>> Today's supreme court is no
stranger to controversy.
Earlier this week, pro-public
revealed justice Clarence Thomas
took undisclosed lavish trips
funded by a Republican mega
donor.
It comes as the country waits to
see how the justices will rule
in a number of contentious cases
dealing with affirmative action,
voting rights, and lgbtq rights.
Last week, John yang sat down
with Joan bis cubic to discuss
her new book the details the
courts recent conservative shift
and how it can shape the
country's future.
The most prominent result so far
of the right would shift might
be the overturning of roe V.
Wade, increasing the nearly
half-century old right to seek
abortion.
There are many other
consequences whose effects will
be felt for generations to come.
It is detailed in a new book
nine black robes in the supreme
court strive to write and its
historic consequences.
The author is the senior supreme
court analyst for CNN.
Thank you for joining us.
How crucial were the four years
Republicans controlled the white
house and senate and the shift
to the right?
>>>> Completely crucial.
Donald Trump got three
appointees in four years.
That is remarkable.
It is not a record, but
remarkable for modern history.
The reason he was able to get
those three appointments through
so speedily was he had a
Republican senate and a real
partner in senate majority
leader Mitch Mcconnell.
>> Trying to get the judiciary
to be more conservative, Leonard
Leo, the federalist society.
How central is Donald Trump to
that?
Could it have happened without
him?
>> A version of it could have
happened without Donald Trump,
but it was crucial to have his
white house counsel don mcgahn,
Mitch Mcconnell, and Leonard
Leo all working together to
pick people and speed them
through the process.
The third appointing, Amy coney
Barrett.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies, she is
buried at the very end of the
month.
And at the very end of September
is when Donald Trump announces
the nomination of Amy coney
Barrett.
Her hearings happen almost
immediately.
She's confirmed at the end of
October.
And we are right at the
election.
Contrast it to what happened in
2016, when Mitch Mcconnell set
upon Antonin Scalia's death
there is not a time to have a
new justice confirmed until the
November election.
All those months versus just
those few weeks and days shows
how Donald Trump working with
his team made such a difference.
>> You wrote that his effect on
the justices relationships with
each other was even at times
pernicious as he showed distress.
>> As they were all maneuvering
differently inside, to sort of
counteract his effort to
undermine the integrity of the
judiciary.
Think of the disdain Donald
Trump showed toward the
judiciary, even as a candidate.
Mocking a judge who ruled
against him as a Mexican judge.
He had the one unprecedented
clash with the chief justice
when he disparaged a judge who
ruled against his administration
as an Obama judge.
That is when John Roberts said
there are no Obama judges or
trump judges, bush judges.
It showed how much the chief and
other justices were trying to
counteract the idea that
justices were not going to be
neutral based on their politics.
The bottom line is we have a
court that has signaled to the
American public that it is
politically energized.
>> You cite the chief justice
who said his confirmation
hearings he E S going to be an
umpire calling the balls and
strikes.
You also write the conservatives
seem intent on rewriting the
law.
>> A lot of our viewers will
remember John Roberts broke away
from the five conservatives to
his right in the Dobbs ruling
that reversed roe V. Wade.
He did not want to go so far, so
fast.
John Roberts has been with the
others on the conservative side
to rollback racial remedies,
restrict regulations, and much
of that involves reversing
precedent.
Lowering the wall of separation
between church and state,
diminishing the ability of the
federal government to regulate
the environment public health
safety.
On social policy issues, many
ongoing clashes between
religious interests in lgbtq
rights.
I think we're going to
increasingly see the court
siding with religious interests.
>> Have you seen the change in
the three remaining liberal
justices and how they respond?
>> Let's take justice Elana
Kagan.
She of the three remaining could
align herself with the center to
broker a deal.
She would work with chief
justice John Roberts and justice
Stephen Breyer, who has retired,
to bring about a compromise.
She doesn't have a partner in
that effort toward five votes.
I found she's louder in her
dissent, and moving almost more
to the left to complain about
the majority's rulings to call
attention to things, it makes a
difference to be down one
justice.
There is a cushion on the right
wing.
They can lose one and have a
majority.
We will have to see how it
shakes out.
>> You talk about finding
compromises.
Justices declined cases, delayed
cases, or made compromises to
avoid the conservative liberal
split.
This is when Ruth Bader
Ginsburg was still alive.
>> I will bring it back to 2020.
The supreme court was handling
two cases involving clashes over
trump documents the Manhattan
D.A. Wanted and house committees
wanted.
When the justices considered
these cases, they were bitterly
split.
The chief justice did not want
to produce 5-4 rulings because
of how polarizing Donald Trump
had been.
He worked with other justices,
compromised.
In the end, the chief was able
to produce 7-2 rulings that went
against Donald Trump, but
preserved the offices of the
presidency.
And also tried to preserve the
stature of the judiciary.
>> In your final chapter looking
at the Dobbs decision, the court
had no middle, no center to
hold.
What is the effect of that?
>> It is so significant to the
nation.
We saw it rolling back these
decades of reproductive rights.
But there is no incentive for
compromise the way there had
been when things were narrowly
divided.
The supreme court considering
the future of campus affirmative
action at Harvard and university
of North Carolina.
Those are cases you are unlikely
to see a middle ground
compromise as we saw in 2003,
when in the university of
Michigan cases, and way back
when to the case in 1978.
That is the difference.
>> Nine black robes, the supreme
court analyst at CNN.
Thank you so much.