Transcripts For CSPAN3 Former 20240703 : vimarsana.com

Healthy democracy does not just look like this. It looks like this. Where americans can see democracy at work. When citizens are informed. Get informed straight from the source. On cspan. Unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. From the Nations Capital to wherever you were. The opinion that matters the most is your own. This is what democracy looks like. Cspan, powered by cable. Discuss the impact of recent Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action, Student Loans, election law and lgbtq writes. This will last about one hour. We are thrilled to welcome our members and supporters to federal hall downtown. This is one of the great Historic Sites of democracy. Where the first president was inaugurated and the bill of rights was passed. We would like to welcome our vips and we are expect being Advisory Board members including judy miller, pulitzer prizewinning journalists and a number of other vips. We are honored to welcome two renowned and outstanding legal experts to discuss our conservative Supreme Court. And some of the decisions. On issues that have ranged from Student Loans and Voting Rights to election law, free speech and lgbtq civil rights. We may also talk about the overturning of roe versus wade that has now resulted in 14 states having neartotal abortion bands at any point in pregnancy and some others having similar bands that have been temporarily blocked by the courts. So, what was expected with this Supreme Court turn . And how will these decisions impact our laws Going Forward . How do we assess the decisions of the current Supreme Court . Here to break it down are our legal experts. Please welcome him, we are thrilled to welcome back, professor lawrence tribe. He has garnered weds read recognition as one of the foremost legal minds of our time. He has written many amicus briefs and his guidance and insightful analysis has been sought by president s and important leaders. And always demonstrating his role as a prominent legal luminary. As a distinguished lawyer and professor, laurence h. Tribe has inspired and educated generations. We are thrilled to have you with us. Thank you. We are also pleased to have judge Michael Michael luttig. He began his service to the law by serving with the Reagan Administration before cooking with scalia and then working to confirm Supreme Court justices during his time at the justice department. Judge luttig represents courage and steadfast commitment to the principle of justice and the rule of law during one of the most critical moments of our democracy. He played a crucial part in upholding our election system when he advised former Vice President mike pence but he could not overturn the 2020 election results. Thereby averting a constitutional crisis. Luttig has weighed in on one of the cases recently heard by the Supreme Court. He worked to draw attention to the damage an improper ruling could cause. He is one of the most influential last may. And we are so grateful to have Kimberly Atkins stohr. She has been a moderator before and we are thrilled to have her. She is a trial and appellate attorney. She led the discussion last year when we discussed reactions to the Supreme Court overturning of roe v. Wade. She has appeared as a commentator on a host of national and International Television and radio networks. You may recognize her from her regular contributions to the boston globe and msnbc or perhaps is the close cohost of sistersinlaw podcast. Thank you kimberly. I turn it over to you. Thank you patricia and thank you everyone for joining us. I am going to jump right in because we only have one hour. We were discussing before this, we could discuss this all day. But i want to leave 20 of time for questions. Before i jump into a discussion of the cases that were decided in the last term, judge luttig and professor tribe, i want to talk about the landscape of the court heading into this term and where we stand now. Since 2020, Public Confidence in the court has fallen 20 Percentage Points due to a number of reasons. It a decision to overturn roe v. Wade and discussions about whether the court respects president anymore and the growing polarization that seems to be happening throughout the country that seems to be filtering into the court itself. So, starting with you first professor tribe, describe what do you think of the criticism the court has faced recently and how, if at all, do you think it is affecting the work of the justices . Thank you kimberly. I think the court is in a position of real crisis. Its legitimacy in the public among people across the political spectrum has never been lower. Part of it is, of course, the pylon of ethical scandals. Beyond that, even beyond the popularity of a number of substantive decisions, is the growing sense that it is a court in name only. Justice kagan, in her dissent in one of the cases this term said the quiet part out loud. When she said that the problem is that the justices of whom she is one, are no longer acting in a way that precedes the way an ordinary court does paying attention to the rule of law, to precedent, to the constitutional framework. The court is reaching out in cases that really dont involve genuine controversies. Without anyone that has real standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. To pursue an apparent agenda. It is in that circumstance that the cord is in crisis. At the same time, around the world in countries ranging from poland to hungary and most recently in israel, we have come to recognize that without an independent highest court, that commands respect for the integrity of this ruling, whether it agrees with them or not, democracy and the rule of law hanging by a narrow thread. So, we are in a situation where, on the one hand, people who disagree strongly with what the court is doing are sometimes tempted to cheer the degree to which it is losing credibility. Saying, the more the better. It means that we can get rid of this terrible court. On the other hand people recognize that the vacuum in the rule of law that would be left if the court were not to be respected as a vacuum that could be filled by tyrants. By violence, by anything but the rule of law. We are in a situation of genuine crisis. That is the way i see it. It judge luttig, you spent the last few years talking about the threat to democracy. A lot of that is focused on the executive and legislative branches. Do you think that there is a similar crisis in terms of the rule of law with the court . Thank you kimberly and i want to say you go to the, good for having me on today. It is a special privilege for me to be here today with my longtime friend, professor tribe, who is without a question, the preeminent constitutional scholar of our times. Turning to your question, i think that we have to ask these questions and understand the court against this backdrop. There has been a war in america for the Supreme Court and for the lower federal courts for the past halfcentury. I place the beginning of that war at the end of the court that was led by chief Justice Warren and the beginning of the work crime came with the appointment of Richard Nixon of his successor, earl warren. The time from chief justice berger, his time is chief justice, i think was a cold war and then i believe that the first shot of the actual war for the Supreme Court occurred when the senate rejected robert ward for the Supreme Court over three decades ago. From that point forward, beginning with the Reagan Administration, there has been a concerted effort by the conservatives to win back the Supreme Court from what the conservatives viewed as the liberals under chief justice earl warren. That has coincided with what i have referred to as the war for the cultural heart and soul of america. It has been waged coterminous lee with the war for the court. I am not sure which one is the proxy for the other. There is a reason for that and that is because the court has decided the issues over these 25 years that go to the heart of the cultural war for the heart and soul of america. So, the conservatives won that fiftyyear war with the appointment of neil gorsuch. To take the place of then Supreme Court justice antonin scalia, who died prematurely. It finally was victorious in that war with the 11th hour elevation of Amy Coney Barrett before the 2020 election to succeed the great justice ginsburg. Today, as we talk about the court, about the criticisms and the praise for the court by conservatives, we have to understand that setting. That war on the legal side was over two different versions or views of the constitution and the interpretation of the constitution and the laws of the United States. The conservatives had a different view they have always had a different view than the liberals and vice versa. The conservatives won that war. What we are seeing today, the last term of the Supreme Court, we will see for the foreseeable future, is the spoils, if you will, of that war, which have now gone to the conservatives. So, this Supreme Court is going to interpret the constitution and the laws of the United States in the ways that the conservative movement have insisted that they ought to be interpreted for these 50 years. With that, i will stop but that is the court that we are discussing today. For the first time in American History. I do want to get to the decisions themselves but, one thing that has hung over this term was a year ago, the overturning of roe versus wade, which was monumental not only in substance but also in overturning a longstanding precedent. That decision, roe v. Wade was decided when i was three months old and that is how old it is. How has that, do you think, affected, in combination with what you talked about, the fact that precedent does not seem to be as sacred as it used to be, affect the legitimacy of the court . Judge. Roe v. Wade, what was the target of the conservatives from the date it was decided almost 50 years ago. It came to be symbolic of the war for the Supreme Court. The war that has been fought out in public for the American People to see has largely been over roe versus wade. So, the justices who were confirmed by the republican president , everyone knew what they believed about roe versus wade. Everyone knew that none of these justices would have decided roe versus wade and everyone knew, up until it was decided last year, that the question was only whether five justices would allow it to stand on the basis of starry decisiveness. So, that decision was the watershed moment for starry decisiveness in the Supreme Court of the United States. I agree