justice kagan's test is also constitutional. most importantly, justice kagan's test is effective. many electoral rules cause unnecessary racial disparities. such rules are currently being debated around the country. all of these policies would be cut -- caught by justice kagan's test. therefore, congress ought to embrace that test and move us closer to a world where our elections are finally free of racial inequities. thank you. i look forward to questions. recognized for five minutes. >> in my opinion, the brunt of its decision rely heavily on section two. the court analyzed the text holistic a in the light of -- in the context of, the additional phrase that equally open meant in the members of a group have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. the court's decision was not unexpected. it was precedented by a majority of circuit courts to consider the issue. . there has been a long unresolved legal problem as to how to apply section two of the voting rights act. numerous courts ov

-- part pardon me, justice kagan. you got a promotion, didn't you? i should also say it's odd for me to be here because i grew up in washington, d.c., a grand total of 3.4 miles away from where i am right now, that's what google maps tells me. if i tell you that i grew up out pennsylvania avenue south and east across the anacostia river, you will understand that it's far from inevitable my being before you. it's an incredibly improbable journey and i'm really glad to be here, it took a lot of help to get me here and many of the people who helped me are in this room today and i am grateful to you. okay. so the truth is that the origins of this lecture date back to my time at the university of texas when i was beginning as a law professor and i was writing a paper that touched on brown and i wanted to cite this document the southern manifesto for the proposition that it was openly and virulently racist and it was a naked racism, an unsubtle racism. i went and i got a copy of the southern manifesto and i read it once and

justice kagan was with justice marshall what year? >> '87. >> it comes like yesterday. >> 1987. >> that was after having attended princeton, and then oxford, and then harvard for law. and served in judge mikva's claims as a law clerk. all of our panelists this evening clerked for one judge or another on the d.c. circuit. as did i. >> it's a good court. >> it was a great court. and was this the white house counsel's office in the clinton administration, and the policy council as deputy director. couldn't keep a job, apparently. taught at the university of chicago law school. and then after getting tenure there, moved on. and settled at harvard. not very long after that became the dean of harvard law school. then couldn't keep that job either and then became slitter general first, and associate justice of the supreme court. judge paul engle myer went to harvard. and harvard for law school as he will about. clerked for judge wald on the d.c. circuit and was in the solicitor's office when drew days was slitter general. then was in private

justice kagan said, that's not what congress intended.t in their racially discriminatory intent can't be stopped. >> this is the interesting part about this. the explicit. a lot of people have pointed out in the last couple of years, as we have been talking about jim crow laws and things like that, is that only -- unless you deal with dumb people writing these laws -- which sometimes we were. but when we are not, they make a point of not being explicit. whether it's about racial minorities. whether it's about women. whether it's now about transgender people or gay people, very rarely does someone write it in as this law is designed to disenfranchise this group. >> yeah. that's not the way discrimination shows up in our laws most of the time. so what it means is that it will be harder to prove discrimination. it will be easier for states to get away with it. we already saw this last session, states racing to change their laws to make it harder for people of color in this country to vote. we will see that happen again in '22, in an escalate

farr: i believe justin -- i believe justice kagan joy villa legal. judge starr: and ripen, now as of this last summer, the autonomy was re-articulated into companion catholic school cases. i thought we should win. the voices of liberty. because the los angeles diocese that not even the teachers to be catholic. yet, there were certain religious duties that each teacher have. that was sufficient to carry the day, a 72 majority. the ability of churches and church schools and church ministries to say, hands-off, caesar. even though the federal government may have a very powerful tryst, as it does in the civil rights law's. no you can't go here, thou shalt not enter. victory. the equality principle, the example is what got me seriously thinking about this for years ago when i was serving as chief of staff to the attorney general and the reagan administration. for some, it is hard to believe the reagan administration was 40 years ago. 1981. but, years go by. generations come and go. i found myself making a presentation as the chief of staff of the presiden

justice kagan wrote a vehement dissent. she pointed out that none of the requirements are part of section two of the voting rights act. the court is abandoning its usual approach of disparate impact under federal statutes. it would show violations for section two in the future. justice alito pointed out it would be very likely the government would prevail. why does this matter so much? states recently like georgia, florida, arkansas, it would impose significant restrictions on voting. there is strong evidence it would have a racially discriminatory impact. the supreme court's decision is to make it much harder to be able to bring successful challenges. in our country, there are different narratives about voting. the republican narrative is that voting fraud is a significant problem in the government has to deal with it. you certainly find that in justice alito's majority opinion. the democratic narrative is that voter suppression is a major problem in that fraud is nonexistent or rare. six justices were appointed by republi

and we've got to understand these guideposts are, as justice kagan said in her defense, lofty . if you are trying to figure out what did congress mean and it passed section two's revised -- we know what congress means because in that senate report, it gave a list of a believe 13 factors to consider. they do not draw from those doctors even though all of the lower courts had done so. he made up these factors and they became less guideposts and more as roadblocks or defenses that states can put out if they try and pass strict of voting laws. the key point to understand is, that for a court sensitive to contextual is him, to what the words mean, we know what these words meant. this was a court that was not doing that. it was trying to roll the clock back and make it harder for voting rights point us to win lawsuits. >> these guide points are not found anywhere in the text of section two. >> that is correct. >> this is why justice kagan has called textual. justice alito, who tends to send out signals like us, which results in more losses brought by people who they expect when it get

as justice kagan explained in her dissent, throughout american history election firms have a certain antifraud interest in using volter suppression laws but the burno vich guide posts and practice is opposite. repeatedly says voting laws could not be justified even when a state could not point to any fraud in its state. the matter is bores because in burno vich and elsewhere the court has made it hard to win voting suits by relying on racially discriminating intent of a state legislature in passing voting rules. congress should reverse the statutory decision threw carefully crafted legislation just as congress has done in the past approving voting rights renew a.m.s and extensions by prod bipartisan majorities. legislation will have to consider the scope of congress's power especially because the statements in burno vich appears like a threat to find new voting legislation unconstitutional. thank you for your time. i look forward to the opportunity to answer questions. >> thank you very much, professor hassan. you know, i want to begin perhaps by asking you about the chief justice's

justice kagan wrote a vehement dissent.t was reminiscent to me of the dissent of justice ginsburg and shelby county. she pointed out none of the requirements justice alito points to are part of section two of the voting rights act. the court is abandoning its usual approach of disparate impact under federal statutes. she talked about how difficult it would be to show violations of section in the future. twoif you look at the five factors justice alito pointed to, they all make it the focal to prove racial discrimination. they all make it very likely the government would prevail. why does this matter so much? you know many states, recently georgia, florida, arkansas, it -- have imposed significant restrictions on voting. there is strong evidence these have a racially discriminatory impact. the justice department has already brought a challenge to the lot in georgia on this basis. the supreme court's decision will make it much harder to be able to bring successful challenges to these laws. in our country, there are today diff

justice elena kagan writing for the dissenters says the court has weakened voting rights and wonders what the impact will be on these other states, some who have restricted access to vote that were enacted after the last presidential election. it will take us a while to get into the weeds to see what the real test is. that's the essence of this decision, but not a surprise that court upheld both those arizona provisions on what they call ballot harvesting and votes in the wrong district. >> it seemed like the standard or this test as it related more broadly to the voting rights act. i wonder, tom -- i know we're still reading through this decision that's come out of the last three minutes here but, tom, the implications of that potentially here nationally. is tom goldstein still with us? >> oh, sorry, yes. >> rules that involve limitations on the time for voting, how far you have to travel for voting and compliance with voting rules are so inherent to how we vote in the united states that they're just immune from scrutiny under section two of the voting rights act. and that's the big

and so, i'm going to start with you dred scott elena kagan. you don't let people pass in class, did? you >> know, never. >> thank god. so, why don't you tell us about how the clerkship affected your career. >> starting with the big one. how it affected my career? you know, i think lurking on this court affects everybody's career who dies eight. i mean, it's probably more then is justified. it's something that if it does, you know, you put it on your resume in all of a sudden, doors open. sometimes justifiably so and sometimes not. but, i think, you know, what's much more important to me is just how the experience of clicking for justice marshal affected who i was and what i thought was important in the world. he was -- you couldn't survive a year in his chambers without realizing that there were -- there were things that you knew nothing about. and, i was an eye-opening experience in many respects other than just learning about the law. and it gave you an appreciation for people who had fought for justice all their lives and the importance of

justice elena kagan dissented,. we will hear the oral arguments in the case must march. >> the honorable, the chief justice, and the associate justices of the supreme court of the united states. oy e.a., oy e.a., oyez, >> all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states are admonishing to give their attention, the court is now sitting. god save the united states and this honorable court. >> we will hear argument this morning and case number -- berkowitz versus democratic national committee and that consolidated case. >> the chief justice, may it please the court. i think the key conceptual point here to understand is that arizona is not denied anyone a budding opportunity of mankind. this is not like a literacy test which denies you the right to vote. it's not like vote dilution where white block voting denies minorities an equal opportunity to elect. everyone here is eligible and registered to vote. all they have to do is utilize the myriad opportunities that arizona's offered

justice kagan was with justice marshall what year? >> '87. >> '87. teams like yesterday. >> it is. >> that was after having attended princeton and then oxford and then harvard for law and have served in judge mcva's chambers as a law clerk. all of our panelists this evening clerked for one judge or another on the d.c. circuit as did i, all four of us. >> it's a good court. >> it was a great court. and was in the white house counsel's office and then the clinton administration and then in the policy council as deputy director. couldn't keep a job apparently. taught at the university of chicago law school and after getting tenure there moved on and settled at harvard, not very long after that became the dean of harvard law school and then couldn't keep that job, either, and became associate -- solicitor general first and then associate justice of the supreme court. judge paul engelmayer at the far end is a judge in the southern district of new york and has been since 2011. i should have said, elena, you came on the court in 2010. >> uh-huh. >> and paul

justice kagan wrote a vehement dissent in shelby county. none of the requirements are part of section 2 of the voting rights act. the court is abandoning its usual approach of racially disparate impact talking about that first section 2 in the future. if you look at what justice alito pointed to, make it difficult to prove racial discrimination. all they could do is prevail. why does this matter? all of these states, georgia, florida and arkansas put significant restrictions on voting, strong evidence for racially discriminatory impacts to george's law, the supreme court's decision makes it harder to bring successful challenges, and it is a significant problem to deal with it. democratic narrative is voter suppression is a major problem. 6 justices accepted the republican narrative. >> the unenviable task of adding nuance to that in two minutes if you will. >> i will note what burnohwhich said is it shapes the landscape for the law of democracy so in addition to this decision in 2021 we have marion county from 2008 which made it harder to b

here is kagan from her descend., what's tragic is the court has, yet again rewritten. ,,, why, neal did the court do for the voting rights act, and -- societal problems than issues, especially where peoples rights are concerned. i guess, nodding this case. >> yeah, they profoundly undermined the voting rights act. this law has been around since 1965, before i was born, it had two big provisions in. at one was called section five, and said, if you are a state that discriminates then you have to change, and you are trying to g -- changer voting rules. we have to get it pre cleared by a court in washington d.c. with the justice department and they argue that case in 2010 in the court upheld that constitution. that section of the voting rights act, only a few years later to reverse course in a case called shelby county, and strike it down. that was the first big assault on the voting rights act by the u.s. supreme court. today unfortunately is the second they reached section two of the voting rights act which is a secti

but as justice kagan pointed out, mr. car vin alluded to demographic realities being relevant, the attorney talked about the totality of the circumstances being relevant and of course in section 2-b refers to the totality of the circumstances. so to the extent we're not in either polar position, we're between pure results and pure opportunity, as defined in the -- in carvin's brief and total i have to the circumstances, two circumstances that seem to make a difference as a matter of common sense, one as the chief justice pointed out, when you have the carter-baker commission saying that a particular state law is a good idea as a matter of policy, that would seem to be a circumstance that is as a matter of common sense would support for state's rule. secondly, i mentioned this earlier, when a state rule is common place in other states, that would seem to be a circumstance that puts a thumb on the scale in the favor of the legitimacy of the state rule and it not being reflection of discriminatory intent. here the out of pre

and you read that reflection of sister kagan when she says we now have law-free zones.hip. and what that means, oh, brother, don, you and i have always known that white supremacy has been a many-headed serpent wrapped around the legs of the table of the united states. we lost in 2013 with shelby. two of the legs of the table under. now, we got a third leg that is, for the most part, no longer operative. we are reaching the point, where the white supremacists, jim-crow sensibility are devouring the very energies and souls of any democratic possibility. because if you don't have equal citizenship, you don't have equal access to vote. let alone a full-scale democracy. so we are in a very, very dim moment, right now. and as a result of the courts -- the courts -- which means congress must hit -- hit the ground running. there must be federal-minimal standards for voting, across the board. states' rights will not do it. states right is nothing but another language for white supremacist, subordination of black and brown and indigenous peoples, and not allowing us to have asset

well, the way justice kagan explains it, that's the supreme court majority.d to almost imposed its own version of the statute. she accuses them of not following their own rules on being a true did the text. she gives a long history voting rights active, how we got to it and the people who died, uh, to get us this bill. and yet the supreme court gives us rather cribbed interpretation. so the idea that merely showing disparate impact is not going to be enough. you're going to have to show intent and you're going to have to show that the effects are very strong in each individual restriction that these states imposed. did this decision come from the. balance of the court as it is right now, do you think? absolutely it's a 6 to 3 decision. it's the r conservative wing hanging together when the liberals kagan, sotomayor and breyer, uh, saying that this is improper, um, so that that line up is what we're going to be seeing more and more and in fact, we saw it in the companion case today. at 6 to 3 majority, so expect more coming up in the fall, so it's really hard

that's the tenor of his questions justice kagan likewise seemed to be somewhere in between. i think we will win. there is an example of a city government stepping in and saying we are going take the side of one community in the culture wars. >> kent is in a sign of the cultural change on the growing hostilities and religion? it's not just the balancing of a couple of things as you say, these people are tarred as bigots as the equality act will do them. would you agree this is more the national movement rather than the propping of a case in philadelphia? >> unfit case is empirical it's a manifestation of this national movement. it is frequently evil because you are denying the dignity of these individuals in same-sex marriages and the like. and it does seem disturbing the notion that people who hold traditional views on now for a couple of millennia. talk about tradition, are now tarred as haters and bigots when effect they have a different understanding of what love, charity, and equality means spirit i would argue the founders themselves had an understanding of happiness. t

justice kagan's di sent is scathing. she writes this. the court has no right to remake section two.duty is to apply the law as it is written. the law that confronted one of this country's most enduring wrongs pledged to give every american of every race an equal chance to participate in our democracy and now stands as a crucial tool to achieve that goal. that law, of all laws, deserves the sweep and power congress gave it. that law of all laws should not be diminished by this court. yet it was, neil. >> yes. justice kagan is picking up on something that, you know, we know from "schoolhouse rock" with the essence of our constitution is congress makes the laws, the supreme court interprets this. what justice kagan is saying there is that what you are doing, majority supreme court, is actually distorting and rewriting the law to fit your own preferences. let it not be said, you know, this was a case with major political overtones. indeed, at the oral argument the lawyer for the republican national committee was asked by one of the justices, why do you care about this arizona case, why

as justice kagan said in her powerful dissent the majority did not like the statute congress " road so it quote roas its ownwn set of rules limiting section 2 from multiple directions end quote. a koala -- follows the equally devastating 5-4 decision and shelby county in 2013 and following shelby county states have been free to pass voting restrictions without preclearance to assess whether thee changes are racially discriminatory. and in 2021 alone 17 states already passed 28 laws to restrict voting rights with 21,000 polling places nationwide that have been eliminated since shelby county in millionsbe of voters have been purged from the voter rolls. the supreme court is at the low point of legitimacy when its decisions undermine the institution of our democracy. and shelby county the supreme court has methodically undermined all the tools congress crafted in the voting rights act despite the discrimination in voting. the right to vote should never be a partisan endeavor not in this great country the united states of america but if the senate is unable to meet this moment and reauthor

in her dissent, elena kagan wrote -- "what is tragic here is that the court has yet again rewritten - in order to weaken -- a statute that stands as a monument to america's greatness, and protects against its basest impulses. what is tragic is that the court has damaged a statute designed to bring about 'the end of discrimination in voting'." in a statement, president biden criticized the ruling, saying -- "in a span of just eight years, the court has now done severe damage to two of the most important provisions of the voting rights act of 1965." legal experts say the court's ruling will make it harder to challenge new voter suppression laws in court. just last week, the justice department sued the state of georgia saying its new voter law discriminates against black voters. in a second major ruling thursday, the court struck down a california law reqring nonprot ornizationreveal the nameof largeonors to the state. the case was brought by americans for prosperity foundation -- a right-wing group founded by the koch brothers. election law experts predict the ruling could lead to chall

in her dissent, justice kagan took aim at the majority, accusing them of rewriting the law "in order to weaken a statute that stands as a minute to america's greatness that protects against its basest impulses." prisoner biden called the decision deeply disappointing. >> president biden: it is mildly positive in the sense that there is a remedy available based on the particular voting decision. i plan on speaking extensively on voting rights. >> the court's decision comes just days after the justice department announced its lawsuit against georgia's new election law. >> the department of justice shouldn't be weaponizing this process and punishing states for trying to enact measures that protect voters. >> the doj says today it remains strongly committed to challenging discriminatory election laws. in the court's final opinion of the term, the justices struck down california regulation requiring terminal groups including political organizations to turn over the names of their biggest donors to the state. groups as diverse as the aclu and the heritage foundation joined forces to fight

just weeks ago the supreme court yet again weakened the voting rights act and upheld what justice kagan called "a significant race-based disparity in voting opportunities." the court's decision, as harmful is -- as it is, does not limit congress' ability to repair the damage done, that is the important point, it puts the burden back on congress to restore it back to its intended strength. as soon as congress passes for the people act and the john lewis voting rights advancement act i will sign it and let the whole world see it. that will be an important moment. the world is wondering. [applause] the world is wondering. [applause] and they know what i'm talking about, for real. the world is wondering what is america going to do? we also have to be clear i about -- clear eyed about the obstruction we face. legislation is one tool but not the only tool. it is not the only measure of what we can use to defend democracy. attorney general merrick garland announced that the department of justice will use its authorities to challenge the onslaught of eight undermining voting rights. the focus w

as kagan said in her dissent in the california case, i believe, or the arizona case, she said the votinghts act is the best of america, but in some respects the need for the voting rights act is the worst in america. we have no option but to keep fighting. that's what john lewis said, keep your eye on the prize. the prize is an america that lives out the promise of equality, which, of course, is most important in terms of access to the ballot, the access to having your voice in our democracy. we're going to keep fighting. al, you know i have said publicly over and over again, we need to get rid of the filibuster. the filibuster is undemocratic. it thwarts the will of the majority of the people in the united states of america. it is a rule that the founders did not contemplate. you know, it is not as if the founders didn't contemplate in some instances having the necessity for an overwhelming vote, an extraordinary majority. they did so with a veto override, they did so with treaties, they did so with a conviction of the president on impeachment, and they did so for many of the constituti

and i think justice kagan, in her dissent, put it perfectly.the court did when they made their decision. they poured old poison into new bottles. we know the poison of jim crow. we know what has happened in the past, in terms of how minorities in this country have not always enjoyed the same voting rights that other americans have. and we know that justice roberts. this isn't his first bite at the apple. shelby was his first bite of the apple and this has been a lifelong dream of his. to chip away at the voting rights act. but you know what, lawrence? we're not going to sit around wringing our hands. crying into some handkerchieves. we have to mobilize and we have to fight. we got to get people registered to vote. we got to educate them on why it is important to vote. we got to mobilize them. and then, we are going to protect every damn vote that we can. that we will at the ballot box. and that's what we have to do. >> does this put more pressure on the democrats in the senate to change the rule on the 60-vote threshold so that they can actuall

this was the problem that the dye centers, led by justice kagan, had.said there was nothing in the text, the section two, that lent itself to these factors, these five factors that the majority was creating, and all of these factors according to justice kagan worked against the challenger, predated new burdens for those who want to challenge -- created new burdens for those who want to challenge discriminatory to -- voting. john: what does this say or what can we infer about future challenges to voting restrictions? >> i think it is generally believed that they will make it much harder to bring section two violations, and that is important because in 2013, the supreme court in a 5-4 decision by the chief justice struck down section four of the voting rights act and that section was a formula for determining which voting practices by states that had a past history of voting discrimination had to have their procedures pre-cleared by a federal court or the department of justice. what was left with section two, basically? now, with this majority opinion, th

what justin kagan called "a significant race-based disparity in voting opportunities."course, the decision, as harmful as it is, does not limit congress' ability to repair the damage done. that's the important point. it puts the burden back on congress, to restore the voting rights act to its intended strength. as soon as congress passes the for the people act and the john lewis voting rights advancement act, i will sign it and let the whole world see it. that will be an important moment. [applause] the world is wondering. [applause] dwight knows what i'm talking about. for real. you know, the world is wondering -- what is america going to do? but we also have to be clear-eyed about the obstruction we face. legislation is one tool, but not the only tool, and it's not the only measure of our obligation to defend democracy today. for example, attorney general merrick garland announced that the united states department of justice is going to be using its authorities to challenge the onslaught of state laws under mining voting rights in old and new ways. -- undermining voti

elena kagan in her dissent said equal chance to participate in our democracy, referring to the 1965 voting rights act, that law of all laws should never be diminished by this court. section 2 is the most recent section attacked by the supreme court. and it bars procedures that result in denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the united states to vote on a count of race or color. one of the issues was from arizona, a situation where you have no easy places to drop off your ballot in large native american reservations. so by banning the ability for people to collect ballots and drop them off, you essentially make it extraordinarily difficult for this targeted community to vote. and that was the intent. that was the intent. now, this law, section 2, it didn't say that anything about intent. it said the result. and it didn't say it had to be denial. it said an abridgement. in other words, an afringe -- an infringement on the ability to cast a ballot. but alito doesn't care. the majority doesn't care on the supreme court about defending the right to vote. the pulse stating heart o

and king county, steve kagan's.cle when we come back, you're going to meet the barrier team on his way to oklahoma. why he and his friends are making that track ♪ ♪ ♪ easy tools on the chase mobile app. simplicity feels good. chase. make more of what's yours. livermore is doing just that. two of his friends are used in a traditional bike to ride along with him as he heads to oklahoma quite a journey they left a few weeks ago on the 2000 mile trip, as ktvu azenith smith explains, part of their mission is to raise money for a very important cause. marin this livermore garage, a collection of eunice cycles belonging to 17 year old danny night. one of them is missing. that's because he's riding a eunice cycles similar to this one from the bay area to oklahoma. ask my old brother doing something crazy. we would do stuff that's crazy all the time. um not this crazy. here's video. danny on his unit cycle in big sur. um, he started his journey june 23rd in san francisco. the idea came after danny visited his brother. at his

voting as long as the state has some justification for them but in a blistering dissent, justice elena kagan said the court ignores that voter discrimination is getting worse. she said the ruling weakens the voting rights act, a law that stands as a monument to america's greatness and protects against its basest impulses. election law experts say the court now all of the major tools have been significantly weakened or eliminated. >> reporter: and no their pla on or before the court's final day. that suggests justice stephen breyer will probably be around next term. lester >> pete williams at the supreme court for us, thank you. >>> speaker nancy pelosi has named some members of a house select committee to investigate the capitol riot among them, a lone republican garrett haake is at the capitol. garrett, this announcement is causing some controversy. >> reporter: tonight republican liz cheney is telling reporters she is honored to be one of speaker pelosi's eight picks to serve on a special select committee to investigate the january 6 attacks here at the capitol this despite a warning from

the supreme court historical society hosted the lecture with justice elena kagan offering introductory remarks. >>> in the summer of 1839 a foreign schooner accidentally sailed along the shores of the united states and transformed the federal courts into a forum for an explosive national debate. the drama that began when the enslaved african americans on the a.m. stad revolted and took control of the vessel off the coast of cuba would culminate in the supreme court of the united states with a former president arguing on behalf of the african americans' appeal for freedom. the arm stad case forced the federal courts and the nation to consider the legal foundations of slavery. >> for several weeks in the summer of 1839 newspapers along the atlantic coast reported sightings of a mysterious schooner supposedly commanded by african pirates. late in august the crew of the navy brig washington spotted a badly damaged vessel in long island sound and a shore party trading with local residents along the new york coast. when the naval officers boarded the armistad they were braced by two spanish

in dissent, justice kagan said the court is weakening the voting rights act. >> the dissenter said it's enough to show it's a racially discriminatory impact, enough to show the law makes it harder for minorities to be able to vote. >> legal experts say today's ruling women make it harder to challenge voting limited enacted by other states. >>> exactly a week ago today, it collapsed. now we're getting closeup drone footage of the enormous task still in front of the rescue crews as they sift through the debris of the fallen condo building near miami beach. at least 18 people are confirmed dead and 145 others still unaccounted for. the drone video shows rescue crews on the rubble pile on wednesday. early this morning, though, teams were removed from the site because of concerns about the stability of what's left of the condo building. president biden spent the day in south florida today thanking rescue teams and first responders. he also personally consoled some of the families of the lost or missing from that condo building collapse. jay gray has been on the ground all week and joins us w

happy to stand behind donald kagan. i think i could go back to herodotus himself took a couple of slacks but those two men come herodotus and facilities who inaugurated historical inquiry as we have come to know it, they were both inquiring minds who took take nothing for granted, who were skeptical about the evidence before them and in the case of -- a right off the bat different with herodotus as to what were the correct right, the fitting, suitable subjects of historical inquiry. so why did the very origins of historical fall in the west? leaving argument between these, really arguments, it's an argument that commenced within about how history is to be done. in the second place, revisionist history has never cohabited with a particular ideology or religion or a party or a group, nor again as the right so often argues in fears, does the left went all interpretive battles. now here again i think one has to point to -- for 2300 years, 2300 years, the kind of history that he did commanded the field to excel. it was men,