they have this victory with dobbs. it feels so familiar to dobson son sense because i think it s worth lingering for a moment at least in jobs they were honest enough to say we are overturning roe v. wade. it s not even clear from the majority opinion, although functionally i think melissa is exactly right, it functionally over turns and greater and fisher and all of the affirmative action cases. it doesn t say it. and justice sotomayor and who descend calls out as you socially is saying you can t say you re not overturning it when you re overturning it. there s a level of disingenuousness. but i think that other thing that is really shocking and that feels familiar from dobbs is this very cynical use of this lawyer amazingly important history of civil rights victories that culminates in circumstance with brown v. board, and much like justice
a legal defense fund has always had it ever since we became separate from the naacp as a separate legal arm, but we maintained the scholarship portion because we believe in education as an outgrowth of the seminal case we won in 1954, brown versus board of education, which the extreme majority in this court did such a disservice to today. we have the ability to make sure that nothing further happens to that decision. that really made us a multi-racial democracy. we really weren t one until we ended segregation and began to integrator society and hold up our constitutional ideals. janai nelson from the naacp legal defense fund, thank you so much for your time. look forward to having you back to talk about how this is affecting us in the months to come. when we come back, new reporting revealing the investigation into the trump documents case is still going. it is still going. and the special counsel is reportedly issuing new subpoenas.
because i think it s worth lingering for a moment at least in dobbs they were honest enough to say we are overturning roe v. wade. it s not even clear from the majority opinion it functionally overturns bache and gruder and fisher and all the affirmative action cases. it doesn t say it, and justice sotomayor calls out the chief and says you can t say you re not overturning it when you re overturning it. i think something that s shocking and feels familiar from dobbs is this very cynical use of this long amazingly important history of civil rights victory that culminates in some sense with brown v. board. and much like justice aalito
these do implicate the brown v. board of education of 1954, and the dissent which captures judge jackson s dissent talks about what the promise was in brown v. board that the schools were integrated and we were walking away from the segregation, and in this, justice sotomayor said there would be segregation, and the sharp line of to bunker and the boardroom was matched by several others at least out loud. i have not had time of course to read the opinion, but this the courtroom, so many zingers going back and forth, and i have to say about the chief justice, we have seen him try to couch some of his strongest opinions with language that might mallify some people, and what some universities can and cannot do, and he is saying that what some universities can and cannot do directly, you cannot do them
those people are. exactly, and we can include audrey lord, you don t get a chance to talk about her, who is also being named. you don t even get a chance to talk about the histories we re supposed to talk about. how can you talk about enslavement if you can t talk about what that meant for black women? who are largely responsible for creating the property upon which this country was built. how do you talk even about you re supposed to talk about the holocaust. you can t talk about the holocaust without talking about how many of the ideas that hitler enacted he borrowed from the united states. there s just a whole range of histories that are not being told. and here s the reason. this isn t about debates about the past. this is about debates about the present. this is a reaction to 2020. this is a reaction to new generations saying we care about equality in this country, we care about structural racism. we want to understand why 50 years after brown v. board, we