Here was, first, a white man, admitting that he was prejudice, which for people of color was, we kind of just say finally. We take you live to the washington counsel of lawyers. Well hear about some of the Big Decisions this last term. Introductions began just a moment ago. Paul has argued before the Supreme Court 21 times. I was lucky enough to be in the chamber of the Supreme Court when he argued on behalf of the plaintiffs in the landmark gay rights case. As a young man gay man considering whether to attend law school, i had slept on the sidewalk outside the Supreme Court for the chance to enter the chamber and observe a pursuit of justice. I would have been really bummed if i hadnt gotten in. It paid off and i was able to hear the oral arguments which were amazing. In addition, paul has argued a number of important voting ri t rights cases. One involving partisan jerry man gerrymandering. Paul has been honored nationally by a variety of publications and organizations in recognition
Up next, oral argument from the North Carolina gerrymandering case. This court has repeatedly failed to identify a standard r for partisan gerrymandering claims. The cause is not a lack of judicial imagination or a lack of claims that the particular map before the court was the most extreme ever. Rather, the root cause of this failure is the basic decision of the framers to give responsibility for congressional districting to political actors. The framers consciously chose to give the primary authority to state i would submit that you dont have a one size fits all solution. I took the central lesson of baker v carr to be that the same claim essentially when presented as an equal protection claim was justiceable. Mr. Clement, does one person have one vote that counts equally, which i take it to be the message of those cases now well accepted. Does one person have one vote that counts equally with others. Is the impact of her vote reduced based on her Party Affiliation . The answer is ye
Registration requirements on hundreds of thousands of individuals. It combines criminal law making and executive power in precisely the way that the constitution was designed to prohibit. The delegation is unconstitutional. This delegation can be distinguished from every delegation that has previously been upheld by this court, due to a combination of its total lack of standard and the nature and power nature and significance of the delegated power. Unlike other delegations that this court has approved, this has no standard to guide the attorney generals exercise of discretion. Well the government says they do have standard and its the apply the prohibitions or the requirements in the law to the maximum extent feasible. Your honor, that language does not appear anywhere in the statutory text, nor can it be derived from the sources that the government cites. What about the list thats contained in 209. 01, the list of past offenders . In your view, none of those people would be required
Cumulatively is that doug evans began with an unconstitutional end in mind to seat as few africanamerican jurors as he could. The numbers alone are striking. Trials, mr. Four evans exercised 36 challenges, all of them against africanamerican jurors. Exercisedx trial, he five out of six of his challenges against africanamerican jurors. If we look at the numbers of his regarding his questioning, they are likewise stark. Struckd of the africanamerican jurors an average of 29 questions. Jurors an average of 1. 1 question. Numbers do not stand alone. Mr. Evans was twice found to have discriminated on the basis of race in the exercise of numbd alone. His challenges against africanamerican dependence in trials of the same case against the same defendant. A recordno one who has of discrimination adjudicated like that of mr. Evans. The history of the case prior to this trial is very troubling. You have summarized that. It is cause for concern and it is relevant to the decision that ultimately h
District attorney who tried each of the cases and his methods to remove potential africanamerican jurors in the selection process. Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion. Argumenthe oil oral from march. We will hear argument this morning in case 179572. Flowers versus mississippi. Ms. Johnson. May it please the court. The only possible interpretation of all of the evidence viewed cumulatively is that doug evans began with an unconstitutional end in mind to seat as few africanamerican jurors as he could. The numbers alone are striking. Trials, mr. Four evans exercised 36 challenges, all of them against africanamerican jurors. Exercisedx trial, he five out of six of his challenges against africanamerican jurors. If we look at the numbers of his regarding his questioning, they are likewise stark. Struckd of the africanamerican jurors an average of 29 questions. Jurors an average of 1. 1 question. Numbers do not stand alone. Mr. Evans was twice found to have discriminated on the