On Thursday, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough brought on Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) to join the Morning Joe panel in a segment calling for sketchy provisions to be placed on the Supreme Court.
Scarborough attacked the Supreme Court, particularly the conservative justices, implying that they were engaged in wrongful behavior.
Scarborough ranted:
But it seems to me if ProPublica is showing that Justice Thomas and his wife got hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of gifts, that Neil Gorsuch is trying to sell a house for two years and then magically a couple of weeks after he becomes a justice, it sells two weeks later to a law firm that has business before that committee and you got Justice Alito going on trips … and not disclosing it. I'm serious here. Who could be against, who could be against a set of rules, just making sure these justices lay out to the American people, the billionaires who are funding them?
He went on to paint the Supreme Court as a bunch of corrupt Republicans taking bribes from shady billionaires. There was just one big problem with his lie- Scarborough left out key facts about these allegations.
In the Politico piece that covered the issue, the billionaire who bought the home said: “I’ve never spoken to him … I’ve never met him.” Also, the article stated that “A search of his contributions to political candidates revealed that they went primarily to Democrats, including Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, (D-N.Y.).”
So much for that.
Scarborough also discussed Senators Durbin and Whitehouse’s new bill to set up “new ethics rules” and panels of lower judges to review the Court’s decisions.
What this really was, was an attempt by the left to try and destroy the authority of the Court and allow partisan Democrats in Congress or in lower courts to remove justices they don’t like or use the threat of oversight to force the court to rule in ways favorable to them. Article III of the Constitution specified that the only criteria to serve that the Supreme Court justices should have was “during good behavior” for a reason.
The Court was meant to not be answerable to lower judges as part of the plan to have the Judicial Branch coequal with the other branches of government and preserve the system of checks and balances. Congress already had the ability to remove a justice via impeachment. But a move against conservatives justices on shaky causes would open the door to the misdeeds of liberal justices like Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
To answer Scarborough’s question “who could be against” this leftist war on the Supreme Court, anyone who believes in the United States Constitution and separation of powers should be against it.
Morning Joe’s SCOTUS attack was sponsored by GoDaddy and Etsy. Their contact information is linked.
The transcript is below, click "expand" to read:
MSNBC’s Morning Joe
07/20/23
8:55 AM ET
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote today on a Supreme Court code of ethics. The measure is based on codes of conduct that judges in lower courts have to sign. It would establish new rules requiring Supreme Court justices to disclose any, all expenses paid, travel or luxury gifts they receive. It would also require the justices to recuse themselves from cases linked to people or organizations that gave them certain kinds of gifts or external income. Seems to make sense.
The Associated Press reports the judges would have to submit a written public statement if they decide not to recuse themselves on certain cases. The bill would also create a process for enforcing the new ethics rules and establish panels of lower court judges to review any alleged misconduct. It is unlikely to pass in the full Senate, needing 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well don't really understand who would be against this.
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah, this is—
SCARBOROIGH: Why don't we ask the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois and also Judiciary Committee member, Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. You know, Senator Durbin, I'm just a dumb country lawyer.
BRZEZINSKI: Oh here we go.
SCARBOROUGH: But it seems to me if ProPublica is showing that Justice Thomas and his wife got hundreds of thousands of dollars-worth of gifts, that Neil Gorsuch is trying to sell a house for two years and then magically a couple of weeks after he becomes a justice, it sells two weeks later to a law firm that has business before that committee and you got Justice Alito going on trips-
BRZEZINSKI: Oh lord.
SCARBOROUGH: -- going on trips -- and not disclosing it. I'm serious here. Who could be against, who could be against a set of rules, just making sure these justices lay out to the American people, the billionaires who are funding them?
DICK DURBIN: Joe, let me tell you something. This bill that Senator Whitehouse has worked on for a long time gets down to the basics. Do the nine members of the Supreme Court deserve a treatment under the law, treatment not given to any other federal judge or any other member of Congress? I think the American people get this loud and clear and that's why the opinion of the public on the Court and its integrity is at an all-time low. We tried to reach out to the Chief Justice, it’s his Court, it will go down in history as the Roberts Court, and said “take the leadership, resolve this problem, restore the integrity of the Court.” He refused to come before the committee and has declined our invitations to be part of this process. That's why we're moving forward on the Whitehouse bill today.
SCARBOROUGH: I don't understand. Senator Whitehouse, how could any Republican be against this, especially when you have reports that the Federalist Society is getting money to Ginni Thomas, Ginni Thomas also again along with Clarence Thomas getting you know, these benefits from billionaires. I don't understand what Republican could be against a set of ethics rules for the Supreme Court that apply to all other federal judges?
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: It's hard to understand, because the standards we're trying to set for the Supreme Court are, in fact, the same standards that apply to all other federal judges and the same standards that apply to members of Congress and to senior executive officials. So that should be pretty straightforward. And indeed on some of this in the past we've actually had Republican support. I think it's only when the Supreme Court got into deep, deep, deep trouble that the Republican political arm had to rally around it and try to protect it. And frankly, I think it's something of a tell that the Republican Party in the Senate is defending the indefensible. And in some respects it's actually evidence of how politicized this Court is.
BRZEZINSKI: So, Senator Durbin, can you simply explain the rules that you all are proposing and why you're proposing them? What events led up to this moment?
DURBIN: Well what led up to this moment, as Joe has I mentioned is the public exposure through the reporting of these gifts that have been given and procedures that have been taken by members of the court that are entirely inconsistent with the standards for every other federal judge. I might add, Mika, as an aside here, the federal judges I've spoken to since these issues have become public are not very happy about being lumped in with the Supreme Court justices who are asking for this special treatment. But a code of conduct, a system for complaints against members of the Court, disclosure requirement, recusal from court cases where there's a conflict of interest, these are the fundamentals that apply to all over federal judges except for the nine Supreme Court justices.
JONATHAN LEMIRE: So Senator Whitehouse, we hear all the time that Chief Justice Roberts is an institutionalist, that he cares so very deeply about the reputation of the highest Court in the land. But yet, he's refusing even to discuss this with you guys and your colleagues there in the Senate. How do you explain that? And if he doesn't change course, how damaging do you feel it is to the reputation of himself and his Court?
WHITEHOUSE: Well, I think in terms of trying to solve this within the Supreme Court, he runs into vociferous objections by Thomas and Alito, and he has to explain to the public why he doesn't move forward anyway. On the other side, he could move forward through the judicial conference, which is the administrative body of the judiciary through which he chairs. And I think his recent hint that he knows that there's more that needs to be done signals that the judicial conference might be prepared to do more. So I hope he rises to the occasion in either working through his colleagues on the Supreme Court or his colleagues on the judicial conference take the necessary steps. But we feel it's important to move forward now since none of that has yet happened.
SCARBOROUGH: Well you know, Senator Durbin, more reporting is going to come out from ProPublica and more reporting is going to come out from other media outlets. There's more there and it's coming. And the question is, why would the Supreme Court block this when as we're putting up right now for our viewers, the Supreme Court has its lowest approval rating ever. The American people have less trust in the United States Supreme Court than ever before in its history. So I don't understand why won't they step forward and do something about this before it is forced upon them?
DURBIN: Well, there are several ways to interpret it. But I just want to tell you the Supreme Court does not have an army. The authority that they have, the power they have within our democracy is based on the public belief in their integrity and honesty. And that has been called into question by these disclosures about several different justices. I hope that Chief Justice Roberts is moving forward on this. This morning's Wall Street Journal suggested that he tried without success. But the increased publicity, the negative publicity and the current standing of the court that you just mentioned is proof positive that he can't wait any longer. That's why we're moving this morning in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
(…)
