Recent & Future Right Wing Judicial Travesties | Mark Joseph Stern | TMR

Sam hosts Mark Joseph Stern, senior writer at Slate, to discuss the recent opening arguments that have come in front of the Supreme Court. Mark Joseph Stern joins as he dives right into the joint affirmative action case being taken against Harvard and UNC, walking through why – despite it supposedly hinging on the 14th Amendment – the majority of the arguments and discussion has been conservative racial aggrievement about policy, with the legal theory coming from the more liberal judges while still appreciating policy impact. Next, Mark parses through Haaland v. Brackeen, the upcoming Supreme Court case that ostensibly deals with states’ rights to lay claim to native children living on reservations, and the larger impact of weakening the rights of reservations and their laws in the eyes of the US courts, opening it up to exploitation by both the state and corporation, also drawing a parallel to Georgia’s treatment of indigenous peoples in the lead up to the Indian Removal Act. Mark Joseph Stern and Sam also tackle the optimism for the Talevski v. Health and Hospital Corporation case and the future of people’s right to have federal protections enforced, before wrapping up with the continued investigation into the Roe leaks.

Watch the Majority Report live MondayFriday at 12 p.m. EST on YouTube OR listen via daily podcast at

#SamSeder #EmmaVigeland #MajorityReport #politics #news #progressive #leftist #democrats #liberal

SUPPORT the show by becoming a member

Download TMR's FREE app

CHECK OUT MORE from the MR crew:

Matt Binder DOOMED

Brandon Sutton DISCOURSE

Emma Vigeland ESVN

Matt Lech LEFT RECKONING

OTHER LINKS:

Check out more from the MR crew:

Matt Binder DOOMED

Brandon Sutton THE DISCOURSE

Emma Vigeland ESVN

Matt Lech LEFT RECKONING

Image Credit, wp paarz

Image has been cropped and color has been altered.

Welcoming back to the program. Been here many times. Mark Joseph Sterns senior writer at Slate focuses on the courts. and Mark welcome. I feel like we're gonna be doing this like with just such a wide range of cases throughout the next I don't know maybe I mean God willing we'll be doing this for the next 15 to 20 years. I mean or I should say God willing that we'll be able to do this but maybe we won't have to if. But all right let's just start with let's start with the affirmative action case that took place now I guess two weeks ago maybe or at least the oral arguments. These are two different cases: One is the University of North Carolina and one is Harvard. Both of them in these instances are the defendants. And they were brought together because some of the issues are similar. And we should say KBJ had to recuse herself I think for the Harvard one, not the North Carolina one. because she had sat on the subsidiary court that had had had first heard it and before it came to the Supreme Court as far as I recall. it's actually that she sat on some board at Harvard. because she had a professional connection there. so she felt she had to recuse. that's the kind of ethical standard that someone like Clarence Thomas couldn't possibly understand. it really does feel like that's like I mean there is there are really different standards. and one wonders you know I mean I I appreciate that she's exercising that. maybe it does like just shame him slightly. but I doubt that. I don't think he's capable of Shame. all right well so walk us through like there has been a long-standing precedent for the existence of affirmative action which essentially arose in the wake of the Civil Rights fights in the mid-60s where there became an awareness that like we need diversity, particularly in colleges.