Speaker 1: A federal judge has ruled that the University of North
Speaker 1: Carolina did not discriminate against white and Asian American applicants
Speaker 1: and that the university can continue to consider race as
Speaker 1: a factor in its undergraduate admissions. Federal Judge Laretta Biggs
Speaker 1: ruled late Monday that the university has shown that it
Speaker 1: has a compelling reason to pursue a diverse student body
Speaker 1: and has demonstrated that measurable benefits come from that goal.
Speaker 1: It was the second trial lass in as many years
Speaker 1: for the conservative groups Students for Fair Admissions, which also
Speaker 1: sued Harvard. Joining me is Audrey Anderson, who heads the
Speaker 1: higher education practice at Bassbarian SIMS. It took about eleven
Speaker 1: months after the trial for the judge to reach her decision.
Speaker 1: Why so long? I'm actually not surprised at all by that,
Speaker 1: First of all, even though that she stopped taking evidence
Speaker 1: in November, the parties did not hand in their post
Speaker 1: trial briefs until February. Maybe so she didn't have the
Speaker 1: whole case before her until February, and has her opinion
Speaker 1: actually pointed out the evidence in the case was really voluminous.
Speaker 1: Her trial lasted eight days long, but the parties had
Speaker 1: come to agreement on lots and lots of other evidence
Speaker 1: that they stipulated should be part of the record. So
Speaker 1: in addition to the eight days of trial testimony, there
Speaker 1: was lots and lots of other expert reports and other
Speaker 1: materials that the parties agreed they did not need live
Speaker 1: evidence about, but that were nonetheless in the record. So
Speaker 1: she had a really voluminous amount of information to go through,
Speaker 1: and she wrote a one hundred sixty one page long decision.
Speaker 1: So I'm not at all surprised that it took her
Speaker 1: this amount of time in order to put out this.
Speaker 1: It's the same group Students for Fair Admissions. Are their
Speaker 1: claims here similar to the claims they brought in the
Speaker 1: Harvard suit, Yes, jun they're very similar. They alleged that
Speaker 1: the University of North Carolina put too much weight on
Speaker 1: race in admitting students to its programs, and also that
Speaker 1: it did not adequately consider race neutral alternatives before using
Speaker 1: race as a factor. The difference between this case and
Speaker 1: the Harvard case factually is that in Harvard, there was
Speaker 1: evidence that one factor in the Harvard admissions program, the
Speaker 1: personal rating, had been analyzed by Harvard itself to show
Speaker 1: that it disadvantaged Asian American students. Now, Harvard said that
Speaker 1: that analysis their own researchers had done was incomplete and
Speaker 1: wasn't really accurate, but nonetheless it was part of the record,
Speaker 1: and so a lot of what the experts were talking
Speaker 1: about in the Harvard case was, does this one piece
Speaker 1: of evidence, the differences in the personal rating, which is
Speaker 1: a very subjective rating between Asian American students and other students,
Speaker 1: show that Harvard is really discriminating against Asian American students.
Speaker 1: And so that was a lens that was used a
Speaker 1: lot in the Harvard case. There was nothing like that
Speaker 1: in the North Carolina case. So there was no smoking
Speaker 1: gun evidence to show that u n C was discriminating
Speaker 1: against any racial group. So Students for Fair Admissions s
Speaker 1: f f A had even more of a kind of sterile,
Speaker 1: statistical kind of case that they put forward to say
Speaker 1: that based on this statistical analysis which shows that the
Speaker 1: test scores and g p a's of Black students and
Speaker 1: Latin X students tend to be lower than the test
Speaker 1: scores and g p as of white and Asian students,
Speaker 1: that means there must be discrimination or there must be
Speaker 1: too much weight being put on race by the admissions
Speaker 1: people at the University of North Carolina. So tell us
Speaker 1: what Judge Loretta Biggs ruled and why. So she ruled
Speaker 1: that the University of North Carolina's use of race is
Speaker 1: completely consistent with what the Supreme Court has held is
Speaker 1: appropriate under the Constitution. So she found that the University
Speaker 1: of North Carolina had proved that it was using race
Speaker 1: for the educational benefits of diversity, that it had looked
Speaker 1: at its own school and said, this is why we
Speaker 1: want to use race, or this is what we're trying
Speaker 1: to get out of diversity. We think that there are
Speaker 1: educational benefits and that our students will have more in
Speaker 1: depth discussions. We think that diverse groups of people come
Speaker 1: up with more innovative and creative solutions to problems. We
Speaker 1: think that having a diverse group of students teaches our
Speaker 1: students empathy and understanding. They have five different things that
Speaker 1: they had identified that a diverse student body would bring
Speaker 1: to the University of North Carolina student body would bring
Speaker 1: to the University of North Carolina. So Judge Biggs found
Speaker 1: that they had proved that, and she also found that
Speaker 1: they needed to use race in order to meet those goals,
Speaker 1: so the use of race was necessary, and they didn't
Speaker 1: use it anymore than they needed to in order to
Speaker 1: hit those goals, so their use of race was narrowly tailored.
Speaker 1: According to the u n C website, this year's incoming
Speaker 1: class of five thousand, six hundred students included six five
Speaker 1: percent to identify as white or Caucasian, twenty one percent
Speaker 1: as Asian or Asian American, twelve percent as Black or
Speaker 1: African American, and ten percent who said they were Hispanic,
Speaker 1: Latino or Latino. But yet, the judge criticized the school
Speaker 1: for not making enough strides in recent years and said
Speaker 1: it's been defined by most of its existence by discriminatory
Speaker 1: and obstructionist policies, not ones that hurt white and Asian
Speaker 1: American students, but that disadvantaged students of color. Well, that
Speaker 1: was another interesting difference between this case and Harvard. In
Speaker 1: this case, the judge allowed a group of students to
Speaker 1: intervene as parties on the same side as the university,
Speaker 1: so they were also defending the university's affirmative action policy.
Speaker 1: These were students of color, so once these students were parties,
Speaker 1: they were able to put in a dents like the
Speaker 1: other parties did, and they put in an expert report
Speaker 1: that UM put out all the history of the University
Speaker 1: of North Carolina when it comes to race, and that
Speaker 1: history isn't very good when it comes to black students.
Speaker 1: Those students also testified at the trial. Black students, Hispanic
Speaker 1: students testified about how what their experience was at the
Speaker 1: University of North Carolina. Some of them were recent alums,
Speaker 1: some of them, I think we're current students at the time.
Speaker 1: They testified and about how they were still often the
Speaker 1: only student of color in their classes, how they were
Speaker 1: sometimes called racial epithets at the University of North Carolina,
Speaker 1: how they felt tokenized, and that everyone in the classroom
Speaker 1: would look at them to speak for their race when
Speaker 1: any topic came up in class that might have some
Speaker 1: kind of an aspect of racial difference in it. So
Speaker 1: Judge Big wrote a long footnote about the historical expert
Speaker 1: evidence that they had put in and also talked about
Speaker 1: the testimony from those students interveners, and it clearly had
Speaker 1: an effect on her. But that helped the university because
Speaker 1: that shows that they still need to use race in
Speaker 1: order to hit those goals that they have of getting
Speaker 1: the educational benefits of diversity, So did she want them
Speaker 1: to do more? In some way? Did she suggest what
Speaker 1: they should be doing. Here's the point I think it
Speaker 1: goes to. You may remember June that in the Michigan
Speaker 1: cases Grutter and Grat, the cases that you know, almost
Speaker 1: twenty years ago, the court held that colleges and universities
Speaker 1: could use race and admission. Justice soca Onnor in that
Speaker 1: case wrote that she thought that colleges universities would no
Speaker 1: longer have to take race into account in twenty five
Speaker 1: years because it would no longer be necessary. And I
Speaker 1: think that what Judge Biggs is doing. He is though
Speaker 1: I don't think she ever mentions that part of the
Speaker 1: Grutter opinion. I think she's putting down a little bit
Speaker 1: of a marker to say we're not close to that.
Speaker 1: We might be close in time to that twenty five years,
Speaker 1: but in terms of our country's evolution, we are nowhere
Speaker 1: near close to the time, at least not at the
Speaker 1: University of North Carolina, where race is no longer necessary
Speaker 1: because we have some kind of a color blind society.
Speaker 1: That's what I think Judge Biggs was doing. So the
Speaker 1: Students for Fair Admission said they'll appeal and if necessary,
Speaker 1: up to the Supreme Court. And that's the point, isn't it.
Speaker 1: They want to appeal this case up to the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court exactly. They always expected that this was only the
Speaker 1: first stop on their journey for this case. So they
Speaker 1: will appeal it to the United States Court of Appeals
Speaker 1: for the Fourth Circuit. And whatever outcome the Fourth Circuit has,
Speaker 1: I would expect that the losing party would then seek
Speaker 1: review from the United States Supreme Court. The Students for
Speaker 1: Fair Admissions lost the case against Harvard and appealed it
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court. The Court postponed action on that case.
Speaker 1: Tell us what happened. Well, the Court has asked for
Speaker 1: the views of the Solicitor General in that case, which
Speaker 1: is a common move that the Supreme Court makes when
Speaker 1: it is thinking about a case that has some kind
Speaker 1: of federal constitutional question or federal implication. It wants to
Speaker 1: know what the views of the United States government are
Speaker 1: when the Court considers whether or not to take the case.
Speaker 1: So the Supreme Court has asked for the views of
Speaker 1: the Solicitor General's office, and I think it we expect
Speaker 1: that the Solicitor General will deliver that brief to the
Speaker 1: Court sometime before the end of the calendar year. There's
Speaker 1: no deadline for the Solicitor General to file that brief.
Speaker 1: They can file it whenever they want to, but we
Speaker 1: kind of expect them to do it before the end
Speaker 1: of the calendar year, and that will allow the Court,
Speaker 1: if it wants to, to make a decision as to
Speaker 1: whether or not reviews the Harvard case in time for
Speaker 1: that case to be heard. This term advocates for affirmative action.
Speaker 1: Are they afraid that the Supreme Court will take the case?
Speaker 1: Here's the interesting thing, June. So s f f A
Speaker 1: has put in its questions presented to the courts, should
Speaker 1: the Court overrule Grutter and Grats. They've teed it right up.
Speaker 1: They say that that's what they want the Court to
Speaker 1: review their case to do. That's their first question presented.
Speaker 1: So it's not just proponents of affirmative action, you know,
Speaker 1: making something up. That's clearly what s f f A
Speaker 1: is just right out asking the Court to do. You know,
Speaker 1: when you get away from a hot button topic like abortion,
Speaker 1: like affirmative action, and you're just in the realm of
Speaker 1: regular cases. The Supreme Court doesn't usually take a case
Speaker 1: to review unless there's some kind of a divide between
Speaker 1: the lower court, and so Judge Biggs decisions would usually
Speaker 1: caution away from the court taking a case to review.
Speaker 1: Here we have Judge Biggs decision being very much in
Speaker 1: line with Judge Burrow's decision from the District of Massachusetts,
Speaker 1: which was affirmed by the First Circuit. So these two
Speaker 1: courts seem to be looking at the U n C
Speaker 1: Applications process and the Harvard process very much the same way,
Speaker 1: all in line with what the Supreme Court has helped.
Speaker 1: That would all be something to say, Court, there's nothing
Speaker 1: for you to weigh in on the courts. They are
Speaker 1: all seeing this the same way. In line your President,
Speaker 1: let it go, let the law further develop before you
Speaker 1: take it on and rule on it. That would be
Speaker 1: how a Supreme Court advocate would look at this case
Speaker 1: if it were not a hot button case. But with
Speaker 1: the change in the court, with new members of the
Speaker 1: Court who probably disagree with the court precedent, everybody has
Speaker 1: this up for grabs. Thanks Audrey. That's Audrey Anderson of
Speaker 1: Bassparian SIMS. President Joe Biden's bipartisan commission studying changes to
Speaker 1: the U s Supreme Court released a draft of its
Speaker 1: findings in which it wrote favorably of creating term limits
Speaker 1: for judges and cautioned against the Court adding justices. It
Speaker 1: lost two of its conservative members and several of its
Speaker 1: liberal members were critical of the initial findings. In short,
Speaker 1: neither liberals nor conservatives seemed to be overly happy with
Speaker 1: the commission. Joining me is Josh Blackman, Professor of Constitutional
Speaker 1: law at the Alt Texas College of Law. These initial
Speaker 1: recommendations just give us an overview of what they will recommend.
Speaker 1: It is not the right word, because they're not making recommendations.
Speaker 1: What did they say? The panel discussed a couple major areas,
Speaker 1: One whether the Court to be expanded with new seats,
Speaker 1: to whether term limits for the justice might be appropriate. Three,
Speaker 1: whether the courts so called shadow or emergency doctors performed.
Speaker 1: And fourth they discussed usual ethics and the ethics codes
Speaker 1: that applies to the Supreme Court. The longest short of
Speaker 1: it is the court where the panel made no recommendations.
Speaker 1: In the Court, it isn't even clear they can make
Speaker 1: recommendations of what's to do. And even the areas on
Speaker 1: which there were some agreement, there was no majority opinion.
Speaker 1: So to speak. Um, there was a pretty strong sentiment
Speaker 1: against explaining the court. There were some agreement on whether
Speaker 1: there's be terminalments, but there was disagreement if the terminments
Speaker 1: to be imposed through a simple Act of Congress the statute,
Speaker 1: whether it cons social amendment was necessary. So really, June,
Speaker 1: at the end, this was much as you about nothing. Um.
Speaker 1: There really wasn't much acame of this lengthy product of
Speaker 1: the stuff. Several of your pages of report that frankly,
Speaker 1: I didn't even read it. You didn't read it, but
Speaker 1: you're doing an interview on it. I skimmed it, and
Speaker 1: I got I got to highlight. Many people have said
Speaker 1: that the President just appointed this panel to waste time
Speaker 1: or to bide his time, because he wants to avoid
Speaker 1: this issue which liberals are so incensed about. I think
Speaker 1: that's right. President Biden was never in favor of so
Speaker 1: called court reform. He was always very transparent about that fact. Um,
Speaker 1: so he I think he created his commission to sort
Speaker 1: of deflex attention for a few months. UM. On Friday,
Speaker 1: after the Commission had their meeting, a reporter asked Biden
Speaker 1: what he thought about terminus with screame Court and President
Speaker 1: Biden had one word answer, no, doesn't know. No. So
Speaker 1: it's like, you know, you submit a paper to be
Speaker 1: graded and in fine mincily your teacher says, never mind,
Speaker 1: not interested. Right, It's it's immediate rejection of the only
Speaker 1: area there was some agreement upon UM. So this was
Speaker 1: really much to do about nothing. Biden didn't want to
Speaker 1: do anything. He created his egghead panel with fellow academic
Speaker 1: to sort of stretch things out, and now it's going
Speaker 1: to just vanish and disappear. There's actually some bipartisan support
Speaker 1: for term limits, isn't there? There is? Um. The panel
Speaker 1: said it was content in term limits, but they didn't
Speaker 1: agree on whether it to be done through a simple
Speaker 1: Act of Congress of statute, whether a new constitutional moment
Speaker 1: was necessary UM for requires and amendments of the Constitution.
Speaker 1: It's not gonna happen. We don't. We don't have that
Speaker 1: much consensus in the country at all. Perhaps that happens
Speaker 1: for a statute. And then Biden was asked to that
Speaker 1: and said nope, no, not interested. So again I think
Speaker 1: we're basically back where it started from. I mean, he
Speaker 1: has said in the past that he did not in
Speaker 1: favor of packing the Court, but to say no to
Speaker 1: term limits. Why have the panel? I don't think Biden
Speaker 1: ever wants to have his panel. I think he simply
Speaker 1: needed a way to deflect the attention show he was
Speaker 1: doing something. During the campaign, he promised that he would
Speaker 1: have created panel, and he did it, and now he
Speaker 1: who will probably ignore their report? And when I think
Speaker 1: it's significant this panel is not target than making a recommendation,
Speaker 1: they would basically have their hands tied me up. The
Speaker 1: two conservative members of the panel quit last week. Any
Speaker 1: indication as to why they quit at this point after
Speaker 1: six months, Well, these are respected people. One is Jack
Speaker 1: Goldsmith at Harvard who worked at the George to W.
Speaker 1: Bush Justice Department, together as Caleb Nelson's a lot professor
Speaker 1: at Virginia CLOrk for Clarence Thomas and both them very well.
Speaker 1: These a respected people. There must be something in the
Speaker 1: report they didn't agree with, or there must be something
Speaker 1: coming that they're going to disagree with. We don't We
Speaker 1: don't quite know the different um. But I'll make this
Speaker 1: point more clearly. Uh, there were no dissent right, the
Speaker 1: members were not required to join the report. They could
Speaker 1: earn their own descent. But I think this sort of
Speaker 1: resignation was a quiet dissent to signal that this was
Speaker 1: not unanimous, that there was there was disagreement over what
Speaker 1: remedies to adopt. Also, the draft report will say some
Speaker 1: commissioners believe, but other commissioners believe. So there's not even
Speaker 1: a consensus about the report in the report right, and
Speaker 1: and the group doesn't even agree with what their charge
Speaker 1: was is what they were instructed to do. It's a
Speaker 1: very weird, disjointed process. I mean imaging a different world
Speaker 1: June where the government said, okay, you have sixty days,
Speaker 1: give us a list of five recommendations. They would know
Speaker 1: exactly what to do. But Biden had a sort of
Speaker 1: open ended report saying let's discuss the Supreme Court and
Speaker 1: and that's it. So it's kind of like a long
Speaker 1: article that you've seen in academic journal that again no
Speaker 1: one will read, including me, because it's more than true
Speaker 1: tra pages material. I think you should be required to.
Speaker 1: I think that would violence the ash amendmentist rule and
Speaker 1: the nusual punishment. I fell that joke from Justice Leave
Speaker 1: by the way Justice Glee once it reading the entire
Speaker 1: Affordable Care Act would be a violation the aph Amendment
Speaker 1: so I can't take credit for that joke. Did they
Speaker 1: come out firmly against court packing? Yes, for the most part, Um,
Speaker 1: there was a very general consensus that expand the court
Speaker 1: would do significant damage to the institution in the long run.
Speaker 1: A few members of the of the Commission actually spoke
Speaker 1: up saying we need to be more open. Lawrence Tribe
Speaker 1: of Harvard said we're going to break the glass moment,
Speaker 1: right in case the emergency, break the glass. Um, But
Speaker 1: there's just no movement for it. I think that that
Speaker 1: approach is dead. Pauls have shown that the public has
Speaker 1: lost respect for the court. The Court is more out
Speaker 1: of favor than it's been in a while after the
Speaker 1: last term. Is there a way to it's that without
Speaker 1: tinkering with the court? Well, you know, I think it's
Speaker 1: it depends which way you look at it. Right, there
Speaker 1: are six conservative members now, and therefore you have more
Speaker 1: conservative opinions. But even then you have justice who were moderate.
Speaker 1: Robert's Kavana and Barrett is sort of in the middle
Speaker 1: of this three three three courts. Um. So I don't
Speaker 1: think sinkering it is necessary. And see, I think trying
Speaker 1: to tinker at the court would likely prove disastrous in
Speaker 1: the long run. Um, it's just it's it's this sort
Speaker 1: of this freak of accident that Trump got to Ginsburg
Speaker 1: see right before the election, and this Belie seat theayed
Speaker 1: open through the other elections. So there were two additional
Speaker 1: justices that probably wouldn't have happened otherwise. Uh. The other
Speaker 1: way to look at it is Republicans have had many
Speaker 1: justice of the years that simply weren't Conservative John Paul Stevens,
Speaker 1: David Suitor, O'Connor, and Kennedy on most occasions. So you know,
Speaker 1: the Democrats got lucky in number of cases, but they've
Speaker 1: they've not rolled the dice well last you know, six
Speaker 1: years or so. It really wasn't a freak of nature.
Speaker 1: It really was Mitch McConnell responsible for holding open and
Speaker 1: Justice Scalia seat and then using different reasoning to fill
Speaker 1: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat right before an election. That
Speaker 1: politicizes the court, doesn't it more than it already is? Well, Look,
Speaker 1: I think I think the short answer is that, Um,
Speaker 1: McConnell is a politician, UM, and he saw an opportunity
Speaker 1: and he was willing to um keep the seat open
Speaker 1: at great expense. Um, and so far the Democrats has
Speaker 1: not been able to retaliate with that sort of hard ball.
Speaker 1: So I do. I do think the mccomposition when I
Speaker 1: said to Creak of Nature that the vacancies of rose
Speaker 1: at just the right moment, because there's no guarantee either
Speaker 1: the Scalia seat or the Gainsky open up just when
Speaker 1: they did. How would the Democrats retaliate. Do you have
Speaker 1: any advice for the Democrats? Well, look, the leader of
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party, Joe Biden, said not interested. So I
Speaker 1: think the short answers is no momentum. Perhaps, you know,
Speaker 1: progressive activists wish for it, but there's not much. We've
Speaker 1: heard several justices talk about how the court is not politicized.
Speaker 1: Do you think they've take into account how some of
Speaker 1: their more controversial decisions will affect the public. I hope not.
Speaker 1: I think when the justices start thinking about the general
Speaker 1: public and more political right, because that means they can
Speaker 1: be swayed by things are not law um. In my mind,
Speaker 1: the least political justice, the justice puts his head in
Speaker 1: the standard doesn't consider the sort of sentiment. But we
Speaker 1: don't live in my sort of ideal world. I think
Speaker 1: Robert that people think. I think Kavan does, Embarratt may
Speaker 1: as well. The other freedom the draft analysis said that
Speaker 1: Congress would be authorized to write a code of conduct
Speaker 1: for the justices, and but Chief Justice Roberts has suggested
Speaker 1: he doesn't believe that Congress has congressional authority to impose
Speaker 1: conduct rules on the Supreme Court. He did say that
Speaker 1: do you think the Court needs some conduct rules because
Speaker 1: we don't know when they're accusing themselves and when they're
Speaker 1: not well. So there's there's two questions. One can Congress
Speaker 1: fread a code of the justice is I used to
Speaker 1: be persuaded by John Roberts that they couldn't, and now
Speaker 1: I think Roberts is wrong. Um. I think it's true
Speaker 1: that the Constitution, you know, refers to the creation of
Speaker 1: Supreme Court but not the judges, and Congress has to
Speaker 1: enact or created the seats midstream corpied statute. Right, even
Speaker 1: the Chief Justice was created by statute, and Congress creates
Speaker 1: the seas by statute. They can regularly sets these. I
Speaker 1: think Roberts is arguing the separation powers is simply wrong,
Speaker 1: but you'll probably stick to it. Um. I think the
Speaker 1: more important question is what would that code be and
Speaker 1: let's be frank, your recusal right if the justice steps
Speaker 1: down in the case. On most court, if a justice recused,
Speaker 1: the judge recuses, it's no big deal because the're a
Speaker 1: bunch of other judges. But in the U. Spreme Corps
Speaker 1: of Justice recuses, there's no one to back up as
Speaker 1: an alternate. So I think you as a little more
Speaker 1: thoughtful with the source of awards you have. UM. But
Speaker 1: I I think Congress could do something for the the court.
Speaker 1: Do you think the Court itself, the justices should be
Speaker 1: doing that, should have outlined some rules and regulations for
Speaker 1: at least for recusal. I think the justice internally do.
Speaker 1: There was a discussion in the early going back thirty
Speaker 1: years where Chief Justice Ranklist asked all the sitting justices
Speaker 1: to agree to the code that binds lower court judges. Um,
Speaker 1: we don't know if that's been updated. We don't. We
Speaker 1: just we don't know. UM. So I think it'll be meaningful.
Speaker 1: But you know, the justice they recused all the time,
Speaker 1: and it happens in various cases. In fact, Justice the
Speaker 1: Leado is known to recuse when the case is granted
Speaker 1: and then he excels the stopped and he goes back
Speaker 1: on the case. So it's sort of most silly. I
Speaker 1: think judges just not only stop they showing on mutual
Speaker 1: funds and index funds, and that that that's the dresses
Speaker 1: almost all these issues. But that that's my naive approached.
Speaker 1: Didn't the Commission say something about that as well? There
Speaker 1: was a report in the Wall Street Journal a couple
Speaker 1: of weeks ago that a lot of these lower court
Speaker 1: judges are having um owning stock in cases. Weren't realize
Speaker 1: that the justices are pretty good at the stock ownership. Uh,
Speaker 1: there there might be some errors of stiff through, but
Speaker 1: they're they're pretty diligent up on that. I understand that
Speaker 1: this report addressed the shadow docket and the problems with it.
Speaker 1: It does it seem as if the justices themselves are
Speaker 1: starting to recognize the problems with the shadow docket or
Speaker 1: not recognized. I think Plato is like, get over, it
Speaker 1: is not a big deal and does not have with
Speaker 1: the criticism. Um. I think Justice Brier sort of criticizing
Speaker 1: and Justice Cadence criticizing, and then again they're on the
Speaker 1: losing side these cases, so I don't think that there's
Speaker 1: much appetite. I mean, keep in mind. You when these
Speaker 1: cases come to the court, the parties are asking for
Speaker 1: immediate ruling, right they want to ruling two or three days.
Speaker 1: The court can't move below when the parties want to
Speaker 1: move fast. Um. So I think a lot of it
Speaker 1: has to do with what relief the parties are asking for.
Speaker 1: I think that I think the shadow dots stuff is
Speaker 1: really really overblown. I really do. Um. It's a courtward
Speaker 1: of grant certain decide the case six months later, it
Speaker 1: will connect the exact same way. So people, I think
Speaker 1: are just upset at the result. It's not a sleary
Speaker 1: the process. Thanks Josh. That's Professor Josh Blackman of the
Speaker 1: South Texas College of Law. And that's it for the
Speaker 1: edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always
Speaker 1: get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Lawn podcast.
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
Speaker 1: www dot Bloomberg dot com, Slash Podcasts Last Law. I'm
Speaker 1: June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg