'The View' Accuses Gorsuch, Federalist Society of Breaking Ethics, Tax Laws

February 2nd, 2022 6:22 PM

After spending mere seconds addressing co-host Whoopi Goldberg’s two-week suspension from The View, the coven tried to divert attention from their bad behavior by trying to cook up some against conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and the conservative Federalist Society; baselessly suggesting they were engaged in a “quid-pro-quo” and breaking federal tax laws governing the operations of non-profits.

Co-host Joy Behar led the discussion by being appalled with the wild notion at a right-leaning organization would invite right-leaning people to speak:

The Supreme Court justice, Neil Gorsuch is hanging out with the who's who with conservatives this weekend when he speaks at an event for the Federalist Society. Other speakers include former VP Mike Pence, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, and former Trump Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany. One item on the docket is a talk titled: “The End of Roe v. Wade?” And it's being moderated by a Trump-appointed federal judge.

Behar found it odd that “the media is barred” from the private event and wondered: “should a Supreme Court justice be involved in such a partisan group of people? Is that kosher? I don’t know the rule.”

Co-host Sara Haines admitted she didn’t know either, but that didn’t stop her from suggesting Gorsuch was supposedly contributing to the sullying of the Supreme Court and breaking rules about getting paid to do so:

When you call a judge liberal or conservative, they're speaking of how they interpret the Constitution. And a lot of lawyers will correct you and say, “no, it's not.”

I know there a politics involved here, but it's supposed to remain – kind of have a clean reputation, and it has for a long time based on precedent. That's slowly changed. And to go to an event that is so political leaning, I think, and with the lack of transparency, no media there -- I'm curious if they get paid.

 

 

Co-hosts and lawyers Sunny Hostin and Tara Setmayer (the “conservative” on the panel) informed Haines that “they're not allowed” to be paid, but left the door open to the idea that Gorsuch was.

Ignoring the fact that late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would attend events by the Federalist Society’s liberal counterpart the American Constitution Society and Justice Sonia Sotomayor speaks with left-wing partisans like Stephen Colbert, Behar and Hostin played the ‘how would conservatives respond, if’ game:

BEHAR: How do you think conservatives would like it if Sonia Sotomayor went to a Planned Parenthood rally?

HOSTIN: They would have a significant issue with it. And I think Sara’s absolutely right. You know, there's been this erosion, when it comes to the court, of having them speak publicly and speak at these partisan events.

Here’s a hint: they didn’t care.

Setmayer began the bulk of her comments by lamenting that Gorsuch was giving retiring Justice Stephen Breyer the sads with his speaking engagement. She then pivoted to proving she doesn’t understand tax law by accusing the Federalist Society of breaking the law with lists of preferred judicial nominees:

SETMAYER: They would oftentimes contribute lists of who they liked as potential judges for federal judges and for the Supreme Court.

HOSTIN: And for the Supreme Court.

SETMAYER: And so, but they are also a nonprofit organization. They're a 501(c)3. Which means they’re not supposed to engage in overt political activity.

BEHAR: And do you consider this against that?

SETMAYER: Yeah, I do. I think it's problematic.

In reality, 501(c)3s do have the ability to lobby for their causes but they can’t campaign for a particular political candidate running for office. Liberal judicial advocacy organizations have done the same thing for their preferred judicial nominees.

But the facts didn’t stop Hostin from bloviating about how the list former President Trump received for nominees “was so conservative. It was so far-right. It’s something I had never seen before.” And before they switched topics, she got in one more jab suggesting Gorsuch was breaking ethics rules.

These baseless smears and accusations were made possible because of lucrative sponsorships from Progressive and Olay. Their contact information is linked.

The transcript is below, click "expand" to read:

ABC’s The View
February 2, 2022
11:01:46 a.m. Eastern

JOY BEHAR: Good morning and welcome do The View. You all saw the news. Whoopi will be back here in two weeks. Okay. Tara Setmayer has returned to guest co-host, so let’s get to hot topics ladies. Shall we?

SARA HAINES: Yes.

SUNNY HOSTIN:

BEHAR: The Supreme Court justice, Neil Gorsuch is hanging out with the who's who with conservatives this weekend when he speaks at an event for the Federalist Society. Other speakers include former VP Mike Pence, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, and former Trump Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany. One item on the docket is a talk titled: “The End of Roe v. Wade?” And it's being moderated by a Trump-appointed federal judge.

