_The Supermajority Review_ of The US Supreme Court and Its Trumpification - Copy

The transcript is a discussion about the Supreme Court in the United States and its recent decisions. It mentions the case of Roe v. Wade and the impact on abortion rights and gun rights. The focus is on a book review by Michael Waldman titled "The Supermajority Review of the Supreme Court of Trump in America." The review discusses the court's decisions, including the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the loosening of privacy rights. It argues that the court's extreme decisions have provoked national backlashes and undermined public perception of the court as a bastion of democracy. The transcript also mentions historical cases and the impact of money in politics on the court's decisions. Overall, it suggests that the court's actions pose a serious threat to American democracy. Hello and welcome to this episode of the JRA Lawyer and I want to talk about the issue of the Supreme Court in the United States and this follows the most recent decisions which are now almost a year ago that were transformational, caused a lot of debates, at least public debates all over the world, one of which was around the case of Roe v. Wade which is a case of regarding abortion and the other relating to abortion rights, gun rights, etc. etc. And the judge has run what appears to be a serialization of a review of a book by Michael Waldman and the title is the Supermajority Review of the Supreme Court of Trump in America and the author is Michael, according to some of the titles, Michael Waldman, who lives with a terrific children's account of how conservatives hijack the US democracy. He is a lawyer and president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University and also a historian and essentially the review starts by mentioning that the book focuses on the, what he calls, horrendous decisions the court has rendered at the end of its term one year ago, as I mentioned, but also includes a brief history of the court's last two years from what he calls the disastrous laws of the French court of Stamford, which was in 1867, and places v. Ferguson, 1896, to Brown v. Board of Education, 1962, which essentially deals with the segregation or dis-segregation of the school system, and most recently, Ombudsman v. Dell, as I told you, 2015. The longest analysis, however, was devoted to the last three days, to three days, in June 2022, when what he termed as decades of social change were crammed into three days. And the writer's quote is saying that the court overtimes Roe v. Wade, abortion, putting at risk all other privacy rights, which radically loosened the cuffs and cans, right in the middle of the epidemic of March 15th, and also hopefully the ability of government agencies to protect public health and safety has changed under the court. He goes on to say that the decision was the work of a little group of willful men and women ripping up long-settled aspects of American life for no reason beyond the fact that they can, again, those are his words. And he goes on to describe how extreme decisions by the Supreme Court have provoked gigantic or major national backlashes. Now, before we go into the actual decision, we also have to understand that this is the content of the ongoing intrinsic focus on the specific Supreme Court charges, in terms of their unaged, associated, or suspected, consequences, different kind of gifts and treats, etc., etc. So, all those things sort of together, in concert with the key decisions, transformational decisions, in what I'm calling three decades of social change, have put in peril the perceptions, public perceptions, of the U.S. Supreme Court as a bastion of as a dependent and bastion of rationality, and therefore, dependent democracy, especially in the last few years where American democracy has been shaken to its core. He goes back to the Civil War, which started four years after the court held in a case called Dred Scott that African Americans not serve in federal court because they could not be citizens of the United States. In May 1935, what he called the quote-unquote Black Manifestations, obliterated the key parts of Franco's First Amendment, which also struck down the National Recovery Administration. The rulings that led to the unsuccessful plan of the then President, which was to expand the size of the court, but consequently led to the court to a vast exposition on the interior, which suddenly upheld Social Security and the National Labor Relations Act, which referred to the number of injustices on the court, which led to a description of the injustices on the court by the then Newspaper Humorist called the switch in time that served nine, meaning the reversal of the scope of court, that served the court from being expanded beyond the nine justices. The Offer Awardment was meant to describe the current makeup of the court as the ultimate outcome of the longest backlash of all, the one to the courts that led Al Warren, who crafted even a mass opinion braunt, after a lot of segregation and public decisions. He refers to equally important decisions that required native-selective districts to have equal populations, He mentions that Reynolds v. Slim, in 1964, nearly 40% of the population of California lived in Los Angeles, and by the state constitution awarded the count to just one of the 40 state senators, proclaiming the revolutionary doctrine of what one person on the court said, that legislators represent people of choice for acres, and by 1968, 1993, of 1997, the chambers had withdrawn their decision to remove that. But, apparently these vital building blocks of modern American democracy coincided with most of the democratic changes of the 1960s, which included a fight for racial equality and the expulsion of sexual freedom. And backlash to the 1960s lasted much longer than the 1960s did, as Goldman observed, and the current generation of Californians, have lived in a state of outcomes. However, in 1968, the next campaign, was much the backslash of the backlash, when a young campaign aide explained to classic journalists, he said the whole sector of politics was not even meant for, a theory that apparently has led to the ascendance of Donald Trump. And he goes on to discuss the problem, that the initial election dissipated the assassination of Nixon, and instead, six years later, the energy of that social push has been on the rise, where recent amounts of money on Nixon, have found themselves into the process, in August, and choosing candidates for public office, including, you know, candidates for, in some ways, directly or indirectly, for the Supreme Court. And, he cites an example, say, from the United Voters Federal Election Commission in 2010, when Cal Justice, including Robert Andy, the century of campaign finance law, and citizens of the United States, many of whom were members of corporations, were making it a start, to publicly, closely pretend, that they were independent of the candidacy, to see that, and he says that, that proved to those presidential contenders, where hundreds of millions of voters were coming, all of it, supposedly, independent. And that was the beginning of the robust majority use of the fact that, to undermine democracy, which is a constitutional contradiction, and two years after the United States court eliminated a long-standing, a couple of them out, individuals could appear to the federal courts. So, these rulings were made by American politics, as well as human rights, in a new, gilded age of fantastically concentrated wealth, billions, again, dominated the electoral system. The shift was dramatic in that age. It was dramatic in that, in 2010, billionaires made about 31 million in terms of prices, and in every legislative age, to almost 2.2 billion. And last year, Peter Taylor provided nearly 30 million in advance, to support J.D. Barr in Ohio, and Mike Buster in Arizona. And also, more and more congressmen, of course, are becoming serious threats to American democracy. And in that, he suggests that, the many best jury on the impact of the Supreme Court on the process, has shaken to the core of American democracy. And he suggests that, they all know that the democratic successes in last year's midterms, many guests in the jury, over the fall of Roe v. Wade, marked the beginning of the backlash, against the right-wing revolution, the courts now, apparently, shamelessly promote. And so, that is an account of a well-established lawyer, a jurist, an historian, giving an account of how the U.S. Supreme Court, in the days of what some have called judicial madness, where decades of social satanism, satanists were shredded within three days. And now, the ongoing press revelations, and the specific aspects of specific judges, giving a background of what happened, and the attack on the Houses of Congress. It's a very, it's a wake-up call, for what is one of the biggest democracies, in terms of having functioning systems, institutions, the biggest economy, the biggest economy. It is a wake-up call, to live up to its claim, its image, of being a shiny, sit-on-a-hill, sit-on-a-hill, to which everyone, the numb and the free, the tired, the weak, the sick, to which they run to, and the city on the hill, to which all those who seek freedom, justice, and a fair share, and to uplift their lives, run to. And, in just that book, Waldemar, concludes, that all that peril, and even more, it says, it's a serious threat to American democracy, and that's courtesy of the Supreme Court, which should be bastion, guardian, independent, partial guardian of democracy. So, we shall leave it for this episode of The Terrible Lawyer, and we shall speak again. Thanks for listening. Bye.