Welcome to Party Politics.

I'm Jeronimo Cortina, a political science professor at the University of Houston.

And I'm Brandon Rottinghaus of political science professor also here at the University of Houston.

Thanks for hanging out with us, talking politics on this week's episode of Party Politics.

Well, Jeronimo, if you don't like the news, just wait a week because there'll be a whole new generation of chaos that's unfolding right in front of our eyes.

A lot of these things, though, have consequences for what's going to happen in 2024, which, sad to say, is going to be here before you know it.

I know.

Let's talk about one of the biggest stories of the week, and that is that Justice Clarence Thomas, who obviously has been on the court for a couple of decades, has been involved with his friend Harlan Crow.

He has been taking trips with the Texas billionaire and has not been disclosing these.

So an interesting connection.

He's taken dozens of luxury trips every year without disclosing them.

He's flown on the Bombardier Global 5000 jet.

Now, I know you only have the 3500.

Yeah, you have the $5,000 range in terms of gasoline.

I mean, yeah, whatever that planes used to, they don't use gasoline they use.

Yeah, I think that they do.

Well this one probably runs on ambition and and just like literally dollars.

They he's taken trips on a super yacht around the globe.

I don't know.

The super yacht is pretty awesome.

But long story short, this is problematic because obviously this is not on the justices final two disclosures.

There have been laws that have been passed which encourage this kind of disclosure.

And we know in terms of how the like literature unfolds on this, that this kind of disclosure is the only way to be able to disinfect the kind of problems that might result from it.

So this is obviously something that jeopardizes the integrity of the court and maybe even of Justice.

Thomas The kind of opposition to this is saying, well, it's just friendship, right?

It's just kind of a camaraderie, hospitality.

So what do you make of this is going to be a problem for the court?

I mean, first of all, I think you and I are friends.

You have never taken me on a plane or a jet that is super or superyacht.

And not even a regular yacht.

Yeah, not even a canoe.

Some disappointed.

That's, first of all.

I mean, second of all, you have, you know, ethics in government act that is not, you know, encouraging.

people.

It's the law and they have to follow it.

Yes.

So it is very important.

Right.

Because the problem in this situation is that Justice Thomas, you know, he refused to recuse himself from litigation related to the January 6th, 2020 Capitol insurrection, even when his wife, Ginni Thomas, was or play a role, tried to overturn the 2020 election.

So this is another thing, right?

And the Supreme Court cannot be, you know, above the law.

All right.

So it's kind of a, you know, very serious territory that they enter, given, first of all, the politicization of the court.

Right.

And then, you know, the importance that the court has in the balance of powers its supreme point to have the Supreme Court completely, 100% isolated from these things.

And then you have these situation, right, whether, you know, it's it's, you know, negative in the sense that it might swayed one way or the other.

Justice Thomas opinions, that's beyond the point.

We don't know.

We're never going to know.

Right.

The issue is that in politics also these things in terms of form, matter and matter a.

Lot, they do.

And the perception really matters.

Right.

In fact, our colleague and two of our grad students are working on a cool set of papers that looks at people's perception of the justices as millionaires, which many of them are not because of their government salary is actually pretty healthy at like 285 K. So that's a pretty good salary now for like know for life.

Exactly.

Yeah.

That's also makes it nice.

Plus free robes for every oh every, every episode.

But there is a perception problem and that perception problem does lead people to believe that the court is swaying their opinions on financial matters, on civil matters.

And of course, the court deals with criminal matters, too.

But perception is everything.

And so public opinion certainly could be damaged on this for the court.

But I think we can stop talking about the court as the nonpolitical branch.

Right.

And then we'll talk about, you know, kind abortion related decisions in a few minutes.

But this is certainly something that people are concerned about.

And so some discussion was that there ought to be impeachment hearings that are initiated.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a congressman from New York, says, you know, this is certainly an impeachable offense, that is to say in particular should be investigated and maybe impeached and maybe removed.

But I don't think that's going to happen given that, you know, a. Republican.

House.

But it's still the case that this is something people want to know more about and definitely leaves a bit of a stain on the court.

No one said much, though, right?

The chief justice is usually very kind of upfront about these things, hasn't said anything.

So I think we're still going to have to wait to see what happens.

But my guess is nothing, nothing's going to happen that you're going to see anything here.

And the problem is that when you insert these in uber politicized completely 100% polarized environment.

Right.

You know, even Republicans that might say, well, this is not good, you know, they're going to choose to keep quiet and not steer the vote, especially given that 2024, as you said and remind me every week it's around the corner.

Right?

It's coming.

I just wanted you.

I don't want to sneak up on you.

Yeah.

No.

And then when you email me and you're like you're like, wait a minute.

What happened?

We're talking about this again.

Well, speaking of courts, it's certainly been an interesting week for abortion related decisions in the court in a devastating blow for abortion access, a federal judge in Amarillo has suspended the approval of Mifepristone, which is an abortion inducing drug that's been on the market for more than 20 years.

This judge basically argues that the FDA succumbed to political pressure 20 years ago and that the it that the the drug itself relates to these complications.

This is the most common way that Americans terminate their pregnancy.

It's been certified and safe, as effective by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Health Organization.

This has profound implications for a number of dimensions over one is that there, you know, is overturning an FDA ruling.

And so as an independent branch of an agency of of government here, that fact that all these drugs kind of go through this approval process could be undone by this.

That has long term implications.

The other is that obviously it's the case that the abortion question is not going away.

I think it benefits the Democrats.

But I want to get your take on this.

The likelihood is that we're going to see the US Supreme Court have to weigh in on this because we had a case coming out of Washington state which basically says the opposite.

So Supreme Court is going to have to hear this case at probably the worst time for Republicans who are fighting to kind of, you know, navigate the post Roe landscape.

Abortion is still popular and there have been a bunch of states where they have the voters have approved the kind of certification of these types of rights Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Kentucky.

You know, bluish right.

Reddish states, purplish states, we'll say are all moving in the direction of sort of protecting these rights.

Right.

And, you know, Republicans are very silent about this.

The only people who have made comments about this publicly are like Mike Pence.

And there's one state senator from Utah's on plays that's like, you know, go for it, but everybody else's hands off, let's keep it quiet.

And obviously it's still, you know, district level decisions.

So we're going to have a lot of, you know, kind of law between now and then.

But politically speaking, I think that silence speaks volumes.

Oh, absolutely.

And, you know, this is going to be an interesting case because the way that he's going to arrive at the Supreme Court, because it's going to arrive at the Supreme Court, you have two federal judges giving different opinions.

One in Texas is like, no.

That said, you have to stop because based on the Comstock Act of 1873, right.

Wow, that is not in my notes.

But yeah, I guess you dug deep today.

Yes, that's where he base his ruling, right.

That you cannot have mail in these, you know, instruments, substance, drug, medicine or things that could be used in an abortion.

Right.

So that's illegal.

So 1873, very timely, right?

Yeah.

Yeah, very uptight.

Very up to date.

And then you have another judge, federal judge in the District of Columbia that said to the FDA, keep it.

So when you have the controversy between federal judges, it goes, you know, very likely to the Supreme Court and Supreme Court is going to say one way or the other, which puts them, as you said, in a very tight space, especially for Republicans, because, you know, in many people's legal opinion, I'm not a lawyer.

Full disclosure on this.

You're just you've seen every episode of L.A. law that are like.

And law and order on the but, you know, it doesn't have teeth, right.

Because, you know, the way the suit is been, I guess.

Yes.

Managed.

Right.

It's people that are suing because they're going to be affected.

But in reality, they're not affected.

Right.

So there is no legal grounds to say like.

Yeah, like when like I don't understand.

There's a standing question.

Exactly.

And the court could use that to kick it down the road, say like we don't want to have to deal with it.

Right.

That's our only escape before entering right into the big abyss of these decision.

And I think that's what the Republicans would like to have happen, because the more they talk about it, the harder it is.

This is a quicksand issue, right?

I mean, it used to be the case that it was more 5050.

I think things are basically gravitating more towards sort of protecting abortion rights for the states that have it and being unhappy about the national government, you know, kind of effectively saying that it was a states issue.

So that's definitely going to be something that Republicans are going to have to fight out.

So we'll see the ramifications for this in 2024, for sure, not just for that, but also for the FDA's ability to be able to regulate drugs.

Right.

Right.

So that's really another kind of subquestion here, which throws into doubt all kinds of regulatory action.

So I'm not sure it'll hold up, but definitely serious political implications.

Speaking of political implications Jeronimo, this week, another really big story was that the Tennessee House Republicans expelled two Democratic lawmakers for breaking the rules and mounting a gun reform protest on the chamber floor.

The three representatives actually joined in this protest after a horrific school shooting in Nashville left six people dead, including three children.

Democrats held up signs.

They had bullhorns saying that they kind of weren't allowed to talk.

And the floor Republicans expelled two black Democratic lawmakers, but not the white colleague.

The third person they have been, one of them has been reinstated or will be reinstated.

But obviously this became a kind of firestorm because there's a sense that basically this is like shutting down dissent.

Right.

Do you disagree with this decision?

So make a sort of as sort of a, you know, kind of protest about it.

And we're going to remove you from right.

What do you make of this in terms of the implications for kind of the big picture for gun control debate, but also for how democracy functions in this country?

Well, I mean, clearly, democracy is not functioning.

Not in Tennessee.

Absolutely not.

Yeah.

I mean, the fact that a political party says I'm going to expel you because I disagree with you and yes, you were yelling, etc., etc.. And there's disorderly behavior.

Yeah.

It's, you know, beyond my mind.

Right.

I mean if come to the.

Texas legislature were yelling at each other all the time.

Right.

You know, disorderly behavior is like, you know, you call the sergeant at arms or whatever.

It's like, hey, like take these two out.

And until they calm down.

exactly right?

Came out, I don't.

Know.

Session Right.

Let let's go into a, you know, recess or whatever.

So I think that this is, you know, they saw it.

We have the majority.

We're going to do it.

Yeah, right.

And the problem with this thing is that it becomes eventually a tit for tat.

Yeah.

So eventually because you know, political parties, unless they are a dictatorship, they don't stay in power very often.

Right.

So when the season comes, the question is, are Democrats going to pay back the favor?

Yeah.

And do the same thing.

And again, we're going to be in a place where democracy is not going to be functioning.

So these things are, you know, frankly, very disturbing in terms of how we think and understand democratic process.

Yeah.

And also, I think that, you know, we have been accustomed to have these issues of discussion and deliberation in these bodies that people are not used to when things go down and go down badly, like what happens in other countries.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So it's.

Like fistfights literally on well, you know, no more of like.

One party limiting the rights of the other political parties because I disagree.

No, it's a slippery slope to in addition to kind of what you say, there's sort of not really any stopping it.

Once you kind of go down that pathway, it's just a kind of endless game of trying to silence your political opponents and that's not the way democracy functions.

So this has been pushed back on by Democrats all over.

Even Republicans are saying that they went too far.

The vice president went to Tennessee, Kamala Harris spent some time there talking with some of the members and talking about gun control politics, because at the end of it, that's what it's about.

It's about gun control.

Right.

Democrats are really frustrated by the inability to be able to move on this issue at the federal level and at the state level in a lot of cases.

So this is going to be something that continues to happen.

In fact, there's a shooting in Kentucky, in Louisville, literally between the time that, you know, this happened and us talking about it right now.

So it definitely continues to happen.

And Democrats are struggling to find a way to make news.

So maybe this is sort of the new normal where they're just going to be kind of protesting these things and it's going to be the Political ramifications which may, you know, end up undermining democracy.

So on that happy note, we talk about an interesting democratic outcome potentially, and that is that assuming we still have a democracy, that true.

Casey is a Democrat and the longest serving U.S. senator in Pennsylvania history, announced he's running again for reelection in Pennsylvania.

You can hear the sigh of relief all the way from D.C. because the Democrats were hoping he would run.

Yeah, because to have to defend another open seat in purple territory would be a disaster.

They're still waiting on Joe Biden to make a final decision, but they're also waiting for Joe Manchin to make a final decision.

So the Democrats are looking slightly better, but obviously they're still really in on behind the eight ball when it comes to how it's going to go down for the Senate races in 2024.

So an interesting ramification there.

What do you make of that decision?

What do you think is going to happen in Pennsylvania?

Can he keep that seat?

Well, I think that they have a chance.

I mean, the platform that Casey is going to use worked before, you know, Pennsylvania families taking on China, you know, breaking gridlock in Washington, that kind of stuff.

You know, those are things that resonate with the general public, with voters in general.

So I think, you know, they have a chance.

I mean, he has so far, according to the latest FEC filings, around 3 million bucks more money is going to start pouring in once people know that he declared it.

So I think, you know, there are in, let's say, good ish shape.

It sounds.

Good.

I like your you're like, you know, it's like, yeah, yeah.

Your restaurant ratings are like right on it or exactly.

Or if you want.

Yeah.

You know, it's like competitive and lean Republican states.

Good, good, good.

And then that leaves.

A lot of room for being wrong or.

Exactly like.

And then, you know, and and and the other important issue here is that they're going to be likely all their battles that the Democrats are going to need to find eventually.

Great point.

Yeah, because you're talking about a huge money suck, right?

Democrats have got to defend.

Pennsylvania, does a ton of cash.

So this lets them be able to kind of divert that money elsewhere.

But in theory, with Joe Biden at the top of the ticket, they're very similar politically.

And so it helps to kind of synergize the politics of it and really work against this sort of notion that like Republicans are basically, you know, a party of corruption or a party of, you know, trying to undo democracy.

Right.

And the Democrats are trying to kind of hold the line.

But I think that probably is a good selling point for Pennsylvania voters.

But let's talk about Texas, because obviously a lot is going on here, too.

Less than 24 hours after a jury found Austin resident Daniel Perry guilty of shooting a protester to death, Greg Abbott announced that he was going to pardon said convicted killer.

So just a little bit of back story here.

Sergeant Perry, who was a former Army sergeant, was working as an Uber driver last year and ran a red light at the intersection that put him into the middle of a Black Lives Matter protest.

He confronted a person who was carrying an AK 47.

This is legal in Texas.

And the question here is whether or not the gun was raised in a threatening manner or not.

The jury suggests that it was not and that the Army sergeant had effectively kind of instigated some of this.

So the self-defense claims were kind of negated.

The governor who didn't attend the trial and who, you know, apparently is doing this before the sentencing even happens, has suggested that this should be a self-defense case open and shut.

But obviously, he doesn't act alone here.

The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles has to be able to weigh in on this.

But since they're appointed by the governor, there's a good chance they're going to find some synergy there.

Funny how that works.

So what do you make of this in terms of questions about law and order in Texas and the kind of political ramifications?

Right.

Because this became a story on Fox News.

Tucker Carlson basically calls out the governor saying, hey, this is happening.

And the next day the governor says, okay, we're back.

Pardon happened.

So so I mean, first of all, politically, I don't understand, you know, why the most powerful governor in the history, modern political history of Texas.

Right.

Has to pander one way or the other.

Right.

He just won a reelection bid.

Yeah, overwhelmingly.

Right.

Right over.

When is it national ambitions, do you think?

Well, I mean, that's my point.

Unless you're considering national ambitions, you know, you know, whatever Tucker Carlson says, like whatever.

Right?

I just won election.

I have a ton of money.

I could care less.

Why do you say, yeah, we're just going to wait for the sentencing and we're going to see if the lawyers file a pardon, file an appeal, etc., etc., etc., etc.. Because this is a case that has been building for years.

You have hundreds of witnesses tried that say this is what happened, this is what happened.

And the jury, you know, these these are these are deliberations.

So one way or the other is that we have due process in this state.

We have laws in these states.

The D.A.

is saying is like let the process work itself out.

Right.

But yeah, sure.

Right.

But it's mind boggling that you are jumping the line before you're going to pardon him.

For what?

There is no sentencing.

That we don't.

Know, right?

Yeah.

It's just a blind pardon.

And, you know, and it's I mean, it's fine.

And I understand, as you say, you know, we have the stand your ground laws here, right?

You have self-defense laws.

All fine.

Right.

Both of them were legally, you know, in possession of a firearm, which is also fine.

But the question is right, what instigated the outcome?

And that's the most important part of the case.

So you cannot be prejudging just because apparently.

Right.

You have been pressured by some sort of conclusion unless you are aiming at something that is at the national level.

Because if you stay at the state level, it's like I'm popular.

Knows like I.

Could care.

Less.

Yeah, he's going to get that reelection probably no matter what.

Now the you know, they came at him from the right and it didn't work.

I don't know that this would be the one thing that would trigger that, but for sure, they're really sensitive to this.

Right.

And so I can see that it's impossible to get away from the politics of this.

Right.

The fact that it made Fox News certainly means that this is something that the governor has to address.

To go this far, though, is pretty stunning, right?

Because it is a bit different than the way he's typically handled this.

Right.

In other cases, he said specifically, like you said, that the governor cannot second guess what's happening at the court level.

So it's an unusual change.

But look, pardons are always idiosyncratic, right?

I mean, we give executives the pardon power.

Right.

And they pardon people that we may think is totally inappropriate.

Right.

Presidents do all the time.

Governors do all the time.

So it's not like out of the question that the politics seeps into this.

No, no.

No, absolutely not.

But remember that in Texas, you know, it was the governor that gave pardons left to right, just like the president without, you know, any recommendations or anything.

Like I'm just going to pardon you.

Right.

And then the law changed and included these Board of Pardons and Paroles because they did not want the governor to be doing right one other governors or the president does.

Yeah, I think about more Ferguson like way back when exactly.

You know.

Exactly.

That was probably selling pardons.

But your point remains that this is something that, you know, is that is going to be wrapped up in the politics of it.

But I also think actually here's what's interesting.

We're talking about this next to and that is that the governor had kind of a bad week.

The vouchers that he's been pushing for and school choice went down in flames in the house.

And so this could be kind of a distraction from that.

But also it's a case of they've been pushing for this rogue Bill.

Right.

The sort of legislation that would punish D.A.

's facto and enforce state law or don't enforce it properly enough if they're found sort of to be liable or guilty or however they're going to frame it in the legislation.

So this is a way maybe to kind of promote that.

So it's an interesting timing here on all of this.

Nothing is coincidental in politics.

But let's talk about that, though.

So this week there was a kind of rough week for the governor.

The Texas House voted down education savings account by a vote of 86 to 52, while the Texas Senate voted up the very similar kind of proposal.

Effectively, this amendment to the budget bans, vouchers or anything like it, and that's the exact language.

So a pretty clean repudiation.

Now, the governor says and I have in my notes here lol question mark the governor says, well, the amendment law failed, but it failed by a smaller margin than it has in the past.

So.

Okay, but it's still a pretty overwhelming loss for the governor here and precious cold comfort for a governor who spent a lot of time trying to get this done.

So what do you make of the kind of governor's ability to recover on this?

And are they going to find any kind of way to, you know, zombie bill, attach this to something else that's got to pass and get some kind of school choice?

I don't I mean, we're going to end up with some sort of school choice, but he's not going to be, you know, the school choice or ESEA or school voucher that the governor won.

I mean, it's going to be some sort of a very weak, uh, malnourished Frankenstein that is going to be something similar.

And then they're going to say, No, no, no, he's perfect.

These are fake.

This is what I promised you.

Yeah.

I know.

I mean, I think that that coalition between world Republicans and Democrats is going to be holding water very strong until someone tries to go, you know, different weight.

But the governor has, as you said, has spent a lot of political capital in trying to swing them.

Right.

Especially rural Republicans and rural Republicans, they just see it as it is, is not going to work for my district.

Work for.

Them.

Yeah.

And it's very simple.

We have discussed that for many weeks already.

And all the political parties in the world didn't seem to really move them.

So if a governor can't do it now, as powerful as you said as he is, then I don't think it's going to happen.

But, you know, we'll see lots of time between now and the end of the session.

One person who didn't make that budget debate was Representative Brian Slaten from North Texas.

And some other news he made this week was that he retained a criminal attorney who's basically goal is to defend him against a general House investigating complaint that he had an inappropriate relationship with an interim.

Apparently, he drank alcohol with this intern who was under 21 years old and then told her not to talk about it.

He was gone for that budget debate.

And this is a representative does not miss a chance to be at the back mic to, you know, buzz things up a little bit.

So what do you make of kind of what this looks like?

This was some context.

Obviously, it's the case that this has been an ongoing problem at the Capitol.

All right, 2017.

MORRIS Miles was investigated for having forcibly kissed a woman in 2018.

Charles Fortner from Georgetown was also accused of sending photos, inappropriate photos to a grad student at Texas.

It's been going on for decades.

Is this going to change anything?

No.

I mean, either the Ethics Committee in the investigation does something very, very, very strong to send a message or he's going to continue popping out here and there, here and there and here and there.

So, you know, it's you cannot do that kind of stuff, especially when you're, you know, trying to move for a political agenda and represent this.

Laden has been one of the most, you know, far right legislators in the in the Texas legislature.

So that puts them also at odds in terms of that.

But however, for I think the mainstream Republicans, for the speaker of the House is, you know, it's an opportunity, perhaps a political opportunity to put a wall between, you know, let's get things done right.

And you're trying to introduce a bill, as he did to, well, a bill for a referendum in Texas for secession from the United States, which, by the way, it is illegal.

Not going to.

Pass now.

Going to guys.

Don't vote for it.

Right.

But you're right, I think he's already pretty marginalized.

So I don't think this is going to change that much.

But it does help speaker Phelan to kind of yeah.

Kind of separate him from the rest of the herd so you know probably benefits him and certainly is bad news for Representative Layton.

Yeah.

And obviously we're going to keep an eye on it and the 11,000 billion things that pop up next week.

But for these week, Brandon, we're out.

Hey, thanks for watching Party Politics and thanks to everybody here at Houston Public Media for making us look and sound so good.

I'm Jeronimo Cortina.

And I'm Brandon Rottinghaus.

We'll see you next week.