that was the hope of justice sandra day o'connor in 2003 that that would happen. it was theoretical, aspirational, not necessarily something that would come to pass, guaranteed, and it has not. so when you say that the hope is, that's fine. but law is not based on hope. so, where does this go? >> well, again, i think a really telling thing here in this litigation was in court for ten years. one of the original attorneys sadly who worked on this litigation passed away earlier this year from brain cancer tragically at a fairly early age, but i think it was really looking at the particular metrics and specifics here of how asian americans in particular are disfavored here. and so the court is saying there can't be a particular group on the basis of race in this country that admissions folks are discriminating against. >> so everybody knows, that specifically is to the harvard case, that was not necessarily stated in the university of north carolina case. just to make sure everybody knows with which case we're dealing on the asian american situation. >> and then the c

sandra day o'connor, justice sandra day o'connor understood that. mentous shift from sandra day o'connor to justice alito, her replacement in 2006, was the shift in the supreme court's corruption. it was the shift. that year in 2006, the supreme court strikes down for the first time, contribution limits. the next year, justice alito puts up a flag saying, we should reconsider corporate donations. 2010, the court reconsiders corporate donations and citizens united throws out -- >> such a good point. >> and not only that, we've now gone to the point where the favor trading that you see that governor bob mcdonald in virginia, that's okay. all of this stuff is okay through the courts own jurors periods, which is an interesting sort of conflict different than when you identify. -- i would like to go on these fancy trips. i think it's okay if this donor gives bob donald nice washes so on the actual specifics here, singer has this kind of big case a few years after this. five years after this, where he is trying to get money out of your government, right? >

in 2003 justice sandra day o'connor was the swing or deciding vote in what was a landmark supreme court case over race. perhaps the most divisive social, political and cultural issue in the country's history. fast forward to today. tell us about the conservative court majorities blocking colleges using race as part of the admissions process. >> this case came from a group of asian-american students part of the emphasis saying we're being harmed by the way the race is being used in admissions processes. justice gorsuch during the arguments about this policy said what are you supposed to tell asian american applicants who have coaches telling them try to hide your ethnicity? it will hurt you on the application. in trying to help other races you are disadvantaging other races. today the chief justice writing said both of the programs unc and harvard lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives. the use of race in a negative manner lacking meaningful endpoints and racial stereotyping. it doesn't meet with constitutional muster and it is hurting students in reverse. justice thomas wro

that was a 5-4 decision by sandra day o'connor. in the decision at the end, justice o'connor wrote that "in 25 years we would hope that the consideration of race would no longer be necessary, because universities would be able to achieve this diversity through other means." it is 20 years later. the court is a different court been the one we had in 2003. students for fair admissions brought this challenge to unc arguing that unc could have a diverse student body without considering race, and against harvard saying its consideration of race discriminated against asian american students in favor of black, hispanic, and white students. the lowered courts ruled in favor in both cases, and the supreme court agreed to weigh in and heard oral arguments at the end of october. it seemed unlikely that -- the question is what exactly is the supreme court going to do? we are waiting on tenterhooks to hear. host: this is about race being either one factor or the determining factor. here is the exchange with chief justice roberts. [veolip] >> be

a harry admires a woman to fill the seat on the supreme board that have been vacated by sandra day o'connor. and there was a little cool day saw from the far right um, and they obliged this republican president to withdraw his own nominee in favor of a more reliable vote for their interests. and that was sam galindo and the individual who orchestrated that maneuver was leonard leo. and when the billionaire saw what he could, paul, i think the ration and when did a hard year, and we got the federalist society list. so we got the 3 trump drugs years and we got the blocking of garland and we got the rest of the show. and one of the interesting data points out there, senator, is that in 2021. public confidence in the supreme court. was it 36 percent? it's not a great number. it happened to be bigger than public confidence in the congress for the presidency, but it is collapsed in 2022 to 25 percent of down 11. and this is all before the revelations that we've seen now, and i'm just interested in, can you blame the american people of saying, we're looking at our institutions and think we don't t

in fact, this continued to happen years later when ruth bader ginsburg came along and sandra day o'connor. so this was the fate of women even those who performed well in law school and who went to these brilliant careers as lawyers. motley did not let it discourage her that that being shut out of the law firm? in fact, it created an opportunity for her in public interest law in 1945. well she even graduated from law school. she went to the icp legal defense fund, asked thurgood marshall for a job. she hired her on the spot. it was her dream job because. she had been a person with strong social consciousness from, a very young age, and she was delighted to work at the fund. marshall was a mentor to her and she learned so much from him and in many ways he was progressive on gender, for instance, when she became pregnant around the same time that the acp was litigating versus board of education and it went and down to the supreme court twice. he permitted her to go on leave and then come back and i say, permitted might not sound so progressive, but for that era, in fact, it was pretty progre

