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

2
00:00:10,800 --> 00:00:14,360
Speaker 1: President Biden and the Democratic led Senate confirmed a diverse

3
00:00:14,480 --> 00:00:18,880
Speaker 1: slate of forty district and appellate judges in one beating

4
00:00:18,880 --> 00:00:22,360
Speaker 1: out the first year totals for every president since Ronald Reagan.

5
00:00:22,880 --> 00:00:26,080
Speaker 1: He diversified the bench, doubling the number of black women

6
00:00:26,120 --> 00:00:29,960
Speaker 1: at the circuit court level. Of those nominees, twenty were Black,

7
00:00:30,080 --> 00:00:34,239
Speaker 1: fourteen were Hispanic or Latino, thirteen were Asian American and

8
00:00:34,320 --> 00:00:38,159
Speaker 1: Pacific Islander, and three were Native American. And there were

9
00:00:38,159 --> 00:00:42,239
Speaker 1: a number of firsts, the first openly LGBT woman appointed

10
00:00:42,280 --> 00:00:45,199
Speaker 1: to a federal circuit court, the first black judge on

11
00:00:45,240 --> 00:00:48,720
Speaker 1: the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the first Asian American

12
00:00:48,760 --> 00:00:51,320
Speaker 1: woman on the d C Circuit Court, and the first

13
00:00:51,400 --> 00:00:55,800
Speaker 1: Muslim federal judge. But Biden will face more challenges getting

14
00:00:55,840 --> 00:01:01,120
Speaker 1: judges confirmed in two especially since could be a closing

15
00:01:01,160 --> 00:01:05,480
Speaker 1: window after the mid term elections period. Discuss those challenges

16
00:01:05,520 --> 00:01:10,440
Speaker 1: as Bloomberg Law. Reporter Medisine Alder tell us broadly, what

17
00:01:10,640 --> 00:01:14,920
Speaker 1: has Biden accomplished as far as judicial vacancies in his

18
00:01:15,040 --> 00:01:19,200
Speaker 1: first year. I'm not a historic here of judicial nomination

19
00:01:20,760 --> 00:01:24,160
Speaker 1: he confirmed with the help of Democratic lead Senate, forty

20
00:01:24,280 --> 00:01:28,280
Speaker 1: district and appellate judges, which is the most of any

21
00:01:28,319 --> 00:01:31,720
Speaker 1: modern president since Ronald Reagan. And a lot of those

22
00:01:31,760 --> 00:01:36,200
Speaker 1: nominees were very diverse. They brought both professional and demographic

23
00:01:36,200 --> 00:01:39,800
Speaker 1: diversity to their respective courts, which was a really big

24
00:01:39,840 --> 00:01:43,280
Speaker 1: priority for the Biden administration as well. So tell us

25
00:01:43,319 --> 00:01:47,240
Speaker 1: about the different kinds of diversity. So in addition to

26
00:01:47,760 --> 00:01:52,480
Speaker 1: demographic diversity, you know, Biden has prioritized nominating people who

27
00:01:52,520 --> 00:01:57,160
Speaker 1: don't have a traditional path to the bench professionally. That

28
00:01:57,240 --> 00:02:01,120
Speaker 1: includes people who have experienced as public defenders. It's probably

29
00:02:01,160 --> 00:02:04,680
Speaker 1: the biggest group. About of his nominees so far have

30
00:02:04,720 --> 00:02:08,720
Speaker 1: has some public defense experience, according to the Alliance for Justice,

31
00:02:08,720 --> 00:02:13,519
Speaker 1: which is the progressive legal um advocacy group, And that

32
00:02:13,600 --> 00:02:17,240
Speaker 1: means that Biden's nominees are kind of unique in this way,

33
00:02:17,840 --> 00:02:20,600
Speaker 1: you know, particular to him and in this administration. They're

34
00:02:20,639 --> 00:02:24,440
Speaker 1: not just demographically diverse. So many of them women, many

35
00:02:24,480 --> 00:02:26,240
Speaker 1: of them have been women of color. They also have

36
00:02:26,360 --> 00:02:30,760
Speaker 1: this added factor of having a background that is very

37
00:02:30,800 --> 00:02:34,920
Speaker 1: different for the federal judiciary. So were the progressive groups

38
00:02:35,000 --> 00:02:39,200
Speaker 1: happy about this, where they pleased with his progress. Biden

39
00:02:39,240 --> 00:02:44,000
Speaker 1: has largely met expectations from progressives in terms of the

40
00:02:44,040 --> 00:02:47,880
Speaker 1: diversity of his nominees. At the beginning of the administration,

41
00:02:48,000 --> 00:02:52,760
Speaker 1: progressives really hopeful that Biden would bring more diversity to

42
00:02:52,800 --> 00:02:55,680
Speaker 1: the federal judiciary and do it quickly, considering that he

43
00:02:55,760 --> 00:02:59,800
Speaker 1: has experience as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

44
00:02:59,800 --> 00:03:03,000
Speaker 1: He's the nominations on the other side of of this

45
00:03:03,160 --> 00:03:06,040
Speaker 1: before so um they were really hopeful that he would

46
00:03:06,120 --> 00:03:08,880
Speaker 1: make good on on these promises and efforts. And then

47
00:03:09,080 --> 00:03:12,400
Speaker 1: White House Consuladina Remis laid out to Democrats early on

48
00:03:12,520 --> 00:03:17,480
Speaker 1: the administration that they wanted more demographic diversity, more professional diversity,

49
00:03:18,000 --> 00:03:23,080
Speaker 1: and I think progressive groups have have largely been pretty

50
00:03:23,080 --> 00:03:25,600
Speaker 1: pleased with with the way the Biden handled his first year.

