Lawless

The Fox News Supreme Court is a political weapon, and it’s being wielded to wreck what remains of American democracy. What happens if Trump declares martial law? 

This week on Gaslit Nation, Andrea interviews Leah Litman, a constitutional law professor at the University of Michigan Law School, co-host of the award-winning Strict Scrutiny podcast, and author of the new book LAWLESS: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes. This Court is a multi-decade effort by conservatives to seize power they couldn’t win through democratic means.

Litman warns about what the Fox News Court is up to. If you thought things were bad, we’re staring down a term packed with cases that could fundamentally rewrite public education, religious liberty, and basic civil rights. Take Oklahoma Charter Board v. Drummond. This case actually asks whether the Constitution requires states to allow religious public charter schools. Yes, you read that right: requires. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from funding religious education. But now, thanks to the conservative justices’ persecution complex, where white Christian nationalism is the most oppressed identity in America, obviously, the Court may rule that denying public funding to religious schools is unconstitutional discrimination.

Then there’s the challenge to a Maryland school district’s decision to include LGBTQ+ inclusive books in elementary schools. A group of religious parents is arguing that merely exposing children to stories with queer characters violates their religious freedom. If the Court agrees, it could hand conservative parents a veto power over what public schools teach, effectively outlawing inclusive education if it makes anyone clutch their pearls.

What Litman makes clear is that these cases are about redefining public life, turning schools into vehicles for a theocratic agenda. And let’s be honest: they’re not talking about funding schools for Wiccans or the Church of Satan. This is about establishing a Christian nationalism dictatorship. Yes, it can happen here. Yes, it’s happening here.

But we are not powerless. Reform is not a fantasy. Term limits. Ethics rules. Court expansion. These are tools, if we find the courage to use them. Because democracy doesn’t die in darkness. It’s strangled in broad daylight by men in robes, funded by billionaires, and broadcast live on C-SPAN.

And if we don’t fight back? We’re just letting them get away with it.

Download Transcript

EVENTS AT GASLIT NATION:

The recent storms have devastated so many in St. Louis, and the Urban League needs our help now more than ever. Please donate what you can to support their relief efforts and help communities rebuild: https://www.ulstl.com/#/

What’s as gratifying as a Tesla Takedown protest? A Fox News Takedown protest! https://www.foxtakedown.com/

Andrea Chalupa (00:10):

Welcome to Gaslit Nation. I am your host, Andrea Chalupa, a journalist and filmmaker and the writer and producer of the journalistic thriller, Mr. Jones, about Stalin's genocide famine in Ukraine. The film the Kremlin doesn't want you to see. They literally shut down a screening in Moscow and liquidated the group that dared to show it. So be sure to watch it this week. We are so excited to talk to Leah Litman, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School who teaches on constitutional law and federal courts. Professor Litman is the author of the new book Lawless, how the Supreme Court runs on Conservative grievance, fringe theories, and Bad Vibes. She is a co-host and co-creator of the award-winning podcast, strict scrutiny, a crooked media podcast about the US Supreme Court. Welcome to Gaslit Nation, Leah Litman. Thanks so much for having me. So obviously the Supreme Court, it's so much of how we got here.

(01:14):

John Roberts, when he was at Reagan's DOJ, couldn't wait to get voting rights and then he gets to the Supreme Court, citizens United releases, the floodgates of money into our elections. And lo and behold, now we have an oligarchy in America, like a Russian style one where Steven Miller is like threatening to suspend habeas corpus. They're defying the courts openly. DHS is threatening to arrest members of Congress. The Mayor Newark was just arrested by ice, by exercising his right with the congressional delegation to have oversight over a federal facility. And on and on the list goes, and I don't have to tell you. So could you tell us how did we get here and how did the Supreme Court essentially turn into Fox News?

Leah Litman (01:58):

Yeah, so I think it's a combination of different forces. One is just related to developments in the Republican party. Second is related to developments in our democratic institutions. So on the Republican party side, this is a party that made several choices to cater to increasingly narrow segments of the country. In the 1960s, seventies, eighties, there was this big realignment between the two political parties. During that time, the Republican party made a choice to appeal to white conservative evangelical voters. And in doing so, they knew we are losing support from women, we are losing support from racial minorities, and they viewed that as an acceptable cost of their political strategy. And so that got them to a point where in a country that is increasingly diverse and pluralistic winning elections requires them to basically engage in minority rule to try to make it possible to seize power despite not having support from a majority of the country.

