CBS’s Stephen Colbert tried to become a constitutional expert on Tuesday’s edition of The Late Demonstrate and it ended exactly how one could expect. As the Supreme The courtroom hears a challenge to yes, definitely action, Colbert showed zero knowledge of the issue before the The courtroom all while trying to imply Chief Justice Roberts penalized the one without any subject knowledge.
For Colbert, that the The courtroom is even hearing the truth at all is a great tragedy, “Now, speaking of the end of everything we all hold dear, the Great Court, they spent the summertime stomping on settled precedents like Roe v. Wade and Miranda rights. And after this, they may do it again, because in accordance with legal experts, SCOTUS is likely to ban affirmative action in college acces. ”
The Court would not overrule Miranda and it is ambiguous who Colbert thinks “we” are because 64 per cent of Americans oppose affirmative activity, but moving right alongside Colbert introduced a soundbite from the oral arguments inside the affirmative action case, “Harvard’s lawyer tried to explain for the Court that affirmative action is applied on a case-by-case basis, nevertheless Chief Justice Roberts refused to get it. ”
The music snippet contained Harvard legal professional Seth Waxman arguing of which, “Race in some– regarding some highly-qualified applicants can be typically the determinative factor, just as getting the, you know, an oboe player, in a year in which typically the Harvard-Radcliffe Orchestra needs a great oboe player, would be the idea.
Roberts followed up by showing Waxman his analogy had been absurd, “Yeah, but we all did not fight a city war about oboe players. We all did fight a city war to eliminate racial elegance, and that’s why it’s a matter of considerable concern. ”
Not comprehending anything Roberts just mentioned, Colbert returned to add, “Hold on! Does Chief Rights Roberts really think the city war eliminated racial discrimination? I believe I understand ”
Colbert apparently does not know the dimensions of the difference between arguing typically the Civil War ended ethnicity discrimination, which is not what Roberts said, and that the Civil Conflict and its subsequent constitutional amendments’ purpose was to end ethnicity discrimination.
The purpose of the fourteenth Amendment and affirmative activity are opposed to each other in addition to, contrary to what liberals usually proclaim, the plaintiffs in cases like this allege discrimination not in opposition to white people, but Asians.
This segment was financed by Energizer Batteries.
This is the
CBS The Late Demonstrate with Stephen Colbert
11/1/2022
11:46 PM AINSI Q
STEPHEN COLBERT: Now, these are the end of everything we maintain dear, the Supreme The courtroom, they spent the summer stomping on settled precedents like Roe v. Wade and Miranda rights. And now, they could do it again, because according to legal experts, SCOTUS is likely to ban yes, definitely action in college admissions. Harvard’s lawyer tried to explain for the Court that affirmative action is applied on a case-by-case basis, nevertheless Chief Justice Roberts refused to get it.
SETH WAXMAN: Contest in some– for some highly-qualified applicants can be the determinative factor, just as being typically the, you know, an oboe participant, in a year in which the Harvard-Radcliffe Orchestra needs an oboe player, would be the tip.
DAVID ROBERTS: Yeah, but we all did not fight a city war about oboe players.
WAXMAN: I–
Roberts: We performed fight a civil conflict to eliminate racial discrimination, which is the reason it’s a matter of considerable problem.
COLBERT: Wait! Does Key Justice Roberts really think typically the civil war eliminated racial discrimination? I believe Also, contrary to popular belief, we all did fight a city war about oboe players and it’s really all in that Ken Burn documentary.
SATIRICAL CIVIL WAR JEWELLRY: My dearest Sarah, within the eve of battle, I have merely thought of a killer oboe solo. It goes like this