it was the watershed moment. It was knots only a doctrine of the technical name light stare decisis. Precedent is not. We all know that a case like plessy versus ferguson was dramatically overruled essentially in a brown versus board of education and almost all of us celebrate that. We dont because the court in the late 19 century decided separate but equal was consistent with the constitution that should be the law forever. For the first time really in the history of the court, a precedent that was half a century old and secure the rights of half of american citizens, all of the women of america, this is the first time a president was overturned. What was striking was that it was overturned not because of circumstances have changed. Not because we can to have a different understanding or an more enlightened understanding has happened in brown versus board of education about the demands of dignity and liberty and equality and morality, but because people were selected specifically because of their commitment to undo the former law. They finally had the majority. The dissenters said nothing has changed except the spaces on this court. When the court speaks for the personalities of its nine members and not for any enduring body of principal about when a president should or should not be overturned, that is when we turn the corner from the court as a normal court to the court as an extension of the political parties. For people like me who thought that roe v. Wade was rightly decided decided, by the way, two weeks before my daughter, who is now about 50, was born for people like me, that was a terrible change. But even for people who thought that roe v. Wade was misguided, the idea that it could be overturned just because people committed politically to overturning it finally had a majority has to be a wakeup call because, if we are going to give enormous power over all of our lives to nine people selected for life and accountable to no one, they ought to be bound at least by some notion of principal, and it looks like this group, at least those of the far right and i would not call them conservative i dont think it is conservative to be so radical and so driven by political agenda. This is the time when we have to reassess the enormous role the court has had. I agree very much with judge luttig that this is a watershed moment. And the overruling of roe v. Wade was the basis that the court overruled it is really a harbinger of a new wage. Stare decisis itself is a very conservative principle of jurisprudence. Professor tribe is exactly right in his description of the change and changes or not, in the landscape that led up to the dobbs decision. For example, i think i famously said, 25 or 30 years ago, when i was on the bench, that i understood the Supreme Court decision in kc versus denenberg would be super stare decisis of a womans right to choose, and i cited chapter and verse from those two opinions were the court had said as much, though not using those phrases, but they, the Supreme Court, had said we have considered and reconsidered many times over now this decision and we believe it was correct. And, professor tribe could tell us, but i leave that was behind Justice Kennedys very famous line that liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt. I want to talk about one case where the word overruled was not use but that is exactly what happened. The harvard and unc cases i want to get your reaction to that in the fact that it did overturned, essentially the precedent, by two republican appointed justices who both wrote opinions allowing the consideration of race as one factor. But also commenting on the newest justice, Justice Brown jackson, and her reminder of a form of original as him about the 14th amendment and how that is a reconstruction era event and amendment and it was intended to do things exactly like what affirmative action did. I will start with you professor tribe. I think Justice Brown jackson delivered this term several dissents that were historic determination, they looked at how the court got it all wrong in the original meaning of the 14th amendment was race blindness will live on in history. I told her recently that i think that her view is not only right but will historically weve indicated and will one day again be the law of the land. The problem of race in this country is not going to go away simply because we pretend it is unimportant. Chief Justice Roberts says the way to get rid of racism is to disregard race. I think Justice Jackson rightly said that is very much like let them eat cake. It is lovely to think that making race irrelevant in bubble make it irrelevant in life, but we all know better. Certainly, the purpose of the 14th amendment, for someone who is genuinely concerned with the original meaning and purpose of the constitutional change was not to suddenly pretend that her history is not steeped in the problems of racial domination and slavery through jim crow. That is not the point of the 14th amendment. It seems to me in that sense, for the Supreme Court to do what we all knew what was going to do but of the reasons these justices were put there, including judge cavanaugh and judge barrett, was to seal the fate of affirmative action. For the court to do that was not surprising but tragic. The result is anybodys to guess. Anything that any university, whether it is harvard or unc or any other college, Going Forward will be subject to endless litigation. The affirmative action for legacy admits for other groups are already being challenged. Theres nothing that universities can do that will satisfy the Litigious Society in court and it really does not stand for any clear principal. When the court said, when they say, you cannot pay any attention to race. That is not the point of the 14th amendment. Clearly when the court said we are not saying you cannot pay any attention to race, you can see consider how a student essays a recommendation so that students race either as a master of handicapper inspiration made a difference in that students life. Judge luttig. Just as in dobbs, there was no doubt whatsoever as to the results of the affirmative action cases. Those cases were first, just a historic point. You mentioned that Justice Oconnor had written one or more of the affirmative action cases. It was Justice Oconnor who said that affirmativeaction in the entire education admissions should not be needed longer than 25 years and it was about 20 years since she wrote those words when the court overruled those cases. These cases, even though they were narrowly limited to College Admissions under both the equal protection clause and title vi, because harvard was a private university and North Carolina was a public university, these cases foreshadow successive landmark cases for the next five years, lets say, that will insist upon colorblindness, if you will, the route an entire American Society beginning with title vii. These cases it did not reach title vii. That was not an issue, but theres not a question in my mind at all that the court at first opportunity will extend its reasoning in these cases to title vii, and that means there will be essentially a race blindness race neutrality in all decisions in the american workplace. That something to ponder. Because our time is limited, i want to move on. And im going to group the Voting Rights and election cases together. Judge luttig, you participated in one of those cases in which the court saved two justices save perhaps two justices, shot down the idea of the independent base legislature, saying state lawmakers can be virtually unchecked in the way they carry out federal elections. There was a way for the court to punch procedurally in that case, which i actually expected them to do, but they did not. They rolled on the merits. What do you make of that . I want to also talk about the Voting Rights cases. I was very concerned about the fate of the section two of the Voting Rights act, the court would weaken it, but they actually enforced it but for the independent stable legislature. Harper is now and forever will be the most important case in American History for americas democracy. That is for the twin reasons that through its rejection of the independent state Legislature Theory, the court defined for the first time in history how federal Congressional Elections will be conducted henceforth, Going Forward. At issue in moore versus harper, was not the independent state legislature as it applies to the electors clause of the constitution. That was the issue in the 2020 president ial election. But, the operative language in the two constitutional provisions is identical in all material respects, and therefore there is every reason to believe that the court will reject the independent Legislature Theory in the context of the electors clause. Okay. Im just shutting this off. Give me just a moment. I just want to make sure everybody is muted for this discussion. The independent state legislature was the centerpiece of president trumps efforts to overturn the 2020 election. In the final phase of the plan, it was the independent state Legislature Theory that would have permitted the state legislature to transmit fake electoral states for donald trump fake electoral slates for donald trump. That plan was always not simply illegal but unconstitutional. Moore versus harper drove the nail in that coffin, so that is not even a plausible argument to make Going Forward in 2024. Professor tribe . And driving the nail into that coffin, it also re energize the effort that i think the special counsel is making to pursue, to the very end, and hold accountable, those who tried to weaponized a variant of the independent state Legislature Theory to put the Vice President in a position to essentially say to the state legislatures, do it over again. Doesnt matter what your people said. You can install trump as president. So, that theory, which now has been rendered essentially a dead duck Going Forward, which protects democracy in 2024 and 2028, also retrospectively energizes the effort to say without any doubt that any suppose that idea that it was okay to have an attempted coup because state legislatures could be put in the position to submit new slates that were not certified by their secretaries of state or their governments, all of that no changes. So, it is a very important development. Yet, in some ways, the odd thing is, because the theory was so ridiculous to begin with, and of celebrating having dodged a bullet from a gun that was essentially filled with blanks. It is really crazy that we should celebrate the defeat is something that was dead to begin with. That tells us something about this court. The fact that people could have taken seriously the risk and it really was a risk this court would, for partisan reasons, give its blessing to so groundless a legal theory is really very depressing. You said, kimberly, and i think you are right, but in some ways it was surprising. But in the case involving the alabama gerrymandering of the court, section 2 of the Voting Rights act was kept alive. Thats the section that says if you engage in racist gerrymanders, you may have to take race into account to fix it. But, again, all the court did was fail to kill section 2. It did not empower writ. It did not strengthen it. It was again, a bullet dodged. A bullet that should never have hit its target. And, here we are celebrating the fact that the court did not do these terrible things. We now, therefore, have a situation in which Going Forward, we have a dangerous court. There is no doubt that there are all kinds of cases. Judge luttig talk rightly about title vii, lgbtq writes, racial integration, all sorts of cases. Cases about contraception. Cases about privacy, cases that instead of looking at the lawton president and the deep principles of the american republic, we have to look at the republican platform to see where these justices will come out. Thats not where we should be in this country. We only have about five minutes before we open it up for questions. We have a lot and i want to leave quite a bit of time for that. Its unfair questions to discuss a case so important in five minutes, but i would be remiss if we did not get to it. For a long time, there has been a legal tension, son constitutional tension between civil rights and the First Amendment in terms of things like rights to freedom of religious expression, freedom of religious practice. But, in this case, the tension was between the First Amendment freespeech protection and civil rights laws. What was your reaction to the decision that basically allowed a First Amendment exception to civil rights laws that are designed to protect people in marginalized and protected groups like lgbtq americans . I dont want to sound like a broken record, that i am. I dont think anyone, including professor tribe, instantly not myself , ever doubted the outcome in that case either. When the original case by the way i consider that a case in the religious liberty line of cases that this court and these particular justices have urged and advocated for. It does have obviously, the First Amendment overlay here, but, i believe that this court decided this on a religious liberty basis. I was just going to observe that i thought that the original base case, the bakery case, was fascinating. I did not believe that the court would decide that case in the way it did. I thought it would have decided that case in the way that the dissenters believed this case should have been decided. That is that no business that holds itself out to the public can discriminate on the basis of, you know, anything at all including, you know, their views in this case, the person who wanted what was a website service, in the early case, the bakery service. All right. Me, will you desin something for me and my samesex partner, then if someone were to ask me, will you design something for me and my samesex partner, then maybe i would told by the Colorado Attorney general that i have to say yes and that would violate u my freeze beach. It was hypothetical, something that the court is not supposed to decide, quite apart from the fact that apparently there ot wasnt anybody who actually asked her to design any same sex couple website. It was all hypothetical, but this is the first time the court has ever said that a neutral general role against discriminating against people based on race or religion or Sexual Orientation anything can give way to somebodys claim that if i ar actually open myself to serve r the public and serve these people, that it would be forced speech on my part. Like the guy who ran all these barbecue in the 60s said i dont want to serve black at people and the Supreme Court said you have to. If this were the rule, he would have had to say well, if i w serve black people at my lunch counter, i will be saying i believe in integration and thatu is not what i believe, so they can have takeout, but i will not serve them. That never has been the law and the court now says suddenly it a will be the law, which means the court had an agenda. The agenda was to take people who are lgbtq, meaning a lot of the decisions about the rights of samesex couples in the rights of lgbtq people are on the chopping block. That is what it means and it is unprecedented. I want to get to questions from our audience, there are a lot of them and i will turn it back over to patricia. You are muted, patricia. Thank you, all of you. Professor tribe, judge michael n luttig, kimberly, for such a discerning discussion. I would l like to see if we could go to Neil Degrasse tyson, first. Would you like to ask a question . The or should we we would love to have you ask on our screen, if you are willing. Yes, hello. Can you hear me now . T absolutely. Grateful to have you. E thank you. When i see the resist and to ti roe v wade in the public and when i see the resistance to any progressive legislation that would support lgbtq rights, most people tend to say that the site christian values. To see laws uphold this, how does that square with any First Amendment treatment about not upholding religion . At the federal level . Thank you. I will tackle that one and then let the professor follow if you want. You are right, seemingly, these views are coming from the re christian right. Ig the cases are not decided on the basis that they are views of the christian right. T of course, those views are held by many, many other americans who are not of the christian right. I certainly understand your su question. I have thought of that question myself, but i think that is the answer and i know that is the answer that the court would give if they were taking your question. Professor, would you like to answer that question . I think the court would deny it is basing its decisions on religion but its not a matter of the religious beliefs of the particular justices. Just look at the reasoning in the opinions, and you cannot i find any secular justification. When they talk about the fertilized over him as a human being, that is a view, but it is a view that is intrinsically religious. There are religions that teach it is wrong for a woman not to be given the freedom to terminate pregnancy if she thinks that she would not be able to bring up the child. These are fundamental religious divisions in our society and i think that when we begin allowing secular law to trump religious lines, its not enough for justices to say, i swear to god, im not trying to make gods law into the law of the land. It sure looks like it and that is a source of doubt about the legitimacy. May i ask a followup based s on one of the questions i see in the chat . What about other religious challenges . If someone is of the jewish faith, where there are policiesm that believe that but the faith does not necessarily, would that be a valid legal claim andh how might that fair if it were , to go to scotus . W there are some cases where people have brought lawsuits that make their way to the court saying that our religion teaches that we should not obey the laws against abortion, that we ought to terminate pregnancies. The law at althe moment under t oregon deployment version division versus smith, there is a neutral general prohibition on certain conduct. You do not get an exemption ig because you have a religious objection. There is federal laws, the religious freedom restoration act that creates a right of commendation to your religious beliefss and whether orthodox are going to be able to invoke that law against federal prohibition is, like there is a federal socalled band that may be, although i dont know of any that teaches you are supposed to have an abortion that late in pregnancy, those clashes are bound to come and they do not have great faith y that the court will resolve them in the genuinely neutral ways. I feel that they will claim a ld cloak of neutrality for decisions that are ultimately, consciously or unconsciously, driven by deep religious beliefs and i do not believe op that religion can or should be expelled in the public sphere. Slavery was defended and i opposed on religious grounds. S the war in vietnam was defended and opposed on religious grounds. Religious belief is part of our politics and it should not be part of government prohibitionse on peoples behavior. Kimberly, you know, the conservative response to these t questions is the questions themselves, for the conservatives, who say yes, these are intractable problems. They should not be decided on the basis of religion or anything else, indeed they should not be decided by the Supreme Court and that has long been the conservative view since the day that roe v wade ue was decided, 50 years ago, and that is what the court did in the dobbs decision. It returned to this issue to the states, thereby to the American People, to decide within their individual state how to resolve the question. Let me say, its not really returned to the states. We believe in choice, with hospital facilities are overwhelmed by women fleeing other states and some states criminalizing those interstate travels to anobtain abortions a theres a major push to have that National Abortion band which was certainly not leave d it to the states. I think we have not yet heard the last word on whether this is a matter of state right or te religious belief. Thank you. I would like to ask a question , get ready to be spotlighted, we have questions from andy purdy, david kemp, bill hubbard, richard gordon, just to get started, but i want to be sure that we address the issue of f ethics. Co its come up in recent months, and both of you have released de statements in favor of revising those guidelines for justices, so do you think that ethics has played a role in any of these decisions, and what would you want the court to do Going Forward in terms of ethics . I believe, and i have said publicly that the Supreme Court has shot himself in the foot in the midst of very controversial terms in which it decided the most controversial cases of our time. If i had been the court, i would have cautioned the court not to conduct and behave self on the way in the way that it has outside the court at the very moment that it has decided these controversial cases, because as i said in my testimony to the Senate Judiciary committee, in which i was really sticking to the Supreme Court itself, i said t look, all that you have by design of the constitution is the respect of the American People for your judgments. It is respect for your judgment and also, the publics respect for the court as an institution by virtue of the way it conducts its self in its nonjudicial capacities outside the court. That was to say, very pointedly to the court, that in fact, i put it this way, whether or not you, the court, believe that these criticisms about your legitimate the are correct or not is not the question. You should, at all times, take every step possible to ensure that you have the respect of the American People whether or b not you believe the public criticism is justified. I do want to add this for your listeners because this is very important. We have discussed every consequential issue and decision in america over the past two years together, before either of us has spoken. This was no exception. We both felt very strongly about this and we thought, we felt strongly for the identical legal and constitutional reasons and we just tested those views with each other before we wrote our separate testimonies for the judiciary committee. I certainly agree that this is a serious problem, a self inflicted wound on the part of the court and the suggestions that congress should pass a law telling the court to enact its own ethics code i think our little off the mark. De that would delegate lawmaking powers to sthe court which is not right. There is a federal law already, 20 u. S. Code section 455 that applies to justices along with court judges that requires recusal in any case where judges independence and d integrity might be questioned. Its obvious that thomas and d alito have conducted themselves in ways that violated that law but there is no enforcement mechanism and right now, congress does not seem to have the spine to enact that mechanism, but i think that we y both believe it is consistent with the separation of powers for federal law to govern this area. I think we may not necessarily agree about the best way forward but there are certainly. Things the court could do that would enhance public belief in its integrity. It instead has repeatedly shot d off in the foot at the worst possible time, when we need an independent court that we can respect and can turn to, especially in crisis times. That could be very difficult, and we need a court that we can respect. We both testified that the congress of the United States t has the constitutional power to adopt and enforce a code of ethical conduct for the Supreme Court and we both testified that congress should do that because they both believed it to be a parent that the Supreme Court would not do it on its own. Thats hugely important. I want to see if we can quickly go to a few of these folks did any party, do you want to ask your question . Ac a given your view of the effective recent decisions, wha do you recommend for the path e forward . Should there be an extension ofr term limits or other some such action . I was one of the members, there were not many of us, who do favor both Court Expansion nd in the long run, and that can certainly become be via sanction. Because there is some doubt we about the legitimacy of the way some of the justice is have felt, we think, speaking for those of us in that commission, that it would not be court packing, it would be court unpacking. I think for myself, in the long run, it makes sense, but merely by statute, the Current Court would probably say they are unconstitutional. There would also be implementation problems, transition problems, term limits , but i do not think it is a co short run solution. I have long believed that the Supreme Court and all lower court should be bound by a 15 year tenure and the longer i th have thought about it in the older i have gotten, the more convinced i am that that is essential for the country Going Forward and the professor is almost certainly right that the court would strike it down, butr i would force them to do it if i were left to my own devices. Richard gordon, did you have one . T i know some of these questions will be duplicative. Its good to see you both. My question is about the chief l just this. Chief Justice Warren, it seems like our chief justice has kind of lost the point. How does the chief justice get r the court to achieve major societal games . Let me feel that one. As you know, john roberts was and still is a good friend of mine and actually reviewed with president bush, back to back, hour to hour, on a single day and the president chose. John, the conservatives were suspicious of john. They remained suspicious of john all the way up until the dogs decision. Beginning in n earnest, and the way that he tu did. The conservatives never believed that the chief justice would vote to overturn roe versus wade, and even though he did what he did that he would approve that ban. So after the dobbs decision, what has been said conversationally, is true. They no longer command his courts. It is now under the control of the five other conservatives. Ev there is no way that he can t regain. He has his control, if you want to call it that. The chief justice never has control, but s the only mite that any chief justice can have control of is that if there are four other