WATCH: Sen. Schiff Reacts to Supreme Court Ruling on Mail-In Voting, Trump’s Refusal to Sign Landmark Housing Bill

Burbank, CA - U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) joined CNN's The Story Is with Elex Michaelson to discuss the Supreme Court's recent ruling on mail-in voting, highlighting his commitment to seeking reforms of the Supreme Court including term limits and an enforceable code of conduct, and President Trump's continued refusal to sign landmark federal housing legislation, the largest in three decades.

Schiff also discussed the ongoing costs facing Americans stemming from Trump's war with Iran - emphasizing the president's lack of justification for the war and Iran's newfound confidence with their ability of control the Strait of Hormuz more than 100 days after the war started.

The Senator also criticized attempts to restart offshore oil drilling off California's coast, pointing out that efforts to restart a pipeline with a history of disastrous oil spill would not lower prices at the gas pump and leave California coastlines more vulnerable while oil companies rake in increased profit.

View the full interview here.

Key Excerpts:

On the Supreme Court's ruling on mail-in voting and court reform:

[…] They made the right decision here today, at least with this particular case, and I think it was a pretty clear-cut one. But this court has shown a willingness to throw out decades or even centuries of precedent. I'm glad they haven't thrown out the absentee ballot voting system, because if they had ruled against Mississippi here and said that "No, ballots have to arrive by Election Day." Those who argued the case made it clear that they were going to come back and also seek to strike out all absentee voting and only allow same-day voting. So that was, I think, the logical consequence the Supreme Court feared if they went along with the Trump argument here.

[…] The most consequential reform, in my view, would be to put term limits on the Supreme Court, which can be done constitutionally as long as you provide that after a suitable period - say 18 years - a justice would rotate back onto the Court of Appeals or the District Court. They would still have life tenure as required by the Constitution on a court, but there is no constitutional right to be on a certain court for life. Here's the rub, though: it would be this Supreme Court that would decide whether that's constitutional, and they would decide it in their self-interest. So, first you would have to change the court by expanding it, and they stacked the court when they deprived Barack Obama of an appointment, when they withheld even a confirmation hearing from Merrick Garland. They have stacked the court. The question is, will Democrats be willing to unstack it. I fully support that, as well as term limits and enforceable code of ethics.

On President Trump's refusal to sign the ROAD to Housing Act:

[…] When he says that he likes inflation, when he says that the affordability problem, that people can't afford their lives, is a hoax, and when he says that trying to bring down the cost of housing is unimportant - he is telling us who he is, and we should believe him. What's important to him is, he's spending time because he wants to redo a golf course now in D.C. He wants to build an arc in D.C. He wants to gold plate statues in D.C. He wants a golden ballroom in D.C. He has time for all of that. All of that is really important to him. Housing, that's a yawn. The American people, I think, recognize just how detached he is from their problems. It's why I think they're going to get a real drubbing in the midterms, but he is telling us who he is, and we should pay attention.

On President Trump's illegal war with Iran:

I think there is already a very serious strategic loss, and that is that before the war, Iran may have theorized that it could shut down the strait, that it could withstand a massive military attack by the United States. It may have thought that in theory, but now Iran has seen that in practice. That even with minimal amount of military force, with very rudimentary drones and missiles, they can stop shipping, they can choke the oil supply for much of the world. And in effect, they already have a nuclear bomb, and it's being able to close the strait. There's very little way to put the genie back in that bottle, so that's been a terrible strategic loss already. Now, how you overcome that, I don't know. And this is the problem with a war of choice, when we were not attacked by Iran, when there was no imminent threat of attack. This is part of the unpredictability of war, but we've already suffered a terrible strategic loss.

On Sable Offshore operations on the California Coast:

[…] In terms of Sable, this is the site of a terrible spill. Sable has a bad track record, that pipeline in particular. And while we are going to suffer the risks of another spill along that coast, the money is not going to go to California. In fact, the oil is not even going to California. And this is where their argument falls apart in their use of the Defense Production Act, because they're allowing Sable and these other countries to export that oil out of the country. In fact, oil companies in America are exporting more oil now than ever, they're making higher profits than ever. So, this isn't going to help American consumers. Most of that oil is going to leave our shores. If you really wanted to try to bring down costs, that's not the way to do it. And what's more, by killing all these renewable energy projects, which they're doing simultaneously, they're eliminating oil's competition, and they're allowing oil companies to charge even more.

###