Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Case That Could Reshape Presidential Power; Supreme Court Sounds Likely To Side With President Trump On Firing Powers; Swing-District Republicans Sound Alarm On Expiring ACA Subsidies; Tomorrow: Trump Travels To PA To Sell Economic Plan; Paramount Launches A Hostile Takeover Bid For WBD. Aired 12- 12:30p ET

Aired December 08, 2025 - 12:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[12:00:00]

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: But when it comes to the Golden Globe nominees, you certainly will see a lot of them appear a few months later at the Oscars. And I will say the Golden Globes again, remember, it honors both television and film, and that differentiates it certainly from the Oscars.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN CO-ANCHOR, THE SITUATION ROOM: Elizabeth Wagmeister as usual. Thank you very, very much. And to our viewers, thanks very much for joining us this morning.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR, THE SITUATION ROOM: Inside Politics with our friend and colleague, Dana Bash, starts right now.

DANA BASH, CNN HOST, INSIDE POLITICS: Is the Supreme Court about to green light President Trump firing anyone he wants, whenever he wants?

I'm Dana Bash. Let's go behind the headlines at Inside Politics.

And as we speak, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a case that could permanently hand over even more power to the president of the United States. The court's conservatives signaled, they seem likely to side with the White House and overturn 90 years of precedent and it's a case that could give the power more. The president rather, more power to fire anyone for any reason.

This particular case began with the federal trade commissioner. Rebecca Slaughter is her name, and she challenged the president's effort to fire her without cause. And she said it was a violation of the law. She described the reason for suing him last month.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REBECCA SLAUGHTER, (D) FORMER FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIONER: It can best be boiled down to a single image. And the image I'm talking about is the one from the inauguration where you saw President Trump surrounded, not by heads of state, not by public servants, but by the CEOs of the largest companies in the United States.

I looked at that picture and thought, wow, the FTSE is an active litigation against almost every single one of those companies. Right now, Americans both want and need is to believe that the law, the laws of the United States will be administered without fear or favor, and specifically without fear of getting fired for a failure to do a favor for the president's political allies and donors.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: I'm joined by a terrific group of reporters here at the table, and our legal analyst, the one and only Elliot Williams. Elliot, can you put this in perspective, what the justices are hearing right now?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR & CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Right. They're hearing words. You're going to hear today, this concept of a unitary executive theory, and don't bristle at that, and it's actually far simpler than you think. It's the idea that the president sits atop the executive branch and that even independent agencies ultimately serve the president. It is a theory. There it goes on the screen. It is a theory that has sort of gained steam in the last 25, 30 years, certainly through the Bush administration and on. Now--

BASH: Among conservatives.

WILLIAMS: Among conservatives, yes, and particularly on the Supreme Court right now. Now, the notion is that independent agencies today, like the Federal Trade Commission, which Rebecca Slaughter served on, have power that they did not have at the time of the founding of the government. They are serving in an executive function. Therefore, the president has the power to fire their members. That is merely the argument.

A lot -- the counter argument, and you're hearing some of this today at the Supreme Court, is that, no, Congress quite clearly said that these were independent agencies meant to be independent of the president, therefore he ought not have power to fire their leadership at will. And the law does clearly say -- passed by Congress, the law does say that they can't be fired but for malfeasance or neglect or misconduct.

BASH: I'm going to take your unitary executive and I'm going to go even deeper.

WILLIAMS: I thought I went to--

BASH: No, no. There's no such thing. It's Inside Politics. OK. Or inside the law right now. So, let's just put that back up on the screen that Elliot was referring to. What is unitary executive theory, all executive power centralized in the person of the president. It's unconstitutional for Congress to limit how the president uses that executive power.

Now, Roberts and Alito, as you were mentioning, they were early champions during the Reagan administration, you know, just a few years ago. And this is based on what is known as the vesting clause of Article 2 of the constitution. I told you we were going--

(CROSSTALK) BASH: OK, so what is the vesting clause, you ask. Here it is. The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America. So, this Elliot is what they're sort of hanging this notion on. And now I want to make this a conversation about what it means in practical terms.

If the Supreme Court rules the way it sounds like they are, just by the nature of the questions and the comments from the conservative justices who very much have the majority. What will it mean in practical terms?

WILLIAMS: I think in practical terms, it means that Federal Trade Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, as Rebecca Slaughter was mentioning, Federal Communications Commission, all sort of operate -- function differently, where the president will have the power to remove and install new leadership at will.

[12:05:00]

Now be careful what you wish for, which is what opponents have said, because once you get a Democratic president, and they can also do the same. But as of right now, the leadership of these agencies served terms that traverse different administrations. They might be five years or 10 years or whatever else. That scheme may end if the Supreme Court goes as far as it could in striking this all down.

TAMARA KEITH, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, NPR: And there are also serious questions for the Federal Reserve, which is also an independent agency. Now the Supreme Court is separately hearing arguments about the president's ability to fire a Federal Reserve governor, but that is another question that could be raised by this also the civil service protections.

Could the president if the court sides with the White House, give the president expansive powers beyond just these semi-independent agencies, but to basically overrule civil service protections and put whoever he wants wherever he wants.

BASH: And let's not forget that this Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the president, a president, not just this president, in many situations, including the fact that a president is pretty much protected from prosecution.

SEUNG MIN KIM, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, AP: Right. That was actually the point that I was thinking of. I mean, this is a court that has helped expand President Trump's power and authority even before he returned to the White House. And I think we do have to remember the context of the Supreme Court. President Trump, in his first term, got three justices.

So, whatever the president does in his second term in terms of policy, in terms of actions abroad, his enduring legacy is going to be in Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Now, to be clear, on other cases, they don't always rule on the side of the administration, on the side of the president. Obviously, the president has complained at times, including about Amy Coney Barrett when they differ from what he would like them to do.

But this is a -- this is a court that has broadly ruled in favor of the administration at various points, even if they do have, even if the -- even if this administration loses on the lower court level, which we see often, ultimately, they do have a decent batting average--

WILLIAMS: You know, I'm just saying, even very specifically in the context of the firing or termination of leadership of agencies. One, once the Supreme Court's already signaled in this case how they're going to rule. But also, I believe, within the context of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, another instance of literally, you're talking about the removal of the head of an independent agency.

So, even setting aside the questions of whether the president's, you know, hand or, you know, appointed justices are likely to rule for him, clearly, they've ruled, you know, suggesting how they're going to rule.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I mean, we've seen Trump, obviously, since he came in the second term, take step after step to expand executive power, and we're seeing not just with this case, but several other key cases this term about how much power he ultimately could have. You mentioned the Federal Reserve Board tariffs, that is going to be a monumental case that can determine Trump's entire economic policy this term. So, this case will be -- will could foreshadow just how far they're going to let Trump go.

BASH: All right, everybody stand by. When we come back. Why more and more Republicans say their party could lose the midterms without a deal on healthcare? And a major shake-up in the Texas Senate race, the perceived frontrunner for the Democratic nomination said today he is out of that race. Instead, he's running to go back to the House of Representatives. And Colin Allred will join me here at Inside Politics live. You see Jasmine Crockett because she might get in later today. Lots of statements.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:10:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BASH: There is a mad dash this week on Capitol Hill to address soaring healthcare costs. Swing district Republicans fear and they're saying this out loud that could spell disaster for their party if they don't address it. Millions of Americans enrolled in Obamacare will face really big premium increases without subsidies that expire at the end of this year. We're talking about a couple of weeks. There's a lot of ideas on the table, and at least one vote scheduled this week. So far, no bipartisan consensus.

My panel is back now. Manu, I'm going to start with you. I'm going to start with what Senator John Curtis of Utah told me yesterday, because he's going to be one of the 100 people voting on this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN CURTIS (R-UT): We need a minimum premium for people, even if it's a couple of bucks. We know we need a cap on income. That's not a serious effort if you're not willing to talk about, look, we know there's flaws with these and we're not willing to change those flaws.

BASH: Would you at least be willing to put a band-aid on?

CURTIS: You can't have this conversation without saying, you know, we took six or seven weeks away from this conversation while we had this silly shutdown. In the best of circumstances, these are complicated issues that you're not just going to be able to throw out there in a couple of weeks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: Let me just show you what we're talking about in dollars here. This is, according to KFF. The average yearly premium if the ACA Obamacare enhanced subsidies expire, look at that jump. I mean, that's a really, really big jump for people who rely on those premiums to pay for their health insurance, which is why, Manu, your interview with Brian Fitzpatrick, Republican, who represents the suburbs in Philadelphia, which I think -- I believe his district is one where Kamala Harris, one of his Republican--

[12:15:00]

BASH: Yeah. One of just three republicans--

BASH: Exactly. I want to play what he said to you about this issue.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. BRIAN FITZPATRICK (R-PA): If you don't have a better plan, then you get on board with ours, but doing nothing is not an option. Affordability is such a crisis in this country right now for everything, from childcare to transportation, to housing, to food, to fuel and healthcare. People are squeezed right now. And to add this on top of that, you know, a significant increase in their premiums is not an option.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: I mean, he's quite literally screaming from the rooftop there.

RAJU: Yeah. And this is just been the issue that has dogged Republicans for what now 15 years.

BASH: Yeah, yeah.

RAJU: What to do about healthcare? This is such a divisive issue. You have the people who want to rely on the private market, or now there's talk about providing subsidies to the American -- directly the American public. That's something that Donald Trump has talked about, that does not have much broad, that does not have broad support. Even among Republicans, there are the moderates.

I mean, Brian Fitzpatrick, we want to extend the Affordable Care Act subsidies for a couple of years with some changes. Senator Susan Collins of Maine is working with Bernie Moreno, a conservative member, on this issue, toughest races in the country.

But again, that does not have broad support, extending the Obamacare subsidies. John Thune, the Senate Majority Leader, the House Speaker Mike Johnson. They do not believe that these subsidies should be expanded. They think the Affordable Care Act, they have a fundamental disagreement with it.

So then -- how do they figure out a way forward because at the same time as Brian Fitzpatrick, another saying, people are going to feel the pain is going to get really bad and the backlash could be severe head into the midterm.

BASH: Yeah. I mean Republicans who just talked about genuinely feel like extending these subsidies is throwing good money after bad because the system is messed up. I don't think anybody would disagree that the system is messed up.

RAJU: Right.

BASH: But the question is the will to find a bipartisan agreement. In the meantime, because we're up against the calendar here. This is just one example of a poll, also from KFF, Republicans. Republicans, 72 percent of them say that they want these enhanced subsidies to be extended. Obviously, Democrats are very high, 95 percent, even independents, 84 percent.

KIM: Yeah. And once upon a time, meaning a few weeks ago, the White House did circulate a proposal that did extend those subsidies permanently, with some changes, such as eliminating those zero premium plans and also adding an income -- adding the income eligibility household.

One source actually pointed out to me this morning that the White House plan that was circulated a few weeks ago very much mirrors the Brain O'Collins proposal. So that's kind of almost a proxy for what the White House envisioned once upon a time. But since that plan circuit -- was leaked and circulated, we haven't seen actual concrete details from the White House on what the president would sign.

And I also do think another major question as to what can pass on Capitol Hill, if anything, is what the -- what the plan does with the Hyde Amendment, the restriction on--

BASH: Oh, we're back there again.

KIM: Right The restriction on using federal funding for abortion, and that has, I mean, the White House, as far as I know, what my sources told me was that the White House plan was initially silent on what to do with that, and that is a huge issue for Republicans on Capitol Hill. BASH: It's been a huge issue, right for not even 15 years, even longer than that. This is obviously just part of the affordability issue, which the president called that word a con job. Our colleague Steven Collinson has a great piece on cnn.com today, and the headline says it all. Trump's first problem on the economy and healthcare, admitting he's got a problem.

KEITH: Absolutely. And hey, guess what? He's not the first president to have this problem--

BASH: Like the last one.

KEITH: Right. The last one also had that problem where people were saying, hey, stuff is really expensive, and they're saying, oh, this inflation is transitory. Well, now you have President Trump using terminology that just doesn't resonate with people, calling affordability a con job when people literally go to the grocery store, a couple times a week and see what things cost is a problem because people know what things cost and they feel it in a real way.

Healthcare, as you say, is another part of this challenge. When you don't have enough money to last through the month, and healthcare is eating a big chunk of it, you're going to be overwhelmed, you're just going to be grumpy, you're going to be unhappy. And voters are unhappy, and you know, it's really bad for a president and his party that's in power, grumpy voters.

RAJU: One thing to watch though, Thursday in the Senate, that's when his vote is going to happen. That was promised during the shutdown, fight by John Thune. Democrats will have a three-year extension of Obamacare subsidies. They're not going to pass. But what are the Republican alternative? Because there is no agreement yet on what the Republican plan is. That's going to be something to watch, particularly after Trump's--

BASH: We only had -- we had a star congressional correspondent who will get the answer--

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: I'm looking at you, Manu.

RAJU: Yeah, let's go look for him.

BASH: You're always looking for everybody else. All right, coming up. It could change the entire entertainment industry. New details on the hostile takeover bid from Paramount, Wall Street whisperer William Cohan is my guest next.

[12:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BASH: Now, a bombshell announcement that happened this morning and it will impact the entire media and entertainment industry. Paramount launched a hostile takeover bid for all of Warner Bros. Discovery after an $82 billion deal with Netflix. Netflix was announced on Friday.

[12:25:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID ELLISON, PARAMOUNT CEO: When you put number one and number three together, you are handing Netflix unprecedented market power, which is anti-competitive in every single measure -- every single metric you can measure. And we think that is bad. Again, it's bad for the consumer. It's bad for the creative community. This deal, if it is allowed to move forward, will actually be the death of the theatrical movie business in Hollywood. We're sitting here today trying to save it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: And I should note, Warner Bros. Discovery is CNN's parent company. Joining me now is Bill Cohan, founding partner of Puck, and veteran business writer. Thank you so much for being here, Bill. So, you just heard David Ellison. I'm sure you watched the entire interview this morning. What he's saying is that they're going directly to the shareholders of Warner Bros. Discovery. Walk us through first how that works.

WILLIAM COHAN, FOUNDING PARTNER, PUCK: Well, they tried to reach a deal with the Warner Bros. Discovery board late last week. And as you were saying, Dana, that was not successful, because the Warner Bros. Discovery board decided Netflix. And the Ellisons, who control Paramount Skydance believe that their offer was superior to the Netflix offer, and they feel like they got short shrift.

And so, their choice was at that point to either, you know, pack up their bags and go home, or to do what they're doing, which is to "bring their offer directly to Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders, which is Wall Street Argo for going hostile. And we haven't seen anything quite like this in maybe 25 years on Wall Street, not since Pfizer tried to jump a deal that Warner-Lambert had struck with American home products. So, this is kind of big news.

BASH: Yeah, it's an understatement, for sure, Bill. So, given that and knowing that you know your stuff when it comes to this kind of thing. What do you think the chances are that Paramount's appeal to shareholders, the hostile takeover will actually succeed?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. So that will be up to the Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders, of course. I mean $30 a share in cash is what Paramount Skydance is offering versus 27, $75 a share in cash and Netflix stock. Plus Dana, the value of the -- what will possibly be spun off a business that includes CNN, which some Wall Street analysts value at $5 a share, and others at $1 a share.

So, it might just come down to believe it or not, the value of the linear TV assets of which CNN will be spun off into and what that value is. That might be what the end up -- what shareholders have to decide here. BASH: It's ironic, given the fact that the whole play here is about what they call sort of the future of media, if it comes down to linear TV. And David Ellison, I watched that whole interview as well, was saying that the broadcast part of it is actually still very, very viable and is worth a lot more. So, let's talk about where I am in Washington, and it matters a lot. What the government -- I mean, once this all plays out between Netflix and Paramount, what the government decides.

And I would venture to guess, and it's probably not much, not that much of a reach that what happens with Netflix and Paramount, who gets it is very much about what President Trump may want to do here. Now, when Netflix announced this deal on Friday, we did hear a lot of push back in Hollywood, particularly from the creative community, and President Trump was asked about the Netflix deal. Just listen to what he had to say about that. This is last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, that's got to go through a process, and we'll see what happens. Netflix is a great company, and they've done a phenomenal job. Ted is a fantastic man. I have a lot of respect for him, but it's a -- it's a lot of market share. So, we'll have to see what happens.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: A lot of market share, that sounds like, you know, let's just hold off here for one second. Now, before I want to -- before I bring you in, Bill, I want to play what David Ellison said this morning about the conversations that he and his father, Larry Ellison, have had with President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you sense that he is in your corner here?

ELLISON: What I would say is I'm incredibly grateful for the relationships that I have with the president, and I also believe he believes in competition.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: Your take.

COHAN: Well, Dana, first of all, I mean, we use this word unprecedented way too much, but it really is unprecedented for the president United States to put his thumb on the scales of a Wall Street M&A deal. And that's what he's clearly doing. That's what he says he's going to do.