Latest / Bloomberg Law / Menendez Case Shows Peril of Talks with DOJ & SCOTUS Reforms

Transcript

Menendez Case Shows Peril of Talks with DOJ & SCOTUS Reforms · Bloomberg Law

• 0:03
  Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: Senator Bob Menendez says he'll appeal his conviction on sixteen
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: counts of bribery, extortion, fraud, obstruction of justice, and acting
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: as a foreign agent of Egypt. The two month corruption
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: trial focused on thirteen goal bars, nearly five hundred thousand
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: dollars in cash, and a Mercedes Benz seized at his home.
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: What didn't get as much attention was the unusual and
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: aggressive move by federal prosecutors to charge Menendez with obstruction,
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: based on a presentation made by his former lawyer to
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: prosecutors before his indictment. Joining me is former federal prosecutor
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: Ariel Newman, a partner at Bird Marilla. How common is
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: it for defense attorneys to be meeting with prosecutors to
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: try to talk them out of bringing charges.
• 0:56
  Speaker 2: So in this case, we're talking about pre indictment, meaning
• 1:00
  Speaker 2: for the defendant is charged, and these meetings are very
• 1:03
  Speaker 2: very common, especially in the light collar context where we're
• 1:06
  Speaker 2: talking about fraud crimes of some sort. The meetings take
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: essentially two forms. One is what we call a pre
• 1:13
  Speaker 2: indictment pitch meeting, where we are going in and making
• 1:17
  Speaker 2: the case to the prosecutors about why they shouldn't pursue
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: a case against our client. And it may be legal arguments,
• 1:24
  Speaker 2: it may be factual arguments, but we are trying to
• 1:27
  Speaker 2: convince them that they don't have a case, or for
• 1:29
  Speaker 2: whatever reason, they shouldn't pursue a case that they think
• 1:32
  Speaker 2: they have. The other kind of pre indictment meeting is
• 1:36
  Speaker 2: what we call an attorney proffer. This is where essentially
• 1:39
  Speaker 2: you've made the decision or your client has made the
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: decision that they're going to cooperate with the government's investigation,
• 1:45
  Speaker 2: potentially provide testimony against other people, And so before you
• 1:50
  Speaker 2: have them sit down with the government, you want to
• 1:52
  Speaker 2: preview what they're going to say, and there's a discussion
• 1:55
  Speaker 2: if the government thinks there's any problems with it, if
• 1:57
  Speaker 2: they think that certain things may not be truthful. You
• 2:00
  Speaker 2: can have that discussion before you sit your client down
• 2:03
  Speaker 2: and suddenly everybody is yelling that they're lying and not
• 2:06
  Speaker 2: being forthcoming.
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: Are these meetings usually considered confidential? Can the prosecutors use
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: the information that's given to them at trial.
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: Let's focus on the pre indictment pitch meetings. The efforts
• 2:18
  Speaker 2: to convince the prosecutors that they shouldn't pursue the case,
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: because that's what the Menendez case was. Usually there is
• 2:25
  Speaker 2: an agreement or there's a request for an agreement by
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: the defense lawyer that these are protected as settlement conversations.
• 2:31
  Speaker 2: There's a sederal rule four row eight rule of evidence
• 2:34
  Speaker 2: that says settlement communications can't be admitted for almost and
• 2:39
  Speaker 2: that's an important almost almost any purpose at trial. And
• 2:43
  Speaker 2: so generally the expectation is that these are going to
• 2:47
  Speaker 2: be largely confidential, and then the caveat to that is
• 2:50
  Speaker 2: sometimes there is an agent, that's the an FBI agent
• 2:53
  Speaker 2: who is taking notes during the meeting. If that's happening,
• 2:57
  Speaker 2: you tend to know that it may not be as
• 2:58
  Speaker 2: confidential as you hope. Also, I mean, I've had it
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: where you know, it was a surprise to me, but
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: now I've become cognizant of the risk. They write a
• 3:07
  Speaker 2: report and then they produce it in discovery. If the
• 3:09
  Speaker 2: government goes ahead and charges your clients anyway, now it's
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: a multi defend in case. Right, there's other people who
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: are charged in the case along with your client, and
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: suddenly they are seeing a report about what you said
• 3:21
  Speaker 2: during that meeting where you were trying to convince the
• 3:23
  Speaker 2: government not to charge your client. In the case I'm
• 3:26
  Speaker 2: thinking of, it was everybody else's fault, not our guy's fault.
• 3:29
  Speaker 2: It certainly wasn't helpful to relationships among people as we
• 3:32
  Speaker 2: went forward with the case.
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: I mean, was that in a case where you thought
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: what you were saying was not to be used.
• 3:38
  Speaker 2: We thought it was a confidential settlement meeting. They never
• 3:42
  Speaker 2: tried to introduce it at trial. But there isn't really
• 3:45
  Speaker 2: anything prohibiting them from doing what they did unless you
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: have an agreement explicitly that they won't. And I have
• 3:52
  Speaker 2: found more and more as I've asked for those agreements,
• 3:55
  Speaker 2: that prosecutors, and especially prosecutors from what we call main
• 3:59
  Speaker 2: Justice DOJ in DC, as opposed to the local US
• 4:01
  Speaker 2: Attorney's office, are less and less willing to have any
• 4:04
  Speaker 2: sort of agreement about what they're going to do with
• 4:07
  Speaker 2: the information you provide. But what happened, you know, in
• 4:09
  Speaker 2: the Menendez case, Honestly, I've never heard of that before,
• 4:12
  Speaker 2: and everybody I've talked to has never heard of it before,
• 4:15
  Speaker 2: where the government or the prosecutors in that case charged
• 4:19
  Speaker 2: the defendant with obstruction because they claim the lawyers provided
• 4:24
  Speaker 2: false factual information during those meetings, which they say the
• 4:29
  Speaker 2: lawyers got from the defendant. You know, we are always
• 4:32
  Speaker 2: talking about facts during these meetings from making legal arguments,
• 4:35
  Speaker 2: but we're also making factual arguments. And I've never heard
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: of and like I say, nobody else I know I
• 4:40
  Speaker 2: has ever heard of the government charging obstruction based on
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: what you say during those meetings.
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: So in this case, Abby Lowell, a very well known,
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: highly respected attorney, white collar attorney, was the lawyer for
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: Senator Menendez, and he actually made a PowerPoint presentation entitled
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: the under Robert Menendez Presentation to US Attorney's Office, Southern
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: District of New York, September eleventh, twenty twenty three. Is
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: that unusual to have a PowerPoint presentation?
