WEBVTT - Democrats Confront Trump’s Success at Reshaping Courts

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:02.880
<v Speaker 1>Democrats are attempting to turn the Supreme Court into a

0:00:02.960 --> 0:00:07.400
<v Speaker 1>campaign issue. After decades of seeing Republican candidates rally voters

0:00:07.440 --> 0:00:11.879
<v Speaker 1>to reshape the court with Conservatives, some Democratic presidential candidates

0:00:11.880 --> 0:00:16.400
<v Speaker 1>are making promises. Here's Ramont Senator Bernie Sanders. I will

0:00:16.520 --> 0:00:22.239
<v Speaker 1>not appoint anyone to the United States Supreme Court unless

0:00:22.320 --> 0:00:27.320
<v Speaker 1>that man or woman is prepared to defend roll the Wade.

0:00:28.680 --> 0:00:32.600
<v Speaker 1>Joining me is sa Hill Kapoor Bloomberg News national political correspondent.

0:00:32.920 --> 0:00:37.520
<v Speaker 1>So Hill, what's driving this focus on the Supreme Court? Well,

0:00:37.520 --> 0:00:40.280
<v Speaker 1>a number of things. Democratic candidates are more and more

0:00:40.360 --> 0:00:42.920
<v Speaker 1>focused on the Supreme Court as a result of what

0:00:43.000 --> 0:00:47.040
<v Speaker 1>I would call a perfect storm of events. Now, roversus

0:00:47.040 --> 0:00:52.200
<v Speaker 1>Wade is basically that ruling, that holding is at stake

0:00:52.240 --> 0:00:54.440
<v Speaker 1>at this point of almost half a century after it

0:00:54.600 --> 0:00:58.920
<v Speaker 1>was decided in three I think with the new Conservative

0:00:58.920 --> 0:01:01.120
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court, many for wrests as are worried that that's

0:01:01.160 --> 0:01:04.120
<v Speaker 1>going to dissipate. There's a lot of anger that remains

0:01:04.200 --> 0:01:07.279
<v Speaker 1>from Republican leader Mitch McConnell's refusal to let President Obama

0:01:07.360 --> 0:01:10.600
<v Speaker 1>phill a Supreme Court seat in for the last ten

0:01:10.680 --> 0:01:12.560
<v Speaker 1>months of his presidency. So there are a number of

0:01:12.600 --> 0:01:16.520
<v Speaker 1>things that are waking up Democratic voters to the importance

0:01:16.560 --> 0:01:18.680
<v Speaker 1>of the Supreme Court in ways that we haven't seen

0:01:19.200 --> 0:01:23.600
<v Speaker 1>in frankly decades. You mentioned Senator Mitch McConnell, who helped

0:01:23.600 --> 0:01:27.640
<v Speaker 1>transform the Supreme Court with President Trump, but with a

0:01:27.760 --> 0:01:31.679
<v Speaker 1>sent if the Senate is still controlled by McConnell, how

0:01:31.720 --> 0:01:35.480
<v Speaker 1>can a Democratic president get liberal justices on the Court

0:01:35.560 --> 0:01:38.759
<v Speaker 1>when he might do the same thing. Again, Well, they're

0:01:38.800 --> 0:01:43.400
<v Speaker 1>not conceding that they won't win the Senate uh majority

0:01:43.560 --> 0:01:46.959
<v Speaker 1>in the election. Democrats are not conceding that. But of course,

0:01:47.319 --> 0:01:50.040
<v Speaker 1>if McConnell remains majority leader, then that's going to have

0:01:50.080 --> 0:01:53.320
<v Speaker 1>a big impact on what the potential next Democratic president

0:01:53.360 --> 0:01:55.920
<v Speaker 1>can do in terms of appointing justices. There may be

0:01:56.080 --> 0:02:01.280
<v Speaker 1>some moderate figures that you know, allowed a vote in

0:02:01.320 --> 0:02:04.400
<v Speaker 1>a McConnell led Senate, but some of the more progressive

0:02:04.440 --> 0:02:08.040
<v Speaker 1>types that UM advocates want will have a very hard

0:02:08.080 --> 0:02:11.640
<v Speaker 1>time getting through. Are any of the candidates going as

0:02:11.680 --> 0:02:14.600
<v Speaker 1>far as to support packing the court, which you know,

0:02:14.760 --> 0:02:17.800
<v Speaker 1>adding new adding a number of justices, or limiting the

0:02:17.919 --> 0:02:22.000
<v Speaker 1>terms of the justices. Yes, well, there are several candidates

0:02:22.000 --> 0:02:25.000
<v Speaker 1>who have expressed openness to that. Idea, most recently Senator

0:02:25.080 --> 0:02:28.760
<v Speaker 1>Kamala Harris of California, who is one of the one

0:02:28.800 --> 0:02:32.160
<v Speaker 1>of the high polling contenders in this massive field. There

0:02:32.240 --> 0:02:36.120
<v Speaker 1>are others like Mayor Pete Buddha Judge and Better Rourke

0:02:36.200 --> 0:02:40.680
<v Speaker 1>that suggested some openness, some willingness to expand the size

0:02:40.720 --> 0:02:42.480
<v Speaker 1>of the Supreme Court. And again this is being pushed

0:02:42.520 --> 0:02:47.400
<v Speaker 1>by progressive activists who believe that the Neil Gorset seat

0:02:48.000 --> 0:02:51.560
<v Speaker 1>was basically stolen from Democrats from President Obama by Mitch

0:02:51.680 --> 0:02:56.200
<v Speaker 1>McConnell's refusal to allow a vote on any nominee. So hell,

0:02:56.320 --> 0:03:00.760
<v Speaker 1>so the Conservatives basically got what they've been looking for

0:03:00.760 --> 0:03:04.000
<v Speaker 1>for so many years, and more conservative Supreme Court. So

0:03:04.160 --> 0:03:07.920
<v Speaker 1>is that issue going to be as important to them

0:03:08.320 --> 0:03:11.640
<v Speaker 1>come this presidential election as it was in past elections?

0:03:11.960 --> 0:03:14.480
<v Speaker 1>Do you issue of abortion? You mean the issue of

0:03:14.560 --> 0:03:20.040
<v Speaker 1>changing the court? Ah? Well, the anger is increasingly on

0:03:20.800 --> 0:03:23.440
<v Speaker 1>the left end of the spectrum, more so than the

0:03:23.480 --> 0:03:25.919
<v Speaker 1>conservative end. I think ever since Row, specifically since the

0:03:25.960 --> 0:03:29.919
<v Speaker 1>nineteen eighties, when Republicans decided to you know, reach out

0:03:29.960 --> 0:03:34.440
<v Speaker 1>to evangelicals with a very anti abortion platform, um it,

0:03:34.440 --> 0:03:36.880
<v Speaker 1>conservatives have been more tuned to the Supreme Court and

0:03:36.920 --> 0:03:39.920
<v Speaker 1>the importance of it at the ballot box. That may

0:03:39.960 --> 0:03:43.600
<v Speaker 1>be changing, I stress, may be changing. We don't know yet,

0:03:43.760 --> 0:03:46.520
<v Speaker 1>but we are seeing signs that Democrats are more tuned

0:03:46.560 --> 0:03:48.920
<v Speaker 1>to the importance of the importance of the Supreme Court

0:03:49.000 --> 0:03:52.360
<v Speaker 1>and the courts at large this election than any other

0:03:52.400 --> 0:03:55.040
<v Speaker 1>election probably in any of our lifetimes. It's true, I

0:03:55.080 --> 0:03:57.640
<v Speaker 1>don't I don't remember the last time a Democratic presidential

0:03:57.680 --> 0:04:02.080
<v Speaker 1>can it really stressed the court. Now, Republicans, as you write,

0:04:02.240 --> 0:04:06.200
<v Speaker 1>also use the courts to motivate voters in Senate races.

0:04:06.240 --> 0:04:09.560
<v Speaker 1>Explain what they're doing there, well, they draw a line,

0:04:09.640 --> 0:04:14.080
<v Speaker 1>as one source put it to me, between electing Republican

0:04:14.120 --> 0:04:20.479
<v Speaker 1>senators and electing Republican or appointing Republican appointed judges. You know,

0:04:20.520 --> 0:04:23.040
<v Speaker 1>they make the accurate point that if you want conservative

0:04:23.120 --> 0:04:26.720
<v Speaker 1>judges up and down the judiciary, you need a Republican

0:04:26.800 --> 0:04:29.760
<v Speaker 1>led Senate. And they're correct about that. And this is

0:04:29.760 --> 0:04:32.960
<v Speaker 1>a level of, uh, you know, communication to voters that

0:04:33.320 --> 0:04:36.440
<v Speaker 1>Democrats don't really engage in. Democrats, for the most part,

0:04:36.440 --> 0:04:38.760
<v Speaker 1>as you kind of alluded to, you know, have talked

0:04:38.800 --> 0:04:41.440
<v Speaker 1>about the courts as much more of an a political

0:04:41.480 --> 0:04:45.720
<v Speaker 1>institution than Republicans have and the lower courts are not

0:04:45.800 --> 0:04:51.200
<v Speaker 1>as visible as the Supreme Court, but Trump and McConnell

0:04:51.480 --> 0:04:55.440
<v Speaker 1>and the Judiciary Chairman have succeeded in making them more

0:04:55.520 --> 0:04:58.520
<v Speaker 1>conservative as well. Is there any indication that Democrats are

0:04:58.520 --> 0:05:01.880
<v Speaker 1>paying attention to that? There is a lot of indication

0:05:01.960 --> 0:05:03.680
<v Speaker 1>of that. I mean, starting with the two Supreme Court

0:05:03.720 --> 0:05:06.560
<v Speaker 1>justices that President Trump is appointed. Um, there are a

0:05:06.640 --> 0:05:10.080
<v Speaker 1>hundred and five other federal judges that this president and

0:05:10.120 --> 0:05:15.320
<v Speaker 1>Republican led Senate have installed just in you know, two

0:05:15.320 --> 0:05:17.880
<v Speaker 1>and a half years of as presidency. It's an extraordinary pace.

0:05:18.520 --> 0:05:22.359
<v Speaker 1>Most of these are young conservatives in their forties and fifties,

0:05:22.560 --> 0:05:24.640
<v Speaker 1>picked with the help of the Federalist Society, which is

0:05:24.680 --> 0:05:28.279
<v Speaker 1>a group of judicial advocates that wants to dramatically curtail

0:05:28.360 --> 0:05:30.520
<v Speaker 1>federal power. Some of them don't believe there should be

0:05:30.520 --> 0:05:33.680
<v Speaker 1>things like federal minimum wage or child labor laws, um,

0:05:33.680 --> 0:05:35.240
<v Speaker 1>and that those things should be sent back to state.

0:05:35.320 --> 0:05:37.719
<v Speaker 1>So what they're looking for, what they're trying to do

0:05:37.960 --> 0:05:41.839
<v Speaker 1>is um incubate a massive change in the way the

0:05:41.920 --> 0:05:46.920
<v Speaker 1>courts approached law and sharply curtail what the federal government

0:05:46.960 --> 0:05:49.239
<v Speaker 1>can do as a matter of legislating. Yeah, they're close

0:05:49.279 --> 0:05:53.719
<v Speaker 1>to flipping some circuits, so, um say, hell, the Supreme

0:05:53.760 --> 0:05:59.120
<v Speaker 1>Court could rule on some really controversial cases this upcoming term,

0:05:59.240 --> 0:06:04.240
<v Speaker 1>right in the mid love presidential electioning electioneering. Correct Now,

0:06:04.320 --> 0:06:06.880
<v Speaker 1>the cases that could come up. The issues that could

0:06:06.880 --> 0:06:11.120
<v Speaker 1>come up are the Affordable Care Act, the constitutionality of that.

0:06:11.200 --> 0:06:13.680
<v Speaker 1>It would be a major, major case if it lands

0:06:13.760 --> 0:06:16.720
<v Speaker 1>and on the docket in the midst of election. There

0:06:16.800 --> 0:06:19.640
<v Speaker 1>is a case that could come up on immigration and

0:06:19.960 --> 0:06:23.200
<v Speaker 1>uh the validity of the president's decision to end the

0:06:23.279 --> 0:06:27.000
<v Speaker 1>doctor program for young undocumented people. Um also a case

0:06:27.080 --> 0:06:29.800
<v Speaker 1>on LGBT rights that could make it up. There potentially

0:06:29.839 --> 0:06:33.839
<v Speaker 1>a case on gun rights. Even so, as one Democratic

0:06:33.880 --> 0:06:35.640
<v Speaker 1>activist put it to me, next year is going to

0:06:35.680 --> 0:06:40.359
<v Speaker 1>be an apocalyptic term. That is a little bit scary.

0:06:40.440 --> 0:06:42.360
<v Speaker 1>Thank you so much to Hill. That's a hill coup

0:06:42.400 --> 0:06:44.880
<v Speaker 1>for Bloomberg News national political correspondent