The Supreme Court in our country doesn't have any individual enforcement parrots, right, they don't have an army, they don't have a police force.

I think Donald Trump is not going to directly defy the court.

What he would do is he would say, I understand the Supreme Court has said these tariffs are unconstitutional, but I'm going to make some changes and these new tariffs will be different enough, and then force litigation on those sets of tariffs.

I'm Joanna Coles.

This is the Daily Beast podcast.

And what is going on out there.

We've got US attorneys resigning, which never happens.

We've got Pambondi being yelled at by the President because she's not moving fast enough to violate all the norms of the DOJ.

And of course we've got the Supreme Court making elemental decisions birthright citizenship tariffs over the next few months.

Well who better to un hack this with the Supreme Court scholar Jeffrey Tubin.

He's written not one, but two books about the Supreme Court.

He's a contributing writer for the New York Times, and of course you probably know him as a contributor to CNN.

Jeffrey So, Jeffrey, how serious, is it?

All these resignations in Minneapolis.

Well, I think you have to recognize the history here of how unusual it is to have federal prosecutors resign at all at any time ever.

I mean, it is not that it's never happened before, but before this Trump presidency and even the last Trump presidency, you never saw this kind of protest.

Remember there was a major group of resignations in the New York US Attorney's Office after the Eric Adams deal where the charges are dropped against the now former New York City mayor.

That was a set of resignations.

And now you have a group of prosecutors in Minneapolis resigning apparently because they think the Department of Justice is investigating the victims of this shooting of miss Good and you know, and her partner, you wife.

It's it's incredibly unusual, and I think it's indicative of just how politicize the Justice Department is under Pambondy, and how they're facing this unprecedented level of resistance from inside the Department of Justices.

So I'm dying to come onto Pambondi and the whole politicization of the DOJ in a second, before we do that.

So what happens I was thinking this morning, well, does this mean other prosecutors step up who are willing to go after Good's family, or they are willing to investigate her family.

I mean, one of two things happens.

Either people come to take their place and just they find willing participants in this in this investigation, or they say, you know, maybe we think better of it and don't do it.

Usually the rule is, I mean it has been under under President Trump, someone else comes in.

I mean, what happened in in New York was Emil Bovy, a senior Department official who is who is one of Trump's defense lawyers in the criminal case against him in Manhattan.

He essentially took over the case from Washington and cut the deal with with with Eric Adams.

In return for that, he was a given a lifetime federal judgeship.

So you know, there are incentives that can be offered to do the president and the Attorney General's bidding.

But it is also possible that the Justice Department leadership thinks better of the subject of the protest and backs off.

I don't know what's happened in Minneapolis, because the people just quit yesterday.

Is there an argument that they shouldn't have quit, and that they should have either slow walks the investigation until Donald Trump's you know, famously short attention span has moved on, or I mean, does this actually make it worse in a way that if you resign, someone else steps up who is prepared to do it.

That's always the argument for any resignation in protest, that you know, it's better to have someone of conscience on the inside rather than you know, letting the bad guys, as it were, take over.

You know, I think all you can do as a federal government employee is vote with your feet, and that's what these people have done.

But it certainly makes a big statement to resign in protest, because you know, as I said in the beginning, this is just not something that happens very often.

I take this issue pretty personally because back in the day, I was an assistant US attorney, not in Minneapolis, not in Manhattan, but in Brooklyn.

And when I was an assistant US attorney in the nineteen nineties, George Herbert Walker Bush was president, but no one even really paid any attention to that because these jobs were seen as almost entirely apolitical.

That these are I was a career employee.

These are all career employees.

The jobs of federal prosecutors historically have been pretty insulated from politics, and that's what makes what's going on now so extraordinary because that it's such a shift, and there's been so much pressure from Washington to do the president's bidding through the Justice Department, and it's why you see these resignations.

So you've got Pambondi, who is a former personal for Donald Trump.

You've got Todd Blanche her number two.

The two of them are running the DJ.

How is the DOJ faring under Donald Trump's second administration?

And what are you hearing from people inside the DOJ about how it's going.

Well, it's it's a complete transformation the the You know, I don't think I'm naive to think that the Justice Department could ever be a political Law enforcement always has a political dimension.

However, going back to the presidency of Gerald Ford when he took over after Watergate, there has been this real tradition in the Justice Department of separation from the political agenda of the president and doing just law enforcement.

Now, there has there have been exceptions to that, and that's not a perfect rule.

But it has been by and large, what's what's gone on.

This is a complete transformation.

And what you've seen is tremendous numbers of resignations in the Justice Department, especially in Washington, in the Civil Rights Division, which now exists to support the rights of white people.

I mean, that's what the Justice Department Civil Rights Division does, is to defend against what they think of as reverse discrimination and to end any sort of programs designed to help to help people of color.

You've had a huge exodus from the from the from from the Civil Rights Division.

You've had a very great limitation on white collar crime prosecutions, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which you know, limits American companies paying bribes abroad.

Stop, We're no longer prosecuting that anymore.

Another exodus.

And most importantly, you see in the famous email that that was essentially leaked, I think by mistake, from from President Trump to Attorney General Bondi, where she said, why aren't you prosecuting my political enemies?

And you saw the prosecution of James come me, the former FBI director uh and Attorney General Tis James in New York.

Now, fortunately for them, these cases seem to have been brought by completing competence and the the the.

So this is Lindsay Halligan, I'm obsessed by She has great hair, and I have no idea what she's doing.

Yeah, and and neither do the judges who are allegedly, you know who she's supposedly practicing before, Like if they keep asking her, like why are you here?

You have no authority to be here.

But but all of this is part of this incredible politicization of the Justice Department.

And just today I saw that the Justice Department, the FBI executed a search warrant at the home of a Washington Post reporter who was investigating some wrong you know, various kinds of wrongdoing.

The idea that you would search a reporter's home is so such a departure from the traditions of the Justice Department.

I mean, this story is just unfolding now.

But it's another example of how this Justice Department is breaking norms that have been honored for decades.

So how if there were a change in administration in four years time, three years time at this point, and the president was Democrat, how long does it take to rebuild.

You know, this is a question that is being asked a lot, and I think anyone who tells you with certainty that they know how long or how.

Because it requires sort of relying on people to come back in rebuild it, assuming they'll be stability.

Assuming there will be stability.

And also, I think, you know, one of the important things in the conversations I'm hearing about you know what will be the world like after Trump, is you don't necessarily want to rebuild things exactly the way they were in the past.

I mean, there's no guarantee that that was some sort of perfection that how do we make a justice Department, an environmental protection agent, administration, I mean, all of the parts of the government the Trump has completely gutted.

How do you bring them back and do it better?

The one thing you know for sure is you can't do it overnight.

It will be a complicated process and not an easy process.

But there are certainly a lot of people thinking about this issue of you know, a project twenty twenty nine, as it were, but it's going to take a long time.

And by the way, there's no guarantee that a Democrat is even going to win in twenty twenty eight, which means you could have, you know, president jd Vance extending what we're seeing now.

Right, and what are you hearing about how safe Pam Bondi is.

The Wall Street Journal wrote a piece this week saying that she was under pressure, that Donald Trump was furious she wasn't moving fast enough.

They're clearly leaking against her.

So do you think she stays the course?

It's worth noting that the President's complained against her.

Not is that she's violating the norms, is that she's not violating them enough, is that she hasn't brought enough cases against the political enemies.

I mean, remember too, this is the week that we learned that there was a criminal investigation of Jerome Powell, the head of the Federal Reserve, right, another political enemy of the president, under criminal investigation he appointed.

And what a transparently bogus investigation involving, you know, congressional testimony about the physical structure and the renovations of the building where the FED is this It's it's such a transparent attempt, as as Powell himself said to intimidate him.

So the idea that you know, Pam Bondi being forced out, it could be worse the replacement.

So I I have I really have no idea whether she's on thin ice or not.

But it's certainly not Donald Trump's complaint that she is violating the norms.

Right.

No, he's thrilled she's violated.

Right, he wants more norms violated.

So who stands up for the Justice Department at a moment like.

This, Well, you have, you know, members of Congress who are speaking out, but you're talking about a Democratic minority that has no power at the moment, can't call hearings in either the Senate or the House.

And you have a Republican majority in the Senate in the House that has been at least so far almost completely quiescent and completely subservient to Trump.

You have a lot of former members of the Justice Department, people who served under both Democratic and Republican presidents, who have spoken out and said this is not right, what's going on, but they don't have any physical, any actual power to do anything about it.

I mean, usually what happens even in normal Republican administrations, you have members of Congress speaking up and using their power to issue subpoenas to conduct investigations, to challenge or limit the budget of the Justice depart But Donald Trump so completely controls the Republican Party.

Now we haven't seen that.

So, you know, just to answer your question of who stands up, no one with any power is standing up.

Right, all right, So let's move on to the Supreme Court, which I know you've written a book about.

I mean, you've written lots of books, but specifically about the Supreme Court and the power and the personalities going on.

There six conservative judges and we're expecting them to come in with a lot of really important decisions.

Tariff's birthright, citizenship, the list goes on and on.

How is the Supreme Court faring under Donald Trump?

Well, I think the Supreme Court has been so far, and I want to say so far not you know, the verdict is not fully in, but it's been a very much a handmaid to President Trump.

I remember one of the signature's decisions the of this Supreme Court has been the Trump case itself, Trump versus the United States decided in twenty twenty four where they said, essentially, Donald Trump and any president is essentially immune from criminal prosecution ever for anything he does.

Anything he does in the president yes.

Right, and even if Harris had won the presidency, basically made the criminal prosecution of Trump impossible because of the rules they set up.

Most of the cases that the Trump that the Supreme Court has handled so far in this first year of Trump's second term, they have allowed the President to do what he wanted on issues like in immigration budget.

But there are major issues still outstanding, the two you mentioned, I think, most prominently whether the president unilaterally can impose tarror and whether he can end birthright citizenship.

I think there's a better chance that the Supreme Court stands up to him on those issues than what we've seen before, But we don't know the answer to that yet.

So when they're making a decision, to what extent are they thinking about the political ramifications the decision is going to have.

I know they're not supposed to, but how can they not.

They obviously understand that the political stakes of the decisions that they make.

They are very savvy individuals.

They follow the news, they follow politics.

They know exactly what's going on now.

They also believe, and I think sincerely, that what they are doing is applying the law, applying the Constitution, applying the statutes, and they work within that framework.

But they are acutely aware of the political state of what they're doing.

Okay, So I thought that what we could do as a fun game, sure you know them better than I do, is I could give you each of the nine justices named, and you could give me one word to sum them up.

Well, I have it a sentence sentences.

Yeah, all right.

You know, I'm a lawyer.

I have hard limits limiting myself to one.

As long as we'd have to be that's right, Yeah, all right?

So Chief all right, John Roberts, who's obviously the chief.

The Chief Justice, Chief Justice, who.

Must have thought, who can't have seen this in his future?

He must have been so excited when you got that job.

Well, I mean, I think it's important to remember that that the Chief Justice is a conservative and a Republican.

I think the most important thing to know about Chief Justice Roberts is his experience as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration.

That's that's what he did after he got out of law school and his clerkships.

And one of his big causes there were protecting executive power and limiting civil rights, limiting affirmative action, ending the Voting Rights Act.

These are causes that are very close to his heart.

So Trump for the United States the end of affirmative action, the almost end of the Voting Rights Act, all conservative causes that Roberts definitely believes in and has happily led on the Supreme Court.

He is not a true movement conservative, doesn't care a lot about abortion, doesn't care a lot about gay rights and same sex marriage.

So he is not fully on the MAGA team.

But don't kid yourself, he was and is a conservative.

Okay, and he was appointed by George W.

Bush.

George W.

Bush two thousand and five.

Yeah, but he's a sort of less government, not more government.

Yeah, I think.

That that that's safe to say.

Although he is someone who believes in a powerful executive.

You know what, one of the one of the big issues when he was coming up as a lawyer was is after Watergate, the presidency being weakened for visa the Court's visa VI Congress.

So he's someone who's not for small government when it comes to the president.

And if you look at his decisions, giving the president a lot of power is something that that he he has stood for throughout his career.

Okay, what about Clarence Thomas, And you can't say man with a difficult.

Wife, he's he's not difficult for him.

I mean they seem very they seem very happily married.

He he is now the senior justice in terms of tenure on the Court.

He's appointed in nineteen ninety one.

He's now approaching one of the longest tenures in Supreme Court history.

And I wish I could do the math fast enough.

It's thirty five years.

And he has seen views that he expressed early in his tenure, very much as an outsider on the court become the law of the land.

I mean, he has been vindicated by the Republican appointees.

To the Court, so anti bullshit and.

Overturning Roe v.

Wade, which ultimately happened.

Giving individuals a constitutional right to own firearms under the Second Amendment a great cause of his.

He was the only justice who believed in it in nineteen ninety one.

By two thousand and eight, the Court embraced a constitutional right to bear arms.

Lots of the He's more on the social side, you know, lowering the barriers between church and state, something you feels strongly about, making it easier to conduct executions, all of which are Thomas causes that have come to command a majority on the court.

Okay, and then do we care that his wife told people that they should keep protesting over January the sixth and that I.

Mean, you know, the ethical issues around Thomas are so extensive, you have to start with, you know, the circumstances of his arrival there where Anita Hill, a former aid to him, told Congress you know how he had sexually harassed her back when she worked for him.

Yes, his wife is a big political activist.

I actually think that is of less consequence.

You know, we live in a world of two career families.

I don't think that the she was a political activist before she married Clarence Thomas.

I think she's entitled to her career.

I think a much more serious issue is the fact that he's been given all these gifts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from people right wing billionaires with business before the court.

I think that's a lot more troubling than Jenny Thomas's political activity.

But there is no remedy for misconduct by Supreme Court justices except impeachment by Congress, and that's so difficult and so cumbersome.

It's never going to happen.

And they don't have their own code of ethics.

Right.

That's another weird fact about the Supreme Court is that lower court, federal judges, Appeals court judges, disrecurt judges, do have a code of conduct that they are obliged to follow.

The Supreme Court has made the argument that constitutionally that cannot apply to them.

They say they apply in some general way to some general code of conduct.

But the fact is there is nothing binding that's imposed on them.

Right, So he can carry on taking expensive holidays from people who want to curry his favorite.

Correct.

He apparently is not doing that anymore, but there's nothing stopping him.

Okay, all right.

So Samuel Alito also long serving.

Correct.

He is the next most senior associate justice after Thomas.

Appointed in two thousand and six by George W.

Bush.

He replaced Sandra Day O'Connor, and I think they the replacement of O'Connor by Alito was a real turning point in the court because O'Connor was a true moderate.

She was not a liberal by any means.

She voted for George Bush in the infamous case of Bush v.

Gore.

So, I mean, but when it came to abortion rights, when it came to f penalty when it came to affirmative action.

She was on the liberal side on those issues.

Alito was not only conservative when he took office in two thousand and six.

He's gotten considerably more conservative over the course of those twenty years, for reasons that remain mysterious to me.

There is a tremendous anger in justice Alito.