(03:09):

That has partially made them comfortable embracing voter suppression mechanisms, voter discrimination. It also led them to focus on the Supreme Court because of course the Supreme Court justices are not directly elected. Justices aren't subject to reelection. So this was always an institution that was at least partially susceptible to minority rule, and that made it an attractive institution for a Republican party whose political future depended on minority rules. So the Republican party conservative legal movement committed themselves to taking over the Supreme Court trying to identify nominees who could be trusted to help the Republican party's minority rule agenda and to winning elections by convincing their voters and their base about the importance of the Supreme Court. So that's part of the story. The other big part of the story though is the democratic decline in our institutions in part because of the electoral college and just demographic changes that has allowed presidents to win elections even when they lose the popular vote. Similarly, the same demographic trends has meant the Senate has become increasingly portioned, such that you can now have often a majority of senators who don't represent a majority of the American people. So because the President and the Senate, obviously they control who is on the Supreme Court that has exacerbated the democratic deficits of the Supreme Court and made it susceptible to takeover by a party that relies on minority rule.

Andrea Chalupa (04:47):

Will the American people ever get their Supreme Court back and how does that happen?

Leah Litman (04:53):

I hope that the American people will get their Supreme Court back. I guess I would say two things. One is it's not like the Supreme Court has ever been this amazing heroic institution. Part of what I try to do in the book is give a longer term history of the Supreme Court and show how yes, the Roberts Court is particularly bad, but the Supreme Court has done a lot of bad things in the past as well. So it is a more complicated picture. I think a lot of people think of, oh, the Warren Court, when they think of the Supreme Court, that refers to the court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren that famously decided Brown versus Board of Education and invalidated segregation in public schools. But for a lot of American history, the Supreme Court has not been a progressive force for the country.

(05:45):

So getting the Supreme Court back in my view, kind of means getting the institution to a place where it's no longer a wrecking ball for our democracy. Now I think we can do that. It's going to take time and it's going to take several steps convincing more of the Democratic base, more progressives to vote based on the court. It's going to require sticking to that strategy across many elections in the future. It's going to require a democratic party that will be willing to exercise the maximum extent of their political power in order to reduce the authority of the Supreme Court and to limit their extent to damage our democracy. So I think we can do it. It's going to take time, it's going to take work, but the reality is what we're aiming for is a court that isn't lying about a loaded weapon for our country.

Andrea Chalupa (06:36):

And in terms of the Democrats and what they can do, we've had a lot of debate. There's been some legislation that Democrats have put forward on term limits. What do you think is the most realistic path to contain the destruction of this court while we can?

Leah Litman (06:52):

So I think term limits are a great kind of common sense solution of regularizing appointments to the Supreme Court. So we're no longer living in a world where a strategic retirement or an unexpected death results in sudden and dramatic changes in our law, but realistically, term limits are not going to change the Supreme Court we have now, it's just going to change appointments going forward and in the future. So I don't think term limits can be the entire story. In my ideal world, what it would look like is not just term limits, but also changing who's on the Supreme Court. So probably adding new justices and adding justices who aren't actually going to strike down term limits, adding justices who are going to allow Democrats to govern adding justices who are going to allow Congress to actually limit the authority of the Supreme Court. So that's part of the package of reforms as well.

(07:47):

I think another part is I would like to see the Supreme Court's authority reduced. The court has not always had the complete unfettered discretion to pick what cases they hear to pick what issues they decide. I think Congress should revisit a lot of the power that the Supreme Court has accumulated and acquired over time, and that includes the power to strike down federal laws. I think when Congress adopts major civil rights legislation like a new Voting Rights Act or federal law protecting access to abortion, Congress could and should limit the Supreme Court's ability to strike down that statute.

Andrea Chalupa (08:24):

So basically protecting America from the courts requires us getting the majorities we need in Congress and also the White House to sign that legislation into law.

Leah Litman (08:35):

Yes, I believe we will need a Congress who again is convinced of the problem this Supreme Court posts for our country and is willing to exercise the political power they have in order to address that problem and solve it.

Andrea Chalupa (08:52):

Great. So what you're saying is that we're basically stuck with this court for the time being because Congress is always going to be very tight in the margins as we've been seeing in recent elections.

Leah Litman (09:02):

Yes. The reality is losing the 2016 and the 2024 election were catastrophic for changing the direction of the Supreme Court just through the normal process of appointing justices to this nine member court. Had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election, we would not have the Supreme Court that we have because Justice Gorsuch wouldn't be on the court. There would be a Justice Merrick Garland, sure, not a hero of the left and is super progressive, but he surely would not have overruled Roe versus Wade or blown up student debt relief or done a bunch of other things that the Republican appointees have done. Winning the 2016 election also would have allowed a Democrats to replace Justice Ginsburg. So that would mean no Justice Barrett again, that would mean we at least have a five to four Democratic appointee majority on the Supreme Court. And it's possible it would be even greater than that because Justice Kennedy still might have opted to retire in 2018 as he did and given Democrats the opportunity to replace him. And so that's just a wildly different world than we are living in right now. And the 2024 election was also a really bad one to lose for the Supreme Court because you have two Republican appointees, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas who are in their seventies or almost certain to elect to retire while a Republican is in the White House and Republicans control the Senate and that will allow them to replace those 70 year olds with 40-year-old men's rights activists. And that is going to prolong the duration of this Republican super majority court.

