1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,440
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,639
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Just after signing

6
00:00:22,720 --> 00:00:25,279
Speaker 1: a one point three trillion dollar budget at the White

7
00:00:25,280 --> 00:00:28,200
Speaker 1: House last week, reporters as President Trump if he would

8
00:00:28,200 --> 00:00:33,720
Speaker 1: like to testify in Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, to testify

9
00:00:33,800 --> 00:00:38,400
Speaker 1: the Special counsel Robert Muller, Sir, thank you would like

10
00:00:39,440 --> 00:00:41,560
Speaker 1: for borrow on this story. We're joined now by Greg Ferrell,

11
00:00:41,600 --> 00:00:47,200
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News investigative legal reporter, and Greg, the President says

12
00:00:47,200 --> 00:00:49,800
Speaker 1: he would like to, but it's a it's a it's

13
00:00:49,840 --> 00:00:53,640
Speaker 1: a lot of distance between liking to and actually doing it.

14
00:00:53,720 --> 00:00:59,200
Speaker 1: What's your latest reporting on this story? Yesterday afternoon about

15
00:00:59,200 --> 00:01:03,400
Speaker 1: how negotiates between Trump's legal team, UM What's left of

16
00:01:03,400 --> 00:01:07,120
Speaker 1: It and the Mueller camp are continuing around this as

17
00:01:07,120 --> 00:01:11,199
Speaker 1: you know, UH, Trump's lead outside lawyer, John John Dowd

18
00:01:11,280 --> 00:01:16,760
Speaker 1: quit UM UH last week in part over the issue

19
00:01:16,760 --> 00:01:18,800
Speaker 1: of whether or not the President should sit down with

20
00:01:19,080 --> 00:01:23,160
Speaker 1: UH Special counsel Robert Mueller, and uh, there's a real

21
00:01:23,560 --> 00:01:26,520
Speaker 1: you know, there's there's this happens a lot in legal issues,

22
00:01:26,840 --> 00:01:30,720
Speaker 1: where there's a real divergence or a real contradiction between

23
00:01:30,720 --> 00:01:35,240
Speaker 1: what the legally proper the smartest legal move to take

24
00:01:35,680 --> 00:01:38,319
Speaker 1: and what you know, what the optics of that going

25
00:01:38,400 --> 00:01:41,280
Speaker 1: to are going to be. Uh. John Dowd recommended against

26
00:01:41,319 --> 00:01:44,679
Speaker 1: in any way, shape or form a meeting with Mueller. Um,

27
00:01:44,720 --> 00:01:47,840
Speaker 1: because any kind of slip up or or or you know,

28
00:01:48,120 --> 00:01:53,640
Speaker 1: misstatement or exaggeration, uh, you know, could be construed as uh,

29
00:01:53,800 --> 00:01:57,680
Speaker 1: you know, lying and um. But I think the President

30
00:01:57,720 --> 00:01:59,760
Speaker 1: understands that if he doesn't, if he refused to sit

31
00:01:59,800 --> 00:02:02,080
Speaker 1: down with Mueller, it will look bad. So there's this

32
00:02:02,120 --> 00:02:06,120
Speaker 1: sort of built in contradiction between you know, the optics

33
00:02:06,160 --> 00:02:09,280
Speaker 1: of the White House wanting to you know, appear like

34
00:02:09,320 --> 00:02:11,679
Speaker 1: the cooperating fully and wanting to let you know, and

35
00:02:11,720 --> 00:02:13,400
Speaker 1: they have nothing to be afraid of because, as the

36
00:02:13,440 --> 00:02:17,239
Speaker 1: President has said, he's done nothing wrong and the legal

37
00:02:17,240 --> 00:02:21,919
Speaker 1: imperative of protecting your client sore. Trump Y, you had

38
00:02:21,960 --> 00:02:25,760
Speaker 1: mentioned that, uh, you know, the shrinking legal team, so

39
00:02:25,880 --> 00:02:30,520
Speaker 1: Trump doesn't have a white collar or a government investigations

40
00:02:30,560 --> 00:02:34,160
Speaker 1: lawyer who's experienced in dealing with this type of high profile,

41
00:02:34,440 --> 00:02:38,640
Speaker 1: very sensitive investigation interview and the ramifications. How much of

42
00:02:38,680 --> 00:02:42,200
Speaker 1: a problem is that for him? Well, they say it's

43
00:02:42,200 --> 00:02:44,680
Speaker 1: not much of a problem because they're a big team

44
00:02:44,680 --> 00:02:48,200
Speaker 1: of people under Jay Seculo. Uh and some support from

45
00:02:48,680 --> 00:02:51,680
Speaker 1: you know, the Casuits law firm, which is back. But Uh,

46
00:02:51,720 --> 00:02:55,200
Speaker 1: there's two two issues for them. One, Um, you know,

47
00:02:55,760 --> 00:02:58,280
Speaker 1: they it would help to have someone who specializes in

48
00:02:58,320 --> 00:03:01,040
Speaker 1: criminal white collar defense out and they don't have that

49
00:03:01,080 --> 00:03:06,320
Speaker 1: now Casuits as a superb lawyer, but he's a civil lawyer. Um. Uh.

50
00:03:06,360 --> 00:03:09,520
Speaker 1: And at the same time, Um, you know that they realized,

51
00:03:09,520 --> 00:03:11,919
Speaker 1: from a public relations point of view, it doesn't look

52
00:03:11,960 --> 00:03:13,640
Speaker 1: good for the story to be out there that the

53
00:03:13,760 --> 00:03:16,799
Speaker 1: president is underrepresented by a lawyer. So I think their

54
00:03:16,840 --> 00:03:19,400
Speaker 1: plan is to to bring someone in. They don't need

55
00:03:19,440 --> 00:03:22,359
Speaker 1: someone tomorrow or by Monday, but over the next few

56
00:03:22,360 --> 00:03:24,280
Speaker 1: weeks they want to bring someone in who sort of

57
00:03:24,280 --> 00:03:27,000
Speaker 1: plugs that hall. You know, if you will baseball starting,

58
00:03:27,280 --> 00:03:29,160
Speaker 1: they need a first basement someone who they can put

59
00:03:29,160 --> 00:03:32,160
Speaker 1: in that spot. Um. Even though they say they're fine

60
00:03:32,200 --> 00:03:36,080
Speaker 1: for now, why is the team had such a hard

61
00:03:36,080 --> 00:03:39,440
Speaker 1: time putting the rest of the team together. Well, it's

62
00:03:39,480 --> 00:03:44,520
Speaker 1: another contradiction here. One Uh, most lawyers in general would

63
00:03:44,680 --> 00:03:47,000
Speaker 1: like kill for the opportunity to represent the president of

64
00:03:47,040 --> 00:03:50,960
Speaker 1: the United States and a major constitutional issue um Trump. However,

65
00:03:51,120 --> 00:03:55,240
Speaker 1: and this is proven to be, if not toxic, a

66
00:03:55,280 --> 00:03:58,400
Speaker 1: lot of you know, both face named lawyers in Washington

67
00:03:58,440 --> 00:04:01,600
Speaker 1: are avoiding him some. This in part is I think

68
00:04:01,680 --> 00:04:04,280
Speaker 1: political that they don't necessarily agree with him, But I

69
00:04:04,320 --> 00:04:08,160
Speaker 1: think more importantly is he's a very difficult client. You know,

70
00:04:08,240 --> 00:04:10,280
Speaker 1: you can tell him and try to come up with

71
00:04:10,320 --> 00:04:13,040
Speaker 1: a strategy of what you know should be done, and

72
00:04:13,080 --> 00:04:15,280
Speaker 1: he'll go off and do his own thing. He'll undercut

73
00:04:15,360 --> 00:04:18,080
Speaker 1: himself sometimes by giving an interview or a tweet that

74
00:04:18,400 --> 00:04:21,479
Speaker 1: sort of uh conflicts with what the legal advice is.

75
00:04:21,680 --> 00:04:24,320
Speaker 1: That's one of the reasons Mark Hoswits left last summer

76
00:04:24,720 --> 00:04:28,080
Speaker 1: is that reportedly he was cut out of the decision

77
00:04:28,120 --> 00:04:32,080
Speaker 1: making process, you know, intentionally shut out of what the

78
00:04:32,120 --> 00:04:35,200
Speaker 1: president's response was to a report that his son Don

79
00:04:35,279 --> 00:04:38,520
Speaker 1: Junior met with some Russians at the Trump Tower to

80
00:04:38,560 --> 00:04:41,839
Speaker 1: talk about dirt for Hillary. And you know, he's just

81
00:04:41,920 --> 00:04:47,160
Speaker 1: a difficult client. And Greg, does he do you think

82
00:04:47,200 --> 00:04:50,479
Speaker 1: he has any idea he's used to civil litigation in

83
00:04:50,560 --> 00:04:56,600
Speaker 1: New York. How any idea, how an interview with these experienced, aggressive,

84
00:04:56,920 --> 00:05:01,520
Speaker 1: well prepared lawyers on Mueller's team or Mueller himself would

85
00:05:01,560 --> 00:05:05,880
Speaker 1: be like, right, this is something I think the president

86
00:05:05,920 --> 00:05:07,800
Speaker 1: has never been up against because, as you point out, yes,

87
00:05:07,839 --> 00:05:11,200
Speaker 1: he's a veteran of you know, litigation, litigation wars in

88
00:05:11,240 --> 00:05:14,720
Speaker 1: New York, of a real estate etcetera. Um, And he's

89
00:05:14,760 --> 00:05:16,920
Speaker 1: prone to exaggeration because that's part of the business. He's

90
00:05:17,000 --> 00:05:19,400
Speaker 1: a successful in real estate in part because of his

91
00:05:19,680 --> 00:05:24,360
Speaker 1: he's a good talker, he sells well. Um, that's a compliment. Um.

92
00:05:24,480 --> 00:05:28,000
Speaker 1: But you're entering a world where any false statement is

93
00:05:28,040 --> 00:05:31,679
Speaker 1: potentially like a criminal act. So that's what John Dowd,

94
00:05:31,720 --> 00:05:35,760
Speaker 1: his lawyer, was I'm sure concerned about. And uh, you know,

95
00:05:35,880 --> 00:05:40,120
Speaker 1: and again part of Trump's particular, you know, charizba, is

96
00:05:40,160 --> 00:05:43,320
Speaker 1: that he's irrepressible. He goes off and says things, he

97
00:05:43,400 --> 00:05:47,080
Speaker 1: doesn't stay to the script. Um. And uh, that's for

98
00:05:47,120 --> 00:05:49,520
Speaker 1: the first time. He's in a dangerous place with that

99
00:05:49,600 --> 00:05:55,680
Speaker 1: streightmare for lawyers, a nightmare for his lawyers. Yeah, absolutely,

100
00:05:55,680 --> 00:05:58,479
Speaker 1: absolutely exactly. But let me but there's something let me

101
00:05:58,880 --> 00:06:01,560
Speaker 1: question this premise. I mean, yeah, yeah, you're right. He

102
00:06:01,680 --> 00:06:03,919
Speaker 1: the president has a reputation for being on disciplined and

103
00:06:03,960 --> 00:06:06,680
Speaker 1: tweeting and everything else, but he seems to have shown

104
00:06:06,760 --> 00:06:12,680
Speaker 1: pretty strong discipline in this controversy over Stormy Daniels. Yes,

105
00:06:13,360 --> 00:06:16,480
Speaker 1: but you know that's you know, for a few days,

106
00:06:16,520 --> 00:06:18,760
Speaker 1: I think we've we've seen you know, John Kelly has

107
00:06:18,800 --> 00:06:22,200
Speaker 1: been uh, you know, has had success and then lack

108
00:06:22,240 --> 00:06:24,680
Speaker 1: of success during last summer and getting the President's day

109
00:06:24,720 --> 00:06:27,480
Speaker 1: off reporter, and then it changes. So maybe true, maybe

110
00:06:27,520 --> 00:06:30,000
Speaker 1: he's suddenly gotten religion. Maybe at his age, he's suddenly

111
00:06:30,279 --> 00:06:33,560
Speaker 1: you know, has become the man that his previous lawyers

112
00:06:33,560 --> 00:06:35,800
Speaker 1: want him to be. But you know, let's see, at

113
00:06:35,839 --> 00:06:39,400
Speaker 1: time passes. It's been one week, so well, maybe he

114
00:06:39,480 --> 00:06:42,400
Speaker 1: understands the stakes with Mueller. And that's so that that's

115
00:06:42,400 --> 00:06:45,560
Speaker 1: why I was asking. You know, I still I still think,

116
00:06:45,600 --> 00:06:48,280
Speaker 1: you know, he's facing these lawyers and he has a

117
00:06:48,279 --> 00:06:51,320
Speaker 1: tendency to fill in the gaps and to keep talking.

118
00:06:51,360 --> 00:06:57,640
Speaker 1: And lawyers love that, right opposition lawyers your own lawyer, yes, exactly. Um,

119
00:06:57,680 --> 00:07:00,240
Speaker 1: he loved to build a vacuum. He uh, you know,

120
00:07:00,279 --> 00:07:02,560
Speaker 1: clearly thrives on being the star of the show. And

121
00:07:02,640 --> 00:07:05,000
Speaker 1: that's not what you want, you know, in that type

122
00:07:05,040 --> 00:07:07,880
Speaker 1: of uh circumstance, you want someone who sticks to the script,

123
00:07:08,040 --> 00:07:11,760
Speaker 1: keeps it almost monosyllabic. That's what the negotiations right now

124
00:07:11,840 --> 00:07:14,240
Speaker 1: is about, is like the different areas that Mueller wants

125
00:07:14,280 --> 00:07:17,080
Speaker 1: to talk about. Got it all right, Greig Farrell, Bloomberg

126
00:07:17,080 --> 00:07:23,600
Speaker 1: News investigative legal reporter, Thank you so much. Now let's

127
00:07:23,600 --> 00:07:26,280
Speaker 1: take a look at the Supreme Court. And the Supreme

128
00:07:26,320 --> 00:07:29,320
Speaker 1: Court took its second look at partisan jerrymandering this term.

129
00:07:29,320 --> 00:07:31,720
Speaker 1: But the second look doesn't seem to have clarified the

130
00:07:31,800 --> 00:07:35,440
Speaker 1: issue or the solution for the justices. The Justices expressed

131
00:07:35,440 --> 00:07:39,640
Speaker 1: broad concerns about a Maryland congressional district that Democrats acknowledge

132
00:07:39,720 --> 00:07:43,360
Speaker 1: was drawn to outs to GOP lawmaker. The solution was

133
00:07:43,440 --> 00:07:46,000
Speaker 1: far from clear. Joining me is one of our country's

134
00:07:46,040 --> 00:07:49,120
Speaker 1: leading experts on election law, Rick Hassan, a professor at

135
00:07:49,160 --> 00:07:52,000
Speaker 1: U c Irvin and the author of the Justice of

136
00:07:52,080 --> 00:07:57,160
Speaker 1: Contradictions and nin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption. Rick,

137
00:07:57,400 --> 00:07:59,760
Speaker 1: the Court has never struck down a voting map for

138
00:07:59,800 --> 00:08:04,120
Speaker 1: being so partisan it violates the Constitution. Do the Justices

139
00:08:04,200 --> 00:08:08,480
Speaker 1: at least agree that extreme partisan jerrymandering is a violation

140
00:08:08,520 --> 00:08:11,680
Speaker 1: of the Constitution. I think they actually do agree on

141
00:08:11,720 --> 00:08:13,560
Speaker 1: that point, and you think that that would settle it.

142
00:08:13,600 --> 00:08:17,080
Speaker 1: But back in two thousand four, Justice Scalia wrote a

143
00:08:17,120 --> 00:08:21,440
Speaker 1: plurality opinion in a case called v versus Jubellar involving

144
00:08:21,800 --> 00:08:26,560
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania's redistricting, where he said, even if it's unconstitutional, and

145
00:08:26,560 --> 00:08:28,800
Speaker 1: will assume that it is, the question is whether or

146
00:08:28,800 --> 00:08:32,679
Speaker 1: not the courts have any power to rein it in

147
00:08:33,160 --> 00:08:37,360
Speaker 1: are there any judicially manageable standards to know when taking

148
00:08:37,360 --> 00:08:40,240
Speaker 1: partisanship into account and drawing district lines is too much?

149
00:08:40,800 --> 00:08:42,839
Speaker 1: And it was very clear from the argument yesterday in

150
00:08:42,840 --> 00:08:45,920
Speaker 1: the Maryland jerrymandering case that the Court is still struggling

151
00:08:46,000 --> 00:08:48,320
Speaker 1: with that question. Is there a standard that the Court

152
00:08:48,400 --> 00:08:52,120
Speaker 1: can enunciate that could actually help to decide when too

153
00:08:52,240 --> 00:08:56,040
Speaker 1: much partisanship comes into play in these drawing of district lines.

154
00:08:56,400 --> 00:09:02,160
Speaker 1: Why is partisan jerrymandering different from reach racial jerrymandering in

155
00:09:02,160 --> 00:09:05,160
Speaker 1: this respect? Why why can they one but not the other?

156
00:09:05,520 --> 00:09:08,160
Speaker 1: It's a great question. And so when it comes to

157
00:09:08,280 --> 00:09:14,760
Speaker 1: racial jerrymandering, um, the standard there is one of simply

158
00:09:15,040 --> 00:09:19,240
Speaker 1: making race the predominant factor in drawing district lines. And

159
00:09:19,280 --> 00:09:21,559
Speaker 1: the Court says that that violent secret protection clause that

160
00:09:21,640 --> 00:09:24,920
Speaker 1: sends a message that you're separating voters on the basis

161
00:09:24,920 --> 00:09:27,920
Speaker 1: of race, and this is a pernicious message. That's the

162
00:09:27,920 --> 00:09:30,040
Speaker 1: theory of a case called Shaw versus Reno, and it's

163
00:09:30,040 --> 00:09:33,800
Speaker 1: been from the has been carried through today. UM. Although

164
00:09:33,880 --> 00:09:36,600
Speaker 1: some of the justices had have advanced in an argument

165
00:09:36,600 --> 00:09:40,079
Speaker 1: that if you make race the sole motivator, if you

166
00:09:40,200 --> 00:09:44,320
Speaker 1: make party partisanship the soul motivator or the main motivator

167
00:09:44,320 --> 00:09:47,360
Speaker 1: in drawing district lines, that's unconstitutional. The Court in vis

168
00:09:47,520 --> 00:09:50,520
Speaker 1: rejected that standard. Justice Kennedy was the fifth vote rejected

169
00:09:50,559 --> 00:09:53,760
Speaker 1: that standard and rejected a similar standard in a two

170
00:09:53,760 --> 00:09:56,439
Speaker 1: thousand six case coming out of Texas. So it's got

171
00:09:56,440 --> 00:09:59,760
Speaker 1: to be something different than that. Um. It could be

172
00:09:59,800 --> 00:10:02,280
Speaker 1: some thing like vote dilution, which we see in the

173
00:10:02,400 --> 00:10:06,360
Speaker 1: voting rights context, except diluting the votes of Democrats or Republicans.

174
00:10:06,600 --> 00:10:09,640
Speaker 1: But they're not exactly clear on how you would draw

175
00:10:09,679 --> 00:10:12,120
Speaker 1: the line. And one of the things Justice Brier floated

176
00:10:12,160 --> 00:10:14,280
Speaker 1: an argument yesterday is they've got two or three cases

177
00:10:14,280 --> 00:10:16,679
Speaker 1: involving these issues, maybe they should just hear them again.

178
00:10:17,280 --> 00:10:20,800
Speaker 1: Next term, bringing all the lawyers from all the cases,

179
00:10:20,840 --> 00:10:22,640
Speaker 1: put it on a blackboard and try and sort it

180
00:10:22,640 --> 00:10:25,000
Speaker 1: out and figure out, is there, holy Grail, is there

181
00:10:25,000 --> 00:10:27,520
Speaker 1: a standard they could apply for all of these cases

182
00:10:27,559 --> 00:10:30,200
Speaker 1: that's actually gonna work. And a lot of the justices

183
00:10:30,520 --> 00:10:34,800
Speaker 1: expressed both uncomfortable nous with what Maryland had done in

184
00:10:35,040 --> 00:10:38,360
Speaker 1: drawing this congressional district of favor Democrats and a lack

185
00:10:38,400 --> 00:10:40,600
Speaker 1: of comfort with any standard that they can come up

186
00:10:40,600 --> 00:10:43,480
Speaker 1: with to say what the general rules should be. Well,

187
00:10:43,520 --> 00:10:45,800
Speaker 1: do you think kicking the can or the case down

188
00:10:45,840 --> 00:10:48,680
Speaker 1: the road is going to help them any Well, it

189
00:10:48,760 --> 00:10:51,640
Speaker 1: might help Justice Brier keep Justice Kennedy on the court.

190
00:10:51,960 --> 00:10:54,480
Speaker 1: Some people were suggesting that maybe this was a way

191
00:10:54,520 --> 00:10:57,439
Speaker 1: to say, you know, Kennedy's is seen as a likely

192
00:10:57,480 --> 00:11:00,280
Speaker 1: swing voter here. This is one of his signature issues

193
00:11:00,320 --> 00:11:03,920
Speaker 1: where he's been debating the issue with himself for the

194
00:11:04,000 --> 00:11:06,920
Speaker 1: last decade or so, and you know, if you set

195
00:11:06,920 --> 00:11:09,480
Speaker 1: the case for arguments in the fall, maybe Kennedy sticks around,

196
00:11:09,480 --> 00:11:13,080
Speaker 1: you know, amid all of these retirement rumors. So there

197
00:11:13,120 --> 00:11:16,320
Speaker 1: were there was a case argued about Maryland this week

198
00:11:16,440 --> 00:11:21,560
Speaker 1: and then Wisconsin before. Is Justice Kennedy the swing vote

199
00:11:21,640 --> 00:11:25,400
Speaker 1: in both those cases, and the way one case goes

200
00:11:25,480 --> 00:11:27,880
Speaker 1: is that the way the other case will go. Well,

201
00:11:27,920 --> 00:11:31,240
Speaker 1: the case is different four different ways. One is that

202
00:11:31,320 --> 00:11:34,520
Speaker 1: one involves Democrats doing the chairmanaging. The other involves Republicans

203
00:11:34,559 --> 00:11:38,800
Speaker 1: that shouldn't sway sway. The difference. One involves congressional districts

204
00:11:38,800 --> 00:11:43,199
Speaker 1: and the other involves state legislative districts. Uh. One involves

205
00:11:43,200 --> 00:11:45,080
Speaker 1: a challenge to the entire map, the other involves a

206
00:11:45,120 --> 00:11:50,000
Speaker 1: challenge to just a single district and um uh the uh.

207
00:11:50,080 --> 00:11:52,400
Speaker 1: The last difference is that one involves the three under

208
00:11:52,400 --> 00:11:54,480
Speaker 1: the Equal Protection Clause, the other under the First Amendment.

209
00:11:54,640 --> 00:11:57,520
Speaker 1: These all kind of offer different ways for Justice Kennedy,

210
00:11:57,559 --> 00:11:59,840
Speaker 1: if he's a swing voter, to go and decide these cases.

211
00:12:00,120 --> 00:12:02,080
Speaker 1: We just don't know. We didn't know why the Court

212
00:12:02,160 --> 00:12:04,720
Speaker 1: said argument for in the second cases of the Maryland

213
00:12:04,720 --> 00:12:07,520
Speaker 1: case as opposed to just holding it for the Wisconsin case.

214
00:12:07,920 --> 00:12:10,240
Speaker 1: The answer seems to be after argument that the Justice

215
00:12:10,240 --> 00:12:13,240
Speaker 1: they're just struggling with very basic principles as to whether

216
00:12:13,280 --> 00:12:15,480
Speaker 1: and how they're going to address any of these issues.

217
00:12:15,520 --> 00:12:18,840
Speaker 1: It's it was if you look at the headlines yesterday

218
00:12:19,080 --> 00:12:24,320
Speaker 1: describing your argument befuddlement frustration. The Court really seems like

219
00:12:24,320 --> 00:12:25,960
Speaker 1: it's struggling and does not know what to do, and

220
00:12:25,960 --> 00:12:28,320
Speaker 1: it's not normally what you see coming out of a

221
00:12:28,320 --> 00:12:32,800
Speaker 1: Supreme Court argument. So, Rick, what's your what's your final take? Do?

222
00:12:32,920 --> 00:12:34,920
Speaker 1: Will they come out with it with a decision one

223
00:12:34,960 --> 00:12:37,640
Speaker 1: way or the other? Will they you know, kick it

224
00:12:37,679 --> 00:12:40,560
Speaker 1: to the next term or what what's your take? Well,

225
00:12:40,640 --> 00:12:43,040
Speaker 1: I don't have a good sense after the argument. Nothing

226
00:12:43,080 --> 00:12:45,959
Speaker 1: would surprise me that is there. There are very easy

227
00:12:45,960 --> 00:12:48,160
Speaker 1: ways for them to kick this, to kick the Maryland

228
00:12:48,160 --> 00:12:50,719
Speaker 1: case in particular, because it's up on a preliminary injunction

229
00:12:50,760 --> 00:12:53,439
Speaker 1: and they could just postpone it for a few years.

230
00:12:53,440 --> 00:12:55,360
Speaker 1: But if Kennedy is thinking about leaving the Court in

231
00:12:55,400 --> 00:12:57,600
Speaker 1: the next few years and he's the swing vote, that

232
00:12:57,760 --> 00:13:01,959
Speaker 1: should put some pressure on the Court to actually decide

233
00:13:02,000 --> 00:13:05,040
Speaker 1: the issue this term. But we'll find out in June. So, um,

234
00:13:05,080 --> 00:13:06,960
Speaker 1: just briefly, we have about thirty seconds, so the mid

235
00:13:07,080 --> 00:13:10,160
Speaker 1: term elections will definitely be held using the maps that

236
00:13:10,240 --> 00:13:14,600
Speaker 1: may later be determined to be unconstitutional. Perhaps that is

237
00:13:14,640 --> 00:13:16,760
Speaker 1: seems very likely. There was a whole discussion at the

238
00:13:16,800 --> 00:13:19,200
Speaker 1: beginning of the argument yesterday about whether, given that this

239
00:13:19,240 --> 00:13:20,920
Speaker 1: is up on the Ploomery in junction. Is it too

240
00:13:21,000 --> 00:13:23,360
Speaker 1: late for a remedy in two thousand eighteen. The lawyer

241
00:13:23,440 --> 00:13:25,960
Speaker 1: said no, but Justice Kennedy said, oh, come on, uh.

242
00:13:26,040 --> 00:13:29,840
Speaker 1: Candidates already running, so does not seem likely that anything's

243
00:13:29,840 --> 00:13:33,280
Speaker 1: going to change. Thank you, Rick. That's Rick hass and

244
00:13:33,400 --> 00:13:36,280
Speaker 1: Professor at U c Irvine. His book is The Justice

245
00:13:36,320 --> 00:13:41,120
Speaker 1: of Contradictions, Antonin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption. Thanks

246
00:13:41,120 --> 00:13:44,439
Speaker 1: for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe

247
00:13:44,440 --> 00:13:47,720
Speaker 1: and listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, and

248
00:13:47,760 --> 00:13:52,280
Speaker 1: on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Rosso. This

249
00:13:52,600 --> 00:13:53,280
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg