A STUNNING DECISION ON PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY.

PRESSURE BUILDING ON BIDEN TO DROP OUT.

AND A SUPREME COURT RULING ABOUT FISHERMAN THAT'S REALLY ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE.

STAY TUNED, IVORY TOWER IS NEXT.

GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

I'M JOINED TONIGHT BY NINA MOORE FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY, ANIRBAN ACHARYA FROM LEMOYNE COLLEGE, TARA ROSS FROM ONONDAGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND RICK FENNER FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

THE SUPREME COURT THIS WEEK ISSUED ITS LONG-AWAITED DECISION IN THE CASE OF DONALD J. TRUMP V THE UNITED STATES-- AND IT WAS A STUNNER.

THE COURT CREATED A NEW STANDARD, THAT A PRESIDENT HAS TOTAL IMMUNITY FOR ACTIONS WITHIN THE CORE CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTIONS OF THE PRESIDENCY.

PRESIDENTS WILL HAVE PRESUMED IMMUNITY FOR OTHER OFFICIAL ACTS, AND NO IMMUNITY FOR NON-OFFICIAL ACTS.

IT SEEMS TO AMOUNT TO A VAST EXPANSION OF EXECUTIVE POWER.

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS OPINION ALSO SAID NO PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW, SOMETHING WE'VE ALWAYS ASSUMED IN AMERICA.

IS THAT STILL THE CASE?

TARA?

>> NO, IT ISN'T.

IN 2016, PRIOR TO THE IOWA CAUCUSES, DONALD TRUMP SAID I COULD STAND IN THE MIDDLE OF 5th AVENUE AND SHOOT SOMEBODY AND I WOULDN'T LOSE ANY VOTERS.

NOW IF ONE PRESUMES THE 6 JUSTICES WHO JUST GRANTED TOTAL IMMUNITY IN OFFICIAL ACTS ARE TRUMP VOTERS, HE HAS BASICALLY BEEN RIGHT.

HE CAN SAY ANY CRIME HE HAS COMMITTED IS PART OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES AND ONE OF THE THE 34 JUDGES HE APPOINTED BASICALLY WILL AGREE WITH HIM.

>> ONE ISSUE I WONDER ABOUT IS HOW THIS LOOKS TO CONSERVATIVES BECAUSE I THINK MANY PEOPLE ARE RELIEVED FOR TRUMP BECAUSE OF HIS IMPENDING LEGAL TRIALS, BUT ARE THEY COMFORTABLE, NINA WITH SUCH BREATHTAKING POWERS IN THE EXECUTIVE NOW?

>> I'M NOT SURE THAT I WOULD AGREE THAT THE COURT HAS GIVEN SUCH BREATHTAKING POWERS TO BEGIN WITH.

I THINK THERE HAS BEEN QUITE A BIT OF HYPERBOLE SURROUNDING THE PLILG DISCOURSE IN THIS CASE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR TO US NOTE WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS CASE AND THAT IS THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE COURT TALKS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT TRUMP.

ORDINARILY WHEN THE SUPREME COURT IS RULING ON A CASE, IT'S REALLY NOT RULING WITH RESPECT TO THE INDIVIDUAL LITIGANTS BUT RATHER SETTING BROAD PRECEDENT, LEGISLATIVE INTENT, LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.

BUT HERE, THERE WERE SPECIFIC RESEARCHESES TO THE PARTICULAR REFERENCES TO THE PARTICULARS OF THE CASE.

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I THINK PART OF THAT DISCUSSION WOULD HAVE BEEN WELCOMED BY CONSERVATIVES BUT THE OTHERS NOT SO MUCH.

AND HERE IS WHY.

THE COURT ESSENTIALLY SPLIT THE BABY.

I KNOW EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT IT WENT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

IT SPLIT THE BABY AND SAID IN THE CASE OF TRUMP'S LITIGATION, THAT HIS DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL ARE OFF LIMITS THAT THEY ARE PART OF HIS TOTAL IMMUNITY BECAUSE IT'S PART OF HIS CORE CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS IN SO FAR AS THE EXECUTIVE HAS, ACCORDING TO THE COURT, EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY OVER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATIONS; HOWEVER, AND THIS IS WHERE I SORT OF CHUCKLED IN READING THE DISCUSSION.

THE COURT SAID NOT SO MUCH WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT.

THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT AND TRUMP'S INTERACTIONS WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT ARE SUBJECT TO THE PRESUMPTION OF IMMUNITY BUT THAT CAN BE LITIGATED AND THEN CERTAINLY THIRDLY, THE DISCUSSIONS WITH STATE OFFICIALS, OTHER PRIVATE PARTIES, THE WANNA BE FAKE ELECTORS.

HE SAID THAT IS FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS.

AGAIN, I THINK WE NEED TO TEMPER OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS HAPPENED HERE.

THE ROBERTS COURT DID NOT SIDE WITH EITHER CONSERVATIVES NOR LIBERALS BUT SPLIT THE BABY.

>> HERE IS WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO.

WHAT IS AN OFFICIAL ACT?

IF YOU LISTEN TO DONALD TRUMP, EVERYTHING HE DOES IS AN OFFICIAL ACT.

NOW HIS LAWYER EVEN ARGUED THE DISCUSSIONS WITH PEOPLE IN THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE ARE COVERED.

NOW THAT CLEARLY SEEMS TO HAVE MORE TO DO WITH HIS ROLE AS A CANDIDATE THAN AS THE PRESIDENT.

BUT, AS TARA SAID, ULTIMATELY, THIS IS GOING TO GO BACK TO OTHER COURTS AND WHAT WE ARE SEEING THE COURTS HAVE BEEN VERY, VERY WILLING, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT, YOU KNOW, HE APPOINTED, TO ACT ON HIS BEHALF.

>> BUT IT DEPENDS.

IT DEPENDS WHICH LOWER FEDERAL COURTS BECAUSE ALL OF THE DIFFERENT CIRCUITS AND FEDERAL COURTS HAVE THEIR OWN POLITICS AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IT WAS A D.C. DISTRICT COURT AND THE D.C.

CIRCUIT COURT THAT RULED AGAINST TRUMP.

SO BY THE SUPREME COURT SAYING WE ARE GOING TO REMAND TO THESE COURTS THE DECISION WHICH CONS CONSTITUTES OFFICIAL VERSUS UNOFFICIAL, THEY LEFT OPEN THE DOOR FOR THE COURTS TO DECIDE IN A WAY THAT IS ADVERSE TO TRUMP.

>> WHICH WILL GET APPEALED BY TRUMP AND END UP BACK WITH THE NINE JUSTICES ON THE SUPREME COURT.

>> POTENTIALLY BUT THE SUPREME COURT REALLY-- AND AGAIN, THERE COULD BE AN EXCEPTION.

THE COURT RARELY QUESTIONS THE FACTUAL EVIDENTIARY FINDINGS OF A TRIAL COURT BECAUSE THEY HAVE THEIR HANDS ON THE DOCUMENTS.

>> ANIRBAN, CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS SUGGESTED THAT THE FAKE ELECTOR SCHEME COULD POTENTIALLY BE OFFICIAL.

SO NOT EVERYBODY IS CERTAINLY AGREEING WITH THAT, EVEN LEGAL ANALYSTS LIKE ANDREW McCARTHY.

>> YOU ARE VERY RIGHT ABOUT THAT.

I WAS READING SCOTUS BLOCK BY AMY HULL AND SHE MAKES THE COMMENT WHEN TRUMP IS TALKING TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND USING THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO, YOU KNOW, SEND A INFLUENCE SET OF ELECTORS THAT COULD BE COUNTED AS AN OFFICIAL ACT.

I AGREE WITH NINA ON THIS CASE.

THE COURT SEEMED LIKE IT EXPANDED THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENCY, AND IN SOME WAY IT DID.

IT BOUGHT TRUMP SOME TIME, BUT THE COURT DOES DEVISE A THREE PRONG TEST.

FIRST PRONG, ANYTHING THAT ARISES FROM THE SECOND ARTICLE 2 POWERS IS OFFICIAL.

PARDON POWERS, REMOVAL POWERS, AND SO O.

ANYTHING THAT IS NOT IN ARTICLE 2 BUT, YOU KNOW, IS WHAT THE COURT CALLED OUTER PERIMETER OF HIS OFFICIAL ACTS, THAT ALSO IS PRESUMED IMMUNITY, NOT TOTALLY.

THE THIRD IS THAT THERE ARE PRIVATE ACTS THAT CAN BE PROSECUTED.

NOW WHAT THE COURT IS SAYING, HEY, YOU DECIDE.

WHAT IS A PRIVATE ACT.

I'VE GIVEN YOU THIS TEST.

YOU TEST THIS.

NOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS ANYTHING THAT NOW ALL THESE CASES, NOW THEY HAVE TO PASS THROUGH THESE THREE TESTS.

EITHER WAY TRUMP IS NOT LEFT UNTOUCHED BECAUSE NOW IN THIS COURT ALL THE EVIDENCE WILL BE LAID OUT.

BUT THAT WILL BE AFTER THE NOVEMBER ELECTION.

SO IT IS NOT A MASSIVE CART BLANCHE TO TRUMP.

>> IT IS NOT.

AND I THINK THAT THE COURT, THE SUPREME COURT SENT CLUES THAT THE FEDERAL INTERFERENCE CASE WILL PROBABLY FALL TO THE WAYSIDE.

HOWEVER, THE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE THAT CAME TO FORE AFTER HE WAS OUT OF OFFICE, I THINK THE COURT WAS SORT OF SAYING, YOU'VE GOT SOME ROOM HERE TO BE DONE WHAT CAN BE DONE.

>> HE IS ALREADY TRYING TO SAY-- >> OR SHOULD BE DONE.

>> HE IS SAYING THE BOXES WERE PACKED WHETHER HE WAS PRESIDENT.

>> SO EVERY PART OF THAT COULD BE LITIGATED.

IS THIS AN OFFICIAL ACT OR NOT.

THE LOWER COURTS WILL HAVE A LOT OF CHANCE TO MAKE... >> SO YOU WOULD AGREE A LOT OF THE REACTION IS A BIT OVER WROUGHT.

>> I THINK A BIT OF THE REACTION IS BECAUSE PEOPLE DIDN'T READ THE VERDICT IS WHAT HAPPENED AND IT TOOK SECOND HAND, THIRD DOWN HAND, FOURTH HAND PROPAGANDA FROM LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE OUTLETS BASICALLY.

>> EXACTLY.

I WOULD SAY THE OTHER THING IS THIS: WE HAVE TO ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT AS WITH OTHER PRIOR CHIEF JUSTICES, REHNQUIST NOT SO MUCH BUT CERTAINLY WITH ROBERTS, ROBERTS IS AWARE THAT THE COURT'S POWER IS CONTINGENT UPON PUBLIC SUPPORT.

AND SO HE WAS ONLY GOING TO GO SO FAR AS THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN WILLING TO GO AND SO FAR THE ELECTORATE IS SPLIT AND HE WAS NOT GOING TO CHOOSE SIDES.

>> NOW, THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE BIDEN CAMPAIGN ARE CIRCUMSTANCE LING THE WAGONS TRYING TO TAMP DOWN ANY TALK OF REPLACING HIM ON THE TICKET BUT A NEW CBS POLL FOUND ONLY 27% OF VOTERS THINK HE HAS THE COGNITIVE ABILITY TO SERVE IT APPEARS TO MANY THAT HE CANNOT RECOVER FROM HIS CATASTROPHIC DEBATE.

IF, AS HE SAYS, THIS RACE IS ABOUT DEMOCRACY, AND PERHAPS EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY NOW AFTER THE IMMUNITY RULING, SHOULD HE STEP ASIDE?

IS THIS THE "TAKE AWAY THE KEYS MOMENT?"

NINA, IS THIS THE TAKE AWAY THE KEYS MOMENT?

>> I FORGOT I WAS SUPPOSED TO START ON THIS ALSO.

I THINK IT IS-- LET ME JUST SAY ABOUT THIS MOMENT GENERALLY, BECAUSE I SORT OF FORGOT YOUR QUESTION BECAUSE I WASN'T LISTENING VERY CLOSELY.

BECAUSE I THOUGHT SOMEBODY ELSE... >> NINA!

SHOULD HE STEP ASIDE?

>> ABSOLUTELY NOT.

I WILL CONCEDE THE DEBATE WAS A KEY MOMENT.

IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE KEY MOMENT BUT THE REASON I DON'T THINK HE SHOULD STEP ASIDE IS I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT WAS DETERMINED THAT WE HAVE QUITE A WAYS TO GO BEFORE WE GET TO NOVEMBER 5.

I WILL SAY THIS; HOWEVER, THAT ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE IS THAT IT WAS A KEY MOMENT THAT WAS KEY BECAUSE OF OUR WORRIES ABOUT HIS CAPACITY TO RULE BEFORE WE GOT TO THAT MOMENT.

AND IT SEEMED TO CONFIRM SOME OF OUR WORST FEARS.

BUT THE OTHER PART, FOR ME, IS IF, AS THIS DEBATE PERFORMANCE AND ALL OF THE STUFF LEADING UP TO IT INDICATES THAT HE IS NOT FULLY IN CHARGE, WHO IS IN CHARGE?

AND WHO ARE THE SHADOWY FIGURES THAT ARE OPERATING BEHIND THE SCENES?

NOW LET ME SAY THIS.

WHEN WE LOOK AT OTHER PRESIDENTS, WE KNOW WHO WAS BEHIND THE SCENES.

WE KNOW WITH TRUMP IT WAS STEVEN MILLER, WITH OBAMA IT WAS VALERIE JARED AND DAVID AXLE ROD.

WITH GEORGE W. BUSH IT WAS CARL ROVE AND WE CAN GO ON AND ON AND ON.

WE DON'T KNOW WHO IS DOING THAT.

>> BUT IF ONLY 54% OF DEMOCRATS BELIEVE HE SHOULD CONTINUE TO RUN, YOU SAY THERE IS A LONG TIME-- WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN BETWEEN NOW AND THEN TO CHANGE THE FACT THAT THREE QUARTERS OF THE PEOPLE BELIEVE HE DOESN'T HAVE THE COGNITIVE ABILITY TO BE PRESIDENT?

I THINK THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS: EITHER THEY CHANGE CANDIDATES OR THEY HAVE TO CHANGE AND REVERSE PERCEPTIONS.

HOW DO YOU DO THAT?

I'LL GIVE YOU A REALLY OUT OF THE PLAN OF DOING IT.

HE NEEDS ANOTHER DEBATE TO SHOW HE IS CONTROL AND THAT THIS WAS AN ANOMALY.

THE PROBLEM IS HE ISN'T SCHEDULED TO DO ANOTHER DEBATE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 10 AND I WOULD BE SHOCKED IF TRUMP ALLOWED THAT TO HAPPEN.

HERE IS WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST.

TWO WEEKS FROM TODAY BIDEN GOES AND DEBATES RFK, JR., NATIONAL DEBATE F. HE WIPES RFK OFF THE MAP, HE REVERSES THE PERCEPTION THAT HE IS NOT IN CONTROL.

THERE ARE HUGE RISKS YOU ARE GOING TO TALK BUT ABOUT I THINK THE RISK OF DOING NOTHING RIGHT NOW GIVE TRUMP THE PRESIDENCY.

SO-- >> I WILL AGREE WITH THAT POINT, BUT ANIRBAN, ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT THAT WOULD THEN GIVE RFK A BIG BOOST, MIGHT AN OPEN CONVENTION GENERATE ENTHUSIASM FOR SOMEBODY ELSE?

PEOPLE ARE ALL AFRAID OF AN OPEN CONVENTION?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

THE ENTHUSIASM AS IF AS I'M READING AND PEOPLEY KNOW THAT ARE REGISTERED DEMOCRATS, THEY'RE VERY DESPONDENT.

OUR COLLEAGUE USED THAT WORD.

THAT'S A WONDERFUL WORD TO USE.

I THINK TRUMP NEEDS TO-- BIDEN NEEDS TO SHOW THAT, YOU KNOW, HE IS ACTUALLY CAPABLE OF CREATING GRAHAM ATTICAL SENTENCES.

>> THE WORRY IS THAT HE WON'T BE ABLE TO SHOW THAT.

THIS ROAD DOESN'T GET BETTER.

THIS ROAD ONLY GOES IN ONE DIRECTION.

HOW CAN THAT HAPPEN BECAUSE EVERY AD BETWEEN NOW AND NOVEMBER 5 IS GOING TO BE THE MOUTH AGAPE BIDEN ON THE STAGE.

I DON'T THINK HOW THAT CAN HAPPEN.

>> I DON'T SEE EITHER.

I DON'T THINK THERE IS A REPLACEMENT CANDIDATE AT THIS POINT BUT I TAKE RICK'S IDEA.

HE SHOULD DEBATE.

WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS ON THE SHOW.

HE REFUSES TO TAKE ONE ON ONE INTERVIEWS WITH NEW YORK TIMES, WACKERTON POST.

-- WASHINGTON POST.

>> HE GOSS FOR EXAMPLE TO DO ONE THIS WEEK.

>> LET'S SEE HOW IT GOES.

FORGIVE ME FOR SAYING THIS.

WATCHING THE DEBATE WITH MY HEAD DOWN CONSTANTLY.

ONE SIDE IS LYING COMPLETELY AND ANOTHER SIDE CANNOT FORM SENTENCES.

IT'S PRISON VERSUS HOSPICE.

I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE TO GO WITH.

>> WE SHOULDN'T LAUGH OVER THAT.

>> TARA I ABSOLUTELY DON'T THINK HE SHOULD STEP ASIDE.

PARTIALLY BECAUSE MOVING AWAY FROM BIDEN TO THE PARTY IN GENERAL BECAUSE IF HE DOES STEP ASIDE, THEN YOU ARE GOING TO SPEND FAR TOO MUCH TIME WHEN YOU SHOULD BE ATTACKING TRUMP, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, OKAY, WHO IS THE NEXT CANDIDATE, AND THAT IS JUST LIKE BEING BETWEEN THE ROCK AND A HARD PLACE.

>> BINGO.

>> BECAUSE, OKAY, MANY PEOPLE ARE SAYING OKAY, WE SKIP OVER KAMALA HARRIS AND WE MOVE TO, YOU KNOW, GRETCHEN WHITTMER OR GOVERNOR NEWSOME, THAT CREATES A WHOLE DIFFERENT SET OF PROBLEMS FOR THE DEMOCRATS WHEN THEY ALREADY HAVE SOME PROBLEMS.

NO, WE SHOULD NOT SEE AFRICAN-AMERICANS AS MONOLITHIC OR WOMEN AS MONOLITHIC BUT THAT CREATES PROBLEMS WITH OTHER CONSTITUENCIES.

>> THE POLLS ARE SHOWING HARRIS IS POLLING BETTER THAN HARRIS.

I THINK HARRIS WOULD EVISCERATE TRUMP IN A DEBATE.

>> I NORMALLY BELIEVE POLLS BUT IN THIS CASE I HAVE A HARD TIME BELIEVING THAT THAT IS THE GENUINE REFLECTION THE IDEA THAT HARRIS WOULD ACTUALLY BEAT TRUMP IF TRUMP PLAYS BY THE RULES WHICH WE CAN'T EXPECT.

BUT I AGREE WITH TARA, WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE AT THIS POINT IN THE GAME?

I MEAN THIS IS TOO LATE TO COME UP WITH ANOTHER CANDIDATE, AND THAT CANDIDATE'S RECORD, IF, FOR EXAMPLE, IT IS A GOVERNOR, THAT CANDIDATE'S RECORD WILL THEN BECOME THE ISSUE.

I HAVEN'T SEEN A SINGLE GOVERNOR WHO IS REALLY KNOCKED IT OUT OF THE PARK IN THEIR OWN STATE.

AND BIDEN'S STRENGTH IS HIS RECORD.

I AGREE WITH YOU AND WITH NANCY PELOSI THAT WHAT BIDEN CAN DO AT THIS POINT IS ONE ON ONE INTERVIEWS.

HE HAS FEWER ONE ON ONE INTERVIEWS AND FEWER PRESS CONFERENCES THAN ANY PRESIDENT.

>> WE KNOW THAT THERE IS A REASON FOR THAT.

>> THERE ARE A ALMOST NUMBER OF TIMES THAT WE HAVE ENTERED CONVENTION NOT KNOWING HOT CANDIDATE IS.

SO TO SAY HERE IN JULY IT IS TOO LATE, I THINK HISTORY SUGGESTS IS NOT TRUE.

>> HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TWO CLEAR NATIONALLY PROMINENT CANDIDATES WHO WERE HEADING INTO.

>> ONE THING WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT IS THAT THE OTHER SIDE IS ON A FACT DIATRIBE.

ALL TIES.

SO WE NEED SOMEBODY WHO CAN COUNTER ACT THAT.

BIDEN HAD SO MANY POINTS.

BIDEN AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE BILL HE COMPLETELY MISSED.

>> THE IMMUNITY DECISION THE COURT DECISION ISSUED WAS NOT THE ONLY BIG DECISION.

ANOTHER ONE OVERRULED THE CHEVRON DEFERENCE.

A LEGAL DOCTRINE THAT IF A LAW WAS AMBIGUOUS, COURTS SHOULD DEFER TO A FEDERAL AGENCY'S REASONABLE INTERPRETATION.

THOSE DECISIONS WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE COURT.

QUESTIONS LIKE WHETHER SOMETHING IS A DRUG OR A NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENT, INS FOR INSTANCE.

WHAT IMPACT WILL THE END OF CHEVRON HAVE ON POLICY MAKING IN OUR MODERN VERY COMPLEX WORLD, ANIRBAN?

>> I SHI THEY HAVE RON, ONE THING PEOPLE FORGET, CHEVRON WAS A CONSERVATIVE DECISION COMING OWPT FROM A CONSERVATIVE RUN UNITED STATES WHEN THE E.P.A.

WAS CONTROLLED BY REPUBLICANS IN THAT SENSE.

>> AND GORSUCH, I BELIEVE.

GORSUCH'S MOTHER.

>> I DIDN'T KNOW THAT.

THANK YOU.

>> WOW.

>> SO YOU KNOW, THAT DECISION ACTUALLY WAS ALLOWING THE CORPORATIONS TO PASS THROUGH A CERTAIN PERMIT FREE LOOPHOLE AND THAT HAD BEEN INTERPRETED NOW AND LIBERALS LOVE THE STATE AND THE CONSERVATIVE DON'T LOVE THE REGULATORY STATE SO THE CHEVRON HAS BEEN GUTTED AND THAT IS ACTUALLY OVERTURNING A CONSERVATIVE DECISION IN FACT.

HOWEVER, THE PROBLEM IS THAT MANY PEOPLE ARE SAYING THAT LOOK, THERE ARE PEOPLE TOXICOLOGISTS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS, FISHERY EXPERTS, THEY SPEND THEIR ENTIRE LIFE PROTECTING THIS COUNTRY.

THEY HAVE NO POLITICAL AGENDA IN THAT SENSE AND YOU ARE TAKING AWAY THEIR POWER.

>> THAT'S MY QUESTION.

ARE THE COURTS THE BEST VENUE FOR MAKING DETAILED TECHNICAL POLICIES?

>> NO, I THINK, YOU KNOW, ON THE SURFACE THIS LOOKS REASONABLE.

WE LOOK AT THE COURTS TO INTERPRET LAWS.

BUT CONGRESS HAS PASSED, FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, LAWS THAT ARE AMBIGUOUS, MANY OF THEM FOR TECHNICAL REASONS.

AND I THINK WHAT WE HAVE IS A SITUATION-- AND IN FACT, CONGRESS HAS BEEN COMFORTABLE, IF YOU WILL WITH THE CHEVRON DEFERENCE BECAUSE THEY HAVE CONTINUED OVER THE DECADES TO PASS LAWS THAT ARE AMBIGUOUS AND VAGUE KNOWING WHAT THIS RULE IS.

AND THEN IT FALLS TO PEOPLE WHOSE LIFE EXPERIENCES, WHOSE EXPERTISE IS TO DEAL WITH THESE TECHNICAL ISSUES SUCH AS YOU SUGGESTED, WHAT IS A DRUG, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I DON'T THINK THAT THAT REALLY IS WHERE THE COURTS SHOULD BE-- >> FORCE CONGRESS TO DO A BETTER JOB?

>> THE ONUS WILL BE ON CONGRESS TO DO A BETTER JOB BUT I DON'T THINK THAT CONGRESS IS STRUCTURALLY POSITIONED TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF EXPERTISE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.

BUT ALSO CONSIDERING THE POLARIZATION, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET CONGRESS TO AGREE ON THE DEVIL THAT'S IN THE DETAILS WHEN IT CAN'T AGREE ON THE BROAD ISSUES?

BUT AGAIN HERE AND I DON'T MEAN TO BE ALL PRO SCOTUS TODAY BUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACT OF 1946 IS EXPLICIT IN SAYING WHEN A CASE IS BROUGHT TO A COURT, THAT THE COURT CANNOT DEFER TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY TO ADJUDICATE THAT CASE.

IT'S THE JUDGES RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THAT.

>> AND TARA,STEVE BANNON YEARS AGO CALLED FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE.

AND IT SEEMS LIKE THAT THIS IS WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT.

THIS IS WHAT HE WANTED TO DO, GET RID OF THIS.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

AND THIS ABSOLUTELY IS A STEP IN THAT DIRECTION.

MANY OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT WERE PUSHING FOR THE OVERTURNING OF THE CHEVRON LEGAL DOCTRINE BASICALLY WERE CONSERVATIVE ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORTED BY THE KOCH NETWORK.

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY WHAT HE WANTED TO HAPPEN.

>> I WONDER IF THE PUBLIC IS READY FOR THIS, WHERE YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SO MANY RULES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, THINGS, CLEAN AIR, THIS WILL HAVE A HUGE IMPACT ON CLIMATE.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> AND LEGALLY, YOU KNOW, CONGRESS CANNOT MAKE ALL THE LAWS WHERE EVERY STATUTE IS UNAMBIGUOUS.

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO WRITE LAWS THAT WAY.

THIS MIGHT BE A PLACE WHERE THE SCOTUS WILL HAVE POWERS TO INTERPRET AND THE COURT SAYS WHO HAS THE POWER TO INTERPRET LAW, THE COURTS V. WEAVER TAKING TAKING BACK THAT POWER.

AND OF COURSE THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF CONTROVERSY REGARDING WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO NOAA, THE FISHERIES CASE IN WHICH THIS STARTED AND OTHER THINGS.

>> WE NEED TO GO TO As AND Fs.

>> ACCORDING TO A RECENT REPORT BY THE COMMONWEALTH FUND, THE U.S. HAS THE HIGHEST RATE OF WOMEN DYING IN PREGNANCY, CHILD BIRTH OR POST-PARTUM.

THIS IS, AS COMPARED WITH OTHER HIGH INCOME NATIONS.

WE'VE GOT ABOUT THE 2 MATERNAL DEATHS PER EVERY 100,000 LIVE BIRTHS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE U.S. SPENDS MORE ON HEALTHCARE THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY THIS.

MORE THAN 80% OF THESE DEATHS ARE PREVENTIBLE.

WE HAVE TO START USING NOR PREVENTION METHODS.

>> ANIRBAN.

>> MY F GOES TO THE NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY OF OVERRULING CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF POLICE OFFICERS MISCONDUCT.

BY EXERCISING A LITTLE KNOWN, THE COMMISSIONER HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN QUOTING THE POWER OF CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT BOARD AND COMMUNITY TRUST.

ONE SHOULD REMIND THE COMMISSIONER THE POLICE SERVE THE PUBLIC, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

>> TARA.

>> I'M GIVING MYSELF AN F FOR MY PRESENTATION LAST WEEK IN THE RAMINI CASE.

IT WAS CONFUSING.

>> AND RICK, YOUR F. >> MY F GOES TO THE STATE OF AFFAIRS IN U.S. MEN'S SOCCER.

AMERICA'S APPRECIATION OF THE BEAUTIFUL GAME CONTINUES TO INCREASE, PARTICIPATION OF THE 2026 WORLD CUP BEING PLAYED IN THE U.S. IS HIGH.

ONCE AGAIN THE U.S. MEN'S NATIONAL TEAM HAS FAILED TO MEET EXPECTATIONS.

MONDAY NIGHT'S LOSS TO URUGUAY ELIMINATED THEM FROM THE INTERNATIONAL SOCCER TOURNAMENT ENCOMPASSING SOUTH AND NORTH AMERICA AND HAS LEFT THE U.S. MEN'S SOCCER PROGRAM IN COMPLETE DISARRAY.

>> As, NINA.

>> IN HONOR OF INDEPENDENCE DAY, I'M GIVING AN A TO THE LEGACY OF CRISPUS ATTUS WHO WAS THE FIRST TO DIE IN THE BOSTON MASSACRE OF 1770, THE THE EVENT THAT SET AMERICA ON ITS PATH TO INDEPENDENCE.

I SALUTE HIM AND SO MANY OTHERS WHO SACRIFICED BY CHOICE OR FORCE FOR THE AMERICAN IDEAL.

>> ANIRBAN.

EXCELLENT A NINA.

MY A TO AMERICAN JEWISH MILITARY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER MAJOR HARRISON MANN FOR RESIGNING IN PROTEST FOR SUPPORT OF ISRAEL THE SUPPORT OF THE ISRAEL.

HE SAID SEEING FROM DAY ONE THAT THERE WERE GOING TO BE AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF CIVILIAN CASUALTIES AND SEEING THAT EVERYONE ON THE AMERICAN SIDE WAS WELL AWARE OF THAT, WAS VERY DEMORALIZING.

MY HONOR GOES TO PEOPLE LIKE MAJOR MANN WHO TAKES THE PHRASE NEVER AGAIN SERIOUSLY AND ACTS ACCORDINGLY.

>> TARA.

>> THE KENYON SOLDIERS.

KENYA IS LEADING THE UNITED NATIONS MISSION WHICH WILL INVOLVE SOLDIERS FROM OTHER NATIONS TO TRY TO RESTORE PEACE TO HAITI BEFORE ELECTIONS IN 2025.

THIS KENYAN EFFORT IS AN EXAMPLE OF PAN AFRICAN DIASPORA HELPING ITSELF.

>> RICK, YOUR A.

>> STICKING WITH MY SPORTS REPORT, A TO ANDY MURRAY, THE PLUS ONE TO THE BIG THREE OF FEDDER AND NADAL AND BECAME THE FIRST BRITISH WINNER IN WIMBLEDON SINCE 1936, HOPING TO END HIS CAREER PLAYING ONE LAST TIME AT WIMBLEDON BUT BACK SURGERY HAS FORCED HIM TO WITHDRAW FROM SINGLES ALTHOUGH HE WILL PLAY DOUBLES WITH HIS BROTHER.

WELL DESERVED A TO ONE OF THE MOST INTENSE 10 TENACIOUS AND INTELLIGENT OF TENNIS PLAYERS.

>> NINA, YOUR F WAS ABOUT MATERNAL MORTALITY AND YOU SAID WE NEED PREVENTION METHODS.

ONE BIG FACTOR TO THAT IS POVERTY.

>> POVERTY, ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE , ACCESS TO HEALTH INSURANCE, AND ALSO OR DEALING WITH SOME OF THE UNDERLYING MORBIDITIES THAT INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD OF A DEATH.

>> AND A LOT OF THESE MORBIDITIES WE CAN ALMOST FOCUS GEOGRAPHICALLY ON SOME OF THEM.

>> GEOGRAPHICALLY, BUT ALSO RACIALLY BECAUSE BLACK WOMEN ARE THREE TIMES MORE LIKELY.

>> AND I'M GOING TO GIVE AN A TO TARA.

YOU GAVE YOURSELF AN F BUT A FOR EVERYTHING ELSE.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING.

-FOR-COMMENTS YOU CAN WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN AND IF YOU WANT TO WATCH THE SHOW AGAIN DO SO ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY AND FOR ALL OF US AT "THE IVORY TOWER."

HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