WEBVTT - Gorsuch Faces Questions Over Testimony Disclosure  (Audio)

0:00:00.120 --> 0:00:02.880
<v Speaker 1>You're listening to Bloomberg Law. The next time Neil Gorcich

0:00:02.960 --> 0:00:05.120
<v Speaker 1>speaks in public, he may be taking his oath as

0:00:05.120 --> 0:00:08.760
<v Speaker 1>a Supreme Court justice. He finished his Senate confirmation testimony

0:00:08.840 --> 0:00:11.320
<v Speaker 1>yesterday and Democrats must now decide whether to try to

0:00:11.360 --> 0:00:14.720
<v Speaker 1>block a vote on the Senate floor. With Republicans in

0:00:14.760 --> 0:00:17.160
<v Speaker 1>control of the chamber, that looks to be an uphill fight.

0:00:17.320 --> 0:00:19.680
<v Speaker 1>Republicans are hoping to get him confirmed in time for

0:00:19.720 --> 0:00:22.319
<v Speaker 1>the last Supreme Court arguments of the term during the

0:00:22.360 --> 0:00:25.040
<v Speaker 1>last two weeks of April. With us to talk about

0:00:25.079 --> 0:00:28.600
<v Speaker 1>Neil Gorcich is Raphael Mangui, Project manager for Legal Policy

0:00:28.640 --> 0:00:32.519
<v Speaker 1>at the Manhattan Institute, and Michelle Jowondo, Vice president of

0:00:32.600 --> 0:00:38.360
<v Speaker 1>Legal Process Progress at the Center for American Progress UM. Michelle,

0:00:38.600 --> 0:00:43.240
<v Speaker 1>judge Gorcich clearly isn't somebody that Democrats would have nominated.

0:00:43.400 --> 0:00:46.400
<v Speaker 1>He's a conservative, but there are a lot of legal

0:00:46.440 --> 0:00:49.879
<v Speaker 1>conservatives in this country. Is there any evidence he is

0:00:50.200 --> 0:00:54.720
<v Speaker 1>outside the mainstream? Well, first off, thank you so much

0:00:54.840 --> 0:00:58.120
<v Speaker 1>for having me, and I'm actually calling you from UM

0:00:58.200 --> 0:01:01.800
<v Speaker 1>the Senate Heart Building we where we are preparing to

0:01:01.920 --> 0:01:06.920
<v Speaker 1>head back into UM. The last few witness panels of

0:01:07.000 --> 0:01:11.880
<v Speaker 1>his nomination UM, I have the pleasure and the privilege

0:01:11.920 --> 0:01:15.880
<v Speaker 1>of working on two other Supreme Court nominations that have

0:01:16.000 --> 0:01:20.200
<v Speaker 1>judged so Mayor and Kagan, and I will say this,

0:01:20.600 --> 0:01:24.760
<v Speaker 1>While we recognize that each president has their own prerogative

0:01:24.880 --> 0:01:29.920
<v Speaker 1>to put forth UM whoever UH their nominee would be,

0:01:30.680 --> 0:01:33.600
<v Speaker 1>I think it's important to recognize that the kind of

0:01:33.720 --> 0:01:38.880
<v Speaker 1>process of selecting the Supreme Court nominee has consequences. I

0:01:38.920 --> 0:01:42.320
<v Speaker 1>think what's very different about this moment is the backdrop

0:01:42.520 --> 0:01:45.560
<v Speaker 1>in which neal force is being put forth. You know,

0:01:45.640 --> 0:01:49.280
<v Speaker 1>for the first time in history we had we saw

0:01:49.440 --> 0:01:54.000
<v Speaker 1>a nominee from President Obama not received a hearing, and

0:01:54.040 --> 0:01:57.600
<v Speaker 1>in some cases wasn't even given the courtesy of meeting.

0:01:58.120 --> 0:02:02.840
<v Speaker 1>You saw a president who has constantly shown his disdain

0:02:03.600 --> 0:02:07.720
<v Speaker 1>not just for UH individual judges, but for the role

0:02:07.920 --> 0:02:12.480
<v Speaker 1>of judges in the judiciary large, particularly when it comes

0:02:12.520 --> 0:02:15.840
<v Speaker 1>to a number of his policies. And for the first

0:02:15.880 --> 0:02:19.120
<v Speaker 1>time ever, we saw in some way this process was

0:02:19.240 --> 0:02:22.320
<v Speaker 1>farmed out to to what I think many people would

0:02:22.360 --> 0:02:28.520
<v Speaker 1>consider UM conservative more right wing organizations who selected the

0:02:28.639 --> 0:02:34.639
<v Speaker 1>names of the people who would be considered Rafael Judge

0:02:34.639 --> 0:02:38.240
<v Speaker 1>gorse It refused to answer questions on anything concerning his

0:02:38.560 --> 0:02:42.960
<v Speaker 1>legal views or personal convictions. Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman

0:02:43.040 --> 0:02:46.680
<v Speaker 1>has written a Bloomberg View column today saying, ethically, there's

0:02:46.720 --> 0:02:50.160
<v Speaker 1>nothing wrong with the nominee speaking about Supreme Court precedent

0:02:50.360 --> 0:02:53.320
<v Speaker 1>or issues that might come before the Court in the future,

0:02:53.440 --> 0:02:57.400
<v Speaker 1>unless the nominee combed did specifically on the facts of

0:02:57.440 --> 0:03:02.120
<v Speaker 1>a particular case. Do you agree with Professor Feilman, Well, no,

0:03:02.240 --> 0:03:04.960
<v Speaker 1>I think I disagree a little bit um. You know,

0:03:05.880 --> 0:03:08.000
<v Speaker 1>while it may not necessarily be a violation of the law,

0:03:08.000 --> 0:03:11.840
<v Speaker 1>I think judicial ethics require judges to approach whatever cases

0:03:11.919 --> 0:03:14.480
<v Speaker 1>they might that might come before them neutrally, and I

0:03:14.480 --> 0:03:17.560
<v Speaker 1>don't think that it would be proper for a judge

0:03:17.760 --> 0:03:20.600
<v Speaker 1>nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court to make

0:03:21.000 --> 0:03:23.160
<v Speaker 1>comments or predictions about how he or she is going

0:03:23.200 --> 0:03:26.000
<v Speaker 1>to rule in cases that haven't even come before him yet.

0:03:26.040 --> 0:03:28.160
<v Speaker 1>And so I think what Neil Gorst was trying to

0:03:28.200 --> 0:03:30.480
<v Speaker 1>say throughout the course of the hearing, whenever he was

0:03:30.520 --> 0:03:32.280
<v Speaker 1>asked to comment on what he would say in this

0:03:32.440 --> 0:03:36.000
<v Speaker 1>or that situation, it was really just that at the

0:03:36.120 --> 0:03:38.320
<v Speaker 1>end of the day, these are the principles of judging

0:03:38.320 --> 0:03:40.720
<v Speaker 1>to which I subscribe and depending on the fact of

0:03:40.720 --> 0:03:42.920
<v Speaker 1>the case and the arguments made in that particular case.

0:03:43.240 --> 0:03:45.320
<v Speaker 1>You know, I will apply those principles neutrally, and I

0:03:45.360 --> 0:03:47.640
<v Speaker 1>think that's the best you can ever asks a Supreme

0:03:47.640 --> 0:03:50.040
<v Speaker 1>Court justice to do. I would be troubled if he

0:03:50.080 --> 0:03:52.760
<v Speaker 1>were you to to opine on on the specifics of

0:03:52.760 --> 0:03:54.840
<v Speaker 1>how he might rule in one situation or another ahead

0:03:54.840 --> 0:03:57.720
<v Speaker 1>of time. He refused to even talk about cases of

0:03:57.760 --> 0:04:01.080
<v Speaker 1>a Supreme Court. There is no ethical rule, is there

0:04:01.800 --> 0:04:04.400
<v Speaker 1>against No, that don't there's there's no other rule that

0:04:04.440 --> 0:04:07.080
<v Speaker 1>prevents him from talking about cases before the Supreme Court.

0:04:07.120 --> 0:04:09.440
<v Speaker 1>But he you know, he actually went through several of

0:04:09.480 --> 0:04:12.880
<v Speaker 1>the precedents um that the Supreme Court has decided, explained them,

0:04:13.080 --> 0:04:15.440
<v Speaker 1>you know, in response to the questions, and explained how

0:04:15.800 --> 0:04:19.000
<v Speaker 1>he would approach applying those presidents. I mean, yeah, I

0:04:19.000 --> 0:04:21.040
<v Speaker 1>think he actually did do a pretty good job of

0:04:21.200 --> 0:04:24.880
<v Speaker 1>of explaining how he felt about those those cases. Michelle.

0:04:24.960 --> 0:04:27.560
<v Speaker 1>One thing that Judge Gorcer has pointed out on several occasions,

0:04:27.920 --> 0:04:29.400
<v Speaker 1>he had said, if you don't like this or that

0:04:29.440 --> 0:04:32.600
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court decision in many cases, not all, but many,

0:04:32.960 --> 0:04:35.120
<v Speaker 1>Congress has the power to change the law. So, you know,

0:04:35.200 --> 0:04:40.320
<v Speaker 1>voting rights mandatory arbitration clauses. Isn't the real problem for

0:04:40.440 --> 0:04:44.520
<v Speaker 1>people who oppose his nomination at the ballot box rather

0:04:44.560 --> 0:04:51.800
<v Speaker 1>than rather than the courts? Well, without question, you know,

0:04:51.960 --> 0:04:55.800
<v Speaker 1>we in this democracy have the ability to select who

0:04:56.040 --> 0:04:59.200
<v Speaker 1>our representatives are, and if there are issues, we can

0:04:59.320 --> 0:05:02.760
<v Speaker 1>use that as an opportunity to make the distinction of

0:05:03.520 --> 0:05:07.560
<v Speaker 1>what we would prefer in seeing actualized. But what's very

0:05:07.640 --> 0:05:11.800
<v Speaker 1>important to recognize as we consider or the three different

0:05:11.880 --> 0:05:16.560
<v Speaker 1>separation of power and the branches, the coequal branches of government.

0:05:17.040 --> 0:05:21.080
<v Speaker 1>If a legislator passes a piece of legislation and that

0:05:21.279 --> 0:05:25.159
<v Speaker 1>legislation is then challenged, it will end up before the court.

0:05:25.600 --> 0:05:29.239
<v Speaker 1>And if it is an extremely complex and difficult question

0:05:29.320 --> 0:05:33.400
<v Speaker 1>to consider, then that issue will then end up before

0:05:33.440 --> 0:05:36.120
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court. And that's why who sits on the

0:05:36.160 --> 0:05:40.479
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court matters, because it is not a robotic exercise

0:05:40.600 --> 0:05:45.840
<v Speaker 1>that one one piece of legislation will sit for time immemorial.

0:05:46.200 --> 0:05:49.200
<v Speaker 1>If it's a really difficult question, it will end up

0:05:49.240 --> 0:05:51.479
<v Speaker 1>before our court. And that's why who sits on the

0:05:51.520 --> 0:05:54.640
<v Speaker 1>Court and their interpretation of the Constitution in the way

0:05:54.680 --> 0:05:59.000
<v Speaker 1>that you interpret that law using the text, as using

0:05:59.000 --> 0:06:02.360
<v Speaker 1>the text of the concerts as your based documents. That's

0:06:02.360 --> 0:06:05.200
<v Speaker 1>why it is so important that we consider all of

0:06:05.240 --> 0:06:08.120
<v Speaker 1>these factors. You're listening to Bloomberg Law. As he finished

0:06:08.120 --> 0:06:11.280
<v Speaker 1>his Supreme Court confirmation testimony yesterday, Neil Gorcer's left the

0:06:11.279 --> 0:06:14.640
<v Speaker 1>Senators as divided as he found them. Democrats Sheldon white

0:06:14.720 --> 0:06:16.880
<v Speaker 1>House said he saw a pattern on the Supreme Court

0:06:16.920 --> 0:06:21.200
<v Speaker 1>of Republican appointed justices favoring corporate interests at the expense

0:06:21.360 --> 0:06:25.279
<v Speaker 1>of average people. Of course, it's pushed back. I'm distressed

0:06:25.279 --> 0:06:28.839
<v Speaker 1>to hear you think that judges or the Supreme Court

0:06:29.080 --> 0:06:31.400
<v Speaker 1>is an organ of a party. That to me is

0:06:31.440 --> 0:06:35.279
<v Speaker 1>just I know you feel that way, and that distresses me.

0:06:35.440 --> 0:06:38.039
<v Speaker 1>It distresses me too, And I just don't wait a lot.

0:06:38.120 --> 0:06:41.720
<v Speaker 1>I just don't see judging that way. Our guests to

0:06:41.720 --> 0:06:45.320
<v Speaker 1>talk about Neil Gorcer, Raphael Mangua of the Manhattan Institute

0:06:45.360 --> 0:06:49.600
<v Speaker 1>and Michelle Jrondo of the Center for American Progress. Raphael

0:06:49.800 --> 0:06:53.800
<v Speaker 1>Judges love saying they're not politicians in robes. But don't

0:06:53.839 --> 0:06:56.680
<v Speaker 1>we basically know that on the large majority of of

0:06:56.800 --> 0:06:59.520
<v Speaker 1>the important cases, the cases that you know, people pay

0:06:59.560 --> 0:07:03.080
<v Speaker 1>attention to at the Supreme Court Just Justice, cortious course,

0:07:03.160 --> 0:07:06.400
<v Speaker 1>Hitch is going to vote the way most Republicans would like.

0:07:07.520 --> 0:07:10.000
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I don't think that's that's actually that obvious.

0:07:10.000 --> 0:07:12.080
<v Speaker 1>I mean, if you look at Judge Corse's record, I

0:07:12.080 --> 0:07:14.679
<v Speaker 1>think he'd surprise a lot of people, particularly on the left,

0:07:14.800 --> 0:07:19.160
<v Speaker 1>insofar as he's actually very much a friend to criminal defendants,

0:07:19.360 --> 0:07:22.520
<v Speaker 1>UM and and religious minorities when you know, when applying

0:07:22.520 --> 0:07:25.920
<v Speaker 1>the religious freedom restoration. Actually I don't think it's necessarily

0:07:26.120 --> 0:07:29.960
<v Speaker 1>um you know laid out in Stone how he's going

0:07:29.960 --> 0:07:32.560
<v Speaker 1>to rule in a particular case. Now, as a conservative,

0:07:32.720 --> 0:07:34.720
<v Speaker 1>you know you can expect him to apply originalism. And

0:07:34.760 --> 0:07:37.960
<v Speaker 1>the nice thing about originalism is that, irrespective of the

0:07:38.040 --> 0:07:41.080
<v Speaker 1>judge's views, if you apply it correctly, you can kind

0:07:41.120 --> 0:07:43.520
<v Speaker 1>of guess how they're going to rule on a particular

0:07:43.520 --> 0:07:48.120
<v Speaker 1>statute statutory interpretation issue. But that that that doesn't necessarily

0:07:48.120 --> 0:07:51.840
<v Speaker 1>mean that he's ideologically motivated. I mean his ideology. I

0:07:51.880 --> 0:07:54.440
<v Speaker 1>think UM values a certain system of judging. In that

0:07:54.480 --> 0:07:56.360
<v Speaker 1>system of judging, I believe this is one of the

0:07:56.400 --> 0:07:58.640
<v Speaker 1>most neutral, if not the most neutral, that you can apply,

0:07:58.720 --> 0:08:01.720
<v Speaker 1>so you know, to the extended that you get consistent results.

0:08:01.760 --> 0:08:04.840
<v Speaker 1>I don't think it's a function of ideological drive. Michelle.

0:08:05.240 --> 0:08:10.239
<v Speaker 1>Justice Scalia also diverged from strict conservative is in certain

0:08:10.280 --> 0:08:14.840
<v Speaker 1>respects involving police cases. UM. In any other ways, can

0:08:14.880 --> 0:08:20.360
<v Speaker 1>we expect Judge Gorcis to divert from the conservative viewpoint?

0:08:23.360 --> 0:08:26.640
<v Speaker 1>You know? I think if we like, take for instance,

0:08:26.800 --> 0:08:32.200
<v Speaker 1>his his authors on hobby Lobby, which was later affirmed

0:08:32.200 --> 0:08:35.200
<v Speaker 1>by the Supreme Court. But I will say at the

0:08:35.320 --> 0:08:39.560
<v Speaker 1>time it was what many considered a radical reading of

0:08:39.800 --> 0:08:43.679
<v Speaker 1>looking at the roof for laws the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

0:08:44.160 --> 0:08:47.520
<v Speaker 1>I think many people interpret that as connected to a

0:08:47.640 --> 0:08:51.920
<v Speaker 1>pattern UM that is particularly hostile and its approach to

0:08:52.600 --> 0:08:56.280
<v Speaker 1>women's issues or issues around reproductive rights. And though he

0:08:56.360 --> 0:08:59.600
<v Speaker 1>hasn't ruled directly on the issue of abortion, I think

0:08:59.640 --> 0:09:02.520
<v Speaker 1>many people tend to believe that there is a pattern

0:09:02.600 --> 0:09:06.920
<v Speaker 1>that has emerged, both in his treatment on that issue

0:09:07.120 --> 0:09:10.280
<v Speaker 1>as well as even yesterday the Supreme Court, in an

0:09:10.280 --> 0:09:14.920
<v Speaker 1>eight a ruling UM rejected a theory that he put

0:09:15.040 --> 0:09:19.760
<v Speaker 1>forth around the individuals with disability that and the Chief

0:09:19.840 --> 0:09:23.280
<v Speaker 1>Justice actually authored that opinion in saying that the standard

0:09:23.760 --> 0:09:28.400
<v Speaker 1>that Judge Gorsage used was incorrect. And so I think

0:09:28.440 --> 0:09:31.760
<v Speaker 1>that there are a number of issues where there are

0:09:31.920 --> 0:09:34.839
<v Speaker 1>good reasons why you have seen people on a less

0:09:34.960 --> 0:09:39.080
<v Speaker 1>rays concern about him joining the court. And I think

0:09:39.120 --> 0:09:42.880
<v Speaker 1>it's important to also recognize that these hearings are the

0:09:43.040 --> 0:09:48.400
<v Speaker 1>only opportunity that individuals have to examine a judicial philosophy

0:09:48.480 --> 0:09:51.120
<v Speaker 1>of an individual, and that's why they should be more

0:09:51.600 --> 0:09:56.319
<v Speaker 1>than just a, um, a simple audition. In some ways,

0:09:56.400 --> 0:09:58.480
<v Speaker 1>we should have a sense of who you are. This

0:09:58.600 --> 0:10:01.319
<v Speaker 1>is not four years with the president, but this is

0:10:01.400 --> 0:10:06.520
<v Speaker 1>actually forty years UM, and it's really important to recognize that. Raphael,

0:10:06.520 --> 0:10:08.000
<v Speaker 1>I want to spend just a minute talking about the

0:10:08.040 --> 0:10:11.120
<v Speaker 1>confirmation process. Do you see any realistic chance that Neil

0:10:11.160 --> 0:10:14.720
<v Speaker 1>Gorcitch will not be confirmed to the Supreme Court? No,

0:10:14.960 --> 0:10:17.559
<v Speaker 1>I don't. UM. You know, Chuck Shumer made some noise

0:10:17.559 --> 0:10:20.560
<v Speaker 1>on the Senate floor earlier today, you know, saying indicating

0:10:20.600 --> 0:10:22.839
<v Speaker 1>that that, um, the judge would need sixty votes to

0:10:22.880 --> 0:10:24.760
<v Speaker 1>get through. And if that's really the case, I think

0:10:24.760 --> 0:10:27.560
<v Speaker 1>you'll get it. Um. You know, at some point the

0:10:27.600 --> 0:10:29.880
<v Speaker 1>Republicans will have to, you know, confront the fact that

0:10:29.960 --> 0:10:32.040
<v Speaker 1>they have an option open to them if the Democrats

0:10:32.040 --> 0:10:34.960
<v Speaker 1>do filibuster, and I don't see any reason why they

0:10:34.960 --> 0:10:39.600
<v Speaker 1>shouldn't take it if that, If that's necessary, and Michelle

0:10:39.880 --> 0:10:44.280
<v Speaker 1>what's your opinion on that. Well, I think it's unfortunate.

0:10:44.360 --> 0:10:47.880
<v Speaker 1>As someone who would consider herself a Senate traditionalist, I

0:10:47.880 --> 0:10:49.800
<v Speaker 1>don't think we should get in the habit of blowing

0:10:49.920 --> 0:10:52.520
<v Speaker 1>up a hundred year old rules. I think if there's

0:10:52.559 --> 0:10:56.319
<v Speaker 1>actually an issue, isn't able to get sixty votes, we

0:10:56.360 --> 0:10:59.320
<v Speaker 1>should change the nominee and not change the rules that

0:10:59.400 --> 0:11:03.320
<v Speaker 1>have um conducted our behavior or on high Court nomineeds

0:11:03.400 --> 0:11:07.000
<v Speaker 1>for time immemorial. I think it would be another really

0:11:07.120 --> 0:11:10.960
<v Speaker 1>low blow for the Senate. It only drives further partisanship

0:11:11.400 --> 0:11:13.839
<v Speaker 1>UM here in the nation's capital. But Michelle, do you

0:11:13.880 --> 0:11:17.000
<v Speaker 1>see any chance that the Democrats might might succeed if

0:11:17.000 --> 0:11:19.920
<v Speaker 1>they do do block a vote? Um? Or should we

0:11:19.960 --> 0:11:22.720
<v Speaker 1>just assume it's going to be Justice Corsage? You know,

0:11:22.840 --> 0:11:25.760
<v Speaker 1>I don't think we should ever make any assumptions um.

0:11:25.800 --> 0:11:29.880
<v Speaker 1>I think November eight, twenties six speaking taught us bet.

0:11:30.240 --> 0:11:33.320
<v Speaker 1>But I don't think without uh that it is a

0:11:33.440 --> 0:11:35.920
<v Speaker 1>definite that Judge Corsage will be on the court. I

0:11:35.960 --> 0:11:39.600
<v Speaker 1>think a number of Senators, including Senator Casey and Senator

0:11:39.679 --> 0:11:44.200
<v Speaker 1>Schumer as the minority leader, coming out today strongly that

0:11:44.400 --> 0:11:47.960
<v Speaker 1>is a signal to other people in the caucus, and

0:11:48.040 --> 0:11:50.800
<v Speaker 1>I'm not quite sure that he has the vote needs,

0:11:50.920 --> 0:11:53.360
<v Speaker 1>so I think we should all stay tuned to see

0:11:53.360 --> 0:11:56.160
<v Speaker 1>what happens next. Okay, let's definitely stay tuned, and I

0:11:56.200 --> 0:11:58.280
<v Speaker 1>want to thank our guests. That was Michelle Jawando of

0:11:58.320 --> 0:12:01.600
<v Speaker 1>the Center for American Progress and Raphael Manguel of the

0:12:01.640 --> 0:12:06.679
<v Speaker 1>Manhattan Institute talking about uh Neil Gorcich and his confirmation

0:12:06.720 --> 0:12:10.600
<v Speaker 1>hearing which is concluding today with some outside witnesses talking

0:12:10.640 --> 0:12:13.280
<v Speaker 1>about him. And then the next step will be the

0:12:13.280 --> 0:12:17.640
<v Speaker 1>Senate floor. Coming up, what does the Westminster attack tell

0:12:17.720 --> 0:12:21.960
<v Speaker 1>us about the United Kingdom's vulnerability to terrorists? And we'll

0:12:21.960 --> 0:12:24.760
<v Speaker 1>talk about something else that happened with the Supreme Court yesterday,

0:12:24.800 --> 0:12:28.800
<v Speaker 1>a new ruling involving cheerleading uniforms, and the Supreme Court

0:12:28.840 --> 0:12:33.800
<v Speaker 1>bolsters legal protections for pictures and graphic designs. That's all

0:12:33.840 --> 0:12:37.239
<v Speaker 1>coming up on Bloomberg Law. This is Bloomberg