the supreme court was founded by the constitution of the united states. it was created as a separate branch of government. one thing we are going to do as republicans is stand up for the constitution's separation of powers when it comes to the supreme court. this is what schumer started. went in front of the supreme court and basically threatened by name members of the supreme court. won't know what hit you with this decision if you pay the price. this is the majority leader of the united states senate going to the steps of the supreme court threatening this very thing. the hell with of the supreme court. maxine waters. as we lecture israel about their efforts to impose judicial reform, leave it israel to figure that out, democrats are counting on the benjamin that yahoo government for destroying the independent judiciary. here is what is happening in our own backyard. democrats are openly calling for increasing the number of justices from 9 to 13 to dilute the supreme court for 20 something years. that is destroying the independence of the judiciary. ther

the supreme court was founded by the constitution of the united states. it was created by the constitution as a separate branch of government. one thing that we're going to do tomorrow as republicans is stand up for the constitution separation of powers when it comes to the operation of the supreme court. this is what schumer started. went over to the supreme court and basically threatened by name members of the supreme court. you won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. you have released a whil wind and you will pay the price. this is the majority leader of the united states senate going to the steps of the supreme court, threatening their very existence. you ain't seen nothing yet. to hell with the supreme court. we will defy them. maxine waters. a senior member of the house. as we lecture israel about their efforts to impose judiciary reform, we'll leave it up to israel to figure that out, democrats are pounding on the netanyahu government for destroying an independent judiciary. here's what's happening in our own backyard.

, my colleagues, the supreme court term begins with the announcement by the marshal of the united states supreme court. he strikes the gavel and says, the honorable, the chief justice and associate justices of the supreme court of the united states. oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yay. all persons putting businesses before the honorable supreme court of the united states were drawing nearer and giving attention to the court is now setting. god save the united states, and this honorable court. three times what the supreme court is honorable. with the enactment of this legislation, our highest court in the land can make that claim. i now yield the center to graham. >> thank you mister chairman. i appreciate it very much. this will be a spirited debate. i hope you have nowhere to go today because we have a lot of amendments worthy of your consideration. a couple points, what you're trying to do is not improve the court, you're trying to destroy it. it's been an ongoing effort here. [silence] you have to look at this in terms of what's been going on for a couple of years. so senator schumer, this is the court.

my colleagues, the supreme court of the announcement by the marshal of the united states supreme court. strikes a gavel and says the honorable, the chief justice associate justices of the supreme court of the united states, oh yea, o gate, oh yea, all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states were admonished to draw near and give their attention for a court is now sitting. god save theth united states and this honorable court. three times and marshall declares the supreme court is honorable. but the enactment of this legislation or highest court in the land can rightly make that claim. i will yield to senator graham. >> think it mr. chairman i appreciate very much. this will be a spirited debate i hope you have nowhere to go today because we have got a different amendments i think are worthy of consideration. a couple of points, what you are trying to do is not improve the court you're trying to destroy it as itt exists. it is been a long ongoing effort here. you have to look at this in terms of what hasin been going n for a couple of years. so

and if a losing candidate comes to the united states supreme court to expect at the united states supreme is going to allow a state to anoint the loser as the winner of a presidential election, i think the united states supreme court clearly said don't even bother coming here, we're not going to do that. >> host: all right. our caller is in mississippi. james is on the independent line. >> caller: yes. i wanted to know, sir, about the electoral college votes. why did the republican party insist on something that's being disingenuous with voters? why is it that they don't understand that the popular vote is more important than the way they've got their system set up? that meansns that they don't hae the work hard, prove a point to the american people that their policies are right. so they don't want to have, you know, one vote -- give each person one vote. so why is it that they keep saying that it's something illegal, and also i don't know if i want to even watch it. if they don't show president trump, the investigation, if theys don't show him go to cour, ultimately,ing they let the amer

my colleagues, the supreme court term begins with the announcement by the marshal of the united states supreme court and strikes the gavel when he says the honorable, chief justice and associate justice supreme court of the united states is oh yeah, oh yeah, zero yea. businesses you for this are admonished to draw here and give attention and save the united states in this honorable court. three times commercial declares supreme court with the enactment of this legislation highest court in the land will make that claim. >> this will. be a spirited debate. i hope you know where to go today because we have a lot before the consideration. what you're trying to do is trying to destroy it and it's a long ongoing effort here. you have to look at this in terms of what isof going on fora couple of years. in senator schumer, and yuko forward with this awful decision, this is the majority leader. supreme court justice knows the high-profile decision, the security was the explanation by a represented from new hampshire when conservative judges had their houses surrounded. maxine waters who have known for

he had already argued and won a case in the united states supreme court. i was there in the supreme court that day when my father made his case to the justices. i was 11 years old. i had been in many churches and cathedrals by the time i was 11 and had seen on seniors and cardinals only alter, but never experienced for majesty in a room. then, sitting there, looking up at the warren court. there was the republican appointed chief justice earl warren, flanked by legends on both sides of him. including the most liberal member of the court william o douglas, appointed by president franklin eleanor roosevelt. this was the court that ordered the desegregation of public schools in american in 1954. this was the court that found state laws banning interracial marriage to be unconstitutional. earl warren had been the chief justice of the united states every day of my life. for good marshal would join the warren court in its last years and personally represent as the first african american member of the supreme court the steady march of social progress that the war

by the way, just had the supreme court say that communities of color should have an opportunity to make a fair decision about who represents them in the united states congress. that's the u.s. supreme court. a decision written by the conservative chief justice of the united states supreme court. the out of town special mast for the new york state, the maps that we currently are operating under, eroded and degraded the black and latino population in five different congressional districts. degraded the black population in the congressional district currently represented by jamaal bowen. degraded the black population in the district i represent. deglade black population in the congressional district represented by yvette clarke. deglade black population in the district represented by greg meeks. and decimated the latino population, degraded it in the congressional district currently represented by nydia velazquez. somehow that possible? when the percentage of new yorkers who come from communities of color in the last decade increased. it didn't decrease. and in five different congressional districts, this out of town special master drew a map rubber s

problem that could tests united states democratic institutions who w correspondent, mckayla kaufman reports the. this is the home of america's constitution, the united states supreme court. it has the final say on how to read below and personally, it's the last line of defense for democracy. when all else fails. in the year 2000, then republican candidate, george w bush, the democrats. i'll go only off to the supreme court for you to stop the florida recount or say, effectively hunting verse the prisoner's team together a winning goal issue here tonight, there was accepted by al gore immediately. while i strongly disagree with the court's decision, i accepted you can't imagine donald trump doing something like that. nobody can, with the front runner for the republican presidential candidacy, who can't be trusted to accept the election results. public confidence in the supreme court is more crucial than ever with that is waning. the latest poem shows a soft dropped from 60 percent of americans who said they had a large degree of trust in the supreme court a year ago to just 39 percent. now, at the moment of ever depot, a political divisions because it is experienci

the fact is the chief justice of the united states supreme court, john roberts, could clean up the supreme court ethical challenges on his own. for years, i have encouraged him to do just that. it was more than 11 years ago when i urged to the chief justice in writing to adopt a binding code of conduct but he didn't accept my suggestion. what has happened in the years since? i will tell you. sadly, the american people's confidence in the supreme court has created. public support for the court is at an all-time low. so if we were set to restore public trust in our nation's high court we must begin by enacting legislation i introduced with senator white house. i thank him for his leadership on this for many years. i hope every member of the judiciary committee on both sides of the aisle will vote tomorrow in support of supreme court ethics and recusal transparency. i would like to address statements later today on the floor by the republican leader. it was his analysis, his comments on the bill which i just described which he said takes us to the thinnest constitutional ice. the relationship

united states democratic institutions. he w correspondent, mckayla cooper reports. this is the home of america's constitution. the united states supreme court. it has the final say on how to read below and personally, it's the last line of defense for democracy. when all else fails. in the year 2000, then republican candidate source w bush be the democrats. i'll go only off to the supreme court for you to stop the florida recount or say, effectively hunting verse the presidency together, a winning coefficient here tonight. it was accepted by al gore immediately. while i strongly disagree with the court's decision, i accepted you can't imagine donald trump doing something like that. nobody can, with the fund thrown out for the republican presidential candidacy, who can't be trusted to accept the election results. public confidence in the supreme court is more crucial than ever with that is waning. the latest poem shows a soft dropped from 60 percent of americans who said they had a large degree of trust in the supreme court a year ago to just 39 percent. now, at the moment of ever depot political divisions, the course is experiencing a

and, and in the, because because the united states supreme court did not mandate retro activity for the states. um uh he is not entitled to a new new trial. um now there are other ways to go about ensuring that he gets a new trial in the state legislature that can pass the law which the jamila is, is actively working towards. but this last legislative session they, they declined to do it. and then another way is if the district attorney in a specific parish decides that that they are independently going to go back and grant new trials to do for these people. and that's something that the williams has begun to do, and then is, is a sort of in the process of reviewing those cases. and we can get to the details of that, i'm sure. but in order to prepare for brandon jackson was convicted, the da is not doing that and has said that he it is, is a post to a new topic, brendan. yeah, i've actually got a letter which i'll show you in just a moment, which the last it is, i just sent it to 4 or 4 times produce a jeremy young. it is impossible to speculate with any degree a search and see whether

undermine american states in the legitimacy in the integrity of the supreme court, these judicial panels would be an excellent start they charge a similar force they would charge the united states with issuing a code of conduct governing supreme court justices. when he testified before congress, justice kennedy describe every proposal as legally problematic and structurally unprecedented. it would empower the judicial -- a group composed of district in circuit court judges that would make rules that supreme court justices have to follow. the bill would also create an ethics investigation counsel charged with investigating supreme court justices nastiest violations or colder conduct over any conduct alleged to be prejudicial to the ethical effect of the business of the supreme court of the united states. another bill entitled the supreme court code of conduct act would similarly detonate a supreme court ethics officer which would process complaint that is supreme court violated a code of conduct, federal law, or has done something that they complain it which they believe to be prejudicial to the administration of justice. they would then be required to publish the complai

court to expect that the united states supreme court is going to allow a state to anoint theoser as the winner of the presidential election after the u.s. supreme court said, do not bother, we will not do that. host: our next caller is in mississippi, james on the independent line. caller: i wanted to know, sir, about electoral college votes. why did the republican party insist on something that is being disingenuous with voters? why is it that they do not understand that the popular vote is more important to them then the way they have the system set up now? that means they don't have to work hard to prove a point to the american people that their policy is right, so they do not want to have one vote, give every person one vote, so why is it that they keep saying that it is something illegal and then said, they don't show president trump's investigation, if they don't show it in front of the court to let the american people see it, i am not going to vote because i want -- even president biden. if he gets indicted and the american people need to see it, they joked about janua

united states of america. that is, these are magnitudes. well, at least equal for him. the supreme united states is the highest court of appeal, it can accept any case and at the same time can make not only legal, but also political decisions . the supreme court assesses whether the law and the us constitution are consistent and can suspend their actions, declaring them unconstitutional. society selects questions that will be considered often they are associated with the most pressing social topics. usually, about a hundred cases a year go through a hearing out of eighty thousand requests, the decision is necessarily uncontested, and they can greatly change the life of americans, for example, racial segmentation in schools was abolished by the supreme court in 1954. each of the nine judges is appointed by the president of the united states for life upon approval. in the senate, vacancies appear only when a judge dies or himself submits a stand. judges are conditionally divided into conservatives and liberals, that is, nominated by republican and democratic presidents under trump, t

you may have heard that the supreme court of the united states, this might have crossed your radar. the supreme court of the united states, you might know right now is a very conservative body. a 6 to 3 hard right conservative majority on the nation's highest court as we speak. but even so, even that hard align conservative 6 to 3 court could not swallow the recent decision by alabama's legislature to draw congressional districts in the state. so there is only one black majority districts in the whole state, in a state where a quarter of the population is black. the high court ordered the state of alabama to make a new map. where there are two such districts where black voters might be able to elect a representative of their choice. they've been ordered to do this by the federal courts. alabama is refusing to do it. even though alabama technically is a state. in the united states of america. which is a country that is technically subject to the ruins of the supreme court of the united states. even the alabama parts of the united states are subject to federal court orders. but apparen

of the second amendment is not only incorrect but doesn't match up with actually what the united states supreme says the second amendment means. and that's who defines what the second amendment means. and it is scalia, it is thomas, it is -- well, not thomas. it is scalia and the majority of the rest of the court who don't view the second amendment any more unlimited as the first. there are always limitations for all rights and also all responsibilities that go along with those rights that the united states supreme court recognizes and that americans recognize, but the gun lobby and their most strict adherence do not. and americans are dying every day because we can't pass sensible gun laws that 90% of americans support. >>> coming up next, we reflect on the one-year anniversary of the u.s. supreme court decision to overturn roe v. wade and the urgent need to take action and fight for women's reproductive rights and health care. that's next on "morning joe." we'll be right back. we'll be right back. >>> tomorrow marks the one-year anniversary of the u.s. supreme court's regressive decision to o

that was as fringe a theory as ever been heard by the united states supreme court. disappointment i have in that decision is that it was not a 9-0 decision. the notion of the independent state legislature theory was that courts, that the legislatures had the final say without any involvement of court review and that's inconsistent with our notion of checks and balances. but it will mean that we will have the ability to go before state courts to look at what legislatures and sometimes gerrymandered legislatures are doing with regard to redistricting and just as in any other case have courts have the final say. that's the way our system is designed and that is what the court affirmed through that -- through the north carolina case. >> the supreme court did warn state courts, federal courts could still overrule on cases involving federal elections. does that concern you? >> no, not at all. i mean, i think you want to have that backstop so that if a state court does something that is, you know, egregiously wrong you want to have the united states supreme court have the

the fact is the chief justice of the united states supreme court, john roberts, could clean up the supreme court's ethical challenges on his own. and for years i have encouraged him to do just that. it was more than 11 years ago, more than 11 years ago when i first urged the chief justice in writing to adopt a binding code of conduct. but he didn't accept my suggestion. and what has happened in the years since? i'll tell you. sadly, the american people's confidence in the supreme court has cratered. public support for the court is at an all-time low. so if we are set to restore the public trust in our nation's high court, we must begin by enacting legislation i've introduced with senator whitehouse. i thank him for his leadership on this issue for many years. i hope every member of the judiciary committee on both sides of the aisle will vote tomorrow in support of supreme court ethics and recusal transparency. and, mr. president, i would like to address statements made earlier today on the floor by the republican leader. it was his analysis and his comments on the bill which i've just desc

the sovereignty of the united states is manifested in two ways : he is the president, who has access to the nuclear button and in authority in the sacred character of the supremeurt of the united states of america. that is, these are magnitudes. well, at least equal to the great ones for him. the u.s. supreme court is the highest appellate court it can take to any case and at the same time can make not only legal, but also political decisions. the supreme court assesses whether laws comply with the us constitution and can suspend their operation, declaring them unconstitutional. the society selects issues that will be considered, often they are related to the most pressing social topics. typically, about a hundred cases a year go through hearings out of eighty thousand requests, the decision is necessarily uncontested, and they can greatly change the life of americans, for example, racial segmentation in schools was overturned by the supreme court in 1954. each of the nine judges is appointed by the president of the united states for life upon approval. a vacancy in the senate only occurs when a judge dies or resigns himself . judges are conditionally divided

your attorney general is, who your governor is, but ultimately the united states congress can put pack in place what the united states supremeted states supreme court took a constitutional right. the united states congress has the power to put in place a protection of that individual privacy right that all americans should be entitled to. >> that's a perfect place for us to take a quick break. because when we come back i want to ask about the national landscape. what congress might do and what some judges might do. we're awaiting a ruling on whether or not we can have an effective national abortion ban or a legislative national abortion ban, senator lindsey graham and others have talked about that. we'll talk about what we do next. stay with us as our discussion continues with vice president kamala harris on our "the reidout" special one year post roe. this great panel is coming right back. roe. this great panel is coming right back he snores like an angry rhino. you've never heard an angry rhino. baby i hear one every night... every night. okay. i'll work on that. the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is now only $899. pl

>> first of all, let's understand that the united states supreme court does not have the kind of code of ethics that apply to all other federal judges. so, the highest court in the land should set the highest standard, they do not. so, this is a bill that would do that. and what will it do? it will establish a procedure for investigating ethical violations, it will make much clearer, recusal requirements and the third is to give the court time to adopt a code of ethics and if they do not, then, one will be provided to them. >> how, exactly -- >> senator, how exactly do you plan to then, enforce those guidelines? >> some of the guidelines will be done through the commission that is established by the judicial conference, so, there are judicial conference procedures for the investigating these kinds of things. and then, i don't think that we're putting it together anything particularly new. the main thing to focus on is that the supreme court does not have a code of ethics, and so, you the circumstances of billionaires wining and dining our justices and there's no disclosure as to any o

i think even the united states supreme court sees this one coming.id: great to have you here, appreciate it. coming up next fda approving a breakthrough drug for those suffering from alzheimer's, is this a game changer? and pickle ball craze that has all generations getting to good health, except those to get injured, could be coming to a mall near you. they approving a break there alzheimer's drug this week leqembi is the first of its kind it's meant to slow the progression of the disease or other drugs on the market target symptoms. st. joseph hospital doctor bob with me now. good to see doctor bob. how much of a breakthrough is this drug? >> is a major break there. and i will tell you why. this is a one class of monoclonal antibodies for those of the targeted proteins in your blood, that's directed to get something that is an actual cause. most of the drugs we have been giving patients with dementia and alzheimer's disease have been really related to their symptoms. in trying to recover for example memory or recognition, the qualities. this drug a

what i think this means is the attorney general should be going back to the united states supreme courty this information out before, but there is a procedure to seek re-here rain, and to get this decision struck in from the books. i think that's what should happen here. you know, the current chief justice and the controversy requirements. for the most important of reasons, otherwise, the u.s. supreme court can be drawn into any number of controversies that are illegal cases. you know, just imaginary fights between people. that's not what the courts about. >> a little secret, that's part of the plan. , melissa, thank you so much for being with us. you are not going anywhere. we've got more for you, coming up. we're going to be right back after this quick break, with more conversation with neil. ation with neil. with skyrizi to treat my skin and joints, i'm getting into my groove. ♪(uplifting music)♪ along with significantly clearer skin... skyrizi helps me move with less joint pain, stiffness, swelling, and fatigue. and is just 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. skyrizi attaches to

there, we will be going to the fifth circuit of appeals and eventually all the way to the united states supremeignty and its constitutional right to secure the border of our state and our country. >> bret: governor, where does this end? not just this lawsuit, not just the river barriers, but this whole back and forth? where does it end? what has to happen? >> what needs to happen is the biden administration needs to enforce the laws already on the books to stop people from crossing illegally. get this: so, there are 29 ports of entry in the it state of texas. people are seeking asylum can go those ports of entry to try to enter the united states. it is completely illegal for anybody to try to cross the border between the ports of entry. all the biden administration has to do is to enforce the laws already on the books that prevent people from crossing between the ports of entry. until the biden administration does that, texas will be stepping up to do so. >> bret: last thing, what's the feeling therein 00 border from not only border patrol on the federal side but your guys who are, you know, ba

the united states supreme court has a duty to strengthen our democracy and strength and respect for the rule of law. yet the united states supreme court, in many recent decisions has in my view become a threat to democracy. and it has profoundly eroded respect for the rule of law. it is not just pulls up the american people that show a record low respect for the court, confidence in the court. it is not a popularity contest, of course. but the court has been making decisions with outcomes that are very contrary to the public interest. that is a point of view. but, i think one that can be backed up with evidence. but it is also been using intellectual manipulation in reaching its decisions. and i think the public gets that. it is not on the level. let me give three examples. we have a corrupt campaign finance system. and the supreme court and citizens united an assertion of facts which i will talk about in a minute to justify unleashing unlimited money unaccountable money on disclosed money to pollute our political process. in the bruin decision, the united states supreme court came up w

that is what this bill does in the united states supreme court.ow many complaints do you think there's going to be? every single day. the whole way if they can't expand -- host: richard blumenthal who propose the bill. he addresses problems by coming forth with a code of ethics. he has repeatedly failed to do so. if his import will not impose ethical standards it themselves congress can and will. -- the american should have confidence that the supreme court making the decision in the interest of what is best for the country not in their personal interest or the interest of their wealthy friends. democrat floyd in baltimore. pillows your view. -- tell us your view. caller: in a perfect world the government would not be arresting and murdering journalists. politicians would not take bribes. and supreme court would have responsibilities but it is not a perfect world and so i think we should look at this. host: lay here from bill on the republican line in ohio area good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call i appreciate c-span and your oral ar

today, the united states supreme court got it wrong. my organization was founded by president kennedy in 1963, a pivotal summer for this civil-rights unit. it was founded with a racially integrated group of lawyers came together to put skin in the game to advance civil rights. it is not even clear organization could have been founded or floors over the hills -- founded or floors over those years. this court decided not to fully overrule the president. it did not affirm a long-standing president --prece dent. and did something in the middle through eight tortured interpretation. the court has taken the law and put us in a pretzel. one must engage in mental gymnastics to understand the logical purpose of today's decision. to understand what university -- what a university and college is supposed to do with this ruling which puts them into such -- confusion to what they are supposed to do. that is a decision, this is a decision that is not just confounding of the law but it is morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest. let's be clear a

why beat the crab out of the united states supreme court? i just don't get it. stand politics, but i just don't get it. my democratic colleagues tried to expand supreme court. they tried to packet. they never had the votes. i still don't believe that if they had the votes they wouldn't have done it. maybe i am naive did now, there is another way to diminish the value of the integrity of the united states supreme court. that is to racket. -- wreck it. one of the provisions in this bill is so outrageous, imagine. you want to shut the senate down, allow anyone who wants to file a complaint against a senator, if the complainant thinks that senator has a conflict of interest, and require that the complaint be resolved before you go. that is what this bill does the united states supreme court. it that special? how many complaints do you think they are going to have? every single day, and the whole point is that they can't expand the court. they will shrink it. this bill. it, i just am really disappointed in some of my colleagues for even bringing this thing. host: what

why beat the crab out of the united states supreme court? i just don't get it. stand politics, but i just don't get it. my democratic colleagues tried to expand supreme court. they tried to packet. they never had the votes. i still don't believe that if they had the votes they wouldn't have done it. maybe i am naive did now, there is another way to diminish the value of the integrity of the united states supreme court. that is to racket. -- wreck it. one of the provisions in this bill is so outrageous, imagine. you want to shut the senate down, allow anyone who wants to file a complaint against a senator, if the complainant thinks that senator has a conflict of interest, and require that the complaint be resolved before you go. that is what this bill does the united states supreme court. it that special? how many complaints do you think they are going to have? every single day, and the whole point is that they can't expand the court. they will shrink it. this bill. it, i just am really disappointed in some of my colleagues for even bringing this thing. host: what

