Court Hears Arguments in Partisan Gerrymandering Cases.
HENDERSON: Any minute now, President Trump will make the short drive from the White House to Capitol Hill for a policy luncheon with Senate Republicans. A little later, he'll hold more meetings with Republican lawmakers at the House. No doubt there's plenty he wants to talk about with the Mueller investigation now finished. We've got CNN's Phil Mattingly. He joins me now from Capitol Hill. Phil, do Senate Republicans have a message for the president?</s>PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes.</s>HENDERSON: A lot to discuss at that meeting, Phil. We'll wait for your reporting on that. Thanks. Turning to two critical arguments before the Supreme Court today, the pair of legal challenges asked the high court to look at the electoral map and decide if ones like this mingled jigsaw or constitutional. This is Maryland's sixth district and what looks like a preschooler struggling to stay within the lines to us. It's really procession cartography with one goal in mind, to help Democrats win. Voting rights groups say electoral maps like Maryland's and North Carolina's violate the constitution by tilting too heavily towards one political party. CNN's Joan Biskupic joins the conversation. She's the author of the new book "The Chief: The Life, and Turbulent Times of Chief Justice John Roberts." Thanks so much, Joan for joining us, and congratulations on your book.</s>JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Thank you.</s>HENDERSON: Everyone should run out and buy it. It's on sale today. Let's first turn to this gerrymandering case. Two cases, one brought by Republicans, the other bought by -- brought by Democrats. Critics say, listen, judges don't -- shouldn't have a role in this process determining what should be political or is too political given that it's sort of a political process, anyway.</s>BISKUPIC: That's right. And rather than running out to the bookstore, I ran over to the court this morning and ran right back so I could give you exactly what just happened within the last hour. They heard the North Carolina case first. There was a lot of spirited debate, but mainly from justices skeptical that they should get into this. New Justice Brett Kavanaugh who replaced Anthony Kennedy asked about, you know, there's a lot of action in the states with commissions trying to take over these kinds of redistricting maps, shouldn't we let states do their business. Why should judges be involved? Neil Gorsuch asked questions along the same lines. Chief Justice John Roberts has already suggested he thinks that the court should not be into this. That it would cast -- it would hurt the image of the court to be something so political. And North Carolina's lawyer, Paul Clement played to that saying don't get into this, it will tarnish your image, save your image for something more important down the road.</s>HENDERSON: Quickly, we want to get to your book, tell us what you've learned. Sort of the most surprising thing you learned about John Roberts.</s>BISKUPIC: Well, it's funny that the Affordable Care Act is back in the news right today because what I discovered behind the scenes is that he switched his vote in that major case of 2012 not once, but twice, and ended up working with two of the liberal justices to craft this compromise that ended upholding the individual insurance mandate but striking down expansion of Medicaid. And --so I was able to get all the behind the scenes maneuvering which seems very salient today when the Trump administration is saying get rid of it all, and the case that's now pending is certainly destined for the Supreme Court.</s>HENDERSON: And now folks are sort of looking to John Roberts to be the swing justice on the court. Is that something people should actually expect?</s>BISKUPIC: Not in the mode of Anthony Kennedy who, for a long time, was our key swing justice. And before him, Sandra Day O'Connor. John Roberts is a different kind of justice. He has much more conservative roots that I lay out in the book, but he also is so concerned about the institutional reputation of the Supreme Court. Remember in November when he rebuked President Trump by saying, there are no such thing as Obama judges or Trump justices. Indeed there actually are, but he's trying to undercut that reputation and that view, and he is a man.