>>> NOW TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WHERE THE JUSTICES ARE FACING SEVERAL LANDMARK CASES, WHILE THEIR APPROVAL RATINGS REMAIN AT RECORD LOWS FROM THE TRIALS AWAITING DONALD TRUMP TO A VITAL REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS DECISION, PROFESSOR OF LAW STEPHEN VLADECK JOINS HARI SREENIVASAN TO DISCUSS THE CASES ATTRACTING ATTENTION AND WHETHER WE'RE WITNESSING A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IN THE NATION'S HIGHEST COURT.

>> CHRISTIANE, THANKS.

STEPHEN VLADECK, THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

A COUPLE OF BIG ANNOUNCEMENTS IN WHAT THE SUPREME COURT WOULD BE WORKING ON THAT KIND OF COME BACK TO THE 2020 ELECTION.

SO I GUESS TO JUST GET OUR AUDIENCE UP TO SPEED, WHAT WERE THE SIGNIFICANT CASES?

>> SURE, SO TWO DEVELOPMENTS, ONE WAS IN THE PROSECUTION OF FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP IN WASHINGTON, D.C., ARISING OUT OF JANUARY 6th WHERE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH ASKED THE SUPREME COURT TO NOT ONLY LEAPFROG THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS, BUT TO MOVE VERY QUICKLY TO LEAPFROG THE COURT OF APPEALS IN RESOLVING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CLAIM THAT HE'S IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION BOTH BECAUSE HE WAS ACQUITTED IN HIS SECOND MEDICAL TREATMENT TRIAL AND BECAUSE THE ACTIONS HE TOOK LEADING UP TO JANUARY 6th WERE ACTIONS HE TOOK IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT.

JUDGE CHUTKAN, WHO'S PRESIDING OVER THAT TRIAL IN WASHINGTON HAD REJECTED THOSE CLAIMS, AND SUPREME COURT TO SORT OF DECIDE VERY QUICKLY WHETHER JUDGE CHUTKAN WAS RIGHT.

THE COURT HAS NOT AGREED TO TAKE UP THE CASE YET, BUT IT ORDERED PRESIDENT TRUMP TO RESPOND BY THIS WEDNESDAY AND COULD DECIDE AS EARLY AS THIS WEEK WHETHER IT'S GOING TO HEAR THE CASE NOT JUST THIS TERM, HARI BUT ACTUALLY AS EARLY AS JANUARY.

>> SO LET'S PUT THAT IN CONTEXT FOR PEOPLE.

THERE IS THIS SORT OF ROUTE THAT WHERE YOU CAN BASICALLY ASK THE COURT TO SKIP THE OFFICIAL PROCESS.

HOW OFTEN DOES THAT GET USED AND IN WHAT KIND OF CIRCUMSTANCES?

>> YEAH, SO HISTORICALLY IT WAS QUITE RARE.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS HAD THIS POWER, MEANING BEFORE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, SINCE 1925, AND UP TO 2019, IT HADN'T HAPPENED THAT OFTEN.

I MEAN, IT WAS MAJOR SEPARATION OF POWERS CASES THAT ALSO HAD A TICKING CLOCK, SO THE MILITARY COMMISSION TRIAL OF NAZI SABOTEURS DURING WORLD WAR II, PRESIDENT TRUMAN'S SEIZURE OF STEEL MILLS, THE WATERGATE TAPES WITH PRESIDENT NIXON, THE IRANIAN HOSTAGE CRISIS.

MAYBE THERE'S DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER THIS CASE FITS INTO THOSE PRECEDENTS.

SINCE 2019, THE SUPREME COURT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN MUCH MORE WILLING TO LEAPFROG COURTS OF APPEALS IN THIS RESPECT.

THE COURT HAS GRANTED CERT BEFORE JUDGMENT 19 TIMES IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS.

AGAINST THAT BACKDROP, THIS CASE REALLY IS HARD TO DISTINGUISH AT LEAST FROM THE MORE RECENT EXAMPLES OF REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUES WHERE THE SUPREME COURT KNOWS IT'S GOING TO WANT TO DECIDE THE MATTER EVENTUALLY, PROBABLY DOESN'T NEED THAT MUCH HELP FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE ISSUES ARE, AND WHERE THERE'S AT LEAST SOME ARGUMENT THAT DECIDING THAT SOONER RATHER THAN LATER WILL HAVE SOME PUBLIC BENEFIT.

>> I MEAN, DOES THIS INHERENTLY MAKE THIS POLITICAL IF THE PROSECUTOR JACK SMITH WANTS TO SAY, HEY, SUPREME COURT, YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER THIS APPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT OR NOT.

I MEAN, THAT WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON WHETHER OR NOT HE COULD HAVE, SAY, GOOD STANDING IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO BE THE NOMINEE.

>> I THINK THAT'S RIGHT, HARI.

ONCE JACK SMITH MADE THE DECISION TO INDICT PRESIDENT TRUMP, ESPECIALLY ON THESE CHARGES, ESPECIALLY ON CHARGES THAT REALLY DOVETAIL WITH CONDUCT WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT, WHICH DISTINGUISHES IT, FOR EXAMPLE, FROM THE MAR-A-LAGO CASE.

I THINK THIS WAS INEVITABLE.

THE NOTION THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS GOING TO WEIGH IN AT LEAST ON THIS PURE LEGAL QUESTION OF WHETHER A FORMER PRESIDENT CAN BE PROSECUTED FOR ACTS HE UNDERTOOK WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT, I THINK IN RETROSPECT, IT'S NOT SURPRISING THAT THE SUPREME COURT WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THAT QUESTION, SO NOW IT'S JUST A MATTER OF SHOULD THE COURT DECIDE THIS NOW OR LATER, AND THE ARGUMENTS FOR LATER AREN'T ESPECIALLY COMPELLING.

YOU KNOW, WE'LL SEE THEM AND THE COURT MAY SAY WE'RE GOING TO WAIT FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ITSELF IS MOVING VERY QUICKLY SO THAT IF THE SUPREME COURT SITS BACK, WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE A DECISION FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS WITHIN THE NEXT SIX TO EIGHT WEEKS.

SO I THINK IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF WHEN THE SUPREME COURT STEPS IN, NOT IF.

COULD BE AS EARLY AS THIS WEEK, COULD BE WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS RULES JANUARY OR FEBRUARY.

EITHER WAY I THINK THIS DECISION IS GOING TO GET RESOLVED MAYBE NOT BY THE MARCH 4th TRIAL DATE THAT JUDGE CHUTKAN SET BUT EARLY ENOUGH IF THE COURT SAYS NO, FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT IMMUNE, I THINK THERE WILL BE PLENTY OF TIME FOR THE TRIAL TO GO AHEAD BEFORE THE ELECTION.

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT ANOTHER CASE, FISHER V. THE UNITED STATES.

WHAT'S AT STAKE?

>> THE TRUMP CASE IS THE FIRST EXAMPLE OF JANUARY 6th GOING TO THE SUPREME COURT.

FISHER IS THE SECOND.

SO LAST WEEK TWO DAYS AFTER THE COURT HUSTLED, GRANTED JACK SMITH'S MOTION TO EXPEDITE CONSIDERATION OF THE TRUMP CASE, THE COURT AGREED TO TAKE UP A VERY TECHNICAL QUESTION ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION STATUTE THAT HAS BEEN USED, HARI, IN OVER 300 OF THE JANUARY 6th PROSECUTIONS.

FISHER IS ONE OF THE JANUARY 6th DEFENDANTS.

HE WAS CONVICTED -- HE WAS INDICTED AMONG OTHER THINGS OF VIOLATING THIS GENERAL OBSTRUCTION OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS STATUTE, AND HE HAD ARGUED IN THE LOWER COURT, HE AND TWO OTHER JANUARY 6th DEFENDANTS HAD PERSUADED A TRIAL JUDGE, JUDGE CARL NICHOLS THAT THIS GENERAL OBSTRUCTION STATUTE ACTUALLY REQUIRED A MORE SPECIFIC ACT.

IT REQUIRED THAT THE OBSTRUCTION NOT JUST BE OF A PROCEEDING IN GENERAL LIKE THE JOINT SESSION TO COUNT THE ELECTORAL VOTES, BUT THAT THE OBSTRUCTION ACTUALLY IMPEDE THE PROCEEDING IN SOME WAY RELATED TO EVIDENCE.

AND THIS WAS -- THIS WAS BASED THE ONE NEXT TO IT.

JUDGE NICHOLS ACCEPTED THIS ARGUMENT.

THE FEDERAL APPEALS COURT IN D.C.

REJECTED THIS ARGUMENT BY A 2-1 VOTE WITH A TRUMP NOMINEE AGREEING WITH NICHOLS IN SAYING HE THINKS THE STATUTE REQUIRES A MORE SPECIFIC WHAT'S CALLED ACTUS REYUS.

THE SUPREME COURT AGREED TO TAKE UP THAT QUESTION.

FOR HUNDREDS OF JANUARY 6th DEFENDANTS, THERE'S NOW A QUESTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT ABOUT WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE OBSTRUCTION STATUTE WAS TOO GENERAL AND WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY SHOULD HAVE HAD TO SHOW MORE THAN JUST INTERFERENCE WITH THE JOINT SESSION, BUT ACTUALLY SOME WAY IN WHICH THE DEFENDANTS' ACTS DEPRIVED THE JOINT SESSION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF EVIDENCE OR OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT IT WOULD HAVE NEEDED TO DO ITS JOB.

>> WOW.

SO I MEAN, THIS KIND OF DEFIES COMMON SENSE HERE, RIGHT?

SO FROM THE OUTSIDE LOOKING IN, THE ARGUMENT SAYS THAT OBSTRUCTING THE MEETING OF CONGRESS TO CERTIFY THE ELECTION IS NOT ENOUGH.

I MEAN, DID THEY HAVE TO HAVE LIKE STOLEN A PIECE OF PAPER?

HOW SPECIFIC DO YOU HAVE TO BE IN OBSTRUCTING THE FLOW OF CONGRESS HERE?

>> SO I MEAN, WE SHOULD BE CLEAR, THIS IS AN ARGUMENT ABOUT THE LANGUAGE OF THIS ONE VERY SPECIFIC FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTE THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, MODIFIED AFTER THE SYRIA BANES SARBANE, OX LEE.

IT REQUIRES SOME FAIRLY SPECIFIC MISCONDUCT.

WHAT WE SHOULD STRESS IS MOST OF THE JANUARY 6th DEFENDANTS WERE ALSO CHARGED WITH OTHER OFFENSES, RIGHT?

THAT THE CASES IN WHICH THE ONLY CHARGE WAS THIS STATUTE USUALLY WERE CASE WHERE IS DEFENDANTS AGREED TO PLEAD GUILTY TO THIS STATUTE IN EXCHANGE FOR DROPPING OTHER CHARGES.

SO THERE ARE VERY FEW OF THE JANUARY 6th CASES THAT RISE AND FALL ON THIS STATUTE ALONE, BUT THERE'S STILL THE PROBLEM THAT NOW ONE OF THE MORE COMMON THEORIES THAT FEDERAL PROSECUTORS HAVE YOU USE TO TRY JANUARY 6th DEFENDANTS HAS THE INTEREST OF THE SUPREME COURT.

HARI IN A CONTEXT IN WHICH THERE'S NO CIRCUIT SPLIT, IN A CONTEXT IN WHICH EVEN IN THESE CASES, IN FISHER, IT'S WHAT'S CALLED AN INTERLOCUTOR APPEAL.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD APPEALED.

SO I THINK WHAT'S REALLY TRICKY ABOUT THIS CASE IS IT LOOKS LIKED SUPREME COURT IS INTERESTED PERHAPS IN NARROWING A CHARGE, A CHARGE THAT HAS BEEN VERY WIDESPREAD IN THE JANUARY 6th CASES.

A CHARGE THAT'S IN THE INDICTMENT AGAINST FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP.

NOW, THE IRONY OF TRUMP HERE IS THAT EVEN ON THE NARROWER WHAT'S CALLED EVIDENCE IMPAIRMENT READING OF THE STATUTE, THERE'S A PRETTY GOOD ARGUMENT THAT TRUMP ACTUALLY MEETS THAT TOO FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP ARE THAT HE WAS ACTIVELY AWARE OF AND INVOLVED IN THE PLOT TO GENERATE THESE FALSE ELECTORS, RIGHT?

THAT'S EVIDENCE, AND YOU KNOW, PROVIDED ON THE JOINT SESSION WITH FALSE DOCUMENTATION I THINK WOULD COME MUCH CLOSER TO EVEN HOW JUDGE CAP SIS INTERPRETS THE STATUTE.

WE HAVE THIS PROBLEM WHERE FISHER COULD HAVE MASSIVE RAMIFICATIONS FOR SOME OF THE LOWER LEVEL JANUARY 6th DEFENDANTS, WHERE ACTUALLY THE TOP LEVEL DEFENDANTS, PRESIDENT TRUMP, STEWART RHODES, THE LEADERS OF THE OATH KEEPERS ARE ACCUSED OF STATUTES WITH CLEARER PATHWAYS TO SUCCESS.

>> GOT IT.

NOW, SPEAKING OF THE TRUMP AND NOT NECESSARILY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT BUT WE HAD A CONVERSATION ON THIS PROGRAM A WHILE BACK ABOUT A CASE IN COLORADO THAT IS WORKING ITS WAY TO THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT NOW ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT PRESIDENT TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP, SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE ON THE BALLOT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT, AND SO THESE ARE -- THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OF THESE CASES, THE COLORADO ONE IS THE ONE THAT RIGHT NOW HAS THE MOST ATTENTION, RELYING ON SECTION 3 OF THE 14th AMENDMENT, AND SECTION 3 OF THE 14th AMENDMENT WAS A PROVISION ADOPTED RIGHT AFTER THE CIVIL WAR THAT PURPORTS TO DISQUALIFY FROM HOLDING ANY FEDERAL OFFICE, THOSE WHO ENGAGED IN INSURRECTION.

THE PROVISION DOES NOT SAY THOSE WHO ENGAGED IN THE CIVIL WAR, RIGHT?

IT'S INSURRECTION GENERICALLY, AND THERE HAVE BEEN ARGUMENTING ARGUMENTS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT BEFORE AND ON JANUARY 6th SATISFIED THAT SUBSTANTIVE DEFINITION OF INSURRECTION.

IF THAT'S TRUE AND IF PRESIDENT TRUMP IS THE KIND OF OFFICER TO WHOM SECTION 3 REFERS, THEN HE'S ARGUABLY INELIGIBLE TO BE ON THE BALLOT FOR PRESIDENT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP AS WE'RE SITTING HERE, YOU KNOW, CHATTING.

THE TRIAL COURT IN COLORADO SAID, YES, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD ENGAGED IN INSURRECTION, BUT HE WAS NOT THE KIND OF OFFICER WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DISQUALIFIED BY SECTION 3.

THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT IS SET TO RULE PERHAPS ANY DAY NOW, AND I THINK THERE'S A REALLY BIG QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WOULD FEEL COMPELLED TO STEP IN.

MY BEST GUESS AND IT'S ONLY A GUESS IS THAT THE SUPREME COURT WOULD LOVE TO STAY AWAY FROM THIS CASE BUT IF SOME LOWER COURT PURPORTS TO DISQUALIFY FROM FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THE BALLOT, I THINK THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WOULD FEEL OBLIGED TO STEP IN.

THAT'S A STICKY WICKET.

IF YOU DO DISQUALIFY FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP, THEN YOU'RE THE ONE PREVENTING HIM FROM RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION, NOT THE PEOPLE.

IF YOU DON'T DISQUALIFY FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP, THEN FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL SURELY POINT TO THAT DECISION, EVEN IF IT'S ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS AS SOME KIND OF EXONERATION IF NOT ENDORSEMENT, AND SO I THINK THIS IS WHY IF I'M THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, I'M HOPING AGAINST HOPE THAT NO ONE PUTS ME IN THAT POSITION AND NO ONE SORT OF FORCES ME TO TAKE UP THAT ISSUE.

OTHERWISE I THINK THEY'D HAVE TO TAKE THAT PRETTY QUICKLY AS WELL.

>> THERE ARE OTHER CASES THAT ARE PRETTY FASCINATING AND IMPORTANT TO A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT THE SUPREME COURT SAID IT WAS GOING TO TAKE UP.

ONE IS THE FIRST KIND OF MAJOR CHALLENGE LAST WEEK, SINCE IT STRUCK DOWN ROE V. WADE, AND THAT IS WHETHER OR NOT, YOU KNOW, ACCESS TO ABORTION THROUGH THE DRUG MIFEPRISTONE WAS GOING TO BE LEGAL OR NOT.

TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS CASE.

>> YEAH, I MEAN, THIS IS A CASE THAT'S GOTTEN A LOT OF ATTENTION AND DESERVEDLY SO.

BACK IN APRIL, A FEDERAL JUDGE HERE IN TEXAS IN AMARILLO ISSUED PURPORTED TO VACATE NOT JUST RECENT DECISIONS BY THE FDA TO EXPAND ACCESS TO MIFEPRISTONE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE TWO DRUGS USED IN THE MOST COMMON FORM OF MEDICINAL ABORTION.

EVEN THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL OF MIFEPRISTONE WAY BACK IN 2000 WAS UNLAWFUL, AND HARI, IF THAT DECISION HAD GONE INTO EFFECT, IT WOULD HAVE HAD NATIONWIDE CONSEQUENCES FOR ACCESS TO MIFEPRISTONE, EVEN IN STATES IN WHICH ABORTION IS LEGAL.

I MEAN, LIKE FAR -- EVEN IN THE BLUEST OF BLUE STATES WHEN IT COMES TO ABORTION.

IN APRIL THE SUPREME COURT ACTUALLY PUT THAT RULING ON HOLD WITH ONLY TWO JUSTICES PUBLICLY DISSENTING AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE SORT OF THE HOPE WAS THAT THAT WAS A SIGNAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT THAT IT DIDN'T THINK THIS CASE OUGHT TO GO FORWARD, THAT IT THOUGHT THERE WERE PROBLEMS WITH THE CASE.

THAT MESSAGE WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE FEDERAL APPEALS COURT FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, APPEALS COURT THAT COVERS TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, BECAUSE EARLIER IN THE SUMMER, FIFTH CIRCUIT REACHED THE MERITS OF JUDGE KAZ MARIC'S RULING AND LEFT A GOOD CHUNK OF IT INTACT.

SO THERE'S -- YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THESE CONFLICTING RULES WHERE THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID EVERYTHING IS FROZEN, ACCESS TO MIFEPRISTONE REMAINS AS IT WAS, AND YOU HAVE THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SAYING, OKAY, BUT WE THINK THAT WHEN THIS CASE IS FINALLY RESOLVED, AT LEAST THE RECENT EXPANSIONS OF ACCESS TO MIFEPRISTONE SHOULD BE INVALIDATED.

AND SO THE SUPREME COURT HAS NOW AGREED TO TAKE UP THE APPEAL FROM THAT DECISION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND BY DANKO LABORATORIES WHICH IS THE TYPICAL SPONSOR OF MIFEPRISTONE IN THE UNITED STATES.

I THINK A LOT OF FOLKS LOOK AT THIS CASE AND SAY, OH, NO, HERE COMES THE SUPREME COURT TO MESS WITH ABORTION AGAIN.

I HAVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TAKE, WHICH IS HERE COMES THE THINK THE BEST EVIDENCE OF THAT IS IT'S VERY TECHNICAL, BUT WHEN THE SUPREME COURT AGREED TO TAKE UP THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S APPEAL AND DANKO LABORATORY'S REPEAL, IT REFUSED TO TAKE UP A CROSS APPEAL BY THE PLAINTIFFS, BY THE ALLIANCE FOR HIPPOCRATIC MEDICINE, THE GROUP THAT HAD BROUGHT THIS CASE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

THE ALLIANCE FOR HIPPOCRATIC MEDICINE HAD SAID, HEY, SUPREME COURT, IF YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE UP THE GOVERNMENT'S APPEAL, WE ALSO WANT TO CHALLENGE THAT PART OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT'S DECISION WE LOST ON.

WE WANT YOU TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT ALL THE FDA'S APPROVALS OF MIFEPRISTONE GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO 2000.

AND THE SUPREME COURT IN ITS ORDER AGREEING TO HEAR THESE APPEALS DIDN'T TAKE UP THIS PART OF IT, WHICH SAYS TO ME THAT JUSTICES HAVE NO INTEREST IN GOING BACK TO 2000.

>> YOU KNOW, JUST STEPPING BACK FROM THE DECISIONS, WHAT ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR OF THE COURT ITSELF?

THAT HAS COME INTO QUESTION BY HUMAN SWATHS OF THE PUBLIC AS THEIR CONFIDENCE IN THE SUPREME COURT SEEMS TO ERODE.

THE COURT TRIED TO PUBLISH A NEW ETHIC CODE.

YOU CAME OUT CRITICAL OF THAT CODE SAYING IT DIDN'T GO FAR ENOUGH.

EXPLAIN.

>> SO I THINK TWO THINGS ARE TRUE.

ONE, THE FACT THAT THE JUSTICES ISSUED THIS CODE OF CONDUCT BACK IN NOVEMBER IS A REMARKABLE DEVELOPMENT.

YOU KNOW, THAT THE COURT ACTUALLY FELT THE NEED TO AT LEAST LOOK LIKE IT WAS HEARING THESE CRITICISMS AND IT WAS REACTING TO THESE CRITICISMS, THAT'S A BIG DEAL UNTO ITSELF, AND WE OUGHT NOT TO SORT OF MINIMIZE IT JUST BECAUSE IT DIDN'T GO FAR ENOUGH, BUT IT DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH.

THE REAL ISSUE IS HOW DO YOU CREATE A CULTURE WHERE THE JUSTICES ARE ACTUALLY WORRIED ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY AND WHERE THE JUSTICES ARE, YOU KNOW, NOT NERVOUS, HARI, BUT ARE SORT OF UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES IF AND WHEN THEIR BEHAVIOR CROSSES WHATEVER THE LINE IS, WHETHER IT'S THE LINE THEY'VE DRAWN.

WHETHER IT'S THE LINE THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE HAS DRAWN, AND IT'S JUST HARD TO BELIEVE, HARI, LOOKING AT THE COURT TODAY, LOOKING AT THE CODE THE COURT ISSUED BACK IN NOVEMBER THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE ANY CONSEQUENCES, IF MORE OF THESE STORIES COME OUT IN THE FUTURE.

THIS IS WHY I THINK WE NEED SOMETHING MORE, WHETHER IT'S SOME KIND OF INTERNAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE SUPREME COURT, FOR THE FEDERAL COURTS AS A WHOLE.

WHETHER IT'S MORE ROBUST OVERSIGHT OF THE SUPREME COURT.

WHATEVER THE PATH IS, I THINK THE CODE OF CONDUCT SHOULD BE THE BEGINNING OF THE CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW WE CREATE A MORE ACCOUNTABLE SUPREME COURT, NOT THE END OF IT.

>> PROFESSOR OF LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, STEPHEN VLADECK, THANKS SO MUCH.

>> THANK YOU.