You see it in his offul bench statements.

You see it.

He feels perpetually aggrieved for a guy who keeps winning all these cases, who is the author of the Dobbs decision which overturned Roe v.

Wade.

I mean, things seem to be going pretty well for him.

Why he's so angry all the time?

I don't get it.

But he seems at this point very much to embody a sort of Fox News approach to his work, and he too is winning most of the time.

So, if you're Samuel Alita or Claren Thomas, are you irritated that?

I would say that's a far fetched hypothetical if I were Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito, But go ahead ask your question.

Yeah, are you irritated by John Roberts?

John Roberts is younger.

I mean, how does it work in terms of like you would think that perhaps the most senior of the members, who's been the most longest serving, would be the Chief Justice.

Now that's that's not how the Supreme Court operates, very strictly according to seniority rules.

But according to those seniority rules, regardless of length of tenure, the Chief Justice is always first.

And the most important power that the Supreme Court that the Chief Justice has is when he is in the majority, he can assign who rights the opinions.

Okay, and opinions come out very differently depending on who writes them, even if they're you know, the justices are on the same side.

So that's but if if Roberts is not in the majority, then it goes in seniority in terms of tenures.

So Thomas first, then Alito, uh, then so do Mayora, then Kegan, et cetera.

That that that is a significant power.

I think, based on my my reporting, Thomas and especially Alito regard Roberts as what a lot of right wing Republicans call a squish, you know, someone who is not a fully on board with the Republican agenda, that he's sort of almost there but not there.

And that's a source of frustration to them.

But there's no doubt at the Supreme Court that when it comes to senilarity, the Chief is always first.

Okay, And do they do the conservatives all get on, you know.

I one of the one of the metaphors that's always been useful to me in describing the Supreme Court is that it's like nine separate law firms.

That they they understand that they are stuck with each other, that these are lifetime appointments.

So they they serve year after year, decade after decade together.

And Chief Justice Renquist, who is the Robert's predecessor, established a kind of norm of good fences, make good neighbors, don't harass each other, Let's just do our votes.

We're going to disagree some of the time, but it is not an especially collegial place.

They sit together for oral arguments, they have their conferences on Friday afternoon where they vote together, but they don't spend a lot of time together.

The days of close friendships among the justices have really passed.

And I think Renquist was pretty wise to say, look, just leave each other alone and let and let us do our jobs.

Right.

So does John Roberts have like an annual Christmas party where he invites people and they all come.

Yes, there are events and and they have a certain number of lunches together and they especially under which centdra O'Connor was someone who really tried to cultivate a relationship among the justices.

Well, she did because she was the first woman.

Well she was the first woman, and she also had been an elected official.

She was a politician, a state senator in Arizona.

She believed in, you know, talking and trying, and she would bring in guests to talk to, you know, all nine justices, you know, artists from the Kennedy Center, the.

Trump Kennedy Center.

It was, it was it was the Kennedy Center then, right.

But but since O'Connor's left, there hasn't been someone who's who's really tried to do that.

And you know, yes, there are certain events that they all go to, but it is not a warm and cuddley workplace.

Okay, all right, so let's go through the remaining justices.

What about the I'm not going to club the women together.

That's not fair, Sae.

Well, but I mean it's it's not that you're clubbing the women together.

It's the three Democrats.

It's the three Democrats.

There are four women, but there are three Democrats.

I mean Soda my Orn Kagan were both appointed by President Obama.

President Justice Soda Mayor, new Yorker from the from the Bronx, first Hispanic to be on the Court.

Very liberal, very you know, outspoken person.

Alena Kagan, also from New York, but from Manhattan, someone who came out of the law professor world, also worked in the Clinton White House, had been the Solicitor General, more of an institutionalist but also definitely liberal, aligned with Soda Mayor most of the time.

But the two of them, one appointed in two thousand and nine, the other appointed in twenty ten in important cases, have been in the minority almost their whole careers.

So it's, you know, timing in the Supreme Court is everything.

They have not been tremendously influential because they don't have the votes, and are.

They destined basically now for the rest of their career in the Supreme Court to be in the minority.

Well, unless something dramatic happens in terms of vacancies.

If you know, Gavin Newsom becomes president in twenty twenty nine and for some reason Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have to leave the court, probably for health reasons, because they're not going to leave voluntarily, while Gavin Newsom or some Democrat as president and somehow there are two more Democratic justices then their sot Maori Kagan could could you know, command a lot more influence.

I think that scenario is extremely unlikely.

So an answer to your question, I think, yeah, yes, they are likely to be destined to be in the minority in big cases for most of their.

Careers, and Catangie Brown Jackson will be in the same group exactly, Okay, exactly.

And what about how's Brett Kavanah doing after his tricky, tricky.

What's it confirmation confirmary?

Yeah?

I tricky is a is a kind way of describing what went on.

You know, Brett Cavanaugh, very conservative justice, someone who comes out of the Republican political world, who I think, more than say Clarence Thomas or Neil Gorsuch, cares about how the Court is perceived.

And I think Kavanaugh wants the Court to be perceived and wants himself to be perceived as someone who's a law person, not a political person.

But don't kid yourself he's a reliable vote for the conservative positions.

He voted to overturn Roe v.

Wade after suggesting he wouldn't during his confirmation hearings.

So you know, he's a loyal Republican soldier, but someone who cares more about public perceptions than Thomas or Gorsich.

Okay, and what about Gorsach, who's supposed to be a bit more of a maverick, isn't he not?

Really?

I mean, in fact, he is.

He is.

He is more conservative even than Kavanaugh.

He's not so he's he's kind of a loner.

He's a Westerner, he's from Colorado, has a very much a libertarian streak.

He has carved out a position for himself as a great defender of the rights of Native Americans of Indians, which is I think been a surprise to a lot of people.

He did write one opinion saying that gay and trans people could could sue for discrimination under federal law.

Somewhat of a surprise to have joined the liberals on that.

But but almost all the time he is with Thomas and Alito on the far right end of the court.

Okay, So I think I think we covered all of them.

No, you left out Amy Barrett.

Oh I left out Amy Comy Barrett, who also said that it was unlikely she would overturn raver.

Correct, correct and confirmation.

And you know, she has not aligned herself fully with the far right of the court, with Thomas, with Alito, with Gorsic.

She's no moderate either, don't get me wrong, but she does her vote does seem to be in play in more cases than some of us, some of us expected.

So, I mean, just if you want to think of the court structurally, you have the three democratic memory you know, democratic appointees, so to Mayor, Kagan and Jackson, who are you know, more or less permanently in the minority.

You have three who are the far right of the court, which is Thomas, Alito, and and Gorsic.

And then you have Chief Justice Roberts, Amy Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh, who are mostly with the three hardcore conservatives, but not always.

It is a very conservative court.

But if you were looking for any play in the joints, it's going to come from Roberts, Barrett or Kavanaugh.

So if you're the liberal judges, what is the point in being at this point?

Well, remember the Supreme Court decides about seventy five cases a year.

You know, ten to twelve are very high profile, but a lot of the others are very important in the legal world.

And you know, these justices and they are not all decided six to three.

There are a lot of them that are just sided unanimously, and these justices get to write some of those opinions.

So, I mean, you know, we talk about the Supreme Court as if all they ever do are these big, high profile cases.

There are in fact lots of cases, and they are very important, even though if they're not, and the liberal justices get to write their share of those.

It is also, you know, a great tradition in the Supreme Court that to write descents that sometimes in later years become law.

Famously, at the turn of the century, Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis wrote a series of descents about free speech issues, which, once the Warrant Court came in in the nineteen sixties, were essentially adopted by the Court as the law of the land.

So there is always the hope in writing and descent that future generations see you see that and think that was right all along.

It's also a bummer to be in the descent all the time.

It's you know, Justice Soto Mayor has talked about going back to her chambers and crying sometimes because she's so upset about what the Court's doing.

So I mean, I don't want it's it's certainly better to be a Supreme Court justice in the minority, in the majority than in the minority.

It's still a pretty good job even if you're in the minority.

So Alito and Clarence Thomas have been there a long time.

Is there any chance that they would resign?

Yes, yes, they are both.

They're both in their seventies, and I think they can be confident that President Trump would appoint a successor who shared their views.

And I think as you go into this year, I think June of twenty twenty six, there is a realistic possibility that one of the two or of the two of them would leave, because you know, there's going to be a Republican majority in the Senate at least in two the end of twenty twenty six, so that conversation will take place at the end of the day.

I think neither Robert, neither Thomas nor Alito will leave.

They both have all their marbles, they both are writing opinions on issues they care about.

Why should they why should they leave?

I think that's their own calculation.

I think just President Trump would love to see them leave.

He'd love to have a fourth appointment to the Court.

Who would be younger, who would be much much younger.

And you know, not many presidents have had four appointments to the Supreme Court.

No one since Nixon, Reagan, I think, had only three.

So equinarly, how Donald Trump is leaving his mark absolutely everywhere.

Not only is he rebuilding the White House, he's rebuilding the Supreme Court.

He you know, three appointments, those three appointments, and especially the fact that he got to replace Sandrade O'Connor and Ruth Ginsberg and and and Anthony Kennedy.

Right, No, not not O'Connor, Kennedy.

It was Kennedys, Ginsburg and Scalia.

So two of those three meant a big change in the makeup of the court.

Right, because they went from being sort of more moderate and in the middle to being.

Being much more conservative.

You know, Biden had one appointment, but Katanji Jackson replacing Stephen Bryer didn't really change the makeup of the court much at all.

So the fact that it's not just that Trump had three appointments, two of the three changed the balance of the court dramatically.

Okay, so Donald Trump notwithstanding, it seems like the court is more conservative than the majority of the population.

Is there a point where the Supreme Court loses loses the people as it were?

You know, I hear that said, but I don't see it.

You know, Justice Robert Jackson, who was a Franklin Roosevelt appointee, was the best writer pro stylist ever to appear ever.

And one of the things he said, which I really believe about the Supreme Court, he said, we are not final because we are infallible.

We are infallible because we are final.

They have the last word to an unusual degree among democracies.

Compared to Great Britain, compared to India, compared to Canada, the power of the United States Supreme Court to declare laws on constitutional without any possibility of review is greater than any other democracy, Germany, France, to pick your country.

Yes, the Supreme Court is less popular than it used to be, even since you know, Bush v.

Gore was you know, an assault on the Court's popularity.

The Dobbs case, overturning Roe v.

Wade, ending affirmative action, limiting voting rights.

These are things that are not popular with the rest of the country.

And I think the attitude of the Supreme Court by and large is so, what what are you going to do about it?

And the answer is nothing nothing.

So the one person who might do something about it tends out to be President Trump, right, because he loves overturning institutions.

But even Donald Trump, there's not much he can do about the Supreme Court.

And I think we're going to see now the tariff decision.

He has, you know, to an unusual degree in typical Trump fashion, has been lobbying the Supreme Court to vote to uphold his powers.

But if they say no, if you can't, if they say you can't impose these tariffs, I don't think there's anything you can do.

About Well, it sounded like from the questioning they had there might be a moment where they didn't approve the tariffs, but didn't because just because of the sheer logistical nightmare of it.

Grandfather the decision into when he started, So we sort of that's in the rear view mirror.

But going forward, you can't.

That's a definite possibility that that's something that the Court could do that.

You know, if you invalidate, if you say that the president doesn't have the power and never had the power, the people who had to pay the tariffs could go to the government and said, give me my money back.

That's a recipe for chaos.

I think the court understands more chaos, right, But it certainly logistically would be a lot easier to say, you know, just no not going forward.

No, no, no presidential tariffs going forward.

But even though in the oral argument it seemed court was heading in that direction, I have been burned myself making too many predictions about what the Court will do based on what they say at oral argument.

Famously, during the Obama administration, the Obamacare case, where they were asked to overturn the Obamacare law as unconstitutional, it seemed like there were five votes against it from the oral argument.

That's what I said when I covered it, and I was definitely wrong when they it turns out they upheld.

They upheld the Obamacare right.

So do you have any insight into the birthright citizenship which is also in front of them?

Yes, I mean that seems incredibly complicated.

Actually one of the least complicated cases really that you can imagine, because if you read the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, you don't have to you don't have to be a lawyer to read the text of the fourteenth Amendment, which says all persons born in the United States born means born, and the Supreme Court every time they have considered this issue, including a famous decision from eighteen ninety eight, they have said that if the Fourteenth Amendment says you're a citizen, if you're born in the United States, you're a citizen.

And you're born in the United States.

Now, there is this phrase in the Fourteenth Amendment born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof which opponents of birthright citizenship have used to try to get rid of birthright citizenship altogether.

What seems clear is what that phrase meant is children of foreign diplomats who are not subject to the jurisdiction if they're born in the United States, they're not citizens.

American Indians who have a sort of separate set of laws that apply to them, they're not necessarily subject to the Fourteenth Amendment.

But I just think the birthright citizenship case is an easy case because born means born.

And there's also the issue of the chaos that would be created if you suddenly had to start telling hospitals, you know, you have to determine the immigration status of the women giving birth, and to say nothing of the people who already gave birth, you know, non citizens who gave birth in the United States.

I just don't think the Court is up for that kind of chaos.

And I think the words of the fourteenth Amendment are just simple enough.

Born means born, right, Although we're living at a time when almost any word or anything can be taken somehow.

You know, That's why God and that's why God invented lawyers, is to tell you that born doesn't mean born, and words don't mean what they say, what they seem to mean, sometimes they actually do mean what they say.

And I think I think at least as far as birthrates citizenship goes, I think even this Supreme Court is not going to go that far.

But that case hasn't even been argued yet in the Supreme Court, so we haven't heard their questions that are all argument.

We just sort of know their track record.

We know the legal history of the issues, so we'll know more.

That case is not going to be decided until at fall of twenty twenty six at the earliest.

Okay, So all right, So final question for you, which is sort of law adjacent, which is that in the Epstein files, the Clintons have been subpoenaed.

They appear to have ignored the subpoenas as far as we know, and they were due to appear I think before the Oversight Committee mid December than earlier this week, and there seems to have been no progress.

What what is I mean, it seems incomprehensible that you can have a former president in contempt?

But is that is that possible?

Sure, sure it's possible, but I don't think it's it's it's particularly meaningful.

The Clintons have a very good political argument against these subpoenas.

I don't think they have a great legal argument against the subpoenas.

You know, Congress has great freedom in who they subpoena.

I mean, you know, they get to decide who they want to hear from, and I think that's a good thing basically.

And the Clinton argument is, well, this is not pursuing to any real legislation.

This is just a political expedition.

You know what Congress does a lot of things that are political.

I think what is really going on here is that the Clintons are betting that they can tie this USh issue up legally for several months and then the Democrats are going to probably retake the House of Representatives in the midterm elections in November.

The Oversight Committee at that point will turn over to Democrats to control, and they'll make the subpoena go away.

They'll just, you know, withdraw the subpoena.

So I think, but that's another night or ten months.

Yeah, so they can just drag it.

Oh yeah, it's I mean, it is not hard to drag out a legal issue for nine months.

That's child's play for lawyers in our system.

And so and in terms of contempt, yeah, you know, Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt.

Attorney General Merrick Garland was held in contempt.

It's not like they put you in stocks when you're in contempt.

It is a lead.

It is a It is something that the Congress does but has no legal effect until it's upheld by the courts.

And that means the Clintons will be able to challenge it in the district court, in the Court of Appeals, and maybe even the Supreme Court, all of which will take a very great number of months.

And if the Democrats retake the House in November, the subpoena is going to go away anyway.

Okay, okay, Well that's very helpful, all right, so hugely helpful understanding the mess that's going on.

And I guess what will be interesting is if the Supreme Court make a decision that Donald Trump doesn't like and he decides not to adhere to it.

Well that's you know.

There is a famous, largely apocryphal story about President Andrew Jackson who had a confrontation with the Supreme Court, and he is said to have said Chief Justice Marshall was Chief Justice at the time, So mister Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.

I mean, the Supreme Court in our country doesn't have any individual enforcement powers.

They don't have an army, they don't have a police force that can do anything except protect their members.

So they rely on the understand the other branches of government that the Supreme Court has the last word.

I think Donald Trump is not going to directly defy the court, but this administration has figured out ways to get around court rulings and in a way that I don't think it's for certain.

I don't think it's entirely clear how he would react to a adverse decision.

But we'll see.

Yeah, So do you think that could happen with tariffs?

If they came back and said you cannot impose tariffs and he said, well, I'm going to impose them.

I think what he would do.

What he would do is he would say, well, my lawyer, I understand the Supreme Court has said these tariffs are unconstitutional, but I'm going to make some changes and these tariffs, these new tariffs, will be different enough, and then force litigation on those sets of tariffs that you know, there are ways to play with the wording and play with the response so that you don't seem like you are in direct defiance of the courts, even if you really are.

Jeffer, you can't give him ideas.

If he's watching this podcast, he's like, oh my god, I'm.

Just going to There are better There are better lawyers than I who thought of all this stuff already.

So I have one more final question for you, which is about the president's ability to fire the heads of supposedly independent government agencies.

That's also under the Supreme docket this year.

Right, yes, do you have any insight into how they will address that?

Trump wins for sure?

For sure, this is a done deal.

There's a famous case called Humphrey's Executor, which said from the nineteen thirties that the president can't fire heads of the independent agency Securities Exchange Commission, National Relations Board, or the Federal Trade Commission.

Conservatives have had that decision in their sites for years.

There is absolutely no doubt that the president will will will win that case.

And this is an example of John Roberts believing in presidential power.

This is a crusade he's been on that.

It's sometimes called the unitary executive theory that anything under the executive branch, as these independent agencies are, has to be under the control of the president, so he should be able to fire their leaders for any reason and that and I have no doubt that's what they're going to do.

All right, There must be a positive note in all of this.

What is the positive note?

Please find us for you're the lawyer.

Well, it's a lovely day in New York City.

The weather's terrific today, So that's a positive note.

I I what.

About lawyers bills?

The lawyers bills going up, because there's so much.

More there, there's there, there's any of legal work.

Look, you know, we're gonna I was talking to a law professor about this yesterday and I said, well, like, how bad are things?

You know?

It was sort of a similar questions like well you know, he said, Look, I'm not going to pretendings are things are are anything other than bad.

But you know what, We're going to have an election in twenty twenty six.

We really are going to have an election.

And the idea that Donald Trump is some kind of going to cancel the election or or interfere in a serious way is I don't think realistic.

And we'll see, we'll see what the people's verdict is on that, and then we'll have an election in twenty twenty eight.

I mean that's a pretty low bar.

The fact that I'm saying the good news is we're going to have an election.

It is a yeah, but it is, but it is good news, I think.

And you know that's all I got for you, Joan.

I'm sorry, so under.

Joke, Biden, there was a report into the Supreme Court in terms of should they extend it?

Should they expand it because obviously he inherited a conservative court.

How long would it take to what would it take to actually sort of if a new Democratic president were coming in and he wanted to offset the conservative nature of the Supreme Court, what would it take.

Well, you know, I think one thing a lot of people don't know is that the Constitution establishes a Supreme Court, but it does not set the number of justices.

That is something that's set by statute by Congress.

So and in fact, in the early years from you know, in the early eighteenth century to just after the Civil War, the number of Supreme Court justices actually varied.

That Congress changed it several times, and it was only after the Civil War that it was set at nine.

Franklin Roosevelt famously, during when the Supreme Court was striking down many aspects of the New Deal during the during the Depression, he came up with what was known as the Court packing Plan, where he was going to raise the number of justices for every justice over the age of seventy was.

It was packaged as an attempt to help the elderly justices.

It was transparently an attempt to raise the number of justices, and he could appoint the new ones so they could overturn what happened instead.

This is the good thing about getting elected four times as president.

Those justices just retired and Roosevelt wind up having nine appointments to the Supreme Court, and the court wound up doing his bidding on those issues.

Tomorrow, Congress could pass a law if the president signed it and said, they're now fifteen justices on the Supreme Court, and the new president could appoint six of them.

So you know that could be done.

There are also possibilities, and here is where there are constitutional issues.

They could set mandatory retirement that might take a constitutional amendment, might set term limits.

I mean, there are there are many proposals out there for term limits.

I think they're good proposals.

You probably would need a constitutional amendment to do it.

But frankly, when you look at how our Congress is as polarized as it is, and you'd need sixty votes in the Senate to get past a filibuster on these things, to say nothing of passing in the House.

Increasing the number of Supreme Court justices so that the incumbent president got a bunch of new appointments.

It could theoretically be done, but I think it's just extremely unlike.

You could also backfar with the next president then.

Doing the same thing exactly exactly I mean.

And that's one of the arguments against it is once you you know, open that Pandora's box of increasing or decreasing the number of Supreme Court justices could become sort of like what redistricting has become.

You know, there was a norm that said, you know, congressional districts are only changed once every ten years after the census.

Right now, of course, you know, it's it's open season all the time, and we have Texas, we have California, we have you know, all these states that are changing.

That's the worry about any sort of change on the makeup of the Supreme Court is that once you change it, once it becomes something easier to change.

Okay, so you mentioned term limits.

You wrote an excellent piece in The New York Times last week arguing that Judge Alvin Hellestine, who's been put in charge of the Maduro case, should not be in charge of the Maduia case because he's going to be ninety three, which feels very old to take.

I don't think it feels very old.

I think it is very old.

You know, ninety three is not the new anything as far as I'm concerned.

Three.

You know, if you're a fan of better and better to me, so what would the should there be age limits?

How would you deal with this?

Well, ninety three seems very old to drive, let alone.

Oversee a case of a South American dictamy.

Well, you know this again, you know this comes from the Constitution.

Article three of the Constitution, which covers the judiciary, says judges should serve during good behavior.

What that means is, unless you're impeached, you you can you can stay indefinitely.

And there are judges who have stayed into their nineties.

There have been norms, There have been you know, part of the judicial culture in the Bay, which which is just it's it's about, and there is peer group pressure among judges not to embarrass the judiciary and stay too long.

But there have been sleeping judges, sleeping federal judges in history.

Many states, like New York, for example, have mandatory retirement for judges seventy five.

I think that would be a.

Virul Judge Hellestine still.

Loud well, because he is a federal judge, and federal judges have no mandatory retirement because they can serve during good behavior, which means until you're impeached, and judges have historically never been impeached.

I think the combination of public pressure and pressure from his colleagues will lead him to let another judge take the Maduro case.

I'm pretty confident about that.

I have no illusion about the power of my journalism.

My record is almost perfect and having no influence on the outcome of events.

But on that one, I think may there may actually be some change.

Well, you certainly started a conversation about it.

I don't think anybody realized he was going to be ninety three when the case really got going.

And the minute you hear it, you're like, okay, this is no sense.

No, unfortunately, it makes no sense.

All right, thank you so much for coming, and really please promise that you will come back when we have big decisions that we need to unpack.

My pleasure.

So my favorite part of that was just learning more about the justices.

As they sit swinging their legs from their grand chairs in chambers.

They can't imagine what their lunches are like on Friday when they get ready to sit around and discuss the decisions they're making.

And of course it's terrifying the idea that Donald Trump might be able to replace the two older Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, with younger justices, which means that the court remains conservative for years and years to come.

Anyway, leaders comment, I would really like to know what you think and whether or not you think Jeffrey was laying out a blueprint for Donald Trump's circumventing Scotus's decision if they come back and decide that he can't apply tower.

So leave us a comment on YouTube.

Don't forget to subscribe to the podcast, and to subscribe to The Daily Beast and what else?

Oh yes, I know, join the Daily Beast community.

You can become a be Beast Tier member, which means you get lots of extra things.

It's all good, and you get dinner with Michael Wolfe.

Kind of.

We've got to start inviting people.

And we also have a word from our editor at large, Kevin Fallon.

Joanna, Hi, I have to tell you about something that we're obsessed with.

I'm Kevin Fallon and I'm Matt Willstein and we are hosting Obsessed, the podcast about all the TV shows, movies and entertainment newsmakers that we're all obsessed with.

So make sure you subscribe to us on YouTube at the YouTube channel, make sure you follow us wherever you get your podcasts.

Just search for Obsessed to the podcast.

And we will see you there.

Big thanks to our special be Beast tier of members.

Here they are if At Johnson, Thinks Batsio, Farrell Mills and Lynz Shelby, Max Cubitt, David Sherry, Thomas Moore, Maria Voltaigne, d q Jah Watts, Senor Lund, John h Overocka, Deb k Ostrander, Sandra Clark, travels with Carl Andrew Beaver, Capinata, Harry Clark, Dawn McCarthy, Daniel dog Lover, em Griner, Dy Stone, Foolvia Orlando, Herbie, Andrew Meller, Tatnell, Val Love, Francisco, Will Hutchison, Andrea Hodel, Bocock, DC, Sharon Shipley, Connie Rutherford, Karen White and last but never least, Heidi Riley.

Big thanks to our production team, Devon, Roger Reino, Rachel Passer and Heather Passaro and Ryan Murray.

It's just growing.

The team is growing.