- 9 hours ago
Category
📺
TVTranscript
00:03From the most trusted journalists at Comedy Central, it's America's only source for news.
00:10This is The Daily Show with your host, Sean Stewart.
00:31Let's go! Let's go!
00:40Welcome to The Daily Show.
00:42My name is John Stewart. We have a great show for you tonight.
00:46First of all, later on, I'm going to be joined by civil rights attorney Sherilyn Ifill is going to be
00:50joining us.
00:53I'm excited to judge her. We're going to break down all the Met Gala looks.
01:00And if time permits, the erosion of voting rights in America.
01:03All right. Uh, as I'm not at the Met Gala tonight, wasn't invited.
01:12My invite, uh, was rescinded in, like, 1997.
01:20But I didn't give out of this here. Apparently, my body is, quote, not compatible.
01:29As you get older, your body changes.
01:32You know what I don't, uh, look good in anymore?
01:34Is, um, pictures, I think.
01:36The point is this. Uh, ladies and gentlemen,
01:40Obviously, the big news continues to be our situationship with Iran.
01:45Is it a war? Is it a ceasefire? Are we friends with bomb-a-fits?
01:49I don't know.
01:51Because, as you know, Friday marked the expiration
01:54of the 60-day free trial period presidents get
01:58to do wars?
02:00After 60 days, the president must ask Congress,
02:03who then decides,
02:05Are we subscribing?
02:10Or,
02:12Are we just going to use Israel's password?
02:29So, as you can imagine,
02:30it's going to be big news
02:32when Trump asks for official permission.
02:35Trump signaling he will not seek official permission
02:38from Congress to extend the war with Iran.
02:40Trump, what?
02:45He's not going to seek official permission.
02:49I was kind of under the impression
02:50that that's not his choice.
02:54That it would be, I don't know, illegal.
02:58Then I remember, uh, Donald Trump
03:00doesn't give a f***
03:03about legality
03:04or any accountability that may occur
03:07from said illegality.
03:09So much so that he felt confident
03:12confessing to said illegality
03:15in a speech in Florida
03:16on the day he was supposed
03:19to attain congressional approval.
03:22What they call a military operation,
03:25you know, they don't like the word war.
03:27And they call it a military operation
03:29because that way you don't have a war,
03:32you don't have legal problems.
03:42You almost, you almost have to admire
03:44the brazenness of a president
03:46just casually explaining just the thing
03:48how to get around our pesky, uh, laws.
03:52It's just not a care in the world.
03:54It's like going up to a McDonald's cashier.
03:56Yeah, I'm going to get a cup of water.
03:58Uh, well, uh, I say water.
04:01It's because I don't like to use the word soda.
04:05If I say water, I get it for free.
04:07But to be clear, I will be drinking soda.
04:10But my plan is to use the word water
04:14to avoid any, uh, what you call payment problems.
04:20Of course, Trump's plan only works
04:22if he has the discipline to maintain his assertion
04:25that we are, in fact, not in a war.
04:29You know, we're in a war.
04:43Same day, same podium.
04:47Here's how I get around being a war.
04:48We're in a war.
04:49He's just sitting there.
04:50He's like, he's just looking the cashier in the eye,
04:53filling up his cup with soda.
04:58I'm just going to get a little Mountain Dew,
04:59a little Pepsi.
05:02Little, I don't know what the root beer one is.
05:04Little Mountain Dew, a little Pepsi.
05:05Little Barks.
05:08Little High C.
05:10I'm going around the f***ing world.
05:13And by the way, it's all purposeful.
05:15These are not mistakes.
05:15These are the machinations of genius.
05:18He'll tell you himself, as he did this weekend.
05:20I'm the only president to take a cognitive test.
05:23You know, the first question is very easy.
05:25It's a lion, a giraffe, a bear, and a shark.
05:29They say, which one is the bear?
05:44You're the only president to take the cognitive test.
05:46Let me ask you a question.
05:49Why do you think that is?
05:53I don't know.
05:57Why do you think that you're the only president that that happens to?
06:02That for some reason, every time you go to the doctor, which is a lot,
06:08the doctor's always like, hey, while you're here,
06:16if you could come over here and just explain very quickly, which one of these is the bear?
06:24But I interrupted.
06:26I interrupted.
06:26Let's hear more about this totally believable test you keep acing.
06:31They say, take a number, any number, okay, I'll take 99, multiply times 9, okay,
06:37divide it by 3, good, add 4,293, that's good, divide by 2, subtract 93, divide by 9,
06:49there aren't a lot of people that get it right, I got it right.
07:03The answer was bear.
07:07But no, no, let me not be dismissive.
07:11No, Trump is a regular Stephen Hawking.
07:14That's what it is.
07:15Although I thought the only thing they had in common was being in the Epstein files.
07:18But the important, oh, I apologize, no, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I apologize.
07:25Too soon?
07:29Or, or, or should I say, too soon?
07:42Listen, if Punch the Monkey can handle it,
07:51and by the way, the wild thing is Trump seems to be almost getting smarter with age
07:55because this is how he handled math questions 20 years ago on the Howard Stern Show.
08:01All right, I'm going to ask you a tough question at Wharton School of Business.
08:04Yes.
08:04What's 17 times 6?
08:07Come on.
08:08What is he, human calculators?
08:09See, that's not a practical...
08:1296?
08:13Wrong!
08:14Wrong!
08:15That's not a practical application, though.
08:17Ivanka, 17 times 6?
08:19It's 11, it's 1112.
08:361112 isn't a real number.
08:40That's two numbers just placed side by side.
08:45I guess it's the 2000s equivalent of 6, 7.
08:49That's how it...
08:51So, so, I apologize.
08:53I know you're a genius.
08:55Try again.
08:56112.
08:57112.
08:58It is 112?
08:59112.
09:00Yeah.
09:00So that is a number, but it's still wrong.
09:05It's 102.
09:06But somehow we're supposed to believe that 20 years later,
09:09you've turned into a f***ing genius.
09:11You've turned into a working-class janitor at MIT
09:15solving quadratics between mopping up.
09:20You know, I can't believe they ever gave Trump the FIFA math prize.
09:27So...
09:33See, Trump is a special genius
09:35that sees himself above all traditional presidential limitations.
09:38He's not bound by our petty checks and balances
09:41and separations of powers.
09:42He has ignored 31 lower court decisions,
09:46not including 250 more rulings in immigration cases.
09:49He's festooned the people's house
09:52with trappings of a Versailles-themed bar mitzvah.
09:56He has built a Kim Jong-un-esque
09:59giant gold statue of himself
10:02at his Doral golf course.
10:03He's gonna be on our f***ing passports.
10:08Our passports.
10:09Whenever you go abroad,
10:11whenever you travel overseas,
10:13you're gonna have to tell a customs officer,
10:15I don't know him.
10:21How out of control are Trump's royal ambitions?
10:24So bad that last week,
10:25an actual king,
10:27born of the lineage of kings we fought
10:30to establish our constitutional republic,
10:32had to come back here
10:34to remind us to wake the f*** up.
10:38I come here today
10:40with the highest respect
10:42for the United States Congress,
10:45this citadel of democracy
10:47created to represent the voice
10:49of all American people
10:51to advance sacred rights and freedoms.
10:54Oh, s***! No, you did!
10:58Oh, s***!
11:00King Charles!
11:02Coming in hot!
11:08Firing on all!
11:09What's the British word for cylinders?
11:11I don't, I don't.
11:12But you heard him!
11:14And then Charles did us dirty
11:16with a list of all the hard-fought
11:18constitutional principles
11:18we are squandering.
11:20The principle that executive power
11:23is subject to checks and balances,
11:25the rule of law,
11:27the certainty of stable
11:28and accessible rules,
11:30an independent judiciary
11:32delivering impartial justice.
11:35Let our two countries
11:37rededicate ourselves.
11:38All right, all right.
11:41It was all very powerful
11:42until you hit the
11:44rededicate.
11:48The separation of powers,
11:49the, we must
11:51rededicate.
11:52I'm gonna stop you
11:53before you go full
11:54Tootsie Pop owl.
11:58How many licks
11:59must you give a country
12:01before we get to the
12:06But you heard him!
12:07You heard the king!
12:09He's just a boy
12:11standing in front of a Congress
12:15asking it to
12:17rededicate
12:19itself
12:19to the principles
12:20of constitutional checks and balances.
12:22But Congress won't.
12:23Congress won't do that
12:24because they suck.
12:27Congress has completely abandoned
12:28any serious oversight
12:29of our military operation.
12:31They've still not
12:32passed a full budget.
12:33They've passed fewer laws
12:34than any Congress
12:35in the first year
12:36of a presidency.
12:36In our history!
12:37They haven't done anything!
12:39Well, that's not totally fair.
12:42We have another bird alert
12:44and this time
12:44involves something
12:45that happened
12:46on Capitol Hill.
12:47These birds
12:48were in the hot seat
12:49during a House hearing
12:49led by Idaho Republican
12:51Congressman Mike Simpson.
12:52The hearing was meant
12:53to highlight efforts
12:54to preserve
12:55these birds of prey.
12:59That's what
13:00it is intended for
13:01but instead
13:02it ended in tragedy.
13:05Jump, Lindsay!
13:06Jump!
13:08Jump, boy!
13:11Here's the crazy part.
13:16The Congress people
13:18still showing up
13:19for bird shows
13:19are the best of them.
13:21Some of these people
13:22don't show up
13:22for anything.
13:23GOP New Jersey
13:25Representative
13:26Tom Kane Jr.
13:27hasn't voted
13:28since March 5th.
13:29Kane has missed
13:30more than 50 votes.
13:32Top GOP leaders
13:33are in the dark.
13:35It's a mystery
13:35in the Capitol building.
13:37Fox contacted
13:38multiple members
13:39of the House GOP leadership.
13:41None had any idea
13:43about Kane's whereabouts.
13:44One member
13:45of the Republican brass
13:46told Fox
13:47that Kane's absence
13:48didn't worry them
13:49quote,
13:49until you called.
14:01He's been gone
14:02for two months!
14:05Hey,
14:05you know the saying
14:06around here,
14:07that's just more birds
14:08for us, huh?
14:11Here's how little government
14:12even means
14:13to any of them.
14:14This is who
14:15was designated survivor
14:17who would be tasked
14:18with rebuilding
14:18our nation
14:19if the worst
14:20had actually happened
14:21at that White House
14:22Correspondents' Dinner.
14:23The person
14:24who would have
14:24theoretically
14:25taken over control
14:27of the United States
14:27government
14:28as President
14:29of the United States
14:30if something
14:30would have happened
14:31to everybody
14:31in that room
14:32would have been
14:33Senator Chuck Grassley
14:34who was in his 90s.
14:40That was the
14:41designated survivor
14:42who will lead
14:43our country
14:43into the future.
14:45The guy
14:45who will lead
14:46our country
14:46into the future
14:47statistically
14:49doesn't have
14:50much of one.
14:52Like,
14:53actuarial tables-wise,
14:55he would not
14:56be expected
14:57to survive
14:58an uneventful evening.
15:05I'm sorry.
15:07Too soon?
15:10And by the way,
15:11if you're hoping
15:12that our judiciary
15:12will step up
15:13and be the guardrail
15:14against Trump's
15:14kingly ambitions,
15:15watch a bunch of
15:16nominees for confirmation
15:17to our federal
15:18court system
15:19refuse
15:21to do so.
15:23Mr. Mark,
15:23if I might,
15:24just tell me
15:25about the 22nd Amendment.
15:26What does it provide?
15:27I haven't had
15:28an opportunity
15:29to use that one
15:30specifically.
15:31It states
15:32no person shall be
15:33elected to the office
15:33of the president
15:34more than twice.
15:35Mr. Mark,
15:35is President Trump
15:36eligible to run
15:37for president
15:38again in 2028?
15:43Senator,
15:43without considering
15:45all the facts
15:45and looking at everything,
15:47depending on what
15:47the situation is,
15:49this to me
15:49strikes as
15:50more of a hypothetical.
15:52Is he eligible
15:52to run for a third term
15:53under our Constitution?
15:56I would have
15:56to review.
15:58Review what?
16:01You're allowed to.
16:02He said to.
16:04That means you can't have three.
16:05Do you really have
16:06to do the math on that?
16:07Person trying to be confirmed
16:09to the United States
16:10judicial system?
16:11Is the answer 1112?
16:13Is that what you're looking at?
16:14It's,
16:15what do you have to review?
16:17It's,
16:22it's not a trick.
16:23Anybody else brave enough
16:24to say that the Constitution
16:25of the United States
16:26prevents President Trump
16:27from seeking a third term?
16:31Anybody willing
16:32to apply the Constitution
16:33by its plain language
16:34in the 22nd Amendment?
16:37Nobody.
16:39All right,
16:40let's move on.
16:42Are you happy?
16:45You broke his heart.
16:48The Congress
16:49isn't coming to save us.
16:51The judiciary
16:52isn't coming to save us.
16:53The voters
16:54are being gerrymandered
16:55out of being able
16:56to save us.
16:57We've only got
16:58one last card to play.
17:00Our beautiful
17:01fourth estate.
17:02Democracy dies
17:03in darkness.
17:03So we look
17:05to the free press,
17:06the newsies,
17:07the ink-stained wretches,
17:08the masters of muckrape,
17:10the clickety-clack brigade,
17:12tappers, rappers,
17:13wolf blitzers,
17:15titty twisters.
17:17We, the people,
17:21depend on the news media
17:23to bring the tough questions
17:25that hold the politicians
17:26accountable.
17:27There was a report
17:28this week that,
17:29because of all the firepower
17:31required for Epic Fury,
17:33that there are people
17:33in the White House
17:34who are starting to worry
17:35about our inventory of bombs
17:36and missiles.
17:37Are you worried?
17:39It's a solid question.
17:40The New York Times
17:41just discovered
17:42that since the war began,
17:42the United States
17:43has burned through half
17:44its long-range missiles,
17:45plus 1,000 Tomahawk missiles,
17:47which is nearly 10 times more
17:48than we buy each year,
17:49plus thousands more
17:50of pretty much
17:50every other type of missile
17:51that we have.
17:53Experts are getting worried
17:53we're depleting our stockpiles.
17:55So, Mr. President,
17:57are we running out of weapons?
17:58No, no.
17:59We have more than
18:01we've ever had out there.
18:03Because all over the world
18:04we have inventory,
18:05and we can take that
18:06if we need it.
18:07Right now,
18:07we have more than double
18:10what we had when this started.
18:22That sounds like bullshit.
18:25Or, or,
18:26not that I'm wrong,
18:27or,
18:30is it perhaps
18:34magic?
18:36What you're saying is
18:38in the beginning of the war
18:39we had only this one ball.
18:44And then,
18:45we spent a month
18:46using that ball.
18:48We used it to bomb
18:49every place in Iran
18:50we could think of.
18:51And now,
18:52at the end of that time,
18:54we find ourselves...
18:59Hold on!
19:00Here!
19:01Where is that?
19:02Wait!
19:03Wait!
19:04Wait!
19:08Hold on!
19:09We had one ball,
19:11remember the premise!
19:13One ball!
19:14And we used the ball
19:15to bomb Iran,
19:16and now,
19:17apparently,
19:17we have
19:18two balls.
19:21Two balls!
19:32Two balls!
19:34And the reporters
19:35have all the specific
19:36reporting to back that up.
19:37The follow-ups
19:38to this nonsense
19:39are gonna be brutal.
19:40The G7 is in France,
19:42isn't you?
19:42Will you go to it?
19:43Probably.
19:44No!
19:46Just,
19:47the question
19:48should just be this.
19:49What the f*** did Gigi say?
19:51That didn't make any sense.
19:53The G7
19:53is a month from now.
19:55It'll be on his schedule.
19:58Follow-up on the f***ing missile thing!
20:00Do you still support a pardon
20:02for Pete Rose, sir?
20:04Oh, I think Pete Rose was great.
20:10Oh, I get it.
20:10You're prepping him with nonsense
20:12to lower his defenses
20:13before you come into hard facts
20:14about a war
20:14he's clearly bullshitting about.
20:16Go.
20:16You're gonna be hosting
20:17the first-ever UFC fight
20:19at the White House
20:20in 45 days, sir.
20:23Can you preview the event?
20:24Can you talk about the card
20:25and what does it mean?
20:29We're so f***ed.
20:31And by the way,
20:33what is the point
20:34of having to shout
20:35your questions
20:36if you're not gonna listen
20:38to the answers?
20:40We need you
20:41to help us litigate
20:42the boundaries
20:43of our reality,
20:44not move on
20:46to Pete f***ing Rose.
20:48Can someone from
20:49the foreign press
20:49jump in?
20:50I love you,
20:51Mr. President.
20:52Mr. President.
20:55Thank you, Mr. President.
20:58Well, they give
20:59Chef Boyardee credentials?
21:02The f*** is...
21:03Mr. President,
21:04Italy has a question
21:05for you.
21:08Ah!
21:11By the way,
21:12that reporter
21:13is not actually Italian.
21:14He's Kurdish,
21:15but this was the only accent
21:17we felt we could safely do.
21:28I genuinely don't understand
21:30what this country
21:31is becoming.
21:32When every one
21:33of our institutions
21:33are failing us,
21:34is there any hope
21:35for the liberal democracy
21:36that has inspired
21:37the world
21:38for these past
21:39250 years?
21:40Is there anyone
21:41who can recall
21:42the lessons
21:42of our American Revolution
21:44and inspire this nation
21:46to return to its
21:47founding principles
21:48in this,
21:49our 250th year?
21:51Let our two countries
21:53rededicate ourselves.
21:59If the strongest defender
22:00of American democracy
22:01is the king of England,
22:04we are really f***ing.
22:07When we come back,
22:08Cheryl and I will be here.
22:09Don't go away.
22:22All right.
22:23Welcome back
22:23to The Daily Show.
22:25My guest tonight
22:27is...
22:27Oh, very kind of you.
22:29My guest tonight
22:30is a renowned
22:30civil rights lawyer
22:31and founding director
22:32of Howard Law School's
22:3314th Amendment Center
22:34for Law and Democracy.
22:35Please welcome
22:36to the program
22:36Cheryl and I will be here.
22:48Thank you so much
22:53for joining us.
22:54Thank you for having me.
22:54I would imagine
22:55that your expertise
22:57is quite in demand
22:59right now.
23:00Yes, sadly.
23:01Sadly.
23:03Explain very quickly,
23:05if you could,
23:06what has happened
23:07to what we call
23:08the Voting Rights Act
23:10in this most recent
23:12Supreme Court decision?
23:15Yeah.
23:15Yeah, last week
23:16the Supreme Court
23:16issued a decision
23:17in a case called
23:18Louisiana v. Calais
23:20that essentially removed
23:22the remaining power
23:23from a key section
23:25of the Voting Rights Act
23:26of 1965.
23:27Right.
23:28And in so doing,
23:29they kind of rendered
23:30the act a nullity.
23:32They had already
23:33given the act
23:34a body blow
23:34in 2013
23:35in a case called
23:36Shelby County v. Holder.
23:38And when they issued
23:39that decision,
23:39Chief Justice Roberts
23:40said, yes,
23:41but you still have
23:42another part
23:43of the Voting Rights Act
23:43that's really strong
23:44and you can use that.
23:45It's Section 2.
23:46It's nationwide.
23:48And then...
23:49He had that
23:49in his decision.
23:50He said that
23:51in 2013.
23:51You're okay.
23:52You're okay
23:53because you've still
23:53got Section 2.
23:54The section that he took
23:55out was Section 5.
23:56Yes.
23:57And then last week
23:58they took Section 2.
23:59And did he then go,
24:01look, Section 1.
24:03You're still okay.
24:04No, he did not.
24:05No, he did not.
24:06So what is...
24:07What did the removal
24:08of Section 5 do?
24:10So let's take a step back.
24:12Historically,
24:14representation
24:16for African Americans
24:19was specifically excluded.
24:22They were excluded
24:23from voting,
24:24maybe not by a specific law,
24:26but by poll taxes
24:27or other things
24:28after Reconstruction.
24:29Mm-hmm.
24:30And we let that go
24:31for 80 years?
24:33Yeah.
24:34After 80 years,
24:35they passed the Voting Rights Act
24:37to ensure
24:40that representation
24:41would be granted,
24:42that people's voices
24:43would be heard
24:44in those communities.
24:45Yeah.
24:46And what was the result
24:47of that act?
24:48Yeah.
24:49So just one edit to that
24:50is that, you know,
24:51after the Civil War,
24:52there was an effort
24:54to ensure that Black people
24:55could vote.
24:55And that was through
24:57the three amendments
24:58that were passed
24:59to our Constitution
24:59after the Civil War.
25:00one-ending slavery,
25:02the 14th Amendment,
25:03birthright citizenship,
25:04and equal protection
25:05of laws.
25:06And then the 15th Amendment
25:07said you cannot prevent
25:08someone from voting
25:10based on race or color
25:11or previous condition
25:12of servitude.
25:13So that was supposed
25:14to mean Black people
25:15could vote.
25:16And for a while,
25:17Black people could vote
25:18in the South.
25:18I mean,
25:18we had eight members
25:20of Congress elected
25:21during that Reconstruction period,
25:23two United States senators.
25:25Then what you had
25:26at the turn of the century
25:27was all of these states
25:29making new constitutions
25:30and coming up
25:31with the kinds of laws
25:33that you described,
25:34poll taxes,
25:35literacy tests,
25:37grandfather clauses.
25:38If your grandfather
25:38could vote in 1850,
25:40then you could vote.
25:41That's where
25:42grandfather clauses are?
25:43Yeah, yeah, yeah.
25:44Oh, wow.
25:45So they came up
25:46with all these tactics
25:47to keep Black people
25:47from voting,
25:48and of course,
25:49it was overall enforced
25:50by just mob violence,
25:52the violence of the Klan
25:53that really controlled
25:54so many communities.
25:55And never explicitly set,
25:58that this was all done
25:59as a way to circumvent
26:02what the freedom meant,
26:04what those amendments
26:05to the Constitution meant.
26:06No, and when Black people
26:07tried to challenge it,
26:08like in 1911
26:09in a case called
26:09Giles v. Harris
26:10where a Black man said,
26:12Alabama won't let me
26:13register to vote.
26:14I meet all the criteria.
26:15I should be able to register.
26:16The Supreme Court
26:18of the United States
26:19in a decision
26:20by the esteemed jurist
26:21Oliver Wendell Holmes
26:23said,
26:24there's really nothing
26:25we can do about it
26:26because if we tell Alabama
26:28that they have to register
26:29you to vote,
26:29they're not going
26:30to do it anyway.
26:32I can't.
26:33The Supreme Court
26:34was going,
26:34we could do what's right.
26:36What?
26:38So that meant
26:39that Black people,
26:40and remember,
26:41a majority of Black people
26:42lived in the South.
26:44A majority of Black people
26:45still live in the South,
26:47right?
26:47And so, yes,
26:49there were communities
26:50in the North
26:50where Black people
26:51could exercise
26:52the right to vote,
26:53but most Black people
26:54could not vote
26:55until the Civil Rights Movement
26:57pushed for voting rights.
26:59And that culminated
27:01in that march
27:02across the Edmund Pettus Bridge
27:03and the brutality
27:04of Alabama state troopers
27:06and then months later
27:07the signing
27:08of the Voting Rights Act.
27:09And the Voting Rights Act
27:10of 1965
27:11completely changed the game.
27:12When that act
27:13was finally passed
27:15by Congress,
27:16there were only 72
27:18Black elected officials
27:19in the entire United States.
27:22In the entire United States.
27:24You're not talking about
27:24just Senate House representatives.
27:25No, no, no.
27:25You're literally talking about
27:26state houses anywhere.
27:2872.
27:28In the whole country.
27:29There you go.
27:30And then,
27:31and then,
27:32of course,
27:32it started to do its work.
27:34And so by 1980,
27:36right before the Congress
27:38reauthorized
27:39the Voting Rights Act,
27:40we were up to
27:41about 1,500.
27:44And then Congress
27:46amended the Voting Rights Act
27:48in 1982
27:48to change the test
27:50used for establishing
27:52discrimination
27:52under Section 2.
27:54Right.
27:55And after that passed...
27:56What was the test
27:57that they used?
27:58Or what was the test
27:59prior to that
28:00and what was the test
28:01after that?
28:01Sure, sure, sure.
28:01So we had thought
28:03that the test was
28:04that if you showed
28:05that a particular practice
28:07used by a state
28:08resulted in Black people
28:09not being able
28:10to elect their candidates
28:11of choice,
28:11it violated the Voting Rights Act.
28:13Okay.
28:13Then the Supreme Court
28:14in 1980,
28:16in a decision
28:17called Mobile v. Bolden,
28:19said,
28:19no, no, no.
28:20No, no, no.
28:21The test has to be
28:22that you have to show
28:22that the jurisdiction
28:24was intentionally racist.
28:27Like, intended, yes.
28:29So the guy would literally
28:30have to come up and go,
28:31yeah, no,
28:31we're just trying to be racist.
28:32Yeah, yeah.
28:32And of course...
28:33Even though they didn't do that
28:34in Reconstruction.
28:35Listen...
28:36They never did that.
28:37Well, there were a few cases
28:38where there's some interesting
28:40hearings that took place
28:41in state houses
28:42where they said some things,
28:43but that certainly
28:44was not the norm by 1980.
28:45Right, right, right.
28:46Right, which is why
28:46the effects test was so important.
28:48So the Supreme Court says,
28:49no, it has to be
28:50intentional discrimination.
28:50And Congress comes back
28:52and says in 1982,
28:54no, we meant
28:55you can just show
28:56that the effects
28:57of the decision
28:58produced this result.
28:59And these are the amendments
29:00to the Voting Rights Act
29:02in 1982.
29:03You know who really
29:04was opposed
29:05to those amendments
29:05in 1982?
29:06I'm going to say
29:07Oliver Wendell Holmes.
29:09No.
29:10Who?
29:10A very bright young lawyer
29:11who worked
29:12in the Department of Justice,
29:12first as a special aid
29:14to, it's not going well,
29:16yeah, as a special aid
29:17to the Attorney General
29:18and then to the
29:19Solicitor General.
29:20And he was the point person
29:21on trying to convince
29:22Congress not to pass
29:24these amendments
29:25that would address
29:27the Supreme Court's decision
29:28in Mobile v. Bolden.
29:29And that young attorney's
29:31name was John Roberts.
29:34So this has been something
29:35he's been on
29:36for some time now.
29:37He's a patient man.
29:38He's a patient man.
29:39So in terms of Section 5,
29:41Section 5,
29:43is that the section
29:44where they said
29:46in these certain areas
29:47where there were
29:48racial exclusions
29:50and laws that explicitly
29:51did that,
29:52you would have to,
29:54before you made a change
29:55to the way
29:56that you counted
29:57these votes,
29:58appeal to the
29:59United States Congress?
30:00Well, not to the Congress.
30:02Not to the Congress.
30:02Not to the Congress.
30:03But section...
30:04So there's two big sections
30:05of the Voting Rights Act.
30:06What we were just talking
30:07about was Section 2.
30:07Section 5,
30:08the one that was
30:09essentially gutted
30:10in 2013,
30:12has been often called
30:13the most successful
30:14provision of any
30:15civil rights statute
30:16because it is the only one
30:17that allows you
30:18to get at the discrimination
30:19before it actually
30:20comes into law
30:22and happens.
30:22Okay.
30:23So for a number
30:24of jurisdictions
30:24that had a history
30:25of voting discrimination,
30:26if they wanted
30:28to make a change
30:28to some voting procedure,
30:30if they wanted
30:31to eliminate an office,
30:32if they wanted
30:33to reduce the number
30:34of members,
30:34if they wanted
30:35to redistrict,
30:36they had to first
30:37get permission,
30:37or we called it
30:38preclearance,
30:39from a federal authority,
30:40either the attorney general
30:42or a federal district court
30:44in the District of Columbia.
30:46Right.
30:46And that's the system
30:47that we worked with
30:48for many, many years
30:49until 2013.
30:50And so that was
30:51from 1965 to 2013,
30:53that's what happened.
30:54In 2006,
30:56the United States Congress,
30:58overwhelmingly,
30:59in a bipartisan basis,
31:0130...
31:01396 to 33 in the House,
31:0458 to 0 in the Senate,
31:06reauthorized that provision
31:08of Section 5.
31:09But in 2013,
31:11John Roberts said,
31:12no, no, no.
31:14This is a stain
31:14on the South.
31:15We are punishing the South.
31:17And things have changed.
31:18We don't need to have
31:19this preclearance
31:20provision anymore.
31:22What are the metrics
31:23for how he decided
31:24things have changed?
31:25Because I would assume
31:26those metrics
31:27are the result
31:29of Section 5.
31:30Yeah.
31:31It's so interesting.
31:34Is it literally as bad
31:36as Section 5
31:37has worked so well,
31:38let's remove Section 5?
31:40That's what the late,
31:42great Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.
31:44She said that eliminating
31:45Section 5 now
31:47is like using an umbrella
31:49and it keeps you dry.
31:51And then you say,
31:52well, let me throw away
31:53the umbrella because I'm dry,
31:54even though it's raining outside.
31:56So that's what happened.
31:58So that was now gone.
31:59Now we didn't have preclearance.
32:00And you all may have noticed
32:01in the last 10 years,
32:03this explosion of voter ID laws
32:05and voter suppression laws,
32:06that came as a result of 2013.
32:09Because they don't have
32:10to get preclearance.
32:11Although, to be fair,
32:12if you were trying
32:12to get preclearance
32:13from this administration,
32:14I would imagine
32:15they would just go,
32:17you're precleared.
32:18You know, it's so funny
32:20because I started out
32:21as a civil rights lawyer
32:22when Bush was president.
32:24And so the attorney general
32:26was, you know,
32:27a Republican.
32:27Bush, H.W.?
32:28H.W.
32:28Okay.
32:29And so the attorney general
32:31was a Republican.
32:32I remember the solicitor general
32:35was Ken Starr.
32:36And I remember
32:37when the first Section 2 case
32:39I ever filed
32:40went to the Supreme Court,
32:41Houston Lawyers Association
32:42versus Texas,
32:43the Justice Department
32:44was on our side.
32:45I mean, our co-counsel
32:47was Ken Starr.
32:48So even Republican administrations
32:52in the past,
32:52old school Republican,
32:53used to still try,
32:55at least,
32:56and enforced
32:57the Voting Rights Act.
32:58I absolutely agree with you
32:59that this Department of Justice
33:01would never do that.
33:02Right.
33:03But nevertheless,
33:03that was the law.
33:04So we lost that in 2013.
33:05So all we had
33:06was Section 2,
33:07which gives people like me
33:09and other civil rights lawyers
33:10the ability to sue
33:12when a law
33:13has clearly had the effect.
33:15So post.
33:15One was preclearance,
33:16now you have a post appeal.
33:18Yes.
33:18But now they have decided,
33:19essentially what the Supreme Court did,
33:21and I think this is really important
33:22because it gives you a sense
33:23of the kind of power
33:24they're exercising these days.
33:26What they did was overturn
33:28the amendments
33:29to Section 2
33:30that Congress had passed in 1982.
33:32Now, they didn't say
33:32that that's what they're doing.
33:34But they're saying
33:35we now need to return
33:36to intentional discrimination.
33:38You have to be able
33:40to prove it
33:41in the way that you had to
33:43before the amendments
33:44that Congress had made.
33:45And I should point out
33:46something else.
33:47After Congress amended
33:50the Section 2 in 1982,
33:52of course it was challenged
33:53and it went up
33:54to the Supreme Court.
33:55And the Supreme Court
33:56upheld it
33:56in Thornburg v. Jingles
33:58in 1986.
33:59Right.
34:00So that means that...
34:01Thornburg v. Jingles?
34:02Really?
34:04Or as Justice Alito
34:06likes to say,
34:07gingles.
34:07It's actually jingles, though.
34:08But at the point...
34:09Sounds like a dog
34:10sued the Supreme Court.
34:12The point is...
34:13The point is
34:14that they overturned
34:15not only Congress's amendment,
34:17but they also overturned
34:18their own precedent,
34:19Thornburg v. Jingles.
34:20And in the decision,
34:22Justice Alito,
34:22who wrote the decision,
34:23explicitly says,
34:24we are not overturning
34:26the effects test.
34:27We are not overturning
34:29Thornburg v. Jingles,
34:30even though that's what they're...
34:31But that's the tell.
34:32The tell is that
34:33they know how outrageous
34:35it would be for them
34:36to decide...
34:37Overture a congressional act.
34:38To rewrite
34:39a congressional statute.
34:41So when this was done,
34:42when the Voting Rights Act
34:43was first passed
34:44through Congress,
34:45I would imagine
34:46they took great pains
34:47to say,
34:48but this isn't quotas.
34:49We're not advocating quotas.
34:51We're not advocating
34:53just creating districts
34:55so that black people
34:56can elect black people.
34:58They must have said that.
34:59A few times.
35:00They absolutely did.
35:02I mean,
35:02it's really important.
35:03I mean,
35:04they certainly said it
35:04very explicitly
35:05in the 1982 amendment
35:07because that bright young lawyer,
35:09John Roberts,
35:10insisted that this was quotas.
35:12And so they made it clear
35:14that nothing in this provision
35:17requires proportional representation.
35:19Right.
35:19And remember,
35:20the test is always
35:21whether or not
35:22the system allows
35:23black voters
35:25to elect their candidate of choice.
35:27It is not...
35:28The focus is not
35:29on black elected officials.
35:31The focus is on black voters.
35:34Now, black...
35:35So they're saying
35:35if you distill
35:36the percentage of black voters
35:38and put them into other districts
35:39so that their votes
35:40cannot be decisive...
35:42That's right.
35:43...that that would be considered...
35:45That's right.
35:45But they have said
35:47that what this actually is
35:50is DEI or quotas.
35:52Would that be
35:52what their argument is?
35:53That sounds absolutely correct.
35:54That is what they would say.
35:56And if you remember,
35:57the whole point
35:57of the Voting Rights Act...
35:59Right.
35:59...is to protect
36:00the voting strength
36:02of minorities
36:02who have been discriminated against
36:04and to protect
36:05the voting rights
36:06of minorities
36:07whose candidates of choice
36:08are most often
36:11not supported
36:11by the white majority.
36:13Right.
36:13You have to prove that
36:14in a case, by the way.
36:15Right.
36:15Whether that candidate is...
36:16This is not vibes.
36:16Memphis is represented
36:17by a Jewish guy,
36:18but it's a majority of...
36:20Right.
36:20It's not vibes.
36:21You actually,
36:21in the litigation,
36:22you have to show
36:23that there's racially polarized voting,
36:25that white voters
36:25don't support
36:26the candidate of choice
36:27of black voters.
36:27You have to do
36:28all of that stuff.
36:29You can do the math
36:29on these things.
36:30But you can do it.
36:30Like, it's a real test
36:32that is pretty rigorous.
36:34And so what we're faced with now
36:36is just the removal of that
36:37as a measure.
36:39And so how do we ensure
36:41we protect minorities?
36:42It brings up this
36:43sort of larger point
36:45that you see here,
36:46which is,
36:46how is a society
36:48expected to ameliorate
36:50the damage done
36:52by specifically racist laws,
36:55which we have had
36:56lo these, you know,
36:58many years?
37:00Is the idea now
37:02that to try
37:03and address that
37:04is in itself racist?
37:07That it's literally
37:08he who smelt it,
37:10dealt it racism?
37:11Is that what we're dealing with?
37:13I hate that that's what it is.
37:15But that is what it is.
37:17It's literally,
37:19if you try,
37:19so basically what they said,
37:20you could prove
37:21that a district
37:22had this discriminatory effect.
37:24But if you try to repair it,
37:26if you try to remedy it
37:27by creating a district
37:29that creates an opportunity
37:30for black voters
37:31to be able to elect
37:32their representative of choice,
37:33that makes you the racist.
37:34But isn't the high concentration
37:36of voters of color
37:38in itself the result of policies
37:41that were explicitly racist?
37:43Well, the only way
37:44you can actually make
37:45majority black voting districts
37:47is because of segregation.
37:49That's my point.
37:50Do you have another show for that?
37:51Because that's a whole other thing.
37:53They wouldn't live in the density
37:53of the areas they live in
37:55if not for the exclusively racist
37:58housing policies
37:59and other things.
38:00Absolutely.
38:01So it's not like,
38:02you know,
38:03black people are all coming together
38:04and saying,
38:04let's come together
38:05and form a district.
38:06We are the most segregated,
38:08you know,
38:09country that we have ever been.
38:10And that's the reason
38:11why you can create
38:12those districts.
38:13But now what the court is allowing
38:15is any state can decide
38:18they're going to redistrict
38:19and not just a state.
38:20It could be judicial districts.
38:21It could be county commissions.
38:22It could be city council districts.
38:24And they can offer any excuse.
38:25This court even explicitly said
38:27incumbent protection.
38:28So if you want to make sure
38:30that, let's say,
38:32Mike Johnson in Shreveport,
38:34the current speaker of the House,
38:35keeps his district,
38:36that's a good enough reason
38:38to undermine the ability
38:40of black voters.
38:41You can be partisan.
38:42You can care about incumbents.
38:43You can care about...
38:44So what if they just said,
38:45you can't do that because,
38:47oh, because it's a red state.
38:49So a red state is allowed
38:51to go in and go,
38:52it's okay for me
38:53to dissolve democratic power,
38:55just not black power.
38:56And if black power
38:57is synonymous
38:58with democratic power,
38:59so be it.
39:00That is,
39:00that's pretty much
39:01the majority opinion.
39:03Let me ask you a question.
39:05Why in God's name
39:07is partisan gerrymandering allowed?
39:09That seems to be
39:10the root of the evil.
39:12Well, that is allowed
39:13because in 2018,
39:15the Supreme Court...
39:15Oh, for God's sakes.
39:16If this is Mr. Jingles again,
39:19I am going to be very upset.
39:21No, no, no.
39:22In a case called
39:23Ruscio v. Common Cause,
39:25the Supreme Court said,
39:27this case is so interesting
39:29because it was brought
39:29by Democrats challenging
39:32redistricting
39:33in North Carolina
39:34and Republicans
39:35challenging redistricting
39:36in Maryland.
39:37So these two cases
39:38come together
39:39and end up
39:39at the Supreme Court.
39:40Bipartisan.
39:41Great opportunity
39:42to address
39:43the way in which
39:44extreme partisan gerrymandering
39:46undermines
39:47our democratic system.
39:48Right.
39:48Taxation without representation.
39:49Yeah.
39:50And the Supreme Court said,
39:51it really looks like
39:53it threatens
39:54our democratic norms,
39:56but there's nothing
39:57we can do about it.
39:59We are just mere judges.
40:01We are judges
40:02who can decide
40:03that abortion
40:03is not a fundamental right.
40:05We can decide
40:05that major questions
40:07have to be decided by us.
40:09We can overturn
40:10the president.
40:11We can do Citizens United.
40:12We can do all the things,
40:14but we can't do this.
40:17And so that was 2018.
40:19And so that's the reason
40:20that President Trump
40:21could call up
40:22the governor of Texas
40:23and say,
40:23we need five more seats.
40:25Right.
40:26If that were,
40:27that should be illegal
40:27to any sentient person,
40:29right,
40:29that you just call up
40:30and get as many districts
40:31as you want.
40:33Right.
40:33But he could do that
40:34because in 2018,
40:36the Supreme Court said
40:36partisan redistricting
40:38is just something
40:38we can't,
40:39partisan gerrymandering
40:40is something
40:40we can't address.
40:42It's so phenomenal
40:42because it means
40:43that our democratic institutions
40:45are the architects
40:46of our democratic demise.
40:47That is correct.
40:49Stunning.
40:50It's stunning.
40:51Please, please tell me,
40:52oh, and I've made you,
40:53I've made you sigh.
40:54I don't want
40:55to make you sigh.
40:56Oh.
40:57Please tell me
40:58that there is
40:59a remediation
41:00on the horizon
41:02or something along the lines
41:03that this fight continues.
41:06Well, John,
41:07I just refuse
41:09to pretend
41:12that this is not
41:13as serious as it is.
41:15Right.
41:17And I think
41:18there is a pathway forward,
41:20but that pathway
41:21has many obstacles
41:22in front of it,
41:23and we have to meet
41:24those obstacles.
41:24First of all,
41:25we all have to
41:26overwhelmingly vote
41:27in the midterm elections
41:28because there has to be
41:29a change in Congress.
41:34So there has to be
41:36a change in Congress.
41:36The Hungary strategy
41:37is really the only way
41:38to go.
41:39You have to vote
41:39in such numbers
41:40that it overwhelms
41:41the tilted plan.
41:42Well, but there's
41:43one more piece to it,
41:44John.
41:44Please.
41:45And because you've heard
41:46everything that I've said,
41:47and so you understand
41:48that even...
41:48But only retained
41:49about 20%.
41:51A lot of the names.
41:53I need you in my class.
41:54So, but, you know,
41:57as you know,
41:58as we just discussed,
41:59this Supreme Court
42:01is prepared to overrule
42:03congressional statutes.
42:04Right.
42:05So we need Congress
42:06to be prepared
42:08to certainly pass
42:10some statutes
42:10that will protect
42:11voting rights
42:12and that will deal
42:13with partisan gerrymandering,
42:14but we also need
42:15a Supreme Court
42:16that is committed
42:17to maintaining democracy
42:18in this country.
42:20And that means
42:20there has to be
42:21Supreme Court reform also.
42:22Right.
42:23And holding them
42:24to account.
42:25And those are,
42:26by the way,
42:27both, uh, and I,
42:29I so appreciate
42:30the seriousness
42:31of the matter
42:32in which you speak
42:33because those are
42:33certainly tall orders
42:35in a dysfunctional system.
42:36Absolutely.
42:36As it is certainly
42:37constituted now.
42:37But we don't have
42:38any choice but to fight
42:39and we gotta get
42:40very serious about it.
42:41Uh, I so appreciate
42:42you coming by
42:43and explaining this
42:43and thank you
42:44for enlightening us
42:45in all measure of it.
42:47Uh, ladies and gentlemen,
42:48please check out also
42:49Sheryl's newsletter.
42:51It's on Substack.
42:52Sheryl and Eiffel.
42:53Quick break.
42:54We'll be right back
42:54after this.
43:12Hey, that's our show
43:12for tonight.
43:13But before we go,
43:14we're gonna check in
43:14with your host
43:15for the rest of this week,
43:16Desi Lyon.
43:17Desi!
43:18Hey, hey, David.
43:20Lovely to see you.
43:22Desi Lyon,
43:23what do you got
43:24for the people
43:24for the rest of the week?
43:25Well, John,
43:26the Kentucky Derby
43:27was over the weekend
43:27and as it turns out,
43:30herstory was made.
43:32That's right.
43:33Or should I say,
43:35horse story?
43:46I don't know
43:47what you're talking about.
43:49The first female
43:50horse trainer,
43:51Cherie DeVoe,
43:52won the Kentucky Derby.
43:59She made Derby
44:01hiss Derby.
44:07I did not realize
44:09you were so into horse racing.
44:10Oh, you know me.
44:12I'm a real she-biscuit.
44:20So you go to the track?
44:22Oh, God, no.
44:23Not since I lost
44:24a shit ton of money.
44:26Let's just say
44:27that the mob
44:27is after me.
44:31Stay safe.
44:32Desi Lyon, everybody.
44:33Here it is
44:33for a moment of death.
44:34And his resume
44:35just keeps on getting bigger.
44:36Secretary of State
44:37and current
44:37National Security Advisor
44:38Marco Rubio
44:39clocking in for a shift
44:41as a wedding DJ
44:42over the weekend.
44:43White House Chief of Staff
44:44Dan Scavino
44:45sharing the video on X
44:46writing in part,
44:47quote,
44:48our great Secretary of State
44:49DJs weddings too.
44:52Sorry.
Comments