Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg Sound On
Speaker 1: what day. It has been tough, but we need to
Speaker 1: focus on the job in hand. We still have nearly
Speaker 1: six that remained without power. We did what we had
Speaker 1: to do at the exact same time. I would have
Speaker 1: changed anything. Bloomberg Sound on Politics, Policy and perspective from
Speaker 1: DC's top names. I don't believe we'll ever have a
Speaker 1: fair election again. I'll keep your lights on. I'll make
Speaker 1: sure that they keep your kids safe, to cut your
Speaker 1: property taxes, to secure the border, to keep dangerous criminals
Speaker 1: behind bars. Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. Now,
Speaker 1: it's a sprint to election day. Welcome to the fourth quarter,
Speaker 1: in the fastest hour in politics. With Congress in recess,
Speaker 1: it's full time campaigning and debating from not in November,
Speaker 1: and we'll look at the shifting landscape on the trail,
Speaker 1: including some important governor's races to watch ahead with Jessica
Speaker 1: Taylor of the Cook Politics Report. The new Supreme Court
Speaker 1: term begins today with Justice Catangi Brown Jackson's voice added
Speaker 1: to the High Court. And there's already news as the
Speaker 1: Court decides to hear a challenge to Section two thirty
Speaker 1: protections for social media. We'll get into it with Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Supreme Court expert reg store, and our signature panel is
Speaker 1: with us Bloomberg Politics contributors Rick Davis and Jeanie Schanzano.
Speaker 1: Five weeks to go to the mid terms, and things
Speaker 1: ought to be pretty quiet here inside the bubble. Congress
Speaker 1: is gone. You can park almost anywhere. No real traffic
Speaker 1: this morning in d C. Real clear politics. By the way,
Speaker 1: that will change tomorrow. Right people work Tuesday to Thursday, now,
Speaker 1: Real clear politics. Polar Polls shows Republicans up by only
Speaker 1: one percentage point on the generic congressional ballot. Five thirty
Speaker 1: gives Republicans are roughly two and three chances of flipping
Speaker 1: the House, same odds for Democrats holding the Senate. That's
Speaker 1: where we start here. Prepare for a lot of town
Speaker 1: halls and at least some debates. As we've been discussing,
Speaker 1: there aren't that many depending on the race. Maybe one,
Speaker 1: maybe two if you're lucky for a big race. To
Speaker 1: closely watch governor's race in Texas. Saw it's one and
Speaker 1: only debate last weekend. Hold your breath now, and they're
Speaker 1: only debate before election day, we go after answers on
Speaker 1: the issues you care about most. Listen to this ship
Speaker 1: k X A N in Austin the traumas and how
Speaker 1: far we'll go to protect trying to scare people as
Speaker 1: people watch around the state. He is in South Texas.
Speaker 1: Line from the universe. It's the next level of Rio
Speaker 1: Grand Valley. I mean, it's like music from the movie Psycho.
Speaker 1: I know we all want ratings, but my god, if
Speaker 1: we can calm down a little bit, we might survive
Speaker 1: this election cycle. So the debate ran an hour. It
Speaker 1: covered a lot of ground, including several rounds on gun laws.
Speaker 1: While you would expect that in Texas, betto Abbott and
Speaker 1: as well on reproductive rights. Listen to Republican Governor Greg
Speaker 1: Abbott and Democrat Betto or crystallize the national debate in
Speaker 1: this back. For as as it concerns abortion, let's have
Speaker 1: Bessel's position is the most extreme because he not only
Speaker 1: supports an abortion of a fully developed child to the
Speaker 1: very last second before birth, He's even against providing medical
Speaker 1: care for a baby who survives an abortion. He is
Speaker 1: for unlimited abortion at taxpayer expense. That's not true. It's
Speaker 1: completely alive. Um. I never said that, and no one
Speaker 1: thinks that in the state of Texas. He's saying this
Speaker 1: because he signed the most extreme abortion ban in America,
Speaker 1: no exception for rape, no exception for incest. It begins
Speaker 1: at conception, and it's taking place in the state that
Speaker 1: is at the epicenter of a maternal mortality crisis thanks
Speaker 1: to Greg Abbott, three times as deadly for black women.
Speaker 1: I will fight to make sure that every woman makes
Speaker 1: her own decisions about her own body, her own future,
Speaker 1: and her own health care. That's what most of US
Speaker 1: Republicans and Democrats in one point of clarification seconds, is
Speaker 1: there a limit that you support on women getting an abortion?
Speaker 1: That limit was decided in nineteen seventy three through a
Speaker 1: victory that Jane Rowe and Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington
Speaker 1: one before an all male United States Supreme Court. Important exchange,
Speaker 1: important follow up there by the moderator. Democrats think this
Speaker 1: is a game changer nationally, of course, and that's where
Speaker 1: we start with Jessica Taylor, Senate and governor's editor at
Speaker 1: the Cook Political Report. This is busy season for Jessica
Speaker 1: and she's back with us on Bloomberg Radio, Jessica, welcome back.
Speaker 1: Democrats want to make abortion a major issue nationally. Do
Speaker 1: the nuances change though from state to state as you
Speaker 1: listen to this debate in Texas? Or is that the
Speaker 1: blueprint for both parties that we just heard. It's somewhat
Speaker 1: the blueprint that we've heard along messaging, but I still
Speaker 1: think it is different state by state. I think it
Speaker 1: matters more in governor's racist um. But you know, this
Speaker 1: law even a better word to win, which he is
Speaker 1: not favored to do. We have this race rated likely
Speaker 1: Republican UM. You know he would still face pass to
Speaker 1: try to overturn this. And you know where I think
Speaker 1: it has Democrats narrowed the gap overall we but we
Speaker 1: still see the economy is still number one. I mean
Speaker 1: abortion is not far back there. But I still think
Speaker 1: the economy and all of these issues are ones that
Speaker 1: are favorable to Republicans and what should historically be a
Speaker 1: favorable Republican year. Now has abortion narrowed that some and
Speaker 1: sort of maybe muted the historical aspects? I think it has,
Speaker 1: But you know, in very very close races, we could
Speaker 1: see this matter. But I never consider Texas a very
Speaker 1: very close race from the beginning, even though Better certainly
Speaker 1: is a national name and certainly rose to rose to
Speaker 1: prominent um in his Senate race and subsequent presidential race.
Speaker 1: That didn't help his any future career he had in
Speaker 1: Texas by by any much. But I think ultimately this
Speaker 1: was he'll rate, he'll he'll raise a lot of money,
Speaker 1: but I just don't see this being competitive. The real
Speaker 1: clear average, by the way, has uh the incomic Greg
Speaker 1: Bit up by eight points over Beddo Rourke. And I
Speaker 1: want to mention that Cook moved and this was your
Speaker 1: your column, Jessica moved a couple of important governors races,
Speaker 1: including Michigan and Pennsylvania. Specifically, these two from lean democratic
Speaker 1: too likely Democratic, and I'd like to ask you about
Speaker 1: each of them. Will start with Pennsylvania here, although maybe
Speaker 1: you've got a theme between the two. What was the issue,
Speaker 1: what was the movement in the two races that had
Speaker 1: you moved the dial here? Well, I think there's more
Speaker 1: of a theme between Pennsylvania and Michigan, which really at
Speaker 1: the start of disciple, these were key um Republican pickup opportunities,
Speaker 1: you know, swing states very narrowly decided in the past
Speaker 1: few presidential elections went from voting for Trump in to
Speaker 1: vote in Probiden very narrowly. But it shows us that
Speaker 1: candidates matter. So in Pennsylvania you have duf Mastriano that
Speaker 1: won that primary and up until starting tomorrow, he's never
Speaker 1: run a television at and the Democratic incumbent or not
Speaker 1: Demo Democratic nominee rather Josh stein Uh Josh Shapiro, who
Speaker 1: is currently the Attorney general, did not have a primary,
Speaker 1: has completely far out raised him, has been able to
Speaker 1: set the narrative there, and they're all He's He's attracting
Speaker 1: a lot of Republican voters too. So this is just
Speaker 1: not one that we could see as competitive any longer
Speaker 1: when you know you're six months out or not six
Speaker 1: five weeks out, where just five weeks starting tomorrow, um,
Speaker 1: when the nominee hasn't even run a television at It's
Speaker 1: in the same case in Michigan where Tudor Dixon won
Speaker 1: the primary. Now she was probably the best nominee that
Speaker 1: Republicans could have hoped for, but that was because the
Speaker 1: top two, like dr ballot, weren't even on the primary ballot.
Speaker 1: So I'll ask you more about that. When Donald Trump
Speaker 1: held a rally for Republicans in Michigan over the weekend.
Speaker 1: He was in Warren, Michigan. Uh, you may have seen
Speaker 1: this yourself in in in stumping for Tutor Dixon, specifically,
Speaker 1: who is trailing Governor Gretchen Whitner. Whitner by quite a
Speaker 1: bit here. Listened to Tutor Dixon and listen to the
Speaker 1: crowd respond as she spoke at the Trump route. Are
Speaker 1: you excited to see President Donald J. Trump? Would you
Speaker 1: be excited to see Gretchen Whitmer? That's what I hear.
Speaker 1: I hear she's not doing any public events because she's
Speaker 1: afraid of what was that sound again? Yeah, and this
Speaker 1: rolls right into you know it, the lock her up chance.
Speaker 1: Uh and boy, this one on for quite a while.
Speaker 1: But my goodness, the sort of snarky campaign message against
Speaker 1: Governor Whitmer is not working. Jessica, how come Pixon also
Speaker 1: has no money? Now, she does have a group backing
Speaker 1: or that helped her when the primary, led by the
Speaker 1: family of former Trump Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. But I mean,
Speaker 1: Whipmer is just outspending her and running a far better
Speaker 1: ground game. And again, in a state like Michigan that's
Speaker 1: typically this close do you think matter? Now? I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that either Pennsylvania or Michigan is going to be,
Speaker 1: you know, a double digit blowout. I don't think that's
Speaker 1: the case. But four or five points in these states
Speaker 1: state just how closely divided they are. That's the landslide.
Speaker 1: And you see you to your point with with Dixon
Speaker 1: not running as did you see this local Republican Party
Speaker 1: ad that was posted to Facebook. Things gone viral today
Speaker 1: on Twitter. It's I mean, it's talk about homegrown. By
Speaker 1: the way, how do you pronounce the county? Is it?
