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

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

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,399
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

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

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,680
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. This morning, President

6
00:00:22,720 --> 00:00:26,119
Speaker 1: Trump tweeted that he has the absolute right to pardon himself,

7
00:00:26,160 --> 00:00:28,319
Speaker 1: but quote, why would I do that when I have

8
00:00:28,400 --> 00:00:31,600
Speaker 1: done nothing wrong, echoing the statements that his attorney Rudy

9
00:00:31,640 --> 00:00:36,360
Speaker 1: Giuliani made on Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press, The

10
00:00:36,400 --> 00:00:40,720
Speaker 1: President of the United States, um partnering himself would just

11
00:00:40,800 --> 00:00:44,000
Speaker 1: be unthinkable, and it would. It would It would lead

12
00:00:44,040 --> 00:00:47,800
Speaker 1: to probably an immediate impeachment. You know, you get your

13
00:00:47,880 --> 00:00:51,760
Speaker 1: house sent up. Beyond the tremendous, tremendous pressure. Uh. President

14
00:00:51,760 --> 00:00:53,040
Speaker 1: Trump has no need to do that. I didn't do

15
00:00:53,080 --> 00:00:56,920
Speaker 1: anything wrong. My guest is Stephen bin Hack, former federal

16
00:00:56,960 --> 00:01:01,000
Speaker 1: prosecutor and associate Independent Council in the White Wall Outer investigation.

17
00:01:01,600 --> 00:01:04,720
Speaker 1: Steve The question of whether a president has the absolute

18
00:01:04,760 --> 00:01:08,000
Speaker 1: right to pardon himself has never been litigated because no

19
00:01:08,280 --> 00:01:13,160
Speaker 1: president has ever asserted so brashly that laws and traditions

20
00:01:13,319 --> 00:01:16,400
Speaker 1: don't apply to him. Does Trump have the absolute right

21
00:01:16,440 --> 00:01:19,280
Speaker 1: to pardon himself? Well, first of all, thanks for having

22
00:01:19,319 --> 00:01:21,560
Speaker 1: me on, and I think the answer is yes. And

23
00:01:21,600 --> 00:01:24,360
Speaker 1: I think the way to resolve that question is to

24
00:01:24,400 --> 00:01:27,800
Speaker 1: go to the Constitution itself, which says that the president.

25
00:01:27,840 --> 00:01:31,480
Speaker 1: This is an article to section two, which deals with

26
00:01:31,520 --> 00:01:34,520
Speaker 1: the power of the President, says that he, meaning the President,

27
00:01:34,959 --> 00:01:37,680
Speaker 1: shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses

28
00:01:37,720 --> 00:01:42,000
Speaker 1: against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. What

29
00:01:42,160 --> 00:01:46,119
Speaker 1: that means is there's no limitation except in cases of impeachment.

30
00:01:46,680 --> 00:01:49,800
Speaker 1: And the Constitution is set up to have a separation

31
00:01:49,840 --> 00:01:52,440
Speaker 1: of powers. So for those who think, oh my gosh,

32
00:01:52,480 --> 00:01:55,840
Speaker 1: the president is going to pardon himself, the world is

33
00:01:56,240 --> 00:01:58,680
Speaker 1: going to fall apart because no one has any recourse,

34
00:01:58,960 --> 00:02:03,559
Speaker 1: that's not true. The president cannot change a case of impeachment.

35
00:02:04,000 --> 00:02:07,560
Speaker 1: And in section four of the same article, Article two,

36
00:02:07,560 --> 00:02:10,640
Speaker 1: it says the president, vice president of all civil officers

37
00:02:10,639 --> 00:02:14,000
Speaker 1: in the United States shall be removed from office on

38
00:02:14,160 --> 00:02:19,400
Speaker 1: impeachment foreign conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crescentimnist demeanors.

39
00:02:19,480 --> 00:02:21,960
Speaker 1: So the fact of the matter is, although it has

40
00:02:22,000 --> 00:02:25,919
Speaker 1: not been tacted. I think that the president could pardon himself,

41
00:02:26,360 --> 00:02:30,840
Speaker 1: but immediately he could not, or immediately impeachment and proceedings

42
00:02:30,840 --> 00:02:34,160
Speaker 1: would be uh would start and the Congress can impeach

43
00:02:34,200 --> 00:02:36,400
Speaker 1: and remove him, and he could do nothing to stop that.

44
00:02:36,800 --> 00:02:39,400
Speaker 1: So I think the Constitution has thought about the or

45
00:02:39,440 --> 00:02:41,440
Speaker 1: the Framers thought about this, and they wrote into the

46
00:02:41,440 --> 00:02:44,560
Speaker 1: Constitution what would happen. Do you see a pattern in

47
00:02:44,639 --> 00:02:48,320
Speaker 1: the pardons that Trump has issued already and bypassing the

48
00:02:48,400 --> 00:02:53,040
Speaker 1: pardon vetting procedures usually done by the Department of Justice. Yes,

49
00:02:53,120 --> 00:02:57,280
Speaker 1: I do see a pattern. First, remember, the Constitution is

50
00:02:57,320 --> 00:02:59,600
Speaker 1: different than the norms that we have in our government.

51
00:03:00,000 --> 00:03:04,560
Speaker 1: We have certain norms between the president and the and

52
00:03:04,840 --> 00:03:07,640
Speaker 1: his departments. One of those departments is the Department of Justice.

53
00:03:07,880 --> 00:03:10,520
Speaker 1: The Department of Justice has a pardon attorney who normally

54
00:03:10,560 --> 00:03:14,600
Speaker 1: takes care of pardons. There's rules about when you can

55
00:03:14,800 --> 00:03:18,040
Speaker 1: start the pardon process, typically five years after the sentence

56
00:03:18,120 --> 00:03:21,320
Speaker 1: is complete. There's a recommendation in the White House agrees

57
00:03:21,800 --> 00:03:25,520
Speaker 1: that is not a constitutional requirement. And the President appears

58
00:03:25,560 --> 00:03:28,959
Speaker 1: to be playing this particular situation as a political situation,

59
00:03:29,440 --> 00:03:32,280
Speaker 1: and that means that he will if he wants to

60
00:03:32,919 --> 00:03:36,560
Speaker 1: over ignore the norms and the regulations that are out

61
00:03:36,560 --> 00:03:40,480
Speaker 1: there no constitutional requirement that he that he followed them,

62
00:03:40,560 --> 00:03:43,839
Speaker 1: and he will have to live with the political consequences

63
00:03:43,920 --> 00:03:48,040
Speaker 1: of his um pardons. I think these pardons are set

64
00:03:48,120 --> 00:03:50,720
Speaker 1: up to gradually step us up to the point where

65
00:03:50,760 --> 00:03:54,640
Speaker 1: the President could um could pardon himself. That is you,

66
00:03:54,880 --> 00:03:57,320
Speaker 1: he's starting with a PIO and going, you know to

67
00:03:57,600 --> 00:04:00,400
Speaker 1: Mr Susa. You have a pattern of parts where the

68
00:04:00,400 --> 00:04:03,560
Speaker 1: President is saying these people were unfairly convicted. It was

69
00:04:03,720 --> 00:04:09,440
Speaker 1: unrighteous prosecutions, unfair prosecutors. And if he lays the groundwork there,

70
00:04:09,920 --> 00:04:12,000
Speaker 1: it's only a short step for him to say I'm

71
00:04:12,040 --> 00:04:14,200
Speaker 1: in the same boat. And we saw the tweet today

72
00:04:14,280 --> 00:04:17,359
Speaker 1: where the President says, I can absolutely pardon myself, but

73
00:04:17,400 --> 00:04:20,440
Speaker 1: I don't need to because I didn't do anything wrong. Again,

74
00:04:20,560 --> 00:04:24,120
Speaker 1: laying the groundwork to make the political play of making

75
00:04:24,120 --> 00:04:27,360
Speaker 1: a pardon for himself, which would force the Congress to act.

76
00:04:28,200 --> 00:04:31,359
Speaker 1: Let's turn to a private letter from Trump's legal team

77
00:04:31,760 --> 00:04:34,919
Speaker 1: to Muller that was written in January but printed in

78
00:04:34,960 --> 00:04:38,920
Speaker 1: The New York Times Friday. It's remarkably broad in asserting

79
00:04:38,960 --> 00:04:43,039
Speaker 1: an unlimited right to stop federal investigations and issue pardons,

80
00:04:43,080 --> 00:04:46,480
Speaker 1: and concludes that a president can't obstruct justice. What's your

81
00:04:46,480 --> 00:04:49,440
Speaker 1: reaction to the legal claims in that letter. Well, there's

82
00:04:49,440 --> 00:04:51,719
Speaker 1: a few different legal claims, and I have a different

83
00:04:51,760 --> 00:04:55,159
Speaker 1: reactions either to several of them. I think that the

84
00:04:55,200 --> 00:05:00,920
Speaker 1: president could try to stop this investigation by firing Mr Maller.

85
00:05:00,960 --> 00:05:05,040
Speaker 1: If he did that, uh and um, and he was successful,

86
00:05:05,480 --> 00:05:07,359
Speaker 1: I think then the Congress would have the right to

87
00:05:07,400 --> 00:05:10,360
Speaker 1: impeach and remove him. That is no, not really different

88
00:05:10,400 --> 00:05:12,840
Speaker 1: than the Saturday Night massacre that we saw under the

89
00:05:12,920 --> 00:05:18,000
Speaker 1: Nixon administration. With regard to obstruction of justice, I think

90
00:05:18,040 --> 00:05:21,840
Speaker 1: the president can obstruct justice in certain ways, but uh,

91
00:05:21,880 --> 00:05:23,840
Speaker 1: it is not obstruction of justice. And I mean by

92
00:05:23,920 --> 00:05:27,400
Speaker 1: obstruct justice, I'm talking about a criminal issue. The president

93
00:05:27,520 --> 00:05:31,600
Speaker 1: can make the crime of obstructing justice by destroying documents,

94
00:05:31,880 --> 00:05:35,760
Speaker 1: tampering with witnesses, bribing people. But I don't think that

95
00:05:35,920 --> 00:05:40,800
Speaker 1: firing an inferior officer in his administration would make constant,

96
00:05:40,839 --> 00:05:44,280
Speaker 1: would make the crime of of of obstruction of justice

97
00:05:44,320 --> 00:05:46,800
Speaker 1: because the power the president has the power to do that.

98
00:05:47,360 --> 00:05:50,320
Speaker 1: But for all the criminal obstruction of justice the president

99
00:05:50,400 --> 00:05:53,880
Speaker 1: might do, there's the remedy of an indictment, and for

100
00:05:53,920 --> 00:05:57,320
Speaker 1: any political obstruction of justice you have impeachment. So if

101
00:05:57,320 --> 00:06:00,000
Speaker 1: the president were to bribe a witness to not say

102
00:06:00,080 --> 00:06:02,919
Speaker 1: the truth, that would be a criminal act, subject to

103
00:06:02,920 --> 00:06:06,839
Speaker 1: criminal prosecution and of course impeachment. But if the president

104
00:06:06,880 --> 00:06:10,480
Speaker 1: just fired an inferior officer, then that would be subject,

105
00:06:10,520 --> 00:06:14,640
Speaker 1: in my opinion, only to uh an impeachment proceeding. All right,

106
00:06:14,720 --> 00:06:17,520
Speaker 1: and you have to rely on the Congress for that,

107
00:06:17,680 --> 00:06:20,719
Speaker 1: on the House of Representatives. Thanks so much for joining us. Steve.

108
00:06:20,800 --> 00:06:23,400
Speaker 1: That's Steve bin Hacky is a Miami attorney and a

109
00:06:23,440 --> 00:06:28,480
Speaker 1: former federal prosecutor and associate Independent Council in the Whitewater investigation.

110
00:06:32,400 --> 00:06:34,920
Speaker 1: In one of the most closely watched cases of the term,

111
00:06:35,000 --> 00:06:38,040
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court throughout of finding that a Colorado baker

112
00:06:38,200 --> 00:06:41,200
Speaker 1: illegally discriminated when he refused to make a cake for

113
00:06:41,240 --> 00:06:43,560
Speaker 1: the wedding of the same sex couple. The seven to

114
00:06:43,640 --> 00:06:46,080
Speaker 1: two decision was on narrow grounds and was written by

115
00:06:46,160 --> 00:06:49,960
Speaker 1: Justice Anthony Kennedy. Joining us is Bloomberg New Supreme Court

116
00:06:49,960 --> 00:06:54,120
Speaker 1: reporter Greg's store. Greg, it's the first really full scale

117
00:06:54,200 --> 00:06:58,360
Speaker 1: fight over gay rights since the Court legalized same sex marriage.

118
00:06:58,680 --> 00:07:02,000
Speaker 1: To what it bluntly did the justices in the majority punt.

119
00:07:03,160 --> 00:07:05,920
Speaker 1: They did punt to a large degree. June UH they

120
00:07:06,000 --> 00:07:08,599
Speaker 1: decided the case of Jack Phillips, and it's not clear

121
00:07:08,640 --> 00:07:10,840
Speaker 1: they decided any more than that. And it actually it

122
00:07:10,880 --> 00:07:13,560
Speaker 1: turns out there's even some disagreement as to exactly what

123
00:07:13,600 --> 00:07:16,640
Speaker 1: it means for Jack Phillips. Essentially, they said that when

124
00:07:16,720 --> 00:07:20,120
Speaker 1: considering his case, members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission

125
00:07:20,960 --> 00:07:25,040
Speaker 1: held an animous towards religion and because of that, the

126
00:07:25,080 --> 00:07:28,520
Speaker 1: finding against him couldn't stand. And it seems that both

127
00:07:28,560 --> 00:07:31,520
Speaker 1: sides can claim victory or are claiming victory. The a

128
00:07:31,520 --> 00:07:33,880
Speaker 1: c l U, which argued for the gay couple, has

129
00:07:34,000 --> 00:07:37,400
Speaker 1: released a couple of press releases and they said the

130
00:07:37,440 --> 00:07:41,240
Speaker 1: court rejected the argument that businesses have a constitutional right

131
00:07:41,320 --> 00:07:45,360
Speaker 1: to discriminate against LGBTQ people. Is that did the court

132
00:07:45,440 --> 00:07:49,640
Speaker 1: actually do that? Well, they certainly didn't. Didn't hold that

133
00:07:49,720 --> 00:07:52,360
Speaker 1: there is a constitutional right to discriminate. There is some

134
00:07:52,520 --> 00:07:57,040
Speaker 1: language in here that is favorable to to advocates of

135
00:07:57,160 --> 00:08:00,320
Speaker 1: gay rights. The court does talk about how in role

136
00:08:00,880 --> 00:08:04,720
Speaker 1: UH anti discrimination laws can be enforced and businesses have

137
00:08:04,920 --> 00:08:07,920
Speaker 1: to comply with them. Now, the court did leave open

138
00:08:08,280 --> 00:08:10,480
Speaker 1: what's going to happen the next time some other business

139
00:08:11,320 --> 00:08:14,760
Speaker 1: has a similar claim claiming I have a speech right

140
00:08:14,920 --> 00:08:17,920
Speaker 1: or religious right not to take part in the same

141
00:08:18,000 --> 00:08:22,560
Speaker 1: sex marriage ceremony or to to lend any support to it. Um.

142
00:08:22,720 --> 00:08:24,560
Speaker 1: So that question is still on the table. But the

143
00:08:24,640 --> 00:08:30,000
Speaker 1: general principle that um that uh, most businesses at least

144
00:08:30,280 --> 00:08:33,679
Speaker 1: do have to comply with antidiscrimination laws, including protections on

145
00:08:33,760 --> 00:08:36,920
Speaker 1: the basis of sexual orientation. That is in fact the case.

146
00:08:37,720 --> 00:08:40,240
Speaker 1: So grig I remember that the oral arguments in this

147
00:08:40,400 --> 00:08:44,480
Speaker 1: case were very dynamic. They went extra time on them.

148
00:08:44,880 --> 00:08:47,040
Speaker 1: So do you think that what happened here is that

149
00:08:47,600 --> 00:08:50,400
Speaker 1: they couldn't get a five member majority on any of

150
00:08:50,480 --> 00:08:52,439
Speaker 1: the other big issues, or they just didn't want to

151
00:08:52,480 --> 00:08:55,559
Speaker 1: tackle the big issues. It's probably more the latter. These

152
00:08:55,640 --> 00:08:58,439
Speaker 1: were questions, these issues, the statements by the members of

153
00:08:58,480 --> 00:09:01,840
Speaker 1: the Civil Rights Commission suggesting that religion has been used

154
00:09:01,880 --> 00:09:06,000
Speaker 1: for some bad purposes over over history, those were issues

155
00:09:06,040 --> 00:09:09,360
Speaker 1: that Justice Kennedy raised during the arguments. He was clearly

156
00:09:09,520 --> 00:09:13,880
Speaker 1: very concerned about that. He clearly UH thought that there

157
00:09:14,080 --> 00:09:18,480
Speaker 1: was some bias against religion lurking among members of the

158
00:09:18,559 --> 00:09:22,880
Speaker 1: Colorado Civil Rights Commission. So Um, it's not. It doesn't

159
00:09:22,960 --> 00:09:26,920
Speaker 1: have the feel of something that um, you know that

160
00:09:27,200 --> 00:09:29,600
Speaker 1: this was their third choice is to decide this case.

161
00:09:29,679 --> 00:09:31,920
Speaker 1: That seemed like the way Justice Kennedy felt like the

162
00:09:31,960 --> 00:09:34,920
Speaker 1: case ought to be decided. So tell us what the

163
00:09:35,120 --> 00:09:38,880
Speaker 1: two justices in the descent. That was Justice Ruth Bader

164
00:09:38,960 --> 00:09:42,720
Speaker 1: Ginsburg wrote the descent, and she was joined by Justice

165
00:09:42,720 --> 00:09:46,120
Speaker 1: Sonia Sotomayor. Tell us what the descent said. So, so

166
00:09:46,480 --> 00:09:50,400
Speaker 1: it was a somewhat muted descent. Um. But what essentially

167
00:09:50,480 --> 00:09:53,120
Speaker 1: what you said it said was, um, look, these were

168
00:09:53,240 --> 00:09:56,640
Speaker 1: a couple of comments by members of a commission um,

169
00:09:56,960 --> 00:09:59,160
Speaker 1: at least one of which maybe both of which are

170
00:09:59,240 --> 00:10:01,760
Speaker 1: no longer on the commission. Uh. This is a case

171
00:10:01,840 --> 00:10:03,959
Speaker 1: that went through a lot of process and through an

172
00:10:03,960 --> 00:10:09,839
Speaker 1: administrative law judge, um, through uh the courts um, and

173
00:10:10,080 --> 00:10:14,360
Speaker 1: so uh she essentially said, it's hard to see how

174
00:10:14,520 --> 00:10:17,880
Speaker 1: that you know, any animus that might have existed among

175
00:10:18,120 --> 00:10:21,520
Speaker 1: you know, as demonstrated by a couple of comments, how

176
00:10:21,679 --> 00:10:24,280
Speaker 1: that should be allowed to override in this particular case

177
00:10:24,320 --> 00:10:28,040
Speaker 1: of this general principle that uh that that uh, gay

178
00:10:28,120 --> 00:10:32,000
Speaker 1: couples are entitled to be protected from discrimination under under

179
00:10:32,000 --> 00:10:35,480
Speaker 1: Colorado Civil rights laws. Could this have any significance or

180
00:10:35,720 --> 00:10:39,840
Speaker 1: point toward what may happen with the Trump travel ban,

181
00:10:40,040 --> 00:10:43,520
Speaker 1: where the allegation is that it was based on animus.

182
00:10:44,520 --> 00:10:46,319
Speaker 1: I don't want to read too much into this. I

183
00:10:46,559 --> 00:10:48,800
Speaker 1: think what you can definitely see in this case that

184
00:10:48,960 --> 00:10:52,160
Speaker 1: so there are seven justices in the majority, Justices Briar

185
00:10:52,240 --> 00:10:54,839
Speaker 1: and Kagan, who uh you tended me with the liberal

186
00:10:54,920 --> 00:10:59,400
Speaker 1: wing joined the majority a little bit of a consensus ruling. Um.

187
00:10:59,520 --> 00:11:02,319
Speaker 1: One can imagine that that sort of model may happen

188
00:11:02,360 --> 00:11:05,480
Speaker 1: again with the travel band very different issues. Remains to

189
00:11:05,559 --> 00:11:09,959
Speaker 1: be seen. Um. It's you know, hard to sort of

190
00:11:09,960 --> 00:11:12,040
Speaker 1: project too much from one case to the other, but

191
00:11:12,440 --> 00:11:15,560
Speaker 1: it's certainly at least a sign that, uh, in one case,

192
00:11:15,679 --> 00:11:18,120
Speaker 1: in this case, some members of the court were able

193
00:11:18,160 --> 00:11:21,120
Speaker 1: to bridge whatever differences they had. Well, the case have

194
00:11:21,440 --> 00:11:24,599
Speaker 1: any impact at all on states that have laws that

195
00:11:24,840 --> 00:11:29,599
Speaker 1: bar discrimination based on sexual orientation by establishments that do

196
00:11:29,720 --> 00:11:32,040
Speaker 1: business with the public. Or is it just that it

197
00:11:32,040 --> 00:11:35,040
Speaker 1: won't have any effect on anything at all? Well, it

198
00:11:35,120 --> 00:11:38,400
Speaker 1: will certainly be cited an awful lot because there is language,

199
00:11:38,400 --> 00:11:41,679
Speaker 1: as we were discussing before that that says that in general,

200
00:11:41,800 --> 00:11:45,880
Speaker 1: laws like that are enforceable against against private businesses, whether

201
00:11:46,000 --> 00:11:48,240
Speaker 1: it's despositive, whether it tells you what the answer is

202
00:11:48,360 --> 00:11:50,520
Speaker 1: when you get a case like this that remains to

203
00:11:50,559 --> 00:11:52,480
Speaker 1: be seen. There is another case I should say that

204
00:11:52,559 --> 00:11:55,000
Speaker 1: the Court could agree to take up in the next

205
00:11:55,040 --> 00:11:57,520
Speaker 1: couple of weeks and involves a florist in Washington State,

206
00:11:58,320 --> 00:12:01,360
Speaker 1: very similar things. She didn't want to provide flowers for

207
00:12:01,880 --> 00:12:05,560
Speaker 1: the same sex wedding, and so it's possible the Court

208
00:12:05,640 --> 00:12:07,760
Speaker 1: will will decide we're going to take up that case

209
00:12:07,840 --> 00:12:11,120
Speaker 1: and actually decide these big questions. So, Greg, did you

210
00:12:11,280 --> 00:12:15,040
Speaker 1: see you know, the language that Justice Kennedy has used

211
00:12:15,320 --> 00:12:18,240
Speaker 1: in the cases involving gay rights. Did you see that

212
00:12:18,480 --> 00:12:22,280
Speaker 1: in the opinion there was some of that. Uh, no question, Um,

213
00:12:22,920 --> 00:12:25,960
Speaker 1: let me, I'll find it here. But he talked about

214
00:12:26,400 --> 00:12:29,760
Speaker 1: the you know, the general right of gay people to

215
00:12:29,840 --> 00:12:33,439
Speaker 1: be put it, uh, not treated as social outcasts or

216
00:12:33,640 --> 00:12:37,920
Speaker 1: inferior in dignity and worth. Um. So he certainly reaffirmed

217
00:12:37,960 --> 00:12:40,160
Speaker 1: that notion that was part of his gay marriage ruling

218
00:12:40,520 --> 00:12:43,319
Speaker 1: from fifteen. At the same time, however, he said that

219
00:12:43,760 --> 00:12:46,920
Speaker 1: quotes of the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage

220
00:12:47,040 --> 00:12:50,520
Speaker 1: are protective views and in some instances protected forms of expression.

221
00:12:50,840 --> 00:12:53,439
Speaker 1: So he was trying to say that both sides in

222
00:12:53,520 --> 00:12:58,120
Speaker 1: this debate, both gay people who are entitled to equality

223
00:12:58,520 --> 00:13:01,800
Speaker 1: in people who have a religious opposition, both are entitled

224
00:13:01,840 --> 00:13:04,200
Speaker 1: to respect. Well, we have a lot of other cases,

225
00:13:04,280 --> 00:13:06,520
Speaker 1: high profile coming up, and we'll see if we get

226
00:13:06,600 --> 00:13:09,720
Speaker 1: any blockbuster rulings with those. Thanks so much, Greg, That's

227
00:13:09,720 --> 00:13:13,400
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News, Supreme Court reporter of Gregg's Store. Thanks for

228
00:13:13,480 --> 00:13:16,679
Speaker 1: listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and

229
00:13:16,800 --> 00:13:20,000
Speaker 1: listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, and on

230
00:13:20,120 --> 00:13:24,839
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is

231
00:13:24,880 --> 00:13:25,439
Speaker 1: Bloomberg