The Law is Ours with Chief Justice Bridget Mary McCormack

TOPICS DISCUSSED

  • Trump’s Indictment and Upcoming Arraignment

  • Former Michigan State Supreme Court Justice Bridgett McCormack discusses the Justice System

  • Outside of Politics: Mail is Life

Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do it without you. To support the show, please subscribe to our Premium content on our Patreon page or Apple Podcasts Subscriptions, or share the word about our work in your circles. Sign up for our newsletter or follow us on Instagram to keep up with everything happening in the Pantsuit Politics world. You can find information and links for all our sponsors on our website.

EPISODE RESOURCES

UPCOMING EVENTS

TRUMP INDICTMENT

CHIEF JUSTICE BRIDGET MARY MCCORMACK

These are the cards Sarah mentioned (affiliate link)

TRANSCRIPT

Sarah [00:00:07] This is Sarah Stewart Holland.  

Beth [00:00:08] And this is Beth Silvers.  

Sarah [00:00:10] Thank you for joining us for Pantsuit Politics.  

Beth [00:00:25] Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining us for a new episode of Pantsuit Politics. I'm really excited, Sarah. Several months ago, I had the incredible honor of sitting down with then Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Bridget Mary McCormack. Chief Justice McCormack actually notified Governor Gretchen Whitmer of her plans to retire from the bench in the fall last year and retired as of December 31st, 2022. But she was the 108th justice of the Michigan Supreme Court and the ninth woman to serve on the court and served on the court for a decade before her retirement. And we're going to talk today about a big part of her legacy, which is increasing access to the judicial system. And then Outside of Politics, we're going to share a conversation with you about birthday cards, but really about communicating with one another through the mail in general. I think mail is life. And I'm really excited for you to hear this discussion too.  

Sarah [00:01:21] I heard ‘mail is life’ in the accent of the character ‘football is life’ on Ted Lasso?  

Beth [00:01:28] Yes. Dani Rojas.  

Sarah [00:01:29] Speaking of TV, y'all, we're in it. We're into the Succession season over on our premium channel. Was the first episode recap 45 minutes long? It was. Is that almost as long as the actual episode of Succession? It is. Don't you dare judge us. We have so many thoughts and they're all good. We needed that all that time. We need all that time to go all the way from how we feel about wealth and economic status to how gorgeous Naomi's earrings were. Like, we just needed a lot of time. Do you see what I'm saying here?  

Beth [00:02:02] Did we even cover everything? No. 

Sarah [00:02:04] No, we didn't. That's how layered the show is. We're having a good time. We're having such a good time over there, you guys. We're really solving stuff through Succession. So come join us on our premium channels on both Patreon or Apple podcast subscription and watch along, listen along, judge along, (which is actually my favorite part of it) as we go through this final season of succession.  

Beth [00:02:28] Up next, former Chief Justice Bridget Mary McCormack.  

Sarah [00:02:41] We're coming to you from the hotel lobby at Walt Disney World Resorts with this breaking news update. Donald Trump has been indicted. We knew we had to talk about it at least a little bit.  

Beth [00:02:51] It's hard because there's still so much we don't know. The indictment is sealed at the time of this recording, which is Monday morning. He will be arraigned tomorrow on (it's reported) more than two dozen charges.  

Sarah [00:03:03] I heard 30 on Twitter from somebody that was supposedly dependable. 30 seems a lot, but then I read that it could be like every individual document is a charge. I don't know who to believe.  

Beth [00:03:14] Well, that's the problem, right? It will be public record. It just isn't yet. And this waiting time is so hard because everybody wants to do a lot of analysis in the waiting time. But Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan District Attorney, has said over and over, "Y'all don't know what we're doing over here. Hold your horses. The chapter will be written." So, I'm just I'm waiting for the documents.  

Sarah [00:03:34] I think we are being more responsible than most members of the Republican Party who are rushing to his defense without all the information. How many times does he have to play y'all in this game? How many times do you have to learn? Don't defend him immediately before you have all the information. Every time. Every time they do it.  

Beth [00:03:49] PR game about this is so dumb because where Democrats aren't saying much, it's being taken as like, oh, they're so panicked that Alvin Bragg has overreached. No, maybe they just are waiting to read the documents. Ivanka Trump statement is being read as like she doesn't care about her father or maybe she has a good lawyer who was, like, when we're in the midst of crime, we don't talk.  

