Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
#1 Deshaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services
60 Plays9 months ago
In the pilot episode of the Relitigated Podcast, hosts Jarret and Nikki invite 3 friends on and re-argue Deshaney v Winnebago County DSS.
TRIGGER WARNING: discussions of child abuse.
As this is our first episode, we are still working through tuning our equipment and our delivery. There's some roughness here we sanded down in subsequent episodes, so we encourage you to stick around. That said, we are still proud of this first episode, and we hope you enjoy it and come back to see how much we improve in the next episode, too.
------
Relitigated is a podcast made by non-lawyers for the entertainment and education of anyone interested in law. Each episode we select one real case, usually from the Supreme Court, and bring it to our invited guests to rule on as justices. We start with recounting the facts of the case before the hosts take turns presenting the arguments for each side. When the arguments are complete, the justices discuss and present their own opinions. Once we have a ruling from our justices, we present the actual results of the case and discuss how the case impacts us today.
None of the participants in this episode are lawyers and nothing we say should be taken as legal advice.
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction to 'Relitigated' and Shaney v. Winnebago
00:00:02
Speaker
Hi there, my name is Jarrett, and welcome to Relitigated, the podcast for five friends roleplay a mock hearing of a real Supreme Court case. This is episode one, the Shaney v. Winnebago County DSS. A couple of notes up front.
Legal Disclaimer and Role Explanations
00:00:18
Speaker
First, this case does involve discussions of child abuse, and while we avoid going into detail as best that we can, listener discretion is advised.
00:00:28
Speaker
Second, no one you're about to hear is a lawyer and nothing we say should be considered legal advice. We try our best to get the facts of the case as correct as possible, but you shouldn't trust our legal opinions like at all. Lastly, this being our first episode, we appreciate you listening. We have a lot to learn and improve, and we're looking forward to the journey ahead.
Meet the Mock Court Justices
00:00:51
Speaker
We hope you'll join us.
00:00:53
Speaker
All that out of the way, let's hop into the session, which we record live with all five of us.
00:01:03
Speaker
What the actual answer should be. Man, can you imagine if the Supreme Court was real? How cool that would be? What? That's that's crazy talk. Oh, wait, it is. And they decide our fate. But um My name is Jarrett. I am one of your two hosts. I'm joined by Nikki. Say hi, Nikki. Hi, Nikki. So Nikki and I will present the case. We have flipped a coin. we will ah One of us will argue as the petitioner. One of us will argue as the respondent. And of course, we need some justices. We are joined by three friends, ah three friends who were ah not doing anything on a Thursday night, which worked out real well.
00:01:50
Speaker
Wearing in my best wig just for you, buddy. We have no life. We'll just put that out there. ah So we have two associate justices. Our first associate justice is Chris. How's it going, Chris? Hello, Chris. Oh, wait. No, my name's Chris. And our other associate justice is Adam. Hey, I'm really upset about this whole associate justice thing. Can we talk about this later? No. You can say associate to the chief justice, if that's helpful.
00:02:19
Speaker
That actually does make me feel better. Yes. Okay. All right. Cool. And our chief justice is Sarah. Welcome to Sarah. Hey yo,
Case Overview: Shaney v. Winnebago
00:02:29
Speaker
chief justice appointed by God themselves. I'm pretty sure that's how our Supreme court works. Yeah. It's true. Very similar to how the United States Supreme court works. So I'm just falling in line. Did we mention we are not lawyers? Nope.
00:02:48
Speaker
no yeah no Like not even I mean, I don't even yeah. No, like what is the law? Yeah as such ah nothing you're gonna hear today is ah Should be construed as legal advice in any way shape or form. Please don't sue us We are poor That's why we're not Supreme Court justices. Our three justices actually have no idea what case we're going to be discussing tonight. Isn't that true, justices? Very true. I have no awareness of case law. Truly. Excellent. ah We will be presenting the case for the to the justices for the first time and and also to you, our dear audience, and we'll move into arguments. We'll give the justices a chance to
00:03:37
Speaker
make their decisions. They do not have to agree. ah One justice can be for, two justices can be against, or vice versa. That's fine. It does not have to be unanimous, but they do have to tell us why they believe what they believe. Only one winner by pinfall or submission, though. That's a very important.
00:03:56
Speaker
No, that's that's in the lower courts. Oh, that's district circuit court. I'm so sorry. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Yes. Uh, that's why you're not chief justice. well but Actually, that's a really good point chief justice. That's why you're the assist, the associate too. And we'll wrap it up with, uh, the actual decision that was rendered by the court and we'll, we'll get on, we'll get all in our feelings about it.
00:04:30
Speaker
Nicky, would you like to present the case?
Case Facts and DSS's Inaction
00:04:34
Speaker
Yes. And so first um I'm going to start with a trigger warning ah because this case is about child abuse. um We try not to get too graphic about things, but um it is, you know, it it's, it's going to be kind of heavy. um So just FYI, exercise your discretion and um
00:05:01
Speaker
And yeah, and so with that, we will, ah we will take it on. And the case that we are going to discuss is called DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. And ah should I go into the facts of the case or do you want to? Yeah, how about it?
00:05:26
Speaker
Okay. All right. So the facts of the case ah briefly, and we are, I mean, ah people's names are generally publicly available. um Sure. But we're just going to use initials because why not? um We don't necessarily need to blast everybody's business everywhere, but yeah names are are not and ultimately important to the case itself. Yeah. Yeah. Like if you sickos really want to know about it, just Google it.
00:05:56
Speaker
Oh yeah, absolutely. So, JD was born in Wyoming. A year later, his parents divorced. His father got custody and moved to Winnebago County, Wisconsin. Two years after that, when JD is around two or three, the Winnebago County Department of Social Services, or DSS, is informed of allegations of child abuse.
00:06:21
Speaker
His father was interviewed, he denied the allegations, there was no further action. A year
Petitioner's Argument: Violation of 14th Amendment
00:06:28
Speaker
later, when he was around three or four, JD is treated at a hospital for bruises and abrasions. Based upon suspicion of child abuse, DSS was notified. The hospital was awarded temporary custody of JD. They can do that? Oh yeah, absolutely. Like the hospital can like own a kid?
00:06:52
Speaker
Yeah, I mean if a court says they can. While the child is admitted to that hospital. Is the hospital the mother or the father on the birth certificate? Admitage foster parrot. Also, point of order. I'm surprised there's even enough people in Wyoming at this time for a social services division to exist. Oh, this was this is Wisconsin.
00:07:17
Speaker
I'm surprised there was enough people in Wisconsin for social services to exist. 1979, that's like prehistory. That's so far before I was born. This isn't real. Wait a second. Were there even phones back then? You know what? Actually, I don't know that there were phones even mentioned in this ah in the you know description of the facts. Good Lord. So they just sent letters to communicate? This must have taken so long.
00:07:44
Speaker
I mean, things do take a very long time in this case. In the days that followed, there was an interagency team meeting to consider the situation. The team was insufficient evidence of child abuse to keep JD in custody. The team made several recommendations for JD's protection, which his father agreed to follow. JD was then returned to his father's custody.
00:08:10
Speaker
One month later, JD was treated for suspicious injuries at the ah ER, r which notified the DSS caseworker. In the following six months, the caseworker visited the home monthly, during which the worker observed injuries to the child and the father's failure to follow the recommendations. The caseworker documented this in her files and also documented her suspicion that the child was still being abused. She did not take any action beyond this. I got a question.
00:08:41
Speaker
What type of injuries are we talking about here? Are we talking about bumps and bruises and scrapes? Are we talking about his fingernails were mysteriously removed? You're going to want to let her just finish. Oh. How dare I interrupt the solicitor? Do we have solicitors in the middle of her soliloquy? Do we have soliloquies? How does any of this work? We're not lawyers, so we don't know. I think the interruptions are mostly during the argument times. Objection.
00:09:11
Speaker
And also that you're the justice. You don't object overruled. Hey, guys, once again, want to reiterate, we are literally not lawyers at all mattering close. Don't know. Don't. Yeah, this is, you know, I mean, you get what you get and this is it. So continue, please. That's the case. So let's see.
00:09:37
Speaker
At the end of that year, JD was again treated at the ah ER. r The ER reported suspected child abuse, but DSS did not act beyond that. The caseworker made two more visits to the home and was told that JD was too sick to see her, so the caseworker was not able to see the child.
00:09:59
Speaker
A couple months after that, JD suffered physical abuse that resulted in a life-threatening coma. When he underwent emergency surgery, medical providers found multiple injuries demonstrating ongoing and long-time abuse. JD survived, but due to the injury to his brain, his cognitive functioning was so impaired that the prognosis was that he would spend the rest of his life in an institution.
00:10:26
Speaker
In terms of the procedural history, JD and his biological mother sued the Winnebago County DSS and DSS employees in federal court. They alleged that the agency's failure to act to protect him from his father deprived him of his liberty without due process of law under the 14th Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment for Winnebago County DSS. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed this decision.
00:10:56
Speaker
the Supreme Court decided to hear the case.
00:11:06
Speaker
Lucky for you, you don't have to decide right now because we're going to argue it for you. ah nice pack oh wait yeah fight just like Just like the real Supreme Court, ah there will be a petitioner, which I will be playing the part of the petitioner. This is the one bringing the the case, appealing the case to the Supreme Court. And Nicole will play the part of the respondent who is responding to the petition in front of the court. The petitioner goes first with the right to reserve time if they so choose, followed by the respondent and if time was reserved and then the petitioner would serve of the, would talk out the rest of their time.
00:11:48
Speaker
I don't actually know how much time they get in front of the court. I wanna say it's 10 minutes. It's something, it's a very small number of minutes that they get to actually argue. We're gonna do seven, maximum of seven minutes. And of course, the ah justices are free to ask questions at any point. As is our divine right.
00:12:11
Speaker
yeah imbued upon us by God. You can wreck interrupt us at will. um Ask us any question you want, any clarifying questions. You can punt yeah you could pontificate. Can we send you to jail at whim? Can I bring my cat on as a guest chief justice?
00:12:33
Speaker
ah You could also be absolutely silent for the full seven minutes. That is an option. The Clarence Thomas. Good to know. Good to know. My cat might speak more than me, but we'll see how it goes. Very opinionated. She was screaming earlier. I'm going to put seven minutes on the clock for myself. Whose clock? OK. Oh, do you have a clock? Are you tracking it? It's a God's clock.
00:13:04
Speaker
I just want to be able to see. You could go ahead and start the timer for me and let me know when to start. I'll set a timer for you. Just give me an update if I'm down to a minute and then maybe 30 seconds before my time expires. All right, and three, two, one, begin. All right, here we go. Miss Chief Justice and may it please the court,
00:13:31
Speaker
We submit that the Department of Social Services has violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in its failure to protect the life and the liberty of the child who was harmed in this heinous act. DSS, the Department of Social Services, is a state agency. It is charged by law with a duty to protect the welfare of children.
00:13:56
Speaker
When abuse was first reported, the agency looked into it. They didn't do anything. When the child arrived at the hospital for the first time, the agency had no qualms whatsoever with exercising its authority to remove custody of the child from the father in favor of the hospital temporarily through a court order. They exhibited the ability to exercise their power under the law to protect the child.
00:14:26
Speaker
They convened a team, and the agency ultimately decided that there was no abuse and the child was returned to the protection of his father. But over a period of six months, social workers recorded further suspicious injuries to the child, and they did not act further other than just recording it into their notes. So we have a full log.
00:14:48
Speaker
from social workers documenting evidence of abuse, but no action, despite the fact that they had shown that they have the ability to take action and protect the child. Did the father sign like a terms of service agreement before this whole situation? Because I feel like that's important. Like a end user license agreement kind of situation? Or is that like you implicit just by living in the state?
00:15:13
Speaker
Citizenship, I think, implies. Yeah. Is that is that a thing? Do you like agree to an implicit terms of service by being a citizen paying taxes? Is it paying taxes? Is that the option? I think voting. Interesting. If you've ever been arrested, you're definitely participating in the system, that's for sure. Yes.
00:15:32
Speaker
Shortly after, ah the child was again in the hospital for injuries that were consistent with abuse, but the agency did nothing to protect the child. They merely recorded in their ledgers, just like good bureaucrats, what happened.
00:15:50
Speaker
Subsequent abuse removed any and all doubt as the child was rendered impaired from brain damage for the rest of their life. Now, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution states that no state shall, and I quote, deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
00:16:19
Speaker
The child was entitled to protection of their life and liberty under the law, the specific law that aimed to protect children that created the very agency that failed to protect the child. Now, there is no suggestion that the agency failed to provide due process to the father.
00:16:42
Speaker
They convened teams to investigate. They obtained a court order in one case. They sent caseworkers to check multiple times. Caseworkers who at least two occasions, I believe, were instructed or told that the child just could not be seen and failed to exercise any additional authority to demand to see the child. They continued to trust the father at the endangerment of the child.
00:17:08
Speaker
And potentially, i maybe even maybe I shouldn't go this far, but the law says their job was to protect the child, a duly passed law of representatives of the people signed by the governor, and they failed to do so. Now at each phase, the agency deferred to the due process rights of the father, but it failed to do the same for the child. Now our laws cannot afford only protection for the rights of the perpetrator,
00:17:36
Speaker
especially when the state is actively documenting the crime. There is a duty to act and in failing to act, we believe that the state failed to protect the rights of liberty and life that the child should have been afforded. Now for the constitutional question, it is not our belief that the state should be proactively intervening in households across America. That's not what we're saying. Rather,
00:18:03
Speaker
An agency of the state, which is created by an act of the legislature of that state, was entrusted with the safeguarding of the welfare of the child because of ah should have been safeguarding the welfare of the child due to several credible accusations of abuse. And as such, in this case, the state was made a party to the welfare of the child. So this isn't just like the state should be going door to door, knocking on you know every parent's house and doing inspections. This is
00:18:36
Speaker
The state has an agency that investigates and should act in these instances and in doing so failed to protect the child and in doing so failed to ah protect the rights of the child. And you've got like a minute and a half left. Thank you. ah We believe that prevent future such incidents and to safeguard the welfare of countless children who are currently entrusted to their predators We ask that the court find that the Winnebago County Department of Social Services failed in its charge under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to protect the life and the liberty of the child in this particular circumstance. Thank you much. I yield to questions in my three remaining seconds. You have 15, a little more.
