argument as to whether or not it was constitutional enactment under congress powers. it is sometimes a fool s game to try to read from arguments. susanna, what exactly it is that the justices are want to do. skeptical in their questioning, but do you think that is going to lead to a decision that reflects that? i think again, they have an opportunity to rule narrowly rather than broadly. although here it s still going to have significant effect even if they rule narrowly. they might say it s all right to demand preclearance from some states, but the problem is, that the formula that the congress used to figure out which states, which jurisdictions, have to be precleared, was dated. it was from they re using election data from 1972 and if you use election data from say 2004, you will find that some of the states that have to be precleared have better records.
they are their registration for african-americans, their turnout for african-americans, is better than some states that are not covered, that is, some states that don t have to be precleared. what the court could do is essentially throw it back to congress and say, you re allowed to demand preclearance but you have to come up with a better, more rationale formula and then it will be up to congress whether congress can agree on a formula to determine which states need permission. well, wouldn t that be something if we re waiting for all these decisions by the supreme court and essentially what they do in the majority of these cases is send them elsewhere for decisions, essentially. susanna, kengy, great having you both here, we will see you as any predictions when we might get the other decisions? some time this week. thanks to both of you. we appreciate it. we ve been telling you what a busy news day this is, this afternoon around 5:30 a key vote for immigration. the senate w
affirmative action programs. the court has granted a case that will be argued next year on whether states can go to the polls and ban affirmative actions in their states. the case from michigan, which is where the last big affirmative action case came from upholding a diversity program at the university of michigan law school. so a marrowed bases of affi affirmative action today and a promise to look at this next term, chris. i want to bring back susanna sherry with vanderbilt university and kengy, professor at nyu law school. has there been a time when so many controversial decisions outstanding this late in the term? it does seem like they re making us sweat for it. one question, whether they would extend the term and i always get asked that and basically no. we ll know by the end of this
week. susanna, the thought that these opinions are still being written. i think they re still being tinkered in with. in particular concurrents and dissents going back and forth. i want to answer what the majority says. no, i want to answer what the concurrent said and they ll get them out by this week. let s talk about these cases. doma, defense of marriage act, the expectation is? the expectation is, that they re going to strike down the defense part of the defense of marriage act in which the federal government refuses to look at whether you re married under state law. under the federal law you will be married if you re married validly under state law. maybe in terms of prop 8? i don t think they re going to split the difference.
Transcripts For MSNBCW Jansing And Co 20130624 archive.org - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from archive.org Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.