Prosecutors Paint Maxwell as Epstein’s ‘No. 2’

saw was a plastic hanger. I was so absolutely devastated that it was at that moment that I realized that I was really going to dedicate the rest of my life to taking an involvement with and bringing an education around the ocean. But apparently Maxwell was not so devastated to see underage girls being sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein.

According to the testimony of alleged victims at Maxwell's ex trafficking trial, for two weeks, jurors have been immersed in the luxurious and lascivious world of Epstein and Maxwell as prosecutors try to show them how young girls were drawn in by the pair and then trapped in a cycle of sexual abuse. My guest, his former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth,

a professor at Cardozo Law School. Is the broad question for the juries sort of whether they were partners in crime or whether she's being used as a scapegoat for his crime. So the defense seems to be pursuing a defense strategy or theory of the case that she is there is a scapegoat for Jeffrey Epstein because he killed himself and did not go to trial, and so therefore she is essentially a proxy through which the victims can have their day in court. But I don't think that

the prosecution sees it through that lens. The prosecution is presenting the case that, regardless of what mayor happened to Jeffrey Epstein, that Maxwell is independently guilty and culpable and is deserving of prosecution and conviction. How are the prosecutors

building their case against Maxwell? Well, the most important evidence is the testimony of the victims who have testified in detail about their abuse and the involvement of Maxwell in that abuse, including the roles she played in communicating with them to initially establish a relationship and in some cases to set up the massages that were sexual in nature

that they performed. On Epstein. So their testimony is really critical, and that's why you see the defense attorneys going after them on cross examination and after their credibility so aggressively.

But the prosecution is also relying on testimony from people who worked for Epstein, like his pilot, like his household staff, to establish the relationship between Epstein and Maxwell, and how close it was, how integraly intertwined she was with Epstein's affairs, to to corroborate the account of the victims in so far as it makes it more likely that Maxwell was in fact present at times when Epstein would have been meeting the victims and abusing the victims, and just so

shoring up the narrative that she was a critical player in Epstein's life in many different ways, but particularly in his residential life, managing his homes and being involved in the running of the households where so much of the abuse allegedly occurred. The alleged victims have really painted a picture of Maxwell befriending them and luring them in. Kate said, after her first sexual encounter with Epstein, Maxwell said, did

you have fun. You're such a good girl, and I'm so happy you are able to come the words she chose seemed to fit the prosecution's case precisely. There has been an extraordinary level of detail in the victims testimony, and so much of it is consistent between the victim witnesses in terms of describing the role that backed well played.

So the jury is going to be left to decide whether they believe the witnesses about not only the abuse that they suffered, but Maxwell's role in it, and the level of detail I think is something that is going a weigh heavily in the jury's evaluation of the testimony.

Has the defense made some inroads by showing inconsistencies in some of the alleged victims statements were a trial, they were including Maxwell being present during sexual encounters with Epstein, but she was not included in their statements to the FBI. So it does seem that there were some inroads made in in teaching the credibility of some of the witnesses by pointing to apparent inconsistencies between their testimony on the

stand and their previous statements. We don't know precisely what they told the FBI agents, for example, in those prior statements. I believe some of the witnesses pushed back a bit and did not acknowledge that they necessarily had made a different statement. For with the witnesses suggesting perhaps the FBI agent got the details wrong in the agents report, and that's certainly possible, but even if it is true, that

doesn't necessarily destroyed the witnesses credibility. It is often the case that witnesses give accounts that are different sometimes and fairly significant detailed when they tell the story multiple times. Um, that's just an aspect of human memory and how human beings tell the story. And I think anybody who's tried a case would tell you that it is more often than not their experience that people give different details at different times when they tell a story, And it doesn't

mean they're not being truthful. It can also matter what the context was when somebody told a story on one occasion versus another. And so, for example, I believe one of the victims who testified offered, by way of possible explanation for any inconsistency, that she wasn't being asked directly about Maxwell's involvement during a previous interview, whereas now during this trial she was being asked about that directly so

on redirect or um in closing argument. It's often possible to provide that kind of context to a jury UM and therefore diffuse what might initially seem to be a very significant line of impeachment on cross examination directed it inconsistent statements. I've heard so many cases of multimillion dollars settlements that it doesn't affect me that these women got multimillion dollar payouts from a settlement fund set up by the Epstein estate. But the defense really played on that well.

