Welcome to the deep dive. This is where we really
get into some of the biggest stories happening,
mostly out of Washington, but also beyond. You've
given us this great stack of sources, articles,
some research, your own notes too, which lets
us look behind the headlines in a pretty unique
way. Our mission, like always, is to pull out
the key insights for you. Basically a shortcut.
to getting up to speed, hopefully with a few
surprising facts and maybe a little bit of humor
mixed in. Today we have three main things we're
going to unpack. There's the the budget bill
saga that's still rolling, then the latest from
the Supreme Court, and finally this really fascinating
report from Pride Month, which draws an interesting
historical parallel. Yeah. And that's really
the goal for you here, isn't it? To connect these
dots. It might seem separate, but we want you
to see how they're shaping the political scene,
how they're affecting communities. We're aiming
to help you get that deeper knowledge, you know,
quickly but properly without just drowning in
information. OK, let's jump right into it. The
budget bill, Washington's favorite pastime, it
seems. Our sources are saying it's been, well,
quite the scene. The Senate's been doing this
Voterama thing, which is basically just a marathon
of votes. Yeah, nonstop amendments. And it's
full of what they call horse trading and sausage
making. Right. The usual deal making the compromises
you need to actually pass something like this
Donald Trump budget bill. And the key thing is
it could all still change. Totally fluid. And
just to give you a flavor of how specific this
gets. I mean, sometimes weirdly specific. The
sources mentioned a deal to get Senator Murkowski's
vote. Yes. The wailing one. Exactly. Raising
the deduction for wheeling expenses from, like,
$10 ,000 to $50 ,000 makes you think of Captain
Ahab, doesn't it? Huh, maybe. But what's really
insightful from the sources is this. Okay, the
bill's details might change constantly, but voter
feelings about it? Much, much stickier. Sticky
how? Well, think about it. If you're already
mad about, say, $900 billion in Medicaid cuts,
you won't suddenly be happy if it becomes only
$600 billion. Right. The core objection is still
there. Exactly. Same if you oppose millionaire
tax cuts, giving a 4 % income boost, making it
2 .5 % doesn't win you over. The fundamental
feeling persists. OK. And the polling data backs
this up. Oh, yeah. We look through a whole bunch
of polls. Quinnipiac, Wapupso's, KFF, Pew, even
Fox, all taken since late May. And what's the
main takeaway from all that polling? What are
the big trends? Two things really jump out. First,
Democrats hate this bill. I mean, really intensely
dislike it. Way more than Republicans actually
like it. So it's more motivating for opponents.
It seems that way. If this bill gets people to
the polls for the midterms, it's likely to be
disproportionately Democrats showing up angry.
OK. And the second theme? Independence. They
really don't like it either. And that's huge,
right? Because they're the swing voters. They
could decide, I don't know. Dozens of House seats,
several Senate races. That's significant. But
what about the argument that unpopular bills
sometimes become popular later, like Social Security
or the ACA? Our sources mentioned that. They
did. It's a standard counterargument. People
point to Social Security, the Civil Rights Act,
the Affordable Care Act, all faced opposition
initially, but gained support over time. So why
are the sources skeptical this time? What's different
about this budget bill? Well, a few things. First,
those older bills, they actually help a lot of
people very directly. It's less clear how this
budget bill really improves things for the people
who currently oppose it, unless, you know, it
sparked some massive economic boom, which the
sources seem pretty doubtful about. OK, that
makes sense. What else? Second, partisanship
is just way, way higher now. It's really hard
to picture Democrats who, let's face it, also
strongly dislike the former president suddenly
warming up to a bill linked to him no matter
what. Right. The political environment is different.
And third, public opinion just moves slowly.
It took years, even decades, for those other
laws to gain broad acceptance. If this bill passes
now, Republicans have less than 18 months until
the November 2026 midterms. And you can bet Democrats
will be as the source put it, screaming to the
heavens about it the whole time. So if it's unlikely
to get more popular, is there a chance it gets
even less popular? You mentioned those polls
had a lot of I don't know, responses. Exactly.
That's the potential path by which the numbers
get worse, as one source described it. All those
no opinion or I don't know folks. Yeah. The prediction
is if down the line, maybe a few months from
now, people start losing their health insurance
or maybe their kids lose SNAP benefits or if
the economy tanks. Those I don't knows suddenly
have a very strong negative opinion. Precisely.
And there's history here, too. The sources point
back to the last big Trump budget bill in 2017.
Right. What happened after that? Well, in the
2018 midterms, the GOP did gain two Senate seats,
but they lost big elsewhere, a net loss of 41
House seats and seven governorships. So there's
a track record here beyond just the current polling.
OK, let's shift gears now. from Congress to the
Supreme Court. Another term just ended. What's
the big picture assessment from the sources we
looked at? The overall take is, well, the conservative
majority kept moving things in the direction
they have been chipping away at individual rights,
boosting religious groups, expanding executive
power a bit. But interestingly, they didn't quite
take a hatchet to federal agencies the way they
did last term. So a bit less dramatic on the
agency front. Generally, yes. But the sources
flag something else as, quote, the real bad news.
And that's the court actually expanding its own
power. How are they doing that? By getting involved
much earlier in lawsuits, they're using the not
-so -emergency docket, the shadow docket, more
often. Right, making decisions without the full
arguments and briefing. Exactly. And it often
seems to signal favoritism towards certain groups,
regardless of the case merits. It also creates
hurdles for others trying to even get into court.
Plus, their kneecapping, that's the term used,
the lower court's ability to use equity powers.
Their ability to craft flexible solutions. Yeah.
It limits how district courts can respond, and
it all feeds this sort of, I'll know it when
I see it vibe, which can lead to rulings that
feel arbitrary, inconsistent. That really damages
public trust, you know? The sources suggest they're
kind of making law by pretending that they're
playing it straight. OK, so expanding their own
power. But you said they mostly held back on
cutting agency power this term. Any examples?
Yeah, mostly. There was one notable exception
with the EPA, but in other cases, like Kennedy
v. Braidwood, they upheld the structure of that
Preventive Services Task Force. In FCCV consumers'
research, they didn't bite on a big challenge
to agency delegation. They backed the FDA in
another case. But you mentioned inconsistency.
Right. Because in NRC v Texas, they said people
not directly involved in licensing can't challenge
it in court. But then in Diamond Energy v EPA,
they said fuel producers do have standing to
challenge EPA rules. So it's a bit murky how
standing works, depending on the agency, it seems.
It shows a, let's say, nuanced, maybe even contradictory
approach this term. Hmm. OK. Were there anything
the sources pointed to as maybe a positive development,
a bright spot? There was one, yeah, under rights
of individuals, a case called Martin v. U .S.
The court allowed a family to sue the government
after federal agents raided the wrong house by
mistake. Oh, I remember hearing about that. They
just left. Yeah, realized their error and just
left. No explanation. The family was traumatized.
The lower courts threw out the suit. But the
Supreme Court said no, they can proceed. So that
was seen as a small victory for individual rights
against government error. OK, let's move to the
area of rights of religious and minority groups.
There was the US v. Scrametti case involving
Tennessee's law. Right. That case upheld Tennessee's
ban on hormone therapy and puberty blockers for
transgender teenagers. The court found the law
was rationally related to a legitimate government
interest and basically said the democratic process,
you know, state legislatures, should handle this.
And then there was Medina v. Planned Parenthood.
What happened there? That one was about South
Carolina cutting Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood.
The court ruled Planned Parenthood didn't have
standing to sue the state and federal court over
this. So they didn't rule on whether the state
can actually do that? No. Crucially, they didn't
touch the merits whether a state is allowed to
defund a specific provider like that. They just
shut the door to private groups, bringing that
kind of challenge in federal court, pointing
them towards state courts or administrative processes
instead. Got it. But you said earlier there was
a case the source is considered the biggie. this
term. Ah, yes. Mahmoud v. Taylor. And the sources
had some strong words about Justice Alito's opinion
in this one, described it as full of, let me
see, gross generalizations, unsupported conclusions,
assumptions without evidence, saying it twisted
innocuous things into something insidious. OK,
strong words. What was the case about? I thought
the law around religion in schools was fairly
settled. You know, generally applicable laws
are OK. Incidental burdens don't usually violate
rights. kids might encounter ideas parents don't
like. That was the generally settled landscape.
But this case changed things. Alito and the majority
really expanded on an older case, Yoder the Amish
school attendance case. They found a substantial
interference with the religious development of
the children based on Storybooks. Storybooks.
Yeah. The sources quoted parts Alito cited, like,
on the two men's wedding day, the prince and
his shining knight would live happily ever after,
or Bobby and Jamie love each other, sometimes
they get married. The source sarcastically called
it the horror, the horror, highlighting how,
you know, innocuous these passages seem. So what
did the court actually rule? They ruled that
introducing these LGBTQ plus inclusive storybooks
and not allowing parents to opt their kids out
placed an unconstitutional burden on the parents'
religious freedom. They granted an injunction
forcing the school to give advance notice and
allow opt -outs for the books in question or
any other similar book. Any other similar book?
That sounds vague. Exactly. That's the huge issue
the sources raise. What does similar mean? Does
evolution count? Justice Sotomayor's dissent
brought up women's history books showing women
achieving things outside traditional roles. Does
that count? Wow. So uncertainty. Massive uncertainty.
Sotomayor suggested the court basically created
a new test where they'll just... know it when
they see it, leaving everyone else guessing.
The sources worry about the chilling effect this
could have everywhere. Schools might just avoid
any books or discussions with LGBTQ plus characters
to be safe. Potentially, leading to classrooms
where only straight characters and stereotypical
gender roles appear. Plus it raises serious establishment
clause questions. Can schools function if every
lesson has to avoid potentially offending someone's
religious beliefs? That's a lot to unpack. One
final point on this case. Yeah, just that the
The injunction itself is narrow. It only applies
to these specific parents, not broadly, which
fits the court's recent trend against those big
universal injunctions. Okay. Wow. Let's pivot
to our last piece. This is quite different an
on the ground report from a reader about L .A.
Pride 2025. Sounds really interesting. It really
is. Offers a different kind of insight. Our sources
gave some cool history first. Apparently, the
very first LA Pride back in 1970 was different
from other cities. They didn't just march, they
actually applied for a parade permit. For Christopher
Street West, yeah. Right. And they had to fight
for it legally, the ACLU got involved, and the
city finally issued the permit just two days
before. But it happened. Floats. Marchers. Thousands
of spectators and that set up this kind of dual
nature. LA tried has always had according to
the sources It's part celebration like Mardi
Gras, you know, we're here Yeah, IPE. And part
protest. Yeah, part defiant protest. We're here.
Take that. And the balance between those two
shifts each year, depending on the political
climate. So what was the vibe at LA Pride 2025,
according to this report? Similar mix of groups
as usual. Community organizations, businesses,
corporate groups. Pretty much, yeah. Lots of
community groups, local businesses, the corporate
employee affinity groups were very visible. OK.
But was there a noticeable shift in the mood
or focus? Yes. A key shift, the reader noted,
was with the transgender community. While the
trans pride colors were definitely there, the
emphasis from that community seemed less focused
on protests this year, surprisingly muted on
that front compared to previous years, leaning
more towards celebration. So if the protest energy
wasn't coming as strongly from there, where was
it coming from? Elected officials. The reader
said they dramatically upped their game. Instead
of just waving from convertibles, they had big
floats, blaring music floats, crawling with people
floats. I'm here. Floats. Using the parade as
a platform to vent about the national government.
Loudly expressing real anger about what's happening
nationally. And was there anything else fueling
that protest energy? Yes. Another burning issue
was anger directed at ICE. There was talk of
the war that the federal government has declared
against our local immigrant communities. You
saw groups marching with signs like, I see out
now, or immigrants are the lifeblood of our communities,
and lots of Mexican pride flags visible. And
the sources link this anger directly back to
the Trump administration's actions. Explicitly,
citing things like the demonization of our transgender
countrymen, the war being waged against our immigrant
communities, the destruction of US -eyed, and
the attacks on our institutions of higher learning.
The reader's conclusion was stark. People are
angry. Really angry. Wow. Okay, now this is where
the historical parallel comes in, right? The
marriage equality template. Exactly. It's a really
fascinating comparison. The fight for marriage
equality started with some wins, but then hit
this long losing streak. 32 straight losses on
ballot initiatives. State after state voted it
down. And the reaction was usually disappointment,
regrouping. Yeah, the sources say proponents
would kind of tuck their tails and pull back
after each loss. But then came California's Proposition
8, the 33rd initiative. What made that one different?
It banned gay marriage after it had already been
legal in California for about five months. Ah,
so something was actually taken away. Precisely.
And that, according to the sources, changed everything.
Instead of tail tucking, Prop 8 ignited unbridled
anger. Huge demonstrations erupted everywhere,
and it created this... momentum, this slingshot
forward. Including the big legal challenge. Right,
the Olsen and Boyes lawsuit that eventually went
to the Supreme Court. And just a few years after
Prop 8, marriage equality became federal law.
The crucial difference, the source argues, wasn't
just losing, it was having something taken away
after it had been granted. Okay, so the connection
to today is? The source argues, things are being
taken away by the Trump administration at a blinding
rate, and people are angry. Really angry. Prop
8 level angry. That's a powerful claim. And this
leads to the Elphaba and Glinda analogy. Yeah,
it's a great way to frame it. Think of Glinda,
the good witch. The system basically works for
her. She knows how to work within it, use subterfuge,
bend the rules subtly. She believes things can
always be worked out within the existing structure.
OK, she's the insider. Right. Then there's Elphaba.
The system is fundamentally stacked completely
against her, so she can't rely on working within
it. She has to find ways around it, circumventing
it, bending it if she can, breaking it if she
has to. She's developed instincts to know when
the system just can't be trusted. So applying
that now? The idea is for people who've generally
felt the system worked for them, the Glindas,
this current environment feels like new, scary
territory. The usual ways aren't working. But
for marginalized communities. To the Elphabas,
it's more like... been there done that here we
go again the skills needed to navigate a hostile
or broken system those skills are already honed
they're ready so the call to action is look to
the marginalized communities for inspiration
and the skills needed to prepare for the coming
slingshot forward there's this underlying belief
that once the insanity of the current administration
peaks, like Prop 8 was a peak, the anger over
everything taken away will fuel another massive
push forward, getting back what was lost and
maybe even gaining more. And the final word is
just prepare. Prepare. Wow. OK, that covered
a lot of ground today. We went from the messy
details of budget deals and what polling really
tells us to the deep shifts happening at the
Supreme Court affecting rights and the balance
of power. And then this really vivid picture
from L .A. Pride connecting current anger to
historical moments and these powerful archetypes.
And hopefully for you listening, seeing these
connections helps make sense of it all. It's
about getting beyond the headlines to the real
insights. Especially when things are changing
so fast, looking at different angles, different
histories can really light the way. So that final
thought to leave you with. building on that Elphaba
analogy. As things keep changing, maybe these
strategies honed by marginalized communities,
bending or breaking systems, become necessary
skills for a much broader group of people trying
to protect or reclaim things they value. What
does prepare actually look like for you right
now? Good question. Something to think about.
Thanks for sharing your sources and thanks for
joining us for this deep dive.