WEBVTT - Gorsuch Nomination Reaches Senate Floor (Audio)

0:00:00.160 --> 0:00:03.080
<v Speaker 1>If, as expected, Neil Gorsuch is confirmed to the Supreme

0:00:03.080 --> 0:00:05.640
<v Speaker 1>Court on Friday, he will become the first justice to

0:00:05.760 --> 0:00:08.559
<v Speaker 1>join the Court midway through a term since sam Alito

0:00:08.680 --> 0:00:12.239
<v Speaker 1>did that. The timing means course which could have an

0:00:12.240 --> 0:00:15.600
<v Speaker 1>immediate impact on American law. He could cast a deciding

0:00:15.680 --> 0:00:19.600
<v Speaker 1>vote in pending cases involving religion, housing discrimination, and redistricting.

0:00:20.120 --> 0:00:22.239
<v Speaker 1>He might help the Court decide whether to take up

0:00:22.560 --> 0:00:25.639
<v Speaker 1>pending appeals on gun rights and voter id laws. And

0:00:25.680 --> 0:00:28.720
<v Speaker 1>then there's Donald Trump's travel band which is currently being

0:00:28.720 --> 0:00:31.880
<v Speaker 1>contested in the lower courts. With us to talk about

0:00:31.920 --> 0:00:35.120
<v Speaker 1>this and what impact course which might make right away

0:00:35.159 --> 0:00:38.960
<v Speaker 1>is Kimberly Robinson, the Supreme Court report reporter for Bloomberg

0:00:38.960 --> 0:00:40.960
<v Speaker 1>B and A. Kimberly, always good to talk to you,

0:00:41.000 --> 0:00:43.880
<v Speaker 1>either on or off the air. Thanks for having me back.

0:00:44.600 --> 0:00:47.800
<v Speaker 1>So tell me, uh, if you could pick out a

0:00:47.840 --> 0:00:51.279
<v Speaker 1>single case or issue that you think will tell us

0:00:51.479 --> 0:00:54.080
<v Speaker 1>the most about Neil Gorsuch and what kind of justice

0:00:54.080 --> 0:00:57.080
<v Speaker 1>he will be over the next couple of months. Pick pick,

0:00:57.200 --> 0:00:58.840
<v Speaker 1>pick one. What do you think would be the biggest

0:00:58.840 --> 0:01:02.640
<v Speaker 1>tell I think you know, probably the easiest answer here

0:01:02.920 --> 0:01:06.959
<v Speaker 1>is a religious freedom case Trinity Luther and versus Comer.

0:01:07.400 --> 0:01:09.640
<v Speaker 1>This was a case that was actually granted over a

0:01:09.720 --> 0:01:12.039
<v Speaker 1>year ago, and the Supreme Court has been holding onto it,

0:01:12.440 --> 0:01:16.039
<v Speaker 1>probably because it's one that's likely to get a pretty

0:01:16.440 --> 0:01:19.240
<v Speaker 1>close vote from the Supreme Court. And this one is

0:01:19.240 --> 0:01:22.800
<v Speaker 1>about UM. As I mentioned religious liberty, and we heard

0:01:22.840 --> 0:01:27.200
<v Speaker 1>a lot of criticism during Neil gorsus is confirmation hearings

0:01:27.240 --> 0:01:31.560
<v Speaker 1>that you know he aggressively uh ruled in favor of

0:01:31.920 --> 0:01:34.880
<v Speaker 1>religious groups, and we could see if that's going to

0:01:34.959 --> 0:01:37.280
<v Speaker 1>happen here. This one is is a little bit different though,

0:01:37.800 --> 0:01:41.560
<v Speaker 1>because it goes to a constitutional provision rather than a statute,

0:01:41.640 --> 0:01:43.600
<v Speaker 1>and so UM, we could right off the back it

0:01:44.120 --> 0:01:48.400
<v Speaker 1>get some look on how he will analyze these broad

0:01:48.440 --> 0:01:51.520
<v Speaker 1>constitutional rights. That's a case that's set for argument on

0:01:51.600 --> 0:01:54.080
<v Speaker 1>April the nineteenth, So of course it is confirmed we

0:01:54.160 --> 0:01:57.560
<v Speaker 1>know he will be involved in that case. Um. There's

0:01:57.600 --> 0:02:00.520
<v Speaker 1>also just sort of explained to our listener, is Um,

0:02:00.800 --> 0:02:02.080
<v Speaker 1>there are a lot of cases that the Court has

0:02:02.120 --> 0:02:06.560
<v Speaker 1>already heard arguments in, and UH, by tradition, the last

0:02:06.640 --> 0:02:10.000
<v Speaker 1>few times the Justice has joined the court midway uh

0:02:10.200 --> 0:02:14.079
<v Speaker 1>those cases, even though maybe Gorsage could as a technical

0:02:14.120 --> 0:02:17.160
<v Speaker 1>matter take part in them. UH. He probably won't unless

0:02:17.200 --> 0:02:19.680
<v Speaker 1>the Court is divided four to four in those cases,

0:02:19.720 --> 0:02:24.240
<v Speaker 1>in which case the Court could order reargument in those

0:02:24.280 --> 0:02:27.480
<v Speaker 1>cases either this term or next term. Uh, Kimberly, are

0:02:27.560 --> 0:02:31.560
<v Speaker 1>there particular cases that have been argued that the Court

0:02:31.639 --> 0:02:34.560
<v Speaker 1>hasn't decided where you think that's a pretty good candidate

0:02:34.960 --> 0:02:37.560
<v Speaker 1>for a four four split and maybe a new argument

0:02:37.560 --> 0:02:41.120
<v Speaker 1>with Gorciage as the deciding vote. The one on the

0:02:41.120 --> 0:02:45.519
<v Speaker 1>top of my head is redistricting case out of North Carolina. UM.

0:02:45.760 --> 0:02:47.440
<v Speaker 1>One of the reasons that I think this might be

0:02:47.639 --> 0:02:51.000
<v Speaker 1>one that's um is coming down four to four is

0:02:51.000 --> 0:02:54.240
<v Speaker 1>not just from the arguments, UM, but also because the

0:02:54.360 --> 0:02:57.680
<v Speaker 1>Court also heard another redistricting case on the same day

0:02:57.680 --> 0:03:01.040
<v Speaker 1>and it's already handed down its opinion in that case. UM.

0:03:01.080 --> 0:03:03.919
<v Speaker 1>So it's indicating that the justices may be struggling with

0:03:03.960 --> 0:03:08.000
<v Speaker 1>this North Carolina case a bit more. And this one

0:03:08.040 --> 0:03:11.600
<v Speaker 1>here has some tougher questions on racial jerrymandering and and

0:03:11.639 --> 0:03:16.400
<v Speaker 1>really how the courts UM look at these claims Uh

0:03:16.680 --> 0:03:20.960
<v Speaker 1>that people bring challenging their maps as taking race into

0:03:21.080 --> 0:03:24.600
<v Speaker 1>consideration too much. UM. So that's what I'm I'm thinking about.

0:03:26.040 --> 0:03:28.040
<v Speaker 1>One other case that's in my mind one that was

0:03:28.160 --> 0:03:30.080
<v Speaker 1>argued back in the fall has to do with the

0:03:30.080 --> 0:03:33.240
<v Speaker 1>Fair Housing Act and a lawsuit by the City of

0:03:33.360 --> 0:03:38.680
<v Speaker 1>Miami against uh Wells, Fargoing, Bank of America, and City,

0:03:38.720 --> 0:03:42.000
<v Speaker 1>although cities not involved at the Supreme Court, which essentially says,

0:03:42.560 --> 0:03:45.560
<v Speaker 1>because of your predatory lending, we have blight in the

0:03:45.600 --> 0:03:49.200
<v Speaker 1>City of Miami. That's a case. Uh. That an issue

0:03:49.240 --> 0:03:52.680
<v Speaker 1>that could divide the Court on a long ideological lines.

0:03:52.880 --> 0:03:56.240
<v Speaker 1>And uh, I am certainly wondering whether the Court um

0:03:57.240 --> 0:04:01.560
<v Speaker 1>is divided in that and whether we'll here reargue meant um. Kimberly,

0:04:01.680 --> 0:04:04.920
<v Speaker 1>let me ask you about cases the Court hasn't yet

0:04:04.960 --> 0:04:09.760
<v Speaker 1>agreed to hear um. There are a number of pending things,

0:04:09.760 --> 0:04:12.920
<v Speaker 1>are always more things coming along. Are there issues that

0:04:12.960 --> 0:04:17.320
<v Speaker 1>you're thinking, Well, I'm thinking maybe the Court's conservative wing

0:04:18.000 --> 0:04:20.360
<v Speaker 1>is eager to take up that issue or would take

0:04:20.400 --> 0:04:23.719
<v Speaker 1>that up that issue once we get Neil Gorsage on

0:04:23.800 --> 0:04:26.919
<v Speaker 1>the court. Well, there have been a lot of a

0:04:27.000 --> 0:04:30.680
<v Speaker 1>lot of cases testing voter requirements, things like voter id

0:04:30.880 --> 0:04:33.600
<v Speaker 1>laws are the most obvious, and the Court has kind

0:04:33.600 --> 0:04:36.799
<v Speaker 1>of been hanging around these laws and how the many

0:04:36.800 --> 0:04:39.680
<v Speaker 1>cases have come to the court, but they haven't accepted them,

0:04:39.760 --> 0:04:42.200
<v Speaker 1>although they've given kind of some signals that you know,

0:04:42.279 --> 0:04:45.160
<v Speaker 1>maybe in the right circumstances they would um. And there's

0:04:45.200 --> 0:04:48.000
<v Speaker 1>one out there from North Carolina that had a particularly

0:04:48.040 --> 0:04:51.559
<v Speaker 1>harsh ruling below on the state of North Carolina, where

0:04:52.000 --> 0:04:55.680
<v Speaker 1>the Court said that the legislatures actually acted with a

0:04:55.720 --> 0:04:59.360
<v Speaker 1>discriminatory intent whenever they created this voter id law to

0:04:59.520 --> 0:05:03.000
<v Speaker 1>specific glee target African Americans. I think that's the kind

0:05:03.000 --> 0:05:06.760
<v Speaker 1>of case that, UM that conservatives might be wanting to

0:05:06.800 --> 0:05:10.080
<v Speaker 1>take a look at once they have somebody they that

0:05:10.279 --> 0:05:13.200
<v Speaker 1>seemingly might vote with them on that issue. Yeah, that's

0:05:13.200 --> 0:05:14.800
<v Speaker 1>the case of correct me if I'm wrong. I think

0:05:14.839 --> 0:05:18.239
<v Speaker 1>where the court voted four to four on on whether

0:05:18.320 --> 0:05:21.679
<v Speaker 1>that that voter ideal law could be in effect for

0:05:22.120 --> 0:05:26.960
<v Speaker 1>the most recent election, right, that's right. And interestingly, in

0:05:27.080 --> 0:05:30.800
<v Speaker 1>this the court also has pending um or in front

0:05:30.800 --> 0:05:34.440
<v Speaker 1>of it a case that UH from North North Carolina

0:05:34.480 --> 0:05:37.400
<v Speaker 1>as well, dealing with a different set of redistricting. UM.

0:05:37.520 --> 0:05:39.880
<v Speaker 1>So it might be this court is waiting to handle

0:05:39.880 --> 0:05:43.080
<v Speaker 1>those two cases, are wanting to handle those two cases together.

0:05:44.120 --> 0:05:47.280
<v Speaker 1>What do you foresee with regard to Trump's travel ban?

0:05:47.480 --> 0:05:50.080
<v Speaker 1>Is that going to How quickly do you see that

0:05:50.160 --> 0:05:53.080
<v Speaker 1>getting up to the Supreme Court and being in front

0:05:53.120 --> 0:05:57.000
<v Speaker 1>of a justice coursage. Well, right now it's in the

0:05:57.000 --> 0:06:00.000
<v Speaker 1>appellate courts. It's moving along very quickly. Uh. In fact,

0:06:00.080 --> 0:06:04.280
<v Speaker 1>to the Appellate Court just granted emotion to expedite the case.

0:06:04.320 --> 0:06:06.400
<v Speaker 1>So it's going to be hearing arguments in the case

0:06:06.440 --> 0:06:08.880
<v Speaker 1>sometime in May. So I would expect that to move

0:06:08.920 --> 0:06:11.840
<v Speaker 1>along pretty quickly. Um, I'm not I'm not as good

0:06:11.880 --> 0:06:14.520
<v Speaker 1>as you actual timing of the cases. Do you have

0:06:14.600 --> 0:06:17.720
<v Speaker 1>an understanding of when that might be in front of

0:06:17.720 --> 0:06:19.920
<v Speaker 1>the High Court? Actually, I don't have an understanding, and

0:06:19.960 --> 0:06:21.320
<v Speaker 1>I was hoping you would provide it. But we can

0:06:21.360 --> 0:06:25.200
<v Speaker 1>both agree that it will becoming becoming to the court, uh,

0:06:25.279 --> 0:06:29.680
<v Speaker 1>and not the too horribly distant future. I would think, Um,

0:06:30.279 --> 0:06:32.800
<v Speaker 1>last thing for you, just how much do you think

0:06:32.880 --> 0:06:35.760
<v Speaker 1>the court is in Chief Justice Roberts is concerned. I

0:06:35.760 --> 0:06:37.640
<v Speaker 1>means it's gonna be such a partisan fight over Neo

0:06:37.640 --> 0:06:41.960
<v Speaker 1>grocer Arty is about the Supreme Court seeming really partisan

0:06:42.000 --> 0:06:45.200
<v Speaker 1>if they if they suddenly start taking up these conservative

0:06:45.240 --> 0:06:49.640
<v Speaker 1>cases and issuing conservative, big conservative rulings. Well, it's interesting

0:06:49.680 --> 0:06:52.840
<v Speaker 1>in the month before Justice Schooly have passed away, Chief

0:06:52.839 --> 0:06:55.000
<v Speaker 1>Justice Roberts actually give a speech at a law school

0:06:55.000 --> 0:06:59.000
<v Speaker 1>where he said that the Senate confirmation process is really

0:06:59.040 --> 0:07:03.280
<v Speaker 1>polarizing the public perception of the Supreme Court. And it's

0:07:03.320 --> 0:07:06.800
<v Speaker 1>not their actions that they take the Supreme Court themselves, um,

0:07:06.880 --> 0:07:10.080
<v Speaker 1>but rather it's Congress. So I'm not sure that he

0:07:10.200 --> 0:07:12.760
<v Speaker 1>thinks that, you know, taking these cases and deciding these

0:07:12.800 --> 0:07:15.880
<v Speaker 1>cases are adding anything to the public perception of them

0:07:15.920 --> 0:07:20.640
<v Speaker 1>as politically divided. Um. But I'm sure that this confirmation

0:07:20.680 --> 0:07:24.280
<v Speaker 1>process that's currently unfolding, um, probably something he would think

0:07:24.520 --> 0:07:27.720
<v Speaker 1>is affecting the public perception. Okay, thank you so much,

0:07:27.800 --> 0:07:31.000
<v Speaker 1>Kimberly Robinson, Bloomberg Being a Supreme Court reporter talking about

0:07:31.000 --> 0:07:33.360
<v Speaker 1>the impact Neil Gors which might make that's it for

0:07:33.360 --> 0:07:35.920
<v Speaker 1>the sedition of Bloomberg Law. We'll be back tomorrow thanks

0:07:35.960 --> 0:07:39.720
<v Speaker 1>to our producer David Sutterman and our technical director Mark

0:07:39.760 --> 0:07:42.520
<v Speaker 1>Sennis Kolchi. You can find more legal news at Bloomberg

0:07:42.600 --> 0:07:45.480
<v Speaker 1>Law dot com and Bloomberg Being a dot com. Coming

0:07:45.560 --> 0:07:48.360
<v Speaker 1>up on Bloomberg Radio, we'll have Bloomberg Markets with Carol

0:07:48.440 --> 0:07:51.640
<v Speaker 1>Masster and Corey Johnson. Stay tuned for that on here

0:07:51.680 --> 0:07:55.640
<v Speaker 1>on Bloomberg Radio. This is Bloomberg,