host in a former spokesperson for kamala harris. she later discussion about the state of the supreme court with a civil rights activist, legal experts, and journalists. the event was hosted by the congressional caucus foundation. it lasts about an hour. >> i want to welcome you to this panel. we introduced the judiciary act of 2021. it was seen as too radical, too political. it was just not the thing to do. i think that as time has passed, since we introduced this, more people have been convinced that unpacking the court by expanding it is the way to go. that is what this panel is going to be all about could a. i know that with you all being here, that means that you feel into. that is something that is of interest to you and me. we support that. we appreciate your support. you returned to your homes. and to your districts. we need you to be active about their. yes we need you to speak about it. get your representatives and senators. let them know that there are something that can be done to save freedom and democracy. not just for white males, hunt for everyone in this country. there would be no democracy if it does not apply to everyone. and with that, i will be turning this podium over to my cohort and colleague. this is a person from new york. >> good afternoon. i want to thank the distinguished chair of the house judiciary subcommittee. it has been an incredible year on this subject. not just court expansion, but other forms of court reform. you probably have already seen this before. some kind of court reform. just like everyone else in this noon. you are cognizant of many of the crisis is that we face today. i think about it. it is a chief of crisis democracy. i don't think that we live right now with what is happening to the world. this is what is continuing to happen, and what will happen in. it is a true democracy. the supreme court has been creating these prices. we saw that recently a. they ended a 50-year constitutional right to abortion. so much else. over the last decade, the far-right majority of the court has gutted the voting rights act. today at least a limited quite rich spending in our elections. as i mentioned, in the end of the constitutional right to our abortion. they struck down common sense efforts to end gun violence. they also curb the epa's ability to address climate change. so much of this happened over the summer. i know the dobbs decision and the right to an abortion. that got most of the attention. but there are a lot of other really bad decisions that week. and in the week that followed. the mega majority is an extension of the republican party. they will do whatever it takes. whatever it takes. they hold on to power. they will impose the unpopular policies. they do this through the unaccountable institution called the supreme court. at the ballot box, absent voting voter suppression -- colleagues and allies could never win on the merits of their deeply unpopular policy ideas. >> we will not stop a voting rights. we will not stop the environment. there is the need to address gun violence. justice thomas told us that marriage equality, intimacy, and even contraception is all within the sight of this far-right hyper partisan majority. to those who argue that if we expand the pool with it a publicans may do the same in the future, i would invite them to understand that the nightmare scenario is already upon us. as chairman johnson said, court expansion is about unpacking the court. he is already packed. they don't need any additional partisan acts and a majority to accomplish whatever they want. not even justice roberts has control over this majority. he is no longer -- >> court expansion is not a novel idea. congress has changed the size of the court seven times before nominations history. after abraham lincoln was assassinated, andrew johnson became president. johnson was wary that there's new president -- of the new laws would nominate justices to the supreme court who are hostile to civil rights. congress literally reduced the size of the supreme overtime to deprive him of the opportunity to nominate justices in that moment. i think that congress today, democrats in particular, they have to act with that kind of boldness and urgency. i think that court expansion is a modest proposal. given everything that we are facing. the poll came out last week. showing the majority of americans now support court expansion. i'm right about that. that is not always the case. that is what movement building can do. it has long been established. at least over the past year has been established that this is what is driving democrats to the court expansion in. my own view is that congress has to act now before it is too late. while we still have majorities in both chambers. we need to protect what remains of our democracy. and what remains the fundamental right that we take for granted in our everyday a lie's. the court means hostile -- >> these are right that had often been enacted by congress. stoolie interacted by congress. quote expansion has to be part of the response. we cannot expect to simply legislated civil rights and think that this court is going to uphold those rights. the statues are for it. i'm excited to be here. i am excited to talk about what is required to preserve the marshall's legacy. i am really excited about all of you in this room. this is great. we have simone sanders. they are a dear friend and inspiration to all of us. i want to congratulate her new show on msnbc. as well as panelists who have warned admired. with that said, i would love to introduce degrade simone sanders. they are gonna moderate today's discussion. thank you. >> give it up for the good congressmen. give it up for congressman hank johnson as well. my name is simone sanders. i am still happy to be a moderator day. agony get up on your stage. first, what did the panelists up here. you are not fired up enough about the supreme court and what is happening to our rights. hopefully this panel will inject a little bit of life into you out here. somebody said writes, somebody's a supreme court. i am not a lawyer, okay? i used to do the talking points for than. lying in a bring up some people to bring some context, history, and to really break down what is happening in this moment. first, i want to introduce this person. she is a senior adviser. she is the director of national outreach for we demand justice. keep it going. next, i want to bring mr. donald chairman to the state. he is a singer and vice president, he is the chief counsel for the crew. bring it up for mr. shamann. next up, you have seen ham. this is mr. -- he is the justice correspondent for the nation. come on to the stage. not to be outdone on is mr. martin. he is the host of the rolling martin unfiltered show. i last but not least is martin luther king junior the third of the drum major institute. give it up for this panel. angrily this is my gang common join the panel. you can all do better than that. >> i want to start this conversation by laying down some contact. we talked about the legacy of marshall, the first black justice who served in the united states supreme court. today, this morning, a judge now justice confounding brown jackson was invested. this is what the event is called. invested into the supreme court. we have a session that starts on monday. we are excited and happy about the history that is being made. i think it is also important to unpack what is on the docket. on monday, the court is going to hear all kinds of things. they are starting early. starting at 9:30. this is one of the things to watch during the supreme court session. this is according to the voting rights act of 1965. you are the justice correspondent, ali, i want to start with you. i think that we need a baseline for this conversation. what is going on with this court? what is -- if you had to pick one thing that you are most concerned about in this session, what would it be? >> and i can't pick one. >> you have to pick one. >> i will start with democracy because that seems like a good place to start. the court is going to hear some places that will determine whether or not we have a republic this time. this is one that has gotten most of the press. this is the independent state legislator -- this is the theory. this is the state legislator, not the voters. this is the state legislature at the state. they actually get to decide the voting rules of the state who gets to vote. who is vote count in this state? this theory is so controversial. the first version of it was surfaced. it is well he was casting about and trying to come up with a way to make george bush president over a recount in florida. i am recounting myself. over that we count, william how this independent state legislature theory that was widely debunked at the time except for one other justice, clarence thomas. he was a found of this theory. that is going to be coming up this term. whether or not the legislators themselves can throw out votes that they don't like. the other big case is gonna happen on tuesday. i don't remember. this is about the alabama gerrymandered map. alabama put for the map. i'm a we had the majority minority district. it was so racially divisive. the conservative alabama state court was like, that is -- is the alabama. it goes up to the 11th circuit court of appeals. it is a trump court. the 11th circuit, these are two judges. wait, wait, not to raise it for me -- >> long before the election, brett kavanaugh had a band of conservative cronies. they were too close to the election. we are changing alabama's maps. we have to go with the maps for this election. that is what is happening in november. in october, we decide whether or not this map is too racist. what that is going to be, as molly was saying, it is a direct challenge to section two of the voting rights act. it should outlaw these kinds of things. that is one thing. it is the supreme court overturning the will of voters in this country. >> straightforward. i want to bring you both in. donald, both of you, you are working through organizations. -- i think the reason that it is spending the court has become such a mainstream conversation. it is largely due to the work of demanding justice. i think that i have worked on the presidential campaign. i know the conversation we are having. i said no. talk to me a little bit about the advocacy efforts around the court. and then we are going to go to our political efforts right here to get to my right, am i laughed. talk me a little bit about two advocacy efforts around the conversation around the court. for one political party in this country, the court has been a voting issue. my friends are republican strategists, that is a issue. they have organized around it. it is not been a mainstream conversation for all voters and particularly for democratic voters. talk a little bit about that. tan, i want to start with you. donald, jump in. >> thank you for that question. in this started in 2018. the recovery not doing anything. we had watched merrick garland state and weather. the first black president put up a supreme court nominee. the republicans changed the rules so that they could get the supreme court justice that they won. here they keep changing the rules. you are talking to everyday people. our communities are understanding the impact this cream court has on our lives. our members of congress, not all of them, but many of them, and they are saying, well, don't worry about that. don't worry about the courts. it's fine. if you fall for me, we will pass a law. it is going to change everything. the supreme court are shown as they don't care about it. they don't care about any of your losses. what they care about is controlling the power. for us, when we talk to everyday people above the courts, we are saying that when you vote, your vote has so much power. that means that when you vote for the right candidate they are gonna have an opportunity. that puts the supreme court justice on the bench. they are gonna put lower court justices on the banks. not where most of us have our day in court. it is the search circuit court and district court. we have to have a pipeline of the right kind of justice is to make that all happen. without the best example -- when rbg passed away, everybody was asking me what i was doing. i worked on the courts. it was black folks, i have to ask about the supreme court. why? we don't have seats. it is easy, it is broken. people understand it as a game. when the rules are not working the, republican changed rules to make them work for than. and we have power now. at least i