 to think tech Hawaii and to another session of difficult conversations to make good trouble, as the late John Lewis might have put it, with Professor Emerita Fernelia Randall, formerly with the University of Dayton School of Law, Professor Visiting Professor at Washington Lee School of Law, Van Davis, and formerly Professor Emeritus, or actually Professor Emeritus at the University of Toledo School of Law, and experienced women's rights lawyer, community service leader, Louise Eng, who just yesterday hosted a conversation or a webinar on the Supreme Court, where it is, where it's going, and what we need to worry about. Louise, from that session that you hosted yesterday, what most concerns you? Thanks, Chuck, and I will clarify too that, so I emceed to the American Judicature Society session with SCOTUS blog publisher, Tom Goldstein, for his review of the Supreme Court term, and the moderator was Ninth Circuit just judge, Mark Bennett, with whom I was a fellow law clerk way back in the day when we were baby lawyers. So it was nice to be on a program with him. So he and of course Tom did the heavy lifting, but I did get to relay some audience questions. I took copious notes, and I guess my takeaway is that we're in that those of us who believe in civil rights and voting rights and affirmative action are in for a very long haul of a conservative majority that seems intent on doing away with all or many of those rights, and it's going to take a generation or two for us to hope to get back on track. And that really depends on voters and education and what we can hopefully teach and encourage future generations to do. So I was depressed. It's a good place to start. Professor Randall, what most concerned you about this last term and where the Supreme Court is going? We know they're looking at things like fair elections, affirmative action, and more in the coming term. Well, I mean, Ms. Ng said it right, that it's a very conservative court that's going to undermine the civil rights and well, as Americans we never had human rights in the law. So it's hard to talk about, but they're going to block getting them in every area of, I think that every area of civil rights, they're going to undermine. And you know, I think it's at least 50 years. It could be a lot longer because I'm not a believer that education and voting change is much. I think the political system has to change, and if we're not going to be educating people to protest in the chain for the political system, just voting in the existing system is what got us here. And if we keep doing that, we will help the conservative Republicans maintain power. Ben? Well, since people are talking about 25 and 50 years, I'll be dead, okay? So I'm just going to let you know. So my kind of view is, well, what can we do today with regards to what we're having to deal with? And I think the the comment Tom Goldstein made last term, which was that it's not a conservative court, it's a reactionary court, okay? And as a reactionary court, essentially with regard to precedent, been a precedent because they think it's egregiously wrong, they will reverse, which is what we see with the various cases or overturn as we saw with regards to dobs and the rest. So I agree with everyone that we have a reactionary court in front of us. And so the question is, in light of being in front of a reactionary court, what do we do? Well, it seems to me that what you have to do in that setting, if you believe in Madison's double security of the rights of the people, is that you have to change the legislature, that it puts passes laws that are inconsistent with what you want. And secondly, that you have to change the executive to make sure that it's an executive that acts consistent with what you want of the three co-equal branches at the federal level. And you have to do similarly at the state level in retrograde states. And so the alignment of forces is one that is essentially significant, okay? And because it's significant, there is a effort, I think, to make us all think that there's an inevitability to any of this, that we will just kind of passively live with it. But my thing is that many of us have, and I've seen it here in Charlottesville, are experiencing enormous contradictions in terms of our reaction to what these levers of power have done in the judiciary and what we think is right in a sense, in a visceral sense of what is right. Now, in that setting, then we have to figure out what to do as opposed to imbibing the messages that are being sent at us, that it's hopeless, there's nothing that can be done, et cetera, like that. And so that's the thing that I'm focused on is what we can do. And so the first thing that I'm focused on is that I think that right now the federal legislature should pass a law that enshrines Roe v. Wade, Obergerfeld, Lawrence, and Loving, and a second law that enshrined voting rights at. And how those should be done is that in the Senate, there should be a vote to make an exception to the filibuster for those two topics with a promise to put the filibuster back in place for after those votes are done. And then get the votes in the Senate, and you get the votes in the House, and you pass those laws that enshrine. And