Now, also you should know, the media is barred from the event. But my question to you ladies is, should a Supreme Court justice be involved in such a partisan group of people? Is that kosher? I don't know the rules.

HAINES: I don't know. My first -- going ahead of the lawyers, I don't think they should, especially at a time right now where the court is perceived as political more than it ever has been. There was a poll recently said 64 percent, I think, of people believe it's a political institution, which has always been apolitical.

When you call a judge liberal or conservative, they're speaking of how they interpret the Constitution. And a lot of lawyers will correct you and say, “no, it's not.”

I know there a politics involved here, but it's supposed to remain – kind of have a clean reputation, and it has for a long time based on precedent. That's slowly changed. And to go to an event that is so political leaning, I think, and with the lack of transparency, no media there -- I'm curious if they get paid.

HOSTIN: No, they’re not allowed to get paid.

TARA SETMAYER: They don’t. They're not allowed.

HOSTIN: They’re not allowed to get paid.

BEHAR: How do you think conservatives would like it if Sonia Sotomayor went to a Planned Parenthood rally?

HOSTIN: They would have a significant issue with it. And I think Sara’s absolutely right. You know, there's been this erosion, when it comes to the court, of having them speak publicly and speak at these partisan events.

I thought it was interesting because they are – they’re not bound by the code of judicial ethics that usually defines federal judges. But they always look to it for guidance. And then in around 2008 we saw Scalia give an interview for 60 Minutes. I remember it because it was like appointment television because I had never heard from them in that manner.

Since then, since 2008, the interviews are really rare, but happening more and more. I think Sandra Day O’Connor gave an interview. Remember, RBG was extremely unusual that she even had a documentary and we saw her working out with her trainer and doing pushups. So, all of a sudden--

BEHARL Didn't she also say something about Trump or something? What was that?

HOSTIN: She said something about Trump. She said something about Colin Kaepernick and immediately sort of backtracked and said, “I shouldn’t have said that.” Because they usually just let their opinions do the talking for them. And that's not happening as much lately. And it’s – I think it has the appearance of impropriety for Justice Gorsuch.

HAINES: There's a distinction between an interview that lets you into their lives and speak versus a political event which is perceived as a kind of group of support.

BEHARL Without the press. I don't like that part.

[Crosstalk]

HAINES: It’s a kind of quid-pro-quo of sorts.

SETMAYER: There's a lot of parts of this that are problematic. It's interesting because Stephen Breyer was such -- who is retiring now. He was such a Supreme Court institutionalist. To Sunny’s point. There were certain protocols you never crossed those things. One was to not get yourself involved in partisan events like that. And I'm sure he's frowning on that.

You know, the Federalist Society used to be considered a mainstream Republican group of lawyers.

BEHAR: Yeah.

SETMAYER: I agreed with a lot of the judicial philosophy of what the Federalist Society stood for and the interpretation of the Constitution and things. They would often times contribute lists of who they liked as potential judges for federal judges and for the Supreme Court.

HOSTIN: And for the Supreme Court.

SETMAYER: And so, but they are also a nonprofit organization. They're a 501(c)3. Which means they’re not supposed to engage overt political activity.

BEHAR: And do you consider this against that?

SETMAYER: Yeah, I do. I think it's problematic. I mean, the Federalist Society is very influential in conservative legal circles. They put forth Gorsuch as a potential nominee and they got their wish. Same thing with the others.

HOSTIN: They gave a list to Donald Trump for federal judges.

SETMAYER: That’s correct and they got their wish.

HOSTIN: And boy, that list was so conservative. It was so far-right. It’s something I had never seen before.

BEHAR: And in this environment of going against Roe v. Wade --

SETMAYER: This is the – The problem here – I mean, usually when Supreme Court justices would speak it was in an academic setting. Right? Which no one has a problem with.

HOSTIN: No.

SETMAYER: But in this case, because of the docket that the Supreme Court has coming up and abortion is such a hot-button issue in this country, as we all know, Gorsuch is going to be presiding over this. And this is so overtly clearly partisan here. I think it's problematic. But it shows you that elections have consequences.

BEHAR: Can I go to something else?

[Crosstalk]

HOSTIN: I just want to add that it’s federal judge's code of ethics prevents.