we picked that single person and if you send someone to the pinnacle of power whose only interest is there perpetuation in that office, then that is fatal to the whole american experiment in liberty under a law. and it s not just an ideological, it s not just a grand kind of historical elbow patch sweater kind of thing to adhere to. it is an insight, because it protects both of us. if i respect your rights, if i respect your right to vote, and the winner of whomever you voted for, you are more likely to respect mine. because if either one of us takes it away by force, then we are back into what the political philosophers talked about as a state of nature, we are to just a war of all against all. and america s great role in western life has, in many ways, been to model, imperfectly
pinnacle of power whose only interest is there perpetuation in that office, then that is fatal to the whole american experiment in liberty under a law. and it s not just an ideological, it s not just a grand kind of historical elbow patch sweater kind of thing to adhere to. it is an insight, because it protects both of us. if i respect your rights, if i respect your right to vote, and the winner of whomever you voted for, you are more likely to respect mine. because if either one of us takes it away by force, then we are back into what the political philosophers talked about as a state of nature, we are to just a war of all against all. and america s great role in western life has, in many ways, been to model, imperfectly imperfectly but it has in fact modeled this idea that the law is so important, because it protects
it responds even if imperfectly to the preferences of american voters. and agency officials though not themselves elected survey presidents with the broadest of all political constituencies. but this court it is, by design as detached as possible. from the body politic that is why the court is supposed to stick to its business. to decide only cases and controversies and to stay away from making this nation s policy about subjects like student loan relief. and that means the court by deciding this case exercises authority. it does not have. it violates the constitution. justice kagan s 63 years old. she will if the country is lucky, serve another 10 to 20 years from on the supreme court. she will do so knowing she is
really we focus a lot on under privileged aapi but we also focus on cross racial solidarity. that is something so important to me is us as a society coming together. it s been difficult to see because post covid we ve seen staggering statistics, 80% of asian americans don t feel like they belong. an insane number of asian americans are being bullied. and so these things, you know, my life experiences have kind of equipped me to be able to, you know, imperfectly but to try to inspire the next generation. the more we can be comfortable in our own skin, the more we can be unapologetic about who we are, i think the better we will be. that is something we really focus on. we have a stronger together collaborative in new york city. we support quite a number of grantees. to see the work they re doing with their youth and to see not just within the organization but
get? that ginni thomas may have said? before calling her in? she will be a hard witness to get. she will be a hard person to question. it may be better for them to, first, gather as much evidence as possible. i wanted to address the inner question, in your previous question to chuck. while the eastman court filing may not impact with the justice department does, it completely, imperfectly, highlights a conundrum of the justice department, which is way bigger than whether or not with the criminal trial. it s a fact that you have a judge now. you have people in public, you have lawmakers, you have a lot of people saying, trump committed a crime, in broad daylight. he undermined the rule of law, and that is the accusation. if the justice department s job is to do that, and they feel they can t, you talk about a larger question for the department, for the democracy, the rule of law. chuck, help us understand what you believe the committee is trying to do. i want to go back to navarro,