No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Pack the Court

Episode Date: April 18, 2021

There is a new push to expand the Supreme Court, including some moves by both Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, along with a certain nightmare scenario if we don't expand the Court. Brian interviews US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo about the American Jobs Plan, how to push back against China, and how Republican opposition to this bill will hurt their constituents most.Written by Brian Tyler CohenProduced by Sam GraberRecorded in Los Angeles, CAhttps://www.briantylercohen.com/podcast/See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today we're going to talk about a new push to expand the Supreme Court, including some moves by both Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, along with a certain nightmare scenario if we don't expand the court. I interview U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Romando about the American Jobs Plan, how to push back against China, and how GOP opposition to the bill will hurt their own constituents most. And finally, I answer some of the questions that you submitted. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. So the issue of court expansion, court packing is back. Biden made news by creating a commission composed of 36 members to study the issue of expanding the court. At the same time, legislation has been introduced by Jerry Nadler in the House and Ed Markey in the Senate that would increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court from 9 to 13. So practically speaking, it would mean that Biden would get to nominate four more justices.

They'd all be Democrats. So instead of a 6.3 conservative court, it would be a 7-6 liberal court. Now, Pelosi had dumped some cold water on the idea, at least in the immediate future, saying, quote, I have no intention of bringing it to the floor. Instead, she backed Biden's move to create that commission and said, quote, I don't know that that's a good idea or a bad idea. I think it's an idea that should be considered. It's not out of the question. So look, do I think Pelosi wants it? Of course.

But for all the criticism she gets, the last thing anyone can falter for is failing to get into these fights with the United Caucus. So she's going to make sure she has the support. before doing anything, you know, court expansion included, which, by the way, she needs because we've got a cushion of only a couple seats in the house, so there's no room for error here. But meanwhile, Republicans have suddenly gotten back on their high horses when it comes to the sanctity of the Supreme Court, claiming the Democratic efforts to pack the court are in a front to the very fabric of the judicial branch. But come on, like we weren't born yesterday.

Democratic calls to pack the court didn't happen in a vacuum. We didn't wake up on Tuesday and say, hey, you know what would be cool? pool. This is the direct response to Republican court packing. And we can argue semantics until the sun goes down. But in practice, that's what this is. Republicans didn't let a Democratic president confirm a justice because he was a Democrat. I'm talking about when Obama nominated Merrick Garland, meaning Republicans change the number of justices on the bench from nine to eight for a year. And then they raise that number back to nine when they can be assured that a Republican was in office. That was court packing. But then, okay, let's just give Republicans

the benefit of the doubt, who say that it was fair for McConnell to prevent a president's nominee from getting a hearing in election year so that the people can decide. Let's just grant them that, okay? While they broke their own rule four years later, forget about an election year, they confirmed Damie Coney-Barritt while people were voting. The election was occurring, meaning there are no standards, there are no rules, there are no precedence. It's just whatever Republicans need on that day at that moment to benefit them.

That's it. So for them to turn around now and pretend, like they're out here defending the sanctity of the court. I mean, come on. Democrats calling for court expansion are doing so in response to that. Republicans can pretend that everything that happened before January 20th doesn't exist, but we were there. Democrats aren't the instigators here. We didn't create the problem, but we should have every intention of fixing what was broken. And keep in mind, too, we wouldn't be here if Republicans weren't so brazenly power-hungry. Even after the Merrick Garland thing, as bad as it was, if they wanted to make that the

rule, then fine. Can't confirm a SCOTUS judge in election year. But it was when they reversed their own rule that was bullshit to begin with to shoehorn Amy Coney Barrett onto the court. Well, then what choice do we have? Do nothing and just allow them to rig the system? That's what it is now. It's rigged. When you have it so that only one party gets to nominate judges, that is a rigged system. So if Republicans want to clutch their pearls over Democratic efforts to add seats to the court, let's be honest here, they've got themselves to thank. But okay, let's just Let's just say that Republicans don't pack the Supreme Court. Brian Boitler from Crooked Media has a great newsletter.

He outlined what he called a nightmare scenario. And that is that the Democrats have picked their battles. They leave the Supreme Court as is. But they do accomplish our top priorities of reforming the Villabuster and passing H.R. 1 in a Voting Rights Act. We do what's so desperately needed to shore up our democracy, accomplish the single biggest and most important mandate of Joe Biden's presidency. And then imagine the 6-3 conservative court strikes those things.

down. That is the nightmare scenario. And before you say this is, you know, baseless fear-mongering, consider that Republicans have already called the H.R.1 unconstitutional. They've already broadcast their intention to prove that it is exactly that. So you really don't think the same court that gutted the Voting Rights Act would be willing to take a sledgehammer to H.R.1, the same court that ruled in Citizens United? Like, I hate to break it to you, but this 6-3 conservative court is not going to be falling over itself to protect democracy reforms that, rig a system rigged by the very people who filled most of that bench in the first place. And so Boitler argues there are two options. The first, obviously, is to pack the court.

That would be the most direct way to rebalance what has been an anti-democratic packing of the court in the first place. But the other way, at a bare minimum, is to keep alive the threat of court packing. In other words, change the filibuster, pass HR1, and then make it abundantly clear that if the Supreme Court wants to go ahead and take an axe to it, that Democrats will have no choice but to reform the bench. That Democrats will have no choice but to reform the bench. won't be willing to sit back and watch some conservative judges run defense for the Republicans as they rig our country's elections for their own benefit. Brian Bortler put it best when he wrote,

If Republican justices seem inclined to rubber stamp a 21st century Jim Crow, they should be admonished in advance that it will be the last decision the Robert Court ever makes. So look, whichever route we choose, the point is that we can't skip over this element of it. We can't overlook the court. The fact is that we need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. All of these things need to happen. We need to win the filibuster fight so that we can pass H.R. 1. That is the only way we pass H.R. 1, and there's no way around it.

Then we need to win the fight to pass H.R.1 into law. That is the only way to make sure that Democrats don't get legislated out of government, and there's no way around it. And then we need to win the court expansion fight, or at least keep the threat of doing so alive and well. That is the only way to make sure a conservative court doesn't legislate from the bench and strike down H.R.1, and there's no way around it. Every single element is going to be a fight,

and every single element is non-negotiable. And notice, too, I'm not even talking about legislative priorities. I could be talking about how nuking the filibuster would help pass health care legislation and women's reproductive rights legislation and climate change legislation, all of which are hugely important and I will fight my ass off for. But I'm not talking about any of those because this isn't about changing the rules to score wins on our agenda items. This is just to level the playing field. This is just to keep democracy going.

and it sucks that we have to use all of our political capital and our energy and our time just trying to make democracy work, which should be a bare minimum in this country, but here we are. Republicans have made it so that if we don't act, we will be legislated out of government. States will be gerrymandered to within an inch of their lives. Voting will get harder and harder for people in Democratic strongholds. People will get kicked off the rolls. Lines will stretch hours long.

Whatever they can do, they're doing. And so we don't even have the luxury of just fighting. for legislative priorities like Medicare for All or whatever right now because we have to spend our time making sure we don't descend into autocracy. And look, thank God the Democrats are united enough that we were able to pass legislation like the American Rescue Plan and that we'll probably be able to pass the American Jobs Plan but we'd be kidding ourselves if we didn't acknowledge that HR1 is the whole ballgame.

It'd be great if we could just worry about making the country better instead of having to save it from getting a lot worse. But that's the position we're in. So yeah, it's shitty, but we know what has to be done and we have to keep pushing to make it happen. We need changes to the filibuster to eliminate that 60-vote threshold. We need for the People Act, HR1 passed, and we need to insulate it from a hostile conservative court. And part of that fight is just educating people on why it's so important so that when it is time to finally act and do these things, we're aware of what's at stake and Republicans can't fill some knowledge vacuum with lies and misrepresentations.

So keep spreading the word because this will continue to be our time. priority until it's passed. Coming up is some answers to questions that you've submitted, but first, my interview with Commerce Secretary Gina Romando. Okay, today we have the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. Gina Romando, thanks for coming on. Great to be with you. So I know that Republicans are looking for something or anything to attack the American

jobs plan with, and so they're preemptively claiming that it's some liberal giveaway. But if we break the bill down, wouldn't you see a massive amount of benefits to Americans who identify as Republicans? Like, wouldn't there be a disproportionate benefit to Republicans for expanding access to rural broadband and upgrading VA hospitals and don't Republicans use roads? Exactly. I couldn't say it better than you just did.

Republicans use roads. Republicans need better water infrastructure to make sure everybody has clean water. Everybody deserves access to high-quality, high-speed broadband. We have major issues of national security if we don't shore up our semiconductor supply chain and other supply chains. So, yeah, it's not for Democrats or Republicans. It's for all Americans. Yeah, and I do want to go back to the issue of semiconductors.

But just to stay on this for a moment, you know, Republicans have been running for years on salvaging a few thousand jobs in obsolete sectors like coal, for example. But the infrastructure package focuses on jobs of the future. So let's take it out of the abstract. What are the jobs of the future? And how do you convince people to look forward instead of backwards? So, look, I think it is important to acknowledge people's anxiety who currently have jobs in the coal industry or oil and natural gas. It's a really tough message to hear that those industries are declining and that we have to move away from. them. You know, we have to move away from them because we have to, you know, meet the needs

of climate change. But I do think it's important for us to undwell on that anxiety because it's real. You know, I'm somebody who my dad lost his job when we were younger. He was in a manufacturing operation. And it was really tough on our family. And so there will be a lot of families that struggle with these transitions. However, we will have jobs for them. And I think that's the key message. And that is what's so powerful about the president's jobs package. We're going to create tens of millions of jobs that will be available at every level. We're going to invest in a research and development. So if you are college graduate or professional engineering, there are more jobs there. We're going to invest in manufacturing so that you can have great manufacturing jobs if you

don't have a college degree or if you do. So I think that, yes, it can be scary and change is hard, but we want to move into the future. And the president calls for these investments. So everybody is a shot at a job in the future. I think, too, something important is that, you know, if these new jobs, the future are coming anyway and the jobs that are on the decline are leaving anyway, it would be more important to get them while the opportunity still presents itself as opposed to, you know, trying to hold on to something that's going to leave anyway. So I think, you know, just there's something to be said for, you know, setting yourself up for success while you can now. Yeah, and also being honest.

Yeah. Like, being honest about it, certain industries are shrinking. So let's not pretend they're not. Let's be honest with people and help them get new jobs and maybe better jobs. So while attacking the American jobs plan, Republicans have seized on elements that don't fit into the confines of their definition of infrastructure like the care economy. So can you speak to why the care economy is so important to keep in this bill? It's vital to keep in the bill. You know, I'm here talking to you while my mom, who's about to be 90, is being cared for by

awesome professional home care workers. I have had my children taken care of by an amazingly loving caretaker for their lives. It's core to American productivity that we can continue to go to work reliably and make sure our loved ones are cared for. But even more than that, right now in America, there are millions and millions of women working full-time in important jobs in poverty. They're the ones doing the dignified work of taking care of our elderly loved ones, making $8, $9, $10 an hour, working 40, 50 hours a week in poverty. It's dignified work. They deserve dignified wages. I'm proud of the president for putting this in the package, it's core to American competitiveness. I think it's past time that

we recognize that and that we make these investments. Right. And I think building on your point, like even if we don't focus on the emotional aspect of it, of just, you know, making sure that people have dignity in the work they do, the fact is that it stimulates the economy. Like, what part of that is bad? Which part do Republicans oppose? You know, at the end of the day, their only argument can be like, well, yes, this would stimulate the economy, but our red line is semantics. Our priority number one is the dictionary. Yeah. By the way, you're exactly right. Every, you know, we know it is a fact that low wage workers, say minimum wage workers, when they get a raise, it all goes into the economy. Yeah. It immediately goes into the economy.

It will stimulate the economy. So we had spoken about this just a few minutes ago, the idea of like the semiconductors and everything. So now we depend on China for component manufacturing for chips and semiconductors, other computer parts, given the dangers of a few things that we've seen lately, like shipping log jams, the danger of public health emergencies like this pandemic, and also just in general, U.S. Chinese geopolitical fallout, how do you rectify this to protect U.S. interests? Like, will our position be to diversify supply chains? And if that is the case, like, how can the U.S. government facilitate that? You just talked about semiconductors. Once upon a time, not that long ago, when I was in college, actually, America led the world in making cutting edge semiconductor chips, you know, what they call the bleeding edge, the leading edge, like the stuff that's at the edge of innovation.

Today, America makes zero percent of cutting edge semiconductor chips, zero percent. So that's a problem. There is one memory. chip manufacturer in the United States of America. Micron, one. So come on. Let's get going. Let's get back to work in America. Let's make these investments in America, build factories so we can make cutting edge chips in America. And so how would the White House, how would the U.S. government, like, how would you be able to play a role in facilitating the reshoring of these jobs? Yeah. So the president's plan has a component in it. It's a 50 billion. investment in semiconductor industry. Some of it is for job training.

Some of it is to actually help build manufacturing facilities. Some of it is in basic research. There's a lot of talk about how we play defense with China, tariffs and the like. Let's play offense. Let's build factories in America and put people to work and train them to build right here in our own country. So I hope Congress passes the Chips Act.

it's or puts the money into it. It's $50 billion and it'll go a long way. So building on that point exactly of playing offense as opposed to defense when it comes to China, China's been heavily investing in its own infrastructure. So does this give them an advantage on the U.S.? Well, look, I think that if we don't make our own moves, absolutely. I mean, we can't stand still. Yeah. If we stand still and don't invest, they will overtake us, Absolutely. Congress can quibble with certain parts of the president's plan. Maybe they can come back with some, you know, different ideas about how to get there. But throwing their hands up and saying, let's do nothing is wrong and we will fall behind to answer your question. So it would seem fair to

say that blocking an infrastructure package that that does, you know, that does exactly that that builds up our infrastructure and puts us on par with China, that blocking this infrastructure package really only serves to help China continue to get a leg up on the U.S. No question about it. I think that's well said. Which is ironic, too, because, you know, you would think that the country that Republicans fearmongering about the most, having a leg up would be some incentive to pass this package. Like, they'll wail about China on Fox News, but when it comes time to actually do something

about it and invest in ourselves, it's really nothing but opposition. Moving on, though, you know, going back to this infrastructure package or going back to the idea of infrastructure. So there are a group of moderates who have come out with their own response to the infrastructure package, which was a $600 to $800 billion bill, a third the size of the package that the White House is proposing. So is there any reason at all why Democrats should acquiesce to Republican demands to subvert their own package by shrinking it to two thirds of the size? No, but I do think there's room for compromise. So listen, I give them credit for saying, you know, we think there's need for big investments, and we want to put forth our proposal.

We can't stop with that proposal. You know, the president led. He put out a big, bold investment, $2 trillion. We think that's what's necessary. Now we have to do the hard work of legislating and finding some compromise. Yeah. Well, so some are now calling for the infrastructure package to be split into two. One half that's basically bipartisan and the other that Democrats would pass through.

reconciliation. But if that's the case and Democrats are looking to use reconciliation for half the bill anyway, isn't it just six in one, half dozen in the other? Like what's the function of splitting the process in half if reconciliation is going to be used anyway? Yeah. The president feels very strongly that we try as hard as we can to have bipartisan support for as much of this as we can. So this is the unglamorous, unsexy work of government. This is the wheels of government grinding, stay at the table, do the people's work, try to find compromise. And so look, if at the end of the day, as you say, we have to do it on party lines, we may do that. But at the moment, right now, in April, let's stay at the table, let's work. Because like you said, this is about American jobs,

American leadership. And we ought to all be able to agree on that. Yeah. And I hope that's a warning that's heard because, you know, especially after the American Rescue Plan, you know, that was a bill that over 70% of the country supported and we could manage to find a single vote from the entire Republican Party. So, you know, for a party that does call for bipartisanship and unity, you know, if they're doing it in good faith, this would be a time to actually, you know, put their money where their mouth is and show that they're willing to be bipartisan. And so, you know, with that said, if we do continue to see these. Republican efforts to sink this American jobs plan, whether it be because they think it doesn't

fit into the confines of their definition of infrastructure or because they've suddenly rediscovered the debt. What would your response be to these Republicans who've made their top priority when it comes to infrastructure just to oppose Joe Biden? You know, I think it's shameful. I really do. I come from Rhode Island. I'm a Patriots fan. Like Bill Belichick says, do your job. Do your job. Do your. job. Your job is to get things done for the American people. It's a great package the president has put before them. If you don't like all of it, fine, but to do nothing, it's shameful. Americans are struggling right now, really struggling. We have an opportunity to do something

big and bold and be there for Americans, and we ought to do it. That's a great place to end here. So, Secretary Romando, thank you so much for coming on and taking the time to talk. Thank you. Thanks again to Secretary Romando. Okay, so new segment here. First off, we got a lot of questions submitted, and I obviously couldn't include them all, but I did listen to them all, and thank you to everyone for taking the time to send them. So I'm going to answer a few.

Good afternoon, Brian. What troubles me about them not passing for the People Act is that when Senator Lewis was alive, they all smiled in his face and called him a hero and a national. treasure and when he died everyone was so gung-ho about preservation and making sure that we did everything to, you know, uplift and preserve his legacy. And I just don't get what these two holdouts, especially mansion. I just don't understand because this is something that's fundamentally flawed in our democracy that we as black people and I'm black if, you know, just for transparency.

But we as black people, I'm the first generation in my family to have been born with all their in their inalienable rights. So that's kind of depressing and hurtful, but at the same time, it makes me motivated to do more. So what more could I do

besides calling, writing letters, and doing what I do locally to get people registered and get people out to vote? look forward to hear from you and I love your show and I love your podcast and would definitely love to do anything that I can to help not only further your message but the whole message of maintaining our democracy. When it comes to Mansion and Cinema, they're more focused on preserving this idea of a

bipartisan Senate that in practice doesn't actually exist. They're so busy chasing this little white rabbit that they didn't stop to consider whether the other half of the government even wants bipartisanship, and they don't. Like, they proved that by ramming through their Supreme Court nominees with the simple majority. They passed the tax cuts with a simple majority. They got everything that they wanted without Democrats. Even the American Rescue Plan, not a single Republican came on board, and that was for relief

for their own constituents during a pandemic. So is what Mansion and Cinema are doing, like, noble, maybe? But in effect, all they're doing is neutering themselves. to the benefit of Republicans. Now, in terms of the second half of your question, what more can we do? That's the question we need to be asking. I would say the number one thing is to donate to organizations

that focus on voter registration and voter outreach now. Like, look at what Stacey Abrams did in Georgia. That didn't come about by donating to some pack in October of an election year. It takes time and it takes money. Now, I'll have an announcement on this exact issue in the next few weeks, so keep an eye out. But I would say to everyone that we have to have a proactive approach to getting people involved in the process, that it can't just start five minutes before an election.

It's got to start now. Hi, Brian. It's Lee from Vancouver. I'm a big fan of your show. My question is, I know we like to think of the Republican Party as a singular edifice. However, I'm wondering if the Democrats are making any overtures to some moderate Republicans when it comes to reforming the filibuster. Also, do we know if this is a strategy the Democrats have even considered? I mean, this administration has fallen over itself to be bipartisan, even to a fault sometimes. Like, we're even talking about an infrastructure package right now being broken up into two bills, one with popular bipartisan provisions that would pass through regular order, and the other half with items that Democrats want that will pass through reconciliation.

And so instead of just passing the whole thing through reconciliation, since we're using it anyway, Democrats are actually considering two bills just so that something passes with bipartisan support it's a whole like drawn out process really just for the optics of bipartisanship so clearly the democrats are trying right like we don't need to but but there's an effort but because the filibuster will be the route that we take to pass hr1 and unrig a system rigged by republicans no there there won't be any republicans who'd be open to it there there won't be any republicans who are going to curb their own power you know you're not even going to get mitt romley to do that remember just like i said for the previous question

question, they wouldn't cross party lines to pass the American Rescue Plan, a bill with 75% support. So at this point, the onus is going to be on the Democrats to do it among ourselves. Hey, Brian. I love the show. I've been watching on YouTube almost every week now. My question is about the filibuster. With that, if no one filibusters a bill, can anything pass with just the simple 51 to 50 or 51 to 4? 49 vote, or would it still have to be a 60 to 40 vote, regardless of someone filibusters? Hopefully, this question gets on. Thank you, and I can't wait to listen. So if nobody filibusters a bill could have still pass with a simple majority, there are two

options here. The first is that if any Republican doesn't want a bill to pass, all they have to do is signal their opposition to a bill, and that counts as the filibuster. They don't have to stand on the floor. They don't have to talk till they drop or anything like that. You just have to signal your opposition to it, and that counts as the filibuster, wherein Democrats would then need those 60 votes to overcome that. The other option is if nobody filibusters it because they support it, well, then you've got a bipartisan bill. So the only scenario where you wouldn't have that 60 vote threshold is if you have 100% support for a bill, because in any other scenario, even one senator opposing a bill means that you still have to overcome that 60 vote threshold.

Okay, so I'm going to stop there. Just kind of wanted to do a trial run of these questions and see how you all like that. it. If you have more questions that you'd like to submit next week, again, the email address is podcast at Brian Tyler Cohen.com, and I look forward to hearing you. That's it for this episode. Talk to you next week. You've been listening to No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen. Produced by Sam Graber, music by Wellsey, interviews captured and edited for YouTube and Facebook by Nicholas Nicotera, and recorded in Los Angeles, California. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe in your preferred podcast app. Feel free to leave a five-star rating and a review,

and check out Brian Tyler Cohen.com for links to all of my other channels.