Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: The Trump campaign has seen a revolving cast of lawyers
Speaker 1: pursuing its lawsuits challenging the election results, particularly in Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: where the lawsuits have been concentrated. The law firm Porter Wright,
Speaker 1: Morris and Arthur withdrew from representing the campaign on Friday,
Speaker 1: and the lawyer who took over the case, Linda Currents,
Speaker 1: moved to withdraw on Monday. The Lincoln Project, group of
Speaker 1: Republicans who opposed President Trump, had started a media campaign
Speaker 1: against the law firms helping the Trump administration to contest
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's victory, specifically naming Porter Wright and Jones Day,
Speaker 1: the nation's tenth largest law firm. Trump's communications director Tim
Speaker 1: Murtas said leftist mobs descended upon some of the lawyers
Speaker 1: representing the president's campaign and they buckled. The President's team
Speaker 1: is undeterred and will move forward with rock solid attorneys
Speaker 1: to ensure free and fair elections for all Americans. Trump
Speaker 1: has picked Rudy Giuliani, his personal attorney, to lead his
Speaker 1: post election legal battles, and Giuliani filed an application to
Speaker 1: join the case in Pennsylvania, which the other lawyers had
Speaker 1: left just hours before a hearing was set to start.
Speaker 1: Joining me is Christopher for Bloomberg Law Team leader for
Speaker 1: the Business of Law. So Chris tell us about jones Day. Sure,
Speaker 1: Jay is one of these just massive law firms. It's
Speaker 1: the tenth largest firm in the country with more than
Speaker 1: a billion dollars with a b in gross revenue per year.
Speaker 1: I think they've got more than a thousand attorneys across
Speaker 1: the country. Based originally founded in Cleveland, Ohio, but has
Speaker 1: been come to be known as one of these white
Speaker 1: shoe Washington d C firms. UM. That's really been a
Speaker 1: revolving door with sending attorney into high ranking positions in
Speaker 1: the federal government throughout the years, but certainly in during
Speaker 1: the Trump administer ration. Jones Day has been the law
Speaker 1: firm most closely associated by many people with the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: The firm itself UM advise the Trump's campaign back for
Speaker 1: the election, continued to advise the campaign UH and the
Speaker 1: RNC throughout the next four years leading up to the
Speaker 1: most recent election. UM and has continued to be involved
Speaker 1: in lawsuits related to the election. UM since election Day,
Speaker 1: just a few weeks ago, and so during Trump's administration
Speaker 1: we saw several notable jones Day lawyers bill top roles
Speaker 1: within the government. The one that most people are familiar with,
Speaker 1: of course, is Don McGann, who was formerly White House
Speaker 1: Council before returning to Jones Day last year. Another lawyer
Speaker 1: named Noel Francisco was Solicitor General, which is essentially the
Speaker 1: fate of the Trump administration in the Supreme Court, arguing
Speaker 1: any cases on behalf of government in the High Court.
Speaker 1: He was there for most of President Trump's first term
Speaker 1: before returning to jones Day last year. The Lincoln Project
Speaker 1: started a social media campaign about Jones Day. What was
Speaker 1: the message of that campaign and how successful was it? Well,
Speaker 1: the message was really that the Jones Day attorneys and
Speaker 1: the firm itself, in the eyes of the folks, that
Speaker 1: the Lincoln Project should be ashamed of themselves for participating
Speaker 1: in these post election lawsuits um which at least according
Speaker 1: to the folks that at the Lincoln Projects are nothing
Speaker 1: more than an assault on American democracy, baseless attempt to
Speaker 1: undo the the results of the fair and free election.
Speaker 1: And so it was too prong number one. They were
Speaker 1: building and sort of a online public sense of outrage
Speaker 1: against the firm itself, and then they were attempting to
Speaker 1: pressure major Jones Day clients, including companies like General Motors,
Speaker 1: to stop doing business with the firm over this issue.
Speaker 1: Did it work? What kind of repercussions did Jones Day
Speaker 1: have from this media campaign? Well, it certainly had some impact.
Speaker 1: Um so that the same campaign was also aimed at
Speaker 1: a smalller law firm called Supporter Right, which was involved
Speaker 1: in some of the other cases involving the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: and that firm has been pretty quickly backed away and
Speaker 1: withdrawn from participating in those studs. Jones Days involved in
Speaker 1: one single suit right now, and they're actually representing the
Speaker 1: Republican Party of Pennsylvania rather than the Trump campaign itself.
Speaker 1: But it's one of those lawsuits that aimed it challenging
Speaker 1: the results of the election in Pennsylvania overall, and and
Speaker 1: and certainly is affiliated with the Trump administration and the
Speaker 1: campaign efforts there. And so they have not sacked and
Speaker 1: it seems unlikely that they will back away given the
Speaker 1: firm's history and leadership just not the type of folks
Speaker 1: who will to this sort of public pressure. But um
Speaker 1: it has caused quite a stir within UM the halls
Speaker 1: of Jones Staying, particularly at his Washington, d C. Office.
Speaker 1: We reported that late last week a large group of
Speaker 1: attorneys there at jones Days CC office, in a series
Speaker 1: of meetings with the head of the DC office, raised
Speaker 1: some um a number of concerns regarding the firms involvement
Speaker 1: in the case. That meeting was described as very tense
Speaker 1: by some of the people who were there. Basically, the
Speaker 1: attorneys were saying that the firm is risking it's good name,
Speaker 1: it's sort of professional names in in getting involved in
Speaker 1: something like this. So Chris Jones Day said, it's not
Speaker 1: representing any entity in any litigation challenging or contesting the
Speaker 1: results of the general election in light of that Pennsylvania case.
Speaker 1: Is that strict true? That is incorrect, UM. And so
Speaker 1: John Stay has has made a big deal of not
Speaker 1: representing the Trump campaign or the RNC itself in much
Speaker 1: of the ongoing litigation. And it is true that the
Speaker 1: firm is not involved in many of the cases UH
Speaker 1: that have already been thrown in out the court, both
Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania and Michigan, Arizona and elsewhere. But the case
Speaker 1: that the firm is involved in is representing the Republican
Speaker 1: Party of Pennsylvania. Essentially, they're challenging UM Pennsylvania's mail in
Speaker 1: ballot system. They say that the state has created this
Speaker 1: two tier system where people who sent their ballots in
Speaker 1: via mail did not have to jump through the various
Speaker 1: hoops uh to prove that they are who they say
Speaker 1: they are, that folks who voted in person had to
Speaker 1: do things like uh, signatures, UM, just sort of all
Speaker 1: the id requirements that you face when you go into
Speaker 1: vote in person. And a say, the jones Day lawyers
Speaker 1: say that this is created in a constitutional two tier
Speaker 1: system where the restrictions and the requirements for voting depend
Speaker 1: on whether or not you do it in by mail
Speaker 1: or in person. And so, while that may not be
Speaker 1: UM directly aligned with the Trump campaign, if the court
Speaker 1: were to rule in favor of jones Day certainly would
Speaker 1: be helpful to the Trump campaign's effort to disrupt the
Speaker 1: election force recounts, UM and just generally so some uncertainty
Speaker 1: into the entire election process. So jones Day is might
Speaker 1: be feeling pressure tell us about it's a leadership structure.
Speaker 1: Whether or not it pulls out of these suits, is
Speaker 1: that dependent on the managing partner certainly seems that way.
Speaker 1: The managing partner, Steve Brogan, who's been there for quite
Speaker 1: a while, is a hard nose leader that some say
Speaker 1: are very much in the mold of the Donald Trumps
Speaker 1: and that the buck stops with him. He's making UM
Speaker 1: a lot of these decisions, and certainly in such a
Speaker 1: high profile case like this one, a decision to remain
Speaker 1: on the case sort of withdrawal certainly wouldn't wouldn't happen
Speaker 1: without Brogan's UM uh input for sure. And you know,
Speaker 1: by by all accounts, he's just not the title guy
Speaker 1: who's going to UM decide not to do something simply
Speaker 1: because of the public pressure. What's interesting is that Brogan,
Speaker 1: of course comes from UM sort of a Republican leaning background.
Speaker 1: He's a Notre Dame law school guy UM and some
Speaker 1: of the most high profile Jones State attorneys in DC
Speaker 1: are also Republican background, including some of the folks who
Speaker 1: works for the Trump administration. But when we went back
Speaker 1: and look at the Federal Election Commission records, we found
Speaker 1: that eighty percent of donations UM for political candidates in
Speaker 1: the last cycle from Jones State turneath individually of those
Speaker 1: went to Democratic candidates, And what we've heard from people
Speaker 1: inside the building is that they've always thought of it
Speaker 1: as an largely a political place. And while there may
Speaker 1: be some um grumbling about Jones Day's work on behalf
Speaker 1: of the Trump administration, it wasn't until recently with these
Speaker 1: election cases where folks really thought this is different, this
Speaker 1: is something where we're actively working to potentially undo a
Speaker 1: free and fair elections. Jones Days of October nineteenth had
Speaker 1: received two point nine million dollars in legal fees from
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee. But that's
Speaker 1: just a drop in the bucket to Jones Day, isn't it.
Speaker 1: It sure is. Yeah, we're talking about a firm that
Speaker 1: um clock more than a billion dollars in gross revenue
Speaker 1: every year and so certainly not doing it for the money, UM,
Speaker 1: although you could say that, um, they're developing a client
Speaker 1: relationship and certainly making clear here that they're not going
Speaker 1: to stand down when they're representing their clients. UM. But
Speaker 1: you know, one of the arguments that the firm has
Speaker 1: been making, including in response to some of the concerns
Speaker 1: that were raised by his own attorneys about their involvement
Speaker 1: in this particular Pennsylvania case is that they're fighting for
Speaker 1: the rule of law. And so their argument is that
Speaker 1: we filed this case long before the election because we
Speaker 1: thought that there was a problem with Pennsylvania's um election system.
Speaker 1: We did not know at the time um, at least
Speaker 1: according to Jones, say that this was going to become
Speaker 1: this uh closely uh tightly contested election and that all
Speaker 1: of these other lawsuits were going to follow. The firm
Speaker 1: is simply telling their their attorneys that we're fighting for
Speaker 1: the rule of law here. We want to make sure
Speaker 1: that the Pennsylvania election system is constitutional um, whether that
Speaker 1: favorite Democrats or Republicans. The other law firm you mentioned
Speaker 1: port to right, they withdrew from the Pennsylvania case and
Speaker 1: that they no longer represent the Trump campaign and didn't
Speaker 1: say why. And the Trump communications director said leftist mobs
Speaker 1: descended upon some of the lawyers representing the president's campaign
Speaker 1: and they buckled. Any hints as to why report or
Speaker 1: write Withdrew Well, we can say for sure that it
Speaker 1: came after some of the same pressure, much of the
Speaker 1: same pressure really that that Jones stay was facing both
Speaker 1: externally and internally. Reportedly there were similar meanings to quarter right,
Speaker 1: where associates at the firm we're raising very similar concerns
Speaker 1: UM and reportedly at least one lawyer resigned as a
Speaker 1: result of those concerns. But at the same time, I
Speaker 1: think it's interesting to keep an eye on the dockets
Speaker 1: and what happens in these cases because myself and some
Speaker 1: of my reporters have been talking to legal ethics experts
Speaker 1: who have said, you really want to watch and see
Speaker 1: how long some of these lawyers stay on these cases
Speaker 1: because of the potential ethics concerns and potential penalty, sanctions, etcetera.
Speaker 1: For pushing baseless cases. Um, anybody can do any one
Speaker 1: else for just about anything. But as the legal process
Speaker 1: goes on, at some point you have to present some
Speaker 1: evidence to back up what you're claiming. And if you
Speaker 1: don't have that evidence and it becomes clear that these
Speaker 1: cases are nothing more than trying to clog up the
Speaker 1: system or slow down election counts, uh, those attorneys may
Speaker 1: be facing some sort of sanctions or penalty. And so
Speaker 1: the ethics folks that we spoke to said, if you
Speaker 1: see them start dropping out, that may be very well
Speaker 1: a recognition that there towing up against those ethical lines,
Speaker 1: and their professional integrity is on the line. So do
Speaker 1: you see that as a concern to some of the
Speaker 1: lawyers within these firms that the integrity of the whole
Speaker 1: firm gets tarnished because of these cases. I think so.
Speaker 1: And you you've particularly see that from attorneys at these
Speaker 1: huge firms. Remember we're talking about Jones Day is a
Speaker 1: firm with more than a thousand attorney, So there are
Speaker 1: just tons and tons of attorneys who are jones Day
Speaker 1: attorneys who have absolutely no involvement in this case whatsoever.
Speaker 1: And you can see that they're saying, you know, we're
Speaker 1: being tarnished because of the jones Day name, despite having
Speaker 1: no involvement in the case. What seems like a clear
Speaker 1: example of the pressure is a lawyer for Trump's campaign
Speaker 1: yesterday said they're dropping out of the Pennsylvania lawsuit challenging
Speaker 1: the election results. And this is a day after complaining
Speaker 1: about being harassed for her work, including by an attorney
Speaker 1: from a firm representing the state of Pennsylvania. Absolutely so,
Speaker 1: Linda Tarns, who is a solo practitioner there in Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: She actually became the lead attorney on that state after reporter,
Speaker 1: Wright dropped out in the face of pretty significant public pressure. Uh.
Speaker 1: And then shortly after that, she told the court that
Speaker 1: she had received a threatening phone call from an attorney
Speaker 1: at Kirklin and Ellis, which is one of the firms
Speaker 1: on the opposite side of that litigation representing the state
Speaker 1: of Pennsylvania. Um and and she told the court straight
Speaker 1: up that she was bowing out because of some of
Speaker 1: these attacks. Interestingly enough, the attorney who is now the
Speaker 1: lead Trump campaign attorney in that case, some some eagle
Speaker 1: eyed reporters noticed that on his firm's website, they're already
Speaker 1: calling President elect Joe Biden the president elect. Um and
Speaker 1: so there's some question there about how the campaign will
Speaker 1: feel about that. Interesting. So, Chris, you study law firms.
Speaker 1: Have we seen law firms before? Law firms are sort
Speaker 1: of viewed in a different light than companies, at least
Speaker 1: to my mind, because they don't necessarily they aren't necessarily
Speaker 1: endorsing the views of the people that they represent. You know,
Speaker 1: everyone's entitled to a lawyer. So is this attack on
Speaker 1: lawyers for whom they represent a change or has it
Speaker 1: been going on for a while. I think you're you're
Speaker 1: hearing voices opposing and criticizing law firms work on behalf
Speaker 1: of certain clients. Uh. Louder and growing certainly over time,
Speaker 1: you know, going back decades. Particularly firms that work in
Speaker 1: criminal defense are often get a hard time and get
Speaker 1: a significant amount of public criticism for representing people or
Speaker 1: companies that have been accused of these just really heinous things.
Speaker 1: But but there has always been this idea that lawyers
Speaker 1: represent clients and the and the fact that a lawyer
Speaker 1: is representing a client doesn't necessarily mean that the lawyer
Speaker 1: um supports the client, agrees with the client, thinks that
Speaker 1: what they did was right or what they're arguing is correct, um.
Speaker 1: But that everyone gets their day in court, and everyone's
Speaker 1: entitled to a lawyer. What we'll be looking to see
Speaker 1: is that if any of the sticks and what happened next. Uh.
Speaker 1: Just because Porter Wright dropped out of these particular cases,
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that the firms are going to stop
Speaker 1: representing either the Trump campaign or the RNC going forwards. Uh.
Speaker 1: And just because Jones States getting some heat here over
Speaker 1: this one case, I don't expect that to stop the
Speaker 1: firm from continuing to work in this space. Thanks for
Speaker 1: being the Bloomberg Law Show Chris. That's Chris Offer, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law Team leader for the Business of Law. President Trump
Speaker 1: has resumed with one of his most successful priorities as president,
Speaker 1: the appointment of federal judges, to make the judiciary more
Speaker 1: conservative and set a majority. Leader Mitch McConnell is poised
Speaker 1: to continue pushing the confirmations to the lifetime appointments through
Speaker 1: until Trump's term is over. The Fair confirmed more than
Speaker 1: two lifetime judicial appointees to the federal courts, including three
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justices. Joining me is Professor Carl Tobias of
Speaker 1: the University of Richmond School of Law. Carl, So far,
Speaker 1: have any judges been confirmed during the lame duck session, Yes,
Speaker 1: they have. Two were confirmed last week for the district bench,
Speaker 1: and this week five are scheduled. One was just confirmed
Speaker 1: this morning and the other four will be confirmed this week,
Speaker 1: a second one today and then the others by Thursday,
Speaker 1: and so the seven will have been confirmed in the
Speaker 1: lame ducks so far for the district courts. Are these
Speaker 1: openings that have been in place for a while? Did
Speaker 1: they just come up? Most of them have existed for
Speaker 1: some time, and of course, as someone's confirmed this week,
Speaker 1: it means they've been through the process. They've been nominated
Speaker 1: and had committee hearings, approval votes in the committee, and
Speaker 1: then up for debate, and then a vote on the floor.
Speaker 1: So they are not new, virtually all of them. So
Speaker 1: there are a few that are. And so for example,
Speaker 1: there is a UH circuit they can see that was
Speaker 1: just created when one Torriella died who served on the
Speaker 1: first circuit, and someone was just recently nominated for that
Speaker 1: position after the election. Let's concentrate on the district court
Speaker 1: nominations for a moment. Are these going through on party
Speaker 1: line votes as we've seen with most of the circuit
Speaker 1: court nominations, or are these different? Well, some are. For example,
Speaker 1: the one this morning nominee for the Southern District of
Speaker 1: Mississippi was relatively close to forty three UH. And so
Speaker 1: we may see that with some of these nominees, especially
Speaker 1: if there's some controversy. And there's also the feeling I
Speaker 1: think among some Democrats that Mitch McConnell is jamming through
Speaker 1: people at the last minute after the voters have spoken
Speaker 1: UH in terms of who they want to be nominating judges.
Speaker 1: Has this happened before. Yes, Um, you know, in recent administrations,
Speaker 1: at the end of Obama's time the Senate, when McConnell
Speaker 1: was in the majority, Republican Senate confirmed no one after July.
Speaker 1: So that gives you a sense of discrepancy between then
Speaker 1: and now. On the other hand, at the end of
Speaker 1: Bush in two seven two eight, uh, Democrats were in
Speaker 1: the majority and they confirmed fifty eight district judges and
Speaker 1: ten circuit judges, as opposed to Republican majority in two thousand,
Speaker 1: fifteen sixteen confirmed only two circuit judges and eighteen district judges.
Speaker 1: And so there have been disparities depending on who's in
Speaker 1: the White House and who is in the control of
Speaker 1: the Senate. Just explain once again the difference between these
Speaker 1: district court judges, who are sort of like the trial
Speaker 1: judges in the federal system, and what we normally concentrate on,
Speaker 1: which is the circuit court judges. Well, Um, this administration,
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, has focused like a laser on the
Speaker 1: appeals courts, and so there are only three vacancies now
Speaker 1: and there were no vacancies for a short period, which
Speaker 1: is the fewest since Ronald Reagan was president. Um, but
Speaker 1: has neglected to some extent the district vacancies and emergency vacancies.
Speaker 1: But the difference is at the appellate level, the rulings
Speaker 1: cover all of the states in a particular circuit, as
Speaker 1: opposed to a district judge who really only can't even
Speaker 1: buying people in the judge's own courthouse. And so essentially
Speaker 1: the appellate judges make more policy and of cases. The
Speaker 1: court of last resort is the appellate court that decides
Speaker 1: because of Supreme Court here so few cases and so
Speaker 1: that's why the administration has tried to keep all of
Speaker 1: those seats filled and may fill all three vacancies. Now
Speaker 1: I think tomorrow will have just this Amy Cony Barrett's replacement,
Speaker 1: who's been nominated before Judiciary for hearing, and then the
Speaker 1: idea is to confirm him to her seventh Circuit vacancy.
Speaker 1: So what do we know about Thomas Kirsch who has
Speaker 1: been nominated Phil Coney Barrett's seat. He is presently the
Speaker 1: U S Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana and
Speaker 1: has experience in private practice with Winston Strawn, I believe
Speaker 1: in Chicago from and hasn't served in and out of
Speaker 1: the Justice Department. You have attorney's office in Northern District
Speaker 1: of Indiana in his career, and I think is well regarded.
Speaker 1: But he looks like a number of other nominees of
Speaker 1: President Trump, I think, but we'll see, has some strong
Speaker 1: support from the home state senators in Indiana. So tell
Speaker 1: us about Judge roll Arius Mark Squatt, who was nominated
Speaker 1: to fill the vacancy on the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
Speaker 1: And he is a district judge whom Trump appointed to
Speaker 1: the District of Puerto Rico and has served for eighteen
Speaker 1: months in that capacity, and so he's a nominee for
Speaker 1: the First Circuit, and I think they will try to
Speaker 1: move his nomination as well. There's a third vacancy on
Speaker 1: the seventh Circuit. Judge Blom assumed senior status on November
Speaker 1: and the Republicans may try to feel that they can
Speaker 1: see as well. And so I think it was a
Speaker 1: smart or choice on the part of the administration to
Speaker 1: try to elevate someone who was already on the district
Speaker 1: bench and someone from Puerto Rico, because there's a bit
Speaker 1: of a tradition there um to have someone from Puerto
Speaker 1: Rico on the first Circuit um. And so the administration
Speaker 1: as someone Uh, they've already sent through the process, and
Speaker 1: the Puerto Rico District judge was confirmed on a nineties
Speaker 1: three vote. Um, and I had a very smooth nomination
Speaker 1: confirmation process. Uh. And so I think the hope is
Speaker 1: that he would be as smoothly confirmed h in this situation.
Speaker 1: So again, it's after the election when he was mainated
Speaker 1: and would be confirmed if that happens. Is there enough
Speaker 1: time to get all the confirmations for the seventh Circuit done? Well?
Speaker 1: Maybe I think the one that's already been made and
Speaker 1: has the hearing tomorrow the courage. I think that could
Speaker 1: be done because then he would just need a committee vote,
Speaker 1: which could happen in December, and then a final vote,
Speaker 1: which could happen in December. The others are more difficult.
Speaker 1: It depends on when the first circuit nominee has a hearing,
Speaker 1: and then there's no nominee yet for Judge Blaumbsy. So
Speaker 1: that could be tight because they only have a small
Speaker 1: number of working days after Thanksgiving when they come back,
Speaker 1: and then the Senate turns over I believe on the
Speaker 1: fifth or so of January. And so um, it's just
Speaker 1: not clear that there are enough, you know, legislative days
Speaker 1: two approve all three of the of circuited judges, and
Speaker 1: then the questions also about district judges. There are five
Speaker 1: others who um are on the floor and so they've
Speaker 1: had hearings and committee votes, and those five could easily
Speaker 1: be confirmed in December. But there are twenty more who
Speaker 1: have been nominated by the President but not even had
Speaker 1: a hearing yet. And I think there's a big question
Speaker 1: mark as to those we'll know. We don't know yet
Speaker 1: who's gonna be on the hearing tomorrow. Besides Kurse, it
Speaker 1: could be some district nominees, but that's not clear, and
Speaker 1: so it's not at all clear that any of those
Speaker 1: twenty would be able to get through the process if
Speaker 1: the earrings are not held till December. That's a very
Speaker 1: tight time frame given what has to happen in that period.
Speaker 1: So look back and on the four years of judicial
Speaker 1: nominations and tell us what is it in Trump and
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell have accomplished well. They've named three extremely conservatives
Speaker 1: and confirmed three extremely conservatives Supreme Court justices fifty three
Speaker 1: so far and counting similar Appellate Court judges and one
Speaker 1: and sixty nine district judges after this week, which is
Speaker 1: relatively strong record, especially at the appellate level. So, for example,
Speaker 1: President Obama in two terms was able to confirm fifty
Speaker 1: five appellate judges, so if only two more are confirmed
Speaker 1: in President Trump would have matched that. And if he
Speaker 1: has all three confirmed, that would mean he named more
Speaker 1: in one term than Obama did in two. Since Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell has filled and looks likely to fill every single opening,
Speaker 1: what are the prospects for Joe Biden to appoint judges? Well,
Speaker 1: there are some because, as I said, there are twenty
Speaker 1: two vacancies at the district level where there are no
Speaker 1: nominees yet, so he's likely to inherit those. And then
Speaker 1: there's twenty more who have been nominated for vacancies they
Speaker 1: haven't had a hering yet, so that would come to
Speaker 1: forty two even if everybody else were confirmed by McConnell um.
Speaker 1: And then there'll be uh more people who assume senior
Speaker 1: status uh and retire in the next year. So he
Speaker 1: may have a fair number of vacancies that he can feel,
Speaker 1: but mostly at the district level, not very many at
Speaker 1: the appellate level, unless judges presently sitting Assudan senior status,
Speaker 1: and there are a number of appellate judges who are
Speaker 1: eligible under the rule of our sixty five and have
Speaker 1: fifteen years of service. Uh, and so some of them
Speaker 1: may well assume senior status. So then Biden would to
Speaker 1: put it, in colloquial terms, take back the nominations of
Speaker 1: those who haven't been confirmed yet. They would expire when
Speaker 1: the new Senate and President Trump of course could renominate
Speaker 1: them in that period right between the new Senate coming
Speaker 1: in and inauguration day. But I don't think that much
Speaker 1: is going to happen in that period. The Senate is
Speaker 1: getting organized, inaugurations being planned, the Senate may not even
Speaker 1: be in session much of that early part of January,
Speaker 1: so that's probably not realistic. Uh, that much would happened
Speaker 1: by way of confirmations in that period of time. President
Speaker 1: Trump has been able to nominate and get confirmed some
Speaker 1: very conservative judges. As we've discussed, what will happen when
Speaker 1: a President Biden nominates a very liberal judge. Are they
Speaker 1: likely to get through if the Senate remains in Republican hands. Well,
Speaker 1: A lot depends on what happens in the two Georgia
Speaker 1: races that will be decided on January six. Uh. If
Speaker 1: Democrats were able to win both of those, then they
Speaker 1: would have a Senate majority because the tiebreaking vote would
Speaker 1: be the vice president. Uh. There is that possibility. Um.
Speaker 1: If not, then McConnell, I think, would be the leader
Speaker 1: and there would be a very thin majority in the Senate.
Speaker 1: And I think it will be a matter of negotiation
Speaker 1: between the White House and McConnell and Biden may to
Speaker 1: some extent have to moderate the type of people he chooses.
Speaker 1: I think he has a good relationship with Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: and with many other senators with whom he served, and
Speaker 1: so he knows the process very well. Chaired the Judiciary
Speaker 1: Committee and was honored for three decades or more, and
Speaker 1: has very good people around him to help with judicial selection.
Speaker 1: Cautiously optimistic that that will go smoothly. That's Carl Tobias
Speaker 1: at the University of Richmond Law School. And that's it
Speaker 1: for the edition of the Bloomberg Laws Show. I'm June Grasso.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for listening, and remember to tune to
Speaker 1: The Bloomberg Glass Show every weeknight at ten pm Eastern
Speaker 1: right here on Bloomberg Radio,