Speaker 1: Yeah, Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane
Speaker 1: jay Ley. We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg Ellen
Speaker 1: Center joins me now in studio. Ellen, always a pleasure,
Speaker 1: Thanks for being here. Um, trade wars and the US economy.
Speaker 1: Have you produced some kind of model that looks at
Speaker 1: what the U. S economy would do if this trade
Speaker 1: war really sticks and gets worse? So? I think, first, UM,
Speaker 1: we do expect these trade tensions. Let's say, I think
Speaker 1: war is a little inflammatory, but but it's certainly catches
Speaker 1: the attention more when you is the word war. But
Speaker 1: we are in an escalatory phase. Okay, there's no denying that. Um.
Speaker 1: And we've now seen the first round of thirty six
Speaker 1: billion dollars in teariffs go into place. Um. The questions
Speaker 1: that I get are I thought this was supposed to
Speaker 1: hurt the economy. We've got four g d P in
Speaker 1: the second quarter that economists are tracking, Uh, what gives?
Speaker 1: It must not matter for the economy, And that's absolutely
Speaker 1: the wrong way to look at this. These first thirty
Speaker 1: six billion dollars that have gone into place are hitting
Speaker 1: intermediate goods, capital goods. Guess what matters for the US
Speaker 1: consumer goods? And it's the next round, the ten on
Speaker 1: two billion in Chinese goods that are really going to
Speaker 1: hit consumer goods. And do you think that when we
Speaker 1: raise prices on consumer goods in the US because of tariffs,
Speaker 1: the consumers are just going to spend as much as
Speaker 1: they did before that we really don't care that prices
Speaker 1: are going up. That's just not the case. So when
Speaker 1: we look at it, tear us, uh, you know, in
Speaker 1: you know, just one at a time. Right now, if
Speaker 1: I just look at the economic impact of the tariffs
Speaker 1: that have gone that went into place on Friday, um,
Speaker 1: it doesn't look like that much that you shave off
Speaker 1: the US economy. But you start to build in the
Speaker 1: second round, impacts to supply chains, the unknown impacts to
Speaker 1: financial conditions, and you start to pile on the next
Speaker 1: round and the next round and the next round. At
Speaker 1: some point investors are going to say this is too much,
Speaker 1: this is changing the global growth story. And then the
Speaker 1: financial conditions piece of this escalates. At the time when
Speaker 1: you have unemployment at the levels I guess, okay, it
Speaker 1: increased to four, but that was because so many people
Speaker 1: came back into the into the workforce. Where's the positive?
Speaker 1: Where's the benefit from these trade uh? Okay confrontations? I
Speaker 1: won't say war. Where where does the benefit come in?
Speaker 1: Because if the if the economy is already working and
Speaker 1: you're looking at that four GDP number that you mentioned,
Speaker 1: where's the benefit to this trade confrontation? Well, I think
Speaker 1: that that UM. Trade talks in general should be something
Speaker 1: that are constantly ongoing between countries. The condensed timeline that
Speaker 1: we're on, and it has been very disruptive UM in
Speaker 1: the way it's almost like someone just turned the light
Speaker 1: on and said, oh, these this trade situation in the
Speaker 1: global economy is is unfair. Let's change it tomorrow. And
Speaker 1: it's self right, but it's it's I won't argue with
Speaker 1: the need for looking closely at trade agreements and trade
Speaker 1: among countries, and that should be an open ended conversation
Speaker 1: that we're having. UM. What's what can be very disruptive
Speaker 1: is trying to change it overnight, when, as you point out,
Speaker 1: we've already got a tight labor market, We've already got
Speaker 1: a very low unemployment rate. We don't have a large
Speaker 1: manufacturing sector. We don't have a lot of workers to
Speaker 1: attract back to manufacturing or to retrain for manufacturing. It
Speaker 1: takes time to open idle factories, it takes time to
Speaker 1: build new factories. You don't just turn on the manufacturing
Speaker 1: engine overnight in the U S. And so what does
Speaker 1: that mean? That means that that these trade negotiations UH
Speaker 1: on such a condensed timeline can create even more inflationary pressures.
