The MAGA Supreme Court's Assault on America

This is LeVar Arrington from Two Pros and a Cup of Joe. Let me tell you about Xero. That's X-E-R-O. Xero is a financial management platform that loves giving small business owners the clarity to have the confidence in their numbers. It puts accounting payments, payroll, and analytics all in one place, so you always have one clear picture of your business. With visual dashboards, Xero makes it easy to understand your cash flow. You know exactly what's coming in and what's going out, so you can make smarter decisions that can help grow your business. Xero's AI can even offer insights to help you make your best move. It's powerful enough for an accountant and simple enough for you. Xero is the all-in-one to get business done. Learn more at Xero.com. This is Matt Rogers from Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang. This is Bowen Yang. Okay, we've been talking about Kewpie mayo for a minute now, Bow, and wow, the feedback we're getting. I mean, so many of y'all love this stuff. You're stopping us in the street going, I love Kewpie. And if you're thinking, wait, what is Kewpie? Uh, do you not have the internet? It's the OG Japanese mayonnaise. The one with the red cap and the little baby on the bottle. Once you know it, you start seeing it everywhere. People ask what makes it different from basic mayo. Well, the answer, egg yolks. Kewpie is made with egg yolks only, giving it this incredibly rich umami flavor that elevates everything. Burgers, fries, sandwiches, chicken, noodles. Chefs use it. Restaurants use it. People who really love food and flavor use it. Whatever you're eating, Kewpie it. So if you haven't tried Kewpie yet, find the bottle with the red cap and see what everyone's talking about. You'll understand. Kewpie, the original Japanese mayonnaise. It's a great way to get rid of the smell of the egg yolk. courts to review those determinations. So now let's get to the racial animus point and why that matters here. Because I think for people who have been following the saga for a long time, the Haitian immigrants are the ones that Trump and J.D. Vance and the entire MAGA media accused during the 2024 campaign of eating the pets in Ohio. That's what we're talking about here, right? Well, and it wasn't just that. It is the president said people from Haiti have AIDS. He called it a shithole country. He said they were Haitian nationals poisoning the blood of the country. A bunch of racist, vile remarks. And Sam Alito does not even have the backbone to recite those remarks, in his opinion. He just declares they're not overtly racial. I have no idea what that means. Given that the president also said he wanted to admit more people from Sweden and Norway. Like, again, he tried to say, I guess they're xenophobic and really about opposition to immigration policy, which makes no sense. And also, in any case, I don't understand why that would be constitutional. And if he cannot bring himself to recite the remarks of the person who he's saying isn't racist, I think that's a pretty big indication that maybe the person is racist. And so this means for Haitians, that there are 350,000 of them, I believe, who many of them in this country for quite a while now. I think TPS has been around for almost a decade, right? Yeah, more than a decade. But the next time they encounter an ICE officer or CBP officer, they could be deported. Same is true of Syrians. Now, I know Stephen Miller was on Fox News minimizing the dangers in Haiti and comparing it to Chicago, St. Louis, Los Angeles. But Syria seems like a harder case to make that this is a totally safe and fine place to go back to. I mean, I think Haiti is a really tough place. I mean, maybe even tougher than Syria, actually. Yes, exactly. And so this would be the largest de-legalization in United States history. So while these cases specifically are about Haitian nationals and Syrian nationals, the Trump administration has attempted to end temporary protected status for individuals from other countries, including Venezuela, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and more. You know, when Trump took office, there were more than a million people living in the United States with temporary protected status. And suddenly all of those people potentially lose. They lose their legal authorization to remain in the United States. And your point about check-ins just drives home the people they are penalizing are the people who followed the immigration rules. They underwent this vetting process. They do check-ins with immigration officers. And so now the federal government knows who they are, where they are, and could be poised to effectuate these mass deportations. In her dissent, Justice Kagan says, as a result of the court's order, they're basically telling the executive branch, you can put these people on the next plane. And send them off. And it's just cruel what the Supreme Court is potentially allowing and inviting the Trump administration to do. So for the non-Syrians, non-Haitians who have protected status, like you mentioned, Venezuelans, we're also talking about people from Afghanistan, many of whom fled after the fall of the Afghani government, people who helped the American military and diplomats there, talking about Ukrainian refugees, all these other groups. Can the Trump administration now just sign a piece of paper? And remove their TPS? Or go through the fake process that they don't even have to go through anymore? Like, are we just like one Stephen Miller email away from 1.2 million or whatever it is, people potentially being deported? Potentially, yes. And there have been cases challenging the rescissions of the other temporary protected status programs as well. But in light of this decision telling courts they can't review any of the statutory claims and excusing the president's gutter racism, it's going to be really hard for any court to pause those rescissions. Great. So this is, honestly, truly terrible. And so then we had a second immigration decision that came down. Now, this one is less immediate in its consequences and hinges, as I understand it, on the meaning of the word arrive in immigration law. Can you explain? This is another 6-3 with the typical six and the typical three decision. Can you explain what's going on in this case? Yeah. So this case is about the meaning of asylum law under international law and statutes the Congress has passed. Individuals who arrive in the United States are entitled to claim asylum and they are entitled to have their asylum claim assessed in a legitimate process and procedure. What the Supreme Court said is an individual doesn't arrive in the United States and therefore they aren't entitled to claim asylum or have their asylum claim assessed if they are stopped outside of the physical borders of the United States. As Justice Sotomayor pointed out in her dissent. And this creates a giant loophole. It tells the executive branch so long as you physically block people from entering the United States, you do not have to consider their asylum applications. You can just turn them away wholesale. And that decision was entirely unnecessary. Part of what is so, I think, heinous, both about the asylum case and the TPS case, is that the Supreme Court did not have to reach them on this asylum case. The case originated as a challenge to a policy that isn't in existence. It was a challenge to the so-called metering policy that began almost a decade ago. And under that policy, immigration officials would turn away people and say, we can't process your asylum applications if the quota for the number of individuals who could be processed at the border had been met. That policy was ended. There was not in effect any policy. There was not in effect any policy that presented this question about whether the Trump administration could refuse to process asylum applications from people who they stopped outside the border. Instead, the Supreme Court went ahead and just told them, well, we've decided you could do this thing that you may want to do, and therefore paved the way for them to implement another callous immigration policy. And so in the original metering policy, which began at the end of the Obama administration, you would show up and they would say, we just— There are too many people today. We're not going to be able to get to your case. Come back tomorrow. Yes. And we will look at your case. And so at that point, it wasn't an attempt to deny them. It was essentially recognizing, you've shown up at the door. We can't let you in the door. We're acknowledging you have the right to make your asylum case, and we are going to allow you to do that on a different day when there is an actual someone who can hear it, basically, right? Yes. That was the sensible— And so now, this seems like such an insanely stupid decision on so many levels, because doesn't it seem to argue? That if you are someone who has a—you believe you have a legitimate asylum case, you're coming to the United States to avail yourself of your human right to seek asylum consistent with our laws and traditions, you are better off sneaking across the border— Exactly. —and getting caught and then claiming an asylum case than showing up at the front door and asking to present your case. This decision is unhinged. As Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, the consequences are predictable. More people will die. And among the— One of the reasons is it creates this incentive for people to try to sneak across the border, because only if they manage to get into the United States borders would they be able to claim asylum. This is another example of the Supreme Court adopting a rule that penalizes people who are trying to comply with immigration law by presenting themselves at the border and trying to assert an asylum claim. It's basically funneling them into these trafficking organizations— —that are making money to get them into— —into the country, as opposed to just— To me, that's what seems so insane about it. And so the net result of this, other than the consequence of the people who then now get injured, get hurt, get killed, are trafficked, you know, young women and children who go to these groups end up in very bad places often in an attempt to get to the United States, what is going to happen is Stephen Miller could just tell the CBP, don't let anyone— Exactly. —no one gets in. So we will not recognize any legitimate asylum claims that come in through the normal process. Yes, it does not matter if someone could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they would be persecuted, tortured, killed in their home country. The administration can just refuse to consider that. Now, in this—I learned from your very—the very excellent Emergency Strict Scrutiny podcast you guys did that came out today? Yesterday? What is today? Today's Friday. Time has no meaning anymore. Today's Friday. It's June. Friday. It came out yesterday. I listened to it this morning. Okay. And—but during the release of this decision, that something very dramatic and quite—and perhaps unprecedented in the history of the Supreme Court happening, could you lay that out for us? So it's not entirely unprecedented, although it's deeply rare. By tradition, what happens is when the Supreme Court releases an opinion, the author of the majority opinion will provide some remarks and offer a brief summary of their case. Occasionally, but only in rare circumstances, will the author of the dissent then proceed to summarize their dissent. And reading portions of your dissent from the bench is reserved for very strongly held dissents where you want to signal a very obvious, strong objection to what the majority— So in the asylum case, Justice Sotomayor read portions of her dissent. And then Sam Alito proceeded to respond. And having the author of the majority opinion respond after the author of the dissent summarizes their dissent has happened maybe once or twice before. And Justice Alito also intimated that, well, had he known, Justice Sotomayor would have summarized more of her dissent. He definitely had additional things he would have said because he could totally rebut all of her arguments. And it's just so petulant and, yeah, unbefitting of justice. Well, I mean, this is a long pattern of behavior for Sam Alito going back to the 2010 Supreme State of the Union where he was so set. Barack Obama deigned disagree with the decision to allow corporations, billionaires to buy our political system that he had to react viscerally and loudly during this. He had basically had to heckle the president of the United States. Exactly. Exactly. You think, right, the Tea Party or whoever else invented heckling at the State of the Union? No, no, no, no, no, no. Sweet summer child. It was Sam Alito. Yes. A man who clearly has impulse control problems. Particularly when criticized, perhaps, by coincidence. Definition of a judicial temperament. Yes. When criticized. When criticized by people who, by coincidence, have to be people of color. Right. So it's a bother him, particularly. Thank you. or product sales, all from one place. Plus, Squarespace provides everything you need to bring more of your dream to life, whether that means building a website or adding a professional email service. Head to squarespace.com for a free trial, and when you're ready to launch, go to squarespace.com slash cricket to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. That's squarespace.com slash cricket. Pod Save America is brought to you by Sleep Me. Quick question, when was the last time you went to bed before midnight without your phone beaming blue light into your weary little eyes? Last night. Last night, nothing. You go to sleep. Not really. Nothing pairs worse with trying to fall asleep than having a full breakdown of the latest news cycle running on a loop in your head. Here's what's happening. The stress, the screen time, it all raises your core body temperature, and a body that's too warm cannot get into deep sleep. You're not just tired because the news is exhausting. You're tired because your body never actually recovered from the day. The good news is that you can do something about it, and it's simpler than you think. Lower your bed temperature. Sure, you could develop better habits of mind. Enter ChiliPad 2.0, the water-based mattress topper that actively controls your bed temperature from 55 to 115 degrees, all night long. All night? No new mattress, no renovation. It fits over what you already have. ChiliPad 2.0 actively cools or warms your bed using water, and water is key here. ChiliPad uses actively chilled water to cool your bed, actually pulling heat away from your body. It's like the difference between standing in front of a fan and jumping into a cold pool. The new 2.0 comes with a redesigned dock, quieter than ever, with a larger internal tank. The topper itself is now a premium performance-grade cover that unzips for easy washing and has built-in waterproof protection. And unlike a lot of tech out there, there's no subscription. You buy it, you own it, two-year warranty, designed and assembled in the USA, just north of Charlotte. I love the ChiliPad. I have the 1.0. I'm going to upgrade to the 2.0. And basically, your bed has an air conditioner on it. You can make it warm when you're cold. You can make it cold when you're warm. You can, you know, what I like to do is I set it really cold before I go to sleep and I'm watching TV. And then right before bed, I raise the temperature. Interesting. Because then as I'm falling asleep, it's cool, but then I'm not cold in the night. Oh. Okay, that's interesting. Visit www.sleep.me slash crooked to get up to $255 off your ChiliPad 2.0 with code crooked. That's www.sleep, S-L-E-E-P dot M-E slash crooked. Free shipping and free returns in a 30-night trial so you can test it out, dream big, and wake up better. The headlines will still be there in the morning. Boy, will they. You might as well wake up ready for them. Okay, another big case happened here. And this one caused a different corner of the internet to be aflame. The Maha corner of the internet is very upset about a case where the Supreme Court tossed out a suit against Monsanto's parent company involving claims that the weed killer Roundup caused cancer. And this one is interesting because this is not our traditional 6-3 group of the three we know and love and the six we have come to detest in many cases. This is a 7-2 decision where Kagan and Sotomayor actually were with the majority and Ketanji Brown-Jackson and Neil Gorsuch, I believe, were the ones who dissented. Talk to me about this case and did the majority get it right in this one? So the case is about the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act or FIFRA. FIFRA as we call it, yes. K. Shaw has called this one of her favorite statutes. I don't know why. But, but, but, but it's a federal law that gives the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, the