A 2023 SCOTUS Recap w/ Cristian Farias | Subtext Conversation Podcast (FULL EPISODE)

1. 

   @ThabaniN

   June 6, 2026 at 8:17 pm

   Garrison I can’t find your latest videos🤷🏾‍♂️what is going on

2. 

   @beverywhereyouare

   June 6, 2026 at 8:17 pm

   Serous question here. Is it possible that "conservative" could be considered a mental illness ?

3. 

   @kailuke768

   June 6, 2026 at 8:17 pm

   Hello Garrison. New subscriber. I think that your content is a breath of fresh air in many ways. But about this video I can say only this. You Cant Have It Both Ways.
   The doctrine of Checks and Balances is not perfect. At 59 I've been a Black guy for a bit longer than you have and I've been literally and existentially kicked in my ass by SCOTUS decisions since my head emerged from my Mom. Most notably Dredd Scott 1857. Fact!!
   But what if there was no US Suoreme Court.
   A Vietnamese cash money billionaire was sentenced to death for Bank Fraud. And there's a real chance that she'll die if she does not die in custody first.
   And her trespass was White Collar Crime…Max.
   In some nations, Iran as an example, persons sentenced to death by a Court were UnAlived on the date of the court's decision.
   There are many far more harshly administered judicial systems.
   If any sitting US president could act with impunity he'd be a proper Dictator, not unlike Saddam Hussein, Kadafi, both Late and the guy who is in charge in North Korea.
   You Can't Have It Both Ways Garrison
   Respect

4. 

   @egx161

   June 6, 2026 at 8:17 pm

   I would argue that the citizens united case was just as devastating to our democracy as Dobbs.

5. 

   @egx161

   June 6, 2026 at 8:17 pm

   If you voted for Trump, you got the SCOTUS you deserve. A corrupt court. Trump will be gone one day but Kavanaugh and Barrett will be around for a long time. How do you feel about Hillary now? Now history will repeat with RFK and Trump. Choose wisely.

6. 

   @forestxander

   June 6, 2026 at 8:17 pm

   The court took the power from women and handed it to mostly male state politicians with no medical background. Insanity.

7. 

   @iankclark

   June 6, 2026 at 8:17 pm

   So as soon as some decisions go against your wishes it's time to rethink the scotus. Brilliant.

8. 

   @EasyLawBot1

   June 6, 2026 at 8:17 pm

   Thanks @Garrison Hayes for posting this video about affirmative action / supreme court. Here are the viewpoints expressed by Supreme Court justices regarding affirmative action.

   1) This case is about a group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) who sued Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC). They said that these schools were not fair in their admissions process because they were using race as a factor, which they believed was against the law. The law they referred to is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment*.

   2) The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality. The SFFA believed that by considering race in admissions, Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally.

   3) The Court looked at the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and how it has been used in the past. They also looked at how other cases involving race and college admissions were handled. They found that while diversity in a student body can be a good thing, it must be handled in a way that treats all applicants fairly and equally.

   4) The Court also looked at the idea of "strict scrutiny*". This is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional.

   5) The Court found that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC did not pass strict scrutiny. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear or specific enough, and it resulted in fewer admissions for certain racial groups. They also said that the schools' use of race in admissions seemed to stereotype certain racial groups, which is not allowed.

   6) The Court also said that the schools' admissions systems did not have a clear end point. This means that there was no clear plan for when the schools would stop using race as a factor in admissions. This was another reason why the Court said the schools' admissions systems were not fair.

   7) The Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear, specific, or fair enough to be allowed.

   8) However, the Court also said that schools can consider how race has affected an applicant's life. They can look at how an applicant's experiences with their race have shaped them and what they can bring to the school because of those experiences.

   9) In the end, the Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the law. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not allowed because it was not clear, specific, or fair enough.

   10) So, the Court decided that the SFFA was right. They said that Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally in their admissions process, which is against the law. They said that the schools needed to change their admissions systems to be fair to all applicants, no matter their race.

   *The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality.
   *Strict scrutiny is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional.

9. 

   @sophienduati3070

   June 6, 2026 at 8:17 pm

   I LOVEEEEEE conversations like this!!!!!

Comments are closed.