Amy, welcome. Thanks for having. Me lets talk about the term of the 20 20 to 23 term thats ramping up. Maybe this month, maybe next month. Anything that surprised you . Not so far. Were waiting on virtually all of the big decisions. Affirmative action, religion, lgbtq rights on Voting Rights of election law. Its too soon. Were waiting on 27 cases to draw any conclusions about what this version of the court is going to look like this term. Were gonna talk about some of these cases were waiting on. First Ketanji Brown jackson was new this term. What did you see from her. Anything different that you did not expect . Im not sure if i didnt expect. But shes been very active just as perhaps one of the most active new justices. Thats not surprising. And she spent most of her time as a judge. As a trial court judge. She was the only one in the courtroom. She is not dominating by any measure but shes very active. She has a lot of questions. She is often working with the other two liberal justices, elena kagan and Justice Sotomayor to sort of present the liberal point of view. At oral arguments. Theyre out numbers. There is a 6 to 3 conservative majority on the court. Theyre all quite active. Well be taking your calls on Supreme Court and the cases theyre looking at. If you would like to call in, you can do that for about the next 40 minutes. The lines are by party affiliation. Republicans 202 7488001, democrats 202 7488000 and independents 202 7488002. Lets talk about affirmative action. Tell us about whats going on there. There is two separate cases. Two separate cases. One involving the university of North Carolina. One involving harvard college. They are challenges to those universities considerations of race in their admissions process. Back in 2003, the Supreme Court in a case called said that the university of michigan could consider a race as part of its admission process. As part of its effort to have a diverse student body. That was a 5 to 4 decision by justices who has since retired. Even in that decision at the end, Justice Oconnor wrote we would hope that in 25 years. Consideration of race would no longer be necessary. Universities would now be able to achieve this diversity through other means. Its now 20 years later. The court is a very Different Court than the one that we had back in 2003. A group called students referred missions brought of these challenges to you and see. Arguing that unc could have a diverse student body without considering grace. Against harvard, arguing that its consideration of race discriminated against Asian American students in favor of white hispanic and black students. Those cases came up through the lower courts. The lower courts ruled that in favor the universities in both cases and the Supreme Court agreed to weigh in. It heard oral arguments at the end of october really at the point of Supreme Court agreed to weigh in it seemed unlikely that the Supreme Court was going to hear oral arguments that issued opinions that said university is doing a great job. Just keep on doing what youre doing the question is exactly what exactly is the Supreme Court going to do. Thats what were all waiting on tenterhooks to here lets hear that xchange on the harvard case. This is about race either being one faor or the determining factor. Hes the exchange with the chief juice roberts. Being African American or being hispanic. Or in some instances being Asian American can provide one of many tips that will you will have to concede that hey provides one of ma that in some cases it will be determined. Do can see that. So were talking about erases a erminate factor in adission to harvard. Ra for some highly qualified alicants can be the determinant factor just as being the an oboe player ina year in which the harvard tcffe orchestra needs a noble ayer will be the tip. We did not buy the vil war about oval players. Did fight a civil waro eliminate racial discmition. Thats why its aatter of considerable concern. I think its important for you to establish whether or not granting a credit based solely on a skin color is based on a stereotype when he say this brings diversity of viewpoint. What do you think of that and how big of a change with the speed to college admissions. To your first point. This exchange makes a couple of points. The first is that the confession by the lawyer for harvard that race does play a role in some students in the admissions process. The second one is the response by chief Justice John Roberts. With this 6 to 3 majority. Sometimes people think of him as being one of the court to swing justices. Hes one of the last conservative of the conservative justices. Not on the issue of race. This is a justice who the couple years ago in another case involving race in Public School neighborhood assignments wrote the way to stop discrimination on the basis of races to stop discriminating on the basis of race. This is something that he feels very strongly about what is the impact. Justice elena kagan talked about the impact. Perhaps of this. This is one of the points that she made. She talked about the impacts not just on diversity at colleges but what the impact could be on a more broadly that universities are sort of the pipeline to leadership in business is so if you dont have diversity at undergraduate colleges than you are less likely to have diversity in businesses and in society at large at the various levels. Lets talk about a student loan forgiveness there are two separate