>> Ted: NEXT ON ARIZONA HORIZON, IT'S OUR ANNUAL SUPREME COURT PREVIEW AS WE LOOK AT THE IMPORTANT CASES OF THAT THE HIGH COURT WILL TAKE UP.

THAT'S AHEAD ON "ARIZONA HORIZON" " GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO "ARIZONA HORIZON."

I'M TED SIMONS.

EACH YEAR "ARIZONA HORIZON" MARKS THE START A PREVIEW OF THE NOTEWORTHY CASES.

THIS FOLLOWS A BLOCKBUSTERS TURN WITH THE OVERTURNING OF ROE V. WADE.

WE WELCOME STEPHEN MONTOYA AND PAUL BENDER WITH MONTOYA, LUCERA & BENDER.

SO MUCH TO GET INTO AND STEVE, WILL START WITH YOU, THE LAST TURN, OVERTURNING ROE V. WADE.

IT WAS MASSIVE AND HUGE.

DOES THAT SPILL OVER INTO THE SUCCEEDING TERM?

>> I THINK IT DOES AND HOW IT SPILLS OVER REMAINS TO BE SEEN.

IT COULD SPILL OVER IN A ROLLING WAY SO THAT THE COURT PROCEEDS TO REVERSE OTHER PRECEDENTS WITH WHICH IT DISAGREES AND THEY HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY IN THIS TERM OR BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC BACKLASH FROM THE REVERSAL OF ROE V. WADE, THEY MIGHT ACTUALLY SLOW DOWN AND NOT PROCEED TO OVERRULE LONG-TERM PRECEDENCE SO RAPIDLY.

WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY'LL DO.

MY PREDICTION IS THEY'RE GOING TO SPEED UP AND OVERYOU'LL OVERRULE LONG STANDING PRECEDENTS.

LIKE BACHI VERSUS CALIFORNIA.

>> Ted: PAUL, WHEN YOU HAVE A MASSIVE TERM AND BIG DECISIONS, THE SUBSEQUENT TERM, DOES IT IMPACT THAT MUCH AT ALL?

>> I THINK IN THIS CASE, IT WILL.

AT THE END OF THE LAST TERM, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THERE'S A CONSERVATIVE BLOCK ON THE COURT THAT DOESN'T NEED CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AS A MEMBER.

YOU'VE GOT THOMAS AND ALITO AND THEY ARE DETERMINED TO MAKE BIG CHANGES.

I THINK THE END OF LAST TERM WAS JUST THE BEGINNING OF SOME BIG CHANGES THAT WE'LL SEE.

THE CASE THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT, EACH GIVES THE COURT AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A BIG CHANGE IN FEDERAL LAW.

THE KIND OF FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT RIGHTS THAT'S BEEN DEVELOPING SINCE THE WARREN COURT.

AND THIS COURT, IT SEEMS TO ME, THE ABORTION CASE IS A BETTER SIGN OF THIS THAN ANYTHING ELSE.

THEY SAID IN THAT CASE THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT DEVELOP.

THE CONSTITUTION EQUAL RIGHTS YOU HAVE OR THE ONES YOU HAVE WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED, THE 14th ARRANGEMENT AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED.

IF THEY MEAN THAT, THEY NEED BIG CHANGES.

>> Ted: LET'S GET TO INDIVIDUAL CASES AND STEVE, MOORE V. HARPER, A JERRYMANDERED MAP, AND THEY STRUCK IT DOWN AND WHAT, WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY WHEN IT COMES TO ELECTIONS?

>> THAT IS EXACTLY THE QUESTION.

UNDER ARTICLE 1, SECTION FOR THE CONSTITUTION, THE ELECTION CLAUSE, STATE LEGISLATURES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHEN AND WHERE THE ELECTIONS FOR REPRESENTATIVES AND SCENARIOS ARE HELD.

SENATORS ARE HELD AND DISTRICTING.

THE QUESTION IN MOORE VERSUS HARPER IS WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE CONSTITUTION CONSTRAINS THE STATE'S ELECTORAL DECISIONS.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE STATE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT THE JERRYMANDERED MAP OF NORTH CAROLINA VIOLATED THE STATE CONSTITUTION.

ORDINARILY, AS ANYONE WOULD CONCUR, THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAS THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE THE STATE CONSTITUTION AGAINST THE STATE LEGISLATURE.

IN FACT, THAT'S WHAT STATE SUPREME COURTS ARE FOR, TO ENFORCE THE STATE CONSTITUTION.

BUT NOW THE STATE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IS QUESTIONING WHETHER OR NOT A STATE SUPREME COURT CAN ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE AGAINST THE STATE LEGISLATURE.

>> Ted: PAUL, THE QUESTION IS WHAT, IS IT A CENTRAL CONSTITUTION?

>> ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY FOR 20, 30 YEARS TO HOLD A POLITICAL JERRYMANDERING VAY LACEDERING VAY LACE.

DERING VI VIOLATION.

THEY WANTTHE LANGUAGE IS THE SAME.

SO WHAT THEY SEEM TO BE SAY, WHILE WE DECIDE, YOU HAVE TO DECIDE ON YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION AND THE WHOLE POINT OF HAVING STATES IS THAT THEY CAN HAVE DIFFERENT LAWS AND DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIONS.

THIS COULD BE AN ENORMOUSLY MOMENTOUS CASE.

BECAUSE AS THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DOESN'T ENFORCE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AS MUCH AS IT USED TO, THE OWN PLACE YOU GET THAT, ESPECIALLY SINCE CONGRESS IS UNABLE TO DO ANYTHING, THE ONLY PLACE IS FROM THE SUPREME COURT.

AND FROM THE STATES AND THE SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZING STATE DEVELOPMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

THIS CASE MAY COME OUT SAYING STATES CAN'T DO THAT.

THAT WOULD BE REVOLUTIONARY.

>> Ted: WHAT DO YOU THINK, STEVE?

>> I THINK IT WOULD BE REVOLUTIONARY.

I DON'T THINK THE SUPREME COURT IS WILLING TO GO THAT FAR BECAUSE IT WOULD BE SO RADICAL TO ATHATSAY THAT A STATE LEGISLATURE CAN IGNORE ITS OWN CONSTITUTION OR ITS OWN SUPREME COURT.

THAT IS SUCH A RADICAL PROPOSITION.

I THINK EVEN THIS RADICAL COURT WILL REJECT IT.

>> Ted: STEVE, IT WOULD ONLY BE REGARDING ELECTION CONCERNS OR COULD THIS DRIFT INTO OTHER AREAS?

>> IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT WOULD ONLY ELECTION CONCERNS NOT INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT BUT ONLY UNITED STATES' SENATORS AND UNITED STATES' HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THAT'S A LOT.

>> BUT THE ATTITUDE.

IF THEY'RE WILLING TO SAY TO THE STATE SUPREME SUPREME COURT, YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION, THAT THE COURT IS SKEPTICAL OF.

THEY'LL SAY WHO CARES WHAT YOU THINK.

YOU CAN'T INTERPRET YOUR OWN CONSTITUTION.

IT'S PUTTING THE STATE IN A SECOND-CLASS STATUS FOR JUDGES WHO BELIEVE IN STATE'S RIGHTS.

>> Ted: PAUL, ANOTHER CASE, MERYL V. MULLIGAN AND TWO OR SEVEN SEATS AND TALK US THROUGH THIS CASE AND WHY THIS COULD BE A BIGGIE.

>> YEAH, BECAUSE VOTING RIGHT'S ACT IS THERE AND THE VOTING RIGHT'S ACT YOU WOULD THINK WOULD PREVENT A STATE WHERE MORE THAN A QUARTER OF THE STATE POPULATION IS BLACK FROM GIVING THEM ONE MINORITY SEAT OUT OF SEVEN IN THE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION.

SO THEY TRY THE STATE TRIED TO GIVE A SECOND SEAT AND YOU CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE IF YOU FOLLOW ORDINARY REDISTRICTING PRINCIPLES, YOU CAN COME OUT WITH ONLY ONE MINORITY REPRESENTATIVE.

AND THE ARGUMENT IS MADE THEY HAVE NO -- THE STATE HAS NO RIGHT TO USE A RACE AS A WAY OF CHANGING ORDINARY REDISTRICTING PRINCIPLES.

NOW THAT'S A BIG CHANGE.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS A EXTREME -- OF TRYING TO ENFORCE AND EXPAND MINORITY RIGHTS IN ELECTIONS.

IF THEY SAY HERE, HEY, YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

YOU HAVE TO USE ESTABLISHED TRADITIONAL REDISTRICTING PRINCIPLES, THE SAME THING IS SAID IN ROE V. WADE.

YOU ONLY HAVE THE ESTABLISHED RIGHTS THAT YOU HAD.

NO NEW RIGHTS OR NO NEW DEVELOPMENT OF RIGHTS.

THAT COULD BE ENORMOUS.

>> Ted: STEVE.

>> I AGREE WITH PAUL.

IT WOULD BE TRULY REVOLUTIONARY.

FIRST OF ALL, THE STATE LOST IN THE COURT OF APPEALS WHERE THREE VERY CONSERVATIVE JUDGES, TWO OF WHICH WERE APPOINTED BY DONALD TRUMP RULED THAT INSTEAD OF ONE OUT OF SEVEN UNDER THE VOTING RIGHT'S ACTS, THERE SHOULD BE TWO OUT OF SEVEN AND THIS SUPREME COURT IS THREATENING TO REVERSE THAT CONSERVATIVE PANEL'S CONCLUSION AND SAYING YOU CANNOT TAKE RACE INTO ACCOUNT IN REDISTRICTING WHICH, IN EFFECT, I BET PAUL WOULD AGREE, ACTUALLY NEGATING THE VOTE'S RIGHTING ACT TAKING RACE INTO ACCOUNT.

BECAUSE WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE IS THE STATE OF ALABAMA, THE FORMER MEMBER OF THE CONFEDERACY, A FORMER JIM CROWE STATE OFTIES STATE OF DISCRIMINATION OF BLACKS HAS PACKED INTO ONE DISTRICTS.

SO INSTEAD OF TWO REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS, THEY HAVE ONE AND IT'S CALLED PACKING.

THE VOTING RIGHT'S ACT PROHIBITS PACKING AND THE COURT OF APPEALS UNPACKED IT AND SAID THERE HAD TO BE TWO AND NOW THE SUPREME COURT IS THREATENING TO REVERSE THAT WHICH WOULD NEGATE SECTION TWO OF THE VOTING RIGHT'S ACT AND REMEMBER, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN A SHH ELBY REMEMBER SUS HOLDER.

VERSUS HOLDER.

>> THIS IS THE MAIN WAY FROM PASSING DISCRIMINATORY.

THEY SAID UNLESS THE STATE INTENDING TO DISCRIMINATE, THEY DON'T VIOLATE THE VOTING RIGHT'S ACT.

AS LONG THEY TAKE TO NEUTRAL PRINCIPLES.

IF THE RESULT ISN'T DISCRIMINATORY, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

THAT'S THE ARGUMENT.

AS LONG THEY KEEP THE NEUTRAL PRINCIPLES AND THAT ENDS THE PORTION OF THE VOTING ACT.

ONE OF THE MOST SYSTEM STATUTES IN THE UNITED STATES TO SOLVE A PROBLEM.

>> Ted: PAUL, THE NEUTRAL PRINCIPLE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

>> DISTRICTS HAVE TO BE COMPACT, CONCONTIGUOS AND EVEN A QUARTER AND SEVEN SEATS.

IT DOESN'T MATTER.

EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN'T INTEND AND USE THE TRADITIONAL WAY, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO TO DO THAT.

>> Ted: STEVE, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE COURT WILL DO HERE.

>> THE COURT SAID IT'S POWERLESS TO PROHIBIT JERRYMANDERING AND THEY'RE GOING TO ALLOW -- THEY WON'T ALLOW JERRYMANDERING WHEN IT COMES TO HAVING WEIRD STRICTS IN ORDER TO FULFILL THE MANDATE OF THE VOTING RIGHT'S ACT.

IN ALABAMA, PEOPLE DON'T VOTE BASED ON REGION.

THERE'S RACIALLY POLARIZED VOTING AND THEY VOTE ACCORDING TO COLOR.

SO DISTRICTS WILL LOOK WEIRD WHEN YOU HAVE RACIALLY POLARIZED VOTING AND YOU'RE TRYING TO MAXIMIZE VOTING.

SECTION TWO WAS AMENDED BY CONGRESS TO MAKE IT A DISPERATE IMPACT RATHER THAN THAN INTENT.

IT WAS SCARRY BECAUSE UNDER SECTION 5 UNDER THE 14th 14th AMENDMENT AND UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE 15th 15th AMENDMENT, CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO ENFORCE THE 15th 15th AMENDMENT AND THIS IS THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TELLING CONGRESS THAT IT CANNOT PASS LEGISLATION TO ENFORCE THE 15th AMENDMENT THE WAY CONGRESS INTERPRETS THE 15th AMENDMENT.

AND CONGRESS HAS THE RIGHT TO INTERPRET THE 15th AMENDMENT.

NOT ONLY THE COURT'S ROLE TO INTERPRET CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.

CONGRESS ALSO HAS THAT RIGHT.

THE CONSTITUTION GIVES IT THAT RIGHT.

>> Ted: INTERESTING.

PAUL, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF CASES THAT WERE ARGUED, CONSOL CONSOLIDATED FOR ARGUMENT ADMISSION.

TO UNC AND RACIAL BIASED AND TALK US THROUGH THIS.

LET START WITH UNC AND THE NORTH CAROLINA.

>> THE QUESTION IS THE SAME IN BOTH OF THE CASES.

CANADA UNIVERSITY USED RACE AS A WAY OF DIVERSIFYING ITS CLASS AND THIS WAS 20 YEARS AGO, IT WAS DIVERSIFYING UNIVERSITY CLASSES SO THAT MINORITY GROUPS HAD SOME REPRESENTATION AND THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT OVERRULING THAT AND SAYING YOU CAN'T DO THAT ANYMORE.

IF YOU CAN'T DO THAT ANYMORE, SOME PEOPLE, IN SOME PLACES IT WON'T MATTER BECAUSE THE MINORITY REPRESENTATION WILL BE THERE ANYWAY.

IN A LOT OF PLACES, IF YOU DON'T TAKE RACE INTO ACCOUNT IN YOUR ADMISSIONS' PROGRAM, A LOT OF PLACEDPLACES, YOU WON'T END UP WITH THIS.

IF YOU ADMIT PEOPLE, THE SAT'S AND HIGH SCHOOL GRADES, YOU HAVE TO GO BEYOND THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A DIVERSE CLASS AND THIS IS A COMPELLING REASON TO DO THAT, TO HAVE A DIVERSE CLASS IF THIS COURT SAYS, AS THINK IT WILL, THAT'S NO LONGER A COMPELLING REASON AND THAT WILL END THOSE AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS.

>> Ted: THIS IS LOOKED AT AGAIN AND RECONSIDERED, IF YOU WILL.

>> TWO OF THEM, A VERY LONG-STANDING.

THE FIRST ONE WAS DECIDE DECIDED BY THE COURT BY JUSTICE PAUL, A NIXON APPOINT.

APPOINTED AND BACHE DAVIS SAYING RACE CAN BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS LONG AS YOU DON'T HAVE A QUOTA AND TRYING TO DIVERSIFY THE QUOTE AND THAT IS THREATENED TO BE OVERRULED AND ANOTHER CASE DECIDED IN 2003 CALLED GRUTTER VERSUS BOLLINGER WHERE THE COURT SAID TO HAVE A DIVERSE STUDENT BODY WHICH IS A VALUE IN AND OF ITSELF, YOU COULD TAKE RACE INTO ACCOUNT AS LONG YOU DID NOT USE QUOTAS.

THOSE TWO LONGSTANDING CASES ARE CALLED INTO QUESTION AND THE COURT IS THREATENING TO OVERRULE THEM.

I FIND THAT IT'S IRONIC TO PICK THESE TWO CASES BECAUSE HARVARD UNIVERSITY IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR RELEASED 120-PAGE STUDY ABOUT HOW HARVARD FOR 300 YEARS FINANCIALLY BENEFITED FROM THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY.

SIMILARLY, THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, THE OLDEST PUBLIC UNIVERSITY IN THE UNITED STATES ALSO RELEASED A STUDY INDICATING HOW IT HAD BENEFITED FROM SLAVERY FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS AND THEN PROCEEDED UNDER THE JIM CROWE REGIME THAT BROWN VERSUS THE BOARD OF EDUCATION ANDTHAT IT BENEFITED FROM JIM CROWE.

SO THEY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST AFRICAN-AMERICANS.

BUT THIS COURT IS TELLING THESE UNIVERSITIES OR THREATENING TO TELL THESE UNIVERSITIES, THEY HAVE NO DUTY DUTY TO REMEDIATE THAT LONG HISTORY OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST BLACKS AND NATIVE AMERICANS BECAUSE HARVARD UNIVERSITY ALSO ENSLAVED OR BENEFITED FROM THE ENSLAVEMENT OF NATIVE PEOPLES, AS WELL.

>> Ted: PAUL, JUST TO DELINEATE, THE NORTH CAROLINA CASE USING RACE AS A FACTOR IN ADMISSIONS, THE HARVARD CASE IS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ASIAN AMERICANS.

>> THE ELEMENT IN THAT HARVARD CASE BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT.

I DON'T THINK THERE IS THAT EVIDENCE AND I, TOO, I DON'T THINK THE COURT WILL HOLD IT BUT A LOT OF EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE DECIDING TO HAVE MORE MINORITIES IN THEIR CLASSES.

BUT THEY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET RID OF THAT FOR YEARS AND HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO AND NOW THEY HAVE THREE ALLIES IN THAT.

THEY DON'T HAVE CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS WHO IS TAKING A MORE MODERATE POSITION.

EVERYTHING WE SAW AT THE END OF THE LAST TERM INDICATES THEY DO.

>> Ted: THE 14th AMENDMENT, WHAT IS GOING ON STEVE?

>> WELL, IN MY OPINION, THE 14th AMENDMENT DOES ALLOW YOU TO TAKE RACE INTO CONSIDERATION, ESPECIALLY TO REMEDIATE AND THERE'S HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF THAT.

THE FREE MAN'S BUREAU WAS ENACTED IN 1865 RIGHT AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE 13th AMENDMENT AND EVERYONE HAS HEARD, MOST HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS HAVE HEARD OF 40 ACRES AND A MULE AND THAT WAS THE THEORY AND PRACTICE DURING RECONSTRUCTION OF THE FREEDMAN MAN'S BUREAU AND A WAY TO THEIR DESCENDANTS WHAT THEY HAD LOST DURING THE LONG REGIME OF SLEIGHERYSLAVERIES.

THEY ARE THE ONES WHO PASSED THIS FREED MAN'S ACT AND TO SAY THEY PROHIBITED CONSIDERATION OF COLOR IS RIDICULOUS.

THE CIVIL RIGHT'S ACT OF 1866, THE FIRST CIVIL RIGHT'S ACT PASSED IN THE UNITED STATES WAS ALSO PASSED TO PROTECT THE RECENTLY EMANCIPATED AFRICAN-AMERICANS.

>> Ted: LAST WORD ON THIS, PAUL.

>> WELL, STEVE IS RIGHT.

THERE'S REALLY VERY LITTLE, I THINK, BASIS, FOR SAYING STATES CAN'T USE RACE TO REMEDY PASSED HARMS OR GET CLASSES OF THE UNIVERSITY THAT HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE NUMBER OF MINORITIES IN THEM.

WHY CAN'T A STATE DO THAT?

BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION IS COLORBLIND?

THE 14th ANTIDEPRESSANT WAS NOT COLORBLIND BUT GIVING RIGHTS TO MINORITIES IT DIDN'T HAVE AND WHY SHOULDN'T A STATE DO THAT NOW?

YOU GOT ME, BUT I THINK THE QUESTION TO BE IN THAT DIRECTION AND THEY JUST LOVE NEUTRALITY AND THEY LOVE OLD LAWS AND THEY DON'T LIKE DEVELOPMENT.

>> Ted: ANOTHER CASE HERE, STEVE, AND THIS REMINDS ME OF THE WEDDING CAKE CASE IN COLORADO, ANTIDISCRIMINATION LAW AND THIS TIME FOR WHAT, PRINTING, ADVERTISING, WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?

>> 303, THE AREA CODE OF COLORADO AND WANTS TO MAKE WEBSITES.

BUT SOME OF THE WEBSITES WILL ANNOUNCE WEDDINGS LIKE THE MASTERPIECE CAKE SHOP CASE AND IT'S A LITTLEANDTHERE, YOU HAD DEROGATORY COMMENTS BY THE COLORADO CIVIL RIGHT'S COMMISSION, THE BODY THAT WAS DECIDING THE CASE AGAINST RELIGIONS SAYING, OH, THIS RELIGION IS LIKE NAZIS.

WE DON'T HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO THEM.

THAT IS A DISPLAY OF DISCRIMINATORY AMIMUS BY THE LAW.

THIS IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC THAT WANTS TO REFUSE LGBTQ CUSTOMERS.

THIS IS NOT WITHSTANDING RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.

THIS IS NOT SUBJECT TO STRICT SCRUTINY AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO SHOW THERE'S A COMPELLING -- THE STATE DOESN'T HAVE TO SHOW THERE'S A COMPELLING INTEREST.

IT OWN HAS TO SHOW THERE'S A VALID INTEREST.

AND THAT THE LAW DOESN'T HAVE TO BE NARROWLY TAILORED TO MEET THAT INTEREST AND REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

THIS IS A DANGEROUS CASE BECAUSE IF, IN FACT, THE WEBSITE DESIGNER PREVAILS, THAT WILL BE A LICENSE FOR PRIVATE BUSINESSES TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A GROUP THAT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY DECLARED TO BE A CLASS SUBJECT TO THE PROTECTIONS THAT EVERYONE ELSE ENJOYS IN LIFE.

>> Ted: PAUL, IS THIS FREE SPEECH OR SOMETHING MORE GOING ON HERE.

>> I THINK IT'S RELIGION MORE THAN SPEECH.

WHAT THE COURT IS DOING IS TRYING TO USE RELIGION TO LET PEOPLE AVOID, DISOBEY ANTIRELIGION LAWS.

THIS IS A BIG HOLE IN THE ANTIDISCRIMINATION AND ESPECIALLY IN THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CASE.

THIS IS A STEP WHERE A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK MAYBE THEY SHOULD OVERRULE THAT CASE.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO OVERRULE IT TO DESTROY IT.

THIS.MY RELIGION SAYS I CAN'T SERVE THIS GAY PERSON AND THAT'S A BIG WHOLE IN ANTIDISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION.

>> Ted: TO YOU SEE THAT, AS WELL, STEVE?

>> I DO.

AND IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN.

BECAUSE IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE CIVIL WAR, A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE FORMER CONFEDERACY WANTED TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST AFRICAN-AMERICANS ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS.

IN FACT, A CHURCH THAT AROSE IN THE AMERICAN WEST ALSO WAS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST AFRICAN-AMERICANS ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS.

WHAT WILL WE DO?

OH, WE'RE OPEN TO EVERYONE EXCEPT BLACKS AND OPEN TO EVERYONE EXCEPT MUSLIMS AND CATHOLICS AND THAT'S NOT THE AMERICA THAT THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE GUARANTEES.

AND WE HAVE FREEDOM OF RELIGION, BUT FREEDOM OF RELIGION IS EXERCISED IN THE HOME AND IN THE CHURCH AND NOT IN A PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION.

>> Ted: WE ONLY HAVE A COUPLE OF MINUTE INTERESTS A COUPLE OF OTHERS.PAUL, ON A SCALE OF ONE TO HIM AND HO-HUM AND NOTHING MUCH HAPPENING TO MONUMENTAL AND THIS TERM WILL BE WHAT?

>> AN 11.

>> Ted: HOW SO?

>> AFFIRMATIVE ACTION GETS HELD TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL AND THE VOTING ACT RIGHTS CAN'T BE USED TO GIVE MINORITIES VOTING POWER IN STATES.

THEY WANT TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM THEM AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THAT'S BEFORE THEM, ALSO.

YOU CAN USE RELIGION AS A WAY OF DEFENDING YOURSELF IN AN ANTI-DIS-CRIMANTIDISCRIMINATION AND STATES CAN PERMIT ABORTION AND SOME APPLY IN EVERY STATE.

>> Ted: STEVE, ONE MINUTE LEFT AND PAUL TURNED THE AMPLIFIER UP TO AND WHAT HAVE YOU GOT?

>> I AGREE WITH PAUL AND THIS COURT IS GOING TO ROLL BACK THE UNITED STATES DECADES AND REVERSE THE GAINS THE WARREN COURT AND THE GAINS OF THE BURGER COURT.

COURT, A REPUBLICAN COURT, A CONSERVATIVE COURT.

THIS IS A RADICAL, REVOLUTIONARY COURT TO TURN BACK THE CLOCK.

>> Ted: WILL YOU BE SURPRISED IF IT DOESN'T?

>> I WILL BE SURPRISED.

THAT WOULD BE A SMART THING BECAUSE THE COURT IS LOSING ITS LEGITIMACY AND THAT IS SOMETHING IT NEEDS TO PRESERVE.

TED FOR 30 >> Ted: PAUL, TALK ABOUT THE COURT'S LEGITIMACY.

DOES STEVE HAVE A POINT HERE?

>> YES, OF COURSE, STEVE HAS A POINT.

THE COURT HAS TO -- AND THIS COURT DOESN'T THINK IT HAS TO.

CHANGES IN MORALITY, CHANGES IN THE PRACTICE.

THE COURT ISN'T THE SAME AS IT WAS IN 850 1850 AND THIS COURT WANTS TO CHANGE BACK TO THE MIDDLE OF THE 9th 19th CENTURY.

>> Ted: PAUL BENDER AND STEPHEN MONTOYA, A GREAT CONVERSATION AND, OF COURSE, FOR OUR SUPREME COURT YEAR.

GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU, AND THAT IS IT FOR NOW.

I'M TED SIMONS AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US AND YOU HAVE A GREAT EVENING.