Speaker 1: Then we've already got from tight labor markets in late
Speaker 1: cycle dynamics. And what happens then then you run into
Speaker 1: the risk that it begs a more aggressive monetary policy
Speaker 1: response from the FED as they're seeing price pressures in
Speaker 1: the US from tariffs UH, and that's very difficult to
Speaker 1: deal with right policy or rates that are higher in
Speaker 1: the US than they otherwise would have been. That is
Speaker 1: to me the biggest risk. And it's not as if
Speaker 1: the world is standing still. Why this is while this
Speaker 1: is happening, correct? I mean Shinzo Abe, Prime Minister of Japan.
Speaker 1: He is going to be in Brussels on Wednesday to
Speaker 1: sign a trade accord with the European Union. You have
Speaker 1: I believe a meeting between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and
Speaker 1: the Chinese premier Prime Minister UH. That will be to
Speaker 1: day actually UH in Berlin. And the topic there is
Speaker 1: trade investment. UH. Nothing is standing still just because the
Speaker 1: United States wants to impose tariffs on imported goods from China,
Speaker 1: plus wants to at least seemingly renegotiate NAFTA, and that
Speaker 1: hasn't gone anywhere. What's the worst case scenario for the
Speaker 1: US economy if all of these things come to pass. Well,
Speaker 1: I think the long term worst case scenario for the
Speaker 1: U S economy would be that the rest of the
Speaker 1: world and other global leaders move on without us, and
Speaker 1: so we become the odd man out instead of the
Speaker 1: leader among all of these groups, trade groups, global groups. UH,
Speaker 1: just where we sit on the global stage. Of course,
Speaker 1: that is the longer term risk because trade negotiations can
Speaker 1: be very sensitive. It's one reason why they typically take
Speaker 1: some time to play out. UH. And so that that
Speaker 1: I do. And with the change of guard I'm just
Speaker 1: thinking of Mexico, with the change of government in Mexico,
Speaker 1: which may be more adversarial when it comes to dealing
Speaker 1: with the United States, right there are there are a
Speaker 1: lot of you know, I think that I can't remember
Speaker 1: a time uh and uh, I'm forty seven years old.
Speaker 1: I've been practicing economics for over twenty years. Uh and
Speaker 1: I cannot remember a time that politics mattered so much
Speaker 1: in the global economy. That and and politics, it's not
Speaker 1: just for the US. Everywhere politics are a wild card
Speaker 1: for just about every economy. And politics are playing out globally.
Speaker 1: Um and create another lay of uncertainty of exactly where
Speaker 1: does the U s end up? UM in this in
Speaker 1: these tips for tats. Now, I'm sure you've read the
Speaker 1: reports about increasing logistics costs in the United States. I'm
Speaker 1: sure you've read the reports of input costs going up
Speaker 1: for many manufacturers. Uh. You've also read, I'm sure about
Speaker 1: what happens to our agricultural exports that may be displaced
Speaker 1: by exports from places such as for Zil and Argentina.
Speaker 1: What do you see if this continues? What do you
Speaker 1: see happening in the US economy? Well, I think we'll
Speaker 1: see some rebalancing, right, we already know and you've you've
Speaker 1: touched on a lot of it. Businesses are have already
Speaker 1: been exploring alternative sourcing. UM. And it's not just the US.
Speaker 1: The the rest of the global economy will be doing that, right.
Speaker 1: They might buy things from somewhere else. So there's a
Speaker 1: rebalancing that will go on. And I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: when the dust settles, we won't come out ahead, um,
Speaker 1: but there's near term pain that will have to be digested. UM.
Speaker 1: Just sourcing UH. New supply chains cost businesses money and
Speaker 1: they have to either eat that on the margin or
Speaker 1: pass that on to the end user either way to
Speaker 1: lose lose situation in the near term. UM. That doesn't
Speaker 1: mean it won't be a long term gain once all
Speaker 1: this rebalancing occurs, but it's something that's a reality of
Speaker 1: this late cycle economy that we're in, that we are,
Speaker 1: that we are now having to deal with in thirty seconds.
Speaker 1: Are you advising people, based on your analysis, to change
Speaker 1: the way they view investing right now until it dost settles. Well,
Speaker 1: I think that on our wealth management side of the business,
Speaker 1: which sits on a two trillion dollar purse, you know
Speaker 1: they've been advising their clients to aggressively manage cash. And
Speaker 1: that's not just that that almost has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with the trade. Tension has to do with where we
Speaker 1: are in the cycle um and volatile markets that occur
Speaker 1: in the cycle. Um, Mike Wilson, our chief US equity
Speaker 1: strategist on the institutional security side, where I sit UM
Speaker 1: is looking at you know, no more upside driven by
Speaker 1: earnings after the third quarter, So it just makes for
Speaker 1: a difficult time as we view as we start to
Speaker 1: view the second half of the year. Many thanks Ellen Center,
Speaker 1: Morgan Stanley, chief US Economists giving us her views on
Speaker 1: the US economy based on trade confrontations of war not
Speaker 1: yet with us now in our London studios, Brian Class
Speaker 1: of the London School of Economics, Fellow in Comparative Politics
Speaker 1: in their Department of Government. And some of you will
Speaker 1: know Professor Class for his outstanding work out on Twitter
Speaker 1: and just pointing out research topics as we look at
Speaker 1: a time of authoritarianism, and that gets to his wonderful
Speaker 1: book The Despots Accomplices is well. Um, there was a
Speaker 1: lot Class in this weekend in the literature, I thought
Speaker 1: of you this weekend. A lot of people have come
Speaker 1: around to your study of democracy in liberalism versus authority
Speaker 1: terrian Ism. Is it overdone. Is it overdone done about
Speaker 1: the president in his relationship with Mr Putin? No, I
Speaker 1: don't think it is. I think we've got this global moment.
Speaker 1: There's been twelve consecutive years where the world has become
Speaker 1: less democratic. That is now creeping into the West. You
Speaker 1: have poland hungry, some Italian populism flirting with the full
Speaker 1: train is um and then also across the Atlantic in
Speaker 1: the United States, where where Trump not only mimics the
Speaker 1: behaviors of authoritarian leaders but also admires them and and
Speaker 1: has praised virtually every Authorityraian leader under the sun, from
Speaker 1: President g to do Terte in the Philippines, Putin in Moscow, um,
Speaker 1: and then you know, sort of has taken a much
Speaker 1: harsh attack on America's historic democratic allies, whether it be
Speaker 1: EU or NATO members. And that's going to be on
Speaker 1: display this week as Trump arrives in in the UK,
Speaker 1: moves on to Brussels, and then meets with Putin in Helsinki.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's gonna go to Helsinki, and this is
Speaker 1: you know, your your area. That the basic theme and
Speaker 1: Kevin's early push back on this today is people say
Speaker 1: Mr Putin will be hugely prepared and Mr Trump will
Speaker 1: be less prepared to be kind. Um, how does that
Speaker 1: play in terms of your study? Well, I think it's
Speaker 1: a major risk. And that's why I think this one
Speaker 1: on one meeting is dangerous. It's highly unorthodox past foreign
Speaker 1: policy advisors to pass. Presidents would not allow it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and and on top of this, you have this major risk.
Speaker 1: I mean, we had a dress rehearsal for this in Singapore.
Speaker 1: With the Trump Kim meeting that is falling apart very quickly,
Speaker 1: where Trump prematurely declared a win and now his secretary
Speaker 1: of State is trying to do the cleanup. And you know,
Speaker 1: Kim was very prepared for that meeting because that's what
Speaker 1: their foreign policy revolves around. Putin is going to be
Speaker 1: the same. Um. And so I think there's a real
Speaker 1: risk that Trump makes serious concessions to Putin in a
Speaker 1: sort of good natured summit and it ends up getting played. Um.
Speaker 1: But we have you know, I think the bigger picture
Speaker 1: here is that there is a momentous shift in geopolitics
Speaker 1: underfoot and has been for the last year or two.
Speaker 1: People tell talk about black Swan risk, the sort of unpredictable,
Speaker 1: unforeseen risk This one is a highly predictable risk. You
Speaker 1: have the president consistently attacking NATO allies, attacking NATO, attacking
Speaker 1: the European Union, and praising Vladimir Putin, and it would
Speaker 1: be a major, major geopolitical seismic shock if American foreign
Speaker 1: policy ended the trans Atlantic relationship. How do you respond
Speaker 1: to the morning's urgency Eli like in Bloomberg Opinion writing
Speaker 1: and stuff beautifully that the real fear is Mr Trump
Speaker 1: will bargain Syria and Crimea. It's almost like a game
Speaker 1: of risk when we were kids three and two Central America.
Speaker 1: They're a huge risk. So last year, you know, Putin
Speaker 1: basically crafted a deal last year that involved a d
Speaker 1: escalation zone in Syria. That d escalation zone is a
Speaker 1: misnomber because it's where a lot of the heaviest fighting
Speaker 1: with the Russian troops is happening right now. But Trump
Speaker 1: was able to claim a win and look optically like
Speaker 1: he was the deal maker. That might happen again with
Speaker 1: Crimea or with Syria. And the problem with bargaining away Crimea,
Speaker 1: it's not just about that piece of terror roy it's
Speaker 1: the principle, which is basically the lynchpin of international security
Speaker 1: at to World War Two that you cannot change borders
Speaker 1: by force, and if Trump acknowledges that putin Ken, it
Speaker 1: up ends everything we know about international security and all that.
Speaker 1: Can a future president, either Republican or Democrat, walk back
Speaker 1: from Trump if he makes a decision on CRIMEA he
Speaker 1: could or she could, but it's a it's a real
Speaker 1: problem because the word of the United States matters in diplomacy.
Speaker 1: This is one of the things that I think is
Speaker 1: is a consequential shift in the Trump administration too, is
Speaker 1: that it has torn up so many deals of his
Speaker 1: predecessor that you start to have this question about are
Speaker 1: they a good faith dealmaker in diplomacy? And the question
Speaker 1: going forward is will Trump continue to basically work to
Speaker 1: blow up the international order? Brian Class, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: With the London School of Economics, the despots Accomplices is
Speaker 1: accomplice rather is is a book. Our topic is Amazon,
Speaker 1: Amazon dot Com and if we can imagine a world
Speaker 1: without Amazon. The shares of Amazon dot Com are up
Speaker 1: more than forty five percent so far this year. The
Speaker 1: company has more than half a million employees. And our
Speaker 1: next guest Matt Winkler, Bloomberg Editor in chief Emeritus says,
Speaker 1: this is a value stock. Matt, always a pleasure, Thanks
Speaker 1: for coming into the studio. Why do you believe that
Speaker 1: Amazon should be viewed as a value stock. It's good
Speaker 1: to be with you, him. Um. Since its inception, Amazon
Speaker 1: has committed itself two greater customer efficiency in everything it does.
Speaker 1: And it started with books of course. Um. And within
Speaker 1: a year of going public, it's market capitalization exceeded the
Speaker 1: number one bookseller Barnes and Noble. By two thousand fifteen, Uh,
Speaker 1: it exceeded the market capitalization of Walmart, which is the
Speaker 1: largest retailer in the world, and then this year. Uh.
Speaker 1: If you think about all the industries Amazon has entered, um,
Speaker 1: starting with books of course, continuing with retail, which is
Speaker 1: broad and vast Walmart. Uh, it's in the business that Ibmazon,
Speaker 1: it's in the business that Oracles, and it's in the
Speaker 1: business that Netflix is in, and it's in the business
Speaker 1: that Ups is in. As in logistics, and market capitalization
Speaker 1: of Amazon exceeds all of those companies combined as of
Speaker 1: just a month ago. So you put all that together.
Speaker 1: Amazon has been very consistent about relentlessly innovating from day one,
Speaker 1: and that relentless innovation is all about focusing on the customers,
Speaker 1: something that Jeff Bezos, the founder and CEO and Sherman
Speaker 1: has said, in act told us right after the company
Speaker 1: went public. What I care about is maximizing the customer experience.
Speaker 1: And so you put that together. Um, that's why most
Speaker 1: of the analysts, all but one um on Bloomberg, surveyed
Speaker 1: by Bloomberg, recommend either buying the stock or keeping it
Speaker 1: because what they see is a future of greater innovation,
Speaker 1: more so than any other company. And I forgot to
Speaker 1: mention that you know, of all the publicly traded companies
Speaker 1: in the world, Amazon commits more money equivalent money to
Speaker 1: what we call r indeed than any other company. Matt,
Speaker 1: this is a spectacular article. I just put it out
Speaker 1: on Twitter, folks. I'll be blunted. It's, without question the
Speaker 1: read of the day. Matt. You go back to the
Speaker 1: original prospectives May fourteenth, and then at the end of
Speaker 1: the article you have a stunning quote which as at
Speaker 1: all if their market was the Empire State Building there
Speaker 1: on the third floor. And what makes it so trenched, folks,
Speaker 1: is Matt Winkler was once on the first floor with
Speaker 1: a roll of decks on a wooden desk, trying to
Speaker 1: start a news company where you surprise Matt that you
Speaker 1: heard there on the third floor of their future. Um.
Speaker 1: I thought that was a particularly good anecdote, which came
Speaker 1: from one of our more distinguished colleagues who works in
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Intelligence and no s far more than I do
Speaker 1: about technology, and he framed it that way, UM, so
Speaker 1: that every every person can appreciate what we're talking about here,
Speaker 1: which is that Amazon has unlimited expectations about what it
Speaker 1: can do about itself, and increasingly its shareholders recognize that.
Speaker 1: And that's why I did say that in effect makes
Speaker 1: it a value stock. I mean, it sort of defies
Speaker 1: all the conventions of great God, it's not Graham and
Speaker 1: dot exactly well it is. I mean, if you think
Speaker 1: about it intellectually, it is in the sense that, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, he Graham and Dodd, both of them would say,
Speaker 1: by all the conventional measures they had, uh, this is
Speaker 1: what a value stock is. But if we put it
Speaker 1: on fast forward and take ourselves into the twenty first century,
Speaker 1: which is where we are now, of course, I think
Speaker 1: they would appreciate what Bezos has been doing, which is
Speaker 1: constantly thinking about what can I do to make the happier? Okay,
Speaker 1: you once sent me to a dinner. You don't know this, Matt.
Speaker 1: I mean Reddo did it on the m X, but
Speaker 1: you don't know this, Mat. But you sent me to
Speaker 1: a dinner once with a guy named Eisener of Disney,
Speaker 1: and Michael Eisler said something that I think I've heard
Speaker 1: from you. It's not only the innovation and the positive
Speaker 1: things you do, it's what you don't do. In your
Speaker 1: research on Jeff Bezos, what's the thing that Jeff Bezos
Speaker 1: is not doing every day? So I don't think he
Speaker 1: ever thinks about, uh, you know, what do I do
Speaker 1: with the dividend or how do I beat you know,
Speaker 1: the earnings per share? I don't think he ever thought
Speaker 1: about that in the first you know, decade or two
Speaker 1: of the company's existence. Um, not for once. I mean
Speaker 1: he managed to do it ultimately, but in the life
Speaker 1: of Amazon most of those years, most of those quarters,
Speaker 1: Jeff Bezos never once thought about the things that most
Speaker 1: CEOs are obsessed with, which is how do I beat
Speaker 1: the earnings estimates from quarter to quarter? Um? You know,
Speaker 1: And just to put it in perspective, let's compare him
Speaker 1: to another company that was considered, you know, wonderful in
Speaker 1: the nineties, and that was General Electric and every quarter
Speaker 1: it beat uh the analysts estimates. But look at where
Speaker 1: g E is today, Um, sort of nowhere to say
Speaker 1: that east, whereas Amazon wasn't thinking that way from day one, Matt,
Speaker 1: Amazon and its focus on customer service, Can they bring
Speaker 1: that same focus to other industries such as health insurance, healthcare, Well,
Speaker 1: it would seem so because you know, if you think
Speaker 1: of where they started with books, and they encountered a
Speaker 1: great deal of hostility from the traditional folks who bought
Speaker 1: books they were customers by the way, um. And eventually,
Speaker 1: you know, Amazon won over all the die hard antagonists
Speaker 1: who didn't like what Amazon was doing and that was
Speaker 1: just books. And then Amazon very quickly becomes a retailer
Speaker 1: um of everything, which is why it's called the Everything store. Um.
Speaker 1: That's defies sort of conventional wisdom that a company can
Speaker 1: sell anything in every thing and do it better than
Speaker 1: all the traditional retailers. And that's exactly what Amazon did,
Speaker 1: and it did it in the space where you have
Speaker 1: these giants, and that's why it's market capitalization took off
Speaker 1: So the answer to your question is, of course, I
Speaker 1: think they can do what they prove and they can
Speaker 1: do it. It's what they're about, um, you know, and
Speaker 1: they start with the right, seems to me focus, which
Speaker 1: is what can we do to improve the customers experience?
Speaker 1: And that's very consistent and just give you ten seconds.
Speaker 1: That seems ironic in a world where that's what you're
Speaker 1: supposed to do with every business. Yeah, I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: you could always say better lucky, that's smart that I
Speaker 1: would say Amazon is lucky and smart. Well done, Thanks
Speaker 1: very much, Matt Winkler, Bloomberg Editor in Chief emeritus, talking
Speaker 1: about Amazon dot Com how it is a value stock.
Speaker 1: President Donald Trump is scheduled to make his selection for
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court known at nine pm Eastern daylight time
Speaker 1: today and we will of course cover that live. Here
Speaker 1: to tell us more about this appointment is Greg Store,
Speaker 1: our Supreme Court reporter. Greg. Always a pleasure to speak
Speaker 1: with you and learn what's going on. I have a
Speaker 1: question having to do with whoever or whomever rather is
Speaker 1: selected and perhaps approved by the Senate to uh fill
Speaker 1: the seat vacated by Justice Anthony Kennedy. What is the
Speaker 1: likelihood that people change their minds once they become an
Speaker 1: associate on the Supreme Court. Well, Pim, if you would
Speaker 1: ask me that question thirty years ago, I would say
Speaker 1: there's a decent likelihood people do change. And you look
Speaker 1: at a justice like David Suitor Um, who has touted
Speaker 1: as a conservative when he joined the court and then
Speaker 1: shifted ratherly to the left. Nowadays, however, that both parties
Speaker 1: and especially the Republicans, have gotten very very good at
Speaker 1: picking the type of justice who will be a reliable
Speaker 1: vote for them down the road, we don't see as
Speaker 1: much shift these days. And in the case of Justice Gorset,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's first appointee, he very quickly asserted himself as
Speaker 1: the kind of conservative justice that the President and his
Speaker 1: supporters envisioned him him to be. And um, you know,
Speaker 1: I expect we'll have the same thing with this nominee
Speaker 1: and they will probably be reliable votes going forward. So
Speaker 1: would you don't subscribe to the notion that the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court follows public opinion? There is a certain, uh sense
Speaker 1: in which that is true. Absolutely, the Court does, as
Speaker 1: a real general matter, have have a sense of the
Speaker 1: public sentiment and the polls. Uh, you know, And we
Speaker 1: are we are potentially going to have a very very
Speaker 1: conservative Supreme Court, and maybe that will test the notion
Speaker 1: that justices cannot change. But you know, this list of
Speaker 1: people that Donald Trump is choosing from is a list
Speaker 1: put together by the Federalist Society. It has been vetted
Speaker 1: to a much greater extent than to go back to
Speaker 1: Justice Suitor. That appointment was some some three decades ago. Uh,
Speaker 1: And so the chances that somebody will actually move significantly
Speaker 1: to the left are much less than they used to be. Greg, Well,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for taking time with us today
Speaker 1: before all this excitement. Noah Feldman, folks, and you'll see this.
Speaker 1: It's not out yet, but Noah Feldman, the great Harvard
Speaker 1: calumnist for Bloomberg, Greg can't uh mentions the four candidates
Speaker 1: onesie insider, onesie outsider, et cetera. And then there is
Speaker 1: Judge Barrett, who, to be blunt, Greg, he raves about
Speaker 1: can they forget that she's a conservative? I mean, is
Speaker 1: it do they actually look at their credentials versus their
Speaker 1: politics anymore? Well, they look at the credentials, sure, but um,
Speaker 1: I think the politics are much more important now Judge
Speaker 1: Barrett is Uh, it would be a very interesting choice.
Speaker 1: She is the least experience, she is the youngest, she's
Speaker 1: only forty six, and she's the only woman on the
Speaker 1: list of four that uh it seems are the president's finalist.
Speaker 1: She has also as an academic as a law professor
Speaker 1: at Notre Dame, written some things that are going to
Speaker 1: get a lot of attention. She's made very clear she
Speaker 1: has a personal opposition to abortion. Uh. She has certainly
Speaker 1: raised questions about whether she would vote to uphold Roe v. Wade,
Speaker 1: and I would say strongly suggested she would not do that. Uh.
Speaker 1: She in that sense, UH might be the most alarming
Speaker 1: to Democrats and liberal groups. She could potentially be the
Speaker 1: most dangerous justice from their standpoint, UH and the one
Speaker 1: who who would serve the longest. So there will be uh,
Speaker 1: you know, cross cutting factors that will be upfront if
Speaker 1: she does indeed get the nomination. Gregg's store, Is there
Speaker 1: going to be anything different this time around in this
Speaker 1: sense that they're going to be many challenges to existing decisions.
Speaker 1: Whoever is UH nominated to fulfill Anthony Kennedy's seat, that
Speaker 1: you could see a big public reaction that will change
Speaker 1: the dynamic in Washington. It's a great question, PIM. I
Speaker 1: don't know the answer to that. UM. Democrats are certainly
Speaker 1: trying to make the case that Roevie Wade is at stake, Um,
Speaker 1: and they have a pretty good argument. They're given that
Speaker 1: you have for justices right now still on the Court
Speaker 1: who have at least voted to uphold significant restrictions on
Speaker 1: abortion rights. UM. You know, that's that's obviously a huge
Speaker 1: factor that hasn't been been at issue previously in quite
Speaker 1: the same way. UM. You know, traditionally this has been
Speaker 1: an issue where Republicans have cared a lot more about
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court than Democrats have. Again, as we see
Speaker 1: the court now potentially becoming a truly conservative court, that
Speaker 1: might also change and that might be a factor in
Speaker 1: the November election. Um. But that all remains to be seen,
Speaker 1: and it might matter a little bit who who the
Speaker 1: President nominates. There are some people who like Judge Barrett,
Speaker 1: who might be uh, you know, raise more red flags
Speaker 1: and be more of a target for Democrats than a
Speaker 1: couple of the other potential nominees. Who is the next
Speaker 1: justice Associate Justice who you believe will will leave the bench? Well,
Speaker 1: certainly Justice Ginsburg, who is eight five Justice Brier, who
Speaker 1: just turned eighty. Both liberals are people we look to
Speaker 1: because they are the oldest justices. Uh. It seems very
Speaker 1: clear that Justice Ginsburg in particular is not going anywhere
Speaker 1: if um, as long as Donald Trump is as it
Speaker 1: it uh so the question will be can can her health? Um? Uh?
Speaker 1: Can she maintain her health and her ability to do
Speaker 1: the job and the same thing to lesser extent for
Speaker 1: Justice Briyar. The one that we might look at as
Speaker 1: a potential retirement to give Donald Trump another seat would
Speaker 1: be Justice Thomas, but he's only seventy and could easily
Speaker 1: serve for another decade. Greg, is there any strategy to
Speaker 1: the President's thinking and that he says, I'm gonna pick
Speaker 1: Judge A of A B C D and keep on
Speaker 1: the burner Judge C. Dear you know whatever I mean?
Speaker 1: Is there a Is there a two step process here? Yeah?
Speaker 1: There there has been some talk about doing that with
Speaker 1: Judge Barrett and and leaving her available. If Justice Ginsburg retires,
Speaker 1: um in part because she's a woman, it would be
Speaker 1: a woman replacing a woman. And and if Justice Ginsburg leaves,
Speaker 1: perhaps there's a you know, uh more of a call
Speaker 1: for for a woman, and also because she is the
Speaker 1: least experience. She is a Donald Trump appointee. She's only
Speaker 1: been on the Federal Appeals Court for about eight months
Speaker 1: or so, and it would let her get a little
Speaker 1: more seasoning and uh, you know, perhaps make a smaller,
Speaker 1: stronger case for her confirmation. Gregg, were advantaged by your
Speaker 1: exceptional abilities. I should point out that, uh, Mr Store
Speaker 1: went to a law school in the Charles River in Boston,
Speaker 1: in Cambridge. But but Greg, between you and Noah Feldman,
Speaker 1: I mean the columnist Professor Feldman raves about his fellow
Speaker 1: clerk at the court. Do guys like you care that
Speaker 1: Professor Noah Feldman raves about Barrett. Sure, and it's certainly
Speaker 1: you know, this is the sort of thing that she
Speaker 1: gets the nomination. Uh, you know, Republicans are going to
Speaker 1: be holding up Professor Feldman as look, here is you
Speaker 1: know somebody who disagrees with her on a lot of stuff,
Speaker 1: but says she is um highly qualified and has a
Speaker 1: has a great mind. That will absolutely matter. It mattered
Speaker 1: when Neil Gorsuch was was nominated. One of the people
Speaker 1: who supported him strongly was Neil Catiall, who was a
Speaker 1: the top Supreme Court lawyer in the Obama administration and
Speaker 1: who ended up arguing the case against the Trump travel
Speaker 1: band you know that was held up. So, yes, those
Speaker 1: things will matter. They matter a little bit in terms
Speaker 1: of the politics of it, and they matter, you know
Speaker 1: for people who do think that qualifications matter, that you
Speaker 1: can't just throw anybody on the court and that uh,
Speaker 1: you know, even people who are old school and think
Speaker 1: you ought to vote to confirm somebody if they are qualified,
Speaker 1: even if you don't agree with them on on a
Speaker 1: lot of issues, Greg Store, what do you believe to
Speaker 1: be some of the landmark cases that the Court will
Speaker 1: face next term? Well, right now, we don't have a
Speaker 1: whole lot of landmark cases. UM. I think the issue
Speaker 1: of partisan jurymannering is very likely to come back. There's
Speaker 1: a case out of North Carolina that, uh it seems
Speaker 1: heat up for consideration later in the term. Um. A
Speaker 1: lot of abortion restrictions out there, Uh that could certainly
Speaker 1: come up very soon. And this whole issue of uh
Speaker 1: discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and whether people
Speaker 1: have a have a of just our free speech right
Speaker 1: to say I don't want to, um, you know, participate
Speaker 1: in the gay wedding. That issue is coming back to
Speaker 1: the Court as well. Thank you very much, Greg Store
Speaker 1: our bloom focas Supreme Court reporter, and of course we'll
Speaker 1: be uh covering that live at this nine pm Eastern
Speaker 1: daylight time when President Trump is scheduled to announce his selection.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and
Speaker 1: listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast
Speaker 1: platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keane Before
Speaker 1: the podcast, you can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Radio onwo