Harvey Silverglate

That means that if you commit a crime, which ordinarily would be a state crime, and you use the telephone or you send a letter, it suddenly becomes federal.

That means that the limitation that the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution intended to keep the feds out of daily life and to give that jurisdiction to the state

has been completely thwarted.

Because I can't think of a case where somebody doesn't use a telephone in the course of planning, discussing something that's arguably criminal.

And so this limited authority of the federal government to bring charges in criminal cases is illusory.

Feds can indict a ham sandwich.

They can find a way.

And that allows them to terrorize people who are dissidents.

Everyday citizens representing... Twelve ordinary people have to agree unanimously in order to convict him.

Well, the Supreme Court is unfortunately fairly political.

And the current Supreme Court is overruling precedents, which it's really improper.

Precedents should not be overruled so easily.

it's about to overrule the affirmative action.

Now, I'm opposed to affirmative action.

I think I made that clear earlier in our discussion.

But still, it's a precedent, and it should be given some respect.

But in order to propagate a more conservative approach,

agenda, the court is treating precedent as if it doesn't have any role, and that's a huge mistake.

Some of the congressmen on the Democratic side are looking to enlarge the court in order to basically do what Franklin Roosevelt was not able to do, and that is change the court's philosophy

But I think that's very short-sighted because this is a long game.