Speaker 1: There's like we have our own themes dong, so it's
Speaker 1: like now you can listen to it, I can just
Speaker 1: sing it. That was beautiful. Thanks hi, and welcome back
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg Benchmark, a show about the global economy. It
Speaker 1: is Thursday May. I'm Tory stillwell and economics reporter with
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News and I am holding it down solo today,
Speaker 1: but there are two special guests with me in the
Speaker 1: studio here in DC to help me talk about our
Speaker 1: topic for the day, which is all about the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: With Donald Trump now the Republican Party's presumptive nominee for
Speaker 1: the presidency, the debate about the vacancy on the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court is ramping back up. As you may know, there's
Speaker 1: been an opening for the ninth seat on the highest
Speaker 1: court in the land ever since Associate Justice Antonin Scalia
Speaker 1: died in February, and in a nutshell, Democrats would like
Speaker 1: to fill out with Merrick Garland, picked by President Barack Obama,
Speaker 1: while Republicans believe whoever wins this year's election should get
Speaker 1: to fill the vacancy. One of the less looked at
Speaker 1: aspects of debate, though, is how this vacancy could affect
Speaker 1: the US economy's business sector. It's sort of a weird
Speaker 1: time for the economy right now, if you hadn't noticed.
Speaker 1: Where in the middle of an election season. So business
Speaker 1: leaders are are already wondering what sorts of new regulations
Speaker 1: might come down the pike. The Federal Reserve is deciding
Speaker 1: whether to raise interest rates again in June for the
Speaker 1: second time. And to top it all off, having a
Speaker 1: vacancy on the Supreme Court generates its own amount of
Speaker 1: uncertainty when businesses aren't quite sure how the Court will
Speaker 1: lean on different issues. So before we get too far
Speaker 1: into this, I'm going to introduce our guests. First off,
Speaker 1: we've got Senator Al Franken, the junior Democratic Senator from Minnesota.
Speaker 1: He is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and
Speaker 1: presided over the confirmation votes of Supreme Court Justices Sonya
Speaker 1: Soto Mayor and Elena Kagan, and you may also remember
Speaker 1: him from his days on Saturday Night Live in the
Speaker 1: seventies and eighties. Welcome, Senator, Thank you. But when I
Speaker 1: presided over those I was in the chair presiding. It
Speaker 1: was actually a coincidence that I ended up being in
Speaker 1: the chair when both Justice son of my heir and
Speaker 1: Justice Kagan were confirmed. It was it was neat. It
Speaker 1: was neat, you know. And I had just kind of
Speaker 1: gotten there with the son of mayor. And we've also
Speaker 1: got Greg's store here with us. Who is Bloomberg's rock
Speaker 1: star Supreme Court reporter. He has been with us since
Speaker 1: shortly after he graduated from Harvard Law. Welcome, Greg, I
Speaker 1: thank story good to be here. And I just want
Speaker 1: to say that I I asked to have the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court beat. It wasn't just given to me because it
Speaker 1: was the only thing Harvard Law school. So you were
Speaker 1: kind of like a lawyer kind of guy. I was
Speaker 1: kind of a lawyer. That's and you're a rock star, evidently,
Speaker 1: I think I think a metaphorical I actually have no
Speaker 1: musical talent. Well, let's jump in to sort of what's
Speaker 1: going on with the Supreme Court these days and how
Speaker 1: we got here. I feel like Greg gear pretty well
Speaker 1: equipped to walk us through the path here. Well. Justice
Speaker 1: Scalia was was really a kind of a conservative icon.
Speaker 1: He was really the kind of the anchor of the courts.
Speaker 1: Conservative wing believed in interpreting the Constitution and accordance with
Speaker 1: with the original meaning of its words, interpreted statutes very strictly,
Speaker 1: and when we're talking about business cases, very often ended
Speaker 1: up on the conservative side, corporate. But he he was.
Speaker 1: He was very often on business side. But so many
Speaker 1: Supreme Court cases don't divide along those lines. They are
Speaker 1: not the ideological cases that that we get in with,
Speaker 1: you know, abortion, affirmative action. You know, a lot of
Speaker 1: times they'll be seven to two decisions or nine nine
Speaker 1: to nothing decisions. But it's it's fair to say he
Speaker 1: more often than not was on the business side when
Speaker 1: it was say a business versus consumer dispute. Sure. What's
Speaker 1: interesting is I hear sometimes and I've heard this in
Speaker 1: the Judiciary Committee when we've been discussing their unwillingness to
Speaker 1: have hearings for for Garland. But I've heard um Scalia
Speaker 1: being by Republicans described as not an activist judge, and
Speaker 1: I found him very activist. Where did you find him? Activists? What? What?
Speaker 1: What areas are you thinking about? Well, for example, overturning
Speaker 1: the Voting Rights Act, This was something that I mean,
Speaker 1: my understanding of activists is a justice who will overturn
Speaker 1: uh for example, a law that passed the Senate unanimously
Speaker 1: as the Voting Rights Acted. Yes, that's the point. In
Speaker 1: other words, I you hear very often from republic alkins. Well, um,
Speaker 1: I you know, I don't want an actor. I don't
Speaker 1: want I want to, let you know, legislative bodies to
Speaker 1: make the laws, not the court. And so I want
Speaker 1: I don't wanna, you know, I want. I don't want
Speaker 1: an activist judge. I want to judge like Justice Scalia,
Speaker 1: who had such contempt for the Senate. He said that
Speaker 1: the Congress had passed the Voting Rights Act because of
Speaker 1: its name. You remember him saying that, because I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: because of it because of its name. Yes, because yes,
Speaker 1: in the arguments, he well to me that that was
Speaker 1: an incredibly telling remark, that he has such little regard
Speaker 1: for Congress. That Congress had virtually unanimously and it was
Speaker 1: unanimously in the Senate, or at least with no sent
Speaker 1: had voted for the Voting Rights Act, that that he
Speaker 1: voted overturned. But he said that, well, you know, with
Speaker 1: a name like the Voting Rights Act, they had to
Speaker 1: vote for it. They felt, you know, because they're stupid.
Speaker 1: I mean, it was it was so much contempt for
Speaker 1: Congress that to me, I don't understand when some of
Speaker 1: my Republican colleagues say that he was the opposite of
Speaker 1: an activist judge. To me, he was a very activist judge,
Speaker 1: and this has been an activist court as far as
Speaker 1: I'm concerned. I want to read it in for just
Speaker 1: a second so we can get to Merrick Garland, who
Speaker 1: I think is very interesting and we'd love to hear
Speaker 1: your thoughts on him as well. So Obama has nominated
Speaker 1: him to fill Scleeze vacancy, and it's unclear what's going
Speaker 1: to happen there. We're hearing a lot of different scenarios
Speaker 1: play out. And you've met with him, right, Yes, what
Speaker 1: were your impressions? He pretty much was what I had
Speaker 1: been totally was. He seemed like very smart, very um
Speaker 1: a good guy, just like you know when the administration
Speaker 1: called me before his appointment or before his nomination, uh
Speaker 1: saying you know, who do you want to see or
Speaker 1: I said, I I don't have a person, but i'd
Speaker 1: like someone who after hearings that the American people would say,
Speaker 1: I want nine of those. And what I asked him
Speaker 1: about he has been he has a reputation, he's chief
Speaker 1: judge of the m d C Circuit and which is
Speaker 1: essentially the second accord in the nation. And he has
Speaker 1: a reputation as being a consensus judge. And what I
Speaker 1: asked him about is how do you do that? How
Speaker 1: do you arrive at consensus? His approach was very sensible
Speaker 1: and very smart, and he just seems like a pretty
Speaker 1: brilliant by all um all accounts. He's a you know,
Speaker 1: Roberts said, when you disagree with him, you're in You're
Speaker 1: in bad You're not in a good position. So bipartisan
Speaker 1: appeal here, yeah, oron Hatch and or Orange Hatch had
Speaker 1: nice things to say about him earlier. He when there
Speaker 1: was another vacancy a number of years ago, or in
Speaker 1: Hatch uh suggested Mary Garland to somebody who could get bipartisans.
Speaker 1: What I understand is he said something recently about him
Speaker 1: before Omama made his pick, and he said that if
Speaker 1: he picked someone like Garland, that would that would be good.
Speaker 1: But he's expecting the president to pick some you know,
Speaker 1: liberal progressive lefty or something. And then I think he
Speaker 1: had to eat his words. So girl. It certainly has
Speaker 1: a reputation as a consensus builder and Senator I'm I'm
Speaker 1: interested to know, is that the kind of justice do
Speaker 1: you think we need on the Supreme Court now? And
Speaker 1: I'm sort of wondering is this plays out um. The Republicans,
Speaker 1: of course, have have said they didn't want to hold
Speaker 1: the hearing, don't want to bring up a vote, and
Speaker 1: they want to let the next president decide. Well, not necessarily.
Speaker 1: They've also said that if the Democrat wins, a number
Speaker 1: of them have said they would consider him in the
Speaker 1: Lame Duck. So on the one hand, and I you know,
Speaker 1: we have um executive sessions in the Judiciary Committee, and
Speaker 1: during these sessions, we've had a couple of sessions that
Speaker 1: were pretty much devoted to discussing this. And I would
Speaker 1: sit there to the whole session and listen to people,
Speaker 1: and I have my Republican colleagues come in and out,
Speaker 1: and a Republican would sit down and say, you know,
Speaker 1: the people have to decide, and so it should be
Speaker 1: the next uh next presidents. And then someone else would
Speaker 1: come in and go like, well, if the Democrat wins,
Speaker 1: I think we could take what we like Garland and
Speaker 1: we should take him up in the Lame Duck. And
Speaker 1: and I spoke and I said, well, my question is
Speaker 1: do you guys talk to each other, because this was
Speaker 1: they and evidently they don't because it was a completely
Speaker 1: contradictory stance they were taking. One. This is a matter
Speaker 1: of principle. Let the people decide. Now. I think that
Speaker 1: people did decide when they voted for to re elect
Speaker 1: President Obama in two thousand and twelve. The Constitution is
Speaker 1: pretty clear that the term is for four years. In
Speaker 1: February when that's when Justice Schoolly unfortunately died, scientists told
Speaker 1: us there were eleven months left in the president's term,
Speaker 1: you see. And then in the constitution is very clear
Speaker 1: that the president makes you know, we will nominate when
Speaker 1: there is a vacancy, and there was a vacancy. And
Speaker 1: then they kept citing the Biden rule or something, and
Speaker 1: the Biden rule they took a speech that Biden had
Speaker 1: given and took it completely out of context. He had
Speaker 1: said that if Bush this was in I think October.
Speaker 1: I believe it was in June of an election year
Speaker 1: without without a vacancy at the time. What I'm interested
Speaker 1: to know from you is, um, you know, if Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton wins in November, I know you you hope she will,
Speaker 1: should she be free to nominate somebody other than Merrick Garland.
Speaker 1: Would you rather see somebody he? I mean, he's described
Speaker 1: as a moderate. He may well become the new kind
Speaker 1: of center justice on the Court if he's confirmed. Would
Speaker 1: you rather see somebody, um who is more like just
Speaker 1: to threat a name you've you've mentioned, Pam Carlin. Uh,
Speaker 1: somebody who is more of a kind of a more liberal,
Speaker 1: perhaps more ideological, or at least more interested in in
Speaker 1: kind of sweeping constitutional changes. Well, I think that begs
Speaker 1: the question whether Republicans will take up the Garland a
Speaker 1: nomination if if say Hillary wins, and a number of
Speaker 1: them had said they would, and I think that, uh,
Speaker 1: some of them are making the argument that, I mean,
Speaker 1: it would be Hillary's right to she'd be the president,
Speaker 1: and would you want to see her do that? Would
Speaker 1: you want to see her use this nomination to make
Speaker 1: more of a change on the Supreme Court? Well? I
Speaker 1: must say I really was impressed with Garland, so I
Speaker 1: wouldn't be terribly upset if she nominated him. I think
Speaker 1: he was a perfect nominee for this moment because he
Speaker 1: is a consensus builder, and I think he was actually
Speaker 1: following the Biden rule. If you listen to the Biden
Speaker 1: speech where he said if you just you, you know,
Speaker 1: if someone resigns, if someone games, he was really basically
Speaker 1: talking about adjustice gaming nos and resigning so that Bush
Speaker 1: could then nominate someone who you know, was very right wing. Well,
Speaker 1: then he said, don't do that. We won't take that
Speaker 1: person up. But if you come to us and if
Speaker 1: that situation happens and you we come up with some
Speaker 1: kind of consensus figure, then of course we'll take him up.
Speaker 1: It seems to me that there's a lot of deliberate
Speaker 1: It's not obfuscation, it's it's kind of misrepresentation of terms
Speaker 1: and of of certainly what the Vice president said then
Speaker 1: and again what kind of justice Scalia? Uh Scalia was
Speaker 1: So since there is so much deadlock on this issue,
Speaker 1: it seems like very likely we won't have a ninth
Speaker 1: justice before November. Maybe I think that part of this
Speaker 1: was the you know, Member Jerry Moran at a town
Speaker 1: meeting in Kansas said he thought we should take up
Speaker 1: Judge Garland and then uh, some moneyed interests on the
Speaker 1: right threatened him and said that if he continued with
Speaker 1: that stance, they would dump about ten million dollars to
Speaker 1: primary him and so he reversed his position, and so
Speaker 1: maybe after the primary season is all over, there won't
Speaker 1: be that kind of pressure perhaps these Republicans, but I
Speaker 1: think that it is very likely, yes, that we will
Speaker 1: not see them take up Darland. I think they'll pay
Speaker 1: a price for it. Given that, I think, I think
Speaker 1: the Republican candidates who are incumbents, who are in states
Speaker 1: like Hampshire and in Ohio may very well pay a
Speaker 1: price for that. Pennsylvania. Well, let's talk about then, how
Speaker 1: the court is operating now that there's the vacancy and
Speaker 1: it may not be filled for quite some time. Um. Greg,
Speaker 1: it's more likely that will have four four splits um.
Speaker 1: And we've had we've had we had already, and a
Speaker 1: couple of punts, yes, including a significant punt on the
Speaker 1: Obamacare and the requirement to have contraceptive coverage. And they've
Speaker 1: also got rulings on deck or their schedule to make
Speaker 1: rulings on cases of concerning affirmative action, immigration, Puerto Rico's debt,
Speaker 1: and all of these issues touch our economy in one
Speaker 1: way or another, whether it's you know, education which it
Speaker 1: gets income, etcetera. Um, whether it's immigration in the size
Speaker 1: of our labor force or effects on wages um or
Speaker 1: pretty goods debt, which we just had an episode about
Speaker 1: a few weeks ago on the podcast What Happens Then?
Speaker 1: How do how do business leaders know how to navigate
Speaker 1: this sort of situation where they're not really sure what's
Speaker 1: going to happen, what the what the ruling is going
Speaker 1: to be, or any any precedents that might come down.
Speaker 1: I mean, how do how does that play out? Well,
Speaker 1: of course you could say the same thing about the
Speaker 1: political situation right now, and so much of this is
Speaker 1: tied to who the next president is, who ultimately nominates
Speaker 1: the next justice. And there are also some significant business
Speaker 1: issues where you could see the court being has been
Speaker 1: divided four to four octously be five to four with
Speaker 1: Justice Scalia and and the next justice will make a
Speaker 1: big difference. So we can talk about things like class
Speaker 1: action law suits where uh, there was a five justice
Speaker 1: majority with Scali on the court to limit class action lawsuits.
Speaker 1: And we can talk about arbitration, arbitration, mandatory care a
Speaker 1: lot about yeah, where where the again the five majority
Speaker 1: has said we will enforce arbitration clauses between you know,
Speaker 1: your cell phone company and consumer. Are you know, probably
Speaker 1: between employers and employees, and those are areas where I
Speaker 1: think that that I think it sounds like the Senator
Speaker 1: agrees that it could be a big difference depending on who.
Speaker 1: We've had a whole bunch of five four decisions by
Speaker 1: uh this court and usually UM, you know, when you
Speaker 1: make big decisions that, especially ones that overturned precedent, then
Speaker 1: you usually want consensus. And so this has been I
Speaker 1: think an unusual court and and and an activist court
Speaker 1: UH in that that they've overturned a lot of precedent
Speaker 1: with five four margins, and they've done it in pretty
Speaker 1: hinky ways. As the citizens united, they decided on a
Speaker 1: question they weren't wasn't asked in the case and UH,
Speaker 1: and they did buy a five four margin. Now that
Speaker 1: it's four four, we're seeing a lot of uncertainty. And
Speaker 1: you've seen a lot of business saying we don't like this.
Speaker 1: We'd like to see you know, seeing a lot of
Speaker 1: letter you know, a letter from two corporate business lawyers
Speaker 1: that I saw a similar letter writing and saying we
Speaker 1: don't we don't like the vacancy. Our clients are asking
Speaker 1: us about this. Internationally, it may damage the way people
Speaker 1: perceive the U S and its ability to make decisions.
Speaker 1: But that is I mean, I think it's probably the
Speaker 1: same letter like to learn thirty seven lawyers. That's that
Speaker 1: number six in my head for some reason, but um,
Speaker 1: probably not right. But anyway, I think it's probably the
Speaker 1: same way. And you're seeing some uncertainty. Obviously when the
Speaker 1: circuits are divided. That's when things come to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: And then if you do a four four and either
Speaker 1: just stalemated four four or or in in this last
Speaker 1: case on the the birth control in a c A piece,
Speaker 1: actually go back and ask the circuits questions to resolve.
Speaker 1: It's very hinky, I think, and it's and I think
Speaker 1: it creates a lot of uncertainty, and it does create
Speaker 1: a certain issue with the international business in terms of
Speaker 1: is the US reliable? You mentioned Citizens United, and you've
Speaker 1: also talked about judicial restraint overturning precedents. Would you like
Speaker 1: to see that decision overturned? And is it important to
Speaker 1: you that Yeah, I think I think, uh, most of
Speaker 1: the activism to overturn it at this point, I don't
Speaker 1: think so, because I think it was a very improper,
Speaker 1: uh use of judicial activism then and Also, you'll remember
Speaker 1: that Kennedy in his in his majority opinion, said that
Speaker 1: this is great because now we'll have this disclosure happening
Speaker 1: because of the Internet. We'll have this disclose, immediate disclosure
Speaker 1: of who's giving money to what. Well, of course we
Speaker 1: don't have disclosure, so the way he envisioned it was
Speaker 1: with disclosure, and there's no disclosure. We had a vote
Speaker 1: several years ago where we this is when we had
Speaker 1: fifty nine Democrats and um forty one Republicans and it
Speaker 1: was skins and shirts on this folte. We we had
Speaker 1: to disclose that where you could disclose where you would
Speaker 1: have to disclose people gave money to these packs would
Speaker 1: have the disclose, and and every Republican vote to vote
Speaker 1: against it. I want to take a quick break, and
Speaker 1: when we come back, we'll go into some more questions
Speaker 1: about the court. I'm particularly interested to know whether there
Speaker 1: is any good that can come out of just having
Speaker 1: eight justices on the court after we come back from
Speaker 1: this break. All right, so we are back, and I
Speaker 1: want to pick up right where we left off the
Speaker 1: good that can come out of having just eight justices.
Speaker 1: It's a contrarian opinion, Greg, what's the good. What can
Speaker 1: come out of this it's good? Well, they're not doing
Speaker 1: a whole lot of bad things, are they. The absence
Speaker 1: of bad is by definition good. I think the the
Speaker 1: argument is that, um, they are having to compromise more
Speaker 1: by the nature of of a justice is the fear
Speaker 1: of a four four split. They are deciding things narrowly.
Speaker 1: You know, one of the Garland said about how he
Speaker 1: gets consensus is decided narrowly. Yeah, yeah, I mean in
Speaker 1: one example this is this is not the siding narrowly,
Speaker 1: but rather not deciding at all. There was there was
Speaker 1: a case one of the four four is I suspect
Speaker 1: you're happy about. That is a case involving public sector
Speaker 1: unions and whether workers have a constitutional right to say
Speaker 1: we're not going to pay fees to help support the
Speaker 1: collective bargaining. And I think all all of us who
Speaker 1: covered the court a lot of other people thought the
Speaker 1: court was gonna say five to four there is a
Speaker 1: constitutional right there, and it would have been a ruling
Speaker 1: that would have really changed the change the rules for
Speaker 1: public sector unions. Instead, the court uh divides four to
Speaker 1: four and they leave the law in place where workers
Speaker 1: in In about twenty some odd states, uh can be
Speaker 1: required to pay those fees. So there was a case
Speaker 1: labor union fees, yes, um, and this is just public
Speaker 1: sector workers that we're talking about. But there was a
Speaker 1: case where, um, by only having eight justices, they didn't
Speaker 1: do something that would have been a really a you know,
Speaker 1: a major, a major shift in this country. It would
Speaker 1: have been it would have been again another five for
Speaker 1: big decision, overturning precedent. It would have been another activist decision. Uh.
Speaker 1: So I think that, Uh, yeah, I think there was
Speaker 1: As you know, basically, these unions do the bargaining even
Speaker 1: if you don't belong to the union, and UM, we're
Speaker 1: you know, collecting fees from uh the employees that they
Speaker 1: were bargaining on behalf of. And the uh you know, court,
Speaker 1: if if Scalley had been there, probably would have ruled
Speaker 1: that they can't do that, that the union can't collect
Speaker 1: fees for bargaining on behalf of these people even though
Speaker 1: they are the beneficiary of the bargaining. I could probably
Speaker 1: take off a whole long list of decisions that I
Speaker 1: think you probably disagree with over the past ten years
Speaker 1: or so that were decided five to four, and I
Speaker 1: suspect you would have been happier to have those be
Speaker 1: four to four. The Voting Rights Act as one example.
Speaker 1: I mean, most of the big decisions of the Roberts Court,
Speaker 1: when we think about the conservative decisions that they have issued,
Speaker 1: there are by and larger, perhaps even entirely five to
Speaker 1: four rulings. Yeah. And I think that was one of
Speaker 1: my my problems with it, which is when you do
Speaker 1: overturn precedent, I think you've got to be very careful,
Speaker 1: and to do it on five four basis something as
Speaker 1: big as cusins united something is some of the decisions
Speaker 1: on the Voting Rights Act we mentioned, but also on
Speaker 1: our arbitration on class actions and arbitration overriding the States.
Speaker 1: On that, I think we're very again activist pro business decisions.
Speaker 1: And Greg, you were telling me when we were sort
Speaker 1: of preparing for the show that the broader history of
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, would you say that it leans more
Speaker 1: towards I guess pro business over the grand scheme of
Speaker 1: things or yeah. I think if you just look at
Speaker 1: using as as a kind of a convenient metric, the
Speaker 1: cases where the Chamber of Commerce has filed a brief
Speaker 1: as sort of a proxy for our case. You know,
Speaker 1: a business case where businesses on one side. This is
Speaker 1: the US Chamber of Right. Business has won over the past,
Speaker 1: you know, the time I've been covering the court, the
Speaker 1: past fifty and twenty years, they have certainly one uh
Speaker 1: more cases than they have lost. Maybe you know, close
Speaker 1: to two thirds of them I think is roughly probably
Speaker 1: probably the number, So that is fair. But not all
Speaker 1: of those have been five to four um those are
Speaker 1: it can be seven to two decisions. And there's actually
Speaker 1: one category of decisions that I find fascinating because Justice
Speaker 1: Slee is on the side you wouldn't expect them to
Speaker 1: be on, which is uh. About ten years ago, limiting
Speaker 1: punitive damages was a very big constitutional issue, and the
Speaker 1: Court was willing to put some limits on it. But
Speaker 1: the justices who said, no, the Constitution doesn't provide any
Speaker 1: limits were actually the justices we think about as being
Speaker 1: on either end of the spectrum. So you had Justice
Speaker 1: Ginsberg who said no, constitution doesn't put any limits. But
Speaker 1: also Justice is Thomas and Scalia, And so there's a
Speaker 1: case where at least in that particular issue, the next
Speaker 1: justice may actually make the Court a little more favorable
Speaker 1: to business. If he or she believes that the Constitution
Speaker 1: does provide some limits on punitive damages. How does all
Speaker 1: this play out? We know Trump came out with his
Speaker 1: list of nominees and on it it was pretty I
Speaker 1: read your story. You said it was sort of pretty
Speaker 1: by the book in terms of not stepping too far
Speaker 1: out of the conservative box. Off five of them were
Speaker 1: those also suggested I guess by the Heritage Foundation. Um,
Speaker 1: oh boy, So, I mean, what if we get a
Speaker 1: president Trump? What what happens? Greg? I'm gonna have Greg
Speaker 1: play a little bit of a Devil's advocate with you
Speaker 1: on this one. Well, you know, if you look at
Speaker 1: this list, you know, as I said, it is somebody
Speaker 1: who would be you would expect from a Republican president. Now,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has also said, oh, it's just a guide,
Speaker 1: and then that night he put out a tweet saying
Speaker 1: my list was very well received and I may actually
Speaker 1: put more people on the list. So, um, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure exactly point one at a time. I
Speaker 1: haven't had a chance to. Okay, I think that's a
Speaker 1: good first question if you get an interview. So I
Speaker 1: think I think there are a lot of conservatives who
Speaker 1: care very much about the Supreme Court who are not
Speaker 1: fully confident. But that said, I think it is certainly
Speaker 1: fair to assume that um or or or likely that
Speaker 1: he is not going to shift the court significantly from
Speaker 1: where it was with Justice scale on it that whoever
Speaker 1: he nominates will on uh, certainly be to the right
Speaker 1: of who we would expect Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: to nominate, and highly likely to be to the right
Speaker 1: of of Merrick Garland as well. Yeah, I mean you're
Speaker 1: you're assuming, of course, that my Republican colleagues don't well,
Speaker 1: if say Hillary wins, that they won't go with Garland.
Speaker 1: But then then the Hillary wins, Trump wouldn't win. So
Speaker 1: never mind, I should say that Judge Garland, you know,
Speaker 1: but I will I will say this about that list.
Speaker 1: He was just trying to unite the party, like putting
Speaker 1: out a list that you know, conservatives will go like,
Speaker 1: oh okay, those are I like those guys. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't think that you know, that was a pretty
Speaker 1: uh you know, that's telling put a list together for
Speaker 1: me that will accomplish that. Red State put out an
Speaker 1: argument a few weeks ago that's sort of along the
Speaker 1: lines of I think what you seem to be hearing
Speaker 1: from some Republicans, which is Republicans should just go ahead
Speaker 1: and phil the vacan see because it's more likely that
Speaker 1: Hillary will win than Trump, and she may nominate someone
Speaker 1: who's much more liberal than to go ahead and confirmers
Speaker 1: excuse me, yes, you could go ahead and suld go ahead,
Speaker 1: confirm any thoughts on this from from either of you.
Speaker 1: Do you think that's something that they're mulling right now, Senator, Well,
Speaker 1: you know, I think what they're mulling literally is election.
Speaker 1: Hillary wins. Hearings Garland literally, I mean, as bad as
Speaker 1: that looks in a way, the election is over. I
Speaker 1: think that there is a real respect for Garland and
Speaker 1: almost an affection for him. You know, one of the
Speaker 1: first Republican senators who agreed to meet with Garland it
Speaker 1: was Jim Inhoff. And that's because of that Garland was
Speaker 1: the prosecutor in the Oklahoma City case, and that he
Speaker 1: has stayed in touch with the families of those were
Speaker 1: killed at Oklahoma City and he's kind of revered there
Speaker 1: and so, um, this guy is kind of an extraordinary guy.
Speaker 1: So I think that that play, you know, may very
Speaker 1: well make sense that they could go, Okay, we lost
Speaker 1: the election. Hillary will probably appoint someone more to the left. Also,
Speaker 1: we hopefully got our butts handed to us the other day,
Speaker 1: and there's gonna be a lot more and maybe the
Speaker 1: Democrats take over the Senate. Yeah that's what. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: what I was saying. Hopefully, you know, That's why I
Speaker 1: said hopefully, and I hope that happens. Uh So they
Speaker 1: may actually bring up Garland and then we'd have to
Speaker 1: do a gut check and see, uh you know, and
Speaker 1: I actually think Obama would be okay with that. I
Speaker 1: don't know where Hillary would be on that. How do
Speaker 1: we get out of this, this this box that we're
Speaker 1: in with these nominations they have, and we can of
Speaker 1: go back and point fingers as to who who's at fault.
Speaker 1: But we're in a in a world where Supreme Court
Speaker 1: nominations have become so partisan and increasingly it seems like
Speaker 1: they are looked upon as a zero sum game. And
Speaker 1: the way you describe your your view of how the
Speaker 1: Republicans are acting, it sounds like you think they are
Speaker 1: perceiving this in that same way where where if if
Speaker 1: they get to the point where they say, oh, you know,
Speaker 1: Merrick Garland is you know, the best we can do
Speaker 1: at this point, then we'll go ahead and confirm him.
Speaker 1: But how do memory because I think what this does
Speaker 1: is undermine their respect for the court because it's approval
Speaker 1: ratings to the extent they matter. Have have you know,
Speaker 1: plummeted plummeted along with with you know, those of Congress
Speaker 1: and other institutions. Yeah, Well, I think there's been sort
Speaker 1: of an assault on legitimacy of government for a long
Speaker 1: long time. We saw that, you know, with ging Rich,
Speaker 1: and we've seen that with the Tea Party. And I
Speaker 1: think that the Republican Party has sort of created Trump
Speaker 1: in a way. Um made a bargain and I think
Speaker 1: that's this is what you get. And I think it
Speaker 1: has been partly an assault at the legitimacy of the government,
Speaker 1: you know, including threatening to default on our debt. Trump's
Speaker 1: Trump's saying that he says a couple of things. One,
Speaker 1: you can bargain with our creditors, and that us presentably
Speaker 1: as people who who hold bonds. So I don't know
Speaker 1: how they would would bargain with me. I don't know
Speaker 1: where I'd be in on that. And which is a
Speaker 1: that's not good for business. I can tell you that
Speaker 1: I don't. I'm on Bloomberg. I think Bloomberg would agree
Speaker 1: that's not good. And then there was the other thing.
Speaker 1: I said, we can't the fall because we print money,
Speaker 1: which is kind of crazy. So this is who who
Speaker 1: the Republican nominee is. And I think that this has
Speaker 1: been a process of uh playing foot see with people
Speaker 1: who don't believe that the government has a legitimate role
Speaker 1: to play. Well, I we're going to wrap up, but
Speaker 1: I would probably lose my journalist card if I didn't
Speaker 1: ask this question. Are you being considered by Hillary Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton's campaign for vice president? Is that something you'd be
Speaker 1: interested in? I really enjoy my job with representing the
Speaker 1: people of Minnesota, and I am gonna work very hard
Speaker 1: for Hillary, going around country for her. I, um, I don't.
Speaker 1: I think that's just conjecture and I I don't think
Speaker 1: that's going to happen. I guess we'll see, all right,
Speaker 1: anything as possible. I'll make you bet how much well
Speaker 1: you mean one of the odds, because I'll bet you
Speaker 1: a thousand bucks. I mean, I mean, you're on one
Speaker 1: side of this bargain. Is it doesn't seem very fair
Speaker 1: for me. Yeah, it's very unfair, isn't it. Thank you, Tori,
Speaker 1: thank you, thank you Greg. That's it for today's show.
Speaker 1: Benchmark will be back next week, and until then, you
Speaker 1: can find us on the Bloomberg Terminal and Bloomberg dot com,
Speaker 1: as well as on iTunes, pocket casts, and Stitcher. While
Speaker 1: you're there, take a minute to rate and review the
Speaker 1: show so more listeners can find us and recommend us
Speaker 1: to a friend. If you like us, also let us
Speaker 1: know what you thought of the show via Twitter. I'm
Speaker 1: at Tori stillwell, and our guests are also on Twitter
Speaker 1: at at sin Franken and at Greg's store. Also, if
Speaker 1: you'd like to email our producer, he is at a
Speaker 1: McCabe mc c a b e at Bloomberg dot net.
Speaker 1: And if you enjoyed our show, you may also want
Speaker 1: to check out Odd Lots, a podcast about the twists
Speaker 1: and turns of financial markets, posted by my colleagues Joe
Speaker 1: Wisenthal and Tracy Alloway. See you next week.