Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
#16 Watts v. United States
25 Plays1 month ago
In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Watts v. U.S.
At a protest, a young man made a statement about getting the president in the sights of his rifle, and was convicted of threatening the life of the president. Was he, though?
The question before the court: Was his statement actually a threat? Was it prohibited by the law?
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction to Relitigated Podcast
00:00:00
Speaker
um Hi there, welcome to Relitigated, the show where five friends who are absolutely not lawyers attempt to retry a real Supreme Court case. I'm your host Jarrett, and this is episode 16, Watts v. United States, decided in 1969. A quick note before we get started.
00:00:20
Speaker
As always, we try our best to represent the facts and decisions in the case as accurately as possible, but we're not lawyers, and nothing in this episode should be taken as legal advice. Okay, with that out of the way, let's start the show.
00:00:36
Speaker
Wrap it up. Start over. Erase everything. The magic of editing. that's Speaking of, hi there, welcome to the Relitigated Podcast. I'm your host, Jarrett, and I'm joined by my
Meet the Hosts and Justices
00:00:50
Speaker
co-host, Nikki. Hello, Nikki. Hi.
00:00:53
Speaker
We also have with us three friends who will be role-playing as our justices for this episode. First, we have Associate Justice Chris. Hello. Next, we have Associate Justice Preston.
00:01:06
Speaker
Hello, hello. And lastly, we have our Chief Justice, Sarah. Hello, hello, hello.
00:01:14
Speaker
And a special hello to Preston making his debut on the podcast today. So happy to be here, guys. Golf clap, golf clap.
00:01:25
Speaker
If you're new to the show, here's how this works. Nikki and I have selected a real Supreme Court case, and our justices do not know what case we have selected. Nikki will introduce the case to us and walk us through the facts so we can all get a little bit more familiar with the details.
00:01:40
Speaker
The justices are free to ask factual questions during this time, and we will answer as best as we can. Next, we'll move into oral arguments, where Nikki will roleplay as the petitioner and I will roleplay as the respondent.
00:01:53
Speaker
We each get seven minutes to make our case, during which the justices can interrupt us and ask probing questions. When the arguments are over, the justices will deliberate and deliver their own opinions.
00:02:04
Speaker
The final rulings do not need to be unanimous. Majority opinion wins. Even if two or more justices agree in principle, they can still disagree as to why. Once we've had our fun with our mock hearing,
00:02:17
Speaker
Nikki and I will reveal what the Supreme Court really decided and talk about how we feel about the actual results and why this case matters. Sound good
Case Introduction: Watts vs. United States
00:02:26
Speaker
everyone? Sounds good.
00:02:28
Speaker
Good as always. Awesome. I'll turn it over to Nikki for facts of the case. So for this episode, we will be retrying Watts versus the United States.
00:02:40
Speaker
We begin at a public rally at the Washington Monument. The crowd there broke into smaller discussion groups. 18-year-old RW joined a group with several people around their own age, so you know mostly teens to early 20s, to talk about police brutality.
00:03:00
Speaker
During the conversation, someone in the group suggested that the young people there needed to educate themselves more before expressing their views. To this, RW responded, they always holler at us to get an education.
00:03:13
Speaker
And now I have already received my draft classification as 1A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I'm not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is the president.
00:03:27
Speaker
They're not going to make me kill my black brothers. Oh, charged. Reportedly, after RW made the statement, both they and the assembled crowd laughed about it together.
00:03:39
Speaker
Also present at the rally was an investigator for the Army Counterintelligence Corps, who overheard RW's comment and reported them to the authorities for violation of ah U.S. s Code Section eight seventy one a According to this statute, whoever knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat to take the life of, to kidnapped, or to inflict bodily harm upon the president, president-elect, vice president, or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of president or vice president-elect shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
00:04:21
Speaker
So, RW was arrested and tried in a U.S. District Court for threatening the life of the president at the Washington Monument rally. During the trial, after the prosecution completed their case, RW's counsel moved to have RW acquitted.
00:04:39
Speaker
According to counsel, the statement made by RW was political speech and was a crude remark expressing opposition to the policies represented by the president. The judge denied the motion and the jury convicted RW of the alleged crime.
00:04:53
Speaker
ah RW's conviction was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where it was upheld in a two to one vote. Following the loss in the Court of Appeals, the conviction was again appealed, this time to the U.S. Supreme Court, where now our justices must decide.
Legal Context: Threats vs. Free Speech
00:05:10
Speaker
Did the trial judge make an error in denying the motion for acquittal, or should RW's conviction stand? Goodness gracious. That's a lot. There's lot going on there.
00:05:23
Speaker
RW. Yeah. What a predicament to be in, frankly. Wrong place, wrong time. Honestly, yeah, kinda. Yeah.
00:05:34
Speaker
Like, truly. Like, if somebody wasn't eavesdropping, RW would not be in this situation. Yeah. Yeah, it seems like they wanted to make an example of the guy. Yeah.
00:05:46
Speaker
Yeah. The theme here is nosiness. This code, 871A, existed prior, obviously, to this. So, it's already, you know. not ideal. Yeah.
00:05:59
Speaker
Yeah, not great. Not great all around, truthfully. Okay. any Any factual questions that we can answer for you? Were there any other witnesses ah besides the single investigator?
00:06:15
Speaker
um Like witnesses who testified? That we don't know. ah But we do know that other people were present at the time. Got it. That's a good question. Because like it's just one guy's word against another at that point.
00:06:31
Speaker
So who's to say? okay I don't think I have any questions. Yeah, not yet. Yeah. We'll see what horrors await us. So many horrors. Always.
00:06:42
Speaker
They're persisting as usual. All right. Well, then we will move into oral arguments. Nikki is up first representing the petitioner. I have put seven minutes on the clock and time will begin whenever she does.
00:06:59
Speaker
Okay. ah Thank you very much. I will try to keep this brief.
00:07:04
Speaker
ah Ms. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. We are here because of symbolism and metaphor. And this case is a symbol of the government's efforts to abrogate our rights under the guise of security.
00:07:22
Speaker
In the United States, we pride ourselves on freedoms of expression, belief, religion, and speech. We take this so seriously that we have enshrined it in the First Amendment.
00:07:35
Speaker
I direct the attention of our justices to the First Amendment, which reads, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
00:07:59
Speaker
This incident occurred at a rally, ah peaceful assembly, as is our right under this amendment. The Washington Monument has been and continues to be a site for gatherings, marches, and rallies for causes. so Its location, appearance, and role in American history and American social movements mean that it and the gathering it hosts are an enduring American symbol. as detailed in the First Amendment, we are entitled to express our opinions, including our disagreement with and critique of the government and public figures.
00:08:36
Speaker
So assembling up the Washington Monument to express political viewpoints is as American as apple pie. As the Washington Monument is a symbol, so too is RW's speech.
00:08:49
Speaker
He went to a public gathering specifically intended to express political opposition and expressed his opposition to wartime policies as symbolized by the president.
00:09:01
Speaker
Granted, this 18-year-old was perhaps somewhat graceless in his words, but they were just words. R.W. did not say he intended to assassinate the president.
00:09:16
Speaker
He made a statement that was explicitly conditioned on him showing up for service and on him being given a weapon. He said himself that he would not be presenting for service, thus negating all the other conditions present regarding a weapon and the president.
00:09:35
Speaker
We can't say then that he directly intended to kill the president. There is no indication that this 18 year old had any form of access to the president who is protected by trained agents dedicated to his safety.
00:09:48
Speaker
He did not take any steps. to acquire any firearms or attempt to convince the others present to harm the president. He returned his focus on his unwillingness to serve due to his unwillingness to harm others.
00:10:04
Speaker
The other person's present didn't thent then decide or plan to harm the president. They laughed and then moved along. This is, in essence, a young person being crude, boastful, and symbolic in his use of language.
00:10:21
Speaker
While he did not express his opinion the same way that others may have, his expression was an instance of free speech protected by our Constitution, not a true threat.
00:10:33
Speaker
Just like the Washington Monument is a symbol of our nation's founder and values, the case of RW symbolizes what should be our commitment to our nation's freedom from thought police.
00:10:46
Speaker
I will take questions at this point.
Justices Deliberate: Analyzing RW's Intent
00:10:50
Speaker
I don't know if I have questions. I have thoughts that are not questions. Anybody else?
00:10:58
Speaker
I've been thinking that, um, yeah, I just, i think that it's more of a, yeah he, he didn't actually say, you know, I'm going to kill the president. It's, I want to get my sights right. I want to get in my sights. So it's kind of like, um, but yeah, so I understand. I understand the argument.
00:11:23
Speaker
I do too. Very clear argument. Great job. Definitely a clear argument. yeah I feel as though it did focus a bit on, you know, the right to assembly, which of course our right, but um that was never mentioned in the case, right? Like the assembly part of what he did was fine, but it was everything after that, essentially.
00:11:51
Speaker
It was his statements that he made in direct opposition to wartime policies as personified by the president. So expressing his thoughts, his opinions, his disagreement, all perfectly tucked in under the first amendment, I would say.
00:12:12
Speaker
Nikki, I do have a question. um Just poking holes through your argument a little bit. He did say, if He was given a rifle.
00:12:23
Speaker
He would target the president first. And you spoke a little bit about how the whole gist of his statement was, I'm not going to be drafted. That's not going to be me.
00:12:38
Speaker
But what if he is drafted? What if he is given a rifle and he is enlisted to serve? Would that make this sense? Not a credible threat then?
00:12:49
Speaker
ah That would be predicated on access to the president. I don't know of any 18-year-old or military draftee who would, you know, rather than going to where the fight is, would be then right there at the White House or wherever.
00:13:06
Speaker
um And once again, he was pretty adamant that he did not want to serve. He did not agree with any of this and he wasn't going to do it. Okay.
00:13:18
Speaker
Noted for the record. Thank you. I have no further questions, Nikki. At this time. ah How much time do I have left? 30 seconds.
00:13:31
Speaker
Oh, dang. Okay, fine. I mean, I guess I can reserve the rest of my time. How does court work? don't know. We're not lawyers.
00:13:41
Speaker
ah yeah we're not we didn't we didn't so We haven't actually said that yet this episode. we are not lawyers. i didn't go to law school. I didn't read. and no Yeah, Chris can't read, guys. and These degrees are fake. i yeah i Who hired him?
00:14:00
Speaker
don't know. And that's time. Nikki, I apologize.
00:14:08
Speaker
yeah We can reserve 30 seconds. Why not? I mean, for the like one sentence or whatever. Yeah. 30 seconds.
00:14:18
Speaker
It's yours now. Awesome. All right. Cherish it. I will start with my seven, so seven minutes if that's okay.
00:14:31
Speaker
What if, what if, Hey, what if we didn't?
00:14:40
Speaker
I swear to God. We need to impeach the Chief Justice. Life time appointment, bitch.
00:14:54
Speaker
You voted for this. Just add ten more. stand ten
00:15:01
Speaker
um The clock will start when you do. Okay. Ms. Chief Justice, and may it may please the court. According to the petitioner and their counsel at trial, the comment made by the petitioner at the rally was just a crude joke, and that was ah taking them at their word that they would never actually follow through on their threat.
00:15:26
Speaker
It was such a funny joke, in fact, that 12 of the petitioner's peers in the jury heard the facts and unanimously agreed that the statement constituted a threat on the president's life and convicted them for violating the statute.
00:15:40
Speaker
The question at the heart of this case is not a matter of intent, but of impact. It's just a joke is what people say when they realize that their words have consequences and they're about to feel the pain of those consequences.
00:15:54
Speaker
We know from the petitioner's own statement that they felt that being drafted was cause for a murderous action. This is a motive. The authorities stepped in in order to prevent the petitioner from finding an opportunity to act.
00:16:08
Speaker
We don't know if the president would ever be around, i don't know, soldiers. Seems like maybe there would be opportunity and the drafting would provide the motive.
00:16:22
Speaker
In our nation's history, we have had four presidential assassinations with at least two other unsuccessful attempts that we know of. Many of the individuals who perpetrated these crimes were probably probably dismissed for being hyperbolic or just another crackpot at the end of the bar.
00:16:39
Speaker
Ask Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Roosevelt, Kennedy, or Reagan if those threats were funny to them. Were Kennedy and Reagan not surrounded by dozens of trained protectors?
00:16:54
Speaker
Considering, again, the impact, remember that these comments were made in a discussion where impressionable minds were gathered. Any one of those individuals may have heard the petitioner's words as encouragement or at the very least a normalizing of violence against the president and could have been influenced.
00:17:11
Speaker
If the petitioner makes the statement and someone else follows through, that would make the petitioner an accomplice or a co-conspirator, no matter the comedic value. Words have impact.
00:17:23
Speaker
Question. Go ahead. So yeah ah feel like that argument is slightly straying from RW. You're talking about other people around ah RW. Other people didn't make the threat.
00:17:39
Speaker
Is it a thread? Other people didn't say what RW said. I'm just a little bit confused how they fit into the equation, I guess. It's the context of the saying of it. The idea that it's comedic.
00:17:52
Speaker
It doesn't matter if you intend it. You are still uttering it out loud in a group of people, and you don't get to choose how those people interpret your intent. Right.
00:18:03
Speaker
if he is saying, this is not intent. Why is RW responsible for... for the actions of other people that might just be eavesdropping.
00:18:13
Speaker
I'm saying this is a for instance. If somebody else had acted on it, we would a so we would say that R.W. was an accomplice or a co-conspirator. So why, if R.W. was the one making the threat, wouldn't he also just be accountable for making that threat?
00:18:30
Speaker
yeah Let's not forget that the Washington Monument is only.55 miles from the back door of the White House.
00:18:41
Speaker
This was not uttered in Reno on the other side of the country. This was literally in the backyard of the President of the United States. This offense. yeah Another thing to consider is that not all speech is protected, according to this very court.
00:18:57
Speaker
In the United States Schenck, this court ruled that even political speech can be limited in order to protect the functioning of the government in wartime. I don't think I ruled that. In that case, Schenck didn't advocate for violence, just disobeying draft laws.
00:19:13
Speaker
Here, we have a nonchalant advocating of violence. Lastly, in regards to threats of the president being political speech, it is outlandish to believe that a threat of violence upon another person is protected political speech just because the president is an elected official.
00:19:31
Speaker
If the president is elected official and anything having to do with the president is political, that would make assassinations protected political actions. That doesn't make any sense. The threat of violence and the action of violence are not protectable.
00:19:48
Speaker
It is a assault and potentially battery if followed through upon. These are crimes. It doesn't matter if they're an elected official. It's important for the government and its functioning to protect these particular individuals and to say that they are not worthy of that protection because it is political does not make any sense.
00:20:12
Speaker
Thank you I yield to questions. What do we think, Court? Well, yeah, i I kind of had the same original thought, and but after hearing both sides of the argument, i'm kind of more in the middle.
00:20:26
Speaker
um But obviously, i have no specific questions. um But I think the, right, that just to reiterate, right, the impact of words in the group setting at a rally in proximity to the White House, you know, could be constrained. So I understand the arguments.
00:20:47
Speaker
Yeah, it it feels like to the letter letter of the law, it's kind of open and shut, but I feel like there's nuance in some of the words that he was saying.
00:21:01
Speaker
I have a question for Jarrett. Would you consider RW's statement sort of a rallying cry for those that were at this ah assembly?
00:21:18
Speaker
No, I believe that this was a statement by by showing an individual's motive, although I am concerned that the laughter of everybody else shows a callous disregard for the safety of the president of the United States.
00:21:34
Speaker
Okay. I do, i mean, understanding the code as well, ah whether it was a rallying cry or, you know, it was simply ah threat even not for others to enact upon, um you know, it's still credible based on the code, the way that it reads.
00:21:53
Speaker
um So I think it's, you know, even if it wasn't a rallying cry, there's still a potential issue with the words as they pertain to the code.
00:22:05
Speaker
Yeah. I also, don't know. It feels like an inflection really matters here. You know, like how did RW convey this statement? I understand, you know, we still don't think it's, it's, it's a joke, but it could be like a rallying cry you know, just a one-off, but who knows.
00:22:28
Speaker
And we are at time. Thank you, Jared. Gracias. You're welcome. Thanks for having me on my show. I guess you're welcome.
00:22:39
Speaker
I don't know.
00:22:43
Speaker
We hate the justices entirely too much power. Yeah. I don't think we're exercising it to our full extent to be completely honest. It's true.
00:22:54
Speaker
So we have we've we've we've reached the part of the show where Nikki and i shed shed our lawyer-ness, move out of of arguments, and we become your clerks to help you ah deliberate and determine how you would like to rule on this case.
00:23:15
Speaker
And we will turn it over to the Chief Justice to moderate. Oh, gosh, guys. How we feeling, team? i'm I'm still leaning towards you know any threat. It is it is kind of, you know just taking and a less objective approach for just like a few seconds, it is kind of weird the way that in history we glorify people who are not supposed to be our kings. Like the amendments are supposed to be for the people to protect them from the government.
00:23:51
Speaker
Right. And so it's kind of this, this is, these are the sorts of codes and things that protect the government from the people. Um, and so it's, you know, taking just a less, less objective stance for just a few seconds. It's kind of weird.
00:24:09
Speaker
um to think about it that way. but Yeah, I agree. i feel like- Chris, you? No, please. No, please, Preston. but Listen, as Chief Justice, I want you to go.
00:24:23
Speaker
It just sounded like Chris was inciting a revolution, and I'm all for it. Oh, yes. How was America founded?
00:24:34
Speaker
Rolling heads. Hey, we did just say that we're not exercising our power in this court to its fullest degree. so it's true. We could really go crazy. Not to make any threats because the law.
00:24:45
Speaker
Yes. Yes. But it is something you know you grew up with. and I don't know. ah But it's like something that know even from an early age it's like don't say anything like that ah against your
Demographic Context and Motives
00:25:00
Speaker
president or vice president.
00:25:02
Speaker
um Yeah. I think it's bad practice in general to be an individual that goes around making jokes about assassinating killing really anybody. It's just kind of it's poor taste.
00:25:16
Speaker
and Not ideal. No, it's not ideal. um But I just wish I was there to hear RW say this because like people do joke all the time about things.
00:25:28
Speaker
So and it's like going back to our original thought. This is legitimately wrong place at wrong time. Like he could have made this joke anywhere else and it would have just been a joke and he would have gone on with his life.
00:25:44
Speaker
You actually raise a good point. you know Maybe this wasn't the first time that he made a joke like this. You don't ever know that, right? Maybe. Just to play devil's advocate. like This could be you know a recurring theme. You don't know.
00:25:57
Speaker
um So, I mean, understandably, taking the back to the objective stance now, um yeah know potentially yeah this could be an issue, right?
00:26:09
Speaker
Mm-hmm. So... Yeah. True. Like what if behind closed doors, like what if he is so, what if he is somebody who's socializing this idea the masses and trying to get some, some buy-in?
00:26:26
Speaker
Testing the waters type of thing. yeah so Yeah. So I have a question. um Two questions, actually. What was the demographic of the rally?
00:26:38
Speaker
Do we know? Um, I don't think we know that from the, uh, the record available to us. The only thing we do know for sure is the people in the breakout group that RW happened to be in was people slightly younger than and slightly older than 18 years old. Like that was the age range.
00:27:08
Speaker
That's the only demographic information that I would feel comfortable saying I know for a fact. Okay. And do, do we know if RW had an education or was getting one, what he wanted to do?
00:27:24
Speaker
Was he like a comedian before this?
00:27:29
Speaker
don't think we have any information, um aside from, you know, him making a statement that he'd been drafted. So I'm guessing he didn't have any kind of, cause I think, um,
00:27:41
Speaker
yeah You're going to have to correct me, but um I think if you were in college or something, that gave you a bit of an out as far as the draft goes. i It could, yeah.
00:27:52
Speaker
You could get a deferment, potentially. um he ah ah We know he's a male, and we know that he was 18 years old. That's the other thing we know.
00:28:04
Speaker
no But that's about it. And was black. Probably, yes. I don't actually know. I mean, I guess his statement was, my black brothers, ah nothing prevents a non-black person from saying that.
00:28:21
Speaker
It does not, no. That's right. So I guess we shouldn't just assume, but it feels like that's probably the case. Also, just knowing that if he was local to D.C., I mean, D.C. is demographically has a large black population as well. I think it's majority.
00:28:40
Speaker
Yeah.
00:28:44
Speaker
Yeah. Honestly, Preston, you raise a really good point. Like, is Bro an aspiring comedian? Like, is this just a bit? It really could be because, like, comedians say crazy, offensive, threatening, horrible things all the time. And they're like it's funny.
00:28:59
Speaker
Like the context is important. Like the joke maybe just didn't land with this. Who got who hurt him? An investigator for. What?
00:29:10
Speaker
Army intelligent. Maybe maybe the guy who overheard him just isn't a jokey guy. he just didn't get it. but Not that that doesn't make this.
00:29:20
Speaker
yeah but i would say I would say that that's a good argument, but then it didn't pass the court of appeals. No, it didn't. a jury. so So no one's funny. No one's funny. yeah this is here If we've learned anything on this podcast, it's that no one can say anything anymore. Literally.
00:29:40
Speaker
it That's accurate. um Yeah, i am I am kind of leaning based on the objective stance. ah I am leaning towards that this could be a credible threat um from the objective stance perspective.
00:30:00
Speaker
I would be really curious to know. i mean, we don't know what year this took place in yet, obviously, but I would be really curious to know. like how they handle threats like this today.
00:30:14
Speaker
Like, is this, I mean, if somebody is just walking around Washington, DC, anywhere near the Capitol building, the white house, and somebody who works in government happens to overhear a, ah wow. And really, I would really just love to shoot this Congress person or something or like, man, if they don't stop like,
00:30:37
Speaker
misappropriating my taxes i'm gonna go in there and i'm going to stab xyz like if someone just hears that are are we taking that person off the streets are we like search it like are they charged with a crime right then and there like i do think it i don't know i think by the letter of this law yeah i guess it would be a credible threat but i'm also like free speech is a thing right i mean it's The FBI will be at your door in 10 minutes. um um there yeah yeah
00:31:11
Speaker
i should tell. i should. yeah I'll make sure my door is unlocked so they can just walk in. Knock politely. Knock politely.
00:31:21
Speaker
ah politely I also think there's only note about the way that RW phrased his statement. Like, it is an if-then statement. It's not like he says, i have a plan.
00:31:33
Speaker
I'm going to get the—once I get my hands on a rifle, I'm going to shoot the president. He said, if they ever draft me into service, would rather kill the big than peers.
00:31:48
Speaker
It's kind of the gist of what he said. i think context is important. But yeah, i am struggling. Chris, like what would you say? Objectively, it does seem like by the letter of the law. Right. especially i feel like I feel like the courts should have given him an option.
00:32:06
Speaker
It's either, listen, we're going to either try you for giraffe dodging we're going to try you you know, the assassination of, or, you know. it is That is the one thing I didn't want to bring it up because it wasn't technically the question at hand, but it is also a crime to not show up for the draft.
00:32:27
Speaker
So, you know, you know, it's screwed either way, but I think, you know, This particular one is worse versus draft dodging. i don't know. actually i don't know which sentence is worse. so I don't know which sentence, like worse, worse in the sense that the punishment might be worse um versus draft dodging. I actually don't know.
00:32:46
Speaker
I don't know. i mean, he didn't draft, he didn't dodge the draft yet. Right. like right when He was also threatening to dodge the draft. It's just a lot of veiled threats. Yeah. Right.
00:32:57
Speaker
And that's not a crime. It's, you know, he could still show up on Monday and up he's good. Right. He could. Yeah. And then he could get his hands on a rifle and find the president.
00:33:07
Speaker
<unk> And then follow through with the. And then we're all screwed. Like if there's a will, I guess there's a way. and i guess. yeah It's like, how do you weed out RW with his potentially silly joke and people who are actually psycho who want to assassinate.
00:33:26
Speaker
the leader of the nation assassinate anybody because that's just crazy point. biggers for like period yeah but We shouldn't be doing that guys, but at all costs, we can avoid that. Okay.
00:33:41
Speaker
Where, where are we leaning? What's the temperature here guys? Um, yeah, i am, I am leaning towards the objective. Um, yeah, this this is probably credible and, um,
00:33:55
Speaker
Yeah. It's too, you know, if he said, if they ever make me carry a rifle and, you know, yeah you i don't even know if how I could phrase this better, um that it's not a direct call out to this person anymore.
00:34:10
Speaker
you know it's it's very It's very cut and dry. It's like rifle, sights, aim, and and person. like you know this is it's yeah There's no like gray area. It's very like, no, no, no. so you know it's it's kind of It's very direct. um so i feel that's my ah idea Reading the code, reading the statement, it's very objective.
00:34:34
Speaker
Okay. Heard. Preston, where are you at in this moment? I'm unfortunately kind of in the same boat.
00:34:46
Speaker
um
00:34:48
Speaker
You know, there was... well I have a quick question. What does a draft classification as 1A mean? That's a great question. That's a very question. that like sitting at a desk doing
Justices' Consensus: Credible Threat?
00:35:00
Speaker
nothing with no rifle? Or is that like...
00:35:04
Speaker
um I'm going to look it actually. In the a draft status of 1A meant a registrant was available for unrestricted military service. Okay.
00:35:14
Speaker
They were considered physically and mentally fit to serve in the armed forces. Got you. Keyword armed. Yep. Yep. Hmm. Yeah.
00:35:26
Speaker
Yeah. This is bad. I mean, it's bad because even if you know, Let's say there was some sort of like joke in the middle of this. You're like shouting this to like you know at a rally of people who probably don't like the man.
00:35:43
Speaker
And then being been like, yeah, let's draft dodge and harm elected officials.
00:35:55
Speaker
everybody's like, yeah. It doesn't sound great. It doesn't sound great on paper. Optics are not great. Yeah. Hmm. Yeah, I guess i would i would also say, too, like, I really want to give RW the benefit of the doubt, because, again, we've all made jokes before. Hopefully not everybody's joking about this, but we've all joked.
00:36:17
Speaker
Um... But I feel like this, it's like in a nation where we do have free speech, like maybe this really is the one thing like you cannot say. um Especially because of the history of- presidential assassinations. And also, again, we don't know when this took place. So maybe this is like right after Kennedy got assassinated or something. I don't know.
00:36:44
Speaker
um maybe So maybe it's top of mind. Maybe like everybody in DC is like super high alert. Like we're not messing with that right now. It could be like national security issue.
00:36:56
Speaker
and I feel like, well, I don't want to side with Jared, but I feel like If we don't crack down on what RW said, even if it's not actually a credible threat, there's no intent behind it, it could just lead the way for there to be a credible threat that just goes under the radar.
00:37:19
Speaker
it Even though maybe in hindsight it was in plain sight. Like, oh, bro is at the club bragging about wanting to murder an elected official. No one took him seriously.
00:37:30
Speaker
and then he did it. It's like, oh. So I don't know. and ah Awkward. Yeah. Yeah.
00:37:41
Speaker
Oh, no. Thank you. Thank you very much. I do have one more question just because I'm looking at the timeline of things and it seems strange. Right. So it says. ah He has to report on Monday for the draft, but then was reported.
00:37:57
Speaker
Wondering if he actually signed up for the draft, served in the military, and then was reported sometime down the line.
00:38:07
Speaker
Because I feel like that affects things. really It doesn't doesn't really seem like if somebody told on him that day that he was immediately tried arrested, tried in the next couple hours, you know?
00:38:21
Speaker
True. There was definitely paperwork that had to go through for this to happen. And like, maybe he served for a few years and was, and he had a rifle that time and there was no action on this.
00:38:35
Speaker
He probably even forgot that he said it. Right. Was it day of? That's true. Hmm. Yeah. Do we Nikki or do we know?
00:38:48
Speaker
Like the time in between he was reported and arrested or. I feel like if if it did happen, I feel like it would have happened within a day.
00:39:00
Speaker
ah you know, arrested and try all that stuff would have happened pretty much immediately. um But that is, that is an assumption that I made. It's an assumption that I made. yeah Right.
00:39:12
Speaker
Yeah. Cause if it wasn't, If he was like, yeah, they picked him out of, you know, infantry training like three months later and he was like, what are you talking about? I was just going to, I thought you guys were going to cart me off to war and forgot about this statement. It seems disingenuous.
00:39:30
Speaker
So Nikki I are furiously Googling but but in order to try and answer your question. I was wondering why you were so quiet. Yeah.
00:39:42
Speaker
It's a good question ah that neither of us have the answer to. And i yeah i do not know the order of operations. Was a like said a thing, picked up, went to trial, you know got convicted, sitting in jail? Or was it like you know well after...
00:40:02
Speaker
you know Did he report on Monday and then you know later on down the line he actually got arrested? We don't really, the record is thin and there's, think. Very thin. There's a specific reason for that, but yeah, we don't know.
00:40:15
Speaker
I think if if he was ah dishonorably discharged, there would have been a record of that, right? And and so he must never have and you know enlisted. Oh yeah, probably. He was drafted. So like he would have been discharged, right?
00:40:30
Speaker
Yeah. um So if there's no record, it's probable that he probably never actually signed up or showed up to his draft. Maybe he did evade the draft.
00:40:43
Speaker
Maybe he did. and well Well, ah technically, if he was summoned to jury or summoned to trial, then that overrides his draft laws. Well, I'm thinking like maybe he didn't go on Monday and on Tuesday the cops just come to his house and they're like, hey, you said a really bad thing this weekend. and come with us.
00:41:01
Speaker
But that's, I feel like that's so integral to the story, right? Like if he yeah does dodge the draft, the dude doesn't have an access to the rifle and nobody's making him carry the rifle. So then the rest of the statement is kind of just like, okay.
00:41:17
Speaker
He's not being, so really he should be charged for something else. Exactly. Either way, like he's not coming out of this unscathed. No, you're you're going to prison, big man. But like for what's up?
00:41:30
Speaker
Right. Por que no los dos? No, that's like double jeopardy in tradition. Hey, our court, our rules.
00:41:49
Speaker
Okay. I don't know. I feel like...
00:41:53
Speaker
ah Without the critical info, like, I think it probably is safe to assume in the context of this case that he was arrested pretty soon thereafter saying something like that. Like, especially if he was in D.C.
00:42:06
Speaker
like, and basically a cop heard him, he's going to tell all of his other cop friends and they're going to jump on that pretty immediately because they're like, hey, maybe we shouldn't let the guy that directly threatened the president like out of our sights for too long while there's a giant assembly going on in D.C. Maybe we should keep an eye on him.
00:42:24
Speaker
So do feel like it probably was pretty quick that he was apprehended or thrown in jail. Yeah. Poor guy. So i have found i found a thing.
00:42:40
Speaker
excerpt from a book titled Hunting the President by Mel Aiton. Ooh, tease. The following day after he made this statement, Watts was arrested by Secret Service.
00:42:54
Speaker
Okay, there it is. Dang, Secret Service. They wasted no time. Yeah. Secret Service. Big deal. This is the only source that I have on this, but... Yeah, I've not found... So so do with that information what you will.
00:43:12
Speaker
Okay. Noted. Yeah, that kind of... Honestly, kind of wraps it up for me. Yeah. yeah ah Unfortunately...
00:43:24
Speaker
I don't think RW is really off the hook with this. I think if he was, it would set a precedent for bad people to say bad things and act on bad things, thinking that they wouldn't have any repercussions.
00:43:43
Speaker
Any other deliberations we need to have? No, i think I think we're kind of all on the same page here. feel like we are in alignment as a court. Yeah. mile We've reached harmony.
00:43:55
Speaker
That's crazy. Has this happened? We've we've had unanimous decisions. There's been instances, yeah. i've I've slept since then. I don't know. Once or twice or twice. It was last week? don't know.
00:44:09
Speaker
don't know. So who would like to issue the majority opinion? And then does anybody have any qualifications they want to tack on to that?
00:44:22
Speaker
Associate justices. Anybody want to take a stab at the official on the record? Yeah, that's true. to
00:44:35
Speaker
I think. Oh no, no, Chris, go ahead. No, please, Chris. All right. I will go. um Yeah. I think our, our, our decision is that, know, he is guilty of a, um of a crime and in violation of the code, um you know, based on his direct statements.
00:44:54
Speaker
um In addition to ah the fact that he was arrested before um he He was sent to the draft. So I think just by, you know, his words and and the very objective, direct way that he said them, you know it does constitute a ah real threat.
00:45:14
Speaker
There you have it. Then did the trial judge make an error when they when the judge said, declined the motion to acquit?
00:45:27
Speaker
No. okay
00:45:32
Speaker
Any of the other justices have ah any caveats they want tack on? Because you're allowed to do that. you're like, I agree with that person, but except for this piece or whatever, or let me let me expand on that.
00:45:49
Speaker
I think I mostly agree with Chris in the fact that the letter of the law makes pretty clear what is ah threat to the president and how you cannot do that.
00:46:00
Speaker
seems definitely like he did that, but I do think, I don't know. It's important to note what the context actually was in which he said this in a group of his peers, feeling the pressure of the oncoming, the ongoing draft, feeling the pressure of potentially having to hold a weapon against people your age, um people with your background.
00:46:26
Speaker
you know I don't think it can be understated how stressful and anxiety-inducing that is. And I think it is normal and reasonable under the First Amendment to have grievances against that process and to want to voice those grievances and to be pissed about being drafted into war.
00:46:46
Speaker
Totally fair. But, yeah. No. Wrong place, wrong time for RW in this case. And we let more threats like that through the cracks without punishment, maybe it could lead to more violence.
00:47:00
Speaker
That's not great. We do not want to be assassinating people in this country.
00:47:07
Speaker
Drops mic.
00:47:11
Speaker
That's my caveat. Excellent. Cool. So there you have it. A unanimous decision in favor of the United States that the trial judge did not make an error that denying the motion was the correct course of action.
00:47:31
Speaker
And therefore, the conviction should stand. You can insert eagle screeching. i don't know what that is. yeah Season three, we'll get a soundboard.
00:47:41
Speaker
we'll yeah we'll get us We'll get a sponsor and a soundboard. America. If it ended with that eagle screech each and every time, it would be fantastic. but it's we do need a soundboard. It's a red-tailed hawk. It's not an eagle. Literally, yes.
00:47:58
Speaker
No, no, no. We should have the eagle. <unk> The real one. ah yeah we could just Chris, we could just use you. therapy Yeah, that's true.
00:48:10
Speaker
got cats. Yeah, we could just and we just end the up each episode with a meow instead. All right. now that Now that our justices have decided,
Supreme Court's Real Decision: Free Speech Ruling
00:48:20
Speaker
it is time to let them know what the actual justices decided.
00:48:25
Speaker
Oh, I'm so scared. Nikki, if you would be so kind as to let us know the actual results of the case. Yeah. So this case was decided in April. ah ah it was April 21st, 1969.
00:48:40
Speaker
So of note, six years, ah not quite six years after JFK's assassination. And this was a per curiam decision, which means this was a decision that was made by the court as a whole and without a hearing.
00:48:55
Speaker
So basically the request made it to SCOTUS and then deciding whether they were going to have a whole hearing about it, they went to quote chief justice, Sarah. What if we just didn't?
00:49:07
Speaker
So they, they didn't have a trial. They just decided it just together. Like, Hey, this is what we're doing. um but said i don't What is that? That feels not allowed. ah good i mean Yeah. Who's going to stop them?
00:49:21
Speaker
gosh shit yeah so we had more oral arguments than they did yeah they didn't have oral are and and the oral arguments is where some of this where um like the justices do ask some of these practical questions about you know what happened here and dates and whatever um but yeah so we there was none of that it just they didn't have a hearing about it they just decided it um suspicious and they decided that the trial judge made an error in denying the motion to acquit
00:49:52
Speaker
Wow. Yeah. We were wrong. Wow. Did not expect that. Are we the bad guys? I think in this time, we are possibly.
00:50:03
Speaker
oh my God. We're evil. yes
00:50:09
Speaker
Wow. So what was the error? Yeah. I need the sauce. So they they said that the statute is quote constitutional on its face and quote,
00:50:20
Speaker
And the nation has a valid interest in protecting the president. However, they also said that this statute criminalizes a form of pure speech and should be interpreted with the First Amendment in mind.
00:50:35
Speaker
And according to them, the First Amendment essentially means that we have a, quote, profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open, end quote.
00:50:51
Speaker
Wow. Guys, we fumbled. We fumbled. We fumbled real bad. This was the answer I wanted to go with. I wanted to be a free speech absolutist.
00:51:02
Speaker
I wanted to to go down this path. And it's just something... oh I don't know. i don't know what happened. Yeah, no, well, it yeah, it was kind of, yeah, it seemed, the statement just seemed very, you know, direct, but the the fact that, you know, the making the error, right, that, like, the actual specific, ah you know, the denignment of the ah ah appeal, right, so maybe that's the angle, so...
00:51:28
Speaker
True, true, true. So yeah, they were like, yeah, debate will sometimes be caustic, they said, and will criticize government and public officials. um yeah So they're like, yeah, people say things sometimes, I think was what was basically what I got from it.
00:51:46
Speaker
Yeah. And they talk about how you have to differentiate a threat from constitutionally protected speech and think about the whole background of this being in public debate.
00:51:58
Speaker
And Casey Brown, in an article from 2011, sort of distilled and listed the factors considered by the courts. um And they said, they said there were like five factors.
00:52:09
Speaker
ah So first was context in which the statement was made. And in this case, it was a discussion group at a political rally. hi Secondly, whether the statement was made in public or private, this was a public gathering, bunch of people there.
00:52:26
Speaker
ah You also have to consider the speaker's intent. So they were like, was he really going to kill the guy? Really? Really? They also identified whether the alleged threat was conditional in nature. And the court was like, yeah, he based this action on him being pulled into the draft and he said was never going to happen.
00:52:47
Speaker
And they also paid attention to the crowd's reaction to the statement. So they, the people there laughed. So according to the court, it wasn't a true threat.
00:53:01
Speaker
His statement was, quote, political hyperbole, end quote, and a crude way of expressing political opposition to the president. And they said, quote, we do not see how it could be interpreted otherwise, end quote.
00:53:16
Speaker
Oh, they cooked us. For sure. cooked. I mean, if you just rewind, I'm pretty sure I listed out my subjective argument, which kind of does align with ah some of that, actually.
00:53:28
Speaker
ah So we just rewind. You can't save yourself now, Chris. i don' So from this, what I'm getting is I can make, you know, assassination, i guess, threats against the president in open forum, so long as I have like a laugh track with me. So yeah sad they said it wasn't a true threat. That's the term they kept using.
00:53:52
Speaker
So you have to determine whether a statement is a statement or whether it's a true threat. And they introduced, it's now called the Watts factors in terms of thinking about, uh,
00:54:04
Speaker
And there's a lot of, there's been quite a bit of discussion about this, actually, um which I have read about. So... The if-then statement did always kind of not sit right with me.
00:54:19
Speaker
It is very subjective. Like, it's very, like, it's not like he said, I am going to do this. It was conditional. So I guess we just say things conditionally. They're not actually construed as real threats.
00:54:33
Speaker
what we're gathering? The lessons learned? That's one of the factors, apparently. Okay. yeah Yeah. That's how the court came away. And then there were some other, like the other justices also did chime in, even though this is per curiam. I don't know. they they did stuff. They thought the joke was funny.
00:54:51
Speaker
They're like, we're not even going to have a trial. But let's just go. But then everybody had like opinions, I guess. But the majority one was like,
Implications on Free Speech Jurisprudence
00:55:00
Speaker
they're like, guys, like come on. He said a thing one time.
00:55:03
Speaker
um I do wonder, because I really do wonder about some of the demographic information. ah His statement about the Black Brothers. i was wondering like if this is... You know, 1969 civil rights era, by the way, um, you know, thinking about protests and activist movements, there's a very rich history of government surveillance and targeting.
00:55:25
Speaker
Right. So, so true. I don't, I don't have any, anything like, yeah, the, once again, the record is thin. There's no, don't no there's no additional information.
00:55:35
Speaker
um Although Justice Douglas had a very interesting concurrence. ah What he does is this whole historical deep dive.
00:55:47
Speaker
And he talks about how the law in question has these roots in old timey laws that forbid a person from imagining the death of the king. And then he moves on to tell a bunch of stories about this stories or, you know, historical research. I don't know.
00:56:03
Speaker
Uh, but he talks about in the 15th century, a man was hanged, drawn and quartered for basically telling a dad joke. I mean, at least in my 2025 sensibilities, reading it, it was a dad joke, uh, because specifically the guy was an innkeeper the in The inn he was keeping was called the crown, his inn.
00:56:27
Speaker
And he told his son, quote, if thou behaveth thyself well, I will make thee heir to the crown. Right? Oh, people have no levity anymore.
00:56:42
Speaker
so i And this guy was was publicly murdered? He was drawn and quartered, Chris. Also hanged. Nuts.
00:56:53
Speaker
Also hanged. hang Which, I mean... The end of Braveheart. I personally, I hate puns, so I'm like, arguably, you know.
00:57:05
Speaker
Yeah, checks out. That's a bad joke. um Yeah. Make that we deserve. but that that's what I'm saying. It's weird. Right. It's weird. Like this is the one kind of thing where like, oh yeah. Like you're always taught about the constitution and U S history and like how freedom of speech came about.
00:57:20
Speaker
And then it's like, yeah, but you know, you can't say this or else the FBI is going to come in and take you away. And I'm like, wait, what? actually It's like, you could make jokes about like wanting to murder like your family member or like, that's,
00:57:35
Speaker
not against the law. ah lay Yeah. Or like somebody you, you, you know, your high school bully. yeah Unless it's assault. or but Unless your family member is the president.
00:57:47
Speaker
and Right. right then Then it's even worse. Yeah. Very problematic. Right. Well, so there's been some conversation. Oh yeah. He also gave other historical, um, like people said funny things, I guess back in the day. Um,
00:58:02
Speaker
But, you know, i like in 60, 62, this guy got indicted because he said he wished all the gentry would kill each other so that the common folk would live better. And once again, 2025, I'm like, all right, you know, vibes.
00:58:16
Speaker
he um You know, yeah. So in any case, but there this you guys bring up some really interesting kind of points that have been brought up in but by modern day scholars. So there was one where let me see if I can find it. Are we modern day scholars? Yeah.
00:58:35
Speaker
one one One person, oh yeah, it was Griffin in her article from 2022, described the subsequent approach. So the court made the decision in Watts and then other courts had to follow it.
00:58:47
Speaker
And she said what happened afterward was haphazard, ah direct quote, ah difficult to generalize. And she said that lower court opinions are thus, quote, collectively a mess.
00:59:01
Speaker
Oh, yeah. She's like, it's a whole mess up in here because they were trying to, you know, be really clear about true threats and whatever. And now everything is confused.
00:59:13
Speaker
Now no one knows anything. Yeah. So, you know, but it's thinking about things like, yeah, the, the, um, uh, one thing that comes up is the intent of the speaker and the reaction of the listener, especially the recipient.
00:59:29
Speaker
And that I see this in like modern day laws too, when it comes to threats and fears and danger, like it if it's something that evokes, fear in the target. So for instance, like stalking laws, if it's a pattern of behavior that evokes fear in a target or is intended to evoke fear, then it's a threat.
00:59:47
Speaker
Um, versus in this instance, I guess everybody laughed and thought it was a good ass time except for the army investigator, um, and the police and the jury and the lower courts. People taking their job too seriously. yeah So also does,
01:00:02
Speaker
ah um I guess it doesn't, but like having the Secret Service listening to your conversations at a peaceful assembly doesn't infringe upon your rights of freedom of speech.
01:00:17
Speaker
It's very suspicious. Well, delicious nothing stops them. for It's a public gathering in a public place, so anybody can just come and listen. right doesn't get much more public than the National Mall. Right? Yeah. Yeah.
01:00:30
Speaker
Which is patrolled by like all the cops, by the way. Yeah. umm just I'm just so saddened by myself that I didn't stick to my First Amendment right ideas. I feel like we should have.
01:00:47
Speaker
Yeah. Pull one out. Pull one out. For the dead. i think that yeah Yeah. You definitely were like, well, according to the letter of the law. And I think maybe you forgot that you get to interpret it.
01:00:58
Speaker
like We don't know what we're doing. That's Supreme Court's role is to interpret the law. And I think that ultimately is the difference is like you you basically came at it from the trial jud so judge's perspective where you were like, I don't necessarily like this, but as written, i have to do the thing.
01:01:17
Speaker
ah Whereas the Supreme Court came at it as like, well, we get to decide if the thing is allowed. And we are saying, no, this is ridiculous on its face. Yes,
01:01:28
Speaker
The law is fine, but your interpretation of this young man's statement is is ridiculous okay so jared that's what you get for asking for three non-lawyers and non-judges to do this exercise we don't know what we're doing chris can't read exactly i can't read it all like you basically asked ai for something and he gave you absolute garbage i think too there's certain amount of like
01:02:00
Speaker
you i Maybe you tried to game the system a little bit because ordinarily you're like, no, no, no, this can't, this isn't right. There's no way. And then we're like, well, the Supreme court thinks you're an idiot.
01:02:11
Speaker
And you have no rights. And you're, and I think maybe there's a certain amount of PTSD where you're all just sort of like, you know, like with blind, blindly reaching into a ah box of mouse traps.
01:02:24
Speaker
so PTSD. PTSD. The Supreme Court was cool with sterilization. Yeah. Yeah. They were like, yeah, no, that's fine. That's cool. They were like, you want to.
01:02:36
Speaker
Oh, whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on. Time out. And if you want to do that, just do it. Like, it's okay. Time out. Time out. What's with the past tense?
01:02:47
Speaker
Yeah, but of course we have PTSD. Like, in the past, we have learned that the Supreme Court has been super chill with letting the most egregious crimes against humans just happen they're like yeah sure that's fine like we will allow that that's super constitutional and now it's like you make a silly joke about shooting the pres and you happen to get hurt by the wrong person and it's like you want us to just think that the the court's gonna do the right thing and be like yeah no your free speech is really important to us no It's so interesting to watch the two pendulum swing because I'm remember remembering you guys in Shank where you're all like, no, this is cool. And then the court was like, fuck this guy in particular.
01:03:28
Speaker
for For whatever reason. i you you all have learned have You have all been beaten down by the Supreme Court to the point where you're like, I don't know. i don't know. Throw him in jail.
01:03:40
Speaker
him rot. you know on What is a right?
01:03:47
Speaker
yeah Put them all away. It's fine. Yeah. i'm so I'm so glad we've gotten here. It only took a season and a half. I'm going to switch so far the other way the next time we do this.
01:04:01
Speaker
So imagine this current day and age, because you know Griffin in her article was talking about how this gets applied in consideration of rap songs.
01:04:12
Speaker
Oh, well. That's tea. I think, I don't know. I feel like a rap is different in that, like, most rap, there's, like, at least, what, 15 different crimes that i that are being committed in, like, you know, most of the songs. So it's just like, all right, which one of these is an actual statement that, like... And I also feel like that that, like, circles back with, like, if you're an artist, then it's just like, whatever. Yeah, yeah like, art is free speech. Like, if you draw if you draw a painting of
01:04:45
Speaker
a governed government official being assassinated. You're not going to like get taken away from that. It's your expression.
01:04:53
Speaker
Was it the first trump the first Trump administration when, what was her name? She had a photo taken with a... Oh, Kathy Griffin? yeah Yeah, holding the the head.
01:05:05
Speaker
Well, but she didn't get arrested. Well, no, she didn't. But I mean, that I guess that's my point. It's sort of like protected political speech and also an artist making a statement.
01:05:17
Speaker
Crudely. Crudely, yes. Mm-hmm. Yeah, I'm not condoning condoning the act, but what what I'm saying is when you think about that and there was no arrest and then you think about this, which was just like a guy hanging out with some folks that he was yeah he was presumably familiar with.
01:05:39
Speaker
and like a and Yeah, He's building rapport. 18-year-old guy. how How many young women were there? That was just my question. how young women were present while this guy was saying stuff and being a tough guy. Yeah. So, but like this case makes the, the art piece, if you want to call it art again, I'm not casting any sort of judgment. it It's a thing that happened and she wasn't arrested.
01:06:08
Speaker
And I, you know, I think you can draw a through line from this case to that fact. o If this case had gone the other way, I think she would have been arrested. Right. Mm-hmm.
01:06:21
Speaker
That's true. Well. Yeah, it's ah it's thorny. the The court came out with these factors, but I guess it's still really difficult. And then every day, every sort of era has its...
01:06:34
Speaker
you know, kind of thinking about this. Cause yeah, this has come up with rap music. And then also with like blog posts as well, um, about people posting things on the internet, making statements. There's some interesting analysis of some cases there.
01:06:51
Speaker
Um, context is now things like right now, the, the collective consciousness, they call it around, Posting threats to schools where, you know, we have active shooters and ah there was a lot of discussion about posting pictures of judges and contact information and.
01:07:12
Speaker
Because that could be threatening. I think years ago, Sarah Palin put out an image ah with, like, ah you know, sniper scope targets over the faces of of some political opponents.
01:07:29
Speaker
Nice. Faces or names, or I can't remember specifically, but, like, again... Cue eagle sounds. Seems pretty inflammatory. And, you know, when the opposite side of the aisle was like, um are you threatening...
01:07:44
Speaker
you know, the lives of these people, the response from the other side was like, can't you take a joke?
01:07:51
Speaker
You know, like it's a war actually probably wasn't that it was probably like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Like, you know, you're interpreting it as they're saying, go shoot these people. But like, we're just saying that they're political targets. Like we're trying to get them unelected or, or you know, by we're trying to unseat them or whatever. It's like,
01:08:08
Speaker
Wow, context matters. Yeah. And it's also kind of what you believe. In this particular moment, was this, Nikki, correct me if wrong, 66 this was? 69. Well, 69 was decided, but when did he say rally was like April in 66 or something? I don't think it... Well, I can double check. I can do some... Oh, it was 1966 that he was yes okay at the protest.
01:08:33
Speaker
This is... about two and a half years after JFK's assassination. This is also the beginning of all of the protests about Vietnam. So I can understand an administration, a secret service organization that is very touchy right very aggressive given their recent history and and the nation's recent history and the burgeoning uh militarism that we're starting to to see around the country in response to vietnam and uh
01:09:18
Speaker
The civil rights protests were mostly peaceful, but not 100%, right? ah And so i get it. I get the Secret Service's response.
01:09:30
Speaker
My takeaway this one is it feels so nice to notch for freedom of speech and free expression when, yes, it definitely feels like most of the cases we have looked at so far have been I know what I feel, and I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court disagrees because the Supreme never seems to do the right thing by by my standards.
01:09:56
Speaker
ah And so I'm i'm ah appreciative that the Supreme Court's reaction to this one was like, I don't know, guys, really? once yeah They were like, being serious.
01:10:09
Speaker
Come on. do... i do Wish there was oral arguments on this one for two reasons. Number one, would have made my life a lot easier writing arguments if I could have cribbed some notes.
01:10:20
Speaker
Same. Right. So that I'm very sad about that. That's ah justices Fortis and Harlan. That was their stance. They were like, yeah the court should have had a hearing to decide this, even if their decision was right.
01:10:35
Speaker
and Not having a hearing is crazy. What do we do? That's what you're, that's your job. Cause the second point is like the, the, the decision that gets handed down and the rulings that they write the opinions, I guess they're,
01:10:53
Speaker
Are incredibly important pieces of jurisprudence. But the arguments that get you there, i think, are a vital part of the record as well, because they contextualize why we're why we're even here.
01:11:07
Speaker
And so a lot of the questions we've been asking each other about, like. you know, why this? Why, know, was it really a joke? How was it said? Who was he around? You know, like being able to let the two sides have their day in court and and make the argument to say like, look, judge, I believe that this was, this should have been acquitted. The the judge failed to Yeah.
01:11:31
Speaker
why do you think it was an error here are my reasons the united states solicitor general is going to get the opportunity to state their reasons on the record and then when we look at it we can see the decision and its contextualization yeah i In this case, it feels less bad because because even the two folks who who who commented on it were like, the court got it right, but we still think they should have had an opinion. They should have had a hearing on it.
01:11:59
Speaker
there There are a couple other dissents. One person was like, I would deny the petition for, you know, I wouldn't have bothered hearing this case. And then somebody else was just like, dissents. And then that was... right and ah My concern is like, i just as a...
01:12:15
Speaker
Just conceptually, I don't like the idea of the court ever just saying, ah we're just going to make our decision based off what we've got. We're good. We're good. Don't come in.
01:12:25
Speaker
It's fine. Work from home.
01:12:30
Speaker
I mean, I guess there's some things they could do for that. yeah There's some obvious things, and maybe this was an obvious one. but But two justices dissented, or least two. Was it was it 7-2?
01:12:42
Speaker
It was, well, it's it's all it's listed as per curium. Like, this is, ah the see, I'm not a lawyer. I don't get any of this. It's listed as per curium. They're like, well, the court is a whole. But by the way, everybody thought something different about it. And here's what they thought for the most part.
01:12:55
Speaker
Well, they lied. Well, they, I don't know. They did, they used Latin. So therefore it's fine. They also don't know what they're doing. They're just like us. yeah
01:13:08
Speaker
That's wild. Wild think about. Well, guys, we fumbled pretty bad. did. I'm a little embarrassed. went through all the motions that we did. We did go through yes the hey, you know, just thinking ahead here.
01:13:22
Speaker
Yeah. we We talked ourselves into the wrong thing. We did. And yeah, is PTSD to blame? I think there is a little bit of that.
01:13:34
Speaker
We just got deep. We got deprogrammed by this. We got deprogrammed. We'll be better next time. We will. We have learned from this and we will be better next time.
01:13:45
Speaker
yeah Never siding with the government ever again. That's the American thing to do. This was, is I will say... Because, Sarah, you've been on, at this point, 12 episodes.
01:14:01
Speaker
Oh, God. There is a there is and more than enough data to suggest a pattern. If we had Nina Totenberg here, she she could talk probably about your record and be like, well, based off the facts of this case, we all well believe we know what direction Justice Sarah is going to rule on this one.
01:14:18
Speaker
And you would have blown their minds. LAUGHTER
01:14:24
Speaker
with this decision. What did I Never let them know your next move. It's true. Don't even let them know what you're currently doing.
01:14:36
Speaker
Any parting thoughts from anybody before we wrap this one up? Nothing besides screeching eagle sounds. You really need that.
01:14:47
Speaker
Yeah. yeah yeah go press Just the mewing of a kitten in ah in a dark alley. not to hear That's what I've been relegated to.
01:15:01
Speaker
yeah all right Relitigated to. gotta go. to go Well, we're We only said jurisprudence once and it was used in its appropriate context during this episode. Good job, Jared. There's no justice Adam.
01:15:18
Speaker
Yes, because Adam was not here today. Yeah. All right. we'll we'll we We'll end it there because we're getting silly. ah Thank you so much for listening. Thank you so much to ah thank you so much to our to our justices. Thank you to Nikki for all the research you did and ah and the scripting you've done for this episode.
01:15:40
Speaker
I'm Jarrett. I'm not a lawyer. Thank you so much for listening. And we'll see you next time. Bye. Bye. I'll learn how to read for next time. Lies.
01:15:53
Speaker
Delphi. Lies.
01:15:57
Speaker
Well, there you have it. The Sarah court unanimously decided that RW's words were a real threat and his conviction stands. That's it for this episode. But before we go, thanks again to my co-hosts and to our justices.
01:16:11
Speaker
The music in this episode was written by Studio Columna and Toby Smith and provided by Pixabay. Research was done by Nikki. Audio mixing and producing was done by me. Thanks for listening.
01:16:23
Speaker
Please subscribe, rate, and comment so other people can find us. For complete episode information, including references, please check out our website at relitigated.com.
01:16:34
Speaker
You can also catch us on YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Threads, and Blue Sky. Please help us spread the word. All right. Until next time, I'm Jarrett and this has been Relitigated.
01:16:46
Speaker
Take care.