51
00:03:26,360 --> 00:03:32,400
Speaker 1: So though of the nominees were Hispanic or Latino, some

52
00:03:32,600 --> 00:03:37,840
Speaker 1: Hispanic and Latino groups express frustration with that. The Mexican

53
00:03:37,880 --> 00:03:42,320
Speaker 1: American Legal Defense and Educational Fund was disappointed with Biden's

54
00:03:42,320 --> 00:03:46,840
Speaker 1: decision to announce intent to nominate Michelle Child to the

55
00:03:46,920 --> 00:03:49,800
Speaker 1: DC Circuit. This is the second DC circuit they can

56
00:03:49,840 --> 00:03:52,080
Speaker 1: see that Biden has had opened. The DC circuit is

57
00:03:52,120 --> 00:03:55,560
Speaker 1: obviously a very important court um often seen as the

58
00:03:55,600 --> 00:03:59,320
Speaker 1: second highest court in lance the Supreme Court. And Mulda

59
00:03:59,520 --> 00:04:03,080
Speaker 1: was really hoping to see the first Latino nominated the

60
00:04:03,160 --> 00:04:05,480
Speaker 1: DC Circuit. This would have been the first in history.

61
00:04:06,000 --> 00:04:09,120
Speaker 1: And I spoke to Thomas Science, who's the President General

62
00:04:09,120 --> 00:04:12,160
Speaker 1: Council of Maldus. He says that they forwarded nominations for

63
00:04:12,200 --> 00:04:15,000
Speaker 1: the White House. They were talking to them, but ultimately

64
00:04:15,440 --> 00:04:19,240
Speaker 1: Michelle Child, who is a black woman, was the intended nominee.

65
00:04:19,600 --> 00:04:24,080
Speaker 1: They're disappointed with this. They're also disappointed with the nominations

66
00:04:24,120 --> 00:04:28,560
Speaker 1: to one of the California district courts, which they believed

67
00:04:28,640 --> 00:04:32,800
Speaker 1: didn't include as many Hispanic and Latino nominees as as

68
00:04:32,839 --> 00:04:34,760
Speaker 1: it could have. So they'd like to see more of

69
00:04:34,760 --> 00:04:39,120
Speaker 1: this in two and Science told me that there are

70
00:04:39,120 --> 00:04:43,239
Speaker 1: certainly seats that they're they're going to be watching for

71
00:04:43,240 --> 00:04:46,560
Speaker 1: for Hispanic and Latino nominees. And certainly there were a

72
00:04:46,560 --> 00:04:51,040
Speaker 1: lot of first in terms of judicial appointments, the first

73
00:04:51,160 --> 00:04:56,200
Speaker 1: openly LGBT woman on a federal circuit court, the first

74
00:04:56,200 --> 00:04:59,839
Speaker 1: black judge on the Federal Court of Appeals, the first

75
00:05:00,040 --> 00:05:03,600
Speaker 1: Muslim federal judge, to name a few. But there are

76
00:05:03,720 --> 00:05:08,960
Speaker 1: still possibilities for more first, so tell us about correct.

77
00:05:09,720 --> 00:05:14,600
Speaker 1: Jill dash the American Constitution Society told me that she's

78
00:05:14,640 --> 00:05:18,200
Speaker 1: going to be looking for Biden to increase diversity, naming

79
00:05:18,200 --> 00:05:23,120
Speaker 1: more LGBT, fugh lawyers, labor side attorneys. But also she's

80
00:05:23,120 --> 00:05:26,760
Speaker 1: gonna be watching for vacancies on the third Circuit, which

81
00:05:26,800 --> 00:05:30,000
Speaker 1: has never had a black woman before, and the District

82
00:05:30,000 --> 00:05:32,080
Speaker 1: of Idaho, which has never had a female judge in

83
00:05:32,080 --> 00:05:36,599
Speaker 1: its history. Some are calling for nominees who are disabled

84
00:05:37,000 --> 00:05:40,920
Speaker 1: or who have the background in disability law. Rokim brooks Um,

85
00:05:40,960 --> 00:05:44,040
Speaker 1: president of the progressive judicial advocacy group Alliance for Justice,

86
00:05:44,120 --> 00:05:48,600
Speaker 1: told me that he's looking for more nominees are some

87
00:05:48,680 --> 00:05:51,760
Speaker 1: of the first cominies that would have experience and disability

88
00:05:51,839 --> 00:05:55,400
Speaker 1: law or ours themselves disabled. That's going to be another

89
00:05:55,480 --> 00:05:59,240
Speaker 1: group of of nominees that that Biden could pull firm

90
00:05:59,240 --> 00:06:02,680
Speaker 1: for the first time into two. Let's talk about the

91
00:06:02,720 --> 00:06:08,040
Speaker 1: fact that the overwhelming majority of his nominees so far

92
00:06:08,160 --> 00:06:12,239
Speaker 1: we're in states represented by two Democrats in the Senate.

93
00:06:12,760 --> 00:06:17,480
Speaker 1: Explain the blue slip procedure. The blue slip rule is

94
00:06:18,120 --> 00:06:21,600
Speaker 1: a practice in the Senate in which home state senators

95
00:06:21,760 --> 00:06:26,120
Speaker 1: signify their support for a nominee in their state. In

96
00:06:26,800 --> 00:06:30,400
Speaker 1: Under the last administration, the Republican led Senate did away

97
00:06:30,440 --> 00:06:33,480
Speaker 1: with this rule for for circuit court appointments. They stopped

98
00:06:33,520 --> 00:06:36,240
Speaker 1: treating it like a veto. Democrats have said that they're

99
00:06:36,279 --> 00:06:38,880
Speaker 1: doing the same thing this time around now that they're

100
00:06:39,000 --> 00:06:43,120
Speaker 1: in the majority, and that means that at the district

101
00:06:43,160 --> 00:06:45,960
Speaker 1: court level, blue state seats are going to be the

102
00:06:45,960 --> 00:06:49,520
Speaker 1: easiest ones for Biden to work with. He might have

103
00:06:49,600 --> 00:06:52,880
Speaker 1: to negotiate more with states that have at least one

104
00:06:52,920 --> 00:06:56,440
Speaker 1: Republican senator. That there has been a nomination to a

105
00:06:56,720 --> 00:06:59,680
Speaker 1: district court seat in Ohio, which has a long history

106
00:06:59,720 --> 00:07:03,720
Speaker 1: of partisan collaboration between the two senators there, one Democrat

107
00:07:03,760 --> 00:07:07,400
Speaker 1: and one Republican, and then there has been a nomination

108
00:07:07,440 --> 00:07:10,280
Speaker 1: at the circuit court level to a red state, which

109
00:07:10,320 --> 00:07:13,840
Speaker 1: is Tennessee, that is andre massive for the sixth circuits.

110
00:07:14,040 --> 00:07:20,680
Speaker 1: Is Biden just shying away from confrontations with Republican senators

111
00:07:20,880 --> 00:07:24,520
Speaker 1: or are there other reasons why he hasn't been moving

112
00:07:24,640 --> 00:07:29,480
Speaker 1: forward in states with Republican senators. There's different opinions about this.

113
00:07:29,720 --> 00:07:32,080
Speaker 1: I don't think it's clear necessarily what the Biden administration

114
00:07:32,160 --> 00:07:34,400
Speaker 1: is doing at this point. But you know, sources that

115
00:07:34,440 --> 00:07:37,400
Speaker 1: watch this process closely have told me that the bind

116
00:07:37,400 --> 00:07:40,480
Speaker 1: administration could just be dealing with low hanging fruit, dealing

117
00:07:40,480 --> 00:07:43,240
Speaker 1: with circuit court vacancies and district court vacancies in blue

118
00:07:43,280 --> 00:07:46,720
Speaker 1: states in the first year. But there are vacancies in

119
00:07:47,160 --> 00:07:49,800
Speaker 1: in red states and purple states, both at the district

120
00:07:49,840 --> 00:07:52,920
Speaker 1: and circuit court level, that Biden will probably have to

121
00:07:53,000 --> 00:07:56,880
Speaker 1: deal with in which could create a bit more difficulty

122
00:07:57,120 --> 00:08:01,000
Speaker 1: in judicial nominations for for this year. U nine Mathis

123
00:08:01,000 --> 00:08:03,800
Speaker 1: for the Tennessee seat on the sixth Circuit. Tell us

124
00:08:03,840 --> 00:08:07,040
Speaker 1: what happened there was a problem when he made a

125
00:08:07,080 --> 00:08:11,800
Speaker 1: nomination in a red state, Right Andre Mathis, Biden's first

126
00:08:11,840 --> 00:08:15,760
Speaker 1: nominee to a red state. We contented criticism from the

127
00:08:16,200 --> 00:08:20,200
Speaker 1: two Republican senators there because they didn't feel they were

128
00:08:20,240 --> 00:08:25,120
Speaker 1: consulted on the nomination. The White House definitely responded to this.

129
00:08:25,200 --> 00:08:28,360
Speaker 1: They said that that they had consulted with the Tennessee

130
00:08:28,440 --> 00:08:31,440
Speaker 1: senators meaningfully. So so there is a bit of a

131
00:08:31,480 --> 00:08:35,360
Speaker 1: disagreement there. But what the disagreement between the White House

132
00:08:35,400 --> 00:08:37,960
Speaker 1: and the senators really highlights is the difficulty the Biden

133
00:08:38,000 --> 00:08:40,960
Speaker 1: couldn't be approaching with other circuit seats if they're if

134
00:08:40,960 --> 00:08:45,120
Speaker 1: they're choosing to negotiate, but also a district seats could

135
00:08:45,280 --> 00:08:48,720
Speaker 1: be an impediment to those which still for all intents

136
00:08:48,720 --> 00:08:52,880
Speaker 1: and purposes, require blue slips from from home state senators,

137
00:08:52,880 --> 00:08:56,720
Speaker 1: though Senator Servant, who is the chairman of the of

138
00:08:56,760 --> 00:09:00,800
Speaker 1: the Judiciary Committee, has said that he would potentially do

139
00:09:00,880 --> 00:09:05,320
Speaker 1: away with blue flips if Republicans are are objecting the process. UM,

140
00:09:05,360 --> 00:09:07,719
Speaker 1: and that's going to be a call that the Democrats make,

141
00:09:08,200 --> 00:09:13,640
Speaker 1: and there's an urgency to fill these slots in two

142
00:09:14,200 --> 00:09:17,640
Speaker 1: before the Senate may change hands. And that's an added

143
00:09:17,640 --> 00:09:23,079
Speaker 1: pressure in two for the Biden administration if Democrats lose

144
00:09:23,120 --> 00:09:26,160
Speaker 1: the Senate during mid terms UM, or even just the

145
00:09:26,200 --> 00:09:30,120
Speaker 1: pressure that the midterm elections will will put on members

146
00:09:30,120 --> 00:09:34,200
Speaker 1: of Congress UM. That's just another factor that's playing out

147
00:09:34,240 --> 00:09:38,560
Speaker 1: in the background for nominations this year. The Biden administration

148
00:09:38,600 --> 00:09:41,880
Speaker 1: has been moving very quickly, but they'll likely have to

149
00:09:41,920 --> 00:09:45,400
Speaker 1: maintain the pace this year UM with mid terms potentially

150
00:09:45,400 --> 00:09:48,319
Speaker 1: threatening their splin Senate majority. You talked to Ed Wheeland

151
00:09:48,320 --> 00:09:51,079
Speaker 1: of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and he said

152
00:09:51,760 --> 00:09:54,880
Speaker 1: he's delivered on his adversity promise. I think he said

153
00:09:54,880 --> 00:09:58,240
Speaker 1: a bar so high, I'd be surprised if he's able

154
00:09:58,280 --> 00:10:01,840
Speaker 1: to maintain it. Well. Biden's diversity with his nominees in

155
00:10:01,840 --> 00:10:06,880
Speaker 1: this first year has been pretty remarkable, and especially you

156
00:10:07,040 --> 00:10:11,920
Speaker 1: take into account professional diversity and demographic diversity. UM So,

157
00:10:12,160 --> 00:10:14,880
Speaker 1: I think what um Ed Whelan is saying here is

158
00:10:14,960 --> 00:10:17,880
Speaker 1: that you know, in year two, Um Biden is said

159
00:10:18,080 --> 00:10:21,679
Speaker 1: quite a high bar for himself. Uh. And we'll have

160
00:10:21,720 --> 00:10:25,600
Speaker 1: other factors to take into account in two as groups

161
00:10:25,920 --> 00:10:27,960
Speaker 1: on the left are pushing for Biden to even further

162
00:10:28,120 --> 00:10:33,360
Speaker 1: diversify his nominations. So now there's one area where Biden

163
00:10:33,440 --> 00:10:36,280
Speaker 1: has not been able to make any appointments, and that

164
00:10:36,480 --> 00:10:40,160
Speaker 1: is the Supreme Court. People are looking again at Justice

165
00:10:40,240 --> 00:10:44,840
Speaker 1: Brier to see if he'll retire before the midterms. Have

166
00:10:44,960 --> 00:10:48,439
Speaker 1: we heard anything at all, If we've heard anything, if

167
00:10:48,480 --> 00:10:52,360
Speaker 1: it hasn't gotten to me yet, Justice Brier is going

168
00:10:52,440 --> 00:10:54,800
Speaker 1: to be the one that has to make this decision ultimately,

169
00:10:54,840 --> 00:10:59,680
Speaker 1: but progress that they're very hopeful. Uh, he will decide

170
00:10:59,760 --> 00:11:02,840
Speaker 1: to retire at the end of this firm, and Biden

171
00:11:02,880 --> 00:11:06,880
Speaker 1: would have a Supreme Court appointment before the midterms. He's

172
00:11:06,920 --> 00:11:09,480
Speaker 1: indicated that he will put a black woman on the

173
00:11:09,520 --> 00:11:14,600
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Has he mentioned any names. Biden hasn't mentioned

174
00:11:14,640 --> 00:11:18,520
Speaker 1: any names publicly, but Biden doubled the number of black

175
00:11:18,559 --> 00:11:22,520
Speaker 1: women judges at the circuit court level in um was

176
00:11:22,640 --> 00:11:27,480
Speaker 1: his first four circuit court appointments. Um, so he's he's

177
00:11:27,480 --> 00:11:30,720
Speaker 1: definitely building that that pipeline. And then two of those

178
00:11:30,960 --> 00:11:33,320
Speaker 1: um or I should say, one of those nominees who's

179
00:11:33,320 --> 00:11:38,480
Speaker 1: been confirmed, Umkatanti Brown Jackson has thought of as a

180
00:11:38,520 --> 00:11:42,040
Speaker 1: candidate potentially if there were Supreme Court vacancy. And then

181
00:11:42,440 --> 00:11:48,040
Speaker 1: Biden's nominee for the DC Circuit Michelle child Um, who

182
00:11:48,120 --> 00:11:51,280
Speaker 1: has yet to be formally nominated. She is also seen

183
00:11:51,360 --> 00:11:55,680
Speaker 1: as a potential candidate for a vacancy. So um, he's

184
00:11:55,720 --> 00:11:57,960
Speaker 1: he's definitely building that pipe. One. So it looks like

185
00:11:58,000 --> 00:12:01,840
Speaker 1: it's going to be another interesting knee year of judicial nominations.

186
00:12:02,400 --> 00:12:06,400
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Madison. That's Bloomberg Law reporter Medicine alder.

187
00:12:08,080 --> 00:12:12,360
Speaker 1: As the Supreme Court faces calls for broader structural changes,

188
00:12:12,920 --> 00:12:17,280
Speaker 1: Chief Justice John Roberts stressed the importance of judicial independence

189
00:12:17,320 --> 00:12:21,319
Speaker 1: from congressional mandates in his annual Year and Report released

190
00:12:21,320 --> 00:12:25,200
Speaker 1: on Friday. Joining me is Professor Harold Crent of Chicago

191
00:12:25,280 --> 00:12:29,520
Speaker 1: Kent College of Law. In the face of what some

192
00:12:29,600 --> 00:12:33,600
Speaker 1: would call a legitimacy crisis for the courts, and particularly

193
00:12:33,640 --> 00:12:37,959
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court is facing some of its lowest approval numbers.

194
00:12:38,400 --> 00:12:42,120
Speaker 1: Did the Chief address that. The Chief to not address

195
00:12:42,200 --> 00:12:45,360
Speaker 1: the importance of an independent judiciary and the importance of

196
00:12:45,640 --> 00:12:49,319
Speaker 1: public having faith in judiciary directly. What he did instead

197
00:12:49,800 --> 00:12:54,719
Speaker 1: was trying to parry pending efforts of Congress to regulate

198
00:12:54,960 --> 00:12:59,240
Speaker 1: the judiciary. And he did that directly by saying, we

199
00:12:59,320 --> 00:13:01,960
Speaker 1: have the ability to put our own house and order,

200
00:13:02,240 --> 00:13:07,320
Speaker 1: by beefing up efforts to combat ethics stylations, by beefing

201
00:13:07,360 --> 00:13:11,280
Speaker 1: up efforts to combat any kind of workplace harassment. So

202
00:13:11,400 --> 00:13:14,920
Speaker 1: Congress hands off, You don't need to regulate us. We

203
00:13:15,000 --> 00:13:20,000
Speaker 1: can more effectually regulate ourselves in the long run. What

204
00:13:20,040 --> 00:13:24,440
Speaker 1: he was trying to do was emphasized the importance of

205
00:13:24,480 --> 00:13:29,360
Speaker 1: an independent judiciary apart from any kind of congressional regulation.

206
00:13:29,800 --> 00:13:34,160
Speaker 1: The two issues that he concentrated on, how the judiciary

207
00:13:34,200 --> 00:13:39,600
Speaker 1: handles financial disclosures and workplace harassment. Those are issues that

208
00:13:39,640 --> 00:13:43,360
Speaker 1: the judiciary has faced for quite some time. Has it

209
00:13:43,480 --> 00:13:47,480
Speaker 1: shown it's capable of policing itself. Well, there have been

210
00:13:47,520 --> 00:13:52,079
Speaker 1: efforts by the judiciary to take complaints with respect to

211
00:13:52,160 --> 00:13:57,160
Speaker 1: judicial misconduct. Indeed, Congress set up a statute in to

212
00:13:57,400 --> 00:14:01,480
Speaker 1: allow judges and to organize judges to receive complaints of

213
00:14:01,520 --> 00:14:04,880
Speaker 1: wrongdoing about their fellow judges and follow a process of

214
00:14:04,960 --> 00:14:09,920
Speaker 1: inquiry and ultimate sanction. But obviously there are still problems

215
00:14:09,920 --> 00:14:13,560
Speaker 1: that happened, and most notably there was a Ninth Circuit judge,

216
00:14:13,640 --> 00:14:20,240
Speaker 1: Judge Kozinski, who was accused of serious sexual peccadillos um

217
00:14:20,320 --> 00:14:23,640
Speaker 1: and was forced to resign a number of years ago. Obviously,

218
00:14:23,720 --> 00:14:26,960
Speaker 1: we don't know about other kinds of complaints that are continuing,

219
00:14:27,360 --> 00:14:31,160
Speaker 1: but there are some. And I think what the chief

220
00:14:31,280 --> 00:14:34,120
Speaker 1: was saying is we're not perfect, and we knew we

221
00:14:34,160 --> 00:14:36,960
Speaker 1: do need to take more efforts, but we've done a

222
00:14:36,960 --> 00:14:40,200
Speaker 1: pretty good job so far. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong,

223
00:14:40,240 --> 00:14:43,240
Speaker 1: but that's the tone of his message. He referred to

224
00:14:43,240 --> 00:14:47,680
Speaker 1: a Wall Street Journal investigation that found hundreds of instances

225
00:14:47,760 --> 00:14:53,720
Speaker 1: where judges presided over cases involving companies that they or

226
00:14:53,760 --> 00:14:57,400
Speaker 1: their relatives held stock in, but the journals that it's

227
00:14:57,440 --> 00:15:02,000
Speaker 1: subsequent reporting found that the actual number of cases was

228
00:15:02,160 --> 00:15:07,760
Speaker 1: significantly higher, with at least nine and fifty recusal violations.

229
00:15:08,400 --> 00:15:12,840
Speaker 1: Is anyone policing whether or not judges step down when

230
00:15:12,880 --> 00:15:17,360
Speaker 1: there's a conflict of interest? Well, the judicial the mystery

231
00:15:17,360 --> 00:15:19,360
Speaker 1: of office, the u S courts, and the didicitial confidence

232
00:15:19,640 --> 00:15:24,760
Speaker 1: should be exercising their oversight authority to gauge whether there

233
00:15:24,800 --> 00:15:28,120
Speaker 1: are such kinds of failures to recuse. I do want

234
00:15:28,160 --> 00:15:32,960
Speaker 1: to add that a lot of these recusal um requirements

235
00:15:33,040 --> 00:15:36,760
Speaker 1: are formalistic, and by that I mean if someone owns

236
00:15:36,760 --> 00:15:38,800
Speaker 1: a share of stock or five share of stock, even

237
00:15:38,840 --> 00:15:42,920
Speaker 1: if it's an unutual fund um, one should we choose oneself.

238
00:15:42,960 --> 00:15:45,440
Speaker 1: And obviously we don't usually think that a judge will

239
00:15:45,480 --> 00:15:49,560
Speaker 1: be biased because of owning five shares of stock and

240
00:15:49,680 --> 00:15:53,320
Speaker 1: some kind of mutual fund, but nonetheless they're important. Um.

241
00:15:53,360 --> 00:15:56,680
Speaker 1: The Chief Justice Roberts recognizes that those rules, even if

242
00:15:56,680 --> 00:16:01,560
Speaker 1: they are formalistic, are important to prevent financial influence from

243
00:16:01,720 --> 00:16:04,160
Speaker 1: entering the fray and from making sure the public has

244
00:16:04,240 --> 00:16:06,840
Speaker 1: faith in the judiciary, and so he is pledged to

245
00:16:06,920 --> 00:16:11,840
Speaker 1: work with the Judicial Conference to improve technology to help

246
00:16:11,960 --> 00:16:16,040
Speaker 1: enforce these requirements more stringently. So do I think this

247
00:16:16,160 --> 00:16:21,680
Speaker 1: is the most serious violation of judicial independence? I don't UM.

248
00:16:21,800 --> 00:16:24,320
Speaker 1: But I do think that that Walsing journal was right

249
00:16:24,360 --> 00:16:28,200
Speaker 1: to call out the judiciary UM, and the judiciary should

250
00:16:28,280 --> 00:16:31,760
Speaker 1: redouble its efforts in order to prevent that kind of

251
00:16:32,400 --> 00:16:36,120
Speaker 1: The Chief was as one of three justices who have

252
00:16:36,520 --> 00:16:39,680
Speaker 1: had to recuse themselves because they found out that they

253
00:16:39,720 --> 00:16:43,960
Speaker 1: own stock in a company. Is the question whether judges

254
00:16:44,000 --> 00:16:48,520
Speaker 1: should own stock in individual companies at all? Well, it's

255
00:16:48,560 --> 00:16:52,960
Speaker 1: difficult in this day and age, given their companies operate

256
00:16:53,080 --> 00:16:58,040
Speaker 1: under different names and their um internationally connected in different ways,

257
00:16:58,320 --> 00:17:02,960
Speaker 1: to really figure out how to police against financial interests

258
00:17:02,960 --> 00:17:05,800
Speaker 1: in a in a proceeding. Some people have recommended that

259
00:17:05,840 --> 00:17:09,879
Speaker 1: there's a blind trust that once you're a president or

260
00:17:10,080 --> 00:17:14,159
Speaker 1: a judge, that you should have somebody else to manage

261
00:17:14,200 --> 00:17:17,679
Speaker 1: your money so that you can't possibly be, you know,

262
00:17:17,720 --> 00:17:22,159
Speaker 1: affected by some kind of financial bias. And I do

263
00:17:22,280 --> 00:17:24,760
Speaker 1: think that this we try to draw the line to

264
00:17:24,960 --> 00:17:29,520
Speaker 1: prevent very clearly. Uh, But really in some ways it's

265
00:17:29,560 --> 00:17:33,920
Speaker 1: a over enforcement because I don't think that owning, you know,

266
00:17:34,359 --> 00:17:36,960
Speaker 1: fifty shares of stock point five shares of stock in

267
00:17:37,000 --> 00:17:43,200
Speaker 1: an entire portfolio will really change someone's perspective on the vote.

268
00:17:43,280 --> 00:17:45,560
Speaker 1: And sometimes people don't even know the stock that they

269
00:17:45,560 --> 00:17:50,000
Speaker 1: own just because it's owned in some kind of mutual funds.

270
00:17:50,400 --> 00:17:54,160
Speaker 1: So it is a problem given financial holdings what they are.

271
00:17:54,640 --> 00:17:59,520
Speaker 1: And I do think that better technology and more rigorous

272
00:17:59,600 --> 00:18:02,800
Speaker 1: enforce ment is appropriate, But I don't think that our

273
00:18:02,880 --> 00:18:07,520
Speaker 1: judiciary is riddled with financial self interest. Does the judiciary

274
00:18:07,600 --> 00:18:10,640
Speaker 1: have an ethics code? Does the Supreme Court have an

275
00:18:10,640 --> 00:18:14,080
Speaker 1: ethics code? Well, there is a I don't believe that

276
00:18:14,119 --> 00:18:17,240
Speaker 1: there's an ethical code specific the Supreme Corporate. There certainly

277
00:18:17,280 --> 00:18:21,439
Speaker 1: is an ethics code for the judiciary, and the Judicial

278
00:18:21,480 --> 00:18:25,760
Speaker 1: Conference does can pass um rules that had past rules

279
00:18:26,000 --> 00:18:30,720
Speaker 1: or to maintain the highest sort of level of professionalism

280
00:18:30,760 --> 00:18:34,240
Speaker 1: amongst the court. One of the things that the report

281
00:18:34,320 --> 00:18:38,560
Speaker 1: does indicate, though, that there has historically been we might

282
00:18:38,640 --> 00:18:42,439
Speaker 1: call incivility, we might cause sort of those kinds of

283
00:18:42,920 --> 00:18:47,520
Speaker 1: petty uh problems that happen in the workplace. And there

284
00:18:47,560 --> 00:18:51,320
Speaker 1: has not been a great deal of historical attention paid

285
00:18:51,359 --> 00:18:54,840
Speaker 1: to what it means to be civil in terms of

286
00:18:54,960 --> 00:18:59,080
Speaker 1: a judge to a bailiff, or a judge to a

287
00:18:59,119 --> 00:19:03,600
Speaker 1: court clerk or two litigants themselves. And I'm glad that

288
00:19:03,760 --> 00:19:07,280
Speaker 1: at least in some ways Chief Justice roperators giving some

289
00:19:07,359 --> 00:19:12,920
Speaker 1: attention to that by creating task forces to better educate

290
00:19:13,080 --> 00:19:17,400
Speaker 1: and to take complaints from both workers and litigants when

291
00:19:17,600 --> 00:19:25,840
Speaker 1: judges do burst out into profanity or uh criticize what

292
00:19:25,920 --> 00:19:29,439
Speaker 1: someone is wearing, because those kinds of incidents have not

293
00:19:29,640 --> 00:19:35,119
Speaker 1: been police historically, and just by hearsay an anecdote, UM,

294
00:19:35,160 --> 00:19:38,680
Speaker 1: I think they take place far more often than does

295
00:19:38,720 --> 00:19:42,520
Speaker 1: any kind of financial impropriety. When I hear Congress is

296
00:19:42,560 --> 00:19:46,159
Speaker 1: going to establish a task force or any organization is

297
00:19:46,200 --> 00:19:49,280
Speaker 1: going to establish a task force, it just seems like

298
00:19:49,320 --> 00:19:51,880
Speaker 1: that's kicking the can down the road. I mean, what

299
00:19:51,960 --> 00:19:58,120
Speaker 1: do task forces really accomplish. Yeah, sometimes it's information gathering

300
00:19:58,560 --> 00:20:01,080
Speaker 1: and one needs information. But at the same time, there

301
00:20:01,119 --> 00:20:05,199
Speaker 1: are some structures now in place. There are complaints that

302
00:20:05,240 --> 00:20:10,360
Speaker 1: can be filed against judges, and each Circuit Digital Council

303
00:20:10,400 --> 00:20:13,320
Speaker 1: has to have a mechanism for allowing those complaints and

304
00:20:13,320 --> 00:20:18,160
Speaker 1: then for investigating those complaints. So that is actual progress

305
00:20:18,240 --> 00:20:23,400
Speaker 1: it is in place. UM. Whether there is appropriate sensitivity

306
00:20:23,480 --> 00:20:26,959
Speaker 1: training to say to put it that way, um, and

307
00:20:27,000 --> 00:20:28,760
Speaker 1: whether there's a task force to figure out what you

308
00:20:28,840 --> 00:20:31,879
Speaker 1: go into that set sensitivity training, I don't know that.

309
00:20:32,160 --> 00:20:34,280
Speaker 1: I think there's probably more reason to be skeptical of that,

310
00:20:34,440 --> 00:20:37,879
Speaker 1: but again there has been at least some progress made

311
00:20:38,080 --> 00:20:41,640
Speaker 1: that people who are outraged at the behavior of judges,

312
00:20:41,920 --> 00:20:46,040
Speaker 1: whether again employed to employees or lit against, can can

313
00:20:46,280 --> 00:20:50,080
Speaker 1: request some kind of answer and that the councils will

314
00:20:50,119 --> 00:20:54,080
Speaker 1: investigate those kinds of charges. So we're not all the

315
00:20:54,119 --> 00:20:56,920
Speaker 1: way there, but there has been progressed. So now, there

316
00:20:57,000 --> 00:21:02,159
Speaker 1: was legislation that passed the House about judicial financial reporting,

317
00:21:02,960 --> 00:21:05,639
Speaker 1: past the House by a margin of FO two to

318
00:21:05,840 --> 00:21:09,240
Speaker 1: four in December. We'll see what happens in the Senate.

319
00:21:09,560 --> 00:21:14,879
Speaker 1: And there's also separate legislation that would give judiciary workers

320
00:21:14,920 --> 00:21:19,200
Speaker 1: the same anti discrimination rights and whistleblower protections as other

321
00:21:19,400 --> 00:21:24,920
Speaker 1: federal employees. That's pending, but does it seem as if

322
00:21:25,160 --> 00:21:27,000
Speaker 1: something is going to happen. There's going to be some

323
00:21:27,119 --> 00:21:33,320
Speaker 1: legislation passed in the near future regarding the judiciary, and

324
00:21:33,359 --> 00:21:39,919
Speaker 1: the judiciary historically has opposed any kind of extension of

325
00:21:40,040 --> 00:21:45,919
Speaker 1: whistle or statutes or any kind of discrimination statutes to

326
00:21:46,040 --> 00:21:49,000
Speaker 1: the judiciary. Um they want to keep it in House,

327
00:21:49,240 --> 00:21:52,960
Speaker 1: just as Congress does. Congress has been wrote to require

328
00:21:53,000 --> 00:21:57,480
Speaker 1: its own members to fulfill the same kinds of requirements

329
00:21:57,480 --> 00:22:00,840
Speaker 1: as in a private workforce, and I've now there, I

330
00:22:00,880 --> 00:22:05,000
Speaker 1: think that the judiciary maybe on weak ground. I think

331
00:22:05,040 --> 00:22:08,280
Speaker 1: it's probably is appropriate to apply those kinds of antiscremation

332
00:22:08,359 --> 00:22:12,560
Speaker 1: and whistle lower statutes equally to the private sector as

333
00:22:12,600 --> 00:22:16,199
Speaker 1: as to the judiciary and to members of Congress. Were

334
00:22:16,240 --> 00:22:19,840
Speaker 1: there any surprises because the Chief Justice has been talking

335
00:22:19,880 --> 00:22:24,640
Speaker 1: about the importance of the independence of the judiciary as

336
00:22:24,680 --> 00:22:28,320
Speaker 1: long as I can remember. He has been talking about it.

337
00:22:28,400 --> 00:22:32,600
Speaker 1: And what is in some ways disappointing is he ignores

338
00:22:32,680 --> 00:22:35,400
Speaker 1: the big question about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court

339
00:22:35,400 --> 00:22:39,240
Speaker 1: in the public eyes. We know that the public has

340
00:22:39,320 --> 00:22:42,600
Speaker 1: less faith in an independent judiciary than has in sometime

341
00:22:43,160 --> 00:22:46,680
Speaker 1: despite the Chief's efforts. We know that there's greater politicization

342
00:22:46,760 --> 00:22:48,560
Speaker 1: on the court. We know that even the way the

343
00:22:48,680 --> 00:22:53,800
Speaker 1: justices react to issues such as abortion or the the

344
00:22:53,880 --> 00:22:57,920
Speaker 1: right to own guns or voting rights m are very partisan.

345
00:22:58,440 --> 00:23:01,080
Speaker 1: Um and they've they've written in the person away. And

346
00:23:01,160 --> 00:23:05,600
Speaker 1: so this report the ignores the fact that members of

347
00:23:05,720 --> 00:23:10,360
Speaker 1: his own court seem to stand the flames of partisanship,

348
00:23:10,880 --> 00:23:14,320
Speaker 1: and therefore in gender which I mean sort of endanger

349
00:23:14,720 --> 00:23:19,560
Speaker 1: what the Chief himself believes is a large problem confronting

350
00:23:19,560 --> 00:23:23,919
Speaker 1: the judiciary, which is the public's faith in an independent judiciary.

351
00:23:24,359 --> 00:23:27,480
Speaker 1: This term, the Court has taken up a lot of

352
00:23:27,600 --> 00:23:35,320
Speaker 1: controversial social issues, abortion, gun rights, some religion cases. It

353
00:23:35,640 --> 00:23:39,879
Speaker 1: now is taking on the vaccine mandate. Are these cases

354
00:23:39,920 --> 00:23:43,840
Speaker 1: that the Court couldn't avoid or are they deliberately putting

355
00:23:43,880 --> 00:23:49,919
Speaker 1: themselves into the maelstrom of what's happening in society with

356
00:23:50,040 --> 00:23:52,840
Speaker 1: over these issues. I think for the most part, the

357
00:23:52,880 --> 00:23:56,000
Speaker 1: Court is acting appropriately. There are splits in many of

358
00:23:56,080 --> 00:23:58,480
Speaker 1: the circuits on some of these issues, such as the

359
00:23:58,880 --> 00:24:01,919
Speaker 1: both the abortion case as cases as well as the

360
00:24:01,960 --> 00:24:07,080
Speaker 1: Second Amendment cases. Um the vaccination case is very important

361
00:24:07,080 --> 00:24:12,200
Speaker 1: for the Court to address. Uh So I think the Court,

362
00:24:12,400 --> 00:24:17,280
Speaker 1: the most party, is not reaching out to to get

363
00:24:17,320 --> 00:24:21,000
Speaker 1: mired in controversy. What is acting consistently with what it's

364
00:24:21,000 --> 00:24:24,639
Speaker 1: done in the past in terms of when there's a

365
00:24:24,680 --> 00:24:28,520
Speaker 1: split amongst the lower courts resolved that split. And if

366
00:24:28,560 --> 00:24:31,440
Speaker 1: something is very important to the future of the country,

367
00:24:32,119 --> 00:24:39,200
Speaker 1: whether it's the question about the OCEHA and requiring vaccinations,

368
00:24:39,320 --> 00:24:42,360
Speaker 1: or perhaps even it's it's about the subpoenas and the

369
00:24:42,440 --> 00:24:45,919
Speaker 1: January six movement, they should address those issues. And of

370
00:24:45,960 --> 00:24:48,119
Speaker 1: course we're waiting to see whether they'll weigh in on

371
00:24:48,160 --> 00:24:50,720
Speaker 1: the last one or not. And the Justices are going

372
00:24:50,720 --> 00:24:55,480
Speaker 1: to be addressing the vaccine mandate question this Friday in

373
00:24:55,600 --> 00:24:59,640
Speaker 1: the first oral arguments of the term. Thanks Hal, that's

374
00:24:59,640 --> 00:25:02,720
Speaker 1: Harold cranned to professor at the Chicago Kent College of Law,

375
00:25:03,200 --> 00:25:05,440
Speaker 1: and that's if in the edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

376
00:25:05,720 --> 00:25:07,880
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news by

377
00:25:07,880 --> 00:25:10,800
Speaker 1: listening to our Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them

378
00:25:10,800 --> 00:25:15,320
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg dot

379
00:25:15,359 --> 00:25:19,920
Speaker 1: com slash podcast Slash Law. I'm Judie Bronso when you're

380
00:25:19,960 --> 00:25:20,919
Speaker 1: listening to Bloomberg