WEBVTT - Trump Changes the Judiciary with Judge Selections (Correct)

0:00:00.160 --> 0:00:03.840
<v Speaker 1>Understandably, people pay a lot of attention to Supreme Court nominations,

0:00:04.240 --> 0:00:06.640
<v Speaker 1>but a president's ability to nominate judges to the lower

0:00:06.680 --> 0:00:10.560
<v Speaker 1>federal courts carries the possibility of reshaping the predominant philosophy

0:00:10.600 --> 0:00:14.880
<v Speaker 1>of the entire federal judiciary. President Trump has about a

0:00:14.920 --> 0:00:18.000
<v Speaker 1>hundred and twenty vacancies open right now in the federal

0:00:18.079 --> 0:00:21.799
<v Speaker 1>judiciary and a Republican Senate that's likely to confirm his nominees,

0:00:22.200 --> 0:00:24.720
<v Speaker 1>so he has an opportunity to make a lasting impact

0:00:24.920 --> 0:00:28.000
<v Speaker 1>on American courts. Here to talk with us about how

0:00:28.040 --> 0:00:31.000
<v Speaker 1>the President seems to be approaching judicial nominations for the

0:00:31.040 --> 0:00:35.080
<v Speaker 1>federal judiciary are Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western

0:00:35.120 --> 0:00:39.159
<v Speaker 1>Reserve Law School, and Billy Courier, Deputy director of Legal

0:00:39.200 --> 0:00:43.800
<v Speaker 1>Process at the Center for American Progress. Jonathan, the President

0:00:44.040 --> 0:00:46.840
<v Speaker 1>is said to be on the verge of nominating about

0:00:46.920 --> 0:00:52.199
<v Speaker 1>ten judges for federal positions on the judiciary, and uh

0:00:52.280 --> 0:00:54.880
<v Speaker 1>the way he's approaching a conservatives probably should be happy

0:00:55.000 --> 0:00:58.680
<v Speaker 1>with the way he intends to go, Isn't that right? Certainly,

0:00:59.000 --> 0:01:03.040
<v Speaker 1>the names that have and identified are all incredibly well

0:01:03.040 --> 0:01:10.040
<v Speaker 1>respected and incredibly well qualified lawyers injurists, people that have demonstrated, uh,

0:01:10.080 --> 0:01:12.120
<v Speaker 1>they're commitment to the principles of the rule of law

0:01:12.360 --> 0:01:16.479
<v Speaker 1>and their intellectual acumen. Um, there's sort of folks that

0:01:17.000 --> 0:01:21.280
<v Speaker 1>conservatives who care about the courts would want to see. Billy,

0:01:21.319 --> 0:01:24.480
<v Speaker 1>how much of what Jonathan just said, would you disagree with? Uh?

0:01:24.600 --> 0:01:26.959
<v Speaker 1>You know, based on this list. Uh, you know, we're

0:01:27.000 --> 0:01:29.560
<v Speaker 1>we're still learning about some of these people, but it

0:01:29.600 --> 0:01:34.720
<v Speaker 1>looks to be a very well credential, well qualified uh

0:01:34.959 --> 0:01:38.440
<v Speaker 1>people that that Donald Trump is nominating. Well, I mean,

0:01:38.440 --> 0:01:41.800
<v Speaker 1>I agree that I think conservatives will be very happy

0:01:41.800 --> 0:01:45.680
<v Speaker 1>with this list. Um, I'm not sure that I would

0:01:45.760 --> 0:01:48.960
<v Speaker 1>describe all of the nominees as extremely well qualified. UM.

0:01:49.040 --> 0:01:53.600
<v Speaker 1>Joean Larson, for example, has very little experience as a judge. Um.

0:01:53.640 --> 0:01:56.800
<v Speaker 1>But she actually appeared on Trump's uh potential list of

0:01:56.840 --> 0:01:59.440
<v Speaker 1>potential Supreme Court nominees. UM. But she's only been on

0:01:59.440 --> 0:02:01.280
<v Speaker 1>the benches to don and fifty answer, that's not a

0:02:01.280 --> 0:02:04.880
<v Speaker 1>lot of experience. She had more has more experiences a

0:02:04.960 --> 0:02:07.440
<v Speaker 1>judge than Elena Kagan did when she was nominated to

0:02:07.480 --> 0:02:11.600
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court. More experience, Uh, probably an attorney before

0:02:11.639 --> 0:02:14.400
<v Speaker 1>leon Kagan became the listener general, I think if we

0:02:14.560 --> 0:02:17.880
<v Speaker 1>compare the qualifications of these nominees to appelic courts to

0:02:18.000 --> 0:02:21.560
<v Speaker 1>the qualifications of people that have been confirmed unanimously over

0:02:21.600 --> 0:02:24.720
<v Speaker 1>the past twenty years. Uh, they're comparable or or they

0:02:24.720 --> 0:02:27.120
<v Speaker 1>exceed the qualifications we would expect. I mean, you know,

0:02:27.160 --> 0:02:30.160
<v Speaker 1>we we apply the standards we usually would apply. I

0:02:30.200 --> 0:02:32.960
<v Speaker 1>don't think there's any basis to question the qualifications of

0:02:33.080 --> 0:02:36.079
<v Speaker 1>any of these central nominees. Well, Jonathan the you know,

0:02:36.160 --> 0:02:38.560
<v Speaker 1>one of the things was kind of interesting and unprecedented

0:02:38.600 --> 0:02:42.640
<v Speaker 1>about the way President Trump approached the Supreme Court nomination

0:02:42.840 --> 0:02:45.360
<v Speaker 1>that ended up, as with Neil Gorsitch, was that he

0:02:45.400 --> 0:02:48.200
<v Speaker 1>had he put out a list that seemed to come

0:02:48.480 --> 0:02:52.560
<v Speaker 1>predominantly from uh, you would look like the Federal Society,

0:02:53.280 --> 0:02:55.240
<v Speaker 1>you know, and and sort of he had it felt

0:02:55.240 --> 0:02:57.799
<v Speaker 1>almost some to some people like he had outsourced who

0:02:57.840 --> 0:02:59.480
<v Speaker 1>he was going to jet who's going to pick for

0:02:59.520 --> 0:03:03.160
<v Speaker 1>a Supreme Court judge hip? What's the process as far

0:03:03.200 --> 0:03:05.520
<v Speaker 1>as we know about how he's come up with his

0:03:05.600 --> 0:03:09.239
<v Speaker 1>list for the lower courts? Uh, you know, I think

0:03:09.360 --> 0:03:13.040
<v Speaker 1>this president, like presidents generally, seek the advice of people

0:03:13.040 --> 0:03:16.080
<v Speaker 1>that are experts in the field when trying to identify

0:03:16.440 --> 0:03:19.960
<v Speaker 1>potential judicial nominees and also seek the input of the

0:03:20.040 --> 0:03:23.760
<v Speaker 1>senators from other relevant states, particularly when we're looking at

0:03:23.800 --> 0:03:26.880
<v Speaker 1>district court nominations. I think that's what's occurring here. But

0:03:27.440 --> 0:03:29.440
<v Speaker 1>that's what's all what what often occurs. I mean, we

0:03:29.480 --> 0:03:33.120
<v Speaker 1>know that during the Obama administration, uh, the Obama administration

0:03:33.240 --> 0:03:36.440
<v Speaker 1>was influenced by the views of outside groups in deciding

0:03:36.480 --> 0:03:39.720
<v Speaker 1>to nominate some individuals over others uh and in terms,

0:03:39.800 --> 0:03:43.320
<v Speaker 1>and also was influenced by home state senators. I don't

0:03:43.360 --> 0:03:45.600
<v Speaker 1>think there's anything unusual about that. I mean, when when

0:03:45.600 --> 0:03:48.720
<v Speaker 1>we elect a president, we we certainly pay attention to

0:03:49.320 --> 0:03:51.680
<v Speaker 1>the sort of person that we think that that that

0:03:51.760 --> 0:03:54.680
<v Speaker 1>president is likely to appoint to the judiciary. But we

0:03:54.720 --> 0:03:57.760
<v Speaker 1>don't expect the president and or herself to on their

0:03:57.800 --> 0:03:59.480
<v Speaker 1>own be able to come up with a list of

0:03:59.560 --> 0:04:03.280
<v Speaker 1>quality wid on nominees. We assume that they will rely

0:04:03.480 --> 0:04:07.120
<v Speaker 1>upon experts and and their staff to help them with that,

0:04:07.280 --> 0:04:10.760
<v Speaker 1>just like they do for all all sorts of policy matters. Billy,

0:04:10.840 --> 0:04:13.360
<v Speaker 1>isn't there something to that? Do you see any uh,

0:04:13.800 --> 0:04:17.599
<v Speaker 1>fundamental difference between the way Donald Trump is approaching judge

0:04:17.600 --> 0:04:20.599
<v Speaker 1>ships and the way Barack Obama or George Bush or

0:04:20.640 --> 0:04:23.839
<v Speaker 1>any other recent president did. Yeah, I believe so. I

0:04:23.839 --> 0:04:27.279
<v Speaker 1>mean you mentioned at the beginning of that question that, uh,

0:04:27.760 --> 0:04:31.360
<v Speaker 1>the President explicitly said that he's outsourcing his Supreme Court

0:04:31.480 --> 0:04:35.240
<v Speaker 1>nominee list to the Federalist Society into Heritage, and and

0:04:35.279 --> 0:04:38.039
<v Speaker 1>that's unprecedented. Um, you know, not just the list, but

0:04:38.120 --> 0:04:41.000
<v Speaker 1>having these outside groups actually draw up the list. Um.

0:04:41.000 --> 0:04:43.560
<v Speaker 1>And I think also, um, you know, the President has

0:04:43.640 --> 0:04:47.239
<v Speaker 1>disregarded the American Bar associations historic role in this process,

0:04:47.400 --> 0:04:49.800
<v Speaker 1>and that was something that of course President Bush did

0:04:49.800 --> 0:04:52.520
<v Speaker 1>as well. Um. But I think it's something that shows

0:04:52.560 --> 0:04:55.640
<v Speaker 1>that the President is relying on these right wing groups

0:04:55.760 --> 0:04:59.320
<v Speaker 1>rather than uh, the American Bar Association, which historically played

0:04:59.320 --> 0:05:03.440
<v Speaker 1>a big role in recommending or not recommending nominees. Jonathan.

0:05:03.680 --> 0:05:06.920
<v Speaker 1>Given the number of judge hips that are open right now,

0:05:07.480 --> 0:05:10.720
<v Speaker 1>how big an impact really can we expect President Trump's

0:05:10.760 --> 0:05:13.039
<v Speaker 1>nominees to have as far as how the lug gets

0:05:13.040 --> 0:05:15.560
<v Speaker 1>interpreted in the country for the next over the next

0:05:15.800 --> 0:05:18.520
<v Speaker 1>ten or fifteen years. Sure, well, in terms of numbers,

0:05:18.520 --> 0:05:21.840
<v Speaker 1>it takes a long time for a single president, uh

0:05:21.920 --> 0:05:24.360
<v Speaker 1>to really alter the composition of the federal courts. As

0:05:24.360 --> 0:05:27.839
<v Speaker 1>a general rule, we can assume that a president in

0:05:27.839 --> 0:05:31.599
<v Speaker 1>a single four year term will get to nominate about

0:05:31.600 --> 0:05:34.920
<v Speaker 1>one fifth of the federal judiciary, and so two term

0:05:34.960 --> 0:05:38.560
<v Speaker 1>president has a very substantial impact. And President Obama, for example,

0:05:38.839 --> 0:05:41.719
<v Speaker 1>when he took office, there was one federal appellate court

0:05:41.760 --> 0:05:44.880
<v Speaker 1>that had a majority of Democratic nominees on it when

0:05:44.920 --> 0:05:47.240
<v Speaker 1>he became president. When he left, I believe it was

0:05:47.279 --> 0:05:51.000
<v Speaker 1>seven or eight that have a majority Democratic nominees. UM

0:05:51.240 --> 0:05:54.040
<v Speaker 1>for President Trump, UM, there's certainly are a decent number

0:05:54.040 --> 0:05:57.719
<v Speaker 1>of vacancies now, but there's only one federal appellate court

0:05:58.200 --> 0:06:01.039
<v Speaker 1>um that could that could have its balt altered based

0:06:01.080 --> 0:06:04.680
<v Speaker 1>on existing vacancies, and that's the Third Circuit UH, and

0:06:04.920 --> 0:06:08.599
<v Speaker 1>it would take time in additional retirements for his nominees

0:06:08.600 --> 0:06:10.799
<v Speaker 1>to have President Trump made it clear that he intended

0:06:10.800 --> 0:06:14.080
<v Speaker 1>to nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court, and he did

0:06:14.120 --> 0:06:16.560
<v Speaker 1>so when he nominated Neil Gorsitch, who was now on

0:06:16.600 --> 0:06:19.760
<v Speaker 1>the bench. Now he's starting to nominate judges to the

0:06:19.800 --> 0:06:23.400
<v Speaker 1>lower federal courts, and the list of his first nominees

0:06:23.520 --> 0:06:27.440
<v Speaker 1>is solidly conservative. With about twenty federal judge ships open,

0:06:27.480 --> 0:06:29.800
<v Speaker 1>there may be an opportunity for President Trump to move

0:06:29.839 --> 0:06:33.960
<v Speaker 1>the federal traditional system overall to the right. We are

0:06:34.000 --> 0:06:37.839
<v Speaker 1>talking about the president's judicial nominations with Jonathan Adler, professor

0:06:37.880 --> 0:06:41.640
<v Speaker 1>at Case Western Reserve Law School, and Billy Corrier, Deputy

0:06:41.680 --> 0:06:45.679
<v Speaker 1>director of Legal Progress at the Center for American Progress. Billy,

0:06:45.880 --> 0:06:50.039
<v Speaker 1>when Barack Obama was president, Uh, the Republicans in the

0:06:50.080 --> 0:06:52.400
<v Speaker 1>Senate slowed down a lot of nominations. There are a

0:06:52.440 --> 0:06:55.040
<v Speaker 1>lot of negotiations about what to do about it. And eventually,

0:06:55.120 --> 0:06:58.279
<v Speaker 1>to make a long story short, Uh, the Democrats got

0:06:58.360 --> 0:07:04.839
<v Speaker 1>rid of the judicial filibuster for courts below the Supreme Court. Um.

0:07:04.960 --> 0:07:08.599
<v Speaker 1>Can we expect that the Democrats now facing a Republican

0:07:08.640 --> 0:07:11.040
<v Speaker 1>president who seems to have a philosophy about how he's

0:07:11.080 --> 0:07:14.040
<v Speaker 1>about putting conservatives on the court. Can we expect them

0:07:14.080 --> 0:07:17.440
<v Speaker 1>to be trying to fight these nominations in the same

0:07:17.480 --> 0:07:20.480
<v Speaker 1>way that the Republicans slowed things down back in the

0:07:20.720 --> 0:07:24.960
<v Speaker 1>Obama administration. Well, I mean, I think, um. The big

0:07:24.960 --> 0:07:27.800
<v Speaker 1>differences of course, that the Democrats are in the minority. UM,

0:07:27.880 --> 0:07:30.840
<v Speaker 1>so they don't have the power to, you know, determine

0:07:30.880 --> 0:07:34.200
<v Speaker 1>when candidates or nominees are brought up for a vote

0:07:34.280 --> 0:07:36.559
<v Speaker 1>or not. Um. But I think that you can't expect

0:07:36.640 --> 0:07:39.040
<v Speaker 1>them to take a hard look at the records of

0:07:39.080 --> 0:07:41.680
<v Speaker 1>these judges. Um, And I think that for the home

0:07:41.800 --> 0:07:46.040
<v Speaker 1>state senators where these nominees are coming from, I think

0:07:46.080 --> 0:07:50.160
<v Speaker 1>that Bill they'll particularly take a really hard look at

0:07:50.160 --> 0:07:52.040
<v Speaker 1>the records of these judges and decide whether or not

0:07:52.160 --> 0:07:55.720
<v Speaker 1>they can they can support them. Jonathan. There are ten

0:07:55.840 --> 0:07:58.640
<v Speaker 1>names on on this list, first reported by The New

0:07:58.720 --> 0:08:02.040
<v Speaker 1>York Times Sunday Night, which which names they're sort of

0:08:02.120 --> 0:08:04.320
<v Speaker 1>jump out at you, either as somebody we might be

0:08:04.360 --> 0:08:07.320
<v Speaker 1>talking about as a Supreme Court nominee in the future,

0:08:07.640 --> 0:08:11.680
<v Speaker 1>or who might just become a a leading voice as

0:08:11.680 --> 0:08:13.960
<v Speaker 1>a federal appeals Court judge or a federal district judge

0:08:14.000 --> 0:08:16.840
<v Speaker 1>for that matter. Well, sure, I think too. Well. Two

0:08:16.840 --> 0:08:19.680
<v Speaker 1>of the names, Justice David Strauss, who's a Supreme Court

0:08:19.720 --> 0:08:22.800
<v Speaker 1>justice in Minnesota, and Justice John Lawson, who's a Supreme

0:08:22.800 --> 0:08:26.280
<v Speaker 1>Court justice in Michigan, we're already on Trump's list of

0:08:26.760 --> 0:08:31.080
<v Speaker 1>one potential Supreme Court nominee, So uh, assuming they are

0:08:31.080 --> 0:08:33.840
<v Speaker 1>both seated on federal pellate courts, I would think they

0:08:33.880 --> 0:08:36.720
<v Speaker 1>would continue to be the part of any discussion should

0:08:36.760 --> 0:08:40.400
<v Speaker 1>we see an additional Supreme Court vacancy. I think, uh.

0:08:40.520 --> 0:08:44.600
<v Speaker 1>Professor Amy Barrett is someone who one would think would

0:08:44.640 --> 0:08:46.480
<v Speaker 1>become part of that discussion as well. I mean, she

0:08:46.600 --> 0:08:50.320
<v Speaker 1>is an incredibly well regarded academic, incredibly thoughtful and intelligent

0:08:50.920 --> 0:08:55.000
<v Speaker 1>UM with a really an impressive record, UM, a former

0:08:55.000 --> 0:08:58.000
<v Speaker 1>SCHOOLI A clerk. I would would not be at all

0:08:58.040 --> 0:09:01.000
<v Speaker 1>surprised to see her as part of that discussion as well.

0:09:01.600 --> 0:09:04.600
<v Speaker 1>Um uh. And I think all of the Pelt nominees

0:09:04.640 --> 0:09:07.599
<v Speaker 1>are people who not only have qualifications, but are the

0:09:07.679 --> 0:09:10.880
<v Speaker 1>sorts of people that one would expect to write influential

0:09:10.880 --> 0:09:14.600
<v Speaker 1>opinions and to have an influence on their circuits, UM

0:09:14.640 --> 0:09:19.360
<v Speaker 1>and their colleagues. Billy, If the Democrats think that there

0:09:19.559 --> 0:09:23.120
<v Speaker 1>is let's say, one of these judges who is potentially

0:09:23.120 --> 0:09:26.640
<v Speaker 1>getting set up to be put on the Supreme Court, Um,

0:09:26.720 --> 0:09:29.280
<v Speaker 1>what kind of and given that there's no filibuster anymore

0:09:29.360 --> 0:09:31.720
<v Speaker 1>for this, what what kind of tactics? You know, you

0:09:31.760 --> 0:09:33.640
<v Speaker 1>mentioned the home state senators are going to look closely

0:09:33.679 --> 0:09:35.360
<v Speaker 1>at them, But what kind of tactics can we expect

0:09:35.440 --> 0:09:37.800
<v Speaker 1>Democrats to try to mount when they think somebody is

0:09:37.840 --> 0:09:40.600
<v Speaker 1>really going to be a problem. Well, I mean, I

0:09:40.600 --> 0:09:46.079
<v Speaker 1>think sure. The I mean there's a century long tradition

0:09:46.360 --> 0:09:49.280
<v Speaker 1>of who requiring home state senators to sign off on

0:09:49.360 --> 0:09:53.280
<v Speaker 1>nominees from their states. UM Chairman Grassley has respected this

0:09:53.360 --> 0:09:55.720
<v Speaker 1>process in the past, and I think that that's an

0:09:55.760 --> 0:09:58.960
<v Speaker 1>opportunity for Democrats in those states to really make their

0:09:59.000 --> 0:10:03.200
<v Speaker 1>feelings known. Um, they're Democratic senators in Michigan and Minnesota

0:10:03.200 --> 0:10:06.240
<v Speaker 1>where David Straws is from. Who I think I might

0:10:06.280 --> 0:10:09.480
<v Speaker 1>have something to say about the records of those two nominees.

0:10:10.600 --> 0:10:12.800
<v Speaker 1>Jenna than we have only about a minute left or so,

0:10:12.880 --> 0:10:16.240
<v Speaker 1>but I'm I'm interested. Um, are we inevitably moving towards

0:10:16.240 --> 0:10:18.080
<v Speaker 1>the world or maybe not inevitably, but are we moving

0:10:18.080 --> 0:10:21.199
<v Speaker 1>towards a world where we're going to have Republican judges

0:10:21.280 --> 0:10:24.719
<v Speaker 1>and democratic judges? It seems as though both sides are

0:10:24.720 --> 0:10:29.160
<v Speaker 1>getting better and better in the Trumpet administration, quite proficient

0:10:29.280 --> 0:10:33.640
<v Speaker 1>at selecting people who are are you know, likely to

0:10:33.679 --> 0:10:37.560
<v Speaker 1>agree with their party on on issues. Going forward, I

0:10:37.600 --> 0:10:40.480
<v Speaker 1>actually think the end of the filibuster for judicial nominations

0:10:40.520 --> 0:10:42.719
<v Speaker 1>could actually have the opposite effect. I think we will

0:10:42.760 --> 0:10:47.080
<v Speaker 1>make it easier for presidential administrations of both parties to

0:10:47.120 --> 0:10:50.800
<v Speaker 1>select people who have not only sound judicial temperament, but

0:10:50.880 --> 0:10:55.800
<v Speaker 1>that are intellectually independent and are willing to apply independent judgment,

0:10:55.840 --> 0:10:58.480
<v Speaker 1>they'll be less likely to feel they have to pick

0:10:58.520 --> 0:11:00.720
<v Speaker 1>stealth nominees who have worked our way up through the

0:11:00.720 --> 0:11:05.360
<v Speaker 1>party process and party organization, and more willing to pick

0:11:05.440 --> 0:11:08.440
<v Speaker 1>people that have really just demonstrated excellence. I think that

0:11:08.480 --> 0:11:11.160
<v Speaker 1>means the range of experiences we could see from nominees

0:11:11.720 --> 0:11:14.559
<v Speaker 1>will increase, and I think over time it will actually

0:11:14.600 --> 0:11:17.720
<v Speaker 1>lead to a more diverse and in many respects, less

0:11:17.720 --> 0:11:21.480
<v Speaker 1>partisan judiciary. Our thanks to Jonathan Adler, a professor at

0:11:21.480 --> 0:11:24.079
<v Speaker 1>Case Western Reserve Law School, and also to Billy Courrier,

0:11:24.360 --> 0:11:28.280
<v Speaker 1>deputy director of Legal Progress at the Center for American Progress,

0:11:28.320 --> 0:11:30.280
<v Speaker 1>for being with us in Bloomberg allowed to talk about

0:11:30.679 --> 0:11:33.760
<v Speaker 1>the first batch of judicial nominations to the lower federal

0:11:33.760 --> 0:11:36.360
<v Speaker 1>courts that's going to be made by President Trump