hour. >> i want to welcome you to this panel. when we introduced the act of 2021, it was seen as to political, as time has passed since we started, more people have been convinced that unpacking the court, expanding it is the way to go. that's with this panel will be all about today. with that, i will turn the podium over to my cohort and colleague from new york. [applause] >> good afternoon, everyone. i want to thank the distinguished chair of the house judiciary subcommittee on the court. it's been an incredible year on the subject. not just expansion but other forms of court reform. probably already support some kind of court reform because like everyone else in this room, many of the crises we face today , i think chief among them is the crisis of democracy. i think we live right now with what is happening with the voting rights and continuing to happen, to get a true multiracial democracy. the court has unraveled other financial rights when it ended a 50 year constitutional right to an abortion and so much else. over the last decade, the far right has gutted the voting rights act. unlimited corporate spending in our elections ended the constitutional right to an abortion, struck down the effort to end gun violence and curb the epa ability to address climate change. so much of this happened over the summer. i know the dobbs decision ending the right to an abortion got most of the attention. there are many other really bad decisions that week and in the weeks that followed. the maggot majority -- the marga - the maga majority on the supreme court will do whatever it takes to hold its unpopular policies to the united states and is done through this unaccountable institution called the supreme court. at the ballot box, my republican colleagues and their allies could never win on the merits of their deeply unpopular policy ideas. they have -- they won't step of voting rights, the environment or our need to address gun violence or the climate crisis. justice thomas told us that marriage equality, intimacy and even contraception are all within the sites of this far right 6-3, hyper-partisan majority. those who argue that republicans may do the same in the future, i would invite them to understand that that nightmare scenario is already upon us as chairman johnson said, court expansion is about unpacking the court. the court is already packed. they don't need additional partisan hacks and the majority to accomplish whatever they want. not even justice roberts has control over this majority anymore. he is no longer the swing vote. court expansion is not a novel idea. congress has change the size of the court seven times before in our nations history. after abraham lincoln was assassinated and andrew johnson became president, congress was wary that this new president would pose reconstruction era laws and would nominate justices to the supreme court who are hostile to civil rights. so congress literally reduced the size of the supreme court over time to deprive him of the opportunity to nominate justices in that mold. i think that congress today, democrats in particular, have to act with that kind of oldness and urgency -- that kind of boldness and urgency. i think court expansion is a modest proposal given everything we are facing. a poll showed that the majority of americans now support court expansion. i am excited about that. [applause] >> that was not always the case. it has long been established over the past year that the dobbs majority is a call for expansion and congress has to act now before it's too late, while we have majorities in both chambers to protect and strengthen what remains of our democracy and what remains of the fundamental rights we take for granted in our everyday lives. so long as this court remains hostile to civil-rights, such as by gutting the voting rights act for example, rights that have often enacted by congress, court expansion has to be part of the response. we cannot expectedly -- expect to simply legislate rights and think the court will uphold those rights when statutes are challenged before it. i am excited to be here and i'm excited about what is required to preserve justice thurgood marshall's legacy. i am really, really excited most of all by all of you in this room and you have a great interest and by the incredible simone sanders who is a dear friend and an inspiration to all of us. i want to congratulate her on her new show on msnbc. [applause] >> as well as panelists who i've long admired. with that said, i would like to introduce the great simone sanders who will moderate today's discussion, thank you. [applause] >> thank you, give it up for the good congressman, congressman hank johnson as well. i'm so happy to be your moderator today. i'm going to get the panelists up here. you all are not fired up enough about the supreme court and what has happened to our rights. hopefully, this panel will inject a little life into you all out here. somebody say right. somebody say supreme court. i am not a lawyer. i just do the talking points for them so i will bring some people to give context, history and to break them what is happening in this moment. i would like to introduce ms. tamura brumer from we demand justice. next, mr. donald sherman is a senior vice president and truth counsel forc rew. next up, mr. haletymastal/\. not to be at dennis mr. roland martin. -- not to be outdone, mr. roland martin. [applause] >> last but certainly not least is martin luther king jr. iii, give it up for this panel. i'm going to leave this microphone and join the