The Daily Show: Ears Edition - Trump Ignores 60-Day Iran Deadline & King Charles Urges Congress to Do Its Job | Sherrilyn Ifill

Episode Date: May 5, 2026

As America’s situationship with Iran hits the 60-day War Powers Act deadline, Trump brazenly ignores Congress's authority while spouting nonsense about America's depleted weapons inventory, and Jon Stewart marvels at our "genius" president's faulty math and cognitive skills. Plus, a visit from a real monarch, King Charles, shines a light on the lack of checks and balances from America's absent Congress. Civil rights lawyer and founding director of Howard Law School's 14th Amendment Center for Law & Democracy, Sherrilyn Ifill, sits down with Jon to discuss the Supreme Court’s weakening of the Voting Rights Act. They talk about how the reinstatement for purposeful discrimination overturned the court’s own precedent, how the Voting Rights Act protects the voting strength of minorities and their candidates of choice, and the dangerous potential for Trump and Republicans to redistrict using this precedent in an effort to turn seats in the House. -- For up to 65% off your order, head to https://VeracityHealth.co and use code DAILY. To get simple, online access to personalized, affordable care for ED, Hair Loss, Weight Loss, and more, visit https://Hims.com/dailyshow -- The Daily Show airs weeknights at 11/10c on Comedy Central. Stream full episodes on Paramount+ Follow TDS: YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

You're listening to Comedy Central. From the most trusted journalists at Comedy Central is America's only source for new. This is The Daily Show with your host, John. I'm going to be joined by civil rights attorney. Sherilyn Eiffel is going to be joining us. I'm excited to judge it. We're going to break down all the MetGala looks. And if time permits the erosion of voting rights in America.

All right. I'm not at the Met Gala tonight. wasn't invited. My invite was rescinded in like 1997. But I didn't invite this here. Apparently my body is quote,

not compatible. As you get older, your body changes. You know what I don't look good in anymore? Is pictures, I think. Point is this. Ladies and gentlemen, obviously the big news continues to be our situation ship with Iran. Is it a war? Is it a ceasefire?

Are we friends with bomb fits? I don't know. Because as you know, Friday marked the expiration of the 60-day free trial period presidents get to do wars. After 60 days, the president must ask Congress who then decides, are we subscribing? Are we just going to use Israel's password?

It's going to be big news when Trump asks for official permission. Trump's signaling he will not seek official permission from Congress to extend the war with Iran. Whoa. To seek official permission, I was kind of under the impression that that's not his choice.

That it would be, I don't know, illegal. Then I remember Donald Trump doesn't give a fuck about legality or any accountability that may occur from said illegality. So much so that he felt confident confessing to said illegality in a speech in Florida on the day he was supposed to attain congressional approval.

What they call a military operation, you know, they don't like the word war, and they call it a military operation because that way you don't have a war, you don't have legal problems. You almost have to admire the brazenness of a president just casually explaining just the thing how to get around our pesky laws.

It's not a care in the world. It's like going up to a McDonald's cashier. Yeah, I'm going to get a cup of water. Well, I say water. It's because I don't like to use the word soda. If I say water, I get it for free. But to be clear, I will be drinking soda. But my plan is to use the word water

to avoid any what you call payment problems. Trump's plan only works if he has the discipline to maintain his assertion that we are, in fact, not in a war. You know, we're in a war. Get around being a war. We're in a war. He's just sitting there. He's like he's just looking to cashier in the eye, filling up his cup with soda. I'm just going to get a little mountain.

I don't know what the root beer one is. A little mountain dude. It's all purposeful. These are not mistakes. These are the machinations of genius. He'll tell you himself as he did this weekend. I'm the only president to take a cognitive test. You know, the first question is very,

easy. It's a lion, a giraffe, a bear, and a shark. They say which one is the bear? You're the only president to take the cognitive test. Let me ask you a question. Why do you think that is? That you're the only president that that happens to. That for some reason, every time you go to the doctor, which is a lot, the doctor's always like, hey, while you're here, If you could come over here and just explain very quickly, which one of these is the bad? But I interrupted. I interrupted. Let's hear more about this totally believable test you keep acing. They say take a number, any number, okay, I'll take 99, multiply times nine, okay, divided by three, good, add 4,293, that's good, divide by two, subtract 93, divide by nine, divide by nine, There aren't a lot of people that get it right.

I got it right. The answer was bare. No, Trump is a regular Stephen Hawking. That's what it is. Although I thought the only thing they had in common was being in the Epstein files. But I'm sorry, I apologize. Too soon?

Or should I say, listen, if Punch the monkey can handle it, the wild thing is, Trump seems to be almost getting smarter with age. Because this is how he handled math questions 20 years. years ago on the Howard Stern Show.

All right. I'm going to ask you a tough question. We're at School of Business. Yes. What's 17 times six? Come on. What is he in the calculators? See, that's not a practical.

96? Wrong. 94. Wrong. That's not a practical application, though. Ivanka, 17 times six. It's 11. It's 1112.

12. 12 isn't a real number. Two numbers just play side by side. Guess it's the 2000s equivalent. of six, seven. I apologize, I know you're a genius. Try again. 112.

112. It is 112? 112. Yeah. So that is a number, but it's still 102. But somehow, we're supposed to believe that 20 years later,

you've turned into a fucking genius. You've turned into a working-class janitor at MIT solving quadratics between mopping up. You know, I can't believe they ever gave. gave Trump the FIFA Math Prize. See, Trump is a special genius

that sees himself above all traditional presidential limitations. He's not bound by our petty checks and balances and separations of powers. He has ignored 31 lower court decisions, not including 250 more rulings in immigration cases. He's festooned the

people's house with trappings of a Versailles themed bar mitzvah. He has built a Kim Jong-un- -esque giant gold statue of himself at his Doral golf course. He's going to be on our f***ing

passports. Our passport. Whenever you go abroad, whenever you travel overseas, you're going to have to tell a customs officer, I don't know him. How out of control are Trump's royal ambitions so bad that last week, an actual

king, born of the lineage of kings we fought to establish our constitutional republic, had to come back here to remind us to wake the fuck up. I come here today with the highest respect for the United States Congress. This citadel of democracy

created to represent the voice of all American people to advance sacred rights and freedoms. Oh shit, no. What's the British word for cylinders? I don't know. Would you hurt them? And then Charles did us dirty with a list of all the heart.

fought constitutional principles we are squandering. The principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances. The rule of law, the certainty of stable and accessible rules, an independent judiciary, delivering impartial justice. Let our two countries rededicate ourselves. All right, all right. It was all very powerful until you hit the rededicate. The separation of powers, the.

We must rededicate. I'm going to stop you before you go full tootsie pop owl. Must you give a country before we get to the... He's just a boy. Standing in front of a Congress. Asking it to rededigate itself to the principles of constitutional checks and balances. But Congress won't. Congress won't do that because they...

Congress has completely abandoned any serious oversight of our military operation. They've still not passed a full budget. They've passed fewer laws than any Congress in the first. first year of a presidency. In our history, they haven't done anything. Well, that's not totally fair. We have another bird alert, and this time it involves something that happened on Capitol Hill. These birds were in the hot seat during a House hearing led by Idaho Republican Congressman Mike Simpson. The hearing was meant to highlight efforts to preserve these birds of prey. That's what it is intended for, but instead, it ended in tragedy.

Jumpling! Congresspeople still showing up for bird shows. are the best of them. Some of these people don't show up for anything. GOP New Jersey representative Tom Kane, Jr. hasn't voted since March 5th. Kane has missed more than 50 votes. Top GOP leaders are in the dark. It's a mystery in the Capitol building. Fox contacted multiple members of the House GOP leadership. None had any idea about Kane's whereabouts. One member of the Republican Brass told Fox that Kane's absence didn't worry them, quote, until you called. Hey, you know the saying around here?

That's just more birds for us, huh? Here's how little government even means to any of them. This is who was designated survivor, who would be tasked with rebuilding our nation if the worst had actually happened at that White House correspondence dinner. The person who would have theoretically taken over control of the United States government

as president of the United States if something would have happened to everybody in that room would have been, Senator Chuck Grassley, who is in his 90s. That was the designated survivor who will lead our country into the future. The guy who will lead our country into the future statistically doesn't have much of one. Like, actuarial tables-wise, he would not be expected to survive an uneventful evening. I'm sorry.

Too soon? If you're hoping that our judiciary will step up and be the guardrail, against Trump's kingly ambitions, watch a bunch of nominees for confirmation to our federal court system refuse to do so. Mr. Mark, if I might, just tell me about the 22nd Amendment. What does it provide? I haven't had an opportunity to use that on specifically.

