Latest / That KEVIN Show / BONUS RADIO: The latest developments from the Supreme Court w/Imran Ansari

Transcript

BONUS RADIO: The latest developments from the Supreme Court w/Imran Ansari · That KEVIN Show

0:01
Speaker 1: From the birthplace of radio's greatest era. Now from New
0:06
Speaker 1: York It's Radio Night Live with Kevin McCullough. Unlike anything
0:13
Speaker 1: else on radio today, It's a front row seat for
0:16
Speaker 1: great information with today's leading experts. Travel with a third
0:20
Speaker 1: generation travel icon Linda Purillo, The Fox News Medical All
0:25
Speaker 1: Stars featuring doctor Mark Siegel, doctor Marty McCarey, doctor Jennet
0:29
Speaker 1: Nischwat the Og doctor Nicole Sapphire. Legal analysis from former
0:33
Speaker 1: prosecutor and court journalism superstar Imran I'm Sorry, and Christine Nicholas,
0:39
Speaker 1: the quintessential Heartbeat, the New York Hospitality, all joining legendary
0:44
Speaker 1: broadcast pro Kevin McCullough on a mission unlike any other,
0:47
Speaker 1: United to bring back New York Now Live from Studio
0:52
Speaker 1: one to eleven Kears. Kevin McCullough, All.
0:56
Speaker 2: Right, welcome in. It's a Radio Night Live, and it's
0:59
Speaker 2: Legal Night and Imran I'm sorry, World traveler, lawyer extraordinaire
1:04
Speaker 2: Legal Eagle on all of the legal television networks is
1:08
Speaker 2: back with us, and Imran, I've been waiting to do
1:12
Speaker 2: this till you were back because I didn't want to
1:13
Speaker 2: try to attempt this on my own. But the Supreme
1:16
Speaker 2: Court not unlike a lot of years had a lot
1:19
Speaker 2: of kind of pivotal cases. And before we get into
1:23
Speaker 2: the ones that they did this year, about how many,
1:26
Speaker 2: like roughly like how many cases a year does does
1:30
Speaker 2: Supreme Court decide? Is it more than fifty? Is it
1:34
Speaker 2: between fifteen one hundred? Is it less than fifty? Because
1:38
Speaker 2: it seems like they're they have a full dock at
1:40
Speaker 2: each year.
1:40
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, the exact number is hard to pin down,
1:43
Speaker 3: but and it sort of varies by year to year
1:47
Speaker 3: in terms of what they are granting cearcuri for right,
1:51
Speaker 3: in terms of cases that are percolating up to the
1:56
Speaker 3: Supreme Court that they are agreeing to here and there
2:01
Speaker 3: are dozens upon dozens of cases that are filed for
2:07
Speaker 3: Supreme Court review but are not granted cir cri, meaning
2:12
Speaker 3: that the Supreme Court is going to be declining to
2:18
Speaker 3: hear those cases for you know, particular numerated reasons.
2:22
Speaker 4: And sometimes you'll.
2:23
Speaker 3: Just get a decision that the Court has not granted circiari.
2:29
Speaker 3: And I think the number is upwards of seven to
2:32
Speaker 3: eight thousand petitions for review by the Supreme Court in
2:38
Speaker 3: a given year.
2:39
Speaker 4: That's sort of like an average there.
2:41
Speaker 3: But again it's the actual amount of cases that the
2:46
Speaker 3: Supreme Court will hear. It will consider briefs by both parties,
2:51
Speaker 3: ultimately oral argument by both parties, and then sit you know,
2:56
Speaker 3: the respective judges and render decision that then comes down
3:00
Speaker 3: each year obviously or each term. The public is waiting
3:04
Speaker 3: anxiously for those decisions to be rendered. And that's you know,
3:08
Speaker 3: I would say upwards of one hundred cases are actually accepted,
3:13
Speaker 3: you know, maybe eight either.
3:15
Speaker 2: Really you think about that funnel, that is a really
3:18
Speaker 2: small number that actually end up getting heard and.
3:21
Speaker 3: Argued, absolutely compared to the amount of petitions. And you
3:26
Speaker 3: see that even in you know, lower appellate courts, where
3:31
Speaker 3: certain appellate courts are going to you know, not hear
3:34
Speaker 3: an appeal for whatever reason.
3:36
Speaker 4: And the Supreme Court is just like that.
3:39
Speaker 3: In fact, their petitions, if you think about it, they
3:42
Speaker 3: are to use the term, the funneling term, right, They're
3:46
Speaker 3: they're getting cases from across the fifty states here, you know,
3:51
Speaker 3: and looking for a review under you know, various areas
3:56
Speaker 3: of law.
3:58
Speaker 4: And certainly they can't take that case.
4:00
Speaker 3: And not every case is appropriate for a pellet review
4:03
Speaker 3: by the Supreme Court. That's why you got that sort
4:05
Speaker 3: of seventy to eighty to one hundred range of what
4:08
Speaker 3: they are actually considering.
4:10
Speaker 4: And then in that sub set you have those.
4:13
Speaker 3: Few cases or the handful of cases, dozens or so
4:16
Speaker 3: whatever that are really in the public eye, you know,
4:20
Speaker 3: and those decisions that people are watching, reporting on and
4:24
Speaker 3: talking about.
4:25
Speaker 2: Well, I would say in the few years that you
4:26
Speaker 2: and I have been doing this, there's probably between like
4:31
Speaker 2: a half dozen to a dozen significant cases that we
4:35
Speaker 2: end up chatting about. But in a lot of cases,
4:39
Speaker 2: there's just a ton of a ton of decisions that
4:42
Speaker 2: are made that a lot of people don't even know about.
4:45
Speaker 2: So where did this case come from, what was kind
4:48
Speaker 2: of the underlying arguments of it, and ultimately what was
4:52
Speaker 2: the decision made? And how does that apply now to
4:56
Speaker 2: the rest of the world going forward.
4:58
Speaker 3: So certainly, yeah, I mean this was a big one,
5:00
Speaker 3: right because birthright citizenship has been viewed as somewhat of
5:06
Speaker 3: a given here right, you know, pursuing to the fourteenth
5:10
Speaker 3: Amendment since.
5:12
Speaker 2: The fourteenth Amendment came into effect.
5:14
Speaker 3: For sure, right, And you know, it was really interesting
5:17
Speaker 3: arguments that was you know, put forward there because you
5:20
Speaker 3: look at the Amendment and that time period of you know,
5:23
Speaker 3: eighteen sixty six and obviously the abolishing of slavery and
5:28
Speaker 3: a textual reading by the conservative bench here, you know,
5:32
Speaker 3: on the Supreme Court and those justices, they were really
5:35
Speaker 3: looking at the text of it and what it envisioned
5:38
Speaker 3: at the time.
5:39
Speaker 4: And the big argument for you.
5:42
Speaker 3: Know, the attorneys who were representing President Trump and defending
5:47
Speaker 3: his executive order was that, you know, at the time
5:51
Speaker 3: that was enacted, it was really contemplating citizenship for slaves
5:56
Speaker 3: or the children of slaves or you know, recently freed
5:59
Speaker 3: slaw who had no other sovereign that they could claim
6:05
Speaker 3: loyalty to. They were born in America, their parents were
6:08
Speaker 3: brought to America, perhaps forcefully, or even the parents themselves
6:12
Speaker 3: were of a generation of slaves who were born in America,
6:15
Speaker 3: and they couldn't claim any other sovereign as a potential
6:19
Speaker 3: source of allegiance or loyalty. And there was a distinguishing
6:25
Speaker 3: being made as to those who were say, now, let's
6:29
Speaker 3: fast forward to the present. Someone who is here unlawfully
6:33
Speaker 3: as an illegal alien, someone who is here who has
6:37
Speaker 3: come to the United States, perhaps with the intention of
6:40
Speaker 3: giving birth in the United States, that can have you know.
6:44
Speaker 4: A citizenship.
6:45
Speaker 3: Well, that distinction was that those individuals aren't necessarily solely
6:50
Speaker 3: loyal to one sovereign, that being the United States, right,
6:54
Speaker 3: and that they are coming from a other sovereign and
6:57
Speaker 3: they can't claim and they may claim allegiance or or
7:01
Speaker 3: or you know, loyal to that sovereign. So there was
7:04
Speaker 3: a distinction between the sort of thrust and intent of
7:09
Speaker 3: the Amendment at the time and how it's being applied today.
7:12
Speaker 3: And of course those were the arguments that were being
7:15
Speaker 3: made against, you know, in favor of the executive order
7:19
Speaker 3: of President Trump. Then on the converse side, you had
7:24
Speaker 3: the liberal you know, part of the bench arguing that
7:29
Speaker 3: this is bedrock law, right, and there isn't ambiguity or
7:33
Speaker 3: distinction like that.
7:34
Speaker 4: And that's why it's been part of you.
7:37
Speaker 3: Know, the black letter law, if you will, and constitutional law,
7:41
Speaker 3: and also part of the you know, immigration laws for
7:44
Speaker 3: so many years. And how did the court decide, Well,
7:49
Speaker 3: there may be an ideological break in the decision, so
7:55
Speaker 3: to say, but ultimately the opinion in and that the
8:01
Speaker 3: opinion was written by Chief Justice Roberts, held that Trump's
8:05
Speaker 3: executive order denying citizenship to children born to parents unlawfully
8:10
Speaker 3: or temporarily president of the United States, was in violation
8:15
Speaker 3: of both the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause and the codification
8:19
Speaker 3: of the clause of the Immigration and Nationality Act of
8:22
Speaker 3: nineteen fifty two. So although there was that majority opinion
8:30
Speaker 3: and that was joined by Soda, Mayor Kagan, also a
8:35
Speaker 3: Cony Barrett, and of course Kantaji Brown Jackson, there were
8:39
Speaker 3: some dissent, and the dissenting opinions came from Justice Gorsic,
8:45
Speaker 3: Justice Thomas, and Alito, who argued again for the textual
8:50
Speaker 3: reading and intent of the amendment, fourteenth Amendment and that
8:54
Speaker 3: clause at the time that it just didn't envision these
8:59
Speaker 3: sort of scenarios.
9:01
Speaker 4: So although it was.
9:02
Speaker 5: Upheld, you can see still the percolating with a significant
9:07
Speaker 5: portion of the bench right, some real forceful voices on
9:10
Speaker 5: that bench who still feel that Trump's executive order was
9:14
Speaker 5: constitutional and it should not have been.
9:18
Speaker 4: Done away by this decision.
9:20
Speaker 2: It's an interesting dilemma. It leaves also open the possibility
9:24
Speaker 2: that they may revisit it at some point in the future,
9:26
Speaker 2: doesn't it. It's when you have that kind of level
9:30
Speaker 2: of disagreement.
9:32
Speaker 3: Perhaps I think you know we're going to have this
9:35
Speaker 3: sort of carrying through the years to come. But that
9:39
Speaker 3: doesn't mean that there's going to be some other legal
9:41
Speaker 3: issues or some other executive order that may implicate this
9:44
Speaker 3: question again in some way, or a lower court case
9:47
Speaker 3: that they just again have something before them.
9:50
Speaker 2: But for now, if you're born in America, you're American.
9:53
Speaker 2: And that's what the Supreme Court says. All right, kay,
9:55
Speaker 2: quick break, come right back. It's our Supreme Court special
9:58
Speaker 2: took away.
10:02
Speaker 1: From New York. It's Radio Night Life with Kevin McCullough.
10:08
Speaker 2: Welcome back. It's Kevin McCullough and Imron. I'm sorry, we're
10:11
Speaker 2: talking about legal issues and we're kind of focusing just
10:14
Speaker 2: exclusively on this last season of the Supreme Court and
10:18
Speaker 2: some of the things that were decided. And we've got
10:21
Speaker 2: a lot of different areas of life, Emron, that were
10:24
Speaker 2: touched on. We just talked about birthrights, citizenship, but we
10:27
Speaker 2: had cases that talked about the rights that parents have
10:30
Speaker 2: in public schools. We had something that dealt with the
10:33
Speaker 2: mail in ballots issue. We have the Voting Rights Act
10:35
Speaker 2: being revisited, and even sports and should boys be allowed
10:40
Speaker 2: in girls' locker rooms? That issue was decided on some
10:43
Speaker 2: level that was the probably the most recent of the
10:46
Speaker 2: decisions that was made because it came out closest to
10:49
Speaker 2: the end, I think. But let me back up and
10:51
Speaker 2: go to the mail in ballot after election day case. Now,
10:56
Speaker 2: I know, just to set the context, election integrity has
11:02
Speaker 2: been a big issue that Republicans have argued for Democrats
11:05
Speaker 2: act like it doesn't mean anything, and there's no problem,
11:08
Speaker 2: and there's nothing at else, there's nothing else at all wrong,
11:12
Speaker 2: and we should just ignore it. Trump obviously campaigned on that,
11:17
Speaker 2: obviously was part of his messaging that got him elected
11:20
Speaker 2: in twenty four He had two strategies for how to
11:25
Speaker 2: help correct what he perceived to be election deficiencies, and
11:32
Speaker 2: one was mail in ballots should be in by election day.
11:38
Speaker 2: Election day should mean day. Day, shouldn't mean month or
11:41
Speaker 2: week or you know, some extended period of time that
11:44
Speaker 2: goes way past whenever. And then that was his kind
11:48
Speaker 2: of judiciary strategy. His legislative strategy is to get the
11:54
Speaker 2: Save America Act passed, and he's still working on that aspect.
11:58
Speaker 2: But the mail in ballots case, and I talked with
12:00
Speaker 2: a few lawyers, I think we you and I even
12:02
Speaker 2: spoke about it beforehand, were a bit surprised that the
12:08
Speaker 2: word day didn't end up meaning the word day based
12:12
Speaker 2: on the Court's ruling. And it was another very divided case.
12:15
Speaker 2: Five four was the was the was the way it
12:18
Speaker 2: came down. But talk to walk us through the arguments
12:23
Speaker 2: that Mississippi made and then that the RNC made when
12:27
Speaker 2: they when they were before the court.
12:29
Speaker 3: Sure, and you know it so the interesting it's an
12:31
Speaker 3: interesting case. And as you pointed, you know, it was
12:34
Speaker 3: a down to a five poor vote with Justice Amy
12:40
Speaker 3: Cony Barrett, you know, penning uh the opinion there.
12:44
Speaker 4: That was largely uh uh.
12:47
Speaker 3: There was a concurred or joined in by the liberal
12:51
Speaker 3: side of the bench, but also including Chief Justice Roberts
12:55
Speaker 3: on that.
12:56
Speaker 2: And by the way, this is the second case in
12:57
Speaker 2: a row you've mentioned it, but friends paying attention mentioned
13:00
Speaker 2: Chief Justice Roberts ACB. Those two they seem to have
13:05
Speaker 2: formed like a third like swing factor on the court,
13:09
Speaker 2: because if you can get those two on your side,
13:11
Speaker 2: you're gonna you're gonna topple either of the partisan divides.
13:14
Speaker 1: Yeah.
13:14
Speaker 3: Well, they're somewhat commonly known as like the Bridge votes
13:18
Speaker 3: right and as certainly Chief Justice Roberts right, and I
13:21
Speaker 3: mean his roles chief Justices is to be just that
13:24
Speaker 3: in some ways, but in terms of the way he
13:27
Speaker 3: comes down on these decisions, including Amy Cony Batt, they're
13:30
Speaker 3: that sort of bridge, right, there's the one.
13:32
Speaker 4: Those are the.
13:35
Speaker 3: Justices that you know, could really move things one way
13:38
Speaker 3: or the other in terms of how these decisions come down.
13:41
Speaker 3: But coming back to this case, uh, you know, they're
13:44
Speaker 3: it all really dealt with the definition of election day,
13:49
Speaker 3: or not necessarily the definition of election day, but the
13:51
Speaker 3: importance of election day and what the import was to
13:55
Speaker 3: these mail in ballots.
13:56
Speaker 4: So with this law which was found to.
14:01
Speaker 3: Be rejected by the court, so Mississippi requiring that ballots
14:06
Speaker 3: that were mailed in would only be counted if they
14:09
Speaker 3: were received by election day was rejected by this court.
14:16
Speaker 4: Right, So Justice Barrett concluded that.
14:21
Speaker 3: As long as the ballots were or the voting was
14:27
Speaker 3: done prior to election day, that if there was a
14:30
Speaker 3: ballot that was received by mail after the election day,
14:36
Speaker 3: after election day, it would still be counted.
14:38
Speaker 4: So just in a nutshell, that's what this decision rendered.
14:43
Speaker 3: Justice Barrett stated, and I'll quote in the most important
14:47
Speaker 3: part of the decision, the election day statutes required the
14:50
Speaker 3: elector's choice to be made on election day. That occurs
14:54
Speaker 3: so long as election day is the deadline for the
14:57
Speaker 3: individuals to vote, as it is in Mississippi. But the
15:00
Speaker 3: election day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt,
15:04
Speaker 3: so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmark
15:08
Speaker 3: before election day yet received afterwards. So essentially, you get
15:14
Speaker 3: your ballot in the mail, you vote before election day,
15:17
Speaker 3: even if it's received afterwards, it's still going to be counted.
15:21
Speaker 2: You know what's interesting about this, and I was really
15:24
Speaker 2: I was really disappointed in this outcome because I do
15:27
Speaker 2: think that elections are kind of like a lot of
15:30
Speaker 2: things in life, and that is that they kind of
15:33
Speaker 2: have a beginning when people start campaigning a couple of
15:35
Speaker 2: years out. They have the really heavy campaign push going
15:39
Speaker 2: into the actual election. And for a national election, you
15:42
Speaker 2: have primaries and you get your primary candidates decided, and
15:45
Speaker 2: then you have the two parties and it's the whole
15:48
Speaker 2: gamut of the process. But I've always thought, you know,
15:53
Speaker 2: that the term election day means day, and that like
15:59
Speaker 2: similar to a race, like if you started the Boston
16:02
Speaker 2: Marathon on you know, March the thirty first Sunday, March
16:05
Speaker 2: the thirty first, or whenever it is that it's held.
16:09
Speaker 2: You can't like figure out like, you know, well, I'm
16:12
Speaker 2: just going to take a two day break and then
16:14
Speaker 2: and then finish the rest of the run. You know,
16:16
Speaker 2: while I'm like, there's rules, you start, you run, you
16:20
Speaker 2: complete it, and like we don't carry it over for
16:23
Speaker 2: an indefinite period of time. That there is is a
16:25
Speaker 2: final result here, and so everybody was willing to pound
16:30
Speaker 2: on the president and say, oh, you were upset about
16:32
Speaker 2: eleven thousand votes, it was clear that you lost. Well,
16:34
Speaker 2: in reality, if you have three hundred and fifteen thousand
16:37
Speaker 2: unsigned ballots that should not be counted and they're counted
16:41
Speaker 2: in the final mix, he might have had a point
16:44
Speaker 2: on that. And so I understand his frustration with having
16:49
Speaker 2: ballots that shouldn't be counted be counted. I guess in
16:52
Speaker 2: amy Cony Barrett's decision, the fact that she makes a
16:54
Speaker 2: big deal about the postmark, that's what we should take
16:57
Speaker 2: away from this, is saying that that they're still calling for,
17:00
Speaker 2: you know, pretty strict enforcement of actual real elections.
17:03
Speaker 4: Sure.
17:04
Speaker 3: I mean, you know that's why the Mississippi law was
17:06
Speaker 3: upheld here because you know, as far as the majority
17:10
Speaker 3: opinion and view of things, as long as the voting
17:14
Speaker 3: occurred on or.
17:15
Speaker 4: Before election day.
17:18
Speaker 2: Right.
17:18
Speaker 4: And that's why that postmark is so important here. It's
17:24
Speaker 4: in essence of vote.
17:25
Speaker 3: Right.
17:25
Speaker 4: It's a vote that was done in a timely manner.
17:29
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a fully legal vote, was executed properly. It
17:33
Speaker 2: just wasn't received. And you know, if the Trump administration
17:36
Speaker 2: wants to still work on this aspect of elections, you
17:40
Speaker 2: can pass a federal statute. It's possible to pass a
17:43
Speaker 2: federal statute that says, at least for federal elections, they
17:47
Speaker 2: have to be received by a certain time. But Amy
17:50
Speaker 2: was citing state statutes, saying state statutes don't clarify a
17:55
Speaker 2: deadline by which the election is over, and so you
17:57
Speaker 2: can't read one into the language that's not there.
18:00
Speaker 3: Correct, And that's an interpretation of the law and the
18:04
Speaker 3: election law here. We're talking about Mississippi from a state
18:09
Speaker 3: level as it's on the books now. Of course, legislation
18:13
Speaker 3: can change law, right, And if there's a compelling interest
18:16
Speaker 3: now to do so, then certainly the legislature could look
18:21
Speaker 3: at this and put in a date maybe a few
18:25
Speaker 3: days before election day that needs to be postmarked, and
18:28
Speaker 3: therefore you're ensuring more timely counting as long as the
18:32
Speaker 3: date to vote.
18:33
Speaker 2: You know what I've just never figured out is state
18:37
Speaker 2: of Florida can count all of their votes statewide on
18:40
Speaker 2: election night in about two and a half hours from
18:42
Speaker 2: the entire state of Florida, and the city of Los
18:45
Speaker 2: Angeles couldn't count the primary votes for a mayor's race
18:48
Speaker 2: in six weeks. That seems a little bit disjointed to me.
18:54
Speaker 2: So maybe some unilateral help they're coming from statutes?
18:58
Speaker 1: What mean us?
18:59
Speaker 3: For?
18:59
Speaker 2: All right, I got take another break. We're talking Scotis
19:02
Speaker 2: stay here.
19:11
Speaker 1: And now I'm from New York back to radio night life.
19:14
Speaker 1: You're Kevin McCalla.
19:17
Speaker 2: All right, welcome back, Kevin mccaullach. Glad to have you
19:19
Speaker 2: with us. It's our Supreme Court special. Lots of big
19:22
Speaker 2: decisions that the Court has been dealing with in recent days,
19:26
Speaker 2: and a six' to three decision that came down in
19:29
Speaker 2: favor of parents as they had to take On Montgomery
19:33
Speaker 2: county public. SCHOOLS i believe that's In. Maryland And Imron i'm,
19:37
Speaker 2: sorry And kevin, McCullough glad to be with, you And
19:39
Speaker 2: IMRON i knew about this case before it got launched
19:43
Speaker 2: because in kind of a unique community, setting you Had muslim,
19:50
Speaker 2: Parents catholic, Parents jewish, Parents orthodox, Parents evangelical parents all
19:56
Speaker 2: coming together to kind of form this this protest against the,
20:01
Speaker 2: school and the school basically said pound sand, like go
20:05
Speaker 2: to you know where we Don't we don't care what
20:06
Speaker 2: you have to. Say AND i think that's one of
20:08
Speaker 2: the reasons why this began to get stirred. Up and
20:11
Speaker 2: the school district didn't back, down but the court did
20:14
Speaker 2: make a. Decision what did they?
20:15
Speaker 3: Find, Sure so the court sided with the parents and
20:19
Speaker 3: basically found that the prevention by the school and this,
20:26
Speaker 3: was you, know a public, school and this was a
20:29
Speaker 3: significant decision. There, right it's a populist county and it's
20:34
Speaker 3: a diverse county for all, offcus which is WHY i
20:36
Speaker 3: think you see the plaintiffs here really represented a variety
20:42
Speaker 3: of religions who were looking, to you, know protect their
20:46
Speaker 3: right to take their children out and opt out of certain.
20:52
Speaker 4: Certain curriculum or.
20:53
Speaker 3: Books, right it really focused on five story books that
20:57
Speaker 3: were helping teach readings skins but INCLUDED lgbtq plus characters
21:03
Speaker 3: in the, books and these parents wanted to have their
21:07
Speaker 3: children opt out of having to read those, books but
21:12
Speaker 3: were prevented by the school from doing. So, well The Supreme,
21:16
Speaker 3: court once it percolated, itself the case s percolated up
21:20
Speaker 3: sided with the. Parents they found that this prevention of
21:24
Speaker 3: allowing parents to opt out from such curriculum would interfere
21:28
Speaker 3: with their religious practice and their freedom to practice their.
21:33
Speaker 4: Religion and because.
21:35
Speaker 3: Of, that The court found that the public schools had
21:40
Speaker 3: to change their. Policy and that's really taking now effect
21:45
Speaker 3: across the, country, right it's not affecting Jus. Maryland this
21:48
Speaker 3: is The Supreme, court so, now and this was a
21:51
Speaker 3: very controversial, Subject kevin, right where certain curriculum was being
21:57
Speaker 3: placed in certain schools children and were essentially being forced
22:02
Speaker 3: and exposed to things that many parents not only thought
22:05
Speaker 3: maybe was against.
22:06
Speaker 4: Their religious, beliefs but just the.
22:08
Speaker 3: Age and The court also took recognition of that that
22:15
Speaker 3: also the age, right that a lot of this curriculum
22:18
Speaker 3: many parents may find to be completely inappropriate for their,
22:22
Speaker 3: Child but preventing a parent from having to say from,
22:26
Speaker 3: saying all, RIGHT i don't want my child exposed to
22:28
Speaker 3: this in a public school like that would be now
22:31
Speaker 3: against their constitutional rights to practice their religion without.
22:36
Speaker 4: Any sort of interference if you, will from doing. So
22:41
Speaker 4: so it's a real.
22:42
Speaker 3: Significant ruling and it's having sort of the effect in
22:45
Speaker 3: schools where they are now putting in place certain procedures
22:51
Speaker 3: where it would have to be in writing by. Parents
22:53
Speaker 3: so it's clear cut that they don't want their child
22:56
Speaker 3: exposed to. This but it certainly changed the, law AND
22:59
Speaker 3: i think think that's what we're going to be, seeing you,
23:02
Speaker 3: know as we go.
23:02
Speaker 2: FORWARD i had never seen a school district say to,
23:06
Speaker 2: parents you are disallowed from opting out your. Kids like
23:10
Speaker 2: there's a lot of school districts that teach stuff that
23:12
Speaker 2: parents disagree. With and LIKE i grew up in this
23:15
Speaker 2: little tiny school district In Fort, Worth texas WHERE i
23:17
Speaker 2: remember in second Grade Christy black had to get up
23:21
Speaker 2: every morning and leave the room because her parents didn't
23:23
Speaker 2: want her reciting the pledge of allegiance to a. Flag,
23:26
Speaker 2: okay kind of weird for us as kids in the.
23:29
Speaker 2: CLASSROOM i felt kind of bad For christy because she
23:31
Speaker 2: had to get up and leave every day when we
23:32
Speaker 2: would say the. Pledge but you, always the bent was
23:36
Speaker 2: always leaned towards acknowledging and honoring the parents' rights to
23:42
Speaker 2: make the decision for their kids in terms of what
23:44
Speaker 2: they want them exposed to them what they. Don't so
23:46
Speaker 2: when this school district was basically Like Pound, sand we're
23:51
Speaker 2: doing this anyway and you have no say on, IT
23:53
Speaker 2: i was, like this runs against, everything BECAUSE i think
23:56
Speaker 2: it's been pretty constitutional that parents have a primary role
24:01
Speaker 2: in the education and welfare of their. Kids AND i
24:04
Speaker 2: think that's all that the court underscored.
24:07
Speaker 3: Here, yeah, no, absolutely and you, know ultimately at that, age,
24:11
Speaker 3: right these are, minors these are our, youngins and the
24:15
Speaker 3: parents should have that. Say certainly they should be given the, option,
24:20
Speaker 3: Right and that's what this was, about this sort of opt.
24:22
Speaker 3: Out and you know those who if you look at,
24:26
Speaker 3: it it's not necessarily telling the schools that they can't
24:29
Speaker 3: have these books that have these, characters you, know in
24:33
Speaker 3: their reading. Portfolio it's it's saying that if a parent
24:37
Speaker 3: decides that they don't want their children to be reading,
24:40
Speaker 3: this you can't just tell, them, sorry you have no recourse.
24:44
Speaker 4: Here you got to.
24:45
Speaker 3: Take that into consideration because it's the constitutional, right the
24:49
Speaker 3: free exercise clause to really come in and say that
24:52
Speaker 3: for their.
24:52
Speaker 2: Job, well it touches on so many aspects of speech
24:55
Speaker 2: and faith and you know all the things that we
24:58
Speaker 2: hold dear from The First. Amendment all, right He's, Imron I'm.
25:01
Speaker 2: Kevin i'm coming right back with More Supreme. Court don't
25:03
Speaker 2: go work.
25:10
Speaker 4: What a little moonlight can.
25:12
Speaker 1: Do it's radio Night. Life Your's kevin. Mccollor welcome.
25:16
Speaker 2: Back It's, thursday and we're talking about The Supreme. Court
25:20
Speaker 2: we're talking about the kind of big cases that they
25:23
Speaker 2: touched on and imran this. Season there were some kind
25:26
Speaker 2: of long, time kind of established areas of law that
25:31
Speaker 2: were retouched, upon relooked. At we'd already touched on birthright,
25:36
Speaker 2: citizenship but there was one that a lot of people
25:39
Speaker 2: drew attention to that concerned itself With section two of
25:42
Speaker 2: The Voting Rights, act and it all stemmed from some
25:45
Speaker 2: redistricting that was going on In. Louisiana but The court
25:48
Speaker 2: ultimately decided one. Way what did they decide and what
25:51
Speaker 2: was the?
25:52
Speaker 3: Argument, sure so this dealt with redistricting In, louisiana and
25:58
Speaker 3: there was a claimed that the creation of a second
26:02
Speaker 3: majority minority congressional district violated the fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments
26:08
Speaker 3: of THE Us, constitution and that really was The Voting
26:14
Speaker 3: Rights act that was implicated here and the ability to
26:20
Speaker 3: redistrict certain areas based on or what could be perceived
26:25
Speaker 3: to be based on, race and certain minority majority.
26:29
Speaker 4: Districts In.
26:30
Speaker 3: Louisiana there was a six to three majority opinion that
26:35
Speaker 3: was written By Justice, alito and the court ruled That
26:40
Speaker 3: section two of The Voting Rights, act that was intended
26:44
Speaker 3: to protect the ability of racial minority voters to elect
26:47
Speaker 3: candidates of their, choice does not necessarily prohibit the creation
26:53
Speaker 3: of an electrical district that collectively limits or reduces minorities voting.
26:58
Speaker 4: Power. Right so.
27:01
Speaker 2: Really what they what they said was That section two
27:05
Speaker 2: can't be the basis to establish a race oriented. District
27:10
Speaker 2: so what they were trying to, SAY i If i'm
27:12
Speaker 2: IF i and If i'm wrong, correctly BUT i think
27:14
Speaker 2: what they were arguing, was, hey section two says, that you,
27:18
Speaker 2: know we've got to be sensitive, about you, know representation in,
27:22
Speaker 2: voting making sure everybody has the right to. Vote so
27:24
Speaker 2: therefore we should be able to create a second black
27:27
Speaker 2: majority district. Statewide that's that's this cobbled together by these you,
27:32
Speaker 2: know various districts that were kind of put, together and
27:35
Speaker 2: as a, result it would have created in, essence a
27:39
Speaker 2: racial bias towards how you could set up a. District
27:43
Speaker 2: AND i think that's Where alito, said this seems to
27:47
Speaker 2: have gone too, far because that's not what the Fourteenth amendment's.
27:50
Speaker 3: About, sure, well you, Know alito was really clarifying here
27:55
Speaker 3: That section two would apply in situation where there was
28:01
Speaker 3: an intentional, redrawing redistricting to afford minority voters less.
28:08
Speaker 4: Opportunity because of their.
28:10
Speaker 3: Race, right it's all hinging on intentional acts by the, State,
28:15
Speaker 3: Right but not in situations where the state may just
28:19
Speaker 3: be redistricting mainly on other non, racial non pretectual.
28:26
Speaker 4: Reasons.
28:26
Speaker 3: Right that was the key element, Here, right you'd have
28:29
Speaker 3: to show an intentional purpose with the redrawing of those voting.
28:37
Speaker 3: Districts what the dissenting minority opinion stated was that, then you,
28:45
Speaker 3: know after this, ruling a state may try to conjure
28:49
Speaker 3: up any sort of non pretectual reason and non discriminatory
28:55
Speaker 3: reason for why they have districted a certain area in
29:00
Speaker 3: terms of in face of a challenge under this. Section,
29:05
Speaker 3: Right so that's sort of the the counter argument that was.
29:10
Speaker 2: There it was a very interesting case from the, beginning
29:13
Speaker 2: very interesting to see how it all got. Argued and
29:16
Speaker 2: the reason it's significant is because elections, matter and you
29:19
Speaker 2: got to win elections in order in order to be
29:24
Speaker 2: able to make the changes that you want to. Take,
29:25
Speaker 2: now we just have a few minutes left for the
29:27
Speaker 2: very last, case and this involved transgender athletes in women's.
29:32
Speaker 2: Sports and this basically was a reltigation in the most
29:38
Speaker 2: literal sense Of title, nine like can you force boys
29:43
Speaker 2: into girls' locker rooms if the state says we don't
29:47
Speaker 2: want to do it that, way or if there are
29:49
Speaker 2: parents that advocate and get the political machine going that.
29:53
Speaker 2: Way and the court decided in this, case they decided
29:56
Speaker 2: on behalf of the.
29:57
Speaker 3: Girls, yeah, NO i, mean this was probably one of
30:00
Speaker 3: the most sort of interesting, uh and and watched. Decisions you,
30:05
Speaker 3: know we were anticipating because it was so. Controversial uh
30:11
Speaker 3: in terms of you, know, uh if you're looking at
30:15
Speaker 3: these certain news stories that have been coming out over
30:17
Speaker 3: the last few years where you have a transgendered athlete
30:22
Speaker 3: who sort of takes all the.
30:24
Speaker 4: Winning breaks all the records right, exactly.
30:26
Speaker 3: And swimming and, running we've seen this going on and
30:29
Speaker 3: it's really created an Out, uh an outpour of descent
30:33
Speaker 3: from those who, say you, know, listen it's just not
30:36
Speaker 3: right to have a transgendered woman or girl in sports
30:42
Speaker 3: competing against biological. Females you, know the advantage is just
30:46
Speaker 3: so skewed in favor of the transgendered individual that it's
30:50
Speaker 3: just you, know there's so many implications. Here, uh you
30:54
Speaker 3: know that makes it an unjust simply an unfair.
30:57
Speaker 2: PROCESS i was kind of sad to see that this
31:00
Speaker 2: had to go to The Supreme court to get finally.
31:02
Speaker 2: Decided this is the kind of thing because you say
31:05
Speaker 2: this is very. Controversial you know where this wasn't. Controversial
31:08
Speaker 2: if you Polled american fathers of, daughters they had there
31:13
Speaker 2: was almost one hundred percent non disagreement on this. Case
31:17
Speaker 2: if you pulled young daughters that are in sports across the,
31:21
Speaker 2: country you have almost one hundred. Percent this is like
31:24
Speaker 2: a ninety eight to two differential in terms of how
31:29
Speaker 2: It's but the media argued it as though it was
31:32
Speaker 2: discrimination against the. Transgender they argued that it, was you,
31:36
Speaker 2: know in some way prejudiced or biased or bigoted or
31:38
Speaker 2: all the. Rest All i'm thankful for is that my
31:41
Speaker 2: daughter won't have to have her locker. Room i'm sure
31:43
Speaker 2: you're satisfied with this. Too won't have to have their
31:46
Speaker 2: locker rooms harassed by biological males who should not be,
31:50
Speaker 2: there who just should not be, there, Right.
31:52
Speaker 4: Yeah, now and there's two sort of the analysis. Here.
31:56
Speaker 3: Right the decision was written by Just As, kavanaugh and
32:00
Speaker 3: there was two prongs of.
32:03
Speaker 4: Law, right you, know two areas of law that was in.
32:05
Speaker 3: Questionnaire it Was title, nine as you stated, before and
32:09
Speaker 3: also the Fourteenth.
32:11
Speaker 4: Amendment.
32:11
Speaker 3: Right they decided That title nine was a non issue
32:16
Speaker 3: right because it would not be violated because at the
32:19
Speaker 3: time When title nine was enacted in nineteen seventy, two
32:22
Speaker 3: in the law and the, statute they defined sex as
32:26
Speaker 3: being biological. Sex, Right so that's something that's not even
32:31
Speaker 3: triggered by this issue here before the.
32:35
Speaker 4: Court but then they.
32:37
Speaker 3: Found with the constitutional challenges here that these the government
32:42
Speaker 3: does have an interest in ensuring that females in sports
32:51
Speaker 3: are protected in some ways, right access and are.
32:54
Speaker 2: Not, yeah and they're not having to compete against men
32:57
Speaker 2: unfairly or be endangered by men unfairly in private. Spaces all,
33:02
Speaker 2: right got to take quick. Break esquire etiquette.
33:04
Speaker 3: Next.
33:11
Speaker 1: Once again From New. York Here's Radio Night life And kevin.
33:16
Speaker 1: McCullough all, right we're back final few. Minutes, imron thanks
33:25
Speaker 1: for being. HERE i know you've been really.
33:27
Speaker 2: Busy you've had a lot of court, cases but you
33:28
Speaker 2: also had a chance to get away with the. Family
33:30
Speaker 2: we always applaud that The Supreme court this. Season kind
33:35
Speaker 2: of your final thoughts on what the court brought.
33:38
Speaker 3: To, us, SURE i, mean you really see and again
33:42
Speaker 3: we talked about in the beginning about all the cases
33:44
Speaker 3: you don't necessarily hear about when there's a lot of
33:47
Speaker 3: actually you, know unification between both sides of the, bench
33:53
Speaker 3: if you, will on their, decisions, right and a lot
33:56
Speaker 3: of decisions that are unanimous in some. Ways but what
34:00
Speaker 3: you see and what we talked about are the ones
34:02
Speaker 3: that really fall on the two sides of the political spectrum. Also,
34:07
Speaker 3: right of, course you have the bench of The Supreme
34:10
Speaker 3: court analyzing these cases from a constitutional and legal, standpoint
34:18
Speaker 3: but of course you can't erase the fact that most
34:21
Speaker 3: of these decisions do fall between the conservative lines and
34:23
Speaker 3: the liberal. Lines so it's really interesting to see some
34:25
Speaker 3: of these real big decisions in this last term that
34:29
Speaker 3: really highlight that in many, ways you, know and you
34:32
Speaker 3: see a conservative, bench heare being somewhat protecting of the executive.
34:37
Speaker 3: BRANCH i think we're going to see that onwards going,
34:40
Speaker 3: forward and that's going to have reverberations for decades to, come,
34:45
Speaker 3: right you, know in terms of the way there's the
34:47
Speaker 3: separation powers and of course how the constitutional considerations are,
34:51
Speaker 3: seen as we saw with these decisions in the education
34:57
Speaker 3: of our children in the we didn't talk about, it
35:01
Speaker 3: but the tariff's case right in the way that you,
35:03
Speaker 3: know there's certain how trade is, affected the way the
35:09
Speaker 3: executive branch has controls on, agencies and there was THE ftc.
35:12
Speaker 3: Case i'm sort of like talking about the other cases
35:15
Speaker 3: we didn't.
35:16
Speaker 4: Get to touch.
35:16
Speaker 3: On but this whole you, know gamut of cases here
35:21
Speaker 3: are really showing how there is more of a conservative
35:24
Speaker 3: shift on the bench and how that's going to have
35:27
Speaker 3: in the interpretation of. Laws but, Again, kevin as we say,
35:30
Speaker 3: again there's also a lot of unity on that bench
35:34
Speaker 3: when dealing with more of the rudimentary day to day
35:37
Speaker 3: legal questions that we have to deal with in the
35:40
Speaker 3: practice of, law in the adjudication of cases that are
35:44
Speaker 3: not necessarily these big headline grabbing cases which are certainly,
35:48
Speaker 3: important but those cases are important.
35:50
Speaker 2: TOO i thought it was. Interesting i'm an. ORIGINALIST i
35:54
Speaker 2: like the. LANGUAGE i thought, that you, know in all
35:56
Speaker 2: of our celebration of two fifty, one THING i learned
35:59
Speaker 2: about The constitution was, that you, know obviously we weren't.
36:03
Speaker 2: Perfect slavery was not. Solved there were issues that we
36:06
Speaker 2: still didn't even live up to our ideals that we
36:08
Speaker 2: were putting forward into our founding. Documents but The constitution
36:12
Speaker 2: itself is an amazing. Document And madison when he wrote,
36:16
Speaker 2: it wrote in ways for us to correct original, sins
36:20
Speaker 2: he wrote in ways for us to get things right
36:22
Speaker 2: that we earlier got. Wrong and as a, NATION i
36:25
Speaker 2: just don't know of another country that has such a
36:29
Speaker 2: tool that has founded them from the. Beginning and it's pretty.
36:31
Speaker 3: Cool, yeah, no, Absolutely and you, know and that's what's
36:34
Speaker 3: really great to see when you get these. Decisions first of,
36:38
Speaker 3: all there's a lot of people who are sort Of
36:40
Speaker 3: Supreme court junkies out, there and the, scotis you, know
36:44
Speaker 3: decisions and wait for the decisions to come.
36:46
Speaker 4: Down but it's.
36:47
Speaker 3: Always interesting to see the interplay between the justices and
36:52
Speaker 3: really have the laws being interpreted at the most highest
36:55
Speaker 3: level in our.
36:56
Speaker 2: Country all, right that's it for. Tonight. Friends we will
36:59
Speaker 2: talk to you again next. Time ras