and death penalty cases. banning college diversity programs. restricting gender pronouns in schools. restricting education on race. making it a felony to transport undocumented migrants. now, republicans are calling these the florida blueprint. but big picture here, across 50 states, is this really gonna what americans want? so, i m so glad you mention that, republicans are calling this the florida blueprint. they are saying this is just florida, it is what you just said, the blueprint for the republican party. so, regardless of whoever wins the nomination, for the republican party, this is how they re governing. and we see it in a way in which they appointed the supreme court justice who are going to decide on some of these cases that also be like the affirmative action case. to your question, is this what the american people want? absolutely not. over and over again, we talk about these issues, whether it s common sense gun reform, or abortion rights, or
have these cases come down, the read the briefs in the affirmative action case. the voting rights case, the independent legislature case in the website a case, and you can read the majority opinion, read the dissent, make up your mind. we are in the middle of a historic change in the law. and under the name of textualism, the court s overturning a huge number of presidents that go back to the new deal era or before. some people think it s correct, others will disagree, but it is really significant how we could ve acted on first principles like no other time since talia and i have been covering the court which is a very long time indeed, remarkable times for the supreme court in very significant news on the horizon. and you are the two perfect people have on this many top us understanding. i know it s not easy, it s like giving people an extra helping of brussels sprouts, but you might want to read these briefings briefings about these cases, because they re really important, and re
we just talked about it, listed it, really, on what s ahead. here s how the new york times puts it, the court s supermajority seems poised to dominate the new term as it did the earlier one. what do you make of that, joyce? i think that that s where we are with this supreme court, with the six three supermajority, they can even afford to lose the chief justice on occasion when he votes with the more progressive wing of the court, and so many of the cases the court will hear this term are cases that involve long-settled law. affirmative action is a good example of that where the court has agreed to hear a pair of cases, one from harvard, one from the university of north carolina, the importance of that is that one ruling will cover public universities, the other private, and there is no reason to hear an affirmative action case. that law is settled unless this
we talk about, the affirmative action case, could indeed overturn key presidents that have upheld affirmative action for decades. and that, sends it would be just as consequential in the area of discrimination as dogs was an abortion. it s going to be another blockbuster turn. huge changes ahead. we should definitely watch it very closely. i feel like paypal and you both seem to have money for all that i have learned. that was absolutely tremendous. thanks to both of you for your expertise in your analysis. we all need it right now. i would like to do this again with the. both just very rosen is the presidency of the national constitution center, 50 mccaw screen says the presidency of the national women s law center. that does it for me. thanks for watching. belichick asked me every saturday on sunday morning 8 to 10 eastern. if you didn t see the whole show, it is available on a podcast. you can listen to the show on the. you can find it where we find our podcasts.
discrimination. the whole point of this law was to protect the political power of racial minorities. to force courts to look at how states are drawing these maps, and ask whether they are ensuring that racial minorities are having an equal opportunity in the electoral process. i am quoting from the bill right there. and yet, conservative judges and quite possibly the supreme court may soon say that the voting rights act must be color blind, that courts are not even allowed to consider race for legislatures. and that it is just a coincidence, there is simply nothing courts can do about it. because to ensure the black folks have equal representation, that would be the real discrimination, and that would violate the equal protection clause. it s this topsy-turvy kind of reasoning that the court is also going to use in its affirmative action case. where it is going to say, i think, that allowing racial minorities to attend these universities is actually discriminating against them. since t