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

2
00:00:09,000 --> 00:00:12,200
Speaker 1: In the last four years, three new justices have taken

3
00:00:12,200 --> 00:00:15,880
Speaker 1: the bench at the Supreme Court, giving the conservative justices

4
00:00:16,040 --> 00:00:18,960
Speaker 1: a six to three edge over the liberal justices. But

5
00:00:19,160 --> 00:00:22,400
Speaker 1: where does that put the Chief Justice, who just one

6
00:00:22,560 --> 00:00:25,439
Speaker 1: term ago was the deciding vote in five to four

7
00:00:25,520 --> 00:00:28,200
Speaker 1: decisions of the court. Joining me is Michael Doer, a

8
00:00:28,200 --> 00:00:32,200
Speaker 1: professor at Cornell Law School. His latest article is entitled

9
00:00:32,320 --> 00:00:36,479
Speaker 1: Whose Court is it now? So start by telling us

10
00:00:36,720 --> 00:00:40,040
Speaker 1: what is the role of the Chief Justice? The Chief

11
00:00:40,080 --> 00:00:45,800
Speaker 1: Justice is first among equals. The only two formal powers

12
00:00:45,840 --> 00:00:49,880
Speaker 1: that the chief Justice has at other justices lack. Is first,

13
00:00:49,960 --> 00:00:53,120
Speaker 1: the assignment power, So whenever the Chief Justice is in

14
00:00:53,200 --> 00:00:57,240
Speaker 1: the majority, it's his prerogative to assign who writes the

15
00:00:57,240 --> 00:01:00,280
Speaker 1: majority opinion. If he's not in the majority, than the

16
00:01:00,320 --> 00:01:04,360
Speaker 1: next most senior justice has that role. The second authority

17
00:01:04,480 --> 00:01:08,120
Speaker 1: is that he has some administrative responsibilities with respect to

18
00:01:08,200 --> 00:01:12,440
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court itself and the federal judiciary as a whole.

19
00:01:12,520 --> 00:01:15,800
Speaker 1: So he's not just the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

20
00:01:15,840 --> 00:01:19,120
Speaker 1: The official title is the Chief Justice of the United States,

21
00:01:19,480 --> 00:01:21,880
Speaker 1: So in that sense, it's an administrative role, not just

22
00:01:22,040 --> 00:01:24,920
Speaker 1: in a judicatory one, and that differs a little bit

23
00:01:25,000 --> 00:01:30,400
Speaker 1: from other justices explain the importance of getting the majority

24
00:01:30,440 --> 00:01:34,000
Speaker 1: opinion of a justice writing the majority opinion. So, the

25
00:01:34,040 --> 00:01:38,280
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is a court of last resort. It chooses

26
00:01:38,440 --> 00:01:41,839
Speaker 1: the cases it decides, and so when it decides a case,

27
00:01:42,240 --> 00:01:46,000
Speaker 1: it's not simply resolving a dispute between the parties. You

28
00:01:46,000 --> 00:01:47,920
Speaker 1: don't really need to go to the Supreme Court for that.

29
00:01:47,960 --> 00:01:50,040
Speaker 1: The lower courts can do that and do it all

30
00:01:50,040 --> 00:01:53,040
Speaker 1: the time. The reason the Supreme Court takes a case

31
00:01:53,160 --> 00:01:57,760
Speaker 1: in the first place is typically to resolve some important

32
00:01:58,000 --> 00:02:04,280
Speaker 1: contested legal question that affects many cases, and the outcome

33
00:02:05,080 --> 00:02:08,760
Speaker 1: is in some ways less important than the wording of

34
00:02:08,800 --> 00:02:11,920
Speaker 1: the opinion deciding the case. The court can establish some

35
00:02:12,040 --> 00:02:15,799
Speaker 1: new legal test by rule or a standard that's going

36
00:02:15,840 --> 00:02:19,880
Speaker 1: to apply in many cases, and therefore the author of

37
00:02:19,919 --> 00:02:23,880
Speaker 1: the majority opinion has a great deal of power beyond

38
00:02:24,080 --> 00:02:26,760
Speaker 1: simply deciding how the case comes out. That's decided by

39
00:02:26,840 --> 00:02:29,960
Speaker 1: majority vote, But there are many different ways to write

40
00:02:30,000 --> 00:02:33,360
Speaker 1: the opinion deciding a case that will affect lots of

41
00:02:33,360 --> 00:02:37,359
Speaker 1: other cases. Now it's true that you still need at

42
00:02:37,440 --> 00:02:40,440
Speaker 1: least four other justices to sign onto your opinion to

43
00:02:40,560 --> 00:02:43,639
Speaker 1: make it the governing law. But there is a bit

44
00:02:43,639 --> 00:02:47,320
Speaker 1: of flexibility that the author of majority opinion has to

45
00:02:47,400 --> 00:02:51,200
Speaker 1: write it the way he or she wants, and therefore

46
00:02:51,440 --> 00:02:55,480
Speaker 1: it makes a difference who writes the majority opinion. This

47
00:02:55,680 --> 00:03:00,160
Speaker 1: Chief Justice John Roberts, like most of his predecessors, will

48
00:03:00,160 --> 00:03:06,040
Speaker 1: typically keep the majority opinions for himself. In very contentious

49
00:03:06,240 --> 00:03:11,080
Speaker 1: important cases, it's possible the chief could assign an opinion

50
00:03:11,200 --> 00:03:15,400
Speaker 1: to a justice and the justice could lose the majority

51
00:03:15,480 --> 00:03:18,680
Speaker 1: in writing the opinion. Sure, so, let me let me

52
00:03:18,880 --> 00:03:22,720
Speaker 1: illustrate with an example. Let's say that the Chief Justice

53
00:03:22,919 --> 00:03:27,639
Speaker 1: assigns an opinion in the leading case to another justice

54
00:03:27,639 --> 00:03:31,160
Speaker 1: who's in the majority. Let's imagine to Justice Alito, and

55
00:03:31,280 --> 00:03:35,080
Speaker 1: Justice Alito writes the opinion in a way that reflects

56
00:03:35,120 --> 00:03:39,160
Speaker 1: the outcome during the initial vote, but he writes it

57
00:03:39,200 --> 00:03:42,240
Speaker 1: in such a way that is so extreme that some

58
00:03:42,360 --> 00:03:46,119
Speaker 1: of the justices who originally voted with him say, well,

59
00:03:46,360 --> 00:03:48,440
Speaker 1: we still think that that's the right outcome, but we

60
00:03:48,520 --> 00:03:51,720
Speaker 1: can't join your opinion. And therefore that one or more

61
00:03:51,720 --> 00:03:55,440
Speaker 1: of them might write a concurrence, and that concurrence could

62
00:03:55,480 --> 00:03:59,680
Speaker 1: even attract enough other votes that it becomes the majority.

63
00:04:00,000 --> 00:04:05,200
Speaker 1: In rare cases, the outcome actually flips from the petitioner

64
00:04:05,280 --> 00:04:09,040
Speaker 1: wins to the petitioner loses after the assignment of the opinion,

65
00:04:09,480 --> 00:04:13,720
Speaker 1: because somebody writes an opinion and the justices who originally

66
00:04:13,800 --> 00:04:16,640
Speaker 1: voted the same way read it and realize. You know,

67
00:04:16,960 --> 00:04:19,560
Speaker 1: now that I think about it, I think this is mistaken.

68
00:04:19,640 --> 00:04:21,680
Speaker 1: I can't join, and I think the other side wins.

69
00:04:21,880 --> 00:04:24,839
Speaker 1: Doesn't happen often, but it does happen. So if the

70
00:04:24,920 --> 00:04:28,480
Speaker 1: chief is not in the majority, then the senior justice

71
00:04:28,680 --> 00:04:32,279
Speaker 1: that is in the majority assigns the opinion. In history,

72
00:04:32,360 --> 00:04:36,640
Speaker 1: have there been some justices who had more power than

73
00:04:36,640 --> 00:04:41,000
Speaker 1: the chief because of that will not exactly. I think

74
00:04:41,080 --> 00:04:46,080
Speaker 1: you might say that prior to his retirement, Justice Kennedy

75
00:04:46,400 --> 00:04:50,760
Speaker 1: was about as powerful as Chief Justice Roberts because he

76
00:04:50,839 --> 00:04:53,880
Speaker 1: was closer to the center of the court. But he

77
00:04:54,080 --> 00:04:57,280
Speaker 1: more often voted with the Chief Justice than against him.

78
00:04:57,279 --> 00:05:01,400
Speaker 1: So the Chief Justice still retained the assignment power. But

79
00:05:01,520 --> 00:05:06,159
Speaker 1: you can imagine circumstances in which the chief is an

80
00:05:06,200 --> 00:05:12,040
Speaker 1: ideological outlier and thus so frequently in dissent in important cases,

81
00:05:12,440 --> 00:05:18,120
Speaker 1: that he is not effectively assigning opinions. In those important cases.

82
00:05:18,279 --> 00:05:21,600
Speaker 1: I think people thought that might be true when John

83
00:05:21,680 --> 00:05:25,800
Speaker 1: Roberts's predecessor, William rank Whist, became Chief Justice, because rank

84
00:05:25,800 --> 00:05:28,680
Speaker 1: Wist had been pretty much on the far right of

85
00:05:28,720 --> 00:05:32,680
Speaker 1: the court as an associate justice. But two things happened

86
00:05:32,760 --> 00:05:36,320
Speaker 1: during his Chief justiceship that I think made him a

87
00:05:36,640 --> 00:05:42,120
Speaker 1: fairly typical chief Justice. One is that additional conservatives were appointed,

88
00:05:42,279 --> 00:05:44,280
Speaker 1: that the center of the court moved to the right

89
00:05:44,360 --> 00:05:46,800
Speaker 1: and thus closer to him. And two because I think

90
00:05:46,839 --> 00:05:49,320
Speaker 1: he moderated his views a little bit so as to

91
00:05:49,360 --> 00:05:52,560
Speaker 1: make himself more of a centrist. And therefore it's often

92
00:05:52,640 --> 00:05:56,600
Speaker 1: the case that a Chief Justice will be near the

93
00:05:56,680 --> 00:06:00,560
Speaker 1: center of the court in order to preserve the chief's

94
00:06:00,680 --> 00:06:04,960
Speaker 1: power within the court. Chief Justice John Roberts not last term.

95
00:06:05,000 --> 00:06:09,240
Speaker 1: The term before last was like Justice Kennedy. He was

96
00:06:09,400 --> 00:06:12,400
Speaker 1: the swing vote, and then we had the new conservative

97
00:06:12,560 --> 00:06:16,359
Speaker 1: justices come on the court. He was in the majority

98
00:06:16,440 --> 00:06:21,760
Speaker 1: though the time, so he's lost some of his power. Right. So,

99
00:06:22,120 --> 00:06:26,839
Speaker 1: statisticians who studied the court talk about the median justice,

100
00:06:27,120 --> 00:06:30,280
Speaker 1: and that's typically the justice who is in the majority

101
00:06:30,360 --> 00:06:34,599
Speaker 1: more than anybody else. This last term, that was Justice

102
00:06:34,600 --> 00:06:39,599
Speaker 1: Brett Kavanaugh. He was virtually always in the majority, and

103
00:06:39,680 --> 00:06:43,360
Speaker 1: sometimes one is virtue always in the majority because one

104
00:06:43,440 --> 00:06:45,600
Speaker 1: is exactly in the center of the court. So there

105
00:06:45,600 --> 00:06:48,200
Speaker 1: are four justices to your left for to your right.

106
00:06:48,440 --> 00:06:51,440
Speaker 1: Whichever way you vote, you make the majority. But I

107
00:06:51,480 --> 00:06:55,760
Speaker 1: think it's a mistake to think about who the median

108
00:06:55,880 --> 00:07:02,880
Speaker 1: justice is on average rather than on particular issues. So

109
00:07:02,960 --> 00:07:09,120
Speaker 1: on many many issues, there really isn't a single median justice.