Speaker 1: Is it Gratiot County in UM? But that the county
Speaker 1: Republican Party came up with its own ad. I feel
Speaker 1: irresponsible almost playing this, but it's it's just it's so stark, Jessica.
Speaker 1: Give it a listen. Schools were close for almost two years.
Speaker 1: Poor kids. Speaking of kids, Whimer says she's gonna work
Speaker 1: like how to keep killing babies, and she put COVID
Speaker 1: patients in Graham's nursing home. Graham died alone. Gram died alone. Jessica,
Speaker 1: these are like five bikers or people dressed like bikers,
Speaker 1: I guess volunteers. Are they real people? I'm not sure,
Speaker 1: but the ad people saying I'm voting for chick. What
Speaker 1: her name? So they don't even until someone tells them
Speaker 1: the other chick. You're line went out of there for
Speaker 1: a second. Yes, they refer to Tutor Dixon as the
Speaker 1: other chick. And I'm assuming that she's good with us.
Speaker 1: What do you think, Jessica, You're you cut out of
Speaker 1: me there? Yeah, we got ourselves a bad line. But Jessica,
Speaker 1: thank you Senator, Governor's editor for the Cook Political Report.
Speaker 1: I appreciate your being with us here in Bloomberg sound On.
Speaker 1: If you haven't seen this, I mean, it's it's a riot.
Speaker 1: I could keep playing it. And yes, they do refer
Speaker 1: to Tutor Dixon as the other chick. Donald Trump at
Speaker 1: that same rally with a message that oughto resonate with
Speaker 1: voters on both side of the aisle, well maybe just Republicans.
Speaker 1: But I'm afraid we have never had we and I
Speaker 1: don't believe I don't believe we'll ever have a fair
Speaker 1: election again. I don't believe it. I'm not sure how
Speaker 1: anyone will react to that when you're trying to get
Speaker 1: voter turnout here five weeks away. Donald Trump in Warren
Speaker 1: a lot more where that came from. That. We're going
Speaker 1: to assemble the panel and walk through here at the beginning. Really,
Speaker 1: I mean, my goodness, this is it. There's no turning
Speaker 1: back here in the general campaign to midterm election night.
Speaker 1: Rick Davis and Jeannie Schanzano are coming in next Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Politics contributors are signature panel, of course, and a bit
Speaker 1: later on this hour, we're gonna turn to what's happening
Speaker 1: in the Supreme Court. A very important day with a
Speaker 1: new term at hand and a new justice on the
Speaker 1: High Court helping to argue all of this out. We're
Speaker 1: gonna talk with Greg Store about that later on here
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg's ound On, I'm Joe Matthew and Washington. Hope
Speaker 1: you had a great weekend. Thanks for being with us,
Speaker 1: and make sure you subscribe to the sound on podcast.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg. You're listening to Bloomberg you sound on
Speaker 1: with Joe Matthew on Bloombird Radio. Apologies to the people
Speaker 1: of Grasshitt County in Michigan. That's actually how you say
Speaker 1: a grassh it. I knew Rick was going to correct
Speaker 1: me on that, not that he has yet, but I
Speaker 1: suspect he has spent political ad dollars there. That's where
Speaker 1: Tutor Dixon is not spending ad dollars. So the County
Speaker 1: Republican Party came up with its own ad. They put
Speaker 1: it on Facebook. As I mentioned, you get five people
Speaker 1: dressed like bikers. Maybe they are bikers, talking about in
Speaker 1: real people speak, Tutor Dixon campaign. Okay, okay, I'm voting
Speaker 1: for the other chick. What's your name? It's the other chick.
Speaker 1: As we assemble the pall now, Geanie Schanzano is here
Speaker 1: and Rick Davis, aforementioned Bloomberg Politics contributors. Rick, you've probably
Speaker 1: been there. Does an ad like this work? Uh No,
Speaker 1: not at all. I mean, if anything, we're probably giving
Speaker 1: it more airtime than it really deserves. And I've been
Speaker 1: guilty of that before. No, no telling what the you know,
Speaker 1: example is at the home State. But I wouldn't be
Speaker 1: surprised to find that. Uh, you're gonna start seeing bumper
Speaker 1: stickers that say the other chick rid um. What do
Speaker 1: you make of the lack of spending and and the
Speaker 1: lack of fundraising. Obviously that money, Rick is not coming
Speaker 1: from Donald Trump. How does someone like Tutor Dixon put
Speaker 1: up a real campaign against the incumbent. Yeah, this is
Speaker 1: not unusual. I mean, she was, you know, one of
Speaker 1: these Trump candidates, and she's going full Trump right, Unlike
Speaker 1: some of them, she's not pivoting to one mainstream point
Speaker 1: of view. Uh And and she's dead broke um, you know.
Speaker 1: And that wasn't too different than the Senate Canate in
Speaker 1: North Carolina Ted budd or or even the Senate Canada
Speaker 1: mastro our Masters in Arizona. I mean, if not for
Speaker 1: the Senate Leadership Fund Mitch McConnell's group, most of these
Speaker 1: campaigns in Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Arizona, they wouldn't have
Speaker 1: any money at all. And and so I just find
Speaker 1: it really entertaining and and bizarre that that McConnell is
Speaker 1: the one that Trump is attacking since Trump's candidates can't
Speaker 1: seem to raise any money. Isn't that the truth? Genie.
