You dont have that direct evidence and you need this indirect evidence. Know your honor first of all i strongly deny the General Assembly engaged in discrimination but even in that discrimination case you have to prove the injury element is stronger when you have her results to when you are trying to prove her results test or maybe you dont think it does. I would have thought that was part and parcel to what you are saying in other words you are talking about the injury and the injury you have to show has to be stronger to coast you cant point it at any evidence of intentional. Your honor i have to apologize in answering this question because there is not a lot of guidance by the Supreme Court on these cases. So what we can only do is we can look at the cases and look what sort of slows clues we can discern from the cases. We know the constitutional vote you still have to prove discriminatory results to get that the case but you also have to prepurposes from a nation. I was just trying
Everyones information there will not be endorsements from the panelists today one important thing i want to clear up because i think it is important for context of this discussion is that the impression you have in organizations in working on this because in washington d. C. People say on the 6 00 news on the sunday talk shows where is the compromise . Where are the people in the middle that can split the baby and come up with legislation . I think that youre going to hear loud and clear from us but is this about compromise or is this about working towards shared values of principled people on both the left and the rig right . All the reasonable people thought this was the way to respond to everything. Left right coalitions and criminal Justice Reform have been successful. Work because curved led so if they led the same fight it wouldnt work. Im not sure i trust everybody but on a right Left Coalition there is no compromise on principles. We are working to do the same thing perhaps for