Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Senate Democrats are all but powerless to keep Judge Amy
Speaker 1: Coney Barrett off the Supreme Court. Barrett was questioned about
Speaker 1: abortion rights, Obamacare, guns at election disputes. She declined to
Speaker 1: answer questions on some issues she has expressed personal opinions
Speaker 1: on in the past, such as abortion rights, or on
Speaker 1: what she would do recording other matters likely to come
Speaker 1: before the Supreme Court. My guest is Harold Crant, a
Speaker 1: professor at the Chicago Kent College of Law. What did
Speaker 1: we learn about Judge Barrett from the hearings? We've learned
Speaker 1: very little about Judge Barrett that We've mostly learned that
Speaker 1: the centers are using this nomination process as a way
Speaker 1: to reach the American people and influence them for the election.
Speaker 1: That's what they focused on, and both Republicans and Democrats
Speaker 1: are using spin to try to get voters on their side.
Speaker 1: Judge Barrett has refused to answer numerous quess Gin's about
Speaker 1: many different topics. Has this become the norm for Supreme
Speaker 1: Court nominations hearings or is she taking it even a
Speaker 1: step further? Unfortunately, she's very close to the norm. I mean,
Speaker 1: the perfecting the art of the non answer is something
Speaker 1: that she's taken, perhaps to a different level, but we've
Speaker 1: seen that in the last several nominations, and unfortunately, in
Speaker 1: this age of partisanship, UM, the non answer is the
Speaker 1: one that gets by and doesn't antagonize any of the
Speaker 1: senators who are asking questions. There are a couple of
Speaker 1: clues that have come through. To give you one prominent example,
Speaker 1: Judge Barrett said that the president of Brown versus Board
Speaker 1: of Education recognizing that separate is not equal is entrenched
Speaker 1: into our system, has been accepted, and she would never
Speaker 1: be second guest uh. And she refused to do that
Speaker 1: for ro versus Wade. She said that despite the fact
Speaker 1: that the court has reconsidered it an affirm ro versus Wade,
Speaker 1: the fact that there's so much discussion about it means
Speaker 1: that it's not entrenched. And so her theory, which a
Speaker 1: little bizarre, is that if the president is accepted, there's
Speaker 1: no reason to re examine it, which of course is obvious.
Speaker 1: But if it's not accepted, then you can re examine it.
Speaker 1: So her her answers, even in contrast to those UH,
Speaker 1: now Justice Kavanaugh, just a couple of years ago, suggests
Speaker 1: a willingness to reconsider ropersts way, So I would consider
Speaker 1: that the biggest crewe that she left dropped today in
Speaker 1: discussion so far. She talked with Lindsey Graham at the
Speaker 1: beginning about precedent and what she calls a super precedent.
Speaker 1: First of all, is super precedent something you teach in
Speaker 1: law school nowadays? So super president is not something that
Speaker 1: we have historically taught her that knew anything about. And indeed,
Speaker 1: just as Kavanagh used the expression president on precedent, which
Speaker 1: I had not been aware of until he used to.
Speaker 1: And so what these jurors are do when you're trying
Speaker 1: to suggest that there are some presidents, yes, that we
Speaker 1: should re examine, and some presidents that are beyond reproach.
Speaker 1: And there is a consensus in the academy and probably
Speaker 1: amongst the Court, that the justices should be willing to
Speaker 1: reconsider constitutional precedents, more readily the statutory precedents, because Congress
Speaker 1: can always change a statutory interpretation by the Court that
Speaker 1: they disagree with, and Congress can't do that with the
Speaker 1: Court's interpretation of the Constitution. What do you think of
Speaker 1: the fact that she was willing to say that Casey
Speaker 1: was precedent but not Roe v. Wade. My interpretation of
Speaker 1: our answer is suggesting that despite Casey, there's still so
Speaker 1: much discussion and so much handwringing about the status of
Speaker 1: Casey and roversus way that it's not entrance precedent, which
Speaker 1: to me was a clear signal. Maybe not in the
Speaker 1: first case you hear is, maybe not in the second,
Speaker 1: but at some point she would be willing to overturn
Speaker 1: Roe versus Weight itself. Have you ever heard that definition
Speaker 1: of precedent before? Again, it makes no sense to me
Speaker 1: at all, because the point is if it's a circle, um,
Speaker 1: it's it's likely because if people have then are willing
Speaker 1: to overturned precedent, suddenly it becomes eligible for overturning, which
Speaker 1: is no rule at all. So her rule of star
Speaker 1: discisis or precedent is far weaker than others on the court,
Speaker 1: even weaker than that of the least that professed, you know,
Speaker 1: by Justice kav and not just a couple years ago.
Speaker 1: Maybe she misspoke, but it seems sound to me as
Speaker 1: if she said, if it's a controversial precedent, it's fair game.
Speaker 1: Let's go on to Obamacare, And she has written about
Speaker 1: Justice Robert's opinion in Obamacare and criticized it. What do
Speaker 1: you take away from what she said about any case
Speaker 1: of Obamacare coming before of her. But she clearly indicated
Speaker 1: that she would not recuse herself, and I don't think
Speaker 1: the rules currently would force her to recuse herself at all.
Speaker 1: She did give a little bit of clue um by
Speaker 1: saying that the precise issue that would be before the
Speaker 1: Court in early November, right after the election, dealing with Obamacare,
Speaker 1: has to do it with the constitutional a doctrine called severability,
Speaker 1: which asks how do you ascertain congresses underlying intent if
Speaker 1: one part of the statute is deemed unconstitutional? And that
Speaker 1: really on that issue hangs the fate of Obamacare. And
Speaker 1: she said, look, that wasn't that issue when I wrote
Speaker 1: the article, um, and I've done no writing on it.
Speaker 1: It's a separate issue. And if I'm on the quote
Speaker 1: and the issue comes up, I'm gonna have to grabble
Speaker 1: with it or for the first time. And that's something
Speaker 1: that suggests at least that she is not perhaps made
Speaker 1: up her decision, and that her writings would not convince
Speaker 1: her that she should vote to hold unconstitutional. I'm skeptical,
Speaker 1: but that's at least a two leaf from what she
Speaker 1: said in the hearings. I've been talking to Professor Harold
Speaker 1: Crent of the Chicago Kent College of Law. What was
Speaker 1: your take on her description of when she would recuse
Speaker 1: herself from a case. Isn't it up to the justices
Speaker 1: themselves to decide that there are some clear directives in
Speaker 1: terms of like financial um involvement that would require a
Speaker 1: judge too accuse themselves. I believe there's also a would
Speaker 1: if here had been involved in the case previously. As
Speaker 1: for instances executive branch officers, so we've had justice since
Speaker 1: we accuse themselves when they hear a case that challenged
Speaker 1: something in which they were involved in the they were
Speaker 1: in the Justice Department. But there is a wide ray
Speaker 1: gray area, and so what I think she was saying,
Speaker 1: and I think with some justification that at least the
Speaker 1: examples suggested to her by the senators were in that
Speaker 1: gray area, fact specific and likely she wouldn't have to
Speaker 1: um recuse yourself. I'm the one issue that was raised
Speaker 1: um which said some lights on this is she's been
Speaker 1: asked several times whether she promised the President to rule
Speaker 1: in a particular way on a given case, because that,
Speaker 1: of course, is what President Trump has made it seem like.
Speaker 1: And she clearly stated that that was not the case, um,
Speaker 1: because that would have strengthened the case for recusal. But
Speaker 1: on the question of the constitutionality of Obamacare, or what
Speaker 1: would happen if there was a challenge to President Trump's
Speaker 1: um election come November, she clearly said, I have made
Speaker 1: no promises, I'd have no pre commitments about ruling in
Speaker 1: any way on those cases, which again would signal that
Speaker 1: she doesn't believe she would ever need to recuse herself
Speaker 1: in those settings. I remember that Justice Scalia refused to
Speaker 1: recuse himself from a case involving Cheney, even though he
Speaker 1: was friendly with Dick Cheney and had gone hunting with him.
Speaker 1: Even there's no one the chief Justice is not looking
Speaker 1: at the Justice and saying, oh, you have to accuse
Speaker 1: yourself in this case. No, that's that's right, And and um,
Speaker 1: again one could an issue might arise, But I don't
Speaker 1: think this this particular set of circumstances dictates a need
Speaker 1: to uh for any kind of recusals. So I do
Speaker 1: think that Judge Barrett was on strong ground and thinking,
Speaker 1: you know, and saying or expressing her belief that, yes,
Speaker 1: you might have to accuse yourself in in some cases.
Speaker 1: For instance, that there was a case in which she
Speaker 1: was involved in the Seventh Circuit Um, but and just
Speaker 1: because of this politically charged atmosphere near an election, I
Speaker 1: don't think that necessarily would force your hand to accuse
Speaker 1: yourself from any kind of controversial case. And about in
Speaker 1: President Trump or involved in Obamacare. At one point I
Speaker 1: believe it was Senator Durban was asking her about just
Speaker 1: as that she took part in at the Seventh Circuit,
Speaker 1: and in one decision she was in dissent in saying
Speaker 1: that she thought that a felon should have the right
Speaker 1: to own a gun. Her rulings on the Seventh Circuit
Speaker 1: are comprehensive that they haven't touched upon many of the
Speaker 1: constitutionally charged issues of the day. And one of the
Speaker 1: cases that she has ruled upon, she did sent it
Speaker 1: in a case in which um the court held that
Speaker 1: a non violent felon did not have the right to
Speaker 1: possess a gun, and she thought that as an individual
Speaker 1: right back in sevente she believes the Second Amendment is
Speaker 1: an individual right that should give a wide ambit or
Speaker 1: live possibility for people to then enjoy that right, even
Speaker 1: felons who are non violent felons. Um, So that she
Speaker 1: signaled they're a very strong interest in maintaining the robust
Speaker 1: Second Amendment. And of course, um, the Republicans were delighted
Speaker 1: to highlight that as a way of trying to embrace
Speaker 1: people who like guns in this country to vote the
Speaker 1: Republican come um the election. So you know, you might
Speaker 1: ask yourself if if there's a Second Amendment right to
Speaker 1: for felons to own guns, then shouldn't there be a
Speaker 1: right to vote as well? Um. Whether she would agree
Speaker 1: with that statement, Um, I'm not sure, but we may
Speaker 1: find out in the future. Justice Scalia was her mentor,
Speaker 1: and she has said that she will follow in Justice
Speaker 1: Scalia's footsteps. She says, you're not going to get a
Speaker 1: Justice Scalia, You're going to get a Justice Barrett. Yes,
Speaker 1: she's an originalist, a textualist. What does that tell you?
Speaker 1: It tells us not everything, but tells us that, like
Speaker 1: Justice Scalia, should be very skeptical of sort the broad,
Speaker 1: open ended rights that have been read into the due
Speaker 1: process clause, namely the right to privacy and the right
Speaker 1: to body, the autonomy because if the right was not
Speaker 1: clear to the articulated it at the time of the framing,
Speaker 1: should be more skeptical. I mean, there are open ended
Speaker 1: constitutional provisions like free from an unregional search and seizure.
Speaker 1: You have to read some kind of evolution into those words,
Speaker 1: because you know, there was no Internet back in the
Speaker 1: time of the of the framing. And so like Justice Scalia,
Speaker 1: she might be turned out to be more liberal in
Speaker 1: some criminal justice questions, but when you come to rights,
Speaker 1: she'll be very strict and trying to understand what a
Speaker 1: right is and it was not, so she would probably
Speaker 1: tend to be skeptical of many of the rights that
Speaker 1: the course over the last thirty years have recognized, such
Speaker 1: as again by all the autonomy, privacy and we're not sure,
Speaker 1: but she might be very skeptical about affirmative action as well.
Speaker 1: And as we all know, there has been some very
Speaker 1: close votes in affirmative action over the past couple of years.
Speaker 1: Justice Scalia thought that Row was wrongly decided he was
Speaker 1: in the minority in the ol burgher Feld case, the
Speaker 1: same sex marriage case and he voted against Obamacare, So
Speaker 1: can we take it that she will be on the
Speaker 1: same side of those issues or is that drawing too much?
Speaker 1: Clearly clearly through aspect to the rights of gays and
Speaker 1: transgender there are reasons for deep concern. Her view would
Speaker 1: be that the protection clause should be quite limited. Her
Speaker 1: view of marriage is quitely probably right, very historically based,
Speaker 1: so her votes would likely line up with Justice Scalia
Speaker 1: in that case. And I think the Obamacare case is
Speaker 1: really different head to do with the scope of the
Speaker 1: commerce plause and part over um the insurance markets, and
Speaker 1: I don't think that lines up as neatly with in
Speaker 1: terms of Justice Scalia's originalism. But what I do think
Speaker 1: um that she, even more so than Justice Scalia, would
Speaker 1: probably believe in a vigorous free exercise clause, which was
Speaker 1: probably suggests that the government cannot play sort of mainstream
Speaker 1: responsibilities and obligations on on those exercising religious rights. So
Speaker 1: what happens with the conflict between the taxing power in
Speaker 1: a church, or if there's a conflict between a right
Speaker 1: of non discrimination against days or people of different different
Speaker 1: races against the religious rights, she might change the scales
Speaker 1: and vote that that the government cannot impose such burden
Speaker 1: upon those exercising the religions, and that would, I think
Speaker 1: cause much disruption in our society. How do you think
Speaker 1: she handled the questions? And you know her demeanor, She's
Speaker 1: very calm, she's very self assured. Um, she's she's clearly
Speaker 1: confident in her own abilities and in her experience that
Speaker 1: you will be able to handle the job. And in
Speaker 1: terms of traditional notions of qualifications, she's clearly a well
Speaker 1: qualified for the job. But she will move the court.
Speaker 1: She will move the court even more to the right
Speaker 1: than it is now. And part of the skirmishing that
Speaker 1: I saw both yesterday today is preparing the ground for
Speaker 1: a possible fight over the structure of the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: in the future. About whether, with these last two appointments
Speaker 1: and the sort of hypocrisy and the Republicans, if the
Speaker 1: Democrats get the Senate and the presidency, will they try
Speaker 1: to alter the Court in some way to sort of
Speaker 1: fight back against this sort of incursion or seeming incursion
Speaker 1: by the Republicans. Any final thoughts, how much of the
Speaker 1: question today by both Republicans and Democrats, say by Senator
Speaker 1: Cruz on Republican size Senator white House on the Democratic side,
Speaker 1: they didn't even ask questions of Judge Barrett, and they
Speaker 1: clearly we're using their time as is their prerogative to
Speaker 1: talk directly to the American people about on the one hand,
Speaker 1: Republican values of religion and gun ownership, on the other hand,
Speaker 1: with Democratic values of Affordable Care act Um and so forth.
Speaker 1: Because again, this is just so clearly an opportunity to
Speaker 1: try to influence voting as it continues up until November,
Speaker 1: so that in some ways even the senators themselves didn't
Speaker 1: take this seriously as an opportunity to grill and find
Speaker 1: out more about Judge Barrett. The way these hearings are
Speaker 1: now structured and the way the nominees don't answer questions,
Speaker 1: is there any point in having these hearings anymore. It's
Speaker 1: a great question, and the function of the hearings has
Speaker 1: changed over time. Um. I think there is a necessity
Speaker 1: to do for a period, to do due diligence to
Speaker 1: find that what somebody has written, to find out if
Speaker 1: there's any kind of with of impropriety in their background.
Speaker 1: So it's the idea of having something a waiting period
Speaker 1: to allow for investigation. I think it's critical, but I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that there's much function in these sort of
Speaker 1: show boat um hearing after the nomination, because again, what
Speaker 1: we've seen so far is pure posturing by both sides.
Speaker 1: Thanks for being on the Bloomberg Law Show. How that's
Speaker 1: Harold cran To, professor of the Chicago Kent College of Law.
Speaker 1: Monday session was primarily opening statements. Barrett cast herself as
Speaker 1: a judge who puts her personal preferences aside, saying the
Speaker 1: public shouldn't expect courts to resolve policy disputes or make
Speaker 1: value judgments, and that judges should not try to do so.
Speaker 1: My guest is Professor Carl Tobias of the University of
Speaker 1: Richmond Law School. What did you think about the opening statements?
Speaker 1: And let's start with the Democratic senators basically talking about
Speaker 1: what affect her nomination would have on the Obamacare decision
Speaker 1: coming up after the election. Well, they did talk about
Speaker 1: that because that's funding center for the elections that are
Speaker 1: coming up, But I think more fundamentally, they said that
Speaker 1: basically what Republicans were doing with this nomination was directly
Speaker 1: opposed to what they did in sixteen. As a matter
Speaker 1: of principal and I think they're correct about that. Basically
Speaker 1: that Senator McConnell and all the Republicans wouldn't allow Marrick
Speaker 1: Garland UM, to distinguished nominee of President Barack Obama, to
Speaker 1: even have a hearing or even meet with him, given
Speaker 1: the fact that it was ten months before UM the
Speaker 1: end of his presidency when the vacancy occurred. Here, we're
Speaker 1: twenty two days away from the election, and so as
Speaker 1: a matter of consistency, m Republicans have been inconsistent, and
Speaker 1: so I think Democrats are questioning legitimacy of what is
Speaker 1: going on. Secondly, that it's been extremely rushed to move forward. UM.
Speaker 1: The President didn't consult at all with any of the
Speaker 1: UM Democratic senators as best we can tell, and so
Speaker 1: I think they had those kinds of questions. But then
Speaker 1: they went on to talk about UM, as you say,
Speaker 1: the Affordable Care Act, and basically I think they're concerned
Speaker 1: about how she might address that issue that's before the
Speaker 1: court in short order, UM after the elections, and they're
Speaker 1: concerned about being in a pandemic and UM having people
Speaker 1: lose their health care, especially people with pre existing conditions.
Speaker 1: So UM, I think that's what they're talking about and
Speaker 1: I think a number of them also said that they
Speaker 1: would intend to talk about her record, uh and how
Speaker 1: she might resolve certain cases, or judicial philosophy, those types
Speaker 1: of things. What was the focus of the Republicans that
Speaker 1: the Republicans have as much of a centered approach as
Speaker 1: the Democrats did. Well, a number of them talked about
Speaker 1: and accused Democrats of using a religious test for office, uh,
Speaker 1: which I think is a perversion of what Democrats have
Speaker 1: been trying to do with all nominees. So I don't
Speaker 1: think that was persuasive for people who actually watched the
Speaker 1: arns Um over time, as I did. And I think
Speaker 1: though that all the Democrats seem to be saying they
Speaker 1: will not in any way do that. But UM, we'll
Speaker 1: see what the questions are. And it's a very delicate,
Speaker 1: difficult kind of issue, um to find out what a
Speaker 1: nominee philosophy might be in a particular case. UM. And
Speaker 1: so it may be that certain cases touched on questions
Speaker 1: of religion. Of course they do. Religious freedom is on
Speaker 1: the docket in many cases before the Supreeding Court. So
Speaker 1: I don't know that they can probe that without that
Speaker 1: kind of accusation coming um. From the Republicans. But even
Speaker 1: in the earlier hearing for the Seventh Circuits for Judge
Speaker 1: Barrett when she was a nominee, I don't think anyone
Speaker 1: really meant to in any way impose some kind of
Speaker 1: religious tests and violation of the Constitution. Um. So they're
Speaker 1: really talking past one another. Um it seems to me.
Speaker 1: Uh So hopefully they'll be less partisan sniping and maybe
Speaker 1: more attention to the process as we go forward. But again, UM,
Speaker 1: I do think, uh that it is rushed, and we'll
Speaker 1: see how the questioning goes and what the nominee's answers are.
Speaker 1: But there was certainly a lot of uh back and
Speaker 1: forth between um, the senators on both sides of the
Speaker 1: aisle on a whole number of issues, some of which
Speaker 1: seemed expraneous and some of which hopefully would go to
Speaker 1: the kinds of issues that should be raised here about
Speaker 1: how the nominee views for responsibility as a life tenure
Speaker 1: member of the Supreme Court. Now, let's talk about her statement.
Speaker 1: She said that courts should not try to make policy decisions.
Speaker 1: That's for the political branches. What did you make of
Speaker 1: that statement of hers? Well, that I suppose that's one
Speaker 1: thing that Democrats might ask her by what does she mean? Because,
Speaker 1: as I think they pointed out, the policy that was
Speaker 1: made was the A C A which passed, and despite
Speaker 1: President Trump and Republican efforts to gut that legislation, they
Speaker 1: can't get it through Congress. And so now despite their protestations,
Speaker 1: they're seeking a verdict from the Supreme Court that would
Speaker 1: change that UM. And so they're doing the very thing
Speaker 1: they accused Democrats doing, using the courts for policymaking. So
Speaker 1: I think we'll have to see what she really means
Speaker 1: by that UM. And you know, in fairness, I think
Speaker 1: she's saying, UM, we don't make policy. But of course
Speaker 1: that's just not true, UM, because they will make policy.
Speaker 1: If they were to find the UM law unconstitutional and
Speaker 1: strike it down, it will make policy one way or
Speaker 1: another for under thirty million people who have pre existing conditions.
Speaker 1: And so UM, we'll see if they probe that I
Speaker 1: expect they will. Supreme Court nominees are often asked about
Speaker 1: respect for precedent. Explain why that's particularly true of Judge
Speaker 1: Barrett Well. I believe she's written a number of law
Speaker 1: view articles about precedent, and UH has taken a view
Speaker 1: that he's different from some present justices on the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: She seems to, according to her critics, respect precedent less
Speaker 1: than UM. Other justices on the Supreme Court, and certainly
Speaker 1: Justice Thomas has been a pretty strong critic of UM
Speaker 1: precedent UH and saying most most prior decisions are up
Speaker 1: for re examination. UM. Chief Justice Roberts UM, I think
Speaker 1: is UM more measured about that and says we ought
Speaker 1: to be very cautious for reasons of institutional respect from
Speaker 1: the citizens when we change a precedent, especially one that's
Speaker 1: long standing. UM. But more specifically, examples would be ro
Speaker 1: versus Wade, or there was some mention of UM privacy
Speaker 1: cases like UM the case from Connecticut in the sixties,
Speaker 1: UM that recognize the notion of a right to privacy UM.
Speaker 1: But UH, and of course Brown versus Board UH, and
Speaker 1: a number of other precedents. And so I think there's
Speaker 1: a feeling amongst some Democratic senators that UM, she is
Speaker 1: less concerned about honoring longstanding precedents, or to flip it around,
Speaker 1: more willing to overturn them. So UM, those questions will
Speaker 1: be asked. Explain this, Carl, Because the Supreme Court does
Speaker 1: overturn its own precedent. I mean, we saw that a
Speaker 1: couple of years ago when they overturned to think, a
Speaker 1: forty year old precedent in the Union case. It just
Speaker 1: seems as if all this stress on precedent is is
Speaker 1: sort of um elusive because they do overturn their own precedent. Well,
Speaker 1: they do, but you know, there ways to talk about that,
Speaker 1: and I think one measure is how long the president
Speaker 1: has existed. In other measures, how strong the precedent is. Uh.
Speaker 1: There's some discuss of something being a super precedent and
Speaker 1: that type of thing, but there are notions, especially of
Speaker 1: times passage, um, how central that um president is to jersprudence. UM.
Speaker 1: But you're right. I mean, if if the Court's made
Speaker 1: earlier decisions that's wrong, then I think justices some feel
Speaker 1: there should be changed. You don't cling to precedents that
Speaker 1: now are completely outmoded. Um. But Chief Justice Roberts, I
Speaker 1: think would say you shouldn't too readily overturned precedent, especially
Speaker 1: a new precedent, say that's a couple of years old, uh,
Speaker 1: or make a dramatic change only because the composition of
Speaker 1: the court has changed. For example, President Trump has will
Speaker 1: likely UM appoints three new justices. Just because the courts
Speaker 1: composition is change doesn't mean that president should be struck
Speaker 1: down without seriously considering them. She was a clerk of
Speaker 1: Justice Scalia and said that she would follow Justice Scalio.
Speaker 1: What does that mean? Well, that's that's a difficult notion, because,
Speaker 1: UM that he wrote decisions and joined opinions, you know,
Speaker 1: for three decades and many areas, and I think she
Speaker 1: would most well, I wouldn't put words in their medipor here.
Speaker 1: I think they'll ask her about that. But UM, I
Speaker 1: think the notions of originalism and textualism and those types
Speaker 1: of ideas. Perhaps, and maybe the notion we're talking about
Speaker 1: earlier that UM judges shouldn't be policy makers. Um, but
Speaker 1: there were many areas in which you know, he made decisions,
Speaker 1: and I don't think she was saying that she would
Speaker 1: necessarily follow every one, UM, but kind of the general.
Speaker 1: But we'll hear about that. I assend that there'll be
Speaker 1: questions that go to that. Just give me your basic
Speaker 1: take on her statement. What was she trying to get at?
Speaker 1: What impressed you? What didn't impress you? Well, I she
Speaker 1: really didn't say a whole lot. That's new. UM. We
Speaker 1: knew she had said earlier in the Rose Garden that
Speaker 1: she UM was you know, a proponent and took views
Speaker 1: very similar to Justice Celia her mentor, and she said specifically, UM.
Speaker 1: And so then the question is you know how that
Speaker 1: will play out. She also said clearly again today as
Speaker 1: she had earlier, that she doesn't think judges or policymakers.
Speaker 1: But as I said, I don't think that tells us
Speaker 1: very much, because they make policy in all kinds of
Speaker 1: areas and deciding all kinds of questions. So then the
Speaker 1: question is how senators will question her and drilled down
Speaker 1: and be more specific and maybe bring up particular areas
Speaker 1: of law or how she intends to apply rules. That's
Speaker 1: the president. I think all of those questions are legitimate
Speaker 1: ones that will be asked and try to move from
Speaker 1: the more general statements that she has there UH to
Speaker 1: something more specific and concrete. Thanks Carl. That's Professor Carl
Speaker 1: Tobias of the University of Richmond Law School