110
00:07:09,320 --> 00:07:11,440
Speaker 1: There's sort of a group of them. I think if

111
00:07:11,440 --> 00:07:13,760
Speaker 1: you were sort of were to look at this court overall,

112
00:07:15,080 --> 00:07:19,520
Speaker 1: what we can say is Justice Sodomire is the most

113
00:07:19,720 --> 00:07:24,880
Speaker 1: liberal justice. Justice Thomas is the most conservative justice, although

114
00:07:24,920 --> 00:07:28,720
Speaker 1: Justice Alito is pretty close to him. Justices Brier and

115
00:07:28,840 --> 00:07:33,800
Speaker 1: Kagan are sort of moderate liberals. Justice Gorsuch is very conservative,

116
00:07:33,840 --> 00:07:37,880
Speaker 1: but not quite as conservative as Thomas and Alito. And

117
00:07:37,920 --> 00:07:41,520
Speaker 1: then there's a group of sort of moderate conservatives on

118
00:07:41,880 --> 00:07:46,080
Speaker 1: some issues, the Chief Justice and the two newest Justices

119
00:07:46,760 --> 00:07:53,480
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh and Barrett. But that disguises and glosses over nuances.

120
00:07:53,520 --> 00:07:57,360
Speaker 1: So there are some issues on which Justice Gorsuch is

121
00:07:57,360 --> 00:08:00,320
Speaker 1: a liberal, like Fourth Amendment search and seizure issue shoos.

122
00:08:00,720 --> 00:08:03,600
Speaker 1: Then there are other issues in which Chief Justice John

123
00:08:03,720 --> 00:08:08,400
Speaker 1: Roberts is actually more conservative than some of the justices

124
00:08:08,640 --> 00:08:12,160
Speaker 1: we think of as very conservative. And so if you're

125
00:08:12,200 --> 00:08:14,680
Speaker 1: asking who is the median justice who is going to

126
00:08:14,680 --> 00:08:17,200
Speaker 1: be in the center, you really need to know more

127
00:08:17,280 --> 00:08:20,720
Speaker 1: about the particular case than just who's been the center

128
00:08:20,760 --> 00:08:25,520
Speaker 1: on average. You said that Justice Thomas is the farthest right,

129
00:08:26,320 --> 00:08:30,520
Speaker 1: explain some of his shall we say, unique positions. For example,

130
00:08:30,560 --> 00:08:34,440
Speaker 1: on starry decisive right. The starry dicisis is the Latin

131
00:08:34,559 --> 00:08:39,120
Speaker 1: term for adhering to precedent. Justice Thomas has said and

132
00:08:39,200 --> 00:08:45,080
Speaker 1: sometimes voted in accordance with the view that starry decisives

133
00:08:45,080 --> 00:08:49,520
Speaker 1: has very little role to play in constitutional adjudication. His

134
00:08:49,640 --> 00:08:52,720
Speaker 1: thought is the Constitution is the supreme law of the land,

135
00:08:52,840 --> 00:08:57,560
Speaker 1: not the precedents. If the presidents don't correctly preserve the

136
00:08:57,600 --> 00:09:02,040
Speaker 1: original meaning of the Constitution, then the Court should discard

137
00:09:02,080 --> 00:09:07,280
Speaker 1: the president's most justices. Every other justice ever to still

138
00:09:07,320 --> 00:09:11,440
Speaker 1: on the Court pretty much has taken a somewhat different view,

139
00:09:11,840 --> 00:09:15,880
Speaker 1: which is that you can't start over every day as

140
00:09:15,920 --> 00:09:19,240
Speaker 1: though there we haven't been living under this constitution for

141
00:09:19,480 --> 00:09:22,960
Speaker 1: well over two hundred years. You have to accept as

142
00:09:23,400 --> 00:09:28,440
Speaker 1: the law prior decisions unless there's some very good reason

143
00:09:28,679 --> 00:09:31,760
Speaker 1: to overturn them. That's what starry decisis is it's not

144
00:09:31,840 --> 00:09:35,280
Speaker 1: as the courts somebody says, it's not an inexorable command,

145
00:09:35,880 --> 00:09:40,880
Speaker 1: but it is a presumption in favor of precedent. And

146
00:09:40,960 --> 00:09:42,520
Speaker 1: so what do you need to overcome it? Well, you

147
00:09:42,520 --> 00:09:45,640
Speaker 1: need not just that you think the original case should

148
00:09:45,640 --> 00:09:46,720
Speaker 1: have come out the other way, but do you think

149
00:09:46,760 --> 00:09:52,040
Speaker 1: the original case was very wrong, profoundly wrong, and there

150
00:09:52,080 --> 00:09:58,440
Speaker 1: haven't been substantial reliance interests people investing money or living

151
00:09:58,440 --> 00:10:03,559
Speaker 1: their lives based on and the existing precedent. Justice Thomas

152
00:10:03,720 --> 00:10:08,080
Speaker 1: acknowledges that those are considerations, but he gives them much

153
00:10:08,160 --> 00:10:11,080
Speaker 1: much less weight than other justices do. So that's the

154
00:10:11,080 --> 00:10:13,960
Speaker 1: first area starry disis. Second place I would point to

155
00:10:14,280 --> 00:10:20,360
Speaker 1: is that Justice Thomas is a more committed originalist than

156
00:10:20,760 --> 00:10:24,480
Speaker 1: nearly any other of the current justices. That is, he

157
00:10:24,640 --> 00:10:28,600
Speaker 1: thinks that the Constitution means only what people believed it

158
00:10:28,679 --> 00:10:30,600
Speaker 1: meant at the time it was adopted. So let me

159
00:10:30,640 --> 00:10:33,440
Speaker 1: give you an example from a few years ago that

160
00:10:33,480 --> 00:10:37,160
Speaker 1: it has come up again recently. There was a case

161
00:10:37,440 --> 00:10:43,079
Speaker 1: involving restrictions on the sale of violent video games to

162
00:10:43,280 --> 00:10:47,480
Speaker 1: minors without their parents. Permission a case called Electronic Merchants

163
00:10:47,480 --> 00:10:53,000
Speaker 1: Association that came out of California, and the majority in

164
00:10:53,040 --> 00:10:58,760
Speaker 1: the case found that the law was unconstitutional in the

165
00:10:58,800 --> 00:11:03,480
Speaker 1: way it restricted freedom of speech. The leading descent disagreed,

166
00:11:03,640 --> 00:11:06,800
Speaker 1: but said, you know, as we apply our precedents, we

167
00:11:06,920 --> 00:11:10,040
Speaker 1: think that the court has gotten it wrong. And then

168
00:11:10,120 --> 00:11:15,360
Speaker 1: Justice Thomas wrote his own descent in which he said, well,

169
00:11:15,760 --> 00:11:17,480
Speaker 1: the case should come out the other way, That is

170
00:11:17,520 --> 00:11:20,600
Speaker 1: to say that the law should be upheld, but not

171
00:11:20,679 --> 00:11:24,520
Speaker 1: because of any current principle of free speech, but because

172
00:11:25,000 --> 00:11:30,200
Speaker 1: in the eighteenth century, strangers didn't have a right to

173
00:11:30,320 --> 00:11:33,840
Speaker 1: talk to miners without the permission of the parents. And

174
00:11:33,880 --> 00:11:36,360
Speaker 1: so he essentially said that miners don't have any free

175
00:11:36,400 --> 00:11:39,560
Speaker 1: speech rights because they didn't have any free speech rights

176
00:11:39,600 --> 00:11:42,440
Speaker 1: in the eighteenth century. And that's the end of the story.

177
00:11:42,720 --> 00:11:46,520
Speaker 1: So that's a kind of extreme view of originalism that

178
00:11:46,640 --> 00:11:50,760
Speaker 1: nobody else shares. I just want to get your take on.

179
00:11:51,559 --> 00:11:55,720
Speaker 1: CNN Legal analyst Jeffrey Tubin has written an opinion piece

180
00:11:55,720 --> 00:12:00,280
Speaker 1: saying Clarence Thomas is the new Chief Justice. Why do

181
00:12:00,280 --> 00:12:03,520
Speaker 1: you think that is correct or incorrect? So I think

182
00:12:03,559 --> 00:12:06,920
Speaker 1: it's incorrect. I think what Mr Tuban is alluding to

183
00:12:07,720 --> 00:12:13,160
Speaker 1: is the fact that the Chief Justice in some important

184
00:12:13,280 --> 00:12:19,800
Speaker 1: cases has sided with the Democratic appointees Justices Briar son

185
00:12:19,880 --> 00:12:22,320
Speaker 1: of my Ran Kagan, to form a group of four

186
00:12:22,520 --> 00:12:27,640
Speaker 1: in dissent as against the five more conservative justices. We

187
00:12:27,679 --> 00:12:31,120
Speaker 1: saw this most profoundly in some of the COVID cases

188
00:12:31,160 --> 00:12:36,360
Speaker 1: involving religious freedom. And so when that happens, when you

189
00:12:36,480 --> 00:12:41,480
Speaker 1: have that alignment of Roberts plus the Democratic appointees versus

190
00:12:41,600 --> 00:12:45,680
Speaker 1: all the other Republican appointees, then Justice Thomas, as the

191
00:12:45,720 --> 00:12:51,360
Speaker 1: most senior associate Justice, has the assigning power. And Mr

192
00:12:51,400 --> 00:12:53,720
Speaker 1: Tuban says the assigning power is the only thing that

193
00:12:53,760 --> 00:12:57,000
Speaker 1: distinguishes the Chief Justice from the other justices. So in

194
00:12:57,040 --> 00:13:00,600
Speaker 1: that technical sense, he's onto something, But I don't think

195
00:13:00,640 --> 00:13:06,560
Speaker 1: it's really accurate, because the Chief Justice doesn't just assign

196
00:13:06,679 --> 00:13:10,640
Speaker 1: the opinions. The assignment power is only meaningful if the

197
00:13:10,760 --> 00:13:13,679
Speaker 1: person to whom you assign it then writes an opinion

198
00:13:14,200 --> 00:13:17,920
Speaker 1: that is going to garner five votes for its rationale,

199
00:13:18,000 --> 00:13:22,360
Speaker 1: not just the result. And Justice Thomas can't get a

200
00:13:22,480 --> 00:13:26,040
Speaker 1: majority to go along with his most distinctive and most

201
00:13:26,080 --> 00:13:31,400
Speaker 1: extreme views about story to Scientist about originalism, for example,

202
00:13:32,000 --> 00:13:34,240
Speaker 1: So it seems to me that we could have a

203
00:13:34,280 --> 00:13:37,400
Speaker 1: conception of a kind of de facto chief Justice, someone

204
00:13:37,440 --> 00:13:40,440
Speaker 1: who might or might not be the actual chief Justice,

205
00:13:40,760 --> 00:13:43,160
Speaker 1: but has sort of the most power on the court,

206
00:13:43,559 --> 00:13:46,400
Speaker 1: and that would be some combination of being close to

207
00:13:46,440 --> 00:13:50,120
Speaker 1: the center of the court and being very senior. Now,

208
00:13:50,160 --> 00:13:52,680
Speaker 1: the only person on this court who is both close

209
00:13:52,720 --> 00:13:55,240
Speaker 1: to the center of the court and very senior is

210
00:13:55,280 --> 00:13:58,560
Speaker 1: in fact Chief Justice John Roberts. So I think that

211
00:13:58,760 --> 00:14:02,160
Speaker 1: John Roberts is not only the literal chief Justice, but

212
00:14:02,240 --> 00:14:04,960
Speaker 1: he is in fact the de facto chief Justice. You

213
00:14:05,040 --> 00:14:07,360
Speaker 1: could have made an argument a few years ago there

214
00:14:07,360 --> 00:14:11,360
Speaker 1: before his retirement, Justice Kennedy, who was at that time

215
00:14:11,760 --> 00:14:14,920
Speaker 1: the senior associate Justice and at the exact center of

216
00:14:14,920 --> 00:14:17,680
Speaker 1: the court, was the sort of de facto chief Justice,

217
00:14:18,280 --> 00:14:20,280
Speaker 1: And you know that would have been a reasonable argument.

218
00:14:20,680 --> 00:14:24,520
Speaker 1: But you can't make that argument today. The most senior

219
00:14:24,560 --> 00:14:28,000
Speaker 1: associate justice is at the extreme of the court. The

220
00:14:28,560 --> 00:14:31,720
Speaker 1: justice at the exact middle, Justice Kavanaugh, is the second

221
00:14:31,720 --> 00:14:34,760
Speaker 1: most junior justice. So it's only John Roberts who sort

222
00:14:34,760 --> 00:14:38,880
Speaker 1: of combines seniority and being close to the center. In

223
00:14:39,120 --> 00:14:44,080
Speaker 1: upcoming case, the case involving Mississippi and abortion take that

224
00:14:44,200 --> 00:14:49,920
Speaker 1: and say that Thomas wants to overturn Row, but the

225
00:14:49,960 --> 00:14:53,560
Speaker 1: median justices don't want to do that right away. They

226
00:14:53,560 --> 00:14:56,080
Speaker 1: wanted to be more incremental. Just explain how that would

227
00:14:56,080 --> 00:14:59,400
Speaker 1: sort of work out, right. So all of this is

228
00:14:59,560 --> 00:15:03,080
Speaker 1: somewhat speculative. But there is a case currently on the

229
00:15:03,120 --> 00:15:06,760
Speaker 1: docket of the Supreme Court for argument in the coming term,

230
00:15:06,800 --> 00:15:11,600
Speaker 1: coming from Mississippi, in which the State of Mississippi has

231
00:15:11,680 --> 00:15:15,480
Speaker 1: asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and

232
00:15:15,600 --> 00:15:18,760
Speaker 1: the subsequent cases applying it, and, if not at least

233
00:15:18,760 --> 00:15:22,920
Speaker 1: to cut back dramatically on it, to do away with

234
00:15:23,480 --> 00:15:27,520
Speaker 1: the viability line, which is a key part of Roe v. Wade.

235
00:15:28,080 --> 00:15:31,320
Speaker 1: I think it's fair to say that Justice Thomas and

236
00:15:31,480 --> 00:15:35,760
Speaker 1: Justice Alito would tomorrow if they had the opportunity to

237
00:15:35,800 --> 00:15:39,440
Speaker 1: say we hereby overrule Roe v. Wade. I think it's

238
00:15:39,560 --> 00:15:47,520
Speaker 1: also likely that three or four additional justices would get

239
00:15:47,600 --> 00:15:52,520
Speaker 1: somewhere near there eventually, but might want to do it

240
00:15:52,560 --> 00:15:56,880
Speaker 1: more incrementally. That has been one of the hallmarks of

241
00:15:57,160 --> 00:16:00,520
Speaker 1: the Chief justiceship of John Roberts is that he moves

242
00:16:00,600 --> 00:16:04,640
Speaker 1: in relatively small steps for the first time in his

243
00:16:05,160 --> 00:16:09,240
Speaker 1: judicial career, not this past term, but the previous term.

244
00:16:09,360 --> 00:16:14,440
Speaker 1: In the Louisiana abortion case June Medical, the Chief Justice

245
00:16:14,600 --> 00:16:19,840
Speaker 1: actually voted to strike down an abortion restriction. Now, he

246
00:16:19,880 --> 00:16:22,360
Speaker 1: did so on the basis of precedent, and he did

247
00:16:22,360 --> 00:16:26,440
Speaker 1: not commit to applying that precedent forever. But it does

248
00:16:26,640 --> 00:16:30,520
Speaker 1: suggest a kind of caution on his part. If that

249
00:16:30,640 --> 00:16:36,800
Speaker 1: cautious attitude is shared by either Justice Kavanaugh or Justice Barrett,

250
00:16:37,040 --> 00:16:41,360
Speaker 1: or both of them, then the Court will not fully

251
00:16:41,640 --> 00:16:46,360
Speaker 1: and frontally over rule Row in the coming term, even

252
00:16:46,400 --> 00:16:49,800
Speaker 1: though that might be the preference of Justice Thomas, probably

253
00:16:49,840 --> 00:16:53,240
Speaker 1: Justice Leedo, and perhaps Justice Corsage. Thanks for being on

254
00:16:53,280 --> 00:16:56,640
Speaker 1: the show. That's Professor Michael Dorff of Cornell Law School,

255
00:16:57,200 --> 00:16:59,520
Speaker 1: and that's it for the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.

256
00:17:00,040 --> 00:17:02,080
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

257
00:17:02,120 --> 00:17:05,919
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

258
00:17:06,080 --> 00:17:09,760
Speaker 1: and at Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law. I'm

259
00:17:09,840 --> 00:17:12,040
Speaker 1: June Grasso, and you're listening to Bloomberg