00:00:02 Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News. 00:00:09 Speaker 2: This is a breaking news update from Bloomberg instant reaction and analysis from our three thousand journalists and analysts around the world. 00:00:19 Speaker 3: Paul, we have some breaking news. 00:00:20 Speaker 4: The Supreme Court, of course publishing its opinions today. It has expanded the president's power to firetop officials. It refuses us to let the President immediately oust Lisa Cook, however, and Lisa Cook is now currently allowed to stay in the job for now. 00:00:37 Speaker 5: All right, let's bring in June Grasso, Bloomberg's legal annalys here. 00:00:40 Speaker 2: She joins us here in studio. 00:00:42 Speaker 5: Let's start with Lisa Cook decision here, June, can you summarize what's going on here? 00:00:48 Speaker 6: So, Lisa Cook, as you know, Federal Reserve governor and Donald Trump tried to fire her on the basis of allegations of mortgage fraud. So there was no any kind of procedure at all before he said that. So during the oral arguments, it was pretty clear that the Supreme Court justices were going to vote with Lisa Cook and not allow Trump to do that because of. 00:01:14 Speaker 3: The status of the Federal Reserve. 00:01:16 Speaker 6: And during the oral arguments there are a lot of questions by the Conservatives as well about you know, why was there no process here? 00:01:24 Speaker 3: She had absolutely no process. 00:01:26 Speaker 6: What would it take for you to have some kind of hearing at least before this happened, So there was concern on their part, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh had said prior to that that the FED is different, so that was expected. Now as far as the Slaughter case, where she's on the FTC, they say that that's different, and because it's not the FED. But what this does is this really expands presidential power. It means that the president has the authority to fire people at the top of. 00:01:57 Speaker 3: What like twenty agencies or so. 00:02:00 Speaker 6: And what they've done here is they've done away with Humphrey's executor, which was a decision which is standing for about seventy eighty years. I think about the ability of presidents to fire people, which was that there was no ability for them to fire people at the head of agencies. And they've been cutting back on that bit by bit by bit, and now they appear to have gotten rid of it since they I haven't read the opinion yet obviously, since they're allowing the Slaughter to be fired. And one more thing too, if you notice this week what's happening and last week what's been happening is that they're releasing opinions at the same time that have to do with the similar issue. 00:02:43 Speaker 3: And what I think is happening. 00:02:44 Speaker 6: Too, is it used to be that all the big decisions were loaded to the very end the last day, but now we're seeing big decisions this week and last week, and I think the Chief is trying to mix it up so we don't have a day on the last day of the opinion and there were five sixty you know, there were five six to three decisions and they were all in these big cases. So I think that that's what's happening here. 00:03:06 Speaker 3: So let me just make sure I understand. 00:03:09 Speaker 4: The Supreme Court ruled that Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor, can stay in her job for now. That's a that's a good question, but it's while litigation continues, right right, right. 00:03:19 Speaker 6: So yeah, because they've had no litigation at all. He just said, you're you know, hello, she's getting due priors. 00:03:26 Speaker 4: In other words, well, I assume that we have to see what what the what the president does? 00:03:31 Speaker 7: Now? 00:03:31 Speaker 3: Are they going to go forward with this? 00:03:32 Speaker 6: Are they going to bother to go forward with this and have it litigated, probably, And she's got one of the best Supreme Court litigators around, the former former Solicitor General Paul Clement, who is just really his record at the Supreme Court is phenomenal, and I think he is the one who has argued the most cases at the Court. And you can see the deference the Justice is paid. 00:03:54 Speaker 3: To him when when he's arguing. 00:03:55 Speaker 6: So, I mean that will go on, her litigation will go on to you know, to stop this, but you know, by the time, who knows, by the time it gets done, Trump could be. 00:04:04 Speaker 3: Out of office. I mean, the way these things drag on. 00:04:07 Speaker 4: So the president's efforts to push her out of the Central Banks. 00:04:11 Speaker 3: Board, that is not that failed. 00:04:13 Speaker 4: That failed, But and you were saying that his ability to oust other government agency leaders. 00:04:21 Speaker 3: Yeah, this has been expanded. 00:04:23 Speaker 7: Right. 00:04:23 Speaker 6: This is all part of the theory called the unitary executive theory. I don't know if you've heard about it, but it's like that this people who believe that the power of the executive branch should be in the president. So all these agencies are executive branch agency, so the president should have the ability to fire the people who are in charge of the executive branch agencies. 00:04:42 Speaker 3: But I mean, you know, the FED is different, The FED is different. 00:04:45 Speaker 6: But I mean, so with with the normal president or the prior presidents, you wouldn't worry about what was going to happen because there wouldn't. 00:04:53 Speaker 3: Be a wholesale you're fired. 00:04:55 Speaker 6: But you know, this opens the door and people have been worried about them doing away with that Humphrey's executive opinion. 00:05:03 Speaker 2: And so the risk there. 00:05:05 Speaker 5: Is that these agencies perhaps lose some of their independence. 00:05:09 Speaker 6: Yes, yeah, yeah, because you know, if if the president doesn't like what you're doing, you're fired, you know. 00:05:15 Speaker 3: But I mean in reality, he is controlling. 00:05:18 Speaker 6: He has put most people in those agency heads right talking about the FCC and things like that. So I don't know that they we'll see anything happening right away. 00:05:28 Speaker 3: But it's a huge win. 00:05:30 Speaker 6: And this court, as you know, has been expanding presidential power over and over again. I mean, you had those decisions where you know, nothing the president does in office in his duties, can he be prosecuted for or so. I mean, this court just believes in presidential power. 00:05:49 Speaker 3: And one has to. 00:05:50 Speaker 6: Wonder when the next president comes in if they're not Republican, what whether they'll start cutting. 00:05:55 Speaker 3: Back on presidential power. 00:05:56 Speaker 4: I mean, I think it's worth noting here that stocks fell to session low, are maybe not fall they paired their gains, and we're at session lows right around the time that this opinion was published. They've since come back a little bit and we're looking at modest gains in the SMP down Nasdaq. The Russell two thousand is lower by one point one percent. So among the headlines that we got is the Supreme Court letting Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor, stay in her job. This is a case that really tested the central banks independence from the White House. So this is a defeat for the president's efforts to ouster over these mortgage fraud allegations. At the same time, we also heard that the Supreme Court has basically said that the mail in ballots can arrive. 00:06:40 Speaker 3: After election date. 00:06:41 Speaker 4: That's another defeat for the president, and certainly this is relevant given that we're at a midyear, midterm election year. On the other hand, and June, this is where it gets a little complicated. The other government agencies are not seen as independent really because the president can and let go of whoever he wants to. 00:07:01 Speaker 6: Yeah, and I you know, I'm trying to pull up the opinion just to see what they're you know, how they how they parsed out these two these two cases. But I'm not getting it. I'm not getting it. I guess that's fresh refresh. 00:07:15 Speaker 2: How about this mailet? 00:07:16 Speaker 5: This ballot case just gives your thoughts on. 00:07:19 Speaker 6: That that was That was a surprise, actually the ballot case, because that's about Mississippi has a law, as do more than twenty other states, that as long as the ballot is postmarked by election day, it can come in five days up to five days after and it'll still be counted. So the Republicans were against this. Obviously, President Trump is against this and any kind of mail in ballots, and during the oral arguments, a lot of the Conservatives seemed to be in favorite, although the Chief Justice and Justice Barrett were wondering, well would this effect what about states that. 00:07:56 Speaker 3: Have all mail in ballots? If we say that? 00:07:58 Speaker 6: So, the argument is in the Constitution says election day is this day, so you shouldn't be extending it any further. Well, if you can't extend it further, then can you go you know, can you also say, well, they can come in ahead of time. So I think that was part of the reasoning. And Justice Barrett wrote the opinion. But so that's a huge surprise. And it was five to four, and so the most conservative in the in the no column. 00:08:26 Speaker 3: And so that's big because that could have affected the. 00:08:29 Speaker 6: Elections the midterms coming up in so many states, more than twenty. So that's actually a big decision and it is a surprise. 00:08:36 Speaker 5: Okay, very good, Drian, thank you so much, appreciate it. June Grosso was a legal analyst for Bloomberg News. We'll let her go back and do that lawyer thing like actually read the cave this. 00:08:46 Speaker 4: We would put her in an unfair position because she was working without the texts. 00:08:50 Speaker 2: I just want the AI like cliff notes. 00:08:52 Speaker 3: Oh, thanks a lot. 00:08:55 Speaker 2: I'll be leaving on one pager. Dard, thanks so much. We appreciate that. As always. 00:08:59 Speaker 5: It's good lah Stein litigation analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence. All I want to go to the Lisa Cook caste for me. 00:09:08 Speaker 1: For now. 00:09:08 Speaker 5: What is for now means that she can stay in her job for now? 00:09:12 Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. 00:09:13 Speaker 8: Well, this whole appeal was based on a preliminary ruling by the trial court earlier in the case saying that she could stay in her position while the rest of the case would continue. And so that's really the issue that the Supreme Court was looking at, and they said, yes, she can stay in her position. But the real important part of the ruling is that they said the four cause removal restriction requires that she have some sort of notice and opportunity to be heard, which the President and the administration did not offer her. 00:09:49 Speaker 1: So that's sort of the crux of the ruling. 00:09:51 Speaker 4: Okay, so her litigation can continue, or the White Houses litigation. 00:09:56 Speaker 3: Can continue as well. Who hears this case? 00:10:01 Speaker 1: So this will go back to the lower courts. 00:10:03 Speaker 8: And I said preface this by saying, I haven't read before vicasion. I've read the brief summary you reference, you know you want, but the Supreme Court sort of gives you a brief summary at the beginning of the opinion, which I skimmed. But I think the way it's going to proceed is that it will be sent back down to the trial court for them to issue a final ruling. But the administration, presumably if they want, will have to offer her some sort of notice an opportunity to be heard. If they want to be able to continue to try to fire her. 00:10:36 Speaker 1: Otherwise the trial court is going to ruin her favor. 00:10:39 Speaker 5: So to the extend the administration one to extend litigation, would it shud been known to do in the past. What's a timeline for a case like this, because I'm wondering if does she have to worry about you know, is this something that could take dragon for years, in which case the ministry Trump administration will you know end or how does that be? 00:10:57 Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean it's a little unclear exactly how it's going to proceed. Presumably, if the Trump administration continues to want to remove her from the FED based on these accusations of mortgage fraud, they'll have to have some sort of proceeding, not a full trial, but some sort of like administrative proceeding where she can present her defenses. If the administration doesn't want to do that, the case is essentially over. The trial court will rule in her favor and say there was no notice an opportunity to be heard pursue into what the Supreme Court said this morning. 00:11:28 Speaker 4: Okay, so is the Supreme Court role in Lisa Cook done for now? 00:11:32 Speaker 1: For now? 00:11:33 Speaker 8: It could always come back later, because I don't know if we have real resolution on substantively what cause requires. Right, we sort of know now procedurally what it requires. I'm not sure that the Supreme Court, I haven't read the full opinion. Again, I'm not sure they got into the actual definition. 00:11:53 Speaker 1: Of what foroe cause requires substantively. 00:11:55 Speaker 4: Okay, what does this say about how the Supreme Court views the federers are versus other government agencies. 00:12:02 Speaker 8: Yeah, this is a very good point because the other opinion, one of the other opinions that they issued but simultaneously with the Cook decision, was the Rebecca Slaughter opinion. She was an FTC commissioner, as you would call. President Trump fired multiple commissioners from independent agencies who were appointed by Democrats. 00:12:20 Speaker 1: For the most part, she challenged that, as. 00:12:24 Speaker 8: Did many other commissioners, and the Supreme Court early on sort of hinted that the president would be able to fire these other commissioners of independent agencies. But the Federal Reserve is different, and we saw that very clearly today because the Supreme Court said that the President could indeed fire Rebecca Slaughter and other independent commissioners. I haven't read that opinion either, but presumably they overruled the Humphrey's Executor decision from ninety years ago, which established that the four cause removal restriction was constitutional for independent agents. He's I suspect now they're going to say it's unconstitutional. 00:13:03 Speaker 5: I feel like this today was a win. I think that that Slaughter case is huge. 00:13:08 Speaker 8: The slaughtercase is a big deal. It's absolutely yeah. But that's not just a win for Trump. That's a win for the executive branch, because your next president who comes in can fire any commissioner of an independent agency appointed by a Republican the better. 00:13:24 Speaker 2: Way to president. It's a win for the executive Yeah. 00:13:26 Speaker 8: And he's going to be very upset about the Lisa Cook decision. And also he in an earlier order it sounded like he lost his cert petition on the mail in ballot and on the mail in ballots and the Jane Carol right exactly going on, so that he's probably going to be hited this afternoon. 00:13:45 Speaker 2: A branch though I'm not sure that. 00:13:46 Speaker 1: I mean so. 00:13:47 Speaker 5: Now, the question for a lot of just scholars, constitutional scholars, is isn't it aren't these agencies their ability to be independent? 00:13:55 Speaker 2: Isn't that a good thing? And I guess that's the debate run. 00:13:59 Speaker 8: So you have to balance that on the one hand versus this theory called the unitary executive theory, that the president should be able to hire and fire anyone he wants and the executive brands, and that he oversees the entire executive brands. And if you have these independent commissioneries that the president can fire, you almost have this fourth branch of government. 00:14:20 Speaker 1: That's the counter argument. Interesting. 00:14:22 Speaker 4: Okay, we have some comments from Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. She is commenting on the Lisa Cook Supreme Court decision, says we'll keep fighting back against attacks on the Fed. She also talks about Bill Poulti and how he can't be trusted should be removed, but that's separate from again her comments on Lisa Cook and how, according to Senator Warren, she or her party will keep fighting back against these attacks on the Federal Reserve. What are the White House's options now? How does it move forward with Lisa Cook specifically? 00:14:53 Speaker 8: Well, I think if they want to continue to go after her for these accusations of mortgage fraud, they can, but they'll have to have some sort of proceeding where she's allowed to present her defenses. I think that's basically it. It's unclear exactly what that looks like. The Supreme Court, in the summary that I was able to read before coming on, said it doesn't have to be a full blown trial, but they have to give her some opportunity to be heard and present her defenses. 00:15:18 Speaker 4: And just to put some context on Senator Warren's comments about Bill POULTI Bill Poulty was the one who brought up the fact that Lisa Cook perhaps had these misrepresented her mortgage application, right because he was the head of the FHFA, and he brought it to the President's attention, and that kind of got everything started, Paul with this allegation of mortgage fraud. 00:15:40 Speaker 5: So if I'm an agency head appointed by anybody other than Donald Trump, am I nervous about my job today? 00:15:47 Speaker 1: Probably? But I think he's already fired most of the ones he wants to fire. 00:15:51 Speaker 8: I mean, I'm serious. Look at the CFTC. You have one chairman and that's it. No other commissioneris and so you know the effect of that is you don't have You're probably not going to change the votes because you're always going to It was always tradition that the chair would resign and let the incoming president appoint someone from his own party. But you're not going to have the scenting voices now to push back on the majority in these agencies. And I think that's really the big effect. 00:16:17 Speaker 4: Is how much of this is a surprise. What surprises you about this string of decisions? 00:16:22 Speaker 1: Nothing. 00:16:22 Speaker 8: This was exactly as we anticipated that Humphrey's executor would be overruled. The president would be able to fire commissioners of independent agencies under the unitary executive theory. But the Supreme Court gave us hints as far back as last year that the Federal Reserve is different just based on it said that it has a unique structure or a unique history. 00:16:44 Speaker 1: It's not really. 00:16:46 Speaker 8: It's sort of this quasi private entity because it has a mix of being a government entity and also private sector members who or at least private sector members who vote in some of the regional bank. So it didn't come as a surprise. We thought the fair would be treated differently. 00:17:05 Speaker 3: Millon Bellot, was that a surprise. 00:17:08 Speaker 1: That's a little bit of a surprise. I don't follow that case. 00:17:10 Speaker 8: It doesn't have a huge doesn't have a business impact fair, But yes, I would say it's a little bit of a surprise, and I think June priorly touched on that earlier. 00:17:18 Speaker 5: All Right, good elliot Stein, great stuff as always Eliot Stein, Bloomberg intelligence litigation analyst. 00:17:23 Speaker 2: See that law school paid. 00:17:25 Speaker 5: Off totally and he started strong Stanford and then he took a long term film the law school. 00:17:31 Speaker 4: I mean he did that all without the benefit of reading the full time. So thank you Elliott for doing that exactly. 00:17:37 Speaker 5: Thomack Kendall joins us here. She is outside of the Supreme Court. She's a Bloomberg News Washington correspondent, Tyler. What's the feeling do you think within what do you think the takeaway will be from this president from this administration about this busy, busy day of Supreme Court rulings. 00:17:54 Speaker 3: Well, by and. 00:17:54 Speaker 7: Large, Paul, the administration got a win when it comes to the Trumpet Slaughter case, essentially expanding the president's authority to remove independent heads of independent agencies. Rebecca Slaughter was the last Democratic commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission, so that is considered to be a win for the Trump administration. Not necessarily a surprising decision. The justices had been a little bit wary of the idea that the president wouldn't be able to remove officials that are accountable to the executive branch. But the Lisa Cook decision means that she can stay in her job, at least for now, which means that that legal fight does continue. The justices did not weigh in on whether or not they believed that the Trump administration's accusations rise to the level that Lisa Cook should be fired, which means this is still a stay tuned situation. But by and large, that part of the decisions today does mark at least partially a setback for. 00:18:55 Speaker 3: This White House. 00:18:57 Speaker 4: So when it comes to Lisa Cook, I guess a lot of people are wondering what that means for j. Powell, because the former FED chair had said that he would stay on the Federal Reserve Board until legal issues are resolved, and maybe Lisa Cook. 00:19:12 Speaker 1: Was one of them. 00:19:13 Speaker 4: But I guess the FED renovation and the DOJ's action against the FED and JAPAU specifically, it's still out there, isn't it. 00:19:23 Speaker 7: Yeah, And it could come back up. There were a few different threads that we were watching in this case, Scarlett. One is the idea of equities. Basically that the justices were looking into what the broad range impacts would be when it comes to the Federal Reserve and what would happen to the US economy if a governor was removed. And I bring that up because we heard this be one of the main arguments from one of the conservative justices, Brett Kavanaugh. His line of questioning back when this case was heard in January very much focused on this. I'm trying to find the quote at the time he said that if Lisa Cook was removed, it would quote weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the FED. And today the decision was five to four, and that included Brett Kavanaugh siding with the liberal justices on this court in favor of Lisa Cook being able to keep her job for now. 00:20:12 Speaker 3: So that's probably a thread that would make. 00:20:14 Speaker 7: Its way through if a case against Powell ultimately came up. And the second is the idea that Lisa Cook wasn't given essentially due process in responding to the allegations against her before she was fired. You remember when all of this was happening, and essentially she was fired via a tweet from President Trump without much chance to respond to the allegations that were posted on social media. So there are a lot of different factors in this case, but by and large, it is taken to mean that the Supreme Court bolstered the independence of the Central Bank. 00:20:48 Speaker 1: Tyler. 00:20:48 Speaker 5: We also had a ruling Supreme Court earlier today left intact a jury's finding that Donald Trump sexually abused and defamed the writer e Gen Carol, putting her in line to collect a five lane. 00:21:00 Speaker 2: Dollar award from the president. What is the president tom in on this particular case, So we. 00:21:07 Speaker 7: Haven't heard from him yet today, and the justices didn't really provide much of an explanation for this decision. But this probably isn't going to be something that President Trump is too happy with. This does deal essentially a final blow to President Trump's efforts to thought and one of the most significant legal cases against him. It was another one that we were tracking closely, but it wasn't heard in the standard term of this Supreme Court, so we came out earlier this morning instead of with this ruling. Instead, we just got this Supreme Court decision, which means that President Trump is going to have to pay that five million dollar. 00:21:46 Speaker 4: Judgment all in all, Tyler, what do you expect in terms of the presidents of giving some kind of response. How does he usually respond to these kinds of decisions. Will it be on truth social? Do you think do we expect to him to hold a news conference, for instance? 00:22:02 Speaker 3: What will you be looking for. 00:22:04 Speaker 7: I would expect that we'll probably we'll probably get a posed out on truth social today. President Trump actually doesn't have any public events on his schedule. That doesn't mean that some of the closed door events couldn't open up. He does have a few different policy meetings that we're tracking closely today, but this case was one where President Trump was heavily involved in. We're also waiting, likely later this week to get a decision on the other really console consequential case that we're watching for, which is birthright citizenship. And I was actually here at the court back in April when President Trump came here too. He very clearly wanted to make his opinion known when it comes to the justices trying to figure out the legality of his executive order that deals with ending automatic birthright citizenship. I would expect him to be very vocal when we get that decision, likely later this week. We could maybe see it early next week if the Supreme Court adds a date in early July, but we're really expecting that to be later the speak. So it could potentially be two blows to the Trump administration's agenda when it comes to the Lisa Cook case and what appears to be a weariness around the Trump administration's argument related to birthright citizenship. 00:23:09 Speaker 4: Oh, thank you for spinning a forward for us, Tyler. Tyler Kendall's our chief Washington correspondent, of course, giving us the latest with regards to the Supreme Court letting Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor, stay in her job for now. We're going to get into what all this means and what this means in terms of what the Fed looks like now that the Supreme Court has made this ruling. Gotham Makonda is lecturer at the Yale School of Management and a Bloomberg Opinion contributor. He writes regularly on issues of management, the intersection of policy and business. Got them your initial thoughts on this headline The ruling from the Supreme Court that it has allowed Lisa Cook to stay in her job for now, and it has pretty much signaled that the Federal Reserve is different than other government agencies. 00:23:56 Speaker 9: Yeah, it's not a surprising ruling, because the Court has already signaled that it so that Federal Reserve is different. I think the striking thing about it is the extent to which the Court has basically just abandoned jurisprudence and as saying, we like the Federal Reserve, we think it's really important, so we're going to treat it as a special case, whereas every other government agency. And they also announced it right that this was another one of the rulings today that the president does have the power to fire FTC commissioners. Every other government agency gets treated like upon the president. But somehow, for mystical reasons, we will not really specify the Federal Reserve is special. 00:24:32 Speaker 10: Okay, I guess it is. 00:24:34 Speaker 5: We were informed by you know, a couple of our guests legal backgrounds, that there's some theory out there that says, hey, you know, the universal kind of thing. I'm not sure what it's called, but basically says, the president should be able to do all this stuff. It's his or her administration, and so the president should be able to appoint who they want in these agencies. 00:24:53 Speaker 9: And so the theory is the unitary executive that's what they're referring to. It's the idea that every single person in the executive branch is kind of like the fingers of the hand of the president. The unitary executive theory is something that was invented quite recently, really in the nineteen seventies. If you'd taken it to one of the founders, they would have just been baffled. But just to demonstrate how it breaks down so completely, inspector general Inspectors general, the people whose job it is to identify fraud and you know, tell us that, you know, the president or his or his appointees is stealing from the American public, are also members of the executive branch. So if the unitary executive theory was true, then it would be a power of the president to order inspector generals to cover up for his own crimes. 00:25:36 Speaker 10: If that makes sense to you, then you believe in the unitary executive. 00:25:41 Speaker 4: Wow, Okay, I had to think about that one for a little bit. But that is saying something. So this idea that the Federal Reserve is different. Can the Trump administration do anything else in its you know, quest to remake the FED or is this something where they kind of just have to call it an l and step How are you thinking this through? 00:26:02 Speaker 9: Well, the ruling is a fo now ruling, right, So what they're presumably going to do is then continue on with the litigation against Lisa Cook in the hope of either winning a conviction or just you know, draining her resources and her resolve to such an extent that she steps down. I don't think either of those will work, because the charges against her are on their face quite absurd, and she doesn't seem like the sort of person who's going to back down in the face of this kind of an assault. 00:26:26 Speaker 10: But this story is not over. We're just we just ended one chapter. 00:26:30 Speaker 2: President Trumps out with a tweet just now. 00:26:33 Speaker 5: Of course, I'm sure you're not surprised, but basically touting the Slaughter case as a all caps big win here and really saying this is, you know, presidents have been trying to do this since the nineteen thirties. Again, try and put this into context. It seems like a win for not just Donald Trump, but for the executive branch. But again, and maybe it's a it's a real loss for independence. 00:26:58 Speaker 2: It's tough. I'm not sure how you weigh those two things. 00:27:01 Speaker 1: That's right. 00:27:02 Speaker 9: So it is clearly the Supreme Court and Chief Justice Roberts in particular, and you know, has a long history of just saying that he wants to concentrate power in the hands of the executive branch and in the hands of the Court. And we should note, right, it's not just the executive branch, it's the Court, because the Court has arrogated it two itself, the ability to say that we you know, we can at any time make up rules that say that, hey, the executive branch doesn't. 00:27:28 Speaker 10: Have this power. 00:27:29 Speaker 9: But okay, so they've done that, and they've contracted these powers into the Court, into the Court and of the executive branch. 00:27:35 Speaker 10: That is a big win. But there's some There are two sets of questions here. 00:27:38 Speaker 9: One is, are these powers that this Court is going to allocate to all presidents or is it just going to be presidents that it seems to like. And I don't think we know the answer to that yet. And second is, you know, a different president who had a much more ambitious view of what they wanted to do in policy. And I can tell you the Democrats are already talking about how they can use the powers that the Court has given the executive when they take office, is going to use this in a very very different ways ways that I suspect Chief Office Roberts is not going to lif