WEBVTT - Omicron Variant Grips Markets 0:00:01.800 --> 0:00:04.440 This is Bloomberg Business Week. I'm Carol Masser and I'm 0:00:04.480 --> 0:00:07.280 Bloomberg Quick Takes Tim Stanovik. We're here every day bringing 0:00:07.320 --> 0:00:09.799 you the latest news from the world to business and finance, 0:00:09.840 --> 0:00:13.680 plus technology, politics, economics, all partnising the power of Business 0:00:13.680 --> 0:00:17.160 Week reporters and editors, not to mention our journalists and 0:00:17.160 --> 0:00:20.000 analysts in more than one twenty countries. You can download 0:00:20.000 --> 0:00:23.239 Bloomberg Business Week and iTunes, SoundCloud, or Bloomberg dot Com. 0:00:23.440 --> 0:00:25.160 You can also listen to our radio show at two 0:00:25.200 --> 0:00:27.880 pm Eastern Time on Bloomberg Radio or watch us on 0:00:27.920 --> 0:00:34.080 YouTube search Bloomberg Global News. So back. Among our most 0:00:34.080 --> 0:00:37.440 read stories is what's going on with COVID again? And 0:00:37.520 --> 0:00:39.440 this new variant will give you a few headlines. The 0:00:39.440 --> 0:00:41.920 doctor who alerted the government scientists to the possibility of 0:00:41.960 --> 0:00:45.360 a new variant said people infected with omikroner showing milder 0:00:45.400 --> 0:00:48.400 symptoms and those suffering that delta strain government across the globes. 0:00:48.400 --> 0:00:50.560 There they're stepping up restrictions on travel. As the World 0:00:50.600 --> 0:00:52.920 Health Organization warned that this new variant of the virus 0:00:52.920 --> 0:00:55.680 Carol could fuel a fresh surge in infections. Right, so 0:00:55.720 --> 0:00:57.640 we saw so much concern on Friday, so the market 0:00:57.680 --> 0:01:00.160 sell off. You see the bounce back today, so uster 0:01:00.240 --> 0:01:02.360 seemed to be calming down as we seem to be 0:01:03.040 --> 0:01:06.119 feeling like maybe this is manageable, this latest variant. But again, 0:01:06.120 --> 0:01:08.200 as we've mentioned earlier, still a lot to be known. Well, 0:01:08.240 --> 0:01:10.600 let's get into it with Dr Rhonda Meadows, president of 0:01:10.840 --> 0:01:14.040 Population Health Providence Health System, joining us on the phone 0:01:14.080 --> 0:01:18.080 from Rent in Washington. We should remind everyone that if 0:01:18.080 --> 0:01:20.320 we think back to about two years ago, the first 0:01:20.360 --> 0:01:22.880 case of COVID nineteen, it was confirmed in Washington State 0:01:23.080 --> 0:01:25.880 at Providence Regional Medical Center that was an Everett, Washington 0:01:25.959 --> 0:01:28.880 back in January of Dr Meadows, it's great to have 0:01:28.920 --> 0:01:31.640 you on the program. Thanks for joining us. Well, thank 0:01:31.680 --> 0:01:33.920 you for inviting me back. So it's so interesting because 0:01:33.920 --> 0:01:36.000 if we're doing this on on Friday, I think the 0:01:36.000 --> 0:01:38.000 market would be telling us that it's very concerned about 0:01:38.000 --> 0:01:39.920 this new variant. But the market telling us today that 0:01:39.959 --> 0:01:42.759 it's not concerned about the new variant. That's what investors 0:01:43.040 --> 0:01:45.640 are showing us. As a doctor, what are you thinking, 0:01:46.880 --> 0:01:48.680 I'm going to have to agree with them. I like 0:01:48.760 --> 0:01:51.200 what you were saying earlier on your show. We actually 0:01:51.240 --> 0:01:54.280 have seen this this movie before. We actually have some 0:01:54.360 --> 0:01:56.960 best practices and things that we can do. Um So 0:01:57.120 --> 0:02:00.600 panic is not the strategy, right Being in warmed is 0:02:00.640 --> 0:02:03.400 how you make your plan. I would agree with them. 0:02:03.440 --> 0:02:05.840 I think once we realize what we were seeing and 0:02:05.880 --> 0:02:09.079 what we don't know yet, then people said, okay, wait 0:02:09.040 --> 0:02:11.240 about it, let's just cool their jets for a second 0:02:11.280 --> 0:02:14.680 and see this thing through. It is a reminder, right though, 0:02:15.040 --> 0:02:19.519 um dr meadows though that we are constantly kind of 0:02:19.600 --> 0:02:23.399 racing against time and if we don't get any kind 0:02:23.400 --> 0:02:28.400 of full immunity in terms of our society on a 0:02:28.440 --> 0:02:33.600 global level, we are ultimately going to be at risk 0:02:33.800 --> 0:02:38.160 of a variant coming out that's going to be more problematic. 0:02:39.360 --> 0:02:41.400 I think you are correct, and so this is what 0:02:41.520 --> 0:02:44.000 viruses do. This is what they lived to do. They 0:02:44.160 --> 0:02:46.960 mutate to try to find some way to propagate themselves. 0:02:47.320 --> 0:02:50.280 As long as there are pockets of people who are unvaccinated, 0:02:50.800 --> 0:02:53.280 and we can now see it's not just in your 0:02:53.320 --> 0:02:57.400 local neighborhood, it's globally. So you are right. As long 0:02:57.440 --> 0:03:01.120 as there are people locally, regionally, nash Sly and globally 0:03:01.120 --> 0:03:04.639 who are unvaccinated, that is a prime place for more 0:03:04.720 --> 0:03:09.000 mutations to occur, and at some point um those mutations 0:03:09.000 --> 0:03:12.120 may actually result in the more severe disease. Right now, 0:03:12.160 --> 0:03:14.120 we don't know that that's the case. We definitely know 0:03:14.200 --> 0:03:16.280 this is a variant with lots of mutation that is 0:03:16.280 --> 0:03:20.640 spreading faster. Is it excuse me for cutting you off? 0:03:20.680 --> 0:03:22.360 We only have about three minutes left and we have 0:03:22.440 --> 0:03:24.519 so much to get to I is is there a 0:03:24.639 --> 0:03:29.960 chance Dr Meadows that we perhaps could see this variant 0:03:30.000 --> 0:03:32.200 overtake all the other variants and it be a less 0:03:32.240 --> 0:03:35.200 mild form of the infection. So essentially the winning the 0:03:35.200 --> 0:03:38.360 winning variant in terms of nature is one that isn't 0:03:38.360 --> 0:03:42.360 as dangerous to the population. Yes. And the reason I 0:03:42.400 --> 0:03:45.520 say that is a more virulent or more severe variant 0:03:45.520 --> 0:03:49.720 basically would kill off the coast um, die out right 0:03:49.800 --> 0:03:53.160 and ultimately die out right. So what we want to 0:03:53.200 --> 0:03:54.920 do is actually, if we're going to have something that's 0:03:54.960 --> 0:03:56.680 going to be downb that let it be the milder version, 0:03:56.680 --> 0:03:58.160 and let it be a milder version that we can 0:03:58.200 --> 0:04:01.160 use the vaccine against. Yeah, that actually help in creating 0:04:01.320 --> 0:04:06.320 a much broader immunity across the globe. Potentially, this is 0:04:06.360 --> 0:04:09.240 what having more mutation. No no, no, no, no, having 0:04:09.400 --> 0:04:14.640 having this latest variant that is uh not as severe, 0:04:14.920 --> 0:04:20.680 but perhaps maybe you know, spreads more easily. I don't 0:04:20.680 --> 0:04:22.080 know if that's a that's a way to kind of 0:04:22.120 --> 0:04:24.480 think about it. I think it's probably more important that 0:04:24.640 --> 0:04:28.520 the vaccines themselves actually be modified in any way that 0:04:28.560 --> 0:04:30.560 they need to be to make sure that we're doing 0:04:30.600 --> 0:04:33.039 the best immunity, and then the vaccines actually get into 0:04:33.080 --> 0:04:36.080 the arms of people who are unvaccinated or who are 0:04:36.200 --> 0:04:38.800 under vaccinated. That's probably more the way we should think 0:04:38.800 --> 0:04:41.120 about it, rather than counting or trying to figure out 0:04:41.160 --> 0:04:43.919 what a virus is going to do. How should we 0:04:43.920 --> 0:04:46.640 think about yeah, no, no, no, I get I get it. 0:04:46.680 --> 0:04:48.680 I totally get it. I just I look at society 0:04:48.760 --> 0:04:52.440 where getting a vaccine has become so political and people 0:04:52.480 --> 0:04:55.080 pushing back. So I'm thinking, Okay, in the face of 0:04:55.200 --> 0:04:57.760 maybe people not stepping up and getting the vaccine, how 0:04:57.800 --> 0:04:59.400 do we get to a better place? And I think, 0:04:59.400 --> 0:05:02.320 all right, is it just that we get a less 0:05:02.320 --> 0:05:05.479 severe case of COVID that goes around a variant that 0:05:05.640 --> 0:05:09.360 just infects more people and that they just develop immunity 0:05:09.440 --> 0:05:12.919 that way? I think that there are too many mutations 0:05:13.000 --> 0:05:15.839 variations that are going with this virus. Anyway, we can't 0:05:15.839 --> 0:05:17.440 count on that. You have to take care of the 0:05:17.480 --> 0:05:20.640 thing that we can control, which is those vaccines and 0:05:20.720 --> 0:05:22.400 um and you know as well as idea that the 0:05:22.480 --> 0:05:28.159 virus does not care about our politics, that is so true. Yeah. Well, 0:05:28.240 --> 0:05:30.120 Carol brings up a really good point because I tweeted 0:05:30.120 --> 0:05:32.240 about getting a booster last week and I got some 0:05:32.279 --> 0:05:34.599 pushback on Twitter from somebody who listens to this show 0:05:34.600 --> 0:05:37.160 a lot, and he said, he asked if I got 0:05:37.160 --> 0:05:39.880 tested for antibodies before I did the booster. No, I didn't. 0:05:39.880 --> 0:05:42.400 I got the booster because the CDC recommended it. Uh. 0:05:42.440 --> 0:05:45.160 And he made the point that if we get boosters 0:05:45.200 --> 0:05:47.520 in this country, when not every not the entire world 0:05:47.640 --> 0:05:51.280 is vaccinated, we're pulling vaccine away from people who haven't 0:05:51.279 --> 0:05:53.400 gotten it yet. And that's a criticism that I've heard 0:05:53.960 --> 0:05:56.240 leveled a lot in developed countries. What do you make 0:05:56.279 --> 0:05:58.680 of that, doctor Meadows? So I'm going to tell you 0:05:58.720 --> 0:06:00.280 that I don't know that it's neither or I think 0:06:00.320 --> 0:06:03.240 we can still actually get vaccine and give it to 0:06:03.320 --> 0:06:06.000 people in other countries that don't have it. Now. I 0:06:06.040 --> 0:06:07.720 think we can do that and I think we can 0:06:07.760 --> 0:06:11.560 also provide boosters for people, particularly people fifty enough or 0:06:11.600 --> 0:06:14.360 people eighteen enough, who have underlying conditions that would make 0:06:14.360 --> 0:06:16.600 them more at risk. I don't think this an either 0:06:16.680 --> 0:06:18.479 on old decision. I think what there has to be 0:06:18.600 --> 0:06:23.520 is the will to actually get vaccine doses to poorer nations, right. 0:06:23.800 --> 0:06:26.240 I think that's the question, not whether that we can 0:06:26.279 --> 0:06:28.120 produce a book. Can we will we give it to 0:06:28.279 --> 0:06:30.280 them so they can go ahead and use it. Right. 0:06:30.279 --> 0:06:32.680 We're getting some pushback already from some nations are saying 0:06:32.680 --> 0:06:34.960 stop sending them. We we have so many at this point, 0:06:35.120 --> 0:06:37.400 Dr Meadows, just very quickly twenty seconds. Are you guys 0:06:37.440 --> 0:06:40.200 expecting some kind of surge in your system through the 0:06:40.240 --> 0:06:43.360 colder months? Just quickly. We we are preparing as if 0:06:43.400 --> 0:06:46.200 it's coming, no matter what, whether it's felter or whether 0:06:46.279 --> 0:06:49.359 it's omicron, or whether it's something new, We are prepared 0:06:49.760 --> 0:06:52.840 to address any search. Okay, well, we wish you well, 0:06:53.120 --> 0:06:56.280 uh in a safe and healthy holiday season. Be well. 0:06:56.520 --> 0:06:59.200 Doctor ROHNDE. Meadow is President of Population Health over Providence 0:06:59.200 --> 0:07:01.840 Health System. On the phone from Washington. This is Bloomberg, 0:07:03.279 --> 0:07:05.800 so among our most read on the terminal has to 0:07:05.800 --> 0:07:07.880 do with Twitter. This headline crossing were like, all right, 0:07:07.920 --> 0:07:09.800 we gotta find out what's going on. In fact, Twitter 0:07:09.880 --> 0:07:13.000 shares they were up eleven percent early on in the 0:07:13.080 --> 0:07:16.480 trade on this news of Jack Dorsey no longer CEO. 0:07:16.720 --> 0:07:19.320 Ten there down about two. Let's bring in Mandy Saying, 0:07:19.400 --> 0:07:22.600 senior tech industry analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence. He joins us 0:07:22.600 --> 0:07:24.840 on the phone from New York City. Mandy helped us 0:07:24.880 --> 0:07:27.280 understand what's going on here. Jack Dorsey had been at 0:07:27.280 --> 0:07:32.080 the helm since June one of twenty fifteen, at least 0:07:32.080 --> 0:07:34.600 in this iteration is CEO. First he was interim CEO 0:07:35.160 --> 0:07:38.480 and then he became full time CEO again. Um, and 0:07:38.520 --> 0:07:41.120 since then the stock is just underperformed it's peers and 0:07:41.160 --> 0:07:43.640 the benchmarks in a in a massive way. Help us 0:07:43.640 --> 0:07:45.920 make sense of Twitter's moves today though with this announcement, 0:07:47.120 --> 0:07:51.080 yeah so again. I think Twitter has been a story 0:07:51.400 --> 0:07:56.160 of continued under performance when it comes to execution on 0:07:56.200 --> 0:07:59.760 the ad side, and part of that has to do with, 0:08:00.080 --> 0:08:04.000 you know, them not being able to add more advertisers 0:08:04.040 --> 0:08:08.800 to develop a robust at platform. And I think what 0:08:09.000 --> 0:08:13.120 happened today was initially investors thought that they would bring 0:08:13.200 --> 0:08:17.440 in somebody from outside. The CEO search was more comprehensive 0:08:17.480 --> 0:08:20.280 in the sense, uh you know, they went about it 0:08:20.360 --> 0:08:25.400 objectively and they found the best candidate. Well, after two hours, 0:08:25.400 --> 0:08:27.960 we learned they picked up the CTO to be the 0:08:28.000 --> 0:08:31.960 next CEO, which I think, I mean, the way investors 0:08:31.960 --> 0:08:34.600 are looking at it is it will more or less 0:08:34.640 --> 0:08:39.400 be a continuation of the existing strategy. Granted, this guy 0:08:39.559 --> 0:08:42.840 has you know, credentials in terms of being a product guy. 0:08:43.360 --> 0:08:46.960 He can definitely improve on that ad platform that I 0:08:47.040 --> 0:08:49.719 mentioned before. But at the end of the day, when 0:08:49.760 --> 0:08:52.880 you look at these companies targets which they gave at 0:08:52.880 --> 0:08:56.120 the banning of the year, you know, user growth, it 0:08:56.160 --> 0:08:59.280 will be hard because they're not bringing in somebody new, 0:08:59.559 --> 0:09:03.560 and you know, I think investors are interpreting it as 0:09:04.120 --> 0:09:08.640 that those targets won't be met targets and that's why 0:09:08.679 --> 0:09:11.040 you're seeing this kind of historic reaction. But what does 0:09:11.040 --> 0:09:14.960 it mean when they bring in um Manti the CTO. 0:09:16.080 --> 0:09:20.640 Is it does it say something about changes to come 0:09:20.760 --> 0:09:23.080 On a tech level. I was trying to think, you know, 0:09:23.200 --> 0:09:25.520 is there another tech company out there that brought in 0:09:25.559 --> 0:09:28.440 their CTO and it was a game changer? Maybe in 0:09:28.480 --> 0:09:31.000 a good way or was disastrous. You can think of 0:09:31.559 --> 0:09:34.360 You can think about Microsoft, you know, bringing in such 0:09:34.440 --> 0:09:38.360 a leading the cloud division to be the CEO of 0:09:38.400 --> 0:09:41.480 the company. He was an internal candidate and guess what, 0:09:41.640 --> 0:09:44.920 he did a phenomenal job in terms of the vision 0:09:45.040 --> 0:09:48.840 and execution that the company showed after he took over. 0:09:49.040 --> 0:09:53.360 So I think there is merit to bringing a product guy, 0:09:53.400 --> 0:09:56.480 and you know, a tech focused guy to fix all 0:09:56.520 --> 0:09:59.679 the product issues that Twitter has faced over the years. 0:10:00.200 --> 0:10:06.800 But in terms of the neretrum kind of targets and execution, again, 0:10:07.559 --> 0:10:10.480 it doesn't give you the impression that you know there 0:10:10.520 --> 0:10:13.040 will be a drastic change in the company because of 0:10:13.080 --> 0:10:17.000 this announcement. And I think investors aren't even sure they 0:10:17.040 --> 0:10:20.760 went about the CEO search in the most comprehensive way. 0:10:20.840 --> 0:10:23.640 I mean, we don't know anything about how long were 0:10:23.640 --> 0:10:28.600 they're looking for CEO and how many candidates that they 0:10:28.640 --> 0:10:33.280 have shortlisted. So I think the objectivity of this search 0:10:33.840 --> 0:10:37.080 isn't very obvious to investors at this point of time. 0:10:37.240 --> 0:10:39.800 So help us make sense of this for our audience here, because, 0:10:39.840 --> 0:10:44.280 as I mentioned, shares of Twitter massively underperforming pure Facebook, 0:10:44.320 --> 0:10:47.880 for example, since the time the Dorsey came on as CEO, 0:10:48.000 --> 0:10:51.200 underperforming the NASTACK one hundred, the SMP five hundred, the 0:10:51.240 --> 0:10:55.320 list continues to go on. Is it is a continuation 0:10:55.400 --> 0:10:58.680 of what has been happening, a continuation of its strategy. 0:10:59.240 --> 0:11:03.520 Is that a good thing for investors? Well? So, uh, look, 0:11:04.320 --> 0:11:06.719 when you look at the social media space that has 0:11:06.800 --> 0:11:09.520 evolved quite a bit in the last you know, five years, 0:11:09.640 --> 0:11:14.120 we were mostly focused on text based content. Then you know, videos, 0:11:14.160 --> 0:11:17.720 short term videos really became a craze. You saw the 0:11:17.800 --> 0:11:22.000 rise of TikTok. Well, Twitter didn't really participate in any 0:11:22.080 --> 0:11:24.680 of those trends. When you look at a company like Snap, 0:11:25.040 --> 0:11:28.880 which is growing fifty percent, which continues to think they 0:11:28.920 --> 0:11:32.720 can grow fifty even with their core audience being you know, 0:11:32.760 --> 0:11:36.280 the younger demographic, they're doing something right in terms of 0:11:36.679 --> 0:11:43.920 monetization using ads. In start contrast, Twitter is growing and 0:11:44.040 --> 0:11:47.000 that is in line with the digital ad market growth. 0:11:47.080 --> 0:11:50.959 So it makes you wonder Twitter with its kind of 0:11:51.040 --> 0:11:54.640 engagement and really it's one of the uh, you know, 0:11:54.760 --> 0:12:00.080 the most under monet highs platform on the Internet. It's 0:12:00.080 --> 0:12:02.920 got a very high level of engagement. It's right for 0:12:03.200 --> 0:12:06.080 user base that uses it, but they're still not able 0:12:06.120 --> 0:12:10.520 to monetize it. So the core problem does lie in execution, 0:12:10.640 --> 0:12:13.520 and you know how they show their targeted whether the 0:12:13.559 --> 0:12:16.640 ads are actually targeted or not. And that is why 0:12:17.280 --> 0:12:20.200 you you see those kind of numbers, you know, trilling 0:12:20.480 --> 0:12:22.920 the lights of snap Man deep just real quickly twenty 0:12:22.920 --> 0:12:26.920 five seconds. Can they monetize Twitter in a more effective way? 0:12:27.000 --> 0:12:29.040 Is it just bad management or is it just like 0:12:29.240 --> 0:12:31.280 we've been We've been to having this conversation about Twitter 0:12:31.320 --> 0:12:34.679 for a long time. Can they really effectively monetize it 0:12:34.679 --> 0:12:37.800 in a better way just quickly? They can? And they 0:12:37.840 --> 0:12:41.000 have to think about the next version of social media 0:12:41.080 --> 0:12:43.800 and it has to tractor in meta wors. That's why 0:12:43.960 --> 0:12:46.680 Facebook and snap everyone is going after metal wors. So 0:12:46.720 --> 0:12:49.160 they have to think long term here and not just 0:12:49.320 --> 0:12:53.040 you know, fixing the holes. Mm hmm. Like I said, 0:12:53.200 --> 0:12:57.440 i've seen this movie before happens. This product just hasn't 0:12:57.440 --> 0:13:00.000 evolved the way that other platforms have. And like Mandeep said, 0:13:00.120 --> 0:13:02.160 social media has changed so much in the last five years, 0:13:02.280 --> 0:13:04.360 and yet it's such a part of certainly our world, 0:13:04.400 --> 0:13:06.080 the media world. But I think a lot of people 0:13:06.200 --> 0:13:10.160 use it um fairly effectively to communicate all right, mind 0:13:10.200 --> 0:13:12.640 deep saying of Bloomberg Intelligence. Thank you so much. Tim 0:13:12.640 --> 0:13:15.200 and I were just talking about this. The most important 0:13:15.240 --> 0:13:18.320 abortion case in a generation will be argued Wednesday before 0:13:18.320 --> 0:13:21.200 the nation's top court. Nine justices will decide that outcome. 0:13:21.800 --> 0:13:24.320 And Tim, the veteran litigator that we arguing the case, 0:13:24.400 --> 0:13:27.319 is betting on a precedent to save abortion rights. It's 0:13:27.440 --> 0:13:31.280 Julie Rickelman and David Yaffi. Bellenie writes all about her 0:13:31.440 --> 0:13:35.200 in the most recent issue of Bloomberg business Week magazine. 0:13:35.200 --> 0:13:37.360 You can read it on the Bloomberg and at Bloomberg 0:13:37.440 --> 0:13:39.760 dot com. Joining us now is David Yaffi, Bellanie and 0:13:39.880 --> 0:13:43.680 Joel Weber, editor of Bloomberg business Week. The precedent when 0:13:43.679 --> 0:13:45.959 it comes to Roe v. Wade, Am I going to 0:13:46.000 --> 0:13:53.560 get this Rightel storry diosis? But I mean it's it's maybe. Yeah. 0:13:53.720 --> 0:13:55.840 You know. The thing that we often try and do 0:13:55.880 --> 0:13:58.640 with the magazine with stories like this is like, we 0:13:58.720 --> 0:14:01.679 know that there's this news event coming that is basically 0:14:01.760 --> 0:14:04.880 could be one for the ages. You know, I have 0:14:05.040 --> 0:14:08.920 generational consequences in terms of what this outcome looks like, 0:14:09.440 --> 0:14:12.320 and if we do our jobs well, there's often a 0:14:12.440 --> 0:14:15.240 character sort of at the center of that of that storm. 0:14:15.440 --> 0:14:18.880 And and that's what just immediately caught my attention when 0:14:18.920 --> 0:14:22.080 David started talking to us about the attorney who's actually 0:14:22.120 --> 0:14:26.200 going to be defending um uh in front of the court. So, 0:14:26.200 --> 0:14:31.480 so David tell us more about Julie, right, Coleman. Sure. 0:14:31.600 --> 0:14:34.240 So she's one of the kind of pre eminent abortion 0:14:34.360 --> 0:14:37.600 law litigators in the United States. UM. The last time 0:14:37.720 --> 0:14:40.120 there was a major abortion case at the U. S. 0:14:40.120 --> 0:14:42.440 Supreme Court, which is about a year and a half ago, 0:14:42.920 --> 0:14:44.800 she was arguing on the on the side of the 0:14:44.840 --> 0:14:48.600 abortion clinics. UM. So she's she's very seasoned and has 0:14:48.640 --> 0:14:52.720 been doing these sorts of cases for for decades and decades. UM. 0:14:52.840 --> 0:14:55.920 But but this is uh, you know, as important as 0:14:55.920 --> 0:14:57.680 it gets, UM. And one of the reasons I was 0:14:57.720 --> 0:15:00.880 interested in her was to kind of on understand how 0:15:00.920 --> 0:15:03.120 it feels like to be somebody with the kind of 0:15:03.200 --> 0:15:04.920 you know, way of the world on your shoulders going 0:15:04.920 --> 0:15:07.560 into this sort of argument, and how she doing with 0:15:07.640 --> 0:15:10.600 the weight of the world on her shoulders. I think 0:15:10.640 --> 0:15:13.200 she's holding up fine. I mean, you know, like I 0:15:13.240 --> 0:15:15.680 was saying, she's very experienced, and she's argued at the 0:15:15.680 --> 0:15:18.320 Supreme Court before. So I think that that helps, but 0:15:18.400 --> 0:15:20.920 she says it's definitely stressful, and you know, she's working 0:15:20.960 --> 0:15:24.680 long days to get ready, doing kind of trial arguments 0:15:24.760 --> 0:15:27.560 and in front of experience litigators at law firms in 0:15:27.720 --> 0:15:30.920 DC and other places. Um. So she's, you know, working 0:15:30.960 --> 0:15:32.960 really hard to make sure that that she's ready for 0:15:32.960 --> 0:15:34.760 for arguments on the Cember first. Well, what do we 0:15:34.800 --> 0:15:38.200 know about her approach for arguments come this week? And 0:15:38.320 --> 0:15:40.840 in the context of how she argued the Louisiana case, 0:15:41.000 --> 0:15:45.120 what is her strategy center on? Sure? So, I mean, 0:15:45.200 --> 0:15:46.840 at the at the heart of this case is a 0:15:47.200 --> 0:15:50.480 decades old precedent in Roe v. Wade. It's it's very 0:15:50.560 --> 0:15:52.640 rare than not unheard of for the Supreme Court to 0:15:52.720 --> 0:15:56.000 overturn its own precedent. And one of the things that 0:15:56.040 --> 0:15:59.120 she's going to be stressing is the principle of story 0:15:59.200 --> 0:16:03.200 decisives and and the importance of kind of maintaining settled 0:16:03.280 --> 0:16:07.560 law um and not creating chaos unnecessarily by sort of 0:16:07.680 --> 0:16:11.880 changing changing tracks, um, kind of on a whim. So, 0:16:11.880 --> 0:16:13.680 so that's going to be the heart of our argument. 0:16:13.680 --> 0:16:16.720 I mean, that's it's similar to how she defended the 0:16:16.840 --> 0:16:20.640 um or how she opposed this law in Louisiana a 0:16:20.680 --> 0:16:23.760 couple a year and a half ago. UM. The difference 0:16:23.840 --> 0:16:27.200 now is that the court has changed Um Amy Coney 0:16:27.240 --> 0:16:29.600 Barrett's on the court now, it's a much less sympathetic 0:16:29.600 --> 0:16:33.280 set of justices to abortion rights UM and so the 0:16:33.360 --> 0:16:36.320 challenge is greater than it's ever been. So you laid 0:16:36.360 --> 0:16:38.920 that out really well, David, and and I am kind 0:16:38.920 --> 0:16:41.520 of curious that like what we know going into this 0:16:41.600 --> 0:16:45.560 case about how the court feels, um as you've established 0:16:45.560 --> 0:16:48.520 about abortion and abortion rights, but but also in terms 0:16:48.520 --> 0:16:52.200 of how they view the President, which she will probably 0:16:52.320 --> 0:16:56.920 argue the case. Sure. So I mean we know that 0:16:56.960 --> 0:16:59.960 there are you know, three liberal justices on the Court 0:17:00.040 --> 0:17:03.200 who are basically you know, you know, Shore Shore vote 0:17:03.480 --> 0:17:05.920 UM for for up polding ruviy Wade. Then you've got 0:17:06.200 --> 0:17:09.400 John Roberts, who we all understand, you know, really kind 0:17:09.400 --> 0:17:12.080 of values the institutional legitimacy of the Court, doesn't want 0:17:12.119 --> 0:17:14.840 to do everything anything to undermine that. He sided with 0:17:14.920 --> 0:17:20.240 Julie Rickleman in in UM striking down the Louisiana law 0:17:20.480 --> 0:17:22.639 a year and a half ago. And so you know, 0:17:22.720 --> 0:17:24.600 the hope is that he'll be on board too. So 0:17:24.640 --> 0:17:27.120 that's four of the five votes that you need. UM. 0:17:27.160 --> 0:17:30.080 And then you've got the five most conservative justices on 0:17:30.119 --> 0:17:32.199 the court, and the question is is there one of 0:17:32.240 --> 0:17:34.880 them that she can that she can win over um 0:17:35.440 --> 0:17:37.600 and Amy Coney Barrett looks like it looks like a 0:17:37.600 --> 0:17:40.520 tough one to win. She's been written critically about abortion 0:17:40.600 --> 0:17:42.879 in her kind of career as a law professor before 0:17:42.920 --> 0:17:46.119 she became a justice. UM. And so I think that 0:17:46.160 --> 0:17:49.160 the hope in in the in the pro choice community 0:17:49.240 --> 0:17:51.919 is that somebody like Brett Kavanaugh can be can be 0:17:52.000 --> 0:17:54.560 swung like a lot. Less is known about where he 0:17:54.640 --> 0:17:57.639 stands on abortion. He hasn't written or talked about it 0:17:57.680 --> 0:18:00.640 that much, and so the hope is that he's he's persuadable. 0:18:00.720 --> 0:18:03.280 But I think everybody understands that it's a long shot. 0:18:03.680 --> 0:18:07.440 And that's right, like kind of an amazing circumstance to 0:18:07.440 --> 0:18:10.680 find that Brett Kavanaugh, who had such a tumultuous hearing, 0:18:10.680 --> 0:18:13.359 would be the person who could be something of a 0:18:13.760 --> 0:18:16.840 swing vote here. Um, So what what do we know 0:18:16.920 --> 0:18:19.840 about the little that he's spoken about the issue, What 0:18:19.840 --> 0:18:22.760 what do we know? Well, one kind of quirk of 0:18:22.880 --> 0:18:27.359 history is that that in in the early nineteen nineties 0:18:27.480 --> 0:18:31.040 when um the Court reaffirmed Roe v. Wade in the 0:18:31.040 --> 0:18:34.640 case called Planned Parenthood v. Casey, basically kind of striking 0:18:34.640 --> 0:18:37.080 a compromise that kind of chipped away at Row a 0:18:37.119 --> 0:18:41.200 little bit but kept its essential holding intact. At that time, 0:18:41.200 --> 0:18:45.199 Brett Kavanaugh was clerking for a lower court judge who 0:18:45.320 --> 0:18:47.760 kind of heard the case before it reached the Supreme Court, 0:18:48.200 --> 0:18:50.919 and you know, while he was clerking, that judge issued 0:18:50.920 --> 0:18:53.520 an opinion that basically laid out the compromise of the 0:18:53.560 --> 0:18:57.440 Supreme Court later adopted. So Kavanaugh was sort of tangentially 0:18:57.600 --> 0:19:02.240 involved in the kind of most comparable historical precedent for 0:19:02.320 --> 0:19:04.840 what's happening now in case like really challenging the heart 0:19:04.880 --> 0:19:07.080 of Roe v. Wade, And he was clerking for a 0:19:07.200 --> 0:19:11.120 judge that basically helped lay out the compromise that kept 0:19:11.160 --> 0:19:14.159 Row intact. So you know, it's it's a quirk of history. 0:19:14.200 --> 0:19:16.960 And obviously a lot has happened in Brett Kavanov's career 0:19:17.119 --> 0:19:19.280 since then. He's become you know, more kind of closely 0:19:19.320 --> 0:19:22.840 witted to the conservative legal movement. But the hope is 0:19:22.920 --> 0:19:25.639 that you know, his his role and that kind of 0:19:25.720 --> 0:19:29.520 historical event, you know, maybe indicates that there's some flexibility. 0:19:29.760 --> 0:19:34.159 I mean, ultimately, is this about um a lawyer with 0:19:34.200 --> 0:19:37.520 a great argument before the Supreme Court justices, or is 0:19:37.560 --> 0:19:42.600 this just about the technicalities of law before those Supreme 0:19:42.600 --> 0:19:46.200 Court justices? What what will it come down to? Ultimately? Well, 0:19:46.240 --> 0:19:49.120 I don't think those things are fully extricable. No, clearly. 0:19:49.560 --> 0:19:52.880 But there's definitely a school of thought that there's really 0:19:52.920 --> 0:19:55.920 not a lot that Julie Rickleman can do herself. That 0:19:56.040 --> 0:19:59.440 you know, you've got nine justices who have thought about 0:19:59.440 --> 0:20:02.560 this issue plenty, who read the briefing and it probably 0:20:02.600 --> 0:20:04.840 already made up their mind, and there's like a limit 0:20:04.880 --> 0:20:08.520 to what she can accomplish um. And there's even there's 0:20:08.520 --> 0:20:10.720 a defeatist version of that argument that you hear from 0:20:10.760 --> 0:20:13.760 some people in the in the pro choice community, including 0:20:13.800 --> 0:20:16.800 the woman who argued that planned parenthood be casey case, 0:20:17.160 --> 0:20:20.080 which is that there's nothing that Rickleman can do and 0:20:20.119 --> 0:20:23.040 that you know, the numbers are the numbers, and you've 0:20:23.040 --> 0:20:26.040 got six conservative justices and it's just too much to 0:20:26.200 --> 0:20:28.800 hope that you know, two of them could be swayed. David, 0:20:28.840 --> 0:20:30.480 just in the last thirty seconds that we have with 0:20:30.560 --> 0:20:35.679 you what happens if Rickeleman ends up losing, Well, it 0:20:35.720 --> 0:20:37.639 sort of depends on how she loses. You know, there 0:20:37.640 --> 0:20:40.880 are different ways that that row could be either overturned 0:20:40.960 --> 0:20:44.560 or significantly watered down. But the most immediate effect, there 0:20:44.600 --> 0:20:46.680 are a bunch of states that have what are called 0:20:46.680 --> 0:20:49.680 trigger laws that ban abortion. The moment ree view weight 0:20:49.760 --> 0:20:51.919 is overturned, and so those would go into effect, and 0:20:52.280 --> 0:20:54.520 you'd see women in large swabs of the country lose 0:20:54.640 --> 0:20:59.440 lose access to abortion. Amazing. Um, A great story, and 0:20:59.440 --> 0:21:01.720 it's also telling it through an individual who's going to 0:21:01.800 --> 0:21:03.760 be smack in the middle of it all before the 0:21:03.840 --> 0:21:06.560 Supreme Court justices. David Yaffie Bellini, Thank you so much. 0:21:06.640 --> 0:21:08.960 Legal reporter at Bloomberg News on the phone from New Jersey, 0:21:09.000 --> 0:21:12.480 Joel Webber, Editor Bloomberg Business Week. He's in our Interactive 0:21:12.480 --> 0:21:15.119