supreme court, throughout its history, has mostly been a reactionary, a reactionary institution. it s been a shake back on liberal progress. and that, sense aids just reverting to the meme. i don t think this frame court deserves any veneration whatsoever, it s a sorely political institution, and well it s a really is shocking that they never agreed to hear this case in the first place, instead of just dismissing it out of hand. i also believe this supreme court is not going to further investigating our lights and liberties, and not kind of taking a scalpel to voting rights. we can be glad it hasn t taken a sledgehammer to them. but you know, that s kind of cold comfort, given all the damage that this court has done.
i m ayman mohyeldin, let s get started. et started. all right, so this, week the supreme court had what might be its most consequential we cover oral arguments this term. two cases in particular were argued, that could effectively change america s we know it, and that s not been hyperbolic. when could change or political system, the other could fundamentally change our civil rights. our, show for months, has been closely following more versus harper, which is a case involves a dispute over north carolina s congressional map. they argue that it has supreme authority to create rules for federal elections, without, and i emphasize, without any oversight from state courts. it centers around a once fringe legal proposition known as the independent state legislator theory. and under this theory, legislators would have the
way, because we are talking about democracy and political rights, the other case i wanted to talk to about was more about of civil rights, and that is 303 creative, do have designer in this case have never made a wedding website for at any one, it certainly is not over someone s sexuality this is a case that was entirely hypothetical, there s no harm done, an unlikely masterpiece cake shop, case which folks will i do want to make a wedding cake for same sex couple, there is no same-sex couple here, because no one s been denied services, no inside relief under the colorado public accommodations law. so right, what we kind of fill the void of having no parties on the other side. only one aggrieved party this
now the clarence thomas has signaled that he wants to see that, more or less? in fact, that was the impetus for this legislation. we saw in justice thomas s concurring opinion in tops, but they re gonna be a number of other rights that are taken away from millions of americans. in the same way that this far-right 63 super majority on the court, straightaway the fundamental right to the innovation that it lasted for 60 years and our constitution. so we want to get ahead of the problem, and we did that, but we also know that there are other things, on the chopping block. the right to contraception, the rate so many other things that we simply take for granted in our everyday lives. these are the problems that you have, we have the right has stacked the court with radical extremists. mitch mcconnell, for example, tenino won at the ability to appoint merrick garland to the supreme court. now we ve got a 63 hyper partisan majority, that does not care about his own
kind of taking a scalpel to voting rights, we can be glad it has not taken a sledgehammer to them. but, that is cold comfort given all the damage this quarters done. can the supreme court regain the trust of the american people, or is it too late? poll after poll shows that americans, even before the overturning of roe v. wade and especially since the overturning of roe v. wade, americans are growing less confident of the supreme court that it has become more political and not truly objective. that is right, eamonn. the court has a public confidence problem. the public largely no longer believes that the supreme court is above partisanship, above politics, and we have evidence of ginni thomas working with