0:00:00.000,0:00:03.668
This is a—to me—pretty big deal.

0:00:03.668,0:00:06.788
I've never seen this around[br]any court I've ever been…

0:00:06.788,0:00:10.036
involved with, where there's[br]this much dark money

0:00:10.036,0:00:13.538
and this much influence being used.

0:00:13.538,0:00:15.988
Here's how Washington Post[br]summed it up.

0:00:15.988,0:00:18.955
“This is a conservative activist's[br]behind-the-scenes campaign

0:00:18.955,0:00:20.729
to remake the nation's courts”

0:00:20.729,0:00:26.000
and it's a $250 million[br]dark money operation.

0:00:26.000,0:00:30.573
$250 million is a lot of money to[br]spend if you're not getting anything for it.

0:00:30.573,0:00:32.775
So that raises the question,

0:00:32.775,0:00:34.302
what are they getting for it?

0:00:34.302,0:00:37.340
Well… I showed this slide earlier

0:00:37.340,0:00:45.011
on the Affordable Care Act. And[br]on <i>Obergefell</i>, and on <i>Roe vs. Wade</i>.

0:00:45.011,0:00:47.366
That's where they lost.

0:00:47.366,0:00:50.550
But with another judge, that could change.

0:00:50.550,0:00:52.392
That's where the contest is.

0:00:52.392,0:00:55.864
That's where the Republican party[br]platform tells us to look

0:00:55.864,0:00:59.060
at how they want judges to rule,

0:00:59.060,0:01:02.095
to reverse <i>Roe</i>, to reverse[br]the Obamacare cases,

0:01:02.095,0:01:04.861
and to reverse <i>Obergefell</i>[br]and take away gay marriage.

0:01:04.861,0:01:08.782
That is their stated objective and plan…

0:01:08.782,0:01:11.435
why not take them at their word?

0:01:11.435,0:01:15.249
But there's another[br]piece of it. And that is…

0:01:15.249,0:01:18.584
not what's ahead of us,[br]but what's behind us.

0:01:18.584,0:01:26.084
And what's behind us is now 80 cases,[br]Mr Chairman, 80… cases.

0:01:26.084,0:01:27.983
Under Chief Justice Roberts

0:01:27.983,0:01:29.654
that have these characteristics:

0:01:29.654,0:01:34.840
One, they were decided[br]5 to 4, by a <i>bare</i> majority.

0:01:34.840,0:01:40.533
Two, the 5 to 4 majority was… partisan…

0:01:40.533,0:01:44.808
in the sense that not one Democrat—[br]Democratic appointee joined the 5.

0:01:44.808,0:01:46.961
I refer to that group[br]as the “Roberts Five”.

0:01:46.961,0:01:51.119
It changes a little bit, as… with[br]Justice Scalia's death, for instance.

0:01:51.119,0:01:53.656
But there's been a steady Roberts Five

0:01:53.656,0:01:58.172
that has delivered now[br]80 of these decisions…

0:01:58.172,0:02:00.099
And the last characteristic[br]of them is that

0:02:00.099,0:02:04.938
there is an identifiable Republican[br]donor interest in those cases

0:02:04.938,0:02:08.894
and in every single case,[br]that donor interest won.

0:02:08.894,0:02:14.837
it was an 80 to 0, 5 to 4 partisan… rout.

0:02:14.837,0:02:17.709
Ransacking.

0:02:17.709,0:02:20.850
And it's important to look at[br]where those cases went

0:02:20.850,0:02:24.298
because they're not[br]about big, public issues

0:02:24.298,0:02:26.477
like getting rid of[br]the Affordable Care Act,

0:02:26.477,0:02:32.481
undoing <i>Roe vs. Wade</i>, and[br]undoing… same-sex marriage.

0:02:32.481,0:02:34.161
They're about power.

0:02:34.161,0:02:38.981
And if you look at those 80[br]decisions, they fall into 4 categories…

0:02:38.981,0:02:41.159
over and over and over again.

0:02:41.159,0:02:48.048
One… unlimited and dark money in politics.

0:02:48.048,0:02:51.996
Citizens United is the famous one,[br]but it's continued since with <i>McCutchen</i>

0:02:51.996,0:02:54.140
and we've got one coming up now.

0:02:54.140,0:02:58.290
Always the 5 for unlimited[br]money in politics,

0:02:58.290,0:03:01.020
never protecting against[br]dark money in politics

0:03:01.020,0:03:04.584
despite the fact that they said[br]it was gonna be transparent.

0:03:04.584,0:03:06.070
And who wins?

0:03:06.070,0:03:08.404
When you allow unlimited[br]dark money in politics?

0:03:08.404,0:03:10.256
A very small group.

0:03:10.256,0:03:12.460
The ones who have unlimited money to spend

0:03:12.460,0:03:14.475
and a motive to spend it in politics.

0:03:14.475,0:03:16.420
They win, everybody else loses.

0:03:16.420,0:03:19.578
And if you were looking… at[br]who might be behind this,

0:03:19.578,0:03:20.378
[points at card loudly]

0:03:20.378,0:03:25.643
let's talk about the people with unlimited[br]money to spend and a motive to do it.

0:03:25.643,0:03:28.200
We'll see how that goes.

0:03:28.200,0:03:32.086
Next, knock the civil jury down.

0:03:32.086,0:03:33.633
Whittle it down to a nub.

0:03:33.633,0:03:37.295
The civil jury was in the[br]Constitution, in the Bill of Rights,

0:03:37.295,0:03:40.744
in our darn Declaration of Independence.

0:03:40.744,0:03:44.079
But it's annoying to big corporate powers.

0:03:44.079,0:03:48.035
Because you can swagger your way[br]as a big corporate power through Congress.

0:03:48.035,0:03:51.739
You can go and tell the President[br]you put money into to elect what to do.

0:03:51.739,0:03:53.932
He'll put your stooges at the EPA.

0:03:53.932,0:03:56.187
It's aaaaaall great.

0:03:56.187,0:03:59.450
Until you get to the civil jury.

0:03:59.450,0:04:02.995
Because they have an obligation,[br]as you know, Judge Barrett,

0:04:02.995,0:04:04.588
they have an obligation under the law

0:04:04.588,0:04:07.442
to be fair to both parties[br]irrespective of their size.

0:04:07.442,0:04:09.489
You can't bribe them—[br]you're not allowed to.

0:04:09.489,0:04:12.645
It's a <i>crime</i> to tamper with the jury.

0:04:12.645,0:04:15.309
It's standard practice to[br]tamper with Congress.

0:04:18.697,0:04:21.571
And they make decisions based on the law.

0:04:21.571,0:04:23.798
If you're used to being the boss,

0:04:23.798,0:04:26.248
and swaggering your way[br]around the political side

0:04:26.248,0:04:28.393
you don't wanna be[br]answerable before a jury.

0:04:28.393,0:04:33.428
And so one after another, these 80[br]5 to 4 decisions have knocked down,

0:04:33.428,0:04:35.417
whittled away, at the civil jury,

0:04:35.417,0:04:37.415
a great American institution.

0:04:38.322,0:04:39.530
Third.

0:04:39.530,0:04:41.797
First was unlimited dark money.

0:04:41.797,0:04:45.347
Second was, demean[br]and diminish the civil jury.

0:04:45.347,0:04:50.058
Third is, weaken regulatory agencies.

0:04:50.297,0:04:53.229
A lot of this money, I'm[br]convinced, is polluter money.

0:04:55.149,0:04:57.414
The coke industries is a polluter.

0:04:57.893,0:05:00.328
The fossil fuels industry is a polluter.

0:05:00.644,0:05:03.478
Who else would be putting[br]buckets of money into this

0:05:03.478,0:05:05.804
and wanting to hide who[br]they are behind Donors Trust

0:05:05.804,0:05:08.541
or other… schemes.

0:05:10.691,0:05:12.189
And what if— If you're a big polluter

0:05:12.189,0:05:13.328
what do you want?

0:05:13.328,0:05:15.439
You want <i>weak</i> regulatory agencies.

0:05:15.439,0:05:18.880
You want ones that you can[br]box up and run over to Congress.

0:05:18.891,0:05:21.994
and get your friends to fix things for you in Congress.

0:05:21.994,0:05:24.938
Over and over and over again,

0:05:24.938,0:05:27.911
these decisions are[br]targeted at regulatory agencies

0:05:27.911,0:05:31.881
to weaken their independence[br]and weaken their strength.

0:05:31.881,0:05:32.915
And if you're a big polluter

0:05:32.915,0:05:37.288
then weak regulatory agencies[br]is your idea of a good day.

0:05:37.736,0:05:40.027
And the last thing is in politics.

0:05:40.607,0:05:41.509
In voting.

0:05:42.447,0:05:46.068
Why on earth… the Court made the decision

0:05:46.068,0:05:48.295
—a <i>factual</i> decision.

0:05:48.295,0:05:50.922
Not something appellate courts[br]ordinarily are supposed to make,

0:05:50.922,0:05:53.946
as I understand it, Judge Barrett—

0:05:53.946,0:05:57.862
the factual decision that[br]nobody needed to worry about

0:05:57.862,0:05:59.954
minority voters in preclearance states

0:05:59.954,0:06:01.350
being discriminated against

0:06:01.350,0:06:04.482
or that legislators would try[br]to knock back their ability to vote.

0:06:05.262,0:06:08.794
These five… made that[br]finding in Shelby County

0:06:09.204,0:06:13.543
Against bipartisan legislation[br]from both houses of Congress

0:06:13.543,0:06:16.993
hugely past, on no factual record.

0:06:16.993,0:06:20.925
They just decided that that[br]was a problem that was over.

0:06:21.575,0:06:24.153
On no record, with no basis,

0:06:24.153,0:06:29.996
Because it got them to[br]the result… that we then saw.

0:06:29.996,0:06:32.780
What followed. State[br]after state after state

0:06:32.780,0:06:35.120
passed voter suppression laws.

0:06:35.120,0:06:37.735
One, so badly targeting African-Americans

0:06:37.735,0:06:41.386
that <i>2 courts</i> that it was <i>surgically</i>…

0:06:41.386,0:06:45.429
<i>surgically</i> tailored to get[br]after minority voters.

0:06:45.849,0:06:46.978
And gerrymandering.

0:06:46.978,0:06:49.165
The other great… control.

0:06:49.165,0:06:51.937
Bulk gerrymandering,[br]when you go into a state,

0:06:51.937,0:06:56.072
like the REDMAP project[br]in Ohio and Pennsylvania

0:06:56.072,0:07:00.364
and you pack Democrats[br]so tightly into a few districts

0:07:00.364,0:07:03.361
that all the others become[br]Republican majority districts.

0:07:03.361,0:07:04.271
And in those states,

0:07:04.271,0:07:07.054
you send a delegation to Congress

0:07:07.054,0:07:10.350
that has a huge majority[br]of Republican members

0:07:10.350,0:07:13.533
like 13 to 5, as I recall

0:07:13.533,0:07:19.448
in a state where the 5, the party of the 5[br]actually won the popular vote.

0:07:21.704,0:07:23.773
You’ve sent a delegation to Congress

0:07:23.773,0:07:29.111
that is out of step with the[br]popular vote of that state, and…

0:07:29.111,0:07:31.544
court after court figured[br]out how to solve that

0:07:31.544,0:07:33.165
and the Supreme Court said, “Nope.”

0:07:33.165,0:07:36.913
5 to 4 again. “Nope. We’re not going[br]to take an interest in that question.”

0:07:37.497,0:07:42.208
In all these areas where it’s about[br]political power for big special interests,

0:07:42.208,0:07:44.222
and people want to fund campaigns,

0:07:44.222,0:07:46.089
and people want to get[br]their way through politics

0:07:46.089,0:07:47.713
without actually showing up

0:07:47.713,0:07:50.184
doing it behind Donors[br]Trust and other groups,

0:07:50.184,0:07:52.151
doing it through these schemes …

0:07:53.501,0:07:56.669
over and over and over again…

0:07:56.669,0:07:58.062
you see the same thing.

0:07:58.062,0:08:00.354
80 decisions, Judge Barrett.

0:08:00.735,0:08:01.811
80 decisions.

0:08:01.811,0:08:03.563
An 80 to 0 sweep.

0:08:03.563,0:08:05.750
I don’t— I don’t think you’ve tried cases

0:08:05.750,0:08:07.428
but some cases…

0:08:08.968,0:08:11.202
the issue is bias and discrimination.

0:08:11.202,0:08:14.601
And if you’re making a[br]bias case, as a trial lawyer

0:08:14.601,0:08:16.660
—Lindsey Graham is a[br]hell of a good trial lawyer—

0:08:16.660,0:08:19.077
if he wanted to make a biased case

0:08:19.077,0:08:21.848
—Dick Durbin’s a hell[br]of a good trial lawyer—

0:08:21.848,0:08:23.469
if they wanted to make a bias case,

0:08:23.469,0:08:26.212
and they could show and 80 to 0 pattern…

0:08:27.903,0:08:29.198
A, that’s admissible,

0:08:29.198,0:08:32.556
and B, I’d love to make[br]that argument to the jury.

0:08:32.556,0:08:34.508
I’d be really hard-pressed[br]to be the lawyer saying

0:08:34.508,0:08:36.937
“No. 80 to 0’s just a bunch of flukes.”

0:08:37.469,0:08:40.614
All 5–4, all partisan, all this way.

0:08:42.373,0:08:46.091
So… something is not right

0:08:46.091,0:08:47.592
around the court.

0:08:48.772,0:08:51.564
And dark money has a lot to do with it.

0:08:51.564,0:08:54.516
Special interests[br]have a lot to do with it.

0:08:54.516,0:08:57.640
Donors Trust and whoever’s[br]hiding behind Donors Trust

0:08:57.640,0:08:59.550
has a lot to do with it.

0:08:59.550,0:09:01.177
And the Bradley Foundation

0:09:01.177,0:09:05.493
orchestrating it’s <i>amici</i> over at the court

0:09:05.493,0:09:08.328
has a lot to do with it.