lydia: i want to go back to to the precedent being overturned back to 2003, justice sandra day o'connoror of the majority opinion in that case, that it is okay to use race as a factor but even in that case, listen to this, she wrote in the opinion, we expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interests. it was never intended that we would always use race as a consideration in college admission. >> that's right. race was a carveout for higher education to be allowed to do what nobody else can do under the guise of promoting diversity, promotes educational environment. that concept has fallen away. you cannot do that anymore. i don't think, it's one opinion, they said we are overruling, in effect they have and that is huge. ashley: thank you very much. big story, lots more to talk about. just a reminder we are 10 minutes away from the virgin galactic spaceflight launch. more varney next. ashley: countdown is on, 10 minutes away from virgin galactic taking off into space. we are following it. it is 10:51 on the east coast meanin

the only reason it didn't go the way it went today is because sandra day o'connor said i will vote to allow you to consider race, but i don't think in 25 years this court will ever let you do that. you've got about 25 years. that time was almost up this year. they are about in the 20th year. the court said enough. this is racial discrimination. it is also important to note that with all of this hyperbole that chief justice roberts said you can still have a student that talks about in their essay how they have dealt with racial discrimination. if they have got history on that. you have to base decisions on the individual. what he is really saying is you have to ban the box. you cannot have a box that checks off people according to their race. you have to look more carefully at them as individuals. >> it seems that disproportionately at harvard in particular that asian americans were being discriminated against. there was a dramatic decline in admission of asian americans. there are certain criteria. one has to ask this question. for those students in high school that dedicate themselve

justice sandra day o'connor wrote we expect 25 years from now the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary. it's been 20 years. is it still needed and legally defensible. opponents of race-conscious admissions argue that in schools like harvard, asian americans are being discriminated against where despite excelling academically they score lower on subjective personality traits. all sides seem to agree that without race as a factor, the percentage of black and hispanic students will drop and whites will rise. in 1996 it prohibited government institutions to prohibit race, ethnicity in public employment, public contracting and education. at the university of california schools the percentage of underrepresented groups declined. it remains to be seen just how expansive the reasoning of an opinion banning affirmative action in college admissions might be. it could extend into the workforce. schools will likely respond with race-neutral alternatives such as admissions guarantees based on class rank or focus on socioeconomic diversity. the current debate largely driven by an affirm

colleges could consider race to achieve educational diversity and for the majority in that case sandra day o'connor said she expected "25 years from now weaning the world 2028 -- the year 2028 that the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary of course that has not happened yet so did affirmative action work at harvard the way it was intended and beyond? >> i think a permanent action has been working in the sense that it has helped to desegregate the upper echelons of american society including selective universities. i think affirmative action to a very large extent has been a positive force in american life and a success story in american life and i think that's one of the reasons why many people are very disappointed and very angry in fact at what the supreme court has done. >> i know you alluded to this but can you just explain how this will put colleges and universities into this legal quagmire? >> the truth is we don't know what that little expert you read at the end -- you will have now a cottage industry. it's ironic people writing essays stressing their unidimensional racial i

lauren: sandra day o'connor wrote want about it, if there's an issue, getting qualified students from disadvantaged background regardless of skin color, fix at the ground level. so they could compete at a higher level. >> starting kindergarten, start early. ashley: got to get onto this subject. california's reparations task force released its final report but the panel conveniently left out the potential payments which is so bizarre. california facing a deficit but residents made it clear they expect big checks, bring it on. maybe governor newsom has backed himself into a corner but after all this they can't come up with a figure. >> another classic example of the bait and switch when it comes to black people. either vote for us are all this good stuff, they don't deliver. black people have been betrayed by this, i will get my check for $5 million, we don't have the money. i hope will voters in california and elsewhere realize the democrat party is a graft operation, they ripped us off and cheated us, 200 years, coming up on them using us from slavery through jim crow and everything e

affirmative action decision in 2003 that was authored by the republican supreme court justice sandra day o'connorat this applies to colleges and universities but not to military academies? where he saw value in officer diversity, the idea of fine for the barracks but not the board room? >> the same value we have in making sure we are having diversity in military, we have to have the same value for higher education. often times higher education is the access to halls of power. we want to make sure our colleges and universities truly reflect america when it comes to diversity. we need to have some of the most diverse minds thinking about the best solutions to some of the most difficult problems we are facing in america today. if we are removing that access in higher education, then we are not -- we're going to miss the moment. they're not going to be able to solve the problems that come our way. amy: you wrote in social media, "our future depends -- -- can you explain? >> this decision is going to have ampex for generations to come. when we think about the way some people have the options and choic