• 5:11
  Speaker 2: Not at all? Very common helps outline the discussion, helps
• 5:15
  Speaker 2: frame what you're going to be talking about, and the
• 5:17
  Speaker 2: hammer home the point that you want the government to
• 5:20
  Speaker 2: focus on. So very very common to have a presentation,
• 5:23
  Speaker 2: and I think important in any of these presentations that
• 5:27
  Speaker 2: that's all it is, is maybe an outline or maybe
• 5:30
  Speaker 2: just a couple bullet points on a screen, maybe a
• 5:33
  Speaker 2: couple pictures or citations to cases. None of us are
• 5:36
  Speaker 2: putting the entire context of what we're going to say
• 5:40
  Speaker 2: up on the screen. In fact, my practice is edit
• 5:42
  Speaker 2: it down to the fewest words possible so that the
• 5:44
  Speaker 2: PowerPoint isn't distracting and everybody's not reading it. And so
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: what you generally have and I can't say I have
• 5:50
  Speaker 2: any insight into what mister Lowell did, particularly beyond what's
• 5:54
  Speaker 2: been publicly reported, But what I would assume was that
• 5:58
  Speaker 2: he and his team had an outline where that had
• 6:01
  Speaker 2: the real content and the real details of what they
• 6:04
  Speaker 2: were going to say, and then they had a PowerPoint,
• 6:07
  Speaker 2: like I say, to help frame the discussion and maybe
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: hammer home key points along the way.
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: The judge allowed the government to introduce a trial pages
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: from that PowerPoint presentation. I mean, what about attorney client privilege,
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: what about attorney work product? Where were those concepts in this?
• 6:26
  Speaker 2: So attorney client privilege, once you share with the government,
• 6:30
  Speaker 2: let's say what your client said, then it's free game. Right,
• 6:35
  Speaker 2: you've sort of waived at least as to those statements.
• 6:37
  Speaker 2: Arguably the privilege depends how you say it, right. My
• 6:41
  Speaker 2: client told me X that's pretty much a waiver, But
• 6:45
  Speaker 2: the attorney work product is a different question. And again
• 6:48
  Speaker 2: I don't want to criticize people without knowing what was
• 6:52
  Speaker 2: going on in the back rooms and the back decisions.
• 6:54
  Speaker 2: But generally my view is that we shouldn't be giving
• 6:58
  Speaker 2: the government our work product defense laws. We shouldn't be
• 7:00
  Speaker 2: giving them our powerpoints because they can, as it appears
• 7:03
  Speaker 2: they did here, take it out of context. Right they
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: hear that. I think they put in four pages from
• 7:08
  Speaker 2: what was obviously a longer PowerPoint into evidence, and the defense,
• 7:13
  Speaker 2: if I understand it, was really stymied in their effort
• 7:16
  Speaker 2: to get in any of the context around them. And
• 7:18
  Speaker 2: it's that context where the caveats are given, where the
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: lawyers are making sure that it's understood that this may
• 7:25
  Speaker 2: not be exactly what the client said. Maybe this is
• 7:27
  Speaker 2: what our investigation has shown or something else. But without
• 7:31
  Speaker 2: that context, it becomes very difficult to get the full
• 7:34
  Speaker 2: picture of what was actually said during that meeting.
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: At the Menendez trial, did they try to get Abby
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: Lowell on the stand.
• 7:41
  Speaker 2: So there was discussion. I know that. I think actually
• 7:44
  Speaker 2: at some point the defense wanted to call to him
• 7:46
  Speaker 2: if the government was going to be allowed to put
• 7:48
  Speaker 2: in certain other documents, and as I understand, none of
• 7:52
  Speaker 2: that happened. But as I understand it, what happened at
• 7:54
  Speaker 2: the trial was the government put on a paralegal who
• 7:58
  Speaker 2: had been present to talk about and essentially authenticate these
• 8:02
  Speaker 2: power points, and the defense really struggled because of objections
• 8:07
  Speaker 2: to even get out the idea that more than what
• 8:10
  Speaker 2: was on the page was said during the meeting. Eventually
• 8:13
  Speaker 2: that did come out, but both sides, as each was
• 8:16
  Speaker 2: examining this witness to everybody was objecting like crazy. And
• 8:20
  Speaker 2: my sense at least is I wasn't in the courtroom,
• 8:22
  Speaker 2: but my sense from what I've read is that the
• 8:26
  Speaker 2: PowerPoint went in and probably not a lot more about
• 8:29
  Speaker 2: what happened during that meeting was presented to the jury.
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: In light of this, you have written for Bloomberg Law
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: some advice for defense lawyers in these situations. First, whether
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: to even have the meeting? I mean, how often are
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: defense lawyers successful in getting prosecutors not to charge their client?
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: Is it worth even having one of these meetings.
• 8:51
  Speaker 2: I've done it, and I know people who have had success.
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: I mean, it depends where the government is in the process,
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: and how could your facts and your arts are. It
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: is certainly in many cases worth making the presentations. First
• 9:05
  Speaker 2: of all, often in advance of that, you have discussions
• 9:08
  Speaker 2: with the government where you can learn more about their case,
• 9:11
  Speaker 2: and it gives you a chance to find out sometimes
• 9:14
  Speaker 2: where the holes are in your arguments as well. Right
• 9:17
  Speaker 2: if I come in and I make some argument, the
• 9:19
  Speaker 2: government says, oh, that's all well and good, but what
• 9:21
  Speaker 2: about XYZ And for whatever reason I didn't know about
• 9:25
  Speaker 2: X y Z. Well, now we're more informed going into
• 9:27
  Speaker 2: the next decisions about what we're going to do. The
• 9:30
  Speaker 2: big downside to making these presentations, traditionally, the big downside
• 9:34
  Speaker 2: is that you're showing your cards to some extent, You're
• 9:37
  Speaker 2: going in and you're making your pitch to the government.
• 9:41
  Speaker 2: You're arguing your facts, you're arguing your evidence, and you know,
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: the sort of conventional wisdom is that that allows the
• 9:47
  Speaker 2: government to shore up their case as well. Right, they
• 9:50
  Speaker 2: find out where their potential holes are and where the
• 9:53
  Speaker 2: weaknesses in their case are. And so it's certainly a
• 9:55
  Speaker 2: balancing decision in every situation of whether you do this meeting,
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: But in many cases it's worthwhile, and in many cases
• 10:03
  Speaker 2: the client is really pushing because right they're facing the
• 10:07
  Speaker 2: prospect of federal felony charges and this may be the
• 10:10
  Speaker 2: best shot they have to avoid them, or at least
• 10:12
  Speaker 2: they think that. And that's one of the things I
• 10:14
  Speaker 2: talk about, is how to resist that pressure, or whether
• 10:16
  Speaker 2: to resist that pressure. It's not always so easy when
• 10:19
  Speaker 2: the guy paying the bills is telling you do something
• 10:22
  Speaker 2: to stop this. Please.
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: Are there any magic words that you should say at
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: the beginning or you should have put in writing so
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: that you avoid a menenda situation?
• 10:32
  Speaker 2: Well, there are no magic words. I think that's probably
• 10:35
  Speaker 2: the starting place, and so you just have to be
• 10:37
  Speaker 2: careful and clear as you approach this. And one of
• 10:42
  Speaker 2: the main things is I do think it's worth getting
• 10:44
  Speaker 2: an agreement that these are settlement communications and that at
• 10:48
  Speaker 2: least gives some protection to how anything that comes out
• 10:51
  Speaker 2: of the meeting might be used in the future. And
• 10:54
  Speaker 2: a big one that I think we see here is
• 10:57
  Speaker 2: where at all possible not to source the information that's
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: in your presentation to your client, meaning not to say
• 11:05
  Speaker 2: my client told me x or my client says why
• 11:08
  Speaker 2: about this situation? And I'm not sure that's what happened here.
• 11:11
  Speaker 2: But once you say that, you are then really putting
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: the client on the line and their credibility on the line.
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: And so what you want to do is talk about
• 11:21
  Speaker 2: the fact you've done an extensive investigation, You've talked to
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: the people you can talk to, and looked at the
• 11:26
  Speaker 2: documents that you have access to, and based on that,
• 11:29
  Speaker 2: this is your understanding of the fact. That way, you're
• 11:32
  Speaker 2: not sourcing it back to somebody who in this case,
• 11:34
  Speaker 2: the government said, well Mnesentez and his wife Nadine told
• 11:38
  Speaker 2: their lawyers to go in and make these statements to
• 11:40
  Speaker 2: the prosecutors in order to obstruct justice. Well, it may
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: be that, if you can caveat it correctly, it's not
• 11:46
  Speaker 2: clear where the statements came from, or that the client
• 11:50
  Speaker 2: told you to come in and say it. Obviously, you're
• 11:53
  Speaker 2: not going to say the client reviewed and approved my
• 11:54
  Speaker 2: presentation before I came in. You're not going to get
• 11:57
  Speaker 2: into those communications as well, because for the same reason,
• 12:00
  Speaker 2: don't want to put the client on the line.
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: Do you take your client's word as backed or do
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: you do investigations You need.
• 12:09
  Speaker 2: To test what the clients tell you, because people's memories
• 12:13
  Speaker 2: are different. People, whether willfully or unintentionally, may not remember
• 12:18
  Speaker 2: things perfectly. There's other witnesses out there who may or
• 12:21
  Speaker 2: may not be saying things that are consistent with what
• 12:23
  Speaker 2: your client is telling you. There may be documents that
• 12:26
  Speaker 2: your client isn't aware of, or that your client forgot about,
• 12:29
  Speaker 2: and so it really is important to educate yourself before
• 12:32
  Speaker 2: you go in. You know, whether it's if there's other
• 12:34
  Speaker 2: people involved who may also be having conversations with the government,
• 12:39
  Speaker 2: talking to their lawyers under a common interest or joint
• 12:41
  Speaker 2: defense arrangement to find out what did they say, how
• 12:45
  Speaker 2: is it received, what are the governments saying response talking
• 12:47
  Speaker 2: to them about what their clients would say if their
• 12:50
  Speaker 2: client was presented with this version of events, what are
• 12:53
  Speaker 2: they going to say about it? Because the government's eventually
• 12:56
  Speaker 2: going to learn a lot of those facts.
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: We always hear about FBI nos and things, notes being
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: there that shouldn't be there and missing things. So what
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: do you do to ensure the veracity of the FBI notes?
• 13:10
  Speaker 2: So we always bring someone with us and essentially instruct
• 13:14
  Speaker 2: them to take down almost every word that is said.
• 13:17
  Speaker 2: And this is ideally a paralegal, a non lawyer, somebody
• 13:20
  Speaker 2: who can testify. You know, my experience when I was
• 13:23
  Speaker 2: a federal prosecutor. And then now on the defense side
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: and on the receiving end of these reports is agents
• 13:29
  Speaker 2: from any agency, whether it's FBI or Secret Service or
• 13:32
  Speaker 2: whoever else it may be. They take down what they
• 13:35
  Speaker 2: think is important, and your caveats are not going to
• 13:39
  Speaker 2: be what they think are important. You're sort of hedging
• 13:42
  Speaker 2: around what you say and putting context around what you
• 13:44
  Speaker 2: say is not going to be the kind of thing
• 13:46
  Speaker 2: that goes into the notes. It's the same as when
• 13:49
  Speaker 2: they interview someone. Often I find that the nos or
• 13:54
  Speaker 2: the I don't know answers don't make it into the report,
• 13:57
  Speaker 2: whereas only the affirmative statements do, and of course are
• 14:00
  Speaker 2: the no and I don't know could be very critical,
• 14:03
  Speaker 2: but for some reason, often that's excluded once I see
• 14:06
  Speaker 2: the report of an interview where I was present. So
• 14:09
  Speaker 2: I always have somebody with me, and, like I say,
• 14:11
  Speaker 2: somebody who could, if necessarily, testify as to what our
• 14:15
  Speaker 2: recollection and our notes show from the meeting.
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: So, in talking to other defense lawyers, do you think
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: that they're more aware now or more afraid of what
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: might happen in these meetings.
• 14:27
  Speaker 2: I think this prosecution for people who are aware of
• 14:31
  Speaker 2: it sent a bit of a shockwave through the Defense Bar.
• 14:34
  Speaker 2: Like you said, I wrote this article, and I haven't
• 14:37
  Speaker 2: had a reaction like I had to this article from
• 14:39
  Speaker 2: the Defense Bar, people pointing out to me that they
• 14:42
  Speaker 2: are changing their practices, people responding that they've never heard
• 14:45
  Speaker 2: of this, and they're going to have to think about
• 14:47
  Speaker 2: it going forward. You know, we're going to have to
• 14:49
  Speaker 2: see whether this was an outlier, very aggressive prosecution, or
• 14:55
  Speaker 2: whether this is something that is going to be a tool,
• 14:57
  Speaker 2: a new tool in the government's tool belt, and we're
• 14:59
  Speaker 2: all going to have to be cognizant of it. So
• 15:02
  Speaker 2: I do think it's going to change, or at least
• 15:04
  Speaker 2: make us more cautious as we go into these meetings.
