1
00:00:00,480 --> 00:00:05,720
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:07,040 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: Senate Democrats are all but powerless to keep Judge Amy

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,960
Speaker 1: Coney Barrett off the Supreme Court. Barrett was questioned about

4
00:00:13,960 --> 00:00:18,800
Speaker 1: abortion rights, Obamacare, guns at election disputes. She declined to

5
00:00:18,840 --> 00:00:22,280
Speaker 1: answer questions on some issues she has expressed personal opinions

6
00:00:22,280 --> 00:00:24,800
Speaker 1: on in the past, such as abortion rights, or on

7
00:00:24,840 --> 00:00:27,360
Speaker 1: what she would do recording other matters likely to come

8
00:00:27,360 --> 00:00:30,280
Speaker 1: before the Supreme Court. My guest is Harold Crant, a

9
00:00:30,320 --> 00:00:33,839
Speaker 1: professor at the Chicago Kent College of Law. What did

10
00:00:33,880 --> 00:00:38,920
Speaker 1: we learn about Judge Barrett from the hearings? We've learned

11
00:00:39,040 --> 00:00:42,080
Speaker 1: very little about Judge Barrett that We've mostly learned that

12
00:00:42,159 --> 00:00:46,000
Speaker 1: the centers are using this nomination process as a way

13
00:00:46,000 --> 00:00:49,600
Speaker 1: to reach the American people and influence them for the election.

14
00:00:49,880 --> 00:00:52,800
Speaker 1: That's what they focused on, and both Republicans and Democrats

15
00:00:52,840 --> 00:00:56,040
Speaker 1: are using spin to try to get voters on their side.

16
00:00:56,480 --> 00:01:01,520
Speaker 1: Judge Barrett has refused to answer numerous quess Gin's about

17
00:01:01,560 --> 00:01:06,640
Speaker 1: many different topics. Has this become the norm for Supreme

18
00:01:06,640 --> 00:01:09,520
Speaker 1: Court nominations hearings or is she taking it even a

19
00:01:09,600 --> 00:01:14,440
Speaker 1: step further? Unfortunately, she's very close to the norm. I mean,

20
00:01:14,640 --> 00:01:17,839
Speaker 1: the perfecting the art of the non answer is something

21
00:01:17,840 --> 00:01:21,480
Speaker 1: that she's taken, perhaps to a different level, but we've

22
00:01:21,520 --> 00:01:24,560
Speaker 1: seen that in the last several nominations, and unfortunately, in

23
00:01:24,600 --> 00:01:28,080
Speaker 1: this age of partisanship, UM, the non answer is the

24
00:01:28,120 --> 00:01:32,720
Speaker 1: one that gets by and doesn't antagonize any of the

25
00:01:32,800 --> 00:01:35,720
Speaker 1: senators who are asking questions. There are a couple of

26
00:01:35,840 --> 00:01:40,160
Speaker 1: clues that have come through. To give you one prominent example,

27
00:01:40,560 --> 00:01:43,920
Speaker 1: Judge Barrett said that the president of Brown versus Board

28
00:01:43,920 --> 00:01:48,080
Speaker 1: of Education recognizing that separate is not equal is entrenched

29
00:01:48,080 --> 00:01:50,640
Speaker 1: into our system, has been accepted, and she would never

30
00:01:50,680 --> 00:01:53,160
Speaker 1: be second guest uh. And she refused to do that

31
00:01:53,240 --> 00:01:56,040
Speaker 1: for ro versus Wade. She said that despite the fact

32
00:01:56,080 --> 00:01:59,559
Speaker 1: that the court has reconsidered it an affirm ro versus Wade,

33
00:01:59,800 --> 00:02:02,440
Speaker 1: the fact that there's so much discussion about it means

34
00:02:02,440 --> 00:02:06,120
Speaker 1: that it's not entrenched. And so her theory, which a

35
00:02:06,120 --> 00:02:11,600
Speaker 1: little bizarre, is that if the president is accepted, there's

36
00:02:11,639 --> 00:02:14,520
Speaker 1: no reason to re examine it, which of course is obvious.

37
00:02:14,800 --> 00:02:17,600
Speaker 1: But if it's not accepted, then you can re examine it.

38
00:02:17,680 --> 00:02:21,080
Speaker 1: So her her answers, even in contrast to those UH,

39
00:02:21,639 --> 00:02:25,320
Speaker 1: now Justice Kavanaugh, just a couple of years ago, suggests

40
00:02:25,360 --> 00:02:29,080
Speaker 1: a willingness to reconsider ropersts way, So I would consider

41
00:02:29,120 --> 00:02:32,280
Speaker 1: that the biggest crewe that she left dropped today in

42
00:02:32,440 --> 00:02:36,200
Speaker 1: discussion so far. She talked with Lindsey Graham at the

43
00:02:36,240 --> 00:02:40,200
Speaker 1: beginning about precedent and what she calls a super precedent.

44
00:02:41,000 --> 00:02:43,960
Speaker 1: First of all, is super precedent something you teach in

45
00:02:44,040 --> 00:02:49,160
Speaker 1: law school nowadays? So super president is not something that

46
00:02:49,200 --> 00:02:53,320
Speaker 1: we have historically taught her that knew anything about. And indeed,

47
00:02:53,639 --> 00:02:57,680
Speaker 1: just as Kavanagh used the expression president on precedent, which

48
00:02:57,880 --> 00:03:00,160
Speaker 1: I had not been aware of until he used to.

49
00:03:00,639 --> 00:03:03,399
Speaker 1: And so what these jurors are do when you're trying

50
00:03:03,400 --> 00:03:06,160
Speaker 1: to suggest that there are some presidents, yes, that we

51
00:03:06,200 --> 00:03:11,480
Speaker 1: should re examine, and some presidents that are beyond reproach.