think that we have power. we have an opportunity to make the plane feel more even for our communities and people. that is why i think we are seeing this over the course of two years. majority of americans now want to see court expansion is a real viable option to making our democracy more robust. >> donald, jump in here. trevor, i know that roland martin will have something to say in a moment. i think a lot of people will hear you say that people understand the courts. i think that there are folks out there, analysts and strategists. they would say that they do not necessarily think they do. we can circle back on that point. donald? >> thank you for the question, i think that when we are talking about advocacy for the supreme court, right, there is advocacy that people think of. there is thurman marshall in front of the bench. he was arguing. and then my group, which is an ethics and good government group, we are focused on the advocacy that you do not see. there is the money that is spent on junk, on speaking engagements, on conferences for the justices. they come and hang out. they huddle with the cabal of it elie mentioned. they have rich folks, rich conservatives come and press the flesh with supreme court justices. one of the reasons why we are talking about plans thomas specifically is because, whereas there are a number of justices who spouses have stepped back from advocacy, litigation, they did that when they saw their spouse rise to the federal bench. what we saw from the spouse of clarence thomas, she is affirmatively gauged in an effort to monetize her position in proximity to clarence thomas. this manifests and things like clarence thomas for getting to manchin and his wife got $680,000 from the heritage foundation. the heritage foundation has no business that could be relevant to the supreme court. there is any number of ways that, you know, you think that you are gonna go and have your day in court. what happens when you show up and the decision has already been made before you walk into the door? before the advocate walks into the room? from the standpoint of an ethics advocate, we are focused on what is happening behind those closed doors. it is about how we bring sunlight to what the supreme court is doing. as chairman johnson said their hearing in april, the supreme court is not even have a code of conduct. >> i wasn't gonna jump in in note that. there was no oversight for member years and justices on the supreme court. there is actually no one forcing. what is the enforcement mechanism? it does not exist. >> you hold tight. you're going to kick us off in the lightning round. mr. king? >> it strikes me that whether we are talking about the gutting of the voting rights act of 1965, the reality is that the voting rights act is on life support. if section two, which is eliminated, it will be there. i don't think that we are talking enough about that. number two, i think the reality is it a lot of conversation that we are having around the court now, a lot of those things are issues. they are bubbling up to the supreme court. these are things that are not new. history is a broken continuity. this is a mentor. give me a little bit of historical context here. as a child of the civil rights movement, you see what is happening right now. i have to imagine that there are ways for you and your colleagues. >> first of all, there is no question. let me also think congressman johnson in jones for having all of us. it is an honor to be on this panel and part of this discussion. >> thank you. >> the tragedy is unfortunate. you have to provide leadership attempts. people know what is happening in our communities. you also have to provide proper context as you have said. the fact of the matter is that the court is out of line with what the majority of people think. therefore, secondly, the court used to be aligned with the other courts. i think there were 19. that is why there were the rationale for nine justices. 13. therefore, you need to add four more justices. it needs to be done right now. i don't think that, and every now and then you have to slap me. not violently. but slap me upside of the head. they don't realize this is what you need. we don't need that moment. we need to be pushing for this legislation right now so that we have a court that at least has more in line with what the majority wants. we are reporting to be a democracy. as ali said, democracy is fading. the most recent poll said that was one of the top issues. thank god. >> yes, for the first time. >> in addition to inflation. those are the opinion that are very important as well. we do not have but a few minutes to get this right. >> i was involved with a large coalition from last year. we wanted to get the voting rights done. we did not succeed there. this was in january of last year. we got involved in other large campaign to try and get voting rights done. we got 48 senators. we were almost there. the fact of the matter is that we filibustered. it was addressed. we almost got there. that still has to be done. along with the addition of members to the supreme court. that is in line and structure the way that it initially was. one justices overreach one of those districts. some justices have to. 13 is close to nine. it seemed like people were going to engage in logic. when you're dealing with political points and control, and that is one, you know, most republicans seem to be about, we have a big, big problem. until the public engages in a significant way, my dad understood that. i have. understood that it. we have to stay on the battlefield. we can talk about being retired. we have to constantly being gazed. this is one of the most critical issues of our time. >> yes. all right, we are on the battlefield now. ne on the>> roland is going to y something that will make everyone on this panel want to respond. please feel free to respond. we are having a conversation. i want to throw this out there. i am a moderator. i think that a lot of people around a place where they say, hey, why don't we have more? we should have more supreme court justices. there is a signal of the population it does not want to table this discussion. account for the current president of the united states and his advisers. they are not for the expansion of the court. roland? >> you