00:19:33
Speaker
i'll I'll defer to my associate justices first. You would. I would. That is my divine right. No further questions. gu god so God's favorite justice. um Hold on. Wait a second. Wait a second. Wait a second. Wait a second. Are you arguing that there's some sort of implied warranty that everybody is sort of entering into like an implicit contract with all the state agencies that they're going to like Uniformly uphold their duties per the letter of the state law that gives them responsibilities and rights because that's nuts As our belief that in this particular case the state was in ah Had authority that it failed to execute it in doing so it violated the civil rights of the child by eliminating his ability ah To his due process to protect his life and his liberty Which they were entrusted to do
00:20:30
Speaker
I don't want to be the person that's like protecting bureaucrats, you know, like that's not, it's not really my vibe, but I don't know. I don't, I don't know if I'm not, you know, again, Hey guys, not a lawyer. Is this really their burden? I mean, they did step in, do something. I mean, they didn't, can't like,
00:20:58
Speaker
I don't know. Do they have the ability or the legal right to just rip a kid away from their parent if they suspect child abuse, especially during this time? I don't know. I want to fight for the kid. I'm going to sue the cops for every time they don't arrest my neighbors for playing their music too loud because they're depriving me of my right to life liberty in the pursuit of fucking happiness. I just want to sleep in.
00:21:25
Speaker
I believe my time is expired, by the way. It is. yeah But if there's any other if there's any last questions, I feel like you know there's some cool thoughts happening. Just to to rest to respond to respond, if I may, ah and since it seemed directed.
00:21:43
Speaker
ah It is our belief that in this instance, ah the the state was aware. The state had exercised authority in one case, so we they showed that they had the ability to recognize the situation and step in through the court through the legal system to get temporary custody of the child ah while the child was in the hospital.
00:22:05
Speaker
Uh, and they never rose to that level of, uh, of care from that point forward. Classic. they' Doing so. It's doing a good job in the first place and setting precedents. Yeah. I mean, it just sounds like a classic bureaucratic move to me in my opinion, but is it illegal?
00:22:24
Speaker
I don't know. I don't know. Our argument is that it's a, it's a violation of the child's, uh, civil rights.
00:22:36
Speaker
My dear solicitor, most verily, are you saying that it's illegal to suck? I ah i ah reserve the negative time I have left. ah yeah ah less Last thought, maybe the last parting thought before we hear the next set of arguments.
00:22:56
Speaker
um i i I kind of agree. It's like, it's, it's, it wouldn't have been my gut reaction to sue the state. It would have been like, okay, the dad clearly assaulted the kid. The dad has no assets. literally that Yeah, obviously he's broke. He's probably broke, but yeah, I do agree that the state did not fulfill its burden, um, based on the evidence, but I would like to hear the next set of arguments. Okay.
00:23:28
Speaker
If that's true, I got a lot of people to sue. I have so many people to sue. My life, liberty, and happiness has been impeded by at least a dozen federal and state agencies by my reckoning, and I have some letters to write. As soon as I retain a lawyer, I find someone work willing to work pro bono. We're good. Yeah. let's let Let's not overly, ambitiously admit to anything on this recording just yet.
00:23:55
Speaker
Layers are expensive.
Respondent's Argument: Limits of Due Process
00:23:57
Speaker
I'm gonna put seven minutes on the clock and and Turn it over to Nikki to respond to my petition in three two one go Okay, so I really just want to start by going back to our um Initial question which is whether Winnebago County's failure to provide a JD with protection from his father's abuse, violate his rights um under the due process clause. And I want to go back by really sort of highlighting the due process clauses. So in the Fifth Amendment, it says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. And in the Fourteenth Amendment, it says no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
00:24:54
Speaker
So if you look at these at the due process clause, it was written with this intention to limit the state's power to act. So the intention of this clause is to limit the state's power to deprive people of you know these basic fundamental rights. So that means that this is really written about the government to the government to prevent the government from abusing its power or using its power to oppress people. So on the flip side, that means that there really is no guarantee for like minimal levels of safety or security.
00:25:38
Speaker
so given you know sort of what undergirds the due process clause, you can't really interpret it as a requirement that the state protect somebody's life, liberty and property from other harms. It's really to protect it protect these from the government. So the person, an individual isn't entitled to government aid or services.
00:26:04
Speaker
So if you're looking at this clause, there there isn't really any requirement that's specified for the state to act to sort of like go forward and and and to protect life, liberty and property, um especially when it's talking about private citizens, non-government actors. um So just a regular person who doesn't have the power of the state. So,
00:26:31
Speaker
Since this clause doesn't require that the government provides aid, it doesn't you know require the government to step in, um then that would mean that the state can't be liable for not providing aid, especially if the state wasn't the person who actually created the harm.
00:26:52
Speaker
So ah as was pointed out, the harm was done by this child's father. It wasn't the state that harmed this child. And as was also pointed out by the chief justice, if the state had moved too soon and just like snatched the child up immediately, then there would have been the issue of improperly intruding into the parent-child relationship.
00:27:19
Speaker
that is protected by the Due Process Clause. So I would argue that although you know there was some ah you know failure and and terrible, awful outcomes here, the it's not the Due Process Clause, really it's intended to handcuff the government, not to enable it.
00:27:44
Speaker
to step in. So that means that people aren't entitled to any sort of services or protection from the government, at least not under the due process clause. And I would really encourage ah the justices to really kind of keep that in mind because you know this is really talking about how this works under the due process clause. So if I don't pay my taxes, that's like a problem.
00:28:11
Speaker
But if the government doesn't spend my taxes the way they said they were going to do, it's just a suggestion. I get it. I dig it. Well, I mean, the the Constitution was really sort of outlining the, well, at least this clause was really outlining the limits. it's This is intended to limit government action and intrusion. Yeah, the monopoly of force is unilateral. I get it.
00:28:36
Speaker
ah vibe I think that yeah one of the problems here is that we're being asked to
Debate on DSS's Duty to Act
00:28:41
Speaker
decide these pivotal cases in an age of extreme polarization and ah what's the word, ah cynicism, deep deep pervasive cynicism. so I just kind of go about my life expecting that the government's not really going to keep their promises but except for the one that they promised to throw me in jail if I don't pay taxes.
00:29:02
Speaker
ah grew So, well, it's not so much about the the paying taxes. It's, you know, is it, is it, is there a crime or something outlawed in the law? And is there a whole process, a court process before you get, so it's not about you necessarily getting snatched up and put in jail. It's is there a full sort of process that governs that so that the state can't just snatch up anybody for no reason?
00:29:28
Speaker
What I would like to know, and and this is you know maybe out of scope, but if the parents were divorced, the two parents were divorced, then why did the father continue to hold custody of the child even after the the child was temporarily assigned custody into the hospital? Because that seems to be a failure.
00:29:55
Speaker
Right. And like, it's kind of like zooming out on a very specific, I guess, scenario, but it seems to be a failure that the child was then granted back to the father after the child was, you know, temporarily held in custody at the hospital. I thought you were going to go a sharp left turn with this and blame the mother.
00:30:13
Speaker
I blame women. One minute. One minute, by the way. No, but it is. It's it's like, OK, the custody like that's, you know, another angle, right, is is to think about this from like a custody standpoint. The father clearly was unfit to be the child's father. It was definitely mom's fault. I agree. Associate Justice. Yeah, like why wouldn't the state decide like, you know, decide that the father was unfit based on the evidence provided. And then why was there no custody battle? Yeah. Why, why was that not brought to the table? Like is the, was the mother also not a viable option for custody? Were there even discussions about this? I feel like that would fall underneath. Right. How did the hospital become his mom? that' record regular are they So the hospital went in front of the court and they took the appropriate steps and due process in intervening
00:31:13
Speaker
in this parent-child relationship. So this it was a process a formalized process where they went in front of a judge. So the disembodied corporate entity that is the hospital, that was the most responsible person in this entire operation was the hospital?
00:31:30
Speaker
Time, by the way, but I'll let you finish out that thought. Yeah, that that's my gut feeling as well. But after the hospital, the hospital didn't take indefinite custody of the kid. ah they they were had a question They worked out a plan based off of input from multiple stakeholders and and a voluntary agreement.
00:31:54
Speaker
m Shoddy plan. All right. Yeah, really anything that involves trust in other human beings, shoddy plan. Yep.
00:32:06
Speaker
That is it for arguments. Thank you, Nikki, for that. Good fight. Is the state really trying to argue that the father didn't beat the kid hard enough? Because that's just gross.
00:32:19
Speaker
No, the state is arguing that. We have transitioned into decision time for our for our justices. So feel free to discuss amongst yourselves. ah Nikki and I are here as your scribes or ah ah your clerks. So if you want to ask us questions, we we are out of argument mode. We'll provide you with facts, but we're no longer arguing for either position. Oh, the fight is over. OK, so guys.
00:32:50
Speaker
You know, I do like the where was mom approach in this. I think it's a very viable question, right? Um, I'm a little confused about why the hospital, I, I understand that. Yeah. Okay. We gave the quote unquote abusive father. He was abusive. Um, a plan to not abuse his child.
00:33:18
Speaker
and he didn't follow it. I'm just confused as to why there weren't more safeguards in place during the execution of this plan to stop this kid from getting irreparable brain damage. I feel like- I can't believe that Barack Obama made Obamacare, and Obamacare made it legal to give this child brain damage, and that's just wrong. Yeah, I mean- Don't you agree? Hold up! foreign
00:33:45
Speaker
yeah you would Hey, I thought I said the timeline is fucked. Thanks Obamacare, you know? 1980. 1980. Yeah. Not in Chicago. It was but a glimmer in Barack Obama's eye at the time. He was an a junior senator, I assume, at the moment. Romneycare. That's what I'm going to blame. Yeah, Romneycare. Nice, even better.
00:34:08
Speaker
so
00:34:10
Speaker
How did this originally get brought to the attention of the authorities? let's go Let's go back. Let's go way back. Let's go back to the beginning. Just as allegations of child abuse were made to the Winnebago County Department of Social Services, who's to say who those allegations um were brought upon by?
00:34:31
Speaker
the if I remember the facts correctly it was the girlfriend of the father no it was the father's second wife I think the girl oh exactly sorry second wife yes um and then shortly thereafter the child ah arrived in the hospital yeah injuries consistent with the abuse that was described well guys anyone anyone consider it was the second wife who did it Well, the second wife was the one who went to to be like, but she snashched what better way to take the peat off your trail than to come report the crime.
00:35:05
Speaker
So you're telling me there was probably a third wife, then? There was probably a third wife. At least a second girlfriend. Very messy. OK, wait a second. Wait a second. Very messy relationship. What are these injuries? We haven't gotten into the nature of these injuries. We're talking about, like, bumps and scrapes and bruises. Like, I know there's brain damage involved, but for God's sakes, I've given myself brain damage on numerous occasions. It can happen at any time. Sure. So like what kind of injuries are you talking about? This is bruises and abrasions. I once sled straight into a wheel of of a car.
00:35:35
Speaker
It's miraculous. I didn't die sledding at all. Honestly. Oh, I was like a child at the time. Unfortunate. Suck out. The only thing I can say to this is ah injuries that would lead ah medical staff to suspect abuse and having been an emergency responder, we're trained on things like, you know,
00:36:03
Speaker
Are they, are they injured in places that are atypical for like a child to injure themselves? Like a skinny, totally normal, you know, child injury bruises on the bottom of the feet on both feet. Very unlikely that a child is going to do that much more likely that it's abuse. So I'm curious about what just I'm just really stuck on what happened after the father agreed to follow these safety recommendations after they determined that there was not sufficient evidence of child abuse. like I had no idea. You're not supposed to beat the bottom of your kid's feet. Thank you, Winnebago County. Dang, they didn't teach me that in dad school. I'm just confused about- The switch I was using was too dang big.
00:36:58
Speaker
The kid went back to the ER, treated again for suspicious injuries. I feel like, is there not some sort of file or something? There was. date can Okay, so the so the kid went back to the ER one month after the father agreed to follow safety recommendations. Yet the state didn't really step in.
00:37:23
Speaker
to say, hey, why is this kid back in the ER for suspicious injuries besides you know just their regular monthly visits? But even during their monthly visits to the home, they saw that there were injuries to the child, failure to follow the safety recommendations. Literally, the kid, OK, dad failed the test. okay And the state was like, eh. I mean, we're doing our job. like We're showing up to the house. but like Yeah, they weren't. Can you honestly say you did the best possible job you could have at your work today? You put in the best possible. deserve gos on Do you make employee of the month today? I think not. I certainly didn't. Everyone has an off day. Some people have multiple dozens of off days in a row. I think the bureaucrats should feel bad for that. And I'm sure they do.
00:38:20
Speaker
I, yes, I, I'm just, I'm trying to think to the department of social services. Um, do they truly not do their job where they were showing up to the house six months, every, every time, except in the case when they were not able to see JD, uh, that in the last moment, that's the point where they should have learned the authorities, right?
00:38:43
Speaker
and I don't know what the rules are. like that the That's the place where I'm like, all right, if the case worker was unable to see the child, then that means ah they need to alert the police, right? and and Because if not, what are they even doing? I mean, who cares, right? They're just throwing up and saying, hey, guys. If the child is missing, you assume the missing.
00:39:04
Speaker
Yeah. Right. So obviously when you say it out loud chief you go into the house but to do wellness checks on the child and then you go to the house and you don't see the child and they're just a cave not a space probably the backyard is fine. No follow up. No, nothing. Oh, by the way, next day child comes in with a brain injury. Okay. Maybe we should, Hey, maybe you should be better at your job. I don't know. I mean,
00:39:31
Speaker
I feel like they're something major slipped through the cracks here. And I feel like whoever was doing these visits just really was just trying to get a paycheck. I mean, I don't know. I wonder what is, what is the counter, the unique count of social workers that were on this case? Was it just one or was it many? Yeah. Do we know factor checkers? It was just the one. Oh, this guy.
00:40:01
Speaker
this or or yeah you know and all right i think i see where the problem is yeah yeah and how the cop were involved yes true Yeah, the police were not mentioned it at all. I mean, I know it's not part of the case, but When it comes to sort of involvement in social services and child and family services, it is it is pretty much the province of the of the the answers of the kate yeah of the caseworker. So like even when police are like called to like a thing, like even they will file reports with social services for follow-up. Can social services kill with impunity as well? Jesus. Not lawyers.
00:40:48
Speaker
Yeah. I mean, I'm just going from what I see, man. Maybe. I mean, listen, from everything that I've seen on TV, because I personally have never dealt with social services myself, knock on wood, uh, from everything that I've seen on TV, it just feels like whoever this caseworker wi was did just like the worst job imaginable. Um, fair minimum I'm not seeing any, any, any proof that they fulfilled their duties in protecting this child. Now, I guess, right, the root of the case is, well, was it really their legal duty to protect the rights of this child? I i mean, i I feel like, again, hey guys, not a lawyer, um but just from the nature of what I know so social services does,
00:41:37
Speaker
Yeah, it's your job. Like, what are we doing? You know what I mean? Like, you go to the house, you don't see the kid, and you're just like, it's fine. Next day, the kid's basically dead. What are we doing? I don't know. That's the tipping point for me is the fact that they were not able to confirm they failed the wellness check. Right. Yeah. And, you know, all the other times, a little borderline, but like, they really didn't do much illegal, but like, actually failing to perform the wellness check on the child. Yeah, that's an interesting double edged sword.
00:42:06
Speaker
in our whole defederated bureaucracy, right? Like maybe, sure, you could argue we haven't decided yet because we're still in the middle of our case, but you could argue that it was the agency's fault. Fine, maybe they're liable, but it never gets to the point of actually like drilling down and assigning culpability to the individuals within the agency that actually screwed up, that you know showed up to work, were having a bad day and made that critical error.
00:42:35
Speaker
that led to the terrible outcome that we're discussing today. And in some ways, that's very comforting to know that, you know, you will never be under the circumstances of being personally held liable for some shitty outcome that was largely due to circumstances outside your control, even if it was initiated by your action. But at the same time, can we ever have true justice if we can't draw and quarter these individual faceless bureaucrats who screwed up? No.
00:43:01
Speaker
Bring back drawing and quartering. That's basically my thesis. Sorry, I feel like we're getting off track. Yes. A reminder of the, the question here is did the state agency violate the rights of the child through its failure of action?
Mock Court's Ruling and Justification
00:43:20
Speaker
Draw and quarter the entire agency and start over. and The king has spoken. Yeah. And the dad, he seems shitty. Yeah, actually, you know, while we're at it, let's draw and quarter the dad too. You seem shady.
00:43:31
Speaker
Yeah. Okay, okay, okay. What rights does a child really have? Aren't they property? I'm unclear on that. Well, depends on who you ask probably. In the state of Wisconsin or children property. Depending on how you rule, you might be answering that question. Wait, for real? I would say I, listen, I would even argue, again, hey guys, not a lawyer, I would argue that In a way, like, I mean, this is a small child. They should be under even more protections than an adult, you know? I mean, they are just, you know, wandering around the world, barely sentient, a child of that age, right? This is like a yeah preschooler. Did the kid exercises right to self-defense? Come on. Yeah. I believe at the time of the, of the brain damage, they were four. Yeah.
00:44:22
Speaker
oh Come on. All right, so his striking game is probably pretty weak, but he's got a good ground game cuz he's always on the ground always true Give did anybody think about giving the kid a knife? Oh, there you go weaponized That's what the state failed to do weaponize the honest up playing field and that would be child that would be child endangerment right the perfect and let show go after the dead and yeah that's it yeah finally We finally found the child endangerment We got it, guys. There there it is. Knife hands. Good job. Took us a while, but we finally found it in this case. We've finally given this child lethal capabilities, and that's really what this whole sport session was all about. The years of hospital visits or anything like that. it was We've cybernautically altered this child. Does anybody feel like they have a Ferb opinion or are you still wrestling?
00:45:20
Speaker
I'm barely wrestling. Honestly, at this point, I'm yeah, whatever you're wrestling with. Um, and I don't know if we can help at this point. That's why I'm not that right. That's my inner god's chosen princess. Yep. i
00:45:42
Speaker
Um, I, I am, I'm, you know, as unfortunate as it is, I do feel that the, um, The caseworker, did do their they they did their job. you know They were showing up and doing the visits. I think the issue is that there was not further action taken um by in this people in this child's life, like around this child, whether that's the mom or whoever, um to to kind of go after.
00:46:16
Speaker
to go to go after them sooner. 1979, 1980, that's an eighty ah one two three it's like three years worth of of visits. um i just you know I feel like they could have gone after someone, whether that was the state or not, sooner. right and And so that that's my that's my feeling is like there should have been more done sooner.
00:46:44
Speaker
um which is shitty, but that is. I agree. I mean, certainly a lot of gaps in whatever the hell this kid's family was doing during this time. I mean, they all just sound like terrible people, I'm gonna be honest. Yeah. The court has spoken. The court has spoken. The family sounds terrible. um And it's shit. You're all bad. You should feel bad. I think everybody involved should feel terrible.
00:47:14
Speaker
Um, and I hope that they have nightmares every night about how terrible that they are. ah Yeah. I'm about to say something terrible. Like, listen, like I want kids to not get pushed down the stairs to death or whatever happened to this poor kid. That would be nice, but it's not the state's obligation to make sure that kids don't get pushed down the stairs to death. Uh, I mean, it is quite clearly, but you know, like we got to draw line somewhere.
00:47:42
Speaker
Murder? Murder's the limit? I guess so. That that that feels right. like The father's culpable, right? like If we extend ah obligation and liability to the state, like to the letter of the law saying that like they need to support our right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, that's nuts. That means that we yield the universal basic income. That means that you know thought crime needs to be aggressively prosecuted to prevent anyone from infringing on anyone else's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
00:48:11
Speaker
like far be it for me to espouse libertarianism, but you know, you got to draw a line somewhere. ho It's like liberty and property actually. Those are the fundamental rights. How else are you going to be happy? How else are you going to achieve happiness than pursuing property? That's ridiculous. Yeah. In this economy? In this economy? Pursuing property? Literally. Nobody's happy. Yeah. I am going to rest.
00:48:41
Speaker
um on the case I don't know if that's the right term. Rest my case. I don't have a case to rest. I didn't argue anything. Yeah, you was issue an opinion yeah I'm going to issue my opinion. I am under the opinion that because the state was brought into this situation, into this domestic violence situation,
00:49:02
Speaker
uh and had committed to you know the safety checks and the monthly visits or however often they were like what is killing me is the fact that they literally did a visit where they did not see the kid and then the next month the kid had traumatic brain injuries and was never the same again oh don't forget that during the six months up to the caseworker was documenting her suspicion that there was still abuse happening I'm just very curious, what is the point of social services in protecting children and their due process if they're just going to show up to a house, take notes and do nothing about it? Or they're going to show up to a house, take notes, not even see the kid in question that's being abused and do nothing about it. I feel like the failure to action there, uh, from this, from this caseworker and by extension,
00:50:00
Speaker
the whole organization ah definitely did this kid dirty. And while obviously they weren't the ones abusing the child, they were put in place to help protect this child. And I would like to think that they failed to do so based on the arguments and evidence provided.
00:50:22
Speaker
All right. So it sounds like you're of the opinion that yes, the Winnebago County DSS, you know, did violate the rights of the child by failure to do their, their job under the law. Yes. Because if not, then why are they even there? Okay, fair enough. And Adam, I believe your opinion, if I can summarize was
00:50:53
Speaker
If we argue that Winnebago County you know ah ah violated the the child's rights, then every time anything bad happens to anybody, that's a violation of their rights that the state failed to preemptively resolve.
00:51:10
Speaker
call me old-fashioned but I think dad violated the kids' rights. Maybe mom, I'm still leaving myself open to that that supposition, but certainly not the state. I mean, if that's the case, then every time that the state takes taxes for me, you know they're harming me because they're depriving me of my liberty to buy Tekken.
00:51:30
Speaker
That's very specific. Chris, this makes you the the swing vote on our Supreme Court. Chris, don't fuck it up. I feel like I already have. Chris, do you want that associate ah to the Chief Justice job?
00:51:47
Speaker
Be very careful with your next statement. Well, I am leaning towards the child's you know neglect, neglects right? And that's that's kind of where ah who is doing the neglecting. Is it the state that's the neglecting the child or is it the family of the child, the guardians of the child, right?
00:52:04
Speaker
um The hospital is the only one, as we've stated already, the the hospital is the only one that actually did not neglect the child, which is amazing to me. um But the the father and and mother, that the guardians of this child obviously neglected it. um And by leaving the state, I mean, sorry, by leaving the child in the a hands of the parents or the guardians of the child, I feel that the child was endangered.
00:52:35
Speaker
um And I think at the end there, um ah the DSS was doing their their job up until they were unable to perform the last wellness check um where they failed to do their duty.
00:52:51
Speaker
And as a result, the child was um you know essentially killed without being killed. right um Life was taken away. um But at the same time, the DSS, is that their job? Is it their job to um remove a child from a bad situation?
00:53:12
Speaker
um you know
00:53:16
Speaker
I don't think so. like I don't think that's their job. So their job is to to perform the wellness checks, is to perform, um yeah and in the case of this this child, I think the DSS did their job, um but they failed to go the extra mile and it resulted in a child's that.
00:53:39
Speaker
is you know um mentally disabled for the rest of his or her life, um which is which is difficult. ah do you feel their their violation rises to the level of or Do you feel their failure rises to the level of violating the civil rights of the child?
00:53:56
Speaker
I do not feel that the DSS, um I don't feel like they acted illegally in that way. No. um Sounds like you're on Adam's side.
00:54:13
Speaker
i you are Joining joining Adam's opinion. Maybe maybe not joining an Adam specific opinion, but you agree on the fundamentals. I agree on the fundamentals. Yeah, I agree on the fundamentals because yeah. Wow. I do feel the child was endangered. Eat it, Chief Justice. The team only. So a two to one decision. I will remember this.
00:54:38
Speaker
The two-to-one decision, ah the relitigated podcast, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Winnebago County Department of Social Services did not violate ah right of the child the civil rights of the child through their failure.
00:54:57
Speaker
Though everyone seems to acknowledge that failure that there was a failure, it was not a violation of civil rights. ah It was not a violation of the Due Process Clause. of the due process Sorry, yes, of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and also the 5th Amendment. But interestingly, ah different opinions so um on the specifics. I love it.
00:55:23
Speaker
you know I'm willing to take on some of the burden of this collective failure. This is partially my fault for believing in the system. Probably. Yeah, I can't believe i can't believe you.
00:55:36
Speaker
Who can you keep track of how many children I've contributed to the murders of through my inaction? This is the bad place. This is the bad place. The arc of my the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. This is where the justices get hammered and navel-gaze about their decisions. Yes, this is the last comment of a Hallmark movie. Speaking of the decisions, ah would you like to know how it actually ended up?
00:56:06
Speaker
That child, now Supreme Court Chief Justice. That child happens to be running for president. Actually, JD Vance.
00:56:18
Speaker
ah Too real. Too recent. It's too soon. um Yes, so the actual Supreme Court ah was not a unanimous decision, just like our court, but the majority opinion was the same as our court.
00:56:42
Speaker
eat it little kid wow oh nickgo dropped on you son Nikki has more of the the specifics than I do as she has looked into this far more than I have. ah But at a high level, the I think it was Rehnquist who wrote the majority opinion and the argument was that, ah not actually dissimilar from the argument that Adam had made, which is that ah It's impossible to assume that the government can be everywhere doing everything that protecting everybody all of the time at the Constitution doesn't put the burden on the government to be the protector. The Constitution protects you from the government. These guys had one job. I actually feel dumber for having accidentally agreed with the real jurisprudence.
00:57:36
Speaker
You should feel bad. I am bad. The, the now like like I said, it wasn't ah entirely, that not everybody agreed on the court. And I am going to read to you ah Justice Blackmun's, a portion of his dissent, which has been, which is pretty famous and is certainly his most famous bit of writing. It was quoted by ah Clinton at his retirement ah ceremony.
00:58:09
Speaker
um And when he comes up in conversation, apparently in law circles, my understanding is this is this is what comes up from his writing. So I'm just going to read this real quick. tea Quote, poor Joshua, victim of repeated attacks by an irresponsible, bullying, cowardly, and intemperate father and abandoned by the respondents who placed him in a dangerous predicament and who knew or learned what was going on and yet did essentially nothing except, as the court revealingly observes, dutifully recorded these incidents in their files.
Dissent and Moral Implications
00:58:43
Speaker
It is a sad commentary upon American life and constitutional principles so full of late of patriotic fervor and proud proclamations about quote liberty and justice for all that this child J.D. now is assigned to live out the remainder of his life profoundly retarded, ah his writings, not mine. Josh, you i heard gary fucking hesitate on that that was great J.D. and his mother as petitioners here deserve, but now are denied by this court, the opportunity to have the facts of their case considered in the light of the constitutional protection that 42 U.S.C. 1983 is meant to provide.
00:59:26
Speaker
I also wanna add the dissent that was written by Justice Brennan, um where he says, today's opinion construes the due process clause to permit a state to displace private sources of protection and then at the critical moment to shrug its shoulders and turn away from the harm that it is promised to try to prevent. Because I cannot agree that our constitution is indifferent to such indifference, I respectfully dissent.
00:59:56
Speaker
I respectfully agree with that dissent. So this case had like these justices going, I mean, like the the writing is so eloquent um and these justices are basically being like, respectfully fuck this court. um so Yeah. Hey. And then did you want more information about like the reasoning, but at least from what I could figure out?
Procedural Errors and Alternative Paths
01:00:21
Speaker
Yeah, like what what are we doing? What was the course? What is what is yeah, what is so what is it? What is so heartless in this nation? So um basically, the state has no duty to provide protective services to individuals. um So basically, they went along with, the you know, it's supposed to be like the state is, hit it's you know,
01:00:44
Speaker
the constitution, the due process clause handcuffs the state. It doesn't like give everybody snacks, you know? That's why protect and serve is always in quotation marks. Yeah. So, um, so this, the, so they're saying that, you know, even though there's this whole DSS social services caseworker, like, so it, it that doesn't actually establish like a special relationship that has that where there's a constitutional duty to protect.
01:01:10
Speaker
That duty protects but only applies when the state has like come in and imposed limitations on a person's freedom. And so they specifically said if the person's in prison or if they're like institutionalized in a hospital. And then there was a footnote. They were like, arguably, you could try to make the case if like if a child was put in a foster home, but like we're not going to like take that up.
01:01:33
Speaker
So basically when you're talking about an individual getting beaten up by another individual, the state has no duty to act or to protect. Even if the individual is a parent guardian child relationship.
01:01:49
Speaker
ah Yeah, and then they were like, if the state had snatched the kid up, then there would have been they would have been accused of violating the the parent like the father's parental rights. So so yeah what is the solution here? like Are we just supposed to expect that like if kids that are suffering at the hands of abusive parents, even if social services is called in to do checks or whatever, it's just like,
01:02:11
Speaker
Yeah, you know, we're here doing our checks. But like, I don't know if the kid dies, the kid dies. like that's not So they did identify a couple of alters. So basically, and and to me, this is what was the most irritating um because they pointed out ways of redress. And it was like, oh, so it was like a procedural, like technical issue. um So they were like, well, the state law established social services and like, um,
01:02:38
Speaker
uh you know and just and you know there's dss they're supposed to go in it's like state law it gets like reported and whatever and this is a point that um i remember learning about this case basically in a seminar that was led by um the the the late great albert grisinskas jr who was an amazing attorney he passed away a few years ago but um He pointed this out that ah basically the state law created a duty so JD and mom could have gone after the state under tort law. So a tort action basically alleges a dereliction of duty that is the direct cause of damages. Yeah, you sued wrong kid. Better than luck next time. Yeah. Yeah, that's a basic idea. Yeah, the tort is that an actor did something wrong and it caused like actual direct harm, but it's that it's a different thing from a constitutional violation. Oh, you filed for a 96FB1. You needed 96FG2. That was kind of my feeling.
01:03:42
Speaker
That was my gut that was my gut as well as like the it just sounded like oh that oh you're serving for that okay okay uh interesting um so it's like the it's like the the the lesson learned here get a better lawyer yeah don't screw up your paperwork jesus they uh they also we fall down Oh, and there's an additional there's an additional couple things. At the at sort of the end, the the the Supreme Court was like, if the people of Wisconsin don't like this, they can change the law. But they can't expect the court to change like the like the Constitution by expanding its application beyond its intention. I'm going to guess the people of Wisconsin didn't care and did nothing. No, there was a huge outcry about this. Oh. This is before cell phones, and we're all just desensitized.
01:04:33
Speaker
Yeah, they were like, are you kidding? like This kid is you know whatever, whatever. um And then there was a footnote that said that, oh, the petitioners had this really interesting argument that you know there were state laws around child protection that you could argue like the kid is entitled to protection under the state law. And so that entitlement would then have some due process protections against deprivation. But they were like, that was only argued in the Supreme Court brief. that they So they they argued it in the thing that they sent to the Supreme Court.
01:05:03
Speaker
But they didn't put in their original complaint to the when they originally did the lawsuit. They didn't argue it to the court of appeals. They didn't put it in the petition for for cert. It just kind of came up during an argument. So they're like, oh, you didn't bring it up early enough. So we're not actually going to address this point. yeah we We know about it. We have all the laws, but but because you didn't do it, you didn't say it at the right time. Yeah. or enough, you didn't use the magic words enough. We're we're gonna we're going to pretend it doesn't exist. This is basically the IRS. I do have a couple of follow-ups. This is like separate from the lawsuit in the Supreme Court finding as sort of a postscript.
JD's Life After the Case
01:05:46
Speaker
um So JD's father ended up pleading no contest to charge as a felony abuse. um He was sentenced to four years in prison and then he ultimately served a little less than two.
01:05:59
Speaker
um JD was adopted by new parents and he was taken into their care when he was 12. And then in 2015, at the age of 36, he passed away.
01:06:25
Speaker
um RIP JD. There wasn't very many details in the obituary, you know, it was like he was known for this one case, but there was more to him than that. And he was, you know, very loved and messed.
01:06:41
Speaker
I think, I think the thing that, that sticks out to me is, is what, I don't know if this was your line, Nikki, or if this was from, from Al, but it was the line that, uh, this case determined that you uh, are entitled to protection from the government, but you are not entitled to protection from the government. Yes. Oh yeah. That was, that was my little summative line, which is just what is just the inflection. The inflection matters. It's a tonal language. Yes. yes Yeah. we We won't murder you outright without due process, but man, if you start shit, you're on your own. Um, it's all bad.
01:07:27
Speaker
in my In my research for this case, i I was... This is a really conflicting one um because I totally understand and part of me agrees with, you know, Rehnquist's sort of like, you know, this idea of like, the government can't be everywhere. It can't be responsible for everything all the time. ah But like, oh my God, like,
01:07:57
Speaker
It's just awful. Like can't yeah like there's so yeah there's it's just like like i I get it. I get this. I get the like the specific reading of the text. But at the same time, and and I also get the idea of like they they really sued on the wrong thing. Like, you know, and paperwork. Yeah. and It seems like this is just my interpretation of it. Not a lawyer ah is They were really trying to set a precedent to protect other children, not to ah get to to recover some damages. But it was really about like the government needs to do more. that That's what it feels like to me. And ah the Supreme Court was like, ah no, it doesn't. No, it's good.
01:08:57
Speaker
What really kind of, another thing that kind of bothered me was that there was a line in there of like, you know, the state, like he really wasn't any worse off than he would have been if the state hadn't acted at all. Um, you know, he was, he was with like his, his bio father wasn't a state actor. The state came in and like took custody and like, whatever. But then like, if versus if the state had never come in at all, like he would have just stayed like, i I mean, I got the point, but I was like, Ugh,
01:09:26
Speaker
That eight days that the hospital owned him was the best days of his life. The best days of his life. The hospital gentleman. I just will never get over the fact. What is the point of having, of even having social services if they don't come in and socially serve? Like we just, you it's like a bureaucratic disaster. I feel like social services always gets the bad, like in all of Hollywood, they always get the bad angles. They're always like, oh, the bad people coming to take your kids away.
01:09:55
Speaker
I'm like, this could have been something where they actually stepped in. They could have been heroes. Oh, wow. To be fair, you do never hear about it. The stories where they're like, ah, we went to this house and everything was fine because they took all our advice from last time. They don't make movies about that. They don't have Supreme Court cases about that. I'm sure there's plenty of examples too where they did and did take children away or instigated some court proceedings that led to, you know,
01:10:26
Speaker
a child being placed with another caregiver or into the foster system. I mean, I do that stuff all the time, and maybe we don't hear about it so much. We don't hear about the successes, right? We don't hear the successes. We only hear about the failures. You hear about it when, like, the angry bio parent shows up at the state offices with a gun and kills the social worker responsible. Womp womp.
01:10:50
Speaker
My cat just meowed and protested the whole thing. Point is we live in a society. We do. um yeah i'm I'm still conflicted on this one. like I get the structural argument. I understand you know and the i understand the majority opinion, but it's like I guess I'm split between like you know ah rational brain and emotional brain. yeah like They can't reconcile. like what's What's the government's purpose other than
01:11:26
Speaker
for the people. yeah My takeaway is that my profound cynicism is actually extremely well founded and well calibrated. Yeah, maybe you should have a career change and. Yeah, maybe I should be like a judicial car or whatever the hell these people are out there.
01:11:44
Speaker
I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. Not a lawyer. but It's not a lawyer. Nope. Just a car. That's the word I was going for. I'm in the United States Eagle force. Sounds real. Space force, space force. And hey, you can do no work and do a bad job and never get in trouble for it. Lifetime appointment. Sounds like a nice gig. Sign me up.
01:12:11
Speaker
Lifetime appointment. The only the only threat is ah congressional impeachment.
01:12:18
Speaker
Yeah. All right. Well. Have we adequately ah depressed our honored guests? Because I feel like really any show about the Supreme Court. Ultimately, that's what we're talking about. Poorly honored guests. People listening? and And the alternative is. I'm sorry, go ahead, Nikki.
01:12:40
Speaker
Well, I was saying like they did have a line in there of like, if you're, if this pisses you off, then like you need to go like agitate to the legislature, um, you know, to make change. Yeah. Call your representatives vote, but go vote.
01:12:59
Speaker
Yeah. ah So ah you know the other side of it is parents. don't have to deal with, you know, uh, jackbooted thugs kicking in the door X amount of time after X amount of time to just like, you know, throw the apartment and make sure everything is fine because they have an expressed requirements, constitutional requirement to proactively police parents. Right. I mean, like that's,
01:13:33
Speaker
I think it's really ultimately. That's the place where it's like- I got right to what my four-year-old rolled into a coma, and that's what makes me free. America. America. It's assault. I don't know. It feels like maybe the slippery slope argument won out on this one of like, if we do this, then- That's giving the government too much power. We most certainly are on a slippery slope, that's for sure.
01:14:04
Speaker
This is 1980s though. Like a slippery cavern. Just falling, falling. I feel like we've already fallen into the cavern. I feel like really the subtext is, hey, the Supreme Court matters and you should all vote. Mmm, that's true. Vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, But not vote, vote, vote, vote, for the Supreme Court because they're appointed for life. vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote Chosen by God like myself.
01:14:36
Speaker
ah
01:14:39
Speaker
All you have is second derivative efforts like voting. Anybody have any any last ah cynical jabs they need to get out?
01:14:51
Speaker
i fun
01:14:56
Speaker
There it is. We got there. ah But I do want to just throw this out into the universe that I hope that the next case that we review is about, I don't know, like a cucumber or the paranormal. So if we can get either of those two genres up, I'm ready to go. Oh, man. Give us the one where the Supreme Court decides what a sandwich is or not. Yeah.
01:15:23
Speaker
hot dog or not hot dog? Maybe we'll do a special episode where we'll we'll retry the Ghostbusters from Ghostbusters 2. Oh, guilty. I'm entering this with extreme prejudice. Goddamn liberals. sort So did that judge. It's true, Your Honor. This man has no dick.
01:15:49
Speaker
ah note On that note, i think I think that will do it for us here at Re-litigated. Yeah. um get day like yeah yeah On that note, like and subscribe. like buy like lincoln bio ah yeah um I think we're also supposed to ah ah throw throw our socials out there, but um no no but we have no no social presence for ah for this show. Maybe not ever.
01:16:20
Speaker
Social media is the evil that pervace is pervasive throughout our world. that's That's how I feel. Supreme Court should make Facebook illegal. ah tape it for Save it for another episode. That's fair.
01:16:35
Speaker
um but yeah Thanks to our esteemed justices for being here. Thanks for having us. God knows why you invited me, but thank you. Thank you for having it open Thursday night. I can't imagine why your night was free.
01:16:52
Speaker
You don't want to know. It's fine. Thanks to, uh, thanks to Nikki, my co-host for the research, uh, and the, and the assistance getting this all together. My name is Jared. I'm not a lawyer. I am Nikki. I'm also not a lawyer. We hope to, uh, we hope you'll stop by and listen to ah the next one. If we can ah find another free night.
01:17:19
Speaker
to compress ourselves. but yeah We will we will do something better next time or more uplifting. Maybe we'll see. Maybe no promises. You don't know. You're just gonna you're just gonna have to listen. So there you have it. Two to one decision in favor of the respondent.
01:17:40
Speaker
That'll do it for us. But before we go, thanks again to my co-hosts and to our three justices. Music in this episode was written by Studio Columna and Toby Smith and provided by Pixabay. Audio mixing and producing was done poorly by me. Thanks for listening. We hope you found it interesting enough to subscribe and like the podcast. We don't have any social presence, at least not yet, so you'll just have to catch us here on the next episode. Until then, I'm Jarrett, and this has been Relitigated. Take care.
01:18:13
Speaker
e