in this raft of really horrendous cases in the last couple of weeks. There were Republican senators in senate races who were openly promising that if Hillary Clinton won the presidency they would keep that seat open -- the Scalia seat as they called it -- for eight years. They messaged it. They sold it. They promised it. They had no shame and we can see that, you know, Mitch McConnell walking around with pictures of himself and Gorsuch and this stolen seat which he crows about as his greatest accomplishment. And the response from Democrats really both in the Senate and the House and I think at some level even the White House was just to be like wow, I sure hope someone cares about the court in 2016. And we didn't. We didn't. And by every exit poll I've seen by almost a two-to-one margin people who prioritized the court voted for Donald Trump.

(22:25)

And he would say at his rallies -- he would say "You have no choice but to vote for me because I'm going to give you the court." And he did it. And so I think the real lesson, and this isn't to say all the third-party voters and all the people who stayed home or said they weren't inspired by Hillary are to blame for this, but I think we're all to blame because we completely and utterly failed to communicate that there was an open court seat, that it would have been a generation-long shift to take a Scalia seat and give it to a Democrat. Oh, and by the way we had an 83-year-old, an 80-year-old, and a 78-year-old also on the court. And the complete feeding of that discussion and conversation to Republicans is kind of what came home to roost.

So I think Mitch McConnell stole a seat. We didn't squawk. They put up Neil Gorsuch. Progressives sort of said "Well, that was a shocking and harrowing crime scene to have that seat stolen but oh well," and you know, proceeded to allow Gorsuch to be seated. And now we're in a situation where I think that unless Democrats realize that -- and by the way Republicans have a 40-year jump around organizing around the court and messaging around the court. But I think unless Democrats figure out some way to figure out the court as the single most dispositive, determinative issue whether you care about workers rights or the environment or women's rights or LGBTQ rights or the rights of immigrants and how they're treated, whatever it is, there's a straight line between that and the courts. And the abject failure to think about that in 2016 got us here.

(24:25)

And so I think we now have four months to get to the November elections and try to figure out how to get people who care about all the things that the court has dismembered in the last few weeks and months to be energized around that. And, you know, I don't know how to say it better than there is no doubt in my mind that whoever replaces Anthony Kennedy is going to spell out the end of Roe v. Wade. Now it can happen any number of ways but it can happen. And that means that any woman who is thinking about reproductive freedom or even I would say contraception because that's the new target, and who isn't organizing around the November elections, I think is just really, really going to put us back in the situation we were in in 2016 where we voted without fully reckoning with the ways in which not just the Supreme Court but Donald Trump took the Oval Office with 150-some federal lifetime judicial seats which he is filling at record breakneck pace. So I think to just understand that the Senate matters and it profoundly matters and the fact that Mitch McConnell essentially stole a seat from Barack Obama really matters, and to try to figure out what it's going to look like to respond to that, I think that is the work right now.

(26:00)

And I don't know what it looks like. I'm not a political organizer. But I think as a journalist I can say that to just give away a second seat because we didn't quite know what we wanted to say about it would be really, really I think the death knell of so many of the legal doctrines that exist to protect the poor and to protect minorities and to protect women and to protect the disabled. So I just can't convey how high the stakes are and if this could wake us up to the reality that the courts matter almost more than anything then I think we have to wake up and figure out what that looks like.

Ann: Dahlia thank you so much for sharing this rallying cry/hard news/important news and for spending a little time with me tonight. I know you're in the midst of it so I really appreciate it.

Dahlia: Thank you for having me.

[Interview Ends]

Aminatou: Well that does not make me feel better.

Ann: Yeah, elections have consequences it turns out. And the thing that she said about essentially conservatives making the court of paramount importance while progressives have not done the same is really going to stick with me for a long time. You know, all of those people, all of the "But her emails" type people, the inability of the left to kind of say actually at the end of the day courts are super, super important and affect all of these issues, like her point is well-taken. And I'm just like how is this -- maybe this will change going into the future but it's . . .

Aminatou: Not in our lifetimes, you know what I'm saying?

