WEBVTT - Chief Justice Chastises Senator Schumer

0:00:00.600 --> 0:00:08.080
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:09.800 --> 0:00:13.240
<v Speaker 1>The protests were allowed at an abortion rights rally outside

0:00:13.240 --> 0:00:16.320
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court on Wednesday, as the Justice has heard

0:00:16.440 --> 0:00:19.880
<v Speaker 1>arguments in the court's first abortion case in four years.

0:00:20.400 --> 0:00:23.400
<v Speaker 1>Sin A minority leader, Chuck Schumer had these words for

0:00:23.440 --> 0:00:25.920
<v Speaker 1>the two newest members of the Court. I want to

0:00:25.960 --> 0:00:30.360
<v Speaker 1>tell you. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have

0:00:30.560 --> 0:00:39.080
<v Speaker 1>released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You

0:00:39.159 --> 0:00:42.479
<v Speaker 1>won't know what hit you if you go forward with

0:00:42.640 --> 0:00:46.559
<v Speaker 1>these awful decisions. That led Chief Justice John Roberts to

0:00:46.640 --> 0:00:51.000
<v Speaker 1>deliver an extraordinary rebuke of Schumer, chastising him from making

0:00:51.080 --> 0:00:55.960
<v Speaker 1>threatening statements that quote are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.

0:00:56.280 --> 0:00:58.959
<v Speaker 1>Joining me is Carl Tobias, a professor at the University

0:00:58.960 --> 0:01:01.760
<v Speaker 1>of Richmond Law School. Call first, let me get your

0:01:01.760 --> 0:01:06.160
<v Speaker 1>take on whether Schumer's comments were inappropriate. Well, actually, there

0:01:06.240 --> 0:01:09.240
<v Speaker 1>was an exchange this morning on the Senate floor and

0:01:10.000 --> 0:01:14.800
<v Speaker 1>a senator Schumer apologized basically for his comments and saying

0:01:14.840 --> 0:01:19.840
<v Speaker 1>he didn't intend to be threatening the justices in any way.

0:01:20.360 --> 0:01:22.399
<v Speaker 1>But I think he was caught up in the rhetoric

0:01:22.520 --> 0:01:27.280
<v Speaker 1>of the moment when it was highly charged and regretted it.

0:01:27.360 --> 0:01:30.559
<v Speaker 1>He also said something about Brooklyn, and we talked tough

0:01:30.600 --> 0:01:34.640
<v Speaker 1>in Brooklyn, and so I think he's tried to walk

0:01:34.720 --> 0:01:40.039
<v Speaker 1>back and say he really wasn't in any way threatening justices,

0:01:40.680 --> 0:01:44.839
<v Speaker 1>though Leader McConnell blasted him for fifteen minutes on the floor,

0:01:44.920 --> 0:01:50.080
<v Speaker 1>apparently talking about Schumer and other Democrats undermining the institution

0:01:50.160 --> 0:01:55.360
<v Speaker 1>of the Senate, which is ludicrous coming from the majority leader,

0:01:55.800 --> 0:01:58.920
<v Speaker 1>given what he's done to the institutions of the Senate

0:01:59.440 --> 0:02:03.600
<v Speaker 1>since he became the majority leader. So it just seems

0:02:03.640 --> 0:02:06.160
<v Speaker 1>like there's a lot of rhetoric on all sides and

0:02:06.200 --> 0:02:08.600
<v Speaker 1>they need to tone that down. But much of this

0:02:08.639 --> 0:02:11.440
<v Speaker 1>has been triggered, of course, by the attacks on judicial

0:02:11.520 --> 0:02:14.200
<v Speaker 1>independence by the President of the United States and the

0:02:14.280 --> 0:02:18.720
<v Speaker 1>failure of judges to speak up about that since it

0:02:18.919 --> 0:02:21.480
<v Speaker 1>started at the time of the campaign in twenty six

0:02:21.800 --> 0:02:25.560
<v Speaker 1>and has continued, including I think last night he weighed

0:02:25.560 --> 0:02:28.840
<v Speaker 1>in on Twitter, as you referred to. In the last

0:02:29.120 --> 0:02:32.720
<v Speaker 1>year alone, Trump has attacked the integrity of the federal

0:02:32.800 --> 0:02:38.480
<v Speaker 1>judiciary in general and targeted individual judges, including the judge

0:02:38.480 --> 0:02:43.000
<v Speaker 1>and the Roger Stone case repeatedly criticized to liberal female

0:02:43.040 --> 0:02:47.200
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court Justice is last week one for a dissenting

0:02:47.240 --> 0:02:51.600
<v Speaker 1>opinion which he misinterpreted. The Chief said nothing during all

0:02:51.680 --> 0:02:55.480
<v Speaker 1>that time. So does this look to the general public

0:02:55.639 --> 0:03:00.240
<v Speaker 1>like selective outrage. Well, that's a good question. And he

0:03:00.320 --> 0:03:04.600
<v Speaker 1>did speak up if you remember Thanksgiving eighteen about the

0:03:04.720 --> 0:03:09.000
<v Speaker 1>constant criticism from Trump about Obama judges and made a

0:03:09.080 --> 0:03:13.040
<v Speaker 1>relatively strong statement at that time. But the attacks that

0:03:13.040 --> 0:03:15.880
<v Speaker 1>have gone on from the President, but generally as to

0:03:15.919 --> 0:03:18.600
<v Speaker 1>the courts and then more specifically as to judges like

0:03:18.840 --> 0:03:22.360
<v Speaker 1>Amy Berman Jackson handling the Roger Stone case and many

0:03:22.440 --> 0:03:25.600
<v Speaker 1>other judges, especially on the Ninth Circuit, and judges who

0:03:25.680 --> 0:03:28.799
<v Speaker 1>rule against him, and the rhetoric all the way around

0:03:28.840 --> 0:03:31.720
<v Speaker 1>on to be toned down. But it's important for the

0:03:31.800 --> 0:03:35.760
<v Speaker 1>Chief Justice to speak out and defend judicial independence and

0:03:35.760 --> 0:03:40.520
<v Speaker 1>an even handed, thoughtful and careful way. And I think

0:03:40.560 --> 0:03:43.720
<v Speaker 1>people have been concerned that he hasn't spoken out enough

0:03:43.880 --> 0:03:47.720
<v Speaker 1>about the president's attacks on the federal judiciary because that

0:03:47.880 --> 0:03:52.680
<v Speaker 1>undermines respect for the judiciary and that absolutely needs to

0:03:52.720 --> 0:03:56.480
<v Speaker 1>be protected. The courts don't have either sword or the purse,

0:03:56.680 --> 0:03:59.960
<v Speaker 1>and they need to be sure that the public were

0:04:00.000 --> 0:04:03.880
<v Speaker 1>respects their rulings, and so everybody needs to work on

0:04:04.000 --> 0:04:07.680
<v Speaker 1>judicial independence and making sure that it's a paramount. It

0:04:07.800 --> 0:04:14.240
<v Speaker 1>also seems stark because Trump just recently attacked Justice Ruth

0:04:14.240 --> 0:04:18.120
<v Speaker 1>Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonya so To Mayor and told

0:04:18.120 --> 0:04:23.080
<v Speaker 1>them that they should recuse themselves in any case related

0:04:23.120 --> 0:04:26.480
<v Speaker 1>to him. So I had expected the Chief to speak

0:04:26.560 --> 0:04:29.400
<v Speaker 1>up then, Well, I think a lot of people did.

0:04:29.680 --> 0:04:32.240
<v Speaker 1>It may be unfortunate that he didn't. Of course, the

0:04:32.240 --> 0:04:35.479
<v Speaker 1>President didn't understand what he was saying about recusal or

0:04:35.520 --> 0:04:39.159
<v Speaker 1>how that works, and there was no basis really for

0:04:39.200 --> 0:04:43.800
<v Speaker 1>asking them to recuse. In fact, what Justice Soto Mayor

0:04:44.200 --> 0:04:47.359
<v Speaker 1>said in her descent didn't speak in any way to

0:04:47.440 --> 0:04:50.840
<v Speaker 1>the President. It spoke partly to the way the government

0:04:50.960 --> 0:04:55.359
<v Speaker 1>has incessantly raced to the court to stay these lower

0:04:55.360 --> 0:04:58.520
<v Speaker 1>court rulings. That the President doesn't lie and was just

0:04:58.600 --> 0:05:01.880
<v Speaker 1>speaking to the court itself and how it should handle

0:05:02.040 --> 0:05:07.120
<v Speaker 1>those emergency requests which are accelerating with ever more vehemence

0:05:07.320 --> 0:05:10.760
<v Speaker 1>from the Solicitor General's Office, principally in the Justice Department.

0:05:11.120 --> 0:05:16.200
<v Speaker 1>In this day of extremes, where is the line between

0:05:16.839 --> 0:05:24.080
<v Speaker 1>correct criticism of opinions and attacks on the judiciary. Well,

0:05:24.480 --> 0:05:27.440
<v Speaker 1>I think it's important to not have personal attacks on

0:05:27.520 --> 0:05:33.200
<v Speaker 1>particular judges or even particular courts. But it's certainly appropriate

0:05:33.240 --> 0:05:38.880
<v Speaker 1>to analyze and criticize the opinions that judges and justices

0:05:39.000 --> 0:05:42.800
<v Speaker 1>right on their merits and show why you believe that

0:05:42.839 --> 0:05:47.320
<v Speaker 1>they're inappropriate, incorrectly decided, or whatever your view is about that,

0:05:47.680 --> 0:05:52.360
<v Speaker 1>but not to attack them personally or to suggest that

0:05:52.400 --> 0:05:57.240
<v Speaker 1>they have some hidden agenda or our only politicians in

0:05:57.360 --> 0:06:02.480
<v Speaker 1>robes those kinds of criticisms. But sometimes people are very

0:06:02.520 --> 0:06:06.200
<v Speaker 1>exercised about particular issues and they say more than probably

0:06:06.200 --> 0:06:09.440
<v Speaker 1>it is appropriate. Thanks Carl. That's Carl Tobias of the

0:06:09.520 --> 0:06:14.080
<v Speaker 1>University of Richmond Law School. Thanks for listening to the

0:06:14.120 --> 0:06:17.479
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the

0:06:17.520 --> 0:06:21.440
<v Speaker 1>show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com

0:06:21.480 --> 0:06:25.680
<v Speaker 1>slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg