Every Lawyer in America is Laughing at Todd Blanche (w/ Kate Shaw) | Illegal News
YouTube · sOrku-jkFPU
Quick Read
Summary
Takeaways
- ❖The Supreme Court's *Louisiana v. Klay* ruling is the latest in a series of decisions that have effectively dismantled the 1965 Voting Rights Act, limiting the ability to create majority-minority districts.
- ❖Conservative legal theory increasingly interprets the 14th and 15th Amendments as mandating 'race-blindness,' a view that critics argue ignores the historical context and original intent of these amendments.
- ❖The Department of Justice under the current administration has engaged in highly abnormal and politicized legal actions, including an 'unhinged' brief defending the White House ballroom and a 'preposterous' indictment of James Comey.
Insights
1Supreme Court Completes 'Demolition' of Voting Rights Act with *Louisiana v. Klay*
The Supreme Court's decision in *Louisiana v. Klay* is framed by Justice Elena Kagan as the 'latest chapter in the majority's now completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.' This ruling, following *Shelby County* (2013) and *Bernovich* (2022), effectively makes it unconstitutional to draw legislative maps that are race-conscious, even when attempting to comply with the VRA's promise of preventing dilution of minority voting power. The Court's majority argues for a 'colorblind' interpretation of the Constitution, which critics contend disregards the historical intent of the 14th and 15th Amendments.
Kate Shaw states, 'this case is in some ways the third in a trio that in Elena Kagan's words represented this particular one did the latest chapter in the majority's now completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.' She explains that the court said 'using race to create a second majority black district violated the constitution because the constitution doesn't let you essentially think about race in that way.'
2DOJ's 'Unhinged' Legal Briefs Signal Politicization
The Department of Justice filed an 'unspeakably deranged' letter and motion to dissolve an injunction against Trump's White House ballroom construction. The brief, signed by high-ranking DOJ officials including Todd Blanche, used all-caps, exclamation points, and accused the plaintiff of 'Trump derangement syndrome,' resembling a political 'truth' from the former President rather than a formal legal document. This action is described as highly abnormal and a 'deliberate performance' to demonstrate loyalty, sacrificing legal dignity for political ends.
Sarah Longwell describes the letter as 'kind of unhinged' and the motion as reading 'like one of Trump's truths... It has some all caps words and multiple exclamation points.' Kate Shaw calls it 'unspeakably deranged' and 'a truly shocking document,' noting the 'dissonance between the highly formal legal caption and the first sentence of the argument.'
3Trump's $10 Billion IRS Lawsuit Raises 'Adversity' Concerns
Donald Trump's lawsuit against the IRS, seeking $10 billion for alleged failure to protect his tax information, faces a fundamental challenge regarding 'adversity.' The federal judge ordered the DOJ to clarify whether it intends to defend the IRS, questioning if a genuine dispute can exist when the President, as plaintiff, effectively controls the defendant (the executive branch). This situation highlights the blurring of personal and official capacities and the implications of the unitary executive theory.
Kate Shaw explains the judge's concern that 'this lawsuit doesn't have something that lawsuits have to have, which is adversity.' She notes the awkwardness of Trump 'also sitting at top the executive branch' and having 'issued these executive orders basically saying nobody in the federal government is allowed to disagree with the legal views of the president.'
4James Comey's 'Seashell' Indictment Deemed 'Preposterous'
Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted for posting a photo of seashells with the numbers '8647,' which the DOJ alleges was an incitement to violence against the President. This second indictment, following a previous dismissal due to improper appointment, is widely seen as 'preposterous.' Legal experts emphasize the high bar for proving incitement, which requires intent and likelihood to cause 'imminent lawless action,' criteria that are clearly not met by a social media post about seashells.
Kate Shaw states, 'I hope that that legal standard demonstrates just how preposterous this charge is.' She explains incitement requires being 'intended to and likely to cause imminent lawless action.' Sarah Longwell points out Comey did this 'a long time ago,' questioning the 'imminent' aspect.
Bottom Line
The Supreme Court's refusal to pause the implementation of its *Klay* ruling, despite the late stage in the election cycle, is inviting widespread chaos as states like Louisiana move to redraw maps and potentially cancel primaries even after early voting has begun.
This immediate, disruptive impact on the 2024 elections underscores the Court's willingness to prioritize its legal interpretations over electoral stability, potentially shifting congressional seats and further polarizing the political landscape.
For political strategists, this creates an urgent need to monitor state-level responses and legal challenges to new maps, identifying potential shifts in competitive districts and voter engagement strategies.
Justice Alito's strategic framing of the *Klay* decision as a 'refinement' rather than an overturning of the Voting Rights Act is a calculated move to 'dull the public response' and avoid the backlash seen after *Dobbs*.