Ann: Not the -- right, the attitude I guess I meant. The attitude's going to change. Not the court make-up but the attitude might change as a result of this. I don't . . .

Aminatou: Yeah. These Supremes be living like 100 years.

Ann: Ugh.

[Music and Ads]

(31:05)

Aminatou: Well, you know, we did get some good news this week. Let's not, you know, just be depressed and wallow all the time. But . . .

Ann: Hit me.

Aminatou: Here in the great state of New York we've had some women win some pretty incredible races, some Democratic primaries. So namely Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won her primary against a man who has been Democratic establishment forever and it's very heartening. She's 28 years old and she wiped the floor with him.

(31:48)

Ann: The video of her I'm seeing that she won the first time, or at least the video the Internet labeled her seeing that she won for the first time . . .

Aminatou: Yeah, it's like she saw how big the gap was.

Ann: Right, and it's truly . . . I watched it on loop as a soul-soothing mechanism so many times this week.

Aminatou: Yeah.

Ann: Because she is the future. She is exactly what the Democratic Party should be celebrating and elevating and being like "Yes, yes, yes. This is where our resources are going."

Aminatou: I know. Well she beat Joe Crowley who's like number four Democrat and everybody thought was going to -- you know, he's going to replace Nancy Pelosi. And the thing that's been really shitty about it is how you can tell that the Democratic establishment is not happy. Like Pelosi in her statement, like the statement was 100 words praising Joe Crowley and what a great politician he'd been then eight words of congratulations to Miss Ocasio-Cortez. And it's like uh? You people do not get it. You certainly don't get it. She didn't get any support from Emily's List, you know, which is . . .

Ann: Or coverage in any major media. I mean there was a lot of commentary on the day of her victory about how the New York Times was like "Oh, who is she?" Like he didn't show up to debate her. He sent a surrogate. No one took her seriously except clearly the voters.

Aminatou: Right. And here's the thing: not seeing her coming is the equivalent of not seeing Trump coming when he came. It's so unfortunate how all of these forces really collide to suppress these super-progressive messages, you know, between the media and establishment, Democrats and all that stuff. But I'm super excited that she won. She was like a bartender not too long ago. And it's cool to see so many working-class people getting into politics and truly saying like "we can do this" and also "we're going to wipe the floor with these people who have been here forever and are doing politics as usual." Politics as usual cannot work when we're literally at war for our souls.

(33:55)

Ann: Right. And I think too this idea that, you know, she and candidates like her also reflect who has historically been the Democratic Party's core voting base, like why shouldn't your representatives demographically and politically reflect the people who are reliably voting for your party? Like yes, finally, let's get that into alignment. And I think that is another reason this is so hopeful because I'm like all right, how many of these victories have to happen without your support before you get onboard and say like "Huh, the people whose votes we've relied on historically would also make really great politicians and governing members of our party."

Aminatou: Right. And part of the story in the 14th district of New York that is exciting is this is -- like Joe Crowley had not been primaried in I don't know, like 14 years? Never faced any kind of contender. And in order for the primary to happen the opposing campaign had to put her name on the ballot and that took thousands of names. So people, the ground game is working. That made me feel . . . it made me feel that even the fact that they were having an election at all, a primary at all, meant that things were moving in the right direction and that people were paying attention. And so all that needs to happen is we need to keep this energy all over the country and that seems exhausting.

Ann: It does but I think -- I mean there's a few things. We've talked a lot about some of the organizations that are doing the work of identifying candidates like the exact type of base core women, women of color, people whose views actually align with ours, not just people who are kind of hanging out in Congress for decades and decades. A lot of people are doing the work of identifying those candidates and also doing the work of identifying candidates in districts that maybe the party establishment has not identified as flippable or gettable. And I think that that for me is a comfort, right? Like I don't have to research every promising district and state-level candidate in Virginia, in Arizona, in Nevada, in New York, wherever, places I don't live. I can through one of these organizations donate to them and they distribute it or I can kind of read profiles.

(36:18)

I mean we've had the Sister District folks on the podcast before but they do a great job of saying "Okay, you are in Los Angeles. We've assigned you these three races. Really get invested in, you know, Katie Muth in Virginia. Give her your dollars. These are her views. And, you know, one of the things about -- I know we talked to Amanda Litman at Run For Something. A lot of the people who in the wake of 2016 were like there has to be a better pipeline have identified it. Like it's there and we'll link to these places. But being able to do and plan fundraisers with your community for candidates that are either in your backyard or further away who you really believe in and want to see elected as part of this new wave, that is where my heart and head is because, you know, there's nothing I can do about the court right now.

Aminatou: I know. You're so right. I just signed up to start volunteering with Indivisible and I -- no joke -- I'm thinking about joining Democratic Socialists so we'll see.

Ann: Oh my god, what? I can't believe you're telling . . .

Aminatou: I know. I'm doing my research right now. I want to know if it's a viable option for me and how I feel about it. It seems very broey but there are a lot of women I respect in DSA so I'm going to do my research. So it is -- like this is how serious I've gotten.

Ann: Wow, are you joining Rose Emoji Twitter?

Aminatou: I'm joining Rose Emoji Twitter. If Rose Emoji Twitter is where freedom is I'm going there. [Laughter]

(37:55)

Ann: I'm just teasing you.

Aminatou: I know but this is how serious it is where I'm just like ugh, you know I'm not a joiner but you've got to be a joiner in these times.

Ann: Oh, completely. It's funny. So I have a running text thread with a few other friends who also enjoy savory cocktails. Like a really -- talk about the proliferating joys of the group chat, right? You can have a dedicated group chat for literally anything.

Aminatou: Anything you want.

Ann: And a few weeks ago I sent them a photo of an amazing savory cocktail I was enjoying and then there was a whole back-and-forth about all the savory cocktail experimentation we've been doing in our own ktichens. Then it did not take long for someone to be like "Are we actually going to plan a savory cocktail fundraiser?" And everyone was like "Ha ha, yes, totally." Then the thread died. And when I saw the news yesterday I went immediately back to that thread and was like "When are we planning this fundraiser? How are we doing it for candidates we want to see elected?"

Aminatou: I know.

Ann: And so all of that is to say okay, this is how I'm going to marry some very necessary activism with weird other hobbies and friends I want to hang out with.

Aminatou: Use all the tools in the toolbox. All the tools in the toolbox.

Ann: Indeed.

Aminatou: The thing that's exciting about it though is you're right, a lot of these groups have identified candidates that are awesome. I'm thinking about a congressional candidate in Texas, MJ Hegar. You should watch her ad, it's so bad-ass and it's great and I hope that she wins also.

Ann: Totally. And I think too that checking into states where you have a personal connection, like maybe it's somewhere that you went to school but you don't live there anymore, like using that as your kind of point of entry to finding out who's running and investing in them. Or where you grew up if you don't live there anymore, or where someone you love lives. You know, thinking about the places that you have an investment in and you want to find candidates to support beyond just your district I think could be really, really powerful.

(40:00)

Aminatou: Especially if you live in a very blue area and, you know, you always traditionally felt like your vote didn't matter because everybody around you was going to vote the right way. It's a good time to adopt a district.

Ann: Yeah, totally. And also to like, you know, to really reconsider who you're supporting locally too. I mean a lot of those historically blue districts including California and New York, that's why this Joe Crowley race is the perfect example, because he was in a solidly blue district and I'm sure there were a lot of people who were part of the establishment who were like "Cool, cool, we'll autopilot with this guy." And it's actually no, we can reconsider who we're electing even in firmly blue districts and we can push for candidates who like I said match the base better.

Aminatou: Totally. Totally, totally, totally. Okay. I'm definitely depressed about a lot of things and a lot of things are going to be bad but as we already established on this podcast, you know, you've got to do the political equivalent of gym, tan, laundry. So Ann, what is the political equivalent of GTL?

Ann: Donate, protest, midterms. Donate, protest, midterm elections.

Aminatou: Rinse, repeat. Rinse, repeat. [Laughs]

Ann: Yes. You know you want to. You know you can. Yeah, and like I said it does not have to be, you know, teeth-grittingly horrible. It does not have to be a grind. And yeah, I think it's definitely a long road but honestly nothing feels worse to me. Like when the Kennedy news broke and I was in the middle of a workday so I found myself just immediately sucked into the Twitter despair cyclone. It really took me a minute to be like okay, actually at a certain point I am not educating myself about what this means; I am just screaming into the void with a bunch of other people. I have to turn this off and think about what I'm going to do and that's the only way out of the despair.

(42:00)

Aminatou: Yeah, that's fair. That's fair. You've got to keep moving. Got to keep moving.

Ann: Okay, well . . . [Laughs] I don't even know how to end this other than you're right. You're right.

Aminatou: I don't -- yeah.

Ann: Vote, protest, midterms and . . .

Aminatou: Right, and see you this weekend at the protest right?

Ann: Oh my god, 100%.

Aminatou: For reuniting families. You've got to be there.

Ann: Oh totally. That was one of the things that I did when I shut off Twitter. I was like I'm going to work on my sign for the march on Saturday. I thought about doing "An asylee is my bestie on one side." [Laughter]

Aminatou: Yay! That's me!

Ann: I know, I know. But I'm, you know, I didn't want to call you out without running it by you but . . .

Aminatou: No, please, I'm so vain of course I want to be on a protest sign. Please.

Ann: I mean, yes, maybe also because I'm crafty I'm like I love a protest sign. This is a good way to work out some feelings.

Aminatou: It's true. Man, it's just . . . everything is a lot right now but you know what? One of the things that was really interesting in the RBG documentary that is still in theaters that you should still catch.

Ann: Hey, hey.

Aminatou: Take your mom, take your sister, take your bestie, it's great. But one of the points that she makes is protests really influences court decisions because it gives them a barometer of where the people are at. And so this -- like watching that and then going into this new season of protests that we're all going into makes me feel good. It's like actually we do it for the catharsis but we also do it because we want our legislators and our Supreme Court justices and whatever to pay attention. It's like this rage is real and this is where the people's minds are at.

(43:50)

Ann: Totally. And if you are not someone who likes to be in crowds or for whatever reason is not able or not, you know, the type to protest in the streets I think that it's also okay to take action on this issue in other ways. To donate to organizations that are working on the border, to figure out what kinds of resources they need and help direct them there, to throw your money and energy into organizing on behalf of a candidate. I think the point is not there's only one way to do this, or especially on an issue like family separation. Like protest is great and it's important and I think if you can be there. But if you can't do it your own way. Like this is something you can truly make your own. And also do it with some accountability buddies. Do it with some friends.

Aminatou: Okay. I like this. Action, action, action. I've got to go work on my sign because I think I need to retire "We gave you hummus, have some respect." This is a serious march so . . .

Ann: I feel like you need like a "You don't deserve this asylee, bitch." America does not deserve you.

Aminatou: No, you know what? That's going to be the sign. It's like you are so lucky I stepped off that plane, bitch.

Ann: I know.

Aminatou: Please. Please.

Ann: Yeah, so we'll have to do like twinning signs with "America does not deserve my bestie/you don't deserve me America. I am here."

Aminatou: Ugh.

Ann: "I am here as a benefit to you."

Aminatou: America is whiling. But, you know, we're all in this together so hang in there. We promise the show will be lighter next week even though the country will not be. But, you know, get out this Saturday and support all the immigrants in your life. It's important.

Ann: Oh my god, completely. All right boo-boo, I will see you in the streets.

Aminatou: Bye boo. You can find us many places on the Internet, on our website callyourgirlfriend.com, you can download it anywhere you listen to your favorite podcasts, or on Apple Podcasts where we would love it if you left us a review. You can email us at callyrgf@gmail.com. We're on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook at @callyrgf. You can subscribe to our monthly newsletter The Bleed on the Call Your Girlfriend website. You can even leave us a short and sweet voicemail at 714-681-2943. That's 714-681-CYGF. Our theme song is by Robyn, all original music is composed by Carolyn Pennypacker Riggs, our logos are by Kenesha Sneed, and this podcast is produced by Gina Delvac. That's right, they lucky I stepped off that plane. Fuck this shit. [Laughs]