WEBVTT - Biden's Judicial Nominations Will Get Trickier

0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:07.960
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:10.800 --> 0:00:14.360
<v Speaker 1>President Biden and the Democratic led Senate confirmed a diverse

0:00:14.480 --> 0:00:18.880
<v Speaker 1>slate of forty district and appellate judges in one beating

0:00:18.880 --> 0:00:22.360
<v Speaker 1>out the first year totals for every president since Ronald Reagan.

0:00:22.880 --> 0:00:26.080
<v Speaker 1>He diversified the bench, doubling the number of black women

0:00:26.120 --> 0:00:29.960
<v Speaker 1>at the circuit court level. Of those nominees, twenty were Black,

0:00:30.080 --> 0:00:34.239
<v Speaker 1>fourteen were Hispanic or Latino, thirteen were Asian American and

0:00:34.320 --> 0:00:38.159
<v Speaker 1>Pacific Islander, and three were Native American. And there were

0:00:38.159 --> 0:00:42.239
<v Speaker 1>a number of firsts, the first openly LGBT woman appointed

0:00:42.280 --> 0:00:45.199
<v Speaker 1>to a federal circuit court, the first black judge on

0:00:45.240 --> 0:00:48.720
<v Speaker 1>the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the first Asian American

0:00:48.760 --> 0:00:51.320
<v Speaker 1>woman on the d C Circuit Court, and the first

0:00:51.400 --> 0:00:55.800
<v Speaker 1>Muslim federal judge. But Biden will face more challenges getting

0:00:55.840 --> 0:01:01.120
<v Speaker 1>judges confirmed in two especially since could be a closing

0:01:01.160 --> 0:01:05.480
<v Speaker 1>window after the mid term elections period. Discuss those challenges

0:01:05.520 --> 0:01:10.440
<v Speaker 1>as Bloomberg Law. Reporter Medisine Alder tell us broadly, what

0:01:10.640 --> 0:01:14.920
<v Speaker 1>has Biden accomplished as far as judicial vacancies in his

0:01:15.040 --> 0:01:19.200
<v Speaker 1>first year. I'm not a historic here of judicial nomination

0:01:20.760 --> 0:01:24.160
<v Speaker 1>he confirmed with the help of Democratic lead Senate, forty

0:01:24.280 --> 0:01:28.280
<v Speaker 1>district and appellate judges, which is the most of any

0:01:28.319 --> 0:01:31.720
<v Speaker 1>modern president since Ronald Reagan. And a lot of those

0:01:31.760 --> 0:01:36.200
<v Speaker 1>nominees were very diverse. They brought both professional and demographic

0:01:36.200 --> 0:01:39.800
<v Speaker 1>diversity to their respective courts, which was a really big

0:01:39.840 --> 0:01:43.280
<v Speaker 1>priority for the Biden administration as well. So tell us

0:01:43.319 --> 0:01:47.240
<v Speaker 1>about the different kinds of diversity. So in addition to

0:01:47.760 --> 0:01:52.480
<v Speaker 1>demographic diversity, you know, Biden has prioritized nominating people who

0:01:52.520 --> 0:01:57.160
<v Speaker 1>don't have a traditional path to the bench professionally. That

0:01:57.240 --> 0:02:01.120
<v Speaker 1>includes people who have experienced as public defenders. It's probably

0:02:01.160 --> 0:02:04.680
<v Speaker 1>the biggest group. About of his nominees so far have

0:02:04.720 --> 0:02:08.720
<v Speaker 1>has some public defense experience, according to the Alliance for Justice,

0:02:08.720 --> 0:02:13.519
<v Speaker 1>which is the progressive legal um advocacy group, And that

0:02:13.600 --> 0:02:17.240
<v Speaker 1>means that Biden's nominees are kind of unique in this way,

0:02:17.840 --> 0:02:20.600
<v Speaker 1>you know, particular to him and in this administration. They're

0:02:20.639 --> 0:02:24.440
<v Speaker 1>not just demographically diverse. So many of them women, many

0:02:24.480 --> 0:02:26.240
<v Speaker 1>of them have been women of color. They also have

0:02:26.360 --> 0:02:30.760
<v Speaker 1>this added factor of having a background that is very

0:02:30.800 --> 0:02:34.920
<v Speaker 1>different for the federal judiciary. So were the progressive groups

0:02:35.000 --> 0:02:39.200
<v Speaker 1>happy about this, where they pleased with his progress. Biden

0:02:39.240 --> 0:02:44.000
<v Speaker 1>has largely met expectations from progressives in terms of the

0:02:44.040 --> 0:02:47.880
<v Speaker 1>diversity of his nominees. At the beginning of the administration,

0:02:48.000 --> 0:02:52.760
<v Speaker 1>progressives really hopeful that Biden would bring more diversity to

0:02:52.800 --> 0:02:55.680
<v Speaker 1>the federal judiciary and do it quickly, considering that he

0:02:55.760 --> 0:02:59.800
<v Speaker 1>has experience as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

0:02:59.800 --> 0:03:03.000
<v Speaker 1>He's the nominations on the other side of of this

0:03:03.160 --> 0:03:06.040
<v Speaker 1>before so um they were really hopeful that he would

0:03:06.120 --> 0:03:08.880
<v Speaker 1>make good on on these promises and efforts. And then

0:03:09.080 --> 0:03:12.400
<v Speaker 1>White House Consuladina Remis laid out to Democrats early on

0:03:12.520 --> 0:03:17.480
<v Speaker 1>the administration that they wanted more demographic diversity, more professional diversity,

0:03:18.000 --> 0:03:23.080
<v Speaker 1>and I think progressive groups have have largely been pretty

0:03:23.080 --> 0:03:25.600
<v Speaker 1>pleased with with the way the Biden handled his first year.

