Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in our country,
Speaker 1: and now, with its new strength and conservative majority, the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could
Speaker 1: mean overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized
Speaker 1: abortion nationwide. Here's Planned Parenthood President Alexis McGill Johnson. It
Speaker 1: is absolutely a challenge that goes straight to the heart
Speaker 1: of Row and in doing so, threatens to overturn fifty
Speaker 1: years of precedent. The Mississippi Lawn issue banns abortion in
Speaker 1: almost all cases after fifteen weeks of pregnancy. Joining me
Speaker 1: is Stephen Vladdock, a constitutional law professor at the University
Speaker 1: of Texas Law School. Steve, what does the court taking
Speaker 1: this case suggest to you? I mean, I think it
Speaker 1: suggests that the new conservative majority is ready to dramatically
Speaker 1: narrow the scope of the constitutional rights to obtain an
Speaker 1: abortion that the Court of course recognized and roversus way
Speaker 1: then preserved in Planned parenthod versus Casey. This is going
Speaker 1: to be, I think the most important abortion decision the
Speaker 1: Supreme Courts handed down at least since Casey. Tell us
Speaker 1: about Mississippi's law. Ye, so the law at issue here
Speaker 1: um is effectively a ban on any and all abortions
Speaker 1: starting in the fifteenth the week of pregnancy, no matter
Speaker 1: the reason, no matter the justification. Basically, doctors may not
Speaker 1: perform abortions. Women may not receive abortion if the pregnancy
Speaker 1: is at least fifteen weeks along. And of course that's
Speaker 1: a pretty significant departure from Rowan Casey, which had set
Speaker 1: the line at viability at the point at which a
Speaker 1: fetus is theoretically capable of surviving outside the womb. That's
Speaker 1: usually closer to twenty maybe even twenty two weeks. So
Speaker 1: you know, the law is basically moving up the window
Speaker 1: where abortions are legal, compressing it dramatically, and basically Darren
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court to either reaffir Casey or hold that
Speaker 1: states are allowed to do this. So the lower courts
Speaker 1: ruled that the law was unconstitutional, and federal Judge Carlin
Speaker 1: Reeves wrote, the state chose to pass a law it
Speaker 1: knew was unconstitutional to endorse a decades long campaign fueled
Speaker 1: by national interest groups to ask the Supreme Court to
Speaker 1: overturn Roe v. Wade. Do you agree that that was
Speaker 1: the reason why Mississippi enacted the law. Absolutely. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's not a coincidence that the law was enacted shortly
Speaker 1: after Justice Kennedy announced that he was retiring from the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. But June look at the appeal and the
Speaker 1: Fifth Circuit. Mississippi didn't even request oral argument when it
Speaker 1: appealed Judge Reaves's decision to the Fifth Circuit because it
Speaker 1: knew that based on the Supreme Court precedents as they
Speaker 1: currently stand, this law is clearly unconstitutional. And that's because
Speaker 1: under Casey, the state may not categorically ban pre viability abortions.
Speaker 1: It's exactly what the Mississippi law does for abortions carried
Speaker 1: out between the fifteenth week of pregnancy and viability. This
Speaker 1: was all along in effort to get this case in
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court June. The big difference is that although
Speaker 1: the law was initially motivated by the retirement of Justice Kennedy,
Speaker 1: we of course now also have the replacement of Justice
Speaker 1: Ginsburg by Justice Sammy Coney Barrett. The Fifth Circuit affirmed
Speaker 1: the judge of decision, and the Fifth Circuit is considered
Speaker 1: perhaps the most conservative circuit in the country. Oh I
Speaker 1: don't even think that's in question. But the sister could recognized,
Speaker 1: as I think everybody else does, that there's no way
Speaker 1: to reconcile Mississippi's law with the existing Supreme Court precedence
Speaker 1: with rowan casey. I think, June, that's why so many
Speaker 1: people were waiting to see what the Supreme Court did
Speaker 1: with this case. They would have been well within their
Speaker 1: rights to just deny certain there's no split in the
Speaker 1: lower courts. This is an issue that the Fifth Circut
Speaker 1: thought was compelled by existing Supreme Court precedent. And that's
Speaker 1: why the grant is such a big story, because the
Speaker 1: grant is the Supreme Court saying we didn't have to
Speaker 1: take this case. We know you only brought this case
Speaker 1: to ask us to either overrule or dramatically narrow Row,
Speaker 1: and we're going to do that. So the were deferred
Speaker 1: acting on this case since late September. What do you
Speaker 1: read into that? You know, it's a great question, June.
Speaker 1: This case was relisted is the technical term? I think
Speaker 1: over a dozen times from the dust of this conference.
Speaker 1: I don't know what the answer is. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think it's unusual to see a case relisted like that.
Speaker 1: So many times and then granted. Usually that's a sign
Speaker 1: that someone is the senting from a denial of sert.
Speaker 1: So there's no good, obvious explanation for why this case
Speaker 1: was held for so long, other than perhaps that the
Speaker 1: Court just wanted to hold it for next term. But
Speaker 1: even then, the Court could have granted it as early
Speaker 1: as April, even March, and it still would have been
Speaker 1: on pace for next term. So I'm sure there's an
Speaker 1: inside story for this June, but it's not one that,
Speaker 1: at least at the moment, will trivy too. In its appeal,
Speaker 1: Mississippi argued that viability is not an appropriate standard for
Speaker 1: assessing the constitutionality of a law regulating abortion, and is
Speaker 1: that what the justices agreed to consider? The viability So
Speaker 1: there are three questions presented in the petition, and the
Speaker 1: only one the court granted was whether pre viability bands
Speaker 1: like the one Mississippi has put out there are per
Speaker 1: se unconstitutional under a row in Casey. That's why the
Speaker 1: Court could seeoretically rule from Mississippi without over ruling Row.
Speaker 1: They could say, you know, no, they're not per state unconstitutional,
Speaker 1: but they're also not per state constitutional, and that would
Speaker 1: leave at least something left to Row, but it's worth
Speaker 1: stressing justice. Blackman's opinion in Row, which is often maligned
Speaker 1: but seldom read, spends a lot of time explaining why
Speaker 1: viability is irrelevant inflection point. And Blackman's argument is that
Speaker 1: viability is the point at which a fetus is capable
Speaker 1: of surviving outside the womb. Therefore, it's the point which
Speaker 1: the state's interest in protecting the life of the fetus
Speaker 1: can be, you know, sort of separated from the state's
Speaker 1: interest is protecting the health of the pregnant woman, because
Speaker 1: up to that point, the fetis depends upon the present
Speaker 1: woman for everything necessary to the life. And so that
Speaker 1: was the animating premise of Row. The court could theoretically
Speaker 1: limit that without Row, but any incursion at this point
Speaker 1: it's going to be a dramatic restriction of a woman's
Speaker 1: right to choose. And yet the confirmation hearings of the
Speaker 1: last three gentice is appointed by President Trump, they all
Speaker 1: said that Roe v. Wade was established precedent. Well, I
Speaker 1: think we know exactly how far you can take those statements.
Speaker 1: There's a reason June is why abortion rights groups is
Speaker 1: as an ominous sign and why anti abortion groups to
Speaker 1: this as a huge victory already just from the grant.
Speaker 1: This is not a case where the grant is at
Speaker 1: all equivocal as to what the Court's going to do.
