May 2 | Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) joins MSNBC's The ReidOut with Joy Reid for a spirited discussion about the long-brewing ethics crisis at the Supreme Court That Dark Money Built.
Charge them for their crimes. Judges who break the law violate the oath of office are disbarred and incarcerated just like everyone else. Charge Clarence Thomas . Fair Trial.
:D Right after they passed their 2010 Citizens United decision. It legalized unlimited and anonymous dark money bribery to be funneled into American politics by untaxed oligarchs, both foreign and domestic. As soon as politicians in the USA found that they could "sell their vote to the highest bidder", some of them began to do so and that $$$ isn't limited to just the GOP by any means.
Great question! Now, I hope someone will force them to answer it, and that it is recorded for everyone to see their arrogance and blatant corruption❢❢❢
Senator Whitehouse has moved into the position of being one of my two favorite Senators. I hope lots of other average people are hearing him and feeling the same way. We needed another knight on our team. Thanks for having him on the REIDOUT! 😊
In addition to reining in the Court, how about prosecuting some of these influence purchasers, like Harlan Crow? Isn't there some way to do that? And what about challenging decisions that we now realize may have been influenced by these villains? Any attorneys out there wanna explain this to me? Seriously, I'd like to know...
I'm not an attorney, but this is pretty easy. Rich people can give away an awful lot of money if they don't expect anything illegal in return. "Bribery," which BoogEWoogE thinks is on the table requires HARD EVIDENCE which is NOT on the table. There is simply no evidence that Harlan Crow or Clarence Thomas has broken any laws other than Thomas committing minor financial reporting errors that he is allowed to correct by REFILING an amended report, not unlike you would file an amended tax return. There is no rational rush to throw him (or you) in jail over such minutiae. On the other hand, if HARD EVIDENCE ever demonstrated that a judge or justice WAS improperly influenced by receiving ANY material benefit, that would easily be grounds for impeachment, although there is no legal provision for going back and attempting to UNDO prior decisions rendered by a full Court. That's the explanation of applicable law. I could give you actual legal citations where you could READ the law, but I am assuming your interest does not run that deep.
Unfortunately part of the problem is that these gifts are not illegal. Thomas violated the law by not disclosing the gifts, but the Supreme Court has wide discretion to decide which gifts to accept. So what Crow has done is currently not illegal, it’s Thomas that has broken the law by not disclosing the gifts.
@@BoogEOogEWoogE bribery? Naw that kinda cash is @$pimp$all those 0000s year after year after year....porn talker likes $$$$ not Rights, laws, or defending the US Constitution. Sold his mother's house? What !
This committee was so politically partisan it’s hard to imagine that they could all put aside their personal viewpoints and personal agendas and focus on ethics. The reason I thought this committee was brought to convene. Once again thank you Sheldon! ❤
They have proven that they're not interested in putting any of their views aside, and - particularly - if it aims a spotlight at their absolute lack of ethics!!!
For a position that holds a lifetime opportunity, these are exactly the positions that should have the most scrutiny. Right now the Supreme Court is thumbing their noses at all of us. There is blatant bribery going on.
Is there nothing we can do?!!! I called my Senators and told them my concerns, and how I expected they would vote as Americans, who are supposed to be dedicated to protecting our democracy! But, what else can I do? I am just sickened by the evilness of the republican "justices"❢❢❢
Mass shootings are highly profitable. The gun industry sends a cut of the profits to the republicans in congress and the supreme court says OK by me. Murdered school kids don't make campaign contributions so they don't count for nothing. The Citizens United ruling was all about moving this from dark money to bribery, all done in the open with no risk.
"Blatant" bribery, you say. Last time I checked, that was a "BLATANT" felony. DOJ does NOT need an ethics code to prosecute that. Wonder why they aren't? Could it be you're full of baloney?
@@BoogEOogEWoogE we need to hold enmass huge never ending rallies and demonstrations daily,weekly, monthly outside the supreme court till we get on camera and demand and excoriate the a.g and the senate till they are pressured into initiating investigations and bring charges and an i.r.s audit and suite.that will do it
Such a good segment. I am pleased that Whitehouse is finally getting more airtime on mainstream media. He must have felt like screaming into a void for years.
Thanks for an excellent, open discussion. Imo part of the root of the problem is that when the concept of the court first became reality, our culture was such that people didn't traverse so much into the "dark side" of things. There was more trust. Now there's so much criminal activity, crassness and corruption in at least some of our culture and what society accepts we are much more vulnerable to problems with associated activity. Hope that makes sense. Times, anyway, are changing, and we need to update our court to keep up with it. Term limits do make sense, also the remedies provided by the bills. I'm a little confused about what's going on with them - to me they should pass. Listening again, part of the hang-up is with the situation with Diane Feinstein. I can't believe after all her years of service there's a problem with a temporary replacement so the wheels of progress might move. How is it that this temporary replacement for her is not going through? How many weeks has it been since she got sick? What's wrong with this picture? Thanks again.
The Republicans have to approve her mid-term replacement and they’ve said they have no interest in doing that. If she resigns, her replacement can be appointed to the committee normally.
@@paradoxmo So, if she resigns, her seat would remain open until the next election? We should make sure that our neighbors, co-workers and friends (who are in political agreement - of course) have rides to the voting booths, if possible!
@@BoogEOogEWoogE if she resigns, Gov Newsom of California will appoint a new senator who would sit until a special election is called. On her resignation, a new member of the Judiciary committee can be put in. But they can’t switch her out of Judiciary without Rs agreeing if she hasn’t resigned yet.
Bard says: The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, and its decisions have a profound impact on the lives of all Americans. It is therefore essential that the justices adhere to a high standard of ethics. A code of ethics would help to ensure that the justices are impartial and that they do not allow their personal biases to influence their decisions. It would also help to prevent conflicts of interest. There are a number of different codes of ethics that could be adopted by the Supreme Court. The ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct is one possibility. This code sets forth ethical standards for all judges, including federal judges. Another possibility is to adopt a code of ethics that is specifically tailored to the Supreme Court. This code would need to take into account the unique role of the Supreme Court and the specific challenges that it faces. Whatever code of ethics is adopted, it is important that it is clear, concise, and easy to understand. It is also important that the code is enforceable. The justices should be held accountable for violating the code of ethics. Adopting a code of ethics would be a positive step for the Supreme Court. It would help to ensure that the justices are impartial and that they do not allow their personal biases to influence their decisions. It would also help to prevent conflicts of interest.
The consequences for their corruption needs to be swift and severe: INSTANT REMOVAL FROM THE BENCH!!! And, if there's even the slightest evidence of corruption, they should immediately be put on suspension (I'd even be generous to add, with pay-though they don't deserve our generosity)! They shouldn't be able to return to their seat until they are properly and fully investigated, either clearing then from suspicion, or removing them from the bench! NO EXCEPTIONS, as this is could easily be what ends our democracy❢❢❢
Senator Sheldon for President 2028 ❤ thank you for your tireless work…at least a few in government have an ethical code that they abide by…let’s hope SCOTUS under goes the many changes that it will take to restore our faith in this sacred institution
The arrogance of these justices is astonishing and it's all because of what body these judges come from and the length of time they have already been on the bench. Term limits HAVE to me implemented and there HAS to be other sources other than the Federalist Society, the prospective judges come from. Keep up your incredibly important digging and fact finding path Senator
Because federal law 5 USC 13104(a)(2)(A) reads in part: "...except that any food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported." The actual ETHICS LAW applicable to his REQUIRED financial reporting EXEMPTED him from reporting "personal hospitality" gifts. IT'S THE LAW, DAMNIT!!!
@@larryk1865 personal hospitality exemption doesn’t include transportation. Also, there’s no question about the real estate sales, those have to be disclosed and he didn’t do it. It’s not the first time he did this either, he’s had to make huge corrections to his disclosures three times now, it’s definitely a pattern and not a “mistake”.
@@paradoxmo There is no question in my mind about the real estate transaction either. Supposedly he thought he didn't have to report it because he took a financial loss on the deal, but I don't know where he got that idea from the law. Yeah, the reporting of the real estate transaction seems straightforward and he should have reported it. The transportation issue is a bit tougher. The ethics law itself doesn't specifically address it AND the wording of what constituted a non-reportable gift under the federal judicial code prior to the changes made this year was such that one could have easily assumed that a GIFT of transportation was not reportable going strictly by that language. But, yes, a close reading of the ethics law AND ITS FAILURE TO EXPLICITLY INCLUDE TRANSPORTATION AS BEING NON-REPORTABLE should have raised questions in Thomas' mind as to what he should have done. But the recent changes to the definition of "personal hospitality" under the judicial code with respect to transportation no longer leave any doubt. Nor will the lack of application of the federal code to the Supreme Court serve as an excuse NOT to report "transportation that serves as a substitute for commercial transportation" (think airfare -- not yacht trips). The changes on transportation CLEARLY are designed to bring the judicial code into harmony with the less than glaringly obvious intent of the ethics laws on personal hospitality gifts. So to conclude, YES, these are the two best examples of how Thomas botched the financial reports in question. But again, I think it deserves pointing out that nothing about the reporting violations affect his legal standing to ACCEPT the gifts or the proceeds of the real estate sale. Nor is there any evidence that he did any of that willfully for the purpose of concealing anything the he would have been motivated to conceal. There were no legitimate recusal issues which these failures covered up. But he needs to take it far more seriously than he has in the past, I would agree.
@@larryk1865 Yes, there is reasonable evidence to suggest, not prove, that he did it willfully, because he used to disclose gifts from Crow but stopped doing so after a critical report on the gifts in the LA Times in 2004. That plus the multiple issues with his disclosures over a period of decades (e.g. with Ginni’s income) suggests that he simply did not want what he considered his own private affairs called into question publicly. Multiple failures is a pattern, and he’s one of the top lawyers in the land, he should be able to read the law and understand what it asks for. Misunderstandings of the law are not a plausible excuse given his position. In terms of recusal, the issues with Ginni’s income from the Heritage Foundation, and from the Crow-funded Liberty Central which Ginni founded, would present potential conflicts of interest which he tried to hide. Also, Crow is on the board of AEI which regularly files amicus briefs with the SCOTUS. So yes, there are plausible problems which should be investigated by an ethics board if there were one. It seems as plain as day that the SCOTUS should have an ethics body and a code of conduct. Why would they not want one? It’s just good sense. It would prevent these sort of “misinterpretations” of the law and this kind of embarrassment to the court, and it would restore public trust in the institution. This isn’t a partisan thing by the way, RBG and Breyer also took gifts, though they were disclosed.
Lots of ethics rules apply to Congress and the executive branch already (though not to the President directly). The Supreme Court justices on the other hand aren’t required to abide by most of those ethics rules.
I know a school board member, who was found to have taken money for voting in favor of school district vendor's bit and was sentenced for ten years in prison!
I like Sen Whitehouse and I applaud the “light” he has shown on LLeo and the Federalist Soc but I’m tired of settling for light just being shown. In the words of a great orator…”It’s time for some, time for some Action!”
I just want to point out that there's a very interesting podcast on the power the Supreme Court currently holds and the dangers that poses for American democracy today by PoliticsGirl, discussing the questionable legitimacy of the Justices' role today and putting it in historical context with Thom Hartmann: "After the Midterms, a PG:CC with Thom Hartmann", posted Nov 9, 2022.
Clarence knew he was in violation or he wouldn't have lied about each new finding. Therefore, impeach him if he won't resign. Send gorsuch and Roberts with him. Get them out of our court
When are women going to start a bill that goes after a man's vas deferens??? All men that are against abortion need to have their vas deferens removed period. We need jurisdiction on their anatomy too!!!
It's Law 101 that you recuse yourself from a conflict of interest. It's completely UNREASONABLE they put themselves above the bare minimum of accountability, especially when every other occupation demands it.
The court isn't supposed to make the rules, just interpret them, the problem is the ideological interpretations based on ridiculous logic and points of law while ignoring established precedent
It bears repeating "it is chump change" for what they are getting. It used to be the best return on investment was not buying property or research and development but buying politicians but when someone finally crunches the numbers buying SCOTUS will make buying original Apple stock look like a poor investment.
Billionaires deciding the composition of the Supreme Court is an American tradition after all John Jay, the very first Chief Justice, once proclaimed "Those who own the country ought to govern and America hasn't deviated from that path since.
It's NOT a one-way-street. What do you do about rulings from a governmental body that you put no trust in, you ignore it. If nobody enforces their rulings, their rulings are moot and pointless. That's the check on the judicial branch of the government. Otherwise, how is the judicial branch "checked" in the three-pronged check-and-balance system. IGNORE THEIR RULINGS!
The Congress could quite easily adopt, with respect to the Supreme Court, the same judicial rules of conduct applicable to all other appellate court judges at the federal level. The Congress could then give its own Senate and House Judiciary Committees oversight responsibility to insure that those rules are followed. Of course, the Court could then declare these judicial rules an unconstitutional interference with the operations of a separate, but equal, branch of government. But that'd be a very hard position to support, and I doubt the people of the United States would stand for it.
What's really astonishing is that if Harlan Crow saw his dream realized, the successful execution of establishing the fourth Reich in America, Crow would have Thomas (being Black, therefore NOT a suitable specimen of the ubermensch) on the first train to the newly built American concentration camps. Crow has been using Thomas because Thomas is so easy for people like Harlan to use. Nobody who has a private Nazi memorabilia museum really thinks that Thomas has any place in their dream Nazi society, no matter how useful Thomas has been in assisting in the work to realize that sick dream. It's just astonishing that a Supreme Court justice can be that ignorant and gullible. Especially one that's not blonde and blue eyed.
Even the President can't take over 200 I believe. This is why the Court should be 50 to 50. Make the Court have to decide Laws by both parties and not one.
Actually, the SCOTUS does not make rules. It determines whether congressional legislation and executive actions are consistent with the Constitution. The problem is that in authorizing the creation of all sorts of corporations (quasi governmental entities) the legislative bodies have extended controls over persons to which they are not entitled. So, for example, Roe v. Wade addressed reproduction via the professional care providers. So, both Roe v. Wade and Dobbs are examples of overreaching..
Supreme Court judges should be selected by their peers not politicians. The ethical behaviours must be the strictest and any gifts over a public servant declaration (usually a very small amount) be declared. But really the Supreme court is now a joke.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Corporate states of Amerca and to the Republicans for which it stands, one nation under debt, easily divisible, with liberty and justice for *Oil.*
Gorsuch exercised strict constructionist textual rigor in his opinion about a frozen trucker. Gorsuch exercised negligent deceit in his obligatory disclosures.
No he did not. Federal law 5 USC 131(a)(5) "Transaction" "strict, constructionist textually requires: "a brief description, the date, and category of value of any purchase, sale or exchange during the preceding calendar year which exceeds $1,000-" It does NOT "textually require" the name of the buyer. Go look it up if you don't believe me.
Just because they don't "technically" have to report something doesn't make it right! People in their positions should understand the need to be fully transparent❢❢❢ Besides, if they're so Innocent, why the hell are they TRYING to hide things, and why won't they accept some accountabilty - hmmmmm🤨?!!! They'd have been far smarter not to have made this an issue - drawing even more attention - when simply accepting the same rules that all other judges abide by would probably have saved them from the deeper probes into their conduct over the past few decades 😤! One way or another they'll be held accountable, or else, they will destroy our democracy!
@@larryk1865 That is my point exactly. It was a negligent deceit made by someone whose stock in trade is strict constructionist textual rigor. I think it is difficult to argue Gorsuch is an idiot. Not so hard to argue that he is a sly deceiver. He knew full well the implications and purpose of leaving that part of the disclosure form blank.
@@antonomaseapophasis5142 I understand that is your point "EXACTLY." My point EXACTLY is that you cannot charge someone with NEGLIGENCE (a strict LEGAL term) when they STRICTLY (textually constructionist or otherwise) comply with the minimum requirements of the law. You may not like it. You may find all manner of what you regard as reasonable objections to it, but the law ALLOWS IT. Not my fault or that of Neil Gorsuch.
No, the Congress has the power to do it, not the President. Adding justices to the court would not pass the Congress currently, which is why Biden hasn’t seriously considered going down that road.
As usual, MS, NBC failed to mention anything about what the Democratic justices have been up to. I would urge everyone to follow the entire committee’s hearing before passing judgment. It would definitely be an eye-opening event.
The proposed ethics rules for the court would apply to all justices regardless of ideological position. RBG and Breyer also accepted questionable gifts when they were on the court. It’s just that of the currently seated justices, most of the worst offenders are on the conservative side, but nothing is preventing the liberal justices from doing the same bullshit. It makes sense to reform the ethics rules for the court for all justices.
@@paradoxmo I understand that, but the way they make it sound that it’s just Justice Thomas and it’s everyone . That’s where this biased media comes in the play and has a strong influence on elections.
@@anthonykerrijohnson Well to be fair the Thomas stuff is really, really bad. Repeat offender who seems to have hid his financials willfully. Much worse than the RBG, SDO, and Breyer stuff. The Roberts and Gorsuch stuff is conflict of interest and recusal, but not actual clear wrongdoing. The only other person to hide trips is Scalia but Thomas’s stuff is still way worse.
@@paradoxmo using that analogy if you stab somebody it’s not as bad as if you shoot somebody. It seems to me watching the hearings that there was a lot more involved with all, including the Democratic side other justices. Quite a few of them had taken a huge amount of trips, more so then Thomas. Truthfully, this is going to destroy our third side of the triangle when it comes to government that’s something that the Democratic Party has been pushing for the last six years. I just hate to think that we were headed towards a socialist or communist government, and that’s not with this country was found it on.
@@paradoxmo Funny how I've not heard one word about the liberal Justice's questionable gifts. Please, give us a link to the evidence! Seriously, I want to know if they are guilty of such behavior! And, because of the non-stop lies on the right, I'm sure you'll forgive my not blindly believing your every word (without the proper proof, that is)!
Did anyone notice how she laid emphasis on Republican justices and their families. Democrat justices have also benefitted. But this is an impartial newscaster. LOL.
Love Joy . FYI Trump is 77 not 76. His birthday is June 14 1946. Trump will be 78 in June. Bernie Sanders is 81, Wilbur Ross is 85, Murdock is 92, Mitch McConnell is 81, Sen Ben Corden is 79, sen. Jim Risch is 79. I don't anticipate Biden dying If he serves another term. But plenty of people die at much younger ages as you know.
White House for the White House. All that needs to be said. No offense to, Harris but maybe is running. Mate would have been a better option and Biden could have transitioned to White House rather than run another term past 80.
