1
00:00:00,120 --> 00:00:02,880
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law. The next time Neil Gorcich

2
00:00:02,960 --> 00:00:05,120
Speaker 1: speaks in public, he may be taking his oath as

3
00:00:05,120 --> 00:00:08,760
Speaker 1: a Supreme Court justice. He finished his Senate confirmation testimony

4
00:00:08,840 --> 00:00:11,320
Speaker 1: yesterday and Democrats must now decide whether to try to

5
00:00:11,360 --> 00:00:14,720
Speaker 1: block a vote on the Senate floor. With Republicans in

6
00:00:14,760 --> 00:00:17,160
Speaker 1: control of the chamber, that looks to be an uphill fight.

7
00:00:17,320 --> 00:00:19,680
Speaker 1: Republicans are hoping to get him confirmed in time for

8
00:00:19,720 --> 00:00:22,319
Speaker 1: the last Supreme Court arguments of the term during the

9
00:00:22,360 --> 00:00:25,040
Speaker 1: last two weeks of April. With us to talk about

10
00:00:25,079 --> 00:00:28,600
Speaker 1: Neil Gorcich is Raphael Mangui, Project manager for Legal Policy

11
00:00:28,640 --> 00:00:32,519
Speaker 1: at the Manhattan Institute, and Michelle Jowondo, Vice president of

12
00:00:32,600 --> 00:00:38,360
Speaker 1: Legal Process Progress at the Center for American Progress UM. Michelle,

13
00:00:38,600 --> 00:00:43,240
Speaker 1: judge Gorcich clearly isn't somebody that Democrats would have nominated.

14
00:00:43,400 --> 00:00:46,400
Speaker 1: He's a conservative, but there are a lot of legal

15
00:00:46,440 --> 00:00:49,879
Speaker 1: conservatives in this country. Is there any evidence he is

16
00:00:50,200 --> 00:00:54,720
Speaker 1: outside the mainstream? Well, first off, thank you so much

17
00:00:54,840 --> 00:00:58,120
Speaker 1: for having me, and I'm actually calling you from UM

18
00:00:58,200 --> 00:01:01,800
Speaker 1: the Senate Heart Building we where we are preparing to

19
00:01:01,920 --> 00:01:06,920
Speaker 1: head back into UM. The last few witness panels of

20
00:01:07,000 --> 00:01:11,880
Speaker 1: his nomination UM, I have the pleasure and the privilege

21
00:01:11,920 --> 00:01:15,880
Speaker 1: of working on two other Supreme Court nominations that have

22
00:01:16,000 --> 00:01:20,200
Speaker 1: judged so Mayor and Kagan, and I will say this,

23
00:01:20,600 --> 00:01:24,760
Speaker 1: While we recognize that each president has their own prerogative

24
00:01:24,880 --> 00:01:29,920
Speaker 1: to put forth UM whoever UH their nominee would be,

25
00:01:30,680 --> 00:01:33,600
Speaker 1: I think it's important to recognize that the kind of

26
00:01:33,720 --> 00:01:38,880
Speaker 1: process of selecting the Supreme Court nominee has consequences. I

27
00:01:38,920 --> 00:01:42,320
Speaker 1: think what's very different about this moment is the backdrop

28
00:01:42,520 --> 00:01:45,560
Speaker 1: in which neal force is being put forth. You know,

29
00:01:45,640 --> 00:01:49,280
Speaker 1: for the first time in history we had we saw

30
00:01:49,440 --> 00:01:54,000
Speaker 1: a nominee from President Obama not received a hearing, and

31
00:01:54,040 --> 00:01:57,600
Speaker 1: in some cases wasn't even given the courtesy of meeting.

