GOV310 – In The News: A look at national politics through the eyes of Texas, June 29, 2016

In the news.

Morning, I’m Professor Shaw and I’m Eric McDaniel. You’re welcome to IN THE News for Texas and American

and Texas government. Got it. I got it. Got it. Out of order.

It’s all too high. Hey. Normally we save all content here strictly

for substantive matters, stuff that’s going on in the news, current events, that kind of thing. But we don’t want address one

issue. This morning we’ve received several complaints. One of our teams apparently

has arguably stepped over the bounds with respect to grading.

Normally, we would never have a teaching assistant, you know, be called on the carpet and ask

to respond for allegations that are frankly a little disturbing, you know. Not only is the grading

been harsh, the language has been kind of over the top, maybe even described

as sexist, racist, xenophobic, xenophobic. And so, in fact, we

wanted to bring our not our head teacher is actually somebody we added at the last minute. But we want to bring him on camera

and respond as best he can to some of these allegations. So, you know, if we could go to

Donald, our newest D.A., you know, I’ll show you everything to save yourself,

Donald. No. Whatever he says, it’s gonna be huge.

It is. Yeah, it is. All right. All right. We hesitate to put a face

to the name, but there you go. There’s one of your T A’s in math. The average

score is just abysmal for people. You know, he keeps using words like, you know, disasterous and corrupt,

even qualifying these things. It’s finding plagiarism on ninety nine percent of the

Turnitin. So we may have to reconsider, you know, graduate student Donald moving

forward. But there are other events in the news. So we’ll we’ll move on. Yeah. So

moving on again from that turmoil. Move to another term, one that is the most recent

gun control debate. So one of things we talked about last last time was

about the filibuster in the Senate and the attempt to vote on some gun control measures

in the Senate, which all failed. And but much of the action

moved from the Senate, then moved to the House. Now, the key thing about the House is different rules in the Senate.

So there isn’t a filibuster to force a vote. And so what you had actually take part was a sit in

by the Democrats. We actually have a video describing that sit in.

I ask that all of my colleagues join me on the floor.

We have lost hundreds and thousands of innocent people to gun violence.

What is the tipping point? Well, we blind.

Can we see? How minimal mother’s high, minimal

fall leaves me to shed tears of grief before we do something.

We must remove the blinders. The time for style and patient is long gone.

We’ll call on the leadership of the House to bring common sense gun control legislation

to the House floor. Give us a vote. Let us vote.

We came here to do our job. We came here to work. Let this chamber

have a real debate on an important matter.

No. No. No. No.

No. No. This is the right thing to do. We will not

move. We will stand here till we get results. Here we’re in the minority.

But the people watching this streaming. They’re in the majority. You can help us win this battle.

America, Representative,

we owe America. You can win this battle tonight.

Has to be in order. The chair wishes to make an announcement. The chair appreciates

that members will differ on matters of policy and will seek to express those

differences. But the chair would hope that the business of the house could be conducted

in a fashion that represented that respects positively on the dignity

and the decorum of this institution to which we all belong.

We’re not given up to fight. The fight is a goal

in mind. We will not be happy.

We will not be satisfied. We will not be, please,

until we do something in a major way. Make a major down

payment on in gun violence. In America.

As the chair chairs announced previous fully on the 414 Congress.

Now, if you notice, the main speaker there was sounded like he

was coming out of the civil rights movement is because he was out. So that was John

Lewis of Georgia, of Georgia. So John Lewis is very important, as John Lewis was the president’s

Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. And as you see pictured here,

he was actually one of people. You see the film Selma. One of the rich people across the Edmund Pettus

Bridge who were attacked by the police. So this is a picture of John Lewis. Again, I

think I think it’s a police officer taking a nightstick to him. And so because of that, John Lewis is a lasting

image of the civil rights movement. He is a lasting figure of the civil rights movement.

And because he’s so important. When John Lewis speaks, everybody listens.

And so you saw people sitting there on the on the floor yelling,

no, no, no. Was it was no bill? No. I forget what

it was, but it was basically something where they. You have a basic twenty six hour sit in. Now I get you

realize that you can deal with 20 year olds. You deal with 40, 50, 60, in some cases 70 year olds. It ain’t

gonna last that long. But I idea once they sit down, they may not get it. That’s true.

And so it was basically the Congress is going on recess. They want to force

this vote before recess. Unlike the Senate, which has the filibuster, which can force some action.

The House does not. And so be it. It was in many ways it was a way to call

attention to something. But what I think is important also note about this is that given

the power of John Lewis, so when the funny stories that come out of this is

Representative Keith Ellison, who from Minnesota was actually in a meeting

and in a meeting, his schedule passed him a note and the note read.

Your mom called and wants you on the floor. So Keith Ellison was forced to join because,

well, his mom told him to be there. So this is the power of John Lewis

in many ways. One thing you might also notice, but looking at the video, seeing a little bit grainy, like they were using

their cell phones, it’s because they work. So the speaker of the House

actually shut off the cameras. I think in many ways. So does that draw attention to them? However,

this may have been may have been a bad decision in terms of publicity in regards to this.

I think that’s probably right. Look, you know, you all know from last couple times we’ve talked a lot

about the institutional arrangements in both the House and the Senate. And we’ve. Professor McDaniel, I’ve repeatedly

referred to the House as a majority Korean institution, and that was the House

of Representatives. A lot of ways the most, I guess, American or purely democratic of institutions

where there’s no electoral college. You know, the states don’t get equal votes

in the institution just because they’re states irrespective of population. Like the Senate.

Right. So if you’ve got the votes, you win policy debates in the House of Representatives. That’s the way

it goes. So unlike the Senate, as Professor McDaniel mentioned, you

have to think of creative ways if you’re the minority party to try to get something done. So on

the Lewis sit in was an attempt to bring attention to a number of Democratic sponsored

bills on gun control. And you heard what they’re saying. You know, we want to vote. We want to vote.

They know they’ll probably lose the House votes on these gun control measures, but they want

Republicans on record opposing certain bills. All right. And so rather

than allowing the majority party to table substantive pieces of legislation

to not allow a vote, they wanted to bring attention and try to bring public opinion to bear to force them

to do that. So, you know, the Democrats, the minority party, the Republicans in the majority in the House, Paul

Ryan is the speaker of the House, Republican from Wisconsin, who’s Mitt Romney’s vise presidential

running mate last time around. And Ryan was trying to you know, you heard Ryan up there giving

the speech at 3:00 AM, trying to shut this thing down, saying, you know, look, there are rules. You can’t just

sit on the floor and yell and scream. You know, you have to abide by the rules.

And, you know, that may be a compelling argument. I actually find it kind of compelling. But in the face of what,

you know, kind of professional, Dana, and the moral authority of John Lewis, given his history

as a civil rights leader and there is popular sentiment for gun control, sort

of his personal policy, common sense, gun control or gun reform. So the Democrats have some

cards to play here. It was just fun to watch. I mean, if you’re sitting at home thinking there’s nothing going on in the summer,

you haven’t paid attention to politics in the last five or six days. I mean, we you know, we’re just astounded by the number

of things that are going on. And this was kind of the lead story last week up until some other things happened

late last week that pushed it off the agenda a little bit. But fascinating. Is Professor McCain you mentioned

the Republicans cut the cameras. The House of Representatives in the Senate didn’t used to have cameras in the chambers, obviously

televisions. Doesn’t go back to the founding of the republic. But even in the television era, it wasn’t until C-SPAN

started to was allowed to by the Congress, put cameras on the House and Senate floor.

Actually, it’s sort of up in the rafters. It shows what’s going on on the floor. No one was there. I was in the late 90s.

I want to say, yeah, I think it had to be the late nineties. I think it was the late 90s. And

sometimes like on C-SPAN 3, you know, I don’t even C-SPAN very probably

from the problem. Yeah. It’s like, you know, V02 for politics.

So, you know, right there with dodgeball tournaments. So, you know, they cut the feed,

though. And I’ll bet C-SPAN3 has never been as popular as it was late last week because they

did bring attention to this whole conflict and controversy. And, you know, the Republicans

are trying to get out of town for recess for Fourth of July. But you know, that

that was made problematic in some ways by the Solara. That’s you know, I guess it’s a lesson in

strategies when you’re the minority party and you’re being blocked and attempt to dominate

the news and to bring attention to it. You know, we talked a lot about strategies for interest groups,

groups that are disaffected and want to get something done. It’s a strategy for the minority party on a public policy matter.

So, yeah, you know, and I mean, if you’re Republican, you’re probably saying, well, go win the next election

and then you can write, you know, you can dominate the House. And if you’re a Democrat, you’re probably plotting, thinking,

you know, good job. I mean, you’re playing kind of a we can in the house, but maybe you won last week.

Yeah. It has received lots of Rookwood veto of Speaker Ryan’s response. Pence’s

as a publicity stunt. We run that run that clip. Real quick to you about the drama unfolding

on the House floor. The sit in is because you will bring this to a vote.

House Democrats have tried to force a vote on all of all of this week on the questioning. They’re questioning

how to prevent those on the terror watch list, the no fly list from purchasing a gun.

Here’s a key point. A new CNN poll shows an overwhelming majority of Republicans look at

this, 90 percent of Republicans support that idea. So why won’t you at least allow

a vote on this on the floor of the House? Well, first, I would tell you, Wolf, this is

nothing more than a publicity stunt. That’s point number one. Point number two is this bill was already

defeated in the United States Senate. Number three, we’re not

going to take away a citizen’s due process rights. We’re not going to take away a citizen’s constitutional

rights without due process. That was already defeated in the Senate. And this is not a way to try and bring up legislation.

Now, let’s focus on the issue at hand here. Terrorism and let’s find out what we need to do

to prevent future terrorist attacks. And if a person is on a terror watch

list and they go try to buy a gun. We have procedures in place to deal with that. We want to

make sure that those procedures are done correctly. And that’s something we should be able to do in a calm and cool manner

without these sort of dilatory publicity stunt tactics to try and bring a bill that already died over

in the Senate to the House floor. That’s not against the law. Why not at least allow a vote

up or down? Well, first of all, they know that we will not bring a bill that takes away a person’s

constitutionally guaranteed rights without their due process. We don’t agree with that in the Senate

already doesn’t agree with that. So I think look, the point here, Wolf, is this is a publicity stunt.

They’re trying to get you to ask me those questions for publicity sake. This isn’t trying to come up with a solution

to a problem. This is trying to get attention. Now, again, Speaker

Fourth was a publicity stunt and be truthful. That’s what citizens are. That’s a protest for their

publicity spots. Get attention. I mean, if you read King’s letter for the Birmingham jail is like, yes,

you know, we’re calling attention to a problem and sort of call it a publicity stunt is.

Yes, that’s exactly what these things are. But I think in many ways what you might be saying is that it’s not.

Maybe try to say that it’s disingenuous in terms of what they’re doing. They’re just trying to get attention for

for the election. This is this is really some position themselves for the 2016 election that we’re really concerned about

the policy. I think that’s more what he’s trying to get across is this publicity stunt. But I think

that can easily get lost. Yeah. Yeah. I think Professor Garnaut’s point is a good one, I

think. I mean, there’s some genuine emotion. You can’t see the way John Lewis speaks about gun violence and think that,

you know, he’s just sort of ginning up that emotion kind of on on cue for camera.

On the other hand, I mean, Ryan’s point about being a publicity stunt is correct. He’s also correct. The Senate has

rejected the bill. There’s really no point in the House bringing it up. Right. And then he’s got an argument.

This is apropos. The constitutional discussions we’ve had when he says a due process or even we’re seeing is

is that the the House doesn’t want to pass a bill that would say you can’t buy a gun if you’re

on the terror watch list because the terrorist getting on the terror watch list doesn’t involve the same sorts

of due process. Protecting other words, my gun, you know, my right to buy a gun is something that you can’t take

away without due process of law, without showing substantive cause. And the terror

watch list doesn’t meet those standards according to a lot of people, especially,

you know, gun advocates and people on the right. So, you know, that’s the argument. That’s a long,

complicated argument compared to, you know, let’s deny terror suspects guns,

which is the Democratic argument here. Right. So I’m not you know, we’re not taking sides on these policy

debates, but we’re simply pointing out that, you know, last week was probably a good week

for people who support that kind of legislation. Probably not as good a week for the speaker. Yeah, it is.

And it again, it was put him in a weird position to do this. Now, there was a new gun

control bill introduced in the Senate from Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine.

And her proposal was the law, the Justice Department, to block people on two key federal

terror watch list from purchasing firearms and allow a

chance for an appeal. And so the idea here is if you’re on the list and you’re banned because

you’re on the list, you can appeal to get your name off of it. And so the idea is you can still get it by, I guess, by making

sure that you get being aware that you’re on the watch list. Again, there is the problem of due process

and this becomes a major issue now in regards to gun control. There hacks

air actually has been a recent Supreme Court decision dealing with gun control. Let’s run that clip.

Against gun control, say no one. Already in trouble for harming someone they are supposed

to love should be able to own a firearm. You know, today the Supreme Court

affirmed what we at Harmony House know, and that is we have to keep

weapons out of the hands of convicted abusers. Esther Munns calls today’s Supreme

Court ruling a big step in the right direction to end domestic violence. And a 6 2

decision, the court upheld a federal law that bans people convicted of domestic violence,

crimes that could be considered misdemeanors from owning guns. So what

we are supportive of is not having those convicted abusers.

Those offenders have a weapon and have one more tool that will end the life that

would take a mother away from her children. I think the ruling is a good ruling.

Trial attorney Deas Wampler says the ruling clears up a potential loophole in the existing

law. He says before a plea of reckless assault and violence cases could

mean an individual could still possess a weapon. Not anymore. The court rejected

arguments that the law covers only intentional acts, but that’s a loophole in the

law. And a lot of individuals were convicted of assault misdemeanor,

but they plead to a charge where it was reckless. That way they knew

they could still possess a weapon. Meanwhile, Munch says this shows the court recognizes

domestic violence affects everyone, including the dozens of children. Harmony House

serves in Springfield and raises awareness overall message. Violence

is something that people don’t like to talk about. They believe it happens behind closed doors

to people that that we don’t know. However, that couldn’t be farther from the truth.

Loffler said the ruling might upset reformed abusers hoping to regain their right to own

a weapon, that probably won’t happen now. Kerry Healey, thank you.

Reaction today was tempered some people in favor of reducing gun control regulations, saying they believe this

decision was the right. All right. So in this case, you do see due process

being played out. And the question was, if it’s a misdemeanor or it’s a felony. So if it’s a felony,

you can’t own a purchase. You can’t purchase a gun, but it’s a misdemeanor. You. There were some gray area

and the court ruled, no, even if it’s a misdemeanor, you cannot own a gun. And this is really one of

things that’s concerned about what goes with women’s rights. And again, those have been victims of abuse,

where statistics have shown that the probability being cute killed by our abuser, that goes up by tenfold

if there is a gun in the house. And so this is really kind of one

area where you’re seeing some local gun control with the Supreme Court stepping in and really clarifying a

law. The law was on the books, but it wasn’t really clear like who was banned

and who wasn’t, especially with crimes and misdemeanors, felonies, clear misdemeanors, not so much. Now, the make

it clear that even misdemeanors count as well. So you seeing some level gun control, take it on

by by the Senate. I mean, I’m sorry, but the Supreme Court now along with that, we

have one of things that really took off last week was really a number of Supreme Court

decisions. And they really see the court basically, I think last

Friday or Monday. I think they pridham so they basically rolled off the last of their decisions.

Well, this is important to understand. And we knew we talked about us with the courts, as you have. You know,

once you read, you get the writ of certiorari, your

practice. You again, you testify, you have the

hearing before before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decides now let people wonder, like, why does

it take so long for Supreme Court to decide? Well, one, they have to go through the facts. In many ways that they

set up coalitions in favor and against and then they have to write up their opinions.

And the first case and not talk about, oh, my goodness, the opinions. This were the opinion

really took off. I specifically dissenting opinion. And this case deals with

a case in Utah. So let’s actually get the background on that case. Let’s roll that clip.

By police for no apparent reason, you would think any evidence found would be tossed out, not necessarily

the case at the U.S. Supreme Court. After taking a close look at a Utah case, we’re obviously

very disappointed. Big win today, big win for the state. Two opinions as different as the opinions

from the U.S. Supreme Court on a Utah case. This decision is really a blow

to all of our rights to be free from police interference. In 2006, South Salt Lake police

were watching a house for drug activity. Edward Streif Junior walked up and was stopped.

He had a warrant. Police searched him finding meth in a drug pipe. Streif argued police had

no reason to stop him and the evidence should be tossed. The Supreme Court disagreed. That creates

a powerful incentive for police officers to illegally detain people. There’s nothing to it means

police officers will continue to do the job to do their job the way they’ve been taught to do it, which is

comply with the Fourth Amendment. Tyler Green argued the case for Utah. I would be I would be surprised

if this case were even mentioned in the training to police officers. The Supreme Court ruled if there is a pattern of police abuse

targeting a population, the evidence can still be tossed out. Perhaps not a big issue in South

Salt Lake, but elsewhere in certain communities like Ferguson,

you know, almost everybody has a warrant for their arrests. Ferguson, Missouri, was thrust into the national

spotlight when Michael Brown, a black teenager, was shot by a white police officer.

The ACLU of Utah worries the Streif ruling makes it easier for police to justify a bad

stop. I think that today’s ruling is disappointing because it did not recognize

the reality on the ground of people who are subject to this kind of practice in part of the dissenting

opinion, Justice Sotomayor wrote. We also risk treating members of our communities as second class

citizens. You can read more about the arguments both for and against from the Supreme Court on our

site. In our NEWSROOM, Matt McDonald, FOX 13 News Uto. Now, what’s

interesting about this is when the decision which broadens police searches basically

allows police to use evidence against you if it’s seen as

an illegal search. If there is a warrant for your arrest and so many people see this as a way to expand

police, illegal police searches and to justify this. Now, again, this

was a 5 3 decision with the

with Justice Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg in the dissenting opinion.

But it really stood out was Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion. There are actually

two dissenting opinions. And so one was but Justice Sotomayor, who was joined by Justice

Ginsburg, four parts, one, two and three. And then there was the Justice Kagan

defense in which Justice Justice Ginsburg joined wholeheartedly.

And so we start off basically. You won things by reading these dissenting opinions. It’s almost like a rap

battle. I mean, they’re really good. I like the thing about it was Scalia’s were

were amazing. I mean, you’re just biting things like that. I mean, people talking about Justice Sotomayor’s

dissenting opinion being just as binding. I just read you the first the first paragraph.

The court today upholds that the discovery of a war for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer is a violation

of the Fourth Amendment rights to not be sued by the opinions technical language.

This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification and check it for outstanding traffic

warrants, even if you have done nothing wrong. If the opposite of score discovers a warrant for

fine, you forgot to pay. Courts will not excuse is a legal stop and will admit

and admit into evidence. Anything you happen to find by searching and arresting you on a warrant because the Fourth

Amendment should prohibit, not prohibit, not permit such misconduct. I dissent.

If you read it even more. It gets. I mean, like you thought the NAS Jay-Z B for the meek mill Drake

beef was bad. Oh no. Wait, you read this? I mean, I was.

So this is a this is I mean, reading the dissents is just as important as

reading the majority opinion, because the city in many ways, a lot people argue, are the cases. And if you read the dissents,

it’s actually a great way of learning about citation, because they cite left and right, they cite cases. I mean,

and this one somewhere brings up James Baldwin, Dubois Coats.

I mean, she’s she came out she she came out swinging

on this one. But that’s not the only case. There are several other cases which which were their decisions

on this week, which have, again, large effects on the nation

and things. Yeah. One of the nation. Yeah. Let’s just a couple of general points that we’ve been making. With respect

to the court. Court runs its session from early October. They hear cases all through the fall

and you’ll hear the arguments. And then, you know, every Friday they hear cases Monday through Thursday and then

on Friday they get together and take a preliminary vote on the cases that they’ve just heard.

And at that point, they assign, you know, a particular justice to write an opinion.

Now, the votes can change, but those opinions then get written up into majority opinions.

And then if someone doesn’t like, you know, if someone feels strongly enough about voting against it, they can put a minority opinion.

If you’re with the majority, but you don’t necessarily agree with the logic laid out in the majority opinion, you can write

a concurring opinion. All of these are in play and that’s where a lot of the fun is, Professor Beganto

points out. You also want to bear in mind that there are eight as opposed to nine justices

on the Supreme Court and also a 5 3 decision. Scalia’s is passed away. That seat has not been

filled, which is another controversy. So let’s real quickly. Couple other issues. There was an immigration

decision that came down. There was an important affirmative action decision that came

down and there was an abortion decision that came down. We’re going to tackle all those three pretty quickly here. Let’s go to the

video on the immigration issue, though, because that was the one we want to deal with first.

Today, the Supreme Court was unable to reach a decision. This is part

of the consequence of the Republican failure so far to give a fair hearing

to Mr. Merrick Garland, my nominee to the Supreme Court. It

means that the expanded set of common sense deferred action policies, the ones that I announced two years

ago, can’t go forward at this stage until there is a ninth justice on the court

to break the tie. I know a lot of people are going to be disappointed today, but it is

important to understand what today means. The deferred action policy that has been in place

for the last four years is not affected by this rule. Enforcement priorities developed by

my administration are not affected by this ruling. This means that

the people who might have benefited from the expanded deferred action policies,

long term residents raising children who are Americans or legal residents,

they will remain low priorities for enforcement as long as you have not committed a crime

or limited immigration enforcement resources are not focused on you.

But today’s decision is frustrating to those who seek

to grow our economy and bring a rationality to our immigration system

and to allow people to come out of the shadows and lift this perpetual cloud on

them. I think it is heartbreaking for the millions of immigrants who’ve

made their lives here, who’ve raised families here, who hope for the opportunity to

work, pay taxes, serve in our military and more fully contribute to this country.

We all love in an open way. All right, so there you have the immigration

decision. Just real quickly, the background here. The president a couple of years ago decided

that as a matter of executive discretion. Right. He is the chief executive.

He executes the laws as part of that discretion. The administration was not going to

enforce some of the immigration policies, in particular deportations

or the processing of people, undocumented workers who were here in the country. And this affected I

can’t remember as of five or 10 million. It’s an enormous number of people, very, very large number

of people. And the constitutional question at hand that the court ruled on was, is it really

the president’s perogative to simply not enforce parts of

a law that have been duly passed by the Congress? And, you know, we can get into the

way I characterized now. It’s you know, it’s not that he’s not enforcing insists that it’s a low priority.

You know that that is the constitutional question. How much discretion does the president have in

executing the laws that have been passed by the Congress? And, you know, President Obama, you know, go

big or go home. Right. I mean, he basically said he wasn’t going to enforce that part of the immigration

law. And the Supreme Court said, now, actually, you don’t have discretion to

do that. You have to execute something like that. So what the president was doing was spinning there two levels.

The first is there was no decision. Well, 4-4 tie goes

to the runner here. And the lower court’s decision was that that was unconstitutional or

I should say that the president was not within his authority to do that. Right. So what happens when you’ve got

eight people on the court on a four four decision is that the lower court’s ruling holds. So the

president was arguing, well, there’s no decision. Well, effectively, there is a decision, right. He

had to win. He didn’t win. So, you know, hey, kudos to the president for trying.

But that was a loss by anybody scoring. And Texas was one the leaders of this

suit. Right. Texas is one of the states that joined in this lawsuit and said, no, you you need to enforce

the immigration laws as passed by Congress. So so that was one element of it. And then the second was, you know, saying

that, well, there’s lots of elements that are still in place. It’s just this one part. Well, that

one part is the one that actually affects millions of people. So. So it’s it’s it’s a loss for the president.

But I’m sure we haven’t heard the end of this. The other one I want to mention real quick and then we’ll get on to the abortion

decision, but just the affirmative action decision, that was reference to a case involving University of Texas. So

it’s that’s Fisher versus U.T. versus University of Texas. That’s the

that was the actual name of the case. And from the court, it was a 4 3 decision. Justice

Kagan, who is involved actually in the in the defense of affirmative action, had to recuse

herself. So there were seven justices, not eight, not nine, but seven here. It was Kennedy

who wrote the majority position here. This is a consideration of the top 10 percent

and the general use of race as not the criteria, but a

criteria criterion involved in admissions processes for a major university

for any public university. Right. And in fact, what the Supreme Court ruled effectively here was that

was OK. The way that U.T. had done that with the top 10 law was actually

within the bounds of the constitution. So U.T. comes up a lot in these race cases

going back to Sweat versus Painter. You know, the Hopwood decision, other affirmative action

cases of the 90s. Here’s the Fisher decision. And university admissions policies that consider

race are, you know, protected. They’re not automatically out of bounds here. It’s complicated. Law

is a little more to it than that. But effectively, it’s a win, I think for those

who would like to use race as a crime to race or ethnicity as a criterion. So then we got the

the abortion decision. So the abortion decision. Yes. This is women’s whole

health versus Heller State. This is, again, dealing with the Texas laws regarding

abortion clinics. Texas again. Yes. And what’s what I would

do would point out, as you know, Texas really plays a big role in luggages major decision, because Texas is Texas as a leader,

a big state making a lot of decisions. So now is it challenging the government? But there are also challenges of things

going on in Texas, but by others. And so this really dealt with the restrictions

pushed put on doctors and abortion clinics and the structure of abortion clinics.

The Supreme Court, in a 5 3 decision, ruled that struck down Texas law

that required doctors to have admitting privileges and to have

admitting privileges at four hospitals to meet standards for ambulatory surgical centers. Now,

you may be wondering, who is Heller State? Well, Heller State is Dr. John Howard Stead, the commissioner of Texas

Department of Health. Of State Health Services. I was wondering who Heller said was. Yes.

I actually had to look that up. So it’s that it’s not women’s whole health versus the state of Texas is against. Again, the person

who is in charge of carrying this out. And what the. Supreme Court argued

is that the Texas law violated the decision in 1992,

which was Texas was taught words. Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, which ruled that states could

regulate abortion clinics, but states could not place

an undue burden on the ability to obtain an abortion. So they’re arguing here is that

these new laws create an undue burden. And because of that, they were struck down.

And this is important because this affects Texas and many other states who passed laws similar to this.

Now, maybe people argue that so many abortion clinics had to shut down to be years before many of them get back up and running.

And so in the meantime, you know, the state of Texas is one in terms of reducing

this. But again, you should expect to see more of these fights going forward, just like affirmative action fights.

This is something that is high on the agenda and there will be continued to be discussed and again and fought

out and fought at the level of Supreme Court. Right. The key thing in the Texas case is that

the state legislature, it’s the Republican controlled legislature, both the House and the Senate in Texas.

And, you know, they you might remember this was the the case sort of revolved around Wendy Davis

is a famous filibuster from a couple of years ago where, you know, what the Republicans were doing was

pushing the the envelope a little bit and kind of rolling back

abortion rights. And I don’t mean that in a necessarily pejorative way, but but there are questions about

viability. And, you know, how late in a term can one get an abortion

and what were the medical services that need to be available in order to deal with those circumstances?

And so they got very aggressive in pushing this. So they were basically said, look, if you’re a

provided abortion service, you need to have medical standards comparable to a hospital. You need to have

access to emergency centers. And in a big state like Texas, a lot of rural

elements, a lot of rural places in Texas, some of these abortion centers could not meet those requirements.

And so effectively what the law was doing was putting on a burden that would force the closing of some of these abortion

clinics. And this was the main claim that therefore that unconstitutionally restricts a woman’s

right to access to abortion. So it’s conflict here, right, that the constitutional right

was established in Roe v. Wade. Right to privacy, which allows women a right to an abortion

versus, you know, in this case, the state attempting to regulate ostensibly for the woman’s

health. That was the the pretext or the justification used for this law.

Supreme Court said you went too far. Right. So that doesn’t mean they can’t, you know,

do some things to, you know, protect women’s health or pass laws that restrict abortion to

even, you know, late term abortion restrictions, which are coming more and more in vogue with

the states. You know, they’re going to continue to do this, basically. Right. So that’s all it’s all

about, feeling the boundaries in picking out where what can we do? What can we not do in Supreme

Court says no here, no there. All we can do that here. It’s like this feeling of the boundary. Yeah. Now, would

Paul just running real little long. We know you guys have module’s substantive models as well as the in the news. And we

don’t want to abuse your time here. But but it is you know, multiple Supreme Court decisions came down

last week and a bunch of touch on Texas. So we have to comment on that. We’ve had to comment on the gun control.

And the final thing, though, we had to say something about is the British exit vote

known as Brexit, British exiting the European Union. And bizarrely enough, the implications

for Texas. So you all probably heard in the news and if you haven’t, Britain

had a vote called by the prime minister. Britain has a system where that can happen. The prime minister

can call for a vote. And he basically tried to roll the dice. There’s been talk since Britain

entered the European Union. And for those you’ve done of the European Union is kind of a confederation.

Going back to discussion, we had the beginning of the session, a confederation. All these nations, sovereign

nations agree to enter into a union of sorts where they’re kind of open boundaries,

trade policies, you know, immigration, you know that it’s basically it’s kind of a free

trade zone, a free transit zone, that that’s what you get. It was designed to

encourage economic growth, you know, exchanges and flow of ideas and creativity.

That was the idea. And, you know, so Germany, France and Britain, all

these countries entered into this. It’s been, you know, by some accounts effective economically, but

lots of economic dislocation recently, lots of immigration that has been controversial. And the

Brits have always been a little reluctant about their participation. It’s always been a an exit

or British, you know, Britain first movement there. And the prime minister

Cameron in Britain decided he wanted to really kind of he thought he had a strong hand. He said,

I want to put this thing to rest once and for all. I want to get a clean vote on this. So he put

it up for referendum and the British voted on it and the remain side

lost the exit sign. One little, you know, contradictory

to some of the late polls, the late polls were showing a bit of surge towards the remain

side, but London, if you look at the demographics of the vote. London voted to stay.

People in London love the union. It’s been very good for London, which has been

an economic hub. People in Scotland liked it very much. The Scotland Scots voted

not to secede and set up their own state. A couple of years ago. But they very much

like, you know, the connections with greater Europe. They voted in favor. Everywhere else

in Great Britain voted to leave. Even Northern Ireland’s bill. So

they voted to leave. And, you know, the European Union’s response was, well. All right. You’re leaving.

You’re leaving now. Like tomorrow. Oh, yeah. It’s going to be a

I think Angela Merkel, who the chancellor of Germany pretty much runs

everything. So you may know her as the son of the grandma who’s always cheering whenever

Germany scores scores a goal during the euro World Cup. But Angela Merkel is a woman not to

be trifled with. Germany is really the big power player. I mean, Britain comes second to Germany in

terms of the power player in the EU. And her fingers. OK. You want to go. But here, up here.

Here it is. And maybe they’re going to make a make an example out of Britain, because

the United Kingdom. Because then what other countries leaving the EU? That’s right. You know, look, it’s what’s

interesting from America’s perspective. I mean, obviously, there are economic implications for the United States, although honestly

outside of the initial bump in the stock market, because people thought this was going to be bad in world markets and they reacted

accordingly. You know, there’ll be trade agreements signed with bilaterally with Britain.

You know, it’s not a huge deal in that sense from the United States. But what’s interesting politically

here is that the opposition to the E.U., the the exit sentiment

was really animated by people who were working class whites. Britain is

mostly white, more homogenous than the United States, actually, who felt economically

threatened. This is one argument. Economically threatened by all of this labor coming in. The analogy

you guys will always hear is the Polish plumber. You know that the British skilled labor,

you know, as Luis lost his job or her job to the Polish plumber who comes in, is willing to work for

low rages wages. Sounds kind of familiar. Right. You know, we have the same sort of

idea in the United States that immigration has displaced or put a burden on these

lower socio economic status jobs in your manual labor jobs. That’s part of it. But it’s

also the case that the immigration, if you read some of the detailed things immigration has been associated

and there is an empirical basis for this, although I think a large part of it’s psychological as well with increased crime

in some of these immigrant communities. You know, for instance, in Britain and in Sweden, the the

incidents of rape and sexual assault has increased fairly significantly in areas where they’ve had a lot of immigration.

And so there are people, especially in these areas, who are freaked out about this kind of stuff and have reacted

with close our borders. Let’s go back to being Britain, make Britain great again. So, yes, is that

right? So the analogy is, is that the sort of people who are supportive of Trump and Trump’s message in the

U.S., these are exactly the kind of people in Britain who supported the exit.

Position in the referenda and there’s some basis for that. But we just want to mention that.

But there’s also a Texas angle. All right. And I think McDaniel was a little more about this than I did because he’s always up

for a secession movement. I think so. So because of the Brexit, there

has been this idea of now the Texan, should Texas secede? And so is

Texas exit. That’s right. Right. There you go. So here here’s some interesting

thoughts on that. It it is it. Texas is turn

talks of secession have fired up again now and as Ken Middlesteins shows us today, ask that question

and then be prepared for an earful. Well, no doubt about it. Here in the Lone Star State, we are

all very proud of our Texas heritage. It’s everywhere you look. And now that Brexit

is very much a thing. It has stirred up the age old debate here in Texas about secession.

Got a lot of people asking, how about Texans

deep in the heart of Texas or Fort Worth, for that matter? Not a bad idea. I don’t think it’ll fly.

But, you know, you can always dream about it. You’ll find all kinds of mixed reactions

over Texas seceding following Britain’s historic move. I don’t think Texas will ever secede

from the nation towards the shot. I’d be happy these two coast run everything.

Nobody knows we’re even here. Best thing we can do is let them have it. They will make a wreck

out of their part of the world. Limerick. The reality is the Supreme Court has already ruled it is impossible.

But that’s not stopping people from sounding off. And social media has had a field day. Daniel

Miller, the head of the Texas Nationalist Movement, tweeted. Good morning, Governor Abbott. We’re ready for a vote

on Texas. What’s the holdup? Another person wrote Beat leave in Britain, believe

in Texas. Is a barbecue in Texas good enough reason and want to break away from the rest of the country?

Well, the rest of the country would like to have the barbecue that we have in Texas. That’s

for sure. The rest of the country won’t let us break away because of our barbecue. This visitor

from Boston had his own thoughts on the issue. I feel like that’s almost a little arrogant to

think that your you know what? Are you too good to be part of the rest of us, the United States? I don’t know. Tell you what. Whatever the

future might hold for Texas. You can always come down here to the stockyards in Fort Worth

as Texan as you want. And no one’s gonna mess with you. That’s for sure. In Fort Worth, Candomble, Astana,

CBS, 11:00 News. Know I wasn’t down for Texas, leaving it all to

a guy from Boston. Yeah. I mean, he had the he had the Boston Red Sox earrings and

I was like, okay. Yeah, it’s time to go. Yeah. Maybe I can get rid of Massachusetts

now in terms of the barbecue. I’m from Alabama. There’s room for debate.

But again, I do enjoy my Texas my Texas barbecue. But again, Alabama’s

number one. Now, let’s see what can’t. Can Texas legally secede?

No. OK. That’s that’s a no. Folks. Yeah.

Me just scali even said the one thing the civil war establishes. No states cannot succeed.

Even when Texas seceded during the Civil War and all the states to see it, they were still considered states of the United

States. So that can’t really work. So again, the key thing as for

the shore pointed out, the European Union is a confederation with exit clauses. United States,

the federation with no exit clauses. So once you’re in, it’s like the mafia. Once you’re

in, you’re getting out. And so the civil war, also Texas v. White is a court case was established.

No Texas states, Kansas succeed. However, what’s really important talk about is, you

know, while we talk about this relationship is the antagonism relation between Texas and the federal government,

there actually is some things that Texas benefits from. So if we take a look at this next slide, we see that

about more than a third of Texas is general revenue comes from the federal

government. Now, it’s not like Mississippi where. Forty five percent or Louisiana forty three percent.

But about, you know, thirty four point five percent of Texas revenue. This is 2012

numbers comes from the federal government of breaking away from the federal government actually to a very large

reduction in funds. And then there are all kinds of other fights gain from the lectures

on federalism. You talk about marble cake, federalism. These things are kind of intertwined. And so

what does the state takeover as a federal government takeover, as you’d expect to see, a lot of things happen

in terms of just basically loss of revenue, things like that. So it’s much more complicated than you thought.

So it’s not like, you know, you break up with your girlfriend, you know, she gets the

couch, you get the futon. It’s much more complicated than that.

And so I understand why people may not like the way the country is going. It’s like saying people say, I’m going to move to Canada,

things like that. Here’s the thing. The people who say they’re gonna move to Canada candidate and want you.

All right. So this idea was the easy breakup. No, that is not the case.

And but again, it’s not as easy as we make it out to be. All right.

Well, we’ve taxed your patients long enough. Thanks for hanging with us for this last lecture again. Lots of information.

Hopefully you guys absorb it and you can draw some parallels to what we talked about in class with what’s going

on in the news today. So that’s it for this week. I’m Professor Shaw. And I’m Professor McDaniel. You all have a good into

your first summer session and have a enjoy. Oh, and if you still want to listen to us, you can check us

out on i-Tunes. You go to i-Tunes. You you can find us there in the news, i-Tunes

you. So I have no idea why you would still want to listen to us. But still, if you want

to, I chose you. Nostalgia, maybe.

The government 310 in the News podcast is hosted by doctors Daron Shaw and Eric McDaniel

And it’s produced by the Liberal Arts ITS Development Studio and the Department of Government and the College

of Liberal Arts at the University of Texas at Austin.