Hello, I'm you happy people, Neil Smith and old Buck Buddy.

Are you hearing Neil?

Neil?

I miss you, mannes I have a question.

We respect for me down by breaking a major story, Chris, Congratulations a single score podcast.

One of the big cases before the Supreme Court was an evaluation of Section two of the Voting Rights Act.

Section two of the Voting Rights Act, folks, is racist because it requires that race be considered in the formation of congressional districts.

By definition that the statute is racist, and it requires a violation of equal protection under the Constitution.

The provision itself is unconstitutional, a violation of that protection, the equal rights protection, the ego protection clause in the US Constitution.

So there were oral arguments, and it seems that the five Constitutional Justices were leaning heavily towards saying, look, I'm basically summarizing this and boiling it down.

But they were saying, if we're going to stop racism, we should stop being racist and forming congressional districts on the basis of race is racism, right, Well, folks, the woman who doesn't know what a woman is Katanji Brown Jackson, proving that she doesn't belong on the Supreme Court.

She's wholly unqualified.

She is actually making the case and actually says, folks that because somebody is black, they are disabled.

I'm I kid you not.

I mean Clarence Thomas and Alito.

Somebody was observing.

Who was it was?

It's a guy named Stephen L.

Miller.

I have completely reversed my stance on not having cameras at the skotis mainly because I just want to see Alito's face every time she speaks.

Meaning Kaitanji Brown Jackson, the woman who doesn't know what a woman is.

You don't believe me.

You don't believe that me.

Well, first off, do you have a hard time believing that a woman who doesn't know what a woman is would actually say that being black is a disability?

Well, okay, folks, you don't believe me, here's Kaitanji Brown Jackson.

I guess I'm thinking of it of the fact that remedial action absent discriminatory intent is really not a new idea in the civil rights laws.

And my kind of paradigmatic example of this is something like the ADA Congress past the Americans with Disabilities Act, against the backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities, and so it was discriminatory in effect because these folks were not able to access these buildings.

And it didn't matter whether the person who built the building or the person who owned the building intended for them to be exclusionary.

That's irrelevant.

Congress said, the facilities have to be made equally open to people with disabilities if readily possible.

Okay, so now you understand what she's trying to say is that even though today you aren't a racist, you still need to be disadvantaged because of the racism of the past.

Right now, nobody's a racist today, right, you're not a racist, but we need to rig the elections to make up for past racists.

And that's why you must suffer the indignity and the unequal protection under the Constitution.

That's the point she's trying to make here.

It's just they are not applicable, and she's going to folks, she's going to step in it, and she's going to step in it hugely, bigly.

As President Trump would.

Say, I guess I don't understand why that's not what's happening here.

The idea in section two is that we are responding to current day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make it so that they don't have equal access to the voting system.

Right, they're disabled.

In fact, we use the word disabled in Milligan.

We say that's a way in which you see that these processes are not equally open.

Okay, So according to Justice God help us all Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, the woman who doesn't know what a woman is, Being black, being a minority, being a person of color is a disability according to this Supreme Court justice, which, by the way, the utterance in and of itself is racist.

And I'm going to go back to what I say all the time on the Salsado Storm podcast and the Chris Salsato shows.

If you want to stop racism, the first order of business is to stop being a racist.

Folks.

More on the courts, including this case coming up next on the Salsado Storm podcast, And now a word from our sponsor, my friends, did Bidenomics in the left wing economy really rock your world?

Latin American Medical Plans relieve one burden health insurance.

American Medical Plan specializes in under sixty five health insurance plans that have zero copays and no deductibles.

You choose your doctors, you choose your hospitals.

These plans have nothing to do with your income and are thirty to sixty percent less than Obamacare.

How's your paying out the nose call American medical plans.

Don't let these Marxists destroy one sixth the US economy and your access to healthcare without a fight.

You deserve better.

You deserve American medical plans the answer to the cancer that is Obamacare.

Chris Salceato, Hello, my friends in liberty lovering community.

Did you know that as a follower of Chris Salsado you get exclusive bonuses and discounts at quality vendors like my Pillow My Pillow with promo code Team Liberty, you get thirty to eighty percent off everything you order every time as part of the Salsado family.

So go to MyPillow dot com forward slash Team Liberty and check out the sheets, the pillows, the blankets, the mattress toppers and so much more, and you get thirty to eighty percent off everything and many times free shipping with promo code Team Liberty.

And if you don't believe me, check out what Chris has to see about my pillow himself.

You know, they say, my friends, once you go my pillow, you never go back.

I started out with the old fashioned my pillow, loved it.

Then I graduated the to the towels and my pillow towels they take all the water off.

Yeah, and they're so softy.

Just love them.

And then then I said, well, I gotta have something to cover my pillow, so I got the whole sheet.

Said once you start, folks, you won't be able to stop because you're just gonna love the products like I did.

So that's it.

Ladies and gentlemen, you heard from the man himself.

Go to my pillow dot com four slash Team Liberty and buy your my pillow.

Now.

You're not only gonna save thirty to eighty percent on everything you order, but you're gonna get amazing products for your home.

You're gonna support a great American company, and you're gonna keep the Salceedra Storm podcast on the air.

It's a triple wind and you'll never sleep better.

Chris Celciado, everybody's got an agenda right in America for the time being.

That's okay, but I think folks would be stupid to fund an agenda that doesn't align with their own.

Patriot Mobile can help you with that.

When you make the switch to Patriot Mobile, you're going to get an industry leading coverage guarantee.

You're going to get all kinds of discounts for our first responder heroes and our veterans.

But you're also going to be supporting a company that supports your values and donates to your values.

And there's an added bonus.

You'll also be supporting me, your liberty loving Latino.

Every single person who goes to Patriot Mobile dot com, slash storm and makes the switch, you support the Salcedo Storm podcast.

Keeping my voice independent.

Hey, I worked for a company that changed the rules in the middle of the game.

I couldn't talk about the issues important to you.

It was then I realized my voice needed to be independent.

I think Tucker Carlson's discovering that too.

Head to Patriot Mobile dot com, slash storm, make the switch today, use my promo code Storm, get free activation, and stop funding the woke crowd call nine seven to two Patriot Oh.

Go to Patriot Mobile dot com slash.

Storm't tired of cable news lying to you.

It's time the establishment media went the way of the dinosaurs and for free digital journalism to rise.

At Texas Scorecard, we bring you real news for real Texas with no paywalls ever.

Go to Texas scorecard dot com today.

All right, folk, let's bring on our guest.

His name is Travis Morgan.

He covers legal issues for the Texas Scorecard.

Hey, Mitte, how's it going, Chris going great?

Thank you for being here.

Let's you and I have a discussion about what transpired in court as the big beautiful maps in Texas were being challenged by Democrats on well, from everything I was able to hear, it was the shakiest of grounds.

Go ahead and give me It was a nine day ordeal.

Summarize it for.

Me, absolutely, nine days in l Passo started October first, ran through the tenth.

It went on to Saturday.

We only had Sunday off.

But it was a good deal of fun.

You know.

Some interesting arguments being made.

So essentially the plaintiffs are are arguing against the twenty twenty five maps, alleging both racial discrimination in regards to racial jerrymandering and also racial vote dilusion, but racial vote dilusion is a little bit different, where it's an accidental byproduct of partisan redistricting sometimes.

And to be granted, the preliminary injunction that they're looking for to block the maps from being used for the twenty twenty six primaries, that deadline has a higher standard of proof.

So they were forced to drop.

The racial vote dilusion claim, so they were left only arguing on behalf of racial gerrymandering, which does require intent.

Right, Okay, am I wrong?

Because what I was seeing first off, is the Trump administration was suing Texas saying that the maps that we had created, the districts we had created to please Democrats, those were illegal.

The federal government was going to sue us because, of course, with everything that is democrats and they were illegal, and we broke the law to appease them because we have weak Republicans in the Texas State House.

