The OG trio are back to discuss the Arizona's state supreme court upholding a near total ban on abortion in the state from an 1864 law! What does this mean for Kari Lake and Donald Trump's campaigns in the crucial swing state? Get tickets to see Sarah, Tim & JVL in person at TWO upcoming Bulwark Live events— Philadelphia (May 1) and D.C. (May 15) here:
Aww, I loved Sarah’s story about meeting Pete. I’ve been angling for a chance to meet him for a while now, even though I’m pretty sure I won’t be able to resist the urge to give him a big hug. My apologies in advance, Mr. Secretary.
I have the mortifying tendency to just blurt out the person’s name — as if they need to be reminded of who they are. So look for me at some future Bulwark event exclaiming “Tim Miller!!” just a bit too loudly. 🤦
People, when the Arizona A.G. announced her intention to not prosecute anyone who transgresses the 1864 abortion ban law, she made it clear that there are other similarly unforced laws technically on the books in AZ; for example, an old law makes adultery illegal there. Similar old, outdated, and mostly forgotten laws exist all across the country. Many have been forgotten by legislators and only are exposed to the light in a case like Arizona's where someone unearths them for a particular purpose. In your zeal to have all laws equally enforced, would you really like to see anyone who commits adultery in Arizona thrown in jail? How about arresting nighttime motorists in Pennsylvania who fail to stop every mile and send up a rocket signal? Would you like bar owners in North Dakota jailed because they served you pretzels with your beer? Serving them at the same time is illegal in ND. Several states ban dominoes, yo-yos, and marbles on Sundays. Heaven forbid you drive with an uncaged bear in your car in Missouri, or park your elephant at a meter in Orlando, Florida without depositing the same amount of money as you would to park your car. It is PERFECTLY NORMAL to fail to enforce outdated laws that remain on the books and are largely forgotten. Fun fact for the day!
I'm sitting in a bougie, crowded cafe, listening to the last five minutes of this podcast, and trying my DAMNDEST to not laugh like a psycho at Sarah's tale of woe.
It's an impossible challenge. 11/10 no notes. We've all been there. Good job talking to Pete, Sarah.
In a way it doesn't really matter what Democrats put up for the text of the bill, because even just codifying Roe still gets presented as "abortion on demand until the moment of birth" by Republican politicians, an assertion which is never even lightly questioned by people interviewing them.
Re the old AZ law, everyone really should read Heather Cox Richardson's letter for the 9th. The history is FASCINATING; here are a couple of excerpts (which I hope is OK to copy and paste here!):
"The Arizona law that will begin to be enforced in 14 days was written by a single man in 1864.
...
In fact, the 1864 law soon to be in force again in Arizona to control women’s reproductive rights in the twenty-first century does not appear particularly concerned with women handling their own reproductive care in the nineteenth—it actually seems to ignore that practice entirely. The laws for Arizona Territory, chaotic and still at war in 1864, appear to reflect the need to rein in a lawless population of men."
I'm going to do two comments to make two completely different points. I have middle-of-the-night insomnia, so often listen to podcasts while lying awake. Sarah's story about meeting Secy. Pete was so hilarious that I laughed out loud and tears soaked my pillow. It was so nice to be able to laugh about something for a change that I played it three times. Still can't believe Sarah would EVER be nervous, tho!
I wish the three of you could do a pod every day; I never get enough of listening. You have such incredible chemistry, and are such a wonderful combo of attributes, that the whole ends up being more than the sum of the parts. But I do have to say that Tim is also killing it on the Bulwark pod - such great choices in guests!
I'm not convinced that killing terrorists (or civilians) has much of an effect on increasing the number of future terrorists. There are always unlimited numbers of potential terrorists as long as there are bored, unemployed young men in the Middle East. The constraint is that it takes money to recruit, train, and equip them. For Hamas, that money comes from Iran. If Israel does not take out Hamas now, the thing that would eventually eliminate Hamas as a threat is the downfall of the Iranian regime. Ayatollah Khamenei can't live forever. Could Hamas find a new patron? If not, there is the break in the stalemate.
Just finished this podcast and am wiping off the tears that steamed down my face as I literally laughed out loud listening to Sarah’s meeting Mayor Pete story. We’re all human and can relate. Sarah - thank you for sharing and gives us a few minutes of blissful fun.
yet NYT dawsey and Haberman keep spouting that Trump is moderate.I know Dawsey was at the steakhouse meeting last August with GOP operatives, as was Dana Bash. What about Maggie?
Concerning the equilibrium point in regards to Israel-Palestine. I spent quite a bit of time yesterday arguing this, and I'll continue it here. I actually disagree with both JVL and Tim's stances, and would go even darker than Tim here. Here's the way I see it:
All dominant political factions within Palestinian society want Israel wiped off the map. However, they lack material power to do this and are not likely to get it anytime in the foreseeable future.
