Thanks for listening and sharing Our Body Politics. As we grow and evolve our show, we need lots of input from listeners like you. So I want to ask you a small favor. After you listen today, please head over to Apple podcast on your phone, tablet, laptop, or anywhere you listen, and leave us a review. Thanks to you, Our Body Politics is moving up the ranks in the Top 100 podcast on Apple for news commentary.

We keep getting insightful reviews about what you like most, and we read all of them because your ideas matter to us.

Thanks so much. This is our body politic.

I'm the creator and host, Farai Chodea.

We cover extremism as a beat on this show. Today, we're zooming in on how the

military is attempting to address extremism and other challenges within its existing structure.

But first, our roundtable, sipping the political tea. We have so much to cover in Supreme Court

news. So joining me this week are Tiffany Jeffers, our legal analyst here at Our Body Politics.

Hi, Tiffany.

Thanks, Farai.

It's so good to be back.

And Julia Craven, staff writer at Slate covering race, politics and health disparities

and co-host of Slate's podcast on Gender, The Waves.

Welcome to Our Body Politics, Julia.

Hi. Thanks for having me. So there is so much

going on for us to talk about, and we're going to focus in a bit on the Supreme Court. A few

decisions came down last week. So Tiffany, let's start there. The California v. Texas Affordable

Care Act case. The Supreme Court upheld the ACA, sometimes called Obamacare, and it was a seven to two decision, decided that there was no standing.

Let's start with that, Tiffany. What does it mean to say something has no standing?

So it's a complicated legal doctrine for a right, but it's required in every court of law that a person or

entity bringing a case has standing. And what that means is that that person or entity can prove

that they've actually suffered some type of harm or injury or that some type of harm or injury

...