could reshape murmur kansas city. in all three high profile games, they were split 63. for the highlighting the sharp ideological divide between the nine justices currently on the bench. yesterday, the court ruled in favor of lloyd smith, a wild designer from colorado who refused to work on projects related to same sex marriage, even though it is unclear if she was ever asked to do so in the first place. but, she sued on hypothetical grounds claiming that it would violate her first amendment right free speech rights and the courts six conservative members agreed. it is a major blow to members of the lgbtq community. and in her dissent, justice sonia sotomayor called the ruling quote, profoundly wrong, she explained further that quote, the act of discrimination has never constituted expression under the first amendment, also yesterday, the court struck down president biden s plan to forgive student loans for millions of americans, the court s conservative majority ruled that t
for example, take the overruling of roe v. wade, take the decision today, take a look at how it is ruled on a number of issues that have been precedent for 50, 60 years sometimes. that is what i meant by not normal. let s get into all of this, joining me now is judith brown, executive director of the advancement project, also with us, jeanne cigarettes, a professor at harvard law school and contributing writer for the new yorker. welcome to you both, jeanne, let s begin with you, you published a piece in the new yorker this week called after affirmative action ends and you wrote quote, colleges and universities will have to admit students using only methods that are race neutral. they will not be allowed to consciously consider any applicants race. but institutions that have long viewed soon bodies as essential to their missions will not change their belief, simply because of the court ruling nor
impact on future generations of students. on thursday, the supreme court ruled that affirmative action is unconstitutional. in his majority pinion, chief justice john roberts called the mission program at harvard and university of north carolina, both of which were being challenged because they used race as a factor in admissions, were unlawful and quote cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the core protection clause. following the ruling, president biden said that he disagreed with the court s decision, he said that the court, the current court is quote, not a normal court. which he explained to msnbc nicole wallace during a live interview on thursday. you said this court is not normal. what did you mean? what i meant by that is, starting basic rights and basic decisions in recent history. that is what i meant by not normal. it has gone out of its way to,
could reshape murmur kansas city. in all three high profile games, they were split 63. for the highlighting the sharp ideological divide between the nine justices currently on the bench. yesterday, the court ruled in favor of lloyd smith, a wild designer from colorado who refused to work on projects related to same sex marriage, even though it is unclear if she was ever asked to do so in the first place. but, she sued on hypothetical grounds claiming that it would violate her first amendment right free speech rights and the courts six conservative members agreed. it is a major blow to members of the lgbtq community. and in her dissent, justice sonia sotomayor called the ruling quote, profoundly wrong, she explained further that quote, the act of discrimination has never constituted expression under the first amendment, also yesterday, the court struck down president biden s plan to
also, this supreme court is a direct reflection of an extremist president donald trump, and voting matters. elections matter. so 2024 matters. sarah kate ellis, we thank you so much for your perspective and your time. thank you. jim? so much more to dig into. i m joined by president of the jcn, a law clerk for justice thomas. she supports the web designer in this case. thanks for taking the time this afternoon. good to be here. i want to read if i can from her dissent, the dissent of associate justice sonia sotomayor. she said today the court for the first time in its history grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class, the act of discrimination has never constituted protecting expression under the first amendment. our constitution contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group. how do you answer that argument against in effect using freedom