1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,320 --> 00:00:12,480
Speaker 1: When listing the winners from this term at the Supreme Court,

3
00:00:12,840 --> 00:00:16,160
Speaker 1: former President Donald Trump stands at the top of the list.

4
00:00:16,560 --> 00:00:19,760
Speaker 1: In a historic six to three ruling, the Court's conservative

5
00:00:19,800 --> 00:00:23,560
Speaker 1: majority rule for the first time that former presidents have

6
00:00:23,680 --> 00:00:27,720
Speaker 1: brought immunity from prosecution. While the Court didn't grant Trump

7
00:00:27,760 --> 00:00:31,600
Speaker 1: the complete and total immunity from prosecution, he sought it

8
00:00:31,720 --> 00:00:35,000
Speaker 1: conferred enough of a shield to all but ensure that

9
00:00:35,120 --> 00:00:39,960
Speaker 1: Trump won't be tried for election interference before November. Joining

10
00:00:39,960 --> 00:00:43,040
Speaker 1: me is Victoria Norris, a professor at Georgetown Law and

11
00:00:43,080 --> 00:00:47,320
Speaker 1: an expert on separation of powers. In dissent, Justice Sonya

12
00:00:47,400 --> 00:00:51,519
Speaker 1: Sotomayor wrote that the president is now a king above

13
00:00:51,560 --> 00:00:54,400
Speaker 1: the law. Do you think that's what this decision really

14
00:00:54,520 --> 00:00:54,920
Speaker 1: leads to.

15
00:00:55,680 --> 00:00:59,400
Speaker 2: Well, I think they're a tremendous risk posed by that

16
00:00:59,560 --> 00:01:05,840
Speaker 2: opinion because basically, the majority opinion allows the president doesn't

17
00:01:05,880 --> 00:01:10,279
Speaker 2: answer the sealten sixth questions. That was Judge pan who said,

18
00:01:10,760 --> 00:01:13,600
Speaker 2: what if the president ordered sealtaine six to kill his

19
00:01:14,000 --> 00:01:18,080
Speaker 2: political opponent? The majority does not shut down the fact

20
00:01:18,120 --> 00:01:20,160
Speaker 2: that that would be an official act and could not

21
00:01:20,240 --> 00:01:23,559
Speaker 2: be prosecuted, and that is why he's saying that, can.

22
00:01:23,440 --> 00:01:26,880
Speaker 3: You explain broadly what the opinion does.

23
00:01:27,640 --> 00:01:33,160
Speaker 2: The opinion complicates the trial by injecting this question of

24
00:01:33,160 --> 00:01:37,360
Speaker 2: official act community. So most lawyers thought that the two

25
00:01:37,480 --> 00:01:40,720
Speaker 2: main presidents here were the Nixon case and the Clinton case.

26
00:01:40,840 --> 00:01:44,360
Speaker 2: All right to presidents. One was sued civilly, one was

27
00:01:44,400 --> 00:01:47,000
Speaker 2: in the criminal thing. And in both those cases they

28
00:01:47,040 --> 00:01:50,120
Speaker 2: start out and say very emphatically, the president is not

29
00:01:50,200 --> 00:01:54,040
Speaker 2: above the law. Okay, he can be subpoenaed and to

30
00:01:54,080 --> 00:01:57,000
Speaker 2: be in a criminal trial, and he has to suffer,

31
00:01:57,160 --> 00:01:59,560
Speaker 2: you know, civil justice for what he did. But the

32
00:01:59,600 --> 00:02:03,120
Speaker 2: court went off on a different case called Harlow, which

33
00:02:03,160 --> 00:02:06,880
Speaker 2: is a civil case and involving President Nixon, and that

34
00:02:07,040 --> 00:02:09,679
Speaker 2: says that you can't sue a president civilly for his

35
00:02:09,800 --> 00:02:13,400
Speaker 2: official for damages for you know, an executive order. And

36
00:02:13,440 --> 00:02:15,960
Speaker 2: everyone thinks that's right. So this is an executive order

37
00:02:16,000 --> 00:02:18,160
Speaker 2: and it somehow hurts someone or changes their job in

38
00:02:18,200 --> 00:02:21,240
Speaker 2: the military, you can't sue him for that because that

39
00:02:21,240 --> 00:02:23,720
Speaker 2: would just tie up government. You know, everyone agrees us

40
00:02:23,800 --> 00:02:25,640
Speaker 2: the law. But what they did is they took that

41
00:02:25,760 --> 00:02:28,919
Speaker 2: Harlow thing and said that applies to a criminal case,

42
00:02:29,320 --> 00:02:32,240
Speaker 2: and now Judge Chuckkin will have to hold a hearing

43
00:02:32,760 --> 00:02:36,120
Speaker 2: about what of the acts and the indictment are official

44
00:02:36,440 --> 00:02:39,600
Speaker 2: and what aren't. And some of the statements in the

45
00:02:39,600 --> 00:02:44,840
Speaker 2: majority opinions seem to say that conversations with other officials

46
00:02:45,040 --> 00:02:48,120
Speaker 2: like the Attorney General are absolutely immuned. But then what

47
00:02:48,240 --> 00:02:51,320
Speaker 2: happens if you're having a conversation with Seal Team six

48
00:02:51,560 --> 00:02:54,000
Speaker 2: or the seat of the Defense Department? Is that official?

49
00:02:54,040 --> 00:02:56,600
Speaker 2: And you can never indict someone if they've done something terrible.

50
00:02:56,840 --> 00:03:00,640
Speaker 2: So it looks like it doesn't answer that hy pathetical.

51
00:03:00,840 --> 00:03:04,440
Speaker 2: And it's particularly dangerous if you have a president like

52
00:03:04,639 --> 00:03:08,480
Speaker 2: Trump who is always pushing the envelope. So if he

53
00:03:08,680 --> 00:03:13,079
Speaker 2: orders the Defense Department to shoot protesters, right, he could

54
00:03:13,120 --> 00:03:15,800
Speaker 2: say that's official. That's what people are very worried about.

55
00:03:16,520 --> 00:03:20,160
Speaker 3: These six are supposedly originalists. Is there anything in the

56
00:03:20,240 --> 00:03:25,960
Speaker 3: Constitution or history that supports this decision.

57
00:03:26,280 --> 00:03:29,360
Speaker 2: There's certainly nothing in the text. The text says that Congress.

58
00:03:29,400 --> 00:03:32,160
Speaker 2: You know, the founders wanted Congress to be the important

59
00:03:32,200 --> 00:03:34,720
Speaker 2: body here. That's why it's in Article one. The Supreme

60
00:03:34,760 --> 00:03:36,960
Speaker 2: Court was in the basement of the Senate for most

61
00:03:37,080 --> 00:03:41,160
Speaker 2: nineteenth centuries, and it's in article three, not article one.

62
00:03:41,520 --> 00:03:44,240
Speaker 2: So the text tells you what's the most important. And

63
00:03:44,360 --> 00:03:46,920
Speaker 2: they have immunity for things they say, because the King

64
00:03:47,080 --> 00:03:49,800
Speaker 2: in Britain used to, you know, throw the members of

65
00:03:49,840 --> 00:03:52,200
Speaker 2: Parliament and members of Commons in jail. So no one

66
00:03:52,200 --> 00:03:55,120
Speaker 2: wanted that to happen, but there is no text on immunity.

67
00:03:55,520 --> 00:03:58,280
Speaker 2: Now the historical case which they decided, you know, there's

68
00:03:58,280 --> 00:04:01,000
Speaker 2: another case called Vance that was deciding the last few years,

69
00:04:01,160 --> 00:04:03,960
Speaker 2: which is about whether Trump could be subpoena in this

70
00:04:04,120 --> 00:04:07,640
Speaker 2: Mazaar's accounting firm case. And they said yes because they

71
00:04:07,680 --> 00:04:09,840
Speaker 2: relied on the Burg case and they'd held that in

72
00:04:09,880 --> 00:04:14,400
Speaker 2: the Nixon case too, and so everyone thought, well, if

73
00:04:14,400 --> 00:04:16,599
Speaker 2: you can subpoena him, and if he can be an

74
00:04:16,680 --> 00:04:20,400
Speaker 2: unindicted co conspirator as in Nixon, then of course if

75
00:04:20,440 --> 00:04:24,320
Speaker 2: he's a former president, he can be subject to criminals sanction.

76
00:04:24,640 --> 00:04:26,920
Speaker 2: Is there anything in history to know this has never

77
00:04:26,960 --> 00:04:27,640
Speaker 2: happened before?

78
00:04:28,000 --> 00:04:29,400
Speaker 3: So how did they come up with this?

79
00:04:29,640 --> 00:04:32,360
Speaker 2: Where did they get from their own president? So basically

80
00:04:32,400 --> 00:04:35,400
Speaker 2: they took this case called Harlow, which was a guy

81
00:04:35,440 --> 00:04:37,960
Speaker 2: who sued Nixon because of what Nixon did to him

82
00:04:38,240 --> 00:04:41,640
Speaker 2: Nixon had some you know, sort of aggressive policing of

83
00:04:41,680 --> 00:04:45,240
Speaker 2: the executive branch and individual and he treated this person

84
00:04:45,320 --> 00:04:50,000
Speaker 2: terribly and so the person sued and the court said, well, yes,

85
00:04:50,000 --> 00:04:52,839
Speaker 2: he treated you poorly. But if anyone could sue the

86
00:04:52,880 --> 00:04:57,600
Speaker 2: president for damages, then it would stop government, right, And

87
00:04:57,640 --> 00:04:59,839
Speaker 2: that's true throughout the government today. You can't like sue

88
00:04:59,839 --> 00:05:01,920
Speaker 2: the Justice Aparment because you don't like them or what

89
00:05:02,000 --> 00:05:05,400
Speaker 2: their policy. That's just a general There are many different

90
00:05:05,400 --> 00:05:09,360
Speaker 2: doctrines of government a stop all immunity that apply throughout

91
00:05:09,360 --> 00:05:12,120
Speaker 2: the government, Like you can't easily see the government and

92
00:05:12,120 --> 00:05:15,880
Speaker 2: particularly for policies you don't like. So that's about money damages.

93
00:05:15,920 --> 00:05:19,000
Speaker 2: But this is about a crime. So there's a big

94
00:05:19,080 --> 00:05:22,840
Speaker 2: move there. And so basically Roberts made this all up

95
00:05:23,040 --> 00:05:27,960
Speaker 2: talk about making up legislating. I find it very odd

96
00:05:28,240 --> 00:05:32,000
Speaker 2: because it also is not very clear about how you're

97
00:05:32,040 --> 00:05:34,320
Speaker 2: actually going to do this. Now. The truth is that

98
00:05:34,440 --> 00:05:36,799
Speaker 2: if people are worried about this, they shouldn't be too worried.

99
00:05:37,080 --> 00:05:38,560
Speaker 2: You know, they shouldn't be worried about the rule law

100
00:05:38,560 --> 00:05:40,480
Speaker 2: because they decide forty cases a year that no one

101
00:05:40,480 --> 00:05:43,240
Speaker 2: cares about an energies, whether it's original or not. You know,

102
00:05:43,360 --> 00:05:47,200
Speaker 2: it's within the realm of reason in my view. This term. However,

103
00:05:47,240 --> 00:05:49,559
Speaker 2: they decided about six cases that are going to scare

104
00:05:49,600 --> 00:05:52,799
Speaker 2: the American public, and they show no interest in actually

105
00:05:53,120 --> 00:05:56,160
Speaker 2: being statesmen or calming the waters, which is disturbing to

106
00:05:56,160 --> 00:05:58,880
Speaker 2: me as someone who studies the whole Constitution. But they

107
00:05:58,920 --> 00:06:01,520
Speaker 2: relied on precedent. I told you that civil case, and

108
00:06:01,520 --> 00:06:03,760
Speaker 2: then they applied it to a criminal case. But all

109
00:06:03,839 --> 00:06:06,839
Speaker 2: their application of the doctrine, so they've got this official

110
00:06:06,839 --> 00:06:09,880
Speaker 2: immunity once they adopted from the Harlow case and they

111
00:06:09,920 --> 00:06:12,679
Speaker 2: apply that to criminal cases, which is a leap there.

112
00:06:13,080 --> 00:06:15,800
Speaker 2: Number one. But then the majority opinion is this long

113
00:06:15,920 --> 00:06:21,200
Speaker 2: discussion about the difference between allegations in the indictment of

114
00:06:21,240 --> 00:06:23,279
Speaker 2: what was official and what was not. So they say

115
00:06:23,279 --> 00:06:25,760
Speaker 2: it was official if you talk to your attorney general. Well,

116
00:06:25,800 --> 00:06:28,520
Speaker 2: what if you talk to your attorney general to bribe someone?

117
00:06:29,279 --> 00:06:31,440
Speaker 2: And that was all the discussions in these or a

118
00:06:31,520 --> 00:06:34,120
Speaker 2: largument and why so themuor push back. So there are

119
00:06:34,120 --> 00:06:36,839
Speaker 2: three buckets that they developed and there's nothing in the

120
00:06:36,839 --> 00:06:39,320
Speaker 2: text of the Constitution that says any of this. So

121
00:06:39,480 --> 00:06:42,720
Speaker 2: one is the absolute immunity. So some conversation referred to

122
00:06:42,880 --> 00:06:46,520
Speaker 2: with Bill Barr about then the question is about Mike Pennce,

123
00:06:46,600 --> 00:06:49,279
Speaker 2: and that's in this middle ground that they've given presumptive

124
00:06:49,279 --> 00:06:52,520
Speaker 2: immunity to but it can be rebutted. And then there's

125
00:06:52,560 --> 00:06:55,680
Speaker 2: the stuff that you know, probably private. And this is

126
00:06:55,680 --> 00:06:59,080
Speaker 2: where Justice Barrett to the country a great service by noting,

127
00:06:59,640 --> 00:07:02,799
Speaker 2: as the GC Circuit had held that the Sake Elector

128
00:07:02,880 --> 00:07:07,640
Speaker 2: scam was all private. Even the speech, in my view

129
00:07:07,720 --> 00:07:10,280
Speaker 2: was private because it was funded by the campaign, because

130
00:07:10,280 --> 00:07:12,840
Speaker 2: if they spent several dollars on that, that would be

131
00:07:12,840 --> 00:07:15,680
Speaker 2: a felony. You can't spend federal money on campaign speech.

132
00:07:15,920 --> 00:07:18,440
Speaker 2: So there are three buckets. We're going to have a

133
00:07:18,440 --> 00:07:22,080
Speaker 2: big hearing about it. Everyone's gonna scratch their heads about this,

134
00:07:22,240 --> 00:07:24,120
Speaker 2: and the court is going to look terrible. You know,

135
00:07:24,240 --> 00:07:26,080
Speaker 2: I've spent my whole life defending the role of law,

136
00:07:26,240 --> 00:07:28,840
Speaker 2: and I'm really sad, and I'm kind of angry at

137
00:07:28,920 --> 00:07:31,600
Speaker 2: Roberts for doing this, because I just think it showed

138
00:07:31,840 --> 00:07:35,120
Speaker 2: so little sense of where the country is. They decided

139
00:07:35,160 --> 00:07:37,800
Speaker 2: a case they didn't need to decide, which is imprudent.

140
00:07:38,080 --> 00:07:41,280
Speaker 2: They could have written it very simply. It's really complicated,

141
00:07:41,880 --> 00:07:44,440
Speaker 2: so you know, usually like Brown versus Board, it's a

142
00:07:44,560 --> 00:07:47,800
Speaker 2: very short deelphic thing with nine people on it. Right,

143
00:07:48,320 --> 00:07:52,400
Speaker 2: it's hubris. It's just hubris and lack of statesmanship and understanding.

144
00:07:52,400 --> 00:07:55,080
Speaker 2: They're a part of the Constitution. They're not above it.

145
00:07:55,680 --> 00:07:59,200
Speaker 2: They are not They're part of it. And so that

146
00:07:59,280 --> 00:08:02,360
Speaker 2: hubris is a real problem. And I think the American

147
00:08:02,400 --> 00:08:06,280
Speaker 2: people their only option now is to make the Court

148
00:08:06,480 --> 00:08:09,680
Speaker 2: a political issue so their things Congress can do. They

149
00:08:09,720 --> 00:08:12,320
Speaker 2: can reverse local Bride, they can reverse a lot of

150
00:08:12,320 --> 00:08:14,800
Speaker 2: these things. So people are going to have to elect

151
00:08:14,800 --> 00:08:17,240
Speaker 2: people who will actually do that kind of stuff if

152
00:08:17,240 --> 00:08:19,520
Speaker 2: they wanted to change, because there's no way those court

153
00:08:19,560 --> 00:08:22,000
Speaker 2: will be packed. Fdrhad sixty seven vote.

154
00:08:22,320 --> 00:08:26,200
Speaker 1: When Trump lost the twenty twenty election, the Supreme Court

155
00:08:26,240 --> 00:08:30,880
Speaker 1: basically turned away his different challenges. What do you think

156
00:08:31,000 --> 00:08:35,000
Speaker 1: happened at the Court to lead to this opinion which

157
00:08:35,040 --> 00:08:39,040
Speaker 1: paves a way for him to run in November without

158
00:08:39,080 --> 00:08:43,400
Speaker 1: facing a trial for criminal interference in the twenty twenty election.

159
00:08:44,280 --> 00:08:48,440
Speaker 2: It's their blindness to their role within the constitution. And

160
00:08:48,800 --> 00:08:51,679
Speaker 2: you know, Scalda liked this theory called the unitary executive

161
00:08:52,120 --> 00:08:55,960
Speaker 2: that's behind this decision. They all believe they wear bracelets.

162
00:08:56,000 --> 00:08:58,280
Speaker 2: It's not what would Jesus do, it's what would Antonique

163
00:08:58,320 --> 00:09:02,600
Speaker 2: Glea do? Look at a bracelet. And Scalia's most famous

164
00:09:02,600 --> 00:09:05,360
Speaker 2: opinion was a dissent in Morrison versus Olsen against the

165
00:09:05,400 --> 00:09:08,800
Speaker 2: Special Council. You saw that in Thomas's opinion he thinks

166
00:09:08,880 --> 00:09:11,440
Speaker 2: Jack Smith is unconstitutional and that's being argued down in

167
00:09:11,480 --> 00:09:15,120
Speaker 2: Aileen Canon's case. So that gives the president a lot

168
00:09:15,120 --> 00:09:19,800
Speaker 2: of power. That's part of the tenant of originalism. There's

169
00:09:19,840 --> 00:09:23,040
Speaker 2: no textual source of this. They view something called the

170
00:09:23,160 --> 00:09:25,320
Speaker 2: vesting Clause, which was added at the end of the

171
00:09:25,320 --> 00:09:28,280
Speaker 2: Constitution Convention. It's sort of like a header, but anyway,

172
00:09:28,640 --> 00:09:31,560
Speaker 2: it says, shall vess the executive power in a president.

173
00:09:32,320 --> 00:09:36,559
Speaker 2: They view that as, to quote a professor's book, Imperial

174
00:09:36,640 --> 00:09:39,079
Speaker 2: from the beginning. And they've been saying this for years

175
00:09:39,120 --> 00:09:42,880
Speaker 2: out loud. Now I've written extensively about why they're adding

176
00:09:42,960 --> 00:09:46,640
Speaker 2: text to the Constitution effectively because for some time Justice

177
00:09:46,679 --> 00:09:49,280
Speaker 2: Scalia wrote in that opinion that the president has all

178
00:09:49,360 --> 00:09:51,760
Speaker 2: executive power and the word all is not in there.

179
00:09:52,200 --> 00:09:54,480
Speaker 2: And the fact that they're arguing that, I mean, the

180
00:09:54,480 --> 00:09:58,000
Speaker 2: greatest generation will be rolling over in their grave. Robert Jackson,

181
00:09:58,240 --> 00:10:01,160
Speaker 2: who wrote in an opinion called Steel Seizure that when

182
00:10:01,160 --> 00:10:03,520
Speaker 2: the government argued that, you know, the Nixon thing, if

183
00:10:03,559 --> 00:10:05,920
Speaker 2: I do it, it's legal, that it was the kind

184
00:10:05,960 --> 00:10:09,840
Speaker 2: of language for a totalitarian And this is what I

185
00:10:09,840 --> 00:10:13,040
Speaker 2: have taught for years. I pushed back on the unitary executive.

186
00:10:13,200 --> 00:10:15,640
Speaker 2: And so this is a theory that they even moderate,

187
00:10:16,280 --> 00:10:19,360
Speaker 2: some moderates in the Republican Party adopt, like the bushy

188
00:10:19,600 --> 00:10:23,199
Speaker 2: George W. Bush persons. Now, note there is something important

189
00:10:23,240 --> 00:10:25,520
Speaker 2: to note. There were a lot of fancy conservative laders

190
00:10:25,720 --> 00:10:28,240
Speaker 2: telling them not to do this, and yet they did,

191
00:10:28,320 --> 00:10:32,880
Speaker 2: like Charles Cooper, Peter Kisler, that very clause, you're citing

192
00:10:32,920 --> 00:10:36,040
Speaker 2: that text. So they focus on the executive's vesting clause.

193
00:10:36,760 --> 00:10:40,360
Speaker 2: But right after the executive promising clause is the president

194
00:10:40,679 --> 00:10:44,160
Speaker 2: faithfully execute the law. And so these conservatives argued, well,

195
00:10:44,320 --> 00:10:47,040
Speaker 2: the president can't violate the law. We have to faithfully

196
00:10:47,120 --> 00:10:50,240
Speaker 2: execute the law. And there's nothing in the vesting clause.

197
00:10:50,280 --> 00:10:52,080
Speaker 2: It's just as sort of a header or a description

198
00:10:52,760 --> 00:10:56,720
Speaker 2: that undermines the president's beauty. And they did not accept

199
00:10:56,720 --> 00:10:59,040
Speaker 2: that argument. So my head has been exploding since I

200
00:10:59,080 --> 00:11:02,880
Speaker 2: heard the oral argument, because I know that behind this

201
00:11:03,080 --> 00:11:06,480
Speaker 2: is the assumption that the unitary executive is a wise thing.

202
00:11:06,720 --> 00:11:09,320
Speaker 2: So what they've done is they've aggrandized the president and

203
00:11:09,360 --> 00:11:13,240
Speaker 2: they've aggrandized themselves. And what can I say except for

204
00:11:13,480 --> 00:11:16,160
Speaker 2: historically we've had other legal revolutions. So this isn't just

205
00:11:16,240 --> 00:11:18,800
Speaker 2: constitutional because the low for Bride and all this batchtory stuff.

206
00:11:18,840 --> 00:11:22,120
Speaker 2: I study textualism. You know, it's a theory for easy cases,

207
00:11:22,160 --> 00:11:25,000
Speaker 2: not hard cases. You know, for the president being thirty five.

208
00:11:25,080 --> 00:11:27,959
Speaker 2: But it's not about you know, the limits of executive power.

209
00:11:28,360 --> 00:11:31,400
Speaker 2: And so I think that they've begun in the seeds

210
00:11:31,440 --> 00:11:35,520
Speaker 2: of destruction of originalism because there's nothing historically that really

211
00:11:35,640 --> 00:11:38,280
Speaker 2: supports what they've done. There's nothing in the text that

212
00:11:38,360 --> 00:11:42,040
Speaker 2: supports what they've done. And so we now see that

213
00:11:42,160 --> 00:11:47,280
Speaker 2: this originalism seventeen eighty seven stuff is a veneer. So yeah, women, okay,

214
00:11:47,320 --> 00:11:49,760
Speaker 2: you go back to the witch hunter in thirteenth century.

215
00:11:50,160 --> 00:11:53,240
Speaker 2: But meanwhile, the president can do anything he want. It's

216
00:11:53,280 --> 00:11:55,960
Speaker 2: not well thought out. It's more political in the sense

217
00:11:56,000 --> 00:11:58,720
Speaker 2: of I don't like that word. There's a philosopher calls

218
00:11:58,720 --> 00:12:01,480
Speaker 2: it the cunning of unreason in this politics, and this

219
00:12:01,800 --> 00:12:05,160
Speaker 2: was a unitary executive opinion because they think they're looking

220
00:12:05,160 --> 00:12:07,920
Speaker 2: down at there. What would Justice Scalia do? Bracelet And

221
00:12:08,520 --> 00:12:11,160
Speaker 2: they're really really not thinking of that, particularly in the

222
00:12:11,200 --> 00:12:14,840
Speaker 2: era of Trump. So this is extremely dangerous for what

223
00:12:14,880 --> 00:12:16,760
Speaker 2: will come if Trump wins the election.

224
00:12:17,280 --> 00:12:21,440
Speaker 3: So they're all for this unitary executive, a strong president,

225
00:12:21,600 --> 00:12:24,520
Speaker 3: yet they're against the administrative state, and they took away

226
00:12:24,559 --> 00:12:29,560
Speaker 3: power from federal agencies. The president is controlling. How do

227
00:12:29,600 --> 00:12:30,760
Speaker 3: you reconcile those.

228
00:12:30,520 --> 00:12:35,040
Speaker 2: Two, Well, they want the president, not the executive briends.

229
00:12:35,400 --> 00:12:37,960
Speaker 2: They think the president under unitary executive has to be

230
00:12:38,000 --> 00:12:40,240
Speaker 2: in charge of all. There has to be one line

231
00:12:40,240 --> 00:12:43,240
Speaker 2: from the president every person in the administration. So they

232
00:12:43,280 --> 00:12:46,800
Speaker 2: want to politicize the executive actual and they want to

233
00:12:46,800 --> 00:12:49,840
Speaker 2: get rid of expertise. That's the twins punch. It's like

234
00:12:49,960 --> 00:12:52,080
Speaker 2: Trump with his schedule f he wants to get rid of,

235
00:12:52,200 --> 00:12:55,439
Speaker 2: you know, the scientists and the notion of expertise. It's

236
00:12:55,480 --> 00:12:58,600
Speaker 2: also a power move for them. So they in their

237
00:12:58,600 --> 00:13:02,000
Speaker 2: statutory interpretation world, they say what the law is, it

238
00:13:02,040 --> 00:13:04,400
Speaker 2: comes from Marbury versus medicine. It comes from the most

239
00:13:04,440 --> 00:13:07,760
Speaker 2: evacuous statement there because if you ask the president, any president,

240
00:13:08,120 --> 00:13:10,000
Speaker 2: you say, with the law they say, yeah, I sign

241
00:13:10,080 --> 00:13:13,200
Speaker 2: the law. So this Congress doesn't mean anything. All it

242
00:13:13,280 --> 00:13:16,400
Speaker 2: says is that we get to decide. So they've tied

243
00:13:16,440 --> 00:13:19,360
Speaker 2: the administra to stay up into knots by saying, if

244
00:13:19,360 --> 00:13:21,719
Speaker 2: you haven't written it quite correctly, we get to say no.

245
00:13:22,040 --> 00:13:24,880
Speaker 2: So they've given themselves a lot of power, mostly with

246
00:13:24,920 --> 00:13:28,439
Speaker 2: the local brides in my view, and Republicans felt care

247
00:13:28,240 --> 00:13:33,120
Speaker 2: to actually affirmative, really regulate. They only believe in deregulation.

248
00:13:34,240 --> 00:13:38,400
Speaker 2: So it's a one way ratchet. If Trump deregulates, it's

249
00:13:38,480 --> 00:13:41,200
Speaker 2: not clear they will think that's a major question. There's

250
00:13:41,200 --> 00:13:42,120
Speaker 2: nothing to review.

251
00:13:42,920 --> 00:13:46,080
Speaker 1: Trump is asking the judge in the hush money trial

252
00:13:46,120 --> 00:13:49,680
Speaker 1: where he was convicted for things that happened before you

253
00:13:49,760 --> 00:13:52,400
Speaker 1: as president. So tell us what Trump's argument is.

254
00:13:53,280 --> 00:13:57,400
Speaker 2: Okay, So Hope Hicks testified and she corroborated the testimony

255
00:13:58,400 --> 00:14:02,520
Speaker 2: of Michael Cohen. She was an official, she worked for Trump,

256
00:14:02,760 --> 00:14:05,600
Speaker 2: and in this opinion it says conversations with the Attorney

257
00:14:05,720 --> 00:14:10,240
Speaker 2: General Bill Barr are absolutely amused and federal constitutional law

258
00:14:10,679 --> 00:14:14,720
Speaker 2: governs any criminal Trump. So the question is whether he's

259
00:14:14,760 --> 00:14:17,640
Speaker 2: going to say, okay, I think they would have held

260
00:14:17,679 --> 00:14:20,960
Speaker 2: the same verdict even if we get rid of that testimony.

261
00:14:20,960 --> 00:14:23,640
Speaker 2: It was harmless error. If a judge does that, I'm

262
00:14:23,640 --> 00:14:26,640
Speaker 2: sure there will be six billion appeals. I think they

263
00:14:26,760 --> 00:14:31,160
Speaker 2: thought that the danger here is criminalizing politics, and the

264
00:14:31,280 --> 00:14:34,479
Speaker 2: right keeps telling me, oh, this means Trump can't vindictively

265
00:14:34,560 --> 00:14:38,000
Speaker 2: prosecute bids and that's just false because you can. You

266
00:14:38,000 --> 00:14:41,440
Speaker 2: can still prosecute people for personal acts. Right, So this

267
00:14:41,560 --> 00:14:44,000
Speaker 2: was a personal act in the New York case. So

268
00:14:44,080 --> 00:14:47,000
Speaker 2: what he paid off the porn star before he was president,

269
00:14:47,240 --> 00:14:50,040
Speaker 2: that was personal. He is a personal lawyer. He wasn't president,

270
00:14:50,480 --> 00:14:52,800
Speaker 2: so you can't say that. But there was testimony in

271
00:14:52,880 --> 00:14:56,080
Speaker 2: the case by one of his aides about the payments

272
00:14:56,400 --> 00:14:59,080
Speaker 2: when he was in the White House. So basically two

273
00:14:59,120 --> 00:15:03,440
Speaker 2: district court judges, the guy in New York and Chuck Kins,

274
00:15:03,720 --> 00:15:06,480
Speaker 2: their heads must be sinning because they have to decipher

275
00:15:06,520 --> 00:15:10,400
Speaker 2: all this stuff and it's not clear what they should do.

276
00:15:10,600 --> 00:15:12,720
Speaker 2: My own view is this is one of those cases

277
00:15:12,760 --> 00:15:15,120
Speaker 2: where they should think of the country because this is

278
00:15:15,160 --> 00:15:17,440
Speaker 2: just going back to the court. It's like the abortion,

279
00:15:17,720 --> 00:15:20,440
Speaker 2: Like they decided the abortion things that he would go away,

280
00:15:20,840 --> 00:15:24,840
Speaker 2: and if anyone knows anything about the abortions and stuff

281
00:15:24,840 --> 00:15:27,280
Speaker 2: and the different state lawns. So that's kind of crazy.

282
00:15:27,600 --> 00:15:30,520
Speaker 2: That's going back done. And so I just road up

283
00:15:30,600 --> 00:15:33,280
Speaker 2: in the New Republic about you know, this is just

284
00:15:33,400 --> 00:15:37,160
Speaker 2: chaos right now. You know, I defend the different realms

285
00:15:37,160 --> 00:15:40,960
Speaker 2: of politics and law, and law should move flow. This

286
00:15:41,040 --> 00:15:43,680
Speaker 2: is why progresses don't like me, because I'm like, now,

287
00:15:43,840 --> 00:15:46,640
Speaker 2: there's some virtue to moving flow. Even Brown, there was

288
00:15:46,760 --> 00:15:48,760
Speaker 2: virtue in them getting to the point where it was

289
00:15:48,840 --> 00:15:52,040
Speaker 2: ridiculous when a guy was sitting outside the classroom, you know,

290
00:15:52,120 --> 00:15:54,520
Speaker 2: and the black guy had to sit two inches away

291
00:15:54,560 --> 00:15:57,440
Speaker 2: from the classroom. I mean, the cases have made it,

292
00:15:57,520 --> 00:15:59,560
Speaker 2: you know, important for the court at that point in

293
00:15:59,600 --> 00:16:02,720
Speaker 2: real life to make a general pronouncement. But this court

294
00:16:02,720 --> 00:16:06,240
Speaker 2: has not moved slowly, and it's philosophy really isn't coherent.

295
00:16:06,280 --> 00:16:09,360
Speaker 2: So they're taking a modern notion of right that no

296
00:16:09,520 --> 00:16:13,200
Speaker 2: historian things existed in seventeen eighty seven. So it's really

297
00:16:13,200 --> 00:16:15,280
Speaker 2: a problem. And one of the reasons that the problem

298
00:16:15,360 --> 00:16:18,359
Speaker 2: is that said sock is the only source of information.

299
00:16:18,720 --> 00:16:21,280
Speaker 2: You know, it's a feedback loop over there. So I

300
00:16:21,360 --> 00:16:24,640
Speaker 2: used to I've appeared there's maybe twenty times on statutory

301
00:16:24,640 --> 00:16:26,920
Speaker 2: interpretation the separation of powers, because I'm one of the

302
00:16:26,920 --> 00:16:29,280
Speaker 2: few women who do the separation powers. Because the last

303
00:16:29,280 --> 00:16:30,680
Speaker 2: time I went there and I was talking about the

304
00:16:30,680 --> 00:16:32,600
Speaker 2: Federalist fakers, I have a theory about them, and it's

305
00:16:32,640 --> 00:16:35,120
Speaker 2: kind of interesting. I think, you know, I get a

306
00:16:35,160 --> 00:16:39,320
Speaker 2: good speech, and I made it an aside about President Biden,

307
00:16:39,840 --> 00:16:41,880
Speaker 2: who thought I was a nutcase because I had had

308
00:16:41,920 --> 00:16:44,840
Speaker 2: the Federalist papers on my lap reading them because I

309
00:16:44,880 --> 00:16:46,320
Speaker 2: wanted to be an academic, and he thought that was

310
00:16:46,400 --> 00:16:49,080
Speaker 2: very weird for a feminine and they bowed him. When

311
00:16:49,120 --> 00:16:52,120
Speaker 2: I said, Biden, they booed, that's not a legal society.

312
00:16:52,400 --> 00:16:56,200
Speaker 2: That's some kind of political campaign to me, So you know,

313
00:16:56,320 --> 00:16:58,640
Speaker 2: it's not it's not a happy look for those of

314
00:16:58,720 --> 00:17:00,760
Speaker 2: us who care about the rule of wary law. The

315
00:17:00,800 --> 00:17:03,000
Speaker 2: good news is thereas a new conservative society called the

316
00:17:03,040 --> 00:17:05,080
Speaker 2: rule of Law Society. Like Peter Kreiser, all those people

317
00:17:05,119 --> 00:17:07,320
Speaker 2: I mentioned a rote depth brief in the case they

318
00:17:07,440 --> 00:17:10,080
Speaker 2: told them not to do this. So there is an

319
00:17:10,080 --> 00:17:13,080
Speaker 2: alternative now for students and people who think they're conservative.

320
00:17:13,080 --> 00:17:15,080
Speaker 2: I don't. I won't join it because they say they're conservative.

321
00:17:15,080 --> 00:17:16,639
Speaker 2: I don't think that's the rule of we wal WAW

322
00:17:16,720 --> 00:17:19,760
Speaker 2: and not conservatives liberal. The rule of law is about consistency,

323
00:17:20,560 --> 00:17:24,439
Speaker 2: It's about certain kinds of reasons. So politicians they just

324
00:17:24,720 --> 00:17:27,640
Speaker 2: say stuff they don't necessarily have to have good reasons. Right.

325
00:17:27,800 --> 00:17:30,840
Speaker 2: Judges have to have reasons that make sense to lots

326
00:17:30,840 --> 00:17:34,520
Speaker 2: of other lawyers not to be treated with derision. So

327
00:17:34,800 --> 00:17:37,200
Speaker 2: that's why I'm sad for the court because the American

328
00:17:37,240 --> 00:17:39,400
Speaker 2: public is just not going to understand this, and it's

329
00:17:39,400 --> 00:17:42,040
Speaker 2: going to breed a lot of cynicism in our system.

330
00:17:42,200 --> 00:17:45,520
Speaker 2: Just as a time, we need faith in the rule

331
00:17:45,560 --> 00:17:48,280
Speaker 2: of loss. It's work of progress. We often fail all

332
00:17:48,280 --> 00:17:50,560
Speaker 2: the time, but this was a massive fail.

333
00:17:51,080 --> 00:17:55,800
Speaker 1: The implications of this decision will reverberate and keep reverberating.

334
00:17:56,040 --> 00:17:59,560
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for joining me, Victoria. That's Professor Victoria

335
00:17:59,600 --> 00:18:02,920
Speaker 1: Norse of Georgetown Law. And that's it for this edition

336
00:18:02,960 --> 00:18:05,600
Speaker 1: of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get

337
00:18:05,600 --> 00:18:08,760
Speaker 1: the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You

338
00:18:08,800 --> 00:18:12,879
Speaker 1: can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www

339
00:18:13,000 --> 00:18:17,280
Speaker 1: dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and remember

340
00:18:17,320 --> 00:18:20,280
Speaker 1: to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at

341
00:18:20,320 --> 00:18:23,760
Speaker 1: ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso, and you're

342
00:18:23,880 --> 00:18:25,080
Speaker 1: listening to Bloomberg,