What’s Next After Dobbs: The Roundtable Previews the U.S. Supreme Court Term
How will the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court handle the upcoming cases in the fall 2022 term? What are the ripple effects still being felt following the Dobbs decision last June? The Miranda Warnings Roundtable tackled these and other questions during a lively podcast this month.
The full episode is available below, on Apple and Google Play and on our New York State Bar Association YouTube channel.
The panelists, constitutional law professor Vin Bonventre and communications and political strategist Liz Benjamin, started the discussion by reacting to remarks made by President Joe Biden in which he called the nine justices “more of an advocacy group.”
“If you really have a problem [with the court], then change the makeup. Add more seats,” said communications and political strategist Liz Benjamin.
Constitutional law professor Vin Bonventre countered, calling the president’s statements ill advised.
“Perhaps it was clumsy. The court is voting repeatedly, Republicans on one side Democrats on the other, that is different.,” he said.
The panel discussed two upcoming cases dealing with affirmative action in college admissions. Bonventre cautions that the justices have made it clear that change may be looming.
“A majority of this court including the chief justice is saying the way to end racial discrimination is to end racial discrimination. They really are against affirmative action,” he said.
One of the first cases of the new term, Merrill v Milligan asked justices to examine a lower court ruling on redrawing congressional lines in Alabama. The case deals with the Voting Rights Act by carving up much of the black population in the state among several congressional districts. ‘
During the arguments, host David Miranda pointed out that the newest justice made her voice heard in discussing the original intent of the Voting Rights Act.
“I love the fact that the newest Supreme Court Justice Katanji Brown Jackson raised the issue of putting back on the other judges who say we have to look at the original intent. Of course this [fighting discrimination] was the intent that is the whole purpose of this,” he said.
Check out the lively discussion below and stay tuned for additional podcast episodes each month from the New York State Bar Association.