WEBVTT - New Concerns About Accuracy of the Census 0:00:00.480 --> 0:00:05.680 You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:06.880 --> 0:00:10.800 There are new concerns about the accuracy of the Census. 0:00:10.920 --> 0:00:13.720 The US Census Bureau was cutting its schedule for data 0:00:13.760 --> 0:00:17.560 collection for the Census a month short, stopping all its 0:00:17.560 --> 0:00:20.200 counting efforts at the end of September instead of the 0:00:20.280 --> 0:00:24.680 end of October. Researchers, academic, civil rights activists, and politicians 0:00:24.920 --> 0:00:28.320 are among those expressing concern that speeding up the count 0:00:28.360 --> 0:00:32.559 will produce an undercount. Inaccurate data will have lasting effects 0:00:32.560 --> 0:00:35.479 throughout the next decade. Joining me is Leon Fresco, a 0:00:35.560 --> 0:00:38.800 partner at Holland and Knight. I got a Census questionnaire 0:00:38.960 --> 0:00:41.720 in the mail, I filled it in, sent it in. 0:00:42.240 --> 0:00:45.480 What else does the Census have to do besides send 0:00:45.520 --> 0:00:48.920 out those questionnaires? We the censors have to do two 0:00:49.040 --> 0:00:52.080 key things. They have one, like you said, a mail 0:00:52.120 --> 0:00:55.000 out of the questionnaire, but also under federal statute, there's 0:00:55.040 --> 0:00:58.080 also a second period that's called the in person verification, 0:00:58.640 --> 0:01:02.000 which is then where they have to canvas the addresses 0:01:02.080 --> 0:01:05.760 that they don't have answered for and try to get 0:01:05.800 --> 0:01:10.360 answers that are accountable for those addresses. As of Monday, 0:01:11.319 --> 0:01:15.720 of US households had not responded to the Census questionnaire. 0:01:16.240 --> 0:01:19.080 Yet the U S Census Bureau says it's cutting its 0:01:19.080 --> 0:01:23.040 schedule for data collection. Do we know why? Well, the 0:01:23.080 --> 0:01:25.880 reason that was given is that they don't think they'd 0:01:25.880 --> 0:01:30.800 be able to finish the calculations that are required by 0:01:31.000 --> 0:01:34.480 the satuatory deadline of December thirty one, which is when 0:01:34.520 --> 0:01:37.560 they're supposed to have the full count by. But that 0:01:37.800 --> 0:01:40.360 seems a bit strange given that they knew that that 0:01:40.440 --> 0:01:44.120 satuatory deadline existed when they first made this announcement about 0:01:44.160 --> 0:01:47.960 moving it to October one. And the other odd point 0:01:48.120 --> 0:01:50.680 is that it's not as if COVID has gotten better. 0:01:51.200 --> 0:01:54.960 COVID has gotten worse, and so whatever justification that was 0:01:55.040 --> 0:01:59.000 COVID related to get to October thirty one seems odd 0:01:59.080 --> 0:02:03.400 to now with raw back to September. Some people are saying, well, 0:02:03.440 --> 0:02:06.240 this means that there will be an under count of 0:02:06.560 --> 0:02:11.440 minorities as well as rural populations. That's a huge danger 0:02:11.480 --> 0:02:15.239 that now, especially because of COVID and limitations and getting 0:02:15.240 --> 0:02:18.079 access to people, and people who don't want to necessarily 0:02:18.240 --> 0:02:21.200 talk to anyone at the moment because they're being very 0:02:21.280 --> 0:02:25.000 very careful that all of the time that was now 0:02:25.160 --> 0:02:28.280 needed that extra month, you certainly would have yielded a 0:02:28.360 --> 0:02:31.440 much larger response rate over the course of an additional 0:02:31.480 --> 0:02:34.799 month that you won't have now. Now it will be rush, 0:02:34.880 --> 0:02:38.160 and the strategy of rushing it is almost certainly to 0:02:38.280 --> 0:02:41.120 lead to hum their count. Many people are saying that 0:02:41.160 --> 0:02:44.680 this move to speed up the deadlines is another attempt 0:02:44.800 --> 0:02:49.480 by the Trump administration to politicize the census. Yeah, there 0:02:49.520 --> 0:02:52.400 is a belief that, whether it's true or not, that 0:02:52.600 --> 0:02:56.560 time frames work out, which is that if potentially you 0:02:56.639 --> 0:03:00.160 had delayed the census, it would have gone in to 0:03:00.440 --> 0:03:04.560 the presidency of a subsequent president, maybe Joe Biden if 0:03:04.560 --> 0:03:08.000 he wins, And so by feeding it up a month, 0:03:08.520 --> 0:03:12.200 the idea is that somehow the president can prevail in 0:03:12.360 --> 0:03:16.160 his other litigation about not counting people without status here 0:03:16.639 --> 0:03:18.840 that then he can make the final count and the 0:03:18.919 --> 0:03:21.919 final abortion meant before the end of the first term 0:03:21.919 --> 0:03:25.720 of the presidency. And analysis shows that ten states are 0:03:25.800 --> 0:03:31.000 trailing their response rates. Most of those are red states. Also, 0:03:31.040 --> 0:03:34.520 it's the poorest states that depend most on federal funding 0:03:34.639 --> 0:03:38.200 and have lower census response rates. So won't the administration 0:03:38.320 --> 0:03:41.880 be losing in that respect. I mean, that is certainly 0:03:41.920 --> 0:03:46.200 the practical implications of the policy, but the policies are 0:03:46.240 --> 0:03:50.480 almost always driven by the fact that the people who 0:03:50.560 --> 0:03:56.680 are most pushing the pious accurate number counts is always 0:03:56.680 --> 0:04:00.320 the blue state, the blue state New York, California. They're 0:04:00.360 --> 0:04:04.280 always the one pushing the necessity and the urgency of 0:04:04.480 --> 0:04:07.920 getting an account accurately because they're the states who are 0:04:08.000 --> 0:04:11.800 always not getting their share of the pie, and so 0:04:11.960 --> 0:04:15.320 from their perspective, they feel like they have to do 0:04:15.400 --> 0:04:18.400 more than usual, always in every sense of theories, to 0:04:18.480 --> 0:04:22.279 get counted. And so that perception seems to have lingered, 0:04:22.360 --> 0:04:25.760 even though the reality on the ground is what you report, 0:04:25.839 --> 0:04:28.480 which is that the red states are actually the one 0:04:28.600 --> 0:04:31.520 trailing in the undercount. At the moment, New York is 0:04:31.560 --> 0:04:35.200 one of those states that is trailing in the response rate. 0:04:35.480 --> 0:04:39.440 You know, we concentrate on the federal funding that comes 0:04:39.480 --> 0:04:42.440 to states based on the census count, and also of 0:04:42.440 --> 0:04:46.520 course the congressional seats that are allocated, but there are 0:04:46.520 --> 0:04:50.680 lots of other reasons to get to really representative count, 0:04:51.080 --> 0:04:55.320 and that shows in that COVID databases are also using 0:04:55.600 --> 0:04:59.719 population data from the census, so there are other reasons. Oh, 0:04:59.760 --> 0:05:04.840 it's absolutely critical for all kinds of economic and demographic reasons, 0:05:05.000 --> 0:05:08.320 and to be able to assess the policy implications of 0:05:08.360 --> 0:05:13.880 many different formulaic grant programs and to determine, like you said, 0:05:14.200 --> 0:05:17.880 whether certain counties are handling pandemics better than other counties. 0:05:17.920 --> 0:05:21.640 All of that required usage of the census data. And 0:05:21.680 --> 0:05:24.200 if you don't have that census data, you can't make 0:05:24.240 --> 0:05:28.159 proper assessments. There's even immigration issues, which is the area 0:05:28.279 --> 0:05:31.320 I work on in the in the context of what's 0:05:31.360 --> 0:05:34.039 known as the e v BY program, which talks about 0:05:34.080 --> 0:05:36.680 investing money in order to get a green card. That 0:05:36.839 --> 0:05:39.640 is a hundred percent dependent on the census track and 0:05:39.680 --> 0:05:42.520 what that census track is saying about. Who is unemployed 0:05:42.560 --> 0:05:46.120 in that census track, and who is the what is 0:05:46.120 --> 0:05:49.120 the average rate of income in that census track. And 0:05:49.160 --> 0:05:53.040 so from that perspective, it is if we sat here 0:05:53.040 --> 0:05:54.800 and did a two hour interview, I would not be 0:05:54.800 --> 0:05:56.680 able to cover all of the things that the senses 0:05:56.760 --> 0:05:59.520 data is used for. I won't subject you to a 0:05:59.600 --> 0:06:04.400 two hour interview. So now there was a request to 0:06:04.480 --> 0:06:08.000 Congress to extend the deadline, which passed the House and 0:06:08.520 --> 0:06:12.159 is going nowhere in the Senate, is there anything else 0:06:12.240 --> 0:06:16.760 that can be done to extend the deadline? So I 0:06:16.800 --> 0:06:19.839 am hearing about lawsuits that people want to file to 0:06:19.920 --> 0:06:23.120 try to get that deadline extended back to October. Those 0:06:23.200 --> 0:06:26.160 of lawsuit has been filed, but they are imminent, and 0:06:26.240 --> 0:06:29.680 so those lawsuits will try to get the deadline extended 0:06:29.760 --> 0:06:33.360 under the theory that they violate the Administrative Procedure Act. 0:06:34.120 --> 0:06:38.159 And in addition to those lawsuits, you have the idea 0:06:38.240 --> 0:06:40.120 that maybe even if you don't put it in as 0:06:40.120 --> 0:06:44.360 a sandalue bill, it's something that is not so outrageous 0:06:44.400 --> 0:06:46.839 that it can be put into a COVID relief packet. 0:06:47.240 --> 0:06:50.040 And that's the other options that's out there out of 0:06:50.120 --> 0:06:56.039 the table. Last week, President Trump issued an executive memorandum 0:06:56.440 --> 0:07:00.120 to exclude people in the country illegally. And they are 0:07:00.240 --> 0:07:05.719 multiple lawsuits. Where does that stand? So the furthest lawsuit 0:07:05.800 --> 0:07:08.200 along is the one that was filed in New York, 0:07:08.320 --> 0:07:10.360 that was filed by the New York Attorney General. There 0:07:10.440 --> 0:07:13.360 was two others, one filed by Tomas Cause and one 0:07:13.440 --> 0:07:17.280 file in the Northern Districts of California by the State 0:07:17.280 --> 0:07:19.960 of California. But the one in New York. They had 0:07:20.000 --> 0:07:23.760 a hearing Tuesday, and as that hearing the judge, judge 0:07:23.760 --> 0:07:26.440 ferments that he wanted to have briefing resolved by the 0:07:26.520 --> 0:07:29.880 ends of August because of the fact that the census 0:07:29.880 --> 0:07:32.840 have been moved up to the ends of September. And 0:07:32.920 --> 0:07:35.200 the biggest question that he has to decide right now 0:07:35.320 --> 0:07:39.560 is because the census statutes say that anything related to 0:07:39.720 --> 0:07:44.200 apportion men, any challenge related to abortionment has a three 0:07:44.280 --> 0:07:47.360 judge panel as opposed to a one judge panel. Is 0:07:47.440 --> 0:07:52.160 this a challenge related to apportionment, which is not exactly 0:07:52.280 --> 0:07:54.480 because we're not saying New York should have had two 0:07:54.520 --> 0:07:57.680 million versus California should have had three million. We're not 0:07:57.720 --> 0:08:00.880 saying that, But is it close enough to apportion then 0:08:01.360 --> 0:08:04.960 that that should require a three judge panel, And he 0:08:05.000 --> 0:08:08.320 says it does that its Department of Justice agrees, so 0:08:08.360 --> 0:08:11.160 that they don't appeal that. Then what that would mean 0:08:11.440 --> 0:08:15.200 is that that three judge panel in New York would 0:08:15.280 --> 0:08:17.520 decide the merits of the case and then it could 0:08:17.520 --> 0:08:21.080 go directly to the Supreme Court for an appeal. In 0:08:21.200 --> 0:08:26.360 testimony before Congress, the director of the Census said that 0:08:26.440 --> 0:08:29.760 the Census Bureau is trying to come up with methodologies 0:08:30.360 --> 0:08:36.559 to implement President Trump's executive memo. What kind of methodologies 0:08:36.600 --> 0:08:40.600 could they come up with? Well, so there's two or 0:08:40.679 --> 0:08:44.760 three methodologies that the Department of Homeland Security has at 0:08:44.840 --> 0:08:50.000 its disposal. The first is they that can come up 0:08:50.040 --> 0:08:54.280 with estimates with entry exit data that they've been operating 0:08:54.320 --> 0:08:57.120 with recently, because we now know how many people exit 0:08:57.320 --> 0:09:00.600 the United States from Canada who enter, and we now 0:09:00.640 --> 0:09:02.599 know how many people ex at the airports of the 0:09:02.679 --> 0:09:05.560 United States, and so what we don't exactly know how 0:09:05.559 --> 0:09:07.840 many people would exist from the land border of Mexico. 0:09:07.920 --> 0:09:09.960 So we're gonna have a bit of an overcount, but 0:09:10.040 --> 0:09:12.000 we'll be able to know for the last few years 0:09:12.000 --> 0:09:15.559 how many visa overstays there have been on average. And 0:09:15.600 --> 0:09:17.600 then the question is, well, how many people are here 0:09:17.640 --> 0:09:21.280 who unlawfully crossed through the border, And they're they're gonna 0:09:21.320 --> 0:09:24.600 have to come up with some estimates and take from 0:09:24.600 --> 0:09:27.040 that estimate how many years are we talking about for 0:09:27.080 --> 0:09:29.800 a year, and what are we subtracting in terms of 0:09:29.800 --> 0:09:33.280 people who have been either removed or who have voluntarily left. 0:09:33.920 --> 0:09:37.080 And so that the problem with that debate is that 0:09:37.200 --> 0:09:39.920 debate always comes down in the line of foot far 0:09:40.000 --> 0:09:43.360 between ten and twenty millions, and depending on what number 0:09:43.400 --> 0:09:47.200 you choose, you're making as gramatic difference in the census. 0:09:47.320 --> 0:09:49.800 And so that's the problem. And I mean, we know 0:09:49.840 --> 0:09:51.960 what we know, but we also know what we don't know, 0:09:52.080 --> 0:09:55.400 and what we don't know is literally a ten million 0:09:55.600 --> 0:09:58.960 person spread, and that just makes too much of a 0:09:59.000 --> 0:10:03.000 difference to leave it of guesswork. So Lynn, let's say 0:10:03.040 --> 0:10:08.760 that the lawsuits fail and the Census Bureau completes its 0:10:08.880 --> 0:10:13.240 data collection and you get this census result that is 0:10:13.320 --> 0:10:19.040 questionable that scientists or sociologist question. Can anything be done 0:10:19.400 --> 0:10:24.839 once the census data is collected to change it? Well, 0:10:24.880 --> 0:10:30.280 so here's the complication. If you're challenging it based on 0:10:30.559 --> 0:10:32.960 the status issue, well, that would have been resolved in 0:10:33.000 --> 0:10:35.200 this lawsuit, so you couldn't do it on that. So 0:10:35.320 --> 0:10:39.360 you have to challenge it on how many human beings 0:10:39.520 --> 0:10:43.559 answered the census that you could verify have legal status 0:10:43.600 --> 0:10:46.400 and say that number is more than what the government 0:10:46.480 --> 0:10:50.200 gave us credit for. And so yes, you could challenge that, 0:10:50.280 --> 0:10:52.840 and it would have that same three judge panels. But 0:10:52.960 --> 0:10:55.800 the question is then you the challenger would have the 0:10:55.800 --> 0:10:59.760 burden approved to show that the government's calculation was wrong, 0:11:00.320 --> 0:11:03.959 and so that would require I think a set of 0:11:04.080 --> 0:11:08.560 chords that was interested in finding that decision. Thanks Leon, 0:11:08.840 --> 0:11:13.680 that's Leon Fresco, a partner at Hondon Knight. You're listening 0:11:13.720 --> 0:11:19.280 to Bloombird Law with June Grassol. Some infighting among conservatives 0:11:19.360 --> 0:11:23.200 could reshape the judicial selection process on the right, starting 0:11:23.200 --> 0:11:26.320 with that new list of potential Supreme Court nominees that 0:11:26.480 --> 0:11:30.200 President Trump has promised to release next month. A network 0:11:30.280 --> 0:11:33.160 at conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation and the 0:11:33.200 --> 0:11:36.760 Federalist Society have helped President Trump on his mission to 0:11:36.800 --> 0:11:40.800 make the judiciary more conservative. Recently, that movement has come 0:11:40.840 --> 0:11:44.680 under fire from social conservatives, who say it's mainly delivered 0:11:44.679 --> 0:11:50.200 business friendly judges, while conservative voters care more about restricting abortion, immigration, 0:11:50.280 --> 0:11:53.320 and lgbt Q rights. Joining me is an authority on 0:11:53.360 --> 0:11:56.120 the courts. Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of 0:11:56.200 --> 0:11:59.760 Richmond Law School, Carl, let's start with Trump's mission to 0:12:00.080 --> 0:12:04.400 have a more conservative federal judiciary. Have the Republicans been 0:12:04.520 --> 0:12:10.360 ramping back up with judicial nominations. No, Actually, the nominations 0:12:10.400 --> 0:12:14.480 and confirmations are moving rather slowly, I think in part 0:12:14.760 --> 0:12:19.440 because of the bad optics if they're confirming judges when 0:12:19.480 --> 0:12:21.959 they haven't done very much by way of a new 0:12:22.040 --> 0:12:26.800 stimulus package, and so Leada McConnell seems to be holding back. 0:12:27.200 --> 0:12:30.480 Though today there will be a closure vote and a 0:12:30.520 --> 0:12:35.720 confirmation vote on Southern District nominee for New York named Cronin. 0:12:35.960 --> 0:12:39.280 He has leap frogged ahead of a number of others, 0:12:39.320 --> 0:12:43.800 for example Eastern District nominee Jujarati, who has been waiting 0:12:43.920 --> 0:12:48.360 thirteen months for a confirmation vote. So there's some cherry 0:12:48.360 --> 0:12:52.600 picking going on, um, but pretty limited in this three 0:12:52.600 --> 0:12:56.760 week period which will end today when the Senate's returned. Uh, 0:12:56.800 --> 0:13:00.600 they've only confirmed three district judges and so there are 0:13:00.600 --> 0:13:05.200 many waiting. Let's turn now to the Supreme Court. Explain 0:13:05.280 --> 0:13:08.679 why the president has promised to release a new list 0:13:08.920 --> 0:13:13.920 of potential Supreme Court nominees. Well, I think President Trump 0:13:13.920 --> 0:13:17.400 has decided to do that because he believes in part 0:13:17.720 --> 0:13:22.320 that his election the first time hinged on his Supreme 0:13:22.360 --> 0:13:27.640 Court list, which wasn't about twenty possibilities that he promised 0:13:27.679 --> 0:13:32.600 he would pick from in filling vacancies and then justice 0:13:32.679 --> 0:13:37.760 courses and Justice Kavanaugh were on the lists or that 0:13:37.920 --> 0:13:40.840 list that he compiled, and so he's promising a new 0:13:40.880 --> 0:13:44.360 list in September, which may include some of the people 0:13:44.360 --> 0:13:47.960 on the earlier list, but a number of his appellates 0:13:48.280 --> 0:13:51.680 appointees are likely to appear on that list as well. 0:13:52.559 --> 0:13:58.400 Some social conservatives have criticized the network led by the 0:13:58.400 --> 0:14:02.520 Federalist Society and the Heritage Its Foundation that has been 0:14:02.559 --> 0:14:06.400 helping Trump choose judges and helping him with these lists, 0:14:06.440 --> 0:14:10.640 and they say that they mainly delivered business friendly judges 0:14:11.200 --> 0:14:15.520 failing right wing voters who care about restricting abortion, immigration, 0:14:15.600 --> 0:14:20.320 and lgbt Q rights. Do you see that as having 0:14:20.360 --> 0:14:27.080 happened well to some extent, I think there's substantial disappointment expressed, 0:14:27.160 --> 0:14:32.440 I think most clearly by Senator Holly from Missouri about 0:14:32.480 --> 0:14:37.480 those issues you were talking about, especially religious freedom, immigration 0:14:37.560 --> 0:14:40.840 in other areas where the Supreme Court did not rule 0:14:40.920 --> 0:14:45.000 in a way that Trump or many of his supporters 0:14:45.040 --> 0:14:50.920 like Holly and others wanted uh, And so they're trying 0:14:50.960 --> 0:14:55.040 to find a full proof way to guarantee that, but 0:14:55.440 --> 0:14:59.320 that seems to elude them. It's very difficult. Um. Even 0:14:59.640 --> 0:15:02.440 the I think there was a fair amount of vetting 0:15:02.480 --> 0:15:07.880 for the two doest justices uh, and many reassurances. The 0:15:08.000 --> 0:15:11.800 idea of going on the Supreme Court is that you 0:15:11.920 --> 0:15:17.520 will be impartial, that you can't pre judge any particular issues. 0:15:17.640 --> 0:15:22.160 So it's elusive, I think, and some people recognize that. 0:15:23.040 --> 0:15:26.600 But you're right, those criticisms are there, and so there 0:15:26.800 --> 0:15:30.080 is a lot of dispute about should they even compile this, 0:15:30.200 --> 0:15:32.600 and if they do, how do they vet the people 0:15:32.640 --> 0:15:36.200 to guarantee, as Paully says, that they'll deliver the results 0:15:36.320 --> 0:15:41.840 that their proponents want. Holly has said that he would 0:15:42.200 --> 0:15:45.800 vote to confirm Supreme Court justices only if they agree 0:15:45.920 --> 0:15:49.840 that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, So he would 0:15:49.880 --> 0:15:53.640 put the nominees in a position of having to say 0:15:53.680 --> 0:15:58.040 that a case that is now president was wrongly decided. 0:15:58.280 --> 0:16:03.200 Won't that put the nominees in a terror situation? Well could, 0:16:04.160 --> 0:16:08.640 and of course they won't agree to anything of that sort. Uh, 0:16:08.680 --> 0:16:13.400 And so it does seem like mission impossible, and even 0:16:13.520 --> 0:16:18.720 some of all these friends have criticized that. So we'll 0:16:18.760 --> 0:16:21.440 see how that all plays up. But apparently there's a 0:16:21.480 --> 0:16:24.480 lot of controversy about how to compilable list and out 0:16:24.520 --> 0:16:27.560 of that people to guarantee the results that you want, 0:16:28.320 --> 0:16:32.520 and judges in nominees, to their credit, are not going 0:16:32.560 --> 0:16:36.720 to commit beforehand, and so that's what we expect from 0:16:36.800 --> 0:16:40.360 federal judges. The Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation have been 0:16:40.400 --> 0:16:42.840 at this for a long time and they have a network. 0:16:43.000 --> 0:16:45.160 I'm just wondering how President Trump intends to put a 0:16:45.200 --> 0:16:47.880 new list together. Well, I think he's going back to 0:16:47.960 --> 0:16:53.760 those people UM at the Federal Society and Heritage and 0:16:53.800 --> 0:16:57.680 they're helping Leonard Leo, I think, who's a little advisor 0:16:57.800 --> 0:17:02.120 on judges to the president, probably will have substantial input. 0:17:02.840 --> 0:17:07.400 UH and their number of conservative groups like Judicial Confirmation 0:17:07.440 --> 0:17:11.600 Network and others who are having I expect input, and 0:17:11.760 --> 0:17:15.159 I would also expect people like Holly and the members 0:17:15.200 --> 0:17:19.720 of the Judiciary Committee, especially on the Republican side, are 0:17:19.800 --> 0:17:22.399 likely to want to have input and may well have input. 0:17:23.200 --> 0:17:26.320 And so I don't think there'll be any lack of 0:17:26.880 --> 0:17:30.760 people willing to help or names to be floated. But 0:17:30.840 --> 0:17:32.680 I think also they'll go back to the core list 0:17:32.840 --> 0:17:39.040 from UH and look at Trump's appointees of fifty three 0:17:39.040 --> 0:17:42.359 of them, perhaps to the appellate bench, does seem like 0:17:42.400 --> 0:17:44.560 the most likely choices. There are a couple of names 0:17:44.560 --> 0:17:49.000 that keep on resurfacing, and one is Naomi Rao, who 0:17:49.320 --> 0:17:52.880 was a very controversial appointee to the d C Circuit 0:17:52.960 --> 0:17:57.440 Court of Appeals, and she has been a really reliable 0:17:57.560 --> 0:18:01.359 vote for Trump, whether it's subpoenas for his financial records 0:18:01.480 --> 0:18:05.320 or the prosecution of Michael Flynn. Is she trying out 0:18:05.880 --> 0:18:09.800 for the Supreme Court? Well, as we know, and it 0:18:09.960 --> 0:18:13.520 said before the DC Circuits the second most important court 0:18:13.560 --> 0:18:17.240 in the country. Here it's been a springboard for many 0:18:17.480 --> 0:18:21.520 to join the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas 0:18:21.680 --> 0:18:25.800 just Ginsberg, Relate Justice Celia all served on that court, 0:18:25.960 --> 0:18:28.480 and so it shouldn't be surprising. And it gets exactly 0:18:28.520 --> 0:18:33.200 those kinds of controversial, high profile cases that Judge Row 0:18:33.640 --> 0:18:37.760 has been involved in. The cases are assigned randomly, but 0:18:38.000 --> 0:18:40.720 you know, it's a small court. They're leving judges, and 0:18:40.800 --> 0:18:44.159 so she seemed to draw an inordinate number of those 0:18:44.280 --> 0:18:47.840 high profile cases that involved the president. And she has 0:18:47.920 --> 0:18:51.000 generally come down on the side of the president in 0:18:51.200 --> 0:18:55.280 writing opinions or defense, so people are looking at her closely. 0:18:55.720 --> 0:19:00.440 She has very much defended executive power in trump de 0:19:00.640 --> 0:19:05.920 regulatory initiatives. What issues do conservatives have with Raw Well, 0:19:05.960 --> 0:19:10.320 I think that the DC Circuit docket hasn't served up 0:19:11.160 --> 0:19:15.680 very many of the cases that social conservatives are concerned 0:19:15.720 --> 0:19:21.719 about involving for example, abortion, immigration, UH, and those types 0:19:21.840 --> 0:19:25.440 of issues religious freedom. Those rarely come to the DC 0:19:25.600 --> 0:19:30.200 Circuit because it primarily looks at the majority of its 0:19:30.200 --> 0:19:35.920 cases are appeals of administrative agency decisions regulatory decisions typically UH. 0:19:35.960 --> 0:19:40.240 And she has much expertise in those areas, and so 0:19:40.400 --> 0:19:43.800 I think that it's less clear how she might decide 0:19:44.400 --> 0:19:50.080 the issues that trouble Auli and others the social conservatives. 0:19:50.080 --> 0:19:53.000 How will she decide on religious freedom at the Supreme 0:19:53.040 --> 0:19:58.159 Court or abortion or immigration? And she doesn't have much 0:19:58.200 --> 0:20:00.960 at track records there, there's not much of a paper trail. 0:20:01.280 --> 0:20:04.480 What about Judge any Coney Barrett, who is a Federal 0:20:04.520 --> 0:20:09.000 Appeals Court judge in Chicago. Well, she's on the Seventh Circuit, 0:20:09.119 --> 0:20:12.359 and I think the feeling among conservatives is she would 0:20:12.359 --> 0:20:18.280 be a sure bet on those kinds of issues UM. 0:20:19.000 --> 0:20:21.919 And they can look at her writings when she was 0:20:22.040 --> 0:20:25.080 a law professor and looked at her opinions on the 0:20:25.160 --> 0:20:29.399 Seventh Circuit. So she hasn't signed off on very many, 0:20:29.520 --> 0:20:32.280 but I think they feel she's a much safer vote 0:20:32.560 --> 0:20:37.720 for their views in terms of abortion, religious freedom, perhaps immigration, 0:20:38.400 --> 0:20:42.800 UH and maybe some other social conservative kinds of issues 0:20:43.320 --> 0:20:47.719 and so H. There is a paper trail there, and 0:20:47.800 --> 0:20:50.040 I think they have a higher comfort level with her. 0:20:51.400 --> 0:20:55.880 I understand that Conservatives were very upset by the rulings 0:20:55.920 --> 0:21:01.560 of a Supreme Court this term on a portion immigration 0:21:01.840 --> 0:21:05.040 and lgbt Q rights, But if you look at it, 0:21:05.400 --> 0:21:11.240 their last nominee, Rhett Kavanaugh, consistently voted with the Conservatives 0:21:11.280 --> 0:21:14.040 on the Court on those issues. So it seems as 0:21:14.119 --> 0:21:17.160 if they did do their job, their so called job, 0:21:17.280 --> 0:21:21.680 in picking him. I think that's right, more so than 0:21:21.760 --> 0:21:26.359 Justice Corsage, who seems to be somewhat more independent, And 0:21:26.400 --> 0:21:29.240 of course he did joined the majority in most the 0:21:29.320 --> 0:21:34.919 opinion the lgbt Q k UH, and so there is 0:21:35.000 --> 0:21:37.400 some difference that seems like between the two of them, 0:21:37.400 --> 0:21:41.400 at least this term. And then Chief Justice Robert has 0:21:42.119 --> 0:21:47.879 tended to be more concerned about institutional issues UH and 0:21:47.960 --> 0:21:53.520 the Court's reputation and credibility in a number of those 0:21:53.600 --> 0:21:59.000 cases as well, and he has often joined with the 0:21:59.119 --> 0:22:05.880 Democratic pointees Ellen, many of the issues that are troubling 0:22:05.920 --> 0:22:09.440 to some social conservatives, but not an abortion. An abortion. 0:22:09.520 --> 0:22:13.520 He remained with the conservatives. Why I question all this, 0:22:13.720 --> 0:22:16.879 you know, looking and and vetting, because it seems to 0:22:16.880 --> 0:22:23.600 me that the most reliable conservative votes are Justices Clarence 0:22:23.640 --> 0:22:29.760 Thomas and Samuel Alito, who were picked well before this process. Yes, 0:22:29.880 --> 0:22:33.000 that's right, um, but maybe that just points out it's 0:22:33.080 --> 0:22:37.200 very difficult to predict exactly how people will resolve cases. 0:22:37.800 --> 0:22:42.639 So I think, um, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and 0:22:42.720 --> 0:22:46.800 then it were concerned that both of those justices um 0:22:46.920 --> 0:22:50.439 mant to be quite conservative, and they have prooves to be, 0:22:51.160 --> 0:22:55.040 and so it's not always easy to do to predict 0:22:55.359 --> 0:22:59.359 where I would justice aside, especially one who's open minded 0:22:59.400 --> 0:23:01.560 and side be cased on the law and the fact 0:23:02.440 --> 0:23:05.560 the Supreme Court is getting the highest approval ratings in 0:23:05.600 --> 0:23:09.760 a decade, with widespread support for how the justices are 0:23:09.800 --> 0:23:13.719 doing their job across the ideological spectrum, according to a 0:23:13.720 --> 0:23:19.280 new Gallop pole released Wednesday. What do you make of that? Well, 0:23:19.520 --> 0:23:24.520 I guess the American people like courts that besides the 0:23:24.600 --> 0:23:27.560 law and the cases on the law, and the fact 0:23:28.240 --> 0:23:33.639 that doesn't seem so partisan or ideologically divided, though we'll 0:23:33.680 --> 0:23:39.479 see um so this term. I think people who favor 0:23:39.600 --> 0:23:44.919 more moderate decisions and less partisanship were relieved by some 0:23:45.000 --> 0:23:48.879 of the decisions. But it really depends on what happens 0:23:48.880 --> 0:23:51.800 in the longer term, So we'll have to just see 0:23:52.000 --> 0:23:55.600 how that all plays out in subsequent terms and whether 0:23:55.720 --> 0:23:58.879 their new justices and who wins the election in November. 0:23:59.400 --> 0:24:01.280 Do you think that the Supreme Court is going to 0:24:01.359 --> 0:24:06.000 be a real issue in the upcoming election, Well, I 0:24:06.040 --> 0:24:10.000 think it's likely because President Trump, I think, has promised 0:24:10.000 --> 0:24:12.520 that he would make it an issue. Even it's one 0:24:12.560 --> 0:24:15.960 of his great success stories, and maybe the most important 0:24:16.000 --> 0:24:19.520 one is is appoint each to the Spreme Court and 0:24:19.560 --> 0:24:22.760 certainly to the Federal Appeals Court, who will be serving 0:24:22.840 --> 0:24:27.280 for decades after he left the Thanks Carl. That's Professor 0:24:27.320 --> 0:24:31.720 Carl Tobias at the University of Richmond Law School. A 0:24:31.840 --> 0:24:34.920 bail hearing by Zoom for the seventeen year old accused 0:24:34.920 --> 0:24:38.040 of hacking some of the world's highest profile Twitter accounts 0:24:38.200 --> 0:24:42.000 offered some surprises about the teenagers past brushes with the law, 0:24:42.359 --> 0:24:45.240 and then the hearing about the hacker was hacked itself 0:24:45.440 --> 0:24:48.359 and raunchy images were shown, bringing the hearing to an 0:24:48.400 --> 0:24:53.800 abrupt close, joining me as Bloomberg Legal reporter Christopher domesh So, Chris, 0:24:53.840 --> 0:24:56.960 this was a bail hearing for the seventeen year old 0:24:57.280 --> 0:25:00.639 grandm Ivan Clark, who was charged with hacking into the 0:25:00.680 --> 0:25:06.520 accounts of notable businesspeople, celebrities, and politicians, including former President 0:25:06.600 --> 0:25:11.879 Barack Obama, Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos, and Tesla CEO. 0:25:12.040 --> 0:25:15.399 Elon Musk tell us what happened at his bail hearing. 0:25:15.840 --> 0:25:19.399 So it was your pretty typical zoom court hearing. It 0:25:19.480 --> 0:25:21.280 took a little while to get going. There were a 0:25:21.280 --> 0:25:23.680 lot of different people on the line, obviously given the 0:25:23.760 --> 0:25:29.040 high profile nature of the case. And eventually they got started. 0:25:29.640 --> 0:25:32.600 And the argument that the lawyer was making is at 0:25:32.600 --> 0:25:36.080 his bail, which is seven twenty five thousand dollars, it's 0:25:36.200 --> 0:25:39.880 way disproportionate to the alleged loss in the case, which 0:25:39.920 --> 0:25:43.640 is about hundred seventeen thousand. He had made his arguments. 0:25:43.640 --> 0:25:46.479 The prosecutor had argued against that, saying that they had 0:25:46.520 --> 0:25:48.960 only begun to examine the you know, the depth of 0:25:49.000 --> 0:25:51.879 this conduct. And it was hearing the end of the 0:25:51.920 --> 0:25:54.359 hearing um and it seemed like the judge was about 0:25:54.400 --> 0:25:58.520 to make a ruling when some pretty graphic images came 0:25:58.600 --> 0:26:01.879 on the screen. I mean, we've had, you know, obviously 0:26:02.000 --> 0:26:04.119 as the pandemic's gone on, we've had a lot of 0:26:04.359 --> 0:26:08.480 interruptions on zoone calls and teleconferences between dogs barking and 0:26:08.560 --> 0:26:11.320