1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:03,440
Speaker 1: As a Supreme Court nominee in March, then Judge Neil

2
00:00:03,440 --> 00:00:09,200
Speaker 1: Gorcich miants no words when he was asked about judicial integrity. Senator,

3
00:00:09,720 --> 00:00:14,280
Speaker 1: the independence and integrity of the judiciary is in my bones.

4
00:00:16,040 --> 00:00:19,880
Speaker 1: I do take seriously impartiality and the appearance of impartiality,

5
00:00:20,400 --> 00:00:22,800
Speaker 1: And Senator, all I can say to you is that

6
00:00:23,960 --> 00:00:27,080
Speaker 1: I commit to maintaining my impartiality as best I can,

7
00:00:27,120 --> 00:00:29,720
Speaker 1: and to recuse where I or the law suggests I

8
00:00:29,760 --> 00:00:33,240
Speaker 1: should so. It raised a few eyebrows when a conservative

9
00:00:33,240 --> 00:00:36,519
Speaker 1: group announced that now Justice Corset would give a speech

10
00:00:36,560 --> 00:00:40,760
Speaker 1: in September at the Trump International Hotel. The hotel, of course,

11
00:00:40,880 --> 00:00:43,839
Speaker 1: is part of President Trump's business empire. It became a

12
00:00:44,000 --> 00:00:46,960
Speaker 1: It's become a favorite venue for lobbyists and foreign dignitaries

13
00:00:46,960 --> 00:00:49,760
Speaker 1: and a source of profits for the Trump organization, and

14
00:00:49,800 --> 00:00:52,280
Speaker 1: the President's financial relationship to the hotel has become a

15
00:00:52,320 --> 00:00:55,480
Speaker 1: central issue in lawsuits that many believe will land at

16
00:00:55,520 --> 00:00:58,279
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. With us to talk about all this

17
00:00:58,400 --> 00:01:01,280
Speaker 1: is Ken Doyle. He's a senior at Urn for Bloomberg

18
00:01:01,320 --> 00:01:04,440
Speaker 1: b and a Ken Thanks for being with us, Um

19
00:01:05,160 --> 00:01:07,759
Speaker 1: tell me I'll make a confession. I don't know very

20
00:01:07,800 --> 00:01:10,880
Speaker 1: much about this group that invited Justice course, it's the

21
00:01:10,920 --> 00:01:15,280
Speaker 1: Fund for American Studies. What do you know about them? Well,

22
00:01:15,600 --> 00:01:18,440
Speaker 1: I mean, I just know what I've read about it too.

23
00:01:18,480 --> 00:01:21,160
Speaker 1: It's it's a seems to be a conservative sort of

24
00:01:21,240 --> 00:01:25,200
Speaker 1: free market group, something that would be in line I

25
00:01:25,240 --> 00:01:30,440
Speaker 1: think with the ideology of justice course and the Trump administration.

26
00:01:30,920 --> 00:01:35,640
Speaker 1: So not necessarily a surprise that this would be linked together,

27
00:01:35,720 --> 00:01:39,080
Speaker 1: but it does, you know, UM, you know, potentially raised

28
00:01:39,160 --> 00:01:43,000
Speaker 1: this question that has been raised you with other justices

29
00:01:43,040 --> 00:01:46,200
Speaker 1: as well, about you know, when when the justices are

30
00:01:46,280 --> 00:01:50,160
Speaker 1: linked to different groups UM and especially UM people that

31
00:01:50,280 --> 00:01:52,640
Speaker 1: may have issues before the court, you know, can they

32
00:01:52,640 --> 00:01:57,240
Speaker 1: be objective and can they be perceived as objective by

33
00:01:57,280 --> 00:01:59,920
Speaker 1: the public. And that's that's the issue here. It's all

34
00:02:00,040 --> 00:02:04,040
Speaker 1: so caught up in the whole um, you know, phenomena

35
00:02:04,240 --> 00:02:07,680
Speaker 1: of the Trump administration, of President Trump UM having these

36
00:02:07,800 --> 00:02:12,320
Speaker 1: links to business organizations you know, outside of the government,

37
00:02:12,320 --> 00:02:16,079
Speaker 1: and that's really a new phenomenon that no other president

38
00:02:16,919 --> 00:02:20,399
Speaker 1: has faced. They've all tried to um, you know, put

39
00:02:20,400 --> 00:02:22,760
Speaker 1: their assets in blind trust so that those kinds of

40
00:02:22,840 --> 00:02:25,600
Speaker 1: questions couldn't be raised. So I think there is you know,

41
00:02:25,680 --> 00:02:28,800
Speaker 1: it certainly is an interesting thing. I don't know whether

42
00:02:28,960 --> 00:02:31,360
Speaker 1: you know people will will see this as of course

43
00:02:31,360 --> 00:02:33,880
Speaker 1: they should not being able to be objective or not.

44
00:02:34,639 --> 00:02:37,560
Speaker 1: Ken it seems a lot of the focus is on

45
00:02:38,080 --> 00:02:41,720
Speaker 1: Trump owning the hotel, and the hotel ownership is cited

46
00:02:41,760 --> 00:02:45,920
Speaker 1: in lawsuits that alleged the president is violating the emoluments clause.

47
00:02:46,520 --> 00:02:50,520
Speaker 1: So when gorct says that he during his hearings that

48
00:02:50,600 --> 00:02:52,720
Speaker 1: he was going to try to avoid the un he's

49
00:02:52,760 --> 00:02:57,239
Speaker 1: aware of the appearance of impropriety. Is this a case

50
00:02:57,600 --> 00:03:01,440
Speaker 1: where you have a new just is that should go

51
00:03:01,480 --> 00:03:05,640
Speaker 1: out of his way to show impartiality. It seems like

52
00:03:05,680 --> 00:03:09,240
Speaker 1: the legal ethics and the legal scholars are on you know,

53
00:03:09,360 --> 00:03:12,679
Speaker 1: of two minds on this right, And as I say,

54
00:03:12,720 --> 00:03:14,840
Speaker 1: I think it's not I mean, I was just reading

55
00:03:14,919 --> 00:03:18,679
Speaker 1: this article by m Rick Hassan as a law professor

56
00:03:18,760 --> 00:03:23,359
Speaker 1: at University of California, Irvine who's tried to document um

57
00:03:23,480 --> 00:03:27,760
Speaker 1: the increase in justices making public appearances and the fact

58
00:03:27,760 --> 00:03:31,280
Speaker 1: that the justices on the liberal side of the court

59
00:03:31,320 --> 00:03:34,160
Speaker 1: tend to appear before liberal groups and the justices on

60
00:03:34,200 --> 00:03:38,120
Speaker 1: the conservative side tend to appear before conservative groups UM,

61
00:03:38,200 --> 00:03:40,680
Speaker 1: and that this is something that is part of a

62
00:03:40,680 --> 00:03:42,920
Speaker 1: a wider phenomenon. It's and I think, of course it

63
00:03:43,080 --> 00:03:45,320
Speaker 1: is now part of the court and kind of joining

64
00:03:45,840 --> 00:03:49,880
Speaker 1: in what the other justices are doing. Whether that means

65
00:03:49,960 --> 00:03:53,600
Speaker 1: that the public perceives all of the justices as potentially,

66
00:03:53,840 --> 00:03:56,440
Speaker 1: you know, not being able to be objective, as being

67
00:03:56,440 --> 00:03:59,000
Speaker 1: too political. I think that's I think that's you know,

68
00:03:59,600 --> 00:04:03,000
Speaker 1: a real question and something that may be reflected in

69
00:04:03,160 --> 00:04:06,160
Speaker 1: the fact that the public views the court is maybe

70
00:04:06,960 --> 00:04:10,600
Speaker 1: too political and um, you know, it has a somewhat

71
00:04:10,640 --> 00:04:14,160
Speaker 1: declining credibility with the public. I think we'll spell spell

72
00:04:14,240 --> 00:04:17,000
Speaker 1: it out a little bit more ken what what's the concern?

73
00:04:17,440 --> 00:04:20,760
Speaker 1: I mean, justice uh, you know, believes what he or

74
00:04:20,839 --> 00:04:25,480
Speaker 1: she believes. It's expressed in opinions, um. And they go

75
00:04:25,600 --> 00:04:28,320
Speaker 1: before an audience that is likely to be receptive to

76
00:04:28,360 --> 00:04:31,279
Speaker 1: a lot of those views, and they talk about those views.

77
00:04:31,400 --> 00:04:35,840
Speaker 1: What is what is? You know we would see that.

78
00:04:35,960 --> 00:04:38,760
Speaker 1: I think that would be the normal course for politicians. Obviously,

79
00:04:38,800 --> 00:04:41,839
Speaker 1: politicians are out there, um, you know, trying to raise

80
00:04:41,920 --> 00:04:46,400
Speaker 1: support among different constituencies and explaining themselves the constituencies. That

81
00:04:46,520 --> 00:04:49,440
Speaker 1: the more interactive type of thing. And I guess traditionally

82
00:04:49,520 --> 00:04:52,520
Speaker 1: my view of the courts has been you know, somewhat

83
00:04:52,560 --> 00:04:54,359
Speaker 1: more insulated from that, right, I mean, why do you

84
00:04:54,400 --> 00:04:56,800
Speaker 1: have the courts if they're just going to be acts

85
00:04:57,120 --> 00:05:00,440
Speaker 1: as another type of legislature in the to just be

86
00:05:00,760 --> 00:05:04,040
Speaker 1: you know, politicians, says, But but I do think that

87
00:05:04,040 --> 00:05:07,720
Speaker 1: that is maybe changing someway. You know, the Court has

88
00:05:07,760 --> 00:05:10,480
Speaker 1: become more political. You know that, you know, you've covered

89
00:05:10,520 --> 00:05:14,440
Speaker 1: all of these confirmation battles and and and the arguments

90
00:05:14,480 --> 00:05:16,400
Speaker 1: before the court, and the Court is just perceived as

91
00:05:16,440 --> 00:05:20,400
Speaker 1: a more political institution. Um and uh, but you know,

92
00:05:20,880 --> 00:05:24,400
Speaker 1: is that, um where where to draw the line on that?

93
00:05:24,440 --> 00:05:29,080
Speaker 1: I'm not really sure it is there any concern? There

94
00:05:29,200 --> 00:05:32,560
Speaker 1: is no there's no set of written code of conduct

95
00:05:32,800 --> 00:05:36,640
Speaker 1: for the justices in particular that's different from any anyone else.

96
00:05:36,680 --> 00:05:38,760
Speaker 1: And they decide when they can recute, whether they should

97
00:05:38,800 --> 00:05:42,960
Speaker 1: recuse themselves or not by themselves, and don't necessarily say it.

98
00:05:43,080 --> 00:05:46,599
Speaker 1: Is there another concern there? I think there are ethical

99
00:05:46,680 --> 00:05:49,560
Speaker 1: rules for federal judges. The issue with the Supreme Court,

100
00:05:49,600 --> 00:05:51,960
Speaker 1: of course, is that the you know, they are the

101
00:05:51,960 --> 00:05:55,080
Speaker 1: ones who decide, they they're the ultimate deciders of everything,

102
00:05:55,120 --> 00:05:58,080
Speaker 1: so that they're the ones who decide whether they're complying

103
00:05:58,120 --> 00:06:00,000
Speaker 1: with the rules. And I think this has come up.

104
00:06:00,040 --> 00:06:02,560
Speaker 1: The case that I remember was Justice Scalia where there

105
00:06:02,560 --> 00:06:05,599
Speaker 1: were questions raised in the Bush administration about his links

106
00:06:05,640 --> 00:06:08,919
Speaker 1: to Vice President Cheney go on hunting with him or something,

107
00:06:08,920 --> 00:06:11,520
Speaker 1: and people, you know, said that he should be refused

108
00:06:11,560 --> 00:06:14,960
Speaker 1: in the case involving the administration, and he said, you know,

109
00:06:15,040 --> 00:06:17,000
Speaker 1: I'm not going to do it because I think I'm

110
00:06:17,040 --> 00:06:19,960
Speaker 1: I can be objective. It's ultimately up to these judges

111
00:06:20,000 --> 00:06:22,600
Speaker 1: and the and the clip that you played by Justice Coursich,

112
00:06:22,640 --> 00:06:24,880
Speaker 1: I think is that the answer that they all would

113
00:06:24,880 --> 00:06:26,920
Speaker 1: give that I can be objective and if I if

114
00:06:26,960 --> 00:06:29,159
Speaker 1: I don't think that I can be objective, then I

115
00:06:29,160 --> 00:06:32,520
Speaker 1: would recuse. But you know, it's just something where the

116
00:06:32,880 --> 00:06:35,440
Speaker 1: question comes up more because they're making these appearances, and

117
00:06:35,520 --> 00:06:40,640
Speaker 1: especially in the case of Trump, where there's actual business links. Um,

118
00:06:40,640 --> 00:06:43,919
Speaker 1: you know, somebody making an appearance that's you know, potentially

119
00:06:43,960 --> 00:06:47,440
Speaker 1: drawing some some more people to a business that is

120
00:06:47,480 --> 00:06:51,080
Speaker 1: owned and will pay profits to the president. I think

121
00:06:51,080 --> 00:06:53,640
Speaker 1: those are all those are all the kinds of questions

122
00:06:53,640 --> 00:06:57,880
Speaker 1: obviously that we're asking and talking about. But it is

123
00:06:58,200 --> 00:07:01,320
Speaker 1: you know, part of a pheno dominent of you know,

124
00:07:01,560 --> 00:07:03,640
Speaker 1: will will the court straw a line on this. They

125
00:07:03,680 --> 00:07:06,279
Speaker 1: they do have to comply with ESEK rules, and I

126
00:07:06,279 --> 00:07:08,039
Speaker 1: don't think that they are have gotten to the point

127
00:07:08,080 --> 00:07:11,440
Speaker 1: of being politicians and memberies of Congress yet, but they

128
00:07:11,480 --> 00:07:14,240
Speaker 1: do seem to be headed more in that direction lately.

129
00:07:14,600 --> 00:07:17,040
Speaker 1: Ken only about twenty seconds left or so. But do

130
00:07:17,080 --> 00:07:19,160
Speaker 1: you see this is coming back to bite Neil Garcia

131
00:07:19,440 --> 00:07:22,600
Speaker 1: eventually if these lawsuits over the amronment clause and the

132
00:07:23,400 --> 00:07:25,240
Speaker 1: money from the Trump hotel make it up to the

133
00:07:25,280 --> 00:07:28,200
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Yeah, I think that those issues clearly will

134
00:07:28,280 --> 00:07:31,120
Speaker 1: come to the court, even the Trump Hotel isn't you

135
00:07:31,120 --> 00:07:34,640
Speaker 1: know there's several suits involving the hotel. So yeah, I

136
00:07:34,640 --> 00:07:36,600
Speaker 1: mean certainly that will be talked about when the court.

137
00:07:37,000 --> 00:07:40,000
Speaker 1: Uh here's those arguments. You know, whether he will and

138
00:07:40,040 --> 00:07:42,000
Speaker 1: he may be called upon to re accuse himself because

139
00:07:42,040 --> 00:07:44,480
Speaker 1: of this, um but I you know, I kind of

140
00:07:44,520 --> 00:07:46,520
Speaker 1: doubt that he will, and I'm not sure that that

141
00:07:46,880 --> 00:07:50,800
Speaker 1: you know, ultimately um, you know, will be uh you

142
00:07:50,840 --> 00:07:53,800
Speaker 1: know something. I mean, he's going ahead and making the appearance.

143
00:07:53,800 --> 00:07:56,840
Speaker 1: I think that he probably feels that he can overcome

144
00:07:56,880 --> 00:08:00,160
Speaker 1: whatever criticism is going to be directed at him, will

145
00:08:00,200 --> 00:08:02,200
Speaker 1: have to leave it there. My thanks to Ken Doyle,

146
00:08:02,280 --> 00:08:04,040
Speaker 1: senior editor for Bloomberg bn A