• 15:06
  Speaker 2: And I'm certainly going to I've always been aware of
• 15:10
  Speaker 2: being careful of how I frame things and how I
• 15:12
  Speaker 2: say them as I'm going through, but certainly something I'm
• 15:14
  Speaker 2: going to emphasize with my teams going forward as well.
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: Just a few questions about the appeal and the Supreme
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: Court has been narrowing the definition of corruption for more
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: than a decade, and we've seen a lot of political
• 15:27
  Speaker 1: figures get their cases reversed. I mean, is that a
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: good argument do you think for Menandez, it's one he'll
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: bring up first.
• 15:34
  Speaker 2: I'm sure it's something he'll bring up. I've had bribery cases,
• 15:37
  Speaker 2: public corruption cases, and this is sort of where the
• 15:39
  Speaker 2: rub is right now as the Supreme Course is going
• 15:43
  Speaker 2: through and as you say, narrowing the definition of what
• 15:45
  Speaker 2: we call an official act, and so I would be
• 15:48
  Speaker 2: shocked if they don't focus on that. They were focused
• 15:50
  Speaker 2: on it in the pre trial motion practice and then
• 15:53
  Speaker 2: again during the trial. And as I look at it
• 15:55
  Speaker 2: sort of from the outside, it seems to me that
• 15:58
  Speaker 2: they've got some good argument. Then they've got some that
• 16:01
  Speaker 2: may be more of a challenge. It's really about whether
• 16:04
  Speaker 2: Menendez was using his official position on any decision or
• 16:09
  Speaker 2: action on any question matter caused preceding or controversy which
• 16:13
  Speaker 2: may be pending before him in his official capacity. So,
• 16:18
  Speaker 2: for instance, he as was alleged interfered with a state
• 16:23
  Speaker 2: prosecution by calling up a state prosecutor and saying, hey,
• 16:26
  Speaker 2: maybe take another look at this. That's not really something
• 16:30
  Speaker 2: that's pending before him, and maybe a harder argument that
• 16:33
  Speaker 2: that's an official act. He doesn't really have an official
• 16:36
  Speaker 2: role there. He's sort of using his influence and position,
• 16:39
  Speaker 2: whereas maybe as he's alleged to have interfered with the
• 16:43
  Speaker 2: nomination of the US Attorney from New Jersey by essentially
• 16:49
  Speaker 2: corruptly making a recommendation to the President of who to nominate. Well,
• 16:53
  Speaker 2: that may be closer to the line, because that is
• 16:55
  Speaker 2: the traditional function of the senator from a particular state.
• 16:59
  Speaker 2: They make recommendations, especially when they're in the same party.
• 17:02
  Speaker 2: Those recommendations are often followed, and that is potentially something
• 17:06
  Speaker 2: that was pending before him in his official capacity. So
• 17:09
  Speaker 2: it seems to me that, as I say from the outside,
• 17:13
  Speaker 2: they may have some luck, but I'd be surprised if
• 17:16
  Speaker 2: they can fully get everything reversed. And that's yeah, that's
• 17:18
  Speaker 2: just one part of the case. Obviously, there's other pieces
• 17:21
  Speaker 2: that don't rely on that official Act element. Those are
• 17:24
  Speaker 2: going to be harder for them to succeed on from
• 17:26
  Speaker 2: what I can see.
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: Do you think that his being an agent of Egypt
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: that that's one that's easier for them to attack.
• 17:34
  Speaker 2: I think what you have to look at is the
• 17:36
  Speaker 2: full picture, right, because the argument, as I understand it,
• 17:39
  Speaker 2: and I would frame it, is essentially that legislators, and
• 17:43
  Speaker 2: especially a senior senator like him, who's doing the foreign
• 17:46
  Speaker 2: affairs work that he's doing, are going to have contact
• 17:49
  Speaker 2: with foreign officials and are going to take positions that
• 17:52
  Speaker 2: may be to the benefit of a particular country, in
• 17:56
  Speaker 2: this case Egypt or Kutar. And so that's just sort
• 17:58
  Speaker 2: of part and parcel of what they do. And they
• 18:02
  Speaker 2: even rate the idea of the speech and debate clause, right,
• 18:04
  Speaker 2: This is part of his official functions as a member
• 18:06
  Speaker 2: of Congress. The challenge in a case like this is, well,
• 18:11
  Speaker 2: what about the rest of the picture, right? And here
• 18:14
  Speaker 2: it's the cash and the gold bars and the deleted
• 18:16
  Speaker 2: messages and so on and so forth that I think
• 18:20
  Speaker 2: the jury obviously felt that takes it out of the
• 18:22
  Speaker 2: realm of what you're doing in your official capacity and
• 18:26
  Speaker 2: puts it more into the realm of something that is corrupt.
• 18:29
  Speaker 2: And so that's what's going to be the bigger challenge
• 18:31
  Speaker 2: I think on appeal is how do you question the
• 18:34
  Speaker 2: jury's verdict in light of the full scope of the evidence.
• 18:37
  Speaker 2: And that's always what makes these cases difficult.
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: A lot to think about. Thanks so much, Ariel. That's
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: Ariel Newman of bird Morella. The Supreme Courts Republican super
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: majority acted with impunity this past term, slashing the power
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: of regulators, making it harder to challenge racial gerrymandering, allowing
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: home less people to be punished for sleeping in public places,
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: and perhaps the most controversial, a decision giving Donald Trump
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: immunity from criminal charges for some actions taken while he
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: was president. It was the third term to finish with
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: landmark rulings that included overturning precedents in the two previous terms.
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: The Court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion, declared
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: a right to carry handguns in public, expanded religious freedoms,
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: and outlawed race conscious college admissions. Polling consistently shows that
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: Americans disapprove of the Supreme Court, with new polling from
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: Fox News finding that six out of ten Americans view
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court's job performance with disapproval. For years, Democratic
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: lawmakers have held hearings, proposed legislation, and even introduced articles
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: of impeachment that would make the Supreme Court accountable to
• 19:55
  Speaker 1: no avail. Joining me is constitutional law expert Alitunde Johnson,
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: professor at Columbia Law School. Start by giving me your
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: take on just how far to the right the Roberts
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: Court has gone and where it's headed, I.
• 20:09
  Speaker 3: Think we would say that this is a fairly far
• 20:13
  Speaker 3: right court. And when you look at some of the
• 20:15
  Speaker 3: decisions on issues like abortions, guns, race, voting, affirmative action,
• 20:23
  Speaker 3: administrative power, presidential power. So the Court has been really
• 20:28
  Speaker 3: strengthening the power of the executive branch, so you see
• 20:32
  Speaker 3: this in the presidential immunity decision, for instance, but then
• 20:35
  Speaker 3: weakening the power of agencies, which generally try to advance
• 20:40
  Speaker 3: policies that are regulatory, like environmental policies. So when you
• 20:45
  Speaker 3: look at those kinds of trends overall, i'd say this
• 20:47
  Speaker 3: is a far right court. Those terms are very imprecise,
• 20:51
  Speaker 3: of course, but it's implementing a lot of the agenda
• 20:54
  Speaker 3: the conservatives have wanted the Court to implement on some
• 20:58
  Speaker 3: very key issues. Ature of the court that's particularly striking
• 21:03
  Speaker 3: is it's been its willingness to overturn long standing precedent.
• 21:07
  Speaker 3: So just this past term we see the Supreme Court
• 21:09
  Speaker 3: overturning a precedent in a case that lawyers just call
• 21:13
  Speaker 3: Chevron is a shorthand a lot of non lawyers don't
• 21:16
  Speaker 3: know about it, but it had a principle of deference
• 21:19
  Speaker 3: to agencies that courts should defer to agencies reasonable construction
• 21:23
  Speaker 3: of statutes. And this was important because Congress often writes statutes,
• 21:28
  Speaker 3: like take an environmental law, very broadly. He doesn't often
• 21:31
  Speaker 3: update it, and so this would give power to agencies
• 21:35
  Speaker 3: to interpret the statute. And often agencies did this in
• 21:39
  Speaker 3: a way that encourage more regulation of areas like environmental law.
• 21:44
  Speaker 3: So the Supreme Court overturned that long standing precedent, which
• 21:47
  Speaker 3: really weakens the power of agencies. I think everybody knows
• 21:51
  Speaker 3: at this point about Dobbs, which overturned Grow versus Wade.
• 21:55
  Speaker 3: And then in the affirmative action area, you see the
• 21:58
  Speaker 3: Supreme Court not squarely returning but really so far weakening
• 22:02
  Speaker 3: prior precedent that allowed universities to consider race as one
• 22:06
  Speaker 3: among many factors in composing a class of qualified students.
• 22:10
  Speaker 3: And so these are big changes. You see. It's a
• 22:13
  Speaker 3: court that some people have called imperial because it is
• 22:17
  Speaker 3: willing to overturn President.
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: We heard for years and years John Roberts say that
• 22:23
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court justices are not politicians. During this term,
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: we saw in an appearance with Justice Sonya Sotomayor and
• 22:31
  Speaker 1: Amy Cony Barrett. Again, you know we're not politicians in robes.
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: But does this term show that justices are politicians who
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: generally vote along the lines of the president's party they
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: were appointed by.
• 22:45
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean I think that's generally true, or it's
• 22:49
  Speaker 3: turned out to be true with this court. I don't
• 22:51
  Speaker 3: think it's always true in the course of American history,
• 22:53
  Speaker 3: and that may be what they're referring to. I mean,
• 22:57
  Speaker 3: I'm a lawyer who teaches competition to law and other
• 23:00
  Speaker 3: topics and also argued before the court, So even I
• 23:04
  Speaker 3: hesitate to have the idea that judges are just and
• 23:08
  Speaker 3: justices are just politicians in the sense of trying to
• 23:12
  Speaker 3: enact particular partisan goals like help the Republican Party. That's
• 23:16
  Speaker 3: a really hard idea for most law trained people to
• 23:19
  Speaker 3: get their minds around, because it's a very cynical view
• 23:22
  Speaker 3: of the court if it's true. But I think there
• 23:24
  Speaker 3: has been a real questioning lately if the judges abandoned
• 23:28
  Speaker 3: some of their ideological or legal commitments in order to
• 23:32
  Speaker 3: have partisan outcomes, and they agree with I think the
• 23:35
  Speaker 3: complicating factor is that we know the judges are appointed
• 23:41
  Speaker 3: in a more either conservative or liberal bent, and they
• 23:44
  Speaker 3: have different views of these key questions even before they
• 23:48
  Speaker 3: go in. So, in other words, it's not just that
• 23:50
  Speaker 3: they're trying to achieve partisan outcomes. This is their view
• 23:53
  Speaker 3: that there's no abortion right under the Constitution. It's no
• 23:55
  Speaker 3: surprise so Trump it was a goal to appoint a
• 23:59
  Speaker 3: certa number of justices to overturn Roe versus Wads. So
• 24:02
  Speaker 3: is that partisan or political or is it just those
• 24:06
  Speaker 3: are their ideological commitments and they followed through on them.
• 24:10
  Speaker 3: I don't know if we can completely answer that debate,
• 24:13
  Speaker 3: but I think you can fairly say the Republican Party
• 24:16
  Speaker 3: and conservatism more happy with the Court than are liberals.
• 24:20
  Speaker 1: Right now, President Biden has reportedly been planning to unveil
• 24:24
  Speaker 1: proposals that could dramatically reshape the Supreme Court. And one
• 24:29
  Speaker 1: of those proposals is something that we've heard over and
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: over again through the years, term limits. The past five
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: justices to leave the Court each serve nearly three decades
• 24:40
  Speaker 1: or longer. So what's the opposition to term limits.
• 24:44
  Speaker 3: Well, it's really interesting this question about what is the
• 24:47
  Speaker 3: opposition to term limits, because historically Republicans and Democrats, liberals
• 24:53
  Speaker 3: and conservatives agreed broadly, at least in an abstract sense
• 24:57
  Speaker 3: on the notion that there should be term life for
• 25:01
  Speaker 3: the Supreme Court. It's an idea that if you are
• 25:03
  Speaker 3: operating for first principles. A lot of constitutional scholars would
• 25:08
  Speaker 3: agree that there should be term limits for the Supreme Court.
• 25:10
  Speaker 3: The United States Supreme Court is really an outlier in
• 25:14
  Speaker 3: not having either term limits. You know, a lot of
• 25:17
  Speaker 3: systems it could be seven years, twelve years, eighteen years
• 25:21
  Speaker 3: in neither having term limits or a retirement age. And
• 25:24
  Speaker 3: the effect of that is to have justices that are
• 25:27
  Speaker 3: on the court for a really long time. Yes, our
• 25:29
  Speaker 3: Constitution has a provision that is easily interpreted to require
• 25:35
  Speaker 3: term limits, although that is something debatable. But the key
• 25:38
  Speaker 3: thing is that at the time of the founding, people
• 25:41
  Speaker 3: live much shorter lives, and so partly is that, you know,
• 25:44
  Speaker 3: there is the problem of having people who are on
• 25:46
  Speaker 3: the court for a long time. But I think more
• 25:49
  Speaker 3: than that, it's the lack of predictability. There's no sort
• 25:53
  Speaker 3: of routine in every presidency getting an appointment. It's just
• 25:57
  Speaker 3: is something that can fall through chance, and then conversely,
• 26:00
  Speaker 3: it can also be gained. You know, people can stay
• 26:03
  Speaker 3: on the court and only retire when they are aligned
• 26:06
  Speaker 3: politically with the president. Or as we saw in the
• 26:11
  Speaker 3: last few months in the Obama administration, they can hold
• 26:14
  Speaker 3: up nominees and not allow a president to move forward
• 26:17
  Speaker 3: on their nominee and hold it open anticipating that a
• 26:21
  Speaker 3: Republican or in part to someone from another party can
• 26:23
  Speaker 3: get an office. And so that all allows a lot
• 26:27
  Speaker 3: of gaming of the system that makes the Court not
• 26:30
  Speaker 3: necessarily align with the politics of the nation or even
• 26:35
  Speaker 3: the politics of a particular president.
• 26:37
  Speaker 1: And what would be needed for the justices to be
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: subject to term limits? Would legislation be enough or is
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: a constitutional amendment required?
• 26:46
  Speaker 3: So this is another good question. Okay, so there is
• 26:49
  Speaker 3: a view and this is really outlined in the commission report.
• 26:53
  Speaker 3: President Biden put together this commission and it outline different
• 26:57
  Speaker 3: kinds of strategies. So one way would be to do
• 26:59
  Speaker 3: it by statute, and there are a number of constitutional
• 27:03
  Speaker 3: law scholars that say that you can enact term limits
• 27:06
  Speaker 3: by statutes. The current prevailing proposal that has gotten the
• 27:10
  Speaker 3: most amount of circulation is eighteen years and the question
• 27:13
  Speaker 3: of whether or not it can be done by the
• 27:16
  Speaker 3: majority or supermajority is less clear. So there are a
• 27:21
  Speaker 3: lot of people who think it could be filibustered and
• 27:23
  Speaker 3: so that you effectively need a supermajority at least in
• 27:26
  Speaker 3: the Senate to do it. There are others who believe
• 27:28
  Speaker 3: if you can get it done politically, you can do
• 27:31
  Speaker 3: it as a comptitutional matter by just a majority vote.
• 27:34
  Speaker 3: So there's that group and analysis that says you can
• 27:36
  Speaker 3: do this by statute. But there are comptutional law scholars
• 27:41
  Speaker 3: that believe that you have to amend the Constitution and
• 27:44
  Speaker 3: that it conflicts with the current provision of Article three
• 27:49
  Speaker 3: that says that justices can serve and only be removed
• 27:53
  Speaker 3: essentially for violations of good behavior. So the tricky thing
• 27:56
  Speaker 3: is that that very issue whether or not you can
• 27:59
  Speaker 3: do it by statute or by constitutional amendment, could in
• 28:02
  Speaker 3: theory be challenged and be before the same Supreme Court
• 28:06
  Speaker 3: that you are trying to restrain right now through term limits. Certainly,
• 28:09
  Speaker 3: the president has no authority to create term limits. It
• 28:13
  Speaker 3: has to be done by Congress or by constitutional amendment.
• 28:17
  Speaker 1: And what's your opinion on what would be needed.
• 28:20
  Speaker 3: I think it can be done by statute, but I
• 28:23
  Speaker 3: don't purport to be an expert on that. There's some
• 28:25
  Speaker 3: people who are more expert. I was persuaded by the
• 28:28
  Speaker 3: analysis and the commission report that said that you could
• 28:31
  Speaker 3: do this by statute.
• 28:32
  Speaker 1: Okay, another proposal, and this really seems like a no
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: brainer to me an enforceable ethics code for Supreme Court
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: justices in light of all the alleged ethical violations by
• 28:47
  Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas, some by Alito.
• 28:50
  Speaker 3: Yeah, so I think the last year has really demonstrated
• 28:54
  Speaker 3: a need for a firmer ethics code. So there is
• 28:58
  Speaker 3: the issue of things that create an appearance of impropriety
• 29:02
  Speaker 3: or actual impropriety. So giving gifts, you know, monetary gifts
• 29:07
  Speaker 3: to justices, I mean, this has happened with regard to Thomas,
• 29:11
  Speaker 3: and some of that was not disclosed. Then there are
• 29:14
  Speaker 3: also issues of appearance of impropriety because of behavior. This
• 29:17
  Speaker 3: could be speeches, This could be you or perhaps your
• 29:21
  Speaker 3: wife flying an upside down flag before you have to
• 29:24
  Speaker 3: rule on a presidential immunity decision. So these things absolutely
• 29:30
  Speaker 3: have created for far too large a segment of the
• 29:33
  Speaker 3: population the feeling that you alluded to in some of
• 29:38
  Speaker 3: your questions, which is that people are questioning the legitimacy
• 29:42
  Speaker 3: of the Supreme Court. They see us a partisan institution,
• 29:45
  Speaker 3: and I think even more dangerously might see it us corrupt.
• 29:48
  Speaker 3: You get to things like gifts, and so the arguments
• 29:52
  Speaker 3: are for strengthening the ethics code. I mean, the Supreme
• 29:55
  Speaker 3: Court had a really very weak ethics code and then
• 29:59
  Speaker 3: somewhat strength then did but still it didn't in key ways.
• 30:02
  Speaker 3: And so you know, the proposals that are currently underway
• 30:07
  Speaker 3: would have a congressional statute with it with strengthen the
• 30:10
  Speaker 3: recusal rules, and that means a justice has to step
• 30:14
  Speaker 3: away from a decision if there is impropriety or an
• 30:17
  Speaker 3: appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest and has to
• 30:21
  Speaker 3: explain why they're doing so or why they're not doing so.
• 30:25
  Speaker 3: So just stronger recusal rules. The other parts of the
• 30:28
  Speaker 3: proposals are for stronger financial disclosure. Right now, the financial
• 30:33
  Speaker 3: disclosure rules are considered by some quite weak, and the
• 30:36
  Speaker 3: point is to make them what the House or the
• 30:39
  Speaker 3: Senate has to do. They have really detailed and clear
• 30:43
  Speaker 3: financial disclosure rules and gifts and things like that. So
• 30:47
  Speaker 3: that's the pro is that that would make all of
• 30:50
  Speaker 3: us trust the Court more if we understood how it
• 30:55
  Speaker 3: was ruling on these questions of conflict and appearance of propriety.
