Speaker 1: This is Bloombird Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: This is a wonderful day, a joyous day, and inspiring
Speaker 1: day for the Senate, for the Supreme Court, and for
Speaker 1: the United States of America. Today we are here to
Speaker 1: to vote to confirm Katangi Brown Jackson as the one
Speaker 1: hundred sixteenth Justice of the United States Supreme Court. History
Speaker 1: was made this afternoon as Katanji Brown Jackson was confirmed
Speaker 1: to become the first black woman in two hundred thirty
Speaker 1: two years to sit on the Supreme Court. Three Republican
Speaker 1: senators joined the Democrats in voting for Jackson. On this vote,
Speaker 1: the a's A fifty three the names, and this nomination
Speaker 1: is confirmed. Joining me is Alatoon Day Johnson, a professor
Speaker 1: at Columbia Law School. What does this historic confirmation signify?
Speaker 1: This is a historic confirmation, and in a number of ways.
Speaker 1: Clearly it's important to have the first black woman on
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, both for how we think about the
Speaker 1: Court as an institution, the legitimacy of the institution, and
Speaker 1: just as a sign that this is a pathway that's
Speaker 1: available to everyone in America, even a young African American
Speaker 1: girl who's just a generation removed from formal segregation. That
Speaker 1: we could have a democracy in which the pathway to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court is open to people like Katangi Brown
Speaker 1: Jackson and others like her is really important. In some respect,
Speaker 1: she has a background and experience typical of Supreme Court justices.
Speaker 1: In other respects different, Yeah, I think it's really important
Speaker 1: to focus on her as an individual and what she
Speaker 1: brings to the Court. And one of the things I
Speaker 1: was struck by from the moment she was nominated was
Speaker 1: a range of experience. Um So she has some of
Speaker 1: those aspects that are typical of a lot of nominees,
Speaker 1: and she went to what is considered a very top
Speaker 1: law school and elite law school. She herself clerked on
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. She clerked for Justice Bryer, and we
Speaker 1: see a lot of the justices who have that kind
Speaker 1: of background. She also has appellate court experience. I mean,
Speaker 1: she's coming from the DC circuit. But in other ways
Speaker 1: you see a breadth of experience that really is uncommon
Speaker 1: for a Supreme Court justice. And the things that really
Speaker 1: stand out for me are her experience as a trial judge,
Speaker 1: which she has been for most of her judicial career.
Speaker 1: She's only spent a short time actually as an appellate judge,
Speaker 1: so for nine years she was a trial judge. And
Speaker 1: then also her experience in trial practice, So a lot
Speaker 1: of judges and justices have experience with a pellet practice,
Speaker 1: but actually representing clients in trial settings that he stands out,
Speaker 1: so that breadth of experience. And then she also has
Speaker 1: experience in criminal law and specifically as a public defender.
Speaker 1: And there was much discussion as this of course in
Speaker 1: her confirmation hearings, and you saw a real division as
Speaker 1: to whether or not this was a strength or not.
Speaker 1: I really saw it going in. And then also and
Speaker 1: how she explained it as a key strength. So she
Speaker 1: will bring that knowledge of criminal law and criminal procedure,
Speaker 1: but not just sort of an abstract I taught this knowledge,
Speaker 1: but how does this actually play out in our criminal
Speaker 1: justice institutions. Her experience on the Sentencing Commission means that
Speaker 1: she's really grappled with how the laws around sentencing effect
Speaker 1: ordinary people and some of the trade offs in sort
Speaker 1: of designing sentences. She's going to have that understanding. Another
Speaker 1: thing that really struck out for me, and this is
Speaker 1: related to m Sentencing Commission work is just the extent
Speaker 1: to which she had worked in settings that were bipartisan,
Speaker 1: and that's something that really came across the Sentencing Commission work.
Speaker 1: And there are people who testify to this in the
Speaker 1: confirmation hearings where they talked about and the fact that
Speaker 1: she is seen as someone who believes in bridging differences
Speaker 1: and she's a consensus builder. So hopefully those skills will
Speaker 1: help her on the Supreme Court to explained because people say, well,
Speaker 1: she brings this experience, but will she really be explaining
Speaker 1: to the other justices what criminal defense laws like or
Speaker 1: or sentencing someone. Yeah, I mean it definitely um happens.
