Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keene Jailey.
Speaker 1: We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg A
Speaker 1: Lisa Martin Newsy or Ahead of You Banking for Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Lisa will Will. The World Cup game caused Deutsche Bank
Speaker 1: to go under eight euros per share. I don't see
Speaker 1: much of a collation, then, I think, I guess what
Speaker 1: we're seeing today? Um, yeah, there's another set off. The
Speaker 1: stalk has hit a new record low and intraday low.
Speaker 1: I mean it's it's reflective of concerns that investors continue
Speaker 1: to have about the potential for for a turnaround at
Speaker 1: the farm. And you also see potential concerns this week
Speaker 1: stemming from the qualitative part of the U S Truss
Speaker 1: tests that are due and tomorrow. Well, you bring up
Speaker 1: a really important point and it's not just Deutsche Bank
Speaker 1: this morning. Tom twelve days of losses for financials on
Speaker 1: the SMP five DRED doesn't amount to a massive, massive move,
Speaker 1: but it's the longest daily ing street and I did
Speaker 1: what Liza would have done. I compared BMP Perry bout
Speaker 1: a Deutsche Bank, and to be fair to Deutsche Bank,
Speaker 1: BMP Perry bar is not doing much better. Yes, So
Speaker 1: so I just wonder what's going on with global financials
Speaker 1: at the moment and what underpins the overall concerns. But
Speaker 1: I think in Europe in particular, there's concerns of that
Speaker 1: interest rate wise that was expected at some point is
Speaker 1: being seen as further out into the future. And of
Speaker 1: course that means that you know that the margins remain very,
Speaker 1: very very thin in this region for for the seseeable future. Um.
Speaker 1: But you also have investors today saying that they think
Speaker 1: that even at these levels, these shares are overvalued, which
Speaker 1: you know is somewhat surprising given to those significantly below
Speaker 1: what they were a decade ago. ELSA in the institutional
Speaker 1: America there's something about ten dollars a share and then
Speaker 1: five dollars a share in terms of ownership. Does that
Speaker 1: seem constraint face Deuts your bank in Euros in Europe?
Speaker 1: Is there a trip point where all this matters? No,
Speaker 1: I don't think so. We've seen the bank, you know,
Speaker 1: across the nine year a mark before and then bounced back.
Speaker 1: So I don't think that's the case, but clearly the
Speaker 1: sustained lack of confidence m is husting the bank and
Speaker 1: will see more of that potentially with second quarter, where
Speaker 1: you know, everybody's going to be focused on just how
Speaker 1: much of that revenue the bank can hang on to
Speaker 1: as it shrinks in in certain selected areas. And alastin
Speaker 1: banking question that came up earlier this morning in a Lisa,
Speaker 1: you've lived this in Europe, which is negative interest rates
Speaker 1: in the Angels system is part of this banking angst.
Speaker 1: Just the chronic negative rates that Europe has enjoyed. Well,
Speaker 1: I think that's obviously playing playing a role here. I
Speaker 1: think you know the economic the you know the economic
Speaker 1: prospects here, aren't you know that they're not looking as
Speaker 1: prosperous as they would have been? And I guess with
Speaker 1: the potential hits from trade wars, um cloud in the future,
Speaker 1: cloud in the outlook even further, of course, these banks
Speaker 1: need those economies to be growing, which raises the question
Speaker 1: why the ECB doesn't respond to what these banks ultimately
Speaker 1: would like to see net net is the ECB just
Speaker 1: made the decision at least that ultimately the negative rates
Speaker 1: are what's best for the consonant overall, even if it
Speaker 1: does hurt the banks. I guess so. And I think
Speaker 1: one other that has come out recently, as you know,
Speaker 1: the regulators here are pushing for um, you know, greater consolidation,
Speaker 1: and it's not clear that they have as much um
Speaker 1: you know, as much direct influence on the banks through
Speaker 1: you know, because such a thinly spread market. Just to
Speaker 1: get a final question to you on the stress test
Speaker 1: results later this week, looking for the results, try and
Speaker 1: to gauge the ability of some of these big banks,
Speaker 1: how much they can pay out, how big the dividends
Speaker 1: will be. Are these stress tests stressful for these lenders
Speaker 1: or have they worked their way around things? Well? I think,
Speaker 1: you know, the experience has shown that the qualitative qualitatives
Speaker 1: parts of these tasks, which is what we're going to
Speaker 1: be hearing about tomorrow, do have an impact. And you know,
Speaker 1: for the European banks, the focus will very much be
Speaker 1: on Deutsche Bank. Lisa, thank you so much, greatly appreciate it,
Speaker 1: very valuable this morning. Lisa marn't Newsy for years just
Speaker 1: out front on the Italian banking crisis, and of course
Speaker 1: what we see across all of um European banking. One
Speaker 1: of our great joys our privileges in Bloomberg Surveillance is
Speaker 1: to talk to people of different opinions. That we particularly
Speaker 1: enjoy talking to people that can holistically bring parts together,
Speaker 1: like finance, like politics, and like the geography and history
Speaker 1: that we all speak of. And one of those would
Speaker 1: be Stephen Roach. Of course some would consider the inventor
Speaker 1: of modern market economics. He single handedly did that in
Speaker 1: the digital space at Morgan Stanley years ago, author of
Speaker 1: The Next Asia, and of course at Yale University. Steven Roach,
Speaker 1: Good morning, President. She has to respond if Liz Economy
Speaker 1: tells me this is a new leadership in Beijing, what
Speaker 1: does President Trump underestimate or misjudge about President She? Well, Um,
Speaker 1: what what the Trump administration is looking for by all
Speaker 1: these pressures on China, whether it's on UH, tariffs, intellectual property,
Speaker 1: or investments, is for she to capitulate on his core
Speaker 1: strategy of innovation industrial policy uh and um PAN regional
Speaker 1: leadership uh and and she is not going to capitulate
Speaker 1: on those core principles, so uh, you know they're they're
Speaker 1: really at a at a standoff here, and I think
Speaker 1: while while China certainly does not want a trade war,
Speaker 1: they are not about capitulation UM in any sense of
Speaker 1: the word tone. How do you judge the moderates of
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. I would assume the announcement this morning
Speaker 1: on investment restrictions was a victory for Secretary Minution, of
Speaker 1: victory for their former advisor Gary Cohene, of course for
Speaker 1: years with Golden Sachs. But is he getting an articulate
Speaker 1: moderate advice stream at the White House? Not even close.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, it's it's just a shading different
Speaker 1: degrees of of China bashing. Some are more extreme than others.
Speaker 1: Navarro and Lightheiser obviously at one end of the spectrum,
Speaker 1: but you know, not too far behind are the UH
Speaker 1: sort of the the ones that would have UM embraced
Speaker 1: this view as well, from from cut Low to um
Speaker 1: Um Manuchin. They just don't don't want to go quite
Speaker 1: to the extent that the extremists do. But they're certainly
Speaker 1: not UM an effective counterweight in this. And by the way,
Speaker 1: you know, all the markets are sort of encouraged over
Speaker 1: the UH, the apparent UM backing off on extreme measures
Speaker 1: on Chinese investment. I think there's still a clear desire
Speaker 1: to use Zippi as far more aggressively in restricting Chinese
Speaker 1: investment into the US in anything even close to resembling
Speaker 1: their made in China in austrial policy. And Stephen, doesn't
Speaker 1: that approach make a whole lot of sense. I don't
Speaker 1: think it makes any sense at all, because the first
Speaker 1: of all, China is very effective now in developing its
Speaker 1: own indigenous uh technology. Is the idea that they steal
Speaker 1: blatantly from Us than the Varro story is hopelessly um
Speaker 1: um out of date. And you know, and certainly there
Speaker 1: were some transgressions in the past, but I think since
Speaker 1: the sunny Land Summit of two thousand fifteen, in the
Speaker 1: reduction of Chinese state sponsored cyber hacking, which is um
Speaker 1: there's clear evidence of that. I think the Chinese are
Speaker 1: now far more um uh temperate in their exercise of
Speaker 1: technology transfer. The whole concept of force technology transfer through
Speaker 1: joint ventures was ludicrous from the start. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is you know, light higher fiction to justify the three
Speaker 1: oh one tariffs. Joint ventures. I was a partner of
Speaker 1: a joint venture with the Chinese. You know, these are
Speaker 1: commercial uh efforts legally protected two partners collectively working together
Speaker 1: to build a business. Of course, they share systems, they
Speaker 1: share people, UH, they share technologies. Never once in my
Speaker 1: fifteen years experience and a joint venture with China was
Speaker 1: I forced to turn over anything to my Chinese partners.
Speaker 1: But Stephen, I guess the argument is that if you
Speaker 1: want to operate in China, you are forced to go
Speaker 1: into a joint venture in many sectors and in many
Speaker 1: goals of these foreign companies. And I guess you know,
Speaker 1: if you don't like, if you don't like, you know,
Speaker 1: the requirements of the joint venture, which by the way
Speaker 1: of being relaxed, then maybe you don't have to operate
Speaker 1: in China. I mean, you know, no one is forcing you.
Speaker 1: It isn't that the argument, Stephen from the U S side,
Speaker 1: that if that's the rules of the games in China,
Speaker 1: why shouldn't that be the rule of the game in
Speaker 1: the United States. Well, that's not the rules that the
Speaker 1: United States is imposing on China in any way whatsoever.
Speaker 1: I mean, the the US is now going to um
Speaker 1: depending on how they they enforce this new strength and
Speaker 1: Cifius action. The US is simply gonna deny China the
Speaker 1: right to participate in any type of venture, joint or
Speaker 1: otherwise in the United States. And and what China says,
Speaker 1: come on in. We want you to as partners, but
Speaker 1: we want you to do it within our legal and
Speaker 1: commercial structure. It's a very different concept. Well, Stephen, it's
Speaker 1: a very different approach. I struggled to understand whether the
Speaker 1: concept is different. The approach might be different. The United
Speaker 1: States making it a little bit more difficult to a
Speaker 1: little bit, wait, hold on, hold on a little bit
Speaker 1: is not the right way to describe an actual Well,
Speaker 1: let me finish my sent Just let me finish my sentence.
Speaker 1: Pushing it through Cyphius in a more stringent way makes
Speaker 1: it somewhat more difficult. We can have an argument about
Speaker 1: the degree. I don't think that's an adequate use of
Speaker 1: our time this morning. But I just think that the
Speaker 1: United States is possibly doing the right thing. And some
Speaker 1: people might agree with that that if China wants to
Speaker 1: upgrade the way it is, then the United States is
Speaker 1: sending a message open up even more. Otherwise we'll make
Speaker 1: it more difficult for you to invest in our economy.
Speaker 1: But here's the inconsistency of of what you're seeing. The
Speaker 1: the real hope for US China UH to resolve their
Speaker 1: differences is precisely the point you're making, and that's market access.
Speaker 1: The Chinese one access to our markets because we're the
Speaker 1: world's richest and deepest um markets, but we also need
Speaker 1: access to their markets because they're going to grow their
Speaker 1: consumer economy UH in a way that no nation has
Speaker 1: ever done in modern history. I've estimated in a in
Speaker 1: a in a book I wrote a few years ago
Speaker 1: on balance that the tradeable portion of Chinese services is
Speaker 1: going to expand by four to six trillion dollars between
Speaker 1: now and we have the most competitive, strongest services sector
Speaker 1: in the world. There's a shame on us, and we
Speaker 1: don't get a piece of that. So the answer is
Speaker 1: not restriction. The answer is opening up market access through
Speaker 1: a bi lateral investment treaty, which the US and China
Speaker 1: have failed to agree on for ten years. We're going
Speaker 1: exactly the opposite way to your recommendation. Makes absolutely no sense,
Speaker 1: Steve Roach. If you're just joining US folks, Steve Roushevale University,
Speaker 1: and the time we've got left, Dr Roach, I want
Speaker 1: to talk about the Chinese strategy here tip for tat
Speaker 1: is the media interpretation of this take us to Avanage
Speaker 1: Dixon in the art of strategy? What is the art
Speaker 1: of strategy? For President she? What does does he just
Speaker 1: weigh us out? Is that his number one factor? I
Speaker 1: think I think the the the artist strategy is having
Speaker 1: a diversified portfolio of foreign interests. So UM, the US
Speaker 1: and China have been embraced in a very strong codependent relationship.
Speaker 1: I've talked to you about this for a long time time,
Speaker 1: and the Chinese have probably put too many eggs in
Speaker 1: the American basket and they don't have a lot of
Speaker 1: natural allies in in in the in the region, so
Speaker 1: they have UM really embraced a much broader external strategy.
Speaker 1: So the Belt and Road initiative connecting China through UM
Speaker 1: foreign direct investment into sixty four other countries in the region.
Speaker 1: It is important building a new financial architecture through the
Speaker 1: Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the New Bricks Development Bank. UM.
Speaker 1: China is broadening out uh it's management of geo strategic relationships,
Speaker 1: so that the strategy, so if the US UM continue
Speaker 1: is to try to contain China, which has been you know,
Speaker 1: an ongoing feature since the Great Asian pivot of the
Speaker 1: Obama administration, then China's other options. Dr Roach, thank you
Speaker 1: so much, Stephen Roach at Yale University, is wonderful book
Speaker 1: of a few years ago, the next Asia for that question,
Speaker 1: whatever your politics is across this nation, this is the
Speaker 1: interview of the day. We will feature this on our
Speaker 1: podcast out of the Apple Podcasts and Spotify, and we
Speaker 1: do this with Noah Feldman of Harvard. His book of
Speaker 1: eight years ago, Scorpions, is nothing but outstanding. It is
Speaker 1: the battles and triumphs of FDR's great Supreme Court justices.
Speaker 1: And we are thrilled that Professor Feldman writes for Bloomberg Opinion, Um,
Speaker 1: you brought FDR into the title, uh, Noah, of your essay,
Speaker 1: A decision that will live in infamy, and that goes
Speaker 1: right back to December seven, and we had to decide
Speaker 1: what to do with the Japanese. What do we get
Speaker 1: so wrong in incarcerating Japanese if we thought they were spies?
Speaker 1: What we got wrong is that we got carried away
Speaker 1: in the very justifiable need to fight our enemy in
Speaker 1: the war, and then we projected that onto Japanese Americans
Speaker 1: who were in fact loyal to the United States and
Speaker 1: not to Japan. And then we in turned Japanese Americans
Speaker 1: and the Supreme Court to its shame upheld that decision
Speaker 1: really out of loyalty to President Roosevelt, and in the
Speaker 1: belief and the staken belief that because the interment was
Speaker 1: any way coming to an end, no one would really
Speaker 1: remember it going forward. And instead we think of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court's decision there is one of the worst decisions
Speaker 1: of the Court has ever made. Let's bring it forward
Speaker 1: then to the rationalization of Chief Justice Roberts and the
Speaker 1: deciding vote of Justice Kennedy. And what they did was say, yes,
Speaker 1: that was terrible in the forties, but this is different.
Speaker 1: Noah Feldman and Justice Sodamayer disagree. Chief Justice Roberts went
Speaker 1: out of his way to say, oh, Karamatta was terrible,
Speaker 1: but the travel ban is different, he said, because here
Speaker 1: on the surface of the ban, there's no reference to
Speaker 1: people of Muslim origin, just to a bunch of Muslim
Speaker 1: countries and not where he said, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: take very seriously. The background to the band in which
Speaker 1: the President and his advisors spoke about the goal of
Speaker 1: banning Muslims immigrants from the United States, and so as
Speaker 1: a result, he was able to avoid actually looking at
Speaker 1: the evidence that the lower courts did consider. And Justice Kennedy,
Speaker 1: who has, what is unusual circumstances, an admirable history of
Speaker 1: looking very closely at what government officials mean to do
Speaker 1: to see whether they're motivated by by animous in this case,
Speaker 1: was willing to join that opinion and basically close his
Speaker 1: eyes to it. And I think that will be a
Speaker 1: real deviation from his record and a stain on his reputation.
Speaker 1: Just just Stephen Brier in descent went to that idea
Speaker 1: of your phrase, professor of mean to do? Operationally? How
Speaker 1: will this affect the administration? And operationally can people push
Speaker 1: against the arching theme of Trump the Hawaii It really
Speaker 1: depends on whether the executive branch uses the system of
Speaker 1: exemptions that it has in place to make lots of
Speaker 1: case by case determination. Ordinary people are fine. And if
Speaker 1: they are and they do that, Justice Brier said, well,
Speaker 1: then this may not look all that discriminatory. But if
Speaker 1: they don't, if the government just sort of said, look,
Speaker 1: if you're from one of these countries, you're excluded, then
Speaker 1: Justice Brier said, the whole thing looks a lot more like.
Speaker 1: And what happens if the Trump administration says anybody from
Speaker 1: country ABC can't come in? What did you learn yesterday
Speaker 1: if that statement is made by the administration, Well, we
Speaker 1: learned yesterday that the court said that the administration can
Speaker 1: get away with it as long as they provide really
Speaker 1: a very minimal justification. That says, because we think their
Speaker 1: national security concerns, and even if the way they justified
Speaker 1: is pretty unconvincing to most reasonable observers, the government will
Speaker 1: be allowed to get away with that. And in that sense,
Speaker 1: this is a win for the Trump administration. It's a
Speaker 1: validation for the for the Trump administration, and it's a
Speaker 1: defeat for anybody who thinks that the Constitution is supposed
Speaker 1: to stand up and block discrimination. So does this go
Speaker 1: on forever? I mean, I mean, as you said, Karamatsu
Speaker 1: was going to disappear after the war and all that.
Speaker 1: And does this get amended down the road if if
Speaker 1: the Democrats win three administrations in a row and all
Speaker 1: of a sudden it's a liberal court again, does it
Speaker 1: get changed or is it a lot? Is it? Is
Speaker 1: it chiseling granted as of yesterday? Well, this scenario is
Speaker 1: probably pretty unlikely to repeat itself. And so what you get.
Speaker 1: And this is what happened after Cormato is the scenario
Speaker 1: wasn't repeated, but the President sat there as as Justice
Speaker 1: Jackson actually said in his descent in the Coromanto case,
Speaker 1: the principle sits about like a loaded weapon. It could
Speaker 1: always be used under circumstances of Christ. And that's exactly
Speaker 1: what's going to happen here. This decision will sit there
Speaker 1: like a loaded gun, and it may not be used,
Speaker 1: but it's always possible that it will. And a liberal
Speaker 1: Supreme Court eventually would probably say exactly what today's court
Speaker 1: said about Cormato. Oh that was terrible, it was wrong.
Speaker 1: We were so confused, and now we should never We
Speaker 1: should never have done that. This isn't who we are.
Speaker 1: If you're just joining us from Harvard. Noah Felben, he
Speaker 1: took us a lot degree at a school that serves
Speaker 1: good pizza in New Haven, Connecticut. But Noah Felman with us.
Speaker 1: And I can't say enough folks about his book Scorpions
Speaker 1: and Battles and Triumphs of FDR Court that the whole
Speaker 1: thing of the thirties forties was it was a stacked court,
Speaker 1: that FDR overtly stacked the court. Is that what we're
Speaker 1: seeing right now with this president. We're not quite at
Speaker 1: that point yet. You know, by the end Roosevelts had
Speaker 1: appointed eight justices and the Chief Justice because he was
Speaker 1: president for so long. So far, Donald Trump has just
Speaker 1: gotten one justice. The question is will he add more?
Speaker 1: And I think it's entirely possible. If Justice Kennedy resigns
Speaker 1: this summer, and if the President is able to nominate
Speaker 1: somebody in the Senate confirmed them before the midterms, we
Speaker 1: may well see an extremely conservative court for at least
Speaker 1: a generation. On the other hand, if that doesn't happen,
Speaker 1: or if the Democrat when the Senate, it seems entirely
Speaker 1: probably they will do just what the Republicans didn't block
Speaker 1: any of Donald Trump's nominees, and then all bets are
Speaker 1: off place Trump the Hawaii in the phrases that our
Speaker 1: audience knows, I think a Row view weight, sere, and
Speaker 1: Brown in the fifties. I mean, where does this case
Speaker 1: fit in in Noah Felban's history of the judiciary. Those
Speaker 1: are cases that were controversial when they were decided, and
Speaker 1: in the case of Brown against Board, of education. Over time,
Speaker 1: everyone came to accept the outcome. In the case of Worldviewade,
Speaker 1: everyone didn't come to accept the outcome, and they became
Speaker 1: the basis for long term social controversy. This is the
Speaker 1: worst decision in a in a serious way, because it
Speaker 1: sends a message that it's open season to discriminate. But
Speaker 1: it's also unlikely to cause the same kind of long
Speaker 1: term arguments because unlike segregation or abortion, which were long
Speaker 1: term social issues, this is a case that's really restricted
Speaker 1: to this unique restriction on immigrants from from five Muslim countries.
Speaker 1: One final question, if I could tell us about Justice Roberts.
Speaker 1: Chief Justice Roberts, he had an acclaimed decision where he
Speaker 1: went against the republic in our right side tide a
Speaker 1: number of years ago. But but Chief Justice Roberts, he
Speaker 1: wrote the majority opinion. He went against the World War
Speaker 1: two ruling. But what did you learn about Chief Justice
Speaker 1: John Roberts yesterday? Justice Roberts. Chief Justice Roberts wants to
Speaker 1: follow the principle of judicial restraint. He wants to avoid
Speaker 1: judicial activism, but when it's convenient, he will also go
Speaker 1: go the other way. What he did here is I
Speaker 1: think he was really trying to preserve the reputation of
Speaker 1: the Court and try to avoid the Court dirtying its
Speaker 1: hands by dealing with the travel ban. And I just
Speaker 1: think he miscalculated. I mean, I think his heart, I
Speaker 1: don't want to want to speak about his heart, but
Speaker 1: I think his intention is to keep the Court from
Speaker 1: getting caught up in very great controversies. But I think
Speaker 1: he made a mistake here and he did get in
Speaker 1: I've got to ask one to find a question. Professor Feldman,
Speaker 1: you're truly one of the nation's experts on Islamic thought.
Speaker 1: You study in Europe as a Rhodes scholar, and you've
Speaker 1: taken many hours to study Muslim When you see the
Speaker 1: phrases in your essay anti Muslim bias, what does that
Speaker 1: part of America that feels that, what do they get
Speaker 1: wrong in their legitimate fears of Islamic extremism. It's that
Speaker 1: there are absolutely some Muslims who have extreme views and
Speaker 1: who take extreme actions, but that's not the case with
Speaker 1: a great overwhelming majority of Muslims. And as is the
Speaker 1: case with any form of discrimination, the mistake is to
Speaker 1: stereotype and think that everybody who belongs twit certain category
Speaker 1: is like the most extreme versions of that category, and
Speaker 1: that's just not the case for Muslims, and it's certainly
Speaker 1: not the case for Muslims you want emigrate to United States.
