these are about affirmative action. we re live outside of the court. plus opening statements in the criminal trial against the trump organization. we ll look at those charges against the former president trump s personal business. and the man accused of attacking nancy pelosi s husband will be charged. what he brought with him when he broke into the speaker s home. but the supreme court will begin hearing oral arguments as can considers two cases on affirmative action in higher education. jessica schneider joins us now now. the supreme court has upheld affirmative action but it could be banned nationwide. all eyes and ears are on the conservative justices because it is very likely they will in fact ban affirmative action in particular the chief justice here john roberts has been outspoken about racial issues in many cases in past years. he put it this way in one of the cases. he said the only way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on
Even as Singapore aspires to be a race-blind society, it must always acknowledge that it is going to be a work in progress, said Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong.
brown versus the board of ed, that set in motion the desegregation of schools in the 1950s. one side is saying that brown versus board of education was about equalizing thing for black people because of how schools were de segregated. the other side is saying, that is not the case. brown versus board of education envisioned a race blind society in which we don t even talk or think about race. so they re both using this iconic supreme court case to sort of make their case on this very momentous day. any sense of how this is going to play out? yeah. it is really interesting, the supreme court in 1979, 2003 and 2013 and 2016 had every opportunity to overturn the use of race in college admissions but choose not to. the only thing that is different today in 2022 is the composition of the supreme court. and it appears based on sort of counting noses and analyst and
that says, if you don t want race to infect our voting and election systems, why would you draw a majority black district in the first place? that s a great question. i would put it this way. you mentioned racially polarized voting, that means the white majority in alabama, if given the right to vote, will consistently defeat the voting choice of african americans in alabama. then you have an all-white delegation, we re almost there, but you would have that in the legislature, too. what congress did in 1982, when it amended section 2 of the voting rights act, they said, look, we want to make sure that when minority voters can have a candidate of their choice represent them, they should have that same opportunity. i would love for us to live in a race-blind society where alabama voters were not choosing their candidates on the basis of race.
light talk about what that means. it means that the white majority in alabama, if given the chance to vote, will consistently defeat the choice of african american voters in alabama. so if you just had voting at large where everybody could vote for every congressional candidate, you d have an all-while delegation. we re almost there, but you d have that in the legislature too. what congress did in 1982, when it amended section 2 of the voting rights act, was say, look, we want to assure that when minority voters are concentrated in a particular area and they re large enough that they could have a candidate of their choice represent them, they should have that same opportunity. i would love for us to live in a race-blind society where alabama voters were not choosing their candidates on the basis of race, but that s not the reality today. and the reality today is if we want to assure minority representation and if the supreme court s going to follow what congress said, it s got to creat