I think this is urgent. I think it's urgent on two levels. First, with regards to what is the devastating impact. Wait, let me just finish. There's a devastating impact on women right now, right now, and girls right now in those, I'm going to call them red states. I'm going to call them what Reverend Barber calls them, which is voter suppressed and gerrymandered states. And this is a dramatic problem that has started since that Friday of that decision. And so there's an urgency to do something now before the election. It's not just the fundraise, but it's to actually push those two things through. So that's where I would start. You can also work at the state level, too. But I would start with putting in place a federal law on those two things. Okay, so here's the deal, Ben. Do you think the Democrats don't understand that? They sat around, and why didn't they have a bill ready to go where they knew this, they haven't been able to do the voting rights. They haven't been able to do the civil rights. And they sat around on their hands for two months while knowing that this dobs was going to come down and not have something ready. The thing that is upsetting, I think people have to realize, is that the Democrats are the problem because they're not reactionary. They won't get out there and say, you know what, we're going to do whatever we need to do to protect all of these things. And I mean, I don't disagree with you that what this is the first thing to need to do, but if you think lobbying is going to get it, if you think protests in the street is going to get it, then I just don't agree. Because that the Democrats don't respond to that. And if they had wanted to protect the rights of women's right to abortion, they could have set up a modern law that the day that dobs came down, they introduced the bill into Congress. Why didn't they? Because it ain't the priority for them to make a change like that. They want to run on this issue in 2024 and they're going to fumble around unless we say to them, look, if you don't do something before, like you suggested, we're voting for you. You're not going to say the worst of two evils to us in November if you don't do something because you're evil too and voting for the lesser evil means voting for evil. I don't disagree that the suggestions you have for things to be none, but I don't think those are things that are rocket science things. And so the question I have to ask, and I always my approach to things to say, people are as smart as I am. If I can think of something, they have thought of that. And so I think, why haven't they said anything? Why weren't they ready? And why haven't they said to people, look, we're working on introducing a bill like this. I think we have a flawed, it's not broken because it does, but it was designed to do. We have a flawed system for protecting the rights of people, and I don't know that voting in that system will change anything in the short term. And you make a really good point, subsidiary to which is if they wanted to do that, they would have to broker in advance some deal with the two essentially non-democrat followers, Manchin and Sinema to get those two votes. Without that. Well, yeah, I agree. And I don't want to step on on Louise's space here. I just, Louise, if I can just say something, which is that I think that the distinction that can be made is literally right now, post-dive, there are horrendous things happening, the little girls and women in this country. There was the recent story, there were things going before, okay, I'm just stipulating about that story about the 10-year-old rate Indian, Ohio girl, who had to go to Indiana to get an abortion. Those kinds of stories I'm sure are going on in places all through the states that have these trigger laws and things like that right now. And horrendously horrible things are happening. And I think that if you can push to get this done before the election, what you essentially do is get everyone on record before the election, whether they were going to pass a federal law on these things, post-dive, and I want the voting rights act. And if they do any shenanigans and they're up for election, vote them out. And I think that this is reasonable to think of because I remember the 2002 midterms when people were saying that traditionally because of a republican presidency, the republicans will lose seats. And in case people don't remember, in the period prior to the 2002 midterm, Bush would forward the authorization to use military force in Iraq and put everybody in a squeeze who was running for office as to whether you were going to support that in that post-911 environment. And I'm thinking that that's what could be done in the post-dives environment, which I think is worse than 9-11. I think it's worse than 9-11. That it's an environment where you can put the squeeze on people and see where they vote, vote for or again. That's why the democrats don't want to do it because it makes them uncomfortable. But you know, I've lobbied in DC, I remember meeting Senator Kennedy's legislative assistant once, find a lobby to change the rules with regards to Americans adopt kids abroad. And he said, that's the law. And I said, well, excuse me, isn't this the place where you change the law? I mean, this is like here in the Senate, don't you pass laws? So do it. You know, this is the kind of thing. And so that's what my attitude is, is instead of all the fundraising letters that we're all getting, do it now and then we'll see. And then if they don't go forward with it, vote them out at the state level, at the federal level, vote them out. And then who's that going to be on the other side? I'm not sure, but let them know we're going to vote them out. I've already told my congressman here, who is a Republican, that he's supporting the life at Conception Act, that he needs to reverse his position on that or we're going to vote him out. Because that's the one thing they do understand is losing office and money. So that's what I think is something not waiting 25 or 50 years today. People can do, talk to their congresspeople, talk to their senators, whatever, but put the heat on right now because there's drama happening. There's drama happening on voting rights too. I would add the EPA decision and two myself personally, but I think it would get those two dealt with now. That would be a suggestion. And I know there's a inertia, but I'm just saying if you want to do something and not wait till after I'm dead, then please get on them right now. Well, I'm feeling Professor Randall's frustration. I'm feeling the need to get things done now and not waiting and overcoming inertia and springing into action. And I guess my thoughts are, yes, voting and education may not do it all. It's what we have now. We've got to get people to get out and vote. The media frustrates me. I mean, in one sense they're important because they can get out the stories. The one is that Professor Davis talks about, about the impact on women. Now, the other hand, it really irritates me that they've been predicting for four years or two years that the midterms are going to go for the Republicans. I mean, talk about, are we trying to create our destiny by telling that story? And there's so many things and dynamics that change. Roe v. Wade is, and the overturning of it is a potential change. I think that a lot of action needs to happen at the state level, the citizen level. One of the things that I'm getting wind of happening in Hawaii, and I'm sure it's happening in other states where that support, approach, choice, reproductive freedom approach is that, you know, to start looking at the laws that we have and seeing how we can strengthen them and taking ideas from other states that are doing that. So I hope that that's something that we can get our firm to get involved in, or at least other lawyers, law students as well. The reason I think it's going to take 25 years being is the voting out method is a slow method. You only change whatever numbers that are up for election. And if you need a majority in the Senate, and the majority, you're talking about a process that's beyond one election. And that's why it's going to take a while. But that process is going to be only effective if we get the Democrats to be different. Biden was going to appoint, I haven't heard whether he did or not, he was going to appoint to a conducting appeals court, a Republican anti-abortion person. So with that kind of attitude, you know, and the Democrats, they will pick to run, the establishment Democrat will pick to run people who will protect the establishment, even if they are against the interests of anti-abortion, even if they are against if they're anti-abortion. So the system has to be changed. Voting in the existing system will just give us the existing result. Just as an aside note, I grew up in Texas and was pregnant, single mother pregnant with my first child in 1970. So that was pre-row. And I understand the harm that goes to people because I saw it all my life until I got to until the road came down. The road is going to be devastating. I think the advancement for, I mean, the overturner road is going to be overturning for black and minority women. I know for a fact that black women have had an incredible rise in economic level and education level, and that's due to not having unwanted children. And I did not have an abortion, but I was so happy to have, but I didn't have that choice at the time in terms of legally, but I could have gone to Mexico and I chose not to do it. Some of my friends who got pregnant at that time made a choice to have an abortion. So I certainly understand the urgency to get the abortion thing, but I think that across the Republicans, when I started teaching at UD in 1990, the Republicans had started a process of training conservative judges by establishing fraternities at law school. Those fraternities called the Federal Society. They've been doing this process for 30 years. They didn't just wake up one day with the power. They started a process 40, 50 years ago and they've been doing it. And the Democrats just sort of like, you know, watched them. I don't know why they didn't do counter stuff, like establishing a progressive society at law school and training that would train lawyers to be progressive and liberal, but they didn't. And as far as I know, I've been out in law school for 10 years. But as far as I know, the Democrats still don't have some kind of process for training lawyers to be progressive and liberal. Well, I don't know. I would just speak to that. I don't know, quite honestly, whether it's even possible to talk about progressive and liberal with regards to Democrats. Okay. I mean, as a whole. Okay. I mean, but I mean, there is something called the American Constitution Society, okay, that has gotten developed over time, which was sort of a counterpoint to the Federalist Society stuff in terms of that kind of organization. But the thing for me is that the language of what is left in the United States is so out of line with what is left in reality or progressive. I was, I want to say that I am a strong believer in a woman's choice about what she's going to do. And I am really happy that the woman, the two women made the choice to have my two adopted kids. Okay. I'm really happy it was hurt their choices. And I adopted both of them in France. Let me tell you something about those two women. One of them was homeless and they discovered her pregnancy. And at that point in time in France, she got followed in prenatal care and she got followed for social services. And that that child was born at term. The other woman walked into an emergency room with my daughter at six and a half months. And my daughter got that premium postnatal care at the levels that were needed so that she could survive. That mother had not had a birth mother had not been followed. Okay. But after they were born, there was a stipend paid to help pay for childcare up until they were 18 years of age for each of them. And there's all that healthcare I'm speaking about was modest in cost for them, even if it cost them anything quite honest, you know. And so I look at that whole package as being what a civilized society would do. Woman makes the choice and the system is there to back her up. That's a whole problem of our American system that I'm worried about. And these things where I hear that corporations are going to give money to women to go out of state. That's making those women dependent on their corporate financier. And I find that insidious and it should be that the woman could just get what she needs. And it's not dependent on your corporate financier. So you know, my thing is that yes, I'm for a woman's right to choose. I'm happy that there are adoptions that happen. But you know, there's also the whole thing of raising those kids all the way through that's got that the society has to address. And so my first thing is to say is that if we want to be civilized, if we want to be civilized, we can't treat women like host entity. We have to treat women as equals and have laws that protect them even if you have a reactionary Supreme Court. And if you want to be civilized, you can't let people be screwed in their voting. You have to have voting rights and you need to do that now. And that's what I call out to everybody who's watching this contact you, whoever represents you and say put in place right now, those two laws before the election. And then I'll look over about sending you some money. Well, it's clear that our Supreme Court is more interested in overturning civil rights without having that social safety net, which is, you know, I guess up to our legislatures. I mean, I find it incredibly ironic that you are going to be forcing mothers to give birth to kids who will now be sub potential gun victims. It's nuts. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Act like this is different. In my lifetime, we have never had an adequate social network for women and children. And we restricted it a lot. We've made it more restrictive over the years. And when I was single and in order to get welfare, I had to lie. Because they don't get welfare to people in college. You had, if you were in college, and I only had two years left, they wouldn't give you welfare. But if I lied and told them I was in a technical program that was two years, then that was, and you know, Texas has always been backwards. And that's when Texas was Democrat. So we, the social net, we don't have a social network. We don't have it. And that's one of the things that makes the abortion thing so a trauma onerous is because we're going to force women to have children in a society that doesn't have an adequate social network. And, and, and, and throw their hands up, you know, people like, well, you know, I'm going to say it's un-Christian. It's un-Christian. For all you Christians out there was reporting this stuff. It's un-Christian. Thank you. Sure enough. So we're out of time for today, but that's a great place to wind up, where we're looking at people in positions of great political and judicial power, issuing decisions, cutting way back on rights and choices without responsibility for the consequences. It's like the insurrection. I mean, I know we're off the air now. It's like the insurrectionists, you know, making a big mess of the Capitol, leaving it for other people to clean up. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Thank you all. Thank you. This again, we'll be back in a couple of weeks. Think Tech Hawaii. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn, and donate to us at ThinkTechHawaii.com. Mahalo.