So, sometimes when I start a hot take, it goes in one direction.

By time I'm done with the research and thinking about it, it ends up in a completely different one.

See, I thought I was going to do a hot take about the right-wing Supreme Court,

led by Clarence Thomas for the second time this term or this week

Making a ruling that there is no copyright protection intellectual property protection under our laws if somebody wants to use a

somebody's first name or last name like Trump in a copyright application.

So the lawyer back in 2017 that try to sell t-shirts that said Trump is too small or Trump is small which was a reference to

Marco Rubio in a debate with Donald Trump suggesting that Donald Trump's equipment was too small, and a play

on words related to that, was not entitled to trademark or copyright protection.

That was written by Clarence Thomas, but now having looked at the concurrence by Amy Coney Barrett, I see some fissures. I see some, some, uh, some separation by

Amy Coney Barrett about the use and the consistent use of historical precedent and research by the Maga right

wing like Alito and Thomas in order to rip away rights and limit and eliminate restrictions on regulation.

It's happened time and time again.

Every time the right-wing majority wants to rip away

some power of an agency of the federal government to regulate in an area where they are

authorized by the Congress to regulate, whether it's clean energy, clean water, whether it's

a woman's right to choose, whether it's gun rights, any of that.

They'll say, oh, historical precedent, there's no historical precedent in old timey times for this type of regulation

and therefore we're not going to allow it.

Making policy exactly the thing they attack the left and the middle for which is judicial

activism and making policy they're doing it.

This isn't conservatism. This is judicial activism and every

...