Israel has a wider range of political thoughts circulating in the policy sphere about what to do with Palestine. Everyone outside of Neturei Karta wants permanent security in the sense that attacks on Israel cease. Some are for two state, or even three state solutions. Others are for building border walls and living in a state of siege indefinitely. Still others are for the wiping out of the Palestinians.
Israel has far more material power than the Palestinians do, and if left completely to their own devices, could embark on pretty much any policy that they wanted vis a vis the Palestinians. However, this is not a world where Israel and the Palestinians (insofar as they can be considered unitary actors) are the only actors involved. Lots of other people and states have opinions on the Israel-Palestine situation, and are likely to influence Israeli policy. As a practical matter, that means that even if the sort of pro-genocide of Palestinian factions gain political ascendancy in Israel internally, they are unlikely to be able to actually implement their designs.
However, international will to solve the security dilemma from Israel's point of view is essentially nonexistent, nobody wants to stick their hand into that proverbial pit of scorpions. Likewise, even if there are countries that share Palestinian aspirations for the removal of Israel, that is not likely to happen, despite current distance forming between Israel and most of their Western supporters, I don't think that would endure if somehow Iranian tanks were rolling through Tel Aviv; and in the last instance, Israel is a nuclear power and there is no precedent for that sort of external conventional destruction of a country with atomic weapons.
With that very long introduction, that makes me lean far more towards the Tim position than the JVL position; Palestine does not want a two-state solution or to co-exist. Parts of Israel do, but they are incapable of establishing it or of eliminating Hamas or other Hamas-like entities. This continued failure will generally drive Israel into more radical positions. The people who most want peace and two-state are people like JVL himself, outside observers. But while they (probably) have the power to keep either side from wiping out the other, they do not have the power to impose a stable peace/equilibrium.
So my view of the equilibrium is occasional clashes, a lot of killing and reprisal, where various outside actors come in and stop it once the cries of genocide get too loud for their own internal political climates to tolerate what's going on. Then things peter out, other crises grab the attention, some new spark flies in the Levant, and another conflagration hits. And this is an absolutely terrible equilibrium point, but as horrible as it is IT IS A STABLE ONE. The parties involved can keep doing this forever without it proving fatal to any of the political units involved, and unless something dramatically changes, will keep doing so.
Sarah, you are just the best. Once again, a story of yours had me rolling in the aisles.
Aww, I loved Sarah’s story about meeting Pete. I’ve been angling for a chance to meet him for a while now, even though I’m pretty sure I won’t be able to resist the urge to give him a big hug. My apologies in advance, Mr. Secretary.
I have the mortifying tendency to just blurt out the person’s name — as if they need to be reminded of who they are. So look for me at some future Bulwark event exclaiming “Tim Miller!!” just a bit too loudly. 🤦
People, when the Arizona A.G. announced her intention to not prosecute anyone who transgresses the 1864 abortion ban law, she made it clear that there are other similarly unforced laws technically on the books in AZ; for example, an old law makes adultery illegal there. Similar old, outdated, and mostly forgotten laws exist all across the country. Many have been forgotten by legislators and only are exposed to the light in a case like Arizona's where someone unearths them for a particular purpose. In your zeal to have all laws equally enforced, would you really like to see anyone who commits adultery in Arizona thrown in jail? How about arresting nighttime motorists in Pennsylvania who fail to stop every mile and send up a rocket signal? Would you like bar owners in North Dakota jailed because they served you pretzels with your beer? Serving them at the same time is illegal in ND. Several states ban dominoes, yo-yos, and marbles on Sundays. Heaven forbid you drive with an uncaged bear in your car in Missouri, or park your elephant at a meter in Orlando, Florida without depositing the same amount of money as you would to park your car. It is PERFECTLY NORMAL to fail to enforce outdated laws that remain on the books and are largely forgotten. Fun fact for the day!
Man, that last part about metting Pete was hysterical , been there, done that...
And yes, Tim, I thought you were serious....what does that say about me? Or the situation we are in, that it didn't sound silly at all?
You know Sec Pete will be provided thus clip, yes? Great fangirl story!
Sarahs story meeting Sec Pete, so good. Now Sarah will understand when people act strange meeting her, huge fan!
I'm sitting in a bougie, crowded cafe, listening to the last five minutes of this podcast, and trying my DAMNDEST to not laugh like a psycho at Sarah's tale of woe.
It's an impossible challenge. 11/10 no notes. We've all been there. Good job talking to Pete, Sarah.
In a way it doesn't really matter what Democrats put up for the text of the bill, because even just codifying Roe still gets presented as "abortion on demand until the moment of birth" by Republican politicians, an assertion which is never even lightly questioned by people interviewing them.
Re the old AZ law, everyone really should read Heather Cox Richardson's letter for the 9th. The history is FASCINATING; here are a couple of excerpts (which I hope is OK to copy and paste here!):
"The Arizona law that will begin to be enforced in 14 days was written by a single man in 1864.
...
In fact, the 1864 law soon to be in force again in Arizona to control women’s reproductive rights in the twenty-first century does not appear particularly concerned with women handling their own reproductive care in the nineteenth—it actually seems to ignore that practice entirely. The laws for Arizona Territory, chaotic and still at war in 1864, appear to reflect the need to rein in a lawless population of men."
I'm going to do two comments to make two completely different points. I have middle-of-the-night insomnia, so often listen to podcasts while lying awake. Sarah's story about meeting Secy. Pete was so hilarious that I laughed out loud and tears soaked my pillow. It was so nice to be able to laugh about something for a change that I played it three times. Still can't believe Sarah would EVER be nervous, tho!
I wish the three of you could do a pod every day; I never get enough of listening. You have such incredible chemistry, and are such a wonderful combo of attributes, that the whole ends up being more than the sum of the parts. But I do have to say that Tim is also killing it on the Bulwark pod - such great choices in guests!
I'm not convinced that killing terrorists (or civilians) has much of an effect on increasing the number of future terrorists. There are always unlimited numbers of potential terrorists as long as there are bored, unemployed young men in the Middle East. The constraint is that it takes money to recruit, train, and equip them. For Hamas, that money comes from Iran. If Israel does not take out Hamas now, the thing that would eventually eliminate Hamas as a threat is the downfall of the Iranian regime. Ayatollah Khamenei can't live forever. Could Hamas find a new patron? If not, there is the break in the stalemate.
Please, PLEASE create a shirt or a hat that just simply says; "There's a guy!" or "I see a guy!"
Just finished this podcast and am wiping off the tears that steamed down my face as I literally laughed out loud listening to Sarah’s meeting Mayor Pete story. We’re all human and can relate. Sarah - thank you for sharing and gives us a few minutes of blissful fun.
yet NYT dawsey and Haberman keep spouting that Trump is moderate.I know Dawsey was at the steakhouse meeting last August with GOP operatives, as was Dana Bash. What about Maggie?
Crying/laughing over Sarah's Pete anecdote.
During her 2032 inaugural address, either Sarah will have to wear blinders or Pete will need a burka.
Concerning the equilibrium point in regards to Israel-Palestine. I spent quite a bit of time yesterday arguing this, and I'll continue it here. I actually disagree with both JVL and Tim's stances, and would go even darker than Tim here. Here's the way I see it:
All dominant political factions within Palestinian society want Israel wiped off the map. However, they lack material power to do this and are not likely to get it anytime in the foreseeable future.
Israel has a wider range of political thoughts circulating in the policy sphere about what to do with Palestine. Everyone outside of Neturei Karta wants permanent security in the sense that attacks on Israel cease. Some are for two state, or even three state solutions. Others are for building border walls and living in a state of siege indefinitely. Still others are for the wiping out of the Palestinians.
Israel has far more material power than the Palestinians do, and if left completely to their own devices, could embark on pretty much any policy that they wanted vis a vis the Palestinians. However, this is not a world where Israel and the Palestinians (insofar as they can be considered unitary actors) are the only actors involved. Lots of other people and states have opinions on the Israel-Palestine situation, and are likely to influence Israeli policy. As a practical matter, that means that even if the sort of pro-genocide of Palestinian factions gain political ascendancy in Israel internally, they are unlikely to be able to actually implement their designs.
However, international will to solve the security dilemma from Israel's point of view is essentially nonexistent, nobody wants to stick their hand into that proverbial pit of scorpions. Likewise, even if there are countries that share Palestinian aspirations for the removal of Israel, that is not likely to happen, despite current distance forming between Israel and most of their Western supporters, I don't think that would endure if somehow Iranian tanks were rolling through Tel Aviv; and in the last instance, Israel is a nuclear power and there is no precedent for that sort of external conventional destruction of a country with atomic weapons.
With that very long introduction, that makes me lean far more towards the Tim position than the JVL position; Palestine does not want a two-state solution or to co-exist. Parts of Israel do, but they are incapable of establishing it or of eliminating Hamas or other Hamas-like entities. This continued failure will generally drive Israel into more radical positions. The people who most want peace and two-state are people like JVL himself, outside observers. But while they (probably) have the power to keep either side from wiping out the other, they do not have the power to impose a stable peace/equilibrium.
So my view of the equilibrium is occasional clashes, a lot of killing and reprisal, where various outside actors come in and stop it once the cries of genocide get too loud for their own internal political climates to tolerate what's going on. Then things peter out, other crises grab the attention, some new spark flies in the Levant, and another conflagration hits. And this is an absolutely terrible equilibrium point, but as horrible as it is IT IS A STABLE ONE. The parties involved can keep doing this forever without it proving fatal to any of the political units involved, and unless something dramatically changes, will keep doing so.