Latest / Gil I Am / Thomas Sowell vs Joe Biden in Congress

Transcript

Thomas Sowell vs Joe Biden in Congress · Gil I Am

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: You believe they are not enough black women and men
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: out there that are the same as white women and
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: men to be able to go through Harvard and MIT.
• 0:11
  Speaker 2: If there were, it would mean that the whole history
• 0:13
  Speaker 2: of oppression had done no harm whatever.
• 0:15
  Speaker 3: Well, so the answers you don't think there are.
• 0:17
  Speaker 4: I just want to say what you're saying, I think
• 0:19
  Speaker 4: is a factual matter.
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: So factually you're saying factually there are not enough.
• 0:23
  Speaker 2: Factually, this study's already been done by Clickguard at Harvard
• 0:26
  Speaker 2: and the figures are all there.
• 0:27
  Speaker 4: Anyone can look them up.
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: Okay, Now I just want to hear from you. I
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: want to know what you're thinking. Now, let me ask
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: you a couple of questions. You think judicial activism doctor
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: has hurt blacks. Judicial activism of eliminating restrictive covenants indeeds,
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: eliminating segregation in schools one man, one vote literacy test,
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: you consider those judicially active well as.
• 1:01
  Speaker 2: Regards for fective covernents, I can see no evidence that
• 1:04
  Speaker 2: they did anything other than make some people feel good
• 1:06
  Speaker 2: because it was symbolic as regards the desegregation of the
• 1:10
  Speaker 2: school system, that should have been done long before and
• 1:13
  Speaker 2: on a much more sound basis. I've gone into this
• 1:16
  Speaker 2: great length in previous writings, but are they No. No,
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: you see, the problem is not whether you believe the
• 1:23
  Speaker 2: school the segregation should have ended. I believe it should
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: have ended long before. George Block believes it should have
• 1:28
  Speaker 2: ended long before. What he and what I have objected
• 1:31
  Speaker 2: to are the principles used in that decision. Because those
• 1:35
  Speaker 2: principles take on a life of their own and they
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: come back to haunt you in other areas. Obviously, this
• 1:40
  Speaker 2: old phrase the hard cases make bad law.
• 1:43
  Speaker 4: Derived from that fact.
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: You dream up a principle to resist result, and then
• 1:47
  Speaker 2: the principle has a life of its own.
• 1:48
  Speaker 3: So the principle of desegregating this.
• 1:51
  Speaker 2: No, that wasn't the principle. The principle was the reason
• 1:53
  Speaker 2: that they picked for it was.
• 1:54
  Speaker 3: That's all I'm saying.
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: Okay, the reasons they picked, Yes, desegregating the schools. You
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: and Judge work agree where the wrong principles and they
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: should have not.
• 2:03
  Speaker 3: So the court shouldn't have done that.
• 2:05
  Speaker 4: No, No, that what should have done it?
• 2:07
  Speaker 2: All those have said the court should have done it,
• 2:09
  Speaker 2: and in my case, and I think that in his case,
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: the court should have done it. A lot sooner they
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: should have They should have ruled that it wasn't equal
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: protection of the law, because nobody in his right mind
• 2:17
  Speaker 2: believes that there was equal protection of the law and
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: the Jim Crow era of the these schools.
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: And I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying now.
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: When they desegregated the d C schools, it's clear the
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: fourteenth Amendment does not apply. Everyone agrees that the fourteen
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia. How
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: would they have done it in the District of Columbia?
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: Should they have just let it stand in the District
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: of Columbia segregation?
• 2:40
  Speaker 4: No.
• 2:41
  Speaker 2: In fact, Senator is interesting as you would say that
• 2:42
  Speaker 2: because I've gotten The first thing I ever wrote my
• 2:46
  Speaker 2: on a public issue was in November thirteenth, nineteen fifty
• 2:49
  Speaker 2: in the Washington Star, in which I argued for the
• 2:51
  Speaker 2: desegregation of the DC school system.
• 2:53
  Speaker 3: So that on what principle I had.
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: Not studied nearly as much done as I have thirty
• 2:58
  Speaker 2: seven years later, and so I hadn't worked it out,
• 3:02
  Speaker 2: nor do I think that I would want to work
• 3:03
  Speaker 2: it out on the run in front of a large
• 3:05
  Speaker 2: group of lawyers at.
• 3:07
  Speaker 4: This very moment, in the time it's available.
• 3:11
  Speaker 3: Well, how about literacy test? Was that you did?
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: I see no proper, no reason why people shouldn't be
• 3:17
  Speaker 2: literate in order to vote. The question is if you
• 3:19
  Speaker 2: have a black who comes in with his degree from
• 3:21
  Speaker 2: Harvard and the man behind the desk because I said no,
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: you're not.
• 3:24
  Speaker 4: Literate, you can't vote? Then you see, this is what
• 3:27
  Speaker 4: bothers me.
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: People are talking about how judges should be sensitive to
• 3:31
  Speaker 2: this particular group or that particular group, and if that
• 3:33
  Speaker 2: means anything, if it means he's applying the law differently,
• 3:37
  Speaker 2: that's precisely how blacks were held out for generations.
• 3:40
  Speaker 4: In this sounds flying the law differently.
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: So literacy test, as long as they were equally applied,
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: are all right?
• 3:48
  Speaker 3: Sure? So I thought you thought.
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: Now I also want to clarify you. I gather from
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: your comments about M I. T and Harvard that you
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: don't think there's enough blacks out there who are qualified
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: to fill the number of vacancies allotted for them in
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: those schools.
• 4:08
  Speaker 3: Is that right?
• 4:08
  Speaker 4: So work qualifies really is misleading?
• 4:11
  Speaker 2: Well, hush, just whether or not they they are like
• 4:13
  Speaker 2: the other students at Harvard and MIT.
• 4:16
  Speaker 3: Well, Okay, so there's not.
• 4:17
  Speaker 4: So they may be perfectly qualified.
• 4:19
  Speaker 2: The same student might go through God help us, I
• 4:21
  Speaker 2: hope no, your Illinois, Illinois Institute of Technology and do well.
• 4:26
  Speaker 2: But but no reason why you should fail at MIT. There's
• 4:28
  Speaker 2: no prestige and flucking out of the IVY League.
• 4:30
  Speaker 3: I got so.
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: But my point is you believe they are not enough
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: black women and men out there that are the same
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: as white women and men to be able to go
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: through Harvard and MIT.
• 4:44
  Speaker 2: If there were, it would mean that the whole history
• 4:46
  Speaker 2: of oppression had done no harm whatever.
• 4:48
  Speaker 3: Well, so the answers you don't think there are, I'm
• 4:50
  Speaker 3: not I just want to say what.
• 4:51
  Speaker 4: You're saying, question what I think is a factual matter.
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: So factually you're saying factually there are not enough.
• 4:56
  Speaker 2: Factually, this study has already been done by click guard
• 4:58
  Speaker 2: at Harvard, and the figures all day.
• 5:00
  Speaker 4: Anyone can look them up.
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: Okay, Now I just want to hear from you. I
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: want to know what you're thinking.
• 5:05
  Speaker 3: Now.
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: Have you read all of Judge Borg's cases or any
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: of them? Have you read all of his writings. I
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: haven't read all.
• 5:14
  Speaker 2: Of them, but I've been reading them for more than
• 5:16
  Speaker 2: twenty years because I was in I used to teach
• 5:18
  Speaker 2: anti trust economics.
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: Now are you part of what they call the law
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: and economics school?
• 5:23
  Speaker 3: You know that? Would you consider yourself part of that school?
• 5:27
  Speaker 3: Another wrong with that? It's not a bad school. I
• 5:29
  Speaker 3: just wanted to where you are when I stood.
• 5:32
  Speaker 4: Down the right center. I don't ask what my label.
• 5:34
  Speaker 2: I don't check my identification tagacy what I am. But
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: I did one of my books did win a prize?
• 5:40
  Speaker 2: Is the best book in law and economics in nineteen eighty?
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: Yeah?
• 5:43
  Speaker 3: No, but I mean there is that.
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: There's almost a term of art out there called the
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: school of Law and economics? And are you part of
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: that school? Intellectually? That's all I'm trying to get.
• 5:53
  Speaker 2: I'm very much interested in the application of economic principles
• 5:55
  Speaker 2: in the law and vice versa.
• 5:58
  Speaker 3: Now my time's up.
• 6:00
  Speaker 5: You are with the Hoover Institute as a fellow. What
• 6:04
  Speaker 5: is your academic background? Are you a lawyer? I shouldn't know, bo,
• 6:09
  Speaker 5: I'm I'm.
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: An economists by trade, but I've wanted into other fields.
• 6:14
  Speaker 5: You do you have an educational degrees in law?
• 6:17
  Speaker 4: Is no economic in that? Economics?
• 6:20
  Speaker 5: Economics?
• 6:20
  Speaker 4: All right?
• 6:26
  Speaker 5: You mentioned the school systems and any kid that you
• 6:34
  Speaker 5: didn't think that decisions of the courts which brought about desegregation.
• 6:46
  Speaker 5: Are you saying it as I understood you, that you
• 6:48
  Speaker 5: use the phrase judicial activism hadn't help minorities?
• 6:54
  Speaker 4: Oh no, Senator, I mean that unders No.
• 6:58
  Speaker 2: No, what I said was that I thought that the
• 6:59
  Speaker 2: desegregation that I only should have taken place should have
• 7:01
  Speaker 2: taken place a lot earlier. But it but a different
• 7:04
  Speaker 2: set of reasonings should have been used.
• 7:06
  Speaker 5: Well, how do you is I understood that you were
• 7:10
  Speaker 5: saying that the court action hasn't helped minority.
• 7:14
  Speaker 4: Well I've I say not at all.
• 7:15
  Speaker 2: That's the problem with pat phrases like judicial activism, because
• 7:19
  Speaker 2: everybody means something different by it.
• 7:21
  Speaker 4: Uh, well, how what do you mean?
• 7:24
  Speaker 5: I just was curious about how you say that the
• 7:28
  Speaker 5: school children who are blacks NA desegregated school haven't been helped.
• 7:36
  Speaker 5: That's just what I understood you to say.
• 7:38
  Speaker 2: No, No, I'm saying that by using the kind of
• 7:42
  Speaker 2: reason they did, drawing upon principles not in any written
• 7:45
  Speaker 2: document anywhere, any legal document anywhere, but on for example,
• 7:49
  Speaker 2: the famous doll tests of Kenneth Clarke and so on.
• 7:54
  Speaker 4: Uh.
• 7:54
  Speaker 2: If you buy the line of reasoning they get, they give.
• 7:57
  Speaker 2: Then you have a definition of segregation for schools which
• 8:00
  Speaker 2: is totally different from the definition of segregation than any
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: other institutional society. That is, by the definitions that are
• 8:06
  Speaker 2: used in schools to start bussing, thous airport is segregated.
• 8:10
  Speaker 4: This room may be segregated.
• 8:11
  Speaker 2: For all I know, by those percentage decisions representation things.
• 8:17
  Speaker 5: So now I didn't understand I just clarify my own
• 8:20
  Speaker 5: mind as to your testimony. I didn't exactly understand what
• 8:25
  Speaker 5: you had what you had in mind when you said
• 8:29
  Speaker 5: something about the restrictive covenants.
• 8:33
  Speaker 4: I assume what I don't remember.
• 8:35
  Speaker 5: The exact words, but in effect that decisions that eliminated
• 8:40
  Speaker 5: restrictive covenants haven't benefited well.
• 8:44
  Speaker 2: I know no one who has even claimed that there's
• 8:46
  Speaker 2: been any discernible difference in the housing pattern brought about
• 8:49
  Speaker 2: by either Shelley V.
• 8:51
  Speaker 4: Kramer or Rightman to be a monkey.
• 8:53
  Speaker 5: Would you say that there's been no change.
• 8:56
  Speaker 4: I'm saying of that era.
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: Now over a long thirty year period with lots of
• 9:00
  Speaker 2: economic changes, then you may have some gradual changes, but
• 9:03
  Speaker 2: even so it's been a failure of miniscue.
• 9:07
  Speaker 5: I believe it, tell me about it. Got thirty seconds so,
• 9:12
  Speaker 5: and there's no point to asking another question.
• 9:16
  Speaker 4: Judicial activism is a fancy phrase for a very plain thing.
• 9:21
  Speaker 4: When the law says A and the judge wants it
• 9:24
  Speaker 4: to mean Z, he interprets it as meaning Z. Deep
• 9:28
  Speaker 4: thinkers may call that judicial activism. Back where I come from,
• 9:33
  Speaker 4: we call it lying. Judges don't just twist and stretch
• 9:37
  Speaker 4: the law for fun. Usually they do it to promote
• 9:40
  Speaker 4: some article of faith in the liberal creed. That's what
• 9:44
  Speaker 4: wins them the support of the media and academia. Attempts
• 9:48
  Speaker 4: to justify judicial activism are very complicated and very clever,
• 9:53
  Speaker 4: but they boil down to the kind of excuses any
• 9:56
  Speaker 4: parent of a small child should be used to hearing
• 9:59
  Speaker 4: with small children and judicial activists alike. The first excuse
• 10:03
  Speaker 4: is that they didn't know you didn't want them to
• 10:06
  Speaker 4: do what they did. Judicial activists and their supporters claim
• 10:10
  Speaker 4: that the original intentions of those who wrote the Constitution
• 10:14
  Speaker 4: are unclear, but it so happens that the people who
• 10:17
  Speaker 4: wrote the Constitution of the United States were very straightforward writers,
• 10:22
  Speaker 4: much clearer than most law professors. As with some children, however,
• 10:26
  Speaker 4: the problem is not that the judges don't know what
• 10:28
  Speaker 4: the rules are, but that they don't want to follow them.
• 10:31
  Speaker 4: The ploy is to say that no one knows exactly
• 10:34
  Speaker 4: what is meant by constitutional phrases like due process or
• 10:38
  Speaker 4: cruel and unusual punishment. If you want to play that game,
• 10:42
  Speaker 4: no one knows exactly how far it is from the
• 10:45
  Speaker 4: Washington Monument to the Tower of London. When you get
• 10:48
  Speaker 4: the distance in miles, you can say that's not exact
• 10:52
  Speaker 4: because you want it in inches. And when you get
• 10:54
  Speaker 4: it in inches, you can say that's not exact because
• 10:57
  Speaker 4: it's not accurate to a millimeter. There's no But if
• 11:01
  Speaker 4: you use the fact that no one knows exactly how
• 11:04
  Speaker 4: far apart they are to argue as if they are
• 11:06
  Speaker 4: only about three blocks apart or over a million miles apart,
• 11:11
  Speaker 4: then you are lying or engaging in judicial activism, as
• 11:15
  Speaker 4: deep thinkers say. This is the game that Supreme Court
• 11:19
  Speaker 4: Justice William Brennan played when he said we cannot know
• 11:22
  Speaker 4: exactly what the framers thought cruel and unusual punishments were
• 11:27
  Speaker 4: as he reversed a death penalty decision as unconstitutional. What
• 11:32
  Speaker 4: the framers of the Constitution clearly did not mean was
• 11:35
  Speaker 4: the death penalty. They explicitly mentioned the death penalty in
• 11:40
  Speaker 4: other parts of that document. All the states that ratified
• 11:43
  Speaker 4: the Constitution had death penalty laws. The first Congress that
• 11:47
  Speaker 4: ratified the Constitution also passed federal death penalty laws Afterwards.
• 11:52
  Speaker 4: Pious talk about how hard it is to know exactly
• 11:55
  Speaker 4: what the writers of laws meant is almost invariably used
• 12:00
  Speaker 4: to justify things that they clearly did not mean. Judicial
• 12:05
  Speaker 4: activists like Brennan play the same game with the phrase
• 12:08
  Speaker 4: due process. This legal expression was already hundreds of years
• 12:12
  Speaker 4: old when it was first written into the US Constitution.
• 12:16
  Speaker 4: For Supreme Court justices and law professors to pretend to
• 12:19
  Speaker 4: wide aim innocence as to what it means at this
• 12:22
  Speaker 4: late date is a little much. Of course, no one
• 12:25
  Speaker 4: knows exactly what it means. But for centuries it never
• 12:29
  Speaker 4: meant that criminals had to be turned loose if the
• 12:32
  Speaker 4: cops didn't advise them that they could stonewall. You don't
• 12:36
  Speaker 4: need to know exactly how tall the Washington Monument is
• 12:39
  Speaker 4: to know that it's taller than you are, and that
• 12:41
  Speaker 4: any statement to the contrary is false. When the innocent
• 12:45
  Speaker 4: act fails, judicial activists fall back on the fact that
• 12:49
  Speaker 4: change has occurred since the law was passed. Change is
• 12:52
  Speaker 4: a magic word used to justify decisions that have nothing
• 12:56
  Speaker 4: whatsoever to do with change. The most famous or notorious
• 13:00
  Speaker 4: Supreme Court decisions of the past generation have had no
• 13:03
  Speaker 4: relationship to any of the many changes that have occurred
• 13:06
  Speaker 4: since the Constitution was written. Death penalties are still death penalties.
• 13:12
  Speaker 4: Abortion is still abortion, Segregation is still segregation, libel is
• 13:16
  Speaker 4: still libel, and arresting a criminal is still arresting a criminal,
• 13:21
  Speaker 4: and lying is still lying.