Speaker 1: I mean, you see how the kinds of questions that
Speaker 1: someone asks that oral argument can really shape the information
Speaker 1: um that justices are exposed to and their understanding of
Speaker 1: the implications of different legals. So um, maybe that they
Speaker 1: she pursues a line of questioning UM. A lot of
Speaker 1: times you may notice that when Supreme Court justices ask questions,
Speaker 1: in part their audience is the person who they're asking
Speaker 1: the question of right the litigant um in front of
Speaker 1: the lawyer who's making the argument. But in part they're
Speaker 1: talking to each other through those questions, and so I
Speaker 1: think justices often learn UM a lot through that questioning Yeah,
Speaker 1: you're right. They don't always UM go and then chat
Speaker 1: with each other afterwards. UM. And so there isn't that
Speaker 1: type of dialogue typically, but in the history of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court that has happened. I mean, Justice Senator day
Speaker 1: O'Connor always talks about what she learned about criminal justice
Speaker 1: and about death penalty issues from Thurgood Marshall, that she
Speaker 1: learned about the effect of these laws in real life.
Speaker 1: He by the way of the last justice who had
Speaker 1: a real public defense background. UM. And so that kind
Speaker 1: of learning can happen. I'm a little skeptical that that's
Speaker 1: going to happen on the Court in the foreseeable future
Speaker 1: because UM, all that we've heard suggests that most of
Speaker 1: the way in which they communicate is through or argument
Speaker 1: and then a little bit UM in the UM a
Speaker 1: conference that they have UM when they are deciding the cases.
Speaker 1: So they're not engaging that back and forth UM. Justices
Speaker 1: also read each other's opinions and sometimes they change their mind.
Speaker 1: There are opinions that sometimes could be assigned to someone
Speaker 1: that are originally in dissent that can turn into a majority. UM.
Speaker 1: So justices can change their mind. Now most of of
Speaker 1: us think, well, how could this ever happen when we
Speaker 1: know that their views are so set on a range
Speaker 1: of issues. And that's because I think we as the public,
Speaker 1: we pay attention to many of the high profile issues UM.
Speaker 1: The most high profile issues UM, abortion, UM, affirmative action, UM.
Speaker 1: Maybe I put voting rights on that, some questions around UM,
Speaker 1: the administrative state, you know, the power of regulation in
Speaker 1: the area of environment. I mean, those are maybe high
Speaker 1: salience issues where the justices um their opinions. We might
Speaker 1: already know their approach, and so maybe she shift people
Speaker 1: on that. But there are many other issues that the
Speaker 1: court decides UM, that affect the rules and trial cord,
Speaker 1: that affect UM, criminal defendants UM, and some of those UM,
Speaker 1: there is the opportunity to have alignments UM that are
Speaker 1: unexpected or even for the justices all to agree. She
Speaker 1: went through two days of aggressive bruising questioning, where the
Speaker 1: Republicans attacked her for being soft on crime, a proponent
Speaker 1: of critical race theory representing terrorists. Now, no one ever
Speaker 1: questioned her qualifications to sit on the court. But do
Speaker 1: you think the hearings in any way taint this historic confirmation,
Speaker 1: So I think that it taints the Senate most of all,
Speaker 1: So backing up for a second, going in, this is
Speaker 1: unfortunate because she was confirmed in a bipartisan way for
Speaker 1: the Trial court um she was confirmed, as it has
Speaker 1: been pointed out, for the Sentencing Commission. She was elevated
Speaker 1: after being a trial court judge to the DC Circuit,
Speaker 1: and it wasn't as overwhelmingly bipartisan, but there were Republicans
Speaker 1: who voted for her, so coming in that really there
Speaker 1: was nothing in her record, nothing in her record that
Speaker 1: should have drawn particular opposition. Now, I think that Senators
Speaker 1: should really sharply question potential justices. It's really important. We
Speaker 1: call it, in the constitutional context advice and consent, and
Speaker 1: you want the Senate to play a very vigorous role
Speaker 1: when you're talking about lifetime appointments. That said, going in,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure there's much she could have done to
Speaker 1: win over certain Republicans. And really some of the things
Speaker 1: she was asked about had nothing to do with her.
Speaker 1: They had to do with the idea of a kind
Speaker 1: of liberal constitutionalism that seemed very outdated and didn't have
Speaker 1: anything to do with her record, which is really is
Speaker 1: a very kind of careful, incremental trial court judge. And
Speaker 1: then they asked a series of questions that I put
Speaker 1: on the side of quite inappropriate about things like critical
Speaker 1: race theory, and it felt that just because she was
Speaker 1: a black woman sitting there, she should be able to
Speaker 1: opine on and those were quite offensive. They were shocking
Speaker 1: set of questions about her religion. I felt she was
Speaker 1: incredibly poised through it all. So the short answer is,
Speaker 1: I think it made the Senate look bad. I teach
Speaker 1: my students that advice and consent matters, that the Senate
Speaker 1: is this great, deliberated institution, and it's hard for them
Speaker 1: to take me seriously after seeing some of that. But
Speaker 1: on the flip side, what I heard was she was
Speaker 1: incredibly poised. My respect for her increased through that. And
Speaker 1: so I'm sure the American people will have a mix
Speaker 1: of views on that, because we are a deeply divided country.
Speaker 1: But even some of the polling suggests that there's more
Speaker 1: support for her and more favorable view of her for
Speaker 1: having gone through that process. You know, despite that process,
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for your in sights. That's Professor Alatun
Speaker 1: Day Johnson of Columbia Law School. A judge has denied
Speaker 1: the Lane Maxwell a new trial on sex trafficking charges
Speaker 1: over a juror's failure to disclose during jury selection that
Speaker 1: he was a victim of childhood sex abuse. Judge Allison
Speaker 1: Nathan's ruling ends for now a drama that called into
Speaker 1: question a verdict widely hailed as bringing long delayed justice
Speaker 1: to Epstein's victims. Joining me as former federal prosecutor Robert
Speaker 1: Mentz a partner mcarter in English, Judge Allison Nathan said
Speaker 1: Maxwell's lawyers had failed to satisfy the requirements for granting
Speaker 1: a new trial in a criminal case. What are those
Speaker 1: requirements and why did you think they failed to satisfy them.
Speaker 1: Hearing of the potential jur misconduct after a conviction are rare,
Speaker 1: but they're not unheard of, and it really turns on
Speaker 1: the question of whether the jur misconduct denied and defended
Speaker 1: a completely unbiased jury. So in this case, the sense
Speaker 1: did not need to show that the information was held
Speaker 1: by the juror would have altered the outcome of the verdict,
Speaker 1: only that the juror knowingly lied to enhance their chances
Speaker 1: of getting onto the jury, and so the question before
Speaker 1: the judge at the hearing was whether or not this
Speaker 1: juror had intentionally lied in order to get on the jury,
Speaker 1: and most importantly, whether or not that juror could be
Speaker 1: unbiased and could listen to the evidence and could render
Speaker 1: ultimately a fair and impartial verdict. Nathan disagreed with the
Speaker 1: idea that past victims would not be fair jurors. But
Speaker 1: isn't it obvious that this juror's passed abuse made a
Speaker 1: difference in the case because he said it did. He
Speaker 1: told several media outlets that he raised his childhood abused
Speaker 1: during deliberations to sway other jurors. Yeah, that's a very
Speaker 1: interesting question. And the real issue here is whether or
Speaker 1: not the past history of this juror gave this jur
Speaker 1: an impermissible stake in the outcome of the trial. In
Speaker 1: other words, was a jur an unbiased fact finder or
Speaker 1: was a youur an advocate for a particular cause with
Speaker 1: their own agenda. And that's what the defense argued here.
Speaker 1: But the judge ultimately found that despite the history of
Speaker 1: child sexual abuse that was not disclosed during the jury questionnaire,
Speaker 1: despite the fact that it was clearly asked on that questionnaire,
Speaker 1: that that did not result in an unfair trial for
Speaker 1: miss Maxwell, and the verdict was therefore upheld. Nathan wrote
Speaker 1: that the juror was not biased and would not have
Speaker 1: been stricken for cause even if he's answered every question
Speaker 1: on the questionnaire accurately. She said that whether the defendant
Speaker 1: would have exercised the peremptory strike against this juror had
Speaker 1: he actually disclosed his prior sexual abuse is not an issue.
Speaker 1: Why isn't that an issue. Doesn't the defense have a
Speaker 1: right to exercise peremptory challenges to get a jury they
Speaker 1: believe will be fair. Yeah, I think that really goes
Speaker 1: to the heart of this question. And the judge made
Speaker 1: the point, as you say, simply because a juror is
Speaker 1: themselves a victim of sexual abuse does not preclude them
Speaker 1: from sitting as a juror on the trial about sexual abuse.
Speaker 1: In other words, it is not correct to conclude that
Speaker 1: an individual with a history of sexual abuse can never
Speaker 1: serve as a fair and impartial juror. But in this case,
Speaker 1: what the defense was arguing was not that this juror
Speaker 1: should have immediately been disqualified had he disclosed a history
Speaker 1: of sexual abuse, but that they were denied the opportunity
Speaker 1: to question him about that experience and to determine whether
Speaker 1: or not he really could have been fair and impartial,
Speaker 1: and they could have ultimately decided, as you say, to
Speaker 1: strike him with a peremptory challenge as opposed to a
Speaker 1: challenge for cause, and they were denied that opportunity because
Speaker 1: the juror did not disclose the past history of sexual abuse.
Speaker 1: A retrial would have meant the victims testifying again, the
Speaker 1: state being put to great ex ends with another long trial.
Speaker 1: Were those factors the judge considered in denying a new trial, Well,
Speaker 1: though it's our factors the judge should not have considered.
Speaker 1: The judge really cannot deny the defendant a fair trial here,
Speaker 1: and the issue really simply came down to the question
Speaker 1: of whether or not. After this subsequent post verdict hearing,
Speaker 1: the judge concluded that this juror harbored no bias towards
Speaker 1: the defendant and could have served as a fair and
Speaker 1: impartial juror. That was refinding, and despite the fact that
Speaker 1: the juror did not disclose his past history of sexual abuse,
Speaker 1: the judge concluded that it did not preclude him from
Speaker 1: being fair and impartial and therefore did not change the
Speaker 1: outcome of the verdict. And it's especially interesting in this
Speaker 1: case because this jury gave multiple media interviews saying that
Speaker 1: he was a victim of childhood sexual abuse. That's how
Speaker 1: this whole issue came to light, and he told various
Speaker 1: media outlets that he discussed this experience with fellow juror,
Speaker 1: particularly his difficulty remembering specific details of abuse, just like
Speaker 1: two of the women who testified against Maxwell, he believed,
Speaker 1: He said that his input may have helped other jurors
Speaker 1: believe their testimonies were credible, even if they couldn't recall
Speaker 1: or misremember aspects of the abuse. So the juror acknowledged
Speaker 1: in these post trial interviews that his history of childhood
Speaker 1: sexual abuse was actually discussed during deliberations and may have
Speaker 1: swayed other jurors in reaching their verdict. But that is
Speaker 1: not something that the judge asked the juror about during
Speaker 1: this post trial hearing, and that's because judges are not
Speaker 1: permitted to ask jurors about anything that goes on in
Speaker 1: the jury room about those deliberations, So that area of
Speaker 1: inquiry was not something that came up during the hearing. Instead,
Speaker 1: the judge focused on how it was that this juror
Speaker 1: failed to disclose the fact that he had been a
Speaker 1: victim of childhood sexual abuse, and his answer to that
Speaker 1: was simply that he rushed to answer the jury question
Speaker 1: and there did not pay close attention to it, and
Speaker 1: that it was an honest mistake. The key to that
Speaker 1: finding was the judge believing the juror that it was
Speaker 1: an honest mistake and that it was not an attempt
Speaker 1: by this juror to try to get on the jury
Speaker 1: in order to be an advocate for the victims. This
Speaker 1: is most likely going to be appealed to the second Circuit.
Speaker 1: What are the chances of the second circuit reversing what
Speaker 1: a trial judge decided at the hearing? The judge made
Speaker 1: a credibility finding as to whether or not this curor
Speaker 1: intentionally withheld that information and whether or not that juror
Speaker 1: could have been fair and impartial. And it's difficult for
Speaker 1: the Court of Appeals to turn around and reverse that
Speaker 1: ruling because it is one of credibility and it was
Speaker 1: a trial judge who was there during that testimony. And
Speaker 1: you add on top of that the fact that it
Speaker 1: is rare for judges to order new trials in the
Speaker 1: event of juror misconduct. They're really loath to have to
Speaker 1: do that because it does require trying the case all
Speaker 1: over again, and in this particular case, subjecting the victims
Speaker 1: of sexual abuse to yet another trial, yet another ordeal,
Speaker 1: yet another cross examination by the defense, so that undoubtedly
Speaker 1: somewhere was in the back of the judge's mind in
Speaker 1: making this decision. During misconduct after a conviction is always rare.
Speaker 1: It's not unheard of, but it doesn't happen all the time,
Speaker 1: and the defense likes to jump on these because it's
Speaker 1: an opportunity really to overturn the conviction even before an
Speaker 1: appeal is filed, based on their claim that the ger
Speaker 1: misconduct denied their client a completely unbiased jury. From the
Speaker 1: prosecution standpoint, it is their absolute worst nightmare because it
Speaker 1: has the potential to unravel the conviction almost immediately after
Speaker 1: a lengthy, high stakes trial, which is exactly what happened here.
Speaker 1: Thanks Bob. That's Robert McCarter and English US antitrust chiefs
Speaker 1: voice support for an American crackdown on gatekeeper tech giants.
Speaker 1: Promising stricter deal reviews. This just a week after the
Speaker 1: European Union reached a deal reigning in the likes of
Speaker 1: Google and meta platforms. Joining me is Jennifer Rey Bloomberger
Speaker 1: Intelligence senior litigation analyst. Jen tell us what Jonathan Cantor,
Speaker 1: the head of the Justice Department's antitrust Division, has been
Speaker 1: saying lately about mrger enforcement. So recently, he's been talking
Speaker 1: a lot about how to bolster merger enforcement, you know,
Speaker 1: before these deals are even done, to try to stem
Speaker 1: the tide that some belief has occurred over the last
Speaker 1: ten to twenty years of allowing too many murgers to
Speaker 1: go forward, and many industries that are overly concentrated. And
Speaker 1: he's focused on a lot of different areas, but one
Speaker 1: in particular he talks about a lot is preventing the
Speaker 1: acquisition of a nascent competitor that's kind of a new
Speaker 1: small company that's sort of up and coming and has
Speaker 1: yet to develop, that is bought by a potential rival,
Speaker 1: a company that weigh down the road. If this nascent
Speaker 1: competitor developed, became more vibrant, became you know, a bigger
Speaker 1: rival would be able to challenge the incumbent, and so
Speaker 1: particularly in the big tech platform we're old. What has
Speaker 1: been observed is that over the years, these big tech
Speaker 1: platforms have been able to sort of watch the market
Speaker 1: and watch for these potential threats and still buy them
Speaker 1: up when they're really small, you know, not making great
Speaker 1: revenues or profits, and then gobble them up before they
Speaker 1: can get big and compete with them, or you know,
Speaker 1: take them under their wing and develop them, but still
Speaker 1: as part of their company and not as a rival.
Speaker 1: And so he in particular is focusing on trying to
Speaker 1: do better as a merger enforcer to see these deals,
Speaker 1: to catch these deals, and to try to stop these
Speaker 1: deals before they get closed. How is this different from
Speaker 1: what we heard before with say, Facebook and WhatsApp? Isn't
Speaker 1: it the same message? Yes, it really is generally the
Speaker 1: same message message, But we're just talking about enforcing prior
Speaker 1: to the act. You know, with Facebook, they're going back
Speaker 1: and they're challenging consummated deals that occurred a long time ago,
Speaker 1: and what they're saying is, hey, we made a mistake
Speaker 1: back then when Facebook acquired What's happened when Facebook acquired
Speaker 1: Instagram and we basically cleared it through the agencies, we
Speaker 1: made a mistake and we shouldn't have. These were nascent
Speaker 1: competitors that may have been able to come up and
Speaker 1: be arrival to Facebook. The FTC has suit Facebook now
Speaker 1: to try to unwind these deals. That's going to be
Speaker 1: working its way through court for some time. And what
Speaker 1: the agencies are saying now is we need to stop
Speaker 1: the mergers before they actually close. We need to be
Speaker 1: more vigilant when they're first proposed about understanding that this
Speaker 1: small company that's being bought is a company that could actually,
Speaker 1: if given the time, could flourish and become a rival
Speaker 1: to the company that's buying it. The EU always seems
Speaker 1: to be ahead of the curve on these things. What
Speaker 1: happened in the EU, so in the EU UH there
Speaker 1: was political agreement between the European Commission and the Parliament
Speaker 1: on new legislation called the Digital Markets Act. It's actually
Speaker 1: quite similar to legislation that's being considered here in the
Speaker 1: United States as well. But what that legislation is intended
Speaker 1: to do is create a more fair playing field for
Speaker 1: digital platforms and smaller companies that work with them or
Speaker 1: may compete with them. And what it does generally is
Speaker 1: prohibit self preferencing conduct by the platforms, for instance, using
Speaker 1: the data of a company you compete with but that
Speaker 1: also relies on you as a digital platform to benefit
Speaker 1: your own products and services, or let's say, in search results,
Speaker 1: pushing your own products up to the top of search
Speaker 1: results if it's not warranted or merited. Also prohibit certain
Speaker 1: kinds of discrimination, for instance, of the company is using
Speaker 1: some of your products but not all of your products,
Speaker 1: you're you're giving them a harder time or favoring the
Speaker 1: companies that actually do use your full range of products.
Speaker 1: And also required certain amount of interoperability between companies and
Speaker 1: their rivals and other third parties. So that law moved
Speaker 1: much closer to actually being enacted, and it actually looks
Speaker 1: like it might be so some of these big tech platforms,
Speaker 1: because right now it really only covers a handful of
Speaker 1: the really big digital platforms, may actually have to come
Speaker 1: in compliance with this law. Sometime in two thousand twenty three,
Speaker 1: maybe early two thousand twenty four, you said, the US
Speaker 1: has a similar bill. How similar is it? You know,
Speaker 1: it's it's quite similar. It's called the American Innovation and
Speaker 1: Choice Online Act. And now it's a little farther away.
Speaker 1: You know, we obviously in the United States, we have
Speaker 1: a different process um and you need bipartisan backing really
Speaker 1: for any bill to today to become enacted and become law.
Speaker 1: So we're a little bit farther behind. But this bill
Speaker 1: actually has been voted through the Senate Judiciary Committee and
Speaker 1: has pretty strong bipartisan backing, very similar to the Digital
Speaker 1: Markets Act. It also would ban self preferencing by big
Speaker 1: tech platforms. Right now, it really only covers Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google,
Speaker 1: and maybe Microsoft that's a little bit unclear. Has a
Speaker 1: few affirmative defenses for certain kind of conduct, but really
Speaker 1: very limited. I believe that it does have some prospects,
Speaker 1: but I don't necessarily think as it's written today it
Speaker 1: could actually get through a floor vote in the Senate
Speaker 1: and even in the House and become law. In the
Speaker 1: committee it was sixteen to six in the votes. It
Speaker 1: was all Democrats and then some Republicans, but many of
Speaker 1: the yes votes were sort of contingent. Yes is that
Speaker 1: we want to keep working on it. We think it
Speaker 1: needs improvement or change before we'd actually vote yes on
Speaker 1: the floor, So it means it's still developing and changing
Speaker 1: and so we're going to have to see, you know,
Speaker 1: where that comes out before we understand how strong it
Speaker 1: is and if it's really as tough as the Digital
Speaker 1: Markets Act is. We heard that under the Biden administration,
Speaker 1: antitrust enforcement was going to be tougher. Have we seen
Speaker 1: that or is it too soon? You know? I think
Speaker 1: we have seen it. And it's remarkable because law moves
Speaker 1: very slowly, in a particular, anti trust law moves very slowly.
Speaker 1: But in particular, the Department of Justice has been really
Speaker 1: aggressive and they've been quite successful in suing to try
Speaker 1: to block mergers and then getting those deals to go
Speaker 1: to abandonment rather than actually taking their resources to litigate
Speaker 1: through which is for the Department of Justice an ideal
Speaker 1: outcome because they get what they want, they kill the deal,
Speaker 1: but they don't have to use their resources to litigate
Speaker 1: all through court. They've been very active. Now the Federal
Speaker 1: Trade Commission, I believe will become much more active. Um
Speaker 1: The chairs hands have and tied for some time because
Speaker 1: they don't have their full slate of five commissioners. They
Speaker 1: have a deadlock of two Republicans and two Democrats. Now
Speaker 1: they have sued to block a few mergers on mostly
Speaker 1: unanimous votes, so they've been able to get some bipartisan
Speaker 1: agreement there. But I do think they will become more
Speaker 1: aggressive and more activist interventionist once the fifth Democrat is confirmed.
Speaker 1: Thanks Jen. That's Jennifer Free, Bloomberg Intelligence Senior litigation analyst