WEBVTT - SCOTUS Hands Trump Huge Win on Presidential Immunity

0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:08.000
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:09.320 --> 0:00:12.480
<v Speaker 1>When listing the winners from this term at the Supreme Court,

0:00:12.840 --> 0:00:16.160
<v Speaker 1>former President Donald Trump stands at the top of the list.

0:00:16.560 --> 0:00:19.760
<v Speaker 1>In a historic six to three ruling, the Court's conservative

0:00:19.800 --> 0:00:23.560
<v Speaker 1>majority rule for the first time that former presidents have

0:00:23.680 --> 0:00:27.720
<v Speaker 1>brought immunity from prosecution. While the Court didn't grant Trump

0:00:27.760 --> 0:00:31.600
<v Speaker 1>the complete and total immunity from prosecution, he sought it

0:00:31.720 --> 0:00:35.000
<v Speaker 1>conferred enough of a shield to all but ensure that

0:00:35.120 --> 0:00:39.960
<v Speaker 1>Trump won't be tried for election interference before November. Joining

0:00:39.960 --> 0:00:43.040
<v Speaker 1>me is Victoria Norris, a professor at Georgetown Law and

0:00:43.080 --> 0:00:47.320
<v Speaker 1>an expert on separation of powers. In dissent, Justice Sonya

0:00:47.400 --> 0:00:51.519
<v Speaker 1>Sotomayor wrote that the president is now a king above

0:00:51.560 --> 0:00:54.400
<v Speaker 1>the law. Do you think that's what this decision really

0:00:54.520 --> 0:00:54.920
<v Speaker 1>leads to.

0:00:55.680 --> 0:00:59.400
<v Speaker 2>Well, I think they're a tremendous risk posed by that

0:00:59.560 --> 0:01:05.840
<v Speaker 2>opinion because basically, the majority opinion allows the president doesn't

0:01:05.880 --> 0:01:10.279
<v Speaker 2>answer the sealten sixth questions. That was Judge pan who said,

0:01:10.760 --> 0:01:13.600
<v Speaker 2>what if the president ordered sealtaine six to kill his

0:01:14.000 --> 0:01:18.080
<v Speaker 2>political opponent? The majority does not shut down the fact

0:01:18.120 --> 0:01:20.160
<v Speaker 2>that that would be an official act and could not

0:01:20.240 --> 0:01:23.559
<v Speaker 2>be prosecuted, and that is why he's saying that, can.

0:01:23.440 --> 0:01:26.880
<v Speaker 3>You explain broadly what the opinion does.

0:01:27.640 --> 0:01:33.160
<v Speaker 2>The opinion complicates the trial by injecting this question of

0:01:33.160 --> 0:01:37.360
<v Speaker 2>official act community. So most lawyers thought that the two

0:01:37.480 --> 0:01:40.720
<v Speaker 2>main presidents here were the Nixon case and the Clinton case.

0:01:40.840 --> 0:01:44.360
<v Speaker 2>All right to presidents. One was sued civilly, one was

0:01:44.400 --> 0:01:47.000
<v Speaker 2>in the criminal thing. And in both those cases they

0:01:47.040 --> 0:01:50.120
<v Speaker 2>start out and say very emphatically, the president is not

0:01:50.200 --> 0:01:54.040
<v Speaker 2>above the law. Okay, he can be subpoenaed and to

0:01:54.080 --> 0:01:57.000
<v Speaker 2>be in a criminal trial, and he has to suffer,

0:01:57.160 --> 0:01:59.560
<v Speaker 2>you know, civil justice for what he did. But the

0:01:59.600 --> 0:02:03.120
<v Speaker 2>court went off on a different case called Harlow, which

0:02:03.160 --> 0:02:06.880
<v Speaker 2>is a civil case and involving President Nixon, and that

0:02:07.040 --> 0:02:09.679
<v Speaker 2>says that you can't sue a president civilly for his

0:02:09.800 --> 0:02:13.400
<v Speaker 2>official for damages for you know, an executive order. And

0:02:13.440 --> 0:02:15.960
<v Speaker 2>everyone thinks that's right. So this is an executive order

0:02:16.000 --> 0:02:18.160
<v Speaker 2>and it somehow hurts someone or changes their job in

0:02:18.200 --> 0:02:21.240
<v Speaker 2>the military, you can't sue him for that because that

0:02:21.240 --> 0:02:23.720
<v Speaker 2>would just tie up government. You know, everyone agrees us

0:02:23.800 --> 0:02:25.640
<v Speaker 2>the law. But what they did is they took that

0:02:25.760 --> 0:02:28.919
<v Speaker 2>Harlow thing and said that applies to a criminal case,

0:02:29.320 --> 0:02:32.240
<v Speaker 2>and now Judge Chuckkin will have to hold a hearing

0:02:32.760 --> 0:02:36.120
<v Speaker 2>about what of the acts and the indictment are official

0:02:36.440 --> 0:02:39.600
<v Speaker 2>and what aren't. And some of the statements in the

0:02:39.600 --> 0:02:44.840
<v Speaker 2>majority opinions seem to say that conversations with other officials

0:02:45.040 --> 0:02:48.120
<v Speaker 2>like the Attorney General are absolutely immuned. But then what

0:02:48.240 --> 0:02:51.320
<v Speaker 2>happens if you're having a conversation with Seal Team six

0:02:51.560 --> 0:02:54.000
<v Speaker 2>or the seat of the Defense Department? Is that official?

0:02:54.040 --> 0:02:56.600
<v Speaker 2>And you can never indict someone if they've done something terrible.

0:02:56.840 --> 0:03:00.640
<v Speaker 2>So it looks like it doesn't answer that hy pathetical.

0:03:00.840 --> 0:03:04.440
<v Speaker 2>And it's particularly dangerous if you have a president like

0:03:04.639 --> 0:03:08.480
<v Speaker 2>Trump who is always pushing the envelope. So if he

0:03:08.680 --> 0:03:13.079
<v Speaker 2>orders the Defense Department to shoot protesters, right, he could

0:03:13.120 --> 0:03:15.800
<v Speaker 2>say that's official. That's what people are very worried about.

0:03:16.520 --> 0:03:20.160
<v Speaker 3>These six are supposedly originalists. Is there anything in the

0:03:20.240 --> 0:03:25.960
<v Speaker 3>Constitution or history that supports this decision.

0:03:26.280 --> 0:03:29.360
<v Speaker 2>There's certainly nothing in the text. The text says that Congress.

0:03:29.400 --> 0:03:32.160
<v Speaker 2>You know, the founders wanted Congress to be the important

0:03:32.200 --> 0:03:34.720
<v Speaker 2>body here. That's why it's in Article one. The Supreme

0:03:34.760 --> 0:03:36.960
<v Speaker 2>Court was in the basement of the Senate for most

0:03:37.080 --> 0:03:41.160
<v Speaker 2>nineteenth centuries, and it's in article three, not article one.

0:03:41.520 --> 0:03:44.240
<v Speaker 2>So the text tells you what's the most important. And

0:03:44.360 --> 0:03:46.920
<v Speaker 2>they have immunity for things they say, because the King

0:03:47.080 --> 0:03:49.800
<v Speaker 2>in Britain used to, you know, throw the members of

0:03:49.840 --> 0:03:52.200
<v Speaker 2>Parliament and members of Commons in jail. So no one

0:03:52.200 --> 0:03:55.120
<v Speaker 2>wanted that to happen, but there is no text on immunity.

0:03:55.520 --> 0:03:58.280
<v Speaker 2>Now the historical case which they decided, you know, there's

0:03:58.280 --> 0:04:01.000
<v Speaker 2>another case called Vance that was deciding the last few years,

0:04:01.160 --> 0:04:03.960
<v Speaker 2>which is about whether Trump could be subpoena in this

0:04:04.120 --> 0:04:07.640
<v Speaker 2>Mazaar's accounting firm case. And they said yes because they

0:04:07.680 --> 0:04:09.840
<v Speaker 2>relied on the Burg case and they'd held that in

0:04:09.880 --> 0:04:14.400
<v Speaker 2>the Nixon case too, and so everyone thought, well, if

0:04:14.400 --> 0:04:16.599
<v Speaker 2>you can subpoena him, and if he can be an

0:04:16.680 --> 0:04:20.400
<v Speaker 2>unindicted co conspirator as in Nixon, then of course if

0:04:20.440 --> 0:04:24.320
<v Speaker 2>he's a former president, he can be subject to criminals sanction.

0:04:24.640 --> 0:04:26.920
<v Speaker 2>Is there anything in history to know this has never

0:04:26.960 --> 0:04:27.640
<v Speaker 2>happened before?

0:04:28.000 --> 0:04:29.400
<v Speaker 3>So how did they come up with this?

0:04:29.640 --> 0:04:32.360
<v Speaker 2>Where did they get from their own president? So basically

0:04:32.400 --> 0:04:35.400
<v Speaker 2>they took this case called Harlow, which was a guy

0:04:35.440 --> 0:04:37.960
<v Speaker 2>who sued Nixon because of what Nixon did to him

0:04:38.240 --> 0:04:41.640
<v Speaker 2>Nixon had some you know, sort of aggressive policing of

0:04:41.680 --> 0:04:45.240
<v Speaker 2>the executive branch and individual and he treated this person

0:04:45.320 --> 0:04:50.000
<v Speaker 2>terribly and so the person sued and the court said, well, yes,

0:04:50.000 --> 0:04:52.839
<v Speaker 2>he treated you poorly. But if anyone could sue the

0:04:52.880 --> 0:04:57.600
<v Speaker 2>president for damages, then it would stop government, right, And

0:04:57.640 --> 0:04:59.839
<v Speaker 2>that's true throughout the government today. You can't like sue

0:04:59.839 --> 0:05:01.920
<v Speaker 2>the Justice Aparment because you don't like them or what

0:05:02.000 --> 0:05:05.400
<v Speaker 2>their policy. That's just a general There are many different

0:05:05.400 --> 0:05:09.360
<v Speaker 2>doctrines of government a stop all immunity that apply throughout

0:05:09.360 --> 0:05:12.120
<v Speaker 2>the government, Like you can't easily see the government and

0:05:12.120 --> 0:05:15.880
<v Speaker 2>particularly for policies you don't like. So that's about money damages.

0:05:15.920 --> 0:05:19.000
<v Speaker 2>But this is about a crime. So there's a big

0:05:19.080 --> 0:05:22.840
<v Speaker 2>move there. And so basically Roberts made this all up

0:05:23.040 --> 0:05:27.960
<v Speaker 2>talk about making up legislating. I find it very odd

0:05:28.240 --> 0:05:32.000
<v Speaker 2>because it also is not very clear about how you're

0:05:32.040 --> 0:05:34.320
<v Speaker 2>actually going to do this. Now. The truth is that

0:05:34.440 --> 0:05:36.799
<v Speaker 2>if people are worried about this, they shouldn't be too worried.

0:05:37.080 --> 0:05:38.560
<v Speaker 2>You know, they shouldn't be worried about the rule law

0:05:38.560 --> 0:05:40.480
<v Speaker 2>because they decide forty cases a year that no one

0:05:40.480 --> 0:05:43.240
<v Speaker 2>cares about an energies, whether it's original or not. You know,

0:05:43.360 --> 0:05:47.200
<v Speaker 2>it's within the realm of reason in my view. This term. However,

0:05:47.240 --> 0:05:49.559
<v Speaker 2>they decided about six cases that are going to scare

0:05:49.600 --> 0:05:52.799
<v Speaker 2>the American public, and they show no interest in actually

0:05:53.120 --> 0:05:56.160
<v Speaker 2>being statesmen or calming the waters, which is disturbing to

0:05:56.160 --> 0:05:58.880
<v Speaker 2>me as someone who studies the whole Constitution. But they

0:05:58.920 --> 0:06:01.520
<v Speaker 2>relied on precedent. I told you that civil case, and

0:06:01.520 --> 0:06:03.760
<v Speaker 2>then they applied it to a criminal case. But all

0:06:03.839 --> 0:06:06.839
<v Speaker 2>their application of the doctrine, so they've got this official

0:06:06.839 --> 0:06:09.880
<v Speaker 2>immunity once they adopted from the Harlow case and they

0:06:09.920 --> 0:06:12.679
<v Speaker 2>apply that to criminal cases, which is a leap there.

0:06:13.080 --> 0:06:15.800
<v Speaker 2>Number one. But then the majority opinion is this long

0:06:15.920 --> 0:06:21.200
<v Speaker 2>discussion about the difference between allegations in the indictment of

0:06:21.240 --> 0:06:23.279
<v Speaker 2>what was official and what was not. So they say

0:06:23.279 --> 0:06:25.760
<v Speaker 2>it was official if you talk to your attorney general. Well,

0:06:25.800 --> 0:06:28.520
<v Speaker 2>what if you talk to your attorney general to bribe someone?

0:06:29.279 --> 0:06:31.440
<v Speaker 2>And that was all the discussions in these or a

0:06:31.520 --> 0:06:34.120
<v Speaker 2>largument and why so themuor push back. So there are

0:06:34.120 --> 0:06:36.839
<v Speaker 2>three buckets that they developed and there's nothing in the

0:06:36.839 --> 0:06:39.320
<v Speaker 2>text of the Constitution that says any of this. So

0:06:39.480 --> 0:06:42.720
<v Speaker 2>one is the absolute immunity. So some conversation referred to

0:06:42.880 --> 0:06:46.520
<v Speaker 2>with Bill Barr about then the question is about Mike Pennce,

0:06:46.600 --> 0:06:49.279
<v Speaker 2>and that's in this middle ground that they've given presumptive

0:06:49.279 --> 0:06:52.520
<v Speaker 2>immunity to but it can be rebutted. And then there's

0:06:52.560 --> 0:06:55.680
<v Speaker 2>the stuff that you know, probably private. And this is

0:06:55.680 --> 0:06:59.080
<v Speaker 2>where Justice Barrett to the country a great service by noting,

0:06:59.640 --> 0:07:02.799
<v Speaker 2>as the GC Circuit had held that the Sake Elector

0:07:02.880 --> 0:07:07.640
<v Speaker 2>scam was all private. Even the speech, in my view

0:07:07.720 --> 0:07:10.280
<v Speaker 2>was private because it was funded by the campaign, because

0:07:10.280 --> 0:07:12.840
<v Speaker 2>if they spent several dollars on that, that would be

0:07:12.840 --> 0:07:15.680
<v Speaker 2>a felony. You can't spend federal money on campaign speech.

0:07:15.920 --> 0:07:18.440
<v Speaker 2>So there are three buckets. We're going to have a

0:07:18.440 --> 0:07:22.080
<v Speaker 2>big hearing about it. Everyone's gonna scratch their heads about this,

0:07:22.240 --> 0:07:24.120
<v Speaker 2>and the court is going to look terrible. You know,

0:07:24.240 --> 0:07:26.080
<v Speaker 2>I've spent my whole life defending the role of law,

0:07:26.240 --> 0:07:28.840
<v Speaker 2>and I'm really sad, and I'm kind of angry at

0:07:28.920 --> 0:07:31.600
<v Speaker 2>Roberts for doing this, because I just think it showed

0:07:31.840 --> 0:07:35.120
<v Speaker 2>so little sense of where the country is. They decided

0:07:35.160 --> 0:07:37.800
<v Speaker 2>a case they didn't need to decide, which is imprudent.

0:07:38.080 --> 0:07:41.280
<v Speaker 2>They could have written it very simply. It's really complicated,

0:07:41.880 --> 0:07:44.440
<v Speaker 2>so you know, usually like Brown versus Board, it's a

0:07:44.560 --> 0:07:47.800
<v Speaker 2>very short deelphic thing with nine people on it. Right,

0:07:48.320 --> 0:07:52.400
<v Speaker 2>it's hubris. It's just hubris and lack of statesmanship and understanding.

0:07:52.400 --> 0:07:55.080
<v Speaker 2>They're a part of the Constitution. They're not above it.

0:07:55.680 --> 0:07:59.200
<v Speaker 2>They are not They're part of it. And so that

0:07:59.280 --> 0:08:02.360
<v Speaker 2>hubris is a real problem. And I think the American

0:08:02.400 --> 0:08:06.280
<v Speaker 2>people their only option now is to make the Court

0:08:06.480 --> 0:08:09.680
<v Speaker 2>a political issue so their things Congress can do. They

0:08:09.720 --> 0:08:12.320
<v Speaker 2>can reverse local Bride, they can reverse a lot of

0:08:12.320 --> 0:08:14.800
<v Speaker 2>these things. So people are going to have to elect

0:08:14.800 --> 0:08:17.240
<v Speaker 2>people who will actually do that kind of stuff if

0:08:17.240 --> 0:08:19.520
<v Speaker 2>they wanted to change, because there's no way those court

0:08:19.560 --> 0:08:22.000
<v Speaker 2>will be packed. Fdrhad sixty seven vote.

0:08:22.320 --> 0:08:26.200
<v Speaker 1>When Trump lost the twenty twenty election, the Supreme Court

0:08:26.240 --> 0:08:30.880
<v Speaker 1>basically turned away his different challenges. What do you think

0:08:31.000 --> 0:08:35.000
<v Speaker 1>happened at the Court to lead to this opinion which

0:08:35.040 --> 0:08:39.040
<v Speaker 1>paves a way for him to run in November without

0:08:39.080 --> 0:08:43.400
<v Speaker 1>facing a trial for criminal interference in the twenty twenty election.

0:08:44.280 --> 0:08:48.440
<v Speaker 2>It's their blindness to their role within the constitution. And

0:08:48.800 --> 0:08:51.679
<v Speaker 2>you know, Scalda liked this theory called the unitary executive

0:08:52.120 --> 0:08:55.960
<v Speaker 2>that's behind this decision. They all believe they wear bracelets.

0:08:56.000 --> 0:08:58.280
<v Speaker 2>It's not what would Jesus do, it's what would Antonique

0:08:58.320 --> 0:09:02.600
<v Speaker 2>Glea do? Look at a bracelet. And Scalia's most famous

0:09:02.600 --> 0:09:05.360
<v Speaker 2>opinion was a dissent in Morrison versus Olsen against the

0:09:05.400 --> 0:09:08.800
<v Speaker 2>Special Council. You saw that in Thomas's opinion he thinks

0:09:08.880 --> 0:09:11.440
<v Speaker 2>Jack Smith is unconstitutional and that's being argued down in

0:09:11.480 --> 0:09:15.120
<v Speaker 2>Aileen Canon's case. So that gives the president a lot

0:09:15.120 --> 0:09:19.800
<v Speaker 2>of power. That's part of the tenant of originalism. There's

0:09:19.840 --> 0:09:23.040
<v Speaker 2>no textual source of this. They view something called the

0:09:23.160 --> 0:09:25.320
<v Speaker 2>vesting Clause, which was added at the end of the

0:09:25.320 --> 0:09:28.280
<v Speaker 2>Constitution Convention. It's sort of like a header, but anyway,

0:09:28.640 --> 0:09:31.560
<v Speaker 2>it says, shall vess the executive power in a president.

0:09:32.320 --> 0:09:36.559
<v Speaker 2>They view that as, to quote a professor's book, Imperial

0:09:36.640 --> 0:09:39.079
<v Speaker 2>from the beginning. And they've been saying this for years

0:09:39.120 --> 0:09:42.880
<v Speaker 2>out loud. Now I've written extensively about why they're adding

0:09:42.960 --> 0:09:46.640
<v Speaker 2>text to the Constitution effectively because for some time Justice

0:09:46.679 --> 0:09:49.280
<v Speaker 2>Scalia wrote in that opinion that the president has all

0:09:49.360 --> 0:09:51.760
<v Speaker 2>executive power and the word all is not in there.

0:09:52.200 --> 0:09:54.480
<v Speaker 2>And the fact that they're arguing that, I mean, the

0:09:54.480 --> 0:09:58.000
<v Speaker 2>greatest generation will be rolling over in their grave. Robert Jackson,

0:09:58.240 --> 0:10:01.160
<v Speaker 2>who wrote in an opinion called Steel Seizure that when

0:10:01.160 --> 0:10:03.520
<v Speaker 2>the government argued that, you know, the Nixon thing, if

0:10:03.559 --> 0:10:05.920
<v Speaker 2>I do it, it's legal, that it was the kind

0:10:05.960 --> 0:10:09.840
<v Speaker 2>of language for a totalitarian And this is what I

0:10:09.840 --> 0:10:13.040
<v Speaker 2>have taught for years. I pushed back on the unitary executive.

0:10:13.200 --> 0:10:15.640
<v Speaker 2>And so this is a theory that they even moderate,

0:10:16.280 --> 0:10:19.360
<v Speaker 2>some moderates in the Republican Party adopt, like the bushy

0:10:19.600 --> 0:10:23.199
<v Speaker 2>George W. Bush persons. Now, note there is something important

0:10:23.240 --> 0:10:25.520
<v Speaker 2>to note. There were a lot of fancy conservative laders

0:10:25.720 --> 0:10:28.240
<v Speaker 2>telling them not to do this, and yet they did,

0:10:28.320 --> 0:10:32.880
<v Speaker 2>like Charles Cooper, Peter Kisler, that very clause, you're citing

0:10:32.920 --> 0:10:36.040
<v Speaker 2>that text. So they focus on the executive's vesting clause.

0:10:36.760 --> 0:10:40.360
<v Speaker 2>But right after the executive promising clause is the president

0:10:40.679 --> 0:10:44.160
<v Speaker 2>faithfully execute the law. And so these conservatives argued, well,

0:10:44.320 --> 0:10:47.040
<v Speaker 2>the president can't violate the law. We have to faithfully

0:10:47.120 --> 0:10:50.240
<v Speaker 2>execute the law. And there's nothing in the vesting clause.

0:10:50.280 --> 0:10:52.080
<v Speaker 2>It's just as sort of a header or a description

0:10:52.760 --> 0:10:56.720
<v Speaker 2>that undermines the president's beauty. And they did not accept

0:10:56.720 --> 0:10:59.040
<v Speaker 2>that argument. So my head has been exploding since I

0:10:59.080 --> 0:11:02.880
<v Speaker 2>heard the oral argument, because I know that behind this

0:11:03.080 --> 0:11:06.480
<v Speaker 2>is the assumption that the unitary executive is a wise thing.

0:11:06.720 --> 0:11:09.320
<v Speaker 2>So what they've done is they've aggrandized the president and

0:11:09.360 --> 0:11:13.240
<v Speaker 2>they've aggrandized themselves. And what can I say except for

0:11:13.480 --> 0:11:16.160
<v Speaker 2>historically we've had other legal revolutions. So this isn't just

0:11:16.240 --> 0:11:18.800
<v Speaker 2>constitutional because the low for Bride and all this batchtory stuff.

0:11:18.840 --> 0:11:22.120
<v Speaker 2>I study textualism. You know, it's a theory for easy cases,

0:11:22.160 --> 0:11:25.000
<v Speaker 2>not hard cases. You know, for the president being thirty five.

0:11:25.080 --> 0:11:27.959
<v Speaker 2>But it's not about you know, the limits of executive power.

0:11:28.360 --> 0:11:31.400
<v Speaker 2>And so I think that they've begun in the seeds

0:11:31.440 --> 0:11:35.520
<v Speaker 2>of destruction of originalism because there's nothing historically that really

0:11:35.640 --> 0:11:38.280
<v Speaker 2>supports what they've done. There's nothing in the text that

0:11:38.360 --> 0:11:42.040
<v Speaker 2>supports what they've done. And so we now see that

0:11:42.160 --> 0:11:47.280
<v Speaker 2>this originalism seventeen eighty seven stuff is a veneer. So yeah, women, okay,

0:11:47.320 --> 0:11:49.760
<v Speaker 2>you go back to the witch hunter in thirteenth century.

0:11:50.160 --> 0:11:53.240
<v Speaker 2>But meanwhile, the president can do anything he want. It's

0:11:53.280 --> 0:11:55.960
<v Speaker 2>not well thought out. It's more political in the sense

0:11:56.000 --> 0:11:58.720
<v Speaker 2>of I don't like that word. There's a philosopher calls

0:11:58.720 --> 0:12:01.480
<v Speaker 2>it the cunning of unreason in this politics, and this

0:12:01.800 --> 0:12:05.160
<v Speaker 2>was a unitary executive opinion because they think they're looking

0:12:05.160 --> 0:12:07.920
<v Speaker 2>down at there. What would Justice Scalia do? Bracelet And

0:12:08.520 --> 0:12:11.160
<v Speaker 2>they're really really not thinking of that, particularly in the

0:12:11.200 --> 0:12:14.840
<v Speaker 2>era of Trump. So this is extremely dangerous for what

0:12:14.880 --> 0:12:16.760
<v Speaker 2>will come if Trump wins the election.

0:12:17.280 --> 0:12:21.440
<v Speaker 3>So they're all for this unitary executive, a strong president,

0:12:21.600 --> 0:12:24.520
<v Speaker 3>yet they're against the administrative state, and they took away

0:12:24.559 --> 0:12:29.560
<v Speaker 3>power from federal agencies. The president is controlling. How do

0:12:29.600 --> 0:12:30.760
<v Speaker 3>you reconcile those.

0:12:30.520 --> 0:12:35.040
<v Speaker 2>Two, Well, they want the president, not the executive briends.

0:12:35.400 --> 0:12:37.960
<v Speaker 2>They think the president under unitary executive has to be

0:12:38.000 --> 0:12:40.240
<v Speaker 2>in charge of all. There has to be one line

0:12:40.240 --> 0:12:43.240
<v Speaker 2>from the president every person in the administration. So they

0:12:43.280 --> 0:12:46.800
<v Speaker 2>want to politicize the executive actual and they want to

0:12:46.800 --> 0:12:49.840
<v Speaker 2>get rid of expertise. That's the twins punch. It's like

0:12:49.960 --> 0:12:52.080
<v Speaker 2>Trump with his schedule f he wants to get rid of,

0:12:52.200 --> 0:12:55.439
<v Speaker 2>you know, the scientists and the notion of expertise. It's

0:12:55.480 --> 0:12:58.600
<v Speaker 2>also a power move for them. So they in their

0:12:58.600 --> 0:13:02.000
<v Speaker 2>statutory interpretation world, they say what the law is, it

0:13:02.040 --> 0:13:04.400
<v Speaker 2>comes from Marbury versus medicine. It comes from the most

0:13:04.440 --> 0:13:07.760
<v Speaker 2>evacuous statement there because if you ask the president, any president,

0:13:08.120 --> 0:13:10.000
<v Speaker 2>you say, with the law they say, yeah, I sign

0:13:10.080 --> 0:13:13.200
<v Speaker 2>the law. So this Congress doesn't mean anything. All it

0:13:13.280 --> 0:13:16.400
<v Speaker 2>says is that we get to decide. So they've tied

0:13:16.440 --> 0:13:19.360
<v Speaker 2>the administra to stay up into knots by saying, if

0:13:19.360 --> 0:13:21.719
<v Speaker 2>you haven't written it quite correctly, we get to say no.

0:13:22.040 --> 0:13:24.880
<v Speaker 2>So they've given themselves a lot of power, mostly with

0:13:24.920 --> 0:13:28.439
<v Speaker 2>the local brides in my view, and Republicans felt care

0:13:28.240 --> 0:13:33.120
<v Speaker 2>to actually affirmative, really regulate. They only believe in deregulation.

0:13:34.240 --> 0:13:38.400
<v Speaker 2>So it's a one way ratchet. If Trump deregulates, it's

0:13:38.480 --> 0:13:41.200
<v Speaker 2>not clear they will think that's a major question. There's

0:13:41.200 --> 0:13:42.120
<v Speaker 2>nothing to review.

0:13:42.920 --> 0:13:46.080
<v Speaker 1>Trump is asking the judge in the hush money trial

0:13:46.120 --> 0:13:49.680
<v Speaker 1>where he was convicted for things that happened before you

0:13:49.760 --> 0:13:52.400
<v Speaker 1>as president. So tell us what Trump's argument is.

0:13:53.280 --> 0:13:57.400
<v Speaker 2>Okay, So Hope Hicks testified and she corroborated the testimony

0:13:58.400 --> 0:14:02.520
<v Speaker 2>of Michael Cohen. She was an official, she worked for Trump,

0:14:02.760 --> 0:14:05.600
<v Speaker 2>and in this opinion it says conversations with the Attorney

0:14:05.720 --> 0:14:10.240
<v Speaker 2>General Bill Barr are absolutely amused and federal constitutional law

0:14:10.679 --> 0:14:14.720
<v Speaker 2>governs any criminal Trump. So the question is whether he's

0:14:14.760 --> 0:14:17.640
<v Speaker 2>going to say, okay, I think they would have held

0:14:17.679 --> 0:14:20.960
<v Speaker 2>the same verdict even if we get rid of that testimony.

0:14:20.960 --> 0:14:23.640
<v Speaker 2>It was harmless error. If a judge does that, I'm

0:14:23.640 --> 0:14:26.640
<v Speaker 2>sure there will be six billion appeals. I think they

0:14:26.760 --> 0:14:31.160
<v Speaker 2>thought that the danger here is criminalizing politics, and the

0:14:31.280 --> 0:14:34.479
<v Speaker 2>right keeps telling me, oh, this means Trump can't vindictively

0:14:34.560 --> 0:14:38.000
<v Speaker 2>prosecute bids and that's just false because you can. You

0:14:38.000 --> 0:14:41.440
<v Speaker 2>can still prosecute people for personal acts. Right, So this

0:14:41.560 --> 0:14:44.000
<v Speaker 2>was a personal act in the New York case. So

0:14:44.080 --> 0:14:47.000
<v Speaker 2>what he paid off the porn star before he was president,

0:14:47.240 --> 0:14:50.040
<v Speaker 2>that was personal. He is a personal lawyer. He wasn't president,

0:14:50.480 --> 0:14:52.800
<v Speaker 2>so you can't say that. But there was testimony in

0:14:52.880 --> 0:14:56.080
<v Speaker 2>the case by one of his aides about the payments

0:14:56.400 --> 0:14:59.080
<v Speaker 2>when he was in the White House. So basically two

0:14:59.120 --> 0:15:03.440
<v Speaker 2>district court judges, the guy in New York and Chuck Kins,

0:15:03.720 --> 0:15:06.480
<v Speaker 2>their heads must be sinning because they have to decipher

0:15:06.520 --> 0:15:10.400
<v Speaker 2>all this stuff and it's not clear what they should do.

0:15:10.600 --> 0:15:12.720
<v Speaker 2>My own view is this is one of those cases

0:15:12.760 --> 0:15:15.120
<v Speaker 2>where they should think of the country because this is

0:15:15.160 --> 0:15:17.440
<v Speaker 2>just going back to the court. It's like the abortion,

0:15:17.720 --> 0:15:20.440
<v Speaker 2>Like they decided the abortion things that he would go away,

0:15:20.840 --> 0:15:24.840
<v Speaker 2>and if anyone knows anything about the abortions and stuff

0:15:24.840 --> 0:15:27.280
<v Speaker 2>and the different state lawns. So that's kind of crazy.

0:15:27.600 --> 0:15:30.520
<v Speaker 2>That's going back done. And so I just road up

0:15:30.600 --> 0:15:33.280
<v Speaker 2>in the New Republic about you know, this is just

0:15:33.400 --> 0:15:37.160
<v Speaker 2>chaos right now. You know, I defend the different realms

0:15:37.160 --> 0:15:40.960
<v Speaker 2>of politics and law, and law should move flow. This

0:15:41.040 --> 0:15:43.680
<v Speaker 2>is why progresses don't like me, because I'm like, now,

0:15:43.840 --> 0:15:46.640
<v Speaker 2>there's some virtue to moving flow. Even Brown, there was

0:15:46.760 --> 0:15:48.760
<v Speaker 2>virtue in them getting to the point where it was

0:15:48.840 --> 0:15:52.040
<v Speaker 2>ridiculous when a guy was sitting outside the classroom, you know,

0:15:52.120 --> 0:15:54.520
<v Speaker 2>and the black guy had to sit two inches away

0:15:54.560 --> 0:15:57.440
<v Speaker 2>from the classroom. I mean, the cases have made it,

0:15:57.520 --> 0:15:59.560
<v Speaker 2>you know, important for the court at that point in

0:15:59.600 --> 0:16:02.720
<v Speaker 2>real life to make a general pronouncement. But this court

0:16:02.720 --> 0:16:06.240
<v Speaker 2>has not moved slowly, and it's philosophy really isn't coherent.

0:16:06.280 --> 0:16:09.360
<v Speaker 2>So they're taking a modern notion of right that no

0:16:09.520 --> 0:16:13.200
<v Speaker 2>historian things existed in seventeen eighty seven. So it's really

0:16:13.200 --> 0:16:15.280
<v Speaker 2>a problem. And one of the reasons that the problem

0:16:15.360 --> 0:16:18.359
<v Speaker 2>is that said sock is the only source of information.

0:16:18.720 --> 0:16:21.280
<v Speaker 2>You know, it's a feedback loop over there. So I

0:16:21.360 --> 0:16:24.640
<v Speaker 2>used to I've appeared there's maybe twenty times on statutory

0:16:24.640 --> 0:16:26.920
<v Speaker 2>interpretation the separation of powers, because I'm one of the

0:16:26.920 --> 0:16:29.280
<v Speaker 2>few women who do the separation powers. Because the last

0:16:29.280 --> 0:16:30.680
<v Speaker 2>time I went there and I was talking about the

0:16:30.680 --> 0:16:32.600
<v Speaker 2>Federalist fakers, I have a theory about them, and it's

0:16:32.640 --> 0:16:35.120
<v Speaker 2>kind of interesting. I think, you know, I get a

0:16:35.160 --> 0:16:39.320
<v Speaker 2>good speech, and I made it an aside about President Biden,

0:16:39.840 --> 0:16:41.880
<v Speaker 2>who thought I was a nutcase because I had had

0:16:41.920 --> 0:16:44.840
<v Speaker 2>the Federalist papers on my lap reading them because I

0:16:44.880 --> 0:16:46.320
<v Speaker 2>wanted to be an academic, and he thought that was

0:16:46.400 --> 0:16:49.080
<v Speaker 2>very weird for a feminine and they bowed him. When

0:16:49.120 --> 0:16:52.120
<v Speaker 2>I said, Biden, they booed, that's not a legal society.

0:16:52.400 --> 0:16:56.200
<v Speaker 2>That's some kind of political campaign to me, So you know,

0:16:56.320 --> 0:16:58.640
<v Speaker 2>it's not it's not a happy look for those of

0:16:58.720 --> 0:17:00.760
<v Speaker 2>us who care about the rule of wary law. The

0:17:00.800 --> 0:17:03.000
<v Speaker 2>good news is thereas a new conservative society called the

0:17:03.040 --> 0:17:05.080
<v Speaker 2>rule of Law Society. Like Peter Kreiser, all those people

0:17:05.119 --> 0:17:07.320
<v Speaker 2>I mentioned a rote depth brief in the case they

0:17:07.440 --> 0:17:10.080
<v Speaker 2>told them not to do this. So there is an

0:17:10.080 --> 0:17:13.080
<v Speaker 2>alternative now for students and people who think they're conservative.

0:17:13.080 --> 0:17:15.080
<v Speaker 2>I don't. I won't join it because they say they're conservative.

0:17:15.080 --> 0:17:16.639
<v Speaker 2>I don't think that's the rule of we wal WAW

0:17:16.720 --> 0:17:19.760
<v Speaker 2>and not conservatives liberal. The rule of law is about consistency,

0:17:20.560 --> 0:17:24.439
<v Speaker 2>It's about certain kinds of reasons. So politicians they just

0:17:24.720 --> 0:17:27.640
<v Speaker 2>say stuff they don't necessarily have to have good reasons. Right.

0:17:27.800 --> 0:17:30.840
<v Speaker 2>Judges have to have reasons that make sense to lots

0:17:30.840 --> 0:17:34.520
<v Speaker 2>of other lawyers not to be treated with derision. So

0:17:34.800 --> 0:17:37.200
<v Speaker 2>that's why I'm sad for the court because the American

0:17:37.240 --> 0:17:39.400
<v Speaker 2>public is just not going to understand this, and it's

0:17:39.400 --> 0:17:42.040
<v Speaker 2>going to breed a lot of cynicism in our system.

0:17:42.200 --> 0:17:45.520
<v Speaker 2>Just as a time, we need faith in the rule

0:17:45.560 --> 0:17:48.280
<v Speaker 2>of loss. It's work of progress. We often fail all

0:17:48.280 --> 0:17:50.560
<v Speaker 2>the time, but this was a massive fail.

0:17:51.080 --> 0:17:55.800
<v Speaker 1>The implications of this decision will reverberate and keep reverberating.

0:17:56.040 --> 0:17:59.560
<v Speaker 1>Thanks so much for joining me, Victoria. That's Professor Victoria

0:17:59.600 --> 0:18:02.920
<v Speaker 1>Norse of Georgetown Law. And that's it for this edition

0:18:02.960 --> 0:18:05.600
<v Speaker 1>of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get

0:18:05.600 --> 0:18:08.760
<v Speaker 1>the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You

0:18:08.800 --> 0:18:12.879
<v Speaker 1>can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www

0:18:13.000 --> 0:18:17.280
<v Speaker 1>dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and remember

0:18:17.320 --> 0:18:20.280
<v Speaker 1>to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at

0:18:20.320 --> 0:18:23.760
<v Speaker 1>ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso, and you're

0:18:23.880 --> 0:18:25.080
<v Speaker 1>listening to Bloomberg,