1
00:00:02,800 --> 00:00:07,040
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,840 --> 00:00:12,080
Speaker 2: For the first time, twenty nine Appellate Court judges on

3
00:00:12,160 --> 00:00:15,960
Speaker 2: the Ninth Circuit have issued a harsh rebuke to one

4
00:00:15,960 --> 00:00:19,360
Speaker 2: of their colleagues for coarse language he used in a

5
00:00:19,360 --> 00:00:23,720
Speaker 2: dissenting opinion. The full court had decided not to review

6
00:00:23,960 --> 00:00:27,600
Speaker 2: on bank a ruling by a three judge panel against

7
00:00:27,680 --> 00:00:32,080
Speaker 2: a Christian known SPA that wanted to exclude transgender women

8
00:00:32,120 --> 00:00:36,440
Speaker 2: from its facilities on free speech grounds. Judge Lawrence Van Dyke,

9
00:00:36,600 --> 00:00:40,879
Speaker 2: a Trump appoint d, used vulgar language to describe transgender

10
00:00:40,920 --> 00:00:44,840
Speaker 2: women in his descent that prompted a harsh rebuke from

11
00:00:44,840 --> 00:00:49,239
Speaker 2: his colleagues across the ideological spectrum. They wrote that the

12
00:00:49,400 --> 00:00:54,040
Speaker 2: US legal system is not a place for vulgar barroom talk,

13
00:00:54,440 --> 00:00:58,920
Speaker 2: and that Van Dyke's descent ignores ordinary principles of dignity

14
00:00:58,960 --> 00:01:03,400
Speaker 2: and civility and demeans this court quote. That language makes

15
00:01:03,480 --> 00:01:07,520
Speaker 2: us sound like juveniles, not judges, and it undermines public

16
00:01:07,640 --> 00:01:11,240
Speaker 2: trust in the courts. My guest is retired federal Judge

17
00:01:11,360 --> 00:01:15,640
Speaker 2: Johnny Jones the third. He's the president of Dickinson College.

18
00:01:16,440 --> 00:01:21,319
Speaker 2: Judge Jones what's your reaction to Judge Van Dyke using

19
00:01:21,400 --> 00:01:24,920
Speaker 2: vulgar language that I'm not going to repeat here to

20
00:01:25,000 --> 00:01:29,280
Speaker 2: refer to transgender women three times in his descent and

21
00:01:29,360 --> 00:01:32,760
Speaker 2: said that his colleagues had lost their collective minds.

22
00:01:33,360 --> 00:01:37,479
Speaker 3: Well, I've never quite read a judicial opinion like what

23
00:01:37,600 --> 00:01:41,399
Speaker 3: Judge Van Dyke rendered, And you know, at the end

24
00:01:41,400 --> 00:01:46,720
Speaker 3: of the day, I think it's unfortunate and it's inappropriately word.

25
00:01:46,720 --> 00:01:49,840
Speaker 3: Did I agree with his colleague who opined that were

26
00:01:49,840 --> 00:01:56,040
Speaker 3: better than this. It's way too sensational, it's way too cavalier.

27
00:01:56,520 --> 00:01:59,480
Speaker 3: And you know, the other appellation that he used in

28
00:01:59,520 --> 00:02:03,600
Speaker 3: the opinion is referring to his colleagues as woke, and

29
00:02:03,920 --> 00:02:08,480
Speaker 3: it's just wholly intemperate. And I think it portends that

30
00:02:08,880 --> 00:02:11,560
Speaker 3: he's going to have a very difficult working relationship if

31
00:02:11,600 --> 00:02:13,840
Speaker 3: he didn't already with his colleagues on the circuit.

32
00:02:14,320 --> 00:02:16,960
Speaker 2: Well, there was a scathing rebuke from twenty seven of

33
00:02:17,000 --> 00:02:20,720
Speaker 2: his own colleagues on the Ninth Circuit, including very conservative

34
00:02:20,760 --> 00:02:24,520
Speaker 2: judges and Trump appointees, and as you mentioned, two judges,

35
00:02:24,560 --> 00:02:27,480
Speaker 2: a Trump appointing and Obama appointee. He wrote a separate,

36
00:02:27,600 --> 00:02:32,480
Speaker 2: single line sentence saying regarding this dissenting opinion of Judge Vandyke.

37
00:02:32,560 --> 00:02:35,000
Speaker 2: We're better than this. Have you ever heard of a

38
00:02:35,040 --> 00:02:38,600
Speaker 2: rebuke like that from colleagues on the court?

39
00:02:39,000 --> 00:02:43,359
Speaker 3: No, I haven't, and I've read some really vigorous descents.

40
00:02:43,880 --> 00:02:47,560
Speaker 3: Justice Scalia could really sharpen his pen in his descent.

41
00:02:48,080 --> 00:02:51,760
Speaker 3: They were kind of entertaining, in part because he didn't

42
00:02:51,800 --> 00:02:55,440
Speaker 3: do it with particularly animus. There was one time in

43
00:02:55,560 --> 00:03:00,079
Speaker 3: history that I've read about where he and Justice Kennedy

44
00:03:00,120 --> 00:03:03,440
Speaker 3: clashed and they both regretted it, but the rhetoric wasn't

45
00:03:03,480 --> 00:03:07,120
Speaker 3: anything close to what you see in this rendering. You know,

46
00:03:07,680 --> 00:03:11,720
Speaker 3: appell at courts like the Ninth Circuit have to work together,

47
00:03:11,960 --> 00:03:15,720
Speaker 3: and they may have widely disparate views. But the interesting

48
00:03:15,760 --> 00:03:19,520
Speaker 3: thing about courts is that while people come from all stripes,

49
00:03:19,520 --> 00:03:21,920
Speaker 3: and I had a very diverse court in the Middle

50
00:03:21,919 --> 00:03:24,960
Speaker 3: District of Pennsylvania. The District Court, you know, you tend

51
00:03:24,960 --> 00:03:28,960
Speaker 3: to check your you know, sort of sensational activities and

52
00:03:29,000 --> 00:03:32,240
Speaker 3: attitudes at the door and really work to get along

53
00:03:32,280 --> 00:03:35,440
Speaker 3: with your colleagues for the good of the third branch.

54
00:03:35,720 --> 00:03:39,480
Speaker 3: And this kind of I can only characterize it as grandstanding.

55
00:03:39,800 --> 00:03:43,800
Speaker 3: I think really casts Judge Van dyke in an unfortunately

56
00:03:43,800 --> 00:03:46,680
Speaker 3: bad light, and this is not his first rodeo. As

57
00:03:46,680 --> 00:03:50,040
Speaker 3: they say, you know, having a dissent by video is

58
00:03:50,320 --> 00:03:54,120
Speaker 3: I would also say, probably too cute by half, yeah.

59
00:03:54,000 --> 00:03:57,960
Speaker 2: To record an eighteen minute video in his judicial robes

60
00:03:58,400 --> 00:04:01,720
Speaker 2: handling several firearms as part of a descent from a

61
00:04:01,800 --> 00:04:06,280
Speaker 2: Ninth Circuit decision that upheld a California gun control law.

62
00:04:06,800 --> 00:04:11,320
Speaker 2: Sometimes when judges write these opinions with shock elements, they're

63
00:04:11,360 --> 00:04:16,080
Speaker 2: referred to as auditions for the Supreme Court. A judge

64
00:04:16,120 --> 00:04:19,520
Speaker 2: is trying to get the attention of President Trump in

65
00:04:19,560 --> 00:04:23,000
Speaker 2: a way that President Trump would like in order to

66
00:04:23,760 --> 00:04:25,359
Speaker 2: become a nominee on the Court.

67
00:04:26,160 --> 00:04:29,640
Speaker 3: You know, I guess that you could say that he's

68
00:04:29,680 --> 00:04:33,000
Speaker 3: auditioning for something. I don't know what, but you know,

69
00:04:33,040 --> 00:04:35,520
Speaker 3: he comes off, as I have to use this phrase,

70
00:04:35,560 --> 00:04:37,440
Speaker 3: He comes off as a jackass by the way he

71
00:04:37,480 --> 00:04:39,960
Speaker 3: writes the opinion. And I think that he's going to

72
00:04:40,040 --> 00:04:43,359
Speaker 3: have a hard time if his quest is, you know,

73
00:04:43,440 --> 00:04:46,559
Speaker 3: to be taken seriously as a Supreme Court nominee. He's

74
00:04:46,600 --> 00:04:49,240
Speaker 3: getting an F grade in that. I don't think it's

75
00:04:49,279 --> 00:04:51,560
Speaker 3: going to work for him. This is the kind of

76
00:04:51,600 --> 00:04:54,359
Speaker 3: stuff that would really get you beaten up, perhaps in

77
00:04:54,400 --> 00:04:57,680
Speaker 3: a bipartisan way in his Senate confirmation, So good luck

78
00:04:57,680 --> 00:05:00,000
Speaker 3: to him, But he doesn't look like a Supreme Court

79
00:05:00,200 --> 00:05:02,280
Speaker 3: nominee to me in any way, shape or form.

80
00:05:02,800 --> 00:05:07,080
Speaker 2: In their response, his colleagues said that it could undermine

81
00:05:07,080 --> 00:05:10,480
Speaker 2: public trust in the courts. Do you think that's something

82
00:05:10,600 --> 00:05:14,039
Speaker 2: like this could undermine public confidence in the courts.

83
00:05:14,440 --> 00:05:17,000
Speaker 3: It depends how widely disseminated the opinion is. To be

84
00:05:17,520 --> 00:05:20,159
Speaker 3: perfectly honest, but it could get viral. I guess it's

85
00:05:20,200 --> 00:05:22,680
Speaker 3: certainly been written about in a number of different places.

86
00:05:22,960 --> 00:05:25,799
Speaker 3: I don't know that the general public reads these things.

87
00:05:25,880 --> 00:05:28,919
Speaker 3: But you know, at a time when I think the

88
00:05:28,960 --> 00:05:32,200
Speaker 3: third branch has been under assault by the administration, and

89
00:05:32,600 --> 00:05:36,560
Speaker 3: you know, judge's integrity has been questioned, you know, every

90
00:05:36,600 --> 00:05:39,400
Speaker 3: time they rule in a way that displeases the President

91
00:05:39,480 --> 00:05:42,520
Speaker 3: and the Attorney General and so forth, you don't need this.

92
00:05:42,520 --> 00:05:47,440
Speaker 3: This is not helpful. Judges on appellate courts have disagreed

93
00:05:48,040 --> 00:05:50,320
Speaker 3: since the beginning of the Republic and the creation of

94
00:05:50,360 --> 00:05:52,720
Speaker 3: the circuit courts, which came along, of course, after the

95
00:05:53,400 --> 00:05:56,520
Speaker 3: Supreme Court was created, and they've done it with you know,

96
00:05:56,560 --> 00:06:00,440
Speaker 3: a modicum of civility, but sometimes very directly. This is

97
00:06:00,480 --> 00:06:04,120
Speaker 3: really beyond the pale. You know, it's hey, look notice me,

98
00:06:04,360 --> 00:06:08,960
Speaker 3: because I can say really sensational, inflammatory things, and I

99
00:06:09,000 --> 00:06:11,320
Speaker 3: don't believe that that's appropriate in the business of judging.

100
00:06:11,320 --> 00:06:13,920
Speaker 3: And I hasten that I turned some pretty good phrases.

101
00:06:13,960 --> 00:06:15,720
Speaker 3: I thought. When I was on the court, I took

102
00:06:15,839 --> 00:06:19,240
Speaker 3: swings at some really interesting cases. And I love to write,

103
00:06:19,320 --> 00:06:22,039
Speaker 3: and I love to write with meaning and effect, but

104
00:06:22,160 --> 00:06:25,440
Speaker 3: not like this. And I sat by designation, I should

105
00:06:25,480 --> 00:06:28,320
Speaker 3: note on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals many times.

106
00:06:28,600 --> 00:06:31,600
Speaker 3: And this is really diletorious when it comes to your

107
00:06:31,600 --> 00:06:35,000
Speaker 3: working relationships with your with your fellow judges, and you know,

108
00:06:35,080 --> 00:06:36,920
Speaker 3: because you work in close quarters with them.

109
00:06:37,200 --> 00:06:38,920
Speaker 2: Is there a point, you know, we mentioned there was

110
00:06:38,960 --> 00:06:42,159
Speaker 2: another instance. Is there a point where there could be

111
00:06:42,400 --> 00:06:44,160
Speaker 2: disciplinary proceedings?

112
00:06:44,560 --> 00:06:46,800
Speaker 3: You know, that's an interesting question. You know, I don't know.

113
00:06:47,160 --> 00:06:50,920
Speaker 3: I don't think there's anything particularly actionable in the opinion

114
00:06:51,000 --> 00:06:56,200
Speaker 3: from a judicial discipline standpoint. Generally, something like this, and

115
00:06:56,320 --> 00:06:59,560
Speaker 3: I've heard of this happening in a number of cases.

116
00:07:00,279 --> 00:07:03,680
Speaker 3: You may get a call from the chief judge of

117
00:07:03,720 --> 00:07:06,279
Speaker 3: the Circuit and you know, kind of be taken to

118
00:07:06,360 --> 00:07:08,640
Speaker 3: the woodshed by the circuit and say, look, you know

119
00:07:08,720 --> 00:07:12,200
Speaker 3: this isn't helpful. I read up on the good Judge

120
00:07:12,240 --> 00:07:15,520
Speaker 3: Vandyk and I don't think he's of a nature that

121
00:07:15,520 --> 00:07:19,000
Speaker 3: that would resonate with him. And I'm guessing that perhaps

122
00:07:19,040 --> 00:07:23,360
Speaker 3: after the video descent in which he was literally brandishing firearms,

123
00:07:23,360 --> 00:07:25,920
Speaker 3: that he's already had a brushback pitch thrown at him

124
00:07:25,960 --> 00:07:28,720
Speaker 3: by some colleagues in the circuit. He doesn't appear to

125
00:07:28,760 --> 00:07:31,520
Speaker 3: be of a mind to listen side. I don't think

126
00:07:31,560 --> 00:07:34,240
Speaker 3: that would be particularly efficacious in this case. I mean,

127
00:07:34,240 --> 00:07:38,200
Speaker 3: I've seen judges, you know, who've had maybe too aggressive

128
00:07:38,280 --> 00:07:41,640
Speaker 3: language in their opinions. Older colleagues, you know, take him

129
00:07:41,640 --> 00:07:43,600
Speaker 3: aside and you know, try to help them, and they

130
00:07:43,840 --> 00:07:46,880
Speaker 3: generally they listen to that. But this, I've never quite

131
00:07:46,880 --> 00:07:47,600
Speaker 3: seen anything like this.

132
00:07:48,080 --> 00:07:49,800
Speaker 2: Also, I just want to point out that when he

133
00:07:49,920 --> 00:07:54,200
Speaker 2: was nominated, the American Bar Association rated him not qualified,

134
00:07:54,560 --> 00:07:57,560
Speaker 2: with some lawyers and judges saying he was arrogant, lazy,

135
00:07:57,640 --> 00:08:00,000
Speaker 2: and an ideologue who doesn't have an open mind.

136
00:08:00,720 --> 00:08:03,400
Speaker 3: Other than that, he's perfectly qualified for the bench. Obviously,

137
00:08:04,080 --> 00:08:07,280
Speaker 3: you know, I read that, and he certainly, you know,

138
00:08:07,520 --> 00:08:09,280
Speaker 3: if you get ding like that, and of course a

139
00:08:09,320 --> 00:08:11,360
Speaker 3: lot of people don't like the ABA process and so forth.

140
00:08:11,440 --> 00:08:13,240
Speaker 3: But if you get ding like that as you're going

141
00:08:13,280 --> 00:08:16,800
Speaker 3: through your confirmation, you would think that you want to

142
00:08:16,840 --> 00:08:19,760
Speaker 3: sort of enhance your reputation and prove to everybody that

143
00:08:19,800 --> 00:08:23,600
Speaker 3: you're qualified by doing things like this. It's, you know,

144
00:08:23,760 --> 00:08:26,960
Speaker 3: just the opposite. And to my comment earlier you in

145
00:08:27,040 --> 00:08:29,800
Speaker 3: about you know, working in close quarters. You know, you

146
00:08:29,840 --> 00:08:32,800
Speaker 3: sit typically in three judge panels unless you're on bank

147
00:08:32,840 --> 00:08:34,959
Speaker 3: and the whole court sits, which I guess I don't

148
00:08:35,000 --> 00:08:36,840
Speaker 3: know how they do that necessarily in the Ninth Circuit

149
00:08:36,880 --> 00:08:39,000
Speaker 3: with all the judges they have, but it doesn't matter.

150
00:08:39,400 --> 00:08:42,400
Speaker 3: I mean, you have to fashion an opinion. There's a

151
00:08:42,400 --> 00:08:46,240
Speaker 3: lot of trading off, and you're shuttling between well, first

152
00:08:46,280 --> 00:08:48,400
Speaker 3: of all, you may hear a oral argument and then

153
00:08:48,480 --> 00:08:51,200
Speaker 3: you cauc us after that and get a preliminary view,

154
00:08:51,600 --> 00:08:54,240
Speaker 3: and you know, you're hanging out with your colleagues. Sometimes

155
00:08:54,280 --> 00:08:57,079
Speaker 3: you have lunch with them after a particular sitting. And

156
00:08:57,400 --> 00:08:59,959
Speaker 3: I enjoyed doing that. I wasn't used to doing it

157
00:09:00,000 --> 00:09:02,080
Speaker 3: because I was a trial judge, but the times that

158
00:09:02,120 --> 00:09:04,280
Speaker 3: I was elevated to the circuit, I got to know

159
00:09:04,440 --> 00:09:07,320
Speaker 3: some folks that I hadn't known before, and you know,

160
00:09:07,440 --> 00:09:10,480
Speaker 3: collaborated with them on different opinions, and you sort of

161
00:09:10,480 --> 00:09:12,760
Speaker 3: work in that fashion even if you dissent. I mean,

162
00:09:12,800 --> 00:09:16,160
Speaker 3: you do it that way. Just imagine the next time

163
00:09:16,200 --> 00:09:18,400
Speaker 3: this guy is sitting with some of the colleagues who

164
00:09:18,640 --> 00:09:20,959
Speaker 3: castigated him in this case, it's going to be like

165
00:09:21,000 --> 00:09:24,280
Speaker 3: he's radioactive. And you can't trust a guy like that

166
00:09:24,920 --> 00:09:27,920
Speaker 3: to kind of act as according to what I would

167
00:09:27,920 --> 00:09:31,360
Speaker 3: describe as judicial norms. And you know, I'm as progressive

168
00:09:31,360 --> 00:09:33,679
Speaker 3: as the next guy, but this isn't like blazing new

169
00:09:33,800 --> 00:09:37,360
Speaker 3: territory and deciding cases. This is sensationalistic and I just

170
00:09:37,400 --> 00:09:38,440
Speaker 3: don't think it as a place.

171
00:09:38,720 --> 00:09:40,679
Speaker 2: And also I want to point out that this is

172
00:09:41,440 --> 00:09:45,920
Speaker 2: about the Ninth Circuit not going on bank to review

173
00:09:45,960 --> 00:09:50,199
Speaker 2: a judge's ruling dismissing this lawsuit against a SPA as

174
00:09:50,200 --> 00:09:53,200
Speaker 2: against the Washington anti discrimination law. And the Ninth Circuit

175
00:09:53,200 --> 00:09:56,120
Speaker 2: gets hundreds of requests for on bank review every year,

176
00:09:56,160 --> 00:09:59,200
Speaker 2: and only here's cases on bank fifteen or twenty five

177
00:09:59,320 --> 00:10:02,840
Speaker 2: times a year. So I wonder why did he choose

178
00:10:02,920 --> 00:10:07,840
Speaker 2: this to issue this kind of a scathing descent Unless

179
00:10:07,840 --> 00:10:10,840
Speaker 2: it was because of the transgender issue in the case.

180
00:10:11,679 --> 00:10:13,400
Speaker 3: Well, we'd have to climb in his head to figure

181
00:10:13,400 --> 00:10:15,040
Speaker 3: it out. But you know, he might have been looking

182
00:10:15,040 --> 00:10:18,320
Speaker 3: for a spot to kind of flex his rhetoric. I

183
00:10:18,400 --> 00:10:21,320
Speaker 3: don't know for sure, but you're right, I mean more

184
00:10:21,400 --> 00:10:25,560
Speaker 3: unorthodox is writing this extensively in a matter of the

185
00:10:25,640 --> 00:10:31,319
Speaker 3: denial of on bonk hearing. That's not normal, so to speak. Basically,

186
00:10:31,400 --> 00:10:35,160
Speaker 3: they let the decision stand, you know, by the panel

187
00:10:35,320 --> 00:10:37,920
Speaker 3: and as you aptly note, the volume of cases they

188
00:10:37,960 --> 00:10:40,440
Speaker 3: get because of the scope the sweep of the Ninth

189
00:10:40,480 --> 00:10:43,800
Speaker 3: Circuit is absolutely incredible, so you know, more often than

190
00:10:43,800 --> 00:10:47,120
Speaker 3: not most of the time, as you point out, again aptly,

191
00:10:47,320 --> 00:10:50,480
Speaker 3: they can't hear these cases on bonk. But again what

192
00:10:50,640 --> 00:10:54,360
Speaker 3: his motivation was. But he seems to be picking spots

193
00:10:54,400 --> 00:10:57,360
Speaker 3: because in the other case, the firearms case, he made

194
00:10:57,400 --> 00:10:59,839
Speaker 3: a sort of cost leve out of that as well.

195
00:11:00,320 --> 00:11:02,920
Speaker 2: Stay with me, Judge Jones coming up next on The

196
00:11:02,920 --> 00:11:07,720
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Show. Chief Justice John Roberts slammed dangerous attacks

197
00:11:07,720 --> 00:11:12,079
Speaker 2: on judges in his first public comments since President Trump

198
00:11:12,200 --> 00:11:16,880
Speaker 2: blasted justices who voted to strike down his global tariffs.

199
00:11:17,520 --> 00:11:20,640
Speaker 2: I've been talking to former federal Judge Johnny Jones, the

200
00:11:20,679 --> 00:11:25,439
Speaker 2: third Judge Jones, you mentioned the criticism of judges, and

201
00:11:25,600 --> 00:11:29,600
Speaker 2: from the very beginning, this administration has been calling out

202
00:11:29,640 --> 00:11:34,880
Speaker 2: individual judges for their decisions and calling them woke and activists.

203
00:11:35,320 --> 00:11:38,959
Speaker 2: And President Trump, in response to the sixty three ruling

204
00:11:39,040 --> 00:11:45,360
Speaker 2: that upended his signature economic policy of tariffs, assailed the

205
00:11:45,679 --> 00:11:51,240
Speaker 2: justices who ruled against him, calling them fools, lap dogs, unpatriotic,

206
00:11:51,440 --> 00:11:56,640
Speaker 2: disloyal to our constitution, and an embarrassment to their families.

207
00:11:57,080 --> 00:12:01,520
Speaker 2: And he followed up those comments in a series of

208
00:12:01,760 --> 00:12:06,120
Speaker 2: social media posts accusing the Court of being a weaponized

209
00:12:06,200 --> 00:12:11,719
Speaker 2: and unjust political organization. Well, today, during a conversation at

210
00:12:11,800 --> 00:12:16,960
Speaker 2: Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy, the Chief Justice

211
00:12:17,080 --> 00:12:22,920
Speaker 2: made his first comments about the criticism, without naming President Trump.

212
00:12:23,280 --> 00:12:27,840
Speaker 2: He said that hostility toward judges was creating a dangerous environment.

213
00:12:28,080 --> 00:12:29,720
Speaker 2: Let's listen to part of his comments.

214
00:12:30,360 --> 00:12:35,040
Speaker 1: The problem sometimes is that the criticism can move from

215
00:12:35,040 --> 00:12:42,000
Speaker 1: a focus on legal analysis to personalities, and you see

216
00:12:42,920 --> 00:12:46,280
Speaker 1: from all over, i mean, not just any one political

217
00:12:46,320 --> 00:12:51,680
Speaker 1: perspective on it, that it's more directed in a personal way,

218
00:12:51,880 --> 00:12:57,840
Speaker 1: and that frankly, can be actually quite dangerous judges around

219
00:12:57,840 --> 00:13:02,480
Speaker 1: the country work very hard to get it right, and

220
00:13:02,559 --> 00:13:09,760
Speaker 1: if they don't, their opinions are subject criticism. But personally

221
00:13:09,800 --> 00:13:15,480
Speaker 1: directed hostility is dangerous and it's got to sun.

222
00:13:16,200 --> 00:13:18,839
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is a big statement from the Chief. And

223
00:13:19,120 --> 00:13:23,080
Speaker 3: I absolutely respect the Chief Justice. I think that he's

224
00:13:23,080 --> 00:13:26,120
Speaker 3: been a terrific leader of the federal courts. Agree or

225
00:13:26,120 --> 00:13:29,600
Speaker 3: disagree with his decisions. He became Chief Justice when I

226
00:13:29,720 --> 00:13:33,240
Speaker 3: was on the bench. He's about my same age. I think,

227
00:13:33,400 --> 00:13:36,200
Speaker 3: you know, he's stood up historically for his judges, but

228
00:13:36,240 --> 00:13:39,160
Speaker 3: for him to go this far means to me that

229
00:13:39,400 --> 00:13:42,640
Speaker 3: he appreciates that this has reached critical mass. I was

230
00:13:42,840 --> 00:13:45,679
Speaker 3: privileged to be on sixty Minutes a couple of weeks

231
00:13:45,679 --> 00:13:48,880
Speaker 3: ago and a spot on threats against the judiciary, and

232
00:13:49,240 --> 00:13:51,960
Speaker 3: I said very straightforwardly that we're going to get a

233
00:13:52,000 --> 00:13:54,920
Speaker 3: judge killed if we're not careful. And I think this

234
00:13:55,040 --> 00:13:59,240
Speaker 3: is resonating now with the Supreme Court. And while I

235
00:13:59,320 --> 00:14:04,280
Speaker 3: know that the Chief was being cautious, although his statements

236
00:14:04,280 --> 00:14:08,840
Speaker 3: were pretty pretty strong, pretty profound, that it has to stop. Look,

237
00:14:08,880 --> 00:14:12,800
Speaker 3: there's only one set of offenders right now. You could

238
00:14:12,840 --> 00:14:15,480
Speaker 3: go back and talk about Chuck Schumer, and you can

239
00:14:15,520 --> 00:14:19,200
Speaker 3: talk about other people who made comments about decisions by

240
00:14:19,480 --> 00:14:25,120
Speaker 3: Republican appointed judges. But they're completely different in their nature

241
00:14:25,240 --> 00:14:29,240
Speaker 3: than what we've seen the constant drumbeat from this administration

242
00:14:29,480 --> 00:14:34,080
Speaker 3: literally from January twentieth of last year. And you know,

243
00:14:34,200 --> 00:14:37,480
Speaker 3: I think the president's rhetoric, the Attorney General's rhetoric, Todd

244
00:14:37,480 --> 00:14:40,120
Speaker 3: Blanche for example, saying there's a war in the judiciary.

245
00:14:40,320 --> 00:14:43,640
Speaker 3: I think this is this is really really beyond the pale.

246
00:14:43,920 --> 00:14:47,040
Speaker 3: And you know, we're seeing judges docks, We're seeing judges

247
00:14:47,040 --> 00:14:51,920
Speaker 3: having pizzas delivered to them anonymously, and somebody's going to

248
00:14:52,320 --> 00:14:55,200
Speaker 3: take up arms and they're going to do harm to

249
00:14:55,280 --> 00:14:58,240
Speaker 3: a judge or a judge's family. And I think the

250
00:14:58,320 --> 00:15:00,400
Speaker 3: chiefs had enough of it, and that's that's why he

251
00:15:00,480 --> 00:15:03,120
Speaker 3: picked a spot at Rice University and decided to speak out.

252
00:15:03,440 --> 00:15:04,160
Speaker 3: Good for him.

253
00:15:04,680 --> 00:15:07,480
Speaker 2: Do you have any confidence that this is going to

254
00:15:07,920 --> 00:15:11,760
Speaker 2: get the president or those in his administration to tame

255
00:15:11,920 --> 00:15:12,720
Speaker 2: their remarks.

256
00:15:13,120 --> 00:15:15,680
Speaker 3: Well, it won't stop, June, But I'll tell you what's happening.

257
00:15:15,960 --> 00:15:18,400
Speaker 3: You know, you're seeing for the first time now that

258
00:15:18,520 --> 00:15:22,800
Speaker 3: grand juries are not indicting people, They're issuing no bills

259
00:15:22,840 --> 00:15:26,640
Speaker 3: in cases. So this president would want to, I think,

260
00:15:26,840 --> 00:15:29,440
Speaker 3: use the apparatus of the criminal justice system of the

261
00:15:29,560 --> 00:15:33,720
Speaker 3: Justice Department to you know, bring punitive actions against his enemies.

262
00:15:34,160 --> 00:15:37,080
Speaker 3: And what he's done is I think he's poisoned the

263
00:15:37,120 --> 00:15:39,760
Speaker 3: well and good citizens who are called to serve on

264
00:15:39,840 --> 00:15:43,280
Speaker 3: grand juries are not buying it. And judges too, Judge Bozburg,

265
00:15:43,360 --> 00:15:46,360
Speaker 3: for example, you know, who quashed a subpoena almost never

266
00:15:46,480 --> 00:15:49,880
Speaker 3: happens in the case of Jerome Powell. So judges and

267
00:15:49,960 --> 00:15:54,000
Speaker 3: grand jurors are wise to the ways of this administration.

268
00:15:54,120 --> 00:15:57,560
Speaker 3: I mean, these sort of consequences of this are expanding.

269
00:15:57,840 --> 00:16:00,320
Speaker 3: For example, you know, the duty of cant to the

270
00:16:00,360 --> 00:16:03,480
Speaker 3: court is observed in the breach I think by government

271
00:16:03,520 --> 00:16:06,760
Speaker 3: attorneys daily. They have utterly lost their credibility with the

272
00:16:06,760 --> 00:16:10,240
Speaker 3: federal judiciary. You know, judges simply don't believe what lawyers

273
00:16:10,280 --> 00:16:14,320
Speaker 3: are saying to them. And that's really sad because you know,

274
00:16:14,400 --> 00:16:17,120
Speaker 3: I learned over my almost twenty years in the bench

275
00:16:17,160 --> 00:16:21,360
Speaker 3: that the Justice Department was extremely professional and reliable, and

276
00:16:21,400 --> 00:16:23,640
Speaker 3: you know, you typically could take them at their word.

277
00:16:23,680 --> 00:16:27,040
Speaker 3: That has been eviscerated by this administration. So while I

278
00:16:27,080 --> 00:16:30,240
Speaker 3: don't expect them to stop, they're reaping what they're sewing.

279
00:16:30,440 --> 00:16:33,880
Speaker 3: And you know, I've never seen so many no bills

280
00:16:34,080 --> 00:16:36,520
Speaker 3: issued from Grand Jury's it's remarkable.

281
00:16:36,760 --> 00:16:39,200
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for joining me today, Judge Jones. It's

282
00:16:39,240 --> 00:16:43,400
Speaker 2: always great to get your insights. That's Judge Johnny Jones,

283
00:16:43,440 --> 00:16:48,280
Speaker 2: the third the president of Dickinson College. Health and Human

284
00:16:48,400 --> 00:16:53,040
Speaker 2: Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Junior, was a leading anti

285
00:16:53,120 --> 00:16:58,120
Speaker 2: vaccine activist before becoming the nation's top health official, and

286
00:16:58,200 --> 00:17:01,160
Speaker 2: back in June, when he was asked about his firing

287
00:17:01,360 --> 00:17:06,320
Speaker 2: all seventeen members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices,

288
00:17:07,000 --> 00:17:11,199
Speaker 2: Kennedy insisted he would replace them with qualified doctors and

289
00:17:11,320 --> 00:17:14,359
Speaker 2: medical experts, not any vaxxers.

290
00:17:14,720 --> 00:17:19,000
Speaker 4: We're bringing people on who are credential scientists, who are

291
00:17:19,080 --> 00:17:24,320
Speaker 4: highly credential physicians, who are going to do evidence based medicine,

292
00:17:25,040 --> 00:17:27,520
Speaker 4: who are going to be objective, and we're going to

293
00:17:27,560 --> 00:17:28,480
Speaker 4: follow the science.

294
00:17:28,920 --> 00:17:32,600
Speaker 2: But Kennedy did just the opposite, and now a Boston

295
00:17:32,720 --> 00:17:36,639
Speaker 2: federal judge has suspended the thirteen members of the Vaccine

296
00:17:36,680 --> 00:17:41,520
Speaker 2: Advisory Committee appointed by Kennedy and blocked federal health officials

297
00:17:41,560 --> 00:17:45,560
Speaker 2: from cutting the number of vaccines recommended for every child.

298
00:17:46,240 --> 00:17:49,560
Speaker 2: The order issued Monday is the latest development in a

299
00:17:49,640 --> 00:17:54,160
Speaker 2: lawsuit filed last July by the American Academy of Pediatrics,

300
00:17:54,359 --> 00:17:59,639
Speaker 2: the American Medical Association, and other health organizations. Joining me

301
00:17:59,720 --> 00:18:02,920
Speaker 2: is health care attorney Harry Nelson, a partner at leech

302
00:18:03,000 --> 00:18:08,000
Speaker 2: Tishman Nelson Hardiman. Harry tell us about RFK Junior's moves

303
00:18:08,040 --> 00:18:12,240
Speaker 2: to sort of upend vaccine regulations.

304
00:18:12,080 --> 00:18:16,920
Speaker 5: There's been a series of steps to kind of disrupt

305
00:18:17,000 --> 00:18:21,400
Speaker 5: the framework around how our vaccine system is working since

306
00:18:21,440 --> 00:18:24,879
Speaker 5: the beginning of the administration. It's not about any single

307
00:18:25,320 --> 00:18:29,320
Speaker 5: policy decision that RFK has made, but he has literally,

308
00:18:29,600 --> 00:18:34,120
Speaker 5: under his leadership Health and Human Services has basically tried

309
00:18:34,160 --> 00:18:38,600
Speaker 5: to scale back or remove all kinds of recommendations for vaccines,

310
00:18:38,960 --> 00:18:44,240
Speaker 5: including the most sort of widespread, widely used vaccines influenza,

311
00:18:44,400 --> 00:18:49,080
Speaker 5: hepatitis A and B and RSV, And so the recommendations

312
00:18:49,080 --> 00:18:51,120
Speaker 5: were kind of the core piece of what he did,

313
00:18:51,160 --> 00:18:56,120
Speaker 5: because those recommendations from the federal government drive insurance coverage

314
00:18:56,119 --> 00:18:59,280
Speaker 5: and shape standard of care and set policy at the

315
00:18:59,320 --> 00:19:02,080
Speaker 5: public health level in schools, and so that was the

316
00:19:02,080 --> 00:19:04,240
Speaker 5: first thing that he did. The second thing that RFK

317
00:19:04,400 --> 00:19:07,320
Speaker 5: did that you could even argue is more consequential as

318
00:19:07,359 --> 00:19:13,119
Speaker 5: he dismantled the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices the ACIP,

319
00:19:13,520 --> 00:19:16,439
Speaker 5: that was really the panel of experts that were the

320
00:19:16,480 --> 00:19:20,240
Speaker 5: scientific engine behind the recommendations coming from the Center for

321
00:19:20,280 --> 00:19:25,240
Speaker 5: Disease Control CDC and for driving the coverage decisions under

322
00:19:25,240 --> 00:19:28,800
Speaker 5: federal law, again applying to all the sort of traditional

323
00:19:28,880 --> 00:19:32,160
Speaker 5: vaccines like the flu vaccine all the way to COVID

324
00:19:32,280 --> 00:19:37,480
Speaker 5: and those vaccines. So he basically dismantled and reconstituted that

325
00:19:37,560 --> 00:19:40,640
Speaker 5: panel with people who agreed with him. I would say

326
00:19:40,680 --> 00:19:44,159
Speaker 5: the broader kind of effect of what he's done, beyond

327
00:19:44,160 --> 00:19:47,840
Speaker 5: those formal policy steps, has been a kind of reframing

328
00:19:47,880 --> 00:19:51,439
Speaker 5: of the posture of the federal government towards vaccine, to

329
00:19:51,520 --> 00:19:55,000
Speaker 5: really move away from any kind of strong endorsement about

330
00:19:55,240 --> 00:20:00,399
Speaker 5: vaccines and really elevating concerns about safety of vaccine and

331
00:20:00,440 --> 00:20:05,800
Speaker 5: emphasizing its individualized decision making over kind of public health standards,

332
00:20:06,280 --> 00:20:10,240
Speaker 5: and sending a very kind of mixed message to patients

333
00:20:10,240 --> 00:20:14,720
Speaker 5: and families and healthcare providers and really creating you know,

334
00:20:14,760 --> 00:20:18,800
Speaker 5: the criticism is that it's really undermining a public trust

335
00:20:18,880 --> 00:20:22,800
Speaker 5: and creating an ambiguity and a skepticism that is really

336
00:20:23,119 --> 00:20:25,879
Speaker 5: sort of harming the value of that vaccines have played

337
00:20:25,960 --> 00:20:28,880
Speaker 5: historically in terms of national public health.

338
00:20:29,600 --> 00:20:34,000
Speaker 2: So on Monday, a federal judge blocked health officials from

339
00:20:34,160 --> 00:20:37,679
Speaker 2: cutting the number of vaccines recommended for every child and

340
00:20:37,760 --> 00:20:42,600
Speaker 2: also suspended Kennedy's appointments to that Advisory Vaccine Panel. Explained

341
00:20:42,600 --> 00:20:45,560
Speaker 2: why Judge Brian Murphy decided to do that.

342
00:20:46,800 --> 00:20:49,560
Speaker 5: So there really were kind of two big issues that

343
00:20:49,760 --> 00:20:54,480
Speaker 5: drove Judge Murphy's decision here. First, under the Administrative Procedure Act,

344
00:20:54,520 --> 00:20:58,720
Speaker 5: which is how regulatory federal regulatory Agencies act, he essentially

345
00:20:58,760 --> 00:21:01,520
Speaker 5: signaled that the way that policy shifts, particularly ones that

346
00:21:01,560 --> 00:21:04,840
Speaker 5: have broad national implications, happened, is supposed to happen with

347
00:21:05,080 --> 00:21:08,520
Speaker 5: a reasoned basis and an appropriate process, even when an

348
00:21:08,560 --> 00:21:12,520
Speaker 5: agency has authority to make a decision, that transparency and

349
00:21:12,760 --> 00:21:16,240
Speaker 5: continuity with the evidentiary record are supposed to be part

350
00:21:16,280 --> 00:21:18,520
Speaker 5: of the record to ensure that decisions are made carefully

351
00:21:18,520 --> 00:21:21,359
Speaker 5: and deliberately. And so that was kind of the first

352
00:21:21,400 --> 00:21:23,680
Speaker 5: concern that the judge raised. And then the second one

353
00:21:24,680 --> 00:21:27,600
Speaker 5: was about this issue of the reconstitution of the panel

354
00:21:27,840 --> 00:21:31,639
Speaker 5: and essentially saying that it amounted to a structural intervention

355
00:21:31,960 --> 00:21:35,400
Speaker 5: in the primary scientific body that the federal government has

356
00:21:35,440 --> 00:21:39,600
Speaker 5: invested authority in on immunization and raising questions about whether

357
00:21:39,960 --> 00:21:43,360
Speaker 5: any recommendations that come out are reflecting independent scientific judgment

358
00:21:43,640 --> 00:21:47,639
Speaker 5: or instead are simply pursuing you a predetermined, kind of

359
00:21:48,040 --> 00:21:52,119
Speaker 5: politically driven policy outcome. So those are really the kind

360
00:21:52,160 --> 00:21:55,520
Speaker 5: of core of what the judge was relying on to

361
00:21:55,560 --> 00:21:56,240
Speaker 5: strike this down.

362
00:21:57,240 --> 00:22:01,360
Speaker 2: So this is a temporary order. Also, the government says

363
00:22:01,400 --> 00:22:04,240
Speaker 2: they're going to appeal in light of that. How important

364
00:22:04,520 --> 00:22:07,879
Speaker 2: is this as far as sort of a knock on

365
00:22:08,359 --> 00:22:10,440
Speaker 2: Rfk's health agenda.

366
00:22:11,400 --> 00:22:14,000
Speaker 5: I do think on a public relations level, you know,

367
00:22:14,040 --> 00:22:18,320
Speaker 5: this is really raising questions about how effective he is,

368
00:22:18,720 --> 00:22:21,480
Speaker 5: and we're seeing signs that the administration is getting nervous.

369
00:22:21,720 --> 00:22:24,160
Speaker 5: At this point, we have a preliminary injunction, which just means,

370
00:22:24,720 --> 00:22:28,679
Speaker 5: you know, any changes are frozen from happening now, but

371
00:22:28,720 --> 00:22:31,320
Speaker 5: the case still needs to be decided, and obviously the

372
00:22:31,359 --> 00:22:34,080
Speaker 5: government's going to go appeel this up to the first

373
00:22:34,119 --> 00:22:36,760
Speaker 5: Circuit and the Department of Health and Human Services is

374
00:22:36,760 --> 00:22:39,680
Speaker 5: going to ask the court to lift the injunction while

375
00:22:39,720 --> 00:22:43,080
Speaker 5: this is upending. So I do think that the administration

376
00:22:43,920 --> 00:22:48,600
Speaker 5: could easily you know, sort of undo or freeze this decision,

377
00:22:48,800 --> 00:22:50,960
Speaker 5: and it may not be the decision that holds in

378
00:22:50,960 --> 00:22:52,960
Speaker 5: there for the long term. But I still think that

379
00:22:53,680 --> 00:22:56,040
Speaker 5: it is going to put the government, is going to

380
00:22:56,080 --> 00:22:59,080
Speaker 5: put the president in a challenging position of trying to

381
00:22:59,080 --> 00:23:03,360
Speaker 5: decide how invested he is in rfk's agenda. And it's

382
00:23:03,359 --> 00:23:05,120
Speaker 5: going to be interesting also to see how Appelic Court

383
00:23:05,160 --> 00:23:08,080
Speaker 5: federal Pellic Court judges feel about this, you know, depending

384
00:23:08,119 --> 00:23:10,119
Speaker 5: on the configuration of judges that hear the case. If

385
00:23:10,160 --> 00:23:13,040
Speaker 5: they see it as a process case, this injunction could

386
00:23:13,080 --> 00:23:14,840
Speaker 5: have staying power. On the other hand, if they think

387
00:23:14,840 --> 00:23:18,040
Speaker 5: that the judge acted to aggressively on a case where

388
00:23:18,080 --> 00:23:20,560
Speaker 5: the government should have discretion, we could see a reversal

389
00:23:20,720 --> 00:23:22,680
Speaker 5: either way. I do think this case is going to

390
00:23:22,720 --> 00:23:26,320
Speaker 5: play into a broader topic of the limits of regulatory

391
00:23:26,320 --> 00:23:29,520
Speaker 5: agency power. But I also think it's going to force

392
00:23:29,880 --> 00:23:32,840
Speaker 5: some decision making by the president and by the team

393
00:23:32,920 --> 00:23:35,200
Speaker 5: close to the president of how much they want to

394
00:23:35,240 --> 00:23:38,360
Speaker 5: stand by RFK and whether they want to cut back.

395
00:23:38,400 --> 00:23:41,639
Speaker 5: And we're hearing signs, you know, signals that there is

396
00:23:41,680 --> 00:23:44,439
Speaker 5: some discontent that he may have gone too far and

397
00:23:44,520 --> 00:23:48,280
Speaker 5: may actually be creating negative attention just based on a

398
00:23:48,280 --> 00:23:50,240
Speaker 5: broad reception to the vaccine changes.

399
00:23:50,880 --> 00:23:54,320
Speaker 2: So one of the arguments had been that the Vaccine

400
00:23:54,359 --> 00:23:59,440
Speaker 2: Advisory Committee had moved away from making decisions through through

401
00:23:59,440 --> 00:24:04,199
Speaker 2: a scientific method. How important is the science to the

402
00:24:04,280 --> 00:24:06,600
Speaker 2: judge's decision and to future decisions.

403
00:24:07,920 --> 00:24:10,240
Speaker 5: You know, the standard when we talk about federal and

404
00:24:10,600 --> 00:24:14,240
Speaker 5: state regulatory agencies and their decisions is typically it's arbitrary

405
00:24:14,240 --> 00:24:16,720
Speaker 5: and capricious. So I do think I don't think a

406
00:24:16,800 --> 00:24:20,080
Speaker 5: regultary agency has ever locked into one scientific view. I

407
00:24:20,119 --> 00:24:23,000
Speaker 5: do think it is a real question of whether there

408
00:24:23,119 --> 00:24:27,800
Speaker 5: is a legitimate reasonable position on the other side. Clearly,

409
00:24:27,840 --> 00:24:31,280
Speaker 5: the you know, medical establishment, the American Academy Pediatrics, and

410
00:24:31,359 --> 00:24:34,920
Speaker 5: all the large you know institutions that are are kind

411
00:24:34,960 --> 00:24:39,080
Speaker 5: of infrastructure for medicine are attacking the RFK changes of

412
00:24:39,200 --> 00:24:41,679
Speaker 5: his policies as not being evidence based. And I do

413
00:24:41,760 --> 00:24:43,879
Speaker 5: think that is a question that the that the appelic

414
00:24:43,880 --> 00:24:45,920
Speaker 5: Court will have to to look at, and I think

415
00:24:45,960 --> 00:24:48,640
Speaker 5: it will be interesting to see if they give more

416
00:24:48,680 --> 00:24:51,480
Speaker 5: deference here or support the strual Court judge.

417
00:24:51,720 --> 00:24:55,040
Speaker 2: As far as what's been happening, how you know, vaccine

418
00:24:55,080 --> 00:24:57,680
Speaker 2: policy has been sort of in disarray, and you have

419
00:24:58,160 --> 00:25:03,879
Speaker 2: some states trying to codify previous immunizations schedules, and you

420
00:25:03,960 --> 00:25:08,719
Speaker 2: have you know, medical groups issuing their own schedules, and

421
00:25:08,760 --> 00:25:12,440
Speaker 2: then you have people going to pediatricians and doctors saying

422
00:25:12,480 --> 00:25:14,680
Speaker 2: what should I do? I mean, it's caused a lot

423
00:25:14,720 --> 00:25:17,080
Speaker 2: of confusion, hasn't it? Now?

424
00:25:17,240 --> 00:25:20,600
Speaker 5: No question? Yeah, as you're saying about thirty states have

425
00:25:20,720 --> 00:25:23,880
Speaker 5: completely rejected or have rejected different parts of the new

426
00:25:23,920 --> 00:25:27,640
Speaker 5: recommendations and are passing state laws to maintain vaccine access

427
00:25:27,680 --> 00:25:31,160
Speaker 5: and to coordinate regional public health guidance that is totally

428
00:25:31,320 --> 00:25:34,720
Speaker 5: departing from federal policy under RFK, and we're seeing I

429
00:25:34,720 --> 00:25:39,080
Speaker 5: think really what's interesting is major health systems, hospitals, and

430
00:25:39,240 --> 00:25:42,879
Speaker 5: doctors groups are not following the new guidance and are

431
00:25:42,880 --> 00:25:46,720
Speaker 5: sticking with prior standards and resisting here. So there's no

432
00:25:46,800 --> 00:25:49,239
Speaker 5: question about that. The question for me really is like

433
00:25:49,320 --> 00:25:51,919
Speaker 5: how is the public responding? You know, there's been some

434
00:25:52,080 --> 00:25:57,640
Speaker 5: polling that trust in government vaccine recommendations has dropped significantly,

435
00:25:57,680 --> 00:26:00,400
Speaker 5: And the question is is that now people who are

436
00:26:00,960 --> 00:26:04,399
Speaker 5: feeling like vaccines are open to question or is it

437
00:26:04,520 --> 00:26:08,399
Speaker 5: people who are unhappy with the politicization of vaccines that

438
00:26:08,560 --> 00:26:11,320
Speaker 5: for the vast majority of people were kind of uncontroversial,

439
00:26:11,480 --> 00:26:12,760
Speaker 5: So it's going to be interesting to see where the

440
00:26:12,760 --> 00:26:14,000
Speaker 5: public is holding right now.

441
00:26:14,520 --> 00:26:18,040
Speaker 2: I mean, do you have any doubt that what Kennedy

442
00:26:18,800 --> 00:26:22,720
Speaker 2: and his board are trying to do with the vaccine

443
00:26:22,720 --> 00:26:28,000
Speaker 2: schedule is harmful to children and to the country in general.

444
00:26:28,920 --> 00:26:33,119
Speaker 5: Yeah, I certainly have concerns that this is not the

445
00:26:33,200 --> 00:26:35,360
Speaker 5: right move for our public health system. By the way,

446
00:26:35,359 --> 00:26:36,840
Speaker 5: I should say that, I don't think the center of

447
00:26:36,880 --> 00:26:41,800
Speaker 5: gravity in terms of how people not feel about trusting doctors,

448
00:26:41,840 --> 00:26:45,920
Speaker 5: trusting pediatricians, and vaccinating kids on childhood vaccines, I don't

449
00:26:45,960 --> 00:26:49,000
Speaker 5: think that has fundamentally changed, even if there are more

450
00:26:49,040 --> 00:26:52,760
Speaker 5: people who are in this dissenting camp. I think what's

451
00:26:52,800 --> 00:26:56,600
Speaker 5: really happened is we're seeing a diminished trust in federal

452
00:26:56,800 --> 00:27:01,199
Speaker 5: health authorities generally, with you know, the inconsistency and the

453
00:27:01,200 --> 00:27:05,159
Speaker 5: mixed signals. And I do think on some level this

454
00:27:05,320 --> 00:27:07,840
Speaker 5: is part of a broader trend of moving away from

455
00:27:07,960 --> 00:27:11,399
Speaker 5: kind of more uniform guidance to individualized decision making. And

456
00:27:11,480 --> 00:27:13,920
Speaker 5: I think this is a place where it's not from

457
00:27:13,920 --> 00:27:16,320
Speaker 5: a public health standpoint, It's very easy to say this

458
00:27:16,400 --> 00:27:20,080
Speaker 5: is bad because public health depends on consistency and once

459
00:27:20,119 --> 00:27:23,879
Speaker 5: that erodes, even small shifts can have massive downstream effects,

460
00:27:23,920 --> 00:27:28,119
Speaker 5: and we see outbreaks and hospitalizations and deaths occurring downstream,

461
00:27:28,359 --> 00:27:31,120
Speaker 5: you know, in various pockets, like we've seen with measles,

462
00:27:31,119 --> 00:27:33,720
Speaker 5: for example, And so I think that from a public

463
00:27:33,720 --> 00:27:36,240
Speaker 5: health standpoint, this has not been good. I do think

464
00:27:36,320 --> 00:27:39,840
Speaker 5: it's interesting to see kind of how, you know, the

465
00:27:40,600 --> 00:27:45,160
Speaker 5: sort of rise of you know, individualized decision making patient

466
00:27:45,720 --> 00:27:50,560
Speaker 5: directed care is like intersecting with that broad trend which

467
00:27:50,560 --> 00:27:52,800
Speaker 5: has been playing out for the last fifteen twenty years,

468
00:27:52,920 --> 00:27:57,000
Speaker 5: is really, you know, having an interesting kind of impact

469
00:27:57,040 --> 00:27:58,280
Speaker 5: on this topic.

470
00:27:58,800 --> 00:28:01,200
Speaker 2: I don't know much about the meat outbreak, but can

471
00:28:01,240 --> 00:28:05,720
Speaker 2: we attribute that to a decrease in vaccinations?

472
00:28:06,520 --> 00:28:08,879
Speaker 5: There's no question that, you know, when we see like

473
00:28:08,880 --> 00:28:12,000
Speaker 5: the measles outbreaks, it's inevitable that those stories are accompanied

474
00:28:12,040 --> 00:28:15,760
Speaker 5: by evidence of drops in the local area in vaccination

475
00:28:15,920 --> 00:28:20,240
Speaker 5: rates and of clusters of essentially under immunized communities. That's

476
00:28:20,280 --> 00:28:22,320
Speaker 5: not the whole story, right. We live in a world

477
00:28:22,320 --> 00:28:24,800
Speaker 5: where there's a lot more international travel, and that's also

478
00:28:25,400 --> 00:28:30,280
Speaker 5: something that's leading to much faster, you know, transmissions of

479
00:28:30,280 --> 00:28:33,720
Speaker 5: infectious diseases. But there's no question that whenever you look

480
00:28:33,760 --> 00:28:37,800
Speaker 5: at these little pockets where we have these terrible outbreaks.

481
00:28:38,120 --> 00:28:40,840
Speaker 5: It's because the local community has a lower rate of

482
00:28:40,920 --> 00:28:44,480
Speaker 5: vaccinations and we have under immunized communities that are creating

483
00:28:44,520 --> 00:28:47,080
Speaker 5: more risk for everybody in that in that community.

484
00:28:47,680 --> 00:28:51,000
Speaker 2: We know that the federal government in different areas is

485
00:28:51,480 --> 00:28:55,520
Speaker 2: changing what's on websites, taking down you know, scientific information.

486
00:28:55,680 --> 00:28:58,160
Speaker 2: I mean, they're changing the history in the parks. So

487
00:28:58,240 --> 00:29:01,280
Speaker 2: I saw a report from the CDC the flu vaccine

488
00:29:01,560 --> 00:29:05,040
Speaker 2: didn't work very well in the US this year, one

489
00:29:05,080 --> 00:29:07,800
Speaker 2: of the worst effectiveness rates in more than a decade,

490
00:29:07,840 --> 00:29:10,719
Speaker 2: And I wondered, I mean, can I believe what the

491
00:29:10,760 --> 00:29:11,840
Speaker 2: CDC says.

492
00:29:12,640 --> 00:29:14,600
Speaker 5: We haven't gotten to a point yet where anyone is

493
00:29:14,640 --> 00:29:20,400
Speaker 5: accusing any government website as being outwardly false. Look, I

494
00:29:20,440 --> 00:29:23,520
Speaker 5: think what we're seeing is really that the framing of

495
00:29:23,640 --> 00:29:27,240
Speaker 5: the data is shifting more than the data, you know, itself.

496
00:29:27,320 --> 00:29:30,080
Speaker 5: So I do think that if you're anyone who's reading

497
00:29:30,120 --> 00:29:32,880
Speaker 5: this needs to ask the question when they see reports

498
00:29:32,920 --> 00:29:36,360
Speaker 5: like the one you're alluding to, has the data really changed,

499
00:29:36,400 --> 00:29:38,560
Speaker 5: Has all of a sudden, you know, the data on

500
00:29:38,720 --> 00:29:42,400
Speaker 5: flu vacciness effectiveness really weakened, or are we just seeing

501
00:29:42,440 --> 00:29:46,760
Speaker 5: a different framing of the issue and an emphasis on

502
00:29:47,160 --> 00:29:52,640
Speaker 5: uncertainty and a de emphasis on population level benefits, and

503
00:29:52,840 --> 00:29:54,440
Speaker 5: you know, I think it requires all of us to

504
00:29:54,440 --> 00:29:57,240
Speaker 5: be more intelligent consumers. I mean, I think back to

505
00:29:57,280 --> 00:30:00,760
Speaker 5: the beginning of COVID when we heard, you know, a

506
00:30:00,800 --> 00:30:03,600
Speaker 5: downplaying of masking, and then we only later learned right

507
00:30:03,680 --> 00:30:07,400
Speaker 5: that some of the public health speak coming out of

508
00:30:07,440 --> 00:30:10,680
Speaker 5: CDC that was downplaying masking was really to ensure that

509
00:30:10,720 --> 00:30:14,160
Speaker 5: masks were available and inventory could get to places where

510
00:30:14,200 --> 00:30:16,760
Speaker 5: it was needed most in health systems. And so I

511
00:30:16,800 --> 00:30:19,080
Speaker 5: do think it's confusing, right, We're getting a lot of

512
00:30:19,400 --> 00:30:21,960
Speaker 5: We're getting less certainty, more mixed signals, and I do

513
00:30:21,960 --> 00:30:26,080
Speaker 5: think people need to be really looking carefully at what

514
00:30:26,120 --> 00:30:30,200
Speaker 5: the content is and what the agenda in that content is.

515
00:30:30,280 --> 00:30:32,360
Speaker 5: Although I hopefully we haven't gotten to a place where

516
00:30:33,000 --> 00:30:36,160
Speaker 5: we're getting actual misinformation. I don't think that's the case.

517
00:30:36,560 --> 00:30:40,200
Speaker 2: That's healthcare attorney Harry Nelson a partner at Leech Tishman

518
00:30:40,320 --> 00:30:43,200
Speaker 2: Nelson Hardiman. And that's it for this edition of The

519
00:30:43,200 --> 00:30:46,160
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest

520
00:30:46,240 --> 00:30:49,360
Speaker 2: legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find

521
00:30:49,360 --> 00:30:53,920
Speaker 2: them on Apple Podcasts. Spotify and at www dot bloomberg

522
00:30:54,000 --> 00:30:57,800
Speaker 2: dot com. Slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune

523
00:30:57,800 --> 00:31:00,960
Speaker 2: into The Bloomberg Law Show every week at ten pm

524
00:31:01,080 --> 00:31:04,640
Speaker 2: Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to

525
00:31:04,680 --> 00:31:05,240
Speaker 2: Bloomberg