affirmative action and vogue rights, which many people expect when you look at alito replacing o connor, a key vote on prior decisions, what do people who want to advance civil rights do? as we were talking about, it s going to become about social movement. here is the bottom line ari, 2014 why people are due or scheduled to become a minority. this is an matiimating a lot of decisions. the question is how will we manage that transformation does one have reactionary restrict n restrictionist division or does one have an expansive view like you or bill gates who sees this as an opportunity. how we manage that not just with supreme court decisions but other policies and practices will be critical to our well-being economically and politically. i think the question is that will happen in the future. i think we can kind of see what the general trend is. i think what will happen in the future is the same thing that will happen in the past.
represented thousands of criminal indigents. norman, i want to start with you. as you said, the system is overburdened. people have way too many cases. we don t have time to dig into a person s needs. it s tough to figure out what legal steps you need to take for each individual client. it is rough. it is rough. public defenders just do the best they can. case loads are just way too high, and you re dealing with a portion of the population that has a lot of diverse problems. danny, on the fundamental question, the paul giamati question, is it harder to get public awareness, spending commitment to this where they understand why this is good, why
adjustment that is antithetical to what you re saying. because the court has the job of saying what the law is, the constitution is the fundamental law of the land. fundamental to the constitution is the decentralization of power between the states and federal government with the states having primary role of regulating elections. keep in mind what we re talking about is preclearance where we have a penalty box, handful of states no longer the bad actors, mind you, states outside this penalty box that have worst statistics on any sorts of racial concerns, and yet the law persists. the law persists in violating state sovereignty. nick, part of your answer going to fundamental. to the question, which is a good one, justice scalia had a different answer, some thought cynical, we try to give him air time so his views are exposed and well understand. i want to play his answer to the question.
reliability. i look at a poll of affirmative action. the kind of question, is affirmative action still needed or should it be ended, you see a drop. points are meeting because people are skeptical. lets dig into that. this is something kenji has worked on. the text question of that poll, whether we need affirmative action was affirmative action programs are still needed to counter-act the effects of discrimination against minorities and are a good idea as long as there are no rigid quotas. i just mentioned quotas are off the table. the idea of countering effects against minorities, discrimination as history. today under current law, regardless of what the supreme court does, right now that is not legal affirmative action, because the supreme court case that upheld it said it had to be for diversity and not remedial measures. whether or not that s good, what does it say about the conversation we re still polling a question that assumes affirmative action that isn t
so your book looks at the question of where is the racism and says for 2013 that may be the wrong question. exactly. we have to look at social engineering, transportation policies, laws, practices that socially engineer society with racist results we have to say. i say that with the affirmative action and quote, unquote, racial positive policies, we re told that s racial engineering, you can t change human nature, but all public policy is social engineering. the question is what effect do you want to have. jelani that goes to the subject we were discussing with nick from a conservative view, look, things have changed. people aren t being fire hosed is some of the language he used, so the government shouldn t be in these decisions anymore. i think that the problem with that argument is that it s like saying if crime decreases then we no longer need to make murder illegal or no longer need to say it s illegal to assault someone.