same.So wouldn't a, a reform based on a, a racist accusation be unconstitutional considering what the Supreme Court recently ruled about, uh, everything from student admissions to all kinds of stuff as far as race is concerned? If they say, we need this reform because the current laws are affecting this group of people, uh, disproportionately, isn't that in itself racist?

You know, I don't think so because I, I think what they, what they come in, let's use the Harris County case as an example.

So when, when we do, 'cause I think we've got the political arguments, and I don't think the political arguments are intended as constitutional.

They're just, uh, political jargon, focus group, um, tried and tested, uh, uh, terms.

But in the federal case for Harris County, the argument was made that, um, the county had violated the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the federal constitution because when bail was set by a bail schedule, the defendant did not have an opportunity to say, "Hey, I can't afford that." And so, I mean, there was an easy fix for that.

You have, order them to have a hearing in that situation.

But the problem is the plaintiffs wanted everybody to be released, so they wanted a substantive remedy even though they had only identified a procedural issue.

If cashless bail and electronic monitoring are so dangerous to the communities that employ it, why do you think more people aren't speaking out about it?

Ken, please take a few moments to share some career highlights with our listeners.

Okay, well, first of all, I'm old as all get out.

I've been practicing law for over 35 years, so I'm 65 years old.

I'm probably a young 65, still active.

I started out practicing law representing doctors and hospitals when they got sued, but I always was very interested in doing appellate law.

And so in law school, I did appellate law and was on some national teams.

And so when I started practicing law, I continued practicing.

So what are your thoughts about that case, Ken?

But does Trump have a point here? Is this a way to show people in deep blue cities that the Republican law and order way can be effective?

Well, yes, I do.

Um, but I think it's worse than you're even suggesting.

I think in especially Chicago, they've-- you know, the city politicians have turned over parts of that city to the gangs.

I mean, the politicians don't run Chicago, the gangs do.

And you know that when they're getting ready for an election and the politicians and the press is reporting that the politicians are meeting with gangs to facilitate, you know, areas and how to vote and stuff like that.

It's like your city's not run by you.

And so if you took a state, and, and maybe you have a different state in mind, but I know you live in Texas, and they tend to be pretty good on crime, and, and I know it's more based on locality too, but if you could wave a magic wand and make any changes you wanted to a state that's already pretty good, what, what would you do to make the, the bail system just perfect?

Well, I don't know if he's physically out of jail yet today, but $120,000 bail doesn't sound like a lot of money for somebody who who was already on bail and committed a murder of some kind?

Well, you know, we have a fight going on in Texas between the Texas legislature and, you know, Harris County, really the commissioner's court, over who sets bail policy.

And that fight's been going on for two, three, four years.

And it's kind of come to a head.

And, you know, we have magistrates in Harris County that set most of the bail.

But we passed a bill in the last legislative session that says if you're a Chapter 54 magistrate, you can't magistrate certain offenses, including murder, manslaughter.

So, you know, the magistrate wouldn't be able to set that bond.

There was a group that was catching on.