As the cast of Thursday’s Morning Joe discussed the latest non-scandal involving Justice Clarence Thomas, co-host Joe Scarborough condemned what he saw as conservative hypocrisy, declaring that if Thomas were Justice Sonia Sotomayor the reaction would be very different. He said this as Sotomayor faces ethical questions of her own.
Everyone on the panel uncritically accepted the premise that Harlan Crow, who does not have business before the Court, paying for Thomas’s disadvantaged great nephew’s tuition for one year, including fellow co-host Mika Brzezinski, “And Joe, once again, it’s really hard not to see how this Supreme Court justice was not exposed to being -- to having his objectivity impacted. Let's just say it kindly. By all the gifts over the course of decades by a Republican donor.”
She then laughably claimed “we try to be objective ourselves, but it's hard not to notice his wife texting Mark Meadows, you know, and completely involved in certain things that seem to be part of the Big Lie. Then you wonder, what is going on?”
Nobody thinks MSNBC is objective, as Scarborough soon proved “Regardless of those who reflexively defend him, this has been a horrible two years, two-and-a-half years for Justice Thomas's legacy.”
Has it? Or have people who already hated Thomas just found another reason to hate him?
Regardless, Scarborough mused, “And for Republicans who are trying to dismiss this, I can't even begin to imagine what would happen if it were Justice Sotomayor.”
As Brzezinski chimed in with “my lord,” Scarborough added, “If it was Justice Kagan.”
On Wednesday night, The Daily Wire reported that Sotomayor declined to recuse herself from a case involving Penguin Random House after receiving $3.6 million from the publisher despite fellow liberal Justice Stephen Breyer did recusing himself in the same case for also taking money from the company.
As for Kagan, on Sunday, the New York Times reported the not-exactly earth shattering news that some of the conservative justices teach at George Mason’s Antonin Scalia Law School and that some of their colleagues will file amicus briefs with the Court. Nobody has ever suggested that Kagan’s time as dean of Harvard Law School would make her partial to an amicus brief filed by a Harvard professor.
Scarborough’s ignorance of the Sotomayor news made his next statement impossible to take seriously, “again, let's be really clear about this, everybody at this table would be shocked and outraged and had be critical if this were a liberal justice, a left-wing justice that was taking this.”
He then turned to Politico White House editor Sam Stein, “Sam, it’s just, again, there are no rules, Sam, it appears. There is nothing that people on the Trump right can do that is going to get condemnation from most Republicans… I can’t even, again, I can’t even imagine if any federal judge that I practiced under had taken one-hundredth of these gifts, I can't imagine they wouldn't be up for impeachment.”
Stein responded by claiming that reporters have an obligation to treat the Thomas as a grave scandal, “I would argue it would be not objective if we didn't treat this as the clear cut scandalous behavior it is. It doesn’t matter whether he was appointed by a Republican president or is a conservative jurist. This is very evidently, clear cut, problematic ethics.”
The only thing that is “clear cut” is Morning Joe has two sets of standards: one for conservatives and one for liberals.
This segment was sponsored by Etsy.
Here is a transcript for the May 4 show:
MSNBC Morning Joe
5/4/2023
6:46 AM ET
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: And Joe, once again, it’s really hard not to see how this Supreme Court justice was not exposed to being -- to having his objectivity impacted. Let's just say it kindly. By all the gifts over the course of decades by a Republican donor.
And then you add the fact -- and we try to be objective ourselves, but it's hard not to notice his wife texting Mark Meadows, you know, and completely involved in certain things that seem to be part of the Big Lie. Then you wonder, what is going on?
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Regardless of those who reflexively defend him, this has been a horrible two years, two-and-a-half years for Justice Thomas's legacy.
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: And for Republicans who are trying to dismiss this, I can't even begin to imagine what would happen if it were Justice Sotomayor.
BRZEZINSKI: My lord.
SCARBOROUGH: If it was Justice Kagan.
BRZEZINSKI: Please.
SCARBOROUGH: This is—this is-- again, let's be really clear about this, everybody at this table would be shocked and outraged and had be critical if this were a liberal justice, a left-wing justice that was taking this, but Sam, it’s just, again, there are no rules, Sam, it appears. There is nothing that people on the Trump right can do that is going to get condemnation from most Republicans.
I mean this is the sort of stuff— I can’t even, again, I can’t even imagine if any federal judge--
SAM STEIN: Right.
SCARBOROUGH: -- that I practiced under had taken one- hundredth of these gifts, I can't imagine they wouldn't be up for impeachment.
STEIN: You're talking about the need to be objective.
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.
STEIN: I would argue it would be not objective if we—
BRZEZINSKI: Right.
STEIN: -- didn't treat this as the clear cut scandalous behavior it is.
BRZEZINSKI: So wrong.
STEIN: It doesn’t matter whether he was appointed by a Republican president or is a conservative jurist. This is very evidently, clear cut, problematic ethics.
