A leaked draft opinion informed the world that the far-right wing of the Supreme Court has broken from Chief Justice Roberts and intends to overrule Roe v. Wade outright based on… “we’ve got five votes now, so suck it.” The gang discusses the opinion, the demise of stare decisis, the obsession with the leaker, and a law professor’s problematic response to it all. Joe didn’t even use the sound board this week, so you know it’s serious.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Posh Virtual Receptionists, LLC.
Joe Patrice: Hello. Welcome to another edition of Thinking Like Lawyer. I’m Joe Patrice from Above the Law. I am joined remotely, we’re all like in the future. We’re all remote. Today, no one is in the office together, but I’m Joe Patrice, I am joined as per usual by my colleagues —
Kathryn Rubino: Esteemed colleagues.
Joe Patrice: Esteemed colleagues, Kathryn Rubino and Chris Williams. We’re from Above the Law. We talk about the big news stories in Law of the Week. Last week’s episode, we recorded right before some stuff happened. So, now we’re getting around to talking about that. What happened last?
Kathryn Rubino: Yes, it’s weird, Joe, you didn’t usually send around a list of topics that we’re going to discuss, and weirdly, it was not. You didn’t send one around today, weird.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I feel like we have a lot of things to discuss, but they all kind of stem from the same.
Kathryn Rubino: There’s only one real thing to talk about, right? And that’s the end of fundamental freedom.
Joe Patrice: The Supreme Court, we have an authentic leaked opinion —
Kathryn Rubino: Draft opinion.
Joe Patrice: — from the upcoming —
Kathryn Rubino: First draft.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, first draft of an upcoming Dobbs’ opinion. We don’t necessarily know what’s changed since the draft itself, but we are led to believe that the core of that opinion is still intact and that there will be five votes to overturn Roe and Casey and effectively reverse 48 years —
Kathryn Rubino: Literally, there’s no effective. It’s not like, we’ve listened. We’ve talked about the upcoming Dobbs’ case on a couple of occasions on this podcast, and my general take previous to this leak had been that sort of the death of 1000 cuts that sort of the John Roberts worldview would hold sway with majority of the justices and the rights that were guaranteed under Roe. And Casey would be chipped away, chipped away, chipped away until they were functionally nonexistent, at least in large swaths of the country. However, the Supreme Court did us one better and actually wrote down the words, therefore we are overturning Roe and Casey, which is not what I expected.
Chris Williams: Just for the OWLS (ph) and when I was listening who aren’t really aware of the whole story decisive thing and how important it is. This is so monumental that we forgot to do small talk.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, oh, no, we definitely did. I intentionally did that, as I feel we may not have had time to do some small talk, which is sad because I know Kathryn really enjoys the sound effects.
Chris Williams: And another thing like how you know that this is an important topic. Kathryn didn’t even interrupt Joe during the introduction. Like —
Kathryn Rubino: I thoroughly off my game.
Chris Williams: I know the leak is like, “Oh, this is unprecedented”, but there were two things that affected the podcast.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, the thing that I will tell you, the kind of small talk wise that actually does relate to the Dobbs’ decision is that I had multiple friends who are not lawyers, who are just people in the world text me on last Monday when the decision got released or early on Tuesday and say, “I’ve been thinking about you, it seems like your life must suck right now because you’re writing, you are reading this, you are writing about it, I’ve written four or five stories about it”, whatever. And I was like, “Yes, that’s right.”
Non-lawyers, women though, so their rights are affected, but I think that kind of goes to it. I feel like most of society I think that this kind of transcends the legal world in super fundamental ways and I think that it’s kind of impacted everything. When I hung out with friends this weekend, there was very much a we’re kind of through the looking glass. This is really, really bad kind of a moment that’s tainted just living. This is bigger than a lot of other than decisions that I can remember living through.
I think this will continue to have ramifications for actual people sort of lived and that’s the truth of the supreme court and I think that maybe this is just kind of putting it into a sharper relief that all the cases actually impact actual people, right? Well, except for the ones, I guess they’re just about businesses, in which case, who cares which billion-dollar company loses a billion dollars, right? There’s a billion-dollar companies at the end of the day. But so many of these decisions are about actual people and I think that particularly in the sort of legal sphere, we can get very myopic about it and kind of, like very concerned about the inner workings and how it applies in the legal sphere. We kind of can forget about the human cost at the end of it and, yeah, there is one.
Chris Williams: I also got.
As a non-ovary owner, well, uterus owner. I don’t have ovaries either. Anyway, I also got the similar text because my friend was like, “Oh, this is going to be a shitty work week for you.” But I was also like, as time went on, I was like, “wait, this is more than just rogue.” This is also what’s the name? Immediate talk of overturning Brown versus Board. Immediate talk of banning contraceptives.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, Griswold is on the table, I think Obergefell versus Hodges is on the table. I think that Lawrence v. Texas in on the table.
Chris Williams: Loving versus Virginia.
Kathryn Rubino: On the table.
Chris Williams: I’m like, this is like, I wonder how many frat bros are like or maybe we’ve gone too far.
Kathryn Rubino: Zero.
Chris Williams: None. But when the jump off is like, oh, I can’t get rid of the baby. I’m like, oh, now I care about women’s autonomy.
Joe Patrice: So, let’s go back to that very decisive thing. One of the interesting aspects of this, as Chris was kind of highlighting, is that, if you read this draft and obviously it’s not a final opinion and maybe they found some way of shoring it up. But it was interesting to me that and I fielded some emails from some non-lawyers who were asking me to explain what we’ve overturned things before and I was like, “Well, not really.” In a lot of ways, for instance, Brown v. Board is a case where the Chief Justice’s opinion goes to great lengths to kind of create here’s why we are changing Plessy and it’s not because we decided Plessy was wrong, but there were arguments that hadn’t been made before. We now have learned more, and this is why these changes —
Kathryn Rubino: What are some difference in the world?
Joe Patrice: There’s a dance to these sorts of opinions that to explain and you can be cynical about it or not, but to explain that, hey, things are different and that’s why this is different. This opinion doesn’t even make —
Chris Williams: No lip service.
Joe Patrice: No lip service, just smooth. We’ve decided we have enough votes to change the law, which putting aside your stance on the substantive issues, is kind of scary because now there’s not even anything hedging this in. I understand there’s kind of a critical legal studies logic that there was never really anything other than their ability to create a good BS argument. But at least they had to put the effort in to have a BS argument.
Chris Williams: And for the folks that aren’t as initiated, the form of it is generally that, yes, the Supreme Court’s decision isn’t absolutely because it’s final. There’s no court above them. But there are times where they play this idea of it’s not that we are changing the law, it’s that we are discovering what the law already was. So, they’re like, “Oh, it is the case that it was cleared beforehand.” But this is a break as far as the jurisprudential approach to interpretive measures.
Joe Patrice: The decision to just flame on to existing precedent, that’s what really got me because there were ways you could craft some kind of a BS reason why it changed. They showed no interest in that, which settled to me. That was what I took away. That was super scary and made me pretty confident that all these other cases that you mentioned are on the chopping block. If they don’t have to craft a reason for anything, then everything’s up in the air.
Kathryn Rubino: As I explained it to a non-lawyer friend of mine, to kind of put it in perspective, I said this decision reads as a giant middle finger. That’s what it does. It takes all of the sort of conventions and the niceties that you which, for good or for bad, you still expect any sorts of monumental decisions and it just says, “Nope, fuck off.” We have the votes.
Joe Patrice: I think it was also interesting, let’s transition so that we can cover some more. We had several different stories throughout the week that were tangentially related to the opinion. Let’s transfer a little bit. Just because Justice Alito’s draft does cite some legal luminaries for his positions. Who did he decide? Kathryn worked out who he cited a lot of.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, there was actually a law professor who had tweeted about it and I found that and then after I kind of wrote the I wrote trivia question about it. It kind of blew up on Twitter, but for those who are not on Twitter or who have taken a break from it because it’s all awful right now, which fair. Yeah, in the case repeatedly, Alito sites Hale, who is known for a couple of legal principles, English common law writer and known for creating the marital rape exception. Also sentenced to women to be executed because they were witches.
Joe Patrice: I mean, look —
Kathryn Rubino: Legal luminaries.
Joe Patrice: Obviously, the first part is abhorrent but I mean we have to defend our reality from witchcraft. I mean, they — you don’t know how things can get out of hand if you let witches.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, I don’t want to spoil anything but the most recent Marvel movies certainly makes some up.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. See?
Kathryn Rubino: But no. But I mean, it’s really kind of stark that for the moral proposition that abortion has always been an easy goal and should be punished, which is the kind of the proposition that Alito repeatedly cites Hale for repeatedly and someone who said that, well, you know who we should execute is women for being witches and also said that like capital offenses should be applicable to children as young as 14.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Maybe this is not the moral authority you think it is, guys. Maybe this is not the one.
Joe Patrice: It was just such a sloppy opinion in so many places. They go with this — it’s long-standing been illegal, which people who actually follow the history of these laws would raise an eyebrow because that isn’t really true because there had always been several weeks before that it was considered illegal. Heathen cites all those and then says, we’ll see because that’s how it was at the time and we have to stick with what the history said. And when you raise the question, that said that you couldn’t criminalize until at least 20 some odd weeks. He says, well, I mean, but that we know better today. It’s all about history until somebody points out that it doesn’t work and then he’s like, well, but science today could tell. And it was just so sloppy. Like, as somebody, I mean I did wouldn’t want to give him free advice but I mean, I could come up with better ways try write this that wouldn’t look nearly as absurd. But they’re just no interest in that.
This is a good time I guess to talk about the leak aspect of it. So, that’s how we’re going to do this. We’ll talk about the leak aspect. We’ll talk about how people have reacted, which is me and Chris’ story. But let’s first go with the leak. Obviously, in the immediate aftermath of this, the Supreme Court is usually a pretty tight-lipped organization. Draft opinions don’t generally come out before the decision is reached. It is this as important as the substance of the opinion?
Kathryn Rubino: Nope.
Joe Patrice: But, you know, the useful idiots that lawyers are, they are going to obsess over how could this possibly have happened and start talking about the leak. So, let’s talk about that.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, I mean, I also think that there is, I think that the obsession with the leak ahead is also a media strategy because the truth is that completely banning abortion is not particularly popular despite the fact that the right wing has campaigned on it for years. It’s actually not very popular at all. And rather than talk about what the ramifications of overturning Roe and Casey are going to be for people, they’re instead talking and obsessing about the leak. It’s a slide of hand and a PR trick.
Chris Williams: A brilliant one, by the way.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, not bad.
Joe Patrice: I mean, yeah. It definitely did do some work.
Chris Williams: As a person, I’d appreciate sophistry and rhetoric. Like that is a brilliant jazz hand. Like how do we not make this about being that 58% of the people then there are 60%, the majority of the country will not agree with this clear power move, talk about breaking decorum because people love decorum, you know.
Kathryn Rubino: And I mean, it’s another kind of slap in the face because the only party that has consistently broken what we consider, what the norms and rules of institutions is the right, right? The whole reason that Gorsuch is even on the court is because the right wing because — Mitch McConnell decided never to even hold a vote about whether or not Merrick Garland should be on the Supreme Court. That was a radical shift in decorum and norms. But they were able — but now, rules matter. Now decorum matters because they’re on the other side of it and it’s just it’s so bald-faced reprehensibly, awful and obvious.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. When you say they’re on the other side of it, but that brings us to the question, who do we think this leaker is? Because I kind of feel like it’s somebody on that side.
Kathryn Rubino: 100%.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. I feel as though the most popular — when I wrote an article with some gambling odds for who do you think it actually was, and I even said in that article that I really thought that Jimmy Thomas was a pretty good guess. And that has become a very popular guess since then. Whether it’s her or somebody working for one of the more right-wing judges to the argument being that by putting this out there and bringing this firestorm of attention on it, it would prevent anybody from shifting their vote because it would look like they were bullied into it or something.
Kathryn Rubino: There’s some typographical evidence about that as well. I think you know about that Joe.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. There was a typographic forensic expert who made some observations about it. I thought it was very interesting. I didn’t think it was very earth-shattering because the observations were basically this was clearly scanned on a home scanner, didn’t have an automatic feeder like you can tell by the way certain things are happening which I mean, yeah. I don’t think that whoever did this did this at the office. So, I didn’t think that was —
Kathryn Rubino: You don’t think somebody stayed late to do it?
Joe Patrice: Yeah. I didn’t think that was really telling me too much. But I know it was interesting and I actually didn’t know much about how typographic forensics work. So, I thought that was interesting from that perspective. But, yeah. And so, we’ve since then now had more leaks coming out of the Court talking about the status of the deliberations and all. Those folks openly admitted that they were conservative sources. So, if there was a taboo of any kind, it is beyond broken now and everyone’s just leaking all over the place. So, that’s that story. I think we’ve been kind of editorially consistent that while a lot of people are buying into this media strategy, and while we will certainly note that it exists, we are quick to say this is ridiculous. You need to focus on the substance because who really cares if we get to see a draft opinion early? It’s ludicrous. Yeah. That’s not how any other part of government really works. Assuming it’s not a national security thing, you get to see the draft bills and you get to hear hearings and that’s how things are supposed to work. The Court should be way more transparent anyway.
Chris Williams: I still think it’s funny Ketanji Brown Jackson got dragged into this shit.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, you know —
Joe Patrice: Yeah. So, let’s talk about that one. Let’s talk about that one. Yeah. So, how did she get dragged in there?
Chris Williams: Because she’s Black. Look at me. That’s the how, the why, the when. Somebody was like, I don’t know. This smells melonated.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. I was going — fair enough. The double entendre of how, I guess. When I said how, did she get I was going to say by Newsmax next host to brought it up, but the more fundamental how you have answered. Yeah. The Newsmax decided to say that their guess on the leaker was somebody who is not even on the Supreme Court. Despite the fact that she’s been confirmed, she doesn’t get that job until Briar leaves. So, she has no access to any of this stuff.
Chris Williams: But you know those doggies are sneaky.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. I mean, —
Chris Williams: By the way, in case anybody’s listening, I am Black. Please don’t cancel ATL.
Joe Patrice: So, we’ll do that. Now, we’ll transition here to kind of the reactions. But first, let’s hear from our friends Posh and then we’ll, on the backend, talk about some of the stuff.
Female: As a lawyer, ever wish you could be in two places at once? You could take a call when you’re in court, capture lead during a meeting. That’s where Posh comes in where live virtual receptionist who answer and transfer your calls so you never miss an opportunity. And the Posh app lets you control when your receptionist steps in. So, if you can’t answer, Posh can. And if you’ve got it, Posh is just a tap away. With Posh, you can save as much as 40% off your current service provider’s rates. Start your free trial today at posh.com.
Joe Patrice: All right. Wow, I didn’t hit the sound effect for that either. We could go a whole episode about that sound effect, Kathryn.
Kathryn Rubino: Wooh!
Chris Williams: Oh, by the way, last episode at that fanfare, we found out immediately afterward that that was me, which made it funnier. And so, got said my mom the episode because she listened to it afterward and I was like, oh, was that you, Joe? That was a nice quote. I wonder who did that the whole time. The deep irony of video was my dumbass, which is a great sign for people that I am so committed to not thinking before I speak that I don’t even recognize my own voice, which I think is phenomenal actually.
Joe Patrice: You all ready managed to snag that from a previous episode where you had given the fanfare, and yeah. Now, we have it for all time. Anyway, so let’s go back to the biggest story of the week at least judged by Pierre traffic, but still related to this.
Kathryn Rubino: I think it was probably of the year of this. I think that the leak will overall, the leak will be the biggest story of the year.
Joe Patrice: Okay. That’s not what we’re talking about.
Chris Williams: I will not debate.
Kathryn Rubino: Knock on wood. Knock on wood.
Chris Williams: We got another seven months. Fuck that.
Joe Patrice: The best story of the week by at least by traffic all was a discussion of an article about a law professor at a certain law school who decided to tweet out his speculation on the leak and said that he was speculating whether it was the “stupid Latina.
Kathryn Rubino: Extra racism, yehey!
Joe Patrice: That happen. Yeah, so we got to inject a little extra racism. This was a law professor at a law school. Anybody have a guess what law school it is?
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, I know the answer but also, I 100% would have guessed ASLaw.
Joe Patrice: Yes. So, it’s ASLaw which is what for those who are uninitiated, that is what we call the Antonin Scalia School of Law which was the dumbest possible branding that George Mason gave when they took a bunch of money to name themselves after Scalia and they decided to not even bother once to check how things work out as acronyms and made a ASLaw. So, yes, ASLaw professor tweets us out. There has been a statement released from the school saying that, “Sorry,” and “This is unprofessional,” and blah, blah, blah seemingly no actual —
Kathryn Rubino: But don’t worry, there are no consequences.
Joe Patrice: No actual consequences.
Kathryn Rubino: No consequences so, you know, do we think that professor will do something similar in the future? Probably.
Joe Patrice: Well, he has done in the past. We found several tweets. Many of which have been deleted since I found them but many tweets with some suspicious behavior, yeah.
Chris Williams: I will say a call back to a prior episode. I remember we were talking about the significance of still covering Amy Wax and Kathryn was like, “Oh, when you look at schools, you will see the professors were talking about.” I think one of our responses was, “Well, there are still schools where the professors have racist thoughts. It is not saying this stuff.” So, I’m just thinking of the poor soul and I was like, “Oh, I got accepted to Penn but they’re racist. I’ll just go to somewhere neutral like AS.”
Joe Patrice: So, yeah, and this has been an interesting story. I’ve gotten a lot of feedback from a lot of former students from George Mason and I haven’t necessarily written these stories because a lot of them are just one source like not corroboratable but I will say that they’ve been very uniform in saying, “Oh, and you don’t know the half of it. Here’s other things this particular professor did in school.” So, it seems like it’s a long-standing problem. And this is just what happens when you build a school around a guy who said that African-Americans deserve they have to go to lower track schools. If that’s the person you’ve decided to honor with the name, you’re going to invite a faculty that will do all this sort of stuff.
Chris Williams: Joe, Joe, but his legal writing.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, yeah, he used the word argle-bargle so he’s genius.
Chris Williams: I will say regardless of the guys’ opinions and I have sprinkled in the use of the phrase pure applesauce.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, nice.
Chris Williams: That was hilarious. I would give credit where credit is due.
Joe Patrice: We did a story several years ago that got some level of virality. I think it was after the argle-bargle where we just kind of said we created a contest to create the most Dr. Seuss-ish Antonin Scalia comments.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, children’s books/Antonin Scalia, yeah.
Joe Patrice: Yes, that was fun.
Kathryn Rubino: That was fun.
Joe Patrice: We’ll see if we can dig that up. Anyway, so that’s what was going on with law professors. So, they were out causing trouble, but there were also some state legislators out causing trouble which brings us to Chris’ story.
Chris Williams: Yeah, so I think the gist of my story was along the lines with Kathryn saying like this opinion was a giant middle finger as far as — but this referred to I think something Louisiana’s passing that’s piggybacking off of this overturning of president. Well, story decisive, and they’re basically trying to make abortion a homicide crime. But the more I think about it, the more I’m like, “Wait, what?” Because their argument is that life starts at conception. And I think would that also — well, I’m just trying to think like, if this might go further than just abortion is that it will cover like anything that would lead to — anyway, it’s bad. But the thing that I’m talking about was like in the discussion of the law, there was a clear reference to God and I’m like, what happened to separation of church and state, like even back to this, the appearance of maintaining neutrality and this weekend, I went back to just listen to a bunch of Spinoza flexures because that’s the type of nerd I am.
Joe Patrice: Okay.
Chris Williams: There’s this line in Spinoza, it’s like, what is it that makes people fight for their own subjection as if it was their salvation? Because if we want to think about like geological basis for the law being the case, and I’m like, what other folks who write in the theological vain thinking about and that’s the additional thing I’ve been thinking about this weekend.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, and this law that does have a bunch of over religious mentions in the text, it also, if I recall and this is where, Kathryn, you’ve been tracking this a little bit better than me.
It also would ban certain procedures that are straight-up medical procedures, right? This is the one that would bar the ectopic pregnancies, right?
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah.
Chris Williams: Yeah.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, I mean, listen, there’s not a lot of care for the impact on women and people with uteruses’ overall health when they’re creating these laws. So, this is wildly unsurprising. Yeah, I think that we’re going to continue to see all sorts of necessary medical care being criminalized in the future and yeah, it’s only going to continue. The other sort of ramification that a lot of states are, or some states at least are talking about, are travel bans so that people who want to leave the state in order to get that medical care will potentially be banned.
Missouri has already considered a similar mechanism to the SBA Texas Law where everyone is just allowed to sue if they believe they have information that somebody might have left the state to get an abortion while the original version did not have enough votes now that Roe’s overturned and they’re rumored to be considering it again. Tennessee, I believe, has just banned receiving Plan B over through the mail which if you are already pregnant, Plan B doesn’t really do anything. It might prevent the implantation of an egg into a uterine lining but if you’re already pregnant and it has already been implanted, it won’t do anything but doesn’t matter apparently in Tennessee.
Yeah, I think that we’re going to continue to see states trying to extend their reach beyond their borders in a way that makes the sort of previous calls of states’ rights makes them the farce that we always knew that they were. I think we’re going to continue to see states trying to expand their reach and make sure that it’s virtually impossible for folks who live in those states to get the care that they need.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, and this was one your articles this last week about how there’s now going to be a push to go after to create travel bans basically to bar people from going to another state for these procedures which, as you said, the quasi justification of this is that it’s a matter for the states to decide and your state can decide side to legalize it or not and whatever. But since at least the conversation over Dred Scott, we’ve agreed that you can go to other states and abide by their laws and that your laws don’t follow you to that other state. This would be a direct assault on that logic. So, if we had to throw —
Kathryn Rubino: But, again, not surprising.
Joe Patrice: Yet another horrible president that could be back because of the way this court is operating, there you go.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, not particularly surprising is how it comes out. And, even there’s also been a lot of political talk about companies that have said that they will pay for their national companies that have locations in many different states as some of them have said, if one of our employees needs medical care in another state that they can’t get at their current state, they will pay for the travel and housing and all the associated costs for it. There’s also been talk about sort of retaliating against the companies that are doing that.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: So, there’s no real end to the awfulness that if this decision which we have every reason to believe will be as awful as the draft version if that is the law, there’s no end to how terrible it will get.
Chris Williams: I just think it’s super interesting that the party whose bread and butter is talking about the left is an extension of my role. This is just straight-up kind of majoritarian problem.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah.
Chris Williams: This is either minority or religious minority controlling the lives of the majority and they’re able to still play victim. I think it’s wild.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, it is amazing how you can have everything and still play victim.
Chris Williams: Because what is it? I mean, even when it comes to just law schools as others talk of, “Oh, they’re nothing but liberal rising grounds. You can’t see anything.” But it’s like, what’s happening? It doesn’t look like the left is taking over if you look at what’s happening politically.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Chris Williams: Because we are much closer to mandating prayer in school than we are to free healthcare and universal based income. That’s all I’m saying.
Kathryn Rubino: Correct.
Joe Patrice: That’s probably true. And with that, so, let’s be done. Thanks everybody for listening. You should be subscribed to the show, give it reviews, stars, write something. It all helps out. You can check out some other shows that we’re on. Kathryn’s the host of The Jabot. I’m a panelist on the LegalTech Week Journalists’ Roundtable. You should check out the other offerings of the Legal Talk Network. As always, read Above the Law, that way you’ll get to catch on all these stories and more as they’re happening before we run them down on the weekly show. You should be following us on social media. I’m @josephpatrice. She’s @kathryn1. Chris is @rightsforrent. And with all of that, thanks to Posh for hosting and I think —
Kathryn Rubino: Peace.
Joe Patrice: Not hosting, for sponsoring, that’s what I meant to say, whatever.
Kathryn Rubino: We’re the hosts. It’s all right, we forgive you.
Chris Williams: We couldn’t host without them.
Kathryn Rubino: That’s true.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, that’s true. And we did it. No sound effects, basic, all right.
Kathryn Rubino: Peace.
Chris Williams: Until next week.