Everyone, I'm Carol Hinkle, president of Triple E. I wanna thank you all for joining on Zoom today. Hopefully you all did receive the email that we had to not be at the church this morning. We had to make that decision by 830 and we expected ice and a little snow on top of it and that's what we got. That's really dangerous and we're trying to keep everybody here safe. It just reminds me that I wanna suggest that you all try to check your email every Friday morning by 11 a.m. Just in case we have some crazy thing. Maybe there's no heat at the church, maybe the speakers sick, maybe we have ice, whatever. So make it a plan to check by 11 every Friday morning to make sure there's no changes or alterations. By the way, a couple of people today said that our emails went into their junk mail or spam. So you wanna be sure to check that those places too. I wanna suggest that you learn how to, if you haven't already, ask questions. So Kathy Chamberlain is gonna monitor the questions that you ask and you can start now, anytime during the lecture. If you have an iPad, it would be at the top of your screen. If you have a computer, it would be at the bottom of your screen, but you wanna touch those areas and see the Q&A button and apple pop a screen. You can type in your message and then either push the arrow or push return on your computer. And please, we want lots of questions. We'll open that session up at about quarter of three. Okay, so now I wanna introduce our speaker, Jared Carter. For those of you who've been members for a while, you've had the pleasure of hearing him before. We're thrilled that he's starting off our spring session. Doesn't seem very springy. Anyway, Jared Carter graduated from Vermont Law School in 2009. In addition to serving as an articles editor on the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, he received an Equal Justice Foundation Fellowship to litigate a constitutional challenge to US Treasury Department regulations, prohibiting travel to Cuba. A veteran attorney and advocate for social, legal and economic justice, Professor Carter spent a year as law clerk to justices William Leppert, Jim Rice and Jim Nelson at the Montana Supreme Court. Professor Carter returned to Vermont in 2010 to teach and practice law and teaches natural resources law, political lawyering, legal writing to appellate advocacy and climate change in law. In addition, he's developed study away courses that take students to Cuba to learn about the Cuban legal system. An active member of the Vermont law, he also directs the Vermont Community Law Center, litigate constitutional and consumer rights issues in state and federal court. Professor Carter has a wealth of relevant experience and is dedicated to bringing his diverse background to the classroom. He is an avid outdoors person, backpacking, canoeing and fly fishing in the warmer months and cross country skiing in the winter. Despite the fact that Vermont is landlocked, he also enjoys surfing and does so in the frigid waters of the New England coastline. Please welcome Jared Carter. Great, thank you Carol. And thanks to Triple E for having me back. It's been a long time. In fact, I think the last time I presented was in the pre-pandemic world in 2019. We talked about some important issues confronting the US Supreme Court. And certainly a lot has of course changed since then and the court is different as well. And so I'm really just thrilled to be back and it would have been great to see everybody in the church, but I think probably the right call I was chatting beforehand with Carol and others as I was driving in, I'm at the Vermont Law School Burlington office today, which is nice, but as I was driving in, I saw several people fall over on the sidewalks. So I think it's pretty slick out there. At least it was this morning and I truthfully haven't ventured out since. But I'm really happy to be back and to chat with you all about where we're at today with the US Supreme Court, democracy, the rule of law and also what are some interesting and important cases that the US Supreme Court is either confronting right now like deciding soon and or that I think they're gonna be confronting in short order. And there's a lot of really important ground to cover in our hour. I do wanna save a chunk of time at the end for question and answer. So please do drop your questions in the chat. I'll look forward to trying to answer them as best as I can when we get to that point. So the Supreme Court today, democracy today, the rule of law today, I don't know about all of you, but the past few years have been a difficult few years. I think there's a level of anxiety in our society, in our democracy that certainly, I've never seen before. I think part of that is the pandemic, part of that is the divisiveness of our politics. And while Vermont perhaps isn't ground zero for this, it's certainly not immune. So I think I would start this conversation off by acknowledging that reality. And the US Supreme Court is of course a part of that and is going to be impacted by that. So I think we're perhaps right to be apprehensive, we're perhaps right to be nervous about the status of democracy and the rule of law in 2023. But for a whole host of reasons, while I'm certainly concerned about some of these things and they're obviously important things, I personally have faith in our commitment, our broader commitment to the rule of law, which the Supreme Court in my mind really represents. And I think when I get nervous about these sorts of things, when I start to worry about, where is our democracy going? Where's the rule of law going in the future? I think it's important to reflect on instances that are past where law, the power of the law, the rule of law have most shown themselves. And if you look at that history, it's often been two steps forward, one step back, but the rule of law has been a constant. And oftentimes the places where the rule of law moved us forward the most were after times of great upheaval, great confusion, in some cases violence, right? So you think about all the way back to the founding of the country and the revolution, the United States Revolution, which of course was a violent event. People dispossessed of land, battles fought, teeth thrown in the ocean, among other things. And out of all that chaos and violence and risk, what did we get? Well, two steps forward, we got the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution, we got our independence. Of course, with those two giant steps forward, there were certainly steps back. Those wonderful Bill of Rights rights that we enjoy didn't apply to really anyone outside of wealthy men. And indeed, the Constitution that came out of that revolution enshrined slavery in it explicitly. So the rule of law moved us forward, but also was responsible for pulling us back. But we made progress and there was always opportunity to make more. And I think the rule of law was a big part of that. You flash 480 more years to the Civil War, right? Of course, great violence. People, millions of people in slavery, enslaved, the Fugitive Slave Act, battles that, in which many, many people were killed, literally family against family, as we know. And yet out of that sort of crucible of violence and danger and division, right? We got the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, right? Banning slavery, guaranteeing the right to vote and protecting the right to equality and equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. And yet, of course, even in that era, with those steps forward, that gave birth to things like Jim Crow. And still, even at that time, women couldn't vote. So two steps forward, one step back, but the rule of law was always there. The Supreme Court was always there. You flash forward another roughly 80 years, right? What do we have? The Great Depression, right? I mean, red lines, people losing their property, losing their jobs, Hooverville's, right? Across the country, grapes of wrath, really difficult times, but we got the new deal, right? The social safety net, social security, employment labor laws to protect folks. And so we took a giant step forward. Some would say those changes were sort of the starting place for the incoming inequality that we see today. But I guess the reason I sort of start with that quick historical narrative, and of course there's other major turning points in U.S. history is because to me, I find comfort in that, right? Even for those two steps forward, one steps back, even in those times of real chaos, real division, real difficulty, the court and the rule of law found a way forward. And I think even in this time of great division, right? COVID, January 6th, the Supreme Court, the Dobs decision regardless of one's perspective, all of these things make us feel like things are out of control and the division does feel great and perhaps it is real. But I always find faith in that rule of law and the Supreme Court really embodies that to my mind, right? What is the rule of law? Everybody could of course come up with their own definition, but to me it's something that's not really tangible. It's an idea, right? That what the court says, even if we disagree with it, is the law of the land and we're willing to accept that, regardless of whether we agree. Now, maybe we disagree with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, but we accept it as the law of the land. That's the idea of the rule of law. Maybe we organize to try to change it politically. Maybe we organize to try to elect a different president to put new members of the court in over time, but we accept it as the law of the land. And I think a society that stops doing that is in real trouble. You have a real constitutional crisis because remember, unlike Congress who has the power of the purse, right? They can stop funding things or the executive branch, which can use, I suppose, theoretically, its military might, its economic might to influence things. The U.S. Supreme Court has nothing. There's no army of the U.S. Supreme Court or police force to go out and enforce their decisions. They're enforceable only because our society believes them to be sacrosanct, even if we disagree with them. And there's plenty of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that I disagree with with all my being, but I still recognize that that's the law of the land and I might organize, I might litigate to try to change those laws, but the rule of law is I think that acceptance that we are a nation of laws, not of people, so to speak, and that nobody is above the law and that even if we disagree with the law, it is the law. And to me, that's a fragile thing because it's not written in a constitution somewhere. It's not a document. And so it's scary. And I fear for it in some ways because of where the U.S. Supreme Court is today. And I don't mean that in a political sense. I mean that in a credibility sense. Historically, the U.S. Supreme Court has been one of the more popular branches of government of the three. It usually has the most support, the most trust of the American people. And in recent years, we've seen that really decline. And my concern is that if it declines to such a point where we no longer give it faith, right? We no longer accept its rulings as a society, then I think we're really treading into dangerous water. And some of these, this loss of credibility, shall we say, in the court have been self-inflicted wounds. The current Chief Justice, Chief Justice Roberts, I think is an institutionalist, does care about the courts as an institution. But nonetheless, if you kind of walk through the past, I don't know, decade, maybe a little less of the court, it's been a much more politicized body. And I think there's real risk in that. I mean, you go back to the Merrick Garland situation in the Obama era. And I think you can sort of trace it from there. It's almost been like a Democrat Republican tit for tat in the Supreme Court, which doesn't really have any mechanisms through which to defend itself has become a political hot potato. And I think, again, regardless of one's political views, that's a real risky game to play for both parties. Right? Think about, of course, the Leak Dobbs decision that we all read about, saw. And quite frankly, the subsequent investigation that thus far, they haven't been able to solve that is really quite troubling. Right? People would like to think that the US Supreme Court could keep its house in order. And I think our faith in it is based on that trust. And yet they can't figure out how it happened. And so I think there is this sort of crisis of confidence right now in the court that if we don't figure out, may cause pain down the road. And that's a scary thought. And the only thing that sort of keeps me as somebody who studies and teaches this from losing sleep at night, and I do lose a bit of sleep. And I probably have more gray hair since the last time I presented to you all in 2019. But what prevents me from losing too much sleep, I think is that historical context that I started with. That ability of the country through the rule of law, even in difficult times to move forward, to make progress, even if it's faulting progress, a step forward, a step back, two steps forward, a step back. And I think that's in large part what gives me faith. And why I think that even in these difficult times, the Supreme Court can be a really important part of helping us step back from that break. But it's going to require us having faith, even if we disagree with the decisions of the court. And the court's going to be making some very important decisions as it has recently in the coming weeks and months. There's an array of cases that are currently before the court that have been argued already, that we're simply waiting for decisions on. And I'll touch on some of those in a moment, but just to highlight, there's a major environmental case. Sacket VEPA that's been is before the court and will be decided in the coming months. There's important issues around affirmative action, voting rights, that's before the court that will be decided in the coming months. And I think there's some really important first amendment issues. One is before the court now and one I think will get there sooner rather than later. And I think it's important that we should all be thinking about. And so I want to talk about a little bit about each of those in the context of this idea of rule of law democracy, the Supreme Court today. Because they're going to impact us. And I think it's easy to just be here in Vermont or quite frankly anywhere in the country and say, well, the Supreme Court's, you know, it's far away, right? It doesn't really have an impact on our day to day lives. And for some of us, that may be true. But for the vast majority of us, it really does have a major impact. Its rulings are the law of the land for good or bad. And it impacts us every single day. And yet it's I think a branch of government that we don't hear much about, we don't talk much about. And perhaps that's by design, right? It's not meant to be a political branch. The framers tried to insulate it from politics, which quite frankly is one of the reasons I personally have been a bit horrified by the idea of adding justices to the court, which I know has been something folks have talked about. Because I think the downside risks of doing something like that, regardless of which parties in power at the time, only serve to further politicize the court. And in some ways, I think there's a short-sightedness to that approach because if we view the court purely through a political lens, then does one half of the country just stop accepting the court's rulings as the law of the land, depending on the issue? I don't think a constitutional democracy can survive very long in that space. And so I take the view of the US Supreme Court today, and I'll talk about this more as we walk through some of these cases. But I take the view that what we need to do is depoliticize the court, right? The framers set it up so that justices war justices for life. Now, maybe there's some tinkering we can do around there, but I'm very hesitant to endorse any idea that would allow Congress to remove justices outside of the impeachment process or to reduce their pay or to regulate the way that they engage for the very reason that, yeah, there might be good reason to try to get Supreme Court justices to do certain things in the short term, but in the long term, it just becomes another political body. And unlike the other political bodies, it really is the one that is responsible for the rule of law that is responsible for the credibility of the laws that we have in this country and the democracy that those laws are based on. So what are the big cases before the court right now? And I tried to pick a few that might be of interest to people with a different background of interest. So I want to highlight an environmental case that I think we should be paying attention to. I want to highlight the affirmative action cases that we should certainly be paying attention to. And then I wanted to highlight some First Amendment issues, including a case that's at the court now and a case that I think is percolating up in that direction. So the first case is a case that I mentioned earlier called Sackett v. The EPA. And it is a case out of Idaho in which the plaintiffs, the Sackett side had wanted to build a house on a lake in northern Idaho, right? I guess the Panhandle of Idaho. And that might seem like an unlikely place for a U.S. Supreme Court case to start, right? Way out in the hinterlands of northern Idaho. But they wanted to build this house a few hundred feet from a body of water that was essentially a lake that bordered both the U.S. and Canada across the border. So it was way up in northern Idaho. And as they began to move forward with their construction, the EPA came and said, you can't do it. You're going to be impacting in a negative way. Waters of the United States and under the Clean Water Act. Which is a law that was, you know, past some 50-odd, 60 years ago. It's not quite that long, but it's been on the books for a while. A law that really helped us clean up the waters of this country. The EPA said, you can't do this the way that you want to do it. And they, of course, sued. They sued the EPA. And the case moved up through the, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, basically on this question of what constitutes a water of the United States. Because under the Clean Water Act, the EPA, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, is allowed to regulate waters of the United States. And not to get too wonky, but that authority actually comes back to the Constitution, which granted Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. And, and obviously at the time that the Constitution was drafted, a big way that commerce happened was via the waters of the United States. And so Congress passed the Clean Water Act, asserting that power over waters of the United States. And wetlands have consistently been considered a water of the United States. And yet in this particular case, the argument from the Sackett's perspective is that the wetlands that they're going to impact don't actually intersect enough with the waters of the United States, the navigable lakes and rivers that the Clean Water Act has jurisdiction over. And the upshot, if they're successful, is that the courts will then apply a very stringent test, which will limit the EPA's ability to enforce the Clean Water Act, because a whole category of wetlands, which are obviously very important for biodiversity, climate change and the like, a whole host of wetlands will no longer be within the authority of the EPA and fall under the Clean Water Act. And it will basically, if the Sackett's are successful, it would basically require the EPA to show that in order to manage any of these waters, they actually have to flow into a navigable river or waterway, a channel used for interstate commerce, which in some level you might say, well, that makes sense, right? But as the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to manage the waters of the United States, is the mud puddle in my backyard a water of the United States, right? And the answer of course is no. But the problem is, as you expand that out to wetlands, right? Clearly, even if on the surface, they're not connected with a navigable river, the groundwater cycle means that in the end, pretty much every significant wetland is going to be connected to a navigable water of the United States and would impact a navigable water of the United States. So changing, it sounds a little bit wonky, but truthfully changing the way that the Clean Water Act is interpreted in the way that the Sackett's are asking the court to do would, and some people might think this is a good idea, and that's perfectly fair. Others certainly don't think it's a good idea, which is also perfectly fair position to take. The upshot though would mean that the EPA would have significantly less power to enforce the Clean Water Act when it comes to wetlands in the United States. And so I think this is a hugely important case, and one that maybe isn't getting as much attention as it should, but will have a major impact. The second case I wanted to highlight is a case, actually there's two cases before the court, and they essentially consolidated them, but there are affirmative action cases. One brought against the University of North Carolina, the other brought against Harvard, but the basic premise of these cases is that affirmative action results in discrimination, in this case against Asian Americans and Caucasian Americans. That's the argument that the plaintiffs are making, that affirmative action is in fact in violation, they argue, of the 14th Amendment, which as I mentioned before was a post-Civil War Amendment meant to ensure that formerly enslaved people were granted equal rights under the law. And so the argument now is, well, these affirmative action laws, or excuse me, affirmative action regulations at these two schools, but many schools have them, are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, equal protection, and illegal under the Civil Rights Act. And the sort of interesting piece about this is that these affirmative action law policies have been challenged numerous times and have always been upheld in one form or the other. There was a challenge in the 1970s. In 2003, one of the better-known affirmative action-related cases, Grutter B. Bollinger, involved in the University of Michigan law schools, affirmative action policies were largely upheld, and in 2016 as well. So I think people that watch the court are concerned that this time might be different. It's a very different court. But they're really looking at, can schools have race-conscious admissions policies of any sort? What are the parameters of that? Can schools use race as a factor among many, which is essentially the current law of the land, to encourage diversity in a class? If these policies are struck down, if these state laws are struck down, schools will no longer be able to do that. And I think for many, there's great concerns over the impact that we'll have on historically disadvantaged members of our society. But that's the case. That's the matter that's before the court. So I think that one's obviously a very important one for us to watch. It hasn't been decided yet, but I think we'll see it shortly. And then the third category of cases that I want to touch on are First Amendment cases, which that's the area of law that I spend the most time with generally. Again, I'm a little bit biased, but there is an incredibly important First Amendment case before the court right now, called a Lenis versus the state of Colorado. And that case deals with Colorado's, what's called their Public Accommodations Act, which sounds legal like legalese, but it basically, every state in the country has a public accommodations law. Public accommodations law says that if you are a public accommodation, right, you're offering services to the public, that you can't do certain things among them, discriminate. In fact, it was many, in many states, it was public accommodations laws that desegregated hotels and restaurants south of the Mason Dixon line where there were obviously segregated public accommodations. And it was these public accommodations laws that came in and stopped that. Many states have added to those public accommodations laws to include a prohibition against discrimination, discriminating against people based on gender and sexual orientation. Colorado being one of them.  And there is a company owned by this person named a Lenis out in Colorado who makes wedding websites. And she decided she didn't want to based on her religion. She asserted that she didn't want to make wedding websites for same sex couples. And the state of Colorado didn't ultimately enforce the law against her but essentially threatened to enforce the public accommodations law against her. She brought what's called a preemptive challenge to the law under the first amendment, claiming that if she was forced to produce wedding websites for same sex couples it would essentially be compelled speech that the state would be compelling her to say something she doesn't want to say. And the way the law works in Colorado and in many states, there's sort of two pieces. There's a what we call an accommodations clause in the law, which says that public accommodations have to accommodate people.  And then there's a communications clause in the law and many states do this as well as Colorado.  And in addition to not creating these websites, this, this person of Lenis wants to post on her business website that she, you know, doesn't do this for religious reasons, etc, etc. So she filed suit and federal court out in Colorado and lost there lost in the circuit court of appeals. So she filed the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of whether or not the law violates her First Amendment right. And it will be, of course, interesting and impactful to see what the court does here. Because so many states all states have these public accommodations law so if the court were to carve out some sort of exception. So that would have impacts on public accommodations laws across the country, perhaps Vermont included. And so I think, again, depending on one's perspective, there certainly are real concerns about the court going in that direction. And I think on the ground that it's a slippery slope right if you start letting people discriminate based on while my religion says this under the First Amendment, or under the compelled speech doctrine, where does that stop right. And I think that's a valid concern that that supporters of this law have. It's an important case to be on lookout for that case has been argued. And I think we expect a decision in short order. I think if I was to guess what the Supreme Court's going to do here. I have a hard time believing that the Supreme Court's going to put its stamp on approval on a First Amendment doctrine that essentially allows people to discriminate. Based on sexual orientation I don't think the Supreme Court's going to say that's okay, because of that slippery slope does does how could the court do that without sort of going back to the days of discrimination based on race and segregation in public accommodations hotels lunch counters, all of those things that the civil rights movement fought to end and did under the law. I don't think the court's going to, going to open that door back up. But I think there's a chance that they will say the communications clause piece of the Colorado laws unconstitutional, because it is banning this particular possibility to speak with respect to what her views are on this topic, which I think of course the First Amendment does protect right, whether we agree with it or disagree with it. One is able to pronounce their views on on topics impacting our society. There's a chance they'll say that part of the law that prohibits that is unconstitutional, but I think it's pretty unlikely or I would personally hope it's unlikely that the Supreme Court says, and not only that but they can also discriminate right this person no longer has to serve people based on their, their sexual orientation, but it's obviously a matter of great import to many people, and I'm sure there's people out there that have varying views on the topic. But it's an important First Amendment case that will set an important First Amendment precedent that will impact the entire country. The other First Amendment issue that I that is not yet before the court, but I think is headed in that direction is the case that perhaps many of you have heard about. It's, it's, it's a very important First Amendment case. And it's the litigation that's ongoing between Dominion voting machines the company that makes the voting machines and Fox News. The argument that's being made by Dominion, and this stems back to the 2020 elections of course and the controversy surrounding that. The Dominion voting machine company sued Fox News on the ground that Fox News had defamed them by saying that their Dominion voting machines were, you know, providing fraudulent vote counts or I think there were there's allegations that they were actually controlled by like Waila or something like that. Dominion sued Fox News for defamation. They had been defamed. Why is this, why is this a First Amendment issue you might say well, the test for defamation is fourfold you have to have a false statement, right, a fact can't be an opinion. It has to be sued for defamation for speaking your opinion. Right, and that's a First Amendment overlay it's because of the First Amendment so you have to have a false statement of fact has to be publication to a third party. And you have to have fault. Right. The person defaming another has to have some level of culpability. So for like run of the mill defamation that culpability is essentially negligence right. But you should have known that this was a false statement that you're making but you made it anyway right. Right, you don't have to have, you know, intent or knowledge, but for First Amendment purposes what the courts have done is said, when it comes to matters of public concern. It's harder to bring a defamation claim. When it comes to matters of public concern when it comes to public officials or public figures, the court requires that somebody bringing a defamation claim bruise actual malice. Right. In other words that the speaker acted with knowledge of the falsity and did it anyway. The logic behind that why the First Amendment comes into play there is because of course when it comes to matters of public concern public officials public figures, we want people to be able to speak freely.  Right. Right, we want people to not be scared to critique politicians and public figures so we say that for a politician to turn around and sue me for saying that they have to show that I knew what I was saying was false, and that I did it anyway, and that's the actual malice standard and it comes from a case, a famous case called New York Times, the Sullivan, and it dealt with publication that the New York Times had made. So, the reason this is an important case is and I think we'll ultimately end up at the US Supreme Court is because it gets at that question of how high is the burden to show actual malice and there's members of the court right now, who I think are interested in really visiting the New York Times be Sullivan standard, which is really a standard that protects freedom of the press. And insulates the press from being sued, essentially for making a mistake in a story, or, you know, from criticizing a politician or policy. It's going to have significant impacts, perhaps on that doctrine. And, and I don't know folks saw this but a couple days ago there was a filing a couple of filings in the, in the, in the matter that got unsealed. And it looks like Dominion's basic argument is that Fox News commentators knew that the Dominion stories were false that these that Dominion was not really controlled by Venezuela and that the voting machines weren't making, you know intentional mistakes for Joe Biden, so to speak and yet still covered that story represented that story spoke about that story made commentary on that story. Fox News on the other hand argues that, you know, there's this freedom of the press principle at stake, and that they should be free under the First Amendment to cover the controversy and cover the fact that the president and some of his lawyers were talking about, you know, the, the election being stolen and that that's, you know, public, that's a public issue certainly public figures, public officials, and that they should be able to cover that. So it really gets sort of to the crux of this question how far does the First Amendment go. It comes to something that seems maybe as mundane as as defamation, but will have real impacts I think no matter which way the court comes out on this on freedom of the press on the ability of the media to cover stories for for better works. So I think that's another important case that I'm following it's not at the Supreme Court yet, but I think given the makeup of the Supreme Court, there's at least a possibility that will see the court revisit that New York Times V Sullivan actual malice standard, and perhaps lessen it in some way. So that defamation claims could be brought by those who feel they've been defamed by a story in the media. So I think that's another really important case to watch, as it sort of percolates up. I have no doubt that at some point it might not be this case, but some case will make its way to the Supreme Court on this on this question in the coming, you know, year, couple of years, because I think there's an appetite to revisit it. So I think that's another really, really important case to watch out for down the line. But I know maybe I've made everybody, you know, scared about the future of the court the future of the law. There'll be decisions in these three areas that I just highlighted that I'll disagree with that probably many of you will disagree with. I think it is important to remember that principle about the rule of law to take faith in that to trust in that. And if we disagree with the court's decision to my mind the solution isn't to sort of blow up the corner. Not figuratively but but it is it is to instead organize. Remember that elections matter get out vote. Organize it at the state local even federal level to try to make the change that you want to see in the world. And I got to say I was heartened, not to bring this all the way back to Burlington but I want to sort of wrap up. And get get to questions I was heartened this morning. My son goes to school in the new North end. And apparently there's talk of eliminating a component in the school the steam program. And maybe people think that's a good idea maybe people think it's a bad idea but he decided in fourth grade that he was going to make a petition and try to get everybody in the school to sign it because he really loves steam. And it made me reflect on that the importance of that engagement and gave me faith that the next generation of folks coming down the line are going to be doing that, and are engaged and haven't sort of given up and said, everything's so divisive, the rule of law doesn't be more that they really are trying to be out there, making change even if it's in their little communities but but change only matters if we all agree with the sort of lay of the land the laws of the land and the rule of law and the Supreme Court are such a big part of that. And, and I think history, thus far, has sort of borne out the idea that even in those difficult times and sort of moments of darkness. The rule of law has survived and in fact moved us forward, even if holding even if two steps forward one step back so I have no doubt that that will continue, even if maybe I'm not happy with the way some of these decisions come out. I think will be okay in the long run as long as we all accept that basic principle. So it's 245 and and I've talked probably too much. I'm happy to turn it over to the questions I think I see there's some in the question and answer box but I guess, I guess Kathy you were going to read those to me yeah. Yeah we have nine questions so I'm not going to get to all of them. So the first question is basically about requiring a separate branch of government. In this case the Supreme Court can they adopt ethics guidelines that will include conflict of interest rules. Yeah, absolutely. They could do that.  Here's the rub though as to why I think it's it's unlikely that those are going to be I mean they're just not going to be enforceable in any real meaningful sense. And that's that's because every justice that's on that court that has been nominated and affirmed appointed and confirmed by the Senate pointed by the president confirmed by the Senate has lifetime service. In other words unless they are impeached they can't be removed. So, so let's say that how does that impact an ethics policy that the court might adopt. Let's say that the court decides to adopt an ethics policy that says, you know, the spouses of Supreme Court justices can't be involved in, you know, political fundraising or something like that. There would be no way for the court to enforce that against any of the justices because they could not legally punish them.  So, in some ways that they could pass ethics rules within the within the within the court could do it themselves Congress could try to pass ethics rules, but I just don't see how they would be enforceable. And I get it, right. So one might say well maybe we need to change the way that the Constitution is written maybe maybe we should have a constitutional amendment that would it would provide for that and that there's that's a perfectly valid response. The problem in my mind with messing around too too much with the way that the court set up is that it's, it's going to open up a Pandora's box of politics on the court that we might not be able to shut. And, and the problem with that in the long run, right, maybe we solve some problems in the short term but in the long run, at least in my mind, a politicized court is an ineffective court it's a court that we, we listen to if we agree and we ignore if we don't. And I think that's a dangerous dangerous precedent so I'm certainly in favor of ethics rules that the court could create and adopt. But in the end, at least for the justices as I see it they're going to be entirely voluntary and I don't know that it would really necessarily move the ball, all that much. And I know we're short on time but there's one other point I would make I think this is part of the reason that the investigation into the dobs leak fail. And I think there's some things that I've seen come out in terms of how vigorously the justices themselves were questioned. I think part of the reason for that is because there's almost no ability to force a justice to participate in that investigation if they don't want to, because they can't be removed. They can't be punished, even by the chief justice. So what's their incentive to participate in investigation, particularly if they had some level of culpability in the leak. They just say I don't want to talk. And there's no way to force them to do that as far as I can tell. And so I think it's part of the reason the investigation failed is because I think there's very, very much it's very possible that some of the justices just didn't engage. Here's a personal question. How did you first get interested in Cuba and and does their just judicial system fundamentally differ from ours. Well, Cuba is really a fascinating place. And we take a group of Vermont law school students down there every year. It's so obviously so different it's politics are entirely different. It's, it's system of economics is entirely totally different and quite frankly, their constitutional space is entirely different. There is no First Amendment protection in Cuba in terms of the ability to speak and criticize in the way that we think about it here. They have other rights. And what's so interesting to me about going down there is the conversations we have. You know, we certainly are and should be proud of our First Amendment rights. And those are things that are very different down there. They, they, in my view, are and should be proud of their right to health care, for example. And so we have these really fascinating conversations that are friendly, but vigorous debates about these topics. And I find the students get a lot out of that. And I'm a big believer in this in the idea of the way we move forward as we go, and we learn from different places that do things differently. I couldn't survive in Cuba as a First Amendment lawyer. I believe to firmly in that, but there's other things I could learn based on the way that they do things and I think traveling and coming to places like that with a certain level of humility provides for great learning for me. So that's how I got involved and that's why I still find it interesting to do. Who people have asked, do you think that the Supreme Court justice that should have term limits. Term limits, I think makes makes some sense. I don't know that I would do it in terms of a term, but that might be the most politically palatable. But that would certainly avoid some of the politics, I suppose, of this and would allow the court to be perhaps more reflective of the society. I got to admit I'm hesitant to go down the path of amending the way that the Constitution sets up the Supreme Court, even if there might be some validity to those changes. I think there's also downside risks to further politicizing the court, because it has no way to enforce its decrees other than our good faith acceptance of them whether we agree with them or not. But that's certainly a valid possibility here. Is there no other way for Congress to grant the EPA jurisdiction over water quality in isolated US orders other than the Commerce Clause. Yeah, that's a great question. So, I mean, the short answer is no. Right. Congress, our Constitution sets up one of what we call limited powers and so unless it's given to Congress explicitly they're not supposed to have it. Obviously Congress has very wide ranging powers and probably the founders would find that to be very different than what they had envisioned today, but the basis of those powers in many instances is the Commerce Clause. And so that's why there's this question of, well, how connected does it have to be and there's been high watermarks of the US Supreme Court and low watermarks of the Commerce Clause over the years. But certainly Congress could amend the Clean Water Act it would seem. And I think a cogent argument could be made that Congress's power does in fact extend to, to all wetlands because water, no, no water is in complete isolation from the navigable waters of the United States right groundwater is connected. The water cycle is connected so it's somewhat of a, it's like it's a, it's a scientific and legal fiction to say that these wetlands are not connected to that lake, even though it's, you know, 300 feet away. So I do think Congress could amend the law to address that if the court were to go in a direction Congress didn't want it to question them. In three or four years, there appears to be an effort among the justices to invite cases that the conservative majority want to hear and perhaps rule upon. Have there been previous periods in our history when there were similar subtle invitations. I mean I think yes. I mean I keep coming back to like this is why elections matter it's this is why, you know, it's always frustrating that whatever 56% of the population votes. And that's of course, maybe an easy way out but but I think it's true. Here's how the, we don't know exactly why the court takes cases that it takes. That's because it is a non it's not a transparent government body. Again, the theory being that in order for the court not to be swayed by the politics of the day. It's got to be able to debate and discuss, you know, free from the prying eyes of the public now maybe there's ways to do it better than it is, but I think that's not necessarily a bad instinct. The point is we don't know how and why the court takes cases that it takes. Here's what we do know. In order to get a case before the court on on, you know, merits case, there has to be at least four justices that want to hear it. So if the court has moved in a more quote unquote conservative direction in recent years which I think it has. There's going to be more of those justices on the court and they're going to therefore be more likely to grant cert to cases, they're going to have the ability to grant cert to cases that maybe couldn't have been. So I think the court has moved over the years of course based on who's on on the court I mean it's, it's just as much a legal fiction in my mind to say that the court is insulated from politics, that's impossible. Right. I mean that there's no, there's no system that we could come up with to entirely eliminate that. And of course, members of the court come to the court with their own worldviews. And there's no way to eliminate that either I guess unless we turn it over to artificial intelligence and or something like that, which of course would have its own risks. So I think yes the court does seem to be taking on these cases that, you know, perhaps allow it to make decisions that we could, we could, you know, broadly frame is going in a conservative direction. I don't think that's new to the court. Expanding the court to 19 would make it more representative, but no president would select enough members to change its nature. What is the downsize. Expanding it to 19. That's what it says. Yeah. Okay. Well I don't I mean I think you would need if you were going to put a limit on how many members of the court there could be you'd need a constitutional amendment. I mean I think the scholars debate this but on balance I think most most folks agree that have studied this that the court could be expanded, even without a constitutional amendment there was nothing there would be nothing to prevent a president from dominating 30 justices on paper anyway. Again I think the problem with that is do we then I just don't see how we don't end up in a situation where, as each party gets the executive or the Senate, we're basically just shifting the court to meet our political agenda. And in the short term that might allow, you know, my side or your side or whoever side to get a win or two. But in the long term I think that's just not a tenable system. And so, you know it's not something I personally even favor of. To the bear requirement that the Senate conduct up down voted on judicial nominations. Could the, could the Senate do an up down vote. I don't see why they couldn't. But you have to meet the constitutional per parameters of of the process and look the Senate has it's, it's, it's filibuster rules now and I think the precedent's been set, you know they've removed and removed and removed the, the, the, the sort of checks on that over and so I think that's resulted in a much more politicized process for, for Supreme Court justices to get on the bench and I think that's why we saw what we saw with Merrick Garland, and, and you know to a certain extent some of the others as well it has been recently nominated. You know, it's certainly the Senate's prerogative to carry it out its constitutional duties, you know as long as it conforms to them as it sees fit, but the more politicized the court gets overtly. I think the greater the risk to the rule of law. After dubs how important is precedence. A lot of people are wondering that. You know, right, rightfully so. I think it's got for our system to function precedent has to be critical to the court's decisions. We have a common law system of government, which is based on the idea that the law can progress slowly over time, but it has to happen incrementally and only in those most extreme situations should the court reverse itself. And in the reversing itself itself. There is no rule of law right we don't know what the law is from day to day and so I think there are real risks to that and I do certainly hope, regardless of the issue that the court returns to that. That view in a more vigorous way shall we say, and that might mean that sometimes the court's going to uphold cases that I disagree with. But again, it's that sort of law of the law rule of the road. And I think the law of the land. It's, it's, I think an important principle. This has been great. Thank you so so much, Jared. What a great first lecture for our session. So see you all next week hopefully at the church or on zoom have a good week everyone. Thank you. Thank you, Jared. Bye bye.


