geoff: To discuss the
implications of the supreme
court's major decisions this
week, we turn to the analysis of
brooks and Capehart.
That's "New York Times"
columnist David brooks and
Jonathan Capehart, associate
editor for "The Washington
post."
Welcome to you both.
The supreme court has given us
much to discuss on this Friday.
Let's start with the supreme
court siding with the website
designer in Colorado who said
she had a first amendment right
to refuse services to same-sex
couples despite a law in
Colorado that for biz
discrimination against gay
people.
There are religious
conservatives hailing this as a
victory for religious liberty
and others say this ruling
created a constitutional right
to discriminate.
David: I am not qualified to
give a legal opinion, so I look
at is it good or bad for
society?
You had the right for artistic
expression, nondiscrimination,
and a context between those two.
The court said free expression.
It seems to me that the idea
that we don't discriminate in
our businesses, that is a much
more serious thing to break that
than to restrict someone who is
really running a business, not
just painting a painting but
running a business.
If that person is running a
business and allowed to
discriminate, it seems to me it
is poison in our society.
Geoff: Using David's frame, the
impact on society, what is your
assessment?
Jonathan: I have to tell you,
this ruling and a bunch of other
rulings from this court pains
me, and it pains me personally.
I think David framed it
perfectly.
I am not a lawyer but I will S S
this decision is wrong.
It is absolutely wrong.
It is also wrong because this
web designer -- no one asked her
to do what she says she feels
she will be forced to do.
The supreme court just made it
possible for private businesses
to discriminate against people
like me simply because they fear
they might have to do something
no one asked them to do?
David is right, this decision is
definitely a poison on society,
also because it is so broad.
Who is to say it doesn't stop at
web designers were private
businesses?
-- Or private businesses?
That it doesn't lead to more
erosion of rights for protected
classes?
Geoff: On the matter of the
supreme court striking down the
use ofofffirmative action in
college admissions policies,
colleges and certainly have a
game plan, we just heard the
segment that some are
emphasizing the use of essays.
President Biden suggested a new
standard by which schools can
take into account kind of
adversity students have
overcome.
David: I think there are three
things to be said about this.
One, we need diverse
institutions.
Two, I think there was massive
discrimination against Asian
Americans.
And three, college admissions at
the elite level are rigged for
the rich.
To me, the way out, which I hope
colleges will do, is to say you
are not allowing racial
preference but we are doing
class preference, and if you
come from a family with less
wealth, we give you a
preference.
If you do that, because of
historic disparities between
blacks and whites, you can
increase the number of lack
students and hispanic students
-- black students and hispanic
students, and can take down
basically what is a caste
society, which is rich parents
with rich kids who marry each
other.
It has created a horrific class
designed in this country.
I think there is a way to do
this right and get everything we
want, but the universities have
to be willing to not bias their
whole system toward the rich.
Geoff: I want to read some
notable reaction to the supreme
court decision.
Nikki Haley had to say this --
picking winners and losers based
on race is fundamentally wrong.
This decision will help every
student no matter their
background, have a better
opportunity to achieve the
American dream.
From Richelle Obama -- Michelle,
she had this to say -- so often
we think money and privilege are
forms of affirmative action
while kids like me were first to
compete when the ground is not
level.
Jonathan: This is another
supreme court decision that hits
me personally.
Were it not for affirmative
action, I would not be sitting
in this seat, I would not be
with David rooks, I would not
have button the great education
I got.
The thing I found most offensive
about this decision is the
foundation of this so-called
colorblind constitution, that
affirmative action flew in the
face of the colorblind
constitution, which is a
fallacy.
Which I think justice katarzyna
brown Jackson did a superb job,
I'm sure the justices know the
history, but to the American
people, outlining to them in a
great synopsis of our tortured
American history when it comes
to race, why something as modest
as affirmative action was
necessary.
Once again, you have a supreme
court which I think, between the
two decisions we are talking
about right now and the next
one, student loan forgiveness,
the American people -- they will
start looking at the supreme
court not as judges sitting on
high and being the referee, but
as political actors who don't
have the interests of the
majority of the American people
at heart.
Geoff: On that point, the court
striking down president Biden's
plan to cancel student debt for
roughly 40 million people, how
might that play politically, and
to Jonathan's point, how does it
affect the legitimacy of the
court?
David: I wrote a column more or
less endorsing giving a break on
the debt, but even at that time
I thought this is no way this is
constitutional.
There's no way the U.S.
Constitution thinks the united
States president should sign a
piece of paper and be willing to
spend $400 million.
The power to spend is clearly in
the house.
Geoff: Democrats had that
concern initially.
David: And Joe Biden had that
concern.
So I think he can blame the
court and he can try to use the
higher education act to go the
other way.
I'm not sure he can do it as
ambitiously as he had, but that
is fine by me.
Especially student that had
received Pell grants, on
education, and focus the really
fun them, that is fine by me --
focus on them, that is fine by
me, because it was skewed toward
people that make a lot of money.
One more thing, the tone these
justices are using against each
other was introduced by justice
Scalia years ago and it is a
brutalized and often
personalized tone and that to me
does undermine the credibility
of the court.
They really look like cage
fighters at this point.
.
They come to decisions but do it
in a way that feels legalistic
and prudent.
Geoff: Jonathan, go ahead.
Jonathan: You know what, the
personal tone, particularly from
the liberal justices writing in
the dissent, I am here for it
100%.
We are not talking about arcane
policies and readings of the
constitution as it applies to
something that applies to a very
narrow set of people.
We are talking about dissents
that are thundering against a
court that is going against star
sizes, stripping rights away
from people they've come to rely
on -- roe V. Wade, affirmative
action.
Justice Thomas signaled that
Griswold and others should be
overturned.
So if justice Sotomayor your and
justice Jackson and the other
liberals want to thunder against
the six conservative justices,
have at it.
That is the voice of a lot of,
millions of Americans who are
right now tonight as we are
speaking, fearful of what other
rights will go by the wayside.
David: I was sinking of Tom is
against Jackson.
-- Thomas against Jackson.
[Laughter]
Geoff: In the time remaining,
you ask a question in a column,
why are Americans feeling so bad
about an economy that is so
good?
The main problem is national
psychology.
Tell us more.
David: The misery index measures
how well the economy is doing,
usually presidents win if it is
doing well.
The economy is doing better than
when Obama and bush N.
Currently we are hunted by
inflation but partly we are
through demoralization.
We've lost confidence because of
the trump years.
We've become much more
pessimistic and whether Biden
can restore people and look
around the country, a lotot is
going wrong but the economy is
going quite well.
If he can do that, he has to win
reelection.
Geoff: Jonathan, I know you have
an impressive rolodex of white
house officials you speak to
frequently.
Do they think they can counter
this national malaise?
Jonathan:hey are going to try.
The fact they are trying to do
it now more than a year out from
the election tells me they are
taking it seriously and they
stand a chance of a breaking
through to the American people
so that the good economic data
can match up to the good
feelings they hope the American
people will have by November of