WEBVTT - History Backs Trump Impeachment Trial After Term Ends

0:00:00.560 --> 0:00:05.360
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:06.559 --> 0:00:10.520
<v Speaker 1>On this vote, the eyes are two thirty two. The

0:00:10.680 --> 0:00:16.720
<v Speaker 1>names are one nine seven. The resolution is adopted without objection.

0:00:16.760 --> 0:00:20.439
<v Speaker 1>The motion to reconsider is laid upon the table, and

0:00:20.560 --> 0:00:24.160
<v Speaker 1>with that vote, President Donald Trump became the only president

0:00:24.239 --> 0:00:27.320
<v Speaker 1>in our country's history to be impeached for a second time.

0:00:27.680 --> 0:00:31.680
<v Speaker 1>Ten Republicans joined their Democratic colleagues for the vote, making

0:00:31.720 --> 0:00:36.600
<v Speaker 1>Trump's impeachment bipartisan Article of Impeachment exhibited by the House

0:00:36.640 --> 0:00:39.640
<v Speaker 1>of Representatives of the United States of America and the

0:00:39.720 --> 0:00:41.760
<v Speaker 1>name of itself and of the people of the United

0:00:41.760 --> 0:00:45.400
<v Speaker 1>States of America against Donald John Trump, President of the

0:00:45.440 --> 0:00:48.720
<v Speaker 1>United States of America, and maintenance and support of its

0:00:48.720 --> 0:00:53.120
<v Speaker 1>impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors. Article one,

0:00:53.440 --> 0:00:57.880
<v Speaker 1>Incitement of insurrection. Trump was impeached on a single charge

0:00:57.880 --> 0:01:00.800
<v Speaker 1>of incitement of insurrection for his on the right by

0:01:00.800 --> 0:01:04.039
<v Speaker 1>his supporters that left five dead and the Capitol ransacked,

0:01:04.360 --> 0:01:07.399
<v Speaker 1>and his second impeachment trial will be the first ever

0:01:07.480 --> 0:01:11.039
<v Speaker 1>to take place after a president leaves office, creating a

0:01:11.080 --> 0:01:14.120
<v Speaker 1>novel legal question that Trump might use in his defense.

0:01:14.720 --> 0:01:17.560
<v Speaker 1>Joining me is an expert on impeachment law Frank Bowman

0:01:17.600 --> 0:01:20.880
<v Speaker 1>of a University of Missouri law school, looking at the

0:01:20.920 --> 0:01:25.680
<v Speaker 1>Constitution itself, did the Framers intend to allow a president

0:01:25.720 --> 0:01:29.280
<v Speaker 1>to be tried for impeachment after his term ends. Well,

0:01:29.360 --> 0:01:31.920
<v Speaker 1>let's be honest here, I don't think the Framers anticipated

0:01:31.959 --> 0:01:35.760
<v Speaker 1>every possible contingency. We often think that they were sort

0:01:35.760 --> 0:01:39.959
<v Speaker 1>of superhuman and that they're in the blazing Philadelphia summer

0:01:40.040 --> 0:01:43.760
<v Speaker 1>heat and thought through all the possible outcomes. And I

0:01:43.800 --> 0:01:46.920
<v Speaker 1>don't think they did. But I think we can say

0:01:47.080 --> 0:01:51.240
<v Speaker 1>some things about not too much even what they specifically intended,

0:01:51.280 --> 0:01:56.240
<v Speaker 1>but what the structure of the Constitution pretty plainly suggests. First,

0:01:56.280 --> 0:02:00.760
<v Speaker 1>the point of the impeachment remedy is dual. The primary

0:02:01.000 --> 0:02:05.080
<v Speaker 1>purpose is to ensure that if a presidents qualifies himself

0:02:05.160 --> 0:02:08.720
<v Speaker 1>in some way through really horrible personal conduct or shows

0:02:08.720 --> 0:02:11.280
<v Speaker 1>that he is the danger to the republic through his

0:02:11.320 --> 0:02:15.320
<v Speaker 1>public behavior, that he can be removed short of an

0:02:15.360 --> 0:02:18.639
<v Speaker 1>actual election. The Framers debated about that. Some of them

0:02:18.639 --> 0:02:21.959
<v Speaker 1>thought all Galian elections enough, but the majority said no,

0:02:22.080 --> 0:02:24.440
<v Speaker 1>we need some other remedies. So that certainly is the

0:02:24.480 --> 0:02:27.200
<v Speaker 1>primary point of impeachment, but it's not the only one.

0:02:27.440 --> 0:02:33.040
<v Speaker 1>They were deeply steeped in the learning about the classical republics,

0:02:33.240 --> 0:02:37.160
<v Speaker 1>about the Greek democracies, about the Roman republic, and one

0:02:37.200 --> 0:02:40.240
<v Speaker 1>of the lessons that they drew from their focus on

0:02:40.280 --> 0:02:46.920
<v Speaker 1>classicism was concerned that democracies and republics are vulnerable to

0:02:47.280 --> 0:02:50.440
<v Speaker 1>the wild demagogues when they talk about it all the time,

0:02:50.760 --> 0:02:54.160
<v Speaker 1>Concerned that such a person would arise and represent continuing

0:02:54.240 --> 0:02:57.520
<v Speaker 1>danger to the republic. And I think it is that

0:02:57.760 --> 0:03:00.880
<v Speaker 1>concern as much as any other single thing that led

0:03:00.919 --> 0:03:06.080
<v Speaker 1>them to include the disqualification. But the Framers recognized that

0:03:06.520 --> 0:03:10.680
<v Speaker 1>a sufficiently dangerous person, a person with sufficiently autocratic tendency,

0:03:10.760 --> 0:03:14.880
<v Speaker 1>is a person with sufficiently strong following, a person with

0:03:15.000 --> 0:03:18.239
<v Speaker 1>sufficient lack of scruple could close an ongoing danger even

0:03:18.240 --> 0:03:21.000
<v Speaker 1>though you're moved in from office. And that's why they

0:03:21.040 --> 0:03:25.160
<v Speaker 1>put in the disqualification remedies, not punishment profile access. It's

0:03:25.160 --> 0:03:29.079
<v Speaker 1>trying to make sure this person never troubles the republic again.

0:03:29.680 --> 0:03:32.840
<v Speaker 1>And it would be a very strange notion to have

0:03:32.919 --> 0:03:36.840
<v Speaker 1>a constitutional provision with that objective that could be thwarted

0:03:36.920 --> 0:03:41.960
<v Speaker 1>simply because either the impeached person just resigned really fast

0:03:42.240 --> 0:03:44.960
<v Speaker 1>before he could be impeached, or tried alternatively in this

0:03:45.040 --> 0:03:48.440
<v Speaker 1>Trump's case, that he reserved the worst of his behavior

0:03:48.640 --> 0:03:52.600
<v Speaker 1>until a period shortly enough before his departure from office

0:03:52.840 --> 0:03:55.080
<v Speaker 1>that you couldn't try. And I think it's pretty clear

0:03:55.120 --> 0:03:57.240
<v Speaker 1>if you look at the structure the constitution the purpose

0:03:57.280 --> 0:04:01.360
<v Speaker 1>of the framers that trying him after he leaves office

0:04:01.480 --> 0:04:05.320
<v Speaker 1>is entirely consistent with what they had in mind. Of course,

0:04:05.320 --> 0:04:08.120
<v Speaker 1>there's never been a situation like this before. But are

0:04:08.160 --> 0:04:11.640
<v Speaker 1>there other cases in our history that would support the

0:04:11.720 --> 0:04:14.440
<v Speaker 1>Senate's power to put Trump on trial even after his

0:04:14.560 --> 0:04:18.440
<v Speaker 1>term ends. Yes, there have been precedent for this. Indeed,

0:04:18.440 --> 0:04:22.000
<v Speaker 1>the very first impeachment that ever happened very early on

0:04:22.080 --> 0:04:26.440
<v Speaker 1>sev sevent ninety eight. William Blunt was a Tennessee senator

0:04:26.480 --> 0:04:29.480
<v Speaker 1>and land speculator who engaged in the scheme essentially to

0:04:29.600 --> 0:04:33.880
<v Speaker 1>transfer parts of them Spanish Florida and the Louisiana territory

0:04:33.960 --> 0:04:37.200
<v Speaker 1>to the British. Word got out about that, and when

0:04:37.200 --> 0:04:41.240
<v Speaker 1>it got back to Washington, the House immediately impeached him,

0:04:41.360 --> 0:04:44.320
<v Speaker 1>and shortly thereafter the Senate expelled him. But then, of

0:04:44.360 --> 0:04:46.320
<v Speaker 1>course there was a matter of impeachment, and they went

0:04:46.360 --> 0:04:49.120
<v Speaker 1>on to try him later on. Now he was acquitted.

0:04:49.200 --> 0:04:52.720
<v Speaker 1>In the end, it's generally believed that the reason for

0:04:52.800 --> 0:04:55.280
<v Speaker 1>his acquittal had nothing to do with the timing of

0:04:55.320 --> 0:04:58.200
<v Speaker 1>the impeachment or the trial, but with the Senate decision

0:04:58.240 --> 0:05:00.599
<v Speaker 1>that it had no jurisdiction over a editor. That is

0:05:00.640 --> 0:05:03.039
<v Speaker 1>to say, senators are not the civil officers who are

0:05:03.120 --> 0:05:06.400
<v Speaker 1>covered by the Constitution's impeachment provisions. So we have a

0:05:06.440 --> 0:05:09.680
<v Speaker 1>precise example of exactly this timing, and we have a

0:05:09.720 --> 0:05:14.159
<v Speaker 1>somewhat even more pronounced one in the impeachment of Secretary

0:05:14.160 --> 0:05:17.680
<v Speaker 1>of War Belknap during the Grand Administration in the eighteen seventies,

0:05:18.240 --> 0:05:22.239
<v Speaker 1>where Belknap, the Secretary of Wars, corrupt and he sold

0:05:22.440 --> 0:05:26.120
<v Speaker 1>an Indian agent position for money was found out and

0:05:26.360 --> 0:05:28.040
<v Speaker 1>it was clear that he was about to be impeached.

0:05:28.040 --> 0:05:30.200
<v Speaker 1>He went over to the White House and immediately resigned

0:05:30.200 --> 0:05:32.719
<v Speaker 1>and the hope of forestalling impeachment, but the House empeached

0:05:32.760 --> 0:05:35.000
<v Speaker 1>him anyway, went over to trial in the Senate, and

0:05:35.040 --> 0:05:39.120
<v Speaker 1>although again he managed to escape conviction, the Senate explicitly

0:05:39.160 --> 0:05:42.160
<v Speaker 1>considered the question of whether or not it retained jurisdiction

0:05:42.240 --> 0:05:45.120
<v Speaker 1>over him for trial, and it voted by a material

0:05:45.200 --> 0:05:48.680
<v Speaker 1>majority that it did have jurisdiction over him, even though

0:05:48.680 --> 0:05:51.720
<v Speaker 1>he impeached him after he left office entirely. There are

0:05:51.760 --> 0:05:55.320
<v Speaker 1>some scholars who argue that the Senate can't tried Trump

0:05:55.480 --> 0:05:58.800
<v Speaker 1>after he leaves office, So this might be left up

0:05:58.800 --> 0:06:03.159
<v Speaker 1>to the Supreme Court. But would the court even consider this? Well,

0:06:03.520 --> 0:06:06.320
<v Speaker 1>there you ask me to read Supreme Court key leaves,

0:06:06.360 --> 0:06:09.120
<v Speaker 1>and that's more important to read their minds, and and

0:06:09.200 --> 0:06:11.719
<v Speaker 1>that's probably beyond my power. But let's put it in

0:06:12.040 --> 0:06:17.200
<v Speaker 1>some procedural context. When might a court try to intervene?

0:06:17.640 --> 0:06:20.760
<v Speaker 1>Or when might Mr Trump ask a court to intervene?

0:06:21.000 --> 0:06:23.560
<v Speaker 1>There are two possibilities. One, he could try to take

0:06:23.560 --> 0:06:26.800
<v Speaker 1>an injunction in federal district court, presumably in the District

0:06:26.880 --> 0:06:29.640
<v Speaker 1>of Columbia before the Senate trial, asking the drudge to

0:06:29.680 --> 0:06:32.200
<v Speaker 1>prevent or to order the Senate not to proceed. And

0:06:32.240 --> 0:06:34.200
<v Speaker 1>I suspect the Senate, you know that they're not going

0:06:34.279 --> 0:06:36.880
<v Speaker 1>to probably feel obliged to do much in response to

0:06:36.960 --> 0:06:39.360
<v Speaker 1>a district court judge order, And in theories such an order,

0:06:39.400 --> 0:06:41.960
<v Speaker 1>could you feel with the Supreme Court, I very very

0:06:42.080 --> 0:06:44.880
<v Speaker 1>very much doubt that any district court would even entertain

0:06:44.920 --> 0:06:47.800
<v Speaker 1>such a lawsuit or certainly have the presumption to try

0:06:47.839 --> 0:06:51.200
<v Speaker 1>to enjoin the Senate impeachment trial of the president or former.

0:06:51.440 --> 0:06:55.320
<v Speaker 1>The more likely possibility would be if, frankly, if not

0:06:55.400 --> 0:06:58.320
<v Speaker 1>that likely, given the composition of the Senate, he were

0:06:58.360 --> 0:07:01.480
<v Speaker 1>to be tried and convicted, My guess is that he

0:07:01.520 --> 0:07:04.840
<v Speaker 1>would try to bring that up to a court, generally

0:07:04.920 --> 0:07:07.159
<v Speaker 1>starting again in the district court, and try to claim

0:07:07.240 --> 0:07:11.080
<v Speaker 1>that the Constitution doesn't permit such trial, and the courts

0:07:11.160 --> 0:07:13.960
<v Speaker 1>might or might not even entertain the question. It might

0:07:14.000 --> 0:07:17.840
<v Speaker 1>simply decide that it's nonjsticiable, as we said, or that

0:07:17.920 --> 0:07:20.720
<v Speaker 1>even if they consider it the first instant, that it's

0:07:20.760 --> 0:07:24.560
<v Speaker 1>really a separation of powers kinds of question, a political question,

0:07:24.880 --> 0:07:29.760
<v Speaker 1>and that particularly sends the Constitution so very plainly places

0:07:29.920 --> 0:07:33.680
<v Speaker 1>the impeachment remedy in the purview of Congress, that they're

0:07:33.680 --> 0:07:37.080
<v Speaker 1>going to give immense deference to the Senates interpretation of

0:07:37.320 --> 0:07:40.720
<v Speaker 1>its part of the impeachment role. So, yeah, it's possible

0:07:40.880 --> 0:07:42.920
<v Speaker 1>the courts could get into this. One doesn't like to

0:07:42.960 --> 0:07:44.880
<v Speaker 1>predict that kind of thing. My bet, if I had

0:07:44.920 --> 0:07:47.960
<v Speaker 1>to bet, would be that such a challenge would be unsuccessful.

0:07:48.120 --> 0:07:51.360
<v Speaker 1>Thanks Frank. That's Frank Bowman at the University of Missouri

0:07:51.440 --> 0:07:55.120
<v Speaker 1>Law School. Stephen Bryer has been a justice on the

0:07:55.160 --> 0:07:58.320
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court for twenty six years, and at eighty two

0:07:58.440 --> 0:08:01.160
<v Speaker 1>years old, Brier is the oldest member of the Court.

0:08:01.480 --> 0:08:04.360
<v Speaker 1>Now that Democrats have won control of the U. S. Senate,

0:08:04.640 --> 0:08:07.200
<v Speaker 1>it will be easier for President elect Joe Biden to

0:08:07.240 --> 0:08:11.080
<v Speaker 1>fulfill his campaign promise of appointing the first black woman

0:08:11.120 --> 0:08:14.720
<v Speaker 1>to a Supreme Court seat, and so progressives are putting

0:08:14.720 --> 0:08:18.680
<v Speaker 1>pressure on Brian to retire now and following the footsteps

0:08:18.720 --> 0:08:21.880
<v Speaker 1>of Justice is Byron White and David Suitor, who gave

0:08:21.880 --> 0:08:25.360
<v Speaker 1>the last two Democratic presidents a Supreme Court seat to

0:08:25.440 --> 0:08:28.760
<v Speaker 1>fill in their first year in office. Joining me as

0:08:28.840 --> 0:08:32.559
<v Speaker 1>constitutional law professor Stephen Vladdock, a professor at the University

0:08:32.559 --> 0:08:37.200
<v Speaker 1>of Texas School of Law. Are Democrats now in the

0:08:37.280 --> 0:08:40.760
<v Speaker 1>seat that Republicans have been in for four years? As

0:08:40.760 --> 0:08:45.160
<v Speaker 1>far as judicial nominations, I think the tables certainly have turned.

0:08:45.200 --> 0:08:47.880
<v Speaker 1>I don't think it's quite the same, just because you know,

0:08:47.920 --> 0:08:50.160
<v Speaker 1>I don't think there's ever been quite the same effort

0:08:50.520 --> 0:08:53.960
<v Speaker 1>on the part of Democrats to prioritize the judgeships. Indicial

0:08:54.000 --> 0:08:57.040
<v Speaker 1>conversation is Republicans and also we haven't had the lead up.

0:08:57.040 --> 0:08:59.280
<v Speaker 1>I mean, one of the familes that really made the

0:08:59.360 --> 0:09:02.400
<v Speaker 1>Trump im axo dramatic was that Senate and Georgy leader

0:09:02.440 --> 0:09:07.160
<v Speaker 1>McConnell had been remarkably successful in denying open seats. The

0:09:07.200 --> 0:09:10.120
<v Speaker 1>President Obama said that when Trump came to office, there

0:09:10.120 --> 0:09:12.760
<v Speaker 1>are already a number of agencies to fill. I think

0:09:12.840 --> 0:09:15.640
<v Speaker 1>for President elect is soon to be President Biden, that's

0:09:15.640 --> 0:09:18.200
<v Speaker 1>gonna be more question of how many judges who are

0:09:18.240 --> 0:09:21.720
<v Speaker 1>currently active now we'll take senior status because there's a

0:09:21.760 --> 0:09:24.920
<v Speaker 1>democratic president and at least nominal democratic control of the Senate.

0:09:25.480 --> 0:09:28.800
<v Speaker 1>Why is the DC Circuit seat that Judge Garland is

0:09:28.920 --> 0:09:32.720
<v Speaker 1>leaving to become Attorney General. Why is that being eyed

0:09:32.760 --> 0:09:38.079
<v Speaker 1>as a potential springboard for a future Supreme Court justice. Well,

0:09:38.120 --> 0:09:39.760
<v Speaker 1>I think because it has been in the past. I mean,

0:09:39.840 --> 0:09:42.800
<v Speaker 1>you know, we have Justice Kavanaugh was a DC Circuit judge.

0:09:42.840 --> 0:09:46.240
<v Speaker 1>Chief Justice Roberts was a DC Circuit judge. Justice Ginsburg

0:09:46.320 --> 0:09:48.480
<v Speaker 1>was a DC Circuit judge. Justice Thomas was a DC

0:09:48.559 --> 0:09:52.440
<v Speaker 1>Circuit judge. I mean, this is historically the stepping stone

0:09:52.520 --> 0:09:54.839
<v Speaker 1>to the Supreme Court. You know, most folks call it

0:09:54.960 --> 0:09:57.360
<v Speaker 1>the second highest court in the land. And so I

0:09:57.400 --> 0:10:00.960
<v Speaker 1>think the idea is that whoever President Biden puts in

0:10:01.040 --> 0:10:03.240
<v Speaker 1>that seat, it's probably gonna be at the very top

0:10:03.280 --> 0:10:06.160
<v Speaker 1>of his shortlist for filling the next week that opens

0:10:06.160 --> 0:10:10.319
<v Speaker 1>on the Supreme Court. President like Biden hasn't even been

0:10:10.320 --> 0:10:15.320
<v Speaker 1>sworn into office yet, and there are already people calling

0:10:15.760 --> 0:10:20.000
<v Speaker 1>for Justice Stephen Bryan to retire. In fact, as soon

0:10:20.040 --> 0:10:22.200
<v Speaker 1>as it was clear that the Democrats had won the

0:10:22.240 --> 0:10:26.400
<v Speaker 1>Georgia election, why the rush. Well, I think given what

0:10:26.440 --> 0:10:28.920
<v Speaker 1>happened with Jesfice Ginsberg and Jeffice Start, I think that

0:10:29.080 --> 0:10:32.080
<v Speaker 1>tempers are understandably short, and that there's a very real

0:10:32.160 --> 0:10:35.800
<v Speaker 1>concern that opportunities shouldn't be passed up when it comes to,

0:10:36.360 --> 0:10:38.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, a chance or Justice Brier to be replaced

0:10:38.880 --> 0:10:42.160
<v Speaker 1>by someone who's younger, someone who shares his progressive news.

0:10:42.160 --> 0:10:44.800
<v Speaker 1>Perhaps maybe it's more progressive, and so I think the

0:10:44.840 --> 0:10:47.839
<v Speaker 1>concern is that even though Jesfice prior might look at

0:10:48.000 --> 0:10:50.360
<v Speaker 1>the current political climate and say, well, I can wait

0:10:50.360 --> 0:10:52.040
<v Speaker 1>a bit, I can wait at least until next year,

0:10:52.440 --> 0:10:54.640
<v Speaker 1>you know, a fifty fifty cent and is no guarantee.

0:10:54.640 --> 0:10:57.560
<v Speaker 1>I mean, all it takes is one set of circumstances

0:10:57.640 --> 0:10:59.679
<v Speaker 1>where a seat opens up in a state with the

0:10:59.720 --> 0:11:01.960
<v Speaker 1>republic looking governor, and all of a sudden the Senate

0:11:01.960 --> 0:11:04.959
<v Speaker 1>could kill faster Republican control. So for folks who have

0:11:05.040 --> 0:11:08.959
<v Speaker 1>viewed the Supreme Court as this critical political prize, now

0:11:09.080 --> 0:11:11.040
<v Speaker 1>is the moment for Justice Prior, who you know, we

0:11:11.040 --> 0:11:12.959
<v Speaker 1>should say, I mean, has been on the Court for

0:11:13.440 --> 0:11:15.880
<v Speaker 1>nearly three decades, has been a federal judge for over

0:11:15.920 --> 0:11:18.000
<v Speaker 1>four decades. You know, now is the time for him

0:11:18.000 --> 0:11:21.319
<v Speaker 1>to step aside and let someone younger come along. He's

0:11:21.400 --> 0:11:26.280
<v Speaker 1>in the same situation that the late Ruth Vader Ginsburg

0:11:26.440 --> 0:11:29.120
<v Speaker 1>was in, and that after all his years on the bench,

0:11:29.200 --> 0:11:34.240
<v Speaker 1>he's just become the leader of the liberal justices. Is

0:11:34.280 --> 0:11:37.520
<v Speaker 1>that a pull for him as it was for RBG?

0:11:38.320 --> 0:11:40.360
<v Speaker 1>And I think only Justice Prior could answer that. But

0:11:40.559 --> 0:11:42.760
<v Speaker 1>you know, just looking at this from the outside, one

0:11:42.800 --> 0:11:44.800
<v Speaker 1>of the remarkable things that you know, came late to

0:11:44.840 --> 0:11:47.600
<v Speaker 1>Justice Ginsworth in her career was the power and at

0:11:47.640 --> 0:11:50.640
<v Speaker 1>least a handful of cases to actually assign the majority opinion.

0:11:50.920 --> 0:11:53.040
<v Speaker 1>You know, it's hard to imagine when Justice Bryor is

0:11:53.040 --> 0:11:55.480
<v Speaker 1>going to have that power because the liberal block of

0:11:55.480 --> 0:11:58.360
<v Speaker 1>which he's now the senior member, has once you're justice

0:11:58.360 --> 0:12:00.680
<v Speaker 1>in it, and the only way that it's one imagined

0:12:00.800 --> 0:12:03.400
<v Speaker 1>that the progressives are going to be able to create

0:12:03.520 --> 0:12:06.360
<v Speaker 1>five four majorities in the court going forward is to

0:12:06.400 --> 0:12:08.720
<v Speaker 1>bring in the Chief Justice along with them. So I

0:12:08.760 --> 0:12:11.360
<v Speaker 1>suggest there are a number of considerations, and it made

0:12:11.400 --> 0:12:14.480
<v Speaker 1>him Justice Friars calculation. I just think that's probably pretty

0:12:14.480 --> 0:12:16.920
<v Speaker 1>low on the list. There's been a lot of reporting

0:12:16.920 --> 0:12:20.840
<v Speaker 1>about President Barack Obama setting up a lunch with RBG

0:12:21.160 --> 0:12:25.840
<v Speaker 1>to mention retirement, which obviously failed to convince her. Is

0:12:25.880 --> 0:12:29.440
<v Speaker 1>maneuvering to get a justice to retire a thing that's

0:12:29.480 --> 0:12:32.920
<v Speaker 1>often done. I think it depends on what we mean

0:12:32.920 --> 0:12:36.200
<v Speaker 1>by maneuver. I think there's always a you know, very

0:12:36.400 --> 0:12:41.200
<v Speaker 1>very sort of informal back channel avenue of communication between

0:12:41.679 --> 0:12:45.760
<v Speaker 1>justices and white houses that are sympathetic to their political views.

0:12:45.800 --> 0:12:48.920
<v Speaker 1>You know, I think the lunch between President Obama and

0:12:48.960 --> 0:12:51.199
<v Speaker 1>then Justin Skinford was probably about as close as we've

0:12:51.240 --> 0:12:54.440
<v Speaker 1>come to any kind of direct contact. And even there,

0:12:54.520 --> 0:12:57.199
<v Speaker 1>you know, all reports suggests that you never asked her

0:12:57.240 --> 0:12:59.320
<v Speaker 1>to resign, that you know, it never came up directly.

0:12:59.600 --> 0:13:01.839
<v Speaker 1>But I mean, jun the reality is Sesis Friar is

0:13:01.840 --> 0:13:04.280
<v Speaker 1>a very davvy guy. I don't think he needs to

0:13:04.280 --> 0:13:07.280
<v Speaker 1>be told that a vacancy on the Supreme Court in

0:13:07.280 --> 0:13:09.360
<v Speaker 1>the jest to fill his seat would be a huge

0:13:09.360 --> 0:13:12.600
<v Speaker 1>priority and potentially a huge boon to the Biden administration.

0:13:12.640 --> 0:13:14.880
<v Speaker 1>I thinks this is just a question of his own

0:13:14.920 --> 0:13:17.760
<v Speaker 1>calculus and his own analysis of what the best time

0:13:17.760 --> 0:13:21.040
<v Speaker 1>in this for him. Some might say that Justice Kennedy

0:13:21.320 --> 0:13:25.920
<v Speaker 1>was maneuvered to leave the Court by promises made to

0:13:26.000 --> 0:13:30.400
<v Speaker 1>him about his replacement by the Trump administration. Might that

0:13:30.480 --> 0:13:34.319
<v Speaker 1>happen here as well? There are allegations about what Kennedy

0:13:34.480 --> 0:13:37.120
<v Speaker 1>was told and what he might even have communicated to

0:13:37.160 --> 0:13:38.880
<v Speaker 1>the Trump White House that I don't know if ever

0:13:38.920 --> 0:13:42.720
<v Speaker 1>been substantiated. I doubt that your I think sessis Friar.

0:13:42.960 --> 0:13:46.000
<v Speaker 1>You know, is the kind of person, the kind of

0:13:46.080 --> 0:13:49.280
<v Speaker 1>jurist who's not going to have incredibly strong views about

0:13:49.559 --> 0:13:53.080
<v Speaker 1>particular people as his successor, as opposed to just who

0:13:53.080 --> 0:13:56.440
<v Speaker 1>should be choosing that successor under what circumstances. And I think,

0:13:56.520 --> 0:13:59.760
<v Speaker 1>especially in this context, you know where cousin Biden, with

0:13:59.840 --> 0:14:01.560
<v Speaker 1>a basiccy on the Supreme Court would have a chance

0:14:01.559 --> 0:14:03.920
<v Speaker 1>to add a real measure of adversity to the Court

0:14:04.040 --> 0:14:07.800
<v Speaker 1>in a way that his predecessor hasn't I suspected from

0:14:08.200 --> 0:14:11.520
<v Speaker 1>Justice Briar's perspective, he's probably willing to just give the

0:14:11.559 --> 0:14:14.920
<v Speaker 1>new administration event has it's out on this. Let's talk

0:14:14.960 --> 0:14:17.360
<v Speaker 1>about some of the people who have been discussed as

0:14:17.480 --> 0:14:21.160
<v Speaker 1>potential Supreme Court nominees. Biden has said that he will

0:14:21.200 --> 0:14:23.880
<v Speaker 1>nominate a black woman to the Court, and one of

0:14:23.920 --> 0:14:26.800
<v Speaker 1>the names that comes up all the time, and at

0:14:26.800 --> 0:14:31.000
<v Speaker 1>the top of the list maybe is Judge Katangi Brown Jackson.

0:14:31.640 --> 0:14:34.440
<v Speaker 1>She's a former Briar clerk. Actually tell us a little

0:14:34.480 --> 0:14:36.800
<v Speaker 1>bit about her. Yeah, I mean Judge Jackson, I think

0:14:36.920 --> 0:14:40.239
<v Speaker 1>is a very highly regarded federal district judge in Washington's

0:14:40.280 --> 0:14:42.640
<v Speaker 1>She's been on the bench since the administration. Of the

0:14:42.640 --> 0:14:44.920
<v Speaker 1>folks who have practiced before her, her colleagues, they all

0:14:44.960 --> 0:14:47.280
<v Speaker 1>seek very highly occur I think one of the thoughts

0:14:47.280 --> 0:14:51.160
<v Speaker 1>actually is that with Merrick Garlands potentially leaving his seat

0:14:51.200 --> 0:14:53.680
<v Speaker 1>to become the Attorney General, you know, one possibility is

0:14:53.720 --> 0:14:56.720
<v Speaker 1>actually to nominate Judge Jackson to the DC Circuit first,

0:14:56.920 --> 0:14:59.200
<v Speaker 1>until and unless there's a Supreme Court vacancy, just so

0:14:59.360 --> 0:15:02.320
<v Speaker 1>that she can further developed her appellate chops. But you know,

0:15:02.320 --> 0:15:04.560
<v Speaker 1>I think she's one of the people that she's at

0:15:04.560 --> 0:15:06.480
<v Speaker 1>the top of the shortlist seconds for a very good reason.

0:15:06.680 --> 0:15:10.720
<v Speaker 1>She's highly regarded, she's incredibly smart, she has written some

0:15:10.760 --> 0:15:13.200
<v Speaker 1>pretty impressive opinions in her time on the Digital Court.

0:15:13.360 --> 0:15:14.640
<v Speaker 1>So I think that's why a lot of folks are

0:15:14.680 --> 0:15:17.600
<v Speaker 1>paying attention to her. That is similar to what happened

0:15:17.760 --> 0:15:21.200
<v Speaker 1>with Judge any Coney Barrett. They put her on the

0:15:21.240 --> 0:15:24.520
<v Speaker 1>Seventh Circuit. Well, I think, I mean, they've done this

0:15:24.560 --> 0:15:26.600
<v Speaker 1>a lot. I mean, so Justice Suitter was on the

0:15:26.640 --> 0:15:28.680
<v Speaker 1>First Circuit for a short period of time before he

0:15:28.760 --> 0:15:31.480
<v Speaker 1>was nominated. Justice Thomas was on the DC Circuit for

0:15:31.520 --> 0:15:33.840
<v Speaker 1>a short period time. Chief Justice Roberts was on the

0:15:33.880 --> 0:15:36.040
<v Speaker 1>CC circuits for a four period time before he was nominated.

0:15:36.400 --> 0:15:39.000
<v Speaker 1>I think there's just this mentality, for better or for worse,

0:15:39.600 --> 0:15:42.080
<v Speaker 1>that one of the easiest ways to sort of defeat

0:15:42.320 --> 0:15:46.000
<v Speaker 1>experience objections in the Supreme Court confirmation process is to

0:15:46.040 --> 0:15:48.440
<v Speaker 1>have nominated to have at least some period of time

0:15:48.480 --> 0:15:52.680
<v Speaker 1>of experience as federal circuit judges, because at least in

0:15:52.840 --> 0:15:55.760
<v Speaker 1>some superficial ways, the jobs aren't all that different. I

0:15:55.720 --> 0:15:57.240
<v Speaker 1>guess how to say, I mean, I'm one of those

0:15:57.240 --> 0:15:59.440
<v Speaker 1>who doesn't think that being a Circuit judge is or

0:15:59.480 --> 0:16:01.800
<v Speaker 1>should be a we represented doing with Supreme Court justice,

0:16:01.800 --> 0:16:06.200
<v Speaker 1>but at least of late that's increasingly become the norm.

0:16:06.280 --> 0:16:12.200
<v Speaker 1>Another name being floated is California Supreme Court Justice Leandre Krueger,

0:16:12.400 --> 0:16:15.280
<v Speaker 1>and her name is also being floated as Solicitor General.

0:16:16.000 --> 0:16:18.640
<v Speaker 1>What do we know about her? Yeah, I mean I

0:16:18.720 --> 0:16:22.080
<v Speaker 1>think you know, similar vein as um that Jackson esfics.

0:16:22.160 --> 0:16:26.040
<v Speaker 1>Krueger has private government experience, She's been in the executive branch,

0:16:26.280 --> 0:16:30.440
<v Speaker 1>and she has some really really impressive credentials. Her work

0:16:30.440 --> 0:16:33.240
<v Speaker 1>on the California Supreme Court has been highly regarded. Um,

0:16:33.280 --> 0:16:36.160
<v Speaker 1>and you have the added the added value of a

0:16:36.200 --> 0:16:40.080
<v Speaker 1>little more geographical and experiential diversity, you know, having a

0:16:40.160 --> 0:16:43.280
<v Speaker 1>state Supreme Court justice not into the Supreme Court. It's

0:16:43.280 --> 0:16:46.720
<v Speaker 1>been a while since that happened, Um, having a California

0:16:46.800 --> 0:16:49.280
<v Speaker 1>on the court. You know, that's this Kennedy's departure left

0:16:49.320 --> 0:16:51.800
<v Speaker 1>the court for rest um of anyone from the nation's

0:16:51.800 --> 0:16:54.240
<v Speaker 1>biggest state. So, you know, I think this is why

0:16:54.800 --> 0:16:58.680
<v Speaker 1>most discussions of President Biden's first Supreme Court nominee end

0:16:58.760 --> 0:17:01.800
<v Speaker 1>up with Katangi Brown Actulyandre Krueger, because they're just so

0:17:02.360 --> 0:17:05.159
<v Speaker 1>you know, because such compelling candidates on their own, Have

0:17:05.280 --> 0:17:08.600
<v Speaker 1>you heard any other names being floated? Those? You know,

0:17:08.680 --> 0:17:11.159
<v Speaker 1>those are the two you hear most often. Um, you know,

0:17:11.200 --> 0:17:13.399
<v Speaker 1>I think there are some there are the sort of

0:17:13.400 --> 0:17:15.480
<v Speaker 1>the wilder names that I think are not realistic, Like

0:17:15.480 --> 0:17:17.959
<v Speaker 1>folks who says, maybe Michelle Obama could beyond the Supreme

0:17:18.000 --> 0:17:20.239
<v Speaker 1>Court or State April. But at the end of the day,

0:17:20.240 --> 0:17:22.159
<v Speaker 1>I think this is really probably a two horse race,

0:17:22.240 --> 0:17:25.720
<v Speaker 1>at least for now. So looking at the court and

0:17:25.720 --> 0:17:27.639
<v Speaker 1>the way the way it is right now, do you

0:17:27.640 --> 0:17:30.120
<v Speaker 1>think it's a good idea for Justice prior to retire?

0:17:30.960 --> 0:17:32.760
<v Speaker 1>And I'm not sure. I don't know what what to

0:17:32.800 --> 0:17:36.240
<v Speaker 1>do with a good idea. I mean, I I think

0:17:36.320 --> 0:17:38.159
<v Speaker 1>I think Jessice Friar is gonna be under a lot

0:17:38.240 --> 0:17:41.119
<v Speaker 1>of pressure to set aside in favor of, you know,

0:17:41.160 --> 0:17:43.640
<v Speaker 1>a younger dominative and for good reason. And I think,

0:17:43.960 --> 0:17:45.360
<v Speaker 1>you know, there are a lot of folks who look

0:17:45.400 --> 0:17:47.919
<v Speaker 1>at you know, the sort of the the unfortunate date

0:17:47.960 --> 0:17:51.159
<v Speaker 1>of Justice Ginsburg um as a lesson to be avoided,

0:17:51.720 --> 0:17:54.720
<v Speaker 1>um as an example not to repeat. And so, you know,

0:17:54.760 --> 0:17:57.240
<v Speaker 1>I think there's gonna be a lot of pressure on

0:17:57.280 --> 0:17:59.879
<v Speaker 1>Justice Frior and I think, you know, given where we are,

0:18:00.119 --> 0:18:03.280
<v Speaker 1>might make a lot of sense um for you know,

0:18:03.440 --> 0:18:06.320
<v Speaker 1>President Biden to be able to put a nominee on

0:18:06.359 --> 0:18:08.720
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court sooner as than later, since we have

0:18:08.760 --> 0:18:10.960
<v Speaker 1>no idea what's going to happen to the Senate either

0:18:11.040 --> 0:18:15.399
<v Speaker 1>in the month or even in the terms. Thanks for

0:18:15.440 --> 0:18:18.760
<v Speaker 1>being on the Bloomberg Law Show, Steve. That's constitutional law

0:18:18.800 --> 0:18:22.320
<v Speaker 1>professor Stephen Vladdock of the University of Texas Law School.

0:18:22.760 --> 0:18:25.600
<v Speaker 1>I just want to note that Justice Brier himself has

0:18:25.640 --> 0:18:29.080
<v Speaker 1>not given any indication of when he wants to retire.

0:18:30.040 --> 0:18:32.200
<v Speaker 1>That's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.

0:18:32.640 --> 0:18:34.960
<v Speaker 1>Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

0:18:35.000 --> 0:18:39.199
<v Speaker 1>our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

0:18:39.359 --> 0:18:44.200
<v Speaker 1>and at www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast slash Law.

0:18:44.600 --> 0:18:47.680
<v Speaker 1>I'm juven Grosso. Thanks so much for listening. Please tune

0:18:47.680 --> 0:18:50.000
<v Speaker 1>into The Bloomberg Laws Show every weeknight at ten pm

0:18:50.080 --> 0:19:02.879
<v Speaker 1>Eastern right here on Bloomberg Radio. Muted. The student descripen

0:19:03.200 --> 0:19:03.760
<v Speaker 1>of Jo