Welcome to the deep dive. If your head is spinning
from the sheer volume of political news lately,
you know, high court decisions, legislative battles
dragging on, those little hints from early elections,
well, you're definitely in the right place. Our
mission today is really to cut through all that
noise. We're going to take a deep dive into some
key developments from recent electoral vote news,
pull out the most important bits, maybe some
surprising facts, just to help you get a solid
handle on these pretty complex topics. Yeah,
and we've got quite a mix for you today. It's
really a fascinating cross -section of American
governance and electoral stuff. Our source is
touch on everything from how the Supreme Court
interprets the Constitution, which can be pretty
nuanced, to the really messy reality of making
laws in Congress, the sausage -making, as they
say, and even those subtle signals coming out
of special elections. Try and connect the dots,
show how these things that seemed separate are
actually pretty deeply intertwined. They paid
a bigger picture, really, of where power sits
in America today. OK, let's unpack this with
a really big one first. the Supreme Court's ruling
in Trump v. Casa, Inc. This just came down on
June 28th. Essentially, the court said that district
courts, generally speaking, don't have the authority
to issue injunctions that apply beyond the specific
parties in the lawsuit. They were quite clear,
saying nationwide injunctions, quote, likely
exceed the equitable authority that Congress
has granted to federal courts. And it's really
interesting how this case even got to the Supreme
Court. It came up through what's called the shadow
docket. Ah, the shadow docket. Yeah, it's this
faster, less transparent way they handle emergencies.
see appeals. Basically, three different district
courts had already issued preliminary injunctions
against the specific executive order from Donald
Trump. That order basically tried to say that
U .S.-born citizens aren't citizens anymore if
their father wasn't a citizen and their mother
entered the U .S. unlawfully or, you know, temporarily.
Trying to get around the 14th Amendment. Exactly.
Trying to put them outside the citizenship clause.
So the lower courts looked at this and said,
look, this CEO is probably unconstitutional.
And they blocked it from applying to everyone
and not just the people suing. And the Supreme
Court's take on these broader injunctions, they
didn't like them. They called them universal
injunctions. And the tone was pretty negative
pejorative. What we found in the source material
is this observation that, OK, yeah, misusing
these injunctions is a problem. They point to
Judge Cax Marek's May for Pristone injunction
as one example. Right. But the new thing, the
source argues, isn't the injunction itself, it's
this judge shopping. Judge shopping, yeah. That's
when people filing lawsuits strategically pick
a specific court, hoping to get a judge they
think will give them a really broad, maybe overreaching
order. And if you connect this back, the court
was actually, well... Pretty savvy in how it
handled this, it framed the question very narrowly.
They focused only on whether district courts
have the power to issue these nationwide preliminary
injunctions. By doing that, the actual facts
of Trump's executive order, the citizenship stuff,
suddenly became, quote, irrelevant to their legal
question. Ah, OK. So it let them, as the source
puts it, kill two birds with one stone. They
could talk about nationwide injunctions in this
abstract way. And at the same time, give Trump
what's seen as another win on his signature issue
of ridding the country of as many undesirables
as possible. So, OK, practically speaking, then,
what does this mean right now? If injunctions
only cover the specific people who sued, does
that create this weird patchwork of protection?
It could, yeah. It sounds like there's a lot
of ambiguity, especially thinking about the states
involved. Absolutely. The potential for, well,
Chaos is pretty significant. You hit the nail
on the head. Imagine only people living in states
that actually joined the lawsuit are protected
for now. So others could potentially lose their
citizenship or maybe newborns could be denied
social security numbers all while the case is
still going on. It's an administrative nightmare
obviously, but also a human one. And the analysis
we looked at points out that class action lawsuits
aren't really a great alternative here. They
just take too long. Right. Plus, think about
it. If the administration loses in a lower court,
but the ruling only affects a few people, what's
their incentive to appeal? They might just let
it stand because the impact is so limited. Yeah.
Why risk a bigger loss? Exactly. And this ruling,
it takes effect in 30 days. It sort of builds
on another order they previously stayed, one
about deporting people to third countries without
due process. It really does raise questions about
the immediate impact on real lives. That is a
terrifying prospect. It almost sounds like it's
designed to make it harder to challenge these
kinds of executive actions effectively. And this
brings us straight to Justice Sotomayor's dissent,
doesn't it? Which was incredibly strong. She
really laid out a stark concern, saying the court
basically kneecaps the judiciary's authority
to stop the executive from enforcing even the
most unconstitutional policies. Just takes away
that power from federal courts. It was a powerful
dissent. And then on the other side, you have
Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence, which is also,
frankly, eye -opening. It essentially, as the
source reads it, advises the Trump faithful to
bring more emergency applications to the Supreme
Court to get lower court orders stayed. So use
the shadow docket more. Pretty much. Our sources
call this a stunning expansion of the court's
involvement in cases at earlier stages, especially
since it's happening through that less transparent
shadow docket. It's seen by some observers as
saying the quiet part out loud, like a clear
signal the Supreme Court is ready to step in
and, quote, bail him out. OK, so speaking of
institutions and power, maybe using it, maybe
giving it away, let's shift focus now to Capitol
Hill. Congress. The legislative gears are definitely
grinding, especially with this huge mega bill,
or sometimes called the mega bill. The Senate
just voted to advance it late on a Saturday night.
It was almost entirely party line 5149. And that
vote was held open for like three hours. Yeah,
three hours. Classic sausage making, as our sources
called it. You can just picture the horse trading,
right? Senator Ron Johnson holding out until
he got changes he wanted on Medicaid rules, then
slipping his vote. Oh, absolutely. And the opposition
was solid. All the Democrats voted no. Plus two
Republicans ran Paul. who tends to vote against
most big spending anyway, and Senator Tom Tillis
from North Carolina. He was really worried, said
his state stood to lose something like $38 billion
in funding, and he was concerned about rural
hospitals closing. So this whole legislative
maneuvering, it's suddenly given a lot of power
to a couple of other Republicans, hasn't it?
Susan Collins from Maine, Lisa Murkowski from
Alaska, especially if Paul and Tillis stick to
their no votes. That's right. Collins, she's
up for reelection next year, and her polling
in Maine is... Well, pretty bad, like 14 percent
favorable, 57 percent unfavorable. That's rough.
Very rough. Especially when the Democratic governor
there, Janet Mills, has a 51 percent approval
rating. Yeah. And Murkowski, she isn't up next
year, but she's been making noise about maybe
caucusing with the Democrats. So you could definitely
see them teaming up. threatening to vote no and
using that leverage, as the source colorfully
puts it, to arrange for their states to get more
pork than Iowa produces in a decade. Probably
right. And we saw some stalling tactics too,
didn't we? Like Chuck Schumer forcing the whole
940 page bill to be read aloud. Yes, that took
16 hours. Schumer's point was, you know, Americans
deserve to know what's actually in this thing.
He framed it as tax breaks for billionaires while
ordinary families lose health care and food assistance.
We should expect a Voterama soon. That's where
Democrats just offer amendment after amendment.
They probably won't pass. But the goal is to
highlight unpopular parts of the bill and try
to sway public opinion. So looking ahead, what
happens with this bill? It still has to get through
the House, right? They either have to just accept
the Senate version. Which seems unlikely. Or
it goes to a conference committee to hammer out
a compromise between the House and Senate versions.
And who sits on that committee is crucial. Absolutely.
You get one Freedom Caucus member on there. They
could potentially blow the whole thing up. Or
if they keep him off, maybe the compromise still
fails in the full House. And there are other
sticking points like changes to the Salta cap
potentially hurting moderate Republicans from
places like New York and California. Right. But
it's also worth pointing out as bad as this bill
might seem. to opponents, our sources note it
could have been even worse. How so? Well, the
Senate parliamentarian did this thing called
the birdbath. It's basically a check to make
sure everything in the bill is strictly related
to the budget because that's required for this
kind of reconciliation process. And she stripped
out quite a few provisions, things like certain
Medicaid changes, a private school tax credit,
a ban on gender affirming care, selling off federal
lands, limits on food aid. Wow. And interestingly,
connecting back to our earlier discussion, she
also cut proposed limits on the power of federal
courts to issue those nationwide injunctions.
Ah, so that specific attempt to curb judicial
power through legislation got axed. For now,
yes. So the takeaway is the Sausage Grinder is
working at full speed. It might take days, maybe
even weeks, before we know what the final version
of this bill actually looks like. It's really
easy to get bored down in the details of, you
know, one court ruling or one bill. But when
you step back, one of the sources we looked at
points to this larger, maybe even unsettling
pattern. They're suggesting that what we're seeing
isn't necessarily Trump just grabbing power aggressively,
but maybe the other two branches, Congress and
the judiciary, kind of just handing it to him,
like on a golden platter. It's a really compelling
observation, and frankly, a bit alarming when
you think about it. Let's look at some examples
the source gives. Tariffs, for instance. The
Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, clearly gives
Congress the power to lay and collect taxes,
duties, impostions, excises. Right, the power
of the purse. Exactly. But Congress didn't really
assert that power to stop Trump's tariffs. Similarly,
Congress has the power to declare war, but it
wasn't really used to check or condemn actions
regarding Iran. Emergency powers. Congress never
really clarified what counts as an invasion,
which basically lets the president declare almost
anything in emergency. Seating power there, too.
Yeah. And even states powers seem to have been
given away. Congress didn't clarify who controls
the National Guard in certain situations, even
though it's normally under state command. And
then maybe the starkest example is back to the
Supreme Court and birthright citizenship. The
source argues the court caved. Instead of just
striking down the executive order as obviously
unconstitutional right instead of doing that
They essentially said courts can't fully enforce
the Constitution Against the executive in this
way effectively ceding its power to the executive
branch voluntarily The source feels very strongly
here saying the court could have just struck
down the EO 9d With a really sharp opinion saying
look we the Supreme Court decide what the Constitution
means not the president That is a pretty damning
assessment, this idea of a paucity of profiles
and courage, as the source puts it. But, I mean,
is it really voluntary seeding or could there
be some strategy behind it? Maybe the other branches
are just choosing battles, avoiding direct fights
for political reasons. That's a fair question.
Is it strategy or abdication? Either way, the
picture painted is one where maybe this expansion
of presidential power didn't just happen because
the executive was aggressive, but because the
other branches didn't push back hard enough,
they sort of let it happen. And the source makes
this provocative point that Republicans may be
expecting, in the source's words, a 1 ,000 -year
rife, aren't thinking about what happens if the
other party gets control and uses these newly
expanded executive powers. It's a risk. Right.
Setting precedents that could be used against
you later. seems to be overlooked in the heat
of the moment. OK, so from the big picture power
dynamics in Washington, let's shift now and try
to read the electoral tea leaves a bit. What
are the early signs telling us about future elections?
First up. Tom Tillis, his surprise retirement
announcement for 2026. This came even while Trump
was, as the source said, pummeling him over his
vote against the MAGA bill. Yeah, that was unexpected.
And the consequences are pretty significant.
First, now that he can't be primaried by a Trump
-backed challenger, he's basically free to vote
based on what his constituents want. Trump doesn't
have much leverage over him anymore. Interesting.
But maybe more importantly. Holding that North
Carolina Senate seat in 2026 just got a lot harder
for Republicans. It's now an open seat. And former
Governor Roy Cooper, the Democrat, might jump
in. He's been playing it cool, but yeah. Winning
an open seat in a swing state like North Carolina,
that looks much more doable now. Cooper's a seasoned
politician. He knows the kind of money that would
pour in. The source says finance will not be
a problem. And for the Republicans? Well, the
primary field is wide open now. That could mean
a big messy primary and potentially what they
call a candidate quality problem if maybe the
Trumpiest, most extreme candidate wins the nomination.
That can be tough in a general election. Right.
And speaking of potentially tough Senate races
for Republicans, let's look at Susan Collins
again in Maine. Her unpopularity is really stark.
He really is. That new polling. Only 14 percent
favorable, 57 percent unfavorable. And Governor
Janet Mills, the Democrat, sitting at 51 percent
approval, Mills is term limited as governor.
She hasn't said she'll run against Collins. But
with numbers like that, you got to think Democrats
will move heaven and earth to try and recruit
her. That looks like a prime pickup opportunity.
Definitely one to watch. Now, on a slightly different
front, but still looking ahead, consider Governor
Gavin Newsom in California. Yes, the lawsuit
against Fox News. Exactly. Suing them for $787
million, claiming defamation by Jesse Waters.
This looks like a very clear signal he's gearing
up for a 2028 presidential run. And he's pretty
open about the strategy, right? Oh, yeah. He's
basically saying he's using a tactic Trump has
used, and he even tied the dollar amount directly
to the Dominion settlement, the $787 .5 million.
He said, quote, if Fox News wants to lie to the
American people on Donald Trump's behalf, it
should face consequences. Now, legally, it's
tough for him, isn't it? As a public figure,
he has to prove actual malice. That's a high
bar. Show they knew it was false or just didn't
care if it was true or false. Much higher bar
than Dominion faced, yes. But the source suggests
his real goal might not be winning in a court
of law. It's the court of public opinion. Exactly.
Rallying Democrats, getting his name out there,
taking the fight to Fox News. We should probably
expect, as the source says, more stunts like
this from Newsom leading up to 2028. OK, let's
talk special elections. We're seeing this interesting
dynamic play out sometimes. Youth versus the
establishment. Yeah, popping up. Now, Zoran Alamdani's
win in the NYC mayoral primary had some unique
local factors. Maybe not the best example. But
Arizona's special election in AZ -07, that's
coming up July 15th, looks like a clearer test
case. Right. That's the seat that opened up after
Representative Roel Grijalva passed away. It's
a heavily Latino district, somewhat poor. And
the candidates are really distinct. On the establishment
side, you have Adelita Grijalva. She's 54, the
former congressman's daughter. Lots of political
experience. Tucson school board for years. Quima
County Board of Supervisors. Though she had to
resign because of a resigned run law. Seeing
his very establishment, maybe even a nepo baby,
as the source puts it. And then the youth candidate
is Deja Fox. She's only 25, Philippine -American,
grew up in public housing, first in her family
to go to college, went to Columbia. She's a political
activist, even spoke at the 2024 Democratic Convention
about abortion rights. A real Gen Z candidate
in what is a relatively young state. So the question
this race poses really for you, the listener,
to think about is, will generational change do
the job when the older candidate is a Fairly
standard politician with no obvious flaws. Yeah,
it's not like Rihalva has major scandals or anything.
Exactly. And since it's a D plus 13 district,
whoever wins this Democratic primary is almost
certainly going to Congress. It's different from,
say, the VA 11 primary where James Walkinshaw
won. He's 42, not exactly ancient. And that race
seemed more about his experience as the previous
congressman's chief of staff, less about just
age. OK, so let's zoom out again and really try
to read those tea leaves from all the special
election data we've seen this year, thinking
about the 2026 midterms. Special elections, they're
always unique, special, as the name implies.
But historically, they often do give us some
clues about broader trends. They can, yeah. And
the data so far this cycle is pretty compelling.
Since January 20th, 2025, there have been 31
special elections, and in 27 of them, Democrats
performed better than Joe Biden. Well, technically
Kamala Harris did in those same districts in
2024. 27 out of 31. That's a strong trend. It
is. And it holds across different kinds of places.
In Trumpy states, Democrats ran ahead of Harris's
2024 numbers. Same in closer states, even in
solid blue states. There was that wild New York
State Senate race example. Yeah, the 22nd District
moved something like 94 points towards the Democrats,
apparently due to shifts in Orthodox Jewish voting
patterns. And even in a couple of Florida House
races that Republicans won, the Democrats still
did much better than Harris did in 2024. OK,
but how predictive is this, really? I remember
hearing special elections weren't great predictors
for 2024 itself. That's true. Historically, they
were pretty good for 2018, 2020, 2022 House results.
But 2024 was different. Our sources point to
unusual factors. Biden dropping out late, Trump
maybe turning out low propensity voters who don't
usually show up for specials. So 2024 might have
been the exception, not the rule. It's possible.
So looking at this year's specials with that
D plus 13 on average swing towards Democrats
compared to 2024, plus what the sources see is
the increasing unpopularity of the Republicans.
Well, it gives Democrats some reason for optimism
in 2026. One more potential indicator. Yeah,
one more, though it's still early days. The Virginia
gubernatorial election this November. Historically,
it's got a decent track record, maybe a 70 percent
prediction rate for the following midterms. And
the early polling there. A recent Roanoke College
poll. shows Representative Abigail Spanberger,
the Democrat, leading Lieutenant Governor Winsome
Earl Sears, the Republican, pretty comfortably
43 to 26 percent. So Spanberger looks like the
favorite right now. She does. And if she wins,
particularly if she wins comfortably, that would
be seen as another hint about 2026. So we've
covered a lot of ground today. We took that deep
dive into, well, All these interconnected stories,
the judiciary's power, Congress being gridlocked,
executive actions, those little signals from
voters in special elections, it's really clear
how they all weave together to shape the political
landscape. Yeah, and understanding these different
threads, how they connect, really lets you see
the bigger picture beyond just daily headlines,
doesn't it? You know, how the Supreme Court sees
its own power, how Congress uses its authority
or maybe gives it away, and how these early election
results might hint at what's coming next. It
all adds up to a much richer understanding of
America. governance right now. It really does
and this raises I think a really important question
to leave you with. What are the long -term consequences
for the actual balance of power in the US when
one branch, the executive, seems to be growing
stronger not just because it's being aggressive,
but maybe because the other branches, Congress
and the judiciary, are voluntarily ceding their
own authority? As we see these trends potentially
continue and what role does public awareness,
public engagement play in maybe influencing these
big constitutional shifts, especially as we're
already looking ahead to the really crucial elections
in 2026 and 2028? things to think about.