Episode 41 - Roe vs. Wade & Gun Violence

Welcome to the top Texas Lawyers podcast. This podcast is brought to you by the law firm Abercrombie and Sanchez PLLC. You can find us on the internet at www.www.aswlawoffice.com or by calling 1-888-981-7509. Your hosts are Bryan Abercrombie and Samuel Sanchez. Bryan has been practicing law for 18 years, and he’s board certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in the area of Family Law. Sam has been practicing for 13 years, is licensed in both Texas and Florida, and is a Certified Mediator. This podcast is for informational purposes only, and represent the opinions of the hosts. It’s not designed to provide legal advice for your particular legal matter, and it should not replace the advice of competent counsel. Welcome. We hope you enjoy the top Texas Lawyers podcast.

Good afternoon and welcome to the Top Texas Lawyers Podcast. We are back after somewhat of a long hiatus. With me is, of course, the Superman himself, Sam Sanchez. How you doing, Sam?

Not too bad. The Robin to your Batman.

And with us, as we’ve teased many months ago, we have Nida Wood. Thank you for joining us.

Thank you.

Wonder Woman on the set.

By far the smartest of the three of us, with an IQ that doubles both me and Sam put together.

Agreed. Agreed.

I don’t even know where to begin now. It’s been a while since we talked and there’s been a lot of stuff that’s happened since we’ve talked. We we can go macro or more more tailored if you want. I don’t know where we were with Johnny and Amber when we when we last left off. I think we were obviously pre-verdict.

Yeah, we were following it. We hadn’t really heard what was going to happen. Everybody was waiting with bated breath to figure out who was going to pay who.

Well, Amber. Ouch. See, not only lost her shirt, but she also lost her acting career, I think, too, as a result of all of the shenanigans.

Yeah. I don’t know that public opinion is really going to help either one of them. I don’t know that either one of them has a career much left in film after that. But the funnier thing will be to see if Johnny ever sees a dollar. Any any bets on that one?

No, I doubt it.

And not going to see anything, probably. But he seems to be doing much better in the public than she seems to be doing with his career prospects and progress moving forward.

Is Johnny going to get his likeness back on the Pirates of the Caribbean ride at Disneyland? That’s the real question. Is he going to get his name or his picture on the big pirate at the end of the Pirates of the Caribbean? Right. Because, you know, when they took that down, that was that was a major blow.

I think once Disney came out and said, you know, he’ll never appear in another one of the franchise movies and they have like three in the works, which is crazy. How much more could you take? Pirates and zombies. But yeah, I think I’m done with that franchise.

I get why he did it. Just from a career standpoint, I mean, obviously with the MeToo movement and the harassment and the violence and the stuff like that, Hollywood’s on, like, massive edge for, you know. I mean, if you want my personal opinion, I think Hollywood’s had a kind of a condoning look the other way attitude towards domestic violence and different things that have gone on for a number of years. So then whenever it got exposed, I think they went hyper reactionary in the opposite direction. And then they they started canceling people that maybe haven’t had their issue adjudicated yet and maybe weren’t guilty. So that’s what happened to Johnny Depp. I think he got thrown off of the the oh, gosh, the J.K. Rowling movie with the Dumbledore movie. He got thrown out of that. He lost millions of dollars on that one.

I agree. I think that’s what happened. But even if they want him back, I don’t think he would be wanting to go back at this point after what happened to him.

And to this point, I think that the street cred that he did pick up was one. He’s a much more sympathetic character then I think before he went into the trial, before he went into the trial, he had kind of this whole hated he he’s a wife beater. He’s weird. And he is weird, let’s just be frank. But he had that portion. And I think the recordings, the testimony he was able to show, maybe I wasn’t innocent, but I was a victim at times where you guys were just trying to paint me with one colored paint brush. And so to this point in the court of PR, it was really a stroke of genius because he was dead. I think his career was dead. I think he was really not moving forward and he was able to revive, at least keep his heart’s beating. Right. So where he goes and what direction will be interesting, but he’s at least regained some footing.

I think he came off as a normal person, you know, admitting his mistakes and understanding and explaining he wasn’t perfect. But at the same time, he also didn’t deserve maybe what had happened to him. Unlike Amber, who just seems like she’s blame shifting the entire time seemed kind of unrealistic, the way her controversial stories are being displayed and coming out during direct examination.

So Johnny’s reputation is salvaged, and Amber is known as a lady who poops in the bed. Right. I guess that’s that’s where we ended. Right. And her career, for lack of a better word, is probably that’s probably done. I think she lost the role on the sequel to Aquaman or something like that. I don’t think she’s going to be doing that anymore. And I think she’s probably toast at this point as far as Hollywood goes.

Yeah, I would agree.

I agree.

Now she’s the butt of the psychotic ex-wife jokes. Right. But anyway. Okay, so do we want to talk about our favorite pop star, Sam?

Can we NOT? We can’t pass her over.

So we can’t go an episode without talking about our girl Britney.

I mean, if it’s not for naked Instagrams and running off to do crazy things, like what else is there to talk about?

Both running off AND doing naked Instagrams. So she’s now graduated from just the naked Instagrams to going on vacation AND doing naked Instagrams. So I got the hint about Britney living her best life.

Well, the thing that I was really impressed with was, you know, they talked a lot about was she going to now that she’s free of the guardianship, was she going to go back out on tour or is she going back into the studio? Is she going to sign up to, do, you know, a stint in Vegas? And apparently it’s all of those. It’s all of those. So, you know, now that the leash is off, she feels like, hey, let’s turn the spigot back on. Because I’m sure she spent a lot of money between paying for everybody’s attorney’s fees and the honeymoon she’s going to need to get back to work.

I would think that comeback tour would easily for her would be $50 or $75 million that she’d get out of that if she decided to book ten or twenty cities. I bet you she could pull $50 or $75 million out of it. I mean, everybody would go to see her. Everybody would see her. I’d go to see her.

I did go see her and she’s actually really good. When I was in Vegas several years ago. So I guess it’s all about what she wants to do and her individuality and what she wants to pursue as not being under a guardianship anymore.

Yeah, like your point. I mean, I think she’s been cooped up for so long, she couldn’t do anything she missed, like the whole front side of the phenomenon of social media. And I think she’s just making up for lost time, quite frankly.

But you know, the funny thing with Britney to me is that she really has embraced social media, but she does like the same four things she figured out really quickly, like, hey, people love to watch me twirl around. People love to see me naked. People love to see me toss my hair. If I do those three things and just kind of mix it up depending on the day, I’ll just keep adding this, this, this Instagram presence or whatever, this TikTok presence, whoever it is. But I agree. I think that she’s actually a tremendous performer. It would be interesting to see like now the legal dynamic, because one of the things that I think that really is that common thread that I just want to touch on between Johnny Depp and his legal troubles and Britney and her legal troubles is the legal teams that got these people out of the messes. I’m going to tell you what, like there are some brilliant lawyers that came into both of those camps that did some phenomenal work. And in Johnny’s case, just to back step half his lawyer, one, he won the Hot Lawyer Award. She came in and she smiled and she was really not the best moralist.

But I will tell you, like she presented very well, she was good on camera. So whoever decided to put her in the lead, brilliant lawyering. Second on Britney’s case, the guy who came in and said, hey, look, all the lawyers that you’ve had in the past really sucked. I’m going to come in late in the game, but I’m going to fix it for you. He’s done an amazing job. Now, whether or not she’s surrounded herself with that type of legal entourage to protect her from things going forward, it’s going to be interesting because, you know, every once in a while she still does some crazy things. Before now, when she was in the guardianship, people would look at her and be like, oh, you need to still be in the guardianship. Look at all the stuff you’re doing. And now it’s just like, oh, that’s just eclectic Britney, you know? So it’s just this interesting shift that that lawyers have figured out how to sway this court of public opinion to really kind of mold somebody into a different person than who they were before, even though they’re the exact same person really with the same behaviors. Yeah.

And it’s just the lawyering. It’s the PR team that went along with the lawyering. I think that really rehabbed these images.

Definitely. And I think it’s a lot about preparation. I mean, Camille Vasquez had some exhibit or some kind of video or some kind of clip for every single question she would ask. Amber, just, you know, catch her in a lie, show what really happened, show the picture that she wanted to show the jury and to the public regarding her story and what they want to wanted to present regarding Johnny Depp’s case. So I think preparation is very important.

Yeah, I would agree, which takes us into one of the things that  we’re going to talk about. Obviously, there’s been some landmark legal decisions since the last time we were all together talking that we want to touch on. But I think that’s another piece of what we’re seeing. You know, if you talk about like legal strategy and true trial strategy and whether it’s if you’re you’re doing an oral, you know, to the Court of Appeals or you’re in front of a trial court, like that preparation and kind of the story that you’re telling is really going to determine the outcome. In a lot of cases. It’s not always the facts that you present or the facts that you get in. It’s the way you tell the story with the facts that you do have and that you do get to present. And so I think those both of those cases are very highlight real moments for those people in their careers as far as doing a good job.

I agree.


Okay. So we’ll hit the the not controversial topic of the landmark Supreme Court decision of Roe versus Wade being overturned, a 50 year precedent being overturned — what that means and what that doesn’t mean. I know everyone thinks it’s the return of I don’t know, the return of the return of the end of the world or the apocalypse or whatever. I mean, the real crux of the decision that most people seem to be missing is that the Supreme Court makes a ruling, the overturning of the 1972 decision of Roe versus Wade. In that ruling, they basically state that it’s not up to the federal government to make a make a law dealing with this particular issue. And we thought it was an overreach when they did it in 1972. So we’re turning this over to the states to let each state decide how they want to handle their abortion law. So if you’re in California, you’re going to have a different law in Kansas or Texas or wherever. And I know that’s a huge issue for people. And I know that it’s highly controversial. You know, it’s much more unique than any other other controversial social decision, because you’re talking about a human life either way, whether it’s the mother or the baby, you’re talking about a human life either way and you’re talking about a person’s rights either way.

So and that’s what makes it super unique versus other types of social cases that can go before the Supreme Court. But in essence, the crux of the decision is they didn’t even say Congress couldn’t make a law. They just basically said that the Supreme Court overreached in making that original determination. And it has to go back to the states for each case, to each state to make its own determination, which, interestingly enough, was Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s warning. She did an interview once before she died and talked about how if Roe was going to get overturned, that’s the that’s the kind of slippery slope it was on because of the way it was, the way it was handled and whether it was or was not a judicial overreach. So I hear so many people just out there talking about it being a precedent and a precedent and a precedent. You don’t overturn precedents and this and that. Well, the Supreme Court overturns precedents all the time, 219 times I think they’ve overturned a precedent. I mean, the segregation decisions were 50 year legal precedents, and nobody disputes that those shouldn’t have been overturned. So all that said, take more care in electing your state representatives or whoever you have deciding your state law because that’s who’s going to make your abortion decisions for now on.

That’s it. Lots of feelings and thoughts on that. It’s I guess from a from a woman’s perspective, it’s difficult because you have your your moral thoughts on what you think is right and what you think is wrong with respect to a fetus and what you think you should do or not do when it comes to a fetus and what’s okay and what’s not okay morally and as a decision for your family. So, you know, that’s that’s one thing. But then on the other flip side, you know, it’s I don’t think it’s up to a government to decide what you should be doing or not be doing with what may be best for your family, for your own body, for a child. I mean, I feel like there’s lots of situations where it’s maybe maybe you’re extremely excited to have a baby. Something goes wrong. Maybe it’s not born with any vital organs. And at that point, what do you do? And then you’re stuck in this horrible position where you’re potentially in a red state like we are and the laws are that you can’t do anything about it. You’re in medical danger and you can’t do anything about it. So it’s just. Very difficult, I guess.

Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, Nida, Nida touches on a lot of things. So to you, Bryan, first of all, to say that the court reverses precedent a lot, I think is an overreach.

They’ve done it. In the course of the entire history of the Supreme Court in the modern era, they haven’t done it that often. They’ve done it maybe four times. And the problem that this presents, I think, for a lot of people is when you’re talking about something that’s an established, fundamental right, it’d be like the Supreme Court saying, hey, by the way, slavery is okay. We’ve made a mistake about that because we overreached our authority to be able to determine that that’s a fundamental right. And that’s the landmark that that that’s what I think has everybody so fired up. And I do agree with you, Bryan. I think that was Ginsburg’s warning to say like, hey, if this is the argument, then you can apply that logic that legal reasoning to anything that the court has done beyond the purview of what the government has done. And these are that’s an interesting argument to me. I think as an attorney, when you sit down and you think about it and you say, well, so they overturned it, the Congress can act and they can. But what I think that does is it sets them up for a fight. Again, on the exact same issue. You’re going to have 50 states with 50 different rules that vary from nothing to everything. And so when you talk about is it in the heart of that argument for me is it wrong?

I apologize. I stand corrected. There’s only been 145 reversals, not 219. So I apologize. Okay. All right. I don’t want to hear the the commentary that we’re going to get from this that, oh, you got your facts wrong.

So your email is going to blow up, man. I just want you to know. But those are the things that I do think that that the court wrestles with. And it’s just been such a long time for the court to kind of deal with. They’ve been on the outskirts of this issue for such a long time, but they’ve been on the outskirts of a lot of these kinds of issues. You know, and I think that you’re right, Bryan, you know, the right to vote is a very powerful thing that a people I think as a country, we really take for granted. I think the only time most people go out to vote is when it’s a presidential election or maybe when there’s a really heated governor’s race. For the most part, the people who are actually passing fundamental laws and ordinances that govern our everyday lives, you know, very few people vote in those elections. And if they do, they don’t know who the hell they are.

Yeah, they look at the ballot better and say, you know, how many people can name their state representative or state senator? I mean, for their for that, you know, they can name the they can probably name their their US House member or their senator and probably the governor. But do they even know who the who the local officials are?

Well, and even if they could name him, could they name what their politics are? Could they name how they stand on certain issues? No way. No way. And that’s what really what the court is kind of I think trying to tell the people is to say, if you want it, fine, go get it, go make it happen. But we did it way back in and we shouldn’t have. And is that right? I think that I am not I’ve never been for somebody on the bench to legislate. I feel like the checks and balances of the system that we set up is very important. And so when the court does overreach, I feel like it’s a it’s detrimental to the overall level of democracy that the United States enjoys. However, I think there are times where that’s the whole reason the court is there, is to protect some inalienable rights that everyone should have. Is this one that women should have? I’m a proponent of no one should be able to tell me what to do with my body, period. That’s just how I feel. And I think women should have the same right now, whether or not that’s going to be where you live. You know, you can’t in Texas, but you can in Massachusetts. I think there’s just inherent craziness to that logic. And to think that that’s going to make things better or can we fix it? Well, hell, we can’t agree on whether or not the election actually happened correctly. You know, for the president. So are we going to be able to determine something like that? I don’t know. It’s just going to it’s going to be interesting. The future holds a lot of pitfalls and bear traps that we’re going to see if we can avoid.

Well, I feel like I’m the odd man out in this particular situation because I’m a proponent of. I agree. Your body is your body. You have the right to do whatever you want with it. But what about that other body that’s inside of you that has that should have some rights, should have some you know, I think Ronald Reagan said that it wasn’t you know, nobody who’s ever been aborted is in favor of abortion. So which is simple logic. But what it is so and look to his point, I 100% agree with you. There’s all kinds of complications and things like that that people have to deal with and horrible situations. But I mean, pregnancy crisis centers, for example, they outnumber abortion clinics 3 to 1. And there’s there’s there’s options for people. There’s things like that. I think I think if you’re talking about an inalienable right and a fundamental right of of a human being, the right to life is probably the first one. So the baby didn’t ask to be conceived. The baby didn’t ask to be brought into this world. Your actions did that. And so, you know, obviously, I’m okay with exceptions for rape and incest and things like that. But I mean, I have two adopted children. I put my money where my mouth is, where this is concerned. So my my position is always going to be.

And 100% on. You know, that’s when I was talking about moral moral decision than morally where you stand is one thing and 100% I agree with you. But at the same time, I don’t think there are any exceptions for those other instances. Rape or what if what if you didn’t do anything? And what if you your body just miscarried and now you can’t even get medication to help safely abort the baby. This is the fetus. This isn’t even living. And you have to undergo unsafe procedures, travel to a different state to even take care of that which, you know, that’s the issue, is that with this with this type of policy, who knows when these exceptions are going to come into place or if they are going to come into play into place. And that’s the issue that I guess I have with it.

Sure. And that’s completely understandable. I mean, those are obviously reasonable discussions. I think I think where this thing got out of whack, I think honestly, my view of the abortion the whole abortion debate has been I think there was this kind of area that we were in for probably like about 20 years, maybe after the Planned Parenthood versus Casey case, where everybody was kind of okay with it or could live with it when it was first trimester, that sort of thing, whenever there was some limitations on it. I think where everything went off the rails, I think whenever they started doing the abortions up to birth, I think there’s a proposal in California that you can’t do it, that you could theoretically kill your child after it’s born and they can’t do anything about it. I think those kinds of quote unquote choice abortion and partial birth abortion and abortions, that’s a very, very late term, which everyone’s like, oh, they’re rare, they’re rare. They’re rare. But they’re they’re still available under law. I mean, when you’re talking about a viable human life, like I said, I think the overreach is what caused this reaction, quite frankly. I think it was kind of the left that did it, because I think the overreach on on pushing this as far as they could possibly push it, I think caused the reaction in the opposite direction. I think, like I said, for years and years and years, the. First trimester, first second trimester kind of thing was kind of where everybody kind of lived and everybody just kind of accepted it. And then, you know, the push and push and push all the way up to the moment of the moment of birth or 3 hours before birth or abortion on demand at any time that I think New York passed that law and I think California passed that law. And after that, I think it really got I think it got the everybody. Everybody thinking about what what that actually entails and what that looks like.

So we’re definitely a country of pendulums, right? We like to. Right. And we very rarely swing very or stay long in the middle. I agree with you, Brian. The thing that I think is going to really, you know, that has invigorated this argument across that line even further is states criminalizing support of this. So a state saying, hey, if you leave from my state and you go to another state to have this done and we find out about it or somebody helps you, then we’re criminalizing that support. And that’s what I’m talking about when I say that a free for all within the country in relation.

To that actually happened because it’s such a personal decision either way. You know.

I mean, but it’s on the books. I guarantee you I guarantee you that in a conservative state, a deep red state, there will be a criminal. Of I don’t think there’s no way that somebody crafts that law and says, hey, I’m going to put it on the books and then say, but I’m not really ever going to use it. It’s just like a gun that I keep in my pocket. It’s loaded, but I’m never going to pull it out pointed and try to shoot it. That’s just not going to happen. That’s not the way we deal with these types of issues in states like that. And it doesn’t matter. It could be the left side. You’re to your point, Bryan, you’re saying, hey, what inspired these types of reactions? This law, this ruling from the court was these states out there saying it can happen at this later point in time, right before birth, that is killing somebody. Somebody is actually obviously alive because if they were medically able to be born at that time, they would survive. So that absolutely is taking somebody’s life. Now, we’re switching it the other way and saying, well, they’ll never prosecute this. No way. They’re absolutely going to utilize the law. Because what I’m talking about, that pendulum of of legality that we’re using right now, it’s absolutely going to be something that we’re going to end up talking about through this, you know, obviously on the podcast. But we’re absolutely going to see it play out in the courtroom for sure. No, no doubt.

Well, there’s already lawsuits filed over over various states, abortion laws. How restrictive or less restrictive they are. I think Kansas had a vote last night where they were on their constitution. Was the decision to allow or disallow abortion. They allowed it by a fairly substantial margin. I’m not sure exactly what the parameters of the amendment were, but whether that was all abortions are illegal or just certain ones, life of the mother exceptions, those sorts of things. But it won, but obviously it won the right to abort the right to abort your child one pretty substantially in Kansas last night. So, I mean, every state’s going to be different, but every law that I’ve seen about prosecuting abortion providers and things has always been the provider. It hasn’t been the mother, which a lot of these mothers I mean, a lot of the pro-life folks will tell you that a lot of these mothers, you know, they feel like they’re victims in this whole process, too, because, you know, the abortion industry was big business. I mean, for Planned Parenthood, it’s big business. Billions of dollars. And there’s no there’s no way of getting around that.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s laws coming down the road like Sam says about. Penalizing mothers that might want to travel out of Texas to maybe a different state that is allowing them to take care of any issue that they might have at some point in the future.

What do you what do you guys think about the Dick’s Sporting Goods was a big one. And there was a couple of more companies, a bunch of them, actually, that were going to pay your pay your your travel expenses and everything to go to another state to get an abortion. My thought on that is, I hope these employees bleed them dry. I hope they come in with a positive pregnancy test once every three months and take their 4 to $5000 vacations to California or Hawaii and bleed them dry. I think that would serve them right for stepping into this this minefield. So bleed them dry, you know, come in with a positive pregnancy test every three months. Take your time off. Because, I mean, the cynical side of me would say, yeah, they’d rather pay $4,000 for an abortion than pay for maternity leave. Right. Because it’s a lot more expensive for for an employee to go on a maternity leave than it would be to go have a procedure done. I mean, that’s cynical, but I mean, you know, you hope they’re they’re trying to they’re trying to err on the side of, you know, social justice and protecting the woman’s right. But my my advice to these employees would be bleed them dry. Dick’s Sporting Goods bleed them dry.


Brian, love it. Yeah, I think that.

Was when I saw that was that they would want employees to work there for their good health insurance benefits and other benefits as opposed to bleeding them dry.

Think about if you could get if you could get a two or three vacations for 4000 bucks to Hawaii every year, why wouldn’t you do it? I mean, you could probably get you could probably theoretically get away with, you know, a positive pregnancy test, what, three or four times in a year? You know.

Brian, Brian wants us to turn into The Handmaid’s Tale and he’s wanting to like the country divided.

So whatever. Now, I don’t either. I just I just think I think that’s silliness. I mean, honestly, I think that’s silliness. I mean, people people have choices. People make choices. People make choices in life. They make choices to have children or engage in activity that has children. And look on the other side of that coin, I’m okay with them. If there’s a way we can configure in our society right now to have dads pay child support before children are born, if it can be confirmed that they’re the father, I’m totally fine with that, too. I’m totally fine with, you know, if you if obviously if it takes two people to create a child and. That, you know, that it comes down on the responsibility on.

In vitro DNA testing. I mean, they do it.

I mean, you can.

Do the by court order. Come on, brother.

Like we do. They do and they do. They do DNA testing. I’m not going to say they do it all the time, but it can be done in utero. But I mean, even if they get the money afterward, you know, I’m okay with that, too, if they retroactively apply it.

So but let me ask you this. Let’s flip that. So I’m dad. She’s like, you’re not dad. I said, I feel like I’m dad. I want to have a test. She’s like, You can’t have a test. I’m going to go get a court order. That entitles me to a test because I’m willing to pay support. Then you go through the whole process. I mean, do you see them saying so? Like, that’s the that’s the slope that we’re on in relation to a woman’s body? I don’t know that it’s right. I have a daughter, I have sisters, a wife, obviously, versus.

Well, I would just tell.

You, like if somebody came up in my and said, hey, you know what? Yeah, we had consensual sex. I think she’s pregnant. I want to make sure that she won. There’s a temporary restraining order against her traveling outside of the state so that she can’t have an abortion or take any kind of medication, too. I want as soon as possible, reasonably possible. I want an in-vitro DNA test to prove that prove that I’m father. I think that’s extremely invasive, but it’s absolutely reasonably applicable. You can reason that logic out based on the situation that we have, at least in the state of Texas. And in Texas, there are. With this this process and supporting it. I mean, it’s going to be a felony. So, you know, and if you think that people like Dan Patrick or our governor, Governor Abbott, aren’t going to support people who want to chase that down there. Absolutely. Individuals who believe that they’re in the right and I don’t know that they are or they aren’t. I’m just telling you that legally as an attorney, we’re setting up our system to absolutely be engaged across the board, across states, in the federal level about these types of issues. I think going forward.

The difference is in states, not a federal government telling me exactly how I have to behave. You know, that’s the difference. That’s the purpose of of the separation of powers is so that states can make their own laws. Hey, if you don’t like the state representatives making those laws, you can vote them out, vote them out and make sure they get the guys you want or the guys or ladies that you want to make you make your laws the ones that you want. The point is, I don’t know. That’s those seems like super slippery slopes to me that, you know, everybody’s complaining that, oh, well, men, men don’t have to pay support. I’m totally okay with men paying support. They’re engaging in the activity, too, that could reasonably procreate a child. So, you know, people need to take more personal responsibility in this society. And I don’t know that they do. You know, it’s, I guess, a knock on society. But at the same time. What do you.

Think, Neda?

My thoughts are that states are still government states making laws about women’s bodies. It’s still a government. It’s a governmental entity. I don’t know of any laws that tell men what to do with their bodies. I mean, I understand that that women carry fetuses and what not. But at the same time, part of that is still a woman’s body. And there are slippery slopes. Like, I don’t want any in-vitro DNA testing for my baby. Like, what if I’m pregnant and that’s potentially harmful for a baby that I’m carrying? And then down the road, what if something happened then say, you know, the state that I’m living in, unfortunately, is a red state when it comes to making those types of laws. Yes, I can vote to try to get them out, but at the same time, it’s a red state. Regardless of which way I vote, whether it’s independent or Democratic or Republican, I’m pretty sure Republican is going to be voted back in, especially my state representative for the most part.

Yeah, you’re definitely in a solid red county where you.

Guys are if you believe not if you believe Beto’s campaign literature.

Well, I know you’re voting for Beto O’Rourke, Brian. I know that I’ve seen that bumper sticker.

I’m a detail. I’m a I’m a Beto male, that’s for sure. I’m just kidding. I no, I mean, look, it’s it’s a controversial decision, and I respect everybody’s opinion. I you know, I understand the uniqueness of the decision, and I understand the woman’s side of it with respect to yes, I do believe they should have bodily autonomy. I just I can separate the bodily autonomy argument from the the, you know, human life argument as well. So and I don’t I don’t claim to have great answers for this or anything like that. And, you know, I don’t want to step on anybody’s toes. But at the same time, you know, my position on it is I do believe that’s a life. And I do believe that as a life that’s worthy of protection. I mean, 62 million abortions is is way too much for a country. You know, one thing I thought that was very interesting is speaking of celebrities, since we always like to tie celebrities back into this, Justin Timberlake and who’s the guy? Who’s the gal? Who’s the lady that of the love of his life that Justin’s dating? Oh, Jessica Biel. Jessica Biel. Yeah. They were over in France and they were posting pictures after the Roe v Wade decision came down, and they were talking about how glad we could be in a country where they still respect women’s rights or something like that, and they’re holding up croissants and there’s a Eiffel Tower or whatever. And I’m like, So you’re not read the room at all, you moron. They they have a 14 week ban on abortion in France. So like the law for the country is 14 weeks. No, no abortion after 14 weeks. So, you know, read the room a little bit. I mean, that law is more restrictive than, what, 13 states here, so. Och well, och, never, never miss a moment to go on Instagram and throw out some some, you know.

Increase your brand. Nothing like increasing your brand. Well, no, I do. I think that the court, they’ve had a lot of big issues in front of them for a long time. This is one of them. But I think we’re going to see quite a bit more this this clearly is going to be a very active Supreme Court. I think we’ve had a Supreme Court over the last probably three decades that, yeah, they’ve had some landmark decisions, but they’ve been. Fairly reserved as far as touching these types of.

Oh yeah, they’ve skirted this issue like what, three or four times they kick the can down the road. They’ve, they’ve, they’re their middle of the road position was always to go down and just rule on that one abortion law of that particular state or just rule on what one aspect of that law and they’ve kicked that can down the road two or three times.

Yeah. I think we’re going to see them touch on on gun rights. I think that we’re going to see them.

Was there really another decision that they made right before the Roe v Wade? When I know that one took up, what was it? There was a controversial environmental opinion.

Oh, yeah. Where the it was basically that the EPA doesn’t have the power to be able to dictate policy for states. So they basically stripped all the teeth out of the EPA in relation to the oil industry drilling, fracking, because they had all these policies that basically were like laws and they’re like, you don’t have the ability to pass a law. You’re not Congress. And it’s an executive overreach for an agency that would fall to the executive branch to be able to make those kinds of determinations.

That’s always been the law. That’s always been an interesting argument for me since law school, just because of the the idea was the law is always implemented by the executive. The executive always enforces the law. Right. So the executive authority, the Senate will set up the EPA to provide the guidelines based on the Clean Air Act or whatever law was passed by Congress to regulate that stuff. So that regulation was supposed to be in there. But I guess I guess the argument is that judicial overreach when they regulate it too much or.

Well, basically what they were. Yeah. So they basically said the law can say, here’s what you do. Then the executive branch can set up an agency that says, hey, enforce this law because it’s the law. What was happening, though, was these agencies are creating policies. It’s like sending like an OAG, sending out a policy letter that says, hey, here’s a policy opinion. It has the effect of law. And so that’s what they were doing to try to skirt around policy so they could come in and say, like Cole, they would say, hey, we have this new policy where coal can’t be transported by rail, anything other than rail. And since you’re not on a rail line, you can’t export coal. So coal can’t be harvested in this part of the country. So that policy would have the effect of a law banning coal mining in that area. Even though the law wasn’t passed, it was just an agency coming out and saying, hey, here’s a policy that we’re going to put into effect that’s going to have the effect of law. And so it was kind of that type of ruling.

Because I think in the next term, you’re going to see probably a campaign voting rights case is probably going to come before it, I think a.

Oh, gerrymandering. Yeah. I think they’re finally going to touch that. Try to settle gerrymandering that’ll be interesting with the court have set up I think.

Funding campaign funding case most likely gun case like you said, I think there was an expanded gun rights case, though, in this particular this last go round.

Well, it’s really.

Cost the New York. It was the New York gun law. That’s what it was. It was the New York gun case.

Yeah. Where you can carry a gun anywhere.

Because I think the rub on that was I think the rub on that was New York had a law where they they would approve a permit for you to carry a gun, but they just never approved any permits. You can never provide enough paperwork or background checks. That was they were basically using bureaucracy to to basically have a have a gun. Basically have a gun ban.

Ban, yeah. Yeah. A concealed gun ban. Yeah.

Right. So I think that was the rub on that one. But you know, that’s another one that’s a huge issue because of the massive number of of school shootings that we’ve had, you know, recently. You know, that’s another big issue because, you know, rightly or wrongly, kids are getting access to these guns and they are going to schools and shooting them up. Whether you can blame the parents or you can blame, you know, faulty, you know, issues with law enforcement not not reacting swiftly enough or whatever. Kids are still in access to guns and there they are shooting people in schools. And that’s a problem. And obviously, nobody sends their kid to school to get shot. So how do we how do we how do we combat that as a society? It’s becoming a societal problem as opposed to more more than. I don’t know. It’s. From what I understand, most of these cases fell outside of the the current gun laws we have on the books. So. You know, I don’t know.

Playing like you see the Vivaldi school shooting and then like just down the pipeline is now this gun law that allows you to carry guns, whatever you want. And it’s I guess I can see both arguments like if you have it, you can maybe use it to protect. But at the same time, if you just have them out, then that potentially also means more access to guns for kids to get access to as well, which is a scary thought.

Right? One of the cases was that the Chicago kid who’s who did the gun, who did the shooting recently, that’s parents were supplying the guns or.

Yeah, to me that’s fine. They signed yeah. They signed off on one of them.

So to me that’s probably a parents need to be prosecuted kind of situation. You know, this Uvalde, the shooter shot his mom first before he went to the school and shot up the school. I know the law enforcement didn’t react. I know there’s a big failure on law enforcement on that one because of the the procedures for active shooter situations. But at the same time, the kid got access to a gun. He obviously was a huge red flag based on social media postings and things like that. And then he was. He was able to do a lot of damage and kill a lot of kids that like I said, people don’t send their kids to school to be shot.

Well, the other one, I mean, potentially like people having access to guns that may not be mentally stable. And those people don’t need to have access to guns because a lot of these issues are caused by by those types of people that need some help, that a gun is obviously a very dangerous weapon that should be handled very safely. And. Anyone needs to handle it safely. So especially those people, it’s just a scary situation for everyone that just comes around them or are in contact with them.

I think that it’s one of those issues, all these issues that the courts are dealing with. I think I think as a lawyer, you always think when you go to law school and you start in this practice like, hey, wouldn’t it be amazing if someday at the end of my career, I’m sitting on the highest court in the land? Maybe some people dream that, I think. Obviously, I think we all at least have revered the court and the positions that they’re in. But I’ve always I got to meet a couple of Supreme Court justices. We were in law school, Bryan. They came to our law school and spoke. And I would tell you that that was one of the things that both of the justices referenced in their speeches to the classes, to the law students was the the gravity of the decisions that they make, the gravity of the issues that they wrestle with day in and day out. It’s not something like any judge makes a decision that’s going to affect people’s lives every day. Whether you’re a district court judge, a frickin municipal judge, it doesn’t matter. But at the highest land, at the highest court, you’re making decisions that impact the nation at large, millions of people. And what we’ve just talked about in this few minutes, these issues you scratch on these issues, and there’s so much there’s so many layers, they’re so deep, they’re so complicated, they’re intrinsically unsolvable, in my opinion. And when we look to the law to say that it is going to be the resolution to this problem, I think that’s the fundamental fallacy in what we’re trying to accomplish as people. You can’t look to the court and say, solve all of our problems because you or wise ones who are just people in robes who are highly educated.

You guys know the answers to all the questions. They don’t. They don’t. And to sit there and say that, hey, you know what? It’s it’s gun control, it’s it’s automatic weapons, it’s handguns, it’s certain types of ammunition. No, no, no. It’s health care. It’s mental. This mental crisis that this country is in right now or it’s lack of resources for indigent or it’s whatever. It’s counseling services that are unavailable in most communities, or it’s the lack of parenting resources to teach people how to be good parents. Like all these things are part of these problems that we’re talking about across the board. And in my opinion, when we look to the courts, when we look to the law to say, you guys can solve all these problems, I think as lawyers, I feel like we experience these every day. And from my opinion, you know, we all we all three of us have had these conversations. I cannot solve the problems of the world, not even the problems of the person. What I can do is try to dig you out of the hole that you dug yourself. I can try to show you a pathway. I can try to help you with answers that may potentially get you to a better place. But if you choose not to do them, the law can’t solve them for you. And I think that’s the that’s the crux of what we’re struggling with as a society right now. And that’s what makes these issues that the court is struggling with and that we’re all struggling with in this society so complicated and difficult. I don’t know that there’s an answer. I don’t have it. But I tell you that that’s what makes it hard.

And I don’t know that there’s a there’s a good solution. I mean, I respect the rights to the right to own a gun. I respect I understand the Constitution. And I believe we live in a free society. But I also have two children and I don’t want shot in the school, you know. So I had some other kid whose parents have been absent for years and years or whatever, whatever the case may be. There some sort of mental health? Normally, most of the patterns of these of these school shooters have been are eerily similar to outcasts of society on the fringes, lack of parental involvement, you know, run ins with the law possibly, or just kind of living on the fringes of of life. And you don’t see the know. You don’t see Mr. Popular or Mrs. Mrs. High School Homecoming Queen or whatever, shooting up the school, you see, you know, the, the kid who’s got the mental instability issues or the terrible home life or whatever, those are the those are the things that happen. So what is it? Are mental health services? I mean, that’s not something a court, a court’s going to be able to decide. I mean, all the Supreme Court can decide is this particular gun case is in front of me that says, you know. Can people apply and go through the stuff and get a and get a concealed carry license if they’re in a free society? And I have to argue, yes, they can. If they can if they can pass the and you shouldn’t make it, the government shouldn’t necessarily infringe on your ability to to do that. But at the same time, I mean, I’m not necessarily opposed to some age restrictions and things like that.

If they want to increase age restrictions on owning certain weapons and things like that, I don’t know that that’s not that’s that’s not a bad thing. The problem with it is if you’ve got a I think the biggest problem is the accessibility of the gun makes it easier for them to accomplish a deadly and destructive task. I think if a crazy kid wanted to drive a car into the school and try to kill a bunch of students by driving a car through the through the side of the building, they would maybe try to do that. The gun just unfortunately makes it easier and gets them a lot of notoriety and, you know. If they have easy access to that, then then it’s a problem. So I don’t I’m not I’m not here to offer any solutions. Unfortunately, I don’t know that there is one. I mean, every case, like you said, every case is individually different. We can possibly help an individual case or an individual situation, but. You’re never going to craft a gun law or or have an open you’re having no gun law that’s going to cover all situations that that that could possibly arise. I mean, there was all this stuff I’m hearing about the Uvalde case. There’s none of the protocols for were were followed in terms of keeping the school locked down, things like that. But the lockdown didn’t occur properly. The police didn’t respond accordingly, you know, and as a result, there may have been more loss of life as a result of that versus another school shooting that you maybe don’t hear anything about where they get the shooter before he comes in the school.

Or even better, they catch him before he goes to shoot somebody. Right, because a counselor catches it, a teacher catches it. They see that he’s getting bullied at school. You know, all these things. There’s so many factors that play into that story. Brian, I agree with you. The problem is.

The problem is can you go out? I mean, the problem is some of the some of the proposals on the gun laws that I’ve seen are you have an ex wife or an ex husband that says you’re a risk factor. Then they can preclude you from owning a gun. And you may you may just have a crappy ex wife or an ex husband that you don’t like. So I don’t know that there’s any easy solutions to it.

You know and there aren’t and the law to think that the law. To look to the law to say like solve it for us I think is a mistake on the part of our society. It’s going to take way more than that. It’s like this comprehensive plan that we can’t we can’t all agree on. You know, everybody’s going to point a finger. It’s like that. It’s not that whole saying, you remember, like, who could have done it? Anyone, but nobody did it. And so, you know, that whole thing where you go through like everybody, anybody, but it was nobody that did it. Well, fricking nobody is a jackass, man. Nobody is the person in society that’s doing everything. Nobody’s doing it. And until somebody steps up. I’ve read it and we can read.

Every possible reasonable explanation for why school shootings occur from violent video games and TV to non nonresponse to Reagan baby to medication, to society, to crazy, to everything you can think of has been an explanation of.

Hormones and milk. Dude, too many hormones and milk. Yeah. I mean, come on. It’s like, well.

I think that if I think that, I however, I do think that it’s, you know, banning guns. I don’t think is the answer. I don’t think guns walk into schools and shoot people. It’s people that walk into school and shoot people. So, you know, I think, you know, you see videos of people driving cars into crowds of people and things like that. If people are hell bent on destruction, you know, they’re going to find a way to to find a way to kill people, unfortunately, whether they use their car or they use the fertilizer bomb, like in Oklahoma City or they, you know, do some.

Boston Marathon bombing, you know, he was using a pressure cooker.

And the guy that killed the they have a gun. Anti gun law in Japan and the guy that killed them the.

Former prime minister former.

He he made a gun. He made a homemade gun and used it.


About that. Yeah. I think it’s a vicious cycle. I mean, like. I think that’s what a democracy like. You have your choice. Whether you believe in counseling, you don’t believe in counseling. It’s like you’re the way you’re raised and what you believe in as a family and your upbringing and all that has a play in it. And I don’t think we can solve all those problems or the ability to think for yourself and what you think is in your best interest and your child’s best interest. And if you if you feel like your child has some kind of mental disability or need some counseling or anything like that, do you want to put them in counseling or put her in counseling? And if you don’t want to, then potential risks. And if you do, then how does that go? And you can’t flag, I think, all those things when someone’s trying to buy a gun. I think you have to put all that stuff. So it’s difficult how you craft gun laws and who’s allowed to buy a gun. At the same time, Brian, what you were mentioning was some of the things that you’ve seen as far as if your ex-husband or ex-wife would think if you’re crazy, I guess that would it seems kind of extreme. But at the same time, I guess it kind of shows. Does someone think you have a tendency to be violent? And if that’s the case, it may not be your perception, but it might be somebody else’s perception about that.

You may be a law abiding, you may be a law abiding citizen and your ex doesn’t like you and has a bone to pick. I mean, we see that all the time. I mean, I had I had a case one time where I had 135 guns in my office because this guy never had a criminal record his entire life. He was a gun collector. And we had we had a store, 135 guns in our office because my wife said he had a mental health problem. And the judge wanted to be wanting to be sure. I mean, granted, he got due process. He got a he got an ability to have a hearing. He eventually got his guns back. He had but for about a four or five month period of time, we had 135 guns in my office because judge ordered them out and he ordered him to have possession of no firearms. You know, granted, he like I said, Brandon, he got a due process. He got a hearing. He got an ability to set the record straight. Red flag gun laws, you know. Don’t necessarily do that. And like I said, there’s I guess it’s like the terrorist watch list. They have the tendency to potentially be misused or wrongly allocated or whatever.

Government, baby. So that’s just going to fix everything. Is government more government? Brian, come on. I’m with you. I think everybody has a valid point to this. And I think that it’s that’s that’s my whole thing is I just think it’s it’s beyond the complexity of the law to be able to answer all the questions. It’s going to require something way more comprehensive as a society that we’re going to have to. And it’s across the board, but that’s what’s in front of the court. So to kind of bring this full circle, right. The Supreme Court has all those kinds of issues in front of them. And we now have a court that is very active, a court that has decided that, hey, you know what, we’ve been waiting to be fearless and the day has come. So it’s going to be just an interesting journey with this new court to see kind of where they take us and what else they have decide to tackle.

You can have 16 justices on it or something like that, right? I mean, they are. Oh, my God. The other thing has been floated around the court packing.

That’s never going to happen. That that’s never going to happen. No way. But I hear you. It’s it’s just a crazy time in the world, is it not, guys? I mean, like, it just seems like everybody has taken a solid dose of crazy, and we just need that to kind of tone down a little bit.

And see what I read. I read somewhere they said that there was a potential sociological experiment that you could do, like get another cell phone, get another iPhone or whatever, an android, whatever you want, don’t bring it home like only use it at a coffee shop or somewhere where you get free internet access but create profiles of yourself completely the opposite of what your viewpoints are on social media and see the kind of news filters that come through that phone. So like if you’re on the right and you you create a phone, I haven’t done this experiment myself, but if you create a phone that has all leftist stuff like, you know, all stuff on the left, you’re going to all your news is going to be tailored to the left side of the political spectrum. So you’re only going to be in the echo chamber of getting all my news from The New York Times, The Washington Post, or whatever the left left leaning stuff there is out there, MSNBC, NBC and all that stuff, versus if you have one on the right, you’re going to get all the right wing sources from the from the way that these these apps set up these algorithms. So I think the echo chamber thing is a huge problem because nobody actually listens to the other side’s point of view.

They only they only listen to their own echo chamber and whatever their side is telling them, you know, whatever their sides paint them on the back and telling them that they’re right about and everybody’s guilty of it. Everybody follows that kind of thing. I I’ve tried to be discerning with my news. I try to read The New York Times as much as I read anything that’s on the right. But, you know, am I guilty of it? Sure, everybody is. I mean, everybody has biases. But I thought it was interesting that the way your news is filtered to you obviously influences your positions on stuff and your opinions. And if you’re only getting it from one side of those side of the ledger versus the other side, then these two people have never even spoken but hate each other and they have diametrically opposed political views and they don’t even know what the other person’s point is. So nobody listens to the other person’s point. You know, there’s are some of these issues don’t have common ground. I would agree with that. Some of them are very, very hard issues. I think the common ground is getting less and less as we get more polarized, but nobody even listens to the other side’s point of view anymore either. It’s all we’re living in crazy times.

Crazy times. I don’t remember this kind of stuff happening when I was a kid, but then, I mean, even your phone, like, I guess conversations that you have with people and just things that you search and look up, those things are showing up on your phone as ads or different things. So your phone facilitates what you’re thinking or what you’re talking other people about, which is ridiculous.

But I might not like that. The scary thing about that is you don’t get exposure to any other viewpoint other than what you know, and then that just builds upon itself and builds upon itself. And then pretty soon you have no idea what the other side’s thought on is. And I think because look, if you want to go out there and you find a website where you you can think everybody on the right is crazy fascist, trying to take over the world. You can go find that. And if you want to go on the right and find somebody on the left that everybody on the left is a communist and they’re crazy hellbent on world domination. You can find that, too. And you can find only sources that cater to that on both sides without ever even hearing the other side’s point of view. And we live in a very, very, very polarized society right now. And I don’t know I don’t think that anybody in the current political class is really helping us. You know, there’s no middle ground to be found. The middle ground people are called sellouts and whatever else and say they’re betraying their party because they found middle ground with the other side. And, you know, I don’t know.


All things will be dealing with on our next podcast, The Art of Compromise. Yes.

We’ll have to hit millennial divorces and everything like that on the next podcast because we kind of ramble.

We definitely need yeah, now we definitely need to talk about the millennials because I have a lot to say about them. I have a couple in my house.

Right, right. So thank you guys for your time. I always, always, always like these discussions. I’m glad we have I’m glad we have Nick on. I’m glad I can provide a different point of view. I think that’s tremendously.

Helpful intelligence to the conversation. Finally, I just think.


That can provide a different perspective is going to be good for us. And he’s going to provide anybody that get us to thinking about difficult issues. I mean, there’s no there’s no easy solutions. So thank you.

For that, bro.

Thank you, Sam.

Thank you.

We don’t always agree, but we can always part as friends. So always we will catch you guys next time on the flip side.


Request A Consultation

If you d like an attorney to contact you for a consultation please complete this form, or call us at (888) 981-7509.