time and period where, quote, there was a time. and we can t let them go back, take us back there. let me get a quick reaction to what senator ted cruz said on his podcast this week, predicting that republicans would try to impeach president biden if they retake the house in the midterms. take a listen to this. whether it s justified or not, the democrats weaponized impeachment. they used it for partisan purposes to go after trump because they disagreed with him. and up with of the rell disadvantages of doing that, the more you weaponize and turn it into a partisan cudgel, you know, what s good for the goose is good for the garpd. just a quick response to that if you have one. oh, just sad that ted cruz is using his position in the senate to try to appeal to radical crazy republicans, similar to the people that incharaded the capitol on january the 6th. i think it s just sad. so how far the tradition of
the vote on filibusters for court appointments was a good thing. i think you have to be careful what you wish for because you just might get it. and i do think that it opened the door for mitch mcconnell to be able to do it for donald trump and his three supreme court justice appointments, which all of whom i supported, but i have an idea that not everyone on the panel did. well, to that point, to sort of zoom out for a second, i think one of the things about the evolution and reid was key of this, of sort of moving towards majority vote in the senate, this idea that, like, well, what s good for the goose is good for the gander. that is true. but that s how democracies work. we ve got there s 50 states in the union that function without i mean, i think there s like three or four that have supermajority requirements for some stuff, and most of them function with bicameral systems, majority threshold, and somehow
what s good for the goose is good for the gander is that is true, but it s also like that s the way democracies work. i mean we ve got you know, there s 50 states in the union that function without i think there s three or four that have super majority requirements for some stuff, but most of them just function with bicameral systems, majority threshold and somehow they manage. this idea this is sacrosanct is largely kind of a creation of the last 60 or 70 years. and i think if you have a commitment to small d democracy as i know you do, there s really compelling reasons to look to get rid of that. let me go to anon first. i think part of loving an institution is having an honest relationship with it the same
weapons, ghost gun kits, we re going to come after you with lawsuits. well, it s brilliant and it makes the point that the supreme court absolutely refused to do what it should have done, which is to strike down the decision that allowed sb 8, through which texas gave vigilantes the ability to sue anyone who helps a woman get an abortion. justice sotomayor helped make the case over and over again how bad that action was for the supreme court. what s good for the goose is good for the gander and i
companies or require comptrollers at the state level, excuse me, to create and maintain a list of financial companies which are boycotting energy companies. and so this is voted on unanimously and would require, i think, a pretty huge administrative lift for pretty under funded offices in a lot of these states, which, you know, these offices don t have a ton of resources to do something like this but they would be required to divest from companies. so pension funds, right, state pension funds would be required to take out any holders if bank of america got too woke and decided they were going to divest and, you know, take on the fossil fuel industry, which they haven t. they haven t. what s fascinating is there s a what s good for the goose is good for the gander turn about. the climate movement has been putting pressure on firms on pension funds to divest from fossil fuels, oil and gas. the teachers union of california because they see that as a lever