partnership is invaluable, and the center for constitutional design at arizona state university's sandra day o'connor law, which is a friend. and carol of the center for constitutional design at a.s.u., we're so grateful to them and now i will introduce our extraordinary panelist and then we'll jump right in. garry kasparaov is chair of the renew democracy initiative. both a former world chess champion and one of the world's great free speech heroes. he's the author of "winter: why vladimir putin is coming" and no one has called the attention of the free world to the urgent need to stop putin more eloquently and powerfully than garry. it's an honor to welcome to you back to the national constitution center which you've seen before. we're also honored to convene yvonne who is director of education at the renew democracy initiative where he hosts the frontlines of freedom podcast. he's the founder of the this flag citizen movement in zimbabwe which was instrumental in unseating robert. he's also a reagan fellow at the national endowment of democracy, former fellow at stanford, and a 2020 yale universit

justice sandra day o'connor wrote we expect 25 years from now the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary. well, it's been 20 years. is it still needed and legally defensible? opponents of race conscious administrations argue that at schools like harvard asian americans are being discriminated against, where they often are scored lower on subjective personality traits. all sides seem to agree that without race as a factor in administrations, the percentage of black and hispanic students admitted will drop, white and asian american administrations will rise. that's what happened in california after proposition 209 was passed in 1996, which prohibited state governmental institutions from considering race or sex or ethnicity in the areas of public employment, public contracting and public education. at the university of california schools, the percentage of underrepresented groups declined. it remains to be seen just how expansive the reasoning of an opinion banning affirmative action in college admissions might be. it could extend into the workforce. schools will likely respond

. >> it's interesting to go back to the 2003 decision where sandra day o'connor wrote these programs should no longer be needed by 2028 and says it doesn't conflict with that ruling what about the implications for the work place >> this could have massive implications we're talking about a group of highly selective elite universities who do use affirmative action to make sure that their student bodies are diverse. of course companies want students from those universities so this might change companies to have to rethink where do they go to recruit and look for potential employees. that kind of mindset needs to change both at the corporate level and university level. >> emily wilkins thank you we appreciate your update. mortgage rates are jumping after the gdp revision diana olick has the latest read. another big round number again. >> i know, kelly bond yields surged after the higher revision on gdp as well as the big drop in jobless claims and mortgage rates followed the average rate on the 30-year fixed jumped 13 basis points crossing over 7% for the first time since the end of may

political, legal and you can even see the difference, the arguments in front of the court when, sandra day o'connor was the swing vote or even when justice kennedy was the swing vote, lawyers would come and they would often make their arguments to that swing vote because you didn't know for sure where in a 5 to 4 court where those justices were going to come down with six votes. the conservative lawyers who come in are kind of triumphalist. they're not they're not making much of an effort, even if john roberts say, as he did on the dobbs, tries to cut a middle path, that the lawyers in that case really care. they had the votes. there's an interesting moment where abe, who was a supreme court justice and was also a close confidante of lyndon president lyndon johnson, even when fortas was on the court. one of the tapes of johnson's phone, fortas and johnson are discussing what it means to have a supermajority, to have six votes, and that basically the numbers really matter. and, of course, was the great vote counter. he understood. it makes a big difference. and, you know, the court has the court has

conservative a harry admirers, a woman to fill the seat on the supreme 4th and have been vacated by sandra day o'connor. and there was a little crude, a shot from the far right. and they obliged this republican president to withdraw his own nominee in favor of a more reliable vote for their interests. and that was sam olibo. and the individual who orchestrated that one over was leonard leo. and when the billionaires saw what he could, paul, i think the operation then went to the hind year and we got the federalist society list. so we got the 3 trump drug drugs, and we got the blocking of garland and we got the rest of the show. and one of the interesting data points out there, senator, is that in 2021. public confidence in the supreme court. was it 36 percent? it's not a great number. it happened to be bigger in public confidence in the congress for the presidency, but it is collapsed in 2022 to 25 percent of down 11. and this is all before the revelations that we've seen now, and i'm just interested in, can you blame the american people of saying, we're looking at our institutions and saying, we don't

sandra day o'connor famously said 20 years ago, 25 years from now we will not have a need for race basedmeaning we never want it to be considered. you want to stop discrimination on the basis of race by not doing so. it is quite effective according to the statistics and university settings about trying to diversify the population. you cannot have a set number of people. the idea that being a plus factor is part of it as well. the real consideration is there's a whole host of quote, unquote plus factors used, whether you're a legacy student, a musician, a student athlete, a veteran or a member of the military can be a consideration. so, the question is how narrow will the court's holding be? will it focus on the university alone or be expanse snif. >> there is a question here that there might be exception for military commanders because you have military commanders who have said this is particularly necessary, that level of diversity for cohesion in the ranks, a whole host of arguments there. is there a possibility the court carves out something for the naval academy, army academy, kes po

political, legal and you can even see the difference, the arguments in front of the court when, sandra day o'connor was the swing vote or even when justice kennedy was the swing vote, lawyers would come and they would often make their arguments to that swing vote because you didn't know for sure where in a 5 to 4 court where those justices were going to come down with six votes. the conservative lawyers who come in are kind of triumphalist. they're not they're not making much of an effort, even if john roberts say, as he did on the dobbs, tries to cut a middle path, that the lawyers in that case really care. they had the votes. there's an interesting moment where abe, who was a supreme court justice and was also a close confidante of lyndon president lyndon johnson, even when fortas was on the court. one of the tapes of johnson's phone, fortas and johnson are discussing what it means to have a supermajority, to have six votes, and that basically the numbers really matter. and, of course, was the great vote counter. he understood. it makes a big difference. and, you know, the court has the court has

last time the court heard a major case about affirmative action, the michigan says, justice sandra day o'connores in the majority who upheld affirmative action were swayed by an amicus brief, the green brief in the case that came from military leadership said we cannot end it, it would be a catastrophe for military leadership. clearly there's a vestige of that feeling and there were similar arguments made this go around. and so all we can say is there seems to be some sense that we can't have fighting forces without affirmative action making sure that there is a diverse class there. why that ends at the military is just not laid out. >> we have a parkland, we think, a parkland verdict on the broward county deputy, scott peterson, who is accused of not taking care of the students at that school, not confronting the gunman. we're going to go into the courtroom where we start to hear from the courtroom, so far -- have we gotten audio? we've gotten audio, so let's go into the broward county courtroom. >> state of florida plaintiff, versus scott peterson, we the jury find the defendant in this case,

. >> martha: sandra day o'connor said it was never intended to last forever. it was for a period and fixing of imbalance. the goal of the country is to fix the imbalance. justices say we have to let other measures come into play other than just the color of people's skin. they should be judged on the content of their character and the merit and grades they receive. thank you for that thoughtful discussion. stick around. we're about to hear from the president this hour. we also have a story exclusive with the woman at the center of the other scotus ruling. christian web designer lori smith. she just won a year's long battle that had to do with whether she would build websites for same-sex couples and her faith and how that played in to that decision. that's coming up. i suffer with psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. i was on a journey for a really long time to find some relief. cosentyx works for me. cosentyx helps real people get real relief from the symptoms of psoriatic arthritis or psoriasis. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or

remember infamously sandra day o'connor as a justice spoke about a time line when we would reach a point in time that we would no longer consider race. and you had justice roberts talk about the way to stop discriminating on the way of race is to do just that. and you heard the conversations in the voting rights space of not removing the umbrella in a storm, because you are not getting wet. so we have seen the racial dine mi -- dynamics play in this court, and with ketanji jackson would recuse herself in this case, because of her ties to harvard and not as a student, but the board-type relationship, and so they had two case, one the private school harvard and the other involving university of north carolina, and you had the added dimension of whether racial minorities including asians have been detrimentally impacted by affirmative action as well. so right now, we are on a kind of the waiting with bated breath about what the supreme court is going to ultimately decide given the evident conclusion that we should all reach which is that frankly race is one of many factored analysis in any

political, legal and you can even see the difference, the arguments in front of the court when, sandra day o'connor was the swing vote or even when justice kennedy was the swing vote, lawyers would come and they would often make their arguments to that swing vote because you didn't know for sure where in a 5 to 4 court where those justices were going to come down with six votes. the conservative lawyers who come in are kind of triumphalist. they're not they're not making much of an effort, even if john roberts say, as he did on the dobbs, tries to cut a middle path, that the lawyers in that case really care. they had the votes. there's an interesting moment where abe, who was a supreme court justice and was also a close confidante of lyndon president lyndon johnson, even when fortas was on the court. one of the tapes of johnson's phone, fortas and johnson are discussing what it means to have a supermajority, to have six votes, and that basically the numbers really matter. and, of course, was the great vote counter. he understood. it makes a big difference. and, you know, the court has the court has

the only reason it didn't go the way it went today w is that sandra day o'connor saiden , i'm to vote to allow you to consider race. racebut i don't think a 25 years this court will ever let you do that. about >> you've got about 25 years. well, that time was almost up this year. >> there are about in the 20th year and the court said enoughe that, you know, this is racialco discriminationur. it's also important to know with all of these all thishyperb hyperbole that chief justice roberts said, look, you can stilolticel have a student who s about in their essay how they've dealyt racial discrimination. ifu haveve got history on that . but you have to base decisions on the individual. the indiso what he's really sayg is you got to ban the box. you can't just have a box ofks checks off people according to their race. ff peoplyou're going to have tok more carefully at them as individuals. >> all right.. >> it seems that disproportionately at harvard in particulas r that asian-americans were being discriminated againsericanst an, there was a dramatic decline in admission of asian-americans

the only reason why this opinion didn't come out in 2003 is that sandra day o'connor voted to allow some race to be considered. but she said that she expected in 25 years the court would not allow these race to be considered. that was in 2003. >> dana: shannon bream has a little more there at the court. what more do you have? >> so justice sotomayer is reading her dissent. she is reading from her dissent. i want to read you more of what it says. she says the devastating impact of this decision cannot be overstated. the majority's vision of race neutrality will entrench racial segregation in higher ed. because racial inequality will persist so long as it is ignored. you talk about the plaintiffs in this case, the students, and applicants or asian-americans who said they were hurt by the use of race. justice gorsuch during the arguments said what do you say to asian-american students who have been told by the coaches that help people to do applications to try to get into ivy league schools they've been told to hide their ethnicity as asian-american students. what do you say to them as the

a former federal and state prosecutor new york, chief look for merrick garland and justice sandra day o'connor, former u.s. attorney joyce vance, and formally farce a cuter and former attorney charles coleman. we have a full house, but i want to go to you first, ali. >> other than the fact that i'm very interested in the bathroom reading, the toilet, the fact is that this is transformed into a conversation about mishandling of documents, which doesn't stir the spirit all that much. if you're in not government not lawyer, the concept of documents being wrong place in the archives not getting what they're supposed to get, i think those poor people understanding how serious that was, as it is always clear our lawyers have told us is a crime. now that we're learning about what was in some of that stuff, the degree to which the former president was bragging about it, the consciousness that there were things he knew he couldn't had, i think it changes the dynamic a great deal and the first time today we heard from jack smith and we knew what his voice sounded like. at least most people. did talking

it's interesting to me because one of our previous guests, a harvard professor had said, that sandra day o'connor line in the original gruder case said it's got to end at some point, he said that was a throwaway line. now the court is reading it as a requirement of that precedent, that it's got to end at some point, and that these policies fail because these universities could not put a timeline on it. they couldn't say when it's ever their goal of diversity would be achieved. >> not only with respect to the timeline. i think the other issue is that the universities, i think the decision makes clear, were able to articulate the way in which race could be used in a manner that would not run afoul of either a legal precedent or a constitutional requirement. so yes. i think it's interesting how that 25-year marker has gone from being almost a piece of, you know, this is just sort of out there, to being one of the core considerations in this particular set of decisions, but what will be interesting will be the ways in which, and you've noted this. universities and businesses, who may have known this

the hill rights when the sueme court upheld emergent -- affirmative action in 2003, justice sandra day o'connorade a temporal prediction. the court expects 25 years from now the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interests approved today. the landmark decision marked its 20th anniversary on friday. the hill rights it may not reach its 21st. question for you. should there be term limits for supreme court justices? the republican line is (202) 748-8001. democrats line is (202) 748-8000 . independents and others, (202) 748-8002. we go to pennsylvania. dennis on the republican line. you are on the air. caller: good morning. sorry, did not hear you. i am frankly disappointed in the term limit gig. i've tried to step in by taking a senator position to see if i could make a change that up it just seems like the spin never stops anymore. it is continuous and it is corrupt. that is how i feel. i am a republican and i'm trying to give the republican people the help by taking a senator position and it has fallen flat on me. we the people have no say. i would take a senato

that was a 5-4 decision by sandra day o'connor.on at the end, justice o'connor wrote that "in 25 years we would hope that the consideration of race would no longer be necessary, because universities would be able to achieve this diversity through other means." it is 20 years later. the court is a different court been the one we had in 2003. students for fair admissions brought this challenge to unc arguing that unc could have a diverse student body without considering race, and against harvard saying its consideration of race discriminated against asian american students in favor of black, hispanic, and white students. the lowered courts ruled in favor in both cases, and the supreme court agreed to weigh in and heard oral arguments at the end of october. it seemed unlikely that -- the question is what exactly is the supreme court going to do? we are waiting on tenterhooks to hear. host: this is about race being either one factor or the determining factor. here is the exchange with chief stice roberts. [video clip] >> bei african-am