PETE BUTTIGIEG THREATENS THE SUPREME COURT AFTER VOTING RIGHTS RULING

[00:00:00]these little history nuggets that get lost, but they're extra constitutional.

[00:00:04]They're they're very against what the foundations of the of American society. Uh and so so it's good that the Roberts Court is actually addressing these things, but obviously progressives are losing their minds about it. But I it's so important that the that that our audience understands the history of how we got here and what it's going to take to correct a historic wrong. I'm going to play a clip from Pete Buttigieg Edge and get your reaction to it on the other side. 33.

[00:00:33]>> We have to deal with the Supreme Court that is now a rogue Supreme Court.

[00:00:41]To see them eviscerate the Voting Rights Act is to see them reverse some of the most important progress this country ever made.

[00:00:52]Wiping out black political representation, but also wiping out part of what actually is great within the complex American story.

[00:01:01]>> Okay. So now now you see what's happening here. It's not just delegitimizing the juries.

[00:01:08]It's not just delegitimizing a verdict in a very clear case in involving Carmelo Anthony and Austin Metcalfe. Now we got to talk about the Supreme Court. We're going to pack it.

[00:01:19]We're going to we're going to do everything we can to get our way politically and ideologically. What do you make of that clip from Pete Buttigieg Edge?

[00:01:28]>> Well, I just read today that the Trump administration is really taking on the disparate impact standard of discrimination. That's really what all this voting rights controversy is about. The idea that enforcing the 14th and the 15th Amendment is about racial proportionalism. That that we assume there's discrimination unless blacks or whoever are represented in proportion to their percentage of the population in every field of human life. And the reconstruction amendments were never meant to do that. Uh Congress overstepped its bounds, I think, in uh Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and in the Voting Rights Act. And the court went along with that in the 1960s and and '70s. And now the Roberts Court is beginning to, I think, contain some of these uh excessive interpretations of the Reconstruction Amendments. So, the court is, I think, right now trying to undo some of the the bad decisions that it made in the past. And I think they're completely completely right for them to do that.

[00:02:29]>> I I love what you just said, Dr. Moreno, for a number of reasons. Namely, Charlie felt the same way. I mean, Charlie was very Charlie said it very bluntly that he thought that some of the Civil Rights Act was a mistake. And he took a bunch of incoming for it. It's not that he didn't, you know, support the intent, but what he was talking about was this excessive, maybe language within the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act that they're correcting now. But talk about a little bit more detail, cuz I really want the audience to absorb this.

[00:03:01]Disparate impact.

[00:03:03]What is it?

[00:03:04]And why is why has it been misinterpreted? And then you said Section 7 of the Civil Rights Act unpack that a little bit more.

[00:03:12]>> Yeah, because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a long bill.

[00:03:16]Section 2 almost nobody would have any argument with. That was about segregation, you know, Jim Crow in places of public accommodation.

[00:03:22]>> Yeah, but can I pause you right there?

[00:03:23]Can I pause you right there? This is what happens in this argument.

[00:03:27]If you criticize anything within the Civil Rights Act, they go, "Oh, what do you want, segregation again? Do you want Jim Crow?" No, no, no, no, no. We're not talking about Section 2.

[00:03:37]It's a big old bill. So, let's be very specific. Continue. Sorry, I just had to make I just had to >> Right.

[00:03:42]E- Exactly. And that was the most controversial part of the Civil Rights Act. And that's what most people thought the Civil Rights Movement was all about.

[00:03:49]Title VII is about employment and private discrimination. It wasn't part of President Kennedy's original proposal for the Civil Rights bill. It was put in by by congressional liberals.

[00:03:59]And there you can see you can make a constitutional argument that that really goes beyond Congress's power to regulate commerce among the states.

[00:04:07]But even if you accept that justification for Title VII, the idea that discrimination is proved on the basis of statistical disparity. This is the disparate impact standard. That is just, you know, I think a bridge too far. Because when the Civil Rights Act was being debated, almost everybody said discrimination is defined here as it was always understood, an intentional act treating somebody differently on the basis of their race. And now it has become not about individuals, not about treatment. It's become about equal group outcomes.

[00:04:39]Justice Scalia referred to the interpretation of the Voting Rights Act as a a racial entitlement to a certain proportion of of elected officials.

[00:04:49]>> It's so important what you're saying.

[00:04:50]And I what what you just said is really important. I remember reading about this a lot with in Christopher Caldwell's book, Age of Entitlement.

[00:04:58]And he, you know, so let's just lay the timeline out here. JFK gets assassinated November 22nd, 1963.

[00:05:06]And he was working on a version of the Civil Rights Act. So he gets assassinated, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by Congress and signed into law on July 2nd, 1964.

[00:05:19]So about, let's say, 7 months later.

[00:05:23]About 7 months later it's signed into law. And Lyndon B. Johnson, I mean, this was a huge initial effort for him to win black support, to sort of, you know, and he they pitched to the country a mourning country, a devastated country, as a way to sort of fulfill JFK's memory and legacy. But it it ballooned and you made [clears throat] that point that it was liberals within the Congress, the progressives in the Congress, that packed it full of all these other things that weren't originally part of his vision.

[00:05:51]Namely, Section 7.

[00:05:53]With this proportionate representation, proportionate proportional entitlement.

[00:05:57]These are these little history nuggets that get lost, but they're extra-constitutional.

[00:06:02]They're they're very against what the foundations of the of American society. Uh and so so it's good that the Roberts Court is actually addressing these things, but obviously progressives are losing their minds about it. But I it's so important that the the that our audience understands the history of how we got here, and what it's going to take to correct a historic wrong. Uh final 30 seconds to you, sir.

[00:06:26]>> Yes, in fact, that goes back to um cuz John F. Kennedy was very reluctant about taking on the civil rights issue because southern or southern segregationists were sort of the the core of the Democratic Party. They chaired all the important committees in Congress. So, Kennedy was like this, FDR was like this before him. Uh but Johnson was able to turn JFK into a sort of a martyr for the Civil Rights Bill. Uh he really played played it politically uh very deftly, and was able to break the Senate filibuster. And back then, the filibuster was uh 2/3 majority required uh to end debate. So, you're right, the assassination of John F. Kennedy really was the turning point, but that that event had to be, you know, told in a certain way to sell the correction.

[00:07:07]>> Dr. Moreno, this was excellent. Thank you so so much for making the time. I hope our audience got a lot out of that.

[00:07:13]Uh Hillsdale College is the best.

[00:07:15]Charlie for Hillsdale, check it out.

[00:07:17]Ask us anything comes up [music] here.