authority to regulate pesticides, et cetera. And what happens is companies submit their proposed label for their pesticide to the EPA and then the EPA signs off on them. And the question in this case is whether an individual could sue a pesticide manufacturer saying that the label that the EPA had approved did not contain enough information to adequately work against the EPA. So the EPA has already warned them about the danger of the product. And so here the allegation was Monsanto's product, Roundup, contains an ingredient that causes cancer and that's not disclosed on the EPA warning label. And so what the Supreme Court said here is this statute gives the EPA and the EPA alone the authority to determine what goes on a label. And the label can only be changed if the EPA orders a change or if the EPA orders a change. If the EPA approves a change, private parties, states, they can't impose additional requirements beyond what the EPA has decided is warranted. And so where do you come down on this as a law professor and legal scholar yourself? Yeah, so I think the court probably got it right here, in part because the agency has a lot of authority over how these labels are made and what goes on there. And I think there was a congressional choice to prioritize uniformity over other considerations and wanting a single process, a single decision maker to determine what goes on these labels and valuing the EPA's expertise over the expertise of, say, state juries or state decision makers. And that's a choice Congress considered the pluses and minuses. And I think the court was probably right to say we need to respect the choice that Congress has made. Now, I have other issues with the Monsanto decision, just consider it in light of some of the other cases that the court made. But I think standing alone, the court probably got it right. And now, this was about one specific case in Missouri. But there are other suits against Monsanto out there that will be tossed out because of this. Exactly, yes, yep. And does this have an impact broadly on corporate liability or the ability of individuals to sue companies along the lines? Or is it pretty specific to this, one, FIFRA, if I'm saying that correctly? Exactly, yes. FIFRA-related ruling. It's pretty specific to the FIFRA statute itself, because the court focused on the fact that Congress in that statute has a provision labeled uniformity. And in the statute, gave the EPA a bunch of authority over all stages of the labeling process. And that's not necessarily going to be true in other statutes. And so, yes, it's going to insulate this set of corporations from this particular type of lawsuit, but not beyond that. And could these individuals sue the EPA for the label not being fully-- fulsome enough to give them what they needed to know to make the right decisions here? Or are these people just kind of screwed? Yeah, so they can file Administrative Procedure Act lawsuits against the EPA and challenge the agency's actions with respect to these labels. That is not going to get them damages for any harm that they might have experienced because of a failure of these warning labels, but they could, would try to get the EPA to change them going forward. And you said that you-- well, this in a vacuum, maybe was the right decision. You have concerns more broadly. I take it that is the fact that corporations are like 1 million and 0 in the Roberts Court over the last 22 years or whatever it is. That would be the general flavor of the objection. And even if you just look at the decisions from this past week, so Monsanto. Corporations can't be sued for labels that allegedly contain insufficient warnings that cause people to get cancer. Earlier this week, the court said you can't sue corporations for abetting human rights abuses that foreign governments commit. They said corporations, however, can sue foreign governments, namely Cuba, for taking their oil. They said individuals who are incarcerated, they cannot sue state officials who violate their religious freedom rights. They said TPS recipients can't sue to challenge the executive branch for violating their rights under the statute. In another immigration case, they said effectively lawful permanent residents can't enforce this statute protecting their right to reenter the United States at the border. So who gets to sue to enforce their rights? Corporations. You can't sue corporations for violating international law, for potentially violating state tort law. You can't sue state officials for violating federal law. You can't sue federal officials for violating federal law. And so if you just aggregate all of these decisions together, it's like, okay, who has rights? Who doesn't? Corporations. Everyone. You're bringing up the TPS thing. I was going to go back to something I meant to ask you before. Given this decision, what would stop a president, AOC, Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, whoever else, from just deciding on day one that they want to grant TPS to everyone from, say, Mexico? It's so funny you say that, Dan, because that was actually an argument in the case that the challengers said, look, if you completely insulate these decisions from review, they can be abused in either direction. So in one of the final passages of the opinion, Sam Alito suggests, well, look, the plaintiffs in these cases, they throw out these hypotheticals. We're not going to necessarily say those would be unreviewable, but maybe Congress could fix them. And so there was this narrow potential caveat that the court reserved for itself because they view themselves as the ultimate decision maker to potentially say maybe some wholesale abdications, might be reviewable, but who knows? So just if perchance, say, a Democratic president wanted to unveil themselves of the executive authority that they found inherited Donald Trump's actions, there was a way for them to stop that from happening. Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. Perfect, perfect, perfect, perfect. Good. Let's make sure, you know, I didn't go to law school, but I'm sort of picking up what's happening here. I mean, from these decisions, it's not clear Sam Alito did either. Fair enough, fair enough. OK, let's get to the cases that have not yet been released and will maybe release Monday or Tuesday of next week. OK. We think, we hope, who knows? Do we hope? Honestly, like there are bad things coming. I mean, I hope for you as someone who has a podcast schedule that you have to get to that happens earlier in the week rather better, I would say, for everyone Monday and Tuesday than Thursday, perhaps. OK. All right. The biggest one that everyone's waiting for is the one on birthright citizenship. Everyone seems to think that since the Constitution is quite explicit, on this, that it would be seemingly impossible for the Supreme Court to do this. You had a piece of the contrarian where you raised some real questions. You have some worries about this. I'd like to hear what those worries are. And I think it also raises some measure of concern that they've been sitting on this. Like this is something they could have done in a one sentence order a year ago. And we've been waiting and waiting and waiting. And just based on what I've read and reserved, the fact that they're waiting so long on this at least suggests that there's something going on. So what is going on here? Tell me about the case. Tell me about why specifically you have worries. Worries about what this decision might say. Yeah. So the case is a challenge to the president's executive order that purports to deny birthright citizenship to some people who are born in the United States, even though the first sentence of the 14th Amendment says all persons born and naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof shall be citizens. So it's a wildly illegal executive order. And I think most people, even after the oral argument and even now, think it's more likely than not that the Supreme Court will say that order can't be enforced and it's unconstitutional. But, and this is a big but, the recent immigration decisions are really concerning. The fact that the court adopted such broad reasoning in cases where they didn't have to do so at all, I think is causing some people to rethink their confidence in what the court might do on birthright. I think the delay could also signal that the decision isn't going to be unanimous. And if it's not unanimous, that's going to meaningfully alter the Overton window as far as what people's understanding of our constitutional multiracial democracy is. You know, if you have dissents by Justice Thomas and Alito, is birthright citizenship going to become a new litmus test for Republican appointees where the expectation is you will only be selected for a judicial seat if you would overrule birthright citizenship, just like you could only be selected for a judicial seat if you would overrule Roe versus Wade. It would also invite, you know, future challenges to birthright down the road. So, I think those are some of the things that are on people's mind. But then there's this additional consideration for me, which is even if the court does the right thing, I mean, they just cannot get all of the credit and all of the plaudits that are inevitably going to be heaped on them for standing up to the president when, as we were just talking about, they bent over backwards to greenlight some of the more xenophobic white nationalist elements of his immigration agenda when they didn't have to do so. They are the ones. They are the ones that created the need for this case on birthright citizenship and indeed demanded that the federal government bring the case to them when last year in the nationwide injunction case, they refused to just come out and say, even if lower courts can't block this policy on a nationwide basis, we Supreme Court can because it's wildly unconstitutional. And instead, they made the Solicitor General promise that he would appeal any unfavorable ruling back to them to give them the opportunity to be the hero. And so they were the ones that created this potential opportunity for great PR for themselves that will give them cover for who knows what else they might do in addition to all of the terrible things they've already done. Yeah, it's interesting because John Roberts is a very political individual and he is tries and he's not a very good political individual, but he tries to be one. And so I can see in his simple minded view where he's like, we're going to do all these terrible things and then we're going to head in a Fourth of July break with this decision that will cause everyone to say, see all those liberals who want to expand the court and do term limits and say we're a bunch of MAGA shills are wrong. And then there'll be a series of legal pundits who will then applaud John Roberts and he will ride off into the sunset as a hero, right? I mean, you say he's simple minded and not that great, but the end of your sentence, I just think is correct. When the court, if and when the court rules against birthright citizenship, there will be all of those takes and people talking about how the court has. Stood up to the president and isn't just in the bag for MAGA and isn't on board with all of Trump's agenda and therefore you libs and you progressives who want to reform the court. What would you do if Donald Trump could reform the court when he disagreed with it like that? There's going to be so much of that. But those takes are why America's most popular, influential Supreme Court podcast exists, right? Like you will be you, you, Kate and Russell will be on that wall fighting back against that. I know that. Yes. I mean, we have been screaming about this for over a year. And trust in the Supreme Court is at an all time low. So don't think you're not. You have not put your wheel to the your shoulder to the wheel of history. Yes. Yes. And strict scrutiny to more friends challenge. But no, I mean, it's not to say it's going to work, but it is going to generate some of the coverage that they want. And it's just going to be annoying as fuck when it does. Yes. So let's say. Let's say hypothetically, this is a 7-2 decision and, you know, Alito and Thomas or whoever else, they are against it. Can you fathom in your brain what that argument would be like? It is hard to find something as plain text as this in the with this with as a simple and specific application as this, you know, it's like obviously freedom of speech is in there, but then there are all kinds of all kinds of applications you can take on it. This is basically like if this happens, you are a citizen and Trump. The administration is arguing if this happens, you are not a citizen. Like what is the what is the the legal argument someone could muster as bullshit and fake as it would be that would say that birthright citizenship is not a lot. They could be curtailed or stopped by it by an administration. Yes. So having ventured into the dark recesses of right wing legal circles, I can offer you at least two. One would be to say that there is a recognized exception for birthright citizens. That birthright citizenship does not extend to the children of invading armies. You know, if, for example, Canada decided to invade the United States and, you know, officers who participated in that invasion had children born in the United States while they did so, then those children would not be citizens of the United States. And some on the right have argued that unauthorized immigration is the equivalent of an invasion of the United States. Throwing on great replacement theory and other white nationalist tropes. And so one possible legal theory is the justices could equate unlawful, unauthorized immigration with an invasion and say children who were born to individuals without legal status in the United States are the equivalent of the children of invading armies. That's one possibility. Another possibility is the court basically reads the exceptions to be the rule. So the phrase, as we were talking about in the 14th Amendment, is all person. And I think it's important to note that in the 14th Amendment, all persons born and naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. And part of that exception recognizes that children of foreign diplomats, for example, they are not born as United States citizens, just like children of invading armies aren't United States citizens. And so part of the federal government's argument is to basically take those quite narrow exceptions and generalize them into a rule that basically swallows the rule of birthright that says, well, individuals whose parents don't have an allegiance to the United States, their children can't be citizens. And so those are two possible avenues. Both are ridiculous and I think rest on underlying racist tropes about who is sufficiently American that birthright citizenship was intended to rebut. That's exactly what Dred Scott versus Sanford did when it concluded that individuals who were descendants of enslaved persons couldn't be citizens because they too weren't American enough and didn't have allegiance to the United States, et cetera, et cetera. But I think that those are two of the theories that are on hand. That's very dark and very disturbing. And thank you for visiting the dark side to share that with us. I think it's also notable that maybe this decision will come out right about the time the United States World Cup team is playing in the knockout round where the leading scorer of the World Cup team is someone who has their citizenship through birthright citizenship. Just just just a fact for that. Now, obviously, if they were to rule this, just I know we're in a dark hypothetical place here. It wouldn't be they couldn't make would they make it retroactive or like. So this is part of the uncertainty. You know, the administration developed guidance about how they would implement the birthright order, but courts blocked that before the order would take effect. So we don't know whether the Supreme Court would say those injunctions vacated individual who were born in the United States after this executive order was promulgated. They are not citizens. We don't know whether the court would say, no, this just applies prospectively now that we have said it can be enforced. It's all TBD, this new lawless, very uncertain era. It's all up for grabs. Pod Save America is brought to you by SimpliSafe. No one wants to imagine their home getting broken into. But the scary statistic is that every 26 seconds in the U.S., a family experiences a break-in. Scary, yes. But that's why SimpliSafe has worked to make home security accessible to more American families. But here's one American family right here. Yeah, I'm an American family. The Lovetts. The Lovetts have, I set up SimpliSafe and incredibly easy to do. You can customize it on the website. It arrives. You set it up in a matter of minutes. Base station and the number pad and all the little sensors. And then the app is great. The customer support really reliable. And it gives you peace of mind. With SimpliSafe. With SimpliSafe, you can customize your system to fit your needs. Then ships fast directly to your door. The app-guided setup is simple. And there's no drilling required, so you can install and arm your system in under an hour. SimpliSafe is more than just a security camera. It's a comprehensive system of sensors, indoor and outdoor cameras, and 24-7 professional monitoring. Over 5 million people value and trust SimpliSafe with their home security every day. Right now, our listeners will get 50% off a new system when you sign up for professional monitoring. And your first month is free. Just visit SimpliSafe.com slash Cricut. That's half off at SimpliSafe.com slash Cricut. There's no safe like SimpliSafe. Pod Save America is brought to you by Willys Remedy. I love Willys Remedy. Willys is a premium THC-infused social tonic crafted by the legendary Willie Nelson. And the man's a genius. It's a low-calorie, low-sugar alcohol alternative that actually works, delivering fast-acting, euphoric social buzz without the regrets that come from alcohol. Willys social tonics come in 5MG and 10MG doses. With a best-in-class flavor experience so smooth and balanced, you barely realize you're drinking a THC product at all. We had Willys drinks at the wedding. We called it the Grin and Tonic. I have finally tried Willys. It's awesome. It really is. It's great. It's really. It's a great. It's my favorite thing. We just bought a bunch of other bottles from the house. Better than an edible. Hits faster, but also smoother. You can enjoy the tonics as a shot, sipped over ice, or mixed into your favorite mocktail. Each bottle of Willys is third-party lab-tested for accurate dosage, so you can trust and customize your experience. Willys' unique blend of THC, CBD, CBG, and L-theanine delivers a feeling of calm, clarity, euphoria, and relaxation. One shot of Willys. Helps you relax, unwind, and de-stress. It's perfect for taking the edge off at the end of a long day or socializing with friends. Willys ships directly to your door in 40-plus states and has sold out three times in the first six months with over 300,000-plus happy customers. So order now at drinkwillys.com and use code CROOKED for 20% off your first order, plus free shipping on orders over $95. And live like a legend. drinkwillys.com, code CROOKED. So looking at the other cases that are out there, and there's also some pretty big ones. So there is one. There is one involving a ban on trans participation in youth sports. There is one about whether the president was able to fire Lisa Cook from the Fed board. And then there are two election cases. Am I missing any other big ones out there? Are those the ones? Those are the ones that I would say are the big ones. Well, so when you said Lisa Cook, it's not just a case about Lisa Cook. There's also a case about whether Trump can fire the head of the Federal Trade Commission and all other. Are these cases? Are those cases joint or are they two separate cases? They're not joint. They're two separate cases. OK. Can you maybe explain those two cases for us? Sure. Yeah. So one case involves whether Donald Trump can fire a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission and all other independent agencies that are led by these independent multi-member commissions, like the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or you name it, National Labor Relations Board, et cetera. The Federal Reserve? Or is that separate? Well, the Federal Reserve is that separate case because what happened is earlier in the Trump administration, Trump fired a bunch of these heads of multi-member commissions, even though the Supreme Court has a case that's nearly a century's old that says Congress can limit the president's ability to fire the heads of these multi-member commissions, specifically the Federal Trade Commission. So Donald Trump fired people in violation of these laws and the Supreme Court said, actually, we'll let him do that while the litigation is ongoing because we, Supreme Court, have decided to adopt this great new rule. It's called the Unitary Executive Theory, and it means the president gets to have near plenary power to fire people who exercise significant executive power. But then they added a sentence, accept the Federal Reserve Board, because that has a distinct historical tradition in the tradition of the Bank of the United States. That bespoke Fed exception, of course, illustrated. That their new unitary executive rule was catastrophic immediately once it would be unleashed onto the world because it would give the president the power to effectively blow up the United States and global economy. But that didn't give them pause. Instead, they just created that bespoke exception. And so what did Donald Trump do? He went ahead and tried to fire a governor of the Federal Reserve Board because, you know, when you give a fascist a cookie, what happens, right? They try to take another cookie. So then the Supreme Court ended up with these pair of cases. And one set of cases. And the Supreme Court asks, is it constitutional for Congress to attempt to limit the president's ability to fire the heads of these multi-member commissions? That's a hugely important case, because if the court hands the president that power, they will be giving him the power to control these agencies that exercise such sweeping powers over our lives, over government contracts, over whether corporations have to comply with the law. You know, Federal Trade Commission, for example, they police Amazon. You know, they police. If you tell the president, you can fire people who don't enforce antitrust law the way you want them to, that's allowing him to give murders to his friends and penalize his enemies. So that case is super consequential. But they also have that case about Lisa Cook. And that case asks, well, given that this statute does limit the president's ability to fire Lisa Cook, did the president comply with those limitations? So I don't want the Cook case to kind of be a problem. I want the Cook case to kind of obscure the significance of the other case, which will affect every other independent agency. Let me ask a question on the independent agency case. Now, the president gets to appoint the heads of all of these jobs, right? And they are approved by the Senate. And the reason the president can't just fire them like he could fire his secretary of Homeland Security or whatever else is because the way the law was written says they can only fire them for cause. Exactly. Is that what it is? Yep. Because Congress decided these agencies would just run better if they were somewhat insulated from politics and relied more on expertise. And then the question before the court is whether the president's inherent executive authority override that, whether the Congress does not have the constitutional authority to hem in that specific executive authority, right? Exactly. Whether the Constitution entitles the president to say you're fired, no matter what Congress says. Okay. And then the possible exception of the Fed because of its unique tradition. Okay. Because the justices have stock portfolios. Yes. Exactly. They're all quite wealthy. Yeah. And Clarence Thomas has several very close friends who need that money to send him on vacation and elsewhere. Private jet fuel. Don't pay for itself, Dan. Okay. All right. Let's get to the transports case. This one, if I remember correctly from the oral arguments earlier this year, seemed quite dire in what we thought the court would read, but maybe talk about that case and if there's any, you see any hope here. Yeah. So this case is about whether state laws that effectively ban transgender athletes from participating. in sports violate either Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs or educational institutions, and also whether these state laws violate the federal constitutions guarantee of equal protection. The oral argument in the cases was awful. The lawyer for the federal government, who of course was arguing in support of these state law bans and against trans athletes, said one of the more grotesque things I think that has ever been said at the Supreme Court lectern when he referred to trans athletes as males who take performance-enhancing drugs. And I just don't think there's any question that the six Republican appointees are going to say these state laws are consistent with Title IX. The only lingering question is whether they're also going to say these state laws are consistent with Title IX. state laws are constitutional, or whether they will instead send the case back to the lower court to decide that constitutional question, perhaps with some additional fact-finding. I honestly think that is the best we can hope for at this point. And the other thing to watch for is whether you get separate writings that say not only does Title IX permit states to ban trans athletes from participating in sports, potentially it requires states and schools to ban trans athletes from participating in sports. So that's kind of the spectrum of possibilities. It's very bleak. Yeah. So we have two sort of major things that I guess go beyond sports participation, right? One is suggesting that Title IX would require some measure of discrimination against trans people, whether that could be in anything involving education, right? Funding, scholarships, across the board, right? So that's a big question. And I think that's a big question. That's one. That seems quite bad. And then even worse, I would imagine, is making some case that, I mean, am I overreading this, that the net result of an equal protection finding here would be that trans people have no equal protection rights? That being trans would not guarantee equal protection rights in the way that being Black or a woman or of a certain religious group? Yeah. The danger is the Supreme Court says laws that discriminate against trans people do not trigger. Any kind of meaningful judicial scrutiny. So courts should just defer to governments that discriminate on the basis of gender identity and give those laws a pass. Given the extent to which states and the federal government have been trying to erase trans people and strip trans people of their rights, that would be a really concerning development because it would make challenging all of those laws or policies that are anti-trans, in court. Could Congress then, in a different world, with a different Congress and a different president, do something to address that by passing laws that would guarantee, like either amending Title IX or, like, what would a Congress do that would solve that problem? Potentially, yes. So Congress could enact a statute. Maybe the statute itself just prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender identity, no matter the context, in school and elsewhere. Maybe Congress, creates a spending program that says, look, if you receive any federal funds, you have to promise not to discriminate on the basis of gender identity. Those are two possibilities. And yet, I am left with, but the Supreme Court. I cannot rule out the possibility that this court would invalidate those laws, maybe saying, well, they exceed Congress's powers. Maybe the court would say, well, those laws actually discriminate on the basis of sex in violation of the federal constitution. You know, maybe the court would say they had another spending clause decision. This is one of the other awful decisions from this week, where they basically said spending programs can't be enforced against the state officials who are carrying them out. So maybe they would make those spending conditions effectively toothless. But there are things Congress could do. But basically, anything Congress could do that is good, requires a different Supreme Court. Yeah, which is, that's true of all. That is true of all. All things, yes. Stipulated, agreed to, we have to deal with that. Yeah. The Supreme Court is also considering a Mississippi law that allows the five-day grace period for mail-in ballots received after Election Day to be counted. This law is, of course, being challenged by the RNC. And this has implications both for Mississippi and perhaps more broadly, like in California now, where Spencer Pratt, who is a MAGA favorite, his chance spot in the runoff went away as more votes came in. And so talk a little bit about this case. If it has broader implications for this grace period for mail-in balloting, which is Trump is trying to, wrote an executive order to try to stop the Postal Service from delivering mail-in ballots, although that was stopped by federal courts. Just talk a little bit about what's going on there. Yeah. So the challenge here, the Republican National Committee says this federal law that creates Election Day as this first Tuesday in November, that prohibits states from counting ballots that are received after Election Day, even if they were postmarked on or by election day. If the Supreme Court adopts that theory, that would nullify or change how votes are counted in 29 some states. And of course, we are a few months away from the midterms. I think there's a real concern that changing the rules of the election at this point would put state and local election officials in a really tough spot because they have already begun to prepare to administer the election in accordance with what their state rules are now and requiring them to all of a certain extent, because the Supreme Court read Election Day to be this magical unicorn of a date on which everything but only some things have to be completed by would be hugely destabilizing. I also think it would create a lot of voter confusion and chaos that could potentially lead to voter suppression and people not actually returning their ballots and whatnot. So I am very concerned about that case, just because of its impact on the state. And I think it would create a lot of potential destabilizing and sweeping implications. And also because of what it might invite next. If the Supreme Court says states can't count ballots that are received after Election Day, why can states count ballots that are received before Election Day? If Election Day is this magical day that everything is supposed to happen by? Why can they count ballots after Election Day, even if the ballots were received before Election Day? So part of what is so concerning about this case is it could call into question so many established voters. And I think it would create a lot of confusion about what is supposed to happen next. practices that we have just taken for granted, in addition to fucking with the midterms. And the sea change here, potentially, is that the courts, to date, have given states, because of the Constitution, wide latitude in how they conduct their elections. And many of the cases that have been thrown out, even some Trump cases in 2020, are based on that principle that the Constitution grants the states to do it. They have to do it in accordance with the Constitution. But beyond that, you want to do your election all by mail? You can do that. You want to count ones that arrive after Election Day, but are postmarked before? You can do that. But that could open the door to other things going forward here. Potentially. So even though states, of course, have the general authority to run elections, Congress can establish rules regarding federal elections. Now, the president can't. So all of his unhinged theories about what he can and can't do and what he does and doesn't still wildly illegal, no matter what the Supreme Court says in this absentee ballot case. But this federal law that just, again, creates an Election Day in no way displaces how states have conducted elections for years. And so I think the challenge is what other challenges to other state laws, you know, this theory would invite in addition to the position it would put state and local election officials in the lead up to the midterm elections. And it probably is worth noting that the people who will probably be most disenfranchised with this are military members serving overseas, which are where a lot of the ballots come from that show up after Election Day. That is indeed true. Indeed, the practice of, you know, voting outside of Election Day partially originated during the Civil War to ensure that Union soldiers would not be disenfranchised. There is always a possibility that the Republican appointees announced no ballots can be counted after Election Day if they're, you know, received after Election Day, or overseas uniformed officers. Now, that might not protect the families of people who are stationed overseas and whatnot. And that would also create its own form of chaos. But who knows? Pod Save America is brought to you by Armoura Colostrum. When you prioritize your body's baseline, you're better equipped to show up with focus and energy no matter what the day holds. Armoura Colostrum is a simple, nature-inspired addition to your daily wellness routine. While many turn to probiotics for gut support, they often only focus on one part of a complex system. Armoura Colostrum works differently by providing comprehensive nourishment for your gut's natural barrier. It's designed to help sustain your microbiome and support your body's natural defenses against the stressors of modern life. Elevate your self-care from the inside out. Armoura Colostrum provides a blueprint of nutrients that complement your body's natural renewal processes. From supporting skin and hair vibrancy to assisting with daily recovery, it's the ultimate tool for those looking to optimize their well-being at the moment. Armoura Colostrum has also shown that colostrum can be a powerful ally for your active life. It supports the body's natural ability to absorb nutrients and maintain lean muscle. We've worked out a special offer for audience. Receive 30% off your first subscription order. Go to armra.com slash cricket or enter cricket to get 30% off your first subscription order. That's A-R-M-R-A dot com slash cricket. Corrupting our democracy works best when we forget that we, the people, are in charge. I'm Stacey Abrams, voting rights advocate and host of Assembly Required. In my podcast, I'm talking with some of the sharpest minds in politics and in civic activism to help us figure out how to fight authoritarianism and win. My podcast doesn't just diagnose problems. We give actionable steps to help you feel a little more connected and a lot more empowered to make change in your communities. So check out my podcast, Assembly Required. New episodes drop every Tuesday on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. This is LeVar Arrington from Two Pros, and again, I'm Stacey Abrams, voting rights advocate and host of Assembly Required. That's X-E-R-O. With visual dashboards, Xero makes it easy to understand your cash flow, you know exactly what's coming in and what's going out, so you don't have to worry about what's going to happen next. So you can make smarter decisions that can help grow your business. The other case is actually one that has gotten very little attention, but it actually has potentially dramatic impacts. In fact, some have said that this case, which involves how whether parties can coordinate with candidates, would be the biggest campaign finance decision since Citizens United, which is saying a lot because we've had cases like McCutcheon and others in the middle here. Also, in the oral arguments here, it did not seem particularly encouraging. So maybe you could try to explain this case to people and why they should care about it. Yeah. So it sounds technical because it's a challenge. It's a challenge to what's called a coordination limit, as you were saying, which is a political party's ability to coordinate how they spend their money with a candidate. It effectively amounts to a ban on political parties donating money to a candidate because if they coordinate, they're effectively giving the money to the candidate to decide how it could be spent. And there's a concern that if they don't coordinate, they're not going to be able to spend the money. So I think that's really important. I think it's important. I think it's important that if you say, well, contribution limits, actually, those might be unconstitutional. That is like the last remaining vestige of campaign finance law, because even as the Supreme Court has opened up these pathways for corporations, super PACs to spend an unlimited amount of their own money doing their own advertising, they have not yet struck down limitations on billionaires and other individuals. And so I think it's important to give money directly to candidates. And once you start saying, actually, contribution limits, those are no good either, then that invites individuals giving directly money to candidates. And I think that's one of the big concerns about this case. Yeah, like in practical consideration, right? So there's two things. There's what this case would mean right now and how elections are conducted today. And then there is the larger question about whether contribution limits at all are now a violation of the Constitution. Which leads to, instead of Elon Musk spending $132 million or whatever it was to, in a series of outside groups to elect Donald Trump, he just gives Donald Trump $132 million. Exactly. Cut out the middleman. Yes, that seems bad. But just like as you think about it now, you can give about $7,000 to a candidate, half in the primary, half in the general, as an individual, whether you are you or me or Elon Musk. That's the most we can give directly to you. So you can give $132,900 to a candidate, half in the primary, half in the general, as an individual, Roy Cooper, whoever else. You can give, an individual can give $132,900 to the DNC or the RNC. And so now, instead of giving my $7,000, my little over $7,000 to Grant Platner, I just give $132,000 to the DNC. And then they spend that on behalf of, this matters more in presidential campaigns than it does anything else, because that's where it'd be spent directly. But it does have big implications. And I think that's a big part of it. It does have big implications. And it just, once again, gives more power to rich people. This is almost certainly going to, the court will approve this. This is in line with every other decision they've made since John Roberts became the chief justice. And the Trump administration isn't even defending the law here. They are on the other side of it, because it's the NRSC, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, is the plaintiff in the case. So this one is, this is a big mess. This is one for election nerds are paying a lot of attention to, and people who work on elections, but they get some pretty big implications for what else is to come in our politics. Yeah, completely. Because in the short term, it would just rapidly increase the amount of money that rich individuals can give directly to candidates. But then in the longer term, it potentially opens up a pathway for no limits at all. There is a small outside chance that the court says there's no actual controversy here and the case is moot and they don't decide it. But that is the best scenario. I mean, look, I mean, this Supreme Court, there's always hope, right? Yeah. Yeah. Give them that. One thing they've earned is the benefit of the doubt. Benefit of the doubt. Yeah. All right. Before we go, I want to hit on Roe v. Wade. This past week was the four-year anniversary of the Dobbs decision, which overturned the Roe v. Wade decision. The legacy of that decision continues to live in our lives, in our politics, everywhere. It is coming up in this main Senate race, where Susan Collins is running against Grant Piner. And she got asked about it on Fox News. I wanted to play the clip. And get your reaction to it. You held up for quite some time on your vote of support for now Justice Kavanaugh. Is this an issue that you think is troublesome for you in this race now that Roe v. Wade was overturned in Maine, across the country? Well, first of all, let me make clear that I disagreed with the Supreme Court's six to three decision overturning Roe v. Wade. But the fact is that whether Justice Kavanaugh were confirmed or not, Roe v. Wade would have been overturned given the six to three vote. Not true, Sam Alito says. Could you maybe explain where Susan Collins has her facts wrong on this one? Where to start? There's so much to potentially say about this. I am going to step out of the way and let you go. Okay. We'll start with the factual inaccuracies. Had Justice Kavanaugh not been confirmed, there were not five to six votes. So, I'm going to start with the factual inaccuracies. There were not five votes to overrule Roe v. Wade. Chief Justice Roberts did not vote to overrule Roe v. Wade. He instead voted to change the legal test in a way that would have expanded states' ability to restrict abortion more so than they could have done before the decision, but not to the point of overruling Roe v. Wade. So, that's just factually inaccurate. There were just five justices who voted to overrule Roe. And just to be clear, she confirmed the fifth justice. And she confirmed Brett Kavanaugh, exactly, who was one of those justices. Those five. So, facts, not so great. Second, I absolutely just despise this framing of I disagree with the court's decision. I don't regret my vote. Because it just makes me wonder, what great things has Brett Kavanaugh done that make the loss of women's lives, their fertility, their health worth it? How many women have to lose their lives for you to conclude that actually maybe you do your vote? So, that is just horrifying. And then there's this sense that maybe she, you know, made this decision, but it didn't really affect Mainers, which is also wrong. Because, you know, people who live in Maine, which still has abortion access, might travel. And sometimes people experience medical emergencies that might require medical care, including abortion care. And if you're traveling in a state where after Roe, abortion is banned, you are potentially in a circumstance where you could not receive medical care. Add to that the fact that the medication abortion rulings potentially jeopardize access to medication abortion, even in states like Maine that want to protect abortion. And I just think she is really papering over so many of the horrific consequences that her vote to confirm the fifth vote to overrule Roe have had. And it just, one of the more tragic things about the 2024 presidential election is, I think people came away from it thinking, well, actually, the Republican Party isn't going to bear any consequences for overruling Roe. And the public has just decided not to force them to pay a price for, again, the loss of lives, health, fertility, more that we have seen in the wake of Roe being overruled. And I hope that is not the case. I hope that in 2026, you know, people who enable this post-Roe landscape are held accountable. But it is just very, very depressing um i think anytime i think about the fact that people just decided to give a bunch of politicians a pass for what they have unleashed on people in this country so let me can i give the uh counterpoint to that yeah let's do it because i just i talked about some polar coaster uh this past week uh because of the anniversary of dobbs and what is really interesting about the polling on this is abortion was a very divisive issue in this country up until the moment of dobbs yeah and the number of americans who who consider themselves pro-choice it reached an all-time high right after dobbs and four years later has stayed the same it has not gone down as obviously in that immediate aftermath in in that election year 2022 as these republic states are rushing to pass their bills abortion was the number one issue in politics it was discussed everywhere people were dealing with it was just a topic of conversation as it's dropped in salience it has not changed the politics of which i think is very very positive um and creates the path for accountability for these people and there are opportunities in 2026 to hold these people accountable you have susan collins yes you have ken paxton you have a an array of officials in um in ohio right in a whole bunch of other states that passed some of the most the cruelest and most retrograde uh reproductive rights laws in this country can all pay the price everyone should go to votesafeamerica.com to figure out how to do that but i really do believe donald trump was this unicorn figure because even though he is the person other than susan collins most responsible for roe being overturned no one actually believed that he truly was anti-choice like i remember in focus groups people would say people if you asked in a focus group if donald trump was anti-abortion or anti-choice they would laugh and would say he uh that he doesn't probably he believes in nothing yeah and he'd probably be like i mean here's the thing i don't know if he's a disgusting cat he's from manhattan he probably like obviously he doesn't care about abortion that is not true of the rest of this republic certainly not true of ken paxton uh who is a principal architect of that law and the enforcement of that law and so there are opportunities to hold people accountable here and like this is i do believe that dobbs was a it did not bear it did not bear fruit in 2024 because of a right and i think that's a good thing i think that's a good thing i think that's a good thing long list of unique circumstances that bedeviled that election that we don't have to get into but was a fundamental signature moment that changed politics in this country in ways that will ensure those people are held accountable and more and more states will elect the right people to put in place laws and maybe one day we'll have a supreme court that can undo the damage that was done there i very much hope you are correct um and i just worry that i have rarely gone wrong in um estimating the amount of misogyny that americans will tolerate in their politics and again i very much hope you are right may it be the case um and and we have that we have the ability to impact that ourselves yes right now everyone exactly to impact that in many different ways yes whether that is like calling your officials to remind them that actually you do care about abortion access and reproductive rights are your senators confirming nominees giving blue slips to nominees right who you don't think will protect reproductive freedom for instance yes you know not naming names but um someone who is on the ballot in 2028 will face the primary challenge yes yes um or again electing officials helping to get out the vote to help elect officials you know who will protect reproductive freedom you know and to vote against people who didn't um all of those are ways to make this happen um and i think we kind of need to make reproductive freedom a salient issue i think as part of protecting democracy um like you can't really separate these two things um so yeah fingers see that seems what was perhaps not the most optimistic and hopeful pod that we've done in pod save america for the last many years uh although quite insightful interesting and entertaining i would say um maybe we can end on that positive ish note leah lidman thanks so much for joining us and everyone check out strict scrutiny you guys have another podcast out this week on monday was talking some decisions and then maybe more depending on what we hear from the rest of the court is that right that is all correct uh new episode on monday and then likely additional episodes whenever the supreme court does fuck knows what yeah leah thank you so much thanks thanks to leah for stopping by john john and tommy will be back in your feed with a new episode on tuesday bye everyone pod save america is a crooked media production our show is produced by austin fisher saul rubin mckenna roberts and ferris safari with reed churlin elijah cone and adrian hill our team includes matt degrote ben hefcote jordan canter charlotte landis carol palaviv david tolls mia kelman ryan young and naomi single our staff is proudly unionized with the writers guild of america east corrupting our democracy works best when we forget that we the people are in charge i'm stacy abrams voting rights advocate and host of assembly required in my podcast i'm talking with some of the sharpest minds in politics and in civic activism to help us figure out how to fight authoritarianism and win my podcast doesn't just diagnose problems we give actionable steps to help you feel a little more connected and a lot more empowered to make change in your communities so check out my podcast assembly required new episodes drop every tuesday on youtube or wherever you get your podcasts you know that moment when everything lines up when life gives you the green light and you just go that's the 2026 toyota camry no hesitation no friction you just a car that's right there with you ready responsive in control the whole way through because when it's your moment you shouldn't have to think twice the 2026 toyota camry go like you mean it test drive at your local toyota dealer or visit toyota.com today toyota let's go places see packages and options at toyota.com for future availability hey it's ryan seacrest for albertsons and tom thumb it's stock up sale time which means you can save big by stocking up on all your personal care favorites now through november 3rd shop in store and online and save ten dollars when you spend twenty five dollars or more participating products like chic razor head and shoulders anti-dandruff shampoo hello deodorant just for men hair color listerine mouthwash gold bond hand cream and irish spring body wash offer ends november 3rd restrictions apply offers may vary visit albertsons or tom thumb.com for details