Speaker 1: There's no circuit split to resolve. There's no messy question
Speaker 1: that the lower courts clearly got wrong. This is a
Speaker 1: case that has been designed from the moment the law
Speaker 1: is passed to prompt to the new conservative court to
Speaker 1: read it at row, and along the way the court
Speaker 1: got even more conservative. So Amy Coney Barrett isn't even
Speaker 1: on the bench for a year yet, and we've often
Speaker 1: talked before about Chief Justice John Roberts liking to do
Speaker 1: things incrementally. Are you surprised that the Conservatives are moving
Speaker 1: so fast and taking this case. No, because Chief as
Speaker 1: Roberts isn't an important vote anymore. And I think the
Speaker 1: marginalization of the Chief Justice is something we're seeing a
Speaker 1: lot towards the end of this term. That FA's that
Speaker 1: the Court took this massive, that an amendment case a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks ago for next term. But FA's that
Speaker 1: the Court is taking this case some of the other
Speaker 1: things the Court is doing. I mean, I think June,
Speaker 1: this is much much less the Roberts Court than the
Speaker 1: court we saw as recently as a year ago. And
Speaker 1: I think insofar as the median vote now is Brett
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh or Neil Gorstish or maybe even Emmy Coney Barrett,
Speaker 1: that's the court that's going to be I think, a
Speaker 1: lot more aggressive and a lot more willing to sort
Speaker 1: of brush aside concerns about eroding their institutional legitimacy by
Speaker 1: moving against precedent thus quickly just in taking this case.
Speaker 1: And if they rule in favor of Mississippi's law, will
Speaker 1: that give new fuel to those who want to pack
Speaker 1: the court. It certainly will be invoked as yet another
Speaker 1: reason why, you know the Supreme Court should be extended.
Speaker 1: If you see my six to three or even a
Speaker 1: five to four decision that dramatically limits Row. Yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: sure that will be yet a further reason. But you know, June,
Speaker 1: we were already heading this way. I think even before
Speaker 1: Jessice Ginsburg died. I mean, I think, you know, this
Speaker 1: case is a good example of how conservatives understood from
Speaker 1: the get go that Justice Kavanaugh replaced him Justice Kennedy
Speaker 1: was going to be a huge opportunity to remake a
Speaker 1: series of doctrines. We saw another one actually in another
Speaker 1: decision the Court issue today about the retroactivity of a
Speaker 1: new interpretation of the sixth Amendment. So you know, I think, yes,
Speaker 1: it will be fodder for the court packing advocates, but
Speaker 1: you know, in many respects, the real fadder is not
Speaker 1: any individual decision June, but the overall pattern. If the
Speaker 1: Court does reverse Row, could we reach a point where
Speaker 1: laws and states that protect abortion could be found unconstitutional?
Speaker 1: I don't think so, because that's the flip side of
Speaker 1: the coin, and I think what we're heading for is
Speaker 1: very much the world that we saw before Row, where
Speaker 1: there's just a wild divergence in states laws, and where
Speaker 1: mostly blue states are going to have pretty strong protections
Speaker 1: for abortions, perhaps all the way up to viability, maybe
Speaker 1: even in some cases pass viability, and that red states
Speaker 1: are going to go as far as they possibly can
Speaker 1: to cut off access to abortions. And so it's just
Speaker 1: gonna be a tale of two legal regimes where women
Speaker 1: in blue states will have access to abortions and women
Speaker 1: in red states principally won't. Mississippi was arguing about at
Speaker 1: what point the fetus can feel do you expect to
Speaker 1: hear those kinds of arguments at the Supreme Court, the
Speaker 1: sort of clinical approach. I'm sure we will. I mean,
Speaker 1: because I think, you know, the anti abortion groups understand
Speaker 1: the states here, and they understand that they finally have
Speaker 1: the court. They want um something that they've been you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, June, we're looking, you know, we're almost fifty
Speaker 1: years right into the fight to get rid of Row.
Speaker 1: And from their perspective, I think you know, this is
Speaker 1: all hands on deck. Every possible argument about why you know,
Speaker 1: abortion in general is problematic, about why states should be
Speaker 1: allowed flexibility in deciding where the deadline isn't ought to
Speaker 1: be for obtaining a legal abortion. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: you know, if there's an argument out there, it's going
Speaker 1: to be made. And you know, this is already we're
Speaker 1: already looking at the term next term that chasing up
Speaker 1: to be a pretty blockbuster term. This is going to
Speaker 1: be one of the big picture cases, no matter what
Speaker 1: else is added. Tell us about some of the blockbuster
Speaker 1: cases next term. I mean, there's the Second Amendment case
Speaker 1: that there's a good that we're going to have some
Speaker 1: pretty important affirmative action cases before the Court next term.
Speaker 1: You know, if there are challenges to any of the
Speaker 1: Biden administration's major policies, and you'll see those giving the
Speaker 1: Sucreme Court next term. So it's gonna be quite quite
Speaker 1: a year. The three very conservative justice is appointed by
Speaker 1: President Trump will really make the difference in this case
Speaker 1: and so many other cases. It is often said of
Speaker 1: John Adams, who also served one term as President UM,
Speaker 1: that his most important legacy was who we put on
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. And for all of the sort of
Speaker 1: short term damage Trump did to our system, I think
Speaker 1: is no question that his long term legacy, at least constitutionally,
Speaker 1: is going to be, you know, the three justices he
Speaker 1: put on the Court. Thanks for being the Bloomberg Law Show, Steve.
Speaker 1: That's Professor Stephen Vladdock at the University of Texas Law School.
Speaker 1: Last month, Justice Stephen Bryer rejected the characterization of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court as conservative. I hope and expect that the
Speaker 1: Court will retain its authority, but that authority, like the
Speaker 1: rule of law, depends on trust, a trust that the
Speaker 1: Court is guided by legal principle, not politics. But by
Speaker 1: adding major abortion and gun rights cases to its docket,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court is offering hints of the kind of
Speaker 1: paradigm shift that conservatives have long been hoping for. Joining
Speaker 1: me as Bloomberg, new Supreme Court reporter Greg store Greig,
Speaker 1: this term has been a little low key. Will next
Speaker 1: term be any different? It will be very different. June.
Speaker 1: We all already have two of the biggest hot button
Speaker 1: issues the country faces on the docket for next term.
Speaker 1: That's gun rights and abortion, and we could well get
Speaker 1: an affirmative action cases. Well. Next term really looks to
Speaker 1: be the one where we find out just how conservative
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court is. You spoke to Professor Leo Littman
Speaker 1: of the University of Michigan, and she said, there are
Speaker 1: certain things you get a point to do, and for
Speaker 1: movement conservative lawyers, that's limit or overrule Row, expand the
Speaker 1: Second Amendment, and invalidate affirmative action. So is this what
Speaker 1: conservatives have been waiting for from the Supreme Court? It
Speaker 1: absolutely is. And you know, Roge Wade is kind of
Speaker 1: the holy grail for the conservative legal movement. It's the
Speaker 1: decision that so many of them think was horribly wrong
Speaker 1: and they'd like to see overturned. And up until very recently,
Speaker 1: that didn't seem like anything more than a pipe dream,
Speaker 1: but now with the six three conservative court, it's at
Speaker 1: least a real possibility to be discussing. Now the Court
Speaker 1: will still have to overcome this big hurl up. Starry
Speaker 1: decises this idea that the Court that's like to disturb
Speaker 1: its precedence, and a couple of the key justice is
Speaker 1: John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh. I have talked a lot
Speaker 1: about story disizes, but at least that's back in the
Speaker 1: mix now. As you know, it takes four votes in
Speaker 1: order for the Justice to take a case. Any Coney
Speaker 1: Barrett has only been on the court for seven months
Speaker 1: and we're now seeing the court taking these cases. Is
Speaker 1: she likely the fourth vote? It sure seems like she
Speaker 1: has made a difference. Now. Of course, the Court doesn't
Speaker 1: tell us who voted to take up a case, and
Speaker 1: there's certainly a dynamic there that there are times when
Speaker 1: even though four justices might want to take up an issue,
Speaker 1: if they're not sure about getting the stiff justice on
Speaker 1: their side, they might not be willing to grant review
Speaker 1: to a case. Here now the conservative wing of the
Speaker 1: Court is much stronger, and regardless exactly which four of
Speaker 1: them voted to grant certain the idea that a mean
Speaker 1: Coney Barrett there certainly have to be giving the anti
Speaker 1: abortion side a lot more confident that they will ultimately
Speaker 1: prevail when the Supreme Court rules in this case. And
Speaker 1: tell us how she seemed to make a difference when
Speaker 1: the Court was considering emergency appeals from churches fighting the
Speaker 1: pandemic restrictions. That's the area where we have so far
Speaker 1: seen the most concrete movement on this court in all
Speaker 1: these emergency cases where churches were saying, hey, these restrictions
Speaker 1: were being subject to in terms of capacity limits and
Speaker 1: things like that are stricter than say, the retail store
Speaker 1: down the street, and the Supreme Court has been very,
Speaker 1: very receptive to those. And we've seen the difference because
Speaker 1: some of those came up before Amy Coney Barrett joined
Speaker 1: the Court, and John Roberts, the Chief Justice, was at
Speaker 1: times siding with the liberal wing and saying we need
Speaker 1: to give a lot of deference to officials when they're
Speaker 1: setting out these health rules. And after she joined the
Speaker 1: court that changed, so in that area religious rights, she
Speaker 1: seems to have made a very big difference. Just as stress,
Speaker 1: no one can say how the Court will rule in
Speaker 1: these cases, but explain how just taking them indicates and
Speaker 1: intent to change the law. If there was a solid
Speaker 1: majority on the Court to say we do not want
Speaker 1: to disturb, say the abortion rights precedents, it would have
Speaker 1: been very easy for the Court just to say, no,
Speaker 1: we're not going to take this appeal. And they didn't
Speaker 1: do that, and it would be really strange if they
Speaker 1: decided to take it up but don't have a majority
Speaker 1: of the Court that is at least very seriously considering
Speaker 1: watering down or even overturning those key abortion precedents. So
Speaker 1: now the Second Amendment case, my Justice Brett Kavanaugh replacing
Speaker 1: Justice Anthony Kennedy, have anything to do with the Court
Speaker 1: taking that case, or are there now so many Second
Speaker 1: Amendment rights advocates sort of on the Court that we
Speaker 1: don't know well, we know that Justice Kavanaugh has said
Speaker 1: in a couple of cases last term that the Court
Speaker 1: didn't take up. He has said, I think the Court
Speaker 1: needs to take up more of these cases. I am
Speaker 1: concerned that lower courts are not applying our gun rights
Speaker 1: precedents strongly. And and that's not the kind of outward
Speaker 1: sign that Justice Kennedy ever showed. That said, until very
Speaker 1: recently the Court was still reluctant to take up these cases,
Speaker 1: even though lower courts had been divided on issues like
Speaker 1: is there a Second Amendment right to carry a handgun
Speaker 1: outside the home? That's the case the Court is going
Speaker 1: to be taking up next term. It wasn't until you
Speaker 1: had Amy Coney Barrett on the court and a really
Speaker 1: solid conservative majority that the right wing of the Court
Speaker 1: was to point a phrase ready to pull the trigger
Speaker 1: on taking up one of those cases. As far as
Speaker 1: the Second Amendment, there is division in the lower courts.
Speaker 1: There is division on that question of whether restrictions on
Speaker 1: carrying weapons outside the home handguns. There are a number
Speaker 1: of states, mostly liberal states, that require you to show
Speaker 1: some sort of special need in order to get a
Speaker 1: license to carry either a confield or openly carry a handgun,
Speaker 1: and gun rights groups have been trying to challenge these
Speaker 1: laws for years. There are a few lower courts that
Speaker 1: have said they are unconstitutional, a few lower courts have
Speaker 1: said they are constitutional. And finally the Supreme Court is
Speaker 1: going to take up that issue. And you have to
Speaker 1: think that the gun right side hasn't edged in the case.
Speaker 1: So in that case, there was a split in the
Speaker 1: circuits so that's a reason for the Supreme Court to
Speaker 1: take a case. But in the abortion rights case, in
Speaker 1: the Mississippi case, there was no split in the circuits.
Speaker 1: Was there that they didn't have to take that case.
Speaker 1: That's exactly right, June. They did not have to take it,
Speaker 1: and that's part of what was so striking about the
Speaker 1: fact that they did. No lower court had said that
Speaker 1: this sort of ban on abortion, this is a ban
Speaker 1: on most abortions after fifty weeks of pregnancy. No lower court,
Speaker 1: no federal pale court had said that sort of ban
Speaker 1: is constitutional. And the reason is the Supreme Court's precedents,
Speaker 1: in particular Casey decision, have said that up until the
Speaker 1: point where a fetus becomes viable, that is capable of
Speaker 1: living outside the womb, and that's something like three weeks. Uh.
Speaker 1: Up until that point states in the in the federal
Speaker 1: government can't put significant restrictions on the ability of a
Speaker 1: woman to get an abortion. So it's really hard to
Speaker 1: square with the Casey decision. And one of her real
Speaker 1: questions for the Court is, uh, if they are going
Speaker 1: to uphold this Mississippi law, how can they possibly do
Speaker 1: that without overturning at least in part the planned parenthood
Speaker 1: versus Casey decision. The conservatives seem to be moving fast
Speaker 1: to me, but in your story you said that it
Speaker 1: wasn't fast enough for some conservatives. Is there outside pressure
Speaker 1: from conservatives for the new conservative justice to take these cases? Yeah,
Speaker 1: it was probably unrealistic. There have been a number of
Speaker 1: much less significant cases where we have seen Amy Coney
Speaker 1: Barrett in particular, not go as far as some of
Speaker 1: her more conservative colleagues. For example, one of those COVID
Speaker 1: cases involved ban on singing or chanting at worship services,
Speaker 1: and she wasn't ready to say that that band should
Speaker 1: should be blocked. That's just one example of cases where
Speaker 1: she's been a somewhat careful jurist, and that has frustrated
Speaker 1: some conservatives that the court hasn't moved more quickly. That said,
Speaker 1: it's still her first term, and the fact that she
Speaker 1: is perhaps being a little bit cautious, and maybe even
Speaker 1: some of the other justices are being a little bit
Speaker 1: cautious in her first term is by no means a
Speaker 1: sign that she won't be basically the kind of judge
Speaker 1: that conservatives were hoping for when she was nominated and confirmed.
Speaker 1: Just to stress no one can say how the Court
Speaker 1: will rule in these cases, but explain how just taking
Speaker 1: them indicates an intent to change the lawn. If there
Speaker 1: were there was a solid majority on the Court to say,
Speaker 1: we do not want to disturb, say the abortion rights precedents,
Speaker 1: we do not want to call into question the Casey decision,
Speaker 1: it would have been very easy for the Court just
Speaker 1: a they know, we're not going to take this appeal,
Speaker 1: and they didn't do that. They actually sat on it
Speaker 1: for quite a long time, more than seven months before
Speaker 1: deciding what to do, but ultimately they decided to take
Speaker 1: it up. And it would be really strange if they
Speaker 1: decided to take it up but don't have a majority
Speaker 1: of the Court that is at least very seriously considering
Speaker 1: watering down or even overturning those key abortion precedents. Now
Speaker 1: there's also an affirmative action appeal before the Court, and
Speaker 1: a conservative group, Students for Fair Admissions, has been mapping
Speaker 1: how to get that issue before the court again by
Speaker 1: bringing cases in courts across the country. Is that something
Speaker 1: that the Court might take up as well. Absolutely, And
Speaker 1: this is an area where we've seen John Roberts be
Speaker 1: highly skeptical of using race as an admissions factor. It's
Speaker 1: entirely possible in this case that he is a justice
Speaker 1: who is eager to take up a case. The key
Speaker 1: precedent or one of the key precedents that this group
Speaker 1: is asking the Court to court to overturn is this
Speaker 1: two thousand and three case called Grouder versus University of
Speaker 1: Michigan that upheld the use of race based admissions as
Speaker 1: long as it's part of a wholistic review of an
Speaker 1: applicants file. And unlike in the abortion context, where Mississippi
Speaker 1: is not directly asking the Court to overturn a precedent,
Speaker 1: in this case, the group that's suing Harvard College over
Speaker 1: its admissions practices is directly asking the Supreme Court to
Speaker 1: overturn the Grouder decision. It's possible it will be more
Speaker 1: than the Court wants to buy it off in a
Speaker 1: single term to have guns and abortion and affirmative action.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, given the way this has been
Speaker 1: such a longstanding issue that has bothered John Roberts, it's
Speaker 1: also very easy to see how they might get four
Speaker 1: votes to take up that case as well. If even
Speaker 1: if they don't take the affirmative action case just taking
Speaker 1: the Second Amendment case and the abortion rights case in
Speaker 1: one term and depend on what the result is. Doesn't
Speaker 1: that give more fuel to the progressives who want to
Speaker 1: pack the court. Absolutely, if we see the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: a year from now or or thirteen months from now
Speaker 1: at the end of the next term, that has gutted
Speaker 1: the row and Casey has expanded uh, gun rights, has
Speaker 1: overturned abolished affirmative action, at least in the higher education context. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: that will add fuel to the fire for those who
Speaker 1: want to do something about the Supreme Court, possibly adding seats.
Speaker 1: Of course, Democrats may not have the votes to do that,
Speaker 1: but the calls will only grow louder if if that happens.
Speaker 1: Speaking of which, President Joe Biden, Supreme Court Commission held
Speaker 1: its first public meeting on Wednesday. What happened, Well, it's
Speaker 1: a very brief meeting. They meant for only about twenty minutes.
Speaker 1: The members, or the thirty three of the thirty six
Speaker 1: of them who were in attendance via zoom, all took
Speaker 1: their oath. They a few of the commissioners laid out
Speaker 1: the scope of what they're going to do, and that
Speaker 1: includes looking at all manner of proposals to expand the
Speaker 1: court limited jurisdiction, to impose terminent limits on justices. Uh.
Speaker 1: Not to make recommendations, but to look at all those proposals,
Speaker 1: to analyze them, to to to assess their legality. That
Speaker 1: that sort of thing. Uh. The the commissioners laid out
Speaker 1: the scope of what they're going to do, and that
Speaker 1: was about it, and then they said they'll meet again
Speaker 1: the next meeting. Public meeting will include some testimony and
Speaker 1: uh maybe a little more uh substance and and perhaps contentiousness.
Speaker 1: It's a democratic led commission, but it is bipartisan. There
Speaker 1: are some different views among the members of them. And
Speaker 1: eight days from now, or from the day that data
Speaker 1: that first meet meeting, we are supposed to get the
Speaker 1: commission's report and we'll see what happens from there. The
Speaker 1: fact that Biden didn't ask the commission to make any
Speaker 1: recommendations has led some people to think that this commission
Speaker 1: is just a way of biding time because it's another
Speaker 1: report when there are so many reports already out there
Speaker 1: on the courts. Yeah, it could well end up that way, uh,
Speaker 1: at least until demcrats Democrats are able to coalesce around
Speaker 1: something right now. There are a lot of different ideas
Speaker 1: out there for what to do about the court, and
Speaker 1: and there's by no means that consensus as to what,
Speaker 1: if anything, should happen. Uh. Perhaps the Commission will hone
Speaker 1: some of the issues and make it easier for for
Speaker 1: those who want changed to coalesce around one or two
Speaker 1: or three particular proposals. But it is also certainly possible
Speaker 1: that by the time this report comes out, attention will
Speaker 1: have been turned elsewhere, and whatever momentum there was for
Speaker 1: changing the court, we'll have dissipated a bit. Thanks for
Speaker 1: being on the Bloomberg Law Show. Greg. That's Bloomberg News
Speaker 1: Supreme Court Reporter Greg Store And that's it for the
Speaker 1: sedition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always
Speaker 1: get the latest legal news on the Bloomberg Law Podcast.
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and at
Speaker 1: www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law. I'm
Speaker 1: June Grosso. Thanks so much for listening. Please studit Blo
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Lawn Show every week. The attend on Eastern right
Speaker 1: here on Bloomberg Radio