All see in perspective from DC's top names. This is likely to all being litigated out in the various date around the contort. I don't think that a law that was written before the Civil War should be used to
dictate these intimate decisions. Bloomberg found on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio and Joan Grasso sitting in for Joe Matthew today, and we're going to be talking about a setback to Democrats on redistricting, the Supreme Court using its shadow docket to reinstate a racially gerrymandered congressional map in Louisiana. We'll talk to Supreme Court report a Greg's Store about that and find out what's happening at the Court tomorrow, the last day of the term. There's a battle over
redistricting playing out across the country. And yesterday the Supreme Court, without any explanation, reinstated a Republican drawn congressional map in Louisiana that a federal judge had said dilutes the power of black voters, just as the Court had done in a similar case is involving an Alabama map in February. Joining me is Greg Store Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg, Before we get to the Louisiana case, some of us foolishly expected that today would be the last decision day
for the court. It only issued two decisions, leaving to controversial cases for tomorrow. Any idea why, Well, the Court has a lot on its play tune, and you know they tend to spread things out a little bit. So we'll end up with three opinion days this week and that's not too unusual for the last day of the Supreme Court term. And tomorrow there's going to be a special ceremony, there will be the newest Justice Ktanti Brown Jackson will be sworn in at noon. That's when Justice
Stephen briars retirement takes effect. So Greg, tell us about this Louisiana case, which the court dealt with in its shadow docket, meaning that there weren't the usual arguments before the cord or bree thing schedule. Yeah, as you said, it is very similar to an Alabama case they've already dealt with, and they are going to hear arguments in
the Alabama case in the fall. And back when when the similar thing happened in Alabama, a lower court said Alabama needs to have a second heavily black district under the Voting Rights Act. Uh. And the Supreme Court blocked that ruling and said in that case that, uh, it's too close to the election and that we we kind of have this rule that's known as the Purcell principle that dictates that as we get close to an election,
federal court shouldn't change the election rules. And that's kind of the explanation that the Court gave at the time there Um Louisiana, similar situation. Louisiana is one third black. It has six congressional districts, and under the Republican drawing map, only one of the districts was going to be majority black. And a similar thing Trold Judge said that violates the Voting Rights Act. You need to draw a map with a second majority black district. Supreme Court then intervened and
block that and did not give an explanation. As you said, all right, Greg, thanks so much. We're gonna let you go so you can get ready for those two decisions tomorrow, which you're going to be blockbusters, one on the e p A and one on the remain in Mexico policy. Thanks so much, Greg. That's Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store. Joining me now is Derek Muller. He's a professor at
the University of Iowa Law School who specializes in election law. So, Derek, Louisiana has six members of Congress, but only one of the districts is majority black, even though blacks make up one third of the state's voters. Isn't it theorily obvious that this Republican drawn map dilutes the votes of blacks
in that state? Well, I think the Republicans in this case argued, Look, if you look at how the black vote as are dispersed throughout the state, they're more spread out than you might find in other parts of the country where they might be more concentrated. And so one of the things that the challengers pointed out here is to say, look, when you're drawing a map, one of the things you require is compactness. And if you can't have a compact population, um, you're starting to draw districts
on the basis of race. Uh, And that's an improper racial jerrymander. So it's really a battle of expert testimony to try to figure out how much is too much when focusing on attention to race and drawing compact districts. So what's your take on what should be done with this map? I think it's tough. I think both this map and the Alabama map um points some very hard questions.
In both cases, the black population has risen significantly and yet additional congressional districts have not been created to give them opportunities. Whereas on the flip side, UM, there's pretty persuasive evidence that when computer simulations are drawn and you input a bunch of neutral criteria in and they simulate ten thousand maps, um, there are zero maps that give you too majority black districts, or in Alabama a second one.
So UM. That would suggests then that there's a little bit of a thumb on the scale with a race conscious decision. So underlining the Voting Rights Act is this question about trying to make sure that we have opportunities for black voters, and question is how much we can focus on race in cases like these? Have the courts conservatives generally been hostile to voting rights plaintiffs and to
the Voting Rights Act? And so is this order in taking the Alabama case another indication that it's open to weakening the role race may play in drawing voting districts. Yeah, it's sometimes hard with these shadow docort cases. As you point out, is right pointing out about the Purcell principle.
When the court says, let's not change the rules too close in time to the election, and the filing deadline is next week or the petition deadline begins next week in in Louisiana, UM, So that that's not a merits question. That's just saying we want to hold serve and keep things in place and and keep things running ahead of the next election. This is all sort of fallout from COVID and the census data getting delayed and and pushing
a lot of redistroutine decisions later. So you can think maybe the Court is making its decisions on that front. But then there's no question that it's it's perhaps peaking at the merits and some justices are much more persuaded
than on the merits um. You know that there's too much focus on race and a couple of these maps, that courts have been too aggressive and trying to draw these districts for majority black voters, things like that, and uh that that maybe the majority of the court is going to say, you know what, we're going to trim back the Voting Rights Act a little bit in some ways that it's done in a handful of cases of the last decade, TIM Voting Rights Act back a little bit.
They've already trimmed the Voting Rights to Act a lot, haven't they. So I think this is why I think it's all relative. When I think about Shelby County versus Holder In. That was a real jolt to this system, right determining that uh, Southern jurisdictions in particular no sub or no longer subject to pre clearance. And that's a lot of states, um, dealing with some pretty significant, um, you know, decisions that for decades, every election law had
to go through approval from the Department of Justice. Um, this is really kind of an evidentiary question. What kind of evidence do you have to put on to demonstrate compactness of district? What kind of evidence do you have to show in terms of a majority black population, terms of citizen voting age population, in terms of uh, just
a numerical majority, whatever it might be. So um, to the extent that we're fighting over one congressional district in these two states, Um, you know, I think, and in some respects it could be much more minor a jolt the system than something like Shelby County versus Holder, But it certainly reflects a trend from the Court to view the Voting Rights Act in a much more narrow fashion than than plaintiffs have been have been trying to litigate
for decades. And this is one area where Chief Justice John Roberts is united with his conservative mates there on the Court. Right, he was in the vanguard of the Court that rolled back the Voting Rights Act. Right. So I think Chief Justice Roberts comes out of uh some of the Reagan administration's positions and the Voting Rights Act and some skepticism about the breadth of its implementation in
the late eighties UM. And I think that's come through in his Shelby County decision UM using the majority in Bernovitch a couple of terms ago dealing with a related interpretation of Section two of the Voting Rights Act. So so Chief Justice Roberts has been pretty consistent siding with the more conservative view of the Voting Rights Act of over the last decade. We've talked months ago about the
number of cases over elections across the country. Have you seen those being resolved or are they still moving along in the court system. I mean, many of these cases are sort of being resolved, UM, at least some of the smaller ones dealing with ballot access and resolving some questions about who's eligible for the ballot or UH some party fights about who can appear on the ballot. But other ones, like in Texas or Georgia's major election bills,
these things are slow. They're they're very slowly making their way through the system. UM, you have significant issues. You have UM, a lot of parties, including a lot of interveners, a lot of public interest groups who want to participate in these UH. In this litigation, UM, there's significant expert testimony to demonstrate what kinds of effects the changing of drop box locations or the effect of certain kinds of
absentee voting rules might have. So in those major cases, these are slow and they have not moved very far recently. So so it's a law on process to see them percolate up through the court system. One issue that I always found fascinating and concerning is the way some states were trying to take away power from the independent arbiters let's say the secretary of State and find it, you know, more in the lower level administrators that might be more um biased in favor of one party or another. Is
that a problem? Well, I think the states have sort of had a variety of approaches UM. So, so some of the problems have actually arisen maybe in the reverse where local discretion is being taken away with more uniform rules at the statewide level, and local officials say, well, we need that discretion, we need some of the judgment calls to be made UM. In other places, so George
is among them. UM. There are certain canvassing boards where you take away the secretary of state's role and you replace them with a legislature appointed at it to that position. But again it's only one vote on the panel, and it's something the legislature picks in advance. And so we'll see in the future if anything happens with that kind of personnel selection. UM. So far, we haven't seen a lot of dramatic changes UM. In terms of the administration.
There have been some kerfuffles in places like New Mexico and Colorado with some some election deniers, if you will, election skeptics, Muddy Derek will have to leave it there. I really appreciate your insights. We'll talk again. I'm sure that's Derek Muller, professor at the University University of Iowa Law School. This is Bloomberg Sound On on Bloomberg Radio.
I'm Jim Grasso, sitting in for Joe Matthew. Now that the Supreme Court has wiped out the constitutional right to abortion, the battle over abortion rights has shifted to the states and state courts in particular Killer There have been a flurry of lawsuits over state abortion bands, focusing on state constitutions in at least eleven states. One of those states is Wisconsin, where Democratic Governor Tony Evers vowed to fight over an anti abortion law on the books for over
one seventy years. That's now technically the law again. I don't think that a law that was written before the Civil War or before women secured the right to vote, should be used to dictate these intimate decisions on reproductive health and abortion rights. Activists did win temporary rulings allowing abortions to resume in Louisiana, Texas, and Utah. But I emphasized the word temporary because the full hearings are yet
to come. Joining me is Rachel Riboucher, the interim Dean of Temple University Beasley School of Law, and the James E. Beasley Professor of Law. Rebecca does the strategy in these lawsuits depend on the state institutions and whether, for example, a right to privacy is embedded in them. It does. It absolutely depends on the provisions of a state constitution, and those provisions can range from privacy protections, the quality protections,
liberty protections, autonomy protections. That it truly depends on the clause at issue in the state constitution and how those how state courts have interpreted that language in the past. These cases are at the lower court levels right now, they're eventually going to go up to the state supreme courts. And state supreme courts in many of these states with restrictive abortion laws are dominated by justices who are Republicans or were appointed by Republicans. In many states, they have
to stand for election. So is it likely that they'll take the step to protect abortion rights? So again, I think we might see it's holding that state constitution state supreme courts do not protect a state abortion right. Um, but we might be surprised. I think the place to look is what is the constitutional jurisprudence of that state.
How recently has the court interpreted that provision? Has it been applied to the rights UH, contraception, UH, intimacy, relationships, parenting, a cluster of relational and intimate rights that might have also been provided protection under a state constitution. There's a lot of nuance here, and it will depend on what the Supreme Court in that state has said in the past and how it has interpreted those constitutional provisions in its in their prior rulings. You know, it seems like
going to the courts there, the landscape is unestablished. What's going to happen here, and it's probably not the best way, but it may be the only way right now. Is there anything the president can do by executive action or something else to maintain the right to abortion in these states?
So I think you're right. I think the reason you see a flurry of litigation at the state level is because that is UH for litigators, the most immediate way to enjoy new bands on abortion UH new bans on abortion that states are passing in the wake of Friday's jobs decision. But the federal government does have powers at its disposal through executive orders, even the more UH probably
controversial measure of declaring a public health emergency. The executive can marshal the powers of federal agencies that have expertise in various areas of healthcare provision UH and financial support in interpreting federal law. Is that could that could make a difference, or that that that might impact upon abortion. There's even a suggestion that the federal government could set aside land, you know, lease land, or do it on army bases and set up federal abortion clinics in these states.
But everything seems to depend on, you know, the will of the Biden administration, and do you question whether the will is really really there. I think the federal lands proposal is certainly a novel one hasn't been tested, and from what I understand, there are real and serious concerns about the logistical difficulties of providing that care and the
legal objections that will soon be raised. But certainly it is a proposal that the Biden administration UH has the expertise and UH know how to try or to try to figure out how to mitigate those risks or solve those problems, But as you say, it's a question of will, of whether or not some risk of pursuing a proposal like that are worth taking. Well, because we knew this
was coming for a while. We certainly knew it since the draft opinion was leaked, and you know, there were things that the Biden administration could have put into motion and just didn't just waited, and it seems like it's still waiting, you know, it's it's I did listen to the statement of Secretary Sarah Head of the HHS helping Human Services yesterday, and there does seem to be thinking at the level of the y in new Biden administration about what steps they could take um but those steps,
of course have not been taken yet. And I think that there is a strong argument to make that the Biden administration could do an audit and inventory of what are the available measures, what are the available powers of different federal agencies, federal bodies, uh, And there were there's where we could peep in action, and there we might have seen a little bit more planning. All right, Well, we'll see what happens. Thanks so much, Rachel. That's Rachel
Boucher of Temple University. Beasley School of Law, coming upward and be talking about the case against former President Donald Trump. It's growing stronger, but will he be prosecuted? It was the most dramatic testimony at the January six committee hearings, perhaps the most dramatic and congressional history. Cassidy Hutchinson, formerly an assistant to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, portrayed of violent and out of control Donald Trump at
the center of a plot to overturn the election. Hutchinson testified that she was in the White House on January six and recalled White House Council Pat Sippoloni coming to Meadows office as rioters arrived at the Capitol, saying they needed to speak to Trump, something to the effect of Mark, something needs to be done for people are going to die in the blood is going to be on your acting hands. This is getting out of control. I'm going
down there. So what's next from the Justice Department, if anything? Joining me is Donald Ayer, adjunct professor at Georgetown Law. He served as Deputy Attorney General and Principal Deputy Solicitor General under President George H. W. Bush. So it seems clear that the January six Committee is laying at a roadmap for the prosecution of former President Trump. How far do you think Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony moved the ball forward.
I think it moved the ball forward a good way. UM. I think you know, one of the things we learned is that folks on the upper levels Trump's group, certainly Giuliani certainly meadows probably Trump, but we don't know for sure. We're involved early on, certainly buy early January, very much involved in planning the events of January six. Um. We know that people in the White House, UM and others expected the risk of violence. Um. Uh. Some were very
concerned about it. Some like Rudy Giuliani, thought it was going to be a great day. UM. We know that we learned that that on on the day January six, President Trump was um, specifically and concretely aware that the folks there had weapons. UM. And you know, his reaction, as everybody has now heard, was to want to take away the magnetometers because they weren't there to hurt him. So they people with guns and other things could come on in and be present for the cameras when he
gave his speech. UM. And then of course we we we learned that there was apparently some sort of virtual physical alter k shan um. But the more important point was the dispute was about the fact that Donald Trump after the speech wanted to go to Capitol Hill with his demonstrators, who he knew had weapons. For what purpose
one can only imagine. So it's an awful lot of information, But the biggest thing to keep in mind is that all of the evidence, the other of the evidence from the other hearings of different episodes as part of this saga, this saga conspiracy to overturn the election um that evidence has to all be seen together. And the biggest single point about it all is that, maybe surprisingly uh, for those who might have thought Trump might be kind of around the edges, he is the main actor in everything.
He is the driving force who insists on going forward when his own people, many many many of them that many different settings, are saying, don't do it. It's terrible, it's going to be a disaster. But he bowls ahead at time and again, and he's the one doing it. So the Attorney General Merrick Garland appears to be very cautious. What are some of the factors that will go into
a decision about whether or not to prosecute Trump. Well, there's the guidelines that guide the department, and they're I'm sure they're emblazoned in his in his brain, and I know he's focused on them, and they're they're the obvious things, the leading factors of the obvious things. You have to look at the nature and the character of the conduct of the wrongdoing, and how serious is it and how
big a deal? What priority should we give it? Well, here we have conduct designed to overturn our electoral process and essentially make it nonfunctional. Couldn't have a more serious crime. The second factor, right near the top of the list is deterrence important Here is there reason to think that other people might be doing this? Do we need to have an important prosecution or more than one to deter
people from this conduct? Well, we know that people all over the country are plotting to do something similar in states are enacting laws to allow them to do something similar in four So deterrence is is an urgent consideration.
And the third factor on the list, near the top of the list of things that the guidelines say they're supposed to think about, is the culpability of the individual who you're considering filing charges against and all of this evidence that we've just been talking about from all of these hearings, and certainly the evidence from this hearing point at Donald Trump as the most culpable person who is doing most of the acts that are driving this whole
complicated codetas scheme that that we've watched unfold on the other side, on the other side, you have some things that are not in the guidelines because I don't think we've been considered, which is, do we want to prosecute a former president of the United States? A first in history? Right? That's true, And you also have the factor of, um G,
is there a chance he'd get off? And that's certainly a consideration that that actually the likelihood of prevailing is It's another important thing that's in the Justice Department guidelines. Um But I think you know and and this is the judgment that Garlands, that Merrick Garland is going to
have to make. But I think that at the end of the day, when you look down the road at the consequences of not holding accountable the conducts here, particularly where the evidence at this point and we don't have all the evidence yet, but we have an awful lot of it where the evidence points very directly at Donald Trump as the prime mover, as the principal person who acted even though numerous people told him you should, and even though he plainly knew because he was told time
and again that he really hadn't won the election, there was no serious fraud and he had lost. So you know, I know everyone is um is. Everyone who's thinking about this is quite concerned, and they wonder why Merrick Garland and why the Department hasn't moved sooner. Well, I think it's entirely right that the department be moving gradually, that
would be moving carefully. And the other thing I'll say is that one of the things that Merrick Garland has done that is so important after what we saw under the Attorney generalship of William Barr, where he politicized numerous ways over the two years of his term the department, and he used it time and again. People remember the boiler report that he whitewashed. People remember intervening in criminal cases. People remember a lot of things that he did discussing
ongoing investigations. We're going to have to leave it. We'll have to leave it there. There's more of testimony, more hearings to come. Thank you so much. That's Donald Ayre of Georgetown Law School. Coming up next. We're going to be talking about what's happening at the Supreme Court. Who's in charge. This is Bloomberg sound On on Bloomberg Radio.
Over the span of less than a week, we've seen bombshell Supreme Court rulings on guns, abortion, and religion, where the court's conservative super majority has ignored precedent and rewritten the law. Last Thursday, the Court expanded gun rights, nullifying the laws in New York and other states. Last Friday, the court wiped out the constitutional right to abortion, nullifying the rights of women in about half the states. And on Monday, the Court up ended the law Church and State,
nullifying the protections of students religious freedoms. It's not often you hear the governor of a state call out the Supreme Court as politicized and vow to get around a ruling. But that's just what New York Governor Hathy Kathy Hokel did. No matter what the Supreme Court things, they can do, New Yorkers, you are protected protected from concealed weapons, protected from concealed weapons in our subways, in our schools, and
places like this. Each decision fractured the Court along ideological lines, with the liberal justices with no power except to protest and dissent. Joinie me are Bloomberg Politics contributors Rick Davis and Jennie Sheen Zano, So, Genie, many of us were surprised by these rulings. Some were shocked. But should we have been didn't the new justices do just what they were chosen to do? They did in June, just listening to you described the last few days, it's it's what
a stunning term it has been. Yeah, it's hard to even comprehend at this point, but they did tell us they forecast what they were going to do. We knew it because of the release of the draft decision in terms of at least the Mississippi case. And of course this is the culmination of decades and decades of work by people on the right, the Federalist Society and others.
So we shouldn't have been surprised. And yet, as somebody who teaches the court and watches it almost as carefully, not quite as you do, June, I have to say, looking at these two decisions back to back the Bruin
and then the Mississippi decisions last Thursday and Friday. It has been just stunning to see it all come to fruition so quickly in black and white, if only because Amy Coney Barrett just ascended the bench about a year ago, so you know, it is quite quick to see this what seems like a race to the right and a you know, a progressive rather a conservative court really really
focused on fulfilling its mission decades in the making. And then there was a religion decision on Monday, which people didn't even pay that much attention to because it's expected at this point that the Court is going to rule in favor of religion rights. Americans confidence in the Court has hit a new low. This is according to a Gallipo. Before these decisions, only of Americans say they have confidence in the Court. That's the drop of eleven percentage points
in the last year. Now. Rick Joseph Aldo said in the abortion decision that the majority wasn't concerned with public opinion, but should they be, Oh, of course they should be. Uh June, I mean, this is one of the things that creates legitimacy amongst institutions, right, I mean It may have been an eleven point drop in last year, but it's been down from up as high as sixty percent.
I mean, when you have a court that has that kind of confidence with the American public, then then it is more likely to be a lot abiding American public. But if the court only has approval rating, uh, who's going to stand by and watch the court rule and think, oh, well, that's the majority of the American public. Who who agrees with that? So it's it is a credibility problem, and I think this Court has to do more in the public domain to re established. The institution is something that
Americans trust. But Jennie, instead of a living constitution that evolves to expand liberties and equality, the Court now appears to be relying on a dead constitution history only approach. I'm wondering what future Supreme Court arguments are going to be, Like your honor, in the eighteen hundreds, there were no privacy rights or miranda rights, so we shouldn't have them now. I mean, the Court is on this path now, they are on this path. In my view, it it is
a misreading of history, of political history. It is a misreading of what the framers intended and the problem for the Court as an institution in terms of legitimacy, as you and Rick were just talking about, is it's those times when the Court gets either ahead or behind of the country in a significant way that they lose legitimacy.
Dread Scott plus e versus Ferguson and Coora Matsu And of course what led to the switch and time that Save nine when they were overturning the the f It's by the Roosevelt administration to address the worst economic crisis of the early twentieth century. Those are the times when the Court has lost legitimacy. It's struggled to come back after that. And I fear this is where they are headed again, because no matter how they want to read
the Constitution theoretically, the reality is we are in. The reality is we do have weapons of mass destruction out on the street. In terms of these a R fifty seven's going into schools. We have women who need a right to privacy to seek medical care. And so when the Court gets in a position where it is not understanding the time in which it's living, it does itself
political damage because this is illegal but also a political institution. Rick, Democrats never seem to care enough about the Supreme Court when they're voting, unlike Republicans. Will it be any different in the midterms, particularly the abortion ruling. Will it impact voting or is it going to be you know, it's just the economy stupid, you know, I think it could impact the elections in the sense of driving vote Democrats have had an intensity problem. Uh, And this is a reminder,
a very blatant reminder that elections have consequences. That that that that the court they have now that are rendering decisions that they disagree with as Democrats, is as a result of a political decision that Americans may install Donald Trump president United States. And so that could actually be
a motivating factor for for Democrats in the mid term. Uh. The downside is, uh, it's also exciting for Republicans who are the beneficiary of these decisions to say, look at we're actually finally getting what we want out of the Supreme Court because we turned out to vote and won an election. So, Jenny, it's still called the Roberts call because the Court, because he is the Chief Justice. But you know, you read article after article talking about how
he's lost control. I mean, and you know, we have to really acknowledge the fact that he may have gotten to overturning eventually, but not right away because he's an incrementalist, so the other Conservatives are moving so quickly. Is there anything he can do. He's in a tough position. I know, I've been looking at some of these articles, and to your point, there's been many talking about how he's lost control.
I think that's a bit of an overstatement. You know, he gained control in terms of becoming the this the swing vote on the court in so he's had that control for exactly two years, even though he's been Chief Justice since so five. So it's been a quick a wink that he's had control in terms of being the most important voice on the court in terms of dictating decisions.
That said, his incremental you know, ability to move the court incrementally, that probably has been lost until in the nless we see some personnel change on the court, or if somebody has a change of mind or a change of heart. But I do think it's a bit of an overstatement to say he's lost the court. A chief justice is a first among equals, but it's really the swing vote that had the power on the court. And he doesn't have that. He had it for two years.
He doesn't have it right now. Rick. So, there are things that can be done about the Supreme Court. It can be increased in sized, it can be stripped of its jurisdiction over certain issues. It can it can be required to have a supermajority on certain issues. So, but will anything be done? It seems as if Joe Biden his administration is not willing to even consider any steps
moving any legislation this way. Yeah, it's it's a little interesting because, um, this has been an administration is for a swung for the fences on a lot of issues where they didn't necessarily have even their base of their party in the Senate on board and in the House in some cases. But this is a practical consideration. They do not have the votes in the Senate to make any kind of structural change to the Supreme Court. You
need sixty votes. They don't even have the fifty senators on the Democratic Caucus willing to tow the line on this. And so it's a it's a it's an academic conversation until there are significant changes in the electoral landscape. And right now, I mean Republicans probably have as much an advantage as Democrats due to try to get to that
magic sixty number on anything dealing with the courts. You know, Genie, what surprised me recently is you didn't used to hear talk about impeaching justices, but lately since there has been talk about how Justice uh Justice Kavanaugh, you know, allegedly will say Lie did his confirmation hearing, Susan centator Susan
Collins says he told her something different about Row. We heard Neil Gorsitch and we basically all the justices at their confirmation hearings have said that Row was settled precedent. So what about this? What do you make of the talk about impeaching a justice, Not that it would ever happen, but just the fact that the talk is happening. Yeah, it's been striking to me. Um. You know, I don't believe that these are inpeachable offenses myself. I think they'd
have a very hard time making that case. I do think it comes from a sense of frustration, particularly amongst Democrats, understandably, and I think one thing Democrats have to be very careful of is this sort of disjointed response. You know, I thought the response might be a bit more coherent.
It's been a bit disjointed. So you hear a lot of fundraising, a lot of get out the vote, but from the base you hear a frustration, particularly young people who I talked to a lot, who say, we did get out to vote, we did elect Democrats and we're still here. So they really want a coherent approach to this from the administration, from Democrats, and that's one thing I hope they sort of get behind um again. I haven't heard that coherent approach yet, and I think it's
a danger for Democrats. But in terms of impeachment, I don't think these are impeachable offenses. I do think it's a time for us to revisit how the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senates whole gives advice and consent on these confirmations and these nominations. It's been so interesting. Thanks so much both of you for joining me here. That's Bloomberg Politics contributors Rick Davis and Jeanie Janzano. And that's it for this edition of Sound On. Joe Matthew will be back.
I'm June Grosso coming up Daybreak Asia. This is Bloomberg,