1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloombird Radio.

2
00:00:09,119 --> 00:00:12,520
Speaker 1: As each day brings more death and destruction to Ukraine,

3
00:00:12,840 --> 00:00:16,400
Speaker 1: as the attacks become more harrowing and more innocent people

4
00:00:16,440 --> 00:00:20,640
Speaker 1: are killed, world leaders like President Joe Biden have characterized

5
00:00:20,680 --> 00:00:25,320
Speaker 1: the actions of Russian President Vladimir Putin as criminal. Putin

6
00:00:25,360 --> 00:00:31,160
Speaker 1: is inflicting appalling, appalling devastation and horror on Ukraine, bombing

7
00:00:31,200 --> 00:00:36,240
Speaker 1: apartment buildings, maternity wards, hospitals. But Biden did not use

8
00:00:36,280 --> 00:00:40,440
Speaker 1: the words war criminal to describe Putin until lass Wednesday,

9
00:00:40,760 --> 00:00:48,360
Speaker 1: talking to reporters after a White House Events work. At first,

10
00:00:48,400 --> 00:00:51,559
Speaker 1: the White House tried to walk back those words, but

11
00:00:51,680 --> 00:00:56,320
Speaker 1: then Secretary of State Anthony B. Lincoln doubled down. Yesterday,

12
00:00:56,680 --> 00:01:00,200
Speaker 1: President Biden said that, in his opinion, war cry have

13
00:01:00,280 --> 00:01:05,560
Speaker 1: been committed in Ukraine. Personally, I agree, joining me as

14
00:01:05,640 --> 00:01:09,280
Speaker 1: Katon McIntosh executive director of the Promise Institute for Human

15
00:01:09,400 --> 00:01:12,160
Speaker 1: Rights at u c l A law school. She's held

16
00:01:12,200 --> 00:01:17,320
Speaker 1: many roles in international criminal tribunals. The term war crimes

17
00:01:17,560 --> 00:01:21,759
Speaker 1: is often used colloquially, what does it mean legally? Speaking?

18
00:01:22,760 --> 00:01:26,080
Speaker 1: So legally, a war crime is a serious violation of

19
00:01:26,120 --> 00:01:29,360
Speaker 1: the laws of war, So a serious violation of the

20
00:01:29,440 --> 00:01:32,280
Speaker 1: rules that are set out in the Geneva Conventions, for example,

21
00:01:32,280 --> 00:01:35,560
Speaker 1: about how war should be fought, and not every violation

22
00:01:35,600 --> 00:01:37,280
Speaker 1: of those rules is a war crime. Had to be

23
00:01:37,319 --> 00:01:43,080
Speaker 1: a serious violation. War criminal is a loaded label. When

24
00:01:43,120 --> 00:01:46,880
Speaker 1: President Biden first said it, there was immediate backtracking by

25
00:01:46,880 --> 00:01:49,640
Speaker 1: the White House. It seems like now they're coming around

26
00:01:49,680 --> 00:01:53,760
Speaker 1: to that label for Vladimir Putin. How many people have

27
00:01:53,880 --> 00:01:58,240
Speaker 1: actually been convicted of being a war criminal? Well, hundreds,

28
00:01:58,520 --> 00:02:00,640
Speaker 1: hundreds have been convicted of being a war criminal. I mean,

29
00:02:00,680 --> 00:02:03,600
Speaker 1: as you can imagine, the rules of war are violated

30
00:02:03,680 --> 00:02:06,320
Speaker 1: during our conflict, and as I said, when that's really serious,

31
00:02:06,400 --> 00:02:10,200
Speaker 1: when we're talking about things like direct targeting a civilians,

32
00:02:10,880 --> 00:02:13,920
Speaker 1: that is a war crime. And they have happily been

33
00:02:14,480 --> 00:02:18,400
Speaker 1: quite a few prosecutions specifically around some recent conflicts in

34
00:02:18,440 --> 00:02:23,119
Speaker 1: the nineties, for example, so apart from the prosecutions after

35
00:02:23,160 --> 00:02:26,440
Speaker 1: World War Two, the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals, which was

36
00:02:26,480 --> 00:02:29,359
Speaker 1: really when we saw the first major wave of prosecutions

37
00:02:29,360 --> 00:02:32,360
Speaker 1: for war crimes. It was in the nineteen nineties with

38
00:02:32,520 --> 00:02:35,400
Speaker 1: the tribunals that were set up to deal with the

39
00:02:35,440 --> 00:02:38,440
Speaker 1: war in the former Yugoslavia, and with the war and

40
00:02:38,520 --> 00:02:43,240
Speaker 1: genocide in Rwanda that started to prosecute these international crimes,

41
00:02:43,280 --> 00:02:45,440
Speaker 1: and so since then we've actually seen hundreds of people

42
00:02:45,639 --> 00:02:49,360
Speaker 1: be prosecuted for these What has to be proven to

43
00:02:49,639 --> 00:02:53,200
Speaker 1: prosecute someone like Vladimir Putin? Do you have to show

44
00:02:53,240 --> 00:02:56,240
Speaker 1: that his actions were intentional? What has to be shown

45
00:02:56,600 --> 00:02:58,600
Speaker 1: you do? And I think that is the reason for

46
00:02:58,760 --> 00:03:01,799
Speaker 1: the slight hesitancy in declaring that he is a war

47
00:03:01,840 --> 00:03:05,320
Speaker 1: criminal before any proper investigation has taken place, and just

48
00:03:05,440 --> 00:03:08,360
Speaker 1: based on reports of what we've seen occurring actually on

49
00:03:08,400 --> 00:03:13,720
Speaker 1: the ground. Because intentionally directing military attacks against the civilian

50
00:03:13,760 --> 00:03:17,760
Speaker 1: population or civilian targets like hospitals or the art school

51
00:03:17,800 --> 00:03:20,799
Speaker 1: that we saw recently or a museum, that would be

52
00:03:20,840 --> 00:03:24,040
Speaker 1: a war crime. But the fact that these targets are

53
00:03:24,160 --> 00:03:26,960
Speaker 1: hit during a conflict does not necessarily mean they were

54
00:03:27,000 --> 00:03:31,360
Speaker 1: intentionally targeted. So it would be possible, I mean, frankly,

55
00:03:31,440 --> 00:03:34,760
Speaker 1: this seems unlikely in the kind of situation we've seen

56
00:03:34,800 --> 00:03:38,120
Speaker 1: reported in Ukraine. It would be possible for a legitimate

57
00:03:38,160 --> 00:03:40,920
Speaker 1: target to be targeted and for there to be incidental

58
00:03:41,080 --> 00:03:44,160
Speaker 1: or what we often hear of referred to as collateral damage,

59
00:03:44,280 --> 00:03:46,360
Speaker 1: which actually wouldn't be a war crime as long as

60
00:03:46,360 --> 00:03:49,960
Speaker 1: it wasn't completely out of whacking, completely disproportionate. So I

61
00:03:49,960 --> 00:03:53,120
Speaker 1: think that's the hesitancy. So in order to find Vladimi,

62
00:03:53,160 --> 00:03:55,720
Speaker 1: Cruity or anybody else guilty of a war crime, it

63
00:03:55,760 --> 00:03:59,080
Speaker 1: would have to be established that they intended, directed, or

64
00:03:59,120 --> 00:04:02,680
Speaker 1: gave orders to the effect that something like civilians should

65
00:04:02,680 --> 00:04:06,720
Speaker 1: be targeted, hospitals should be targeted, and Mariople actually is

66
00:04:06,760 --> 00:04:10,720
Speaker 1: another example, because besieging a city or trying to inflict

67
00:04:10,800 --> 00:04:14,120
Speaker 1: starvation on a civilian population is another war crime. So

68
00:04:14,160 --> 00:04:16,839
Speaker 1: where that can be tied back to specific orders and direction,

69
00:04:16,960 --> 00:04:19,800
Speaker 1: then a war crime is proved. That sounds like you

70
00:04:19,800 --> 00:04:24,080
Speaker 1: would need someone on the inside who Putin is giving

71
00:04:24,240 --> 00:04:29,039
Speaker 1: orders to, or who overheard what Putin was saying. It

72
00:04:29,120 --> 00:04:31,680
Speaker 1: could come down to that. I mean, I've worked at

73
00:04:31,760 --> 00:04:36,000
Speaker 1: the Yugoslavia War Crimes cribuneral and also the Rwanda tribunals,

74
00:04:36,000 --> 00:04:38,520
Speaker 1: so I've seen these cases, and in some cases it

75
00:04:38,560 --> 00:04:42,440
Speaker 1: did rely on intersepts or inside a witnesses to establish

76
00:04:42,480 --> 00:04:45,480
Speaker 1: a chain of command, but the threshold is not necessarily

77
00:04:45,520 --> 00:04:49,360
Speaker 1: that high. There's also legally a possibility that intention can

78
00:04:49,400 --> 00:04:52,640
Speaker 1: be inferred, right, if it's so obvious from the situation

79
00:04:52,720 --> 00:04:55,920
Speaker 1: that there's no way anything else, any other intention could

80
00:04:55,920 --> 00:04:58,520
Speaker 1: be inferred than that that instruction had been given. So,

81
00:04:58,600 --> 00:05:02,320
Speaker 1: for example, if there is an attack on a hospital

82
00:05:02,480 --> 00:05:04,360
Speaker 1: and there's nothing in the vicinity that could be in

83
00:05:04,360 --> 00:05:08,040
Speaker 1: a legitimate military objective, there's no allegation that the hospital

84
00:05:08,120 --> 00:05:10,960
Speaker 1: was being used as some kind of military headquarters, then

85
00:05:11,240 --> 00:05:14,080
Speaker 1: we can infer that there was a deliberate intention to

86
00:05:14,120 --> 00:05:19,240
Speaker 1: attack that hospital. The Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal

87
00:05:19,320 --> 00:05:24,120
Speaker 1: Court said on February that, based on a preliminary assessment

88
00:05:24,120 --> 00:05:28,440
Speaker 1: by his office conducted mostly in there's a reasonable basis

89
00:05:28,440 --> 00:05:31,440
Speaker 1: to believe that both alleged war crimes and crimes against

90
00:05:31,520 --> 00:05:34,960
Speaker 1: humanity have been committed in Ukraine. What is he referring to,

91
00:05:35,839 --> 00:05:41,840
Speaker 1: because the recent invasion just started, you know, a month ago, right, Well,

92
00:05:42,200 --> 00:05:45,359
Speaker 1: the officer, the prosecutor has actually been carrying out what

93
00:05:45,400 --> 00:05:49,159
Speaker 1: they call a preliminary examination, so the examination they carry

94
00:05:49,160 --> 00:05:53,760
Speaker 1: out before opening a proper investigation, since two thousand and fourteen.

95
00:05:54,320 --> 00:05:57,599
Speaker 1: And people have been upsets that that has taken so long,

96
00:05:57,640 --> 00:05:59,880
Speaker 1: and that it took the prosecutor until just we to

97
00:06:00,040 --> 00:06:01,880
Speaker 1: need to come out and make some kind of statement

98
00:06:01,920 --> 00:06:05,600
Speaker 1: about that. So here we're talking about the earlier invasion

99
00:06:05,760 --> 00:06:09,360
Speaker 1: of Crimea and the acts in Ukraine in two thousand

100
00:06:09,360 --> 00:06:13,440
Speaker 1: and fourteen. So when the prosecutor talks about possible war

101
00:06:13,480 --> 00:06:15,840
Speaker 1: crimes and crimes against humanity, he's talking about what has

102
00:06:15,880 --> 00:06:18,839
Speaker 1: happened back then and since then. He's actually not talking

103
00:06:18,839 --> 00:06:22,280
Speaker 1: about what's happening now. But once he is seized of

104
00:06:22,320 --> 00:06:25,440
Speaker 1: his situations there, once an investigation is open, he is

105
00:06:25,480 --> 00:06:29,440
Speaker 1: free to to investigate anything with going on in that situation,

106
00:06:29,480 --> 00:06:33,640
Speaker 1: So that includes current events. Takes years for these investigations.

107
00:06:33,680 --> 00:06:36,800
Speaker 1: Is it because it's so difficult or because different countries

108
00:06:36,800 --> 00:06:40,560
Speaker 1: are involved. That's a very good question. I mean we

109
00:06:40,640 --> 00:06:44,039
Speaker 1: alluded earlier to the kind of evidence that you need

110
00:06:44,080 --> 00:06:46,880
Speaker 1: to go up the chain of command. The International Criminal

111
00:06:46,920 --> 00:06:50,840
Speaker 1: Court in particular is charged with investigating and prosecuting those

112
00:06:50,920 --> 00:06:54,040
Speaker 1: most responsible, so they will be looking to people at

113
00:06:54,080 --> 00:06:57,040
Speaker 1: the top of the chain of command, like putting himself

114
00:06:57,040 --> 00:06:59,280
Speaker 1: in his close circle, perhaps generals and so on. In

115
00:06:59,320 --> 00:07:02,520
Speaker 1: the Russian millet tree, it's a lot easier to prove

116
00:07:03,120 --> 00:07:06,680
Speaker 1: a war crime by the person that actually launched the missile, right,

117
00:07:07,000 --> 00:07:09,320
Speaker 1: But building that chain of command up to the top

118
00:07:09,520 --> 00:07:11,800
Speaker 1: can be complex, you know, it can need to rely

119
00:07:11,960 --> 00:07:15,520
Speaker 1: on things like insider witnesses, intersects, and so on. So

120
00:07:15,640 --> 00:07:18,480
Speaker 1: that can be one reason why it takes time. Quite frankly,

121
00:07:18,800 --> 00:07:21,240
Speaker 1: another reason why it's taking so long at the International

122
00:07:21,240 --> 00:07:24,080
Speaker 1: Criminal Court, and I think ten years to decide on

123
00:07:24,200 --> 00:07:26,440
Speaker 1: whether or not it looks like crimes were committed in

124
00:07:26,440 --> 00:07:31,200
Speaker 1: two thousand fourteen, is, by anybody's reckoning, a very long time.

125
00:07:31,480 --> 00:07:35,240
Speaker 1: Is quite simply resources. So the International Criminal Court is

126
00:07:35,280 --> 00:07:39,520
Speaker 1: examining situations all over the world. It does not have

127
00:07:40,840 --> 00:07:45,960
Speaker 1: extensive resources. In fact, I heard somebody who's aware of

128
00:07:46,000 --> 00:07:49,000
Speaker 1: the team that's prosecuting and investigating the two thousand and

129
00:07:49,080 --> 00:07:52,320
Speaker 1: fourteen events in Ukraine say that the team had one

130
00:07:52,440 --> 00:07:56,400
Speaker 1: Ukrainian speaker and one Russian speaker. So, you know, in

131
00:07:56,480 --> 00:07:58,880
Speaker 1: order for the officer, the prosecutor who deals with crimes

132
00:07:58,920 --> 00:08:02,920
Speaker 1: all over the world, to really accelerate investigations in this situation,

133
00:08:02,920 --> 00:08:04,440
Speaker 1: which I think we all think would be a good thing,

134
00:08:04,840 --> 00:08:06,880
Speaker 1: they're going to need a massive injection of resources. They

135
00:08:06,920 --> 00:08:08,600
Speaker 1: need going to need to bring people on board. They

136
00:08:08,640 --> 00:08:11,320
Speaker 1: need to experience people, any people speak the language. They

137
00:08:11,360 --> 00:08:13,760
Speaker 1: need to be able to dee divert resources from their

138
00:08:13,760 --> 00:08:17,119
Speaker 1: other investigations to make this happen in a reasonable time frame.

139
00:08:17,720 --> 00:08:20,320
Speaker 1: Where would they get that money? I mean, is there

140
00:08:20,320 --> 00:08:23,840
Speaker 1: a process for them to get more funding. The usual

141
00:08:24,280 --> 00:08:26,120
Speaker 1: place they go to to get their money are the

142
00:08:26,240 --> 00:08:28,560
Speaker 1: states who have signed up to the court. So there

143
00:08:28,600 --> 00:08:31,400
Speaker 1: are hundred and twenty three nations around the world that

144
00:08:31,440 --> 00:08:34,040
Speaker 1: are part of the International Criminal Court system, so have

145
00:08:34,440 --> 00:08:38,240
Speaker 1: ratified the treaty, and they are also then the supervisory

146
00:08:38,280 --> 00:08:40,680
Speaker 1: body of the court, and they also provide funding for

147
00:08:40,720 --> 00:08:44,080
Speaker 1: the court. Now, other states can also contribute, so the US,

148
00:08:44,160 --> 00:08:47,720
Speaker 1: for example, could certainly contribute resources in order to accelerate

149
00:08:47,760 --> 00:08:50,880
Speaker 1: that prosecution, even though the US has not itself ratified

150
00:08:50,920 --> 00:08:53,360
Speaker 1: the statute and is in part of the court system.

151
00:08:53,440 --> 00:08:58,000
Speaker 1: The US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman said that

152
00:08:58,120 --> 00:09:01,920
Speaker 1: the United States is helping to pull evidence together presented

153
00:09:01,960 --> 00:09:05,720
Speaker 1: to international justice parties and then have a legal threshold

154
00:09:05,800 --> 00:09:08,040
Speaker 1: that has met. What is the United States or what

155
00:09:08,080 --> 00:09:11,960
Speaker 1: do individual countries have to do with this process or

156
00:09:12,120 --> 00:09:17,319
Speaker 1: is it just you know, the prosecutors from the sec. Yeah, well,

157
00:09:17,320 --> 00:09:19,640
Speaker 1: this is really an important way that states can assist

158
00:09:19,720 --> 00:09:23,559
Speaker 1: other than transferring funds directly and enabling the sec to

159
00:09:23,840 --> 00:09:27,760
Speaker 1: boost their their team because states, of course have I

160
00:09:27,920 --> 00:09:31,040
Speaker 1: referred earlier to interstet materials. For intertet material has been

161
00:09:31,160 --> 00:09:35,160
Speaker 1: very valuable for these international investigations and prosecutions, and that's

162
00:09:35,160 --> 00:09:37,720
Speaker 1: the kind of material that states have. States are the

163
00:09:37,760 --> 00:09:42,240
Speaker 1: bodies that are in a position to intercept communications and

164
00:09:42,320 --> 00:09:44,720
Speaker 1: to understand what's going on, and if they are willing

165
00:09:44,800 --> 00:09:47,280
Speaker 1: to share that information with the prosecutor's office, that can

166
00:09:47,320 --> 00:09:49,760
Speaker 1: be a massive assistance. And the US has been very

167
00:09:49,760 --> 00:09:55,400
Speaker 1: helpful to international justice actually through providing these kinds of information,

168
00:09:55,640 --> 00:09:59,679
Speaker 1: perhaps as lead material rather than evidence, through supporting in

169
00:09:59,760 --> 00:10:02,640
Speaker 1: its oaring information that the US has in its possession

170
00:10:03,040 --> 00:10:07,120
Speaker 1: in the pursuit of international accountability for atrocity crime. So

171
00:10:07,200 --> 00:10:09,960
Speaker 1: that's absolutely a very helpful thing that the United States

172
00:10:09,960 --> 00:10:12,280
Speaker 1: and other countries around the world could do. Do you

173
00:10:12,320 --> 00:10:16,000
Speaker 1: know why the United States isn't a member of the

174
00:10:16,080 --> 00:10:18,560
Speaker 1: i c c oh Well, that is a long and

175
00:10:18,679 --> 00:10:22,080
Speaker 1: interesting story. So the United States was very supportive of

176
00:10:22,120 --> 00:10:25,360
Speaker 1: the creation of the court, attended the Rome Conference in

177
00:10:26,400 --> 00:10:29,560
Speaker 1: which drew up the statute, which was all the nations

178
00:10:29,559 --> 00:10:32,439
Speaker 1: of the world deciding what this court should have jurisdiction

179
00:10:32,480 --> 00:10:34,400
Speaker 1: over and how it should work. The US was very

180
00:10:34,440 --> 00:10:39,600
Speaker 1: active at a big delegation actually signed the statute, but

181
00:10:39,840 --> 00:10:42,480
Speaker 1: never took it through the process of ratification. In other words,

182
00:10:42,480 --> 00:10:46,120
Speaker 1: never went through Congress to actually turn it into finding

183
00:10:46,200 --> 00:10:50,280
Speaker 1: law in the US. And then George W. Bush withdrew

184
00:10:50,840 --> 00:10:53,480
Speaker 1: from the statute in so far as that makes any

185
00:10:53,520 --> 00:10:56,440
Speaker 1: sense when it hadn't actually adopted, so kind of unsigned it.

186
00:10:56,840 --> 00:11:01,199
Speaker 1: And relations under Obama improved. I don't think there was

187
00:11:01,240 --> 00:11:03,360
Speaker 1: an indication that the US is going to sign up,

188
00:11:03,360 --> 00:11:07,800
Speaker 1: but there was certainly support for investigations. And then relations

189
00:11:07,880 --> 00:11:10,480
Speaker 1: reached an all time low under the last presidency. I

190
00:11:10,520 --> 00:11:13,679
Speaker 1: don't know if you remember, but President Trump actually issued

191
00:11:13,720 --> 00:11:17,400
Speaker 1: an executive order against the prosecutor of the International Criminal

192
00:11:17,440 --> 00:11:21,480
Speaker 1: Court because of the investigation in Afghanistan, which had implications

193
00:11:21,559 --> 00:11:26,160
Speaker 1: the US military. So, um, you know, it's a good question.

194
00:11:26,360 --> 00:11:29,880
Speaker 1: I think the hesitation, there's a hesitation over having any

195
00:11:30,080 --> 00:11:33,840
Speaker 1: other body have sovereignty over or have jurisdiction and be

196
00:11:33,880 --> 00:11:38,400
Speaker 1: able to judge the acts of of US personnel. Although

197
00:11:38,559 --> 00:11:41,559
Speaker 1: you know, I would say to that argument, whenever anybody

198
00:11:41,600 --> 00:11:44,920
Speaker 1: of any nationality commits a crime on foreign territory, that

199
00:11:45,120 --> 00:11:49,079
Speaker 1: territory has jurisdiction over those crimes, so it's not a

200
00:11:49,120 --> 00:11:52,520
Speaker 1: massive step to transfer it to the International Criminal Court.

201
00:11:53,160 --> 00:11:55,920
Speaker 1: I mean, let's see what position the current administration takes.

202
00:11:55,920 --> 00:11:59,000
Speaker 1: I certainly think from what we've seen President Biden's day

203
00:11:59,040 --> 00:12:02,719
Speaker 1: recently um that there is a much more supportive attitude

204
00:12:02,720 --> 00:12:05,080
Speaker 1: to the court, and whether that leads to the US

205
00:12:05,200 --> 00:12:07,840
Speaker 1: actually joining up, which I think would be a wonderful

206
00:12:07,840 --> 00:12:12,280
Speaker 1: message to send about no impunity for international crimes remains

207
00:12:12,320 --> 00:12:16,960
Speaker 1: to be seen. The i Sec doesn't conduct trials in abstentia,

208
00:12:19,000 --> 00:12:21,760
Speaker 1: and they even get putin. Putin would have to be

209
00:12:21,800 --> 00:12:24,680
Speaker 1: handed over. How would it work. Yeah, he'd have to

210
00:12:24,679 --> 00:12:26,720
Speaker 1: be handed over. So that's not looking very likely at

211
00:12:26,720 --> 00:12:29,720
Speaker 1: the moment, right. I Mean, what we've seen with heads

212
00:12:29,720 --> 00:12:33,880
Speaker 1: of state and international prosecutions is it tends to be

213
00:12:34,600 --> 00:12:37,520
Speaker 1: once they've been ousted from power, that they might be

214
00:12:37,600 --> 00:12:41,560
Speaker 1: handed over by their own stage who you may want

215
00:12:41,559 --> 00:12:43,680
Speaker 1: to move on and may disagree with the way they've

216
00:12:43,720 --> 00:12:47,160
Speaker 1: behaved or the kind of situation that then being accused

217
00:12:47,160 --> 00:12:51,360
Speaker 1: of these international crimes, the climate or the reputational damage

218
00:12:51,400 --> 00:12:54,080
Speaker 1: that that's done to the nation. So we saw Slava

219
00:12:54,120 --> 00:12:58,640
Speaker 1: down Molotovich from Yugoslavia, for example, from Serbia being handed

220
00:12:58,679 --> 00:13:02,720
Speaker 1: over to the international criminal or tribunal after he lost power,

221
00:13:03,040 --> 00:13:05,360
Speaker 1: as Serbi was trying to move forward and join the

222
00:13:05,520 --> 00:13:09,120
Speaker 1: European Union and leave its war trodden paths behind it.

223
00:13:09,360 --> 00:13:12,080
Speaker 1: So it's possible there could be a trajectory like that

224
00:13:12,080 --> 00:13:15,760
Speaker 1: for Vladimir Putin. I mean. The other possibility is that

225
00:13:15,880 --> 00:13:19,560
Speaker 1: any state would be able to arrest Vladimir Putin on

226
00:13:19,600 --> 00:13:23,160
Speaker 1: the basis of charges against him for international crimes, so

227
00:13:23,360 --> 00:13:25,920
Speaker 1: we could see his ability to travel around the world

228
00:13:26,040 --> 00:13:29,360
Speaker 1: being somewhat limited. There's an analogy there with I don't

229
00:13:29,360 --> 00:13:31,920
Speaker 1: know if you remember the situation with President Al Bashir

230
00:13:32,040 --> 00:13:35,920
Speaker 1: of Sudan, former president. He was also indicted in connection

231
00:13:35,960 --> 00:13:39,679
Speaker 1: with atrocities in Darfur while he was in power, and

232
00:13:39,880 --> 00:13:43,280
Speaker 1: he did travel outside Sudan, but very carefully, and only

233
00:13:43,320 --> 00:13:46,040
Speaker 1: two countries that he had previously screened and checked were

234
00:13:46,120 --> 00:13:48,240
Speaker 1: not going to arrest him before he got there. So

235
00:13:48,320 --> 00:13:50,199
Speaker 1: that could be a kind of interim effect that we

236
00:13:50,320 --> 00:13:54,000
Speaker 1: see of any possible charges against Vladimir Putin. Let me

237
00:13:54,320 --> 00:13:56,600
Speaker 1: posit this and you tell me if you agree that

238
00:13:56,920 --> 00:14:02,200
Speaker 1: it seems highly unlikely that lad Amir Putin at this point,

239
00:14:03,000 --> 00:14:06,760
Speaker 1: or even after the war is over, will be tried

240
00:14:06,920 --> 00:14:11,640
Speaker 1: for war crimes. I think it's unlikely as long as

241
00:14:11,679 --> 00:14:16,640
Speaker 1: he stays in power in Russia. However, if he is

242
00:14:16,720 --> 00:14:19,280
Speaker 1: no longer in power, or when he's no longer in power,

243
00:14:19,400 --> 00:14:21,960
Speaker 1: I think it could become a real possibility. I want

244
00:14:21,960 --> 00:14:25,000
Speaker 1: to switch to a different topic for a moment. Does

245
00:14:25,040 --> 00:14:29,360
Speaker 1: the United States have any obligation to take in refugees

246
00:14:29,440 --> 00:14:33,800
Speaker 1: Ukrainian refugees specifically, Well, there is a general obligation, and

247
00:14:33,880 --> 00:14:38,000
Speaker 1: this is under a combination of laws. So under refugee law,

248
00:14:38,120 --> 00:14:41,080
Speaker 1: under human rights law, there is a general obligation not

249
00:14:41,320 --> 00:14:44,520
Speaker 1: to send somebody back to a situation in which they

250
00:14:44,560 --> 00:14:46,760
Speaker 1: fear for their life. Now, what does that mean about

251
00:14:46,760 --> 00:14:49,880
Speaker 1: people who are not yet here is an unclear point

252
00:14:49,880 --> 00:14:53,520
Speaker 1: of law to be frank So many people, including the

253
00:14:53,600 --> 00:14:57,240
Speaker 1: UN High Commissioner for Refugees, would say, well, that provision

254
00:14:57,320 --> 00:14:59,040
Speaker 1: is meaningless if you don't let people in in the

255
00:14:59,120 --> 00:15:02,760
Speaker 1: first place, because that's effectively sending them back if they

256
00:15:02,760 --> 00:15:06,160
Speaker 1: have no if they can't escape the country. However, others

257
00:15:06,160 --> 00:15:08,000
Speaker 1: are kind of more hardline might say, well, if they're

258
00:15:08,040 --> 00:15:10,760
Speaker 1: not on our territory, they're not our problem. So legally,

259
00:15:10,960 --> 00:15:13,680
Speaker 1: you know, there's some dispute. What's absolutely clear is people

260
00:15:13,720 --> 00:15:15,960
Speaker 1: cannot be sent back to a situation where they are

261
00:15:16,040 --> 00:15:19,160
Speaker 1: fearing for their life. So whether that means that the

262
00:15:19,280 --> 00:15:22,200
Speaker 1: US is obliged to take them, as I said, legally

263
00:15:22,320 --> 00:15:24,600
Speaker 1: is kind of a point of contention. So I guess

264
00:15:24,640 --> 00:15:28,000
Speaker 1: that that's why Ukrainian refugees are showing up at the

265
00:15:28,040 --> 00:15:31,720
Speaker 1: southern border rather than trying to get in. Absolutely. Yeah,

266
00:15:31,800 --> 00:15:34,240
Speaker 1: I mean it would be very important for the refugees

267
00:15:34,280 --> 00:15:36,840
Speaker 1: to just try and land on US soils, and then

268
00:15:36,960 --> 00:15:40,520
Speaker 1: at that point the US really is under an obligation

269
00:15:40,560 --> 00:15:42,560
Speaker 1: not to send them back. Then the US is not

270
00:15:42,600 --> 00:15:46,200
Speaker 1: under an obligation to grant them permanent status, but it

271
00:15:46,240 --> 00:15:49,840
Speaker 1: would be under an obligation on humanitarian grounds legally to

272
00:15:49,880 --> 00:15:52,000
Speaker 1: make sure that they are not sent back to Ukraine.

273
00:15:52,560 --> 00:15:55,640
Speaker 1: Thanks for being on the show, Kate. That's keep McIntosh,

274
00:15:55,760 --> 00:15:58,800
Speaker 1: the executive director of the Promise Institute at u c L.

275
00:15:58,840 --> 00:16:04,600
Speaker 1: A last score the historic nomination of Judge Katangi Brown Jackson.

276
00:16:05,000 --> 00:16:07,680
Speaker 1: If confirmed, she'll be the first black woman to sit

277
00:16:07,720 --> 00:16:11,000
Speaker 1: on our country's highest court. At the end of day

278
00:16:11,000 --> 00:16:14,000
Speaker 1: one of her confirmation hearings, she made a promise to

279
00:16:14,040 --> 00:16:17,920
Speaker 1: be a fair and neutral arbiter of justice. I decide

280
00:16:18,000 --> 00:16:23,400
Speaker 1: cases from a neutral posture. I evaluate the facts, and

281
00:16:23,480 --> 00:16:26,880
Speaker 1: I interpret and apply the law to the facts of

282
00:16:26,920 --> 00:16:32,440
Speaker 1: the case before me, without fear or favor, consistent with

283
00:16:32,600 --> 00:16:37,080
Speaker 1: my judicial oath. My guest is John Michael's, a professor

284
00:16:37,120 --> 00:16:41,920
Speaker 1: at u c l A Law School. During the opening statements,

285
00:16:42,400 --> 00:16:45,480
Speaker 1: a lot of the Republican senators referred back to the

286
00:16:45,600 --> 00:16:49,680
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh hearings, but not to the latest set of hearings,

287
00:16:49,680 --> 00:16:52,920
Speaker 1: which was the Amy Coney Barrett hearings. Do you think

288
00:16:52,920 --> 00:16:57,560
Speaker 1: that there's some leftover hostility from Kavanaugh that might bleed

289
00:16:57,680 --> 00:17:02,480
Speaker 1: further into these hearings. Well, it's not clear it's hostility

290
00:17:02,600 --> 00:17:09,320
Speaker 1: as much as it's an opportunity to relitigate past grievances.

291
00:17:09,680 --> 00:17:11,640
Speaker 1: And I say that because I'm not sure how sincere

292
00:17:11,720 --> 00:17:15,680
Speaker 1: these these efforts are. There's certainly um powerful and destructive,

293
00:17:15,680 --> 00:17:18,480
Speaker 1: but I'm not sure how how credible or sincere they are.

294
00:17:19,000 --> 00:17:22,680
Speaker 1: There is a benefit for going back, as it were,

295
00:17:22,960 --> 00:17:26,359
Speaker 1: and and muddying the playing field as much as possible,

296
00:17:26,720 --> 00:17:29,600
Speaker 1: and frankly, it needs to be done in this context,

297
00:17:29,840 --> 00:17:34,840
Speaker 1: if only because Jackson's record is practically spotless. So there

298
00:17:34,880 --> 00:17:37,439
Speaker 1: has to be some kind of invitation for chaos in

299
00:17:37,560 --> 00:17:42,440
Speaker 1: order to create the obstruction or or confusion, or let's say,

300
00:17:43,200 --> 00:17:47,040
Speaker 1: to raise questions about a candidacy that is otherwise a

301
00:17:47,040 --> 00:17:51,879
Speaker 1: real no brainer. At what point did confirmation hearings turn

302
00:17:52,000 --> 00:17:56,320
Speaker 1: into such a part as in totally partisan affair where

303
00:17:56,359 --> 00:17:59,800
Speaker 1: you have some senators who voted for her to become

304
00:18:00,240 --> 00:18:03,360
Speaker 1: a judge on the d C Circuit now saying they

305
00:18:03,400 --> 00:18:06,399
Speaker 1: may not vote for her to be on the Supreme Court. Yeah,

306
00:18:06,520 --> 00:18:10,760
Speaker 1: so there's a like everything else in this kind of

307
00:18:10,800 --> 00:18:15,399
Speaker 1: political moment, there's a bit of a partisan debate about

308
00:18:15,400 --> 00:18:18,600
Speaker 1: when this all started. A lot of Republicans will focus

309
00:18:18,600 --> 00:18:21,000
Speaker 1: on the Robert Board hearing, but a lot of other

310
00:18:21,000 --> 00:18:23,320
Speaker 1: people will say, let's take a step back and realize

311
00:18:23,359 --> 00:18:28,520
Speaker 1: that the first occasion for really uh subjecting the Supreme

312
00:18:28,520 --> 00:18:34,640
Speaker 1: Court nominate nominees to the type of aggressive scrutiny really

313
00:18:34,680 --> 00:18:38,359
Speaker 1: started when the old boys Club started to get shaken up.

314
00:18:38,400 --> 00:18:41,040
Speaker 1: And originally Bill's Boys Club was being shaken up only

315
00:18:41,080 --> 00:18:44,679
Speaker 1: by folks who were white ethnics or more progressive and

316
00:18:44,800 --> 00:18:47,639
Speaker 1: less within the kind of clubby world of Wall Street.

317
00:18:47,960 --> 00:18:51,560
Speaker 1: So we're talking about the kind of New Deal appointments,

318
00:18:52,000 --> 00:18:57,240
Speaker 1: and of course even John Marshall Harlan the second, who

319
00:18:57,400 --> 00:19:00,720
Speaker 1: was of the kind of elite New York are was

320
00:19:00,760 --> 00:19:06,040
Speaker 1: scrutinized aggressively because the Conservatives were worried about he'd come

321
00:19:06,080 --> 00:19:10,320
Speaker 1: down on segregation issues and desegregation issues. So if one

322
00:19:10,320 --> 00:19:12,840
Speaker 1: could focus on the Wark hearings as this kind of

323
00:19:12,880 --> 00:19:16,960
Speaker 1: cultural touchstone, but there were events that led up to

324
00:19:17,000 --> 00:19:20,600
Speaker 1: it that defined largely, I guess, a modern era of

325
00:19:20,720 --> 00:19:23,760
Speaker 1: greater kind of care and scrutiny, as this Supreme Court

326
00:19:23,880 --> 00:19:28,520
Speaker 1: is taking a larger and larger role in the regulation

327
00:19:28,760 --> 00:19:34,560
Speaker 1: of our most important institutions and life choices. So Senator

328
00:19:34,600 --> 00:19:40,200
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham was complaining that Biden didn't choose Judge Michelle

329
00:19:40,280 --> 00:19:43,679
Speaker 1: Chiles and said he was going to investigate with Judge

330
00:19:43,800 --> 00:19:49,119
Speaker 1: Jackson the dark money behind her confirmation process. Now that

331
00:19:49,280 --> 00:19:52,400
Speaker 1: seems totally inappropriate, and I'm sure she's going to say

332
00:19:52,560 --> 00:19:54,639
Speaker 1: what does she know about it? Although in a nicer

333
00:19:54,640 --> 00:19:57,520
Speaker 1: way than Matt I think that would be the most

334
00:19:57,720 --> 00:20:02,040
Speaker 1: candid answer um. But of course, still it still allows

335
00:20:02,200 --> 00:20:06,000
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham to leave out there unaddressed the question about

336
00:20:06,000 --> 00:20:09,359
Speaker 1: whether that's actually at all a credible claim that has

337
00:20:09,400 --> 00:20:12,959
Speaker 1: any validity to it. Just because Judge Jackson can't confirm

338
00:20:13,080 --> 00:20:16,040
Speaker 1: or deny it doesn't mean it's actually what's been going

339
00:20:16,080 --> 00:20:18,800
Speaker 1: on in a case like this. So Linday Graham is

340
00:20:18,840 --> 00:20:21,880
Speaker 1: pulling out his all lawyer Lee trick in doing so

341
00:20:21,960 --> 00:20:23,679
Speaker 1: and and and doing so in a form where it

342
00:20:23,720 --> 00:20:26,800
Speaker 1: can be credibly rebutted unless the Democratic senator is going

343
00:20:26,800 --> 00:20:29,760
Speaker 1: to use his or her time to do so. And

344
00:20:29,800 --> 00:20:31,879
Speaker 1: that's what it ends up being often, isn't it. It

345
00:20:31,920 --> 00:20:34,439
Speaker 1: seems like it's more about the questions than it is

346
00:20:34,440 --> 00:20:37,400
Speaker 1: about the answers. Yeah, I think that's fair. I think

347
00:20:37,400 --> 00:20:40,439
Speaker 1: it's fair, and it's um. It also then further raises

348
00:20:40,480 --> 00:20:43,480
Speaker 1: the question about how how probitive these hearings ever are,

349
00:20:43,920 --> 00:20:47,480
Speaker 1: because the senators are either talking to the cameras, they're

350
00:20:47,520 --> 00:20:52,120
Speaker 1: talking to their Twitter followers, or they're trying to kind

351
00:20:52,160 --> 00:20:55,840
Speaker 1: of reframe the questions or debates in ways that are

352
00:20:55,920 --> 00:21:01,120
Speaker 1: advancing various parts of interest, and unfortunately, in many cases

353
00:21:01,160 --> 00:21:04,200
Speaker 1: we don't actually learn that much more about the nominee,

354
00:21:04,240 --> 00:21:07,280
Speaker 1: and the nominee has to sit there often stone face

355
00:21:07,440 --> 00:21:11,760
Speaker 1: and just watch the partisan circus kind of march past

356
00:21:11,880 --> 00:21:15,000
Speaker 1: them as it were today, Senator Ted Cruz said he

357
00:21:15,080 --> 00:21:17,960
Speaker 1: was going to ask her about free speech, religious liberty,

358
00:21:18,000 --> 00:21:21,679
Speaker 1: gun rights, abortion, and crime. Does he expect an answer

359
00:21:21,720 --> 00:21:25,800
Speaker 1: to any of those questions, because most nominees have not

360
00:21:25,960 --> 00:21:29,399
Speaker 1: answered those questions except to say I'll follow precedent. I

361
00:21:29,400 --> 00:21:32,320
Speaker 1: wouldn't expect to Judge Jackson to to weigh in on

362
00:21:32,359 --> 00:21:36,000
Speaker 1: any of those issues. It seems unhelpful in the moment.

363
00:21:36,240 --> 00:21:40,160
Speaker 1: It could be used down the road where she could

364
00:21:40,160 --> 00:21:44,040
Speaker 1: be confirmed, to suggest that she's maybe prejudged the case.

365
00:21:44,400 --> 00:21:47,480
Speaker 1: So there are political reasons, and then there are professional

366
00:21:47,560 --> 00:21:52,119
Speaker 1: prudential reasons for treading really carefully there. You know, in

367
00:21:52,160 --> 00:21:55,240
Speaker 1: a different world, under different circumstances, we could actually learn

368
00:21:55,320 --> 00:21:58,760
Speaker 1: a lot if this were truly uh an inquiry to

369
00:21:58,840 --> 00:22:03,440
Speaker 1: find out and learn a little bit more about particular candidate.

370
00:22:03,720 --> 00:22:06,679
Speaker 1: It's less important in this particular moment, not just because

371
00:22:06,960 --> 00:22:09,520
Speaker 1: what then Judge gors Hag did or then Judge Ruth

372
00:22:09,560 --> 00:22:13,399
Speaker 1: Ginsburg did, which obviously gives Judge Jackson cover to do

373
00:22:13,440 --> 00:22:16,320
Speaker 1: the same things, but also because you know, let's remember

374
00:22:16,400 --> 00:22:20,920
Speaker 1: that she's one of the more experienced nominees that we've had.

375
00:22:21,119 --> 00:22:24,439
Speaker 1: She's been a district court judge for many years and

376
00:22:24,440 --> 00:22:27,240
Speaker 1: then more recently an appellate level judge. She served on

377
00:22:27,280 --> 00:22:29,879
Speaker 1: the United States Sencing Commission. I mean, she has a

378
00:22:30,000 --> 00:22:34,080
Speaker 1: long and well understood track record, So it's not as

379
00:22:34,080 --> 00:22:36,280
Speaker 1: if she's come out of nowhere and we need to

380
00:22:36,359 --> 00:22:39,560
Speaker 1: learn about this candidate who no one's ever encountered before.

381
00:22:40,040 --> 00:22:45,159
Speaker 1: The Republicans seemed to be ready to attack her as

382
00:22:45,240 --> 00:22:48,080
Speaker 1: being soft on crime. We heard this from Mitch McConnell

383
00:22:48,600 --> 00:22:50,800
Speaker 1: last week, and you know we're hearing it again in

384
00:22:50,800 --> 00:22:55,199
Speaker 1: the Republicans opening statements. There are some skirls attacks that

385
00:22:55,240 --> 00:22:59,119
Speaker 1: have been raised against her that framed her as being

386
00:22:59,560 --> 00:23:04,760
Speaker 1: sympathy attic or enabling at ophelia, or being soft on terrorism.

387
00:23:05,040 --> 00:23:08,760
Speaker 1: Those are claims that are incredibly biting when they turn

388
00:23:08,840 --> 00:23:13,000
Speaker 1: into sound bite, but have very little context or against

389
00:23:13,000 --> 00:23:16,440
Speaker 1: substantiation behind them. So I find it deeply troubling the

390
00:23:16,480 --> 00:23:19,000
Speaker 1: way in which it's been kind of martial to weaponized

391
00:23:19,040 --> 00:23:22,040
Speaker 1: in this fashion. I will say this that the fact

392
00:23:22,119 --> 00:23:25,840
Speaker 1: that Judge Jackson served as a federal public defenders should

393
00:23:25,840 --> 00:23:28,439
Speaker 1: be considered as a real virtue for a court that

394
00:23:28,520 --> 00:23:32,120
Speaker 1: hasn't had someone who has that professional experience, that life

395
00:23:32,160 --> 00:23:35,480
Speaker 1: experience in quite a long time, in decades in fact.

396
00:23:35,800 --> 00:23:40,240
Speaker 1: So the idea that the court should have a breath

397
00:23:40,400 --> 00:23:46,040
Speaker 1: of legal and professional experience that informs their work strikes

398
00:23:46,119 --> 00:23:49,399
Speaker 1: me as an unalloyed good um and the notion of

399
00:23:49,440 --> 00:23:54,680
Speaker 1: something being soft or hard when on crime without context

400
00:23:54,880 --> 00:23:58,360
Speaker 1: is really just again an attempt to undermine her her

401
00:23:58,400 --> 00:24:02,240
Speaker 1: credibility and suggest that she's somehow not a responsible member

402
00:24:02,280 --> 00:24:06,919
Speaker 1: of the legal community, which again has no substantiation. Last week,

403
00:24:07,080 --> 00:24:14,520
Speaker 1: Senator Josh Holly started tweeting about Jackson consistently sentencing child

404
00:24:14,520 --> 00:24:18,439
Speaker 1: porn possession and distribution defendants to prison terms well below

405
00:24:19,119 --> 00:24:23,120
Speaker 1: federal sentencing guidelines. And it seems true that she did

406
00:24:23,640 --> 00:24:27,320
Speaker 1: sentence several to the minimum and some to the below

407
00:24:27,359 --> 00:24:31,399
Speaker 1: the minimum. But put that in context. Yeah, so again

408
00:24:31,520 --> 00:24:36,640
Speaker 1: this is trying to tap into q and on conspiracy

409
00:24:36,720 --> 00:24:42,240
Speaker 1: theories about the Democratic Party embracing or enabling at Ophelia.

410
00:24:42,520 --> 00:24:46,720
Speaker 1: It's taken wolfully out of context. Supreme Court justices of

411
00:24:46,800 --> 00:24:50,560
Speaker 1: the right have also challenged and struck down laws that

412
00:24:50,680 --> 00:24:54,440
Speaker 1: were intended to be tough on sex offenders, because sometimes

413
00:24:54,560 --> 00:24:57,399
Speaker 1: one has to think about the law outside of the

414
00:24:57,440 --> 00:25:00,960
Speaker 1: commission of a particular crime, and Conserve of Justices have

415
00:25:01,080 --> 00:25:03,359
Speaker 1: done that in the not so distant path, and I

416
00:25:03,400 --> 00:25:06,600
Speaker 1: don't recall, though I could be wrong Josh Howley taking

417
00:25:06,640 --> 00:25:11,320
Speaker 1: to the public airwaves to decry when his fellow travelers

418
00:25:11,359 --> 00:25:14,600
Speaker 1: have made similar moves. So they are bound to ask

419
00:25:14,640 --> 00:25:19,679
Speaker 1: her about her decision on Don McGann. How defensible is

420
00:25:19,680 --> 00:25:22,800
Speaker 1: her opinion in that case. Sometimes it might be hard

421
00:25:22,840 --> 00:25:26,920
Speaker 1: for a judge to explain one ruling in this type

422
00:25:26,920 --> 00:25:30,280
Speaker 1: of format, not because there in any way doubtful about

423
00:25:30,320 --> 00:25:32,560
Speaker 1: how they came out in the matter, but because it

424
00:25:32,600 --> 00:25:35,720
Speaker 1: will open them up to criticism that they're speculating or

425
00:25:35,760 --> 00:25:38,679
Speaker 1: going beyond the record. My understanding of how best to

426
00:25:38,920 --> 00:25:42,200
Speaker 1: proceed under those circumstances would simply say that, you know,

427
00:25:42,240 --> 00:25:45,120
Speaker 1: I refer you back to my opinion, which is comprehensive

428
00:25:45,119 --> 00:25:48,760
Speaker 1: and explained the basis for my decision and the reasoning

429
00:25:48,880 --> 00:25:51,199
Speaker 1: underlying it. And I think one of the benefits we

430
00:25:51,280 --> 00:25:55,359
Speaker 1: have about a judiciary that puts basically almost all of

431
00:25:55,400 --> 00:25:58,159
Speaker 1: its work in writing an individuals sign their names to

432
00:25:58,280 --> 00:26:00,800
Speaker 1: it is that it becomes the kind of a complete

433
00:26:00,840 --> 00:26:03,840
Speaker 1: record of the matter. And so to get pulled into

434
00:26:03,880 --> 00:26:08,199
Speaker 1: a conversation about presidential power at large or about questions

435
00:26:08,240 --> 00:26:11,919
Speaker 1: about corruption or transparency strikes me as I'll advise, is

436
00:26:11,960 --> 00:26:14,960
Speaker 1: it likely that you'd answer the question that Republicans intend

437
00:26:15,000 --> 00:26:18,280
Speaker 1: to ask her about whether she favors packing the court? No,

438
00:26:19,880 --> 00:26:23,000
Speaker 1: there's no basis for doing that. And if the you

439
00:26:23,040 --> 00:26:25,600
Speaker 1: know that that's a question for Congress, of course, and

440
00:26:26,080 --> 00:26:28,240
Speaker 1: I mean in some ways she might it might just

441
00:26:28,320 --> 00:26:31,120
Speaker 1: be an opportunity for her to say that's a matter

442
00:26:31,200 --> 00:26:34,520
Speaker 1: for you all to decide. She's been before this committee

443
00:26:34,720 --> 00:26:38,280
Speaker 1: three times before, and she's described as extremely nerve racking,

444
00:26:38,280 --> 00:26:41,400
Speaker 1: and that she took up knitting to sort of help

445
00:26:41,440 --> 00:26:44,119
Speaker 1: her with her nerves. How do they prep for these?

446
00:26:44,320 --> 00:26:48,000
Speaker 1: Is it like prepping for oral arguments, where all kinds

447
00:26:48,000 --> 00:26:50,399
Speaker 1: of questions are thrown at you and you figure out

448
00:26:50,440 --> 00:26:55,200
Speaker 1: which answers work best. Is a pretty well orchestrated operation

449
00:26:55,800 --> 00:27:00,000
Speaker 1: where they are kind of sharpened through the system by

450
00:27:00,000 --> 00:27:03,879
Speaker 1: members of the Lighthouse, by presumably some friendly voices on

451
00:27:03,920 --> 00:27:07,199
Speaker 1: the Senate Judiciary Committee side as well. It's it's a

452
00:27:07,320 --> 00:27:11,200
Speaker 1: very labor intensive process. I will say that one thing

453
00:27:11,200 --> 00:27:14,440
Speaker 1: that can't be taught, and that, at least my sense

454
00:27:14,480 --> 00:27:17,960
Speaker 1: of Judge Jackson how she's presenting it today, at least

455
00:27:18,400 --> 00:27:22,560
Speaker 1: is that you can't teach someone to have a judicial temperament.

456
00:27:22,960 --> 00:27:25,639
Speaker 1: You either have it or you don't. And at least

457
00:27:25,680 --> 00:27:29,399
Speaker 1: at the early stages, Judge Jackson is evidence in a

458
00:27:29,480 --> 00:27:31,879
Speaker 1: judicial temperament. And by that I mean a cool and

459
00:27:31,920 --> 00:27:35,080
Speaker 1: colm demeanor, a sense of not easily ruffled. And we

460
00:27:35,119 --> 00:27:39,840
Speaker 1: haven't seen that uniformly from nominees before the Seven Judiciary Committee.

461
00:27:39,840 --> 00:27:42,919
Speaker 1: And again we can refer back to Justice Kavanaugh. Then

462
00:27:43,000 --> 00:27:46,040
Speaker 1: Judge Kavanaugh losing to school and raising his voice to

463
00:27:46,119 --> 00:27:50,560
Speaker 1: senators and notwithstanding all that he was obviously confirmed. During

464
00:27:50,800 --> 00:27:54,639
Speaker 1: Judge Jackson's hearings for the d C Circuit, Republican Senator

465
00:27:54,720 --> 00:27:58,000
Speaker 1: John corn And asked her what role race plays and

466
00:27:58,000 --> 00:28:01,560
Speaker 1: the kind of judge you've been, Is that an appropriate question?

467
00:28:01,840 --> 00:28:04,680
Speaker 1: Do we think we'll hear that at these hearings. I'm

468
00:28:04,720 --> 00:28:07,639
Speaker 1: sure we'll hear versions of that. You know, whether it's

469
00:28:07,680 --> 00:28:09,960
Speaker 1: a fair question, I mean, you know, in some ways

470
00:28:09,960 --> 00:28:13,000
Speaker 1: it's an opportunity. Um. The real question is would he

471
00:28:13,080 --> 00:28:16,359
Speaker 1: ask those questions of white candidates? Would he ask what

472
00:28:16,480 --> 00:28:18,919
Speaker 1: role does gender play with the asset of a mail candidate?

473
00:28:19,320 --> 00:28:22,240
Speaker 1: If we had a candidate that identified as l G

474
00:28:22,359 --> 00:28:26,040
Speaker 1: B t Q would he ask a similar question about

475
00:28:26,440 --> 00:28:30,000
Speaker 1: either gender identity or sexual orientation when it comes to

476
00:28:30,320 --> 00:28:33,800
Speaker 1: a straight mail um. So one has to be on

477
00:28:33,920 --> 00:28:38,000
Speaker 1: guard that there's additional burdens that are being imposed on

478
00:28:38,280 --> 00:28:42,920
Speaker 1: our public officials of color or public officials who are

479
00:28:42,960 --> 00:28:47,200
Speaker 1: not of the distinct, you know, ruling majority, and whether

480
00:28:47,640 --> 00:28:50,800
Speaker 1: it's fair incredible to ask them those questions. Are you

481
00:28:50,880 --> 00:28:56,560
Speaker 1: fairly confident that, unless something unexpected happens, she'll be confirmed?

482
00:28:56,920 --> 00:28:59,080
Speaker 1: I would like to say I'm pretty confident, because I'm

483
00:28:59,160 --> 00:29:02,680
Speaker 1: enthusiastic about her candidacy, But I think I've measured in

484
00:29:02,800 --> 00:29:06,440
Speaker 1: my optimism only because we have a larm process to go,

485
00:29:06,800 --> 00:29:09,120
Speaker 1: and it seems like there is not a lot of

486
00:29:09,280 --> 00:29:13,040
Speaker 1: bipartisan support, that there's a lot of extra votes lying

487
00:29:13,080 --> 00:29:16,040
Speaker 1: around for Judge Jackson to pick up, and this may

488
00:29:16,120 --> 00:29:19,360
Speaker 1: turn into a vote where the vice president has to

489
00:29:19,400 --> 00:29:21,800
Speaker 1: break the tie, and so it's hard to tell at

490
00:29:21,840 --> 00:29:26,120
Speaker 1: this point. Republicans don't seem particularly enthusiastic, notwithstanding that many

491
00:29:26,160 --> 00:29:29,120
Speaker 1: of them have voted to confirm her for other positions

492
00:29:29,120 --> 00:29:33,560
Speaker 1: of incredible influence and trust. Thanks John. That's John Michael's

493
00:29:33,560 --> 00:29:35,800
Speaker 1: of u c l A Law School, and that's it

494
00:29:35,880 --> 00:29:38,440
Speaker 1: for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you

495
00:29:38,480 --> 00:29:40,960
Speaker 1: can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg

496
00:29:41,040 --> 00:29:44,800
Speaker 1: Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

497
00:29:44,840 --> 00:29:49,840
Speaker 1: and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

498
00:29:50,280 --> 00:29:52,880
Speaker 1: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

499
00:29:52,920 --> 00:29:56,360
Speaker 1: week night at tend M Wall Street time. I'm June

500
00:29:56,360 --> 00:30:00,720
Speaker 1: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg The