Speaker 1: Bloomberg Sound On Politics, Policy and Perspective from DC's top names.
Speaker 1: The filibuster gets in the way. It's like voting rights.
Speaker 1: It should be we find an exception for this. Republicans
Speaker 1: cannot both be loyal to Donald Trump and loyal to
Speaker 1: the Constitution. Bloomberg Sound On with Joe matthew on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court ended its landmark term today with a
Speaker 1: blow to the Biden Administration's climate agenda, limiting how much
Speaker 1: the President can do through that e p A and
Speaker 1: putting his climate goals in jeopardy. But the Court also
Speaker 1: delivered Biden a win, ending the practice of having immigrants
Speaker 1: week in Mexico for their cases to go through US
Speaker 1: immigration courts. Plus President Biden changes course on the filibuster
Speaker 1: in light of the abortion ruling from last week. I'm
Speaker 1: Emily Wilkins filling it in for Joe Matthew on Sound On.
Speaker 1: Hopefully Joe is having a drink on a beach somewhere.
Speaker 1: Joining me this hour is going to be Congresswoman Sarah Jacobs,
Speaker 1: like California Democrat and Bloomberg own Gregg Store, our scotus quarterback,
Speaker 1: who has been working so hard today to cover everything
Speaker 1: from the court. President Joe Biden has long backed that
Speaker 1: sixty vote threshold in the Senate, that filibuster that legislation
Speaker 1: must clear before it can actually get a vote on
Speaker 1: from the Senate. Biden, he's old school, who was Senator
Speaker 1: Biden long before he was president or viet But today
Speaker 1: he took as itself in a new direction, announcing that
Speaker 1: he was for abolishing the filibuster to put abortion rights
Speaker 1: into national law, to codify Roe v. Wade, which was
Speaker 1: overturned last week. Here is what he said today in Madrid.
Speaker 1: We have to codify Roe v. Wade in the law,
Speaker 1: and the way to do that is to make sure
Speaker 1: the Congress votes to do that. And if the filibuster
Speaker 1: gets in a way it's like voting rights, it should
Speaker 1: be we provide an exception for this. Joining me now
Speaker 1: to discuss this as Congresswoman Sarah Jacobs, Democrat from Santiago,
Speaker 1: who at thirty three years old, is not only one
Speaker 1: of the youngest lawmakers in Congress, but has never lived
Speaker 1: in the US without the abortion rights ro v. Wade
Speaker 1: in place. Congresswoman, thank you so much for joining me today.
Speaker 1: I just wanted to start off by getting your reaction
Speaker 1: to Biden's announcement today. You were one of a hundred
Speaker 1: fourteen Democrats who signed a letter last month urging UH
Speaker 1: Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer to get rid of the filipbuster.
Speaker 1: What's your take right now on where this debate stands. Look,
Speaker 1: I'm glad that President Biden has said that because I
Speaker 1: think it's long overdue. I think it is uh like
Speaker 1: incredibly uh harmful that we have colleagues who are putting
Speaker 1: an arcane rule that's not even in the Constitution above
Speaker 1: our fundamental rights. And frankly, as a Californian, you know,
Speaker 1: I think it's important to say the Senate is already
Speaker 1: anti small d democratic, where a state of four million
Speaker 1: people who has the same representation as states with many
Speaker 1: many fewer. I think forty six senators represent the same
Speaker 1: amount of people as our two uh and so uh
Speaker 1: you know, adding a six you vote threshold above that
Speaker 1: already anti democratic structure is incredibly harmful for our country
Speaker 1: and doesn't reflect the will of the people. Congressman, you're
Speaker 1: a freshman member of Congress um but very much in
Speaker 1: the mix. How have you seen your party's stand on
Speaker 1: the filibuster change in just the last two years, And
Speaker 1: do you think we can actually get to a place
Speaker 1: where the filibuster will be overturned because we we still
Speaker 1: do have some holdouts in the Senate, we still have
Speaker 1: Senator Joe Mansion, Senor Kursten Cinema. When do we get
Speaker 1: to a point where overturning the filibuster could actually be
Speaker 1: a possibility. Look, I think we saw just a few
Speaker 1: months ago on the voting rights legislation that we had
Speaker 1: forty eight Democratic Senators vote to overturn the filibuster for
Speaker 1: the purpose of passing voting rights legislation that would have
Speaker 1: been unheard of even a few years before that. And
Speaker 1: I think it's clear that more and more people are
Speaker 1: seeing that our system and our structures aren't working to
Speaker 1: deliver for the challenges that we're facing right now, and
Speaker 1: it's clear we need to do things differently. I also
Speaker 1: wanted to get a little bit to the rulings today,
Speaker 1: and I wanted to start with the one limiting what
Speaker 1: Biden can do through the e p A. Does this
Speaker 1: put more pressure on Congress now to find a way
Speaker 1: to get some of Biden's other climate related policies passed? Absolutely?
Speaker 1: In fact, I think one of the real lessons of
Speaker 1: the spate of Supreme Court decisions that have come out
Speaker 1: is that basically what what we've done is because Congress
Speaker 1: has been so dysfunctional and hasn't been able to get
Speaker 1: things done, we've relied on the courts for our rights.
Speaker 1: We've relied on executive rulemaking executive orders to get things
Speaker 1: done on climate change, on so much else. And the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is really saying, Congress, you're the ones who
Speaker 1: make laws. If you want laws to be in place,
Speaker 1: you have to make them. And so I think it
Speaker 1: is incumbent upon us in Congress to do our jobs
Speaker 1: to codify these rights into law, to pass something on
Speaker 1: climate change so that we can address it with the
Speaker 1: urgency that it requires. It's time for Congress to step
Speaker 1: up and not let the dysfunction of Congress be papered
Speaker 1: over by the Supreme Court and the executive branch anymore.
Speaker 1: I know one of the ways that climate legislation could
Speaker 1: potentially pass is through reconciliation. That process, I think a
Speaker 1: lot of people associate the build back better with it,
Speaker 1: But there is a different legislation that's taking shape that
Speaker 1: has some similar components right now in the Senate, and
Speaker 1: I know that's a major piece of legislation that that
Speaker 1: you've been supportive. I know that you're also supportive of
Speaker 1: a competition bill the us UH that would help the
Speaker 1: US be more competitive with China. You're on a group
Speaker 1: that is working on that. I a Senator Mitch McConnell um,
Speaker 1: the Republican head of the Senate, just tweeted recently saying
Speaker 1: that either Democrats can if Democrats continue you with reconciliation,
Speaker 1: that he's no longer he's going to take the other
Speaker 1: major bill, the US China competition Bill, off the table,
Speaker 1: and I just wanted to get your reaction to that.
Speaker 1: I mean, at this point, what needs to happen in
Speaker 1: terms of legislation past and is there a way for
Speaker 1: Democrats to get both a climate based reconciliation and a
Speaker 1: US competitive manufacturing bill done. Look, I think it's really
Speaker 1: shameful that McConnell has linked to One of the few
Speaker 1: areas of bipartisan agreement in Congress is that we need
Speaker 1: to do more to improve our competitiveness against China, and
Speaker 1: that involves UH making investments in our domestic competitiveness, our
Speaker 1: domestic innovation, and that's exactly what the Competes Act would
Speaker 1: be able to do, and we are working on negotiating
Speaker 1: some of the disagreements within it um but overall I
Speaker 1: think it is um incredibly harmful that Mitch McConnell is
Speaker 1: willing to put our national security at risk because he
Speaker 1: doesn't like that Democrats won the election and are going
Speaker 1: to be able to pass something that is so important
Speaker 1: for the future of our energy and our economy and frankly,
Speaker 1: to make sure there's a livapool world. And I do
Speaker 1: want to hone in for a minute on that US
Speaker 1: competitiveness legislation. I think a lot of our listeners one
Speaker 1: thing they often hear when we discuss this bill is
Speaker 1: the semiconductors. The fifty two billion dollars for semiconductors, help
Speaker 1: with some of those supply chain backlogs, help with a
Speaker 1: number of businesses auto manufacturing, tech companies. But there's more
Speaker 1: to that in this legislation. And I know Congresswoman you
Speaker 1: are particularly focused on some of the foreign policy, foreign
Speaker 1: affairs aspects of it. Can you just give us a
Speaker 1: sense right now how negotiations are going on that is
Speaker 1: there a sense at this point for things that will
Speaker 1: definitely be in this legislation or definitely not in this legislation. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So I'm I'm on the Foreign Affairs part of the
Speaker 1: of the negotiating committee, and I think one of the
Speaker 1: things we recognizes that US leadership in global forums is
Speaker 1: going to be really important. UM. And look, there's a
Speaker 1: lot we need to do to be able to win
Speaker 1: this era of competition UM. And includes making sure our
Speaker 1: diplomats and our development actors have the tools they need
Speaker 1: when it comes to how we engage with other countries. UM.
Speaker 1: But the fact of the matter is, if we want
Speaker 1: a world where we're focused on, uh, the US being
Speaker 1: able to build international coalitions, which is really one of
Speaker 1: the things that gives us our strength in our national security,
Speaker 1: as we've seen in Ukraine, and then we need to
Speaker 1: make sure that we are fully committing to those values
Speaker 1: and to the rules of the rules based order. And
Speaker 1: so one of the things I'm really pushing right now
Speaker 1: is to make sure that this bill UM gives us
Speaker 1: the tools we need to be leaders at at the
Speaker 1: u N and in other global forums. UM. You know,
Speaker 1: the US does not fully pay our peacekeeping dues. We
Speaker 1: have a cap on how much we can pay to
Speaker 1: to UN peacekeeping and that's been really harmful because China
Speaker 1: has actually used that to call us an unreliable partner.
Speaker 1: And we've actually already started to see developing countries who
Speaker 1: UM typically would vote with US at the u N
Speaker 1: and another forum starting to align their votes more with
Speaker 1: China as a result of this. So there's still some
Speaker 1: things we're negotiating, including that piece of it, UM, But
Speaker 1: on the whole, I think we all agree it's important
Speaker 1: that we are investing in our leadership around the world. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: And Congressman, I did want to jump topics for a
Speaker 1: minute because I know that you've got this really interesting
Speaker 1: piece of legislation out there that touches on abortion and
Speaker 1: abortion rights, particularly technology UM and women who will use
Speaker 1: apps to either track their cycles, track reproductive data UM.
