WEBVTT - Supreme Court Reverses Roe v. Wade 0:00:03.160 --> 0:00:07.960 This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:10.760 --> 0:00:14.560 Today is Supreme Courts the United States expressly took away 0:00:15.080 --> 0:00:18.760 a constus right from the American people. President Joe Biden 0:00:18.920 --> 0:00:22.960 condemned the Supreme Court decision that stripped away the constitutional 0:00:23.079 --> 0:00:26.320 right to abortion, while acknowledging there was little he could 0:00:26.360 --> 0:00:29.800 do about it. The decision on Friday overturned Roe v. 0:00:30.000 --> 0:00:34.159 Wade and wiped out the constitutional protections for abortion that 0:00:34.240 --> 0:00:38.040 had stood for nearly a half century. The impact promises 0:00:38.080 --> 0:00:42.440 to be transformational, likely making abortion illegal and half the 0:00:42.520 --> 0:00:46.800 country from a court that was divided down ideological lines. 0:00:47.440 --> 0:00:50.760 My guest is Katherine Frankie, a professor at Columbia Law 0:00:50.800 --> 0:00:53.479 School and the director of the Center for Gender and 0:00:53.560 --> 0:00:59.440 Sexuality Law. Broadly speaking, Catherine, what does this decision tell you? Well? 0:00:59.480 --> 0:01:02.760 Would it tells me? Is that my mother had greater 0:01:02.920 --> 0:01:07.520 rights to her own liberty and equality than my daughter will. 0:01:08.000 --> 0:01:11.720 Access to abortion, access to the full range of reproductive 0:01:11.720 --> 0:01:15.399 health care is fundamental to the idea of women's citizenship, 0:01:15.720 --> 0:01:19.039 and for the Court to withdraw that right, and to 0:01:19.120 --> 0:01:22.280 do it in such a snarky fashion, feels like a 0:01:22.319 --> 0:01:24.640 punch in the face I think for women across this 0:01:24.720 --> 0:01:27.160 country as well as other people who get pregnant, you 0:01:27.200 --> 0:01:30.400 said snarky fashion. So that leads to my next question, 0:01:30.440 --> 0:01:35.280 which is, can you explain the reasoning that Justice Alito 0:01:35.560 --> 0:01:39.560 used to get to reversing Roe v. Wade. Well, he 0:01:39.600 --> 0:01:42.959 takes the position the row was wrongly decided in nineteen 0:01:43.040 --> 0:01:47.960 seventy three, that it was a weekly decided decision, poorly reasoned, 0:01:48.520 --> 0:01:50.840 and that there's nothing that stands in the way of 0:01:50.920 --> 0:01:53.720 the Court now over ruling it. And he does so 0:01:53.840 --> 0:01:59.200 by turning to thirteenth century fourteenth century legal treatises to 0:01:59.360 --> 0:02:03.360 show the abortion was something that was considered criminal in 0:02:03.400 --> 0:02:07.040 England that many years ago, and almost all of the 0:02:07.120 --> 0:02:10.440 citations the Justice League, though uses are from old white 0:02:10.480 --> 0:02:12.760 men who don't have a stake, or at least don't 0:02:12.800 --> 0:02:15.360 have the same stake in this issue that we do today. 0:02:15.440 --> 0:02:18.600 So it really it not only freezes the Constitution in 0:02:18.720 --> 0:02:22.080 a pre nineteen seventies place, it actually frees the Constitution 0:02:22.120 --> 0:02:27.440 in the thirteenth century, which I just think is appalling, appalling. 0:02:27.960 --> 0:02:31.840 On Thursday, the Supreme Court went back to the seventeen 0:02:31.919 --> 0:02:36.200 hundreds and eighteen hundreds to declare that the Second Amendment 0:02:36.280 --> 0:02:40.760 allows citizens to carry handguns in public. Is this the 0:02:40.840 --> 0:02:45.079 revenge of the textualists? Well, some of these judges are 0:02:45.120 --> 0:02:48.800 die hard textualists and some of them are opportunists. And 0:02:48.960 --> 0:02:51.400 so when history helps you for the arguments you're going 0:02:51.440 --> 0:02:53.440 to make, they will turn to it. You know, in 0:02:53.440 --> 0:02:55.359 this case, what we learned in a twenty four hour 0:02:55.520 --> 0:02:59.839 period is that states have no power and no constitutional 0:03:00.120 --> 0:03:03.520 right to regulate guns. And at the same time, states 0:03:03.520 --> 0:03:07.000 have the absolute power and right to regulate women's bodies. 0:03:07.360 --> 0:03:10.800 And it makes you question what kind of citizens women 0:03:10.840 --> 0:03:14.240 are in this country after those two decisions. Is the 0:03:14.280 --> 0:03:18.760 majority opinion just playing wrong? Is it unprincipled? How would 0:03:18.760 --> 0:03:22.399 you characterize it? Well, I think the majority is ideological. 0:03:22.680 --> 0:03:25.280 Most of these members of the majority were appointed to 0:03:25.320 --> 0:03:28.720 the Court precisely because they took this position on abortion. 0:03:29.240 --> 0:03:32.600 There's no mistaking that fact. And what they do is 0:03:32.600 --> 0:03:36.320 they cherry pick history. They cherry pick Supreme Court decisions 0:03:36.320 --> 0:03:39.400 from the past to say that Row was wrongly decided. 0:03:39.880 --> 0:03:42.520 But as the long distense in this case shows, from 0:03:42.560 --> 0:03:45.760 three members of the court, there are parallel histories with 0:03:45.920 --> 0:03:48.960 competing narratives about what it means to be free, what 0:03:49.280 --> 0:03:52.720 privacy might mean in this country, and what equality might mean. 0:03:53.040 --> 0:03:56.040 So it's not a surprise that we have a majority 0:03:56.080 --> 0:03:59.680 of the Court now that disfavored abortion as a constitutional right. 0:04:00.000 --> 0:04:02.040 What I find most shocking is the way in which 0:04:02.080 --> 0:04:04.560 they did it, And I think Chief Justice Roberts's a 0:04:04.640 --> 0:04:09.840 concurrence really brings that home by describing Justice Alito's opinion 0:04:10.080 --> 0:04:13.640 as a jolt to the legal system, the descent in 0:04:13.720 --> 0:04:17.320 which the three liberal Johnice is united says that no 0:04:17.360 --> 0:04:20.520 one should be confident that this majority is done with 0:04:20.560 --> 0:04:24.560 its work, and Justice Clarence Thomas and his concurrence says, 0:04:24.600 --> 0:04:27.800 you know, we should reconsider all of the courts substantive 0:04:27.880 --> 0:04:33.359 due process precedents like same sex marriage and contraception. Justice Alito, 0:04:33.440 --> 0:04:36.320 in his majority opinion says, look, we're only deciding the 0:04:36.360 --> 0:04:40.920 abortion case today. All those other matters of sex and sexuality, 0:04:40.920 --> 0:04:43.880 whether it's to write to contraception or the decriminalization of 0:04:43.960 --> 0:04:48.680 sodomy or same sex marriage rights, those are not implicated 0:04:48.720 --> 0:04:51.800 in this decision. But to be honest, the way in 0:04:51.839 --> 0:04:55.440 which Justice Alito's opinion kicks the legs out from the 0:04:55.480 --> 0:04:59.320 Constitution that held up rovers his weight, it's hard to 0:04:59.320 --> 0:05:02.080 imagine our all those other rights have anything left to 0:05:02.120 --> 0:05:05.040 stand on. There's a lot of talk about what will 0:05:05.120 --> 0:05:08.520 happen next, and one thing that's that people are concerned 0:05:08.560 --> 0:05:12.240 about is that read states will try to prosecute in 0:05:12.279 --> 0:05:15.800 some way women who cross state lines. Justice kavan on 0:05:15.920 --> 0:05:19.000 his concurrence says that's not going to happen. I mean, 0:05:19.040 --> 0:05:22.039 can we trust his opinion there? Well, he's no expert 0:05:22.120 --> 0:05:25.400 in state prosecutions. I think he's completely out of order 0:05:25.400 --> 0:05:28.919 and saying that won't happen because the Supreme Court's decision 0:05:29.000 --> 0:05:32.800 is actually an invitation to local prosecutors to enforce the 0:05:32.839 --> 0:05:36.200 criminal laws in exactly that way. So we'll have to 0:05:36.240 --> 0:05:39.200 wait and see. But um, I there are many many 0:05:39.200 --> 0:05:42.960 people who feel very strongly about this issue as we know, uh, 0:05:43.000 --> 0:05:45.920 and then do feel that abortion is murder, and why 0:05:46.000 --> 0:05:49.880 wouldn't they prosecute, um, those laws just as robustly as 0:05:49.920 --> 0:05:53.159 they prosecute the murderer of already born people. Is this 0:05:53.279 --> 0:05:57.159 the first time the Court has taken away a constitutional 0:05:57.279 --> 0:06:00.960 right in modern history? Well know, the Court does reverse 0:06:01.000 --> 0:06:03.920 itself from time to time. Their both to do so, 0:06:04.040 --> 0:06:07.239 and Justice Alito gives us a very long footnote where 0:06:07.320 --> 0:06:09.360 he goes through the other places where the Court has 0:06:09.400 --> 0:06:12.240 reversed itself. But this is the first time that we've 0:06:12.240 --> 0:06:16.599 seen something is such a fundamental right central to half 0:06:16.600 --> 0:06:21.440 the population's idea of being full citizens obliterated in such 0:06:21.640 --> 0:06:25.920 a crude and I would say cruel way. President Biden 0:06:26.000 --> 0:06:29.320 says it's up to Congress now to pass a law 0:06:29.520 --> 0:06:33.039 protecting the right to abortion. We're unlikely to see that 0:06:33.160 --> 0:06:36.160 anytime soon. Is there anything else that can be done 0:06:36.240 --> 0:06:39.960 at this point? Vote right? This issue now is a 0:06:40.000 --> 0:06:42.960 state by state issue. We have to show up in 0:06:43.000 --> 0:06:45.480 the at the polls. We have to get different people 0:06:45.480 --> 0:06:50.040 in our state legislatures and protect abortion rights as contraceptive 0:06:50.120 --> 0:06:52.159 rights and the whole range of rights having to do 0:06:52.240 --> 0:06:56.000 with reproductive healthcare, and in the ballot box, because that's 0:06:56.040 --> 0:06:58.200 now where this issue has been kicked by the Supreme 0:06:58.200 --> 0:07:02.159 Court is into the state legis Slaters, Thanks Catherine. That's 0:07:02.160 --> 0:07:06.039 Professor Catherine Frankie of Columbia Law School coming up next, 0:07:06.240 --> 0:07:10.240 the reprecautions of this decision. This is Bloomberg. Here's Justice 0:07:10.360 --> 0:07:14.120 Samuel Alito at his Supreme Court confirmation hearings in two 0:07:14.120 --> 0:07:18.240 thousand six versus weight. It is an important precedent of 0:07:18.280 --> 0:07:22.840 the Supreme Court. It was decided in three so it's 0:07:22.880 --> 0:07:25.120 been on the books for a long time. It has 0:07:25.160 --> 0:07:28.480 been challenged on a number of occasions, and I think 0:07:28.520 --> 0:07:32.280 that when a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed, 0:07:32.640 --> 0:07:36.200 that strengthens its value as starry decisive for at least 0:07:36.200 --> 0:07:39.240 two reasons. First of all, the more often a decision 0:07:39.320 --> 0:07:42.320 is reaffirmed, the more people tend to rely on it. 0:07:42.640 --> 0:07:46.680 And secondly, I think starry decisive reflects the view that 0:07:46.760 --> 0:07:51.679 there is wisdom embedded in decisions that have been made 0:07:52.200 --> 0:07:58.440 by prior justices. But on Friday, josephs Aledo refused to 0:07:58.560 --> 0:08:02.720 follow that precedent I prior justices, which has been relied 0:08:02.760 --> 0:08:05.800 on by women for nearly half a century, and wrote 0:08:05.800 --> 0:08:09.800 the majority opinion saying that Roe v. Wade was egregiously 0:08:09.920 --> 0:08:12.560 wrong from the day it was decided and there is 0:08:12.600 --> 0:08:17.360 no constitutional right to abortion. Joining me is Jennie Schanzano, 0:08:17.640 --> 0:08:21.040 Bloomberg political contributor and a professor I own a college. 0:08:21.440 --> 0:08:25.720 Genie put this decision in the context of Supreme Court history. 0:08:26.080 --> 0:08:30.400 Will this day stand out? It will stand out, you know. 0:08:30.440 --> 0:08:32.320 I think the word that keeps coming to my mind. 0:08:32.559 --> 0:08:36.640 Isn't momentous? That is the one word that captures this. 0:08:37.440 --> 0:08:40.640 I have been racking my brain just as an example, 0:08:40.720 --> 0:08:43.920 to try to come up with a time at which 0:08:43.960 --> 0:08:47.400 the Supreme Court had a right that they then took away. 0:08:48.080 --> 0:08:50.920 You look throughout American history, and maybe other people can 0:08:50.960 --> 0:08:54.680 identify one. I cannot. And so if you think about, 0:08:54.720 --> 0:08:58.520 you know, women for half a century enjoying this right 0:08:59.040 --> 0:09:02.360 and that it's been can await? I think momentous is 0:09:02.360 --> 0:09:05.520 the one word to put this in perspective. And you know, 0:09:05.559 --> 0:09:08.360 I was struck, just as an aside by the fact 0:09:08.360 --> 0:09:14.040 that in the majority decision, Alito actually compares Row to Plessy, 0:09:14.160 --> 0:09:17.079 And you know that really struck me. When he's trying 0:09:17.080 --> 0:09:20.640 to make the case that we've overturned over ruled precedent, 0:09:21.080 --> 0:09:24.400 he uses Plessy Federal times as an example of that, 0:09:24.720 --> 0:09:28.120 and that to me is astonishing and will be as 0:09:28.120 --> 0:09:32.160 we look back on this decision. Speaking about precedent, and 0:09:32.240 --> 0:09:36.120 of course the Court overrules precedent from time to time, 0:09:37.000 --> 0:09:40.440 but does the Court this week say, well, we don't 0:09:40.480 --> 0:09:43.560 care about precedent. They essentially say, you know, we're not 0:09:43.640 --> 0:09:48.120 going to be held hostage by precedent, and that again 0:09:48.360 --> 0:09:52.080 is a quite astonishing statement by the majority in this court. 0:09:52.160 --> 0:09:55.720 And you know, in the majority decision, he does go 0:09:55.960 --> 0:10:00.280 through in some real grave detail the fact that the 0:10:00.320 --> 0:10:03.720 Court has overruled precedents in the past, and he goes 0:10:03.720 --> 0:10:06.280 through this litany and this idea they're not going to 0:10:06.360 --> 0:10:09.920 be helped hostage by precedents. But again, it's important distress 0:10:09.960 --> 0:10:13.600 as I'm reading through this the precedent that they're talking 0:10:13.640 --> 0:10:16.800 about that they've overruled in the past. You don't see 0:10:16.840 --> 0:10:20.240 any in which a right was granted and then they 0:10:20.320 --> 0:10:22.880 took it away. And that's what I think is really 0:10:22.920 --> 0:10:26.640 astonishing about what we're living through at this point. I 0:10:26.720 --> 0:10:30.400 know that anti abortion activists have been working since Roe v. 0:10:30.559 --> 0:10:34.680 Wade was decided to get it reversed, but it still 0:10:34.679 --> 0:10:39.560 seems fast to see a constitutional right wiped out. Sitting 0:10:39.600 --> 0:10:43.120 here today, it does feel stunning lee fast. But if 0:10:43.200 --> 0:10:47.800 we look back, this has been almost half a century 0:10:48.400 --> 0:10:53.800 long quest by members of the Republican Party. But not 0:10:53.920 --> 0:10:57.120 just the Republican Party, you also Democrats, of course, who 0:10:57.120 --> 0:11:00.880 are pro life, and you know row be Wade came 0:11:00.920 --> 0:11:04.840 out in three and since that moment, you have a 0:11:04.920 --> 0:11:08.840 real committed group of people in this country who have 0:11:09.000 --> 0:11:14.079 done everything they can, including voting on this issue, focusing 0:11:14.200 --> 0:11:18.199 on getting the judges and justices in place who would overturn. 0:11:18.280 --> 0:11:22.120 Eventually wrote So it really has been a decades long 0:11:22.240 --> 0:11:26.200 quest that has finally come to fruition. And you know, 0:11:26.280 --> 0:11:28.960 one thing I think it's important to underscore is that 0:11:29.440 --> 0:11:32.760 this is always the danger. When a right is protected 0:11:32.800 --> 0:11:35.760 in the court, then the membership of the court matters 0:11:35.760 --> 0:11:38.679 an awful lot. And so I am of the opinion 0:11:38.760 --> 0:11:40.760 that if you want to protect the right, you best 0:11:40.840 --> 0:11:43.320 do it at the ballot box, because when you do 0:11:43.400 --> 0:11:46.400 it in the courts, it means these confirmation hearings and 0:11:46.880 --> 0:11:50.000 one or two justices on the court can take that 0:11:50.120 --> 0:11:53.320 right away. And that's what we've you know, been seeing 0:11:53.320 --> 0:11:56.560 over the last several years. The fear of these confirmation 0:11:56.640 --> 0:12:00.959 processes for these three Trump pointees have almost exclusively been 0:12:01.000 --> 0:12:04.480 about row And of course it doesn't matter because they 0:12:04.520 --> 0:12:07.000 got on the court and they overruled it. This also 0:12:07.040 --> 0:12:11.200 puts a question mark in my mind about the utility 0:12:11.400 --> 0:12:15.040 of confirmation hearings because each and every one of these 0:12:15.120 --> 0:12:20.880 justices said during those hearings that row was right embedded 0:12:20.880 --> 0:12:24.800 in the constitution. I mean, Justice Kavanaugh in particular was 0:12:25.000 --> 0:12:28.720 very emphatic about that. Yeah, and I'm so glad you 0:12:28.800 --> 0:12:31.439 said that, because, you know, for so long we've looked 0:12:31.440 --> 0:12:35.920 at these confirmation processes, particularly since Robert Bourke and people 0:12:36.000 --> 0:12:38.920 have been wondering, you know, what is really the value 0:12:39.080 --> 0:12:42.679 of these And to your point, now we see, and 0:12:42.720 --> 0:12:46.880 we heard Susan Collins of Mainspace that the senators were 0:12:47.080 --> 0:12:51.439 misled both privately, we understand in individual meetings with the 0:12:51.480 --> 0:12:55.280 senators and of course publicly, you know, most of them 0:12:55.320 --> 0:12:59.080 taking this argument that they don't have an opinion on 0:12:59.320 --> 0:13:02.680 the issue, um others taking these sort of stamps that 0:13:02.760 --> 0:13:06.200 they value precedent, they value story decisis, so they wouldn't 0:13:06.240 --> 0:13:09.640 think of overturning a long standing right. And of course 0:13:09.920 --> 0:13:13.000 that's not at all what happened. So I think, and 0:13:13.160 --> 0:13:14.840 you know, just as in the side, we we have 0:13:14.920 --> 0:13:17.360 a president who's one of the only presidents who has 0:13:17.400 --> 0:13:21.520 also Senate, you know, the leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 0:13:21.679 --> 0:13:25.600 and whoever saw so many of these confirmation processes that 0:13:25.800 --> 0:13:29.480 I think we really do need to rethink the process 0:13:29.559 --> 0:13:33.360 by which we make these appointments and they are confirmed 0:13:33.440 --> 0:13:36.760 at the Senate level. UM. So I think that's something 0:13:36.800 --> 0:13:39.840 that's going to have to happen. Um. I think it's 0:13:39.840 --> 0:13:42.600 something that should have happened already because a lot of 0:13:42.600 --> 0:13:45.040 people have thought for very long that these were you know, 0:13:45.160 --> 0:13:48.440 more show than they were substance. And of course now 0:13:48.480 --> 0:13:52.040 we come to recognize that people feel you know, completely 0:13:52.120 --> 0:13:54.880 misled um at the best, and lied to at the 0:13:55.000 --> 0:13:59.280 at the worst. Americans approval of the Supreme Court is 0:13:59.320 --> 0:14:02.720 that it's low list in modern times. What does this 0:14:02.800 --> 0:14:06.400 decision due to the legitimacy of the Court, I think 0:14:06.440 --> 0:14:08.840 it puts it very much in question. And as somebody 0:14:08.880 --> 0:14:11.760 who you know studies the Court like you do, and 0:14:11.760 --> 0:14:15.920 and one of my favorite institutions to talk about, I 0:14:16.040 --> 0:14:19.280 am so sad about where the Court finds itself today, 0:14:19.320 --> 0:14:23.520 not just with this decision, but with the decision on guns. 0:14:23.640 --> 0:14:28.000 And the reason is is because in some ways, the Court, 0:14:28.160 --> 0:14:31.280 at least the majority, seems terribly out of touch with 0:14:31.360 --> 0:14:34.320 what's going on in the United States. As you look 0:14:34.320 --> 0:14:36.560 at these sort of back to back decisions in the 0:14:36.640 --> 0:14:39.320 last couple of days, you know, I was looking at 0:14:39.320 --> 0:14:41.960 the descent in the gun case and they start out 0:14:42.000 --> 0:14:46.480 by talking about the number of people murdered by guns 0:14:46.480 --> 0:14:50.520 in this country in and the number is utterly astonishing. 0:14:51.000 --> 0:14:53.560 And you couple that then with the fact that the 0:14:53.600 --> 0:14:55.520 Court has said to the State of New York and 0:14:55.640 --> 0:15:00.360 other like minded states that they can't protect their citizens 0:15:00.400 --> 0:15:04.320 this regulation on conceal and carry. It seems terribly out 0:15:04.320 --> 0:15:06.480 of touch if you think about it that way. And 0:15:06.520 --> 0:15:09.120 I think also in this decision, you know, women have 0:15:09.280 --> 0:15:12.520 enjoyed this right, people have enjoyed this right to choose 0:15:12.600 --> 0:15:15.400 for half a century. For the Court to come in 0:15:15.920 --> 0:15:19.360 and not even to just incrementally like the Chief Justice wanted, 0:15:19.400 --> 0:15:22.160 but to go to the extent of ripping that out 0:15:22.200 --> 0:15:24.760 from under, pulling the rug out from under, in other words, 0:15:25.240 --> 0:15:28.560 I think, is going to create an enormous problem for 0:15:28.640 --> 0:15:31.760 the Court. The justices themselves have been talking about this, 0:15:31.800 --> 0:15:34.680 as you know, they've been saying the Court has become politicized. 0:15:34.960 --> 0:15:38.640 They should be very concerned about the legitimacy of the court. 0:15:39.080 --> 0:15:42.000 And that's why I liken this to a certain extent. 0:15:42.040 --> 0:15:44.040 It's probably a little bit early to say this, but 0:15:44.640 --> 0:15:47.160 you know, the two or three worst decisions in court 0:15:47.240 --> 0:15:51.560 history dread Koramatsu, and Plessy. This could end up being 0:15:51.600 --> 0:15:54.800 among those and one of the reasons they were so traumatic, 0:15:54.920 --> 0:15:59.200 amongst other reasons, was because the court essentially lost its 0:15:59.240 --> 0:16:01.720 legitimacy in the eyes of Americans in all three of 0:16:01.760 --> 0:16:05.160 those cases, and it suffered for decades to come and 0:16:05.240 --> 0:16:08.480 struggle to find its footing again. And I fear the 0:16:08.520 --> 0:16:11.840 Court may find itself in the same position today if 0:16:11.880 --> 0:16:14.200 we simply just look at the amount of protests going 0:16:14.240 --> 0:16:16.920 on outside the court and the threats of violence, and 0:16:16.960 --> 0:16:20.120 the frustration that people feel with a court that's terribly 0:16:20.160 --> 0:16:22.880 out of touch with the lives of so many Americans. 0:16:22.880 --> 0:16:25.000 It's great to have you on, Jennie, Thanks so much. 0:16:25.400 --> 0:16:29.440 That's Jennie Chanzano, Bloomberg political contributor and a professor at 0:16:29.440 --> 0:16:31.840 I own a College. And that's it for this edition 0:16:31.840 --> 0:16:34.560 of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get 0:16:34.560 --> 0:16:37.720 the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You 0:16:37.720 --> 0:16:41.800 can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www 0:16:41.960 --> 0:16:46.240 dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, And remember 0:16:46.240 --> 0:16:48.640 to tune in to The Bloomberg Law Show every week 0:16:48.760 --> 0:16:52.280 night at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso 0:16:52.440 --> 0:16:54.040 and you're listening to Bloomberg