52
00:03:11,639 --> 00:03:14,400
Speaker 1: And there is a consensus in the academy and probably

53
00:03:14,400 --> 00:03:17,400
Speaker 1: amongst the Court, that the justices should be willing to

54
00:03:17,840 --> 00:03:24,200
Speaker 1: reconsider constitutional precedents, more readily the statutory precedents, because Congress

55
00:03:24,200 --> 00:03:27,560
Speaker 1: can always change a statutory interpretation by the Court that

56
00:03:27,600 --> 00:03:31,280
Speaker 1: they disagree with, and Congress can't do that with the

57
00:03:31,360 --> 00:03:34,400
Speaker 1: Court's interpretation of the Constitution. What do you think of

58
00:03:34,440 --> 00:03:37,520
Speaker 1: the fact that she was willing to say that Casey

59
00:03:37,720 --> 00:03:41,400
Speaker 1: was precedent but not Roe v. Wade. My interpretation of

60
00:03:41,400 --> 00:03:45,400
Speaker 1: our answer is suggesting that despite Casey, there's still so

61
00:03:45,560 --> 00:03:50,680
Speaker 1: much discussion and so much handwringing about the status of

62
00:03:51,560 --> 00:03:55,280
Speaker 1: Casey and roversus way that it's not entrance precedent, which

63
00:03:55,320 --> 00:03:58,600
Speaker 1: to me was a clear signal. Maybe not in the

64
00:03:58,680 --> 00:04:00,600
Speaker 1: first case you hear is, maybe not in the second,

65
00:04:01,000 --> 00:04:03,640
Speaker 1: but at some point she would be willing to overturn

66
00:04:03,720 --> 00:04:07,000
Speaker 1: Roe versus Weight itself. Have you ever heard that definition

67
00:04:07,040 --> 00:04:10,640
Speaker 1: of precedent before? Again, it makes no sense to me

68
00:04:10,640 --> 00:04:14,760
Speaker 1: at all, because the point is if it's a circle, um,

69
00:04:15,080 --> 00:04:18,599
Speaker 1: it's it's likely because if people have then are willing

70
00:04:18,680 --> 00:04:24,200
Speaker 1: to overturned precedent, suddenly it becomes eligible for overturning, which

71
00:04:24,279 --> 00:04:27,200
Speaker 1: is no rule at all. So her rule of star

72
00:04:27,320 --> 00:04:31,279
Speaker 1: discisis or precedent is far weaker than others on the court,

73
00:04:31,839 --> 00:04:35,320
Speaker 1: even weaker than that of the least that professed, you know,

74
00:04:35,440 --> 00:04:39,120
Speaker 1: by Justice kav and not just a couple years ago.

75
00:04:39,240 --> 00:04:41,960
Speaker 1: Maybe she misspoke, but it seems sound to me as

76
00:04:42,000 --> 00:04:45,280
Speaker 1: if she said, if it's a controversial precedent, it's fair game.

77
00:04:46,000 --> 00:04:50,120
Speaker 1: Let's go on to Obamacare, And she has written about

78
00:04:50,560 --> 00:04:54,800
Speaker 1: Justice Robert's opinion in Obamacare and criticized it. What do

79
00:04:54,839 --> 00:04:58,159
Speaker 1: you take away from what she said about any case

80
00:04:58,279 --> 00:05:02,760
Speaker 1: of Obamacare coming before of her. But she clearly indicated

81
00:05:02,760 --> 00:05:04,840
Speaker 1: that she would not recuse herself, and I don't think

82
00:05:04,880 --> 00:05:08,680
Speaker 1: the rules currently would force her to recuse herself at all.

83
00:05:09,080 --> 00:05:12,200
Speaker 1: She did give a little bit of clue um by

84
00:05:12,240 --> 00:05:15,520
Speaker 1: saying that the precise issue that would be before the

85
00:05:15,560 --> 00:05:19,760
Speaker 1: Court in early November, right after the election, dealing with Obamacare,

86
00:05:20,000 --> 00:05:23,400
Speaker 1: has to do it with the constitutional a doctrine called severability,

87
00:05:23,440 --> 00:05:27,840
Speaker 1: which asks how do you ascertain congresses underlying intent if

88
00:05:27,839 --> 00:05:31,159
Speaker 1: one part of the statute is deemed unconstitutional? And that

89
00:05:31,279 --> 00:05:34,599
Speaker 1: really on that issue hangs the fate of Obamacare. And

90
00:05:34,640 --> 00:05:37,280
Speaker 1: she said, look, that wasn't that issue when I wrote

91
00:05:37,320 --> 00:05:41,679
Speaker 1: the article, um, and I've done no writing on it.

92
00:05:41,680 --> 00:05:45,080
Speaker 1: It's a separate issue. And if I'm on the quote

93
00:05:45,160 --> 00:05:47,280
Speaker 1: and the issue comes up, I'm gonna have to grabble

94
00:05:47,360 --> 00:05:49,839
Speaker 1: with it or for the first time. And that's something

95
00:05:49,880 --> 00:05:53,160
Speaker 1: that suggests at least that she is not perhaps made

96
00:05:53,240 --> 00:05:56,440
Speaker 1: up her decision, and that her writings would not convince

97
00:05:56,480 --> 00:06:01,000
Speaker 1: her that she should vote to hold unconstitutional. I'm skeptical,

98
00:06:01,080 --> 00:06:03,120
Speaker 1: but that's at least a two leaf from what she

99
00:06:03,200 --> 00:06:06,200
Speaker 1: said in the hearings. I've been talking to Professor Harold

100
00:06:06,200 --> 00:06:09,359
Speaker 1: Crent of the Chicago Kent College of Law. What was

101
00:06:09,400 --> 00:06:12,440
Speaker 1: your take on her description of when she would recuse

102
00:06:12,480 --> 00:06:15,880
Speaker 1: herself from a case. Isn't it up to the justices

103
00:06:16,000 --> 00:06:20,640
Speaker 1: themselves to decide that there are some clear directives in

104
00:06:20,760 --> 00:06:27,640
Speaker 1: terms of like financial um involvement that would require a

105
00:06:27,760 --> 00:06:31,240
Speaker 1: judge too accuse themselves. I believe there's also a would

106
00:06:31,320 --> 00:06:34,560
Speaker 1: if here had been involved in the case previously. As

107
00:06:34,640 --> 00:06:38,080
Speaker 1: for instances executive branch officers, so we've had justice since

108
00:06:38,120 --> 00:06:41,520
Speaker 1: we accuse themselves when they hear a case that challenged

109
00:06:42,080 --> 00:06:44,400
Speaker 1: something in which they were involved in the they were

110
00:06:44,400 --> 00:06:47,520
Speaker 1: in the Justice Department. But there is a wide ray

111
00:06:47,800 --> 00:06:51,279
Speaker 1: gray area, and so what I think she was saying,

112
00:06:51,279 --> 00:06:54,280
Speaker 1: and I think with some justification that at least the

113
00:06:54,320 --> 00:06:59,120
Speaker 1: examples suggested to her by the senators were in that

114
00:06:59,240 --> 00:07:03,920
Speaker 1: gray area, fact specific and likely she wouldn't have to

115
00:07:04,640 --> 00:07:07,960
Speaker 1: um recuse yourself. I'm the one issue that was raised

116
00:07:08,480 --> 00:07:11,360
Speaker 1: um which said some lights on this is she's been

117
00:07:11,400 --> 00:07:16,240
Speaker 1: asked several times whether she promised the President to rule

118
00:07:16,280 --> 00:07:19,560
Speaker 1: in a particular way on a given case, because that,

119
00:07:19,640 --> 00:07:21,720
Speaker 1: of course, is what President Trump has made it seem like.

120
00:07:22,240 --> 00:07:25,880
Speaker 1: And she clearly stated that that was not the case, um,

121
00:07:26,040 --> 00:07:29,160
Speaker 1: because that would have strengthened the case for recusal. But

122
00:07:29,280 --> 00:07:32,920
Speaker 1: on the question of the constitutionality of Obamacare, or what

123
00:07:33,000 --> 00:07:35,680
Speaker 1: would happen if there was a challenge to President Trump's

124
00:07:35,880 --> 00:07:40,040
Speaker 1: um election come November, she clearly said, I have made

125
00:07:40,040 --> 00:07:44,960
Speaker 1: no promises, I'd have no pre commitments about ruling in

126
00:07:45,000 --> 00:07:49,720
Speaker 1: any way on those cases, which again would signal that

127
00:07:49,760 --> 00:07:52,200
Speaker 1: she doesn't believe she would ever need to recuse herself

128
00:07:52,240 --> 00:07:56,560
Speaker 1: in those settings. I remember that Justice Scalia refused to

129
00:07:56,640 --> 00:08:01,960
Speaker 1: recuse himself from a case involving Cheney, even though he

130
00:08:02,120 --> 00:08:05,080
Speaker 1: was friendly with Dick Cheney and had gone hunting with him.

131
00:08:05,120 --> 00:08:08,000
Speaker 1: Even there's no one the chief Justice is not looking

132
00:08:08,040 --> 00:08:10,440
Speaker 1: at the Justice and saying, oh, you have to accuse

133
00:08:10,480 --> 00:08:14,800
Speaker 1: yourself in this case. No, that's that's right, And and um,

134
00:08:15,680 --> 00:08:19,360
Speaker 1: again one could an issue might arise, But I don't

135
00:08:19,360 --> 00:08:23,960
Speaker 1: think this this particular set of circumstances dictates a need

136
00:08:24,040 --> 00:08:26,520
Speaker 1: to uh for any kind of recusals. So I do

137
00:08:26,600 --> 00:08:30,120
Speaker 1: think that Judge Barrett was on strong ground and thinking,

138
00:08:30,440 --> 00:08:33,040
Speaker 1: you know, and saying or expressing her belief that, yes,

139
00:08:33,120 --> 00:08:35,480
Speaker 1: you might have to accuse yourself in in some cases.

140
00:08:35,520 --> 00:08:37,360
Speaker 1: For instance, that there was a case in which she

141
00:08:37,440 --> 00:08:40,840
Speaker 1: was involved in the Seventh Circuit Um, but and just

142
00:08:40,920 --> 00:08:44,319
Speaker 1: because of this politically charged atmosphere near an election, I

143
00:08:44,360 --> 00:08:48,240
Speaker 1: don't think that necessarily would force your hand to accuse

144
00:08:48,280 --> 00:08:50,679
Speaker 1: yourself from any kind of controversial case. And about in

145
00:08:50,760 --> 00:08:55,520
Speaker 1: President Trump or involved in Obamacare. At one point I

146
00:08:55,520 --> 00:08:59,719
Speaker 1: believe it was Senator Durban was asking her about just

147
00:08:59,840 --> 00:09:03,320
Speaker 1: as that she took part in at the Seventh Circuit,

148
00:09:04,000 --> 00:09:09,160
Speaker 1: and in one decision she was in dissent in saying

149
00:09:09,200 --> 00:09:11,360
Speaker 1: that she thought that a felon should have the right

150
00:09:11,400 --> 00:09:14,360
Speaker 1: to own a gun. Her rulings on the Seventh Circuit

151
00:09:14,520 --> 00:09:17,640
Speaker 1: are comprehensive that they haven't touched upon many of the

152
00:09:17,679 --> 00:09:20,320
Speaker 1: constitutionally charged issues of the day. And one of the

153
00:09:20,360 --> 00:09:22,719
Speaker 1: cases that she has ruled upon, she did sent it

154
00:09:22,760 --> 00:09:26,720
Speaker 1: in a case in which um the court held that

155
00:09:27,080 --> 00:09:30,560
Speaker 1: a non violent felon did not have the right to

156
00:09:31,080 --> 00:09:34,199
Speaker 1: possess a gun, and she thought that as an individual

157
00:09:34,280 --> 00:09:37,640
Speaker 1: right back in sevente she believes the Second Amendment is

158
00:09:37,640 --> 00:09:42,120
Speaker 1: an individual right that should give a wide ambit or

159
00:09:42,200 --> 00:09:47,000
Speaker 1: live possibility for people to then enjoy that right, even

160
00:09:47,080 --> 00:09:50,280
Speaker 1: felons who are non violent felons. Um, So that she

161
00:09:50,400 --> 00:09:54,320
Speaker 1: signaled they're a very strong interest in maintaining the robust

162
00:09:54,600 --> 00:09:58,760
Speaker 1: Second Amendment. And of course, um, the Republicans were delighted

163
00:09:58,800 --> 00:10:03,640
Speaker 1: to highlight that as a way of trying to embrace

164
00:10:04,000 --> 00:10:06,760
Speaker 1: people who like guns in this country to vote the

165
00:10:07,120 --> 00:10:11,240
Speaker 1: Republican come um the election. So you know, you might

166
00:10:11,280 --> 00:10:15,000
Speaker 1: ask yourself if if there's a Second Amendment right to

167
00:10:15,559 --> 00:10:19,520
Speaker 1: for felons to own guns, then shouldn't there be a

168
00:10:19,600 --> 00:10:23,320
Speaker 1: right to vote as well? Um. Whether she would agree

169
00:10:23,320 --> 00:10:25,880
Speaker 1: with that statement, Um, I'm not sure, but we may

170
00:10:25,880 --> 00:10:29,560
Speaker 1: find out in the future. Justice Scalia was her mentor,

171
00:10:29,760 --> 00:10:33,000
Speaker 1: and she has said that she will follow in Justice

172
00:10:33,000 --> 00:10:34,920
Speaker 1: Scalia's footsteps. She says, you're not going to get a

173
00:10:34,960 --> 00:10:37,520
Speaker 1: Justice Scalia, You're going to get a Justice Barrett. Yes,

174
00:10:37,600 --> 00:10:41,440
Speaker 1: she's an originalist, a textualist. What does that tell you?

175
00:10:42,640 --> 00:10:45,680
Speaker 1: It tells us not everything, but tells us that, like

176
00:10:45,760 --> 00:10:48,720
Speaker 1: Justice Scalia, should be very skeptical of sort the broad,

177
00:10:48,800 --> 00:10:52,560
Speaker 1: open ended rights that have been read into the due

178
00:10:52,559 --> 00:10:55,920
Speaker 1: process clause, namely the right to privacy and the right

179
00:10:56,000 --> 00:10:58,640
Speaker 1: to body, the autonomy because if the right was not

180
00:10:58,800 --> 00:11:01,160
Speaker 1: clear to the articulated it at the time of the framing,

181
00:11:01,400 --> 00:11:03,840
Speaker 1: should be more skeptical. I mean, there are open ended

182
00:11:03,880 --> 00:11:07,720
Speaker 1: constitutional provisions like free from an unregional search and seizure.

183
00:11:08,160 --> 00:11:13,880
Speaker 1: You have to read some kind of evolution into those words,

184
00:11:13,960 --> 00:11:15,960
Speaker 1: because you know, there was no Internet back in the

185
00:11:15,960 --> 00:11:19,240
Speaker 1: time of the of the framing. And so like Justice Scalia,

186
00:11:19,360 --> 00:11:21,920
Speaker 1: she might be turned out to be more liberal in

187
00:11:22,040 --> 00:11:26,920
Speaker 1: some criminal justice questions, but when you come to rights,

188
00:11:27,040 --> 00:11:30,559
Speaker 1: she'll be very strict and trying to understand what a

189
00:11:30,679 --> 00:11:33,000
Speaker 1: right is and it was not, so she would probably

190
00:11:33,040 --> 00:11:37,199
Speaker 1: tend to be skeptical of many of the rights that

191
00:11:37,520 --> 00:11:40,920
Speaker 1: the course over the last thirty years have recognized, such

192
00:11:40,960 --> 00:11:45,600
Speaker 1: as again by all the autonomy, privacy and we're not sure,

193
00:11:45,679 --> 00:11:49,640
Speaker 1: but she might be very skeptical about affirmative action as well.

194
00:11:50,160 --> 00:11:51,920
Speaker 1: And as we all know, there has been some very

195
00:11:51,960 --> 00:11:55,160
Speaker 1: close votes in affirmative action over the past couple of years.

196
00:11:55,960 --> 00:12:00,680
Speaker 1: Justice Scalia thought that Row was wrongly decided he was

197
00:12:00,720 --> 00:12:04,360
Speaker 1: in the minority in the ol burgher Feld case, the

198
00:12:04,400 --> 00:12:08,640
Speaker 1: same sex marriage case and he voted against Obamacare, So

199
00:12:09,080 --> 00:12:11,640
Speaker 1: can we take it that she will be on the

200
00:12:11,720 --> 00:12:14,440
Speaker 1: same side of those issues or is that drawing too much?

201
00:12:14,640 --> 00:12:19,400
Speaker 1: Clearly clearly through aspect to the rights of gays and

202
00:12:19,440 --> 00:12:24,040
Speaker 1: transgender there are reasons for deep concern. Her view would

203
00:12:24,040 --> 00:12:28,000
Speaker 1: be that the protection clause should be quite limited. Her

204
00:12:28,080 --> 00:12:32,080
Speaker 1: view of marriage is quitely probably right, very historically based,

205
00:12:32,440 --> 00:12:36,040
Speaker 1: so her votes would likely line up with Justice Scalia

206
00:12:36,120 --> 00:12:38,439
Speaker 1: in that case. And I think the Obamacare case is

207
00:12:38,480 --> 00:12:40,160
Speaker 1: really different head to do with the scope of the

208
00:12:40,160 --> 00:12:44,839
Speaker 1: commerce plause and part over um the insurance markets, and

209
00:12:44,880 --> 00:12:47,800
Speaker 1: I don't think that lines up as neatly with in

210
00:12:47,920 --> 00:12:51,240
Speaker 1: terms of Justice Scalia's originalism. But what I do think

211
00:12:51,960 --> 00:12:55,440
Speaker 1: um that she, even more so than Justice Scalia, would

212
00:12:55,600 --> 00:12:59,640
Speaker 1: probably believe in a vigorous free exercise clause, which was

213
00:13:00,200 --> 00:13:06,440
Speaker 1: probably suggests that the government cannot play sort of mainstream

214
00:13:06,600 --> 00:13:11,679
Speaker 1: responsibilities and obligations on on those exercising religious rights. So

215
00:13:11,760 --> 00:13:16,320
Speaker 1: what happens with the conflict between the taxing power in

216
00:13:16,360 --> 00:13:20,719
Speaker 1: a church, or if there's a conflict between a right

217
00:13:20,800 --> 00:13:24,160
Speaker 1: of non discrimination against days or people of different different

218
00:13:24,240 --> 00:13:28,880
Speaker 1: races against the religious rights, she might change the scales

219
00:13:29,280 --> 00:13:33,280
Speaker 1: and vote that that the government cannot impose such burden

220
00:13:33,400 --> 00:13:36,680
Speaker 1: upon those exercising the religions, and that would, I think

221
00:13:36,720 --> 00:13:40,160
Speaker 1: cause much disruption in our society. How do you think

222
00:13:40,280 --> 00:13:44,400
Speaker 1: she handled the questions? And you know her demeanor, She's

223
00:13:44,600 --> 00:13:48,600
Speaker 1: very calm, she's very self assured. Um, she's she's clearly

224
00:13:48,760 --> 00:13:53,400
Speaker 1: confident in her own abilities and in her experience that

225
00:13:53,440 --> 00:13:56,040
Speaker 1: you will be able to handle the job. And in

226
00:13:56,160 --> 00:14:00,319
Speaker 1: terms of traditional notions of qualifications, she's clearly a well

227
00:14:00,440 --> 00:14:03,440
Speaker 1: qualified for the job. But she will move the court.

228
00:14:03,480 --> 00:14:05,520
Speaker 1: She will move the court even more to the right

229
00:14:05,840 --> 00:14:09,000
Speaker 1: than it is now. And part of the skirmishing that

230
00:14:09,200 --> 00:14:12,880
Speaker 1: I saw both yesterday today is preparing the ground for

231
00:14:12,960 --> 00:14:17,360
Speaker 1: a possible fight over the structure of the Supreme Court

232
00:14:17,360 --> 00:14:20,880
Speaker 1: in the future. About whether, with these last two appointments

233
00:14:20,880 --> 00:14:24,600
Speaker 1: and the sort of hypocrisy and the Republicans, if the

234
00:14:24,640 --> 00:14:27,920
Speaker 1: Democrats get the Senate and the presidency, will they try

235
00:14:27,960 --> 00:14:31,600
Speaker 1: to alter the Court in some way to sort of

236
00:14:32,240 --> 00:14:35,280
Speaker 1: fight back against this sort of incursion or seeming incursion

237
00:14:35,360 --> 00:14:39,280
Speaker 1: by the Republicans. Any final thoughts, how much of the

238
00:14:39,360 --> 00:14:43,520
Speaker 1: question today by both Republicans and Democrats, say by Senator

239
00:14:43,560 --> 00:14:47,160
Speaker 1: Cruz on Republican size Senator white House on the Democratic side,

240
00:14:48,280 --> 00:14:51,760
Speaker 1: they didn't even ask questions of Judge Barrett, and they

241
00:14:51,760 --> 00:14:54,400
Speaker 1: clearly we're using their time as is their prerogative to

242
00:14:54,560 --> 00:14:57,200
Speaker 1: talk directly to the American people about on the one hand,

243
00:14:57,240 --> 00:15:00,960
Speaker 1: Republican values of religion and gun ownership, on the other hand,

244
00:15:01,000 --> 00:15:05,320
Speaker 1: with Democratic values of Affordable Care act Um and so forth.

245
00:15:05,560 --> 00:15:08,760
Speaker 1: Because again, this is just so clearly an opportunity to

246
00:15:08,800 --> 00:15:13,240
Speaker 1: try to influence voting as it continues up until November,

247
00:15:13,600 --> 00:15:16,640
Speaker 1: so that in some ways even the senators themselves didn't

248
00:15:16,680 --> 00:15:20,760
Speaker 1: take this seriously as an opportunity to grill and find

249
00:15:20,760 --> 00:15:24,920
Speaker 1: out more about Judge Barrett. The way these hearings are

250
00:15:24,960 --> 00:15:29,680
Speaker 1: now structured and the way the nominees don't answer questions,

251
00:15:29,840 --> 00:15:33,880
Speaker 1: is there any point in having these hearings anymore. It's

252
00:15:33,880 --> 00:15:36,480
Speaker 1: a great question, and the function of the hearings has

253
00:15:36,560 --> 00:15:40,880
Speaker 1: changed over time. Um. I think there is a necessity

254
00:15:40,920 --> 00:15:44,960
Speaker 1: to do for a period, to do due diligence to

255
00:15:45,520 --> 00:15:48,640
Speaker 1: find that what somebody has written, to find out if

256
00:15:48,640 --> 00:15:52,080
Speaker 1: there's any kind of with of impropriety in their background.

257
00:15:52,120 --> 00:15:56,280
Speaker 1: So it's the idea of having something a waiting period

258
00:15:56,640 --> 00:16:00,960
Speaker 1: to allow for investigation. I think it's critical, but I'm

259
00:16:00,960 --> 00:16:03,960
Speaker 1: not sure that there's much function in these sort of

260
00:16:04,000 --> 00:16:08,480
Speaker 1: show boat um hearing after the nomination, because again, what

261
00:16:08,600 --> 00:16:11,880
Speaker 1: we've seen so far is pure posturing by both sides.

262
00:16:12,280 --> 00:16:14,760
Speaker 1: Thanks for being on the Bloomberg Law Show. How that's

263
00:16:14,800 --> 00:16:17,920
Speaker 1: Harold cran To, professor of the Chicago Kent College of Law.

264
00:16:19,920 --> 00:16:24,720
Speaker 1: Monday session was primarily opening statements. Barrett cast herself as

265
00:16:24,760 --> 00:16:28,640
Speaker 1: a judge who puts her personal preferences aside, saying the

266
00:16:28,640 --> 00:16:32,400
Speaker 1: public shouldn't expect courts to resolve policy disputes or make

267
00:16:32,520 --> 00:16:35,760
Speaker 1: value judgments, and that judges should not try to do so.

268
00:16:36,360 --> 00:16:39,280
Speaker 1: My guest is Professor Carl Tobias of the University of

269
00:16:39,360 --> 00:16:43,840
Speaker 1: Richmond Law School. What did you think about the opening statements?

270
00:16:43,840 --> 00:16:48,560
Speaker 1: And let's start with the Democratic senators basically talking about

271
00:16:48,840 --> 00:16:52,400
Speaker 1: what affect her nomination would have on the Obamacare decision

272
00:16:52,480 --> 00:16:56,320
Speaker 1: coming up after the election. Well, they did talk about

273
00:16:56,360 --> 00:17:00,640
Speaker 1: that because that's funding center for the elections that are

274
00:17:00,640 --> 00:17:05,080
Speaker 1: coming up, But I think more fundamentally, they said that

275
00:17:05,720 --> 00:17:12,640
Speaker 1: basically what Republicans were doing with this nomination was directly

276
00:17:12,680 --> 00:17:16,120
Speaker 1: opposed to what they did in sixteen. As a matter

277
00:17:16,119 --> 00:17:20,120
Speaker 1: of principal and I think they're correct about that. Basically

278
00:17:20,920 --> 00:17:26,800
Speaker 1: that Senator McConnell and all the Republicans wouldn't allow Marrick

279
00:17:26,880 --> 00:17:32,240
Speaker 1: Garland UM, to distinguished nominee of President Barack Obama, to

280
00:17:32,680 --> 00:17:36,760
Speaker 1: even have a hearing or even meet with him, given

281
00:17:37,480 --> 00:17:41,600
Speaker 1: the fact that it was ten months before UM the

282
00:17:41,800 --> 00:17:46,399
Speaker 1: end of his presidency when the vacancy occurred. Here, we're

283
00:17:46,440 --> 00:17:52,200
Speaker 1: twenty two days away from the election, and so as

284
00:17:52,200 --> 00:17:58,000
Speaker 1: a matter of consistency, m Republicans have been inconsistent, and

285
00:17:58,240 --> 00:18:03,199
Speaker 1: so I think Democrats are questioning legitimacy of what is

286
00:18:03,240 --> 00:18:09,720
Speaker 1: going on. Secondly, that it's been extremely rushed to move forward. UM.

287
00:18:09,760 --> 00:18:13,480
Speaker 1: The President didn't consult at all with any of the

288
00:18:13,600 --> 00:18:18,760
Speaker 1: UM Democratic senators as best we can tell, and so

289
00:18:18,840 --> 00:18:21,080
Speaker 1: I think they had those kinds of questions. But then

290
00:18:21,160 --> 00:18:24,680
Speaker 1: they went on to talk about UM, as you say,

291
00:18:24,760 --> 00:18:31,480
Speaker 1: the Affordable Care Act, and basically I think they're concerned

292
00:18:31,800 --> 00:18:37,359
Speaker 1: about how she might address that issue that's before the

293
00:18:37,400 --> 00:18:43,040
Speaker 1: court in short order, UM after the elections, and they're

294
00:18:43,080 --> 00:18:47,919
Speaker 1: concerned about being in a pandemic and UM having people

295
00:18:48,240 --> 00:18:52,280
Speaker 1: lose their health care, especially people with pre existing conditions.

296
00:18:52,280 --> 00:18:57,240
Speaker 1: So UM, I think that's what they're talking about and

297
00:18:57,280 --> 00:18:59,920
Speaker 1: I think a number of them also said that they

298
00:19:00,640 --> 00:19:05,520
Speaker 1: would intend to talk about her record, uh and how

299
00:19:05,680 --> 00:19:10,920
Speaker 1: she might resolve certain cases, or judicial philosophy, those types

300
00:19:10,960 --> 00:19:13,960
Speaker 1: of things. What was the focus of the Republicans that

301
00:19:14,040 --> 00:19:17,560
Speaker 1: the Republicans have as much of a centered approach as

302
00:19:17,560 --> 00:19:21,640
Speaker 1: the Democrats did. Well, a number of them talked about

303
00:19:22,040 --> 00:19:28,480
Speaker 1: and accused Democrats of using a religious test for office, uh,

304
00:19:28,520 --> 00:19:34,160
Speaker 1: which I think is a perversion of what Democrats have

305
00:19:34,720 --> 00:19:40,800
Speaker 1: been trying to do with all nominees. So I don't

306
00:19:40,880 --> 00:19:43,840
Speaker 1: think that was persuasive for people who actually watched the

307
00:19:44,080 --> 00:19:49,760
Speaker 1: arns Um over time, as I did. And I think

308
00:19:49,960 --> 00:19:53,480
Speaker 1: though that all the Democrats seem to be saying they

309
00:19:54,520 --> 00:19:58,400
Speaker 1: will not in any way do that. But UM, we'll

310
00:19:58,400 --> 00:20:02,440
Speaker 1: see what the questions are. And it's a very delicate,

311
00:20:02,800 --> 00:20:08,200
Speaker 1: difficult kind of issue, um to find out what a

312
00:20:08,280 --> 00:20:13,560
Speaker 1: nominee philosophy might be in a particular case. UM. And

313
00:20:13,800 --> 00:20:19,040
Speaker 1: so it may be that certain cases touched on questions

314
00:20:19,040 --> 00:20:21,800
Speaker 1: of religion. Of course they do. Religious freedom is on

315
00:20:21,840 --> 00:20:27,000
Speaker 1: the docket in many cases before the Supreeding Court. So

316
00:20:27,160 --> 00:20:29,400
Speaker 1: I don't know that they can probe that without that

317
00:20:29,480 --> 00:20:36,399
Speaker 1: kind of accusation coming um. From the Republicans. But even

318
00:20:36,520 --> 00:20:40,840
Speaker 1: in the earlier hearing for the Seventh Circuits for Judge

319
00:20:40,840 --> 00:20:45,480
Speaker 1: Barrett when she was a nominee, I don't think anyone

320
00:20:45,920 --> 00:20:50,720
Speaker 1: really meant to in any way impose some kind of

321
00:20:50,760 --> 00:20:55,800
Speaker 1: religious tests and violation of the Constitution. Um. So they're

322
00:20:55,800 --> 00:20:59,359
Speaker 1: really talking past one another. Um it seems to me.

323
00:21:00,359 --> 00:21:05,480
Speaker 1: Uh So hopefully they'll be less partisan sniping and maybe

324
00:21:05,560 --> 00:21:11,080
Speaker 1: more attention to the process as we go forward. But again, UM,

325
00:21:11,119 --> 00:21:17,080
Speaker 1: I do think, uh that it is rushed, and we'll

326
00:21:17,119 --> 00:21:22,000
Speaker 1: see how the questioning goes and what the nominee's answers are.

327
00:21:22,960 --> 00:21:26,119
Speaker 1: But there was certainly a lot of uh back and

328
00:21:26,160 --> 00:21:30,719
Speaker 1: forth between um, the senators on both sides of the

329
00:21:30,760 --> 00:21:34,600
Speaker 1: aisle on a whole number of issues, some of which

330
00:21:34,600 --> 00:21:38,679
Speaker 1: seemed expraneous and some of which hopefully would go to

331
00:21:39,560 --> 00:21:44,240
Speaker 1: the kinds of issues that should be raised here about

332
00:21:44,520 --> 00:21:51,800
Speaker 1: how the nominee views for responsibility as a life tenure

333
00:21:51,920 --> 00:21:56,160
Speaker 1: member of the Supreme Court. Now, let's talk about her statement.

334
00:21:57,000 --> 00:22:00,680
Speaker 1: She said that courts should not try to make policy decisions.

335
00:22:00,800 --> 00:22:04,400
Speaker 1: That's for the political branches. What did you make of

336
00:22:04,440 --> 00:22:09,400
Speaker 1: that statement of hers? Well, that I suppose that's one

337
00:22:09,440 --> 00:22:13,720
Speaker 1: thing that Democrats might ask her by what does she mean? Because,

338
00:22:13,880 --> 00:22:17,080
Speaker 1: as I think they pointed out, the policy that was

339
00:22:17,160 --> 00:22:22,080
Speaker 1: made was the A C A which passed, and despite

340
00:22:22,320 --> 00:22:26,760
Speaker 1: President Trump and Republican efforts to gut that legislation, they

341
00:22:26,840 --> 00:22:32,960
Speaker 1: can't get it through Congress. And so now despite their protestations,

342
00:22:33,000 --> 00:22:38,520
Speaker 1: they're seeking a verdict from the Supreme Court that would

343
00:22:39,480 --> 00:22:43,000
Speaker 1: change that UM. And so they're doing the very thing

344
00:22:43,080 --> 00:22:48,280
Speaker 1: they accused Democrats doing, using the courts for policymaking. So

345
00:22:48,720 --> 00:22:51,920
Speaker 1: I think we'll have to see what she really means

346
00:22:52,040 --> 00:22:56,480
Speaker 1: by that UM. And you know, in fairness, I think

347
00:22:56,480 --> 00:23:01,399
Speaker 1: she's saying, UM, we don't make policy. But of course

348
00:23:01,600 --> 00:23:06,200
Speaker 1: that's just not true, UM, because they will make policy.

349
00:23:06,359 --> 00:23:11,359
Speaker 1: If they were to find the UM law unconstitutional and

350
00:23:11,440 --> 00:23:14,240
Speaker 1: strike it down, it will make policy one way or

351
00:23:14,280 --> 00:23:20,520
Speaker 1: another for under thirty million people who have pre existing conditions.

352
00:23:20,560 --> 00:23:24,879
Speaker 1: And so UM, we'll see if they probe that I

353
00:23:24,920 --> 00:23:29,760
Speaker 1: expect they will. Supreme Court nominees are often asked about

354
00:23:30,160 --> 00:23:35,159
Speaker 1: respect for precedent. Explain why that's particularly true of Judge

355
00:23:35,160 --> 00:23:38,639
Speaker 1: Barrett Well. I believe she's written a number of law

356
00:23:38,720 --> 00:23:45,080
Speaker 1: view articles about precedent, and UH has taken a view

357
00:23:45,960 --> 00:23:50,399
Speaker 1: that he's different from some present justices on the Supreme Court.

358
00:23:50,520 --> 00:23:55,560
Speaker 1: She seems to, according to her critics, respect precedent less

359
00:23:55,680 --> 00:24:00,880
Speaker 1: than UM. Other justices on the Supreme Court, and certainly

360
00:24:01,000 --> 00:24:07,360
Speaker 1: Justice Thomas has been a pretty strong critic of UM

361
00:24:07,680 --> 00:24:14,160
Speaker 1: precedent UH and saying most most prior decisions are up

362
00:24:14,240 --> 00:24:20,359
Speaker 1: for re examination. UM. Chief Justice Roberts UM, I think

363
00:24:20,600 --> 00:24:25,680
Speaker 1: is UM more measured about that and says we ought

364
00:24:25,720 --> 00:24:32,080
Speaker 1: to be very cautious for reasons of institutional respect from

365
00:24:32,080 --> 00:24:36,120
Speaker 1: the citizens when we change a precedent, especially one that's

366
00:24:36,160 --> 00:24:41,920
Speaker 1: long standing. UM. But more specifically, examples would be ro

367
00:24:42,119 --> 00:24:48,280
Speaker 1: versus Wade, or there was some mention of UM privacy

368
00:24:48,359 --> 00:24:54,280
Speaker 1: cases like UM the case from Connecticut in the sixties,

369
00:24:54,680 --> 00:25:00,000
Speaker 1: UM that recognize the notion of a right to privacy UM.

370
00:25:00,080 --> 00:25:04,760
Speaker 1: But UH, and of course Brown versus Board UH, and

371
00:25:04,880 --> 00:25:09,600
Speaker 1: a number of other precedents. And so I think there's

372
00:25:09,600 --> 00:25:14,879
Speaker 1: a feeling amongst some Democratic senators that UM, she is

373
00:25:15,200 --> 00:25:19,359
Speaker 1: less concerned about honoring longstanding precedents, or to flip it around,

374
00:25:19,440 --> 00:25:24,360
Speaker 1: more willing to overturn them. So UM, those questions will

375
00:25:24,359 --> 00:25:27,560
Speaker 1: be asked. Explain this, Carl, Because the Supreme Court does

376
00:25:27,640 --> 00:25:30,000
Speaker 1: overturn its own precedent. I mean, we saw that a

377
00:25:30,040 --> 00:25:32,320
Speaker 1: couple of years ago when they overturned to think, a

378
00:25:32,400 --> 00:25:37,000
Speaker 1: forty year old precedent in the Union case. It just

379
00:25:37,040 --> 00:25:40,560
Speaker 1: seems as if all this stress on precedent is is

380
00:25:40,640 --> 00:25:47,200
Speaker 1: sort of um elusive because they do overturn their own precedent. Well,

381
00:25:47,240 --> 00:25:51,040
Speaker 1: they do, but you know, there ways to talk about that,

382
00:25:51,440 --> 00:25:55,000
Speaker 1: and I think one measure is how long the president

383
00:25:55,080 --> 00:25:59,119
Speaker 1: has existed. In other measures, how strong the precedent is. Uh.

384
00:25:59,200 --> 00:26:02,399
Speaker 1: There's some discuss of something being a super precedent and

385
00:26:02,520 --> 00:26:07,760
Speaker 1: that type of thing, but there are notions, especially of

386
00:26:08,000 --> 00:26:16,640
Speaker 1: times passage, um, how central that um president is to jersprudence. UM.

387
00:26:16,800 --> 00:26:19,400
Speaker 1: But you're right. I mean, if if the Court's made

388
00:26:19,760 --> 00:26:25,840
Speaker 1: earlier decisions that's wrong, then I think justices some feel

389
00:26:25,920 --> 00:26:30,200
Speaker 1: there should be changed. You don't cling to precedents that

390
00:26:30,320 --> 00:26:35,639
Speaker 1: now are completely outmoded. Um. But Chief Justice Roberts, I

391
00:26:35,680 --> 00:26:40,720
Speaker 1: think would say you shouldn't too readily overturned precedent, especially

392
00:26:40,960 --> 00:26:44,919
Speaker 1: a new precedent, say that's a couple of years old, uh,

393
00:26:45,200 --> 00:26:48,919
Speaker 1: or make a dramatic change only because the composition of

394
00:26:48,960 --> 00:26:54,000
Speaker 1: the court has changed. For example, President Trump has will

395
00:26:54,040 --> 00:26:59,919
Speaker 1: likely UM appoints three new justices. Just because the courts

396
00:27:00,040 --> 00:27:03,760
Speaker 1: composition is change doesn't mean that president should be struck

397
00:27:03,800 --> 00:27:08,199
Speaker 1: down without seriously considering them. She was a clerk of

398
00:27:08,359 --> 00:27:12,840
Speaker 1: Justice Scalia and said that she would follow Justice Scalio.

399
00:27:13,080 --> 00:27:17,760
Speaker 1: What does that mean? Well, that's that's a difficult notion, because,

400
00:27:18,640 --> 00:27:22,840
Speaker 1: UM that he wrote decisions and joined opinions, you know,

401
00:27:22,960 --> 00:27:26,399
Speaker 1: for three decades and many areas, and I think she

402
00:27:26,400 --> 00:27:29,520
Speaker 1: would most well, I wouldn't put words in their medipor here.

403
00:27:29,680 --> 00:27:32,879
Speaker 1: I think they'll ask her about that. But UM, I

404
00:27:32,920 --> 00:27:36,480
Speaker 1: think the notions of originalism and textualism and those types

405
00:27:36,520 --> 00:27:40,920
Speaker 1: of ideas. Perhaps, and maybe the notion we're talking about

406
00:27:40,920 --> 00:27:46,040
Speaker 1: earlier that UM judges shouldn't be policy makers. Um, but

407
00:27:46,920 --> 00:27:52,600
Speaker 1: there were many areas in which you know, he made decisions,

408
00:27:52,840 --> 00:27:54,800
Speaker 1: and I don't think she was saying that she would

409
00:27:54,920 --> 00:27:59,520
Speaker 1: necessarily follow every one, UM, but kind of the general.

410
00:28:00,400 --> 00:28:02,919
Speaker 1: But we'll hear about that. I assend that there'll be

411
00:28:03,000 --> 00:28:05,840
Speaker 1: questions that go to that. Just give me your basic

412
00:28:06,000 --> 00:28:09,360
Speaker 1: take on her statement. What was she trying to get at?

413
00:28:09,440 --> 00:28:13,480
Speaker 1: What impressed you? What didn't impress you? Well, I she

414
00:28:13,560 --> 00:28:17,080
Speaker 1: really didn't say a whole lot. That's new. UM. We

415
00:28:17,200 --> 00:28:19,919
Speaker 1: knew she had said earlier in the Rose Garden that

416
00:28:20,160 --> 00:28:25,920
Speaker 1: she UM was you know, a proponent and took views

417
00:28:26,040 --> 00:28:32,440
Speaker 1: very similar to Justice Celia her mentor, and she said specifically, UM.

418
00:28:32,520 --> 00:28:35,600
Speaker 1: And so then the question is you know how that

419
00:28:35,680 --> 00:28:39,720
Speaker 1: will play out. She also said clearly again today as

420
00:28:39,720 --> 00:28:43,600
Speaker 1: she had earlier, that she doesn't think judges or policymakers.

421
00:28:43,640 --> 00:28:45,880
Speaker 1: But as I said, I don't think that tells us

422
00:28:46,000 --> 00:28:49,600
Speaker 1: very much, because they make policy in all kinds of

423
00:28:49,720 --> 00:28:54,480
Speaker 1: areas and deciding all kinds of questions. So then the

424
00:28:54,560 --> 00:28:57,840
Speaker 1: question is how senators will question her and drilled down

425
00:28:57,880 --> 00:29:01,640
Speaker 1: and be more specific and maybe bring up particular areas

426
00:29:01,640 --> 00:29:06,280
Speaker 1: of law or how she intends to apply rules. That's

427
00:29:06,360 --> 00:29:10,040
Speaker 1: the president. I think all of those questions are legitimate

428
00:29:10,040 --> 00:29:14,640
Speaker 1: ones that will be asked and try to move from

429
00:29:14,640 --> 00:29:18,120
Speaker 1: the more general statements that she has there UH to

430
00:29:18,280 --> 00:29:22,880
Speaker 1: something more specific and concrete. Thanks Carl. That's Professor Carl

431
00:29:22,960 --> 00:29:25,360
Speaker 1: Tobias of the University of Richmond Law School