panel. [applause] >> i'm going to start this conversation with a little context. we talked about the legacy of thurgood marshall, the first black justice to serve on the united states supreme. today, this morning judge now just as ketanji brown jackson was invested, it was in investiture into the supreme court. because we have a session that starts monday. while we are excited and happy about it that history being made, i think it's important to unpack what is on the docket. on monday, the court will hear all kinds of things. it starts at 9:30 a.m. and they will have a long list of cases that it agreeing to hear. one of the things to watch the supreme or session is particularly about a challenge to the voting rights act of 1965. ellie, let me start with you. we need a baseline for this conversation. what is going on with this court? and if you had to pick one thing you were most concerned about the session, what would it be? you have to pick one. >> i will start with democracy. that seems like a good place to start. the court will hear two major cases that will determine whether or not we have a republican this turn. the one that's gotten most of the press is moore v which is the independent state legislature theory, that the state legislature, not the voters and not the courts of the state but the state legislatures of the state actually get to decide the voting rules of the state and who gets to vote and whose vote counts and whose votes can be thrown away in the state. this theory is so controversial that the first version of it was surfaced by william waring quest -- rehnquist while he was trying to come up with a way to make george bush president over a court ordered recount in florida. william rehnquist surfaced this independent state legislature theory. it was wildly popular at the time except for one other justice. that is going to be coming up this term whether or not the legislatures themselves can throw out palms that they don't like. the other big case will be tuesday and that's called merrill -- this is about the alabama gerrymandered. alabama put forward a map that will -- that had one majority/minority district and probably should have had to. it was so racially divisive that the conservative alabama state court said that's too much for us. it goes up to the 11th circuit court of appeal, a trump court in the 11th circuit, two judges picked by trump were like you can't do that. brett kavanaugh said wait. not to raced for me. -- not too racist for me. long before the election this year, brett kavanaugh and his cronies said we are too close to the election to change alabama's map so we have to go with the racist map for this election. that's what's happening in november. cannot tober, he said we will decide whether long-term -- in october, he said we will decide whether or not this is to racist. if i had to pick one thing it's the supreme court overturning the will of a democracy. >> donald and tamura i want to bring you in. i think your organization operates as a watchdog organization. tamura, i think expanding the court has become such a mainstream conversation largely due to the work of we demand justice. i worked on the president's campaign and i can say that with confidence. talk to me about the advocacy efforts around the court and then we will go to our political experts to get into it. talk to me about your advocacy efforts around the conversation around the. for one political party in this country, the courts have been a voting issue. my friends who are republican strategist, that's an issue. it has not been a mainstream conversation for all voters and particularly democratic voters. talk a little about that. >> thank you for that question. demand justice started in 2018 because democrats were not doing anything about the courts. we had watched merrick garland with her. the republicans change the rules so they could get the supreme court justice they wanted and they keep changing the rules. when you talked everyday people, our communities understand the impact supreme court has on our lives. our members of congress, not all of them but many of them, act as though you don't have to worry about it. we will pass a law and it will change everything in this cream court has shown us they don't care about laws. they care about controlling power. when we talk to everyday people about the court, we are saying when you vote, your vote has so much power. that means when you vote for the right candidate, they will have the opportunity to put supreme court justices and federal lower or justices on the bench. that's when we have our day in court. we have to have a pipeline of justice to make that happen. when rbd passed away -- when our bg passed away -- when rbg passed away, they said the court was broken. when the rules aren't working, the republicans change the rules to make them work for them. we have power now. i think we have power and we have an opportunity to make the playing field more even for our communities and their people. that's why in the course of two years, the majority of americans now want to see court expansion as a viable option to making our democracy more robust. >> donald, jump in here. i note roland martin will have something to say in a moment be does a lot of people understand the importance of the courts. i think there are folks out there, analysts and strategists who would say i don't necessarily think so but we will circle back on that point. >> thank you for the question. when we talk about advocacy in the supreme court, there is advocacy that people think of, thurgood marshall in front of the bench arguing. but then my group which is an efficacy in good government group, we are focused on what you don't see. the money that is spent on junkets, speaking engagements, conferences for the justices to hang out and huddle ca and have rich conservativesbal, and press the flesh with supreme court justices. one reason why we are talking about clarence thomas, there are a number of justices whose spouses have stepped back from advocacy, litigation when they saw their spouse rise to the federal bench. with ginni thomas, we see she is affirmatively engaged in an effort to monetize her position and her proximity to clarence thomas. this manifests in things like clarence thomas forgetting to mention his wife got $680,000 from the heritage foundation because it has no business that could be relevant to the supreme court. there are any number of ways -- you think you will go and have your day in court. what happens when you show up and the decision has already been made before you walk into the room? from the standpoint of being an advocate, we are focused on what's happening behind those those doors, how do we bring some light to what the supreme is doing? as chairman johnson and representative jones mentioned at their hearing in april, the supreme court doesn't have oversight. >> there is no oversight for justice members on the supreme court. there is actually no enforcement. what would be the mechanism? it doesn't exist. >> exactly. >> you hold tight because you will kick us off. mr. king. >> it strikes me that whether we are talking about the gutting of the voting rights act of 1965, the voting rights act is on life support. it's section two which is eliminated, it will be dead. i don't think we are talking enough about that but the reality is that a lot of the conversations we are having around the port, a lot of the things and issues that are bubbling up to the supreme court , these are things that are broken. give me historical context. as a child of the civil rights movement, you see what is happening right now. i have to imagine this ways on you and your colleagues heavily. >> there is no question. i want to thank congressman johnson and jones for getting us together on this panel especially you. unfortunately, you have to provide leadership at times so people know what's happening in our communities. you also have to provide context, as you say. the fact of the matter is, the court is out of line with what the majority of the people think. and secondly, the court used to be alive with the appellate courts. i think there were nine. now there are 13 and therefore we need to add more justices and it should be done now. every now and then, you have to slap people upside the head nonviolently. we don't need that moment, we need to be pushing for this legislation right now so that we have a court that at least more swings in line to what the majority wants. we purport to be a democracy. democracy is fading, as you say. the most recent poll said that's one of the top issues, thank god. >> for the first time. >> in addition to inflation and other things that are very important also. but we don't have a few minutes to get this right. i was involved with a large coalition last year to get voting rights done. we were involved with another large campaign in january to get voting rights done. we got 48 senators and were almost there. the fact of the matter is, the filibuster was addressed. we almost got that. that still has to be done, by the way, in my judgment. along with the additional members to the supreme court so that it is in line and structured the way it initially was. one justices over each district and some justices have two. when you deal with political control which is what most of the republican seem to be of doubt, we have a big problem. until the public engages in a significant way -- my dad understands and others have understood that we have to stay on the battlefield. we have to constantly be engaged. this is one of the most critical issues of our time. >> roland, we are on the battlefield now, my brother. roland will say something that wants to make everyone on the panel to respond so feel free. i want to throw this out there. i'm stirring the pot today. i think of a lot of americans are out of laser they say why don't -- why don't we have more supreme court justices? the current president of the united states and his it visors are not for expansion of the court -- and his advisers are not for expansion of the court. >> you asked earlier -- are folks interested? you say we are focused on this. if you walk out that door and go to the other end of this hallway , you are going to see a throng of people standing outside of the two sessions further down. one of them is called hip hop in politics. the other is about entertainment. do you see standing room only outside the tour? a lot of folks are laughing ourselves out. we are entertaining ourselves to death. [applause] >> are you asserting that black people don't care about the supreme court? >> when we are more interested in hearing from ill-informed celebrities [applause] who are not using their celebrity in the tradition of paul robeson and harry belafonte, ruby dee, harry belafonte, dick gregory, diane carol, sidney poitier and others , we have a movement where we have academics and legal scholars and media folks who are trying to talk about this but we do not have all hands on deck. if this is a battlefield than we are operating shorthanded. there is a level of consciousness that is required to connect the dots. our young sister from north carolina called my radio show been said i don't like hillary and i don't like trump, i will focus on the issues in my state in north carolina. name the four issues she is focused on and she named all four and i walked her down to show her how the president of the united states in the united states senate and the house has a direct relationship to the issues in her state. she was somehow thinking that what happens in d.c. was completely divorced from what is happening in north carolina, not known she was out of her mind. she was a so-called informed activists of the problem is, we have to stop operating these discussions in silos and start connecting the dots which is why we have to have schoolhouse rock three went zero because -- 3.0 because gavin newsom signed the law that you can no longer use rap lyrics and prosecution and that will be challenged in the court. they are using lyrics to prosecute rico cases. you better understand how the legal system impacts it. we have to start connecting the dots better and an everyday person realizes that supreme ol me and explain it. >> ok. >> yes, but some of that is leadership and democratic ship and where emigrants have dropped the ball. you want to talk about hillary, i voted for hillary. i think she would have been a better resident than donald trump but somehow she went through it an entire campaign without mentioning merrick garland's name. why would -- was merrick garland the choice anyway? >> obama is still mad at me because i called him out for not appointing a black supreme court. >> i don't want president obama to be mad at me. this is why they have me moderating this panel. there are a lot of big people of here. it is democratic leadership and entertainment. secretary and clinton -- sector clinton went to the entire campaign without mentioning mary garland. >> why is there that focus? i do not leave your average maga voter is smarter or cynically engage then your average based lack voter. i believe the average maga voter has been told for a generation that anything they want they have to have the courts. so your maga guy can't quote to me how the constitution works but he can talk about the second amendment. if i go to an average based democratic voter, then you get to the problem. if i say, do you care about climate change, then you need the court, guns, then you need the court. we don't have leaders do a good one to one comparison and we haven't for the past 30 years. >> while you are answering come i want to throw this out there. we have some leaders because we are at this panel at the black caucus and having this under the leadership of chairman johnson and congressman jones but the reality is this is not a widely accepted thought within the democratic party apparatus. the current president of the united states of america, who is a democrat, does not believe in expanding the court. >> i think it is important to acknowledge that the number of issues that we need to go to the mat for are larger than the white for this and sisters. when you talk about, we don't show up, we have to show up for everything. don't went to get -- the number of issues we have to show up for pales in comparison to what other folks have to show up for. the point is a good one that every issue we care about, we need courts, and that message has not penetrated, in part because there aren't that many people who have made it a priority. part of that is the generation. my parents, court was revered. it was the thing that's made the difference in having rights or not, and i think some folks took it for granted. i think the orientation is changing but we had an insurrection and we lost roe v. wade. what is it going to take for institutionalists to realize that institutions can't protect us if we don't stand up and do what is necessary to rebuild them? >> is expanding the court the only way? one could argue you need to have a focus on the federal courts. if one of my former colleagues were listening, they would say this president has focused on the federal courts and put more like women in the federal courts then those before. >> you have to be staffing being afraid of criticizing. >> he felt the heat. >> the reality is that the house is on fire and court expansion is a little bit of the water that is going to put out the fire. we have to understand that roe is the floor. people keep saying wait. >> i would like to note that the chairman does not condone that. >> as the third branch of the government, this is about checks and balances and it is out of balance. it provides more balance and we could have term limits. the fact that people can be on that for a lifetime. you waited to your person gets in. we could also have a code of ethics. court expansion, this is how we stop the bleeding. we are not taking the court -- and i agree that the leadership in the democratic party has treated the court as a deity of god's that because you aren't a lawyer can't question them and they know the constitution better than the rest of us, so how dare we challenge them, how dare we ask questions and say, this doesn't work anymore. i am excited that justice jackson is on the supreme court that there is not enough black girl magic that is going to stop this court from dismantling our democracy more. >> i don't only look at this thing in terms of federal courts . i spend an inordinate amount of time on my show. in 2020, this is in north carolina, they were excited about the polling. in 2020, she ran for reelection to be the chief justice of the north carolina state supreme court. she lost by 400 votes. had she won, democrats would have a six to one advantage on the north carolina state supreme court. by her losing, it is now 4-3. why is north carolina, why do they have a democratic governor and white do they have control of the courts because obama won north carolina and they completely voted suppression in 2010, and thom tillis got about 18% was the architect of that. so they begin to lead that and it goes statewide and they pulled back a lot of those rights. that led to racial gerrymandering illegal. so we talk about the courts and we have to realize that republicans are looking at state courts. the reason biden wins pennsylvania is because you had smart justices of the pennsylvania supreme court and they tried to go to districts to make sure they did have statewide elections. we have federally opponent supreme court. or justices are elected. when we talk about electoral politics, we rarely talk about judges who are running. we have to educate our people to understand you can't just yell expand the court if you won't even vote for who is in your state. so the state court matter and that is where democrats have not paid attention. democrats could right now take control of the wisconsin state supreme court if they take control of the wisconsin state court they could follow -- file a gerrymandering suit now determine gerrymandering to be illegal which will change the composition of the legislature and if it goes to state to state to state, it is multipronged. we have to get folks centered realize that the state court you could control some of those and change the clinical dynamics where you live. >> i am talking about giving people hope and i want to find some hope. >> i am giving hope. >> the reality is, with the decision that overturned roe v. wade and set the issue back to the states, i think it is safe to say that half the states abortion is illegal or near illegal, very hard to access. so it is a choose your own adventure where you live. but people have responded to that. i am originally from nebraska and i saw a lot of people on tv talking about, democrats got that done in kansas aren't enough democrats in the entire state of kansas. >> white women woke up, that was how it happened. >> i am 70 who is glad that people have come to the party. and care what time you got there. talk about the opportunity that we have. now that we are having a mainstream conversation about rights in connection with the courts and everybody from the very smart political people in this room are feeling it but every day places across the country. >> let me say one thing about what we have invested enough of us yet. we went to the federal courts for relief and every time there was an expansion, this is the first time in modern history where the court decided to roll something back. the frightening proposition is justice thomas told us they are coming after a lot of things. it is interesting that he things like marriage equality. he picked everything but interracial marriage. >> that is correct. >> i don't have boss. i'm get a call. -- i won't get a call. >> this is a pivotal moment in the industry -- in the history of our nation you have people talking about a new civil war. it is very frightening that is being said and nobody is willing to take it on and say, this is unconscionable and this is not the america that any of us should accept. there are some people crazy enough to do that. they showed us that on january 6. we all have to wake up. it is interesting that we call it "wokeness." my father did a sermon called "sleeping through evolution." it encouraged us to always stay awake. they created crt. i don't like to use the word. it doesn't exist in primary and secondary education. it was for law school and that is what it was designed for. they may have elements of what they call critical race. . texas he is the i have a dream part of the speed about children leaning -- living in not being judged on the color of their skin. but they used that to say you can't teach that in texas and you can't teach rosa parks. it is crazy. we are sitting around accepting this as if this is all right. we can change things tomorrow if we all decide we are going to get engaged. one example, how much money do we put in banks that don't support us? several of the big banks have put black folks out of houses. it is a shame. >> wells fargo. >> bank of america too. it is not just wells fargo. my point is, we need to target one of these institutions and say we are not going to deal with you in a more. they will help us address every issue but we spent a train dollars last year. >> what did you spent it on? >> this is where i get tl about the mainstream media. that is a huge part of the problem. there are two ways i like to think about this. think about how many reporters and people are covering congress and how many reporters are covering the white house and think about how many people are covering the courts, which is just as powerful as the other three branches. you have a huge imbalance. don't even have the coverage of these nine autocrats who are actually running things and have veto power over the elected branches. how many of those covering the courts are black besides me? me and kimberly adkins, there are five of us. for the most part, people allowed to cover the courts are covering it from a fundamentally white basis of understanding because the very few people allowed to do this work are predominantly white. when you think about financial news and cnbc, you have jim cramer talking about the stocks, they don't let people come on tv to talk about what is happening in the stock market can't balance a checkbook, but they will ask lately put people on tv to tell you what the courts are really doing who don't have a lot to agree, who have never listened to any of these and have no idea what they are talking about. >> they don't even know what the inside of the supreme court looks like. >> all they are doing is giving you the press release of what the justices want them to say. the huge part is the lack of transparency that happens with the court itself. >> i will go everyone for the final thoughts. >> to understand why you also don't see many of us, and the congressman has been aggressive in dealing with this. we had a conversation in tulsa last year and when i began to talk about the lack of dollars that black-owned media receives. when you talk about who covers white house, congress, supreme court, when the cdc comes out of their meeting, there is not a single black-owned media outlet who is a congressional correspondent. why is that the case? because black-owned media only gives .5%. the federal government spends $1 billion a year. the reality is, you can't afford to pay somebody for one of those jobs. so he has been working to shake those dollars loose and i have told the congresswoman this, if i have 5% of 5%, i could easily hire three congressional correspondence in 90 days. it comes down to dollars. it is a deliberate attempt to keep the audience informed. they are making deliberate decisions as to who is covering what. what i was talking about all the issues we have, you have to be able to educate folks and walk them through and begin to lay out exactly what is going on. king called it a need press to maintain -- negro press to maintain. when it comes to the marching orders, what it is requiring is to connect the dots between have to walk folks through, 70 said, none of this means nothing to me. the folks in the black robes don't impact me and then you begin to say, really, are you a felon or not? you take whatever issue they are dealing with and i guarantee you can trace it right back to the supreme work. that is the work we actually have to do. we have to stop saying the court matter we have to explain to somebody how the courts matter, why the courts matter. [applause] the work is on us to break someone down. someone can say, i had no idea that they are involved and precisely. that must be the charge walking out of here, stop hoping, congressman jones and johnson, the reality is every single person sitting here, you are communicating with somebody and groups of people on a daily basis. now i have to challenge you, what are you talking about when you communicate? >> that is the way to kick it off. i want you to pick up where he left off. this is about that is actively being waged. a number of republican states attorneys have challenged the recent policy on student loans. >> to pick up where brother roland left it off is we have to talk about courts and why they matter. organizations need to as well. we are part of communities and institutions that have cases in front of this courts coming up. those organizations do not have a position on this issue or their position is, we are not going to do anything about it and we will continue to throw money at resources and allow clarence thomas to be the ideological anchor to determine what the future of our organization. i believe in abortion, but if organizations that protect and defend abortion do not say this court is broken, the people who follow that organization going to think, i guess the courts are fine and this is not how it is supposed to be and we know that is not true. so he should talk to your neighbors and the organizations are supposed to protect our rights and we also have to say, this court is broken and no longer fair for us. this is not a level playing field for our communities. we can't be scared because we've never been in the court. i hope they recognize that this isn't fair paid why do you want to keep go in front of court and keep losing? do you want to keep losing? you have to use the court as a strategy. it is a tactic for the broader strategy to protect our democracy and organizations have to believe that. >> so to build off of that, i think we need to do two things. one, we need to convey why the court matters but then we immediately need to say, but these people aren't special. many of us think and there are many in congress who think these judges are above the law and beyond reproach and they can sit upon height and determine our civil rights and access to health care and don't have to be accountable to us or accountable to anybody and don't have to be accountable to congress. that is one -- what his bill has been about these justices matter in this institution matters, but if it matters, it also has to be accountable. these folks aren't special and we need to remind them that we need to change our laws so they can be held accountable and push them. we have giving you life tenure and the authority to determine whether we have access to health care and whether we can vote and you are telling me that you can even of i buy the basic rules that low-level government employees need to abide by? >> mr. martin luther king the third? >> i want to say two things quickly peered my dad is to say that there is nothing more powerful in all the world than an idea whose time has come and secondly that the time is always right to do that which is right. now is the time for us to transform this court so that it works for the majority of the population of the united states of america. we can either sit by in our seats and do nothing or do many of the things that everyone up here has stated. and we need to do it now here now is the time. >> now is the court. >> it is back to where this panel started, the shift. let's go back to 1988, thurgood marshall, my favorite justice. he is appointed in 1967 and is a 78-year-old man. he has just hung on through two administrations of ronald reagan and now george bush is in charge and george bush has booked him. he is old and sick and can't do the job anymore at the high level that he has come to expect from his self in the country expected of him. so in an amazing act of putting country first, thurgood marshall fans in his his resignation letter to george h. w. bush knowing full well the person they would replace them was not up to his level. that is what he did for the country. he didn't die in 1988 he died in january 1993, two weeks after bill clinton was inaugurated president. never let them tell you that the justices they have on the court now are --. always fight for the ideals that thurgood marshall had and not the lesser people that have come to take his place. >> give it up for this panel. [applause] i told him, how many people are watching online? >> the reason why owning your stuff matters and a lot of folks come up to me and say you are supporters of my show and network. we are livestreaming this so we don't just talk to the room. there are more than 1000 folks who have been watching our panel and we re-stream it eight more times your that is how we also use black-owned media to drive a message and go outside of the room. that is why what congress is doing is important and that is why when i am back there writing the book that is paying for it, the hierarchy of my company is god and then the. i don't have to ask anyone what to do. >> i am very happy for my boss and with that, i would like to give another round of applause for this panel but a larger round of applause for the chairman and congressman. you all can do better than that. [applause] for pioneering this conversation, keeping the conversation going, we thank you. >> thank you. and let's give it up for her. it took a hell of a woman to moderate this panel right here. [applause] i want to thank the panelist and i want to thank roland martin for giving me my free copy. >> that ain't free. >> white fear. i am going to enjoy reading this. in 1971, which was just six years after the passage of the voting rights act of 1965 and eight years after the passage in 1964 of the civil rights act, there was a future supreme court justice. his name was lewis powell. and he was a corporate lawyer out of richmond, virginia representing wealthy corporations. and he wrote what is now referred to as lewis powell memo or memorandum. if you oh and google that which he published in 1971, his friend in the united states chamber of commerce laid out a framework for the takeover of this country to stop what had been started by the passage of the civil rights act >> after his memo was sent, he was then appointed to the united states supreme court by richard nixon, who gained his election by promising law and order. and we know those codewords. we know what that means. lewis powell was appointed to the u.s. supreme court. as a result of all of the things that he recommended in his memo, we are at this point in our history as a people. republicans have taken the united states supreme court and the federal judiciary very seriously. but we have not. democrats have not. they have been focused on it for 50 years and they finally got what they wanted. and now we are paying the price for it. that is what this panel was all about. i hope it has activated you. something you may have heard from some of these illustrious speakers. i hope something has activated you to be more involved in this issue. y'all have got to watch her show. congratulations on getting your show. y'all give another hand to the panel and moderator and the distinguished chair. leadership has been instrumental at this point. >> we know from the discussion today that we have yet further to go. that is going to require everyone in this room having those conversations. it should be top of mind for folks as we witnessed the cascade of horrors we are going to see from the supreme court until we do something to stop it. i thank god everyday we are not powerless to stop this from continuing to happen. but that takes leadership. not just in congress, where unfortunately too many of my colleagues have lived such conservative, risk-averse lives, that they find themselves often behind where the american people are on any number of subjects. just look at how few of my democratic colleagues have signed on to legislation to -- to the supreme court of the united states. that is why the movement building is so important. it is why we need you to educate people about what is at stake with the supreme court and funding the rights that black people in particular urgently need to see perspective. black women are in crisis. as a floor, roe v. wade was a floor. we have already had issues with roe v. wade and accessing reproductive care. understand the power that you have. the folks we have in congress supporting this, any of them have signed on because someone brought it to them. because there will be consequences for the only thing that would actually save us in this moment. thank you for everything. they cue to the panel, the moderator. and let's keep fighting. [applause]