• 31:01
  Speaker 3: And also that these rules would be enforceable, right because
• 31:05
  Speaker 3: right now it's the Supreme Court itself that decides, oh,
• 31:08
  Speaker 3: I just don't want to accuse myself in a particular case,
• 31:11
  Speaker 3: and it doesn't explain it, and so you would think
• 31:13
  Speaker 3: this would be low lying fruit. You know. The questions
• 31:17
  Speaker 3: that I think are coming up about them, I mean,
• 31:18
  Speaker 3: one is political. I think that in the abstract conservatives
• 31:22
  Speaker 3: and Republicans would agree to these rules, but because they're
• 31:26
  Speaker 3: right now caught up in sort of larger criticism by
• 31:30
  Speaker 3: progressives or Democrats about the Court, there are many Republicans
• 31:35
  Speaker 3: who are not willing to sign on, where maybe if
• 31:37
  Speaker 3: the Court were differently arranged politically, they would have been
• 31:40
  Speaker 3: willing to sign on. So I think that's one thing.
• 31:43
  Speaker 3: There are some constitutional questions that have been raised by this,
• 31:46
  Speaker 3: although I think they're even weaker than the term limits questions,
• 31:50
  Speaker 3: which is the notion that Congress cannot create any of
• 31:53
  Speaker 3: these rules. In fact, Justice Alito has said this that
• 31:56
  Speaker 3: Congress doesn't have the power to regulate the Court in
• 31:58
  Speaker 3: this area, and this would be a violation of separation
• 32:02
  Speaker 3: of powers. That argument is out there. I think it's
• 32:05
  Speaker 3: a pretty weak argument. Congress already does have some regulation
• 32:08
  Speaker 3: of the Supreme Court, and what it would envision for
• 32:12
  Speaker 3: our system I think is very dangerous. A court that
• 32:15
  Speaker 3: the most democratically accountable branch, which is Congress, could not
• 32:19
  Speaker 3: regulate at all, I think is a very dangerous idea
• 32:22
  Speaker 3: of the power of the court. So I've thought that
• 32:25
  Speaker 3: this politically was the one that was more likely to
• 32:28
  Speaker 3: move forward, regardless of Biden's endorsement. But even it has
• 32:32
  Speaker 3: not moved forward so far in the last two or
• 32:35
  Speaker 3: three years of being proposed.
• 32:36
  Speaker 1: Coming up next other proposals to reform the Supreme Court.
• 32:40
  Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg. Every recent poll shows that most
• 32:44
  Speaker 1: Americans are not happy with the Supreme Court. But what
• 32:48
  Speaker 1: can be done? I've been discussing some of the proposals
• 32:51
  Speaker 1: with Professor Alatunde Johnson of Columbia Law School. So, I mean,
• 32:55
  Speaker 1: democratic lawmakers have held hearings and proposed legislation to the
• 33:00
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court accountable. But I can imagine that the average
• 33:03
  Speaker 1: person who hears about Supreme Court reform all the time
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: and sees nothing being done, it seems like nothing will
• 33:10
  Speaker 1: ever happen to make the justices more accountable and to
• 33:14
  Speaker 1: make the Supreme Court more transparent.
• 33:17
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I think a challenge in this area
• 33:21
  Speaker 3: is getting the average person to prioritize it as an
• 33:25
  Speaker 3: issue enough to put pressure on their congressional members, because
• 33:30
  Speaker 3: it's something that Congress has to elevate, and I don't
• 33:33
  Speaker 3: want to say that something's never going to happen. I'm
• 33:35
  Speaker 3: not an expert on the politics of this, but what
• 33:39
  Speaker 3: I can see when I look at the overall ecosystem
• 33:43
  Speaker 3: is that we're talking about the Court more now than
• 33:46
  Speaker 3: we have in the whole time that I've been a lawyer.
• 33:49
  Speaker 3: Certainly so, I'd say in the last thirty years, I'm
• 33:52
  Speaker 3: seeing a lot more discussion of these issues by people
• 33:54
  Speaker 3: who are not experts, and there's a lot more interest
• 33:58
  Speaker 3: in what is the Court doing in terms of its rulings.
• 34:01
  Speaker 3: People have been talking about things like the Court's methodology
• 34:04
  Speaker 3: of originalism. I think a lot of people are conversant
• 34:09
  Speaker 3: in questions around term limits, so that could translate into
• 34:13
  Speaker 3: ordinary citizens making these questions of ethical reform and court reform,
• 34:19
  Speaker 3: and the higher on their own political agenda. The balance
• 34:22
  Speaker 3: is just that there is a partisan balance to the
• 34:25
  Speaker 3: urgency of it. Democrats care more about court reform right
• 34:29
  Speaker 3: now because they're more discontent with the Court than Republicans,
• 34:32
  Speaker 3: and that can catch this issue in the same kind
• 34:35
  Speaker 3: of patterns of polarization that affect other areas of American politics.
• 34:40
  Speaker 1: So I haven't heard for a while, you know, suggestions
• 34:44
  Speaker 1: of expanding the court or so called packing the court.
• 34:48
  Speaker 1: Has that just gone out of favor even to try that.
• 34:51
  Speaker 3: My sense of that issue is that there's not enough
• 34:55
  Speaker 3: political support for expansion, and mainly that there's not support
• 34:59
  Speaker 3: am the president. So the issue of expanding the court,
• 35:06
  Speaker 3: this is something that Congress could do. I mean, it's
• 35:09
  Speaker 3: already happened in American history, does not require a constitutional
• 35:13
  Speaker 3: amendment at all. I don't think there is a real
• 35:16
  Speaker 3: view that it requires constitutional amendment. But between Congress not
• 35:20
  Speaker 3: having enough support because it's locked up in a partisan gridlock,
• 35:25
  Speaker 3: and the president, President Biden himself not supporting it, I'm
• 35:30
  Speaker 3: not sure if it's going to go forward.
• 35:33
  Speaker 1: President Biden has always been reluctant to make any changes
• 35:37
  Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court, and the theory is that these
• 35:40
  Speaker 1: proposals were made in order to help him with progressives.
• 35:45
  Speaker 1: Now that he's dropping out of the race, it seems
• 35:48
  Speaker 1: likely that these proposals will also go by the wayside.
• 35:51
  Speaker 2: Again.
• 35:52
  Speaker 3: Yes, it certainly could fall by the wayside. Again, I
• 35:55
  Speaker 3: don't know for athand about the politics. You're comfortably or
• 36:00
  Speaker 3: city and while I used to work in the Senate,
• 36:02
  Speaker 3: that was a long time ago. But my sense of
• 36:05
  Speaker 3: the politics is that, yeah, he did this in part
• 36:08
  Speaker 3: to shore up some support among progressives. I think the
• 36:12
  Speaker 3: issues of term limits and ethical reforms, though, are something
• 36:16
  Speaker 3: that could have broad based support. It doesn't have to
• 36:19
  Speaker 3: just be a progressive issue as I As I mentioned before,
• 36:22
  Speaker 3: but it might not if nobody feels that they need
• 36:27
  Speaker 3: to prioritize this issue for political gain, meaning whoever is
• 36:31
  Speaker 3: the next Democratic nominee, it might be a while before
• 36:35
  Speaker 3: anything goes forward. There's also the issue of Congress itself.
• 36:39
  Speaker 3: I would be skeptical if anything went forward before November.
• 36:43
  Speaker 3: I think this is just a time for those who
• 36:45
  Speaker 3: really are concerned about this issue to continue to educate
• 36:50
  Speaker 3: American people about it, to have discussions at every level
• 36:54
  Speaker 3: of the citizenry and of government actors and legislators about
• 36:59
  Speaker 3: the possible ability. So it's the time to continue to
• 37:02
  Speaker 3: have hearings but also just discussion so that people understand this.
• 37:07
  Speaker 3: And I like that move. I don't think that the
• 37:09
  Speaker 3: Supreme Court should just be an unaccountable institution that nobody
• 37:13
  Speaker 3: understands and thinks, just drops decisions from on high that
• 37:16
  Speaker 3: we all have to agree to. I think ultimately an
• 37:20
  Speaker 3: institution depends on all of us understanding it, believing it
• 37:24
  Speaker 3: operates in the way that it should in a modern democracy.
• 37:28
  Speaker 3: And so I'm happy that, even if these issues don't
• 37:31
  Speaker 3: go forward immediately, that people are talking about them and
• 37:34
  Speaker 3: that they're on the table.
• 37:35
  Speaker 1: People are also talking about Amy Cony Barrett and how
• 37:39
  Speaker 1: she's the Supreme Court justice to watch how she breaks
• 37:43
  Speaker 1: with the conservative majority on occasion, but whenever there's a
• 37:48
  Speaker 1: controversial issue, her vote is with the five other Conservatives.
• 37:54
  Speaker 1: So what does it matter if she has a different
• 37:55
  Speaker 1: approach to history and tradition and originalism. If her vote
• 37:59
  Speaker 1: is always with the Conservatives on the key issues, maybe.
• 38:03
  Speaker 3: Its signals for her that she is open to thinking
• 38:07
  Speaker 3: about these issues in different ways, and maybe that is
• 38:10
  Speaker 3: something that we see in the years to come. But
• 38:14
  Speaker 3: on the cases that people have been watching the most, yeah,
• 38:18
  Speaker 3: she's fairly aligned with the conservative majority. I don't see
• 38:23
  Speaker 3: that much space there. I think it's one thing if
• 38:26
  Speaker 3: people write concurrences that you see this a lot, but
• 38:28
  Speaker 3: don't really create any space in the actual vote. Then
• 38:33
  Speaker 3: that tends to be mostly of interest to law professors.
• 38:36
  Speaker 3: But sometimes those things they change down the line. That's
• 38:39
  Speaker 3: one of the things that some people see is the
• 38:41
  Speaker 3: benefit of having justices who stay on the court for
• 38:44
  Speaker 3: a little while is sometimes their views do change.
• 38:47
  Speaker 1: And people often talk about justices who've changed when they're
• 38:50
  Speaker 1: on the court, becoming more liberal in several instances. But
• 38:56
  Speaker 1: weren't those justices chosen before the very serious vetting that
• 39:01
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court justices go through now where it seems pretty
• 39:05
  Speaker 1: clear what their positions are, and where you have the
• 39:08
  Speaker 1: federalist society making these lists of candidates that they're sure of.
• 39:14
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I do think that that has played a role.
• 39:18
  Speaker 3: Is the idea that you want these judges who are
• 39:20
  Speaker 3: more ideologically committed, and there are sort of different people
• 39:26
  Speaker 3: in some ways. So I mean, I clerked for Justice
• 39:30
  Speaker 3: Stevens and he was appointed by Republican and he was
• 39:36
  Speaker 3: not vetted in that way. I mean, I think he
• 39:38
  Speaker 3: was broadly considered to be a Republican. But by the
• 39:41
  Speaker 3: time he left the judiciary and retired, I think a
• 39:48
  Speaker 3: lot of people associated him with the more liberal wing.
• 39:51
  Speaker 3: But he did change his views on a lot of issues,
• 39:54
  Speaker 3: and it's because of his temperament. He was open minded,
• 39:59
  Speaker 3: and he he was willing to listen to different arguments.
• 40:03
  Speaker 3: He was independent minded in a range of things, Like
• 40:06
  Speaker 3: his views didn't always go lockstep in a liberal or
• 40:11
  Speaker 3: conservative direction, even at the beginning or at the end right.
• 40:16
  Speaker 3: And so I think that kind of temperament, it's unclear
• 40:19
  Speaker 3: to me whether that's valued as much. I think it's
• 40:23
  Speaker 3: really important in a judge, and that's different from being
• 40:26
  Speaker 3: an advocate. As an advocate, you can be like this
• 40:29
  Speaker 3: is what I want is an outcome all the time.
• 40:30
  Speaker 3: As a judge, you have to make arguments that stand
• 40:33
  Speaker 3: up to reasonable inquiry and debate, and you don't have
• 40:39
  Speaker 3: to be absolutely consistent over time. You can change your views,
• 40:42
  Speaker 3: but you have to be to explain your decisions and
• 40:45
  Speaker 3: your outcomes. And I don't know if that's what we
• 40:47
  Speaker 3: want injustices anymore.
• 40:49
  Speaker 1: Maybe some of us want that. Thanks so much for
• 40:51
  Speaker 1: being on the show. That's Professor Allatunde Johnson of Columbia
• 40:55
  Speaker 1: Law School. In other news today, the first congressional hearing
• 40:59
  Speaker 1: into the town assassination of former President Trump. The House
• 41:03
  Speaker 1: Oversight Committee heard from Secret Service Director Kim Cheadle, who,
• 41:07
  Speaker 1: during her opening statement took full responsibility for any security lapses.
• 41:13
  Speaker 4: The assassination attempt of former President Donald Trump on July
• 41:16
  Speaker 4: thirteenth is the most significant operational failure of the Secret
• 41:21
  Speaker 4: Service in decades, and I am keeping him and his
• 41:24
  Speaker 4: family in my thoughts.
• 41:26
  Speaker 1: Cheatle vowed that an investigation will uncover the missteps, but
• 41:31
  Speaker 1: lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are calling for
• 41:34
  Speaker 1: her to resign. And that's it for this edition of
• 41:37
  Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you can always get the
• 41:40
  Speaker 1: latest legal news by subscribing and listening to the show
• 41:43
  Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast,
• 41:48
  Speaker 1: Slash Law. I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg