1 00:00:00,200 --> 00:00:02,560 Speaker 1: There's like we have our own themes dong, so it's 2 00:00:02,560 --> 00:00:09,440 Speaker 1: like now you can listen to it, I can just 3 00:00:09,440 --> 00:00:20,680 Speaker 1: sing it. That was beautiful. Thanks hi, and welcome back 4 00:00:20,720 --> 00:00:23,959 Speaker 1: to Bloomberg Benchmark, a show about the global economy. It 5 00:00:24,120 --> 00:00:28,520 Speaker 1: is Thursday May. I'm Tory stillwell and economics reporter with 6 00:00:28,560 --> 00:00:31,880 Speaker 1: Bloomberg News and I am holding it down solo today, 7 00:00:31,920 --> 00:00:33,879 Speaker 1: but there are two special guests with me in the 8 00:00:33,960 --> 00:00:36,520 Speaker 1: studio here in DC to help me talk about our 9 00:00:36,560 --> 00:00:40,000 Speaker 1: topic for the day, which is all about the Supreme Court. 10 00:00:40,560 --> 00:00:44,280 Speaker 1: With Donald Trump now the Republican Party's presumptive nominee for 11 00:00:44,280 --> 00:00:47,960 Speaker 1: the presidency, the debate about the vacancy on the Supreme 12 00:00:48,000 --> 00:00:51,160 Speaker 1: Court is ramping back up. As you may know, there's 13 00:00:51,200 --> 00:00:53,479 Speaker 1: been an opening for the ninth seat on the highest 14 00:00:53,479 --> 00:00:56,960 Speaker 1: court in the land ever since Associate Justice Antonin Scalia 15 00:00:57,280 --> 00:01:00,840 Speaker 1: died in February, and in a nutshell, Democrats would like 16 00:01:00,880 --> 00:01:04,000 Speaker 1: to fill out with Merrick Garland, picked by President Barack Obama, 17 00:01:04,080 --> 00:01:07,880 Speaker 1: while Republicans believe whoever wins this year's election should get 18 00:01:07,920 --> 00:01:11,160 Speaker 1: to fill the vacancy. One of the less looked at 19 00:01:11,200 --> 00:01:15,080 Speaker 1: aspects of debate, though, is how this vacancy could affect 20 00:01:15,080 --> 00:01:18,520 Speaker 1: the US economy's business sector. It's sort of a weird 21 00:01:18,560 --> 00:01:20,800 Speaker 1: time for the economy right now, if you hadn't noticed. 22 00:01:21,120 --> 00:01:24,360 Speaker 1: Where in the middle of an election season. So business 23 00:01:24,440 --> 00:01:27,959 Speaker 1: leaders are are already wondering what sorts of new regulations 24 00:01:28,040 --> 00:01:31,560 Speaker 1: might come down the pike. The Federal Reserve is deciding 25 00:01:31,680 --> 00:01:34,720 Speaker 1: whether to raise interest rates again in June for the 26 00:01:34,800 --> 00:01:37,679 Speaker 1: second time. And to top it all off, having a 27 00:01:37,760 --> 00:01:40,760 Speaker 1: vacancy on the Supreme Court generates its own amount of 28 00:01:40,840 --> 00:01:44,119 Speaker 1: uncertainty when businesses aren't quite sure how the Court will 29 00:01:44,200 --> 00:01:48,000 Speaker 1: lean on different issues. So before we get too far 30 00:01:48,040 --> 00:01:51,240 Speaker 1: into this, I'm going to introduce our guests. First off, 31 00:01:51,440 --> 00:01:55,480 Speaker 1: we've got Senator Al Franken, the junior Democratic Senator from Minnesota. 32 00:01:56,040 --> 00:01:58,920 Speaker 1: He is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and 33 00:01:59,040 --> 00:02:02,640 Speaker 1: presided over the confirmation votes of Supreme Court Justices Sonya 34 00:02:02,720 --> 00:02:06,280 Speaker 1: Soto Mayor and Elena Kagan, and you may also remember 35 00:02:06,360 --> 00:02:08,720 Speaker 1: him from his days on Saturday Night Live in the 36 00:02:08,760 --> 00:02:13,400 Speaker 1: seventies and eighties. Welcome, Senator, Thank you. But when I 37 00:02:13,440 --> 00:02:16,360 Speaker 1: presided over those I was in the chair presiding. It 38 00:02:16,440 --> 00:02:20,280 Speaker 1: was actually a coincidence that I ended up being in 39 00:02:20,320 --> 00:02:23,800 Speaker 1: the chair when both Justice son of my heir and 40 00:02:24,080 --> 00:02:27,800 Speaker 1: Justice Kagan were confirmed. It was it was neat. It 41 00:02:27,880 --> 00:02:29,520 Speaker 1: was neat, you know. And I had just kind of 42 00:02:29,560 --> 00:02:33,240 Speaker 1: gotten there with the son of mayor. And we've also 43 00:02:33,280 --> 00:02:36,160 Speaker 1: got Greg's store here with us. Who is Bloomberg's rock 44 00:02:36,200 --> 00:02:38,880 Speaker 1: star Supreme Court reporter. He has been with us since 45 00:02:40,320 --> 00:02:43,919 Speaker 1: shortly after he graduated from Harvard Law. Welcome, Greg, I 46 00:02:44,000 --> 00:02:46,079 Speaker 1: thank story good to be here. And I just want 47 00:02:46,080 --> 00:02:48,400 Speaker 1: to say that I I asked to have the Supreme 48 00:02:48,440 --> 00:02:50,280 Speaker 1: Court beat. It wasn't just given to me because it 49 00:02:50,320 --> 00:02:52,800 Speaker 1: was the only thing Harvard Law school. So you were 50 00:02:52,960 --> 00:02:54,720 Speaker 1: kind of like a lawyer kind of guy. I was 51 00:02:54,800 --> 00:02:58,200 Speaker 1: kind of a lawyer. That's and you're a rock star, evidently, 52 00:02:58,800 --> 00:03:01,920 Speaker 1: I think I think a metaphorical I actually have no 53 00:03:02,080 --> 00:03:07,280 Speaker 1: musical talent. Well, let's jump in to sort of what's 54 00:03:07,280 --> 00:03:09,840 Speaker 1: going on with the Supreme Court these days and how 55 00:03:09,880 --> 00:03:12,720 Speaker 1: we got here. I feel like Greg gear pretty well 56 00:03:12,720 --> 00:03:18,160 Speaker 1: equipped to walk us through the path here. Well. Justice 57 00:03:18,160 --> 00:03:21,440 Speaker 1: Scalia was was really a kind of a conservative icon. 58 00:03:21,560 --> 00:03:24,239 Speaker 1: He was really the kind of the anchor of the courts. 59 00:03:24,280 --> 00:03:28,720 Speaker 1: Conservative wing believed in interpreting the Constitution and accordance with 60 00:03:28,720 --> 00:03:32,639 Speaker 1: with the original meaning of its words, interpreted statutes very strictly, 61 00:03:33,160 --> 00:03:37,720 Speaker 1: and when we're talking about business cases, very often ended 62 00:03:37,800 --> 00:03:42,920 Speaker 1: up on the conservative side, corporate. But he he was. 63 00:03:43,280 --> 00:03:46,800 Speaker 1: He was very often on business side. But so many 64 00:03:46,840 --> 00:03:50,320 Speaker 1: Supreme Court cases don't divide along those lines. They are 65 00:03:50,360 --> 00:03:54,240 Speaker 1: not the ideological cases that that we get in with, 66 00:03:54,440 --> 00:03:56,920 Speaker 1: you know, abortion, affirmative action. You know, a lot of 67 00:03:56,920 --> 00:03:59,560 Speaker 1: times they'll be seven to two decisions or nine nine 68 00:03:59,600 --> 00:04:02,240 Speaker 1: to nothing decisions. But it's it's fair to say he 69 00:04:02,360 --> 00:04:04,760 Speaker 1: more often than not was on the business side when 70 00:04:04,800 --> 00:04:08,880 Speaker 1: it was say a business versus consumer dispute. Sure. What's 71 00:04:08,880 --> 00:04:11,760 Speaker 1: interesting is I hear sometimes and I've heard this in 72 00:04:11,800 --> 00:04:16,840 Speaker 1: the Judiciary Committee when we've been discussing their unwillingness to 73 00:04:16,920 --> 00:04:22,680 Speaker 1: have hearings for for Garland. But I've heard um Scalia 74 00:04:23,360 --> 00:04:28,280 Speaker 1: being by Republicans described as not an activist judge, and 75 00:04:28,320 --> 00:04:31,840 Speaker 1: I found him very activist. Where did you find him? Activists? What? What? 76 00:04:32,040 --> 00:04:35,440 Speaker 1: What areas are you thinking about? Well, for example, overturning 77 00:04:35,480 --> 00:04:39,240 Speaker 1: the Voting Rights Act, This was something that I mean, 78 00:04:40,480 --> 00:04:46,280 Speaker 1: my understanding of activists is a justice who will overturn 79 00:04:47,400 --> 00:04:52,520 Speaker 1: uh for example, a law that passed the Senate unanimously 80 00:04:53,400 --> 00:04:56,640 Speaker 1: as the Voting Rights Acted. Yes, that's the point. In 81 00:04:56,720 --> 00:05:01,320 Speaker 1: other words, I you hear very often from republic alkins. Well, um, 82 00:05:01,360 --> 00:05:03,800 Speaker 1: I you know, I don't want an actor. I don't 83 00:05:03,800 --> 00:05:06,560 Speaker 1: want I want to, let you know, legislative bodies to 84 00:05:06,560 --> 00:05:09,159 Speaker 1: make the laws, not the court. And so I want 85 00:05:09,200 --> 00:05:11,280 Speaker 1: I don't wanna, you know, I want. I don't want 86 00:05:11,279 --> 00:05:14,320 Speaker 1: an activist judge. I want to judge like Justice Scalia, 87 00:05:15,080 --> 00:05:18,640 Speaker 1: who had such contempt for the Senate. He said that 88 00:05:18,720 --> 00:05:21,200 Speaker 1: the Congress had passed the Voting Rights Act because of 89 00:05:21,240 --> 00:05:24,000 Speaker 1: its name. You remember him saying that, because I'm sorry, 90 00:05:24,000 --> 00:05:26,640 Speaker 1: because of it because of its name. Yes, because yes, 91 00:05:26,720 --> 00:05:28,560 Speaker 1: in the arguments, he well to me that that was 92 00:05:28,600 --> 00:05:34,520 Speaker 1: an incredibly telling remark, that he has such little regard 93 00:05:35,480 --> 00:05:41,560 Speaker 1: for Congress. That Congress had virtually unanimously and it was 94 00:05:41,720 --> 00:05:44,200 Speaker 1: unanimously in the Senate, or at least with no sent 95 00:05:45,160 --> 00:05:47,800 Speaker 1: had voted for the Voting Rights Act, that that he 96 00:05:47,880 --> 00:05:51,960 Speaker 1: voted overturned. But he said that, well, you know, with 97 00:05:52,000 --> 00:05:54,120 Speaker 1: a name like the Voting Rights Act, they had to 98 00:05:54,160 --> 00:05:56,719 Speaker 1: vote for it. They felt, you know, because they're stupid. 99 00:05:57,040 --> 00:05:59,480 Speaker 1: I mean, it was it was so much contempt for 100 00:05:59,520 --> 00:06:05,560 Speaker 1: Congress that to me, I don't understand when some of 101 00:06:05,640 --> 00:06:10,080 Speaker 1: my Republican colleagues say that he was the opposite of 102 00:06:10,120 --> 00:06:12,799 Speaker 1: an activist judge. To me, he was a very activist judge, 103 00:06:12,800 --> 00:06:14,600 Speaker 1: and this has been an activist court as far as 104 00:06:14,600 --> 00:06:16,719 Speaker 1: I'm concerned. I want to read it in for just 105 00:06:16,839 --> 00:06:19,360 Speaker 1: a second so we can get to Merrick Garland, who 106 00:06:19,400 --> 00:06:22,280 Speaker 1: I think is very interesting and we'd love to hear 107 00:06:22,320 --> 00:06:25,440 Speaker 1: your thoughts on him as well. So Obama has nominated 108 00:06:25,480 --> 00:06:30,359 Speaker 1: him to fill Scleeze vacancy, and it's unclear what's going 109 00:06:30,440 --> 00:06:32,960 Speaker 1: to happen there. We're hearing a lot of different scenarios 110 00:06:32,960 --> 00:06:36,560 Speaker 1: play out. And you've met with him, right, Yes, what 111 00:06:36,680 --> 00:06:40,479 Speaker 1: were your impressions? He pretty much was what I had 112 00:06:40,560 --> 00:06:45,960 Speaker 1: been totally was. He seemed like very smart, very um 113 00:06:46,120 --> 00:06:49,600 Speaker 1: a good guy, just like you know when the administration 114 00:06:49,680 --> 00:06:54,160 Speaker 1: called me before his appointment or before his nomination, uh 115 00:06:54,320 --> 00:06:56,599 Speaker 1: saying you know, who do you want to see or 116 00:06:56,880 --> 00:06:59,320 Speaker 1: I said, I I don't have a person, but i'd 117 00:06:59,320 --> 00:07:06,080 Speaker 1: like someone who after hearings that the American people would say, 118 00:07:06,120 --> 00:07:10,080 Speaker 1: I want nine of those. And what I asked him 119 00:07:10,080 --> 00:07:13,000 Speaker 1: about he has been he has a reputation, he's chief 120 00:07:13,240 --> 00:07:17,800 Speaker 1: judge of the m d C Circuit and which is 121 00:07:17,960 --> 00:07:21,360 Speaker 1: essentially the second accord in the nation. And he has 122 00:07:21,440 --> 00:07:24,640 Speaker 1: a reputation as being a consensus judge. And what I 123 00:07:24,680 --> 00:07:26,760 Speaker 1: asked him about is how do you do that? How 124 00:07:26,760 --> 00:07:31,080 Speaker 1: do you arrive at consensus? His approach was very sensible 125 00:07:31,200 --> 00:07:33,640 Speaker 1: and very smart, and he just seems like a pretty 126 00:07:33,680 --> 00:07:39,040 Speaker 1: brilliant by all um all accounts. He's a you know, 127 00:07:39,840 --> 00:07:43,560 Speaker 1: Roberts said, when you disagree with him, you're in You're 128 00:07:43,560 --> 00:07:47,000 Speaker 1: in bad You're not in a good position. So bipartisan 129 00:07:47,000 --> 00:07:53,040 Speaker 1: appeal here, yeah, oron Hatch and or Orange Hatch had 130 00:07:53,120 --> 00:07:56,240 Speaker 1: nice things to say about him earlier. He when there 131 00:07:56,280 --> 00:07:59,520 Speaker 1: was another vacancy a number of years ago, or in 132 00:07:59,600 --> 00:08:03,520 Speaker 1: Hatch uh suggested Mary Garland to somebody who could get bipartisans. 133 00:08:03,680 --> 00:08:06,480 Speaker 1: What I understand is he said something recently about him 134 00:08:06,520 --> 00:08:11,080 Speaker 1: before Omama made his pick, and he said that if 135 00:08:11,080 --> 00:08:13,480 Speaker 1: he picked someone like Garland, that would that would be good. 136 00:08:14,680 --> 00:08:18,080 Speaker 1: But he's expecting the president to pick some you know, 137 00:08:18,800 --> 00:08:22,560 Speaker 1: liberal progressive lefty or something. And then I think he 138 00:08:22,600 --> 00:08:25,800 Speaker 1: had to eat his words. So girl. It certainly has 139 00:08:25,840 --> 00:08:29,000 Speaker 1: a reputation as a consensus builder and Senator I'm I'm 140 00:08:29,040 --> 00:08:31,800 Speaker 1: interested to know, is that the kind of justice do 141 00:08:31,800 --> 00:08:33,559 Speaker 1: you think we need on the Supreme Court now? And 142 00:08:33,600 --> 00:08:37,320 Speaker 1: I'm sort of wondering is this plays out um. The Republicans, 143 00:08:37,040 --> 00:08:39,079 Speaker 1: of course, have have said they didn't want to hold 144 00:08:39,080 --> 00:08:41,000 Speaker 1: the hearing, don't want to bring up a vote, and 145 00:08:41,040 --> 00:08:43,560 Speaker 1: they want to let the next president decide. Well, not necessarily. 146 00:08:43,559 --> 00:08:48,480 Speaker 1: They've also said that if the Democrat wins, a number 147 00:08:48,520 --> 00:08:51,000 Speaker 1: of them have said they would consider him in the 148 00:08:51,080 --> 00:08:55,000 Speaker 1: Lame Duck. So on the one hand, and I you know, 149 00:08:55,040 --> 00:09:00,040 Speaker 1: we have um executive sessions in the Judiciary Committee, and 150 00:09:00,600 --> 00:09:04,400 Speaker 1: during these sessions, we've had a couple of sessions that 151 00:09:04,480 --> 00:09:08,160 Speaker 1: were pretty much devoted to discussing this. And I would 152 00:09:08,160 --> 00:09:10,439 Speaker 1: sit there to the whole session and listen to people, 153 00:09:10,480 --> 00:09:12,920 Speaker 1: and I have my Republican colleagues come in and out, 154 00:09:13,920 --> 00:09:17,040 Speaker 1: and a Republican would sit down and say, you know, 155 00:09:17,240 --> 00:09:20,640 Speaker 1: the people have to decide, and so it should be 156 00:09:20,720 --> 00:09:23,960 Speaker 1: the next uh next presidents. And then someone else would 157 00:09:23,960 --> 00:09:26,880 Speaker 1: come in and go like, well, if the Democrat wins, 158 00:09:26,920 --> 00:09:29,760 Speaker 1: I think we could take what we like Garland and 159 00:09:29,840 --> 00:09:32,000 Speaker 1: we should take him up in the Lame Duck. And 160 00:09:32,000 --> 00:09:35,000 Speaker 1: and I spoke and I said, well, my question is 161 00:09:35,840 --> 00:09:40,960 Speaker 1: do you guys talk to each other, because this was 162 00:09:41,160 --> 00:09:45,800 Speaker 1: they and evidently they don't because it was a completely 163 00:09:46,480 --> 00:09:49,800 Speaker 1: contradictory stance they were taking. One. This is a matter 164 00:09:49,840 --> 00:09:52,240 Speaker 1: of principle. Let the people decide. Now. I think that 165 00:09:52,400 --> 00:09:56,480 Speaker 1: people did decide when they voted for to re elect 166 00:09:57,160 --> 00:10:00,839 Speaker 1: President Obama in two thousand and twelve. The Constitution is 167 00:10:00,880 --> 00:10:05,040 Speaker 1: pretty clear that the term is for four years. In 168 00:10:05,160 --> 00:10:13,199 Speaker 1: February when that's when Justice Schoolly unfortunately died, scientists told 169 00:10:13,280 --> 00:10:16,560 Speaker 1: us there were eleven months left in the president's term, 170 00:10:16,960 --> 00:10:20,400 Speaker 1: you see. And then in the constitution is very clear 171 00:10:20,480 --> 00:10:24,480 Speaker 1: that the president makes you know, we will nominate when 172 00:10:24,480 --> 00:10:28,200 Speaker 1: there is a vacancy, and there was a vacancy. And 173 00:10:28,679 --> 00:10:33,480 Speaker 1: then they kept citing the Biden rule or something, and 174 00:10:33,520 --> 00:10:36,760 Speaker 1: the Biden rule they took a speech that Biden had 175 00:10:36,800 --> 00:10:40,760 Speaker 1: given and took it completely out of context. He had 176 00:10:40,800 --> 00:10:45,160 Speaker 1: said that if Bush this was in I think October. 177 00:10:45,720 --> 00:10:47,880 Speaker 1: I believe it was in June of an election year 178 00:10:48,559 --> 00:10:52,280 Speaker 1: without without a vacancy at the time. What I'm interested 179 00:10:52,280 --> 00:10:54,920 Speaker 1: to know from you is, um, you know, if Hillary 180 00:10:54,920 --> 00:10:57,360 Speaker 1: Clinton wins in November, I know you you hope she will, 181 00:10:57,800 --> 00:11:01,200 Speaker 1: should she be free to nominate somebody other than Merrick Garland. 182 00:11:01,400 --> 00:11:03,960 Speaker 1: Would you rather see somebody he? I mean, he's described 183 00:11:04,000 --> 00:11:06,560 Speaker 1: as a moderate. He may well become the new kind 184 00:11:06,559 --> 00:11:09,360 Speaker 1: of center justice on the Court if he's confirmed. Would 185 00:11:09,400 --> 00:11:12,440 Speaker 1: you rather see somebody, um who is more like just 186 00:11:12,480 --> 00:11:15,480 Speaker 1: to threat a name you've you've mentioned, Pam Carlin. Uh, 187 00:11:15,640 --> 00:11:19,400 Speaker 1: somebody who is more of a kind of a more liberal, 188 00:11:19,880 --> 00:11:24,000 Speaker 1: perhaps more ideological, or at least more interested in in 189 00:11:24,080 --> 00:11:28,840 Speaker 1: kind of sweeping constitutional changes. Well, I think that begs 190 00:11:28,840 --> 00:11:33,440 Speaker 1: the question whether Republicans will take up the Garland a 191 00:11:33,480 --> 00:11:37,640 Speaker 1: nomination if if say Hillary wins, and a number of 192 00:11:37,640 --> 00:11:40,960 Speaker 1: them had said they would, and I think that, uh, 193 00:11:41,000 --> 00:11:43,839 Speaker 1: some of them are making the argument that, I mean, 194 00:11:43,840 --> 00:11:47,199 Speaker 1: it would be Hillary's right to she'd be the president, 195 00:11:48,040 --> 00:11:50,720 Speaker 1: and would you want to see her do that? Would 196 00:11:50,760 --> 00:11:54,600 Speaker 1: you want to see her use this nomination to make 197 00:11:54,640 --> 00:11:56,880 Speaker 1: more of a change on the Supreme Court? Well? I 198 00:11:57,200 --> 00:11:59,880 Speaker 1: must say I really was impressed with Garland, so I 199 00:12:00,040 --> 00:12:04,600 Speaker 1: wouldn't be terribly upset if she nominated him. I think 200 00:12:04,640 --> 00:12:08,920 Speaker 1: he was a perfect nominee for this moment because he 201 00:12:09,120 --> 00:12:13,040 Speaker 1: is a consensus builder, and I think he was actually 202 00:12:13,280 --> 00:12:15,720 Speaker 1: following the Biden rule. If you listen to the Biden 203 00:12:15,880 --> 00:12:20,679 Speaker 1: speech where he said if you just you, you know, 204 00:12:20,800 --> 00:12:24,319 Speaker 1: if someone resigns, if someone games, he was really basically 205 00:12:24,360 --> 00:12:29,319 Speaker 1: talking about adjustice gaming nos and resigning so that Bush 206 00:12:29,520 --> 00:12:35,840 Speaker 1: could then nominate someone who you know, was very right wing. Well, 207 00:12:35,880 --> 00:12:38,120 Speaker 1: then he said, don't do that. We won't take that 208 00:12:38,160 --> 00:12:41,160 Speaker 1: person up. But if you come to us and if 209 00:12:41,200 --> 00:12:44,880 Speaker 1: that situation happens and you we come up with some 210 00:12:45,000 --> 00:12:48,080 Speaker 1: kind of consensus figure, then of course we'll take him up. 211 00:12:48,720 --> 00:12:54,040 Speaker 1: It seems to me that there's a lot of deliberate 212 00:12:54,880 --> 00:13:01,560 Speaker 1: It's not obfuscation, it's it's kind of misrepresentation of terms 213 00:13:01,640 --> 00:13:05,520 Speaker 1: and of of certainly what the Vice president said then 214 00:13:06,280 --> 00:13:10,760 Speaker 1: and again what kind of justice Scalia? Uh Scalia was 215 00:13:11,600 --> 00:13:15,559 Speaker 1: So since there is so much deadlock on this issue, 216 00:13:16,480 --> 00:13:19,680 Speaker 1: it seems like very likely we won't have a ninth 217 00:13:19,840 --> 00:13:23,800 Speaker 1: justice before November. Maybe I think that part of this 218 00:13:24,000 --> 00:13:28,400 Speaker 1: was the you know, Member Jerry Moran at a town 219 00:13:28,559 --> 00:13:32,280 Speaker 1: meeting in Kansas said he thought we should take up 220 00:13:33,320 --> 00:13:37,840 Speaker 1: Judge Garland and then uh, some moneyed interests on the 221 00:13:37,960 --> 00:13:42,880 Speaker 1: right threatened him and said that if he continued with 222 00:13:42,920 --> 00:13:47,080 Speaker 1: that stance, they would dump about ten million dollars to 223 00:13:47,160 --> 00:13:54,000 Speaker 1: primary him and so he reversed his position, and so 224 00:13:54,640 --> 00:13:58,840 Speaker 1: maybe after the primary season is all over, there won't 225 00:13:58,840 --> 00:14:02,480 Speaker 1: be that kind of pressure perhaps these Republicans, but I 226 00:14:02,520 --> 00:14:05,560 Speaker 1: think that it is very likely, yes, that we will 227 00:14:05,559 --> 00:14:09,360 Speaker 1: not see them take up Darland. I think they'll pay 228 00:14:09,360 --> 00:14:11,920 Speaker 1: a price for it. Given that, I think, I think 229 00:14:11,960 --> 00:14:16,920 Speaker 1: the Republican candidates who are incumbents, who are in states 230 00:14:17,000 --> 00:14:21,760 Speaker 1: like Hampshire and in Ohio may very well pay a 231 00:14:21,800 --> 00:14:26,240 Speaker 1: price for that. Pennsylvania. Well, let's talk about then, how 232 00:14:26,360 --> 00:14:29,520 Speaker 1: the court is operating now that there's the vacancy and 233 00:14:29,960 --> 00:14:32,960 Speaker 1: it may not be filled for quite some time. Um. Greg, 234 00:14:33,000 --> 00:14:36,560 Speaker 1: it's more likely that will have four four splits um. 235 00:14:36,600 --> 00:14:40,120 Speaker 1: And we've had we've had we had already, and a 236 00:14:40,160 --> 00:14:45,520 Speaker 1: couple of punts, yes, including a significant punt on the 237 00:14:45,600 --> 00:14:50,080 Speaker 1: Obamacare and the requirement to have contraceptive coverage. And they've 238 00:14:50,080 --> 00:14:53,440 Speaker 1: also got rulings on deck or their schedule to make 239 00:14:53,520 --> 00:14:58,600 Speaker 1: rulings on cases of concerning affirmative action, immigration, Puerto Rico's debt, 240 00:14:59,120 --> 00:15:01,560 Speaker 1: and all of these issues touch our economy in one 241 00:15:01,560 --> 00:15:04,760 Speaker 1: way or another, whether it's you know, education which it 242 00:15:04,800 --> 00:15:08,720 Speaker 1: gets income, etcetera. Um, whether it's immigration in the size 243 00:15:08,720 --> 00:15:12,400 Speaker 1: of our labor force or effects on wages um or 244 00:15:12,920 --> 00:15:15,560 Speaker 1: pretty goods debt, which we just had an episode about 245 00:15:15,600 --> 00:15:19,320 Speaker 1: a few weeks ago on the podcast What Happens Then? 246 00:15:19,520 --> 00:15:22,440 Speaker 1: How do how do business leaders know how to navigate 247 00:15:22,520 --> 00:15:25,120 Speaker 1: this sort of situation where they're not really sure what's 248 00:15:25,120 --> 00:15:27,880 Speaker 1: going to happen, what the what the ruling is going 249 00:15:27,920 --> 00:15:31,800 Speaker 1: to be, or any any precedents that might come down. 250 00:15:31,840 --> 00:15:34,120 Speaker 1: I mean, how do how does that play out? Well, 251 00:15:34,640 --> 00:15:36,240 Speaker 1: of course you could say the same thing about the 252 00:15:36,240 --> 00:15:39,680 Speaker 1: political situation right now, and so much of this is 253 00:15:39,720 --> 00:15:43,239 Speaker 1: tied to who the next president is, who ultimately nominates 254 00:15:43,360 --> 00:15:47,880 Speaker 1: the next justice. And there are also some significant business 255 00:15:48,000 --> 00:15:51,400 Speaker 1: issues where you could see the court being has been 256 00:15:51,400 --> 00:15:53,880 Speaker 1: divided four to four octously be five to four with 257 00:15:53,960 --> 00:15:56,440 Speaker 1: Justice Scalia and and the next justice will make a 258 00:15:56,440 --> 00:15:59,440 Speaker 1: big difference. So we can talk about things like class 259 00:15:59,440 --> 00:16:03,120 Speaker 1: action law suits where uh, there was a five justice 260 00:16:03,160 --> 00:16:07,400 Speaker 1: majority with Scali on the court to limit class action lawsuits. 261 00:16:07,960 --> 00:16:13,080 Speaker 1: And we can talk about arbitration, arbitration, mandatory care a 262 00:16:13,080 --> 00:16:17,600 Speaker 1: lot about yeah, where where the again the five majority 263 00:16:17,640 --> 00:16:21,440 Speaker 1: has said we will enforce arbitration clauses between you know, 264 00:16:21,520 --> 00:16:26,000 Speaker 1: your cell phone company and consumer. Are you know, probably 265 00:16:26,040 --> 00:16:29,880 Speaker 1: between employers and employees, and those are areas where I 266 00:16:29,880 --> 00:16:32,200 Speaker 1: think that that I think it sounds like the Senator 267 00:16:32,240 --> 00:16:35,880 Speaker 1: agrees that it could be a big difference depending on who. 268 00:16:36,120 --> 00:16:40,720 Speaker 1: We've had a whole bunch of five four decisions by 269 00:16:40,880 --> 00:16:45,920 Speaker 1: uh this court and usually UM, you know, when you 270 00:16:46,040 --> 00:16:50,680 Speaker 1: make big decisions that, especially ones that overturned precedent, then 271 00:16:51,280 --> 00:16:54,480 Speaker 1: you usually want consensus. And so this has been I 272 00:16:54,520 --> 00:16:58,520 Speaker 1: think an unusual court and and and an activist court 273 00:16:59,240 --> 00:17:02,120 Speaker 1: UH in that that they've overturned a lot of precedent 274 00:17:02,720 --> 00:17:05,320 Speaker 1: with five four margins, and they've done it in pretty 275 00:17:05,359 --> 00:17:09,439 Speaker 1: hinky ways. As the citizens united, they decided on a 276 00:17:09,520 --> 00:17:13,359 Speaker 1: question they weren't wasn't asked in the case and UH, 277 00:17:13,400 --> 00:17:16,840 Speaker 1: and they did buy a five four margin. Now that 278 00:17:17,160 --> 00:17:20,080 Speaker 1: it's four four, we're seeing a lot of uncertainty. And 279 00:17:20,119 --> 00:17:23,199 Speaker 1: you've seen a lot of business saying we don't like this. 280 00:17:23,600 --> 00:17:26,640 Speaker 1: We'd like to see you know, seeing a lot of 281 00:17:27,520 --> 00:17:32,360 Speaker 1: letter you know, a letter from two corporate business lawyers 282 00:17:32,880 --> 00:17:35,439 Speaker 1: that I saw a similar letter writing and saying we 283 00:17:35,480 --> 00:17:39,560 Speaker 1: don't we don't like the vacancy. Our clients are asking 284 00:17:39,680 --> 00:17:43,960 Speaker 1: us about this. Internationally, it may damage the way people 285 00:17:44,040 --> 00:17:46,639 Speaker 1: perceive the U S and its ability to make decisions. 286 00:17:47,119 --> 00:17:49,119 Speaker 1: But that is I mean, I think it's probably the 287 00:17:49,160 --> 00:17:53,440 Speaker 1: same letter like to learn thirty seven lawyers. That's that 288 00:17:53,600 --> 00:17:56,560 Speaker 1: number six in my head for some reason, but um, 289 00:17:56,800 --> 00:18:00,840 Speaker 1: probably not right. But anyway, I think it's probably the 290 00:18:00,840 --> 00:18:07,760 Speaker 1: same way. And you're seeing some uncertainty. Obviously when the 291 00:18:07,800 --> 00:18:11,960 Speaker 1: circuits are divided. That's when things come to the Supreme Court. 292 00:18:12,040 --> 00:18:15,040 Speaker 1: And then if you do a four four and either 293 00:18:15,720 --> 00:18:19,920 Speaker 1: just stalemated four four or or in in this last 294 00:18:19,920 --> 00:18:23,720 Speaker 1: case on the the birth control in a c A piece, 295 00:18:24,160 --> 00:18:28,560 Speaker 1: actually go back and ask the circuits questions to resolve. 296 00:18:29,440 --> 00:18:33,160 Speaker 1: It's very hinky, I think, and it's and I think 297 00:18:33,200 --> 00:18:35,679 Speaker 1: it creates a lot of uncertainty, and it does create 298 00:18:36,320 --> 00:18:42,639 Speaker 1: a certain issue with the international business in terms of 299 00:18:43,280 --> 00:18:47,600 Speaker 1: is the US reliable? You mentioned Citizens United, and you've 300 00:18:47,600 --> 00:18:51,480 Speaker 1: also talked about judicial restraint overturning precedents. Would you like 301 00:18:51,600 --> 00:18:54,560 Speaker 1: to see that decision overturned? And is it important to 302 00:18:54,600 --> 00:18:57,399 Speaker 1: you that Yeah, I think I think, uh, most of 303 00:18:57,400 --> 00:19:02,120 Speaker 1: the activism to overturn it at this point, I don't 304 00:19:02,160 --> 00:19:06,240 Speaker 1: think so, because I think it was a very improper, 305 00:19:07,160 --> 00:19:11,840 Speaker 1: uh use of judicial activism then and Also, you'll remember 306 00:19:11,920 --> 00:19:16,840 Speaker 1: that Kennedy in his in his majority opinion, said that 307 00:19:16,920 --> 00:19:22,600 Speaker 1: this is great because now we'll have this disclosure happening 308 00:19:22,640 --> 00:19:26,399 Speaker 1: because of the Internet. We'll have this disclose, immediate disclosure 309 00:19:26,520 --> 00:19:30,879 Speaker 1: of who's giving money to what. Well, of course we 310 00:19:30,920 --> 00:19:34,560 Speaker 1: don't have disclosure, so the way he envisioned it was 311 00:19:34,680 --> 00:19:39,280 Speaker 1: with disclosure, and there's no disclosure. We had a vote 312 00:19:40,119 --> 00:19:42,600 Speaker 1: several years ago where we this is when we had 313 00:19:42,640 --> 00:19:49,439 Speaker 1: fifty nine Democrats and um forty one Republicans and it 314 00:19:49,560 --> 00:19:51,640 Speaker 1: was skins and shirts on this folte. We we had 315 00:19:51,640 --> 00:19:55,320 Speaker 1: to disclose that where you could disclose where you would 316 00:19:55,359 --> 00:19:59,800 Speaker 1: have to disclose people gave money to these packs would 317 00:19:59,800 --> 00:20:04,080 Speaker 1: have the disclose, and and every Republican vote to vote 318 00:20:04,080 --> 00:20:06,920 Speaker 1: against it. I want to take a quick break, and 319 00:20:07,240 --> 00:20:09,840 Speaker 1: when we come back, we'll go into some more questions 320 00:20:09,840 --> 00:20:14,040 Speaker 1: about the court. I'm particularly interested to know whether there 321 00:20:14,119 --> 00:20:16,439 Speaker 1: is any good that can come out of just having 322 00:20:16,480 --> 00:20:19,520 Speaker 1: eight justices on the court after we come back from 323 00:20:19,520 --> 00:20:35,520 Speaker 1: this break. All right, so we are back, and I 324 00:20:35,560 --> 00:20:38,600 Speaker 1: want to pick up right where we left off the 325 00:20:38,680 --> 00:20:42,600 Speaker 1: good that can come out of having just eight justices. 326 00:20:43,440 --> 00:20:47,719 Speaker 1: It's a contrarian opinion, Greg, what's the good. What can 327 00:20:47,800 --> 00:20:50,040 Speaker 1: come out of this it's good? Well, they're not doing 328 00:20:50,080 --> 00:20:53,080 Speaker 1: a whole lot of bad things, are they. The absence 329 00:20:53,080 --> 00:20:58,679 Speaker 1: of bad is by definition good. I think the the 330 00:20:58,760 --> 00:21:02,320 Speaker 1: argument is that, um, they are having to compromise more 331 00:21:02,400 --> 00:21:04,520 Speaker 1: by the nature of of a justice is the fear 332 00:21:04,520 --> 00:21:07,760 Speaker 1: of a four four split. They are deciding things narrowly. 333 00:21:08,280 --> 00:21:12,280 Speaker 1: You know, one of the Garland said about how he 334 00:21:12,359 --> 00:21:17,159 Speaker 1: gets consensus is decided narrowly. Yeah, yeah, I mean in 335 00:21:17,240 --> 00:21:19,879 Speaker 1: one example this is this is not the siding narrowly, 336 00:21:20,480 --> 00:21:23,320 Speaker 1: but rather not deciding at all. There was there was 337 00:21:23,359 --> 00:21:25,600 Speaker 1: a case one of the four four is I suspect 338 00:21:25,680 --> 00:21:28,840 Speaker 1: you're happy about. That is a case involving public sector 339 00:21:29,240 --> 00:21:33,240 Speaker 1: unions and whether workers have a constitutional right to say 340 00:21:33,240 --> 00:21:36,560 Speaker 1: we're not going to pay fees to help support the 341 00:21:36,720 --> 00:21:39,800 Speaker 1: collective bargaining. And I think all all of us who 342 00:21:39,800 --> 00:21:42,040 Speaker 1: covered the court a lot of other people thought the 343 00:21:42,040 --> 00:21:44,320 Speaker 1: court was gonna say five to four there is a 344 00:21:44,320 --> 00:21:47,280 Speaker 1: constitutional right there, and it would have been a ruling 345 00:21:47,280 --> 00:21:49,840 Speaker 1: that would have really changed the change the rules for 346 00:21:49,880 --> 00:21:53,159 Speaker 1: public sector unions. Instead, the court uh divides four to 347 00:21:53,240 --> 00:21:56,360 Speaker 1: four and they leave the law in place where workers 348 00:21:56,440 --> 00:22:00,119 Speaker 1: in In about twenty some odd states, uh can be 349 00:22:00,280 --> 00:22:03,639 Speaker 1: required to pay those fees. So there was a case 350 00:22:04,640 --> 00:22:07,080 Speaker 1: labor union fees, yes, um, and this is just public 351 00:22:07,080 --> 00:22:09,199 Speaker 1: sector workers that we're talking about. But there was a 352 00:22:09,240 --> 00:22:12,800 Speaker 1: case where, um, by only having eight justices, they didn't 353 00:22:12,840 --> 00:22:14,760 Speaker 1: do something that would have been a really a you know, 354 00:22:14,880 --> 00:22:17,880 Speaker 1: a major, a major shift in this country. It would 355 00:22:17,920 --> 00:22:20,359 Speaker 1: have been it would have been again another five for 356 00:22:22,119 --> 00:22:27,640 Speaker 1: big decision, overturning precedent. It would have been another activist decision. Uh. 357 00:22:27,680 --> 00:22:30,480 Speaker 1: So I think that, Uh, yeah, I think there was 358 00:22:30,560 --> 00:22:35,480 Speaker 1: As you know, basically, these unions do the bargaining even 359 00:22:35,520 --> 00:22:40,200 Speaker 1: if you don't belong to the union, and UM, we're 360 00:22:40,240 --> 00:22:44,000 Speaker 1: you know, collecting fees from uh the employees that they 361 00:22:44,040 --> 00:22:50,440 Speaker 1: were bargaining on behalf of. And the uh you know, court, 362 00:22:50,760 --> 00:22:54,479 Speaker 1: if if Scalley had been there, probably would have ruled 363 00:22:54,560 --> 00:22:58,000 Speaker 1: that they can't do that, that the union can't collect 364 00:22:58,560 --> 00:23:02,320 Speaker 1: fees for bargaining on behalf of these people even though 365 00:23:03,400 --> 00:23:06,359 Speaker 1: they are the beneficiary of the bargaining. I could probably 366 00:23:06,400 --> 00:23:08,280 Speaker 1: take off a whole long list of decisions that I 367 00:23:08,280 --> 00:23:11,560 Speaker 1: think you probably disagree with over the past ten years 368 00:23:11,640 --> 00:23:14,359 Speaker 1: or so that were decided five to four, and I 369 00:23:14,400 --> 00:23:16,560 Speaker 1: suspect you would have been happier to have those be 370 00:23:16,600 --> 00:23:18,720 Speaker 1: four to four. The Voting Rights Act as one example. 371 00:23:18,760 --> 00:23:20,720 Speaker 1: I mean, most of the big decisions of the Roberts Court, 372 00:23:21,160 --> 00:23:24,359 Speaker 1: when we think about the conservative decisions that they have issued, 373 00:23:24,400 --> 00:23:27,639 Speaker 1: there are by and larger, perhaps even entirely five to 374 00:23:27,680 --> 00:23:30,560 Speaker 1: four rulings. Yeah. And I think that was one of 375 00:23:30,560 --> 00:23:34,400 Speaker 1: my my problems with it, which is when you do 376 00:23:34,640 --> 00:23:38,120 Speaker 1: overturn precedent, I think you've got to be very careful, 377 00:23:38,160 --> 00:23:40,720 Speaker 1: and to do it on five four basis something as 378 00:23:40,720 --> 00:23:45,080 Speaker 1: big as cusins united something is some of the decisions 379 00:23:45,720 --> 00:23:49,240 Speaker 1: on the Voting Rights Act we mentioned, but also on 380 00:23:49,720 --> 00:23:54,280 Speaker 1: our arbitration on class actions and arbitration overriding the States. 381 00:23:54,320 --> 00:24:00,760 Speaker 1: On that, I think we're very again activist pro business decisions. 382 00:24:01,480 --> 00:24:04,120 Speaker 1: And Greg, you were telling me when we were sort 383 00:24:04,119 --> 00:24:07,560 Speaker 1: of preparing for the show that the broader history of 384 00:24:07,600 --> 00:24:10,520 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, would you say that it leans more 385 00:24:10,640 --> 00:24:14,800 Speaker 1: towards I guess pro business over the grand scheme of 386 00:24:14,840 --> 00:24:17,400 Speaker 1: things or yeah. I think if you just look at 387 00:24:17,960 --> 00:24:20,159 Speaker 1: using as as a kind of a convenient metric, the 388 00:24:20,200 --> 00:24:22,439 Speaker 1: cases where the Chamber of Commerce has filed a brief 389 00:24:23,200 --> 00:24:24,919 Speaker 1: as sort of a proxy for our case. You know, 390 00:24:25,000 --> 00:24:27,320 Speaker 1: a business case where businesses on one side. This is 391 00:24:27,320 --> 00:24:31,639 Speaker 1: the US Chamber of Right. Business has won over the past, 392 00:24:31,840 --> 00:24:33,280 Speaker 1: you know, the time I've been covering the court, the 393 00:24:33,280 --> 00:24:36,920 Speaker 1: past fifty and twenty years, they have certainly one uh 394 00:24:37,119 --> 00:24:39,400 Speaker 1: more cases than they have lost. Maybe you know, close 395 00:24:39,440 --> 00:24:42,240 Speaker 1: to two thirds of them I think is roughly probably 396 00:24:42,280 --> 00:24:44,639 Speaker 1: probably the number, So that is fair. But not all 397 00:24:44,640 --> 00:24:46,880 Speaker 1: of those have been five to four um those are 398 00:24:46,920 --> 00:24:49,000 Speaker 1: it can be seven to two decisions. And there's actually 399 00:24:49,000 --> 00:24:52,960 Speaker 1: one category of decisions that I find fascinating because Justice 400 00:24:53,000 --> 00:24:55,040 Speaker 1: Slee is on the side you wouldn't expect them to 401 00:24:55,040 --> 00:24:58,479 Speaker 1: be on, which is uh. About ten years ago, limiting 402 00:24:58,520 --> 00:25:02,480 Speaker 1: punitive damages was a very big constitutional issue, and the 403 00:25:02,520 --> 00:25:04,600 Speaker 1: Court was willing to put some limits on it. But 404 00:25:04,640 --> 00:25:08,280 Speaker 1: the justices who said, no, the Constitution doesn't provide any 405 00:25:08,320 --> 00:25:11,840 Speaker 1: limits were actually the justices we think about as being 406 00:25:12,359 --> 00:25:14,639 Speaker 1: on either end of the spectrum. So you had Justice 407 00:25:14,640 --> 00:25:17,639 Speaker 1: Ginsberg who said no, constitution doesn't put any limits. But 408 00:25:17,720 --> 00:25:20,960 Speaker 1: also Justice is Thomas and Scalia, And so there's a 409 00:25:21,000 --> 00:25:24,040 Speaker 1: case where at least in that particular issue, the next 410 00:25:24,119 --> 00:25:27,160 Speaker 1: justice may actually make the Court a little more favorable 411 00:25:27,240 --> 00:25:29,960 Speaker 1: to business. If he or she believes that the Constitution 412 00:25:30,000 --> 00:25:33,120 Speaker 1: does provide some limits on punitive damages. How does all 413 00:25:33,119 --> 00:25:35,000 Speaker 1: this play out? We know Trump came out with his 414 00:25:35,240 --> 00:25:39,480 Speaker 1: list of nominees and on it it was pretty I 415 00:25:39,520 --> 00:25:41,399 Speaker 1: read your story. You said it was sort of pretty 416 00:25:41,440 --> 00:25:43,960 Speaker 1: by the book in terms of not stepping too far 417 00:25:44,000 --> 00:25:47,040 Speaker 1: out of the conservative box. Off five of them were 418 00:25:47,359 --> 00:25:54,560 Speaker 1: those also suggested I guess by the Heritage Foundation. Um, 419 00:25:54,680 --> 00:25:57,600 Speaker 1: oh boy, So, I mean, what if we get a 420 00:25:57,640 --> 00:26:00,960 Speaker 1: president Trump? What what happens? Greg? I'm gonna have Greg 421 00:26:00,960 --> 00:26:03,480 Speaker 1: play a little bit of a Devil's advocate with you 422 00:26:03,760 --> 00:26:06,040 Speaker 1: on this one. Well, you know, if you look at 423 00:26:06,080 --> 00:26:08,520 Speaker 1: this list, you know, as I said, it is somebody 424 00:26:08,560 --> 00:26:11,920 Speaker 1: who would be you would expect from a Republican president. Now, 425 00:26:12,359 --> 00:26:14,639 Speaker 1: Donald Trump has also said, oh, it's just a guide, 426 00:26:14,640 --> 00:26:17,000 Speaker 1: and then that night he put out a tweet saying 427 00:26:17,280 --> 00:26:19,760 Speaker 1: my list was very well received and I may actually 428 00:26:19,800 --> 00:26:23,199 Speaker 1: put more people on the list. So, um, you know, 429 00:26:23,960 --> 00:26:29,200 Speaker 1: I'm not sure exactly point one at a time. I 430 00:26:29,240 --> 00:26:31,879 Speaker 1: haven't had a chance to. Okay, I think that's a 431 00:26:31,880 --> 00:26:34,240 Speaker 1: good first question if you get an interview. So I 432 00:26:34,240 --> 00:26:36,760 Speaker 1: think I think there are a lot of conservatives who 433 00:26:37,200 --> 00:26:40,040 Speaker 1: care very much about the Supreme Court who are not 434 00:26:40,320 --> 00:26:44,520 Speaker 1: fully confident. But that said, I think it is certainly 435 00:26:45,000 --> 00:26:48,520 Speaker 1: fair to assume that um or or or likely that 436 00:26:48,560 --> 00:26:52,080 Speaker 1: he is not going to shift the court significantly from 437 00:26:52,119 --> 00:26:55,280 Speaker 1: where it was with Justice scale on it that whoever 438 00:26:55,320 --> 00:26:59,680 Speaker 1: he nominates will on uh, certainly be to the right 439 00:26:59,760 --> 00:27:03,000 Speaker 1: of who we would expect Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders 440 00:27:03,000 --> 00:27:06,840 Speaker 1: to nominate, and highly likely to be to the right 441 00:27:06,960 --> 00:27:10,680 Speaker 1: of of Merrick Garland as well. Yeah, I mean you're 442 00:27:10,760 --> 00:27:15,720 Speaker 1: you're assuming, of course, that my Republican colleagues don't well, 443 00:27:16,280 --> 00:27:19,359 Speaker 1: if say Hillary wins, that they won't go with Garland. 444 00:27:19,600 --> 00:27:22,080 Speaker 1: But then then the Hillary wins, Trump wouldn't win. So 445 00:27:22,880 --> 00:27:26,960 Speaker 1: never mind, I should say that Judge Garland, you know, 446 00:27:27,000 --> 00:27:29,000 Speaker 1: but I will I will say this about that list. 447 00:27:29,520 --> 00:27:33,159 Speaker 1: He was just trying to unite the party, like putting 448 00:27:33,160 --> 00:27:36,679 Speaker 1: out a list that you know, conservatives will go like, 449 00:27:36,720 --> 00:27:39,960 Speaker 1: oh okay, those are I like those guys. You know, 450 00:27:40,000 --> 00:27:43,960 Speaker 1: I don't think that you know, that was a pretty 451 00:27:44,080 --> 00:27:46,800 Speaker 1: uh you know, that's telling put a list together for 452 00:27:46,920 --> 00:27:51,000 Speaker 1: me that will accomplish that. Red State put out an 453 00:27:51,119 --> 00:27:54,080 Speaker 1: argument a few weeks ago that's sort of along the 454 00:27:54,119 --> 00:27:57,040 Speaker 1: lines of I think what you seem to be hearing 455 00:27:57,040 --> 00:27:59,960 Speaker 1: from some Republicans, which is Republicans should just go ahead 456 00:27:59,960 --> 00:28:01,840 Speaker 1: and phil the vacan see because it's more likely that 457 00:28:01,960 --> 00:28:05,600 Speaker 1: Hillary will win than Trump, and she may nominate someone 458 00:28:05,640 --> 00:28:08,600 Speaker 1: who's much more liberal than to go ahead and confirmers 459 00:28:08,720 --> 00:28:11,120 Speaker 1: excuse me, yes, you could go ahead and suld go ahead, 460 00:28:11,200 --> 00:28:14,919 Speaker 1: confirm any thoughts on this from from either of you. 461 00:28:15,040 --> 00:28:18,400 Speaker 1: Do you think that's something that they're mulling right now, Senator, Well, 462 00:28:18,440 --> 00:28:22,160 Speaker 1: you know, I think what they're mulling literally is election. 463 00:28:23,200 --> 00:28:29,800 Speaker 1: Hillary wins. Hearings Garland literally, I mean, as bad as 464 00:28:29,840 --> 00:28:32,639 Speaker 1: that looks in a way, the election is over. I 465 00:28:32,680 --> 00:28:38,800 Speaker 1: think that there is a real respect for Garland and 466 00:28:39,160 --> 00:28:41,320 Speaker 1: almost an affection for him. You know, one of the 467 00:28:41,400 --> 00:28:46,160 Speaker 1: first Republican senators who agreed to meet with Garland it 468 00:28:46,240 --> 00:28:51,000 Speaker 1: was Jim Inhoff. And that's because of that Garland was 469 00:28:51,040 --> 00:28:55,240 Speaker 1: the prosecutor in the Oklahoma City case, and that he 470 00:28:55,320 --> 00:28:59,640 Speaker 1: has stayed in touch with the families of those were 471 00:28:59,720 --> 00:29:04,520 Speaker 1: killed at Oklahoma City and he's kind of revered there 472 00:29:05,200 --> 00:29:10,800 Speaker 1: and so, um, this guy is kind of an extraordinary guy. 473 00:29:10,880 --> 00:29:16,040 Speaker 1: So I think that that play, you know, may very 474 00:29:16,080 --> 00:29:19,280 Speaker 1: well make sense that they could go, Okay, we lost 475 00:29:19,280 --> 00:29:24,480 Speaker 1: the election. Hillary will probably appoint someone more to the left. Also, 476 00:29:24,800 --> 00:29:29,760 Speaker 1: we hopefully got our butts handed to us the other day, 477 00:29:29,800 --> 00:29:31,640 Speaker 1: and there's gonna be a lot more and maybe the 478 00:29:31,680 --> 00:29:34,480 Speaker 1: Democrats take over the Senate. Yeah that's what. Yeah, that's 479 00:29:34,520 --> 00:29:37,240 Speaker 1: what I was saying. Hopefully, you know, That's why I 480 00:29:37,240 --> 00:29:40,600 Speaker 1: said hopefully, and I hope that happens. Uh So they 481 00:29:40,640 --> 00:29:43,960 Speaker 1: may actually bring up Garland and then we'd have to 482 00:29:44,440 --> 00:29:47,959 Speaker 1: do a gut check and see, uh you know, and 483 00:29:48,240 --> 00:29:51,400 Speaker 1: I actually think Obama would be okay with that. I 484 00:29:51,400 --> 00:29:54,160 Speaker 1: don't know where Hillary would be on that. How do 485 00:29:54,200 --> 00:29:57,320 Speaker 1: we get out of this, this this box that we're 486 00:29:57,360 --> 00:30:00,080 Speaker 1: in with these nominations they have, and we can of 487 00:30:00,160 --> 00:30:03,160 Speaker 1: go back and point fingers as to who who's at fault. 488 00:30:03,160 --> 00:30:05,600 Speaker 1: But we're in a in a world where Supreme Court 489 00:30:05,720 --> 00:30:11,080 Speaker 1: nominations have become so partisan and increasingly it seems like 490 00:30:11,120 --> 00:30:13,640 Speaker 1: they are looked upon as a zero sum game. And 491 00:30:13,640 --> 00:30:16,560 Speaker 1: the way you describe your your view of how the 492 00:30:16,600 --> 00:30:18,920 Speaker 1: Republicans are acting, it sounds like you think they are 493 00:30:19,040 --> 00:30:22,800 Speaker 1: perceiving this in that same way where where if if 494 00:30:22,800 --> 00:30:25,200 Speaker 1: they get to the point where they say, oh, you know, 495 00:30:25,320 --> 00:30:27,720 Speaker 1: Merrick Garland is you know, the best we can do 496 00:30:27,760 --> 00:30:29,880 Speaker 1: at this point, then we'll go ahead and confirm him. 497 00:30:29,920 --> 00:30:35,160 Speaker 1: But how do memory because I think what this does 498 00:30:35,280 --> 00:30:41,240 Speaker 1: is undermine their respect for the court because it's approval 499 00:30:41,360 --> 00:30:43,600 Speaker 1: ratings to the extent they matter. Have have you know, 500 00:30:43,720 --> 00:30:48,160 Speaker 1: plummeted plummeted along with with you know, those of Congress 501 00:30:48,200 --> 00:30:51,920 Speaker 1: and other institutions. Yeah, Well, I think there's been sort 502 00:30:51,920 --> 00:30:55,960 Speaker 1: of an assault on legitimacy of government for a long 503 00:30:56,000 --> 00:30:59,680 Speaker 1: long time. We saw that, you know, with ging Rich, 504 00:30:59,800 --> 00:31:03,520 Speaker 1: and we've seen that with the Tea Party. And I 505 00:31:03,560 --> 00:31:07,680 Speaker 1: think that the Republican Party has sort of created Trump 506 00:31:07,840 --> 00:31:12,600 Speaker 1: in a way. Um made a bargain and I think 507 00:31:12,720 --> 00:31:15,720 Speaker 1: that's this is what you get. And I think it 508 00:31:15,880 --> 00:31:22,000 Speaker 1: has been partly an assault at the legitimacy of the government, 509 00:31:22,840 --> 00:31:29,400 Speaker 1: you know, including threatening to default on our debt. Trump's 510 00:31:30,200 --> 00:31:34,440 Speaker 1: Trump's saying that he says a couple of things. One, 511 00:31:34,480 --> 00:31:39,040 Speaker 1: you can bargain with our creditors, and that us presentably 512 00:31:39,080 --> 00:31:42,080 Speaker 1: as people who who hold bonds. So I don't know 513 00:31:42,120 --> 00:31:45,760 Speaker 1: how they would would bargain with me. I don't know 514 00:31:45,760 --> 00:31:49,040 Speaker 1: where I'd be in on that. And which is a 515 00:31:50,120 --> 00:31:53,000 Speaker 1: that's not good for business. I can tell you that 516 00:31:53,240 --> 00:31:56,480 Speaker 1: I don't. I'm on Bloomberg. I think Bloomberg would agree 517 00:31:56,640 --> 00:31:59,120 Speaker 1: that's not good. And then there was the other thing. 518 00:31:59,120 --> 00:32:01,680 Speaker 1: I said, we can't the fall because we print money, 519 00:32:01,840 --> 00:32:04,840 Speaker 1: which is kind of crazy. So this is who who 520 00:32:04,920 --> 00:32:09,120 Speaker 1: the Republican nominee is. And I think that this has 521 00:32:09,200 --> 00:32:14,560 Speaker 1: been a process of uh playing foot see with people 522 00:32:14,600 --> 00:32:19,120 Speaker 1: who don't believe that the government has a legitimate role 523 00:32:19,160 --> 00:32:22,320 Speaker 1: to play. Well, I we're going to wrap up, but 524 00:32:22,440 --> 00:32:25,040 Speaker 1: I would probably lose my journalist card if I didn't 525 00:32:25,080 --> 00:32:29,360 Speaker 1: ask this question. Are you being considered by Hillary Hillary 526 00:32:29,400 --> 00:32:32,280 Speaker 1: Clinton's campaign for vice president? Is that something you'd be 527 00:32:32,320 --> 00:32:38,760 Speaker 1: interested in? I really enjoy my job with representing the 528 00:32:38,760 --> 00:32:41,960 Speaker 1: people of Minnesota, and I am gonna work very hard 529 00:32:42,000 --> 00:32:47,920 Speaker 1: for Hillary, going around country for her. I, um, I don't. 530 00:32:48,320 --> 00:32:53,760 Speaker 1: I think that's just conjecture and I I don't think 531 00:32:53,760 --> 00:32:57,160 Speaker 1: that's going to happen. I guess we'll see, all right, 532 00:32:57,800 --> 00:33:02,720 Speaker 1: anything as possible. I'll make you bet how much well 533 00:33:03,120 --> 00:33:05,720 Speaker 1: you mean one of the odds, because I'll bet you 534 00:33:05,760 --> 00:33:08,320 Speaker 1: a thousand bucks. I mean, I mean, you're on one 535 00:33:08,320 --> 00:33:10,160 Speaker 1: side of this bargain. Is it doesn't seem very fair 536 00:33:10,240 --> 00:33:14,000 Speaker 1: for me. Yeah, it's very unfair, isn't it. Thank you, Tori, 537 00:33:14,160 --> 00:33:21,880 Speaker 1: thank you, thank you Greg. That's it for today's show. 538 00:33:22,040 --> 00:33:24,400 Speaker 1: Benchmark will be back next week, and until then, you 539 00:33:24,440 --> 00:33:27,360 Speaker 1: can find us on the Bloomberg Terminal and Bloomberg dot com, 540 00:33:27,400 --> 00:33:30,600 Speaker 1: as well as on iTunes, pocket casts, and Stitcher. While 541 00:33:30,640 --> 00:33:32,560 Speaker 1: you're there, take a minute to rate and review the 542 00:33:32,600 --> 00:33:35,239 Speaker 1: show so more listeners can find us and recommend us 543 00:33:35,240 --> 00:33:37,680 Speaker 1: to a friend. If you like us, also let us 544 00:33:37,680 --> 00:33:39,960 Speaker 1: know what you thought of the show via Twitter. I'm 545 00:33:40,040 --> 00:33:44,280 Speaker 1: at Tori stillwell, and our guests are also on Twitter 546 00:33:44,440 --> 00:33:48,720 Speaker 1: at at sin Franken and at Greg's store. Also, if 547 00:33:48,760 --> 00:33:51,640 Speaker 1: you'd like to email our producer, he is at a 548 00:33:51,960 --> 00:33:56,080 Speaker 1: McCabe mc c a b e at Bloomberg dot net. 549 00:33:56,600 --> 00:33:58,800 Speaker 1: And if you enjoyed our show, you may also want 550 00:33:58,800 --> 00:34:01,560 Speaker 1: to check out Odd Lots, a podcast about the twists 551 00:34:01,560 --> 00:34:04,400 Speaker 1: and turns of financial markets, posted by my colleagues Joe 552 00:34:04,440 --> 00:34:06,960 Speaker 1: Wisenthal and Tracy Alloway. See you next week.