This indicates a growing awareness within the Court's majority of public perception and a tactical shift towards more technical, less overtly confrontational language to achieve significant legal changes, making it harder for the public to grasp the full implications.
Legal communicators and civil rights advocates must actively counter this narrative by clearly explaining the practical effects of such 'refinements' to ensure public understanding and mobilize appropriate responses.
The asymmetry of presidential immunity, where a President can sue his own government for billions in a personal capacity while simultaneously being shielded by absolute immunity as a defendant, creates a problematic imbalance in the legal system.
This imbalance allows a President to leverage the power of the office for personal gain and protection, undermining the principle of equal justice under the law and exposing a critical flaw in the system of checks and balances.
This highlights the need for legislative reforms or judicial clarity to define the boundaries of presidential legal actions and immunities, ensuring accountability and preventing abuse of power.
Key Concepts
Colorblind Constitution Theory
The conservative legal argument that the 14th and 15th Amendments mandate government 'race-blindness,' meaning government decision-makers should never take account of race, even for benign or remedial reasons. This contrasts with the historical understanding that these amendments were designed to facilitate the integration of formerly enslaved persons through race-conscious measures.
Unitary Executive Theory
The idea that the President has absolute control over the entire executive branch. This theory is challenged when the President sues an executive branch agency (like the IRS, represented by the DOJ), raising questions about 'adversity' and whether a genuine legal dispute can exist if the President ultimately controls both sides.
Lessons
- Understand the historical context of the Voting Rights Act and the 14th/15th Amendments to critically evaluate claims of 'race-blindness' in constitutional interpretation.
- Monitor state-level legislative and judicial actions related to redistricting, as the Supreme Court's *Klay* decision will likely trigger efforts to redraw maps that could dilute minority voting power.
- Recognize the signs of politicization within legal institutions, such as 'unhinged' legal filings or prosecutions based on specious grounds, to better assess the integrity of government actions.
Notable Moments
The DOJ's 'unhinged' brief defending the White House ballroom construction, featuring all-caps, exclamation points, and accusations of 'Trump derangement syndrome,' is highlighted as a shocking departure from professional legal writing.
This moment underscores the unprecedented politicization of the Department of Justice under the current administration, demonstrating a willingness to sacrifice legal dignity and norms for political loyalty.
The immediate aftermath of the *Klay* ruling, with Louisiana's Governor Landry proposing to cancel primaries and redraw maps even after early voting has begun, illustrates the chaotic and disruptive impact of the Supreme Court's decision.
This shows the real-world, short-term consequences of the ruling on electoral processes and highlights the Court's lack of concern for practical implementation challenges, potentially leading to voter confusion and disenfranchisement.
Quotes
"This case is in some ways the third in a trio that in Elena Kagan's words represented this particular one did the latest chapter in the majority's now completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act."
"I dissent because the court betrays its duty to faithfully implement the great statute Congress wrote. I dissent because the court's decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality and electoral opportunity."
"The VRA quote was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers. It ushered in awe inspiring change, bringing this nation closer to fulfilling the ideals of democracy and racial equality. And it has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly reauthorized by the people's representatives in Congress. Only they have the right to say it is no longer needed, not the members of this court."
"The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a beautiful name, but even their name is fake and the fake is in all caps. Literally, that's the first sentence of defendants rule 62.1 motion for an indicative ruling dissolving the court's injunction."
Q&A
Recent Questions
Related Episodes
Trump's Trade War Derailed By SCOTUS w/ Mark Joseph Stern | MR Live
"The Supreme Court significantly curtailed former President Trump's sweeping tariff authority, ruling his use of an emergency statute for broad taxation was unlawful, yet the financial benefits of these illegal tariffs are unlikely to reach the public."
SHOCK Ruling on Trump Deportation PLOT + DEBUNKED Election WARRANT?!? | It's Complicated
"The Fifth Circuit Court's controversial ruling redefines 'seeking admission' for non-citizens, potentially allowing indefinite detention for millions, while a federal search warrant for 2020 election ballots is criticized as a 'test run' for future election interference."
Trump PANICS at SCOTUS as He Gets BRUTALLY REBUKED | Unprecedented
"The Supreme Court's recent rulings and upcoming hearings signal a significant shift in election law, civil rights for transgender individuals, and the independence of the Federal Reserve, with profound implications for American democracy and economic stability."
The Immortal Jim Crow. 'Goon Squad' Defamation Suit. Google Race Discrimination Case. #TheBreakdown
"This episode exposes the enduring grip of systemic racism through a Mississippi defamation suit, Google's racial discrimination settlement, and a deep dive into how Jim Crow's legacy still shapes Black America today."