Hi everyone, Joe for jazzy's case breaks calm coming at you with a two case break of tries to our hidden treasures game day Greats football autograph football jerseys Pretty nice stuff. So we're doing a five box case of 2020 and a five box case of 2021 That's pretty cool. They're for these style of breaks. I think most people know that there's there's no checklist for this So what we're gonna do is we're gonna use our College or non-pro uniform rules, which I think isn't the frequently asked questions section should be there I'm sure everyone read that So basically if it's an active player in their college uniform, it'll go to the team. They're currently on so if they were traded yesterday I guess could be if it's Matthew Stafford's College Jersey. That's a good example, right? If it's Matthew Stafford's College Jersey, right, it'll go to the Rams now not the Lions If they're inactive retired it will go by a pro football reference calm We'll go by the number of seasons played the most seasons. They've played with a with a certain team and Then tie breakers will be I know tie breakers will you will be I? Think games and then game started whatever the columns are in there All right, big thanks to these folks for getting into the action appreciate it And there are all 32 teams right here. Let's roll it.  Remember trade at your own risk Glen's looking Steelers For for Browns Yeah, we'll keep the trade window open a little bit Packers and Broncos up for trade as well you guys are Pretty pretty bold trading No, thanks is James on the Steelers Browns deal anyone want Broncos or Packers. Otherwise, we'll roll And I've got the cases right back here. I know it's kind of kind of dark on the screen right there But this is the 2020 case. That's the 2021 case So we'll do the 2020 first and then we'll go to the go to the new stuff All right, looks like we've got some trade chatter So I'm gonna pause the video when we come back when I see if there's any trades and then the break stick around All right, welcome back folks. There was a little bit of trade chatter, but at the end of the day, there were no deals done It's all good the here's the print out hot off the presses Thanks, everybody And so here's the 2020 case first there's the first one. So this is 2020 red It's kind of small print, but it says 2020 right there Who am I forgot about the top camera? I Like these little game show cards that they give you Who am I? I'm the first player in NFL history to record 1,000 rushing and 1,000 receiving yards in the same season Wow three-time Super Bowl champion an offensive player of the year part of the NFL All decade a team in this particular decade the 80s Four-time Pro Bowl selectee first player scored three touchdowns in a Super Bowl Appeared in the NFL playoffs every year of my career. I'm the only running back to leave the NFL in receptions Who am I? 1980s all decade team first NFL first player NFL history to record 1,000 rushing and 1,000 receiving yards in 1985 Yeah, three-time Super Bowl champion in the 80s Come on. It's a running back Just think of the think of the No, he was he was they didn't win three Super Bowls in the 80s Raiders did not win three Super Bowls in the 80s. Just two one or two one NFC No rams did not win Super Bowls Right you don't know this guy No one knows this guy air Aaron Pettit and Rosario got a Roger Craig. Don't sleep on Roger Craig There's Roger Craig's autograph right there.  What about Daniel? Yeah, what about Daniel Craig? You don't trust Daniel Craig But maybe ever next player Drafted 53rd overall in the 2014 NFL draft a 2013 second team all-american a 2013 Paul Warfield Trophy winner a three-time pro bowler And a starting wide receiver and give me a lot of information on this one No, no No No You're getting close. No Yeah, you you missed one big one. Nope. Nope. He's the Green Bay Packers starting wide receiver Yeah Green Bay Packers Damian With the Devontae Adams Packers jerseys. So these are custom jerseys. There's the JSA right there So they don't have any of like the NFL logos or a Green Bay Packers logos or anything like that But obviously the autographs are authentic. There you go Devontae. They didn't give me the Roger Craig I feel like you could have added a lot more information for Devontae Adams. Yes, these these are great I think the custom jerseys are probably better for framing because you're not like hiding any of the Any of the logos or anything like that Was that tried to did you did did Damian try to trade those guys? Yeah, maybe a little try to trade couldn't trade mojo Loaded 2014 Y receiver class low dead Next one Who am I? Played football college football at Texas a two-time all-american five-time pro bowler three-time all-pro a first overall pick by the Oilers 1978 NFL Rookie of the Year you got it 1979 AP NFL MVP NFL 100th anniversary all-time team 1977 Heisman trophy winner 1990 college football Hall of Fame 1991 pro football Hall of Fame Nick guest it its Earl Campbell of course oiler stuff goes to the Titans And that'll be for David Cerule the old Earl Campbell of these powder blues right here Nice still got the red trim There's our old Campbell almost looks like Earl gray like T. It's like the autograph. There's the sticker right there TriStar card and everything pretty nice Folded here There you go. He's pretty good All Campbell. All right, there you go David. Congrats Two more to go in 2020 Then we got five boxes of 2021 Did I reveal the color on the top camera? All right, who am I? 10-time Pro Bowl select the eight-time first team all-pro the Super Bowl champion part of the another one from the 1980s all decade team two-time AP NFL defensive player of the year three-time UPI NFC player of the year played football at Baylor Got into the college football Hall of Fame in 95 pro football of him in 1998. He wants winners I want players that want to win Who am I? I think Nick got it someone heard in the background. He hates Vernon Davis.  I want winners. I want players that want to win Got the number on the sleeve as well There it is. We could give you a little HOF inscription right there There's his autograph There's the JSA sticker and the associated card right here pretty nice. That'll be For TJ Poyer and the Bears Oh, there you go. Maybe Arthur got Arthur's at Singletary. You got to count for the lag though You gotta get the people in the chat a chance. It's too quick Remember member it's always sounding in Philadelphia The family fight episode buzzers loud Yeah, or if Dennis didn't play and if Charlie played If they got all the Charlie answers, they would have won. All right, who am I? I'm a two-time Pro Bowl selectee a 1986 Davey O'Brien award winner a 1986 Walter Camp award winner a 1986 Maxwell award winner a 1986 Heisman Trophy winner With 46,233 career NFL passing yards. Who am I? College football Hall of Fame in 2013 not an NFL Hall of Famer though, but I think Yeah, who won basically who won the 1986 Heisman with 46,233 NFL passing yards? I think I think Arthur has it B-man has it as well No, not Flutey. It's yes. It's a Vinny test of verdict. I did not realize he had 46,000 NFL passing yards right there In his green jets Jersey, but no That's not jets There's been a test of various autograph. What college do you play for? Do you play for Miami? Yeah, this is his Miami colors He must have played for the Jets the longest though, right? Ooh, you're close. It's close seven years for the Jets six years for Tampa Bay So it'll it'll go to the Jets. They Played for one season longer with the Jets That's where I associate him with I guess I don't think about his Tampa Bay years Jarell Taylor, by the way has the Jets yet 40 I Guess he was yeah, I mean he he logged in like Seven years with the Jets six years with Tampa Bay a few years with Cleveland a couple years with Baltimore In these red boxes here, these are this should be 20 21, right? 20 21 So you get a whole group of new players plus opportunities for this current draft class Right, you can see Justin Jefferson on the top right there Yeah, pretty cool stuff to uh right here glowbug saying The weird thing about Tessa Verde is that his last name literally translates to green green head in Italian So that's what glowbug saying I'm not my Italian is not very good But then he played yeah, he played for a green team for a long time. He had a green head was the Those those green helmets there All right, who am I I'm the 1973 NFL rookie of the year the 12th overall pick in the 1973 draft 1974 and his name is old 1974 NFC player of the year Pro Bowl starter as a rookie five-time Pro Bowl after that Part of the Vikings ring of honor and the 50 greatest Vikings. Who am I? Obviously it's a Viking no Gale with the Vikings. No, I don't think you I don't think you'll get it I don't think I've seen this name in the hobby a lot. I don't even know I'll look at I'll look at it I'll look at it. No, not Carl Eller That's that's a very good guess, but he is a he's a running back not Alan Page So Vikings running back in the 70s. I think Obi-Wan got it. Did you cheat Obi-Wan? I don't think he's a cheater. Yeah, Obi-Wan got it. It's Chuck Foreman Running back. Let's see 5,950 career rushing yards 53 total touchdowns in his career All right, and then I think B-man to be Vlado afterwards got it, too Yeah, I feel like we don't see this guy's name in the hobby too often the back of the jersey right there to get a closer look at his Autograph great penmanship as all the old guys always have good penmanship the tri-star authentication sticker right there There you go Chuck Foreman No, not not for a different foreman. Is he really? Yeah, that's right. Yeah Next Jersey. Oh, Obi-Wan's an old Viking fan. That makes sense then Curtis chiming in with Chuck for me. You don't you didn't know who he was All right next player A Super Bowl champion a nine-time Pro Bowl or two-time first-team all-pros six-time second-team all-pro Part of the NFL 75th and 100th anniversary all-time team part of the NFL 1980s all decade team. It's like an episode of like stranger things There's a lot of 1980s people here His Patriots number 40 was retired part of the Patriots Hall of Fame 2000 College football Hall of Fame 1997 pro football Hall of Fame and he was a A That's not the same player. He was a former cornerback I think the Super Bowl that he won was with the Raiders, but I don't know what what player I don't know if it's gonna be Raiders or Patriots actually. Yeah, no, I barely know this guy too. It's actually Raiders edition It's Mike Haynes cornerback Mike Haynes There's the silver and black Jersey right there Yeah, Super Bowl champion pro bowler defensive player of the year 1984 There you go Mike Haynes right there 46 interceptions with 688 interception yards and a five touchdowns And that was when the Raiders Los Angeles Raiders beat the Redskins in 1983 season So that's clearly Raiders edition and that will be for Joseph apologies to the Patriots for the false alarm there and Raiders Joseph Joseph K with that. All right. We got a few more to go. So a few more chances to guess. I Sorry, Alec. I mean usually the card matches the Jersey Next one we have 2018 pfwa all rookie team first team all sec Yep First team all sec in 2017 a two-time college football national champion two-time sec champion So you can kind of figure that out. Yeah USA Today freshman all-american and broke this team's record for most single season receiving touchdowns by a rookie We're only 20 minutes into the break eBay. Relax. Who am I? 2018 receiver sec champion who are recent sec champions? Alabama Alabama receivers just start naming Alabama receivers from 2018 Calvin Ridley and his Alabama gear going to Atlanta There's Calvin Ridley There's Alabama number right there. They're you're producing all sorts of All sorts of great right wide receivers and who's that other kid that just won the Heisman who's going to be in there I think Brian Peoples may have gotten it All right, Calvin Ridley for the Falcons Nick T with the Falcons. All right. Thanks everyone for playing America's favorite game Who am I? Where I give you the clues you try to guess the player we got two more to go Good luck Thanks to try star for the game show cards Makes makes who am I pretty fun? You got to get these last two. All right six-time pro bowler Three-time first team all-pro two-time AFC defensive player of the year an NFL Defensive player of the year part of this team's honor roll a sacks leader in one year Walter Peyton NFL man of the year NFL 2000s all decade team and part of the pro football Hall of Fame in 2017 My sister works with Colin Cowherd Who am I? You didn't give anybody a chance on that one. It's too excited There is a lag Did everyone hear Now Bruce Smith not JJ Watt. Yeah, I think some of you heard Nick Jaspy in the background. It's Jason Taylor Yes, his sister Joy Taylor co-host on the Colin Cowherd show Which I only learned like in the last like year There you go pretty nice the JSA. There's the autograph here And that is for Miami Brandon with Miami Yeah, he's he's he's pretty good By the way, I don't think these are being shipped in these box I actually don't know how the shipping team does it, but I think they're gonna be in different boxes All right, congrats Brandon. All right last one By the way, I didn't see any more of these jerseys in the back. So So who am I? We'll be back next time. Don't know when All right Last chance to put your thinking caps on for bragging rights Tell your friends you won a round to who am I? I'm a nine another old school guy. I'm a 1986 SEC player of the year Three time all sec three time first team all-american five time pro bowl selectee A three time all-pro a four time afc champion Part of the 1990s all-decade team So think about four time afc champions in the 90s Part of alabama sports hall of fame and part of the college football hall of fame in 2005 Not mike jasperson close though not steve atwater Why do I not have a I need a position here? Let me give you a position So think about your 1990s afc champions. He was a first round pick second overall And was a linebacker 1190 tackles over 206 games played 204 starts 71 and a half cubie sacks 31 fumbles seven interceptions as a linebacker A lombardi award winner Who am I anyone want to guess bill's defensive players? close donal number 55 And number 97 according to according to wikipedia. It is There you go. I think josh got it. It's cornelius bennett Buffalo Yeah part of those part of those excellent uh Excellent defense on those bills teams right there. There's the jsa right here and cornelius bennett It's gonna go to erin pettett with the bills. Thanks erin for getting in. Thanks everyone for getting in and thanks everybody for playing This is always one of the the fun features of jaspis is who am I will look for some more jerseys and play some more next time I'm joe. I'll see you later. Bye. Bye


oh yeah absolutely absolutely they are resident just amazing every client have different personalities so for every every client for me is just I would say friend yes yeah it's absolutely lovely


Everybody forced here ripping 2023 chrome update hobby and jumbo eight box mixer number 11 pick your team style Got Anton H. Brewer's been as Philly's Brad and White Sox Chinu with the Angels Cody S. Rangers Daniel G. Braves David Y Mets Edward P Nationals Gavin with the Marlins Giovanni Cubs Greg M Jays Jay has the twins Jorge has Dodgers Joseph S. Mariners Joshua B. A's And Josh or sorry Josh will be has A's and Padres JT has the Giants Justin G. Astros Justin K. Orioles Kyle I. Reds Michael P. Reyes Mike F. Yankees and Cardinals Payton H. Royals Shigunori Red Sox Ty has the Rockies Theodore with the pirates Tung Chi with the Diamondbacks Way has the Tigers and Zach with the Guardians. Good luck everyone. Let's get started Kyle is currently live on fanatics live with personals everybody.  They are totally full tonight Plus we still got breaks to fill over here before we get to them. So I'm not sure how many we're gonna get done Preserved my shoulder going backwards 40 times I'm not gonna be hanging out with family on some of these days off, but Thursday I will but the other ones I don't know. We'll see See what everybody's doing I'm not even sure when my mom gets in town or leaves town to be honest I figure that out My brother, I don't know. He might pop in like a day, but flight attendant.   I'm also probably Really gonna try to go see green day and smashing pumpkins Oh Yeah, they're torn together Like that sounds That's awesome. I've seen I haven't seen blink. I haven't seen pumpkins, but Uh, I'm a breaker manager james I'm one of the managers here And courtesans like warehouse and sorting and shipping Uh, stout rookie refractor reds prism paraza debut yankees jake allure ricky refractor gnats Blue refractor ricky levy stout reds out of 150 Prism is bb debut for the guardians fracture bratt philips angels Aqua is mendic for the Mets out of a 199 Two numbered cards already in the hobby is pretty good josh young 88 Yeah, I never seen blink, but I'm sure the pumpkins are fantastic. Well, they're so good. Good musicians. Good musicians Billy corgan man. So good. Uh, louis robert The all-star refractor or rose rain or not refractor, but it was rena all-star as well Yeah, green day's fire fire Green day is awesome. I was my first question. I remember a lot of it prism is ryu jays volpe 88 curvy all-star Uh, vasquez ricky refractor yankees Purple rookie debut matt mervis the 250 cubs a lot of number in this hobby box very good for a hobby actually uh action stars otani Prism is Doyle rocky's rookie Gunner action stars for the orioles And his cards are every which way in this stuff. Evan Lee rookie base auto for the nationals And caballero rookie refractor mariners Pull up better for rip city remix That's pretty cool. Yeah, the magic g league moved from lakeland to kisimi, which is much closer to rilando Probably about 45 minutes to an hour closer All-star soto Oh wait, i'm supposed to be i'm gonna i'm gonna try to flip through it. Maybe it's Recruiter factor michael garcia royals gold mini diamond is going to be rookie andrew monastereo for the brewery stuff 50 Action stars riley green tigers the big bucks I've worked the big hours. That's that's what it is prism is dillentate orioles but the real job is uh I have to manage sam and jake and dillon and shawn and kyle gunner 88 for the orioles You'd even lane lane is heavily a manager too. I gotta manage him though. I know I do kyle tucker I got a I got a you know Cortice and I run in the run through the gambit here that's good doubts Action stars ruchman bladdy titans rickie refractors hicklin for the royals Perez ricky prism there you go marlins all-star adley for the orioles rickie refractor kevin kelly for the rays some getting people at the shop cards for christmas It's pretty cool, man. Robbie grossman perpore factored at 250 for the rangers. There's some good ones. I'm getting Some hilarious cards too. Oh, yeah Prism refractor is payton battenfield for the guardians the rookie fracter oan miller raffy devours Got a castellanos all-star dillentate Action stars your dawn titans pitilanzu ricky refractor auto bendeluzio to 499 for the cardinals negamina ricky refractor reds Prism is lugo for the Padres I'm gonna see lugo. I think of lego my ego No, I want waffle like an actual waffle though. I would eat an ego waffle right now. I'm not against it, but Craven like a waffle crispy edges cons butter syrup Matt Olson all-star I'm down with that.   I'm getting Samson. There's a few left out Bryce Miller rookie refractor debut mariners Chakaroni, is that what it is? Yeah, they said they bought that orange Mets Narváez the 25 nice color match. Omar Narváez Probably green 88 Kyle said he bought it. It was a super grease Well, yeah, it's a bunch of pepperoni. Yeah, I was like no jokes four pounds of pepperoni Yeah, it's a very fatty like sausage got uh, vladity jr. All-star That sounds pretty fire. Yeah, I would tear that up that sound I know why dude, Steve would probably eat some salad and then he decided to have that after Did you refresh your Joey Ortiz fruit salad? Yummy, yummy. I know it. That's exactly what Steve did action stars devours Either way, I would eat that for sure Peanut butter and everything works though except Peanut butter can just be the one thing you taste. That's the issue with peanut butter You can't taste other things sometimes when you eat it Quaster to your fracter royals Just follow me Yeah, I'm fine with that but sometimes you're like, oh well, was there anything else? Yeah, I was just jelly in there debut prism grissom for the braves Peanut butter banana sandwich that sounds yeah, even that alone just sounds good dude, sodo All-star I have the peanut butter honey on crustables in the freezer Edward Julia and ricky refractor twins Peanut butter burger. Yeah, I've had peanut butter burger. It's it's fire if you if you have the right toppings with it Got brenton's oil magenta purple lava lamp out of $2.99 for the Rockies walk reaction stars The one place that I had it was pretty good. I had a one sauce on it So you get that like really like tangy something to like go with the peanut butter and then I had like like caramelized onions Sharp cheddar cheese on it too. What? Yeah, it's all over the place. Yeah, it was really good.  That's the saltiness of the beef. Yeah prison ben and tendy white socks Because someone recommended to me and I was like, all right, I'll try it. I'll try I don't like hate And at the very least it tastes like a burger with like peanut butter. It doesn't clash like it doesn't I'm down with that DB refractor michael bush for the Dodgers Yeah, peanut butter banana grape peanut butter, honey Peanut butter jelly, obviously I got PB and J in the fridge right now. I got peanut butter and honey on crustables in the freezer too. Just in case I need a backup yeah Ready to go Kyle Tucker all-star. I actually made one today. I was like, you know, I'm gonna actually make my PB and J They gave me I bought the five one get one subway thing and they gave me somebody else's sub Really completely wrong. Not even playing rookie reds. Jeez, dude or shella refractor. I'm back to tomorrow Ray's house It's subway. They don't care. Oh, they're about to find out Corbin carol action stars diamond backs someone's gonna care when I busted that door Give me a free sub. That's what I would do. Like, hey, yeah, the least you could do is give you a free of a sub I wanted hey nice hit maritors. Ricky refractor auto brice miller to 499 371 to 499 good stuff I could be a stud Ricky refractor medina for the a's That's kind of what I was thinking too slap prism is Uh, Martinez Padres So acceptable last hobby box A lot of orders coming in here Almanac tomorrow everybody get your spots for almanac first five cases ultra high-end multi sport. It is No, it is freaking loaded Seven to go on origins On sale the last three breaks of spots tonight flawless py t case for football origins dibs case for Football and a starwars chrome black that is halfway full now. How about that? Completely a difference. I didn't I put like a couple things on my side. This thing was loaded with just garbage Shawna's like veggies no Maybe a little lettuce for the crunch or something. Yeah, I mean, I'm down. I normally just put spinach on my I don't use lettuce as much. They have spinach. I'd rather use spinach. Same here. Same here, you know Uh, danzie swanson unless it's like I don't know some things I like lettuce on but I spit spinach mostly But if it's coming to subs, I like spinach on it J rod red onions disgusting No I don't mess with that's what ruined that damn sub. I just got that onions all over. I'm like I like onion but the problem with like Pretty much everywhere is they don't like if you don't soak the onions in like ice water and takes out a lot of that Like harshness like that's that's what can make it like Decent, but otherwise if you just cut it raw and put it on something that just overpowers everything Wallisher factor. I don't like that flavor prism is vargush ricky diamond backs I will say in cooking you can't avoid on you No, 100% like the raw and all of a sudden Aaron judge all-star A lot of the time I won't order onion on certain things because I don't know like how much someone's gonna put on it And I'm okay with raw onion on things ricky refractor battenfield guardians But like I said, you have to soak them in water for a bit like ice water I don't want horseradish either So you know green refractor is ricky kori jolks for the stroze in 99. It's not my gig right there J rod action stars Well, I'm not going to subway anyway slap prism rookie is kevin kelly rays ricky refractor bradford rangers dolce garcia all-star rangers Fractor anderson angels. I might have to get breakfast crunch wrap tomorrow from taco bell Breakfast crunch wrap. Yeah, it's got egg hash brown sausage cheese and like jalapeno sauce. I'm down with that. It's fire, dude Yeah, it's really good crunch. So what what's the crunch? Is it it's from the taco bell like crunch at supreme? I don't know if they put the the Shell around it hard shell too. No, it's the How do you describe a crunch wrap guys? It's like a it's like a sandwich almost But it's like wrapped in tortilla. I Got aqua wave rookie auto jonathan aranda the one that ain't not for tampa bay ate a refractor so it's beef Like the flat like tortilla like crunchy shell and then you have like whatever toppings like sour cream lettuce tomato whatever cheese and then it's wrapped in like one of those tortillas and like grilled so it's like sealed all the way around with like a sandwich You hold it like that President Sean Murphy braves. You have to have never had one. I have to have one before dude. I think I probably did Kyle and shats Was he lippery? How's he albies? He's looking at what they're talking about Subway and stuff Yeah, it's pressed. Yeah, it's yeah, we're here fractures. Hedrick for the twins Yeah, it's like pressed so it's like seals towards you pretty much. Yeah Oh, yeah, never do like the bacon from taco bell. It's like the not real bacon Really green Alonzo Titans to 99 for the Mets Michael starts Michael Harris action stars braves mic D in the place to use that like It's like the bacon bits type stuff Yeah, at least the sausage is like an actual sausage a patty. It might be a fast food sausage patty, but it's still sausage Yeah, prism dilentate orials You gotta be up. What time does your breakfast till? Like 10 30 or 11 or something refractor a debut morel cubs. Yeah, you're not gonna make it That's not it's too early. Oh, I will say by that when you come back from Arkansas You'll probably be on that normal sleep schedule. Yeah, you know what I mean?  I'm like, oh, I'm getting tired. I think I'll go What time is it? I think I'm gonna go to bed. It's like 9 30. You're like, oh All right, then. Guess we'll go to bed at 9 30 Knowing that when I go back to work. It's like I Gotta stay up till almost 9 30 when I'm breaking Chicken case. Yeah, they're just these are solid though. It's all about that jalapeno sauce They decent they decent if they make it right is good I don't eat a fast food a ton anymore. I haven't recently at least Yeah, mason miller work your factor for the a's Yeah, I would say Sausage breakfast crunch wrap is probably one of Taco Bell's definitely best item. That's always there. If not the best I've never like not enjoyed one even if they kind of messed it up. It's still really good Rather green future starts tigers prism fortes for the marlins Um Rutschman debut or not debut but 88 orials and thin rookie refractor for the mariners. How are we doing tonight? Mike? You got the spurs and kings on right now spurs were dominating early The kings are furious right now. They're they're flying right past them clingy cards clingy cards Yeah, bangles probably probably done Orange wave coming up. What do we got? What do we got rookie auto? Nolan gorman great hit for the cardinals 19 of 25 st louis That is mike f congrats mike gorgeous hit orange wave gorman auto He's gonna be pretty good. I think congrats congrats all star otani Action stars j rod and a schmitt rookie refractor debut for the giants Chase under fantasy and some crying I don't even know who's on my fantasy team I couldn't tell you honestly I think I got joe mixon. I was getting a lot of notifications for him last night I think I got gust bus I guess let me start with those two last night. I'm starting off pretty well this week president mishchapman royals Yeah, I think I could agree with that slap I like the uh cheesy gritty to crunch to that one's really good Oh, yeah, but six dollars. Yeah Oh, well, I got to get one every now and then it's just it's just really good buchette all star Action stars mookie and refractor rookie burrito for the yankees tanner bb very nice magenta purple lava lamp guardians rookie to 299 Good one there second and rookie of the year for the american league rookie prism debut is rutchman orials And a julie and rookie refractor twins That's something I didn't get peloton I don't have to leave my house to work out rookie refractor auto jeter downs the 499 for the nationals Adolis all star alonzo and a terrain refractor debut brewers bobby wit prism delay rookie for the pirates Bady and a orteez rookie refractor debut orials Kids just spotted santa claus over new york city Are you serious?  Tattis titans ozzie albis action stars yordan and hunjinn are you?  I'm not eating dry turkey. It's all like crunching and stuff Prism connor wong red socks. There's a gunner 88's dylan dodd rookie refractor braves You know when they're walking through the isle of the grocery store and he puts the box of light bulbs on there and then He throws the 50 pound bag of dog food right on top of it Purple speckle rookie auto brandy williamson reds out of 299 Does that mean he's available to get signed? I guess mike is that that what that means? Swanson wits and peraza rookie refractor debut yankees I feel like he's gonna sign with the Mets pretty quickly I feel like it's gonna happen pretty fast for him or at least before like the new year Which I which would be technically quick for nowadays back in the day quick Everybody would sign the winter meetings now. It's Everybody signs after purple devon williams of 250 for the brewers prism ozzo car padres And colas debut refractor for the white socks Probably james it really depends on the country. We don't control that we we ship it for free from here, but Yeah, I believe you can I think declared value is whatever your cheapest item is that you purchase So I believe that's what it is. I think I don't know you'd have to you could send an email and shipping Respond with that shipping department good, but Yeah, so you'd be responsible for anything like that. We we have we do not have control over that We have to declare the proper value Gunner titans all-star jonaheim corbyn carol action stars for the dino backs and a grossman Good hit in this break A super fractor a short print big rookie Those would be good hits that gorman rookie was a rookie oughta was a nice hit Paris future stars for atlanta prism ircella for the angels and allu ricky refractor nets He wants to be a yankee Does everybody want to be a yankee? I don't know man.  The real chase is the debut patch rookie autos Pretty tough to hit, but that's that's the real chase What if anybody wants to play for the red sox? Probably dip. I don't think many people want to play for jon henry titans mookie luisa rise Devers may appreciate you matthew. How are you doing tonight, man? What's up, matt? Uh, yes, james. You probably will we will ship it for free from the building and then you'll be responsible for any Import fees at all leaves us free though So that is that depends on canada Which I believe do have uh Duties or fees or whatever radiating rookies here is matt mcclain For the Cincinnati reds That is sick big congrats going out to kyle eye First acclaimed rating that I've seen big chase right there Gorgeous car that's going into a mag Love to see it pretty solid break here prism rookie julien for the twins This car twins there too and a refractor of Doyle rocky's rookie Rules Yeah, orias just got traded to seattle for like a reliever or something. Yeah, something like that. What you mean matthew? Oh, yeah, I got you man Yeah, he said so in chat that guy's got gold packed luck like nothing else dude Yeah, and then the other time he hit the the stone cold out of five that ps a 10 Good god purple speckle rookie out of rangers is equal to ron. We always pull rangers when lane walks in Number to 299 there you go rangers. They're on On their cossus volpe refractor debut the table here we go There we go Whoa Why's it stick?  Oh, yeah, it's definitely thicker. I was like, oh, oh Thought we had one. I legit thought we had one right there thought we had one Walker uh feature stars for the cardinals Uh prism mayeda for the twins BB rookie debut refractor for the guardians Dodgers cubs giants. I've seen differently Mike. Yeah, all I see statistically is the Dodgers though.  That's down to six reduced price Otani sign soto gets traded. Uh, I honestly think otani will sign before soto gets traded Although, I don't know if thank yous are smart. They get it done quick Aqua rookie to 199 shoomake for the braves I just do not believe anything the Yankees say that they're going to go after these big names because they just never they haven't done it in the past like decade Shoomake to 199 for the braves prism rookie debut morale for the cubs I can't actually believe they're going to go after Yamamoto and Try to try to trade for soto and try to sign Nola or Montgomery or so. I just don't believe it. How did that happen? How did I miss that?  If I if there's styrofoam all over the ground, I'm gonna be pissed off Is there enough stuff floating in the air here? Yeah, dude Alonzo all-star action star Jordan Walker Cardinals Brenton Doyle rookie refractor Rockies I'll say soto trade happens first Because I think it's gonna happen quick. I think it's gonna happen soon Uh gunner on the future stars for the Orioles grayrod rookie prism Orioles rookie base otter Rockies brian servin Strowman all-star devours and doobal prism alia hernandez rangers rookie refractor soriano marlins Titans tautis otani all-star Action stars costus and drew maji rookie refractor for the pirates purple rookie debut hunter brown to 250 for the astros prism is anderson uh for the angels Gunner 88 and liles Three breaks left tonight everybody flawless p yt for football There it is james origins divs Purple speckle rookie otter and vava for the Orioles out of 299 and then the chrome black star wars pack or auto Matt Moore Prism rookie debut Perez marlins soto and rookie refractor garret hill tigers Keep forgetting debut patches in this or in the hobby and jumbo or redemptions So we're looking for redemptions y'all volpe titans j rod all-star action stars volpe and valdez rookie refractor for the red sox prism rookie for the twins brent hedrick gunner 88 Tommy lisela, uh Is it 11 or 10 in football? I forget And basketball is for sure 10 But I think in football you get the extra encased Uh, yeah, it's 10 It's 10 You can get 11, but it's 10 Blue refractor is rookie michael stafanik for the angels out of 150 J ram braggman and burleson refractor debut for the cardinals Aqua blue lava lamp is rookie blake sable giants to 175 prism rookie weimer brewers carol 88 and nardy rookie refractor marlins clean base oh and miller photo negative for the brewers Laddie justin steele all-star for the cubs ozzo car a rutchman future stars for the orioles prism randy vasquez rookie for the yankees ashita and paxton purple speckle rookie auto connor capel out of 2.99 for the a's kershaw j rod baity refractor debut metz almanax here everybody Almanax here just got here just got here break into maro prism duval red sox And monastere a rookie refractor brewers Titans of gunner Castillo on the all-star action stars mookie and jose siri refractor Five cases tomorrow five cases sunday 2200 a spot ultra high end. It is loaded Aqua debut gorman to 199 cardinals prism hernandez mariners For the door a proctor rookie refractor royals out of 4.99 review refractor auto Salvi Perez Alonzo and carol debut refractor for the diamond backs prism rookie is maji for the pirates Rookie refractor is walker for the giants Nato wits and bradley debut refractor rookie for tampa prism rookie alu nationals refractor rich hill All right last couple packs here guys 61 origins There are still 16 to go 16 to go on flawless And no cue for personals right now on fanatics live everybody no cue rookie refractor auto louis perguero to 4.99 for the pirates castellanos rochman mayeda Magenta 399 is taveras rangers prism matt more angels And a shoemaker key refractor for the braves. Give me a sec. We'll do a recap numbered cards real quick and then we'll do autos Uh, we had saveras hunter brown debon williams tanner bb Brenton Doyle wrote a robbie grossman matt mervis blake sable brane shoemaker Nolan gorman danie mendic b by stout cori jolks monastereo narvaez autos of perguero Serven monastereo michel jeter downs brice miller evan lee delusio Conor cappell tyron vavra franney williamson zekel doran jonathan aranda michael stafanik andic prato We had a matt mcclain radiating rookies for cincy And we had an orange wave rookie auto of nolan gorman for the cardinals Two awesome hits there. Thanks to get everybody number 12 is up next