i mean as senator murkowski herself said, who does not think that the supreme court of the united stateshe same kind of rules to itself that it is applying to all of the other federal courts? the district courts, the appellate courts. did they really think that they are somehow above it all and so good that they do not need standards to govern their own conduct. it is kind of crazy that the highest court in the land has the lowest standards of all the federal courts. so i do think that the pressure is building, but we are going to keep it up. we are going to keep it up because apparently it is hard to shame the supreme court but we are going to keep at it until they do the right thing. >> senator chris van hollen, working the issue one senator at a time, thank you very much for joining us tonight. appreciate it. >> good to be with you, thanks lawrence. >> thank you. >> coming up! at his press conference today, welcoming finland as a member of nato, president biden delivered another very clear message to vladimir putin. >> i do not think that there is any real prospect, you never know, of

law and we believe we have the right to do so and will take this lawsuit all the way to the united states supremeuart: forgive my opinion but it seems to me the feds will do anything to get migrants nothing to keep them out. thirty seconds. >> ) america first, amen to governor abbott. would never have a month in our history where we had 200,000 illegal encounters, we have 13 under joe biden, ten and wrote. 20000 pounds of fentanyl this fiscal year which is not over and enough to kill every american, man, woman and child 13 times over. need to secure the border and we say in texas, come and take it, who will protect our people. stuart: sounds like texas. thank you for joining us. check those features, tuesday morning, where are we going? a mixed picture, not authority, not look up towards you. mixed picture. opening bell is next. ♪ that can set of the screen, mixed picture today. nasdaq up 33. market water of the morning, david, microsoft and off of it kick off after the bill today. in your opinion, which of those two companies is best positioned with a i? >> in particular i believe microsoft has

learn more at getrealaboutdiabetes.com >> today, in alabama, state republicans defied the supreme court of the unitedtates and voted against redrawing congressional maps that would accurately represent black voters. right now, alabama, only one of the seven congressional districts is majority black, even though more than a quarter of alabama's population is african american. last month, the supreme court agreed with a lower court ruling from at least two trump appointees that found that alabama's map violated the voting rights act by denying minority voters and equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. the decision called on the alabama legislature to draw an additional district making black voters the majority -- the voting age population or, quote, something quite close to it. so, alabama republicans had to go back to the drawing board, and today, after long sessions of negotiations and huddling over dueling maps represented by republicans in both chambers -- presented by republicans in both chambers -- legislators adopted their final proposal, a map that still doesn't do with the

court to expect that the united states supreme court is going to allow a state to anoint the as the winner of the presidential election after the u.s. supreme court said, do not bother, we will not do that. host: our next caller is in mississippi, james on the independent line. caller: i wanted to know, sir, about electoral college votes. why did the republican party insist on something that is being disingenuous with voters? why is it that they do not understand that the popular vote is more important to them then the way they have the system set up now? that means they don't have to work hard to prove a point to the american people that their policy is right, so they do not want to have one vote, give every person one vote, so why is it that they keep saying that it is something illegal and then said, they don't show president trump's investigation, if they don't show it in front of the court to let the american people see it, i am not going to vote because i want -- even president biden. if he gets indicted and the american people need to see it, they joked about january 6

court to expect that the united states supreme court is going to allow a state to anoint the as the winner of the presidential election after the u.s. supreme court said, do not bother, we will not do that. host: our next caller is in mississippi, james on the independent line. caller: i wanted to know, sir, about electoral college votes. why did the republican party insist on something that is being disingenuous with voters? why is it that they do not understand that the popular vote is more important to them then the way they have the system set up now? that means they don't have to work hard to prove a point to the american people that their policy is right, so they do not want to have one vote, give every person one vote, so why is it that they keep saying that it is something illegal and then said, they don't show president trump's investigation, if they don't show it in front of the court to let the american people see it, i am not going to vote because i want -- even president biden. if he gets indicted and the american people need to see it, they joked about january 6