►
From YouTube: Supreme Court Preview
Description
Hear which cases SCOTUS will consider from the State and Local Legal Center’s Lisa Soronen, as well as the impact of the court vacancy with the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
A
A
She
is
the
executive
director
for
the
state
and
local
legal
center,
the
state
and
local
legal
center
or
sllc
files.
Amicus
briefs
on
behalf
of
the
seven
national
associations
that
represent
state
and
local
elected
officials,
ncsl
being
one
of
them
and
without
further
ado,
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
turn
it
over
to
lisa.
She's
got
a
very,
very
thorough
presentation
on
what
we
can
look
forward
to
this
year
in
the
supreme
court.
We
have
a
new
justice
coming
on
board
and
lots
of
interesting
cases,
so
lisa.
B
A
B
Thank
you,
susan
and
hello,
everyone
what
an
auspicious
time
to
be
talking
about
the
supreme
court.
I
feel
that
I
should
almost
turn
my
paycheck
back
in
for
this
week,
because
it's
such
a
pleasure
to
be
able
to
talk
about
the
court
at
this
particular
moment
in
time.
So
I'm
going
to
cover
a
lot
of
topics
today
in
a
short
amount
of
time,
because
there
is
just
a
lot
going
on,
but
I
absolutely
set
aside
a
time
for
questions
because
I
imagine
there
might
be
many
with
what's
going
on.
B
So,
as
many
of
you
probably
know,
in
the
last
couple
of
years,
two
movies
came
out
about
her
life.
One
was
a
hollywood
movie
and
one
was
a
biography,
and
I
saw
the
hollywood
movie
about
18
months
ago.
I'm
not
a
crier,
I'm
an
entj.
We
don't
have
very
many
emotions,
and
I
haven't
cried
since,
and
I
cried
the
entire
way
home,
because
my
mom's
turning
80
next
week
and
she
and
justice
ginsburg-
are
women
of
the
same
generation
and
to
sort
of
succeed.
B
What
she
went
through
personally
and
professionally
arguing
six
cases
about
gender
discrimination
before
the
supreme
court
she's
just
a
remarkable.
She
just
had
a
remarkable
life.
She,
of
course,
will
be
most
famous
for
her
descents,
of
which
there
were
many
I
mean
imagine
being
on
the
supreme
court
for
25
30
years
and
never
being
in
the
majority.
Hardly
ever
in
big
cases.
It
must
have
been
hard.
B
Most
americans
cannot
name
a
supreme
court
justice
and
her
death
will
only
make
that
worse,
because
if
they
could
name
a
supreme
court
justice,
it
was
most
definitely
her.
So
in
terms
of
her
for
state
legislatures,
all
supreme
court
justices
are
a
mixed
bag,
they're
good
in
some
cases,
they're
bad.
In
other
cases
you
know,
like
I
said,
justice
ginsburg
will
be
remembered
as
a
liberal
as
a
defender
of
abortion
as
a
feminist
and
those
sort
of
things.
B
But
from
my
perspective
I
very
much
saw
her
as
a
pragmatist
and
always
hoped
she
was
thinking
in
a
pragmatic
way
when
she
looked
at
the
cases
where
the
state
local
legal
center
filed
an
amicus
brief.
I
have
three
cases
on
the
screen
where
I
can
talk
about
her,
making
a
difference
because
of
time,
I'm
only
going
to
talk
about
two
of
them,
but
the
first
one
is
south
dakota
versus
wayfarer.
Probably
everyone
on
the
line
has
some
familiarity
with
this
decision.
B
It's
only
a
handful
of
years
old
and
in
this
case
the
court
held
5-4
and
that's
really
important.
That
states
could
require
out-of-state
vendors
to
collect
sales
tax
and
providing
the
fifth
vote
was
justice
ginsburg
joining
her
more
conservative
colleagues.
So
here's
the
word
on
the
street.
This
decision
was
one
of
justice,
kennedy's
last
decisions,
so
everyone
knew
he
was
going
to
leave
the
court
on
the
court
and
the
liberal
justices
were
very
nervous
about
him
being
replaced
again.
Like
I
said
it's
just
the
word
on
the
street.
B
We
don't
know
if
this
is
really
true,
so
the
liberal
justices
were
uncomfortable
with
the
idea
of
siding
with
the
state
of
south
dakota,
because
it
meant
overturning
presta
and
roe
versus
wade
means
a
lot
to
the
liberals
and
they
didn't
want
to
be
on
record.
You
know,
with
justice
kenny,
leaving
voting
to
overturn
any
precedent,
but
justice
ginsburg
being
more
pragmatic
was
like
this
is
a
bad
decision
or
you
know
the
previous
decision
and
it
just
needs
to
be
overturned,
and
so
I'm
gonna
overturn
it.
B
I'm
not
gonna
worry,
you
know
come
what
may
so.
I
think
that
case,
like
I
said,
really
sort
of
illustrates
her
pragmatism.
The
second
case
is
gobe
versus
liberty.
Mutual.
This
was
an
erisa
preemption
case.
It
involved
states
gathering
data
on
health
insurance
like
how
much
heart
procedure
costs
at
one
hospital,
how
much
it
costs
in
another
and
the
court
held.
B
I
think
it
was
7263
that
orisa
preempted
the
state
statute
and
this
state
locally,
a
center
filed
amnesty
and
we
had
said
you
know,
states
need
this
data
because
they
can
direct
people
to
like
the
hospital.
That's
way
cheaper
to
get
help
to
get
a
heart
surgery
and
justice
ginsburg
had
emphatically
you
know
she
was.
She
was
in
descent.
B
She
emphatically
wrote
about
our
brief
cited
to
a
couple
times,
and
the
other
thing
for
me
just
personally
was
that
when
that
this
brief
had
been
drafted,
the
the
writer
knew
the
subject
matter
very
well,
but
didn't
do
a
good
job.
Putting
the
brief
together-
and
I
had
very
small
children
at
the
time-
and
I
was
on
vacation
with
them
so
every
weekend
or
every
nap
every
evening
was
done.
B
So
here's
another
interesting
thing
to
think
about
the
court
denied
a
review
of
two
sets
of
cases.
If
you
will,
right
before
it
went
on
recess
in
july,
the
first
set
of
cases
involving
involved,
qualified
immunity,
a
bunch
of
petitions
were
for
were
were
teed
up
to
overturn
the
doctrine
and
nine
or
eleven
a
large
number.
B
The
court
denied
all
those
petitions,
then
more
significantly,
the
court
had
again
just
said
a
huge
number
of
gun
petitions
and
four
justices
have
been
on
the
record
saying
they
want
to
hear
a
gun
case,
which
is
enough
to
hear
a
gun
case,
cert
denied,
so
no
qualified
immunity
meal
guns-
and
you
know
there
are
different
theories
as
to
why
this
happened.
One
of
the
theories,
though,
is
that
the
justices
knew
that
justice
ginsburg's
death
was
eminent
and
they
didn't.
B
They
didn't
know
what
was
going
to
happen
with
the
new
justice
and
they
didn't
want
to
put
the
new
justice
on
the
spot
to
tackle
these
really
difficult
issues.
So
that's
another
kind
of
interesting
implication
of
her
death.
But
let's
talk
about
the
big
picture
overall
trend,
what
does
justice
justice,
ginsburg
dying,
mean
and
being
replaced
by
not
just
any
coney
barrett
but
by
any
conservative
adam
look
doc
for
many
of
you
who
have
heard
me
before.
I
don't
know.
B
If
I
could
do
a
presentation
without
an
animal
attack
quote
he's
from
the
new
york
times.
He
said
that
she
will
move
the
court.
This
is
amy
coney
barrett
slightly,
but
firmly
to
the
right
making
compromise
less
likely.
This
is
what
I
totally
agree
with.
Some
of
you
might
say
how
come
only
slightly
well.
Justice
roberts
is
pretty
conservative.
B
You
know
most
of
the
time
also.
I
think
it's
important
to
highlight
the
fact,
as
always,
that
most
of
the
supreme
court's
cases
are
not
decided
on
five
four
ideological
lines.
So
most
cases
don't
involve.
You
know
this
epic
struggle
between
conservative
and
liberal
justices
in
the
time
that
I've
had
this
job.
B
I
can
think
of
two
big
cases
and
only
two
big
cases
that
weren't
five
four,
so
most
big
cases
are
five
four,
but
there's
only
maybe
three
four
or
five
big
cases
every
term
and
there's
70
cases
that
aren't
big
where
that
ideological
divide
doesn't
make
so
much
of
a
difference.
So
for
those
of
you,
close
court
watchers
and
for
anyone
who's
been
watching.
B
The
news
lately
you've
been
inundated
with
this
last
term
was
supposed
to
be
the
first
term
where
we
had
five
real
conservative
justices
and
gone
were
the
unreliable
conservative
justices,
so
I
have
them
on
the
screen
powell
around
the
time
that
I
was
born.
I
grew
up
with
justice
o'connor,
of
course,
and
then
I
spent
a
lot
of
my
legal
career
focused
on
justice
kennedy.
B
They
were
all
gone
off
the
court,
but
of
course
I
have
many
asterisks
here,
because
people
wondered
how
reliable
of
a
conservative
that
justice
roberts
would
be.
What
did
he
do
last
term?
Well,
he
voted
with
the
liberals,
not
once
not
twice
but
three
times
some
big
cases.
Now
I
will
remind
you.
There
were
many
many
big
cases
probably
case.
We
could
call
five
or
six
big
cases,
but
still
half
the
time
in
some
pretty
big
cases.
He
was
joining
his
liberal
colleagues,
the
most
prevalent
theory
on
why
he
did.
B
This
was,
of
course,
for
the
supreme
court
institution.
If
you
know
liberals
and
conservatives
sort
of
switch
sides
in
big
cases,
it
illustrates
that
the
court
isn't
all
that
political,
that's
the
going
theory.
The
counter
theory
which
I've
mentioned
before,
of
course,
is
the
idea
that
justice
roberts
might
have
been
wanting
to
take
the
pressure
of
the
supreme
court
off
the
election.
B
Of
course
that
did
not
work
for
him,
but
he
didn't
know
that
in
july.
So
let's
say
he
really
was
doing
what
most
people
think
he
was
doing,
which
is
trying
to
be
a
justice
for
the
institution
it
paid
off
and
it
paid
off
in
spades.
Look
at
these
numbers.
People
haven't
approved
the
supreme
court.
This
is
taken
in
august.
2020.
B
people
haven't
approved
of
the
supreme
court.
This
much
since
2009.
what
happened
shortly
after
2009
say
it
together.
Citizens,
united
and
look
at
the
democrat
number
56
percent
of
democrats
were
happy
with
the
supreme
court.
Now
now
mind
you,
some
of
those
democrats
are
gonna,
have
lower
expectations
than
republicans,
but
those
numbers
are
awesome
and
then
justice,
ginsburg
died
and
the
pictures
sort
of
change.
B
So
this
time
it's
going
to
be
for
real
this
time.
It's
not
going
to
be
lisa,
saying
oh,
the
car,
it's
going
conservative
and
it's
not
going
to
happen
this
time.
It's
really
going
to
happen.
I
mean
I
don't
think
anyone
thinks
it's
not
going
to
happen.
So
what
that
means
is
that
we'll
have
a
sixth
report
in
the
big
controversial
cases,
justice
kavanaugh
will
become
now.
B
The
center
judge
he
and
justice
gorsuch
have
not
done
much
swinging
in
the
last
couple
of
years,
and
this
is
very
important
so
far
in
all
the
big
cases
that
he
sat
in
every
single
one,
justice
kavanaugh
has
voted
with
the
conservatives,
so
I
want
to
just
give
a
moment
on
justice,
gorsuch
and
justice
kavanaugh,
because
we
are
still
getting
to
know
them.
Last
term
was
justice
kavanaugh's
first
term,
and
they
are
very
different.
B
They
are
very
different
justices,
but
the
one
that
strayed
it
was
justice
gorsuch
and
he
strayed
in
the
sexual
orientation
and
gender
identity
employment
case.
So
gorsuch
is
more
of
the
scalia
thomas
and
alito
elk
he's
the
textualism
and
the
originalism
guy
he's
idiosyncratic,
and
I
I
cannot
pretend
that
I
understand
all
his
idiosyncrasies
and
I
think
if
someone
claimed
they
could
I'd,
be
very
curious
to
hear
what
they
have
to
say
about
it.
B
B
Another
interesting
thing
was
it
made
the
news
when
justice
kennedy,
I'm
sorry,
justice,
alito
and
justice
thomas
criticized
the
same-sex
marriage
decision.
He
didn't
join
that
even
though,
like
I
said,
he's
kind
of
of
their
ilk,
so
I
the
jury's
not
out
for
me
and
justice,
justice,
garcia
she's,
just
someone
I
feel
like
I
have
to
know
better.
B
I
still
think,
even
though
justice
kavanaugh's
record,
this
term
might
have
been
more
conservative
than
justice.
Gorsuch's,
I
still
think
he's
more
a
robertson
kennedy
kind
of
guy
every
oral
argument,
every
oral
argument.
He
asks
about
the
practical
implications
of
the
case,
which
of
course
warms
my
heart,
because
I'm
filing
briefs
about
the
practical
implications
of
the
case.
In
fact,
just
this
term,
he
literally
quoted
a
state
local
center
brief
in
asking
a
question
on
the
practical
implications
of
the
case
so
like
that
is
a
part
of
who
he
is.
B
He
also
is
very
concerned,
and
maybe
this
is
who
he
would
have
been
before
the
confirmation
hearings
about
striking
a
different
tone
than
the
conservatives
in
title
seven
and
in
the
daca
case,
and
he
kind
of
said
things
like
yeah,
I
mean,
of
course,
gay
people
should
be
covered
by
employment
laws,
but
that's
not
our
job.
It's
congress's
job
and
you
know
daca,
is
wonderful,
but
that
it's
not
my
job
to
say
it's
wonderful,
it's
to
say
whether
it's
lawful
or
not,
or
whether
it
can
be
dismantled
in
this
way.
B
So
his
first
term
was
a
partial
term
there.
He
really
stuck
with
the
chief
and
seemed
to
be
not
more
liberal
but
seemed
to
be
more
moderate,
but
last
term
was
his
first
full
term
news,
conservative
sort
of
all
the
way,
but
again
he's
been
on
the
court
for
a
year.
I
mean
the
jury
is
just
not
out
about
it's
just
not
out
about
this.
B
So
I
try
to
include
one
picture
in
all
my
presentations,
because
my
husband
says
I
should
include
one
picture
in
every
single
slide,
so
I
I
give
that
to
him.
So
this
onion
article
is,
you
know,
justice
or
president
obama,
trying
to
convince
justice
ginsburg
to
die.
When
he's
president-
and
you
know
one
of
the
ways
the
article
suggests
is
that
she
would
throw
herselves
out
to
wolves
and
just
let
them
consume
her
anyway.
It's
sort
of
a
funny
article,
but
it's
only
funny,
like
you
know,
she's
been
dead
for
a
while.
B
We've
had
a
little
bit
time
for
the
time
to
settle.
There's
a
lot
of
liberals
who,
after
time
is
settled,
are
very
angry
about
the
fact
that
she
did
not
leave
the
court
and
there's
a
couple
theories
as
to
why
one
is
that,
like
most
americans,
she
thought
hillary
clinton
was
going
to
win
and
that
she's
going
to
leave
in
the
the
clinton
years
on
the
second
one
she's
an
absolute
workaholic,
I
mean
you
couldn't
have
the
job
she
did
without
being
one,
but
she
kind
of
took
it
to
the
next
level.
B
So
what
that
means
is
that,
if
he's
not
in
the
majority,
someone
else
gets
to
sign
the
opinion
and
that
someone
would
be
the
most
senior
justice.
So
I'll.
Just
give
you
an
example.
A
couple
years
ago
the
court
decided
an
abortion
case.
Justice
roberts
was
not
in
the
majority
and
justice
kennedy
was.
He
was
the
just
the
the
justice
with
the
most
seniority
in
the
majority
he
assigned
the
opinion
to
justice
breyer
which,
quite
frankly,
is
probably
what
I
would
have
done
and
justice
ginsburg
word
on.
B
B
So
I
mean
you
know,
I
I
think,
like
liberals
love
justice,
ginsburg
enough
that
they're
willing
to
overlook
her,
not
leaving,
but
it
is,
you
know
it
will
probably
always
be
somewhat
of
a
sore
spot.
So
what
does
justice
ginsburg
dying
and
being
replaced
by
a
conservative
mean
for
the
chief
justice?
I
actually
think
it
means
a
lot.
So
the
first
thing
it
means
is
that
he
can
no
longer
save
the
institution.
B
By
voting
with
the
left
in
big
controversial
cases,
I
mean
he
can
still
vote
with
the
left,
but
it's
not
going
to
make
any
difference.
The
other
thing,
too
is
he
can
no
longer
signal
to
his
more
conservative
colleagues
like
hey,
let's
not
take
this
issue
because
I'm
not
sure
where
I'm
at
with
it.
Everyone
believes
that's,
what's
happened
with
guns.
Is
that
he's
told
the
court
or
the
the
more
conservative
justices,
I'm
just
not
there
yet,
and
this
is
the
most
important
thing
and.
A
B
Is
the
thing
that
matters
to
him
I
think
the
most
he
can
no
longer
control
the
pace
that
his
conservative
colleagues
want
to
move
at
and
I'll
give
you
a
great
example.
So
when
I
can't
remember
if
it's
kavanaugh
or
gorsuch
joined
the
bench,
people
are
like,
oh,
my
gosh
versus
waiters
can
be
overturned.
It's
going
to
overturn
the
next
five
minutes.
B
There
are
a
lot
of
people
that
believe
that
the
chief
may
ultimately
be
willing
to
vote
in
that
way,
but
no
one
that
follows
the
court
closely
thought
he
wanted
to
do
it
anytime
soon,
and
that
is
something
that
means
a
lot
to
him.
Is
the
ability
to
control
the
pace
and
that
party
is
over
is
over
for
him,
so
people
have
wondered:
will
he
dissent
for
institutional
reasons?
Will
he
in
some
instances
join
the
liberals?
B
I
think
that
he
rarely
will
if
ever-
and
I
think
this
is
why
his
defense
will
make
no
practical
difference.
No
one
will
thank
him
or
congratulate
him
for
being
the
fourth
vote
when
it
takes
five
to
win.
I
also
think
too,
like
this
is
the
common
theme
in
this.
If
he
stays
the
majority,
he
controls
the
writer
of
the
case
any
or
writer
of
the
opinion,
and
you
may
think,
oh
that
doesn't
make
that
much
difference.
There
are
cases
when
it
makes
all
the
difference.
B
There's
a
famous
case,
at
least
for
local
governments,
in
particular,
called
reid
versus
town
of
gilbert.
It's
about
five
years
old,
no
other
justice
other
than
justice
thomas,
would
have
written
the
opinion
the
way
he
did
so
that
is
a
power
that
the
chief
is
not
going
to
give
up
lightly
and
and
not,
and
not
just
give
up
for
nothing.
So
personally
what
I
wanted
to
see
happen,
I
knew
justice.
Ginsburg
wasn't
going
to
be
on
the
court
forever.
Justice
breyer
also
is,
I
think,
81,
maybe
even
82.
B
I
wanted
that
so
badly.
I
could
almost
taste
it
and
it's
gone
whatever
he
decides
to
do
an
affirmative
action.
It's
not
gonna,
make
much
difference
going
on
in
the
future,
so
for
court
watchers.
I
think
that's
that's
an
interesting
thing.
So
another
interesting
question
I
think
to
ask
ourselves
is:
is
the
63
conservative
court
what
the
chief
justice
wants?
I
think
that's
the
same
thing
as
asking
the
question
of:
is
he
more
of
a
conservative
or
more
of
an
institutionalist?
B
B
So
you
have
to
think
about
that
as
he's,
if
you,
if
you
think
about
him,
processing
his
own
role
so
until
october
of
2020,
which
is
right
now.
I
have
never
given
formal
remarks
on
on
court
reform
and
the
reason
I
did
I
would
at
people
ask
me
questions
about
it
all
the
time,
but
I
I
never
put
it
in
a
presentation,
and
there
are
a
couple
reasons
why,
if
you
read
the
soul
of
america
by
john
meacham,
he
talks
about
what
really
happened
during
roosevelt's
time
and
what
most
people
don't
realize
is
this.
B
B
I
also
don't
really
see
it
as
likely,
but
I
still
think
it's
mainstream.
So
I
think
that
is
a
reason
to
talk
about
it.
I
also
think
you
know
democrats
like
I
said,
for
the
source
of
pride.
If
nothing
else
may
be
interested
in
trying
to
do
something
like
I
understand
that,
I
also
think
too,
it's
really
important
to
realize
this.
No
one
wants
a
16
year
old
on
the
supreme
court.
No
one
wants
a
25
year
old.
B
No
one
wants
a
36
year
old,
someone
once
said:
you
want
a
justice
who
has
definitely
gone
through
a
midlife
crisis.
First,
and
my
point
is
to
say
this:
there
always
will
be
generation
gaps
with
the
supreme
court.
That's
just
the
way
it
is,
and
so
I
wonder
if
we
have
a
more
conservative
court
like
how
younger
generations
will
perceive
that
more
conservative
court
making.
Maybe
this
court
reform
more
attractive
of
a
topic.
B
So
here's
the
most
interesting
thing
I
think,
and
the
most
worthwhile
thing
when
you
think
about
court
reform
to
think
about.
So
is
it
a
solution
in
search
of
a
problem
so
paul
clement
who's?
A
solicitor
general
under
george
bush
for
many
years,
was
asked
to
address
this
question,
and
this
is
the
answer
he
gave
and
I
think
it's
sort
of
brilliant.
B
If
you
think
about
this,
when
the
constitution
was
formed,
did
it
make
sense
to
just
have
new
justices
whenever
people
died
or
retired
and
paul's
answer
was
probably
yes,
but
it
really
kind
of
doesn't
make
any
sense
now.
So
what's
changed
between
the
1700s
and
now
well,
the
biggest
thing
that's
changed
is
margaret
versus
madison
judicial
review.
The
original
supreme
court
couldn't
strike
down
laws,
that's
unconstitutional,
but
this
one
can.
B
He
never
in
his
wildest
dreams,
could
imagine
a
government
as
big
and
as
sophisticated
as
the
one
we
have
now.
So
no
government
was
seen
as
big
as
what
we
have,
but
I
think
most
importantly,
is
this
sort
of
factor,
but
this
is
very
relevant
today
as
well.
I
think
that
the
supreme
court
justices-
I
mean
sorry,
the
founders
envisioned
a
legislature
that
was
much
more
active,
vibrant
and
functional
than
the
legislature
we
have
today.
B
The
supreme
court
has
filled
in
a
gap
essentially
because
it's
been
allowed
to
and
because
we
need
decisions
on
these
crucial
things,
and
I
don't
think
for
a
second
that
any
of
our
founders
imagined
a
court
as
vibrant
and
as
active
as
the
one
that
we
have,
and
we
don't
have
to
have
a
court
that
way
now.
So,
if
you're
really
interested
in
this
topic,
I
highly
recommend
just
googling
supreme
court
reform,
there's
an
organization
that
has
nine
different
items
of
reform,
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
all
of
them.
B
I
I'm
just
going
to
talk
briefly
about
two.
Obviously
the
one
that's
been
in
all
the
debates,
joe
biden
can't
run
fast
enough
away
from
trying
to
have
to
answer
this
question
is:
is
he
interested
in
adding
seats
to
the
supreme
court?
This
is
popular,
as
you
all
know,
like
the
court
has
had
more
or
less
seats
over
time.
It
could
be
done
by
statute.
We
currently
have
a
statute
that
says:
there's
nine
justices.
B
I
personally
am
a
fan
of
18
and
out,
but
18
and
out
has
its
own
problems.
So
18
and
out
is
like
you
get
a
seat
for
18
years
and
then
you
leave
and
what's
really
good
about
it
is
it
creates
a
certain
amount
of
regularity
like
every
president,
has
two
seats
and
that's
it
unless
someone
would
die.
There's
some
controversy
over
whether
this
can
be
done
by
statute.
I
personally
don't
think
it
can
so
the
constitution
basically
says
judges
serve
on
good
behavior.
B
It
doesn't
say
on
good
behavior
and
for
18
years
and
remember
if,
like
this
was
made
law,
it
would
be
the
supreme
court
deciding
whether
or
not
it
could
be.
That
could
be
the
law.
So
it's
kind
of
interesting
as
well.
There's
also
like
a
couple
problems
with
this
scheme.
There
would
be
no
effect
for
a
really
long
time,
because
at
least
the
proposal
in
congress
right
now
would
keep
all
the
justices
that
are
currently
there.
B
So
imagine
this
like
we
do
18
and
out,
but
40
years
later,
judge
amy,
coney,
barrett
is
or
justice
amy
beer
is
still
on.
The
supreme
court
would
be
kind
of
strange,
and
even
if
the
court,
or
even
if
camera
said
that's
it,
everyone's
seat
is
done.
Whenever
we
say
it's
done,
it
would
still
take
18
years
for
this
to
get
in
effect,
because
it
would
take
time
to
cycle
through
all
these
new
justices.
B
B
First,
I'm
going
to
start
with
personally
and
professionally
so
she's,
not
an
ivy
leaguer
she's,
not
an
east
coaster
and
she's
never
worked
for
the
federal
government
other
than
when
she
was
a
clerk
which
we
don't
really
think
of
as
working
for
the
federal
government.
So
that
makes
her
pretty
unique,
especially
among
the
newer
justices
on
the
court.
I
can't
think
of
a
recent
justice
other
than
justice
sotomayor,
who
is
a
new
york
city
prosecutor
and
a
federal
judge
who
doesn't
meet
someone
at
least
one
of
those
criteria.
B
If
not
I'm
sorry,
he
doesn't
need
all
of
that
just
as
soon
as
I
didn't
have
a
federal
government
career,
so
she
clerked
for
justice
scalia.
She
said
in
our
confirmation,
hearings.
Yeah.
I
see
the
world
a
lot
like
him,
but
I
am
my
own
person
what's
very
different
about
her
from
our
last
two
people,
kavanaugh
and
gorsuch
is
she
does
not
have
a
long
appellate
record.
However,
she
does
have
cases
from
chicago,
so
there
are
some
interesting
cases
in
that
mix,
and
you
know
the
other
thing.
B
That's
kind
of
interesting
is
a
lot
of
talk
about
what
how
religion
might
influence
her
decision
making.
I
personally
think
this
is
actually
a
very
complicated
and
a
very
interesting
subject
matter.
I
think
it's
impossible
to
sort
out
how
anyone
who
was
raised
in
a
faith
and
has
it
as
an
adult
or
even
doesn't
has
an
ad
as
an
adult
how
they
could
separate
that
from
decision
making.
B
But
it's
just
particularly
interesting
in
in
terms
of
her
because
judge
barrett
has
been
so
outspoken
about
her
religious
police,
at
least
relatively
speaking,
and
I
have
to
remind
people
it
wasn't
that
long
ago,
if
you
decided
an
abortion
case
on
a
lower
court,
you
would
not
be
considered
for
a
supreme
court
position.
That
was
how
it
was
done,
but
we
are
beyond
those
days
so
judge
barrett,
almost
justice
beer
describes
herself
as
a
textureless,
an
originalist
as
a
fan
of
judicial
restraint,
meaning
judges
shouldn't
get
involved
in
what
our
political
disputes.
B
But,
of
course,
we
can
all
argue
about
what
our
political
disputes-
and
I
don't
know
if
she'd
describe
herself
as
a
social
conservative,
but
she
certainly
is
one
by
you
know
most
people's
standards
and
certainly
personally,
I'm
sure
she
would
agree
with
that.
Her
writing
is
clear,
focused
and
not
flamboyant,
so
I'm
gonna
talk
about
how
she
may
impact
the
issues
of
the
affordable
care,
act,
abortion
and
guns,
and
I'm
pick
these
topics,
because
these
are
where
the
chief
justice
has
held
back.
B
She
also
has
some
academic
writing
and
some
you
know
personal.
She
said
some
things
personally
and
she's
some
opinions
in
this
space.
She
doesn't
have
a
lot
of
law
in
any
of
these
categories,
but
these
are
interesting
because
they're
places
where
roberts
is
like,
I
said
just
held
back
so
as
you
guys
all
know
on
the
supreme
court
is
hearing
this
aca
case
yet
again.
B
So
what
congress
did
was
in
a
couple
years
ago
they
said,
and
when
we
get
to
january
1st
2019
the
the
shared
responsibility
payment
is
going
to
be
zero.
So
if
you
don't
want
to
get
health
insurance,
you
don't
have
to
pay
that
tax.
So
remember
in
2012
the
credit
said:
okay,
the
individual
money
is
a
tax,
because
if
you
don't
get
health
insurance,
you
have
to
pay
the
shared
responsibility
payment
of
whatever
it
might
be.
Well
now
that
shared
responsibility
payment
is
zero.
B
Everyone
is
acting
as
if
it's
clear
that
now
the
individual
mandate
is
unconstitutional,
so
everyone
seems
to
agree
on
that,
even
though
that
is
one
of
the
issues
before
the
supreme
court.
So
we
all
kind
of
agree
on
that,
but
it
still
will
be
argued.
So
the
case
is
going
to
come
down
to
this
concept
of
severability.
Cyberbully
is
the
idea
that
part
of
the
law
that's
unconstitutional,
can
be
kind
of
put
aside
and
the
rest
of
the
law
can
remain
so
the
test
or
severability
is.
B
Would
congress
have
originally
enacted
the
part
of
the
legislation
that
is
still
constitutional
on
its
own,
so
this
becomes
kind
of
an
interesting
discussion
in
in
like
in
terms
of
the
aca,
because
congress,
you
know,
with
john
mccain,
got
rid
of
that
individual
mandate,
but
didn't
get
rid
of
everything
else.
So
it
sort
of
looks
like
congress
was
fine
with
the
rest
of
law
being
in
effect,
because
if
they
weren't
fine,
why
wouldn't
they
have
just
gotten
rid
of
it?
B
So
judge
barrett
soon
to
be
just
a
spirit
heard
no
aca
cases.
She
had
no
academic
writing
on
severability,
but
she
had
said
that
the
chief's
opinion
on
whether
the
aca
individual
mandate
was
a
tax
was
a
stretch,
but
a
lot
of
people
probably
think
that
even
people
that,
like
the
aca,
probably
think
that
she
also
signed
this
petition
objecting
to
the
birth
control
mandate,
so
all
that
kind
of
swirls.
B
In
the
background
now
this
is
my
own
personal
opinion,
of
which
I
could
be
wrong
about,
and
we
will
know
more
about
oral
argument.
I
don't
think
that
justice
barrett's
vote
is
actually
going
to
matter
in
this
case.
So
again
my
buddy
adam
lichtac,
says
the
arguments
against
severability
are
more
creative
than
convincing.
I
completely
agree,
so
here's
what
happened.
Last
term
justice
k,
k,
kavanaugh
and
justice
roberts
in
two
separate
opinions,
wrote
or
two
separate
cases
wrote
opinions
on
severe
billy.
These
opinions
were
essentially
love.
B
Letters
to
severability
roberts
describes
cyber
ability
as
a
scalpel,
rather
than
a
bulldozer
and
justice.
Cavanaugh,
like
I
said,
embraced
several
abilities
sort
of
warmly.
So
it
is
my
personal
opinion
that
justice,
kavanaugh
justice
roberts
will
vote
to
say
those
other
provisions
of
the
law
that
are
not
unconstitutional
can
be
separate
from
the
aca,
but
here's
the
thing
we
don't
know
and
we're
going
to
know
more.
B
The
court
is
going
to
go
there,
but
if
they
just
want
to
get
out
of
this
controversy
altogether,
they
almost
always
have
like
a
little
shoot
that
they
can
pull
like
get
us
out
of
this
case
and
that's
kind
of
standing
like
oh
no
one
had
standing.
We
don't
want
to
decide
this,
so
I
don't
think
that's
gonna
happen,
but
I
do
think,
like
you
heard
it
here
first,
if
it
does,
if
it
does
happen.
Okay,
second
issue:
where
judge
barrett's
views
have
gotten
a
lot
of
attention
is
guns.
B
So
for
those
of
you
who
heard
me
talk
about
guns
before
you
already
know
this
stuff,
the
court
has
gotten
150
petitions
in
the
last
10
years
to
decide
a
gun
case
there's.
So
the
only
thing
the
supreme
court
has
ever
said.
Is
you
have
a
right
to
gut
in
your
home,
for
lawful
reasons
they
haven't
said
you
have
a
right
to
a
gun
outside
your
home.
They've,
never
said
you
have
a
right
to
a
particular
kind
of
gun.
B
There
is
a
circuit
split
on
whether
or
not
there
is
right
to
a
gun
outside
the
home
and,
like
I
said
four
justices
have
said
we
want
to
hear
this
case,
but
they
haven't
heard
it
because
they
have
been
nervous
about
roberts.
I
do
think
ultimately,
roberts
will
come
down
the
same
as
his
more
conservative
colleagues,
but,
like
I
told
you
when
the
court
denied
those
petitions,
people
were
like
what
is
happening
so,
interestingly
judge
barrett.
This
is
where
she
has
the
most
precedent.
B
That's
interesting,
so
judge
barrett
did
have
a
gun
case
when
she
was
at
the
seventh
circuit.
So
this
individual
is
like
a
shoe
sale.
He
owns
a
shoe
company
or
a
shoe
store
and
he
was
convicted
of
some
sort
of
white-collar
crime,
so
felons
in
illinois
apparently
can't
have
guns.
So
he
said:
whoa
whoa
wait
a
minute
like
I'm,
not
a
dangerous
criminal.
I'm
I'm
like
martha
stewart.
I
mean
give
me
my
gut,
and
so
the
majority
of
the
majority
of
seven
circuits
said
no
you're
a
felon.
B
B
B
So
I
want
to
say
that
I
said
this,
but
I
didn't
so
I'm
just
going
to
give
this
quote
the
you
know
the
the
I'm
just
going
to
call
the
guy
out
who
said
it.
Steven
vladick
from
the
university
of
texas
couldn't
agree
with
this
more
gun
cases
are
going
to
be
like
candy
to
this
new
supreme
court.
I
think
we're
gonna
have
a
gun
case
in
a
hot
minute
and
the
gun
owner's
gonna
win
big
time.
I
think
that's
just
a
sensible
prediction
based
on
judge
barrett's
record.
B
B
There
was
one
case
that,
where
the
seven
circuits
struck
down
an
abortion
law
that
required
it
required
fetal
remains
to
be
buried
and
not
cremated,
so
that
was
what
the
seventh
circuit
held.
She
joined
a
dissent
from
a
rehearing
on
bonk,
saying
I'd
like
to
rehear
that
case.
Eventually
it
went
back
or
they
went
to
the
supreme
court
and
then
back
to
the
seventh
circuit.
Another
case
out
of
the
second
seventh
surrogate
seventh
circuit
struck
down.
I
don't
know
if
it
was
indiana
or
illinois.
B
They
had
a
state
statute
on
consents
for
minor
abortions
for
minors
again
they've
struck
the
law
down,
judge
barrett
would
have
had
the
seventh
circuit.
We
hear
it
so
we
she
didn't.
She
writing
these
these
opinions,
she
they
don't
get
into
any
sort
of
abortion
doctrine,
but
they
kind
of
point
in
in
the
same
direction,
but
especially
for
the
non-lawyers
on
this
webinar.
This
is
what
I
want
to
say.
I
agree
with
everyone
or
anyone
who
would
say
roe.
B
Vs
suede
has
never
been
as
vulnerable,
probably
other
than
at
this
moment,
but
I
also
think
it
it
may
still
be
safe
and
I'll.
Tell
you
why,
like
you,
have
to
think
about
the
long
kind
of
three
buckets,
this
law
is
bad.
I
want
this.
This
law
overturned
and
I'm
a
supreme
court
justice
with
the
power
to
overturn
this
decision.
This
law
is
bad.
I
think
most
people
most
lawyers,
think
that
roe
versus
wade
was
an
oddly
reasoned
decision
and
it's
probably
something
the
legislature
should
have
decided.
B
He
might
ultimately
vote
to
overturn
roe
vs
wade,
but
he
clearly
wasn't
anxious
to
do
it
in
the
last
couple
of
years,
and
this
is
for
the
non-lawyers,
and
this
is
like
the
most
important
thing
and
it's
the
thing
that
people
forget.
The
supreme
court
literally
never
has
to
take
the
question
of
whether
or
not
they
want
to
want
to
overturn
roe
versus
weight.
They
can
simply
never
consider
it.
They
can
never
take
a
petition
that
says
it.
So
that's
important
to
remember.
I
said
I
don't
think
anyone
I
mean.
B
So,
just
on
some
other
sort
of
controversial
issues,
getting
a
fair
amount
of
attention
during
the
confirmation
process
was
judge
barrett
using
the
term
sexual
preference,
because
that
it
kind
of
implies
that
you
know
sexual
orientation
like
the
concept
there
is
that
this
isn't
a
choice
that
a
person
makes
so
people
saw
that
word
as
sort
of
dated
and
maybe
indicating
that
she
wasn't
quite
with
the
times.
I
do
not
think
in
any
way
shape
or
form
that
the
same
sex
marriage
decision
is
vulnerable.
B
B
I
was
surprised
by
that,
because
I
think
that
we
all
agree
that
the
solutions
to
climate
change
are
very
political,
but
maybe
not
whether
it's
happening
is
still
political
and
but
here's
the
deal
her
views
on
climate
issues
really
are
not
the
ones
that
matter
the
persons
whose
views
matter
are
kavanaugh
and
they're.
Also
much
more
well-known.
So
kavanaugh
said
on
the
dc
circuit,
the
dc
circuit.
B
My
husband
always
asked
me,
what's
what's
different
about
that
circuit,
they
have
jurisdiction
over
the
federal
agencies
and
decisions
that
come
out
of
them,
so
justice
kavanaugh
has
had
tons
and
tons
and
tons
of
cases
on
environmental
regulations
of
all
kind
and
just
regulation
in
general
skeptical
of
regulation.
Most
conservatives
are
so
he's
the
person
to
keep
your
eye
on
again.
Judge
barrett
seems
personally
opposed
to
the
death
penalty.
The
catholic
church's
official
position
is
against
the
death
penalty
exclusively.
B
The
screamer
has
had
many
many
catholics
who
have
been
seemingly
fine
with
the
death
penalty
and
supportive
of
it.
Even
I
don't
expect
judge
barrett
to
be
different,
but
a
time
will
sort
of
tell
on
that.
So
you
know
the
kind
of
question
for
state
legislatures
is
beyond
all
the
controversy.
Where
would
judge
bear
it
be
in
a
mind,
run
case
and
just
like
a
regular
case
that
involves
federalism
or
preemption
or
the
first
amendment
or
the
takings
clause
or
qualified
immunity
or
the
fourth
amendment
speech
religion.
B
I
mean
just
those
regular
kind
of
things
and
the
answer
is
we
really
don't
know
that
much
about
her,
because
she
wasn't
in
the
7th
circuit
very
long
and
her
predecessors,
or
rather
like
gorsuch
and
kavanaugh,
came
with
a
completely
different
kind
of
record
justice.
Gorsuch
was
on
the
10th
circuit
for
10
years.
He
wrote
with
a
lot
of
flair
he
liked
to
pontificate
and
make
suggestions
about
supreme
court
press
that
should
be
overturned.
B
This
is
a
woman
who
does
not
care
to
draw
attention
to
herself
when
she
said
these
confirmation
hearings
are
going
to
make
me
and
my
family
miserable.
I
believe
her.
This
is
not
you
know.
Sometimes
I
felt
like
justice
gorsuch
like
almost
liked
playing
the
annoying
game
with
congress,
but
I
judge
barrett.
B
No,
that's
just
not
that's
just
not
who
she
who
she
is.
So
you
know
it's
always
impossible
to
put
aside
your
political
beliefs
like
your
own
personal
political
beliefs.
So
those
who
you've
heard
me
speak
before
have
probably
heard
me
say.
Like
my
ideal
justice,
I
have
local
government,
but
state
government
is
the
same.
Is
a
pragmatic.
B
Conservative
and
who
does
that
sound,
like
chief
justice
roberts,
he
is
my
ideal
justice
and,
and
conservatives
are
very
good
on
things
like
public
employment,
police
issues,
qualified
immunity,
just
kind
of
closing
the
courthouse
door
in
theory,
they're
better
on
federalism
and
preemption,
I
would
say
the
biggest
downside
of
them
is
they're
a
little
bit
more
skeptical
of
government
in
general,
but
I
am
terrible
in
taking
pieces.
I
just
think.
Oh
we're
gonna
have
a
rough
time
with
those,
but
in
general
conservatives
can
be
very
good.
B
So
I
looked
closely
as
closely
as
I
could
I
mean
considering.
She
only
has
three
years
of
cases
at
judge
barrett's.
You
know
pressing
on
the
seventh
circuit
for
free
speech.
This
is
an
area
where
conservatives
and
liberals
are
both
very
hard
on
state
local
governments.
I
would
say
her
positions
were
not
anti-government.
B
If
anything
they
were
more
sympathetic
to
government
than
I
would
expect.
Part
of
that
might
be
that
she
was
in
a
lower
court
role,
but
she
certainly
could
have
been
worse
on
those
issues,
there's
kind
of
a
notorious
qualified
immunity
case.
Just
very
briefly.
It
involved
this.
This
man,
who
was
accused
of
killing
his
mother
and
the
police
officer
had
all
kinds
of
evidence
that
exonerated
the
guy
and
just
didn't
put
it
in
the
warrant.
B
Application
just
didn't,
do
it
and,
and
he
wanted
a
qualified
immunity
and
judge
barrett
was
like
no
and
people
are
like
this
might
indicate
she's
more
open.
No,
it
just
indicates
she
has
common
sense
and
can
apply
the
law
there's.
She
decided
one
taking's
case
where
she
wrote
the
opinion
and
it
actually
get
this.
It
came
out
in
the
last
month
and
it
had
to
do
with
building
the
obama
president's
president's
presidential
library,
but
she
had
some
polite
word
for
the
claim
like
it
was
unusual
or
different.
B
It
was
a
polite
way
of
saying
this
is
a
crazy
claim
and
I
don't
know
why
you
brought
it,
but
she
didn't
she
didn't,
handle
it
like
that.
She
did
it
thoughtfully
and
methodically,
but
you
can't
take
any
conclusions
from
her
like
deciding
in
favor
of
the
city
of
chicago
she's,
been
characterized
as
pro-employer.
I
think
that's
probably
fair.
B
She
had
an
n-word
decision
that
she's
gotten
some
criticism,
for
I
mean
she
didn't
say
it
could
never
be
a
factor,
but
you
know
in
the
case
she
had
it
wasn't
going
to
be
it
wasn't
going
to
be
it
couldn't
be.
The
only
factor.
Interestingly
kavanaugh
also
had
just
had
a
case
like
that,
and
he
came
down
differently
saying
one.
A
one-time
use
of
the
n-word
can
be
enough
to
create
a
hostile
work
environment.
So
I
thought
that
was
just
kind
of
interesting.
B
She
has
a
couple
tax
cases.
Most
of
them
don't
really
involve
issues
of
interest
to
state
local
governments.
There
was
one
where
she
allowed
taxpayers
to
bring
a
claim
in
federal
court.
So
that's
not
great,
but
it's
one
case
I
mean
it's
hard
to
sort
of
know
what
to
make
of
it.
So
in
my
last
couple
of
minutes,
I'm
going
to
talk
about
the
supreme
court,
cova,
19,
docket
and
some
cases
on
the
dock
at
this
term.
B
So
the
court
has
earned
all
kinds
of
cases
related
to
kobe
that
they
would
not
have
otherwise
have
heard
of,
and
they
have
ranged
a
gamut
of
issues,
but
I'm
going
to
focus
on
state
homeowners
and
judge-made
changes
to
election
laws
just
in
the
interest
of
time.
So
here's
the
bottom
line,
the
court
has
not
overturned
any
state
home
orders,
all
the
state
at
home
orders.
The
court
has
allowed
to
stay
in
place.
Lower
cars
have
also
upheld
these
decisions,
and
the
supreme
court
has
almost
overturned.
B
All
judge
made
election
changes
except
one
out
of
pennsylvania,
which
we're
going
to
spend
a
little
bit
of
time
on
so
the
bottom
line
is
it's
hard
to
get
the
supreme
court
to
overturn
a
lower
court
decision
on
an
emergency
basis?
Basically,
the
lower
court
has
to
have
gotten
the
law
wrong.
That's
kind
of
what
this
slide
says.
The
court
heard
four
cases
like
I
said
on
state
home
orders.
B
Most
of
them,
the
the
challenge
was
religion
was
being
speech,
was
being
treated
better
or
be
being
treated
worse
and,
like
I
said,
court
has
been
very
sympathetic
of
what
state
local
governments
have
done
and,
in
fact,
like
this
quote,
was
being
sent
all
around
when
the
court
issued
this
decision
on
california.
Basically,
the
court
is
saying:
federal
judges
do
not
should
not
be
involved
in
deciding
whether
a
state
home
order
is
good
law
or
not.
These
state
home
orders
have
to
be
done
quickly.
B
They
had
to
be
done
carefully
and
they
sh,
and
the
decision
makers
should
be
selling
close
to
the
people
who
can
be
responsive
to
the
science
and
all
that
beautiful
quote
the
chief
justice
at
his
very
best.
So,
in
terms
of
judge
made
changes
related
to
the
election,
I
had
a
complicated
slide
with
every
state
and
what
the
issues
were
it
just
got
to
be
too
much.
B
So,
basically,
as
you
all
know,
people
are
voting
in
large
numbers
by
absentee
and
mail
ballot,
and
some
courts
have
said
due
to
cover
19
we're
going
to
strike
down
this
requirement
of
an
absolute
ballot
forex.
The
most
probably
common
example,
is
the
witness
signatures.
You
don't
have
to
get
a
witness
signature,
because
people
are
living
alone
at
home
in
covid
and
they
can't
find
someone
to
do
it
and
so
for
covert
reasons.
We're
just
gonna
strike
that
out
of
the
law.
B
So
by
and
large
the
supreme
court
has
said
almost
universally
no
judges.
You
can't
write
election.
You
can't
rewrite
election
laws
just
because
of
covert
19,
but
then
the
plot
thickens,
okay,
this
is
where
it
all
kind
of
gets
crazy.
So,
last
week
the
supreme
court
in
a
4-4
decision,
let
the
lower
court
decision
stand
where
the
lower
court
had
said
in
pennsylvania.
We
can
count
ballots
received
after
election
day
for
three
days,
so
we
know.
Chief
justice
roberts
joined
the
liberals,
and
so
this
is
considered
a
really
big
deal.
B
We
don't
know
why
the
chief
justice
voted
with
the
liberals.
It's
interesting
to
note
that
the
secretary
of
state
did
not
disagree
with
this,
so
it
was
the
republicans
and
democrats
fighting.
It
wasn't
like
the
democratic
party
wanted
this,
but
the
state
didn't
want
it.
The
state
was
fine
with
counting
ballots
three
days
later.
Here
might
be
what
the
real
issue
is.
Pennsylvania
constitution.
B
B
If
that
means
state
statutes
are
struck
down,
so
be
it
in
pennsylvania,
we
vote,
and
so
that
might
be
one
of
the
things
that
is
happening
in
this
case,
but
the
plot
is
thickened,
and
that
is
what
the
court
had
done
before
was
they
just
said
on
a
temporary
basis,
we're
not
going
to
get
involved
in
this
case,
we're
just
going
to
let
the
pennsylvania
supreme
court
decision
stand
now
the
republican
party
has
said
supreme
court.
We
want
you
to
decide
the
issue
on
the
merits.
Can
pennsylvania
count
ballots,
receive
late
use
supreme
court?
B
Give
us
a
full
ruling.
We
don't
know
what
they're
going
to
do
about
that,
but
we
do
know
when
they
do
something
whatever
they
do.
The
justice
spirit
will
be
on
the
bench.
So
people
ask
me
lisa.
Is
the
supreme
court
can
decide
the
2020
election
and
I
say:
well,
I
don't
really
know,
but
I
can
tell
you
the
theories
out
there
that
they
might
decide
it.
So
there
are.
It's
only
really
going
to
be
an
issue.
B
The
first
theory
is
that
the
supreme
court
has
already
decided
the
election,
and
that
is
this
pennsylvania
ruling
they've
also,
you
know,
ruled
in
other
cases
too,
but
ultimately,
whatever
they
decide
to
do
in
pennsylvania,
could
you
know
ultimately
make
a
really
big
difference.
The
second
theory
is
this,
and
it
kind
of
relates
to
what
I
was
saying
about
pennsylvania.
B
One
of
the
theories
is
that
what
could
happen
is
that,
instead
of
having
a
bush
versus
gore,
we
could
end
up
with
a
couple
of
swing
states
having
election
controversies,
but
that
those
controversies
wouldn't
raise
questions
of
federal
law.
They
would
just
rate
questions
of
like
state
law
interpretation,
in
which
case
the
supreme
court
would
never
get
involved.
So
that's
a
possibility
as
well,
and
so
that's
kind
of
like
a
bush
versus
score,
but
at
the
state
supreme
court
level,
so
to
really
get
a
bush
versus
score.
B
What
would
have
to
happen
is
this.
I've
been
told
is
there's
this
electoral
count
act
that
basically,
if
an
election
is
deemed
a
failure,
the
state
legislature
can
kind
of
come
in
and
replace
the
electoral
college.
It
all
gets
very
complicated.
I
can't
go
any
deeper
on
that,
but
there
are
two
articles,
there's
sort
of
like
the
junior
varsity
version
and
the
varsity
version.
If
you're
interested
in
that
topic,
I
highly
recommend
both
of
them,
but
those
are
some
of
the
paths
that
you
know
we
could
get
there.
B
Is
the
only
conservative
joining
the
conservatives,
so
I
was
supposed
to
take
10
minutes
for
questions,
but
I've
just
got
two
cases
that
I'm
going
to
talk
about
very
quickly
and
then
we
can
take
some
questions,
but
before
I
do
that
these
are
cases
that
are
going
to
be
decided
going
forward.
The
fir
I
just
want
to
mention
very
briefly
that
the
supreme
court
is
going
to
be
deciding
whether
or
not
the
census
number
for
apportioning
house
of
representative
seats
can
include
undocumented
or
rather
exclude
undocumented
people.
B
So
the
court
will
be
deciding
this
question,
probably
before
the
end
of
this
calendar
year,
but
the
trump
administration
has
not
changed.
The
census.
Number
for
apportioning
funding
or
for
state
redistricting.
So
I'm
just
going
to
call
this
the
arizona
voting
case,
maybe
for
obvious
reasons
why
this
case
is
so
interesting.
B
Is
that
it's
the
first
voting
rights
case
since
shelby
county
first
major
voting
rights
case
since
shelby
county
that
is
kind
of
in
response
to
shelby
county,
so
in
shelby
county
the
court
held
for
practical
purposes
that
there
would
no
longer
be
any
pre-clearance.
So
if
you
were
one
of
the
jurisdictions
that
had
a
history
of
discrimination
before
you
had
to
get
election
changes
pre-clear
after
shelby
county
no
pre-clearance,
so
what
happened
was
advocates
said
we're
gonna
turn
to
section
two
of
the
voting
rights
act
and
that's
where
we're
gonna
bring
election
related
cases.
B
So
section
two
of
the
vra
prohibits
intentional
discrimination
and
practices
that
result
in
the
denial
to
vote.
There's
two
issues
in
this
case:
one
is
out
of
precinct
voting.
So
in
arizona,
if
you
vote
on
a
precinct,
your
vote
is
basically
just
thrown
in
the
trash.
None
of
it
can
be
counted
at
all
and
the
other
one
is
third
party
ballot
collection,
where,
basically,
you
give
your
ballot
to
someone
and
they
turn
it
in
the
ninth
circuit
said
that
both
of
these
practices
or
getting
rid
of
ra.
B
Well,
let
me
back
up
the
court
said
that
out
of
prison
voting
that
what
arizona
did
was
it
was.
It
was
disallowing
all
these
ballots
and
the
court
said
disallowing
all
the
ballots
without
counting
them.
For
president
say
even
if
they
were
wrong,
violates
the
voting
rights
act,
because
minorities
vote
twice
at
the
rate
of
whites
as
out
of
precinct
voters
and
also
there's
just
a
lot
of
reasons
that
people
vote
on
a
precinct
in
arizona
that
seem
to
be
somewhat
unique
to
arizona.
B
So
for
a
long
time,
arizona
had
third-party
voting
collection,
then
it
went
away
and
interestingly,
arizona
tried
to
get
this
pre-cleared
and
was
unsuccessful.
The
court
again,
the
ninth
circuit,
said
this
violates
the
voting
rights
act,
because
so
many
more
minorities
do
this
third-party
ballot
collection.
B
A
lot
of
good
anecdotal
evidence
that
was
more
common
for
minority
voters
than
other
voters.
The
arizona
republican
party
basically
says
like
arizona's
voting
rules
are
neutral.
Everyone
has
an
equal
opportunity
to
vote
just
because
it
falls
more
heavily
on
minorities
doesn't
mean
it
violates
the
law
and
doesn't
mean
that
arizona
should
have
to
change
everything
to
just
accommodate
minority
voters
when
they
have
the
same
access
to
voting,
as
everyone
else
does.
So.
This
was
an
on
block
decision.
The
ninth
circuit
was
kind
of
all
over
the
place.
B
They
adjust
judges
voting
in
all
different,
you
know,
dissent,
majority,
concurring,
etc
and
judge
barrett
does
not
have
much
for
voting
rights
cases
if
anything
at
all.
So
before
we
take
questions,
I'm
just
going
to
talk
very
briefly
about
bp
versus
mayor
of
the
city
of
baltimore.
It's
a
very,
very
complicated
case.
It's
also
about
two
very,
very
different
things:
it's
first
about
the
ability
of
state
courts
to
decide
cases
involving
state
law
in
state
courts,
and
it's
also
about
the
future
of
climate
change
litigation.
B
So
one
of
these
has
very
you
know.
It
has
a
very
strong
federalism
implications.
So
here's
the
issue
and
it's
a
real
mouthful-
whether
a
federal
appellate
court
may
review
all
the
grounds
upon
which
a
defendant
claims
its
case
should
not
be
sent
back
to
state
court
when
one
of
the
grounds
the
defendant
alleges
is
specifically
lifted,
listed
in
the
statute
as
a
basis
for
federal
appellate
court
review.
B
If
you
don't
understand
that
question
presented
you're,
not
alone,
the
facts
in
this
case,
fortunately,
are
very
easy:
baltimore
sued
26
oil
companies
over
climate
change
and
wanted
the
case
to
be
heard
in
state
court,
so
basically
cases
can
be
heard
in
federal
court
and
or
removed
federal
court.
If
you
will,
if
the
case
involves
an
issue
where
the
federal
courts
have
jurisdiction,
so
bp
said
they
had
eight
grounds
to
say
federal
court.
You
have
jurisdiction
over
this
case
and
one
of
those
grounds
was
the
the
federal
actor
doctrine.
B
B
None
of
these
grounds
are
legit,
there's
no
federal
court
jurisdiction.
In
this
case
it's
going
to
go
back
to
the
maryland
state
court,
but
the
plot
thickens
there's
another
federal
statute
that
says
federal
courts
of
appeals
can
review
in
very
very
limited
circumstances,
for
if
there's
a
federal
officer,
removal
claim
or
something
similar,
they
can
review
these
denials
by
district
courts
of
federal
court
jurisdiction.
B
So
what
bp
wants
is
for
the
fourth
circuit
to
review
all
eight
grounds
that
claims
that
has
federal
court
jurisdiction,
because
one
of
the
grounds
is
included
in
the
exception
that
allows
federal
courts
to
review
removal
jurisdiction.
So
you
might
be
wondering
why
does
bp
want
this
so
bad?
Well,
what
they
want
is
they
want
to
be
in
federal
court
and
they
want
to
have
one
more
chance
for
a
federal
appellate
court
to
say:
oh
yeah,
this
case
should
be
back
in
federal
court.
B
So
why
do
they
want
a
federal
court
to
hear
this
case
rather
than
a
state
court?
Well,
they
think
and
they're
probably
right
about
this-
that
federal
judges
won't
be
all
that
familiar
with
state
law,
because
that's
not
what
federal
judges
do
every
day.
I
think
they
also
think
that
federal
judges
may
be
more
skeptical
of
climate
change
cases,
which
is
again
what
they
want.
So
the
fourth
circuit
re
ruled
against
vp
and
basically
said
you
have
eight
grounds
for
wanting
us
to
review
federal
court
jurisdiction.
B
Only
one
of
them
is
listed
as
an
exception
to
the
statute.
We
will
review
that
exception.
We
will
not
review
anything
else
and
it's
because
they
had
a
1976
case.
That
said,
don't
review
all
the
grounds
if
they
only
have
one
grounds
from
the
exception.
So
this
issue
is
a
huge
one.
In
climate
change
cases
there
are
three
state
and
local
government
climate
change
cases
brought
against
big
corporations.
They
all
raise
the
issue
of
whether
or
not
the
case
should
be
heard
in
state
or
federal
court.
B
So
another
like
important
fact
for
why
these
cases
are
being
heard
in
state
court
is
that
the
supreme
court
has
said,
there's
that
federal
common
law
doesn't
apply
to
these.
It's
another
reason
for
why
state
local
governments
want
these
to
be
heard
in
state
court,
but
it's
important
to
highlight
this
issue
of.
Do
we
review
all
the
grounds
when
they
bring
up
one
of
the
grounds
for
why?
Well,
we
should
remove.
We
should
reconsider
the
removal
decision.
B
This
issue
has
come
up
in
all
kinds
of
cases
that
have
been
brought
in
state
court:
a
defect
in
an
airplane,
an
eminent
domain
case,
flint
water
crisis.
All
these
cases
were
bought
in
state
court
because
they
involved
state
law
issues
and
they
have
nothing
to
do
with
climate
change.
The
case
is
bigger
than
it
may
appear
to
be.
So
with
that,
I'm
sorry.
I
went
over
my
time,
but
I'm
happy
to
take
a
couple
questions.
A
Okay,
real
quick,
thank
you
lisa.
That
was
really
excellent,
so
and
very
thorough.
So
you
know
maybe
folks
just
don't
even
have
questions,
because
you've
really
just
answered
everything
but
really
quick.
We
do
have
a
couple.
So,
first
of
all
you
know
so
you
mentioned
that
chief
justice
roberts
has
worked
hard
to
maintain
the
institutional
credibility
of
the
court.
So
one
question
is:
have
other
justices
indicated
a
similar
priority,
or
is
that
only
coming
from
him
and
how
might
that
play
out.
B
So
I
love
that
question
and
the
reason
why
I
love
it
is
because
I
think
it's
completely
ridiculous
that
the
chief
justice
should
have
all
that
responsibility
on
him
and
that
we
would
think
that
that's
okay.
I
would
think
that
I'd
like
to
think
that
all
the
justices,
conservative
liberal,
would
have
some
interest
in
that
in
the
institutional
viability
and
the
institutional
credibility
of
the
topic
I
off
the
top
of
my
head,
I
would
say
the
one
justice
that
I
think
thinks
along
those
lines
is
justice
kagan.
B
You
know
she's
a
liberal,
but
definitely
not
a
knee-jerk
liberal.
I
think
you
know
if
there's
someone
who
wants
to
pair
with
the
chief
justice
wants
us
to
find
middle
ground
and
common
ground
someone
who's
willing
to
sort
of
join
an
opinion
if
the
chief
will
get
it
narrowed.
The
way
she
wants.
I
think
she's
got
some
of
that.
I
I
wonder
if
kavanaugh
might
grow
into
that
role.
B
Okay,
great
question,
so
we
will
actually
file
in
that
climate
change
case.
We
won't
focus
on
climate
change
at
all.
We're
just
going
to
focus
on
the
notion
that
when
state
law
arises
that
those
cases
should
be
heard
in
state
court,
they
shouldn't
be
moved
to
federal
court
just
because
someone
has
some
idea
of
one.
You
know
except
non-exception
that
they
want
a
federal
court
to
hear
so
we're
gonna
file.
B
In
that
case,
we
founded
a
bunch
of
cases
earlier
in
the
term
that
holdovers
from
last
term
another
one
that
ncsl
is
actually
going
to
join.
In
the
case,
we
call
it
you
versus
p,
because
it's
two
really
long
names.
The
question
is
whether,
if
a
local
government
or
state
government
has
a
policy,
that's
unconstitutional
or
arguably
unconstitutional,
and
they
change
it,
and
the
parties
only
want
one
dollar
in
nominal
damage.
They
don't
want
any
more
money
than
that.
B
If
that
just
moves
the
case
or
if
the
case
has
to
continue,
you
know
full
more
litigation
for
them
to
get
their
one
dollar.
So
ncso
will
also
file
in
that
brief,
and
the
card
still
probably
has
25
more
petitions
to
grant.
So
we
still
have
a
lot
more
cases,
this
term,
where
the
slc
make
file
breathe.
A
A
Just
thank
you
for
tuning
in
everybody.
This
will
be
recorded
and
we
have
a
link
in
the
chat
so
copy
paste
that
if
you
want
to
go
back
and
listen
again
thanks
for
coming
and
we
look
forward
to
doing
some
more
programming
in
the
near
future,
thank
you
to
lisa
for
an
excellent
presentation
and
to
the
criminal
justice
team
at
ncsl,
for
assisting
with
this
recording,
and
with
that
I
will
bid
you
adieu
and
have
a
great
rest
of
your
monday
thanks.