Why the birthright citizenship battle is far from over — CUOMO Full Show

[0:00] Chris Cuomo here. In the past two days, we've had seven very consequential Supreme Court [0:05] decisions. Trump won three, lost four. That's the spin. That's what they wanted me to write [0:10] tonight. That's what they think is going to matter to you. I think that's BS. I think that's playing [0:14] into the stupidity of our politics, and there's a much bigger takeaway that matters, especially now, [0:18] and that's what I want to talk to you about. The decisions, and there are aspects of some of them [0:23] that I don't like, but they are all legitimate legal reckonings, meaning the court did the job. [0:31] And I think that's something to celebrate, even if it's imperfect, because compared to the other [0:37] two branches, the judiciary is the best functioning of the three, and these cases demonstrate it, [0:44] and I will suggest it to you. Here's the biggie. Birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. [0:48] If you're born in the United States, regardless of your parents' immigration status, [0:52] you are a U.S. citizen, you don't have to like it, but that is the plain reading of the 14th [0:57] Amendment, and every case on it has said the same. The good news is that, unlike our president, [1:02] the justices that he put on the court and expects fealty from, he didn't get it. [1:07] They refused to deny what is in the plain language of the Constitution and reflect it in all the cases [1:12] on point. Roberts, the conservative, wrote for the majority that, quote, children born of parents [1:16] unlawfully in the U.S. satisfy both elements of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, [1:21] meaning they're, one, born in the U.S., and, two, subject to the laws of the U.S. Therefore, [1:27] quote, under the Constitution, they are citizens at birth. That is the law, okay? Now, Kavanaugh, [1:33] an obvious political conservative, is definitely too open to Congress drafting a law that would give [1:40] him a different feeling about that constitutional provision. I'm going to have that debated on the [1:45] show tonight because it doesn't make sense to me, but even still, with what he wants to see happen, [1:50] and it gives space in the ruling, it's still the right ruling on a very controversial issue that [1:55] politicians would never agree on the way they did. Next, mail-in voting. Another key freedom the [2:02] president wants to compromise. The court found a state can allow extra days to collect ballots [2:06] postmarked by Election Day. Two conservative joined the liberals in a 5-4 decision, negating [2:13] Trump's desire to limit a state's ability to regulate elections. Can you imagine? Two of six, [2:19] so that's one-third. Can you imagine a third of either House of Congress crossing the aisle? [2:25] You see what I'm saying? Justice Barrett wrote, [2:28] the electorate's choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received. [2:32] That is the law. Trump tried to say, another reason we need the SAVE Act. You know what? [2:38] Mr. President, you should read it. There's nothing in it about mail-in ballots being received after [2:42] Election Day, so the SAVE Act would do nothing to address what they found in this case, okay? [2:48] Again, they were right on the law, which is rare in an age of nothing more than competing agendas. [2:54] Now, on the issue of trans sports, look, I am not a fan of this culture war issue, okay? I think it [3:01] gets outsized media attention and outsized political attention, and I was surprised they [3:05] took this case, because I just don't think it's a thing for people in everyday life of Americans. [3:10] The court ruled 6-3, so this was a straight ideological break, right? You got three liberal [3:15] justices, six conservatives, that the state laws that restrict trans participation in female sports, [3:20] that those laws don't violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, [3:23] because it's okay for a state to use biological sex as a standard. You know what? I don't like it, [3:30] but I agree that that is the law, and that is a legitimate interpretation. I don't like it, [3:36] but I have to respect it. My concern is that the trans community is already targeted, [3:41] and this makes that more easy. But the justices ruled unanimously, 9-0, that I'm wrong, [3:47] and that restrictions like this don't violate Title IX, which is supposed to prevent discrimination [3:51] on the basis of gender, which is confusing, but shows they can still find consensus in an era when [3:57] in Congress and in the executive that's seen as a bad thing. Now, get this. Justice Kavanaugh, [4:03] the one who I just took a shot at, the conservative, noted trans girls and biological girls desire to [4:08] compete warrants respect. No student athlete on either side of the issue, whether a biological female [4:15] or transgender deserves to be ostracized or vilified. Good for him. Better than Congress, [4:21] who just play the issue to divide. Then, on the power that a president has to fire executive branch [4:27] employees who are part of the independent agencies, the court struck an interesting balance that showed [4:31] a rare accommodation. A Democratic member of the FTC was fired by Trump last year because, [4:36] you know, he didn't like her politics. The court ruled 6-3, again, ideological lines, that the firing [4:42] was constitutional. Now, how is this an accommodation? Well, the law protecting her, they put a law into [4:50] place that you couldn't fire her because it's an independent agency, and they found that that law is [4:55] unconstitutional. I have to tell you, I think they may be right under the law. But the reason that makes [5:02] sense, even if it empowers a president with arguably bad intentions, is this. Roberts wrote that for the [5:08] majority that neither Congress nor the courts may saddle the president with those with whom he cannot [5:12] work. You know what? That's a fair point. But it didn't end there, which is why I'm okay with this, [5:17] because I don't like that part. I'm being honest with you. In a separate case, Trump fired a Federal [5:22] Reserve governor named Lisa Cook over alleged mortgage fraud. The key word is alleged. The justices [5:28] ruled 5-4 with Roberts and Kavanaugh siding with the liberal judges. Again, just full stop right there. [5:34] Could you imagine anyone in Congress doing that? Republicans voting with Democrats to get something [5:39] done that Democrats wanted? Never, right? Here, they did it. Roberts, again, wrote for the majority that [5:44] monetary policy should not be subject to political interference. And at a minimum, Cook was entitled to [5:50] some explanation of the evidence at issue and some avenue for a response before she was fired. Look, it's not [5:57] perfect. It's highly partisan. Justice is not always blind or just. And it is imperfect. And judges are [6:05] sometimes more about politics than law, in my opinion. I think that's all true as criticism. [6:10] And I think that Supreme Court judges, they should definitely be asked about their politics in the [6:14] vetting. This charade of being apolitical should be dropped. And it should be about fairness and their [6:20] reckoning of how they marry the two and how they balance the interests. And I believe all Supreme Court [6:24] justices should require 60 votes, because I think it's really important who a Supreme Court justice is. [6:28] I don't think it should be a simple majority vote. But despite all that, these rulings show that they [6:34] take on what is hard, certainly in a way that Congress hasn't even approached. They clearly struggle [6:40] to do more than what is merely expedient. And they are not looking to subvert everything to their own [6:46] interests. Not yet, anyway. And that puts them ahead of the other two branches, in my opinion. [6:52] Let's turn to the better legal minds to figure out the implication of what comes next on some of these [6:56] key issues. Justice correspondent for the nation, Mr. Elie Mistal, and former Virginia Attorney General, [7:03] Mr. Ken Cuccinelli. Fellas, good to have you both back again. Thank you very much. Help me understand [7:09] this birthright part, Elie. Kavanaugh says, OK, I'm with you on the constitutional part, but it's really [7:17] the law that I don't like. And if Congress drafts the law differently, then I may vote differently. [7:22] How could Congress create a law that would be a constitutional change to birthright citizenship? [7:30] Because Kavanaugh doesn't believe that people have a right to birthright citizenship. He doesn't [7:34] believe that that is a constitutional part of the 13th Amendment, of the 14th Amendment. Kavanaugh thinks [7:39] that the people who authored the 14th Amendment, the people who upheld birthright citizenship in real [7:46] time, back in the 1890s, that these people somehow couldn't have imagined the scourge of undocumented [7:54] immigration and how dangerous it would be to allow illegal immigrants to have children who were [8:00] American citizens. Now, I personally do not have access to the Brett Kavanaugh Ouija board that he [8:06] claims he has to commune with the people who wrote the 14th Amendment. But according to Kavanaugh, [8:13] that because they couldn't have conceived of illegal immigration, then he can make an exception, [8:20] an exception to the 14th Amendment through normal legislation that excludes the children of [8:27] undocumented immigrants from having their constitutional rights. I don't know where he gets that from. [8:32] Again, I am not Miss Cleo. I can only go by the text of the amendment and here the text of the [8:38] amendment is clear, but Kavanaugh doesn't think so. Ken, how do you see it? Yeah. Yeah. So the dissent [8:46] cited quote after quote of the main sponsor, the drafter, the and separately the congressional rep who [8:55] introduced the 14th Amendment, all with clear quotations that support the notion that people who are [9:04] here illegally would not fit under this description of subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. [9:12] So I don't agree that there was no citation of this. It was in the opinion. It was in the dissent [9:17] where I think what Kavanaugh is doing and the oddity here is Kavanaugh arrested his vote [9:23] on a 1940 statute, again, incorporated in 1952 into the immigration laws of the United States that [9:31] allowed, in his view, allowed people born here of the of illegal parents, parents who are here illegally [9:38] to be citizens. And that's what he rested his vote on. The oddity is that a Justice Roberts court [9:47] historically, when they had a statute that they could rest a ruling on, they rested it there and [9:53] they didn't reach the constitutional question. But here Roberts reached the constitutional question, [10:00] dismissed all those citations I just referenced and treated subject to the jurisdiction of is no [10:06] different than the born in the United States. So, you know, we all look at the same history and we draw [10:12] different conclusions. This was obviously a close vote, but it was five, four on the constitutional [10:17] question, six, three on the legal question and very disappointing for those of us on the other [10:22] side here. But I would note, uh, you, you started Chris by kind of walking through an enormous number [10:29] of cases, by the way. Um, and Trump lost on this case. He lost on the election case yesterday that the [10:35] three of us discussed. He lost on tariffs recently, which we all know is a high priority for him. Um, you [10:43] know, so this is not a court that is political. You're, you keep drawing the comparison to the [10:50] political branches. The courts were designed to be insulated from that. I know. All of these [10:55] justices are demonstrating that. I don't think that's the reality, but I call them out and celebrate [11:01] them for doing that. I know. I know. I know. Case after case. But Ken, Ken, two things can be true. [11:05] I think that the justice is. I think by and large, hold on, hold on. By and large, these justices are [11:11] doing what they think is good judging. I agree. I don't always agree with it. I agree with that [11:16] assessment. I said the same thing. I'm just saying two things are true at once, Ellie, which is when a [11:21] justice is picked by a political side, they side with that side so often that when we don't, we know the [11:26] name in the case. That's what I'm saying. And I don't think it's a coincidence. I think after Robert Bork, [11:31] they got frightened by honesty and they created a rule that works for both sides, which is, well, [11:36] let's not ask anybody about their politics anymore so we can get our side through. I don't think they [11:41] should do that. I think they should be honest and transparent. And I think they should have 60 [11:44] votes. But Ellie, I agree with Mr. Cuccinelli. I think that the court is behaving more in line [11:51] with its duty, better than Congress, better than the executive. I think what we're missing here from [11:56] this analysis is the fact that all of the cases that we're fighting about are being fought on [12:01] Republican grounds. The Republicans control the docket. They control what cases get heard. [12:06] They control what questions are asked. Ever since Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, and this is a number that [12:11] a lot of people don't understand, ever since Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, that reduced the Democratic [12:16] numbers of the Supreme Court from four to three. That is a critical number because four is how many [12:22] justices you need to grant cert. That is to take a case from appeal to the Supreme Court. Four [12:27] becomes the important number. And without Ruth Bader Ginsburg, since it's been a 6-3 conservative [12:32] majority, every single case we're talking about is fought on conservative lines. So we can argue that [12:38] the court is being apolitical or not as partisan as possible, but they're only doing that from within [12:45] their own zone, right? It's like if you fight, if you play an entire soccer match, I've been watching a lot [12:50] of the World Cup. If you play an entire soccer match in your own half on defense, you are losing [12:56] even if you don't score the goal every time. But then, Ellie, to your own football analogy, [13:01] then they're really being apolitical because they're picking cases that they should want to [13:07] pick to help the president. And then defeating the executive branch. [13:09] And then they're beating him. Yeah, and they're defeating him. [13:11] And then they're defeating him on them. So your point, Ellie, actually is a proof of the premise [13:15] that- I think that they're picking- I don't think that they're picking cases to try to help Trump or [13:23] not Trump. I think they are picking cases to try to help the conservative movement or not. And I do [13:28] think that we have to make a distinction between the crazy things that Trump- and I don't want to- [13:35] the crazy things that Trump wants and what standard mainline Republicans want. And John Roberts has [13:41] been, over the course of his career, I would argue, the single most effective Republican operative in [13:48] government, save perhaps Mitch McConnell. And so when Roberts is shaping these cases, he's shaping them [13:54] along Republican lines. Does that line up with what Trump wants? No. But Trump is a crazy man. [13:59] And yet the conservatives are so mad at Roberts all the time because they believe that he's gone [14:03] left. Yes. It's true. Well, Chris, you know, look no farther than the Obamacare decision [14:11] where they decided it on a tax case basis. No other judge in America, no court in America had [14:19] done that. And that's how Justice Roberts threw it to President Obama. The idea that he favors [14:26] Republicans as a general matter is just not accurate. Well, all the biggest issues and birthright [14:33] citizenship today. Birthright citizenship today. He lands on the other side. Hold on, I can't hear [14:38] you when you talk over each other. Go ahead. Sorry, last word. No, no, no. All good. I love you [14:42] both. Roberts did that to kill the Commerce Clause. Roberts decided the health care case to get away [14:47] from the Commerce Clause, which is where Democrats usually get their power and throw it into a tax [14:51] thing. Yeah. Yeah. I totally get it. It worked two ways for him. I was just happy with the ruling [14:56] because it meant tens of millions of more people were going to get access to health care. They just [14:59] never did anything with the ACA. And now we have massively expensive health care. And you know [15:03] why? Because the Republican Party did nothing but try to kill it instead of improving it. [15:07] Yeah. Yeah, because it was never about. No, it was never about. And look, and here's what we both [15:11] know. Like with immigration. And it was a failure. And now you, Ken. I exempt you from this because [15:15] if people study what you did at Homeland Security, you don't deserve to get hit with this stick. [15:19] The problem with immigration, the problem with health care works for both parties better than solving [15:24] it. And especially now in this horseshoe polarization thing. Now that is a political problem. I agree [15:29] with you. That is a big one. And that's why they don't deal with it. It works better to divide us [15:33] to make people angry. Ellie Mistal, you make me happy. Kevin Cuccinelli, I'm not always. When I hear [15:39] Ken's voice, it doesn't make me frown. Ken Cuccinelli, it's good to have you. Thank you for making the [15:43] case. I'll see you both again. You should hear me sing. You'll really frown. Have a beautiful fourth, [15:48] both of you. Thank you for being part of the show. Four minutes and 35 seconds coming up. [15:52] Here's what I think the political proposition is right now by the resistance, the MAGA movement [15:58] that I call MAGA. Why? Because it's bigger. It's deeper. And the economic unrest because of [16:05] underemployment is so serious. Can it be beaten with a single word? Is socialism enough to beat [16:15] what is coming MAGA's way? Let's debate it next. Is the word socialism or communism, I mean, [16:31] they're basically used to mean the same thing, let's be honest. Is that word enough to defeat [16:37] all of the economic outrage and the fears and concerns about underemployment, people who are [16:44] working jobs that don't require a college degree, that don't get them paid enough to have only one job [16:50] and that give them a situation where they don't have enough for an emergency? Democratic socialists [16:57] are winning primaries because they're pitching socialism or despite the fact that that is an [17:04] ultimate goal? Tonight, we have an R.I. Colorado. Also looks like it has the momentum of this [17:11] movement. So is a word enough? Joining me now is Republican strategist Pete Seat, Democratic strategist [17:18] Chuck Rocha. Pete, make the case why the MAGA crew believes saying, yeah, but they're socialists [17:26] is enough to make people feel that their economic unrest is not enough. [17:33] Well, it's not enough to just say socialism or socialists or communism. We have to define [17:38] precisely what that means. Because the promise that's being pitched of socialism, which is [17:44] effectively free everything and you don't have to work for it and the rich is going to pay it all [17:49] off, that sounds pretty appealing to a lot of Americans. But the peril is in the policies. [17:57] What's actually being pitched by these democratic socialists, what it's actually going to cost regular [18:04] everyday Americans. It's not enough to just tax the rich. The middle class will be sacked with this [18:11] so-called free health care and free rent and free child care and all the other things that are being [18:17] promised. So Republicans have been given a gift here, but we have to define precisely what it means [18:23] and why it would be perilous for this country and everything we stand for to elect these people [18:30] and put them in the U.S. House of Representatives. Look, I'll just say this. I remember when that was [18:34] the disposition towards MAGA, Chuck, and it was build a wall. That's this guy's plan and he's a jerk. [18:41] And he won anyway because he was right about what was wrong. And now it seems this movement [18:47] is right about what's wrong with an overwhelming majority of Americans. How do you see it, Chuck? [18:53] It's really important for all your listeners to remind ourselves that we're moving into a [18:57] midterm elections where this won't be an election in New York City or in Denver, Colorado or Los Angeles. [19:02] It's going to be in 45 congressional seats that sit in suburbs and exurbs in states around the [19:07] country. I'm not saying that Republicans won't use this issue or the word. I'm describing that [19:12] it's apples and oranges. You see Democrats fighting each other in these districts. In a lot of these [19:18] districts, Kristen, you'll understand this as an old political hack is that think about incumbents [19:23] who've been there a long time. Well, if you're an incumbent, you never really have opposition. [19:26] You probably haven't done the work you probably should have done to sure up your base because you've [19:31] been walking into election every year. You have some young upstart in a time when people are sick [19:36] and tired of being sick and tired and they want to see Democrats fighting Donald Trump. [19:39] You start seeing the rise in a handful of districts of the DSA and hat tip to them. They win the [19:45] elections, but that's not the election that's going to happen for control of the Congress or the Senate. [19:50] The question is to me and Pete is does Pete's party using communism, socialism or those words, [19:58] does that going to matter more to people than how much beans and rice and bread and beer costs? [20:03] That's going to be the great debate on who can make that issue. Because as a kid who grew up in a [20:07] trailer house in East Texas, who went to work in a factory when I was 19, had a kid when I was 20, [20:12] has been standing in line for food stamps before. Like I understand what it's like to be a Democrat. [20:17] And when I asked my mamaw why we weren't Republicans, she said, look, we're Democrats, [20:21] but I hope someday to make enough money to be a Republican. [20:24] Does that change your analysis, Pete? [20:28] No, I love listening to Chuck, though. But I would add this. One, yeah, it is about those [20:34] handful of congressional districts, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the outrageous, [20:40] abhorrent comments made by some of these Democratic Socialist candidates, [20:44] these nominees in New York and potentially elsewhere, it's going to be tagged on the back [20:49] of every single so-called moderate Democrat, no matter what. They're going to be made to answer [20:55] for those comments and those policies. But Pete, that's my point. That's my point, [20:59] is I hear what you're saying. I'm worried about, not worried, I'm asking about the flip, [21:04] because that's what happened with MAGA. It was, listen, I can't get ahead. This system is just [21:09] designed to keep me down. Yeah, but Trump's an idiot, and he's not going to do anything that he's [21:13] saying he's doing. But he's right about what's wrong. Yeah, but you don't like him. Hey, [21:17] by the way, I don't like you either. That's what got MAGA in. I now see that exact same thing, [21:23] and I see you guys doing what the Democrats did that led to you beating them. Are you not learning [21:28] the lesson of your ascendance? Here's where I think it might be different, Chris, is Donald [21:33] Trump is at his best when he has someone or something to run against, when he is running like [21:39] a challenger, as he did in 2016 and in 2024. Didn't work out so well in 2020, and it may not work [21:46] out so well in 2026, because he can't run against himself. But there is an anti-incumbency mood [21:51] across this country. Now he has something to run against rather than just himself and the anger [21:58] that people are feeling and facing every day. And he can say, if you're angry now, just wait until [22:05] these policies are put in place. It's going to get that much worse. Yeah, but Chuck, here's the thing. [22:11] That's what he owns. He owns the status quo. He came and said he's making it better. Everything [22:15] is worse. And he'll say, oh, it's because of Iran. It's going to go away in some time. But it's bad [22:20] now. I mean, isn't that what this election is going to be about, whether it's in 45 seats [22:24] or 145 seats? What we're seeing, and I've got the privilege to run in races from Maine to [22:31] California in most of those races I'm describing. And there's something here that's really unique [22:35] this different than 2018, which was the last time we had a big off year election, is this ain't as [22:40] much about the far left or the far right. This is kind of an inside and outside game. Folks are mad [22:46] at incumbents. And when they're mad at incumbents, they kick out Democrats in New York because Democrats [22:52] are controlled in New York. Just like they may kick out a Democrat in Colorado because it's all [22:56] Democrats there. But in these districts that I keep going back to, 80% of those districts have a [23:02] Republican incumbent. And the Democrat is running as the insurgents right now in the rank and file of [23:08] all workers and all people out there that are in the middle of the road, not far right or far left. [23:13] They're tired of the status quo. And right now, today in the midterms, the Republicans are the status [23:17] quo in the midterm elections. You know, I got to tell you, I think we all see what's happening. And [23:23] what's interesting is going to be the approach. I get what you're saying, Pete. And I understand the [23:27] distinction for you, Chuck, about where it is in the midterms and what the races are. But I also think [23:33] it's important that it's a two-tiered thing, right? Pete's got to be worried about whether or not [23:37] he can justify the status quo. You have to be worried on the Democratic side that your incumbents [23:42] are as vulnerable as the Republicans are to this insurgent movement that wants disruption. And let's be [23:47] honest, we all know that they're right to want the disruption. Pete C., Chuck Rocha, appreciate you [23:53] both. We'll be watching it together. Have a great fourth, fellas, if I don't talk to you. Happy [23:58] birthday. Four minutes and 30 seconds. Up next. Do you know what one plus one is? Of course I do. [24:04] It's two. You're so arrogant. Is it? Is it? Maybe not. I'll explain something that made my hair curl. [24:13] Next. You consider yourself a critical thinker? I hope so. The definition in Webster's is applying [24:28] reason and questioning assumptions in order to solve problems, evaluate information, and discern biases. [24:33] Most of us aren't doing that. We're living in the bubble, and we're looking for what's called [24:37] confirmation bias, which is proof that you were right about what you already thought. And we have [24:43] a tendency to demonize anything outside that. That's why most people now with social media are [24:49] only getting information from sites that share your beliefs that you hold already. This is exactly what [24:55] is ruining politics. Legendary Harvard psychologist Dr. Ellen Langer. I am a big fan. She is known as [25:04] the mother of mindfulness. And I'm not talking about om, om. I'm talking about critical thinking and how to [25:10] be present and how to use context and nuance to fuel critical thinking. She's done this for decades. [25:16] She's done extensive research on the importance of critical thinking and decision making. [25:21] I remember even George Carlin kind of incorporated a lot of her ideas in his act. Here's an example of how I [25:28] believe Professor Langer can blow your mind. How much is one plus one? Everybody knows. [25:36] I'm going to take a wild guess and go two. No, not always. If you add one pizza and one pizza, [25:42] you have two pizzas. But if you add one lasagna and one lasagna, you get one lasagna, just a bigger [25:50] lasagna. So in the real world, it doesn't equal two. And this is very important because [25:56] every time we give an answer based on our absolute understanding of things, we're no different from [26:02] robots. Now, if somebody were to ask you, how much is one plus one? All of a sudden, you have a choice [26:08] that you didn't have. All right. And that means you're going to be present. You're going to pay [26:13] attention to context and then decide. Dr. Langer joins me now. A great pleasure. This is one of the [26:22] privileges of having a platform as I get to invite people like you on just to say, [26:26] thank you. Thank you for your influence. And thank you for agitating our minds. [26:33] Thank you. So, doc, the one you got me with was the laundry. Because I was like, all right, [26:38] well, she's playing with lasagna. That's my home base. You know, that lasagna, I know. And you said, [26:44] you have one pile of laundry. You put another one on top of it. How many do you have? You still have [26:49] one pile of laundry. Right. And you take one wad of chewing gum and you add one wad of chewing gum, [26:54] you have one wad of chewing gum. You have one cloud plus one cloud is one cloud. So, [26:59] the argument I'm making is that in the real world, one plus one probably doesn't equal two [27:05] as more often as it does. But the point is that, and the reason I use this example so frequently, [27:11] is this is the one thing everybody is sure about. And everybody is missing the opportunity [27:19] for agency. You know, to make it a little more complicated, one plus one is two only if you're [27:26] using a base 10 number system. People don't know number systems, right? But if you're using a base [27:31] two number system, one plus one is written as 10. So now the next time somebody asks you the simple [27:37] question, you can say one, two, or 10. And so that means all of a sudden, you're in charge, [27:43] you have to look around and make a decision about what to do. So before that, you mindlessly answered. [27:50] So doc, isn't the sophistication of the rationale kind of proof of why people have stripped critical [27:56] thinking out of our politics? This is too complicated. I want to make it easy. Langer is a commie. [28:03] Langer is a commie. Vote for me. [28:05] Okay, right. No, it couldn't be easier. All I'm saying is that most of us are mindless. A fun [28:13] definition of mindlessness is that we're frequently in error, but rarely in doubt. [28:17] Strong and wrong, we call that here. Exactly. So when you recognize that everything is always changing, [28:23] everything looks different from different perspectives, you can't know. And the problem [28:27] is most of us know we don't know, but we think we should know. So we pretend, we avoid the situation [28:34] entirely, and that we have to now recognize that knowing, being this certain, certainty is mindless. [28:42] And when you're not certain, everything becomes interesting and potentially new. [28:48] But how do you put that to work in a binary zero-sum competition like our party politics, where [28:57] I need you to be worse than I am? I don't want to be open to you. [29:03] Yeah, that's a good question. Whenever you're asked, even if you're asked if you want chocolate [29:07] or vanilla ice cream. No, and I'm asked if I want chocolate or vanilla ice cream, half a scoop of [29:12] each. But in some places, they won't give you that. You know, so yeah, there are times that we have to [29:19] decide, choose one or the other. But to be so headstrong and certain, it's very hard. You know, [29:25] we've become a country of you're one side or the other. It's almost like you're at a football game [29:32] and you won't pay any attention. You're always rooting for your side. And I think that there's [29:37] something that I teach and have written a lot about that may seem at first a little far afield, [29:42] but I think it speaks to this, which is that behavior makes sense from the perspective of the [29:48] person who's doing it or else they wouldn't do it. Nobody wakes up in the morning and says, [29:53] today I'm going to be obnoxious, rude, aggressive. You know, so when they're being this way, [29:58] what's going on in their minds? And it turns out that each and every, this is a big one, [30:03] each and every description that's negative has an equally strong but oppositely valence [30:10] alternative. For every negative, there's a positive. So if I'm telling you about Joe, [30:14] and I tell you Joe is impulsive, keep him away from me, right? But when you realize that Joe is also, [30:21] if I told you Joe was spontaneous, ah, bring him on. And so what happens is that because we can look at [30:28] anything and see it, you know, in a sense, half full or half empty in this positive or negative way, [30:34] there's not much opportunity. We don't take any opportunity to come together. We have more and [30:41] more evidence of why we should be, um, enemies. And, um, so, you know, so what I'm saying is that [30:48] recognizing that everybody on the other side, isn't stupid, that there are reasons. And if we [30:55] understand their reasons, it can help bring us a little closer, but ultimately, you know, in November, [31:02] you're going to have to defy, decide this person or that person, but not with the venom that so many [31:07] people experience now. That is the beauty of the attribute of critical thinking. But, you know, [31:12] these days that's doing what's hard, even if it's simple, it's not easy. Well, no, no, no. Actually, [31:18] it couldn't be simpler, which is what's so amazing. Right, but it's not easy. It couldn't be easier. [31:24] Okay. I don't know. Simple, easy. You can tell me what the important difference is. [31:28] But that all you need to do is notice, but you don't notice when you think you know. [31:34] So all you need to do is know that you don't know, and then you will naturally notice. Um, [31:39] you know, and, and I'm telling you, once you realize one and one is not always two, [31:44] people should already be convinced. Maybe I don't know all of these things that I'm walking around [31:48] being so... Well, I'll tell you what, it worked for me. Dr. Ellen Langer, I think that you are a gift, [31:54] to helping us get to a better place. And it's got to be an each one, teach one moment. [31:58] Because the collective isn't working. So thank you for giving us guidance [32:02] about how to be better thinkers and more mindful. Appreciate you. Look forward to having you again, [32:05] Professor. Take care. Thank you, Chris. Four minutes and 15 seconds. Genius, right? But she says it in a [32:12] way that it makes sense. Are you open? That's the key to critical thinking. Now, let's prove it. Have your [32:18] say. 844-968-7720. Let's get after it. All right, Dusty, what do you got? Okay. Where's my son? Oh, [32:33] he had to go get water. Was he a camel? He was thirsty. Tim from Sarasota, Florida. Who do you got, [32:41] Tim? Hey, hey, Chris. I just want to thank you for what you do, man. I've been watching you for years, [32:47] and I learn a lot from you. So I really appreciate it. I appreciate you giving me a chance. [32:51] Yeah, no problem, brother. The guest that you had on earlier that's a pro-Trumper that had the notion [32:58] that the Supreme Court isn't compromised, and they don't always go with Trump, and that's fine. He [33:04] could say that. And I know that you try to kick back a little bit on that, watching that. But [33:09] the thing is, you didn't mention the fact that there are justices on there that vote towards Trump, [33:16] you know, with his cases, like almost every time. For instance, Thomas. Justice Thomas voted 90% [33:24] of the time towards Trump. Yeah, but here's the thing. That doesn't make Thomas really unique. [33:29] I think he's an exaggerated example of the norm. It happens on both sides so often that we know the [33:35] cases and the names of justices who deviate from the side of the party that put them in power. That's [33:42] why I'm saying just stop faking the funk when we vet you people and say, oh, I don't know about the [33:48] politics. I'd have to see the case. That's bullshit. You are a Republican. You are a Democrat. Just say it [33:54] and be fair. That's how they used to do it until Robert Bork. That's all I'm saying. [33:58] I went around to Thomas. Thank you. Right. Look, Thomas is an egregious example of it. He is an obvious [34:10] partisan. Okay. But I'm saying, I think they're all partisan. It's about degree. I just think that the [34:15] court's doing a better job of being fair than the other branches. Next. [34:20] SUNY in Chicago. SUNY in Chicago. Yeah, Chris, how you doing? You tell me. [34:27] Yeah, I just wanted to ask you. My question is basically a follow up on the Supreme Court as well. [34:31] I mean, we have, there are several cases that have come down over the years. How does Thomas always [34:38] side with the conservatives? I mean, there's got to be some nuances to these cases. Now, for example, [34:45] Barrett and Godwin and Kavanaugh, they tend to seesaw back and forth. Thomas is straight down [34:52] the middle. How is that? No, he's not straight down the middle. He's straight down the line [34:56] for the Republicans. And I think that you've seen a lot of examples like that. I just think [35:01] he's a more exaggerated one. And it always bothers me having to say that because, you know, first, [35:07] when he was first on, it was all about the woman who was testifying against him and that she was [35:12] disrespected and she didn't get the weight. And he obviously was saying things that nobody really [35:16] believed. And then he's on there, but you only did that to him because he's black. And now he's [35:20] on and he's a conservative, but he's a black conservative. You know, he's always been very [35:24] confusing for people. But I think at the end of the day, he's just an example of a partisan person [35:28] being in a position of power. And yet I still think the Supreme Court is performing its job closer [35:36] to what it is supposed to do than Congress or the executive. Next. [35:40] Next. Maryland switching gears here. Maryland from Florida, Maryland from Florida, two states. [35:48] Yeah. Oh, Maryland. How are you doing? What's your question? Good. Well, more of a comment. I'd like [35:55] you to comment on my assessment of what's going on with this voting trend toward, quote unquote, [36:00] socialism, communism, anti-republic and anti-democrat. I think it's all under the umbrella of anti-incumbency. [36:07] Yes. Because we're retired. Retire the congressional nonchalance. Yes. [36:14] Facility, dismissiveness, denial, ineptitude. Yes. And I think anti-incumbency is our only [36:21] best hope for change. Yes. Vote them all out. Vote them all out. [36:25] And I don't think it's about socialism. Thank you. Even though, first of all, [36:28] democratic socialists, that's not an ideology. It's an organization. Social democracy is an [36:34] ideology. Okay. Look at Germany. Does it allow private ownership? Yeah. It's just a different [36:40] set of preferences of government regulation in terms of who wins and how much. Okay. And let me [36:47] tell you, that's what people are asking for. Calling it socialism makes it sound scary. That's why they [36:52] keep saying communism. I'll tell you what's really scary to people, not a word, reality. And they are [36:58] coming for the incumbents and I am here for it. Do I think we result in socialism? No. I think it's [37:04] a resulting in change of people who go in there knowing they got to get something done. What they [37:10] get done, we'll see. Next. Shall we end on a positive note with Mr. Positive? Mr. Positive. Oh, [37:17] man, I love this guy. Greg from Michigan. Mr. Positive, live up to your name, you handsome bastard. [37:22] Brother, what does it say society, which has thrived for 250 years with laissez-faire capitalism to now be [37:32] entertained the idea of socialism? I love this guy. I don't think we are entertaining a massive [37:41] systemic change. I think again, just like in Germany, it's about the preference structure. [37:47] Okay. The inequality has become unsustainable. I don't have a problem that a guy's a trillionaire. [37:52] Okay. I don't. I have a problem that the fastest growing socioeconomic group is billionaires [37:57] when you have a burgeoning class of people who don't have enough money for a medical emergency. [38:02] It doesn't have to be that way. We have a two tiered tax system. You get a different tax rate [38:06] for a C Corp than I get. Why? It's a preference. Why? Because you're good for the community because [38:12] you hire a lot of people. But if you don't pay your people enough to not need government assistance, [38:17] why do you get the preference? Condition it on how they treat their workers. That's not socialism. [38:22] That's not socialism. It's just more responsible capitalism. Capitalism without responsibility [38:29] is just greed. We've gotten greedy. Mr. Positive, I love you. We'll be right back. [38:39] Dr. Ellen Langer, L-A-N-G-E-R. It's so funny. I get a comment on the thing. [38:46] Oh, I thought she was good until I found out she was Harvard. We don't need those elites anymore. [38:51] It's like, thank you for proving exactly why she's right. And you're a dope. You have to be open. [38:59] You've got to consider what you think you don't agree with, at least to understand where they're [39:03] coming from. Am I right? I have to be right. Because look at where, how we're doing it now [39:09] has gotten us. Leland Vittert, now he's a critical thinker. Yeah. You have to be right. Because what [39:15] if you were ever wrong, Cuomo? Oh, it happens all the time. My son is standing right off set right now, [39:21] shaking his head like this. It's a constant state of mild dismissal. I was going to say, [39:26] just ask your wife. Please. Please. I just, all I say, you'll learn. All I say is just please. [39:34] Please. That's all I say. Please. I like the no tie look. Well, I'm just trying to be cool like you. [39:41] Keep trying. Yeah. Yeah. Look, it's a process. I'm working on it. [39:46] Have a great July 4th, Cuomo. You too, brother. Happy birthday. Welcome to the program. Thank you.