It states no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice. Mr. Mark, is President Trump eligible to run for president again in 2028? Senator, without considering all the facts and looking at everything, depending on what the situation is, this to me strikes more of a hypothetical. Is he eligible to run for a third term

under our Constitution? I would have to review. Review. I mean, you can't have three. Do you really have to do the math on that? Person trying to be confirmed to the United States judicial system? Is the answer 1112? Is that what you're looking at?

It's, what do you have to review? It's not a trick. Anybody else brave enough to do? to say that the Constitution of the United States prevents President Trump from seeking a third term. Anybody willing to apply the Constitution by its plain language in the 22nd Amendment? Nobody.

All right, let's move on. Are you happy? It broke his heart. The Congress isn't coming to save us. The judiciary isn't coming to save us. The voters are being gerrymandered out of being able to save us. We've only got one last card to play.

Our beautiful fourth estate, democracy dies in darkness. So we look to the free press, the newsies, the ink-stained wretches, the masters of muck-rack, the clickety-clack brigade, tapas, rappers, wolf blitzers, titty twisters. On the news media to bring the tough questions that hold the politicians accountable. There was a reporting this thing that because of all the firepower required for epic jury, that there are people in the White House who are starting to worry about our inventory of bombs and missiles. Are you worried? It's a solid question.

The New York Times just discovered that since the war began, the United States has burnt through half its long-range missiles, plus 1,000 Tomahawk missiles, which is nearly 10 times more than we buy each year, plus thousands more of pretty much every other type of missile that we have. Experts are getting worried we're depleting our stockpiles. So, Mr. President, are we running out of weapons? No, no, we have more than we've ever had out of thing. Because all over the world we have in Italy, and we could take that if we needed it. Right now, we have more than double what we had when this started. That sounds like bullshit. Is it perhaps?

What you're saying is, in the beginning of the war, we had only this one ball. And then we spent a month using that ball. We used it to bomb every place in Iran we could think of. And now, at the end of that time, we find ourselves. One ball, and we use the ball to bomb Iran, and now apparently we have... Now, very clearly, this makes no f***ing sense. It's nonsensical, on its face.

And the reporters have all the specific reporting to back that up. The follow-ups to this nonsense are going to be brutal. The G7 is in France, in June. Will you go to it? Probably. Question should just be this. What the f*** did you say?

That didn't make any sense. The G7 is a month from now. It'll be on his... schedule. Follow up on the fucking missile thing. You still support a pardon for Pete Rose, sir. Oh, I think Pete Rose was great. Oh, I get it. You're prepping him with nonsense

to lower his defenses before you come into hard facts about a war. He's clearly bullshitting about. Go. You're going to be hosting the first ever UFC fight at the White House in 45 days, sir. Can you preview the event? Can you talk about the card and what the thing? We're so f***. And by the way, What is the point of having to shout your questions if you're not going to listen to the answers?

We need you to help us litigate the boundaries of our reality, not move on to Pete Friking Rose. Can someone from the foreign press jump in? I love you, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Well, they give Chef Boyardee credentials? Mr. President, Italy has a question for you. By the way, that reporter is not actually Italian. He's Kurdish, but this was the only accent we felt we could safely do it.

I genuinely don't understand what this country is becoming. When every one of our institutions are failing us, is there any hope for the liberal democracy that has inspired the world for these past 250 years? Is there anyone who can recall the lessons of our American Revolution and inspire this nation to return to its founding principles in this, our 250, 50th year. Let our two countries rededicate us. If the strongest defender of American democracy is the king of England, we are really f***. When we come back, Cheryl and I will be here. Don't go away. Social media is currently

filled with influencers promoting the importance of protein, but many of the products being sold are packed with hidden sugars and unnecessary toxins. Finding a protein source that is both effective and clean is essential for long-term health. Veracity's metabolic power protein, solved the problem. Founded by Ali Egan, a certified hormonal health coach, the brand was built on the mission of achieving optimal health through holistic scientifically legit solutions. This plant-based protein is third-party tested for heavy metals and toxins, ensuring the body gets the fuel it needs without any of the baggage found in lower quality supplements. With 20 grams of protein per serving and a delicious vanilla cinnamon flavor, it is designed to satisfy

cravings and support a healthy metabolism naturally. By utilizing the ingredient, myovara, veracity helps the body process protein more efficiently, aiding in appetite control and consistent energy levels throughout the day. So get the protein in your diet you need and satisfy your cravings the natural way with Veracity. Head to VeracityHealth.co and use Code Daily for up to 65% off your order. Once again, that's V-E-R-A-C-I-T-Y health. For up to 65% off and make sure you use my promo code daily so they know I sent you.

When it comes to sexual health, receiving care from licensed professionals is essential. HIMS connects users with healthcare providers online, offering simple access to legitimate erectile dysfunction treatment options without the need for traditional, often awkward, visit. The HIMS experience begins with a simple online intake. A medical provider then reviews the information to determine if treatment is right for the user. It is a clinical approach designed for the modern world, discrete professional, and 100% online. If treatment is prescribed, it is shipped directly to the door. HIMS offers a variety of options, including sildanafil, also known as generic for Viagra, as well as other alternatives to ensure the care is personalized to individual

health goals and physical needs. To get simple online access for personalized affordable care for erectile dysfunction, hair loss, weight loss, and more. Visit Hymns.com slash daily show. That's Hymns.com slash daily show for your free online visit. Hems.com slash daily show. Prescription required. See website for details and important safety information. Sildenafil is a generic version of Viagra. Viagra is a registered trademark of Vietra's

Specialty LLC. Hymns is not affiliated with or endorsed by Vietris. My guest tonight is a renowned civil rights lawyer and founding director of Howard Law School's 14th Amendment Center for Law and Democracy. Please welcome to the program. Cheryl and Eiffel. How much for joining us.

Thank you for having. I would imagine that your expertise, is quite in demand right now. Yes, sadly. Sadly. Explain very quickly, if you could, what has happened to what we call the Voting Rights Act in this most recent Supreme Court decision.

Yeah, last week the Supreme Court issued a decision in a case called Louisiana v. Calais that essentially removed the remaining power from a key section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And in so doing, they kind of rendered the act a nullity. They had already given the act a body blow in 2013 in a case called Shelby County versus Holder. And when they issued that decision, Chief Justice Roberts said, yes, but you still have another part of the Voting Rights Act that's really strong. And you can use that.

It's Section 2. It's Nationwide. And then 13- He had that in his decision. He said that in 2013. You're okay. You're okay because you've still got Section 2. The section that he took out was Section 5. Yes. And then last week, they took Section 2.

And did he then go, look, Section 1, you're still okay? No, he did not. No, he did not. So what did the removal of Section 5 do? So let's take a step back. Historically, representation for African Americans was specifically excluded. They were excluded from voting, maybe not by a specific law, but by poll taxes or other things after Reconstruction. And we let that go for 80 years.

Yeah. After 80 years, they passed the Voting Rights Act to ensure that representation would be that people's voices would be heard in those communities. Yeah. And what was the result of that act? Yeah. So just one edit to that is that, you know, after the Civil War, there was an effort to ensure that black people could vote.

And that was through the three amendments that were passed to our Constitution after the Civil War. One ending slavery, the 14th Amendment, birthright citizenship, and equal protection of laws. And then the 15th Amendment said, you cannot prevent someone from voting based on race or color or previous condition of servitude. So that was supposed to mean black people could vote. And for a while, black people could vote in the South. I mean, we had eight members of Congress elected during that reconstruction period, two United States senators. Then what you had at the turn of the century was all of these states making new constitutions and coming up with the kinds of laws that you described, poll taxes, literacy tests,

grandfather clauses. If your grandfather could vote in 1850, then you could vote. That's where grandfather clauses were? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So they came up with all these tactics to keep black people from voting, and of course it was overall enforced by just mob violence, the violence of the clan that really controlled so many. And never explicitly said, they never explicitly said that.

This was all done as a way to circumvent what the freedom meant, what those amendments to the Constitution meant. No, and when black people tried to challenge it, like in 1911 in a case called Giles v. Harris, where a black man said, Alabama won't let me register to vote. I meet all the criteria. I should be able to register. Right. The Supreme Court of the United States in a decision by the esteemed jurist Oliver Wendell-Hum.

said, there's really nothing we can do about it. Because if we tell Alabama that they have to register you to vote, they're not going to do it anyway. The Supreme Court was going, we could do what's right. And yet. So that meant that black people, and remember, a majority of black people lived in the South.

A majority of black people still live in the South, right? And so, yes, there were communities in the North where black people could exercise the right to vote, but most black people could exercise the right to vote, could not vote until the civil rights movement pushed for voting rights. And that culminated in that march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge and the brutality of Alabama state troopers,

and then months later, the signing of the Voting Rights Act. And the Voting Rights Act of 1965 completely changed the game. When that act was finally passed by Congress, there were only 72 black elected officials in the entire United States, in the entire United States. You're not talking about just Senate House representatives. No, no, no. You're literally talking about state houses anywhere.

72. In the whole country. There you go. And then, and then, of course, it started to do its work. And so by 1980, right before the Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act, we were up to about 1,500. And then Congress amended the Voting Rights Act in 1982 to change the test used for establishing discrimination under Section 2. and after that passed. What was the test that they used?

What was the test prior to that? What was the test after that? Sure, sure, sure. So we had thought that the test was that if you showed that a particular practice used by a state resulted in black people not being able to elect their candidates of choice, it violated the Voting Rights Act. Then the Supreme Court in 1980 in a decision called Mobile v. Bolden said, no, no, no, no, no. the test has to be that you have to show that the jurisdiction was intentionally racist, like intended, yes. So the guy would literally have to come up and go, yeah, no, we're just trying

to be racist. Yeah, and of course. Even though they didn't do that in reconstruction. Listen, they never did that. Well, there are a few cases where there's some interesting hearings that took place in state houses where they said some things. But that certainly was not the norm by 1980, right, right, which is why the effects test was so important. So the Supreme Court says, no, it has to be intentional discrimination. And Congress comes back and says in 1982, no, we meant you can just show that the effects of the decision produced this result.

And these are the amendments to the Voting Rights Act in 1982. You know who really was opposed to those amendments in 1982? I'm going to say Oliver Wendell Holmes. No. Who? A very bright young lawyer who worked in the Department of Justice, first as a special aid to, it's not going well. Yeah, as a special aid to the Attorney General,

and then to the solicitor. General and he was the point person on trying to convince Congress not to pass these amendments that would address the Supreme Court's decision in Mobile versus Bolden. And that young attorney's name was John Roberts. So this has been something he's been on for some time now. He's a patient man. He's a patient man. Yes.

So in terms of Section 5, Section 5, is that the section where they said in these certain areas where there were racial exclusions and laws that explicitly did that, you would have to, before you made a change to the way that you counted these votes, appeal to the United States Congress. Not to the Congress. Not to the Congress. But section, so there's two big sections of the voting rights app. What we were just talking about was Section 2.

Okay. Section 5, the one that was essentially gutted in 2013, has been often called the most successful provision of any civil rights statute. because it is the only one that allows you to get at the discrimination before it actually comes into law and happens. Okay. So for a number of jurisdictions that had a history of voting discrimination, if they wanted to make a change to some voting procedure, if they wanted to eliminate an office, if they wanted to reduce the number of members,

if they wanted to redistrict, they had to first get permission, or we called it preclearance, from a federal authority, either the Attorney General or a federal district court in the District of Columbia. And that's the system that we worked with for many, many years until 2013. And so that was from 1965 to 2013. That's what happened. In 2006, the United States Congress overwhelmingly, in a bipartisan basis, 396 to 33 in the House, 58 to 0 in the Senate, reauthorized that provision of Section 5. But in 2013, John Roberts said, no, no, no.

This is a stain on the South. We are punishing the South, and things have changed. We don't need to have this preclearance provision anymore. What are the metrics for how he decided things have changed? Because I would assume those metrics are the result of Section 5. Yeah, it's so interesting. Is it literally as bad as Section 5 has worked so well? Let's remove Section 5.

That's what the late, great Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. She said that eliminating Section 5 now is like using an umbrella and it keeps you dry. And then you say, well, let me throw away the umbrella because I'm dry, even though it's raining outside. So that's what happened. So that was now gone. Now we didn't have preclearance. And you all may have noticed in the last 10 years, this explosion of voter ID laws and voter suppression laws, that came as a result of 2013. Because they don't have to get preclearance.

Although, to be fair, if you were trying to get preclearance from this administration, I would imagine they would just go, you're pre-clared. You know, it's so funny because I started out as a civil rights lawyer in when Bush was president. And so the Attorney General was, you know, Bush HW or-W. Okay.

And so the Attorney General was a Republican. I remember the Solicitor General was Ken Starr. And I remember when the first Section 2 case I ever filed went to the Supreme Court, Houston Lawyers Association versus Texas, the Justice Department was on our side. I mean, our co-counsel was Ken Starr. So even Republican administrations in the past, old school Republican, used to still try at least and enforce the Voting Rights Act. I absolutely agree with you that this Department of Justice would never do that. But nevertheless, that was the law.

So we lost that in 2013. So all we had was Section 2, which gives people like me and other civil rights lawyers the ability to sue when a law has clearly had the effect. So post. One was preclearance. Now you have a post appeal. Yes. But now they have decided, essentially what the Supreme Court did, and I think this is really important because it gives you a sense of the kind of power they're exercising these days. What they did was overturn the amendments to Section 2 that Congress had passed in 1982. Now, they didn't say that that's what they're doing. But they're saying we now need to return to intentional discrimination. That no... You have to be able to prove it in the way that you had to before the amendment that Congress had made. And I should point out something else. After Congress amended

the Section 2 in 1982, of course it was challenged and it went up to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court upheld it in Thornburg v. Jingles in 1986. Right. So that means... Thorneberg versus Jingles? Really? Or as Justice Alito likes to say, gingles. It's actually jingles, though. But the point, the point... Sounds like a dog sued the Supreme Court.

The point is... The point is that they over... overturned not only Congress's amendment, but they also overturned their own precedent, Thornburg versus Jingles. And in the decision, Justice Alito, who wrote the decision, explicitly says, we are not overturning the effects test. We are not overturning Thornburg versus Jingles, even though that's what they're doing. But that's the tell. The tell is that they know how outrageous it would be for them to decide to rewrite a congressional statute. So when this was done, when the Voting Rights Act was first passed, through Congress, I would imagine they took great pains to say,

but this isn't quotas. We're not advocating quotas. We're not advocating just creating districts so that black people can elect black people. They must have said that. A few times. They absolutely did. I mean, it's really important. I mean, they certainly said it very explicitly in the 1982 amendment

because that bright young lawyer, John Roberts, insisted that this was quotas. And so they made it clear that nothing in this provision requires proportional representation. And remember the test is always whether or not the system allows black voters to elect their candidate of choice. It is not, the focus is not on black elected officials. The focus is on black voters. So they're saying if you distill the percentage of black voters and put them into other districts so that their votes cannot be decisive. That's right. That would be considered.

That's right. But they have said that what this actually is is DEI or quotas. Would that be what their argument is? That sounds absolutely correct. That is what they would say. And if you remember, the whole point of the Voting Rights Act is to protect the voting strength of minorities who have been discriminated against and to protect the voting rights of minorities whose candidates of choice are most often not supported by the white men.

majority. You have to prove that in a case, by the way. Whether that candidate is... This is not vibes. Memphis is represented by a Jewish guy, but it's a majority of... Right. It's not vibes. You actually, in the litigation, you have to show that there's racially polarized voting, that white voters don't support the candidate of choice of black voters. You have to do all of that stuff. You can do the math on these stuff. But you can do it. Like, it's a real test that is pretty rigorous.

And so what we're faced with now is just the removal of that as a measure. And so how do we ensure we protect minorities? It brings up this sort of larger point that you see here, which is how is a society expected to ameliorate the damage done by specifically racist laws, which we have had low these, you know, many years? Is the idea now that to try and address that is in itself racist, that it's literally he who smelt it dealt it, racism? Is that what we're dealing with? I hate that that's what it is, but that is what it is. It's literally, if you try, so basically what they said, you could prove that a district had this discriminatory effect. But if you try to repair it, if you try to remedy it by creating a district that creates an opportunity for black voters to be able to elect their representative of choice, that makes you the racist.

But isn't the high concentration of voters of color in itself the result of politics? that were explicitly racist. Well, the only way you can actually make majority black voting districts is because of segregation. That's my point. Do you have another show for that? They wouldn't live in the density of the areas they live in, if not for the exclusively racist housing policies and other things.

Absolutely. So it's not like, you know, black people are all coming together and saying, let's come together and form a district. We are the most segregated, you know, country that we have ever been. And that's the reason why you can create those districts. But now what the court is allowing is any state can decide they're going to redistrict. And not just a state. It could be judicial districts.

It could be county commissions. It could be city council districts. And they can offer any excuse. This court even explicitly said incumbent protection. So if you want to make sure that, let's say, Mike Johnson in Shreveport, the current speaker of the house, keeps his district, that's a good enough reason to undermine the ability of black people. You can be partisan. You can care about incumbents. You can care about...

So what if they just said? You can't do that because, oh, because it's a red state. So a red state is allowed to go in and go, it's okay for me to dissolve democratic power, just not black power. And if black power is synonymous with democratic power, so be it. That is, that's pretty much the majority opinion. Let me ask you a question. Why, in God's name, is partisan gerrymandering allowed? That seems to be the root of the evil.

Well, that is allowed because in 2018, the Supreme... Oh, for God's sakes. If this is Mr. Jingles again, I am going to be very upset. No, no, no. In a case called Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court said... This case is so interesting because it was brought by Democrats challenging redistricting in North Carolina and Republicans challenging redistricting in Maryland. So these two cases come together and end up at the Supreme Court, bipartisan, great opportunity to address the way in which extreme partisan gerrymandering undermines our democratic system.

Right. Taxation without representation. Yeah. And the Supreme Court said it really looks like it threatens our democratic norms. But there's nothing we can do about it. We are just mere judges. We are judges who can decide that abortion is not a fundamental right. We can decide that major questions have to be decided by us. We can overturn citizens. We can do Citizens United. We can do all the things, but we can't do this. And so that was 2018.

And so that's the reason that President Trump could call up the governor of Texas and say, we need five more seats, right? If that were illegal, that should be illegal to any sentient person, right, that you just call up and get as many districts as you want. But he could do that because, In 2018, the Supreme Court said partisan redistricting is just something we can't, partisan gerrymandering is something we can't address. It's so phenomenal because it means that our democratic institutions are the architects

of our democratic demise. That is correct. Stunning. It's stunning. Please, please tell me. Oh, and I made you, I've made you sigh. I don't want to make you sigh. Oh.

Please tell me that there is a remediation on the horizon or something along the lines that this fight continues. Well, John, I just refuse to pretend that this is not as serious as it is. And I think there is a pathway forward, but that pathway has many obstacles in front of it, and we have to meet those obstacles. First of all, we all have to overwhelmingly vote in the midterm elections because there has to be a change. There has to be a change in Congress. The Hungary strategy is really the only thing. You have to vote in such numbers that it overwhelms the tilted time. Well, but there's one more piece to it, John.

Please. And because you've heard everything that I've said, and so you understand that even... But only retained about 20%. A lot of the names. I need you in my class. So, but, you know, as you know, as we just discussed, this Supreme Court is prepared to overrule congressional statutes. Right.

So we need Congress to be prepared to... to certainly pass some statutes that will protect voting rights and that will deal with partisan gerrymandering. But we also need a Supreme Court that is committed to maintaining democracy in this country. And that means there has to be Supreme Court reform also. Right. And those are, by the way, both and I so appreciate the seriousness of the matter in which you speak because those are certainly tall orders in a dysfunctional system. Absolutely.

As it is certainly constituted now. But we don't have any choice but to fight and we got to get very serious. about it. I so appreciate you coming by and explaining this and thank you for enlightening us in all measure of it. Ladies and gentlemen, please check out also Cheryl's newsletter. It's on substack. Cheryl and Eiffel. Quick break. We'll be right back after this week. For the rest of this week, Desi Liding. What do you got for the people for the rest of the week? Well, John, the Kentucky Derby was over the weekend and as it turns out, her story was made. That's right. Or should I say

Horse stories. I don't know what you're talking about. Trainer, Sheree DeVoe won the Kentucky Derby. Made Derby his derby. Thank you. I did not realize you were so into horse racing. Oh, you know me. I'm a real she biscuit. So you go to the track?

Oh, God, no. Not since I lost a shit ton of money. Let's just say that the mob is aft her me. Stay safe. Desi Lydic, everybody. Here is the moment of death. And his resume just keeps on getting bigger. Secretary of State and current National Security Advisor, Marker Rubio, clocking in for a shift as a wedding DJ over the weekend.

White House Chief of Staff Dan Skivino sharing the video on X, writing in part quote, our great Secretary of State DJ's weddings too. Explore more shows from the Daily Show podcast universe by searching The Daily Show, wherever you get your podcasts. Watch the Daily Show. Weeknights at 11, 10 Central on Comedy Central, and stream full episodes anytime on Paramount Plus. This has been a Comedy Central podcast.