So that's kind of how I read what was going on.

Didn't we redistrict these maps because we were being directed to by the federal government to come into compliance.

So that requires stepping back, and there is a lot of debate on that, but the general consensus among state Republicans seemed to be that the Department of Justice did step in and say we're going to sue the State of Texas if you don't redraw these maps in light of the Pedaway decision out of Galveston.

What that decision said is that coalition districts, which are two minority groups that are formed together to make up the majority of a district, that that's no longer protected under Section two.

That you don't have to leave them alone.

You can actually redistrict for partisan reasons disregarding their existence.

So that does not mean that they are illegal, It just means they're no longer protected.

So Adam king Kaid, who actually drew the maps for Texas, he's the president of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, he himself went into court and said it was misguided.

The Department of Justice letter, it was a little bit incorrect, it was unnecessary.

All of the state Republicans didn't necessarily agree with the letter because it misinterpreted the Pedaway decision.

But the real the truth of the matter is that Peduway meant coalition districts are no longer protected, so Republican redistricting partisan redistricting can occur without having to protect those districts.

Yeah, and for example, what you're talking about is Blacks and Latinos in one district making up the majority.

And they were saying in Pedaway that that, yeah, that's that is not something that you can use a section two of the Voting Rights Act to protect that that is susceptible to political gerrymannering.

Right, right, it now is okay, very good because of the Pedaway decision.

Got it correct.

So and then there's another aspect of this.

The Democrats are claiming racism.

However, they are openly opposing Latino districts that were created in the new maps.

These Latino districts, of course, are Republican Latino districts, but the Democrats don't like those types of Latinos.

So was the point made in court that it's actually the Democrats who are being racists by trying to deny conservative Latinos a voice.

Well, there was a lot of debate on that as well.

What Republicans did in this redistricting effort is after the maps were passed, they went out and said, look, we actually have two black majority districts.

There were none before, and now we have was it four Latino majority districts, which is more than there was before.

Right, But what the plaintiffs are arguing is, even though you know, you guys created more Latino majority districts, they still don't have the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice, and the white candidate choice is still being elected.

So there's racial discrimination.

The reality is.

And also, I will add, the plaintiffs are also claiming that because a lot of these Latino majority districts are just above fifty percent, they're around fifty one to fifty five percent Latino, that that was a racial target that Adam Kincaid and the Republicans purposely hit just so they could say, look at us and look.

At what we did.

There doesn't see much of a basis.

Right, hole on a minute, so let me understand their argument.

They are saying that even though these are majority Latino districts, they still couldn't vote for their candidate of choice.

You mean they couldn't vote for their Democrat?

Right?

Isn't that what they write?

Is that what they meant?

Yeah?

That is what the state keeps pushing over and over and over keeps pointing out in the plaintiff's argument is what candidate are you talking.

About specifically, and of course it is Democrats.

Right exactly.

Their whole point is we want to force minority districts to vote exclusively Democrat, which, by the way, I'm sorry, it undermines the entire predicate of their argument because they're claiming racism.

It seems that it is they who are openly advocating for racism.

I mean, how did well, I guess I should ask you, how did this whole process turn out?

As far as the judgment is concerned, where do you think the Was it a judge panel or was it just one judge?

So it's a three judge panel.

That's how these redistricting cases work.

It's always in federal court.

It's a three judge panel to start, and then an appeal goes directly to the United States Supreme Court.

From the get go, it was always a given that regardless of what the panel decides, it will be appealed to the Supreme Court by either party that loses.

Exactly, all right, what was the sentiment?

It's really hard to tell Chris, to be honest, because Judge Jerry Smith, he's a Reagan appointee.

He was very clearly on the state side.

Of course, they have to remain neutral, but it was clear by the uestions he was asking what side he was on.

Then there's Judge Guaderama, who was an Obama appointee, but he did a great job in court.

He was very fair handed, hard to tell, hard to read him.

And then there's Judge Jeffrey Brown, who's a Trump appointee, but he's ruled against Republican redistricting efforts in the past on faulty reasoning, saying the redistricting was mean spirited.

I'm not sure exactly where that falls into legal precedent that he was considering, but it's very hard to read him as well.

He didn't speak up much throughout the hearings until the last couple of days.

When he did, it tended to be more against the state actually, So there's multiple factors at play here.

There's also the Perceel precedent, which is regarding that you're not supposed to as a court make a decision that causes voter confusion, ripe a foreign election, and everybody in the state's operating under the assumption that the twenty twenty five maps are already in effect and the candidate filing period is opening shortly for the twenty twenty six primaries.

So I know Smith was for sure with the state on the merits, but especially on the per cell precedent on the timeliness, and so he may have sway with the other two judges at least on that front.

And that's all that's needed to not have the preliminary injunction issued.

Folks, we're talking to Travis Morgan.

He covers legal issues for the Texas Scorecard.

These maps, to me are part of the gerrymandering effort by Republicans to actually do to the Democrats what Democrats have been doing to Republicans in places like California, Illinois, and New York.

No Democrat complains about disadvantaging Republicans in those in those states.

So it's a bit hypocritical.

Where do you see this going with your legal experience.

It's going to the Supreme Court.

We acknowledge that.

And with a five to four constitutional conservative majority on that court, and I say that number on purpose, a five to four constitutional conservative majority, you would expect that these maps will stand for twin twenty.

Six, right, I mean, I tend to believe it is very hard to read this three judge panel I tend to believe they will not issue the preliminary injunction.

Either way, the plaintiffs will petition to the Supreme Court, and Republicans should be fined in the Supreme Court.

Yeah, all right, Well, let's talk about something that's tangentially related which is going on in the day that you and I are recording this podcast, which is the United States Supreme Court is reviewing Article as our Section two of the Voting Rights Act, which is, in my opinion, the racist This is state sanctioned racism because it mandates state racially created districts.

And I want to play something for you.

This is Jani Nelson.

She is arguing arguing for the NAAPCP, the National Association for the Advancement of Progressive Colored People.

She and listen to what she said in her oral arguments.

That's right.

And in the state of Louisiana, that analysis was conducted in the NARN case, and it was clear that regardless of party, white Democrats were not voting for black candidates, whether they were Democrats or not.

And we know that there is such a significant chasm between how black and white voters vote in Louisiana that there's no question that even if there is some correlation between race and party, that race is the driving factor.

Can you comment on Yeah, okay, so did is it my imagination or did Janni Nelson just admit the Democrats or racists in front of the Supreme Court.

Well, I'll even relate it to the case.

I was watching a lot of NAACP there, not NAAPCP, but.

It was so consistent.

From their side that they were trying to argue both at the same time that racial discrimination took place on the behalf of Republicans, but also that Republicans didn't do a good enough job of considering race because they have to consider race to protect certain districts, and under Section two right now, the precedent is that although Pedaway did away with coalition districts, we still have to protect majority, single minority districts.

And that's what this case here is about before the Supreme Court is whether that's going to stand.

And it certainly does not seem as if it's going to.

But yes, what Democrats are wanting is for mandated racial considerations and jerrymander.

When jerrymandering for redistricting to ensure that certain racial minority groups have representation and can elect their candidate of choice.

The reality is what Republicans.

Have always believed is how about we vote on our values instead of our race.

And that's something they're fundamentally rejecting.

But see, to me, it goes a little deeper than that.

The Democrats are saying that we need to to Jerry Mander based on race to direct and I'm gonna play this for you because it was rather extraordinary and extraordinary back and forth.

We're going we need Jerry Mander to to to basically use race as as a mechanism to correct the racists who are Republicans.

So we must use race to Jerry to Jerry Mander uh and basically say that we don't what we don't need.

And I guess I don't have that sound by queued up here.

But basically the argument was sometimes you can use race to correct you can use racism to correct racism, which is basically what they were saying.

So it's like, you've got to be kidding me.

That was their oral argument, right.

I went through the public education system, you know pub public universities in California of all places, and I saw this on full display, you know, English classes.

We were forced to read an anti racist theory and depth.

And that's exactly what it was.

It was you have to have racist policies now to correct past discrimination.

Right, It's genuinely what they believe.

It's their ideology.

It's it's anti racism on full display.

And it's now it's before the Supreme Court, and I have a good feeling about where it's going to go.

Yeah, I did get Clarence Thomas and he made some very compelling arguments seeming to dismantle the I mean, it did such a wonderful job.

And of course no better spokesperson for getting rid of racism because the Chris Alsado Show, there's an axiom that says that you want to stop racism, stop being a racist, and that's what Section two of the Voting Rights Act is, it's racist.

Listen to this.

What role did Robinson play in the development of SB eight.

Justice Thomas Robinson is the only reason SBA exists.

We fought tooth and nail in Thebinson litigation itself in telling the courts that we did not think the Constitution permitted us to draw a second.

Majority black district.

As you know, under protests, we drew sbight because the threat was that the federal courts were going to do it if we didn't.

And that's I mean, I think that's the best way to conceive of why SBAIGHT exists.

We would never pass SBAIGHT in the first instance without Robinson, Justice Thomas, what.

Were the findings in Robinson?

The finding by the middle District in Robinson was that the plaintiffs in this case were likely to show a violation of Section two and the likely violation.

And I'm using very broad terminology because I do not know what the underlying violation is.

I can't articulate that for you, Justice Thomas, because I don't think anybody can.

But I think the finding in the district court's mind in that case was that the likely the likelihood of a Section two violation meant that a majority black district was required a second one.

And I think like that was the bottom line.

And when our legislature saw that, we understood the marching order and that that's why you see Sbaight as it exists today.

So basically, Benjamin A.

Gun Naga, I believe I'm pronouncing his name correctly.

He is the Louisiana Solicitor General.

He's talking with him basically saying, Okay, give me the predicate as to why that.

The other side is saying, you need to have a second black congressional district, even though even though politically speaking, it's not called for, number one, number two, even demographically it's not called for, but you're being forced to create it to somehow come into compliance with Section two of the Voting Rights Act.

There is no natural existence, so you must create it for some sort of crazy idea of fairness or to not be discriminatory Travis, when really all that what they're trying to say without saying it is you need to create a black district that advantages Democrats.

That's what they're trying to say, right.

I try not to sound partisan, but this entire issue is inherently partisan.

And the reality is Republicans tend to have more of a principled moral basis.

To what they believe.

And the reality is, what do Republicans believe here in regards in regards to redistricting.

It is, you know, maybe partisan gerrymandering isn't super popular, maybe it isn't the best for the country if both sides do that, But the reality is Democrats have always done this Massachusetts hasn't elected a Republican to the House this century, and it's not fair for the Southern states to not be able to match that when they are overwhelmingly Republican because they have to protect these districts that were created on the basis of race, to elect candidates based on their race.

It's just not fair.

What Republicans believe as a principled approach is that you should not consider race when drawing maps, because considering race at all is unconstitutionals against the fourteenth Amendment, against the fifteenth Amendment.

Yeah, and here's here is that the Paist resistance in this hearing about congressional districts based on race.

The basis of the left wing argument is this, the use of race is permissible in remedying perceived discrimination.

Right, so we because we call you Republicans racist, that way we get to create Democrat districts based on race.

And to me, it was classified by Gunter Eagleman on on X as a circle jerk, and that's exactly what it is.

I'm gonna play this one last sound bite.

Let's see if you.

Can hear this.

Just New York.

Know that.

States maps joined people in districts from the far north all the way down and across the state.

That's correct, the map that it put into effect.

So the district was in compact, and neither were the interests necessarily compact, except that they were write voters correct and Republican correct.

All right, now, you have not addressed the issues of the unconstitutionality, which is what this reargument was about.

Just a sparait mentioned congruence and proportionality.

Others have suggested that our Harvard case is appropriate.

Yeah, well, she's talking was sort of.

I was actually kind of shocked that sorta myr went down kind of this road because she she kind of backed herself into a corner on this one.

But at the end of the day, in my mind, and Travis, I don't know how you see this, but I think most legal experts are settling on look, you're creating these districts based on race, and the act of creating a district based on race is in itself a violation of the Constitution under the equal Protection Clause.

And I think that's where a lot of constitutional scholars are settling.

What do you think, Yeah, I mean that really sums it up.

And then it's Democrats dancing around that reality with their anti racist theory.

But I'll go back to one thing I heard from the closing arguments from Brian Kircher, who was the lead attorney representing the state of Texas in the cases I was witnessing an Elpaso and he said, it is not fair that just because Republicans tend to have more of a white base at least as of right now, and Democrats have more minorities that Democrats can say, aha, when you are Republican redistricting that's racially discriminatory.

It is not fair that Democrats get to redistrict because of the racial makeup of their base and Republicans cannot.

That's not equal protection.

Republicans are in titled to their redistrict.

That was a point he made that I thought just really summed up everything they're doing here.

That's the claim they're trying to make, and that is partisan.

It's disingenuous.

It is incredibly disingenuous.

And not to mention the fact where we started the soul conversation in Texas, the creation of Latino districts.

The creation of Latino districts.

The Democrats are opposing it.

Why because those Latinos are not voting for Democrats.

They're they're now voting for President Trump and the America First coalition and they and that's and they opposed that.

So they let the cat out of the bag when when they start opposing Latino majority districts and frankly, as you put it out, two black districts which were not present before.

So this is this is I think going to fall apart not only on the on the district discussion about our redistricting here in Texas, but every redistricting argument around the country.

And can you imagine it's And I'll ask you this last bit of analysis, when when this all comes down right before the twenty twenty sixth election, before the maps start, you know, before they start, people start filing that this is going to be a potential And you saw CNN out there saying, oh, no, Democrats could lose nineteen seats, Republicans could gain nineteen seats.

Everybody knows the game, everybody knows what's going on here, and they're all panicked.

And I think that's the tell, don't you right.

I think it is again, it's disingenuous, and it's partisan.

That's that's their real concern.

That is their real concern here.

And one of the greatest points the state made in the hearings in El Paso was they showed a clip of al Green in the legislative record telling Democrats that aspects of the Voting Rights Act keep getting stripped away.

The only thing we have left in section two is vote dilusion, essentially, so we are forced to whenever they throw new maps, new partisan redistricting maps at us is to claim to scrim nation and take them to court alleging discrimination.

That sums it all up.

The only way they're going to protect these Democrat stronghold districts is by claiming it is racist to remove them.

That is all there is to it, and it's.

Not true, and it's just not right true.

Well, Travis Morgan, I know this is going to be quite something.

This is kind of a rare occasion where your job at the Texas Scorecard to keep an eye on what's going on here in Texas is going to really coincide with what's happening on the national level as these two major cases, the Supreme Court case.

Well, of course we're not going to learn about this until June.

I think unless they're going to expedite because of the impending twenty six primaries, they may rule sooner.

I don't know if there's a precedent for that, but you know, they start hearing oral arguments now and we don't get the results on the Supreme Court until June, but I think the Texas maps will be decided long before that because of the import it has to next primary election.

So you're gonna be a busy guy.

I will be a busy guy.

But you know, I've become very familiar with redistricting loss since covering the case n L Pass, so anything from here is just a good deal of fun following it.

And I think things look good.

I think Republicans can have a good outlook on what's happening.

Well, we'll make sure we get you back on, Travis Morgan.

Everybody covering the legal issues for the Texas Scorecard, appreciate the.

Four to one one man as only thanks for having me, Chris.

That right there puts a wrap on this Alcedo Storm podcast till we visit again.

My friends.

Remember this society's worth isn't measured by how much power is stolen by government.

A society's worth is measured by how much power is reserved for you and me.

We the people, keep fighting for freedom out there, my friends,