Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News. There is an exceptionally
Speaker 1: important Supreme Court decision this morning, and we are so
Speaker 1: honored to bring you Nick Ackerman. I can't say enough
Speaker 1: about his public service to the nation. He's been around
Speaker 1: the block, like public service to the nation during Watergate,
Speaker 1: and of course is many years in prosecution and law
Speaker 1: with department from Harvard. I should say along the way, Nick,
Speaker 1: we are honored you're with us today. The President must
Speaker 1: be upset at this Supreme Court decision where they reject
Speaker 1: President Trump on US aid foreign aid freeze. And what's
Speaker 1: important here in a close vote is John Roberts and
Speaker 1: Amy Cony Barrett joined the liberals against Alito, Thomas Gorsach
Speaker 1: and Kevanaugh. Did you expect this partition of Trump conservatives
Speaker 1: on the Court.
Speaker 2: I'm kind of been expecting it. I mean, Amy Conan
Speaker 2: Barrett and John Roberts have gone off on their own
Speaker 2: on several items. I would have thought that Kavanaugh would
Speaker 2: have gone along with this too. I mean, he does
Speaker 2: have an opinion from the days he was on the
Speaker 2: DC Circuit making it pretty clear that when you get
Speaker 2: down to Article I powers, that is the power of
Speaker 2: the purse that Congress has to disperse money separate from
Speaker 2: the executive branch, which is a section two of the Constitution,
Speaker 2: who has to carry out those orders from the Congress.
Speaker 2: And this was a pretty significant decision because there are
Speaker 2: a lot of decisions court cases out there now contesting
Speaker 2: the idea that the Trump administration can simply not pay
Speaker 2: certain monies, doesn't have to disburse the funds. But keep
Speaker 2: in mind that this one really related to monies that
Speaker 2: were already owed on certain contracts that have already been performed.
Speaker 2: So the question is, how is this going to relate
Speaker 2: to other situations where the contracts have not yet been
Speaker 2: performed and they're holding back money. I kind of think
Speaker 2: the principle is the same, but we'll have to see.
Speaker 1: Greg Store at Bloomberg expert on this would go to
Speaker 1: the complexities with you, I'll keep it simple. There seems
Speaker 1: to be, whatever anybody's politics, a statement that the legislative
Speaker 1: branch of the United States of America.
Speaker 2: Is missing an action.
Speaker 1: Is this the kind of court case that could be
Speaker 1: a clarion call to Capitol Hill to get their act together?
Speaker 2: Absolutely? I mean this ought to make them realize that
Speaker 2: they are just giving up their powers. They're seating their
Speaker 2: powers to Donald Trump. They might as well not even
Speaker 2: show up for work. What's the point if what they
Speaker 2: wind up appropriating and what they wind up passing can
Speaker 2: just be ignored by the president? Makes no sense? Yeah,
Speaker 2: I think this ought to get some people off their duffs.
Speaker 3: Does this essentially clear the way for lower courts to
Speaker 3: continue proceedings in the dispute?
Speaker 2: Sure? I mean this is the lower court will continue,
Speaker 2: They'll be looking at other situations like this. I think
Speaker 2: the litigans there will be bringing up other situations where
Speaker 2: money is being withheld. But I think this kind of
Speaker 2: gives the green light to the district courts all across
Speaker 2: the country that are considering other aspects of this same
Speaker 2: issue how to come out on this.
Speaker 3: So what do you think next is in the timeline
Speaker 3: as all of this unfolds.
Speaker 2: Well, I got to tell you, it's very hard to
Speaker 2: be able to predict that there are now over ninety
Speaker 2: five cases lawsuits that have been filed across the United
Speaker 2: States that relate to the firings of government employees that
Speaker 2: relate to monies being withheld. It is very hard without
Speaker 2: a giant scorecard and to know exactly where every case
Speaker 2: is at any particular time to know what's going to
Speaker 2: be next. All I can say is buckle your seat belts.
Speaker 2: Things are going to be happening, and they're going to
Speaker 2: be happening more quickly over the next couple of weeks.
Speaker 1: I brought Wizard White up the other day, the wonderful
Speaker 1: gentleman from Colorado, acclaimed athlete, and he was supposed to
Speaker 1: be this kind of judge and he wasn't. And then
Speaker 1: there's third grade Marshall, who I think we could all
Speaker 1: say was predicted to be a certain kind of judge
Speaker 1: and he was. And then Nick Eckermann. It gets a
Speaker 1: little confusing. John Paul Stevens, maybe there's a mystery there
Speaker 1: as well. Certainly the great Moderate Anthony Kennedy. Can you
Speaker 1: identify the the complexities of this nine seat Supreme Court?
Speaker 2: Can you?
Speaker 1: Can you do that? Or is it as stark as
Speaker 1: the media makes it.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's as stark as the media makes it.
Speaker 2: First of all, you've got John Roberts, who is a traditionalist,
Speaker 2: and I think if there's anybody who's going to stand
Speaker 2: up for the difference between Article one and Article two
Speaker 2: in the US Constitution. He's the guy to do it,
Speaker 2: Amy Conan Barrett. Turns out she is a very thoughtful
Speaker 2: independent justice. She is not going the way of the
Speaker 2: others on many issues. I thought on some things. For example,
Speaker 2: that issue that came up during the summer, well this
Speaker 2: couple issues. One on on the immunity decision, she took
Speaker 2: a different tact in terms of holding she would have
Speaker 2: held that certain evidence would be admissible even if the
Speaker 2: president had immunity in certain situations, which would have contradicted
Speaker 2: on a good part of the Roberts opinion. She also
Speaker 2: came out on that obstruction charge that was used with
Speaker 2: the January sixth defendants, and was one of the few
Speaker 2: people on that court, including even the liberals, that recognize
Speaker 2: that obstruction has been around for a long time. It
Speaker 2: started out with the courts, but this was something long
Speaker 2: in the coming able to actually broaden it to include Congress.
Speaker 2: So she's an independent thinker. I think she's one of
Speaker 2: those people that will stand up for the Constitution.
Speaker 1: I think this needs to be said just meant because
Speaker 1: we lose track Chief Justice John Roberts nineteen and a
Speaker 1: half years and the Supreme Court Alito, the conservative nineteen
Speaker 1: years and the Supreme Court. I'd stunded at the statistic
Speaker 1: Soda Mayor and Kagan already fifteen years and fourteen years.
Speaker 2: Time flies by right.
Speaker 3: Alido and Robert's both appointed by former President George W. Bush. There,
Speaker 3: I was actually going through looking at this brief that
Speaker 3: was filed on Friday from the Supreme Court, and they
Speaker 3: were talking about it even if the government won. The
Speaker 3: brief said the administration would not be able to proceed
Speaker 3: with the funding freeze. Why would that be, Well.
Speaker 2: There's no good reason for that. They can unfreeze that.
Speaker 2: Of course they can do that. It may take a
Speaker 2: couple of days more than may be some bureaucratic loopholes
Speaker 2: to jump through, but no, they can do that a
Speaker 2: couple of phone calls. I mean that is absolutely insane.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I look, Nick, and to get one more questionnaire,
Speaker 1: we've got to go back to the markets as well.
Speaker 1: What's in store like every legal action that we report
Speaker 1: that Emery Harder and Joe Matthew and Katie Lanes talk about.
Speaker 1: Do you just assume they're all going to end up
Speaker 1: in the Supreme Court?
Speaker 2: Well, I think the big items will this is this
Speaker 2: is a huge prince constitutional principle about who has the
Speaker 2: power of the purse and what the executive's job is
Speaker 2: is basically to faithfully execute the laws that Congress passes.
Speaker 2: So yes, I mean, I think you're going to find
Speaker 2: certain matters going to the Supreme Court like this that
Speaker 2: will give some clarity and push back. But I think
Speaker 2: there's going to be a real tendency here with so
Speaker 2: many lawsuits out there and sit back, let the lower
Speaker 2: courts deal with these issues.
Speaker 1: Nick Eckerman, thank you so much for giving us perspective today,
Speaker 1: Nick Eckerman, they're in a Supreme Court decision of five
Speaker 1: to four against the President of the United States.