32
00:01:58,120 --> 00:02:02,840
Speaker 1: You saw a president who has constantly shown his disdain

33
00:02:03,600 --> 00:02:07,720
Speaker 1: not just for UH individual judges, but for the role

34
00:02:07,920 --> 00:02:12,480
Speaker 1: of judges in the judiciary large, particularly when it comes

35
00:02:12,520 --> 00:02:15,840
Speaker 1: to a number of his policies. And for the first

36
00:02:15,880 --> 00:02:19,120
Speaker 1: time ever, we saw in some way this process was

37
00:02:19,240 --> 00:02:22,320
Speaker 1: farmed out to to what I think many people would

38
00:02:22,360 --> 00:02:28,520
Speaker 1: consider UM conservative more right wing organizations who selected the

39
00:02:28,639 --> 00:02:34,639
Speaker 1: names of the people who would be considered Rafael Judge

40
00:02:34,639 --> 00:02:38,240
Speaker 1: gorse It refused to answer questions on anything concerning his

41
00:02:38,560 --> 00:02:42,960
Speaker 1: legal views or personal convictions. Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman

42
00:02:43,040 --> 00:02:46,680
Speaker 1: has written a Bloomberg View column today saying, ethically, there's

43
00:02:46,720 --> 00:02:50,160
Speaker 1: nothing wrong with the nominee speaking about Supreme Court precedent

44
00:02:50,360 --> 00:02:53,320
Speaker 1: or issues that might come before the Court in the future,

45
00:02:53,440 --> 00:02:57,400
Speaker 1: unless the nominee combed did specifically on the facts of

46
00:02:57,440 --> 00:03:02,120
Speaker 1: a particular case. Do you agree with Professor Feilman, Well, no,

47
00:03:02,240 --> 00:03:04,960
Speaker 1: I think I disagree a little bit um. You know,

48
00:03:05,880 --> 00:03:08,000
Speaker 1: while it may not necessarily be a violation of the law,

49
00:03:08,000 --> 00:03:11,840
Speaker 1: I think judicial ethics require judges to approach whatever cases

50
00:03:11,919 --> 00:03:14,480
Speaker 1: they might that might come before them neutrally, and I

51
00:03:14,480 --> 00:03:17,560
Speaker 1: don't think that it would be proper for a judge

52
00:03:17,760 --> 00:03:20,600
Speaker 1: nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court to make

53
00:03:21,000 --> 00:03:23,160
Speaker 1: comments or predictions about how he or she is going

54
00:03:23,200 --> 00:03:26,000
Speaker 1: to rule in cases that haven't even come before him yet.

55
00:03:26,040 --> 00:03:28,160
Speaker 1: And so I think what Neil Gorst was trying to

56
00:03:28,200 --> 00:03:30,480
Speaker 1: say throughout the course of the hearing, whenever he was

57
00:03:30,520 --> 00:03:32,280
Speaker 1: asked to comment on what he would say in this

58
00:03:32,440 --> 00:03:36,000
Speaker 1: or that situation, it was really just that at the

59
00:03:36,120 --> 00:03:38,320
Speaker 1: end of the day, these are the principles of judging

60
00:03:38,320 --> 00:03:40,720
Speaker 1: to which I subscribe and depending on the fact of

61
00:03:40,720 --> 00:03:42,920
Speaker 1: the case and the arguments made in that particular case.

62
00:03:43,240 --> 00:03:45,320
Speaker 1: You know, I will apply those principles neutrally, and I

63
00:03:45,360 --> 00:03:47,640
Speaker 1: think that's the best you can ever asks a Supreme

64
00:03:47,640 --> 00:03:50,040
Speaker 1: Court justice to do. I would be troubled if he

65
00:03:50,080 --> 00:03:52,760
Speaker 1: were you to to opine on on the specifics of

66
00:03:52,760 --> 00:03:54,840
Speaker 1: how he might rule in one situation or another ahead

67
00:03:54,840 --> 00:03:57,720
Speaker 1: of time. He refused to even talk about cases of

68
00:03:57,760 --> 00:04:01,080
Speaker 1: a Supreme Court. There is no ethical rule, is there

69
00:04:01,800 --> 00:04:04,400
Speaker 1: against No, that don't there's there's no other rule that

70
00:04:04,440 --> 00:04:07,080
Speaker 1: prevents him from talking about cases before the Supreme Court.

71
00:04:07,120 --> 00:04:09,440
Speaker 1: But he you know, he actually went through several of

72
00:04:09,480 --> 00:04:12,880
Speaker 1: the precedents um that the Supreme Court has decided, explained them,

73
00:04:13,080 --> 00:04:15,440
Speaker 1: you know, in response to the questions, and explained how

74
00:04:15,800 --> 00:04:19,000
Speaker 1: he would approach applying those presidents. I mean, yeah, I

75
00:04:19,000 --> 00:04:21,040
Speaker 1: think he actually did do a pretty good job of

76
00:04:21,200 --> 00:04:24,880
Speaker 1: of explaining how he felt about those those cases. Michelle.

77
00:04:24,960 --> 00:04:27,560
Speaker 1: One thing that Judge Gorcer has pointed out on several occasions,

78
00:04:27,920 --> 00:04:29,400
Speaker 1: he had said, if you don't like this or that

79
00:04:29,440 --> 00:04:32,600
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decision in many cases, not all, but many,

80
00:04:32,960 --> 00:04:35,120
Speaker 1: Congress has the power to change the law. So, you know,

81
00:04:35,200 --> 00:04:40,320
Speaker 1: voting rights mandatory arbitration clauses. Isn't the real problem for

82
00:04:40,440 --> 00:04:44,520
Speaker 1: people who oppose his nomination at the ballot box rather

83
00:04:44,560 --> 00:04:51,800
Speaker 1: than rather than the courts? Well, without question, you know,

84
00:04:51,960 --> 00:04:55,800
Speaker 1: we in this democracy have the ability to select who

85
00:04:56,040 --> 00:04:59,200
Speaker 1: our representatives are, and if there are issues, we can

86
00:04:59,320 --> 00:05:02,760
Speaker 1: use that as an opportunity to make the distinction of

87
00:05:03,520 --> 00:05:07,560
Speaker 1: what we would prefer in seeing actualized. But what's very

88
00:05:07,640 --> 00:05:11,800
Speaker 1: important to recognize as we consider or the three different

89
00:05:11,880 --> 00:05:16,560
Speaker 1: separation of power and the branches, the coequal branches of government.

90
00:05:17,040 --> 00:05:21,080
Speaker 1: If a legislator passes a piece of legislation and that

91
00:05:21,279 --> 00:05:25,159
Speaker 1: legislation is then challenged, it will end up before the court.

92
00:05:25,600 --> 00:05:29,239
Speaker 1: And if it is an extremely complex and difficult question

93
00:05:29,320 --> 00:05:33,400
Speaker 1: to consider, then that issue will then end up before

94
00:05:33,440 --> 00:05:36,120
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. And that's why who sits on the

95
00:05:36,160 --> 00:05:40,479
Speaker 1: Supreme Court matters, because it is not a robotic exercise

96
00:05:40,600 --> 00:05:45,840
Speaker 1: that one one piece of legislation will sit for time immemorial.

97
00:05:46,200 --> 00:05:49,200
Speaker 1: If it's a really difficult question, it will end up

98
00:05:49,240 --> 00:05:51,479
Speaker 1: before our court. And that's why who sits on the

99
00:05:51,520 --> 00:05:54,640
Speaker 1: Court and their interpretation of the Constitution in the way

100
00:05:54,680 --> 00:05:59,000
Speaker 1: that you interpret that law using the text, as using

101
00:05:59,000 --> 00:06:02,360
Speaker 1: the text of the concerts as your based documents. That's

102
00:06:02,360 --> 00:06:05,200
Speaker 1: why it is so important that we consider all of

103
00:06:05,240 --> 00:06:08,120
Speaker 1: these factors. You're listening to Bloomberg Law. As he finished

104
00:06:08,120 --> 00:06:11,280
Speaker 1: his Supreme Court confirmation testimony yesterday, Neil Gorcer's left the

105
00:06:11,279 --> 00:06:14,640
Speaker 1: Senators as divided as he found them. Democrats Sheldon white

106
00:06:14,720 --> 00:06:16,880
Speaker 1: House said he saw a pattern on the Supreme Court

107
00:06:16,920 --> 00:06:21,200
Speaker 1: of Republican appointed justices favoring corporate interests at the expense

108
00:06:21,360 --> 00:06:25,279
Speaker 1: of average people. Of course, it's pushed back. I'm distressed

109
00:06:25,279 --> 00:06:28,839
Speaker 1: to hear you think that judges or the Supreme Court

110
00:06:29,080 --> 00:06:31,400
Speaker 1: is an organ of a party. That to me is

111
00:06:31,440 --> 00:06:35,279
Speaker 1: just I know you feel that way, and that distresses me.

112
00:06:35,440 --> 00:06:38,039
Speaker 1: It distresses me too, And I just don't wait a lot.

113
00:06:38,120 --> 00:06:41,720
Speaker 1: I just don't see judging that way. Our guests to

114
00:06:41,720 --> 00:06:45,320
Speaker 1: talk about Neil Gorcer, Raphael Mangua of the Manhattan Institute

115
00:06:45,360 --> 00:06:49,600
Speaker 1: and Michelle Jrondo of the Center for American Progress. Raphael

116
00:06:49,800 --> 00:06:53,800
Speaker 1: Judges love saying they're not politicians in robes. But don't

117
00:06:53,839 --> 00:06:56,680
Speaker 1: we basically know that on the large majority of of

118
00:06:56,800 --> 00:06:59,520
Speaker 1: the important cases, the cases that you know, people pay

119
00:06:59,560 --> 00:07:03,080
Speaker 1: attention to at the Supreme Court Just Justice, cortious course,

120
00:07:03,160 --> 00:07:06,400
Speaker 1: Hitch is going to vote the way most Republicans would like.

121
00:07:07,520 --> 00:07:10,000
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't think that's that's actually that obvious.

122
00:07:10,000 --> 00:07:12,080
Speaker 1: I mean, if you look at Judge Corse's record, I

123
00:07:12,080 --> 00:07:14,679
Speaker 1: think he'd surprise a lot of people, particularly on the left,

124
00:07:14,800 --> 00:07:19,160
Speaker 1: insofar as he's actually very much a friend to criminal defendants,

125
00:07:19,360 --> 00:07:22,520
Speaker 1: UM and and religious minorities when you know, when applying

126
00:07:22,520 --> 00:07:25,920
Speaker 1: the religious freedom restoration. Actually I don't think it's necessarily

127
00:07:26,120 --> 00:07:29,960
Speaker 1: um you know laid out in Stone how he's going

128
00:07:29,960 --> 00:07:32,560
Speaker 1: to rule in a particular case. Now, as a conservative,

129
00:07:32,720 --> 00:07:34,720
Speaker 1: you know you can expect him to apply originalism. And

130
00:07:34,760 --> 00:07:37,960
Speaker 1: the nice thing about originalism is that, irrespective of the

131
00:07:38,040 --> 00:07:41,080
Speaker 1: judge's views, if you apply it correctly, you can kind

132
00:07:41,120 --> 00:07:43,520
Speaker 1: of guess how they're going to rule on a particular

133
00:07:43,520 --> 00:07:48,120
Speaker 1: statute statutory interpretation issue. But that that that doesn't necessarily

134
00:07:48,120 --> 00:07:51,840
Speaker 1: mean that he's ideologically motivated. I mean his ideology. I

135
00:07:51,880 --> 00:07:54,440
Speaker 1: think UM values a certain system of judging. In that

136
00:07:54,480 --> 00:07:56,360
Speaker 1: system of judging, I believe this is one of the

137
00:07:56,400 --> 00:07:58,640
Speaker 1: most neutral, if not the most neutral, that you can apply,

138
00:07:58,720 --> 00:08:01,720
Speaker 1: so you know, to the extended that you get consistent results.

139
00:08:01,760 --> 00:08:04,840
Speaker 1: I don't think it's a function of ideological drive. Michelle.

140
00:08:05,240 --> 00:08:10,239
Speaker 1: Justice Scalia also diverged from strict conservative is in certain

141
00:08:10,280 --> 00:08:14,840
Speaker 1: respects involving police cases. UM. In any other ways, can

142
00:08:14,880 --> 00:08:20,360
Speaker 1: we expect Judge Gorcis to divert from the conservative viewpoint?

143
00:08:23,360 --> 00:08:26,640
Speaker 1: You know? I think if we like, take for instance,

144
00:08:26,800 --> 00:08:32,200
Speaker 1: his his authors on hobby Lobby, which was later affirmed

145
00:08:32,200 --> 00:08:35,200
Speaker 1: by the Supreme Court. But I will say at the

146
00:08:35,320 --> 00:08:39,560
Speaker 1: time it was what many considered a radical reading of

147
00:08:39,800 --> 00:08:43,679
Speaker 1: looking at the roof for laws the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

148
00:08:44,160 --> 00:08:47,520
Speaker 1: I think many people interpret that as connected to a

149
00:08:47,640 --> 00:08:51,920
Speaker 1: pattern UM that is particularly hostile and its approach to

150
00:08:52,600 --> 00:08:56,280
Speaker 1: women's issues or issues around reproductive rights. And though he

151
00:08:56,360 --> 00:08:59,600
Speaker 1: hasn't ruled directly on the issue of abortion, I think

152
00:08:59,640 --> 00:09:02,520
Speaker 1: many people tend to believe that there is a pattern

153
00:09:02,600 --> 00:09:06,920
Speaker 1: that has emerged, both in his treatment on that issue

154
00:09:07,120 --> 00:09:10,280
Speaker 1: as well as even yesterday the Supreme Court, in an

155
00:09:10,280 --> 00:09:14,920
Speaker 1: eight a ruling UM rejected a theory that he put

156
00:09:15,040 --> 00:09:19,760
Speaker 1: forth around the individuals with disability that and the Chief

157
00:09:19,840 --> 00:09:23,280
Speaker 1: Justice actually authored that opinion in saying that the standard

158
00:09:23,760 --> 00:09:28,400
Speaker 1: that Judge Gorsage used was incorrect. And so I think

159
00:09:28,440 --> 00:09:31,760
Speaker 1: that there are a number of issues where there are

160
00:09:31,920 --> 00:09:34,839
Speaker 1: good reasons why you have seen people on a less

161
00:09:34,960 --> 00:09:39,080
Speaker 1: rays concern about him joining the court. And I think

162
00:09:39,120 --> 00:09:42,880
Speaker 1: it's important to also recognize that these hearings are the

163
00:09:43,040 --> 00:09:48,400
Speaker 1: only opportunity that individuals have to examine a judicial philosophy

164
00:09:48,480 --> 00:09:51,120
Speaker 1: of an individual, and that's why they should be more

165
00:09:51,600 --> 00:09:56,319
Speaker 1: than just a, um, a simple audition. In some ways,

166
00:09:56,400 --> 00:09:58,480
Speaker 1: we should have a sense of who you are. This

167
00:09:58,600 --> 00:10:01,319
Speaker 1: is not four years with the president, but this is

168
00:10:01,400 --> 00:10:06,520
Speaker 1: actually forty years UM, and it's really important to recognize that. Raphael,

169
00:10:06,520 --> 00:10:08,000
Speaker 1: I want to spend just a minute talking about the

170
00:10:08,040 --> 00:10:11,120
Speaker 1: confirmation process. Do you see any realistic chance that Neil

171
00:10:11,160 --> 00:10:14,720
Speaker 1: Gorcitch will not be confirmed to the Supreme Court? No,

172
00:10:14,960 --> 00:10:17,559
Speaker 1: I don't. UM. You know, Chuck Shumer made some noise

173
00:10:17,559 --> 00:10:20,560
Speaker 1: on the Senate floor earlier today, you know, saying indicating

174
00:10:20,600 --> 00:10:22,839
Speaker 1: that that, um, the judge would need sixty votes to

175
00:10:22,880 --> 00:10:24,760
Speaker 1: get through. And if that's really the case, I think

176
00:10:24,760 --> 00:10:27,560
Speaker 1: you'll get it. Um. You know, at some point the

177
00:10:27,600 --> 00:10:29,880
Speaker 1: Republicans will have to, you know, confront the fact that

178
00:10:29,960 --> 00:10:32,040
Speaker 1: they have an option open to them if the Democrats

179
00:10:32,040 --> 00:10:34,960
Speaker 1: do filibuster, and I don't see any reason why they

180
00:10:34,960 --> 00:10:39,600
Speaker 1: shouldn't take it if that, If that's necessary, and Michelle

181
00:10:39,880 --> 00:10:44,280
Speaker 1: what's your opinion on that. Well, I think it's unfortunate.

182
00:10:44,360 --> 00:10:47,880
Speaker 1: As someone who would consider herself a Senate traditionalist, I

183
00:10:47,880 --> 00:10:49,800
Speaker 1: don't think we should get in the habit of blowing

184
00:10:49,920 --> 00:10:52,520
Speaker 1: up a hundred year old rules. I think if there's

185
00:10:52,559 --> 00:10:56,319
Speaker 1: actually an issue, isn't able to get sixty votes, we

186
00:10:56,360 --> 00:10:59,320
Speaker 1: should change the nominee and not change the rules that

187
00:10:59,400 --> 00:11:03,320
Speaker 1: have um conducted our behavior or on high Court nomineeds

188
00:11:03,400 --> 00:11:07,000
Speaker 1: for time immemorial. I think it would be another really

189
00:11:07,120 --> 00:11:10,960
Speaker 1: low blow for the Senate. It only drives further partisanship

190
00:11:11,400 --> 00:11:13,839
Speaker 1: UM here in the nation's capital. But Michelle, do you

191
00:11:13,880 --> 00:11:17,000
Speaker 1: see any chance that the Democrats might might succeed if

192
00:11:17,000 --> 00:11:19,920
Speaker 1: they do do block a vote? Um? Or should we

193
00:11:19,960 --> 00:11:22,720
Speaker 1: just assume it's going to be Justice Corsage? You know,

194
00:11:22,840 --> 00:11:25,760
Speaker 1: I don't think we should ever make any assumptions um.

195
00:11:25,800 --> 00:11:29,880
Speaker 1: I think November eight, twenties six speaking taught us bet.

196
00:11:30,240 --> 00:11:33,320
Speaker 1: But I don't think without uh that it is a

197
00:11:33,440 --> 00:11:35,920
Speaker 1: definite that Judge Corsage will be on the court. I

198
00:11:35,960 --> 00:11:39,600
Speaker 1: think a number of Senators, including Senator Casey and Senator

199
00:11:39,679 --> 00:11:44,200
Speaker 1: Schumer as the minority leader, coming out today strongly that

200
00:11:44,400 --> 00:11:47,960
Speaker 1: is a signal to other people in the caucus, and

201
00:11:48,040 --> 00:11:50,800
Speaker 1: I'm not quite sure that he has the vote needs,

202
00:11:50,920 --> 00:11:53,360
Speaker 1: so I think we should all stay tuned to see

203
00:11:53,360 --> 00:11:56,160
Speaker 1: what happens next. Okay, let's definitely stay tuned, and I

204
00:11:56,200 --> 00:11:58,280
Speaker 1: want to thank our guests. That was Michelle Jawando of

205
00:11:58,320 --> 00:12:01,600
Speaker 1: the Center for American Progress and Raphael Manguel of the

206
00:12:01,640 --> 00:12:06,679
Speaker 1: Manhattan Institute talking about uh Neil Gorcich and his confirmation

207
00:12:06,720 --> 00:12:10,600
Speaker 1: hearing which is concluding today with some outside witnesses talking

208
00:12:10,640 --> 00:12:13,280
Speaker 1: about him. And then the next step will be the

209
00:12:13,280 --> 00:12:17,640
Speaker 1: Senate floor. Coming up, what does the Westminster attack tell

210
00:12:17,720 --> 00:12:21,960
Speaker 1: us about the United Kingdom's vulnerability to terrorists? And we'll

211
00:12:21,960 --> 00:12:24,760
Speaker 1: talk about something else that happened with the Supreme Court yesterday,

212
00:12:24,800 --> 00:12:28,800
Speaker 1: a new ruling involving cheerleading uniforms, and the Supreme Court

213
00:12:28,840 --> 00:12:33,800
Speaker 1: bolsters legal protections for pictures and graphic designs. That's all

214
00:12:33,840 --> 00:12:37,239
Speaker 1: coming up on Bloomberg Law. This is Bloomberg