It certainly seems that the defense is pushing as one line of arguments that the witnesses are not to be believed because they have a financial motive that is causing them to testify about the abuse and Maxwell's involvement in it. It's not clear how much that's going to carry sway with the jury. UM. Was also not entirely clear is

how that financial motive ties into Maxwell directly. In other words, what is the defense going to say in closing about how the victims are incentivized to testify about Maxwell's involvement, specifically, UM if they have already received the payment from the fund created for Epstein's victims. The defense may have more say about that, about some kind of additional financial incentive um that they argue that victims have by virtue of

naming Maxwell. But it's not entirely entirely clear to me yet in what direction the defense is going to take that line of arguments. Might the jury be prejudiced against Maxwell because of the descriptions of this opulent lifestyle, the yachts, the private jets, the sumptuous surroundings. In theory, it could, and I would imagine that the judge would instruct the jury at the defense's request, not to consider wealth or

the lavishness of one's lifestyle against Maxwell. But it's clearly relevant to the government's theory of the case to establish what that lifestyle was. It tells the story of how

this abuse allegedly occurred. Because, of course, one of the ways in which Maxwell and f being allegedly lured in the victims was to offer them lavish gifts and access to this lavish lifestyle Sile, and so it would be pretty difficult to tell that story and explain to the jury how this scheme allegedly occurred without providing at least some of those details. I'm wondering if any of the

jurors might fault the victims, which you shouldn't do. But my fault the victims because they were all paid by Epstein in different ways, and some of their contacts with Epstein. One of the victims, the contacts lasted from the age of seventeen to the age of thirty. And I'm wondering if that might, you know, play in the minds of some of the jurism. I think that is something that

the prosecution would be thinking about as a concern. UM. I believe the prosecution put on an expert witness to address some of the psychological dynamics involved in sexual abuse, to address some of those issues, and to explain to a jury that may not otherwise be familiar with some of the dynamics. UM, why, for example, a victim might remain in communication and contact with their abuser. UM. Certainly that those are concerns that arise in cases involving sexual abuse.

It's not unique to this one, UM. But through expert testimony, UM, and also on some of the redirect examination of the witnesses, really probings of these questions. You know, why did you stay in contact with him? Um? The prosecution hopes to overcome those the questions that might arise in the juror's mind, and then also to address it finally in their nation. What does the prosecution really have to prove to this jury about Maxwell that she brought the girls in and

facilitated his sexual encounters with them. Is that enough? The government is going to need to show that Maxwell was a knowing participants in the sex trafficking activities that Epstein was engaged in. So as I understand that the defense theory is that Maxwell was part of that Stein's life, but that he compartmentalized his life, and so she was unaware of what it was that he was doing with

the minor girls behind closed doors. And so the government needs to persuade the jury that Maxwell was involved in those sexual activities, that she played a number of roles and helping them to occur, and she did that knowing full well what it was that was happening behind closed doors, and as the government alleges, with Maxwell herself being involved in some of those activities. So it's a question of both the actions that she engaged in and her intent.

Maxwell's attorneys haven't said if they'll call any witnesses yet. It seems unlikely that Maxwell herself will take to stand, but is that a possibility. There is always the possibility that she will take the stands. I think it's too soon to stay definitively one way or the other whether

they're going to do that here. They're clear risks for her and taking the stands, But I'm sure her lawyers are evaluating what they think the strength of the government's evidence is at this point, and whether it's worth having a discussion about Maxwell taking the stand. The defense had given notice about several expert witnesses who they wanted to call,

including psychological experts, to talk about. For example, what the defense described in pre trial filings is the halo effect that they would argue that Jeffrey Epstein benefited from, which caused people around him to essentially want to be in his presence and to see the best in him, and as a possible explanation for why Maxwell might not have known what he was doing in the parts of his life of the compartments that they argue he kept from Maxwell.

So there may be expert testimony of that nature. There may be expert testimony intended to explicitly rebut some of the expert testimony about sexual abuse in its dynamics that the government offered. And beyond that, we don't know exactly what witnesses the defense they call. Whether it would be fact witnesses who might talk about the facts that support this notion that Maxwell was removed from f Stein in important ways that would undermine her presence and knowledge of

his sexual activities with miners. In theory, they could call character witnesses about her character that would tend to undercut the charges that have been brought against her. So I think we really need to wait and see. It seems like there's a parallel between these two high profile cases where women are defendants on the East Coast and the

West Coast. And I'm referring to the Elizabeth Holmes trial where she's blaming her former romantic partner for the things that she's charged with, and here you have Maxwell blaming her former romantic partner for the things that she's charged with. There are some interesting parallels to consider between the two cases. Obviously, the charges are so different, Homes case involving fraud, the

Maxwell case involving sexual ideas of the miners. But you are right that there is a parallel in the sense of in each case you have a woman on trial and a male figure being this very dominant presence at the trial and being blamed for being essentially exclusively responsible

for the crimes that have been alleged. In the Holmes case, Tony Balwanti will stand trial her chief operating officer and also her one time boyfriend, who she says essentially misled her about Parados and also controlled her through an abusive relationship. And she was of course eighteen or younger when she met him. But Elizabeth Holmes was the CEO and founder of Sara NOS. In the Maxwell case, I mean, Maxwell was clearly subordinate to Epstein in terms of the role

she played in his affairs. There's no claim that she was essentially the CEO. She was very much, it would seem, an employee of Epstein, and so there's a difference there in the relative roles plate. But it will be interesting to see in the Maxwell case, as the defense starts to put forward its case, this isn't it does put forward a defense case if there is an attempt to portray that relationship between Epstein and Maxwell in a way

that echo themes of the Homes trial. In any suggestion that Maxwell was sort of under steen sway in some manner. I don't think we're going to see that, but it is remarkable that we do have these two such high profile trials going on simultaneously now onto coast. Thanks Jessica. That's Professor Jessica Roth of Cardozo Law School. The Supreme Court appears ready to give another win to parents seeking

public funds for religious education. At oral arguments this week, all the courts conservative justices suggested that Maine was violating the Constitution's free exercise clause by barring the use of public dollars at religious schools. The conservative justices and the liberal Johnstices appeared to have opposite views on what constitutes

discrimination on the basis of religion. Here are johnstice Is, Brett Kavanaugh, and Sonya So to Mayor, and the first neighbor says, we're going to send our child children to secular, our private school. They get the benefit. The next door neighbor says, well, we want to send our children to a religious private school, and they're not going to get the benefit. And I don't see how your suggestion that the subsidy changes the analysis. That's just discrimination on the

basis of religion. These parents are put through the same choice that every other parent in Maine is put to either get a free public EDGIC secular education or pay for your religious training. They're being treated as everybody else's justices. Stephen Bryan Elena Kagan question why Maine should be required to fund the teachings of the schools in question. Schools beliefs that they don't want to have gay students. They can't,

they can't have gay teachers. They have to teach that the man is the boss of a woman in a bunch of other things like that. I mean, these schools are overtly discriminatory. They're proudly discriminatory. Other people won't understand why in the world their tax payer dollars are going to discriminatory schools. My guest is Richard Garnett, a professor at Notre Dame Law School. Rick explain the issue here

in the context of prior cases. So the question presented here has to do with a program in the state of Maine that provides public funding to students who live in a district that doesn't have a traditional public school. It provides public funding for them to attend schools in other districts, or to use public funds to attend a private school, and students have used these public funds to attend private schools all over the country wide variation of institutions.

But Maine has a rule that the funds can't be used at a school if that school is deemed to be quote unquote sectarian. And so the question is whether that exclusion by the State of Maine is unconstitutional discrimination against religion. The Supreme Court has made it clear that governments are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion or to hold it against citizens that they make

religious choices, and so on. It has been a couple of cases in the last few years decided by the Court which have been kind of inching up to this main case. There was a case out of Missouri called Trinity Lutheran and a case out of Montana called Espinosa, And in both of those cases, again relatively recently, the Supreme Court said that when the government makes benefits available according to certain criteria, it can't discriminate against beneficiaries simply

on the ground of the beneficiaries religious status. And what was Maine's position here, According to the State of Maine, they would say, well, we're not discriminating on the basis of religious status. Rather, we're discriminating or we're excluding schools that have a pervasively religious character that are involved in religious instruction. I think the word that the lawyer for the State of Maine used repeatedly was we exclude schools

that are involved in instilling religious faith in children. So Maine would permit funds to go to a school that was, you know, religiously affiliated, but otherwise didn't really have any religious content. What they won't do, though, and they have you know, government officials whose job it is to kind of evaluate these schools and decide whether they are sectarian, which I guess is Maine's term for pervasively religious, or

whether they're merely religiously affiliated. And the challengers are saying, well, this is the same thing if you're discriminating against people because of their religious beliefs want to educate their kids

in a meaningfully religious school. Essentially, you're saying that benefits that they're otherwise entitled to as residents of the State of Maine in a district without a school, that they lose them they're being punished in a sense for their religious choice, and the lawyers for Maine and also the United States took this position would say, no, that's not

what's happening here. Instead, what's happening is it Maine is simply deciding what kind of education it wants to subsidize, and Maine has decided that it only wants to subsidize

secular or non sectarian education. So this is kind of the third in a series of cases that present similar issues, and I think the reason why it's closely watched is because the other two cases seem to be pointing towards this one, and so, like I guess, the issue is whether the Court is going to kind of continue on the same path that those two previous cases sketched out, or whether there's something different about Maine's program that will

lead the justices to say, no, this exclusion is permissible. Did it appear that a majority of the conservative justices seemed ready to rule against Maine. That would be my impression, you know, with all the caveats that justices asked questions all the time that don't necessarily tell us which way they're going to rule. The first of this series of cases, I mentioned Trinity Lutheran from Missouri that was seven to two.

It wasn't an ideologically divided case the more recent one Espinosa, that was five to four, And so I suppose it wouldn't be surprising if this case out of Maine was also five to four or six to three. Given the membership, the questions that the more conservative justices were asking seemed to be pressing Maine on the claim that this isn't

really discrimination against religion. So there were a lot of hypos and kind of intriguing questions trying to flesh out the question whether what Maine is doing here is really just kind of a neutral way of deciding what it wants to fund, or is this really the same kind of exclusion on the basis of religion that the Court has already said is impermissible and tell us about the liberal justices concerns. So Justice Brier sounded a theme that has been important to him for at least two decades.

He said, look, the state has an interest and of course, remember he's been in dissent in a lot of these cases over the decades. Though in a sense he's uh a little bit of a bind, as he acknowledged in the argument, but he said, the state of Maine has an interest in deciding that it will reduce the possibilities

of political strife political division. If Maine just says, look, we are going to have a policy of only sending public funds to UM to non religious schools, that that will be a way of kind of preserving peace and a pluralistic society. And the more conservative justices were sort of pushed back on that and said, well, that's not a constitutional standard, And in any event, how do we know whether it's more or less divisive to exclude religious

schools rather than to include them. I think for Justice Kagan and Um, she was, as she often is, very focused and precise in her questioning. She she conceded that, of course, when the government's regulating, it doesn't make sense to distinguish between, you know, discrimination on the basis of religious status and discrimination on the basis of religious use.

But she proposed that when you're talking about funding or what she called subsidization, that in that particular context, states should have the leeway to decide whether or not they want to fund I think it's not a question of prohibiting, but whether or not UM they want to fund certain kinds of education or not. It's a fascinating question that comes up in law a lot is how do you decide when what the government is doing is penalizing somebody

versus simply declining to benefit them. Is that a tomato tomato kind of thing? Or there are there meaningful distinctions there, And I think Justice Kagan was suggesting that there there is a distinction that can be drawn between discrimination in the context of a regulation or discrimination in the context of access to a general benefit on the one hand, and she wouldn't call it discrimination, I think, but a

government decision about what it wants to fund. Would the court have to overrule the two thousand four Supreme Court precedent in the case that upheld a Washington State post secondary grant program that excluded theology students. Interesting that that's the lock feed Davy case um, And there was some exchanges between the lawyers and the justices on this point. I think it was pretty clear that they would not

have to overrule it. That is, Lock feed Davy was about a particular situation where the state was declining to fund actual training for the ministry. That was the case where the state was perfectly willing to fund students going to religious schools, including pretty pervasively religious schools, and students were allowed to study religion if they wanted to to

take religious ministry classes. The exclusion was very narrowly focused on majoring in basically pre minister studies, and Um the lawyer for those challenging this main law said you don't have to overrule lock the Davey to say this is a different case. Some look at this as a slippery slope that could lead to public funds being used for church sponsored charter schools. The really intriguing question is whether a charter school program is analogous to the benefits program here.

Charter schools, at least in theory, are government schools, and so it could be that states are perfectly permitted because they're going to regard them as public schools. It follows

that they're not going to be religious schools. But of course, and this is what I think the commentary is getting at, if we think of a charter school authorization program as being more like a general dollarship or school choice program, well then it would look kind of weird if having a charter where a benefit but it was being denied to religious would be charter school operators but being granted to charter school operators who wanted to have stem schools

or art schools or what have you. So that will be a question that will arise. It's I think it's difficult to predict and how exactly how it would come out because different states structure there charter school authorization processes differently.

But at least for now, it strikes me that there is a distinction that can be drawn between on the one hand, states that decide to let some of their public schools be run as charters, but they're still public schools, and on the other hand, a program like Mains, where Maine decided to permit the funding of private schools. The lawyers for the state of Maine were very candid. You know, kids can use as funds fancy prep schools like Hanover.

They've used them in states outside of Maine. Again, they can even use them as some religiously ahiliated schools, but they're excluding certain religious schools on the basis of their religious character. And I suspect that that that's different from the charter school question. But the charter school question will be certainly on a lot of people's minds, and I suspect there'll be some litigation about it. Thanks so much for being on the show. Rick. That's Professor Richard Garnett

of Notre Dame Law School. The Senate Judiciary Committee deadlocked along party lines on advancing three of President Joe Biden's judicial nominees to the full Chamber, including an LGBT trailblazer and a pick for the largest appellate court. Joining me is Professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond Law School. Carl, let's start with Holly Thomas, who is nominated to the

ninth Circuit. Why was the committee deadlocked on her nomination. Well, the Republican Senators, especially Cruz Cotton and Holly, we're very critical of litigation that she ended before she became a judge in the state system in California for the a c l U and for the Department of Justice, principally

in the area of transgender students in schools. But she seems to be quite qualified, and she said she clearly understood the difference in being an advocate as a lawyer and being a judge, and she has done that for several years in the California system, but Senator Graham at first voted for her, but then changed his mind, and so it became an eleven eleven tie, and so she would have to be discharged from committee and would join Jennifer Sung for the Ninth Circuit as well, who had

a tie vote, and I expect that both of them will be coming up soon for cloture and final vote. So she would be the second black woman to ever serve on the Ninth Circuit. Tell us a little about her background. Well, I believe she was with the A C. L U for some time as a litigator, and I think it has argued cases in more than half the circuits.

And I believe she was at the Department of Justice, maybe in the Civil Rights Division, and has litigated civil rights issues there and then has spent several years on the California Superior Court in Los Angeles. One of the other nominees that was dead luck was Charlotte Sweeney, who was nominated to the District Court for the District of Colorado. Well, she's been in practice, I think for a couple of decades. It seems very experienced and has won some high profile

cases involving issues of equality. For lgbt Q people, and she would be, if confirmed, the first woman lgbt Q individual west the Mississippi to be a district judge. UM. And there was not very much discussion of her UM in committee UM, and the senators seemed satisfied and didn't ask her a whole lot of questions during her hearing. So it's puzzling exactly why UM she didn't get more votes, but that's where she sits, and they could be a

discharged petition on her as well. And what do you know about Hernon Vera, who was nominated to the Central District of California to be a district court judge. Well, he also I think it's on the Superior Court in um California, and very little questioning or discussion about him UM. But I do believe he had a background in public interest law for a large firm that conducts that kind of litigation, so maybe that was of concern to the Republican senators. But in any event, he had a similar

eleven eleven high vote. But I don't believe that he's been controversial on the state bench there where he sat in Los Angeles. So could it be that Biden is getting to the more controversial nominees that in the beginning he nominated people who went through easily, and now he's getting to the more controversial ones. Well, it could be then, but also it seems like the Republicans are doubling down, um and raising issues that really don't seem very appropriate.

For example, with Holly Thomas, they talked about Loudon County town here in Virginia, where there was an issue involving a transgender student. But subsequent to the time they questioned her, it became clear uh that the Republicans didn't have their facts correct, and she said she had never even heard heard of the case, and so, um, that's not surprising because it was very low profile. So it's just hard

to know. But it does seem except for Lindsay Graham, there have been very few departures uh from party line votes in committee on the Republican side, and he has gone back to his old practice uh from the Obamba administration and earlier, saying if the President sends up a nominee who was well qualified, then Graham will vote for that person because he gives the president the benefit of

the doubt. And so it's been unusual when he's voted no, but he has voted no on some and has voted pass on others, which is allowed some people to then get to the floor and be confirmed and so, but everybody else is pretty much voting no, with some exceptions, especially as to appellate nominees. So the committee did favorably report nine Biden judicial nominees, including Gabriel Sanchez for the Ninth Circuit. He is now an appellate judge there near

mediate appellate court, I think in northern California. He's been there a couple of years. He worked on judicial selection and many other issues UH during the administration of Governor Jerry Brown, and I think had a strong hearing, but many questions from Republicans, especially that he would be um

an activist on the court. But he said his experience as being a judge has shown him and he knew when he came on the California State Court that he had to leave his advocacy and activism behind, and I think his records shows that he did that, and so he did get Cenator Graham's vote was twelve to ten, and he does seem quite qualified, and so I think he'll easily be confirmed, but it may be closed. Let's talk a little about the White House commission that's examining

changes to the Supreme Court. The report is going to be basically the pros and cons of different proposals. What do you think has come out of this commission? Well, I think the commission has three dozen very well respected UM lawyers and law professors and others who intimately familiar with the Supreme Court and confirmation process, and they did a lot of very hard and very difficult work in

a very short compass of time. The President's executive order setting up the commission did not ask for recommendations, and I believe they're not going to give any. But what they did do is compile a report that I think they will issue very shortly after today's public here in late afternoon, but essentially trying to look at both sides of this issue about the Court and whether there might be ways to improve the court. And UM have done

a lot of research. Didn't always agree, but I think have tried to set out the important issues and show the pros and cons. So I think it's been a valuable exercise UM and the President himself and setting it upset, I don't want recommendations. I am inclined not to agree with the idea of packing the court. Uh. And I think he's also expressed publicly he's not very interested in the prospect of some kind of term limits for the justices. But they have thrashed out all those issues, and I

think in a productive, helpful, valuable way. So that exercise in itself is commendable and helpful, and hopefully we'll move the debate forward. They embraced sort of middle of the road kind of changes or continuations, like live streaming of oral arguments and advisory ethics code. But when it came to expanding the membership of the court or even term limits, they said there was profound disagreement if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade or even just as expected, affirms

the Mississippi Law. Is the pressure going to build on Biden to make changes to the Supreme Court, Well, it may, but he has I think being resistant to that so far. Um he's something of a traditionalist and an institution was these of the the confirmation process, so I think he appreciates all that and the deep history and has been

involved in it. He shepherded five or so Supreme Court justices through the confirmation process when he shaired this in a Judiciary committee in the late eighties, and so he's intimately familiar with the problems in the confirmation process then

also with the Supreme Court. And there may be pressure, but any of this in these proposals, especially the term limits and the idea of packing the cord or increasing the number of justices, would at least have to go through Congress, and as presently constituted, it's not realistic to expect that legislation would garner sixty votes in the Senate. And so maybe it's just an academic debate, but that's

a debate worth having, and they have had it. Term limits, I think is less controversial than than changing the composition of the word, because I think what Roosevelt tried to do in the thirties has been discredited and most people, I think still believe that that's not a very good idea and it would politicize the Court even more. Term limits, I think is more acceptable to a broader range of people, but it has some issues too, and I think even on the Commission there were a number who thought it

was not a very good idea. Um the Commission lays all that out and I think in a productive way, and so hopefully people can continue to study these issues and decide whether any of the proposals is good enough to embody and legislation and move forward. Let me ask you this, should the Supreme Court be reflecting the position or the views of a majority of Americans? Yes, to some extent. I mean, we hope the Supreme Court reflects

the will of the people. But the Supreme Court also believe eeds that it must be adhered to the Constitution, and I think that's where people can differ sometimes on specific issues. Abortion is one of those issues that has been with us for a long time, but many others over the history of the Court in the country have been issues that are controversial, and hopefully most of the

decisions will reflect the will of the people. Um. But there are also other ways to attack that problem if you see it as a as a problem, and that is to vote people out of office and then vote in people who will change the composition of the court, for example when their vacancies, or even entertain this legislation. Thanks Carl. That's Professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond Law School. And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the

latest legal news honor Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every week night at ten BM Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg