MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell suggested on Tuesday’s edition of The Last Word that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas should be impeached for “selling too much of himself” to billionaire friend Harlan Crow. Later, during an interview with President and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice, Michael Waldman, it was essentially admitted that their biggest problem with Thomas and the rest of the Court is that it rules in ways they do not like.
During a lengthy diatribe against Crow, O’Donnell reported that he has agreed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but that his lawyer does not believe Congress has the authority to write an ethics policy for the Court. Towards the end of that rant, O’Donnell proclaimed, “The only disciplinary option that the Founders left us, in the Constitution, for dealing with a Supreme Court justice who gets caught selling too much of himself to a billionaire is impeachment in the House of Representatives, followed by trial, conviction, and removal from office by the United States Senate.”
O’Donnell proceeded to introduce Waldman and his new book, The Supermajority: How the Supreme Court Divided America. Thomas wasn’t the only justice to earn O’Donnell’s ire, Chief Justice John Roberts and his wife Jane also found themselves on receiving end of O’Donnell’s wrath:
With Clarence Thomas, with the Chief Justice, who's saying to the Senate, no, we've got ethics out of control, nothing to see here. While the chief justice's wife is making $10 million or so a year, working with law firms around Washington, and around the country and they're in jobs created by people who wrote a Constitution, never dreaming that a Supreme Court justice's wife could have a job.
Finally getting around to a question, O’Donnell wondered, “So, how should we see, how should we look, and how will your book help us see what we're seeing in the Supreme Court today?”
Neither Harlan Crow nor any of the lawyers placed by Jane Roberts has never had business before the Court, but that didn’t stop Waldman from claiming, “In some ways, this is new. In some ways, there is not much precedent for the level of, frankly, corruption that we're seeing.”
The former Bill Clinton speechwriter added, “So much of this is basically new and so much of what we're seeing with this Court is not entirely new. Most of the time in the country's history, the Court, kind of, hugs the middle, it reflects the consensus, but there are times when it overreaches, when it's extreme or partisan.”
Continuing with the theme that the real problem is that the Court does not do whatever MSNBC wants, Waldman lamented:
When that happens, there's a big backlash. It can upend politics. I think that's happening now. This Supreme Court right now, it's not only the ethical or judgment lapses that we're seeing with Thomas, but the way that this Court and the super majority of six justices has, in effect, grabbed power, making very, very extreme rulings, veering in one direction, while the country is veering in another direction. Moving in another action. That sets up a crisis of legitimacy for the Court, and these questions about Thomas and to that crisis.
Do they, when you claim that the Court not ruling the way that you desire constitutes a crisis?
This segment was sponsored by Ensure.
Here is a transcript for the June 6 show:
MSNBC The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
6/6/2023
10:27 PM ET
LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: The only disciplinary option that the Founders left us, in the Constitution, for dealing with a Supreme Court justice who gets caught selling too much of himself to a billionaire is impeachment in the House of Representatives, followed by trial, conviction, and removal from office by the United States Senate. Which is yet another constitutional proof that the United States Senate does indeed have ethical authority over the United States Supreme Court.
Joining us now is Michael Waldman, constitutional law expert and former speechwriter for President Clinton, he is President and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law, a very important institution and his new book is The Supermajority: How the Supreme Court Divided America, and it has been published and available today.
Michael, I love this book. I've always been interested in the Supreme Court, but now, everyone is, kind of, eagerly interested in it and we’re-- we all grabbed this book now, as everyone does, looking for precedence of what we're experiencing now.
With Clarence Thomas, with the Chief Justice, who's saying to the Senate, no, we've got ethics out of control, nothing to see here. While the chief justice's wife is making $10 million or so a year, working with law firms around Washington, and around the country and they're in jobs created by people who wrote a Constitution, never dreaming that a Supreme Court justice's wife could have a job.
So, how should we see, how should we look, and how will your book help us see what we're seeing in the Supreme Court today?
MICHAEL WALDMAN: In some ways, this is new. In some ways, there is not much precedent for the level of, frankly, corruption that we're seeing. Not ethics. Ethics is, can I have that cup of coffee?
What we're seeing with Clarence Thomas is his friend buying his mother's house.
O’DONNELL: Yeah.
WALDMAN: And renovating it with her living in it.
O’DONNELL: Yeah.
WALDMAN: And well there is separation of powers, there is no privilege for friend of a justice. So much of this is basically new and so much of what we're seeing with this Court is not entirely new. Most of the time in the country's history, the Court, kind of, hugs the middle, it reflects the consensus, but there are times when it overreaches, when it's extreme or partisan.
When that happens, there's a big backlash. It can upend politics. I think that's happening now. This Supreme Court right now, it's not only the ethical or judgment lapses that we're seeing with Thomas, but the way that this Court and the super majority of six justices has, in effect, grabbed power, making very, very extreme rulings, veering in one direction, while the country is veering in another direction. Moving in another action. That sets up a crisis of legitimacy for the Court, and these questions about Thomas and to that crisis.