a earlier or, i are folks interested? we are. we are focused on this. if you walk out that door, if you go to the other end of this hallway, you are going to see a throng of people standing outside of the two sessions further down. one of them is called hip-hop and politics. the other is about entertainment. do you see standing room only outside of the store? black folks are laughing ourselves to death. we are entertaining ourselves to death. >> roland, are you asserting the plaque people do not care about the supreme court? >> what i am asserting is that when we are more interested in hearing from him informed celebrities, they are not using their celebrity and the tradition of harry, ruby, dick gregory, diane carroll, and many others, we have a movement where we have academics and legal scholars. there are media folks. they are trying to talk about this. but we do not have all hands on deck. if this is a battlefield, and we are operating shorthanded. there is a level of consciousness that is required to connect the dots. in 2016, a young sister from north carolina says that she did not feel hillary and did not like trump. just focusing on issues in her state. she said she was from carolina. maybe the four issue to run a focus. she named them. i walked her down and show them how the president of the united states empty has a direct relationship to the four issues in her state. she was somehow thinking that what happened in d.c. was completely divorced from what was happening in north carolina. i told her that she was absolutely out of her mind. this was a so-called informed activist. we have to stop having these discussions in silos and connect the dots. that's why i say that we need schoolhouse rock. gavin newsom just signed a law that says that you can no longer use rap lyrics in prosecution. the district attorney in fulton county is using lyrics to prosecute rico cases. if you an entertainer, you better be understanding how the legal system is impacting you. >> i i think that someone want think -- to jump in on once on this. >> this. >> we we have have to start to start connecting the connecting the dots dots better so better that every day person so that every day person can realize -- realizes, oh, that's the supreme court thing does impact me. we have to explain it in a way where joe madison says we have two -- >> okay. >> yes, but some of that is leadership and that is where democrats dropped the ball. you wanna talk about hillary, let's talk about hillary. i voted for hillary i think she would've been a better president than donald trump. somehow, hillary clinton went through an entire campaign without mentioning merrick garland's name. which is ridiculous. you want to go back for, not just this past -- on his lord and savior, barack obama, the wise merrick garland the choice anyways? as opposed to ketanji brown jackson back in 2016. back with that, and i know you agree with, us when obama -- >> look, obama still mad at me because i called him out and not appointing the black supreme court. i still don't give a. >> i don't want president obama to be mad at me because i have no smoke for president obama. let me focus, y'all, this is why they got me moderate this panel. there is a lot of big people up here. roland made some clear assertions. i want you to respond to this. it is democratic leadership, it is entertainment. you made a point. secretary clinton was going to an entire campaign without mentioning the name eric arland. >> the other issue here, and i think roland is partially right about this, why is there that focus? i do not believe that your average, at least common denominator, maga voter, is any smarter, or more civically engaged than your average base black voter. i don't believe that. what i believe is that the average base maga voter has been told for generation that anything they want, they have to have the courts. you are mad guy, he can't quote me much about how the constitution works, but he can quote the second amendment. that maga guy may not know much about the civics, but he knows if he doesn't like gays kissing on each other at a restaurant, he needs to have the court. whereas if i go to an average base, democratic voter, then you get to the problem. you get to the problem that what was talking about. hey, do you care about climate change? to the court. to be careful guns? you need to court. to care about abortion rights? you need the courts. you don't have leaders that do a good 1 to 1 comparison. we haven't built that over the past 30 years. >> can i just -- >> yes, while you're answering that, i want to throw this out there. just to stir the pot. we've got some leaders, right, because we're at this cattle at the black caucus foundation have vagueness conversation under the leadership of chairman john spanning congressman jones, but the reality is, this is not a widely accepted thought within the democratic party apparatus. i noted that the current president of the united states of america, who is a democrat, does not believe in expanding the court. >> so, first of all, i think is important to acknowledge that the number of issues that we need to go to the mat for are substantially larger than our white brothers and sisters, right? when you talk about, we don't show up for x. like, we have to show up for everything. i don't want to give anyone a pass and thank, education is important, but the number of issues that we need to show up for, they pale in comparison to what other folks have to show up for. i think at least point is a good one. every issue that we care about, we need the courts. that message has not penetrated, in part, because there aren't that many people that have made it a priority. part of that is a generation that we came up with. my parents, like for my parents, the court was revered. it was the -- thing that made the difference in having rights or not. frankly, i think some folks took it for granted. i wonder, i think the orientation is changing now that row is gone, but god help me, we had an insurrection, we have lost roe v. wade. what is it going to take for institutionalist to realize that institutions can protect us if we don't stand up and do what is necessary to rebuild them? >> tamora, is expanding the court the only way? one could argue that you have to have a focus on federal courts. one of my former colleagues was sitting here, listening to this panel, they'd say that this president has made a focus on the federal courts. put more black women on the federal courts in any president before him, including -- >> say it. say it. >> barack obama. >> absolutely. >> y'all need to stop being scared to criticize. >> ain't nobody scared, roland. >> i'm scared. >> i ain't a flame thrower but he built that he. >> the reality is, the house is on fire. court expansion is a little bit of the water that's going to put out the fire. we have to understand that roe was the floor. that was the floor. this court keeps playing in our faces, people are saying, just wait and see. they're going to dyson. no they don't, they don't die. look at mitch mcconnell. >> i would like to know the chairman, nor the congressmen condone death of members of congress. >> that is correct. but here is the thing, as the third branch of the government, this is about checks and balances. this is absolutely out of balance. we need to check it. adding four seats provide some more balance. we can also have term limits. the fact that people could be in that court for a lifetime, and then what they do is wait. you wait until your person gets an office, then you retire. thank you. thank you justice by fox lee doing that. some others didn't do that. we can all have a code of ethics. say it. court expansion is just, this is like, how do we stop the bleeding? this is triage. we aren't treating at, like we're not taking the court, and i agree, our leadership in this country, on the democratic party, has treated the court, this duty, like it's gods. that because you're not a lawyer, you can't question them. that they have, that they know the constitution better than the rest of us. so how dare we challenge them, how dare we asked questions, how dare we say, actually, this doesn't work anymore. i'm really excited that jack cyst jackson is on this important court, but i'll tell you, there's not enough micromanage, act is not enough black aroma jackets going to stop this court from dismantling our democracy even more. >> here's what i mean by just mantle in the dots. i don't only look at this thing in terms of federal courts. i spend an inordinate amount of time on by -- walking folks through this. in 2020, first of all, people who are excited, who is in north carolina right now? people from north carolina were excited to share that beasley is one of the united states senate, look at the polling. >> i a rubbish on saturday. >> she has one, two, it varies. in 2020 she ran for reelection to be the chief justice of north carolina state supreme court. had she lost by 400 votes, had she won, democrats would have a 6 to 1 advantage on the north carolina state supreme court. by her losing, it is now 4 to 3. now, why is north carolina, what they have a democratic governor right now? why do they actually have control of the courts? because, obama wins north carolina by 14,000 votes in 2008. they completely got the election results in 2000 -- and 2010. tom tillis, who a lot of folks voted for in 2020, he got about 18%. he was an architect of that. what happens is, then on moral mondays, -- had 17 people, they began to leave that. it goes statewide. they call back a lot of those rights. that's what led to declaring racial gerrymandering illegal. they had state supreme court. we talk about the courts, we have to also talk about republicans, they're looking a state courts. the reason biden wins pennsylvania is because you have smart justices of the pennsylvania state supreme court. what do they want to do? they try to go to a single member districts to guaranteed and have a statewide election. again, we have a federally appointed supreme court. our states, our justices, they are elected. when we're talking about electoral politics, we rarely ever talk about judges who are running. when we have to also be doing, when i talk about collecting the dots and walking people through, educating our people to understand, you can just yell, expand the courts, if you want them to voters in your stage. the state courts matter, and that's also where democrats have not paid much attention. now, they're trying for resources. democrats can, right now, take control of the wisconsin state supreme court >> they need to. >> if they take control of the wisconsin state court, they will be able to file a gerrymandering suit. now, all of a sudden, the gerrymandering is determined illegal. then, this will change the composition, the legislature there as well. that will go to state, after state, after state. it is a multi prong strategy. we talk about the courts, we have to talk about our folks getting centered on this, to realize, that state court is a federal court, they do what they're doing. if that state court, if we are able to control some of those, you can also change the political dynamics that are happening where you live. >> i'm all about giving people some hope, mr. kang. i want to find some hope here. >> oh that's part of my conversation. >> i think it's hopeful, roll. and >> i'm giving hope. >> they need to have a strategy. let's talk about, that's the reality is, with the dobbs decision that is essentially overturned roe v. wade, and set the issue back to the states, i think it's safe to say about half the states in america today, abortion is illegal or near illegal. it's very hard to access. it's really a choose your own adventure, depending on where you live. the people have responded to that. i'm originally from nebraska and i saw a lot of people on tv, man, i've seen a lot of people on tv talking about democrats. there ain't enough democrats in the entire state of kansas. >> white women walk the out, that's what happened. >> to defeat that ballot initiative. there is an opportunity here where people are paying attention. this is after the fact. i'm someone who, i'm glad people have just come to the party, i don't care necessarily what time you got there. let's talk about the opportunity that we have. now that people are having a mainstream conversation about our rights in connection with the courts, and everyone from the very smart political people in this room are feeling it, but also, folks in everyday places and spaces, towns, cities across the country. >> well first of, all let me say one thing about what we haven't ingested enough of yet. we want to the courts, the federal, courts for relief. every time there was an expansion, this is the first time in this history, and modern astray, certainly in my life, where the court decided to roll something back. the frightening proposition is judge, justice thomas told us that they're coming after a lot of things. it's interesting that he picked things like marriage equality. >> he picked everything but interracial marriage, to be clear. >> he would have a job without that. >> better not touch my jenny. >> that's the real affirmative action. >> so i have a show called unfiltered. >> i'm gonna get a call. >> you know jose williams? >> i'm not going to get a call, i don't have a boss. >> that's what i'm saying. i think this is a very pivotal moment in the history of our nation. you have other people talking about a new civil war. it's very frightening that that is been said, and no one is willing to take it on and say, this is unconscious-able. this is not the america than any of us should accept. there are some people who are crazy enough to do that. they showed us that on january six. so we all need to wake up. i think it's interesting, i'll get back around to what you're saying. it's interesting that we call it wokeness. there is something wrong with being. woke i'm just being woke. my father did a cervical sleeping through a revolution. many years ago. yet, he encouraged us to always stay awoke. they've created, the crt, i don't even like to use the. ward first of all, it doesn't exist in primary education, secondary education. it's for law school, that's what it was designed for, that's what it was. they may have elements of what they call critical race theory. i mean who's ever heard of something and texas, usually i have a dream speech, the part of the speech about my children living in a nation where they're not judged by the color of their skin but by the content of that character. they use that to dismount -- now you can teach i have a dream in texas. you can't teach rosa parks, and a whole lot of other things. but our jewish community. it's crazy. and we're sitting around accepting this, as of this is all right. we can change things tomorrow, i believe. if we all decide we're going to get engaged. and one example, how much money do we spend, how much money, do we put in banks that don't support us? i want to call any name, several of the big banks who pushed -- it's a shame. >> wells fargo. >> bank of america too. not just wells fargo. bank of america, all of them. yet we just keep going down there in supporting them. we don't support our selves. so my point is, we need to target one of these institutions and just say, look, we're not going to deal with the oil. they will come and help us address every issue we want to address. we don't know that. we spend over a trillion, $500 million last year. i trillion. i mean, i can't even count. >> what did you will spend it on? >> hold on, i think elie wants to jump in, then we'll circle back to you. >> this is when i get to the mainstream media -- that's a huge part of the problem. to be honest, if you think about it, there are two ways i like to think about this. one, think about how many reporters and people, or whatever, are covering congress. think of how many reporters are covering the white house. then think of how many reporters are covering the courts. that's just as powerful as the other three branches, number one. first of all, you have a huge imbalance. we don't even have the coverage of these nine autocrats who are actually running things, and have a veto power over the elective branches. that's the number one. power number two, how many of those people are covering the courts are black, besides me. that you know of. right? we, can really akins. there's like five of us. we have jackets. for the most part, the people who were allowed to cover the courts are covering it from a fundamentally white basis of understanding because there are very few people who are allowed to do this work or predominantly white. number three, when you think about financial news, like if you think about cnbc, you have jim kramer, he's talking about the -- going up in the -- they don't let people come on tv to talk about what's happening in the stock market who can't balanced checkbook. they will absolutely put people on tv to tell you what the courts are really doing who don't have a lot agree, who have never listened to any of these, who have no idea what they're talking about. >> the inside of the supreme court look like. >> what they're than doing is all they're doing is giving you the press release of what clarence thomas or whatever wants them to say about the decision. a huge part of the problem is the lack of transparency that happens with the court itself. we don't tell our people what's happening in this branch of government that is controlling so much of our lives. >> roland, then i'm going to go to everyone for their final thought. >> roland. didn't give you this to understand why you also don't see many of us. congressman johnson has been very aggressive in dealing with us, we talked about, it we started with the rap adeline tulsa last year. then when i began to talk about the lack of dollars that black-owned media receives. when you talk about who cover his white house, who covers congress, who covers the supreme court, when the cbc comes out of their meeting, there is not a single black-owned media outlets in the congressional correspondent. why is that the case? because the industry spends 320 billion dollars annually. black media only gets 5%. federal government spends a billion dollars in advertising, black on being against 51 million of the one billion. the reality, as you can't afford to actually pay someone to one of those jobs. he's been working to shake those dollars loose in the reality is, i'm told congress -- i said black-owned, i said if i have a 5% of 5%, i said, i can easily hire three congressional correspondents in 90 days. it comes down to dollars. it is the deliberative attempt to keep the audience and forms. it is a deliberate attempt. deliberative systems to who is covering what. earlier when i was talking about all these issues that we have, you have to be able to educate folks, walk them through, and began to lay out exactly what is going on. dr. king said, where do we govern here, chaos or community, he called the negro pressed him attain his militancy and focus on the substantive, as opposed to the nonsensical. we are caught up with the nonsensical, but we spend more time on gossips up as opposed to actually substantive stuff. when it comes to the marching orders, what it requires is the connect the dots. we have to walk through someone who says, man, none of the stuff means nothing to. meet them folks don't and those black rubs don't impact me at all. then you begin to say, really? are you a felon or not? do you have, you take whatever issue they're dealing with, and you guarantee, can trace it right back to the supreme court. that is the work that we actually have to do. we have to stop saying the courts are matter, we have to explain to somebody how the courts matter. why the courts matter. the work is on us to break someone down to say, no, let me walk you through. this way, this way, this way. i can guarantee, because i have watched my show every day. they go, oh my god. i had no idea that they are involved -- precisely. that is our charge walking out of here. stop hoping that the congressman jones, congressman johnson, the reality, is this year, every single person sitting here, you are humid to katie with someone, and groups of people, on a daily basis. now i have to challenge you, what are you all talking about when you all communicate? >> all right now, that's way to kick it off. tamar, i want you to, will roll in cases of, i want you to pick up where he left off, final thoughts here. this is a battle that is actively been waged. roland mentioned student loans, a number of other republican, states attorney generals, have gone together to challenge the biden administration's most recent policy in the courts. on student loans. forgiveness. final thoughts here. >> to pick up where brother rowlands left it off is that, yes, individuals we need to talk about the courts and why they matter, connect the dots. or organizations the two as well. we are part of communities. we are part of institutions that have cases in front of this court coming up. those organizations do not have a position on this issue. or their issue, or their position as, we're not going to do anything about it. we're going to continue to throw money in our resources, going in front of this court, we're going to allow clarence thomas to be the ideological anger of this court, to determine what the future is of this organization. i believe in abortion. but if organizations that protect and defend abortion do not say that this court is broken, the people who follow that organization are going to think, well, i guess the court of spying. this is just how it's supposed to be. we know that that's not true. the same way that you talk to your neighbors about why this court matters, why the supreme court said it last year, they really don't have miranda rights anymore, what that means for you. the organizations that are supposed to protect our rights, they have to also say, you know, at this court is broken. and it's not fear for us, is not a level playing field for our communities. we have to take a position. we can't be scared because we go in front of that court. i've never been in front of the supreme court. i really hope that the people who go in front of that court recognize that this is not fair. why do you want to keep going in front of a court and keep losing? do you want to keep losing? how much more do we want to lose? you have to use the court's a strategy. this is a strategy for us. it's a tactic. this is the tactic for the broader strategy to protect our democracy, our organizations have to believe that too. >> thank you, camera. donald, so to build off of that, i think we have to do two things. we do need to convey why the court matters, but we need to immediately say, but these people aren't special. they think, and many of us thank, and many in congress think that these judges are above the law, that they are beyond reproach, that they can set up on high-end term in our civil rights, determine our -- and don't have to be accountable to us. they don't need to be accountable to anyone, don't need to be accountable to congress. that's what chairman johnson's bill has been about. that's what his effort to hold the court accountable has been a part. yes, these justices matter. yes, this institution matters. if it matters, it also has to be accountable. these folks aren't special, as my mom likes to say. we need to remind them, and we need to change our laws so that they can be held accountable. then push them. look, we've given you life tenure. as well as the authority to determine whether we have access to health care. whether we can vote, and you're telling me you can't abide by basic at the cool rules that low level government employees abide by? it's laughable. we need to do both of those things. >> all right, thank you donald. mr. martin luther king the third. >> i want to say two things very quickly. my dad used to say that there is nothing more powerful and all of the world than an idea that -- the time is always right to do that which is right. now is the time for us to transform this court so that it works for the majority of the population of the united states of america. we could either sit by nrcs and do nothing, or we can do many of the things that roland and everyone up here has stated. we need to do it now. now is the time. >> now is the. time our justice correspondent will have the final word on. us >> how want to take us back to where this panel started, supreme shift. this shift to clarence thomas. let's go back to 1980, a thurgood marshall, the most famous justice for a lot of people in this room, he is stuck. he -- and since 1967, he's a 78-year-old man, he is sick. he says just hung on through two administrations of ronald reagan, now george bush is involved. george bush has wiped michael duke of, because it doesn't look like a democrat is going to be in power in his lifetime. he is old and sec. he can't do the job anymore, at the high level that he come to expect for himself, and that he country has expected of him. so in an amazing active putting country first, thurgood marshall hands in his resignation letter to george h. w. bush, knowing full well that they would replace them with a person who wasn't up to his level. that's what he did for the country. he didn't die in 1988. thurgood marshall died in january 1993, two weeks after bill clinton was inaugurated president. never let them tell you that the justices they have on the court now are legitimate. never let them tell you that. always fight for the ideals that thurgood marshall had, and not the lesser people that have come to take his place. >> give it up for this panel. i am told, roland beta points about the line down the hall, i'm told, roll, and there are how many people watching on line. >> the reason why i -- only euro staff matters, and a lot of you come up to me and say your support for your show, our network, we are live streaming this. we don't just talk to the room, so the reality is, there are more than 1000 folks who have been watching our panel. and, we restrain this atleast eight more times. that's how we also use black-owned media to drive a message, and go outside of the room. that's why with congressman is doing is important. that's why, when i'm back there selling copies of this book white fear, that's paying for that, again, like i, said the -- is god than me. i don't have to ask anyone what to do. >> well, i am very happy for my boss. with that, i would like to give another round of applause for this panel. and even larger applause for the chairmen, in congressman jones. you can do better than that. stand at my dear. for pioneering this conversation, keeping the conversation going, we thank, you sir. we thank you. >> thank you. let's give it up for simone sanders, y'all. it took a of a woman to moderate this panel right here. i want to thank the panelists, i want to also thank roland martin for giving me my free copy. >> i would trust, me that ain't very. >> white fear. i'm going to enjoy reading this. ladies and gentlemen, in 1971, which was just six years after the passage of the voting rights act of 1965, and eight years after the passage, and 60, four of the civil rights act. there was a future supreme court justice, his name was louis powell. he, at that time, was a corporate lawyer are out of richmond virginia, representing wealthy corporations. he wrote but is now referred to as the louis powell them all, or memorandum, and if you go and google that, which he published in 1971, and which he wrote in 1971, to his friends in the united states chamber of commerce, he laid out a framework for the takeover of this country. in order to stop what had been started by passage of the civil rights act of 1964, and the voting rights act of 65. after his memo, he was then appointed to the united states supreme court by richard nixon, who carried his election by promise same law and order. we know those cold boards. we know what that means. so louis powell was appointed to the u.s. supreme court, and as a result of all of the things that he recommended in his memo, we are at this point, in our history, as a people. republicans have taken the united states supreme court, in the federal judiciary very seriously, but we have not. democrats have not. they have been focused on it for 50 years, they finally got what they wanted. now we are paying the price for it. that is what this panel was all about. i hope that it has activated you, something that you may have heard from one of these illustrious speakers. i hope that something has activated and you to be more involved in this issue. simone sanders, you'll got to watch her show. congratulations on you. when you getting your shell. without ladies and gentlemen, i'm going to ask mine deer jones to close us out. >> you all give another hand to the panel and the moderator. and to the distinguished chair of the subcommittee on courts whose leadership has been instrumental in getting us to this point. yeah we know from the discussion today that we have yet further to go. that is going to require everyone in this from having those conversations that role and manchin, with people in their circle. this should be top of mind for folks, as we witness the cascade of horrors that we are going to see for the supreme court, until we do something to stop it. i think not every day that we are not powerless to stop this from continuing to happen. that takes leadership. not just in congress, were unfortunately, too many of my colleagues have lived such conservative, risk averse lives, that they find themselves often behinds where the american people are on any number of subjects. just look at how few of my democratic colleagues have signed on to legislation that hang johnson -- introduced to the supreme court of the united states. that is why your movement building a so important. that's why we need you to elevate today's discussion. it's why we need you to educate people about what is at stake with the supreme court, and with other fundamental rights that black people, in particular, urgently need to see protected. in some instances, restored. we know with abortion, for instance, black women bear the brunt of that crisis that has been made worse now, with it being ended as the, floor as a floor. roe v. wade was a floor. we already know, having issues with roe v. wade, with accessing necessary reproductive care. so i'm grateful to be here and communion with all of you. just understand the power that you have. the folks that we do have in congress supporting this, a lot of them signed on because their constituents brought this to them. they made it to them, that there would be consequences, potentially, for them not being supportive of the only thing that would actually save us on this moment. thanks again for everything, thanks again to the panel, to our moderators. let's keep fighting. american history tv, saturdays on c-span two, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 8 pm eastern, on lectures of history, nicole musk ill on the early development of slavery and the early -- at 9:30 eastern, on the presidency. and his latest book, and overlight, historian john weekend examined abraham lincoln's life and the influences that shaped how he governed a divided country. exploring the american story, saturday, on c-span two. watch anytime at c-span dot org, slash history. >>