AM Show HR 1 - Gerrymandering With Professor Josh Blackman

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:04):
It's that time, time, time.

Speaker 2 (00:06):
Time, luck and load.

Speaker 3 (00:11):
So Michael Very Show is on the air.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
They got a name for people like you, Hi. That
name is called recidivism, repeat on fender. Not a pretty name,
is it high?

Speaker 1 (00:24):
No, sir, that's one bonehead name. But that ain't me anymore.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
You're not just telling us what we want to hear, No, sir,
no way, because we just want to hear the truth.

Speaker 1 (00:34):
Well, then I guess I am telling you what you
want to hear.

Speaker 2 (00:37):
Boy, didn't we just tell you enough to do that? Yes, sir?

Speaker 4 (00:41):
Okay, then we cannot keep our promises on medicare. We
simply must make the cuts some waste, fraud and abuse
in medicare so that the benefits and the premiums are untouched.
We owe it to our seniors, We owe it to
our country.

Speaker 5 (01:00):
More word.

Speaker 1 (01:04):
Is I you have duty to make?

Speaker 6 (01:10):
Then you have to say that's you love.

Speaker 5 (01:17):
Me, CUSU.

Speaker 7 (01:26):
There is no question that there is an enormous amount
of waste and fraud and abuse in this government. There
is no question to my mind that Congress has not
been vigilant enough in rooting out that waste and fraud
to the tune of billions and billions of dollars. I
would simply say that while it is absolutely appropriate to

(01:50):
condemn the Congress, it is also important to note that
we have an administration in this city, in Washington, d
she THEE. And the function of an administration is to.

Speaker 8 (02:03):
Administer, and that means that when there is waste and fraud,
you have an administration who should also be on top
of that situation.

Speaker 9 (02:21):
If we're going to eliminate the waste brought and abuse
in medicare, it does mean we're going to cut.

Speaker 2 (02:26):
Some of that out.

Speaker 9 (02:28):
And when I hear my friend Dave Camp say you
cannot cut money out of medicare, well, we don't want
to cut the good stuff that you point out one
third of Medicare doesn't go to patient care. You can't
just get up there and say we don't want to
cut anything out of medicare. We want to cut the
bad stuff and keep the good stuff.

Speaker 1 (02:49):
Is all.

Speaker 5 (02:53):
You do. So then you word.

Speaker 6 (03:00):
Say that's you love me, because I.

Speaker 5 (03:08):
Ra heard was.

Speaker 1 (03:23):
Born than ward show.

Speaker 6 (03:26):
You that's your love for me with If not, then
you can make things new just passing.

Speaker 5 (03:54):
You loud live.

Speaker 3 (04:31):
It was on this day in nineteen eighty nine an
explosion at the Houston Chemical Complex in Pasadena registered a
three point five on the Richter magnitude scale, killing twenty
three and injuring three hundred fourteen. I'll bet you there

(04:51):
are more than a few people in our listening audience
today who had something to do with that. Probably somebody
who lost a loved one, somebody who lived nearby there,
somebody who investigated the scene. I'll bet you there are
some connections to that event on this day. In two
thousand and one, Apple introduced the iPod, an MP three

(05:13):
player that can hold about one thousand songs, making digital
music portable. It's hard for young people today to imagine
the ability to carry your music with you wherever you
go and play it whenever you want it. That was

(05:36):
groundbreaking at that time. Users would fill their devices with
songs that they ripped from their CD collections or downloaded
from and this was also another new thing file sharing
sites like Napster. It's a great there's a great movie
on the whole founding of Napster and the battleover control

(05:58):
of music and how fans do don't feel like they
should have to pay for it. It's the whole concept
very interesting to me. It was on this day in
nineteen fifty four, earlier than most people recall or would
expect that Elvis Presley still called Elvis Presley at that point.
Of course, he wasn't called Elvis Presley by many people,

(06:20):
wasn't called any by many people, wasn't famous yet. His
second single on Sun Records, Blue Moon of Kentucky, breaks
out in Nashville and oddly New Orleans, becoming his first
chart hit outside of his native Memphis. And the rest,

(06:45):
as they say, is history. My good friend Paul Baker,
my private investigator and dear friend, probably has a good
story about Blue Moon of Kentucky. I happen to really
like that song, and today is the day's seventy one
years ago that it broke out.

Speaker 10 (07:03):
Moon Blue Moon, bo Moon, keep shining bright, Blue, keep
phone shining the bright chickens and Britton bit back will
come up to me with the night Blue Moon keep
shining bright.

Speaker 1 (07:19):
I said, I've got don't head to keep on shining
shine on. That's going out and let me blue. I said,
I'm gonna keep on shining shine on the mon and
going let me blue. The other head was on.

Speaker 5 (07:38):
One light lie sty shineing Bros. Whez broad Hide.

Speaker 1 (07:45):
By Blue Moon. I keep on shining, shine on in
the morn. That's going out. Let me blosi, I don't.

Speaker 11 (08:20):
Four out of five people surveyed said listening to the
Michael Berry Show podcast improved their love life.

Speaker 1 (08:26):
The fifth person didn't deserve one anyway.

Speaker 3 (08:31):
The concept of fairness is baked into America's patriotism. Our
legacy are our heritage. And yet there are people who
will constantly reference fairness and equality who are, in fact

(08:51):
the exact opposite of that in everything they do. These
people are a menace to this coin. And these people
will say that Donald Trump is a threat to democracy
as they themselves are engaging in vote rigging, cheating, using

(09:17):
the Justice Department to attack their political enemies, taking bribes.
It just goes on and on and on, and Rush
was right, whatever they accuse you of, that is what
they're doing. So now appears before us a case in
the Supreme Court to address the wrongs of the Voting

(09:42):
Rights Act, which created a scenario where states were gerrymandering
their districts based on race. And that's why you ended
up with congressional districts with a black congressman. And when
that congressman stepped down or dies. The immediate thought is, well,

(10:03):
it would be another black congressman. It has to be.
It's a black district, which is an odd thing if
you think about a district stretching a long distance, as
we have seen happen where you know, pick any state
you want, but let's say you pick Texas and you
were to clump into one district people who Texas, like

(10:28):
many states, different regions that there are cultural and economic
differences that are drastic. They are fellow Americans, they serve
in the same military, they salute the same flag, but
they have very different interests in Congress, and the idea
of a representative body of four hundred and thirty five

(10:50):
people was to represent those, whether they be farming interests
or commercial interest big city or small city, seaport cities
or interior cities. And that's the concept. We believe that
in that representation, out of that would come representation that
would yield the fairest system for all.

Speaker 1 (11:14):
Right.

Speaker 3 (11:15):
Not everybody's going to be happy, we understand that, but
there will be a sense of fairness. And yet the
Voting Rights Act, as we see this happen again and
again and again. Notice this. The Voting Rights Act was
supposedly designed to address the or re address the problems
that had occurred with Jim Crow, the problems of or

(11:38):
poll taxes or number of different laws, poll taxes being
one of those which made it difficult for people to
vote who were black. That did happen, there is no
doubt about that. But the fact that that happened does
not mean that in twenty twenty five we should punish
people by creating districts based on race. It's not good

(12:00):
for anyone. It's an American. The fact that that happened
once does not mean we should allow it to happen
in reverse today, which is exactly what is happening. So
before the Supreme Court, here are the arguments of NAACP,
that's the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,

(12:21):
Attorney Jani Nelson.

Speaker 11 (12:23):
And in the state of Louisiana. That analysis was conducted
in the Narrin case, and it was clear that regardless
of party, white Democrats were not voting for black candidates,
whether they were Democrats or not. And we know that
there is such a significant chasm between how black and
white voters vote in Louisiana that there's no question that

(12:47):
even if there is some correlation between race and party,
that race is the driving factor.

Speaker 3 (12:53):
Listen very carefully to what she just said. We know
that white Democrats weren't voting for black Democrats.

Speaker 12 (13:05):
How do you know that?

Speaker 3 (13:07):
Or what is exhibit A in making that point? If
there are two black candidates running in the Democrat primary
and a white voter shows up and doesn't vote in
that particular race but votes in others, Okay, but what's
the harm. That's not what she's talking about. What we

(13:29):
all know she's talking about is a white voter goes
into the booth and there's a white Democrat on the
ballot and a black Democrat in the same race in
a primary. She's saying, they're not voting for the black candidate. Well,
if they're not voting for the black candidate, they're voting
for the white candidate, right, a white voter voting for

(13:51):
a white candidate. So her answer as to how you
address this is for blacks who do the exact same
thing but in far higher percentages to be able to
do that, and you can't stop them. Two wrongs don't
make it right. This process has to end, and this

(14:14):
process is going to end. It's going to happen. But first,
let's let Justice Katanji Brown Jackson show her ass. Let's
let her demonstrate that. When she gets frustrated and wants
to make a point, she starts trying to use her words,

(14:34):
but they're not good ones. She's not a deep thinker,
because ironically, Katanji Brown Jackson is on the Supreme Court
not because she's brilliant or accomplished, but because she's black,
which is sort of what we're talking about here. There
are people who are capable of serving and serving well

(14:55):
who are black. Clarence Thomas, great example, but not her.

Speaker 13 (15:00):
Listen to this against the backdrop of a world that
was generally not accessible to people with disabilities, and so
it was discriminatory in effect, because these folks were not
able to access these buildings, and it didn't matter whether
the person who built the building or the person who

(15:21):
owned the building intended for them to be exclusionary.

Speaker 1 (15:26):
That's irrelevant.

Speaker 13 (15:27):
Congress said, the facilities have to be made equally open
to people with disabilities, if readily possible. I guess I
don't understand why that's not what's happening here. The idea
in Section two is that we are responding to current
day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities

(15:51):
and make it so that they don't have equal access
to the voting system. Right, they're disabled.

Speaker 3 (16:00):
They're disabled. So if you're black, have you ever voted?
And if so, how did you manage? Did you need
special accommodations? Do you want this woman claiming you can't
vote because you're disabled. We'll talk to Professor Josh Blackman
about this case coming up.

Speaker 2 (16:22):
I love Paul, I hadn't the time mastive dog two pounds.

Speaker 8 (16:25):
His name Michael.

Speaker 3 (16:27):
Berry Jerry mandrein the concept of drawing districts for political
offices in order to sort of predetermine a result. Is

(16:48):
it possible, you bet. Let's say you wanted to get
a great reaction to a touchdown by the Patriots when
they play the Jets, Well, then play the game in
Foxborough where the Patriots fans will be. Or if you
don't you want people to boo when there's a touchdown,
then play that same game at the Jets stadium, because

(17:11):
then you're going to have people that are predisposed towards
the Jets. Well, it turns out you can draw districts
based on race, for instance, where you can create Democrat
districts Republican districts. And that is what has happened and
that has ended up before the United States Supreme Court.
And for that we go to our expert, that is

(17:31):
Professor Josh Blackman, mister smarty pants of the South Texas
College of Law, where he is a professor to students
and well respected in the media world, in the political
world as an expert on all things Supreme Court. Professor,
this case that came before the Voting Rights Act. If
you could be my first year law student and I'll

(17:53):
be Professor Blackman, give me the facts of this case.

Speaker 1 (17:58):
Right.

Speaker 12 (17:58):
So this case arose from our friends next door in Louisiana,
and Louisiana legislature drew a map in which they tried
to create more safe Republican districts. Almost immediately there was
litigation which said that the votes of various African American
groups are being disenfranchised, and a federal court in Louisiana said,

(18:20):
you must draw what's basically a district of African American
majority that allows them to pick the candidate of their choice. Okay,
a couple of years later, some white voters in Louisiana
boro a lass. It's saying, wait a minute, this is racism, right,
You are diminishing our votes as white voters and giving
votes to others because of their race. So the question

(18:40):
is this, can the Voting Rights Act, the federal law
passed in the nineteen sixties, require the government to consider
race and basically give these districts to certain minority voters
at the expense of other voters who are not members
of that group.

Speaker 3 (18:55):
Okay, I'll ask some some very basic simples of vious
questions because you'll know the answer, and let's get it
all out there. But this has been done a long
time to redress past grievances of Jim Crow.

Speaker 12 (19:10):
Right. And the argument is, the Voting Right Attack was
passed to, as you said, address long standing efforts in
redress access sid redress redress, to redress long standing grievances,
and long standing efforts to dilute the votes of African
American voters. The argument now is it's not nineteen sixty four,

(19:31):
it's not nineteen eighty four, it's not two thousand and four,
it's twenty twenty five. And the Supreme Court has said
a lot of things that raised. For example, they said
a couple of years so you can't have affirmative action.
You can't judge people based on their skin color. I mean,
one of the weird parts of this case, Michael, is
it presumes people who look alike vote alike. I presumes
that people who have the same racial identity will always

(19:52):
vote for the same candidates, which are invariably Democrats. So
it's sort of this very weird racial stereotype which the
law requires. And we arguer, now, is itself is unconstitutional.

Speaker 3 (20:04):
Well, let me first say that the only reason I
brought up the issue of redress is it was a
jeopardy topic a couple of weeks ago, and under the
heading of double meanings, it was to apply your clothes
a second time, or to fix a past problem, and
it was redressed, and I got it, and I was
so excited, so I needed to use it with you.

(20:24):
You're one of the few figure that I could say
redress or redoubt and you know you wouldn't even flinch.
But here is the problem, Professor, there is the law
which is blind, or we hope it is. You know,
the famous sculpture of Lady Justice and that's nice, but
we know that it is actually true. Blacks do in

(20:47):
every study typically other than when Trump is the presidential candidate,
and it's still overwhelming, Blacks do typically well over ninety
percent vote Democrat. So in reality, if you clump a
bunch of black you clump a district full of blacks,
and you draw it so that you only have blacks

(21:08):
in there, you're going Historically at least you've been able
to elect Democrats out of that. I mean, how do
we address that?

Speaker 12 (21:14):
Well, I think that's exactly the problem. It only goes
to benefit of one political party, of the Democratic Party.
If you're a Republican Illinois, Republican New York. There's no
way court saying hey they're diluting my vote. It only
works one way. And I think what Louisiana say is
we're not trying to disenfranchise black people. We're trying to
have a Republican supermajority. And so up north in Illinois

(21:35):
they can make Democratic super majorities, but in Louisiana and
Mississippi and Alabama they're forced to give Democrat seats. I mean, Michael,
if you actually look at the numbers through what rules
the way we think they're going to rule. There are
twelve democratic districts in the country that just vanish. That
exists only by virtue of the Voting Rights Act. So
it's sort of this asymmetry of this unequalness between the

(21:55):
North and the South. You know, if you are a
white Democrat in West Virginia, in a solid Republican state,
you have no luck. But if you're a black Democrat
in Louisiana, we're also you're a political minority. You can
go to Quarrent de Manda District. So I think what
the School Court's going to say is the rules should
be the same nationwide. We shouldn't have the sort of
this carve out for Democrats in the South the Republicans

(22:16):
in the north.

Speaker 3 (22:16):
Black well, and we did have a carve out, didn't we.

Speaker 12 (22:21):
You know.

Speaker 3 (22:23):
What comes to mind. I don't remember when it happened,
but I've studied it thoroughly is the eighteenth Congressional district
that was basically created for Barbara Jordan in Houston, which
included east of downtown probably where you're sitting right now,
which was downtown, and then east of downtown into black neighborhoods,
and it picked up a piece of downtown, which made

(22:44):
an interesting collaboration between white Democrats, many of whom would
become Republicans later, and Barbara Jordan, who was an acceptable
black candidate, not a rabble rouser, unlike Curtis Graves, the
candidate who against her, and he claimed that she was
an Auntie Tom because she was owned by the white

(23:05):
downtown interest. She went on to serve with great distinction,
and as you know, she was a keynote speaker at
the seventy six convention that nominated Carter and then again
in ninety two for Bill Clinton. So of black congressmen Democrats,
there is no Democrat black congressman who has served with
greater distinction than Barbara Jordan. There's no question about that.

(23:26):
But she was the beneficiary of a district created for
a black candidate in sort of compliance with the Voting
Rights Act. I think we can state that we could
stipulate that as fact.

Speaker 12 (23:38):
You're on her, absolutely, yes.

Speaker 3 (23:41):
So the point I got a little distracted because I
love the story of Barbara Jordan, but I got a
little distracted over the fact that the Voting Rights Act
did impose two systems. It said, you know what, Southerners
y'all are bad people. So we're going to make new
rules for y'all. We're going to impose these things upon
you because you've been bad in the past. And I

(24:04):
think that doesn't sit well. And I also think that
that's Unamerican.

Speaker 12 (24:08):
Yeah, yeah, I think the lawyer for Louisianas has Ben Aginaga,
who's clerk right here in Houston for Judge Judgiedith Jones,
brilliant lawyer. He said, Look, we acknowledge the bad deeds
that were done in the past. We can outrun our history.
We can never get away from the sins of our ancestors.
And again, we are fifty years from the voting right
SAX sixty years. At some point we got to say

(24:29):
times have changed. The world's a different place. And Louisiana
legislature is not acting based on racial hatred. They're acting
based on trying to create a Republican supermajority in the legislature,
which is what most states try to do. And if
you start from that premise, then there's no evidence there's
an intend to harm black voters. They're trying to harm
democratic voters who happen happened to be black. So what

(24:50):
I think the world do is. I was going to say,
let's go to have this business. The emaly is up north,
up North Italy can make their democratic supermajority in Louisiana
have a Republican superman and let the flakl chips fowld inmate.

Speaker 3 (25:03):
The esteemed Professor Josh Blackman of South Texas College of
Law is our guest.

Speaker 1 (25:07):
More with him, Joe, don't use that tone to me.
Not a joke.

Speaker 9 (25:12):
That's sarcastic, contemptuous tone that means you know everything because
you're a man, and I know nothing because I'm a woman.

Speaker 1 (25:19):
That is not a joke.

Speaker 3 (25:20):
That is a natural fact.

Speaker 5 (25:22):
The Michael Very Show.

Speaker 3 (25:25):
Professor Josh Blackman aka mister smarty Pants of the South
Texas College of Law is our guest where he is
a professor and well respected.

Speaker 12 (25:34):
You see him being recorded X News.

Speaker 1 (25:37):
Did you mean to do that?

Speaker 12 (25:39):
Oh, that's I'm sorry I did if I accident I
hit the thing on my phone was an I'm sorry
and I should tell you. Do you know my daughters
call me. They call me mister farty pants.

Speaker 1 (25:49):
Oh I love that you call me.

Speaker 12 (25:50):
You call me mister smarty pants. And my doors calling
mister forty. So that's I give I give you credit
for that.

Speaker 3 (25:55):
I gotta tell you, I miss my kids being of
the age where you could say the word fart and
they would start laughing. You can make them laugh at anything.

Speaker 12 (26:03):
At least in the world. It's a funny suit. They
love fart. Oh, I love it. And also, Michael, we
got another baby coming in December. We're very blessed, so
I love another We'll do another call. I'm changing my
baby's tifle to that one again.

Speaker 3 (26:14):
Elon Musk will approve.

Speaker 12 (26:16):
I have both replacements, right.

Speaker 3 (26:19):
Professor Josh Blackman is our guest. So if this case
is ruled to strike down the Voting Rights application Voting
Rights Act application that creates this jerrymandering, the talk is
a flip. You know twelve districts that were jerrymandered to
be black Democrat seats. You know, Jasmine Crockett of course

(26:41):
being one of those, Al Green being one of those
that they would very likely lose their seats and that
would mean a flip to Republicans of twelve, which is
a net effect of twenty four. That's a pretty dramatic
change in the House of Representatives. I mean a dramatic
change instead of being neck and neck, which it is
now about fifty fifty. That would take effect immediately. And

(27:05):
what what am I not thinking through in terms of
the administrative logistical issues involved here in apply?

Speaker 12 (27:13):
I don't know if it happens, I don't know how
quickly it can happen. So the Supreme Court will decide
this case in June of twenty twenty six. The internal
elections are November of twenty six I don't know if
you can get them all done that quickly. I think
realistically the primaries are happening now. You would definitely reducing
the primaries because you reach aroung the map. So I've

(27:36):
seen some essence thing that could be done. The Louisiana
Legislature is holding a special session like in July of
twenty sixth, So as soon as the three work decides
they're going to fix the maps. I don't know nationwide.
I mean, just one interesting thing, Michael about these maps
in order to sort of pack all the minority voters
in single district, that these maps that kind of stretch
like you know, like from Baton Rouge up to like Shreeveport.

(27:59):
It almost stretches in higher length of the state. People
who are completely dissimilar. They're not in any way similar
other than their race. It's just kind of this very
weird You know, what's a jerrymander? Use this word. It's
a fascinating word. It's this ancient word where someone drew
a map with a salamander, kind of the sneaking serpent.
Go to the state of Massachusetts. It was named after
a god named Elbert Garry, so they called it a

(28:19):
jerrymander or gary mander. It's just very weird way of
drawing maps can arouse since the time of the frame
of the Constitution.

Speaker 3 (28:26):
Yeah, it's one of my favorite words in political speak.
And it's a great story behind that. And like you,
I always if I'm giving a speech and a question
comes up with regard to how districts are drawn and
how politics is played, and how you talk about a
threat to democracy, it is anesthetical to prove a true

(28:46):
democratic republic because you're not representative in nature. You're now
jiggering with the process, which makes my opinion and mockery
of it. And so I always tell the story of
how jerry mandarin came to be, as you just did,
and how funny is it was actually pronounced Elbridge, Gary
as as it would happen. You expect that, you know,

(29:07):
if I forced you right now to tell me the ruling.
Is this a six three or a five four?

Speaker 12 (29:14):
This one's sixty three. This one's not a hard one
to predict. Really, Yeah, some cases are hard. This one's
not hard.

Speaker 3 (29:20):
And that's based on what you've heard them say so far.

Speaker 12 (29:23):
Yeah, the argument has been about two and a half
hours and there's not a single doubt from the Conservatives,
you know, how they write the opinion. I'm not sure
there are different ways they can go. But Louisiana wins
this one. And I think again, it maybe twelve districts
that get redrawn. Maybe it's ten, maybe it's eight, maybe
it's six. Maybe the standard are different. And Michael, it's
not just it's not just congressional districts. You know. I

(29:44):
live in Spring Branch, is D. There's a voting right
challenge to our district and ISD. And if the case
goes its way, I think the voting district supremach id
stays the same. Those a judge was about to make
us have a lot large elections for our school board, right,
I think that case probably goes away.

Speaker 3 (30:00):
Yeah, so so this would affect the at large.

Speaker 12 (30:03):
And everything and districting races distinction. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (30:08):
Wow, that I did not realize that was applicable to this.
That that is most interesting, professor, while we have you
have got about three minutes. Are there any other cases
out there brewing that that that they've granted rit for
that that you you think are are granted search for
that you think we should keep an eye on.

Speaker 4 (30:26):
Yeah.

Speaker 12 (30:27):
So the big one will be argued to is a
terroriff's case whether the president Trump's tariffs are lawful, whether
there's a power to issue them. This is one of
these cases who if the court rules of tariffs are
not legal and soror Trump is to repay the money.
He's basically said, we don't have the money to give
back to these various companies foreign countries. We don't have
the money. So I'm not quite sure how to unwind
that one. That could be that could be of a mess.

(30:48):
Another big case on his birthright citizenship, which we argued
later this year. I think Trump's going to lose that one,
but maybe he knows that very big case bet the
person's power to fire people. Trump fired the missioner of
the Federal Trade Commission, which is so called independent agency.
And Trump's going to basically say these are all in constitutional.
You can't protect people in these independent agencies. I'm the president,

(31:09):
I controlled the executive branch. I feel to fire people.
So these are three huge cases like birthright, citizenship, tariffs,
present firing people plus right plus Voting Rights Act. This
is one of the biggest terms of my lifetime.

Speaker 3 (31:25):
That is, you know, the problem is, I found myself,
like your students, in wrapped attention with what you're saying,
and then you just come to an abrupt stop. And
I wasn't. I didn't think about it ahead of a question.
I was actually paying attention, which very rare for me,
very rare. Indeed, I want to go back to the
Voting Rights Act case. Clarence Thomas, my favorite justice and

(31:49):
the second most important political writer thinker of our day,
the first being Thomas soul making the interesting scenario that
the two most influential thinkers of our day are both black,
and that is celebrated. Of course, it isn't because they're conservatives.
He had he had some things to say yesterday that
garnered a lot of attention. Your thoughts on how influential

(32:12):
that will be to the rest of the court.

Speaker 12 (32:15):
Well, I think Justice Thomas has a certain you know,
progive he grew up in jim Crow South, he saw
in Georgia what the world was like, and you know,
he he rose up in the world. He married a
white woman. He doesn't thing that will be illegal when
he was born, right, and he's truly sort of risen
to the top of the legal thinking. I think Justice
Thomas will go further and say, as he said before,

(32:36):
that we need to get out of this business of
judging people based in their race, that these stereotypes. And
I mean you might be right that black voters lean
Democratic in high percentages, but to sort of pack them
in a district for the sole purpose of electing Democrats
is almost unconscionable. It's just just disgraceful the way that's done.
Who just basically, you know, pawns to vote a certain way.
Who cares if you know you're a farmer up by

(32:57):
Shreveport or your leer city widweller and baton Rougel this thing, right,
you all together.

Speaker 3 (33:02):
You're first and foremost and at the end of the day,
essentially just black. It's treating blacks like pets. I've said
this all along as you said, I can say I
use the word pets or our livestock, I mean talk
about chattel. It's treating people as if they're not individual
human beings. It's as if they're nothing more than the
sum of their skin which.

Speaker 1 (33:21):
They were born with.

Speaker 3 (33:22):
And I think that is the most consulting thing ever.

Speaker 12 (33:26):
Yeah, justin Thomas says, every person is born with a
dignity of his Lord and creator, and we're all individuals.
We should not be treated in the stereotype fashion as
just another part of a political machine. And I hope
this from court does the right thing and then frees
us from this regime.

Speaker 3 (33:40):
You're about to make me quote one of the one
of my favorite lines from Thomas Jefferson and is on
the Jefferson memorial, but I'll spare you that because we're
out of time. Professor Josh Blackman, aka mister smarty Pants,
And today we find out another alias mister fardy Pants
to his kids, and congratulations on your forthcoming child. That
is a delightful news. So I'm glad to hear you.

(34:00):
I'm glad to break that here on the show and
We look forward to having you back again. Professor Josh Blackman,
South Texas College of Law, Supreme Court expert.

Speaker 12 (34:08):
Thank you, Michael Capite