Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Our first guests here tonight to further adjudicate the proposition eight case to evaluate the a possible ramifications of what a for a vacation ramifications.
Our Fox News digital politics senator Chris firewall.
Juan Williams Fox News political columnist for on the -- great to see you gentlemen.
And -- real with me here in the New York studios please great to have you here me.
First I just got to ask -- I just listened to Shannon's report.
As Justice Roberts chief Justice Roberts is talking about the definition of brand frank and then creating the analog with the the supporters of proposition that.
I have to say I've never said this before about the Chief Justice but that was nonsensical.
I didn't make any sense from a legal perspective and he's trying to do is -- analogy that you get less you have the labels and labels mean everything you know the label changes you've -- a front -- -- I'm trying to explain -- -- I can't even -- OK I think I'm gonna give up forward.
Let me turn.
-- -- Wal-Mart I mean this is of course and incendiary.
A wedge issue across the country.
At the same time and proposition eight was decided by referendum.
This is his -- is direct -- is democracy can be and a constitutional republic.
Shouldn't these justices be wary indeed of messing with a.
Well look not only is it the law in California was logged 29 other states it's only failed two or three times.
Depending on how you define failure across the country this is states even many democratic state for several democratic states.
Have these kinds of laws and the question for the Supreme Court.
I would leave this to lease is that they may be read -- cent to overturn.
In sweeping fashion and that's what the -- that's what the the folks against the law -- sweeping fashion to pitch the whole thing out if they do that it would be rather.
And how -- just chicken would it be.
Of this court and send it back -- -- the under terms of the little -- coming -- -- the High Court but -- the last.
-- to send this thing back into the ninth circuit and let stand their reversal of proposition eight again -- a democratic result.
A from a democratic process.
Well -- fact that ways I think the news out of the court today weighs several of the justices.
Question whether or not they should even have a ruling the so called standing they said you know look.
Basically what the ninth circuit said in California is this.
The law in California gay people could -- than it was revoked under proposition eight.
Answer the question is can you take away rights once they're granted and the court saying you know we we -- is coming -- us we would we have standing here you know let somebody else that on this issue they wanna stay away Lou.
From the fourteenth amendment which Joost which is -- -- proposition being pushed by the lawyers for.
Gay people it says you know they are American citizens they have -- Houston writes in those rights should be protected equally with every other person who's.
Has constitutional rights that means that they would be allowed to marry.
And I agree with -- because I think there are suing to that to being very narrow on their decision here and I I think that.
Hope fixed it up for me the most it was Kennedy's today he's not only seen is that you know that -- make or break vote and he says unchartered waters Shannon talked about it her package.
That tells me that he's leaning to exactly that throwing it back to the state what that would mean of course is that this is that the state court's decision withstand a prop eight would be out.
As if only it can apply to California don't give very narrow -- just applying to about one state.
I'm applying to that one state rule where you can see we're -- another day of arguments.
We'll -- further guidance Delmon being taken up as well.
So and that most of the same arguments attend there I want to -- to the affirmative action case that the court will be taking up.
Because this is also going to be there'll be lightning and a lot of under around this decisions well.
The court has ruled.
A decade ago I wrote that -- for -- Michigan Sandra day -- -- -- -- I read that right right that the that Michigan could.
With a certain.
And all committee if you -- -- considerations.
Right bring race into their valuation that.
As as one factor not a sole factor that's right but immediately after this decision at ten years ago.
Michigan has to pro proposition much like California saying no we don't want this and so now it's -- it's a similar issue.
Before the Supreme Court does affirmative action go down this -- -- Well as we remember justice O'Connor said that this is this is a time limited thing and that at some point it would be deemed not necessary.
I would certainly say that the election.
Of the first African American president and -- -- -- a second term in office.
Might indicate that the country has changed some in the last decade.
What what -- what say you want.
You know does that qualify like that what say you look at.
I don't I don't you know I I have some friends out there but they don't talk like that when I'm singer.
How I would say.
That that you know there's the question that the court should decide who because to me.
We have a history in this country you could say that you know what I closed my eyes to race I don't see Lou Dobbs as -- I see him as my friend.
But in fact we have a history in this country of racial division slavery legal segregation.
But -- what point does it become onerous and terms saying it leads to discrimination against other people.
That's a really tricky question and I again I would say that's the territory the Supreme Court as we've heard from both -- and Chris.
You know it's unreal colors at 25 years obviously -- -- -- five years has been compressed because there's so much pressure I would add one thought.
Which is when the fortune 500 companies are polled on this issue.
They talk about affirmative action for women as their number one form of affirmative action for gays.
What it comes back.
Blacks and Hispanics it's way down it's almost like this thing doesn't exist.
Except I would say in the area of college admissions but again most of those are private schools and that's how they get away with.
-- and getting away with stuff itself we need to end of this country to get on a but we -- -- at least try to come up with a common solution -- Our common purpose Supreme Court looking at two of these cases by the way they've also got to Texas Texas and Michigan so I didn't mean to neglect -- other.
Let's protect them back if it ever.
I and I do want to say want you out of this country as you say does have a history.
Where we've got I a history of racial division we have -- more powerful history of coming together over the issue of race there are those who divide us from time to time.
But 300000 Americans.
To free slaves in this country and most of this country is very good to the bone.
And that's the true history and I hope that's before the -- all Americans as we discuss race at any time.
One thanks for being with us one William -- firewall at least -- --
Filter by section