Sarah [00:04:10] Let me tell you something. I think Ivanka has a very good PR person or crisis person. I think that-- I could talk about this forever and I know that's not what we're here to talk about, but Ivanka is playing a please let me out of jail game. I want to go back to my parties. I want to go back to society. I've read really great reports that she understands that's no longer available to her, but she is definitely crisis managing this. I will stay quiet. I will say the minimum. I think if she had from the very beginning had just said I love my father, and stayed the heck out of it, she'd still be at the parties maybe. I don't know. He's still offensive. Probably not. But the way she's trying to manage this, what I really want to do is say, "Ivanka, he's not your only problem anymore. You maybe want to talk to your husband, too."  

Beth [00:04:53] Well, I think that's right. But it's silly to read into a quiet statement, something negative. But that's what happens, right? The stories are like Ivanka tells us what she really thinks about her dad. No, Ivanka has a lawyer. I just think Ivanka has a lawyer and is smart.  

Sarah [00:05:09] Yeah. Well, that statement, like I said, was crafted by a crisis person, not just a lawyer. I love my father. Okay, so the part that's making me super grossed out is not just the Republicans are defending without all the information, which is gross and ridiculous. But also, he's thriving in this environment. He loves all the attention. Gross, even if it's true, don't write that story New York Times. I think that that is the grossest that he's flourishing in all of this.  

Beth [00:05:37] It's strange because from the same outlets, you'll get the story that he's thriving and the story that he's agitated and angry and concerned. And I think probably both things are true about him. As much as we know him both of those things are true. What I told myself this morning when I read that he has raised $5 million off of this--  

Sarah [00:05:54] That actually seems low to me.  

Beth [00:05:56] That number is low. That's exactly what I was going to say.  

Sarah [00:05:57] That seems low to me. Okay, good. I'm so glad that's your instinct. When you said that, I was like, that seems low. Because, I mean, around January six in the election, he was raising like $20 million a day or something bananas.  

Beth [00:06:08] Yeah, that's just what I keep thinking. What would that number have been five years ago? Because there is always going to be a segment of the population that is down for the state is beating up on you. The government's taking your rides, they're coming for you, so they're coming for me. Like that's always going to have play, but I think the play has shrunk very significantly.  

Sarah [00:06:30] And that's what I don't understand what they're defending him. You want a presidential candidate under criminal investigation and indictment? I don't understand, guys. Do you want to win? I really don't understand.  

Beth [00:06:43] I have three things. There's the political thing that you just articulated. The second thing is it's not Congress's business. This is not a federal case. So, whether they think this district attorney overreached or not is not their problem, that's a New York problem.   

Sarah [00:06:56] Yeah. They're trying to make it their problem though.  

Beth [00:06:58] They're trying to make it their problem. And again, if your story is government overreach and you're meeting it with more government overreach, that seems weird to me. And thirdly, this whole tag of if they can come for him, they can come for anybody. I don't have hotels that I could inflate their value. I don't have a fixer who makes payments to people. I mean, I don't understand why that has resonance especially the [crosstalk] facts that are alleged to be in the indictment here.  

Sarah [00:07:29] Well, yeah. I mean, what part of that is relatable? And also, again, that is the rule of law. Yes. If they can come for him, they can come for you. They can come for everybody, because that's how the law works. It applies to everybody. It is interesting. I don't know what's going to happen in New York City on Tuesday when he actually turns himself over, which I am delighted that he is.  

Beth [00:07:47] I am, too, because I think that could have provoked a real crisis. What happens if he doesn't?  

Sarah [00:07:52] Yeah. I mean, we have criminals that run from the law. Man, that is a thing.  

Beth [00:07:55] And he certainly has the network of resources to do that.  

Sarah [00:07:58] And I do want to say that Donald Trump is innocent until proven guilty.  

Beth [00:08:01] Absolutely.  

Sarah [00:08:01] I thought that was interesting that Nancy Pelosi-- where she was like, he proves his innocence. And I'm like, well, that's not really true. That's not how this works. They have to prove their case.  

Beth [00:08:11] And it could be a very hard case to prove. I think it's been interesting to see the stories this morning are like, well, this is bad, but there are a lot of things happening in the other cases that are pretty bad, too. That they have indications from security footage of Mar a Lago related to the documents case. That he's getting these rulings that lawyers and others have to testify in other cases. It is a constrictive moment, I would think, for him.  

Sarah [00:08:35] Yeah. I mean, there's no way, even if you like attention, to feel good about being digitally fingerprinted and arraigned. I'm sorry. It's shameful. You're a former president of the United States. You took the oath of office and here you are getting booked. I mean, and I wish it had happened to Richard Nixon. I think it should have. I think that was a mistake. And I think this moment would be different. I'm not sure we would have gotten a Donald Trump if Richard Nixon had actually been held responsible for his crimes. But Donald Trump certainly should be.  

Beth [00:09:07] I have no idea what that choose your own adventure of history looks like. But I will say I think this is both really important and really terrible. And both of those things are true at the same time. Like, I don't feel giddy about this in any way, but I do feel good that there's going to be permission now I think for others to to bring charges where charges need to be brought. And we're facing this difficult period instead of going past it. And I think it's going to be pretty awful. I think it's going to make some of our conversations terrible. I think it will provoke individuals to do weird and sometimes dangerous things. I hate it for all the people who are involved in this who are going to get a continued barrage of death threats. But I think the only way around is through this time.  

Sarah [00:09:49] Well, and we're not done. [Inaudible] out there working hard. I think that's right, that it'll be good and terrible. And I'm glad that Alvin Bragg just moved forward. I really like the point that David French made on Ezra Klein podcast that prosecutors should not make political calculations. You do what's right under the law. It doesn't matter what the politics are.  And the politics will be both good and bad. And I'm glad that Alvin Bragg just said, I have a case and I'm going to make it. And I think that all the multiple other people out there in a similar position to him in Georgia and Jack Smith should make similar calculations. Yes, this will be hard, but if it is the right thing to do, it is the right thing to do. The right thing to do is often hard.  

Beth [00:10:27] Well, and we got hard in America no matter what, good hard all over the world no matter what. The headlines, the storms, the tornadoes, whatever you read today, there is an element of hard in it.  And this hard with Trump is a lot a hard of uniquely American making. So, this is one thing we can try to clean up and we should.  

Sarah [00:10:46] Well, I think it's interesting that you said it's uniquely American making because him being on trial like this feels like we're joining a club. France, Israel, you know what I mean?  

Beth [00:10:57] It's true.  

Sarah [00:10:57] It feels more like we're ending this period of uniqueness and we're entering most of other parts of the world where if a former leader breaks the law because power is seductive and sometimes tempts them to break the law, they're held responsible. All right. So that ends this breaking news update. We'll go back to your regularly scheduled Pantsuit Politics, and we will be back in your ears next week when we return from vacation.  

Beth [00:11:32] Sarah, I was really excited to talk with Justice McCormick because she's speaking to my heart about the fact that the legal system is opaque to most people. It is a full third of our government and most people do not understand what happens there, cannot afford to participate in it. And if they do have to participate in it, walk away believing it was one of the most excruciating experiences of their lives. And it just shouldn't be that way.  

Sarah [00:12:00] Yeah, it's like quicksand.  

Beth [00:12:02] It is.  

Sarah [00:12:02] It's like you don't understand it, and then once you're in, it's a trap. And then you fight it and that makes it worse. And then you sink. It's really not great. It's not. It's not a user friendly experience, as they say in the tech world.  

Beth [00:12:14] It's not. One of the reasons I'm so passionate about covering Supreme Court cases on More to Say is that these cases belong to all of us. The law is ours, and it is one of the most important institutions that we have in a democracy. And so, I love how much of her career, Chief Justice McCormack, has focused on not saying, "How do we protect all of us who went to law school and our special skills and knowledge," but instead, "How do we open this up to more people and really strengthen our democracy in doing so?".  

[00:12:48] Chief Justice McCormack, it is an honor to have you here on Pantsuit Politics. I'm really thrilled to be talking with you. Most of our listeners know that I am a former lawyer and I have such a passion for the court system and the justice system in general. So, it's really exciting for me to talk to you. You have spent your career advocating for the law to serve everyone. We're talking at a time when the public understanding and really faith in the justice system feels kind of tenuous. So, I'd love to start with the understanding piece before we get to the faith piece. The justice system also feels very opaque to a lot of people. So, can you talk about what the Michigan State Supreme Court is responsible for and just help people understand the universe that you oversee right now?  

Chief Justice McCormack [00:13:27] The judiciary does so much and most people don't have much of a grasp on it. I think most people are familiar with the decision making function that all courts have, including the Michigan Supreme Court, we're the court of last resort and we decide cases that affect people across the state. But in addition to our decision making function, the state Supreme Court in Michigan, like many states or most states, I should say, has constitutional administrative oversight of all of the courts of the state. In Michigan state courts there are 242 trial courts, close to 600 judges that between them adjudicate over 3 million cases every year. And so, in that constitutional oversight role, the justices of the Michigan Supreme Court, together with a talented team of administrators-- don't get me wrong, we have a lot of excellent people working to help us. We try and figure out how to make sure that the kind of justice, the quality of justice that people get in those local courts is as good as possible. Most cases are adjudicated in state courts, not federal courts, even though federal courts is what we hear about most of the time. And when people have to go to court, it's usually not because something great has happened, it's usually the opposite. And often they're navigating those justice problems without lawyers. So, the kinds of support we can give to people who have to navigate serious problems, often without the benefit of a lawyer, is to me, the most important work that we do.  

Beth [00:14:58] Well, I know in my home state of Kentucky funding the justice system as a system that is supposed to shepherd those millions of cases through is a huge problem. Do you have that challenge in Michigan as well? People understanding everything the court does and therefore wanting to allocate enough resources for you to do it well?  

Chief Justice McCormack [00:15:15] Funding is an ongoing issue in lots of ways. In many states, Michigan included, trial courts are partially funded by the state, but partially funded by their local funding unit. And different local funding units have different priorities and different understandings of what exactly courts are doing and the services they can play for people in the local community. I happen to be a believer that the state should fully fund the court system and we shouldn't leave it to local jurisdictions to kind of compete and fight for the dollars that are already too short across many different services. And I also think it undermines public confidence in the court system when we fund the court system on the backs of the people we serve. So, robustly funding courts in a central way do a lot to increase public confidence. But ongoing issue-- court funding.  

Beth [00:16:13] When you say on the backs of people we serve, do you mean things like court fees? Can you talk more about that?  

Chief Justice McCormack [00:16:18] Fines and fees end up being a big driver of court funding in some local jurisdictions. And you'll see deep disparities in how one jurisdiction assesses fines and fees as compared to another one. And I won't talk too much about it because have a case pending in the Michigan Supreme Court on this very topic. But the judges in Michigan who sit in the district courts, which is the trial court where traffic cases are heard and the lower dollar civil cases are heard, have submitted affidavits that they feel like it puts them in a conflicted position to both have to adjudicate responsibility, and then if somebody is responsible assess fines and fees that end up funding the court system itself. So, it's really a complicated issue and one that really can cost us in terms of public confidence.  

Beth [00:17:12] You were talking about how many people navigate the system without a lawyer, and I would love to spend some time there. Fines and fees might be a good way to get there. One of the most eye opening experiences I've ever had was just watching a state judge go through a docket one morning and seeing the cascading effects of folks who started in the system because of a traffic violation, missed a court date, start accruing fines and it just piles up because they didn't have the skill to deal with that first violation. And I'm sure that you see that on steroids all the time. I'd love to hear you talk about how that impacts assess, the language of the law, the structure of it, and that maze of fines and fees as you fail in the system.  

Chief Justice McCormack [00:17:58] Yeah, it really traps people and ends up causing much bigger problems than had we just figured out how to give them enough information at the front end to be able to navigate their first justice problem. In lots of states, Michigan no longer-- thanks to some really awesome front end criminal legal system reform we put in place a couple of years ago. But in many states, when someone fails to pay a fine or a fee on time, their driver's license is automatically suspended. And then once their driver's license is suspended, they may not even know it. It just happens automatically by operation of law. And then they're driving the kids to school one day and they get pulled over and they are now driving on a suspended license, an offense for which jail time is mandatory. So, at this point, they have to get taken to the county jail where now they have a new offense and probably a bond and a complicated process to go about getting their license back. And let me just make very clear sometimes that underlying that first level fine or fee that they didn't pay on time, they may have missed their notice, they may have thought they had more time and were going to pay on a payment plan or they may not have even known about it to begin with. It doesn't necessarily have to have had anything to do with driving safety. It can be failure to have paid child support or some other civil infraction that has nothing to do with driving safety. And yet suspending driver's licenses was the default way we handled that for a long time.  

[00:19:30] And so, it's not hard to see how somebody can become seriously behind on financial obligations just because they misunderstood the first ask of them. If you're a person who has to navigate a justice problem and it's not a misdemeanor or a felony for which the court must assign you a lawyer, at least before you're adjudicated responsible, that actually can change after you've been sentenced. There are lots of people navigating court dockets on post-conviction fines and fees matters alone, again, without lawyers. But if you're trying to navigate a legal matter without a lawyer, it's really hard. We send people to law school to teach them a completely different language, and that's the language we speak in courts. And we've corrected all these rules that are written in this foreign language that makes it really difficult, even for very bright people to navigate. So, it's not an accessible system to most people, and most people can't afford lawyers. I mean, the evidence of the number of our neighbors that have to navigate justice problems without lawyers is overwhelming. It's probably higher than 90% of your neighbors have to navigate just their own justice problems without lawyers. And that means an eviction case, the family law case, the debt collection case, you name it. They're left to try and figure it out on their own. And if they fail, you're likely going to get behind and owing fines and fees, which will only complicate things further.  

Beth [00:21:06] I have really appreciated hearing you talk about this as a market failure, that the legal industry is a market failure. Can you kind of flesh out what you mean by that?  

Chief Justice McCormack [00:21:16] We produce a lot of lawyers every year in this country. And honestly, there are a lot of lawyers graduating from law schools outside of the top 14 law schools that try and struggle to figure out how to make ends meet, frankly, even though they've borrowed in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars to get this degree. And then on the other end of the spectrum, we have the great majority of people who have justice problems, legal problems, for which they simply can't afford to pay a lawyer's rate. Usually when you have a market failure like that, there would be some innovative solutions to try to figure out how to close this enormous gap. But for lots of structural reasons, we just keep moving forward, letting that gap only grow and we're not really able to innovate, to kind of figure out how to match supply and demand.  

Beth [00:22:10] What would innovation look like? I've heard you talk about having more paraprofessionals in the process.  

Chief Justice McCormack [00:22:16] This feels like an easy part of what innovation might look like when you have a health issue. It doesn't always require a surgeon. I mean, I recently had a little bit of spine surgery and I needed the surgeon for the actual surgery. But the three appointments before that and the two appointments after it, I never saw the surgeon. And frankly, I didn't need to see the surgeon. I needed, in one case, the technician who did the chest X-ray. And in another case, I needed the nurse practitioner who really knew more about managing the pain than probably the surgeon did because she was the one who had the interactions with patient after patient after patient. And we had this work perfectly comfortable with a wide array of professionals in the health care industry to help us with our health problems. And yet in the legal system, apparently, you need a full grown lawyer for every single legal question. And anything short of that, the state bars are hesitant to allow. Makes no sense to me at all. I mean, I don't know why we don't have legal nurse practitioners and legal physician’s assistants who can help a lot of people with their justice problems is beyond me. I mean, it can make you a little cynical.  

Beth [00:23:31] Well, especially if you've ever been in a law firm. I practiced for six years, and when I left I was a pretty decent lawyer. But there were paralegals who were still much better than I was at every aspect of the job. They vastly outflanked me in their experience. And it just seemed bizarre that my signature carried a weight that theirs didn't.  

Chief Justice McCormack [00:23:51] And you could imagine those folks providing real value to an awful lot of people with justice problems. And they didn't have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars getting a law degree. So, there are a lot of ways in which we could be smarter about the different kinds of professionals we could license. Other countries do this, by the way, they license people after different levels of education. You can get a one year degree in law or a three year degree in law or a five year degree in law, which each of which might allow you to practice in different courts or on different matters. But it diversifies the market in a way that better meets demand.  

Sarah [00:24:32] We'll hear more from Beth and Justice McCormack after this break.  

Beth [00:24:45] What are other innovations that you'd like to see explored?  

Chief Justice McCormack [00:24:48] So I think we are on the verge of seeing real growth in the ways in which technology can democratize law. The legal tech is kind of hot, but I think it's mostly hot in the parts of the law where people can already pay a lot of money for lawyers. People who can already pay a lot of money for lawyers are also interested in the legal tech solutions that will make the legal services they buy smarter and better. And the lawyers who work in those areas are also interested in those products if that makes their work better and smarter and therefore more marketable. But we need real breakthroughs in legal tech for the other 90% who can't afford lawyers at all. And obviously, if we want to, we could build legal tech solutions for lots of areas, and there are some entrepreneurs working on that, but it would take a real commitment to do it and also a commitment to actually build a court system and justice system data that was reliable enough that tech solutions could make some sense of it. Court data is often not great. It's worse in some states than others. Kentucky actually has a unified court system, so Kentucky's data is better than a lot of other places. But in a place like Michigan, where we have 242 trial courts, we have 20 different case management systems, they might be under 18. We keep trying to pull them onto one system, because unless you're all on one system, it's really hard to aggregate your data and to really be able to understand what's happening across any particular question. So, it would take some real will to be able to build the foundation upon which really breakthrough solutions could live. We haven't seen our legal system in Uber or Netflix and we might not until we build the data foundation to be able to allow it.  

Beth [00:26:58] And you talked about structural barriers. State bar associations are huge part of that. What are some other barriers to change? I mean, it sounds bananas in the United States to say "Here is a market, 92% of which is underserved or not served at all," and no one is trying to get that part of the market. So, what what's the obstacle?  

Chief Justice McCormack [00:27:19] Well, I think one important obstacle is the last thing I mentioned, which is government data systems are not great. And some court data is not great, which makes it very hard to build tech solutions at least that can really scale, right? It becomes very difficult to scale even within a state, much less across state lines. I think bar federalism is a barrier. The fact that every state has its own process for licensing lawyers. And every state is pretty sure that it is so special. You have to learn its state rules and laws to be able to navigate it. We have seen the perfection itself be a barrier. There is a concern that somehow if we allow either legal tech to start providing solutions, or navigators, or someone other than a lawyer to provide solutions, that lawyers’ fees will dry up. And I think it's also the case that legal education right now is a barrier. Legal education hasn't changed in a very long time. I mean, courts haven't changed in three industrial revolutions. And the only thing as stubborn as courts about change is education. So, legal education is kind of like the king of all change resistors. I think we need to start educating our students who are interested in law about these problems and think a little differently about how we are educating students who want to learn about justice and law.  

Beth [00:29:08] I think there's something about the education piece that just wires you. The way I've said it to people before about why I don't practice anymore is, I wanted to solve problems and I felt like the job was just naming them and naming what problems could follow the problems. That you just have to develop this extremely negative change averse orientation to practice law well, especially in the context of a big firm where you're always talking about multimillion dollar lawsuits and all of the risks that are attached to those for clients. And so, innovation starts to feel impossible. Even within the context of just a firm saying, what if we moved our 12:30 lunch to 1:00 is extremely difficult. If you blow that out to the whole system, it's pretty daunting.  

Chief Justice McCormack [00:29:55] It's true. I mean, it's why I found the pandemic-- although obviously incredibly difficult in so many ways, it was also a tremendous opportunity because we all of a sudden had this opportunity to be able to try a bunch of things quickly. And they didn't all work. And that was great, too, because you learned from the ones that didn't work. And we actually not only got to, but had to behave like entrepreneurs. And it's something that law school beats out of us. And if law school hasn't completely beaten it out of you, practice usually does. And all of a sudden we all got to do that, and it was it was wonderful. We saw some innovation that we hadn't seen in my entire career.  

Beth [00:30:35] I want to just close by saying we're talking about a third of our government that is supposed to be democratically available and overseen, and so much of what we've discussed is really out of reach for anyone who doesn't ever go to law school. Are there things that citizens who aren't interested in the legal profession can do to help spur innovation in this area and make the court system more available to people?  

Chief Justice McCormack [00:31:02] It's a great question. And I think the answer is definitely yes, even if I'm not exactly sure what those things are. But we've seen a lot of change in the criminal legal system in the last few years. And I think a lot of it is because the public got interested in what was really going on in our criminal justice system. And once the public got interested and started showing up at public hearings and task force meetings and wanting to be heard about how it wanted its criminal legal system to behave, you saw changes. Bipartisan changes, changes in red states and blue states and you name it. And the civil legal system, I think, could head in that same direction. I mean, there's no reason why people should accept that the only way you can defend against an eviction action is if you can afford to pay somebody who went to law school. Imagine if we said you can enroll your kid in public school, but you're going to have to hire this person who can actually help explain the application and fill out the application for you, and if you can afford to hire that person then your kid can go to public school. Or imagine if we said, yeah, you can drive on that public highway, but only if you can afford to hire this driver who will take you in her car on that public highway. It's insane. It's your government. You can demand that it make sense and be available to you and understandable to you. And I do think that the public complaining is an important part of solutions.  

Beth [00:32:30] Chief Justice McCormick, thank you so much for your time and for being willing to say a lot of this out loud. A lot of what you've said today sounds very common sense and is extremely controversial. And so, I'm really grateful for your willingness to talk about this.  

Chief Justice McCormack [00:32:41] Thanks for having me.  

Beth [00:32:42] Thank you so much to former Chief Justice McCormack for spending time with me and for sharing her thoughts with all of us. Up next, we're going to talk about birthday cards. We always end the show talking about what's on our minds Outside of Politics. Sarah, you're sending birthday cards out. Tell me how it's going.  

Sarah [00:33:07] Yeah, it was one of my New Year's resolutions. I've been doing it sort of intermittently last year because I just bought on Amazon like a big old giant thing of birthday cards. They're very generic. They're not exciting cards, but I got like 100 of them. And it makes it so easy when I sit down to schedule my week. I look at the birthdays coming up. I do this on Friday. So, I look at the next week who has a birthday coming up and I just grab some of my cards, I always have stamps on hand, and just write a little birthday card. People love it. They love getting a birthday card in the mail. I've had all my friends text me they're so delighted. I get a lot of "How are you so on top of things?" And I'm like, It's so easy. You just buy 100 birthday cards at a time from Amazon and then you're ready. Also, at the end of the week, I try to look back and ask myself who is a hero for me this week? Like, who really helped me out? Who came to my rescue? And I write a thank you note. And it's just such a nice ritual at the end of the week. And I love putting things in the mail. I love knowing the people I love are getting things in the mail. It's sort of an exercise in blessings, which is my word this year. I think mail is such a blessing and I've just been really enjoying it.  

Beth [00:34:17] I've been working on sending more cards this year. Also, I bought some stationery that is just kind of generic all-purpose stationery that I really like. And so, I've been sending more mail. Here is a problem that I'm running into. My friend Anna is a master at sending cards in the mail. You open her cards and she has written something that is personable and warm and perfect for the occasion without being pretentious at all. It's just a masterpiece and I stand in awe of it. And here's what I've realized. I have been typing my thoughts for so long that I do not write as well with a pen. I'm talking about the composure of the words. I don't write as well with a pen as I do through my fingertips, and it is really bothering me.  

Sarah [00:35:07] Do you journal?  

Beth [00:35:09] No.  

Sarah [00:35:11] Oh, you don't love to journal.  

Beth [00:35:11] I talk to you.  

Sarah [00:35:13] Ha! You know I love to journal, but I agree. Sometimes if I'm really struggling with what to say, I'll just type it out in a note and then transcribe it.  

Beth [00:35:20] Okay, maybe I'll try that. I'm just going to start typing it then transcribing it.  

Sarah [00:35:22] No. I agree. 

Beth [00:35:24] It's a really weird brain situation.  

Sarah [00:35:25] Typing through your fingertips, that's how I think too. Yeah. No, I totally, totally agree.  

Beth [00:35:30] Mail is a delight. That's just the truth of it. And we hope that you have some delight in your day today, whether it is through the mail or just by spending time with us here. It delights us that you give us some of your listening time. We'll be back in your ears on Friday. Until then, have the best week available to you.  

[00:36:02] Pantsuit Politics is produced by Studio D Podcast Production. Alise Napp is our managing director.  

Sarah [00:36:07] Maggie Patton is our community engagement manager. Dante Lima is the composer and performer of our theme music.  

Beth [00:36:13] Our show is listener-supported. Special thanks to our executive producers.  

Executive Producers Martha Bronitsky. Ali Edwards. Janice Elliott. Sarah Greenup. Julie Haller. Helen Handley. Tiffany Hasler. Emily Holladay. Katie Johnson. Katina Zuganelis Kasling. Barry Kaufman. Molly Kohrs. Katherine Vollmer. Laurie LaDow. Lily McClure. Linda Daniel. Emily Neesley. Tawni Peterson. Tracey Puthoff. Sarah Ralph. Jeremy Sequoia. Katie Stigers. Karin True. Onica Ulveling. Nick and Alysa Villeli. Amy Whited. Emily Helen Olson. Lee Chaix McDonough. Morgan McHugh.  
Beth Jeff Davis. Melinda Johnston. Michelle Wood. Joshua Allen. Nichole Berklas. Paula Bremer and Tim Miller.

Maggie PentonComment