WEBVTT - Why It Won't Be a Blockbuster Supreme Court Term 0:00:00.560 --> 0:00:07.280 This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:07.320 --> 0:00:10.080 Was a blockbuster year at the Supreme Court, with major 0:00:10.119 --> 0:00:15.640 decisions on lgbt Q rights, presidential powers, abortion rights, religious liberties, 0:00:15.640 --> 0:00:19.560 and dhaka. But don't expect such epic decisions this year 0:00:19.920 --> 0:00:24.120 that justices are switching from blockbusters social matters to lower 0:00:24.160 --> 0:00:27.840 profile staples when they resume in January. Joining me is 0:00:27.880 --> 0:00:30.720 Neil kin Call, a professor at the Georgia State University 0:00:30.840 --> 0:00:34.040 College of Law. Broadly speaking, Neal, when you look at 0:00:34.040 --> 0:00:36.360 the docket coming up, does it seem as if there 0:00:36.360 --> 0:00:40.960 are fewer blockbusters this year? Yes, it seems like there 0:00:40.960 --> 0:00:45.320 are many fewer blockbusters. Um, in part that's kind of 0:00:45.360 --> 0:00:51.320 an unfair comparison to which had an extraordinary number of blockbusters. 0:00:51.400 --> 0:00:55.560 So comparing almost any year to is going to look boring. 0:00:56.040 --> 0:00:58.520 But I think it's also a conscious decision on the 0:00:58.560 --> 0:01:03.320 part of particular pularly Chief Justice Roberts to pull back 0:01:03.360 --> 0:01:07.120 a bit from controversy. Controversy is not good for the 0:01:07.160 --> 0:01:11.160 Supreme courts public image and it's not great for their standing, 0:01:11.520 --> 0:01:14.759 and so I think Justice Roberts in particular is acutely 0:01:14.800 --> 0:01:18.320 aware of all of that and serves the courts sort 0:01:18.319 --> 0:01:21.880 of public image and its legitimacy to pull back a 0:01:21.920 --> 0:01:25.279 bit from controversy, let things die down a bit before 0:01:25.319 --> 0:01:28.479 they start taking on the real hot button issues again. 0:01:28.920 --> 0:01:32.840 So the conservative wing of the Court must agree with him, right, 0:01:32.880 --> 0:01:36.240 because it only takes four justices, and they certainly have 0:01:36.319 --> 0:01:39.920 four justices there to take a case that's right, at 0:01:39.959 --> 0:01:43.080 least so far. But I think Justice Roberts still has 0:01:43.280 --> 0:01:48.400 some some real influence within within the conservative set of justices, 0:01:48.520 --> 0:01:51.320 even though he can be and I'm sure will be 0:01:51.480 --> 0:01:55.120 outvoted by them and that they will move further right 0:01:55.640 --> 0:01:58.720 and move more quickly than he wants to, But he 0:01:58.840 --> 0:02:02.160 still has real influence, and so I think we see 0:02:02.200 --> 0:02:05.320 that with this. How much does this have to do 0:02:05.400 --> 0:02:10.119 with the change of administrations coming up? Well, it may 0:02:10.200 --> 0:02:13.600 have to do with the change of administrations in that 0:02:14.360 --> 0:02:16.680 a lot of the issues coming out of the Trump 0:02:16.680 --> 0:02:21.000 administration are likely to be mooted with the Biden administration 0:02:21.120 --> 0:02:24.799 coming in. So some of the controversial moves that were 0:02:24.800 --> 0:02:29.200 being challenged in court um will be withdrawn under the 0:02:29.240 --> 0:02:32.760 Biden administration. I'm thinking of things like the legality of 0:02:33.440 --> 0:02:36.960 Trump's decision to build the border wall on the southern 0:02:36.960 --> 0:02:41.840 border to use an emergency designation of military construction funds 0:02:41.919 --> 0:02:44.360 to do that, and the legality of that order is 0:02:44.480 --> 0:02:48.320 really dubious and is pending in the courts, But that's 0:02:48.320 --> 0:02:51.360 certain to become moot once Biden comes in. There are 0:02:51.360 --> 0:02:53.560 a number of other of those sorts of measures that 0:02:53.600 --> 0:02:57.240 Trump has already taken that I think will quickly become moot. 0:02:57.720 --> 0:02:59.920 And there may be others in the waning days of 0:03:00.040 --> 0:03:04.000 the administration that will follow that mole. What is the 0:03:04.040 --> 0:03:06.760 procedure exactly, and let's say the border wall. Does the 0:03:06.800 --> 0:03:11.560 Biden administrations say we're going to retract this case or 0:03:11.600 --> 0:03:14.520 does the court have to say it's moot? Um? Both 0:03:14.560 --> 0:03:18.240 of those will happen. So the court, so the the 0:03:18.240 --> 0:03:23.360 the Abiden administration and the Justice Department can can say, um, 0:03:23.440 --> 0:03:26.800 we're no longer proceeding with this action, so please dismiss 0:03:26.840 --> 0:03:30.160 the cases moot, and the court will have to agree um. 0:03:30.480 --> 0:03:33.840 And in those sorts of cases, the court's agreement is routine. 0:03:34.320 --> 0:03:37.200 There can be situations where the court has a kind 0:03:37.200 --> 0:03:40.960 of oversight role um and so might not agree to 0:03:41.040 --> 0:03:44.680 dismiss the case even though the Justice Department is asking 0:03:44.720 --> 0:03:47.760 for that UM. And here I'm thinking of the Michael 0:03:47.800 --> 0:03:52.040 Flynn prosecution UM. At that point, Michael Flynn had already 0:03:52.080 --> 0:03:55.840 pleaded guilty UM, and so the court had real supervision 0:03:55.920 --> 0:03:59.320 over what kind of sentence to give UM, and was 0:03:59.400 --> 0:04:03.240 continuing to exercise that role until finally Trump issued the 0:04:03.280 --> 0:04:06.920 pardon that rendered the whole thing move UM. So there 0:04:06.920 --> 0:04:10.640 are those kinds of unusual situations where a court can 0:04:10.720 --> 0:04:14.119 decide to keep a case even though the Justice Department 0:04:14.200 --> 0:04:17.000 wants it to go away. But for the most part, 0:04:17.920 --> 0:04:21.680 those are extraordinary circumstances. For the most part, um, if 0:04:21.720 --> 0:04:26.320 the administration decides to stop pursuing a particular course, the 0:04:26.360 --> 0:04:30.160 courts are only too happy to have it dismissed. Cases 0:04:30.160 --> 0:04:35.240 coming up that may prove controversial or probably will prove controversial. 0:04:35.400 --> 0:04:40.200 Cases involving voting rights. Two cases from Arizona tell us 0:04:40.279 --> 0:04:47.560 what they're about. So the Arizona cases involve fundamentally questions 0:04:47.600 --> 0:04:52.400 about the application of Section two of the Voting Rights Act, 0:04:53.080 --> 0:04:57.039 which is a section that protects voting rights and particularly 0:04:57.560 --> 0:05:02.840 protects against the delusion voting rights. And so the Arizona 0:05:02.920 --> 0:05:08.839 cases involved fairly technical questions of voting procedures. And these 0:05:08.880 --> 0:05:13.200 are important because the Supreme Court some years ago struck 0:05:13.240 --> 0:05:17.480 down Section five of the Voting Rights Act. Section five 0:05:17.600 --> 0:05:22.400 was the preclearance provision, so certain jurisdictions, particularly here in 0:05:22.440 --> 0:05:27.240 the South, time in Atlanta, were required to pre clear 0:05:27.440 --> 0:05:31.000 any changes in their voting procedures because of the long 0:05:31.160 --> 0:05:35.960 history of discrimination and particularly race based discrimination in the 0:05:36.040 --> 0:05:41.240 covered jurisdictions. The Supreme Court struck that section down, and 0:05:41.360 --> 0:05:45.800 so all that's left is Section two. And Section two 0:05:45.880 --> 0:05:50.040 doesn't require preclearance. It allows jurisdictions to adopt their rule 0:05:50.160 --> 0:05:53.840 changes and then have them litigated. And so now we're 0:05:53.839 --> 0:05:56.520 going to see what kind of role the courts are 0:05:56.520 --> 0:05:59.839 going to play in terms of oversight. Will they be 0:06:00.160 --> 0:06:05.480 protective of people's fundamental right to vote or will they 0:06:05.480 --> 0:06:09.039 be deferential to the states and the state's decisions to 0:06:09.279 --> 0:06:13.800 change procedures and those very technical changes in voting procedures 0:06:13.839 --> 0:06:17.640 I think we've seen through the recent national elections can 0:06:17.760 --> 0:06:22.599 have dramatic consequences for the outcome, particularly in states like 0:06:22.880 --> 0:06:28.600 Arizona where it seems to be closely divided Republicans and Democrats, 0:06:28.680 --> 0:06:31.760 where the states are very purple, very much in play, 0:06:32.160 --> 0:06:35.800 and so Arizona is at to be a battleground for 0:06:35.880 --> 0:06:41.040 voting rights and for manipulation of voting procedures moving forward. Georgia, 0:06:41.200 --> 0:06:44.120 my state is, is another of those. And so I 0:06:44.160 --> 0:06:47.280 think that case will be a real sort of tip 0:06:47.360 --> 0:06:50.400 of the Supreme Court's hand about which way they're going 0:06:50.440 --> 0:06:55.200 to come down, states rights or individual voting rights. I 0:06:55.279 --> 0:06:59.919 remember Justice Robert's opinion in the case you refer to 0:07:00.000 --> 0:07:05.279 the Shelby County case with the racial injustice marches this 0:07:05.360 --> 0:07:09.080 past year. Do you think that his reasoning in that 0:07:09.200 --> 0:07:14.360 case false flat? Well? Yes, um, I think the reasoning 0:07:14.400 --> 0:07:16.720 in that case fell flat the day it was issued. 0:07:18.320 --> 0:07:23.120 It was a remarkable act of judicial invention. Um. He 0:07:23.240 --> 0:07:27.040 made up this doctrine, called the equal footing doctrine UM, 0:07:27.280 --> 0:07:30.600 out of whole cloth, saying that federal rules have to 0:07:30.680 --> 0:07:34.720 treat the states equally. That is a doctrine that had 0:07:34.800 --> 0:07:41.600 been completely unknown in constitutional law until Justice Roberts invented 0:07:41.640 --> 0:07:44.760 it for purposes of Shelby County. There was a different 0:07:44.800 --> 0:07:47.760 equal footing doctrine that applied before that that had to 0:07:47.800 --> 0:07:51.360 do with admitting new states. Shelby County had nothing to 0:07:51.400 --> 0:07:55.200 do with that, and Justice Roberts just made up this 0:07:55.320 --> 0:07:57.560 doctrine and gave it the same name as if it 0:07:57.640 --> 0:08:00.800 had anything to do with the previous cases. So that 0:08:00.920 --> 0:08:06.240 opinion has always been one of really questionable principle. But 0:08:06.320 --> 0:08:09.360 you're you're quite right to say the events of the 0:08:09.480 --> 0:08:13.440 last year show in a very practical way just how 0:08:13.560 --> 0:08:17.320 bankrupt the reasoning of that of that opinion was, and 0:08:17.440 --> 0:08:22.440 now just how consequential that bankrupt opinion has always been. 0:08:23.560 --> 0:08:28.000 Wasn't the Shelby County case the case where Justice Ruth 0:08:28.040 --> 0:08:33.360 Bader Ginsburg sort of earned the notorious RBG reputation for 0:08:33.400 --> 0:08:37.600 her dissent there, It was a classic, So that that's 0:08:37.640 --> 0:08:41.360 certainly one of them where she earned that reputation um 0:08:41.360 --> 0:08:47.280 where she helped make famous her descent dicky. So yeah, 0:08:47.320 --> 0:08:51.880 that's that's a that's a classic moment in the RBG canon. 0:08:52.640 --> 0:08:58.240 There are also some cases involving separation of powers, involving 0:08:58.360 --> 0:09:05.320 administrative patenter DGEs and social security administration judges, not cases 0:09:05.360 --> 0:09:07.559 that you normally think we're going to draw a lot 0:09:07.600 --> 0:09:10.960 of attention, but in this term it may draw attention. 0:09:10.960 --> 0:09:14.240 Tell us why those cases will draw attention in this term, 0:09:14.320 --> 0:09:18.440 because there aren't the blockbusters of last term to sort 0:09:18.480 --> 0:09:21.960 of draw the attention away from them. These are the 0:09:22.080 --> 0:09:27.960 kinds of seemingly technical and inconsequential cases that really are 0:09:28.480 --> 0:09:33.520 extremely consequential um and really important, And so they're being 0:09:33.920 --> 0:09:36.640 a sort of spotlight on these cases I think is good. 0:09:37.040 --> 0:09:40.120 The reason these cases are important is that they have 0:09:40.200 --> 0:09:44.199 a lot to do with the status of administrative law judges, 0:09:44.600 --> 0:09:48.319 which you know, just me saying those words probably puts 0:09:48.320 --> 0:09:50.559 your listeners to sleep, but I would hope, but I 0:09:50.559 --> 0:09:53.280 would hope they'll stay awake and pay attention to these 0:09:53.320 --> 0:09:57.319 cases because so much of the work of the government 0:09:57.720 --> 0:10:02.040 is done through these kinds of EFFICI shoals, And what 0:10:02.200 --> 0:10:07.319 these cases ultimately are part of is a really important 0:10:07.400 --> 0:10:12.000 question about just how much power the president has over 0:10:12.080 --> 0:10:17.320 these functionaries. Right, So people who, for example, determine whether 0:10:17.440 --> 0:10:23.559 or not you have eligibility to receive social security benefits, 0:10:23.679 --> 0:10:29.280 or whether a particular immigrant who's applying for asylum or 0:10:29.320 --> 0:10:34.319 for refugee status actually has that status recognized. Right, These 0:10:34.320 --> 0:10:38.640 are important decisions, and under current law, they're supposed to 0:10:38.679 --> 0:10:44.959 be made according to legal principles and through a judicial 0:10:45.040 --> 0:10:51.520 process that's independent of political inputs. But Throughout the Trump administration, 0:10:52.040 --> 0:10:57.120 there was a concerted effort to corrupt the decision making 0:10:57.160 --> 0:11:02.719 process and to introduce um policy values and political values 0:11:03.160 --> 0:11:08.040 into how these administrative figures did their jobs. Determined whether 0:11:08.160 --> 0:11:12.160 or not individuals are eligible for benefits, determine whether or 0:11:12.200 --> 0:11:16.160 not individuals are eligible for asylum, that that should be 0:11:16.360 --> 0:11:20.000 determined not according to the principles of law, but rather 0:11:20.120 --> 0:11:24.880 to Donald Trump's own political preferences. UM. And so these 0:11:24.960 --> 0:11:30.560 cases very fundamentally deal with that question of just how 0:11:30.800 --> 0:11:37.080 far into um the administrative state the president can impose 0:11:37.360 --> 0:11:42.640 his political preferences. Right, So these are very fundamentally important questions, 0:11:43.720 --> 0:11:47.440 even though they arise in a context that sounds deeply 0:11:47.600 --> 0:11:52.200 inside baseball and boring. So, looking at the way the 0:11:52.240 --> 0:11:56.440 Court has ruled in priar cases and taken into account 0:11:56.440 --> 0:11:59.079 the fact that you have an even more conservative court 0:11:59.160 --> 0:12:02.120 now and there's been a lot of talk about the 0:12:02.160 --> 0:12:07.200 administrative state, any idea how they might rule. Yes, So 0:12:08.240 --> 0:12:13.640 the Supreme Court's current majority is strongly in favor of 0:12:13.880 --> 0:12:18.840 the unitary executive theory. And if that theory is put 0:12:18.880 --> 0:12:21.760 into play in these cases, and I suspect it will 0:12:21.840 --> 0:12:25.720 be UM, they are going to expand the ability of 0:12:25.760 --> 0:12:32.880 the president two essentially politicize the administration of laws and 0:12:32.920 --> 0:12:39.880 the enforcement of laws. Um. The the countervailing consideration, I 0:12:39.920 --> 0:12:42.880 would say, Um, the thing that would make me hesitate 0:12:42.920 --> 0:12:46.280 in making that prediction is that these cases will be 0:12:46.320 --> 0:12:51.480 decided under abiden administration, and the conservative majority of the 0:12:51.520 --> 0:12:54.920 Court is going to be a little reluctant to unleash 0:12:54.960 --> 0:12:58.959 its theories of executive power when there is a democratic 0:12:59.000 --> 0:13:01.720 president and offer us right. So I think those are 0:13:01.760 --> 0:13:06.280 the two forces at play in principle. Um, the six 0:13:06.400 --> 0:13:10.080 conservatives on the Supreme Court are strongly in favor of 0:13:10.160 --> 0:13:16.880 executive power, but they're not strongly in favor of Biden 0:13:17.240 --> 0:13:21.200 exercising executive power. Right, So those will be the two 0:13:21.240 --> 0:13:26.400 things competing against each other when those justices beside these cases, 0:13:26.720 --> 0:13:30.440 if they don't follow what you expect, Won't that be 0:13:30.720 --> 0:13:34.920 a declaration that politics is at work here at the court? Yes, 0:13:36.440 --> 0:13:39.640 if people see it. Right. So, because these issues come 0:13:39.720 --> 0:13:44.320 up in obscure cases dealing with administrative law judges and 0:13:44.600 --> 0:13:48.920 patent law judges, Um, it's apt to evade public notice. 0:13:49.480 --> 0:13:53.319 But sure that that would be the declaration, But it 0:13:53.360 --> 0:13:56.480 wouldn't be the first time the Court has made it UM. 0:13:56.600 --> 0:13:59.040 You know, I can think there are plenty of cases 0:13:59.440 --> 0:14:04.520 from the Commy years when you know, Justice Roberts in 0:14:04.600 --> 0:14:08.480 spite of his commitment to the unitary executive theory and 0:14:08.520 --> 0:14:12.520 found that the president didn't have certain powers um. And 0:14:12.600 --> 0:14:15.360 so you know, there would be nothing new about that, 0:14:15.840 --> 0:14:24.280 that move to apply political values instead of um legal principles. 0:14:24.600 --> 0:14:27.320 They're not done filling out their docket for the remainder 0:14:27.520 --> 0:14:32.080 of this year, and there's a case involving Mississippi's fifteen 0:14:32.080 --> 0:14:36.360 week abortion band that's been rescheduled over and over again 0:14:36.400 --> 0:14:40.160 at conference, and I'm wondering what the forces are for 0:14:40.320 --> 0:14:44.080 taking that versus not taking that, because that would certainly 0:14:44.120 --> 0:14:48.240 become the most controversial case of the term. Yeah. So, 0:14:49.000 --> 0:14:52.160 you know, there's been a lot of speculation about what 0:14:52.200 --> 0:14:55.400 the Supreme Court is going to do on abortion now 0:14:55.440 --> 0:14:59.720 that there's a six justice conservative majority. And so the 0:14:59.760 --> 0:15:03.240 two schools of thought are one that the Supreme Court 0:15:03.360 --> 0:15:06.280 is going to take a ghost slow approach, an approach 0:15:06.360 --> 0:15:10.960 that doesn't directly confront row versus Way, and instead the 0:15:11.040 --> 0:15:14.920 Court will hollow out row versus Way, sort of cut 0:15:14.920 --> 0:15:18.160 back on it to the point where it exists on paper, 0:15:18.440 --> 0:15:22.680 but as a practical matter, states can regulate abortions out 0:15:22.720 --> 0:15:26.520 of existence. The other school of thought is that the 0:15:26.600 --> 0:15:31.320 sixth Justice conservative majority is going to say, if not now, when, 0:15:32.000 --> 0:15:35.520 and if not Row, what are we doing here? And 0:15:35.600 --> 0:15:39.080 so on that theory, the justices would vote directly to 0:15:39.240 --> 0:15:42.480 overrule Roll versus Weight, And I think that's very much 0:15:42.480 --> 0:15:46.680 a debate that's playing out. I suspect, for what it's 0:15:46.680 --> 0:15:50.440 worth that the Supreme Court is going to directly confront 0:15:50.600 --> 0:15:53.720 Row and overrule it. And if they're going to do that, 0:15:53.880 --> 0:15:57.160 I think they've got to be thinking sooner rather than later, 0:15:57.360 --> 0:16:01.560 because they don't particularly want this to be a big 0:16:01.600 --> 0:16:06.480 issue in a presidential election, and so making that kind 0:16:06.480 --> 0:16:11.960 of decision farther from a presidential election is better. Thanks 0:16:11.960 --> 0:16:14.480 for being on the show, Neil. That's Neil Kincaugh, a 0:16:14.520 --> 0:16:19.040 professor at the Georgia State University College of Law. Joe 0:16:19.080 --> 0:16:22.480 Biden was formally recognized by Congress as the next president 0:16:22.520 --> 0:16:25.840 of the United States early Thursday, and in two months 0:16:25.840 --> 0:16:29.440 of fail legal challenges by Donald Trump that exploded into 0:16:29.600 --> 0:16:32.920 violence at the US capital as lawmakers meant to ratify 0:16:32.960 --> 0:16:36.640 the election result, joining me as elections law expert Derek Muller, 0:16:36.840 --> 0:16:39.920 a professor at the University of Iowa Law School, looking 0:16:39.920 --> 0:16:43.600 at it from the perspective of the law and election law, 0:16:43.680 --> 0:16:48.840 how would you describe this election season? Yeah, I mean, 0:16:49.200 --> 0:16:52.600 you know, in theory, every presidential election is unprecedented, and 0:16:52.680 --> 0:16:55.080 we can use that in different ways. You know, this one, 0:16:55.520 --> 0:16:59.000 you know, was driven extensively over the last couple of 0:16:59.040 --> 0:17:03.880 months by principally some conspiracy theories and things that have 0:17:04.080 --> 0:17:07.119 just never really carried any weight and never should have 0:17:07.160 --> 0:17:09.960 seen the light of day, but continue to get perpetuated. 0:17:10.080 --> 0:17:13.600 And that's not to set aside some people serious grievances 0:17:13.600 --> 0:17:17.399 with things like late breaking changes to certain laws that 0:17:17.440 --> 0:17:20.440 were enacted in things like that, But but the sheer 0:17:20.520 --> 0:17:25.720 volume of misinformation out there and just the inability of 0:17:25.760 --> 0:17:30.320 those closest to the president to rely on sort of 0:17:30.359 --> 0:17:33.240 the objective and careful work of so many election professionals 0:17:33.240 --> 0:17:36.240 around the country, in addition to all of the double 0:17:36.320 --> 0:17:38.520 checks and triple checks in our process. You know, I've 0:17:38.680 --> 0:17:41.240 certainly been the most disheartening thing and certainly came to 0:17:41.359 --> 0:17:43.840 ahead in the in the riot that that happened on 0:17:43.920 --> 0:17:46.760 January six in the Capital are the riots what made 0:17:46.800 --> 0:17:51.000 it fizzle out? Or are there checks in the system 0:17:51.080 --> 0:17:53.360 that would have made it fizzle out? Yeah, I mean 0:17:53.800 --> 0:17:57.240 so my anticipation based upon all of the politics leading 0:17:57.320 --> 0:17:58.600 up to the moment, and right, a lot of it 0:17:58.680 --> 0:18:02.359 is political, but out of politics leading up to January six, 0:18:02.400 --> 0:18:04.760 I anticipated we would have had a long day, you know, 0:18:04.880 --> 0:18:09.800 probably ten hours, probably three plates of electors formally objected to, 0:18:10.119 --> 0:18:12.680 with two hours debate each and votes on them, but 0:18:12.800 --> 0:18:15.200 all of them would have been counted, So we would 0:18:15.240 --> 0:18:17.679 have had some stress on the system. And that's how 0:18:17.720 --> 0:18:19.679 to say we haven't seen it before. You know, I've 0:18:19.720 --> 0:18:22.320 written about some democratic attempts that ended up now we 0:18:22.400 --> 0:18:24.760 see much smaller in scale over the last twenty years, 0:18:24.760 --> 0:18:27.640 and the ones that Republicans put forth on January six. 0:18:27.760 --> 0:18:29.440 But the system would have played out so that there 0:18:29.440 --> 0:18:34.040 would have been some some really theoretical, um fantastic kinds 0:18:34.040 --> 0:18:37.480 of scenarios. Right if if Vice President Mike Penns had 0:18:37.560 --> 0:18:42.080 done something truly extraordinary, essentially recalcitrant in the face of 0:18:42.119 --> 0:18:45.320 Congress in terms of how to handle electoral votes or 0:18:45.560 --> 0:18:49.720 individuals objecting to every single state and its electors, which 0:18:49.840 --> 0:18:52.440 forces two hours of debate each and every time. Right, 0:18:52.480 --> 0:18:56.000 So there are these sort of theoretical provisions, but again, 0:18:56.040 --> 0:18:59.479 we still are a country of laws. Um, you know. 0:18:59.760 --> 0:19:03.000 I I I'm grateful for the Vice President's decision making 0:19:03.040 --> 0:19:07.280 and deference to the Senate parliamentarians and the legal advisors 0:19:07.320 --> 0:19:11.040 around him. And I think there's also the political pressure 0:19:11.119 --> 0:19:14.679 that that attends members of Congress. And while some of 0:19:14.720 --> 0:19:17.200 them thought raising objections as a wise thing, I think 0:19:17.200 --> 0:19:19.399 a lot realized it was not a wise thing, certainly 0:19:19.440 --> 0:19:23.040 many more so after the riots. And so, you know, 0:19:23.080 --> 0:19:25.480 there have always been some political checks, but there's no 0:19:25.600 --> 0:19:29.560 question now I think we've you've seen this steady escalation 0:19:29.640 --> 0:19:32.360 in the last twenty years, um, you know. And yesterday 0:19:32.400 --> 0:19:36.840 was a significant escalate escalation of this county of electoral 0:19:36.920 --> 0:19:39.840 votes as a moment to protest the presidential election. And 0:19:39.840 --> 0:19:42.720 that is, um, that is worrisome, and that's something that 0:19:42.760 --> 0:19:46.919 I you know, several Senators in particular, were concerned about 0:19:47.080 --> 0:19:49.879 the precedent that this sets for the future. UM. So 0:19:49.960 --> 0:19:52.159 I don't know how that's going to be handled in 0:19:52.160 --> 0:19:55.280 the future. I don't know if there will be opportunities 0:19:55.320 --> 0:19:58.840 to amend the Electoral Account Act to reduce the chances 0:19:59.040 --> 0:20:01.440 of such things happening in the future. I just I 0:20:01.760 --> 0:20:05.840 just don't know. You know, the political checks worked, uh 0:20:05.880 --> 0:20:09.639 you know this time. Um, you know they prolonged and stuff, 0:20:09.640 --> 0:20:12.680 but they worked. The question is how how that works 0:20:12.680 --> 0:20:15.080 in the future. What should be done now? I mean 0:20:15.080 --> 0:20:18.480 people are talking about exhibitions and what should be done? 0:20:18.560 --> 0:20:22.760 Is there any clear path? Yeah? I mean I think 0:20:22.800 --> 0:20:24.760 a lot of depends on you know, where people think 0:20:24.760 --> 0:20:28.960 the problem is. Um, if people, especially Republicans this time, 0:20:29.359 --> 0:20:32.240 have a lot of distrust in what was happening in state, 0:20:32.560 --> 0:20:34.480 you know that there are two solutions. There's one is 0:20:34.520 --> 0:20:36.960 to go to those states and say, provide greater clarity, 0:20:37.040 --> 0:20:40.600 greater guidance, Um, you know, more robust remedies in your 0:20:40.680 --> 0:20:45.080 judicial system. Uh, you know, more acts anti sort of 0:20:45.200 --> 0:20:48.240 questions that can be answered by the legislature. Um, you 0:20:48.280 --> 0:20:50.879 know things like that. You know that that would be 0:20:50.920 --> 0:20:53.399 one way to go. Another is that the federal government 0:20:53.400 --> 0:20:55.280 wants to look at these questions and say We're going 0:20:55.320 --> 0:20:59.840 to enact some greater uniformities and legislation that provides some 0:21:00.600 --> 0:21:03.760 higher levels of uniformity. That's something that might instill some 0:21:03.840 --> 0:21:07.320 confidence if we can find some bipartisan solutions on that front. 0:21:07.320 --> 0:21:10.439 And the problem is it typically tends to be uh 0:21:10.800 --> 0:21:13.199 partisan solutions, which is the problem, right that that a 0:21:13.200 --> 0:21:17.200 lot of you know, HR One, which is sort of uh, 0:21:17.359 --> 0:21:20.960 the the We the People Act promulgated by Speaker Pelosi 0:21:21.040 --> 0:21:24.280 and others, has been sort of a democratic which list 0:21:24.320 --> 0:21:27.000 of of election of objectives that a lot of Republicans 0:21:27.000 --> 0:21:29.440 are going to oppose. And so trying to find either 0:21:29.680 --> 0:21:33.320 a bargain or some sort of neutral agreement about how 0:21:33.320 --> 0:21:36.080 to proceed forward is going to be it's gonna be difficult, 0:21:36.119 --> 0:21:38.440 I think. Um. So at this point, there's gonna be 0:21:38.480 --> 0:21:42.160 a lot of shows about having commissions and integrity projects 0:21:42.160 --> 0:21:45.400 and things like that, but you know, we've done those before. Um, 0:21:45.440 --> 0:21:47.000 A lot of them don't go anywhere. We had to 0:21:47.000 --> 0:21:49.199 help America Vote Act of two thousand two, which was 0:21:49.280 --> 0:21:52.200 designed to help solve some of the problems from two 0:21:52.240 --> 0:21:55.720 thousand UM and punch cards and things like that. And 0:21:55.720 --> 0:21:57.880 and maybe we'll have a little bit of of sort 0:21:57.880 --> 0:22:02.520 of good governance efforts going forward on the optical scan ballots, 0:22:02.560 --> 0:22:06.160 on you know, requiring audits of elections, things like that. 0:22:06.400 --> 0:22:07.879 But you know, with it, with all these things, you 0:22:07.920 --> 0:22:10.680 can what might be a small bill can quickly steamroll 0:22:10.760 --> 0:22:12.639 into a large bill if people want to put a 0:22:12.640 --> 0:22:14.960 little bit of everything election related, and that can be 0:22:15.000 --> 0:22:18.159 harder to get bipartisan consensus on. And the speeches that 0:22:18.240 --> 0:22:22.560 you heard from Republicans who are objecting, was there anything 0:22:22.600 --> 0:22:26.720 of substance? Yeah, I mean again, I think one of 0:22:26.720 --> 0:22:28.480 the one of the harder things that's thinking about the 0:22:28.520 --> 0:22:32.920 role of the legislature and the role of other UM 0:22:33.200 --> 0:22:35.800 wings of the government. Right. And there's no question that 0:22:35.880 --> 0:22:41.760 this election required states to be nimble. UM. COVID put 0:22:41.800 --> 0:22:44.639 a lot of strain on the system. And while there 0:22:44.680 --> 0:22:46.840 were a lot of state legislatures that took some action, 0:22:46.920 --> 0:22:51.000 there were also a lot of things that executive officials did. UM. 0:22:51.040 --> 0:22:53.480 You know, either where the law was silent or potentially, 0:22:53.520 --> 0:22:55.719 depending on the state, I have been a little bit 0:22:55.760 --> 0:22:59.240 contrary to what the legislature had intended. And so that, 0:22:59.640 --> 0:23:01.159 you know, there are a lot of things about fraud 0:23:01.160 --> 0:23:02.800 that I don't think Harriet the Day or you know, 0:23:02.880 --> 0:23:06.240 had any weight signature checks things like that. UM. But 0:23:06.280 --> 0:23:08.639 you're talking about this sort of allocation of responsibility in 0:23:08.680 --> 0:23:12.560 the states. UM. You know, there's a little there's a 0:23:12.560 --> 0:23:15.680 little smoke there to say, uh, you know, the state 0:23:15.760 --> 0:23:19.320 legislatures were um, you know, getting kind of run over 0:23:19.480 --> 0:23:24.760 by certain kinds of decisions from executive actors or consent 0:23:24.880 --> 0:23:29.800 decrees entered into by uh, you know, executives with plaintiffs 0:23:29.800 --> 0:23:32.680 groups that sued them. UM. But again, you know, I think, 0:23:32.880 --> 0:23:34.879 you know, people look back at the election and a 0:23:34.920 --> 0:23:37.439 lot of people participated, a lot of people were happy 0:23:37.480 --> 0:23:40.080 with the options they had. UM. There were very low 0:23:40.200 --> 0:23:44.200 rejection rates for absentee ballots with campbel opportunity to submit them. 0:23:44.240 --> 0:23:45.960 You know, we had a lot of worries about post 0:23:45.960 --> 0:23:48.840 office fiascos that never came through. So in terms of 0:23:48.840 --> 0:23:51.800 the administration side, it all came through. UM. But you know, 0:23:51.880 --> 0:23:54.040 when when a side loses and they look back and 0:23:54.080 --> 0:23:57.840 they see those sorts of discrepancies between what what executive 0:23:57.840 --> 0:24:00.800 officials did and what might have been the express legislative scheme, 0:24:00.840 --> 0:24:03.119 and there's a lot of pressure. UM. So again I 0:24:03.119 --> 0:24:05.960 think sometimes when courts considered these challenges. There's one from 0:24:06.000 --> 0:24:09.920 Pennsylvania that went to the Supreme Court before election day, UM, 0:24:09.960 --> 0:24:12.440 and the ballots haven't encountered yet. From from those from 0:24:12.440 --> 0:24:15.359 those votes, UM, there's one sort of small challenge that 0:24:15.400 --> 0:24:17.560 I think is the most interesting, and a lot of 0:24:17.560 --> 0:24:21.159 others courts have rejected. Courts have looked at and said, now, 0:24:21.200 --> 0:24:24.320 the executive has this authority. The legislature gave them the authority, 0:24:24.320 --> 0:24:27.879 all these kinds of things. So, um, you know a 0:24:27.920 --> 0:24:31.360 lot of the critiques just didn't didn't carry the day 0:24:31.119 --> 0:24:35.200 in my view, um, despite the smallest kernel of truth 0:24:35.359 --> 0:24:39.199 in some of them. And turning to Georgia, was it 0:24:39.320 --> 0:24:43.040 the turnout? A lot of people are crediting Stacy Abrams 0:24:43.080 --> 0:24:47.080 with the turnout. What's your take on what happened in Georgia? Yeah, 0:24:47.080 --> 0:24:49.600 I mean, so many political questions to think about. There's 0:24:49.600 --> 0:24:51.399 no question vot registration has gone up. Some of that 0:24:51.520 --> 0:24:54.880 is probably attributable Stacey Abrams, but they've also instituted automatic 0:24:54.960 --> 0:24:57.639 voter registration in the state of Georgia. So that's dramatically 0:24:57.640 --> 0:25:01.520 increased vote registration. UM. George is precisely the kind of 0:25:01.560 --> 0:25:04.440 state UM that's been you know over the last four 0:25:04.520 --> 0:25:08.000 years that would be more attractive to Democratic candidates UM 0:25:08.119 --> 0:25:13.679 as upwardly socially mobile, economically mobile, uh sort of state 0:25:13.920 --> 0:25:17.360 that uh, you know, it's precisely the kind of suburban 0:25:17.440 --> 0:25:20.000 voters the Democrats have been winning in droves over the 0:25:20.040 --> 0:25:23.119 last four years. And so you look at the fact 0:25:23.119 --> 0:25:27.159 that you know, President Trump lost, Arizona, lost Georgia, that 0:25:27.240 --> 0:25:29.840