1
00:00:00,920 --> 00:00:03,440
Speaker 1: A federal judge has ruled that the University of North

2
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: Carolina did not discriminate against white and Asian American applicants

3
00:00:08,119 --> 00:00:11,159
Speaker 1: and that the university can continue to consider race as

4
00:00:11,200 --> 00:00:15,280
Speaker 1: a factor in its undergraduate admissions. Federal Judge Laretta Biggs

5
00:00:15,360 --> 00:00:18,119
Speaker 1: ruled late Monday that the university has shown that it

6
00:00:18,160 --> 00:00:21,320
Speaker 1: has a compelling reason to pursue a diverse student body

7
00:00:21,600 --> 00:00:25,160
Speaker 1: and has demonstrated that measurable benefits come from that goal.

8
00:00:25,640 --> 00:00:28,160
Speaker 1: It was the second trial lass in as many years

9
00:00:28,200 --> 00:00:31,880
Speaker 1: for the conservative groups Students for Fair Admissions, which also

10
00:00:32,000 --> 00:00:35,519
Speaker 1: sued Harvard. Joining me is Audrey Anderson, who heads the

11
00:00:35,600 --> 00:00:40,800
Speaker 1: higher education practice at Bassbarian SIMS. It took about eleven

12
00:00:40,880 --> 00:00:44,480
Speaker 1: months after the trial for the judge to reach her decision.

13
00:00:45,320 --> 00:00:49,360
Speaker 1: Why so long? I'm actually not surprised at all by that,

14
00:00:49,520 --> 00:00:52,479
Speaker 1: First of all, even though that she stopped taking evidence

15
00:00:52,520 --> 00:00:56,880
Speaker 1: in November, the parties did not hand in their post

16
00:00:56,920 --> 00:01:01,880
Speaker 1: trial briefs until February. Maybe so she didn't have the

17
00:01:01,960 --> 00:01:06,080
Speaker 1: whole case before her until February, and has her opinion

18
00:01:06,200 --> 00:01:10,360
Speaker 1: actually pointed out the evidence in the case was really voluminous.

19
00:01:10,360 --> 00:01:14,880
Speaker 1: Her trial lasted eight days long, but the parties had

20
00:01:14,880 --> 00:01:18,400
Speaker 1: come to agreement on lots and lots of other evidence

21
00:01:18,880 --> 00:01:21,959
Speaker 1: that they stipulated should be part of the record. So

22
00:01:22,000 --> 00:01:24,560
Speaker 1: in addition to the eight days of trial testimony, there

23
00:01:24,640 --> 00:01:28,679
Speaker 1: was lots and lots of other expert reports and other

24
00:01:28,760 --> 00:01:31,560
Speaker 1: materials that the parties agreed they did not need live

25
00:01:31,640 --> 00:01:34,520
Speaker 1: evidence about, but that were nonetheless in the record. So

26
00:01:34,560 --> 00:01:37,960
Speaker 1: she had a really voluminous amount of information to go through,

27
00:01:38,000 --> 00:01:41,080
Speaker 1: and she wrote a one hundred sixty one page long decision.

28
00:01:41,959 --> 00:01:44,920
Speaker 1: So I'm not at all surprised that it took her

29
00:01:44,959 --> 00:01:47,680
Speaker 1: this amount of time in order to put out this.

30
00:01:48,160 --> 00:01:51,280
Speaker 1: It's the same group Students for Fair Admissions. Are their

31
00:01:51,320 --> 00:01:54,960
Speaker 1: claims here similar to the claims they brought in the

32
00:01:55,160 --> 00:01:59,840
Speaker 1: Harvard suit, Yes, jun they're very similar. They alleged that

33
00:01:59,840 --> 00:02:03,280
Speaker 1: the University of North Carolina put too much weight on

34
00:02:03,560 --> 00:02:08,680
Speaker 1: race in admitting students to its programs, and also that

35
00:02:08,760 --> 00:02:14,120
Speaker 1: it did not adequately consider race neutral alternatives before using

36
00:02:14,280 --> 00:02:19,240
Speaker 1: race as a factor. The difference between this case and

37
00:02:19,680 --> 00:02:24,280
Speaker 1: the Harvard case factually is that in Harvard, there was

38
00:02:24,480 --> 00:02:30,840
Speaker 1: evidence that one factor in the Harvard admissions program, the

39
00:02:30,919 --> 00:02:36,600
Speaker 1: personal rating, had been analyzed by Harvard itself to show

40
00:02:37,240 --> 00:02:43,000
Speaker 1: that it disadvantaged Asian American students. Now, Harvard said that

41
00:02:43,000 --> 00:02:48,320
Speaker 1: that analysis their own researchers had done was incomplete and

42
00:02:48,760 --> 00:02:53,240
Speaker 1: wasn't really accurate, but nonetheless it was part of the record,

43
00:02:53,440 --> 00:02:55,960
Speaker 1: and so a lot of what the experts were talking

44
00:02:56,000 --> 00:03:00,320
Speaker 1: about in the Harvard case was, does this one piece

45
00:03:00,360 --> 00:03:05,120
Speaker 1: of evidence, the differences in the personal rating, which is

46
00:03:05,160 --> 00:03:10,080
Speaker 1: a very subjective rating between Asian American students and other students,

47
00:03:10,480 --> 00:03:15,440
Speaker 1: show that Harvard is really discriminating against Asian American students.

48
00:03:15,560 --> 00:03:18,359
Speaker 1: And so that was a lens that was used a

49
00:03:18,360 --> 00:03:21,680
Speaker 1: lot in the Harvard case. There was nothing like that

50
00:03:21,800 --> 00:03:26,000
Speaker 1: in the North Carolina case. So there was no smoking

51
00:03:26,160 --> 00:03:31,160
Speaker 1: gun evidence to show that u n C was discriminating

52
00:03:31,240 --> 00:03:36,280
Speaker 1: against any racial group. So Students for Fair Admissions s

53
00:03:36,400 --> 00:03:40,560
Speaker 1: f f A had even more of a kind of sterile,

54
00:03:40,920 --> 00:03:47,120
Speaker 1: statistical kind of case that they put forward to say

55
00:03:47,200 --> 00:03:52,920
Speaker 1: that based on this statistical analysis which shows that the

56
00:03:53,000 --> 00:03:57,880
Speaker 1: test scores and g p a's of Black students and

57
00:03:58,120 --> 00:04:01,920
Speaker 1: Latin X students tend to be lower than the test

58
00:04:01,960 --> 00:04:05,480
Speaker 1: scores and g p as of white and Asian students,

59
00:04:05,720 --> 00:04:08,960
Speaker 1: that means there must be discrimination or there must be

60
00:04:09,040 --> 00:04:12,400
Speaker 1: too much weight being put on race by the admissions

61
00:04:12,640 --> 00:04:15,920
Speaker 1: people at the University of North Carolina. So tell us

62
00:04:16,040 --> 00:04:20,920
Speaker 1: what Judge Loretta Biggs ruled and why. So she ruled

63
00:04:20,960 --> 00:04:25,080
Speaker 1: that the University of North Carolina's use of race is

64
00:04:25,160 --> 00:04:29,919
Speaker 1: completely consistent with what the Supreme Court has held is

65
00:04:29,920 --> 00:04:36,040
Speaker 1: appropriate under the Constitution. So she found that the University

66
00:04:36,080 --> 00:04:40,479
Speaker 1: of North Carolina had proved that it was using race

67
00:04:40,720 --> 00:04:46,120
Speaker 1: for the educational benefits of diversity, that it had looked

68
00:04:46,160 --> 00:04:49,800
Speaker 1: at its own school and said, this is why we

69
00:04:49,880 --> 00:04:52,760
Speaker 1: want to use race, or this is what we're trying

70
00:04:52,800 --> 00:04:55,479
Speaker 1: to get out of diversity. We think that there are

71
00:04:55,640 --> 00:05:00,160
Speaker 1: educational benefits and that our students will have more in

72
00:05:00,240 --> 00:05:04,400
Speaker 1: depth discussions. We think that diverse groups of people come

73
00:05:04,480 --> 00:05:09,080
Speaker 1: up with more innovative and creative solutions to problems. We

74
00:05:09,160 --> 00:05:12,120
Speaker 1: think that having a diverse group of students teaches our

75
00:05:12,160 --> 00:05:16,960
Speaker 1: students empathy and understanding. They have five different things that

76
00:05:17,040 --> 00:05:21,880
Speaker 1: they had identified that a diverse student body would bring

77
00:05:22,360 --> 00:05:27,159
Speaker 1: to the University of North Carolina student body would bring

78
00:05:27,640 --> 00:05:32,719
Speaker 1: to the University of North Carolina. So Judge Biggs found

79
00:05:32,760 --> 00:05:35,560
Speaker 1: that they had proved that, and she also found that

80
00:05:35,640 --> 00:05:41,159
Speaker 1: they needed to use race in order to meet those goals,

81
00:05:41,200 --> 00:05:44,279
Speaker 1: so the use of race was necessary, and they didn't

82
00:05:44,440 --> 00:05:47,080
Speaker 1: use it anymore than they needed to in order to

83
00:05:47,160 --> 00:05:51,560
Speaker 1: hit those goals, so their use of race was narrowly tailored.

84
00:05:52,000 --> 00:05:55,360
Speaker 1: According to the u n C website, this year's incoming

85
00:05:55,480 --> 00:06:00,480
Speaker 1: class of five thousand, six hundred students included six five

86
00:06:00,600 --> 00:06:05,080
Speaker 1: percent to identify as white or Caucasian, twenty one percent

87
00:06:05,160 --> 00:06:08,000
Speaker 1: as Asian or Asian American, twelve percent as Black or

88
00:06:08,040 --> 00:06:11,760
Speaker 1: African American, and ten percent who said they were Hispanic,

89
00:06:11,920 --> 00:06:16,159
Speaker 1: Latino or Latino. But yet, the judge criticized the school

90
00:06:16,360 --> 00:06:21,559
Speaker 1: for not making enough strides in recent years and said

91
00:06:21,680 --> 00:06:25,159
Speaker 1: it's been defined by most of its existence by discriminatory

92
00:06:25,160 --> 00:06:29,200
Speaker 1: and obstructionist policies, not ones that hurt white and Asian

93
00:06:29,240 --> 00:06:33,279
Speaker 1: American students, but that disadvantaged students of color. Well, that

94
00:06:33,400 --> 00:06:37,479
Speaker 1: was another interesting difference between this case and Harvard. In

95
00:06:37,480 --> 00:06:42,800
Speaker 1: this case, the judge allowed a group of students to

96
00:06:43,320 --> 00:06:48,000
Speaker 1: intervene as parties on the same side as the university,

97
00:06:48,160 --> 00:06:53,599
Speaker 1: so they were also defending the university's affirmative action policy.

98
00:06:53,760 --> 00:06:58,520
Speaker 1: These were students of color, so once these students were parties,

99
00:06:58,640 --> 00:07:00,760
Speaker 1: they were able to put in a dents like the

100
00:07:00,800 --> 00:07:05,080
Speaker 1: other parties did, and they put in an expert report

101
00:07:05,560 --> 00:07:09,640
Speaker 1: that UM put out all the history of the University

102
00:07:09,640 --> 00:07:12,440
Speaker 1: of North Carolina when it comes to race, and that

103
00:07:12,760 --> 00:07:16,200
Speaker 1: history isn't very good when it comes to black students.

104
00:07:16,640 --> 00:07:22,040
Speaker 1: Those students also testified at the trial. Black students, Hispanic

105
00:07:22,160 --> 00:07:26,960
Speaker 1: students testified about how what their experience was at the

106
00:07:27,040 --> 00:07:30,400
Speaker 1: University of North Carolina. Some of them were recent alums,

107
00:07:30,480 --> 00:07:32,760
Speaker 1: some of them, I think we're current students at the time.

108
00:07:32,800 --> 00:07:36,320
Speaker 1: They testified and about how they were still often the

109
00:07:36,360 --> 00:07:39,360
Speaker 1: only student of color in their classes, how they were

110
00:07:39,920 --> 00:07:45,360
Speaker 1: sometimes called racial epithets at the University of North Carolina,

111
00:07:45,920 --> 00:07:49,720
Speaker 1: how they felt tokenized, and that everyone in the classroom

112
00:07:49,760 --> 00:07:52,920
Speaker 1: would look at them to speak for their race when

113
00:07:52,960 --> 00:07:56,680
Speaker 1: any topic came up in class that might have some

114
00:07:56,800 --> 00:08:00,160
Speaker 1: kind of an aspect of racial difference in it. So

115
00:08:00,560 --> 00:08:05,840
Speaker 1: Judge Big wrote a long footnote about the historical expert

116
00:08:06,400 --> 00:08:10,040
Speaker 1: evidence that they had put in and also talked about

117
00:08:10,080 --> 00:08:16,040
Speaker 1: the testimony from those students interveners, and it clearly had

118
00:08:16,080 --> 00:08:20,480
Speaker 1: an effect on her. But that helped the university because

119
00:08:20,520 --> 00:08:25,720
Speaker 1: that shows that they still need to use race in

120
00:08:25,840 --> 00:08:30,640
Speaker 1: order to hit those goals that they have of getting

121
00:08:30,640 --> 00:08:34,400
Speaker 1: the educational benefits of diversity, So did she want them

122
00:08:34,800 --> 00:08:37,920
Speaker 1: to do more? In some way? Did she suggest what

123
00:08:37,960 --> 00:08:40,360
Speaker 1: they should be doing. Here's the point I think it

124
00:08:40,440 --> 00:08:45,840
Speaker 1: goes to. You may remember June that in the Michigan

125
00:08:45,920 --> 00:08:51,520
Speaker 1: cases Grutter and Grat, the cases that you know, almost

126
00:08:51,559 --> 00:08:56,080
Speaker 1: twenty years ago, the court held that colleges and universities

127
00:08:56,160 --> 00:09:01,000
Speaker 1: could use race and admission. Justice soca Onnor in that

128
00:09:01,679 --> 00:09:06,720
Speaker 1: case wrote that she thought that colleges universities would no

129
00:09:06,800 --> 00:09:09,600
Speaker 1: longer have to take race into account in twenty five

130
00:09:09,679 --> 00:09:12,880
Speaker 1: years because it would no longer be necessary. And I

131
00:09:12,920 --> 00:09:15,360
Speaker 1: think that what Judge Biggs is doing. He is though

132
00:09:15,600 --> 00:09:18,719
Speaker 1: I don't think she ever mentions that part of the

133
00:09:18,720 --> 00:09:21,800
Speaker 1: Grutter opinion. I think she's putting down a little bit

134
00:09:21,800 --> 00:09:24,800
Speaker 1: of a marker to say we're not close to that.

135
00:09:24,960 --> 00:09:27,960
Speaker 1: We might be close in time to that twenty five years,

136
00:09:28,240 --> 00:09:31,600
Speaker 1: but in terms of our country's evolution, we are nowhere

137
00:09:31,640 --> 00:09:33,640
Speaker 1: near close to the time, at least not at the

138
00:09:33,720 --> 00:09:38,080
Speaker 1: University of North Carolina, where race is no longer necessary

139
00:09:38,200 --> 00:09:41,200
Speaker 1: because we have some kind of a color blind society.

140
00:09:41,640 --> 00:09:45,439
Speaker 1: That's what I think Judge Biggs was doing. So the

141
00:09:45,480 --> 00:09:49,480
Speaker 1: Students for Fair Admission said they'll appeal and if necessary,

142
00:09:49,640 --> 00:09:52,040
Speaker 1: up to the Supreme Court. And that's the point, isn't it.

143
00:09:52,080 --> 00:09:54,600
Speaker 1: They want to appeal this case up to the Supreme

144
00:09:54,640 --> 00:09:59,640
Speaker 1: Court exactly. They always expected that this was only the

145
00:09:59,679 --> 00:10:02,200
Speaker 1: first stop on their journey for this case. So they

146
00:10:02,200 --> 00:10:04,720
Speaker 1: will appeal it to the United States Court of Appeals

147
00:10:04,760 --> 00:10:09,320
Speaker 1: for the Fourth Circuit. And whatever outcome the Fourth Circuit has,

148
00:10:09,360 --> 00:10:12,840
Speaker 1: I would expect that the losing party would then seek

149
00:10:12,920 --> 00:10:17,240
Speaker 1: review from the United States Supreme Court. The Students for

150
00:10:17,320 --> 00:10:21,760
Speaker 1: Fair Admissions lost the case against Harvard and appealed it

151
00:10:21,800 --> 00:10:25,800
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court. The Court postponed action on that case.

152
00:10:26,080 --> 00:10:30,400
Speaker 1: Tell us what happened. Well, the Court has asked for

153
00:10:30,720 --> 00:10:34,440
Speaker 1: the views of the Solicitor General in that case, which

154
00:10:34,480 --> 00:10:38,160
Speaker 1: is a common move that the Supreme Court makes when

155
00:10:38,240 --> 00:10:41,560
Speaker 1: it is thinking about a case that has some kind

156
00:10:41,600 --> 00:10:46,360
Speaker 1: of federal constitutional question or federal implication. It wants to

157
00:10:46,480 --> 00:10:50,040
Speaker 1: know what the views of the United States government are

158
00:10:50,600 --> 00:10:53,680
Speaker 1: when the Court considers whether or not to take the case.

159
00:10:53,960 --> 00:10:56,520
Speaker 1: So the Supreme Court has asked for the views of

160
00:10:56,520 --> 00:11:00,880
Speaker 1: the Solicitor General's office, and I think it we expect

161
00:11:00,960 --> 00:11:04,320
Speaker 1: that the Solicitor General will deliver that brief to the

162
00:11:04,360 --> 00:11:07,360
Speaker 1: Court sometime before the end of the calendar year. There's

163
00:11:07,400 --> 00:11:11,920
Speaker 1: no deadline for the Solicitor General to file that brief.

164
00:11:12,200 --> 00:11:14,960
Speaker 1: They can file it whenever they want to, but we

165
00:11:15,120 --> 00:11:17,040
Speaker 1: kind of expect them to do it before the end

166
00:11:17,080 --> 00:11:20,040
Speaker 1: of the calendar year, and that will allow the Court,

167
00:11:20,160 --> 00:11:22,800
Speaker 1: if it wants to, to make a decision as to

168
00:11:22,840 --> 00:11:26,440
Speaker 1: whether or not reviews the Harvard case in time for

169
00:11:26,520 --> 00:11:32,240
Speaker 1: that case to be heard. This term advocates for affirmative action.

170
00:11:32,440 --> 00:11:35,880
Speaker 1: Are they afraid that the Supreme Court will take the case?

171
00:11:36,240 --> 00:11:38,600
Speaker 1: Here's the interesting thing, June. So s f f A

172
00:11:39,040 --> 00:11:42,720
Speaker 1: has put in its questions presented to the courts, should

173
00:11:42,720 --> 00:11:46,160
Speaker 1: the Court overrule Grutter and Grats. They've teed it right up.

174
00:11:46,200 --> 00:11:48,480
Speaker 1: They say that that's what they want the Court to

175
00:11:48,679 --> 00:11:53,079
Speaker 1: review their case to do. That's their first question presented.

176
00:11:53,520 --> 00:11:57,640
Speaker 1: So it's not just proponents of affirmative action, you know,

177
00:11:57,880 --> 00:12:00,840
Speaker 1: making something up. That's clearly what s f f A

178
00:12:01,000 --> 00:12:04,480
Speaker 1: is just right out asking the Court to do. You know,

179
00:12:04,880 --> 00:12:08,440
Speaker 1: when you get away from a hot button topic like abortion,

180
00:12:08,920 --> 00:12:12,360
Speaker 1: like affirmative action, and you're just in the realm of

181
00:12:12,480 --> 00:12:18,000
Speaker 1: regular cases. The Supreme Court doesn't usually take a case

182
00:12:18,080 --> 00:12:22,400
Speaker 1: to review unless there's some kind of a divide between

183
00:12:22,440 --> 00:12:26,400
Speaker 1: the lower court, and so Judge Biggs decisions would usually

184
00:12:26,880 --> 00:12:30,480
Speaker 1: caution away from the court taking a case to review.

185
00:12:31,120 --> 00:12:34,040
Speaker 1: Here we have Judge Biggs decision being very much in

186
00:12:34,160 --> 00:12:38,400
Speaker 1: line with Judge Burrow's decision from the District of Massachusetts,

187
00:12:38,440 --> 00:12:42,160
Speaker 1: which was affirmed by the First Circuit. So these two

188
00:12:42,200 --> 00:12:44,400
Speaker 1: courts seem to be looking at the U n C

189
00:12:45,120 --> 00:12:50,000
Speaker 1: Applications process and the Harvard process very much the same way,

190
00:12:50,559 --> 00:12:53,040
Speaker 1: all in line with what the Supreme Court has helped.

191
00:12:53,440 --> 00:12:56,480
Speaker 1: That would all be something to say, Court, there's nothing

192
00:12:56,559 --> 00:12:58,120
Speaker 1: for you to weigh in on the courts. They are

193
00:12:58,160 --> 00:13:00,720
Speaker 1: all seeing this the same way. In line your President,

194
00:13:01,200 --> 00:13:04,240
Speaker 1: let it go, let the law further develop before you

195
00:13:04,320 --> 00:13:07,200
Speaker 1: take it on and rule on it. That would be

196
00:13:07,320 --> 00:13:10,319
Speaker 1: how a Supreme Court advocate would look at this case

197
00:13:10,440 --> 00:13:13,880
Speaker 1: if it were not a hot button case. But with

198
00:13:13,960 --> 00:13:16,080
Speaker 1: the change in the court, with new members of the

199
00:13:16,120 --> 00:13:21,440
Speaker 1: Court who probably disagree with the court precedent, everybody has

200
00:13:21,520 --> 00:13:25,200
Speaker 1: this up for grabs. Thanks Audrey. That's Audrey Anderson of

201
00:13:25,280 --> 00:13:32,120
Speaker 1: Bassparian SIMS. President Joe Biden's bipartisan commission studying changes to

202
00:13:32,160 --> 00:13:35,280
Speaker 1: the U s Supreme Court released a draft of its

203
00:13:35,280 --> 00:13:38,840
Speaker 1: findings in which it wrote favorably of creating term limits

204
00:13:38,840 --> 00:13:43,440
Speaker 1: for judges and cautioned against the Court adding justices. It

205
00:13:43,559 --> 00:13:46,920
Speaker 1: lost two of its conservative members and several of its

206
00:13:46,960 --> 00:13:50,960
Speaker 1: liberal members were critical of the initial findings. In short,

207
00:13:51,240 --> 00:13:55,080
Speaker 1: neither liberals nor conservatives seemed to be overly happy with

208
00:13:55,120 --> 00:13:59,280
Speaker 1: the commission. Joining me is Josh Blackman, Professor of Constitutional

209
00:13:59,360 --> 00:14:02,600
Speaker 1: law at the Alt Texas College of Law. These initial

210
00:14:02,640 --> 00:14:07,800
Speaker 1: recommendations just give us an overview of what they will recommend.

211
00:14:07,840 --> 00:14:10,720
Speaker 1: It is not the right word, because they're not making recommendations.

212
00:14:10,760 --> 00:14:15,199
Speaker 1: What did they say? The panel discussed a couple major areas,

213
00:14:15,559 --> 00:14:18,880
Speaker 1: One whether the Court to be expanded with new seats,

214
00:14:19,040 --> 00:14:23,600
Speaker 1: to whether term limits for the justice might be appropriate. Three,

215
00:14:24,120 --> 00:14:27,760
Speaker 1: whether the courts so called shadow or emergency doctors performed.

216
00:14:28,640 --> 00:14:32,000
Speaker 1: And fourth they discussed usual ethics and the ethics codes

217
00:14:32,040 --> 00:14:35,120
Speaker 1: that applies to the Supreme Court. The longest short of

218
00:14:35,120 --> 00:14:37,560
Speaker 1: it is the court where the panel made no recommendations.

219
00:14:37,560 --> 00:14:39,680
Speaker 1: In the Court, it isn't even clear they can make

220
00:14:39,720 --> 00:14:42,800
Speaker 1: recommendations of what's to do. And even the areas on

221
00:14:42,840 --> 00:14:45,360
Speaker 1: which there were some agreement, there was no majority opinion.

222
00:14:45,400 --> 00:14:48,760
Speaker 1: So to speak. Um, there was a pretty strong sentiment

223
00:14:48,840 --> 00:14:52,600
Speaker 1: against explaining the court. There were some agreement on whether

224
00:14:52,600 --> 00:14:55,720
Speaker 1: there's be terminalments, but there was disagreement if the terminments

225
00:14:55,760 --> 00:14:58,880
Speaker 1: to be imposed through a simple Act of Congress the statute,

226
00:14:59,160 --> 00:15:03,040
Speaker 1: whether it cons social amendment was necessary. So really, June,

227
00:15:03,040 --> 00:15:05,560
Speaker 1: at the end, this was much as you about nothing. Um.

228
00:15:05,880 --> 00:15:08,520
Speaker 1: There really wasn't much acame of this lengthy product of

229
00:15:08,560 --> 00:15:10,960
Speaker 1: the stuff. Several of your pages of report that frankly,

230
00:15:11,040 --> 00:15:13,400
Speaker 1: I didn't even read it. You didn't read it, but

231
00:15:13,480 --> 00:15:16,160
Speaker 1: you're doing an interview on it. I skimmed it, and

232
00:15:16,280 --> 00:15:18,960
Speaker 1: I got I got to highlight. Many people have said

233
00:15:19,120 --> 00:15:23,760
Speaker 1: that the President just appointed this panel to waste time

234
00:15:23,880 --> 00:15:26,920
Speaker 1: or to bide his time, because he wants to avoid

235
00:15:27,040 --> 00:15:33,080
Speaker 1: this issue which liberals are so incensed about. I think

236
00:15:33,160 --> 00:15:36,040
Speaker 1: that's right. President Biden was never in favor of so

237
00:15:36,200 --> 00:15:40,200
Speaker 1: called court reform. He was always very transparent about that fact. Um,

238
00:15:40,280 --> 00:15:43,360
Speaker 1: so he I think he created his commission to sort

239
00:15:43,360 --> 00:15:46,920
Speaker 1: of deflex attention for a few months. UM. On Friday,

240
00:15:47,000 --> 00:15:51,200
Speaker 1: after the Commission had their meeting, a reporter asked Biden

241
00:15:51,640 --> 00:15:54,720
Speaker 1: what he thought about terminus with screame Court and President

242
00:15:54,760 --> 00:15:59,200
Speaker 1: Biden had one word answer, no, doesn't know. No. So

243
00:15:59,280 --> 00:16:00,960
Speaker 1: it's like, you know, you submit a paper to be

244
00:16:01,040 --> 00:16:03,200
Speaker 1: graded and in fine mincily your teacher says, never mind,

245
00:16:03,360 --> 00:16:06,120
Speaker 1: not interested. Right, It's it's immediate rejection of the only

246
00:16:06,120 --> 00:16:10,120
Speaker 1: area there was some agreement upon UM. So this was

247
00:16:10,160 --> 00:16:12,080
Speaker 1: really much to do about nothing. Biden didn't want to

248
00:16:12,080 --> 00:16:15,760
Speaker 1: do anything. He created his egghead panel with fellow academic

249
00:16:16,120 --> 00:16:19,400
Speaker 1: to sort of stretch things out, and now it's going

250
00:16:19,440 --> 00:16:23,360
Speaker 1: to just vanish and disappear. There's actually some bipartisan support

251
00:16:23,400 --> 00:16:28,360
Speaker 1: for term limits, isn't there? There is? Um. The panel

252
00:16:28,400 --> 00:16:31,080
Speaker 1: said it was content in term limits, but they didn't

253
00:16:31,080 --> 00:16:33,280
Speaker 1: agree on whether it to be done through a simple

254
00:16:33,560 --> 00:16:37,200
Speaker 1: Act of Congress of statute, whether a new constitutional moment

255
00:16:37,320 --> 00:16:40,440
Speaker 1: was necessary UM for requires and amendments of the Constitution.

256
00:16:40,800 --> 00:16:42,920
Speaker 1: It's not gonna happen. We don't. We don't have that

257
00:16:43,000 --> 00:16:46,400
Speaker 1: much consensus in the country at all. Perhaps that happens

258
00:16:46,400 --> 00:16:48,560
Speaker 1: for a statute. And then Biden was asked to that

259
00:16:48,640 --> 00:16:52,160
Speaker 1: and said nope, no, not interested. So again I think

260
00:16:52,200 --> 00:16:55,040
Speaker 1: we're basically back where it started from. I mean, he

261
00:16:55,120 --> 00:16:57,000
Speaker 1: has said in the past that he did not in

262
00:16:57,040 --> 00:17:00,560
Speaker 1: favor of packing the Court, but to say no to

263
00:17:00,720 --> 00:17:05,240
Speaker 1: term limits. Why have the panel? I don't think Biden

264
00:17:05,280 --> 00:17:07,320
Speaker 1: ever wants to have his panel. I think he simply

265
00:17:07,359 --> 00:17:09,320
Speaker 1: needed a way to deflect the attention show he was

266
00:17:09,400 --> 00:17:12,359
Speaker 1: doing something. During the campaign, he promised that he would

267
00:17:12,359 --> 00:17:14,840
Speaker 1: have created panel, and he did it, and now he

268
00:17:14,920 --> 00:17:17,600
Speaker 1: who will probably ignore their report? And when I think

269
00:17:17,640 --> 00:17:20,600
Speaker 1: it's significant this panel is not target than making a recommendation,

270
00:17:20,680 --> 00:17:23,680
Speaker 1: they would basically have their hands tied me up. The

271
00:17:23,720 --> 00:17:28,840
Speaker 1: two conservative members of the panel quit last week. Any

272
00:17:28,920 --> 00:17:31,800
Speaker 1: indication as to why they quit at this point after

273
00:17:31,840 --> 00:17:35,600
Speaker 1: six months, Well, these are respected people. One is Jack

274
00:17:35,640 --> 00:17:37,720
Speaker 1: Goldsmith at Harvard who worked at the George to W.

275
00:17:37,880 --> 00:17:41,320
Speaker 1: Bush Justice Department, together as Caleb Nelson's a lot professor

276
00:17:41,359 --> 00:17:44,560
Speaker 1: at Virginia CLOrk for Clarence Thomas and both them very well.

277
00:17:44,840 --> 00:17:47,560
Speaker 1: These a respected people. There must be something in the

278
00:17:47,600 --> 00:17:50,119
Speaker 1: report they didn't agree with, or there must be something

279
00:17:50,240 --> 00:17:52,040
Speaker 1: coming that they're going to disagree with. We don't We

280
00:17:52,080 --> 00:17:54,760
Speaker 1: don't quite know the different um. But I'll make this

281
00:17:54,800 --> 00:17:59,320
Speaker 1: point more clearly. Uh, there were no dissent right, the

282
00:17:59,359 --> 00:18:01,680
Speaker 1: members were not required to join the report. They could

283
00:18:01,720 --> 00:18:03,840
Speaker 1: earn their own descent. But I think this sort of

284
00:18:03,840 --> 00:18:06,280
Speaker 1: resignation was a quiet dissent to signal that this was

285
00:18:06,359 --> 00:18:10,600
Speaker 1: not unanimous, that there was there was disagreement over what

286
00:18:10,720 --> 00:18:15,600
Speaker 1: remedies to adopt. Also, the draft report will say some

287
00:18:15,640 --> 00:18:21,520
Speaker 1: commissioners believe, but other commissioners believe. So there's not even

288
00:18:21,840 --> 00:18:27,280
Speaker 1: a consensus about the report in the report right, and

289
00:18:27,280 --> 00:18:30,600
Speaker 1: and the group doesn't even agree with what their charge

290
00:18:30,760 --> 00:18:33,240
Speaker 1: was is what they were instructed to do. It's a

291
00:18:33,400 --> 00:18:36,960
Speaker 1: very weird, disjointed process. I mean imaging a different world

292
00:18:37,040 --> 00:18:40,440
Speaker 1: June where the government said, okay, you have sixty days,

293
00:18:40,640 --> 00:18:43,840
Speaker 1: give us a list of five recommendations. They would know

294
00:18:43,880 --> 00:18:46,200
Speaker 1: exactly what to do. But Biden had a sort of

295
00:18:46,240 --> 00:18:50,080
Speaker 1: open ended report saying let's discuss the Supreme Court and

296
00:18:50,080 --> 00:18:53,160
Speaker 1: and that's it. So it's kind of like a long

297
00:18:53,400 --> 00:18:57,560
Speaker 1: article that you've seen in academic journal that again no

298
00:18:57,600 --> 00:19:01,480
Speaker 1: one will read, including me, because it's more than true

299
00:19:01,480 --> 00:19:04,720
Speaker 1: tra pages material. I think you should be required to.

300
00:19:05,160 --> 00:19:07,359
Speaker 1: I think that would violence the ash amendmentist rule and

301
00:19:07,359 --> 00:19:09,920
Speaker 1: the nusual punishment. I fell that joke from Justice Leave

302
00:19:09,960 --> 00:19:11,960
Speaker 1: by the way Justice Glee once it reading the entire

303
00:19:12,040 --> 00:19:14,119
Speaker 1: Affordable Care Act would be a violation the aph Amendment

304
00:19:14,160 --> 00:19:16,480
Speaker 1: so I can't take credit for that joke. Did they

305
00:19:16,520 --> 00:19:24,480
Speaker 1: come out firmly against court packing? Yes, for the most part, Um,

306
00:19:24,600 --> 00:19:28,280
Speaker 1: there was a very general consensus that expand the court

307
00:19:28,280 --> 00:19:32,160
Speaker 1: would do significant damage to the institution in the long run.

308
00:19:32,680 --> 00:19:35,080
Speaker 1: A few members of the of the Commission actually spoke

309
00:19:35,160 --> 00:19:37,960
Speaker 1: up saying we need to be more open. Lawrence Tribe

310
00:19:37,960 --> 00:19:39,880
Speaker 1: of Harvard said we're going to break the glass moment,

311
00:19:39,960 --> 00:19:43,520
Speaker 1: right in case the emergency, break the glass. Um, But

312
00:19:44,520 --> 00:19:46,840
Speaker 1: there's just no movement for it. I think that that

313
00:19:47,000 --> 00:19:50,640
Speaker 1: approach is dead. Pauls have shown that the public has

314
00:19:50,720 --> 00:19:54,320
Speaker 1: lost respect for the court. The Court is more out

315
00:19:54,320 --> 00:19:57,760
Speaker 1: of favor than it's been in a while after the

316
00:19:57,840 --> 00:20:01,640
Speaker 1: last term. Is there a way to it's that without

317
00:20:02,080 --> 00:20:06,399
Speaker 1: tinkering with the court? Well, you know, I think it's

318
00:20:05,880 --> 00:20:08,520
Speaker 1: it depends which way you look at it. Right, there

319
00:20:08,520 --> 00:20:11,600
Speaker 1: are six conservative members now, and therefore you have more

320
00:20:11,640 --> 00:20:15,840
Speaker 1: conservative opinions. But even then you have justice who were moderate.

321
00:20:15,920 --> 00:20:18,080
Speaker 1: Robert's Kavana and Barrett is sort of in the middle

322
00:20:18,080 --> 00:20:21,600
Speaker 1: of this three three three courts. Um. So I don't

323
00:20:21,760 --> 00:20:25,560
Speaker 1: think sinkering it is necessary. And see, I think trying

324
00:20:25,560 --> 00:20:28,320
Speaker 1: to tinker at the court would likely prove disastrous in

325
00:20:28,320 --> 00:20:32,800
Speaker 1: the long run. Um, it's just it's it's this sort

326
00:20:32,840 --> 00:20:35,560
Speaker 1: of this freak of accident that Trump got to Ginsburg

327
00:20:35,600 --> 00:20:38,480
Speaker 1: see right before the election, and this Belie seat theayed

328
00:20:38,520 --> 00:20:40,720
Speaker 1: open through the other elections. So there were two additional

329
00:20:41,200 --> 00:20:44,320
Speaker 1: justices that probably wouldn't have happened otherwise. Uh. The other

330
00:20:44,320 --> 00:20:46,640
Speaker 1: way to look at it is Republicans have had many

331
00:20:46,720 --> 00:20:49,760
Speaker 1: justice of the years that simply weren't Conservative John Paul Stevens,

332
00:20:49,840 --> 00:20:54,479
Speaker 1: David Suitor, O'Connor, and Kennedy on most occasions. So you know,

333
00:20:54,640 --> 00:20:57,160
Speaker 1: the Democrats got lucky in number of cases, but they've

334
00:20:57,359 --> 00:20:59,400
Speaker 1: they've not rolled the dice well last you know, six

335
00:20:59,480 --> 00:21:03,080
Speaker 1: years or so. It really wasn't a freak of nature.

336
00:21:03,160 --> 00:21:07,600
Speaker 1: It really was Mitch McConnell responsible for holding open and

337
00:21:07,680 --> 00:21:12,280
Speaker 1: Justice Scalia seat and then using different reasoning to fill

338
00:21:12,800 --> 00:21:16,960
Speaker 1: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat right before an election. That

339
00:21:17,000 --> 00:21:23,000
Speaker 1: politicizes the court, doesn't it more than it already is? Well, Look,

340
00:21:23,119 --> 00:21:27,840
Speaker 1: I think I think the short answer is that, Um,

341
00:21:28,000 --> 00:21:32,600
Speaker 1: McConnell is a politician, UM, and he saw an opportunity

342
00:21:32,680 --> 00:21:36,480
Speaker 1: and he was willing to um keep the seat open

343
00:21:36,480 --> 00:21:39,879
Speaker 1: at great expense. Um, and so far the Democrats has

344
00:21:39,920 --> 00:21:42,120
Speaker 1: not been able to retaliate with that sort of hard ball.

345
00:21:42,320 --> 00:21:44,560
Speaker 1: So I do. I do think the mccomposition when I

346
00:21:44,600 --> 00:21:46,480
Speaker 1: said to Creak of Nature that the vacancies of rose

347
00:21:46,560 --> 00:21:49,400
Speaker 1: at just the right moment, because there's no guarantee either

348
00:21:49,440 --> 00:21:51,639
Speaker 1: the Scalia seat or the Gainsky open up just when

349
00:21:51,680 --> 00:21:55,440
Speaker 1: they did. How would the Democrats retaliate. Do you have

350
00:21:55,480 --> 00:21:59,080
Speaker 1: any advice for the Democrats? Well, look, the leader of

351
00:21:59,119 --> 00:22:01,720
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party, Joe Biden, said not interested. So I

352
00:22:01,760 --> 00:22:04,919
Speaker 1: think the short answers is no momentum. Perhaps, you know,

353
00:22:05,160 --> 00:22:09,400
Speaker 1: progressive activists wish for it, but there's not much. We've

354
00:22:09,440 --> 00:22:14,160
Speaker 1: heard several justices talk about how the court is not politicized.

355
00:22:15,359 --> 00:22:18,639
Speaker 1: Do you think they've take into account how some of

356
00:22:18,680 --> 00:22:24,639
Speaker 1: their more controversial decisions will affect the public. I hope not.

357
00:22:25,600 --> 00:22:27,760
Speaker 1: I think when the justices start thinking about the general

358
00:22:27,760 --> 00:22:30,480
Speaker 1: public and more political right, because that means they can

359
00:22:30,480 --> 00:22:33,520
Speaker 1: be swayed by things are not law um. In my mind,

360
00:22:33,560 --> 00:22:36,080
Speaker 1: the least political justice, the justice puts his head in

361
00:22:36,119 --> 00:22:39,000
Speaker 1: the standard doesn't consider the sort of sentiment. But we

362
00:22:39,040 --> 00:22:41,400
Speaker 1: don't live in my sort of ideal world. I think

363
00:22:41,440 --> 00:22:45,520
Speaker 1: Robert that people think. I think Kavan does, Embarratt may

364
00:22:45,560 --> 00:22:50,119
Speaker 1: as well. The other freedom the draft analysis said that

365
00:22:50,200 --> 00:22:53,160
Speaker 1: Congress would be authorized to write a code of conduct

366
00:22:53,200 --> 00:22:58,080
Speaker 1: for the justices, and but Chief Justice Roberts has suggested

367
00:22:58,119 --> 00:23:01,840
Speaker 1: he doesn't believe that Congress has congressional authority to impose

368
00:23:01,920 --> 00:23:04,639
Speaker 1: conduct rules on the Supreme Court. He did say that

369
00:23:04,800 --> 00:23:07,240
Speaker 1: do you think the Court needs some conduct rules because

370
00:23:07,320 --> 00:23:10,400
Speaker 1: we don't know when they're accusing themselves and when they're

371
00:23:10,440 --> 00:23:13,880
Speaker 1: not well. So there's there's two questions. One can Congress

372
00:23:13,880 --> 00:23:16,440
Speaker 1: fread a code of the justice is I used to

373
00:23:16,440 --> 00:23:18,680
Speaker 1: be persuaded by John Roberts that they couldn't, and now

374
00:23:18,720 --> 00:23:21,240
Speaker 1: I think Roberts is wrong. Um. I think it's true

375
00:23:21,280 --> 00:23:23,920
Speaker 1: that the Constitution, you know, refers to the creation of

376
00:23:23,960 --> 00:23:26,840
Speaker 1: Supreme Court but not the judges, and Congress has to

377
00:23:27,000 --> 00:23:30,400
Speaker 1: enact or created the seats midstream corpied statute. Right, even

378
00:23:30,400 --> 00:23:33,280
Speaker 1: the Chief Justice was created by statute, and Congress creates

379
00:23:33,320 --> 00:23:35,119
Speaker 1: the seas by statute. They can regularly sets these. I

380
00:23:35,119 --> 00:23:37,680
Speaker 1: think Roberts is arguing the separation powers is simply wrong,

381
00:23:38,080 --> 00:23:40,320
Speaker 1: but you'll probably stick to it. Um. I think the

382
00:23:40,400 --> 00:23:43,680
Speaker 1: more important question is what would that code be and

383
00:23:43,760 --> 00:23:47,119
Speaker 1: let's be frank, your recusal right if the justice steps

384
00:23:47,160 --> 00:23:50,200
Speaker 1: down in the case. On most court, if a justice recused,

385
00:23:50,200 --> 00:23:52,720
Speaker 1: the judge recuses, it's no big deal because the're a

386
00:23:52,720 --> 00:23:54,760
Speaker 1: bunch of other judges. But in the U. Spreme Corps

387
00:23:54,800 --> 00:23:57,119
Speaker 1: of Justice recuses, there's no one to back up as

388
00:23:57,160 --> 00:23:58,919
Speaker 1: an alternate. So I think you as a little more

389
00:23:58,960 --> 00:24:01,800
Speaker 1: thoughtful with the source of awards you have. UM. But

390
00:24:02,000 --> 00:24:06,000
Speaker 1: I I think Congress could do something for the the court.

391
00:24:06,720 --> 00:24:11,199
Speaker 1: Do you think the Court itself, the justices should be

392
00:24:11,280 --> 00:24:16,560
Speaker 1: doing that, should have outlined some rules and regulations for

393
00:24:16,840 --> 00:24:21,159
Speaker 1: at least for recusal. I think the justice internally do.

394
00:24:21,400 --> 00:24:24,720
Speaker 1: There was a discussion in the early going back thirty

395
00:24:24,800 --> 00:24:28,360
Speaker 1: years where Chief Justice Ranklist asked all the sitting justices

396
00:24:28,440 --> 00:24:33,200
Speaker 1: to agree to the code that binds lower court judges. Um,

397
00:24:33,320 --> 00:24:34,879
Speaker 1: we don't know if that's been updated. We don't. We

398
00:24:34,920 --> 00:24:37,520
Speaker 1: just we don't know. UM. So I think it'll be meaningful.

399
00:24:37,560 --> 00:24:40,160
Speaker 1: But you know, the justice they recused all the time,

400
00:24:40,200 --> 00:24:42,320
Speaker 1: and it happens in various cases. In fact, Justice the

401
00:24:42,400 --> 00:24:45,200
Speaker 1: Leado is known to recuse when the case is granted

402
00:24:45,480 --> 00:24:47,000
Speaker 1: and then he excels the stopped and he goes back

403
00:24:47,040 --> 00:24:49,439
Speaker 1: on the case. So it's sort of most silly. I

404
00:24:49,480 --> 00:24:51,879
Speaker 1: think judges just not only stop they showing on mutual

405
00:24:51,920 --> 00:24:54,720
Speaker 1: funds and index funds, and that that that's the dresses

406
00:24:54,720 --> 00:24:57,680
Speaker 1: almost all these issues. But that that's my naive approached.

407
00:24:57,840 --> 00:25:01,440
Speaker 1: Didn't the Commission say something about that as well? There

408
00:25:01,520 --> 00:25:03,320
Speaker 1: was a report in the Wall Street Journal a couple

409
00:25:03,320 --> 00:25:04,680
Speaker 1: of weeks ago that a lot of these lower court

410
00:25:04,760 --> 00:25:08,960
Speaker 1: judges are having um owning stock in cases. Weren't realize

411
00:25:09,000 --> 00:25:12,359
Speaker 1: that the justices are pretty good at the stock ownership. Uh,

412
00:25:12,680 --> 00:25:14,800
Speaker 1: there there might be some errors of stiff through, but

413
00:25:14,800 --> 00:25:18,320
Speaker 1: they're they're pretty diligent up on that. I understand that

414
00:25:18,400 --> 00:25:23,639
Speaker 1: this report addressed the shadow docket and the problems with it.

415
00:25:23,640 --> 00:25:26,880
Speaker 1: It does it seem as if the justices themselves are

416
00:25:27,160 --> 00:25:31,600
Speaker 1: starting to recognize the problems with the shadow docket or

417
00:25:31,640 --> 00:25:35,280
Speaker 1: not recognized. I think Plato is like, get over, it

418
00:25:35,440 --> 00:25:37,439
Speaker 1: is not a big deal and does not have with

419
00:25:37,440 --> 00:25:41,560
Speaker 1: the criticism. Um. I think Justice Brier sort of criticizing

420
00:25:41,560 --> 00:25:43,639
Speaker 1: and Justice Cadence criticizing, and then again they're on the

421
00:25:43,680 --> 00:25:47,639
Speaker 1: losing side these cases, so I don't think that there's

422
00:25:47,720 --> 00:25:49,720
Speaker 1: much appetite. I mean, keep in mind. You when these

423
00:25:49,760 --> 00:25:52,159
Speaker 1: cases come to the court, the parties are asking for

424
00:25:52,200 --> 00:25:55,800
Speaker 1: immediate ruling, right they want to ruling two or three days.

425
00:25:55,840 --> 00:25:59,200
Speaker 1: The court can't move below when the parties want to

426
00:25:59,240 --> 00:26:01,399
Speaker 1: move fast. Um. So I think a lot of it

427
00:26:01,400 --> 00:26:03,919
Speaker 1: has to do with what relief the parties are asking for.

428
00:26:04,000 --> 00:26:06,639
Speaker 1: I think that I think the shadow dots stuff is

429
00:26:06,800 --> 00:26:11,320
Speaker 1: really really overblown. I really do. Um. It's a courtward

430
00:26:11,320 --> 00:26:13,840
Speaker 1: of grant certain decide the case six months later, it

431
00:26:13,840 --> 00:26:16,159
Speaker 1: will connect the exact same way. So people, I think

432
00:26:16,200 --> 00:26:18,720
Speaker 1: are just upset at the result. It's not a sleary

433
00:26:18,760 --> 00:26:22,240
Speaker 1: the process. Thanks Josh. That's Professor Josh Blackman of the

434
00:26:22,280 --> 00:26:25,199
Speaker 1: South Texas College of Law. And that's it for the

435
00:26:25,359 --> 00:26:28,119
Speaker 1: edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always

436
00:26:28,119 --> 00:26:31,080
Speaker 1: get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Lawn podcast.

437
00:26:31,400 --> 00:26:34,280
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at

438
00:26:34,440 --> 00:26:39,800
Speaker 1: www dot Bloomberg dot com, Slash Podcasts Last Law. I'm

439
00:26:39,880 --> 00:26:42,119
Speaker 1: June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg