All media.
When you're bilingual, there are certain things that just don't translate in a lot of ways. English just doesn't have the words that communicate fully the idea. I know that there's a there's a word in German that essentially means like a punchable face, like you guys know people that just have a face that like this face needs to be punched. I know in Spanish there's a one word
for it. You know, your first day of school clothes, like you know, you use a kid You was like, yo, this is the dopest outfit I got is my first day of school.
There's a word for it.
There's a particular word for your first day of school clothes. And English just doesn't have stuff like that, unless you talk about black people English. We be having in phrases that communicate exactly not only what the word says or means, but what it feels like. And some of them words ain't even words like mm hm, y'all know exactly what that means, or.
Like we masters of it.
But every once in a while, there's too many options in your grab bag to actually communicate what you're trying to communicate. And this is one of those moments. I think there are. We've talked about it before. There are moments. There are so many ways to say Black people say like myn you own business, and that we do in ways to say that we mind our own business. There are so many ways to say we think what you're doing is stupid. You better than me, You got a chief.
Oh man, if you like it, I love it. These are always to say what you're doing is dumb. They communicate not only what we mean by that, but how we feel about it when we say one of those things. As a matter of fact, this morning, I got up and I had to hit the group text. I had to ask the homies, what's the blackest way to say I don't know that you don't know, so you honestly
do not know something. Because a lot of times there's ways to say that that's sarcastic, but when you generally honestly don't know one, I'm just like, man, I don't even know. Your guess is as good as mine, nigga, you know what I'm saying. One of them is just where you just rub your chest. You just be like, uh, that's what Moskie said.
L Cray was like, I don't even know with an M.
But I think we all agree the blackest way and actually the most accurate way to not only say what we need but communicate how we feel about it is shit.
I can't call it.
Let's talk about Chevron deference hood politics, y'all. Okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, welcome to another addition to the politics. It's raining out here. I got the incense burning. I'm so far ahead of y'all, like as to when this episode's coming out, I mean, this episode probably not gonna come out for a month from when I'm recording it. So this might be old news for a lot of y'all. But Rondi Santis is deed out, you feel me. He sat on the bench realized,
like they ain't gonna work. You can't work. You can never be a JV version of somebody else. That's just that's just the rule. You can't be a JV version, there's no You cannot be a Kirkland brand of something else, you know, and which is no dis to Kirkland brands because as a side note, if you've ever had Kirkland brand alcohol in spirits, they're actually name brand things, just white labeled. You know what white labeled is, right, so
you go get they get the recipe. Like the Kirkland brand whiskey is actually it's makers mark.
You know.
They just had them make a mash and sold them the recipe and that's it. So like, don't don't don't feel bad about getting Kirkland whiskey because it's actually high end whiskey.
Anyway, what was I talking about? Rondy Santa's gone.
You can't be a Kirkland brand anything, can't be the JV version of somebody else.
You gotta be the varsity you, which is like words to live by. Amen.
My mom used to say, be who you is because who you ain't ain't who he is. She says she got that from somebody, My mom from you know, Southeast DC, you know, back when it was Chocolate City.
So she got it from one of them old men over there. But either way, be who you is because who you ain't ain't who he is. Ron D.
Santis is out. He wasn't who he is. He trying to be somebody doing Trump impression the whole time. And y'all remember how you try to launch his campaign on Twitter spaces kept crashing. He was over before it started. Anyway, this is probably old news for y'all. I may have to even replace this section with something else that's a little mold up to date because time be moving real fast. Well,
time moves at the speak, time always moves. I'm rambling, But we got to talk about this Fisherman's case and Chevron deference, and this is a more of a Supreme Court issue, and you got to understand how the Supreme Court work. So we're going to put our learning hats on, and I'm considering doing like a little Homy politics, which is like hood politics, but you know, shorter and clean that you could use in the classroom and pot the kids. And this might be one of those ones that I
need to do that for. I got it from the show called Ologies, which is just this science show, super dope about people who are study any sort of ology. She has one she has a series called Smologies where she does shorter versions for kids, where it's the same stuff that you could play with your children. Me and my eight year old been burning through them. So I'm like, I need to do this for hood politics called love Homy politics.
You feel me? Okay?
So Chevron deference, the fact that it might end. Why is it called Chevron, Why is it so important? And what does this mean for the future, and why is this even called she I can't call it.
Let's get to it comfort, all right. We've done a bunch of episodes on Supreme Court.
We talked about like them getting involved in stuff, them not wanting to get involved in stuff.
The concept of what.
The judicial branch was supposed to be a little bit of a rewind about that. Like the hope in its design and concept was to have the judicial branch as far away from the democratic process as possible, because you don't want them to be You want them to be as objective as possible, Like you are interpreting the law. And if you got to worry about being elected into your position, like in the democratic way, then your allegiance is not to the law. Like think about this. Your
allegiance is not to the law. It's to the people that elected you. Which is why politicians act the way they act. Why they flip flop, why they you know, which isn't it's not that peer but like in concept, I mean they flip flop because money, obviously you know what I'm saying, and power, money power. Respect is the key it alive. The idea is you're supposed to do. You're supposed to be, in concept, servants to the people that elected you. The judicial brands is supposed to be
servants to the Constitution. So that distinction in design is important.
Right.
That's why judges ain't voted on. They're selected by elected officials. They're supposed to not have to worry about running for reelection, right, because that was going to sway the way that they make the choices that they make. And then all the way up to the Supreme Court, which is we did this whole thing. You remember the y'all don't sign my check or Marionnate my Chicken episodes where it's like, I'm not even concerned about what anybody think about what I do.
And that's why, like a lot of times, Supreme Court justice is like you never you never really know only time they historically, the only time they talk was when you would hear their their reasoning for their choosing, for the for the way that they fell on a particular issue, and then the dissent. But you don't know these people until later, you feel me until they're done. And that's why they stay in that position until they die or
until they step down themselves. It's because you supposed to be Why why it's like what I do is not your concern, is none of your business.
I'm not even worried about you.
Is because by design, of course this isn't in practice like we all know, but by design it's supposed to be far enough away from the voters. I don't care what you think, nigga. Is what the law say. This what we believe the law say. Okay, how you feel
about it, I don't care what's going on. But of course, as we know, in practice, the Supreme Court is used as battering rams for part in politics, which is the world we live in now, a conservative court or a liberal court, right, and then those issues get to be the things that when you run for office you get to say, all the problem I.
Already got these activist judges.
You know, so for most of my life, that's what the Republicans were saying. What the conservative world was saying was like, the judges are activists now, and they're forcing their removing traditional family values from us. Right, They're not upholding the Constitution, They're forcing their liberal agendas on us by putting activist judges who are supposed to just be interpreting the Constitution. Well, my ma ma had the tables of turn at i e.
Roe v. Wade being overturned, i e.
The fact that it's the six y three leaning conservative Supreme Court. Now, what the Supreme Court is supposed to do, like we said, is interpret things. But there are sometimes that they like, shit, I mean I don't know. I mean it's up to the Congress. Right, Congress writes the laws.
We don't.
We just we're just trying to say whether the law makes sense or not or if what you're doing applies to that.
But shit, I ain't. I mean, I don't know. You got to ask them.
You are read when we talked about the Internet one a few episodes back. We talked to a few episodes back a while ago that they was kind of decide a case about a case.
Against Google where there was like, I don't know, nigga, ask Congress.
Right, like it's Google liable for their algorithm that might work to radicalize somebody to commit some sort of terrorist act.
And the Congress was.
Like sheit, I don't know, Like, uh, is it our place to decide that? Like what's an algorithm, you know what I'm saying. There was like, look, ask your mother, you know what I'm saying. You asked the Congress like that's is this our place to describe decide this? Basically because the laws around the internet were ambiguous, and when they's when the laws need clarity, that's usually when you go to the courts. But the courts are like, I mean,
I don't we need to ask. We need to defer to experts, which is where you get the term deference, Right, I am deferring to something else. And Chevron deference is based on a case which we will talk about right now. So let's set it up. So in Maine right now, this is the case they're looking at. Well, I don't know, Well, it's probably not decided by now, even though, you know, because courts move pretty slow these days, so they probably still The news is probably done talking about this, but
let's talk about it now. What seems is, though this would be just a regular ass local why does anyone else care?
Kind of case has to do with these fishermen.
Now, Fishing, just like hunting, is regulated so that you don't overhunt and you don't overfish. That type of regulation for anybody that's in that field. Most people, now, I know, some like Montana head ass dudes hunt ducks, hunt bucks, like I mean, the reddest of necks who like you know, think veganism is sinful, like just just in that sense. But they got sense enough to know that overhunting is a problem.
That they're like, you buy the tags.
Right, You only get a certain amount of tags if you're catching fish. There are some fishing spots that are catching release because if you overfish then they're all gone and they're in their way. They're like, no, this is conservation. Why, Like you can't you can't kill all the dear nigga like cause.
Then they all gone cuzz Like that's absurd.
They understand logically that yes, there are some types of regulation now. Now, don't let the most extreme wing of the right wing conservative Republican Party fool you that people think they just want to shoot it all up. Most folks who live outside, like that Ney version of outside, understand that, I.
Mean, you kind of need some kind of need some admin.
You feel me like you do, because the ain't gonna be no more fish right now. If you're a commercial fisher, like over there in the Atlantic and stuff.
It's the same thing.
They like, nigga, you can't you fish the ocean dry, like we out of a job.
Cud like that don't make no damn sense.
They understand things like that people would consider liberal issues like food chain. You feel me within it and the fact that like you got it, like it's a delicate They get it.
It's a delicate balance in the ocean.
You can't kill all the tuna, nigga, Like, if you take all the tuna, you feel me then, or if you take all the tuna's food, if you fish out everything the tuna eat, nigga, didn't the tuna gonna die or.
They gonna leave.
They get it, Like there is a place for regulation. Everybody understands that, even in that world. So for decades, nobody has had in that world any real problem with being Like every year fed send a suit down to come out and go fish with us, to make sure that we're not overfishing, that we're meeting our quotas, and we're doing this in a humane way. We're not dropping too much pollution into the water. They get it, because if you pollute the water, nigga, we're out of a job.
Like this just it's that logical.
So most of them really got no problem with the regulation what happened recently though, And of course, you know you gotta pay for these tags, like that's part of and you understand that's cost of business. There's a certain fee you have to pay, which everybody understands.
That makes sense.
You just build that into your catch and you just hope that your catch is that good. But it jet's the cost of businesiness. Like everybody understands that in whatever field you are, there are certain things that just they're just it's just the cost, like it is what it is. You know, this isn't We're not a hunter gatherer society no more like you feel me like, this is a commercial supply chain, late stage capitalism.
There's fees.
But something changed in twenty twenty. And what happened in twenty twenty was not only are you paying for your tags, now you have to pay a fee to have the guy on your boat, the guy that comes and make sure that you're following the directions. So if you're a fisherman, you're like, yo, let me get this straight. I'm required to have this guy on my boat. I'm required to pay a fee for the quotas, and now I have to pay your employee, you making me have them come
out on my boat. And now I gotta payd a salary for the day. Like what do y'all pay for? But then what is my tas paying for? So I gotta pay your employee. That's your employee. You're like this, okay, So there's the registration fee, and then I gotta it would be like okay, if to get my driver's license, I gotta pay a certain fee. I get it, but then I gotta pay the person that's doing the I gotta go to the DMV and pay the person's salary
for the person that's doing that. So the guy that's in my car with me for the drivers, I gotta pay that guy too. That don't make no damn sense. Why do I got to pay that person's salary? What? Then? Who does this person work for? I thought they work for the government agency. If I'm paying them, then that mean they work for me. But but there's no other option because now I can't do my job unless I pay this person.
So if you're a fisherman, you like this way.
Hold up, First of all, when did this rule become a rule, like you get to just change the rules number one and number two.
What you charging me is outrageous.
You ask the fishermen, they like it kind of breaks down to about like five g's because you have to do it over the course of because people got to be there over the course of like four five a's. And if that's the case, depending on how many fish we catch, this food that's just sitting here with a clipboard taking notes is gonna make more than the people actually doing if you're gonna make more than my employees,
because I only get paid with what I catch. So if I go out today and we won't catch nothing, all of my fishermen understand that, like, oh, we just didn't make nothing today because I'm not holding no money from you.
Nigga is no fish, so I couldn't pay you.
But I still gotta pay this person regulating no matter what, no matter what we catch, I gotta pay them. Now. Me as an artist, I can relate to that because when you go out on tour, my money is based on ticket sales and sponsors and stuff like that's what I make. But that's not my DJ's job. That's not the drummer in the band's job. The band gets a day rate, So whether we sell tickets or not, I still got to pay the DJ.
It's not his job, a not her job. It's my job.
It's my job to generate the funds, and that is part of a contract. Now I'm okay with that because I employ them. But if Live Nation was like but there's also a dude that has to come that works for Live Nation and be on tour with you, and you got to pay them five hundred dollars a day whether you make tickets or now, I'm like, fam, why like you saw, the building was only we only sold half the tickets, and so now I have and now I can't pay my drummer because I have to pay you.
That's absurd, fam.
You already own all the venues, and you own the ticket selling app. You taking a percentage of the tickets, You take a percentage of the door, you own the building, you own the promoter, and now I gotta.
Pay your regulatory dude. You trip it.
And as far as fishermen concerned, they like this sound the illegal. You can't just change the rules on us, like that's crazy, So they took them to court. Now the question is why would you care? Le's talk about that net or we're back now. Why should you care at all about what happens with fishermen in Maine and who got to pay for the people that come and
make sure that they don't overfish the ocean? Well you could say you care in the sense that, like, I mean, the ocean's on Earth, and I don't want to live on the planet where ain't no more fish in the ocean. That would be all right, but neither do the fishermen. Why do you care who pays for what? Maybe your fish are gonna cost more. Maybe that's why you care. And is that the case that's being argued at the dog On Supreme Court?
How to hell just make it all the way to the Supreme Court?
Well, why it made it to the Supreme Court is a question of who gets to decide what it's not necessarily about the fish you have a You know, if you haven't been in a relationship, especially a romantic one, you start I remember one time and me and refer to her by her prefix, doctor Ama was arguing over the way that the chords under our desk was organized. I don't like exposed chords, and she kept unplugging shit and moving it around, and I was like, Nigga, will
you stop moving the chords? And she was like, what the fuck are you talking about? And I was like, ultimately, it was like it wasn't it's not about the chords. It's not about the courts at all. It's about I feel like she being controlling. You want everything your way, you know. She felt like I was being petty. So we wasn't even arguing about the courts. That's kind of the situation like this, it's about the fish, but it ain't.
About the fish.
They're coming up to the courts saying, how come this agency gets to just change the rules. Is there something you can do as the courts to say this can't be legal, Like you can't just or you can't just change the rules like that, then what are we supposed to do? Like there's like I'm stuck, Like it's like gas prices and nothing you can do. You gotta just I mean gas is what it is you have to pay or is either that or don't drive. So there's like there's got to be something we could do, Like
it's I mean, damn, you're the freaking courts man. Do something which brings us to this idea of who do you defer to as the experts? Because if you're the Supreme Court, are you an expert in fish conservation? Are you an expert in AI? Are you an expert in the Internet? Are you an expert in gas? Are you an expert in city zoning? No, you're an expert in the constitution. You're an expert in the law. So you asking me to make judgment calls on stuff, I really that's not.
Even my field. Shit, I can't call it.
Nigga, I don't know how many fishes should you catch a day?
Nigga, I don't know how many fish in the ocean? Right, I don't know?
Which brings us to a case that's called Chevron deference. It's this decision, which is a case that was in nineteen eighty four that was Chevron versus the Natural Resources Defense Council. Why this was so important was this The specifics of the case are the things that are going to get lost in history.
It's just how it was decided.
Essentially, the Natural Resources Defense Council was basically like Chevron's breaking the earth. You don't saying, like nigga, you're destroying us Chevron's like, well, who the fuck are you? Like, why do you get to say that? As a matter of fact, the laws you're trying to catch us on are pretty ambiguous, like they not really clear. It's kind of up for interpretation. So as far as we concern, we ain't done nothing wrong. You just you just adding
stuff that's not even what the law say. So somebody needs to interpret this law. And why do you get to be the people that interpret it. It's not clear you regulating me to death, like I can't make no damn money, Like that's what, Like what the hell? There's gotta be some sort of law that says that you can't just be you can't just cripple my business. And the Supreme Court was like, well, fam, I mean, what
the hell do we know about this. We're not experts on every field everywhere, So since we're not experts, it kind of feels like maybe we shouldn't make this call.
So we're gonna listen to the case.
But as far as like the actual regulations, like I'm gonna defer to the experts, So we defer to the agency, the Natural Resource Agency, because I mean that state field study, Like what do we know all we was gonna do is ask them, because they the experts. Why would you even want me to as a judge. You're asking me like I'm a shark being judged on how well I climb a tree, nigga, Like I don't know, Like what I mean, I don't know. So we are going to
listen to the merits of the case. But when it comes to the specifics, I'm just gonna defer to the agency.
Because that's their field.
That was Chevron deference, and that's that's been essentially since nineteen eighty four, it's been forty years, Like that's been essential standard when it comes to things like the EPA and any other regulatory bodies that the Supreme Court is like, DoD like, we can't be an expert on everything, dude, Like how are we How are we supposed to know? Like I don't, I don't know, Like shit, I can't call it. So on the face, it seems pretty logical, right, Like I would not want a case that like gets
into the specifics. And I think all of us saw this when we when if you were watching all the Google trials and when old Zuckerberg and everybody was the only thing you remember the dude that was like the Congress dude, that was.
Like, what are you gonna do about fenced us? What the hell? You don't know what you're talking about? Like if we were talking about the Internet stuff, you don't know what.
You're talking about. What I'm gonna do it fenced us? Like, do you know what a fence?
THEA is? No, your granddaughter told you what that is.
Fam you still got a Yahoo account like you don't like or you can't even get into your email account, like like.
Why should I?
You are not equipped to make laws and the Supreme Court is not equipped to interpret those laws about shit they don't know about.
You just know law shit. You don't know this shit.
So when Congress makes a law, now this is this is this is where it's like like put your learning caps on. When Congress makes a law, and again they
need to be by design like this. When Congress makes a law, the law needs to be ambiguous enough to make room for the future, to make room for things that you can't necessarily predict, right, So we can't like I don't I don't know the future, so I can't I have to make this law up for interpretation for when the future comes, there might be things that we can't possibly foresee coming. So I'm trying to make a law that's open to interpretation enough it'll be able to
last a little longer. Right, Like say, for example, we're making a law about movies and about like when movies leave the theaters, and the Supreme Court talked about like DVDs and VHS tapes. This isn't a law, but like, let's just say, like the Supreme Court made a law about VHS tapes.
Well, nigga, they're extinct.
There's no laws about streaming because they couldn't fathom streaming. So you have to make something ambiguous enough that as technology moves on, as the future moves on, that they can those laws can be like still applicable.
Now.
On the other hand, the people writing these laws, these congressmen, ain't exactly altruistic. They're not looking at the purity and being like, well, we want to make sure that we keep up. No, they're subject to lobbyists, they're subject to money, they subject to power, they subject to re election. So even them writing them laws like nigga, like you deferring to them as if as if they gonna be on the up and up about the shit. So it's there's there's a lot of ways this could go. This is
why it's at the Supreme Court. You're not writing laws to keep the purity of it. You write laws so you get reelected.
Nigga like this. This is a corrupt system, y'all.
Well, it's the Supreme Court's job to interpret these laws that the Congress put together. The problem is when aw is ambiguous enough and is up for interpretation because it's not that clear. That's when it goes to the courts. This law isn't clear, Like we don't I don't know specifically what you. I don't know what to I don't know what to do, like my here's an example with my children, like our rule in our house, because I
don't believe in power struggles with children. Like if I'm in a power struggle with my child, I've already lost, because I shouldn't be in a power struggle with somebody that don't pay no bills in my house. But also I shouldn't be power hungry. I'm not about that. But like, there are things that are very simple. There's no deserts. If you don't finish your vegetables, that's easy So if I cook a meal for you and I'll make you some asparagus, you get up, remove the asparagus from your plate,
go get some carrots, and sit back down. I'm outraged the girl, What the hell is you doing? In case you don't know, I'm black, You eat what I give you? Like, No, I don't understand. What the hell is you doing? Well, the law was ambiguous. The law said vegetables. Carrots are vegetables. I prefer carrots over asparagus. She got a point. The law wasn't clear. I could not have foreseen that. She Now, I could have asked her which vegetable she preferred. But again,
I'm black. Our children don't get choices.
Just kidding. We need to change that. Yeah, I should have checked.
But either way, the law was ambiguous enough to where now it's like, well, this is up for interpretation, and I'm interpreting carrots as a vegetable. She's right, So we defer to mom who wrote the law. When a law is that Congress makes is a little ambiguous or up for interpretation, and it goes to the courts because there's now a situation where like somebody needs to decide what it is and the highest court is the Supreme And what Chevron deference says is, look, dude, this law, like,
you're right, it is up to interpretation. But I'm not an expert in this field, so I'm going to defer to the experts. So this case with the fishermen are is not necessarily about the fishermen. It's about who gets to say what it's Chevron deference really fair. Now, So how it works in practice is you stand before the Supreme Court. If you don't know how the Supreme Court works.
It's not like a TV trial. The Supreme Court doesn't work like that, where it's not law in order where you get to be like objection sustained defendants and stuff like that. No, what it is is, especially in this situation, this is actually a perfect example about it. They're arguing the legality of the precedence or of the law that's being challenged. So you have one side court of this court room, the fishermen that are essentially like yo. They don't get to just change the rules on us, like
why have you given them so much power? Which is the ultimate question. It's not even about the fish. It's about the fact that, like yo, you're the judge, you're the law, you're the courts. If you just say, well, damn, I'm just gonna defer to them about what it is, you just get like, they're not even elected officials. They're pencil pushers. They're not even selected officials. They just pencil pushers.
As a matter of fact, when the administration changes, right every four years, they gonna have a whole new agenda, They're gonna have a whole new people that work there. So you defering to them, but them niggas gonna change their mind depending on who in office. So like, why would you do why would you just defer to them? They're not even who are Like? Who are they? Like? Why are you calling them experts? They just got a
job because of who's president. Right now, that's the fishermen's argument, which, unfortunately, like everything else, breaks partisan. Right, this is the at this moment in our lifetime, the conservative position. They call it the administrative state. Like you know how right now the conservative world doesn't want regulations about anything, and they're using this as one of their battering rams. Right, So
this is the conservative position. So you get dudes like Brett Kavanaugh, the on the Supreme Court, right now kind of saying the same thing where it's like, well, first of all, we haven't used chevron deference.
I don't know how long. Now. Remember this wasn't they song earlier?
They used to be mad that the court's got to decide stuff, you know that, But they now that they up you know, they want the courts.
To decide you feel me, But that's how politics works.
On the other side, the people that are for like the state that's for chevron defference is like, bro, We've been doing this for forty years and it just makes sense. You can't POSSI be an expert on everything, Like, there's no way y'all know. This is their field. This is what they do. Like what do you know about what do you know about phishing? Like what do y'all know about this? You know about the law? You was in
a library. You wasn't outside with us, You was in a library, So it only makes sense for you to one not break precedence.
Then that's what I mean.
Then now what y'all all about like not breaking precedence and then and the precedents, Like, dude, it makes sense. There's no way you could know about this. The law's ambiguous on purpose. Because none of us can predict the future, you should at least put some weight on people that actually study this stuff. Now we're not saying to let them make your decisions for you, but what we're saying is they know the shit better than you do, so
just like use it. It's for your advantage, like this is their job, which is ultimately what the Supreme Court case is about. It's not even about the fishermen, it's about chevron deference. Who gets to decide what? And what the Supreme Court does isn't just listen to go uh huh uh No, they get to be annoying little children and what if you to death?
What do I mean by that?
They they their job is to listen to your argument and do their best to poke holes in it by just asking what if question?
Like your children, do you know? What if what if this?
Well?
Yeah, but what if? Yeah?
But what if I tried to do this like kids do all the time. But what if I can't find a pencil? Well, what if I can't find the broom? Well what if we're out of comment? Well what if there's no soap in the bathroom? That's the job, because what they're trying to see is does your argument stand a stress test?
That's what they're saying.
Like, so, so when you say on the conservative side that like chevron deference is wrong, like you shouldn't be able to do this your a media example I brought it up before, is like what about like, say, for example, AI, what do we know?
We could barely open our emails?
You really want us to like why would we not refer to people work in that field we make? We have there's laws about the internet right now, but remember when we made the Internet, we didn't even know you could buy things online? Like, how are we supposed to know when we look at this this law? How is Congress supposed to know that's why they make the laws. How are we supposed to know? We can't predict the future electric cars? I don't make electric cars. I barely
understand them. Why would we not check what experts about it? So you want me to decide on this Fisherman thing and think chevron difference isn't fair? But like, well, how are we supposed to judge things like AI?
Right?
So you challenge it, right, And then on the other side, the defense side, that's like, yo, this is forty years precedence, Bret Cavanugh and was like, nigga, we haven't used this into fifteen years.
We won't even use it. It's basically dead. You feel me.
And like I said before, it's like, well, when the administration changes, like what are we supposed to do? To which people could respond like, well, fam, there's like eighty federal judges. It's like, you're you're creating chaos here, right, because if Maine says, okay, forty fish a day, but Florida says four hundred fish a day, like what it like? You?
We need somebody to come in here and be like, no, this what it is, to which the Republican side was like, no, you making Chevron defference, making us defer to the agency is actually creating the chaos because the agency is going to change every four years, so it's their job to poke at your arguments. Who's right, shit, I can't call it. Who gets to decide and based on what foundation is
the right thing to do? Now, this has humongous implication because remember, the courts traditionally never want to break precedents. They don't Nobody ever wants to be the first nigga to do something because of how the how fragile the
law is. At one point, I'm gonna do this episode on like the thin vine year theory, but like how fragile all of this stuff is, and how when laws are on the books they become so foundational to other laws and precedents that we start doing like say, for example, if you playing Jenga, like if I pull this law from forty years ago.
And it's like, yo, it's unconstitutional.
You done messed up everything we've done built on top of it, Like the whole thing kind of topples. So people don't want to be the one to pull that lag out. You start messing with precedents, you like, everything we've done since then is now in jeopardy it So judges don't be wanting to do that yo.
And we're seeing this in real time with the ending of Roe v. Wade.
We're seeing it with the ending of affirmative action, the domino effect of you taking this, pulling this janga piece out. Now, it's like, uh, with affirmative action in schools, it's like, well then what the hell do well?
Then, well, then how do we read your application? What can I say? I'm black? Well, I mean, it's a big part of my life.
So then when I write my essays, my personal statement essays, and can I not mention them? And if I mentioned I'm black, because it's obviously a part of my story.
This fool got a four point one. I got a three point eight.
But I come from a low performing school in a red lined community because I am a person of color and have experienced racism and mass incarceration and all the things that come with being a part of a racist country. I'm but my grades look like this nigga's grades, right, But since they a little bit lower, you just when this nigga got like personal tutors and shit, and I could still keep up with him. Clearly, I'm working harder than this fool because I'm running into the wind and
you're telling me you can't account for that. I'm a better student because I don't have I'm a better choice for your college because I'm performing just as him with one hand tie behind my back, with everything playing. Yess me, this nigga got everything he could possibly need. I don't have that, but you but I can't put that on application. You can't consider it. If you reading applications, you're like, well, obviously, but I'm not a Wait then what do I judgehim by?
Are you post ignore that?
Like? Well, like, okay, so if I can't mention race, but race is a like, So the implications.
Are like, well then how do I Well, then what do I like? You're Roe v.
Wade is kind of the same thing. Okay, Well it's not federal, then it's state. Well then at what point is it? Well then what are the exceptions? Well then you just pull this janga piece out, So it's super what if I cross state lines? What if I'm in danger of dying? You pulled the janga piece out. There's a problem here. But if I were to predict the future, I'm saying, if Chevron deference, if it's gonna stay, it's gonna be a zombie version. You know how I know
because this court is activist. They're just activists, like republican like like conservative activists. The same thing that the Conservatives were arguing about and complain ain't in about when most of my life is the same thing they doing now. They were like, we don't like activist judges. No, you just ain't like activist judges. That was doing activism against your agendas. Now that y'all up, which was the plan
the whole time. Obviously, now that y'all up, you can get the laws you want inactive, because nigga, you ain't no different, You just wanted to be up. So this case about this Fisherman, about Chevron defference and when I say Chevron, we like I said before, it's actually Chevron. It's really about who gets to call it, because sometimes when.
You don't know you like shit, shit, I can't.
I don't even know you gotta, I can't call it like I defer. Your guess is as good as mine. Nigga, you're the Supreme Court. You don't get to say you don't know you. You are the final say?
Or are you?
Or are you the final say? As to who gets the final say?
Which one? Is it? Shit?
I can't call politics, y'all? All right, now, don't you hit stop on this pod? You better listen to these credits. I need you to finish this thing so I can get the download numbers. Okay, so don't stop it yet, but listen. This was recorded in East Lost Boyle Heights by your Boy Propaganda tap in with me at prop hip hop dot com. If you're in the Coldbrew coffee. We got Terraform Coldbrew. You can go there dot com and use promo code hood get twenty percent off get
yourself some coffee. This was mixed, edited, and mastered by your boy Matt Alsowski Killing the Beast Softly. Check out his website Mattowsofski dot com.
I'm a spell it for you because I.
Know m A T T O s O w s Ki dot com Matthowsowski dot com. He got more music and stuff like that on there, so gonna check out. The heat Politics is a member of cool Zone Media, Executive produced by Sophie Lichterman, part of the iHeartMedia podcast network. Your theme music and scoring is also by the one and nobly Mattawsowski. Still killing the beats softly, So listen, don't let nobody lie to you. If you understand urban living, you understand politics. These people is not smarter than you.
We'll see y'all next week.