Speaker 1: And I know that there's been a concern since role
Speaker 1: was overturned about what that data could could do. And
Speaker 1: can you talk to me a little bit about your
Speaker 1: legislation and what you're expecting. Is this something that we're
Speaker 1: going to see get a vote on when Congress returns
Speaker 1: in mid July. Yeah, So what my legislation will do
Speaker 1: is that any reproductive or sexual health data from apps
Speaker 1: from website, searches, from anything. UM that companies can only
Speaker 1: collect and retain strictly what they need to provide the service.
Speaker 1: They cannot sell it, They can only share it with
Speaker 1: my express written consent. UM. The FTC would enforce it.
Speaker 1: But if I feel like the FTC isn't doing a
Speaker 1: good enough job, or if for instance, it's a Republican
Speaker 1: administration who maybe is not faithfully implementing this law, UM,
Speaker 1: I would have a private right of action to do
Speaker 1: about my data being misused, and I could ask for
Speaker 1: my data to be deleted at any time. And this
Speaker 1: is incredibly important because as we're talking about all the
Speaker 1: very many things we need to do around data privacy. UM,
Speaker 1: there's some specific needs we have around reproductive and sexual
Speaker 1: health data for this moment, especially to protect people in
Speaker 1: states where abortion is going to be criminalized. UH. And
Speaker 1: so UM, you know, making sure we're doing what we
Speaker 1: need you in Congress on this issue is a priority
Speaker 1: a Speaker Pelosi. She put it out as one of
Speaker 1: the three top priorities we're going to be working on
Speaker 1: when we get back. Uh. And I'm feeling hopeful that
Speaker 1: that our bill will be coming for a vote soon. Congress,
Speaker 1: when we've got thirty seconds left by one to ask,
Speaker 1: should do we all need to delete our period tracking apps?
Speaker 1: Should we just get them off our phones right now
Speaker 1: until this bill is passed? Um, there are some companies
Speaker 1: that are, you know, talking about their privacy policy. So
Speaker 1: if it's a service that's very useful for you, I
Speaker 1: would say, find the one that you'll be most protected. Uh,
Speaker 1: if you live in a in a state where abortion
Speaker 1: is going to be criminalized and you feel like you
Speaker 1: might need one soon, I would say deleting it is
Speaker 1: import good information. Congressman Sarah Jacobs, We're going to have
Speaker 1: to leave it there. Thank you so much for joining
Speaker 1: us on sound On. Up next we assemble the panel.
Speaker 1: Is there anyway for the filibuster to be overturned? I'm
Speaker 1: Emily Wilkins. This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg Sound On
Speaker 1: with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg. Welcome back to sound On.
Speaker 1: Joe Matthew is sitting somewhere on a beach, drinking of
Speaker 1: fear or margarita, hopefully drinking one for me as well.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm only Welkin sitting in for him today and
Speaker 1: joining me. Now is our All Star Panel Bloomberg Politics
Speaker 1: contributors Jennie Chienzano and Rick Davis, thank you both so
Speaker 1: much for taking the time on such a newsy day.
Speaker 1: I wanted to go first to President Biden's comments saying
Speaker 1: that he would support ending the filibuster only for a
Speaker 1: vote that would codify Roe versus Wade, ensure that there
Speaker 1: are a certain level of abortion rights nationwide. And Rick,
Speaker 1: you know you you you know Senators, you've you've you've
Speaker 1: know how how it goes. What is the reality of
Speaker 1: something like this actually happening because you have so many
Speaker 1: folks who are in the Senate who are very much
Speaker 1: institutionalists who do don't want to see the filibuster go.
Speaker 1: But as Congress, when Jacobs pointed out, you have seen
Speaker 1: that a road um in recent years, and I think
Speaker 1: today with with Biden saying that he'd be open to
Speaker 1: eliminating it, that that that's a that's a huge step.
Speaker 1: It's a big step, and you're right, I mean, it
Speaker 1: enters a whole new equation to the debate around um,
Speaker 1: around the filibuster. I would say that that, you know,
Speaker 1: the reminder that everybody in the Senate has is, you know,
Speaker 1: be careful what you asked for, because, Uh, the last
Speaker 1: time it got monkeyed around with UM, you know, parties
Speaker 1: changed and the leadership shifted to the Republics, and they
Speaker 1: they undid virtually everything that was done by the the
Speaker 1: lack of a filibuster. So when you say, oh, we're
Speaker 1: not going to vote sixty votes anymore, Uh, that means
Speaker 1: it only takes fifty to undo a codification of ROW
Speaker 1: in the next administration and or the next Congress. And
Speaker 1: and I think that is part of what the filibusters
Speaker 1: designed to avoid. UM. Clearly, the President United States today
Speaker 1: did something that his constituency was demanding. Right, he was
Speaker 1: out of the country for the last week doing you know,
Speaker 1: the good work of the president in NATO in Europe
Speaker 1: and and and he hasn't really been at the center
Speaker 1: of this debate around the Supreme Court's decision on ROW.
Speaker 1: And so this is his way to try and put
Speaker 1: some momentum back into that debate. But the reality is
Speaker 1: he doesn't have the support of this within his own party,
Speaker 1: So it's really more opinion driving than it is functional. Yeah, Rick,
Speaker 1: you bring up a really good point, And Jennie, I
Speaker 1: want to bring you in here and kind of get
Speaker 1: your thoughts on it. I mean, at this point the
Speaker 1: filibuster is not going to be overturned because Joe Manchin
Speaker 1: and Kirsten Cinema are not on board with that. So Genia, well,
Speaker 1: what do you think is a calculation that Biden made
Speaker 1: today when he made this announcement. I do think the
Speaker 1: Democrats and President Biden in particular, feeling pressure from Democrats
Speaker 1: who want the administration to do more on this really
Speaker 1: momentous decision from the court, and to speak with one voice,
Speaker 1: I hear a lot of frustration amongst Democrats, particularly young people,
Speaker 1: who are feeling like the Democratic Party was not prepared
Speaker 1: for this decision, despite the fact that they knew it
Speaker 1: was coming, and they haven't given proper direction. Other people saying,
Speaker 1: you're telling me to vote again, Well, listen, I voted in,
Speaker 1: voted you in, and you've done nothing. So I think
Speaker 1: they're feeling that pressure. Um, you know, And I also
Speaker 1: think they're asking a fair question. And I think this
Speaker 1: is what we heard from from Congresswoman Jacobs in your
Speaker 1: really good interview, and we heard it from out Alexandrocasio
Speaker 1: Cortez on Twitter as well. Today. They're saying if you
Speaker 1: can carve out to appoint justices to the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: and budget reconciliation. What does it say about our country
Speaker 1: that you can carve out all kinds of things but
Speaker 1: you can't carve out for women's health or the right
Speaker 1: to choose or voting. And so they're feeling, you know,
Speaker 1: asking I think a fair question on that. But of
Speaker 1: course Rick is right. The danger is you carve this
Speaker 1: out Republicans get the Senate, and you're gonna wish if
Speaker 1: you're a Democrat you hadn't carved it out so quickly.
Speaker 1: I want to dig into that a little bit. I mean,
Speaker 1: do you feel like the Biden and innistration was not
Speaker 1: prepared for this rolling to come down? Could they have
Speaker 1: done a better job responding in some ways because we
Speaker 1: all knew this was coming. Yeah, you know, I think
Speaker 1: there is some truth to that. You know, somebody like
Speaker 1: Tina Smith, now arguably you know she has you know,
Speaker 1: a backrood Minnesota, Minnesota exactly, she has a background in
Speaker 1: this area. But she, for instance, was sending out another
Speaker 1: is just an example, lists of resources to people seeking services.
Speaker 1: We've had, you know, sort of a disparate response from
Speaker 1: other governors across the country, including Gavin Newsom, including Kathy Hokel,
Speaker 1: and I think, you know the I wish to an
Speaker 1: a certain extent that, knowing that the Biden administration's hands
Speaker 1: are tied, they had also spoken with one voice about
Speaker 1: what they think they can do. I think the problem
Speaker 1: with President Biden he frequently says there's not a lot
Speaker 1: I can do, and that's a very tough pill to swallow.
Speaker 1: I understand there's some truth to it, but I do
Speaker 1: think there are some things he can do and to
Speaker 1: have you know, send it or is like Warren and
Speaker 1: representatives like Alexander Kasikortest talking about impeachment, talking about using
Speaker 1: of federal lands and those kinds of things. Some Democrats
Speaker 1: on the ground wish they heard that from the higher
Speaker 1: echelons of the party, like the administration. You know, Rick,
Speaker 1: We've got a minute left. But it strikes me that
Speaker 1: in November there's a very real chance that Republicans could
Speaker 1: take the Senate. They could be in charge next year,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure, uh, you know, just seeing how partisan
Speaker 1: our politics are, they will also be under pressure to
Speaker 1: eliminate the filibuster for certain things. Are there mansions and
Speaker 1: cinemas in the Republican Party. And if so, who are
Speaker 1: they sure? I think that they're The reality is it's
Speaker 1: one vote, right, you win one Republican senator in a flip,
Speaker 1: and you've got control of the Senate. That's how tenuous
Speaker 1: this whole debate is around the filibuster. And and of
Speaker 1: course you would have a couple of years in that
Speaker 1: leadership role. So the Murkowski's, the Collins is, the Mitt
Speaker 1: Romney's people like that who uh don't want to see
Speaker 1: big policy made around uh the Senate with with bypass
Speaker 1: of the filibuster. And I would say that the issues
Speaker 1: that Jennie was talking about, one of the things they
Speaker 1: have in common is they were they were generally um
Speaker 1: fixes in the system. I mean they were you know,
Speaker 1: votes on Supreme Court nominees and things like that or judges. So, uh,
Speaker 1: this is a policy debate and it'll continue on. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's a really good point. And I mean, certainly we've
Speaker 1: we've seen how the Supreme Court has been impacted by
Speaker 1: lowering that threshold for the filibuster there and speaking of
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court of next we're going to be joined
Speaker 1: by Bloomberg m VP Gregg's Store about the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: moving forward with the decisions today mean. This is Bloomberg
Speaker 1: broadcasting live from our nation's capital, Bloomberg to New York,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg eleven Frio to Boston, Bloomberg one oh six one
Speaker 1: to San Francisco, Bloomberg nine sixty to the Country Serious
Speaker 1: XM General one, and around the globe the Bloomberg Business
Speaker 1: app and Bloomberg Radio dot Com. This is Bloomberg Excel
Speaker 1: on with Joe Matthew. It is the final week of June,
Speaker 1: which means the Supreme Court has been dominating the headlines,
Speaker 1: and our Supreme Court reporter Greg Star has been dominating
Speaker 1: the terminal. He's written an exhausting amount today, but instead
Speaker 1: of kicking back and enjoying happy hour, he's with us
Speaker 1: in the studio and we're super excited to have him
Speaker 1: break it all down. Well. President Biden expressed grave concerns
Speaker 1: today about the Supreme Court. Listen to what he said
Speaker 1: this morning, not just about the ruling on Roe v.
Speaker 1: Wade and abortion, but about a number of rulings in
Speaker 1: the past several weeks. The one thing that has been
Speaker 1: destabilizing is the outrageous behavior of the Supreme Court of
Speaker 1: the United States. An over ruling not only Roe v. Wade,
Speaker 1: but essentially challenging the right to privacy. We've been a
Speaker 1: leader in the world in terms of personal rights and
Speaker 1: privacy rights, and it is a mistake in my view
Speaker 1: for the Supreme Court to do what it did. Greg
Speaker 1: star Bloomberg, Supreme Court Reporter, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: joining me. We're going to get into the meat and potatoes.
Speaker 1: I want your response on what Biden said. But before
Speaker 1: we do, it strikes me that we are halfway through
Speaker 1: the show and we have yet to mention Justice Coltanji
Speaker 1: Brown Jackson, the first black woman to sit on the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court sworn in today. Greg, I just want your
Speaker 1: your takeaway. What does what does this mean? What was
Speaker 1: the vibe? What's what's the overall the overall vibe. Well,
Speaker 1: it was really an incredible juxtaposition at the Court today. So,
Speaker 1: as you said, historic moment, first black woman ever to
Speaker 1: serve in the Supreme Court getting sworned in, getting sworn in,
Speaker 1: and outside the court, which is surrounded by eight foot
Speaker 1: unscalable fencing. At the very same time, there are hundreds
Speaker 1: of people protesting the decision that overturned Row, many of
Speaker 1: them getting arrested. Uh. You know, both an incredible moment
Speaker 1: for her personally, but undoubtedly not the way she wanted
Speaker 1: to join the High Court. Yeah. It's really one thing
Speaker 1: to have history being made inside the building, when outside
Speaker 1: the building you have a protest that was halted and
Speaker 1: at least a dozen people being arrested because they wound
Speaker 1: up sitting blocking a major road. Um. But greg I
Speaker 1: wanted to go back just for a second now to
Speaker 1: what Biden said, Um, in terms of that the he
Speaker 1: feels the court is now destabilizing, that there's outrageous behavior.
Speaker 1: What's your takeaway from this? Why is Biden saying this? Well,
Speaker 1: it's really a remarkable term. And of course Roe is
Speaker 1: the headliner decision, and they overturned a half century old precedent.
Speaker 1: But in decision after decision, the conservative wing moved very aggressively,
Speaker 1: pushing the legal doctrine on gun rights, on federal administrative power,
Speaker 1: on religion. Um. And this is a court that you know,
Speaker 1: it's probably gonna stay conservative for decades, and President Biden
Speaker 1: undoubtedly sees that and and undoubtedly is going to try
Speaker 1: to seize on that as a political issue going forward.
Speaker 1: I really want to get into the two rulings we
Speaker 1: saw today major rulings because they really think a kind
Speaker 1: of touch on what we're seeing right now with the
Speaker 1: sixth three Court want to start with the one dealing
Speaker 1: with the e p A living it's regulatory authority. Greg
Speaker 1: Does this ruling only apply to that one agency or
Speaker 1: could this wind up having a much wider impact. It
Speaker 1: certainly could have a much wider impact. Exactly what that
Speaker 1: will be what kind of remains to be seen both
Speaker 1: in terms of the e p A and other federal agencies.
Speaker 1: What the Court said was for the first time saying
Speaker 1: this explicitly that there's something called the major questions doctrine,
Speaker 1: and when what they said is when there's a really
Speaker 1: big policy issue, we're gonna demand that Congress be explicit
Speaker 1: if it is giving that power to a federal agency.
Speaker 1: And they said that explicit authority wasn't there in the
Speaker 1: case of of what the e p A, what had
Speaker 1: tried to do way back when President Obama was in
Speaker 1: the White House, which that that issue, that Clean Power
Speaker 1: Plan was actually at the at the core of the
Speaker 1: decision today. Did they give any indication of what does
Speaker 1: qualify as major because obviously one of the things these
Speaker 1: agencies are supposed us to do is create regulation. How
Speaker 1: do we know how big and wide spreading this regulation
Speaker 1: needs to be or not be. It's a really good question,
Speaker 1: they said some things, but that's going to have to
Speaker 1: be fleshed out in future cases. One of the arguments
Speaker 1: that Biden administration made that didn't fly with the Court was, Hey,
Speaker 1: this Obama Clean Power Plan, it seemed really big at
Speaker 1: the time, but it turns out it didn't really have
Speaker 1: it would have had that big an effect and never
Speaker 1: went into never went into an effect because they said, basically,
Speaker 1: the industry moved that way anyway, Um, and that should
Speaker 1: be the measure of it, you know, looking at kind
Speaker 1: of you know, looking retrospectively at at what it would
Speaker 1: have done. Supreme Court didn't buy that. Uh, so we're
Speaker 1: gonna have to to see, you know what exactly they're
Speaker 1: using to measure. Uh, you know what is a major
Speaker 1: question that they're not gonna let Congress kind of vaguely authorized.
Speaker 1: Very interesting, and they also did want to touch on
Speaker 1: that remain in Mexico, being that policy being struck down
Speaker 1: by the Court. That one you saw Justices Roberts and
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh side with Democrats when you read the ruling, what
Speaker 1: was your takeaway? Why did these two side with the
Speaker 1: three liberals. Well, this was a complicated procedural case where
Speaker 1: it was actually a lower court ordering the Biden Biden
Speaker 1: administration to put back in place this Trump administration asylum policy.
Speaker 1: And the basis for that lower court ruling was the
Speaker 1: court said, federal law requires remain in Mexico, requires the
Speaker 1: administration to send people back to Mexico while they're waiting
Speaker 1: for their asylum hearings. And uh, Roberts and Kavanaugh, along
Speaker 1: with the three three liberals, said that's not how we
Speaker 1: read federal immigration law. Got it, got it, so lots
Speaker 1: lots still impact there. I appreciate you keeping it very concise.
Speaker 1: And today was obviously the last day of the court's terms.
Speaker 1: So take us up to thirty thousand feet here. You
Speaker 1: wrote last year that the six conservative justices were sometimes
Speaker 1: fragmented in a number of their decisions. Are we seeing
Speaker 1: them be anymore in lock step or is there still
Speaker 1: a bit of a wild card in many of these cases. Um,
Speaker 1: I would say they are more in locks up, at
Speaker 1: least on the really big cases. This was a term
Speaker 1: where those really big cases that people are watching, uh
Speaker 1: uniformly or maybe almost uniformly, went against the conservative when
Speaker 1: went in favor of the conservative position. We did see
Speaker 1: in the abortion case, for example, Chief Justice Roberts wouldn't
Speaker 1: go quite as far as is conservative colleagues. He wouldn't
Speaker 1: have overturned Row in that case. But in general, this
Speaker 1: is a court that seems to be getting at sea
Speaker 1: legs and is determined to do uh some some very
Speaker 1: assertive things with with the reading of the Constitution. Greg,
Speaker 1: We've got less than a minute left, and I just
Speaker 1: wanted to ask very quickly. The Court has already begun
Speaker 1: to announce some of the cases that will take up
Speaker 1: next year. What is at least one big case that
Speaker 1: you think is going to be making headlines this time
Speaker 1: next year. Let me give you three or four if
Speaker 1: I can so quickly. I'll cut you off. When I
Speaker 1: need college affirmative action, the Clean Water Act, the Voting
Speaker 1: Rights Act, and when that requires you to create a
Speaker 1: state to create a majority uh black district. Um. The
Speaker 1: Court just announced an the big new election case today
Speaker 1: that it's gonna take It's gonna be a huge term.
Speaker 1: Greg store everyone, our Supreme Court reporter who has dominated
Speaker 1: the terminal today. Please make sure that you log in.
Speaker 1: He's got much more thorough analysis than we were able
Speaker 1: to cover in this ten minutes segment. Greg, thank you
Speaker 1: again so much. In just a minute, we're going to
Speaker 1: reconvene the panel. I'm Emily Wilkins. This is Bloomberg. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg sound On on Bloomberg Radio. Welcome back to
Speaker 1: sound On. I'm Emily Wilkins, filling in for Joe Matthew
Speaker 1: on the Fastest Hour in Politics. We are going to
Speaker 1: reassemble our panel, Rick Davis, Jeannie chian Zano. We've talked
Speaker 1: a lot today about the Supreme Court, the rulings, both
Speaker 1: the ones today on the e p A and the
Speaker 1: Romaine in Mexico policy. We've also spoken a little bit
Speaker 1: about the overturneing of Roe versus Wade. We've the Court
Speaker 1: has also just made some major legislation on religion. They've
Speaker 1: made major decisions on concealed carry. And so now I
Speaker 1: get to ask my all time favorite question, Genie, how
Speaker 1: does this all impact the upcoming midterm elections? Boy, Emily,
Speaker 1: thanks for coming to me on that. What a big question. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, there's so many ways in which it can
Speaker 1: potentially I think, you know, an honest answer to this
Speaker 1: is we don't know yet, but there is We're starting
Speaker 1: to see the contours of what may take place. But
Speaker 1: as we always have to say, five months, four or
Speaker 1: five months is a long time we have so that's
Speaker 1: no fun. Look into your crystal, boss, I'm going to
Speaker 1: do that now. After all my caveats. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: we have seen enthusiasm go up amongst Democrats. That was
Speaker 1: a key problem for them prior to these rulings, and
Speaker 1: so they may level out the enthusiasm. It may help
Speaker 1: them in he Senate states. Key states were Senate seats
Speaker 1: were up, like New Hampshire, Nevada, Arizona, UM. So they
Speaker 1: may have some help there. My thinking at this point
Speaker 1: is it doesn't change the House that much. Republicans still
Speaker 1: take that maybe just by you know, sort of a
Speaker 1: lesser margin than they otherwise might have. But I do
Speaker 1: think it may mean that the Senate is in play.
Speaker 1: But I think the real action is at the state
Speaker 1: and local level, and a lot of governors races to
Speaker 1: watch Pennsylvania, Michigan and others, because of course, at this
Speaker 1: point it's the states that have the power when it
Speaker 1: comes to determining the right to choose or you know,
Speaker 1: limiting a woman's right to choose guns and everything else
Speaker 1: you laid out absolutely, And of course, going into the
Speaker 1: mix with all of that is the fact that inflation
Speaker 1: is still very much a factor that those going to
Speaker 1: the grocery store and the gas pump are contending with
Speaker 1: higher prices. And we actually heard Biden today, Uh, he's
Speaker 1: not he's not making any promises of for people who
Speaker 1: are hoping to fill their cars tank up anytime soon.
Speaker 1: Take a listen to what he said on gas prices.
Speaker 1: As long as it takes so Russia cannot in fact
Speaker 1: defeat Ukraine and move beyond Ukraine. This is a critical,
Speaker 1: critical position for the world. And that's was a Biden
Speaker 1: saying that you know, as long as this is going on,
Speaker 1: the US is going to be supporting Ukraine, and that
Speaker 1: is going to impact the fact that you have gas
Speaker 1: prices be higher than than what we have seen. And
Speaker 1: Rick Davis going to come to you on this one.
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously, with with inflation kind of being at
Speaker 1: the top of lots of voters minds, is that impacted
Speaker 1: at all by some of these other Supreme Court rulings
Speaker 1: that have that have come out or is inflation still
Speaker 1: going to dominate the day? Yeah, Emily, I think, you know,
Speaker 1: hit the nail on the head. I think that up
Speaker 1: until this point in time, this entire election is being
Speaker 1: defined by inflation in the various secondary effects on the
Speaker 1: economy and people's pocketbooks. That has been the number one
Speaker 1: issue for some time, and this administration, like today's Biden comments,
Speaker 1: doesn't really have a plan for it. Right. They're not
Speaker 1: even making promises anymore that they're going to try and
Speaker 1: bring out gas prices or food or whatnot, and so um,
Speaker 1: it's almost like they've abdicated the issue to the Federal
Speaker 1: Reserve and there's you know, a limit to what they
Speaker 1: can do, and they're not playing politics. So I think
Speaker 1: that that the table is set for a pretty big
Speaker 1: Republican year because voters have a lot of anxiety and
Speaker 1: that's not usually good for an incumbent UH and voters
Speaker 1: are angry over the current state of the economy, and
Speaker 1: that is usually a record for an elyxir for change,
Speaker 1: and that change means voting out Democrats in the House
Speaker 1: and the Senate. Although I would say, you know, so
Speaker 1: many Senate races are kind of interesting, And Jennie mentioned
Speaker 1: the Pennsylvania race. You know, you've got a Democrat right
Speaker 1: now who's you know, double digits ahead of the Republican
Speaker 1: in that Senate race. And that's to hold the two
Speaker 1: Mey seat, which if we lose the two Mey seat
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, it's, you know, gonna be a
Speaker 1: lot harder to win that Senate. Actually, this almost accused
Speaker 1: us up perfectly, uh for Pat to me who was
Speaker 1: on bounce of power today. But just before we get
Speaker 1: to what he said, because it's very interesting, Rick, I
Speaker 1: just wanted to loop back real quick with you. If
Speaker 1: I'm a Republican hitting the campaign trail running for office,
Speaker 1: of course I'm going to call out the Biden administration
Speaker 1: for having such high gas prices. But do Republicans also
Speaker 1: need to offer some sort of solution or is it
Speaker 1: just enough to kind of say, hey, Democrats are in charge,
Speaker 1: gas prices are high, you should vote me in November. Yeah, Now, Emily,
Speaker 1: it's not fair. You know, when your party out of power,
Speaker 1: you get to just attack the party in power, and
Speaker 1: and and and and people are voting up or down
Speaker 1: on whether or not Democrats should be in the power
Speaker 1: position again, and and and and then the onus would
Speaker 1: be on Republicans to come up with some of these solutions.
Speaker 1: You know, it's kind of like the dog bites the
Speaker 1: car wheel and now what is he gonna do? Um,
Speaker 1: that will be a problem for four, But that's not
Speaker 1: this year's problem, got it? And certainly of Genie mentioned
Speaker 1: earlier that you know, Democrats they are hoping to mobilize
Speaker 1: turnout talking about abortion, talking about gun rights, talking about
Speaker 1: some of these other issues that the Court has really
Speaker 1: put into the spotlight. But another aspect that Democrats are
Speaker 1: hoping will come up on the campaign trail is January six,
Speaker 1: particularly with those January six hearings and the powerful testimony
Speaker 1: we heard this week from former White House aid Cassidy Hutchinson.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg's David Weston this is when we're tiring it back
Speaker 1: to Pat Tuney. He spoke with Republican Senator Pat Touney
Speaker 1: today and do we had some very interesting thoughts on
Speaker 1: how these hearings are going to impact Let's give a
Speaker 1: listen to that. I think he disqualified himself from serving
Speaker 1: in public office by virtue of his post election behavior,
Speaker 1: especially leading right up to January six, I think the
Speaker 1: revelations from this committee um make his path to even
Speaker 1: the Republican nomination much more tenuous. And so, Rick Davis,
Speaker 1: I mean you were just mentioning and and here we
Speaker 1: have a senator to me, uh, saying that he thinks
Speaker 1: that could really hurt Trump's chances, even though Trump so
Speaker 1: far has improved almost to be untouchable. Rick, do you
Speaker 1: think these January six serians are going to have any
Speaker 1: impact on how the Republican Republicans view Trump? First, I
Speaker 1: gotta say to me, needs to be on a radio show.
Speaker 1: That guy's got a great radio voice. Um, but he
Speaker 1: is welcome on sound on any time time. Right. I
Speaker 1: think he's terrific um. And and and look, I mean
Speaker 1: I think he's as a retiring centator has some license
Speaker 1: to speak his mind. And in this case, I think
Speaker 1: he's actually echoing a lot of Republican views, including Republicans
Speaker 1: I know who served in the Trump administration, and that
Speaker 1: is that the conduct that's now been reported is a
Speaker 1: disqualification for any future office. And that's gonna be a
Speaker 1: hard one to shake for this present. You see him
Speaker 1: fighting back now. But I think you know the question
Speaker 1: I would ask is whether or not this is to
Speaker 1: actually help Liz Cheney. She is in a fight of
Speaker 1: her life, you know, and she's behind in her home
Speaker 1: state for reelection. Uh, and she's making some direct hits
Speaker 1: on Donald Trump that are having a massive impact on Trump.
Speaker 1: But is it helping her? And and that's we're going
Speaker 1: to find out pretty soon on that. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: believe that primary is mid August. You've got almost the
Speaker 1: entire Republican establishment in Washington. Uh. I'm thinking in the
Speaker 1: House and thinking of Republican leader Kevin McCarthy really stacked
Speaker 1: up and supporting her opponent in this one, which is
Speaker 1: its very rare to see in that case. Um, Janie,
Speaker 1: I did want to go back to you though for
Speaker 1: a minute, for these January six hearings. I mean, is
Speaker 1: this something that is also going to be used to
Speaker 1: really help make sure that Democrats get their base out
Speaker 1: and get to the ballot box. Are Democrats being successful
Speaker 1: in this in this initiative or are people still having
Speaker 1: a hard time kind of connecting the dots between what
Speaker 1: happened on January six and what's going on in their
Speaker 1: own life. You know, I think the January six Committee
Speaker 1: has done a really good job of telling the story
Speaker 1: so far. I think they have to be commended these
Speaker 1: you watch a committee hearing is much more than I do. Emily,
Speaker 1: you know how boring they can be. They have made
Speaker 1: these you know, must watch TV and radio and everything else,
Speaker 1: so they have done a very very good job. I
Speaker 1: am not convinced this will be a way to get
Speaker 1: the vote out, but I don't even think that's the
Speaker 1: really important part. I think they have made the case
Speaker 1: and continue to make the case that our democracy was
Speaker 1: at stake and is at stake. And you know, as
Speaker 1: as I listened to Pat Toomey and appreciate his comments,
Speaker 1: we need to hear more of that, not just by
Speaker 1: Republicans who are retiring, who are leaving Congress and public life,
Speaker 1: but those in there like Liz Cheney have got to
Speaker 1: have the courage to come out and say the election
Speaker 1: was not stolen and what happened in and around January
Speaker 1: six was something that, to Pat Toomey's point, does make
Speaker 1: Donald Trump unfit to serve office. You know, when that happens,
Speaker 1: I think they will have succeeded um. But you know,
Speaker 1: in terms of getting Democrats out, I don't think this
Speaker 1: is going to be the big issue that gets them
Speaker 1: out Democrats who are listening to this and Democrats who
Speaker 1: are frustrated they already you know, are not going to
Speaker 1: be out to vote for Donald Trump. Anyways. I did
Speaker 1: also want to very quickly touch on it because we
Speaker 1: kind of alluded to it during the show. Biden was
Speaker 1: in Madrid today. He's been at this NATO conference and
Speaker 1: they've talked about a number of things about China, about Russia,
Speaker 1: about Ukraine, and Rick, I just wanted to ask you
Speaker 1: very quickly, and Jeannie got the broad question at the start,
Speaker 1: so you'll get the broad question at the end. How
Speaker 1: did Biden do with at NATO. Yeah, I think Biden
Speaker 1: did really well at NATO. I think he got a
Speaker 1: lot accomplished. Uh. It was a bad NATO summit for
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin, and that makes me happy because we got
Speaker 1: the basic ascension of Finland and Sweden into NATO. That
Speaker 1: is huge. I mean, on its own, it is going
Speaker 1: to define the war in Ukraine against Russia as a
Speaker 1: monumental success. He was he continues to rivet the world's
Speaker 1: attention to this problem, and I think that's what the
Speaker 1: Ukrainians want. They need attention absolutely, and they certainly got
Speaker 1: it this week. Rick Davis, Jennie Chanzano, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for joining us today and thinks as well. To
Speaker 1: Congresswoman Sarah Jacobs and Greg Store, Bloomberg's Supreme Court reporter.
Speaker 1: This is Emily Wilkins filling in for Joe Matthew. I
Speaker 1: will be gone tomorrow. Jack Fitzpatrick will be joining you.
Speaker 1: Make sure to tune in. This is Bloomberg