0:03:26.360 --> 0:03:32.400
<v Speaker 1>So though of the nominees were Hispanic or Latino, some

0:03:32.600 --> 0:03:37.840
<v Speaker 1>Hispanic and Latino groups express frustration with that. The Mexican

0:03:37.880 --> 0:03:42.320
<v Speaker 1>American Legal Defense and Educational Fund was disappointed with Biden's

0:03:42.320 --> 0:03:46.840
<v Speaker 1>decision to announce intent to nominate Michelle Child to the

0:03:46.920 --> 0:03:49.800
<v Speaker 1>DC Circuit. This is the second DC circuit they can

0:03:49.840 --> 0:03:52.080
<v Speaker 1>see that Biden has had opened. The DC circuit is

0:03:52.120 --> 0:03:55.560
<v Speaker 1>obviously a very important court um often seen as the

0:03:55.600 --> 0:03:59.320
<v Speaker 1>second highest court in lance the Supreme Court. And Mulda

0:03:59.520 --> 0:04:03.080
<v Speaker 1>was really hoping to see the first Latino nominated the

0:04:03.160 --> 0:04:05.480
<v Speaker 1>DC Circuit. This would have been the first in history.

0:04:06.000 --> 0:04:09.120
<v Speaker 1>And I spoke to Thomas Science, who's the President General

0:04:09.120 --> 0:04:12.160
<v Speaker 1>Council of Maldus. He says that they forwarded nominations for

0:04:12.200 --> 0:04:15.000
<v Speaker 1>the White House. They were talking to them, but ultimately

0:04:15.440 --> 0:04:19.240
<v Speaker 1>Michelle Child, who is a black woman, was the intended nominee.

0:04:19.600 --> 0:04:24.080
<v Speaker 1>They're disappointed with this. They're also disappointed with the nominations

0:04:24.120 --> 0:04:28.560
<v Speaker 1>to one of the California district courts, which they believed

0:04:28.640 --> 0:04:32.800
<v Speaker 1>didn't include as many Hispanic and Latino nominees as as

0:04:32.839 --> 0:04:34.760
<v Speaker 1>it could have. So they'd like to see more of

0:04:34.760 --> 0:04:39.120
<v Speaker 1>this in two and Science told me that there are

0:04:39.120 --> 0:04:43.239
<v Speaker 1>certainly seats that they're they're going to be watching for

0:04:43.240 --> 0:04:46.560
<v Speaker 1>for Hispanic and Latino nominees. And certainly there were a

0:04:46.560 --> 0:04:51.040
<v Speaker 1>lot of first in terms of judicial appointments, the first

0:04:51.160 --> 0:04:56.200
<v Speaker 1>openly LGBT woman on a federal circuit court, the first

0:04:56.200 --> 0:04:59.839
<v Speaker 1>black judge on the Federal Court of Appeals, the first

0:05:00.040 --> 0:05:03.600
<v Speaker 1>Muslim federal judge, to name a few. But there are

0:05:03.720 --> 0:05:08.960
<v Speaker 1>still possibilities for more first, so tell us about correct.

0:05:09.720 --> 0:05:14.600
<v Speaker 1>Jill dash the American Constitution Society told me that she's

0:05:14.640 --> 0:05:18.200
<v Speaker 1>going to be looking for Biden to increase diversity, naming

0:05:18.200 --> 0:05:23.120
<v Speaker 1>more LGBT, fugh lawyers, labor side attorneys. But also she's

0:05:23.120 --> 0:05:26.760
<v Speaker 1>gonna be watching for vacancies on the third Circuit, which

0:05:26.800 --> 0:05:30.000
<v Speaker 1>has never had a black woman before, and the District

0:05:30.000 --> 0:05:32.080
<v Speaker 1>of Idaho, which has never had a female judge in

0:05:32.080 --> 0:05:36.599
<v Speaker 1>its history. Some are calling for nominees who are disabled

0:05:37.000 --> 0:05:40.920
<v Speaker 1>or who have the background in disability law. Rokim brooks Um,

0:05:40.960 --> 0:05:44.040
<v Speaker 1>president of the progressive judicial advocacy group Alliance for Justice,

0:05:44.120 --> 0:05:48.600
<v Speaker 1>told me that he's looking for more nominees are some

0:05:48.680 --> 0:05:51.760
<v Speaker 1>of the first cominies that would have experience and disability

0:05:51.839 --> 0:05:55.400
<v Speaker 1>law or ours themselves disabled. That's going to be another

0:05:55.480 --> 0:05:59.240
<v Speaker 1>group of of nominees that that Biden could pull firm

0:05:59.240 --> 0:06:02.680
<v Speaker 1>for the first time into two. Let's talk about the

0:06:02.720 --> 0:06:08.040
<v Speaker 1>fact that the overwhelming majority of his nominees so far

0:06:08.160 --> 0:06:12.239
<v Speaker 1>we're in states represented by two Democrats in the Senate.

0:06:12.760 --> 0:06:17.480
<v Speaker 1>Explain the blue slip procedure. The blue slip rule is

0:06:18.120 --> 0:06:21.600
<v Speaker 1>a practice in the Senate in which home state senators

0:06:21.760 --> 0:06:26.120
<v Speaker 1>signify their support for a nominee in their state. In

0:06:26.800 --> 0:06:30.400
<v Speaker 1>Under the last administration, the Republican led Senate did away

0:06:30.440 --> 0:06:33.480
<v Speaker 1>with this rule for for circuit court appointments. They stopped

0:06:33.520 --> 0:06:36.240
<v Speaker 1>treating it like a veto. Democrats have said that they're

0:06:36.279 --> 0:06:38.880
<v Speaker 1>doing the same thing this time around now that they're

0:06:39.000 --> 0:06:43.120
<v Speaker 1>in the majority, and that means that at the district

0:06:43.160 --> 0:06:45.960
<v Speaker 1>court level, blue state seats are going to be the

0:06:45.960 --> 0:06:49.520
<v Speaker 1>easiest ones for Biden to work with. He might have

0:06:49.600 --> 0:06:52.880
<v Speaker 1>to negotiate more with states that have at least one

0:06:52.920 --> 0:06:56.440
<v Speaker 1>Republican senator. That there has been a nomination to a

0:06:56.720 --> 0:06:59.680
<v Speaker 1>district court seat in Ohio, which has a long history

0:06:59.720 --> 0:07:03.720
<v Speaker 1>of partisan collaboration between the two senators there, one Democrat

0:07:03.760 --> 0:07:07.400
<v Speaker 1>and one Republican, and then there has been a nomination

0:07:07.440 --> 0:07:10.280
<v Speaker 1>at the circuit court level to a red state, which

0:07:10.320 --> 0:07:13.840
<v Speaker 1>is Tennessee, that is andre massive for the sixth circuits.

0:07:14.040 --> 0:07:20.680
<v Speaker 1>Is Biden just shying away from confrontations with Republican senators

0:07:20.880 --> 0:07:24.520
<v Speaker 1>or are there other reasons why he hasn't been moving

0:07:24.640 --> 0:07:29.480
<v Speaker 1>forward in states with Republican senators. There's different opinions about this.

0:07:29.720 --> 0:07:32.080
<v Speaker 1>I don't think it's clear necessarily what the Biden administration

0:07:32.160 --> 0:07:34.400
<v Speaker 1>is doing at this point. But you know, sources that

0:07:34.440 --> 0:07:37.400
<v Speaker 1>watch this process closely have told me that the bind

0:07:37.400 --> 0:07:40.480
<v Speaker 1>administration could just be dealing with low hanging fruit, dealing

0:07:40.480 --> 0:07:43.240
<v Speaker 1>with circuit court vacancies and district court vacancies in blue

0:07:43.280 --> 0:07:46.720
<v Speaker 1>states in the first year. But there are vacancies in

0:07:47.160 --> 0:07:49.800
<v Speaker 1>in red states and purple states, both at the district

0:07:49.840 --> 0:07:52.920
<v Speaker 1>and circuit court level, that Biden will probably have to

0:07:53.000 --> 0:07:56.880
<v Speaker 1>deal with in which could create a bit more difficulty

0:07:57.120 --> 0:08:01.000
<v Speaker 1>in judicial nominations for for this year. U nine Mathis

0:08:01.000 --> 0:08:03.800
<v Speaker 1>for the Tennessee seat on the sixth Circuit. Tell us

0:08:03.840 --> 0:08:07.040
<v Speaker 1>what happened there was a problem when he made a

0:08:07.080 --> 0:08:11.800
<v Speaker 1>nomination in a red state, Right Andre Mathis, Biden's first

0:08:11.840 --> 0:08:15.760
<v Speaker 1>nominee to a red state. We contented criticism from the

0:08:16.200 --> 0:08:20.200
<v Speaker 1>two Republican senators there because they didn't feel they were

0:08:20.240 --> 0:08:25.120
<v Speaker 1>consulted on the nomination. The White House definitely responded to this.

0:08:25.200 --> 0:08:28.360
<v Speaker 1>They said that that they had consulted with the Tennessee

0:08:28.440 --> 0:08:31.440
<v Speaker 1>senators meaningfully. So so there is a bit of a

0:08:31.480 --> 0:08:35.360
<v Speaker 1>disagreement there. But what the disagreement between the White House

0:08:35.400 --> 0:08:37.960
<v Speaker 1>and the senators really highlights is the difficulty the Biden

0:08:38.000 --> 0:08:40.960
<v Speaker 1>couldn't be approaching with other circuit seats if they're if

0:08:40.960 --> 0:08:45.120
<v Speaker 1>they're choosing to negotiate, but also a district seats could

0:08:45.280 --> 0:08:48.720
<v Speaker 1>be an impediment to those which still for all intents

0:08:48.720 --> 0:08:52.880
<v Speaker 1>and purposes, require blue slips from from home state senators,

0:08:52.880 --> 0:08:56.720
<v Speaker 1>though Senator Servant, who is the chairman of the of

0:08:56.760 --> 0:09:00.800
<v Speaker 1>the Judiciary Committee, has said that he would potentially do

0:09:00.880 --> 0:09:05.320
<v Speaker 1>away with blue flips if Republicans are are objecting the process. UM,

0:09:05.360 --> 0:09:07.719
<v Speaker 1>and that's going to be a call that the Democrats make,

0:09:08.200 --> 0:09:13.640
<v Speaker 1>and there's an urgency to fill these slots in two

0:09:14.200 --> 0:09:17.640
<v Speaker 1>before the Senate may change hands. And that's an added

0:09:17.640 --> 0:09:23.079
<v Speaker 1>pressure in two for the Biden administration if Democrats lose

0:09:23.120 --> 0:09:26.160
<v Speaker 1>the Senate during mid terms UM, or even just the

0:09:26.200 --> 0:09:30.120
<v Speaker 1>pressure that the midterm elections will will put on members

0:09:30.120 --> 0:09:34.200
<v Speaker 1>of Congress UM. That's just another factor that's playing out

0:09:34.240 --> 0:09:38.560
<v Speaker 1>in the background for nominations this year. The Biden administration

0:09:38.600 --> 0:09:41.880
<v Speaker 1>has been moving very quickly, but they'll likely have to

0:09:41.920 --> 0:09:45.400
<v Speaker 1>maintain the pace this year UM with mid terms potentially

0:09:45.400 --> 0:09:48.319
<v Speaker 1>threatening their splin Senate majority. You talked to Ed Wheeland

0:09:48.320 --> 0:09:51.079
<v Speaker 1>of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and he said

0:09:51.760 --> 0:09:54.880
<v Speaker 1>he's delivered on his adversity promise. I think he said

0:09:54.880 --> 0:09:58.240
<v Speaker 1>a bar so high, I'd be surprised if he's able

0:09:58.280 --> 0:10:01.840
<v Speaker 1>to maintain it. Well. Biden's diversity with his nominees in

0:10:01.840 --> 0:10:06.880
<v Speaker 1>this first year has been pretty remarkable, and especially you

0:10:07.040 --> 0:10:11.920
<v Speaker 1>take into account professional diversity and demographic diversity. UM So,

0:10:12.160 --> 0:10:14.880
<v Speaker 1>I think what um Ed Whelan is saying here is

0:10:14.960 --> 0:10:17.880
<v Speaker 1>that you know, in year two, Um Biden is said

0:10:18.080 --> 0:10:21.679
<v Speaker 1>quite a high bar for himself. Uh. And we'll have

0:10:21.720 --> 0:10:25.600
<v Speaker 1>other factors to take into account in two as groups

0:10:25.920 --> 0:10:27.960
<v Speaker 1>on the left are pushing for Biden to even further

0:10:28.120 --> 0:10:33.360
<v Speaker 1>diversify his nominations. So now there's one area where Biden

0:10:33.440 --> 0:10:36.280
<v Speaker 1>has not been able to make any appointments, and that

0:10:36.480 --> 0:10:40.160
<v Speaker 1>is the Supreme Court. People are looking again at Justice

0:10:40.240 --> 0:10:44.840
<v Speaker 1>Brier to see if he'll retire before the midterms. Have

0:10:44.960 --> 0:10:48.439
<v Speaker 1>we heard anything at all, If we've heard anything, if

0:10:48.480 --> 0:10:52.360
<v Speaker 1>it hasn't gotten to me yet, Justice Brier is going

0:10:52.440 --> 0:10:54.800
<v Speaker 1>to be the one that has to make this decision ultimately,

0:10:54.840 --> 0:10:59.680
<v Speaker 1>but progress that they're very hopeful. Uh, he will decide

0:10:59.760 --> 0:11:02.840
<v Speaker 1>to retire at the end of this firm, and Biden

0:11:02.880 --> 0:11:06.880
<v Speaker 1>would have a Supreme Court appointment before the midterms. He's

0:11:06.920 --> 0:11:09.480
<v Speaker 1>indicated that he will put a black woman on the

0:11:09.520 --> 0:11:14.600
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court. Has he mentioned any names. Biden hasn't mentioned

0:11:14.640 --> 0:11:18.520
<v Speaker 1>any names publicly, but Biden doubled the number of black

0:11:18.559 --> 0:11:22.520
<v Speaker 1>women judges at the circuit court level in um was

0:11:22.640 --> 0:11:27.480
<v Speaker 1>his first four circuit court appointments. Um, so he's he's

0:11:27.480 --> 0:11:30.720
<v Speaker 1>definitely building that that pipeline. And then two of those

0:11:30.960 --> 0:11:33.320
<v Speaker 1>um or I should say, one of those nominees who's

0:11:33.320 --> 0:11:38.480
<v Speaker 1>been confirmed, Umkatanti Brown Jackson has thought of as a

0:11:38.520 --> 0:11:42.040
<v Speaker 1>candidate potentially if there were Supreme Court vacancy. And then

0:11:42.440 --> 0:11:48.040
<v Speaker 1>Biden's nominee for the DC Circuit Michelle child Um, who

0:11:48.120 --> 0:11:51.280
<v Speaker 1>has yet to be formally nominated. She is also seen

0:11:51.360 --> 0:11:55.680
<v Speaker 1>as a potential candidate for a vacancy. So um, he's

0:11:55.720 --> 0:11:57.960
<v Speaker 1>he's definitely building that pipe. One. So it looks like

0:11:58.000 --> 0:12:01.840
<v Speaker 1>it's going to be another interesting knee year of judicial nominations.

0:12:02.400 --> 0:12:06.400
<v Speaker 1>Thanks so much, Madison. That's Bloomberg Law reporter Medicine alder.

0:12:08.080 --> 0:12:12.360
<v Speaker 1>As the Supreme Court faces calls for broader structural changes,

0:12:12.920 --> 0:12:17.280
<v Speaker 1>Chief Justice John Roberts stressed the importance of judicial independence

0:12:17.320 --> 0:12:21.319
<v Speaker 1>from congressional mandates in his annual Year and Report released

0:12:21.320 --> 0:12:25.200
<v Speaker 1>on Friday. Joining me is Professor Harold Crent of Chicago

0:12:25.280 --> 0:12:29.520
<v Speaker 1>Kent College of Law. In the face of what some

0:12:29.600 --> 0:12:33.600
<v Speaker 1>would call a legitimacy crisis for the courts, and particularly

0:12:33.640 --> 0:12:37.959
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court is facing some of its lowest approval numbers.

0:12:38.400 --> 0:12:42.120
<v Speaker 1>Did the Chief address that. The Chief to not address

0:12:42.200 --> 0:12:45.360
<v Speaker 1>the importance of an independent judiciary and the importance of

0:12:45.640 --> 0:12:49.319
<v Speaker 1>public having faith in judiciary directly. What he did instead

0:12:49.800 --> 0:12:54.719
<v Speaker 1>was trying to parry pending efforts of Congress to regulate

0:12:54.960 --> 0:12:59.240
<v Speaker 1>the judiciary. And he did that directly by saying, we

0:12:59.320 --> 0:13:01.960
<v Speaker 1>have the ability to put our own house and order,

0:13:02.240 --> 0:13:07.320
<v Speaker 1>by beefing up efforts to combat ethics stylations, by beefing

0:13:07.360 --> 0:13:11.280
<v Speaker 1>up efforts to combat any kind of workplace harassment. So

0:13:11.400 --> 0:13:14.920
<v Speaker 1>Congress hands off, You don't need to regulate us. We

0:13:15.000 --> 0:13:20.000
<v Speaker 1>can more effectually regulate ourselves in the long run. What

0:13:20.040 --> 0:13:24.440
<v Speaker 1>he was trying to do was emphasized the importance of

0:13:24.480 --> 0:13:29.360
<v Speaker 1>an independent judiciary apart from any kind of congressional regulation.

0:13:29.800 --> 0:13:34.160
<v Speaker 1>The two issues that he concentrated on, how the judiciary

0:13:34.200 --> 0:13:39.600
<v Speaker 1>handles financial disclosures and workplace harassment. Those are issues that

0:13:39.640 --> 0:13:43.360
<v Speaker 1>the judiciary has faced for quite some time. Has it

0:13:43.480 --> 0:13:47.480
<v Speaker 1>shown it's capable of policing itself. Well, there have been

0:13:47.520 --> 0:13:52.079
<v Speaker 1>efforts by the judiciary to take complaints with respect to

0:13:52.160 --> 0:13:57.160
<v Speaker 1>judicial misconduct. Indeed, Congress set up a statute in to

0:13:57.400 --> 0:14:01.480
<v Speaker 1>allow judges and to organize judges to receive complaints of

0:14:01.520 --> 0:14:04.880
<v Speaker 1>wrongdoing about their fellow judges and follow a process of

0:14:04.960 --> 0:14:09.920
<v Speaker 1>inquiry and ultimate sanction. But obviously there are still problems

0:14:09.920 --> 0:14:13.560
<v Speaker 1>that happened, and most notably there was a Ninth Circuit judge,

0:14:13.640 --> 0:14:20.240
<v Speaker 1>Judge Kozinski, who was accused of serious sexual peccadillos um

0:14:20.320 --> 0:14:23.640
<v Speaker 1>and was forced to resign a number of years ago. Obviously,

0:14:23.720 --> 0:14:26.960
<v Speaker 1>we don't know about other kinds of complaints that are continuing,

0:14:27.360 --> 0:14:31.160
<v Speaker 1>but there are some. And I think what the chief

0:14:31.280 --> 0:14:34.120
<v Speaker 1>was saying is we're not perfect, and we knew we

0:14:34.160 --> 0:14:36.960
<v Speaker 1>do need to take more efforts, but we've done a

0:14:36.960 --> 0:14:40.200
<v Speaker 1>pretty good job so far. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong,

0:14:40.240 --> 0:14:43.240
<v Speaker 1>but that's the tone of his message. He referred to

0:14:43.240 --> 0:14:47.680
<v Speaker 1>a Wall Street Journal investigation that found hundreds of instances

0:14:47.760 --> 0:14:53.720
<v Speaker 1>where judges presided over cases involving companies that they or

0:14:53.760 --> 0:14:57.400
<v Speaker 1>their relatives held stock in, but the journals that it's

0:14:57.440 --> 0:15:02.000
<v Speaker 1>subsequent reporting found that the actual number of cases was

0:15:02.160 --> 0:15:07.760
<v Speaker 1>significantly higher, with at least nine and fifty recusal violations.

0:15:08.400 --> 0:15:12.840
<v Speaker 1>Is anyone policing whether or not judges step down when

0:15:12.880 --> 0:15:17.360
<v Speaker 1>there's a conflict of interest? Well, the judicial the mystery

0:15:17.360 --> 0:15:19.360
<v Speaker 1>of office, the u S courts, and the didicitial confidence

0:15:19.640 --> 0:15:24.760
<v Speaker 1>should be exercising their oversight authority to gauge whether there

0:15:24.800 --> 0:15:28.120
<v Speaker 1>are such kinds of failures to recuse. I do want

0:15:28.160 --> 0:15:32.960
<v Speaker 1>to add that a lot of these recusal um requirements

0:15:33.040 --> 0:15:36.760
<v Speaker 1>are formalistic, and by that I mean if someone owns

0:15:36.760 --> 0:15:38.800
<v Speaker 1>a share of stock or five share of stock, even

0:15:38.840 --> 0:15:42.920
<v Speaker 1>if it's an unutual fund um, one should we choose oneself.

0:15:42.960 --> 0:15:45.440
<v Speaker 1>And obviously we don't usually think that a judge will

0:15:45.480 --> 0:15:49.560
<v Speaker 1>be biased because of owning five shares of stock and

0:15:49.680 --> 0:15:53.320
<v Speaker 1>some kind of mutual fund, but nonetheless they're important. Um.

0:15:53.360 --> 0:15:56.680
<v Speaker 1>The Chief Justice Roberts recognizes that those rules, even if

0:15:56.680 --> 0:16:01.560
<v Speaker 1>they are formalistic, are important to prevent financial influence from

0:16:01.720 --> 0:16:04.160
<v Speaker 1>entering the fray and from making sure the public has

0:16:04.240 --> 0:16:06.840
<v Speaker 1>faith in the judiciary, and so he is pledged to

0:16:06.920 --> 0:16:11.840
<v Speaker 1>work with the Judicial Conference to improve technology to help

0:16:11.960 --> 0:16:16.040
<v Speaker 1>enforce these requirements more stringently. So do I think this

0:16:16.160 --> 0:16:21.680
<v Speaker 1>is the most serious violation of judicial independence? I don't UM.

0:16:21.800 --> 0:16:24.320
<v Speaker 1>But I do think that that Walsing journal was right

0:16:24.360 --> 0:16:28.200
<v Speaker 1>to call out the judiciary UM, and the judiciary should

0:16:28.280 --> 0:16:31.760
<v Speaker 1>redouble its efforts in order to prevent that kind of

0:16:32.400 --> 0:16:36.120
<v Speaker 1>The Chief was as one of three justices who have

0:16:36.520 --> 0:16:39.680
<v Speaker 1>had to recuse themselves because they found out that they

0:16:39.720 --> 0:16:43.960
<v Speaker 1>own stock in a company. Is the question whether judges

0:16:44.000 --> 0:16:48.520
<v Speaker 1>should own stock in individual companies at all? Well, it's

0:16:48.560 --> 0:16:52.960
<v Speaker 1>difficult in this day and age, given their companies operate

0:16:53.080 --> 0:16:58.040
<v Speaker 1>under different names and their um internationally connected in different ways,

0:16:58.320 --> 0:17:02.960
<v Speaker 1>to really figure out how to police against financial interests

0:17:02.960 --> 0:17:05.800
<v Speaker 1>in a in a proceeding. Some people have recommended that

0:17:05.840 --> 0:17:09.879
<v Speaker 1>there's a blind trust that once you're a president or

0:17:10.080 --> 0:17:14.159
<v Speaker 1>a judge, that you should have somebody else to manage

0:17:14.200 --> 0:17:17.679
<v Speaker 1>your money so that you can't possibly be, you know,

0:17:17.720 --> 0:17:22.159
<v Speaker 1>affected by some kind of financial bias. And I do

0:17:22.280 --> 0:17:24.760
<v Speaker 1>think that this we try to draw the line to

0:17:24.960 --> 0:17:29.520
<v Speaker 1>prevent very clearly. Uh, But really in some ways it's

0:17:29.560 --> 0:17:33.920
<v Speaker 1>a over enforcement because I don't think that owning, you know,

0:17:34.359 --> 0:17:36.960
<v Speaker 1>fifty shares of stock point five shares of stock in

0:17:37.000 --> 0:17:43.200
<v Speaker 1>an entire portfolio will really change someone's perspective on the vote.

0:17:43.280 --> 0:17:45.560
<v Speaker 1>And sometimes people don't even know the stock that they

0:17:45.560 --> 0:17:50.000
<v Speaker 1>own just because it's owned in some kind of mutual funds.

0:17:50.400 --> 0:17:54.160
<v Speaker 1>So it is a problem given financial holdings what they are.

0:17:54.640 --> 0:17:59.520
<v Speaker 1>And I do think that better technology and more rigorous

0:17:59.600 --> 0:18:02.800
<v Speaker 1>enforce ment is appropriate, But I don't think that our

0:18:02.880 --> 0:18:07.520
<v Speaker 1>judiciary is riddled with financial self interest. Does the judiciary

0:18:07.600 --> 0:18:10.640
<v Speaker 1>have an ethics code? Does the Supreme Court have an

0:18:10.640 --> 0:18:14.080
<v Speaker 1>ethics code? Well, there is a I don't believe that

0:18:14.119 --> 0:18:17.240
<v Speaker 1>there's an ethical code specific the Supreme Corporate. There certainly

0:18:17.280 --> 0:18:21.439
<v Speaker 1>is an ethics code for the judiciary, and the Judicial

0:18:21.480 --> 0:18:25.760
<v Speaker 1>Conference does can pass um rules that had past rules

0:18:26.000 --> 0:18:30.720
<v Speaker 1>or to maintain the highest sort of level of professionalism

0:18:30.760 --> 0:18:34.240
<v Speaker 1>amongst the court. One of the things that the report

0:18:34.320 --> 0:18:38.560
<v Speaker 1>does indicate, though, that there has historically been we might

0:18:38.640 --> 0:18:42.439
<v Speaker 1>call incivility, we might cause sort of those kinds of

0:18:42.920 --> 0:18:47.520
<v Speaker 1>petty uh problems that happen in the workplace. And there

0:18:47.560 --> 0:18:51.320
<v Speaker 1>has not been a great deal of historical attention paid

0:18:51.359 --> 0:18:54.840
<v Speaker 1>to what it means to be civil in terms of

0:18:54.960 --> 0:18:59.080
<v Speaker 1>a judge to a bailiff, or a judge to a

0:18:59.119 --> 0:19:03.600
<v Speaker 1>court clerk or two litigants themselves. And I'm glad that

0:19:03.760 --> 0:19:07.280
<v Speaker 1>at least in some ways Chief Justice roperators giving some

0:19:07.359 --> 0:19:12.920
<v Speaker 1>attention to that by creating task forces to better educate

0:19:13.080 --> 0:19:17.400
<v Speaker 1>and to take complaints from both workers and litigants when

0:19:17.600 --> 0:19:25.840
<v Speaker 1>judges do burst out into profanity or uh criticize what

0:19:25.920 --> 0:19:29.439
<v Speaker 1>someone is wearing, because those kinds of incidents have not

0:19:29.640 --> 0:19:35.119
<v Speaker 1>been police historically, and just by hearsay an anecdote, UM,

0:19:35.160 --> 0:19:38.680
<v Speaker 1>I think they take place far more often than does

0:19:38.720 --> 0:19:42.520
<v Speaker 1>any kind of financial impropriety. When I hear Congress is

0:19:42.560 --> 0:19:46.159
<v Speaker 1>going to establish a task force or any organization is

0:19:46.200 --> 0:19:49.280
<v Speaker 1>going to establish a task force, it just seems like

0:19:49.320 --> 0:19:51.880
<v Speaker 1>that's kicking the can down the road. I mean, what

0:19:51.960 --> 0:19:58.120
<v Speaker 1>do task forces really accomplish. Yeah, sometimes it's information gathering

0:19:58.560 --> 0:20:01.080
<v Speaker 1>and one needs information. But at the same time, there

0:20:01.119 --> 0:20:05.199
<v Speaker 1>are some structures now in place. There are complaints that

0:20:05.240 --> 0:20:10.360
<v Speaker 1>can be filed against judges, and each Circuit Digital Council

0:20:10.400 --> 0:20:13.320
<v Speaker 1>has to have a mechanism for allowing those complaints and

0:20:13.320 --> 0:20:18.160
<v Speaker 1>then for investigating those complaints. So that is actual progress

0:20:18.240 --> 0:20:23.400
<v Speaker 1>it is in place. UM. Whether there is appropriate sensitivity

0:20:23.480 --> 0:20:26.959
<v Speaker 1>training to say to put it that way, um, and

0:20:27.000 --> 0:20:28.760
<v Speaker 1>whether there's a task force to figure out what you

0:20:28.840 --> 0:20:31.879
<v Speaker 1>go into that set sensitivity training, I don't know that.

0:20:32.160 --> 0:20:34.280
<v Speaker 1>I think there's probably more reason to be skeptical of that,

0:20:34.440 --> 0:20:37.879
<v Speaker 1>but again there has been at least some progress made

0:20:38.080 --> 0:20:41.640
<v Speaker 1>that people who are outraged at the behavior of judges,

0:20:41.920 --> 0:20:46.040
<v Speaker 1>whether again employed to employees or lit against, can can

0:20:46.280 --> 0:20:50.080
<v Speaker 1>request some kind of answer and that the councils will

0:20:50.119 --> 0:20:54.080
<v Speaker 1>investigate those kinds of charges. So we're not all the

0:20:54.119 --> 0:20:56.920
<v Speaker 1>way there, but there has been progressed. So now, there

0:20:57.000 --> 0:21:02.159
<v Speaker 1>was legislation that passed the House about judicial financial reporting,

0:21:02.960 --> 0:21:05.639
<v Speaker 1>past the House by a margin of FO two to

0:21:05.840 --> 0:21:09.240
<v Speaker 1>four in December. We'll see what happens in the Senate.

0:21:09.560 --> 0:21:14.879
<v Speaker 1>And there's also separate legislation that would give judiciary workers

0:21:14.920 --> 0:21:19.200
<v Speaker 1>the same anti discrimination rights and whistleblower protections as other

0:21:19.400 --> 0:21:24.920
<v Speaker 1>federal employees. That's pending, but does it seem as if

0:21:25.160 --> 0:21:27.000
<v Speaker 1>something is going to happen. There's going to be some

0:21:27.119 --> 0:21:33.320
<v Speaker 1>legislation passed in the near future regarding the judiciary, and

0:21:33.359 --> 0:21:39.919
<v Speaker 1>the judiciary historically has opposed any kind of extension of

0:21:40.040 --> 0:21:45.919
<v Speaker 1>whistle or statutes or any kind of discrimination statutes to

0:21:46.040 --> 0:21:49.000
<v Speaker 1>the judiciary. Um they want to keep it in House,

0:21:49.240 --> 0:21:52.960
<v Speaker 1>just as Congress does. Congress has been wrote to require

0:21:53.000 --> 0:21:57.480
<v Speaker 1>its own members to fulfill the same kinds of requirements

0:21:57.480 --> 0:22:00.840
<v Speaker 1>as in a private workforce, and I've now there, I

0:22:00.880 --> 0:22:05.000
<v Speaker 1>think that the judiciary maybe on weak ground. I think

0:22:05.040 --> 0:22:08.280
<v Speaker 1>it's probably is appropriate to apply those kinds of antiscremation

0:22:08.359 --> 0:22:12.560
<v Speaker 1>and whistle lower statutes equally to the private sector as

0:22:12.600 --> 0:22:16.199
<v Speaker 1>as to the judiciary and to members of Congress. Were

0:22:16.240 --> 0:22:19.840
<v Speaker 1>there any surprises because the Chief Justice has been talking

0:22:19.880 --> 0:22:24.640
<v Speaker 1>about the importance of the independence of the judiciary as

0:22:24.680 --> 0:22:28.320
<v Speaker 1>long as I can remember. He has been talking about it.

0:22:28.400 --> 0:22:32.600
<v Speaker 1>And what is in some ways disappointing is he ignores

0:22:32.680 --> 0:22:35.400
<v Speaker 1>the big question about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court

0:22:35.400 --> 0:22:39.240
<v Speaker 1>in the public eyes. We know that the public has

0:22:39.320 --> 0:22:42.600
<v Speaker 1>less faith in an independent judiciary than has in sometime

0:22:43.160 --> 0:22:46.680
<v Speaker 1>despite the Chief's efforts. We know that there's greater politicization

0:22:46.760 --> 0:22:48.560
<v Speaker 1>on the court. We know that even the way the

0:22:48.680 --> 0:22:53.800
<v Speaker 1>justices react to issues such as abortion or the the

0:22:53.880 --> 0:22:57.920
<v Speaker 1>right to own guns or voting rights m are very partisan.

0:22:58.440 --> 0:23:01.080
<v Speaker 1>Um and they've they've written in the person away. And

0:23:01.160 --> 0:23:05.600
<v Speaker 1>so this report the ignores the fact that members of

0:23:05.720 --> 0:23:10.360
<v Speaker 1>his own court seem to stand the flames of partisanship,

0:23:10.880 --> 0:23:14.320
<v Speaker 1>and therefore in gender which I mean sort of endanger

0:23:14.720 --> 0:23:19.560
<v Speaker 1>what the Chief himself believes is a large problem confronting

0:23:19.560 --> 0:23:23.919
<v Speaker 1>the judiciary, which is the public's faith in an independent judiciary.

0:23:24.359 --> 0:23:27.480
<v Speaker 1>This term, the Court has taken up a lot of

0:23:27.600 --> 0:23:35.320
<v Speaker 1>controversial social issues, abortion, gun rights, some religion cases. It

0:23:35.640 --> 0:23:39.879
<v Speaker 1>now is taking on the vaccine mandate. Are these cases

0:23:39.920 --> 0:23:43.840
<v Speaker 1>that the Court couldn't avoid or are they deliberately putting

0:23:43.880 --> 0:23:49.919
<v Speaker 1>themselves into the maelstrom of what's happening in society with

0:23:50.040 --> 0:23:52.840
<v Speaker 1>over these issues. I think for the most part, the

0:23:52.880 --> 0:23:56.000
<v Speaker 1>Court is acting appropriately. There are splits in many of

0:23:56.080 --> 0:23:58.480
<v Speaker 1>the circuits on some of these issues, such as the

0:23:58.880 --> 0:24:01.919
<v Speaker 1>both the abortion case as cases as well as the

0:24:01.960 --> 0:24:07.080
<v Speaker 1>Second Amendment cases. Um the vaccination case is very important

0:24:07.080 --> 0:24:12.200
<v Speaker 1>for the Court to address. Uh So I think the Court,

0:24:12.400 --> 0:24:17.280
<v Speaker 1>the most party, is not reaching out to to get

0:24:17.320 --> 0:24:21.000
<v Speaker 1>mired in controversy. What is acting consistently with what it's

0:24:21.000 --> 0:24:24.639
<v Speaker 1>done in the past in terms of when there's a

0:24:24.680 --> 0:24:28.520
<v Speaker 1>split amongst the lower courts resolved that split. And if

0:24:28.560 --> 0:24:31.440
<v Speaker 1>something is very important to the future of the country,

0:24:32.119 --> 0:24:39.200
<v Speaker 1>whether it's the question about the OCEHA and requiring vaccinations,

0:24:39.320 --> 0:24:42.360
<v Speaker 1>or perhaps even it's it's about the subpoenas and the

0:24:42.440 --> 0:24:45.919
<v Speaker 1>January six movement, they should address those issues. And of

0:24:45.960 --> 0:24:48.119
<v Speaker 1>course we're waiting to see whether they'll weigh in on

0:24:48.160 --> 0:24:50.720
<v Speaker 1>the last one or not. And the Justices are going

0:24:50.720 --> 0:24:55.480
<v Speaker 1>to be addressing the vaccine mandate question this Friday in

0:24:55.600 --> 0:24:59.640
<v Speaker 1>the first oral arguments of the term. Thanks Hal, that's

0:24:59.640 --> 0:25:02.720
<v Speaker 1>Harold cranned to professor at the Chicago Kent College of Law,

0:25:03.200 --> 0:25:05.440
<v Speaker 1>and that's if in the edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

0:25:05.720 --> 0:25:07.880
<v Speaker 1>Remember you can always get the latest legal news by

0:25:07.880 --> 0:25:10.800
<v Speaker 1>listening to our Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them

0:25:10.800 --> 0:25:15.320
<v Speaker 1>on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg dot

0:25:15.359 --> 0:25:19.920
<v Speaker 1>com slash podcast Slash Law. I'm Judie Bronso when you're

0:25:19.960 --> 0:25:20.919
<v Speaker 1>listening to Bloomberg