Andrea Chalupa (10:43):

So in the meantime, we're basically the Supreme Court's like an open warfare against our rights. And every June when these rulings come out, it's like American Hunger Games where we find out what basic rights we've been stripped of. And so we've lost Roe v. Wade affirmative action. They've gutted the Voting Rights Act again along held dream of John Roberts. What else is coming down the pipe that we should be aware of? Prepare now.

Leah Litman (11:09):

Where to start? So this term, the court has a bunch of big cases on their docket. Happy to talk about two of them. I could go on, but I would just immediately flag the cases about religion in public schools. So one case, Oklahoma Charter Board versus Drummond is about whether a state has to create a religious public charter school. I'm going to say that again because it sounds so insane. It is about whether the constitution requires states to create religious public charter schools. Previously until now, we have thought that the Constitution restricts state's ability to operate religious schools because of the establishment clause. But the Republican appointees on the Supreme Court are so immersed in this conservative grievance mindset where they think white evangelical Christians, conservative Christians are persecuted and victimized by a secular society. They are poised to say it is unconstitutional discrimination for a state to grant charters to secular schools, but not to grant charters to religious schools.

(12:17):

And so we could be looking at a world where any state that operates a charter school system has to create religious public charter schools. Second, another case about religion public schools, there's a challenge to a Maryland school district's decision to incorporate LGBTQ plus inclusive reading material into schools. So the school district consulted with parents and experts and it decided to put some storybooks into the curriculum that had l BT characters, a group of religious parents sued, arguing that it violates their religious liberty to have their children read storybooks with LGBT characters that insinuate LGBT individuals are allowed to exist and have rights. That case will be hugely significant because it could give conservative religious parents effectively a veto over what is taught in public schools. So those two cases combined could just really, really change the landscape of public education, the role of religion in education and so many other things.

Andrea Chalupa (13:22):

Wow. And obviously when we talk about religious schools, we're not talking about the Church of Satan or Wiccans or we're talking about Christian nationalism. Those are the kinds of schools that they want.

Leah Litman (13:32):

Oh yeah, those are definitely the kinds of schools that they want. It was really remarkable. Those two oral arguments were kind of terrifying to listen to. So in the case about religious public charter schools, you had Justice Samuel Alito asking the question for the state that didn't want to charter the religious public charter schools. Well, isn't it the case that the school could teach the 1619 project if they wanted to? Isn't it the case that these schools could tell kids, you could be trans, you should be trans. And it's like one no school teaches that two state law wouldn't actually allow that, but he's so immersed in this world of far right conspiracy theories that that's how he views public schools. And so he views religious public schools as almost like a necessary corrective to that. It's only fair my side gets theirs too. Since you get these secular public schools, I get these conservative religious schools and it's just wild to again here, that kind of conservative grievance. Persecution complex driving the law in real time.

Andrea Chalupa (14:48):

Yeah, Alito with his flag, American flag flying upside down and a sign of distress. He did this in reaction to Trump basically being held accountable for January 6th. It wasn't like Trump tried to violently, well, I think he did this as part of the Stop the Steal movement, right?

Leah Litman (15:06):

So not once, but twice that we know of Justice Alitos homes have displayed two flags associated with the Stop the Steal January 6th movement. The first appeared in the aftermath of the January 6th riot as Joe Biden was about to be inaugurated as president, one of his homes displayed an upside down American flag, which is one of the symbols carried by the January 6th rioters and insurrectionists. It was also a symbol that people in the Stop the steal movement were encouraged to carry and display, and that's what the Elida had outside of their home, which is wild. And then the New York Times also reported that, I believe it was two years later at a second home, they displayed an Appeal to Heaven flag, which is another flag that is associated with the Stop the Steal movement and January 6th that some of the January 6th rioters had also carried. So again, it seems like this is a court that is occupied in part by far right conspiracy theorists like your weird fringe theorist uncle and maybe aunt are now on the Supreme Court.

Andrea Chalupa (16:20):

They were selected for that purpose.

Leah Litman (16:23):

Yeah. So part of the book goes into how the Republican Party and the conservative legal movement have invested a ton into what is now a brutally effective selection mechanism for identifying people whose views they're confident about, who they expect to rule in particular ways, and who they believe will remain immersed enough in conservative media and Republican circles that they are going to continue to carry water for the Republican party. Justice David Ser recently passed away. He was famously appointed to the Supreme Court by President George Bush, and he then famously began voting with the Democratic appointees on the Supreme Court after he refused to overrule Roe versus Casey in the 1992 Planned Parenthood versus Casey decision that generated these rallying cries among the conservative legal movement of no more suitors. They were so pissed their guy didn't do the thing that they wanted. They basically promised never to appoint anyone who would be an independent fact bound small C conservative institutionalists again. And they put in a lot of money, effort, and time to things like the Federalist Society to get to know people and to credential people who they had more reason to believe would actually tow the party line.

Andrea Chalupa (17:54):

Okay. So we have basically the YouTube comment section on the Supreme Court, these disinformation agents, and then you have Clarence Thomas with all of his whirlwind of trips, people in his family getting their private school paid off by GOP mega donors, including some who have cases before the courts. So this whole cesspool of corruption. Why didn't the Constitution or does the Constitution have safeguards for this? The rest of the world is looking at us and going Founding fathers. Why couldn't he have done better here?

Leah Litman (18:26):

So on some level, the founding fathers occupied a very different world from the one we lived in. One is life expectancies were very different. So I'm not sure they were expecting people to kind of hang out on the Supreme Court for 40 years and come to expect a bunch of free treats during those 40 years. Another thing is the Supreme Court at the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified was not like the Supreme Court we have today. It was not very powerful. The job of a Supreme Court justice kind of sucked. You had people resign from being a Supreme Court justice to become the governor of a state because they just didn't have that much power and they were forced to what's called ride circuit sit on these other courts throughout the country that literally required them to ride a horseback to get there.

(19:17):

And so it wasn't a job that people thought, oh my gosh, people are going to be scheming to get on there and then expect a ton of grift in the process in order to make these hugely significant rulings. So I think that's part of it is just the Supreme Court that exists today looks very different from the Supreme Court as it existed around the time the Constitution was initially created. But another part of it is the people who drafted and ratified the Constitution always expected that the primary check on how our system of government was going to be working was just the will of the people and the character of the people. And so if you select a bunch of bad men as President and then Supreme Court justices, there's only so much laws and constitutional rules are going to get you. We have a 14th amendment which is supposed to disqualify people from holding office who participated in an insurrection or rebellion against the United States.

(20:15):

Donald Trump spoke on the Capitol rotunda before the January 6th rioters stormed the Capitol. And because of that, some states attempted to keep him off the ballot because they said he participated in an insurrection or rebellion against the United States. The Supreme Court said, eh, maybe that's true, maybe it's not. But states don't get to enforce the 14th amendment against the President without Congress specifically saying, so again, you can write the best rules in the world, but without people whose character and integrity and principles are going to them, those rules aren't necessarily going to do you any good.

Andrea Chalupa (20:50):

And that begs the question, why didn't Congress, especially when Democrats held power in the start of Biden's term in 2021 right after January 6th, where we all witnessed with our eyes and ears Trump trying inciting a violent attempted overthrow of our democracy, why didn't the Democrats in Congress unite to enforce the 14th amendment of the US Constitution? Why didn't Merrick Garland as Attorney General in your view, why did we miss that important exit off ramp?

Leah Litman (21:20):

Looking back, there are many things that Democrats should have done.

Andrea Chalupa (21:24):

I've got time for it.

Leah Litman (21:26):

Oh yeah. Beginning criminal investigations and criminal cases against the participants in January 6th is one huge missed opportunity because if you let people who attempted a coup kind of get off the hooks scot free, that allows them to come back to power that tells them there actually aren't going to be any consequences for trying to overthrow the government and interfere with a peaceful transition of power. But I think Democrats failure to kind of understand the scope of the problem and what they're dealing with goes back much further. I mean, if you think about it, why hadn't Democrats passed a statute protecting and codifying abortion rights while Republicans for decades have been promising to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overrule Roe versus Wade? And I think Democrats have just fooled themselves and deluded themselves into thinking the Republican party is not the Republican party. It is the Republican party of 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago, and they didn't really understand what exactly they were up against and are up against and what the Republican party is and was willing to do.

Andrea Chalupa (22:31):

They definitely had a lot of time and they had moments where they were in control and it's sort of a lack of imagination and complacency and the excitement I think of the Democratic party establishment that they're making major inroads into Wall Street, which was historically Republican territory. So passing too much legislation that was very meaningful for protecting our rights workers' rights might've spooked the big donors they were suddenly getting.

Leah Litman (22:55):

Yeah, it is just really wild to watch the Republican justices, the Republican party's approach to money in politics kind of play out all before our eyes. I know you all talked recently about the Qatari jet situation.

Andrea Chalupa (23:12):

Yes.

Leah Litman (23:13):

And I think you can kind of draw a through line from that to the Republican justice's own behavior and their approach to political corruption laws because what the Republican justices have said about campaign finance regulation and political corruption laws is basically the only kind of corruption that Congress gets to root out is explicit quid pro quos where someone provides a free private jet and says, in exchange for this private jet, you have to pass this law. But the Republican justices are basically totally cool with influence and access schemes where mega rich individuals give a ton of money, give a ton of gifts, and that gives them influence over and access to political officials. And so they have read that definition of corruption into the constitution. They've read that into the federal laws where Congress tried to prohibit more forms of corruption and they have allowed themselves to behave in particular ways. They don't view it as problematic that their billionaire BFFs are showering them with private jet trips or whatever other gifts because they don't view money for influence and access as problematic. And again, you can see the through line from Republican justices accepting free private jet trips and saying nothing to see here to a president accepting a luxury flying palace and saying, oh no, no, that's not corruption or briberry because I didn't agree to do anything in particular for receiving said flying palace

Andrea Chalupa (24:49):

Other than release 2 billion in military goods too.

Leah Litman (24:53):

But that wasn't explicit. That was a total coincidence. So no problems there.

Andrea Chalupa (24:58):

Yes. Okay. So what you're saying is basically greed is good, this is all the big old hangover of the Reagan revolution.

Leah Litman (25:06):

Make America a grift again.

Andrea Chalupa (25:09):

Yes, exactly. Alright, so just to make us all feel better, could you describe a chapter in American history when we had such a court doing such horrible things and yet the American story of fighting for progress, small groups of citizens fighting for their rights, for their very lives prevailed?

Leah Litman (25:28):

Yeah. So I think the clearest example of this is the court that existed around the time of the New Deal and Great Depression. So famously, when President Roosevelt was elected president, the court was controlled by a bunch of people who were very skeptical of the government's power and ability to address economic inequality. So they struck down minimum wage laws. They struck down protections for unions bargaining. They struck down new deal programs that were designed to stabilize prices and help the have nots kind of survive the Great Depression. So what happened in the 1936 election and campaign, somewhat famously, the Democratic Party ran against the Supreme Court. You had the Democratic Senate majority Leader say at the convention, Liberty are thou blind and dumb talking about the Supreme Court's decision striking down minimum wage laws and condemning the havenots to continue to bear the brunt of the Great Depression.

(26:24):

FDR again kind of talked about how the Supreme Court's decisions had made economic inequality kind of a no man's land. So it was really an incredible kind of moment for the Democratic party as well as labor and other groups like organizing against the Supreme Court. The 1936 election resulted in a landslide for the FDR and the Democratic party. So FDR on the heels of that proposes adding seats to the Supreme Court for every justice above a certain age and says, okay, like you guys want to kill the economy, I'm going to change the court. That scared the court into doing the right thing. It's referred to as a switch in time that saved nine. One of the justices, justice Owen Roberts starts changing his vote and voting to uphold minimum wage laws voting to uphold the New Deal program. And it's called the switch in time. That saved nine because after that switch, the court expansion proposal doesn't go anywhere because at that point it's not really necessary to ensure the country is able to have the new deal and get out of the Great Depression. So that was a moment where the country kind of pulled itself back from the cliff by shaming the court into doing the right thing.

Andrea Chalupa (27:37):

So Democrats need to be tougher negotiators by saying, look, if we ever get a Democratic president again, they have to come out swinging and saying we're going to do some big things as a party. Right? Is that the direction we need to go in? It sounds like it.

Leah Litman (27:52):

I mean, I definitely do think the Democratic Party needs to be more ambitious and more willing to use their political power to actually improve the lives of the country and in order to democratize our institutions. But I also think we should recognize that FDR did that and the specter of court packing was more realistic because he had huge sweeping super majority in the Senate. So if Democrats made that threat now when they're not in power or if they made that threat with a 51 50 control of the Senate, that just doesn't have the same valence as what FDR was able to do. So I think it's not just a matter of getting democratic politicians to be more willing to be ambitious about their power, it's about building political support for more serious reforms so that if and when Democrats are in power, you have more of the country supporting those more far-reaching proposals and reforms.

Andrea Chalupa (28:46):

Well, let's just hope we get back in power because that right now...

Leah Litman (28:50):

Yes, if Democrats are allowed to hold power again.

Andrea Chalupa (28:53):

Yes. If they're not forced into exile and forming a resistance government in Toronto, I want to ask you about that because we've been tracking obviously the horrific transformation of Russia into your run of the mill dictatorship into full blown totalitarianism. And a lot of it is a similar pattern that we're watching play out now at the US in the US under Trump. And he is only been back a few short months that now feel like years. But you see sort of the media falling in line, the media pre surrendering as some of the big folks have done with settling some of these lawsuits Trump has brought. And then you just have an overall decline of the media media increasingly in the hands of oligarchs. Putin consolidated his power first and foremost through media in Russia.

(29:39):

And then of course the schools rewriting textbooks and Christian nationalism all across Russia and on and on it goes. And then you have the closing of the Russian mind, not just with the media crackdown, the press crackdown, but social media becoming Kremlin bot filled and brain rotted. A lot of those boxes are being checked here in the US and you have Trump living large like a Russian oligarch just full of materialism and bribe taking and lawlessness defying the courts, defying the Constitution and just a fire hose of corruption and lawlessness. It seems very quaint us talking about the Constitution and these laws when it looks like we're staring down the barrel of a gun here in America. What would you say to that? What could possibly happen to turn this around? We can talk about laws all we want, but if they're not being enforced, if nobody's stepping up, coming to our rescue, I'm talking about institutions, the DOJ, the FBI are in the hands of Trump lackeys. Pam Bondy worked for Cutter, so she's not going to stand up to this constitution defying bribe from cutter. So what do we do, Leah? What's going to happen to us? Are we just going to become another Russian basil oligarchy?

Leah Litman (30:57):

I'm glad you asked about comparative examples because I think the threat of sliding into autocracy has been something many countries and former democracies have confronted and grappled with. And honestly, the outcomes in those countries have been different. I would put a country like Hungary in the category of a country that is superficially a democracy. They have a media that media isn't independent, they have a school system. That school system isn't independent. They have elections but they're kind of rigged. And so that's a country that basically hollowed out its democracy by converting it into an effective autocracy. And it did so kind of through similar mechanisms as you were describing in Putin's Russia. Now there was a similar movement and a similar threat in Poland, which was also kind of the target of an autocratic takeover. But the end result in Poland was not a system of entrenched one party power.

(31:54):

It's instead a country that was able to steer itself back from the brink through a combination of a strong political opposition party that garnered enough support to stave off some of the changes that could have had more permanent effect like in Hungary or in Russia. So the way I've been thinking about it is are we going to emerge from this second Trump term as a country with considerable damage where we are going to have to repair a lot of what has been broken or are we going to emerge like Hungary where all of the civic institutions have been so hollowed out, we are no longer operating as a liberal constitutional democracy. And I don't think the answer to that is clear or for I'd say there have been some encouraging signs like the drop in approval ratings that Trump has including on issues like immigration, some Republican senators pushing back on let's say the appointment of interim US attorney Ed Martin or on Medicaid cuts or his attempted takeover of the Library of Congress. There are some encouraging signs, but it does require people to stay invested for people to continue to show off for protests and signal like Donald Trump does not have a support of the majority of the country. His agenda doesn't have a support of the majority of the country. But no, I think it's fair to say there are real questions about what we look like at the end of this and what it takes to bring us back.

Andrea Chalupa (33:26):

Absolutely. And one question I often get from Gaslit Nation listeners is what do we do if Trump declares Marshall Law?

Leah Litman (33:34):

So it depends a little bit what you mean by declaring martial law and what the

Andrea Chalupa (33:40):

2028 elections coming up, he wants to stay in. No election. It's him for life.

Leah Litman (33:46):

Right? Yeah. That is just converting the government into one who's dictats no longer have to be respected. So that is just going to require that scenario, mass resistance, organized protest, any kind of civil uncivil disobedience. But again, there are so many different variations that they could be trying. He had this executive order that basically tried to have the president assert control over elections in a way that is obviously wildly unconstitutional but would have undermined the ability of people to vote. Congress is considering the save act that too could jeopardize the ability of so many people to vote. That's not declaring martial law and canceling the 2028 election, but it is again, making our country not function like a liberal constitutional democracy. And so I just think the responses to any of these possibilities look different depending on what the specific tactic is that he tries.

Andrea Chalupa (34:50):

And the save act would require a very strict ID like a birth certificate to vote. And that obviously puts up a barrier for millions of women to vote because they've changed their names due to marriage.

Leah Litman (35:03):

Yes, exactly. And it would also require proof of citizenship and whatnot, even though you have to establish citizenship when you register to vote.

Andrea Chalupa (35:11):

So given all of these barriers that Republicans are putting up, given that there's been essentially a 40 year or so plan to get here, we've documented it on the show. We've had historians like and Nelson who wrote The Shadow Network and others to talk about the Christian nationalism Reagan revolution, how it's all been playing together to chip away at our democracy so that America's like that frog and a pot of boiling water. I know young people we're now in it's spring, it's graduation season and you're of course at the University of Michigan, you're all around young people and the stories about how depressed many young people feel about the world they're inheriting with fascism in America with the climate crisis hitting us in more apparent ways, what advice do you give young people graduating into this world?

Leah Litman (36:03):

Yeah, I would say don't count on much of anything. Don't resign yourself to this is what my career is going to look like. The world is changing and it's changing so quickly. I think you have to have some real flexibility about what any particular plan makes sense, what any particular career trajectory makes sense. That's one thing. The second thing is to encourage them to be curious and flexible in certain ways. And what I mean by that is our institutions don't have to be the way they are. And I think if you make sure you are educated to understand how they have become this way, what they used to look like before and all the choices we have for how they might look different, that is very empowering and that could provide us with a path to changing the situation that we find ourselves in. Now, what I usually tell my graduating students is just put in the work, dig in and try to make the world a better place. And those are things you are never going to regret and make sure you have the time and space to do that.

Martin Luther King Jr (37:10):

We shall overcome. No, before this victory is won, some will have to get thrown in jail some more, but we shall overcome. Don't worry about us before the victories won. Some of us will lose jobs, but we shall overcome before the victories won. Even some will have to face physical death, but if physical death is the price that some must pay to free their children from a permanent psychological death, then nothing shall be more redemptive. We shall overcome before the victories won. Some will be misunderstood and called bad names and dismissed his rabble-rousers and agitators. But we shall overcome and I'll tell you why we shall overcome because the Ark of the Moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. We shall overcome because Carlisle is right. No lie can live forever. We shall overcome because William colored Bryant is right. Truth crush to earth will rise against, we shall overcome because James Russell law is right truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne.

(38:22):

Yet that scaffold sways the future behind the damn unknown standeth God within the shadow keeping watch above his own, we shall overcome. Because the Bible is right, you shall reap what your soul we shall overcome. Deep in my heart, I do believe we shall overcome. And with this faith, we will go out and adjourn the councils of despair and bring new light into the dark chambers of pessimism, and we will be able to rise from the fatigue of despair to the buoyancy of hope, and this will be a great America. We will be the participants in making it so and so, as I leave you this evening, I say, walk together children, don't you get weary. There's a great chapter meeting.

Andrea Chalupa (39:13):

Hey there, readers watchers, thinkers since Trump came back into power in January, 2024 with Elon Musk's Nazi salutes at his inauguration. We here at Gaslit Nation launched an emergency book club carefully selecting books and films that help us build resilience, resistance, and process. Our collective trauma and rage together we're composting the shit they're flooding the zone with into action and art. So join us our book club discussions take place the last Monday of the month at 4:00 PM Eastern at the Gaslit Nation Salon. You can find the zoom link to join the events or watch the recordings on patreon.com/gaslit in May. We're reading Stry Toward Freedom, the Montgomery Story by Martin Luther King Jr. An inspiring instructional memoir by a young MLK on how he and his grassroots community won a major victory of the Civil Rights Movement, the Montgomery Bus Boycott. His memoir blends history, strategy and moral clarity, setting the tone for our focus on justice and resilience. It's an essential guide for self-management and how to work with others. Stride toward freedom has opened the Gaslit nation action guide since the very start of the show for a reason. So be sure to read it as part of our Gaslit nation Make art challenge.

(40:48):

We received this exceptional song by the artist, Mr. Madam Adam called First. They came for the Queers.

Mr. Madam Adam  (40:55):

First they came for the queers, and we said, we're here, we're queer. Get used to it. Then they started throwing punches. So we fled from the fascist fuckers and we're now interrupting your lunches and brunches say, Hey, punches. What the fuck are all you gonna do...

Andrea Chalupa (41:17):

So in June as we head into Pride month, we'll be reading The Gay Revolution by Lillian Faderman. This is a sweeping and essential history of the LGBTQ plus rights movement in the US told through the stories of the people who lived it and led it. The gay revolution reminds us of the power of small groups of people facing genocide and indifference to survive and thrive and build a better freer world for everyone. For July, here's the iconic scene from Casablanca of film starring real life, world War II refugees, famous film and stage actors whose home countries were under Nazi occupation.

(42:27):

[singing] In that spirit in July, the Gaslit Nation Book Club will make you rethink a beloved classic "Liberté France" by Antoine de Saint Exubera, A simple tale with deep truths. This little book invites us to see the world and ourselves with wonder like George Orwell's Animal Farm. It's a powerful work of art and resistance.

(42:48):

What you're hearing is Beethoven's a Passionata. Vladimir Lenin loved this piano sonata so much he claimed listening to it almost prevented him from leading a revolution. That's the premise behind the 2006 Oscar Award-winning film, the Lives of Others, which shows the power of art to confront the repression of Stassi surveillance in East Berlin today, dwarfed by the corporate surveillance of America's big tech giants. In August, we're watching the Lives of Others and pairing it with another Oscar winning film, "I'm Still Here."

(43:38):

I'm Still Here is a powerful Brazilian film about a family that faces off with Brazil's dictatorship and ultimately contributes to a better and stronger world. Despite their loss and grief, they kept building, planting seeds of hope and change.

Louis Armstrong (44:05):

Let my people go. Now, when Israel was in Egypt land. Let my people go...

Andrea Chalupa (44:27):

In 1958, Louis Armstrong released this protest song Go Down Moses based on a song sang by Harriet Tubman to signal to people that she was coming. In September, we're reading the biography Harriet, the Moses of Her People by Sarah Hopkins Bradford. This book brings Harriet Tubman's story to life in vivid detail, showing the power of song in her work as the general of the resistance to slavery. Published in 1886, the book relied heavily on interviews with Tubman herself, so Reed, the General in her own voice

(singing) (45:19):

Goodbye.

Andrea Chalupa (45:20):

Odessa is an old Yiddish song. The lyrics include the line, Odessa, mama, I love you so much. In October, we're contrasting two compelling works. Death Republic by Odessa born Ilya Kaminsky, a poetic powerhouse of resistance and total resistance by H Von Dock. A military manual was surprising, philosophical, relevance.

Reader (45:57):

Make sure I'm all getting nature. Sure. I'm a to up not makes the crap.

Andrea Chalupa (46:03):

That is a clip from Prairie Band, Potawatomi, past, present, future, A brief history. As the year winds down in November, we'll be reading Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimer, a member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, a tribe of the Great Lakes region. Her book is a lyrical blend of science, indigenous wisdom and storytelling to reconnect us with the natural world, with gratitude.

(46:34):

You are listening to Ukrainian music from a retelling of Lesja Ukrajinka's, timeless Ecofeminist play the Forest Song and that is how we close our year. The Forest Song is a stunning blend of folklore, feminism, and the spirit of the forest. During Ukraine's Revolution, Euromaidan, a giant mural of Lesja Ukrajinka was painted on Kiev's Maidon Square, framed in Molotov cocktails. The Forest Song is famous for the line: I live. I will live forever. I have a heart that does not die. And that describes our resistance work together.

(47:26):

We hope you'll join the Gaslit Nation Book Club every last Monday of the month to sign up. Be sure to join our Patreon community. Discounted annual memberships are available, and you can give the gift of membership. Join the conversation, shape the show, get bonus shows, all shows add free and more. Plus our Monday salons at 4:00 PM Eastern all on patreon.com/gaslit. Until next time, keep reading, keep questioning, and keep showing up for each other.

(48:15):

Want to join the conversation? Shape the show by becoming a member of Gaslit Nation on Patreon. Join our community of listeners for exclusive q and a sessions. Bonus shows get all episodes ad free invites to live events and more. Most importantly, connect with other listeners in our group chat and committees, planting Seeds of change. Sign up at patreon.com/gaslit. Gaslit Nation hosts resilience political salons every Monday at 4:00 PM Eastern Can't make it live. Recordings are available to our community on Patreon. Salons are your space to vent, ask questions, and connect with other listeners who also really, really hate Nazis To help Ukraine with urgently needed humanitarian aid. Join me in donating to razom for ukraine@razomforukraine.org to help refugees in conflict zones donate to Doctors Without borders@doctorswithoutborders.org. And if you want to help critically endangered orangutans already under pressure from the palm oil industry, donate to the Orangutan project@theorangutanproject.org.

(49:22):

Gaslit Nation is produced by Andrea Chalupa. Our editing wizard is Nicholas Torres and our associate producer is Carlin Dagel. If you like what we do, leave us a review on iTunes. It helps us reach more listeners and check out our Patreon. It keeps us going. Original music and Gaslit Nation is produced by David Whitehead, Martin Berg, Nick Farr, Damien Ariaga, and Carlin Daigle. Our logo design was donated to us by Hamish Smite of the New York based Firm order. Thank you so much. Hamish Gast Nation would like to thank our supporters at the producer level on Patreon and higher. Todd Dan Milo and Cubby Abby Zavos, TB 9 2 6 6 6 because we are defeating the Antichrist. Lily Wachowski Ice Bear is defiant. Sherry Escobar, Sidney Davies. Work for Better Prep for Trouble. John Scho Andal. Ellen McGirt. Larry Gusan, Ann Bertino. David East Mark. Mark, Sean Berg, Kristen Custer, Kevin Gannon, Sandra Collins, Katie Urus, James D. Leonard. Leo Chalupa. Carol Goad. Marcus j Trent, Joe Darcy, DL Sinfield, Nicole Spear Abby Road, janz, RA Sen, Sarah Gray, Diana Gallagher, Leah Campbell, Jared Lombardo, and Tanya Chalupa. Thank you all so much for your support of the show. We could not make Gaslit Nation without you.

Andrea Chalupa