if someone wants to challenge that decision, they one of the things anyone can raise about any case based on mistaken premise or premises, and that is the kind of things courts are open to hearing. my time is expired, thanks for the indulgence of the extra minute. dana: we ll take a quick one-minute break. sheldon whitehouse just finished questioning of brett kavanaugh and we ll keep it here to follow the confirmation hearings for judge brett kavanaugh. you can continue to follow the action on your screen. give us one minute for this break. billions of mouths.
both north carolina was found to have targeted minority votes with surgical precision, pretty rough phrase, and texas got after it so frequently federal court said look, we think there is pension for discrimination here. so if you have got the five judges saying it is over in the states and it turns out it really isn t over, there is actually still surgical precision targeting of minority voters and pension for discrimination in the texas state government, that ought to be something that might cause some reconsideration of the shelby holdings, oughten it? three things on that, senator, one, i think the case did not strike down preclearance as opposed to saying the formula it did, ended in those states. i understand that, but i have one minute left, let me jump to the other example because i think it is an
an amicus bees in the santa fe case for congress man steve largin and j.c. watts. can you describe what that case was about and your representation there? judge kavanaugh: i will. attorney general for the state of texas and did outstanding job. i remember participating in the mute court as the senator recalled. didn t turn out too well, judge. you did an excellent job, senator, i remember being there. the case involved prayer before a football game. the supreme court had number of cases on religious expression in schools. school sponsored prayer at school events is often
blogs, as well, and there is discussion of this issue and i would want as a sitting judge, want to see a record before me of what is going on in a particular case. i hesitate to opine on something i read in a law review article, i think you have a better sense of what is going on there, i would want a record to determine what the evidence in that particular case was. senator: okay. i want to turn now to affirmative action and senator booker raised these questions late last night. in a speech at notre dame you discussed long-standing exception, end quote, to basic equal protection right not to be treated differently by government on account of your race, and summarize court debate on this issue and remarked on what basis is the court making those decisions, is there something in the text of the constitution that tells us one is good enough and the other
prayer in that case to the school and the supreme court therefore said that the prayer in that case was impermissible. it was very fact-specific, based on how some of the actual prayers had gone down in the school district there. so it was really in the gray area on the facts between the two principles, freedom of speech and freedom of religion for individuals, on the one hand, no school-sponsored prayer, on the other and those two principles are part of the supreme court precedent that i think the courts have applied for a long time now. senator: so what led you to want to take on that representation in the amicus brief? judge kavanaugh: i think at that time i was asked to work on several cases involving religious liberty and religious speech. i also did a case in amicus in the good news club case.