WEBVTT - Mueller Talks Continue Amid Trump Legal Team Reshuffle

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.440
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.639
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Just after signing

0:00:22.720 --> 0:00:25.279
<v Speaker 1>a one point three trillion dollar budget at the White

0:00:25.280 --> 0:00:28.200
<v Speaker 1>House last week, reporters as President Trump if he would

0:00:28.200 --> 0:00:33.720
<v Speaker 1>like to testify in Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, to testify

0:00:33.800 --> 0:00:38.400
<v Speaker 1>the Special counsel Robert Muller, Sir, thank you would like

0:00:39.440 --> 0:00:41.560
<v Speaker 1>for borrow on this story. We're joined now by Greg Ferrell,

0:00:41.600 --> 0:00:47.200
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg News investigative legal reporter, and Greg, the President says

0:00:47.200 --> 0:00:49.800
<v Speaker 1>he would like to, but it's a it's a it's

0:00:49.840 --> 0:00:53.640
<v Speaker 1>a lot of distance between liking to and actually doing it.

0:00:53.720 --> 0:00:59.200
<v Speaker 1>What's your latest reporting on this story? Yesterday afternoon about

0:00:59.200 --> 0:01:03.400
<v Speaker 1>how negotiates between Trump's legal team, UM What's left of

0:01:03.400 --> 0:01:07.120
<v Speaker 1>It and the Mueller camp are continuing around this as

0:01:07.120 --> 0:01:11.199
<v Speaker 1>you know, UH, Trump's lead outside lawyer, John John Dowd

0:01:11.280 --> 0:01:16.760
<v Speaker 1>quit UM UH last week in part over the issue

0:01:16.760 --> 0:01:18.800
<v Speaker 1>of whether or not the President should sit down with

0:01:19.080 --> 0:01:23.160
<v Speaker 1>UH Special counsel Robert Mueller, and uh, there's a real

0:01:23.560 --> 0:01:26.520
<v Speaker 1>you know, there's there's this happens a lot in legal issues,

0:01:26.840 --> 0:01:30.720
<v Speaker 1>where there's a real divergence or a real contradiction between

0:01:30.720 --> 0:01:35.240
<v Speaker 1>what the legally proper the smartest legal move to take

0:01:35.680 --> 0:01:38.319
<v Speaker 1>and what you know, what the optics of that going

0:01:38.400 --> 0:01:41.280
<v Speaker 1>to are going to be. Uh. John Dowd recommended against

0:01:41.319 --> 0:01:44.679
<v Speaker 1>in any way, shape or form a meeting with Mueller. Um,

0:01:44.720 --> 0:01:47.840
<v Speaker 1>because any kind of slip up or or or you know,

0:01:48.120 --> 0:01:53.640
<v Speaker 1>misstatement or exaggeration, uh, you know, could be construed as uh,

0:01:53.800 --> 0:01:57.680
<v Speaker 1>you know, lying and um. But I think the President

0:01:57.720 --> 0:01:59.760
<v Speaker 1>understands that if he doesn't, if he refused to sit

0:01:59.800 --> 0:02:02.080
<v Speaker 1>down with Mueller, it will look bad. So there's this

0:02:02.120 --> 0:02:06.120
<v Speaker 1>sort of built in contradiction between you know, the optics

0:02:06.160 --> 0:02:09.280
<v Speaker 1>of the White House wanting to you know, appear like

0:02:09.320 --> 0:02:11.679
<v Speaker 1>the cooperating fully and wanting to let you know, and

0:02:11.720 --> 0:02:13.400
<v Speaker 1>they have nothing to be afraid of because, as the

0:02:13.440 --> 0:02:17.239
<v Speaker 1>President has said, he's done nothing wrong and the legal

0:02:17.240 --> 0:02:21.919
<v Speaker 1>imperative of protecting your client sore. Trump Y, you had

0:02:21.960 --> 0:02:25.760
<v Speaker 1>mentioned that, uh, you know, the shrinking legal team, so

0:02:25.880 --> 0:02:30.520
<v Speaker 1>Trump doesn't have a white collar or a government investigations

0:02:30.560 --> 0:02:34.160
<v Speaker 1>lawyer who's experienced in dealing with this type of high profile,

0:02:34.440 --> 0:02:38.640
<v Speaker 1>very sensitive investigation interview and the ramifications. How much of

0:02:38.680 --> 0:02:42.200
<v Speaker 1>a problem is that for him? Well, they say it's

0:02:42.200 --> 0:02:44.680
<v Speaker 1>not much of a problem because they're a big team

0:02:44.680 --> 0:02:48.200
<v Speaker 1>of people under Jay Seculo. Uh and some support from

0:02:48.680 --> 0:02:51.680
<v Speaker 1>you know, the Casuits law firm, which is back. But Uh,

0:02:51.720 --> 0:02:55.200
<v Speaker 1>there's two two issues for them. One, Um, you know,

0:02:55.760 --> 0:02:58.280
<v Speaker 1>they it would help to have someone who specializes in

0:02:58.320 --> 0:03:01.040
<v Speaker 1>criminal white collar defense out and they don't have that

0:03:01.080 --> 0:03:06.320
<v Speaker 1>now Casuits as a superb lawyer, but he's a civil lawyer. Um. Uh.

0:03:06.360 --> 0:03:09.520
<v Speaker 1>And at the same time, Um, you know that they realized,

0:03:09.520 --> 0:03:11.919
<v Speaker 1>from a public relations point of view, it doesn't look

0:03:11.960 --> 0:03:13.640
<v Speaker 1>good for the story to be out there that the

0:03:13.760 --> 0:03:16.799
<v Speaker 1>president is underrepresented by a lawyer. So I think their

0:03:16.840 --> 0:03:19.400
<v Speaker 1>plan is to to bring someone in. They don't need

0:03:19.440 --> 0:03:22.359
<v Speaker 1>someone tomorrow or by Monday, but over the next few

0:03:22.360 --> 0:03:24.280
<v Speaker 1>weeks they want to bring someone in who sort of

0:03:24.280 --> 0:03:27.000
<v Speaker 1>plugs that hall. You know, if you will baseball starting,

0:03:27.280 --> 0:03:29.160
<v Speaker 1>they need a first basement someone who they can put

0:03:29.160 --> 0:03:32.160
<v Speaker 1>in that spot. Um. Even though they say they're fine

0:03:32.200 --> 0:03:36.080
<v Speaker 1>for now, why is the team had such a hard

0:03:36.080 --> 0:03:39.440
<v Speaker 1>time putting the rest of the team together. Well, it's

0:03:39.480 --> 0:03:44.520
<v Speaker 1>another contradiction here. One Uh, most lawyers in general would

0:03:44.680 --> 0:03:47.000
<v Speaker 1>like kill for the opportunity to represent the president of

0:03:47.040 --> 0:03:50.960
<v Speaker 1>the United States and a major constitutional issue um Trump. However,

0:03:51.120 --> 0:03:55.240
<v Speaker 1>and this is proven to be, if not toxic, a

0:03:55.280 --> 0:03:58.400
<v Speaker 1>lot of you know, both face named lawyers in Washington

0:03:58.440 --> 0:04:01.600
<v Speaker 1>are avoiding him some. This in part is I think

0:04:01.680 --> 0:04:04.280
<v Speaker 1>political that they don't necessarily agree with him, But I

0:04:04.320 --> 0:04:08.160
<v Speaker 1>think more importantly is he's a very difficult client. You know,

0:04:08.240 --> 0:04:10.280
<v Speaker 1>you can tell him and try to come up with

0:04:10.320 --> 0:04:13.040
<v Speaker 1>a strategy of what you know should be done, and

0:04:13.080 --> 0:04:15.280
<v Speaker 1>he'll go off and do his own thing. He'll undercut

0:04:15.360 --> 0:04:18.080
<v Speaker 1>himself sometimes by giving an interview or a tweet that

0:04:18.400 --> 0:04:21.479
<v Speaker 1>sort of uh conflicts with what the legal advice is.

0:04:21.680 --> 0:04:24.320
<v Speaker 1>That's one of the reasons Mark Hoswits left last summer

0:04:24.720 --> 0:04:28.080
<v Speaker 1>is that reportedly he was cut out of the decision

0:04:28.120 --> 0:04:32.080
<v Speaker 1>making process, you know, intentionally shut out of what the

0:04:32.120 --> 0:04:35.200
<v Speaker 1>president's response was to a report that his son Don

0:04:35.279 --> 0:04:38.520
<v Speaker 1>Junior met with some Russians at the Trump Tower to

0:04:38.560 --> 0:04:41.839
<v Speaker 1>talk about dirt for Hillary. And you know, he's just

0:04:41.920 --> 0:04:47.160
<v Speaker 1>a difficult client. And Greg, does he do you think

0:04:47.200 --> 0:04:50.479
<v Speaker 1>he has any idea he's used to civil litigation in

0:04:50.560 --> 0:04:56.600
<v Speaker 1>New York. How any idea, how an interview with these experienced, aggressive,

0:04:56.920 --> 0:05:01.520
<v Speaker 1>well prepared lawyers on Mueller's team or Mueller himself would

0:05:01.560 --> 0:05:05.880
<v Speaker 1>be like, right, this is something I think the president

0:05:05.920 --> 0:05:07.800
<v Speaker 1>has never been up against because, as you point out, yes,

0:05:07.839 --> 0:05:11.200
<v Speaker 1>he's a veteran of you know, litigation, litigation wars in

0:05:11.240 --> 0:05:14.720
<v Speaker 1>New York, of a real estate etcetera. Um, And he's

0:05:14.760 --> 0:05:16.920
<v Speaker 1>prone to exaggeration because that's part of the business. He's

0:05:17.000 --> 0:05:19.400
<v Speaker 1>a successful in real estate in part because of his

0:05:19.680 --> 0:05:24.360
<v Speaker 1>he's a good talker, he sells well. Um, that's a compliment. Um.

0:05:24.480 --> 0:05:28.000
<v Speaker 1>But you're entering a world where any false statement is

0:05:28.040 --> 0:05:31.679
<v Speaker 1>potentially like a criminal act. So that's what John Dowd,

0:05:31.720 --> 0:05:35.760
<v Speaker 1>his lawyer, was I'm sure concerned about. And uh, you know,

0:05:35.880 --> 0:05:40.120
<v Speaker 1>and again part of Trump's particular, you know, charizba, is

0:05:40.160 --> 0:05:43.320
<v Speaker 1>that he's irrepressible. He goes off and says things, he

0:05:43.400 --> 0:05:47.080
<v Speaker 1>doesn't stay to the script. Um. And uh, that's for

0:05:47.120 --> 0:05:49.520
<v Speaker 1>the first time. He's in a dangerous place with that

0:05:49.600 --> 0:05:55.680
<v Speaker 1>streightmare for lawyers, a nightmare for his lawyers. Yeah, absolutely,

0:05:55.680 --> 0:05:58.479
<v Speaker 1>absolutely exactly. But let me but there's something let me

0:05:58.880 --> 0:06:01.560
<v Speaker 1>question this premise. I mean, yeah, yeah, you're right. He

0:06:01.680 --> 0:06:03.919
<v Speaker 1>the president has a reputation for being on disciplined and

0:06:03.960 --> 0:06:06.680
<v Speaker 1>tweeting and everything else, but he seems to have shown

0:06:06.760 --> 0:06:12.680
<v Speaker 1>pretty strong discipline in this controversy over Stormy Daniels. Yes,

0:06:13.360 --> 0:06:16.480
<v Speaker 1>but you know that's you know, for a few days,

0:06:16.520 --> 0:06:18.760
<v Speaker 1>I think we've we've seen you know, John Kelly has

0:06:18.800 --> 0:06:22.200
<v Speaker 1>been uh, you know, has had success and then lack

0:06:22.240 --> 0:06:24.680
<v Speaker 1>of success during last summer and getting the President's day

0:06:24.720 --> 0:06:27.480
<v Speaker 1>off reporter, and then it changes. So maybe true, maybe

0:06:27.520 --> 0:06:30.000
<v Speaker 1>he's suddenly gotten religion. Maybe at his age, he's suddenly

0:06:30.279 --> 0:06:33.560
<v Speaker 1>you know, has become the man that his previous lawyers

0:06:33.560 --> 0:06:35.800
<v Speaker 1>want him to be. But you know, let's see, at

0:06:35.839 --> 0:06:39.400
<v Speaker 1>time passes. It's been one week, so well, maybe he

0:06:39.480 --> 0:06:42.400
<v Speaker 1>understands the stakes with Mueller. And that's so that that's

0:06:42.400 --> 0:06:45.560
<v Speaker 1>why I was asking. You know, I still I still think,

0:06:45.600 --> 0:06:48.280
<v Speaker 1>you know, he's facing these lawyers and he has a

0:06:48.279 --> 0:06:51.320
<v Speaker 1>tendency to fill in the gaps and to keep talking.

0:06:51.360 --> 0:06:57.640
<v Speaker 1>And lawyers love that, right opposition lawyers your own lawyer, yes, exactly. Um,

0:06:57.680 --> 0:07:00.240
<v Speaker 1>he loved to build a vacuum. He uh, you know,

0:07:00.279 --> 0:07:02.560
<v Speaker 1>clearly thrives on being the star of the show. And

0:07:02.640 --> 0:07:05.000
<v Speaker 1>that's not what you want, you know, in that type

0:07:05.040 --> 0:07:07.880
<v Speaker 1>of uh circumstance, you want someone who sticks to the script,

0:07:08.040 --> 0:07:11.760
<v Speaker 1>keeps it almost monosyllabic. That's what the negotiations right now

0:07:11.840 --> 0:07:14.240
<v Speaker 1>is about, is like the different areas that Mueller wants

0:07:14.280 --> 0:07:17.080
<v Speaker 1>to talk about. Got it all right, Greig Farrell, Bloomberg

0:07:17.080 --> 0:07:23.600
<v Speaker 1>News investigative legal reporter, Thank you so much. Now let's

0:07:23.600 --> 0:07:26.280
<v Speaker 1>take a look at the Supreme Court. And the Supreme

0:07:26.320 --> 0:07:29.320
<v Speaker 1>Court took its second look at partisan jerrymandering this term.

0:07:29.320 --> 0:07:31.720
<v Speaker 1>But the second look doesn't seem to have clarified the

0:07:31.800 --> 0:07:35.440
<v Speaker 1>issue or the solution for the justices. The Justices expressed

0:07:35.440 --> 0:07:39.640
<v Speaker 1>broad concerns about a Maryland congressional district that Democrats acknowledge

0:07:39.720 --> 0:07:43.360
<v Speaker 1>was drawn to outs to GOP lawmaker. The solution was

0:07:43.440 --> 0:07:46.000
<v Speaker 1>far from clear. Joining me is one of our country's

0:07:46.040 --> 0:07:49.120
<v Speaker 1>leading experts on election law, Rick Hassan, a professor at

0:07:49.160 --> 0:07:52.000
<v Speaker 1>U c Irvin and the author of the Justice of

0:07:52.080 --> 0:07:57.160
<v Speaker 1>Contradictions and nin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption. Rick,

0:07:57.400 --> 0:07:59.760
<v Speaker 1>the Court has never struck down a voting map for

0:07:59.800 --> 0:08:04.120
<v Speaker 1>being so partisan it violates the Constitution. Do the Justices

0:08:04.200 --> 0:08:08.480
<v Speaker 1>at least agree that extreme partisan jerrymandering is a violation

0:08:08.520 --> 0:08:11.680
<v Speaker 1>of the Constitution. I think they actually do agree on

0:08:11.720 --> 0:08:13.560
<v Speaker 1>that point, and you think that that would settle it.

0:08:13.600 --> 0:08:17.080
<v Speaker 1>But back in two thousand four, Justice Scalia wrote a

0:08:17.120 --> 0:08:21.440
<v Speaker 1>plurality opinion in a case called v versus Jubellar involving

0:08:21.800 --> 0:08:26.560
<v Speaker 1>Pennsylvania's redistricting, where he said, even if it's unconstitutional, and

0:08:26.560 --> 0:08:28.800
<v Speaker 1>will assume that it is, the question is whether or

0:08:28.800 --> 0:08:32.679
<v Speaker 1>not the courts have any power to rein it in

0:08:33.160 --> 0:08:37.360
<v Speaker 1>are there any judicially manageable standards to know when taking

0:08:37.360 --> 0:08:40.240
<v Speaker 1>partisanship into account and drawing district lines is too much?

0:08:40.800 --> 0:08:42.839
<v Speaker 1>And it was very clear from the argument yesterday in

0:08:42.840 --> 0:08:45.920
<v Speaker 1>the Maryland jerrymandering case that the Court is still struggling

0:08:46.000 --> 0:08:48.320
<v Speaker 1>with that question. Is there a standard that the Court

0:08:48.400 --> 0:08:52.120
<v Speaker 1>can enunciate that could actually help to decide when too

0:08:52.240 --> 0:08:56.040
<v Speaker 1>much partisanship comes into play in these drawing of district lines.

0:08:56.400 --> 0:09:02.160
<v Speaker 1>Why is partisan jerrymandering different from reach racial jerrymandering in

0:09:02.160 --> 0:09:05.160
<v Speaker 1>this respect? Why why can they one but not the other?

0:09:05.520 --> 0:09:08.160
<v Speaker 1>It's a great question. And so when it comes to

0:09:08.280 --> 0:09:14.760
<v Speaker 1>racial jerrymandering, um, the standard there is one of simply

0:09:15.040 --> 0:09:19.240
<v Speaker 1>making race the predominant factor in drawing district lines. And

0:09:19.280 --> 0:09:21.559
<v Speaker 1>the Court says that that violent secret protection clause that

0:09:21.640 --> 0:09:24.920
<v Speaker 1>sends a message that you're separating voters on the basis

0:09:24.920 --> 0:09:27.920
<v Speaker 1>of race, and this is a pernicious message. That's the

0:09:27.920 --> 0:09:30.040
<v Speaker 1>theory of a case called Shaw versus Reno, and it's

0:09:30.040 --> 0:09:33.800
<v Speaker 1>been from the has been carried through today. UM. Although

0:09:33.880 --> 0:09:36.600
<v Speaker 1>some of the justices had have advanced in an argument

0:09:36.600 --> 0:09:40.079
<v Speaker 1>that if you make race the sole motivator, if you

0:09:40.200 --> 0:09:44.320
<v Speaker 1>make party partisanship the soul motivator or the main motivator

0:09:44.320 --> 0:09:47.360
<v Speaker 1>in drawing district lines, that's unconstitutional. The Court in vis

0:09:47.520 --> 0:09:50.520
<v Speaker 1>rejected that standard. Justice Kennedy was the fifth vote rejected

0:09:50.559 --> 0:09:53.760
<v Speaker 1>that standard and rejected a similar standard in a two

0:09:53.760 --> 0:09:56.439
<v Speaker 1>thousand six case coming out of Texas. So it's got

0:09:56.440 --> 0:09:59.760
<v Speaker 1>to be something different than that. Um. It could be

0:09:59.800 --> 0:10:02.280
<v Speaker 1>some thing like vote dilution, which we see in the

0:10:02.400 --> 0:10:06.360
<v Speaker 1>voting rights context, except diluting the votes of Democrats or Republicans.

0:10:06.600 --> 0:10:09.640
<v Speaker 1>But they're not exactly clear on how you would draw

0:10:09.679 --> 0:10:12.120
<v Speaker 1>the line. And one of the things Justice Brier floated

0:10:12.160 --> 0:10:14.280
<v Speaker 1>an argument yesterday is they've got two or three cases

0:10:14.280 --> 0:10:16.679
<v Speaker 1>involving these issues, maybe they should just hear them again.

0:10:17.280 --> 0:10:20.800
<v Speaker 1>Next term, bringing all the lawyers from all the cases,

0:10:20.840 --> 0:10:22.640
<v Speaker 1>put it on a blackboard and try and sort it

0:10:22.640 --> 0:10:25.000
<v Speaker 1>out and figure out, is there, holy Grail, is there

0:10:25.000 --> 0:10:27.520
<v Speaker 1>a standard they could apply for all of these cases

0:10:27.559 --> 0:10:30.200
<v Speaker 1>that's actually gonna work. And a lot of the justices

0:10:30.520 --> 0:10:34.800
<v Speaker 1>expressed both uncomfortable nous with what Maryland had done in

0:10:35.040 --> 0:10:38.360
<v Speaker 1>drawing this congressional district of favor Democrats and a lack

0:10:38.400 --> 0:10:40.600
<v Speaker 1>of comfort with any standard that they can come up

0:10:40.600 --> 0:10:43.480
<v Speaker 1>with to say what the general rules should be. Well,

0:10:43.520 --> 0:10:45.800
<v Speaker 1>do you think kicking the can or the case down

0:10:45.840 --> 0:10:48.680
<v Speaker 1>the road is going to help them any Well, it

0:10:48.760 --> 0:10:51.640
<v Speaker 1>might help Justice Brier keep Justice Kennedy on the court.

0:10:51.960 --> 0:10:54.480
<v Speaker 1>Some people were suggesting that maybe this was a way

0:10:54.520 --> 0:10:57.439
<v Speaker 1>to say, you know, Kennedy's is seen as a likely

0:10:57.480 --> 0:11:00.280
<v Speaker 1>swing voter here. This is one of his signature issues

0:11:00.320 --> 0:11:03.920
<v Speaker 1>where he's been debating the issue with himself for the

0:11:04.000 --> 0:11:06.920
<v Speaker 1>last decade or so, and you know, if you set

0:11:06.920 --> 0:11:09.480
<v Speaker 1>the case for arguments in the fall, maybe Kennedy sticks around,

0:11:09.480 --> 0:11:13.080
<v Speaker 1>you know, amid all of these retirement rumors. So there

0:11:13.120 --> 0:11:16.320
<v Speaker 1>were there was a case argued about Maryland this week

0:11:16.440 --> 0:11:21.560
<v Speaker 1>and then Wisconsin before. Is Justice Kennedy the swing vote

0:11:21.640 --> 0:11:25.400
<v Speaker 1>in both those cases, and the way one case goes

0:11:25.480 --> 0:11:27.880
<v Speaker 1>is that the way the other case will go. Well,

0:11:27.920 --> 0:11:31.240
<v Speaker 1>the case is different four different ways. One is that

0:11:31.320 --> 0:11:34.520
<v Speaker 1>one involves Democrats doing the chairmanaging. The other involves Republicans

0:11:34.559 --> 0:11:38.800
<v Speaker 1>that shouldn't sway sway. The difference. One involves congressional districts

0:11:38.800 --> 0:11:43.199
<v Speaker 1>and the other involves state legislative districts. Uh. One involves

0:11:43.200 --> 0:11:45.080
<v Speaker 1>a challenge to the entire map, the other involves a

0:11:45.120 --> 0:11:50.000
<v Speaker 1>challenge to just a single district and um uh the uh.

0:11:50.080 --> 0:11:52.400
<v Speaker 1>The last difference is that one involves the three under

0:11:52.400 --> 0:11:54.480
<v Speaker 1>the Equal Protection Clause, the other under the First Amendment.

0:11:54.640 --> 0:11:57.520
<v Speaker 1>These all kind of offer different ways for Justice Kennedy,

0:11:57.559 --> 0:11:59.840
<v Speaker 1>if he's a swing voter, to go and decide these cases.

0:12:00.120 --> 0:12:02.080
<v Speaker 1>We just don't know. We didn't know why the Court

0:12:02.160 --> 0:12:04.720
<v Speaker 1>said argument for in the second cases of the Maryland

0:12:04.720 --> 0:12:07.520
<v Speaker 1>case as opposed to just holding it for the Wisconsin case.

0:12:07.920 --> 0:12:10.240
<v Speaker 1>The answer seems to be after argument that the Justice

0:12:10.240 --> 0:12:13.240
<v Speaker 1>they're just struggling with very basic principles as to whether

0:12:13.280 --> 0:12:15.480
<v Speaker 1>and how they're going to address any of these issues.

0:12:15.520 --> 0:12:18.840
<v Speaker 1>It's it was if you look at the headlines yesterday

0:12:19.080 --> 0:12:24.320
<v Speaker 1>describing your argument befuddlement frustration. The Court really seems like

0:12:24.320 --> 0:12:25.960
<v Speaker 1>it's struggling and does not know what to do, and

0:12:25.960 --> 0:12:28.320
<v Speaker 1>it's not normally what you see coming out of a

0:12:28.320 --> 0:12:32.800
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court argument. So, Rick, what's your what's your final take? Do?

0:12:32.920 --> 0:12:34.920
<v Speaker 1>Will they come out with it with a decision one

0:12:34.960 --> 0:12:37.640
<v Speaker 1>way or the other? Will they you know, kick it

0:12:37.679 --> 0:12:40.560
<v Speaker 1>to the next term or what what's your take? Well,

0:12:40.640 --> 0:12:43.040
<v Speaker 1>I don't have a good sense after the argument. Nothing

0:12:43.080 --> 0:12:45.959
<v Speaker 1>would surprise me that is there. There are very easy

0:12:45.960 --> 0:12:48.160
<v Speaker 1>ways for them to kick this, to kick the Maryland

0:12:48.160 --> 0:12:50.719
<v Speaker 1>case in particular, because it's up on a preliminary injunction

0:12:50.760 --> 0:12:53.439
<v Speaker 1>and they could just postpone it for a few years.

0:12:53.440 --> 0:12:55.360
<v Speaker 1>But if Kennedy is thinking about leaving the Court in

0:12:55.400 --> 0:12:57.600
<v Speaker 1>the next few years and he's the swing vote, that

0:12:57.760 --> 0:13:01.959
<v Speaker 1>should put some pressure on the Court to actually decide

0:13:02.000 --> 0:13:05.040
<v Speaker 1>the issue this term. But we'll find out in June. So, um,

0:13:05.080 --> 0:13:06.960
<v Speaker 1>just briefly, we have about thirty seconds, so the mid

0:13:07.080 --> 0:13:10.160
<v Speaker 1>term elections will definitely be held using the maps that

0:13:10.240 --> 0:13:14.600
<v Speaker 1>may later be determined to be unconstitutional. Perhaps that is

0:13:14.640 --> 0:13:16.760
<v Speaker 1>seems very likely. There was a whole discussion at the

0:13:16.800 --> 0:13:19.200
<v Speaker 1>beginning of the argument yesterday about whether, given that this

0:13:19.240 --> 0:13:20.920
<v Speaker 1>is up on the Ploomery in junction. Is it too

0:13:21.000 --> 0:13:23.360
<v Speaker 1>late for a remedy in two thousand eighteen. The lawyer

0:13:23.440 --> 0:13:25.960
<v Speaker 1>said no, but Justice Kennedy said, oh, come on, uh.

0:13:26.040 --> 0:13:29.840
<v Speaker 1>Candidates already running, so does not seem likely that anything's

0:13:29.840 --> 0:13:33.280
<v Speaker 1>going to change. Thank you, Rick. That's Rick hass and

0:13:33.400 --> 0:13:36.280
<v Speaker 1>Professor at U c Irvine. His book is The Justice

0:13:36.320 --> 0:13:41.120
<v Speaker 1>of Contradictions, Antonin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption. Thanks

0:13:41.120 --> 0:13:44.439
<v Speaker 1>for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe

0:13:44.440 --> 0:13:47.720
<v Speaker 1>and listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, and

0:13:47.760 --> 0:13:52.280
<v Speaker 1>on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Rosso. This

0:13:52.600 --> 0:13:53.280
<v Speaker 1>is Bloomberg