so there s a financial crisis in 2008, obviously, that was devastating to a lot of big banks and smaller banks. in 2010, congress passed a lot, the dodd/frank act, that created much more rigorous regulatory structure, made the fed more powerful in terms of making rules that were supposed to force banks to be more safe. some of those rules were dialed back, both by a law that congress passed with democratic and republican support, and by actions the fed took a few years ago to kind of go a little easier on regional banks in particular. and so those rollback of regulations i think is getting a lot of scrutiny now. why did the fed decide to go easier on the banks when times were good? because it s when times are more strained, especially when there s a big change like interest rates are going um, that these banks can come under pressure. there s going to be a lot of scrutiny from congress and inside the fed as to whether they went too far in rolling back the regulations and maybe they nee
sending members to the house and the senate, or casting electoral votes for president, that theory says that state courts have no role in supervising state legislatures. in other words, it is entirely the province of state legislatures, according to clauses in the constitution, to run federal elections. so, if they re doing something like justice kagan said, making rules, redrawing district maps that disenfranchised certain people are put people at a disadvantage in some other way, then state courts would not be able to get involved. and that is sort of anathema to the way we think about violations of the constitution, whether it s a state constitution or our federal constitution, we expect our courts to be involved. but under this theory, at least with respect to the state administration of federal elections, state courts will be
run federal elections. so, if they re doing something like justice kagan said, making rules, redrawing district maps that disenfranchised certain people are put people at a disadvantage in some other way, then state courts would not be able to get involved. and that is sort of anathema to the way we think about violations of the constitution, whether it s a state constitution or our federal constitution, we expect our courts to be involved. but under this theory, at least with respect to the state administration of federal elections, state courts will be excluded. i hope that makes some sense. it s kind of complicated. it s definitely complicated. the justices seemed to be split on this. is there a middle ground? i think there is a middle ground. my preference, although it s a policy preference, would be of course remain involved. and you saw what happened after the last presidential election, when mr. trump essentially use sort of a deranged version of this theory to get state
controlled states, bringing a lawsuit before sympathetic republican judges. finding a pipeline all the way to the supreme, that limits the federal government to act. even though the same cords are allowing them to go for further than before. these are the things that need to be explored. and the platform needs to be given, they need to be echoed, people need to be heard. because they don t understand it, they don t get it. they don t understand it, because people, they re dealing with their pocketbook issues, and things that relates to them daily. but this is important because, this is the damaging parts to our democracy. right now, it is essentially of minority rule. you have these red states that are sparsely populated, making rules for blue states, or for densely populated areas. and, essentially, getting special rights. a party not voted into power. imposing their will.
actually tons of them are pretty new to national politics, having got in in december 2019. a lot of the time, when people say conservative mps will do this, they don t know, they aren t sure what to do, and they are still in that kind of mood, but when you have kind of made something of a move to signal distance with the prime minister, that empowers you to do it again, so that is one of the things that has changed. and the other is itjust feels as if this crisis for him is just not going to end. there is a corrosive quality to it. it has always been deadly serious to face an allegation of making rules, breaking them and lying about doing so, but there was a sense sometimes it was going to fade, but it hasn t.