This is CBSI on the world. I'm John Batchel. I'm a research fellow of the Kivitas Institute of

the University of Texas. Richard Epstein is with me to comment on not one but two court

proceedings in some fashion over these next hours and days. This has to do with the hush money,

so-called hush money sentencing.

And it's not what's happening in New York.

It's what has happened at the Supreme Court that is of interest.

U.S. Supreme Court declines to halt Donald Trump's hush money sentencing, reads the Financial Times headline.

President-elect was ordered to appear in Manhattan Court for a historic criminal case to a

conclusion with the sentencing. Richard, I'm keen on the Supreme Court's decision, not what's

happening in a Manhattan court according to the report from the judge and the district attorney.

We know that story.

But the Supreme Court is a surprise.

You've read the document that they've given us.

As far as I can read, this is an amateur reading.

Judge Robert says that there's no reason for the court to get involved, because there's going to be no punishment, no sentencing of him to incarceration, no fine.

So therefore, if there's not going to be damaged, we don't need to pay attention to the prosecution of a man who's about to be president?

Is that what Mr. Roberts is saying?

I mean, I regard this as one of the most foolish statements ever made.

The basic issue in this particular case is what it has always been,

reputation and your ability to use your name.

And if they go around there and they take this judgment, which is bogus from start to finish,

and by both Moshan and Bragg, now say, well, we've called them a convicted felon, but we

...