1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:11,119 --> 00:00:14,560
Speaker 1: With a six to three conservative majority, the U. S.

3
00:00:14,560 --> 00:00:19,279
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is aggressively filling its calendar with culture war classes,

4
00:00:19,760 --> 00:00:24,000
Speaker 1: taking up fights over abortion, gay rights, guns, affirmative action,

5
00:00:24,079 --> 00:00:27,040
Speaker 1: and voting rights. Joining me to talk about this trend

6
00:00:27,120 --> 00:00:30,800
Speaker 1: is Greg Store, Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter. Everyone is

7
00:00:30,840 --> 00:00:34,800
Speaker 1: talking about the abortion case, and you know how high

8
00:00:34,880 --> 00:00:38,160
Speaker 1: profile it is, but there are so many other cases

9
00:00:38,360 --> 00:00:41,840
Speaker 1: that the Court has been taking this term and even

10
00:00:41,880 --> 00:00:45,159
Speaker 1: next term that really put the Court right in the

11
00:00:45,200 --> 00:00:50,120
Speaker 1: middle of culture wars. Absolutely. In addition to abortion, we

12
00:00:50,200 --> 00:00:53,040
Speaker 1: have a big case involving gun rights, we have a

13
00:00:53,120 --> 00:00:56,520
Speaker 1: climate change case this term. We now have a new

14
00:00:56,600 --> 00:01:01,880
Speaker 1: immigration case involving asylum applications. There are religion cases, there

15
00:01:01,920 --> 00:01:06,280
Speaker 1: are free speech cases, a big affirmative action case, next term,

16
00:01:06,440 --> 00:01:10,640
Speaker 1: voting rights. The list is really remarkable. All areas where

17
00:01:10,920 --> 00:01:13,920
Speaker 1: there's an excellent chance we will see the Court dividing

18
00:01:13,959 --> 00:01:19,679
Speaker 1: along ideological lines, which now means a divide along ideological

19
00:01:19,760 --> 00:01:23,520
Speaker 1: lines means a win for the conservatives. It sure does.

20
00:01:23,680 --> 00:01:27,160
Speaker 1: Chief Justice Roberts occasionally has been fighting with the Court's

21
00:01:27,200 --> 00:01:29,840
Speaker 1: liberals at least in part on some of these issues,

22
00:01:29,880 --> 00:01:33,000
Speaker 1: but with a six three conservative majority, the conservatives no

23
00:01:33,080 --> 00:01:37,240
Speaker 1: longer need the Chief Justice with most of these cases June,

24
00:01:37,319 --> 00:01:40,600
Speaker 1: the real question is how far will the Court go?

25
00:01:41,200 --> 00:01:45,080
Speaker 1: Abortion is a perfect example. Arguments strongly suggested they were

26
00:01:45,080 --> 00:01:47,920
Speaker 1: going to uphold this fifteen week abortion ban in Mississippi,

27
00:01:48,120 --> 00:01:50,600
Speaker 1: and the real question is will they go even further

28
00:01:51,000 --> 00:01:55,240
Speaker 1: and overturn Roe v. Wade. When listening to the oral arguments,

29
00:01:55,400 --> 00:01:59,920
Speaker 1: I'm sometimes surprised that some of the conservative justices seem

30
00:02:00,040 --> 00:02:05,280
Speaker 1: to be boldly suggesting positions that are contrary to precedent.

31
00:02:05,880 --> 00:02:09,400
Speaker 1: The best example is the arguments and the Texas case,

32
00:02:09,520 --> 00:02:12,760
Speaker 1: where abortion rights are on the line, where it almost

33
00:02:12,800 --> 00:02:16,120
Speaker 1: seemed like Roe v. Wade was an afterthought to some

34
00:02:16,200 --> 00:02:20,799
Speaker 1: of the justices. Yeah, and the question is just whether

35
00:02:20,840 --> 00:02:25,600
Speaker 1: they're going to overturn things. They're making very little secret

36
00:02:25,680 --> 00:02:29,640
Speaker 1: of their interest. They are looking at areas of law

37
00:02:30,160 --> 00:02:34,160
Speaker 1: that were shaped when the Court was more moderate or

38
00:02:34,160 --> 00:02:39,120
Speaker 1: more even more liberal decades ago, and they are pretty

39
00:02:39,160 --> 00:02:43,360
Speaker 1: openly suggesting that they are going to roll back some

40
00:02:43,480 --> 00:02:47,360
Speaker 1: of those precedents, if not overturned them directly. Let's talk

41
00:02:47,400 --> 00:02:52,280
Speaker 1: about guns, for example, and the Second Amendment case, how

42
00:02:52,320 --> 00:02:56,040
Speaker 1: could they rule narrowly and then how could they rule broadly?

43
00:02:57,040 --> 00:03:00,240
Speaker 1: So in the Second Amendment, the core questionnaire is whether

44
00:03:00,280 --> 00:03:03,440
Speaker 1: there is a constitutional right to carry a handgun in public.

45
00:03:03,880 --> 00:03:06,600
Speaker 1: New York is one of about eight states that have

46
00:03:06,840 --> 00:03:09,799
Speaker 1: laws that, at least according to gun rights advocates, prevent

47
00:03:09,880 --> 00:03:14,000
Speaker 1: most people from from doing that, and the court arguments

48
00:03:14,000 --> 00:03:16,760
Speaker 1: in November strongly suggested they were poised to strike down

49
00:03:16,760 --> 00:03:20,760
Speaker 1: that New York law and along the way say there

50
00:03:20,840 --> 00:03:23,240
Speaker 1: is a constitutional right to carry a handgun in public.

51
00:03:23,680 --> 00:03:25,560
Speaker 1: And the real question, in terms of how far they

52
00:03:25,560 --> 00:03:27,800
Speaker 1: will go, will be, well, how much room do they

53
00:03:27,880 --> 00:03:31,239
Speaker 1: leave states to say, but you can't bring that handgun

54
00:03:31,400 --> 00:03:34,800
Speaker 1: into a sensitive area like a courthouse or a school.

55
00:03:35,160 --> 00:03:38,120
Speaker 1: During arguments, some justices like John Roberts and Amy Coney

56
00:03:38,120 --> 00:03:41,680
Speaker 1: Barrett were tossing out various areas, like say Times Square

57
00:03:41,680 --> 00:03:44,480
Speaker 1: on New Year's Eve, that maybe the government ought to

58
00:03:44,480 --> 00:03:47,400
Speaker 1: be allowed to restrict weapons from And that's really the

59
00:03:47,480 --> 00:03:49,200
Speaker 1: question in the case is how much room they're going

60
00:03:49,240 --> 00:03:51,720
Speaker 1: to leave for states to at least keep people from

61
00:03:51,760 --> 00:03:54,800
Speaker 1: bringing handguns into certain areas. You know, a lot of

62
00:03:54,840 --> 00:03:59,520
Speaker 1: the country, evidence of gun violence is increasing, right now

63
00:04:00,120 --> 00:04:04,400
Speaker 1: talking about New York, where I live, it's a major problem.

64
00:04:04,480 --> 00:04:07,400
Speaker 1: So if the court hands down this decision in the

65
00:04:07,440 --> 00:04:10,760
Speaker 1: midst of all this gun violence, it seems like they're

66
00:04:10,760 --> 00:04:14,400
Speaker 1: almost being brazen about it when people are fighting for

67
00:04:14,520 --> 00:04:17,320
Speaker 1: gun control. You know, of course, there are two schools

68
00:04:17,320 --> 00:04:20,440
Speaker 1: of thought on that, and one line of questioning in

69
00:04:20,480 --> 00:04:24,480
Speaker 1: the arguments shed some light, which is when the Chief

70
00:04:24,600 --> 00:04:28,200
Speaker 1: Justice was asking questions suggesting that somebody may have even

71
00:04:28,240 --> 00:04:30,760
Speaker 1: more of a need to carry a handgun in one

72
00:04:30,800 --> 00:04:33,719
Speaker 1: of those urban areas where a lot of this violence

73
00:04:33,760 --> 00:04:37,400
Speaker 1: has been taking place. So it's very possible that when

74
00:04:37,400 --> 00:04:40,000
Speaker 1: the court issues this decision, we will see a reflection

75
00:04:40,160 --> 00:04:42,440
Speaker 1: of the idea that we've heard from the n r

76
00:04:42,480 --> 00:04:44,599
Speaker 1: A and others on the gun right side that the

77
00:04:44,640 --> 00:04:46,960
Speaker 1: way to stop a bad guy with a gun is

78
00:04:47,279 --> 00:04:49,360
Speaker 1: a good guy with a gun. We'll see what they say,

79
00:04:49,400 --> 00:04:51,760
Speaker 1: but that seems to be in the background. It's a

80
00:04:51,800 --> 00:04:54,279
Speaker 1: New York case and the Mayor of New York. I

81
00:04:54,320 --> 00:04:56,840
Speaker 1: think we'll have a lot to say when this decision

82
00:04:56,880 --> 00:05:02,039
Speaker 1: comes down. Let's turn to full tuition explain what the

83
00:05:02,040 --> 00:05:07,159
Speaker 1: main cases about. So Maine, unlike most states, has parts

84
00:05:07,160 --> 00:05:09,520
Speaker 1: of the state where there aren't public schools at least

85
00:05:09,960 --> 00:05:11,760
Speaker 1: at the high school level, in some cases at the

86
00:05:11,760 --> 00:05:15,680
Speaker 1: elementary and middle school level as well. And Maine has

87
00:05:15,839 --> 00:05:19,640
Speaker 1: a unique program where they say to the local area,

88
00:05:20,000 --> 00:05:22,040
Speaker 1: if you want, you can kind of deal with a

89
00:05:22,040 --> 00:05:25,839
Speaker 1: private school around there, or will cover the cost of

90
00:05:25,880 --> 00:05:30,719
Speaker 1: private education by helping parents with tuition. But that money

91
00:05:30,760 --> 00:05:33,240
Speaker 1: can't be used at a religious school. And it's that

92
00:05:33,320 --> 00:05:36,479
Speaker 1: last part that's that issue in the Supreme Court. The argument,

93
00:05:36,600 --> 00:05:39,680
Speaker 1: as one would suspect given this court, suggest that the

94
00:05:39,720 --> 00:05:43,040
Speaker 1: Court was poised to strike that down. We already know

95
00:05:43,160 --> 00:05:46,359
Speaker 1: that the Court has cleared the way for school vouchers

96
00:05:46,440 --> 00:05:50,560
Speaker 1: to include religious schools more broadly, and this would just

97
00:05:50,600 --> 00:05:53,599
Speaker 1: be another kind of step in the direction of perhaps

98
00:05:53,600 --> 00:05:56,799
Speaker 1: even requiring governments where they're going to open up programs

99
00:05:56,839 --> 00:05:59,880
Speaker 1: like this, to include religious schools in them. You know,

100
00:06:00,080 --> 00:06:02,160
Speaker 1: Usually you say you can't tell what the court is

101
00:06:02,200 --> 00:06:05,200
Speaker 1: going to do based on oral arguments, but in a

102
00:06:05,200 --> 00:06:08,400
Speaker 1: lot of these cases, it seems like the oral arguments

103
00:06:08,440 --> 00:06:11,600
Speaker 1: are indicative of where the court is going to go.

104
00:06:11,720 --> 00:06:15,040
Speaker 1: I mean, I can't imagine the court ruling in favor

105
00:06:15,080 --> 00:06:18,440
Speaker 1: of Maine after those oral arguments. Yeah, it's very much

106
00:06:18,480 --> 00:06:20,960
Speaker 1: the case. And oftentimes with some of these cases, the

107
00:06:20,960 --> 00:06:23,760
Speaker 1: debate ends up being about what we talked about earlier,

108
00:06:23,880 --> 00:06:25,640
Speaker 1: how far is the court going to go? Is it

109
00:06:25,640 --> 00:06:28,080
Speaker 1: going to carve out those sensitive areas in the gun

110
00:06:28,080 --> 00:06:29,920
Speaker 1: case where guns can't be brought? Is it going to

111
00:06:30,080 --> 00:06:32,280
Speaker 1: go all the way and overturn rov weade in the

112
00:06:32,320 --> 00:06:35,320
Speaker 1: abortion context? And you know, one other big clue, just

113
00:06:35,440 --> 00:06:37,839
Speaker 1: even before you get the argument in these cases is

114
00:06:38,320 --> 00:06:40,760
Speaker 1: many of these cases, in fact, most of these cases

115
00:06:40,800 --> 00:06:43,120
Speaker 1: are ones the court didn't have to take. And the

116
00:06:43,200 --> 00:06:46,280
Speaker 1: fact that they decided to take these cases up is

117
00:06:46,320 --> 00:06:49,719
Speaker 1: already a strong suggestion that they are highly skeptical of

118
00:06:49,800 --> 00:06:52,960
Speaker 1: the lower court ruling and they're looking to push the

119
00:06:53,040 --> 00:06:55,880
Speaker 1: law in a certain direction. And it doesn't seem like

120
00:06:55,920 --> 00:07:00,000
Speaker 1: they're taking a break next term either, because they're already

121
00:07:00,040 --> 00:07:03,280
Speaker 1: lining up cases that are controversial. And speaking of not

122
00:07:03,320 --> 00:07:06,360
Speaker 1: having to take a case, tell us about the Colorado

123
00:07:06,440 --> 00:07:10,360
Speaker 1: case they took this week. This is an important new case.

124
00:07:10,400 --> 00:07:12,800
Speaker 1: If you remember a few years ago the case involving

125
00:07:12,800 --> 00:07:15,800
Speaker 1: the Colorado baker who didn't want to make a cake

126
00:07:16,040 --> 00:07:19,680
Speaker 1: for a same sex wedding. This is very similar. It's

127
00:07:19,720 --> 00:07:24,200
Speaker 1: also from Colorado. It also involves Colorado's antidiscrimination law, which

128
00:07:24,240 --> 00:07:27,320
Speaker 1: covers sexual orientation, and in this case, it's an appeal

129
00:07:27,560 --> 00:07:29,360
Speaker 1: from a web designer who says, I want to get

130
00:07:29,400 --> 00:07:32,840
Speaker 1: in the business of designing web pages for weddings, but

131
00:07:32,920 --> 00:07:35,160
Speaker 1: I don't want to do it for same sex weddings

132
00:07:35,200 --> 00:07:37,960
Speaker 1: because I have a religious objection to it. The court

133
00:07:38,240 --> 00:07:41,080
Speaker 1: agreed to hear her appeal, even though she hasn't even

134
00:07:41,120 --> 00:07:44,040
Speaker 1: started designing web pages, even though the law hasn't been

135
00:07:44,080 --> 00:07:48,480
Speaker 1: applied against her. It will consider only her free speech arguments.

136
00:07:48,480 --> 00:07:52,320
Speaker 1: It won't consider her religious rights arguments. But again, it's

137
00:07:52,360 --> 00:07:55,080
Speaker 1: one of those cases where the court certainly did not

138
00:07:55,240 --> 00:07:58,600
Speaker 1: have to agree to hear this appeal, and so I

139
00:07:58,600 --> 00:08:01,000
Speaker 1: think it's spared to a sue that there's a great

140
00:08:01,000 --> 00:08:04,520
Speaker 1: deal of interest in bolstering free speech rights and letting

141
00:08:04,600 --> 00:08:09,080
Speaker 1: businesses carve themselves out from these civil rights laws, at

142
00:08:09,160 --> 00:08:12,440
Speaker 1: least when it comes to sexual orientation. Another case they

143
00:08:12,520 --> 00:08:16,320
Speaker 1: took that I was actually surprised at was the case

144
00:08:16,400 --> 00:08:18,800
Speaker 1: of the coach who wants to pray on the fifty

145
00:08:18,880 --> 00:08:23,320
Speaker 1: yard line. Coach who was given accommodations by the school,

146
00:08:23,440 --> 00:08:27,280
Speaker 1: told he could pray in private, told he could pray

147
00:08:27,640 --> 00:08:30,800
Speaker 1: you know, afterwards, but not with the team surrounding him.

148
00:08:30,960 --> 00:08:34,640
Speaker 1: And his insistence is that he wants to pray on

149
00:08:34,720 --> 00:08:38,520
Speaker 1: the fifty yard line right after the game. Yeah, and

150
00:08:38,559 --> 00:08:40,360
Speaker 1: part of the reason this was a bit of a

151
00:08:40,360 --> 00:08:43,040
Speaker 1: reach for the court to take, perhaps a surprise for

152
00:08:43,080 --> 00:08:46,319
Speaker 1: some people, is that it's pretty fact intensive. The two

153
00:08:46,400 --> 00:08:50,200
Speaker 1: sides tend to disagree over what exactly happened here, but

154
00:08:50,360 --> 00:08:53,319
Speaker 1: the shot of it is that the coach is arguing,

155
00:08:53,400 --> 00:08:56,520
Speaker 1: these prayers are my private religious expression and the school

156
00:08:56,559 --> 00:08:58,160
Speaker 1: has no right to tell me I can't do it.

157
00:08:58,559 --> 00:09:00,440
Speaker 1: And the school is saying that this had become a

158
00:09:00,559 --> 00:09:02,800
Speaker 1: public event because he was doing it in the fifth

159
00:09:02,920 --> 00:09:05,920
Speaker 1: yard lines. Players were joining him, members of the public

160
00:09:05,920 --> 00:09:10,160
Speaker 1: were even joining him, and that that had the effect,

161
00:09:10,160 --> 00:09:12,960
Speaker 1: among other things, of coursing some students into feeling like

162
00:09:13,160 --> 00:09:16,120
Speaker 1: they had to take part in it. The court has

163
00:09:16,160 --> 00:09:19,239
Speaker 1: not said whether it's going to hear this case this term.

164
00:09:19,440 --> 00:09:22,760
Speaker 1: Just based on the calendar, they probably will, but they

165
00:09:22,800 --> 00:09:25,560
Speaker 1: haven't said that officially yet. You know, along the lines

166
00:09:25,640 --> 00:09:28,800
Speaker 1: of cases they didn't have to take but are taking.

167
00:09:29,640 --> 00:09:32,719
Speaker 1: Is an affirmative action case. Yeah, this is going to

168
00:09:32,800 --> 00:09:34,640
Speaker 1: be cute. This is another case where the court is

169
00:09:34,679 --> 00:09:39,520
Speaker 1: considering overturning a major precedent, or maybe multiple major precedents.

170
00:09:39,960 --> 00:09:43,000
Speaker 1: The Court back in two thousand and three reaffirmed the

171
00:09:43,160 --> 00:09:47,880
Speaker 1: idea that universities could use race as an admissions factor

172
00:09:47,920 --> 00:09:51,400
Speaker 1: to diversify their campuses. The Supreme Court is now going

173
00:09:51,400 --> 00:09:55,240
Speaker 1: to consider overturning that decision. It has a pair of appeals,

174
00:09:55,240 --> 00:09:59,120
Speaker 1: one involving Harvard College, one involving the University of North Carolina.

175
00:09:59,360 --> 00:10:02,000
Speaker 1: So when the of at school which is governed under

176
00:10:02,200 --> 00:10:05,640
Speaker 1: Title six civil rights law, and University of North Carolina

177
00:10:05,720 --> 00:10:09,160
Speaker 1: just under the equal Protection clause, and the Court is

178
00:10:09,200 --> 00:10:12,120
Speaker 1: going to, as I said, consider overturning that that ruling,

179
00:10:12,160 --> 00:10:14,920
Speaker 1: which would mean that universities would not be able to

180
00:10:15,040 --> 00:10:17,720
Speaker 1: use race as an admissions factor. That would be a

181
00:10:17,800 --> 00:10:23,200
Speaker 1: huge deal for universities. Most selective universities still use race

182
00:10:23,360 --> 00:10:27,199
Speaker 1: as an admissions factor for the sake of trying to diversify.

183
00:10:27,280 --> 00:10:30,200
Speaker 1: And as you alluded to, this case was also a

184
00:10:30,240 --> 00:10:32,040
Speaker 1: little bit of a reach for the Court. They didn't

185
00:10:32,080 --> 00:10:35,000
Speaker 1: have to take it. The North Carolina case has not

186
00:10:35,080 --> 00:10:37,480
Speaker 1: gone through a federal appeals court, yet the Court reached

187
00:10:37,480 --> 00:10:40,439
Speaker 1: out to take that directly from a federal district court

188
00:10:40,760 --> 00:10:43,160
Speaker 1: so that it could take up this issue next term.

189
00:10:43,280 --> 00:10:46,600
Speaker 1: We went from the Colorado baker to the Colorado web designer.

190
00:10:46,960 --> 00:10:51,360
Speaker 1: It's the same group behind both those cases. A conservative group.

191
00:10:51,600 --> 00:10:55,440
Speaker 1: Are conservative groups behind a lot of these cases. Also,

192
00:10:55,520 --> 00:10:59,560
Speaker 1: the Firmative Action case is another conservative group behind it. Yeah,

193
00:10:59,600 --> 00:11:02,160
Speaker 1: they app slutely are. There are a number of them.

194
00:11:02,200 --> 00:11:06,120
Speaker 1: They specialized in different areas. The group that, as you mentioned,

195
00:11:06,160 --> 00:11:09,400
Speaker 1: was behind the Colorado cases, Alliance Defending Freedom, has become

196
00:11:09,559 --> 00:11:14,880
Speaker 1: very prominent in pressing religious rights claims in recent years.

197
00:11:15,000 --> 00:11:17,760
Speaker 1: And you know, the lawyers there are are very good

198
00:11:17,880 --> 00:11:20,040
Speaker 1: and they have good success with this court. This is

199
00:11:20,080 --> 00:11:23,040
Speaker 1: a court that's very receptive to them, and that's part

200
00:11:23,080 --> 00:11:25,400
Speaker 1: of the reason that we've seen so many of these

201
00:11:25,440 --> 00:11:29,040
Speaker 1: religious rights cases in recent years. Now. As far as

202
00:11:29,360 --> 00:11:35,240
Speaker 1: voting rights, this term, they blocked the ruling in Alabama

203
00:11:35,320 --> 00:11:38,600
Speaker 1: of a three judge panel that told the Republican legislator

204
00:11:38,600 --> 00:11:42,240
Speaker 1: to redraw the map. That case is set for next term.

205
00:11:42,320 --> 00:11:45,480
Speaker 1: Any other voting rights cases next term. That's the one

206
00:11:45,520 --> 00:11:48,080
Speaker 1: that we have right now, but it is a huge one.

207
00:11:48,320 --> 00:11:50,720
Speaker 1: We may well see some other cases coming up, especially

208
00:11:50,720 --> 00:11:56,360
Speaker 1: if we have restrictions that apply to the November election

209
00:11:56,440 --> 00:11:59,800
Speaker 1: and restrictions in terms of ballot access or rules or

210
00:11:59,800 --> 00:12:02,280
Speaker 1: that sort of thing. The case that they have agreed

211
00:12:02,360 --> 00:12:06,040
Speaker 1: to hear, this Alabama case involves the Voting Rights Act

212
00:12:06,320 --> 00:12:10,439
Speaker 1: and under what circumstances states need to make sure that

213
00:12:10,520 --> 00:12:14,679
Speaker 1: some districts are heavily minority so that minorities have a

214
00:12:14,760 --> 00:12:18,400
Speaker 1: chance to elect the candidate of their choice. In this case,

215
00:12:18,440 --> 00:12:22,160
Speaker 1: the lower court said Alabama could have easily created a

216
00:12:22,200 --> 00:12:25,520
Speaker 1: second heavily black district in its seven district congressional map

217
00:12:25,920 --> 00:12:28,760
Speaker 1: and violated the Voting Rights Act by creating only one

218
00:12:28,800 --> 00:12:30,960
Speaker 1: of those. And that's the ruling that the Supreme Court

219
00:12:31,040 --> 00:12:33,520
Speaker 1: is put on hold. So Alabama will have just one

220
00:12:33,559 --> 00:12:37,280
Speaker 1: heavily black district for the November election, and the argument

221
00:12:37,600 --> 00:12:41,679
Speaker 1: next term will decide whether that is going to be

222
00:12:41,720 --> 00:12:45,120
Speaker 1: the case going forward for the rest of this tenure

223
00:12:45,679 --> 00:12:48,720
Speaker 1: election cycle. So next term we may have the first

224
00:12:48,840 --> 00:12:54,079
Speaker 1: black female justice on the Supreme Court. Who has Biden interviewed?

225
00:12:54,080 --> 00:12:56,560
Speaker 1: Do we know who he's interviewed so far and where

226
00:12:56,559 --> 00:13:00,680
Speaker 1: he stands? There's reporting that he has interviewed the three

227
00:13:00,760 --> 00:13:04,079
Speaker 1: candidates who have always been on the short list. That's

228
00:13:04,280 --> 00:13:06,560
Speaker 1: to Judge Katanji Brown Jackson of the d C Circuit

229
00:13:06,640 --> 00:13:11,040
Speaker 1: here in Washington, California Supreme Court Justice Leandrew Krueger, and

230
00:13:11,559 --> 00:13:14,240
Speaker 1: U S SSTRC Court judge from South Carolina, Michelle Child.

231
00:13:14,600 --> 00:13:18,280
Speaker 1: Jackson is the one who she was interviewed for an

232
00:13:18,320 --> 00:13:22,880
Speaker 1: earlier Supreme Court vacancy back when Obama was president. She

233
00:13:23,000 --> 00:13:26,760
Speaker 1: has always been, at least from the outside, at the

234
00:13:26,800 --> 00:13:29,960
Speaker 1: top of the list and probably the odds on favorite

235
00:13:29,960 --> 00:13:33,600
Speaker 1: now based on the various reporting out there. Thanks so much, Greg,

236
00:13:33,640 --> 00:13:37,360
Speaker 1: As always, that's Bloomberg. New Supreme Court reporter Greg store

237
00:13:39,120 --> 00:13:43,439
Speaker 1: accolades for Judge Katangi Brown Jackson from the majority leader

238
00:13:43,440 --> 00:13:46,720
Speaker 1: of the Senate, Chuck Schumer to a high school classmate,

239
00:13:46,920 --> 00:13:50,880
Speaker 1: Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Ahrenberg. She is just

240
00:13:51,160 --> 00:13:53,959
Speaker 1: such an outstanding nominee. It's amazed me that no one

241
00:13:54,000 --> 00:13:57,240
Speaker 1: in her past who has worked with her, both when

242
00:13:57,240 --> 00:13:59,560
Speaker 1: she was on the private side and then as a judge,

243
00:13:59,720 --> 00:14:02,800
Speaker 1: has anything bad to say about or whether the Democratic, Republican,

244
00:14:02,840 --> 00:14:07,080
Speaker 1: liberal or conservative. All of us who did high school

245
00:14:07,120 --> 00:14:12,440
Speaker 1: debate knew and respected Katangi Brown, and some of us

246
00:14:12,520 --> 00:14:14,439
Speaker 1: feared her because we knew that if we ever competed

247
00:14:14,440 --> 00:14:16,559
Speaker 1: with her, we would come out with a big l

248
00:14:17,040 --> 00:14:21,160
Speaker 1: because she was the superstar in high school debate. President

249
00:14:21,200 --> 00:14:23,960
Speaker 1: Biden announced Judge Jackson as his nominee to be the

250
00:14:24,000 --> 00:14:27,560
Speaker 1: first black woman on the Supreme Court last week, and

251
00:14:27,600 --> 00:14:30,920
Speaker 1: now the hard part of the confirmation process is ahead

252
00:14:30,960 --> 00:14:34,800
Speaker 1: for Jackson, the Senate Judiciary hearings, which in the case

253
00:14:34,880 --> 00:14:39,600
Speaker 1: of Supreme Court nominees have become confrontational and at times

254
00:14:39,680 --> 00:14:43,600
Speaker 1: downright nasty. Joining me is Ala Tune Day Johnson, a

255
00:14:43,680 --> 00:14:48,000
Speaker 1: professor at Columbia Law School. Judge Jackson would be joining

256
00:14:48,000 --> 00:14:52,280
Speaker 1: a court where the Conservatives overwhelmingly have the votes and

257
00:14:52,320 --> 00:14:54,560
Speaker 1: they seem willing to push the Court to the right

258
00:14:54,760 --> 00:14:59,600
Speaker 1: on issues like abortion, guns, religion. What does Judge Jackson's

259
00:14:59,640 --> 00:15:03,800
Speaker 1: ad and to the court add in that context? So

260
00:15:03,840 --> 00:15:07,480
Speaker 1: I think for the general public, we are always really

261
00:15:07,520 --> 00:15:13,120
Speaker 1: focused on the really contentious ideological issues, and so we

262
00:15:13,200 --> 00:15:16,520
Speaker 1: see Judge Jackson's addition and say, it's not really going

263
00:15:16,600 --> 00:15:21,520
Speaker 1: to change the sixth record. She's replacing Briar. Her views

264
00:15:21,560 --> 00:15:24,800
Speaker 1: may be aligned with his, and I think that's true

265
00:15:24,840 --> 00:15:27,320
Speaker 1: on some of the high profile issues. I think her

266
00:15:27,360 --> 00:15:32,680
Speaker 1: impact is one her historic nomination, which it's easy to forget,

267
00:15:32,720 --> 00:15:34,800
Speaker 1: but we shouldn't forget. There's never been a black woman

268
00:15:35,000 --> 00:15:37,800
Speaker 1: on the court. The other dimension of impact is that

269
00:15:37,840 --> 00:15:40,680
Speaker 1: she has really a breadth of experience and on the

270
00:15:40,760 --> 00:15:43,400
Speaker 1: issues that the public tempts to pay less attention to,

271
00:15:43,960 --> 00:15:48,360
Speaker 1: criminal justice issues, access to courts, all of those things.

272
00:15:48,360 --> 00:15:52,720
Speaker 1: She's had experience representing people in private practice and serving

273
00:15:52,720 --> 00:15:55,600
Speaker 1: as a public defender. All of those things will will

274
00:15:55,600 --> 00:15:58,760
Speaker 1: shape her rollings. And then finally, you know, you don't

275
00:15:58,760 --> 00:16:01,320
Speaker 1: know how the court will be the long term. We're

276
00:16:01,320 --> 00:16:03,720
Speaker 1: looking at a current court. You know how it's composed.

277
00:16:03,880 --> 00:16:07,440
Speaker 1: You know their willingness to put aside precedent in certain cases,

278
00:16:07,480 --> 00:16:10,240
Speaker 1: but that may not be true in ten years. So

279
00:16:10,320 --> 00:16:13,080
Speaker 1: this is an appointment for a longer period. So do

280
00:16:13,120 --> 00:16:17,400
Speaker 1: you think her background, her experiences had the potential to

281
00:16:17,600 --> 00:16:21,320
Speaker 1: add to the discussions that the justices have about the

282
00:16:21,360 --> 00:16:25,120
Speaker 1: cases in their conferences. Yes, I think her background could

283
00:16:25,120 --> 00:16:27,720
Speaker 1: make a tremendous difference. I mean, for one, right now,

284
00:16:27,760 --> 00:16:32,000
Speaker 1: there's nobody on the court who's had criminal defense experience

285
00:16:32,200 --> 00:16:35,200
Speaker 1: of any extensive nature who served as a public defender.

286
00:16:35,600 --> 00:16:39,560
Speaker 1: And so just today, the Court decided to not review

287
00:16:39,600 --> 00:16:43,760
Speaker 1: a case involving ineffective assistance of counsel when one attorney

288
00:16:43,800 --> 00:16:48,080
Speaker 1: represented for co defendants the same attorney and raising real

289
00:16:48,240 --> 00:16:50,760
Speaker 1: questions about conflict of interest, And that's the kind of

290
00:16:50,800 --> 00:16:53,520
Speaker 1: case that she might bring insight to. We don't know

291
00:16:53,680 --> 00:16:56,680
Speaker 1: if it would make a difference for sure, but those

292
00:16:56,720 --> 00:16:59,520
Speaker 1: are the kinds of things that the justices can bring

293
00:16:59,600 --> 00:17:03,720
Speaker 1: up oral argument, they can bring up in discussions with

294
00:17:03,800 --> 00:17:10,560
Speaker 1: their colleagues, and sometimes it influences how justices even decide decisions.

295
00:17:10,920 --> 00:17:14,760
Speaker 1: Sandra Day O'Connor would talk about her experience with Justice

296
00:17:14,800 --> 00:17:17,640
Speaker 1: Thurgood Marshall, who was the last justice on the court

297
00:17:17,680 --> 00:17:21,280
Speaker 1: with significant criminal justice experience, and about how he would

298
00:17:21,320 --> 00:17:24,000
Speaker 1: talk to her about what it was to represent black

299
00:17:24,040 --> 00:17:26,439
Speaker 1: men in the South who had been unjustly accused of

300
00:17:26,520 --> 00:17:30,120
Speaker 1: crimes and to represent people on death row, and she

301
00:17:30,600 --> 00:17:34,359
Speaker 1: writes about it as shaping her view of criminal justice issues.

302
00:17:34,400 --> 00:17:36,399
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean that she voted with him in every case.

303
00:17:36,560 --> 00:17:40,400
Speaker 1: It doesn't translate like that, but it can bring perspective

304
00:17:40,480 --> 00:17:43,320
Speaker 1: and a more in depth understanding of how these legal

305
00:17:43,400 --> 00:17:48,480
Speaker 1: rules that the justices are deciding shape the lives of individuals.

306
00:17:49,560 --> 00:17:53,879
Speaker 1: Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who voted for Judge Jackson to

307
00:17:53,920 --> 00:17:56,920
Speaker 1: be on the d C Circuit Court of Appeals tweeted

308
00:17:56,960 --> 00:18:01,199
Speaker 1: that the radical left was behind the Jackson pick, and

309
00:18:01,240 --> 00:18:04,240
Speaker 1: I think in boring effect, groups like Demand Justice we're

310
00:18:04,320 --> 00:18:10,080
Speaker 1: behind her pick. However, is she in any sense radical left? Yeah,

311
00:18:10,160 --> 00:18:12,320
Speaker 1: I'm not even sure what those terms mean. And it's

312
00:18:12,359 --> 00:18:15,640
Speaker 1: really disheartening to have that kind of debate around her.

313
00:18:15,960 --> 00:18:19,120
Speaker 1: I mean, you look at her record, and first of all,

314
00:18:19,160 --> 00:18:23,679
Speaker 1: she was recently elevated from the District Court to the

315
00:18:23,720 --> 00:18:28,119
Speaker 1: Appellate Court, and her record was thoroughly come through, and

316
00:18:28,280 --> 00:18:32,200
Speaker 1: all anyone found was a reasonable judge who I think

317
00:18:32,400 --> 00:18:36,880
Speaker 1: would make from all signs, a really fair minded justice.

318
00:18:37,080 --> 00:18:38,800
Speaker 1: So I don't think there's anything in her record that

319
00:18:38,840 --> 00:18:43,320
Speaker 1: really points to that Temperamentally, people only have lovely things

320
00:18:43,320 --> 00:18:46,879
Speaker 1: to say about her. I have met her on several occasions.

321
00:18:46,920 --> 00:18:50,359
Speaker 1: She clerked several years after I did on the Supreme Court,

322
00:18:50,720 --> 00:18:53,560
Speaker 1: and she's just a lovely person, of warm and generous person.

323
00:18:54,119 --> 00:18:57,480
Speaker 1: She discussed when she was being presented by biden Um

324
00:18:57,520 --> 00:19:00,760
Speaker 1: as the nominee about how influence she was by Justice

325
00:19:00,760 --> 00:19:05,400
Speaker 1: Brier and his temperament, which is that he really tries

326
00:19:05,560 --> 00:19:08,200
Speaker 1: to be generous and fair minded in terms of the

327
00:19:08,280 --> 00:19:11,040
Speaker 1: legal issues and also on how he interacts with his colleague.

328
00:19:11,080 --> 00:19:15,240
Speaker 1: And that grace is what I see in Judge Brown

329
00:19:15,359 --> 00:19:18,520
Speaker 1: Jackson from all my interactions and from what litigant and

330
00:19:18,640 --> 00:19:21,119
Speaker 1: clerks say, but also in what she has professed she

331
00:19:21,160 --> 00:19:25,359
Speaker 1: aspires to be. So I think it's a disheartening um debate,

332
00:19:25,480 --> 00:19:27,520
Speaker 1: But I don't think it's about her. I think really

333
00:19:27,560 --> 00:19:30,639
Speaker 1: it's about a larger fight around the court and the

334
00:19:30,720 --> 00:19:34,520
Speaker 1: importance of that to the Republican base. I think that's

335
00:19:34,560 --> 00:19:38,240
Speaker 1: a lot of what's informing this common Judge Jackson has

336
00:19:38,280 --> 00:19:42,600
Speaker 1: no apparent record of rulings or writings or speeches on

337
00:19:42,720 --> 00:19:46,200
Speaker 1: these hot button issues that I mentioned, abortion, gun rights,

338
00:19:46,200 --> 00:19:51,399
Speaker 1: freedom of religion, etcetera that sometimes drive those tough confirmation battles.

339
00:19:51,480 --> 00:19:55,400
Speaker 1: So is that an advantage for nominee for her, Yes,

340
00:19:55,480 --> 00:19:57,560
Speaker 1: it can be in advance, as I guess, in the

341
00:19:57,560 --> 00:20:00,159
Speaker 1: sense that there's not a lot to wave around. I mean,

342
00:20:00,200 --> 00:20:03,879
Speaker 1: if I mentioned they've already recently had a confirmation hearing

343
00:20:03,880 --> 00:20:06,480
Speaker 1: and there was nothing, I mean, people questioned her on

344
00:20:06,960 --> 00:20:09,960
Speaker 1: the fact that she had served as a public defender,

345
00:20:10,320 --> 00:20:14,160
Speaker 1: and that just seems a little bit of an odd line.

346
00:20:14,160 --> 00:20:17,960
Speaker 1: Of questionings since people are entitled to have defense, it's

347
00:20:18,000 --> 00:20:20,800
Speaker 1: a constitutional right, so it was an odd thing to

348
00:20:21,040 --> 00:20:24,119
Speaker 1: ask her about. I really do believe that senators should

349
00:20:24,119 --> 00:20:28,080
Speaker 1: ask tough questions during confirmation hearings, and I think nominee

350
00:20:28,080 --> 00:20:30,400
Speaker 1: should do their best to answer them. I mean, advice

351
00:20:30,400 --> 00:20:33,240
Speaker 1: and consent is something we should take very seriously. But

352
00:20:33,400 --> 00:20:37,480
Speaker 1: in terms of her background, given that she just had

353
00:20:37,520 --> 00:20:40,760
Speaker 1: a confirmation hearing and that she's been a judge for

354
00:20:40,800 --> 00:20:43,040
Speaker 1: so long, there's a lot to look at it on

355
00:20:43,080 --> 00:20:46,760
Speaker 1: the record, and none of it has proven to be controversial. Really,

356
00:20:46,920 --> 00:20:49,679
Speaker 1: She's a kind of nominee who you would think and

357
00:20:49,720 --> 00:20:53,680
Speaker 1: would garner by partisan support. And I really think it's

358
00:20:53,840 --> 00:20:57,239
Speaker 1: just a testament to this time in which there's so

359
00:20:57,320 --> 00:21:00,399
Speaker 1: much focus on the court. You know, certainly it's been

360
00:21:00,440 --> 00:21:04,160
Speaker 1: a long focus by conservative groups, and I think increasingly

361
00:21:04,200 --> 00:21:07,560
Speaker 1: progressive groups have turned their attention to the court a

362
00:21:07,600 --> 00:21:10,040
Speaker 1: lot out of concern, I guess, for the direction of

363
00:21:10,080 --> 00:21:12,960
Speaker 1: the court. And I think it's in that climate that

364
00:21:13,119 --> 00:21:16,960
Speaker 1: you have people taking on or even questioning someone Mike

365
00:21:17,000 --> 00:21:21,480
Speaker 1: Brown Jackson because she's very breadth of experience, very well

366
00:21:21,560 --> 00:21:26,160
Speaker 1: Credni shoaled nominee one of her more famous opinions concerned

367
00:21:26,160 --> 00:21:29,240
Speaker 1: from her White House counsel Don McGann testifying before a

368
00:21:29,240 --> 00:21:32,920
Speaker 1: House committee, where she wrote that presidents are not kings.

369
00:21:33,520 --> 00:21:36,600
Speaker 1: Is that something they might attack her on. Yeah, I

370
00:21:36,600 --> 00:21:41,200
Speaker 1: mean we saw that come up in her confirmation hearings,

371
00:21:41,240 --> 00:21:42,919
Speaker 1: and I know it's been there and some of the

372
00:21:43,040 --> 00:21:47,560
Speaker 1: rhetoric everything about how she approached that case, which is

373
00:21:47,600 --> 00:21:51,679
Speaker 1: about executive power. You know, it was vindicated um by

374
00:21:51,720 --> 00:21:54,840
Speaker 1: the DC circuit um. So I don't think on the

375
00:21:54,880 --> 00:21:59,520
Speaker 1: merits of troubling. But sometimes in these political confirmation hearings

376
00:21:59,520 --> 00:22:03,719
Speaker 1: are looking for any angle, and I think one angle

377
00:22:03,800 --> 00:22:07,680
Speaker 1: could be is she biased? And she was talking about

378
00:22:07,680 --> 00:22:10,120
Speaker 1: a role that I think many of us would agree

379
00:22:10,160 --> 00:22:13,399
Speaker 1: with Puce that the executive isn't a king and the

380
00:22:13,440 --> 00:22:16,840
Speaker 1: Congress for separation of Powers purposes should be allowed to

381
00:22:17,280 --> 00:22:21,719
Speaker 1: have inquiry into what is potential wrongdoing by the executive branch.

382
00:22:21,880 --> 00:22:24,760
Speaker 1: But I expect that, because there's not that much else

383
00:22:24,880 --> 00:22:27,720
Speaker 1: in her record to really contest, that that would be

384
00:22:27,800 --> 00:22:33,000
Speaker 1: something that will be asked about. Republican Senator John Cornan

385
00:22:33,280 --> 00:22:37,000
Speaker 1: asked her, what role does race play Judge Jackson in

386
00:22:37,040 --> 00:22:38,919
Speaker 1: the kind of judge that you have been and the

387
00:22:39,040 --> 00:22:42,800
Speaker 1: kind of judge that you will be. That question sort

388
00:22:42,840 --> 00:22:46,480
Speaker 1: of stands out. No white nominee has ever been asked that,

389
00:22:47,000 --> 00:22:50,080
Speaker 1: do you expect her to face more of those kinds

390
00:22:50,080 --> 00:22:54,680
Speaker 1: of questions? I thought that was a particularly disheartening question. Yeah,

391
00:22:55,160 --> 00:22:57,400
Speaker 1: as far as I know, no white nominee has ever

392
00:22:57,440 --> 00:23:01,040
Speaker 1: been asked that. And it's really a day injurious direction

393
00:23:01,119 --> 00:23:04,359
Speaker 1: to go in because it suggests that the only people

394
00:23:04,400 --> 00:23:07,520
Speaker 1: who have race, or the only time in which races

395
00:23:07,760 --> 00:23:12,479
Speaker 1: as salient, is when you're talking about a nominee of color,

396
00:23:12,600 --> 00:23:16,960
Speaker 1: and that they're in fact being asked to defend their

397
00:23:17,000 --> 00:23:21,639
Speaker 1: positions and legal perspectives. The assumption is that if you're white,

398
00:23:21,720 --> 00:23:24,840
Speaker 1: or maybe if you're a white male, that your views

399
00:23:24,840 --> 00:23:28,280
Speaker 1: are just neutral. We're all shaped by our experience. Um.

400
00:23:28,359 --> 00:23:31,119
Speaker 1: And at the same time, someone who's been a judge,

401
00:23:31,200 --> 00:23:34,320
Speaker 1: you expect that they're also bringing a certain kind of

402
00:23:34,359 --> 00:23:38,520
Speaker 1: temperament that allows them to look at a range of

403
00:23:38,520 --> 00:23:41,719
Speaker 1: things and trying to determine a legal rule right and

404
00:23:41,800 --> 00:23:44,240
Speaker 1: read the briefs and listen to the oral arguments and

405
00:23:44,280 --> 00:23:46,199
Speaker 1: take all of that seriously. So I think it's a

406
00:23:46,280 --> 00:23:50,240
Speaker 1: disheartening line of inquiry. It suggests that they want to

407
00:23:50,320 --> 00:23:56,200
Speaker 1: make race salient, and it's really troubling. I wonder why

408
00:23:56,240 --> 00:24:01,160
Speaker 1: we place so much emphasis on these confirmation hearings. As

409
00:24:01,160 --> 00:24:04,359
Speaker 1: you say, it's become so political at this point, and

410
00:24:04,760 --> 00:24:06,920
Speaker 1: when you look back, I mean a lot of what

411
00:24:07,000 --> 00:24:10,800
Speaker 1: the nominees say during the confirmation hearings, you know, you

412
00:24:10,840 --> 00:24:13,600
Speaker 1: can't really rely on. For example, just about all of

413
00:24:13,640 --> 00:24:18,119
Speaker 1: them have said Roe v. Wade is established law and

414
00:24:18,240 --> 00:24:22,000
Speaker 1: it's precedent on precedent. But we see what's happening with

415
00:24:22,080 --> 00:24:24,520
Speaker 1: Roe v. Wade, and you know, they seem to be

416
00:24:24,600 --> 00:24:29,520
Speaker 1: willing to ignore precedents sometimes. Yeah, yeah, I think it's

417
00:24:29,520 --> 00:24:31,800
Speaker 1: a really good question to ask, you know, what's the

418
00:24:31,920 --> 00:24:35,960
Speaker 1: value of the hearings themselves? And sometimes they do feel

419
00:24:36,160 --> 00:24:39,639
Speaker 1: very staged. The nominees are encouraged to give as little

420
00:24:39,880 --> 00:24:42,760
Speaker 1: of an answer as possible, or at least it seems

421
00:24:42,800 --> 00:24:46,200
Speaker 1: that way. Um, and sometimes the senators seemed more like

422
00:24:46,240 --> 00:24:49,040
Speaker 1: they're talking to themselves or to their constituency and really

423
00:24:49,080 --> 00:24:52,760
Speaker 1: asking genuine questions. I think that it can be useful.

424
00:24:52,760 --> 00:24:55,399
Speaker 1: I means, certainly. I think it's important if we are

425
00:24:55,440 --> 00:24:58,800
Speaker 1: taking advice and consent seriously, that the public has an

426
00:24:58,800 --> 00:25:01,840
Speaker 1: opportunity here from a nominee, even if it's inadequate in

427
00:25:01,880 --> 00:25:05,080
Speaker 1: all of these ways. It's certainly also important to vet

428
00:25:05,160 --> 00:25:08,240
Speaker 1: the nominee's background and for us to understand if they

429
00:25:08,240 --> 00:25:12,320
Speaker 1: have temperament or other issues. It's painful when you have

430
00:25:12,400 --> 00:25:16,680
Speaker 1: allegations of sexual harassment or sexual assault, but it's important

431
00:25:16,720 --> 00:25:19,000
Speaker 1: that those kinds of things are aired, as as were

432
00:25:19,040 --> 00:25:22,639
Speaker 1: aired in the Kabanaugh and Thomas hearings. But I agree

433
00:25:22,680 --> 00:25:24,800
Speaker 1: that in terms of thinking about how are you going

434
00:25:24,840 --> 00:25:27,239
Speaker 1: to rule in a particular case, or even as your

435
00:25:27,320 --> 00:25:31,200
Speaker 1: judicial methodology or your philosophy, sometimes it's really hard to

436
00:25:31,240 --> 00:25:35,080
Speaker 1: get answers on that. I mean, they could ask about

437
00:25:35,280 --> 00:25:39,919
Speaker 1: how the justice, if confirmed, would approach a particular question.

438
00:25:40,000 --> 00:25:43,359
Speaker 1: That might be more fruitful than asking just will they

439
00:25:43,400 --> 00:25:46,000
Speaker 1: follow a decision? Because you're right, they always say they

440
00:25:46,000 --> 00:25:49,920
Speaker 1: will follow a decision. So, if the Democrats hold together

441
00:25:50,040 --> 00:25:53,240
Speaker 1: as they have on judicial nominations of Biden so far,

442
00:25:53,720 --> 00:25:57,359
Speaker 1: she doesn't need Republican votes to be confirmed. Is it

443
00:25:57,400 --> 00:26:00,640
Speaker 1: important that she gets some Republican votes? Though? I think

444
00:26:00,680 --> 00:26:04,119
Speaker 1: it's important that she kept Republican votes in the sense

445
00:26:04,320 --> 00:26:09,800
Speaker 1: of what it signals for our willingness to be honest

446
00:26:10,040 --> 00:26:14,400
Speaker 1: and fair with regard to judicial confirmations. I mean, at

447
00:26:14,400 --> 00:26:19,000
Speaker 1: this point in recent memory, we have the fast tracking

448
00:26:19,040 --> 00:26:21,879
Speaker 1: of the Amy Comy Barrett hearings, we have not giving

449
00:26:21,920 --> 00:26:24,240
Speaker 1: a hearing to Merrick Garland. If we really want to

450
00:26:24,280 --> 00:26:28,040
Speaker 1: reset and have a different confirmation process, it seems like

451
00:26:28,080 --> 00:26:32,680
Speaker 1: it would start with giving her a respectful hearing and

452
00:26:32,840 --> 00:26:35,360
Speaker 1: given that there's nothing in her record that is contentious,

453
00:26:35,560 --> 00:26:37,639
Speaker 1: to confirming her in the way that people like with

454
00:26:37,800 --> 00:26:42,639
Speaker 1: Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Bryer himself, you know, received overwhelming

455
00:26:42,680 --> 00:26:45,760
Speaker 1: support from Republicans. I think that that would be a

456
00:26:45,800 --> 00:26:48,920
Speaker 1: better outcome, even if you know, I'm not sure how

457
00:26:49,000 --> 00:26:52,080
Speaker 1: likely it is. Thanks for being on the show. That's

458
00:26:52,119 --> 00:26:55,959
Speaker 1: Professor Olive twin Day Johnson of Columbia Law School. And

459
00:26:56,000 --> 00:26:58,120
Speaker 1: that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

460
00:26:58,480 --> 00:27:00,960
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news honor

461
00:27:01,000 --> 00:27:05,160
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

462
00:27:05,359 --> 00:27:10,359
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law,

463
00:27:10,800 --> 00:27:13,399
Speaker 1: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

464
00:27:13,440 --> 00:27:17,400
Speaker 1: week night at ten bm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grossow,

465
00:27:17,480 --> 00:27:19,080
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg,