← Next Up with Mark Halperin
Next Up with Mark Halperin
Trump’s Chaos Messaging Strategy on Iran, Biggest "8 for ’28" Dem Contenders, and Biggest SCOTUS Cases to Watch, with Josh Gerstein
01:10:54
Mark Halperin opens the show with a reported monologue on the rapidly evolving Iran conflict and the role messaging plays in shaping global expectations. He explains how Donald Trump’s communication style can quickly shift market sentiment, influence oil prices, and alter the narrative around the war. Mark also examines why Trump’s seemingly inconsistent public statements may actually be part of a deliberate strategy he has used throughout his business career and presidency. Next, Mark unveils his March edition of “8 for ’28,” ranking the Democrats he believes are most likely to win the party’s next presidential nomination. He walks through the board candidate by candidate, explaining what is going right for each contender and the biggest doubts that could hold them back, from frontrunners like Gavin Newsom to other potential entrants across the Democratic field. Finally, Politico senior legal affairs reporter Josh Gerstein joins the show to discuss how the Supreme Court has handle...
Loading summary
Transcript69 lines
- [00:00]
Commercial Announcer
Cash now, more later From Opendoor gives you cash up front for your home plus all the profit later. That's no chaos now. No cash left behind later. Skip the showings now. Pocket extra profit later. This is so simple now. This is so awesome. Later or sell fast now and pop the champagne later. Cash now, more later. Now available nationwide. Start your offer@opendoor.com radio profits calculated after fees and costs. Eligibility and offer price may vary.
- [00:30]
Mark Halpern
Amazon presents Laura vs Fruit Flies. Hide your bananas. These winged demons came to your kitchen to do two things. Eat fruit and and they're all out of fruit. But thankfully, Laura shopped on Amazon and saved on cleaning spray, countertop wipes and fly traps. Hey, fruit flies, your baby boom ends here. Save the everyday with Amazon, everybody. Welcome back to NextUp. I'm Mark Halpert, editor in chief of the live interactive video platform 2way, and your host, as always, to everything. Next up, exciting show today. We're going to update you on the latest on Iran and then time for our March installment of 8 for 28. That's when I tell you who the most likely people are to be the Democratic presidential nominee. In just a few years, I've updated the big board. Move stuff around, ready to show you who's moved up, who's moved down, who's got momentum, and who is slipping at least a little bit in that race for the nomination. But first, I'm going to talk to you about Iran. I'm going to run through my latest reporting on President Trump and his decision making and why he says things that confuse people because they sound to the human ear like they're a little bit of a contradiction. After those two reports, be joined by Josh Gerstein of Politico, my longtime friend and colleague. He is as good as anybody on the question of the role of the courts and the Supreme Court and how they're shaping America now and how the Trump administration is faring in a Supreme Court that's got a majority of Republicans on it in terms of who presidents picked people for the court. Josh will break down just how much people can expect. Next up, the court to side with and against Donald Trump. But first, after a quick break, let's discuss Donald Trump and his decision making in Iran. Are you being lied to? They tell you to defer paying your taxes by saving in a 401k or an IRA because you'll retire in a lower tax bracket. But if that were true, why are so many retirees now in the highest tax bracket of their lives? It's time to get the truth and discover a better way to grow and protect your money. Bank on yourself is the proven retirement plan alternative that banks and Wall street desperately hope that you'll never hear about. It gives you guaranteed, predictable growth that doesn't go backward when the market drops. It can provide tax free retirement income under current tax law, putting you in control of your future tax rate. You also have control of your money. You can access it when you need it with no government penalties or restrictions. And your money keeps growing even when you use it. You get a free report that reveals how you can bank on yourself and enjoy tax free retirement income, guaranteed growth and control of your money. Just go to BankOnYourself.com mark and get your free report. Again, go to BankOnYourself.Com mark to get your free report. Just go to BankOnYourself.COM mark All right, welcome back, everybody. The Iran story continues to move very quickly and I'm trying to focus my reporting for all of you to think about what's next up on stuff that is going to be relevant regardless of what happens on the battlefield and in the air and in the political back and forth. So I did a lot of calls in the last two days on the question of the President's decision making in the context of this war and also what the President says. I find that there's a big blind spot in the media coverage of the person who is the most covered person in the history of the digital age, what the President's like as a person, how the president treats people and how he operates to get things done. And it's the last one I want to focus on. Not all of you like the President, not all of you thinks he's a good decision maker or like how he gets how he operates, but he gets stuff done. Again, you may disagree with how he gets it done. You may disagree with his goals, but he does get stuff done. He got elected president twice. He's, he, you know, he took out Maduro. He's, he has an agreement in Gaza. He's done other things. And, and this week a lot, there's been a lot of focus on what he says. Okay. Most of the time I find in the media coverage, if I talk to people who know the president well, who study him, whether they like him or not, they find that the coverage in the major media doesn't really capture either what he's like, what kind of person he is, or how he operates. And what I say to people in the media, my colleagues, and I say to Democrats is you gotta be more intellectually curious about how Donald Trump gets stuff done. Again, you may not like how he does it, you may not like what he's doing, but he does get some stuff done. And Democrats say to me, always approval ratings are so horrible and Democrats are going to wipe them out in the midterms. So this isn't an important topic. Well, the measure of a president and a presidency, regardless of party, is not just about whether they win the midterms. And it's not just about their approval rating. It's about whether they leave the lives of the American people better off than when they took office. And by many metrics, Donald Trump is positioned to be politically successful. Take Iran for instance. Democrats have grappled President Obama, President Biden. They grappled with the question of how to disarm Iran to make them less of a threat. They were under no illusions, the Democratic presidents, about how evil the regime was, how much of a threat they represented to Israel, the region of the United States, how they were the biggest state sponsor of terror, how they were trying to develop nuclear weapons, how they had extraordinary development of anti ballistic, of intercontinental ballistic missiles, how they had a big navy and a big army. So, so there was a shared goal. We talked about it last week. A shared goal amongst all the presidents got to deal with Iran. Okay. Analyzing how Trump gets things done is not the same as endorsing him. It's about understanding him. And I've said before, I say again today, and I hear this from people around him all the time, the press, the Democrats don't seem to be interested in that project of understanding how Trump works. So let's talk about what happened on Monday. Okay? Wake up. And the financial world around the world is on fire over gas prices going up, oil prices going up, markets are down. Coming into the new week and increasing talk of Iran's going to be a quagmire, that the Strait of Hormuz is going to stay closed. There's got war is going to go on for a long time. The Iranians are going to continue to retaliate and cause instability around the world. Okay, so that's what Donald Trump was dealing with on Monday and doesn't want to stop the war because Israel and the United States have more of a mission to do. So what happened? By dinner time, markets were back up in the United States. Gas prices, oil prices were back down and people are on Wall street who and the financial sector who were badgering me all Monday morning, we're now saying, oh good, the war is going to be over by the time I go in spring break next week with my kids. Okay? Trump did this simply by taking a phone call from CBS News and then having a press conference and saying, yeah, the war could be over soon. We're getting a lot done. We're ahead of schedule. Okay? Now the elite critique of Donald Trump's comments on this matter and throughout the conflict now for a little bit over a week has been Trump contradicts himself. He makes things up as he goes. He undermines his own policies with chaotic messaging. You saw that Jerry Baker, his column in the Wall Street Journal today said that Tom Friedman in his column what Tom Friedman and Jerry Baker see as a bug, that Trump speaks inconsistently, inconsistent with inconsistency is actually not a bug. It's a feature. It's a feature that Trump's used throughout his life in business, in real estate, in entertainment, in the entertainment industry, and then in politics and government. Trump uses chaotic messaging to get his way. Here's what Tom Friedman said about Trump's public statements related to the war. For his part, Trump has been all over the map when talking about the morning after in Iran and saying truly ridiculous and often contradictory things that reveal a commander in chief who is just making his up, making it up as he goes along. One day it's regime change. One day. Not one day he doesn't care about Iran's future. The next day he will have a say in choosing the country's next leader. One day he's open to negotiations. The next day he is demanding unconditional surrender for the Tom Friedman's of the world, for the establishment of the world. The New York Times columnist who represents the establishment. Trump's inconsistency is horrible. It undermines America's allies relationships. It gives the public a confusing portrait of, of what's actually going on. But Trump uses this as a tactical and strategic tool. And the folks I talked to around Trump yesterday, they don't care about the inconsistency because they've seen him be inconsistent for decades in public life. And it's not from his point of view. It's not a problem. There are downsides to it and his aides acknowledge that. But the upsides are it gives him a flexibility. It allows him to, to achieve multiple goals, sometimes goals that are seemingly contradictory all at once. Trump would like a regime change in Iran. He would love this conflict to end with a new government in Iran that was in business with the United States, around oil that was friendly to the United States. It didn't suppress and repress its people. But he knows that may not happen. The intelligence suggests, from US And Israelis. So far, they haven't seen defections. They haven't seen protests in the street. Trump would like there to be change, but if there's not, he wants to be able to end this thing without people saying, oh, you failed. You didn't achieve your goal because you said you wanted regime change. And sometimes he says he wants regime change, but not always. Sometimes he says his goals are just about, you know, degrading and annihilating Iran's capacity on terror and on weapons. Same thing with about the leadership of Iran. Trump says, I get to pick the leader, then they pick somebody else. It's not. It's not some final climactic thing. Tomorrow he might say he's negotiating with the guy. This level of called flexibility, called inconsistency. That's what Trump does. And if you want to understand Trump, know that he doesn't care about New York Times stories that say, you said blue on Thursday and red on Friday. Friday. He just doesn't care. And in fact, he says, yeah, I sure did. Because on, on, on Thursday, I had one goal, and then on Friday, I had a different goal. Trump uses language as a tool. Trump uses language to get what he wants. Trump is a day trader. Bill Clinton has a bunch of great Arkansas expressions. One I love so much is he talks about someone, a politician who's really smooth talking, says he can talk the owls down from the trees. Okay, that's very Arkansas. We don't have owls in Queens here in New York. So I say Trump could say, like, he could talk the rats off the subway tracks. But it's the same idea. What Trump does with words is he buys himself time. He can reset the narrative, create a whole new paradigm about what's going on, and in the case of a difficult situation, he can escape a hard reality. He's done this his whole career. You watch what he did Monday. He used words. All he did was say a few things to cbs and then the reporter put it on X. What did he do? He moved markets. He redefined people's expectations about how long this war will go on. If the war ends up going on longer than the few days he's now left the impression of. With a few. With some people, he doesn't care. He'll say, well, new things happened. He redefined in the moment the expectations, and that's what he wanted to do. He used his words. He's done it his whole life. Done it as a businessman, done it as a candidate for president. Now he's done it as a government official, as a president, United States, and he's going to keep on doing it. Trump thinks about who the targets are. The American people are a target for his words, the Iranian people, the Iranian government, China, Putin, definitely the markets. And eventually, because this war will not end without some conflict with Bibi Netanyahu, you can be sure eventually his words will be for Netanyahu, both publicly and privately. But whatever, whoever the target is for Trump, the template, it never changes. It's always been and always will be a day trader shaping reality in the moment with his mouth. Trump will say anything. Whether you want to take it literally, figuratively, however you want to take it seriously, however you want to take it, know that it's in the moment. And it's something other presidents would not do because they have a different style. They worry about the downsides of a lack of consistency. Trump does not give a rip about consistency. What he cares about is using his capacity to understand the media, understand the moment, to say anything, to get what he wants in the moment, knowing he can say something very different the very next day. All right, that's my view of where Trump is on the war. Watch him every day, watch all the criticism and watch how he doesn't care. Let me know if you agree or disagree about that. Send me an email at nextup halpern@gmail.com Again. Next up, halpern@gmail.com would love to hear from you. We're going to take a quick break and when we come back, I'm going to run through the March edition of my 8 for 28. Who are the Democrats most likely to be nominated for president in just a couple of years? 8 for 28 is next up. Anytime your company is growing fast or order fulfillment can make or break your success, shipstation's intelligence driven platform brings order management, rate shopping, inventory returns, warehouse systems and analytics all into one single place, saving customers up to 15 hours per week. With Shipstation, everything you need to get orders at the door lives together in just one hub. Connect to over 200 sales channels and marketplaces. Instead of juggling five to seven separate tools, the platform compares rates across major carriers like USPS, UPS and FedEx, including your own discounted rates to bring the best options every time, bring your negotiated rates, keep your savings, print labels in bulk and automatically send tracking updates built in analytics and returns Insight. Show where you're savings and where to prioritize. Try ShipStation free for 60 days with full access to all the features. No credit card needed. Go to shipstation.com and use the code NextUp for 60 days free. 60 days will give you plenty of time to see exactly how much time and money you're saving on every shipment that shipstation.com code nextup. Go to shipstation.com and use the code nextup.
- [15:38]
Commercial Announcer
Need to restock inventory, cover seasonal dips, or manage payroll? On Deck's Small Business line of credit provides immediate access to funds up to $200,000 exactly. Your business needs it. With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and full control over repayment, you can tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. Apply today@ondeck.com and funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank On Deck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.
- [16:09]
If you're a parent and want to help set up your child for success, then IXL is right for your family as an effective and affordable online learning program. IXL covers math and language arts, science and social studies using interactive practice problems for kids from Pre K to 12th grade. Listeners can get an exclusive 20% off IXL membership when they sign up today@ixl.com 20. Visit ixl.com 20 to get the most effective learning program out there at the best price.
- [16:43]
Mark Halpern
All right, next up. Super excited. It's my March edition of 8 for 28. I've spent a lot of couple days when I was dealing with Iran communicating with Democratic strategists, operatives, some donors, elected officials about who they think is most likely to win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028. Each month we do this. Take a look at who the Democrats think and others. Talk to some Republicans too. Who's most likely to win the nomination? It's called, you know, eight for 28. And again, it's the Democrats right now who I project to be the most likely nomination in order to from most likely to the number eight. Remember our caveats. It's early. This will change over time, so you shouldn't think this is final. Second, as the changes occur, we'll explain them to you. But people who are strong early tend to stay strong. If you look at history, as I've told you before, with few exceptions, when there's a Democratic front runner, they tend to be the nominee. And remember again, this is only about winning the nomination, not about the general election or who would be the strongest in the general election. So don't send me a bunch of notes saying, mark, these people couldn't win the general election. It's not about that. It's about winning the nomination. So let's look at where things stood last month. A reminder to you. Here's where things were. Eight for, 28 for February. Number one, Gavin Newsom. Number two, Governor Shapiro of Pennsylvania. Number three, Governor Pritzker of Illinois. Then Kamala Harris, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Pete Buttigieg, Rahm Emanuel, and Mark Kelly. So after a lot of reporting and a lot of analysis and considering candidates who are on the list last month as well as ones who weren't, after all of that, the the list is the same. It's the same eight names, but the orders change quite a bit below the top three. So here are the March rankings of eight for 28, the Democrats most likely to be nominated. Number one, Gavin Newsom. Number two, Josh Shapiro. Number three, Governor Pritzker. The top three remains the same, and we'll talk about that and why that is. Then below that, though, quite a bit of shuffling. Pete Buttigieg. Number four, Kamala Harris, five, Mark Kelly, six, Rahm Emanuel, seven. And the last slot, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. So let's talk about again, break down the most notable moves. Pete Buttigieg has risen from six to number four. I actually would make him number three if it weren't for my sources. My own sense of things is he's the third most likely. We'll talk about why I think that. But Buttigieg moves up two slots. Kamala Harris moves down a slot from four to five. Some of my sources wanted her off the list entirely. Mark Kelly row rose up two slots, number eight to number six. Aoc, biggest drop from number five down to number eight. And again, I would have probably taken her off the list, but she holds on at number eight and Rahm Emanuel holds steady in the seven slot. So our biggest headline is the top three. Newsom, Shapiro, and Pritzker. According to all my reporting, they're the top three. And that's unchanged from last time. And that's based on their having the qualities that you look for. Okay, in a presidential nominee. Now, I keep hearing from folks when I do my reporting on the list, they say, oh, there have to be somebody else. There has to be somebody who's going to come from nowhere. And I continue to warn you, history does not suggest people come from nowhere. People say, well, Barack Obama came from nowhere. No, Barack Obama was touted as a presidential candidate when he was in law school, did not come from nowhere. And people Were asking about running for years. So here's an example. People say, well, Donald Trump came from nowhere and he was a businessman, so maybe it'll be somebody from outside politics. Well, Trump's the only one to defy. Never had a president before, and very few nominees who were not elected officials or military people. And it's hard to come from a different field and succeed at this very competitive competition to be the Democratic nominee. Stephen A. Smith, great guy. He got talked about as being a nominee, and I'm pretty sure now we can put it to bed. Thank goodness, because I don't believe in wasting a lot of time talking about these people who I don't think will run. And if they do run, I think will fall on their face. Talented guy, not a politician. And even though there's a mood for someone from outside, you still got to know how to do politics, which Donald Trump does. Here's Stephen A. Smith, I believe conclusively bearing any prospect of a presidential campaign. With Sean Hannity, 2028's come pretty quick.
- [21:09]
Josh Gerstein
Yeah. If you had to pick, I think it's all, I don't think you're running.
- [21:17]
Mark Halpern
Am I right?
- [21:17]
Josh Gerstein
I don't think I'm running either, because I got to give up my money. You don't.
- [21:20]
Mark Halpern
Yeah.
- [21:20]
Josh Gerstein
You want to give them a money? You want a plane, Sean, I ain't getting my money. I got it. I, I can tell you right now, let me put that, the presidential aspirations over bed from. If I have to give up my money, it's not happening.
- [21:33]
Mark Halpern
All right, so take Stephen off the list. No Stephen A. Smith. Where does that leave us? Well, the top three names, as I said, Gavin Newsom, Josh Shapiro and Pritzker, all sitting governors. Okay. The mood of the party is an outsider who can win a general election. That's a governor, not somebody from Washington. All three have access to huge financial resources through fundraising for Pritzker, raising his own money, they've been able to use their positions to have a big national infrastructure. And they answer the questions of what, what makes you a possible nominee? What positions you for strength? First of all, you have to have a natural base within the Democratic Party. You have to have people in different demographic groups, geographic. Who, who, who, who might vote for you. And all three of those guys do, then you need to be strong. In the early states that vote first. Now, we don't know who's going to vote first, but strong suspicion is in North Carolina, New Hampshire and South Carolina, for instance, will be towards the front. And, and those guys potentially have strength in those states or have visited those states and, and, and are a good fit for those states. And then you got to have either high name ID already, which Newsom has, or you got to have the resources to build it, which Shapiro and Pritzker are going to have as well. So those three have right now on paper the strongest position. And in fact, I'd say I put. I put Newsom and Shapiro in a tier by themselves. The top two, 1 and 1A, and then Pritzker a little farther down. But then a big drop off, big drop off after that with one exception, which is in my view, Buttigieg will get there talking to all my sources. And again, I Talked to over 30 people for this field gets a lot murkier after the top three. And the widest range of views revolve around the people next on the list. Buttigieg, Kamala Harris and Mark Kelly. Some people want those three very high, some people want them very low, some want them not on the list at all. And it starts with Kamala Harris. There are people who are really skeptical. There's some. I had a couple people rank her number one had people raise her, rank her very high. But other people either barely listed her or listed or not at all. And it's going to be interesting to see whether she does run. But I can tell you there's a lot of skepticism. People say she had her chance even even though she meets a lot of those criteria too. Sky high name recognition. She'll be able to raise a lot of money if she runs. She's got a constituency within the Democratic Party potentially, okay, in the early states, but what a lot of people are saying she had her chance not just in 2024, but they say in 2020 when she ran. She was a horrible candidate, as it turned out, didn't make it to the starting line. So she's an interesting case. Buttigieg, okay, he shows up mostly by people in the middle of the pack. And I'll tell you why I rank him higher and why I'm itching to put him at number three, okay? It's because he's actually won contests. He won the Iowa caucuses in, in 2020 and he almost won the New Hampshire primary. Look at the results. I think a lot of people forget this. Pete Buttigieg finished first in Iowa. Here it is. A1, please. Kind of incredible. A guy who had been the mayor of South Bend. He'd run for DNC chair and lost. He finished first. Sanders and Buttigieg both got 26% of the vote. Elizabeth Warren, 20. Joe Biden, 14% of the vote. Buttigieg got almost double what Joe Biden, former vice president, got, eventual nominee got. And because the Iowa Democrats counted poorly, Buttigieg didn't get a ton of momentum coming out of Iowa because it wasn't clear if he was first or second. Now he ends up being first in Iowa. Look at how he did in New Hampshire. Number two. Okay, doesn't win New Hampshire, but almost does. Sanders, 26%. Buttigieg, 24%. Amy Klobuchar, 20. Elizabeth Warren, nine. Buttigieg got four times the number of votes in the New Hampshire primary. Right. Typically, the contest that picks the nominee. Buttigieg has won a prime, won a caucus, and he almost won the most important primary, some would say one of the most important primaries that didn't happen by accident. That's. That requires skill. That was a very competitive race, and the guy had what it took to win the Iowa caucuses. Everybody wanted to win the Iowa caucuses. All 20 Democratic candidates, a couple of them put in less effort, but almost all of them, 15 or so people said, I want to win the Iowa caucuses. And Pete Buttigieg did okay. Now, what do you hear consistently? He can't be the Democratic nominee because he can't win black vote. And it's true that if you look at current polling and you look at the results from the 2020 effort, the guy's not doing well with black vote. But I'll tell you all the time when we talk about 8 for 28, Bill Clinton taught me there are no perfect candidates. There are no. If you want a perfect candidate, you can vote for somebody else. So Pete Buttigieg knows he's got a problem with black votes. Black vote matter. Black vote matters in almost every state. Not necessarily much in New Hampshire. Certainly does in South Carolina. So what's Pete Buttigieg doing? He's a smart guy. He's working on his problem. Here he is over the weekend speaking with Al Sharpton on his Ms. Now show about his attempts to reach out to black voters. This is S3, please. Are you reaching out to the black
- [26:59]
Josh Gerstein
vote for a potential run for national
- [27:02]
Mark Halpern
Office perhaps in 2028?
- [27:05]
Pete Buttigieg
What is on my mind going into this, and has been every time I've gone, is how we can summon the kind of moral courage that these leaders who face down Jim Crow, who face down the long arm of the Confederacy, can inspire us for this moment that we're in right now. Because obviously, the struggle continues. The Voting Rights act is on the chopping block and so many other things that that were at stake then are at stake in a new way right now. Looking forward to being among both the new generation and that heroic generation who inspired the country with their courage.
- [27:40]
Mark Halpern
I mean, a little antiseptic maybe, but here he is speaking to a group of black voters at a town hall in related to the anniversary of the Selma anniversary, Edmund Pettus Bridge. Here's Pete Buttigieg doing his best to inspire and maybe use the cadence that you'd be familiar with from a black church. Here's Pete Buttigieg. S6, please.
- [28:06]
Pete Buttigieg
So amid the the abuses of this moment, we've got to be clear that we are not working to restore some old status quo. We are not trying to make America anything again because there is no again in the real world. We are here to deliver something new, which means when we do look to the past, we recognize in that past the quality of the heroes like Dr. King and like John Lewis and like Jesse Jackson and so many others. It was how focused they always were on the future. And they counsel us not to give up. They don't just say, don't give up. They say, don't you dare give up.
- [28:47]
Commercial Announcer
All right?
- [28:48]
Mark Halpern
I mean, again, he's got other issues. People say mayor of, mayor of a small town in Indiana in mixed record at best. Some people's US Transportation secretary under Joe Biden and the fact that he's gay. People say, you know, that's not going to, that's not going to work in the Democratic Party along with this black vote thing. I'm just telling you, no one else in this field can say they want a primary or caucus running for president. And I do believe that eventually he's going to move up on this list. Let's see. But I got to be honest, a lot of my sources are deeply skeptical. Now, two names that showed up in my reporting who aren't on the list this time, Gretchen Whitmere and Westmore. Two other governors, Governor of Michigan, Whitmer. Governor of Maryland, Wesmore. I continue to believe, based on my reporting, that neither of them is going to run in the end. And if you don't run, you can't be the nominee. And that's always a big factor in my rankings. As I say, if Michelle Obama was going to run, I'd put her high on the list to be the Democratic nominee. But she's not. If either of them makes serious moves towards running and Westmore continues to do kind of political things that seem like he's going to run. But he said he's not. I take him at his word. They're not going to be on the list. But. But I do tell you full disclosure, many of my sources put both those governors, one or both on the list. Now a big issue and why AOC remains on my list at number eight, even though her performance overseas and some of the other things she's done in my belief, from talking to some of her friends, that she's not going to want to take this big life decision choice in 2028 to run, somebody has to be in the Sanders lane. Someone has to be the progressives progressive. And Ro Khanna seems to be making a bid for that lane, the congressman from California. But he does not have AOC's potential in terms of monster fundraising, does not have her grassroots support, although he's had the best run of almost anybody on here. So Connor could be on the list. Maybe next month he will be. But for now, some of my sources can you have AOC in the top four, some have her in the top three. So I keep her on the list. Now, let's run through each candidate and I'll tell you sort of where I think things stands with them and what we're going to do is for everybody. I asked my sources two things. What's going well for them, why are they, why are they on the list? And what's the biggest doubt about them right now? Okay, so that's the two questions we're going to ask. So Gavin Newsom, what's going well for him? The benefits of being the front runner. Everything he does is covered. He can tap in to, to social media. He can get on any, almost any TV show he wants of his. People call and say Governor Newsom would like to be on. People hang on his every word on everything. What does he think about Iran? What does he think about the changes at the Department of Homeland Security? And even if the press isn't asking him, he's. People are used to reading his social media platforms. Big benefit of front runner. Biggest doubt about Gavin Newsom now is the disadvantage of front runner. He's getting opposition research done on him. Every little mistake he makes gets amplified. Governor Shapiro can make mistakes every day in Harrisburg and nobody's really noticing at the national level. So that's the biggest doubt right now is can he handle the disadvantages of being the front runner? Governor Shapiro, what's going right for him? A lot of people say he's, he's, he's hits the sweet spot. He's got a record of accomplishment as a governor in a battleground state. But he's an outsider because he's a governor. He's not, he's not of Washington, he's not associated with Washington. And that's the paradigm for a lot of donors, a lot of strategists, a lot of politicians, a lot of voters, who's an outsider, who's a new face, but still has a record of accomplishment. The biggest doubt about him I see and I hear from my sources is you got to be kind of an IT candidate. Joe Biden remains the exception to this, but, but Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, they all were eight candidates. They all created a sense of excitement, of possibility, of watchability right there on tv. You turn up the audio, here's Governor Shapiro at a firefighters event a few days ago. Again, this is a, this is very typical. We didn't choose this to show him being particularly not it. But here's Governor Shapiro of Pennsylvania. S1, please.
- [33:01]
Josh Gerstein
You are the very best of us. And I want you to know I will always have your backs. Always. While some at the federal level are hell bent on cutting emergency response funding, attacking unions, taking away your right to organize, I want you to know that in Pennsylvania, we respect the union way of life. We are protecting it and we are investing it. And on my watch, Pennsylvania will never be a right to work state. Your power to organize will always, always be protected.
- [33:42]
Mark Halpern
Now, he can be a very good speaker and he got a big ovation there for that. But he went to Washington and he spoke to firefighters. And most of you watching this, listening to this, who follow politics, you probably don't even know he did. Had Gavin Newsom gone to D.C. and given a speech like that, I think it would have gotten a lot of coverage. So you needed to, you need some excitement, you need some pizzazz, you need some sense of being the IT candidate. And my sources say, you know, maybe he can't be the nominee and not be in this media environment without having a little bit more pizzazz. Governor Pritzker, number three. He's got two things. That eye of the tiger that people say this is what's going right, he's a billionaire, so he can self fund his campaign and get started at least. And he's determined. I'm still not sure Newsom's gonna run. I'm still not sure Shapiro's gonna run. It seems like Pritzer's gonna run. So a lot of my folks ranked him high because of that determination and solid financial capacity because of his own wealth. Biggest doubt people raised Is what's his message? The Illinois record again, mixed at best. Generous to say it's mixed. What is he about? What does he stand for? He speaks very well to the constituency groups within Democratic Party, but what's his message to working class voters? What is, what is it? What would a, what would a Pritzker candidacy and presidency be about? That's the biggest doubt for him. Pete Buttigieg, I've already talked about what's going right for him. He knows how to win elections. He has the mechanics down in a field of people who've never run before. Biggest doubt, he's dismissed out of hand by a lot of people. And I really do wonder when the rubber meets the road, when, when he's out there start when he does run, and I think he will, and he's out there asking people for money, asking people to endorse him. Will he be dismissed out of hand? And I'm surprised because I'm relatively bullish on him, as you've heard. I'm surprised at how negative some of my sources are. They just say don't even have him on the list. So a guy I think at this point is the third or fourth most likely nominee. Some people don't have him on the list. Kamala Harris, strongest on paper. So I some of my folks had her, had her listed at number one or number two, nationally known, big fundraising capacity, really strong with constituencies of the party. But the biggest doubt is elections are not run on paper. Those qualifications people think on contact with the electorate won't matter. And some don't think she's going to run, but they say if she does, she will be surprised at the lack of endorsements, the lack of support. You could imagine a former vice president running again, a former nominee and sewing up union endorsements and other big important endorsements in the Democratic Party. People are doubtful that she'll be considered the Goliath in the race and that once that happens, the thing will shrivel away. Mark Kelly, Senator from Arizona My sources are super high on him. They like his resume and they like his manner. That's what's going right for him right now. They think it's a good combination. Even though he's a senator, as an astronaut, as a guy who was not a politician his whole, whole life. They like the resume. They like the way he talks like a normal person, does a lot of TV hits, not wearing a suit and tie. They like that. Biggest doubt my sources have about Mark Kelly is running for president's complex. It requires a lot of work A lot of effort. He's been around it a little bit, but not a ton. And people are concerned that when again when he starts to actually try to be a presidential candidate, there'll be a lot of scrutiny. People are worried about his sustaining the scrutiny. They're worried about him doing the day to day things required to run for president. Rahm Emanuel, what's going right the establishment loves him and my sources have a lot of establishment Democrats, not all, but a lot. They all know him, they all like him. They think he's going to be in the race, he's going to raise a lot of money. He's doing smart things now on policy. He's doing smart things now on going traveling to early states. He doesn't have a full time job. It allows him to do this and they think that he'll be in the mix on the debate stage and he'll, he'll do well. Now I got people who don't have him on the list, which is why he's down low. But being the establishment candidate, being the candidate who people think can win a general election, having all these Republicans who like him and who say he'd be the most formidable, that's what he's got going right for him right now. The biggest doubt is is people think he's just too much of a mismatch with the nominating electorate. So far he's not done much to to do the, to protect his left flank. He's done a lot of stuff in terms of policy and message that makes him the establishment favorite, makes him the one of the centrist favorites. But he's not done anything or very much, at least symbolically to get right with the left, to be in good shape with the nominating electorate. Lastly, AOC dominating the energy of the Bernie Lane. That's what's going right for her right now. There's no one else who's in there's other people talked about, including some senators, but there's no one in who's a, who's a just a stalwart of the progressive movement. No one in who's talking about things like environmental policy, health care policy and that energy until she decides she's not running or someone else comes in like Ro Khanna and really tries to own that wing. That's just keeps her on the list people and she, she's an IT candidate people pay attention to. Her biggest doubt continues to be the question of readiness. Her readiness to do the job but also voters readiness not just people who disagree with their politics but even some who do. Are they ready to vote for someone that young and a woman of color. Talked about this last month. There are a lot of people in the party who just don't think it's the right time, having had two straight women, one woman of color, lose the presidency to Donald Trump. Just don't know if they're ready to do that again. They'd love to see a woman president. Many would love to see her be president. But there's a question about whether they're ready to do it again and take the risk on another female candidate. All right, that's my list. 1 through 8, the most likely Democratic nominees for president. 8, 4, 28. Those three powerful governors at the top, very unsettled in the middle tier after that, next month, our April ratings. Stay tuned for that. Love to know what you think about the 8 for 28 this month. Send me an email, let me know what you think of the ratings. Did I miss somebody who you think should be on there? Do I have somebody too high or somebody too low? Love to know your thoughts. Send me an email@nextup halpern gmail.com While you're on our website, whether it's the the YouTube channel or on any of our socials, subscribe to NextUp. And if you want the full episodes and bonus content, make sure on the YouTube channel, YouTube.com@/@nextup Halpern. You subscribe there to make sure you get everything. And if you like the podcast version, do all that there, too. Pro tip, make sure you have the downloads turned on. That way you'll be able to get the every episode fresh and new and fast as soon as they drop. All right, quick break. When we come back, we're going to talk to my friend and longtime colleague Josh Gerstein, senior legal affairs reporter at Politico. He's an expert on the Supreme Court. And we're going to decipher this question of how's Donald Trump doing with one of the most important stakeholders and constituencies in our political system who hold the fate of his presidency to a large degree in their hands, the Supreme Court. Josh Gerstein on the Supreme Court. And Donald Trump is next up. Small businesses are the backbone of the American economy, but getting funding from traditional banks is an uphill battle. Of the 36 million small businesses in the United States, over 70% report needing additional capital every year while revenue is at an all time high. The big banks, they're tightening standards and approving fewer loans than ever, leaving small business owners stuck with mountains of paperwork. But if you want those bank rates without the bank delays, check out Cardiff Dot Comark for up to $500,000 in same day funding. Cardiff is the largest privately held small business lender in the United States. It's funded over $12 billion since 2004. Their application, it takes less than five minutes has no impact on on your personal credit and approvals can happen in minutes. With same day funding, banks try to lock out small businesses. Cardiff has the key. Big banks may not want to approve your business loans, but Cardiff does. If you've been in business for at least a year and you're pulling in 20 grand a month in revenue, apply now for $500,000 in same day business funding at Cardiff Dot Comark. Again, go to Cardiff Co Mark Cardiff Real Growth Fast funding Cardiff Borrow Better
- [42:19]
Commercial Announcer
cash flow Crunch on Deck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today@ondeck.com funds could be available as soon as tomorrow depending on certain loan attributes. Your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondac does not lend in nor Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.
- [42:50]
If you're a parent and want to help set up your child for success, then IXL is right for your family as an effective and affordable online learning program. IXL covers math, language arts, science and social studies using interactive practice problems for kids from Pre K to 12th grade. Listeners can get an exclusive 20% off IXL membership when they sign up today@ixl.com 20. Visit ixl.com 20 to get the most effective learning program out there there at the best price.
- [43:24]
Mark Halpern
All right, next up and joining me now, we switch topics, Josh Gerstein, senior legal affairs reporter at Politico and one of the best Supreme Court reporters around and a longtime colleague of mine here on NextUp. Josh, welcome in.
- [43:37]
Josh Gerstein
Hey Mark, good to see you again.
- [43:39]
Mark Halpern
So we're going to talk about some specifics, but I want to start at what you would call 75,000ft, not 30,000, all the way up to 75.
- [43:46]
Josh Gerstein
Okay. Not a lot of chair up there.
- [43:48]
Mark Halpern
No, no, no, I know. Bring oxygen. Which is early in the Trump term when we saw the style of governance they'd engage in. A lot of people said the story of this presidency will be told by the kind of rulings he eventually gets at the Supreme Court because, because they're doing so many things that are going to be challenged. They're bringing so many cases. There are so many cases brought against them. Where are we now? What can we tell based on the decisions made so far about how this Supreme Court will treat President Trump over the next three years on the big cases?
- [44:22]
Josh Gerstein
Well, I think that they've been pretty permissive so far and I think they will continue to be pretty, pretty permissive. Some of the things, you know, when you say big cases, I mean, I think some of these decisions have already functionally been made. They've been, you know, extremely accommodating to him in the area of personnel, with the exception of the, the Fed chair and one other rather trivial, not the Fed chair, but the Federal Reserve and one other kind of trivial position. They've let him have his way with replacing basically anybody he wants in the federal government. And that is sort of a merits decision, even though it's comes on the emergency docket and early on because, you know, even if there are decisions later that some of these firings either of leaders or rank and file people were, you know, were not legally permitted, if those people have been in serving in those positions for two or three years, Trump has basically won. So those cases I think he has won. He's won a lot of the cases
- [45:36]
Mark Halpern
around just, just before you leave the personnel.
- [45:39]
Josh Gerstein
Right.
- [45:39]
Mark Halpern
He hasn't lost the Fed case. Right. They just haven't decided. Decided it yet?
- [45:42]
Josh Gerstein
No, they haven't decided. I'm just pointing it out as one where they have, you know, departed from their pattern of basically allowing him to remove anybody in leadership.
- [45:55]
Mark Halpern
Right. And on this, on this first cluster of cases, which is, does the President have a free rein in replacing either particular individuals or large classes of federal workers, have those rulings primarily been 6 to 3 or some 6, 3 and some 5, 4?
- [46:11]
Josh Gerstein
I think they've pretty much been 6 to 3. I think the three dissenters would say that they really weren't dissenting on the merits. They were dissenting on the question of whether this is really an emergency or such a clear issue that we should be resolving it on emergency basis. But I think pretty much those decisions have come down 6 to 3. You know, on the personnel side, when I talk about personnel, I mean like the more wide ranging things like the firings and rifts across federal agencies. Right. You know that there are some more chapters there to play out. I think he's likely to lose a lot of those cases eventually. And I think the administration and the White House knows they're going to lose those cases eventually. They just don't care.
- [46:58]
Mark Halpern
Right. So effectively they, by deciding on just the narrow procedural grounds, they've effectively allowed him to go forward, even though eventually they may, they may turn the clock back on things that years later. So that's the first category where you say they've given him his way, primarily on personnel. What's another category of cases?
- [47:17]
Josh Gerstein
I mean, funding and, you know, funding and downsizing of government agencies in terms of their operations. They've been very deferential on that front as well. You know, he's basically dismantled good chunks of the Department of Education, and a lot of the Doge cuts resulted in, I think, the numbers between 100,000 and 200,000 federal employees being separated, they've let him do that. And the ones that I think are most interesting are they've also, so far, I don't know that this stuff has reached the Supreme Court. But as a practical matter, he has succeeded in doing a bunch of targeted firings at agencies that usually don't see that kind of thing, like the Justice Department and the FBI. They've come up with this notion that he has a presidential authority to fire people that basically have civil service protections or their equivalent. And that's the part that I think will eventually catch up with the administration, but it will only catch up in the way that basically you and I are probably going to have to pay those people's salaries for the, for the last several years. I mean, I don't think Trump's going to pay it out of his own pocket, but I think it's likely that in a year or two, people who were abruptly terminated for political reasons from DOJ or FBI, maybe some other agencies will get their back salary and maybe get their jobs back.
- [48:47]
Mark Halpern
All right, we'll get to the tariff case, which was one of his biggest losses, maybe his biggest loss. But what are the other wins that he's had in the Supreme Court?
- [48:55]
Josh Gerstein
I mean, immigration has been almost a complete sweep for him. When those cases have got up there on things like terminating temporary protected status for the countries, you know, some countries have had that status for, or their citizens have had that status in the US for 18, 19 years, something along, I think, Nicaragua. I think back in the days when you and I were working together and I was covering White House stuff, that's when that stuff started, and it's still going today. So the courts have let him and Kristi Noem, may she rest in peace, terminate some of those things with a Pretty wild, willy nilly, have also allowed him to do these things that folks think are pretty extreme, some folks think are pretty extreme, like third country deportations, sending people to countries that they don't have any connection from the court. Supreme Court basically allowed that to happen. The only spot of resistance there, and it's not an insignificant loss, is the, the court did say that this process of rushing people out as alien enemies, the whole move to the C COP prison in El Salvador and so forth, that that happened too quickly. And the court has not explained exactly how much process people are entitled to there. And the result of that has been that that particular operation of designating people as alien enemies and sending them out of the country on that basis has been pretty much blocked for the last, you know, 15 months, a year to 15 months.
- [50:26]
Mark Halpern
We'll get to that tariff decision, but first I want to ask you what's pending? What are the big cases pending? That will be another indication, more indications of how deferential the conservative majority will be to the president.
- [50:40]
Josh Gerstein
Well, I mean, I think there are some in the realm of presidential power, I'm trying to think of ones that are still sort of hanging out there waiting to be decided. I mean, we are waiting. I don't know if you'd say it's pending. We're waiting on arguments in a few weeks on the birthright citizenship case, which I think is a politically very important.
- [51:06]
Mark Halpern
I don't mean just, I don't mean just mean ones that they've already heard arguments on. I mean, ones that are working their way through the lower courts.
- [51:14]
Josh Gerstein
So things that are still, still coming up. You know, you said we'll talk later about tariffs. You know, I think there are still issues on immigration enforcement that are working their way. A lot of issues on immigration enforcement. There's a very, very big issue about whether people that have lived in this country illegally or came in illegally but have been in the country for a long time are entitled to sort of due process and in fact, to the possibility of being released. There's like a huge fight. One of my colleagues at Politico, Kyle Cheney, has been covering it in great detail where we have thousands of cases now pending in federal district courts around the country about this issue of, you know, if you say came in 15 years ago, can the government just basically lock you up on the spot and not give you an opportunity for release while your immigration case is pending? The Trump administration says not only that they're permitted to do that, but that the law requires them to do that. And I think somewhere around 90% of the judges who have looked at that issue of the district court confirmed judges have disagreed with the administration. So that's a pretty huge issue. On the immigration front that is, you know, headed toward the Supreme Court, but has has not arrived there yet. Some of the tactics around immigration enforcement, too, that issue did arrive at the court, but I still think we don't have a totally clear answer on what sorts of things the CBP and Border Patrol, for example, are allowed to do in terms of racial profiling around enforcement. What's come to be referred to by some critics as Kavanaugh stops is something the court has not yet resolved on these three groups.
- [53:13]
Mark Halpern
Amongst the three groups the president has been very aggressive with, I'm wondering whether, you know, are any case it's going to get the Supreme Court, the way he's gone after news organizations like for instance, keeping the Associated Press out of the pool on the case of universities that he's gone after and law firms, are any of those entities trying to get a case to the Supreme Court to say the president went too far?
- [53:36]
Josh Gerstein
So this is pretty interesting. I think that we talked about this a little bit the last time I was on with you, Mark, which is, I do think that John Sauer, who is the solicitor general, has done a very skillful job of managing the flow of these cases up to the Supreme Court. In other words, you know, it's not, you may hear statistics out there that on the emergency docket, the Trump administration has like a 85 to 90% win rate at the Supreme Court. And that's true. I really, I can't quibble with those statistics. The thing is, in with maybe one or two exceptions, virtually all those cases arrived at the Supreme Court because the Trump administration chose to take them to the Supreme Court. And there are other matters that they have slow walked or decided not to push to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis. You happen to have listed a couple of them just there. The university's thing with Harvard. If the administration really didn't like what happened in the lower courts, with their moves there being blocked, they could have rushed that to the Supreme Court. They conspicuously chose not to do it. On Trump's executive orders against law firms, they could have rushed that to the Supreme Court. Not only did they not take it to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department, you know, a few days ago tried to sort of quietly dump all the appeals on those cases before it sounds like the White House or the president got angry and they decided they would push forward those appeals. And similarly on some of the attacks on the, the news media, I do think there would be more opportunities, if they really thought it was an emergency, to escalate those issues. Although they've gotten some traction, the Trump administration has gotten some traction in some aspects of that, like the dispute you mentioned about credentialing at the White House. And so it's interesting that they haven't taken those issues. These are all ones where you could really see the Republican majority splitting or maybe even in some instances going unanimously against the President. And it's interesting that they've sort of stage managed that in a way to, you know, have those actors not go out on stage right now.
- [55:50]
Mark Halpern
So those cases where, as you suggested, in the lower courts, against the media, against the universities, against law firms, the President's lost more, the White House has lost more of the cases than they've won. You're saying they might eventually get to the Supreme Court, but the White House has not rushed to have them heard.
- [56:08]
Josh Gerstein
Yeah, I mean, the media ones I think are more of a mixed bag. A lot of those are these somewhat performative lawsuits that Trump has filed against different news organizations seeking billions of dollars. And most of those have just sort of are still being battled out and are kind of moving very slowly. And in some cases, Trump doesn't seem to be in any rush to pursue them. I noted that he found time to make a video and send his daughter and son in law to Rupert Murdoch's 95th birthday party over the weekend. And I didn't see any mention in the coverage of the fact that the President is suing Rupert Murdoch personally for $2 billion. I don't invite a lot of people suing me for that amount of money to my birthday party.
- [56:57]
Mark Halpern
I think, I think Rupert had dinner with him at the White House recently too. So the $2 billion lawsuit is not standing between their long standing friendship relationship. So let's talk, let's talk about the tariff case. The President lost the case and he, the two of the justices that he nominated and the Chief justice voted against him. Is, are there larger lessons in there for how those three justices might rule in other cases against the President or is this a one off in terms of, you know, their posture towards executive power and the President?
- [57:30]
Josh Gerstein
You know, I think that for those specific justices that it's, it, it, it's not really a one off. I, I could definitely see them in other cases coming to a similar anti executive power conclusion, especially maybe for Justice Gorsuch. You know, he has a very, I think independent streak on some of these issues. And he's not afraid to take a legal position that sort of goes against tradition and that he views as standing up for the, the little guy. What I do think is a somewhat unique dynamic about the tariff case and probably other trade related cases is that you have this divide in the Republican establishment. And I'm not just for the record, somebody that thinks that the court is driven by, you know, financial concerns or some kind of, you know, quasi bribery or influence peddling per se. But I think you have to take note of the fact that people like the Wall street editorial page, the people that donate to folks like Leonard Leo and others, were opposed to this specific tariff policy that Trump was advancing. And, and that matters in the Federalist Society circles. I mean, the last Federalist Society conference I went to, I suspect if I went and grabbed people by the lapel and said, what do you think of tariffs? Probably would have been like 80, 20 opposed. And that seeps into the atmosphere that most of those conservative justices, including Trump's appointees, live in. And so I think in that respect, the tariffs case is, is a little bit unusual just because so much of the, the, not only the Republican establishment, but the donor class is almost uniformly opposed to that particular policy. So I, I, I think it signals those justices are a little wobbly, but maybe nothing that the President needs to be super concerned about. Right. So yeah, he is obviously super concerned about it because he keeps bringing it up like every other day, sometimes spontaneously. So there's a bold sense of grievance on his part about those what he regards as defections, especially as you mentioned, by the two justices that he appointed
- [60:14]
Mark Halpern
me, he's the king agreements. And again, we're talking about Gorsuch, Coney Barrett and the Chief justice who he didn't elevate to the, to the court. Why would those three, and again, this is the tea leave reading that court watchers do. I know you don't know for a fact, but why would those three be more captive to kind of the establishment view of tariffs than that Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, who voted to allow the President to use this authority to impose the tariffs?
- [60:42]
Josh Gerstein
I don't, I don't think, I think that's probably over, over stating what, what I was trying to say. I just think there's more of a permission structure available to Republicans that want to say that a Republican judges that want to disagree with the President on this issue. The specific reasons why the individual justices came out the way they did, I think has More to do with. With why, you know, the opinion. I don't have my copy in front of me, but. But it's something. The total set of opinions is something on the order, 140 pages, and the majority opinion is only 20. There are some rather arcane issues about, mainly about this issue of the Major Questions Doctrine and, and sort of whether it's vital or not vital and whether it applies in a national security context or doesn't apply in the national security context. And I think those issues explain more about why Barrett and Gorsuch and Roberts went in one direction. And, you know, Kavanaugh in particular, he has, I think, been the most frequent Republican justice to vote with the Chief. The Chief and Kavanaugh often do vote together. So it's kind of fascinating that not only did they split in this very high profile case, but Kavanaugh's dissent from the majority opinion, which the Chief wrote, is somewhat caustic in several different places. And so I found it. I think Kavanaugh felt on the defensive because of the role he has taken on issues like the Major Questions Doctrine in the past and the kind of aggressive position he's taken against sort of expansive views. The one other thing I just would mention is I wasn't shocked by Kavanaugh's position here for one particular reason, which is I've seen him speak maybe 20 times. I think in every public speech that he's given, he talks about the importance of presidents in the modern era being able to respond to national security and foreign policy crisis crises in a sort of rapid and dexterous kind of way. And he talks about his experience in the Bush White House after 9, 11, watching Bush. And he speaks about it with a kind of reverence that this is really at the core of his being, that presidents need to be able to respond in that kind of situation. And, you know, if it doesn't track precisely with, say, what the founders thought a President should be doing, that doesn't trouble Justice Kavanaugh a great deal. And I don't think you can say that Barrett or Gorsuch had that sort of searing executive branch experience.
- [63:36]
Mark Halpern
Yeah, it's a really good point about, about his experience and how it informs what he does. I want to ask you about the criticism I have of the court, which is they're taking too long to decide things, even when they. They're doing things on an expedited schedule for them. Expedited is like what Ben Franklin would be, an expedited trip to London on a boat. Like instead of taking a Month, it would take three weeks. Like why, why don't, why don't do that. Ask it this way. To what extent do they feel any pressure on these cases? They're so important to the conduct of the administration. And like for instance, on the personnel cases you cited, like this woman on the Fed, Ms. Cook, like, is she gonna be on the Fed or not? Shouldn't. They've heard the arguments and I know partly it's because they fight about the opinions and all that, but shouldn't they be more in the modern world? To what extent they feel any pressure to be modern and say this has real life impact if we don't decide quickly? Because sometimes they do.
- [64:31]
Josh Gerstein
Right. Look, I mean, I've decided quickly. You know, I mentioned earlier that the Alien Enemies act cases, I remember being up in the middle of the night literally waiting for orders to come down and, you know, them saying, well, we're releasing this order immediately and we'll explain in an opinion, you know, later, or there'll be a dissenting opinion. So when they feel there's a time crisis, they can actually respond in a matter, in a matter of hours. You're right. It's not their usual way of doing things. I do think, you know, while it may seem slow, they usually are giving the signal about where they're headed. Right. Like it. What's slow is getting the final.
- [65:12]
Mark Halpern
But things are happening in the real world. People are being fired, agencies are being eliminated. Right. Tariff money is being collected. All these things are happening in the real world. And everybody's waiting on them. And they'll wait till they hear the arguments, I think, hear the arguments, and then they'll wait on the decision.
- [65:27]
Josh Gerstein
I get it. I mean, I think tariffs is probably the best example that you have of that, where they have exacerbated the problem by sitting on it too long. In the other cases, though, they basically are giving a wink and a nod. You know, I think that Lisa Cook is going to be allowed to remain in her position because they, but then,
- [65:50]
Mark Halpern
but they, but then say. So then say she's going to be in a position and therefore you can't fire the chief judge, the chair of the Fed either. Like real world implications.
- [66:00]
Josh Gerstein
Yes.
- [66:01]
Mark Halpern
She's still in her job.
- [66:02]
Josh Gerstein
Look at my story. From whenever they announced they were going to set arguments, you know, and take this case on expedited basis. It says that, you know, they, that this decision functionally means that Cook will be allowed to stay in her position for at least several more Fed meetings and possibly through June, which is the end of the Supreme Court's season of releasing opinions. And so I do think that they're giving a wink and a nod. There are reasons why they don't explain everything immediately. They talk about these things they call lock in, which basically means if, if they give sort of a preliminary explanation for why they're doing something, it becomes very hard for them to change why they're doing it. There's also some weird reasons, which is sometimes they might not agree. Like, you know, this is one of the issues that some of the lower court judges will bring up sometimes is they get a, a stay order of some sort and that lower court judges are now being told they need to apply that in similar cases. If there's no explanation for why that that was granted, not only do the lower court judges not know why it was granted and have to surmise, we don't even know that the justices agreed. It's not clear how they discuss these things. Justice Barrett has said that they don't usually discuss them verbally or directly. It's usually by memo or email or something like that. So it's possible that in some of these cases where there's no explanation, the reason is that they actually have not yet agreed on an explanation. And all there is is a vote to either let the current situation, the status quo, continue or to stop it. And then the, the mashing that goes on behind the scenes over the ensuing months is what produces some kind of explanation.
- [67:48]
Mark Halpern
I'm going to mark you down as a Supreme Court institutionalist and apologist. I know, I knew just they're from the 19th century, but it makes me crazy. All right, two more quick questions. One is on the tariffs case. People thought they would decide the question of whether the administration had to turn back the money, which creates all sorts of a mess because who gets it now? It's being decided now by a lower court. When can we expect a decision there?
- [68:13]
Josh Gerstein
I mean, they're going to have to pay back most of the money. I was just talking with legal experts within the last few hours about this. Some of the money they may not actually be allowed to pay back just because of the arcane ways that the tariff system works for things that were imported, you know, last early last year, those things may be cut, dried, and settled by now. And if the people who paid those tariffs haven't already filed some kind of suit or administrative complaint, they might be out of luck. That's part of why you see so many companies rushing to court to file suits to preserve their rights. I, you know, there's talk about some sort of 45 day timeline. I think there's a hearing scheduled in a couple weeks. I've read the papers. It is actually mechanically a complicated thing for the administration to do. You see these sort of terrifying declarations where they say there's a million lines of imports that they have to adjust and at their normal rate of speed and so forth, it could take 10 years to adjudicate that. They think they have a faster way to do it, but they need a little bit of time to get it in place. You know, even though Trump isn't going to talk about it. You know, one thing I would say because of your love for politics, Mark, I don't understand why the White House is fighting injecting billions of dollars into the US Economy in the months leading up to a midterm election. It might be the first time in history that administration has ever said, you know, let's keep this money in the, in the treasury when it could be used to goose the economy at a time when say it's suffering from, you know, increasing oil prices and uncertainty. Now, it could be, I wouldn't be surprised as a practical matter if they do a U turn here. If they can figure out a quiet way to do it, it'd be a
- [69:58]
Mark Halpern
big rebate, but it also exacerbate the deficit. Lastly, you got three justices who I hear regularly rumors about Robert Salito and Thomas who may retire. And now it looks like possible that the Democrats will have the Senate majority in the next Congress. And so if you don't want to be accused of pulling a Ginsburg and staying too long, you'd retire pretty soon to allow Senator Thune to rush through confirmation of new justices. So what are you hearing about the prospect of one, two or three retirements in the advance of the midterms where it might be hard to get nominees confirmed at the back half of the Trump term.
- [70:38]
Josh Gerstein
I mean, the, the strongest rumors still seem to be around Justice Alito, who often seems to be sort of gruff and grumpy, although that's sort of his known personality type. I have to say that while I do hear from Republicans of an interest in replacing, you know, say Alito or Thomas at some point from sort of their camp, all the signals seem to be that they're planning to stay where they are for the time being. Roberts is, I think about a decade or so younger than, than those two guys are. And so I don't, I just can't conceive of Roberts leaving voluntarily anytime soon. But there are Definitely moments where Alito seems very fed up. So I could see it as a, as a practical possibility. The one thing I wonder on that account is like, while it sounds simple to like, you know, nominate someone to replace one of these justices, I wonder if Trump's bitterness towards the justices that he already selected could make it almost impossible to find someone that he will find acceptable and a majority, you know, of the, or, you know, all, or all minus one or two of the Republican senators would find acceptable. I mean, Trump is going to want somebody who is so hardcore MAGA that, you know, he's just so bitter about Leonard Leo and what he was led to believe in the past. I just think that that Venn diagram of overlap is like, very sketchy at this point.
- [72:23]
Mark Halpern
It is interesting to see, you know, where I think he'll look if it comes to that is, is the Senate itself to find a senator who, who he could get confirmed.
- [72:32]
Josh Gerstein
I mean, it's possible that that could be sort of an emergency valve to get him out. But he's not going to believe what the lawyers and advisors tell him about this person is rock solid because he's just going to say, well, you told me these three others were rock solid. And they, they deserted me not only on tariffs, but, you know, in the 2020 election and a number of other times. And, and it's just going to be hard for the president to, to, to settle on someone that he doesn't feel 100% personally assured of their complete political loyalty.
- [73:08]
Mark Halpern
I totally agree, but I think the answer is going to be a senator who's maga. Josh Gerstein of Politico. As always, love having you on. Grateful to you for sharing your expertise.
- [73:19]
Josh Gerstein
Great to be with you, Mark. See you soon.
- [73:21]
Mark Halpern
All right, that's Josh Gerstein. And that is a wrap for today. A huge thanks to Josh. We love having him on. And thanks to you also for being part of the program. Loved getting the chance to share the latest, the March 8 for 28 rankings. And of course, my latest on Iran. We'll be back on Thursday with another brand new episode. Make sure you're subscribed on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like today's show, send it around to a friend, enemy, co worker, loved one, so they can stay informed too. Always know as you do, what's coming next up.
- [73:57]
Commercial Announcer
Did you know 39% of teen drivers admit to texting while driving? Even scarier, those who text are more likely to speed and run red lights. Shockingly, 94% know it's dangerous, but do it anyway. As a parent, you can't always be in the car, but you can stay connected to their safety with Greenlight Infinity's driving reports. Monitor their driving habits, see if they're using their phone, speeding, and more. These reports provide real data for meaningful conversations about safety. Plus, with weekly updates, you can track their progress over time. Help keep your teens safe. Sign up for Greenlight Infinity@Greenlight.com podcast a
- [74:28]
cancer diagnosis changes everything. If you or a loved one drank alcohol and was later diagnosed with cancer, you may be eligible for compensation. Get a free confidential claim review today. It should only take a few minutes. Go to cancerclaims.info again. That's cancerclaims.info prefer to call? Dial 866-986-2429 again. 866-986-2429. This is Attorney advertising.