Jurisdiction Stripping (feat. Elie Mystal)

追加: 2026-05-14

[00:00:00]MSW Media.

[00:00:13]Daily Beans. Daily Beans.

[00:00:17]Daily Beans. Daily Beans.

[00:00:23]>> Hello and welcome to the Daily Beans for Wednesday, May 13, 2026. Today, the Department of Homeland Security is closing alligator Aquatraz, citing costs. Trump's complaints about leaks regarding the Iran war has prompted aggressive investigations into journalists by the Justice Department. A federal grand jury has subpoenaed New York University's hospital system for the healthcare records of transgender minors. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee have released a report showing how Epstein's sweetheart deal allowed him to expand his sex trafficking operation. The lone Democratic FCC commissioner tells Disney that the agency is out to censor them over disfavored speech and the 11th Circuit has denied Trump's request to rehear on bonk his frivolous lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and 40 others that resulted in $1 million in sanctions for Trump and Alina Haba. Allison's out today. I'm your host Dana Goldberg.

[00:01:20]Hey everybody. Allison had a train issue, trains, planes, trains, and automobiles. So, she's out today and I've got her covered because that's what we do for each other. So, it is it's court reform week on the beans. Now, yesterday we had a congressman that was talking about his resolution for a constitutional amendment to add term limits to the Supreme Court. And today, Allison is going to be talking to the author of Bad Law and Allow Me to Retor.

[00:01:46]That's Ellie Mestall and his plan to expand the court through legislation and why it may be easier than term limits with senior status. And everyone, it is official. Two days ago, we told you Trump was thinking about firing FDA Chair Marty uh is it Mackery? I think it's Mackery. And today, he's gone. That didn't take long at all. Now, surely to be replaced by someone absolutely [ __ ] awful. So, we're going to keep you posted on that because whenever he fires someone, he finds the next best thing, which is usually a horrible person. Also, the Missouri Supreme Court has upheld the new Republican map, giving them an additional seat. Man, this is frustrating. While we're trying to follow the rules, they're just pushing these maps through. The push for South Carolina, by the way, that one actually failed in the state senate.

[00:02:33]Republicans actually are questioning the map. Republicans question the map. and arguments in the NAACP lawsuit against Tennessee redistricting. Those are going to be held on May 21st. Now, we're going down to Florida. Florida intends to shut down the Everglades concentration camp that we know they call Alligator Alcatraz. Officials told vendors there that Tuesday afternoon that the detainees would be moved from the facility in June and that the center would be dismantled over the next few weeks. Now, the facility is costing Florida hundreds of millions of dollars to operate. And the private vendors, they just can't afford this cost anymore. So, it's shuttering its doors, which is wonderful. That thing is not set up to house people anyway, and not in any humane way cuz that's not why it was even developed. All right, those are a little bit of the quick hits. So, let's get to the big news. Let's hit the hot notes.

[00:03:23]>> Hot notes.

[00:03:25]First up from the Guardian, Democrats tore into the government's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein abuse scandal on Tuesday, revealing new details of the scale of his international sex trafficking ring, and they're warning Donald Trump not to grant a presidential pardon to Gayen Maxwell. several survivors of Epstein's abuse. They also gave tearful testimony at a congressional field hearing that was held in Florida and and of just other experiences as teenagers in the orbit of Epstein. Some spoke about being retraumatized after they were outed by the Justice Department's just utter failure to redact their names from the so-called Epstein files. Democratic members of the US House Oversight Committee said that they held Tuesday's event in Palm Beach where the president lives and where Epstein had a residence because it was basically the scene of the crime. And I quote, "We're here because so much of this investigation brings us back to this location." That's California Democrat Robert Garcia, and he is the ranking member of the oversight committee. That's what he told at a press conference after the hearing.

[00:04:30]And there's another quote. But we know that the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and Gaelen Maxwell, the horrible things that happened to so many women and girls totaling 1,200 1,200, it could have been stopped and halted. Garcia began the hearing by unveiling a new report called quote the price of nonprosecution that he said revealed how Epstein was able to build a substantial and lucrative international sex trafficking ring following that infamous sweetheart deal with the Florida prosecutors in 2008 after dodging serious charges and serving only 13 months in prison for a solicitation of prostitution conviction.

[00:05:09]He said Epstein and his associates they gained the US immigration system to obtain visas to traffic women into the country from overseas. He says our report uses evidence obtained by our investigation including and most importantly bank records that show how prosecutor Alex Aosta's sweetheart deal let Epstein build a global network using enablers to bring in women who he could then exploit and abuse. One survivor, Danny Benky, testified how she was groomed and recruited into Epstein circle and how victims were encouraged to recruit friends of their own. She said, "I had two recruiters. One was a late teen and the other was only 15 years old, just trying to escape from her own abuse. Multiple others, they were recruited from Trump's Mara Lago Club, allegedly during the many years of friendship between the now president and Ebstein. One survivor who happens to be a model and identified herself as Rosa said that she was ret-raumatized by finding her name unredacted hundreds of times in the documents that the Justice Department had released. She said my name was exposed to the world. New reporters from across the globe were contacting me. I cannot live without looking over my shoulder. I can only imagine the long-term impact this mistake in quotes will have on my life.

[00:06:29]Democrats said they looked forward to the testimony of Pam Bondi. As we know, that's Trump's former attorney general, at a House oversight hearing on May 29th, looking into the government's handling of the files and the wider scandal. Now, I don't know if that one's going to be under oath. They're still trying to figure out if it's going to be recorded, how it's going to be done, what they're going to release to the general public, and I I have no doubt that she's going to stonewall this investigation and this hearing. I just I don't think she's going to be honest about anything. I don't think she'll answer anything. So, we'll keep you up to date as as the story continues to unfold. Next up from the Wall Street Journal, President Trump privately complained to acting attorney general Todd Blanch about media leaks in the wake of the Iran war last month, and that's according to the administration officials that are familiar with this matter, prompting an aggressive push at the Justice Department to pursue those investigations. Blanch vowed to secure subpoenas, specifically targeting the records of reporters who have worked on sensitive national security stories.

[00:07:26]This is from one official. In one meeting, Trump passed a stack of news articles that he and other senior officials thought threatened national security to Blanch with a sticky note on it that said treason. Another administration officials had said that senior Justice Department officials have met with counterparts from the Pentagon to discuss the investigations and that's according to officials familiar with all of these meetings. Now, in particular, Trump has focused his eye on articles that provided details on how he arrived at his decision to even launch this [ __ ] war and what his advisers had told him as he deliberated.

[00:08:01]Launched 10 weeks ago, 10 weeks ago, this conflict is now stuck in a really [ __ ] up ceasefire like cycle that's not getting fixed. And this is a quote.

[00:08:11]In all circumstances, the Department of Justice follows the facts and applies the law to identify those committing crimes against the United States.

[00:08:20]That was a department spokeswoman. A White House official referred a request for comment to the Justice Department.

[00:08:25]Of course, we have not heard back on that. So, they're just going after people that are actually telling the truth because this war and it is a war, an illegal war, has been bought so badly and they don't have an off-ramp. Now they're going to distract and go after people that are actually reporting that.

[00:08:40]It's such [ __ ] Okay, this next one is also from the Journal. Federal Communications Commissioner Anna Gomez told Josh Diamaro, and Josh is the chief executive at Disney that the network's parent company that ABC has been a victim of a, and I quote, sustained coordinated campaign of censorship and control by the Trump administration. The FCC under Republican chairman Brendan Carr has been weaponized to pressure a free and independent press and all media into submission. This is from Gomez.

[00:09:10]It's what Gomez wrote in a letter that was sent to Diamaro on Monday and viewed by the Wall Street Journal. The lone Democrat commissioner Gomez has been an outspoken critic of many of Carr's actions which she has alleged are aimed at pressuring broadcasters for political purposes. The letter to Diamaro comes in the wake of several investigations into Disney and ABC initiated by Cars FCC, including whether the talk show The View should continue to be granted certain exemptions as a news program. Well, Gomez told Diamaro that these investigations and incidents along with an FCC decision to reinstate a complaint at ABC's moderating of a 2024 debate, Jesus, between then candidate Donald Trump and opponent Kla Harris are, and I quote, not a series of coincidental regulatory actions. So, this is a good thing. I'm glad people are fighting back. We'll see what happens with this.

[00:10:06]This one's from the Times. This is This is actually [ __ ] pisses me off.

[00:10:10]Everyone, a major New York City hospital system said it had received a grand jury subpoena from a federal prosecutor in Texas. In Texas, demanding information about adolescence who received gender related medical care during the past 60 years. NYU Langon disclosed that it received the subpoena last week and was asked and I quote to provide information pertaining to patients under the age of 18 who received gender affirming care between 2020 and 2026. The subpoena also requested the names of NYU Langon medical staff members who provided the treatments between 2020 and 2026. The subpoena sets up a potential showdown between the Justice Department and one of Manhattan's leading medical institutions. The hospital said that it was weighing what to do next. In a notice on the website, NYU Lingone says that it was one of several institutions to receive grand jury subpoenas on May 7th from the US Attorney's Office in the Northern District of Texas. The location may prove significant. A federal judge in that district moved quickly to enforce an administrative subpoena that the Justice Department had issued in recent weeks to Rhode Island's hospital about an investigation into the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy.

[00:11:25]Now, a New York law requires NYU Langon to first notify the state attorney general before complying with the subpoena. The law also requires that that hospital to try to notify affected patients. The executive director of the Christopher Street Project, and that's a political action committee, a nonprofit that was started in response to Trump's transgender policies, expressed hope that the hospital and the Attorney General's office would fight the subpoena. In the past, the Office of New York's attorney general has encouraged NYU Langon to continue providing transition treatments to adolescence, even in the face of threats from the federal government. The attorney general's office has said that denying such treatment to trans youth could violate anti-discrimination laws. And I quote, "We won't allow anti-trans extremists to come into New York and steal our patient data and use it to investigate and criminalize trans kids and providers and their parents." That's from Tyler Hack and that is the executive director of the Christopher Street Project. So, this is going to be happening a lot everyone. We'll keep you updated as these stories come in. This one is actually from Raw Story. This next one, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has declined to rehear President Trump's lawsuit against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, and dozens of other defendants. Trump filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court of the Southern District of Florida, alleging that the defendants conspired to falsely claim his campaign had colluded with Russia during the 2016 election. Every invest of fuckingation has said that Russia interfered with our election. This isn't just people saying, "Oh, we think it happened." There was proof. The district court initially dismissed the lawsuit, by the way. Now, afterward, Trump and his then attorney, Alina Haba. They were hit with a million dollars in sanctions for filing frivolous claims and pleadings. Well, in November 2025, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the sanctions. and I quote, "Many of Trump's and Haba's legal arguments were indeed frivolous." This is from Chief Judge William Prior Jr.

[00:13:31]wrote in a unanimous panel. On Tuesday, the panel of judges said they were also refusing to rehear the case, which is wonderful. Here's the quote. The petition for reharing on bunk is denied.

[00:13:44]No judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be pulled on rehearing on bonk, the court's ruling said. And the petition for panel rehearing is also denied. So Trump's that this is done.

[00:14:00]The onbunk denial is significant because it means that no active judge on the full 11th circuit even requested a vote, none of them to rehear it, suggesting there was no appetite on the court to revisit the outcome. And listen, we get our wins where we can because there's so many other courts that are just doing a [ __ ] job in this country. So, we're still going to bring you the good news stories when we have them. All right, everyone. Those were the hot notes, the good, the bad, and the ugly. And of course, we're going to have our good news. But before that, we've got that interview with Allison Gil and Ellie Mestall. So, we'll be right back.

[00:14:37]>> I ended up trying Honey Love because I was frustrated with the shapewear and bras that felt like I had to compromise no matter what. Either they were supportive and uncomfortable or comfortable and not very useful. Honey Love was better than I expected because it felt wearable right away. The support is there, the fit feels smooth, and it does not spend the day slipping around.

[00:14:58]It has become one of those brands I would actually recommend to a friend because it fits real life. So, now you'll understand why we want to thank Honey Love for sponsoring our show. Use our exclusive link to save 20% off Honeylove at honeylove.com/dailybeans.

[00:15:14]What Honey Love does well is make the practical stuff feel much less dull. The Cloud Embrace Bra is a great example of that. It's a modern wireless t-shirt bra with lightly padded foam cups which gives you a smooth everyday look without the usual underwire situation. And it matters that Honey Love is a female founded brand because their product feels like they were actually designed around how people live and move. The shapewear stands out for the same reason. It was made to move with you instead of rolling down the second you sit or walk or try to enjoy your night.

[00:15:47]And the targeted compression, it works so well because it enhances your shape without making you feel squeezed, flattened, or restricted. Treat yourself to the most advanced bras and shapewear on the market. Use our exclusive link to save 20% off Honeylove at honeylove.com/dailybeans.

[00:16:04]That's honeylove.com/dailybeans.

[00:16:06]After you check out, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Experience the new standard in comfort and support with Honey Love.

[00:16:17]Wild Green is the first bake from Frozen subscription box for sourdough breads, artal pastries, fresh pasta, and it makes having high quality basics at home much easier. They use simple ingredients and a slow fermentation process that can be easier on your stomach and richer nutrients and antioxidants than most store-bought options. Everything bakes in 25 minutes or less with no thawing.

[00:16:40]And the boxes are fully customizable with variety, gluten-free, which I love, vegan, and new protein options. This episode of the Daily Beans is brought to you by Wild Grain. Check this deal out right now. Wild Grain is offering you $30 off your first box, plus free croissants in every box when you go to wildgrain.com/dailybeans to start your subscription. Or you can use promo code daily beans at checkout.

[00:17:04]Two wild grain products. I keep coming back to are the sourdough loaf and the croissants. I'm not always going grain-free. Now, the sourdough tastes great with bakery quality and the croissants, they are flaky and buttery.

[00:17:18]Honestly, really impressive for how easy they are to make. That convenience is a huge part of the appeal for me, especially because I travel so much.

[00:17:27]Wild grain also fits well with my health goals because the ingredients are simple and the slow fermentation process. It feels like a much better match for how I want to eat. Imagine having fresh bakery quality bread, pastries, and pasta at home without any trips to the store. And don't just take my word for it. They have over 40,000 five-star reviews and have been voted the best food subscription box by USA Today for three years in a row. For a limited time, Wild Green is offering our listeners $30 off your first box, plus free croissants for life when you go to wildgrain.com/dailybeans to start your subscription today. That's $30 off your first box and free quissants for life when you visit wildgrain.com/dailybeans.

[00:18:09]Or you can use promo code daily beans at checkout. Hey everybody, it's court reform week. Uh, and it's going to be court reform week for every week for the rest of my life, but it's court reform week here on the Daily Beans. Joining us today is justice correspondent for The Nation magazine, author of Allow Me to Retor. We've had him on the show before and he's got a new book out called Bad Law. Please welcome neutral good paladin Ellie Mestall. Hello my friend.

[00:18:34]>> How are you, Alison?

[00:18:36]>> I am feeling a little powerless and uh kind of shitty about what's going down this week, but you know, >> things are bad.

[00:18:42]>> Aside from the fascism, everything's okay. I should just get a shirt that says that. But >> right, aside from that, the play was great. Mrs. Lincoln like >> exactly.

[00:18:53]>> I won't talk about court reform, but let's start with the VRA because many many years ago when we had you on and we did our our little book club limited series on allow me to retort, you and I discussed the loopholes left in the reconstruction amendments that were big enough to park a truck in that would lead to and did lead to a century plus of backsliding into white supremacy. We saw John Roberts and the Virginia Supreme Court take full advantage of that this week. So, can I just get your topline thoughts because you were the first person who popped into my head when all this started going down this week.

[00:19:25]>> Oh, well, thank you. I like when people think about me um when everything goes to [ __ ] It's uh >> Yeah. So, let's start with the 15th Amendment, right? Let's start with the 14th and 15th Amendment. The Reconstruction Amendments. They're great. They're super important and they didn't mean a damn thing in real time, right? And that's because for an amendment to have force and effect, for an amendment to change the law, you need to actually have a law that enforces the amendments, right? Like I always like people to think about prohibition, right? The 18th amendment. Okay, we outlaw liquor. Man, ain't nobody go to jail because of the prohibition amendment. People went to jail because of the Volstead Act. It was the Volstead Act that enforced the 18th amendment.

[00:20:11]And it was that that way of enforcing the 18th amendment is what caused all of the problems with prohibition. I'm not saying prohibition was a good idea. I'm saying that the way that they enforced prohibition through the Volstead Act was the thing that we think about when we think of prohibition. So that is all to say an amendment has no meaning if it's not backed up with the law to support it. Now for the 14th amendment, they got a Civil Rights Act out, you know, by 1868. bang, right? It was literally the they argued that they needed to pass the 14th amendment so that they needed to ratify the 14th amendment so that the 1868 Civil Rights Act could be legal. It wasn't going to be legal without the 14th Amendment, right? The 15th Amendment, they didn't do [ __ ] They didn't pass [ __ ] They didn't legislate anything. Um they just let that lie, oh, you can't discriminate against people on a on a kind of race in voting. What does that mean? What does discriminate mean?

[00:21:10]What does on account of race mean? There was no legislation to explain that.

[00:21:17]>> And so obviously the former Confederacy of the South did everything they could to get around the 15th Amendment by saying, "No, no, we're not discriminating about race. We're discriminating about all these other things that we are allowed to do because there's no there's no law restricting us." And that didn't just happen in the South. It happened in a lot of places in the North, too. So that's why I say, and I've said this before, the Voting Rights Act of of 1965 is the single most important piece of legislation in American history.

[00:21:47]>> Because before 1965, we are functionally an apartheid state. We are functionally a country where people who are living here are forced to live apart literal segregation from the white population and are not allowed to participate in democratic self-government. After 1965, we have something approaching an imperfect and still racist and still white supremacist, but we have something approaching a representative democracy.

[00:22:16]The Voting Rights Act did that. Um, I ran the numbers after the Supreme Court killed it a couple weeks ago. Um, there were four uh, black Congress people in Congress in 1964.

[00:22:28]Fast forward after the Voting Rights Act to 1968 and that number has oh more than doubled to nine, right? Nine is not a great number. It's more than double what we had representationwise from before the Voting Rights Act. It more than doubles in just two congressional cycles. Now we have 67 black people in Congress and 56 Latinos in Congress. Right? So you can see the sea change there. Same thing happens with women, by the way, because the Voting Rights Act also enforced women's rights to votes. I always say the 19th Amendment meant nothing for black women until the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

[00:23:09]So, you look before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, there are 13 women in Congress. Today, there are 157.

[00:23:17]>> Yeah.

[00:23:17]>> The Voting Rights Act did that. And that is why white male ciseterero republicans hate it. They've hated it since its inception. They've tried very hard to get rid of it. John Roberts's entire legal career starts as a lawyer in the Reagan White House arguing against the Reagan expansion of the Voting Rights Act in 1960 in 1982. I mean, think about this, folks. The Voting Rights Act is so popular and so universal and think and thought of as such a pillar of American democracy that Ronald freaking Reagan was like, "Yeah, no, we got to we got to vote for that. We got to make that h Ronald Reagan." And in that office where Ronald Reagan is like, "Yes, we have to support black people voting." John Roberts is the guy that's like, "No, we don't. No, we don't. We should not." and he's made it his entire crusade to get rid of this pillar of American democracy and he finally succeeded a couple weeks ago. he finally succeeded um in Louisiana versus Cala where they destroyed what was you know Roberts already has taken big shots of the Voting Rights Act um in Shelby County uh vh holder in 2013 getting rid of section five which was the section that forced southern states to have their new congressional maps and new voting regulations approved by the federal government. He guts that in 2013. Um, I like to say you can draw a straight line between John Roberts gutting the Voting Rights Act in 2013 and Donald Trump winning uh the presidency in 2016. That is why that happened. If there had been a robust defense of the Voting Rights Act, I don't think Trump wins that election in 2016. And now, like a mobster with the double tap, Roberts comes back around last week or two weeks ago um and finishes the job and kills functionally kills section two of the Voting Rights Act. And the way that he does it is important, right? Because what the court is saying in Clay is essentially that the Voting Rights Act only affects only speaks to intentional discrimination.

[00:25:31]>> Intentional discrimination against black people's rights to vote, right? Well, what is intentional discrimination?

[00:25:39]According to Roberts and Alto and Gorsuch and all the rest of them, intentional discrimination is pretty much the person who draws the map writing on top of the map in, you know, a watermark, I hate negroes, so I drew this map.

[00:25:54]>> It's like their bribery ruling, right?

[00:25:56]Like you have to have a note that's saying, I'm bribing you for this, right?

[00:25:59]In order for it to be bribery. say that you're doing it for racism because what the court says is that you can't infer the racism from the impact of the map.

[00:26:11]Right? So if the map just happens to be racist to black people, who can say that that was racist? Maybe you were just trying to hurt Democrats. Maybe you were just trying to hurt people who go to church on Sundays. Who can say? But if but only if you say I drew this map because I hate black folks. That's the only way that the Voting Rights Act is allowed to operate. And obviously, I mean, racists are dumb, but they're not that dumb, right? They're they're rarely they rarely admit I mean, not every racist is Hulk Hogan with a can of spray paint, right? Like they rarely admit to doing what they're doing. And that's why this decision goes to the very essentially makes the Voting Rights Act nonfunctional because if you can't infer the racist intent, then guess what? you you're never going to be able to prove it because they're never going to admit to it.

[00:27:02]>> Well, and I think we've gotten probably one of the best examples in history of why we need the Voting Rights Act in the first place with what the Supreme Court's done over the past week. And we could start with I mean Alabama is again, I'm not surprised by anything that the Supreme Court does. But this was a map that the Supreme Court said they had to use until 2030, but they wanted to under what happened in Klay draw a brand new map. But the thing is is that back in December in Texas when they added their five seats and the Democrats sued, the Supreme Court said, "Sorry, Democrats. We can't go back to the old map. It's too late. The primaries are just around the corner.

[00:27:36]It's too late." But in Alabama, they said, "Sure, go ahead." Even though voting had already begun. And so obviously I'm not looking for any kind of consistency or with with this Supreme Court, but I I mean, how is it not first of all political when John Roberts said, "Well, court's not political. Please stop calling us political." But how can you say it's not racist when you see what happens in Alabama or in Memphis where they left white Democratic strongholds alone, but carve Memphis up, which is 63% black? I don't understand.

[00:28:07]I mean, I can't make it make sense. Not that anything that this court has done recently makes sense, but >> it makes perfect sense if you understand that this court is racist, >> right?

[00:28:16]>> I mean, like that a lot of times when I accuse the court of racism or when I accuse Trump official of racism or whatever, liberals, particularly like intellectual like high high functioning intellectual liberals act like the charge of racism is reductive. Oh, it's never that simple. It's actually not just racism. It's also egg prices. It's it's it's not just it's also this it's also that right they they they act like racism is reductive is too reductive of an answer for their kind of ivory tower beliefs. I don't think racism is a reductive answer. I think racism is very complicated. I think it's very complicated to think about how you end up being a person who writes racist laws or or approves racist decisions. like that's that there's a lot going on in your tiny small [ __ ] brain uh to get there, right? However, this is a situation where you can't explain what they're doing without the racism, right?

[00:29:18]It's it's it's kind of the uh it's a thing that I I got from John Marshall and talking points memo like five or years ago or whatever. Um it's the black he calls it the black hole theory of politics. If you think about a black hole, we can't see it. It's a black hole. Light doesn't escape. We can't see a black hole, but we know it's there because of the gravitational effects it has on everything else, right? You can't explain the orbits of all of these interstellar uh these stellar bodies without a black hole being there somewhere in the middle that you can't see.

[00:29:53]>> That's what racism is like for the Supreme Court. You can't actually explain their opinions. You can't explain why they do what they do without racism being at the beating core of it all. Right. So even though they don't admit it, even though they say, "Oh, I don't have a racist bone in my body."

[00:30:10]John, I can't make your decisions make sense without your racism. Neil, I can't make it all line up without your racism.

[00:30:18]But once I add the racism, everything falls into place. Once I add the fact that, oh, you just hate black folks.

[00:30:25]every other decision you make makes a ton of sense. So that's how you explain it Allison like the reason why it is you know the the PR just for your listeners the principle that we are both talking about the Supreme Court calls the PCEL principle the idea that you can't make changes to this time manner place structure of an election too close to the election and we've seen repeatedly where the court has said it is too close to an election to restore black voting rights >> but apparently it's never too late to take them way, >> right?

[00:30:59]>> And and you you can't explain that without understanding their resistance and antipathy towards black people exercising political power in what they think is a white country.

[00:31:12]>> Yeah. And you know, a lot of folks, myself included, are like, "All right, we got to win back the Congress. We got to win back the Senate. We got to kill the filibuster. We got to pass laws. We got to codify. We got to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. We got to pass HR1 We the People Act." But my first thought, thanks, you know, to reading your book, is everything, just like third base and Abbott and Castello, who's on first, everything goes to the Supreme Court at some point and they will gut the [ __ ] out of it. And so we can't have nice things until we get court reform. and reading everything that you've written in multiple areas of your books and in the magazine and stuff like that. There's been, you know, the first thing that uh you and I talked about was term limit senior status because you're like, look, you get a robe and a paycheck. It doesn't necessarily, the constitution doesn't guarantee you a vote for the rest of your life, just a robe and a paycheck.

[00:32:05]And that can be done through legislation, but also expanding the Supreme Court. Some people have said add get 13 seats in there, one for each circuit. Right? you've suggested more.

[00:32:15]We'll talk about that. I had yesterday Osheski on Representative O'esy who has wanted to also introduce a constitutional amendment for term limits because without the senior status thing, you can't have term limits, which is was what you had come up with before. So, talk about where you are with court reform and why it's 100% necessary if we ever want nice things again.

[00:32:34]>> Yeah, let's start with the why. The Supreme Court is the most powerful branch of government. And I know it's not supposed to be. It's supposed to be a co-equal branch of government, right?

[00:32:44]We're supposed to have checks and balances or whatever. But the reason why the Supreme Court is the most powerful branch of government is because the Supreme Court is the only branch that can veto the other two, right? You can have a law passed through the House, passed through the Senate, signed by the president, and five people on the Supreme Court say, "Yeah, I don't like that law." And just it's gone. It's just it's the you don't have the law anymore.

[00:33:08]Like what the is that? And what that is is power, raw political power. The Supreme Court is the most powerful branch of government. And so if you allow the most powerful branch of government to be controlled by five or six reactionary conservatives for the rest of your life, you get nothing.

[00:33:29]>> You get nothing. You have no Democratic agenda. You have no progressive agenda.

[00:33:35]You have no black agenda. You have no Latino agenda. You have no environmental agenda. You have no gun regulation agenda. You have nothing because any piece of legislation you pass, these six people can say, "No, I don't like it.

[00:33:51]Goodbye."

[00:33:52]>> And they do it regularly. That is not me pontificating. That is not meulating.

[00:34:00]That is me. That is me telling you what they've actually done in your lifetime in front of your faces. Right? Oh, you like campaign finance reform? Too bad.

[00:34:09]The Supreme Court doesn't like it and so you can't have it. Oh, you like gun regulations? Too bad. The Supreme Court doesn't like it, so you can't have it.

[00:34:17]>> Bribery, statutes, immunity. I mean, Anderson, it goes on and on and on, >> right? So, so you get nothing if you don't control the Supreme Court. How do you control the Supreme Court when they have a conservative supermajority in sconc with lifetime power? You expand the court. you add justices to the court. Not only is it the only way, it is the constitutionally preferred way.

[00:34:43]As we were talking about, term limits most likely require a constitutional amendment, >> right?

[00:34:50]>> Expanding the number of justices does not. That is simple legislation. it is actually easier to expand the number of justices on their court than it is to remove any of them because you have to go through the entire um constitutional process of impeachment to remove any of them and that as we know requires 66 votes in the Senate to get rid of just one of them whereas you can add them by a simple piece of legislation. So, you need it's harder to remove them and it's much harder to make them leave when they get too old because the Constitution doesn't like that either. But what the Constitution is silent about is expanding the court. The Constitution says in Article 3 that there shall be a Supreme Court. Great. Good job. And Congress shall decide all the courts will decide what that court looks like.

[00:35:39]Right? So that we have a Supreme Court is constitutionally mandated, but that we have this Supreme Court with these powers, with these number of people, that's all decided by Congress. And my final point to this is that we've changed the number of people on the Supreme Court a bunch of times.

[00:35:54]>> A bunch of times. You know, pop quiz.

[00:35:56]How many justices did we start out with at the founding? Was it nine? No. Wrong.

[00:36:01]It was six, right? We started with six.

[00:36:03]Adams took it down to five. Jefferson put it back at six. Then Jefferson on his way out the door put it at seven.

[00:36:08]Then Andrew Jackson comes in and says, "I hate that national banks. I hate Indians and the national bank." And he puts in two more justices that also hated Indians and the National Bank. So that's how we got to nine the first time. Abraham Lincoln shows up and the nine justice Supreme Court is like, "I don't think you should have as much power over this war, Mr. Lincoln." And Mr. Lincoln goes go jump in a freaking lake. He adds a 10th justice. So we were at 10 during the Civil War. Then Lincoln gets shot. Andrew Johnson takes over.

[00:36:37]People hate Andrew Johnson, so they don't want to give him that 10th justice. So, Congress pulls it back down to nine. And that was the 1869 Judiciary Act, and we have been at nine since then. But that's I just went through sevenish changes in the number of Supreme Court justices. That's happened in our history. That is the way it's been historically done. And that's why court expansion right now is the one, the only, and the constitutionally appropriate answer for a Supreme Court that has gotten too far ahead of its skis.

[00:37:10]>> And what does it look like? Like, let's say we get uh the House, we get the Senate, let's say we manage to kill the filibuster, and let's say we pass legislation, get a Democrat in the White House in 29, he signs it to add however many Supreme Court justices, and then they're sued, and it goes to the Supreme Court. What do you just get them in there real quick? Like, what is it? Do you pull them out like There there is no lawsuit there. Like it's there there's no standing for a lawsuit there. There's no argument that Congress can't change the number of justices whenever it wants.

[00:37:42]>> No, I know. I know there's no argument.

[00:37:44]There's no argument for immunity for the president either, but like >> Right. But this is the kind of situation where like the court said, "No, we don't want more justices on the Supreme Court." And you're like, "Well, my guys are showing up to work on Monday."

[00:37:55]>> You just do it.

[00:37:56]>> Fight them if you can. like you know without like liter I I I've made this argument before but like John Roberts can do a lot of things but he ain't John Claude Vanam I don't think John Roberts can throw hands right and so honestly you send your nine guys and what is John Roberts going to do lock the door >> right send the marshals >> it's it's a straight up like we here are our new justices they show up to work on Monday deal with it John >> right >> is how you is how you deal with that lawsuit you even If they try to say it's unconstitutional, there is nothing in the constitution that says the president or congress has to listen to them at that point because they are the ones that are acting at that point tyrannically >> and the justice department controls the marshalss and the you know president has the national guard and you >> I mean look I go back a long way with this. I was always like Barack Obama should just send Merrick Garland to work >> just send his ass to work. Like what are they again? What are they going to do? I don't think John Roberts can fight. Um, so yes, in in a Supreme Court expansion, see with term limits, >> you do have to remove >> get the Supreme Court to agree because you have to make them leave. Right.

[00:39:06]>> Right. And so if you want to have an 18-year term, you know, here are the two three justices that if you did 18-year term limits, here are the three justices that have served more than 18 years.

[00:39:17]John Roberts, Sanolo, and Clarence Thomas.

[00:39:19]>> Yeah. And in 2029, you can add Kagan and >> Sodomori.

[00:39:24]>> So door. Yeah.

[00:39:25]>> So how do you make them leave if they don't want to leave? I mean, there are ways, but those are >> adding people. They're just there.

[00:39:34]>> Those ways are not good looks, right?

[00:39:36]But adding people, they just show up to work on Monday.

[00:39:40]>> No, I love it. Before I let you go real quick, I think we got another minute here. Some folks have also floated jurisdiction stripping, and I'm wondering what that means. Like if you wanted to pass a voting rights act without changing the balance of the court, you could strip these these nine of their jurisdiction to do anything on voting rights act. But that would take another act of Congress and a president to sign it.

[00:39:58]>> Yeah, it would definitely take another act of Congress and and I I am a late adopter to jurisdiction stripping. So I have been on term limits um senior status and court expansion for almost a decade now, right?

[00:40:10]>> I'm late to the party on jurisdiction stripping. Um, I have been convinced by Harvard law professor Nick Buouie that this is the way to go. Let's put it like this. The word unconstitutional does not appear in the US Constitution.

[00:40:24]>> It's shocking to a lot of people. Does that word does not exist in the Constitution? The idea that the Supreme Court by itself can determine what is and is not constitutional is a power the Supreme Court gave to itself in 1803 in the case called Marberry v Madison. It wasn't from the founding. It wasn't in the federalist papers. That is something the Supreme Court invented.

[00:40:48]>> By the way, the case that Trump cited that said in his immunity thing that is the reason the court can't do what what he wants it to do.

[00:40:57]>> Exactly. Exactly right. So that's weird.

[00:41:00]It's a power that the Supreme Court gave to itself. And the other thing that I I have learned and I I now point out to people is that our court is weird in terms of having this power. Most other high courts in most other countries do not have the power to veto and act of the legislative bodies and the prime minister. That just that's just not a thing they do. I always like to say the British don't know the names of the people on their high court because they don't have to, right?

[00:41:30]>> Because the people on their high court do not get to make these high charged, high-powered political decisions. Most our our Supreme Court is incredibly overpowered on the world stage, right?

[00:41:43]So, this all leads to jurisdiction shipping and that I it's a legally jargony word, but it's a pretty simple idea. It's that Congress can write the law and then in the law say that our interpretation of the Constitution is thus and we are the final say on the interpretation of the unconstitution in this case. It's not justable.

[00:42:05]>> And so the Supreme Court has no right to judge the constitutional interpretation here because we Congress, we the representatives of the people have decided that this is constitutional >> and then the Supreme Court arguably can't rule on it. Now, the reason why I'm late to the jurisdiction stripping party is that I know what happens next.

[00:42:26]Right? This is a situation where Robert says, "Uh, interesting. Uh, no, it's still unconstitutional." Right? And what you then have is Congress saying this is the law and this is constitutional. And you have the Supreme Court saying that's not the law, it's unconstitutional. Well then depending on the law, what do people do with that information? Right?

[00:42:46]What do state governments do with that information? What do the police do with that information? And what you'd have, I think very quickly, is a situation where red states follow the Supreme Court ruling and blue states followed the congressional law. And you know, I just kind of explained how civil wars start.

[00:43:10]like kind of accidentally sort of kind of almost explain how you get an actual hot war when you have New York and New Jersey saying the law is one way and Texas and Florida saying the law is another way. Like, okay, if the president and Congress say this is the law and Texas and Florida aren't following the law because they have a Supreme Court opinion that they say is controlling, how do you make Texas and Florida follow the law? Do you do you send in armed people to make Texas and Florida fall? Right. And so you see what I'm saying? Like you you see how it can spin pretty to to pretty ugly places pretty quickly.

[00:43:53]>> Yeah.

[00:43:54]>> However, so that's why I was, you know, resistant or reluctant to adopt jurisdiction stripping as a real reform idea. Um but I've come around. I've come like I I don't I I I think we are I think the the moment that we are in requires more aggressive uh uh responses and and that is one of the most aggressive responses that one can think of. And of course it would work the other way. And so you can absolutely imagine Congress, this Congress and this president uh signing a law saying okay now no Latinos are citizens ever like just never. Right. And the Supreme Court saying that's unconstitutional and the Republicans saying jurisdiction like it it is a I always say it's a Pandora's box. It but it is certainly a door that swings both ways.

[00:44:43]>> Yeah. Always have to put the shoe on the other foot sometimes when you >> right >> when you think about these things. All right, my friend. I really appreciate you coming on today. And uh I could talk to you for at least another hour, but we you know, we've got other things to do this this fine afternoon, but I want you to tell everybody where they can find and follow you, get your information, and and uh make sure they catch up on all their reading about all these possibilities for court reform.

[00:45:04]>> So, I'm lenyc because I'm no longer really on the apartheid side um just for mental health reasons. Um, I also write every week for the nation and I have a newsletter, a weekly newsletter in the nation as well that you can check out. Um, where I talk about this kind of stuff and whatever video game I play.

[00:45:20]>> Amazing. Thank you so much, my neutral good paladin friend.

[00:45:26]>> Thank you so much for having me, Alison.

[00:45:28]>> I really appreciate you coming on. So, thank you very much everybody. Stick around. We'll be right back with the good news.

[00:45:34]>> All right, everyone. Welcome back. It's time for the good news.

[00:45:36]>> Who likes good news? Everyone then good news everyone.

[00:45:54]Good news.

[00:45:55]>> Okay, this is the good news. And as you know, just if you have any good news, we need it. Confessions, corrections, misheard lyrics, woopies, shout outs to yourself, people you love, any of that stuff [ __ ] kids say. Um, just just request for vibes, anything that you need. You can send your good news to dailybeansspod.com/good and just submit stuff. Make sure you attach your pod pet tar if you know it's a picture of of your kids, of animals, the baby, otter, anything that would make Allison and I happy, that can be your pod pet tax. We'll take it. All right, let's start with some good trouble.

[00:46:33]This is an update on delivering Mother's Day to the moms of Dilly from children's rights.org.

[00:46:39]And I quote, "We received over 3,000 letters, pictures, and messages of love for the mothers detained at Dilly, a Texas ICE detention center." 3,000. Your cards and messages will be published on May 13th and shared with the mothers at Dilly. Thank you for being part of the movement that refuses to look away from the suffering of children and the families and refuses to let them be forgotten. Now, related in this from the submitter, Miss Rachel shared the steps that you can take to help close Dilly Detention Center and end the family detention. Number one, you can sign the petition at change.org. And by the way, that petition now has over 290,000 signatures. We're going to have a link to it in the show notes. Number two, call your reps and senators. In the post, Miss Rachel shared a script that you can actually follow. Number three, if your representatives are supportive, publicly thank and tag them on social media. We've got an ad. Number four, if they are unsupportive or non-committal, tag them and shame them. Miss Rachel did not suggest that, by the way, but we here at the Daily Beans are. And there's going to be a link to Miss Rachel's Instagram post in the show notes. All of this is available. Let's This is This is 3,000 just incredible. Incredible. All right.

[00:47:52]Next submission. Good news is from Maggie, pronouns she and her. Hello ladies of the Lagoon. My submission is actually several good news items all rolled into one. A sister shout out, a double nonprofit shout out, a self shout out, and a built-in pod pet tariff.

[00:48:06]First, the sister shout out. Four years ago, when I took up distance cycling at age 53, my big sister Eliza became my loudest, most unwavering cheerleader. We live 1800 miles apart. I'm in San Francisco. She's in San Antonio. Yet, she shown up for me through every writing event with calls and text. She even flew to Santa Monica to meet me at the finish line at the 2013 AIDS Life Cycle, a 545m 7-day ride from San Francisco to LA. And by the way, Maggie, I've done that ride. Good for you. It is not easy. Not easy. Well done. All the while, Liza was quietly navigating her own enormous challenge. She had star disease. I hope I'm saying that right.

[00:48:49]Starart disease, a rare genetic eye disorder that has now affected her central vision so severely that she's legally blind. But instead of letting her diagnosis stop her, she's taken action. In 2021, she adopted a puppy and trained her as the service dog she knew she'd eventually need. Mia now holds the AKC K9 good citizen certification. She is the goodest girl. Given all this, it should come as no surprise that Eliza enthusiastically accepted my invitation last year to join me for a 72-mile, 3,890 ft elevation ride around Lake Tahoe this June 7th. Wow. On a tandem, I'll be captain up front. She'll be the stoker in the back. And we are absolutely going to crush it. We are dedicating our ride to two organizations close to our hearts. And these are the organization shoutouts. Guide Dogs for Texas, a San Antonio nonprofit that pairs people with visual impairments with expertly trained guide dogs completely free of charge. We'll have a link to that in the show notes. Two, Women's Audio Mission, a San Francisco and LA nonprofit advancing women and gender expansive people in the music production and audio engineering. Less than 5% of the sound and media creators are women or gender expansive. WAM is changing that. We'll have a link to that in our show notes. Now, the quick self shout out to tell our story and invite people to follow and support our ride. I built a website. We're gonna have a link to that in the show notes. This is awesome. Finally, Pod Pet Teriff, our Tahoe Tandemia site, features several adorable photos of heroic guide dogs, but of course, I'm partial to the one of Mia, who will be cheering her mom and Anton from her home in San Antonio next month. Eliza and I are elite cyclists.

[00:50:35]were two sisters ages 56 and 61 riding a tandem bike for each other and for causes that make the world a better place. Thank you for all you do. M this whole this emission is really freaking awesome. Good luck on this tandem ride.

[00:50:50]That's a hell of an elevation gain. I'm just really impressed. And look at that doggo. Oh, so sweet. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next one is from anonymous pronouncing him. I wrote a law review article proposing that sitting federal appellet judges rotate into the Supreme Court for fixed two to four-year terms before returning to their home circuits, arguing this would reduce strategic retirements, depoliticize confirmation battles, and strengthen Democratic accountability, all while requiring a constitutional amendment. I'd love this to be considered instead of court packing or term limits, both of which can be abused by another lawless president. It's a really great idea. We're going to have a link to this idea in the show notes. Pod Pet Teriff, our little dog, Jellyfish.

[00:51:36]Can you guess the breed?

[00:51:39]He's a I think he's a poodle.

[00:51:45]Um, what? Like a what? What is that? I I'm needing Allison right now. A poodle.

[00:51:51]I can't even think of the word. I We're I what? Schnowzer. I'm not actually sure. Let's see what we have there.

[00:51:58]We've got a a multicon. Oh, it's a maltis and a bichon freeze.

[00:52:04]75% maltis. 25% bishan freeze. Very very cute. Very cute. Thank you so much for that suggestion. I like it. I like it.

[00:52:14]This is from Janine. No pronouns given.

[00:52:16]I love your interview with Rep. Johnny O. Just one minor correction concerning the process to add an amendment to the US Constitution. It takes three4s of the states to ratify an amendment, not three-fifths as he claimed. Thank you for all you do every day to keep us informed and motivated. All right, next up is from Dusty, pronoun she and her.

[00:52:34]Hello, queens of the beans. Please don't worry so much about meeting your hero, Jean Smart. At a tender age of 27, 1975, I got to meet my absolute hero. I had my first real paying job as coordinator of the new women's center at Marshall. We had a grand opening ceremony and our guest of honor was Gloria Steinum. It was my job to introduce her. Talk about nervous. She is warm, lovely person and she asked me to autograph a poem that the dean of students had put in our first newsletter. The rest of that day is a blur, but I will always remember her generosity and support. I hope your meeting goes as well as mine did. My pot tariff is a photo of my son and daughter-in-law's two deaf dogs after rescuing Gizmo, the brown one.

[00:53:19]They took Lasar. They are shelter muts with one breed predominant. The the predominant breed is definitely pity. Oh my god, this is so cute.

[00:53:33]They're adorable. Thank you for this.

[00:53:35]All right, next up is from Lee. Pronouns she and her. Hello, gorgeous goddesses of the legume nation. The sacred black hill site Pesle is pronounced Pishla. Thank you very Pesla. Peshla. Thank you very much for this. No, I think it's Pishla.

[00:53:52]That's probably a hard e.

[00:53:54]You guys, I'm so sorry. Whenever I get a correction like this and then I go through all of those things, some of you are probably like, "Which one is it?" I think it's Pichla. You're an essential and welcome light in these dark times.

[00:54:05]Thank you for all you do and encourage others to do as well. Attached, if it did it correctly, is my NK3 poster and my grand nephew gleefully driving a big truck and demonstrating Donald's emotional age. The sign says, "Peace not. Peace not peace pus." So P A C piece of [ __ ] is what it got there.

[00:54:25]Piece of [ __ ] not peace pus, which I love. Oh, the baby.

[00:54:31]This is such a cute picture. My god.

[00:54:33]Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. This is from Kent, pronouns and him. Good day, lovely beans queens. I just wanted to give a shout out to the hysterical comedian Cliff Cliff Cash.

[00:54:42]Yes, we love our Cliff. I saw his Detroit show on Sunday and he was fantastic.

[00:54:48]Very much anti-MAGA and funny as [ __ ] So Dana, when can we expect a Detroit show? Latest pick of the world's largest lab dog, Olaf, attached. Love you both and all the good work you do. By the way, we're going to put a little link in the show notes to Cliff Cash's dates so you can follow Cliff because he is really hysterical and just a great guy.

[00:55:09]All right, next up is from Abby. Holy for holies. Dana did Dallas and I got to watch. Dana, your story about your mom sending you to a preschool for the differently aabled made me run and look up the school I attended called Serendipity Day School, and it's still there 50 years later. There was no public kindergarten back then. Here's a snippet from their website. And I quote, "Serendipity was founded in 1975 as a pathway to integrate special needs children into a mainstream setting.

[00:55:39]Molly's desire stemmed from the love that she had for her niece Sarah who was born with hydrophille hydrophille and spinoipida. The name serendipity was chosen because it reflects the wonderful happenings with children and because it sounds somewhat like Sarah. I did not know this. Sarah attended Serendipity Day School and is now a successful and productive member of society in the local workforce. We continue this desire by having special needs children integrated into our classrooms while receiving services from a variety of outside organizations. For my pod pet tax, here's a photo of me around 1973 or 74 in our home in Albuquerque. My dad was a photographer. He was into slide film back then, so I have very few prints. I think I was cute. Uh, you were adorable, Abby. I remember meeting you at my show. Thank you for introducing yourself. And that is where Oh, there's also a picture of Abby and I in this which is wonderful. So, you'll see it in the um pictures if you're a patron. Um that's where I went. It was Serendipity Day School. And I love that you went there as well. It was just such a funny story when my mom was telling it. You have to come to one of my comedy shows to know the joke. It's not going to transfer over the good news right now.

[00:56:50]So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Abby. Next up is from Anna, pronoun she and her. Hi, Beans Queens. I got to see Dana in Dallas and I sat with her college friend from Austin, Shelly. It was so nice to be with a room full of progressives in Texas and Dana killed it. Also, Dana, the gender neutral world for nieces and nephews is nibbling.

[00:57:10]Thanks for coming to Texas. Now, Anna, I just want to say this. I asked my non-binary family member what they want to be called and they actually prefer I if I don't call them my nephew that I call them my nephew which is the mix between nephew and niece. They hate the word nibbling. They don't ever want me to use it. So I know that that is sort of the gender neutral word that people are using but that's why I didn't use it in my show particularly because they hate the word. They don't think that it represents them. So, thank you for that though. And for the people out there that would like to know a genderneutral word that people do use, nibbling has become widely acceptable. Now, the pod pet tax attached are two rescue pups.

[00:57:54]Gunnison is the black one. Oh, Gunnison.

[00:57:58]And Gus, the white one, is a blank.

[00:57:59]Thanks for all you do. I think Gus is a white lab, but also maybe like Pyrenees mix in there. Lab Pyrenees. I think that Gunnison is shepherd mix.

[00:58:15]Maybe shepherd lab mix. There's a long bar. Let's see what this says. Gunnison is an Australian kelpie, Australian Shepherd, and German Shepherd. Okay, I got one of those. Gus, the white one is Great Pyrenees and Lab. I got a what the M correct on my own. Great Pyrenees and White Lab. Look at me. All right, everyone. Thank you for hanging in with me today, especially with some of the floods on words and names and all of those things. You get used to it with me, but I'm just grateful that we have this audience that we have. I'm grateful for all the people that came to my Dallas show. I'm so glad you enjoyed yourself. I'm still waiting on the tape and then I'll put some clips up and I'll even include some clips in my Patreon that I won't put on social media. So, if you're not part of my Patreon and you want to join the denters, you can do that at my website which is dana goldberg.com. Hit Patreon. There's a bunch of levels. So those sorts of clips will start at the $5 a month level. You can go all the way up to hit a home run with Dana Goldberg, but any any any Patreon members are appreciated. The free membership, you usually get my monthly newsletter and some updates within the Patreon website. But the $5 level, that's where you get a little more behind the scenes. So I'd love to have you with the rest of the denters.

[00:59:27]And that's it. That's all I've got.

[00:59:29]Allison's going to be back with me tomorrow. Um by the time you hear this, we have already had our event at the Elray in Los Angeles. So, I'm sure we're going to debrief it with you and tell you all exactly how it went. Until then, take care of yourselves, take care of each other, take care of the planet, take care of your mental health, and take care of your family. Ag will be back with me tomorrow. I've been DG and them's the beans. The Daily Beans is written and executive produced by Allison Gil with additional research and reporting by Dana Goldberg. Sound design and editing is by Desiree McFarland with art and web design by Joel Reer with Moxy Design Studios. Music for the Daily Beans is written and performed by They Might Be Giants. And the show is a proud member of the MSW Media Network, a collection of creatorowned podcasts dedicated to news, politics, and justice. For more information, please visit mswwdia.com.

[01:00:12]mssw media.