 Thank you all for joining us, both those of you who are watching in person and those of you later who watched the recorded version of this. We have the honor of having with us today retired Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Walter Kieromitsu, one of the true highly respected icons of the legal profession and community, also former head of school for St. Louis School here and many other positions that are hard work not just honorific. We also have Jeff Fortnoy, our leading First Amendment lawyer, one of the most respected constitutional legal scholars in our legal profession here and also with a good background in some media service including in sports and TV. Jeff, Walter, welcome. You only get to be an icon when you get to be 75 or older. I'm closing in but I'd rather be an icon than a con, especially in Florida, I guess. Speaking of which, one of the recent rulings from US Supreme Court that let stand a ruling by the 11th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals that basically imposes on convicted felons who were given the right to vote by legislation and referendum in Florida, the condition that they have to pay all their outstanding fines before they do that. They haven't finally decided the case but they've let that 11th Circuit order stay in place. So kind of a mixed bag this term in the Supreme Court. Hey, Jeff, how'd you see it? Well, we've talked about it. Let's just talk about voting rights. I mean, I think it's pretty clear that this Supreme Court is not a big fan of expanding accessibility to the polls. That's just the reality. Almost every case that they've heard in the last couple of years or cases they've refused to hear have limited in some way the right of individuals to vote. And so I think it's pretty clear that there's a five-vote majority not to expand the ability of folks to have accessibility to the ballot box. Now, you can argue politically whether that's correct or not correct. But in that one area, and I think this last decision that you've just alluded to, which says to felons, you can vote unless you pay all your fines, is just another example of states limiting access to votes. And let's be clear, it's a Democratic-Republican divide. It's the red states that you look at the gerrymandering decisions, you look at the Florida decision, you're getting these decisions out of the South, out of Texas, out of Florida. You're not getting it out of New York and California or Massachusetts. So I think it's pretty clear that if this five-vote majority stays, even with Roberts as we've talked about on prior shows, trying to kind of run a middle ground, at least on voting rights, they're not enthusiastic about expanding access to the ballot box. Walter, your take, Fanny? Yeah, I agree with Jeff. I think this Supreme Court is locked in and to restrict the public's access to voting. And so on every issue so far, they've been very restrictive instead of expansive. And so that's a problem. And again, it's a political intervention or political considerations, intervening the rule of law. And so I agree with Jeff that this Supreme Court right now does not seem in any way interested in expanding or allowing the public's right to vote. I mean, Congress is now sitting on the, you know, the Voting Rights Act, which they let expire. So it's not just the courts and maybe with the recent death of, you know, one of the most prominent civil rights icons, who was over 75, and, you know, Congressman Lewis that they've now renamed the bill in his name. And maybe that'll be the impetus to get a new voting rights bill, you know, which I think in the 60s was one of the most important pieces of legislation under Lyndon Johnson and the Congress at the time. So we'll see. But, you know, I think people who think that the Supreme Court is going to expand voting rights is probably not thinking clearly. I think it's one thing that they've got a majority on and I think they'll stick with. And thanks, Jeff, for the allusion to the Voting Rights Act, which was cut back several years ago by the Supreme Court decision. Did people see that coming? Was that expected? I don't know. I don't know who the people are, but you know, I think the attorney generals of the red states were happy to see it happen. And, you know, the arguments at the time were, you know, that it was no longer necessary. I mean, that's the critical import of that Supreme Court decision that they found it was no longer necessary. And that the, you know, the purposes that Congress had initially in passing it were not relevant anymore. I mean, those are my words. They're not very constitutional words, but that's the layperson's understanding. And, you know, I don't think there's any question that, you know, voting rights right now and what's going to happen in November is being written about almost every day. You know, will Trump, who looks like now, without a miracle, is going to get defeated? You know, is he going to accept it? Is he going to argue that all the states that have balloting by mail in which there's a close result? They're not worried about Hawaii. But, you know, if he loses by 10,000 votes in a voting by mail state, there's a lot of speculation that he's going to challenge it. And then we get into the courts, and then we might even get into the House of Representatives, where, you know, it depends not only not on how many Democrats or Republicans, but how many state delegations are Republican or Democrat. I mean, there's a lot of thinking about will Trump and his supporters accept the results if Trump loses unless it's a landslide. And so, you know, I think voting rights right now are more important than they have been in 40 years. Now, obviously, back in the 60s, the concerned minorities directly, you know, voting tax and, you know, could you answer 10, have you ever tried, by the way, to take one of those tests, Walter or Chuck, you know, the constitutional law questions that voters were asked back in the south in 60s and 70s. No wonder nobody could pass. I mean, I can't answer it. And I think I know a little bit more than somebody with a sixth grade education. So they were clearly designed to limit voting to certain groups. I wasn't even aware of that. Oh, yeah, go on, go online and try. Well, it's not the same as Trump, by the way, being shown a picture of an elephant and being able to say it was an elephant rather than a raccoon. Oh, that he is, he is extroid has all his mental capabilities, as he said yesterday, they were astounded by his quality of memory and recall. Wallace challenged him to come backwards by seven from 100. And he, he blew that one off. Did he get to 93? Didn't even start. But that's a serious problem here, because we're looking at situations where if there is exactly the kind of challenge you just talked about, you may have states where the popular vote was overwhelmingly winds up being in Biden's favor, but you've got a Republican governor who's sympathetic to and supportive of Trump and feeds the delay process and the recount process and the adjustment process to even throw out results that might be part of the electoral count providing to win. So who knows where these guys will stop? Yeah, it would, it would cause a mess and a, you know, who knows how long the delay may take months or it may take a year, years, maybe just to resolve this. So it's a, it's a problem. Speaking about the rule of law, who would have thought it would have been so dependent on one justices cancer treatments? I mean, you know, if Ginsburg doesn't hold on, not till November, by the way, which a lot of people think, but to January, the rule of law will be viewed differently than it may be right now, because that'll give Trump a sixth vote. And even if Roberts continues to try to weave compromise, which I think he did a fantastic job. And I didn't, you know, we've talked about this, you know, some of his decisions, I don't personally agree with. Some of them, I know the more conservative people don't agree with. But the fact that he has both sides saying they don't agree with him shows that he's really done a great job in trying to weave that court through some difficult times. But if Trump gets one more appointee, if Ginsburg gets so ill that she can't continue, we've got 30 years of a conservative court in front of us. By the way, Mitch McConnell, who I guess felt last time there was an election, wasn't an appropriate time to discuss nominating a Supreme Court judge. Only he can do this, by the way, now says, oh, I really didn't mean it then. This is a different circumstance. If we get a vacancy, we're putting somebody else on before the election. Unbelievable, the hypocrisy. Unbelievable. Right. But expected. Yes, unfortunately. And it works both ways, but it's just, he's in the crosshairs now of apocracy. You look in the dictionary, his picture is there. Oh, okay. Right in the middle. No, and that's the other side of this court coin is that McConnell has now filled all of the federal circuit court spots the next level below the US Supreme Court. With relatively young federalist society, approved and nominated people who are going to take the court, the federal courts in a very different direction over the next several decades. Well, blame the Democrats. Don't blame the Republicans. Blame the Democrats who did away with the filibuster rule. And, you know, I don't know what they were thinking when they did it, that they think they would control Congress and the Senate in particular for the rest of, you know, the millennial and the next millennial, they're getting back exactly what they fostered. And now you see, there's some talk about if they take control, doing away with filibuster completely, you know? I mean, it's crazy. And, you know, it was just so short-sighted and they reaped whatever that expression is. Yes, Walter knows the Bible better than I do. And we probably all know it better than our chief executive, although he's able to wave it at photo ops. But, you know, Chuck, you're talking about the rule of law and Walter, I think what's going on in the streets of Portland and maybe in Chicago. And I'm talking not, you know, there is obviously a lot of unrest that is causing a lot of problems. I know you could make a very legitimate argument that it may have gone beyond free speech. But to call in federal troops now, as I say, Portland, Chicago, Albuquerque, you know, this reminds me of 1968 in Chicago at the convention. Yeah, it is way, way, just excessive, you know, and just calling the federal troops that in itself has to be a major emergency. And he just seems to use it as a weapon to assert authority. And like you said, Albuquerque, New Mexico, I mean, give me a break. I mean, we're sending federal troops there. That's crazy. Well, and there was a response, strong response from the district attorney of Philadelphia, basically saying if they try and pull that here, they're in for a fight with us before they start fighting with our people. Well, you know, the Portland mayor has been very public, but it hasn't stopped it. The Chicago mayor has laid down the gauntlet last night. Of course, those troops aren't there yet. I shouldn't really call them troops, right? What does the president say they're part of homeland security, even though they're dressed in camouflage? Yeah, dressed to go to war. Order control and protection. Yeah, yeah. You see, you talk about the rule of law, you just can't talk about the courts anymore. Yeah, it was a very sad situation. And reportedly, the mayor of Portland just got tear gassed himself. So, I mean, these folks, they really stopped at nothing. There is not a lot left of the rule of law. What are your comments about today's news about, is it Michael Cohen? Yeah, well, that's a whole other story. But again, you know, a federal judge is ripped, ripped. I actually just earlier this morning, got off an hour Zoom with a bunch of media lawyers around the country. Right after this case was decided this morning. And for folks who don't know, the Trump administration through the Justice Department tried to impose on Michael Cohen restrictions to allow him to remain out of jail or they were trying to send him back to jail. Unless he signed this contract that said he would not write a book, he wouldn't speak to the press. And the judge this morning just eviscerated the Justice Department and the Bureau of Prisons just saying, this was an absolute prior restraint, et cetera, that there are some legitimate restrictions you can put on people who are being released because of COVID or whatever. But the bottom line was to say, if you want out of prison, you have to agree, you can't write an anti-Trump book. It's only the third time they've tried that in the last three weeks, by the way. Yes. So that is really a direct assault on this rule of law, right? Because, you know, you cannot impose that kind of restriction on the freedom of expression or freedom of speech. And they just do it blatantly. It's terrible. And it's gotten really exactly, as you say, Walter, blatant and overt. We have situations where governors are telling sheriffs who want to line up with Trump's storm troopers that if they do that and if they get charged with something, that governor will step in and pardon them. So they're basically doing what Trump started doing in the rally, saying, hey, go out there and beat him up. I'll take care of you. And if Roger Stone and Michael Flynn, he's proved it. Yeah, well, you know, we don't try to make this too political because it's obviously a discussion of the rule of law and the Federalist Society and their ilk have their own view. And as we've talked about, 90% of the judges, even the ones that McConnell has pushed through, even though they're conservative, are capable, are experienced. But as we've talked about before, you and I, Chuck, on these broadcasts, there's a handful that got disqualification ratings from the ABA, and he still pushed them through because of their paybacks. They were a senate aide to McConnell, which one guy was, or whatever. But you still got judges like this morning, not only ruling against the government, but just ripping them apart from the bench. Now, what happens when it goes up on appeal? I don't know. You still got some balance on some of the courts. Yes, thank goodness. Okay, so we have a question. How does Trump keep getting away with pardoning everyone? Because pardon is a completely presidential opportunity. There is no law in any way that prohibits the president's pardoning power. The constitutional framers, for whatever reason, gave the president complete power over the power of pardon. And that's the situation. It relapsed the faith of the president. Does that apply also to commuting sentences? I don't know the answer to that, Walter. Yeah, that's a good question, Walter. As I understand it, clemency is different. Pardoning still leaves the conviction in the record. You're just pardoned of that offense. It doesn't erase it. It eliminates any punishment for it. But clemency actually, if I understand it correctly, doesn't eliminate the conviction, but it eliminates any legal consequences of it. So that's why he went farther with Roger Stone than he went with Flynn because they ran into the trouble with Flynn because they figured, oh, the only parties in the case are the prosecutor and the defendant. If we, the prosecutor, say, drop the charges, there is no more dispute. The case is done. The judge has to go along with it. But Judge Emmett Sullivan said, wait a minute. If there's prosecutorial corruption in here, prosecutorial misconduct, I want to have that looked into and brought to light so that when I make my decision, I can take into account the legal factors that are appropriate for decision on the motion. Not just whether the charges are or are not justified, but whether the conduct that led to the prosecutorial motion to the Smiths, it was itself a part of a corrupt process that the court should not sanction. You know, and he's not, yeah, I mean, Trump's not the only president to allegedly abuse the pardon power. I mean, Clinton got into a lot of controversy on that too. So, you know, it's clear, I'm no big fan of Trump. In fact, it's couldn't be any more to the contrary. But the problem with Trump is that it's so obvious and that he's pardoning people that have information that he doesn't want out, you know, that he doesn't want prosecuted, that directly concerns him. But there's been a lot of pardon abuses over the years. A lot of good people get pardoned, you know, people that maybe were wrongfully convicted or times changed. But to answer the question directly like I did a minute ago, the pardon power is really unrestricted. So, in Roger Stone's case, if Trump really did want to exercise this pardon power, he could have pardoned him, right? But he chose to commute the sentence instead. So, is that a, just a trace of his that he doesn't want to subject himself to that much criticism if he just takes a middle road like commuting the sentence and not pardoning him? Is that politically motivated? Must be politically motivated. But who knows what's behind all of that, right? Because you pardon Michael Flynn, but you commute the sentence for Roger Stone, and then here comes Cohen. Who knows what he's going to do with Cohen? Yeah, I mean, there is some speculation that he would try to enter into a deal with Cohen, but Cohen's already been in prison. I mean, you know, what he did with Roger Stone is he kept him from going to prison. Yeah. The only reason, quote unquote, that Michael Cohen is at a prison is because of the COVID situation at the prison he's at. And allegedly, let's be honest about this, and we talked about this this morning. You know, whenever you have a First Amendment matter, Michael Cohen is not the guy you want to be your poster boy. I mean, he's a jerk. You know, he's a defrock lawyer. You know, I mean, he did horrible things on behalf of his client. The last person in the world, you want to be out there as the poster boy for free speech is Michael Cohen. But those are the kinds of people sometimes that you need to that get involved in things where you really want to protect free speech, right? And prior restraint. But there was some speculation even today in the press that, you know, maybe he would enter into a deal with Trump. You know, Trump would pardon him and he'd shut up. I don't know. But isn't his book already published? No, no, he hasn't even no, he hasn't even released it yet. Oh, no, I don't even think I don't even think he started it yet other than to say he might. Oh, okay. Okay. So there might be a deal in the making. Could be. Yeah. And that that would guarantee us a spot in the next thing tech program. I guess the good news is he couldn't find a way to convict his knees so he could pardon her. Okay, so gentlemen, as we get down to our last few minutes here, what are your most serious concerns right now about the rule of law in this country? What's under threat that makes the biggest difference? Jeff, groups in the street. That's my biggest concern now. I'm not I'm not concerned about the courts. I mean, look, a lot of decisions go contrary to my beliefs, my political beliefs, my moral beliefs. That's the way things are. You know, I mean, I've always believed in Walter sat on the ICA. He's been a judge. I've never been a judge. I have never criticized and will never criticize a judge who I think does his or her job, even if I don't agree with the decision. It's when they go beyond the legal analysis and their personal beliefs just become so obvious that that I'm concerned or whether they're appointed to the bench because of who they know rather than their skill set. So I'm not that concerned about the courts. I'm more concerned about the executive branch. Hey, Walter, any closing thoughts? Yes, I'm I'm more concerned about the citizens, the people like us, where we cannot rely on a consistent rule of law. We don't know who's enforcing the law, how they're going to enforce the law. And so the poor citizens of the community, they're just kind of wondering what is happening. And so they have nothing consistent to rely upon. And that is one of the basic principles that Chuck, you brought out, judicial, the three eyes of judicial and independence is you have to have independence, impartiality and integrity. And at this point right now, there's a question mark on each pie and which I think for the regular common citizen, they're they're concerned. And if they're not concerned, they should be concerned because there's no consistent rule of law that they can rely on and to feel secure and safe on, you know, the rule of law. Let me just add a post script in 30 seconds. It's the Justice Department that I think is leading to what you're talking about, Walter, and what I'm talking about. That's where the rule of law has broken down in the Justice Department under the Attorney General and and what he's done to various U.S. attorneys, etc. I still have faith in the courts to try to remedy what Bill Barr and his ilk are trying to do. I totally agree with that. I think Bill Barr is a nemesis and he's a major problem. So gentlemen, thank you for a wonderful session. For the viewer who asked, what's the chance of the motion for preliminary injunction against the brown shirts in Portland? We'll take that under advisement and we'll be back in a couple of weeks. Thanks, everyone. Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye. Thanks, folks.