- 19 hours ago
If you love my videos and want to support me, please follow me. thanks for watching.!!!
Category
🎥
Short filmTranscript
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, Jon Stewart.
00:40Welcome to The Daily Show. My name is Jon 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.
00:54I'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. I'm not at the Met Gala. Tonight, wasn't invited.
01:12My invite was rescinded in, like, 1997.
01:19I didn't get invited this year. Apparently, my body is, quote, not compatible.
01:29As you get older, your body changes.
01:31You know what I don't look good in anymore is, um, pictures, I think.
01:39Point is this. Ladies and gentlemen, obviously, the big news continues to be our situationship with Iran.
01:45Is it a war? Is it a ceasefire? Are we friends with Boba Fitts?
01:49I don't know. Because, as you know, Friday marked the expiration of the 60-day free trial period presidents get
01:58to do wars.
02:00After 60 days, the president must ask Congress, who then decides, are we subscribing?
02:11Or, are we just going to use Israel's password?
02:18So, as you can...
02:29So, as you can imagine, it's going to be big news when Trump asks for official permission.
02:35Trump's signaling he will not seek official permission from Congress to extend the war with Iran.
02:41What?
02:45He's not going to seek official permission.
02:49I was kind of under the impression that that's not his choice.
02:54That it would be, I don't know, illegal.
02:57Then I remember, uh, Donald Trump doesn't give a f*** about legality or any accountability that may occur from said
03:08illegality.
03:09So much so that he felt confident confessing to said illegality in a speech in Florida on the day he
03:18was supposed to attain congressional approval.
03:22What they call a military operation, you know, they don't like the word war, and they call it a military
03:28operation, because that way you don't have a war, you don't have legal problems.
03:41You almost have to admire the brazenness of a president just casually explaining just a thing how to get around
03:49our pesky, uh, laws.
03:53It'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 to avoid any, uh, what do you call payment problems.
04:20Of course, Trump's plan only works if he has the discipline to maintain his assertion that we are, in fact,
04:27not in a war.
04:29You know, we're in a war.
04:33We're in a war.
04:44Same 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, filling up his cup with soda.
04:58I'm just going to get a little Mountain Dew, little Pepsi.
05:02Little, I don't know what the root beer one is.
05:04Little Mountain Dew, little Pepsi, little Barks.
05:09Little High Sea, I'm going around the f***ing world.
05:13And by the way, it's all purposeful.
05:15These are not mistakes.
05:16These 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?
05:58Why do you think that you're the only president that that happens to?
06:03That for some reason, every time you go to the doctor, which is a lie, the doctor is always like,
06:11hey, 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, divide it by 3, good,
06:39add 4,293, that's good, divide by 2, subtract 93, divide by 9, there aren't a lot of people that
06:50get 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.
07:19But the important...
07:21Oh, I apologize.
07:23Oh, I'm sorry.
07:24I'm sorry, I apologize.
07:25Too soon?
07:29Or, or, or should I say, do soon?
07:44Listen, 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.
08:03Warton School of Business.
08:04Yes.
08:04What's 17 times 6?
08:07Come on.
08:08What is it, human calculators?
08:10See, that's not a practical...
08:1296?
08:13Wrong!
08:1394?
08:14Wrong!
08:15That's not a practical application, though.
08:17Ivanka, 17 times 6?
08:19It's 11, it's 11, 12.
08:23It's 11, 12.
08:3611, 12 isn't a real number.
08:40That's two numbers just placed side by side.
08:45Guess 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.
09:07But somehow, we're supposed to believe that 20 years later, you've turned into a f***ing genius.
09:11You've turned into a working-class janitor at MIT solving quadratics between mopping up.
09:20You know, I can't believe they ever gave Trump the FIFA math prize.
09:28So...
09:33See, Trump is a special genius that sees himself above all traditional presidential limitations.
09:38He's not bound by our petty checks and balances and separations of powers.
09:42He has ignored 31 lower court decisions, not including 250 more rulings in immigration cases.
09:49He's festooned the people's house with trappings of a Versailles-themed bar mitzvah.
09:56He has built a Kim Jong-un-esque giant gold statue of himself at his Doral golf course.
10:03He's gonna be on our f***ing passports.
10:08Our passports.
10:09Whenever you go abroad, whenever you travel overseas, you'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, an actual king, born of the lineage of kings we fought to establish our constitutional
10:31republic,
10:32had to come back here to remind us to wake the f*** up.
10:38I come here today with the highest respect for the United States Congress,
10:45this citadel of democracy created to represent the voice of all American people
10:51to advance sacred rights and freedoms.
10:55Oh, 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 know.
11:12But you heard him!
11:14And then Charles did us dirty with a list of all the hard-fought constitutional principles we are squandering.
11:20The principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances.
11:25The rule of law, the certainty of stable and accessible rules,
11:30an independent judiciary delivering impartial justice.
11:35Let our two countries rededicate ourselves.
11:38All right, all right.
11:41It was all very powerful until you hit the rededicate.
11:50Rededicate!
11:52I'm going to stop you before you go full Tootsie Pop owl.
11:57All right!
11:58How many licks must you give a country before 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 rededicate itself to the principles of constitutional checks and balances.
12:22But congress won't.
12:23Congress won't do that.
12:24Because they suck.
12:27Congress has completely abandoned any serious oversight of our military operation.
12:31They've still not passed a full budget.
12:33They've passed fewer laws than any congress in the first year of a presidency.
12:36In our history.
12:38They haven't done anything.
12:39Well, that's not totally fair.
12:42We have another bird alert, and this time it involves something that happened on Capitol Hill.
12:47These birds were in the hot seat during a House hearing led by Idaho Republican Congressman Mike Simpson.
12:52The hearing was meant to highlight efforts to preserve these birds of prey.
12:59That's what it is intended for.
13:01But instead, it ended in tragedy.
13:05Jump, Lindsay!
13:06Jump!
13:08Jump, boy!
13:11Here's the crazy part.
13:16The congress people still showing up for bird shows are the best of them.
13:21Some of these people don't show up for anything.
13:24GOP New Jersey representative Tom Cain Jr. hasn't voted since March 5th.
13:29Cain has missed more than 50 votes.
13:32Top GOP leaders are in the dark.
13:35It's a mystery in the Capitol building.
13:37Fox contacted multiple members of the House GOP leadership.
13:41None had any idea about Cain's whereabouts.
13:44One member of the Republican brass told Fox that Cain's absence didn't worry them, quote,
13:49until you called.
14:01He's been gone for two months!
14:05Hey, you know the saying around here, that's just more birds for us, huh?
14:11Here's how little government even means to any of them.
14:15This is who was designated survivor, who would be tasked with rebuilding our nation if the worst had actually happened
14:21at that White House Correspondents' Dinner.
14:23The person who would have theoretically taken over control of the United States government as President of the United States
14:30if something would have happened to everybody in that room would have been Senator Chuck Grassley, who was in his
14:3690s.
14:40That was the designated survivor who will lead our country into the future.
14:45The guy who will lead our country into the future statistically doesn't have much of one.
14:53Like, actuarial tables-wise, he would not be expected to survive an uneventful evening.
15:05I'm sorry.
15:07Too soon?
15:10And by the way, if you're hoping that our judiciary will step up and be the guardrail against Trump's kingly
15:15ambitions,
15:15watch a bunch of nominees for confirmation to our federal court system refuse to do so.
15:22Mr. Mark, if I might, just tell me about the 22nd Amendment. What does it provide?
15:28I haven't had an opportunity to use that one specifically.
15:31It states no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice.
15:35Mr. Mark, is President Trump eligible to run for president again in 2028?
15:43Senator, without considering all the facts and looking at everything, depending on what the situation is,
15:49this, to me, strikes as more of a hypothetical.
15:52Is he eligible to run for a third term under our Constitution?
15:56I would have to review.
15:58Review what?
16:01You're allowed two. He said two!
16:04That means you can't have three.
16:05Do you really have to do the math on that?
16:07Person trying to be confirmed to the United States judicial system?
16:11Is the answer 11-12? Is that what you're looking at?
16:14It's... What do you have to review?
16:17It's...
16:22It's not a trick.
16:23Anybody else brave enough to say that the Constitution of the United States prevents
16:26President Trump from seeking a third term?
16:31Anybody willing to apply the Constitution by its plain language in the 22nd Amendment?
16:37Nobody.
16:39All right, let's move on.
16:42Are you happy?
16:45You broke his heart.
16:48The Congress isn't coming to save us.
16:51The judiciary isn't coming to save us.
16:53The voters are being gerrymandered out of being able to save us.
16:57We've only got one last card to play.
17:00Our beautiful fourth estate.
17:02Democracy dies in darkness.
17:04So we look to the free press, the newsies, the ink-stained wretches, the masters of muckrake,
17:10the clickety-clack brigade, tappers-rappers, wolf blitzers, titty-twisters.
17:17We, the people, depend on the news media to bring the tough questions that hold the politicians accountable.
17:26There was a warning this week that, because of all the firepower required for Epic Fury,
17:33that there are people in the White House who are starting to worry about our inventory of bombs and missiles.
17:37Are you worried?
17:39It's a solid question.
17:40The New York Times just discovered that since the war began, the United States has burnt through half its long
17:44-range missiles,
17:45plus 1,000 Tomahawk missiles, which is nearly 10 times more than we buy each year,
17:49plus thousands more of pretty much every other type of missile that we have.
17:53Experts are getting worried we're depleting our stockpiles.
17:55So, Mr. President, are we running out of weapons?
17:59No, no, we have more than we've ever had out there.
18:03Because all over the world we have inventory, and we can take that if we need it.
18:07Right now, we have more than double what we had when this started.
18:22That sounds like bullshit.
18:25Or, or, now that I'm wrong, or, is it perhaps magic?
18:36What you're saying is, in the beginning of the war, we had only this one ball.
18:44And then, we spent a month using that ball.
18:48We used it to bomb every place in Iran we could think of.
18:51And now, at the end of that time, we find ourselves...
18:59Hold on!
19:00Here!
19:01Where is that?
19:02Wait!
19:03Wait!
19:08Hold on!
19:10We had one ball.
19:11Remember the premise.
19:13One ball.
19:14And we used the ball to bomb Iran.
19:16And now, apparently, we have two balls.
19:28Now, very clearly, this makes no f***ing sense.
19:31It's nonsensical.
19:32On its face.
19:34And the reporters have all the specific reporting to back that up.
19:37The follow-ups to this nonsense are gonna be brutal.
19:40The G7 is in France in June.
19:42Will you go to it?
19:43Probably.
19:44No!
19:47Just...
19:47The question should just be this.
19:49What the f*** did Gigi say?
19:51That didn't make any sense.
19:53The G7 is a month from now.
19:55It'll be on his schedule.
19:58Follow up on the f***ing missile thing.
20:00You still support a pardon for Pete Rose, sir?
20:04Oh, I think Pete Rose was great.
20:10Oh, I get it.
20:10You're prepping him with nonsense to lower his defenses before you come into hard facts about a war he's clearly
20:15bullshitting about.
20:16Go.
20:16You're gonna be hosting the first-ever UFC fight at the White House in 45 days, sir.
20:23Can you preview the event?
20:24Can you talk about the card and what does it mean?
20:29We're so f***ed.
20:32And by the way, what is the point of having to shout your questions if you're not gonna listen to
20:38the answers?
20:40We need you to help us litigate the boundaries of our reality, not move on to Pete f***ing Rose.
20:48Can someone from the foreign press jump in?
20:51I love you, Mr. President.
20:52Mr. President.
20:55Thank you, Mr. President.
20:58Will they give Chef Boyardee credentials?
21:02The f*** is...
21:03Mr. President, Italy has a question for you.
21:08Ah!
21:11By the way, that reporter is not actually Italian.
21:14He's...
21:14He's Kurdish, but...
21:16This was the only accent we felt we could safely do.
21:28I genuinely don't understand what this country is becoming.
21:32When every one of our institutions are failing us, is there any hope for the liberal democracy that has inspired
21:37the world for these past 250 years?
21:40Is there anyone who can recall the lessons of our American Revolution and inspire this nation to return to its
21:47founding principles in this, our 250th year?
21:51Let our two countries rededicate ourselves.
21:59If the strongest defender of American democracy is the king of England, we are really f***ing.
22:07When we come back, Cheryl and I will be here.
22:09Don't go away.
22:22All right.
22:23Welcome back to The Daily Show.
22:25My guest tonight is...
22:28Oh, very kind of you.
22:29My guest tonight is a renowned civil rights lawyer and founding director of Howard Law School's 14th Amendment Center for
22:34Law and Democracy.
22:35Please welcome to the program, Cheryl and I will.
22:48Thank you for being here.
22:52Thank you so much for joining us.
22:54Thank you for having me.
22:55I would imagine that your expertise is quite in demand right now.
23:00Yes, sadly.
23:01Sadly.
23:03Explain very quickly, if you could, what has happened to what we call the Voting Rights Act in this most
23:12recent Supreme Court decision.
23:14Yeah, last week the Supreme Court issued a decision in a case called Louisiana v. Calais that essentially removed the
23:22remaining power from a key section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
23:27Right.
23:28And in so doing, they kind of rendered the act a nullity.
23:32They had already given the act a body blow in 2013 in a case called Shelby County v. Holder.
23:38And when they issued that decision, Chief Justice Roberts said, yes, but you still have another part of the Voting
23:43Rights Act that's really strong and you can use that.
23:45It's Section 2.
23:46It's nationwide.
23:48And then...
23:49He had that in his decision.
23:50He said that in 2013.
23:51You're okay.
23:52You're okay because you've still got Section 2.
23:54The section that he took out was Section 5.
23:56Yes.
23:57And then last week, they took Section 2.
23:59And did he then go, look, 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 of Section 5 do?
24:10So let's take a step back.
24:14Historically, representation for African Americans was specifically excluded.
24:22They were excluded from voting, maybe not by a specific law, but by poll taxes or other things after Reconstruction.
24:30And we let that go for 80 years.
24:33Yeah.
24:34After 80 years, they passed the Voting Rights Act to ensure that representation would be granted, that people's voices would
24:44be heard in those communities.
24:45Yeah.
24:46And what was the result of that act?
24:48Yeah.
24:48So just one edit to that is that, you know, after the Civil War, there was an effort to ensure
24:54that black people could vote.
24:55And that was through the three amendments that were passed to our Constitution after the Civil War.
25:00One ending slavery, the 14th Amendment, birthright citizenship, and equal protection of laws.
25:06And then the 15th Amendment said you cannot prevent someone from voting based on race or color or previous condition
25:12of servitude.
25:13So that was supposed to mean black people could vote.
25:16And for a while, black people could vote in the South.
25:18I mean, we had eight members of Congress elected during that Reconstruction period, two United States senators.
25:25Then what you had at the turn of the century was all of these states making new constitutions and coming
25:31up with the kinds of laws that you described, poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses.
25:38If your grandfather could vote in 1850, then you could vote.
25:41That's where grandfather clauses?
25:43Yeah, yeah, yeah.
25:44Oh, wow.
25:45So they came up with all these tactics to keep black people from voting.
25:48And, of course, it was overall enforced by just mob violence, the violence of the Klan that really controlled so
25:54many communities.
25:55And never explicitly said, they never explicitly said that this was all done as a way to circumvent what the
26:03freedom meant, what those amendments to the Constitution meant.
26:06No, and when black people tried to challenge it, like in 1911 in a case called Giles v. Harris,
26:10where a black man said, Alabama won't let me register to vote.
26:14I meet all the criteria, I should be able to register.
26:16Right.
26:17The Supreme Court of the United States, in a decision by the esteemed jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, said,
26:24there's really nothing we can do about it because if we tell Alabama that they have to register you to
26:29vote, they're not going to do it anyway.
26:32I can't.
26:33The Supreme Court was going, we could do what's right.
26:36And yet.
26:38So that meant that black people, and remember, a majority of black people lived in the South.
26:44A majority of black people still live in the South, right?
26:47And so, yes, there were communities in the North where black people could exercise the right to vote,
26:53but most black people could not vote until the civil rights movement pushed for voting rights.
26:59And that culminated in that march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge and the brutality of Alabama state troopers,
27:06and then months later, the signing of the Voting Rights Act.
27:09And the Voting Rights Act of 1965 completely changed the game.
27:12When that act was finally passed by Congress, there were only 72 black elected officials in the entire United States.
27:22In the entire United States.
27:24You're not talking about just Senate House of Representatives.
27:25No, no, no.
27:25You're literally talking about state houses anywhere.
27:2872.
27:28In the whole country.
27:29There you go.
27:30And then, of course, it started to do its work.
27:34And so by 1980, right before the Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act, we were up to about 1,500.
27:44And then Congress amended the Voting Rights Act in 1982 to change the test used for establishing discrimination under Section
27:532.
27:54Right.
27:55And after that passed...
27:56What was the test that they used?
27:58Or what was the test prior to that and what was the test after that?
28:01Sure, sure, sure.
28:01So, uh, we had thought that the test was that if you showed that a particular practice used by a
28:08state resulted in black people not being able to elect their candidates of choice, it violated the Voting Rights Act.
28:13Okay.
28:13Then the Supreme Court in 1980, in a decision, uh, called Mobile v. Bolden, said, no, no, no, no, no,
28:20no, no, no.
28:21The test has to be that you have to show that the jurisdiction was intentionally racist.
28:27Like, intended, yes.
28:29So the guy would literally have to come up and go, yeah, no, we're just trying to be racist.
28:32Yeah, yeah, and of course...
28:33Even though they didn't do that in Reconstruction.
28:35Listen...
28:36They never did that.
28:37Well, there were a few cases where there were some interesting, um, hearings that took place in state houses where
28:42they said some things.
28:43But that certainly was not the norm by 1980.
28:45Right, right, right.
28:46Right, which is why the effects test was so important.
28:48So the Supreme Court says, no, it has to be intentional discrimination.
28:50And Congress comes back and says, in 1982, no, we meant you can just show that the effects of the
28:57decision produced this result.
28:59And these are the amendments to the Voting Rights Act in 1982.
29:03You know who really was opposed to those amendments in 1982?
29:06I'm going to say Oliver Wendell Holmes.
29:09No.
29:10Who?
29:10A very bright young lawyer who worked in the Department of Justice, first as a special aide to, uh, it's
29:16not going well, yeah, as a special aide to the Attorney General, and then to the Solicitor General.
29:20And he was the point person on trying to convince Congress not to pass these amendments that would address the
29:27Supreme Court's decision in Mobile v. Bolden.
29:29And that young attorney's name was John Roberts.
29:32John!
29:34So this has been something he's been on for some time now.
29:37He's a patient man.
29:38He's a patient man.
29:38He's a patient man.
29:39Yes.
29:39So, in terms of Section 5, Section 5, uh, is that the section where, uh, they said in these certain
29:46areas where there were, uh, racial exclusions and laws that explicitly did that, you would have to, before you made
29:54a change to the way that you counted these votes, uh, appeal to the United States Congress.
30:00Well, not, not to the Congress, not to the Congress, but section, so there's two big sections of the Voting
30:05Rights Act.
30:06Okay.
30:06What we were just talking about was Section 2.
30:08Okay.
30:08Section 5, the one that was essentially gutted in 2013, has been often called the most successful provision of any
30:15civil rights statute because it is the only one that allows you to get at the discrimination before it actually
30:20comes into law and happens.
30:22Okay.
30:23So, for a number of jurisdictions that had a history of voting discrimination, if they wanted to make a change
30:28to some voting procedure, if they wanted to eliminate an office, if they wanted to reduce the number of members,
30:34if they wanted to redistrict, they had to first get permission, or we called it preclearance, from a federal authority.
30:40Okay.
30:40Either the attorney general or a federal district court in the District of Columbia.
30:46Right.
30:46And that's the system that we worked with for many, many years until 2013.
30:50And so, that was from 1965 to 2013, that's what happened.
30:54In 2006, the United States Congress overwhelmingly, in a bipartisan basis, 396 to 33 in the House, 58 to 0
31:05in the Senate, reauthorized that provision of Section 5.
31:09But in 2013, John Roberts said, no, no, no.
31:14This is a stain on the South.
31:15We are punishing the South.
31:17And things have changed.
31:18We don't need to have this preclearance.
31:20In fact, it doesn't have enough provision anymore.
31:22What are the metrics for how he decided things have changed?
31:25Because I would assume those metrics are the result of Section 5.
31:30Yeah.
31:31It's so interesting.
31:32Um, what...
31:33Is this...
31:34Is it literally as bad as Section 5 has worked so well?
31:38Let's remove Section 5.
31:40That's what the late, great Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.
31:44She said that eliminating Section 5 now is like using an umbrella, and it keeps you dry.
31:51And then you say, well, let me throw away the umbrella because I'm dry, even 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, in the last 10 years, this explosion of voter ID laws and voter suppression
32:06laws, that came as a result of 2013.
32:09Because they don't have to get preclearance.
32:11Although, to be fair, if you were trying to get preclearance from this administration, I would imagine they would just
32:16go, you're precleared.
32:18You know, it's so funny because I started out as a civil rights lawyer when Bush was president.
32:24And so the attorney general was a Republican.
32:27Bush, H.W.?
32:28H.W.
32:29Okay.
32:29And so the attorney general was a Republican.
32:32I remember the solicitor general was Ken Starr.
32:36And I remember when the first Section 2 case I ever filed went to the Supreme Court, Houston Lawyers Association
32:42v. Texas, the Justice Department was on our side.
32:45I mean, our co-counsel was Ken Starr.
32:48So even Republican administrations in the past, old-school Republican, used to still try, at least, and enforce the Voting
32:57Rights Act.
32:58I absolutely agree with you that this Department of Justice would never do that.
33:02Right.
33:03But nevertheless, that was the law.
33:04So we lost that in 2013.
33:05So all we had was Section 2, which gives people like me and other civil rights lawyers the ability to
33:11sue when a law has clearly had the effect.
33:14So post, one was pre-clearance, now you have a post appeal.
33:18Yes.
33:18But now they have decided, essentially what the Supreme Court did, and I think this is really important because it
33:22gives you a sense of the kind of power they're exercising these days.
33:26What they did was overturn the amendments to Section 2 that Congress had passed in 1982.
33:32Now, they didn't say that that's what they're doing.
33:34But they're saying we now need to return to intentional discrimination.
33:38You have to be able to prove it in the way that you had to before the amendments that Congress
33:45had made.
33:45And I should point out something else.
33:47After Congress amended the Section 2 in 1982, of course it was challenged, and it went up to the Supreme
33:54Court.
33:55And the Supreme Court upheld it in Thornburg v. Jingles in 1986.
33:59Right.
34:00Thornburg v. Jingles? Really?
34:04Or as Justice Alito likes to say, gingles.
34:07It's actually jingles, though.
34:09But at the point, the point...
34:10Sounds like a dog sued the Supreme Court.
34:11The point is that they overturned not only Congress's amendment, but they also overturned their own precedent, Thornburg v. Jingles.
34:20And in the decision, Justice Alito, who wrote the decision, explicitly says, we are not overturning the effects test.
34:27We are not overturning Thornburg v. Jingles, even though that's what they're...
34:31But that's the tell.
34:32The tell is that they know how outrageous it would be for them to decide to rewrite a congressional statute.
34:41So when this was done, when the Voting Rights Act was first passed through Congress, I would imagine they took
34:47great pains to say, but this isn't quotas.
34:49We're not advocating quotas.
34:50We're not advocating just creating districts so that black people can elect black people.
34:58They must have said that.
34:59A few times, they absolutely did.
35:02I mean, it's really important.
35:03I mean, they certainly said it very explicitly in the 1982 amendment because that bright young lawyer, John Roberts, insisted
35:11that this was quotas.
35:12And so they made it clear that nothing in this provision requires proportional representation.
35:19And remember, the test is always whether or not the system allows black voters to elect their candidate of choice.
35:27It is not, the focus is not on black elected officials.
35:31The focus is on black voters.
35:34So they're saying if you distill the percentage of black voters and put them into other districts so that their
35:40votes cannot be decisive.
35:42That's right.
35:43That that would be considered.
35:45That's right.
35:45But they have said that what what this actually is, is DEI or quotas.
35:52Would that be what their argument is?
35:54That sounds absolutely correct.
35:54That is what they would say.
35:56And if you remember, the whole point of the Voting Rights Act.
35:59Right.
36:00Is to protect the voting strength of minorities who have been discriminated against and to protect the voting rights of
36:06minorities whose candidates of choice are most often not supported by the white majority.
36:13Right.
36:13And you have to prove that in a case, by the way, whether that candidate is Memphis is represented by
36:18a Jewish guy.
36:18That's right.
36:19It's a majority.
36:20Right.
36:20It's not vibes.
36:21You actually in the litigation, you have to show that there's racially polarized voting, that white voters don't support the
36:26candidate of choice of black voters.
36:27You have to do all of that stuff.
36:29You can do the math.
36:30But you can do it like it's it's a real test that is pretty rigorous.
36:34And so what we're faced with now is just the removal of that as a measure.
36:38And so how do we ensure we protect minorities?
36:42It brings up this sort of larger point that you see here, which is how is a society expected to
36:49ameliorate the damage done by specifically racist laws, which we have had low these, you know, many years?
37:00Is the idea now that to try and address that is in itself racist, that it's it's literally he who
37:09smelt it, dealt it racism?
37:11Is that is that what I hate?
37:13I hate that that's what it is.
37:15But but that is what it is.
37:17It's literally if you try.
37:19So basically what they said, you could prove that a district had this discriminatory effect.
37:24But if you try to repair it, if you try to remedy it by creating a district that creates an
37:30opportunity for black voters to be able to elect their representative of choice, that makes you the racist.
37:34But isn't the high concentration of voters of color in itself the result of policies that were explicitly racist?
37:43Well, the only way you can actually make majority black voting districts is because of segregation.
37:49That's my point.
37:50Do you have another show for that?
37:51They wouldn't live in the density of the areas they live in, if not for the exclusively racist housing policies
37:59and other things.
38:00Absolutely.
38:01So it's not like, you know, black people are all coming together and saying, let's come together and form a
38:05district.
38:06We are the most segregated, you know, country that we have ever been.
38:10And that's the reason why you can create those districts.
38:13But now what the court is allowing is any state can decide they'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 incumbent protection.
38:28So if you want to make sure that, let's say, Mike Johnson in Shreveport, the current speaker of the House,
38:35keeps his district,
38:36that's a good enough reason to undermine the ability of black voters.
38:41You can be partisan.
38:42You can care about incumbents.
38:43So what if they just said, you can't do that because, oh, because it's a red state.
38:49So a red state is allowed to go in and go, it's okay for me to dissolve democratic power, just
38:55not black power.
38:56And if black power is synonymous with democratic power, so be it.
39:00That is, that's pretty much the majority opinion.
39:03Let me ask you a question.
39:05Why in God's name is partisan gerrymandering allowed?
39:09That seems to be the root of the evil.
39:12Well, that is allowed because in 2018, the Supreme Court...
39:15Oh, for God's sakes.
39:16If this is Mr. Jingles again, I am going to be very upset.
39:21No, no, no.
39:22In a case called Ruscio v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court said...
39:27This case is so interesting because it was brought by Democrats challenging redistricting in North Carolina
39:34and Republicans challenging redistricting in Maryland.
39:37So these two cases come together and end up at the Supreme Court, bipartisan, great opportunity to address the way
39:43in which extreme partisan gerrymandering undermines our democratic system.
39:48Right. Taxation without representation.
39:49Yeah. And the Supreme Court said it really looks like it threatens our democratic norms, but there's nothing we can
39:57do about it.
39:59We are just mere judges.
40:01We are judges who can decide that abortion is not a fundamental right.
40:05We can decide that major questions have to be decided by us.
40:09We can overturn...
40:10Citizens. We can do Citizens United.
40:12We can do all the things, but we can't do this.
40:17And so that was 2018.
40:19And so that's the reason that President Trump could call up the governor of Texas and say, we need five
40:24more seats.
40:25Right.
40:26If that were...
40:27That should be illegal to any sentient person, right, that you just call up and get as many districts as
40:32you want.
40:33Right.
40:33But he could do that because in 2018, the Supreme Court said partisan redistricting is just something we can't...
40:39Partisan gerrymandering is something we can't address.
40:42It's so phenomenal because it means that our democratic institutions are the architects of our democratic demise.
40:47That is correct.
40:49Stunning.
40:49It's stunning.
40:51Please, please tell...
40:52Oh, and I've made you...
40:53I've made you sigh.
40:54I don't want to make you sigh.
40:56Oh.
40:57Please tell me that there is a remediation on the horizon or something along the lines that this fight continues.
41:06Well, John, I just refuse to pretend that this is not as serious as it is.
41:17And I think there is a pathway forward, but that pathway has many obstacles in front of it, and we
41:23have to meet those obstacles.
41:24First of all, we all have to overwhelmingly vote in the midterm elections because there has to be a change
41:30in Congress.
41:34So there has to be a change in Congress.
41:36The Hungary strategy is really the only way to go.
41:39It really is.
41:39Vote in such numbers that it overwhelms the tilt of time.
41:42Well, but there's one more piece to it, John.
41:45Please.
41:45And because you've heard everything that I've said, and so you understand that...
41:48But only retained about 20%.
41:51A lot of the names.
41:53I need you in my class.
41:54So, um, but, you know, as you know, as we just discussed, this Supreme Court is prepared to overrule congressional
42:03statutes.
42:04Right.
42:05So we need Congress to-to be prepared to-to-to certainly pass some statutes that will protect voting rights
42:12and that will deal with partisan gerrymandering.
42:14But we also need a Supreme Court that is committed to maintaining democracy in this country.
42:20And that means there has to be Supreme Court reform also.
42:22Right.
42:23And holding that into account.
42:25And those are, by the way, votes, uh, uh, and I-I so appreciate the seriousness of the matter in
42:32which you speak,
42:33because those are certainly tall orders in a dysfunctional system.
42:36Absolutely.
42:36As it is certainly constituted now.
42:37But we don't have any choice but to fight, and we've got to get very serious about it.
42:41Uh, I so appreciate you coming by and explaining this, and thank you for enlightening us in all measure of
42:47it.
42:47Uh, ladies and gentlemen, please check out also Sherilyn's newsletter.
42:51It's on Substack.
42:52Sherilyn Eiffel.
42:53Quick break.
42:54We'll be right back after this.
42:55All right.
42:56All right.
42:58All right.
42:59All right.
42:59All right.
43:02All right.
43:18Well, John, the Kentucky Derby was over the weekend, and as it turns out, herstory was made.
43:32That's right.
43:33That's right.
43:33Or should I say, horse story?
43:46I-I-I don't know what you're talking about.
43:49The first female horse trainer, Cherie DeVoe, won the Kentucky Derby.
43:53Yay!
43:55Yay!
44:00She made Derby his Derby.
44:07Uh, I-I did not realize you were so into horse racing.
44:10That's...
44:11Oh, you know me.
44:12I'm a real she-biscuit.
44:20I'm a real she-biscuit.
44:20So you-you go to the track?
44:22Oh, God, no.
44:23Not since I lost a shit-ton of money.
44:26Let's just say that the mob is aft-her me.
44:31stay safe desi lydic everybody and his resume just keeps on getting bigger secretary of state
44:37and current national security advisor marco rubio clocking in for a shift as a wedding dj over the
44:42weekend white house chief of staff dan scavino sharing the video on x writing in part quote
44:47our great secretary of state dj's weddings too sorry
44:53you
Comments