0:00

Hello and

0:03

welcome to the GZERO World Podcast. I'm Ian

0:05

Bremmer, and this is where you can find

0:07

extended versions of my show on public television.

0:10

And on the pod today, I'm taking

0:12

you to court, the Supreme Court. In

0:14

a matter of weeks, the highest court

0:16

in the land will issue decisions on

0:18

cases that will impact everything from gun

0:20

ownership to reproductive rights, to housing laws,

0:22

to voting maps, to the power of

0:24

government agencies. It comes at

0:27

a time when approval for the court is

0:29

at an all-time low. I'm

0:31

welcoming back to the show, Emily Bazelon,

0:33

to preview some of the most important

0:35

rulings to come. She teaches

0:37

at Yale Law School, co-hosts the

0:40

popular Slate Political Gap Fest podcast,

0:42

and is a staff writer at the New York Times Magazine.

0:45

Let's get to it. The

0:55

GZERO World Podcast is brought to

0:57

you by our lead sponsor, Prologis.

1:00

Prologis helps businesses across the globe

1:03

scale their supply chains with an

1:05

expansive portfolio of logistics real estate

1:07

and the only end-to-end solutions platform

1:10

addressing the critical initiatives of global

1:12

logistics today. Learn more

1:14

at prologis.com. Emily

1:21

Bazelon, welcome back to GZERO. Thanks

1:24

so much for having me. So much to

1:26

talk about, as always, with the

1:28

Supreme Court and the major cases

1:30

now that everyone paying attention to

1:33

is impact on

1:35

this election, specifically right

1:37

now with rulings coming

1:39

on immunity. What

1:41

are you surprised about in the way this has gone so far?

1:44

Well, I was surprised by the

1:46

argument before the Supreme Court in

1:48

April because it seemed going in

1:51

that this was a pretty clear

1:53

case, that Trump's claim that he

1:55

has absolute immunity for acts

1:57

he committed in office is just too

1:59

broad. that this is this idea that the

2:01

president is not bound by the rule of law,

2:03

the lower courts had rejected it, it

2:06

seemed kind of obvious. And

2:08

then it did not seem obvious at all

2:10

while the justices were talking about it. They

2:13

didn't seem really interested in focusing on

2:15

this set of criminal claims against former

2:17

President Trump. They were talking about a

2:19

ruling for the ages, as Justice Gorsuch

2:21

put it, raising all kinds of hypotheticals

2:24

that are not in this case about

2:26

the scope of immunity and how a

2:28

ruling that didn't allow for some immunity

2:31

could go too far

2:33

in limiting the president's powers. And so it

2:35

was a kind of upside down moment, I

2:38

think, for a lot of people watching, where

2:40

we thought going in the problem was Trump

2:42

claiming that he wasn't bound by law. And

2:45

the conservative justices seemed to be worried about

2:47

what would happen to future presidents if they

2:49

made it clear that the criminal law did

2:51

apply. Because I think some of the things we've

2:53

heard from the Trump attorneys

2:56

seem on their face ludicrous. Now,

2:58

I'm not an expert

3:01

on jurisprudence, but the notion

3:03

that you could order the

3:05

assassination of your political adversary

3:08

might actually have immunity seems like the kind

3:10

of thing that would apply to, say, Vladimir

3:13

Putin and not to say Joe Biden.

3:15

Because, I mean, let's face it, this

3:17

election could be over quickly if that

3:19

were the case. Right. So it would

3:21

have seemed going in that you

3:23

can't order such an assassination or

3:25

order a military coup without facing

3:27

future criminal prosecution. And remember, we're

3:29

only talking about former presidents. We're

3:31

not even talking about prosecuting someone

3:33

who's still holding office. And

3:36

yet, suddenly, those questions were

3:38

not driving the argument. Instead,

3:40

we were talking about things

3:42

like, well, this was

3:44

Justice Alito. I think the most extreme

3:46

point was the idea, well, if presidents

3:48

did fear criminal prosecution in the future,

3:50

then they would pardon themselves. They might

3:52

do all kinds of corrupt things to

3:54

avoid being held accountable. And so that's

3:56

what I mean by kind of through

3:58

the looking glass. upside-down world.

4:01

And there were certainly liberal

4:03

justices, Katanji Brown Jackson, for

4:05

example, saying, wait a second,

4:08

what are you talking about? But it wasn't clear

4:10

whether they had a majority. Well,

4:12

they don't have a majority, let's put it

4:15

that way. But it is a question to

4:17

me of whether

4:19

the intention here is

4:21

to make a ruling that stands

4:23

up legally or to kick

4:26

the can to ensure that

4:28

the Supreme Court doesn't have to deal

4:30

with this issue during an

4:32

election cycle. How much of this is about timing? A

4:35

lot seem to be about timing. I

4:37

think, well, they're already dealing with it

4:39

during the election cycle. But I think

4:41

it seemed almost impossible that

4:43

Trump would face trial for these federal

4:45

charges about trying to subvert the election

4:47

in 2020. Almost impossible to imagine

4:51

he would face trial before

4:53

November 24. So that almost

4:55

was not even on the table anymore. And

4:58

then you have this question, OK, well, if

5:00

the justices are looking ahead, where

5:02

are there five votes? Could there be

5:05

five votes for a ruling that still

5:07

allows for a prosecution based on all

5:09

the things Trump did as a candidate,

5:11

not as president, this kind of question

5:13

of official acts versus unofficial acts? His

5:15

lawyer actually conceded that a lot of

5:17

the things he indightment are private acts,

5:21

not necessary to holding office. And so

5:23

you could imagine a trial after

5:25

the election, after a whole other

5:27

process in the district court to kind of

5:29

sort through which charges are which that could

5:31

still happen. What about the ruling

5:34

that has already occurred in terms

5:36

of the inability

5:38

of Colorado and other states

5:41

to kick Trump off the ballot?

5:43

Yeah, so this was a 9-0 vote.

5:46

This went 9-0 for President Trump. There

5:48

were four justices who would have issued

5:50

a more limited ruling, but they all

5:52

agreed that the states have to let

5:54

Trump onto the ballot. And this is

5:57

obviously a big victory for him. Also,

6:01

the court's first time really ever weighing

6:04

in on Section 3 of the 14th

6:06

Amendment, which is

6:08

the clause in the Constitution that says if you're

6:10

involved in an insurrection that you're

6:13

not allowed to hold office in the United

6:15

States. Suddenly that seems

6:17

like a much more curtailed

6:20

small protection against having insurrection as whole

6:22

of future office than it did before.

6:24

So that was also a big deal,

6:26

not just for this election, but going

6:28

forward. And did the letter

6:31

that was written accompanying this decision by

6:33

the liberal justices, does that change the

6:35

way we think about the ruling or

6:37

not particular? Well no, because they

6:39

didn't have a majority. I mean, it helped

6:42

shape, I think, the set of discussions

6:45

about how broadly the court ruled, and

6:47

it showed how broad the conservatives were

6:49

being in their ruling, but that is

6:51

kind of it. Let's now talk

6:54

just about the role of the Supreme

6:56

Court, generally speaking, in this

6:59

election. Are there

7:01

areas where you feel like

7:03

the Supreme Court is losing

7:06

their sense of independence, their

7:08

legitimacy? Are

7:10

they stepping into political territory that

7:13

with the balance of powers between

7:15

the courts, the legislative and the

7:17

executive branches, that historically they've not?

7:20

What is setting precedent right now? When

7:22

you compare this moment to Bush versus

7:25

Gore, you see something pretty different unfolding.

7:27

So in Bush versus Gore, a

7:29

conservative-led majority kind of rushes in to

7:31

stop a recount in Florida that could

7:33

have favored Al Gore and says, no,

7:35

no, no, we're just going to issue

7:37

a limited ruling to prevent this from

7:39

happening. And oh, by the way, it

7:41

happens to help determine the election

7:44

for George W. Bush. He takes office. And

7:46

there's a kind of taint

7:48

on the Supreme Court for that. Its

7:50

public approval ratings go down significantly. It

7:52

is seen as partisan. Now

7:55

You also have low public approval ratings

7:57

for the Supreme Court, I think, again,

7:59

because. That is seen as part

8:01

of then. It has this even

8:04

stronger conservative majority of just says

8:06

all appointed by republican presidents and

8:08

it's talking about issuing a very

8:10

broad ruling after really really taking

8:12

it's time in this this Trump

8:15

case and. That seems

8:17

at odds with the kind of

8:19

push forward quickly for Bush vs.

8:21

Gore and the breadth of the

8:23

ruling. And the common factor is

8:25

that both of these decisions appear

8:27

to favor Republican candidates for president.

8:29

That's not going to help the

8:31

courts reputation. How. Likely.

8:34

Do you think that's courses? I.

8:36

Mean these are the questions that says.

8:39

If they've gotten harder to answer because

8:42

you know as an American I want

8:44

to have a good faith belief in

8:46

the just as approach these cases. After

8:49

a certain number of cases come out

8:51

particular ways you start to feel like

8:53

cynicism is realism about the cord on

8:56

and some of it's reasoning in ah

8:58

other cases of also given me a

9:00

lot of doubt about whether there is

9:03

a real kind of sense of fair

9:05

minded ness arm and rule of law

9:07

set of principles that are binding. Some

9:10

of the conservative justices. Because. The justices

9:12

once they were appointed busier right?

9:14

I mean whether they're conservative and

9:16

told for a liberal and cells

9:18

and we have seen cases where

9:20

rulings that of com have been

9:22

surprising from individual justices that happen

9:25

the stork least as happening. Still

9:27

now you would think that the

9:29

justices given that would have an

9:31

incentive to have the court portrayed

9:33

as more legitimate. To have the

9:35

rulings that come out be seen

9:37

by the public is more legitimate.

9:40

Do you see those. Efforts. Well.

9:42

You know, Chief Justice John Roberts has his

9:45

name on the court. It's the Roberts Court

9:47

and in the last several years he has

9:49

been the most concerned with exactly this question

9:51

it appears and in finding some kind of

9:53

middle ground so that by the time the

9:56

term as it doesn't appear as if it's

9:58

just a slam dunk and know. Republicans

10:00

and social conservatives have run the

10:02

table at the court. In a

10:04

case, it was hard to see

10:06

how Roberts was looking for a

10:08

compromise. By it's possible that it's

10:10

still there and we just couldn't

10:12

hear it in his questions. You

10:14

know there's a difference between what

10:16

they the ideas they have thrive

10:18

at oral argument and where their

10:20

opinions land. I also heard some

10:22

questions from just as Barrett that

10:24

seemed odd. more sympathetic to the

10:26

government's point of view, less sympathetic

10:29

to Tom Sawyer. And so it is

10:31

possible that with the three Liberal justices,

10:33

there are still five votes for something

10:35

that will seem more moderate than what

10:37

appeared coming out of argument. That

10:40

were moved to the second. Big.

10:42

Area of all cases and for

10:44

the court Reproductive Health Right to

10:47

an Abortion Rights Drugs that can

10:49

facilitate abortion Big taste and for

10:51

the court right now involving the

10:53

F D A: Explain that to

10:55

the viewers. Yeah, so this

10:57

is a case about the asked

10:59

his authority to regulate drugs broadly

11:01

and in particular to decide that

11:03

it's safe to reduce restrictions on

11:06

abortion pills. The most important part

11:08

of what the fk dead with

11:10

to say that doctors could prescribe

11:12

pills and those pills to be

11:14

sent through the mail that you

11:16

didn't have to go haven't in

11:18

person, visit with an abortion pride

11:20

or to get the pills. The

11:24

challenge is brought by some doctors

11:26

who are are anti abortion and

11:29

who say that's because of the

11:31

asked his decisions. The number of

11:33

complications from abortions has risen and

11:35

they might have to treat such

11:38

a complication in the hospital. It's

11:40

a very hypothetical claim, not the

11:42

kind of claim that usually get

11:45

into port for successfully usually have

11:47

to sell. I actually experienced a

11:49

hard harm directly yes and it's

11:52

really hard to see that. here

11:54

so during the argument before the supreme

11:56

court it entirely likely that there would

11:58

be a strong majority of justices, maybe

12:01

even seven justices who would say, you

12:03

know what, this is not the right

12:05

case. These plaintiffs didn't really experience harm.

12:08

And we're not going to decide these

12:10

issues about the FDA's authority, whether the

12:12

FDA did it right in loosening these

12:15

restrictions, because we don't have the right

12:17

people standing here in court. And that

12:19

would kick this can down the road,

12:21

which will be very important because this

12:24

is the case that affects women across

12:26

the country. It's not state by state.

12:28

It's not Idaho's abortion ban. It's

12:30

the FDA's authority to allow pills to

12:33

be shipped everywhere and other rules

12:35

that have made abortion pills more accessible

12:37

for women in blue, as well as

12:39

red states. How much is

12:41

interstate commerce playing a role in this?

12:44

The fact that individual states can't make

12:46

rules if the government comes in federally

12:48

and says, no, actually, we're going to

12:50

undermine the nature of previous rulings

12:53

by saying that women are just going to have the

12:55

ability to get these drugs. Yeah.

12:57

So the FDA authorized the drugs

12:59

and they're all federal law governs

13:01

them. There are still state bans

13:03

of the drugs in effect. So

13:06

legally speaking, you can't take these

13:08

pills in red states that have

13:10

banned them, even though the FDA

13:12

has allowed them to be available.

13:15

So there are still protections, if

13:18

you want to use that word, against

13:21

women using them in red states. Those

13:23

red states laws still stand. This is

13:25

really just about the FDA's authority foundationally

13:27

to allow people to access

13:29

the pills. For women

13:31

on the Supreme Court right now,

13:33

historic high water mark, how

13:36

has that played out in

13:38

the arguments in the discussion on the

13:40

court on issues that are

13:43

setting back, let's be clear, women's

13:45

rights for decades in the United States? So

13:48

in Dobbs, which overturned Roe,

13:51

Justice Barrett voted with the

13:53

men on the court to overturn Roe

13:55

versus Wade. She has not taken any

13:57

kind of vote yet in a number

14:00

of cases. abortion case that softens that

14:02

result. It will be interesting

14:04

to see if that continues this term.

14:06

In the FDA case we were talking

14:08

about, there's also a case out of

14:10

Idaho that is about whether Idaho can

14:12

have an exception to its abortion ban

14:14

that only applies when someone

14:16

is at risk of death. A very,

14:18

very strict limit, right? Doctors have to say,

14:20

this person is going to die before they

14:23

can do an abortion. And

14:25

the federal government, the Biden administration, is

14:27

challenging that law under what's called MTALA,

14:29

which is the federal law that says

14:31

that emergency room docs have to provide

14:34

necessary stabilizing treatment for people. So the

14:36

idea is you shouldn't have to wait

14:38

until a woman is at the brink

14:40

of death to do an abortion if

14:43

that's the procedure that is necessary to

14:45

spare her from losing an organ or

14:47

going into a coma. And

14:49

in the context of that case, Justice

14:52

Barrett asked a lot of sharp questions

14:54

that were really about women's experience of

14:56

labor and delivery that seemed like she

14:58

was taking this very seriously.

15:01

Now we'll have to see how she

15:03

votes to know whether that really makes

15:05

a difference. But there was a level

15:07

of candor about women's health and experience

15:10

of pregnancy and labor that was, you

15:12

know, unusual at the court. I'm asking

15:14

this in part because it does seem when

15:16

you're trying to understand the Supreme Court that

15:19

there's a certain amount of Kremlinology,

15:21

I mean, just having to read

15:23

the tea leaves and understanding what

15:25

these Supreme Court justices actually mean

15:28

when they're making these decisions and trying

15:30

to get inside their heads. It's true.

15:32

It's true. I mean, I think that we

15:34

do have them playing with

15:36

ideas at argument and we get to read

15:38

what they've written. And sometimes, you know, you

15:40

could just get a sense of

15:43

the dynamics based on how they are

15:45

responding to each other in writing. They're

15:48

on a kind of publicity tour right now,

15:50

some of them to reassure everyone about how

15:52

well they get along with each other individually.

15:54

I'm personally mystified why they think we should

15:56

care about that. I Don't care whether

15:58

they can be nice to each other. The other when

16:00

they're having lunch. Whether their colleagues all

16:03

I care about, whether. American.

16:05

Law is going in a direction

16:07

that make sense to most Americans,

16:09

right? I care about the principles

16:12

at stake and how much they're

16:14

agreeing or disagreeing about these fundamental

16:16

precepts arm of our legal system.

16:18

So and. Then I would argue you're

16:20

not unusual demographic in terms of your

16:22

engagement with supreme court United States. But

16:25

why? Why is it matter how well

16:27

they get along with each other? Where

16:29

the average American? yeah, like the third

16:31

modeling collegiality? like? who cares about? That's

16:33

what. You're in a country where are

16:35

The one thing the Democrats and Republicans

16:38

agree on is that the other side

16:40

is trying to destroy democracies. It is

16:42

interesting and unusual to see a group

16:44

of conservatives and liberals that actually talk

16:47

to each other and seem to have

16:49

respect for each other's people. That

16:51

are totally fair. I guess I would just

16:53

say that they all have an incentive to

16:55

protect the institution. Rates the Liberals as was

16:58

a conservative. They don't want to see Americans

17:00

lose total faith in the court. That's not

17:02

good for them and their job security and

17:04

their collective legacy. and so it just seems

17:07

self interested to need to be going on

17:09

about like hojatieh they are with each other.

17:12

So. Be on the degree to which the

17:14

supreme Court just get along with each other?

17:16

How much does it matter in your view,

17:19

If the Supreme Court is or is not

17:21

in step, With. The Views

17:23

of the American Public. Yes, this

17:25

is a class A question about our

17:27

separation of powers. The Just As are

17:30

not elected. they're not supposed to be

17:32

simply responding to popular well right like

17:34

weather. On the other hand, if they

17:36

lose sight of the American public entirely

17:38

if they're not paying attention to claim

17:41

it as opposed to like whether it's

17:43

raining then they lose their legitimacy and

17:45

then the other branches of government get

17:47

rest is an have done things in

17:49

the past like change how many justices

17:51

there are on the court and so

17:54

you know. I also. Think for the

17:56

health of American democracy. you want all

17:58

three branches more. Allow. Thinking

18:00

about how the American public is

18:03

moving forward as opposed to being

18:05

stuck in the past. And when

18:07

you have supreme court justices who

18:09

were confirmed decades ago, there was

18:11

no term limits. Wait, there's no

18:13

regularity to how there are placed.

18:16

You risk having them really cemented

18:18

back in the past. Went with

18:20

the set of concerns and politics

18:22

of when they got onto the

18:24

court versus thinking ahead. And if

18:26

you think the American electorate is

18:28

moving in a more liberal direction

18:31

and you have this very strong

18:33

off strongly entrenched conservative majority kind

18:35

of worry about tension there. Ah,

18:37

and the question is like, how

18:39

much space can there be. Was

18:54

move on to other cases that are

18:56

interesting facing the court right now homelessness

18:59

or is in front of the court.

19:01

The idea that like you have to

19:03

have a right to be able to

19:05

be on the street if there's no

19:07

other place for you to go. Oh

19:09

what's at stake here We do. You

19:11

think this is, oh. Yeah. So

19:13

this is a case coming out

19:15

of a ton organ called Grant's

19:17

Pass that provides very little services

19:19

for homeless people and also has

19:21

been a crime to sleep outside

19:24

with a blanket. And the question

19:26

is whether that violates the ban

19:28

against cruel and Unusual Punishment in

19:30

the Eighth Amendment on the Ninth

19:32

Circuit, which is the appeals court

19:34

that has jurisdiction in the West

19:37

of the United States, said years

19:39

ago that it is that cities

19:41

can't provide very services. and also

19:43

make it a crime to sleep outside

19:45

the rest of the country doesn't live

19:48

under that legal regime and it's easier

19:50

for cities to say you gotta go

19:52

you can't sleep here you can't put

19:55

up a tent here and the justice

19:57

how to kind of philosophical discussion about

19:59

sleeping is sleeping like breathing, something

20:01

that a city or a state has to

20:03

make room for people to be able to

20:06

do, and if they don't have it inside,

20:08

then they have to do it outside. The

20:11

Conservatives were skeptical about this whole

20:13

idea that you would have any

20:15

Eighth Amendment right to live outside.

20:18

And so it seemed like at the end of argument

20:21

that cities are going to have

20:23

more leeway to make people get

20:25

up and move to prevent homeless

20:27

people from being on the street,

20:30

in parks, etc. I have

20:32

the idea then that one way or

20:35

the other, the state has to provide

20:37

either setting up homeless shelters or making

20:39

room for them in jail. I

20:41

mean, we'll see if there's even a part of

20:44

the decision that talks about what states and cities

20:46

have to do. It's kind

20:48

of a crazy case in that the

20:50

problems we have with being unhoused in

20:52

this country are about big policy disputes

20:54

about there's not enough affordable

20:56

housing, we don't have good transportation from place

20:59

to place. That's why there are a lot

21:01

of people who are homeless in addition to

21:03

problems with not treating drug

21:05

use and mental health. This

21:09

case is not really about any of

21:11

that. It's about a more theoretical question about

21:13

cruel and unusual punishment. And so in

21:15

a sense it seems kind of removed

21:17

from the actual policy problems that state

21:19

and local officials face all the time

21:21

when they're trying to figure out how

21:23

to provide adequate services, how to get Americans

21:25

to want to pay for adequate services.

21:28

How often do you think the Supreme Court justices are like,

21:30

you know, I just don't want to deal with the

21:32

issue that you want me to deal with. I'm going

21:35

to take it on my own way because that's uncomfortable.

21:37

I mean, sometimes they do just change

21:39

the question that the parties are asking

21:41

or trying to get them to resolve.

21:44

They just Grant review on

21:46

a different question and say, we're going in

21:48

a different direction. Once They've taken a case.

21:50

they're supposed to be limited by what the

21:53

parties have argued, what they've talked about in

21:55

the lower courts. There's a whole set of

21:57

constraints that are supposed to make them. Hire

22:00

within the lines. Of the last

22:02

case I wanna ask you about

22:04

is this landmark Chevron case that

22:07

involves to what extent are these

22:09

major Us federal agencies like the

22:11

P A can make significant over

22:14

arching rulings. Yeah, so this

22:16

is. it's really about deregulation right?

22:18

We have federal agencies. They take

22:21

the laws that Congress has written

22:23

and they still in all the

22:25

details with regulations and not how

22:27

to democracy has operated really. Since

22:30

the new deal the agency is

22:32

have become more powerful. They do

22:34

more an increasingly corporations are more

22:36

conservative, they want less regulation they

22:39

pushed back. So one of the

22:41

big legal rulings at the center

22:43

of this Chevron says. That if

22:46

a lot is ambiguous and the

22:48

agency has a reasonable interpretation, other

22:50

courts will defer to the agency's

22:52

reading of the law. and the

22:54

idea here is that agencies have

22:56

hundreds of people who work there.

22:58

They're the experts. Judges or not,

23:00

they know better. That is now

23:02

completely up for grabs. Seems very

23:04

unlikely that Chevron, as we've known

23:06

him since the mid length and

23:08

eighty's is gonna continue. And what's

23:10

the conservative justices seemed eager to

23:13

do in this case was. Make

23:15

it easier for corporations to challenge

23:17

regulations and have some judges that

23:19

are sympathetic to that point of

23:21

view overrule agencies like the He

23:23

Play and the Fcc and the

23:25

Sta a kind of alphabet soup

23:27

of Washington mess. For many decades

23:29

we've relied on to make these

23:31

rules. And so the idea

23:34

of these so called deep state

23:36

or will you have thousands and

23:38

thousands of bureaucrats that are making

23:40

laws for your average Americans. But

23:42

there is. and goggin a sense

23:44

of the legitimization. They it's not

23:47

the supreme court, it's not just

23:49

your Congress. it's also the civil

23:51

servants in the United States. We're

23:53

seeing backlash against the. absolutely and

23:55

he'll one way to think about these

23:58

agencies that they keep us safe Right?

24:01

They make sure the water is clean and that

24:03

the air is clean and they tell power

24:05

plants you have to limit your carbon emissions.

24:08

Another way to think about them is

24:10

they're intruding on corporate profits and taking

24:12

up too much power. And either Congress

24:14

should be writing very, very clear, very

24:18

granular rules about what

24:22

They can regulate. Exactly. Or

24:25

the courts should be saying we're going to

24:27

figure it out ourselves and probably in a

24:29

more deregulatory environment.

24:32

So in the grand scheme of things, it seems

24:34

like a lot more at stake with

24:36

Supreme Court rulings for the

24:38

state of the republic right now in

24:40

this session than we would normally see.

24:43

Yeah, this is just a huge year for the Supreme Court,

24:45

you're right. There's a whole

24:48

other set of challenges about the

24:50

power of social media platforms vis-a-vis

24:52

the government states that want to

24:54

tell companies like Meta

24:57

and Axe, etc.,

24:59

that they can't remove content from

25:01

their platforms, that they want to

25:03

remove because they think

25:06

that it's misinformation or it's

25:08

hate speech. So yeah,

25:10

it's just a giant year for the Supreme Court, you're

25:12

right. Nobody better to navigate it with

25:14

us. Emily Bazlind, thanks so much for coming back

25:16

on GZERO. Thanks for having me. That's

25:20

it for today's edition of the GZERO World

25:22

Podcast. Do you like what you heard? Of

25:25

course you do. Why not make it

25:27

official? Why don't you rate and review GZERO

25:29

World? Five stars, only five stars, otherwise don't

25:32

do it. On Apple, Spotify, or wherever you

25:34

get your podcasts. Tell your friends. The

25:42

GZERO World Podcast is brought to

25:44

you by our lead sponsor, Prologis. Prologis

25:47

helps businesses across the globe scale

25:49

their supply chains with an expansive

25:52

portfolio of logistics real estate and

25:54

the only end-to-end solutions platform addressing

25:56

the critical initiatives of global logistics

25:59

today. Learn more at

26:01

prologist.com. And from our friends at

26:03

Foreign Policy, each week on Foreign

26:05

Policy Live, Editor-in-Chief Ravi Agrawal sits

26:07

down with world leaders and policy

26:09

experts to discuss the issues that

26:11

matter most, from the U.S.-China

26:14

relationship and the Israel-Hamas War to

26:16

the Global South's growing clout. Listen

26:18

and follow on Apple, Spotify, or wherever

26:21

you get your podcasts. You're

26:28

listening to the GZERO World with

26:31

Ian Bremmer Podcast, your weekly geopolitical

26:33

deep dive into the world's biggest

26:35

news stories, featuring in-depth conversations with

26:37

global leaders and newsmakers. To

26:40

get more of GZERO's insights on

26:43

global politics every morning, sign up

26:45

for our free newsletter, GZERO Daily,

26:47

at gzeromedia.com.