Speaker 1: Noah Felban, thank you. We adore that you're right for
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Opinion. I'd also point out that not only is
Speaker 1: Professor Feldman written on Trump the Hawaii, but Kess Sunstein
Speaker 1: has written as well. I'll get both of those essays
Speaker 1: out in a busy morning here on social media. Exceptionally
Speaker 1: strong day for Bloomberg Opinion, and l move that out
Speaker 1: on Twitter as well. Noah Felban is with Harvard much.
Speaker 1: We are advantage of Bloomberg to have with us one
Speaker 1: of the jewels of the legal racket store store. He
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg Supreme Court at reporter. Far more than that,
Speaker 1: he clerked for Judge Kaufman out of Baltimore, and it's
Speaker 1: spent time at Harvard Law School as well. Gregg, wonderful
Speaker 1: to have you with us this most historic day. I
Speaker 1: want to go right to what went zeitgeist across this
Speaker 1: nation yesterday, Professor Feldman's Bloomberg opinion column, which summed up
Speaker 1: some of the emotion. We'll get the cast Sunsteen in
Speaker 1: a moment the worst decision since the infamous Corey Matsu case,
Speaker 1: when the Court upheld the interment of Japanese Americans during
Speaker 1: World War Two. These efforts are far too little to
Speaker 1: save the Court or Justice Kennedy from the judgment of history,
Speaker 1: which will be harsh. Chief Justice Roberts also takes the
Speaker 1: opportunity to announce that Corey Mantsu quote was gravely wrong
Speaker 1: the day O was decided and has been overruled in
Speaker 1: the court of history. Greg, will this court decision stay?
Speaker 1: Will it stick? Or is there room to move here
Speaker 1: where it will be overruled? And we're looking at Noah
Speaker 1: Feldman's classic book on a tumultu was Court of another
Speaker 1: Time scorpions. What's gonna happen two years, Greg, five years
Speaker 1: down the road. Well, it looks like, at least with
Speaker 1: this court, it certainly has some staying power. Tom. The
Speaker 1: majority really didn't seem like it had that much trouble
Speaker 1: with this case. It basically Chief Justice Roberts and the
Speaker 1: other Conservatives looked at the federal immigration laws. They said,
Speaker 1: they give the president a very broad discretion to limit
Speaker 1: who can come into the country. Uh, And they said,
Speaker 1: when we're talking about a claim that he's violated the Constitution,
Speaker 1: we're not going to deeply second guess his national security judgments. Here,
Speaker 1: they had a legitimate national security interest and that was
Speaker 1: enough for them. Let's look at Cass Sunstein. Now, of
Speaker 1: course Out of Chicago is wonderful recent book on impeachment.
Speaker 1: Here's Cass Sunstein on the ninety two pages, the multiple
Speaker 1: diverse opinions extending to ninety two pages. Chief Justice Roberts
Speaker 1: repudiated Karamatsu. Special Fan Toldness Justice Kennedy's words are pathetic,
Speaker 1: and then I thought this was fascinating. Greg Justice Briar's
Speaker 1: quiet bit meant to reason giving and the rule of law.
Speaker 1: It was has a claim to stand among the most
Speaker 1: distinguished descending opinions and the history of the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: What did the quiet Briar? What did he say? Well, interestingly,
Speaker 1: so there were two descents. One was from Justice so
Speaker 1: somebody or who invoked invoked Kamatsu and said the opinion
Speaker 1: was a lot like Kamatsu. And then there was Justice
Speaker 1: Brier who was focused on a lot of the practicalities
Speaker 1: of this, and he said the biggest problem he had
Speaker 1: or a big problem he had was that the system
Speaker 1: is supposed to have an ability to get case by
Speaker 1: case waivers for people who don't have any opposing the
Speaker 1: national security threat, who have an urgent need to get
Speaker 1: into the country for medical care or something like that.
Speaker 1: And he said, it's not clear to me that system
Speaker 1: is working, that anybody has given guidance to consular officers
Speaker 1: on how to let people apply for case by case waivers.
Speaker 1: And so what he really wanted to do was to
Speaker 1: kick the case back to the lower court and say,
Speaker 1: let's make sure this is this the actually works. Will
Speaker 1: that happen to me? The essence of this transaction, this
Speaker 1: legal moment, do you know, go back to Roe v.
Speaker 1: Wade seventy three or Brown decades before. That is what
Speaker 1: happens greg operationally tomorrow or in two thousand twenty two,
Speaker 1: off of Trump v. Hoi operationally, what happens well, the operationally,
Speaker 1: the administration has very very broad discretion. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: Justice Brier, who's often a bridge builder on the court.
Speaker 1: He and Justice Kagan, who joined his opinion, are two
Speaker 1: of the justices who try to look for ways to
Speaker 1: compromise and bring in some of their conservative colleagues. But
Speaker 1: they didn't. The majority opinion, as I said, it says
Speaker 1: the president has very broad discretion, and they were willing
Speaker 1: to take that step. That Justice Brier said, they weren't
Speaker 1: willing to force the administration to come back and defend
Speaker 1: itself in terms of how it's allowing those individual waivers.
Speaker 1: Greg is, is there are we hearing that actually President
Speaker 1: Trump may add more countries to his band. So so
Speaker 1: it is within his power to do that. That's that's
Speaker 1: part of and to take countries off. They've already taken
Speaker 1: chat off the list at an earlier phase, and that
Speaker 1: was part of the selling point for the president that, um,
Speaker 1: this is not a rigid band. It is, however, an
Speaker 1: indefinite band. It doesn't disappear unless the President takes an
Speaker 1: active step. Um, you know, this opinion certainly has the
Speaker 1: potential to emboldenly the White House and the President on
Speaker 1: all sorts of immigration matters and border matters. And so
Speaker 1: if he looked at this opinion and said I have
Speaker 1: the power to add additional countries, uh, he would probably
Speaker 1: have some some legal justification. Greg Axios. Mike Allen just
Speaker 1: published his seconds ago at Axios, and he calls it
Speaker 1: polarization nation and notes in the primaries last night, the
Speaker 1: liberals did well. We just heard from Kevin sit really
Speaker 1: on that what is the significance in the Greg Store
Speaker 1: world to a six three court Kennedy retires? Whatever President
Speaker 1: Trump does another course, It's fine, I get that. What's
Speaker 1: the what's for you the distinction of going from five
Speaker 1: four to a six three? Ish? Feel well, it certainly
Speaker 1: solidifies and extends the conservative majority. Um, there are issues
Speaker 1: that we didn't see them in this term. There are
Speaker 1: a significant number of issues where Justice Kennedy sides with
Speaker 1: the liberals. Abortion rights is certainly one of those. Gay
Speaker 1: rights is certainly one of those. Those precedents would suddenly
Speaker 1: be in jeopardy. Roe v. Wade would certainly be in
Speaker 1: jeopardy if if uh President Trump got to nominate a
Speaker 1: successor to Justice Kennedy, And Um, you know this would
Speaker 1: be a conservative majority. That would you know, in all
Speaker 1: likelihood be here as far as the eye can see,
Speaker 1: there's not a whole lot of obvious potential for there
Speaker 1: to be a chance for liberals to shift the court back.
Speaker 1: Reg Store, thank you so much, greatly appreciate the early
Speaker 1: morning activity. He was working all night of course, on
Speaker 1: this historic ruling, Trump the lie MM. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer.
Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter at Tom Keene before the podcast. You
Speaker 1: can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio