Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart spent Friday’s PBS NewHour laughing at GOP allegations that Democrats are going after Justice Clarence Thomas simply because they do not like the Supreme Court’s recent rulings, implausible arguing this is just about transparency. Meanwhile, New York Times columnist David Brooks tried to find a centrist middle ground on the controversies surrounding the Court, but ultimately just twisted himself into a pretzel.
Host Geoff Bennett asked Capehart about “the Senate hearing you mentioned, this past week, it made clear that a code of conduct, if Congress does act, it won't be a bipartisan congressional effort, because Republicans accuse Democrats of casting doubt on the Court because the Court hasn't been ruling in Democrats' favor. How might this play out?”
After a laugh that seemed more staged for effect than genuine, Capehart remarked “I'm sorry. I was — my reaction to that, that's pretty incredible.”
Capehart further argued:
Congress is not having this conversation because of the Dobbs ruling, not having this conversation because of, say, Shelby v. Holder or Citizens United. Congress is having this conversation because there is a Supreme Court justice who has undisclosed relationships and gifts, for lack of a better description, from someone who he's friends with. That is why we're having this conversation. This is not about — about partisanship. This is about having one of the branches of government be transparent. And they're actively resisting being transparent.
Capehart’s claims require that people believe that history began yesterday, to ignore Brook’s earlier remarks about Harlan Crow being pro-choice, and the concentrated campaign also go after John Roberts, his wife, Neil Gorsuch, the Federalist Society, and conservative law schools in hopes that the quantity of attacks influences voters and the justices themselves more than the quality. Capehart’s claims are also impossible to take seriously when Democrats and media personalities are using Crow to demand that Thomas resign or be impeached because he is Crow’s puppet all while burying similar controversies with liberal justices.
As for Brooks, he was asked by Bennett, “the Supreme Court's power, as written in The Federalist Papers, derives from the public's belief that the Court is administering the law in an impartial manner. There's a recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll that found that 62 percent of those polled have little to no confidence in the Supreme Court. The findings typically align with political party, but this is an historic lack of trust. How does the Court repair its reputation?”
Brooks tried find a middle ground, claiming “Well, I think they need to be proactive on this… in my view, they don't do quid pro quo... I find them remarkable people, both the ones appointed by Democrats and Republicans.”
While the justices are not corrupt, according to Brooks, they are partisan, “I think they're sometimes overly influenced by partisanship. And I find it disturbing that you can predict how a justice is going to vote depending on who nominated them. And so I think they have gotten too ideological. But I think the problem here is too ideological, not too corrupt”
Brooks never offered any ideas on how the justices could proactively address perceived partisanship, but at the same time, claimed “frankly, I think the public's distrust of the institution is unmerited. We should be suspicious of all concentrated power. But I think the courts in general, up and down the system, function reasonably well.”
While Brooks was short on ideas, one place to start would be for journalists to stop giving credence to phony scandals that go after conservative justices because liberals want to change the ideological composition of the Court.
This segment was sponsored by viewers like you.
Here is a transcript for the May 5 show:
PBS NewsHour
5/5/2023
7:39 PM ET
GEOFF BENNETT: Jonathan, the Senate hearing you mentioned, this past week, it made clear that a code of conduct, if Congress does act, it won't be a bipartisan congressional effort, because Republicans accuse Democrats of casting doubt on the Court because the Court hasn't been ruling in Democrats' favor. How might this play out?
JONATHAN CAPEHART: I'm sorry. I was — my reaction to that, that's pretty incredible. Congress is not having this conversation because of the Dobbs ruling, not having this conversation because of, say, Shelby v. Holder or Citizens United. Congress is having this conversation because there is a Supreme Court justice who has undisclosed relationships and gifts, for lack of a better description, from someone who he's friends with.
That is why we're having this conversation. This is not about — about partisanship. This is about having one of the branches of government be transparent. And they're actively resisting being transparent.
GEOFF BENNETT: David, the Supreme Court's power, as written in The Federalist Papers, derives from the public's belief that the Court is administering the law in an impartial manner.
There's a recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll that found that 62 percent of those polled have little to no confidence in the Supreme Court. The findings typically align with political party, but this is an historic lack of trust. How does the Court repair its reputation?
DAVID BROOKS: Well, I think they need to be proactive on this. I do think it's — in my opinion, having watched the Court, not as a professor — I don't really — professional — I don't really cover the Court too much. But, in my view, they don't do quid pro quo. In my view, most of the — I haven't met Clarence Thomas and many of the justices, but I have met a bunch. I find them remarkable people, both the ones appointed by Democrats and Republicans.
And so I don't think their decisions are influenced by money and corruption. I think they're sometimes overly influenced by partisanship. And I find it disturbing that you can predict how a justice is going to vote depending on who nominated them.
And so I think they have gotten too ideological. But I think the problem here is too ideological, not too corrupt. And I — frankly, I think the public's distrust of the institution is unmerited. We should be suspicious of all concentrated power. But I think the courts in general, up and down the system, function reasonably well.