Speaker 1: We're gonna talk a little bit more about this later,
Speaker 1: this latest attack on McConnell. But it's about a long
Speaker 1: time since Donald Trump has had anything good to say
Speaker 1: about the minority leader in the Senate, the Republican leader,
Speaker 1: since about maybe twenty eighteen. Might be the last time
Speaker 1: he said something nice about Mitch McConnell. But that leaves
Speaker 1: candidates like this one, Tudor Dixon. There are other examples
Speaker 1: that Rick pointed out that were elected as MAGA candidates,
Speaker 1: but they don't have any MAGA money, Genie, they don't.
Speaker 1: And you know, I have to confess Joe and Rick.
Speaker 1: I did not watch the rally my self, but I
Speaker 1: have read about it. And one of the things we
Speaker 1: know about Donald Trump not only doesn't he fund these candidates,
Speaker 1: but when he goes to rally, they said she came
Speaker 1: up on the stage for just a couple of minutes.
Speaker 1: Otherwise he was free forming on his own. And you know,
Speaker 1: the reality is is that they're the Democrats are outspending
Speaker 1: her as of Wednesday, sixteen point five million to nine thousand.
Speaker 1: That's pretty astonishing when you look at that, and you know,
Speaker 1: we have to remember how she got the nomination. The
Speaker 1: two other candidates who were leading were disqualified, so you
Speaker 1: know she would came up from behind. She's a political newcomer.
Speaker 1: She doesn't have any real, you know, any real background
Speaker 1: in this um. She got this nomination sort of by default,
Speaker 1: and she has this one main backer in addition to
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is the family of Betsy Divas. But you know,
Speaker 1: they have not been willing, you know, just like Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: They've funded her, but he has not been willing to
Speaker 1: fund her to the extent she needs. And she's in
Speaker 1: you know, a double digit loss here and we don't
Speaker 1: see a lot of Republicans coming to her support. It's
Speaker 1: a very different scenario in the governor's race in Texas,
Speaker 1: which we talked about a bit earlier this hour. Rick
Speaker 1: greg Abbott, of course, the incumbent Bettle or Rourke, the
Speaker 1: insurgent Democrat, although I don't know if we can call
Speaker 1: him that if he if he has another campaign at
Speaker 1: some point here. But interesting in their only debate, as
Speaker 1: they drew lines on a number of issues that were
Speaker 1: pretty predictable from you know, from from gun control to
Speaker 1: reproductive rights. But this is a Republican incumbent here that's
Speaker 1: in a very good standing. Rick, Does Bettle or Rourke
Speaker 1: have a chance? Yeah? I don't think so. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think he's been probably the most grossly overrated candidate
Speaker 1: in America for the last decade. Um, you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: he's really good at losing election statewide and uh, I
Speaker 1: can't wait for, you know, moments after the November election,
Speaker 1: Way loses again by you know, close to double digits,
Speaker 1: that they start talking about him running for president. So, um,
Speaker 1: I don't really get it. I like candidates who win
Speaker 1: kind of a Donald Trump type price. But then again,
Speaker 1: I like, you know, I like some who lose too,
Speaker 1: I guess. But but the bottom line is what I
Speaker 1: can't understand about that debate is Bett O'Rourke didn't talk
Speaker 1: about Donald Trump at all. He's the only Democrat in
Speaker 1: America who can't say the word Donald Trump. And I
Speaker 1: get it from a demographic point of view, but I
Speaker 1: don't know. It's just like malpractice to go through an
Speaker 1: entire debate and not tie Abbott to Trump and and
Speaker 1: the rest of the statewide delegation he went after him
Speaker 1: for for just about everything else, Genie, and it's certainly
Speaker 1: spent a lot of time on Vivaldi and spent a
Speaker 1: lot of time on the issue of abortion. But Texas
Speaker 1: is its own state. The poll of polls, as I
Speaker 1: mentioned it, real clear has battled down by eight. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and you know, I to agree with Rick on that.
Speaker 1: The two things I think he should have talked about
Speaker 1: our abortion, although Texas has its own history with abortion,
Speaker 1: but more importantly would have been Donald Trump. And what
Speaker 1: was stunning to me is the governor he took multiple
Speaker 1: swipes at President Biden, which or Rourke then got in
Speaker 1: a position of at the end sort of defending. But
Speaker 1: he never came back and talked about the leading candidate
Speaker 1: on the Republican side, who is not Greg Gabbott for
Speaker 1: the presidency at this point, but Donald Trump. He never
Speaker 1: talked about it, which was, you know, I think a
Speaker 1: big miss on his part. Otherwise, I think this was
Speaker 1: a miss on, you know, for somebody behind. Rourke really
Speaker 1: had to come out strong and take several swipes. He
Speaker 1: didn't make much of a mark here, and he doesn't
Speaker 1: have another chance. Great analysis from Rick and Jennie. We're
Speaker 1: gonna cut this and look at specific races each day
Speaker 1: as we work our way to November. I'm Joe Matthew.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg. She jumped in less than ten minutes
Speaker 1: into the argument today. You see, the question is which
Speaker 1: wetlands are covered, which I agree with, But I guess
Speaker 1: my question is why would Congress draw the coverage line
Speaker 1: between a budding wetlands and neighboring wetlands, Brown Jackson in
Speaker 1: her first day of arguments there on a case involving
Speaker 1: wetlands protected by the e p A. This is just
Speaker 1: the beginning of, as we've discussed, what could be another
Speaker 1: historic term and joining us men is at a very
Speaker 1: busy day. Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store. It's great
Speaker 1: to see Greg. This generates the headline here and in
Speaker 1: really fascinating Jackson dives into the courts ideological split in
Speaker 1: first case. What does it tell you about the way
Speaker 1: she composed herself today, Well, she certainly acts like she
Speaker 1: belongs there. She she uh, you know, uh, she was
Speaker 1: the fourth justice to say something. She asked a lot
Speaker 1: of questions, She asked follow up questions. She was really
Speaker 1: relentless in her questions. At one point just as Neil Gorsuch,
Speaker 1: one of the Conservatives, asked something and she kind of
Speaker 1: jumped into push back at what he what he asked. So, uh,
Speaker 1: she's certainly, you know, up for the tussle, at least
Speaker 1: based on the first day. You wrote that the topic
Speaker 1: is a comfortable one for her. First argument is a
Speaker 1: long time judge in the Districts of Columbia where the
Speaker 1: federal courts, uh, fielded disproportionate number of cases involving agency authority.
Speaker 1: Is that going to change a little bit tomorrow when
Speaker 1: voting rights comes up. We'll see. My guess is she'll
Speaker 1: be fairly active in that too. Um. She of course
Speaker 1: is the first black female male justice. Uh, this may
Speaker 1: be an issue that she has particularly strong feelings about.
Speaker 1: We'll see. Um. And of course it's one of the
Speaker 1: Court's biggest cases, so one would expect that she is
Speaker 1: especially a tune to it. Yeah, what to tell us, Uh,
Speaker 1: what are the contours of the debate that we're gonna
Speaker 1: hear tomorrow? Yes, So this is a case out of Alabama,
Speaker 1: and a Alabama has seven congressional districts, it's black population,
Speaker 1: and a lower court said that the Republican drawn map
Speaker 1: that created basically one majority black district was insufficient and that, uh,
Speaker 1: they needed to create a second one. And so the
Speaker 1: question is whether for the Supreme Court is whether that
Speaker 1: was actually required under the Voting Rights Act. And the
Speaker 1: state of Alabama's making a pretty far reaching argument that
Speaker 1: basically says, look, you're not even supposed to look at race.
Speaker 1: What you do is you look at neutral criteria UM,
Speaker 1: and if you follow those neutral criteria, then you're okay.
Speaker 1: Really important. Uh case here maybe the most important this term,
Speaker 1: according to some, along with the affirmative action case at Harvard.
Speaker 1: Would you agree it's certainly up there there there's a big,
Speaker 1: big point in ranking issues. Yeah, there are some really
Speaker 1: big ones. There's another voting case. It's a little more complicated,
Speaker 1: having to do with the power of state supreme courts
Speaker 1: to um strike down jerrymandered maps as being violative of
Speaker 1: their state constitutions. This is certainly a very big one.
Speaker 1: We're already no matter how this case comes out, we're
Speaker 1: going to see a reduction in the number of black
Speaker 1: members of Congress, and potentially this case will spur that
Speaker 1: reduction to be even greater. Fascinating spending time with Bregg
Speaker 1: Store on day one of the new term. I I
Speaker 1: don't know if you saw this coming. Maybe it was
Speaker 1: widely expected, but the Supreme Court will are a challenge
Speaker 1: through Section to thirty protections that I bring it up
Speaker 1: because we hear people lawmakers specifically refer to them all
Speaker 1: the time that Republicans believe leads to censorship, not that
Speaker 1: that's even an applicable term necessarily, but that their voices
Speaker 1: are edited out of social media. Essentially that that the
Speaker 1: liability these companies carry needs to change. Uh. Did you
Speaker 1: see first of all this coming? That wasn't expected they
Speaker 1: would they would tackle this. I wouldn't say it was expected,
Speaker 1: it was certainly a possibility. Um. This is a case
Speaker 1: that has to do with targeted content recommendations made by YouTube.
Speaker 1: It's a terrorism related case and the the argument is
Speaker 1: that by recommending, using their algorithms recommending other ices videos,
Speaker 1: they sort of help helped, you know, spur ice this
Speaker 1: on and even though it wasn't directly tied to this
Speaker 1: particular terrorist incident, it was the attacks in Paris. Uh.
Speaker 1: They say that the social media companies should be you know,
Speaker 1: open to suit. That's what the family says. And this would, however,
Speaker 1: have wide ranging consequences for I hate to say big tech,
Speaker 1: it's really the social media companies we're talking about, as
Speaker 1: you mentioned Google, Facebook, Twitter and so on. Yeah. So
Speaker 1: Section to thirty does have pretty robust protections for being
Speaker 1: The word in the in the statute is publisher. So
Speaker 1: if all they're doing is publishing a third party's content,
Speaker 1: but the losses, you know that they're they're immune. And
Speaker 1: but the question is, you know, in this case, maybe
Speaker 1: they did something more than that. If they're not just
Speaker 1: kind of this neutral you know, go ahead and published
Speaker 1: what you want, just use our our our code to
Speaker 1: do that, whether they can be held responsible for that.
Speaker 1: And then there's also a second case it's very terrorism
Speaker 1: specific that the Court also agreed to hear that alleges
Speaker 1: they didn't do enough to identify and take down social
Speaker 1: media posts by by terrorist groups. I have to ask you,
Speaker 1: just because you're with us, Greg, about the leak, uh,
Speaker 1: the investigation that's been going on for months and months now.
Speaker 1: When when the when the draft of the Row ruling
Speaker 1: was leaked, it was said to really affect the culture
Speaker 1: in the court, that this was really a very difficult time.
Speaker 1: Yet we've still really heard nothing, have we now, We've
Speaker 1: heard nothing about that, no updates. And and remember when
Speaker 1: the Chief Justice said there was going to be an investigation,
Speaker 1: he didn't promise he would actually tell us the results
Speaker 1: of it. So, um, you know, publicly we do not
Speaker 1: know anything about So they could be done for all
Speaker 1: you know, they could they could be done. They could
Speaker 1: be at a standstill, they could be at the point
Speaker 1: where they they you know, are going to be able
Speaker 1: to figure out who it is. We really do not
Speaker 1: know as the culture for lack of a better word,
Speaker 1: of the court progressed or is it is it still
Speaker 1: just a different place because of this, Well, there are
Speaker 1: certainly signs. It's hard to say exactly what caused it.
Speaker 1: But over the summer, and of course we had this
Speaker 1: huge ruling in the abortion case. But over the summer,
Speaker 1: there was a good deal of back and forth among
Speaker 1: the justices, starting with Elena Kagan, one of the liberals
Speaker 1: who you know based Pala said that when you have
Speaker 1: justices who uh come in, new justices come along and say,
Speaker 1: I disagree with that that previous decisions, so I'm gonna
Speaker 1: vote to overturn it. That harms the Court's legitimacy. And
Speaker 1: a couple of the conservative justices have pushed back against that,
Speaker 1: and and it's really a kind of a remarkable exchange
Speaker 1: that was going on, and and you know, we'll we'll
Speaker 1: see how that plays out this term. Boy, I guess
Speaker 1: we will. Uh that do you have a cut check
Speaker 1: on whether the Chief Justice would want this to be
Speaker 1: out there publicly? Would that help to keep it from
Speaker 1: happening again. You know, it's hard to say without really
Speaker 1: knowing who it was. And I guess, you know, if
Speaker 1: you could imagine, and I'm purely speculating here, but if
Speaker 1: it were connected to a justice, if we knew that
Speaker 1: some justice on either side bore some responsibility, that would
Speaker 1: really change how it would be perceived. If it's one
Speaker 1: renegade law clerk um perhaps not. Uh, you know, it's
Speaker 1: just awfully hard to say. Fascinating as always, Greg Store,
Speaker 1: good luck tomorrow. Great to have you back on with
Speaker 1: us on Bloomberg. Sound On, the best Supreme Court reporter
Speaker 1: in the business. You've heard me say that before. Of
Speaker 1: course he's at Bloomberg, and our panel comes up next
Speaker 1: to weigh in on what we just heard. Rick and Genie.
Speaker 1: Next on Sound On, I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg. Sound On with Joe Matthew on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio. Section to thirty. We hear about it. A
Speaker 1: lot goes back to the Communications Decency Act of six
Speaker 1: And while a lot has changed since then, when you
Speaker 1: were going to ask Jeeves, Google wasn't even around yet, right,
Speaker 1: And as Greg story just explained, to us. The Supreme
Speaker 1: Court will decide whether those protections go too far, protecting
Speaker 1: in this case, Google YouTube, Google same company over recommendations
Speaker 1: of terrorist videos. You know how you get the list
Speaker 1: on the side, next video we picked for you. The
Speaker 1: court could rule that platforms are banned from using algorithms
Speaker 1: to recommend content like that. And this is where we
Speaker 1: get back to things with our panel. Genie Schanzano and
Speaker 1: Rick Davis Bloomberg Politics contributors are signature panel back here
Speaker 1: on a Monday. Genie, what do you make of this
Speaker 1: decision by the Supreme Court? Would Would that put this
Speaker 1: issue to rest once and for all. I'm assuming because
Speaker 1: it is the Supreme Court, it would, But there could
Speaker 1: be many different ways to interpret these rulings. It could.
Speaker 1: You know, I suspect that Clarence Thomas had a role
Speaker 1: here in granting CIRT. He's been sort of outspoken in
Speaker 1: terms of his views on this um. We don't know
Speaker 1: who the other three were, obviously, but you know, these
Speaker 1: two cases are critically important because they raise a lot
Speaker 1: of questions about how free our speech online will be
Speaker 1: going forward. But I'm not sure this is going to
Speaker 1: be the end of the line here. Because if you
Speaker 1: just think about one of these cases, this Gonzales case
Speaker 1: versus Google, they're asking whether this uh, you know, limited
Speaker 1: or shield of liability should apply in cases when the
Speaker 1: companies make these targeted recommendations. And so I think it's
Speaker 1: possible that the court will you know, say that that
Speaker 1: it should not apply in those targeted recommendation cases, but
Speaker 1: it still may apply in other cases. So I suspect
Speaker 1: we may see a continuation of you know, cases going
Speaker 1: up to the court of this kind. And you know,
Speaker 1: you mentioned Congress really needs to step up here. These
Speaker 1: are not decisions that should be made, in my view,
Speaker 1: with court. They should be made by the people's representatives
Speaker 1: in Congress, who have not stepped up to regulate in
Speaker 1: this space. Despite what appears to be some bipartisan support
Speaker 1: in this area, Rick Republicans have largely have been the
Speaker 1: ones calling for a repeal or reform of somehow of
Speaker 1: Sections to three, equating it to uh to censorship of
Speaker 1: political views and specific conservative views. How about everybody just
Speaker 1: reveal their algorithms. I mean, isn't that a place to start.
Speaker 1: That's what the whistleblowers tend to ask for on Capitol Hill. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that that's part of the debate. That's what
Speaker 1: we heard from the Facebook whistle blower earlier last year.
Speaker 1: And and look, I mean, you know the company say, oh,
Speaker 1: that's what's the difference between that and you know the
Speaker 1: Magic's recipe for Coca Cola r It's uh, it's it's
Speaker 1: a debate that's going on. But look at the Section
Speaker 1: two thirties been changed over time. I mean, just a
Speaker 1: couple of years ago, the Congress unanimously almost I mean
Speaker 1: both bipartisan Republicans and Democrats joined together to go after
Speaker 1: sex trafficking that it occurs on the web and and
Speaker 1: and close this loophole there in Section two thirty for that.
Speaker 1: So there's going to be regardless of what happens in
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, there's gonna be continued activity on Capitol
Speaker 1: Hill and in the Biden administration around looking to how
Speaker 1: to reform Section to thirty. And so now we just
Speaker 1: have the pot is right every are you know, uh,
Speaker 1: government entity, Supreme Court, Congress, and the Presidency is all
Speaker 1: looking at the same thing, which indicates to me that
Speaker 1: change is coming. Change is coming. Indeed, Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: asking for change in the midterm elections and as we
Speaker 1: look ahead to twenty four, he's not happy with Mitch McConnell.
Speaker 1: And this is something that Rick brought up earlier. I
Speaker 1: want to ask you both about this. Uh, it's not
Speaker 1: a tweet, it's I guess the truth whatever this social
Speaker 1: media post, Donald Trump writes, is McConnell approving all of
Speaker 1: these trillions of dollars worth of Democrats sponsored bills? Of course,
Speaker 1: I'm guessing he's he means the cr to keep the
Speaker 1: government open here without even the slightest bit of negotiation
Speaker 1: because he hates Donald Trump and knows opposed to them,
Speaker 1: so he makes it about himself there. But as you
Speaker 1: go down here, he says, in any event, he has
Speaker 1: a death wish in capital letters, death wish must immediately
Speaker 1: seek help and advise from his China loving wife, followed
Speaker 1: by a I guess racial epithet here referring to Elaine Chow.
Speaker 1: You know Trump doesn't like Mitch McConney. A guy like
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell, who allowed this stuff to happen should be scorn.
Speaker 1: He shouldn't be scored. A couple of weeks ago, at
Speaker 1: a rally, Rick, what does Mitch McConnell do about this
Speaker 1: considering the point you made earlier, he's actually funding several
Speaker 1: of Donald Trump's most prominent endorsed candidates. Yeah, he's been
Speaker 1: a rock and a hard place, right. He's like to
Speaker 1: be he'd like to be a majority leader. So in
Speaker 1: order to be the majority leader, he's got to make
Speaker 1: sure that, you know, Trump candidate in North Carolina, in Ohio,
Speaker 1: and in Pennsylvania all win. And so it's in his
Speaker 1: own self interest. Look, he's always taking a hands off
Speaker 1: approach to Trump, right during the entire presidency when people
Speaker 1: thought it was time for him to speak out and
Speaker 1: set the record straight and you know, or to to
Speaker 1: knock down some of the untruths that are coming out
Speaker 1: of the administration, and he kept his own counsel. He
Speaker 1: he let Trump be Trump. And I'm pretty confident that
Speaker 1: that was probably a strategy based on if Trump just
Speaker 1: acts like Trump, he'll go away pretty soon. And and
Speaker 1: he kind of had his way. He's not president anymore,
Speaker 1: but he certainly hasn't gone away. So what what I
Speaker 1: find amazing is there aren't every Republican in the United
Speaker 1: States Senate attacking Donald Trump and saying that he needs
Speaker 1: to issue a retraction to this because this is dangerous, right.
Speaker 1: This is the same thing he did to his own
Speaker 1: vice president through under the bus after January six, and
Speaker 1: and and and and basically put him put his vice
Speaker 1: president risk. He's putting these people at risk. We see
Speaker 1: crime against politicians going up. And this is the wrong
Speaker 1: time and the wrong way to make your dislike for
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell's legislative strategy known. And and when the Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal comes out, I'm I'm shocked other Republicans aren't
Speaker 1: following suit Wall Street Journal review and outlook Trump's death
Speaker 1: wish rhetoric. Not very happy with what he said about
Speaker 1: the GOP Senate leader. On Friday, Genie Rick Scott was
Speaker 1: asked about it. Senator Rick Scott, who's, of course, runs
Speaker 1: the committee tasked with getting Republicans elected. He was on
Speaker 1: CNN's Face the Nation and asked if if he would
Speaker 1: condemn what Donald Trump said, listen to how careful. His
Speaker 1: answer was, as you know, you know, the president likes
Speaker 1: to get people nicknames, so you can ask him how
Speaker 1: he came up with the nickname. I'm sure he has
Speaker 1: a nickname from me. Um. But you know, here's what
Speaker 1: I know. We we got to watch how we spend
Speaker 1: our money. We got to stop this inflation. Um. And
Speaker 1: you know, and I don't. I don't condone violence, and
Speaker 1: I hope any no one else can done violence. Nicknames
Speaker 1: are one thing, but this, this is this appears racist.
Speaker 1: Is that okay? It's never ever okay to be a racist? Um. Um,
Speaker 1: it's in the you know, but I think you always
Speaker 1: have to be careful. You know, if you're in the public,
Speaker 1: you know how you how you say things. Did he
Speaker 1: not mean Genie? You have to be careful what you
Speaker 1: say about Donald Trump. Oh he did. I wasn't sure
Speaker 1: if those are seagulls or crickets behind it. You could
Speaker 1: hear after Dana Bash asked him that question. Um, you know,
Speaker 1: I have to say. Um, the piece you quoted from
Speaker 1: the Wall Street Journal after that where they said the
Speaker 1: death wish rhetoric. They talked about this as ugly even
Speaker 1: by Trump standards. We've all gotten used to what Donald
Speaker 1: Trump has done. But you know, for Mitch McConnell and
Speaker 1: particularly the Republicans to stay silent on this because they're
Speaker 1: worried about alienating their base is deplorable. He should be
Speaker 1: called out on this. When you've got to the Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journals point Susan Collins saying she wouldn't be surprised
Speaker 1: if members of Congress are shot. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: you know, following January six. He should be called out
Speaker 1: on this. The rhetoric is unacceptable, and you know, no
Speaker 1: leader should condone this, and they should say it outright.
Speaker 1: And you know, we're waiting for somebody beyond Liz Chain
Speaker 1: to come forward and to say that this is not acceptable,
Speaker 1: and we haven't heard that yet. And Rick's got just
Speaker 1: another example of that. And it doesn't matter what his
Speaker 1: feelings about Mitch McConnell are personally, he should come out
Speaker 1: and say it because the reality is this is unexpected, unacceptable,
Speaker 1: and it's not just Mitch McConnell. It's also it's also
Speaker 1: you know, Elaine Chow, who was a respected cabinet member
Speaker 1: of many administrations. The op ed in Rupert Murdoch's Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal rights quote. Mr Trump's apologists claim he merely
Speaker 1: meant Mr McConnell has a political death wish, but that
Speaker 1: isn't what he wrote. It's all too easy to imagine
Speaker 1: some fanatic taking Mr Trump seriously and literally and attempting
Speaker 1: to kill Mr McConnell. I don't know that we need
Speaker 1: to spell it out quite that directly, but maybe we do, Actually, Rick,
Speaker 1: maybe we do. Maybe that's the point. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: that is the point. I think we've gotten to the
Speaker 1: point where we can't assume that people are right minded
Speaker 1: on their approach towards politics or politicians and uh. And
Speaker 1: it was really disappointing to see Rick Scott uh in
Speaker 1: the video well wearing a navy hat, right mean, like, okay,
Speaker 1: you know you're wearing the colors of the Navy. That's great.
Speaker 1: I'm glad you served. But you know, the next time
Speaker 1: you have to squirm out of a simple question like this,
Speaker 1: take the hat off, because it's an insult to anybody
Speaker 1: who served in the navy. Uh. You know, if he
Speaker 1: wants to wear the hat, then he's got to act
Speaker 1: like someone who can defend the country. And part of
Speaker 1: defending the country is pushing back on these kinds of
Speaker 1: curious uh claims by Donald Trump. It's just outrageous. So
Speaker 1: you clearly think he should have condemned it. How about Eugenie,
Speaker 1: what should Rick Scott have said? He should unequivocally have
Speaker 1: condemned it and said there is no place in American government,
Speaker 1: in politics for any of our leaders to be using
Speaker 1: this rhetoric. And it's unacceptable and Donald Trump should apologize.
Speaker 1: That's what he should have said. He didn't say it,
Speaker 1: in shame on him. One thing that Donald Trump did
Speaker 1: say that he was happy about at the rallies, he's
Speaker 1: got one. Well, it's got at least one real big
Speaker 1: fan out there. This week, I would like to thank
Speaker 1: a great woman named Jenny Thomas. You know Jenny Thomas.
Speaker 1: She's a great woman, the wife of a great man,
Speaker 1: Justice Clarence Thomas, for her courage and strike. This was
Speaker 1: the same day that she testified before the January six committee. Uh.
Speaker 1: Is that the last we see her here? Jenny Thomas? Rick, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I hope so. Um. Walking out of the the hearing
Speaker 1: with the committee and continuing to tell the big lie
Speaker 1: that the election was stolen is just outrageous. Is she
Speaker 1: gonna get a talk show, Jennie jeez, I hope not,
Speaker 1: but she might maybe a podcast. That's the spirit, Jennie
Speaker 1: Chanzano when Rick Davis our signature panel, great to talk
Speaker 1: to you guys. Hey, we have a podcast sound on.
Speaker 1: Make sure you subscribe, especially if you showed up late.
Speaker 1: I'll meet you here tomorrow. This is Bloomberg