challenges to President Bidens plan to forgive certain amounts of Student Loans depending on other factors. Where do those stands and what sense did you get from the arguments about how this would go. There are two separate challenges. One was brought by a group of states of republican attorneys general and the other is brought by two individual borrowers. One borrower only has private loans not federal loans. So she would not benefit from the program as its drafted. The other one has federal loans but when a benefit to the full extent that some borrowers would theyre challenging the program as its drafted. The first sort of hurdle that both sets of plaintiffs have to clear is something called standing. Whether or not they have a legal right to sue. Thats because anyone cant go into court and say i dont like this policy. You have to show that you are insured by the policy. Its enough that one estate or one of the borrowers is injured. Then the challengers cant go forward. The way that it looks like the case could go forward is that missouri which is one of the challengers set up an agency to hold in Service Student loan so the argument is that if 400 billion dollars in Student Loans are canceled. Then this agency wont make as much money and then well be able to contribute to the states herridge acacia programs at the same level that it has been. It look like the Supreme Court was because the problem with the Supreme Court. Sorted generally says anyone can challenge this policy. China opened up the doors for other challenges. If they can let the cases go forward on this relatively narrow ground. Theyre not. The doors in the same. Way then you have the challenge. The substance of the challenge on the merits. The biden ministration relied on something called the heroes act. Which allows the secretary of education to wave or modify provisions of the Student Loan Program. In cases of National Emergency. So that student loan borrowers arent worse off because of the National Emergency in outlining the Program Secretary of education pointed on the heroes act and in the initial student loan gave it pause in the trump administration. Secretary of Education Betsy Devos relied on the same statute. The secretary of education relied on this law. But the challengers are relying on something called the major questions doctrine. Its a doctrine that as sort of under this name is relatively new at the Supreme Court. Supreme court relied on it last term in the case called West Virginia versus epa involving the clean air act. Its the idea that if Congress Wants to authorize a program its gonna have massive economic or political significance. It needs to say so clearly and so the states are saying that yes this heroes act authorizes changes to the Student Loan Program but congress didnt have 400 billion dollars worth of changes in mind the biden ministrations can argument is this is exactly what congressman to do with the heroes act. The idea that you can waiver modify the stew loan programs to respond to a National Emergency. Covid19 was a National Emergency and we want to make sure borrowers our interests off because of it. The justices seem skeptical. Particularly because the covid19 emergency ended on may 11th. Once again this is a case where were gonna have to wait to see exactly what the justices do. What grounds do they rely on. I want to call us. Before we do that, Voting Rights. There is merrill versus milligan. This is around the situation in alabama. Tell us whats going on there. This is a complicated case involving voting. Right section two of the Voting Rights act morris Racial Discrimination in voting. Alabama passed a new congressional map. Every ten years after the census the states have to draw new map to respond to the changes in population they have a seven seats in congress. One of alabama has roughly 27 black population. One of the states seven congressional seats was a majority black district. The challenge to the map in this case says look you could have drawn a second majority black district. This is something called a vote dilution claim. It sets instead you packed a bunch of black voters into that one district. Then you moved dispersed other black voters into multiple districts when you could have put them all in one district. Created a second majority black district. Thats a violation of section two. The state of alabama has two arguments the first one didnt fare that well at the oral argument. The said if youre going to allege there is a violation of section two over the Voting Rights act. You have to show that we intended to discriminate against black voters. That didnt fare very well with the justices. Even with the conservative ones. The justices could rule on a narrower ground. It would still say relatively high bore for people who want to challenge congressional maps under section two of the Voting Rights act. Making much harder to do so in the future lets talk to callers brians first in farmersville ohio republican. Good morning, how are you. Just kind of want to ask a couple questions. Just a common real quick. Im curious why everyones making Business Decisions about colored. 10 of our dna is dedicated to our race. At that point, lets go ahead and committed the other 90 to the human race. I dont know why that is such a factor in this world. It shouldnt be. We are more alike than were disliked. About the college tuition. I think its disenfranchising to a lot of people that make decisions again about im gonna send my child to school. Whether i could afford it or not. Course, they didnt do it and then it was nice to know if we were going to get a supplements, state assistance or some sort of any kind of assistance. Colleges, tuition, everything. Thats what i do for a living its build dormitories and colleges. The last thing is my question is shouldnt miss jackson go ahead and recuse herself from anything that involves a human because she doesnt know the difference between a man or woman . What do you think, amy . A lot there. Thanks for calling. Lets go to skip in waterbury, connecticut, democrat, good morning. Good morning. I think its amazing since Supreme Court overturned roe, how much is rid the people distrust in the Supreme Court. What do you, think amy, on the trust level of the Supreme Court . I think the caller is referring to some of the recent polling on the trust levels Approval Ratings of the Supreme Court which are at historic lows. I dont think theres any getting around that. I think its something that concerns the chief justice. On the other hand, the decision has been released. Theres not much they can do about it. Speaking of that, lets talk about the ethical issues. A lot has come out around Justice Thomas and other justices. Has that affected the workings of the Supreme Court. Have you seen any impact of that . Hard to know because we see so little of the Supreme Court. A lot of the ethics issues the, articles about Justice Thomas came out towards the end of the term. We only see them when they hear oral arguments for when they release decisions. We see relatively little of them. They were already pretty far behind. Just the speed at which they were releasing opinions. I think i had less to do with the ethical issues and more to do with the fact that they have a lot of complicated high profile cases in which there likely to be divided. When theyre divided they have a lot of not just made opinions then there are rumors of new security procedures in place after the leak of the dobbs opinion last year. That might just take longer for them. We have seen the chief justice has talked a bit about some of the ethical issues certainly very much on their minds. We have a short clip of chief Justice John Roberts here talking about ethics. I want to assure people that i am committed to making certain that we as a court at here to the highest standards of conduct. We are continuing to look at things we can do to give practical effect to that commitment. I am confident there are ways to do that. That are consistent with our status as an independent branch of government under the constitutions separation of powers. Amy why do you think there has been a more forceful response and a binding code of ethics for the Supreme Court. Its hard to say. Were not in a deliberations. I think theres probably some internal debate at the Supreme Court. These remarks came at a meeting of lawyers and law professors in washington d. C. One of the interesting things about these remarks is that they came after the justices released a non binding reaffirmation of ethics in a statement of principles that it came attached to the chief justices responds to an invitation to a peer to testify about ethics. I will say that this is these are all very vague statements about what the justices might or might not be doing. I will also say that back in march of 2019, before the pandemic. Justice elena kagan and Justice Samuel alito appeared before the House Appropriations committee every couple years. One or two of the justices will come before the House Appropriations committee to testify extensively about the Supreme Courts budget. Thats the rare opportunity for members of congress to question the justices about their pet projects like cameras in the courtroom and ethics and at that Budget Committee hearing. Justice kagan said that they were considering an ethics code. That was four years ago. Time doesnt take that long to draft an ethics code. Do you think there should be won. A binding ethics code for the Supreme Court. I think they need one. I think these questions are going to continue. Even with one it will continue to have some issues because theyre going to be once one force it against themselves thats part of the problem right now is the justices individually decide whether or not to recuse in a particular case. That this was a point that was made in the statement that the justices released last month. They also talked about how concerns about a security could trump but heat for full transparency and disclosure about travel or accommodations. I do think they need one. Lets talk to david whos in chicopee massachusetts. Independent. I have to point that like to make. One is the Supreme Courts to citing the abortion roe v. Wade. A lot of women under blows will say men have nothing to do with that they shouldnt have any in 1972 the only people on the Supreme Court where men. Apparently they had no trouble with men deciding that. The second thing that i find to be very bothering to me is the loans for students. I took my laws for my house. I took my loans for my car. I took my loan to pay off my college debt. Why didnt these people think they should have their loans payoff. I cannot believe that. What is your opinion on that . As far as the chief Justice John Roberts made a similar point. During the oral argument. He talked about people graduate from high school at the same time. One person took out loans to go to